신명기 12:35의 주석

אלה החקים והמשפטים אשר תשמרון...-לרשתה כל הימים, observance of all the commandments listed forthwith is, among other things, a condition to ensure that you will remain ancestral owners of this land for all time. כל הימים, during all the time when you are busy wiping out locations dedicated to idolatry and you will not yourselves worship idols by becoming like them by offering your sacrifices wherever it pleases you.

לרשתה כל הימים, "to possess it for all time, etc." Moses simply meant that if the Israelites were to keep G'd's commandments then their tenure in the land would continue for ever.

Kap. 12. V. 1. אלה החקים. Hier beginnt das eigentliche Gesetzkompendium für die Landesbesitznahme. אלה החקים usw. (siehe zum Schluss des vorigen Kapitels).

אלה החוקים, “these are the statutes;” whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word אלה, this means that what follows is not a continuation in some form of what had preceded it. In this case too, the subject of the function of the two mountains Gerizim and Eyval are not connected to what follows. The commandment to be performed on or near these mountains, were one time only commandments. The places near there on which the gentiles had worshipped idols had to be totally destroyed.

אבד תאבדון YE SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY — Destroy and again destroy! (i.e. utterly destroy). From here we learn that he who eradicates an object of idol-worship must thoroughly uproot it (i.e. remove every trace of it) (Sifrei Devarim 60:1).

אבד תאבדון את כל המקמזת, "You shall utterly destroy all the sites, etc." We can understand this verse in conjunction with the Mishnah 7 chapter 3 in tractate Avodah Zarah. We are taught there: "there are three categories of houses; 1) a house which was constructed in order to serve as a place of worship. Such a house is (totally) forbidden. 2) A house which originally was not used or intended for such worship but has been redecorated in order to serve as a house of worship. 3) The Gentile made an addition to the existing house which was intended and used as a residence. In the latter two instances the Jew has to demolish all the new decorations or additions and he may have use of the rest of such a house." The Talmud elaborates on this Mishnah saying that if someone prostrates himself in front of any house (indicating he worships it) he has thereby made it completely forbidden to every Jew. From this we deduce that even if someone had only joined together individual stones and attached them to the ground they are still considered as if they were separate and the house is not forbidden until it was used for the purpose for which it has been designated! The Talmud queries why this should be so seeing the Mishnah had forbidden such a house even if the entire house had been built for an idolatrous purpose before anyone had prostrated himself! The Talmud answers that the Mishnah taught us the law that even if the house had only been built for a purpose for which it had not yet been used it is already totally forbidden. Thus far the Talmud on the subject. Maimonides accepts this ruling in his treatise Hilchot Avodah Zarah chapter 8. This ruling is reflected in what our verse says: "all the sites where the Canaanites used to serve idols." The meaning is that it is irrelevant if the place had originally been built for the purpose or not. If idolatrous practices had been performed there the Israelites must destroy it even if only an addition to such a house had been used for idolatry.

אשר עבדו שם הגויים, where the former inhabitants worshipped their deities.

אבד תאבדון, “you must surely destroy, etc.” The repetition of the verb אבד prompted our sages in Avodah Zarah 45 to say that when destroying idols, etc., one must do more than let the remains lie around, but must scatter them in the wind or drown them in the Dead Sea or a similar place.

Destroy, then destroy afterward, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אבד תאבדון, which is repetitive? Even though the Torah uses common speech, it should have said אבד תאבדו. Yet it is written תאבדון [i.e., an extra letter nun] in order to be expounded. This is not in accordance with Re”m’s explanation.

V. 2. אבד וגו׳. Die erste Aufgabe ist: Säuberung des Landes von allen Spuren des Polytheismus. Das Land soll Boden des einzig Einen und seines Gesetzes werden: es darf keine Erinnerung an eine gegensätzliche Welt- und Lebensanschauung tragen. אבד תאבדון, bis auf die letzte Spur vertilgen, מכאן לעוקר ע׳׳ז שצריך לשרש אחריה (Aboda Sara 45 b).

אבד תאבדון את כל המקומות, “you are to utterly destroy all the sites, etc.; ”the Torah here speaks of vessels used in the worship of idols, [not the earth itself on which the idol stands. Ed.] Besides, it is impossible to forbid the surface of the earth for use, as if so, the idolaters would be able to turn all habitable surfaces on the globe into forbidden areas. (B’chor shor)

את כל המקמות אשר עבדו שם וגו׳ [YE SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY] ALL THE PLACES (according to Rashi: FROM ALL THE PLACES) WHEREIN [THE NATIONS …] SERVED — And what shall ye destroy from them? Their gods which are upon the mountains (Avodah Zarah 45a).

What must you obliterate from them?, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “You must obliterate all the places where the nations worshipped”? But whatever is connected to the earth [and certainly the earth itself] cannot become an idol (Avoda Zara 45a). Rather, “All the places,” means, “From the places. And what must you obliterate from them? Their gods, etc.” I.e., the words “their gods” are connected to, “You must obliterate,” and not to, “where the nations worshipped.” It is as if the verse says, “You must obliterate their gods on the mountains where the nations worshipped.” This is what Rashi means by saying, “What must you obliterate from them?” [“All the places,” taken literally, would include places that are impossible to destroy. But now that “all” is interpreted as “from,”] and it excludes any place that is impossible to destroy, such as worship of the celestial bodies.

אשר אתם יורשים אתם, "which you are about to inherit." These words are best understood by reference to Hilchot Avodah Zarah 7,1 by Maimonides. He writes: "in the land of Israel it is one of the positive commandments to pursue (seek out) all places where idolatry is practiced until we have succeeded in eliminating it, whereas in the diaspora or in the countries adjacent to the land of Israel we need to destroy such places only as and when we come across them." Maimonides quotes our verse as proof that only in the land of Israel must we seek out such places. The operative clause is clearly: "which you are about to inherit." Once something is ours, the law applies universally.

את כל המקמות. Wir haben schon oben zu Kap. 7, 25 und 7, 5 angemerkt, dass כל שאין בו תפיסת ידי אדם, dass das, was "nicht von Menschen gehandhabt worden", was מחובר, mit der Erde verbunden, der nicht von Menschen gehandhabten Natur angehört, nicht durch ע׳׳ז, durch polytheistischen Missbrauch אסור wird. Solche Dinge gehen ja in den Menschenbesitz nicht auf, reichen vielmehr über jede Menschenangehörigkeit hinaus und können daher durch keinen Menschen den איסור-Charakter erhalten. Es fällt dieser Kanon eng mit dem andern zusammen, dass אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, dass kein Mensch einem seinem Eigentumsrecht fremden Gegenstand den איסור-Charakter erteilen könne. Berge, Quellen, nicht zum ע׳׳ז Zweck gepflanzte Bäume, werden daher, selbst wenn ihnen götzentümlicher Kult erwiesen worden, nicht אסור, obgleich der ihnen erwiesene Kult strafbares ע׳׳ז-Verbrechen ist. העכ׳׳ום העובדים את ההרים ואת הגבעות הן מותרין ועובדיהן בסייף (Aboda Sara 46 a). Hat aber ein Mensch an ihnen zum ע׳׳ז-Zweck eine Veränderung hervorgebracht, so werden auch sie אע"׳פי שאמרו המשתחוה .אסור לקרקע עולם לא אסרה חפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות אסרה daselbst 54 b), ähnlich wie) dies ja selbst für דבר שאינו שלו (Chulin 40 a) ausgesprochen ist, אע"׳פי שאמרו המשתחוה לבהמת חברו לא אסרה עשה בה מעשה אסרה (siehe jedoch הל ע׳׳ז ,רמבם und 1 ,8 ראב׳ד daselbst).

את אלהיהם על ההרים, “their deities on the mountains;” our sages explain that they had not turned the mountains themselves into deities. (Sifri )

The reason Moses repeats the word אבד may be understood in conjunction with the statement in Avodah Zarah 43 that in order to cancel or revoke the idolatrous character of an object two conditions have to be met. The object has to be ground into small pieces and scattered into the wind or into the sea. If only one of these conditions has been met, one did not fulfil one's obligation. This is alluded to when Moses said the word אבד twice.

Dieser Satz wird Aboda Sara 45 a an dem Ausspruch unserer Stelle gelehrt: אבד תאבדון וגו׳ אשר עבדו וגו׳ אלהיהם על ההרים אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם על הגבעות ולא הגבעות אלהיהם. Es ist hier Vernichtung des auf den Bergen und auf den Hügeln vorhandenen Götterunwesens, nicht aber Vernichtung der Berge und di>er Hügel geboten, wenn etwa diese selbst abgötterisch verehrt worden, geschweige dass sie nicht der Vernichtung verfallen, wenn sie nur, wie unser Text sagt, die Örtlichkeit sind, wo Abgötterei getrieben worden. Wenn gleichwohl es in unserem Texte heißt: אבד תאבדון את כל המקמות אשר עבדו שם הגוים וגו׳ את אלהיהם על ההרים וגו׳, dass die "i>Stellen" vernichtet werden sollen, wo die Völker auf den Bergen ihren Göttern gedient haben, so wird dies (daselbst 51 b) von כלים שנשתמשו בהן לע׳׳ז, von Opfergerätschaften verstanden, die zum Götterkult gedient und auf den Bergen und Anhöhen die Stellen kennzeichnen, wo der Götterdienst gepflegt worden. Selbst wenn solche Opferutensilien und Götterdienstzubehör an diesen מקומות על ההרים ein- und aufgemauert waren, behalten sie noch den mobilen תלוש-Charakter und erliegen dem איסורVerbot und אבוד-Gebot; denn in Beziehung auf ע׳׳ז gilt der Satz, dass תלוש ולבסוף חברו כתלוש דמי (Chulin 16 a). Und ebenso, wie ריט׳׳בא zu ע׳׳ז (daselbst) bemerkt, würden auch die Opferstellen, wenn sie durch Menschenarbeit zum Opferkult hergerichtet worden, nach der oben mitgeteilten Halacha חפר בה וגו׳ אסרה, ebenso unter den איסור=כלים begriffen sein. אבד תאבדון את כל המקמות וגו spricht daher nicht von den Bergen, sondern von den auf den Bergen durch Kultzubehör oder Herrichtung als Opferstellen gekennzeichneten Plätzen. Vergl. zu Kap. 7, 25:

את אלהיהם, “this word has the letter ו missing after the letter ל.” In this way it is a continuation of the line: “upon which the gentile nations had served their idols.” The paragraph is a commandment to remove and destroy all idols everywhere the Canaanites had worshipped such socalled deities.

את אלוהיהם על ההרים, "their gods on the mountains, etc." Seeing that Moses had said that the various places we mentioned are all forbidden because they have served as places where idolatry has been practiced, Moses had to tell the people that there are sites where idolatry was practiced which have not thereby become subject to destruction. One such example are the mountains. In Avodah Zarah 45 the sages read the words אלוהיהם על ההרים, as a contrast to ההרים אלוהיהם. This means that legally speaking the mountains cannot be declared as deities. If the idolators declare a certain mountain as a deity such a declaration is invalid and does not affect the status of such a mountain in Jewish law. [One reason advanced for this concept is that mountains are an integral part of the universe, cannot be owned by individuals. We have a rule that an individual cannot legally preclude another from using something which does not personally belong to the person who wishes to deny its use to another. Ed.] In Avodah Zarah 51 the Talmud determines that when a certain verse appears superfluous in its own context it may be applied exegetically to another context. If, for instance, the verse was not needed in connection with the subject of what is ritually impure as a result of buildings connected to the ground which hve been used for idolatry, it may be used in connection with whether certain vessels are ritually impure or not if they have been used for idolatrous purposes. The underlying concept there is that we do not need a special verse to tell us that if something was a separate body and was attached to some building which served idolatrous purpose that it becomes ritually impure and cannot be purified.

לענין כלים שנשתמשו ׳למחובר יש סתירה בין תוספו׳ חולין מ׳ א׳ ד׳׳ה הא דאמר להר ובין תוספות ע׳׳ו נ׳׳ב א ד׳׳ה תנהו ענין לכלים לתוספו׳ דע׳׳ו פי׳ לכלים שנשתמשו בהן לע"א הכתוב מדבר כלומר ׳שנשתמשו להרים אלהיהם דהיינו מחובר ואם כן כלים שנשתמשו למחובר אסורים ולתוספות דחולין אדרבא מוכח משם דכלים שנשתמשו למחובר מותרים ובכלים שנשתמשו בהן לע"א הכתוב מדבר רצונו לומר שנשתמשו לאלהיהם על ההרים ולא להרים אלהיהם ופירוש זה נראה יותר מסוגית הגמרא ע׳׳ש ודוק.

We may also understand the words את אלוהיהם by paying attention to its peculiar position in the verse. It is placed between mention of the worshipers and mention of the objects worshiped. The normal syntax of the verse should have been: עבדו שם הגוים את אלוהיהם אשר אתם יורשים אתם, "where the Gentiles worshiped their deities… which you are about to inherit." The reason the Torah departed from its normal syntax may be understood in light of Avodah Zarah 44 where Rav Hunna poses a question about two contradictory verses in Scripture. We read in Chronicles I 14,12 that David burned the idols the Philistines left behind. In Samuel II 5,21 David and his men are reported to have "carried these idols." The Talmud answers that there is no contradiction. In the description in Samuel the prophet refers to what David did after the arrival of Ittai Hagitti, whereas in the description in Chronicles Ezra reported about what was done before the arrival of Ittai Hagitti. [a loyal non-Jewish battalion commander of David, compare Samuel II 15,19-22. Ed.] We are told in Samuel II 12,30 that David took the crown of the king of the Ammonites (after Yoav defeated him) and put it on his own head. How could he do this seeing it had served idolatrous purposes? Rav Nachman answered that Ittai Hagitti had first annulled whatever idolatrous character the crown possessed. From this episode it appears that it is possible even to inherit (make use of) the idol itself! This is possible only when the former adherents of such an idol have themselves deprived it of their original function. Only in such cases may the Israelites subsequently derive benefit from erstwhile idols. This is what Moses had in mind when he wrote אשר יורשים אתם את אלוהיהם, "whom you inherit when their idols are present." Moses alluded to a situation similar to that when Ittai Hagitti annulled the idol's significance as an idol.

על ההרים וגו׳. Hohe Berge sind die pyhsikalischen "Mütter" des Erdenlebens. Sie trinken und sammeln die atmosphärischen Niederschläge und führen sie den zu befruchtenden Niederungen zu. Sie sind ebenso die Anzieher der Elektrizität aus den Wolken. Vielleicht ist auch die Wurzel הרר mit הרה verwandt, wie שסם und שסה, דמם und קצץ ,דמה und קצה usw. und haben Berge ihren Namen von dem Lebenempfängnis, das sie der Erde vermitteln. In den Hügeln senken sich die Höhen zur Bewirtschaftung des Menschen nieder, und mit den Hügeln beginnt der irdische Menschenboden.

A moral/ethical approach to our verse sees in it a promise that even the unseen, mystical power of the idolatrous images, will be totally destroyed when the Israelites make every effort to destroy every visible evidence of idolatry in the land of Israel. This is why the Torah emphasises כל המקומות אשר עבדו שם, "all the places where they worshiped." This is a reference to the throne of Satan. Israel's effort will be crowned by success and G'd will become enthroned as the sole ruler over the entire globe.

עץ רענן. Für רען findet sich eine Analogie in dem rabbinischen רהן, welches ein eventuell zu bleibendem Eigentum Übergeben bedeutet. עץ רענן .הרהינו אצלו wäre demnach ein Baum, dem voraussätzlich sein Pflanzenschmuck bleibt, ein immer grünender Baum. Dem polytheistischen Götterkult waren somit Stellen, wo die Naturkraft in ihrer besonderen Mächtigleit in die Erscheinung tritt, die für seine Götterverehrung willkommensten Plätze.

מזבח consists of many stones,

A tree that was worshipped. Although the asherah is connected to the earth and therefore should be considered as the earth itself, here is different. For man is involved at the very beginning when the seed is planted (Avoda Zara ibid.). Alternatively: Here [the verse refers to a tree that] was originally planted for the sake of idolatry. For according to all opinions, such a tree is completely forbidden (ibid. 48a), because it was planted originally for idol worship.

ואבדתם את שמם, "and you will destroy their name, etc." The question is asked in Avodah Zarah 45 what these words can possibly add when we have already been told to utterly destroy every place where idolatry had been performed? The sages answer that even the roots of the trees which were symbols of idolatry have to be uprooted. Rabbi Akiva says that the names of such sites have to changed to something degrading. Thus far the Talmud. Perhaps the Torah wanted to issue a special warning applicable only to the land of Israel, similar to what Maimonides wrote that in the Holy Land we have to seek out such places and destroy them, whereas in other countries we are not obliged to do this. This is why Moses emphasises the words מן המקום ההוא, "from that place."

V. 3. ונתצתם וגו׳ ihr sollt die Spuren des Heidentums in seinen Gottesverehrungen: מזבחותם, seinen Traditionen: מצבותם, und seinem Aberglauben: אשריהם, vertilgen. ואשריהם תשרפון באש, wenn der Baum von Anfang an zu ע׳׳ז gepflanzt worden, und wenn es oben Kap. 7, 5 heißt ואשריהם תגדעון, wonach der Stamm erhalten bleiben darf, so spricht dies von einem Baume, der בהיתר gepflanzt war und nachher ע׳׳ז Verehrung fand אילן שנטעו ולבסוף עבדו, bei welchem nur das אסור ward, was nachwuchs (siehe daselbst).

ונתצתם את מזבחותם, “you shall break down all their altars;” the phrase is a repetition as it is needed for the other half, the commandment to wipe out the names of these deities, (at the end of the verse). ואשריהם תשרפון באש, “and burn their asherim by fire.” In Deuteronomy 7,5, the Torah instructed that the asherim ought to be hewn down, מגדעון. Our sages explain this difference by saying that if these trees had been planted before they had been worshipped whatever had grown after that has to be cut down. If they had been planted after on that site idolatry had already been practiced, the entire tree or trees have to be burned.

מצבה of one stone only. It is the בימוס, the pedestal for idolatrous statuary, of which we learn in the Mishna (Avodah Zarah 3:7): A stone which one originally hewed for an idol’s pedestal is forbidden for use.

“The house of exaltation,” entitle, “The house of ruin,”, etc. Rashi explains (in Temurah 28b): “The term בית גליא denotes exaltation. The term בית כליא denotes ruin. Another version says בית כריא is a “bathroom,” from the phrase (See Yirmeyahu 18:20), “כורה שוחה (he dug a pit).” See the Aruch.

לכנות לה שם ,ואבדתם את שמם מן המקום ההוא: durch Umänderung des Namens, wenn die Örtlichkeit nach dem dort geübten Götzenkult genannt wurde, und zwar durch eine deprimierende Umnennung לגנאי (Aboda Sara 46 a).

ופסילי אלהיהם תגדעון, “and the graven images of their deities you must cut down. In Deuteronomy 7,5, we read that ופסיליהם תשרפו באש, “and their carved images you must burn.” This refers to these images having been carved into the trunk of the tree while the tree was still planted in the earth. If a figure had been carved into the trunk after it had been cut down, you must burn the whole trunk of that tree. If he had cut down the image without burning the tree, the tree may remain standing. An alternate interpretation of the differing methods for destroying symbols of paganism: in both instances either cutting down such symbols or burning them is the appropriate method of destroying them.

אשרה is a tree that had been worshipped (Avodah Zarah 47a).

ואשריהם תשרפון באש, “and their existing asherim you must burn by fire.” Seeing that the Holy Land had been designated as belonging to Israel by G-d, and at the time when the Israelites had said at the time of the golden calf: “these are your deities O Israel,” they yearned for a multiplicity of deities. As a result of this outcry, all the various deities served in the land of Canaan became partially owned by the Israelites. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 63) Idols owned by Israelites can never be utterly annulled. (Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 53) They must be destroyed utterly beyond any recognition physically.

ואבדתם את שמם AND DESTROY THEIR NAMES by giving them contemptuous nicknames. What they call בית גליא, “a sublime house”, you should call בית כריא, “a base house”, what they call עין כל, “the universal eye”, you call, עין קוץ “the thorn eye” (Avodah Zarah 46a).

ואבדתם את שמם, “you must abolish their names, even.” (Compare Numbers 32,38, their names had been changed)

לא תעשון כן YE SHALL NOT DO SO [UNTO THE LORD YOUR GOD] — i.e. to burn offerings to God at any place you choose (as do the idolaters, cf. v. 2), but at the place which He will choose (cf. vv. 5—6). — Another explanation is: ונתצתם את מזבחתם … ואבדתם את שמם … לא תעשון כן YE SHALL PULL DOWN THEIR ALTARS … YE SHALL DESTROY THEIR NAMES … BUT YE SHALL NOT DO THIS [TO THE LORD YOUR GOD] — It is a prohibition addressed to one who would blot out the Name of God from any writing, or would pull out a stone from the altar or from the forecourt (cf. Sifrei Devarim 61:12; Makkot 22a). R. Ishmael said: “But can the idea enter your mind that the Israelites would pull down the altars of God?” But the meaning of לא תעשון כן is that you should not do like their doings so that your sins would cause the Sanctuary of (built by) your fathers to be laid waste (Sifrei Devarim 61:12).

YE SHALL NOT DO SO UNTO THE ETERNAL YOUR G-D — “to burn offerings to G-d at any place [you choose], but only at the place He shall choose.¹⁵Verse 5. According to this interpretation, Verse 4 before us is connected with the following Verse 5, which reads: But unto the place which the Eternal your G-d shall choose … Another interpretation: And ye shall break down their altars etc., and ye shall destroy their name¹⁶Above, Verse 3. Thus Verse 4 before us is connected with the preceding verse. — ye shall not do so unto the Eternal your G-d, this being an admonition against erasing the Name of G-d, or dismantling any stone of the altar or of the Sanctuary Court. Said Rabbi Yishmael: ‘Could it even occur to you that the Israelites would break down the altars [of G-d]? But the meaning of the verse is that you are not to imitate the deeds [of the idolators] lest your sins cause your ancestors’ Sanctuary to be destroyed.’” This is Rashi’s language. Now the words of Rabbi Yishmael are words of Agadah (homily) based on a Scriptural support [and they are not meant to be taken as the plain meaning of the verse]. However, the verse according to the opinion of our Rabbis, constitutes an admonition against erasing the Divine Name. It is so expressly stated in Tractate Makkoth:¹⁷Makkoth 22a. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 64-65. “But there is yet the penalty for erasing the Divine Name which is whipping, and the prohibition is to be found in these words, Ye shall not do so unto the Eternal.” And the language of the Sifre is as follows:¹⁸Sifre, R’eih 61. “Whence do I know that he who dismantles one stone [of the altar] etc.? Rabbi Yishmael says: ‘Whence do I know that he who erases one letter of the Divine Name transgresses a negative commandment? Because it is written, and ye shall destroy their name¹⁶Above, Verse 3. Thus Verse 4 before us is connected with the preceding verse. — Ye shall not do so unto the Eternal your G-d.’ Rabban¹⁹The title “Rabban” (our teacher) indicates that he was the head of the Sanhedrin. Gamaliel the son of Rabbi²⁰See Vol. IV, p. 341, Note 231. says: ‘But how could it occur to you [that the Israelites would dismantle] etc.’” Thus [it is clear that] the words of Rabbi Yishmael [quoted by Rashi] were not meant to dispute [the opinion of the unnamed First Sage];²¹Ramban understood the text of Rashi as follows: The unnamed First Sage holds that the prohibition before us covers both erasing the Divine Name and dismantling His altar, whereas Rabbi Yishmael differs, holding the verse to be an admonition against imitating the deeds of the idolators which will cause the destruction of the Sanctuary. Ramban, however, holds the verse, Ye shall not do so etc., to be only an admonition against erasing G-d’s Name, and that such is also the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael’s words quoted by Rashi are a clarification, teaching that “erasing the Divine Name is equivalent to dismantling a stone of the Divine altar.” Furthermore, the text quoted by Rashi in the name of Rabbi Yishmael is attributed by the Sifre to Rabban Gamaliel, which perforce is only a homiletic statement, that sinning is tantamount to destruction of G-d’s altar. Hence the same text in Rashi must also be understood in the same light (Mizrachi). rather, they are a clarification that erasing the Divine Name is equivalent to dismantling a stone of the altar. And if so, the meaning of the verses would be: “And ye shall break down their altars etc. and ye shall destroy their name out of that place — but ye shall not do so unto the Eternal your G-d to break down His altar, nor to destroy His Name. Instead, give glory to His Name²²Malachi 2:2. and His altar, and to the place which He shall choose there to establish His altar; to [the place where] His Name dwells shall you seek, and bring your burnt-offerings before Him.”

לא חעשון כן לה׳ אלוקיכם, "Do not do so to the Lord your G'd!" Our sages in the Sifri on our verse understand this as a reference to the prohibition of erasing the holy name of G'd, or even part of it. They read together the words ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשו כן. Perhaps the wording of our verse is intended to draw attention to two separate halachot concerning erasing any part of G'd's name. We have a law about erasing the name of G'd itself, and there is a law about erasing suffixes appended behind the name of G'd. When the Torah says לשם, it refers to any of the various names of G'd and not merely the Tetragram. When the Torah adds the word אלוקיכם, it alludes to the suffix כם. Maimonides writes in chapter six of his treatise Yesodey Hatorah that the penalty of 39 lashes applies only to someone who actually erased letters of G'd's name, as the Torah is not outspoken about the suffixes. The Sifri also concludes from this verse that removing a single stone from the courtyard of the Temple is a violation of a negative commandment as it says in our verse: לא תעשון", "you must not do." It appears to me that this law is not limited to removal of a whole stone but to the removal of any quantity of stone which leaves a visible void.

לא תעשון כן לה' אלוקיכם, to offer sacrifices in every place of your choosing instead of in the Tabernacle.

לא תעשון כן, “do not do likewise, etc.” You must not burn incense on the various mountains even to Hashem, seeing this was where the pagans offered their incense. The only place where G’d welcomes incense as an offering is the one designated by Him in the Holy Temple (Ibn Ezra).

By bringing burnt-offerings for the sake of Heaven anywhere, etc. I.e., “Do not act this way,” is connected to, “[All the places] where the nations worshipped, etc. (v. 2).” It is as if the verse says: “Do not act this way to Adonoy, your God, to bring burnt-offerings on the high mountains ... where the nations worshipped... Rather at the place, etc.”

V. 4. לא תעשון כן וגו׳. —Wie ihr vom heidnischen Götterwesen die letzte Spur verwischen sollt, so dürft ihr auch nicht das Geringste von allem, was den Namen eures Gottes trägt, ausdrückt, oder ihm geweiht ist, verderben. So ist hier in erster Linie אזהרה למוחק את השם, das Verbot des Auslöschens eines Gottesnamens oder auch nur eines Buchstabens von einem solchen (Mackot 22 a). Als solche שמות שאינם נמחקין gelten sieben als Eigennamen zu begreifende: שד׳ ,אלדי׳ ,אוה ,אל ,שם אדנות ,שם ההויה ׳צבאו und ebenso die damit verbundenen Suffixa wie ך ,כם, von אלדיך ,אלדיכם. Die Präfixa, wie ל von ׳ב ,לד von ׳בד usw. dürfen ausgelöscht werden. Attribute wie הגדול הגבור והנורא usw. unterliegen diesem Verbote nicht (Schebuot 35 a). Ebenso ist auch nur die geringste bauliche Beschädigung an dem Tempelheiligtum oder dem Altare נותץ אבן אחד מן ההיכל זמן המזבח זמן העזרות, oder Vernichten von Opferholz, שורף עצי קדשים Übertretung dieses Verbots (ספרי z. St.), und ist, dem Zusammenhange gemäß, diese Zerstörung der Gott heiligen Stätten und Heiligtümer hier der nächste Gegenstand, den das Verbot im Auge hat.

לא תעשון כן, “You shall not do likewise, etc.” you cannot serve the Lord your G-d and sacrifice offerings to Him at any place that you choose.

