Commento su Deuteronomio 18:25

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).

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:¹³³Sifre, Shoftim 164. See Vol. II, pp. 163-164 where Ramban refers to this subject briefly and makes a short reference to Rashi’s text before us. He will also refer to it further on. ‘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.’¹³⁴“Seven.” In our text of Rashi: “five.” The “seven” in Ramban’s text of Rashi is not in conflict with the “five,” as Rashi continues, because the intention of the Sifre is to arrive at a total of “ten nations” whose lands were given by G-d to Abraham — five in the land of Canaan, Sihon and Og and the eastern side of the Jordan, and three to be given to Israel in the future. The figure “seven” stated by Ramban, is thus used merely because it is mentioned elsewhere. 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;’¹³⁴“Seven.” In our text of Rashi: “five.” The “seven” in Ramban’s text of Rashi is not in conflict with the “five,” as Rashi continues, because the intention of the Sifre is to arrive at a total of “ten nations” whose lands were given by G-d to Abraham — five in the land of Canaan, Sihon and Og and the eastern side of the Jordan, and three to be given to Israel in the future. The figure “seven” stated by Ramban, is thus used merely because it is mentioned elsewhere. 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:¹³⁵This was Klonimus ben Shabethai, one of the great Italian Rabbis, who came to the community of Worms sometimes after the year 4825 (1065). His writings are often quoted by the Rabbis of the school of Rashi. See Sefer Ravyah by A. Aptowitzer, pp. 393-394. 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,¹³⁶Exodus 13:2. — Ibid., Verse 5 (Vol. II, pp. 163-164). 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 change¹³⁷Ibid., Verse 5. 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 there.¹³⁶Exodus 13:2. — Ibid., Verse 5 (Vol. II, pp. 163-164).

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.

Whether physically sound or blemished. Otherwise, why does the Torah write “the entire tribe of Levi” after it had written “the kohanim, the Levites” beforehand? Therefore this must be to include “whether physically sound, etc.” You might ask: Why does one need to exclude the blemished [from inheritance]? Above in parshas Tzav (Vayikra 6:11) it is written, “Every male descendant of Aharon may eat it,” and Rashi explains, “‘Every male,’ and even the blemished, etc.” i.e., they too receive portion in the sacrifices. And [if so], it is obvious that they are excluded from inheritance because they are given a portion in the offerings for this [very] reason. The answer is that the owners of extra-Sanctuary items such as terumah and bikkurim, the firstborn, challah, and the forelimb, etc. have tovas hano’ah in their offerings, i.e. they can give them to any kohein they choose, and they usually give these items to physically sound kohanim who can perform the sacrificial service and not to blemished kohanim who are not able to perform the sacrificial service. Therefore one might have thought that they take a portion in the land, and because of this one needs a [Scriptural] exclusion.

Kap. 18. V. 1. Im Vorhergehenden war die Stellung der Gesetzesautoritäten und des Königs im Volke besprochen, daran schließt sich nun das Gesetzliche über die Stellung der Priester im Volke. Dass ihnen, sowie dem ganzen Stamm Levi, kein חלק ונחלה kein Anteil an den der Nation als solcher zufallenden Gütern, kein Anteil am Lande und an Kriegsbeute werden sollte, war schon früher wiederholt ausgesprochen, ebenso das ד׳ הוא נחלתו, dass ihre ganze irdische Existenz auf ihre Wirksamkeit für Gott und das Heiligtum seines Gesetzes hingewiesen sei. Es fanden demgemäß auch bereits (Wajikra Kap. 22 und Bamidbar Kap. 18) die מתנות כהונה, die Priesterspenden ihre Besprechung, welche ihnen als Vertretern und Dienern dieses Gesetzesheiligtums zufallen sollten. Es sind dies aber sämtlich wie בכור ,חלה ,תרומה ,בכורים בשר חטאת ואשם ,חזה ושוק ,חרם etc, solche Spenden, die direkt sich als Weihungen an Gott und sein Heiligtum darstellen, welche aber indirekt von Gott ihnen als den Dienern seines Heiligtums überwiesen sind, es sind קדשים, Heiligtümer höheren und niederen Grades, von denen die Auffassung in weiterem Sinne gilt, dass כהנים משולחן גבוה קזכו dass sie den Priestern von dem "Tische des Höheren" zum Genusse werden.

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].

חלק A PORTION — i.e. in the spoil that is taken in battle (Sifrei Devarim 163:2),

This refers to the extra-Sanctuary sacred items, etc. I.e. sanctified items brought from the outside. And what are they? Rashi explains, “The terumah-gifts and the tithes.”

Mit dem Einzuge in das Land tritt aber eine dezentralisierende Entfernung des Volkes von dem Heiligtume ein, eine Veränderung, die ja in dem היתר בשר תאוה, in der Gestattung nichtgeopferten Fleisches (Kap. 12, 20 f.) eine hervortretende Folge hatte. Auch für die Priester war diese bevorstehende Veränderung von bedeutsamer Folge. Während sie in den Jahren der Wanderung in der Wüste den engen Kreis um das Heiligtum bildeten und dort ihre Stelle hatten, sollten sie im Lande dem Volke in seiner dezentralisierenden Entfernung vom Heiligtum folgen, und damit die zweite Seite ihrer priesterlichen Wirksamkeit, die Vertretung des Gesetzes und seiner Lehre mitten im Volksleben, erst ganz eigentlich aמtreten. Es setzt das Gesetz voraus, dass immer nur ein Teil der כהנים zur Funktion im Heiligtum an dessen Zentralstätte anwesend sein, die anderen aber zerstreut im Lande mitten unter dem Volke wohnen und nur von Zeit zu Zeit zum Dienste des Heiligtums herauf kommen würden (siehe Verse 6 — 8). Diese ihre Wirksamkeit inmitten des Volkslebens war eigentlich ein Ausfluss ihres Levitenberufes; sie waren die Elite der Leviten (vergl. Wajikra S. 476), sie werden daher überhaupt im Hinblick hierauf gern הכהנים הלוים, ja, bei besonderer Besprechung dieses Verhältnisses (Verse 6 — 8) geradezu הלוי genannt.

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.

ונחלה AND INHERITANCE — in the land (Sifrei Devarim 163:3).

This refers to the inheritance of the remaining ones. Because the Torah already said at the beginning, “They will not have, the kohanim etc. a portion or an inheritance, etc.,” and they [the Sifrei cited by Rashi] explained, “an inheritance,” refers to a portion in the inheritance of the Land, [the Sifrei] is forced to expound regarding this verse, “But he will have no territory,” [that] “this refers to the inheritance of the remaining ones, etc.” But Rashi who explains “but he will have no territory” according to its plain meaning, [that “they did not receive a complete inheritance”], opines that even though the Torah began [by saying], “They will not have — the kohanim etc. a portion, etc.,” it repeats it and concludes with this [same statement]. (Re”m)

Aus dieser ihrer Stellung inmitten des Volkslebens heraus wird ihnen hier nun ein direkter Anteil vom "Volkstisch" als משפט הכהנים, als Priesterrecht zuerkannt: זרוע לחיים וקיבה, eine Spende, die unter dem gesetzlichen Namen "מתנות" überhaupt verstanden wird, und die nicht als eine durch Vermittlung des Heiligtums, sondern als direkte "vom Volke dem Priester" als solchem zukommende Spende zu begreifen ist. Das Tier, von welchem diese Teile dem כהן werden, ist חולין, ist בשר תאוה, ist eben jener Fleischgenuss, der erst mit der Dezentralisierung des Volkes statthaft wurde, und es sind diese מתנות somit die charakteristischen Spenden an die Priester in der Zeit der Dezentralisierung und in ihrer Stellung mitten in dem von dem Heiligtum räumlich losgelösten Volksleben. Diesem Volksleben sollen sie כהנים in konkretester Wirklichkeit sein, sollen ihm durch Lehre und Beispiel die "Richtung" (כון) auf das Gesetz und die von ihm gesteckten Ziele und Wege wahren. Sich und ihnen spricht das Volk durch diese Anteile von seinem Tisch diese Bestimmung seiner Priester in seiner Mitte mahnend aus, indem es seine Tat (זרוע), sein Wort (לחיים) und sein Genussesleben (קיבה) dem כהן übergibt und mit dieser Übergabe zugleich des Priesters Tisch versorgt.

'אשי ה THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE LORD — the holy things brought into the Temple (Sifrei Devarim 163:4),

“And the inheritance of the remaining ones” adds that of the Keinites. Rashi explains: The Holy One Blessed Is He, promised Avraham that He would give his seed ten nations. He gave them seven now, and in the future he will give them the Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni.

Und wie mit diesen Spenden von seinem Tische das Volk seines Priesters Tisch zu versorgen hat, so tritt mit ראשית הגז, mit einer Erstlingsspende von seiner Schur an das Volk endlich auch die Mahnung heran, seine Priester in den Stand zu setzen, sich bürgerlich anständig zu kleiden, damit ihre äußere Erscheinung inmitten des Volkslebens der von ihnen zu pflegenden Wirksamkeit keinen Eintrag tue.

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 the death of Joshua — for this reason it (Scripture) mentions (alludes to) the five tribes separately and to the seven separately.

“But he will have no territory” — this refers to the inheritance of five, etc. Rabbeinu Tam explains that there are five brothers from the same mother, Reuven, Shimon, Yehudah, Yissachar, Zevulun; [and] because they come from the same mother, one needs an extra exclusion [to prevent the Levites from having a portion in the Land].

Aus allem obigen ist von selbst einleuchtend, weshalb die Bestimmungen hinsichtlich der מתנות und ראשית הגז erst in diesem Kompendium für den Einzug ins Land schriftlich niedergelegt werden. Ihre Bedeutsamkeit tritt eben erst mit diesem Ereignis ins Leben.

Auch diese wie alle מתנות כהונה sind übrigens lediglich allgemeine Verpflichtung gegen den Priesterstamm im allgemeinen. Keinem einzelnen Priester steht ein persönlicher Anspruch darauf zu. Der Verpflichtete kann seine Pflichtspende einem jeden Priester seiner Wahl zuwenden, bei der er sich nur von der durch Gesinnung und Wandel zu betätigenden Würdigkeit des Bezugsberechtigten leiten zu lassen hat, טובת הנאה לבעלים (Bamidbar 5, 10), מנת הכהנים והלוים למען יחזקו בתורת ד׳ (Cron. 1I. 31, 4), כל המחזיק בתורת ד׳ יש לו מנת וכל שאינו מחזיק בתורת ד׳ אין לו מנת (Chulin 130 b תוספו׳ daselbst), und: כל כהן שאינו מודה בעבודה אין לו חלק בכהונה (Chulin 132 a; siehe Wajikra 7, 33).

כל שבט לוי ist mehr Parenthese: wie der ganze levitische Stamm; denn Gegenstand der hier eingeleiteten Gesetzbestimmung sind nur die חלק — .כהנים: an der Kriegsbeute, ונחלה .(ספרי) בזה: an dem zur Verteilung kommenden Lande. ׳אלו :אשי ד קדשי מקדש, die von den Opfern den כהנים zufallenden Teile. קדשי גבול :ונחלתו, die außerhalb des מקדש Gott zugewandten und dadurch geheiligten Güter wie תרומה, חלה usw. (ספרי).

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, “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, “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, “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.

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.]

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).

