1. What aveira do you transgress if you bribe a judge.
2. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the Torah does not give the reasons for Mitzvos because people with excessive self-confidence might say the reason does not apply to them:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעֲמֵי תּוֹרָה? שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעְמָן, וְנִכְשַׁל בָּהֶן גְּדוֹל הָעוֹלָם. כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ נָשִׁים״. אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָסוּר״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת לְבָבוֹ״. וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים״, וְאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָשִׁיב״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ וְגוֹ׳
To illustrate this problem, the Torah gave reasons for two issurim, (the two lo yarbehs) and Shlomo HaMelech said, the Torah must have given the reasons so that people to whom the reasons do not apply have no restriction. He transgressed both and suffered the consequences.
If so, why does the Torah give the reason for prohibiting judges from taking gifts from litigants, that it will cause him to pervert justice. Isn't there a concern that a judge will say that he is immune from any such problem, so he can take shochad?
3. What were the three pre-requisites for establishing the first monarchy; what three conditions were necessary to trigger the mitzvah.
4. 17:16 ולֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ מְאֹד A king is not allowed to marry too many women or have too great a fortune. (Chazal define these terms: The king is allowed to accumulate only what is necessary to maintain his household and run the government, and he is allowed no more than eighteen consorts.) What if he had these things before being crowned. Does he have to divorce and divest in order to become king?
5. שום תשים עליך מלך teaches us that a king is not allowed to show deference to any man. Unlike a parent, or a Kohen, or a talmid chacham, he has not allowed to forego his honor. מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול.
Is a king allowed to serve his parents? Is a king allowed to stand up for
his parents?
6. Do you have to obey a Navi? What if he tells you to do something not because Hashem told him to convey the command, but because he has decided it is right, on the basis of his wisdom? (I am not talking about psak halacha. לא בשמים היא tells us that a navi has no special authority to pasken. That is in the purview of Sanhedrin, about whom the Torah says in 17:10
ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך)
7. What is the punishment for not doing what the Navi tells you to do? Is there a difference between when he conveys Hashem’s command and when he gives personal instruction?
8. Our passuk says that if a person claims to be a navi, and predicts the future, and his prophecy does not come to pass, his life is forfeit, ומת הנביא ההוא. The Rambam (10 Yesodei HaTorah 4) says this only applies when he foretold good things that do not come to pass, not when he foretells calamities that do not come to pass. Where did the Rambam find this distinction in our parsha?
9. You are allowed to cut down a non-fruit-bearing tree. You are not allowed to cut down a fruit tree. If you see a tree and do not know what kind of tree it is, are you allowed to cut it down?
11. What passuk lists the five duties of Kohanim.
1. What aveira do you transgress if you bribe a judge.
You do not transgress the issur of Shochad. You are liable for Lifnei Iver, by giving the other person the opportunity to do an aveira.
Judges are prohibited from accepting bribes, but there is no explicit prohibition against offering a bribe.
לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים וְלֹא תִקַּח שֹׁחַד כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם.
This is pointed out in Shulchan Aruch: Choshen Mishpat 9:1-
וכשם שהלוקחו עובר בלא תעשה כך הנותנו עובר בלפני עור לא תתן מכשול
(One nafka mina would be that for Lifnei Iver there is no malkos, but there is for taking Shochad. Also, it would affect the language for hasra'a.)
This peculiarity was addressed by the Chavos Yair in 136-
כי לכאורה יש לתמוה למה לא הזהירה תורה גם לא תתן שוחד כמו דהזהירה גבי ריבית לא תשוך ולא תשיך ללוה ולמלוה
(The Chavos Yair answers that there is no immediate moral wrong if a falsely accused party bribes the judge to find him innocent. If Reuven the ganeff says the Shimon the tzadik owes him two hundred, and Reuven knows beyond any doubt that he only owes one hundred, but he is afraid that Reuven and the witnesses he purchased (my father zatzal said that in his town, there was a fellow everyone called "Tokeh der Eidus," because it was well known that if you had to go to court, you could pay him to say whatever you wanted,) and his lawyers are going to cause a miscarriage of justice, so he pays off the judge to protect himself and make sure that justice will be done, he did nothing wrong on a personal level. Of course society can not allow such behavior, but in this case, it would not be an inherent wrong, it would not be a "malum per se.")
2. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the Torah does not give the reasons for Mitzvos because people with excessive self-confidence might say the reason does not apply to them:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעֲמֵי תּוֹרָה? שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעְמָן, וְנִכְשַׁל בָּהֶן גְּדוֹל הָעוֹלָם. כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ נָשִׁים״. אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָסוּר״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת לְבָבוֹ״. וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים״, וְאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָשִׁיב״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ וְגוֹ׳
To illustrate this problem, the Torah gave reasons for two issurim, (the two lo yarbehs) and Shlomo HaMelech said, the Torah must have given the reasons so that people to whom the reasons do not apply have no restriction. He transgressed both and suffered the consequences.
If so, why does the Torah give the reason for prohibiting judges from taking gifts from litigants, that it will cause him to pervert justice. Isn't there a concern that a judge will say that he is immune from any such problem so he can take shochad?
16:19.
ולא תקח שחד כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים ויסלף דברי צדיקם
The Torah says explicitly that no matter how how righteous and wise you are, it will blind you to the truth. So there is no possibility that someone will say it does not apply to him because he is so righteous and wise. (Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, in the Shoel Umeishiv.)
3. What were the three pre-requisites for establishing the first monarchy- what three conditions were necessary to trigger the mitzvah.
כִּי תָבֹא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ כְּכׇל־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי׃
שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ
The Mitzva only applies (1) after the conquest (2) and settling of the land.
כִּי־תָבֹא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ ....שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ
More interesting, the mitzva is only triggered (3) by a plebiscite, when the people makes formal request that a monarchy be established. Until then, there was no mitzva to establish a monarchy. See Netziv in Haamek Davar in 17:14, 15
The Netziv says that from the fact that for the four hundred forty years
of Gilgal, Shilo, Nov, and Givon, there was no king, we see that the
prerequisite for the mitzva is the national decision to have a king.
ונראה דמשום דהנהגת המדינה משתנה אם מתנהג עפ״י דעת מלוכה או עפ״י דעת העם
ונבחריהם. ויש מדינה שאינה יכולה לסבול דעת מלוכה. ויש מדינה שבלא מלך הרי היא
כספינה בלי קברניט. ודבר זה א״א לעשות עפ״י הכרח מ״ע. שהרי בענין השייך להנהגת
הכלל נוגע לסכ״נ שדוחה מ״ע מש״ה לא אפשר לצוות בהחלט למנות מלך כ״ז שלא עלה בהסכמת
העם לסבול עול מלך עפ״י שרואים מדינות אשר סביבותיהם מתנהגים בסדר יותר נכון. או
אז מ״ע לסנהדרין למנות מלך.
Also the Maharil Diskin al haTorah here:
והעיקר שהמצוה אינה חלה כ"א
דוקא בעת שישאלו מלך
Reb Nochum Stone sent in something akin to but different than the
Netziv by the government issue (which I described as a chimera of Hobbes and
Locke,) and expanded it to the Beis Olamim. He said:
very much reminds me of ramban on 16 bamidbar 21 where he suggests that the people were at fault for not demanding a beit olamim and thus suffered david's plague
also malbim on l'shichno tidrishu - that the navi will receive the proper inspiration to reveal the makom asher yivchar only when the people demand it of him
4. 17:16 ולֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ מְאֹד A king is not allowed to marry too many women or have too great a fortune. (Chazal define these terms: The king is allowed to accumulate only what is necessary to maintain his household and run the government, and he is allowed no more than eighteen consorts.) What if he had these things before being crowned. Does he have to divorce and divest in order to become king?
Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos San 82 21:2 in Ein Mishpat says no, just like Kohen Gadol who was married before his meshicha. Rav Chaim Kanievsky is not sure.
5. שום תשים עליך מלך teaches us that a king is not allowed to show deference to any man. Unlike a parent, or a Kohen, or a talmid chacham, he has not allowed to forego his honor. מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול.
Is a king allowed to serve his parents? Is a king allowed to stand up for
his parents?