This prohibits erasing the sacred Name, and breaking an altar stone, etc. I.e., specifically regarding idolatry did I command you, “You are to break apart, etc.,” but “Do not act this way to Adonoy your God.” The meaning of, “Rather at the place,” is: You should not act this way to Adonoy your God to break apart and destroy, rather He should be respected in your eyes to the point where you perpetually seek the place that He chooses ... to bring there your burnt-offerings, etc. Rashi’s first explanation is problematic because the verse, “Do not act this way,” should have been written next to the above verse, “...their gods on the high mountains, etc.” And Rashi’s second explanation is problematic because the verse, “Rather at the place, etc.,” is apparently connected to the previous verses and needs to be explained somewhat differently than its plain meaning. Therefore the first explanation is also needed.

Rebbi Yishmael said, ‘Is it [conceivable] that an Israelite would smash altars? etc. Re”m writes: It seems to me that Rebbi Yishmael agrees that, “Do not act this way, etc.” prohibits erasing the sacred Name. For it is conceivable that the Israelite does not intend to erase the sacred Name in a destructive manner, but rather it was written in a non- respectful place or it was written in the wrong place and he therefore erases it; and his intention is for the sake of Heaven. For this reason erasing the Name needs to be prohibited. But regarding the breaking of an altar stone, one is liable only by breaking it in a destructive manner, a prohibition is not relevant because, “Is it conceivable etc.” Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with the first opinion [mentioned in the Sifrei — the previous opinion mentioned in Rashi] on one point, but he agrees with the other.

לשכנו תדרשו AFTER HIS RESIDENCE SHALL YE INQUIRE — This refers to the Tabernacle at Shiloh. (Sifrei Devarim 62:3)

UNTO HIS HABITATION SHALL YE SEEK. The meaning thereof is that you are to come from distant countries asking, “Where is the road leading to the House of G-d?,” and you should say to one another, ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Eternal, to the House of the G-d of Jacob,’²³Isaiah 2:3. similar to the expression, They shall inquire concerning Zion with their faces hit herward.²⁴Jeremiah 50:5. And in the Sifre it is stated:²⁵Sifre, R’eih 62. “Ye shall seek — seek [the place where G-d intended that His House be built] through the command of the prophet. I might think that you are to wait until the prophet tells you [when and where to build it]; Scripture therefore states, unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come — seek and find [the place], and afterwards the prophet will tell you [whether your choice is the correct one]. And so you find it in the case of David etc.”²⁶“As it is said, O Eternal, remember unto David all his affliction, how he swore unto the Eternal, and vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob, ‘Surely I will not come into the tent of my house … Until I find out a place for the Eternal, a dwelling-place for the Mighty One of Jacob’” (Psalms 132:1-5). And whence do you know that he did it only by command of the prophet? Because it says, And Gad [the prophet] came that day to David, and said unto him: ‘Go up, rear an altar on the threshing-floor of Aravnah the Jebusite.’ (II Samuel 24:18) (Sifre, R’eih 62).
And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], l’shichno (unto His habitation) shall ye seek means that you are to inquire after His Glory [that abides there]; and thither thou shalt come to appear before the Lord, Eternal G-d, the G-d of Israel.²⁷Exodus 34:23. It is on the basis of this expression here [l’shichno — unto His habitation] that the Sages have spoken of the Shechinah (“Divine Presence”).

המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלוקיכם מכל שבטיכם...לשכנו, the place where His Name will have a permanent residence, during the early period at Shiloh, later on in Jerusalem, Solomon’s Temple, better known as בית עולמים, the permanent Temple.

To the place – When one transforms the letters of this phrase through atbash (a code which substitutes the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the second last for the second, etc…) the resultant word has the numeric value of ‘this is Jerusalem’ (Sifre). The numeric value of place (makom) is the same as to Zion (l’tzion).

לשכנו תדרשו, “you shall seek out His presence.” You are to come from afar and enquire as to the directions you have to travel to get to the location of the Tabernacle/Temple. You are to gradually congregate in larger and larger numbers, each encouraging the other to make the pilgrimage to the House of the Lord.

כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה' אלו-היכם מכל שבטיכם, “except in the place which the Lord your G’d will select from amongst all your tribes, etc.” The place in question is Mount Moriah; it is well known among the Gentiles. They know of its spiritual advantages through tradition. There is no need to mention this location by name. The people all had a tradition that this was where their ancestor Yitzchak had lain bound on the altar. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim (3,45) that there were three reasons why the location of the future Temple was not spelled out at this point. 1) If the nations of the world had known that in that location prayers are answered positively by G’d and sacrifices are welcome to Him, every nation would have made a supreme effort to take possession of that site. This would have resulted in untold slaughter among the nations and ongoing strife among them. 2) If the Canaanites who dwelled in the land at the time Moses spoke these words had heard of them and they had realized that the Israelites would dispossess them and take over that site they would have utterly destroyed it before the Jewish people had a chance to conquer it. 3) Even the tribes of the Israelites would have argued among themselves in whose territory this site, would be located at the time the land was distributed among the tribes. Such a division among the people would have been even worse than the rebellion of Korach when the people were not prepared to recognize the preferred hereditary status of the Priests. For all these reasons Moses preferred not to spell out the exact location of where the Temple would be built in the future. If even the Jews did not know the location, it is clear that the Gentiles did not know it either. Although everyone knew of the significance of Mount Moriah in the past, they had no idea of what this meant in terms of its future religious significance, in terms of the place G’d would choose.

This refers to the Tabernacle at Shiloh. I.e., do not seek His Presence anywhere [you wish], because private altars are forbidden. It seems that Rashi’s inference is based on the apparently extra word לשכנו (His Presence). For it would suffice to say, “Rather at the place ... to set His Presence there.” Rather, the verse is referring to two places — Jerusalem and Shiloh. Re”m’s explanation is difficult to understand (Nachalas Yaakov).

V. 5. כי אם וגו׳, nicht nur sollt ihr, was den Namen eures Gottes trägt, nicht zerstören, sondern es soll die Stätte, die Gott zum Träger seines Namens erwählen wird, der von allen hochgehaltene Mittelpunkt werden, der euch alle zur nationalen Vereinigung um Gott und das Gesetz seines Willens ladet. Es ist aber hier sofort die Bestimmung ausgesprochen, dass diese Weihung eines Ortes zum Träger des göttlichen Namens nicht wie bei den Völkern, deren Götterstätten im jüdischen Lande hier der Zerstörung überwiesen sind, von unserem subjektiven Belieben, sondern von der ausdrücklichen Erwählung Gottes abhängig gemacht wird. Nicht wir haben Gott eine Stätte zu weihen, sondern Er hat uns die Stelle zu bezeichnen, die Er zu Seinem Heiligtum und unserem Sammelpunkte um Ihn und Sein Heiligtum bestimmt.

כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר, “except at a place of His choosing.” Moses did not spell out the name of that place, seeing that at different times G-d’s Presence decides to accept homage at different locations. [but never at more than one place at a given time. Ed.]

תדרשו, you shall seek out this place to worship and to offer your sacrifices, as per Isaiah 11,10 אליו גויים ידרשו, “nations will seek Him out there.”

לשכנו תדרשו, “you shall seek out His Presence.” You should seek out His attribute כבוד which first became manifest on Mount Sinai. In due course this Shechinah would be manifest in the Holy Land, originally in Shiloh (where the Tabernacle stood for over 390 years.). In this instance, seeing that Mount Moriah as the ultimate site of the Temple was not known yet, Moses has in mind the Tabernacle of Shiloh.

מכל שבטיכם, von allen und für alle, und hatten daher alle Stämme bei dem dereinstigen Erwerb dieser von Gott erwählten Stelle zum einzigen Nationalheiligtum für alle zu konkurrieren. Die durch Innehalten der Pest und durch das Prophetenwort Gads bezeichnete Gottesstätte in Jerusalem erwarb David von dem bisherigen Besitzer für sechshundert Schekel, wozu er für sich und Juda fünfzig gab und so von jedem der zwölf Stämme fünfzig erhob (vergl. Sam. II. 24, 24 und Chron. I. 21, 25 ספרי z. St. — siehe Sebachim 116 b).

ובאת שמה, G’d will not come to you, as in the case of the idolaters, but you will come to Him.

לשכנו תדרשו, nach der Bekundung seiner Gegenwart sollt ihr forschen, דרוש על פי נביא (Sifri z. St.), sollt der Kundgebung Gottes harren, und dann ובאת שמה in nationaler Einheit dorthin euch sammeln. לשכנו (siehe Bereschit S. 160 und Schmot S. 330).

וזבחיהם AND YOUR SACRIFICES — Obligatory feast-offerings (cf. Sifrei Devarim 63:7)

YOUR TITHES — “the tithe of cattle and the Second Tithe which are to be eaten within the wall [of Jerusalem]. AND HEAVE-OFFERING OF YOUR HAND — these are the first-fruits of which it is said, And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand. ”²⁸Further, 26:4. This is Rashi’s language quoting the words of our Rabbis.²⁹Sifre, R’eih 63.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse mentions the burnt-offerings, and the sacrifices that he is obligated to eat there within the boundary [of Jerusalem] before the Eternal.³⁰Verse 7: And there ye shall eat before the Eternal. It mentions also that he is to bring there the tithe and the heave-offering to give them to the priests and Levites who are the ministers of the Sanctuary so that they too, rejoice with you and your families, as it says, Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, saith the Eternal of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than enough.³¹Malachi 3:10. The heave-offering (terumah) is given to the priest, the First Tithe (ma’aseir rishon) to the Levite. The Levite in turn sets aside a tenth of that tithe for the priest, which is called “the heave-offering of the tithe” (terumath ma’aseir). It is also referred to as “the tithe of the tithe.” And so indeed [the prophets and leaders] established an ordinance during the Second Temple concerning the heave-offering and the heave-offering of the tithe³¹Malachi 3:10. The heave-offering (terumah) is given to the priest, the First Tithe (ma’aseir rishon) to the Levite. The Levite in turn sets aside a tenth of that tithe for the priest, which is called “the heave-offering of the tithe” (terumath ma’aseir). It is also referred to as “the tithe of the tithe.” that the people bring them to the Sanctuary, as it is said, and that we should bring the first of our dough, and our heave-offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, the wine and the oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the House of our G-d,³²Nehemiah 10:38. and it is further said, [and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes] unto the House of our G-d, to the chambers, into the treasure-house.³³Ibid., Verse 39.
And the meaning of the expression and heave-offering of your hand is [in line with the simple meaning of Scripture a reference to the heave-offering and not to the first-fruits] because the Torah has set no fixed measure for the heave-offering [which the Israelite gives to the priest]; rather it consists of whatever his hand sets aside [for the priest]. Similarly, that which is said, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn etc. or the heave-offering of thine hand³⁴Further, Verse 17. Now, in view of the fact that the First Tithe and the heave-offering may be eaten everywhere, the Rabbis apply this verse — which prohibits eating them outside Jerusalem — to the eating of unredeemed Second Tithes outside Jerusalem, and to a priest’s eating of first-fruits outside Jerusalem (Makkoth 18a); see also “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 131-140, for various prohibitions included in this verse. Thus here again the heave-offering of thine hand is interpreted as referring to the first-fruits, as explained by Rashi in the verse before us. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture as explained by Ramban, however, the verse is a reminder to the Israelite etc. reminds the Israelite that he is not to eat in his own city the tithe, the firstlings, the vow-offerings, or the heave-offering. And then the verse proceeds to distinguish between them, but thou shalt eat them before the Eternal thy G-d etc. thou, and thy son, and thy daughter³⁵Ibid., Verse 18. whatever may be eaten by you [i.e., the Second Tithe]; and the Levite that is within thy gates³⁵Ibid., Verse 18. shall eat there in your gates [i.e., outside Jerusalem] what is due him [i.e., the First Tithe] as it is stated concerning them, And ye may eat in every place.³⁶Numbers 18:31. Scripture thus abbreviates concerning matters that are explained elsewhere.
And I am further of the opinion regarding the plain meaning of this verse that the expression [in the verse before us] heave-offering of your hand denotes that which a person lifts up to the Eternal of his silver and gold to buy with it a burnt-offering or a [peace-]offering. And [the verse before us] mentions three kinds of offerings: the vow-offerings which are [assumed as obligations when a person says], “I pledge myself to bring an offering of a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat: ”³⁷Leviticus 22:27. See Ramban there on Verses 18 and 23. the freewill-offering when he says of a bullock or sheep, “This shall be a burnt-offering and I will bring it to the Sanctuary,” and terumah (the donation) which he lifts up, silver or gold from anything he has, or when he brings his unconsecrated animal to the Sanctuary Court and says to the priests, “This is [given] from my possession to G-d,” similar in expression to the verse, Every one that ‘meirim terumath’ (did lift up an offering) of silver and brass, brought the Eternal’s offering.³⁸Exodus 35:24. So also, All ‘terumoth’ of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the Eternal³⁹Numbers 18:19. denotes “the offerings” [as explained above rather than, the heave-offering]. Similarly He states with reference to the shekels, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary etc. half a shekel for ‘terumah’ (an offering) to the Eternal,⁴⁰Exodus 30:13. these to be used for buying the communal offerings,⁴¹This is further proof that the word terumah is not limited to the heave-offering given to the priest from the produce of the field, but that it may also signify any donation or offering that a person gives to the Sanctuary. The expression in the verse before us heave-offering of your hand thus denotes the setting aside of any valuables for a sacred purpose. for whatever a person lifts up to G-d from whatever is his own — whether for offerings or for Temple maintenance, as it is stated, and they take for Me ‘terumah’ (an offering);⁴²Ibid., 25:2. In this case the word terumah denotes “something set apart” for the construction of the Tabernacle. or for the priests, the ministers of the Eternal⁴³Joel 2:17. — it is all called terumah. This is similar to what is written concerning the tax, and thou shalt give it unto Eleazar the priest as ‘terumath Hashem’ (a portion set apart for the Eternal),⁴⁴Numbers 31:29. which remained entirely unconsecrated in Eleazar’s possession [thus proving that terumah need not refer exclusively to the priestly tithe]. A similar usage [of the term terumah is found in the following verse]: And I weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, even ‘terumath’ (the donation for) the House of our G-d, which the king, and his counsellors had offered.⁴⁵Ezra 8:25. Now Scripture [here in the verse before us] does not state “your heave-offerings,” so that we should not mistake it to mean the heave-offering given to the priests [from the produce of the field]; instead it says, the heave-offering of your hand, what you set aside as a freewill offering from what has become your property. Now all things mentioned here must be consumed within a certain location,⁴⁶In this concluding sentence Ramban reiterates the central theme of his interpretation — that the entire verse refers to categories that require consumption within the wall of Jerusalem. Thus the tithes refers to the Second Tithe and the tithe of cattle, and heave-offering of your hand denotes the donations for the offerings which also require a certain location where they may be eaten — the holiest offerings within the Sanctuary Court, and those of lesser holiness within the city of Jerusalem. for the expression your tithes denotes the tithe of cattle and the Second Tithe which are eaten before the Eternal [i.e., within the wall of the city of Jerusalem]. However, the First Tithe is the tithe of the Levites, and the Poorman’s Tithe belongs to them [the poor; and are the personal property of the recipients and may be eaten anywhere].

מעשרותיכם, “your tithes;” according to Rashi the reference is to the “second” tithe, as well as the tithe of the newly born animals which needs to be consumed in Jeru-salem, (or its equivalent). The expression תרומת ידכם, refers to the first ripe fruit of the seven species for which the Land of Israel is especially famous. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s commentary is indeed the view of our sages of old, (Sifri, 63) whereas the plain meaning of the text Moses mentions refers to the various sacrificial offerings which all need to be consumed within the holy precincts; having mentioned that requirement, Moses adds the various gifts intended for the priests and Levites, encouraging the Israelites to bring these to Jerusalem (or wherever the Temple stood at that time) in order to rejoice together with the priests and Levites who were found there in large numbers. These were not looked upon as poor people in need of a hand out, but as the people’s representatives who performed the service in and around the Temple as delegates of the people at large. He explains the term תרומת ידכם, as an allusion to the generosity, ידכם, of the donor, seeing that as opposed to the tithes, the Torah had not mentioned how much of the harvest had to be reserved for the priest under the heading of תרומה, “heave offering.” Personally, (still Nachmanides writing) I feel that the term תרומת ידכם refers to free-willed gifts, or offerings on the altar, not connected to obligatory parts of the harvests that the Torah commanded to set aside for various members of the Jewish society. In connection with offerings for the altar, Moses mentions three separate categories, עולה, burnt offering, none of it being eaten by even the priests, זבח, meat-offerings, the major part of the animal being eaten by the donor, and נדר, or נדבה, different categories of vows that have to be fulfilled by a certain time in the holy precincts. The former was promised formally, using specific wording, giving the animal in question the same status as an obligatory offering, the latter was donated without the donor using predetermined language. (Not having said הרי עלי, “I am assuming the obligation of an offering”, but having simply said: “this will be a free-willed offering.”) The תרומה that Moses speaks of does not refer to livestock, but to money or other chattels that the donor elevated to a degree of holiness by the manner in which he designated it for the Temple treasury. He may even bring an animal of his to the Temple and then proclaim: “this is a gift of mine to be used as the Temple treasurer sees fit.” The wording תרומה in this context reflects what we have read in Exodus 35,24 כל מרים תרומת כסף וגו', “every person who elevates a gift of silver, etc.” As long as this gift had been under the control of the donor it had not yet become sanctified at all. What the returning soldiers handed over to Eleazar in Numbers 31,29 as donations from their loot is referred to as תרומה, although its ritual status was completely secular at the time. The reason why Moses did not refer to תרומותיכם, and said תרומת ידכם, was to prevent us erring and thinking that he referred to gifts which the donor had been obligated by the Torah to bring to the priest, although the size of that gift was at his discretion. The common denominator of all the various items mentioned in our verse was that they had to be present within the holy precincts of the Temple Mount.

Obligatory shelamim-offerings. I.e., even obligatory shelamim-offerings, and certainly voluntary shelamim- offerings. [Rashi specifies “obligatory” regarding Shiloh and Jerusalem] as opposed to a private altar where only a pledge or a donation may be offered. This is stated in Megillah (9b) and in Zevachim (117a) (Nachalas Yaakov).

V. 6. והבאתם שמה nicht nur ובאת שמה nicht nur der Zug der persönlichen Beziehung zu Gott und seinem Gesetzesheiligtum soll euch alle im allgemeinen dorthin sammeln, mit jedem "Kommen" soll sich ein "Bringen" verbinden, Ausdruck eurer Tatenweihe und eures Familienglücks: עולותיכם וזבחיכם, eures Herden- und Ackerwohlstands: מעשר בהמה ומעשר שני ,מעשרותיכם, der Ausdruck der Gotthörigkeit und der Gesetzesweihe eures ganzen Landessegens ביכורים :תרומת ידכם, sowie jede aus besonderem Hingebungsbedürfnis hervorgehende Opfergelobung und Weihung, נדריכם ונדבותיכם, und als Grund- und Schlussstein aller dieser Huldigungsweihen der Ausdruck der Gotthörigkeit und der Gesetzesweihe in den Erstgeburten eurer Herden: בכורות בקרכם וצאנכם, mit welcher ja die Erfahrung seiner nationalen Geburtsnacht Israel stets im Bewusstsein bleiben soll, dass Widersetzlichkeit gegen Gottes Willen den gebildetsten und mächtigsten Kulturstaat zusammenbricht und nur gehorchende Pflichttreue ihn erhalten kann, ויהי כי ׳הקשה פרעה לשלחנו וגו׳ ,על כן אני זובח׳ וגו (Wajikra 13, 15). Allein dies soll mit euch zu der einzigen Gottes Namen tragenden Nationalstätte des Gesetzesheiligtums hinaufwandern und die Hörigkeit und Weihe eurer aller mit allen euren Tat- und Geschickesbeziehungen an Gott und sein Gesetz bekunden.

מעשרתיכם [THERE YOU SHALL BRING] YOUR TITHES — i.e. both the tithe of the cattle and the second tithe, in order to consume them within the wall(cf. Sifrei Devarim 63:8).

And the second tithe to be eaten within the walls [of Jerusalem]. I.e., it is understandable that the animal tithe must be brought to Jerusalem, for it is sacrificed there. But why must he bring the second tithe there, for it is not offered? Rashi answers: To be eaten, etc.

בשני מעשרות הכתוב מדבר אחד מעשר דגן אחד מעשר בהמה :מעשרותיכם (siehe Kap. 14, 22 f. und Wajikra 27, 32). תרומת ידכם hier (V. 11) und תרומת ידך (V. 17 kann nicht gewöhnliche תרומה bedeuten, die auch nie unter diesem Namen vorkommt, da תרומה überall dem כהן gegeben und überall vom כהן genossen werden darf, (V. 17) aber ausdrücklich das Genießen der תרומת ידך außerhalb Jerusalems verboten wird. Daher werden unter בכורים :תרומת ידכם verstanden, כענין שנאמר ולקח ׳הכהן הטנא מידך והניחו לפני מזבח ד׳ א׳ (Kap. 26, 4 ספרי). Sind doch בכורים, wie das dabei auszusprechende Bekenntnis lehrt, die Bezeugung, dass Israel seine "Hand", das ist ja seine Freiheit und seine Besitzselbstständigkeit, ganz allein Gott verdankt und ganz allein Gott für die Erfüllung seines Gesetzes geweiht hält (siehe daselbst), בכורים sind daher im eigentlichen Sinne: תרומת יד, die Hebung der Hand zu Gott, d. h. der Ausdruck, dass die "Hand" keinem anderen als Gott gehört und keinem anderen als Gott geweiht sein soll. Das Bringen des בכורים-Korbes in der Hand und dessen Niederlegung durch den Priester vor Gott spricht beides aus. —

תרומת ידכם THE HEAVE-OFFERING OF YOUR HAND — These are the first-fruits of which it is said, (Deuteronomy 26:4) “And the priest shall take the basket out of thine hand” (cf. Sifrei Devarim 63:9).

To give to the kohein so that he may offer them up there. Rashi is answering the question: The phrase, “the firstborn of your cattle,” implies that the Israelite is commanded to bring the firstborn as an offering. But this is not so, for the Israelite must give the firstborn to a kohein. Rashi answers: The Israelite brings them to give to the, etc.

In בכורות בקרבם וצאנכם lehrt ספרי auch חטאות und אשמות mit eingeschlossen. Erwägen wir, wie in dem vorhin zitierten על כן אני זובח usw. בכורות die Mahnung an treuesten Pflichtgehorsam gegen Gott einschließen, so dürfte eine solche begriffliche Erweiterung zu חטאות und אשמות als implizite mit einbegriffen sehr nahe liegen.

ובכרת בקרכם AND THE FIRSTLINGS OF YOUR HERD — in order to give them to the priest that he may offer them there.

Dass durch das zusammengehörige: ובאת שמה והבאתם שמה für jede Gelobung das עשה der Erfüllung mit jedem ersten רגל gegeben ist, wenn gleich das Verbot לא תאחר לשלמה (Kap. 23, 21) erst nach drei רגלים in Kraft tritt, ist bereits zu Wajikra Kap. 23, 38 angemerkt (siehe zu Kap. 23, 21). An der Zusammenfassung der beiden מעשר דגן ,מעשרות und מעשר בהמה, in einen Begriff und deren Zusammenstellung mit בכורות hinsichtlich der Hinauf- und Darbringung in Jerusalem lehrt ferner ר׳׳ע (Bechorot 53 a), dass, wenn gleich מעשר בהמה und בכור בהמה als חובת הגוף (siehe zu Kap. 11, 18) nicht an das Land gebunden und auch בחוצה לארץ Pflicht sind, sie doch, insofern wie מעשר דגן in Zusammenhang mit dem Lande stehen, dass, wenn sie auch קדוש בח׳׳ל sind, sie doch nicht auf dem מזבח dargebracht werden, sondern נאכלים במומם לבעלים.

אשר ברכך ה׳ ACCORDING AS THE LORD [YOUR GOD] HAS BLESSED YOU — in accordance with the blessing bring [the offerings of festive rejoicing] (Sifrei Devarim 64:5).

According to the blessing, bring. The words אשר ברכך (lit. when He has blessed you) means כאשר ברכך (as He has blessed you). This refers to, “your pledges and your donations,” which one has the option to increase according to the blessing. But for obligatory offerings [that one brings] there is no option to increase. The term אשר ברכך must be explained in this way; otherwise it infers that only one who was blessed needs to bring. But this is not true, for the verse is referring to all of the Jewish People (Gur Aryeh).

V. 7. ואכלתם שם וגו׳ ושמחתם וגו׳. Dieser Genuss und diese Daseins- und Lebensfreude vor Gottes Angesicht im Umkreise seines Gesetzesheiligtums, in welchen die jüdische "Gottesverehrung" gipfelt, ist eine der charakteristischen Eigentümlichkeiten des Judentums. Es scheidet sich damit ebenso scharf von dem antiken Heidentum, dessen Gottheiten, furchtgeboren, Feinde des Frohsinns und des ungetrübten Menschenglücks sind, wie von den modernen das Menschenwesen zerklüftenden Verirrungen, die eine Gottesnähe nur mit dem "Geiste" zu suchen lehren, das sinnliche Leben aber einer weihelosen Versunkenheit überantworten. — בכל משלח ידכם, mit dem ganzen Machtbereich eurer Hand, d. h. mit allem, was euch zu eurem Gebrauch und beliebiger Verwendung zusteht, woran ihr שולח יד sein dürft. So אדום ומואב משלוח ידם (Jesaias 11, 14). אשר ברכך וגו׳, der eigentliche Kern eurer Freude liegt darin, dass ihr alles, was ihr habt, als Gottes Segen, somit als Beweis seines Wohlgefallens betrachten dürft. Dieses Gefühl der Gottesbilligung ist die reinste Freude an unserem Dasein und Leben — und nicht eine egoistische Gesinnung vermag sie zu gewinnen, nur im Anschluss an die Gesamtheit und in dem Bewusstsein ist sie zu finden, welches das Wohl aller einzelnen nur im Anteil an der Gesamtwohlfahrt sucht, daher: ושמחתם usw. אשר ברכך usw.

ואכלתם שם “ you will eat there;” this is a reference to the priests and the Levites. (Ibn Ezra)

אתם ובתיכם, “you and your household members.” The word: “and the Levite,” has not been repeated here seeing that this paragraph had been addressed to the Israelites before the land had been distributed to the other tribes, and the Israelites had not yet been warned to give the Levite his due. However, later on, in verse 10, when Moses speaks of the period after the distribution of the land has taken place, as the period in which they will enjoy peace and security, the Torah does warn the Israelite not to neglect the Levites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

כי לא באתם FOR YE SHALL NOT HAVE COME [UNTO THE REST] all those fourteen years of conquering and dividing the land.

Throughout those fourteen years. Rashi is answering the question: How is their not coming yet to the peace [Shiloh], a reason why they should not bring sacrifices immediately after crossing the Yardein? [I.e., why does the verse, “For you will not...” follow, “You may not do...”?] Rashi answers that, “For you will not have come,” means: Throughout those fourteen years of [your being occupied with] conquering and dividing, you will be unable to offer here [in the Mishkon] the obligatory offerings that you will offer in the future.

V. 9. עד עתה zu der Zeit dieses Provisoriums, in welchem die Nation bereits sesshaft, das משכן aber noch nicht stabil geworden. Es konnte umsomehr der Ausdruck עתה gebraucht werden, da ja in der Tat auch in der Gegenwart der Rede noch weder מנוחה noch נחלה da war. מנוחה: die politische Ruhe, wie nach Besitznahme des größten Teiles des Landes unter Josua, da dann das משכן in Schilo eine fürs erste bleibende Stätte erhielt, nachdem es während der vierzehn Jahre der Eroberung und der Verteilung, שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו, in Gilgal gewesen (Josua 18, 1). ויקהלו נחלה .כל עדת בני ישראל שלה וישכינו שם את אהל מועד והארץ נכבשה לפניהם: nachdem auch die letzte Eroberung mit Jerusalem unter David geschehen. Schilo war eine transitorische מנוחה, worauf auch schon von vornherein die äußere Konstruktion hinwies. Das Heiligtum verlor nur zum Teil den Charakter eines Wanderzeltes, ולא היה שם תקרה אלא בית אבנים בלבד מלמטן וחיריעות מלמעלן, es war nur unterhalb ein massives Gebäude, oberhalb war es mit den Teppichen des Stiftzeltes gedeckt (Sebachim 112 b), weshalb es sowohl "Haus" ותביאהו בית ד׳ שילה (Sam. I. 1, 24), als "Zelt" genannt wird: ויטש משכן שילה אהל שכן באדם (Ps.78, 60), וימאם כאהל יוסף (daselbst 67). Jerusalem war נחלה: das ewige Erbe. Selbst zur Zeit des Verfalles nennt Gott es noch "sein Erbe". עזבתי את ביתי נטשתי את נחלתי וגו׳ היתה לי נחלתי כאריה ביער וגו׳ העיט צבוע נחלתי לי וגו׳ (Jirmija 12, 7 — 9 und Sebachim 119 a).

