English translation — ראה ב

1.

"You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your flock, and all your vows, etc., and the offering of your hand"¹.

Rashi focuses on the words "You may not" and

(after explaining "the verse comes to give a prohibition on the matter,"

as below section 5 — he again quotes the words "You may not" and)

explains "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says²

you can, but you are not permitted"

Jebusite..

could not..

dispossess them they were able, but they are not permitted, etc.'",

as below section 2).

One must understand:

The concept — that "לא תוכל" can mean "you are not permitted" — is already found <b>earlier</b> in the Chumash: in the book of Shemot⁴

it says "לא יוכל העם לעלות etc.

(on Mount Sinai)

because you warned us saying 'set bounds around the mountain etc.'",

and as <b>Rashi</b> explains on this "I do not need to warn them, for they are already permitted...

and they will not be able to ascend <b>because they have no permission";</b> similarly <b>Rashi</b> explains the verse⁵

"לא תוכל לראות את פני" — "I do not give you <b>permission"</b>⁶

also several times in the later verses,

and among them also several &lt;b&gt;prohibitions&lt;/b&gt; which

are said in this language — further in our parshah&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

: You may not slaughter the Passover-offering etc.; in the parshah of Shoftim&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

— "You may not set over yourself a foreign man etc."; in the parshah of Teitzei&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

: He may not give preference etc.,

You may not ignore etc.,

He may not send her away etc.,

Her first husband may not etc.]

— is perplexing in our case¹⁰

: In what is our verse different from all those places,

that specifically here Rashi needs to bring the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha <b>"You can </b>but you are not permitted"

(as if the explanation

("you are not permitted")

is a <b>novelty)</b>

And even more¹⁰

: The proof that the wording "you cannot" can be interpreted as "you are not permitted",

Rashi does not bring from all those places in <b>Chumash</b>²

<b> </b>but must come to a verse from <b>Navi</b>¹³

The wonder is even greater: almost the same matter as in our Rashi,

Rashi explains on the words,

"I can no longer go out and come in" — in parshas Vayelech&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

: "Perhaps &lt;b&gt;his strength weakened &lt;/b&gt;etc. What is 'I cannot'? &lt;b&gt;I am not permitted &lt;/b&gt;for permission was taken from me and given to Joshua" — Rashi could have brought here an example from &lt;b&gt;that &lt;/b&gt;verse in &lt;b&gt;Chumash &lt;/b&gt;

(where &lt;b&gt;Rashi &lt;/b&gt;himself is precise and proves the content that "you can but you are not permitted")

— and not specifically an example from a prophet!

But one must understand:

a)

Rashi's way is to say immediately the explanation of the word

(or verse)

without saying the question

(or difficulty)

in the word — he also should have said in our case

(in brief)

"You shall not be able,

you are permitted".

Although this is the language of the Riva"k — but it is not the manner of Rashi on the Torah to copy the sayings of Chazal exactly in their language,

as discussed several times¹⁵.

b)

the well-known precision — why does Rashi bring the statement in the name of "says"

(Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha¹⁶),

not as in the vast majority of Rashi's commentaries,

where he does not mention the name of the author of the statement?

And as discussed several times¹⁷,

that Rashi does this only in a case where the name of the author of the statement adds an additional understanding in his commentary.

2.

Further in the example,

Rashi <b>elaborates </b>to explain: similarly, "And the³

Jebusite, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out" — they were able, but they were not permitted, because Abraham had made a covenant with them when he purchased from them the Cave of Machpelah. And they were not Jebusites but Hittites, but [they are called Jebusites] after the name of the city which was called Jebus. Thus it is explained in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer."^,

And it is said¹⁹

"Except the blind and the lame, the images that they had written the oath upon."

The source of the example is the statement of R' Yitzchak bar Kahana

(in the Sifrei²⁰),

but there it stands <b>in brief</b>²¹

<b> </b>"Similarly, you say: 'And the Jebusite, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out' — they were able, but they were not permitted."

