Kommentar zu Dewarim 17:16

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

HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY HORSES TO HIMSELF — “except what he needs for his carriage, in order that he cause not the people to return to Egypt, because horses were obtained from Egypt, as it is said, And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty.”¹¹¹I Kings 10:29. This is Rashi’s language. But I have this difficulty regarding it, for the Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi at the end of Tractate Sanhedrin:¹¹²Yerushalmi Sanhedrin X, 9. — On Yerushalmi see Leviticus, p. 192, Note 44. “You may not return there for settlement, but you may return for business, for goods, and for conquest of the land.” And so, if the king should send men and buy horses and chariots there, it would be considered “trading” and would be permissible! It is then possible that Scripture admonishes [the king] not to increase his numbers of horses even from his own Land, or from the land of Shinar, or by way of permissible trading, in order that he should not put his trust in his chariots, because they are many, and in his horsemen, because they are exceedingly mighty,¹¹³Isaiah 31:1. but his trust shall be in the Name of the Eternal.¹¹⁴See Jeremiah 17:7. Then he admonishes the king not to cause the people to return to Egypt, to have his servants and people there as overseers of cattle dwelling in the cities for the chariots¹¹⁵I Kings 9:19. On Solomon’s conduct in this matter see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 330. to the end that he should multiply horses, similar to what is said of Solomon, and all the store-cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots etc.¹¹⁵I Kings 9:19. On Solomon’s conduct in this matter see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 330. And thus he had in Egypt, as it is said, And the horses which Solomon had, were brought out of Egypt; also out of Keveh, the king’s merchants buying them etc.¹¹⁶I Kings 10:28. for no one was allowed to export horses from Egypt without permission from the Egyptian king and they paid him a tax for them. To Solomon, however, Pharaoh gave the right to export horses, meaning that he could take them out at will, and he could transfer that right to whomever he wished and keep the tax. He also had merchants stationed in Egypt buying all horses and sending to their lord [Solomon] those that he wanted and selling the others to kings of other countries. Thus it is said and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram, did they bring them out by their means,¹¹¹I Kings 10:29. that is to say, they took them out through Solomon’s merchants, and it was to him that they gave the tax.

רק לא ירבה לו סוסים, “only he shall not acquire for himself too many horses, etc.” The meaning of the restrictive word רק is inserted to teach that although by adopting the monarchy as your mode of government, something which makes you more like the nations of the world, and I have given My approval, there are certain tools used by monarchs the world over to reinforce their power that such a Jewish king must not use. They are: 1) not to amass too many horses. It is a boast of gentile kings to view their military strength in the number of horses and chariots they own. Nachmanides questions this rationale, basing himself on the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10,9) in which possible return by Jews to Egypt is discussed and the prevailing view is that whereas it is forbidden for Jews to settle in Egypt, if they visit there as part of their business dealings this is quite in order. Therefore, if the king sends a delegation to Egypt to acquire horses, this is viewed as a commercial activity, and is permitted. He adds further, it is possible to explain our verse as a warning for the king not to amass too many horses even if they have been born and bred in the land of Israel. The definition of the words דרך סחורה, “a commercial transaction,” in Nachmanides’ view, means that the king must not acquire these horses because he considers himself armed superbly by owning a cavalry, but that the purpose in acquiring them is not for war but for peaceful commercial pursuits. The king’s actions must reflect that he places his trust in Hashem, not in man-made defensive or offensive weaponry. Moses follows the warning about the amassing of horses by the king, by a warning not to lead his people back to Egypt (already mentioned in Exodus 14,13), i.e. he is not to employ Egyptian servants at his court, in his army. The thrust of the whole paragraph is that Jews, who when first in Egypt were discouraged by Joseph to serve as officers in Pharaoh’s army, should retain their primary vocations, just as then they had been cattle-herders, now they would become farmers on their own land.

