Deuteronomy · Chapter 18

The Levitical priests — the entire tribe of Levi — shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel; the offerings of Hashem and His inheritance shall they eat.

כל שבט לוי [THE PRIESTS THE LEVITES] NAMELY ALL THE TRIBE OF LEVI [SHALL HAVE NO PORTION … WITH ISRAEL] — all the tribe, whether they be able-bodied or whether they be blemished (Sifrei Devarim 163:1). חלק A PORTION — i.e. in the spoil that is taken in battle (Sifrei Devarim 163:2), ונחלה AND INHERITANCE — in the land (Sifrei Devarim 163:3). 'אשי ה THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD — the holy things brought into the Temple (Sifrei Devarim 163:4), ונחלתו AND HIS INHERITANCE — this refers to the holy things that might be consumed outside Jerusalem (גבולין) — the heave-offerings and the tithes (Sifrei Devarim 163:4) these they shall eat, BUT נחלה AN INHERITANCE, a real inheritance, לא יהיה לו בקרב אחיו SHALL HE NOT HAVE AMONG HIS BRETHREN. In Sifrei Devarim 164, they (the Rabbis) gave the following interpretation:ונחלה לא יהיה לו — this refers to the נחלת שאר the inheritance of the שאר.בקרב אחיו — AMONG HIS BRETHREN — this refers to the inheritance of the five. I do not, however, know for certain what this means (what Sifrei means by שאר and חמשה). But it seems to me that the part of the land of Canaan which is on the other (the western) side of the Jordan and onwards is called the land of the five nations (and these are therefore the five referred to by Sifrei), whilst the territory of Sihon and Og on the eastern side might be called the land of the two nations, viz., the Amorites and the Canaanites, — and נחלת שאר mentioned in Sifrei is intended to include the land of the remaining clans (שאר), the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, which will become Israel’s inheritance in some future time. (But the land of Sihon and Og need not be mentioned since this was already divided among the two and a half tribes, and it was known that the tribe of Levi had no share in it.) Similarly it (Sifrei) makes a comment in “the section dealing with the gifts that were promised to Aaron” on the verse (Numbers 18:24) “wherefore [I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance]” that it is intended to express a warning regarding the land of the Kenite, the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite (i.e. that not even in later times when Israel will inherit the land of these nations shall the Levite have a portion in it). — It has since been found in the words of Rabbi Kalonymus that the proper version of this passage in Sifrei reads as follows:ונחלה לא יהיה לו BUT THEY SHALL HAVE NO INHERITANCE — this refers to the territory of the five,בקרב אחיו AMONGST THEIR BRETHREN — this refers to the territory of the seven, and he explains that this means the five tribes and the seven tribes. And because Moses and Joshua assigned an inheritance in the land only to five tribes — for Moses assigned their inheritance to Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, and Joshua assigned their inheritance to Judah, Ephraim and the other half tribe of Manasseh, whilst the remaining seven tribes took their portions themselves in the land (conquered it) after th...

THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE ETERNAL — “the hallowed offerings of the Sanctuary. AND HIS INHERITANCE — these are hallowed gifts that may be consumed outside of the Sanctuary and Jerusalem, such as the heave-offerings and the tithes. 2. BUT a real INHERITANCE SHALL HE [the tribe of Levi] NOT HAVE AMONG HIS BRETHREN. In the Sifre the Rabbis interpreted this verse: ‘But an inheritance shall he not have — this refers to the inheritance of the rest [of the nations]. Among his brethren — this refers to the inheritance of the seven.’ I do not know what this means. But it appears to me that the land of Canaan, which extends from the [western] side of the Jordan, is called the land of ‘the five nations;’ the land of Sihon and Og is called the land of two nations, the Amorites and the Canaanites; and ‘the inheritance of the rest’ includes the lands of the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites [which are to be given to Israel in the future]. Then the following statement was found in the words of Rabbi Klonimus: Thus we must read in the Sifre, ‘But an inheritance shall he not have — this refers to the inheritance of the five nations. Among his brethren — this refers to the inheritance of the seven.’ And [Rabbi Klonimus explained the Sifre as meaning] the inheritance of the five tribes, and the inheritance of the seven tribes. Now, because Moses and Joshua assigned an inheritance only to five tribes — for Moses assigned an inheritance to Reuben, Gad and the half-tribe of Menasheh, and Joshua assigned an inheritance to Judah, Ephraim, and the other half of the tribe of Menasheh. The other seven took their own portions after the death of Joshua. Therefore [the Sifre] mentioned the five [tribes] separately and the seven [tribes] separately.” All this is Rashi’s language. Now, I have already explained the main interpretation [of this Sifre] in the section Sanctify unto Me, that “the inheritance of the five” is mentioned in the verse, And it shall be when the Eternal shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, which He swore unto thy fathers to give thee, a Land flowing with milk and honey, constitute a change these comprising the main Land which He promised them, for that was the Land flowing with milk and honey. But the two remaining lands, those of the Perizzite and the Girgashite, were not flowing with milk and honey and are not obligated in the commandment of first-fruits. Therefore, he mentioned regarding the Levites that they are not to take a portion with Israel [either] in the main part of their inheritance in the good land which is “the inheritance of the five” [nations], and not even in the inheritance of “the seven” [nations] which contain the two remaining ones [the Perizzite and the Girgashite] — although their lands were not good and were not considered so worthy in the eyes of the Israelites. This is a clear interpretation [of this Sifre] on the basis of proofs I have written th...

"The Levitical priests shall have no [portion]." Having mentioned the laws of the king, who is the judge, he now mentions as well the law of the priests, who are the teachers of Torah. And after stating that they have no inheritance, [he says] they shall take from the one who slaughters: the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw. The foreleg is from the body; the cheeks — with the tongue between them — from the head; and the maw from the innards. According to the midrashic interpretation: the priest is the one who slaughters the peace-offerings — the foreleg is reward for the labor of his arm in slaughtering, the cheeks are reward for the blessing, and the maw is reward for the [bodily] inspection. According to the plain sense: these are the finest parts of the meat. He also mentions the Levites, for they too teach Torah in the [city] gates — as Chronicles attests.

לא יהיה לבהנים…חלק ונחלה, "The priests shall not have a portion and an inheritance, etc." Why did the Torah repeat the word נחלה, "inheritance" in our verse? The reason may be to tell us that if some priests ignored the law and acquired land and used it as an inheritance, such an inheritance is legally invalid. This may be why the Torah phrases it ונחלה לא יהיה לו in verse two, i.e. he will not be allowed to hang on to such an inheritance. The reason this commandment follows on the heels of the legis lation to appoint a king is to tell you that the king is equal to the common people when it comes to giving the priests their due. He is not exempt from the 24 different kinds of gifts the priests are entitled to from the Israelites. "He must not raise his heart," i.e. think that he is above the law in this respect.

לא יהיה לכהנים, “the priests (and Levites) shall not have (own);” after the Torah had spelled out details pertaining to Jewish Kings, it proceeds to do the same for the hereditary positions of priests and Levites. They are charged with teaching the people Torah, [i.e. worrying about their spiritual welfare, whereas the King is charged with looking after their material well being. Ibn Ezra]. The reason why the priests and Levites will not own ancestral land in the Holy Land is that if they did they would neglect its upkeep, as they are required to constantly be present in the Temple.

And he shall have no inheritance among his brothers; the gifts that Hashem gave him — they are his inheritance, as He spoke to him.

כאשר דבר לו AS HE SPOKE TO HIM i.e., to Aaron [saying],“You shall not inherit in their land… I am your portion [and your inheritance, among the children of Israel].”- (Numbers 18:20)

ונחלה לא יהיה לו בקרב אחיו, “they shall have no inheritance among their brethren.” In the Sifri (according to the version at the disposal of Rashi) the word נחלה is understood to refer to inherited land i.e. through being brothers only through the father’s side, whereas the words בקרב אחיו, would refer to brothers both from the same father and the same mother. [in other words the sons of Leah, Ed.] The Torah was forced to list these two categories separately; as if it had not included each category separately we might have thought that when their claim was based on being full brothers by sharing the same father and mother they would qualify for such an inheritance. [In order for this to make sense, we would have to distinguish between ancestral land allocations made by Moses during his lifetime, and that made by Joshua. Once the land had been distributed and settled no questions could arise, as Levites had been born to Levites and priests to priests, and neither had a father who had left him his ancestral share of the land. The versions of this Sifri are confusing and who are we to determine the correct version? Ed.]

ונחלה לא יהיה לו, “He shall not have an inheritance with Israel.” The word נחלה in verse one refers to distribution of the land of the seven Canaanite tribes being dispossessed in the immediate future, whereas the same word in our verse refers to the land of the remaining three Canaanite tribes, the Kenizi, Keyni, and Kadmoni, which will become part of the land of Israel only in the future. בקרב אחיו, “among his brothers;” this is a reference to his “full” brothers the other sons of Leah. ה' הוא נחלתו, “the Lord is his heritage;” Levi was the tenth of the brothers if one counts from the youngest to the oldest something I have elaborated on in Numbers 18,19. This is why this tribe is described as G’d’s heritage, and this is why the tithes are given to this tribe.

ונחלה לא יהיה לו, “He shall not have an inheritance.” Rashi, taking his cue from the Sifri, commenting on Exodus 13,5 where only the names of five Canaanite tribes are mentioned, says that all seven tribes were meant. Nachmanides writes that in that verse the reason that only five Canaanite tribes were mentioned is that the territory of those five fell under the heading of “a land flowing with milk and honey,” whereas the territory of the P’rizi and Girgashi, omitted on that occasion, was less fruitful. This is the reason why produce grown on land that used to belong to those two tribes was not subject to the bikkurim legislation, i.e. that the farmer in those lands did not have to bring the first ripe fruit to Jerusalem. If the basic legislation that the priests and Levites had no ancestral share in the land of Israel is repeated here, it was in order to make the point that these Levites also did not have an ancestral share in the lands formerly owned by the P’rizi and Girgashi.

ונחלה לא יהיה לו, “and that tribe shall not own ancestral plots of land;” according to Sifri, as quoted by Rashi on this verse, the word נחלה, refers to sharing land with his five brothers from his mother, whereas the additional words: בקרב אחיו, “among his brothers”, refer to sharing ancestral land with the other seven brothers that are only half-brothers through his father. The tribe of Levi is not even to share in the ancestral land of those brothers.

And this shall be the due of the priests from the people, from those who slaughter a slaughter-offering — whether an ox or a sheep — he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the stomach.

מאת העם [AND THIS SHALL BE THE PRIESTS’ DUE] FROM THE PEOPLE — but not from the priest (i.e. if a priest slaughters animals for his own use he is exempt from giving these dues to another priest) (Sifrei Devarim 165:3; cf. Chullin 132b). אם שור אם שה WHETHER IT BE ONE OF THE HERD OR ONE OF THE FLOCK — this excludes an undomesticated beast (חיה). הזרע THE SHOULDER is the portion from the knee-joint to the shoulder-blade that is called espalte in old French (cf. Rashi on Chullin 134b). והלחיים THE TWO CHEEKS — together with the tongue. — Those who interpret the Bible text symbolically (cf. Chullin 134b) said: The זרוע of the animals, (termed יד in later Hebrew), became the due of the priests as a reward for the “hand’’ (יד) which Phineas, the priest, raised against the wrong-doers, as it is said. (Numbers 25:7) “and he took a javelin in his hand”; the “cheek-bones” together with the tongue are a reward for the prayer he offered, as it is said, (Psalms 106:30) “Then stood up Phineas and prayed”; והקבה AND THE MAW — as a reward for his act described thus (Numbers 25:8): “[And he thrust both of them through, the man of Israel] and the woman in her stomach (קבתה) (Chullin 134b).