Thus is understood the reason why Rashi is not satisfied with the abbreviation — because Rashi must explain to the one who is five years old for Scripture why "they are not permitted" to conquer Jerusalem,

and therefore he adds to explain that Avraham had made a covenant that they would not conquer the city of the Jebusite²².

One must, however, understand:

3)

Why does Rashi learn that the oath was "when he took

(Abraham)

from them the Cave of Machpelah" — which is not mentioned at all in the Chumash

(only in the Oral Torah — in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer)

— when we find explicitly in the Chumash²³

a covenant between Abraham and Abimelech; Rashi

(specifically from the plain meaning of the verse)

should have learned that <b>that</b> was the oath not to take the city of the Jebusites

(because <b>the</b> Jebusites descended from Abimelech²⁴)?

The difficulty is even greater: Rashi in the Prophets²⁵

indeed says that "they were not permitted because of the oath that Abraham swore <b>to Abimelech"</b>²⁶

4)

What is the practical difference in the plain meaning of the verse of the &lt;b&gt;addition &lt;/b&gt;of Rashi

(on the language of the Sifri)

at the end of his commentary "And it is that which is said, 'If I do not cause you to depart ..

images upon which they wrote the oath'"?

It is not the manner of Rashi to explain in his commentary on Chumash

verses in the Prophets.

5)

"Thus it is explained in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer" — what is the practical difference

(in the manner of the above question 2)

The source-reference where the matter stands in Chazal?

Even if Rashi must emphasize that the matter was taken from Chazal

(because in the verse itself such an oath is not mentioned)

— Rashi could have said

(as is his way in several places)

"And our Rabbis said"

(and the like).

Rashi is not accustomed to specify the source of his commentary precisely

(as we see in this Rashi &lt;b&gt;itself: &lt;/b&gt;Rashi does not say that the statement of Rabbi Yitzchak was taken from &lt;b&gt;Sifri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;).

3.

And one must say the explanation in all this:

In the manner of the simple explanation it is plausible to say,

that there where the Torah says also a prohibition in the language "lo suchal" — even though then the meaning of "lo suchal" is "you are not permitted",

this is however only there when one does not negate the simple interpretation of "lo suchal",

that one does not have the ability to do it.

That is: it is not the explanation that through that which the Torah prohibits him to do the thing,

it becomes for him <b>removed</b> the possibility to do it²⁸

— because either because of this,

it is no different from all the prohibitions of the Torah; and from that which only in counted places the Torah prohibits with the language "you shall not be able"

(and the like)

it is understood,

that the impossibility to do the prohibition is <b></b>

(not from the side of the command,

but)

from the side of another reason.

And this can be in several ways,

for example²⁹

a)

It is such a matter that after the Torah prohibits the thing — he cannot <b>undo</b> the thing.

And as: "He cannot give the firstborn status to the son of the beloved etc."³⁰

— even when the father wants to give the firstborn status to the "son of the beloved",

he becomes <b>not</b> a firstborn³¹

; "He cannot send her away etc."³²

— even if he sends her away, he must take her back³³.

b)

A thing that is not dependent on his will — and as: "You cannot see My face, for <b>no man shall see Me and live"</b>⁵

; "You cannot set a foreign man over you etc."³⁴

— because,

as the Torah then continues³⁵,

"And it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah etc. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life etc. to observe all the words of this Torah etc." — which is all impossible for a "foreign man who is not your brother": and likewise that which is stated regarding Moses³⁶

"I can no longer go out and come in" — since "the authority was taken from me <b>and given to Joshua"</b>³⁷,

it is thus not in Moses' hands "to go out and come in",

they have already transferred the "authority" to Joshua,

it is thus

Taken from Moshe the possibilities for "to go out and to come in".

g)

When one has already been <b>previously</b> forbidden to do a thing — then <b>afterwards</b> the language "lo suchal",

that one cannot do the thing.

