Comentario citado sobre Isaías 40:2

“And Abraham proceeded to take another wife, and her name was Keturah.” He went back and married Hagar and called her Keturah because her deeds were as pleasant as incense [ketoret]. This is implied by the language and he proceeded, indicating that he married her a second time. We must explain why he called her Keturah now, based on her deeds, especially since this seems to contradict Rashi’s explanation in Parashat Vayeira (21:14) on she went and wandered that she had returned to her father’s house’s idolatry. What seems correct to me is that initially he divorced her at Sarah’s request, as Abraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy. Sarah knew prophetically that she [Hagar] would eventually return to her father’s house’s idolatry, and she also saw that her son Ishmael was mocking, which carries the connotation of idol worship, as it says they rose to make merry (Exodus 32:6). Therefore she said, Drive out this maidservant and her son, for their deeds were alike, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac, meaning he would not inherit Abraham’s ways. The matter distressed Abraham because he did not know through divine inspiration about the idolatrous beliefs in their hearts, therefore he was told Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice, from which they learned that Abraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy. He immediately sent her away with divorce, and she went and wandered as Sarah had said. If so, since he divorced her because of the impropriety of idolatry, it is difficult to understand how he could take her back. Therefore, the text comes to explain that she had repented, just as her son Ishmael had also repented. To publicize this, Abraham called her name Keturah, referring to the incense [ketoret], thus making public that she had repented. For every penitent, their intentional sins become like merits, and these sins rise as a pleasant aroma like merits. Therefore he compared her to incense, where galbanum, which has a bad smell, rises as a pleasant aroma like all other spices. This is an apt comparison to the sins of penitents that rise as a pleasant aroma, as it is written for her iniquity is pardoned (Isaiah 40:2). For after repentance, even the sin is accepted and favorable, therefore she was called Keturah.

AND IT SHALL BE FAVORABLY ACCEPTED FOR HIM TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM. “For what kind of sins does [the freewill burnt-offering] effect atonement for the person that brings it? Should you say, for sins [where punishment if wilfully committed] is excision, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, or death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, the punishment for all these sins is already stated, [and atonement is affected by those punishments, and therefore not by this offering]! You must conclude that [the freewill burnt-offering] effects atonement only for transgression of a positive commandment,⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment.”⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a Beraitha⁶⁵Beraitha (literally: “outside”) is a teaching or tradition of the Tannaim that had been excluded from the Mishnah and incorporated in other collections. The Tosephta, Mechilta, Sifra (Torath Kohanim), and Sifre contain these Beraithoth. in Torath Kohanim.⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5.
But I wonder! Where is “the punishment” for these sins already stated, since offerings only effect atonement for unwilful violations?⁶⁷“Punishments” [such as “excision etc.”] are incurred only for wilful violation of the negative commandments, while offerings for atonement are brought only for unwilful violations. So how could Rashi state, “Should you say [that the freewill burnt-offering is brought] for such sins that make one liable to excision etc., the punishment for those sins has already been stated”? Where are those “punishments” for unwilful violations mentioned? For unwilful violations no punishments are ever incurred! Now we could say that [the freewill burnt-offerings] atone for those unwilful sins which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is death by the hands of Heaven, or stripes, or any of the [four] deaths imposed by the court, in such cases that do not obligate one to bring a sin-offering,⁶⁸The general rule is that a sin-offering is brought only for such a sin unwilfully committed for which the penalty if committed wilfully would be excision. Ramban is thus suggesting: we could say that the freewill burnt-offering atones for those unwilful sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven etc., and for all those sins for which the penalty is death by the court and yet do not require the bringing of a sin-offering for unwilful violation. Examples follow in the text. such as smiting one’s father or mother, or cursing them,⁶⁹The reason why the sin-offering is not brought for the unwilful violation of these negative commandments is that the punishment of excision is not incurred in case of the wilful violation thereof. See Note 68 above. just as the sin-offering atones for the unwilful sins for which the penalty [if committed wilfully] is excision. But perhaps it appeared to the Sages that since Scripture expressly states the punishment for both the wilful and unwilful commission of sins punishable by death imposed by the hands of the court or by excision, [stating that if committed wilfully, the sinner is liable to one of the above punishments, and if committed unwilfully, he must bring a sin-offering], and it further set forth the punishment of those liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes for certain sins, if committed wilfully, but did not mention in these [last two categories] any punishment if the sins are committed unwilfully — therefore it appeared [to the Sages] that Scripture had completely set forth their case.