English translation — שופטים ב

1.

From the verse

(in our parshah¹)

"And he shall not return the people to Egypt, etc., and the L-rd said to you: You shall not again return on this way anymore" one learns²

the halachah,

that a Jew may not return to settle

(to permanently settle³)

in Egypt,

and moreover — in the language of Chazal⁴

: "In three places Israel was warned not to return to the land of Egypt, etc."

The Rambam in his book Yad HaChazakah⁵

brings down the law that one may not dwell in Egypt

(and brings down from Chazal "In three places the Torah warned, etc.")

; and from the plainness of his language it is implied,

that the prohibition also applies in the present time

a great discussion,

how

the Rambam himself was allowed to live in Egypt,

and - in general - there were after all many Jewish communities there etc.].

one must understand: regarding the prohibition of marriage with an Egyptian

(until "the third generation"⁷)

the Rambam rules⁸

: "When Sennacherib king of Assyria came up, he confused all the nations and mixed them one with another and exiled them from their places, and these Egyptians who are in the land of Egypt now are other people ..

Since they were mixed ..

everything is permitted, for whoever separates from them to convert, his presumption is that he separated from the majority."

And since in the time of the exile the land of Egypt is a land of "other people",

who do not originate from the former Egyptians,

then why is the prohibition "to return to Egypt" also applicable now?

B.

At first glance one could

answer

(as several commentators<sup>9</sup>

say),

that the prohibition of dwelling in Egypt is not because of the people there, the Egyptians,

but because of the land itself,

the land of Egypt

(even when Egypt is only the land,

because there are no longer any Egyptians there)<sup>10</sup>,

which is also proven from the ruling and addition regarding idolatry from the language of the Rambam in the following halacha<sup>11</sup>

: "It seems to me that if a king of Israel conquered the land of Egypt by the court's authority, it is permitted, and the prohibition was only for individuals to return or to dwell there while it is in the hands of idolaters, because its deeds are more corrupt than all the lands"; from which it is implied,

that the prohibition is "because its deeds

(of the "land" of Egypt,

and not their deeds<sup>12</sup>

of the idolaters)

are corrupt",

in the manner of the statement of our sages of blessed memory*<sup>12</sup>

: "There are springs that produce etc. and some that overflow with lewdness".

And therefore,

if it is "in the hands of idolaters" - even not in the hands of Egyptians - then "its deeds are corrupt" and one may not settle there.

With this is also understood the reason of the halachah,

that specifically when a king of Israel is conquering the land of Egypt "by the Sanhedrin" one may then settle there: through such a

conquest the land of Egypt becomes "like the land of Israel etc. for all matters"¹³

the conquest effects a change in the essence of the land¹⁴,

and therefore the prohibition to settle there becomes nullified¹⁵.

It is, however, not simple: in Sefer HaMitzvot<sup>16</sup>

the Rambam writes,

that the reason for the prohibition is "that we should not learn from their deeds<sup>17</sup>

etc."

; i.

d.

e.

i.e.

the prohibition is because of not learning from the Egyptians

(people)

of the land of Egypt<sup>18</sup>

- and according to this reason one must explain - why is this prohibition also in the present time,

after "these Egyptians who are in the land of Egypt now are other people"?

Furthermore: if it is because of a land that produces [bad character] - then even when the reality of "we should learn from their deeds" cannot exist,

like the time when "and it shall be<sup>19</sup>

the land of Egypt a desolation etc." not

No foot of man shall pass through it,

as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar,

the prohibition must also be in its full force.

3.

Regarding the prohibition of entering the congregation of an Egyptian,

the Levush writes²⁰

: "In the manner that in the early generations etc., but nowadays after Sennacherib arose etc., that Sennacherib already uprooted etc. and settled others in their place,

And although certainly a minority of them remained in their places, and it is a fixed [mixture], and any fixed [mixture] is considered half and half, nevertheless, one who converts separates from them, and whatever separates, separates from the majority, and they are permitted immediately."

And according to this,

that "their minority remained in their places" also after the confusion of the nations,

it is understood why the prohibition of settlement in Egypt is also now applicable — because of the Egyptians who remained in Egypt and who are not nullified in their minority,

because as long as they are not "separated" to convert, they have the law of "fixed — as half and half."