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 gates¹³⁸Above, 12:21. [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 Aaron¹³⁹Numbers 18:9. [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.¹⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 14. See Leviticus 27:28. But the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw, and the first of the fleece¹⁴¹Verse 4. [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 priests¹⁴²Numbers 5:8. 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].¹³⁹Numbers 18:9. Thus they have said:¹⁴³Sifre, Korach 117. “The first part of them¹⁴⁴Numbers 18:12. — this refers to the first of the fleece. Which they give¹⁴⁴Numbers 18:12. — this refers to the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.¹⁴⁵This interpretation is evidently based on the fact [as explained above] that in this particular priestly gift the commandment consists solely in “giving” it, but otherwise no sanctity attaches thereto. Unto the Eternal¹⁴⁴Numbers 18:12. — this refers to the dough-offering.”¹⁴⁶Of the dough-offering it is said, ye shall set apart a portion for a gift ‘unto the Eternal’ (ibid., 15:19). If so, this also is an explanatory commandment [and not a new one].
Based on a Midrash [a homiletic explanation] the Sages have said¹⁴⁷Chullin 134b. [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;¹⁴⁸Numbers 25:7. the two cheeks because of his prayer, as it is said, Then stood up Phinehas and prayed etc.;¹⁴⁹Psalms 106:30. the maw because of what it states, and he thrust both of them through etc. and the woman through her body.”¹⁵⁰Numbers 25:8. 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 Midrash that the merit that was destined [to be Phinehas’] was alluded to [in that section], and [G-d] rewarded the entire tribe for the merit of Phinehas’ when he [Phinehas] earned the privilege of being a priest with them.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁵¹The Guide of the Perplexed III, 39. that the cheeks [are given to the priests] because they are the first part of the body [of the animal], the shoulder is the first of the extremities of the body, and the maw is the first of the inwards, for the first of them all is given to the ministers of the Most High in His honor.

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.

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.”

But not from the kohanim. Kohanim are exempt from having to give the gifts from their animals to another kohein. There is an uncertainty whether Levites are included in “the people” and [therefore we apply the rule that] the burden of proof is upon the person who wants to remove something from his fellow. Therefore they are exempt from giving but if people took [these gifts from them], they do not have to return [them].

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, The Pidyon Haben procedure: The father recites two blessings, על פדיון הבן and שהחיינו and gives 5 selaim to the priest. The priest pronounces the blessing over the cup of wine, i.e. בורא פרי הגפן when a firstborn is redeemed; he pronounces the blessing over the myrtle branch, בורא עצי בשמים, (during the same ceremony) and he also recites the benediction containing the words אשר קדש עובר במעי אמו ולארבעים יום חלק אבריו מאתים וארבעים ושמונה אברים, ואחר כך נפח בו נשמה שנאמר: ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים (Genesis 2,7) עור ובשר הלבישו ובעצמות וגדים סככו (Job 10,11). וצוה לו מאכל ומשתה דבש וחלב להתענג, וזימן לו שני מלאכים לשמרו בתוך מעי אמו שנאמר (Job 10,12) חיים וחסד עשית עמדי ופקדך שמרה רוחי. [The above version is found on page 330/331 in פדיון הבן כהלכתו based on versions used in the period of the Geonim. Ed.]
The translation of the long benediction is as follows: (after the customary introductory formula) “Who has sanctified the fetus in the womb of his mother, and Who after completion of forty days of pregnancy furnished the fetus with 248 limbs and blew into him a living soul, as per Genesis 2,7 ‘He blew into his nose a living soul, so that man became a living creature.’ He covered the limbs with skin and tendons, as we know from Job 10,11-12, and commanded food for the fetus consisting out of milk and honey for him to enjoy. He arranged for two angels to protect him while within his mother’s womb, something we also know from these verses in Job, Job commending G’d for having watched over his spirit while in his mother’s womb.”
Following these benedictions by the priest, the father of the baby recites the following: “this is my firstborn son, and I have been commanded to redeem him in Exodus 13,13. May it be the will of the Lord our G’d that just as You have given his father the opportunity to redeem him, so you will grant him the opportunity to bring him to the studying of Torah, the marriage canopy, and the performance of good deeds.” He concludes with the benediction “Who sanctifies the firstborn of His people Israel through their being redeemed.” At that point the priest receives the silver coins and places them over the head of the baby, saying: “this in lieu of this, this as an exchange for this; this has been given secular status by means of this. May this one enter into a realm of life of Torah and reverence for Heaven.” The priest then places his hand on top of the baby and recites the well known priestly blessing (Numbers 6,24), followed by a wish for the baby to enjoy long life taken from Proverbs 3,2, as well as other verses in the same vein.

V. 3. וזה יהיה משפט וגו׳ wir haben bereits bemerkt, dass dies nur ein der Priesterschaft im allgemeinen zugesprochenes Recht ist, das aber von keinem Priester gerichtlich geltend gemacht werden kann, אין להוציאן בדיינין, sie sind ממון שאין לו תובעין, es gibt keinen darauf absolut Berechtigten, daher auch keinen Kläger (Chulin daselbst). — הכהנים: auch eine כהנת, eine mit einem Nichtkohen verheiratete Kohentochter bleibt berechtigt (daselbst 131 b; vergl. כהנת ולויה bei בכור; Bamidbar S. 32). מאת העם מאת העם מאת זובחי זבח: ob auch לוים hierunter begriffen sind, ist zweifelhaft (daselbst 131 a). הדין עם הטבח :מאת זובחי זבח, dem שוחט liegt die moralische Verpflichtung auf, die Abgabe der מתנות von dem Verpflichteten an einen כהן zu vermitteln (Chulin 132 b). פרט לטרפה :זבח, das Tier muss zum זבח, zum Mahle tauglich sein. Auf einem sich als טרפה ergebenden Tiere ruht die Abgabepflicht nicht. אם שור אם שה, mit Ausschluss einer חיה.

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.

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)

אם שור אם שה WHETHER IT BE ONE OF THE HERD OR ONE OF THE FLOCK — this excludes an undomesticated beast (חיה).

This excludes wild animals. Otherwise, the verse should have said בהמה (animal) without specifying, and that would have implied everything, whether an ox or a sheep. [And the reason why the verse specifies] Rashi explains [that] if Scripture had written “animal” without specifying, it would have implied a wild animal as well because a חיה (wild animal) is included in the word בהמה (animal). Therefore the verse says, “Whether an ox or a sheep,” [because] “This excludes wild animals.”

הזרוע: die beiden oberen Glieder des Vorderbeins, dem menschlichen Arm entsprechend, daher: לחי ,הלחיים .זרוע von לחה, verwandt mit לאה ,להה, chaldäisch: לעה, angestrengt arbeiten, sich ermüden (vergl. יגע), der das Kauen und Sprechen vermittelnde Unterkiefer, die beiden Unterkieferknochen mit der Zunge. — הקבה, von קוב, verwandt mit יקב (wie טוב und יטב), die Kelter: der Labmagen der Wiederkäuer, in welchem die in einen dünnen Brei verwandelte Nahrung ihre vollendete Verdauung erhält.

זובחי, the plural mode is used here in order to include animals owned by partners.

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).

From the carpus to the shoulder blade, espaldon in Old French. And shoivil in German.

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).

Including the tongue. Otherwise, why would the kohein want the bone of the jaw? But certainly it is together with the tongue. Also, it seems to that since the jaw is given as a representation of prayer as Rashi explains, we therefore also give the tongue which is the main organ of speech.

Those expounding Scriptural selections. [I.e.] the meaning of the written verses (Bava Kama 82a).

The foreleg represents the hand, etc. Meaning, the kohanim merited [to receive] the foreleg which represents the hand of Pinchas as it says, “And he took, etc.”

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).

One sixth of an eiphah (וששיתם האיפה). This denotes a sixth.

V. 4. ראשית דגנך וגו׳, die תרומה, auch בכורים und חלה, die alle ראשית heißen.

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.”

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 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).

From a chomer. I.e. a kur.

וראשית גו צאנך, hat מן התורה ebenso wie תרומה kein שיעור und kann mit einem Minimum erfüllt werden (daselbst 137 b). ראשית הגז erscheint daher ebenso wie תרומה גדולה zunächst nur als ein Symbolum von der "Ernte des bürgerlichen Gewandstoffes" (Wolle) zum Bekenntnis, dass, wenngleich das Priestertum nicht produktiv an materiellen Werten für das bürgerliche Leben ist, dieses darum nicht minder der treuen Wirksamkeit desselben verpflichtet sei, und zugleich zur Mahnung, auch der äußeren bürgerlichen Erscheinung des Priesters im Volksleben entsprechende Fürsorge zuzuwenden.

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.

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).

Now one sixth of an eiphah is half a se’ah. etc. Because an eiphah is three se’ah and it is written, “Give one sixth of an eiphah from a chomer of barley,” which means you should separate a sixth of an eiphah from a kur, which is half a se’ah for thirty se’as. Thus one has to separate one sixtieth.

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.

When you shear your sheep every year etc. [It does] not [mean] that you should give the entire shearing of the first year to the kohein, and the shearing of all subsequent years are to be exempt.

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 tribal territory of Yehudah, you were required to give only 5 shekel worth, as opposed to the galil (northern section of Israel) 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.”

As it is said, “Five sheep which cause etc.” I.e., [you are obligated] when you have five sheep עשויות (which cause). What does עשויות mean? That they are מעשות (cause), i.e. they obligate their owners and say, “Rise up and do the mitzvah!” (Chullin 137a) And what mitzvah is the verse referring to? You cannot say the mitzvah of the first-born because one is obligated regarding the first-born even when he has only one animal. You also cannot say that it refers to the gifts [of the forearm, etc.] that one gives to a kohein, etc. because one is obligated regarding the gifts even when he has only one animal. Perforce, it is referring to the first shearing.

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.

V. 5. כי בו בחר וגו׳ bezieht sich auf die ganze besondere Stellung der Priesterschaft und die ihr in deren Folge zugesprochenen Gerechtsamen. — לעמד לשרת, ebenso Vers 7: העמדים שם לפני ד׳, nur stehend, in der des Befehles eines Höheren gewärtigen und ihn vollbringenden Stellung, trägt er den Dienstcharakter seiner Erwählung, לעמידה בחרתיו ולא לישיבה, sitzend, in der in sich selbst gesammelten Körperlage, darf von ihm keine עבודה vollzogen werden, und jede sitzend vollzogene Opferhandlung ist, als ob sie von einem Nichtkohen vollzogen worden wäre, פסול (Sebachim 23 b). Nur stehend spricht sichs aus, dass alle seine Vollbringungen בשם ד׳, im Auftrag Gottes geschehen.

כל הימים, Seine Erwählung reicht über den Bestand des Tempels hinaus, und auch die den Untergang des Tempels überdauernde Kohenfunktion, נשיאת כפים, hat nur stehend zu geschehen (Sota 38 a; — siehe Kap. 10, 8).

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).

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

Perhaps it is literally to the Levite that Scripture refers?, etc. I.e. an actual descendant of Levi, to exclude a kohein. Or perhaps the verse includes a kohein also, because a kohein is also a descendant of Levi? [In proof of this latter suggestion] the Torah therefore teaches, “He shall perform the service,”, etc.

V. 6. וכי יבא הלוי, es ist dies der fern von der Stadt des Heiligtums unterm Volke wohnende Priester (siehe zu V. 1).

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.

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).

This teaches, concerning the kohein, that he is permitted to come and offer up, etc. Because this is implied in the word “with all his soul’s desire,” which means that he wants to offer up with his soul’s desire and not because of the obligation of his ministering watch.