AND THIS SHALL BE THE PRIESTS’ DUE FROM THE PEOPLE. This is a new commandment not mentioned in [the preceding books of] the Torah, for, in the wilderness where they did not slaughter oxen or sheep except as peace-offerings, He did not mention it because it does not apply to consecrated animals. Now, as they were about to enter the Land, he declared it to them for the first time. This is the sense of the expression [And this shall be the priests’ due from the people] from them that slaughter the animal. That is to say, when they will slaughter an animal as I have permitted you, [as it is said], then thou mayest slaughter of thy herd and of thy flock as I have commanded thee, and thou mayest eat in thy gates [you shall give the priest his due the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw]. He did not allocate this [gift of the shoulder, cheeks, and maw] to Aaron in the section, And the Eternal said unto Aaron [wherein the other priestly gifts are enumerated], although there He assigned the heave-offerings and the first-fruits [despite the fact that they, like the gifts in the verse before us] apply only in the Land. The reason [for mentioning them there] is that there He stated all things that He gave the priests in sacred matters, for even things “devoted” are holy. But the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw, and the first of the fleece [mentioned here] are completely unconsecrated, since there are no special laws regarding them aside from the commandment of giving them to the priest. Similarly He did not mention there [in the chapter of the priestly gifts] the law of property wrongfully taken from a proselyte [which reverts to the priests if the proselyte died without leaving an heir, and the reason this law is not mentioned in the chapter of the priestly gifts is, as explained concerning the gift in the verse before us, that the reverted property of the proselyte is not sacred].But according to the interpretation of our Rabbis, all [of the twenty-four priestly gifts] are alluded to there [in the section, And the Eternal said unto Aaron]. Thus they have said: “The first part of them — this refers to the first of the fleece. Which they give — this refers to the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. Unto the Eternal — this refers to the dough-offering.” If so, this also is an explanatory commandment [and not a new one].Based on a Midrash [a homiletic explanation] the Sages have said [that the shoulder, cheeks, and maw were awarded to the priests in the merit of the deed of Phinehas]: “The shoulder because he took a spear in his hand; the two cheeks because of his prayer, as it is said, Then stood up Phinehas and prayed etc.; the maw because of what it states, and he thrust both of them through etc. and the woman through her body.” Now, [if we are to say that this priestly gift had already been suggested in the section containing G-d’s words to Aaron, which occurred long before the story of Phinehas, we must say] on the basis of this ...

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים “and this will be the priests’ due;” after denying the priests ancestral land, the Torah proceeds to tell us how the priests were compensated. They receive the foreleg as payment for performing the slaughter;they receive the cheekbones as payment for blessing the people, and they receive the stomach as reward for performing the examinations required to make sure that the animal was not blemished internally. (Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 136)

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, “and this is to be “dues” of the priests.” The reason this paragraph follows the previous one is that in that paragraph we have been told already that the Levites have no regular heritage, i.e. that they do not share in the distribution of the land. Now the Torah tells us that the statutes defining the portions of the animals slaughtered and the harvest allocated to the priests are in lieu of the “landed heritage” allocated to the other tribes. Our sages in Chulin 132 interpret the words מאת העם, from the people, as “exclusive of the priests.” מאת זובחי הזבח, “from the animals fit to be eaten;” the priest claims his respective portion from the slaughterer of the animal. אם שור אם שה, “be it an ox or a lamb;” to exclude free-roaming animals from claims by the priests. הזרוע, “the front leg,” of the body, the two upper parts of that leg to the ankle. הלחיים, “the cheekbones,” including the tongue. והקבה, “and the stomach;” some of the interior parts of the animal, i.e. the fourth of the four stomachs. All of these parts are totally devoid of sanctity. This is the reason that these gifts were not listed in Numbers 18,1 where the priests’ shares are listed. In that chapter the Torah discussed matters which had some degree of sanctity, especially animal parts which were part of sacrificial animals. Even though the items listed here were not mentioned specifically in that chapter in Numbers, we can find allusions to them even there. We read in Numbers 18,12: ראשיתם אשר יתנו לה' לך נתתים, “their first which they give to Hashem, to you I have given them.” Sifri Korach 117 understands the word ראשיתם in that verse as applying to the first shearing of the wool of the lambs, whereas the additional words אשר יתנו, “which they are to give,” is interpreted as referring to the parts of the animal mentioned in our verse here; the word לה' is understood as referring to חלה, the part of the dough given to the priests. The significance of just these parts of the animal being given to the priest is as follows: the foreleg represents the hand. The Torah, when describing Pinchas’ deed (Numbers 25,7) which saved the people of Israel, writes ויקח רומח בידו, “he took a spear in his hand.” The hand which performed the deed qualifies for the foreleg of the animal. The cheekbones symbolise the organ used for prayer. Pinchas prayed as we know from Psalms 106,30. Finally, the stomach is the organ which suffered the fatal blow as described in Numbers 25,8. (compare Sifri Korach 117). Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 3,39 describes all three of these organs as being ראשית, something primary of the particular parts of the body.

And this shall be the judgment of the priests, etc. Most commentators have struggled to find a connection between this section and the preceding section, and they have not found a sufficient explanation. See the book of Abarbanel, which brings many opinions on this matter. I say that since it is stated This will be the manner of the king who will reign over you, etc., and he will take your fields and your vineyards, etc. (First Samuel 8:11–14), the word over you indicates that the judgment of the king and his actions are already hinted at in the Torah, as it is written, You shall surely set over yourself a king. That He will rule over you in your person, and all the more so over your possessions. Therefore, the section about the king, whose judgment is to take everything by force, is juxtaposed with the section about the priests, whose judgment is not so, but rather they take their wages for their service, as it is written, to stand to serve, etc. This is not as Korah claimed, that they take in a domineering manner like a king, as explained in its place. And it is possible that this hints to the king not to touch anything that the priests have received from the Divine table, and toll, tax, and land-tax, one is not permitted to impose upon them (Ezra 7:24). And the reason for the forearm, the cheeks, and the stomach, it is reasonable to understand that the forearm is a reward for raising his hands [during the priestly blessing], and the cheeks are a reward for the priestly blessing verbalized by mouth, and the stomach [is given] because through his merit God sends blessing so that one eats a little and it becomes blessed in his innards.

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, “and this shall be the allotted share of the priests;” Nachmanides writes that this is a commandment which does not again appear in the Torah. In Parshat Korach (Numbers 18,8-20) where the allotments to the priests are enumerated; what follows now has not been mentioned, as in the desert every animal that had been slaughtered had first been consecrated as an offering. Only after בשר תאוה, meat of a secular character, will be permissible, after settlement in the land of Israel, will gifts from such animals be mandatory even though the animal from which they were taken had never been consecrated. This is the reason that the Torah describes the owners of such non-consecrated animals as זובחי הזבח, “the ones who perform a slaughter.” In other words, whenever Israelites have occasion to slaughter one of their animals, the parts described in this chapter are to be given to one of the priests. In chapter 18 of Numbers the gifts to the priests revolve around the concept of חרם, matters segregated from the community at large on pain of various penalties. This is also why the topic of גזל הגר, restitution of property stolen from a convert who died before he could have left behind natural heirs, is not included in Numbers chapter 18. There is an aggadah in Chulin 134 in which the origin of these gifts is traced to the valiant deed of Pinchas, son of the High Priest Eleazar, and symbolic meaning is attached to each of these animal parts listed here. According to Maimonides the jaw given to the priests symbolizes a portion of the head of the animal’s body, whereas the front leg symbolizes the first limb that is partially detached from the rump. Gifts to the priests always symbolize the “first” or “best” of something.

מאת זובחי הזבח, “from those that offer a sacrifice.” The Torah refers to the priests slaughtering the animal in question. The word זבח is not to be understood literally as the sacrifice, [which is either owned by an individual or is a communal offering. Ed.] The reason that must be so is that the portions of the animal assigned for the priest by the Torah, i.e. a foreleg, the stomach and the jaws, are not animals that have been sanctified as offerings, but are animals that were slaughtered privately, after offering sacrifices on private altars was no longer permitted, and they could be slaughtered only in the town where either the Tabernacle or the Temple stood. זובחי, the plural mode is used here in order to include animals owned by partners.

The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the first of the shearing of your flock, you shall set apart for him.

ראשית דגנך THE FIRST-FRUIT [ALSO] OF THY CORN … [THOU SHALT GIVE HIM] — This refers to the heave-offering. Scripture, however, does not state any minimum quantity, but our Rabbis fixed a quantity for it from a sixtieth to a fortieth: a benevolent eye (a generous person) gives one fortieth of the crop, a niggard at least one sixtieth, a person of average generosity one fiftieth. They found a support in Scripture that one should not give less than one sixtieth, because it is said, (Ezekiel 45:13) “[This is the heave-offering which ye shall offer:] the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of wheat”. Now the sixth part of an ephah is a half Seah; if therefore you give half a Seah as Terumah from a Kor (which is another term for a Homer), that is a sixtieth part, for a Kor is thirty Seahs (Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot 4:3). וראשית גז צאנך AND THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE OF THY FLOCK [SHALT THOU GIVE HIM] — i.e. each year when you sheer your sheep (not when you shear a particular animal for the first time) give the first of it (the wool) to the priest. Scripture mentions no minimum quantity for it, but our Rabbis assigned a quantity for it, viz., one sixtieth part. And how many sheep must there be in the flock that they should come under the law of ראשית הגז (of “giving the first shearing as a gift to the priest”)? At least five sheep, as it is said, (I Samuel 25:18) “[Then Abigail made haste and … took] five sheep ready dressed (עשויות). Rabbi Akiba says: we may derive it from our text itself, as follows: ראשית גז suggests two, צאנך also two, together four, תתן לו one, — altogether five (Chullin 137a; Sifrei Devarim 166:9).

ראשית דגנך, “the first fruit of your grain harvest;” According to Rashi, the average amount donated to the priests from this harvest was 2%. This is based on a verse describing how the loot from the campaign against Midian was shared out. (Numbers 31,47) Why was this repeated once more, when it had already been repeated? The donation called תרומה גדולה, to describe the first donation,” was called such called by this adjective was because it is the largest of the gifts the farmer has to make or to allow to remain in the field, uncut. How do we arrive at such a statement, when on the face of it the tithe of a tenth of the harvest appears to be much more? After deducting the 2% set aside from the harvest before any other deductions, the remaining 49 parcels of 2% each have to be divided into 50 equal amounts in order to set aside 5 parts of each as the tithe to be given to the Levite. וראשית גז צאנך, “and the first of the fleece of your sheep.” According to the view of Rabbi Ilai this had to be done only in respect of sheep raised in the land of Israel. (Chulin 136). צאנך, “your sheep or goats;” this excludes animals which prove inedible due to faulty slaughter or diseased part discovered afterwards which would have led to the death of this animal within less than 12 months, in other words: an animal that was treif. תתן לו, “you are to give to him” (one or more of the priests who is on duty during that roster (usually a week, except during the pilgrimage festivals when all the priests we equally entitled to share in this). The expression תתן, i.e. something valuable enough to qualify for the term מתנה, “gift,” led to the peculiar system where if you lived in the territory of Yehudah, you were required to give a minimum of 5 shekel worth, as opposed to the Galil (northern section of Israel) where you had to give the priest twice as much. (as only then would people in that part of the country consider that amount as a “gift.”

ראשית דגנך, “the first fruits of your corn harvest.” No quantity has been mentioned as adequate for the amount of fruit to be given to the priest as this gift. It suffices that what is left over is recognisable as such. In other words, the farmer must not donate his entire corn harvest, or grape harvest to a priest or priests. This is why the sages in the tractate Chulin, folio 137, state that even a single husk of corn is considered as fulfillment of this commandment, although the sages on their own gave guidance when they said if one gives the priest one sixtieth of the harvest one is considered a miser, when one gives one fiftieth one is considered average, whereas when one gives one fortieth, one is considered generous. (Compare Mishnayot T’rumot, chapter 4 mishnah 3.) The Mishnah there finds a hint in scripture for these measures. The prophet Ezekiel 45,13, writes: ששית האיפה מחומר שעורים, “one sixtieth of an eyphah from a chomer of wheat. Seeing that the measure eyphah equals three sa-ah of the measure known as סאה, half, half a סאה, from thirty סאה equals one sixtieth. There is also a hint in scripture that a generous measure is considered one fortieth of one’s harvest when Ezekiel continues by writing: וששיתם האיפה מחומר השעורים, “you are to take a sixth of an eypha from a chomer of barley. [The prophet refers to the t’rumah, gift, to be given to the priest mentioned in Numbers 18,12, which had not been quantified by the Torah. Ed.] The word ששיתם, is to be understood as “two sixths.” Our author refers us to Numbers 31,30 where the distribution of the loot from the Midianite campaign goes into further detail, from which one fiftieth is considered as average. In addition, the very word תרומה, looked at closely, really means: “two one hundreds.” It could be read as תרי מאה, “two one hundreds.” וראשית גז צאנך תתן לו, “and you are to give him (the priest) the first of the fleece of your sheep.” The Talmud tractate Chulin folio 136, states that the minimum amount of such fleece is to be sufficient for the recipient to weave a belt for himself.

For in him Hashem your God has chosen, from all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of Hashem — he and his sons, all the days.

לעמד לשרת TO STAND TO MINISTER — From here we may derive the law that the sacrificial service must be performed standing (Sifrei Devarim 167:1; Sota 38a).

כי בו בחר ה' אלוקיך מכל שבטיך, and it is therefore called for that you provide him with food and clothing in order that he will be free to perform the Temple service on your behalf.

