English translation — שופטים ג

Sicha Gimmel, page 114

A.

The Rambam wrote in the Laws of Kings¹

: "The King Messiah will in the future stand and restore the kingdom of the House of David to its former state, etc. And whoever does not believe in him, or whoever does not await his coming, denies not only the other prophets but the Torah and Moses our teacher, for the Torah testified about him, as it is said²

And the Lord your God will return your captivity and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the nations etc. If your outcasts are at the ends of the heavens etc., the Lord your God will bring you.

And these matters that are explicit in the Torah include all the things that were said by all the prophets.

Even in the portion of Balaam it is said, and there he prophesied about the two messiahs,

about the first messiah who is David etc., and about the final messiah who will stand from his descendants etc."

(And he brings several verses from the portion of Balaam and interprets them about David and about the King Messiah).

And in the halachah that follows this, the Rambam continues: "Even regarding the cities of refuge it says<sup>3</sup>

If the Lord your God will expand your border and you will add for yourself yet three cities etc. And this thing never happened and the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command in vain<sup>4</sup>,

But regarding the words of the prophets, the matter does not need proof, for all the books are full of this matter."

And one must examine,

what is lacking in the first proofs

(from the verse "and you will return etc."

(which is in Parshat Nitzavim)

and from the portion of Balaam),

that the Rambam was compelled to add also the proof from the verse in "cities of refuge"?

The need for the two first proofs is understood,

for the intention of the Rambam here

(in the Laws of Kings)

is about the belief in the King Messiah,

namely that in addition to the obligation to believe in the general matter of the redemption,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future redeem Israel

(in whatever manner it may be),

one is obligated to believe in the King Messiah⁵

(with the details of his matters and his virtues detailed in the Rambam in this chapter),

as the precise language of the Rambam "And whoever does not believe in him"; and this matter is not explicit in the verse "And the Lord your God will return your captivity etc. and gather you etc. and bring you the Lord",

but only in the "section of Balaam" that "there he prophesied about the two anointed ones",

David and the King Messiah⁶

[And for this reason he also brings the length of the proof,

with several verses that speak about them,

for in these verses are also hinted the details of his matters and his virtues of the King Messiah

(which one is obligated to believe in),

as explained elsewhere⁷].

And on the other hand, he was not satisfied with the proof from the section of Balaam,

and furthermore,

that he brought it only as a second proof — for the intention of the Rambam here is not only to bring proofs from the Written Torah about the coming of<pg>115</pg>

the Mashiach,

but to prove that "one who does not believe in him..

denies..

the Torah and Moshe Rabbeinu, since the Torah testified about him",

and this testimony is not only according to the interpretation of the verses of the Torah that are in the Oral Torah

[that also "one who denies its interpretation, which is the Oral Torah" is included in "one who denies the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;],

but "these matters

(the)

are explicated in the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

— whereas Bilaam's prophecies were said in the manner of allegory and riddle,

in language that it is impossible to say that "the matters

(the)

are explicated in the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

; but not so in the first verse, in which is explicated concerning the manner of redemption,

the ingathering of the exiles, etc.

But it requires explanation

(as above)

— what is added by the proof&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

from the verse about the cities of refuge&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;?

Also one must be precise,

that the Rambam wrote this proof as a separate halachah,

and seemingly he should have included it in the previous halachah together with the first two proofs¹³.

2.

And it seems to say,

that in this proof from the cities of refuge there is a fundamental novelty regarding the first two proofs: in that the Torah commanded "If [God] will expand... and you shall add..."

(that in the days of Mashiach they must add to the cities of refuge,

in the language of the Rambam¹⁴

"In the days of King Mashiach they add three additional [cities] to these six")

— the matter of the coming of Mashiach becomes one of the conditions of a mitzvah in the Torah.

