THOU SHALT NOT SACRIFICE UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D [AN OX, OR A SHEEP, WHEREIN IS A BLEMISH], EVEN ANY ‘DAVAR’ (THING) THAT IS EVIL. “This is an admonition against causing offerings to be rendered unfit through an improper utterance.⁴⁹ (an evil thing) is thus interpreted to mean dibur ra — “an evil [or improper] utterance.” If the ministering priest has in mind [i.e., expresses] the intent to eat the meat of the offering, or to burn its assigned parts upon the altar, after the expiration of the prescribed times, he renders the entire offering unfit. See also Vol. III, p. 341, Note 84. There are yet other interpretations given by the Rabbis [on this verse] in the Tractate Shechithath Kadashim.”⁵⁰, “The Slaughter of Secular Animals.” The former is nowadays called Zebachim, “Animal Offerings,” while the latter is called Chullin (Secular Animals slaughtered for food). This is Rashi’s language. Now this is an explanatory commandment, for He has already admonished against slaughtering blemished offerings,⁵¹ and here he repeated it in order to add the admonition against rendering it unfit by an utterance. It is likely that he repeated this admonition in order that the Israelite who brings the offering should not render it unfit during the slaughter [since non-priests were permitted to slaughter offerings]. The priests themselves, however, are scrupulous and careful, one warning sufficing for them. Therefore he did not repeat the prohibition against a blemished ministering priest [performing the Divine Service].

footnotes: ⁴⁹ The expression davar ra ⁵⁰ Literally: “The Slaughter of Hallowed Offerings,” as distinguished from Shechitath Chullin ⁵¹ Leviticus 22:21.

FOR THAT IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The term “abomination” refers to this offering, for whoever offers a corrupted thing is held in contempt, as it is stated in the Prophets,⁵². See Taanith 16a, where this term is used as a reference to the Books of the Prophets as distinguished from the Five Books of Moses. The term kabalah in this sense is an expression of “outcry” or “rebuke,” as the prophets in their sayings rebuked the people for their evil deeds. And cursed be he that dealeth craftily, whereas he hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Eternal a blemished thing, for I am a great King.⁵³ And according to the Midrash⁵⁴ 147. the term “abomination” refers to an animal that did, or was the object of perversion, or was the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog⁵⁵ — all of which are “abominations.”

footnotes: ⁵² Literally: kabalah ⁵³ Malachi 1:14. ⁵⁴ Sifre, Shoftim ⁵⁵ See further, 23:19.