לעמוד לשרת, “to stand and perform service.” This verse teaches that service in the Temple must be performed while standing. The reason the Torah adds the word בשם before writing the tetragram is that the word בשם is a reference to the attribute of Justice. It occurs in that form repeatedly, such as in Exodus 20,21 אזכיר את שמי, “I allow My name to be mentioned,” or Deut. 12,11 לשכן שמו שם, “to provide a residence for His Name there.” Onkelos also feels that every time that the word שם appears in connection with the name of G’d it indicates the Shechinah, i.e. a form of the attribute of Justice. This verse (“to stand and serve”) is the source of our sages saying that the High Priest would pronounce the 42-lettered name of G’d on the Day of Atonement seeing that day is one when the attribute of Mercy is co-opted to the attribute of Justice. The letter ב and מ in the word בשם equal 42, whereas the letter ש =300 is the numerical value of the tetragrammaton when the aleph bet is read backwards i.e. א=ת, ב=ש, ג=ר, etc. (We have mentioned repeatedly that whenever the letters in the tetragrammaton appear in the reverse order this signifies the Justice aspect of that attribute. Here you would get מצפ'ץ). You will note that this paragraph has 42 words, just as the first benediction of the Shmoneh Esreh prayer (better known as עמידה), prayer-service to be performed while standing.

And if a Levite comes from any of your cities, from anywhere in Israel where he has been dwelling, and comes with all the desire of his soul to the place that Hashem has chosen,

וכי יבא הלוי AND IF A LEVITE COME […AND MINISTER] — One might think that Scripture speaks of a “Levite” in the usual sense of the word (i.e. of a לוי and not of a כהן)! Scripture, however, goes on to state, (v. 7) “And he shall minister [in the name of the Lord]”; thus the Levites must be excluded for they are not fit for (not entitled to) service in the Temple (Sifrei Devarim 168:1). ובא בכל אות נפשו ושרת AND COME WITH ALL THE LONGING OF HIS SOUL …AND MINISTER — This teaches that a priest may come and offer his free-will and obligatory sacrifices even at a time when a priestly shift is in charge to which he does not belong (Bava Kamma 109b). Another explanation: It further teaches regarding priests who appear in the Temple as pilgrims on the festivals that they may offer [with the rota], and do the services connected with the sacrifices that are offered on account of the festival, as for instance, the additional offerings due on festivals — although the shift is not theirs (Sifrei Devarim 168:3; Sukkah 55b).

וכי יבא הלוי, “and if a Levite comes, etc.” the Levites are mentioned after the priests as they too have been charged with teaching the people the Torah, [and the fact that they do not have to work the land makes them free to do so. Ed.] Their task has been spelled out clearly in Chronicles II 17,79; in fact, we see there that they were travelling teachers, leaving the towns set aside for the Levites and visiting small communities in order to teach there. This is the plain meaning of the words as written.

וכי יבא הלוי, a priest who does not belong to the roster of priests performing Temple service on that day in the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem

he shall minister in the name of Hashem his God, like all his brothers the Levites who minister there before Hashem.

They shall eat portion equal to portion, apart from the appointed watch that comes on the Sabbath, as the forefathers established.

חלק כחלק יאכלו THEY SHALL ENJOY LIKE PORTIONS — This teaches that they (the priests who come to Jerusalem on the festivals as pilgrims but are not in charge) participate in the hides (of the burnt offerings due on the festivals) and the flesh of the he goats brought as sin-offerings on account of the festivals. One might think that they participate also in sacrifices which are offered not on account of the festivals, as, for instance, the continual burnt offerings, the additional offerings due on account of Sabbath (on which a festival happens to fall) and vow- and free-will offerings! Scripture, however, states: לבד ממכריו על האבות [THEY SHALL ENJOY LIKE PORTIONS] EXCEPT THE SALE OF THE FATHERS — i.e. except those things which their ancestors sold to each other in the days of David and Samuel when the system of shifts was established and they made, as it were, an agreement of sale, saying, “Take thou the ordinary priestly perquisites during thy week and I shall take them during my week (Sifrei Devarim 169:3; Sukkah 56a).

"Apart from his sales" (לְבַד מִמְכָּרָיו). Some say this word is like 'from their merchandise from a far road' — [a reading that is] slightly [forced] — but grammar does not permit that. Rather it derives from the same root as "when you make a sale" (מִמְכָּר), and the meaning is: if he sold the house he inherited from his fathers — as it is written, "and the sale of a house in a city of his possession" — this passage explains [the law] with respect to the fathers: one does not say to him, 'you already have [income]'; rather, "portion like portion they shall eat." Having completed the mention of the matter of the judge and the priest, he now mentions the matter of the prophet.

לבד ממכריו אל האבות, the members of any priestly roster, known as בית אבות or as here. plain אבות, do not have the right to share their sacrificial meat with their relatives or friends except when this meat was part of the daily or weekly public offerings. These may be shared or exchanged between different rosters. However, any offerings brought to the altar on the pilgrimage festivals are not subject to the authority of the priestly roster officiating during that week at all. The expression ממכריו, “of his acquaintances,” does not apply to the days of the festivals. Therefore, the Torah orders that on that occasion basically any priest present may eat a share of such offerings regardless of whether he belongs to the roster of that particular week. This is why the Torah writes; חלק כחלק יאכלו, of the offerings presented during the festivals all the priests enjoy an equal share.

חלק כחלק יאכלו, “they shall eat (receive) equal shares, etc.” when we were told in Samuel I 2,36 that the sons of the High Priest Eli would have to go begging to get a morsel to eat, from which we see that even as priests they did not get their allotted shares, and from which we also know that allocations were based only on service actually performed in the Temple, we must remember that these offspring of Eli described there had not yet attained the age at which they were fit to perform such service, i.e. they were below thirty years of age. This is clear from what is written in Samuel I 2,33. [There they were destined not to die until they had attained full maturity, i.e. the age at which, but for the curse, they could have performed Temple service. Ed.]. לבד ממכריו, “beside what is due to them as a result of his having sold the house he had inherited from his parents.” [The fact that therefore he had independent means and did not need to go begging was not taken into consideration by the Torah when it legislated what he was entitled to due to having been born a Levite.]’An alternate interpretation of this phrase: the word ממכריו is derived from מכיר, “knowing someone personally.” The Torah tells us if the Levite in question has friends who are willing to give him handouts from the goodness of their hearts, this does not therefore prevent him from claiming what is due and sharing it with his fellow Levites. This is so even if he does not ask for his share during the week his roster is performing the sacrificial service in the Temple. [This is an important piece of legislation, as the Rabbis stipulated that when someone has independent means, even minimal amounts, he is not entitled to ask for handouts. Ed.]

חלק כחלק יאכלו, “portion for portion they shall eat it.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words mean that the priests shall eat all that is given to them and share it out equitably among themselves, including the skins of the burnt-offerings, and the meat of the sacrifices which were not burned up totally. לבד ממכריו על האבות, “except for transactions which had been arranged by the forefathers.” If a priest has sold his house which he had inherited from his parents as described in Leviticus 25,33, the other priests cannot deny him his place in the משמר, roster, by saying that seeing he had sold his house and was relatively affluent he was not entitled to share the sacrificial meats with them. This is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of these words. As to the beginning of the paragraph commencing with the words: “when the Levite will come” (verse 6), this refers to a priest who is a member of the tribe of Levi. The verse does not speak at all about a Levite who is “only” a Levite, seeing the words: “who stands and performs service” could not apply to a mere Levite. When verse 6 continues ובא בכל אות נפש, “and he may come whenever he likes to the place, etc.,” this teaches that a priest may offer his personal sacrifices even out of turn, during the roster of other priests. Similarly, during the pilgrimage festivals Pessach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, every priest is entitled to participate in the sacrificial service and offer the respective offerings of his own on the festival. (Sifri Shoftim 168) A Midrashic approach: the words חלק כחלק יאכלון mean that the priests share equally, as we pointed out already. This might lead me to believe that on the festivals all the priests are entitled to share equally also in such sacrifices as the daily public offerings, offerings which have nothing to do with the festivals. To tell us that this is not so the Torah added the words לבד ממכריו על האבות, i.e. except for the matters which were sold already in the days of the forefathers, i.e. at the time when King David organised the division of the משמרות, the “rosters,” i.e. that the priests have to take turns, each one belonging to one of 24 groups each of which had 2 weeks of service in the Temple allocated to it. At that time the priests were considered as “having sold” the rights to certain weeks of service to each of these various groups, rosters. (compare Sukkah 55-56). They would say to each other: “you serve during my week and I will serve during your week.” The “sale” was not one in which money changed hands. We have to ask ourselves that seeing originally every priest was allowed to perform sacrificial service whenever he wanted to, what prompted King David and Samuel to change a system which had been functioning for 400 years? Why did they institute these rosters which limited the periods of service by each priest to 2 weeks a year of which each priest actually served only on a single day of ‘his week?’ Besides, what was the reason for dividing these rosters into 24? According to the Talmud this division was so absolute that a priest could under no circumstances switch, or exchange his membership in one roster to becoming a member of a different roster. We know of the absolute rigidity of this order from Sukkah 56 where the exact division of who was entitled to what is discussed if the festival occurred in the middle of the week, depriving at least one roster of part of its exclusive claim to that week. The place in the courtyard of the Temple where the members of the roster divided their shares was allocated in such a way that all the onlookers could know which roster was the incoming one and which was the outgoing one. The members of each roster were known by names identifying their roster so as to enable easy identification. The Talmud relates that it happened that a member of a roster called Bilgah disgraced itself and that henceforth the authorities punished the entire roster by allocating a place to it during the entire week it was performing its service which made it appear as if this roster was about to finish its service on that day. It appears that the hands of the authorities were severely limited in the kind of punishment they could administer for laxity or deliberate misconduct by its members as these 24 rosters were perceived as paralleling similar rosters among the angels performing the service in the celestial counterpart of the Sanctuary on earth. According to the Sefer Habahir (item 107) there were 3 times 24 such rosters in the celestial regions corresponding to the three verse in Exodus 14, 19-21 each one of which has 72 letters, each if read vertically representing one of the 72-lettered name of G’d. It appears that whereas the “rosters” i.e. procedures in the celestial regions were fixed, G’d created new angels every day who would sing His praises prior to disappearing. The forefathers, i.e. David and Samuel (Taanit 27), in their wisdom decided to pattern service in the terrestrial Sanctuary to reflect as much as possible what they knew about what went on in the celestial spheres. The blessing pronounced by the members of the outgoing roster for the incoming roster included the following passage: “may the One who resides in this House ensure that there is peace and mutual goodwill among you just as peace and goodwill prevails in the celestial regions where there is no jealousy or hatred between the angels, but they all co-exist in peace and comradeship” (Berachot 12). At any rate, we have seen that a great deal of thought was invested by the leaders of earlier generations in arriving at the arrangement of who does what and when in connection with the Temple service.

Apart from his sales on account of the fathers. The explanation of this matter is that each priest eats his portion, and if he has surplus, he can sell it, and they shall eat portion by portion, apart from his sales. What he sells and what is stated on account of the fathers is to explain why he is given permission to sell the surplus, and wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to give the surplus to one who does not have enough for his needs? To this he says on account of the fathers — go and learn from the division of the land which was divided according to the fathers’ houses, based on whether they were numerous in population or few at the time of the division. And it is possible that over time the situation would change, such that one tribe would not have enough for its needs if it became more populous than it was at the time of the division, and another tribe would have surplus if the household decreased from having as many people as they had in the days of the fathers who made the division. But certainly the reason is that they don’t make another division, but only that which was made in the days of the fathers. So too the priests whose fathers made a division into watches, even though over time the situation would change so that one watch would have just enough and another would have surplus, nevertheless the priest can sell the surplus because everything follows the fathers.

לבד ממכריו על האבות, according to the plain meaning: “like one of his personal acquaintances if he has such among the priests serving in the Temple, who is willing to appoint him to offer his personal sacrifice on his behalf so that he will be able to eat some of the sacrificial meat with him, and the restriction of his not being part of the day’s roster would be waived.” (compare Sukkah 56)

When you come into the land that Hashem your God is giving you, you shall not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations.

לא תלמד לעשות THOU SHALT NOT LEARN TO DO [AFTER THE ABOMINATIONS OF THOSE NATIONS] — thou shalt not learn to do, but you may learn their practices in order to understand them and to teach others, that is to say, to understand their doings, how depraved they are, and thus to be able to teach thy children, “Do not so and so because these are the religious observances of the heathens!” (Sifrei Devarim 170:3; Sanhedrin 68a.)

