דברים, פרק י״ז, פסוק ט״ז

Limiting the military and political power of the Israelite king establishes a profound contrast between the Torah's vision of leadership and the practices of other nations. While monarchs typically secure their rule through displays of military might, accumulating wealth, and expanding their royal households, the king of Israel is commanded to minimize these symbols of dominance. This ensures his heart does not become arrogant and that his trust remains in God's providence rather than in his own armed forces. The primary approach among commentators is that the king is strictly forbidden from keeping idle horses meant solely for personal prestige, vanity, or show [הכתב והקבלה, תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם]. He is, however, permitted to maintain the necessary number of horses for his cavalry and chariots to adequately defend the nation [רש״י, מזרחי, גור אריה]. Nevertheless, the restriction against keeping horses for mere display is so severe that acquiring even a single unnecessary horse constitutes a violation of this command [מזרחי, תורה תמימה, אדרת אליהו].

The danger of amassing a massive cavalry is not only spiritual but geopolitical. In the ancient world, Egypt was the global center for breeding and trading premium warhorses. A king seeking to build an immense mounted army would inevitably need to send merchants to Egypt, establishing a permanent presence of royal agents to procure and export these animals, a scenario that eventually unfolded during the reign of King Solomon [רמב״ן, רש״י, שטיינזלץ]. Such an endeavor creates a hazardous economic and political dependence on Egypt [רש״ר הירש]. To prevent this, God explicitly forbade returning to Egypt. The assurance given to the Israelites at the shores of the Red Sea that they would never see the Egyptians again was not merely a comforting promise, but a permanent commandment for all future generations [אבן עזרא, העמק דבר]. The primary motivation for this ban is moral. The ancient Egyptians were steeped in immorality, and God sought to distance the Israelites from their influence to prevent them from adopting their corrupt practices [רמב״ן, רלב״ג, ביאור יש״ר]. A contrasting perspective suggests that the very acts of multiplying horses and harboring arrogance would ultimately provoke divine retribution, leading to the punishment of exile and a forced return to Egypt [מלבי״ם].

This restriction presents a legal nuance, as Jewish law generally permits traveling to Egypt for temporary commerce or military conquest, strictly forbidding only permanent settlement. If temporary trade is allowed, purchasing horses should theoretically be permissible. One approach resolves this by explaining that supplying a royal cavalry is not a matter of casual, temporary trade. It requires establishing permanent outposts and stationing royal agents in Egypt, which directly violates the ban on permanent settlement [מזרחי, שפתי חכמים, גור אריה]. Another view argues that the core prohibition is against amassing horses from any nation to prevent a misplaced reliance on military power. Egypt is simply cited as the quintessential example since it was the primary source of horses, with an additional, specific ban against establishing chariot cities within its borders [רמב״ן, טור הארוך].

Given the severity of the prohibition against returning to Egypt, commentators address the historical reality of thriving Jewish communities that later flourished there. Several explanations are offered to reconcile this. Some suggest that the prohibition does not apply to the geographic region of Egypt in later eras, as the ancient King of Assyria deliberately displaced and mixed the world's populations, meaning the current inhabitants are no longer the original Egyptians [ריב״א, תולדות יצחק]. Others maintain that the restriction was only applicable to earlier generations due to the exceptional wickedness of the Egyptians at that time [רבנו בחיי]. A different interpretation focuses on the specific trajectory of travel, asserting that the prohibition only forbids migrating directly from the Land of Israel to Egypt, whereas moving there from other countries is permissible [מזרחי, שפתי חכמים]. Finally, some explain that the ban is only in effect when the Israelites are dwelling securely in their own homeland. During times of exile, when the nation is already scattered across the globe, the specific restriction against living in Egypt does not apply [יריעות שלמה].