Commentaire de citation sur La Genèse 17:7

Just as the covenant of circumcision serves two distinct purposes [Genesis 17:1; Genesis 17:11], so it is possible for a single commandment to serve many different purposes — like the commandments of the burnt-offering and other sacrifices: 1) In offering up the appropriate portion at the appropriate time, we who have a portion in the world to come are apportioned proportionately. Thus the word “to atone” literally means “to ransom” (this is evidenced in the beginning of the parasha of Ki Tis̀s̀a [Exodus 30:12], and it explains the phrase “lest he strike us with pestilence” [Exodus 5:3]). 2) The burnt offerings also contain profound allusions to natural history. 3) By studying each sacrifice, one may come fundamentally to understand the nature of sin, and the nature of our obligations to sustain the teachers of the Torah. God called to Moshe Since Scripture has already stated that “Moshe was not allowed…” [Exodus 40:35], God must have called him from within the Tent of Assembly, telling him to enter therein, where He would speak to him. Moshe used to go behind the Partition, where the Glory resided (for so it is written [Exodus 25:22]). The reason for mentioning the sacrifices before the other commandments is that the Divine Presence would depart if they did not keep the law of the daily burnt-offering (which eventually happened). Perish the thought that God should need a burnt-offering! As it is written: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you” [Psalms 50:12]. The subject is admittedly too profound to explain easily.

From long ago In the merit of the Patriarchs.

לא יהיה לך אלוקים אחרים, “You must not have any other kind of divinity.” Rashi understands this as not maintaining (יהיה referring to something already in existence) any idolatrous image, seeing that there is a separate commandment following immediately afterwards that prohibits the construction of such images. This latter commandment would by itself have been insufficient, as it would have left open the option of preserving or even worshipping existing idols. Concerning this interpretation, Nachmanides writes that if that were so, G’d’s words: לא יהיה לך, while a prohibition, would not have indicated that violating this prohibition carries the death penalty. Furthermore, why would the Torah first tell us about the lesser sin of not destroying an existing idol rather than inform us of the worse sin of constructing a new idol ourselves? Seeing that the Torah spelled out the death penalty in this world [if tried and convicted by a tribunal. Ed.] and in the world to come [if it was impossible to convict legally or carry out the sentence. Ed.] for worshiping idols, we would have thought that maintaining idols was a minor offense. Whereas there is indeed a view expressed in the Mechilta that the maintaining, i.e. not destroying an existing idol is “only” a warning by the Torah, but not an indictable offense, this is the view of a lone sage, and we do not rule in accordance with that view. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, we need to understand the verses as follows: the meaning of the word אלוהים here is similar to והיה לך לאלוהים or to להיות לך לאלוהים, (Genesis 17,7, for instance) where the meaning is that we must not consider any of the celestial forces which have been imbued with some power by G’d as sharing power with G’d, or even as intermediaries. The fact that these forces are called by the name אלוהים on occasion, as for instance vis a vis Pharaoh (compare Exodus 7,1) is not a factor in our relationship to Hashem. If we were to allow such celestial bodies, or the like to substitute or to rank alongside G’d, it would not only dilute, but eventually ruin, our belief in G’d the sole and unique Creator. We must never address such celestial forces as אלי אתה, ”you are a celestial force in my eyes.” Ibn Ezra explains these verses as not viewing anything in nature as a junior partner to the Creator. This warning was necessary as there were theologians or philosophers who, while recognizing the supremacy of Hashem did not recognize His being absolutely exclusive as such. [If there really were such a thing as אלוהים אחרים, “other deities” (plural, as suggested by the plural ending in the word אלוהים), the Torah should have written לא יהיו לך, in the plural, not לא יהיה לך in the singular, i.e. reminding the reader that the idea of other gods is a non-starter. Ed.]