R Chaim Kanievsky says that in Melachim I 2:19 we are told that Shlomo stood up for his mother, so it must be allowed.
ותבא בת שבע אל המלך שלמה לדבר לו על אדניהו ויקם המלך לקראתה וישתחו לה וישב על כסאו וישם כסא לאם המלך ותשב לימינו
(Clear proof, yes, but we can only speculate as to why this is so. Maybe
because doing so elevates the king in people's eyes, and not doing so would
make them look down upon him.)
6. Do you have to obey a Navi? What if he tells you to do something not because Hashem told him to convey the command, but because he has decided it is right, on the basis of his wisdom? (I am not talking about psak halacha. לא בשמים היא tells us that a navi has no special authority to pasken. That is in the purview of Sanhedrin, about whom the Torah says in 17:10
ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך)
18:15 says that you must do what a Navi commands.
נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי יָקִים לְךָ יה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלָיו תִּשְׁמָעוּן
This passuk indicates that you have to obey the Navi, and it doesn’t matter whether he is telling you what to do because Hashem told him or because he decided it needs to be done.
7. What is the punishment for not doing what the Navi tells you to do? Is there a difference between when he conveys Hashem’s command and when he gives personal instruction?
18:19 tells us the punishment for not doing what the Navi commands.
וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִשְׁמַע אֶל דְּבָרַי אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי אָנֹכִי אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ׃
אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ is not clear, but it is a serious warning. Chazal say it means מיתה בידי שמים.
But notice that in 15, where it tells you to listen to the Navi, it just says אליו תשמעון, a mitzvas assei. Here, by the punishment, it adds אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי. Even if you must listen to a Navi’s personal instruction, it is clear that the punishment of אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ is only when he instructed in the name of Hashem.
(The above is based on the Minchas Chinuch in 516.)
8. Our passuk says that if a person claims to be a navi, and predicts the future, and his prophecy does not come to pass, his life is forfeit, ומת הנביא ההוא. The Rambam (10 Yesodei HaTorah 4) says this only applies when he foretold good things that do not come to pass, not when he foretells calamities that do not come to pass. Where did the Rambam find this distinction in our parsha?
18:22
אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר הַנָּבִיא בְּשֵׁם ה' וְלֹא ִיהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבֹא הוּא הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ ה' בְּזָדוֹן דִּבְּרוֹ הַנָּבִיא לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ
This is only when he prophesies בְּשֵׁם ה', Rachamim; not בשם אלוקים, Din. A prophecy of good always comes true. A prophecy of doom can always be averted with teshuva, as it was in Ninveh.
9. You are allowed to cut down a non-fruit-bearing tree. You are not allowed to cut down a fruit tree. If you see a tree and do not know what kind of tree it is, are you allowed to cut it down?
No. You are only allowed to cut down a tree when you know that it is a non-fruit-bearing tree. 20:20
רַק עֵץ אֲשֶׁר תֵּדַע כִּי לֹא עֵץ מַאֲכָל הוּא אֹתוֹ תַשְׁחִית וְכָרָתָּ
This might be the source for ספק דאורייתא לחומרא. (See Malbim and Taama d'Kra.)
He is subject to capital punishment. After the parsha of Egla Arufa, it says in 21:9
וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ כִּי־תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי ה'
The passuk is saying that the Egla Arufa process is only a temporary measure, like an Asham Taluy, until the killer is caught. Once he is caught, regular dinei nefashos apply
11. What passuk lists the five duties of Kohanim.
21:5
וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי כִּי בָם בָּחַר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בְּשֵׁם ה' וְעַל פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כׇּל רִיב וְכׇל נָגַע׃
1. V'Nigshu haKohanim means they have to participate in the Egla Arufa ceremony.
2. L’sharso is to do the avodah.
3. Levareich is duchening.
4. Kol riv is that is is a mitzva that Sanhedrin should include Kohanim. (See Rambam 2 San : 2
וּמִצְוָה לִהְיוֹת בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז ט) "וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם". וְאִם לֹא מָצְאוּ אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ כֻּלָּם יִשְׂרְאֵלִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:)
5. Kol nega is the examination of Tzaraas.