And as: "lo yuchal ha'am la'alot el har Sinai <b>ki atah ha'edota banu</b> lemor hagbel g'o'"³⁸

(in the language of Rashi,

that Jews are already on this "mutarin ve'omdin")

; "lo suchal lizbo'ach et hapesach be'echad she'arecha g'o'"³⁹

— which

(in addition to this,

that the offering of the pesach is not dependent only on his will,

but also on the kohen who offers it

(as the second type above),

is)

the prohibition to offer a sacrifice - outside had already stood <b>previously</b>⁴⁰

<b> — </b>"shamah tavi'u g'o' oloteichem vezivcheichem g'o' hishamer lecha pen ta'aleh olotecha bechol makom g'o'"; "lo suchal lehit'alem"⁴¹

— which already stands at the beginning of the matter⁴²

<b>"lo tir'eh</b> g'o' vehit'alemta g'o'",

and <b>after</b> that the Torah concludes "lo suchal lehit'alem".

4.

Based on this, one will understand the novelty of our verse — "You will not be able to eat in your gates etc.":

In our subject, it had not yet stood that "in your gates" one may not <b>eat</b> "tithe etc. and firstborns of your cattle etc. and all your vows etc. and the gift of your hand"

(There had only stood the prohibition "lest you <b>bring up</b> your burnt-offerings in every place etc.").

It turns out,

that the prohibition of eating is initially stated with the language "you will not be able" — and therefore Rashi stops here and innovates "you are able"

But you are not permitted" — so also in such a case the expression "you cannot" is appropriate

(since the Torah prohibition itself precludes the possibility of doing the thing).

This is, however, not a sufficient explanation — because:

a)

accordingly,

is then in the proof similar to the case — in the example of "and the Jebusite..

could not etc. to dispossess them,

they could have but they are not permitted",

is the prohibition <b>not </b>stated with the wording "could not" from <b>that </b>verse,

but it comes from the <b>previous </b>oath!

b)

although that a <b>negative command </b>explicit about <b>eating </b>tithe etc. outside is not found earlier in the Torah,

one already knows however the prohibition from a previous command in the language of <b>positive command</b>⁴³,

"And you shall bring there ..

<b>and you shall eat there </b>etc.' — so that the "you cannot" here is no different apparently from the other places in the Torah where the

"You shall not be able" stands in relation to a prohibition that was already commanded earlier.

ג)

Since "You shall not be able" is ultimately applicable to every prohibition — why does the Torah use the expression "You shall not be able" specifically regarding <b>this</b> prohibition⁴⁴?

5.

One will understand this by prefacing the explanation in the first comment of Rashi on this verse: "You shall not be able,"

The verse comes to give a prohibition on the matter.

The wording "to give a prohibition etc.",

Rashi says in three more places in our parshah in proximity to our verse: a)

Beware for yourself lest you offer your burnt-offerings in any place that you see — to give a prohibition on the matter⁴⁵.

b)

Beware for yourself lest you forsake the Levite etc. — to give a prohibition on the matter⁴⁶.

c)

Every matter that I command you etc. you shall observe to do — to give a prohibition on the positive commandments stated in the parshah⁴⁷.

But specifically in our verse Rashi elaborates his language — &lt;b&gt;"The verse came &lt;/b&gt;to give a prohibition on the matter"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

And one can say the explanation of this — simply: In the other three places,

the verse is not &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;to add a prohibition — there are additional novelties in the verses: a)

Beware etc. lest you offer your burnt-offerings in every place &lt;b&gt;that you see — &lt;/b&gt;that which arises &lt;b&gt;in your heart,&lt;/b&gt;

but you may offer through a prophet etc.

b)

Beware

Lest you forsake the Levite all your days <b>upon your land</b>— but in exile you are not warned concerning him more than the poor of Israel

(Rashi).

(Rashi).

3)

All the matter etc. you shall keep to do <b>you shall not add to it nor diminish from it.</b>

In contrast, in our verse "You will not be able to eat within your gates etc." is <b>"the verse comes</b> to give a prohibition on the matter" — the verse comes <b>no more</b> than to add a prohibition⁴⁹.

