Pisqa’ 190271H:210-212; JN2:74-77. 1. “Then the two men who have a dispute shall stand before HASHEM” (Dt.19:17)— that is, the judges sit, but the litigants stand.272Pisqa’ 190.1 is lacking in most versions, and, in the view of F:229, n. 10, is interpolated on the basis of marginalia. Another word: this warns the litigant to present his argument only after his opposing litigant arrives.273// Mechilta Ishmael, kaspa’, 20. 2. “Shall stand” (Dt.19:17). The parties are required to stand.
“Two men” (Dt.19:17)— I might infer only that [judicial procedures are conducted] when two men have a dispute. On what basis do I know that a man [can initiate legal action] against a woman, a woman [can initiate legal action] against a man, and that two women [can initiate legal action] against each other? The Teaching states: “Who have a dispute” (Dt.19:17)— with whomever.
Is it possible to say that a woman could also be qualified to testify? “Two (shnei) witnesses” (Dt.19:15) is stated here, and “Two (shnayim)274So MT. RH and Ish-Shalom have: shnei. Cf. H:460, Pisqa’ 190, n. 1 witnesses” (Dt.17:6) is stated elsewhere. Just as the two stated here specifies male witnesses, rather than women, [shnei being gendered masculine], so, the shnayim stated elsewhere specifies male witnesses, rather than women.
“Before the Priests and justices who shall preside in those days” (Dt.19:17). This is what R. Yose the Galilean taught: Now, can you imagine that you would go to a justice who is not alive in those days? The point is, seek the rulings of a justice who is eminently qualified. If he had been kin to the litigants, but then severed the connection [e.g., through death], he is qualified to sit in judgment of them. And in this connection, He states: “Do not wonder why the old days were better than today, for such a question does not proceed from wisdom” (Ecc.7:10). 275Cf. T. RH. 2:3. A virtually identical parallel to Pisqa’ 190.3 appears at Pisqa’ 153.2.
4. “Then the justices shall seek diligently” (Dt.19:18). And elsewhere He states: “And it is reported to you, and you have heard it, then you shall seek it out diligently” (Dt.17:4). The repetition of diligently and diligently permits an analogical inference.276Cf. Pisqa’ot 93.1 ad Dt. 13:15, 149.1 ad Dt. 17:4 and 190.4 ad Dt. 19:18 for important parallels within Sifre itself. This teaches that They would probe each witness with seven investigations.277=M. San.5:1 I might infer that the examination of testimony is confined to seven investigations.
On what basis do I know to include probes as well? The Teaching states: “And, indeed, the report is true and well-founded” (Dt.13:15)— true means the testimony has been investigated, and well-founded means it has been probed].278Cf. M. San.5:2.
5. On what basis do I know that a witness may admit to perjuring himself? The Teaching states: “And the witness indeed offered false testimony” (Dt.19:18). And on what basis do I know that a witness may charge his counterpart with perjury? The same Teaching states: “And the witness indeed offered false testimony” (Dt.19:18). Is it possible to say that [a charge of perjury can be lodged] as soon as their testimony has been investigated by the court? The Teaching states: “He has charged his brother falsely” (Dt.19:18). On this basis279That is, on the basis of the duplication of language in Dt.19:18 (`eid sheqer ha`eid, sheqer `anah), two rules may be adduced. you may conclude that [this rule applies] as long as the court requires their presence for testimony, but not as soon as their testimony has been investigated by the court. On this basis you might teach that a refuted witness may [still be] refuted [for giving another false testimony], even if there are a hundred of them!280// M. Mak. 1:5.
6. “And you shall do to him as he connived (zamam) to do to his brother” (Dt.19:19). If [he plotted against his brother’s] wealth, [then take] his wealth. If [he plotted to subject his brother to] a judicial lashing, then [subject him to] a judicial beating. If [he plotted to subject his brother to] capital punishment, then punish him.
Thus far we have heard about the punishment meted out to a refuted witness, but where is the warning against it? The Teaching states: “Don’t charge your kinsman with a false accusation” (Ex.20:13).281Mech. ISH, bakhodesh, 8, s.v., harei zeh ‘azhara. The quotation from Ex. 20:13 is unaccountably missing in most versions, and is supplied by F:231, ls.1-2.
“And you shall do to him” (Dt.19:19). On this basis they taught: Refuted witnesses are only executed after the judgment [of their victim] has been completed. But, indeed, the Sadducees say: [They are not executed] unless [the victim of their testimony] is himself executed, for it is said: “Life for life” (Dt.19:21).282= M. Mak.1:6.
