Kommentar zu Dewarim 12:8

לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עשים וגו׳ YE SHALL NOT DO AFTER ALL [THE THINGS] THAT WE DO [HERE THIS DAY] — This refers back to what is stated above (Deuteronomy 11:31) “for ye shall pass over the Jordan etc.”, the meaning being: when ye have crossed the Jordan, you are at once permitted to offer on Bamahs, during all the fourteen years of subjugating and dividing the land amongst the tribes: but on these Bamahs you must not sacrifice all that you sacrifice “here this day”, in the Tabernacle that is with you and that has been anointed and is thus fit to offer sin and guilt offerings and vows and free-will offerings on it, whilst on a Bamah only that may be sacrificed which has been made the subject of a vow or a free-will offering. And that is the meaning of איש כל הישר בעיניו, “every man whatsoever is right in his eyes” — vows and free-will offerings which you dedicate because it is pleasing in your eyes to bring them, and not because of an obligation imposed upon you, such may you offer on Bamahs, but not sacrifices that are to be offered in consequence of an obligation (sin and guilt offerings) (Sifrei Devarim 65:4; Zevachim 117b).

YE SHALL NOT DO AFTER ALL THAT WE DO HERE THIS DAY, EVERY MAN WHATSOEVER IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, “they⁴⁷I.e., commentators. In our texts of Ibn Ezra this expression is missing. Ramban’s version, however, is correct, since Ibn Ezra himself later refutes that explanation. Therefore, it is obvious that he refers to an opinion previously quoted. have explained it [as follows]: Because they were journeying from stage to stage, [they brought no offerings from the time they left Mount Sinai until after the death of Aaron in the fortieth year after the exodus. Even after his death] a person could bring an offering at any stage as he wished; there were some who gave the firstling of their flock [to the priest] and others who did not give, since the commandment [to give the firstborn] is dependent on the Land.⁴⁸See my Hebrew commentary p. 399. [Hence the verse before us says that after arriving in the Land we are no longer to do whatever is right in the eyes of each individual.] But this is not my own opinion [continues Ibn Ezra]. Rather, the meaning of the verse is that they were not all G-d-fearing [and they sacrificed to the host of heaven; hence Moses warned them against continuing to do so in the Land of Israel]. And the reason Moses used the word ‘we’ [Ye shall not do after all that ‘we’ do — implying that he, too, participated in such transgressions] is because many commandments relating to the offerings apply only within the Land”⁴⁹Such as the heave-offering, and the tithes which apply only within the Land of Israel. He, therefore, included himself etc. [and not in the wilderness; hence, Moses himself had never fulfilled those commandments. He, therefore, included himself among the people]. This is Ibn Ezra’s language. But it is not correct, since it is out of context for the section to speak in terms of reproof [that they were sacrificing to the host of heaven] and to say to them now that they were not observing the commandments of G-d, every man doing what was right in his own eyes. [On the contrary, Verses 4-15 contain a positive discussion of the chosen place that awaited them in the Land of Israel.] And how could Moses our teacher say “We are committing sins!” Forbid it! Instead he should have said “You shall not do after all that ‘you’ have done to this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.” And what sense was there to include among the sins the commandments that depend on the Land?
Rather, the meaning of the verse is as follows: “When the Israelites were in the wilderness they were commanded to slaughter all their cattle and sheep as peace-offerings before the Tabernacle, but they would perform [the Service of the offerings] in whatever place the Tabernacle was [that is, wherever it halted rather than in a fixed location]. And if someone did not care to eat the meat of bullocks or sheep he was not at all obligated to bring an offering. He was also not obligated to bring firstlings, nor the tithe of cattle and the Second Tithe. Thus a person was not bound, ever to bring an offering to the Tabernacle as an obligation, and even on the festivals they were not obligated to come there.⁵⁰The pilgrimage on the three festivals depends on the place which the Eternal your G-d shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there. Since that condition was not fulfilled in the desert, they were not yet obligated to observe this commandment. For more on this matter see my Hebrew commentary, p. 399. So also in the wilderness, after the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the sacrificial fat of the peace-offering [on the altar], the owner might eat it wherever he wished because Scripture did not stipulate a location for it, and therefore they could eat [the peace-offerings both] within the camp and without. Thus there was nothing obligatory upon them in the matter of the offerings; instead every man did that which was right in his own eyes.⁵¹Judges 21:25. Therefore he commanded here that after [they would come to] the rest and [to] the inheritance they should not do so. Instead, they are obliged to come to a certain specific place chosen by G-d and bring there the offerings, the tithes, and the firstlings, and eat them there within the precinct before the Eternal. What our Rabbis have said⁵²Zebachim 117a. [based on the verse before us] concerning offerings that are not vowed or freely offered [for example, the obligatory Passover-offering], that they may not be offered on a bamah [a private altar set up by an individual, a practice that was permitted during certain periods prior to the erection of the Holy Temple],⁵³See Vol. IV, p. 180, Note 138. is an interpretation based on the redundancy of the verse, as explained in the last chapter of Tractate Zebachim,⁵²Zebachim 117a. [but the plain meaning of the verse is as we have explained above].