כל ישראל ,מכל ישראל heißt nie das ganze jüdische Land, und kann dies hier um so weniger heißen, da die beliebige einzelne Örtlichkeit außerhalb der Tempelstadt bereits wie immer durch אחד שעריך bezeichnet ist. כל ישראל heißt daher auch hier wie immer: ganz Israel, die Gesamtheit der Nation. Es kommt also ein in einer Stadt im Lande wohnender Kohen aus der Gesamtnation hervor, um die Priesterfunktion im Tempel zu üben. Das heißt: er ist mit der nationalen Gesamtheit nach der Tempelstadt gekommen und will nun dort das ihm aus ihrer Mitte heraus übertragene Amt in ihrer Gegenwart üben. Es ist dies zur Zeit der drei Wanderfeste: רגלים, ein Satz, der (Sucka 55 b) an den Worten festgehalten wird: מאחד שעריך לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שכל ישראל נכנסין בשער אחד. Wir glauben, dass, wie häufig, hier auch auf die folgenden Worte: מכל ישראל hingeblickt ist, indem durch die Anwesenheit von כל ישראל eine jede Partikularität von אחד שעריך aufgehoben ist. An רגלים hat כל ישראל nur ein שער, und jedes שער gehört כל ישראל, und alle, die aus irgend einem שער kommen, kommen als כל ישראל, als die Gesamtheit bildend.

Another interpretation. This teaches, further, etc. The first interpretation is problematic might why it says “to the place that Adonoy chooses,” [a term normally mentioned in connection with coming up to Yerusholayim on the festivals]. It should have only said “to the altar that is before Adonoy and he shall serve, etc.” And the second interpretation is problematic why it says “with all his soul’s desire.” Therefore we also need the first interpretation that “all his soul’s desire” refers to his personal vows and voluntary sacrifices, because he vows and volunteers out of his soul’s desire.

[Were permitted] to bring offerings with the ministering watch, by performing the sacrificial services, etc. Otherwise, why does it say “like all his brother Levites”? It should only have said, “He shall come and serve with all his soul’s desire.” Therefore the verse must be referring to kohanim who come for a festival [and is saying] that they offer sacrifices like all their brothers who belong to the ministering watch.

Which were brought because of the festival obligation — for example, the festival musaf-offerings, etc. Below (v. 8) I will explain that [this applies] only to musaf-offering of festivals that come because of the festival, and not to things which do not pertain to the festival.

VV. 7 u. 8. ושרת וגו׳. In diesem sowie im folgenden Verse wird dem vom Lande in die Tempelstadt kommenden Kohen eine Rechtsgleichheit im Dienst (שרת) und im Anteil an den Opfern (אכילה) mit den dort in Funktion stehenden Priestern, העומדים ׳שם לפני ד zuerkannt, לבד ממכריו על האבות, "mit Ausnahme dessen, was von ihm nach den Stammhäuptern wird veräußert worden sein". Es setzt nämlich das Gesetz voraus, dass bei Anwachs des Priesterstammes nicht sämtliche Priester zu gleicher Zeit in Funktion beim Tempeldienst sein können, dass vielmehr eine durch Kompromiss herbeigeführte Regelung dergestalt stattfinden werde, dass periodisch je eine Abteilung in Dienst und Genuss eintritt und nach Vollendung der ihr zuerkannten Dienstzeit einer folgenden Abteilung zu gleicher Dienstzeit die Stelle räumt. Die Ordnung eines solchen Turnus wird ממכר genannt, weil die Gesamtheit der Berechtigten immer einer Abteilung unter sich ihre Gerechtsame dagegen abtritt, dass auch diese ihre Gerechtsame für so lange den andern abtrete, bis auch die übrigen alle zu Funktion gekommen sind. Es ist dies also eine Ordnung, die auf gegenseitigen Tausch, מכר, beruht לבד ממכריו על האבות מה מכרו האבות זה לזה אני בשבתי ואתה בשבתך. (Sifri) Und zwar wird vorausgesetzt, dass diese Dienstabteilungen, משמר, sich nach Familiengruppen bilden werden, deren Zusammenhörigkeit auf gemeinsamer Abstammung, אבות, beruht. Ganz so wie die Gliederung der Nation und innerhalb derselben der Stamm Levi, so werde sich auch der Stamm der Aharoniden nach בתי אבות zu gliedern haben (vergl. Bamidbar S. 5).

In der Tat ordnete schon Mosche solcher משמרות acht, vier von Elasar und vier von Itamar an, die dann im Laufe der Zeit unter Samuel und David auf vierundzwanzig gebracht wurden (Taanit 27 a). Ein jedes משמר hatte seinen Dienst eine ganze Woche, und wechselten die משמרות am Schabbat nach Beendigung der עבודת שחרית. An dem am Schabbat zur Verteilung kommenden לחם הפנים (Wajikra 24, 8 u. 9) nahmen beide משמרות, das eintretende wie das abgehende, gleichen Anteil (Sucka 56 a), und segnete die scheidende Abteilung die eintretende mit dem Gruß: "Dessen Name auf diesem Hause ruht, der pflege unter euch Liebe und Brüderschaft, Frieden und Freundschaft". מי ששכן את שמו בבית הזה הוא ישכין ביניכם אהבה ואחוה, ושלום ורעות.

Es heißt nur hier Verse 6 u.7: Wenn ein Kohen an einem רגל mit כל ישראל nach der Tempelstadt kommt, oder sonst im Jahre nach eigenem Belieben dorthin kommt, so kann er ohne Rücksicht auf die der Ordnung nach zur Zeit Berechtigten in Funktion treten, und zwar im ersten Falle, am רגל, hinsichtlich der dem רגל angehörigen Pflichtfestopfer, und im zweiten Falle hinsichtlich seiner eigenen Pflicht- oder freiwilligen Opfer. Mit der Dienstberechtigung ist aber zugleich die Genussberechtigung gegeben (siehe zu Wajikra 16, 19), und wenn es daher (V. 8) noch besonders ausgesprochen ist: חלק כחלק יאכלו, so kann sich dies nur noch auf die Verteilung solcher zum Genuss kommenden Heiligtümer beziehen, mit welchen nicht erst noch eine עבודה zu vollbringen stand, es ist dies das לחם הפנים, an dessen Verteilung am רגל-Schabbat auch alle vorhandenen Kohanim Anteil hatten, obgleich damit keine עבודה mehr stattfand. בשלשה פרקים בשנה היו כל המשמרות שוות באמורי הרגלים — (מה שאמור ברגלים) — ובחלוק לחם הפנים (Sucka 55 b). Hinsichtlich aller anderen Opfer blieb aber die durch ממכריו על האבות eingetretene Reihenfolge aufrecht, und war auch am רגל nur das משמר der Woche dienst- und genussberechtigt: משמר שזמנו קבוע הוא מקריב תמידין נדרים ונדבות ושאר קרבנות מנין לכהן שבא ומקריב קרבנותיו בכל עת ובכל שעה (daselbst) צבור ומקריב את הכל שירצה ת׳׳ל ובא בכל אות נפשו ושרת (B. K. 109 b).

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).

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.

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)

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.

That they share in the skins and in the flesh of the sin-offering goats, etc. Rashi mentions specifically skins and flesh of the sin-offering goats because [visiting] kohanim only have a portion in the musaf-offerings of the festivals, and these musaf-offerings are burnt offerings and sin-offering goats as it says in parshas Pinchas. And they offer up the burnt offerings completely to Hashem and the kohanim receive only their skins. But [regarding] the sin-offering goats, the kohein receives [their skins and also] their meat after the burnt portions have been offered up.

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 ids performing the 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.]