That is: Even though the matter of the future redemption is explicit in the Torah

(and the Rambam

(in his Commentary on the Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;)

counts belief in this among the principles and foundations of the Torah),

nevertheless, this is not part of the commandments of the Torah,

for we do not find in the Torah a command to believe in the redemption&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

(and only because this is a matter explicit in the Torah,

therefore anyone who does not believe in it,

he is a "denier..

of the Torah and of Moses our teacher")

; but through the command of "if you shall enlarge etc. and I will add etc.",

the matter of the redemption becomes one of the details of a commandment in the Torah.

And by its becoming part of a commandment in the Torah,

it also has the force that is in the matter of commandments.

And as it is written&lt;pg&gt;116&lt;/pg&gt;

The Rambam in Laws of the Foundations of the Torah¹⁷

"A clear and explicit matter in the Torah that it is a commandment standing forever and for all eternities, it has neither change nor diminution nor addition",

that "commandment" means the commands of the Torah,

and as the continuation of the words of the Rambam "that all the words of the Torah we are commanded to do them forever".

And so he also wrote in Laws of Kings there¹⁸,

in the continuation of the matter concerning the King Messiah,

"The main things are thus,

that this Torah, its statutes and its judgments are forever and for all eternities, and we do not add to them nor diminish from them

(And anyone¹⁹

who adds or diminishes or who reveals faces in the Torah and takes the words of the commandment out of their plain meaning,

behold this one is certainly a liar²⁰

and wicked and an apostate)

".

And therefore,

since the matter of the redemption is a detail in the commandment of cities of refuge,

behold just as cities of refuge "it is a commandment standing forever etc. it has neither change etc.",

so too it is impossible for there to be a change, heaven forbid, in this promise.

And based on this, the precision of the Rambam's language in this proof is also understood: "And the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command for chaos"²¹

— that his intention is to emphasize,

that since this is a matter of a commandment

("the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded"),

this obligates that it is impossible for there to be a change, heaven forbid, in this,

because "the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command for chaos."

3.

For further clarification:

Regarding the promises of the Holy One, blessed be He

(through a prophet)

there are certain manners in which it is possible that a change occurs in them,

like "words of calamity that the prophet says" which can be nullified,

because "the Holy One, blessed be He, is slow to anger and abundant in kindness, etc.

[or because]

it is possible that they repented and it was forgiven them"²²,

and also regarding a promise for good, if it was only "between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the prophet," it is possible that it will not be fulfilled if "sin causes"²³

;

And from this it is understood,

that even when it is clear that the promise of the prophet will be fulfilled

[as the Rambam wrote²⁴

"that any good thing that God decrees, even conditionally, does not revert,"

and as he explained in his Commentary on the Mishnah²⁵

that "when the Holy One, blessed be He, tells a prophet to promise people good news," the matter must be fulfilled,

and it is not possible that it be nullified because of sin]

— this is not because a promise through a prophet is inherently not subject to change²⁶,

but rather because these promises have no change in actuality

(and as explained in the Rambam there,

that this is so that they can test whether he is a true prophet^*26).

<pg>117</pg>

But not so the eternity of the Torah,

which "stands forever and for all eternities",

is because it is above the category of change,

that is, that it is impossible for it to change,

for just as "I the Lord have not changed"²⁷,

that change does not apply to Him, may He be blessed, heaven forbid,

so too in His Torah of the Holy One, blessed be He,

(which is the wisdom and will of the Holy One, blessed be He),

the category of change does not apply to it²⁸.

And from this it is understood regarding the promise of the redemption,

that even though, because it is a promise for good and what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet "to promise people good news", it is impossible for it to be nullified due to the causation of sin,

as above²⁹

[And furthermore,

that from the outset sin does not apply in our case to cause,

for

(in the language of the Rambam³⁰)

"the Torah has already promised that in the end Israel will repent at the end of their exile and immediately they will be redeemed, as it is said³¹

And it will be, when all these things come upon you etc., and you shall return to the Lord your God, and the Lord your God will return etc.",

that is, we were promised about this very thing,

that Israel will repent

(and there will not be a situation of "sin will cause")]

— nevertheless,

the certainty in this is only from the aspect of the categories of prophecy and its manner; but not so by this that the promise of the redemption is a part and detail of a commandment in the Torah,

the category of the eternity of the Torah applies to it — which is an eternity in which no nullification applies.