איש כל הישר בעיניו, in every location in the desert where we put up the Tabernacle after making camp we offer our sacrifices.

לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, “Do not do as we are in the habit of doing here this day;” Ibn Ezra writes that what Moses referred to here, according to the plain meaning of the text, as suggested by some commentators, is that the strict division between holy precincts and less holy precincts had been blurred in the desert due to the frequent need to break camp, and to journey. Accordingly, Moses would warn that such liberties as people took in the desert they will not be able to take once the people are settled on their land. Ibn Ezra does not agree with this explanation, but he feels that Moses refers to the people in the camp who were not so pious, not so observant, who took liberties with the sacrificial offerings after the death of Aaron. He tells these people that they must bring the firstborn of their animals to the priest as prescribed by Torah law. It is most unlikely that Moses included himself in the laxity practiced, even though he uses the word אנחנו, ”we,” when referring to people doing things that were not approved of. Nachmanides explains our verse almost completely different, i.e. Moses referring to restrictive rules that would be relaxed [in some respects, i.e. meat, in order to qualify as food, did not first have to be sanctified. Ed.] After the people were settled on their land. While in the desert, anyone wishing to eat meat, his own animal, had to first designate it as a sacrifice and bring it to the courtyard of the Tabernacle where it would be slaughtered. Seeing that the Tabernacle moved from site to site with the people, there was no fixed site where such offerings had to be presented. It was therefore assumed by them that as long as they offered such animals on an altar, say, next to their own tents, this would be all right. Not only that, but if someone did not feel the urge to eat meat, he did not have to bring any animals as sacrificial offerings at all. He therefore did not feel that he had to come to the Tabernacle even on the Holydays if he did not feel like eating any meat. A situation had arisen where the “man in the street” made his own judgments on such matters. Similarly, the impression had spread that as long as those who wanted to eat meat had performed the burning of the parts of the animal meant to be burned on the altar had been burned there and the blood sprinkled, no more had to be done, seeing that each family would have their own altar next to their home. Moses therefore warns that this was not at all what the situation would be like once they would be settled in their land. This is also what our sages had in mind when they said that it was general practice for the Israelites to offer their vows on private altars. [As opposed to the pilgrimages undertaken to the Temple where the requisite offerings for the festival would be offered. compare Zevachim 117. Historically, it is a fact that even under the most pious kings of the Kingdom of Yehudah, until about 100 years before the destruction of the first Temple, during the reign of Yoshiyahu, the practice of private altars on which people sacrificed voluntary offerings to Hashem had not been eradicated. It took over 900 years after Moses’ death to finally accomplish this Compare Chronicles II 34,3 Ed.] Our author, commenting on the above, questions the line in which Nachmanides claims that while in the desert the people had not been given permission to offer these private offerings near their respective tents instead of having to bring them to the Tabernacle. He claims that from the above-mentioned comment in the Talmud Zevachim it is clear that such permission did exist regarding offerings known as קדשים קלים, offerings of a relatively lower degree of sanctity, i.e. the ones that could be consumed in their tents by the owners. He concludes that what Nachmanides may have meant by the words “wherever they pleased,” was “within the encamp-ment,” which itself was “holy in the sense that the Shechinah rested over the entire camp all the time.

לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, “This verse addresses the problem of private altars which during the transitional 14 years of conquest and distribution of the land were still permitted as sites from which to present offerings, something which had been forbidden while the people were in the desert, seeing the Tabernacle was right in their midst and there was no need to travel in order to offer sacrifices in it.

When you cross the Yardein, etc. I.e., this verse, “You may not do,” does not refer to the previous verse, “You are to bring there (v. 6),” which discusses Shiloh. For if so, it would mean: “You may not do in Shiloh everything we do here today in the wilderness.” But it is impossible to say this, for the same sacrifices that were brought in the wilderness were also brought in Shiloh. Therefore we must say that, “You may not do,” refers to the above verse (11:31), “For you shall pass, etc.” This also proves what Rashi explained above (v. 6), “Your sacred offerings — obligatory shelamim- offerings [only in Shiloh and Jerusalem].” For Rashi explains here, “However, on a private altar you may not offer everything you offer at the Mishkon, etc.” If they brought obligatory shelamim-offerings in the Mishkon and they were also permitted to do so on a private altar, then one may offer on a private altar whatever was offered in the Mishkon. Yet in the verse it is written, “You may not do everything we do here today, etc.”

V. 8. ׳לא תעשון וגו. Wie aus Wajikra Kap. 17 erhellt, war auch in der Wüste jede Opferdarbringung außerhalb des שחוטי חוץ ,אהל מועד, verboten, ja, wie daselbst entwickelt, war, nach der allgemein adoptierten Lehre des ר׳ ישמעאל, während der ganzen Wanderung in der Wüste, seit Errichtung des Stiftzeltes, בשר תאוה, das Profanschlachten eines opferfähigen Tieres אסור, vielmehr musste ein jedes solches Tier als שלמים im אהל מועד auf den מזבח gebracht werden, worauf ja auch der Wortlaut unseres Kapitels, Verse 20 u. 21, hinweist. In Beziehung auf das Tempelheiligtum und die außerhalb desselben zu begehenden Handlungen war somit das Geschlecht der Wanderung in der Wüste weit beschränkter, als irgend eines der späteren Zeit. Das: איש כל הישר בעיניו kann daher unmöglich das Befugnisverhältnis dieser Zeit ausdrücken sollen, in welcher nichts weniger als איש כל הישר בעיניו gestattet war, und wird es daher auch von der Halacha Sebachim 114 a als Definierung einer mit Eintritt in das Land beginnenden Befugnis verstanden.

לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, “You are not to act as we are in the habit of doing here at this time;” the Torah connects the prohibition of offering sacrifices on private altars to the building of a central Temple; the reason is that such a Temple cannot be built until all the parts of the country have been conquered. Until such time the people would be afraid to absent themselves for longer periods from their homes for fear of encouraging attacks by the enemy. The Torah therefore links worship at a central Temple to feeling secure from attacks by potential enemies. Such a situation would not arise until four hundred years after the wars fought by Joshua, when we read in Samuel II 7,1 that David told the prophet Natan, that he felt the time had come to provide G-d with a permanent home (in Jerusalem). [We are told in Kings I 6,1 that Solomon’s Temple was not built until four hundred and eighty years after the Exodus from Egypt. David had told the prophet that he felt secure enough to undertake the building of a permanent Temple, seeing that he had vanquished all the enemies surrounding the land of Israel. While agreeing with that statement, the actual building was delayed so that a king who had not had to fight wars, i.e. his son Solomon, would be the symbol of peace, the symbol of G-d’s rule on earth.

