Commentaire de citation sur Samuel 2 1:9

Tanchuma Metzora 2, quoting Proverbs 18,21 that “life and death are within the power of the tongue,” says that everything depends on the tongue. If it is used properly it confers life, if it is abused it results in death for its owner. The word חיים, “life" in that context refers to Torah which has been described as עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה, “it is a tree of life for the ones who hold on to it.” In fact, Torah is an effective medication against the damage one has inflicted upon oneself through indulging in evil gossip. The Midrash bases this on Proverbs 15,4: “a tree of life is a healing tongue.” If the person had been engaged in disseminating evil gossip he had thereby forfeited his life; the sin of spreading evil gossip is considered morally as worse than killing. The reason is that when one kills one only kills a single life, whereas when one spreads evil gossip about someone one causes death to at least three people, i.e. the one who tells it, the one who listens to it (approvingly), and the one concerning whom the gossip is related.
Let us take an historical example from Samuel I 22,16: Doeg the Edomite who spread gossip about Achimelech son of Achitov was killed. Achimelech was killed by Saul who had accepted the slander without investigating it. King Saul was also killed as we know from Chronicles I 10,13: “Saul died on account of the trespass he committed against the Lord.” Saul himself is quoted as telling the Amalekite youth to give him the last stab as he was already in the throes of a death struggle” (Samuel II 1,9). He had become guilty for destroying Nov the city of priests based on evil gossip which he had not checked out. The word שבץ used by Saul and which we translated as “death throes,” are understood by the sages as a reference to the priestly garments as we know from Exodus 28,13 ועשית משבצות זהב, “make them golden settings.”
Doeg the Edomite was uprooted not only from life on earth but also from the hereafter as we know from Psalms 52,7: a hymn composed on that occasion, “G’d will tear you down for good, will break you and pluck you from your tent, and root you out of the land of the living, Selah.” [For a brilliant analysis of this psalm read the Alshich’s commentary. Ed.]
What is a greater sin? He who kills with the sword or he who kills by shooting an arrow? We would assume that killing by an arrow is the greater sin as the archer does not have to risk his own life in personal combat in order to achieve his goal. If this is true, it is clear that he who engages in evil gossip is guilty of the worst kind of assassination as he keeps out of danger himself. This is why character assassination is compared to shooting arrows at the victim such as in Jeremiah 9,7: “their tongue is sharpened like an arrow, they use their mouths to deceive; one speaks to his fellow in friendship, but lays an ambush for him in his heart.” Another verse describing something similar is found in Psalms 57,5: “people whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongue is a sharp sword.”

כתנת ,כתנת תשבץ ist ein Gewand, das, wie wir aus Wajikra 8, 7 ersehen, unmittelbar auf den Leib angezogen wurde. Es war nach V. 39 von Byssus. Es erhält seinen besonderen Charakter durch die Beifügung תשבץ. Diese Beifügung kann keine bloße Verzierung desselben bedeuten, da die ganze Anfertigung V. 19 ושבצת הכתנת שש lautet. תשבץ muss somit eine Eigentümlichkeit des Stoffes selbst bezeichnen. V. 11 und V. 20 kommt שבץ als Fassung von Edelsteinen vor. Sam. II. 1, 9 lässt der Amalekite den sterbenden Saul sagen: אחזני השבץ und scheint dies dort Krampf, Todeskampf zu bedeuten, eine Bedeutung, die der fest umklammernden Fassung von Edelsteinen sehr verwandt ist. Nach Raschi und Maim. הל׳ כלי המקדש VIII. 16 bildete das Gewebe des כתנת lauter Kästchenvertiefungen, wie die Kästchen zur Einfassung von Steinen. כמו בית הכוסות fügt Maimonides erläuternd hinzu, wie der Netzmagen oder die Haube der Wiederkäuer, dessen innere Fläche lauter rautenförmige Vertiefungen bildet. Wir haben daher תשבץ: Kassettenarbeit übersetzt.

