וְה֤וּא יִהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם יָד֣וֹ בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בּ֑וֹ וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן׃
Y él será hombre fiero; su mano contra todos, y las manos de todos contra él, y delante de todos sus hermanos habitará.
Kli Yakar
“And He said: The Lord came from Sinai, and rose [literally, shined] from Seir unto them, etc.” It should have said “came to Sinai,” and Rashi explained that He went out to meet them like a groom, etc. But it’s still difficult why [it says] came from Sinai and not from His dwelling place in heaven. Also, an explanation is needed for why the text mentions “shining” in Seir and “appearing” in Paran. It’s also difficult according to our Sages who said (Sifrei 2:2) that the Holy One, blessed be He, approached the children of Esau and Ishmael to accept the Torah, and they did not accept it — why does it mention Seir and Mount Paran and not call them by their names, Esau and Ishmael? Also, the word unto them [lamo] needs explanation, because some say the word “lamo” refers to Israel, since the nations did not want to accept the Torah and Israel accepted it, therefore Israel received additional “shining” and “appearing” — but the language of the verse doesn’t imply this.
It seems that all these names refer to specific nations, as Seir is associated with Esau, the hairy [sair] man (Genesis 27:11), and Mount Paran is associated with Ishmael, about whom it is said (Genesis 16:12) he will be a wild man, and “pere” is derived from the word “Paran.” Therefore, God did not shine His Divine Presence upon those two nations themselves, because the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that they would ultimately not accept the Torah. He only came to them so they would not have an excuse to say, “If He had given it to us, we would have accepted it.” Therefore, God did not reveal His Presence to these nations because they were not worthy of it, and instead He appeared to them from those places associated with those nations. This explains the precise language and rose from Seir unto them. However, we still need to understand why the text uses “shining” in one place and “appearing” in another, and why it mentions unto them [lamo] with the shining but doesn’t mention “unto them” with the appearing.
It seems that all these names refer to specific nations, as Seir is associated with Esau, the hairy [sair] man (Genesis 27:11), and Mount Paran is associated with Ishmael, about whom it is said (Genesis 16:12) he will be a wild man, and “pere” is derived from the word “Paran.” Therefore, God did not shine His Divine Presence upon those two nations themselves, because the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that they would ultimately not accept the Torah. He only came to them so they would not have an excuse to say, “If He had given it to us, we would have accepted it.” Therefore, God did not reveal His Presence to these nations because they were not worthy of it, and instead He appeared to them from those places associated with those nations. This explains the precise language and rose from Seir unto them. However, we still need to understand why the text uses “shining” in one place and “appearing” in another, and why it mentions unto them [lamo] with the shining but doesn’t mention “unto them” with the appearing.
Rav Hirsch
Der Ausdruck על פני־ kommt übrigens, wie wir bereits (Bereschit 16, 12) bemerkt, von einem der Wahrnehmung des andern missliebigen Vorhandensein oder Geschehen vor. Und auch hier dürfte damit das Raumgeben dem Dasein eines andern Gottes als eine Verletzung der Gott schuldigen Wahrheit bezeichnet sein.
Rav Hirsch
V. 4. וימת נדב וגו׳ (siehe zu Wajikra 10, 1 u. 2). – ובנים לא היו להם. Wären ihnen, nachdem sie die Priesterweihe empfangen hatten, Söhne geboren worden, so hätten diese auch mit der Geburt den Priestercharakter empfangen, und es hätte sich das Priestertum auch in der von ihnen stammenden Familie weiter vererbt. So aber hinterließen sie bei ihrem Tode keine Söhne, und ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם. Wir haben zu Bereschit 16, 12 angemerkt, wie der Ausdruck על פניר nicht selten von unangenehmen, widerwärtigen, missliebigen Wahrnehmungen und Erfahrungen gebraucht wird. Wir glauben daher auch hier es in einem solchen Sinne verstehen zu dürfen. Dadurch, daß die beiden älteren Söhne kinderlos fortgestorben waren, blieben von Aharon nur Elasar und Itamar als Fortträger der כהונה übrig.
Or HaChaim
Disponible solo para miembros PremiumRashi
prosper I know that at times tents will prosper, namely those of the Kedarites who dwell in tents in the deserts, and who are robbers, as it is stated (Gen. 16:12): “a free man among men; his hand shall be against every man.”
Rashi
For though he flourish among the marshes Heb. יַפְרִיא. Blossoms and grows in the marsh. Among the marshes, among those growing in the marshes, which always flourish. And, since He compares him to a marsh, He says: An east wind shall come... and his spring shall dry up. Another explanation: For he decreased among the brothers, i.e., Jeroboam. He was a son who decreased the brotherhood [other versions: the heritage] of Israel. Through him, they were divided into two kingdoms. Decreased יַפְרִיע. An expression similar to (Gen. 16:12) “One who decreases men (פֶּרֶא אָדָם) .”
Rashi
נפל (literally, he fell) means ‘‘he dwelt”, as (Judges 7:12) “Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all children of the East dwelt (נופלים) in the valley.” Here it says “He fell” and there (16:12) it says “In the presence of all his brethren shall he dwell”. But it may be explained thus: before Abraham died it could be said “He would dwell in security: after he died, “he fell” (Genesis Rabbah 62:5).