One must, however, understand²¹

: why does he rule

(the Rambam in the anonymous*²¹

and so also)

the Shulchan Aruch that an Egyptian convert is now permitted

(immediately)

to a Jewish woman because of the reason "he separated from the majority" — which means that in any case there is the permission of "whatever separates etc." — since a minority of Egyptians remained "in their places,"

he should have explained and distinguished whether the marriage is in a manner that the Egyptian convert is actually separating

("uprooted" "goes")

from his home

(which then the rule "whatever

and whatever separates etc.‘“),

or he is not “separated” from his house,

that then he has the law of “fixed - is considered as half and half”

(as in the matter of its parallel,

as the Gemara says in Ketubot<sup>22</sup>,

as Rashi<sup>23</sup>

and Tosafot<sup>24</sup>

explain there,

that the law of “whatever separates etc.” is specifically when the cohabiter separates from his house)?

Simply, one can say,

because at the time of his conversion he certainly had to be a separator from his house

(as the Levush says “the one who converts, behold he separates from them”)

- but this is not sufficient,

because in our case it is not enough that he separates from his house,

rather he needs to be a separator from the entire land of Egypt - and with an introduction:

4.

The Gemara says in Yevamos²⁵

: "A gentile who betrothed in this time, we are concerned about the betrothal, perhaps he is from the ten tribes,

(The Gemara asks)

But whatever separates, separates from the majority,

(The Gemara answers)

In a place where they are fixed, for Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: "And he settled"²⁶

"In Halah and in Havor, etc.'"

Rashi translates: "In a place where they are fixed - the children of the ten tribes, and anything fixed is considered as half and half.

And where are they fixed? As it is written: 'And he settled in Halah and in Havor.'"

Tosafos, however, says: "Since in their place they were the majority of the ten tribes,

and not as Rashi explained because of 'all fixed items are considered as half and half,' for if he goes to her, whatever separates separates from the majority, as we say at the end of the first chapter of Kesubos."

It is understood why Rashi does not want to learn like Tosafos

(although Rashi himself explains in tractate Kesubos

(as above)

that "the principle of the one who cohabits from his house" has a law of "whatever separates, etc."),

because according to Tosafos, the language of the Gemara "in a fixed place" is difficult - it should have stated "in a place of majority."

From the language "in a fixed place" it is proven,

that here it speaks about the law of "fixed."

The explanation in this: because the verse says "and He settled them in Halah etc." - these places became the permanent place of the Ten Tribes.

And therefore their "permanence" is not limited to their houses,

but this includes all of Halah etc.,

that as long as they are located there they have a status of permanent even when they are away from their house.

But with this he explains why they

Including also those who separate from their home,

And especially when so is the custom

And as our Rabbis, may their memory be for a blessing, said: they make wedding houses for their sons*²⁶

They have there a law of fixed - "והיכא קביעי כדכתיב וינחם גו‘"].

And according to this - in our case: since the prohibition consists here in that he is an Egyptian,

it must follow,

that his "fixedness" is in the entire land of Egypt; and as long as he has not left

from the border of Egypt,

even when he separates from his house,

he has the law of fixed - as half and half.

And it may be said,

that that which Tosafos does not accept the reasoning,

that it specifically regarding the case of the Ten Tribes - and this because their being located in those places has no connection to the essence of the matter of betrothal,

Not so in our case where the prohibition of entering the congregation comes because he is an Egyptian — from the land of Egypt²⁷

— will also hold the Tosafot that as long as he is located within the borders of the land of Egypt he has a status of fixed

(regarding this prohibition of an Egyptian).

And according to the above, the question returns to its place: Since Egyptians remained in the land of Egypt

(only the permission to enter the congregation is because “whatever separates etc.”),

then the

(Rambam and)

Shulchan Aruch should have distinguished between a convert who left the land of Egypt

(who has the status of “whatever separates etc.”),

and a convert in the land of Egypt,

who has the status of “fixed” and is prohibited until the “third generation”?

5.

will one understand this by prefacing a greater difficulty in this matter

(as the Aruch HaShulchan asks²⁸)

: the Gemara says in Nazir²⁹,

that a woman "does not move about"

(for all the glory of the king's daughter is within - in the house)

and therefore she has the status of "fixed".

And the Gemara continues: "And if you say, indeed she moves about, say he found her in the marketplace and betrothed her,

there she returns to her rest",

4.

5.

that

even when she is "fresh" from her house - "he found her in the marketplace" - but since ultimately she returns back to her fixed place

("she returns to her rest"),

she has the status of fixed

(even when "he found her in the marketplace").