Erwägen wir, dass das eigentliche Gebot, alle Opfer nach dem von Gott erwählten einen Orte und keines außerhalb desselben zu bringen, erst Verse 10 — 14 zum Ausspruch kommt, so werden wir Verse 6 u. 7 mehr nur als Charakterisierung und Zweckbestimmung der Ortserwählung begreifen, deren Bekundung zu harren und zu suchen uns (V. 5) geboten war. Im Gegensatz zu unserem Verhalten gegen das Heidentum, dessen heilige Örter und Embleme wir bis auf die letzte Spur aus der Erinnerung der Menschen in unserem Kreise vertilgen sollen (Verse 2 und 3), wird uns (Verse 4. —7) gesagt, dass wir nicht nur nichts, was Gottes Namen trägt, in der Dauer seines Vorhandenseins beeinträchtigen dürfen, sondern, dass wir der Kundgebung einer solchen nur durch göttliche Erwählung zu bestimmenden Namensstätte für unsere Genusses- und Tatenfreude vor Gott, selbst bevor sie noch erfolgt ist, entgegen harren sollen, und so der Namensstätte unseres Gottes selbst schon in der bloßen Erwartung, dem דרוש לשכנו, einen wirksamen Einfluss auf unsere Handlungsweise einräumen sollen.

איש כל הישר בעיניו, “everyone whatsoever was right in his eyes;” Rashi is at pains to make sure that we do not understand these words literally, but that it refers to offering sacrifices in his backyard, instead of bringing the animals concerned to the Tabernacle or its successor, such as Shiloh where a permanent structure, but without a solid roof, functioned as the central place of worship for over three hundred and fifty years. The fact that Rashi is correct is proved, when in verse fourteen, Moses spells out that all sacrifices will have to be offered in a place designated by G-d Himself, or they would not be welcome, and the person doing so would instead be punished with the most severe punishment available, karet, being excised posthumously from membership in the Jewish people. (Leviticus 17,9)

An dieses דרוש לשכנו schließt sich nun V. 8 und sagt: Während dieser Zeit der דרישה לשכנו und bis Gott durch Kundgebung seiner Gegenwart wieder für die im Lande sesshafte Nation also einen Mittelpunkt fixieren wird, wie dies während der Wanderzeit das in ihrer Mitte mit ihnen wandernde Tempelzelt gewesen, לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, dürft ihr an den nicht durch Gottes Wahl, sondern durch euer Belieben euch gewählten Opferstätten nicht alles das vollziehen, was wir heute hier, in der Wüste, in dem überall mit uns wandernden und Gottes Gegenwart bei seinem Gesetze in unserer Mitte bekundenden Tempelzelte vollziehen: sondern nur איש כל הישר בעיניו, wie die Stätte nur den Charakter eurer Wahl trägt, so könnt ihr auch nur Opfer eurer Wahl, eures Beliebens, נדרים ונדבות, nicht aber Pflichtopfer wie חטאות ואשמות darbringen, אמר להו משה לישראל כי עליהו לארץ ישות תקריבו חובות לא תקריבן (Sebachim daselbst; — siehe auch ספרי z. St.). Diese Beschränkung ist jedoch nur für איש, für den einzelnen; צבור, die Gesamtheit bringt jederzeit im משכן, wo es auch seine Stätte habe, alle קרבנות צבור wie im אהל מועד שבמדבר (Sebachim 18 a) oder קרבנות צבור שקבוע להם זמן nach סתם משנה (Megilla 9 b), der einzelne darf aber während einer solchen Übergangszeit selbst im במת צבור) משכן oder במה גדולה genannt), nur נדרים ונדבות darbringen (daselbst).