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,¹⁵²Leviticus 18:3. 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,¹⁵³Verse 10. which, by way of the simple meaning of Scripture is a type of witchcraft, or, in the opinion of our Rabbis,¹⁵⁴Sanhedrin 64b. it is the Molech. This is the truth as I have explained it in its place.¹⁵⁵Leviticus 18:21. He mentioned a sorcerer,¹⁵³Verse 10. an inclusive term for all sorcery. Or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit¹⁵⁶Verse 11. — 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)¹⁵³Verse 10. which involves divining future events, from the word ‘kesem’ (an oracle) is in the lips of the king; his mouth trespasseth not in judgment,¹⁵⁷Proverbs 16:10. just as Scripture states, Balaam also the son of Beor ‘hakoseim’ (the soothsayer),¹⁵⁸Joshua 13:22. and he was an enchanter, as it is said concerning him, he went not, as at the other times, to meet with enchantments,¹⁵⁹Numbers 24:1. and it is further written, ‘kasomi’ (divine unto me), I pray thee, by a ghost.¹⁶⁰I Samuel 28:8. He mentioned specifically m’onein¹⁵³Verse 10. who is a diviner interpreting by [the formations of] the clouds, and the m’nacheish¹⁵³Verse 10. 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.¹⁶¹Ecclesiastes 10:20. The word m’nacheish is derived from the expression ‘chashti’ (I made haste) and delayed not,¹⁶²Psalms 119:160. 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,¹⁶³Verse 12. 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 thereon¹⁶⁴Nehemiah 9:6. in the power of the stars and constellations, depending on their rotation and position as proven by the study of astrology.¹⁶⁵It should be noted that Ramban wrote this explanation of the world order in terms of scientific concepts known to his generation. Yet is it not a fact that conditions on the earth are affected by the atmospheric conditions above? Do not the sun-spots millions of miles away affect terrestrial magnetism and meteorological phenomena? So conditions on the earth are indeed affected by the powers above us. The central point in Ramban’s theme is thus easily applicable. Over the stars and constellations He further appointed guides, angels, and “lords” which are the soul [of the stars and constellations]. Now, their behavior from the time they come into existence for eternal duration, is according to the pattern the Most High decreed for them. However, it was one of His mighty wonders that within the power of these higher forces, He put configurations [as explained further on] and capacities to alter the behavior of those under them. Thus if the direction of the stars towards the earth be good or bad to a certain country, people, or individual, the higher dominions can reverse it of their own volition, as they¹⁶⁶The origin of this dictum is unknown to me. have said, “The apposition for the word oneg (pleasure) is nega (plague).”¹⁶⁷The thought conveyed is that both words oneg and nega are spelled with the same letters ay’in, nun, gimmel. Thus if a nega (plague) is destined to come upon a country, etc., because of certain forces operative on the earth, the higher powers can change these letters to spell out oneg (pleasure), or vice versa. G-d ordained it so because He, blessed be His Name, changeth the times and the seasons;¹⁶⁸Daniel 2:21. He calleth for the waters of the sea¹⁶⁹Amos 5:8. to do with them at His Will, and bringeth on the shadow of death in the morning¹⁶⁹Amos 5:8. without changing the natural order of the world, and it is He Who made the stars and constellations move about in their order. Therefore, the author of the Book of the Moon, the expert in [the field of] necromancy,¹⁷⁰Rabbeinu Bachya in quoting the language of Ramban adds: “and astrology.” The following subject quoted from this medieval work is indeed one which is a combination of necromancy and astrology. said, “when the moon, termed ‘the sphere of the world,’ is, for example, at the head of Aries (the Ram)¹⁷¹See Vol. II, p. 118, Note 116. and the constellation thus appears in a certain form, you should make a drawing of that grouping, engraving on it the particular time [when this relative position appears] and the name of the angel — one of the names mentioned in that book — appointed over it. Then perform a certain burning [of incense] in a certain specified manner, and the result of the influence [of the relative position of the stars] will be for evil, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to overthrow.¹⁷²Jeremiah 1:10. And when the moon will be in a position relative to some other constellation you should make the drawing and the burning in a certain other manner and the result will be for good, to build and to plant.”¹⁷²Jeremiah 1:10. Now this, too, is the influence of the moon as determined by the power of its [heavenly] guide. But the basic manner of its movement is by the wish of the Creator, blessed be He, Who endowed it so in time past, while this particular action is contrary thereto. This then is the secret of [all forms of] sorcery and their power concerning which the Rabbis have said¹⁷³Chullin 7b. that “they contradict the power of Divine agencies,” meaning that they are contrary to the simple powers [with which the agencies have been endowed] and thus diminish them in a certain aspect thereof. Therefore, it is proper that the Torah prohibit these activities in order to let the world rest in its customary way, in the simple nature which is the desire of its Creator. This is also one of the reasons for the prohibition of kilayim (mixing seeds), for the plants resulting from such grafting are strange, giving rise to changes in the ordered course of the world for bad or good, aside from the fact that they themselves constitute a change in Creation, as I have already explained.¹⁷⁴Leviticus 19:19 (Vol. III, pp. 295-297). Now, many scholars¹⁷⁵The reference is obviously to Rambam and his followers, who hold, as Rambam says in Mishneh Torah, (Hilchoth Avodath Kochavim 11:15) with regard to sorcery and witchcraft: “they are all imaginary and foolishness which attract only those that are deficient in knowledge.” dispose themselves to be liberal with regard to these enchantments by saying that there is no truth in them whatsoever, for who tells the raven or the crane what will happen? But we cannot deny matters publicly demonstrated before the eyes of witnesses. Our Rabbis also, acknowledged their existence, as they have said in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah:¹⁷⁶I found it in Vayikra Rabbah 32:2. “For a bird of the air shall carry the voice¹⁶¹Ecclesiastes 10:20. — this refers to the raven and the craft of tiarin.” Birds in Arabic are called tiar and those versed in the divination of birds are called tiarin. This subject is also mentioned in the Gemara.¹⁷⁷Gittin 45a. See in my Hebrew commentary p. 428, Note 97.
But there is a secret to this matter. We have already made known¹⁷⁸Exodus 20:3 (Vol. II, p. 294). that the constellations have lords that lead them, these being “the souls” of the circuits of the spheres, and the lords of the tail and [head of] Aries (the Ram)¹⁷¹See Vol. II, p. 118, Note 116. are near the earth, these being termed “the princes of the quiver,” that make the future known. It is through them that the signs in the birds indicate things to come, not for long duration or distant future do they tell, but only of events that are about to happen. Some make them known by utterance of bitter sounds [resembling wailing] over the dead, and some by spreading their wings. This is what has been said, for a bird of the air shall carry the voice¹⁶¹Ecclesiastes 10:20. [a reference] to those who suggest by their wings. Now all this is not considered abominable for the nations, instead it is considered wisdom for them. Thus the Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁹Pesiktha of Rabbi Kahana, Parah. Bamidmar Rabbah, 19:3. — See Vol. I, p. 13, where Ramban similarly quotes this text. “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east.¹⁸⁰I Kings 5:10. What was the wisdom of the children of the east? They were wise and crafty in divination of birds.” Similarly it is stated in Scripture, for they are replenished from the east, and with soothsayers like the Philistines.¹⁸¹Isaiah 2:6. And Solomon learned all this as part of his wisdom. Now, the knowledge [referred to by the Midrash] is understanding the chirping of birds, and “the craftiness” to explain a matter through spreading wings.
Now, when Scripture included the diviner by clouds and the [other] diviners with the abominations mentioned, it reverted and explained, these nations, that thou art to dispossess, hearken unto diviners [by clouds], and unto [other] diviners¹⁸²Verse 14. for their wisdom is to know future events, but as for thee, the Eternal thy G-d hath not suffered thee so to do.¹⁸²Verse 14. Scripture is thus stating, “G-d has prohibited you these specified practices [such as passing a child through the fire] because they are abominations before Him and because of them He drove these nations out from before you.¹⁸³Verse 12. He further forbade the enchanters and the diviners to you, because He gave you great eminence in setting you on high above all the nations of the earth,¹⁸⁴Further, 28:1. in that He will raise up a prophet in the midst of you¹⁸⁵Verse 15. and place His words in his mouth and you will hear from him what G-d will do.¹⁸⁶See Numbers 23:23. To know the future it will be unnecessary for you to resort to a diviner or soothsayer who receives [the knowledge] from the stars or from the lower powers among the lords of above, whose words are not all true and who do not provide all necessary information. But prophecy informs us of G-d’s desire and not one of its words will fall to the earth.”¹⁸⁷See II Kings 10:10. It is this which Scripture explains [that if ever an ostensible prophecy does not come to pass], that is the thing which the Eternal hath not spoken.¹⁸⁸Verse 22. Thus you are His portion and His treasure, hearing His counsel from His mouth, while theirs is the portion of the constellations which they follow, this being the sense of the verse, but as for thee, the Eternal thy G-d hath not suffered thee so to do.¹⁸²Verse 14. This is the meaning of, which the Eternal thy G-d hath allotted unto all the peoples,¹⁸⁹Above, 4:19. as I have explained.¹⁹⁰Ibid., Verse 15. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:¹⁹¹Sifre, Shoftim 174. “They hearken unto diviners [by the clouds] and [other] diviners.¹⁸²Verse 14. Perhaps you will say, ‘They have a source from which to inquire [about the future] and I have nothing [from which] to inquire.’ Scripture therefore states, but as for thee, the Eternal thy G-d hath not suffered thee so to do.”¹⁸²Verse 14. This is proof to all what we have explained that with respect to the diviners some root of the matter is found in them,¹⁹²Job 19:28. and therefore Israel had a [legitimate] complaint in being enjoined from making use of them [i.e. the diviners].

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.”

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.

V. 9. כי אתה וגו׳. Richter, König, Priester, das waren die im Dienste der Nation stehenden Funktionäre, deren Stellung und Aufgabe im vorhergehenden besprochen und deren Befugnisse innerhalb der ihnen gesetzten Grenzen umschrieben worden. Mit diesen dreien ist der staatliche Organismus, dessen das Gesetz zu seiner Verwirklichung bedarf, eigentlich erschöpft. Es folgt hier nun noch die Stellung der Propheten zu diesem Ganzen. Diese Bestimmung beginnt mit einer Negation, mit der Verneinung von Funktionären, denen das heidnische Völkertum nicht zu entraten wusste, für welche aber der jüdische Kreis weder Raum noch Bedürfnis haben sollte und die der jüdische Staat nicht dulden darf; es sind dies die Funktionäre einer vermeintlichen Mantik.

'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.

Der Eingang erinnert daran, dass ה׳ אלהיך, dass Gott als der alleinige Lenker unserer Geschicke und Leiter unserer Taten es ist, der uns das Land, diese Basis aller unserer nationalen Heilesentfaltung, gibt, und dass Er es: לך, dass Er es dir: בזכותך, wie wiederum ספרי erläutert, ausschließlich, dem von dir bewährten, oder von dir zu erwartenden sittlichen Verdienste, verleihet. Damit ist. denn alles für das folgende gesagt: Für Erwerb und Bewahrung jeglichen Wohls trägst du alles in dir.

.לעשות אי אתה למד אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות :לא תלמד לעשות (Sifri). Zum Zweck der Nachahmung ist das Lernen des heidnischen Unwesens verboten, aber sich eine theoretische Kenntnis desselben zu erwerben, um es in der ganzen Nichtigkeit seines Unwesens verstehen und würdigen zu können, ist nicht nur gestattet, sondern unter Umständen, z. B. für die Mitglieder der Gesetzeskollegien behufs einer richtigen Beurteilung vorkommender Fälle, notwendig (Sanhedrin 68 a; Schabbat 75 a; Raschi daselbst und Menachot 65 a: תוס׳ ד׳׳ה בעלי כשפים).

כתועבת הגוים, alles was תועבה genannt wird, ist nicht bloß eine Verstandeswidrigkeit, sondern etwas sittlich Verwerfliches.

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).

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 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.

The Rabbis said that this refers to sleight of hand magicians. Rashi (Sanhedrin 65b) explains, “He seizes and closes people’s eyes by showing them as if he is doing miraculous things and [actually] he does nothing.”

VV. 10 u. 11. ספרי) להזהיר ב׳׳ד על כך :לא ימצא בך), es ist spezielle Verpflichtung des Staates und der Repräsentanz desselben, diese zum größten Teil bereits Wajikra 18, 21. 19. 26. 31. 20. 2 — 7. 27 verbotenen Übungen heidnischer Mantik in seiner Mitte nicht zu dulden. Über שואל אוב ,מנחש ,מעונן ,מעביר בנו ובתו באש siehe Schmot מכשף siehe die eben zitierten Stellen des Wajikra.

'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.

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).

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.

קסם קסמים Ezechiel 21, 26 ist der König von Babylon unschlüssig, ob er gegen die Ammoniter, in deren Hauptstadt Raba, oder gegen Juda, in dessen Hauptstadt Jerusalem, zu Felde ziehen sollte und macht die Entscheidung von einer Veranstaltung von Wahrzeichen abhängig. Daselbst heißt es nun: כי עמד מלך בכל על אם הדרך בראש שני הדרכים לקסם קסם קלקל בחצים שאל בתרפים ראה בכבד. Er stellte sich an den Scheidweg לקסם קסם und veranstaltete dieses קסם auf drei Weisen, mit Pfeilen, mit Teraphim und mit Leberbeschauung. Demgemäß scheint קסם der allgemeine Begriff der Wahrsagerkunst zu sein, die auf mannigfache Weise geübt wurde. Daher denn auch das Resultat wieder einfach mit קסם bezeichnet wird. Wie er auch die Entscheidung versuchte, immer בימינו חיה הקסם ירושלים, immer erschien rechts das קסם: Jerusalem, und war somit der Feldzug gegen Jerusalem entschieden. Josua 13, 22 heißt auch Bileam: הקוסם. Wir haben es daher: Wahrsager übersetzt. Die sprachliche Verwandtschaft mit יזם und גזם haben wir bereits zu Bereschit 11, 6 bemerkt, und bezeichnete es demnach die Anmaßung eines über das dem Menschen zuständige Maß hinausgehenden Wissens und Könnens. Wie כזב :כשוף, so ist גוזמא :קסם.

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.]

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).

