Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk 2 Raja-raja 25:8

[Daniel 1:1] Bi-shnat (בִּשְׁנַת - In the... year): We find it written that Jehoiakim reigned for eleven years [II Kings 23:36; II Chronicles 36:5]. If so, what is the meaning of “in the third year of his reign”?! Now, concerning ["these are the sons of Josiah," I Chronicles 3:15] it is written that he left four sons: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. And we find that when Josiah died, his son reigned. Some of our Sages, of blessed memory, said that this Jehoahaz [who reigned first, II Kings 23:31] is Johanan. But behold, he reigned only three months [II Kings 23:31]. Then his brother Jehoiakim reigned after him, and he [Jehoiakim] was twenty-five years old [II Kings 23:36]. Now, he [Jehoahaz, who was 23, II Kings 23:31] was younger than Jehoiakim. So how could Scripture call [Johanan, identified by the Sages with Jehoahaz] the firstborn?! Therefore, they said [it means] "firstborn for kingship" [i.e., the first to be chosen to reign]. And [based on this line of reasoning] they were forced to say that Shallum is Zedekiah, because Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Shallum [Jeremiah 22:11-12] is adjacent to his prophecy concerning Zedekiah [Jeremiah 23:5-6]. Furthermore, [they argued this] because no one reigned over Israel after Zedekiah, and for Scripture to list a fourth [son, Shallum] merely as a name without substance [i.e., without significance] would be a strange way [of writing]. Now, understand that [contrary to those Sages] Jehoahaz is Shallum. And Johanan did not reign. And do not be astonished that Shallum is called by two names, for behold, Solomon is Qohelet [Ecclesiastes 1:1], and the sons of Samuel [were listed as] Vashni and Abijah [I Chronicles 6:13], yet elsewhere it is written that [the firstborn] was Joel [I Samuel 8:2]; and ʿAmminadav is Izhar [cf. I Chronicles 6:7, I Chronicles 6:23, based on certain lineage interpretations]; and Uriel is Zephaniah [cf. I Chronicles 6:9, I Chronicles 15:5, I Chronicles 15:11]; and many others like these. And in the Torah, Zerah is Zohar [Genesis 46:10 vs. Numbers 26:13 / Exodus 6:15 - different spellings for Simeon's son]. And the proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is that when the father [Josiah] died, Jehoiakim was 25 years old [II Kings 23:36], Zedekiah, who was the third [son listed in I Chronicles 3:15], was 24 (sic) years old, and Shallum was 23 years old [II Kings 23:31, giving Jehoahaz's age]. And [consistent with the people choosing the younger son first], it is written: “And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in place of his father Josiah” [II Kings 23:30]. And a second proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is that it is written that Pharaoh Neco took him [Jehoahaz] after he had reigned three months, brought him to Egypt, and he died there [II Kings 23:31-34]. And it is written in Jeremiah concerning Shallum: “he who went forth from this place shall never return, but shall die in the place where they carried him captive” [Jeremiah 22:11-12]. And do not be puzzled regarding what is written earlier [in Jeremiah 22, where prophecies about earlier kings seemingly placed after mentions of Zedekiah, e.g., Jeremiah 21:1]. For the beginning of the section is: “For thus says the Lord concerning the house of the king of Judah...” [Jeremiah 22:6]. [Jeremiah] recounts what the Lord had told him before Zedekiah reigned. And behold, he recounts what he prophesied concerning Jehoahaz (who is Shallum) after they had taken him to Egypt, and [also recounts prophecies] starting from “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness...” [Jeremiah 22:13] concerning Jehoiakim. And there it is written [Jeremiah 22:24] that afterwards he prophesied concerning Jehoiachin (Coniah), for so it is written there [“As I live... though Coniah...”]. And all three of these reigned before Zedekiah. And in the book of Ezekiel, where he said: “Take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel” [Ezekiel 19:1], who died [i.e., whose dynasty ended] and none of their sons remained as king. He begins with Jehoahaz, who is Shallum, saying: “And they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt” [Ezekiel 19:4]. And the [second] young lion [Ezekiel 19:5] is Jehoiakim, whom the king of Egypt made king. [Concerning him, Ezekiel says,] “They put him in a cage with hooks and brought him to the king of Babylon” [Ezekiel 19:9]. And similarly, it is written in Chronicles: “[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6]. And afterwards, he [Ezekiel] laments concerning Jehoiachin [symbolized by the vine]: “...her strong stem was consumed by fire” [Ezekiel 19:12]. And after that, he laments concerning Zedekiah: “Fire went out from the branch of its shoots, devoured its fruit, so that there remained in it no strong stem, no scepter to rule” [Ezekiel 19:14]. And behold, it has been clarified that they took Jehoiakim to Babylon. And let it not be difficult in your eyes because it says “to carry him to Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6] and