AVNEI SHOHAM’ (ONYX STONES) ‘V’AVNEI MILU’IM’ (AND STONES FOR SETTING). “Because they used to make a setting for the stone in gold — a kind of indentation — and they placed the stone there to fill the indentation, they are called avnei milu’im (stones for filling-in), and the place of the indentation is called mishbetzet (setting). FOR THE EPHOD AND THE BREASTPLATE. The onyx stones were for the ephod, and the stones for setting were for the breastplate.” This is Rashi’s language. Similarly Rashi explained: “They shall be inclosed in gold in their settings,⁵⁸Further, 28:20. — surrounded by gold settings of such a depth that each setting shall be filled by the thickness of the stone. This is the meaning of the word milu’otham (their filling),⁵⁸Further, 28:20. and this is the meaning of every expression of milui (filling) mentioned in this connection.”
But it does not appear to me to be at all correct to say that Scripture calls them already now avnei milu’im, because in some time as yet in the future He was to command that the indentations made for them were to be filled with these stones! Moreover, the onyx stones were also enclosed in settings of gold,⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. and yet He did not call them milu’im. Again, our Rabbis have already said in the Gemara:⁶⁰Sotah 48b. “These stones⁶¹The onyx stones for the ephod, and the stones for setting in the breastplate. Ramban will later suggest that the reference perhaps is only to the stones for setting in the breastplate. See further, Note 76. are not incised with a chisel,⁶²For the purpose of writing the names of the tribes upon the stones (further, 28:12, and 21). for it is said b’milu’otham⁵⁸Further, 28:20. (in their filling).” Now if the explanation b’milu’otham would be, [as Rashi has it], that they fill the indentations with the stones, there would have been no proof at all from this verse that they should not incise the names [of the tribes] on them with a chisel. Besides, the manner of the setting of the stones which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, namely that it was made in a kind of indentation, is not correct. Instead, it is as Onkelos rendered it: [meshubatzim zahav — inclosed in gold] meramtzan didhav,⁵⁸Further, 28:20. which means that they made at the bottom a gold setting according to the measure of the stone, and from it they projected a fork-like shape of three prongs which would hold the stone. [The word meramtzan mentioned by Onkelos] is similar to the expressions of the Sages: “and they take it out beramtza (with a pointed tool) made of iron;”⁶³Niddah 62a. “as when he bored a hole in it beramtza (with a pick) made of iron.”⁶⁴Shabbath 103a. This is how they also do it today when they set precious stones in rings, in order that they be seen from all angles and that their beauty and splendor should not be hidden in the indentations. You may know that this is so, for the two gold chains inserted in the two rings of the breastplate were attached to the mishb’tzoth on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.⁶⁵Further, 28:24-25. Now if mishb’tzoth were [as Rashi said] frames for the setting of the stone, how would they attach to them the chains? And even [if there were there other mishb’tzoth not for the setting of the stone but for the purpose of inserting the chains] how would the indentations serve that purpose [as they were not perforated for the chains to go through]? Rather, the mishb’tzoth are the fork-like prongs as we have said and the holes for the chains were made in them. Associated with the word mishb’tzoth is, in my opinion, [Saul’s expression, Slay me] for ‘hashabatz’ hath taken hold of me⁶⁶II Samuel 1:9. these being the men who hold spear-like weapons with mounted forks on top to catch those that flee the battle-field, just as it is said, and lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him.⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 6.
And the meaning of musaboth mishb’tzoth⁶⁸Further, 28:11. is that he should fix the gold prongs “around it.” And in the opinion of Onkelos who translated [musaboth as] meshak’on [literally: “depressed,” “sunk”], the stones were sunk into the frames from which came forth prongs surrounding them above and holding them in place.
