Pisqa’ 15887H:192; JN2:27. 1. “But—he is not to have himself many horses” (Dt.17:16). Is it possible to say that he shouldn’t have many horses for his chariots or his cavalry? The Teaching states: “Himself” (Dt.17:16)— for himself he may not have many horses, but he is entitled to have many for his chariots or his cavalry.
If so, why is it immediately said: “In order to amass much horse”88Heb: sus (singular); referring to many horses. Cf. Pisqa’ 190.9. (Dt.17:16)? Horse refers to idle horses.
How do I know that even for a single idle horse a king of Israel is capable of returning the people to Egypt? The Teaching states: “In order to amass much horse, he shall not cause the people to return to Egypt . . . And HASHEM said to them: Never again go down that road!” (Dt.17:16).
Now, doesn’t it follow logically? A covenant was sealed against returning Israel to Egypt. Yet, nevertheless, transgression caused [the nation to] return there! All the more so should we expect, of lands other than Egypt, concerning which no covenant [against returning] was sealed, [that greed would cause Israel to be deported there]!
(דברים יז טז) רַק לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים, יָכוֹל לֹא יַרְבֶּה לְמֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וּלְפָרָשָׁיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לוֹ, לוֹ אֵינוֹ מַרְבֶּה אֲבָל מַרְבֶּה הוּא לְמֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וּלְפָרָשָׁיו.
Pisqa’ 15887H:192; JN2:27.
1. “But—he is not to have himself many horses” (Dt.17:16).
Is it possible to say that
he shouldn’t have many horses
for his chariots or his cavalry?
The Teaching states:
“Himself” (Dt.17:16)—
for himself he may not have many horses,
but he is entitled to have many
for his chariots or his cavalry.
אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס? סוּסִים בְּטֵלִים.
If so, why is it immediately said:
“In order to amass much horse”88Heb: sus (singular); referring to many horses. Cf. Pisqa’ 190.9. (Dt.17:16)?
Horse refers to idle horses.
מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ סוּס אֶחָד וְהוּא בָּטֵל, כְּדַי הוּא שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר אֶת הָעָם לְמִצְרַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא יָשׁוּב
How do I know that
even for a single idle horse
a king of Israel is capable
of returning the people to Egypt?
The Teaching states:
“In order to amass much horse, he shall not cause the people to return to Egypt . . .
And HASHEM said to them: Never again go down that road!” (Dt.17:16).
וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: וּמָה מִצְרַיִם, שֶׁהַבְּרִית כְּרוּתָה עָלֶיהָ, עֲבֵרָה מַחֲזִירָתָהּ לְשָׁם, שְׁאָר אֲרָצוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַבְּרִית כְּרוּתָה עֲלֵיהֶן – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Now, doesn’t it follow logically?
A covenant was sealed
against returning Israel to Egypt.
Yet, nevertheless, transgression
caused [the nation to] return there!
All the more so should we expect,
of lands other than Egypt,
concerning which no covenant [against returning] was sealed,
[that greed would
cause Israel to be deported there]!