does not say “and they carried him,” for behold, it is written concerning Zedekiah in Jeremiah: “and bound him in fetters to bring him to Babylon” [Jeremiah 39:7], and elsewhere it is written: “bound him in fetters and brought him to Babylon” [II Kings 25:7]. [Thus, Ibn Ezra argues, "to bring/carry" implies the action was completed]. And behold, it is written in Daniel: “In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar... came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it” [Daniel 1:1]. “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them (va-yvi'em - וַיְבִיאֵם) to the land of Shinar...” [Daniel 1:2]. Now the meaning is: He brought Jehoiakim and the vessels to his [Nebuchadnezzar's] god's house... And afterwards it says: “and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god” [Daniel 1:2]. Linguistically, it is not plausible to interpret “and he brought them” (va-yvi'em) [in the first instance] as referring only to the vessels, because [if it meant only vessels, the specific mention later would be redundant; the repetition implies] the first "them" included Jehoiakim, since it [also] specifically states “and the vessels he brought...”. And it is written in Chronicles: “He bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar also brought some of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his palace in Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6-7]. And Jeremiah prophesies concerning Jehoiakim: “He shall be buried with the burial of a donkey, dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” [Jeremiah 22:19]. Therefore, the one who says that the “third year of Jehoiakim's reign” (whom Pharaoh had made king) refers to the third year of his rebellion [against Nebuchadnezzar, which happened later] is mistaken. And therefore, I needed to explain [as follows]: That “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” (whom Pharaoh had made king), Nebuchadnezzar came against him and besieged Jerusalem, and captured it at the beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar [cf. Jeremiah 25:1], for so it is written. And behold, he [Nebuchadnezzar] took him [Jehoiakim] toward Babylon, and he [Jehoiakim] remained in fetters for about a year. Then Nebuchadnezzar commanded, and Jehoiakim returned to his kingship. “And Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him” [II Kings 24:1]. And Nebuchadnezzar or his troops came to Jerusalem, killed Jehoiakim, and dragged him outside the gates of Jerusalem. And his corpse was cast out and not buried, just as Jeremiah had prophesied [Jeremiah 22:19, Jeremiah 36:30]. And do not be puzzled by [the phrase]: “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers” [II Kings 24:6], for behold, it is [also] written [regarding Moses]: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers” [Deuteronomy 31:16], yet they [his fathers] died [in Canaan or Egypt], and he [Moses] died [in Moab, outside the land]. [The phrase simply means 'died', according to Ibn Ezra]. And behold, his son Jehoiachin reigned three months [II Kings 24:8]. And Nebuchadnezzar captured him in the eighth year of his [Nebuchadnezzar's] reign [II Kings 24:12]. This was the eleventh year [since the start] of Jehoiakim['s reign]. And Zedekiah reigned eleven years [II Kings 24:18]. And [the end of his reign/destruction] was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar [II Kings 25:8]. And behold, [around the time of the end of Jehoiakim's reign and] the three months [of Jehoiachin], Jehoiakim was killed and his son Jehoiachin went into exile. And do not be puzzled because you find it written [regarding an exile in] “in the seventh year” of Nebuchadnezzar [Jeremiah 52:28, contrasting with the 8th year in Kings for Jehoiachin's exile], and similarly concerning Zedekiah, [an exile is mentioned in] the eighteenth year [Jeremiah 52:29], whereas [the final destruction was in] the nineteenth year [II Kings 25:8]. For in the counting of [regnal years of] kings, both methods [accession year vs. non-accession year counting] exist. Do we not know that Jeroboam and Rehoboam began reigning in the same month? And behold, it is written that Rehoboam reigned 17 years [I Kings 14:21]. And Abijah his son reigned after him in the 18th year of Jeroboam [I Kings 15:1]. [This works, Ibn Ezra implies, if counting methods differed, e.g., if Rehoboam's partial first year was counted as year 1 (non-accession), and Jeroboam's wasn't (accession), leading to an apparent one-year shift]. And behold, I will explain this to you: One calculation [system] reckons from the Exodus from Egypt starting from Nisan [as the new year for kings], or for the creation of the world from Tishrei [as the general new year]. And [sometimes] a single day in a year is counted as a [full] year. [One method, non-accession] counts from the day the king began to reign until the completion of his [first calendar] year [which counts as year 1, even if short], [while another method, accession] starts counting year 1 from the next New Year. Therefore, the 18th year can [effectively correspond to] the 19th, depending on the counting method. And an