Kommentar zu Schemuel I 1:11
וַתִּדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר וַתֹּאמַ֗ר יְהוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אִם־רָאֹ֥ה תִרְאֶ֣ה ׀ בָּעֳנִ֣י אֲמָתֶ֗ךָ וּזְכַרְתַּ֙נִי֙ וְלֹֽא־תִשְׁכַּ֣ח אֶת־אֲמָתֶ֔ךָ וְנָתַתָּ֥ה לַאֲמָתְךָ֖ זֶ֣רַע אֲנָשִׁ֑ים וּנְתַתִּ֤יו לַֽיהוָה֙ כָּל־יְמֵ֣י חַיָּ֔יו וּמוֹרָ֖ה לֹא־יַעֲלֶ֥ה עַל־רֹאשֽׁוֹ׃
Und sie schwor ein Gelübde und sprach: 'HERR der Heerscharen, wenn du wirklich auf das Leid deiner Magd schaust und an mich denkst und deine Magd nicht vergisst, sondern deiner Magd ein Menschenkind gibst, dann werde ich ihn dem HERRN alle Tage geben sein Leben, und es wird kein Rasiermesser über sein Haupt kommen.'
Rashi on I Samuel
Adonoy of Hosts. Why was this Name designated here? She [Chana] said before Him, "Lord of the universe, You created two hosts in Your world. The heavenly beings neither multiply nor do they die; the earthly beings both multiply and die. If I am of the earthly beings, let me multiply and die, and if I am of the heavenly beings, let me not die." I found [this explanation] in the Aggadah of R. Eliezer the son of R. Yose Haglili. Our Rabbis in Maseches Berachos,17 expounded what they expounded: —Until then, there was no one person who called the Holy One, Blessed is He, [Master of] Hosts. She said thus before Him; "Lord of the universe, of all the hosts which You created in Your world, is it difficult for you to grant me one son?"
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Metzudat David on I Samuel
Upon the affliction: Upon that which I am afflicted with pain and grief.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Radak on I Samuel
And she made a vow: I wonder how her vow attached itself upon her son, such that he be a nazerite? Moreover, he was not in the world, so how could the vow attach itself to him? And even if he was in the world, behold they said (Sotah 3:8), "A man can vow that his son be a nazirite, but a woman cannot vow that her son be a nazirite!" And even with a man, they did not find a reason, but rather said it is a law [transmitted without explanation] in the case of a nazerite. And if you would say that Elkanah also made the vow after he heard [it] from his wife - we have not seen this! And how did the verse leave out the main vow and write the vow of Channah, which is not a [true] vow? That is remote. And I wonder [even] more how our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, did not say anything about this thing. For I did not find anything at all about this in their words, not in the Midrash and not in the Talmud.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy