diff --git "a/txt/Tanakh/Rishonim on Tanakh/Abarbanel/Abarbanel on Torah/English/merged.txt" "b/txt/Tanakh/Rishonim on Tanakh/Abarbanel/Abarbanel on Torah/English/merged.txt" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/txt/Tanakh/Rishonim on Tanakh/Abarbanel/Abarbanel on Torah/English/merged.txt" @@ -0,0 +1,5315 @@ +Abarbanel on Torah +אברבנאל על תורה +merged +https://www.sefaria.org/Abarbanel_on_Torah +This file contains merged sections from the following text versions: +-Sefaria Community Translation +-https://www.sefaria.org +-Etzion VBM +-http://etzion.org.il/en/lecture-23-abarbanel +-Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009 +-https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002691623 +-YU Torah miTzion Beit Midrash +-http://www.torontotorah.com +-The Biblical Exegesis of Don Isaac Abrabanel. PhD thesis by Dr. David E. Cohen, University of London, 2015 +-http://sefaria.org + +Abarbanel on Torah + +Genesis + +Introduction + + + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Verse 1 + +..."In the beginning G-d created" until "The first day" I see in these verses the following questions to raise +The first question is on the verse of "In the beginning G-d created" etc. And that is, if the verse comes to relay the order of the creation... +...The first question is in the verse "in the beginning God created" etc. It is that if the text was coming to tell the order of the creation and what came before, why would it say that the First created heaven and earth. For in them you will find that which physically exists above and below. If all this was created in the beginning, what was it that was created afterward? And the commentators ... this in the saying that the text did not come to tell us the order of creation ... You should say: in the beginning of God's creation of Heaven and Earth, the Land was Void and Nothing. This is the way of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Ralbag is close to them if not that he makes ... with the saying "let there be light." The text speaks according to its thought "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth and the Earth was Void and Nothingness ... God said let there be light." This explanation does not appear entirely correct with me because it would it would obligate that the text ... On the first intention creation to Heaven and Earth that is the essence ... and its faith. + +Chapter 2 + + + +Chapter 3 + + + +Verse 1 + +That the tree was good for food. She saw that the serpent himself ate of it with no ill effects. And she also gave it to her husband. The fruit had the effect of increasing one’s passions; therefore it was important to her that he eat of it as well. This passage illustrates the dangers of treating Hashem’s commandments as a subject for philosophical inquiry. + +Chapter 4 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +She gave birth … to … Hevel. “Vanity.” Hevel sought dominion over others, which is why he chose to be a sheperd. Kayin, on the other hand, desired material possessions, and because he lacked fear of Heaven he was unconcerned about the curse upon the soil. + +Chapter 5 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Chapter 6 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + +Adonoy was comforted (or “repented”). That is, it would have appeared to a human observer that He repented.
That He had made man. Note that it does not say that He repented that He created man, but only that He made him — i.e. that He allowed him to become so numerous. Hashem knew from the start that a creature made of earth could only be brought to perfection after much tending and pruning.
Adonoy said. He said it to Mesushelach and Noach who had been charged with rebuking and forewarning the people. + +Chapter 7 + + + +Chapter 8 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +... Without a doubt, as Noach and his children left the boat they were desolate, grieving for the past, ‎and fearful, frightened of the future. This was for four reasons: 1. They mourned the death of their ‎relatives and friends, all of their intimates … 2. They were fearful, frightened of the predatory ‎beasts. When they had been in a political body before, then when a beast came, as in an ambush, ‎many people gathered to kill it … 3. They were anxious, saying, “What shall we eat? We lack the ‎tree fruit which were given as food for Adam, and we lack fruit of the land from which to eat … 4. ‎They feared lest strife and quarrels befall brothers, and lest they kill each other as Kayin had killed ‎Hevel … ‎And when G-d saw that they were desolate for the past and anxious for the future, He addressed ‎their hearts regarding each of these four matters, and He blessed them in ways that matched each ‎of the thoughts in their hearts [in Bereishit 9:1-7].‎ For the first [thought], the lack of relatives and friends who had died in the flood, He told them, ‎‎“Bear fruit and multiply and fill the land.” Meaning: You shall generate relatives and friends from ‎your progeny, and they will be more lovingly loyal than strangers. It is as though He had said, “I will ‎give you great procreative capacity, so that the land will quickly fill up with your children.”‎ For the second thought, their fear of predatory beasts, He said, “And your fear and terror will be ‎upon all of the beasts of the land, and all of the birds of the heavens.” For the human form has a ‎natural domination and authority over all living creatures… “In your hand they have been placed,” ‎meaning to say that [the animals] had acquired humility and domestication before human beings ‎on the boat, and this would remain.‎‏ ‏For the third thought, the lack of food, He said, “All crawling ‎creatures that live are for you to eat,” as if to say, “If you lack fruit to eat, take your food from the ‎living.”…‎‏ ‏And for the fourth thought, their fear of themselves lest they kill each other, He said, “But ‎only, your blood for your lives I will demand.”‎ + +Chapter 9 + + + +Verse 1 + +...And since they would learn the trait of cruelty from their killing animals in order to eat them, it forbade them [eating] a limb from a live animal, which is an even greater cruelty. And this is its statement, "But you may not eat meat in its soul (benafsho), its blood." And the [letter] bet, of benafsho is used in the place of "with," as in (Exodus 14:18), berikhvo oveparashav (with his chariot and with his riders)"; and (Exodus 15:20), "betupim ouvimacholot (with drums and with dances)." [Hence] the verse is saying, when the soul - its blood - is in it, do not eat from the meat. And this is a truly straight and true explanation... + +Chapter 10 + + + +Chapter 11 + + + +Chapter 12 + + + +Verse 1 + +I already recalled in the order of Genesis and the order of Noah as well that the Torah of God recalls three beginnings for the Israelite nation. The first ... was the first Adam. + + + + + +The 5th question: Why did the Lord Blessed be He not reveal the essential intention of this. ... +...The 6th question: What is the meaning of "you will be a blessing." +...7th question: + +Verse 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +...Though having said 'and there will be blessing through you all of the families of the land and in your seed'. I will say that in this way God explained to hi the purpose of the leaving which He commanded him. And that is that because of him they will be blessed and influenced and  many nations will come to learn about God for as he calls out in God's name they will recognize the truth through him... +...but the purpose of the journey was hinted to him in the words 'and there will be a blessing' that God commanded him that when he goes there will be a blessing among the nations in their learning (about God) and in his informing them (the nations) of the true faith in a way that the world will be perfected through him. And God informed him that his special care for the world will be contagious as others will take his Torah and learn of his faith. And on this the Torah states 'I will bless those who bless you', meaning those who bless and praise you--those who are inclined to your discipline of God and those who accept your faith, I will bless them and make their lives better. + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + +As he came near. Avraham did not employ this subterfuge when he entered Canaan because he came there at God’s command and was confident that God would protect him. + +Chapter 13 + + + +Chapter 14 + + + +Chapter 15 + + + +Chapter 16 + + + +Chapter 17 + + + +Chapter 18 + + + +Chapter 19 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + +He lived in a cave. He was embarrassed to face Avraham, who had separated from him, so he told his daughters that the entire world was destroyed. + +Chapter 20 + + + +Chapter 21 + + + +Verse 1 + + +The first question is about the repetition, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken" (Genesis 21:1). And Rashi explained (Rashi on Genesis 21:1) [that] "He took account of Sarah as He had said," is about the conception; and "the Lord did to Sarah," is about the birth. But this is not correct; as once He informed her, it is [already] known that she would give birth. And the Ramban wrote that the content of, "take account (pakad)," is remembered, and that it is an expression that is common with barren women - as it is written (Genesis 30:22), "And God remembered Rachel"; and, with Channah, "and the Lord remembered her" (I Samuel 1:19). And this too is not correct. For Sarah was not forgotten, that it should be required to say about her that He remembered her. As behold, the angel had made knows that she would give birth and specified a time limit when she would give birth. And as a result, there was no forgetting about her. Moreover, the content of the expression, (pakad), is not, remembered. And the testimony [about this] is, "I have surely taken account of (pekod pakadati) you and that which is being done to you in Egypt" (Exodus 3:16). But they had not been forgotten there; and all the more so is forgetting not relevant to that which was done to them everyday! +The second question is about its stating (Genesis 21:2), "and Sarah bore Avraham a son in his old age." And is it not [the case] that we would have known that she bore him in his old age? As it will be stated after this (Genesis 21:5), "Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak his son was born to him." And, as a result, its stating, "in his old age," is superfluous here and there is no need for it at all. +The third question is that which the Ran asked: Why did Avraham not call his son with the name, Yitzchak, on the day of his circumcision, but rather called him so on the day of his birth. As behold, the name is given and conferred with the people, and this was always done in Israel previously. So why did he hurry to call him his name on the day of his birth? +The fourth question is about its stating (Genesis 21:5), "And Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak his son was born to him." And this is difficult, since we know his elderly age! As he was circumcised when he was 99 years old, and it was said to him then that Sarah will give birth in the next year at that time. All the more so [is it difficult] since this verse comes out of its place, after the mention of the name and the circumcision, whereas it would have been appropriate to mention it adjacent to the birth. +The fifth question is about the statement (Genesis 21:6), "God has made laughter for me, all who hear of it will laugh for me," whereas it did not mention a word from Avraham, given that the strangeness and the laughter is also on his part. It is as it is written (Genesis 17:17), "To a hundred-year-old man shall there be [children] born, or shall ninety-year-old Sarah give birth?" As there, the impediment [to having children] is from both of them. +The sixth question is about that which she said (Genesis 21:7), "Who declared to Avraham." And that is because this statement comes out of its place; and also because she should not have wondered who declared [it] to Avraham - since the Holy One, blessed be He, as well as the angel, declared this to Avraham. And Rashi wrote (Rashi on Genesis 21:7) that, "Who declared," is as a praise, hinting to the Holy One, blessed be He. But the Ramban objected to this, since he only found the word, "who," as disparagement: "Who is Avimelekh and who is Shekhem" (Judges 9:28); "who is David and who is the son of Jesse" (I Samuel 25:10). But I wondered about his words, as it appears that he forgot, "Raise your eyes and see Who created these" (Isaiah 40:26); "Who bore these for me [...] and who has brought these up" (Isaiah 49:21); "Who is the One coming from Edom" (Isaiah 63:1); "Who is she that shines through like the dawn" (Song of Songs 6:10), and many like these. +The seventh question: Why did Avraham make a great banquet on the day of Yitzchak's weaning, and not on the day of the birth or on the day of the circumcision, as is our custom today? And the Ran wrote that it then looked as if the youth was healthy and strong and had passed the dangers of infancy. But this is not correct. As Avraham had known that Yitzchak would become healthy and become strong; and he believed God, that 'for it is through Yitzchak that his seed will be called.' +The eighth question: Why did the righteous Sarah seek to expel Yishmael from the house of his father, when she knew that Avraham loved him like a father who desires [his] son. +The ninth question: Why did Sarah request that Avraham also expel the maidservant, [together] with her son? For if Yishmael sinned in that he laughed, what was Hagar's sin? And the reason that Sarah gave concerning the inheritance relates to Yishmael, not to his mother, Hagar. All the more so [is it difficult], since the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with this in His saying (Genesis 29:12) "all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice." +The tenth question: What is this, that the angel of God called to Hagar and spoke with her, when she was not suited for prophecy? And behold the first time that the angel spoke with her (Genesis 16:7-8), it was for the sake of Avraham, to return her to his house; since she had fled from there. But here it would have been enough for God to open her eyes, as He did, and she would have seen the well and given the youth to drink from it. And if the speech was on account of the youth, who was a son of Avraham, why did the angel not speak to the youth himself - as he was already seventeen years old or more - but rather speak to Hagar the Egyptian? And behold I will explain the verses of this section in such a way that all of these questions will be solved. +And the Lord took account of Sarah, etc. [until] and Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian (Genesis 21:1-9): Since it stated above (Genesis 20:18) that, "The Lord surely sealed every womb in the house of Avimelekh for the matter of Sarah, the wife of Avraham," it juxtaposed it to, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - meaning to say that the Lord sealed up her enemies, but took account of her, that she should give birth when she was barren. And [the Sages,] may their memory be blessed, said that one who prays for the sake of his fellow is first answered himself. And so it was that since Avraham prayed for Avimelekh, the Lord took account of Sarah his wife. And the expression, taking account (pekidah) is truthfully, visiting and paying attention, as in "I have surely taken account of (pekod pakadati) you and that which is being done to you in Egypt" (Exodus 3:16). For it is since they thought that He, may He be blessed, was not paying attention to them that He said this. And this is like, "and Shimshon took account of his wife with goat clothing" (Judges 15:1); "Lord, in distress did they take account of You." Until on account of this did [people] call those counted, pekudim, and those counting them, pokedim. And the explanation of this verse is that the angel of God had said in God's name, "I will surely return to you next year" (Genesis 18:10). And the content of this returning and this coming is the benefit that He will give him a son from Sarah. For the action indicates the presence of the actor; and since the action was here, the Actor was [also] here. And that is why it is stated (Joshua 6:27), "And the Lord was with Yehoshua"; "And the Lord was with Yosef" (Genesis 39:2) - in that His goodness and His attention was with him. And that is the meaning of, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - that He payed attention to her matter and that which He had forecast for her. But since there is a taking account for the good and a taking account for the bad - as He stated (Exodus 32:24), "but on the day of My taking account, I will take account" - it was necessary to explain here that the taking account of Sarah was when "the Lord did to her like He had spoken," when He gave her the son that He had forecast to her. And He did not mention that He took account of Avraham for [the following reason]: Because the retention and the pregnancy is with the woman; also because the thing was stranger and more difficult from the perspective of Sarah than it was from the perspective of Avraham. And it is [also] possible to explain, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said," by giving her seed, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken" - that He gave her a male child, and not a daughter. And his name was called Yitzchak, because that is what He said to her. However, from the perspective of Avraham, it said, "And Sarah conceived and bore Avraham a son in his old age" - meaning to say that she gave birth to the son mentioned from him even with all of his age. And that is the reason for its stating, "in his old age." As it did not say it to denote the time at which she gave birth, but rather to say that also this kindness and this taking account - from the perspective of his being elderly - was done for him. And it is also possible that this is to say that Yitzchak would be the child of his old age, and that is a child that helps his father and serves him; so he would need him for his old age. And with this explanation, it is indicated that its stating, "At the set-time of which God had spoken" - that this is the mention of the time at which he was born; not that which it says, "in his old age." And two questions are solved with this, the first and the second. +And Scripture recounted with this that Avraham did two things: The first is that he called the name of his son that was born to him, Yitzchak. And note its saying, "that was born to him, to which Sarah had borne to him, Yitzchak" - as behold two messages come to inform us that he called his name Yitzchak, from two perspectives: Whether from the perspective of his being elderly, such that he would laugh and rejoice with him - and about this, it stated, "that was born to him." Or whether from the perspective of Sarah, for her being elderly - and about that, it stated, "to which Sarah had borne to him." And if we don't explain it like this, there would be great superfluity in this verse. As there is no doubt that it would be appropriate that it [otherwise] only say, "And he called his name Yitzchak." And the second thing that he did is that Avraham circumcised his son, Yitzchak. And its saying, "eight days old," appears to me to refer to both things together - to the calling of the name and to his entering the covenant (his circumcision). As he did both of these things when the child was eight days old. And it gave the reason for all of this by saying, "like that which (keasher) God had commanded him." For behold, the kaf used for comparison in the word, keasher, is not coming to make known how he did this, but rather that he did it because God commanded him. And it stated this to say that even with Yitzchak being very beloved to his father, since he did not come to him according to the natural fashion - such that because of this, it would have been appropriate for him to be afraid to give him over to the danger of circumcision, given that he was tender and the only one to his mother - behold that Avraham did not consider this to be anything in comparison to the fulfillment of God's commandment that He commanded him regarding the calling of his name and the commandment of circumcision. And that is the meaning of its saying, "like that which (keasher) God had commanded him." And the Ramban wrote that he called his name Yitzchak on the day he was born, since he was commanded about it and the time of the commandment came with his birth, whereas the time of the circumcision was eight days; and that is what he did. But that which I wrote is what is more correct. And with this, the third question is solved. +And behold it juxtaposed this to, "And Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak his son was born to him." This may have been to connect it to what was above it - that even though he was a hundred years old, he circumcised this child of his old age at eight days in order to fulfill the commandment of his Creator. And in these verse, it always has the word, "his son," adjacent to "Yitzchak," to teach that he was the main son in his eyes, not Yishmael, as will be explained. But it is also possible to explain that this verse is coming as an introduction to recount the praise of Sarah and her comprehension: For even though Avraham called the name of his son Yitzchak from his own perspective and the perspective of his wife, as I explained, and that Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak was born for him, such that it was very strange concerning him that she gave birth - behold she did not relate this strangeness to Avraham at all, but rather [only] to herself, in saying, "God has made laughter for me, all who hear of it will laugh for me." Meaning to say, that there was no laughter from his perspective but only from her perspective. And it is possible that it repeats, "all who hear of it will laugh for me," to say that they will laugh about me - because she laughed at the announcement of the angel. And with this, the fourth and fifth questions are solved. +However, for me, the matter of it stating, "Who declared to Avraham," is that when Sarah saw that besides the birth, God also acted magnificently to do kindness with her in that which He gave her milk in her breasts to nurse her son - as this is not frequently found in nature that old women are sufficiently supplied with blood that is suitable for the fetus and that this blood should come to the breasts, such that nourishment be formed from it for the newborn - hence when they saw that she did not have withered breasts but full breasts to nurse him, she said this other statement, "Who declared to Avraham that Sarah would nurse children." Meaning to say, behold the Holy One, blessed be He, announced the birth to Avraham, but He did not say [anything about] the nursing and He did not inform them [of it]. That is the meaning of, "Who declared to Avraham" - as neither God, nor an angel nor anyone in the world told Avraham that it would be possible for Sarah to nurse children now that she gave birth to a son in his old age. And there is no doubt that God, may He be blessed, did this kindness for the honor of Yitzchak, such that he not nurse from the breasts of foreign women, daughters of Canaan. Alternatively, its explanation could be that I know "Who declared to Avraham that Sarah would nurse children" - given that He declared to him that I would give birth to a son in his old age. And to mark this miracle, Scripture stated, "The child grew and was weaned" - meaning to say, that [even] with Sarah's milk being thin and little, in the way of old women, behold the child grew and was weaned. For her milk did not stop until she weaned him. And because of that great miracle, Avraham made a banquet on the day of Yitzchak's weaning, to give thanks to his God for this miracle. And that is why he did not make a banquet for the birth or for the circumcision - since he was already informed about it - but he rather [made it] for the weaning and the growth and the nursing which was not told to him. And with this, the sixth and seventh questions have been solved. And the Ran wrote that Avraham did not make a banquet until the day that [Yitzchak] was weaned because an infant continues to face dangers while he is nursing from his mother's breasts. But that which I wrote myself is more correct. + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + +And Sarah saw [until] And it was at that time (Genesis 21:9-22) Scripture mentioned that Sarah saw Yishmael laugh and that it was bad in her eyes. Maybe he was laughing because of the banquet that they were making on the day that Yitzchak was weaned. So that [would be] the connection of the verses and that is why no section [break] came between them; and [the reason] that Sarah said that since the son of the maidservant would not inherit with her son, what is the need for him to dwell in her home, mocking her good deeds? It would be better for Avraham to drive him out from his home and that he go to grow up in a different land. But since he was a youth, she said that his mother should go with him. Not to drive her out personally or for a sin that she had sinned, but rather that she go with her son to guide him in what he should do. And this explanation is according to the commentators. However what is correct in my eyes is that when Yitzchak was nursing from his mother's breasts [and he was] in borderline neonatal danger, Sarah did not request that he drive out the maidservant and her son. As there is no doubt that Avraham would have difficulty abandoning his definite son, Yishmael - a grown man of full stature - for the question mark that Yitzchak was while he was nursing from curdled milk. But after Yitzchak grew in his years and in his stature and was like everyone [else], it was appropriate for Avraham to grab hold of him as the son who would inherit him; to abandon the shell and cling to the fruit. And because of this, when Sarah saw that the son of Hagar - meaning the son of the maidservant, since that is why it did not call him the son of Avraham, but rather the son of Hagar, to his disgrace - playing at home like an only son in the home that he will inherit, like he was before the birth of Yitzchak; that he was very beloved in the eyes of his father; and that all the members of the household would serve him and gladden him as it was when she adopted him, she was concerned about this. For she thought that it would be fitting that Yitzchak should laugh and that Yishmael should serve him. But since Yishmael was already established in the home for many years and she could not remove him from his established position, it was right in her eyes that he should not continue to dwell in the home. And behold she insisted on this, since Hagar had given birth to him for Avraham, so it was possible that Yishmael would in the end say that he was also the son of Avraham and that it was fitting that both of them would be equal in the inheritance. For the property was Avraham's and, from his perspective, both of them were sons and equal. And that is the reason for its saying, "whom she had borne to Avraham, laughing." Since from that perspective - that Hagar had borne him to Avraham - there was a doubt about the inheritance. +And the Ramban (Ramban on Genesis 21:10) wrote that the expulsion of Hagar was not intended for itself. And the testimony is [Sarah saying], "for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit." However it mentioned Hagar in the expulsion, because the youth could not leave his mother - 'if he left his mother, he would die.' But it appears that the matter is not like this. Since Sarah intended to drive out Hagar as well from the home, just as she intended to drive out Yishmael. And that was because if Hagar was Avraham's concubine, it was not appropriate that she should sit in his home with his wife, the lady [of the house], but rather that she should dwell alone in a different house and the man should go to her secretly. And so if she always dwells in the house and dies there, or if Avraham dies in her lifetime, behold she is assumed to be a full-fledged wife and her sons inherit his properties. And because of this, Sarah said, "Drive out this maidservant and her son, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak." She meant to say, it is not appropriate that the son of the maidservant, the concubine, inherit like the son of the wife, the lady, equally. And if it was like the words of the Ramban, it would have been fitting for her to say, "Drive out the son of this maidservant and his mother." In truth, however, the more intended expulsion at that time was the expulsion of the maidservant. And its saying, "for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit," is the reason for the expulsion of the maidservant, and that is from the reason I mentioned: That a woman who gives birth for a man and she is with him in the home in which he establishes his residence is assumed to be his full-fledged wife, and her sons also inherit the properties of the husband at his death. But a maidservant, who is a concubine, does not dwell in his home and her sons only inherit what their father wants to give them as presents while he is still alive. And that is what Avraham did, as it is stated (Genesis 25:6), "To the sons of the concubines that Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts, and he sent them away, etc." And for me, there is no doubt that Yishmael was included among them, that he gave gifts also to him in his lifetime. And that is why it states, concubines in the plural, as they were Hagar and Keturah, since they were [his] wives. Whereas Yishmael returned to his home and he was at [Avraham's] burial. If so, behold that the expulsion of the maidservant was more necessary; and if he had expelled the son, and the mother would have stayed at home, why would this take away from the assumption of the son? As they will nevertheless say that his mother was a full-fledged wife to his father, and the proof is her always residing at home. But the son's leaving from there is not a proof, since the sons of the lady also leave the home of their father many times and go to the far places of the earth. And behold, Sarah was not insistent about this until now because she thought she would not give birth; so it [had been] her desire and will that Yishmael should inherit all of the house. And that is why she wanted Hagar and Yishmael, her son, to dwell in her home. But after Yitzchak's birth, she was concerned about what could possibly be after Avraham's death concerning the inheritance of his properties. And that is why Sarah, with her great comprehension, said, "Drive out this maidservant and her son, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak" - meaning to say, "with my son," since I am the lady and she is my maidservant; and "with Yitzchak," because of his own perfection and virtue and his fineness in replacing Yishmael. +And Scripture mentions that, "This thing was very bad in the eyes of Avraham, on account of his son." And through this, it reveals that the expulsion of the maidservant was also bad in his eyes, even if it was only very bad in his eyes on account of his son, from the perspective that he was his son - 'like the pity of a father for his children.' However God, may He be blessed, examines the inner chambers and the heart, such that he saw that Sarah's question and request was proper and appropriate. [So] He said to Avraham, "Do not let it be bad in your eyes concerning the youth and concerning your maidservant." Because he was saddened about both of them - first and essentially about the youth, and secondarily about the maidservant - He had to console him about both of them. And He mentioned the youth first since he is the main [concern]. And about the matter of the maidservant, He said to him, "all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice" - meaning to say, Hagar is the maidservant of Sarah; and so if she wants to drive her out, listen to her voice. But about the matter of the youth, He said to him, "for it is through