כִּ֭י אֶקַּ֣ח מוֹעֵ֑ד אֲ֝נִ֗י מֵישָׁרִ֥ים אֶשְׁפֹּֽט׃
"Quand, [dit Dieu], j’en aurai fixé l’heure, je rendrai mes arrêts avec équité.
Ramban
‘MIKEITZ’ OF SEVEN YEARS THOU SHALT MAKE ‘SH’MITAH.’ The correct interpretation appears to me that he is warning about the seventh year itself, that we make it a Sabbatical [refraining] from plowing, [sowing] and reaping, just as He said, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow,245Exodus 23:11. this being the meaning of thou shalt make ‘sh’mitah,’ that “you should rest,” similar to the expression, to keep the Sabbath-day.246Above, 5:15. He abridged the prohibitions of sowing and pruning because He expressly mentioned them already,247See Leviticus 25:4. but he supplemented [what was previously said] to explain that it is a ‘sh’mitah’ of the Eternal248Verse 2. also in regards to the release of moneys. This is the sense of the expression, because it is proclaimed ‘the remission’ of the Eternal,248Verse 2. which is similar to a Sabbath unto the Eternal,249Leviticus 25:2. and all works are to cease. I have already alluded to its secret.249Leviticus 25:2.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented [that the meaning of the word mikeitz is] “at the beginning of the year.” And so say all grammarians250Including R’dak in his Sefer Hasharashim, under the root katzeh. that the beginning and end of something are each called katzeh, since there are two extremities to each thing, similar to what is written, from ‘hakatzeh’ (end) to ‘hakatzeh’ (end);251Exodus 26:28. of the two ends thereof;252Ibid., 25:19. in the four ends thereof.253Ibid., 27:4. But the words [of the grammarians and Ibn Ezra] do not seem correct to me. For “the beginning of seven years” denotes the first year [of the Sabbatical cycle], this being the katzeh which is called rosh (the beginning)! Now had Scripture said, “mikeitz of the seventh year” their interpretation would have been correct [for then the verse would mean “at the beginning of the seventh year you shall make sh’mitah.” Instead, however, Scripture says, “‘Mikeitz’ of seven years thou shalt make ‘sh’mitah’” which according to them means “at the beginning of seven years,” i.e., in the first year you shall make the sh’mitah, which cannot be correct]! And in the opinion of our Rabbis254Sifre, R’eih 111. mikeitz means “at the end of the seven years,” and Scripture speaks only of the release of money [i.e., the remission of debts], stating “at the end of all seven years counted by you [as a Sabbatical cycle] you shall make a release, that every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbor, ”248Verse 2. and it is therefore that the Rabbis have said255Arakhin 28b. that the Seventh year cancels a loan only at the end. Similarly in their opinion254Sifre, R’eih 111. the verse ‘mikeitz’ seven years, at the appointed season of the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles256Further, 31:10. means “at the end of the seventh year,” except that “the end” mentioned here [with reference to the release of debts] means immediately [i.e., in the last moment of the seventh year] and “the end” mentioned there [with reference to the Assembly at which the king was to read the Book of Deuteronomy] is “distant,” [during Tabernacles, somewhat “distant” from the end of the year], since he explained at the appointed season of the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles.256Further, 31:10. Thus the sense [of mikeitz] in both cases is “the end,” stating here “at the end of seven years you shall make a release,” and there likewise it states “when the seven years end at the appointed season of the year of remission in the Festival of Tabernacles you shall make an Assembly.”