IF THERE BE FOUND IN THE MIDST OF THEE WITHIN ANY OF THY GATES WHICH THE ETERNAL THY G-D GIVETH THEE. I have already explained⁵⁶ that when he speaks of the ordinances he mentions first the judgment to be executed upon the idols or their worshippers. He states [here] within any of thy gates which the Eternal thy G-d giveth thee, not to imply that this law applies only in the Land of Israel, since one who worships idols outside the Land is also liable to stoning. The purport thereof is rather to state, “if the matter be found in one of the distant cities which G-d will give you when He will enlarge thy border⁵⁷ — and it be told thee, and thou hear it,⁵⁸ in whatever city you may be, you are to investigate the matter diligently and if you discover that the charge is true, you shall bring them forth to that city wherein they worshipped, and stone them.”⁵⁹ He states that such abomination was done in Israel⁵⁸ [implying that it is done within the nation rather than within the Land] in order to hold the worshipper [of the idols] culpable even outside the Land, for in the case of the apostate city he said, *that such abomination is done ‘in thy midst,’*⁶⁰ [within the Land], but here he mentioned within any of thy gates [a term generally limited to the Land] for it refers to common events as we have explained, and then he states in Israel⁵⁸ in order to teach that it is binding upon the entire [nation of] Israel [even outside the Land]. It was also necessary to state within any of thy gates in order to teach that the worshipper be stoned at the gates [of the city] in which he worshipped the idols.⁶¹ This is [the law] in the Land, for outside the Land he is stoned at the entrance of the court where he was judged. Now, this commandment is explanatory, since He already stated He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed,⁶² this applying in every place and at every time. Therefore he repeated it in order to explain what must be added to the commandment, but he abbreviated regarding matters previously mentioned. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], it is possible that he mentioned within any of thy gates because he stated in transgressing His covenant,⁶³ this [transgression] being the abomination done in [the Land of] Israel.⁵⁸ Scripture made it known that the covenant is in the Land of the covenant,⁶⁴ whereas he who lives outside the Land is as if he worshipped idols.⁶⁵ I have already mentioned this subject.⁶⁶ He mentioned man or woman,⁶³ because, due to a woman’s frivolity, she can be enticed into idol-worship through a sign or wonder done before her, the proof being the case of the women before Jeremiah.⁶⁷ Similarly, with reference to [the witchcraft of] the ov (ghost) or yide’oni (familiar spirit), Scripture mentioned or a woman⁶⁸ because these forms of sorcery were customarily practiced by women, as He said, Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live⁶⁹ [even though both male and female sorcerers are equally liable].⁷⁰ And in the Sifre⁷¹ 148. the Rabbis interpret that [the reason for the expression or a woman is] because, having said in the case of an inciter Certain base ‘men’ are gone out from the midst of thee,⁷² implying that this law [of the apostate city] is not the same for [the inciters if they were] women,⁷³ 93. it was necessary to explain that regarding an idol-worshipper the law is the same for man and woman. The meaning of the expression which I have commanded not⁷⁴ is already explained.⁷⁵

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Above, 7:15; 11:32. ⁵⁷ Further, 19:8. ⁵⁸ Verse 4 here. ⁵⁹ Verse 5. ⁵⁸ Verse 4 here. ⁶⁰ Above, 13:15. ⁵⁸ Verse 4 here. ⁶¹ Kethuboth 45b. ⁶² Exodus 22:19. ⁶³ In Verse 2 before us. The question is why is “the woman” mentioned in the case of idol-worship. ⁵⁸ Verse 4 here. ⁶⁴ Ezekiel 30:5. ⁶⁵ Kethuboth 110b. ⁶⁶ Leviticus 18:25. ⁶³ In Verse 2 before us. The question is why is “the woman” mentioned in the case of idol-worship. ⁶⁷ Jeremiah Chapter 44. ⁶⁸ Leviticus 20:27. ⁶⁹ Exodus 22:17. ⁷⁰ Sanhedrin 67a. ⁷¹ Sifre, Shoftim ⁷² Above, 13:14. ⁷³ Sifre, R’eih ⁷⁴ Verse 3. ⁷⁵ Above, 4:21.

AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES, OR THREE WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS TO DIE BE PUT TO DEATH. “If the evidence can be sustained by two witnesses, why did Scripture specify ‘three?’ It is to liken three to two: just as the evidence of two witnesses forms a single unit of testimony, so does the evidence of three, constitute a single unit of testimony and they are not subject to the law of plotting witnesses [which declares that whatever they plotted to do to their brother should be done to them]⁷⁶ unless all three are proven to be plotters.”⁷⁷ This is Rashi’s language. So also the principle [of a single unit of testimony] applies if one of the witnesses is found to be a kinsman [and hence ineligible to testify] or to have some other disqualification — the testimony of all is void. If they are proven to have been plotting witnesses, [in which case] all of them are subject to the death-penalty or payment of money [as the case may be, and the third witness cannot claim immunity because of his argument that even had he not testified the evidence of the first two witnesses was sufficient to sustain the charge], since the main intent of Scripture was to liken the evidence of three witnesses to that of two in every respect, according to the opinion of our Rabbis.⁷⁸ And the Gaon Rav Saadia⁷⁹, p. 521, Note 74. Rav Saadia’s comment is quoted here by Ibn Ezra. said, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that the interpretation of the verse is as follows: “two witnesses, or three judges who [officially] accept the testimony of the two witnesses.”⁸⁰ thus means: “upon the testimony of two witnesses who appear before the entire court of twenty-three judges, or by the word of the three judges who officially accepted the testimony of the witnesses and later relayed it to the entire court — shall the one that is to die be put to death. Ramban will refute this interpretation of the Gaon, for there is in the verse etc. But there is in the verse no mention of acceptance of the testimony; instead, it refers explicitly to witnesses. But it seems to me that the Gaon erred in his [statement of this] law, for testimony in capital cases cannot be accepted except in the presence of a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges [and not, as Rav Saadia holds, before only three judges]! Rather, the plain meaning of the verse is that the condemned man shall be put to death at the mouth of two witnesses if no more are there, or at the mouth of three witnesses if three witnesses are to be found there. Scripture thus states: when it will be told thee, and thou hear it⁵⁸ you are to inquire diligently into the matter by means of the testimony of all the witnesses found there. Thus if we heard that he transgressed in the presence of three people, we should send for them and have them all come to court and testify. The same law applies to a hundred, for by hearing the words of them all, the truth will become clear. But if not more [than two] were present, or they [the others] left and are not to be found, then two are sufficient.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ See further, 19:19. ⁷⁷ But if only one or two of the three witnesses were proven to be false, the evidence is void, and both, the accused and the witnesses are free, and the punishment for plotting witnesses is not imposed, provided all witnesses form a single unit of testimony. The same principles apply even to one out of a hundred witnesses (Makkoth 5b). ⁷⁸ Makkoth ibid. ⁷⁹ On Rav Saadia see Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230. On the title Gaon see ibid. ⁸⁰ Rav Saadia holds that even in capital cases which require a court of twenty-three judges, witnesses need not testify in the presence of all the judges; it is sufficient that they testify in the presence of three judges who may receive their testimony on behalf of the full court. The phrase at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses ⁵⁸ Verse 4 here.

IF THERE ARISE A MATTER TOO HARD FOR THEE IN JUDGMENT, BETWEEN BLOOD AND BLOOD, BETWEEN PLEA AND PLEA, AND BETWEEN PLAGUE AND PLAGUE, MATTERS OF CONTROVERSY WITHIN THY GATES. “Matters of controversy — if the Sages of the city disagree over the matter, this one declaring it unclean and that one declaring it clean, this one convicting and that one acquitting.” This is Rashi’s language. It is also the opinion of Onkelos [who translated: matters of controversy — “disagreement among the judges”]. But it is not correct.⁸¹ refers back to between blood and blood etc. Ramban will explain matters of controversy as an independent expression, as explained further on. Rather, according to the Midrash thereof⁸² 152. Sanhedrin 87a. it means as follows: “Between blood and blood, [the Sages disagree whether the blood in question is clean or unclean, the blood being any of the following]: the blood of a menstruous woman, the blood of a woman in childbirth, or the blood of a woman suffering a flux. Between plea and plea, [they disagree concerning the verdict in] civil cases, capital cases, and laws of scourging. And between plague and plague, [concerning] plagues of man, plagues of houses, and plagues of garments. Matters of controversy, giving the water to a suspected adulteress,⁸³ the breaking of the heifer’s neck,⁸⁴ and the purifying of the leper.” Thus the meaning of the word between [‘between’ blood and blood] is “and between,” [the verse stating: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, “and” between blood and blood, since the phrase between blood and blood is a new category, and not in apposition to the first part of the verse]. The letter lamed [in the words l’dam which literally means “in regard to blood” and l’din — “in regard to a plea”] has the usage here of a beth [meaning “among”], “between blood ‘among’ blood, plea ‘among’ pleas,” meaning, should a case arise concerning one [form of blood] among the various forms of blood, or concerning one [plea] among the various pleas, [a case that will be too difficult for you to decide]. A similar usage [of a lamed serving as beth is found in these verses:] *but the name of the city was Luz ‘larishonah’*⁸⁵ [literally: “‘to’ the beginning”] means barishonah — “in the beginning;” the Eternal smote him in his bowels ‘lacholi l’ein marpei’⁸⁶ [literally: “to an incurable disease”] means bacholi b’ein marpei — “with an incurable disease;” and he covered it with fine gold ‘l’chikarim’ [literally: “to talents”] six hundred⁸⁷, 3:8. means b’chikarim — “with talents.” There are many similar cases. Or it may be that the meaning of the word between [‘between’ blood and blood etc.] is “between [a certain flow of] blood in regard to all other bloods, between [a certain kind of] plea in regard to all pleas.” Similarly, and whensoever any controversy shall come to you from your brethren, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and ordinances, ye shall warn them, that they not be guilty towards the Eternal.⁸⁸, 19:10. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse means: between blood and blood, matters of bloodshed; [between plea and plea] in civil cases; [and between plague and plague]cases of wounds and bruises [i.e., bodily injury] — all matters of controversy that shall be in your cities. Scripture thus speaks of common occurrences, for in the matters of ordinances [cases between man and his neighbor], more disagreements will arise than in other decisions. The law of the elder [who rebels against the decision of the highest court] is, however, alike in all cases. Therefore He said, And thou shalt do according to the Torah (law) which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee,⁸⁹ is from Verse 10. for the word “Torah” alludes to the rest of the decisions.