Yitzchak that your seed will be called" - so he is the true son, not Yishmael. And the Ralbag wrote that the cause of expelling Yishmael was from God, may He be blessed - so as to separate him from Yitzchak, in order that Yitzchak not learn from his bad deeds. But He informed him that He would would also make the son of the maidservant a great nation - meaning to say, [even] with his being the son of an Egyptian maidservant, behold the eyes of His providence will be upon him for [Avraham]'s sake and in his merit. And he will grow and be very very numerous. And He said this to him so that his going away not be bad to [Avraham], since wherever he goes, God [will be] with him. So behold these verses have been explained and the ninth and tenth questions have been solved. +And Scripture recounted Avraham's perfection - that he did not challenge the utterance of his Maker, but got up early in the morning to send them away. He also did not give them silver and gold - such that he thought that this would be in the category of inheritance - but rather bread and water, as is given to slaves. And the content of its saying, "[and] the child," is not that he also placed the child on her shoulder, with the bread and the water. For he was sixteen or seventeen years old; so how could he place him on her shoulder together with the bread and water? Rather its explanation is that he gave them bread and water and he placed the bread and the water on Hagar's shoulder and also on the child, such that both of them were carrying the bread and the water on their shoulders. But the Ran wrote that since Yishmael was a wild man who would not listen to the voice of his father, they needed to tie him up with ropes and place him on Hagars's shoulder. He [then] commanded that he should be taken to the wilderness. For behold, since he was wild and accustomed to the wilderness, it would be comfortable for him there and he would not come back to his home. And that is why he gave him water; and if it were not to bring him to the wilderness, there would not have been a need for water - as it is found (in inns) on every paved road. And Scripture recounted that Hagar strayed in the wilderness. And because she strayed, the water came to an end in the skin before their coming to the wilderness to which they were going. And when the water came to an end in the skin - being the vessel that held the water - the youth was seized by thirst. For, as the philosopher mentioned, thirst is harder to suffer than hunger. And when Hagar saw the distress of the youth from thirst, she thought he would die from it. And that is why she cast the child under one of the bushes - and those were the trees that were there - so that he would not get heat stroke from the sun. And behold, she distanced herself from him like [the measure of] a bowshot. As she said, "Let me not see the death of the child," and she cried for him. But since she was an Egyptian, God did not lister to her voice - meaning to say, that He was not aroused to have mercy on her, but rather on the youth. And even though the youth did not call out nor yell out, behold it said, "And God heard the voice of the youth" - in the sense of, "the voice of the blood of your brother yells out from the ground" (Genesis 4:10). As it was the death of Hevel that was calling out [there]. Likewise, it was the difficulty and the pain of Yishmael which was the voice that God heard. And that is why she heard the Godly speech, "What is the matter, Hagar; do not fear - God has heard the voice of the youth where he is." That is to say, "What is the matter, Hagar - that you are crying; did you think that the youth will die of thirst? The matter is not like this. Rather, even as God did not hear your voice to have mercy upon him in your merit, behold God heard the voice of the youth where he is - from the pain and the difficulty." +But it is [also] possible to explain, "where he is," as his not having heard his voice to bring him back to the house of his father, but rather to protect him and have mercy on him where he is - in that wilderness. And the Ramban wrote (Ramban on Genesis 21:17) that He informed them that she would not need to go from there to seek water, since this place would [have water] to quench his thirst. And behold the prophecy came to Hagar for the sake of Avraham, so that she not give up hope on the youth and abandon him. As when Hagar saw that her son was expelled from the house of Avraham with disgrace and defamation, she almost became cruel to him and gave up hope. So perhaps she cast him in anger under one of the bushes, saying that if his father left him, why should she concern herself with him more than [Avraham did]? And that is why she was crying and yelling out - about the poorness of her fate, like someone with a grievance against Avraham. And the Blessed One was concerned lest she leave Yishmael, and that she would also marry someone else - and Yishmael would return to the house of his father; or that Avraham would need to pay attention to him. For he would not leave him cast away and abandoned in the wilderness. That is why the angel came to endear Yishmael in the eyes of Hagar and to command her [to help him]. And for this [reason], he said, "Get up and lift the youth, and grasp him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation." And all of this was to fulfill that which was said to Avraham about his son, Yishmael - that He would watch over his affairs. Behold, it follows that it was in the merit of Avraham and because of him that Hagar saw the angel the first time (Genesis 16:7-8), in order to bring her back to his home; and prophecy came to Avimelekh because of him; and prophecy also came to Hagar now because of him, to save his son. And with this, the tenth question is solved. +However [regarding] its saying, "And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water" - it is not appropriate that we think that this well was created at this time. For her merit and the merit of Yishmael are not sufficient that He should do a miracle for them like the miracle that was done for Israel in the wilderness. Rather this well was in this land, but Hagar did not see it. So God, may He be blessed, awakened her and guided her to seek it and find it. And this is the meaning of, "And God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water" - that she saw the well that was there. And you see that the teacher of the Guide (Guide for the Perplexed) in Part II, Chapter 1 brought down that the expression, open [eyes] that is stated in this verse is about revealing knowledge, not about seeing with the eye. And his intention was that which I mentioned - that God awakened Hagar until she investigated it on her own and sought it and found the well. And Scripture recounted that God was with that youth to fulfill what was said about him to Avraham; and that he dwelled in that wilderness and was an archer - as he sustained himself by hunting after he left his father's home without anything. And that is why his descendants - the children of Kedar - dwell to this day in wildernesses [and] are desert peoples. [It further recounted] that his mother took a wife for him from Egypt, since he tended towards their nature and not towards the nature of his honored father. And behold this whole story comes with the name, God (Elohim), about the matter of Yishmael - even though regarding the taking account of Sarah, it is stated, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as, etc. - because the teaching of Yishmael and his matter is all according to the trait of [strict] justice (associated with that name of God). + +Chapter 22 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + +He bound his son. Yitzchok assumed that this was to be a symbolic offering. It was only when Avraham took the knife and marked the place for the cut did he realize that he was actually to be slaughtered. At that moment he called out to Hashem. + +Chapter 23 + + + +Verse 1 + +Negotiable currency. Literally, “handed over to the merchant” — Avraham delivered the coins to the city’s financial expert for examination. + +Chapter 24 + + + +Chapter 25 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + +Isaac was simply blind to Esau's faults. Affection ruins judgment. + +Chapter 26 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + +However to fulfill that which was further said to him (Genesis 26:3), "as I will give to you and your seed, all of these lands," Scripture recounted the matter of the wells, his leaving Gerar, and that which Abimelech came to seek his friendship - as if he was the master of the land. And observe this story, and see how it indicates this concept: For behold, Scripture mentioned [that] the reason of, "And the Philistines stopped up all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of his father Abraham," was in order that Issac's shepherds should not benefit from them, and go away from there from lack of water; and besides that, Abimelech told Issac, "Go away from us, for you have become far too big for us," meaning [that] due to the large quantity of his livestock, there was no room for the livestock of the land; [such that] behold, Issac left the land - but he did not distance himself from the city [of Gerar]. As he dwelt in Nachal Gerar, close to the city - and not like Rashi wrote - as since it shares the name Gerar, it appears that it was close to it. [Hence] he dwelt there against their will. Moreover, he returned and dug the wells that Abraham had dug and the Philistines had filled. And in order to govern over them more, he called them by the name his father had called them - to indicate that they were not new. Rather he would open the wells that they had already filled and call them by their names - as he did this by the power of his hand. And they also dug and found a spring of living water... and even though the shepherds of Gerar fought about this well... behold, this well nevertheless stayed with the shepherds of Issac... And they also dug another well - and even though they also fought about it, it stayed with him; and he called it Sitnah, to [mark] their hatred (sinah) towards him. Until, when they dug the third well, they did not fight about it; and he therefore called its name, Rechovot - as Issac said, "the Lord has widened (hirchiv) and made us fruitful in the land." [This] means to say, "Even though they sent me away from them, the Lord widened it for us in this land, against their will." And this is the reason for all of this story - about which Ramban did not find any purpose or glory to Issac - being written here. [However, Ramban] maneuvered to explain it by way of [its] shell [to be] about our holy and glorious Temple. But in my opinion, there is great glory to Issac [in this story], and that is why it is written here. And since Issac did all of these things with a bold heart - as if he was the master of the land - hence in his coming to Beersheba, the Lord appeared to him and promised him, "I am the Lord of Abraham, your father, do not fear." [This] means to say, "I am the One who gave Abraham your father the power to defeat the kings, and I am the One who gave you the power to act with strength; hence do not fear the men of Gerar, nor about the matter of the wells that you made - as I am with you in all that you do"...  +"We did not touch you and we sent you away in peace" - meaning to say that we did not take anything from all that is yours, but we rather sent you away in peace. As there is no doubt that you are now more blessed of the Lord than when you came to our land. And that proves that you received benefit and goodness in this land, even as it was from God. And therefore, it is not fit that you do harm to the land in which you lived and were blessed. + +Chapter 27 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Chapter 28 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + +Angels … were ascending and descending. Yaakov was afraid that he had sinned in taking the blessings, but Hashem showed him that heaven approved and that the prayers and offerings of his offspring would ascend to heaven from this spot. + +Chapter 29 + + + +Chapter 30 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + +Isn’t it enough that you took. When Leah stopped producing children Yaakov reduced the time he spent with her. Would you also take. Although the Matriarch’s pregnancies were all from Heaven, they did not refrain from using medicinal aids as well. + +Chapter 31 + + + +Verse 1 + +1- and Yaakov heard the words of Laban... until here is the order and in the next Pasukim are twenty three questions. +2- Question 1- why did Yaakov send for Rachel and Leah in the field to speak with them about the issues of their father and he did not come to talk to them in the city of their home. And why did he not tell them what he heard from the sons of Laban, but only what he saw from their father, because both of the incidents helped to change his mind to leave the land. + +Chapter 32 + + + +Chapter 33 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +From " And Yaakov came complete to the town of Shechem etc." until "And Chamor, the father of Shechem came out" - Shechem is apparently the city that is close to Mamre Kiriat Arba, since behold when Yaakov was dwelling in Hevron that is Kiriat Arba his sons were sheparding the sheep in Shechem. And it is logical that there was between them a distance of a day maximum, and that is why Yaakov sends [Yosef] to see how the brothers are faring, and the sheep too, and this was when he is close to where his father was. Despite this, the place where Dina was subjugated was far away from Hevron, where Yitzchak was, and this is a question that remains, since Chazal said that Shechem was a place ready for punishment, since there they subjugated Dina and the tribes were damaged. And from this it appears to me that Shechem was the name of the entire place, and Chamor was the prince of all that land [Abarbanel goes to show where he thinks the connection between Shalem, Shechem and Hevron is]... and the issue with Dina happened in a town named Shalem at the beginning, and it is in a corner of the place called Shechem, and the sons of Yaakov were pasturing the sheep in a different corner, farther away from that area... And it is said that "Yaakov put his tent in front of the city" to explain that there were other reasons for this issue [of Dina] to happen: the first one is that Yaakov pitched [his encampment] close to the city, and because of this Dina went out to see the daughters of the land, and if he had pitched in a place farther away, closer to the place of pasturing and farther from the city, Dina would not have come out and what happened would not have happened. Second reason, Yaakov had bought the piece of land where her tent was pitched from Chamor the father of Shechem, and the scripture teaches this by saying that at first he set his tent on the field, and then after the owners complained, he bought that piece of the field, since he did not want to rent it. And since he purchased it from the hand of Chamor, the prince of the land, it makes sense that he paid good money for it, since a prince of the land will not sell parts of his estate to a stranger unless he gave a princely sum. And he did not buy it from the hand of the sons of Chamor, his advanced age prevented him himself to go, but his sons went to make the sale, and this is why they went to the tents of Yaakov, and saw Dina there, and there is no doubt that they spoke with her and the soul of Shechem desired her, and this too was the reason of the continuation [of what happened] when she went out to see the daughters of the land. And this answers the second question. And Ibn Ezra already explained that Yaakov stayed in this city for many years, since Dina was seven years old when she arrived there, and Shimon and Levi were lads. Since Yaakov had entered the holy land, it was for this reason that he bought a piece of the field and became property owner of holy land, and he acquired an altar to praise G-d, that in His great compassion and love brought him to His land and saved him from Lavan... [Abarbanel goes into a discussion on the nature of Judaism, the name E-l and more] And maybe even this altar was a reason for what happened, since once it was ready all his children came to eat from the sacrifices and Shechem and all the town came to see the inauguration of the altar, and saw Dina there, and desired her, and what happened happened once she went out to see the daughters of the land - and this explains the third question. The Torah does not bring the phrase "and Dina came out" to criticize Dina as a "self-exposing daughter of a self-exposer; like mother, like daughter" as Rashi z"l has. Leah was a modest woman, to the point that Yaakov did not see anything until the moment he came to her. And the "Leah went out" really means that she went out just to the door of her tent and she went out joyfully and with holy intent to greet her husband Yaakov and from that came the birth of Yissachar, the tribe of modest Torah teachers. Also, one cannot say that she is called "daughter of Leah" as a criticism of her nature being of "self-exposing", since Leah was taught to stay in the tents, and Rachel was the one out with the sheep. And from Yaakov himself was known to be a modest person, hiding in the tents of scholars, and if he was modest like this, all the more his daughter. The intent wasnot for anything bad, as the text says "daughters of the town" and not sons of the town. Dina had no sisters, being the only maiden in the house and so she went out to see how the girls of the town dressed and used jewelry, and this explains our fourth question. And there is no doubt that she did not went out by herself, without the company of a man or a woman, and this is implied, just as the scripture has regarding Moses, that he went out to meet his father-in-law, and obviously he did not go alone. The text describes that Shechem was "the son of Chamor the Hivite, the prince of the land" to make sure that we understand that being the prince of the land he used force, and had no fear of those who were with Dinah or of the sons of Yaakov. And the text goes on to say, like Rashi explains, that he lay with her in the usual fashion and afflicted her in the unusual fashion, and how can one describe his doing such a disgrace. And Ibn Ezra explains that her being a virgin, and he doing three things - seizing her by force while she was passing through the market, forcing her in the natural way and in the unnatural way.And even if you know about the second thing, why is the text bringing the first? Isn't it already included? This is to teach that even if he wanted to have relations with her due to his wanting her as a wife, one cannot do this by force. The second comes to teach that he destroyed her virginity. And why is it explaining that he afflicted her? To explain that she did not go by her own will, but he hoped that it would being by her being forced and end by her wanting it.[...] + +Chapter 34 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + +They approached … with confidence. Yaakov’s sons had performed the circumcisions themselves. Then when they came to check up on their “patients” they sent the women and children out of their rooms and killed them one at a time. + +Chapter 35 + + + +Chapter 36 + + + +Chapter 37 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + +Let us not kill him. Some of the brothers wished to kill him to prevent him from imposing his rule upon them, but Reuvein was concerned that the dreams might have been genuine. Throw him into this pit. If he escaped miraculously it would prove that the dreams were genuine. + +Chapter 38 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + +At that time. This episode is inserted here to compare the founding of Yehudah’s dynasty with that of Yoseif’s dynasty, and to show how Providence saw to it that none of Yaakov’s offspring would be lost, so that even the sinful Er and Onan were replaced by the righteous Peretz and Zorach. Yehudah descended. He wanted to distance himself from his brothers’ cruelty as well as from his father’s sorrow. Nevertheless, from the fact that he went with his brothers to Egypt it is clear that he did not sever his ties to them altogether.
She is righteous, [it is] from me. I had thought my two sons died on her account, but now I see that it was due to their own wickedness, for she has conceived through me yet I am still alive (Abarbanel). + +Chapter 39 + + + +Verse 1 + +‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt’, etc, to the end of this Scriptural portion. There are (valid) questions arising out of these two chapters (39 & 40) also, which are as follows: +Question 1: In the verse (Gen. 39:2): ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master’, the verse utilizes the Hebrew verb ‘hayah’ (‘he was’) three times, which seems unnecessary repetition. It could simply have stated: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph, so that he was successful in his Egyptian master’s household’. +Question 2: In connection with the Torah recording that his master handed over control of everything he had into his (Joseph’s) hands, it has already been stated previously: ‘And he appointed him over his household and all that he had he placed under his control (39:4) and yet again, subsequently, we are told: ‘And he left everything he had in Joseph’s hands and knew nothing of it’, etc (39:6). This threefold reiteration of the same point is surely unnecessary. +Question 3: Why did Joseph’s master’s wife publicize what had taken place between Joseph and herself: for surely, by doing so, she was impugning her own moral dignity? It would have been better for her to maintain silence so as to retain her honor. Furthermore, (had she kept silent), the hope always remained that on some future occasion she might succeed in enticing him to comply with all her desires – in view of this, then, did she act foolishly? + + + + + + + +The commentary will cover from: ‘And Joseph was brought down to Egypt’ etc (39:1) to ‘Now it transpired, after these events’ (40:1). Scripture relates that it was part of Divine providence, for Joseph’s benefit, that the Ishmaelites who had purchased him did not take him on their own familiar routes or lead him away to a distant land, nor did they sell him (merely) to grind amongst the millstones, or to work in a lowly occupation entailing much physical labor and exertion, but (on the contrary) sold him in Egypt, which was a highly advanced country, to Potiphar, who was Pharaoh’s officer, a prince – one of his greatest officials. +Now, as regards the true meaning of (the Hebrew word) ‘sarisim’ (appearing here in the text), our Sages of blessed memory held various opinions, some maintaining that they were actually eunuchs – incapable of sexual relations – and others claiming that they were high-ranking officials; the latter view is the one I believe to be correct. +We are also told that the Chief Executioner was appointed for the purpose of executing and incarcerating offenders, and accordingly the prison-house was under his control, being indeed located inside his own house; and the officer in charge of the prison was subject to his jurisdiction. + +Verse 2 + +Now Joseph, despite being merely a slave to the ruling classes, constantly retained the fear of God before his eyes, and had the Almighty in mind throughout the course of his activities. It is regarding this that (the Torah) states: ‘And the Lord was with Joseph’, i.e. that the thought of Him was always in Joseph’s mind. Accordingly, as a reward for this, he became a person who succeeded in every venture he undertook. +However, I personally consider the most accurate overall interpretation of these verses to be that Scripture here records three enormous acts of grace conferred by the Holy One, blessed be He, upon Joseph there (in the jail). The first was that, despite being but a slave, with a depressed spirit, he nonetheless enjoyed Divine influence to such a degree that when he heard a dream, he could interpret it in accordance with what would actually transpire in the future – and it was impossible for this to be on account of (his) inherent gift of discernment, simple knowledge (of current events), and well-developed analytical powers possessed by him, as such powers are variable in their results – they do indeed predict the truth on some occasions, whilst on others they fail to do so. (We are thus forced to conclude that) it was the spirit of the Almighty speaking through him, and that His word was upon his (Joseph’s) tongue; and accordingly, not a single one of his predictions failed to be fulfilled; he could also see dreams fulfilled in accordance with his predictions; and it is thus, in relation to all this, that Scripture states: ‘And the Almighty was with Joseph’. The second (act of Divine grace) was that he succeeded in all his affairs. Concerning this aspect, we are told, ‘And he was a successful person’ in that whatever he turned his hand to prospered. The third (act of Divine grace) was that, despite the general custom amongst high-ranking officials, on purchasing a slave, to leave him to labor in the fields, [indeed the Egyptians, in particular, would treat Hebrews in this fashion, as they were hated by them on account of their (i.e. the Hebrews) being meat-eaters], in this instance the Almighty favored him in his master’s house by allowing him to remain working inside the house, (even) in Egypt, where he could relax, rather than dispatching him to the fields to toil away there. In regard to this point, the verse emphasizes: ‘And he was in the house of his Egyptian master’. Moreover, since each of these three (acts of grace) were quite distinct, the narrative repeatedly utilizes the word ‘va’yehi’ (‘and he was’) in each particular instance. Thus, in the light of this interpretation, the first of the questions initially posed (by us) has been satisfactorily resolved. + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + +When his master observed that the Almighty ‘was with him’, i.e. that he possessed both Divine knowledge and fear of God, and that He was, so to speak, ‘advising’ him in relation to his affairs; and on his witnessing such a great measure of Divine grace as would guarantee Joseph’s success in all his endeavors, Joseph found favor in his sight. +It is, however, also legitimate to interpret the verse (39:3) ‘And his master saw that the Almighty was with him and that God caused all that he did to succeed’ as follows: sometimes merchants make healthy profits from their merchandise, but this is attributable solely to the deceitful (commercial) practices to which they resort: as Scripture indeed informs us elsewhere: (Hosea 12:8): ‘Canaan (i.e. the merchant) holds in his hands scales of deceit; he loves to defraud’); but Joseph did not act in this fashion, as God’s presence was permanently in his thoughts and before his eyes; hence he would never commit a wrong, nor would he ever resort to deceitful language – but nonetheless, the Almighty allowed all his dealings to prosper. It was due to this that his master elevated him to a higher status. Until now, he had been serving in his master’s home, but not inside his ‘inner sanctum’; he had not been attending upon his master in his inner chamber. But at this juncture, he (Potiphar) elevated his working status in three ways: first, he (Joseph) ministered directly to his master, by dressing and feeding him – this is what is meant by the phrase ‘and he ministered to him’; secondly, he appointed him in charge of his entire household, i.e. that he (Joseph) could henceforth command all the servants employed there to carry out such tasks as befitted them: thirdly, he handed over control of all his possessions to Joseph, by creating him guardian of his treasures and his riches. +Now it was by virtue of Divine Providence that, from the very moment he had appointed Joseph over his household and all he possessed, ‘God blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake’ (39:5). And not only did He bless the items inside the house, which were under Joseph’s direct control, but the Divine blessing extended to all he owned, both in the house and in the fields, despite Joseph having no role to play in the fields at all. + +Verse 6 + +The narrative continues to relate that Potiphar went yet one step further, by leaving all his possessions in Joseph’s charge, by which is meant without any written record or inventory (of the items in question). This, then, is what is meant by the phrase ‘And he knew nothing of what was under Joseph’s control’ (39:6). For previously, the Torah relates: ‘And he appointed him over his household, and handed over all his possessions to him’ i.e. his treasures – yet his master was aware of what was in the house, and he (Joseph) would account to him on a daily basis. However, once he had observed his success and his uprightness of character – ‘he was not cognizant of anything in Joseph’s possession’ (39:6), insofar as he did not demand any reckoning from him, as is customary amongst administrational delegators. This, then, is the true import of the phrase ‘he abandoned control of all his possessions’. +Now when the Torah tells us (that he left everything in Joseph’s hands) ‘except the bread that he ate’ (39:6), it means to say that he left his entire wealth and possessions in Joseph’s charge without requiring any account from him, besides the bread his master ate; this could not be under Joseph’s control, as he was of Hebrew origin, and (as we are later informed – [Ch. 43:32]: ‘the Egyptians are not permitted to eat bread together with the Hebrews’ – as Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra has noted ( in his Torah commentary). Accordingly, (as we have amply demonstrated), there is, after all, nothing repetitious or superfluous contained within these verses, and thus the second question initially posed by us has been satisfactorily resolved. +After Scripture has praised Joseph by recording that ‘God was with him’ and that ‘he was successful’, thus causing him to find favor in his master’s sight, it continues to lavish yet more praise on him, by relating that he was ‘of fair countenance and handsome appearance’, on account of which he found favor in the eyes of his master’s wife! + + +Verse 7 + +It is due to the fact that a man’s high status, plus the fact that everyone pays him attention, frequently induce women to love him, that Scripture states at this point (39:7): ‘So it happened after these events’ i.e. once he had been appointed supreme controller of his master’s house, coupled with his natural good looks, that his mistress started to think about him. +When the verse tells us that ‘his master’s wife raised her eyes towards Joseph’, it intends to convey the idea that she was, so to speak, pleading with him (to surrender to her) because of her love for him. When it states that she ‘raised her eyes towards him’, this expression must be understood in the same sense as the phrase we find (in Psalm 123:1): ‘Unto Thee, O Lord, have I raised my eyes!’ She thus addressed him: ‘Lie with me!’, as though to say, ‘now that you are already in control of the entire household, rule over me as well!’ + + +Verse 8 + +‘But he (Joseph) refused, and said to his master’s wife’, etc. (39:8) First of all, the verse states that he inwardly refused – as being a mortal sin – to consort , rebelliously and treacherously, with his master’s wife – and, even more so, to beget children destined for idol-worship. And, besides this, i.e. his inward refusal to succumb – he also openly declared to her his reasons for avoiding intimacy with her – +‘Look, my master has handed over all his affairs to me’, etc. (39:8). What he wished to point out by this was that an individual who sins does so exclusively either to satiate himself with something materially beneficial, or for the sake of obtaining glory, or to fulfill a pledge (made by him); ‘but in my case, none of these factors apply: from the aspect of material benefit, my master has no idea of what household items are under my control, having placed all his possessions in my hand. As to obtaining glory, ‘even my master himself is not of higher rank in the household than I am’ – by which he meant to say: ‘whilst it is possible that within the king’s household, he is greater than I, in this household, he is not’. And as regards fulfillment of a pledge, my master has withheld nothing from me besides you, and that too is only because of your being his wife – i.e. insofar as your marital status is concerned; but not in any other respect. Accordingly, if all that remains to him is yourself, on account of your marriage to him, how can I perpetrate so great an evil as to remove you forcibly from him? – for by doing so, I would be acting like a traitor and a thief in respect of what was placed in my care. Furthermore, even if he knew nothing of the affair, and I could thus not be called a sinner against him personally, still, there can be no doubt that the sin would be against God, Who is aware of secret matters’. This, then, is what he meant by exclaiming: ‘I will have sinned against the Almighty!’ + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + +Now, as regards the next verse: (39:10): ‘And it happened, when she spoke to Joseph daily, but he paid no attention to her importunings’, I believe its correct interpretation is as follows: on the first occasion, Joseph did listen to her words, and replied to her, as she was his master’s wife; but subsequently, he became afraid that her continual advances would (ultimately) entice him; for repeated words or deeds can make a huge impression, so as to effect an alteration in a person’s conduct. Consequently, from then onwards, when she used to speak to him every day – our Sages indeed tell us that this went on for twelve months! – he would not listen to what she said, to avoid himself becoming seduced. Now she, as mistress of the house, would sit on the ground – as is customary for ladies of that rank – on a rug made of linen and embroidered wool – and high-ranking officials, when coming to converse with them, would (customarily) lie down on those very rugs to conduct their dialogue. She was accordingly continually urging Joseph to lie down beside her on the rug so that she could speak to him, but he (for his part) had no desire to approach her. This, then, is the (full) purport of the verse (found here) :(39:10): ‘But he paid no heed to her, to lie by her side, to be with her’. On perceiving that she would not accept his efforts to extricate himself (from her clutches), he chose to shut his ears and neither to listen to anything she said, nor, needless to say, to venture close to her in the place where she was seated. + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + +Accordingly, when the power of her love overwhelmed her, and he was no longer paying any attention to her words, she seized him by his robe, reasoning that, once she had been so bold as to grab hold of it, he would be ashamed to despise her and tell her (outright): ‘I do not desire you!’ He, for his part, for fear that he would let himself be seduced by her advances and her conduct, fled away from her presence, and went outside, not even tarrying to extricate his robe from her hand so that she would not seize and kiss him. This is what Scripture intends to convey by (the expression) ‘he fled’ (39:12). He also did not wish to extract his garment from her hand by superior force because she was, after all, his mistress, so that she was able to detach it from him; as it was a robe in which he would envelop himself, like a cloak, as Nahmanides has stated (in his commentary on this passage). + +Verse 13 + +She, for her part, seeing that he had left his robe in her hand and had fled outside naked – something which is not done – thought that, without doubt, if his master arrived on the scene, he would question him as to what had occurred, and Joseph would be compelled to reply to him to excuse himself for walking about outside the house naked; and that when he would tell him the truth as to what had taken place, her nefarious conduct would become public knowledge. This, then, is the correct interpretation of the verse: ‘Now it transpired, that when she saw that he had left his robe in her hand and fled outside’ (39:13) – for had he not done both these things, she would not have suspected him of revealing the incident; just as she too had not disclosed it till now. However, as he had fled outside naked, whoever saw him – and most certainly his master – would be prompted to demand an explanation from him; and he in turn would be forced to disclose the incident. It was due to such considerations (only) that she (decided to) act cunningly, for fear of the shame she would suffer on being discovered by the members of the household. Hence she herself publicized the affair, by exclaiming:(39:14): ‘Look how he (my husband) has brought us a Hebrew man’ – an enemy of the Egyptian nation – and promoted him over his household; and he, for his part, perceiving this, had the temerity to mock me!’ [in the sense of the Biblical verse (Proverbs 29:21): ‘he who pampers his slave from his youth will ultimately find the slave lording it over him!’] With such an interpretation of the passage, the third question we initially posed has been satisfactorily resolved. + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + +Undoubtedly, when Joseph’s master, appreciating that God was ever-present in his mind, did not believe what his wife was saying; for had he done so, he would have had to put him to death. However, he was still troubled by this episode, and accordingly put him in prison – had he not acted in this way, he would have become a laughing-stock, as his wife was (already) saying as much. By remaining silent, he would have provided her with a pretext for being unfaithful to him. This, then, is what Scripture intends to convey by the phrase, ‘And when his master heard the words of his wife’ (39:19): – for he was not unduly affected by the incident itself, since he lent it no credence; nor was he influenced by the robe found in her hand – as he undoubtedly questioned Joseph about it, and was told the truth. The Torah mentions this only briefly, as it is quite clear from the basic drift of the narrative. Hence it does not say (39:19): ‘And his fury was aroused against Joseph’, but simply, ‘his fury was aroused’. He was angered by what his wife had said, and his mind pre-occupied with what to do to appease her, given that she was insisting on her version of events. Accordingly, he resolved to incarcerate Joseph in the prison-house, which was under his control and located within the precincts of his own home, to remain there until (his wife’s) fury had subsided. + + +Verse 20 + +He did not hand him over to his servants, the officials, to lead him away in shame and derision to the jail, as would be normal (in such cases); but rather, his master personally took him by the hand and led him there, as he (Joseph) was highly esteemed by him. This is what is meant by the verse ‘And Joseph’s master took him, and placed him in the prison-house’. (39:20). However, he did not put him in the area where men of lowly rank were imprisoned by order of the city’s judiciary, but in the section where royal prisoners were incarcerated; for inside the jail were various chambers and storeys, each separate from one another; and Joseph was placed in that very room where those princes imprisoned by royal command had been assigned. +As for the next phrase, ‘and he remained there in the prison-house’, we must understand this to mean that he (Potiphar) placed him there, as this was to be his punishment, i.e. to remain there at his pleasure for a period of time; and he was to receive no further punishment. + + +Verse 21 + +Scripture then goes on to relate: ‘And the Almighty was with Joseph and extended grace towards him, and granted him favor in the eyes of the prison governor’ (39:21). We should note that, whereas in regard to Joseph’s master (Potiphar), who was a high-ranking official, Scripture (deliberately) employs the (more neutral) expression ‘he found favor in his sight’, in the case of the governor of the jail, who was cruel by nature, showing neither pity nor mercy [such a nature well suited his job, as he would inevitably be in the company of wrongdoers and sinful men all day long], – so that Joseph’s finding favor with him would be truly miraculous – Scripture relates: ‘The Almighty was with Joseph and extended him grace, granting him favor (even) with the governor of the jail’. This was nothing less than a miracle, taking into account the governor’s base character. Indeed, (Joseph found favor with him) to such an extent that the governor delegated control of all the prisoners to him, and he was appointed to watch over all their comings and goings. Now, since the poorest element amongst a group of prisoners continue with the performance of their regular occupations whilst in jail so as to allow them to earn some money, and it would be risky to permit outsiders to visit them to buy such items from them as they had made themselves, in case the prisoners plotted an escape, all their business affairs and dealings were directed through Joseph. This, then, is the underlying meaning of the phrase (39:22): ‘and everything they did there was done by him’ – as they carried out all their activities under his supervision. Rashi states in his commentary on this verse that everything was done at Joseph’s command and with his permission; and undoubtedly Joseph too obtained some personal benefit from this arrangement; hence the next verse goes on to say: (39:23): ‘The prison governor saw nothing of all that passed through (Joseph’s) hand’ – as he did not bother to check whether Joseph would obtain material benefit from it or not. +The same verse then records that all these benefits flowed from the prison governor, despite this being totally out of character for him; and we may ascribe this to two reasons; first, because God was with Joseph, causing him to find favor in his sight; and secondly, because the Almighty granted Joseph success in regard to anything to which he turned his hand; and such success allowed him permanently to retain the governor’s favor. + + +Chapter 40 + + + +Chapter 41 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + + +(On verses 37-38:) What did Pharaoh see to say to his servants, "Could we find another like him, a man in whom is the spirit of God," and that he said to him, "there is no one wise and understanding like you," and that he made him the master over his entire household and ruler over the entire land of Egypt - before he knew whether his words would be substantiated and whether the thing would come to effect as he had interpreted or not?! As behold, the chief wine steward did not do a thing [for just this reason], when he interpreted his dream positively. As maybe the thing would not be as he had interpreted it to Pharaoh. And if so, why did he raise him before the thing was tested? And he also [prematurely] gave him a wife from the notables of the land. + + + + + + + +...(On verse 8:) And this is difficult; as why did their interpretations not sit with his heart, and why did Jospeh's interpretation sit with his heart - as Pharaoh did not know the discipline of interpretation. So with what was it nevertheless known to him that they were not interpreting properly and that Joseph's interpretation was true?... + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + +Verse 35 + + + +Verse 36 + + + +Verse 37 + + + +Verse 38 + + + +Verse 39 + + + +Verse 40 + + + +Verse 41 + +"And Pharaoh said to Yosef, 'Behold I have placed you, etc.'" until, "The seven years of famine started" (Genesis 41:54). Pharaoh spoke three speeches or statements to Yosef about this thing here. The first was, "Since God has made all this known to you [...] You shall be over my house, etc.," the content of which is as I have explained: Even though you only advised me about the matter of the grain, behold I am appointing you over my house and the administration of the kingdom. And the second is concerning the matter of the plenty and the famine, which was hinted in his dream and about which he advised him. And about this he said, "Behold, I have placed you in charge over the entire land of Egypt, etc." Such that the intention in it is concerning the produce, to separate a fifth, to gather and to sell it at the proper time and to do all that is required for it. And this is [the meaning of], "over the entire land of Egypt." For the matter of the plenty and the famine included all of the land, to gather the produce and to put it together. It is as if he said, "Since you advised me that I should select a discerning and wise man to do this, so that I would do it myself - behold what I will decree about this. And it is that I do not want to do this myself, as you said, nor to appoint officers. Rather, you are the wise and discerning one due to the power of God. I have placed you over the entire land of Egypt, to do it." And for this matter, he was required to give him his signet ring with which all of the writings that were written in the name of the king were signed, so that he could write whatever he wished and then sign it. And he commanded to have him dressed with linen garments, which are garments designated for ministers. "And he put a gold chain around his neck." Meaning that Pharaoh himself, with his hands, placed a gold chain around Yosef's neck, which indicated his greatness, as is the custom today with knights elevated by the king. "He had him ride" - by his commandment - "in the second chariot." Meaning in the chariot designated for the man that is second to the king. For the king had a chariot that was designated for him, the second, who is the second to the king in greatness and status. And it is in it that he commanded that they seat Yosef. And it is known what a chariot is, that it a seat [led] by four horses. And since Scripture stated, "in the second chariot that was his," and it did not state, "in his second chariot," it appears to be explained that the king had two designated chariots for himself; he would ride in one of them and his second would ride in the second. And that is why it stated, "in the second chariot that was his." However its stating, "and they called before him, avrech" - the idea is since bowing which is specifically to the king is with the bending of the knee (berekh), this indicates the status of his mastery over all of the land. Because of this, it was forbidden to bow with the downward movement of the knee to anyone besides the king, except by his commandment. And the practice was like this also in the time of Achashverosh, as it is written (Esther 3:2), "for so did the king command him." And the call and proclamation before him was, "bow down and give (venaton) him." Meaning that everyone should bow to him with the bending of the knee and that the king was giving him to be leader, vizier and commander over all the land of Egypt. And avrekh is the infinitive of the paul verb construction, and likewise, venaton to him, is an infinitive (to give). This is permission to everyone to bow down with the knee, and also that he is given rulership over all the land of Egypt. And hence no one can challenge him. Behold Pharaoh made all this effort so that Yosef's rulership would prosper for him, and no one would challenge him, given that he was a hated Hebrew among them. But lest Yosef fear and fret that the Egyptians would be jealous of his rulership and his appointment over the house and the field, just like his brothers were jealous of him for something thousands of times less significant - therefore Pharaoh had to say the third statement to him. And that is, "Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'I am Pharaoh; yet without you' - meaning to say, do not fear and do not worry about the ministers of the kingdom and the people of the land, for I am Pharaoh and the word of the king has gone out before me that, 'without you, no one shall lift up hand or foot.' That is to say, not to do anything and not to go anywhere with his feet without your permission and command, 'in all the land of Egypt.'" Behold it has been explained why these three statements came from Pharaoh to Yosef. So the twelfth question is resolved. And since it was difficult for the Egyptians that a Hebrew should rule over them, Pharaoh schemed to change his name and call him Tzafnat-Paneach, which means the Revealer of Hidden Things in Egyptian. And he did not suffice with this, but gave him as a wife, Osnat daughter of Poti-fera, who was a minister and important man in Egypt, so that he would have relatives on his wife's side who would help him. For there is no question that this would elevate his status. And that is what he relied on, "so Yosef went out over the land of Egypt": From the connection that he made with that minister, he went out over the land of Egypt, his greatness and leadership [now] famous. For his relatives, and his relatives' relatives befriended him and elevated him. But behold the Scripture tells of the difficulty of Yosef's rulership, for "Yosef was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, king of Egypt." For since he was the king of Egypt, it was not fit that a Hebrew youth should be seen before him. As he was a youth, according to the years of that generation. Nevertheless God helped him and ingratiated him to Pharaoh. Moreover, when the ministers of Egypt were jealous of him - so long as he was before Pharaoh, no one could say anything in front of him; but when he left from before him to go out all over the land of Egypt, he was in great danger. Yet with God's compassion for him, he "left Pharaoh’s presence, and traversed throughout all the land of Egypt," far from the king's base in order to increase and strengthen his rulership and the power that was given to him, even when not before Pharaoh. And no one challenged him, as this was from God. And this is the explanation of his leaving Pharaoh's presence. However its stating, "In the seven years of plenty the land produced in handfuls" - for me, the idea is like, "so that it yields produce for three years" (Leviticus 25:21): That the land of Egypt yielded bountiful produce during the years of plenty, such that the produce would come out in handfuls, not in stalks. And this is said by way of exaggeration. And with this, all the peoples of the land saw that Yosef's words materialized, that which he said to Pharaoh, "a great plenty." For the land yielded very much produce, as if it were in handfuls, which is not the natural way. And then Yosef gathered the food, meaning to say all of the food that was sold at the market price. And this is besides the fifth (that was taxed), since Scriptures relies upon that which was already mentioned. And it mentions his wisdom, that he did not leave it in the field in pits, as is the practice in most countries, so that they not steal it from there. Rather he placed it in the cities. However he nevertheless acted fairly and did not alter the rights of each city. For he placed the food of each city inside it, and not in another city. And understand its stating, "he put in each city the food of the fields around it." As the intention with this is that the food of the field of the city which is near the city - meaning that which was close to the city - that was what he placed in it to be guarded there as food for the city during the time of the famine. But the food that was far from the city he would not put in it. Rather he would take it to [the center of] Egypt, to the storehouses of the king. For Yosef would sell grain there to the foreign nations who were not from Egypt. And it is, as we will see from the story, that Yosef would provide the grain to foreigners, and that is where his brother came to buy food. And the Scripture mentioned that they originally recorded the grain and the food that Yosef gathered - whether from the fifth and all the more so from the purchase - so that it all be counted; however with its proliferation, it stopped being counted, since it was gathered without a count. And, if so, it was all left to his expertise, without any calculation. So the thirteenth question is resolved. And behold Scripture mentioned the birth of Yosef's sons, their names and the reasons for those names to tell us that he was so refined that even with his being a minister and master over all of the land of Egypt and being busy with the gathering of produce and its concerns, behold 'on the day of his heart's joy,' when they were born, he placed the memory of his father's home and the desire for his land 'over the pinnacle of his joy.' And hence he called the first son Menashe and said, "God has made me leave behind (nashani)" and forget "all my hardships," from my slavery: but also from my father's house, since I have been separated from it, so now I am forgotten there. And it is as if he gave praise [to God] for the good, that God made him leave all of his hardship behind; but [also] for all the bad, with his saying, "and all my father's house." And he called the second Ephriam, "because God has made me fruitful (hiphrani) in the land of my affliction." As, in spite of all of his status there, he called Egypt the land of his affliction, since he was separated from his father and from the holy land. And that is why this story is mentioned after the story of the produce - to say that his father's house and the land of his birth had not become forgotten, in spite of all the greatness, power and splendor that he had in Egypt and in spite of the wealth and produce that he held. So the fourteenth question is resolved. + +Chapter 42 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + +In truth we are guilty. The man’s mercy towards their households reminded them of their own lack of mercy towards their brother. Alternatively, until now they thought he was simply cruel, but now that they saw otherwise they knew that what had befallen them was a punishment. + +Chapter 43 + + + +Chapter 44 + + + +Chapter 45 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + +You will dwell. He invited his father to come to Egypt because he could not abandon his duties to go to Canaan. In the land of Goshen. In case his father was deterred by the immorality of the capital, he assured him that he could dwell in Goshen instead. + +Chapter 46 + + + +Chapter 47 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Please do not bury me in Egypt. He was concerned that Yoseif would leave his coffin in Egypt until the redemption to ensure that the Israelites would take his own out as well. + +Exodus + +Introduction + + + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Chapter 2 + + + +Chapter 3 + + + +Chapter 4 + + + +Chapter 5 + + + +Chapter 6 + + + +Chapter 7 + + + +Chapter 8 + + + +Chapter 9 + + + +Chapter 10 + + + +Chapter 11 + + + +Chapter 12 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + +On … the houses. The blood was to be placed on the inside because it was a sign for the B’nei Yisrael, not the Egyptians (see v. 13). + +Chapter 13 + + + +Chapter 14 + + + +Chapter 15 + + + +Chapter 16 + + + +Chapter 17 + + + +Chapter 18 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + +Moses filled four roles: prophet, king, teacher and judge, the first three of which no one else could help him with. + +Chapter 19 + + + +Chapter 20 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + +Honor your father. Included within this is the obligation to honor Hashem, one’s true Father, and according to the Sages (Kesubos 103a), one’s older brother. It also includes honoring Torah scholars, who are like fathers to their disciples, heeding the prophets, showing respect to the elderly and obeying the Sanhedrin. The purpose of this mitzvah is to bolster faith in tradition by honoring its bearers. That is why it is listed on the first Tablet along with the commandments between man and God. So that your days may be lengthened. This is in recompense for his good deed towards his forebears. Alternatively, it is to enable his own children to honor him, measure for measure; therefore when this commandment is repeated in Devarim (5:16) the Torah adds, “in order that it will be good for you” (Abarbanel). + +Verse 13 + +You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery, etc. All the people witnessed the sounds: They said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14) - How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on one tablet and five on the other. It is written, "I am the Lord your God," and opposite it, "You shall not murder" - since spilling blood is tantamount to diminishing the likeness [of God]. It is written, "There shall not be unto you [any other gods]," and opposite it, "You shall not commit adultery," saying that anyone worshipping idolatry is tantamount to adultery against the Omnipresent. It is written, "You shall not take [the name of the Lord your God in vain]," and opposite it, "You shall not steal," saying that anyone who steals - in the end - comes to swear in vain, as it is written (Jeremiah 7:9), "Shall one steal, murder, commit adultery, [swear falsely]." And it is written (Hosea 4:2), "swearing, lying, [murdering, stealing]." It is written, "Remember the Sabbath day," and opposite it, "You shall not testify falsely against your fellow" - Scripture is saying that anyone who desecrates the Sabbath testifies before Him who spoke and brought the world into being that He did not rest on the seventh day; and anyone who keeps the Sabbath thereby testifies about [God's] creation of the world, as it is written (Isaiah 43:10), "You are My witnesses, says the Lord." It is written, "Honor your father [and your mother]," and opposite it, "You shall not covet," saying that anyone who covets - in the end - comes to beget a son who curses his father, and honors one who is not his father. This is why the Ten Commandments were given, five on one tablet and five on the other, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:19), "The Lord spoke those words, etc. and He wrote them [on two tablets of stone]." These are the words of Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel. But the sages say: Ten were on one tablet and ten on the other, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:19) "The Lord spoke those words, etc. and He wrote them [on two tablets of stone]." To here [are the words of the Mekhilta]. This is the approach of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, about the organization of these Commandments and their need. However, according to what I explained in the verses, the first five were on one tablet due to their relating to matters of divinity; and the last five on [another] tablet due to their relating to [that which] is between a man and his fellow - according to the opinion of Rabbi Chanina, which is the more logical. And the tablets were therefore two. For if all of the Commandments were on each one of the tablets, there would not have been a need for two tablets, but rather [only] one. And because of this, the name, Lord, and the name, God, is mentioned in each of the five first Commandments that were on one tablet, to indicate that they were commandments about divinity. However, in that the last fives ones are all about humanity - between a man and his fellow - none of the holy names [of God] are mentioned in any of them. And this is that which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, intended in their saying (Shemot Rabbah 80:47): The two tablets correspond to the heavens and the earth, to a groom and a bride, to two friends and to two worlds. As through this, they wanted to distinguish between the two tablets, according to what I have explained. And behold, there is no doubt that there are other commandments included in the Commandment, "You shall not murder" - as I mentioned. For murder is stated about the killing of a soul - like (Numbers 35:2) "and the blood-avenger [murders] the murderer"; but it is also stated about blows and wounds - like (Psalms 42:11), "Murdering my bones"; (Hosea 6:9), "murdering on the way to Shekhem"; (Psalms 62:4), "all of you murder him like a leaning wall." For it compared someone hit and "murdered" to a leaning wall, that is ready to fall but has not yet fallen. And the word, murderer, is also stated about one who causes death, even though he does not kill with his hands (actively) - like (Judges 20:4) "the husband of the murdered woman." And they slept with her and did not kill her, but she was murdered as a result of [their actions]. And according to all of these usages, it is fit to understand, "You shall not murder," about one who kills a soul and one who strikes his fellow [with] 'bruises and wounds, that are repayment for evil.' And that one not go talebearing is also included in this Commandment, for he causes the [potential] murder. And also included in this Commandment is that one not refrain from charity to the poor, and [from] the commandment of "and your brother shall live with you" (Leviticus 25:36) - as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:9), "so that you are mean to your needy brother and give him nothing, and he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will incur sin." For one who withholds charity is killing the souls of the poor and the destitute. And also included in this negative commandment is the release of Hebrew slaves on the seventh year, and of the Hebrew maidservant, as is coming up. For if he detains them more than is the law; it is like killing and negating them from the world. And also included in this Commandment - according to the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed - is one who whitens the face of (embarrasses) his fellow about a blemish that he or his ancestors had; and also one who infringes upon his fellow's trade, one who prevents his sustenance from him and one who competes (unfairly); and the one who slanders and the one who hands over his fellow - all of these are included in "You shall not murder." And all forbidden sexual relations and all types of adulterers are included in the Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" - as was mentioned by Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra. For even though adultery (niuf) is said specifically about one who sleeps with a married woman, see that it is also stated generally about all other sexual prohibitions - and as it stated (Job 24:15), "The eyes of the adulterer watch for twilight, saying, 'No eye will see me.'" And there are also many commandments included in the Commandment, "You shall not steal.” For the word, thief, is sometimes stated about one who kidnaps one of his brothers - like the words [of the Sages,] may their memory be blessed - and it also stated about one who takes his fellow's money without his knowledge, as it is written (Exodus 22:1), "If the thief is seized while tunneling"; and it is stated about withholding a pledge and exploitation, since it is taking a person's property against his will. Hence it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), "or by holding a pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his kinsman" - as it all called holding a pledge, which is theft. And the word, theft, is also stated about fraud and deceit - like (Genesis 31:20), "And Jacob stole Lavan's heart"; (Job 4:12) "A stolen word came to me." And from this angle and aspect, even oppressive words are called theft. And according to these usages, the Commandment of "Do not steal" includes kidnapping, stealing money or vessels, robbery and exploitation; the commandment of "a man shall not oppress his brother" (Leviticus 25:14), and "Stay away from a false thing (Exodus 23:7); all matters of theft and fooling people; the commandment of "You shall not render an unfair decision" (Leviticus 19:15) with size, weight and length; and all of the other commandments I mentioned above. And as for why the Commandment of "You shall not commit adultery," came between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal," it is surely because a wife is, from one aspect, like a man's body - bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh - but from another aspect, she is like his acquisitions and his money. Hence this Commandment is stated between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal." And once it warned a man not to injure his fellow with bad deeds - not towards his wife, his body or his money - it warned him also not to injure him with the words of his lips. And that is its stating, "You shall not testify falsely against your fellow." And besides this prohibition that a person not testify falsely; also included in it is one who mocks his fellow, one who speaks evil speech, one who talebears, one who whitens the face of his fellow in public and that which is similar to them from the commandments that I mentioned. And after this, it warned that a man not injure his fellow with his thoughts. And that is, "You shall not covet." And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explained that this Commandment is not only in thought, since coveting is also stated about robbing something desirable, as it is stated (Micah 2:2), "They covet fields, and rob." And, if so, it is warning with this about robbing that is a continuation of the act of coveting, and also about the internal coveting itself. And the great rabbi, Maimonides, agreed with this in the Book of Damages, Laws of Robbery and Lost Property 5 - that one does not transgress the negative commandment of "You shall not covet" until he takes an object that he coveted - which is coveting with an action. But desire (Deuteronomy 5:18) is only in the heart. And there are some of the decisors that disagree with him about this. And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra put effort into explaining that a person has the power to accustom himself to uphold this prohibition of "You shall not covet," even in the heart. And that is when a person accustoms himself to be satisfied with what he has, like he accustoms himself to the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations and that which is similar to it. And it mentioned the desired things according to [the order of] a man's need for them and that which it is fit for a man to expend efforts to acquire in his world. And that is why it first mentioned the coveting of a house; and then a wife; and then a slave and maidservant; and then an ox and donkey, that are animals that do not speak. And Scripture grouped the other things that are not so necessary when it stated, "and anything that is your fellow's." But in Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy), it mentioned them according to the severity of the sin and the evil. For the most evil coveting is the coveting of a man for his fellow's wife, like the desire of David for Bathsheba. And after it in evil is the coveting of a man for his fellow's house, and afterwards the field. For even if a man does not live in it - like he lives in his house - it is surely the place of his nourishment and the inheritance of his ancestors, as it was in the matter of Ahab with the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. And after the field, it mentioned the slave and the maidservant that are not as esteemed as the field; and afterwards, the ox and donkey, which do not speak; and after them, it wanted to group all of the movable property that is not living - "and everything that is your fellow's." And I have already mentioned that these last five Commandments came with extreme terseness, because they are things that the human intellect understands, and because the first three of them were from the commandments that the Children of Noah were [already] commanded. Hence it does not say the word, "your fellow" here - meaning to say, "You shall not murder your fellow, you shall not commit adultery with your fellow's wife; you shall not steal from that which is your fellow's." As the whole world was already prohibited about [these things], whereas the Israelites were [deemed] fellows from the angle of the Torah which they received and by which they were united. However, with the commandment, "You shall not testify," it stated, "Your fellow" - and likewise with "You shall not covet." For the Holy One, blessed be He, added these two commandments to command them now to the Israelites, given that they were beloved fellows from once they received the Torah. And from that angle, and since they were the Children of Jacob - the seed of the blessed one of the Lord, it was fit that they not perpetrate injustice and that there not be expressions of deceit and bad desires in their mouths and hearts. And I also say that a double prohibition come upon coveting - in that it states, "You shall not covet your fellow's house; you shall not covet your fellow's wife" - because, as mentioned by the Medini (Aristotle), love and desire [of something] can be [because it is] useful or [because it is] enjoyable. And since they are different things, the negative commandment mentions [coveting] twice, as if it were saying, do not covet something wrong from that which is useful like a house or a field, and do not covet something wrong from that which is enjoyable like a woman. And with this, the second question is resolved. And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra already mentioned a different opinion about these Ten Commandments - that they are corresponding to the heavenly spheres, and he related each one to its sphere; and he felt that it was about this that it stated (Exodus 20:19), "you saw that I spoke to you from the heavens." But because these are tangible things, 'my soul is bewildered by them.' Hence I did not mention them here. + +Chapter 21 + + + +Chapter 22 + + + +Chapter 23 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + +Do not oppress a stranger. Do not pressure him even under circumstances where it would be appropriate to pressure a born Jew, lest he assume that you are doing so because he is a convert. + +Chapter 24 + + + +Chapter 25 + + + +Chapter 26 + + + +Chapter 27 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + + + + +"And you shall speak to all of the wise-hearted, etc. And they shall take the gold, etc." - what was the need to have this precede the command for the priestly garments? And note that it did not mention [something] like this with the ark and the cherubs or with the table and the menorah; and it is understood that the craftsmen would make them and take the necessary things to make them. + +Chapter 28 + + + +Chapter 29 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + +And this is what you shall offer. The purpose of the altar could not have been for the sacrificing of sin offerings because God did not want people to sin in the first place. Rather, its primary purpose was for the sacrificing of the continual offerings, which were expressions of gratitude for God’s kindnesses to the B’nei Yisrael. Thus the morning offering recalled the Giving of the Torah, which took place in the morning. The afternoon sacrifice recalled the redemption from Egypt, which took place in the evening. The tenth of an epha of flour recalled the manna, of which each person received a tenth of an epha every day. The oil recalled the distinction they received at the time of the exodus and the wine recalled their joy. + +Chapter 30 + + + +Chapter 31 + + + +Chapter 32 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + + + + + +About that which Moses repeated, "If Your presence does not go, do not take us up from here," after [God], may He be blessed, had already conceded to him and said (in verse 14), "My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest" - why did Moses answer Him and say, "If Your presence does not go," and make efforts to find arguments about this (in verse 16), "For how shall it be known that I and Your people have gained favor in Your eyes, unless You go with us," which are all words that are apparently unnecessary for the matter about which he asked?? + +Chapter 33 + + + +Chapter 34 + + + +Verse 1 + +"And God said to Moses, carve for yourself" ... until "protect for yourself that which I teach you this day. Here I banish ..." And there is reason to question on these verses as follows: +1. The first question: why did God command Moses to carve two tablets of stone akin to the first [set of tablets], upon which God would inscribe the Ten Commandments that were on the first set of tablets. For if the second set of tablets were to replace the first set, it would be appropriate for them to be identical in all respects; however, the first set were both carved and inscribed by God, while the second set were carved by Moses, who did not inscribe them, and inscribed by God, who did not carve them. +The second question: why did the second set of tablets have greater holiness than the first set, as indicated by the verse, "and no man shall ascend [the mountain] with you." And for the first tablets, the verse said "ascend to God, you and Aharon and Nadav and Avihu ..." Also, here the verse warned "the sheep and the cattle shall not graze adjacent to the mountain," while no such restriction appears with respect to the first tablets. It appears that the second tablets that Moses carved were holier than the first set that were carved by God. +The third question: the verse states "and he called," as if to say he witnessed, " and I called in the name of God before you." We might ask, what is this testimony, for after this the verse states "and God passed before him and he called 'Hashem Hashem ...'" and if so, there are two separate testimonies, where for one it says "he called in the name of God" and in the other it simply says "and God called." And if the caller is Moses, we must ask if God stood beside him (as specified in the verse) why did Moses call out to him. +The fourth question: why weren't all of God's promises to Moses enacted, as there were things He promised that were absent and other things that were added on. For God promised "I will allow all of My goodness to pass before you ... and I will remove My hand and you will see Me from behind." Yet we do not seen this enacted [in the verses]; neither God's passing His goodness before Moses, nor Moses seeing Him from behind. God also said, "I will proclaim the Name of the Lord before you, and the grace that I grant and the compassion that I show," which are the three attributes (God, Compassion, Grace) and no others. Yet, at the moment of action, He proclaimed thirteen attributes. And so He added upon his promise. And note that in His promise, Grace preceded Compassion, but in the recital of the thirteen attributes, Compassion came before Grace. +The fifth question: the verse states, "God descended in a cloud and stood with Moses there." Why specify that He descended in a cloud? And what is the meaning of "H/he stood with H/him there" - who was standing with whom? Was God standing with Moses or was Moses standing with God? And note that at the revelation at Mt. Sinai, the verse states, "And God descended onto Mt. Sinai," but did not reference a descent in a cloud. For if one were to say that there was a cloud there, the verse does not reference one when God descended to speak to the Israelite nation. +The sixth question: the verse, "And the Lord passed before him," should have appeared at the be ginning of the story, and not in the middle after the prior verse stated, "And the Lord descended in a cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the name of the Lord," for He was already speaking with him. So why specify, "the Lord passed before him," for after He proclaimed the name of the Lord there was no break in the attributes. And there was no separation between them. Note that in reference to the "standing" the verse did not say "before him", only that He stood there. Indeed, in reference to His passing the verse says "before him." And pay no mind to the teaching that explains that the phrase "the Lord passed before him" means that, in response to Moses' desire to see the Lord's face, the Lord changed the subject by enumerating the attributes, for this is not supportable from the grammar or the context. +The seventh question: when enumerating the thirteen attributes, why did God repeat the attribute "The Lord" twice. For no other attribute is repeated in this manner. And one cannot say that once was for the "Koreh" and one is for the "Kriyah" as the Gaon proposes: he wishes to say that the verse should be read, "and the Lord called out, 'the Lord, a God compassionate and gracious." Yet the cantillation dissuades us from this reading, as the Ibn Ezra responds, and one also should not say that the repeated name is similar to God calling out "Abraham, Abraham" or "Moses, Moses." For no other attribute is repeated here, whereas repeated names can be found in instances where on is speaking down to another, such as from a master to a servant, when required. But calling out the Lord's honored name is not speaking down. And furthermore, after verses stated, "And the Lord passed before him," it is clear that it was God calling out and no other, so why would the verse need to specify that "the Lord passed by" and "the Lord called out?" +The eighth question: why aren't all of theses names and attributes expressed in the same conjugation (i.e., an active verb)? Three of them are expressed in Pa'ul (Compassionate, Gracious and Slow to Anger). And it would have been more appropriate to say "Bestower of Compassion and Grace, who Curbs His Anger" as with the attributes that follow "Abounding in Kindness, Extending Kindness to the thousandth generation, Forgiving Iniquity, and Visiting Iniquity. And the Ramban writes that Compassionate, Gracious and Slow to Anger are all advjectives describing the Lord's elevated stature, therefore there was no need to say "Bestower of Compassion and Grace, who Curbs His Anger" because the name/attributes of "The Lord, The Lord, a God ..." is the subject of these attributes. But I do not understand his ways, and his writings are insufficient to answer this question. +The ninth question: when the verse states "forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin" why does it not reference other acts such as mutiny, malice and guilt and the like. And why does Moses in his prayer after hearing the attributes in their entirety say, "Let the Lord please walk in our midst ... and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and erase the crimes." And the Prophet Micah says, "Who is like you, God, who pardons iniquity and passes over sin." And erases crimes. And the Psalmist said, "the iniquities of my youth and my sins do not remember." And erase the crime. Why did each one of these complete Sages independently invoke the erasure of crimes? And none of them recall the three attributes ("forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin") together that are referenced in attributes here. +The tenth question: [raises apparent contradictions within the 13 attributes] +The eleventh question: visits the sins of the fathers upon the sons. How can one think that this is just or righteous, as the one who sins is worthy of death. And why punish the sons for sings of their fathers, for the verse says, "Sons shall not die for their fathers." And I have already raised this issue in Parshat Yitro with respect to the Ten Commandments. +The twelfth question: why did the Blessed One see fit to enumerate these attributes and names but not others which were recounted elsewhere, such as "The Almighty, the Great, the Powerful and the Awesome," or the name "God Almighty, "God of Hosts," "Righteous and Just," "Good and Beneficent," "Creator of Universes," "Living and Everlasting," "Giver of Pardon and Forgiveness," "Jealous and Avenging," "Lord of the Sun," and all of the other descriptions that the prophets permitted as expressions of God. +The thirteenth question: in the order of the attributes, you will find that "The Lord, the Lord" are considered attributes of mercy and "Almighty" is an attribute of justice, other than Rashi who says it is an attribute of mercy based on a verse from Psalsm (22) "My Almighty, My Almighty, why have you forsaken me." But there is no merit to Rashi's argument that Almighty is an attribute of mercy, for it was out of a sense of justice that King David complained, why did you leave, God - it would be appropriate for you to punish [Israel] and not to forsake her. "Merciful and Gracious" are attributes of mercy and "Long Suffering" is an attribute of justice. "Abundant in Goodness and Truth" are completely merciful, and after them come the attributes of justice. Why were all of the attributes of mercy clustered together and all of the attributes of justice clustered together, instead of being mixed amongt each other? +The fourteenth question: [How are the 13 attributes counted] +The fifteenth question: The Blessed Lord said, "Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been brought in all the land, nor in any nation; and all the people amongst you shall see the work of the Lord, for it is awesome that which I am about to do with you." But the subsequent verses do not recount any miracles or wonders that were done after this Moses, "such as have not been brought in all the land, nor in any nation; and all the people amongst you shall see the work of the Lord," as the Lord said. What was the purposes of this covenant and for what purpose was it made. And I have parsed the verses in a permissible manner and these are all my questions. +Response: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Carve for yourself' ... and Moses carved two tablets of stone." The opinion of all authentic scholars is that Moses stood upon the mountain three times, forty days and forty night each time, for a total of four months and two days, with two additional days of descent in the interim. For on the day that Moses initially descended, he destroyed the tablets, and the verse (Exodus 32) then states, "On the following day, Moses said to the nation, 'You have sinned" ... and now I will ascend to the Lord and will stand and pray there forty more days until your sins are forgiven." On his second descent, the verse states, "Moses awoke in the morning," it was four months and four days from the sixth day of Sivan (the date of Moses' first ascent) to Yom Kippur, which was on the tenth day of Tishrei. And the order of the verses here supports this timeline. Additionally, we have the verse from Deuteronomy (5:15) where Moses recounts three times that he stood upon Mt. Sinai, forty days each time, as it states, "As I ascended to the mountain ... and I stayed upon the mountain forty days and forty nights." And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, and this is the first stay upon the mountain. Afterwards, the verse states, "I prostrated before the Lord as I did the first time, forty days and forty nights ... for all of your sins," and this is the second stay upon the mountain (and with respect to this, Moses also said, "I prostrated myself before the Lord forty days and forty nights that I prostrated ..." which are the days of the second ascent, which is recounted again so that Moses could share the prayer that he prayed at that time. Afterwards he said, "At that time, the Lord said to me, 'Carve for yourself two tablets of stone similar to the first ones' ... and I stood upon the mountain as I did the first time, for forty days and forty nights. And this was the third stay upon the mountain. "And He answered," and with this answer the forgiveness was completed... And God said to Moses, "Carve for yourself," to inform him that he would not merit the complete vision of the testimony except through the Torah which was given by his hands, for without this Moses would not have achieved this level of spiritual greatness. And the reason for the word "yourself" was to warn Moses that he himself, and no other, should carve the tablets. For the word "yourself" connotes isolation, as it was written [with respect to Abraham], "Go yourself from your land ..." that Abraham should go without his father or relatives (as explained there). Similarly [with respect to the spies sent to Canaan], "Send for yourself men ..." that Moses should send them alone, apart from the rest of the nation. And here, God saw that the tablets encompassed two miraculous qualities. The first was that the workmanship was divine work, done in a miraculous fashion, and the second was the inscription, which was divinely written. When Moses shattered the tablets, the workmanship and form was lost, but the words inscribed were not destroyed or lost. Therefore, God commanded Moses to carve the stone to make new tablets, ready to be inscribed, for it was Moses' obligation since he destroyed the first set of tablets. However, He said the inscription would not be written by Moses, because he did not destroy + +Leviticus + +Introduction + + + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Chapter 2 + + + +Chapter 3 + + + +Chapter 4 + + + +Chapter 5 + + + +Chapter 6 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + +This is the offering of Aharon. Ten reasons can be presented for this meal-offering: 1) The Kohein Godol needs to atone for himself first before atoning for others. 2) So that others will say if the Kohein Godol needs atonement then we certainly do. 3) So that those who sinned will not be embarrassed about bringing an offering for themselves. 4) So that the poor will not be embarrassed bringing only flour. 5) So that the Kohein Godol will be humble before Hashem. 6) To demonstrate that the kohanim eat the meal-offerings because Hashem commanded and not to satiate themselves. 7) To thank Hashem for the gifts to the kohanim. 8) To atone for the possibility that the kohanim did not take enough in the fistful from the other meal-offerings. 9) Just as there is a continual communal offering, there should be a continual individual offering. 10) To atone for the Sin of the Golden Calf whose punishment is meted out slightly each day. + +Chapter 7 + + + +Chapter 8 + + + +Chapter 9 + + + +Chapter 10 + + + +Verse 1 + +...His heart became like an inanimate (domem) rock, and he did not raise his voice in crying or eulogy, as would a father for [his] children; he also did not accept condolences from Moses. For he had no breath left in him, nor did he have any speech... + +Chapter 11 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + +The 8th question is: why does the Torah specifically prohibit these foods mentioned in this section, is it because they are healthier for the body and good? Our eyes see the nations of the world and some are fat and healthy and not tired and noth failing and they are also foods that are worse for you and can kill you and the Torah does not warn us about eating those foods. + + + + +The intent of these criteria is not that by virtue of them the animal will be pure, for they do not make for purity by themselves. Rather, the intent of this is that they are signs that indicate that this animal is pure, and their absence indicates that it is impure. And the reason is that animals that possess these signs generally have flesh that is pleasant for human consumption, because the cause for bringing up the cud is that the animal does not have molars in its upper jaw to grind its food, and on this account, it cannot eat bones, but only grasses, which it swallows whole, and when they are softened in the belly by the natural heat, it brings them up through its throat and grinds them with its jaws and swallows them a second time. And these species of animals are fat and good for human consumption, because they find own food everywhere, and their temperamental mixture is more even, because they feed on grasses, both moist and dry, and because of this, these animals are not cruel, carnivorous, or wicked. + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + +Regarding the Torah's prohibition of foods, many of the commentators have thought that it is because of the body's health and medical care, those foods being bad, and generating a harmful moistness. This is the view of the Ramban, on the verse, "these you shall abhor among the birds" (Lev. 11:13). But God forbid that I should believe this, because if that were the case, the divine Sefer Torah would be on the level of a minor book among the books of medicine -- short in both words and reasoning. And this is not the way of the divine Torah, or the depth of its purpose. Further, we can see with our own eyes that the nations that eat the flesh of the pig, the creepers, the mouse, and the other impure birds, beasts, and fish are all alive to this day, "firm as a mirror of cast metal" (Job 37:18), and there is none tired or weak among them. Also, there are other animals that are well known to be harmful, like the viper, snake, serpent, and scorpion, that are not mentioned here among the category of prohibitions. And there are also grasses and plants that are very injurious and deadly poisonous, like the alisor and its like, among those mentioned by the medical experts, and the Torah does not prohibit their consumption. And all of this shows that the divine Torah does not come to heal the bodies, or to seek their health, but rather to promote the health of the soul and to heal its ailments, and therefore, it forbade foods that sully and abominate the pure and sublime soul, and that engender in the human temperamental mixture an impenetrability and a distortion of desires, by creating a bad mixture that gives rise to a spirit of pollution that defiles the mind and the deeds, and that expels the spirit of purity and holiness for which David prayed: "Do not take Your holy spirit away from me" (Ps. 51:13). And he said "Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create in me a steadfast spirit" (id. 12). And it was because of this that He, may He be blessed, said, "You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves through anything that swarms; you shall not make yourselves impure therewith" (Lev. 11:43). For in this consists the idea of impenetrability and impurity. And Scripture does not call them "injurious" or "disease-causing," but "impure" and "abominable," showing that the rationale for the prohibition is on account of the soul and not on account of the body and its health. It was necessary for the wholeness, clarity, and purity of the soul that the bodily temperament would be right, and that its food would create blood that was pure and refined, and not gross and thick and not right, as would be created by the forbidden foods. And also the forbidden foods were related to the idolaters. And even today in the land of India, it is forbidden to eat from the herd or from the flock, as the Master [Rambam] says in his Guide. And in other countries, they eat forbidden foods because of their religion, and that is why these foods are called "abominations," as idolatry is called "abomination." + +Chapter 12 + + + +Chapter 13 + + + +Chapter 14 + + + +Chapter 15 + + + +Chapter 16 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + +You shall afflict yourselves. All the physical enjoyments are prohibited on Yom Kippur, so that the animal soul will be afflicted and be rebuked from chasing after these enjoyments. Work is prohibited so that our thoughts will be free for repentance and prayer, for how can we work on this day on which our life depends? The proselyte is also obligated in this so that the congregation will not be liable for his iniquities. + +Chapter 17 + + + +Chapter 18 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + +You shall regard its fruit as closed off. According to the Moreh Nevuchim (3:37), the reason for orlah is because there was an idolatrous law to do certain known things during the planting to quicken the arrival of the fruits. Therefore, these fruits were prohibited so they would not come to these actions. A type of a mitzvah connected to the land that serves to distance one from idol worship is applicable in both Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. Afterwards the Torah prohibits the actions they did at the time of planting, as we see later. + +Chapter 19 + + + +Chapter 20 + + + +Chapter 21 + + + +Verse 1 + + +Question 1: Why does the Torah command the priests to become impure for some deceased people, and forbid becoming impure for others. The laws of ritual impurity are identical whether the corpse is a close relative or a stranger, all corpses transmit ritual impurity. Therefore, priests should either be forbidden from becoming impure for any deceased person, or permitted to become impure for all. +Question 2: Why is it permitted to become impure for the six relatives mentioned in the Torah and not for other relatives. For example, why do uncles and grandfathers not have the same law as parents? Regarding sisters, why is it permitted to become impure for one's virgin sister but not for one's married sister. Is the married one not his sister just as the virgin? The laws of forbidden relationships are identical whether one's sister is married or a virgin. And if it is permitted to become impure for a brother why did Moshe forbid Aharon to involve himself with the burial of Nadav and Avihu — instead commanding Misha'el and Elzafan to bury them. + +Chapter 22 + + + +Chapter 23 + + + +Chapter 24 + + + +Chapter 25 + + + +Chapter 26 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + +If you walk in my statutes (Lev. 26:3) - Many questions can be asked. + The first one is: Why is the reward for keeping Torah and mitzvot all physical things, as written in this covenant, and not soul perfection, and spiritual reward in the afterlife, given that death is the end of all humans, and the true measure of their success and essential goodness? Also, the enemies have gone out of their gates and lied, pointing out to this verse as the proof that there is no spiritual reward for Israel after death because of this. And also this is difficult: how would the produce given according to the observance of mitzvot, since the reward to the one who observes the mitzvah is rain on the land, in its time, but for the sinner that the sky would close, and rain would not fall? And I will after this recall the opinions of the sages in this matter. + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + +I will scatter you. From the time of the Destruction of the First and Second Temples many came to Spain and France and the rest of the kingdoms, and yet there as well they had no rest. + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + +Verse 35 + + + +Verse 36 + + + +Verse 37 + + + +Verse 38 + + + +Verse 39 + + + +Verse 40 + +They will confess. As we explained, the leaders of the returnees from Babylon will confess, but the people will not repent. In their unfaithfulness. They will still ascribe everything to coincidence, as one who [attempts to purify himself but] immerses in a ritual pool with a vermin [that imparts impurity] in his hand. Therefore (v. 41), “I will bring them …” in an extended exile. + +Chapter 27 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + +When a person expresses a vow. This refers to a vow made in time of trouble. It is not proper that we should make the valuation for a person in the same way as that of an animal. Furthermore, there is a set amount of the valuation to remove any jealousy in valuations. The Torah differentiates between male and female because the male is on the level of “form” (more spiritual) and the female is on the level of “matter” (more material). In reparation for damages, however, there is no difference between a male or female servant, and the like. This is because the damager makes no distinction. The valuation of a female is about half that of a male because the female fetus completes its formation in twice as much time — eighty days for the female and forty days for the male. Additionally, one man has the strength to work as two women. + +Numbers + +Introduction + + + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Verse 1 + +Here is the first book of the Torah of G-d and it is Breisheit, which explicates the family line of the Children of Israel and their families, from the beginning of Creation until the Egyptian Exile. The second book explicates their exile and physical redemption from Egyptian slavery and spiritual redemption from + + + +And is this not the opposite of what the Torah commanded (Exodus 30:12), "When you take a census of the Israelite people according to their enrollment, each shall pay the Lord a ransom for himself on being enrolled?" And over there Rashi explains, "When you wish to obtain the sum total of their number, do not take their census by their heads but each of them shall give half a shekel, and you shall count these, and so ascertain their number." And if so, how did it command here to count according to their heads? + + + + + + + + +... And I have already explained in the Order of Kit Tissa that this commandment of the half shekel - that they should give it at the time of the counting - was not a commandment for [the future] generations, that they should always do this. Rather it was proper advice that when [they] would want to count the people from [their] own thoughts and will, they should do it like this. And they benefited by this - by the giving of silver of the coins by each head from all the people - here for the work of the Tabernacle, for the purpose of the sockets... [As opposed to] if God had commanded to count, since 'the one who keeps a commandment does not know bad' (according to Ecclesiastes 8). Hence now when the count of the people was necessary, He, may He be blessed, commanded that they do it without the coin, [that comes] from fear of the plague - as 'the agents of a commandment are not hurt'. And let him 'not be scared and not tremble' 'from the plague that stalks in the darkness, or the scourge that ravages at noon' (according to Psalms 91:6). And that which Rashi explained that they they counted this time as well (in Numbers 1) with the shekels - with all due respect - is not true in the understanding of the verses. For they testify and tell that that Israel was not counted by shekels, but by their heads... + +Chapter 2 + + + +Chapter 3 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + +And have it stand. This connotes service; their role was: 1) “they shall serve,” which is the song, 2) “guardianship,” lest an outsider enter, and 3) “to serve,” which was the service of carrying. + +Chapter 4 + + + +Chapter 5 + + + +Chapter 6 + + + +Verse 1 + +...But if someone die upon the nazirite suddenly - meaning to say, in a sudden incident, such as if he was killed or choked in front of him, or if the nazirite entered a tent with a dead body in it, and he did not know - and defiled his head from being a nazirite; then he shall sit in his impurity seven days, and shave the hair of his head on the seventh day when he has already been purified... And on the eighth day, he brings his sacrifice, "and makes atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of a soul" - meaning to say, for that he sinned by reason of a dead soul. Or its understanding is by reason of his own soul of the nazirite, since he had been ascetic and devoted, and he [now] sinned against it when he interrupted [this state] - as "No harm comes to the righteous" (Proverbs 12:21). And this is the correct understanding on the simple level, and not like the words of R. Yishmael (it appears that this is a mistake and it is supposed to be R. Elazar HaKappar) who expounded, "for that he sinned by reason of a soul," [to mean], that he distressed himself from [drinking] wine, by his being a nazirite. As behold, according to his explanation, it would have been fitting to say...   + +Chapter 7 + + + +Chapter 8 + + + +Chapter 9 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + +If war shall come. The trumpets will arouse them to repentance, and Hashem will no longer hide His Face from them, which is termed ‘being forgotten.’ And you will be remembered. This will remind them that they stand before Hashem and they will not sin on their joyous occasions. + +Chapter 10 + + + +Chapter 11 + + + +Verse 1 + +And the people became like those who complain of hardship in the hearing of the Lord; and when the Lord heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp +The first question arises from the phrase, 'And the people became like those who complain of hardship.' It is unclear what sin they committed and why it is stated 'like those who complain of hardship' using the letter 'כ' (like) in a comparative sense, and not simply 'complain of hardship.' Additionally, why did their punishment come in the form of the fire of the Lord burning at the outskirts of the camp? Were all the people sinners? +The second question arises from the phrase, 'And the mixed multitude among them had a strong craving, and the people of Israel also wept again and said, "Oh, that we had meat to eat!"' (Numbers 11:4) What was this craving, and why does it say 'they wept again and said' as if they had already wept and then wept again? And if the mixed multitude incited the Israelites, why were only the Israelites punished? +The third question arises from the phrase, 'Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.' (Numbers 11:4-6) The question is, why did they mention fish when their craving was for meat? Indeed, their craving for meat was mentioned later in an organized manner, as it says, 'Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish... but now there is nothing but this manna to look at.' However, this sequence is not logical, as they started with the request for meat and then diverted immediately to fish and other things that are neither fish nor meat. +The fourth question arises from the phrase, 'Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. The people went about and gathered it and ground it in handmills or beat it in mortars and boiled it in pots and made cakes of it. And the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil.' (Numbers 11:7-8) What caused them to suddenly remember the perfection of the manna, even though it had already been explained in an organized manner in the sequence of events in Parashat Beshalach? Additionally, they did not mention any negative aspect of the manna. Rather, they expressed that besides the fact that it was good food, they had nothing else. What was the perfection that the Torah mentions when it says that the manna descended upon the camp at night? +The fifth question arises from the phrase, 'And Moses heard the people weeping, each clan apart, because of their families.' (Numbers 11:10) The question is that Rashi's explanation is not sufficient, as it suggests that they were crying over forbidden relationships. This is unlikely because when one desires to satisfy his hunger, he does not cry over the lack of delicacies. These are changing desires, and the Torah does not respond to this. +The eighth question arises from the phrase, 'And the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, and Moses was displeased.' (Numbers 11:10) If the sin was so severe that it caused such great anger from God, it is well known that it would also be displeasing to Moses. So why do we need to be informed of Moses' displeasure? +The seventh question arises from the phrase, 'Why have you dealt ill with your servant, and why have I not found favor in your sight?' (Numbers 11:11) These two statements are unrelated. If the evil is known to be with him, it is obvious that he has not found favor in His sight. Furthermore, the explanation that he said it to put the burden of all these people upon Him is without a doubt the meaning of 'Why have you dealt ill with your servant.' However, the question of 'Why have I not found favor in your sight' is not answered at all, and the Scripture does not explain its meaning. +The eighth question is why Moses compared his situation to that of a woman giving birth, rather than to the man who begets the child. The father is the one who exerts greater effort to provide for his children, as the verse says, 'As a father pities his children.' (Psalms 103:13) The father gives the form, while the woman provides the material, and the one who gives form is more attached to the object than the one who provides the material. +The ninth question is why Moses further compared his situation to that of a nursing mother. When he initially compared his situation to that of a woman giving birth, why did he then go on to compare himself to a man? Moreover, it is the nursing mother who carries the infant in her bosom, not the man. So how can the infant be attributed to the man? What is the relevance of the statement, 'I will not see my evil' as if he were not concerned about the impending evil, but rather that he would not witness it ? +The tenth question pertains to the correction that the Almighty made in response to Moses' complaint about appointing seventy men to assist him in leading the people. For Moses alone was sufficient to lead them, so why was there a need for seventy additional prophets? It would have been enough for Moses to select them from among the people and impose communal responsibilities upon them. This is especially true if the purpose was for matters of judgment, as they had already been appointed in Horeb (Sinai) as judges over thousands and rulers over hundreds. And if the purpose was to address complaints, what good would the seventy men do? For when the people were in need, they would come to Moses to cry out. +The eleventh question is regarding the necessity for the seventy elders to come to the Tent of Meeting and stand there with Moses. If this was done so that they would know that they were all disciples of Moses, the prophetic experience that came upon them should have made them aware of it. And if it was done to ensure their agreement and to prevent them from sinning, it would have been of no avail, as all of them had sinned with the spies and had perished in the wilderness. +The twelfth question is: Why were the Israelites punished now for their request for meat, but they were not punished the first time when they left Egypt and asked for meat? And if their request was evil in the eyes of the Lord, it would have been more appropriate for Him to withhold their request before granting it, and bitterness would come in the end. And why were there thirty days, when it would have been sufficient for just one day or up to five days after their request, since the intention was only to fulfill their desires? +The thirteenth question pertains to the following statement: 'But Moses said, 'The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot, and you have said, 'I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month.' Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and be enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, and be enough for them?' How could the master of prophets not believe in the word of God and the power of the Creator of the world? He who struck the rock, and water gushed out; He who brought down manna and quails on another occasion. So now, why would the hand of the Lord be too short to provide? Our Sages were already troubled by this, and some of their greats said that because this matter occurred in secret, it was atoned for. But the incident of the waters of Meribah, which happened openly, was not atoned for. The difficulty for me is not how it was atoned for, but rather how such a heretical thought could emerge from the mouth of the Holy Name, questioning the divine ability. Some answered that it was not due to a lack of capability on God's part, Heaven forbid, but rather from their perspective, they were not satisfied with anything, as their request was boundless. And it was challenging for them that if there was no limit to their desires, there would be no limit to God's divine power either. The Ramban wrote that Moses believed that God would not perform a miracle for an evil purpose, namely, to kill them. However, this demonstrates that all these explanations are not straightforward. As for the response that the hand of the Lord is too short, it indicates that Moses' words were intended as a rhetorical question. Therefore, it says, 'the hand of the Lord is too short,' using the letter 'hei' as a sign on the 'hei' of the question. +The fourteenth question pertains to the statement, 'Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them to suffice?' This question is separate from the earlier objection, as it is evident that on this day, there are more than three hundred thousand people in the world who consume livestock, and it is sufficient for them. In the Book of Chronicles, it is written that during the wars of Jeroboam and Abijah, there were one million and two hundred thousand men in Israel, and there is no doubt that they were all consuming meat and it was sufficient for them. Therefore, the statement 'If all the fish of the sea were gathered,' is clearly not a valid argument in itself. +The fifteenth question pertains to the statement, 'Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets.' Onkelos interprets this as a strong rebuke, indicating that they did not cease sinning, for we do not find any other prophecy among them, even though if they were prophets, how could they have sinned with the spies, and all of them perished in the wilderness due to that sin? And if we interpret 'and they did not add' according to Rashi's explanation (Numbers 11:26), the question still remains: why did the Lord withhold prophecy from them? And He, may He be blessed, does not withhold good from His followers. Furthermore, what was the purpose of their prophecy, given that it was only for one day, and even then, they did not require it for the matter of meat, as there is no mention in the Scripture of any action or utterance they made regarding that matter. +The sixteenth question is regarding why Eldad and Medad remained in the camp, and how they prophesied after the Lord had declared that they would come to the camp. If the Lord had bestowed His spirit upon them, what was their transgression and sin? As Joshua said, 'My lord Moses, restrain them!' And how could Moses say, 'Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets,' when this would imply their unpreparedness? It would be a vain prayer for the entire nation to be prophets. +The seventeenth question is regarding the statement, 'The meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, when the Lord's anger was kindled against them.' After the Divine will had agreed to give them fresh meat for several days, how did His statement not come true while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was fully consumed, and they had not yet reached the graves in Tav'eirah? As it says, 'They had not satisfied their craving, while the meat was still in their mouths, and the anger of the Lord flared against them +And behold, I will explain this passage in a comprehensive manner, addressing all these questions together. +And the people were complaining, and it displeased the Lord, and the Lord said to Moses, 'Gather for Me seventy men. The Scripture states that even though the children of Israel stood at Sinai for one year and received there the Torah and commandments, along with divine teachings, rebukes, and admonitions, they did not completely separate from their previous false and deceitful beliefs that they had acquired in Egypt among the wicked Egyptians. They also did not refrain from the corrupt and impure practices regarding food and drink that they had in Egypt. Despite the divine Torah coming to rectify their true beliefs and elevate their moral character, they did not fully accept discipline, and they constantly sank into the loss of their beliefs and indulged in the immorality and corruption of their wicked leaders whom they had acquired there. And because of this, when they journeyed from Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant went before them and the cloud of the Lord was upon them, they reverted to their deficiencies, both in their beliefs and in their character traits. This is the underlying reason connecting these two narratives. The term "מתאוננים" (complainers) is used to indicate the evil of their beliefs, and the term "מתאוים" (cravers) is used to indicate their lowliness, indulgence, and corruption in their food. In the first instance, it states, "And it came to pass, when the people complained (מתאוננים) in the ears of the Lord," and the word "מתאוננים" does not imply sin, according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, nor does it denote distress, according to the opinion of Ramban. Rather, in my understanding, it comes from the term "תואנה" (desire), signifying that they sought complaints and accusations, attempting to prove that evil was in the ears of the Lord, meaning that He did not listen to the words of human beings. This is in line with the verse that states, "And they say, 'The Lord does not see us, nor does the God of Jacob understand.'" These are mocking words, suggesting that He was ignorant and did not comprehend the affairs of the lowly world and its particulars. And now, this was in their mouths because they saw that Moses, may he rest in peace, would say, "Arise, O Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered," and when he would say, "Return, O Lord, to the multitude of thousands of Israel," they would mock his words and say, "Evil is in the ears of the Lord, and He does not have attentive ears for this."And the meaning is that they did not listen to these words. And because their words were in a mocking and scoffing manner, the scripture therefore describes them as 'm'ta'onanim' (complainers) using a metaphorical expression. It means that they did not deny the providence and power of God openly, but rather sought excuses and arguments to claim that He does not hear their lowly concerns. Their sin was hidden and not publicly proclaimed. Therefore, the Torah did not elaborate further on it, and Moses did not rebuke them for it. "But it is stated, 'And the LORD heard' that even though they said evil in His ears and He appeared not to listen, the reality was the opposite. He did hear their complaints and words, and His anger was kindled. For He, who plants the ear, does He not hear? And when He saw that, instead of their love for Him, they deceived Him with their mouths, and they, out of His kindness, did not recognize Him, He desired that they recognize Him through His punishments. Therefore, the fire of the LORD burned among them, and perhaps it was a literal fire that came upon the camp and consumed them. And because this fire did not come by human will or accident but through a miraculous event, they recognized that it was the fire of the LORD, which consumed the outskirts of the camp, to demonstrate that His providence did not extend to all sides like the spreading fire. In this way, those wicked men did not cry out to the LORD and did not say to Moses, 'We have sinned because we spoke against the LORD and against you.' Instead, they cried out to Moses to extinguish the fire, and he prayed for them, and the anger of the LORD subsided, and the fire was quenched." So that they may know that the fire was a result of divine providence sinking into the ground below, even though the nature of fire is to rise upward. And in order to leave them a lasting memorial, the faithful poet called that place 'Tab'erah' and explained that it was not called by that name due to the cause of the fire that you found, but to signify that it was the fire of the LORD. It appears that the burning occurred as they journeyed from the Wilderness of Sinai to the Graves of Craving. And during their journey, this incident occurred. And as it is stated, 'And in the burning, and in the journey, and in the graves of desire, you provoked the Lord.' And in my view, it is proper to understand that the mentioned 'fire of the Lord' refers to sharp, sudden, and deadly burnings. Since there was no flammable material to ignite these fires, they were caused by the providence of the Lord in the form of punishment. It is called the 'fire of the Lord' either because it signifies divine judgment, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu who died by the fire of the Lord, or because it is a consuming fire. And it is said, 'And it consumed the outskirts of the camp.' This means that those who died from it were from the lower ranks and the common people. The opinion of our Sages is that they were nobles among the children of Israel who, during the incident at Mount Sinai, sinned with their deliberations and deserved annihilation. Moses interceded on their behalf, and the Holy One, blessed be He, prolonged His anger until they were consumed by the fire of punishment. And it is not the case that they died there for that very sin, for the scripture says that they were complaining evilly in the ears of the Lord. Rather, when this happened, those officers among the people were punished, because they had sinned at Sinai. And now they added to their sin by saying evil in the ears of the Lord. Therefore, their measure was full, and they died. And Ibn Kaspi explained that they were complaining and getting angry about the toil and hardship that befell them during their journey in the wilderness. They were complaining. "In other words, they were crying out about their misfortune in the ears of the Lord, hoping that He would hear their voice and rectify their situation. But it was for naught, and it was not appropriate." Indeed, it was clarified in my previous response regarding the first question that their beliefs were criticized in this initial narrative. And after the book of their division, with their evil traits and their indulgence in food, they expressed their desire for the mixed multitude that was among them. It means that the Erev Rav, a mixed multitude that joined the Israelites, had cravings within their camp, desiring pleasure without any real need or necessity. And that Erev Rav, even though they were not from the children of Israel, did not speak unfairly, but they had insatiable desires and did not restrain themselves from speaking out and crying out against it, lest Moses would rebuke them. But they raised the issue, and the children of Israel also raised it, and this is the meaning of 'And the people returned and wept, and the children of Israel also wept.' For this verse came to recount the disgrace of Israel, that the Erev Rav, despite their insatiable desires, did not weep and did not utter words of denial. However, the children of Israel erred because they turned and wept, meaning that apart from the initial weeping when the fire of the Lord burned among them. Furthermore, even now, due to their continued pursuit of the desires of the Erev Rav, not only did they desire lustfully, but they also turned to weep once again. And as a result of this, the expression 'also' can be understood that the children of Israel increased their weeping upon the weeping of their turning and weeping once again, while they were the children of Israel. And to amplify their transgression, they said, 'Who will give us meat to eat after all the abundance we had in Egypt? And they denied the ability of the Almighty in this, and therefore they did not say to Moses, 'Give us meat to eat,' for they believed that the divine power would not be sufficient for this. That is why they were weeping, for a person only weeps over something that is impossible to rectify. And they said, 'We remember the fish that we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!' And when they said this, it was a response to what was possible, as if the listener would say to them, 'Why are you angry so as not to eat meat? Were you not eating meat in Egypt?' There is no doubt that they did not eat meat there. This is because they were poor and destitute, and meat in Egypt was very expensive. Therefore, they would say, 'Look, if we had not been eating meat in Egypt, we would have been eating fish, for it is abundant in the waters of the Nile. And we did not need money to buy them because we would take them for free, without silver or price. This was because the Nile River would overflow and spread, and each of the Egyptians would dig clay pits that would fill with water from the river. When the river returned to its place, the fish would remain in those pits, and in this way, they would eat them for free. And besides the fish that they would eat there, they also used to eat vegetables that were abundant in Egypt, such as cucumbers and watermelons. But now we do not eat meat, fish, or vegetables because our soul is dried up. We have nothing except for the manna before our eyes, constantly saying, 'When will it come?' And through this, their inferiority was revealed from several aspects. The first thing is that they added more sin than the gathering and the mixed multitude, for they desired a desire on their own and did not speak disgraceful words. However, the Israelites cried and denied His providence and the power of the Lord, and they spoke things that were not true. The second thing is that their words revealed their inherent inferiority and their flawed character traits. They were so greedy that despite having the superior sustenance of manna, they asked for fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, which were the foods of the laborers and unclean. The esteemed teacher has already written that the laborers of the land choose for themselves inferior food and prefer it over the excellent food of the distinguished individuals. The third thing is their foolishness, as despite the burning fire of the Lord that consumed them, they were seeking to eat moist fruits and vegetables. Their desire was for fruits and vegetables that were moist, which would increase the intensity of the burning fire. The cucumbers, in particular, were extremely cold and harsh on the body, like swords. The melons were highly conducive to combustion. The grass they were familiar with, as well as the onions and garlic, were sharp and heating in nature. And they were harmful to warm bodies, especially during the summer when they would inflame the blood. Even more so in the hot desert, at that time when they desired what would harm and kill them, following the instinctual desire without reason, like wild animals. It is also possible to interpret that their complaint was that they did not desire fish in the desert, as there was no sea from which they could gather them. But they desired meat, for just as in places close to the sea, meat becomes scarce and fish abound, so in distant places far from the sea, meat becomes plentiful and fish become scarce. That's why they said, 'We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free, the fish that we used to cook together with cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, to remove the unpleasantness of the fish.' There, they did not desire meat. And what I initially explained is the most accurate. Therefore, the two remaining questions, the second and the third, are resolved. To further prove that their desire was irrational and not based on reason, the Scripture attests in the account of the manna by stating, 'And the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium.' This means, 'See and behold how repulsive their murmuring was, despite having honorable and beneficial food, which is the manna.' The Scripture describes four qualities of the manna: The first quality was that it was a beautiful and pleasant food, not repulsive or detestable. Regarding this, it says, 'And the manna was like coriander seed,' which is a small round-shaped spice, similar to the images. And its appearance was delightful, for it was pleasing to the eye, resembling the coriander seed. The second quality was that it was a good food given freely. Regarding this, it says, 'The people went about and gathered it, ground it in mills or beat it in mortars, cooked it in pots, and made cakes of it.' This means that they did not quarrel with one another over its acquisition, nor did they incur many expenses for it. Rather, each person would go out from their tent and gather an amount according to their own needs. The third quality was that it was a savory and refined food. Concerning this, it says, 'And its taste was like the taste of cakes baked with oil.' This means that if they desired fatty meat with a sweet flavor, then the manna would taste accordingly. There is no contradiction here to what is stated in the order of events in the book of Exodus, where it is described as tasting like wafers made with honey. This is because the Scripture there speaks of the taste of the manna as it descended to the ground, resembling wafers made with honey. However, here the Scripture describes the taste of the manna after it had been prepared and cooked, as it says, 'They ground it in mills or beat it in mortars, cooked it in pots, and made cakes of it.' After these preparations and cookings, its taste was like the taste of cakes baked with oil. The fourth quality of the manna was that, as it says, 'When the dew fell on the camp at night, the manna would descend upon it.' This means that the food itself was pure and clean, free from any impurity or contamination. When the dew would fall on the field at night, the manna would descend upon it in such a way that it did not touch the earth's surface. Rather, it would rest on the dew in great purity. This explains the statement, 'There is nothing besides the manna before our eyes,' as they would find the bread ready for them when they woke up from their sleep on their beds at night. (Note: The term "אל המן עינינו" (besides the manna before our eyes) is left untranslated as it appears to be a specific phrase or idiom referring to the manna as the sole sustenance of the Israelites in the desert.) They did not place their hope in Him, but He placed His hope in them. Therefore, if the manna had been a beautiful and appealing food in its appearance and form, distinguishing itself without any expense, mixture, or impurity, it would have been clear that their complaint stemmed from base desire rather than rational judgment. The request for meat, fish, and lesser vegetables that they remembered and the fourth question were permitted. Now, Moses saw the people weeping by their families, each one at the entrance of his tent. This means that he saw that this rebellion was not initiated by one or two individuals from a specific family. Also, these matters were not whispered secretly, for everyone connected with their respective families to weep and cry out together, like a woman mourning over a deceased person. The weeping was not as if they were weeping for a single deceased person, but as if every individual was weeping for their own families, as if all the members of their families had died before them. Moses stood there and the families mourned. Remember that even that weeping they did for their families and ancestral houses was not done in secret. Rather, each person of the family, who resided on the opposite side, would go out to the entrance of his tent and weep openly. They did not feel ashamed or embarrassed about their blasphemous words and contemptible behavior. And besides what this matter itself appeared to be repugnant in the eyes of Moses, he also perceived and understood the dawn of its evil. Even God was greatly angered because they denied His providence and power. Yet, they still clung to their previous blasphemy. However, when they said, 'And it is evil in the eyes of Moses,' it means that Moses did not recognize the hidden reason behind their behavior. But it was evil and repugnant in his eyes that they were weeping for the consumption of meat like an infant who cries for something he doesn't need and is not appropriate. However, it seems that Moses, upon witnessing the people's rebellion and the wickedness of their words, understood their transgression. And with this, Moses saw through the power of his prophecy that God was greatly angered against them. The impending evil was openly revealed and known to Moses, for the severe punishment that the Almighty would inflict upon them was revealed before his understanding. Concerning this, it is stated, 'And it is evil in the eyes of Moses,' indicating that the punishment that would befall them was openly revealed and known to Moses. Upon witnessing this, the Master of the prophets considered devising a plan to appease God's wrath, hoping that in His mercy, He would forgive their sin, which preceded the decree and the punishment that God would inflict upon them. Moses himself was deeply pained by the transgressions of the Israelites, and he declared that he did not wish to continue leading them, so that the Almighty would pardon them and not forsake them. This would be the cause for their