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture it appears to me that the language of Scripture in its plain sense is clear and correct. Keitz means “end,” and so is its translation [as rendered by Onkelos and Yonathan: “at the end”]. Numbers and every [other] thing have a beginning and an end, and their beginning and end are part of them. Thus when you speak of tens, “one” is the beginning of the number and “ten” its end. If so, “the end of seven years” is “the seventh year” which is the end of that number, and Scripture refers to the Sabbatical of the Land, as I have explained above. The meaning of the word mikeitz is then like one cherub (‘mikatzeh’) at the one ‘end’ and one cherub (‘mikatzeh’) at the other ‘end’.257Exodus 25:19. The purport of the verse here is thus as follows: “at the end of seven years [i.e., in the seventh year which is ‘the end’ of that period] you shall make a cessation of work on the Land.” Similarly, ‘Mikeitz’ of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that hath been sold unto thee and hath served thee six years258Jeremiah 34:13. means “in the seventh year” which is the end of that number, this being similar to the verse written in the Torah, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing.259Exodus 21:2. Thus the point is clear: In the seventh year — i.e., from its very beginning — we are to observe an entire year’s rest for the Land. Similarly, at the beginning of the seventh year of his service, the Hebrew servant is to go free, for, as Scripture stated, he shall serve thee six years, and at [the beginning of] the seventh year he goes free for nothing. So also, and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free;260Further, Verse 12. for having said, he shall serve thee six years,260Further, Verse 12. it was not necessary to explain [“mikeitz seven years you shall let him go”] but only to state that in the seventh year he goes free. In the same way it would appear that the meaning of the other verse — ‘mikeitz’ seven years, at the appointed season in the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles256Further, 31:10. — would be in a similar way: “in ‘the end’ year, in the Festival of Tabernacles, in the beginning of that year in which plowing and sowing have been forbidden, this being the Sabbatical year.” But we could not say so, since our Rabbis have received by tradition261Sotah 41a. and they provided that the Assembly [in which the king read the Book of Deuteronomy] should be held in the Festival of Tabernacles of the eighth year, this being the year after the Sabbatical year. Therefore, the commentators262Rashi (further, 31:10). said that at the appointed season in the year of remission256Further, 31:10. means “in the appointed season of the first year in the Sabbatical cycle.” This is not correct for the year of remission in Scripture refers only to the year of rest, to that year which is the remission of the Eternal248Verse 2. [and not as Rashi explained, “the first year of the Sabbatical cycle”], and so also, the year of the Jubilee263Leviticus 25:13. [means, “the year which is itself the Jubilee”]. Our Rabbis themselves made this point, for they said:264Arakhin 24b. “Is it written ‘in the year of the Jubilee?’ It states from the year of the Jubilee265Leviticus 27:17. which means ‘the year after the Jubilee.’”266This proves that only where Scripture uses the term “from” — “from the Jubilee” or “from the remission” — it means “the year after the Jubilee” or “after the remission,” but “the year of remission” means the year in which the rest of the Land takes place.
But I say thus: keitz and soph are used in Scripture to denote “the end” of any matter, but sometimes they are within that extremity and sometimes after it, outside of it. Thus: ‘umiktzei’ (and from among) his brethren;267Genesis 47:2. ‘mikatzeh’ (that is outmost) in the set;268Exodus 26:4. ‘umiktzatham’ (that at the end) they might stand before the king;269Daniel 1:5. ‘miktzoth’ (from the uttermost part) of the one wing unto ‘k’tzoth’ (the uttermost part) of the other270I Kings 6:24. — all these are expressions of an extremity which is attached to the thing itself and is contained within it. [But the following expressions:] ‘keitz’ (the end of) all flesh is come before Me;271Genesis 6:13. and he shall come to ‘kitzo’ (his end), and none shall help him;272Daniel 11:45. ‘hakeitz’ (the end) is come;273Ezekiel 7:2. ‘keitz’ (an end) is come274Ibid., Verse 6. — all signify “the end” of the matter mentioned but it signifies a later period, for it has been severed and separated. So it is regarding the term soph (end): It is better to go to the house of mourning etc. for that is ‘soph’ (the end of) all men,275Ecclesiastes 7:2. which means “after him,” for he has died; they are wholly ‘sophu’ (consumed) by terrors.276Psalms 73:19. The work that G-d hath done from the beginning even to ‘soph’ (the end)277Ecclesiastes 3:11. — here the term end is within the work itself. And in the language of the Rabbis we find [with reference to the writing of a Scroll of the Law:278Baba Bathra 13b. “The scribe is to leave blank] about a column at the beginning [of the Torah] and about [the width of] the circumference ‘b’sopho’ (at its end).” The meaning of the verse [regarding the Assembly] will then be as follows: “From the end of the seven years in the account of the year of release, in the Festival of Tabernacles which follows after the seven years, you shall make the Assembly.” And in order it should not appear to them that “the seven years” refer to some other counting, he mentioned that the seven years be [bizman ha’sh’mitah], at “the time of” the release. Similarly, when I take ‘mo’eid’279Psalms 75:3. means “the [appointed] time.” So do all mo’adim (festivals) signify “the [appointed] times.” Thus this term mikeitz [stated in connection with the Assembly] means “after the period [of seven years] is finished,” as he explained, in the Festival of Tabernacles.256Further, 31:10. But [in the verse stated here before us] ‘mikeitz’ seven years thou shalt make a release [the seventh year is] within that number. He did not need to dwell upon and explain this since He already explained that the seventh year is the year of the release.280Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 25:4. And the word keitz (end) here is then extensive, applying [to the release during] the whole [seventh] year as I have explained by way of the simple meaning of Scripture.
It is possible to say that Scripture counts the beginning of the year from the Festival of Tabernacles, as He said, and the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year,281Exodus 34:22. and He further said, and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year.282Ibid., 23:16. And if so, ‘mikeitz’ seven years [stated further on in connection with the Assembly]256Further, 31:10. means “at the end [of the seven years] and just beyond it.” And he states, at the appointed season of the year of remission256Further, 31:10. to indicate that the reckoning of seven years be according to the Sabbatical cycles, as I have explained, but not that the [legal obligations of] release extend up to this Festival [of Tabernacles].