רק לא ירבה לו סוסים, “only he shall not amass for himself horses, etc.” The Torah now proceeds to list differences between Gentile kings’ prerogatives and those of a Jewish king. Jewish kings must not make the acquisition of many horses and chariots their policy. Neither must a Jewish king amass gold and silver or even wives. Gentile kings see in the acquisition of these possessions an end in itself and treat these possessions as the measure of their success instead of as something secondary as Jewish kings are asked to do. A Jewish king is to make preoccupation with the Torah his principal concern. This is why the Torah not only demands that he write (2) Torah scrolls but also that he read in it daily; this will teach him reverence for the Lord (verse 19) and will ensure that he remains on the throne for many years.
Sanhedrin 21 interprets the words “that he do not amass many horses” to mean that he should not amass more horses than he needs for transportation for himself and his soldiers. He should not have a selection of chariots at his disposal to ride in and alternate between them. The reason for these restrictions is spelled out, i.e. not to bring the people back to Egypt, the country from which horses were exported in those days. We read in Kings I 10,29 that the cost of a chariot imported from Egypt in those days was 600 silver shekels whereas the price of a horse was 150 shekels.

Except as required for his riding entourage, etc. Because it is written “for himself,” this implies that he may not acquire for himself an abundance of horses just to stand idly by [i.e., without purpose]. But what is required for his needs is permitted, i.e. “as required for his riding entourage.”

V. 16. רק לא ירבה לו וגו׳ dieses רק steht in beschränkendem Sinn zu תשים עליך, womit der Nation geboten ist, ihrem Könige eine bedeutende Machtvollkommenheit über sich einzuräumen, שתהא אימתו עליך. Dem tritt nun רק gegenüber und legt dem Könige die Pflicht der Selbstbeschränkung auf, und zwar zunächst hinsichtlich jener Momente, die, nach allen Erfahrungen der Zeiten, die Klippen gebildet haben, an welchen die Tugend von Herrschern scheiterte und das Glück ihrer Völker in Trümmer ging. Es sind dies: die Leidenschaften zu Kriegsruhm, Weibern und Geld.

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

למען הרבות סוס, “in order to amass quantities of horses.” In Kings I 9,19 the prophet Jeremiah already records that even a wise king such as Solomon ignored this warning of the Torah. He had Egyptian trainers living in the cities specially built for training cavalry horses and did not draft Jews for the military, although he employed them as “forced labour” to work in the quarries in Lebanon to hew and transport the stones needed for building the Temple.

The source of supply for horses, etc. And since horses come from there, the king would certainly send his servants there so that they should always be there in order to send quality horses. And this would result in them returning to Egypt and dwelling there. You might ask Smag’s question regarding the many Jewish communities that dwell there, etc. He discusses this at length and answers in the name of R. Eliezer of Metz that when the Torah said, “You are not to proceed to return along this route again,” the Torah only forbade this route, i.e. from Eretz Yisroel to Egypt, but from other countries it is permitted. This is correct.

RAK’ (ONLY) — [‘Only’ he shall not multiply horses to himself]. The purport of the word only is to state, “although you will set a king over you like all the nations that are around you — only he shall not be like their kings. He should not multiply horses as they do,” for the main desire of kings is to increase horses and horsemen for themselves.

לא ירבה לו סוסים. Das Pferd war das eigentliche Tier des Krieges, also dass in der Erzählung von Schlachten überall Ross und Reiter in dem Vordergrund stehen und zur Kriegsbereitschaft in erster Linie eine bedeutende Anzahl Pferde gehörte (vergl. Dewarim 20. 1; — Pharaos Heer Schmot 14; — Josua 11, 4; — Richter 5, 22; — Kön. I. 22. 4; — Kön. II. 7, 6; — Jirmija 51, 27; — Ezechiel 39, 20 — und sonst so häufig. Daher auch Prov. 21, 31; Psalm 39, 17 u. 147, 10 etc. etc.). Das Halten einer großen Anzahl Pferde und eine unbeschränkte Vermehrung derselben ist daher gleichbedeutend mit Halten einer großen Kriegesmacht.

וה' אמר לכם, “seeing that Hashem has already told you., etc.,” the word אמר, though written in the past tense here, must be understood as if it had been written in the present tense. Until permission had been given by G’d to appoint a king, the Israelites could not possibly have been led back to Egypt by such a king. Another way of understanding our verse is that Moses now reveals what G’d had already told him a long time ago, but seeing that it had not been relevant, Moses had not yet told the people about that. According to our sages (Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5,1) the reason for this prohibition is that both the Egyptians and the Canaanites were extremely anti G’d the Creator, in their whole religious mores, as well as in their sexually perverted values. (Compare Leviticus 18,2) There was little fear that the Israelites would copy the Canaanites, seeing they were about to wipe out those tribes. This left the Egyptians as a potentially very bad cultural influence. G’d therefore prohibited close relations between our two nations, something that would be bound to develop if Jews were allowed to settle there.

