כִּ֣י מַרְבִּ֣ית הָעָ֡ם רַ֠בַּת מֵֽאֶפְרַ֨יִם וּמְנַשֶּׁ֜ה יִשָּׂשכָ֤ר וּזְבֻלוּן֙ לֹ֣א הִטֶּהָ֔רוּ כִּֽי־אָכְל֥וּ אֶת־הַפֶּ֖סַח בְּלֹ֣א כַכָּת֑וּב כִּי֩ הִתְפַּלֵּ֨ל יְחִזְקִיָּ֤הוּ עֲלֵיהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר יְהוָ֥ה הַטּ֖וֹב יְכַפֵּ֥ר בְּעַֽד׃
Sebab sebagian besar rakyat, yaitu banyak orang dari Efraim, Manasye, Isakhar, dan Zebulon, belum mentahirkan diri, tetapi mereka memakan kurban Pesakh tidak sesuai dengan yang tertulis. Sebab Hizkia telah berdoa bagi mereka, katanya: “Yang Mahakekal yang baik kiranya mengampuni
Ramban
A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A FIRE-OFFERING). When he slaughters it he should slaughter it with the intention of [burning it by] fire, [as will be explained further on]. Wherever the word isheih occurs, it is an expression of fire. PLEASING — it is pleasing to Me that I have commanded and My will was done.” This is the language of Rashi.
Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara102Zebachim 46b. the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators103Rashi ibid. explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ”104Sanhedrin 70a. “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find:105Erubin 29b. “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim:102Zebachim 46b. “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire,106Verse 12. and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:107Shabbath 36b. “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.”
Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length.
But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound109See Jeremiah 6:14. and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted,110Malachi 1:12. [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor.111Further, 3:16. Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs,112Ibid., 17:7. and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it.113Exodus 32:8. — In other words, despite the Torah commanding that these three animal species, [the herd, the flock, and the goats] should be offered up to G-d, idol-worshippers, who had other forms of deities, could still consider these offerings to be marks of honor to their own particular foolishness, as is evidenced by the fact that they used to sacrifice herd and flock to the goats, or to the calf! Thus how could the offerings specified in the Torah be a cure against all idols? This is the gist of Ramban’s argument. It is more readily understood in the light of Ramban’s explanation on the development of idolatry in Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 3, which indicates that the early idolators believed in a Supreme G-d. See also further, Note 117. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do!
Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor,114Genesis 8:21. and on account of it He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’114Genesis 8:21. Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering.115Ibid., 4:4. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’116Numbers 23:4. His intent117I.e., G-d’s intent. In other words, the fact that Balaam who was not commanded by the laws of the Torah, brought offerings of the herd and the flock, shows that G-d’s intent in commanding Israel that the offerings be brought from the three animal species was not to cure people of these evil idolatrous beliefs, as Balaam was not commanded therein. then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me.118Numbers 28:2. Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools!119This concludes Ramban’s array of arguments against Rambam’s rationale of the offerings. It is important to point out that many great authors came to Rambam’s defense, as there are many Scriptural and Rabbinical sources which seem to confirm his opinion, and the questions Ramban raised have been answered by them. A summary of them will be found in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 11-12. See there also for the unique approach of Rabbi Meir Simcha in harmonizing the theories of both Rambam and Ramban.
It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars120The reference is to Ibn Ezra. This is clearly apparent in Ramban’s language in his sermon called Torath Hashem Temimah, where he writes: “Now the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on the matter of the offerings is that they are an atonement for the soul. The explanation of the matter on the basis of his opinion is that the offerings …” (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 164). It is thus clear that what follows is Ramban’s interpretation of the way he understood Ibn Ezra’s thought. This explains why the following exposition is not found verbatim in Ibn Ezra’s writings. See my Hebrew commentary (beginning with the third edition, p. 532). say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah.73The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre121Sifre, Pinchas 143. — The Sifre is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Torath Kohanim [or Sifra] on the Book of Leviticus, and the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus. and at the end of Tractate Menachoth:122Menachoth 110a. “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack.123“They will bring proof from the fact that a deity with such-and-such a name commanded that the meal-offering be brought to him, and a deity of another name commanded that the bullocks [be offered to him], and a deity of a third name commanded that the ram [be offered to him]” (Rashi ibid.), — In his work on the Torah “Meshech Chochmah” (at the beginning of Seder Shoftim) Rabbi Meir Simchah explains the intent of Shimon ben Azai’s words in the following pertinent way: “It is known that the name Elokim means Master of all (natural) forces, or the Force of forces (see Ramban, Vol. I, p. 25). Hence if the name Elokim or E-il had been used in the section of the offerings it would have given an opportunity to the opponents [of the belief in the true Unity of G-d] that He is in need of food [i.e., in need of replenishing His powers]. Therefore only the Tetragrammaton is used in this whole section in order to indicate that His Existence is the only true Existence, and that everything exists only through His true Existence, for they are all in need of Him, but He is not in need of them nor of any of them.” Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.124Psalms 50:12. I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find:125Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 2:5. “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory.
Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d);126Deuteronomy 27:6. the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), they do offer;127Further, 21:6. thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d).128Ibid., Verse 8. In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving.129Psalms 50:14. It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel.130II Chronicles 29:6-7. Here too the Name Elokei Yisrael (the G-d of Israel) is used in connection with the burnt-offering, instead of the Proper Divine Name.
But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings),131Numbers 28:2. — The word l’ishai [vowelled with a patach] means, “for My ishim — fires,” as alluded to further on. See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering),132Further, 3:11. meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes];133The verse reads: and the priest shall cause ‘hakol’ (all) to ascend in fumes on the altar ‘olah’, (a burnt-offering) ‘isheih’ … Now the word isheih which is in the masculine, is the adjective to the word hakol which is also in the masculine, and not to the word olah which is in the feminine. and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,134Further, 2:2. [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering).135Ibid., 3:11. In other words, although here in Verse 9 it is stated isheih, and so also in many other places, the word is yet to be understood as isheh, which is surely a noun and not an adjectival noun (as Ibn Ezra explained it). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount136Exodus 27:8. — See here my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)…137Further, 8:21. The word olah (burnt-offering) also means “ascending” — thus alluding to its ascension to the highest emanation. Hence the expression, it is an ‘olah’ unto the Eternal … That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy,138Further, 21:6. for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said122Menachoth 110a. that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d),139These Names represent the attribute of justice. The Tetragrammaton [“the Eternal”] represents the attribute of mercy. but a fire-offering unto the Eternal,140Further, 2:16, etc. a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,141Here in Verse 9, etc. for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages:142Sanhedrin 60b. “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.”
And in the Torath Kohanim143Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:6 (end of chapter). it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High;129Psalms 50:14. For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth.144Psalms 47:3. The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings,145Ibid., 50:7-8. Ramban is here suggesting that the first Name Elokim is here like the Proper Name — “the Eternal” (Ma’or V’shamesh). This is obvious from the following words of Ramban. just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.146Exodus 20:2. This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc.,147Psalms 50:1. using the full Divine Name148G-d, the Eternal spoke. (On “the full Divine Name” see in Vol. I, p. 66). in reference to the world,149The verse there continues: and He called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house,150Isaiah 60:7. meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) the spirit of Elijah on Elisha;151II Kings 2:15. ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them.152Numbers 11:26. Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel,153II Chronicles 29:7. See Note 130 above. for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread,154Judges 13:16. meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it.154Judges 13:16. Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar.155Ibid., 20. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!156II Chronicles 30:18. See also Vol. I, p. 437, Note 275. — The idea suggested here by Ramban is that in order to disprove certain erroneous explanations about the offerings, he had to resort to discuss openly some of the mystic teachings of the Cabala. Hence his prayer for forgiveness.
Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara102Zebachim 46b. the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators103Rashi ibid. explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ”104Sanhedrin 70a. “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find:105Erubin 29b. “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim:102Zebachim 46b. “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire,106Verse 12. and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:107Shabbath 36b. “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.”
Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length.
But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound109See Jeremiah 6:14. and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted,110Malachi 1:12. [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor.111Further, 3:16. Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs,112Ibid., 17:7. and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it.113Exodus 32:8. — In other words, despite the Torah commanding that these three animal species, [the herd, the flock, and the goats] should be offered up to G-d, idol-worshippers, who had other forms of deities, could still consider these offerings to be marks of honor to their own particular foolishness, as is evidenced by the fact that they used to sacrifice herd and flock to the goats, or to the calf! Thus how could the offerings specified in the Torah be a cure against all idols? This is the gist of Ramban’s argument. It is more readily understood in the light of Ramban’s explanation on the development of idolatry in Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 3, which indicates that the early idolators believed in a Supreme G-d. See also further, Note 117. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do!
Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor,114Genesis 8:21. and on account of it He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’114Genesis 8:21. Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering.115Ibid., 4:4. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’116Numbers 23:4. His intent117I.e., G-d’s intent. In other words, the fact that Balaam who was not commanded by the laws of the Torah, brought offerings of the herd and the flock, shows that G-d’s intent in commanding Israel that the offerings be brought from the three animal species was not to cure people of these evil idolatrous beliefs, as Balaam was not commanded therein. then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me.118Numbers 28:2. Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools!119This concludes Ramban’s array of arguments against Rambam’s rationale of the offerings. It is important to point out that many great authors came to Rambam’s defense, as there are many Scriptural and Rabbinical sources which seem to confirm his opinion, and the questions Ramban raised have been answered by them. A summary of them will be found in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 11-12. See there also for the unique approach of Rabbi Meir Simcha in harmonizing the theories of both Rambam and Ramban.
It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars120The reference is to Ibn Ezra. This is clearly apparent in Ramban’s language in his sermon called Torath Hashem Temimah, where he writes: “Now the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on the matter of the offerings is that they are an atonement for the soul. The explanation of the matter on the basis of his opinion is that the offerings …” (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 164). It is thus clear that what follows is Ramban’s interpretation of the way he understood Ibn Ezra’s thought. This explains why the following exposition is not found verbatim in Ibn Ezra’s writings. See my Hebrew commentary (beginning with the third edition, p. 532). say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah.73The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre121Sifre, Pinchas 143. — The Sifre is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Torath Kohanim [or Sifra] on the Book of Leviticus, and the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus. and at the end of Tractate Menachoth:122Menachoth 110a. “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack.123“They will bring proof from the fact that a deity with such-and-such a name commanded that the meal-offering be brought to him, and a deity of another name commanded that the bullocks [be offered to him], and a deity of a third name commanded that the ram [be offered to him]” (Rashi ibid.), — In his work on the Torah “Meshech Chochmah” (at the beginning of Seder Shoftim) Rabbi Meir Simchah explains the intent of Shimon ben Azai’s words in the following pertinent way: “It is known that the name Elokim means Master of all (natural) forces, or the Force of forces (see Ramban, Vol. I, p. 25). Hence if the name Elokim or E-il had been used in the section of the offerings it would have given an opportunity to the opponents [of the belief in the true Unity of G-d] that He is in need of food [i.e., in need of replenishing His powers]. Therefore only the Tetragrammaton is used in this whole section in order to indicate that His Existence is the only true Existence, and that everything exists only through His true Existence, for they are all in need of Him, but He is not in need of them nor of any of them.” Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.124Psalms 50:12. I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find:125Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 2:5. “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory.
Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d);126Deuteronomy 27:6. the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), they do offer;127Further, 21:6. thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d).128Ibid., Verse 8. In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving.129Psalms 50:14. It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel.130II Chronicles 29:6-7. Here too the Name Elokei Yisrael (the G-d of Israel) is used in connection with the burnt-offering, instead of the Proper Divine Name.
But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings),131Numbers 28:2. — The word l’ishai [vowelled with a patach] means, “for My ishim — fires,” as alluded to further on. See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering),132Further, 3:11. meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes];133The verse reads: and the priest shall cause ‘hakol’ (all) to ascend in fumes on the altar ‘olah’, (a burnt-offering) ‘isheih’ … Now the word isheih which is in the masculine, is the adjective to the word hakol which is also in the masculine, and not to the word olah which is in the feminine. and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,134Further, 2:2. [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering).135Ibid., 3:11. In other words, although here in Verse 9 it is stated isheih, and so also in many other places, the word is yet to be understood as isheh, which is surely a noun and not an adjectival noun (as Ibn Ezra explained it). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount136Exodus 27:8. — See here my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)…137Further, 8:21. The word olah (burnt-offering) also means “ascending” — thus alluding to its ascension to the highest emanation. Hence the expression, it is an ‘olah’ unto the Eternal … That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy,138Further, 21:6. for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said122Menachoth 110a. that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d),139These Names represent the attribute of justice. The Tetragrammaton [“the Eternal”] represents the attribute of mercy. but a fire-offering unto the Eternal,140Further, 2:16, etc. a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,141Here in Verse 9, etc. for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages:142Sanhedrin 60b. “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.”