אל המנוחה, “to the rest;” the rest which the Lord will provide for them.

אל המנוחה, “to the rest;” you will not experience such a feeling until your enemies all around you have been thoroughly defeated.

עד עתה is the same as “by that time”.

Like “yet.” I.e., the term עד עתה does not mean, “until now.” Otherwise it would mean, “Until this very day that we are standing in the desert.” This is impossible, for according to this, it would mean that they did not bring obligatory offerings in the desert. But this is not true, for they brought all types of sacrifices in the desert. Rather, the term עדיין refers also to the future — the fourteen years of conquering and dividing. In other words: Throughout those fourteen years you have not yet come to the peace... Therefore you will not bring obligatory offerings.

Nach Überschreiten des Jarden, während der Eroberungs- und Verteilungszeit, war das אהל מועד, die במת צבור, die במה גדולה in Gilgal; für die Einzelopfer עולות ושלמים waren die במות מותרות. Vierzehn Jahre dauerte dieser היתר במות. Darauf war das Heiligtum dreihundertneunundsechzig Jahre in Schilo und נאסרו הבמות bis zu Elis Tod und Schilos Untergang. Siebenundfünfzig Jahre trat dann wieder ein Provisorium mit היתר במות ein, während das אהל מוער in נוב und גבעון sich befand, bis endlich unter Salomo das בית עולמים zu Jerusalem erbaut wurde, womit für ewige Zeiten das במה-Verbot in Kraft trat (Sebachim 118 a und 119 a).

ואל הנחלה, “and to the inheritance;” after you have crossed the river Jordan.

ואל הנחלה, “and to the inheritance;” this will not be the case until after you have crossed the Jordan and have taken possession of the west bank.

אל המנוחה [FOR YE SHALL NOT HAVE COME YET] TO THE REST — This refers to Shiloh (Sifrei Devarim 66:2),

Wir haben bereits Schmot S. 384 und Wajikra zu Kap. 17, 3 —9 den Begriff "במה" im Gegensatz zum מזבח und die im במה-Opfer בשעת איסור במות liegende Verirrung zu entwickeln versucht. Wir haben gefunden, dass nur an der Nationalstätte des dem göttlichen Gesetze errichteten Gottesheiligtums die Gewähr gegeben ist, dass der Opfernde sowohl mit seinem Gottbewusstsein sich auf den Boden der von der Nation verbrieften Gottoffenbarung stellt, als auch die Gottesnähe nur in Hingebung an das von Gott der Nation für alle überlieferte Gesetz sucht. Für beides fehlt bei במת יחיד jeder Abirrung abweisende Ausdruck. Es kann sein Gott, dem er ein Opfer weiht, der einzig Eine der jüdischen Wahrheit sein; allein er kann auch bis zur tiefsten heidnischen Wahnverirrung mit den שעירים על פני השדה zusammenfallen. Vor allem fehlt aber der Bama jede Beziehung zur תורה, und wird ein בשעת איסור במה Gott בחוץ dargebrachtes Opfer geradezu zu einem Abfall von dem Gesetze, welches Gott als einzige Vermittlung zwischen uns und Sich für alle Zeit gesetzt hat. Wie tief die Bamaversündigung nach Eintritt des אסור במות den pflichttreuen Zusammenhang aller nationalen Glieder mit der einen in Gottes Gesetz niedergelegten Aufgabe untergräbt und dem verderblichsten Subjektivismus Tür und Tor öffnet, ist aus dem Verfall zur Zeit der Könige offenbar, in welcher nichts so sehr und wiederholt als die Klage hervorgehoben wird, dass die Bamoth aus dem Volke nicht weichen wollen.

נחלה [AND TO] THE INHERITANCE — This refers to Jerusalem (Sifrei Devarim 66:2; Zevachim 119a).

Das Motiv für den absoluten איסור במה, sowie die Beschränkung des היתר selbst בשעת היתר במות auf solche Opfer, die, wie עולות ושלמים, den Charakter der Freiwilligkeit tragen, mit Ausschluss von חטאות ואשמות, die in speziellerer Beziehung zu den Diktaten des Gesetzes stehen, dessen Vergegenwärtigung bei der Privatbama keinen Ausdruck hat, ist nach allem diesen nicht fern liegend. Einer eingehenden Erwägung bedarf jedoch die gesetzliche Tatsache, einmal: dass, sobald und so lange das göttliche Gesetzesheiligtum eine bleibende Stätte nicht hatte, die Bamot erlaubt waren, und ferner, dass zu einer solchen Zeit in dem göttlichen Gesetzesheiligtum, der öffentlichen Bama, die nationale Gesamtheit wohl Pflichtopfer, insbesondere שקבוע להן זמן, die von den zu begehenden Zeitmomenten geforderten, in keiner Weise aber der einzelne seine Pflichtopfer, חטאות und אשמות, darbringen durfte.

Das von der Nation in der Wüste auf Gottes Geheiß hergestellte משכן behält, wo es sich befinde, den Charakter des Nationalheiligtums, in welchem die Nation in den vom Gesetz bestimmten Zeiten durch die vorgeschriebenen bedeutungstiefen Opferhandlungen immer wieder und wieder die Anforderungen zum Ausdruck bringen soll, deren Erfüllung die Gottesnähe in der Nation, die Verwirklichung des ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם bedingt.

Allein, damit dieses Heiligtum seine Bestimmung der Heiligung des ganzen Volkslebens erfüllen soll, damit es und mit ihm das Gesetz, das seinen wesentlichen Inhalt bildet, der hoch über die Gesamtheit und die einzelnen hinaus gehobene Mittelpunkt werde, der alle und alles zu sich heranziehe, alle und alles in gleicher Pflichtigkeit binde und mit gleicher Verantwortlichkeit treffe, darf zwischen Gott mit seinem Gesetze und jedem einzelnen mit seiner Pflicht nichts, am allerwenigsten ein Bruchteil der Nation eintreten, es darf der einzelne mit dem Bewusstsein seiner Schuld und seiner Gottes Nähe wieder suchenden Sühnebedürftigkeit nicht nach einer nicht von Gott, sondern nach zufälliger Wahl dem Heiligtum angewiesenen Örtlichkeit, nicht nach Gilgal, Nob, Gibeon, auch nicht nach Schilo und Jerusalem als solcher, als Efraims und Judas Stadt, vielmehr nur zu der Örtlichkeit hinaufwandern, die Gott zum "Träger seines Namens", zur Stätte seines Heiligtums bestimmt, von der Er gesprochen: פה אשב כי אותיה, von der Gott die heiligende Kraft seines Gesetzesheiligtums ausgehen lassen will. Es soll das Gesetz als ein der ganzen Nation von Gott gegebenes und nicht aus der Nation oder einem Bruchteil der Nation hervorgegangenes im Bewusstsein aller Glieder desselben intakt erhalten bleiben, und daher auch seine Stätte, zu welcher den einzelnen das Schuldbewusstsein seiner Verirrung gegen das Gesetz zieht, nicht aus der Wahl der Nation, sondern aus Gottes Bestimmung hervorgegangen sein.

So lange daher das משכן nur den Bamacharakter einer במת צבור trägt, hat der einzelne seine חטאות ואשמות dortin nicht zu bringen. Ja, nach einer Auffassung, selbst צבור nicht die חטאות ihrer Verirrungen gegen das Gesetz, חטאות שאין קבוע להן זמן, wie פר העלם דבר של צבור und שעירי ע׳׳ז; denn nur in קרבנות שקבוע להן זמן, mit welchen die Nation ihre ewige Aufgabe ausspricht, steht die nationale Gesamtheit rein als Vertreter und Depositär des Gesetzes für das Gesetz da. In konkreten Verirrungen steht aber der Gesamtheit wie dem einzelnen das Gesetz gegenüber und bedarf des Kennzeichens seiner intakten Hoheit und Erhabenheit über der Nation. Ganz in derselben Gedankenrichtung dürfte sich auch die Gestattung der Privatbama בשעת היתר במות begreifen lassen. Eben weil auch das משכן nur noch den Bamacharakter trägt, Gott noch nicht die Stätte bezeichnet hat, wo sein "Name" — das ist im tiefen Grunde sein "Gesetz" (siehe Chron. I. 13, 6) — zu finden sein soll, und der einzelne auch dort nur zu Gott und nicht speziell mit seinen Beziehungen zum Gesetz hintreten darf, ist eben Gott — so zu sagen — überall zu finden, und auch die Privatbama für נדרים ונדבות gestattet. Diese Gestattung selbst hält das Bewusstsein in allen Gliedern der Nation aufrecht, dass die zeitliche משכן-Stätte noch nicht die von Gott erwählte sei, dass noch nicht באתם אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה, dass לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה noch Aufgabe der Nation in allen ihren Gliedern sei, die "Gottesstätte zu suchen" und der "Bekundung der Gottesgegenwart" zu harren, durch welche sie eben Gott als "seine" Stätte bezeichnen werde, wie sich dieses "Suchen" und diese "Bekundung" (Ps.132) — siehe Jeschurun Emporlieder — in Davids "emporringem Liede" ausgesprochen. Erwies sich doch die Örtlichkeit, die endlich als ׳נחלת ד, als das ewige Erbe bleibend von Gott als die Stätte seines Gesetzesheiligtums mit איסור במות für alle Zeit erwählt wurde, als eben die, die mit ihrer historischen Bedeutung weit über jede nationale Gegenwart hinaus in den Ursprung der Nation, ja, nach den in derselben erhaltenen Überlieferungen, bis in die ersten Anfänge der Menschheit hineinreicht, mit deren Betreten jedes Geschlecht sich somit als Erben und Fortträger der nationalen Bestimmung, ja der Bestimmung der Gesamtmenschheit, und die jüdische Aufgabe nur als Rückkehr zum ursprünglichen gottnahen Menschtum und als Wiederbringer desselben begreifen lernt. Die Stätte selbst, die Moriahöhe, wo nach der Überlieferung auch Noa und Adam Gott ihren Altar gebaut (בית הכחירה רמב׳׳ם u. 2, 1 u. 2), spricht mit ihren menschengeschichtlichen Erinnerungen es aus, dass מציון תצא תורה und ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים.

ועברתם את הירדן וישבתם בארץ BUT WHEN YE GO OVER THE JORDAN, AND SETTLE IN THE LAND — This means, that ye shall have divided it amongst the tribes and every man knows his portion and the territory of his tribe,

And everyone distinguishes his portion, etc. This is after the fourteen years of conquering and dividing the land. For prior to this is not called ישיבה (settling) since everyone has not yet distinguished the place upon which he will remain settled. Rashi explains similarly in Parshas Ki Savo (below 26:1), “And you will inherit and settle it — you are not obligated to bring the first fruit offering until after you have conquered and divided the land.” Furthermore, since it is written מנחיל אתכם (is apportioning to you) rather than נותן (is giving), we can infer that the verse is addressing the period after the land has been settled. [I.e., the land cannot be apportioned until after it is settled, but the term “giving” may apply to simply entering the land].

VV. 10 u. 11. ועברתם וגו׳ וישבתם וגו׳ וישבתם בטח וגו׳ והיה וגו׳. Die Erwählung einer Stätte für Gottes Gesetzesheiligtum zum bleibenden ewigen Vereinigungspunkt der Nation wird als letzter die völlige Besitznahme des Landes krönender Akt bestimmt. Wie die Erwählung eines Königs (Kap. 17, 15), soll auch die Erwählung einer fixierten Tempelstätte der völligen Eroberung und Sicherstellung des Landes nach¬ folgen, und zwar, wie Sanhedrin 20 b erläutert wird, der feste Tempelbau zuletzt. Beider Bestimmung, König und Gottes Gegenwart im Tempel, gilt nicht sowohl nach außen, dem Schutze und der Landesverteidigung gegen äußere Feinde, als vielmehr der Verwirklichung der mit dem Gesetze gegebenen nationalen Aufgabe im Innern. So wird auch von David dieses Moment als ein solches geltend gemacht, dass nun die Zeit gekommen sein dürfte, dem Gottesheiligtum ein festes Haus zu errichten. ויהי כי ישב ׳המלך בביתו וד׳ הניח לו מסביב מכל איביו ויאמר המלך אל נתן הנביא וגו (Sam. 11. 7. 1), und wird dort in der Gottesrede durch Natan der Bau einer bleibenden Tempelstätte in enge Verbindung gebracht mit der bleibenden Bedeutung der erwählten Davidischen Dynastie für Israels, ja, wie aus Davids Erguss (V. 19) sich ergibt, für der Menschheit fernste Zukunft — וזאת תורת האדם — ein Zusammenhang, der auf das ולשכנו תדרשו unseres Textes noch ein helles Licht zu werfen geeignet sein dürfte. Die bleibende Gottesstätte wird nicht früher erwählt, bis der Mann gefunden ist, der gewürdigt werden konnte, dass er und seine Nachkommen die bleibende nationale Spitze für die Verwirklichung der vom Gesetzesheiligtum aus zu emanierenden nationalen Bestimmung werden solle. Der Bau eines festen Tempelhauses bezeichnet zugleich den Stamm, in dessen Gebiet er aufgeführt steht, als einen solchen, in dessen Mitte die bleibende dynastische Führerschaft der Nation beruht. Darum, wie es dort Verse 6 und 7 heißt, war Gott so lange in Zelt und unfester Wohnung unter den Stämmen Israels gewandelt und hatte von keinem zur zeitlichen Führerschaft berufenen Stamm den Bau eines festen Hauses gefordert, bis er David "gefunden" (Ps.89, 21), der sich dieser bleibenden Führerschaft würdig gezeigt. Das Zeltdach zu Schilo und der היתר במות zu den übrigen vorsalomonischen Zeiten, waren ebenso viele Wahrzeichen, dass die Nation noch des rechten Führers und der eigentlichen ewigen Gottesstätte zu harren hatte.

והניח לכם AND WHEN HE GIVETH YOU REST — i.e., after having conquered and divided the land and having obtained rest from the nations “which the Lord left by which to prove Israel” (Judges 3:1) — which was only in the days of David (cf. Sifrei Devarim 68:3) — then,

את כל אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם: Pflichtopfer wie Opfer der Freiwilligkeit. — וכל מבחר נדריכם heißt nicht: das Auserwählte, d. h. das Beste eurer Gelübde, sondern: das durch eure Gelübde Auserwählte, das, was ihr durch ein Gelübde aus euren Gütern Gott bestimmt habet, oder: was ihr aus euren Gütern ausgewählt habet, um damit ein Gott gelobtes Gelübde zu lösen. Implizite liegt darin die Weisung, zur Lösung eines solchen Gelübdes das Bestmögliche zu wählen (siehe Keritot 27 a).

והיה המקום וגו׳ IT SHALL BE [THAT YE SHALL BRING TO] THE PLACE [WHICH THE LORD YOUR GOD SHALL CHOOSE … EVEN THITHER YE SHALL BRING ALL THAT I COMMAND YOU] — then build the “Chosen House” for yourselves in Jerusalem. And so indeed it states of David, (II Samuel 7:1, 2): “And it came to pass when the king sat in his house, and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies, that the king said unto Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in the house of cedar, but the Ark of God dwelleth within curtains …'” (Sifrei Devarim 67:3; cf. Rashi on that verse).

The discussion above concerns Shiloh, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture had already written above (v. 6), “You are to bring there, etc.” Rashi answers: The discussion above etc.

שמה תביאו THITHER SHALL YE BRING [ALL THAT I COMMAND YOU] — Above (v. 6) it (the same expression) is said in reference to Shiloh, but here it is said in reference to Jerusalem. It is for the following reason that Scripture divides the matter into two paragraphs: to give permission to offer on a Bamah in the intermediate period between the existence of the one sanctuary and the other; viz., that after Shiloh was destroyed and they came to Nob and erected the Tabernacle there, and then again when Nob was destroyed and they came to Gibeon, sacrificing on the Bamah was allowed until they finally came to Jerusalem (Zevachim 119a and Mishnah Zevachim 14:1).

From the time that Shiloh was laid waste and they arrived at Nov, and Nov was laid waste etc. But before they arrived at Nov, private altars were permitted. Once they arrived at Nov, private altars were again forbidden because the Mishkon was erected there.

מבחר נדריכם YOUR CHOICE VOWS — This teaches that one should bring one’s offerings from the choicest (Sifrei Devarim 68:4).

V. 12. ושמחתם וגו׳: also ein völliges Mithinaufnehmen der Familie in allen Angehörigen aus der Dezentralisation in den Mittelpunkt. Es ist ganz eigentlich das Innewerden der Familienfreude vor Gott in dem Umkreis seines Gesetzes.

והלוי אשר בשעריכם. Es scheint vorauszusetzen, dass die Leviten, obgleich mit besonderen Städten zum Wohnsitze vom Gesetze bedacht, doch im Lande zerstreut unter der anderen Bevölkerung leben werden. Sie werden mit den Familien hinaufwandern und sollen Anteil an ihren Familienopfermahlen finden.

השמר לך TAKE HEED TO THYSELF [LEST THOU OFFER THY BURNT OFFERINGS IN EVERY PLACE THAT THOU SEEST] — This negative form of the positive command in v. 11, is stated in order to attach a negative command (לאו) to this matter (Sifrei Devarim 70:1).

בכל מקום אשר תראה, “in any place that you see.” This is a negative commandment; however, at the bidding of a legitimate prophet, under special circumstances, sacrifices may be offered on an altar outside the Temple such as Elijah’s at Mount Carmel when the purpose was to delegitimize the prophets of the Baal.

This places a negative commandment over the matter. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture had already written above (v. 11), “It is there you shall bring,” which implies only there and nowhere else. Why does it need to say again, “Take heed”? Rashi answers: “This places a negative commandment over the matter.”

V. 13. השמר לך. Es ist dies das Verbot, die אזהרה, zu der bereits Wajikra 17. 8 u. 9 mit כרת verpönten שחיטה והעלאה בחוץ (siehe daselbst) nach dem Kanon: כל מקום שנאמר השמר פן ואל אינו אלא לא תעשה (Sebachim 106 a).

השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום, “Take heed not to offer your burnt offerings at any place;” the reason why the Torah is so insistent that offerings not be brought other than at a central location, is that seeing the Israelites are supposed to make at least three pilgrimages a year to the Temple in Jerusalem, if they were legally able to offer the sacrifices that they need to offer also on private altars, many would use that as an excuse not to make the pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Once they would get into the habit to offer sacrifices to Hashem on private altars, it would be a small step to also offer some sacrifices, such as calves, to other “deities.” [As we saw once Jerobam erected these calves by blocking the highways to Jerusalem to pilgrims. (Compare Kings I chapter 12) Ed.]

בכל מקום אשר תראה IN EVERY PLACE THAT “THOU” SEEST — i.e., that enters thy mind, but thou mayest offer anywhere by the command of a prophet, as, for instance, Elijah did on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:21 ff.) (Sifrei Devarim 70:3).

However, you may bring an offering by prophetic instruction, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “you envision”? It only needs to say, “anywhere.” The answer is: The words, “you envision,” teach us that bringing sacrifices is forbidden only in a place where you envision. However, you may bring an offering by prophetic instruction, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

רק בכל אות נפשך HOWEVER [THOU MAYEST SLAUGHTER AND EAT FLESH IN ALL THY GATES] IN EVERY LONGING OF THY SOUL — About what is Scripture here speaking? If you say that it speaks about בשר תאוה (flesh eaten for satisfying the appetite — an ordinary meal of meat and not a sacrificial meal) and that this verse is intended to permit it to them without offering the fat portions on the altar, behold, it states in another passage (v. 20) “When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy boundary … and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, [because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh in every longing of thy soul]”! About what, then, is this verse speaking? About consecrated animals which had become blemished, — that they must be redeemed and may then be eaten in anyplace (בכל שעריך). One might think that they may be redeemed and thus divested of their holy character also on account of a transitory blemish! Scripture, however, uses the expression רק (which word has a limitative force) (Sifrei Devarim 71:1).

בכל אות נפשך, in parts of the country where the Temple does not stand, where it is not acceptable to G’d for us to offer sacrifices. In such locations meat may be eaten without first having become an offering on the altar.

Perhaps they may be redeemed even with a transient blemish?, etc. I.e., even if they were afflicted with a blemish that will definitely heal, perhaps they may be redeemed and eaten immediately after being afflicted — even though it will ultimately heal. The Torah therefore teaches, “except.” For the terms, “except,” and “only,” are intended to exclude; and here it comes to exclude a transient blemish [from being redeemed].

V. 15. רק בכל אות נפשך וגו׳. Wir haben bereits zu Wajikra 17, 3 angemerkt, wie nach der überwiegend adoptierten Lehre des ר׳ ישמעאל während der Wanderschaft in der Wüste, wo das ganze Volk stets in unmittelbarer Nähe das Gesetzesheiligtum umgab, בשר תאוה, d. i. der Genuss von opferfähigen, aber nicht zum Opfer gebrachten Tieren, verboten war und erst mit der Niederlassung im Lande zur Gestattung kam. Diese Gestattung des Schlachtens opferfähiger Tiere, מבקרך וצאנך, zum gewöhnlichen Genuss ohne deren Opferdarbringung im Tempel, welche mit der Niederlassung des Volkes bis zur Landesgrenze weit vom Tempel hin eintreten sollte, ist ausdrücklich Verse 20 und 21 ausgesprochen, deren klarer Wortlaut eine mit veränderten örtlichen Wohnsitzzuständen eintretende neue Bestimmung ausspricht. Hier ist aber von dem Schlachten opferfähig gewesener und als solche zum Opfer geheiligter, jedoch durch מום קבוע (Wajikra 22, 12 f.) opferunfähig gewordener Tiere, פסולי המוקדשים, die Rede, deren Schlachten zum Profangenuss nach deren Auslösung (Wajikra 27, 11 u. 12) auch während des איסור בשר תאוה in der Wüste ebenso wie צבי ואיל erlaubt war, כי אסר רחמנא בהמה דחזיא להקרבה אבל חיה דלא חזיא להקרבה לא אסר רחמנא (Chulin 17 a). und werden hier über dieselben gesetzliche Bestimmungen niedergelegt, die sie einerseits von קדשים, andererseits von חולין unterscheiden (siehe ספרי z. St.) Die Seiten, vermöge welcher sie auch לאחר פדיונן noch ihren ursprünglichen קדשים-Charakter bewahren, sind in dem Satze zusammengestellt: כל שקדם הקדשן את מומן או מום עובר קודם להקדשן ולאחר מכאן נולד להם מום קבוע ונפרו פטורין מן הבכורה ומן המתנות ואינן יוצאין לחולין לחגזז ולהעבד וולדן וחלבן אסור לאחר פדיונן ואם מתו יקברו (Chulin 130 a).

תזבח ואכלת בשר, “you will slaughter and proceed to eat meat;” Rashi comments on this that the Torah does not speak about animals raised for food, but about animals raised to be offered as a sacrifice on the altar. What the Torah actually comes to approve here is the killing for food of animals raised for a holy purpose. According to Rashi, based on Sifri, the Torah speaks here of an animal that had been raised by its owner to be offered as a sacrifice. Before it could be sacrificed however, it developed a blemish that disqualified it as the sacrifice it had been intended for. This animal may now be slaughtered and its meat be eaten, though its wool may not be shorn nor may it not be milked for its milk to be drunk. The word: רק, “only, except,” is the hint of what is the true meaning of the verse. An animal destined [too son Ed.] as a sacrifice, when disqualified through a permanent blemish, may be used by its owner secularly only as food, but not for any other mundane purpose. However, if it had been shorn by someone other than the owner, the wool is not subject to any restrictions just because it had originally grown on the back of an animal that had been sanctified. The subject and its ramifications are discussed in the Talmud tractate Meilah folio 12. [Since, unfortunately for the last 2000 years this subject is not of practical significance, I have not given some more details mentioned in the Talmud there. Ed.]

תזבח ואכלת THOU MAYEST SLAUGHTER AND EAT [FLESH] — You have no permission to use their fleece or milk (those of consecrated animals that had become blemished), but only the eating of their flesh after ritual slaughtering is permitted (cf. Sifrei Devarim 71:2-3; Bekhorot 15b).

You are not permitted to shear or milk, etc. The verse should [only] have said, “With the fullness of your appetite you may eat meat.” It is obviously slaughtered, for sacred and non-sacred animals are equal in this regard. Therefore they expounded [from the extra word, “slaughter,”] that only a benefit that requires slaughtering may be derived from unfit sacred animals. This excludes shearing and milking which are benefits that do not require slaughtering.

Alle diese Seiten finden ihre Andeutungen in unserem Texte: תזבח ולא גיזה בשר ולא חלב ואכלת ולא לכלביך מכאן שאין פודין את הקדשים להאכיל לכלבים, nur das Schlachten und der Selbstgenuss des Fleisches ist gestattet, allein hinsichtlich der Schur und der Arbeitsverwendung verbleiben sie dem (Kap. 15, 19) für קדשים ausgesprochenen Verbote: לא תעבד בבכור שורך ולא תגוז בכור צאנך, und ist diese gesetzliche Tatsache, dass die nur in gebietender Form ׳תזבח ולא גיזה וגו gegebene Beschränkung des חולין-Charakters, die sonst nur die Kraft eines Gebotes hätte, nach dem Kanon פסולי המוקדשים , לאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה hinsichtlich גיזה ועבורה in den Verbotbegriff לא תעבד בבכר שורך usw., dem siw als קדשים angehörten, mit völliger לאו-Kraft zurückversetzt, אהדריה קרא לאיסוריה, für alle ähnlichen Fälle mustergültig (siehe תוספו׳ Chulin 98 b ד׳׳ה רבא und Aboda Sara 67 a ר׳׳ה ר׳ יוחנן). Ebenso ist nur der Fleischgenuss gestattet, allein Milch und Junges כשנתעברה קודם פדיונן bleibt verboten, und nur ואכלת, vom Menschen darf es gegessen, werden, allein selbst wenn es für den Menschengenuss untauglich geworden, darf damit kein Vieh gefüttert werden. Endlich lehrt die Zusammenstellung mit צבי ואיל auch, dass ebenso wie bei חיה, so auch bei פסולי מוקדשים שנפדו die sonst bei בהמה eintretende בכור- und זרוע( מתנות כהונה לחיים וקיבה Kap. 18, 3) -Pflicht nicht eintritt (Bechorot 15 a.

הטמא והטהור יחדיו “the ritually pure and the ritually impure, may eat it simultaneously.” Prior to that animal’s disqualification by its blemish, the ritually impure person would have been forbidden to eat of its meat. The penalty for doing so knowingly, incidentally, is karet, posthumous separation from the Jewish people.

הטמא והטהור THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN [MAY EAT THEREOF] — Because they (the consecrated animals that had become blemished) came to their present status by virtue of once having been consecrated animals, of which it is stated, (Leviticus 7:19) “And the flesh of offerings that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten”, it felt it necessary explicitly to permit in their case that an unclean and a clean person may eat out of the same dish (i.e. together) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 71:7),

To permit the unclean and the clean to eat it in a single plate. I.e., even though the meat eaten by the clean is touched by the unclean, for they are eating together from the same plate — As our Sages derive from the later verse (12:22), “So may you eat it; the unclean and the clean together,” which refers to sacred meat that became unfit, as explained in Chulin (28a). Re”m writes: It is perplexing that Rashi quotes the verse, “Meat which came into contact with anything unclean, etc.,” to learn from this that a person who is clean may eat sacred meat that became unfit even when an unclean person has touched it. Instead he should have quoted the verse (Vayikra 12:4), “Any [food] that is sacred, she may not touch,” which prohibits one who is unclean from eating sacrificial meat — [and then Rashi should have said:] and therefore it is necessary to permit the unclean and the clean to eat it, etc. Re”m answers: The verse, “Any [food] that is sacred she may not touch,” does not directly say that one who is unclean may not eat sacrificial meat. Rather, this is understood from the interpretation by our Sages. Therefore Rashi quotes the verse, “Meat which came into contact with anything unclean,” and learns that one who is clean may eat impure sacred meat that became unfit. But it seems to me: The verse, “Meat which came into contact ... may not be eaten,” is Rashi’s direct proof that its main intent is to permit one who is clean to eat impure meat. Otherwise, it should not say that the clean is permitted to eat — for if the unclean is permitted to eat it, then certainly the clean should be permitted to eat it. Rather, it must be that the main intent of that verse is to teach that one who is clean may eat impure meat, as we have explained.