footnotes: ⁸¹ For, according to Rashi, the expression matters of controversy ⁸² Sifre, Shoftim ⁸³ Numbers 5:24. ⁸⁴ Further, 21:4. ⁸⁵ Genesis 28:19. ⁸⁶ II Chronicles 21:18. ⁸⁷ Ibid. ⁸⁸ Ibid. ⁸⁹ Verse 11. The expression and thou shalt do

THOU SHALT NOT DEPART FROM THE WORD WHICH THEY SHALL TELL THEE, TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT. “Even if he [the judge of the Great Sanhedrin] tells you of the right that it is the left, or about the left that it is the right [you must obey him].” This is Rashi’s language. The purport thereof is that even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is simple in your eyes just as you know [the difference] between your right hand and your left hand, you must still do as they command you. You are not to say: “How can I [permit myself to] eat this real forbidden fat, or execute this innocent man;” instead you are to say, “The Lord Who enjoined the commandments commanded that I perform all His commandments in accordance with all that they, who stand before Him in the place that He shall choose, teach me to do. He gave me the Torah as taught by them, even if they were to err.” Such was the case of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel [Rabbi Yehoshua being instructed by Rabban Gamaliel to come before him with his walking stick] on the Day of Atonement that occurred according to his reckoning.⁹⁰ reckon to be the Day of Atonement. The order caused Rabbi Yehoshua personal anguish because carrying is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. The affair ended with Rabbi Yehoshua obeying Rabban Gamaliel’s command. When Rabbi Yehoshua arrived, “Rabban Gamaliel stood up and kissed him on the head and said to him; ‘Come in peace, my master and my disciple’ — ‘my master’ in wisdom, and ‘my disciple’ because you accepted my words” (Rosh Hashanah 25a). Now the need for this commandment is very great, for the Torah was given to us in written form and it is known that not all opinions concur on newly arising matters. Disagreements would thus increase and the one Torah would become many Torahs. Scripture, therefore, defined the law that we are to obey the Great Court that stands before G-d in the place that He chose in whatever they tell us with respect to the interpretation of the Torah, whether they received its interpretation by means of witness from witness until Moses [who heard it] from the mouth of the Almighty, or whether they said so based on the implication [of the written words] of the Torah or its intent. For it was subject to their judgment that He gave them the Torah even if it [the judgment] appears to you to exchange right for left. And surely you are obligated to think that they say “right” what is truly right, because G-d’s spirit is upon the ministers of His Sanctuary,⁹¹ and He forsaketh not His saints; they are preserved forever⁹² from error and stumbling. In the language of the Sifre:⁹³ 154. “Even if they show you before your own eyes that right is left and that left is right — obey them!”

