Devarim: Abravanel's Bold Approach to Sefer Devarim

What is the purpose of Sefer Devarim? You might think it's merely a review, but the Abravanel begs to differ. His theory is bold in its conservatism and as usual, he's a model of independent thinking.

Jul 28, 2017

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Devarim: Abravanel's Bold Approach to Sefer Devarim

Let's cut right to he chase: What is the purpose of Sefer Devarim? Chazal refer to Devarim as "Mishneh Torah" (the Restatement of Torah) because most of the sefer is a repetition of previous material. Moshe recounts the key events from the earlier seforim, he goes over many of the laws that have already been presented, and he reiterates many of the messages that were previously stated.

Abravanel [1] begins by summarizing the Ramban's approach to Devarim, which we’ll call "the mainstream view":

It would seem from the words of the Holy Rabbi, the Ramban [2] (of blessed memory), in the introduction to his commentary on this book, that Moshe, our master, had three intentions [in Sefer Devarim]:
(1) The first intention was to rebuke the nation and to remind them of their sins - how much they rebelled in the Midbar, and how [God] related to them with the midas ha'rachamim (mode of mercy).
(2) The second intention was to tell Israel new mitzvos which were not written in the prior books [of Chumash], which were already said to Moshe at Har Sinai in the first year, but which he hadn't yet commanded Israel until now.
(3) To inform those who were entering Eretz Yisrael of the mitzvos that were written in the earlier books and of the Ten Declarations - whether to add explanation in some cases, or whether to warn Israel with many warnings in order to instill fear in them, even without additional clarification. And because the majority of them were not present at the Revelation at Sinai when the mitzvos were given, he needed to tell them about it now.

As you might imagine from the title of this article, the Abravanel disagrees with this framework for Sefer Devarim. As usual, he takes a far more gutsy approach. He writes:

The intent of Moshe, our master, in this book was not to rebuke Israel, nor to tell them new mitzvos which were not found in the earlier books, nor did he intend to remind them of mitzvos that were already presented in order to warn them or because they hadn't heard them at Sinai. Rather, his intention was solely to explain the Torah and the mitzvos - those which required clarification - as it is stated: "Moshe began to explain this Torah" (Devarim 1:5). This was the sole purpose; there was no other.
I assure you that NO mitzvah appears in this book which you will not find in the earlier books "if you search for it like silver" (Mishlei 2:4) - whether explicitly, or by concise allusion. And [regarding] those mitzvos which were already mentioned to Israel, and fully explained in the earlier books - he left them as they were, without adding any explanation; therefore, they are not mentioned in this book. However, with regard to the miracles that were alluded to or stated concisely, [Moshe] saw fit to explain them while he was still alive, but when he was [about to] die they would need explanation and clarification. Therefore he needed to include them in this book in order to explain them - not for any other purpose.
And since, with regards to the reward of the mitzvos, it's possible that the listeners had doubts which arose because they heard what happened to their fathers in the Wilderness, it became necessary for the beneficial teacher (i.e. Moshe) to tell them these things - not to rebuke the children for what their fathers did, which would be purposeless, but only in order to tell them the content of the matter and the depth of wisdom, each in accordance with its topic, and to resolve for them every doubt.

In other words, Abravanel holds that when Hashem introduces Sefer Devarim by saying: "Moshe began to explain this Torah," He said what He meant and meant what He said. The sole purpose of Sefer Devarim is to explain the Torah - not to introduce new mitzvos, not to rebuke Klal Yisrael, and not merely instill fear of Hashem in the generation that would go on to conquer the Land.

As expected, the Abravanel follows through on his assurance that there are no new mitzvos in Sefer Devarim. Open up the Sefer ha'Chinuch on Sefer Devarim, choose any mitzvah which the Sefer ha'Chinuch holds is introduced for the first time in Sefer Devarim, then look at the Abravanel's commentary. You'll see that he explains where and how each seemingly "new" mitzvah was actually alluded to in the first four books of Chumash.

For example, Parashas Ki Seitzei begins with the mitzvah of yefas toar (the Beautiful Captive), which was seemingly not mentioned anywhere in Torah until this point. The Abravanel [3] writes:

It is proper for you to know that the Ramban thought that these mitzvos - yefas toar, the birthright of the first born, the Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Wayward and Rebellious Son), and the hanging [of an executed criminal on the gallows] - are all "new mitzvos." This is not my opinion. Behold, in Parashas Ki Sisa [Hashem] issued a warning against intermarrying with the other nations, saying: "And you will take their daughters for your sons, and their daughters will stray after their gods and entice your sons to stray after their gods" (Shemos 34:16). Therefore, [Moshe] saw fit to explain here that there is a permissible way to marry [a non-Jewish woman] - namely, as a yefas toar who was taken captive - but only under the conditions that he will mention. Likewise with the other mitzvos [mentioned above:] you will find that they were mentioned in the past, as I will prove for each one of them.