Diese Bestimmung, welche zum Opfer fähig und bestimmt gewesene Tiere selbst nach ihrem in Folge eingetretener Opferuntauglichkeit durch Auslösung bewirkten Rücktritt in den חולין-Zustand ausschließlich für den Menschennahrungszweck freigibt, dürfte nicht nur aus der Dignität der ursprünglichen Opferheiligungsidee fließen, die ja durch Auslösung abgelöst und auf ein anderes Objekt übertragen worden, sondern eben sowohl eine Würdigung des Menschengenussgedankens als eines solchen im Auge haben, der, dem Opferzweck zunächst gerückt sowohl Opfer als Menschengenuss in ihrer Wahrheit erkennen lässt. "Was nicht mehr אכילת מזבח werden kann, soll wenigstens אכילת אדם werden", dieser Kanon, in welchen sich das תזבח ולא גיזה ועבודה ואכלת ולא לכלביך zusammenfassen lässt, hält ebenso den "Altar" in den Kreis der Menschenzwecke, wie er den "Tisch" nahe an den Altar rückt. Beide haben sie die Förderung und Erhaltung des Menschen für seine geistig sittliche Menschenbestimmung zum Zwecke, und unser חולין-Genuss wird, in den sittlichen Gesetzesschranken gehalten und den sittlichen Gesetzeszwecken dienend, selber geheiligt. Ist doch das בשר auf dem מזבח, sind doch die איברים und אמורים, die dem אש דת dort ׳לריח ניחוח לה hingegeben werden, nur symbolischer Ausdruck derselben איברים, die wir im Chulingenuss eben für den Dienst des göttlichen Wohlgefallens auf Erden nähren. Diese sittliche Heiligung unseres Chulingenusses liegt der Idee dieser Gesetzesbestimmung so nahe, dass sich das Gesetz veranlasst sehen konnte, ausdrücklich zu bemerken, dass gleichwohl die symbolischen טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetze für den Chulintisch nicht vorgeschrieben sind: הטמא והטהור יאכלנו, wie צבי ואיל, die überhaupt nicht opferfähig sind. Ja, aus diesem Naherücken der אכילת אדם mit אכילת מזבח dürfte sich es auch wohl erklären, dass ebenso das Gesetz sich noch veranlasst sehen konnte, איסור אכילת הדם (V. 16) für פסולי המוקדשים noch besonders zu wiederholen, worin dann, aus diesem Gesichtspunkte ganz konsequent, nach רבא (Bechorot 15 a) auch implizite איסור חלב gegeben wäre. Beide sind ja אכילת מזבח und sind mit Hinblick hierauf (Wajikra 3, 16 u. 17) verboten.

כצבי וכאיל AS OF THE GAZELLE AND OF THE HART of which no sacrifice is ever brought.

Which are not eligible as sacrifices. I.e., for this reason it [impure meat] is exempt from the gifts [of the foreleg, the maw, and the jaw], like the deer and the gazelle that are exempt since they are not eligible as sacrifices, as Rashi explains afterwards.

Dass פסולי המוקדשים שנפדו nicht der בכור- und מתנות-Pflicht unterliegen, dürfte in tieferem Grunde demselben Motive angehören, das dieselbe nicht nur nicht bei קדשי מזבח, sondern auch nicht bei קדשי בדק הבית eintreten lässt, קדושת דמים מדחה מן הבכורה ומן המתנות (Bechorot 14 a), wofür nach Tossfot (daselbst) das Motiv in der Bestimmung liegt, dass בכורה und מתנות nur für den eigentlichen Menscheneigentumskreis gegeben sind (Dewarim 18, 3), ובמתנות מאת העם (Bamidbar 3, 13), דכתיב גבי בכור בישראל. Auch פסולי מוקדשים gehören selbst לאחר פדיונן nicht zum eigentlichen Besitzkreise der individuellen Persönlichkeit, die ja in deren Verwendung beschränkt ist. Glaubten wir daraus doch auch zu Schmot 33, 34 die Bestimmung verstehen zu können, die שור פסולי המוקדשים selbst von בור ausschließt (siehe daselbst). פסולי המוקדשים, die das Gesetz von גיזה ועבודה, von Schur und Arbeitsdienst ausschließt, repräsentieren dadurch ebenso unvollkommen das eigentliche Gebiet des Menscheneigentums, wie צבי ואיל, wie חיה durch ihren natürlichen Charakter sich nicht vollkommen dem Menschendienst unterordnen. פסולי המוקדשים tragen in dieser Beziehung חיהCharakter und ist daher deren Ausschluss von der בכורה- und מתנות-Pflicht in ihrer Gleichstellung mit צבי ואיל niedergelegt (vergl. Kap. 15, 21 u. 22).

כצבי וכאיל AS OF THE GAZELLE, AND OF THE HART — These apparently redundant words are intended to exempt them (the פסולי המקדשין שנפדו) from the dues of “the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3) which are compulsory gifts to the priests in the case of non-holy (חולין) animals (Chullin 130a; Sifrei Devarim 71:9).

Mackot 22 a wird die Halacha gelehrt: המרביע שור פסולי המוקדשים לוקה שנים )ממ׳׳ל הל׳ מעילה א׳ ט׳ נראה דלא גרס שנים ע׳׳ש( המנהיג בשור פסולי המוקדשים לוקה שהרי גוף אחד הוא ועשאו הכתוב כשני גופים. Es werden somit פסולי המוקדשים שנפדו wie כלאים betrachtet, die אסורים בהרבעה (Wajikra 19, 19) und בהנהגה (Dewarim 22, 10) sind, und zwar, wie Raschi das angegebene Motiv, עשאו הכתוב כשני גופים, erklärt: weil in ihnen der חולין- und קדשים-Charakter zusammentrifft, werden sie wie zwei geschiedene Arten betrachtet, deren Zucht- und Arbeitverbindung nach dem כלאים-Gesetz untersagt ist. Nach ר׳׳ת wäre das עשאו הכתוב כשני גופים jedoch eben der Ausdruck unseres Textes, der פסולי המוקדשים mit צבי ואיל, also mit zwei verschiedenen Gattungen vergleicht, worauf auch Bechoroth 33 a diese Halacha zurückgeführt wird. Wenn, wie wir zu Wajikra (daselbst) zu erkennen glaubten, eine Kategorie der כלאים-Gesetze nicht sowohl eine wirkliche widernatürliche Störung der von Gott, dem Weltgesetzgeber, gegebenen למינו-Gesetze verhindern, als vielmehr bei allem unseren tätigen Wirken in und mit der organischen Welt uns auf Gott hinweisen wolle, dessen Gattungsgesetz in allen natürlichen Dingen der organischen Welt noch wirkend hervortritt, und der auch uns das Gesetz für die "Art" unseres Seins und Lebens geschrieben: so finden wir in diesem כלאים־פסולי המוקדשים-Gesetze die Identität der תורה-Gesetze und der Naturgesetze unmittelbar uns vor Augen gerückt und uns die Huldigung des einen und desselben Gebers der Naturgesetze wie der Gesetze des jüdischen Lebens durch treuen Pflichtgehorsam bei allem unseren Tun und Walten nahegelegt. Nach מל׳׳מ zu 11 ,9 הל׳ כלאים wäre auch nach Raschis Auffassung in der Tat die Verbindung von wirklichen חולין- und קדשים-Tieren, durch כ׳׳ש-Folgerung von פסולי המוקדשים verboten (siehe daselbst).

רק הדם לא תאכלו ONLY YE SHALL NOT EAT THE BLOOD — Although I have told you that there is no sprinkling of blood on the altar in its case (it being blemished and thus unfit for the altar), you shall nevertheless not eat it.

Its blood is not to be sprinkled on the altar, etc. I.e., one might think that eating blood is prohibited only in order to sprinkle it on the altar [and therefore it would be permitted here], so the verse lets us know differently [that “You may not eat the blood,”] However, it is perplexing that we need this verse. For we can derive this from the verse in Parshas Acharei Mos (Vayikra 17:10), “Whoever eats any blood, etc.,” which teaches [a prohibition] regarding blood even from ordinary meat — as Rashi explains there. Perhaps the answer is: The prohibition is written twice [though it is unnecessary]. Re”m explains likewise above in Parshas Acharei Mos. But it seems to me that if we only had the verse, “Whoever eats, etc.,” then we might think: Even though they are ordinary animals, but since at the time of slaughtering they were unblemished and their blood was thus fit to be offered upon the altar, therefore the Torah prohibits [eating] their blood. However, this is not so regarding sacred sacrifices that became unfit, therefore an additional verse is necessary to forbid its blood. See what I wrote above in Parshas Acharei Mos.

V. 16. רק הדם לא תאכלו (siehe zu V. 15). על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, obgleich פסולי המוקדשים hinsichtlich בכורה ומתנות durch die Gleichstellung mit חיה צבי ואיל- Charakter haben, so unterliegt doch ihr Blut nicht der כיסוי-Pflicht wie das Blut wirklicher חיה (Chulin 84 a; — siehe zu Wajikra 17, 13.) Gleichzeitig ist durch den Satz על הארץ תשפכנו כמים die Bestimmung gegeben, dass alles nicht für den Altar bestimmte Blut, מים ,דם שנשפך על הארץ-Charakter trägt und wie "Wasser" מכשיר זרעים ist (siehe zu Wajikra 11, 34), im Gegensatz zu דם קדשים, das nicht מכשיר ist (Chulin 33 a).

רק הדם לא תאכלו, “only the blood you must not eat.” Even though the Torah permits the commoner to eat the meat through a process of redemption, i.e. paying compensation to the Temple treasury for the one time sanctified animal, plus a small premium, its blood had been forbidden already prior to this animal having been sanctified, so how could it possibly be released through redemption? The same rule applies to the forbidden fat parts of any animal slated as a sacrifice, or not. The reason why the Torah singled out blood as its example, is that blood of any animal, whether basically fit to become a sacrifice or not, is forbidden, whereas the fat parts of animals not ever suitable as sacrifices were never forbidden. (Compare Talmud tractate Chulin folio 117)

תשפכנו כמים YE SHALL POUR IT [UPON THE EARTH] AS WATER — This latter word is intended to tell you that although they are compared to these חיות, yet it (the blood) requires no covering with dust as prescribed in the case of these חיות in Leviticus 17:13 (Sifrei Devarim 71:15; Chullin 84a). Another explanation is that the word כמים is intended to suggest: It is like water in so far as to make seed (food) receptive to uncleanness just as water does (cf. Leviticus 11:38) (Sifrei Devarim 71:15; Chullin 35b).

This teaches you that it does not require covering. Since Scripture compares it to the deer and gazelle, we might think: Just as the deer and gazelle require covering [of their blood], so too this animal requires covering. Therefore the verse needs to write, “Spill it like water,” to say that it does not require covering (Re”m). Additionally, we might think that blood of all animals requires covering, since the term בהמה (domesticated animal) is included under the term חיה (wild animal); and just as the blood of a wild animal requires covering, so too regarding a domesticated animal. Therefore the phrase, “Spill it like water,” teaches us: Just as water does not require covering, so too the blood of sacred animals that became unfit [does not require covering]. And from this we may extrapolate that the blood of all domesticated animals does not require covering. See chapter Kisui Hadam (Chulin 84a), where this is explicitly written.

Another interpretation: It is like water, etc. The first interpretation is problematic, because why is the word, “water,” needed? The verse only needs to write, “On the earth you are to spill it,” and we would know that it does not require covering. Therefore, another interpretation is needed. But the second interpretation on its own [is problematic], for this verse should have been written over there [in the section] regarding the conditioning (hechsher) of edible seeds (Vayikra 11:38). Therefore we also need the first interpretation.

לא תוכל THOU MAYEST NOT [EAT WITHIN THY GATES THE TITHE OF THY CORN etc.] — Scripture thereby intends to attach to this matter (the eating of מעשר בכור etc. outside the walls of Jerusalem) a negative command also (the positive command being contained in v. 11).

This passage places a negative commandment, etc. Re”m writes: Since Rashi does not say, “This is a negative commandment,” but rather says at length, “This passage, etc.,” I must say that this is only hinted at in the verse. But the verse’s primary intention is to forbid eating outside the wall of [Jerusalem]. [Re”m continues:] Alternatively, Rashi’s intent is: Although it is written above (v. 6), “You are to bring there your burnt-offerings, etc.,” which implies — and not outside the wall of Jerusalem. Nevertheless it says afterwards, “You are not permitted to eat in your cities,” in order to place a negative commandment over the matter, as above (v. 13. See Rashi’s explanation there under the caption, “This places a negative commandment, etc.”).

V. 17. ׳לא תוכל לאכול וגו. Die gebietende Verpflichtung, alle in engerer Beziehung zum Gesetzesheiligtum stehenden Opfer-, Weihe- und Gelobungsobjekte nach der einzigen von Gott erwählten Stätte hinzubringen, ist bereits Vers 11 ausgesprochen. Hier wird nun Verse 17 und 18 auch das "Essen", der Genuss der dem Priester oder Eigner zum Genuss gelangenden Opfer-, Weihe- und Gelobungsobjekte, innerhalb des dem Gesetzesheiligtum gezogenen Kreises verbietend und gebietend beschränkt und damit auch der an sich sinnliche Genuss in den Kreis der dem Gesetzesheiligtum zugewandten, die Gottesnähe suchenden, Gott dienenden Handlungen gezogen. Alle die außerhalb der engeren und engsten Kreise des Gesetzesheiligtums liegenden Örtlichkeiten und Räume werden unter den Begriff שעריך gefasst. Wie schon שער an sich der typische Ausdruck für das bürgerliche Volksleben ist, das sich im "Tor" konzentriert, so sind שעריך noch besonders die "dir" verbliebenen bürgerlichen Räume im Gegensatz zu den ׳חצרות ד, zu den Raumgebieten Gottes, zu dem Bereiche der "Gottes Namen" tragenden Stätten. Diese Raumumgrenzungen sind nach dem Charakter der Heiligtumsobjekte verschieden, ביכורים ,מעשר שני (hier unter תרומת ידך verstanden; — siehe V. 6) קדשים קלים wie נדבותיך) תודה ושלמים ,בכור) dürfen nicht חוץ לחומה, außerhalb Jerusalems Mauern, קדשי קדשים wie בקרך וצאנך) חטאת ואשם ; — siehe V. 6) nicht außerhalb der עזרה gegessen werden.

לא תוכל לאכול, “you cannot eat;” Rashi quotes Rabbi Joshua son of Korchah as saying that the words לא תוכל, do not mean that the Levites are physically unable to eat the tithes in their homes or towns, but that they are forbidden to do so. What applies to the first tithe given to the Levite also applies to the “second” tithe that the Israelite during the respective years may consume himself but only in Jerusalem, or other designated town housing the Tabernacle at the time. If such second tithe has been redeemed by the farmer, then the money received must be spent in Jerusalem or its equivalent, for food, drink or clothing and such for the farmer and his family. The same applies to other gifts given to the priests, such as the firstlings of the harvest each year. The “gift” known as t’rumah, from the grain fields, may be eaten in the priest’s home by himself and his family and household. According to Rashi on Joshua 15,63, the words ולא יכלו בני יהודה להורישם, “and the members of the tribe of Yehudah were unable to dislodge the Jebusite from their city (Jerusalem)” are also to be understood as a prohibition. i.e. the covenant made between Avraham and Avimelech for four generations, had not yet expired, so that G-d had not yet given permission for the Israelites to conquer that part of the land of Israel. The inhabitants of that city at that time were not Jebusites, i.e. Canaanites, to whom that covenant did not apply, but were Philistines to whom it did apply.)

לא תוכל THOU MAYEST NOT (lit., thou canst not) [EAT etc.] — Rabbi Joshua the son of Korcha said: You can, but you are not allowed to (i.e. לא תוכל does not mean: you are unable for some reason or another to do so, but it expresses the inability to do it because of a legal restriction). A similar case we have in (Joshua 15:63) “As to the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out” — they could have done so, but they were not allowed to (Sifrei Devarim 72:1); because Abraham had made a covenant with them when he bought from them the cave of Machpelah that they would be spared at the conquest of the Land. — As a matter fact they were not Jebusites but Hittites (the people mentioned in Genesis 23 at the purchase of the cave), but they were called Jebusites after the city the name of which was Jebus. Thus is it explained in the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 36. And this is the meaning of what is stated, that when David was about to drive out the Jebusites, they said to him (II Samuel 5:6) “Except thou take away the blind and the lame [thou shalt not come in hither]” — by “the blind and the lame” they meant the idols (that stood at the gates) upon which they had written the oath which Abraham had taken.

The statues on which the oath was inscribed. This refers to the oath sworn by Avraham and Yitzchak to Avimelech. The blind statues represent Yitzchak, and the lame statues represent Yaakov, about whom the verse writes (Bereishis 32:32), “And he limped due to his hip.”

Mackot 18 a wird darauf hingewiesen, wie, wenn unser Satz לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך וגו׳ nur das Verbot des Genusses von Heiligtümern außerhalb Jerusalems, חוץ לחומה, aussprechen sollte, dann sich der Text in einfacher Kürze an Vers 11 mit dem Nachsatz: לא תאכלם בשעריך angeschlossen hätte. Indem jedoch das Berbot der אכילה בשעריך in einen ganz besonderen Satz mit nochmaliger spezialisierender Wiederholung der davon betroffenen Objekte gefasst wird, so wird die Bedeutung des בשעריך über den engeren Begriff des eigentlichen חוץ לחומה hinaus erweitert und jedes der speziell aufgeführten Objekte bringt eine bereits anderweitig hinsichtlich dessen Genusses gegebene, hier nur unter der Form eines Verbots zur Beachtung gebrachte Bestimmung zur Erweiterung des gesetzlichen Umfanges dieses Verbotes hinzu. So תרומת ידך) ביכורים) das Verbot des Genusses derselben קודם הנחה, vor deren Niederlegung vor den Altar (Dewarim 26, 4 u. 10), ונדבותיך) תודה ושלמים) das Genussverbot לפני זריקה, vor der Bluthingebung an den Altar (daselbst 12, 27), בכורות das Genussverbot für jeden Nichtkohen selbst לאחר זריקה. (Bamidbar 18, 18), בקרך וצאנך) חטאת ואשם) das Genussverbot der קדשי קדשים außerhalb der חוץ לקלעים ,עזרה (Wajikra 6, 19), נדריך) עולה) das Genussverbot des Emporopfers überhaupt selbst כפנים, das ja ganz dem Altarfeuer zu übergeben ist (Wajikra 1, 8 u. 9; — und ist nach 3 ,1 הל׳ מעילה ,רמב׳׳ם dieses לאו eben die אזהרה für מעילה überhaupt; siehe daselbst מל׳׳מ).

לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך, “to eat in your gates tithes of your grain harvest.” Moses here addresses the Israelites, as distinct from the Levites, and he speaks of the second tithe, that must not be eaten in their homes but in Jerusalem, or its equivalent after having been redeemed.

ובכרת בקרך [THOU MAYEST NOT EAT WITHIN THY GATES THE TITHE OF THY CORN …] AND THE FIRSTLINGS OF THY HERD — This, in contradistinction to מעשר דגנך וכו׳, is of course a prohibition addressed to the priests (since the Israelites were not at all permitted to eat firstlings; cf. Zevachim 5:1: הבכור נאכל לכהנים והמעשר לכל אדם).

This prohibition applies to the kohanim. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “the first born of you cattle,” when [only] the kohein is commanded regarding [eating] the first born?

Ebenso wird Baba Mezia 56 a in dem Verbot לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך וגו׳, das ja zunächst das Verbot des Genusses von מעשר שני außerhalb Jerusalems ausspricht, zugleich das Verbot desselben gefunden, wenn die gestattete Auslösung חילול. (Wajikra 14. 25), nicht vorschriftsmäßig vollzogen worden. Ferner wird Mackoth 16 b das Verbot לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך מעשר דגנך ותירשך ויצהרך noch dahin generalisiert, dass damit) auch der Genuss von תרומה- und מעשר-pflichtigen Früchten betroffen wird, so lange sie טבל sind, d. h. so lange nicht die darauf ruhenden תרומה- und מעסר-Ausscheidungen vollständig vollzogen, und wäre selbst nur das in jedem dritten Jahre für מעשר שני eintretende מעשר עני (Dewarim 14, 28) noch unausgeschieden darin geblieben, dem ja keinerlei קדושה innewohnt, so unterliegt es dem איסור טבל.

ובכורות בקרך וצאנך, nor the firstlings of your cattle or flocks. Seeing that the firstlings may only be eaten by the priests, this verse appears to present a difficulty; why would it be addressed to the Israelites as a whole? It could not refer to firstlings that had been born blemished. Apparently, the farmers would set aside two “firstlings.” The first would be given to the priest, and the second would be treated as sanctified also, and therefore be consumed only in Jerusalem, as if it were part of a second tithe. An alternate interpretation of this phrase: the verse speaks of firstling animals that had been born as females and thus did not have to be given to the priests. The farmers would eat these female firstborns in Jerusalem, voluntarily. In the Jerusalem Talmud there is a dispute concerning the accuracy of this version. One opinion treats the verse as applying to a regular male firstling animal, in which case Moses would have been addressing only the priests, whereas the second opinion claims that there is no problem as the priests are also Israelites and Moses did not need to address them separately. [Seeing that this quotation from the Jerusalem Talmud has not been found by Rabbi Chavell on whose annotations I base myself, I may be forgiven for feeling a little confused. Ed.] לפני ה' אלוקיך, “in the presence of the Lord your G-d, i.e. on sacred ground in the Temple precincts,” Moses addresses whoever this applies to, without spelling out who they are.

‎ ותרומת ידך AND THE HEAVE-OFFERINGS OF THY HAND — This refers to the first-fruits (cf. Deuteronomy 26:4) (Sifrei Devarim 72:9; Makkot 17a).

This refers to the first fruits. I.e., this prohibits eating them outside the walls [of Jerusalem], and [for violating the prohibition one] incurs lashes.

Endlich wird Jebamoth 73 b in לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך zugleich für ביכורים und מעשר שני das Verbot des Genusses derselben, בטומאת עצמן, wenn sie טמא geworden, erkannt, während der Genuss von מעשר שני im Tumazustande der genießenden Persönlichkeit, בטומאת הגוף, bereits (Wajikra 22, 6; — siehe daselbst) verboten ist. Es wird nämlich אכילה בשעריך durch Hinweis auf das Kap. 15, 22 für פסולי המוקדשים ausgesprochene בשעריך תאכלנו הטמא והטהור יחדיו als ein solcher Genuss begriffen, wo אפילו טמא וטהור אוכלין על שלחן אחד בקערה אחת ואין חוששין, wo alle Rücksicht auf טומאה und טהרה wegfällt, der טמא und טהור an einem Tisch und aus einer Schüssel zusammen essen, und unvermeidlich die Speise durch Berührung des Tome טמא wird. Eine solche אכילה בשעריך ist hier für מעשר שני und die damit zugleich genannten ביכורים verboten.

Fassen wir dies alles zusammen, so bildet בשעריך als Gegensatz zu מקום אשר ׳יבחר ד den Begriff des "Profangenussbereichs", und לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך verbietet den Profangenuss dessen, was wegen seiner Beziehungen zum Heiligtume sachlich, zeitlich oder räumlich oder artlich, also: überhaupt nicht oder für diese Person nicht, oder noch nicht, oder da nicht, oder so nicht, dem Genuss angehört. בשעריך ist der Genuss außerhalb der von Beziehungen zum Heiligtum gesetzten Schranken des Raumes, der Zeit, der Person oder der Art und Weise. Des Raumes: מעשר שני, ביכורים, קדשים קלים קדשי קדשים חוץ לקלעים ;חוץ לחומה; der Zeit: ק׳ קלים לפני זריקה, ביכורים קודם הנחה ,מעשר שני קודם חילול טבל קודם הפרשת תרומה; der Person: עולה überhaupt, בכור לזר; der Art und Weise: מעשר וביכורים שנטמאו.

Diesem nach dürfte sich auch der ungewöhnliche Ausdruck: לא תוכל לאכל statt einfach: לא תאכל בשעריך verstehen lassen. Bis auf das einzige עולה sind sämtliche hier besprochene Heiligungsobjekte solche, hinsichtlich deren ein Genuss wohl zusteht, diese Genussbefugnis jedoch gewissen Schranken unterliegt, vor deren Außerachtlassen hier gewarnt wird. Das יכולת, die Fakultas zum Genuss ist daher wohl vorhanden, allein לא תוכל לאכל בשעריך, nicht unbeschränkt hast du die Befugnis, in deinem Machtgebiete zu essen usw. oder: nicht im unbeschränkten Machtgebiete hast du die Befugnis zu essen usw.

לפני ה׳ [BUT THOU MUST EAT THEM] BEFORE THE LORD — i.e. within the walls of the city of Jerusalem.

Within the walls. [Referring to the walls of Jerusalem] but not [in reference to] within the Temple courtyard as in, “And slaughter the young bull before Adonoy (Vayikra 1:5).” [We know this from context], for note that nothing mentioned above is eaten in the Temple courtyard — for only the most holy offerings are eaten there, but not the offerings of lesser holiness.

V. 18. כי אם וגו׳ bezieht auf das im vorigen Verse zuerst genannte מעשר דגנך ותירשך ויצהרך und bildet somit מעשר שני das Hauptobjekt der Gesetzesbestimmung, dem nur die anderen als gleicher und ähnlicher Genussbeschränkung unterliegend angeschlossen sind. Daher die häufige היקש, Gleichung, von ביכורים und anderen Heiligtümern mit מעשר שני (Peßachim 24 a u. 36 b und Jebamot 73 b u. s).

והלוי אשר בשעריך [BUT THOU MUST EAT THEM BEFORE THE LORD, THOU …] AND THE LEVITE THAT IS WITHIN THY GATES — If you have nought to give him that is due to him as his portion, as, for instance, the first tithe, give him the “tithe of the poor” (the tithe that replaces the “second tithe” in the 3rd and 6th year of the Sabbatical period); and if you have no “tithe of the poor”, invite him to your feast-offering meal (Sifrei Devarim 74:5).

השמר לך TAKE HEED TO THYSELF [LEST THOU FORSAKE THE LEVITE] — This is intended in addition to the positive command expressed in the previous verse, to attach to it (the neglect of the Levite) a negative command, also.

כל ימיך על אדמתך, for all the years that you dwell in your land.

כל ימיך על אדמתך, “all your days on your land.” The specific command not to abandon the Levite is applicable only in the Holy Land. Levites in the Diaspora do not enjoy preferred status regarding receipt of charity from their brethren.

This places a negative commandment over the matter. As I explained above (v. 13). For anywhere it says, “Take heed, etc.” Rashi is answering the question: Why is the verse, “Watch yourself,” needed? It is already written above (v. 12), “And the Levite who is in you cities, etc.” If so, why does this need to be written twice? Rashi answers: “This places a negative commandment over the matter.” In other words: Over the matter mentioned above, “And the Levite who is in your cities, etc.” This is why Rashi chose to say, “Over the matter.”

V. 19. השמר לך וגו׳ (siehe V. 12). Bei der bevorstehenden Dezentralisierung der sich im Lande ansiedelnden Nation ist das zerstreute Wohnen der Leviten in Mitte des Volkes von größter Bedeutung. Sie sind gleichsam die vom Zentrum des Heiligtums ausgehenden lebendigen Nerven und Adern, die den geistigen Zusammenhang der Glieder mit dem Gehirn und Herzen des Volkes vermitteln. Sie sind die Repräsentanten des Gesetzesheiligtums mitten im Volke. Unter einer dem Landbau, der Viehzucht und der damit verbundenen Industrie sich hingebenden Bevölkerung können leicht solche unproduktive Levitenglieder als Bürde der Kommunen der Verkennung und Verachtung verfallen und in ihrer vitalen Bedeutung für die geistige und sittliche und nationale Gesamtwohlfahrt unterschätzt bleiben. Daher die wiederholte Warnung vor Vernachlässigung des Levi כל ימיך על אדמתך: die Dauer deines Bleibens auf eigenem Boden ist wesentlich durch die Wertschätzung des Levi und den Einfluss bedingt, den du ihm auf deine geistige und sittliche Entwicklung gestattest.