Today how can one at all say in the context of "anyone who separates etc.": Even when the Egyptian is fresh from marrying a Jewish woman he still has a status of "fixed"<sup>30</sup>

If he returns back to his place of fixedness?

And etc.

The explanation in this is understood from the precision of the language of the Rambam: "that anyone who separates from them to convert, his presumption is that he separated from the majority" — what does the Rambam add the word "to convert"?

Moreover — even when he separates not "to convert",

but for whatever reason, should also be the same law?

But with this the Rambam explains,

that the meaning of “fresh” here is not literally - separating in place,

but with this very thing that he converts, he is called “fresh”³¹

; the definition of “fresh” can be in two ways: a)

in a physical place - he separates from one place and comes to a second place

(and not returning to rest)

; b)

in a state,

in his place in the law of the Torah,

his existence in Torah - he separates from one state and goes over into a second - as in our case,

that he separates from

the previous state and law

(as a non-Jew,

Egyptian),

and moves himself over,

through conversion,

into a different state.

And therefore it is not applicable here "hadra lenichusa" - since that his "fresh" consists in that he converts,

is by him afterwards not applicable any "hadra".

And therefore the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule that in the present time an Egyptian convert is permitted to a Jewish woman,

in all cases - also when he is located in Egypt,

and even when he did not leave his house - because through this very thing that he converts he is a "fresh".

But unlike the other Egyptians

(gentiles)

who remained in Egypt,

although they are only a minority,

they have a status of fixed,

and therefore because of them the prohibition remains to settle in the land of Egypt "lest we learn from their deeds etc."

that this is such a reality,

which it is possible to say that it is not at all applicable to say that the minority should become nullified in the majority

(both from the perspective of the minority and from the perspective of the majority)

- because: a)

It is a minority in quantity - number of people,

here the prohibition is only from the aspect of quality - corruption of their deeds - is from the aspect of multitude

(and)

the greatness of the quality is it

(in the manner of a significant item etc. which becomes)

not nullified³².

b)

Here the majority

(the people of other nations who are found in Egypt)

is not opposed to the minority

(and nullifies it),

for also the nations are corrupt,

it is no more that the Egyptians are more corrupt³³

And therefore the reality of the majority is not in potential³⁴

to nullify the minority of the Egyptians³⁵].

7.

According to the above,

that in the land of Egypt there are still some of the Egyptians of yore,

there emerges an additional arousal in the service of G‑d in our days — and with an introduction:

Although all matters of Torah are included in the principle of "the Torah is eternal"<sup>36</sup>

- for all times and in all places - nevertheless there is a difference between the matters which cannot be fulfilled in their literal sense

(and their eternity is in spiritual matters),

and the things that are also now present in physicality - because this shows that in these matters the "eternity" is with a greater force,

it expresses itself also in this physical world before the eyes of all the nations.

So too in our matter: it is stated in the verse<sup>37</sup>

"You have seen what I did to the Egyptians etc. And now if you hearken, you shall hearken to My voice and keep My covenant, and you shall be to Me a treasure from all the nations etc. a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

From this it is understood,

that the "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians etc."

is a preparation for the matters that stand in the verses after this — "And I brought you to Me, and now if you hearken you shall hearken etc. and you shall keep My covenant, and you shall be to Me a treasure etc."; when Jews see with fleshly eyes how the Supreme One shows for them miracles at the settling of accounts and the punishment etc. of the nations that are distressing and tormenting to Israel,

that itself awakens Jews that they should strengthen their covenant with the Supreme One through "you shall hearken to My voice etc."

From this is also understood,

that when Jews see how the Supreme One settles accounts with the land of Egypt — where there exist the same Egyptians as before — there repeats itself again and again in physicality before fleshly eyes the "You have seen what I did to Egypt"

(in the manner as it was the first time).

must this consequently arouse among the Jews,

who see "what I did to Egypt",

an additional awakening,

that there should be "you shall surely listen to My voice and keep My covenant etc." - that Jews should strengthen themselves in the observance of Torah and mitzvos and conduct themselves as a "chosen people",

be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation",

and this becomes the immediate preparation for the "you shall listen to His voice"³⁸,

which brings the "today"³⁹

- the day of the coming of Moshiach,

as promised by Moshiach our righteousness,

very soon.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Beha'alotcha 5727)