And in the Torath Kohanim143Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:6 (end of chapter). it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High;129Psalms 50:14. For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth.144Psalms 47:3. The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings,145Ibid., 50:7-8. Ramban is here suggesting that the first Name Elokim is here like the Proper Name — “the Eternal” (Ma’or V’shamesh). This is obvious from the following words of Ramban. just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.146Exodus 20:2. This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc.,147Psalms 50:1. using the full Divine Name148G-d, the Eternal spoke. (On “the full Divine Name” see in Vol. I, p. 66). in reference to the world,149The verse there continues: and He called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house,150Isaiah 60:7. meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) the spirit of Elijah on Elisha;151II Kings 2:15. ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them.152Numbers 11:26. Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel,153II Chronicles 29:7. See Note 130 above. for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread,154Judges 13:16. meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it.154Judges 13:16. Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar.155Ibid., 20. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!156II Chronicles 30:18. See also Vol. I, p. 437, Note 275. — The idea suggested here by Ramban is that in order to disprove certain erroneous explanations about the offerings, he had to resort to discuss openly some of the mystic teachings of the Cabala. Hence his prayer for forgiveness.
Ramban
AND TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE TO ELIPHAZ ESAU’s SON. Because Scripture was not particular to tell us the names of the mothers of all the others, our Rabbis have interpreted that this was to tell us of the esteem in which Abraham our father was held, i.e., how eager people were to attach themselves to his descendants. This Timna was a descendant of chieftains, as it is said, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,263Verse 22 here. [and Lotan was one of the chieftains of Se’ir]. She said to Eliphaz, “If I am unworthy to become your wife, would that I might become your concubine,” as Rashi has written.
It is possible that the five sons of Eliphaz, mentioned in the preceding verse, were generally known as his children since he had begotten them from his wives. But Amalek, [born of Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz], was not known among his brothers, [who were the recognized children of Eliphaz], and he might have been included among Esau’s children because he was his descendant. Therefore, Scripture found it necessary to say that his mother so-and-so, to whom Amalek was known to have belonged, bore him to Eliphaz, but he is not listed among the descendants of Esau and did not dwell with them on mount Se’ir. Only the sons of the mistresses, and not the son of a concubine, are called Esau’s seed, since the son of the handmaid will not be heir with his sons, in keeping with the practice of his father’s father.264Above, 21:10.
Now concerning the descendants of Esau, we have been commanded not to abhor them265Deuteronomy 23:8. or take their land.266Ibid., 2:5. This refers to all his known sons who dwell in Se’ir, as they are called Edomites by his name, but the son of the concubine is not part of the descendants of Esau, and he did not inherit together with them in their land, and in fact with respect to him we have been commanded to the contrary, i.e., to abhor him and blot out his name.267Ibid., 25:19.
Now Rashi wrote further: “In the book of Chronicles268I Chronicles 1:36. Scripture enumerates Timna among the children of Eliphaz! This implies that he lived with Se’ir the Horite’s wife and from this union Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. And this is why Scripture says, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,263Verse 22 here. [since Lotan’s father was Se’ir the Horite]. And the reason why Scripture does not enumerate her among Se’ir’s children is that she was Lotan’s sister maternally but not paternally.”
But I do not agree with this since in the book Chronicles, it should have said, “and Timna his daughter.”269See further, 46:15: “and Dinah his daughter.” Why should Scripture enumerate the woman among the sons? Perhaps Scripture is not particular about this when a matter is known for so we find there in Chronicles: And the sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, etc.270I Chronicles 5:29. [Scripture thus enumerates a woman among the sons.] If so, it is fitting that we say that this Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz, who had been born to him of the wife of Se’ir the Horite after the death of her husband, and she was thus Lotan’s sister from one mother. Eliphaz took her as a concubine, this being permissible to an idolater.271Sanhedrin 55b. Or we shall say, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis [that Timna was illegitimate, as explained above in the words of Rashi], that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles268I Chronicles 1:36. is identical with Timna the chieftain mentioned further on,272Verse 40 here. for he is enumerated there in Chronicles268I Chronicles 1:36. among the sons of Eliphaz, just as Korah is enumerated there273I Chronicles 1:35. among the sons of Esau [while here in Verses 15-16 Korah is listed among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude that he was illegitimate, as was Timna]. Furthermore, Korah is listed here in Verse 5 as the son of Oholibamah [and Esau, and further in Verse 16 he is enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude] that both Korah and Timna were illegitimate, born of one father, and enumerated with the children of another, for it is far-fetched to say that the woman Timna was enumerated among the sons, as was suggested above.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it is feasible to conjecture that Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz, after having given birth to Amalek [as stated in our present verse], gave birth to a son, and she had hard labor and died. As her soul was departing she called his name Timna so that her name be remembered, while his father Eliphaz called him Korah. Scripture, however, does not ascribe this son Timna to Timna his mother in order not to prolong the account for the intent is only to enumerate Amalek by himself. However, the sons of Eliphaz were seven, [as they are enumerated here in Verses 15-16, and Korah is among them]. Now Scripture enumerates there the chieftains who were the sons of Eliphaz in the order of their importance. Therefore, it gave Kenaz and Korah precedence over Gatam [although the order of their birth as stated in Verse 11 was: Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz].