7. R. Yose the Galilean says: What does the Teaching mean by “And you shall do to him as he connived to do to his brother” (Dt.19:19)? For we have found: among all the executions prescribed in the Torah, the execution meted out to a man is the same as that meted out to a woman. And those who connive against them share in the same. However, regarding the daughter of a Priest [“who has begun to fornicate” (Lv.21:9)], the execution meted out to the man is not the same as that meted out to the woman. For, the execution of the man is by strangulation, whereas that of the woman is by burning. But as for the conniving witnesses, we haven’t heard what is to be done with them! The Teaching states: “And you shall do to him as he connived to do to his brother” (Dt.19:19)— his death shall be by strangulation, like that of his brother, but not by burning, like that of his sister.
8. On what basis do I know that one who shames [his companion] compensates him with wealth? It is stated here: “You shall cut off her hand, show no pity” (Dt.25:12), and it is stated elsewhere : “You shall show no pity: life for life” (Dt.19:21). Just as show no pity stated elsewhere implies monetary compensation [for loss of a limb], so, too, show no pity stated here implies monetary compensation [for being shamed].283Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 8.
R. Judah says: It is stated here— “Hand for (be-) hand, foot for foot” (Dt.19:21), and it is stated elsewhere: “A hand in return for (takhat) a hand, a foot in return for a foot” (Ex.21:24). Just as hand and foot stated elsewhere implies monetary compensation, so, too, hand and foot stated here implies monetary compensation.284Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 8.
R. Yose the Galilean says: on what basis do I know that a man does not go off to war unless he has hands, feet, eyes and teeth? The Teaching states: “You shall show no pity, . . . hand for hand, foot for foot (Dt.19:21), when you go off to war” (Dt.20:1)— [a soldier must be physically whole in preparation for combat].285The point is made by reading Dt.20:1’s “going to war,” as a continuation of Dt.19:21, contrary to the masoretic punctuation.
9. Said R. Judah: Under what circumstances does [the exemption from war] apply? If the war is obligatory (mitzvah)286// M. Sotah 8:7. MSS Kaufman and Parma at M. Sotah 8:7 read: hareshut (“optional”). That is, a war waged to expand the borders of the Land beyond those apportioned by God. Cf. Pisqa’ 198.2 [for the defense of the Land]. But if the war is imposed (khovah)287MSS of M. Sotah 8:7 read: mitzvah (“obligatory”). [as a response to the introduction of a foreign cult], everyone must go— even a bride-groom from his bedroom and a bride from her wedding-canopy.288//M. Sotah 8:7. For text-critical observations, see F:232, n.1, and H:461, Pisqa’ 190, ns.15-17. Cf. the parallel at T. Sotah 7:24. “When you go off to war against your enemies, should you see horse and chariot” (Dt.20:1)— when Israel performs the will of the All-Present, all the gentile cavalry is transformed before them into a single horse,289See Pisqa’ 158.1 for a different exegesis of the use of “horse” as a collective noun. as it is said: “He threw horse and rider into the sea” (Ex.15:1).290//Mechilta Ishmael, shirah, 2.
10. “When you go off to war against your enemies” (Dt.20:1). The verse specifies an optional war (reshut).291See Pisqa’ot 198-199 for a fuller discussion of optional and obligatory warfare.
“Should you see horse and chariot” (Dt.20:1)— just as they attack you with horse and chariot, you, too, must attack them with horse and chariot. Just as they attack you with a large force, you, too, must attack them with a large force.
“Have no fear of them, for HASHEM your God is with you, Who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (Dt.20:1)— the One who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is the very One Who is with you in times of trouble.292//Mech ISH, shirah, 2, s.v. weki sus ‘akhad hayah
(דברים יט יז) וְעָמְדוּ, הַדַּיָּנִים יוֹשְׁבִים וּבַעֲלֵי דִינִים עוֹמְדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר: אַזְהָרָה לְבַעַל דִּין, שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁמִיעַ דְּבָרָיו לַדַּיָּן קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ. וְעָמְדוּ – מִצְוָה בַּנִּדּוֹנִים שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ.
Pisqa’ 190271H:210-212; JN2:74-77.
1. “Then the two men who have a dispute shall stand before HASHEM” (Dt.19:17)—
that is, the judges sit, but the litigants stand.272Pisqa’ 190.1 is lacking in most versions, and, in the view of F:229, n. 10, is interpolated on the basis of marginalia.
Another word:
this warns the litigant to present his argument
only after his opposing litigant arrives.273// Mechilta Ishmael, kaspa’, 20.