analogy: [Consider a child] born on Friday before sunset in this city, which is Rûdôm (?), during the Tammuz season [summer solstice] when the day is fully 16 hours long. Behold, the son is circumcised on the morning of the following Friday, which is the eighth day according to the Torah's calculation [Leviticus 12:3], even though it is [only just over] seven full 24-hour periods later and lacks [about] 16 hours [from being a full eight times 24 hours]. [This illustrates how part of a day/year counts as a whole unit for the calculation]. And do not be puzzled because you find in Ezekiel [Ezekiel 19:9, concerning Jehoiakim, the second lion]: “They put him in a cage... that his voice should no more be heard on the mountains of Israel,” for Nebuchadnezzar's servants intended this [permanent removal], even though [according to Ibn Ezra's reconstruction] he returned briefly. And the meaning of “Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar?” [Jeremiah 22:15] that Jeremiah asked Jehoiakim, is that the prophecy concerning him means: Do you think your kingship will endure because you compete in [building luxurious palaces with] cedar? And now the difficult question remains: I have already mentioned that Zedekiah was 24 years old when his father died. Therefore, at the time of Jehoiakim's death and Jehoiachin's exile [approx. 11 years later], he would have been 35 years old (24 + 11 = 35). Yet it is written: “Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign” [II Kings 24:18; II Chronicles 36:11]! And this calculation [can be resolved if we understand] that he was called 'king' [or recognized as such by some] when he was 21 years old, [an event that happened earlier than his final accession]. The proof is what is written in Jeremiah: “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah,” the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah to make bonds and yokes and send them “to the king of Edom, the king of Moab... by the hand of the messengers who had come to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah” [Jeremiah 27:1-3]. For these [foreign] kings heard that Josiah had been killed, and they thought that Zedekiah, who was made king (or: who became designated as king) when he was 21 years old, would reign after him [Josiah, perhaps seen as the legitimate Davidic heir, despite Jehoiakim being installed by Egypt]. And there is no counter-argument from the [brief] reign of Jehoahaz, because the 'people of the land' made him king, and [the foreign kings] did not heed him (or perhaps: his brief reign was not widely known or considered stable), for he reigned only three months. [So, Ibn Ezra concludes, the reference to Zedekiah being 21 when he began to reign refers to this earlier point when he gained some recognition, likely around the 3rd/4th year of Jehoiakim, reconciling Jeremiah 27 with Kings/Chronicles]. There remains something [else] in the passage [of Jeremiah 27-28] to explain: namely, “And to Zedekiah king of Judah I spoke...” [Jeremiah 27:12]. Now, Jeremiah relates this matter of the yokes to Zedekiah at the time of his [main] reign after Jehoiachin's exile, and told him: “Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon...” [Jeremiah 27:12]. And there it is written [in the next chapter]: “And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year...” [Jeremiah 28:1]. [This presents a sequence issue: yokes made under Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 27:1), message delivered to Zedekiah later (Jeremiah 27:12), yoke broken in Zedekiah's 4th year (Jeremiah 28:1)]. And the meaning of “in the fourth year” [in Jeremiah 28:1, Ibn Ezra suggests] relates to when Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon [which was after 3 years of service, hence in his 4th year of vassalage, connecting Jeremiah 28 to the timing of Jeremiah 27]. And there is one [possible] harmonization: that Jeremiah prepared the yokes in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but [delivered the message and] sent them [symbolically] in the first year of Zedekiah's reign. However, there is no [strong textual] basis for this harmonization. And there was a great commentator in Spain, who explained books with grammatical precision, and he explained [Jeremiah 27:1, reading 'Zedekiah' where the text has 'Jehoiakim'] and said: that 'Zedekiah' [should be read] instead of 'Jehoiakim'. And similarly he said [interpreting allegorically or emending text]: 'And after Absalom, he did not turn aside' [I Kings 2:28] means 'for he is Solomon'; and 'And it was on the seventh day' means 'which is the fourth [day]'; and 'Set bounds around the mountain' [Exodus 19:12] means 'which is the people'. And similarly [he interpreted] many words, about two hundred of them. And the wind carries them all away! For how is it possible in language that a person says one word and intends another?! One who says such things is considered among the insane! And I have already refuted all of them [these types of interpretations, perhaps elsewhere]. And it is better for him [such a commentator] to say 'I do not know,' than to overturn the words of the living God.