כל ימיך על אדמתך, “as long as you live on your land.” According to the plain meaning of the verse, the choice of the word אדמה, “soil, earth,” here instead of ארצך “your land,” may have been dictated by the fact that the Levites did not get any ancestral land, and the other tribes therefore had to see to it that they could have a livelihood, i.e. you who have soil have to look after your brethren who have not been given soil.

כל ימיך, “as long as you live.” This includes even the years of sh’mittah and Jubilee years when no crops are harvested. (Sifri)

על אדמתך [TAKE HEED TO THYSELF LEST THOU FORSAKE THE LEVITE] UPON THY GROUND — but in exile (outside the Holy Land) you are not admonished as regards him more than as regards the poor of the ordinary Israelites (Sifrei Devarim 74:9; Talmud Yerushalmi Horayot end).

In the diaspora, however, you are not admonished, etc. The reason is because in the Land of Israel, the Israelites received portions in the Land whereas the Levites did not. Therefore, they must attend to the Levites. But in the diaspora, the Israelites, just as the Levites, did not receive any portion of the land.

על אדמתך, “on your soil.” Seeing that only the ordinary Israelites possess ancestral land in Israel, as distinct from the Levites, the Israelites are obligated to look after the needs of the Levites as long as they are on their own land, but not when all the Jews are in exile, and the ordinary Israelites do not enjoy the advantage of owning ancestral land.

כי ירחיב וגו׳ WHEN [THE LORD THY GOD] SHALL ENLARGE [YOUR BOUNDARY … AND YOU SHALL SAY, I WILL EAT FLESH … YOU MAY EAT FLESH] — The Torah teaches the proper rule of life — that one should not desire to eat flesh unless he lives amidst abundance and wealth (cf. Sifrei Devarim 75:5; Chullin 84a; see also Rashi on Leviticus 17:13).

WHEN THE ETERNAL THY G-D SHALL ENLARGE THY BORDER. The meaning of this “enlargement” is not like that which he stated, And if the Eternal thy G-d enlarge thy border⁵⁴Further, 19:8. [by giving you the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites] etc. then shalt thou add three cities more for thee,⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 9. for if it were, then meat of desire [meaning a meat meal prepared solely to satisfy the appetite rather than as a product of a peace-offering] would not have been permissible upon coming into the Land [but only after the enlargement of the border, an event that has yet to take place]. But there it is said, When the Eternal thy G-d shall cut off the nations, whose land the Eternal thy G-d giveth thee,⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 1. these being the seven nations that he mentions in all places,⁵⁷See above, 7:1. and then we are to separate three cities [as cities of refuge], and so Joshua did.⁵⁸Joshua 20:7-9. Afterwards he said, when the Eternal thy G-d enlarge thy border, as He hath sworn unto thy fathers,⁵⁴Further, 19:8. this being a reference to the ten nations that were given to Abraham.⁵⁹Genesis 15:19-21. Hence the command to establish an additional three cities of refuge becomes obligatory at the time when we shall have enlarged the border of our Land to include the territory of the remaining three of the ten nations promised to Abraham — the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites. But here etc. But here he said, as He hath promised thee, meaning these [seven] nations whose land the Eternal your G-d gives you [now], thus indicating that immediately after they captured and apportioned the Land, a secular meal of meat became permitted to them.
Now, the purport of the expression If the place which the Eternal thy G-d shall choose to put His Name there be too far from thee⁶⁰Verse 21. is not that meat of desire [i.e., meat from an animal that has been slaughtered for food rather than as an offering] is permissible only at a distance from the Sanctuary, for if so, dwellers in Jerusalem would have been forbidden to eat meat of desire. Instead he [Moses] speaks to all Israel, saying to them that “when G-d will enlarge your border and not all of you will be dwelling around the Tabernacle as you are today in the wilderness, unconsecrated meat will be permitted, because it will be impossible for all of you to go from a distant place to the place that G-d will choose and slaughter sacrifices of peace-offerings as much as you wish to eat.”

כי ירחיב…את גבולך, "When G'd expands your borders etc." Seeing G'd had objected to the excessive craving for a meat-diet displayed by the Israelites in Numbers chapter 11 where we were told about thousands dying on that account, such a craving had been taboo ever since. Only meat which had first been hallowed as a sacrifice had been permitted to be eaten by the average Israelite during the last 38 years. At this point Moses justifies the new legislation which sanctions the desire to have a meat-diet by referring to the difficulty of making the meat first a sacrifice and having to travel to Jerusalem to do so. It is assumed that the craving will re-surface as a result of most people living a long way from Jerusalem. G'd specifically sanctions the desire to eat meat with the words: "you may eat meat in accordance with all the desire of your soul."

כי ירחיב, and as a result you find yourself physically a great distance from the Temple.

כי ירחיב, “When He will expand (your boundaries);” Nachmanides makes the point that the term כי ירחיב, in this paragraph is not to be confused with the expression ואם ירחיב, in 19,8, where the Torah foresees further expansion of the Land of Israel [most commentators consider this a post messianic period. Ed.], but in verse 9 there we read –in connection with the establishment of cities of refuge- that more than the original three on the east bank of the Jordan must be added. In that context the meaning of the word is “when,” in the sense of after completion of the conquest. If the meaning of the two expressions were identical, eating meat that had not first been consecrated as an offering would not be permitted for the Israelites until after Joshua had completed the conquest and settled the people on their allocated parcels of land. In chapter 19 the line we quoted must be understood in connection with the paragraph at the beginning of that chapter, a paragraph which discusses changes that would occur after G’d has more or less wiped out the seven Canaanite tribes from the region of the West Bank of the Jordan. The need to establish additional cities of refuge begins only after the people have been settled. Verse 9 there may even refer to the time when the remainder of the ten tribes mentioned in G’d’s first promise to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 have also been eliminated. In our verse the reference is to the beginning of the conquest, and according to Chulin 17, בשר תאוה, meat of animals that had been slaughtered without having been consecrated as offerings first, became permissible at once, as soon as settlement began. Even though, on the face of it, permission of such meat appears to be contingent on the owner living far away from the Temple, the words כי ירחק ממך המקום, “when the Temple is far away from you,” (verse 21) is not to be understood as actual physical distance of the individual concerned. The Torah means that when the Israelites, instead of living next to the Tabernacle, as they did for 40 years in the desert, will be scattered throughout the Land of Israel, it would not be practical to require them to come to Jerusalem, to the Temple every time they wanted to eat meat.

ואמרת אוכלה בשר, “and you will say: “I want to eat meat;” This verse teaches the lesson that only economically well-situated people should indulge in a meat based diet; this is why the paragraph is prefaced by the words כי ירחיב ה' את גבולך, “when the Lord expands your borders, etc.”

Unless he enjoys expansion and affluence. You might ask: This verse, simply understood, refers to the expansion of borders and becoming distanced from the Land. Why does Rashi deviate from the plain meaning? The answer is: It is written afterwards, “When the place is distant from you, etc.,” which refers to the expansion of borders. If so, what is the meaning of, “When ... expands your borders”? It must be referring to expansion [of possessions] and affluence. And “borders,” refers to fields and vineyards, which is affluence. This explanation is according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (Chulin 84a).

V. 20. כי ירחיב וגו׳. Wir haben bereits Wajikra Kap. 17, 3 bemerkt, wie zufolge der nach allgemeinster Auffassung als Halacha rezipierten Lehre des ר׳ ישמעאל während der Wanderung in der Wüste und des Zusammenseins des ganzen Volkes im nächsten Umkreis des Heiligtums בשר תאוה, d. i. gewöhnlicher Fleischgenuss von opferfähigen Tieren nicht gestattet war, diese vielmehr als שלמים darzubringen und das Fleisch nur als Opferanteil der Eigentümer genossen werden konnte. Dieser Auffassung gemäß spricht unser Vers denn die Gestattung des בשר תאוה mit der Besitznahme des Landes aus und motiviert Vers 21 die Gestattung mit der nunmehrigen Entfernung vom Heiligtum (siehe ספרי und Chulin 16 b). In eigentümlicher Weise wird aber hier die Gestattung des gewöhnlichen Fleischgenusses, und zwar die ganz unbeschränkte Gestattung: בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר, doch, wir möchten sagen, dreifach verklausuliert eingeführt: כי תאוה וגו׳ כי תרחיב וגו׳ ואמרת וגו׳, und wird daher Chulin 84 a gelehrt: למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא לתיאבון, dass das Gesetz Fleisch nicht als gewöhnliches Nahrungsmittel, sondern als Befriedigung eines besonderen Verlangens voraussetzt, und ergibt sich dort, wie nur mit zunehmender Schwäche der Konstitutionen Fleischnahrung ein tägliches Bedürfnis geworden. In der Tat setzt doch unser Vers selbst bei הרחבת גבול, bei weniger beschränkten Verhältnissen Fleischgenuss nur bedingt durch כי תאוה נפשך וגו׳, und dürfte auch אוה und אות נפש wohl von התאוה sich unterscheiden. Während התאוה überwiegend ein unberechtigtes lüsternes Verlangen ausdrückt, bezeichnet אוה vielmehr in der Regel ein durchaus gestattetes Verlangen, und kann תאוה נפשך und אות נפשך sehr wohl ein vom Bedürfnis erzeugtes und eben das Bedürfnis ankündigendes Verlangen bezeichnen und diese so ausführliche Motivierung des Fleischgenusses gerade mit Hinblick auf die so verhängnisvoll gewordene unberechtigte Fleischlüsternheit bei קברות התאוה gegeben sein.

כי ירחיב, “when He will expand, etc.” the content of this paragraph has already been written in verses 1516 of our chapter. Why was it repeated? The reason is verse 27, in which Moses emphasises that the law to offer sacrificial offerings only in the Temple designated by G-d, i.e. Jerusalem is not affected by the size of country. An alternate interpretation: seeing that the laws Moses speaks about apply daily, he repeats them so that the people will be thoroughly familiar with them.

בכל אות נפשך וגו׳ [YOU MAY EAT FLESH] IN EVERY LONGING OF YOUR SOUL — In the wilderness, however, the flesh of a non-holy animal was forbidden to them as food, unless one first dedicated it to the altar and offered it as a peace-offering (Sifrei Devarim 75:4; Chullin 16b).

בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר, “you may eat meat to your heart’s desire.” The Torah permits consumption of non-sacrificial meats with the people’s entry into the Holy Land. As long as the people had been in the desert, meat was basically the meat of the peace-offerings.

However in the wilderness, non-sacrificial meat was forbidden, etc. The meaning of בכל אות נפשך (anything you desire), is “any species that you desire,” whether or not you may bring it as a peace offering. This is according to Rebbi Yishmael (Chulin 17b), who expounds the verse, “When ... expands your borders,” refers to the expansion of borders, that is, after they entered the Land. But according to Rebbi Elazar (ibid. 84a) who expounds that [the verse] refers to expansion [of possessions] and affluence, it is not possible to say, “However in the wilderness, non-sacrificial meat was forbidden, etc.” For it simply says, “Anything you desire,” whether after coming to the Land or before coming to the Land. Rashi’s commentary is very difficult [to understand], because first he explains that, “When ... expands your borders,” refers to expansion [of property] and affluence. How then does he reverse himself and explain afterwards that it refers to the expansion of borders? Furthermore, Rashi explains the verse, “Anything you desire,” according to Rebbi Yishmael who says that, “When ... expands your borders,” refers [literally] to the expansion of borders, how then can he explain the verse, “When ... the place is distant from you,” [also meaning] as its borders becoming more distant [i.e., expansion of borders. For this is seemingly redundant.]? (Re”m). But to me it seems: Rebbi Elazar agrees with Rebbi Yishmael that, “Anything you desire,” means that non-sacrificial meat was not permitted to them in the wilderness. For it is written afterwards, “When the place is distant from you ... you may slaughter some of your cattle or your flocks.” And the verse, “When the place is distant,” refers to the expansion of place [i.e. borders], and not according to Rebbi Yishmael who explains it as, “From a place that is distant you may slaughter [non-sacrificial meat] but not from a place that is near, for you may not slaughter non-sacrificial meat in the Temple courtyard.” And the verse, “When ... expands your borders, etc.,” he expounds as, “One should not eat meat unless he enjoys expansion and affluence.” And he agrees with Rebbi Yishmael on one point [that non-sacrificial meat was forbidden in the wilderness], but disagrees with him on another [whether the verse, “When the place is distant,” prohibits the slaughter of non-sacrificial meat in the Temple courtyard]. See Chulin 16b and 84a.

כאשר דבר לך, “as He has said to you (promised);” We find this promise in Exodus 23,31, 'ושתי את גבולך וגו, “I will set your borders, etc.;” [an area far in excess of the Israel of King Solomon. Ed.]

ואמרת אוכלה בשר, and you say: “I wish to eat meat” (other than sacrificial meat) from this verse we see that one should not eat without first having prepared it. [You do not eat meat as you eat an apple or a pear. Ed.]

כי תאוה נפשך, “when you experience a true craving for meat.” The word כי in this verse is used as an alternative for the word אם, “if” or “when.”

כי ירחק ממך המקום IF THE PLACE [WHICH THE LORD THY GOD HAS CHOSEN TO PUT HIS NAME THERE] BE TOO FAR FROM THEE and thou therefore art unable to come and prepare peace-offerings at any time, as thou doest now when the Tabernacle accompanies you,

AND THOU SHALT SLAUGHTER etc. AS I HAVE COMMANDED THEE. The meaning thereof according to the opinion of our Rabbis⁶¹Chullin 28a. is as follows: “As I have commanded thee — orally, by law declared to Moses on Sinai This teaches us that he was commanded with regard to [severing] the windpipe and the gullet, and [severing] the greater part of one [either the windpipe or the gullet] in a bird, and [severing] the greater part of both in an animal.”
Know that the term shechitah in the Sacred Language denotes the severing of the two organs in the neck [the windpipe and the gullet], and be not apprehensive because of what it says ‘vayishchateim’ (and He slew them) in the wilderness⁶²Numbers 14:16. [which clearly does not signify severing the organs of the neck], for it is but a euphemism [as if to say] that He slaughtered them like sheep. Thus He commanded regarding the offerings, ‘v’shachat’ (and he shall slaughter),⁶³Leviticus 1:5. ‘v’shachatu’ (and they shall slaughter),⁶⁴Exodus 12:6. which refer to the organs of the neck. Now at first [in the wilderness] He commanded that whatever [meat] they eat be of peace-offerings, that they be slaughtered according to the law of the offerings. Now, when he proceeded to permit the meat of unconsecrated animals, he said, and thou shalt slaughter of thy herd and of thy flock as I have commanded thee when such animals were brought as offerings, and you may eat them unconsecrated after all the desire of thy soul, meaning that He permits unconsecrated animals to be eaten everywhere, provided that they be slaughtered as He had commanded originally, when they were all [permitted only as] offerings. This is the correct meaning of the verse in line with the plain sense of Scripture. Perhaps our Rabbis intended this [thought] when they said in the Sifre:⁶⁵Sifre, R’eih 75. “As I have commanded thee — just as the consecrated animals are slaughtered [in accordance with the traditional regulations] so must also the unconsecrated animals be slaughtered [with the same regulations].” Thus the commandment of slaughtering [animal and fowl] is here expressly stated and is explained in the words of our Rabbis on the basis of tradition.

כי ירחק ממך המקום, When the place will be too far from you, etc." The words: "you may eat within your gates" mean that such meat does not have to be sacrificial meat. Our sages differ as to the precise meaning of the word "distant" in our verse (compare Pessachim 93). The Talmud there speaks of the verse in Numbers 9,10 and determines that anyone living as far from Jerusalem as Modin falls under this category. Other opinions hold that even living inside the city of Jerusalem but outside the courtyard of the Hoy Temple is already considered as "distant." We can only wish that the time will soon arrive when this halachah will assume practical significance, i.e. after the arrival of the משיח.

“Slaughter from your cattle…as I have commanded you”: Not at all times, but only periodically, when the desire becomes strong. And what was said, “just as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so may you eat them” (Deuteronomy 12:22), and as it said, “When one hunts game of an animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13), and our Sages said, “the Torah taught proper behavior, that a person should eat meat only on this kind of occasional basis” (Talmud Bavli Chullin 84a 46). The explanation of the matter is that if people accustom themselves to eating the animals present in the home, ox, sheep, or goat, then all day they will have desire and will accustom themselves to eat it on a daily basis, but they don’t eat it until they hunt game of animals or birds in the forest or desert, where there is danger and great effort to hunt them, then their desire will be calmed, because the eating isn’t worth the great pain and effort.

וזבחת וגו...כאשר צויתיך, “you will slaughter…in accordance with what I have commanded you.” Our sages understand these last words to mean that Moses had instructed the people orally in the details of ritual slaughter. According to Nachmanides the plain meaning of the words is that Moses refers to the previous occasion in the Book of Leviticus when he had taught the priests all the particulars of ritual slaughter when they had been instructed in the sacrificial Temple service. (Compare Vayikra Rabbah, 22.) At that time the word used by the Torah for ritual slaughter had been ושחט. (Leviticus 1,5 et al) In classical Hebrew the meaning of the word is to sever the trachea and the esophagus of the animal. The reason why a different term for slaughtering has been chosen by Moses on this occasion, is presumably because the word שחט had always been used in connection with animals, some or all of whose blood would be sprinkled on the altar after slaughter, whereas this is not the case when the animal had not been consecrated as an offering. The word זבח implies a secular activity then, but the procedure is the same as that employed for animals to be offered on the altar. The author adds that the verse וישחטם במדבר in Numbers 14,16 refers to the slaughtering of the Jewish people, but not as sacrificial lambs. In that verse Moses puts imaginary words in the mouths of people, about an event that did not even take place. The line could not therefore be used to refute our premise.

V. 21. כי ירחק וגו׳ וזבחת וגו׳ כאשר צויתיך. Bis jetzt wurde jedes Schlachten von Rind und Schaf nur im חצר אהל מוער, somit unter Aufsicht der כהנים vorgenommen. Im Lande aber, mit Gestattung des בשר תאוה, wird die Beachtung der vorschriftsmässigen Tötung des zum Genuss bestimmten Tieres Gewissensangelegenheit eines jeden einzelnen. Die Mahnung an Erfüllung dieses שחיטה-Gebotes gehörte daher ganz eigentlich in das Gesetzkompendium der משנה תורה. Diese Vorschrift über die Art und Weise der זביחה, auf welche hier hingewiesen ist, findet sich in dem schriftlichen Gesetze nicht vor, bildet vielmehr einen Teil des mündlich gebliebenen Gesetzes, תורה שבעל פה, auf welche hier ausdrücklich Bezug genommen wird. So Chulin 28 a: וזכחת כאשר צויתיך מלמד שנצטוה משה על הושט ועל הקנה ועל רוב אחד בעוף ועל רוב שנים בבהמה. Die überlieferten הלכות שחיטה sind aber, dass das Tier durch einen über die Luft-(קנה) und Speiseröhre (וושט), von einem זביחה-i>pflichtigen Menschen (בר זביחה mit Ausschluss eines Nichtjuden), vermittelst eines mobilen (תלוש, nicht מחובר) Schneideinstruments, ohne Unterbrechung (שהיה), Druck (דרסה), Verdeckung (חלדה), Ausweichung (הגרמה), Reißen (עיקר, daher auch nicht mit schartigem Messer שיש בו פגימה) ausgeführten Querschnitt geschlachtet worden. Diese überlieferte Vorschrift gilt für בהמה חיה ועוף nur, dass für Geflügel eventuell die Ausführung der שחיטה an einem der beiden Organe, קנה oder וושט genügt. Ein jedes solches ohne diese vorschriftsmässig ausgeführte שחיטה gestorbene Tier ist נבלה, und dessen Genuss ist außer dem עשה-Gebote unserer Stelle ׳וזבחת וגו, noch durch das Verbot, לאו (Kap. 14, 21) לא תאכלו כל נבלה, untersagt.

כאשר צויתך, “as I have commanded you.” From the formulation, i.e. that G–d had given precise instructions, in this verse, our sages in the Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 28 derive the rule that when slaughtering a mammal both the major part of the gullet and the windpipe of the animal have to be severed. When slaughtering birds, the major part of the windpipe has to be severed. Rabbi Yaakov of Corveillle, found that the numerical value of the letters in the expression כאשר צויתך, equal the numerical value on the words: רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה, “the major part of one for the bird, and the major part of two for the mammal.” (1047). [What the sages could do without the help of GOOGLE! Ed.] An alternate interpretation of this expression: The three letters in the word אשר, are אלף=1=אחד, for the א, 2 for the ש,=שנים, and the letter ר, short for the word רוב, “major part.”

כי ירחק ממך המקום, “for the place (the Temple) is located far distant from you.” The Torah here addresses Israelites who dwell beyond the borders of the Holy Land. In spite of this, the same law applies to them as to those who dwell within it.

וזבחת … כאשר צויתך THEN THOU MAYEST SLAUGHTER … AS I HAVE COMMANDED THEE — This teaches us that there was already a commandment regarding the slaughtering of animals — as to how one should slaughter; it is not written in the Torah but it comprises the traditional regulations regarding the slaughter of animals that were given orally (נאמרו) to Moses on Mount Sinai (Sifrei Devarim 75:7; Chullin 28a).

Die Wurzel זבח findet ihre Lautverwandtschaft in ספח, welches den Anschluss an eine Persönlichkeit oder an ein persönliches Verhältnis bedeutet. ספהני נא אל אחת הכהנות (Sam. I. 2, 36), ונספחו על בית יעקב (Jes.14, 1), ׳מהסתפח בנחלת ה (Sam. I. 26, 19). Diese Stellen lassen über die Bedeutung von ספח keinen Zweifel. Ist es doch fast identisch mit שפח, woraus der Begriff משפחה erwächst (vergl. auch שבע ,צבה ,צבא, welche alle die Vergrößerung einer Persönlichkeit durch Anschluss und Aufnahme von anderem bedeuten, auch שבה das gewaltsame Mitsichfortnehmen von Personen). Demnach dürfte es nicht fern liegen, dass זבח einen Akt bedeutet, wodurch der Mensch den Tierleib, der bis dahin dem Tierwesen, der animalischen נפש חיה, angehörte, sich, seiner Menschenpersönlichkeit zum Anschluss bringt, sich anschließt, sich verwandt macht, den Muskel- und Nervenleib, der bis jetzt dem Tierwesen untertan war, zur Umwandlung in Menschenmuskel und Menschennerv bereit stellt. Dieser Akt vollzieht sich, indem von einem Menschen vermittelst einer Menschentätigkeit in einer den Menschencharakter bekundenden Weise der Zusammenhang mit der Naturwelt aufgehoben wird, in welchem das Tierwesen bis dahin sein physisches Leben, seine חייFunktion (siehe Bereschit S. 23) aufnehmend und abweisend vollzog. Atem und Nahrung sind diese das physische Leben verwirklichenden Funktionen einer jeden נפש חיה, Luft- und Speiseröhre deren Organe. Ein über Luft- und Speiseröhre geführter Querschnitt gebietet der Fortsetzung der Lebensfunktionen Halt und bringt den Tierleib unter die Botmäsigkeit des der Fortsetzung des Tierlebens Halt gebietenden Menschen. Es gehört aber nur die schneidende Trennung zu den den Menschen bekundenden mechanischen Kraftäußerungen, nicht aber Druck (דרסה) oder Riss (עיקר), die auch tierische Gewaltäußerungen bewirken. Der Schnitt ist auch frei (ohne חלדה) und ohne Zaudern (שהיה), zu vollziehen, wie es einem besitzergreifenden Herrscherakt entspricht, und er ist da zu vollziehen, wo die Organe rein im Luft und Nahrung zuführenden Dienste des Gesamtkörpers stehen, nicht aber, wo sie bereits in ein anderes spezielles Organ münden und als dem Kehlkopf und Schlund einerseits, andererseits als der Lunge und dem Magen zugehörig erscheinen (הגרמה).

Wenn א כל(ה) :אכילה die vollendete Umwandlung des Nahrungsstoffes in die reproduktionsbedürftige Individualität bedeutet, so ist שפה ,ספח ,זבח :זביחה die vorbereitende Aneignung des Tierkörpers für die Menschenbestimmung. Und wie die זביחה ein freier Akt der Menschentat ist, so soll auch, aufgegangen in den Menschenkörper, der Tierstoff der freien Selbstbestimmung des "Menschen" im Menschen untertan bleiben, während er im Tiere mit Leib und Seele lediglich den Gesetzen physischer Nötigung zu folgen hatte.

Somit stehet שחיטת חולין in derselben Bedeutung wie שחיטה bei קדשים, nur dass שחיטת חולין nicht durch כונה bedingt ist (Chulin 31 a) und שחיטת חולין die Unterordnung des konkreten Tierwesens vollzieht, während im Opfertier vor der שחיטה das unkontrollierte Menschenwesen symbolisch dasteht, dessen Aufgeben für das Eingehen in das höhere Leben des Heiligtums durch שחיטה zum Ausdruck gelangt (Wajikra 1, 5).

Es begreift sich demnach auch, warum auch die Persönlichkeit des den שחיטה-Akt Vollziehenden massgebend ist und שחיטת נכרי נבלה. Soll ja für ein der Aufgabe des jüdischen Sittengesetzes entsprechendes Menschenleben das Tierwesen aufgenommen und angeschlossen werden. Und ebenso begreift es sich, warum nur höhere Tiere, בהמה חיה ועוף der זביחה bedürftig sind. Nur deren Körper und deren Lebenstätigkeiten treten in äußerer Ähnlichkeit dem leiblichen Wesen des Menschen nahe, so dass bei dem Übergang ihres Muskel- und Nervenleibes in die leibliche Persönlichkeit des Menschen es der Mahnung bedarf, dass sie mit diesem Übergang aus dem Bereiche physischer Notwendigkeit in das Bereich einer alles Leibliche sich unterwerfenden sittlich freien Beherrschung eingehen.

Niedere Tiere, דגים וחגבים, stehen mit ihrer Leiblichkeit dem menschlich leiblichen Organismus in äußerer Erscheinung so fern, dass es bei deren Genuss, ebenso wie bei Pflanzennahrung, einer solchen Mahnung wohl nicht bedurfte.

Endlich dürfte sich eben daraus begreifen lassen, dass für בהמה טמאה eine שחיטה ganz bedeutungslos und das Tier נבלה bleibt. Steht doch בהמה טמאה organisch in solchem Gegensatz zu der von dem jüdischen Gesetze beabsichtigten Menschenpersönlichkeit, dass sie absolut von dem Eingehen in deren Leiblichkeit ausgeschlossen ist. Ihr natürlicher Gattungscharakter schließt daher "זביחה" aus. בהמה טהורה ist aber זביחהfähig, und selbst, wenn ein טריפה-Zustand die אכילה ausschließt, bewirkt noch שחיטה die טהרה מידי נבלה (siehe Wajikra 11, 39-40). — Über die Bedeutung der Wurzel שחט siehe Bereschit 6, 11.