2. “Shall stand” (Dt.19:17).
The parties are required to stand.
שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים; אִישׁ עִם אִשָּׁה, וְאִשָּׁה עִם אִישׁ, שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים זוֹ עִם זוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב״, מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
“Two men” (Dt.19:17)—
I might infer only that
[judicial procedures are conducted]
when two men have a dispute.
On what basis do I know that
a man [can initiate legal action] against a woman,
a woman [can initiate legal action] against a man,
and that two women [can initiate legal action] against each other?
The Teaching states:
“Who have a dispute” (Dt.19:17)—
with whomever.
יָכוֹל אַף אִשָּׁה תְּהֵא כְּשֵׁרָה לְעֵדוּת? – נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים יט טו) ״שְׁנֵי״, מַה שְׁנֵי הָאָמוּר כָּאן, אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים – אַף שְׁנֵי הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים.
Is it possible to say that
a woman could also be qualified to testify?
“Two (shnei) witnesses” (Dt.19:15) is stated here,
and “Two (shnayim)274So MT. RH and Ish-Shalom have: shnei. Cf. H:460, Pisqa’ 190, n. 1 witnesses” (Dt.17:6) is stated elsewhere.
Just as the two stated here
specifies male witnesses, rather than women,
[shnei being gendered masculine],
so, the shnayim stated elsewhere
specifies male witnesses, rather than women.
אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב, יָבוֹא בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר וְיַעֲמֹד עַל שׁוֹרוֹ.
3. “Who have a dispute” (Dt.19:17).
Let the owner of the [damaging] ox
come and stand with his ox
[to signify his responsibility].
לִפְנֵי ה׳ – הֵם סְבוּרִים לִפְנֵי בָּשָׂר וָדָם הֵם עוֹמְדִים, וְאֵינָם אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם!
“Before HASHEM” (Dt.19:17)—
the litigants may think that
they are standing before flesh and blood.
But in fact, they stand before the All-Present!
לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַשּׁוֹפְטִים אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: וְכִי עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתֵּנוּ שׁוֹפֵט שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְיָמֶיךָ? אֶלָּא שׁוֹפֵט שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר וּמֻחְזָק לְךָ בְּאוֹתָם הַיָּמִים. הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק – כָּשֵׁר, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (קהלת ז י): ״אַל תֹּאמַר מֶה הָיָה״.
“Before the Priests and justices who shall preside in those days” (Dt.19:17).
This is what R. Yose the Galilean taught:
Now, can you imagine that
you would go to a justice
who is not alive in those days?
The point is, seek the rulings of a justice
who is eminently qualified.
If he had been kin to the litigants,
but then severed the connection [e.g., through death],
he is qualified to sit in judgment of them.
And in this connection,
He states:
“Do not wonder why the old days were better than today,
for such a question does not proceed from wisdom” (Ecc.7:10). 275Cf. T. RH. 2:3. A virtually identical parallel to Pisqa’ 190.3 appears at Pisqa’ 153.2.
(דברים יט יח) וְדָרְשׁוּ הַשֹּׁפְטִים הֵיטֵב, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יז ד): ״וְהֻגַּד לְךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב״ – הֵיטֵב הֵיטֵב לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבּוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חֲקִירוֹת, בְּדִיקוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יג טו): ״וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר״.
4. “Then the justices shall seek diligently” (Dt.19:18).
And elsewhere He states:
“And it is reported to you, and you have heard it,
then you shall seek it out diligently” (Dt.17:4).
The repetition of diligently and diligently
permits an analogical inference.276Cf. Pisqa’ot 93.1 ad Dt. 13:15, 149.1 ad Dt. 17:4 and 190.4 ad Dt. 19:18 for important parallels within Sifre itself.
This teaches that
They would probe each witness
with seven investigations.277=M. San.5:1
I might infer that
the examination of testimony
is confined to seven investigations.
מִנַּיִן שֶׁהָעֵד עוֹשֶׂה עַצְמוֹ שַׁקָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהִנֵּה עֵד שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד.
On what basis do I know
to include probes as well?
The Teaching states:
“And, indeed, the report is true and well-founded” (Dt.13:15)—
true means the testimony has been investigated,
and well-founded means it has been probed].278Cf. M. San.5:2.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שַׁקָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהִנֵּה עֵד שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד. יָכוֹל אַף מִשֶּׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָם בְּבֵית דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שֶׁקֶר עָנָה בְאָחִיו. אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה: כָּל זְמַן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין צְרִיכִים לָהֶם, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָם בְּבֵית דִּין. כְּשֶׁתִּמְצָא אוֹמֵר זוֹמֵם מִזּוֹמֵם וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵם מֵאָה.