THOU SHALT NOT LEARN TO DO AFTER THE ABOMINATIONS OF THOSE NATIONS. This also is an explanatory commandment, for He has already stated, and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes, and now he mentions their deeds and declares them to be abominations before G-d. He mentioned anyone that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, which, by way of the simple meaning of Scripture is a type of witchcraft, or, in the opinion of our Rabbis, it is the Molech. This is the truth as I have explained it in its place. He mentioned a sorcerer, an inclusive term for all sorcery. Or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit — these are specific forms of sorcery. He also prohibited them to consult [the sorcerer] or the necromancer who uses the ov (ghost), or, in any manner to seek information from them. He mentioned ‘koseim k’samim’ (one that useth divination) which involves divining future events, from the word ‘kesem’ (an oracle) is in the lips of the king; his mouth trespasseth not in judgment, just as Scripture states, Balaam also the son of Beor ‘hakoseim’ (the soothsayer), and he was an enchanter, as it is said concerning him, he went not, as at the other times, to meet with enchantments, and it is further written, ‘kasomi’ (divine unto me), I pray thee, by a ghost. He mentioned specifically m’onein who is a diviner interpreting by [the formations of] the clouds, and the m’nacheish who divines by looking at the wings of the birds [in flight] or by listening to their chirping, something similar to what is written, for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter. The word m’nacheish is derived from the expression ‘chashti’ (I made haste) and delayed not, because whatever expedites knowledge of the future before it transpires is termed nacheish, that is to say, “we will hurry” and know sooner. Scripture states, For ‘all’ that do these things are an abomination unto the Eternal, but it does not say “for those that do ‘all’ these things …” because Scripture [in calling the practitioner an abomination] refers to most [but not all] of these practices. For the m’onein [who divines by observing the clouds] and the m’nacheish [who prophesies by means of the wings or chirping of birds] are not abominable, and G-d did not dispossess the Canaanites on their account, because all human beings desire to know things that are to come upon them, and engage in what they consider to be pursuits of wisdom. And now, know and understand concerning the subject of sorcery, that when the Creator, blessed be He, created everything from nothing, He made the higher powers to be guides for those below them. Thus He placed the earth and all things that are thereon in the power of the stars and constellations, depending on their rotation and position as proven by the study of astrology. Over the stars and constellations He further ...

'כי אתה בא אל הארץ וגו, “when you will come to the land, etc.” After the Torah had told you what type of authority the priests and the King possess, and that you must be obedient to them, it now tells you what kind of instructions you must disobey, if such are decreed by them. [You are to record those in writing also.]

לא תלמד לעשות, “You shall not learn to do, etc.” Our sages in Sifri Shoftim 170 construe the word לעשות, “to do,” as limiting the injunction of this verse to actually carrying out such abominations. It is permitted to study and investigate the abominations practiced by these pagan nations. One may even teach the subject matter (as theoretical knowledge). We find that the elders of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin, had to be familiar with all these abominations, even with witchcraft, how else could they have been able to convict people of practicing these arts of wrongdoing? Lack of knowledge of even a single such discipline would disqualify the elders from judging such a case.

לא תלמד לעשות כתועבות הגוים האלה, “you must not learn to copy the abominations performed by these nations. According to Nachmanides, seeing that in Leviticus 18, we already have been warned not to practice any of the abominations of the Canaanites or Egyptians, Moses now illustrates examples of some of the abominations the Torah had in mind. There are divergent opinions as to the meaning of מעביר בנו או בתו באש. Some authorities believe that this is the same as the infamous moloch cult, whereas others believe it was some sort of magic designed to ward off negative vibes by powerful forces. The expression מכשף is an umbrella term for any number of different sorcerers’ tricks. Expressions such as חובר חבר, שואל אוב וידעוני, are examples of such sorcery. They are different forms of necromancy. קוסם קסמים, are people trying to divine future events, such as palm readings, tea leaf readings, etc. So-called prophets such as Bileam used such tools as their stock-in-trade in order to impress their clients. These, as well as נחשים, are outlawed by the Torah for use by the Jewish people although they do not fall under the heading of abomination, תועבה. When Moses speaks of מעוננים, he refers to people who claim to be able to foretell the future by examining cloud patterns. מנחשים are people claiming to be able to get messages revealing some future events form the twittering of birds or by looking at their wings. The idea is derived from Kohelet 10,20 ובעל הכנפים יגיד דבר, “that winged matter may reveal something.”

There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or his daughter through fire, one who practices divination, one who reads omens, or one who interprets signs, or a sorcerer,

מעביר בנו ובתו באש [THERE SHALL NOT BE FOUND AMONG YOU ANYONE] THAT MAKETH HIS SON OR HIS DAUGHTER TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE — This was the way of worshipping Molech. They made two pyres, one on this side and one on the other (one opposite the other) and passed it (the child) between them (cf. Sanhedrin 64b). קסם קסמים ONE THAT USETH DIVINATION — What is a diviner? One who takes his stick in hand and says, (as though he were consulting it), “Shall I go, or shall I not go?” So does it state, (Hoshea 4:12) “My people ask counsel of their stick, and their staff declareth unto them” (Sifrei Devarim 171:6). מעונן — Rabbi Akiba said, Such are people who assign times (עונות plural of עונה “period”, “time”) — who say, “This time is auspicious to begin some work”; the Sages, however, say, It refers to those “who hold your eyes under control” (who delude by optical deception; they connect מעונן with עין “eye”) (Sifrei Devarim 171:9). מנחש A SORCERER — [one who draws prognostications from the fact that] the bread fell from his mouth, or that a stag crossed his path, or that his stick fell from his hand (Sifrei Devarim 171:10; Sanhedrin 65b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:26).

"Who passes his son [through fire]." This was idolatrous practice, for there are even today among us many nations who worship fire. "One who practices divination" (קֹסֵם קְסָמִים): it is possible that this is a general term, meaning those who cut decisive verdicts — who say that such-and-such will certainly come to pass, and so they decree. Related to it is "divination is on the lips of a king" [Prov. 16:10]. The specific forms then follow: the soothsayer, the diviner, and the sorcerer. It is also possible that [קֹסֵם קְסָמִים] is itself a specific term, referring to the astrologers, and that "divinations" alludes to the [astrological] judgments of the stars that are called the first and the second. "The soothsayer and the diviner" — I have already explained these. "And the sorcerer" — likewise.

לא ימצא בך, even among non-Jewish residents of the Holy Land. A prominent example would be the woman used by King Sha-ul to produce the deceased prophet Samuel to give him a message. (Samuel I 28)

'לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו באש וגו, “there must not be found amongst you any father who makes his son pass through fire, etc.” Where is the penalty for such abuse of parental authority written? It is found in the otherwise superfluous words: אשר מזרעו, “from his offspring,” in Leviticus 20,2, where the same subject has been discussed already. קוסם קסמים, “someone using divination to learn about future events;” according to Rashi, an example of divination would be if a person takes hold of his walking cane, asking it if it is in his interest to undertake a certain journey. The subject appears also in Hoseah 4,12, although no examples are given how the cane would give its sign. [Some commentators therefore do not understand the word: “walking cane” literally, but see it as a synonym for an idol made of wood. The idol would be asked and give some sign to the questioner. Ed.]

לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש, קוסם קסמים, מעונן, נחש, ומכשף וחובר חבר, ושואל אוב וידעוני, ודורש אל המתים. “There shall not be found among you one who causes his son or daughter to pass through the fire; one who practices divinations, an astrologer, one who reads omens, a sorcerer. Or, an animal charmer, one who inquires of Ov or Yidoni, or one who consults the dead.” These two verses enumerate nine different varieties of תועבות, abominable practices which the Canaanites were in the habit of relying on. The Torah lists the practice the Moloch cult first, which involved exposing one’s children to the fire in order to assuage that deity’s feelings. There is no more despicable form of idolatry than to sacrifice one’s own flesh and blood to such cults. Seeing that this practice is so distasteful to G’d, anyone who is guilty of it is subject to the karet penalty (compare Leviticus 20,3). People who violate Torah law by committing any of the other abominations listed here only qualify for 39 lashes, i.e. corporal punishment. After the Torah concluded by warning us not to become guilty of such practices, the Torah continues by emphasising the positive, i.e. asking us תמים תהיה עם ה' אלו-היך, “you shall be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d” (verse 13). The expression מעביר used by the Torah describing the Moloch cult, means that the father makes the child walk between two columns of fire; I explained this already in connection with Leviticus 18,21. קוסם קסמים, “practicing divinations;” this is a person who takes a staff in his hand and says: “I will go to a certain place, or I will not go to a certain place” as the case may be; this is what the prophet Hoseah spoke about in Hoseah 4,12: ”My people, it consults its stick, its rods direct it.” [The idea is that decisions are based on the stick falling in a certain manner, pointing in a certain direction. Ed.] מעונן, the word can have one of three meanings; 1) it is derived from עונה, a certain period of time. 2) it is derived from עין eye; 3) It is derived from ענן, cloud. If it is derived from עונה this is the way Rabbi Akiva understood it, i.e. that the person (astrologer) says that certain dates in the calendar are propitious whereas others are not. People determine when to engage in certain enterprises and when not, based on such predictions. The sages who differ with Rabbi Akiva claim that the people who practice the form of sorcery described as מעונן engage in sleight of hand, i.e. they deceive our eyes. The third view, relating the word to ענן, cloud, claim that the people engaging in this practice consult cloud patterns and presume to foretell future events based on this. מנחש, “someone who interprets signs,” such as if one’s bread fell out of one’s mouth, what does this portend? Or, if a deer crosses one’s path what does this signify? Some explain the word to mean that such people look at birds and their wings or try and interpret the twittering of the birds. They believe that when Kohelet 10,20 speaks about “for a bird of the skies may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter,” that Solomon spoke of people who through interpreting the movements of such birds could divine their message. ומכשף, “a sorcerer.” Nachmanides writes as follows concerning this term: “the Torah includes many different kinds of sorcery all under the heading of מכשף. The following words, i.e. חובר חבר, שואל אוב, שואל ידעוני, דורש אל המתים, are all sub-categories of the heading “sorceress.” It is prohibited to consult any of the above regarding one’s future or how to conduct oneself. It is important to appreciate in the context of this whole subject matter that when G’d created the universe out of “nothing,” He made the celestial beings into leaders of the terrestrial creatures who were below them. He established a kind of hierarchy in which “lower” creatures were subjected to input by “higher” creatures. Eventually, at some point, even these higher creatures become subject to direct input by totally abstract beings, angels, which have been assigned certain tasks by G’d. These angels, when they represent the nations on earth, for instance, may be perceived as the “soul” of their terrestrial protegees. This system is permanent for the duration of the terrestrial universe and the commander-in chief of these angels who represent these nations is the Lord Himself. However, G’d allowed these “protective” angels of the nations to “reverse direction,” (turn their faces around) on occasion in order to head off certain dangers threatening their protegees as a result of planetary, horoscopic forces. Just as the word ענג, “pleasure” when spelled נגע means “plague,” i.e. the reverse of its original meaning, so, without affecting any real changes, by merely turning their faces in a more propitious looking direction, these angels exert positive or negative influence on the fate of their protegees. This concept is reflected in Daniel 2,21 והוא מהשנא עדנ-יא וזמניא, “and He alters times and seasons.” Amos 5,8 spells out an example of this when he says: “who made Pleiades and Orion, who turns darkness into dawn and darkens day into night; who summons the waters of the sea and pours them out on the earth.” His name is “the Lord.” The prophet does not refer to regular phenomena, but to occasions when G’d exploits certain constellations and their relative positions to one another to effect changes for the benefit or detriment of His creatures on earth. By allowing such angels to “turn around” as it were, He minimizes the need for overt interference in the laws of nature. The following is an excerpt of the Sefer Halevanah published by Bergamantzia and explaining the relevance of astrology, that if we observe [over a period of time Ed.] that when the moon faces in a certain direction that our undertakings prosper whereas when the moon faces in a different direction similar undertakings commenced at that time fail, then this is not proof of the independent power of the moon to influence events on earth but reflects indirect guidance by G’d of events on earth as opposed to direct guidance of events which the Jewish people enjoy, i.e. without the need to rely on intermediaries such as horoscopic constellations and what they appear to presage. The fact that G’d equipped the angels presiding over the nations with this ability to “turn their faces” in different directions at different times enables sorcerers to create the impression that they can foretell future events or even influence them. [The author discussed this in connection with Bileam’s prophetic powers, i.e. to be alert to times at which G’d would be angry, so that a curse which came true would be attributed to his powers.] Similarly, expert astrologers who have a high rate of success in their predictions simply exploit the latitude G’d granted to these “agents “ of His in the universe to “turn their faces around” in order to meet the requirements of their protegees on earth. [I trust I portrayed the gist of this correctly. Ed.]. If our sages accused sorcerers of “denying the system of celestial hierarchies,” what they meant is that they ignore G’d’s direct guidance of events in favor of indirect guidance of events by means of intermediaries such as the planetary system, etc. We can understand therefore why the Torah had to prohibit sorcery. Although whatever information these sorcerers come up with, is not an outright falsehood seeing that it is based on known forces in the universe which G’d had created, and they are aware that G’d had created them, sorcerers try to relegate G’d Himself to the farthest domains of heaven. They do not allow for G’d’s benevolent direct supervision of events in this universe. Such considerations also are at the root of the prohibition of כלאים, mixing of certain species. By grafting species which were meant to be separate inviolate species, new forces are added to the universe, forces which may have beneficial or destructive influences on nature, apart from constituting changes in the hierarchy prevailing in this universe. Thus far Nachmanides. I have read in a volume of astrology published by current astrologers called “letter of Galinus,” that if someone makes an iron replica of the planet Saturn, he should do so at a certain date and time of day or night when the horoscope is in a certain constellation, and if such a person will bury it beneath the store of a certain merchant, that that merchant will lose all his profit from the store. If the person who has constructed such an image at such a time as we mentioned buries it beneath the house of the owner of that store, all that owner’s affairs will turn sour. Anyone with eyes in his head knows that this “science” will lead to destruction of the world as we know it, and that the only way to live on earth is by allowing the forces of nature to guide us instead of trying to bend them to our will. These forces were provided by G’d for the benefit of mankind. (This is part of the quotation from “letter of Galinus).” The author of that volume writes further: “if someone is interested in attracting to himself the spiritual influence exerted by the planet Shabbtai (Saturn), a planet which exercises its domain on the Sabbath, he should eat a minimal amount of meat, diet very frugally, abstain from marital relations, wear black garments, construct a picture of a lion made out of copper and at the hour when the constellation of Saturn and that of the lamb intersect he should slaughter a cat. If he then approaches that idol and serves it and consults it concerning his future he will be given such information. Thus far the “letter of Galinus.” (Compare also Parshat Vayishlach, Genesis 32,30 where the author copied from books on philosophy.) It is clear that the Torah, which is most certainly concerned about our welfare and well being, commands us to do exactly the opposite of what is written in the “letter of Galinus.” On the Sabbath we are to eat well (meat) and drink well (wine), to dress in finery, to engage in marital relations with our wives and in general to call the Sabbath ענג, “a delight,” (Isaiah 58,13). Whereas the philosophy preached by Galinus results in man becoming depressed, adopting the ways of the Torah results in man becoming a happy personality. Instead of wearing black garments, we wear colored garments in order to lift our spirits. Our sages base this on Isaiah 58,13 וכבדתו מעשות דרכיך, a references to garments which lend the wearer distinction in the eyes of others. Rabbi Yochanan, in Shabbat 30, used to refer to his clothing as מכבדי, “that which bestows honor upon me.” Thank the good Lord for having given us enough common sense through study of His commandments, thus saving us from falling victim to such foolish philosophies as those espoused in the book of Galinus. This same Torah has warned us not to pay heed to the constellations in the skies when it wrote (Deut. 4,19) “lest you raise your eyes towards the sky and behold the sun and the moon.” He has, instead, given us the heritage of His commandments, observance of which will result in our accumulating a great reward. וחובר חבר, “or an animal charmer.” According to Ibn Ezra this is someone who assembles demons and unites them, i.e. charms them; alternatively, it may be a snake-charmer, i.e. someone who can attract all these animals to one single location [pied piper of hamelin. Ed.] (compare Sifri Shoftim 172). ושואל אוב, “one who inquires of Ov.” a type of sorcerer reputedly able to establish contact with the dead and have them manifest themselves on earth. The dead appears to speak out of the armpit of such a person (Kimchi on Samuel I 28,25). There are many differing opinions regarding the authenticity of necro-mancers. Some hold that the story described in Samuel where King Shaul spoke to a manifestation of the dead prophet did not take place, that it is quite impossible to resurrect the dead in such a fashion and that the woman in question recognised King Shaul immediately and put on an elaborate charade. She did not want to let on, and that is why she said to Shaul: “why did you try to trick me seeing that in reality you are King Shaul?” She demonstrated by her remark that when she had “conjured up” the image of the long deceased Samuel she had done so merely by employing her wisdom and knowledge of psychology. It is the manner of every woman practicing this art to hide a live human being who will speak solemnly and with a low voice from his hiding place as described by Isaiah 29,4: “and you shall speak from below the ground, your speech shall be humbler than the sod, your speech shall sound like a ghost’s from the ground.” The woman in the story in Samuel had hidden someone and told Shaul that the speaker was Samuel. When she made that hidden person say: “because you did not execute G’d’s wrath against Amalek,” this was something which was common knowledge and did not prove that Samuel was the speaker. When the Book of Samuel reports Shaul as “speaking to Samuel,“ this only describes that Shaul thought that he was speaking to Samuel. [Actually the Book of Samuel does not even quote Shaul as addressing Samuel at all in these words.] When the woman told Shaul that: “tomorrow your sons and you will be with me,” (i.e. dead) this was all part of her psychology; she had previously instructed the person whom she hid to make this statement as she was well aware that the battle was going badly, and she knew that Shaul was being punished on account of his failure to heed the instructions in his war against Amalek. She considered it likely that he would fall into the hands of the Philistines as an act of retribution. Others quoted by Rashi believe that the encounter described in the Book of Samuel between King Shaul and the spirit of Samuel was real and that Samuel indeed told Shaul all that is reported there in the text. Our sages in Chagigah 4 agree with the latter opinion. The problem with that interpretation is that if indeed Samuel really appeared to Shaul, how is it that a woman such as this necromancer was able to resurrect the dead by using the “science” called here שואל אוב? The opinion of both Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Saadyah Gaon is that the woman claiming to be a necromancer most certainly did not resurrect Samuel, but that G’d did so. They write as follows according to Kimchi on our verses (end of commentary on verse 25) in the Book of Samuel. This is what the gaonim are reported as having said: it is quite far-fetched to assume that the woman knew the future nor that she knew how to resurrect the dead using methods attributed to necromancers. G’d revived Samuel in order for him to tell Shaul what would happen to him. The woman knew nothing of this at all. This is why she became so frightened and exclaimed: with a loud voice (verse 12-13) “why did you trick me when in fact you are Shaul?!”...she then said: “I have seen “elohim” rise from the earth.” The fact that she had asked in verse 11 “whom shall I raise for you?” was a figure of speech used by necromancers all the time and did not mean that they had the actual power to do so. So far the quote of Rabbi Saadyah Gaon in the commentary by Kimchi. The text appears to agree with both the opinions expressed in Chagigah and those expressed by these gaonim as well as by what our intelligence dictates, i.e. that Samuel was alive while he spoke to Shaul and that the woman had not brought him to life, seeing that it is not within the power of any ordinary human being to perform such an act. Only G’d Himself, or a prophet especially granted such a power can do this. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also agrees with this view. There is still another view held by a few of the scholars of the Talmud according to which necromancers are indeed able to bring back the dead during the first 12 months after they had died [or at least they know at what time the souls return to those bodies]. We find the following story in Shabbat 152: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avuhu: “seeing that you people claim that the souls of the righteous are stored beneath the throne of the Lord, how could Samuel appear to Shaul as described in the Book of Samuel? Rabbi Avuhu answered this heretic that what is described in the Book of Samuel took place within less than 12 months after Samuel’s death, and we have a Baraitha according to which the soul of the departed commutes to the body of the righteous departed during the first 12 months after it had left that body. After that time the body disintegrates so that there is nothing for the soul to return to.” You should know that the commuting of the soul described in the Baraitha does not depend on the state of preservation of the body. Even if the body has completely rotted away during the first three days after death, the soul still does the commuting described in the Baraitha. By the same token, if the body has been embalmed and therefore remains intact way beyond the 12 months described in the Baraitha, the soul still ceases commuting to it. The meaning of the words in the Baraitha “its body remains intact,” is simply “the body that the soul was used to inhabit.” It had been its container. This affinity comes to an end after 12 months. וידעוני, this refers to the skill of introducing the bone of an animal called ידוע into one’s mouth and making it appear as if it could talk independently, using some means of witchcraft to do so (Sanhedrin 65). This animal is also known as בני השדה and is referred to as such in Job 5,23: “for you will have a pact with the rocks in the field and the beasts of the field will be your allies.” The letter א in the words אבני השדה in that verse is superfluous, leading to this interpretation, i.e. that the true reading ought to have been בני השדה. ודורש אל המתים, this refers to people who lift the skull of the dead when consulting them as if they were oracles (compare Sanhedrin 65).

or one who casts spells, or one who consults a ghost [ob], or one who consults a familiar spirit [yid'oni], or one who inquires of the dead.

וחבר חבר OR A CHARMER — One who charms snakes or scorpions or other creatures into one spot (חבר = “an assembly”) (Sifrei Devarim 172:1). ושאל אוב OR A CONSULTER OF THE SPIRIT אוב — This is a kind of sorcery brought about by a spirit whose name is פיתום (in Greek: πύξον) who speaks out of his (the charmer’s) arm-pit, having raised a corpse beneath his arm-pit (Sifrei Devarim 172:2). וידעני is one who puts a bone of an animal, the name of which is יִדּוֹעַ, into his mouth and the bone speaks by way of sorcery (Sanhedrin 65a; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:31 and Note thereon). ודרש אל המתים OR A NECROMANCER — as, for instance, one who raises a corpse, placing it on his genitals, or who consults a skull (Sifrei Devarim 172:4; cf. Sanhedrin 65b).

"One who casts a spell" (חֹבֵר חָבֶר): these are those who claim to bind demons. "One who consults a ghost or a familiar spirit" — I have already explained this. "Or one who inquires of the dead": those who go to cemeteries and take a bone of a dead person, and through [the power of] their thought and delusion an apparition of forms appears to them — in a dream and even while awake. All of these are abominations of Hashem, for the truth is that a person's heart must always be wholehearted with his Creator. When one relies on his own wisdom to seek truth and whatever may be apart from Hashem, his heart is deficient, for he goes astray. One who wishes to inquire should inquire of Hashem through the prophet. Therefore it is written immediately afterward: "a prophet from your midst" — this is Joshua. The proof is that it says regarding him "to him you shall hearken," and it is written that the children of Israel hearkened to him. There is yet another proof: we find no prophet who entered the Land with Israel except Joshua. Nevertheless, it is also possible that this refers generally to every prophet who arises after Moses.

ושואל אוב וידעוני, “or consulting a ghost or familiar spirit.” According to the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 65, the people referred to are those who pretend that they can produce answers by consulting carcasses or skeletons, and producing what sounds like responses to their questions that appear to emanate between the joints of the bones of the dead. Rashi quotes a different version of this kind of trickery. The point is that through appearing to be able to communicate with the dead, these people presumably make a good living by misleading their naive customers. All of this kind of necromancy is punishable by death if performed by a Jewish person in Israel.

וחובר חבר, the tone-sign is on the letter ח just as it is in the word חרב, cherev, both in Jeremiah 21,2 and in Samuel II 11,25, this is proven by the plural mode in Psalms 56,8 being חברים, chavarim, with the emphasis on the letter ר just as in melech- melachim, and the vowel kametz, instead of tzeyreh.. If the emphasis were on the letter ב, i.e. on the last syllable as in חבר, (friend) in Psalms 119,63 Genesis 32,26 ירך as well as in the words גדר, gader in Numbers 22,24 where the emphasis is on the letter ד, then the plural mode would not have the vowel kametz under the second consonant in Psalms 56,8 but would have the vowel tzeyreh.

For all who do these things are abhorrent to Hashem; and on account of these abominations, Hashem your God is driving them out from before you.

כל אלה עשה [FOR] ALL THAT DO THESE THINGS [ARE AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD] — it does not say, “he who does all these things”, but “all who do these things” — who do even only one of them (Sifrei Devarim 173:1; cf. Makkot 24a).

ובגלל התועבות האלה מוריש אותם מפניך, “on account of the previous inhabitants of this land having performed all of these abominations the Lord is dispossessing them of this land.” Their expulsion is proof that their protectors were powerless, so why would you even think of turning to such means for knowing the future? As a result of this failure of the idols G-d suggests that you “be wholehearted with the Lord your G-d.”