AND I BURIED HER THERE. “Now I know that there is some resentment in your heart against me [for not having brought her into the city]. But you should know that I buried her there by the word of G-d, that she might help her children when Nebuzaradan³⁷Chief general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who destroyed the city of Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and led the people into captivity (II Kings 25:8-21). would exile them,” for when they passed along that road, Rachel came forth from her grave and stood by her tomb beseeching mercy for them, as it is said, A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children,³⁸Jeremiah 31:15. and the Holy One, blessed by He, answered her, Thy work shall be rewarded … and the children shall return to their own border.³⁹Ibid., Verses 16-17. This is the language of Rashi.
Now in any case there should be some allusion in Scripture to this interpretation which is stated in this Agadah. Perhaps this is alluded to in the expression of the verse, She died by me … in the way … And I buried her in the way,⁴⁰The second baderech (in the way) is unnecessary except as an allusion to “the way” which Rachel’s children were destined to use when they went into captivity. (Bachya. See my Hebrew commentary on Ramban, p. 261.) that is to say, “She died on the road which her children would pass, and I buried her there for her advantage.” She did not die on the road, but in Ramah,⁴¹See Ramban, above, 35:16. a city in the land of Benjamin, and there she was buried. [Thus, according to the Midrash, Scripture is implying that] she died on the road which her children were destined to pass in the future, as Scripture does not fully explain future events but only alludes to them in a general manner.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is likewise understood that Jacob spoke to Joseph in an apologetic vein so that when he discerned his father’s wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, Joseph should not be angered about his failure to bury his mother there just as he buried Leah there. It was for this reason that Jacob told him that she died in the land of Canaan, and she was not buried outside of the Land in the manner in which an Egyptian burial would befall Jacob. Furthermore, she died on the road suddenly, and he could not bury her in the cave of Machpelah for how could he leave his children and his flocks on the road and hurry with her body to the cave of Machpelah? And where could he find doctors and medicines to embalm her? This is the meaning of the word alai (by me) [in the verse, Rachel died by me]. Even though the cave of Machpelah is but a half-day’s distance from the place of her death, Jacob was heavily laden with much cattle and family, and he would not arrive there for many days. Thus he did indeed spend many days on that road until he came to his father. Our Sages have further taught:⁴²Moed Katan 27a. “The bier of a woman may never be set down, out of respect.”
Now it is my opinion that these are but words of apology as Joseph already knew that Rachel died on the road and was buried in the Land, and that honor was paid to her when she died. But the reason Jacob did not transport Rachel to the cave of Machpelah was so that he should not bury two sisters there,⁴³For being married concurrently to two sisters was later prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:18). See also Ramban above, pp. 330-2. for he would be embarassed before his ancestors. Now Leah was the one he married first, and thus her marriage was permissible, while he married Rachel out of his love for her and because of the vow he made to her.⁴⁴Since he married her while already married to Leah, the wedding to Rachel would have been forbidden according to the Torah’s later prohibition. Hence her burial place could not be in the cave of Machpelah. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 262.

Fugitives from the sword Israel, who was exiled into her midst, who escaped the sword of Nebuzaradan.