But the sense of the word milu’im is that the stones be whole as they were created, and that they should not be hewn stones which were cut from a large quarry, or from which anything has been chipped off. It is also known in the natural sciences that the complete powers of precious stones and the particular qualities that distinguish them, exist only when in their natural state, as when smooth stones are taken from the river. This is why Onkelos translated [avnei milu’im — avnei] ashlamutha (stones of perfection). But the term milui (filling of) vessels or an indentation [Onkelos] translates literally, — thus: 'va’t'malei' (and she filled) her pitcher,⁶⁹Genesis 24:16. Onkelos translated: u’mleiah (and she filled), and similarly in all other cases — but here he translated the term milui to mean shleimuth (perfection). Similarly, he translated the verse, ‘milei’ (He filled) them with wisdom of heart⁷⁰Further, 35:35. — ashleim (“He perfected” them with wisdom of heart), as wisdom is not something that you can fill a vessel with, but instead it denotes perfection, that they [i.e. Bezalel and Oholiab — who did the workmanship of the Tabernacle] were perfect in wisdom. This is the intent of the verse, and in cutting of stones 'l’maloth'⁷¹Ibid., 31:5. — that they knew how to engrave like the engravings of a signet upon stones in their [natural] perfect state.
Now in the case of the stones of the ephod it is said, however, with the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones, according to the names of the children of Israel⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. [but it does not say here b’milu’otham — “in their perfect state”], because they made an incision in them when writing the names [of the tribes upon them] as stone engravers do, and thus the stones were no longer in their [natural] perfect state. But in the case of the stones for the breastplate it is written, ‘umileitha’ in it ‘miluath’ of stone,⁷²Ibid., 28:17. and again it is written of them, they shall be ‘b’milu’otham;’⁷³Ibid., Verse 20. and the stones [of the breastplate] were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names⁷⁴Ibid., 39:14. — not the work of engravers [who make incisions upon the stones]. Therefore Moses our teacher could find no way [of inscribing the names of the tribes of Israel upon the twelve stones in the breastplate] except by means of the shamir [a worm that cuts stones with its glance] which our Rabbis mentioned, just as they have said in Tractate Sotah:⁷⁵Sotah 48b. “These stones⁷⁶I.e. the stones of the breastplate. See above Note 61. are not written upon with ink, for it is said, like the engravings of a signet,⁷⁷Further, 28:21. “And this means carving” (Rashi, ibid., Sotah). — The verse is mentioned in connection with the stones of the breastplate. and they are not incised with a chisel, for it is said b’milu’otham (in their perfect state).⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 20. — Also in connection with the stones of the breastplate. But instead [Moses] brought the shamir and showed it the stones and they split of their own accord.” Now the word b’milu’otham is said only in connection with the stones of the breastplate. Do not be troubled by what is mentioned in the Agadah (homily, tradition) that the Rabbis said to Solomon:⁷⁹Gittin 68a. In preparing to build the Sanctuary, Solomon asked the Rabbis: “How shall I accomplish the cutting of the stones without using iron tools?” They replied: “There is the shamir etc.” “There is the shamir with which Moses cut the precious stones of the ephod.” [From this you might argue that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham — in their perfect natural state — which would be contrary to what we have said above, that this applied only to the stones of the breastplate! Do not be troubled by this statement,] for the breastplate is called ephod by the Rabbis by way of metaphor, because the breastplate is attached thereto. It is also written, Bring hither the ephod,⁸⁰I Samuel 23:9. and it was of the breastplate that they asked [for guidance].⁸¹See Ramban further, 28:30. Thus the explanation of the verse before us is as follows: “onyx stones three — two for the ephod⁸²Further, 28:9. and one for the breastplate;⁸³Ibid., Verse 20. and stones of ‘milu’im’ for the breastplate.” And in case the opinion of our Rabbis was that the stones of the ephod also had to be in their full natural state [as the stones of the breastplate], then both the onyx stones and the stones of ‘milu’im’ were for both, for the ephod and for the breastplate.⁸⁴In other words, if that be the opinion of the Rabbis that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham (in their full natural state), then they derived it from this verse as explained in the text. For — the ephod and the breastplate — had both the onyx stones and the stones of milu’im. Of the ephod it is clearly written that it had two onyx stones (further, 28:9), and according to the Rabbis these were also b’milu’otham (in their full natural state). In the case of the breastplate b’milu’otham is clearly mentioned (ibid., Verse 20) and so is the onyx stone (ibid.). Thus the verse before us, stones of onyx and stones of ‘milu’im’ means that both were for the ephod and for the breastplate.