Now, I have seen of one author283I have not identified this author. who wrote [with respect to the verse on the Assembly]: “This teaches that we are to add from the secular to the sacred, and the law of release [although officially ending at the New Year of the eighth year] still applied until the Festival of Tabernacles of the eighth year. But it is irrefutably shown in the Talmud284Rosh Hashanah 13a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 413. with clear proofs that it [the above interpretation] is untrue.
Now it is possible to say that what our Rabbis have said254Sifre, R’eih 111. with respect to ‘mikeitz’ seven years thou shalt make a release that the release of money [i.e., the remission of debts] takes effect only at the end of the year — that it is an interpretation [deduced from the text]. Because Scripture did not say “the seventh year you shall make a release” [but instead said ‘mikeitz’ seven years …], it is more suggestive that you effect the remission at the end of the seven [years] than at the beginning. And the intent of [the Rabbis in using here] this term “end” is “beyond it.” Thus a creditor can demand his debt on the last day of the year of the release, and it is not remitted until the night, for thus we find in the Tosephta285Tosephta Shevi’ith 8:10. On “Tosephta” see Vol. III, p. 179, Note 124. that they may write a prozbul286A declaration made before a court by a creditor and signed by witnesses to the effect that the loan in question would not be cancelled by the law of release of the Sabbatical year. The prozbul’s legal basis is the Torah’s prohibition that the creditor shall not exact the debt; by turning over his claims to the court, it is they, the officers of the court, who collect it and not the creditor (Rashi, Gittin 36a). It was Hillel who established this ordinance because people refused to lend money to the poor on the seventh year for fear that the debts would be remitted, thus transgressing the law of the Torah against being callous to the condition of the poor (ibid., 36a). See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 149-150. on the day before the New Year of the outgoing seventh year.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented [that the meaning of the word mikeitz is] “at the beginning of the year.” And so say all grammarians250Including R’dak in his Sefer Hasharashim, under the root katzeh. that the beginning and end of something are each called katzeh, since there are two extremities to each thing, similar to what is written, from ‘hakatzeh’ (end) to ‘hakatzeh’ (end);251Exodus 26:28. of the two ends thereof;252Ibid., 25:19. in the four ends thereof.253Ibid., 27:4. But the words [of the grammarians and Ibn Ezra] do not seem correct to me. For “the beginning of seven years” denotes the first year [of the Sabbatical cycle], this being the katzeh which is called rosh (the beginning)! Now had Scripture said, “mikeitz of the seventh year” their interpretation would have been correct [for then the verse would mean “at the beginning of the seventh year you shall make sh’mitah.” Instead, however, Scripture says, “‘Mikeitz’ of seven years thou shalt make ‘sh’mitah’” which according to them means “at the beginning of seven years,” i.e., in the first year you shall make the sh’mitah, which cannot be correct]! And in the opinion of our Rabbis254Sifre, R’eih 111. mikeitz means “at the end of the seven years,” and Scripture speaks only of the release of money [i.e., the remission of debts], stating “at the end of all seven years counted by you [as a Sabbatical cycle] you shall make a release, that every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbor, ”248Verse 2. and it is therefore that the Rabbis have said255Arakhin 28b. that the Seventh year cancels a loan only at the end. Similarly in their opinion254Sifre, R’eih 111. the verse ‘mikeitz’ seven years, at the appointed season of the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles256Further, 31:10. means “at the end of the seventh year,” except that “the end” mentioned here [with reference to the release of debts] means immediately [i.e., in the last moment of the seventh year] and “the end” mentioned there [with reference to the Assembly at which the king was to read the Book of Deuteronomy] is “distant,” [during Tabernacles, somewhat “distant” from the end of the year], since he explained at the appointed season of the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles.256Further, 31:10. Thus the sense [of mikeitz] in both cases is “the end,” stating here “at the end of seven years you shall make a release,” and there likewise it states “when the seven years end at the appointed season of the year of remission in the Festival of Tabernacles you shall make an Assembly.”