כי תועבת ה' כל עושה אלה, “for anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem;” anyone of the nine cults mentioned previously. ובגלל התועבות האלה, “and on account of these abominations, etc.,” with which the people perpetrating them disgust the Lord your G’d Who is above all such forces as the planetary constellations and disciplines concerning their movements and influences on terrestrial earth, the very planetary system, גלגל, is apt to be upset. The word בגלל is chosen by the Torah to remind us of the planetary systems. According to Shabbat 151 the function of these systems is to revolve in their orbits without deviating from their assigned paths. The expression also occurs in connection with צדקה, the practice of charity (Deut. 15,10) where we already mentioned that money has a way of “orbiting” from one person to another, especially if the owner is not charitable. The lesson to be learned is that we must detest anything of which we know that G’d detests it. We must be wholehearted in our service of the Lord as per verse 13. This means to serve the Lord without any intellectual reservations, both by fulfilling His positive commandments and by refraining from violating any of the negative commandments. The expression תמים means that one’s exterior, the visible part of a person, should reflect his interior. The verse also implies reciprocity by G’d. If we behave towards G’d sincerely, then He in turn will reciprocate, as for instance in Exodus 34,28: “G’d remained with Moses.” We have a similar verse in Daniel 2,22: “He reveals the deep and the mysterious, knows what is in the dark, and light dwells within Him.” Midrash Eychah Rabbati 1,51 views this as a promise to people who have attained the level of “being wholehearted” with G’d. King David also referred to this theme in Psalms 41,13: “You will support me because of my integrity and let me abide in Your presence forever.”

כי תועבת ה' כל עושה אלה; “for anyone who has done such things has committed an abomination in the eyes of Hashem.” The word כל here is not to be understood literally as “everyone,” for the people guilty of מעוננן or מנחש, though they have transgressed have not committed a תועבה. The Torah does make allowance for the natural desire of a person to be able to know the future. The reason why G’d forbade us, the Jewish people, even to engage מעוננים and מנחשים to help us unravel the future is because we have been provided by Hashem with prophets who have had revealed to us as much of the future as G’d deems it for necessary to make known to us, so that it would reflect ingratitude to bypass these prophets and turn to other most unreliable sources to gain that kind of knowledge.

מוריש אותם, for they did not bother to consult G’d and the true prophets about their impending future. Instead, they relied on their respective idols, all abominations in the eyes of the Lord, so that by their perishing the impotence of their deities to protect their believers had to be demonstrated.

You shall be wholehearted in the fear of Hashem your God.

תמים תהיה עם ה' אלהיך THOU SHALT BE PERFECT WITH THE LORD THY GOD — walk before him whole-heartedly, put thy hope in Him and do not attempt to investigate the future, but whatever it may be that comes upon thee accept it whole-heartedly, and then thou shalt be with Him and become His portion (Sifrei Devarim 173:3).

THOU SHALT BE WHOLE-HEARTED WITH THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The meaning thereof is that we are to direct our hearts to Him only, and believe that He alone does everything. It is He Who knows the truth about all future events, and from His prophets, or from His pious ones, in other words the Urim and Thummim — are we to inquire about future events. We are not to inquire of the astrologers or from anyone else, or by any means to trust that their words will be fulfilled. Instead, if we hear any prediction [of the diviners] we should say, “Everything is in the hands of Heaven, for He is the G-d of gods Who is supreme above all, the Omnipotent One over everything, Who changes the set order of the stars and constellations at His Will, Who frustrateth the tokens of the imposters, and maketh diviners mad,” and we are to believe that future events will occur according to man’s drawing closer to His service. Therefore after the warning against inquiring about future events from diviners, and of seeking on behalf of the living to the dead, he stated that you are to be whole-hearted with G-d in all these matters and not be afraid of those who tell of things to come. Rather, you should inquire of His prophet and to him shall you hearken. And this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated, “You shall be whole-hearted in the fear of the Eternal your G-d,” meaning that you should not be deficient in the fear of Him, for tamim (whole) indicates perfection in a thing, just as ‘seh tamim’ (a lamb that is perfect) means one that is without blemish and any deficiency. This verse [before us] constitutes a positive commandment. I have already mentioned this in connection with the verse, and be thou whole-hearted.

תמים תהיה, whole-hearted to the extent that you will not even try and gain information about future events except through an authentic prophet.

תמים תהיה עם ה׳ אלוקיך,"You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your G'd." Inasmuch as the previous verses dealt with people who engage in a variety of magic mixed with their religious tenets, the Torah has to emphasise that our relationship with G'd must be predicated on mutual exclusivity. The difference between Judaism and other religious beliefs is that those beliefs are based on a variety of terrifying phenomena in nature. As a result of the Gentiles' fears and traumas they resort to means which would foretell them what to expect and to try and take precautions against any disaster the stars foretell. We, who are convinced that G'd always has our best interests at heart, do not need to be terrified [except of our sinful conduct, Ed.]. You may therefore best translate this verse as meaning: "you will be complete i.e. תמים and at ease with the Lord your G'd provided תהיה עם השם אלוקיך, that you are on the same wavelength as the Lord your G'd. Any evil in store for you which you would find by consulting your horoscope is not bound to happen anyway. Our patriarch Abraham is the best example of this. He thought that because his horoscope told him that he would not have any children that G'd could not give him a meaningful reward; G'd taught him that he could overcome what he thought would happen (Shabbat 156). The word תהיה belongs both with the word תמים as well as with the words עם ה׳ אלוקיך. "You will be whole when you are on the side of your G'd."

תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, “be wholehearted with the Lord your G-d.” The expression תמימות, means “to have an exclusive relationship with either man or G-d.” One does not flirt with any alternatives. The opposite of this occurred with the nations that were made to live in Israel as exchange for the Ten Tribes which the Assyrians had exiled. They professed to worship the Jewish way of life, but without abandoning their own religion. As a result, they became victims of the lions invading their part of the Land of Israel. (Compare Kings II 17,33)

תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, “You are to be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d.” Our hearts need to be trained exclusively on Him, and we must believe that He is the ultimate source of all that happens and that therefore reliable knowledge of future events can be obtained only from Him. If we have justified reason to try and obtain knowledge of some future events, especially as it relates to the people as a whole, the venue is through the prophet or the breastplate of the High Priest in which is contained the urim vetumim, a device that can be activated by the High Priest to get responses to his enquiries from heavenly sources. [During the period of the second Temple there no longer was such a device. Ed.] Astrology as a means to divine the future is strictly forbidden, and has been so since chapter 15 in Genesis when G’d showed Avram that he was mistaken in relying on that venue as to his fathering children.

'תמים תהיה וגו, and you are only to consult Him, not the dead. Seeing that the existence of necromancers is a form of G’d’s testing the faith of the people in Him, He enabled the spiritually negative elements in this world, the demons to possess some apparent powers to reveal the future. (compare author on 13,4 and on Exodus 32,4)

For these nations that you are dispossessing — they heed readers of omens and diviners; but as for you, Hashem your God has not appointed such things for you.

לא כן נתן לך ה' אלהיך BUT NOT SO HATH THE LORD THY GOD SUFFERED THEE [TO DO] — i.e. to hearken unto מעוננים and קוסמים, for you see, He has made His Divine Presence dwell upon the prophets and upon the “Urim and Thummim” (and these will, if necessary, inform thee of what God has in store for thee).

ואתה לא כן נתן לך, even if you were to consult the various types of soothsayers listed here, their messages would never prove accurate as our sages already told us אין מזל לישראל, “no part of Israel’s destiny is linked to astrological constellations.” (Shabbat 156)

כי הגוים האלה..ישמעו, "For these nations..will hearken to, etc." This means that the Gentiles are forced to resort to astrologers and diviners who will tell them what the horoscope -forecasts; not so you, however. Forecasts based on horoscopes do not have the same meaning for you as they have for them as you have recourse to the prophets. The words לא כן, may also mean that you are not in a situation comparable to that of the Gentiles but G'd has made all the horoscopes subordinate to you. This is the meaning of Psalms 8,7 כל שתה תחת רגליו, "You have laid "the All" at his (Israel's) feet." [the verse commenced with "You have made him master over Your handiwork, (the universe) Ed.] Our sages in Shabbat 156 explain Isaiah 41,2: צדק יקראהו לרגלו, as referring to the planet Jupiter (the largest one) whom G'd has placed at the service of Abraham. נביא יקים לך, "G'd will make a prophet arise for you, etc." Finally, the Torah responds to the fact that the Gentiles appear better off having a chance to read the future, something apparently not granted to the Israelites. The Torah tells us that the function of the prophet includes telling us what is in store for us. Perhaps King Saul understood it thus when he asked the diviner to bring him in touch with the prophet Samuel (compare Samuel I 28,8). He thought that the prohibition to consult such people is applicable only when there were prophets who could be consulted instead. In the absence of such a prophet, Saul thought that it was legal to consult such people.

כי הגוים האלה, “for these nations, etc.” The nations that you are about to dispossess if they do not emigrate, or to kill outright, had a need to turn to all these pseudo prophets or healers seeing that they have no direct line of communication with the Lord G-d, their Creator. [I have provided you with a prophet similar in stature to Moses, G-d has said. He said nothing of the kind to the Canaanites. G-d first listed the King, then the Judges, and finally the Prophets, as means of communicating with Him. Ed.] ואתה לא כן “but as for you, the Lord thy God has not permitted you to do so” – because you do not need to listen to soothsayers and diviners because you have a prophet from amongst you, like me (verse 15).

ואתה לא כן, “as for you, not so.” Moses means: “you who are part of G’d’s direct supervision, are not dependent on all these intermediaries, you have no call to resort to sorcerers, diviners, etc. If you need to know something about the future, G’d will provide a prophet from among your own people (next verse). This is a tremendous advantage. There is no true prognosis of the future which will not prove deceptive in that it disappoints the people to whom it has been promised except positive promises made by a prophet. This is why prophecy has been compared to grain which has already been sifted from the straw. This is the meaning of Jeremiah 23,28: “how can straw be compared to grain, says the Lord of Hosts?” The prophet compares false prophecy to straw, which, though it may contain a few ears of wheat, is mostly useless, whereas true prophecy is compared to wheat. The reason the prophet does not choose the word חטה, wheat, or דגן, corn, etc., is that the word בר is related to ברר, sifting, separating. In true prophecy the truth has been distilled already, whereas in false prophecy a little truth is submerged in a lot of untruths, chaff. Seeing that when G’d created the universe He divided it into three parts, the תחתיים, the “lower” terrestrial universe, the middle region consisting of the atmosphere and the planetary system, and the “higher” universe containing only disembodied beings, He made man as a combination of all three parts of the universe with input from each. He did so as He wanted to give man wisdom which would enable him to have some knowledge of the future of all parts of the universe. Each part of the universe is equipped with media through which some of the future is disclosed. In the case of terrestrial earth certain birds and demons have been equipped with some such knowledge. Man derives some knowledge of the future originating in the universe of the planets by means of “seers” (astrologers); he derives information about the future derived from the “higher world” by means of the prophets who receive their information of future events through the angels inhabiting those celestial spheres. All prophets except for Moses received their information by means of these celestial intermediaries (Maimonides Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah 6,6). Future events predicted by the “seers” are unreliable; in the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 85,2 based on Isaiah 47,13 החוזים בכוכבים מודעים לחדשים מאשר יבאו עליך, “the scanners of the heaven, the star-gazers, who announce month by month some of what will come upon you.” The word מאשר instead of אשר means that only part of the forecasts of these astrologers will come true. There is no need to tell you that future events divined by means of birds or demons are even less reliable. The only reliable forecast of future events is that made by authentic prophets, seeing that they receive their input from the “highest world.” Seeing that G’d will provide us with such prophets you have no need to consult the dead, etc., to tell the living what is in store (compare Isaiah 8,19). You should know a general rule, that each part of the three worlds receives whatever knowledge of the future it secures only from the next higher world. The power of being a “higher” world is manifest in that world being able to influence “exchange information” concerning the events in the next lower world. This concept is alluded to in Genesis 28,13 where Hashem is described as standing on top of the ladder. The ladder is a simile for the three levels of the universe. we described. (Compare our author’s commentary on Genesis 28,12 “a rational approach.”) You will then understand why predictions based on demons or birds are inferior, less reliable than those of astrologers, and why predictions based on astrology are less reliable than those of an authentic prophet. The only exceptions to the reliability of authentic prophets are when catastrophes or tragedies are predicted such as by Jonah concerning Nineveh and Isaiah concerning King Chizkiyahu. Such predictions were subject to change as they related to the conduct of the people about whom they were made. If an authentic prophet promises something positive it is 100% reliable.

A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, like me, shall Hashem your God raise up for you — him you shall heed.