forgiveness. Therefore, Moses quickly said before the Almighty, 'Why have You done evil to Your servants,' etc. Here the question of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the Lord (Adonai) remains unanswered. However, some say that the intention in this was, 'Why have You done evil to Your servants by sending me to take them out of Egypt?' And because I said, 'Please send by the hand that You will send,' Your anger was kindled against Moses. But if I had found favor in Your eyes, I would not have been sent to this people.' However, this interpretation is not correct, as these are two distinct matters, not one. Rather, the more accurate understanding of this is that the intention of these words was to indicate that Moses was torn between two conflicting matters. The first is that the entire burden of the people was upon him, and they would become angry with him when they needed to fulfill their desires. The second is that he did not have the ability to fulfill their request, and if he had the power to satisfy their demands, he would not have been distressed by their leadership. Concerning the first matter, he said, 'Why have You done evil to Your servant,' indicating that he was burdened with the complaints of the entire people, and this argument is strengthened by his statement, 'Did I conceive all of this people?' which means, 'Why have You done evil to Your servant by placing the burden of the entire people upon me.' Am I like a mother who bears great burden in giving birth to her children? If I am their birth mother and I am to this people like a father who begets children, then why have You burdened me with the entire weight of this people? And in response to the second matter, where his ability to fulfill their desires was limited, he said, 'Should I carry them in my bosom as a nurse carries a suckling child?' This means, 'Why should I carry this people in my embrace?' which implies leading them to the land that You swore to their fathers. For if the promise of the land was fulfilled to me, and it was intended for me to undertake its realization because it was my gift, then why have I labored for it? The difficulty lies in the fact that You should treat me like the craftsman and not like the nurse. For the nurse, when she carries the suckling child and he cries, she soothes him with her comforting words and breastfeeding. But the craftsman, being a man, cannot appease the infant because he lacks breasts and milk. Therefore, the infant will continue to cry and cannot be soothed. Similarly, I liken myself to the craftsman when You have laid the burden of all these people upon me, and I have not found favor in Your eyes to grant me the strength to fulfill their request and demand. For I have no meat to give to all these people, as they weep and say to me, 'Give us meat to eat.' And they are like the infant who seeks milk from the nurse's breasts, but there is nothing for me to give them to appease them. And because of this, I alone am unable to bear the burden of all these people, meaning to say, do not think that it is possible for me alone to provide meat for all of them in this instance, for their craving is insatiable. Each day they will add to their sins and seek other things. Especially now, as their elders and leaders have died, as it is stated, 'And she ate at the edge of the camp.' They were assisting in their reprimands and guidance. Therefore, I said, 'I alone am unable to bear the burden of all these people,' meaning to lead them in their ways, guide them, and carry them to the land that You promised, for it is too heavy a responsibility for me. This goes against the natural order, for it is fitting that the burden be carried by the bearer. How then can I, who am heavier than them, bear them? And if this is how You treat me, meaning that I should bear them and not fulfill their desires, then it would be better for me to die rather than to see their evil and be left alive. Please, kill me now if You intend to treat me this way, for in doing so, I will consider it as finding favor in Your eyes. Because in my death, I will not witness their calamity, and they will be left as I have explained in questions 7, 8, and 9. It is also possible to interpret it as follows: If this is how You treat me, kill me now as You did to the other distinguished leaders of the Israelites who were consumed by fire. Let me be killed in the same manner, so that You may avert Your face from me and kill me before I witness their calamity. This way, I will not be ashamed before their eyes, and I will be unable to guide them or fulfill their needs as they have requested. And another interpretation is that You treat me in a way that I am not allowed to appoint others to assist me in their leadership. + +Chapter 12 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +... "And Miriam spoke... against Moses because (al odot) of the Cushite woman whom he had married" - meaning to say because of the insult to his wife committed by Moses in his separating from her. And they said, "If he did this because Zipporah was black like a Cushite, behold when he married her, she was already a Cushite - can a Cushite change his skin? And nevertheless, he took her [as a wife] and had children from her. So, if so, what did he see now to separate from her." And they also said, "If it was on account of the needs of prophecy that he separated from her, 'was it only with Moses that the Lord spoke; did He not also speak with us?' And [yet] we did not separate from [our spouses], from when we became prophets. So, if so, why did Moses separate from his wife on account of his prophecy? Did the Lord not also speak with us, and the Lord heard our words. And since we speak to Him and the Lord hears our voices without this separating, why did Moses separate from his wife?... + +Chapter 13 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + +Behold, if so, from these six questions which Moshe, our teacher - peace be upon him - commanded to the scouts that they know and return the word to him, there was not one that the people asked, when they said (Deuteronomy 1:22), "and they will return to us the word: the path that we shall go up upon, and the cities that we shall come unto" - as Moshe did not command that they should know anything about the paths nor what cities were more fitting to conquer first. And also the scouts in their answers did not respond to this at all. But [rather], Moshe in his knowing the evil of the people, [understood] that there was to know whether the land was good and broad, plentiful of food and plentiful of settlement, in [such] a way that they would eat and be satiated and greatly delight upon it. And [so] he commanded them the two questions about the inhabited land and the two last questions about the land that is worked and sown. However, the other two questions Moshe invented himself, to ask about them. And this was in order that they know that the enemies were a large and strong nation and that the cities were fortified into the skies; and with this, they would recognize and know that their Savior is strong, and that it would not be with their [own] strength that they would inherit the land, and that their forearms would not deliver them. And hence they would increase their clinging to God, may He be blessed, and call to Him, 'since it is a time of trouble for Yaakov and from it he shall be delivered.' Behold, it has become clear from this that Moshe did not ask about the land, "whether it is good or bad," because of his being in doubt about the divine designs - God forbid - but rather to answer their questions, in his thinking that for this did they request to send scouts, as I elucidated; and that he only asked them, "are they strong or weak, are they few or are they many," in order to sway their hearts to return to God and to supplicate in front of Him, 'since to God is deliverance,' and that they should say, "Let us go and return to God, so that He should do with us all of His wonders," and like he did at the [Reed] Sea. And it appears to me in truth that our master, Moshe, sinned in these first two questions that he asked about the people and the cities, as Israel did not ask them and also God, may He be blessed, did not command about them, but [rather] he asked them on his own. And there is no doubt that his intention was good, but there came out from it what came out - 'like an error that goes out in front of the ruler.' And since 'an error in study is considered an intentional transgression,' the master of the prophets was punished. + +Chapter 14 + + + +Chapter 15 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + +Verse 35 + + + +Verse 36 + + + +Verse 37 + + + +Verse 38 + + + +Verse 39 + + + +Verse 40 + +The Verse says, "Be holy to your God; I am God your Lord" to instruct us that we should be distinguished in our dress like a king's or master's servants, who wear an insignia on their clothes, so that we will be recognizable as servants and messengers of God + +Chapter 16 + + + +Chapter 17 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + +...I have given you all of these gifts, because you will not inherit with Israel in their land. And you will not have a portion within it - not even the booty and spoils of the enemies, so that you will not be burdened by the thoughts of working the land. For "I am your portion and your inheritance," so you need not put forth effort outside of My service - which is your portion and your inheritance. And these gifts will suffice for your essential needs without [your] effort... + +Chapter 18 + + + +Chapter 19 + + + +Verse 1 + +And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 'This is the statute of the Torah...' until '...when the entire congregation of Israel comes to the Wilderness of Zin.' And there are questions to be asked here: +The first question is, if this commandment was from the laws of the priests and the Israelites were commanded regarding it at Mount Sinai, as stated by our Sages, and according to their acceptance on the first day of Nisan when the Tabernacle was erected, receiving ten crowns on that day, and it was on that day that the red heifer was burned, why is its commandment not mentioned except in this place, after the incident of Korah and his congregation, the complainers, and the rest of the narratives and commandments mentioned earlier? +The second question is, why after mentioning this commandment, the Torah does not state, "And the children of Israel did so as the Lord commanded them through Moses," or "And Eleazar did so as Moses commanded him," using a similar language as it is customary in the Torah to say after the commandments that were fulfilled as commanded? +The third question is, by stating, "This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying," why does the verse specifically use this language when referring to the commandment of the red heifer? Why is it not said in the same way for other commandments? It would have been appropriate to say, "This is the matter that the Lord commanded to do." And why is it necessary to call it a statute at this point? Is it because the Satan accuses not only the red heifer but also the scapegoat, the heifer whose neck is broken, and other commandments? And yet they are not referred to as statutes. It is even more surprising that the statute is connected to the Torah. However, concerning the Passover, it is said, "This is the statute of the Passover," and not "the statute of the Torah." +The fourth question is, why does the red heifer have to be a female and not a male? If its purpose is to atone for the sin of the golden calf, it would be more appropriate for it to be a male rather than a female. And why is it specifically required to be red? In the case of the sin offering of Yom Kippur or the unintentional sins of the community, the high priest, or the goats of Yom Kippur, and other sin offerings, the Torah does not command that they have a unique red or black color. So why is it necessary for the red heifer to have this distinctive color? +The fifth question is, when it says, "And you shall give it to Eleazar the priest," Rashi explains that the commandment is addressed to his deputy. We must inquire why Aaron the high priest was not commanded regarding the red heifer, and instead his deputy was instructed. Especially considering that Moses performed the first red heifer ritual in the desert. Additionally, it is stated in the teachings of our sages that Ezra performed the second red heifer ritual, Shimon the Just performed it twice, and Yochanan the high priest performed two others. Therefore, the task of performing the red heifer ritual is not attributed to the deputies but rather to the high priests. So why, in this case, is the red heifer assigned to Eleazar the priest? +The sixth question is regarding the instruction to slaughter the red heifer outside the camp, and from there Eleazar shall sprinkle its blood seven times towards the front of the Tabernacle. Why was its slaughter not performed in the sanctuary, and why was its body burned outside the camp, similar to the procedure with the bull of the Yom Kippur sin offering performed by the high priest? +The seventh question is, why wasn't it commanded to offer the fat of the sin offering on the altar, as it is stated regarding the Yom Kippur sin offering, "And the fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar"? And what is the reason for burning its skin, flesh, blood, and horns, since although it was commanded to do so with the bull of the Yom Kippur sin offering, the matter itself is difficult and requires an explanation or hint. +The eighth question is, why was it commanded to place cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet thread into the fire of the red heifer, but such a command was not given for the Yom Kippur sin offering or other offerings, except for the offering of the metzora (one afflicted with tzara'at)? The Torah refers to the ashes of the red heifer as the "water of impurity" for purification. So why is its procedure different from that of other sin offerings? +The ninth question is, why in the case of the mitzvah of the red heifer and its service, there were three individuals involved in the purification process? The first is the high priest, as it is stated, "And the priest shall wash his garments," implying that he becomes impure until evening. The second is the one who burns the red heifer. And the third is the one who gathers the ashes of the red heifer. However, in the case of the bull and the goat sin offerings of Yom Kippur, only the one who burns them is required to become impure, as it is stated, "And he who burns them shall wash his garments and bathe his body in water." Furthermore, it is not stated regarding them that they become impure until evening. +The tenth question is, why are the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer called "the water of impurity" (mei niddah)? It would have been more appropriate to call them "the water of the red heifer" (mei parah) or "the water of the ashes of the red heifer" (mei efer haparah) or "the water of purification" (mei taharah), not "the water of impurity." Rashi explains that "mei niddah" means water of sprinkling, similar to "and he shall sprinkle it with his finger," referring to the act of sprinkling. It is a language of purification, as is apparent. However, this interpretation is not correct because why should they be called "the water" based on the act of sprinkling and not based on their essence, which is the ashes of the red heifer or purification? +The eleventh question is, why did the blessed One establish the purification of the impure through the ashes of the red heifer, which involves the process mentioned here? What is the connection between those ashes and that purification? There is no doubt that this was the secret of the red heifer, and it was the accusation of the adversary (Satan) against it. Therefore, it is called a "chok" (statute) and a decree of the King. However, it is still appropriate to make an effort to provide an explanation or hint that aligns with reason. +The twelfth question is, why did the ashes of the red heifer purify the impure and, at the same time, render the pure impure? As it is stated, "Whoever touches the water of impurity shall be unclean until evening," and "Whoever touches the water of impurity shall wash his clothes." These actions are contradictory. Yet, within this contradiction lies the profound meaning of this commandment, and it is precisely this aspect that incited much debate and criticism. +I will now explain these verses in a more profound manner, addressing all these questions. However, I will not delve into the ways of the Ralbag (Rabbi Levi ben Gershom), who provided an allegorical interpretation for this commandment, hinting at the existence of distorted forms. +And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, "This is the statute of the Torah that the Israelites are commanded to bring: a red heifer without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which a yoke has never been placed." According to the tradition passed down from our sages, Moses our teacher, may he rest in peace, performed the first red heifer ritual when he served in the Tabernacle as the High Priest. On the first day of the month of Nisan, when the Tabernacle was erected, the red heifer was prepared to purify anyone who had contracted impurity from contact with a corpse, so that they would not defile the sanctuary. Due to the establishment of the Tabernacle and the joy of the people in it, it was necessary to purify every impure person in a way that they would not enter and desecrate the sanctuary and its holy items. From that ash, they would purify themselves throughout the days of the desert. However, towards the end of the forty years when they were about to enter the land, the Lord foresaw that in the battles with the nations, many would fall as casualties of war, and many of the children of Israel would come into contact with the dead. This could happen both in the cities they would conquer and on the open field, whether through the slain by the sword, contact with a corpse, human bone, or a grave. They would become impure, and the ashes of the red heifer that Moses had prepared would not be sufficient for them. Therefore, at this time, the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron regarding the procedure for the red heifer, even though the incident with the burning of the calf by Korah and his assembly from among the dead occurred due to a plague and the complaints of many people in the land. They also became impure, and they too would reduce the supply of the ashes of the red heifer that Moses had made. Concerning all these matters, the commandment regarding the red heifer came in this specific place. That is why it is not mentioned here in the text that the Israelites or Eleazar carried out the commandment as Moses instructed, because the commandment was mentioned here in this place, but the act was not yet performed. For the matter was a rare occurrence, and the commandment was to be performed only when the need arose. Since Moses our teacher had already performed this commandment several years ago, it was necessary for God to say to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Torah," meaning that just as you performed the Red Heifer, so shall you continue to do it every time you need it. What you have done will remain as an established statute and custom for the nation to follow. The mention of "This is the statute of the Torah" is also a very significant hint. It signifies that the matter of the Red Heifer is a hint and instruction regarding the Divine Torah. As will be explained later, it means that the phrase "This is the statute of the Torah" refers to the commandment regarding the Red Heifer, which serves as a hint to the divine law imposed upon you. The answers to the first three questions, the first, second, and third, have already been clarified. And behold, it says, "Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for you a red heifer," to signify that the Red Heifer will serve as a symbol for the community. Since it was offered as a communal sacrifice for the entire congregation, God commanded that the Red Heifer be a female, symbolically alluding to the nation of Israel. Israel is called a "heifer" to indicate their rebellious nature. Israel will overcome and conquer their enemies, and they will possess the entire land. No other nation will conquer it. It is called "red" in reference to the beloved one, pure and adorned, with redness surpassing rubies. It has been clarified that these conditions apply to the Red Heifer, with its specific requirements serving as a symbol for the congregation of Israel. Since God foresaw that Aaron would pass away before another Red Heifer could be prepared, and his son Eleazar would serve as the High Priest in his place, He said, "You shall give it to Eleazar the priest to perform the ritual." This means that Eleazar would be the one to carry out the procedure. As I have explained, this commandment was not given at that moment to instruct them to perform the Red Heifer ceremony, but rather to inform them that they would perform it when the need arises. And God wanted to make it known that when they eventually perform it, Eleazar would already be in his role as the High Priest. According to the Ralbag (Rabbi Levi ben Gershon), he wrote that the phrase "You shall give it to Eleazar to perform the ritual" implies that the burning of the Red Heifer should be done while the priest is wearing white garments, not golden ones. Therefore, God specifically mentioned Eleazar, indicating that he would carry out this commandment instead of Aaron, whose service involved wearing golden garments. However, this interpretation is incorrect, and it does not address questions four and five. Now, the sin offering of the high priest on Yom Kippur, since its purpose was for him not to enter the sanctuary, its slaughtering, sprinkling of its blood, and offering of its fat were performed on the altar of the Lord. However, the Red Heifer, its purpose was to symbolically address the nation while being in a state of impurity, as it is not appropriate for it to enter the sanctuary. Therefore, it was commanded that its slaughtering would take place outside the camp, and from there its blood would be sprinkled, as its blood should not enter the sanctuary like the blood of the sin offering. And it shall be in front of the Tent of Meeting, indicating that it should be placed opposite the Ark cover, and in front of the Ark cover, for its service was similar to the service of the sin offering. The only difference was that it was performed outside the camp, while the service of the sin offering was done in the sanctuary. The purpose of the Red Heifer was to bring closer those who were distant from the Divine Presence in the camp. Therefore, its blood was not brought to the altar, like the blood of the sin offering, because it could not enter there. This resolves questions six and seven. Furthermore, it was commanded that the Red Heifer should be burned, just as every burnt offering is burned, and just like the sin offering of Yom Kippur. And its burning included its skin, flesh, blood, and dung, because the Red Heifer symbolized the community. It contained different levels of people, some honorable and others less esteemed, analogous to the organs in the body of the heifer. All of them were burned together, indicating that it was fitting for punishment and judgment that both the minor and major offenders should be burned, the leader and the commoner, the important and the less significant. And He commanded to throw into the burning of the Red Heifer cedarwood, hyssop, and crimson thread, to symbolize that the Red Heifer represented the entire community, both the small and the great. Therefore, the mention of cedarwood, which is the tallest among the trees, and hyssop, which is the lowest among them, serves as a reminder. As it is written, "From the cedarwood that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that comes out of the wall," and likewise, the crimson thread is very low. And because the ashes of the Red Heifer alone had the power to purify those who became impure through contact with a corpse, as I have already explained in detail, it happened on the eighth day that the most severe form of impurity, which is the impurity of a human corpse, was purified. This is because its composition is more straightforward and equal than the compositions of all other living creatures. When it decomposes, it decomposes more rapidly than other animals. Therefore, anyone who touches a human corpse, and as a result, experiences its decomposition, will himself undergo decomposition from that contact. If he does not perceive it and there is no change in his odor or appearance, similar to what happens to a person afflicted with tzara'at when he is in a state of impurity resembling death. Therefore, the Torah was very concerned that one who is impure due to contact with a human corpse of this kind should not enter the sanctuary and desecrate it. As a symbolic gesture, the ashes of the Red Heifer were meant to remove and nullify that impurity and all the potential negative consequences associated with it. Therefore, God commanded that they should throw into the burning of the Red Heifer the cedarwood, which does not decompose easily, at any time, and the hyssop, which has a pleasant fragrance. And two scarlet threads were included to indicate that the impurity resulting from menstrual discharge causes a greater degree of decomposition and a foul odor, whereas the greenish appearance is due to the decomposition of its blood. As I explained earlier, this is also the case with the offering of the leper in its designated place. However, in the case of the Red Heifer, since there was no suspicion of such a matter, there was no need to include these elements, and therefore question six is resolved. And he commanded that all those involved with the Red Heifer should become impure. For behold, Eleazar the priest or another priest who performs the burning of the Red Heifer becomes impure by touching its blood and sprinkling it, and he remains impure until evening. He would then require immersion and washing of his garments. Similarly, the one who burns the Red Heifer will also become impure because he touches it during its burning. And after the burning, a pure individual shall gather the ashes of the Red Heifer, and he too will become impure until evening due to his contact with the ashes. Indeed, regarding the Red Heifer, neither the Day of Atonement's Red Heifer nor the communal Red Heifer required purification except for the one who burned it, because after the confession, the sins of the Israelites were transferred onto it. However, prior to the burning, the Red Heifer did not impart impurity, and after the burning, the Red Heifer did not cause impurity either. Therefore, only the one who burned it became impure, not others. However, the Red Heifer itself, symbolizing the community, was considered impure and separated. Consequently, anyone who touched it became impure, as it is stated that a pure individual shall gather its ashes and place them outside the camp. The sages of blessed memory have taught that the portion of those ashes was divided into three parts. One part was placed on the Mount of Anointing, one part was divided among all the watchtowers, and one part was given to the camp. The portion for the watchtowers was located outside the sanctuary, so that the inhabitants of the cities and all those in need of purification could take from it. The portion on the Mount of Anointing was used for other Red Heifers. And the portion in the camp was assigned to the designated watchtower, as decreed by the Scripture, and it served as a safeguard for the community of the children of Israel. And behold, those ashes are placed outside the sanctuary and the camp, so that impure individuals may come there to purify themselves on the third and seventh days. Then they return to complete their atonement in the sanctuary. However, if someone who is impure due to contact with a corpse enters the Tabernacle, the ashes do not purify him. He remains impure, and his impurity is even intensified by entering the holy place. He is liable to receive the punishment of karet (spiritual excision). Even if he immerses in the mikveh (ritual bath) and washes his garments, it does not remove his impurity. It is said that the Red Heifer atones for those who are impure due to contact with a corpse. It is called a "niddah" (a woman in the state of menstrual impurity) because it was distanced and removed from the camp, similar to the way a woman in her menstrual state is separated. The water that was sprinkled on the ashes is called "mayim niddah" (waters of impurity), indicating that it is water placed on the ashes of impurity. However, the specific details of this ritual are not fully understood. What is clear is that the Red Heifer is a sin offering for the entire community. Similarly, the Red Heifer that was used in the time of King Solomon was brought to atone for the impurity of the Temple and its sanctified objects. Through this ritual, the nine unresolved questions were answered, and the matter was concluded. After completing the instructions regarding the Red Heifer, the Scripture clarifies who needs to purify themselves with the water of the Red Heifer. It says that anyone who touches a dead body becomes impure, meaning that the impurity is only contracted through direct contact with a human corpse, not through contact with another type of impurity or a creeping creature that has died. The Scripture further states that the impure individual shall purify themselves on the third day and on the seventh day. On the third day, the primary impurity already diminishes from them, and only a residual impurity remains until the seventh day. This is similar to the afflictions of a person with sharp wounds, where the swiftest period of healing is the third day, followed by the fourth day. Similarly, the mourning period for a deceased person has a boundary, and the maximum period of mourning, including weeping, is until the third day. From that point until the seventh day, the individual resumes their regular activities, which may be carried out by others if the mourner is unable to perform them due to modesty. If one does not purify themselves with the water of the Red Heifer on the third day, then on the seventh day they will not be purified. The Scripture imposes a punishment on those who transgress this requirement, stating: "Anyone who touches a dead body, that is, any human soul who dies and does not purify themselves with the water of the Red Heifer, and then enters the sanctuary, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord; that person shall be cut off." This means that once a person becomes impure through contact with a corpse and does not undergo purification with the water of the Red Heifer, their impurity remains and they are subject to punishment. In such a case, merely washing their body or laundering their garments will not be effective for them. They will remain impure despite the physical cleansing. And since a person may argue, "I did not touch the body of the deceased," because even though I was in close proximity to the tent where the deceased was, I did not come into contact with their flesh, the Scripture addresses these claims by stating: "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: all who come into the tent and all that is in the tent shall be unclean." This means that anything inside the tent, whether it is garments, vessels, food, or drink, everything shall become unclean. Any earthenware vessel that has no covering fastened to it with a cord is susceptible to impurity. The word "tzamid" comes from the Hebrew word "yitzamed," which means "to attach." This implies that Israel is not able to prevent impurity from entering it. Similarly, anyone who touches the surface of the field where the body of a person who was killed by a sword, spear, or bow lies shall become unclean. This applies specifically to the malefactor's sword, as