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture it appears to me that the language of Scripture in its plain sense is clear and correct. Keitz means “end,” and so is its translation [as rendered by Onkelos and Yonathan: “at the end”]. Numbers and every [other] thing have a beginning and an end, and their beginning and end are part of them. Thus when you speak of tens, “one” is the beginning of the number and “ten” its end. If so, “the end of seven years” is “the seventh year” which is the end of that number, and Scripture refers to the Sabbatical of the Land, as I have explained above. The meaning of the word mikeitz is then like one cherub (‘mikatzeh’) at the one ‘end’ and one cherub (‘mikatzeh’) at the other ‘end’.257Exodus 25:19. The purport of the verse here is thus as follows: “at the end of seven years [i.e., in the seventh year which is ‘the end’ of that period] you shall make a cessation of work on the Land.” Similarly, ‘Mikeitz’ of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that hath been sold unto thee and hath served thee six years258Jeremiah 34:13. means “in the seventh year” which is the end of that number, this being similar to the verse written in the Torah, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing.259Exodus 21:2. Thus the point is clear: In the seventh year — i.e., from its very beginning — we are to observe an entire year’s rest for the Land. Similarly, at the beginning of the seventh year of his service, the Hebrew servant is to go free, for, as Scripture stated, he shall serve thee six years, and at [the beginning of] the seventh year he goes free for nothing. So also, and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free;260Further, Verse 12. for having said, he shall serve thee six years,260Further, Verse 12. it was not necessary to explain [“mikeitz seven years you shall let him go”] but only to state that in the seventh year he goes free. In the same way it would appear that the meaning of the other verse — ‘mikeitz’ seven years, at the appointed season in the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles256Further, 31:10. — would be in a similar way: “in ‘the end’ year, in the Festival of Tabernacles, in the beginning of that year in which plowing and sowing have been forbidden, this being the Sabbatical year.” But we could not say so, since our Rabbis have received by tradition261Sotah 41a. and they provided that the Assembly [in which the king read the Book of Deuteronomy] should be held in the Festival of Tabernacles of the eighth year, this being the year after the Sabbatical year. Therefore, the commentators262Rashi (further, 31:10). said that at the appointed season in the year of remission256Further, 31:10. means “in the appointed season of the first year in the Sabbatical cycle.” This is not correct for the year of remission in Scripture refers only to the year of rest, to that year which is the remission of the Eternal248Verse 2. [and not as Rashi explained, “the first year of the Sabbatical cycle”], and so also, the year of the Jubilee263Leviticus 25:13. [means, “the year which is itself the Jubilee”]. Our Rabbis themselves made this point, for they said:264Arakhin 24b. “Is it written ‘in the year of the Jubilee?’ It states from the year of the Jubilee265Leviticus 27:17. which means ‘the year after the Jubilee.’”266This proves that only where Scripture uses the term “from” — “from the Jubilee” or “from the remission” — it means “the year after the Jubilee” or “after the remission,” but “the year of remission” means the year in which the rest of the Land takes place.
But I say thus: keitz and soph are used in Scripture to denote “the end” of any matter, but sometimes they are within that extremity and sometimes after it, outside of it. Thus: ‘umiktzei’ (and from among) his brethren;267Genesis 47:2. ‘mikatzeh’ (that is outmost) in the set;268Exodus 26:4. ‘umiktzatham’ (that at the end) they might stand before the king;269Daniel 1:5. ‘miktzoth’ (from the uttermost part) of the one wing unto ‘k’tzoth’ (the uttermost part) of the other270I Kings 6:24. — all these are expressions of an extremity which is attached to the thing itself and is contained within it. [But the following expressions:] ‘keitz’ (the end of) all flesh is come before Me;271Genesis 6:13. and he shall come to ‘kitzo’ (his end), and none shall help him;272Daniel 11:45. ‘hakeitz’ (the end) is come;273Ezekiel 7:2. ‘keitz’ (an end) is come274Ibid., Verse 6. — all signify “the end” of the matter mentioned but it signifies a later period, for it has been severed and separated. So it is regarding the term soph (end): It is better to go to the house of mourning etc. for that is ‘soph’ (the end of) all men,275Ecclesiastes 7:2. which means “after him,” for he has died; they are wholly ‘sophu’ (consumed) by terrors.276Psalms 73:19. The work that G-d hath done from the beginning even to ‘soph’ (the end)277Ecclesiastes 3:11. — here the term end is within the work itself. And in the language of the Rabbis we find [with reference to the writing of a Scroll of the Law:278Baba Bathra 13b. “The scribe is to leave blank] about a column at the beginning [of the Torah] and about [the width of] the circumference ‘b’sopho’ (at its end).” The meaning of the verse [regarding the Assembly] will then be as follows: “From the end of the seven years in the account of the year of release, in the Festival of Tabernacles which follows after the seven years, you shall make the Assembly.” And in order it should not appear to them that “the seven years” refer to some other counting, he mentioned that the seven years be [bizman ha’sh’mitah], at “the time of” the release. Similarly, when I take ‘mo’eid’279Psalms 75:3. means “the [appointed] time.” So do all mo’adim (festivals) signify “the [appointed] times.” Thus this term mikeitz [stated in connection with the Assembly] means “after the period [of seven years] is finished,” as he explained, in the Festival of Tabernacles.256Further, 31:10. But [in the verse stated here before us] ‘mikeitz’ seven years thou shalt make a release [the seventh year is] within that number. He did not need to dwell upon and explain this since He already explained that the seventh year is the year of the release.280Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 25:4. And the word keitz (end) here is then extensive, applying [to the release during] the whole [seventh] year as I have explained by way of the simple meaning of Scripture.