An diesen Satz ׳כי ירחק ממך וגו׳ וזבחת וגו knüpft sich nach Kiduschin 57 a die Lehre: ברחוק מקום אתה זובח ואי אתה זובח במקום קרוב פרט לחולין שלא ישחטו בעזרה, dass das hier gestattete Schlachten zum Profangenuss, wie der Wortlaut des Textes bedingt, nur außerhalb der Heiligtumsräume gestattet ist, ein jedes solches Schlachten aber innerhalb der Räume des Heiligtums verboten wäre. Ja, nach Baba Batra 81 b wäre überhaupt das Hineinbringen von חולין-Objekten in die Räume des Heiligtums הכנסת חולין לעזרה nicht gestattet. Es ist nicht ganz entschieden, ob und in wie weit diese Sätze דאוריתא sind, namentlich auch nicht, wie weit sich die Bestimmung des zweiten Satzes erstreckt, ob alle חולין-Objekte, oder nur den zu קרבנות zu verwendenden ähnliche, alle Hineinbringungen oder nur den Opferdarbringungen ähnliche darunter zu begreifen wären (siehe ל׳׳מ und מל׳׳מ zu הל׳ שחיטה Kap. 2, 1 — 3). So weit sich aber diese Bestimmungen erstrecken, dürfte ihnen die Absicht zu Grunde liegen, den Objekten und Handlungen des Heiligtums ihren symbolischen Charakter zu sichern, welcher offenbar durch die Anwesenheit gleicher oder ähnlicher Objekte von nur konkreter Bedeutung für die Auffassung geschwächt und zweifelhaft gemacht würde. Eine Profan-שחיטה, ein profanes Tier-אבר usw. denen nur konkrete Bedeutung innewohnte, setzte die symbolische Bedeutung aller שחיטות, aller אברים usw. im Heiligtum in Zweifel, und dürften sich von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus auch alle die scheinbaren Ausnahmen leicht motivieren, indem diese Beeinträchtigung der Auffassung überall da beseitigt ist, wo die הכנסת חולין לעזרה zu Heiligtumszwecken selbst erforderlich und unumgänglich ist. Da hält die Veranlassung selbst das Bewusstsein von der Verschiedenheit des Charakters der Objekte aufrecht (siehe מל׳׳מ (daselbst).

אשר נתן ה׳ לך. Diese Beifügung dürfte nicht nur die Gestattung, sondern auch die Billigung, ja Bezweckung solchen innerhalb der Schranken des Gesetzes gehaltenen, über das bloße Nahrungsbedürfnis hinausgehenden sinnlichen Genusses gewährleisten sollen. Der Genuss von בשר תאוה gehört mit zu den Zwecken, für welche dir Gott בקרך וצאנך gegeben.

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי וגו׳ BUT ONLY AS THE GAZELLE [AND THE HART] IS EATEN, [SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM] — i.e. thou art not admonished to eat them in a state of cleanness as is the case with sacrifices which you slaughter in a holy place; if, however, you will argue: How is the case with the gazelle and the hart? Their fat is permitted as food; so, too, is the fat of non-consecrated domestic animals (חולין) permitted! Then I reply: Scripture says אך (which word has a limitative force and thus indicates that חולין are not to be treated like the gazelle and the hart in every respect) (cf. Bekhorot 15a).

ACH’ (BUT) ONLY AS THE GAZELLE AND AS THE HART IS EATEN, SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM. This means as he explains [at the end of this verse], the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike. Since He had commanded in the wilderness that they may not eat of the herd and flock except as peace-offerings and He warned them that the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Eternal, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off,⁶⁶Leviticus 7:20. he states here that [upon coming into the Land] one may eat the meat of unconsecrated animals with the full desire of his soul, and [further that] he may eat it from one vessel together with an unclean person just as, in the wilderness, they may eat the gazelle and the hart which may not be offered upon the altar. Now, the expression as the gazelle and as the hart does not mean that one may eat the fat of unconsecrated animals just as he may eat the fat of the gazelle and the hart [from which all the fat may be eaten], since the verse speaks only of the manner of eating [as if to say:] in the same way that you eat the gazelle and the hart so may you eat the meat which you slaughter in all places. The verse does not state “whatever is eaten of the gazelle and the hart, you may eat of the unconsecrated animals.” Therefore, [in order to avoid the misconception that all fat of unconsecrated animals may be eaten] he explains everywhere the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike,⁶⁷Here in Verse 22 before us, and further, 15:22. and says nowhere [only] “they may eat it as the gazelle and the hart,” in order [to make it clear] that the fat should not be included [in the comparison of unconsecrated animals to the hart and gazelle].
Now the word ach [but — ‘But’ only as the gazelle etc.] constitutes an admonition: since at first it was forbidden to eat [meat] except for the peace-offerings that were slaughtered in [the court of] the Tabernacle, and now, when he made it permissible to slaughter and eat in their cities after all the desire of thy soul, it might have appeared that one may eat it as unconsecrated meat and [if one wishes] even as consecrated meat, as was originally permitted [before the Tabernacle was erected], offering [the blood and the fat] on a bamah (high place). Therefore he stated and warned, But only as the gazelle and the hart, so thou shalt eat them, meaning that you may offer of them neither fat nor blood [on the bamah] and that you should not handle it in the manner of consecrated meat and not warn unclean people away from them at all.
He had to mention Only you should not eat the blood⁶⁸Verses 16, 23-25. for many reasons. For at first He said with reference to the prohibition of eating blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,⁶⁹Leviticus 17:11. from which it might appear that blood that does not atone, [such as that of] an unconsecrated animal, would not be prohibited; therefore, it was necessary to prohibit it clearly. In the case of fat, however, Scripture did not mention [such a reason for] its prohibition thereof; and [in the case of an unconsecrated animal] not all fat which is burned on the altar as the sacrificial portion of the offering is forbidden, nor is every part [of an offering] that is not burned on the altar permitted to be eaten [in the case of an unconsecrated animal], as I have written in its place.⁷⁰Ibid., 3:9. Hence it was unnecessary to say that certain fats of an unconsecrated animal may not be eaten. Moreover, since he commanded here that we slaughter [the unconsecrated animal] and warned that we eat it in the same manner as the gazelle and the hart, it might have appeared that we are to cover its blood just as we have been commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart;⁷¹When a clean fowl or a permissible wild animal is slaughtered, the blood must be covered with dust (ibid., 17:13). This law does not apply to cattle. Now, since Scripture compares the unconsecrated animal to the gazelle and the hart which are in the class of wild animals we might have reasoned that the law of covering the blood also applies to unconsecrated animals; therefore it became necessary etc. therefore it became necessary [to repeat the prohibition against blood in order] to permit the pouring out of the blood upon the earth as water⁷²Verse 24. without covering it, [a permissibility that was not apparent in the original prohibition in Leviticus 17:11]. This is the sense of the expression ‘upon’ the earth,⁷²Verse 24. not “into” the earth [which would have implied] that “we cover it with dust.” And since it was necessary to mention the permission of [pouring out] the blood [without covering it] he introduced it by stating the prohibition [against eating it]. Additionally, Scripture feared lest we [mistakenly] reason concerning blood as follows: In the wilderness at a time when all their herds and flocks were peace-offerings, the meat was forbidden to be eaten until the priest would sprinkle the blood upon the altar, for such is the law of the offerings; thus the blood prevented them from eating the meat; and he further commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart that, because they are not brought as offerings, we must cover their blood with dust, and so also the blood of a fowl⁷³Leviticus 17:13. because a fowl may not be offered as a peace-offering. And if so [it would logically follow that] we be required to cover the blood of cattle that were slaughtered because one desired meat, or that we eat [the blood] together with the meat by stabbing the animal [instead of ritual slaughtering, in which case a large flow of blood would be avoided] and the blood would not be seen in the open field,⁷⁴Ibid., Verse 5. for it would be more seemly that it be permissible even to eat pure blood than to pour it out upon the ground so that they shall not offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray.⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. Therefore he said that one should slaughter the herd and flock [by means of ritual slaughtering despite the abundant flow of blood] and not eat the blood with the meat through stabbing or by cutting a limb from a living animal; instead, one is to pour the blood upon the earth and not be apprehensive over it, but he must not eat it, neither alone nor with the meat. For this reason it was necessary to mention this law once more⁷⁶Further, 16:23: Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it out upon the ground as water. in the case of a blemished firstling, because at first [when the firstling was yet perfect] the blood thereof was to be sprinkled upon the altar, and, therefore, it was necessary to state that when it is blemished [and thus no longer fit for the altar] they should not treat its blood with sanctity, nor with permissibility, but they are to pour it out like water and not eat it.
It appears to me as a reason for this matter that at first when they were in the desert, a howling wilderness,⁷⁷Ibid., 32:10. a place where satyrs dance there,⁷⁸Isaiah 13:21. and all those who came forth from Egypt were accustomed [to sacrifice to these satyrs], He forbade that the blood be seen in the open field and also to slaughter at all, except before the Tabernacle of G-d in order to wean them from that sin. But upon coming into the Land, when it was necessary to permit them meat of desire due to the distance from the Sanctuary, he did not fear that the blood of the herd and flock might be poured upon the ground in their homes. However, in the case of the wild animal and fowl which one traps in the field and forest, and it is customary to slaughter them there and bring them home already slaughtered, he left the commandment as it was, to cover their blood with dust, in order that they should not offer it to the satyrs. Now the Midrash of our Rabbis on the verses, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood,⁷⁹Verse 23. and Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee⁸⁰Verse 25. is a very fitting one and is appropriate to the language of Scripture, that they had a great passion for [eating blood].⁸¹Sifre, R’eih 76. Therefore all these admonitions were necessary, and so much more was it necessary to mention the prohibition [against eating blood] although he did not mention the prohibition of eating [forbidden] fat.
Now, it is true that this comment of our Rabbis suffices as a reason for the many admonitions that Scripture states [about blood]. Yet the expression which he said, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood⁷⁹Verse 23. is not clear to me, for what steadfastness and courage are there required to guard against [eating] blood? It would have been proper that he indicate its stringency by stating, “Take heed to yourself not to eat the blood.” Now, we find the term “steadfastness” with reference to [all] the commandments, as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, Only be steadfast and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee,⁸²Joshua 1:7. and so did Joshua say to Israel, Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses.⁸³Ibid., 23:6. Now these expressions [found in Joshua] refer to all the commandments, to keep, alluding to the negative commandments, and to do, alluding to the positive commandments. But pertaining to a single commandment there is nowhere found such an expression, for, indeed, what need is there for “steadfastness” in a matter which requires only “to sit and not do” something forbidden by one of the negative commandments? But it appears to me that he mentioned steadfastness [in this prohibition against eating blood] for the reason that they were attached to blood in Egypt: that they always slaughtered their sacrifices to the satyrs, as it is written, And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. and it is further stated, They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods.⁸⁴Further, 32:17. Now, the worship [of these satyrs] consisted of eating from the blood of the sacrifices, because the blood would cause the demons to assemble and they [the worshippers] would eat over it and from it, as if they were invited by the demons to eat at the table of those demons and they become attached to them. This has already been mentioned in the book Moreh Nebuchim.⁸⁵Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. This is not the main reason for the prohibition of eating blood, for Scripture itself explains the reason thereof, that the blood is the life, as is mentioned in the section Acharei Moth.⁸⁶Leviticus 17:11-12. But from this verse here it is clear that they were engrossed in it, and very much in pursuit of it, and they used to prophesy by means of it and tell of things to come. Therefore the verse proceeds and warns that if one should hear from blood-eaters any future event and the sign or the wonder come to pass⁸⁷Further, 13:3. his heart should not be enticed but instead hold fast to his integrity⁸⁸Job 2:3. and his belief in G-d, and he should by no means eat of the blood nor cover up this practice [i.e., justifying it by some means]; he is not to be afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks,⁸⁹Ezekiel 2:6. for they are vanity, a work of delusion.⁹⁰Jeremiah 10:15. Thus he warned here in the same manner that was used in admonishing concerning the false prophet⁹¹Further, 13:2-6. because of his deceptions.

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי, in a place that has not been consecrated.

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל, “However only in the manner in which the deer or hart may be eaten;” seeing that while in the desert only peace-offerings could be eaten by laymen, not venison, which by definition are not fit for offering on the altar, the former are subject not to be consumed while one is in a state of ritual impurity, a restriction that does not apply to eating venison of the permitted categories.

You are not admonished to eat them in ritual purity, etc. [We might think:] Non-sacrificial animals eaten to satisfy one’s appetite, from a species that is offered as a sacrifice, must be eaten in ritual purity — just as the sacrificial meat. This would be similar to the fats of non-sacrificial meat which we are forbidden to eat because they are from a species that is offered as a sacrifice. [Therefore, the phrase, “As the deer and the gazelle,”] teaches us otherwise.

V. 22. אך כאשר יאכל וגו׳. Obgleich nun fortan selbst opferfähige Tiere fern vom Heiligtum geschlachtet und als solche ganz der זביחה wie קדשים unterliegen, so tragen sie doch ganz wie auch bisher opferunfähige Tiere, צבי ואיל, den vollen חוליןCharakter und entfallen bei deren Genuss die Vorschriften der טומאה und רש׳׳י) טהרה, siehe Misrachi). Jedoch nur in Beziehung auf diese טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetze stehen sie צבי ואיל gleich. Der חלב-Genuss bleibt bei בהמת חולין jeder Art, auch bei durch פסול und פדיון wieder חולין gewordenen קדשים, verboten (siehe Wajikra 7, 25). Auf diese Beschränkung der Gleichstellung mit צבי ואיל weist, nach einer Auffassung Bechorot 15 a, die adversative Konjunktion אך. Es ist sehr bemerkenswert, dass, nach Auffassung der Weisen, diese adversative Konjunktion nicht sowohl eine Beschränkung des vorhergehenden, als vielmehr eine Beschränkung des mit ihr eingeleiteten Satzes enthält. So auch אך את שבתתי תשמרו יכול לכל (אפילו לפקוח נפש) ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Joma 85 a), אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא יכול לא יהו כהנים בעלי מומין נכנסין וגו׳ לעשות ריקועי פחים ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Erubin 105 a), פרה תפדה יכול אפי׳ נטרף בתוך ל׳ ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Baba Kama 11 b), והיית אך שמח לרבות לילי י׳׳ט אחרון או אינו אלא י׳׳ט ראשון ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Sucka 48 a), אך ביום הראשון תשביתו יכול מצפרא ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Peßachim 5 a), תאמר ליה׳׳כ שמכפר על מזיד כשוגג יכול יכפר על שבים ועל שאינן שבים ת׳׳ל אך בעשור וגו׳ חלק (Schebuot 12 a), יכול אף ולד כל הקדשים כן ת׳׳ל אך בכור וגו׳ חלק (Temura 25 a). Diese sprachliche Erscheinung bedarf noch einer eingehenden Untersuchung. Da in einigen dieser Sätze und auch sonst mit אך eine Rede eingeleitet wird, ohne dass ein Satz vorangeht, der dadurch beschränkt werden, sollte, wie אך את שבתתי (Schmot 31, 13), אך בעשור (Wajikra 28, 27), so ja auch אך טוב לישראל (Ps. 73. 1), so dürfte vielleicht selbst als adversative Konjunktion genommen bei אך immer eine Ausnahme von dem damit eingeleiteten Satze suppliert sein, der gegenüber als Regel dieser Satz aufrecht gehalten wäre. In dem Sinne: es gibt eine Ausnahme (פיקוח נפש), doch, אך, als Regel gilt את שבתתו תשמרו. Es gibt eine Ausnahme (שאינן שבים), doch, אך für alle sonstigen Beziehungen בעשור וגו׳ יום כיפורים. So auch hier: es gibt eine Ausnahme (חלב), doch, אך, in allem übrigen ׳כאשר יאכל הצבי וגו. Somit würde mit אך immer eine Beschränkung, מיעוט, des damit eingeleiteten Satzes vorausgesetzt. וצע׳׳ע.

הטמא והטהור יחדו, “the ritually impure together with the ritually pure.” Moses does not suggest that they both eat from the same bowl, as that would result in the ritually pure person becoming contaminated with a degree of the impurity of the ritually impure person. But they can both eat meat which was duly slaughtered etc., but not offered as a sacrifice, at the same table. Another example of the word יחדו, “together,” being used in this sense is Exodus 19,8: ויענו כל העם יחדו, “all the people responded together.”

את הצבי ואת האיל, “the deer and the hart;” [most of what follows is culled from Nachmanides’ commentary, although the author here does not attribute it until much later. Ed.] Two mammals with split hooves, chewing the cud, which, because they are free roaming, cannot be offered as sacrifices in the Temple. It is not the objective of this verse to teach that the fat parts on these free-roaming animals that are similar to those on the domestic beasts, must not be eaten, as they must be burned on the altar; they are permitted, seeing the whole animal has remained profane in status. Moses draws a comparison between cows and deer as different categories of mammals only in that henceforth both types may be eaten also when not in a state of ritual purity. This point is clear by the absence of the word כל, “all of it,” when permitting it to be eaten. Nowhere do we have a verse that says יאכלנו כצבי ואיל alone, without this statement being limited by the context in which it appears. The meaning of the word

Perhaps, just as the fat of the deer and gazelle are permitted, etc. In other words: The fat of the deer and gazelle is permitted because they are not offered as sacrifices on the altar. Perhaps so too, the fat of any animal that is not offered as a sacrifice would be permitted. The Torah therefore teaches, “only.” I.e., the word, “only,” is a term that excludes. Rashi has explained this verse according to its simple meaning — that, “Only, as the deer, etc.,” refers to the ritual purity and impurity of non-sacrificial meat. Our Sages, however, expound from here that it comes to teach that the deer and gazelle require ritual slaughtering (Chulin 28a).

אך in this instance, is that it introduces a warning. Seeing that prior to the latest piece of legislation it had been forbidden to eat any meat unless the person eating it was ritually pure, and the meat had originally been part of a consecrated animal, and had not been remained uneaten for more than the period allocated to that type of sacrificial offering, I might have thought that all the restrictions applicable to consumption of sacrificial meat did not apply to בשר תאוה, meat from non-consecrated animals, and that it would most certainly be in order to also consume meat from animals that had been consecrated and whose blood had been offered on private altars. Moses therefore is at pains to spell out that the only restriction that does not apply to the eating of such animals is that although allowed to be eaten, the fat parts and the blood must not be eaten, although they are not fit for the altar. The reason why Moses had to warn the people at this juncture once more not to eat blood from non-consecrated animals was because when the prohibition to eat blood was spelled out, the Torah had also stated ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר, “I have reserved the blood to serve for you as an atonement on the altar.” (Leviticus 17,11) I might have thought that the prohibition to eat blood applies only to blood that could serve as our atonement, and that therefore blood from non consecrated animals is permitted. Moses makes sure that no one can make such a mistake. In connection with the חלב, the fat on the kidneys and parts of the liver that is burnt on the altar, Moses does not repeat the prohibition as applicable also to non-consecrated animals. The קרב, “the entrails” of consecrated animals (Leviticus 1,13) are not all forbidden, whereas that of non-consecrated animals, are not all permitted. Furthermore, seeing that here Moses commanded that the manner of slaughtering these domestic mammals that are potentially fit for the altar, is the same as that of doing so for permissible free-roaming animals, I might have concluded that the domestic animals’ blood when the animal slaughtered as בשר תאוה, meat that may be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, needs to have its blood covered (burial) just as does the blood of the free-roaming beasts after slaughter. Moses therefore adds the words: על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, “you shall pour it out on the earth just as you do with water.” (Verse 23) Moses did not say בארץ תשפכנו, which would mean that the blood of such animals has to be buried inside the earth. There is yet another concern that Moses wanted to address here, again something he was afraid the people might easily misunderstand. It is a fact that while in the desert, none of the שלמים, peace offerings, the ones whose meat are eaten primarily by the owners, could be eaten until after the requisite procedures with its blood had been performed by the priests. It is also a fact that when no such procedures were performed with the free-roaming animals, it was almost automatic that meat would be eaten that still had some blood in it. One might have thought that this was in order, just as one might have thought the same concerning all manner of birds, none of which other than the pigeons are fit for offering on the altar, that therefore such blood would be permissible without the procedure of “burying,” i.e. “covering” it in the earth first. One might also have thought that the birds would not require the same degree of slaughter and that stabbing them to death would suffice. [After all, even with the pigeons that are offered as sacrificial offerings the Torah did not stipulate שחיטה, slaughter, but מליקה, nipping, (Leviticus 1,15) Ed.] Moses therefore had to spell out that the blood of birds, other than the pigeons and turtle doves which qualify as offerings on the altar, must also be covered, the reason being that the pigeons and turtle doves did not qualify as שלמים, peace offerings on the altar, but only as burnt-offerings or as sin-offerings. In both instances the layman did not get to eat of those. I might therefore have assumed that just as mammals that have not been consecrated as offerings, do not need their blood covered, neither do these birds, or that the blood could be consumed after the bird had been stabbed to death. One might even have assumed that bird’s blood could be eaten and was not included in the prohibition of mammals’ blood. Moses therefore goes on record that it must be poured out, just like water. In fact, pouring out the blood might be misconstrued as a practice customary among the pagans who worshipped demons, satyrs, and the like. Moses therefore repeats that צאן ובקר, most of the bodies of which are offered on the altar, must have almost all the blood poured down the drain of the altar, except for the minute amount sprinkled on the altar. This needed to be repeated in the event that an animal had proven to be unfit as an offering, having developed a blemish that had not existed before. In effect, the blood of such a blemished animal is neither treated like the blood of a sacrificial animal, nor like the blood of an animal that had not been consecrated at all. Nachmanides writes further on our subject, adding a historical perspective, which explains the apparent change of attitude to blood. Immediately after the Exodus, when the Israelites were still very much under the influence of the practices of the Egyptians, they considered the new desert environment described by Moses as the region in which all these demons and satyrs were at home. (Compare Deut. 32,10 for a description of that howling wilderness.) The Torah had already stated in Leviticus 17,7 that certain sacrificial rites performed in the Tabernacle were designed, among other reasons, of course, to disabuse the people from still offering sacrifices to the demons and slaughtering animals in that process. According to Maimonides, in his Moreh nevuchim, section 3, chapter 46, it was part of that rite that men and beasts, i.e. the satyrs, sat at the same table and shared the blood of the animal sacrificed in their honour. It became essential then as a first step in reeducating the people to establish that slaughtering livestock was acceptable only if its blood was earmarked for the altar of Hashem. Permitting בשר תאוה, eating of meat from animals that had not been first consecrated to Hashem, would have made the task of weaning the Israelites from their former customs so much harder. Now, however, Moses is addressing a generation who did not have to discard heathen practices as they had been raised under the כנפי השכינה, the protective wings of the presence of Hashem. Therefore, considerations mentioned in Leviticus 17 no longer applied. Moses, i.e. the Torah, was not concerned that once settled in the land of Israel, where due to the distance of most of the people from the Temple, non-consecrated meat had to be made available, did not worry about pouring out the blood. The Egyptians had abhorred cattle and sheep and had not eaten their meat anyways as we know already from when Joseph entertained his brothers at lunch. (Genesis 43,32) However, the Egyptians, great hunters, did feast on venison, and therefore steps had to be taken to prevent the blood of free-roaming bests from being eaten. The Torah therefore decreed burial of a kind for the blood of such animals. (if they were the kind Jews may eat.) Covering such blood with earth would ensure that it is not offered to the satyrs. [Abravanel and others raise many objections against that interpretation, Ed.]

רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם ONLY BE STRONG THAT THOU EAT NOT THE BLOOD — From the fact that it states, “Be strong” (make a special effort), you may learn that they had a prediliction to blood — to the eating of it; it was therefore necessary to state, “be strong”. This is the view of R. Judah. R. Simeon, the son of Azzai, however, says: Scripture merely intends to caution you and to teach you to what great an extent you must strive to fulfil the divine commandments in general. If, as regards blood from which one can easily keep aloof since one does not long for it, it felt it necessary to insist on a strong effort on your part when forbidding it to you, how much the more is it necessary for you to make great efforts in keeping other commands [the fulfillment of which requires much moral strength] (cf. Sifrei Devarim 76:1-3).

רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, even though you hope that by eating the blood you will be able to divine the future as do the demons as our sages said in Chagigah 16 that upon eating blood one can hear the future in the same manner as do the ministering angels.” [On that folio the Talmud does not describe the demons as eating blood, specifically; also the Talmud describes the knowledge of the demons of future events as not based on their intelligence, but as something they overheard in the celestial regions. Nachmanides elaborates on all this, particularly in his commentary on the relevant verse in Acharey Mot. Ed.]

רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, seeing that the blood is scattered and embedded in all parts of the flesh it requires special effort to extract it all before eating the meat.

רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, “only remain steadfast not to consume the blood!” Our sages quote this line as proof that the Israelites had been deeply steeped in blood. [The prohibition against eating blood is repeated 7 times in the Torah. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that although the reason given by the Torah here and elsewhere for not eating blood, i.e. that it is equivalent to eating the animal’s life-force, its “animalistic soul,” is certainly adequate, and justifies the many repetitions of that prohibition, he, personally, does not feel satisfied with this reason. There must be some additional reason for Moses exhorting the people by calling out “only remain steadfast, etc.” What is the special steadfastness and faith that Moses believes is necessary in order to withstand the supposed allure of eating blood? Expressions such as the one used by Moses here are normally used when someone is encouraged to keep his courage when going to war, as Moses himself used when he charged Joshua with the task of leading the people after he had gone. (Compare Deut. 31,23) We find such exhortations when they concern the whole range of commandments, but never when they concern the observance of only a single commandment, and especially a negative commandment where one is not required to do something but is only required to refrain from initiating an act of rebellion against G’d! But it appears to me that Moses employed this expression because he was aware to what extent the Israelites, while still in Egypt, had clung to this particular kind of idolatrous practice. They had slaughtered animals to these deities, for why else would the Torah in Leviticus 17,7 have accused them of having done so by writing; “so that they will not continue to slaughter to the satyrs, etc.?” They had gathered the blood of these animals in order to present them to the demons and had eaten some of the blood. By doing so they were considered as if they had called upon these demons, especially in order to have their future foretold for them. Clearly, that was not the major reason why the Torah prohibited the eating of blood. The Torah has revealed that reason repeatedly when referring to the blood representing the essence of life, and that we must not eat it, as we would absorb too much animalistic “genes” by doing so. G’d has arranged things so that by presenting the animal’s blood to Him on the Altar, it atones for our cardinal sins, resurrects us in a manner of speaking, instead of us becoming more like animals. The Torah was concerned that people who had their future foretold by them after eating blood, and the predictions had come true, that this would be a strong stimulant for other people copying such practices, and it requires great fortitude to withstand such a temptation.

רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, “only be strong, not to eat the blood, etc.” Seeing that in the past the Israelites had been consuming lots of blood as parts of the pagan cults they had worshipped while in Egypt, the Torah had to make a special appeal to them to resist the temptation to eat blood. The Torah had to especially legislate in Leviticus 19,26: “do not eat in the presence of blood,” i.e. not to eat meat before all the blood had been removed.
Similarly, sacrificial meat must not be eaten until after the animal’s blood has been sprinkled on the altar. In our verse the Torah again exhorts us to resist the temptation based on a long tradition to eat blood. Consuming blood is one of the ways through which the Israelites might suffer a relapse to the ways of paganism. The prohibition to eat blood occurs no fewer than seven times in the Torah. (Leviticus 3,17; 7,26; 17,12; 17,14; 19,26; Deut. 12,16; 12,23).
It is quite customary to repeat again and again injunctions against practices considered as especially objectionable in the eyes of the Lord. For instance, the work-prohibition on the Sabbath appears on 12 separate occasions. This is because the Sabbath legislation is considered as equaling in importance all other laws of the Torah combined (Maimonides end of Hilchot Shabbat). The subject of the Exodus from Egypt appears no fewer than 50 times in the Torah, showing how fundamental to Judaism this event is considered by the Torah.
Another possible reason why he Torah here uses the unusual phrasing of “only be strong,” is that seeing that it is a widespread perception that consuming the blood of an animal strengthens the body of the person eating it, it is natural for people to think that the whole purpose of eating meat is in order to make the blood part of one’s own body. The Torah therefore has to tell the Israelite that his body will become stronger if he does not eat the blood of the animal. The word רק in our verse exempts the liver, which is all blood, from the prohibition of eating blood. We find a similar exclusion in the words אך כאשר יאכל הצבי in verse 22 where the Torah exempts the consumption of חלב, certain fat parts of the animal reserved for the altar in animals fit as sacrifices from that general prohibition. In other words, חלב of free-roaming beasts such as deer is not forbidden for consumption by Jews. Our verse here was necessary as we might have drawn a parallel between the permission to eat חלב of animals which do not qualify as sacrifices for the altar with blood of animals which do not qualify as sacrifices. The Torah therefore had to repeat the prohibition once more in connection with meat consumed as meat which had not been consecrated first. Also, the Torah wanted to avoid our drawing the conclusion that just as the חלב of a free-roaming beast is permissible, so the חלב of a domestic animal not slaughtered as a sacrifice is permitted. Had it been the intent of the Torah to allow such a conclusion, the Torah would have had to write in verse 22 כל אשר יאכל בצבי ואיל יאכל, “everything which is permitted to eat of the deer, etc. may be eaten (in all non-sacrificial animals).