But this very thing requires an explanation: what is the practical difference of the &lt;b&gt;emphasis,&lt;/b&gt;

that the entire intention of the verse is "to give a negative commandment"?

Therefore it is logical to say,

that here &lt;b&gt;one must &lt;/b&gt;have the negative commandment.

(Not as in other places,

but to add to the &lt;b&gt;severity &lt;/b&gt;of the matter,

in punishment etc. —)

In our case there is a special emphasis on the explicit negative commandment,

and therefore there is a special scriptural verse for it.

6.

And one must say the explanation in this:

It speaks about maaser and kodashim etc. whose eating is a <b>mitzvah.</b>

Therefore one could think

(in the study according to the simple meaning),

that that which there is a command to

(bring and)

eat in Jerusalem,

is that an <b>additional</b> mitzvah on the mitzvah of eating maaser and kodashim etc. in general.

That is,

one would say that these are two mitzvos,

which are not

depends one on the other:

(a)

eating of maaser and kodashim etc.

(b)

their eating in Jerusalem,

"in the place which Hashem will choose"⁵⁰

therefore,

when someone is an anus and cannot eat his maaser or kodashim etc. in Jerusalem,

there would be a svara to say⁵¹,

that he

(can,

and on the contrary —)

<b>must </b>eat them in his place "in your gates",

to fulfill at least the mitzvah of eating maaser and kodashim etc.

— on this "the verse comes to give a prohibition on the matter" — that eating in Jerusalem is not an additional mitzvah,

but it is a condition that is indispensable,

one may not eat them in another place

And this is the continuation in Rashi: after he explains that the intention

(generally)

of the verse is "

(the verse comes)

to give a prohibition on the matter",

he explains the words "you cannot" — "you are able but you are not permitted",

because after one knows that "the verse comes to give a prohibition on the matter",

it becomes understandable why the Torah says this prohibition in the language of "you cannot".

And the explanation of this:

With "can you" Rashi means

(not only the physical ability to eat outside of Jerusalem — what is he teaching us?

! — but rather)

the <b>mitzvah</b>-ability⁵²

<b> </b>to eat "in your gates" from the aspect of

(the above reasoning from the)

commandment of eating maaser and kodashim etc.

(as above)

: and in this the verse innovates — <b>"You may not..</b>

you are not permitted",

the warning negates <b>the </b>commandment-ability.

d.

h.

with this prohibition the verse innovates,

that outside Jerusalem <b>there is not </b>the commandment of eating maaser and kodashim etc.

And based on this one will also understand why Rashi brings the example specifically from Prophets

("and the Jebusite [who inhabited]")

— because specifically there it is in accordance with the innovation in our verse:

To subdue "the Jebusite, the inhabitants of Jerusalem" there is apparently a <b>commandment</b>⁵³

<b> — </b>"And you shall dispossess all the inhabitants of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess it" — and consequently the "they were able" is not only from the physical might of the Jews⁵⁴,

but from the <b>commandment of Hashem — </b>and this the Torah warns,

that from the oath "they could not dispossess them",

"that they are not permitted".

D.

E.

That the "they could not — they are not permitted",

is from the oath,

the commandment of conquering the land is from the outset not applicable regarding the Jebusite in our case,

that "you may not eat

in your gates" reveals that "in your gates" is <b>not</b> the commandment⁵⁵

of eating maaser etc.].

7.

At first glance, however, it is entirely incomprehensible — how can one say,

that from the side of the oath to the children of Heth it should not apply the <b>command of G-d</b> to take all of the Land of Israel — on the contrary,

the command of G-d

(after the giving of the Torah)

must surely <b>nullify</b>⁵⁶

the obligation from the oath before this!