I have an additional opinion concerning this verse in connection with that which our Rabbis have said in the Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules by which Agadah274The part of Rabbinic teaching which explains the Bible homiletically, as opposed to the Halachic (or legal) interpretation, which is governed by the famous thirteen principles of interpretation mentioned by Rabbi Ishmael. This Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules” for Agadah was collated by Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. is explained.” There they mentioned this rule: “There should have been one arrangement for [two verses, meaning that there are verses which should really be combined] but the prophets divided them for some reason! An example is the verse which says, For a multitude of the people, etc.”275For a multitude of the people… had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise that it is written. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: The good Lord pardon, (II Chronicles 30:18). And then in Verse 19 it continues: His whole heart he hath set to seek G-d, the Eternal, the G-d of his fathers, though not according to the purification that pertaineth to holy things. Now Verse 18 does not explain whom G-d should pardon, while Verse 19 does not explain “who set his heart, etc.” Combining the two verses makes the sense clear. Hezekiah prayed that the good Lord pardon every one who, though he had not cleansed himself according, etc., had set his whole heart to seek G-d. Those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture apply this to other verses. And so too this verse says: (And) the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam and Kenaz,276This concludes Verse 11, while And Timna begins Verse 12. Ramban combines the two verses into one, with the result that Timna is also enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. and Timna. Then Scripture returns to say, there was a concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek, but Scripture does not mention the name of the concubine. But in truth she was Timna, as it is said, Lotan’s sister was Timna,263Verse 22 here. and this is the reason that Scripture did not mention her name here since it did not want to say “and Timna” twice, once in reference to the male chieftain and once in reference to the female concubine. Thus Eliphaz had seven sons, [who are enumerated in Verses 11-12: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek], and they are the same chieftains ascribed to Eliphaz in Verses 15-16, but they changed the name of this youngest son of Eliphaz — namely Timna — to Korah because his name was like that of the concubine and so that he should not be thought of as her son. He was named Korah upon his ascending to the position of chieftain.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Korah the son of Esau’s wife Oholibamah is counted twice; [in Verse 5 he is mentioned as Oholibamah’s son while in Verse 16 he is listed as Adah’s son], because he was the youngest of Oholibamah’s sons, [as indicated in Verse 5 where he is mentioned last. Upon his mother’s death] Adah raised him, [which explains why he is mentioned among Adah’s children in Verse 16]. So also the verse, the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul,277II Samuel 21:8. as our Rabbis have said.278Sanhedrin 19 b: “But they were really Merab’s children! [See I Samuel 18:19.] It is because Merab gave birth to them. However Michal raised them; therefore, they are called by her name.”
According to this opinion [of Ibn Ezra, i.e., that because Adah raised Korah he is counted among her children], the explanation of Scripture in the book of Chronicles (I, 1:36), [where it mentions seven sons of Eliphaz, and among them, and Timna and Amalek, while here in Verses 11-12, it mentions only six sons of Eliphaz, is as follows: The expression in Chronicles, and Timna and Amalek, means] that Timna gave birth to Amalek, the sense of the verse thus being, “and to Timna, Amalek.” The letter lamed meaning “to” is missing just as in the verse: And there were two men that were captains of bands Saul’s son,279II Samuel 4:2. which means “to Saul’s son.” [Thus it was Timna who was his mother, but because Adah raised him he is enumerated here in Verse 12 among the sons of Adah].