4.

But apparently there is still room for a question:

Behold, the principle of the eternity of the Torah is in all parts of the Torah³²,

and especially in the Five Books of Moses,

and as the Rambam wrote³³

that "the Five Books of Moses...

are never nullified",

that everything written in the Torah of Moses is eternal and exists forever; and if so,

since the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, about the redemption is explicit in the Torah of Moses,

the boundary of the eternity of "the Five Books of Moses" already applies to this,

and what is added in this by its being also a detail of the commandments of the Torah?

And it can be said that there is a fundamental difference between the eternity that is in the commandments of the Torah and the eternity that is in the other parts of the Torah

(the Written Torah)³⁴

: In the other parts of the Torah, it is possible that the aspect of eternity within them will be fulfilled

(not literally,

but rather)

only in their spiritual content

(and in the manner of "the chronicles and stories"³⁵

that are in the Written Torah,

that the eternity within them is in the "wisdoms and wonders"³⁵

that are hinted at in them,

and not<pg>118</pg>

in the matters as they are literally,

(for they are events of the past)

; but this is not the case regarding that the Torah "is a commandment that stands forever and for all eternities",

that is,

that the commandments of the Torah as they are literally exist "forever and for all eternities" without change, diminution, or addition³⁶.

[And like the precise language of the aforementioned Rambam "And anyone who adds etc. and takes the words of the commandments out of their plain meaning, behold he is certainly a liar and wicked and an apostate",

that only when he says about the commandments of the Torah that they are not according to their plain meaning does this definition of "liar and wicked and apostate" apply to him³⁷

(because then he denies the foundation of the eternity of the Torah),

but when he takes the rest of the verses out of their plain meaning^*37

this definition does not apply to him].

And just as it is with the narratives of the Torah,

so too is it regarding the promises of the Holy One, blessed be He, that are written in the Torah,

that their actual fulfillment depends on the manner of the promise according to the conditions and limitations that the Sages, of blessed memory, explained,

and if the promise was written without these conditions, it is not certain that it will be fulfilled specifically according to its plain meaning.

[And as we find in explanation,

that the rule that the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, might not be fulfilled in practice because of "perhaps sin will cause" applies also to promises explicit in the Torah,

as it is brought in a baraita³⁸

: "Until Your people pass over, O Lord, until the people pass over whom You have acquired³⁹,

Until Your people pass over, O Lord — this is the first entry

(when they came

(to the land)

in the days of Joshua.

Rashi),

until the people pass over whom You have acquired — this is the second entry

(when they ascended from the Babylonian exile in the days of Ezra.

Rashi),

from here the Sages said: Israel were worthy that a miracle be performed for them in the days of Ezra,

as was done for them in the days of Joshua son of Nun, but sin caused."

And at first glance,

since this promise

("a people whom You have acquired")

is written in the Written Torah

(before the time of the "second entry")⁴⁰,

and this Torah will not be exchanged and "it has neither change nor diminution<pg>119</pg>

And it shall not be added",

How can it be said that a change will occur in this promise and it will not be fulfilled in practice

(for whatever reason)?

And therefore it must be said,

that the definition of the eternity of the Torah does not apply at all to the study of the plain meaning of the verses

(whether this is in the physical or in the spiritual,

in any manner or condition etc.)].

And this is the novel point in our matter,

that since the promise of the redemption is a detail of the commandment of the cities of refuge,

the definition of the eternity of the commandments of the Torah applies to it,

which

(a)

must be fulfilled simply and physically⁴¹,

(b)

and in a manner that no change is applicable to it,

as above.

5.

