Pisqa’ 158

Pisqa’ 1581


“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 horse2 (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]!

  1. H:192; JN2:27.
  2. Heb: sus (singular); referring to many horses. Cf. Pisqa’ 190.9.