It is possible to say that Scripture counts the beginning of the year from the Festival of Tabernacles, as He said, and the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year,281Exodus 34:22. and He further said, and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year.282Ibid., 23:16. And if so, ‘mikeitz’ seven years [stated further on in connection with the Assembly]256Further, 31:10. means “at the end [of the seven years] and just beyond it.” And he states, at the appointed season of the year of remission256Further, 31:10. to indicate that the reckoning of seven years be according to the Sabbatical cycles, as I have explained, but not that the [legal obligations of] release extend up to this Festival [of Tabernacles].
Now, I have seen of one author283I have not identified this author. who wrote [with respect to the verse on the Assembly]: “This teaches that we are to add from the secular to the sacred, and the law of release [although officially ending at the New Year of the eighth year] still applied until the Festival of Tabernacles of the eighth year. But it is irrefutably shown in the Talmud284Rosh Hashanah 13a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 413. with clear proofs that it [the above interpretation] is untrue.
Now it is possible to say that what our Rabbis have said254Sifre, R’eih 111. with respect to ‘mikeitz’ seven years thou shalt make a release that the release of money [i.e., the remission of debts] takes effect only at the end of the year — that it is an interpretation [deduced from the text]. Because Scripture did not say “the seventh year you shall make a release” [but instead said ‘mikeitz’ seven years …], it is more suggestive that you effect the remission at the end of the seven [years] than at the beginning. And the intent of [the Rabbis in using here] this term “end” is “beyond it.” Thus a creditor can demand his debt on the last day of the year of the release, and it is not remitted until the night, for thus we find in the Tosephta285Tosephta Shevi’ith 8:10. On “Tosephta” see Vol. III, p. 179, Note 124. that they may write a prozbul286A declaration made before a court by a creditor and signed by witnesses to the effect that the loan in question would not be cancelled by the law of release of the Sabbatical year. The prozbul’s legal basis is the Torah’s prohibition that the creditor shall not exact the debt; by turning over his claims to the court, it is they, the officers of the court, who collect it and not the creditor (Rashi, Gittin 36a). It was Hillel who established this ordinance because people refused to lend money to the poor on the seventh year for fear that the debts would be remitted, thus transgressing the law of the Torah against being callous to the condition of the poor (ibid., 36a). See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 149-150. on the day before the New Year of the outgoing seventh year.
Kli Yakar
And what seems closest to me to say about this is as follows, for any judge who does not judge with deliberation, it is due to his arrogance, as he wants to show everyone that he is knowledgeable in laws and knows how to compare one matter to another. And in his haughtiness, he will not seek out the content of the law from a book, and thus one who does not judge with deliberation is one who ascends the steps through pride and arrogance. This is what Rashi explained as “in haste,” for he quickly rushes his words to decide the law, and his heart is arrogant in instruction. But the verse says When I take the appointed time, I will judge fairly (Psalms 75:3). Specifically, when I take time and an appointed moment, and as it is said When my heart was fermented (Psalms 73:21) — meaning to let the judgment ferment — then my mind was sharpened. In any case, I find it difficult regarding Rashi’s explanation that the juxtaposition of these sections comes to teach that the Sanhedrin should be placed near the altar — from where did Rashi derive this? Perhaps the juxtaposition comes according to what Bar Kappara taught, or according to the words of Rabbi Elazar. Why did Rashi see fit to make a third interpretation and omit those two interpretations mentioned in the Gemara?
Rabbeinu Bahya
Tanchuma on Chukat 8 comments as follows on the words: “they shall take a red cow to you.” The words “a cow to you,” mean that I, G’d, will reveal the meaning of this legislation to you, but for everyone else it will remain in the realm of a חוקה, a statute, beyond their understanding. This interpretation is based on an illuminating comment by Rav Huna on two verses (Psalms 75,3 and Zecharyah 14,6). In the former verse the psalmist writes: At the time I choose I will give judgment equitably.” [At that time the justice of My ways will become revealed to everyone, seeing G’d did not mean to imply that up until that time His justice had been inequitable. Ed.]. In the other verse the prophet quotes G’d as saying: “in that day there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight, but there shall be a continuous day -only the Lord knows when- of neither day or night, and there shall be light at eventide.” The meaning of the verse is that there will remain matters which while they are not revealed to you in this world will be revealed to you in that future, such as the blind man who gains his sight, of whom Isaiah 42,16 writes: “I will guide the blind by a road they did not know, and I will make them walk by paths they never knew I will turn darkness before them to light.....these are the things which I have done and I will not abandon them.” The crucial word in that verse is the word עשיתים, instead of אעשה אותם, i.e. “I have done them,” instead of “I am going to do them” (as we would have expected). This means (according to Tanchuma) that what is described here as a view of the future G’d has already shown to Rabbi Akiva and his companions (who descended into the Pardess).