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Following the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was re-established in Jabneh under the presidency of Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai (see above, Note 19). It happened that his successor Rabban Gamaliel, once accepted the testimony of two witnesses with regard to proclaiming the New Moon. Rabbi Yehoshua held that their evidence was invalid, and that the New Moon should be proclaimed a day later. Since the month was Tishri, the Day of Atonement [i.e., the tenth of Tishri] would fall a day later according to Rabbi Yehoshua than according to the reckoning of Rabban Gamaliel. When Rabbi Yehoshua refused to accept the opinion of his colleague, who, by virtue of his presidency of the Sanhedrin, had the authority to make the binding decision, Rabban Gamaliel sent to him, “I order you to come to me carrying your walking stick and your money on the day you ⁹¹ Ezekiel 45:4. ⁹² Psalms 37:28. ⁹³ Sifre, Shoftim

AND THOU SHALT SAY: ‘I WILL SET A KING OVER ME.’ In the opinion of our Rabbis⁹⁴ [who say that “The Israelites were obliged to fulfill three commandments upon their entry into the Land: to appoint a king etc.”] this verse is like “and thou shalt surely say ‘I will set a king over me.’” This is a positive commandment,⁹⁵ for He has obligated us to say so after conquering and settling [in the Land]. The expression is similar to and thou shalt make a parapet for thy roof⁹⁶ [which is also a matter of obligation and not one of choice], and other verses besides these. He mentioned and thou shalt say because it is commanded that the people come before the priests of the tribe of Levi, and to the judge and say to them, “It is our wish that we set a king over us.” It is my further opinion that this is also one of his [Moses’] allusions to future events, for so it happened when the people asked for Saul, saying to Samuel, Now make us a king to judge us like all nations,⁹⁷ and similarly it is written there, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us etc.⁹⁸, Verse 20. For what reason is there that the Torah should say in connection with a commandment [‘I will set a king over me] like all the nations that are round about me’ when it is not proper for Israel to learn their ways⁹⁹. and neither be envious against the workers of evil.¹⁰⁰ But this is an allusion to what will be, and therefore the section is written in an intermediate tense [and not in the form of a command] as I have already explained.¹⁰¹

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Sanhedrin 20b. ⁹⁵ See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 182-183. ⁹⁶ Further, 22:8. ⁹⁷ I Samuel 8:5. ⁹⁸ Ibid. ⁹⁹ Jeremiah 10:2: Learn not the way of the nations ¹⁰⁰ Psalms 37:1. ¹⁰¹ Above, 4:25; 7:22.

THOU SHALT BY ALL MEANS SET HIM KING OVER THEE, WHOM THE ETERNAL THY G-D SHALL CHOOSE. In the opinion of the commentators¹⁰² this means that he is to be chosen according to the word of a prophet or the judgment of the Urim.¹⁰³ Scripture is thus commanding: “You shall set up a king over you, whom the Eternal thy G-d shall choose, for it is He Who will choose and not you.” And in the Sifre it is stated:¹⁰⁴ 157. “Thou shalt by all means set him king over thee. If he dies, appoint another one in his place. A king — but not a queen. Whom the Eternal thy G-d shall choose — according to the word of the prophet.” But, if so, what sense is there to warn [in the verse before us], thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother, when G-d would not choose a foreigner? However, in the opinion of our Rabbis there is in this verse a hidden condition, stating: “you shall by all means set a king over you, whom G-d shall choose provided you can do so — if G-d will answer you through prophets; but a foreigner you may never appoint as king over you.” And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture they¹⁰⁵ have said, “thou shalt by all means set him king over thee, whom the Eternal thy G-d will choose and not him whom the Eternal thy G-d hateth,¹⁰⁶ for He will choose an Israelite to be king over His chosen ones and not from among the other peoples.” In my opinion the simple meaning of the expression whom He will choose is that every ruler over people receives his position from G-d, as it is written until thou wilt know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.¹⁰⁷ Similarly the Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁸ “Even a superintendent of the well is appointed in heaven.” Thus the verse is stating: “thou shalt by all means set him king over thee — whoever it be decreed by Heaven that he is to reign, even if he be of the smallest of the tribes of Israel and of the least of all the families of the tribe¹⁰⁹ — but you are never to invest a foreigner with regal power.” Similarly, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the expression the place which the Eternal thy G-d shall choose¹¹⁰ means “wherever G-d’s Sanctuary shall be built, was all the Will of G-d.”

