Commentaire de citation sur Isaïe 26:20

ויבא אברהם, gewöhnlich: da kam Abraham usw. also war er nicht gegenwärtig bei ihrem Tode. Es wird dahin erklärt: als er von der Akeda nach Hause kam, fand er sein Weib nicht mehr. So wenig misst sich der Lohn, die Verheißung, die den Vätern gegeben worden, nach der Freude und der Heiterkeit, die sie im Leben genießen. Zu dieser Erklärung muß jedoch dann auch noch suppliert werden, daß Sara von Abraham vor seinem Gange nach Moria von Beerscheba nach Chebron entfernt worden war, damit sie den Schmerz nicht plötzlich erhielte. Allein eine Erwägung der ursprünglichen Bedeutung des בוא dürfte diese ganze Voraussetzung unnötig machen. בוא heißt ursprünglich: sich aus dem Freien ins Haus, aus der Öffentlichkeit in einen Privatraum begeben. So bei Gideon (Richter 6, 19) וגדעון בא ויעש וגוי. — (Jes. 26, 20) לך עמי בא בחדריך. — (Jechesk. 3, 23) בא הסגר בתוך ביתך, ziehe dich zurück und schließe dich ein. So auch בוא השמש im Gegensatz zu צאת השמש. Also: Abraham zog sich zurück, schloss sich ein, um zu klagen um seine Sara und sie zu beweinen. Er trägt seinen Schmerz nicht zur Schau, macht kein Gepränge damit. Ob hier nicht darum auch ein kleines כ in לבכתה steht, stellen wir als möglich hin. Wir wissen, was die Sara dem Abraham gewesen, wie unendlich tief der Schmerz gewesen sein muss, wenn ein Abraham eine Sara verliert. Er klagt, er weint, aber er trägt den Schmerz in sich, zu Hause.

Intoxicated with wine they entered. [According to this] the explanation of “which He had not commanded them” is not the reason for their deaths. Rather, it only informs that they volunteered themselves to bring the incense, and not that He commanded them, as He had commanded Aharon (9:2): “Take, for yourself, a young calf...” And the explanation of (16:1): “[After the death of two sons of Aharon] in their coming close (בקרבתם),” is: At the time of their bringing an offering, and not that they had died because of [using] a strange fire. Rather, the main reason for their death was because they were intoxicated with wine. If it were not that Hashem wanted to be sanctified by means of Nodov and Avihu, they would not have died now, even though death had already been decreed upon them at the time they peered [See Shemos 24:11, Rashi there: “They envisioned Hashem.” They (Nodov and Avihu) gazed at Him insolently while engaged in eating and drinking]. Similarly, they would not have died on this day which was a joyous occasion for Israel, if they had not rendered a halachic decision on this day. (See more about this in the following). Gur Aryeh answers that [although death was already decreed at the time of Matan Torah] since Hashem’s anger passes, as it is written (Yishayahu 26:20): “Hide for almost a moment, until the anger passes,” and since that anger had passed, another cause was necessary to be liable for death. Re’m poses another difficulty: They were liable for death from the time of the Golden Calf, as punishment for Aharon, and Moshe’s prayer only helped for half the decree — that two [of Aharon’s four] sons would die [see Rashi 10:12]. Nachalas Yaakov answers: According to the assumption that Aharon’s sons would die solely for the sin of the Golden Calf, Elozor and Isomor should have died, for they were presumably less righteous than, and they did not have as much merit as, Nodov and Avihu. Gur Aryeh answers: We find concerning the wicked that if they continue the deeds of their forefathers, Hashem punishes them for their forefathers’ deeds, so too, concerning a completely righteous person. If his son does any sin, Hashem punishes him for the deeds of his father, and if the son does not sin at all, Hashem does not bring the sin of the righteous man upon the son. This [concept] necessitates that when the sons sin, it is added to the forefathers’ sins and then the sons are punished even for the sin of the forefathers. [Thus,] the sin of the sons together [with the sin of the forefathers] causes the punishment. See Kitzur Mizrachi where he brings additional views: Rabbi Yossi HaGelili said: For drawing close, in which they entered the innermost (Holy of Holies) they died. Rabbi Akiva said: For drawing close, in that they brought a strange fire they died. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: Because of both reasons they died. Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeyah ben Eliezer: Because of four things they died: 1) For coming close, 2) for the offering that they brought without being commanded, 3) for the strange fire, a fire from the Beis HaKirayim (house of ovens), and 4) because they did not ask advice from one another.

רגע אחד אעלה בקרבך וכליתיך WERE I TO GO UP AMONG THEE ONE MOMENT, I SHOULD CONSUME THEE — If I were to go up amongst you and you rebelled against Me in your stiff-neckedness I would be angry with you but one moment — for this is the duration of His wrath (Berakhot 7a), as it is said, (Isaiah 26:20) “Hide thyself for a short moment, until the indignation be passed” — and I would consume you; therefore it is better for you that I should send an angel.

hid from the angel, to fulfill the verse (Isa. 26:20): “Go, My people, come into your chambers and close your door about you; hide for but a moment, until the wrath passes.” And Scripture also says (Exod. 12:22): “... as for you, none of you shall go out of his house until morning.”