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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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