footnotes: ¹⁰² Ibn Ezra in the verse before us. ¹⁰³ Numbers 27:21. See also Vol. II pp. 480-483. ¹⁰⁴ Sifre, Shoftim ¹⁰⁵ The commentators. I have not identified them. ¹⁰⁶ Above, 16:22. ¹⁰⁷ Daniel 4:29. This was said by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. ¹⁰⁸ Berachoth 58a. ¹⁰⁹ I Samuel 9:21. ¹¹⁰ Above, 14:25.

HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY HORSES TO HIMSELF — “except what he needs for his carriage, in order that he cause not the people to return to Egypt, because horses were obtained from Egypt, as it is said, And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty.”¹¹¹ This is Rashi’s language. But I have this difficulty regarding it, for the Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi at the end of Tractate Sanhedrin:¹¹² “You may not return there for settlement, but you may return for business, for goods, and for conquest of the land.” And so, if the king should send men and buy horses and chariots there, it would be considered “trading” and would be permissible! It is then possible that Scripture admonishes [the king] not to increase his numbers of horses even from his own Land, or from the land of Shinar, or by way of permissible trading, in order that he should not put his trust in his chariots, because they are many, and in his horsemen, because they are exceedingly mighty,¹¹³ but his trust shall be in the Name of the Eternal.¹¹⁴ Then he admonishes the king not to cause the people to return to Egypt, to have his servants and people there as overseers of cattle dwelling in the cities for the chariots¹¹⁵ to the end that he should multiply horses, similar to what is said of Solomon, and all the store-cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots etc.¹¹⁵ And thus he had in Egypt, as it is said, And the horses which Solomon had, were brought out of Egypt; also out of Keveh, the king’s merchants buying them etc.¹¹⁶ for no one was allowed to export horses from Egypt without permission from the Egyptian king and they paid him a tax for them. To Solomon, however, Pharaoh gave the right to export horses, meaning that he could take them out at will, and he could transfer that right to whomever he wished and keep the tax. He also had merchants stationed in Egypt buying all horses and sending to their lord [Solomon] those that he wanted and selling the others to kings of other countries. Thus it is said and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram, did they bring them out by their means,¹¹¹ that is to say, they took them out through Solomon’s merchants, and it was to him that they gave the tax.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ I Kings 10:29. ¹¹² Yerushalmi Sanhedrin X, 9. — On Yerushalmi see Leviticus, p. 192, Note 44. ¹¹³ Isaiah 31:1. ¹¹⁴ See Jeremiah 17:7. ¹¹⁵ I Kings 9:19. On Solomon’s conduct in this matter see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 330. ¹¹⁵ I Kings 9:19. On Solomon’s conduct in this matter see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 330. ¹¹⁶ I Kings 10:28. ¹¹¹ I Kings 10:29.