חבר חבר. Psalm 58, 5 u. 6 steht das Bild einer wütenden Schlange und einer tauben Otter, die dem Zauberwort eines חובר חברים מחוכם nicht gehorchen will. Jesaias 47, 9 u. 12 wird bei Babylons Fall hervorgehoben, dass ihm doch alle seine chaldäische Wissenschaft, die es von je so unendlich gepflegt, nichts genützt, dass ihm insbesondere חבריך ורב כשפיך ,רב בשפיך עצמת חבריך keine Rettung vor dem Falle zu bringen vermochten, seine חוברים, die sogar sich erkühnten, חוברי שמים sein zu wollen, und deren lächerliche Prätension daselbst (V. 13) — wie wir glauben — durch Umwandlung des ח in das schwächere ה ausgedrückt ist. Aus beiden Stellen ist, dünkt uns, entschieden klar, dass die Prätension des הובר הבר nicht sowohl eines höheren Wissens, als vielmehr eines höheren Könnens sich rühmte. Seinem Willen das Wollen einer Schlange, seinem Willen die den Bestand eines Staates bedrohenden Mächte auf geheimnisvolle Weise untertan machen, einen Zauberbann über Beliebiges üben zu können, das gab der חובר חבר vor. So wird auch Sanhedrin 65 a חובר חבר als ein solcher begriffen, der Tiere oder Geister zusammen bannt, sie zusammen gegen einander zwingt. Das in der obigen Psalmstelle enthaltene Bild zeigt den חובר חבר מחוכם in Ausübung seiner Kunst an einer Schlange. Das Merkmal des Zusammenzwingens vieler dürfte daher der חברKunst nicht wesentlich sein. Ohnehin hat man zu bedenken, dass חבר im קל sich mit jemandem verbinden, sich jemandem anschließen heißt — כל אלה חברו (Bereschit 14.4). — Wenn חבר ein Zusammenbannen ausdrücken sollte, müsste es die Pielform חבר haben. Vielleicht drückt חבר das aus, was in der Sprache der Magie: sich mit jemandem in Rapport setzen, heißt. Der Magier setzt sich in eine solche enge Verbindung mit einem anderen lebenden Wesen, dass sein Wille an die Stelle des Willens dieses letzteren tritt und er dessen geistigen und leiblichen Organe nach seinem Willen lenkt. Er weiß sich in Verbindung mit anderen zu setzen, daher: חובר חבר.

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).

.ודרש אל המתים Die Form ”דרש אל” die hier und so auch Jesaias 8, 18 und 19, 3 vorkommt, dürfte einen solchen Vorgang bezeichnen, bei welchem eine Frage nicht direkt an den gerichtet wird, von welchem man die Antwort erwartet, welches דרש את heißen würde. Der דורש אל המתים gibt vor, an irgend eine Person oder einen Gegenstand eine Frage zu richten, die eben durch diese Medien an einen bestimmten Toten gelangt und von diesem durch dieses Medium beantwortet wird. Das ganze Unwesen des heutigen Spiritualismus ist nichts als eine solche דרישה אל המתים.

וחבר חבר OR A CHARMER — One who charms snakes or scorpions or other creatures into one spot (חבר = “an assembly”) (Sifrei Devarim 172:1).

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.

Someone who conjures up [the dead] onto his male organ. I.e. he conjures up the dead onto his male organ and it speaks there.

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.

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).

Or communicates with a skull. I.e., with a skull from a corpse lying on the ground. And through magic it answers what one asks it. So Sifrei expounds it. But in Perek Arba Misos (ibid) it is taught in a Beraisa: “Ov” is someone who conjures up onto his male organ or communicates with a skull, and “communicates with the dead” is someone who abstains from food and spends the night in a cemetery. One can explain why Rashi cites Sifrei and ignores our Talmud is because it [i.e., Sifrei] is closer to the verse’s plain meaning.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.”

V. 12. כי תועבת וגו׳ ובגלל התועבת וגו׳. Welche sittliche Verirrung dieses ganze heidnische Unwesen in sich trägt und welches sittliches Verderbnis es erzeugt, haben wir an den oben zitierten Stellen des Buches Schmot und Wajikra erläutert. Sobald der Mensch mit seinem Geschick- und Tatenleben, mit seinen Entschlüssen, seinen Hoffnungen und Befürchtungen sich dem unfreien Nachtgebiete wahngeborener Mächte unterstellt glaubt und hingibt, für welche der sittliche Wert oder Unwert seines Wollens und Vollbringens nichts gilt, alsobald wirft er selbst die Wage des sittlichen Urteils aus Händen, deren Ergebnis allein ihm bei seinem Wollen und Vollbringen, für sein Fürchten und Hoffen maßgebend sein sollte, und fällt einer Unfreiheit anheim, die das Grab aller Sittlichkeit wird. Die ganze sittliche Entartung der Kanaanitischen Bevölkerung ging aus diesem mantischen Unwesen hervor und hatte ihren Halt in ihm.

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

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 Thummim¹⁹³Exodus 28:30 (Vol. II, pp. 480-483). — 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,¹⁹⁴Berachoth 33b. for He is the G-d of gods¹⁹⁵Above, 10:17. 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,”¹⁹⁶Isaiah 44:25. 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,¹⁹⁷Isaiah 8:19. 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.¹⁸⁵Verse 15. 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)¹⁹⁸Exodus 12:5. means one that is without blemish and any deficiency. This verse [before us] constitutes a positive commandment.¹⁹⁹So also mentioned by Ramban in his notes to Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvoth. See my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 264, Commandment 8. I have already mentioned this in connection with the verse, and be thou whole-hearted.²⁰⁰Genesis 17:1 (Vol. I, p. 217).

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

Whole-hearted: The letter 'Tav' is large, indicating that if you go whole-heartedly, it is as if you have fulfilled from 'Aleph' to 'Tav' ("from A to Z").

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 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)

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.

Walk with Him in utter trust, in anticipation of Him, etc. I.e., do not do like the idolaters [who explore the future], but “walk in perfect trust,” [meaning] that “you should walk with Him in utter trust, in anticipation of Him, etc.”

V. 13. תמים תהיה וגו׳. Wir haben bereits im Wajikra S. 9 f. und S. 465 f. bei der Forderung des symbolischen תמים-Charakters für Opfer und Opfernde die Forderung der Ganzheit unserer Hingebung, die Hingebung des ganzen Menschen mit allen seinen Beziehungen an Gott als unmittelbarste Folgerung aus dem Gotteinheitbewusstsein, als Verwirklichung der עם סגלה-Bestimmung, der Bestimmung eines ausschließlich Gott angehörenden Volkes entwickelt. Diese Forderung tritt hier in konkretester Bedeutung an uns heran. Wir sollen nicht die geringste Faser unseres Geschickes- und Tatenlebens von Gott ablösen, sollen in unserer Ganzheit mit Gott sein. Damit ist das ganze im Vorhergehenden geschilderte heidnische Unwesen aus dem jüdischen Bereiche gebannt. Gott, der alleinige Lenker unserer Geschicke und Leiter unserer Taten, Er ist es allein, der unsere Zukunft bestimmt, und dessen Wohlgefallen allein den Maßstab für das bietet, was wir zu tun und zu lassen haben. Nicht ein blindes Schicksalsmolech waltet über uns und unsere Kinder, nicht die Toten, nicht der Stab und das Wiesel usw. usw. wissen, was uns bevorsteht, nicht krankhaft verzückter Aberwitz etc. hat uns den Spruch für unser Tun und Lassen zu sprechen, oder das Gewicht eines Staubkorns der Schale unseres Geschickes zu geben und zu nehmen. Nur Gott hätten wir um unsere Zukunft zu befragen, wenn das Wissen seiner Zukunft überhaupt dem $Bedürfnis wäre, und nur von Gott hätten wir uns einen Ausspruch für תמים unser Tun und Lassen uns zu erbitten, wenn uns Gott nicht diesen Ausspruch für unser Tun und Lassen längst bereits in seinem Gesetze gesprochen. In der Tat geht auch der תמים mit seinem Geschickes- und Tatenleben also ganz in Gott auf, dass er nur in dem Gedanken an die in jeder Gegenwart zu erfüllenden Aufgaben lebt, den Erfolg aber mit seiner ganzen Zukunft Gott anheim stellt. Mit der Erfüllung seiner Pflicht hat für ihn sein Tun und Lassen bereits sein höchstes Ziel erreicht; er hat seinem Gotte den Zoll treu erfüllter Pflicht geleistet; für alles, was darüber hinausliegt, ist er — wie die Lautverwandtschaft דמם und טמם lehrt — ruhig und unzugänglich.

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)

Then, you will be with Him, [He will take you] as His portion. This is how you should explain the verse: “Walk in perfect trust,” meaning that you should “wait for Him and you should not explore the future, etc.,” and then [you will be] “with Adonoy, your God.” I.e., “you will be with Him and as His portion.”

Die positive Forderung תמים תהיה וגו׳ reicht daher weiter, als das negative Verbot des in den vorangehenden Versen untersagten heidnischen Unwesens und erwartet die Unterlassung jeglicher sonstiger Art vermeintlicher Zukunftserforschung (siehe תוספות Schabbat 156 b ד׳׳ה כלדאי).

Zum dem Ausdrucke תמים וגו׳ עם וגו׳, vergl. והיה לבבכם שלם עם ה׳ אלקינו וגו׳ (Kön. I. 8, 61).

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.

Whereby they listen to auguries or sorcerers, etc. Rashi means to say: Do not ask that the plain meaning of the verse, “Adonoy, your God, has not given you so,” implies that Hashem had already commanded them earlier that there should be no sorcerers, auguries and magicians among them, yet, where do we find that He commanded this? Rashi answers that He did command earlier that there should be no sorcerers and auguries, for this is why he rested His Divine Presence on the prophets so that you should listen to the prophets. The reason Rashi says “the Holy One Blessed Is He” and not “Adonoy, your God” [note that this phrase “the Holy One Blessed Is He” is missing in our version of Rashi’s text] is to indicate that the verse here did not have to mention “your God” which always indicates the giving of a reason, that He is your God and He is the possessor of power and authority Who brought you to the Land, as in the verse, “Walk in perfect trust with Adonoy, your God (v. 13),” because since I am your God it is fitting to make an effort to be with Me and to cleave to Me. But here where it is only relating facts there is no need to add “your God” but only “Adonoy,” as in the verse, "See, Adonoy has designated by name [etc.] (Shmos 35:30),” and many others like it. And the reason Rashi does not mention the “Adonoy” [as it appears in the verse but writes instead “the Holy One Blessed Is He”] is so that we do not think he wrote briefly. (Re”m)

V. 14. כי הגוים האלה וגו׳, ihnen fehlt die innere Wardeiung ihrer Handlungen und die Zuversicht in Gott, den einzig Einen; sie haben den inneren Halt verloren, der Erfolg gilt ihnen alles, der Erfolg für die Befriedigung ihrer Sinnlichkeit oder ihres Ehrgeizes, ein Erfolg, der sie ihre Ohnmacht abhängig von tausend Zufälligkeiten einer Außenwelt fühlen lässt, über die sie nicht gebieten, die kein Verständnis und kein Mitfühlen hat für das, was des Menschen Brust bewegt, die den Menschen mit tausend ungelösten Rätseln geheimnisvoll anstarrt, aus deren verschlossenem Innern er gleichwohl einen Wink im voraus haben möchte, ob sie sich freundlich oder feindlich zu dem, was er wünscht und will, verhalten werde — der Mensch ohne Gott schauenden Geist und ohne Pflicht huldigendes Gemüt ist von je dem heidnischen Unwesen in gröberer oder feinerer Gewandung verfallen (vergl. unsere Artikel Jesaias und seine Welt im Jeschurun Jahrg. IX). — Diese Völker horchen für ihr Einzeln- und Gesamtleben auf Zeitenwähler und Wahrsager hin,

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. (verse 15) G-d first listed the King, then the Judges, and finally the Prophets, as means of communicating with Him.

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.