⁷⁰Thus Scripture made it clear that in the case of those sins for which the penalty is death by the hands of Heaven or stripes if committed wilfully — no offering for expiation is needed when committed unintentionally. Rashi and the Torath Kohanim were thus correct in stating that the burnt-offering could not effect atonement for these unwilful sins, since “the punishments” have already been stated in Scripture both for wilful and unwilful sins, and therefore we could not say that the burnt-offering effects atonement for the above-mentioned sins if committed unwilfully. For why should Scripture have explained the punishment of some sins if committed either wilfully or unwilfully, and explained the punishment for other sins [only] if committed wilfully, but not if committed unwilfully, and did not say that he is obligated to bring a burnt-offering? Therefore the Sages concluded that in the case of those sins for which one is liable to death by the hands of Heaven or stripes, they are only punishable if committed wilfully, as explained in Scripture, but if committed unwilfully there is no burden of sin at all and they do not need any atonement. This is the meaning of the saying of the Rabbis [in the Torath Kohanim⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Vayikra 4:5. mentioned by Rashi]: “their punishment has already been stated,” meaning that Scripture had already stated the whole punishment that G-d desired to impose on them. But for the wilful transgression of a positive commandment⁶³The Torah cites no punishment for failure to fulfill a positive commandment [with the two exceptions of not slaughtering the Passover-offering, and not being circumcised]. If a person thus failed to fulfill a positive commandment — such as dwelling in a booth on the Festival of Succoth — his bringing a freewill burnt-offering effects atonement for this sin. and for the violation of a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment,⁶⁴A case in point is the prohibition against taking an entire bird’s nest, with the mother-bird and its young (Deuteronomy 22:6). If, however, he did infringe upon the law, he is obliged to observe a positive commandment that the Torah stated next to the prohibition — Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go (ibid., Verse 7). Hence the usual punishment of stripes is not incurred for infringing the negative commandment, since the positive commandment “remedies” the prohibition. Yet it needs atonement, and the bringing of the burnt-offering expiates for it. — It is important to note that during the laying of hands on the offering the owner, in case of sin-offerings, confessed the sin for which he brought the offering, and so also in the case of guilt-offerings. Similarly, on bringing a burnt-offering he confessed the transgression for a positive commandment etc. [as explained here in the text]. In the case of the peace-offering, he uttered words of praise to G-d (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’asei Korbanoth 3:14-15). where Scripture mentioned no punishment whatever, and it is impossible that no penalty should be inflicted for them at all, in these cases the sinner is atoned for by this burnt-offering, if he brought it of his own freewill.
It is possible to say that because He did not use in the case of the freewill offerings⁷¹Further, 5:18. the expression: “to make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,” as He said with reference to the offerings brought for sins committed unwilfully,⁷¹Further, 5:18. and instead He said, and it shall be favorably accepted, it appeared to our Rabbis that the meaning thereof is that [the burnt-offering] effects atonement for those who wilfully commit certain sins, seeing that these persons are not [hitherto] favorably accepted by Him. For he who commits a sin unwilfully is yet, in spite of his sin, considered favorably accepted by G-d. If so, it is impossible that the burnt-offering effect atonement for wilful sinners except for those who transgress a positive commandment or a negative commandment that is juxtaposed to a positive commandment, in which cases no punishment has been mentioned in Scripture, but they are not pleasing to G-d because they violated His commandment. With what can these men become favorably accepted by their Master?⁷²See I Samuel 29:4. With this gift!
I have seen in the Agadah,⁷³The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on. in Vayikra Rabbah:⁷⁴Vayikra Rabbah 7:3. “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: The burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart. Said Rabbi Levi: It is a clear Biblical text: ‘V’ha’olah al ruchachem’⁷⁵The Hebrew term for the burnt-offering is olah [literally, “comes up”]. There is thus here a suggestion that the olah is for those sinful thoughts “which come into one’s mind.” (And that which cometh into your mind) shall not be at all⁷⁶Ezekiel 20:32. — the olah (burnt-offering) effects atonement for those things which come into your mind. Similarly it says of Job: and he offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed G-d in their hearts.’⁷⁷Job 1:5. This proves that the burnt-offering only comes to effect atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart.” The reason why [the burnt-offering was singled out for this purpose] is because it is a sin that no one recognizes except G-d [Who knows our secret thoughts]; therefore it is wholly burnt to G-d.