SINCE THE ETERNAL HATH SAID UNTO YOU. The meaning thereof is that “since G-d is telling you¹¹⁷Ramban interprets the verse as if it were said in the present tense, “G-d is telling you.” The word used in the verse, amar (He said) is in past tense. Nevertheless Ramban is compelled to define it in the present tense because we find no preceding text wherein G-d prohibited the return to Egypt. Hence we must interpret the word amar in the present tense, “since G-d is saying to you …” Further, Ramban will explain amar in the ordinary past tense. that you are henceforth not to return by the way of Egypt.” Similarly, as the Eternal thy G-d ‘commanded’ thee¹¹⁸Above, 5:16. which means “as He is thus commanding you.” Or it may be that the expression He hath said unto you means “He had said to me to command you,” similar to the verse, And Moses said, ‘Thus saith the Eternal: About midnight etc.’¹¹⁹Exodus 11:4. And by way of our Rabbis,¹²⁰Yerushalmi Succah V, 1. See Vol. II, p. 184 where Ramban refers to this subject. the verse, for whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more¹²¹Exodus 14:13. constitutes a [negative] commandment [for all times], and Moses is thus here reminding them that the Eternal ‘hath said’ unto you [at the Red Sea] that ye shall henceforth return no more that way. I have already explained it.¹²¹Exodus 14:13. And the reason for this commandment is because the Egyptians and Canaanites were wicked and sinners against the Eternal exceedingly,¹²²Genesis 13:13. just as He said, After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan etc.¹²³Leviticus 18:3. Now the Eternal desired that the Israelites not learn from their deeds and so He ordered that all living things, from among the Canaanites be destroyed, saying, They shall not dwell in thy Land,¹²⁴Exodus 23:33. and he warned with respect to the Egyptians that we are not to settle there in their land.

ולא ישיב העם מצרימה וגו׳ וד׳ אמר לכם וגו׳. Wenn hier einfach die Rückkehr nach Ägypten verboten sein sollte, so würde dies wohl gelautet haben: וד׳ אמר לכם לא לשוב בדרך הזה עוד ;תשובו legt offenbar einen Nachdruck auf den Weg oder die Weise der Rückkehr. Auch Kap. 28, 68 heißt es: והשיבך וגו׳ בדרך אשר אמרתי לך וגו׳, und bemerken wir zugleich, dass in diesen Stellen unter דרך nicht wohl der konkrete Weg verstanden sein kann, den sie beim Auszuge aus Ägypten nach Palästina gegangen, da die letzte Stelle von einer Rückkehr nach Ägypten zu Schiffe spricht. Ferner: ׳לא תוסיפון לשוב וגו heißt ja nicht einfach: ihr sollt nicht nach Ägypten zurückkehren, sondern setzt voraus, dass sie schon einmal nach Ägypten gegangen, ja wiederholt gegangen waren, und nicht auf den jetzigen Auszug aus Ägypten, sondern auf diese früheren Wanderungen nach Ägypten blickt offenbar das untersagende Wort hin: לא תוסיפון לשוב ihr seid sonst nach Mizrajim gegangen und wieder gegangen: das sollt ihr nicht ,וגו׳ mehr. In der Tat war ja Ägypten von den Anfängen der jüdischen Geschichte an ein Land der Zuflucht für die Bewohner Palästinas. Abraham wandert nach Ägypten, weil in Palästina Hungersnot war (Bereschit 12, 10), Jizchak will aus gleichem Grunde dortin und wird nur durch ausdrückliche Weisung davon zurückgehalten (daselbst 26, 2). Die ganze Niederlassung Israels in Ägypten war ja durch die Hungersnot in Palästina veranlasst, welche Jakobs Söhne wiederholt nach Ägypten wandern ließ, um dort Nahrungsmittel zu kaufen. Ägyptens natürlicher Bodenreichtum gab ihm daher ein Übergewicht über andere Länder, und ließ diese, namentlich Palästina, in Abhängigkeit von ihm erscheinen.

לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך הזה עוד dürfte demgemäss sagen: ihr sollt nie wieder, wie ihr in der Vergangenheit getan, von Palästina nach Ägypten gehen, um Gesamtbedürfnisse, die euer Land nicht befriedigt, von dort aus zu versorgen. Ihr sollt euch nicht in Abhängigkeit von Ägypten bringen. Ein jüdischer König, der seinen Stolz darin setzte, eine große Kriegsmacht zu halten, versündigte sich doppelt. Einmal direkt: sein Beruf liegt auf einem anderen Gebiete. Und dann indirekt: er macht sich und sein Volk von Ägypten abhängig. Er kann sein berittenes Kriegsheer nur von dort aus mit Pferden versorgen. Wie ihm Ägypten die Pferdeausfuhr versagte, ist er geschlagen. Er muss immer ein gutes Einvernehmen und einen regen Verkehr mit Ägypten unterhalten, und mit der Pferdeeinfuhr von dort wandern auch ägyptische Staats- und Lebensanschauungen ins Land. In der Schilderung des namenlosen nationalen Jammers und Elends, das Israels wartet, wenn es in dem Lande seiner Bestimmung dieser Bestimmung untreu wird, bildet Kap. 28, 68 den Schluss des ganzen Bildes, bezeichnet somit die tiefste Stufe der Verlassenheit und des Elends: והשיבך ד׳ מצרים באניות בדרך אשר אמרתי לך לא תסיף עוד לראתה והתמכרתם שם לאיביך לעבדים ולשפחות ואין קונה Gott sie auf Umwegen, zu Schiffe, Ägypten als letzte Zuflucht zur Fristung ihres Daseins wird aufsuchen lassen, um sich dort selbst zu Sklaven vergebens anzubieten! Während sie in befriedigter Unabhängigkeit in ihrem Lande hätten leben sollen und nie wieder die Befriedigung irgend eines nationalen Bedürfnisses in Ägypten hatten suchen sollen, wird ihr Land so aufhören sie zu tragen, und sie werden in ein solches Elend geraten, dass der Sklavenzustand, aus welchem Gott sie befreit hat, ihnen wieder als ein wünschenswertes Ziel erscheinen wird, und sie — nach Jahrhunderten — sich wieder ihren alten Herren zu Sklaven anbieten und von ihnen verschmäht werden werden!!

Mit unserer Auffassung, dass zunächst nur ein die Abhängigkeit und Unterordnung Palästinas zu Ägypten bezeugendes und bewirkendes Gehen nach Ägypten untersagt wäre, dürfte denn auch der von הגהות מימוניות zu הל׳ מלכים V, 7 zitierte ירושלמי übereinstimmen, demzufolge nicht ein gewöhnlicher Geschäftsverkehr לסחורה ולפרגמטיא mit Ägypten, auch nicht eine etwaige Eroberung, לכבוש הארץ, sondern nur eine Rückkehr zur friedlichen Niederlassung daselbst, לישיבה, verboten, und zwar nach רבי אליעזר ממיץ (siehe Misrachi z. St.) eben nur von Palästina aus verboten gewesen wäre. So lange der jüdische Staat in Palästina bestand, war eine Auswanderung aus Palästina nach Ägypten die positivste eben hier verbotene Wiederholung der früheren Einwanderungen nach Ägypten. Darum war die Niederlassung der Juden in Alexandrien zur Zeit des zweiten Tempels eine offenbare Übertretung dieses Verbotes (Sucka 51 b). Mit Untergang des jüdischen Staats wäre eine Rückkehr jüdischer Exulanten nach Ägypten nicht verboten, wie denn in der Tat seit Jahrhunderten sich zahlreiche jüdische Gemeinden im ägyptischen Lande niedergelassen haben.

וד׳ אמר לכם וגו׳ das Verbot war bereits durch Mosche dem Volke überbracht und wurde nur seine schriftliche Fixierung der Gelegenheit dieses Königsgesetzes vorbehalten. Das: כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום לא תספו לראתם עוד עד עולם (Schmot 14, 13) erscheint nach Fassung und Zusammenhang als Verheißung und nicht als Verbot.