According to all the above, we must explain the reason that the Rambam adds the proof about the King Messiah from that which "even about the cities of refuge it says 'If He will expand..

and you shall add..

And never was this thing, nor did the Holy One, blessed be He, command it for nought":

The intention of the Rambam is not

(only)

to bring another proof from the Written Torah

(the Five Books of Moses)

about the King Messiah,

but rather he comes to add a new matter in the severity of the thing of "one who does not believe in him",

that in addition to this that "he denies..

the Torah and Moses our teacher" because "the Torah testified about him" — he also "detracts" one of the commandments of the Torah,

for according to his opinion this detail of the commandment of the cities of refuge will not be fulfilled,

and there applies to him what the Rambam said

(in the law after this)

"behold this is certainly a liar and a wicked one and an apikoros".

[And therefore the Rambam wrote this proof in a law in its own chapter — because in the first two proofs his intention is to prove that "one who does not believe in him..

denies..

the Torah and Moses our teacher, since the Torah testified about him",

and with this proof he hints at an additional severity in this matter,

that he detracts from the commandments of the Torah].

But seemingly, if he is "a denier..

of the Torah and Moses our teacher", what does it add that he detracts from the commandments of the Torah?

But according to what was said above, it can be said that there is a practical difference in law — and after prefacing an explanation of the law of one who says he does not believe in the future redemption because he holds that even though we were promised the redemption,

a change has occurred in this and this promise has been nullified

(because of sin and the like)⁴²,

that seemingly it is impossible to say about him that he "denies..

the Torah and Moses our teacher, for the Torah testified about him"

(that the intention in this is that he denies something explicit in the Written Torah,

as above at the beginning of the sicha)

— for he does not deny the promise written in the Torah,

but rather he holds that even regarding such a promise, the concept of regret applies

(and it is doubtful if he has the status of one who denies the Oral Torah)

;

But since the redemption is a detail and boundary in the commandments of the Torah,

which "is a standing commandment<pg>120</pg>

"forever and ever",

which forces that it is impossible for there to be a change, G-d forbid, in the promise of the redemption,

behold, when he says the opposite of this,

he is subject to the law of a denier of the Torah

(for even though he believes that the command "And if He will broaden etc. and you shall add etc." is from heaven,

behold, when he says that this detail of the commandment will be nullified — "this Torah has already been nullified" — he is a "denier of the Torah"^*42).

And one can say another practical difference — regarding one who says he does not believe in the future redemption to come because he interprets the verses of the promise of the Torah not according to their simple meaning

(who says that the redemption will be only in spirituality and the like),

that at first glance it is impossible to say about him that he is a "denier..

of the Torah and of Moses our teacher",

for he admits that what is written in the Torah is true,

only that he thinks that the intention of the Torah is not for the simple meaning of the matter but not according to its simple meaning.

And also if you say that this is the opposite of the principle⁴³

of "a verse does not depart from its simple meaning",

it is doubtful if one can say that the name "denier of the Torah and of Moses our teacher" applies to him because he interprets verses not according to their simple meaning.

But from this aspect that the redemption is a detail and boundary in the commandments of the Torah,

then when he says that the redemption will not be in its simple sense, behold he removes "matters of commandments from their simple meaning" and the law of "this is certainly a liar and wicked and an apostate" applies to him.

6.

And behold, in this way there is to explain further a precision in the language of the Rambam — that in the proof from "the portion of Balaam" he says "even in the portion of Balaam it is stated, and there it prophesies about the two messiahs",

which at first glance is not understood the reason for this emphasis of "and there it prophesies"⁴⁴

(which is stated in the manner of prophecy).

And it is very forced to say,

that since it prefaces that this is "in the portion of Balaam",

one must add "and there he prophesied" for otherwise from where do we have that there is truth in the words of Balaam — for since "the portion of Balaam" was written in the Torah of Moses⁴⁵,

it is understood,

and simple,

that they are true things⁴⁶].