So the explanation in this is:

Even though that from the side of the law the oath did not have any validity

(from the side of the command of G-d to conquer the Land of Israel)⁵⁷

— nevertheless,

since that according to <b>the opinion of the Jebusites</b> the oath indeed had a validity,

then if Jews would not have taken into account the oath,

it would have resulted in a <b>desecration of G-d's name.</b>

And therefore "they could not..

dispossess them ..

that they are not permitted" — because from the side of the matter of desecration of G-d's name they

Jews conducted themselves as if the oath had a validity.

&lt;b&gt;But&lt;/b&gt; as we find by the Gibeonites,

that "and he cut a covenant with them to let them live, and he swore to them etc.",

and therefore "we could not touch them"&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

— that even though "the oath had no power over them &lt;b&gt;at all&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

(because the Gibeonites had deceived Jews),

nevertheless "they did not kill them because of &lt;b&gt;the sanctification of God's name&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;],

And accordingly we must explain why Rashi interprets that the oath is

(not the oath of Abraham to Abimelech,

but)

the cutting of the covenant "when he took from them the Cave of Machpelah" — because this further increases the desecration of God's name in the matter

(if Jews would not have conducted themselves according to the oath)

According to the covenant of circumcision with the children of Chet,

the lack of conquest of Jerusalem is like a condition in the acquisition of the Cave of Machpelah.

It turns out,

that if the oath had not been kept,

would

(according to the Jebusites)

be voided retroactively Abraham's acquisition of the Cave of Machpelah⁶¹,

And consequently,

that the Patriarchs and Matriarchs were buried in a grave not theirs⁶²

And to prevent the desecration of God's name

(that the Jebusites would say that Jews do not have [the right] that the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried in a grave not theirs)

is "they could not ..

dispossess them".

Ch.

Rashi, however, cannot be satisfied with this alone — because the "one five years old for Scripture" will ask: Since from the aspect of desecration of God's name the Jews were not allowed to take the city of the Jebusites — then how did they eventually take it from them⁶³?

Therefore Rashi must conclude "and it is that which is said, 'for I will remove the blind and the lame, the idols upon which they wrote the oath'": David the king took the idols upon which the oath was written,

thus the memory of the oath was nullified

(and it is understood simply,

that after about 800 years had already passed from the making of the covenant with the Hittites,

one could easily nullify the memory of the

oath by removing the "idols upon which they wrote the oath").

its force is removed; one only needs to nullify the images⁶⁴

on which the oath was written,

to nullify the desecration of God's name involved⁶⁵].

Nevertheless, it is still not clear: since there were living Jebusites who indeed knew about the oath

(and said to David "You shall not come here except if you remove etc.")

— regarding them,

what did the removal of the blind and the lame accomplish?

Therefore Rashi refers to Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer — "so it is explained in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer": in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer,

after it is told about the oath of Abraham etc.,

it states there "and afterwards he bought

(David)

the city of the Jebusite for Israel⁶⁶

in writing forever for a possession

world ..

six hundred shekels etc."; and since David had acquired the city of the Jebusite with full money⁶,

it entirely nullified whatever claim the Jebusite had on the city of Jerusalem⁶⁸.

9.

Based on all the above, it is necessary to explain why Rashi brings the statement in the name of his teacher — R. Yehoshua ben Korcha:

A "sharp" student can indeed ask: Since a Jew has the mitzvah of eating maaser and kodashim etc. — how will he explain himself if he is an anus and cannot go to Jerusalem and therefore "lo suchal le'echol" even in your gates?

Rashi says that this teaching was said by R' Yehoshua ben Korcha: From the well-known teachings of R' Yehoshua ben Korcha in the teaching⁶⁹

— "Why was the section of Shema placed before Vehayah im Shamoa? So that one should first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and afterwards accept upon himself the yoke of the commandments."

And this is the reasoning in our matter: That a Jew who has acceptance of the yoke of <b>commandments,</b>

must first have acceptance of "the yoke of <b>the kingdom of heaven,"</b>

the yoke of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He,

who commanded "You may not eat it within your gates etc., but only before the Lord your God shall you eat it, in the place which the Lord your God will choose."

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5727)