DU aber, nicht also hat Gott, dein Gott, dir gegeben! Indem er zu dir als ausschließlicher Lenker deiner Geschicke und Leiter deiner Taten in die innigste Beziehung getreten und dir für die Gestaltung deines Einzeln- und Gesamtlebens sein Gesetz in schriftlicher und mündlicher Lehre übergeben, hat er dir damit alles in Händen gegeben, dessen du zur glücklichen Lösung deiner Lebensaufgabe bedarfst. Deine Zukunft gestaltet Er, und die Bedingungen für eine freud- oder leidvolle Gestaltung dieser Zukunft hat er dir mit dem Gesetze überantwortet, das du in Händen hast und dessen erläutertes Verständnis du aus der lebendigen nationalen Überlieferung zu schöpfen hast. Dieses Gesetz lernen, lehren und üben, das ist die Summe deiner Lebensaufgabe. Für die Erkenntnis und Erfüllung dieser Aufgabe bedarf es keiner übernatürlichen, übermenschlichen Einsicht, keines Einblicks in die dem Menschen verschleierte übersinnliche Welt. Dem gesunden, hellen, klar erkennenden, schließenden und urteilenden Verstande ist sie überantwortet, und setzt bei allen ihren Anforderungen eben nur diesen voraus. Hinsichtlich ihrer heißt es: לא בשמים היא (Kap. 30, 12; siehe daselbst) und nicht einmal ein Prophet hätte als solcher für die Erkenntnis und Entscheidung des Gesetzes ein zu beachtendes Wort zu sprechen (vergl. Baba Mezia 59 b). Du daher, mit dem, was Gott, dein Gott, dir gegeben, bedarfst du überhaupt keines weiteren Aufschlusses von oben, nicht über das, was die Zukunft bringt, und nicht über das, was du zu tun und zu lassen hast. Du bedarfst nicht nur keiner מעוננים und קוסמים wie die Völker, Du bedarfst auch nicht eines reineren und wahren Ersatzes dafür. Wenn daher im folgenden

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.

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.²⁰¹Mechilta, at the beginning of Seder Bo. It is for this reason that Scripture speaks with reference to the Land in this term — The burden concerning the valley of ‘chizayon’ (vision),²⁰²Isaiah 22:1. and as our Rabbis have mentioned.²⁰³Pesiktha Eichah Rabbathi, 24: “It is the valley from which all seers (prophets) arose.” 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.²⁰⁴I.e., “Just as I, Moses, am an Israelite, so will the future prophets be.” Rashi’s intent is to exclude the erroneous interpretation, like unto me in the same degree of prophecy, for the Torah has already testified, And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses (further, 34:10). The comparison means, therefore, “just as I am an Israelite etc.” (Mizrachi). — 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 Eternal²⁰⁵I Samuel 3:20. and you will believe in him just as you believe in me. I will yet explain this.²⁰⁶In the following verse.

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

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.

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

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.

Just as I from your midst, etc. The question is: [How can the verse say “like me” when] it is written (Devarim 34:10), “There has not ever arisen a prophet within Yisroel like Moshe”? Therefore he explains [that the verse means], “Just as I am in your midst and of your brethren.”

V. 15. ׳נביא מקרבך וגו die Sendung von Propheten verheißen und besprochen wird, so liegt, glauben wir, dieser Sendung nicht das Motiv und der Zweck zu Grunde, in Israel die Stelle der מעוננים und קוסמים der anderen Völker zu vertreten, ein Zweck, für welchen das תמים תהיה עם ד׳ אלקיך in Israel jedes Bedürfnis verneint (vergl. Raschi zu V. 14). Unser Leben, all unser Tun und Lassen, ist vollständig durch das Gesetz und dessen von Gott geordnete Lehrer und Richter geregelt und befriedigt. Nicht etwa, um über die Rätlichkeit und Tunlichkeit unserer Vorhaben oder überhaupt über uns Verborgenes Auskunft von ihm zu erfragen, um unserem Verlangen nach einem dem Menschen versagten Wissen zu genügen, nicht um durch ihn zu erfahren, was wir wissen möchten, sondern um uns zu sagen, was Gott will, dass wir wissen sollen, dazu sendet Gott seinen Propheten: nicht unser OrganGottes Organ ist der Prophet; nicht אותו תשאלון, sondern אליו תשמעון, nicht ihn sollt ihr befragen, ihm sollt ihr gehorchen, spricht unser Text. Gott bedarf seiner zur Vollbringung seiner Zwecke an uns und durch uns. Und nun hören wir unseren Mosche:

מאחיך כמוני, “from amongst your brethren, someone like me;” Moses refers to Joshua in this verse.

מאחיך, that He will not endow gentiles with His holy spirit.

Similarly, from prophet to prophet. Meaning in order that the verse should not be misunderstood that it is speaking about a specific prophet who will arise after Moshe in the future, as the heretics explained, Rashi adds and says, “Similarly from prophet to prophet” [i.e., continuously]. His proof is that the [verse’s] intent is to distant people from auguries and sorcerers and it is saying that you do not need auguries and sorcerers because there will always be prophets from your midst in every generation so that you will not need auguries.

נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמני, die Männer, die Gott euch als seine Propheten senden wird, werden Männer aus eurer Mitte sein, sie werden mitten unter euch leben, es wird sie kein geheimnisvolles Dunkel umschweben, ihr werdet sie kennen nach ihrer Lebensweise und Herkunft, sie werden unter euch geboren sein, unter euch aufwachsen, sich unter euch im Leben erprobt haben, ihr werdet ihren Vater und ihre Mutter, ihre Geschwister und Verwandte kennen, sie werden מקרבך מאחיך sein, sie werden mit keinerlei übermenschlichen Prätensionen an euch herantreten, sie werden Menschen sein und nichts als Menschen sein wollen, כמני, wie ich, der ich der erste war, den Gott an euch gesendet (vergl. Schmot S. 54 f.). Und wiederum: כמוני, in derselben Stellung und zu denselben Zwecken wie ich. Sie werden nichts sein sollen, als Boten des göttlichen Wortes an euch.

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).

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.

Und יקים לך nicht יקים ישלח לך: er wird ihn dir aufstellen, aufrichten, feststellen, wird ihn mit solchen Mitteln ausrüsten, dass er dir מקויים und מוחזק, dass er dir sich beglaubigen und als Bote Gottes sich dir bevollmächtigt erweisen könne (siehe Vers 22).

אפלו אומר לך עבור על אחת מכל מצות שבתורה בגון אליהו בהר :אליו תשמעון הכרמל הכל לפי שעה שמע לו (Jebamot 90 b und Sanhedrin 89 b). Wenn er dir bereits als gottgesandter Prophet, מוחזק, bewährt ist, so hast du ihm selbst dann zu gehorchen, wenn er, wie Elijahu am Karmel, im Interesse eines von dem Augenblick geheischten Zweckes, למגדר מלתא, zur Gesamtbefestigung des Gesetzesgehorsams, die einmalige Übertretung eines göttlichen Gesetzes fordert. Bei der zur Beschämung der Baalspriester und zur Überzeugung des zwischen Gott und Baal schwankenden Volkes geschehenen Opferdarbringung auf dem Karmel war das Bamaverbot, שחוטי חוץ והעלאה בחוץ (Kap. 12. 13 und Wajikra Kap. 17) zu übertreten.

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 Eternal²⁰⁷In Verse 16 before us. — 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 it²⁰⁸Above, 5:24. — 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,²⁰⁹Verse 15. 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 spoken²¹⁰Above, 5:25. — 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 it²⁰⁸Above, 5:24. — 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.²⁰⁸Above, 5:24.

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.

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)

V. 16. ככל וגו׳ בחרב ביום הקהל. Am Horeb, am hellen, wachen Tage, stand eure ganze Volksgesamtheit vor Gott, und da erfuhret ihr an euch selber, was das heißt: "Gottes Wort an den Menschen" Ihr erfuhret da, dass das nicht das sei, was etwa ein Mensch in einer ihn über sich selbst hinaus hebenden oder seine Sinne verwirrenden Stimmung aus sich hinaus erzeugt. Gott sprach zu euch, sein Wort kam an euch, von Angesicht zu Angesicht sprach Gott mit euch (Kap. 5, 4), und es war das nicht eine Erfahrung, die ein einzelner von euch machte, ihr waret alle versammelt, und hörtet alle die ersten Sätze seiner Gesetzoffenbarung, die Gott an euch richtete. Da erfuhret ihr alle und ward es euch zur gewissesten selbsterfahrenen Tatsache, dass "Gott mit dem Menschen redet und dieser am Leben bleibt" (siehe oben Kap. 5), und nur, weil ihr eine Fortsetzung dieser unmittelbaren Anrede Gottes nicht ertragen zu können fürchtetet, genügte euch diese gewonnene Selbstüberzeugung, und auf deren Grund erbatet ihr euch die fernere Vermittlung der Gottesrede durch mich (daselbst 22 — 24). Was dort ausführlich gegeben ist, daran wird hier nur erinnert, um daran

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;

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.

VV. 17 u. 18 nun noch die fernere Bestimmung zu knüpfen, dass auch nach Mosche Heimgang Gott zu ferneren Mitteilungen an uns Mosche Nachfolger geben werde, die die Überbringer seines Wortes an uns sein sollen. Sie werden ebenso מקרב אחיהם כמוך sein, und werden ebenso von Gott das Wort empfangen, das sie zu sprechen haben.

VV. 19 u. 20. והיה האיש וגו׳ אך הנביא וגו׳. Vers 19 bespricht den Fall der Nichtachtung des von Gott, an den Propheten gerichteten Wortes, אשר לא ישמע אל דברי. Es umfasst dies nach Sanhedrin 89 a ein dreifaches: הכובש את נבואתו, dass der Prophet das ihm gewordene Gotteswort nicht verkündet; המוותר על דברי נביא, dass einer das vom Propheten verkündete Wort als etwas Überflüssiges außer acht lässt; ונביא שעבר על דברי עצמו oder dass ein Prophet dem von ihm verkündeten Worte zuwiderhandelt: שלשתן מיתתן בידי שמים, bei allen dreien hat Gott sich die Ahndung vorbehalten, אנכי אדרש מעמו. Vers 20 spricht von dem Verbrechen der Prophetenlüge, אשר יזיד לדבר דבר בשמי, dass einer sich erkühnt, unbeauftragt im Namen Gottes zu reden; oder את אשר לא צויתיו לדבר auch nur, was ihm nicht zu reden aufgetragen worden; oder endlich אשר ידבר בשם אלהים אחרים, dass er selbst das Wahre im Namen einer heidnischen Gottheit rede; alle drei: המתנבא מה שלא שמע ומה שלא נאמר לו והמתנבא בשם עכו׳׳ם erliegen dem menschengerichtlichen Tode, ומת הנביא ההוא, und כל מיתה האמורה בתורה סתם אינה אלא חנק (daselbst; siehe Wajikra zu 20, 10; — siehe ferner oben Kap. 13, 2 f.).

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),

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.²¹¹Sifre, Shoftim 177-178. 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:²¹²Sanhedrin 89a. “‘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.²¹³I Kings 18:21. 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,²¹⁴Ibid., 22:12. 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.

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.

Someone who fabricates a prophetic message he did not hear etc., and one who prophesies in the name of an idol. Because it is written, “That I did not instruct him to say,” i.e. what he did not hear. And because it is written “that I did not instruct him,” which implies that I did instruct his fellow [prophet]. “And one who prophesies in the name of an idol” for it is explicitly written, “or who speaks in the name of foreign gods.”

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!

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),

However, one who withholds his prophecy, etc. “One who withholds his prophecy” is derived from (v. 19), “אשר לא ישמע (who does not heed My words),” which can be read as אשר לא ישמיע (“who does not announce My words”), i.e., “one who withholds his prophecy.” And “one who violates a prophet’s instructions,” whether he himself or other people, is derived from (ibid), “Who does not heed My words that he speaks in My Name,” whether he himself or other people. And it is written (ibid), “I shall prosecute [the matter] with him,” which means by Heavenly execution.

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 life not having been avenged. While Michayuh was thus temporarily under the spell of the spirit of Navot, he had made a comment which lured Achav into waging war. Shortly thereafter his own spirit took over and he revealed to Yehoshaphat in the presence of Achav what he had truly been shown. By that time Achav had good reason not to take him seriously since he had contradicted himself and discredited himself. There are numerous questions regarding the conduct of Michayuh, not the least of which is why he eventually tried to thwart G'd's plan to entrap Achav so that he could fall in battle. Why did he tell Achav about what he had seen in a vision thus encouraging Achav to save his life by not going to war?

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).

The Torah in its wisdom foresaw events in the future, including what has been described in Kings I chapter 22 when a spirit would emanate from G'd deliberately deceiving the prophets. At such a time the prophets who would speak an untruth would not be culpable as they acted under divine compulsion. Therefore, when the Torah speaks of the penalty for a false prophet it had to make an exception for situations such as that involving Michayuh. This is the reason the Torah commences our verse with the restrictive word אך; in other words the Torah forewarns that there could be an exception to the applicability of the legislation it is about to reveal here. In order to make this point even clearer the Torah added the word אשר יזיד, i.e. when the prophet deliberately and with sinful intent speaks of things G'd has not said to him, only then is he guilty of the death penalty. By writing these two words, a prophet such as Michayhu is let off the hook, so to speak. It even follows that the other 400 prophets who had prophesied could not be executed as they had, after all, prophesied the same as had Michayhu. This leaves us with the question of why the Talmud Sanhedrin 89 claims that although Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah who had prophesied precisely the same as all the others was considered as having been guilty of a capital crime? The Talmud explains that Tzidkiyahu should have known that G'd never uses two prophets to announce the same message. Although, in that particular instance, another 400 "prophets" also prophesied what Tzidkiyahu and Michayuh had prophesied when they promised Achav success, all of them stopped prophesying when they had become aware that they had all said the same thing. This clued them in that the spirit of Navot or something else had possessed them. The only "prophet" who continued with the theme and who made a big to do about the symbol of the iron horns was Tzidkiyahu. By doing so he had incriminated himself under the heading of אשר יזיד לדבר דבר, "who says something with sinful intent."

In view of the above it is natural that generations following that of Moses would ask how they could be expected to distinguish between who is a true prophet relating what G'd had told him to say, and who has either fabricated a story or revealed something G'd had not authorised him to reveal? How would they know when a prophet had been possessed by a spirit analogous to that of Navot Hacarmeli in Kings I 22? Why should a prophet be put to death when we do not know what motivated him? In the case of the story involving Michayuh it is a fact that but for the first pronouncement of Michayuh all 400 prophets were guilty of death seeing they prophesied falsely, Achav being killed in the battle. Who would have known that all these prophets acted under compulsion by heavenly forces? Could the Torah i.e. G'd, who loves justice, take a chance that all these prophets would be put to death? The question put by the Torah in the mouth of future generations with the words וכי תאמר..איכה נדע הדבר אשר לא דברו השם "if you will say …how will we know the word which G'd has not said to him, etc.," includes both what G'd said to the prophet and what He said to the spirit of Navot by telling him to mislead Achav.

Our verse continues: אשר ידבר הנביא, "if the prophet relates his prophecy in the name of G'd etc., ולא יהיה הדבר, and the word (subject of the prophecy) will not come to pass, then you will know that the prophet spoke deliberately sinfully, and not because he had been misled by the spirit of someone such as Navot. The reason for this is that כי בזדון דברו הנביא, G'd would not have it said of Him that He gave the power of prophecy to a deliberate sinner. If such a so-called prophet was indeed possessed by the spirit of someone such as Navot it was only because he already planned to abuse the power of prophecy in the first place. הוא הדבר אשר לא רברו השם, "that is the word which G'd had not said to him." The Torah advises that non-occurrence of a favourable prophecy will be proof that whoever made such a prophecy did not make it in G'd's name; such a man was not misled by some spirit such as that of Navot or anything like it which caused him to prophesy. Concerning the last mentioned situation, the Torah adds כי בזדון דברו, "he said it with deliberate sinful intention. There could be another situation of which the Torah cannot tell you that the "prophet" acted with sinful intent although the prophecy was a lie, namely when the "prophet did not speak in the name of the Lord but in the name of a spirit such as the one of Navot Hacarmeli.

When you examine the text in the Book of Kings where the conduct of Michayuh is described you will find that when he spoke the first time (when he appeared to agree with the 400 "prophets") he never mentioned that he spoke in the name of G'd, he only wished him that G'd would make him successful. In fact it was Yehoshaphat who mentioned that he wanted to hear the word of G'd (Kings I 22,6). It is clear from verse 16 in that chapter that when Michayuh appeared to concur with the 400 prophets (without confirming that he spoke in the name of G'd) Achav himself noticed this and upraided him for not speaking in the name of G'd. [I have taken the liberty of changing the author's words here as I feel that the way I present it strengthens his argument still further. Ed.]

It is entirely possible that the the words "in the name of the Lord," and the words: "I make you swear" in that verse do not form part of the same statement. If so, it is not surprising why Michayuh revealed G'd's secret (that Achav would fall in battle). If he said what he said without claiming to have said it in the name of G'd, G'd's name would not become associated with a lie. At any rate, seeing that Achav had not believed Michayuh's first glib assurance when he wished him success, there was never any danger that G'd's name would become discredited in Achav's eyes. [You will observe that already in verse 14 Michayuh was referring to what G'd would tell him (future), not to what G'd had already said to him. Ed.]

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 Babylon²¹⁵Jeremiah 27:16. 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 vessels²¹⁶Ibid., Verse 19. which were not exiled with Jeconiah,²¹⁷Eleven years before the destruction of the First Temple, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took into captivity Jeconiah, king of Judah, together with some of the vessels of the Temple. In the interim, during the reign of Zedekiah the last king of Judah, the false prophet told the people that shortly the sacred vessels will be brought from Babylon and that, therefore, Zedekiah need not submit politically to Babylon. Jeremiah the true prophet warned that, if they would not submit to Babylon, even the vessels still remaining in the Sanctuary would be carried away. they shall be carried to Babylon²¹⁸Ibid., Verse 22. with the exile of Zedekiah.” This is Rashi’s language from the Sifre.²¹⁹Sifre, Shoftim 178. 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 mentioned²²⁰Above, 4:25. 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.²²¹Verse 22. Do not fear him²²¹Verse 22. because of his wisdom or because of the sign that he gave [even though] the sign or the wonder did come to pass.²²²Above, 13:3. 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,²²³I.e., how shall we know the word which G-d had not spoken, and how shall we know the word which He had spoken? 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,²⁰⁵I Samuel 3:20. 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.²⁰⁹Verse 15. 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 Carmel²²⁴I Kings 18:23-39. See also Ramban above, 13:4. [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,²⁰⁹Verse 15. [And G-d said, I will raise them up a prophet] like unto thee,²²⁵Verse 18. 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,²²⁶Exodus 4:30-31. — or that he foretells some future event and it occurs. And thus the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin:²²⁷Sanhedrin 89 a-b. “Whoever disobeys a prophet, is liable to death by the hands of Heaven, as it is written, I will require it of him.”²²⁸Verse 19. 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 Micaiah²²⁹In I Kings 20:35 it is told that, following a decisive battle in which Ahab king of Israel defeated Ben-hadad of Syria, Ahab befriended Ben-hadad instead of killing him as a prophet had commanded him to do. To show G-d’s displeasure with Ahab, Scripture relates, And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his fellow by the word of the Eternal: ‘Smite me, I pray thee.’ And the man refused to smite him. The following verse says that the man was slain by a lion because of his refusal to obey the prophet. The lesson was clear: just as that man was punished, so would Ahab be punished for disobeying the prophetic command to smite Ben-hadad. Now this certain man of the sons of the prophets is identified by tradition as having been Micaiah [a prophet mentioned there in Chapter 22 Verse 13]. When Micaiah ordered the man to smite him, he gave no sign that he was a prophet, yet the man was punished for disobeying! Hence the Gemara’s question: How was he to know that Micaiah was a prophet? the prophet gave him no sign and yet he was punished [for refusing to hearken to him! The Gemara answered]: It is different when a person is known to be an established prophet [in which case he need not give a sign]. And if this is not the case, how did Isaac hearken to Abraham on Mount Moriah [to submit himself to slaughter, a command, which had been given to Abraham but not to him]? And how did we rely on Elijah on Mount Carmel to bring offerings outside [the Sanctuary Court in Jerusalem? Obviously we must say that] it is different if the prophet is established [in which case he must be obeyed even if he does not offer a sign].”
Now Rashi wrote:²³⁰Verse 22. Rashi attempts to answer the question, how we are to know when to obey some one who claims to be a prophet? Regarding such a case, he writes, “they have already etc.” “They have already been commanded that if one comes to entice you from [observing] one of the commandments [of G-d] you are not to hearken to him²³¹Above, 13:9. unless it has been clearly established by you that he is an absolutely righteous man, like Elijah on Mount Carmel [who brought the offerings outside the Sanctuary Court] because of the needs of the time. Therefore it states, unto him ye shall hearken.”²⁰⁹Verse 15. — But this does not appear to be correct, for the necessary verification is not that he is a righteous man but that he is a true prophet known to all by having previously foretold future events which indeed came to pass, this being his “sign” as referred to in this section,²³²Verse 22: When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Eternal, if the thing follow not … or some wonders which he has done in our presence.²³³Above, 13:2. This constitutes the presumption of prophets. In saying “a perfectly righteous man,” perhaps Rashi meant what Harav Rabbeinu²³⁴“The Rabbi our teacher.” Moshe [ben Maimon] wrote in Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah:²³⁵“The laws of the Foundations of the Torah,” 7:7. “When a prophet is assigned a mission, he is given a sign or wonder so that the people might know that G-d had truly sent him. We do not believe everyone who shows a sign or wonder to be a prophet. Only a man whom we already know to be worthy of prophecy — by reason of his wisdom and deeds wherein he stands pre-eminent among all his contemporaries, and follows the paths of prophecy, in its sanctity and renunciation [of physical lust] — who then comes and performs a sign or wonder and says that G-d sent him, it is a commandment to hearken to him, as it is said, unto him ye shall hearken.²⁰⁹Verse 15. It is possible that such a man may perform a sign or wonder and still not be a prophet [in which case] the sign must have some [other] meaning.²³⁶“There is something hidden in this matter which requires scrutiny” (Rashi, Kethuboth 111a, in explanation of a similar expression in the Gemara there). Nevertheless, it is a commandment to listen to him, since he is a great man, learned and worthy of prophecy, we assign him the presumption [that his claim is true], just as we have been commanded to render a decision [in court] by the testimony of two proper witnesses even though it is possible that they testified falsely, because we consider them to be legitimate witnesses [having no basis to assume the contrary] we assign them the presumption of legitimacy in their testimony. On such matters it is said, The secret things belong unto the Eternal our G-d,²³⁷Further, 29:28, meaning that we are required to judge human affairs based only on the available evidence. and it is further said, for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Eternal looketh on the heart.”²³⁸I Samuel 16:7.

?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.)