מקרבך מאחיך כמני [THE LORD THY GOD WILL RAISE UP UNTO THEE A PROPHET] FROM THE MIDST OF THEE, OF THY BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO ME — This means: One who is as I am, from your midst, of your brethren, יקים לך WILL HE RAISE UP UNTO THEE in my stead, and so likewise from prophet to prophet throughout all ages.

PROPHET WILL THE ETERNAL THY G-D RAISE UP UNTO THEE, FROM THE MIDST OF THEE, OF THY BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO ME. The purport of the expression from the midst of thee is to allude that prophecy is present only in the Land of Israel. It is for this reason that Scripture speaks with reference to the Land in this term — The burden concerning the valley of ‘chizayon’ (vision), and as our Rabbis have mentioned. A similar meaning is conveyed by the expression of thy brethren, that G-d has granted you eminence over all peoples and He will put His spirit only upon you. “Like unto me, for I am from the midst of thy brethren. — He will raise up unto thee in my stead, and so likewise from prophet to prophet.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “Like unto me, who am a prophet of G-d, and not a diviner [by clouds], nor any [other] diviner.”It is possible that the expression from the midst of thee means that you can trust his words since he is from your brethren, from the midst of thee. Similarly, in my opinion, like unto me means that he will be established to be a prophet of the Eternal and you will believe in him just as you believe in me. I will yet explain this.

"Like me": that is, a prophet of Hashem, not a diviner.

אליו תשמעון, if his instructions which appear to deviate from Jewish norms are meant as a temporary measure, addressing a specific emergency.

מאחיך כמוני, “from amongst your brethren, someone like me;” Moses refers to Joshua in this verse. אליו משמעון, “you are to be obedient to him.” Compare what is written in Deuteronomy 34,9, “all the Israelites listened to him” (were obedient).

נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמוני, “A prophet, from among your brethren, like me.” Moses referred to Joshua, seeing he said: “listen to him.” We find that the Book of Joshua 22,11 reports: “the Children of Israel listened to him.” Alternatively, the word נביא in our verse is to be understood as a plural, in which case the additional definition כמוני,” such as myself,” is to exclude prophets who are from the descendants of Esau or Ishmael. We do find that the Israelites described the Edomites, the descendants of Esau as אחיך, “your brethren,” (Numbers 20,14) and therefore there could have been a misunderstanding. The word כמוני, precludes prophets of any but Jewish birth. Prophecy does not exist amongst those nations. There are a total of four distinctions which have been reserved exclusively for the Jewish people; the gift of prophecy; the Torah; Eretz Yisrael; resurrection of the dead. I plan to elaborate on this when discussing the last Parshah on the Torah, seeing that three out of these four distinctions are mentioned in that portion. Another meaning of the word כמוני, is restrictive. Any prophet should emulate me by neither adding nor subtracting anything from the Torah except if he is an established prophet and does so only as a temporary emergency measure. If the prophet declares any Torah law as permanently abrogated the people must not follow his instructions seeing that our faith in prophets is not based on the miracles they perform (Sanhedrin 90, Maimonides Hilchot Yessodey Hatorah 9,1). The reason we acknowledge Moses as a true prophet is that he communicated to us the word of G’d as spelled out in the Torah (Exodus 19,5) (G’d speaking) “Here I come to you in the thick cloud in order that the people hear when I speak to you and they will have enduring faith in you (Moses).” This is the way Maimonides understood this verse.

נביא מקרבך, “a prophet from your midst, etc.” According to Nachmanides the superfluous word מקרבך, “from your midst,” [seeing that the word מאחיך “from your brethren,” already tells us that he will be Jewish. Ed.] is a hint that prophets will only arise in the land of Israel. Similarly, the addition of the word מאחיך, that He will not endow gentiles with His holy spirit. כמוני, ”just like I;” Rashi understands the comparison Moses drew as not applying to the level of his prophetic insights but to the previous word מאחיך, i.e. “such a prophet will be of Jewish origin just as I am.” Ibn Ezra understands the word כמוני as Moses contrasting his prophecy, divinely inspired, with that of מעוננים and מנחשים that the Torah had just told us not to make use of. Nachmanides suggests that it is possible to explain the word מקרבך as meaning that such a prophet will be trustworthy, dependable, seeing that he is one of your own, just as you have learned to rely on what I have told you.

נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמוני, such prophets establish the authentic nature of their mission by commanding you to observe the laws of the Torah, not like false prophets or dreamers purporting to have been told that you should practice some idolatrous rites. When the Torah wrote in Deut. 34,10 that there never again arose a prophet of the stature of Moses, what is meant is the manner in which Moses was familiar with G’d on an unprecedented level, speaking to Him at any time, and being addressed by Him without introductory formalities, i.e. פנים אל פנים, “face to face,” as the informal nature of two friends speaking with one another. The verse does not mean that subsequent prophets would have less faith in G’d than Moses had had. Concerning that aspect of Moses as a prophet, he told the people that prophets after him would display similar faith in the Lord, i.e. כמוני. They too would faithfully deliver messages from G’d, neither withholding part nor adding something of their own and passing it off as a Divine message.

Just as you asked from before Hashem your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying: I cannot continue to hear the voice of the Word of Hashem my God, nor see this great fire anymore, and I shall not die.

TO ALL THAT THOU DIDST DESIRE etc. Scripture here did not mention the full request that the people had made [at Sinai], since by their saying Let me not hear again the voice of the Eternal — they would not have merited [the granting of] prophets. But when they said [to Moses], Go thou near, and hear all that the Eternal our G-d may say; and thou shalt speak unto us all that the Eternal our G-d may speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it — then they undertook upon themselves to believe in His prophets and to hear and to do whatever G-d would command through them. Therefore he said here, A prophet will the Eternal thy G-d raise up unto thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, and you will believe in him just as you believe in me, for you requested that G-d’s words with you should be through me and that you would hearken to me. If so, believe in the rest of the prophets who come after me, as well, for I and they are identical. This is the sense of [the words of G-d to Moses], “They have well said all that they have spoken — to believe in My prophets, and so will I do for them throughout their generations.” It is possible that their request [at Sinai] was for future generations and their stated consent to hear from Moses — in saying, and thou shalt speak unto us … and we will hear it, and do it — was also for everlasting generations, and the meaning of the word ‘v’ath’ (and thou) is “you and every prohpet of G-d like you,” as I have explained it there.

ככל אשר שאלת, "in accordance with all that you requested, etc." Moses may be telling the people that it is their own fault that not all of them have been elevated to the level of prophecy. At the time they asked G'd to make Moses their intermediary, i.e. their prophet, they had declined being prophets themselves. It was all because they had been afraid of the fact that prophecy brings in its wake a certain amount of fear and emotional pain. This is why they now need an outsider to tell them what they want to know about the future. This is the principal reason the Torah includes the reference to the revelation at Mount Sinai at this juncture.

לא אוסף, “I do not wish to continue, etc.” [Moses refers to when, during the revelation at Mount Sinai 39 years earlier, the people who had been listening to G-d’s voice directly, had found that voice so frightening that they asked Moses to be their go between. (Exodus 20,16)] The letter ס in the word אוסף has the vowel tzeyreh;

ככל אשר שאלת, “according to all that you have asked for.” Nachmanides writes that at this point Moses did not spell out in detail what it was that the Israelites had asked for. It could not refer to their request not to have to listen to the overwhelming voice of Hashem at the revelation, as no new prophet had been endowed by Hashem in response to that request. Only when the Torah reports later that the people spoke to Moses and authorised him to be their intermediary between them and Hashem, and they include a promise to carry out what Moses would tell them, did they express the wish that Moses here refers to as ככל אשר שאלת “in accordance with all that you asked for.” (Compare Deut. 5,24)

And Hashem said to me: What they have spoken is well.

היטיבו אשר דברו, “they have done well in what they have said.” They did well to believe in the prophet, and therefore I will continue to relate to them by means of prophets in the future, also. It is possible to interpret that when the Israelites undertook to accept Moses as an intermediary and they promised obedience to what he would instruct them to do in the name of Hashem, that Moses here implies that he viewed this as a commitment which would remain in effect for their relationship with future prophets, also.

A prophet I will raise up for them from among their brothers, like you; and I will place the words of My prophecy in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

I will raise up unto them a Prophet from, among their brethren in whom shall be the Holy Spirit, as in thee; and I will put My Word of prophecy in his mouth, and he shall speak with them whatsoever I command him;.

And it shall be that the man who does not receive My words that he speaks in My name — My Word shall require it of him.

"I will require it of him": this means his death is at the hands of Heaven. The proof is [the incident of] the man who did not obey the word of the prophet who said "Strike me, please" — for there it is written "by the word of Hashem" [1 Kgs. 20:35–36], and the prophet had already been made known [as a true prophet].

and the man who will not hearken to the words of My prophecy which shall be spoken in My Name, My Word shall take vengeance upon him.

But the prophet who presumes wickedly to speak a word in My name, that which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of the idols of the nations — that prophet shall be put to death.

אשר לא צויתיו לדבר [BUT THE PROPHET WHO SHALL PRESUME TO SPEAK A WORD …] WHICH I HAVE NOT COMMANDED HIM TO SPEAK — but which I may have commanded his fellow-prophet to speak (Sanhedrin 89a), ואשר ידבר בשם אלהים אחרים OR THAT SHALL SPEAK IN THE NAME OF OTHER GODS — even though he be in exact agreement with the Halacha, — that he forbids what is forbidden, or permits what is permitted, [but does so in the name of other gods] (Sanhedrin 89a), ומת HE SHALL DIE — by strangulation. — There are three false prophets who must be put to death by man (by the court): one who prophesies something which he has not heard (was not commanded to prophesy); one who prophesies something that was not spoken unto him but was spoken unto his fellow-prophet, and finally one who prophesies in the name of an idol. But he who suppresses his prophecy (does not utter it as commanded to do), and he who transgresses the words of a prophet, or, being himself a prophet, transgresses his own words — their death is by the Heavenly Judge, for it is said, (v. 19) “I” will require it from him” (Sanhedrin 89a).

AND HE THAT SHALL SPEAK IN THE NAME OF OTHER GODS — “even if [his false prophecy] corresponded to the law, prohibiting what is forbidden, and permitting what is permitted. HE SHALL DIE — by strangulation.” This is Rashi’s language from the Sifre. Now the intent thereof is not to state that if a person came and said, “In my dream I saw that Peor said to me that you should be heedful in observing the commandment of the palm-branch,” that he be liable to the death penalty — rather, in that case he is innocent. And if he said that you should do it [the commandment] in order to worship that abomination, then he is a false prophet who prophesies to worship an idol, and even if he were to say it in the name of G-d his punishment is stoning. But the case here is that he said “I saw Peor for he is god and he commanded not to eat the flesh of the swine.” Similarly, if he were to tell in its name that such-and-such [an event] is to happen, since he says that it is that worshipped object that speaks and does, decrees and fulfills, he is to be put to death by strangulation. Therefore, the Rabbis have said in the Gemara: “‘He who prophesies in the name of an idol,’ means such as the prophets of Baal.” They are the ones who would say that Baal is god, just as it is written, If the Eternal be G-d, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him. They used to prophesy in his name, Go up [to Ramoth-gilead], and prosper, for the Eternal will deliver it into the hand of the king, their intent being to say that Baal is the lord who has this glorified name, and it is he who will give Ramoth-gilead into the hand of [king] Ahab.

אך נביא אשר יזיד, But a prophet who sins, etc. Why did the Torah write the word אך at the beginning of verse 20? Why did the Torah add the word יזיד when speaking about a prophet who says things in G'd's name which he has not been told to say? It would have sufficed to write אשר ידבר. What does the Torah mean by writing that "you will ask in your heart how you could be expected to know what G'd had not said to the so-called prophet because it had not come true?" Is it not obvious that if G'd had not said it to him there was nothing to come true in the first place? Why does the Torah change its syntax between verse 20 and verse 22 respectively? In verse 20 the Torah speaks of what the prophet would say בשמי, "in My name," whereas in verse 22 the Torah refers to G'd in the third person, i.e. אשר ידבר הנביא בשם השם "which the prophet will say in the name of the Lord?" Furthermore, why does the Torah write הוא הדבר, "that is the thing" which G'd did not say to him, etc.? These two words are totally superfluous! We may best understand what the Torah has in mind by recalling the incident involving a true prophet Michayuh and a number (400) of false prophets, notably Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah (compare Kings I chapter 22). This occurred during the reign of Yehoshaphat King of Yehudah and Achav King of Israel when the latter invited Yehoshaphat to join him in a war against the Syrians (Aramites) in order to recapture Yavesh Gilead [the equivalent of the Golan Heights in those days. Ed.]. Originally, all the prophets including Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah (who was only called in at the insistence of Yehoshaphat) prophesied success, urging the king to go to war. When Yehoshaphat who was uncomfortable in the company of 400 false prophets, all of whom appeared to be Achav's "yes-men" demanded to hear the opinion of a true prophet, one whom Achav had not invited, Michayuh was called, Achav had first demurred claiming that he always prophesied negatively for him and when Michayhu saw that the chief of the false prophets Tzidkiyahu boasted that Achav would succeed with the iron horns he displayed, he too wished the king success, using almost the same language as the other prophets. Yehoshaphat was still suspicious and upon consulting Michayuh again the latter revealed that he had seen a vision of all the Israelite soldiers fleeing into the hills, etc. He also explained that G'd in heaven had allowed Achav to be deliberately misled into going to war so that he would fall in battle. In my commentary on the Books of the Prophets I have dealt with the problem of why the true prophet Michayuh had originally prophesied success for Achav when he had wished him success in his forthcoming battle instead of warning him to desist. I explained that it was precisely this prophet who had been imbued with the spirit of Navot Hacarmeli whom Achav and Izzebel had arranged to become the victim of a judicial murder by framing him. Navot's spirit had complained in the heavens about his...

