Commentaire de citation sur Samuel 1 24:11

הִנֵּה֩ הַיּ֨וֹם הַזֶּ֜ה רָא֣וּ עֵינֶ֗יךָ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־נְתָנְךָ֩ יְהוָ֨ה ׀ הַיּ֤וֹם ׀ בְּיָדִי֙ בַּמְּעָרָ֔ה וְאָמַ֥ר לַהֲרָגֲךָ֖ וַתָּ֣חָס עָלֶ֑יךָ וָאֹמַ֗ר לֹא־אֶשְׁלַ֤ח יָדִי֙ בַּֽאדֹנִ֔י כִּי־מְשִׁ֥יחַ יְהוָ֖ה הֽוּא׃

Certes, aujourd’hui même, tu le vois, aujourd’hui le Seigneur t’a mis en mon pouvoir dans la caverne, me permettant ainsi de te tuer; mais je t’ai épargné et j’ai dit: Je ne porterai pas la main sur mon maître, car il est l’oint du Seigneur.

Rashi

Be gracious to me, etc., be gracious to me that I should neither kill nor be killed.

Or HaChaim

אני חתנך…ואשתך ושני בניה, "I, your father-in-law as well as your wife and her two sons, etc." Why did the Torah change the order in which Moses' wife and children are mentioned from the order in which they were mentioned in verse five? In verse five the sons are described as belonging to Moses and are mentioned first, whereas here Tzipporah is mentioned first and the sons are described as being hers! Mechilta on our verse explains that Yitro sent word to Moses that if he would not come out to meet him because he was his father-in-law, at least he should come out to meet and to welcome his wife and children. We may therefore assume that the Torah used the same approach in once mentioning Tzipporah before the children and once after the children. If Moses would not come out to welcome Tzipporah as his wife, at least he should welcome her as the mother of his children. When the arrival of these persons in the desert is mentioned, however, they are mentioned in order of their respective importance. This is why the sons are mentioned ahead of Tzipporah. Even though in this instance Yitro mentioned the fact that he was Moses' father-in-law before mentioning his own name, whereas in verse five his name is mentioned before his status as Moses' father-in-law, in verse five the Torah speaks objectively, whereas in our verse the Torah quotes Yitro. Seeing that Yitro was a modest individual he would not mention his name first. Moses would go out to honour Yitro because he was his father-in-law even if he had no other claim to honour. You will find something similar in Samuel I 24,11 where David honoured Saul even though the latter tried to kill him.

Rashi

ואשר לא צדה AND IF A MAN LIE NOT IN WAIT — i. e. if he did not lie in ambush for him (the person whom he killed), nor did he premeditate the blow (Makkot 7b).

Rashi

צדה is a term denoting “lying in wait”; similarly it says, (I Samuel 24:12) “yet thou liest in wait (צדה) for my soul to take it”. It is, however, not correct to say that צדה is of the same derivation as, (Genesis 27:34) הצד ציד “he that hath hunted (הצד) venison”, for a ה has no place in the verbal forms of the term denoting “hunting beasts”. Then again, the noun form of the latter is צַיִד and that of the former צְדִיָה, whilst the participle of the verb “lying in wait” is צוֹדֶה and that of the other is צָד. I therefore say that its meaning is as the Targum gives it: “and if he did not lie in ambush for him”. Menachem ben Seruk placed it in the same section as הצד ציד (i. e. he held that the root is צד and that it has the meaning of “hunting”), but I do not agree with him. If it is to be placed in one of the sections of צד we had better place it in the same section as, (Isaiah 66:12) על צד תנשאו “ye shall be borne upon her side (צד)” and (I Samuel 20:20) “and I will shoot [three arrows] on the side thereof (צדה)”, and (Daniel 7:25) “and he shall speak towards the side of (against) the Most High”. Thus, here, the words אשד לא צדה could be taken to mean, “he did not turn aside (צִדֵּד)” to seek some side (occasion) for killing him. But there are objections even to this explanation. At any rate, even if it be connected with צד in this sense, it would still have the meaning “lying in wait”.

Rashi

but if you have come to betray me to my adversaries although there is no injustice in my hands for what have I done to Saul that he is stalking my soul to take it for nothing?