5. On what basis do I know that
a witness may admit to perjuring himself?
The Teaching states:
“And the witness indeed offered false testimony” (Dt.19:18).
And on what basis do I know that
a witness may charge his counterpart with perjury?
The same Teaching states:
“And the witness indeed offered false testimony” (Dt.19:18).
Is it possible to say that
[a charge of perjury can be lodged]
as soon as their testimony
has been investigated by the court?
The Teaching states:
“He has charged his brother falsely” (Dt.19:18).
On this basis279That is, on the basis of the duplication of language in Dt.19:18 (`eid sheqer ha`eid, sheqer `anah), two rules may be adduced. you may conclude that
[this rule applies]
as long as the court
requires their presence for testimony,
but not as soon as their testimony has
been investigated by the court.
On this basis you might teach that
a refuted witness may [still be] refuted
[for giving another false testimony],
even if there are a hundred of them!280// M. Mak. 1:5.
(דברים יט יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו, אִם מָמוֹן – מָמוֹן; אִם מַכּוֹת – מַכּוֹת; אִם עוֹנָשִׁים – עוֹנָשִׁים.
6. “And you shall do to him as he connived (zamam) to do to his brother” (Dt.19:19).
If [he plotted against his brother’s] wealth,
[then take] his wealth.
If [he plotted to subject his brother to] a judicial lashing,
then [subject him to] a judicial beating.
If [he plotted to subject his brother to] capital punishment,
then punish him.
עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר [(שמות כ יג): ״לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר״].
Thus far we have heard about the punishment
meted out to a refuted witness,
but where is the warning against it?
The Teaching states:
“Don’t charge your kinsman with a false accusation” (Ex.20:13).281Mech. ISH, bakhodesh, 8, s.v., harei zeh ‘azhara. The quotation from Ex. 20:13 is unaccountably missing in most versions, and is supplied by F:231, ls.1-2.
וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ, מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: אֵין עֵדִים זוֹמְמִים נֶהֱרָגִים עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין, שֶׁהֲרֵי צַדּוּקִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט כא): ״נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ״.
“And you shall do to him” (Dt.19:19).
On this basis they taught:
Refuted witnesses are only executed
after the judgment [of their victim] has been completed.
But, indeed, the Sadducees say:
[They are not executed]
unless [the victim of their testimony] is himself executed,
for it is said: “Life for life” (Dt.19:21).282= M. Mak.1:6.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּכָל עוֹנָשִׁים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהִשְׁוָה מִיתַת הָאִישׁ לְמִיתַת הָאִשָּׁה – וְזוֹמְמֵיהֶם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם. אֲבָל בַּת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ – לֹא הִשְׁוָה מִיתַת הָאִישׁ לְמִיתַת הָאִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא מִיתַת הָאִישׁ בְּחֶנֶק וּמִיתַת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׂרֵפָה. אֲבָל זוֹמְמִים, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה לָהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו – כְּמִיתַת אָחִיו מִיתָתוֹ, וְלֹא כְּמִיתַת אֲחוֹתוֹ!
7. R. Yose the Galilean says:
What does the Teaching mean by
“And you shall do to him as he connived to do to his brother” (Dt.19:19)?
For we have found:
among all the executions prescribed in the Torah,
the execution meted out to a man
is the same as that meted out to a woman.
And those who connive against them
share in the same.
However, regarding the daughter of a Priest
[“who has begun to fornicate” (Lv.21:9)],
the execution meted out to the man
is not the same as that meted out to the woman.
For, the execution of the man is by strangulation,
whereas that of the woman is by burning.
But as for the conniving witnesses,
we haven’t heard what is to be done with them!
The Teaching states:
“And you shall do to him as he connived to do to his brother” (Dt.19:19)—
his death shall be by strangulation, like that of his brother,
but not by burning, like that of his sister.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַמְבַיֵּשׁ מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן (דברים יט כא) ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים כה יב) ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״, מַה ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – מָמוֹן, אַף ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – מָמוֹן.
8. On what basis do I know that
one who shames [his companion]
compensates him with wealth?
It is stated here:
“You shall cut off her hand, show no pity” (Dt.25:12),
and it is stated elsewhere :
“You shall show no pity: life for life” (Dt.19:21).