The expression v’nirtzah lo⁷⁸Up to here we have followed Silberman’s translation of the phrase: “and it shall be favorably accepted for him.” Ramban now suggests three new interpretations: 1) “and he will be favorably accepted by Him.” 2) “and the sin will be completed to him” — never to be mentioned again. 3) “and it will be ‘agreeable’ to Him.” refers back to the Glorious Name mentioned [in the preceding verse: to the door of the Tent of Meeting he shall bring it for his acceptance before the Eternal], meaning that he should be favorably accepted by Him through this offering which effects atonement for him. This is similar in expression to these verses: for wherewith should this fellow ‘yithratzeh’ (reconcile himself) unto his lord?;⁷⁹I Samuel 29:4. and the light of Thy countenance because ‘r’tzitham’ (Thou wast favorable to them),⁸⁰Psalms 44:4. and many others. It is possible that v’nirtzah is a by-word for the sin, meaning that the sin is finished for him, so that he may now be forgiven, similar to these expressions: ‘ki nirtzah avonah’ (that her guilt is paid off);⁸¹Isaiah 40:2. until the land ‘rotz’thah’ (had been paid) her Sabbaths;⁸²II Chronicles 36:21. and they ‘yirtzu’ (shall be paid) the punishment of their iniquity⁸³Further, 26:43. — all these being expressions of completion. It is further possible to say in line with the first interpretation, that the sin will be as if it were “agreeable” [not objectionable before G-d], meaning that His anger will no longer be kindled against him.

AT THE HAND OF EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT. I wonder: if “the requiring” is here meant in its usual sense, i.e., from the hand of the beast as well as from the hand of man, in both cases there will be punishment in the matter, but the beast has no reason [with which to discern between good and evil] so that it should be punished or rewarded! Perhaps this principle applies only to spilling man’s blood; every beast that will devour him will itself be devoured, for such is the decree of the King. And this is the reason [why Scripture says of an ox that killed a human being], the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten.¹⁹²Exodus 21:28. This is not a form of monetary punishment for the owner since even an ownerless ox is subject to the death penalty,¹⁹³Baba Kamma 44b. and the command applies alike to the sons of Noah⁶⁴See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. and to the Israelites. The meaning of Who so sheddeth man’s blood¹⁹⁴Verse 6. would thus be, “all shedders” whether beast or man, their blood will be required by the Court on earth and¹⁹⁵“And.” The Tur, quoting Ramban, has “or.” by the hand of Heaven.
It is possible that the meaning of the expression, at the hand of every beast, is that the vengeance upon the shedder of blood will be at the hand of every beast, just as it is said, That she hath received of the Eternal’s hand double of all her sins.¹⁹⁶Isaiah 40:2. Thus He says, “Surely your blood will I require and avenge at the hand of every beast for I will send against the murderer all beasts of the earth, and I will also send against him the hand of man, and he will not escape them.” Similarly, Because of all mine adversaries I am become a reproach,¹⁹⁷Psalms 31:12. meaning “because of the hand of all mine adversaries;” This is the portion of a wicked man from G-d, and the heritage appointed unto him by G-d,¹⁹⁸Job 20:29. [meaning this is the portion of a wicked man by the hand of G-d].
Perhaps the requiring at the hand of the beast means that she should not devour man for so He established their nature. The secret of the matter is that at the time of creation He gave man every herb bearing seed… and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree… for food,¹⁹⁹Above, 1:29. and to the beast He gave every green herb for food,²⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 30. and Scripture says, and it was so,²⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 30. meaning that such was their nature and habit. But now when He said of man that he may slaughter the lower living creatures for food and it was so placed in nature or habit that living creatures should eat each other, it became necessary to command that the other living creatures be unto men a prey to their teeth²⁰¹Psalms 124:6. while they are to fear men and not devour them. And He said, And surely, your blood of your lives will I require, in order to hint that He will not require the blood of one beast from the hand of another. This being so, it was thus left to them to devour one another. And this is the reason why He mentioned here the prohibition of spilling the blood of man; it is on account of the permission given here for slaughtering, which became the customary way of spilling blood since in the opinion of our Rabbis,²⁰²Sanhedrin 56b. Adam had already been admonished against spilling blood. But on account of the permission for slaughtering, it became necessary for Him to say, “I have permitted you to spill the blood of every living thing except your own blood. This is forbidden to you as well as to all living things for it will not be their nature to spill it.”