And it can be said,

that also in this the intention of the Rambam is to inform us of an additional stringency regarding one who does not believe in the King Messiah,

that in addition to this that he is "a denier..

of the Torah and of Moses our teacher",

behold he denies also the words of prophecy.

That the words of Torah are more severe than the words of prophets⁴⁷

— nevertheless we also find severity in the words of prophets regarding the words of Torah,

that the punishment for the words of Torah depends on the type of transgression,

whether it is a light or severe transgression etc.,

but not so one who transgresses the words of the prophet,

it does not matter in which matter he transgressed,

and even if it is in matters of permission,

he is liable to death by the hand of heaven⁴⁸.

And the reason may be said,

because although the force of the words of Torah is much greater than the force in the words of prophecy — nevertheless regarding human beings,

there is stringency in the words of prophecy.

For prophecy is that which "the Almighty prophesies to human beings"⁴⁹,

"knowledge that reaches from the Creator to the heart of human beings"⁵⁰,

and since this is a revelation of His word to human beings⁵¹,

therefore,

regarding the effect on human beings, in the words of prophets there is force and stringency regarding<pg>121</pg>

Words of Torah⁵².

And therefore,

when a person hears a command from the mouth of the prophet,

it is as if he hears the command from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and consequently it does not matter the content of the command,

and if he transgresses it, he is a rebel against the king,

who is liable to death⁵³

(without difference in which matter he rebelled).

And from this it is understood,

that there is a stringency in the matter of prophecy in general

(regarding words of Torah),

even in a place where the prohibition of transgressing the words of the prophet does not actually apply

(because he did not hear from the mouth of the prophet, etc.).

And this is the intention of the Rambam here in what he said "and there he prophesied",

to hint that one who does not believe in the King Messiah,

there is in him also something of this stringency⁵⁴.

And based on this, it follows,

that in the three proofs that the Rambam brought,

he teaches us,

that the matter of King Moshiach is stated and written in all parts of the Written Torah — both in the narratives

(and promises)

of the Torah,

as explicit in Parshat Nitzavim; both in the prophecies in the Torah,

as explicit in "Parshat Bilaam" that "there he prophesied"; and both in the commandments in the Torah,

as explicit in the commandment of the cities of refuge,

And therefore, one who does not believe in King Moshiach,

in addition to this that he "denies..

the Torah and Moshe Rabbeinu",

he also denies the prophecies in the Torah,

and likewise denies the commandments of the Torah,

"which stands forever and for all eternity".

7.

And still needs explanation — what is the reason that the commandment of cities of refuge was chosen,

that the matter of the coming of Moshiach is a detail in this particular commandment?

And one can say about this^*54

:

The simple meaning of the cities of refuge is — a place of protection and defense from the blood-avenger,

in that a person

(who killed unintentionally or even intentionally)

being in a city of refuge,

he will not be able to touch him for harm;

And just as there is the concept of "refuge" in place,

so it is in time,

and it is "that time"⁵⁵,

that "there will be there neither famine nor war nor envy nor rivalry"⁵⁵,

that there will be an "absorption" from all the undesirable matters of the time of exile,

and Israel will dwell securely on their land.

And likewise in spirituality of the matters — and particularly according to the known&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

that the concept of "cities of refuge" indicates the absorption from the evil inclination

(which is called "the avenger of blood"),

and as our sages, may their memory be blessed,&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

"words of Torah..

absorb."

And just as a city of refuge in its simple sense is also an atonement&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

for one who kills a soul,

so too is it in spirituality,

that "one who kills a soul" alludes to every deed&lt;pg&gt;122&lt;/pg&gt;

transgression,

by which he damages his soul,

that the words of Torah that he learns effect absorption and atonement for his soul.

And this is the connection of this mitzvah to the coming of King Moshiach⁵⁹,

for then will be completed the ingathering and atonement of Israel⁶⁰

— speedily in our days, literally.

(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Devarim and Rosh Chodesh Elul 5746; Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5738)