Just as show no pity stated elsewhere
implies monetary compensation [for loss of a limb],
so, too, show no pity stated here
implies monetary compensation [for being shamed].283Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 8.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (שמות כא כד) ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״, מַה ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – מָמוֹן, אַף ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – מָמוֹן.
R. Judah says:
It is stated here—
“Hand for (be-) hand, foot for foot” (Dt.19:21),
and it is stated elsewhere:
“A hand in return for (takhat) a hand, a foot in return for a foot” (Ex.21:24).
Just as hand and foot stated elsewhere
implies monetary compensation,
so, too, hand and foot stated here
implies monetary compensation.284Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 8.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם וְעֵינַיִם וְשִׁנַּיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יט כא-כ א): לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ וְג׳ כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה.
R. Yose the Galilean says:
on what basis do I know that
a man does not go off to war
unless he has hands, feet, eyes and teeth?
The Teaching states:
“You shall show no pity, . . . hand for hand, foot for foot (Dt.19:21),
when you go off to war” (Dt.20:1)—
[a soldier must be physically whole in preparation for combat].285The point is made by reading Dt.20:1’s “going to war,” as a continuation of Dt.19:21, contrary to the masoretic punctuation.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּמִלְחֶמֶת מִצְוָה, אֲבָל בְּמִלְחֶמֶת חוֹבָה הַכֹּל יוֹצְאִים, אֲפִלּוּ (יואל ב טז) ״חָתָן מֵחַדְרוֹ וְכַלָּה מֵחֻפָּתָהּ״. [(דברים כ א) סוּס וָרֶכֶב,] כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂים רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם – כָּל הַגּוֹיִם נַעֲשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם כְּסוּס אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות טו א): ״סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם״. וְכִי סוּס אֶחָד הָיָה כו׳.
9. Said R. Judah:
Under what circumstances
does [the exemption from war] apply?
If the war is obligatory (mitzvah)286// M. Sotah 8:7. MSS Kaufman and Parma at M. Sotah 8:7 read: hareshut (“optional”). That is, a war waged to expand the borders of the Land beyond those apportioned by God. Cf. Pisqa’ 198.2
[for the defense of the Land].
But if the war is imposed (khovah)287MSS of M. Sotah 8:7 read: mitzvah (“obligatory”).
[as a response to the introduction of a foreign cult],
everyone must go—
even a bride-groom from his bedroom
and a bride from her wedding-canopy.288//M. Sotah 8:7. For text-critical observations, see F:232, n.1, and H:461, Pisqa’ 190, ns.15-17. Cf. the parallel at T. Sotah 7:24.
“When you go off to war against your enemies,
should you see horse and chariot” (Dt.20:1)—
when Israel performs
the will of the All-Present,
all the gentile cavalry
is transformed before them
into a single horse,289See Pisqa’ 158.1 for a different exegesis of the use of “horse” as a collective noun.
as it is said:
“He threw horse and rider into the sea” (Ex.15:1).290//Mechilta Ishmael, shirah, 2.
כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אוֹיְבֶיךָ – בְּמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
10. “When you go off to war against your enemies” (Dt.20:1).
The verse specifies an optional war (reshut).291See Pisqa’ot 198-199 for a fuller discussion of optional and obligatory warfare.
עַל אוֹיְבֶיךָ – כְּנֶגֶד אוֹיְבֶיךָ אַתָּה נִלְחָם.
“Against your enemies” (Dt.20:1)—
wage war against your enemies,
[but not a gentile nation’s enemies].
וְרָאִיתָ סוּס וָרֶכֶב, מָה הֵם יוֹצְאִים עָלֶיךָ בְּסוּס וָרֶכֶב – אַף אַתָּה צֵא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּסוּס וָרֶכֶב. מָה הֵם יוֹצְאִים עָלֶיךָ בְּעַם רַב – אַף אַתָּה צֵא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּעַם רַב.
“Should you see horse and chariot” (Dt.20:1)—
just as they attack you with horse and chariot,
you, too, must attack them with horse and chariot.
Just as they attack you with a large force,
you, too, must attack them with a large force.
לֹא תִירָא מֵהֶם כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ עִמָּךְ הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, מִי שֶׁהֶעֱלָךְ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הוּא עִמָּךְ בְּעֵת צָרָה.
“Have no fear of them, for HASHEM your God is with you,
Who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (Dt.20:1)—
the One who brought you up from the land of Egypt,
is the very One Who is with you in times of trouble.292//Mech ISH, shirah, 2, s.v. weki sus ‘akhad hayah