the Scripture speaks in the present tense. It also applies to a dead body found in the field by itself, thrown there, or buried there, even if only bones are found in a grave. And this is the manner of purifying oneself: The burial place of the deceased, where everyone needs purification through the water of the ashes of the Red Heifer. All this served as a warning to the Israelites during the days of future wars when they were about to conquer the land, that anyone who touches these things shall purify themselves. This means that every person who is impure shall become impure for seven days and then purify themselves. Now, the process of purification will be explained. When it says, "They shall take for the unclean person," it means that the priests shall take it for the purpose of purification for the one who comes to purify themselves from the ashes of the burnt Red Heifer, which is the sin offering. Water of life shall be added to a vessel, meaning flowing water, and it shall be in one vessel. The priest who is purifying or another pure person shall take hyssop, dip it in those waters, and sprinkle it on the tent, all the vessels, and the souls that were in the tent where the deceased was, as well as on the one who touches a corpse in the field, whether it is a corpse by itself or bones found in a field or in a grave. For through this sprinkling, the impure shall become completely pure on the seventh day. They shall wash their garments and bathe in water, and they shall be pure in the evening. And behold, it was necessary to reiterate the statement, "And the man who becomes impure and does not purify himself shall be cut off," even though it was already mentioned above, because there it was stated regarding one who enters the tent of the deceased, and here it is stated regarding one who touches the corpse in the field or a corpse, or human bones in a grave in an open field. And it was said, "And the one who touches the water of impurity shall be impure until evening." This shows that there is no additional requirement for him, as it was already stated earlier regarding the one who sprinkles the water of impurity on his garments, and our sages said that the one who sprinkles is pure. This comes to teach us that one who carries the ashes of the Red Heifer, like the hide of the goat, imparts a severe impurity to garments that come into contact with it, unlike mere physical contact. And based on a straightforward understanding, it seems that one who sprinkles the water of impurity does not become impure, because he does not touch the ashes of the Red Heifer or the water. Rather, the hyssop is immersed in them, and the sprinkler himself does not make direct contact with anything. Therefore, it does not say regarding him that he shall become impure, but only that he shall wash his garments. However, the one who touches the water of impurity shall become impure until evening, because he makes contact with them and with the ashes that are mixed with the water, and he becomes impure like all those involved in the process of the Red Heifer. This is to indicate the severity of impurity caused by contact with a corpse. It is stated, "And everything that touches it shall become impure; whoever touches the soul of the impure shall be impure." This serves as the source of impurity, even when the soul touches an impure corpse. This is the essence of the impurity, and it is evident from this that touching a corpse is the source of all forms of impurity. From what I have explained in the portion, we can derive the answer to the question: Why did God associate the purification of the impure with the ashes of the red heifer? It is because the red heifer was the offering of the community, and it was performed outside the camp. Due to its impurity, it was not fitting for it to enter the camp of Israel. The one who became purified through these ashes would thereby acknowledge his sin and impurity, as if to say, "This is how I should be, distanced from my impurity." And thus, he became purified through it. However, these ashes could also render the pure impure, as anything that came into contact with them would become impure. Since the red heifer itself was impure, as hinted in the verse, the one who touched it would become impure. Therefore, the verse concludes, "And everything that touches it shall become impure." In the end, these verses address and resolve the two questions raised. Rashi borrowed from the teachings of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan to interpret this portion concerning the incident of the Golden Calf. "And they shall take for you" - just as they willingly contributed their golden earrings for the making of the calf, so shall they bring this [red heifer] for atonement from their own possessions. The red heifer is likened to a maidservant's son who soiled the king's palace, and they said, "Let his mother come and clean her son's filth." Similarly, let the red heifer come and atone for the sin of the calf. It is called "red" because the sin is referred to as crimson wool. It is called "unblemished" because the Israelites were originally unblemished and later became blemished. Let this [red heifer] come and atone for them so that they may return to their state of unblemishedness. "No yoke has come upon it" - meaning they removed the yoke of heavenly sovereignty from themselves. "To Eleazar the priest" - just as they assembled around Aaron, who was the priest responsible for making the calf, and since Aaron made the calf, he was not commanded to perform this service, for a prosecutor cannot become a defender. "And he shall burn the heifer before him" - just as Moses burned the calf. Cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson wool - corresponding to the three types of people who stumbled with the calf, which were three thousand men. The cedar wood is the tallest among all trees, while the hyssop is the lowest and smallest among them, symbolizing that one who became arrogant and sinned should humble himself like the hyssop and the crimson wool, and he will be atoned for. "For a memorial" - like a watchman who is vigilant at all times, as the calf's punishment will be remembered for all generations, as it is stated, "And in the day of My visitation, I will visit upon them." There is no appointed time that does not include the remembrance of the incident of the calf. "Just as the calf renders impure all those who deal with it, so too, the red heifer renders impure all those who deal with it. And just as they were purified with the ashes of the calf, as it is stated, 'He shall sprinkle it on the surface of the water,' similarly, they shall take for impurity the ashes of the burnt sin offering, and so on. This is indeed a valid observation and a hint that corresponds to the matter. However, in my opinion, the red heifer was a sacrifice for the entire congregation of the children of Israel, to purify them from the impurity of death, so that they would not desecrate the sanctuary and its holy objects." Indeed, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron when He wanted to teach them the manner of this commandment, "This is the statute of the Torah." And afterwards, He spoke about the matter of the red heifer to inform them that it is similar to what He commands and should be done in accordance with the Divine Torah. It does not mean that the Torah is likened to the red heifer itself in a literal sense, but rather, the example of what they should do with the red heifer serves as a model for the statute that should be followed in the Divine Torah. Therefore, "This is the statute of the Torah" comes before the words "Speak to the children of Israel and have them take to you." With this, there is no need to force the verse to say, "Speak to the children of Israel, this is the statute of the Torah," as the Ramban explains. The explanation is that just as the Torah of the Lord is perfect without any blemish, so He commanded that the red heifer should be perfect, without any blemish. And just as a person enjoys the fruits of his Torah in this world and in the World to Come, for its produce is better than gold and pearls, so this offering served as an atonement, which was the good produce. And just as one who takes upon himself the yoke of Torah is relieved of the yoke of worldly matters, for no burden is placed upon the Torah. With this, there is no need to force the verse to say, "Speak to the children of Israel, this is the statute of the Torah," as the Ramban explains. The explanation is that just as the Torah of the Lord is perfect without any blemish, so He commanded that the red heifer should be perfect, without any blemish. And just as a person enjoys the fruits of his Torah in this world and in the World to Come, for its produce is better than gold and pearls, so this offering served as an atonement, which was the good produce. And just as one who takes upon himself the yoke of Torah is relieved of the yoke of worldly matters, for no burden is placed upon the Torah. Similarly, He commanded concerning the red heifer that no burden should be placed upon it. And just as the Torah requires in its study the assistance of the Divine Help, and it is found in its completeness in the intellect of the priest, as it is said, "For the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth," so it is said regarding the red heifer, "And you shall give it to Eleazar the priest." And just as the true contemplation in the Torah occurs when a person is alone and isolated, so it was commanded regarding the red heifer that it should be taken outside the camp. And just as one needs to delve into the will of the Lord in the Torah, not only grasping and understanding its external aspects but also its internal and hidden aspects, so it was commanded regarding the red heifer that it should be slaughtered and its innermost blood extracted. And just as in the study of the Torah, it is proper for a person not to teach something contrary to the Halacha and not to distort the face of the Torah, but rather according to the true tradition received. So it was commanded regarding the red heifer that its blood should be sprinkled in the presence of the Tent of Meeting, before the Ark of the Testimony, where the Torah resided. And just as the roots of the Torah and Kabbalah are the sources of illumination, and just as in the Torah, the "sons of flame" are those who elevate themselves to a higher level of understanding and grasp its mysteries before the teacher, for intellect is compared to flame, and the distinguished intellects are referred to as standing flames above it. So it was commanded regarding the red heifer that the priest should burn it in his sight. And just as it is necessary in the burning and study of the Torah to distinguish well between the external and internal letters and words within it, so it was commanded regarding the red heifer that its blood and flesh should be burned in a specific manner, signifying the more esteemed part and the lesser part. Additionally, it was commanded to burn with it a cedar wood, which is taller than all other trees, and hyssop, which is lower and humbler. And similarly, two scarlet worms, which have a value comparable to hyssop, which is lighter. Just as the teacher of Torah and the student who learns before him, and those who serve before them, need to possess good character traits and be free from reprehensible things, so it was commanded regarding the red heifer that the priest who performs the ritual and the one who burns it should do so, as it is stated: "And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the holy camp." This symbolizes the rectification of character traits, and they shall wash their flesh with water before entering the holy camp. And just as the Torah purifies the impure and it is truly living water, so it was commanded regarding the red heifer that living water should be mixed with its ashes, and the impure ones would be purified. And just as the divine Torah requires the sages to be cautious in their words so as not to err, for an inadvertent error in learning leads to intentional transgression, so it was commanded regarding the red heifer that one who touches it or its ashes becomes impure and requires immersion and washing of garments. Now, it is clear that the matter of the red heifer itself is the statute of the Torah. Therefore, when God wishes to command regarding this mitzvah, He says, "This is the statute of the Torah," meaning, "Do not consider the mitzvah of the red heifer and its details as insignificant in your eyes. Know that it is a model of the Torah and the obligatory conduct in its study." + +Chapter 20 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + +And Miriam died. This tells us something derogatory about the congregation, that instead of comforting Moshe and Aharon for their loss, they quarreled with them. + +Chapter 21 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + +...Fear and trembling struck Moses and all of Israel when they thought that Og was coming out to meet them after [their] victory [over] the king of the Amorites. [They thought] that it could only be that his heart swelled with valor and that his heart was impassioned to take vengeance for Sichon... + +Chapter 22 + + + +Chapter 23 + + + +Chapter 24 + + + +Chapter 25 + + + +Chapter 26 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + +Verse 35 + + + +Verse 36 + + + +Verse 37 + + + +Verse 38 + + + +Verse 39 + + + +Verse 40 + + + +Verse 41 + + + +Verse 42 + + + +Verse 43 + + + +Verse 44 + + + +Verse 45 + + + +Verse 46 + + + +Verse 47 + + + +Verse 48 + + + +Verse 49 + + + +Verse 50 + + + +Verse 51 + + + +Verse 52 + +To the large [tribe], increase. According to Rashi they gave a larger portion to the bigger tribe, and yet it was all by means of lots. The ones causing the inheritance were those who went out of Egypt. According to Ramban the Land was divided into twelve equal portions, and the tribe was divided into families according to their size. It seems to me that the lottery would inform in which region of the Land the tribe’s inheritance would be, and afterwards Yehoshua and the elders would make the boundary according to the number of persons in the tribe. This is the meaning of (Bamidbar 33:54): “To whomever the lottery [system] ordains, it shall be his.” And this was the complaint of the tribe of Menashe to Yehoshua — that he gave them too little. + +Chapter 27 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + +Take to yourself. Due to Moshe’s honor, Hashem told him to do it by himself, and to testify about Yehoshua’s completeness, to honor him from now on so that Bnei Yisroel will treat Yehoshua with honor. + +Chapter 28 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +In the Holy [Sanctuary] you shall pour. They poured it into a special place in the Altar; its measure was a revi’is (quarter of a log), the amount that is enough to cause a person to be inebriated. + +The reason for the constant offering was because of the two acts of kindness that Bnei Yisroel received: They acquired physical completion, to be free men, at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, and with the Giving of the Torah they acquired spiritual completion. Corresponding to these were two lambs, one in the morning corresponding to the Giving of the Torah which was in the morning, and one in the afternoon corresponding to the Exodus from Egypt. Corresponding to the manna they brought the meal-offering, tenth of an eiphah of flour, and for the joy and happiness that was given to them they brought wine and oil. They offered lambs (כבשים) because the people of Israel are completely subdued (נכבשים) to Hashem. + +Chapter 29 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + + + + + + + +There is no doubt that all of the commandments - their general principles and their details - were given to Moses at Sinai. However Moses did not immediately say them when he heard them, but rather according to the time and place that was appropriate for it - as [befits] a good leader and a praiseworthy organizer. And behold, [regarding] annulment of vows - when Moses was alive, he did not give this over to any man. Rather every man who made a vow and regretted the vow, came before him, peace be upon him, to annul it. And in his being the one expert in the generation, he would annul the vows and oaths, and clarify any doubt that existed in the matter. But when God told him (Numbers 27:12), "Ascend to Mount Abarim... and be collected to your nation," and He commanded about sacrifices that they would do after his death - since the time of his death was approaching; he saw [fit] to teach the heads of the tribes, the commandment of annulling vows which he had done himself during this lifetime to help the nation. And it is for this reason that this section is written here... + +Chapter 30 + + + +Chapter 31 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Moshe was angry. The officers thought that only the Midianite warriors, who are men, should be killed. Similarly, it is written (Devorim 20:14): “However, the women and the children … are you to plunder for yourself.” Moshe, however, contended that in this case the women caused even more harm and must be killed, and the children must be killed as well so they will not fight against Bnei Yisroel when they grew up, or because of the sin of their fathers. + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + +Divide in half. The rest of the community [received half because they] were withheld from the war only due to Moshe’s command, and the warriors were victorious in their merit and prayer. Just as they sent one part of fifty to the army, so too, they gave to the Levites one part of fifty to honor Hashem. The warriors gave one part of five hundred to Elozor as reward for Pinchas who went with them, and Hashem helped them through him. + +Chapter 32 + + + +Chapter 33 + + + +Chapter 34 + + + +Chapter 35 + + + +Verse 1 + + + + + + + + +Why was the return of the killer made dependent upon the death of the high priest?... + +Speak to Bnei Yisroel. Moshe became disconsolate because he would not be able to carry out his mission of inheriting the land, so Hashem commanded him that he should give all the orders as if he was going to do it. The main points were: 1) to uproot the inhabitants, 2) to define the borders, 3) to divide them up amongst the tribes, 4) to bequeath an inheritance for the Levites, his tribe, and 5) to set aside the cities of refuge. Each one of these things was done with a command, and therefore when Moshe gave the orders now that they should be done in the future, it would be considered as if he had done them himself. + +Deuteronomy + +Introduction + + + + + + + +Chapter 1 + + + +Verse 1 + +These are the words. Moshe Rabbeinu’s intention with these words was not to reproach or to give new mitzvot. Rather to explain those mitzvot which required explanation. In this book of the Chumash there are no mitzvot that were not alluded to already. Moshe retold stories of the ancestors so that there would be no doubt. It was not in order to reproach them through this, for that would be a pointless activity. All of it was from the mouth of Hashem. That Moshe addressed. He reproached them at the time for each sin, and was not afraid. The Torah here elaborates on what it stated briefly elsewhere. + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + +Why did our master, Moshe, not want to inform them in this recounting how God, may He be blessed, commanded him about the sending [of the spies], with His saying, "Send spies for yourself, etc.?" Rather he attributed the thing to [the people] and to himself... And also why did he not recount the commands that our teacher, Moshe - peace be upon him - commanded the spies, that they should see the people, the land and the cities? And also why did he not present what the spies said, "it is a land that eats up its inhabitants?" The reason for all of this is that he was speaking with the second generation - their children that arose after them. And if they heard the truth of the incident as it happened, they would say that the reason for the delay in the desert was God, may He be blessed... They would say, "Why did God put a stumbling block in front of the blind?" And they would also speak about Moshe, thinking that he was also truly a cause for their delay, since he - peace be upon him - commanded things to the spies that the people had not asked for and [God] had not commanded... For behold it is these questions [of Moshe's] that necessitated [the spies'] answers... And they would say that... [God] and Moshe, his servant, were the ones that caused the delay of their fathers in the desert all of this long time. This is the opposite of what Moshe was trying to explain to them, to internalize the praise of the commandments and their observance... And Moshe also saw that if he told them what the spies had said - [that] the land was one that ate up its inhabitants - perhaps this would melt the hearts of the people now as well, and they would be afraid and intimidated from going [into the Land of Israel], like their fathers had done. Behold that it is because of this that he left out the recounting of the three things mentioned: God's command of the [mission]; Moshe's command to the spies regarding the land, the people and the cities; and the evil speech that the spies spoke. And about this did the Sages say (Yevamot 65b), "It is permitted to alter [the truth] for the sake of peace." +... + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + + + + +And since Israel sinned willingly, and he, peace be upon him, sinned by mistake and with a good intention, God, may he be blessed, wanted to to spare the honor of Moshe, [such that] his decree should not be amidst the decree of the people in Parshat Shelach Lecha Anashim. And [so] He delayed His anger upon him, as He delayed His anger upon Aharon for the story of the [golden] calf. And when in Parshat Zot Chukat HaTorah the people complained about the water, and in their complaint, they pointed out how Moshe and Aharon were the cause of the people's death and that they [would] not enter the land - as they said (Numbers 20:4), "And why did you bring the congregation of the Lord to this wilderness to die there, us and our cattle" - the verse mentioned that Moshe and Aharon went from in front of the congregation to the tent of meeting, mourning and with covered heads; and [they were] like embarrassed women at the mention of their sins. And thus did the word [of God] come to them that they should speak and do the act that He mentioned to extract the water. And when Moshe came to anger in his saying (Numbers 20:10), "Listen now, you rebels," the Holy One, blessed be He, became full of anger with him; since Israel caught him fittingly and He did not admit in his heart that which he sinned, and [so] got angry with them. And therefore He saw at this time to give [Moshe and Aharon] their punishment for their earlier sins. And, if so, the Waters of Merivah were the means to the thing and not the actual cause for it. + +Chapter 2 + + + +Chapter 3 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hashem grew angry at me. The reasons that Moshe wanted to enter the land were: +1. To acquire perfection through fulfilling the mitzvos that only apply in Israel. +2. That he should complete his work with the people until the conclusion, to bring them into the land. +3. To show the people that the land is truly good, and not as the spies had said. +4. To pray at the holy Mount Moriah. + +Chapter 4 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + +Due to the horrible troubles, many of them will leave their faith and worship forms of the stars of the heavens, “human handiwork.” They do not believe them, because they know that in their knowledge and their recognition they are “wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.” They will only perform this service in order to escape death… and they will keep God’s Torah in their midst, while they serve the nations’ gods out of fear. This is not mentioned here to portray a sin, but rather a punishment: this was the greatest of evils, recognizing and feeling the belief of the true God in their hearts while they serve idols with their mouths, and their tongues will betray them, and they will be killed for this. About this it is said (Devarim 28:64), “And you shall serve there other gods.” + +Chapter 5 + + + +Chapter 6 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + +Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, etc., until 'when He brings you, etc.' In the need for these five sections that come after the Ten Commandments, which are interconnected, I have seen, after examining them now in this manner, that it is the intention of our master Moses to prove to the Israelites that the commandments they heard from his mouth are divine, like those very words they heard from the divine presence when the Ten Commandments were spoken at Sinai. And now I will explain to them that besides the initial understanding they derived from them, there are further sublime teachings that, if not understood and taught by Moses, since they heard them from the mouth of the blessed Name, they should be considered on par with those teachings and instructions that they received from the blessed Name, as if they heard them from His mouth. And since the first statement was 'I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, etc.,' these first five sections are connected to it. And it is the 'Hear, O Israel, etc.' section. In it, five precious teachings are included, which were not understood from Moses, even though they heard it and understood it at that time, for they heard them from the Almighty. +The first concept is the unity of our blessed God and the negation of multiplicity from Him. Regarding this, it is stated, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,' which means, 'Israel, incline your ear and listen, and understand in your heart.' For all of this is encompassed in the term 'hear' that our God, whom you heard in the first statement, 'I am the Lord your God, etc.,' is one. Know and see that He is one. And behold, within this unity, two types of oneness are included. +The first is His absolute oneness, blessed be He, in His essence. In utmost simplicity, composition and multiplicity of inherent things are precluded. Neither multiplicity of forms nor accidental attributes exist within Him, whether in His essence or beyond His essence. +The second is the negation of multiplicity. When His oneness is established as simple in itself, the doubt regarding the existence of another deity is eliminated. Thus, to remove all forms of doubt, He illuminated our eyes with the statement, 'the Lord is one.' And to allude to these two types of oneness, the verse uses the name of God twice. The first name, 'the Lord our God,' alludes to the first type of oneness, where the Lord who guides us is one in Himself, absolutely simple. And to allude to the second type of oneness, it says, 'the Lord alone.' This refers to His divinity, not His role in governing us, which is also singular without duality. The word 'one' returns to both aspects mentioned together. The springs have already demonstrated a wonder regarding the oneness of God in the first aspect, as His governance causes the entire reality to be like one person, each part connected to the other, and the entities of the universe extend from this substance, preparing it. No celestial body can move without being moved by the necessary mover of existence. It is impossible for Him to be composed because any composite is formed by two things and is not a necessary existent. From this, it becomes clear through the governance of the world that the Lord is one in Himself without composition and without multiplicity of entities. +Indeed, if there is another deity who is not involved in the existence of the reality, then the doors of intellectual inquiry and investigation are closed. Therefore, the Lord of prophets informed us through the Divine Name the truth of His blessed unity. If it is from the first type due to the governance of the world, it is referred to as 'The Lord our God.' And if it is from the second type, unrelated to governance, it is simply referred to as 'The Lord.' Thus, He is referred to as one regarding both aspects, meaning that He is one in Himself, having no duality in His divinity. This hint is found in the phrase 'I am the Lord your God' when all things are attributed to His Name of unity, signifying that He is one without plurality and without sharing in His divinity. Therefore, the commandment of unity was not newly instituted in this place since it was already hinted at in the phrase 'I am' as I mentioned before. Although it was also hinted in His statement 'Anyone who sacrifices to any god other than the Lord alone,' you should know that in addition to these two evidences on which the Name of the One is mentioned, there is a third aspect of unity. It is when the Name of the One is spoken in relation to the totality and perfection, for 'one' and 'complete' are uttered together, as it appears in the book of Ma'aseh Merkavah (mystical work). Thus, it is said, 'And the tabernacle shall be one,' meaning complete and comprehensive, encompassing all that is needed. From this perspective, the Almighty is also referred to as one, meaning complete and encompassing all completeness. From this viewpoint, the unity and kingship are one in themselves, as kingship is not merely a unique elevation and dominion, but all authorities and ranks are encompassed within it. Likewise, it is said, 'And the Lord shall be King over all the earth,' which means that when His Name and throne are complete, the kingship and unity will also be completed since they are inherently one. For this reason, the custom was established in the Rosh Hashanah prayer to recite the verse 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one' after mentioning the kingship and numbers, representing the third aspect of unity. We, the congregation of the devout, respond to this verse with the blessing 'Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever,' because unity truly indicates the kingship. Indeed, the first and second aspects I mentioned earlier, derived from the Divine unity, are negations of composition and duality, which are well-known and understood by the masses. However, the third aspect, arising from completeness and kingship, is loftier, concealed, and wondrous. It belongs to the domain of abstract intellect. It is possible to conclude that the agreement of unity, completeness, and true generality from all sides has been concealed from the comprehension of the sages of the Divine spheres, as explained in the words of our sages in Devarim Rabbah and Pesachim, chapter 'Makom She'nechagu' (Pesachim 56a). They mentioned that Moses blessed be his memory did not reveal it, but Yaakov blessed be his memory revealed it secretly. By this, they intended to say that since Moses blessed be his memory aimed to teach the unity to the people of Israel in general, he refrained from discussing negation of composition and duality as explained in his words. He did not clarify the third aspect, the agreement of kingship with unity. However, Yaakov blessed be his memory, since his words were with his sons who were. +And the second principle, it is the love of the glorious Name, as it is stated, 'And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.' This means to say, 'Hear, O Israel,' in that first statement that you heard at Sinai, as the Blessed Name said, 'Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage,' it includes sublime knowledge. And after the Lord, blessed be He, greatly favored you and bestowed upon you many benefits, that you should love Him, for it is natural for a person to love that which is good for him. And since He performed for you three kinds of goodness in the Exodus from Egypt: the first is the physical goodness in bringing you out from slavery to freedom, the second is the spiritual goodness by connecting you to His love and guidance and giving you the Torah and commandments, and the third is the great wealth and possessions that He