A different approach to the same verse: Even matters which have not been revealed to Moses will be revealed to Rabbi Akiva. This is based on Job 28,10: “his eyes behold every precious thing.” These words which describe someone as seeing “every precious thing” refer to Rabbi Akiva. Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought to myself that I would become wise, but it is beyond me.” The words: “I would become wise,” are a reference to the testimony in Kings I 5,9: “the Lord had given wisdom to Solomon and discernment in great measure....and his wisdom was greater than that of all the Kedemites and all the wisdom of Egypt.” What precisely did the wisdom of the Kedemites consist of? They knew how to interpret zodiac signs, were experts in astrology; they were also familiar with the tiar, a bird (raven?) based on Kohelet 10,20: “for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter.”
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel used to say that he liked three customs of the Orientals. They do not kiss on the mouth but on the hand; when they cut meat they always employ a knife; when they ask someone’s advice on a matter they invariably do this in the field (where they cannot be overheard). This latter practice is based on Yaakov consulting with his wives in the field on his decision to leave Lavan (compare Genesis 31,4). What did the wisdom of the Egyptians which Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel praised consist of? You will find that when Solomon was about to build the Temple he sent word to Pharaoh Necho asking him to supply him with artisans on loan to help him in the construction. How did Pharaoh answer this request? He consulted his astrologers to determine which of his artisans would not live out the year and he then dispatched these artisans to Solomon. When Solomon saw these people he realized with the aid of Holy Spirit that they were all going to die during that year. He provided each one with a shroud and sent them back to Pharaoh with a note reading: “were you short of shrouds in Egypt? Here I send you your artisans back with a gift of shrouds.” When the Book of Kings wrote that Solomon was wiser than “כל האדם, “any man” (or “Adam,”) what precisely did the unique wisdom of Adam consist of? You will find a discussion in the Midrash that when G’d was about to create Adam He consulted with the ministering angels about His plan saying: “let us make Adam in our image and in our likeness.” The angels countered: “what is so special about Adam that You want to bother with him?” G’d responded that the Adam He intended to create would be wiser than they. How did G’d proceed to prove His point? He assembled all the beasts, the birds, etc., and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do this. After G’d had created Adam, He paraded all the animals in front of him and asked him: “what is the name of this animal, etc.?” Adam replied: “this one is called “lion,” this one is called “giraffe,” this one is called “sheep,“ etc.; etc. This is the meaning of Genesis 2,20: “Adam called the names of all the beasts.”‘ All these names Adam gave the beasts were not merely arbitrary names he chose to call them by, but they reflected the essence of each animal respectively. I have already discussed this in greater detail in my commentary on Genesis 2,19. When G’d asked Adam what his own name was, he answered: “Adam.” He explained that he said this seeing he had been created out of אדמה, raw material taken from the soil. Thereupon G’d asked Adam what His name was. Adam answered that G’d’s name was the tetragram. When G’d wanted to know what had given him this idea, (seeing he had not been told) he answered: for You are the Master of all creatures. We know that Adam was correct from Isaiah 42,8 אני י-ה-ו-ה הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name.” G’d meant that He adopted (or retained this name) seeing the first human being Adam had bestowed it upon Him. This was a pact between Adam and G’d that G’d would henceforth be known by the name bestowed upon him by His first intelligent creature.
When we read in Kings I 5,11 that Solomon was wiser than Eytan the Ezrachi, whom did Jeremiah (author of that Book) have in mind when he wrote these words? It was a reference to Avraham. Psalm 89 is attributed to Avraham as the word האזרחי, at the beginning of that psalm is a reference to the “East” according to our sages in Baba Batra 15. Heyman is understood to be Moses (ibid). The philological connection is established by the word נאמן in Numbers 12,7 that G’d said of Moses בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in My entire House.” כלכל, another of the wise men mentioned in the chapter of the Book of Kings extolling Solomon’s wisdom is a reference to Joseph (who “provided” for all of Egypt economically with his wisdom). The Egyptians recognized that the only reason a man whom they considered a slave was able to rule over them was the extreme wisdom of Joseph which enabled him to maintain himself in that position. The Egyptians who had been suspicious of Joseph and his ability brought him seventy different pieces of paper, each in a different language, asking him to explain what was written thereon. Joseph was able to read each in its respective language. Not only that; Joseph also knew Hebrew, a tongue which the Egyptians did not understand. We base this on Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו, i.e. an allusion that Joseph knew something in addition to what anyone else knew. The word דרדע, another person named as very wise in Kings 5,11 is a reference to the generation of Israelites who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai in the desert and who had been granted insights exceeding that of any other generation. They were known as the דור דעה, “the generation imbued with knowledge.” The בני מחול who are also listed in the Book of Kings as possessing outstanding wisdom are an allusion to the people of the period of the golden calf whom G’d had forgiven their participation in that sin, hence they were called בני מחול, “people who had been pardoned.”