You must exercise strength with mitzvos, etc. For a person’s evil inclination constantly tempts him to transgress Hashem’s will. Therefore, even regarding [seemingly] easy mitzvos, a person must exercise strength. All the more so regarding other mitzvos that a person craves [to transgress them] (Maharai).

V. 23. רק חזק. Diese dem Verbote des Blutgenusses vorangehende ganz besonders ernste Warnung bezeugt den hohen Wert, den das Gesetz auf dessen Beachtung setzt und zugleich die ganze Tiefe der Gefährdung, die aus dem Genusse tierischen Blutes dem seelischen Menschenwesen in Hinblick auf die sittliche Aufgabe erwachsen werde, deren Lösung das Gesetz von dem jüdischen Menschen erwartet. Im ספרי wird daraus zugleich die leidenschaftliche Stärke des Gewohnheitshanges erkannt, mit welchem die heidnische Welt gerade an dem Genusse des tierischen Blutes hing, ein Hang, der eben im jüdischen Kreise durch die sinaitische Gesetzgebung völlig überwunden wurde. Das Verbot des Blutgenusses ist bereits im Wajikra an drei Stellen ausgesprochen: Kap. 3, 17; 7, 26; 17.12. — 14 (siehe daselbst), und auch bereits oben (V. 16) im Zusammenhange mit פסולי המוקדשים. Hier, wo mit der Niederlassung im Lande die Gestattung des gewöhnlichen Fleischgenusses, בשר תאוה, eintreten und die Beachtung der darauf bezüglichen Gesetzesbestimmungen dem Gewissen eines jeden einzelnen überantwortet werden sollte, war die Warnung vor dem Blutgenuss und vor dem Zurückfallen in die daran sich knüpfenden heidnischen Wahnanschauungen und Gelüste mit wiederholtem Ernste dem Vademekumkompendium für die Dezentralisierung im Lande einzufügen.

ולא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר AND THOU MAYEST NOT EAT THE LIFE WITH THE FLESH — This is a prohibition of אבר מן החי, the eating of a limb cut from a living animal (Sifrei Devarim 76:5; Chullin 102a; cf. Rashi on Genesis 9:4).

כי הדם הוא הנפש, “for the blood is equivalent to the life-force.” The Torah writes this here to provide a reason for this prohibition. I have discussed this at length in Leviticus 17,11.

This prohibits the limb of a living animal. The verse means to say, “Do not eat from it while the spirit is with the meat.

כי הדם הוא הנפש. (Siehe zu Bereschit 9, 4 und Bamidbar 17, 11 über den bedeutsamen Konstruktionswechsel zur Verhütung einer jeden irrigen Identifizierung der Seele mit dem Blute.) Dem göttlichen Gesetze ist das Blut der mit jedem Pulsschlag den ganzen Körper durchkreisende Stoff, vermittelst dessen die Seele ihre allgegenwärtige Beherrschung des Leibes vollzieht. Es ist somit in eminentem Sinne der erste Träger der Seele und versagt daher das Gesetz dem Tierblut, als Träger der Tierseele, den Eintritt in den der sittlich freien Menschenbestimmung heiligen Bereich der Menschenseele. Nachdem in allen den erwähnten Stellen das reine Verhältnis der Seele zum Blute sichergestellt ist, heißt es nun hier zur letzten wiederholten Warnung vor dem Blutgenuss geradezu: כי הדם הוא הנפש, das Blut ist die körperliche Vergegenwärtigung der Seele, mit dem Genuss des Tierblutes gehen seine Dispositionen für die Tierseele und an ihm haftende Eindrücke von der Tierseele mit ein in den Menschenleib!

ולא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר, “and you are not to eat the life-force when you eat the meat.” The literal meaning is that you must not eat the meat which has been cut out of a living animal while this animal remains alive. Even if the animal from which this piece of flesh had been cut off died in the meantime, the piece cut off first is forbidden under the heading of אבר מן החי, “tissue from living animals”, a prohibition which applies to all of mankind as we know from Genesis 9,4. The reason is that inflicting such pain on the animal is an act of cruelty which will engender cruel traits in the person consuming such flesh. The Torah adds the words (apparently unnecessary) לא תאכלנו, “do not eat it” (verse 24), to tell you that you must not eat the blood which is slow in seeping out, (which we remove through salting the meat).

ולא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר: und wie du das Blut nicht essen sollst, in welchem die Seele in erster Linie ihre körperliche Vergegenwärtigung hat, so sollst du auch das Fleisch nicht in dem Momente zum Genuss nehmen, in welchem noch die Seele mit dem Leibe in Verbindung steht, in welchem das von dir zum Genuss zu nehmende Glied noch unter Herrschaft der Seele steht. Es ist dies das Verbot: אבר מן החי, des vom lebendigen Leibe losgetrennten Organs. Ein Verbot, das für die ganze noachidische Welt bereits Bereschit 9, 3 ausgesprochen war, hier aber wiederholt ist, um jenes Verbot auch nach der sinaitischen, nur das jüdische Volk verpflichtenden Gesetzgebung, für die noachidische Welt aufrecht zu halten, nach dem Kanon: כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נה (Sanhedrin 59 a). — Schmot 22, 39 in dem Ausspruche ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו ist בשר מן החי, einem lebendigen Tierleibe entnommenes "Fleisch" zum Genusse verboten (siehe daselbst), während hier von einem solchen entnommenen "Gliede die Rede ist (Chulin 102 b; — vergl. Wajikra 11, 32 den Unterschied zwischen אבר מן החי und בשר מן החי in Beziehung auf טומאה).

לא תאכלנו THOU SHALT NOT EAT IT — This is a prohibition against the eating of דם התמצית (the last blood oozing through the cut of a vein: תמצית from מצה “to squeeze”) (Keritot 4b).

לא תאכלנו, על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, you are to treat it so that it becomes unfit to eat, just as is water when you pour it on the earth. It is not enough to hide it, as one hides wine or oil and other liquids which are designed as drinks.

This prohibits the dripping tamtzis blood. The term דם התמצית means the blood that drips at the time of slaughtering. Three types of [tamtzis] blood come out at the time of slaughtering: The first is black, the second is red, afterwards it gushes [which is not tamtzis blood], and afterwards it drips again. All three [the first two and the last one] are called the dripping tamtzis blood. The blood of the limbs is blood that has moved from one place to another — even though it is still absorbed and did not come out of the limb, it is forbidden. However, if the blood never left its original place then it is not included by the prohibition, “Do not eat it.” This is explained in Chulin (14a). (See Tosefos there)

VV. 24 u. 25. לא תאכלנו וגו׳ לא תאכלנו וגו׳. Die Halacha unterscheidet dreierlei Blut: דם התמצית ,דם הנפש und דם הנפש .דם האברים, das Blut, an welchem zunächst die Seele haftet, mit dessen Ausströmen auch נפש entweicht, שהנשמה שהנשמה תלויה בו יוצאה בו; es kennzeichnet sich durch קילוח, durch strahlendes Ausströmen. דם התמצית, ohne Strahl ausfließendes Blut. דם האברים, frei, nicht in Gefäßen enthaltenes Muskelblut (Kapillarblut), sobald es ausgetreten, פירש. Mit כרת-Strafe (Wajikra 7, 27) ist nur der Genuss von דם הנפש verpönt, dessen Verbot V. 23 wiederholt ist. V. 24 bezieht sich auf דם התמצית, V. 25 auf דם האברים (Raschi, מה שתמה המזרחי על רש׳׳י שפירש כאן לא תאכלנו למען ייטב לך אזהרה לדם האיברים ובכריתות ד׳ ב׳ ד׳׳ה חמשה לאוין מוקי ליה אזהרה לבשר בחלב כדאיתא חולין קט׳׳ו ב׳ ,נראה לענ׳׳ד דלא קשה מידי דרש׳׳י לטעמיה שהלך בפירושו לחומש בשיטת ר׳ ישמעאל דמוקי קרא דכי ירחיב וגו׳ להיתר בשר תאוה והא דרשה דחולין אי אפשר אלא אליבא דר׳׳ע דמיירי קרא בפסולי מוקדשין ע׳׳ש ועי׳ רש׳׳׳י חולין כ׳׳ח א׳ ד׳׳ה מה פסולי).

על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, im Gegensatz zu dem heidnischen Wahn sollst du ihm gar keinen besonderen Wert beimessen und keinerlei wahngeborene Handlung damit vornehmen.

למען ייטב לך וגו׳. Der Nichtgenuss des Blutes bedingt dein und deiner Kinder Glück und sittliches Heil. Er erhält deine Kinder אחריך, in sittlicher Nachfolge nach dir und schützt sie vor Entartung. Er erhält dein Wesen ישר: in der geraden Richtung deiner von Gott dir angewiesenen Bestimmung, und indem so dein Wesen unbeeinflusst bleibt von tierischen, menschenunwürdigen Neigungen und Abneigungen, bleibt es eben damit den Anforderungen größerer und kleinerer Selbstlosigkeit zugeneigt und übt von selbst gern und willig jene dem Adel deines Wesens entsprechende Milde, Nachgiebigkeit, Rechtsverzichtung und Güte, die den Erwartungen Gottes von dir genügen, auch da, wo alle Ansprüche einer Rechtsnotwendigkeit fehlen (siehe Dewarim 6, 18).

לא תאכלנו THOU SHALT NOT EAT IT — This is a prohibition against eating of the blood contained in the limbs (Keritot 4b).

'לא תאכלנו....כי.תעשה הישר בעיני ה, when you refrain from eating it this shall not be because you despise it, i.e. it repels you; you must not eat it in order to thereby do what is right in the eyes of the Lord. Our sages in Torat Kohanim on Kedoshim 9,10 phrase it thus: “one must not say: ‘I am revolted by pig’s meat,’ but one should say: ‘I am perfectly capable of enjoying pig’s meat; the only reason I do not is in order to comply with G’d’s prohibition of it.’”

This prohibits the blood absorbed in the limbs. Rashi’s explanation poses a difficulty, for in chapter “Kol Habasar” (Chulin 115b), this verse, “Do not eat it,” is understood to prohibit [the combination of] meat and milk. And [furthermore,] Rashi himself explains likewise in the first chapter of Krisus (4b). Re”m also raises this difficulty. However, it seems to me: Rashi’s explanation here follows the viewpoint of the other Tannaim and Amoraim in chapter “Kol Habasar.” And they learn out the prohibition not to eat meat and milk from other verses (see there). One Tanna learns out [the prohibition not to eat meat and milk] from the verse, ‘Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk,’ which is written three times, and one of them is intended to prohibit eating [them together].” See Rashi above in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 23:19). But Rashi’s explains in Krisus follows the viewpoint of Rebbi who explains that, “Do not eat it,” is a prohibition not to eat meat and milk.

למען ייטב לך וגו׳ THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH THEE, etc. — Go and learn how great is the grant of reward for keeping the divine commandments: if in the case of blood for which the soul of man feels a loathing, he who keeps aloof from it obtains merit for himself and for his children after him, how much the more is it so in the case of robbery or forbidden sexual relations for which the soul of man may feel a longing (Makkot 23b).

רק קדשיך ONLY (i.e. however) THY HOLY THINGS [… THOU SHALT BEAR AND GO UNTO THE PLACE WHICH THE LORD SHALL CHOOSE] — This means: although you are permitted to slaughter non-holy animals I do not permit you to slaughter consecrated animals and to eat them in thy gates (i.e. wherever you please) without sacrificing them on the altar, but bring them to the “House of Choice” (the Sanctuary).

V. 26. רק קדשיך וגו׳. Diejenigen Tiere aber, die der konkreten Nahrungsbestimmung enthoben sind und die symbolische Bestimmung erhalten haben, deinen Beziehungen zum Gesetzesheiligtum zum Ausdruck zu dienen, und zwar נדריך ,קדשיך gegenüber, die Pflichtopfertiere und נדריך, die aus freien Gelobungen hervorgegangen, אשר יהיו לך: dieser Zusatz, welcher offenbar einen hinzukommenden Zuwachs ausdrückt, schließt nach Nasir 25 a und Temura 17 b noch וולדות ותמורות קדשים ein, die (mit Ausschluss von חטאת und אשם; siehe Wajikra zu Kap. 2, 24), ganz den Charakter des Mutter- und Stammtieres tragen und derselben Bestimmung unterliegen, also alle Tiere, die in Beziehung zu deiner Heiligung stehen und deren symbolischem Ausdruck geweiht sind, תשא ובאת וגו׳, die kannst du ihre Bestimmung nicht an deinem Heimatsorte erreichen lassen, die musst du aufheben und mit ihnen zu dem Orte hinkommen, welchen Gott zur Stätte seines Gesetzes erwählen wird. Nur dort ist Begriff und Inhalt deiner Heiligungsaufgabe gewährleistet, nur dort trittst du mit der Hingebung an sein Gesetz Gott nahe.

תשא ובאת אל המקום, “you shall take and go to the place;” when we pray on the festivals we say in our mussaph prayer: והשיאנו ה' אלוקינו את ברכת מועדיך, “cause us O Lord our G-d to take with us the blessing of Your festivals, etc.”

ועשית עלתיך AND THOU SHALT OFFER THY BURNT OFFERINGS — i.e. if they (thy sacrifices) be burnt offerings, put the flesh as well as the blood on the altar, but if they are peace offerings, then “the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured” first on the altar and afterwards you may eat the flesh. Furthermore did our Rabbis deduce that [the words] “thy sacrifices, however, [thou shalt bear, etc.]” are intended to teach with regard to consecrated animals that are outside the Land (abroad) as well as regards such animals that have been exchanged for other consecrated animals, and finally regarding the young of consecrated animals that [all] such must [also] be offered [in Jerusalem] (Sifrei Devarim 77:1; Bekhorot 14b).

If they are burnt-offerings, place the flesh, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why is this verse necessary to be written? For it is already written (v. 26), “However, your sacred offerings ... you are to bring when you come to the place that Adonoy chooses,” which includes all types of offerings. An additional question: At first it is written, “You are to execute your burnt-offerings — the meat and the blood — on the altar of Adonoy.” But afterwards it is written, “Then you will eat the meat,” which is apparently self-contradictory! Rashi answers that this verse is explaining the previous one, and it should be understood as follows: “If they are burnt-offerings, place the flesh and the blood on the altar. But if they are peace-offerings, etc.” The reason why Rashi says על גבי המזבח (on top of the altar) regarding burnt-offerings, but he says על המזבח (on the altar) regarding peace-offerings is as follows: The flesh and blood of burnt-offerings are placed on top of the altar, not on the altar itself. But the blood of peace-offerings is placed on the altar itself, not on top of it.

V. 27. ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם (siehe Wajikra zu Kap. 1, 9), ודם זבחיך ישפך (siehe Wajikra Kap. 1, S. 22). Bedeutsam steht hier שפיכת שירים ליסוד המזבח in dem Zusammenhange mit der Verpflichtung, die קדשים-Tiere von dem Heimatsorte zum Heiligtum hinaufzubringen und dort die Weihe unseres "Seelen- und Tatenlebens" zu gewinnen. שפיכת שירים ליסוד ist das Bewusstsein, das in die Heimat begleitet. Körperlich gehen wir heim, unsere Seele bleibt dort. —

ודם זבחיך, “and the blood of your meat offerings,” this is a reference to the socalled sh’lamim, “peaceofferings,” (consumed in the main by the donors)

This teaches concerning sacrificial-offerings outside the Land. I.e., if a person who is outside the Land sanctifies an animal as a sacrifice, he must take care in transporting it until he brings it to the Temple [as indicated by the previous verse, “...you are to bring when you come.”]

Indem hier aber die Bluthingebung für die Opfer ganz allgemein durch שפיכה ausgedrückt ist, wird (Sebachim 37 a) noch daran die Halacha gelehrt, dass הניתנין בזריקה שנתנן בשפיכה יצא, dass auch diejenigen Opfer, für welche זריקה vorgeschrieben ist, wenn geschehen, selbst durch שפיכה als vollzogen zu betrachten sind. Die bedingende Grundforderung ist eben, dass sich die נפש in יסוך המזבח auf der Basis des vom Gesetz gelehrten, zu Gott emporsteigenden Lebensbaues begreift. Die durch זריקה zum Ausdruck gelangende Energie des Hinanstrebens ist nur eine Folge dieser Grundwahrheit. Müssen daher ja auch alle מתנות זריקה, die שתים שהן ארבע der עולה und שלמים den יסוד unter sich haben (siehe zu Wajikra 1,3(. וצע׳׳ע .ע׳׳ש כ׳׳מ ול׳׳מ ׳רמב׳׳ם פ׳׳מ פ׳׳ב ב׳ ג.

והבשר תאכל, “and the meat you may eat;” [as opposed to the blood and the fat parts. Ed.] the meat will be consumed by the priest on duty at that time according to the priestly roster, or the common Israelite, depending on the type of offering and the parts of the animal designated for either priest or laymen. (Ibn Ezra).

שמר KEEP [AND HEAR (understand) ALL THESE WORDS WHICH I COMMAND THEE] — This (the word שמר) implies the studying of the oral law — that you must keep it within you that it should not be forgotten, just as it is said, (Proverbs 22:18) “[And apply thy heart unto my knowledge] for it is a pleasant thing if thou keep (תשמרם) them within thee”, and only if thou learnest is it possible that thou wilt understand and fulfil the commands, but one who is not amongst those who study (lit., who is not included in learning) cannot be amongst those who act correctly (cf. Sifrei Devarim 79:3; see also Rashi on Deuteronomy 4:6). (The translation is: keep, i.e. study and retain your learning in mind: ושמעת, and then thou wilt understand how to observe the commands).

OBSERVE AND HEAR ALL THOSE WORDS WHICH I COMMAND THEE. He [Moses] did not mention here the statutes and ordinances, nor His testimonies and His commandments, but said all those words in order to include in this observance the good and the right, as I have explained in the section of Va’ethchanan.⁹²Above, 6:18.

שמור ושמעת את כל הדברים האלה, “Safeguard and hearken to all these words;” the reason why Moses changed the customary formula of observing various types of commandments by listing them as חוקים, משפטים, עדות וגו', is that he wanted to include matters which go beyond legislated mode of behaviour and which fall under the category of ועשית הישר והטוב, “do what is fair and good,” to go beyond what is demanded of them, in order to demonstrate that they act in the spirit of the Torah voluntarily, not only under compulsion and threat of penalties.

But anyone who is not involved in study, etc. For if he has not learned, how will he [know what to] do?

שמר ושמעת את כל הדברים האלה, "Observe and hearken to all these words, etc." The sequence of the words "observe and hearken" appears to be reversed. The Torah should have written "hearken and observe." Besides, what are the words את and כל meant to include? Furthermore, why is this the only verse in which Moses speaks about the wellbeing of the children due to their parents' observance of the commandments? What is the meaning of the words כי תעשה הטוב which appears to be the result underlying the commandment "so that you and your children will be well off?" Moses had already given the reason for this when he said: "observe, etc." He had added למען, i.e. "in order that as a result of this observance, etc." Clearly the wellbeing was decribed as a result of מצוה-observance.

V. 28. ׳ושמעת את וגו (vergl. Chron. I. 28, 8 und II. 19,7 שמרו ודרשו שמרו ועשו, so auch hier שמר ושמעת: höre sorgfältig. כי תעשה הטוב והישר, oben beim Blutverbot heißt es nur: כי תעשה הישר. Durch den Nichtgenuss des Blutes bleibt dein Wesen in der geraden Richtung auf deine sittlichen Ziele, durch die Hingebung deines Wesens an die im Gesetzesheiligtum gelehrten Aufgaben erhalten diese Ziele ihren positiven Inhalt, der hier unter den Begriff הטוב zusammengefasst: das, was zu dem von Gott bezweckten Heile beiträgt. Diese Erwägung, dass eben hier bei dem Hinaufbringen der קדשים ins Gesetzesheiligtum das Objekt הטוב hinzugekommen, dürfte die Erläuterung des ר׳ עקיבא im ספרי erklärlich finden lassen: הטוב בעיני השמים והישר בעיני האדם und ist es nicht unmöglich, dass auch ר׳ עקיבא das הישר als Korrektiv zu הטוב begreift: auch das טוב בעיני השמים soll auf eine Weise geschehen, die auch בעיני האדם Billigung findet. Ähnlich wie רבי׳s Sentenz: איזו היא דרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם כל שהיא תפארת לעשיה ותפארת לו מן האדם, unsere Handlungsweise muss erst an sich rühmlich sein, dann aber auch das Urteil der Menschen berücksichtigen.

את כל הדברים [KEEP …] ALL WORDS [WHICH I COMMAND THEE] — This implies that a light precept should be as dear to you as a grave precept (Sifrei Devarim 79:4).

A minor commandment should be as precious ... as one of great consequence, etc. Otherwise, why is the word, “all,” needed? Let Scripture write only, “These words that I am commanding you,” which implies, “all of them.”

I believe that Moses gives two separate instructions here. 1) To observe and to listen to the Torah and the various commandments, i.e. the ones with which the Israelites were already familiar; 2) the various decrees our rabbis have formulated throughout our history known as "fences." Concerning the Torah and the commandments written therein Moses said שמר, "observe," seeing these were already known; concerning the rabbinic decrees which were not yet known he said ושמעת, "be sure to hearken." Moses said את כל to warn the people to be sure that they include all the various decrees and ordinances that would be enacted by the Rabbis in the future. He said the words כל הדברים, "the whole words," to remind us that unless one fulfils both the biblical and the rabbinic part of the commandments one has not truly fulfilled them. Moses concludes this thought with the words למען ייטב לך ולבניך to remind us that it is the performance of all these rabbinic decrees which will enable the Jewish people to raise Torah-true generations of children and grandchildren. This is what would separate us from the people who indulge in a way of life that is abhorrent to G'd.

הטוב [THAT IT MAY GO WELL WITH THEE … WHEN THOU DOEST] WHAT IS GOOD — This refers to an action that is proper in the eyes of the Heavenly Father.

In the eyes of mortals. This means, for example, the neighbor’s law of preemption, [e.g., a neighbor must be given the first chance to buy one’s property], which is only [derived] from [the verse], “Perform the upright and the good (Devarim 6:18).”

כי תעשה הטוב, "so that you will do what is good, etc." Moses explains that the purpose of rabbinic decrees and ordinances is designed only to enable you to do what is good and correct in the eyes of the Lord. Accordingly, this part of the verse is also part of the reason why Moses commands us to "observe and hearken." The good which G'd has in mind for us will be the result of our relating with equal seriousness to rabbinic decrees as we relate to biblical injunctions. All of this is additional to the good that will devolve on future generations as a result of the interpretations of Torah left to us by the scholars. The words כי תעשה are an addition to the words שמר ושמעת.

והישר AND WHAT IS RIGHT — this refers to an action that appears to be proper in the eyes of men (Sifrei Devarim 79:5).

Our verse may also remind a person who is in the habit of fulfilling a particular commandment and is fully aware of what it entails not to say that he does not need to study this commandment. Moses tells us that study even of commandments which we fulfil as a matter of routine is a separate מצוה, and is not to be neglected.

Still another way of understanding the order in which Moses phrases this exhortation is that it is a reference to Hoseah 14,3: ונשלמה פרים שפתינו, "let our lips substitute for the bullocks." Our sages have taught us that when it is physically impossible to observe certain commandments, the way to make up for it is to study these commandments. The classic example is the entire animal-sacrifice legislation which the Jewish people have been unable to fulfil ever since the destruction of the Holy Temple. Just as it is impossible to keep all the "words," Moses contents himself with asking for an effort, i.e. שמר. He uses the word ושמעת as the parallel for the positive commandments. These too are impossible for one individual to perform totally. Moses suggests that studying positive commandments will compensate for the ones a person cannot fulfil physically. In view of the aforesaid it is not possible to observe all the commandments satisfactorily.

Moses may also have paraphrased something we have been taught in Avodah Zarah 19 that one should first read (commit to memory) the text before explaining it, i.e. trying to understand it. [In my edition of the Talmud the quotation is slightly different. The wording is: לעולם יגריס איניש ואף על גב דלא ידע ואף על גב דמשכת Ed.] This is what Moses had in mind that one should observe the commandments even before one has understood them. He implies that faithful performance will ensure that one remembers the commandment which will lead to ושמעת, that you will study and understand its meaning.

Moses may also have phrased this verse to reflect a statement in the Zohar volume three page 193 that the sins a person has committed act as a lock, precluding him from unraveling the secrets of the Torah. You find a similar comment in the Shulchan Aruch of the Ari zal in the section on Torah study. He wrote that the gates of understanding to the words of Torah are the questions which trouble normal human beings. This is the mystical dimension of the קליפות, the spiritually negative forces which have beeen created by man's own sins. Moses tells us that if you truly wish to understand that there are answers to these questions which trouble you in your faith you must first שמר, observe the commandments whose meaning bothers you and subsequently ושמעת, you will be able to understand the answer to the question which previously troubled you.

The verse may also be understood in light of what we learned in Chagiga 15 that "if the Rabbi appears to be of the stature of an angel one should request to hear words of Torah from his lips." Thus far the Talmud. Moses simply says that if the teacher is truly Torah-observant, שמר, you should listen to what he has to teach, ושמעת. When Moses added the words: את כל הדברים, this may be understood in light of the question directed against Rabbi Meir on that same folio in the Talmud how he could learn Torah from an heretic such as Elisha ben Avuyah? The question is reinforced by a quotation from Maleachi 2,7: "for the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts." Surely Elisha ben Avuyah did not fit the prophet's description of who should dispense Torah knowledge? The Talmud answers that Rabbi Meir had also based himself on Scripture as it is written in Proverbs 22,17: "incline your ear and listen to the words of the wise, and your heart to My wisdom." Solomon does not say that one should listen to "their wisdom," i.e. the teacher's wisdom, but he said לדעתי, "to My wisdom," i.e. to G'd's wisdom. This appears to leave us with two contradictory verses from Scripture! The Talmud resolves this problem by saying one verse refers to what ordinary people should do whereas the verse in Proverbs refers to what eminent scholars may do. Rabbi Meir was eminent enough to be able to distinguish which of Elisha's words reflected genuine Torah outlook, something most ordinary people are unable to do. The Talmud there raises another problem. Rava explained the verse in Song of Songs 6,11: "I descended to the nut garden to have a look at the green plants of the vale." He asked: "why are the Torah scholars compared to a walnut? Answer: Just as the walnut is dirty on the outside without its interior becoming defiled by this, so the Torah scholar. Even though he may have sinned, his Torah has not become discredited." Rabbah bar Shiloh encountered the prophet Elijah. He asked him what G'd was currently preoccupied with? Elijah replied that G'd was telling the angels about the teachings of all the Torah scholars except that of Rabbi Meir The reason He did not quote Rabbi Meir was because the latter had quoted what he had learned from the heretic Elisha ben Avuyah. Rabbah bar Shilo wanted to know what Rabbi Meir had been guilty of that he was so discriminated against in heaven? He added that Rabbi Meir had found a pomegranate and eaten it while discarding its outer shell. [a hyperbole for not being infected with the harmful part of the source. Ed.] Thereupon Elijah answered that as of that moment G'd also quoted the sayings of Rabbi Meir. In fact G'd prefaced Rabbi Meir's sayings by referring to him as "My son Meir." Thus far the Talmud. According to our sages then an eminent scholar may listen to words of Torah even from the lips of an heretic. Maimonides does not accept this and rules in Hilchot Talmud Torah chapter 4 that unless the teacher is comparable in personal belief and conduct to an angel of the Lord one should not learn Torah from him.

According to the opinion of the Shach on Yore Deyah 246,8 only Rabbi Meir makes the distinction between who may study from the lips of a scholar who is a heretic and who may not. The concensus of the scholars in the Talmud is that we do not make such a distinction. He deduces this from the fact that the Talmud quoted Rabbi Meir as defending his attitude based on a verse from Scripture in Proverbs.