bestowed upon you from Egypt. Therefore, the love should be with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might, for the heart corresponds to bodily freedom, and the soul corresponds to the divine perfection you have acquired, and the might corresponds to the wealth and possessions He has bequeathed to you. It is also possible to interpret this in the sense that it is incumbent upon you to obligate yourself with this supreme love because of the three aspects mentioned in that statement: the first being in His saying, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out,' and this concludes according to His excellence, alluding to His name, and because of His conduct, alluding to 'your God.' And because of His goodness, mentioned in His saying, 'Who brought you out.' This indicates that it is fitting for you to love Him. For love, as mentioned by Maimonides in the Book of Traits, Chapter Three, consists of three types: love of the good, which is according to reason; love of pleasure, which is according to the senses and desires; and love of utility, which is according to wealth. Therefore, it is necessary to say that in all these three aspects of imagination, love for Him, blessed be He, is fitting. This is what is meant by 'with all your heart,' which is the intellectual part, as it says, 'A discerning heart seeks knowledge' (Proverbs 15:14). And 'with all your soul,' which is the soul that desires pleasure, as it says, 'His soul desires food' (Job 33:20). And 'with all your might,' which is the aspect in which you seek and pursue wealth, for all these goods, whether spiritual or physical, in a person and externally, are fitting to be dedicated to the love of the Creator, blessed be He. Through this, all kinds of perfections and deficiencies are included, for in saying 'with all your heart,' as I have explained, the true beliefs and opinions, the study of Torah, and constant prayer are included. And 'with all your soul' includes refraining from sins, fulfilling practical commandments, fasting, and the like. And 'with all your might' includes charity and lending to the poor, refraining from theft, robbery, and deception, and all other commandments dependent on wealth. Did the Sages not interpret in Berakhot, Chapter "Ha-Roeh" (page 61), and in many other places, 'And with all your soul, even if He takes your soul'? They meant by this that even though many evils and troubles befall a person, one should uphold the judgment and believe in the love of the Almighty and love Him, and not think in one's heart that there are two beginnings in accordance with the interchange of different types of things that are influenced from above. But rather, one should cleave to his God and not fear His love, as we have seen with Rabbi Akiva in the case of the iron combs that scraped his flesh, yet Rabbi Akiva's taste and fragrance were not diminished. Therefore, it is said, 'Fortunate are you, Rabbi Akiva, that your soul departed while you were reciting the Shema.' This is to indicate that the sufferings did not separate his attachment to Him, blessed be He. This is the second principle, the love of the Almighty, included in that first statement. And it has already been mentioned in the commandment to love the Almighty, as He commanded, 'And you shall serve the Lord your God,' for the service to Him, blessed be He, is from the love of Him +The third principle is when He said, 'And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart.' The meaning of this statement is that the later sages among our people thought that the name of the commandment and its definition should not apply to beliefs alone, but rather to practical matters dependent on a person's choice and actions. Moreh Nevukhim (Maimonides) informed them that it is not as they had thought. For the name of the commandment, which designates that it is a command of the blessed God concerning those beliefs, also applies to those beliefs. They are also called commandments because if not for this, the blessed God would not have commanded the people of Israel regarding His beliefs at Sinai. Since He said, 'I am the Lord your God,' which is the general statement that includes His existence, His oneness, and His governance, which are those beliefs, it follows that even regarding beliefs, the name of governance and its definition apply. I have already explained in the book Moreh Nevukhim that beliefs are in the category of forms that occur constantly in their subjects, regardless of time. However, the prior preparations for them necessarily occur in time. This is also the case with beliefs, for even though their essence occurs in the soul without will and without time, the things that lead a person to believe, such as learning, examination of the words and the nature of the miracles and the like, are actions of will and choice, and these are done in time. Hence, the aspect of governance falls under the commandment's name and definition, not because the blessed God commanded that they should acquire beliefs in their souls, but rather that they should pay attention to His wonders and examine the words of His prophets in a manner that leads to true belief in His divinity. Therefore, it says here, 'And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart,' to indicate that one should constantly contemplate and consider them. This is the third principle. +The fourth principle is in His statement, "And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up." This matter refers to divine knowledge that is not openly taught, and its transmission is only to those who remain, whom the Lord calls. As stated in the Mishnah, "They do not expound on the work of Creation before two [students], nor on the Merkavah before one [student], and they only teach these divine wisdoms to a worthy student and only the main chapters and only once a week, and it should not be during the time of choosing [the students for such studies]. As Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yochanan, at the beginning of the chapter 'They do not expound,' when he was told to study the work of the Merkavah, 'I am not strong enough for that.' However, these sciences, stemming from the unity of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His providence over the nation and the creation of the world, and His love for Israel, are not like that, for they are worthy to be expounded in assemblies in great numbers to the people of Israel, not only to the elders but also to the youth, as it is written, 'And you shall tell your children on the day of the Exodus from Egypt.' And this is what it means by 'And you shall teach them diligently to your children.' It did not say, 'And you shall inform them,' but 'And you shall teach them diligently,' which means that many times, one after another, they should be taught, even to the young children along with the adults, and no allusion or hidden teaching should be made. They should be spoken of in every place, not only in the House of Study and not only once a week, but when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. This means in every place, at every time, and in every situation that you find yourself in, whether it is sitting, lying down, walking, or standing. Now, Rabbi Meir carried this science out from what he saw, that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say, "I am the Lord your God" only to him and to the elite of the people of Israel, but also to the entire nation, from the youngest to the oldest. And he teaches that this knowledge encompasses every individual, both young and old, and in every time and in every place. +The fifth principle is that just as natural things are not forgotten unless one's intellect and faculties are impaired, for who would forget to eat and sustain their life or to perform permissible activities that depend on their life, similarly, divine knowledge should not be forgotten, for it sustains one's life. Therefore, it was commanded to make signs as reminders so that they would not fall into forgetfulness, since their completeness and the vitality of their soul depend on it. Regarding this, it is stated, "And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." This is because there are people who make signs to remember the things they strive to recall. Some place them in their hand or on their finger, some place them on their head with headbands, and some place them in their homes and on their gates so that every time they enter or exit, they see them and remember their content. Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to bind this commandment as a sign on their hand and to place them as frontlets between their eyes, which are the commandments of tefillin for the hand and head. Similarly, the commandment of the mezuzah on the doorposts. This is also meant to signify that they should place the sign on the hand corresponding to the heart and the frontlet on the head corresponding to the brain, to indicate that in both faculties, meaning the vital and the spiritual, they should remember the commandments of the Lord, perform them, and remember the gift of the land of Israel. Even in homes that were not built by themselves, they should place mezuzot on the doorposts. This was already mentioned in the portion of Bo, when they entered Egypt. Now, these sublime sciences were included in the first utterance that they heard at Sinai, but they did not fully comprehend it. They only attained a general understanding through what Moses, peace be upon him, heard and taught to the people of Israel. + +Chapter 7 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +The tenth question is about its stating, "And at Taberah, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah. And that is since there were several sins in the matter of the calf, why did it not finish its recounting, and then afterwards recount the sins of Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth-hattaavah? But it did not do this, but rather interspersed the matter of Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth-hattaavah into the story of the calf. And [only] then it returned to the story of the calf itself, as is clear in the parsha. +The eleventh question is about its stating "And when the Lord sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, 'Go up and possess the land which I gave to you, then ye rebelled against the commandment of the Lord, etc.'" And it is difficult - why did it mention the matter of the scouts here in great brevity and with highlights like this, given that it already mentioned it at length and with a detailed story in the Order of Eleh HaDevarim? + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + +Silver and gold upon them. Even if the idolaters wish to give you silver and gold to redeem their idols. + +Chapter 8 + + + +Chapter 9 + + + +Chapter 10 + + + +Chapter 11 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +A blessing and a curse. This refers to the mitzvos which are themselves blessing to those who perform them, and a curse to those who mock them. This is similar to good food, which is a blessing to the healthy and a curse to those who are ill. + +Chapter 12 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + +When the Lord, your God, shall cut off the nations, etc." to, "If a prophet arises among you, etc." (Deuteronomy 12:29–13:2): In the chapters [entitled] Arba Mitot and Rebbe Yishmael in Sanhedrin, our sages, may their memories be blessed, expounded this section to be about one worshiping idolatry in its fashion always being liable for it. As it is because [before this, the Torah] only punished for worshiping idolatry, with regard to sacrificing, raising incense, pouring a libation or bowing to anything besides God alone. So it came to teach here that if the way of [a certain] idolatry is to worship it with something else — like relieving oneself in front of Peor or throwing a stone at Markulis (Mercury), which is their worship — he is liable. But sacrificing, raising incense, pouring a libation, or bowing is liable even when it is not like its form [of worship]. So did Rashi explain, may his memory be blessed. However according to this explanation, its stating, "You shall not act thus toward the Lord, your God," (Deuteronomy 12:31) is difficult. And it indicates that it is not a warning that they should not worship their gods but rather that they should not worship the glorious God with their worship. And hence the other commentators did well when they said that the intent of the commandment is that they should not worship the exalted One with these nations' [other forms of] worship. And also the rabbi of the Guide (Guide for the Perplexed 3:45) interpreted thus. And according to this true opinion, the explanation of the verses would be according to what I say: "When He shall cut off, etc." - when God, may He be blessed, cuts off those nations from before you and the name of idolatry will be forgotten from the earth, do not think in your heart that God, may He be blessed, cut off the worshippers of other gods not on account of their worship being evil but rather since they were giving honor and proper worship to the work of human hands, wood, and stone. For it is not fitting to give glory to another, and give His praise to idols, just as sacrificing, raising incense, pouring a libation, or bowing is forbidden besides only to God. And hence perhaps you would inquire about their gods. Meaning you would inquire and investigate, to know these divine services; not to worship them, but to do it for the glorious and awesome God, like these nations were doing for their gods, that it be good before Him. [Hence] "You shall not act thus toward the Lord, your God," since those types of worship that were practiced were abominable in themselves before God, may He be blessed. So how could they be chosen? And that is what it states, "because whatever is abominable to God, what He hates, they have done for their gods." And the proof for this is "that even their sons and their daughters do they burn in fire to their gods." And that is truly an abomination before God, may He be blessed, to spill innocent blood, as well as for man to be cruel to the fruit of his innards to not have mercy upon him. And it sealed its words, "Everything that I am commanding you, be careful to fulfill it; do not add to it and do not take away from it (Deuteronomy 13:1)." Meaning to say, it is enough for you with what the Torah commanded you, that you should take care to do all of the commandments that I commanded you; and you should not add to them. For 'anyone who adds is taking away.' So it is enough for you with the sacrifices and the forms of worship that God, may He be blessed, commanded to do in His Temple. For He chose them, and not the worship of those nations. And behold this section comes in this place because above, it commanded that they should not worship God, may He be blessed, in those places where those nations were worshipping, but rather in the place that He would choose, with those gifts and sacrifices that it mentioned, and with the worship of the sacrifices that it mentioned, which were already explained in the book of Torat Kohanim [Leviticus]. Hence after the Torah explained [about] the Chosen House [the Temple], it stated that they should not think to add anything upon the commandments from the worship of the nations, for this would not be acceptable, but rather an "abominable incense." But regarding if it is possible that they add something from their hearts and their minds to the [varied prescribed forms of] worship of God — not from the worship of the gods of the nations — it would already seem from here that it would be permitted. For behold it only prohibited, "How did these nations worship their gods (Deuteronomy 12:30)." However it already prohibited this in Parashat Vaetchanan in its stating, "Do not add to the matter that I am commanding you and do not take away from it; to guard the commandments of the Lord, your God (Deuteronomy 4:2)." Indeed, the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah in his mention of the principles [of faith] that he brought on the first mishnah in the chapter [entitled] Chelek, brought a proof about the eternity of the Torah from that which it stated here, "Everything that I am commanding you, be careful to fulfill it; do not add to it and do not take away from it." And the author of the Sefer HaIkkarim questioned him, by saying that this verse did not come to warn about the eternity of the Torah and the commandments but rather about the way of doing them; that we should not learn the manner of the worship of their gods from worshippers of idolatry and it come from this to be an addition or reduction [to the Torah]. And this is as you can see from his words in Chapter 14 of Ma'amar 1 in his book. And I already responded to his words, in the book Rosh Amanah that I made on the principles [of faith], that the Rambam, may his memory be blessed, did not make any principle from a specific commandment; and he did not say that it is a principle of the Torah that we not add to the Torah or take away from it. Rather, he said that the principle of faith is that the Torah is eternal, as it is [explained]. And as a proof about its eternity, he brought its saying, "Everything that I am commanding you, be careful to fulfill it." And [the verse] is a projection of the future. It is as if [Moshe] said, "These commandments that I am commanding you today are eternal from the angle of God, may He be blessed. So keep them forever and ever. And therefore, do not add to, and do not take away from them. For how can people add or take away anything from their [own] hearts upon the thing that God, may He be blessed, made to stand permanently before Him?" + +Chapter 13 + + + +Chapter 14 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + + + +Do not eat. The reason that only from the time of Noach were people permitted to eat meat is explained by Ramban, that the sole reason for saving the animals was for the sake of Noach. According to Sefer HaIkkarim the reason is that animal flesh causes closing of the soul and leads to bad character traits. Therefore they were all forbidden to Adam. Kayin and Hevel thought that people were no better than animals, and most people thought this apart from a few treasured individuals. To remove this evil thinking Hashem permitted Noach to eat meat, and Hashem warned against killing people who have an intellect soul… + +The most likely explanation seems to me that Adam was permitted to eat only plants, for the are the most appropriate food for humans. When they nevertheless sinned, mean was permitted to Noach, as if to say to them that they have no hope with the good path, but only through punishment… Just as everything is permitted to one who is ill when they have despaired of his life. Hashem did not forbid all meat to Bnei Yisroel, for their evil inclination would defeat them. However, He also did not permit everything, for they are not on the low level of the generation of the flood. + +Chapter 15 + + + +Chapter 16 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + +Remember. On Shavuos it is difficult to come to Yerushalayim, since everyone was there shortly before, on Pesach. And unlike on Sukkos, the crops have not yet been brought in from the fields. So Hashem reminded them of their labor in Egypt, which was even more difficult. This is why it states, “these statutes”. + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + +Celebrate for yourself. This means that I know that you will make yourself a festival of rejoicing at that time, and I ask that you make it into a mitzvah before Hashem, and dwell for seven days in sukkos. + +Hashem commanded Yisroel to celebrate three festivals to give thanks for three good things He did for them, the exodus from Egypt, the giving of the Torah and the inheritance of the land of Israel… +The purpose of coming to Yerushalayim on those three festivals is +1. To give thanks to Hashem. +2. Through this the people will observe the fundamentals of the Torah. +3. They will see the constant miracles of the Beis HaMikdosh, its service and its sacredness. +4. There will be an increase of recognition and peace amongst the people. +5. That they will have an opportunity to learn Torah and to remove any doubts. + +Chapter 17 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + + + + +First Introduction: Behold, it is fitting that we know if a king is a necessary and intrinsically obligatory thing for a nation or whether it is possible without him. And the philosophers already thought that it was [necessary] and that the dominion of a king to a politically organized nation is like the relationship of the heart to the body of a living being that has a heart, and like the relationship of the First Cause to the world more generally. And even though these analysts reason that monarchy insures three things – the first being unity and the absence of [division], the second being continuity and the lack of [instability], and the third being absolute power – [in fact], their thinking about the obligation and necessity of a king is actually false. [This] since it is not to be denied that there can be many leaders of the people that gather and unite and agree upon one policy and that the leadership and law be according to them – and this goes against the first [claim]. And why should their leadership not be [for] one year or three years like the years of an employee or less? And when the turn of other 'judges and officers' arrives, they will rise instead of them and faithfully investigate the sin of the first ones, and that which they condemn must pay all that they have done badly – and this goes against the second [claim]. And why should their power also not be limited, as with religions and mores [– and this goes against the third claim]. And logic dictates that when an individual [disagrees] with a group, the law follows the group. And it is more likely that the lapse be with one man – as it stated (Proverbs 16:14), “The king’s wrath is a messenger of death” - than it be that the many would trespass when they take counsel together. As if one strays from the path, the others will protest against him. And since their leadership is temporary and they will have to be accountable after a 'few days,' that fear of flesh and blood is upon them. And why do we need to bring theoretical claims for this, as behold, experience trumps modeling: Look and see the lands the leadership of which is with kings, and [by contrast,] today we have seen many lands the leadership of which is is with temporary judges and leaders that are chosen among them and the King God is with them. Their law is refined by ordered limits, and [their leaders] are the ones that control the people that make the matters of war; none can stand in front of them – not from a tribe, and not from his land. Did you not know, did you not hear that a great land governed over the whole world, consumed the whole earth – search it and note it – while its leadership was through the Councils, that were wholesome and many and their leadership was temporary. However, afterward they were made a tributary. And also today, the Commonwealth of Venice, that great mistress among the nations, the rulers over states; and the Country of Florence, the beauty of all the lands; and other countries small and large are run by the mouth of leaders elected for set periods of time. And behold, the elected governments have 'in them nothing perverse or crooked' – no one raises his hand or foot to [do] a wrongful thing – and they conquer lands that are not theirs with wisdom, understanding and knowledge. And all of this shows that the presence of a king is not necessary for a nation, and like the teacher of the Guide (Maimonides) mentioned. And it is a wonder about this supposed opinion, that compares the unity of a [human] king over the control and will of people to the unity of the ancient necessary First Cause, may He be blessed. However, [even] in an animal body, the sages have already written that there are three main organs in its governance. And even according to the opinion of the head of the philosophers that only the heart is the main [one], behold, this is concerning the generation of the spirit, but it does not contradict that the government of the living faculties is from the brain, and the natural ones is from the liver. In the final analysis, it is impossible for natural matters not to be like this; as from the act of [Divine] will, they are [only] from the substance of that [which] is possible - ‘how can straw be compared to grain?’ And one should not ask from the statement (Proverbs 28:2), “When there is rebellion in the land, its ministers are many,” as there it is speaking about ministers, not about leaders and judges. And how will we [miss] that which is well-known among all, that when the leaders are good, it is better that they be many; and if they are bad, it is more dangerous. And therefore, I think that the kings were not set up with the examination of the people at first, and as it is written (Isaiah 7:6), “We will march against Yehudah and invade it […], and we will set up a king in it.” And even if they were only appointed by way of trustees to serve the people, and they are made masters, as if God, may He be blessed, gave them the ‘land and its fullness’; and they bequeathed it to their sons after them forever, as if it was land that he bought with his money, this too is ‘not worthwhile (literally, the same)’ with all reigns, as there will be kings that do not have leadership abilities. And this is the First Introduction. + +Chapter 18 + + + +Chapter 19 + + + +Chapter 20 + + + +Chapter 21 + + + +Chapter 22 + + + +Chapter 23 + + + +Chapter 24 + + + +Chapter 25 + + + +Chapter 26 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + +...After our teacher, Moses, finished explaining the Torah, he said, "This day the Lord... commands you to do." [This] means to say, since I have already finished explaining the commandments, there is no need to speak about their explanation any more; but rather to command you about their performance and observance. As behold, perhaps up until now you did not know the explanation of the commandments. But now that I have already explained them, there is nothing new to add, and the only thing left to warn [about] is their performance. And this is [the meaning of] his saying, "This day, the Lord your God commands you to do"... + +Chapter 27 + + + +Chapter 28 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + +Verse 35 + + + +Verse 36 + + + +Verse 37 + + + +Verse 38 + + + +Verse 39 + + + +Verse 40 + + + +Verse 41 + + + +Verse 42 + + + +Verse 43 + + + +Verse 44 + + + +Verse 45 + + + +Verse 46 + + + +Verse 47 + + + +Verse 48 + + + +Verse 49 + + +Hashem will raise. Now he mentions the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdosh. From afar. Who came from Britain and other distant countries speedily. They came three times. +The first time Pompei came against Aristobulos. +The second time Sussuis came with Herod against Antigonos. +The third time Vespasian and Titus came. +This corresponds to the three times the word “nation” appears in these verses. + +Chapter 29 + + + +Chapter 30 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +...and it is since the nation in exile is divided into two parts: The smaller part are those that hold on to the religion and follow the Torah of the Lord, and they are referred to as Israel - but they remain the few from the many. And the other part of the people are those who - because of the troubles and the heaviness of the exile - have transgressed against His religion; as it is stated there (Deuteronomy 4:28), "And you shall worship other gods there...," as I explained. Hence it stated corresponding to the two parts of the nation, "you shall bring it to your heart amidst the various nations to which the Lord your God has banished you. And you will return to the Lord your God." As behold the first statement is about those under duress (anusim) that have left the framework of the religion. Hence to those, it stated, "you shall bring it to your heart" - as their repentance will [only] be in the heart and not in the mouth. For they will not be able to publicize their repentance and their faith. And this is [the meaning] of its stating, "amidst the various nations to which the Lord your God has banished you" - meaning to say, that they are mixed in with them and considered like them. Nevertheless, they will return to the Lord in their hearts. And regarding the other part of the Jews that are known [to be Jews], it states, "and you will return to the Lord your God, and you and your children will heed His voice with all your heart and soul, just as I enjoin upon you this day" - meaning to say that they will repent and do the commandments and heed the voice of God publicly, they and their children. For they have not abandoned their God there. And when they repent to God, they will follow Him. But [both] these and those will run [to Him] - each one according to his condition and his context. It promised that God, may He be blessed, will gather them unto Him. And this is [the meaning of] "And the Lord your God will return your captivity and have mercy upon you; and He will return and gather you." Behold it said, "And the Lord your God will return your captivity and have mercy upon you," about that part that are Jews publicly and hold on to their Judaism. And it states about them, "your captivity," since they are in captivity and servitude. And it states, "and [He will] have mercy upon you," as they will need mercy, due to their lowliness and troubles. However regarding the other part that have left the framework of the religion because of the their duress, it states, "and He will return and gather you from all of the nations." But it did not state regarding them, "captivity" nor "mercy." And this is the reason that it states that He will gather them from all the nations; as they are mixed in with them and have intermarried with them. And about these, it states (Deuteronomy 30:4), "Even if your outcasts are at the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, from there He will fetch you"... + +Chapter 31 + + + +Chapter 32 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + +Verse 6 + + + +Verse 7 + + + +Verse 8 + + + +Verse 9 + + + +Verse 10 + + + +Verse 11 + + + +Verse 12 + + + +Verse 13 + + + +Verse 14 + + + +Verse 15 + + + +Verse 16 + + + +Verse 17 + + + +Verse 18 + + + +Verse 19 + + + +Verse 20 + + + +Verse 21 + + + +Verse 22 + + + +Verse 23 + + + +Verse 24 + + + +Verse 25 + + + +Verse 26 + + + +Verse 27 + + + +Verse 28 + + + +Verse 29 + + + +Verse 30 + + + +Verse 31 + + + +Verse 32 + + + +Verse 33 + + + +Verse 34 + + + + + + + +We learn seven principles from this song: +1. That in the future there will be vengeance and repayment on all those who harm the Jewish people. +2. This will occur at a specific time, decreed by Hashem’s supernal wisdom, but is not revealed, as the verse states, “Is this not sequestered with Me.” +3. That the redemption will be after their sins have been atoned. +4. That during the exile the merit of the forefathers has ceased, and our salvation depends solely on Hashem’s great name, as the verse states, “Were it not for the enemy’s amassed rage… Now observe! For it is I! I am the One!”… +5. The resurrection of the dead will occur shortly after the ingathering of the exiles, as is also stated in Daniel 12:1-2). +6. That the redemption and the atonement are not conditional on repentance, as Ramban explains. +7. That all the words of this song have come true . + +Chapter 33 + + + +Chapter 34 + + + +Verse 1 + + + +Verse 2 + + + +Verse 3 + + + +Verse 4 + + + +Verse 5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +And no man knows his burial place. So that the enemies should not gain benefit, unlike the cave of the Patriarchs, which is in the hands of the Yishmaelim. +And so that they should not desecrate or trample his grave. +Just as the level of his soul and his prophecy was hidden from every living thing, and this is alluded to in the phrase “In the valley [bagai]” which refers to the pride [bega’ut] and lofty honor. \ No newline at end of file