What about the mitzvos about appointing a king (i.e. to appoint a king, to not appoint a non-Jew) and the mitzvos that pertain specifically to the king (i.e. that he must not obtain an excess of horses, wives, or riches)? It would seem that these mitzvos are introduced in Sefer Devarim with the words: "You shall surely set over yourself a king etc." (Devarim 17:15-20), and one would be hard-pressed to find references to these mitzvos in the earlier books of Chumash. Yet, the Abravanel [4] succeeds in finding an allusion to this entire category of mitzvos:

Some people have thought that this mitzvah is "new" and was not mentioned in the past. But I have already mentioned that the king is one of the types of judges, and is on a higher level [of judicial authority]. Therefore, he is included in the statement: "to the judges shall come both their claims" (Shemos 22:10), and he was also mentioned in: "do not curse a judge" (ibid. 22:17).

What about the mitzvah of ahavas Hashem (love of God), which we were commanded in the statement: "You shall love Hashem, your God, with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your resources" (Devarim 6:5)? Abravanel [5] answers:

The mtizvah of ahavas Hashem has already been mentioned in that which was commanded: "You shall serve Hashem, your God" (Shemos 23:25), because loving Him stems from serving Him.

And so on. I haven't been through every single "seemingly new" mitzvah in Sefer Devarim, but I believe the Abravanel when he assures us that he attempts to address this question in every case.

I wrote this article because I am intrigued by the insights that the Abravanel's approach might yield. [6] Up until now I have viewed Sefer Devarim as a primary text for learning about the "new" mitzvos presented therein. But according to the Abravanel, Sefer Devarim should actually be learned as a sort of commentary on the rest of Torah - a commentary written by the most qualified commentator ever: Moshe Rabbeinu, himself! How will this affect the way we understand these mitzvos? What is the best method to use for approaching mitzvos this way? I can't wait to find out!

I also wrote this article because it helped me realize one of the things I love about the Abravanel: he goes ALL IN on his theories! Obviously this applies to other meforshim, but the Abravanel does it with such unique flair, such conviction, and such eloquence - in the manner of a Spanish nobleman with Davidic blood coursing through his veins! [7]

Consider the case we have been discussing. The Abravanel was aware of the theories of the great chachamim who preceded him. After voicing the questions and problems he saw with their approaches, he proposed his own theory: one which took the words of the Torah seriously. That is, when the Torah said that "Moshe began to explain this Torah," the Abravanel took that to mean that Sefer Devarim is only an explanation of the Torah that had been given up until that point - and nothing more. He then goes on to apply this theory to the whole book, and doesn't shy away from or ignore the questions and objections that others might have to his theory.

This reminds me of something I heard soon after I converted to Judaism. One of my rabbeim in school made reference to the Gemara in Pesachim 22b about one of the Tannaim who had a theory that every instance in the Torah of the word "es" (את) should be understood as a ribui (i.e. a legal extension of the principle in question to a new particular which wouldn't have otherwise been covered by the original category). The Gemara states:

He interpreted every es in the Torah, [but] when he came to, "Es Hashem Elokechah tira" ("You shall revere Hashem, your God" - Devarim 6:13) he desisted. [Rashi explains that he couldn't justify revering any being aside from Hashem.]
His students said to him: "Master, what will happen to all of the instances of es that you interpreted?" He answered: "K'shem she'kibalti sachar al ha'drishah, kach ani mekabel sachar al ha'prishah" ("Just as I have received reward for interpreting them, so will I receive reward for retracting.")

Hearing this at the outset of my learning made a big impression on me. I was impressed by how gutsy this Tanna was to make such a universal claim, but I was in awe of the fact that he successfully applied this theory to every single case, then retracted when he faced a single disproof. That takes intellectual courage and intellectual humility - the same two qualities I so often see in the writings of the Abravanel.

To repeat: I'm not saying that these qualities are unique to the Abravanel. However, it is undeniable that the Abravanel wrote far lengthier commentaries than most (if not all) of the other meforshim. They usually just express their view, and sometimes address a question or two. In contrast, the Abravanel takes us on a tour throughout his whole thought process and explains why he disagrees with his predecessors. This provides a different perspective on how a true thinker operates, and I appreciate seeing this throughout the Abravanel's commentary.

Now that we have a "new" way to approach Sefer Devarim, let's see what happens when we apply it over the next ten parshiyos!

[1] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Devarim: Introduction
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim: Introduction
[3] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Devarim 21:10
[4] ibid. 17:15
[5] ibid. 6:5
[6] I've been informed that R' Menachem Leibtag takes the same (or a similar) approach to Sefer Devarim, but I haven't actually checked it out yet.
[7] The Abravanel is like the Lestat of the meforshim. Ve'ha'meivin yavin.

Can you think of a mitzvah that ONLY appears in Sefer Devarim but not in the other four books? If so, let’s see what the Abravanel says!

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post