The Book of Kings there continues in quantifying Solomon’s wisdom by attributing to him no fewer than three thousand parables (proverbs) and over one thousand poems. Concerning this enigmatic statement Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni opines that he made a search of the entire Bible and could not come up with more than approximately 800 verses in which Solomon is mentioned as saying anything of significance. We are therefore forced to interpret these numbers mentioned in the Book of Kings not as original sayings recorded in the Bible but as the number of interpretations offered by Solomon on a far smaller number of texts. When Kings I 5,13 speaks about Solomon “speaking about trees,” one such example may be that Solomon examined the phenomenon of a person afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat requiring some of the wood from the tallest tree (cedar) and some of the wood from the most lowly tree (hyssop) to effect his purification. Solomon suggested that the cause of the affliction was that the person so stricken was guilty of arrogance, considering himself superior to his contemporaries. In order to be cured of this psychological defect he had to “lower” himself (even in his own eyes) to the level of the hyssop, the lowest of the trees in order to be fit to rejoin society. The Book of Kings goes on to describe part of Solomon’s wisdom as his ability to speak על הבהמה ועל העוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, “on the mammals, the birds, the creeping creatures and the fish.” He defined the reason why mammals, if fit to eat, require the severing of both the gullet and the windpipe, whereas birds require the severing of only one of these organs. He explained that this was related to the raw material these creatures were made of, i.e. the mammals were created from the soil (Genesis 1,24), whereas the birds were created from a mixture of water and soil, i.e. from mud (Genesis 1,20).
When Solomon is reported as speaking about the creeping things, the meaning is that he explained why eight of these species confer ritual impurity on contact with their carcass, etc. He also explained why people who hunt or injure these species on the Sabbath are guilty of a major infraction of the Sabbath legislation, whereas other related creeping creatures are not treated in that way by halachah, i.e. because these eight species are covered by skin (Shabbat 107). Concerning the statement in Kings that Solomon spoke about the fish, he explained why they do not require ritual slaughter in order to make them fit to eat for Israelites, as we know from Numbers 11,22 where Moses speaks of slaughter for mammals and fowl, but implies that the mere gathering in of fish make them fit to be eaten. In short, Solomon declares that whereas he was able to figure out satisfactory reasons for all the legislations of the Torah concerning these creatures, the reason for the red cow legislation had escaped him. It is interesting that the numerical value of the words והיא רחוקה, which Solomon uses to describe his inability to fathom the meaning of something, is the same as that of פרה אדומה, “red cow” (341).
A different approach to the same verse: Even matters which have not been revealed to Moses will be revealed to Rabbi Akiva. This is based on Job 28,10: “his eyes behold every precious thing.” These words which describe someone as seeing “every precious thing” refer to Rabbi Akiva. Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought to myself that I would become wise, but it is beyond me.” The words: “I would become wise,” are a reference to the testimony in Kings I 5,9: “the Lord had given wisdom to Solomon and discernment in great measure....and his wisdom was greater than that of all the Kedemites and all the wisdom of Egypt.” What precisely did the wisdom of the Kedemites consist of? They knew how to interpret zodiac signs, were experts in astrology; they were also familiar with the tiar, a bird (raven?) based on Kohelet 10,20: “for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter.”
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel used to say that he liked three customs of the Orientals. They do not kiss on the mouth but on the hand; when they cut meat they always employ a knife; when they ask someone’s advice on a matter they invariably do this in the field (where they cannot be overheard). This latter practice is based on Yaakov consulting with his wives in the field on his decision to leave Lavan (compare Genesis 31,4). What did the wisdom of the Egyptians which Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel praised consist of? You will find that when Solomon was about to build the Temple he sent word to Pharaoh Necho asking him to supply him with artisans on loan to help him in the construction. How did Pharaoh answer this request? He consulted his astrologers to determine which of his artisans would not live out the year and he then dispatched these artisans to Solomon. When Solomon saw these people he realized with the aid of Holy Spirit that they were all going to die during that year. He provided each one with a shroud and sent them back to Pharaoh with a note reading: “were you short of shrouds in Egypt? Here I send you your artisans back with a gift of shrouds.” When the Book of Kings wrote that Solomon was wiser than “כל האדם, “any man” (or “Adam,”) what precisely did the unique wisdom of Adam consist of? You will find a discussion in the Midrash that when G’d was about to create Adam He consulted with the ministering angels about His plan saying: “let us make Adam in our image and in our likeness.” The angels countered: “what is so special about Adam that You want to bother with him?” G’d responded that the Adam He intended to create would be wiser than they. How did G’d proceed to prove His point? He assembled all the beasts, the birds, etc., and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do this. After G’d had created Adam, He paraded all the animals in front of him and asked him: “what is the name of this animal, etc.?” Adam replied: “this one is called “lion,” this one is called “giraffe,” this one is called “sheep,“ etc.; etc. This is the meaning of Genesis 2,20: “Adam called the names of all the beasts.”‘ All these names Adam gave the beasts were not merely arbitrary names he chose to call them by, but they reflected the essence of each animal respectively. I have already discussed this in greater detail in my commentary on Genesis 2,19. When G’d asked Adam what his own name was, he answered: “Adam.” He explained that he said this seeing he had been created out of אדמה, raw material taken from the soil. Thereupon G’d asked Adam what His name was. Adam answered that G’d’s name was the tetragram. When G’d wanted to know what had given him this idea, (seeing he had not been told) he answered: for You are the Master of all creatures. We know that Adam was correct from Isaiah 42,8 אני י-ה-ו-ה הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name.” G’d meant that He adopted (or retained this name) seeing the first human being Adam had bestowed it upon Him. This was a pact between Adam and G’d that G’d would henceforth be known by the name bestowed upon him by His first intelligent creature.