ואשר ידבר בשם אלוהים אחרים, “or who shall speak in the name of other deities, etc.” Rashi -searching for a reason why Moses needed to state the obvious,- writes that even if the false prophet tells the people only matters which conform to traditional halachah, he is still subject to the death penalty. (Based on Sifri) Nachmanides explains that what is meant (by the Sifri) is not that the “prophet” announces that in his dream the deity Pe-or had appeared to him and had told him that it was important to observe the commandment of the four species, as anyone who does not do so is guilty of the death penalty. There is no death penalty for such a statement by such a “would-be prophet.” What is meant is that the “would-be prophet” announces: “I have seen in my dream, Pe-or, who is the deity, and he commanded not to eat pig’s meat; or that such an impostor announces that he had been foretold in his dream certain events, such an impostor is guilty of the death penalty because he had made a point of describing the source of his information as being a deity whom he recognizes as such.

And if you say in your heart: How shall we know the word that Hashem has not spoken?

וכי תאמר בלבבך AND IF THOU SAY IN THINE HEART [HOW SHALL WE KNOW THE WORD WHICH THE LORD HATH NOT SPOKEN]? — you will once ask this — when Hananiah the son of Azur (the false prophet) comes and prophesies (Jeremiah 27:16) “Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house will now shortly be brought again from Babylon”, whilst Jeremiah (the true prophet) stands and proclaims (Jeremiah 27:19—22) “concerning the pillars, and concerning the laver, and concerning the bases, and concerning the residue of the vessels [which remain in this city which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took not,…]” which did not go into exile to Babylon with Jeconiah, king of Judah, “they shall be carried to Babylon [and there they shall remain]” together with Zedekiah when he will go into exile (Sifrei Devarim 178:2).

V’CHI'(AND WHEN) THOU SAY IN THY HEART: ‘HOW SHALL WE KNOW THE WORD WHICH THE ETERNAL HATH NOT SPOKEN?’ “You are destined to say this when Hananiah the son of Azur [the false prophet] will come and prophesy, Behold, the vessels of the Eternal’s House shall now shortly be brought back from Babylon while Jeremiah [the true prophet] stands and proclaims concerning the pillars, and concerning the sea, and concerning the bases, and concerning the residue of the vessels which were not exiled with Jeconiah, they shall be carried to Babylon with the exile of Zedekiah.” This is Rashi’s language from the Sifre. This interpretation [of the Sifre] is based on the fact that the verse does not state “v’im (and if) thou say in thy heart” [but it states ‘v’chi’ — (and when) thou say in thy heart]. This is as I have mentioned that the Torah tells future events through allusions. But the purport of the verse is to say, “How shall we know the word which the Eternal hath not spoken, so that we can slay the one who so prophesies?” And he commanded that if the event does not come to pass then he should be killed because the Eternal hath not spoken it. Do not fear him because of his wisdom or because of the sign that he gave [even though] the sign or the wonder did come to pass. Similarly the people could ask, “How shall we know the word which G-d had spoken, to which we have been obligated to hearken in whatever He shall command?” But this [Verse 22] is the answer to both questions, for, in the case of every prophet we should look ahead to that which he foretold. If it does not come to pass we shall know that he is a false prophet and he is to be killed, and if all that he predicted does come to pass he is established to be a prophet of the Eternal, and we are bound to hearken to him in all that he commands in the name of G-d, just as he said, unto him ye shall hearken. Even to transgress the words of the Torah, [we are required to obey him] provided that it is to meet the particular need of the time, as in the case of Elijah on Mount Carmel [who, in his attempt to discredit idolatry, brought offerings to G-d on Mount Carmel despite the fact that it was forbidden to do so outside the Sanctuary Court in Jerusalem]. This is the sense of the expression, [a prophet] like unto me, [And G-d said, I will raise them up a prophet] like unto thee, meaning that he will first be established a prophet of the Eternal either by a sign or wonder, similar to what is said [of Moses], and he did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed, — or that he foretells some future event and it occurs. And thus the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin: “Whoever disobeys a prophet, is liable to death by the hands of Heaven, as it is written, I will require it of him.” And there the Rabbis asked: “And how is one to know that someone is a prophet [and that, for refusing to obey him,] he will be punished? If the prophet gave him a sign. But in the case of Micaiah the prophet ...

?איכה נדע את הדבר; when the authentic prophet commands a specific commandment such as when Elijah sacrificed on a private altar, something that had been forbidden for hundreds of years, or when Joshua waged war against Jericho on the Sabbath with all the violations this involved. (Kings I 18, and Joshua 6)

וכי תאמר בלבבך, “If you were to say in your heart, etc.” [Our author quotes Nachmanides although he does not say so. Ed.] Our sages (Sifri) do not view the word וכי in our verse as a conditional “if,” but as a prediction by Moses of what will happen in the future, a prediction that has been documented as having occurred in Jeremiah chapter 28. (About the false prophet Chananyah, and how Jeremiah dealt with him.) What prompted the sages to interpret the word וכי in this manner is that Moses did not say “ואם,” which would have clearly been something conditional. If you were to ask: “since when does the Torah make it a practice to allude to events in the future?” The reason the Torah does so at this stage is to remind future readers of the Torah that when such a man as Chananyah appears, the people, remembering what they had read here, should ask for verification of the prophet’s legitimacy. [Unbelievably, in Jeremiahs time, when true to his prediction the holy vessels of the Temple had already been plundered by Nevuchadnezzar, the people did not question the rosy predictions of Chananyah, but tended to disbelieve the established and proven prophet Jeremiah, presumably because they were thirsty for “good” prophecies rather than becoming penitents and to regain favour in the eyes of Hashem. Ed.] Why did the Torah not also portray the people as asking: “how do we know that the word that comes out of the mouth of the prophet is that which Hashem had told him to convey to us?” Seeing that it is the Torah’s principal purpose here to instruct us to execute false prophets, there was no need to spell this out, seeing that the predictions of a true prophet come true. When they do, the prophet enjoys such a high degree of trust by the people that even when he orders violation of a Torah commandment on a temporary basis, he does not become disqualified. A prominent example is Elijah rebuilding an altar that had long been in disuse and disrepair and forbidden as a “private altar” once the Temple had been erected. The word כמוך in verse 18 already contained the authority for the people to remain loyal to an established prophet, even if he commanded something that appears to conflict with the Torah’s law, provided he does not try to abrogate this law but demands temporarily ignoring such a law due to an emergency. When the prophet does predict a future event, after specifying the when and where, and it comes true, this legitimizes him, just as it legitimized Moses in the eyes of Pharaoh when the Nile turned into blood, and the frogs swarmed all over the country, all at the time predicted. Rashi felt that our verse was not needed to spell out the penalty for a false prophet as the Torah had already done so in 13,2 where the Torah legislated the death penalty even though the prediction of that “prophet” had come true, because the man in question had tried to get his listeners to violate Torah law. He felt that regardless of the stature of the “prophet,” he has to legitimize himself not only by his piety but also by a miracle that comes true. If, after both these conditions have been met, he once asks you to violate or tolerate violation of Torah law, such as Elijah did at Mount Carmel, this is no reason for you to disown that prophet. We do no less when we convict someone to death on the strength of the testimony of two witnesses whose lifestyle entitles them to be considered trustworthy as Torah observant. Maimonides considers the latter argument as a גזרת הכתוב, Divine decree, not capable of being upheld by human reasoning. Such matters all belong to what Moses described in Deut. 29,28 as הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, “matters which are concealed form our eyes, are revealed to Hashem,” (Who will take care of them in His own way.)

When a prophet speaks in the name of Hashem and the word does not come to pass and is not fulfilled — that is the word that Hashem did not speak; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not fear him.

אשר ידבר הנביא WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKETH [IN THE NAME OF THE LORD] and says, “This thing will once happen to you”, and you will see that it did not happen, הוא הדבר אשר לא דברו ה׳ THAT IS THE THING WHICH THE LORD HATH NOT SPOKEN — and, therefore, slay him. If, however, you say, “But this refers to one who will prophesy about the future. But suppose one comes and says, ‘Do so and so, and I say this by the command of the Holy One blessed be He’? How, then, can we know whether God has spoken this or not?” The reply is: As regards such a case they have already been commanded that if one comes to thrust thee away from one of the divine commandments, לא תשמע לו “then thou shalt not hearken unto him” (Deuteronomy 13:12), unless you are certain that he is a perfectly righteous man, as, for instance. Elijah at the incident on Mount Carmel, who offered sacrifices on a Bamah (an improvised altar) at a time when offering on Bamoth was forbidden, but who did so in order to fence Israel in against idolatry. Thus all depends on the needs of the time and the necessity of taking preventive measures (סיג) against a breach. With reference to such a case it states, (v. 15) “unto him ye shall hearken” (Sanhedrin 89b; Yevamot 90b). לא תגור ממנו THOU SHALT NOT BE AFRAID OF HIM — i.e. do not refrain from advocating his guilt (Sifrei Devarim 178:3) and do not fear that you may incur punishment on his account (because you have contributed to his death).

"That which the prophet speaks" — likewise, [see] the words of Jeremiah regarding "when the word of the prophet comes at the time he predicted" [cf. Jer. 28:9]. Now, having completed his explanation of the matter of the diviners who were in the land — which is the way of idolatry — he warns that innocent blood not be shed in the land. The meaning is that the land should be pure from the abomination of the diviners, and likewise not be defiled by innocent blood.

ולא יהיה הדבר, for when the prophet commands a “new” commandment, unless it is accompanied by a miracle attesting to his authority by G’d to do so, the fact that he failed to produced the promised miracle proves that he is a false prophet. An example of this is mentioned in Joshua in the valley of the river Jordan. (Joshua 3 when Joshua promised miracles and the people crossed the swollen Jordan river with dry feet, the waters having backed up) Also the predicted collapse of the protective wall around Jericho as the result of blasts on the shofar was such a miracle legitimising violating the Sabbath on that occasion. (Joshua 6) In the case of the prophet Elijah at Mount Carmel, the heavenly fire descending and consuming his offering on the rebuilt altar, as well as the water in the surrounding moat, proved that he had acted with G’d’s approval, was totally authentic. (Kings I 18,38) Concerning the reverse, a prophet being punished for failing to carry out the instructions of his colleague, an example is found in Kings I 20,35-36. Were this not so, why would someone be punished for not inflicting physical hurt on his fellow man?

ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבא, “and that thing will not come to pass; it will not happen;” for instance, if that “prophet” had promised that an impending disaster will be averted, or if he had promised something positive, that something will not occur; Jonah was afraid of being labelled a false prophet when Nineveh was not destroyed as he had predicted. [He had not told the people that penitence was a remedy that would be the reason through which it could be averted. Ed.] An alternate explanation for the apparent repetition in our verse: the prediction would not come true at the time promised nor would it come true sometime later. This could be taken as proof that it would never come true. In Deuteronomy 13,3, when the same subject is discussed, the Torah writes about the “prophet’s” prediction coming true. How are we to account for the difference? Here the Torah speaks about a charlatan, someone who had never been a prophet; there the Torah speaks of someone who had been known as a true prophet in the past but had become a heretic, so that what he had predicted lately had not been something that G-d had told him about.

ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבא, assuming that repentance and good deeds did not persuade G’d to postpone the decree as He did in response to the repentance and entreaty of Chizkiyah, King of Yehudah whose prayer resulted in his death, announced by the prophet Isaiah, being put on hold for 15 years. (Kings II 20,1-6, as well as Jonah’s prediction that Nineveh was doomed which was rescinded completely, as per Jonah 3,10)