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

SINCE THE ETERNAL HATH SAID UNTO YOU. The meaning thereof is that “since G-d is telling you¹¹⁷ (He said) is in past tense. Nevertheless Ramban is compelled to define it in the present tense because we find no preceding text wherein G-d prohibited the return to Egypt. Hence we must interpret the word amar in the present tense, “since G-d is saying to you …” Further, Ramban will explain amar in the ordinary past tense. that you are henceforth not to return by the way of Egypt.” Similarly, as the Eternal thy G-d ‘commanded’ thee¹¹⁸ which means “as He is thus commanding you.” Or it may be that the expression He hath said unto you means “He had said to me to command you,” similar to the verse, And Moses said, ‘Thus saith the Eternal: About midnight etc.’¹¹⁹ And by way of our Rabbis,¹²⁰ the verse, for whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more¹²¹ constitutes a [negative] commandment [for all times], and Moses is thus here reminding them that the Eternal ‘hath said’ unto you [at the Red Sea] that ye shall henceforth return no more that way. I have already explained it.¹²¹ And the reason for this commandment is because the Egyptians and Canaanites were wicked and sinners against the Eternal exceedingly,¹²² just as He said, After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan etc.¹²³ Now the Eternal desired that the Israelites not learn from their deeds and so He ordered that all living things, from among the Canaanites be destroyed, saying, They shall not dwell in thy Land,¹²⁴ and he warned with respect to the Egyptians that we are not to settle there in their land.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Ramban interprets the verse as if it were said in the present tense, “G-d is telling you.” The word used in the verse, amar ¹¹⁸ Above, 5:16. ¹¹⁹ Exodus 11:4. ¹²⁰ Yerushalmi Succah V, 1. See Vol. II, p. 184 where Ramban refers to this subject. ¹²¹ Exodus 14:13. ¹²¹ Exodus 14:13. ¹²² Genesis 13:13. ¹²³ Leviticus 18:3. ¹²⁴ Exodus 23:33.

V’HAY’THAH’ (AND IT SHALL BE) WITH HIM [“it” refers to] the Torah¹²⁵ is feminine [literally: “and she will be”] it must refer to Torah which is also feminine. as mentioned [in the preceding verse]. AND HE SHALL READ ‘BO’ (THEREIN) — “in the book”¹²⁶ (“in him”), being masculine, cannot refer to Torah which is feminine. It must refer to the masculine word, sefer (book), in the preceding verse. The verse reads: and he [the king] shall write him a copy of this ‘Torah’ in ‘a book.’ mentioned [in the preceding verse]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], ‘v’hay’thah’ (and it shall be) with him means that the Torah itself will be with him, similar to what is said, And the Eternal gave Solomon wisdom,¹²⁷ and it is further said, And Solomon sat on the throne of the Eternal as king.¹²⁸” (Psalms 93:1) [Ramban in his Letter to his son on the Virtue of Humility, Hebrew Ethical Wills, J.P.S., Vol. I, pp. 94-99].

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Since the word v’hay’thah ¹²⁶ The word bo ¹²⁷ I Kings 5:26. ¹²⁸ I Chronicles 29:23. — Hence “he who prides himself in his heart over other people is a rebel against the Kingdom of Heaven, for he adorns himself in ‘the robe of the Eternal,’ as it is said, The Eternal reigneth, He is clothed in majesty

THAT HIS HEART BE NOT LIFTED UP ABOVE HIS BRETHREN. Here in the Torah a prohibition against conceit is alluded to, for Scripture prohibited even the king from indulging in conceit and haughtiness of heart, surely other people who are not of such commendable excellence [or merit, are forbidden to be haughty]. Scripture has thus admonished him for whom it is proper to be haughty and majestic that his heart must be as humble as that of his brethren of lower status, because conceit is a reprehensible character-trait, and it is loathsome to G-d even in a king. To G-d alone is the greatness¹²⁹, Verse 11. and exaltation,¹³⁰ and to Him alone is the praise, and in [the knowledge of] Him may man glory, as the matter is explained by King Solomon, Every man that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Eternal.¹³¹ It is further written, But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me.¹³²

footnotes: ¹²⁹ See ibid. ¹³⁰ See Nehemiah 9:5. ¹³¹ Proverbs 16:5. ¹³² Jeremiah 9:23.