When we read in Kings I 5,11 that Solomon was wiser than Eytan the Ezrachi, whom did Jeremiah (author of that Book) have in mind when he wrote these words? It was a reference to Avraham. Psalm 89 is attributed to Avraham as the word האזרחי, at the beginning of that psalm is a reference to the “East” according to our sages in Baba Batra 15. Heyman is understood to be Moses (ibid). The philological connection is established by the word נאמן in Numbers 12,7 that G’d said of Moses בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in My entire House.” כלכל, another of the wise men mentioned in the chapter of the Book of Kings extolling Solomon’s wisdom is a reference to Joseph (who “provided” for all of Egypt economically with his wisdom). The Egyptians recognized that the only reason a man whom they considered a slave was able to rule over them was the extreme wisdom of Joseph which enabled him to maintain himself in that position. The Egyptians who had been suspicious of Joseph and his ability brought him seventy different pieces of paper, each in a different language, asking him to explain what was written thereon. Joseph was able to read each in its respective language. Not only that; Joseph also knew Hebrew, a tongue which the Egyptians did not understand. We base this on Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו, i.e. an allusion that Joseph knew something in addition to what anyone else knew. The word דרדע, another person named as very wise in Kings 5,11 is a reference to the generation of Israelites who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai in the desert and who had been granted insights exceeding that of any other generation. They were known as the דור דעה, “the generation imbued with knowledge.” The בני מחול who are also listed in the Book of Kings as possessing outstanding wisdom are an allusion to the people of the period of the golden calf whom G’d had forgiven their participation in that sin, hence they were called בני מחול, “people who had been pardoned.”
The Book of Kings there continues in quantifying Solomon’s wisdom by attributing to him no fewer than three thousand parables (proverbs) and over one thousand poems. Concerning this enigmatic statement Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni opines that he made a search of the entire Bible and could not come up with more than approximately 800 verses in which Solomon is mentioned as saying anything of significance. We are therefore forced to interpret these numbers mentioned in the Book of Kings not as original sayings recorded in the Bible but as the number of interpretations offered by Solomon on a far smaller number of texts. When Kings I 5,13 speaks about Solomon “speaking about trees,” one such example may be that Solomon examined the phenomenon of a person afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat requiring some of the wood from the tallest tree (cedar) and some of the wood from the most lowly tree (hyssop) to effect his purification. Solomon suggested that the cause of the affliction was that the person so stricken was guilty of arrogance, considering himself superior to his contemporaries. In order to be cured of this psychological defect he had to “lower” himself (even in his own eyes) to the level of the hyssop, the lowest of the trees in order to be fit to rejoin society. The Book of Kings goes on to describe part of Solomon’s wisdom as his ability to speak על הבהמה ועל העוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, “on the mammals, the birds, the creeping creatures and the fish.” He defined the reason why mammals, if fit to eat, require the severing of both the gullet and the windpipe, whereas birds require the severing of only one of these organs. He explained that this was related to the raw material these creatures were made of, i.e. the mammals were created from the soil (Genesis 1,24), whereas the birds were created from a mixture of water and soil, i.e. from mud (Genesis 1,20).
When Solomon is reported as speaking about the creeping things, the meaning is that he explained why eight of these species confer ritual impurity on contact with their carcass, etc. He also explained why people who hunt or injure these species on the Sabbath are guilty of a major infraction of the Sabbath legislation, whereas other related creeping creatures are not treated in that way by halachah, i.e. because these eight species are covered by skin (Shabbat 107). Concerning the statement in Kings that Solomon spoke about the fish, he explained why they do not require ritual slaughter in order to make them fit to eat for Israelites, as we know from Numbers 11,22 where Moses speaks of slaughter for mammals and fowl, but implies that the mere gathering in of fish make them fit to be eaten. In short, Solomon declares that whereas he was able to figure out satisfactory reasons for all the legislations of the Torah concerning these creatures, the reason for the red cow legislation had escaped him. It is interesting that the numerical value of the words והיא רחוקה, which Solomon uses to describe his inability to fathom the meaning of something, is the same as that of פרה אדומה, “red cow” (341).