Kommentar zu Dewarim 12:14

באחד שבטיך [BUT IN THE PLACE WHICH THE LORD SHALL CHOOSE] IN ONE OF THY TRIBES — namely in the allotment of Benjamin (in whose territory the Temple stood). But above (v. 5) it states, “the place which the Lord … shall choose from all your tribes”? How can this be reconciled with that? In the following manner: when David bought the threshing-floor from Araunah the Jebusite (II Samuel 24:24) to build the Temple thereon, he collected money from all the tribes; however, the threshing-floor itself was situated in the territory of Benjamin (Sifrei Devarim 62:3).

אשר יבחר באחד שבטיך, "which He will choose amongst one of your tribes, etc." Moses counters the argument of those who want to belittle the idea that G'd's residence should be limited to the territory of a single tribe and who would therefore assign additional sites for the offering of sacrifices. The Torah says that this is out of the question.

כי אם במקום אשר יבחר ה' באחד שבטיך, “except in the place which the Lord will choose amongst one of your tribes.” The Torah speaks in general terms without specifying in whose tribal territory this place will be located. It turned out to be the territory of Binyamin (Zevachim 54). In verse 8 in our chapter the wording had been: מכל שבטיכם, “from among all your tribes.” How can we reconcile these two verses? When David purchased the threshing ground of Ornan the Jebusite, the site on which the Temple would be built, he raised the money for this from all the tribes, a total equivalent to six hundred shekel (in) gold (Chronicles I 21,25). On the other hand, the amount paid for that site described in Samuel II 24,24 was only 50 shekel silver. How do we account for this contradiction? The answer is that the 600 shekels must be divided into 12, (the number of tribes). The Book of Samuel informs us that each tribe contributed an amount of 50 shekel to the purchase of the site on which the Temple was built. The reason the number 50 is mentioned at all is that David personally handed over the share of the tribe of Yehudah consisting of 50 shekels.

In Binyamin’s portion, etc. Re”m writes: This follows the viewpoint that Jerusalem was [included with all the land] apportioned to the tribes, and it fell in Binyamin’s portion. But according to the viewpoint that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, we must say that “Of one of your tribes,” refers to Shiloh. But to me it seems: Even according to the viewpoint that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, the site of the Beis Hamikdash was [nevertheless] apportioned to Binyamin, as it is written (below 33:12), “Between his shoulders it [i.e. the Beis Hamikdash] shall reside.” But the [rest of] Jerusalem was not apportioned.

V. 14. ושם תעשה וגו׳ שם תעלה וגו׳ כי אם במקום וגו׳. Es werden hier, nach Sebachim 107 b, die vorgeschriebenen Opferhandlungen in zwei Kategorien gefasst, העלאה: הקטרת איברים ואימורים, und שחיטה וזריקת הדם :עשיה und שחט וזרק והעלה בחוץ חייב שתים. Das Suchen der Gottesnähe mit dem Auf- und Hingeben unseres seelischen inneren Wesens, unseres נפש, oder das Suchen der Gottesnähe mit allem unseren Wollen und Vollbringen, ist festgebannt auf die einzige Stätte des dem göttlichen Gesetze geweihten Heiligtums. Nur das göttliche Gesetz hebt unsere Seele zu Gott und nur das göttliche Gesetz gibt unserem Wollen und Vollbringen Weihe und Bedeutung, und das hier Verse 13 u. 14 für ewige Zeiten niedergelegte Verbot jeder Opferhandlung außer der auf Morias Höhe dem göttlichen Gesetze für immer geweihten Stätte, macht durch seine auch heute noch uns negativ bindende Kraft selbst die öde Stätte unseres einstigen und dereinstigen Heiligtums zu dem unsichtbaren geistig hohen Mittelpunkt, von dem aus das göttliche Gesetz mit unzerreißbaren Banden alle treuen Söhne des Gottesvolkes zur geistigen Einheit umschlingt und in seinen Trümmern an den Zerstreuten die Meisterschaft seiner Geister und Herzen gewinnenden Kraft herrlicher bewährt hat, als in den glänzendsten Tagen seines einstigen Bestehens, כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו (Jirmija 17, 12).

Above, however, it is said, “of all your tribes,”, etc. The verse above must be dealing [in addition to Shiloh] also with the Beis Hamikdash. For it is written (v. 5), “Rather at the place that Adonoy, your God, chooses,” and we do not find that Hashem chose any place besides Jerusalem. The other places such as Gilgal, Givon, Nov, and Shiloh were chosen by the Israelites on their own. Perforce, “Rather at the place,” must be dealing with Shiloh and the Beis Hamikdash. And the term לשכנו (His presence) [which refers to Shiloh] should be understood as ולשכנו (and His presence). It is a new and independent statement, and is not connected to what precedes it, “that Adonoy, your God, chooses,” which refers to the Beis Hamikdash. And therefore, Rashi’s question [“Above, however...”] fits well. [Otherwise, above would refer only to Shiloh, while here refers to the Beis Hamikdash, and there would be no contradiction].

That is that He commanded us to offer all of the sacrifices in the [Temple]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "there you shall bring up your burnt-offerings and there you shall do" (Deuteronomy 12:14). And because they wanted to confirm the prohibition not to offer any of all the sacrifices outside [of it], they took the proof from His saying, "lest you bring up your burnt-offerings [in any place]" (Deuteronomy 12:12). And they said in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 70:5-6), "This tells me only of burnt-offerings. From where [do we know the same is true for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there you shall do all that I command you' (Deuteronomy 12:14). But I still would say that only burnt-offerings are subject to a positive and a negative commandment. From where [do we know the same is true for] other offerings? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and there you shall do'" - as we will explain in its place, when we speak about the prohibition (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 89). And the content of their saying, "burnt-offerings are subject to a positive commandment and a negative commandment," is that one who offers a burnt-offering outside would be transgressing a positive and a negative commandment. Indeed, the negative commandment is His saying, "lest you bring up your burnt-offerings"; and for the positive commandment, it is His saying, "there you shall bring up." [And their saying,] "Other offerings would only be a positive commandment," is meaning to say, His saying, "and there you shall do," by itself. But it is explained that even for other offerings, one also transgresses a negative commandment, along with a positive commandment. And it has already been explained at the end of Zevachim (Zevachim 119b) that all offerings that are sacrificed outside [are a violation of] a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable excision on their account. Behold it has been made clear to you from all that I said that His saying, "and there you shall do," is a full-fledged positive commandment. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 18.)