I do not agree with the words of the Shach. First of all we have no evidence in the Talmud that what Rabbi Meir did was subject to disagreement by the scholars in the Talmud. We accept the existence of controversies between the scholars only when there is no other way to reconcile what appear to be conflicting opinions. [the author means that it is an accepted principle not to invent a disagreement between scholars unless the evidence of such a disagreement is incontrovertible. Ed.] Secondly, the fact that the Talmud quoted the verse from Maleachi querying Rabbi Meir's conduct indicates that this very verse formed the basis of a general concensus, i.e. that one does not learn from the lips of an heretic, and that obviously Rabbi Meir agreed with this. Had the Talmud thought that Rabbi Meir did not accept the interpretation of the verse in Maleachi it should simply have said that Rabbi Meir disagreed. The question was only why Rabbi Meir ignored that verse and the concensus? If you were to argue that this is precisely what the scholar had in mind who said that Rabbi Meir based his conduct on the verse in Proverbs, i.e. that he did not accept the interpretation of the verse in Maleachi by the other scholars, why did he phrase it by saying that the verses appear to contradict themselves? Besides, Rava, who was a scholar of a later generation, quoted the verse from Song of Songs in defense of Rabbi Meir. We decide the halachah in accordance with more recent scholars, i.e. although the opinion of Rabbi Meir as to whether exceptions are allowed such as when the student is himself an eminent scholar is subject to dispute, the general principle that one does not learn from an heretic is accepted based on the verse in Maleachi, a principle which Rabbi Meir agrees with. What greater proof could there be that Rabbi Meir was not out of line than that G'd Himself quoted halachic sayings of Rabbi Meir after Rabbi Shiloh's conversation with the prophet Elijah? Let us assume for the moment that the principle espoused in Maleachi applies regardless of whether the student is himself an eminent scholar or not, and that only Rabbi Meir disagreed as to the exception for such scholars. Why did Rabbi Shiloh answer the prophet Elijah that Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate, ate its interior and discarded its shell? Clearly, he must have thought that in general Rabbi Meir shared the view of the other scholars otherwise what kind of a defence was this? After all this you may ask what did G'd think before He heard Rabbi Shilo's defence of Rabbi Meir and what did He think afterwards? Surely G'd did not need Rabbi Shiloh to enlighten Him! Did He not know what Rabbi Meir thought all along without the help of Rabbi Shiloh? Remember that G'd is concerned that man's actions be not only above board in His eyes but that they be approved and seen as meritorious in the eyes of his peers. Otherwise even halachically correct conduct may be accounted sinful in the eyes of G'd. When Rabbi Meir had studied from the mouth of Elisha ben Avuyah he had been guilt-free in the eyes of G'd but had not proven that his conduct was beyond reproach in the eyes of his peers. Now that Rabbi Shiloh had challenged Elijah it had become clear to G'd that Rabbi Meir's conduct was approved even by his peers. This is why G'd could begin to quote Rabbi Meir's Torah at this juncture. From all this it follows that Rabbi Meir's reasoning concerning the whole subject was correct.

This brings us to the ruling of Maimonides [and the Shulchan Aruch Ed.] in which the distinction made in the Talmud as to who may or may not learn from an heretic is totally ignored. Maimonides simply felt that in his generation there were no people of stature such as Rabbi Meir so that one could proclaim that if they studied Torah from the mouths of heretics this posed no danger to their continued intellectual and spiritual integrity. Perhaps Maimonides understood all the emphasis in the discourse on the subject in the Talmud on the person of Rabbi Meir as singling him out as an exception. This is why he ignored the concensus in the Talmud and applied the principle from Shabbat 112 that "if earlier generations could be compared to angels our generations are like ordinary mortals, whereas if even earlier generations were only ordinary mortals then we are comparable to donkeys." In view of this consideration, Maimonides did not feel he had to even mention the exception to the rule that one's Torah teacher must be like an angel of G'd in piety, etc., in order for us to accept what he is teaching.

In light of the foregoing we can understand the meaning of Moses saying שמר ושמעת, "be careful when you listen," in that order. He said: "under what circumstances do I tell you to be careful before you listen? Only if you are a relative ignoramus and might easily be misled by what the Torah scholar turned heretic has to say. In such an event you must only listen to teachers whose personal Torah-true conduct is above reproach. However, if you yourself happen to be an outstanding scholar and you therefore need to listen only to a very small part of what such a scholar turned heretic has to say [seeing you know most of it Ed.], you may go ahead and listen to discourses by such people just as Rabbi Meir did when he learned some Torah from Elisha ben Avuyah. You may do so because you are intelligent enough to discard what is worthless."

כי יכרית…את הגוים…השמר לך, "When G'd will cut down…the nations,….be careful, etc." Why did Moses appear to make being on guard against the lure of idolatry dependent on His cutting down the nations occupying Canaan? Were the Israelites to tolerate with equanimity the idolatry of many nations for many years as long as G'd had not cut down these nations? We know that this is not so as we have been told to wipe out idolatry and to refrain from it ourselves without a word about modifying this commandment by stating that it applied only if our neighbours practiced idolatry! Furthermore, why does the Torah write פן תנקש, "lest you be ensnared..after He has wiped them out?" Surely the sequence of events should have been the reverse? Why would the Israelites be in danger of being ensnared by idolatry performed by people whom G'd has already wiped out? Their very fate has discredited their deities who could not save them! Rashi's comment that after G'd has wiped out these nations we are to reflect about the sins which caused them to be wiped out and to be careful not to commit a similar sin so that we would not meet the same fate, does not really solve our problem. Thirdly, the Torah writes both פן תנקש and פן תדרש. In view of the fact that the "ensnaring," תנקש leads to your enquiring into the idolatrous practices, the Torah should have written פן תנקש לדרוש, "so that you will not be ensnared into enquiring, etc," instead of describing these two phenomena as independent of one another! Fourthly, why did Moses write לאמור? To whom did he expect the Israelites to say this? Fifthly, why did Moses use the word איכה as introducing a question? We do not find this word as having this meaning anywhere else! Sixthly, what did Moses mean (13,1) by forbidding both לא תגרעו, "do not subtract from the laws of the Torah" as well as לא תוסיפו "do not add to them?" Whereas we can understand the former, does not the latter exclude the enactment of rabbinic ordinances? Did not the Torah itself write (Leviticus 18,30) "You shall make fences around My commandments," i.e. that the prohibition of idolatry is to be surrounded with rabbinic decrees to ensure we do not violate the essence of the commandment? Is this not an invitation to make additional laws to keep us from becoming ensnared in the sin of idol worship?

כי יכרית ה' אלוקיך את הגויים, the word מפניך still belongs to these initial words of the verse.

V. 29. Säuberung des in Besitz zu nehmenden Landes von allen Spuren des heidnischen Unwesens, und dem gegenüber ausschließliche Hingebung aller nunmehrigen Bewohner des Landes an das sie alle einigende Zentrum der Gottesstätte des Gesetzesheiligtums, sowie Wahrung der leiblich sittlichen Richtung aller Glieder dieses Kreises auf die von diesem Gesetze gewiesenen Ziele und für die von ihm gesetzten Aufgaben durch Beachtung des שחיטה-Gebotes und des verbotenen Blutgenusses: das waren die Momente, welche den bisherigen Inhalt dieses Kapitels bildeten. Bevor nun das Gesetzeskompendium für die vereinzelten Glieder der Nation noch zur Vervollständigung der hierhin gehörigen ferneren Speisegesetze übergeht, folgen noch erst vier Warnungen vor geistigen und sozialen Einflüssen, die die Glieder der jüdischen Gesamtheit aus ihrer Gott und seinem Gesetze angehörigen Richtung ablenken könnten. Der Einfluss der Erinnerungen an das heidnische Leben ihrer Vorinsassen, der Einfluss geistiger Überlegenheit, der Einfluss des Familienverkehrs und der Einfluss bürgerlichen Hervortuns.

כי יכרית ה' אלוקיך, “when the Lord your G-d will cut off, etc.” this paragraph has been inserted here, as unless G-d cuts off the gentile nations, how is He going to widen the boundaries of your Land?

Actually, Moses intended to warn against the errors man is apt to make when he observes with his own eyes that wicked people are being destroyed. He is almost bound to arrive at either one of two possible (erroneous) conclusions when he is an eye witness to such a phenomenon. He may conclude that the idolatry these people had practiced was considered substantive and this is the reason why G'd was so concerned with their worshiping something other than Him that He decided to kill them. Alternatively, anyone witnessing the demise of such idol worshipers will conclude that the form of worship these people had indulged in is not substantive and would not arouse G'd's jealousy. An example would be if someone threw something in the direction of Markulies, or excreted before Pe-or, etc., which is a form of worship not applicable to the respective deity. It is a fact that we do not perform any such acts of worship to the Lord our G'd. Why then did G'd kill those nations? We would conclude that it was not for worshiping idols but for failing to worship G'd instead in the appropriate fashion. Not only that, but these people also failed to observe the various commandments G'd has revealed.

לרשת אותם מפניך, “and to dispossess them on your account;” the word מפניך actually is the continuation of the beginning of the verse, i.e. כי יכרית.

Indulging in speculations about the why of these peoples' demise is a waste of time which ought to have been devoted to Torah study instead. If the person who watched the demise of the pagans arrived at the conclusion that the form of worship these pagans indulged in was appropriate but that they addressed it to the wrong address, i.e. to an idol, he may conclude that the proper thing for him to do is to serve our G'd in that fashion. If, on the other hand, the witness of the demise of the pagans concluded that the reason G'd killed them was because their form of worship was too inconsequential, he may believe that if he himself were to do the same it would not have any negative consequences for him as he was not a pagan but believed in G'd and served G'd. After all, G'd had killed these people only because they did not serve Him! The Torah therefore warns: כי יכרית, "when G'd cuts down," etc., and you witness this, השמר לך, "be on guard" not to arrive at either one of the conclusions we have just described. Concerning the first conclusion that the service performed by these people was substantive and aroused G'd's jealousy, the Torah writes פן תנקש אחריהם, "do not be ensnared to follow after them, i.e. as Rashi wrote "do not commit the same stupid mistake as they did when they engaged in this form of worship but remember I have already killed these people as a sign that I abhor such practices." Concerning the second faulty conclusion by the witness of the destruction of these pagans, i.e. that their form of worship was inappropriate in the first place and that something of that nature does not come under the heading of idol worship at all, and that therefore it would not bother G'd, the Torah writes ופן תדרש לאלוהיהם, "and do not speculate about what constitutes proper idol worship by concluding that the nature of the obeisance determines what is true idolatry. This is what is meant by איכה יעבדו הגוים, "in what manner the pagans perform their idolatrous practices." The word איכה is not a question as we thought at first; it is part of a statement expressing amazement by the onlooker who could not fathom that something so undignified could possibly be classified as worship. Moses continues ואעשה כן גם אני, "and I shall do likeweise," to show what such faulty reasoning can lead to when a Jew wishes to express his disdain for an idol by excreting before it, for instance. The Torah warns not to do something of that nature.

Moses continues (verse 31) לא תעשה כן לשםה אלוקיך, "do not do so to the Lord your G'd, etc." concerning the first error we mentioned, i.e. to indulge in the substantive kind of worship the pagans engaged in, but in order to honour our G'd with such practices. The Torah tells us that we are wrong to assume that their form of worship was acceptable but not the address, by writing "for everything these people have done is an abomination which G'd hates." G'd's jealousy was not aroused by the fact that an aesthetically superior form of worship was lavished on idols instead of on Him, but even the form of their worship is an abomination in His eyes. In order to illustrate that these people had no idea of what constitutes an acceptable form of worship in G'd's eyes it suffices to remind the Israelites that they indulged in sacrificing their own children to such so-called gods. Concerning the second erroneous conclusion, that these forms of worship were of no consequence per se, the Torah explains that the form of worship is hateful to G'd, that "G'd hates everything these people did for their deities." G'd does not need to explain to us why a certain kind of activity is considered an abomination in His eyes. G'd did not explain to us why it is forbidden to marry two sisters while both are alive, although the principle of marrying both sisters itself is not taboo. Similarly, G'd does not owe us an accounting why He considers that something which may appear harmless and of no consequence in our eyes is hateful in His eyes.

In 13,1, the last verse in this passage, Moses continues: את כל הדבר, "the entire word," thus justifying both the commandment not "to subtract" nor "to add" to the commandment but to observe it precisely as written. The expression "do not add" concerns not adding pagan practices when we serve our G'd for whatever aesthetic reasons we think up. The words "do not subtract from it" refer to excluding the inconsequential forms of worship of the pagans from what is forbidden to us. Everything is part of the overall prohibition of idolatry and all that is connected to it.

פן תנקש [TAKE HEED TO THYSELF] LEST THOU BE SNARED — Onkelos renders תנקש as an expression of the same root and meaning as מוקש, a snare. But I say that he was not particular to examine carefully the expression, for we never find a נ in the term that means to snare, not even as a root letter that is sometimes omitted from it; but in the term denoting movement from place to place and knocking we do find a נ, as in (Daniel 5:6) “and his knees knocked (נקש) one against the other”. Here, too, I say that פן תנקש means lest thou run after them so that you cling to their doings. Similar is (Psalms 109:11) “Let the creditor be מנקש to all that he has” — he (the speaker) is cursing the wicked that he may have many creditors and that these may go about running after his money.

TAKE HEED TO THYSELF THAT THOU BE NOT ENSNARED TO FOLLOW THEM, AFTER THEY ARE DESTROYED FROM BEFORE THEE. “After you see that I destroy them from before you, [you should] pay attention as to why these [nations] were destroyed — because of their corrupt practices. So you too, should not do the same so that others should not come and destroy you.” This is Rashi’s language. And if so, this verse becomes an admonition and warning against idol-worship. And Rashi also wrote on the expression [in the verse before us]: “How did these nations serve their gods, even so will I do likewise. Because Scripture has punished idolatry only for sacrificing, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing down, as it is written, [He that sacrificeth unto the gods] save unto the Eternal only, [shall be utterly destroyed,⁹³Exodus 22:19. thus establishing the penalty only for those] acts which are performed in the service of G-d, therefore it comes and teaches you here that if the method of worshipping a [particular] idol was something other [than the four ways specified above,] — for example, excreting to [Baal] Peor or throwing a stone to Merkulis, this being its customary manner of worship — he is liable [to the death penalty]. One is also liable for [worshipping any idol whatever, in any one of the four specified ways] sacrificing, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing down even if it is not the customary way.” Thus far Rashi’s language. But this is not correct, for the [following] verse states, Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy G-d.⁹⁴Verse 31. If so, the verse [before us] is not an admonition against worshipping their gods, [for it would be incongruous to follow this prohibition with an admonition not to worship G-d] but only that we should not worship the Glorious G-d⁹⁵Further, 28:58. with their forms of worship, just as he gave the reason, for every abomination to the Eternal, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods etc.⁹⁴Verse 31.
Rather, the meaning of this section is as follows: Up to here he has commanded many times that when we come into the Land we are to uproot the idols and their appurtenances, and destroy their names, and he further commanded that we do this immediately upon dispossessing the nations. Now he stated that when the Eternal will cut off these nations from before us, and the names of the idols will be forgotten in the Land, and we shall dwell in their land securely, we should not think in our hearts thus: “Now G-d has cut away from before us the worshippers of other gods because they gave honor and reverential service to [the idols, which are] the work of men’s hands.⁹⁶Psalms 135:15. And it is not proper to give His glory to another, neither His praise to graven images,⁹⁷Isaiah 42:8. for so He prohibited sacrificing, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing down, save unto the Eternal only,⁹³Exodus 22:19. and it is customary among kings that anyone who glorifies himself with their honor, putting the crown on his own head or wearing the royal raiment like kings there is one law for him, that he be put to death.⁹⁸Esther 4:11. If so, I will do unto the Glorious Name⁹⁵Further, 28:58. just as the nations did to their gods and it will be pleasing unto Him.” Therefore he warned, Thou shalt not do so,⁹⁴Verse 31. for they would do to their gods things that are abominable to Him. He did not prohibit them [these ways with which they worshipped the idols] because of those acts that are reputable and appropriate to be done before G-d alone [i.e. sacrificing, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing down]; rather, because of the intent they had in performing them to serve idols [they had to be prohibited]. For even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods,⁹⁴Verse 31. it being an abominable thing before G-d to shed innocent blood,⁹⁹Isaiah 59:7. and all the more to be cruel and have no pity on the fruit of the womb.¹⁰⁰Ibid., 13:18. [Hence any form of service instituted by people capable of such cruelty is considered an abomination by G-d and no ceremony of theirs is to be adopted by us.] Therefore, he stated All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do,¹⁰¹Further, 13:1. the reference being to the performance of the offerings and the Service in the Sanctuary that thou art not to add thereto, nor diminish from it.¹⁰¹Further, 13:1. This is in truth the purport of this section.
Our Rabbis, however, have deduced¹⁰²Sanhedrin 60b. See my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 6-8. from here that for worshipping an idol in its normal manner, one is always guilty even if he excreted to [Baal] Peor, [an act that would be an expression of contempt everywhere except in the temple of Peor]. The principle is derived from the expression, how did these nations serve their gods?,¹⁰³In Verse 30 before us. teaching that if it is considered “worship” in terms of that [idol] it is included in the prohibition nor shalt thou serve them.¹⁰⁴Exodus 20:5. But if he throws a stone at [Baal] Peor [which is a manner of worship peculiar only to Merkulis] or even if it be some manifestation of respect, such as sweeping or sprinkling [before the idol] he is not guilty of a capital offense [since that is not a mode of “worship”].
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, he warned at the beginning of the section, Ye shall not do so unto the Eternal your G-d¹⁰⁵Above, Verse 4. meaning that we are not to worship Him like [they worship] the gods of the nations upon the high mountains¹⁰⁶Ibid., Verse 2. with offerings to Him, and now in this section he warned, Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy G-d⁹⁴Verse 31. — to worship Him in His Sanctuary with their manners of worship.

ואעשה כן גם אני, that I will serve the Lord in Heaven, my G’d, but by imitating the mode of worship practiced by the people whom G’d drove out on my account.

פן תנקש, as in Psalms 109,11 ינקש נושה, “the creditor will seize,” or as in Daniel 5,6 דא לדא נקשן, “knocked against one another.” (the knees) You are not to move in order to follow them (spiritually).

איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה את אלוהיהם ואעשה כן גם אני, “how did these nations serve their respective gods, and I will do the same.” Nachmanides, disagreeing with Rashi who sees in these words a warning, writes that these words must not be understood as a warning by Moses not to engage in idolatry. The prohibition not to engage in idolatrous practices had been spelled out often enough. Rather, it is a warning to the people not to adapt heathen forms of worship and apply them to the worship of G’d, as the rituals and pomp and ceremony of the heathens appeals to them, and they thought that all that was wrong with it was that it had been directed at the wrong address. Moses stresses that everything connected to idolatry is a תועבה, an abomination, in the eyes of Hashem.

After you observe when I have annihilated them before you, etc. Rashi found this verse difficult, for its simple meaning implies: Only after the Canaanite nations have been annihilated then you are warned not to be torn apart along with them [i.e., not to follow in their ways], but not beforehand! Therefore, Rashi explains, “After you observe, etc.”

V. 30. נקש .פן תנקש וגו׳ dürfte lautverwandt mit נגש, eine starke Hinbewegung zu einer Person bedeuten. Daher נקש etwas mit Gewalt an sich bringen, ינקש נשה כל אשר לו (Ps.109,11), וינקשו מבקשי נפשי (daselbst 38. 13; — vergl. נגשׂ, auf jemanden eindringen, jemandem zu Leibe gehen). Daher הִנָקִש zu jemandem hingezogen werden. So auch שמא תמשך אחריהם :ספרי. Vielleicht wohnt dieser Wurzel ebenso wie נגשׂ der Hinblick auf einen wirklichen oder vermeintlichen Rechtsgrund inne. Ihr dürftet euch als dem Lande und seinen durch euch vertriebenen früheren Bewohnern gegenüber gleichsam in Schuld verfallen begreifen, dürftet in dem Wahn befangen werden, ihr müsstet in ihrem Lande ihre Lebensweise fortsetzen. Jedenfalls wird im ספרי das פן תנקש אחריהם als ein selbständiges, von dem folgenden gesondertes Verbot begriffen und darin allgemein eine Nachahmung ihrer spezifischen Sitten untersagt, ähnlich wie ובחקתיהם לא תלכו. (Wajikra 18, 3; — siehe daselbst S. 364 f.).

אחרי השמדם מפניך [TAKE HEED THAT THOU BE NOT SNARED] (according to Rashi, THAT THOU DO NOT RUN AFTER THEM) AFTER THAT THEY BE EXTERMINATED BEFORE THEE — The meaning is: after you see that I exterminate them from before you, you ought to pay attention to why these were exterminated — because of the depraved doings which they practiced. Consequently you should not act likewise lest others come and exterminate you (cf. Sifrei Devarim 81:3).

For example, exposing oneself for the sake of Peor, etc. I.e., exposing the anus towards it and defecating. This is the manner of Peor’s worship.

ופן תדרש וגו׳ איכה יעבדו וגו׳. Dieses Verbot umfaßt die Verehrung heidnischer Gottheiten in der einer jeden derselben von deren Verehrern speziell zuerkannten Weise. Das Gesetz unterscheidet nämlich: עבודת פנים, die dem einzig Einen in Seinem Heiligtume darzubringen vorgeschriebenen Huldigungsweisen, wie המזבח והמקטר והמנסך ומשתחוה, wer diese irgend einem anderen Wesen zuwendet, ist straffällig, selbst, wenn dasselbe sonst von seinen Anbetern nicht in dieser Weise verehrt wird, אפי׳ שלא כדרכו. Alle anderen Verehrungsweisen machen nur כדרכו straffällig, d. h. wenn die ע׳׳ז, der sie zugewandt worden, sonst von ihren Anbetern in dieser Weise verehrt wird, wenn sie dem איכה ׳יעבדו וגו unseres Textes entsprechen (Sanhedrin 60 b; — siehe Schmot 22, 119).

איכה יעבדו HOW DID [THESE NATIONS] SERVE [THEIR GODS? EVEN SO WILL I DO LIKEWISE] — Because Scripture has laid down a punishment for idolatrous worship only in the case of sacrifice, offering incense, libation and prostration, as it is written (Exodus 22:19), “[He that sacrifices unto any god] save unto the Lord only [shall be doomed to death]” — which thus puts under the death penalty only kinds of worship that are performed in honor of the Most High God (i.e. such as have characteristics similar to “sacrifice”; cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:19), Scripture comes and teaches you here that if the usual way of worshiping any idol is by some other rite, as e.g., that one exposes himself in front of Baal Peor, or casts a stone before Mercury — then this is its cult and one who performs it is therefore liable to the death penalty, but for sacrifice, offering incense, libation and prostration one becomes liable to the death penalty even though this be not the usual way of worshiping it (Sanhedrin 60b).

כי גם את בניהם FOR ALSO THEIR SONS [AND THEIR DAUGHTERS HAVE THEY BURNT IN THE FIRE TO THEIR GOD] — The word גם, “also”, is intended to include amongst those they used to burn, their parents also. R. Akiba related, “I once saw a heathen who bound his father before his dog which thereupon devoured him” (Sifrei Devarim 81:6).

כי כל תועבת ה' אשר שנא עשו לאלוהיהם, for even the manner in which they worshipped their idols is largely completely abhorrent in the eyes of the Lord.

כי גם את בניהם ואת בנותיהם ישרפו באש לאלוהיהם, “for they even burn their sons and daughters by fire in honour of their gods.” Clearly, it must be an abomination to G’d to have His creatures burned when they are free from sin. Moses, in insisting that the Israelites observe כל הדברים all the words that he had commanded them, warns that they must neither add so-called “improvements” of their own, nor must they abolish part of the ritual G’d had commanded them. Our sages (Sanhedrin 60) derive from this verse that one is culpable for worshipping idolatry even when one does so in a manner which is most disrespectful according to our mores, seeing it is the method such deities are being worshipped by those believing in them. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Moses warns at the beginning of the verse: “you must not do so to (or even for) the Lord your G’d,” i e. to worship G’d as they do, on every hill, and in every valley. Neither must you convert such sites to henceforth serve as houses of worship for Hashem.

Before his dog, who then ate him. כלבו (his dog) was his god. ואכלו (and ate him) is the equivalent of burning in fire. With this understanding, the words of R’ Akiva are a proof to Rashi’s explanation [regarding the word, “Even.”].

V. 31. לא תעשה כן וגו׳. Nicht nur ihren Göttern darfst du solche Verehrungsweisen nicht zuwenden, sondern selbst deinem Gott, dem einen Einzigen sie in vermeintlicher Verehrung zuzuwenden, ist Verbrechen. Denn der Sinn ihrer Götterverehrungen steht in geradem Gegensatz zu dem deinem Gotte Wohlgefälligen, wie dein Gott die gerade Verneinung ihrer Götter ist. Dein Gott ist ein Gott des Lebens, und Todesgötter sind die Götter ihres Wahns. An Vernichtung weiden sich die Götter ihres Wahns, Erhebung und Lebensverjüngung ist das Wohlgefallen deines Gottes.

אשר שנא, “which He hates;” He hates these rituals even if you employ them in order to serve Him;” it would enrage him.

That is that He commanded us with the process of the burnt-offering sacrifice. And that is that every burnt-offering sacrifice - whether it be the sacrifice of an individual or of the community - be according to this and that stipulation and according to this description. And that is His saying, "a man - when one of you offers [...]. If his sacrifice is a burnt-offering, etc." (Leviticus 1:2-3). (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 7.)

That is that He commanded us to bring all of the sacrifices that are incumbent upon one during the first holiday of the three pilgrim holidays that we encounter, such that none of the three pilgrim holidays pass without each one of us sacrificing any sacrifice that he is obligated. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and there shall you come. And there you shall bring" (Deuteronomy 12:5-6). And the content of this command is that it is saying that when you come there - and that is on each of the holidays of the three pilgrim holidays - you are obligated to bring every sacrifice incumbent upon you. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 63:4-5) is, "'And there shall you come. And there you shall bring.' Why is it stated? To make them obligatory on the first holiday that he encounters." And there, it says, "He is not in transgression of 'you shall not delay' (Deuteronomy 23:22) until all three of the pilgrim holidays of the whole entire year have passed him by." This means to say that he has transgressed a negative commandment [only] after three pilgrim holidays have passed him by, and he has not brought [them]. However when one holiday passed him by, he has surely violated a positive commandment. And in the Gemara, Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashanah 4b), [it says,] "Rabbi Meir says, 'Once [even] one holiday has passed, one transgresses, "you shall not delay."'" And it is said there, "And Rabbi Meir, what is his reason? As it is written, 'and there shall you come. And there you shall bring.' But the Rabbis [reason, this verse only] comes to [indicate] a positive commandment." Behold it has already been explained there that His saying, "and there shall you come. And there you shall bring," is a positive commandment. And that is that he bring all that He is obligated from God's laws and dispose of them on each and every holiday. And whether it is any of the types of sacrifices, monies, appraisals, consecrations, gleanings (leket), forgotten sheaves or corner produce (peah) - the dispensation of one's obligation with any of these on the first holiday that he encounters is a positive commandment, as is explained in the Gemara, Rosh Hashanah. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 14.)

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

That is that He commanded us to bring any sin-offering, burnt-offering, guilt-offering and peace-offerings, which we are obligated, to the [Temple]. And even when, they are outside of the Land - meaning to say, we became obligated for them outside of the Land - we are surely obligated to bring them to the [Temple]. And that is His saying, "But your consecrated things as you may have, etc." (Deuteronomy 12:26). And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 77:1-2) is, "'Your consecrated things' - [...] rather it must be speaking of consecrations outside of the Land. 'Shall you bear and you shall come' - this teaches that he must care for what he brought until he brings it to the Temple." And they decided there that this is actually regarding the sin-offerings, burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings [and peace-offerings] that each person is obligated. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 10.)

That is that He commanded us to redeem consecrated animals which have developed blemishes, such that it becomes mundane and permissible to slaughter and eat it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat" (Deuteronomy 12:15). And the language of the Sifrei is, "'But whenever you desire' - it is only speaking about consecrated items that were disqualified and are to be redeemed." And the [laws] of this commandment - meaning the redemption of consecrated items - have already been explained in Tractate Bekhorot, Terumah and in various places in Chullin, Arakhin and Meilah. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 1.)