The correct interpretation however is, as I have suggested, [that Timna, Lotan’s sister, bore Amalek to Eliphaz], and the verse stating, And these are the sons of Adah — [namely, Verse 16, which mentions Amalek among them], refers to the majority of the names mentioned there, for Amalek was not her son. Similarly the verse, These are the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Padan-aram,280Above, 35:26. does not apply to Benjamin, [who was born in the Land of Israel, although he is mentioned in the enumeration which follows].
It is possible that the five sons of Eliphaz, mentioned in the preceding verse, were generally known as his children since he had begotten them from his wives. But Amalek, [born of Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz], was not known among his brothers, [who were the recognized children of Eliphaz], and he might have been included among Esau’s children because he was his descendant. Therefore, Scripture found it necessary to say that his mother so-and-so, to whom Amalek was known to have belonged, bore him to Eliphaz, but he is not listed among the descendants of Esau and did not dwell with them on mount Se’ir. Only the sons of the mistresses, and not the son of a concubine, are called Esau’s seed, since the son of the handmaid will not be heir with his sons, in keeping with the practice of his father’s father.264Above, 21:10.
Now concerning the descendants of Esau, we have been commanded not to abhor them265Deuteronomy 23:8. or take their land.266Ibid., 2:5. This refers to all his known sons who dwell in Se’ir, as they are called Edomites by his name, but the son of the concubine is not part of the descendants of Esau, and he did not inherit together with them in their land, and in fact with respect to him we have been commanded to the contrary, i.e., to abhor him and blot out his name.267Ibid., 25:19.
Now Rashi wrote further: “In the book of Chronicles268I Chronicles 1:36. Scripture enumerates Timna among the children of Eliphaz! This implies that he lived with Se’ir the Horite’s wife and from this union Timna was born. When she grew up she became his concubine. And this is why Scripture says, And Lotan’s sister was Timna,263Verse 22 here. [since Lotan’s father was Se’ir the Horite]. And the reason why Scripture does not enumerate her among Se’ir’s children is that she was Lotan’s sister maternally but not paternally.”
But I do not agree with this since in the book Chronicles, it should have said, “and Timna his daughter.”269See further, 46:15: “and Dinah his daughter.” Why should Scripture enumerate the woman among the sons? Perhaps Scripture is not particular about this when a matter is known for so we find there in Chronicles: And the sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, etc.270I Chronicles 5:29. [Scripture thus enumerates a woman among the sons.] If so, it is fitting that we say that this Timna was the daughter of Eliphaz, who had been born to him of the wife of Se’ir the Horite after the death of her husband, and she was thus Lotan’s sister from one mother. Eliphaz took her as a concubine, this being permissible to an idolater.271Sanhedrin 55b. Or we shall say, in accordance with the opinion of our Rabbis [that Timna was illegitimate, as explained above in the words of Rashi], that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles268I Chronicles 1:36. is identical with Timna the chieftain mentioned further on,272Verse 40 here. for he is enumerated there in Chronicles268I Chronicles 1:36. among the sons of Eliphaz, just as Korah is enumerated there273I Chronicles 1:35. among the sons of Esau [while here in Verses 15-16 Korah is listed among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude that he was illegitimate, as was Timna]. Furthermore, Korah is listed here in Verse 5 as the son of Oholibamah [and Esau, and further in Verse 16 he is enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. You must therefore conclude] that both Korah and Timna were illegitimate, born of one father, and enumerated with the children of another, for it is far-fetched to say that the woman Timna was enumerated among the sons, as was suggested above.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture it is feasible to conjecture that Timna, the concubine of Eliphaz, after having given birth to Amalek [as stated in our present verse], gave birth to a son, and she had hard labor and died. As her soul was departing she called his name Timna so that her name be remembered, while his father Eliphaz called him Korah. Scripture, however, does not ascribe this son Timna to Timna his mother in order not to prolong the account for the intent is only to enumerate Amalek by himself. However, the sons of Eliphaz were seven, [as they are enumerated here in Verses 15-16, and Korah is among them]. Now Scripture enumerates there the chieftains who were the sons of Eliphaz in the order of their importance. Therefore, it gave Kenaz and Korah precedence over Gatam [although the order of their birth as stated in Verse 11 was: Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz].