You are destined to say this. Because the word וכי always refers to a future [event], [something] that will happen, such as (Shmos 21:20) “וכי יכה איש (if a man strikes)” which means when he will strike. And similarly (Ibid., v. 28) “כי יגח שור (when an ox gores),” and the same [holds true] in similar cases.

VV. 21 u. 22. וכי תאמר בלבבך וגו׳ אשר ידבר וגו׳. V. 20 ist der falsche Prophet, נביא שקר, der Prophet der Lüge, der im Namen Gottes spricht, was Gott ihm nicht aufgetragen, der gerichtlichen Ahndung überwiesen. Daran knüpft sich notwendig die Frage nach dem Kriterium, woran wir das erlogene Prophetenwort erkennen sollen. Ein Kriterium an dem Inhalt eines Prophetenwortes ist uns bereits Kap. 13, 3 und 6 gegeben. Ein Wort, das uns zum Abfall von Gott, oder zum Abfall von seinem Gesetze aufforderte, das auch nur ein einziges Gesetz als, abrogiert im Namen Gottes erklärte, erwiese sich durch seinen Inhalt als Lüge und machte den, der es spräche, und stände er sonst in vollstem Sinne als Prophet beglaubigt da, dem gerichtlichen Tode verfallen (siehe daselbst).

While Yirmiyahu will stand and cry out, etc. Meaning, he will say the opposite [i.e., that more exile will follow].

Allein es handelt sich hier um Beglaubigung eines Propheten als solchen im allgemeinen, woran, wenn sein Wort nicht im Widerspruch mit dem göttlichen Gesetze steht, zu erkennen sein solle, dass es gleichwohl Gott nicht gesprochen habe. Hierauf lautet die Antwort:

Concerning the columns and the basin, etc. I.e., the basin that Shlomo made.

ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבא — אשר ידבר הנביא בשם ד׳ וגו׳. Das Eintreffen eines im Bereiche der Natur voraus verkündeten Wunders wird mit dem Begriffe היה bezeichnet. So die Wunder, die Mosche vor Pharao zu üben hatte: יהי לתנין ויהי לתנין ויהי ברד .חיה השחין ,למחר יהיה האות הזה .והיה לכנים היה כנים .ויהיו דם וחיה דם ויהי חשך .הברד לא יהיה עוד .לא היה ברד. Hingegen das Eintreffen von Ereignissen im Gebiete menschengeschichtlicher Verhältnisse findet in der Regel seinen Ausdruck in בוא. So: לא נפל דבר מכל הדבר הטוב אשר דבר ד׳ אל בית ישראל הכל בא (Josua 21, 43) und sonst sehr häufig. Wir glauben daher, dass durch ולא יהיה הדבר ולא יבא die beiden Fakta bezeichnet seien, durch welche das Faktum der Sendung eines Propheten, beglaubigt werden könne. Entweder durch das Eintreffen eines voraus verkündigten Wunders in der Natur: יהיה, oder durch das Eintreffen eines voraus verkündigten Ereignisses in der Geschichte: יבא. In der Tat gibt es auch zur Beglaubigung der tatsächlichen Wahrheit einer von Gott, dem Schöpfer und Meister der Natur und dem Gebieter und Lenker der Geschicke, herrührenden Sendung nichts anderes als: das Eintreffen eines voraus angekündigten Wunders, oder: die sich bewahrheitende Verkündung der Zukunft. Hat ein Prophet im Namen Gottes ein Wunder angekündigt, ולא יהיה und es trifft nicht ein, oder ein künftiges Ereignis, ולא יבא, und es kommt nicht, ׳הוא הדבר אשר לא דבר ד das ist ein Wort, das Gott nicht gesprochen, בזדון דברו הנביא, das hat der Prophet in frevelhaftem Missbrauch des göttlichen Namens gesprochen; und hätte er dir bisher im höchsten Vertrauen gestanden, mit einem einzigen solchen als falsch befundenen Worte hat er sich für immer gerichtet, לא תגור ממנו: wie hoch auch sonst seine Persönlichkeit in bisher verdientem Ansehen gestanden sein möge, du hast dich nicht zu scheuen, ihn öffentlich der Lüge zu zeihen und ihn der verwirkten Strafe zu überweisen. Beiläufig ist, wie uns scheint, auch dies לא תגור ממנו ein Beweis, dass, wie wir wiederholt bemerkt, der Berufung zum Propheten bereits die Erreichung einer hohen Stufe geistiger und sittlicher Größe vorangegangen sein müsse. Setzt doch eben dies לא תגור ממנו voraus, dass auch, abgesehen von der vorgeblichen prophetischen Sendung, es eine hohe Achtung und Beachtung verdienende Persönlichkeit sei.

Es hat aber, wie Sanhedrin 89 b erläutert wird, der Prophet nur beim Antritt seiner Sendung sich durch ein Wunder oder ein vorausverkündetes Ereignis zu legitimieren, keineswegs aber eine solche Legitimation bei jedem künftig von ihm im Namen Gottes zu sprechenden Worte zu wiederholen, vielmehr, sobald er einmal מוחזק geworden, heißt es von ihm für alle Folgezeit:

אליו תשמעון (V. 15; — siehe daselbst).

Überhaupt gehört Wundertätigkeit und sogenanntes Wahrsagen nicht zu dem eigentlichen Berufe der jüdischen Propheten und bildet keineswegs den Zweck ihrer Sendung. נביא zu sein, Organ Gottes, — נבא verwandt mit נבע; vergl. יביע אומר (Ps.19, 3) אביעה חדות (daselbst 78, 2) u.f. — Seinem Volke den Einblick in sich selber und in die Gänge Gottes mit ihm und mit den Völkern der Menschheit zu vermitteln, ihm das Verständnis seiner Gegenwärt und seiner Erwartungen für die Zukunft zu enthüllen, um es durch alles dies im Guten zu befestigen, vor Schlechtem zu warnen und ihm den ausharrenden Mut und die ausharrende Treue bei Gott und seinem Gesetze durch alle Gänge der Zeiten zu bringen, das war — wie ihr Wort uns ja noch offen liegt — ihr eigenster Beruf. Durch sie sollte Israel das Geschichtsvolk werden, das mit offenem, Gott schauendem Auge durch die Weltgeschichte wandert. Die Wunder, die sie taten — und wie verschwindend wenige wissen wir von allen den Männern, von Jesaias bis Maleachi, die den Jahrhunderte durchleuchtenden Prophetengeist trugen — waren alle nicht Selbstzweck, standen alle im Dienste dieses ihres nationalen obersten Berufes, und auch von Männern, wie Nathan und Gad, deren Prophetenwort mehr im Dienste ihrer nächsten Gegenwart stand und daher nicht für die kommenden Geschlechter aufgezeichnet wurde (Megilla 14 a), sind uns keine Wundertaten berichtet. Und wenn diese in dem Leben eines Elijahn und Elischa in größerer Zahl und vorzugsweise auch in Verhältnissen des Privatlebens auftreten, so halten wir die Bemerkung nicht für ganz irrig, dass deren Wirksamkeit sich ausschließlich im Reiche Israel bewegte, wo, von oben genährt, das Volksleben vielfach durch das heidnische Unwesen der Baalspfaffen und Baalspropheten getrübt war, dem gegenüber, durch Bekundung der wirklichen und wahrhaftigen Gegenwart und Allmacht des wahrhaftigen einzig Einen selbst, bis in die kleinen Verhältnisse des Einzellebens auf Erden hinein, das reinere Gottbewusstsein und die reine Gottesanerkennung in der Brust der Söhne und Töchter des Volkes zu wecken, zu nähren und zu befestigen, sowie den Lügenprätensionen der Hierophanten des dem Baaltum verfallenen Hofes mit vernichtenden Bezeugungen des Wahrhaftigen entgegenzutreten gewesen sein mochte. Im Reiche Juda finden wir wenigstens solche Wundertätigkeiten kaum. —

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).

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, 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)

And you observe that it does not occur, etc. As in the case of Chananyah ben Azor, because afterwards the rest of the vessels were transported to Babylon with the exile of Zidkiyahu.

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.

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).

But you may ask, this applies with a prophet who foretells the future, etc. I.e., this test applies if he prophesies about future events, as in the case of Chananyah ben Azor. But if he came and said, “Do so and so and I am speaking from Hashem’s mouth,” in such a case how can we know that He did not speak? Rashi explains, regarding this, “We have already, etc.

If he attempts to divert you from any one of the commandments, do not listen to him, etc. And if he does not attempt to divert you, it does not matter if you listen to him.

This is why it is stated, “You shall obey him.” I.e., if in your estimation he is established and a perfect saint.

Do not fear punishment because of him. Because Rashi in parshas Devarim (above 1:17) gives two explanations of לא תגורו, that it means either fear or gathering in [i.e. refraining], therefore he mentions these two meanings [here]. (In the name of Maharitz). Re”m explains that Rashi writes “Do not fear punishment because of him” after saying “Do not refrain from finding him guilty,” because it provides a rationale for [observing the command] “Do not refrain, etc.” It is as if the verse said, “Do not refrain, etc. and do not fear punishment because of this.”

And that is that only the Levites were commanded to serve in the Temple in specific [types of] service, such as shutting the gates and reciting song at the time of the sacrifice. And that is His, may He be exalted and praised, saying, "And the Levite shall serve" (Numbers 18:23). And this is the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 119:5), "I would understand [that] if he wishes, he serves; and if he does not wish, he does not serve. [Hence,] we learn to say, 'And the Levite shall serve' - [even] against his will." That is to say that it is an obligatory command that is placed upon him by force - and that is the service of the Levites. And it has already been explained in several place in Tamid and Middot, and it is also explained in the second chapter of Arakhin (Arakhin 11a), that only the Levites could recite song (during the Temple service). And the command for this commandment was already repeated with different language, and that is His saying, "And he shall serve in the name of the Lord, his God, like all his fellow Levites" (Deuteronomy 18:7). And they said in the second chapter of Arakhin (Arakhin 11a), "What is service that must be in the name of the Lord? You must say that this is song." (See Parashat Korach; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 3.)

And that is that He commanded us that the priests serve in watches, each watch serving one week. And the hand of all should not be mixed together (in service); except on festivals when all of the watches serve equally and anyone who comes from them can offer a sacrifice. And this has already been explained in Chronicles (I Chronicles 9:22) - how David and Shmuel divided them into twenty-four watches. And it is explained in Sukkah (Sukkah 55b) that the hand of all [priests] are equal on festivals. And the language of this commandment is His saying, "If a Levite would go, etc. he may come as he pleases. He may serve in the name of the Lord, his God [...] They shall eat equal shares" (Deuteronomy 18:6-8). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 168:5, 169:3) is, "'He may come as he pleases.' I might think always. [Hence] we learn to say, 'from one of your gates' (Deuteronomy 18:6) - when all of Israel are assembled within one gate; and that is during the three festivals. I might think that all of the watches are [also] equal for offerings brought on the festival not for the sake of the festival. [Hence] we learn to say, 'aside from the sale of the fathers' (Deuteronomy 18:8) - what the fathers sold to each other, i.e., 'You [take them] on your Shabbat, and I on my Shabbat.'" This means their agreement about all of the watches of the service, one watch for each week. And so did Onkelos (Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 18:8), explain, "except for the allotment which comes on Shabbat, as our (fore)fathers have regulated." And they have already explained the laws of this commandment at the end of the Gemara in Sukkah. (See Parashat Shoftim; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 4.)