I have an additional opinion concerning this verse in connection with that which our Rabbis have said in the Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules by which Agadah274The part of Rabbinic teaching which explains the Bible homiletically, as opposed to the Halachic (or legal) interpretation, which is governed by the famous thirteen principles of interpretation mentioned by Rabbi Ishmael. This Midrash of “Thirty-two Rules” for Agadah was collated by Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. is explained.” There they mentioned this rule: “There should have been one arrangement for [two verses, meaning that there are verses which should really be combined] but the prophets divided them for some reason! An example is the verse which says, For a multitude of the people, etc.”275For a multitude of the people… had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise that it is written. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: The good Lord pardon, (II Chronicles 30:18). And then in Verse 19 it continues: His whole heart he hath set to seek G-d, the Eternal, the G-d of his fathers, though not according to the purification that pertaineth to holy things. Now Verse 18 does not explain whom G-d should pardon, while Verse 19 does not explain “who set his heart, etc.” Combining the two verses makes the sense clear. Hezekiah prayed that the good Lord pardon every one who, though he had not cleansed himself according, etc., had set his whole heart to seek G-d. Those who pursue the plain meaning of Scripture apply this to other verses. And so too this verse says: (And) the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam and Kenaz,276This concludes Verse 11, while And Timna begins Verse 12. Ramban combines the two verses into one, with the result that Timna is also enumerated among the sons of Eliphaz. and Timna. Then Scripture returns to say, there was a concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek, but Scripture does not mention the name of the concubine. But in truth she was Timna, as it is said, Lotan’s sister was Timna,263Verse 22 here. and this is the reason that Scripture did not mention her name here since it did not want to say “and Timna” twice, once in reference to the male chieftain and once in reference to the female concubine. Thus Eliphaz had seven sons, [who are enumerated in Verses 11-12: Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek], and they are the same chieftains ascribed to Eliphaz in Verses 15-16, but they changed the name of this youngest son of Eliphaz — namely Timna — to Korah because his name was like that of the concubine and so that he should not be thought of as her son. He was named Korah upon his ascending to the position of chieftain.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Korah the son of Esau’s wife Oholibamah is counted twice; [in Verse 5 he is mentioned as Oholibamah’s son while in Verse 16 he is listed as Adah’s son], because he was the youngest of Oholibamah’s sons, [as indicated in Verse 5 where he is mentioned last. Upon his mother’s death] Adah raised him, [which explains why he is mentioned among Adah’s children in Verse 16]. So also the verse, the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul,277II Samuel 21:8. as our Rabbis have said.278Sanhedrin 19 b: “But they were really Merab’s children! [See I Samuel 18:19.] It is because Merab gave birth to them. However Michal raised them; therefore, they are called by her name.”
According to this opinion [of Ibn Ezra, i.e., that because Adah raised Korah he is counted among her children], the explanation of Scripture in the book of Chronicles (I, 1:36), [where it mentions seven sons of Eliphaz, and among them, and Timna and Amalek, while here in Verses 11-12, it mentions only six sons of Eliphaz, is as follows: The expression in Chronicles, and Timna and Amalek, means] that Timna gave birth to Amalek, the sense of the verse thus being, “and to Timna, Amalek.” The letter lamed meaning “to” is missing just as in the verse: And there were two men that were captains of bands Saul’s son,279II Samuel 4:2. which means “to Saul’s son.” [Thus it was Timna who was his mother, but because Adah raised him he is enumerated here in Verse 12 among the sons of Adah].
The correct interpretation however is, as I have suggested, [that Timna, Lotan’s sister, bore Amalek to Eliphaz], and the verse stating, And these are the sons of Adah — [namely, Verse 16, which mentions Amalek among them], refers to the majority of the names mentioned there, for Amalek was not her son. Similarly the verse, These are the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Padan-aram,280Above, 35:26. does not apply to Benjamin, [who was born in the Land of Israel, although he is mentioned in the enumeration which follows].
Tur HaArokh
אז תרצה הארץ, “Then the land will be appeased.” Ibn Ezra, quoted only by Kimchi, explains the meaning of the word in Chronicles II 30,18 as תשלים, “complete, in the sense of “making up for lost time.” He quotes a parallel in Chronicles II 36,21 עד רצתה הארץ את שבתותיה, “until the land has made up for its Sabbaths.” The meaning is that only then will the guilt of the Jewish people be expiated. (Compare Isaiah, 40,2).