Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Ester 5:13

Schenkungen und Verjährungsunterbrechungen. פרוזבול ist eine von Hillel getroffene Vorkehrung, durch welche der im siebenten Jahre (dem sogenannten Erlass- oder Schabbatjahre) eintretenden Verjährung aller Schuldforderungen (5. B. M. 15, 1—2) vorgebeugt werden kann. Sie besteht in einer dem Gericht zu übergebenden schriftlichen Erklärung, in der sich der Gläubiger vorbehält, seine Rechte und Ansprüche jederzeit geltend zu machen (Sch’bî‘it X 3 — 6). Das Wort פרוזבול (auch פרוסבול geschrieben), das zweifellos griechischen Ursprungs ist, hat verschiedene Ableitungen gefunden. Am nächsten liegt wohl προςβολή in seiner doppelten Bedeutung als Hinzufügung und Ansturm. Der פרוזבול ist beides. Er kann zunächst als Zusatz oder Nachschrift zum Schuldschein aufgefasst werden, dessen Gültigkeitsdauer er verlängert. Zwar erstreckt sich seine Wirkung auch auf mündliche Darlehen; er ist aber doch in erster Reihe zum Schutze der Schuldscheine eingeführt worden, bei denen es sich in der Regel um grössere Beträge handelt. Andererseits bildet er einen Eingriff in die Verjährung, der er entgegentritt (προσβάλλει), und begründet zugleich einen Zugriff gegenüber den Grundstücken des Schuldners, auf die er ausgestellt ist. Wahrscheinlicher aber ist die Gleichsetzung mit πρόβολος, was Schutzwaffe und Bollwerk, überhaupt jedes Verteidigungs- und Abwehrmittel bedeutet. R. Ḥisda kennt die Bezeichnung פרוסבולי ובוטי (Giṭṭin 36b unten), die als Verstümmelung von פרוסבולי פרוסבוטי (πρὸς βουλῆ πϱεσβύτων = vor dem Rate der Aeltesten gedeutet worden ist. Allein, gerade an der einzigen Stelle, an der פרוסבוטי neben פרוסבולי vorkommt (M’gilla 15a unten), will diese Erklärung durchaus nicht stimmen. Dort wird die Äusserung Hamans (Ester 5,13), all sein Reichtum und sein Ansehen gewähre ihm keine Befriedigung, solange er Mordechaj im Hofe des Königs sitzen sehe, durch einen Ausspruch desselben R. Ḥisda beleuchtet, der einmal in einem andern Zusammenhang gesagt hat: זה בא בפרוסבולי וזה בא בפרוסבוטי . Die Worte כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא zeigen, dass er diesen Ausspruch nicht in Bezug auf Mordechaj und Haman getan hat. Es scheint vielmehr eine allgemeine Redewendung zu sein, etwa in dem Sinne: Druck erzeugt Gegendruck. Kommt der eine mit Angriff (προσβολή), so kommt der andere mit Hilfsmannschaft (προςβοήϑεια oder πϱοσβώϑεια), wie ja auch die Missachtung, die Mordechaj gegen Haman zur Schau trug, dessen Freunde und Ratgeber zur Abwehr durch Errichtung des Galgens herausforderte. Demnach wäre פרוסבולי ובוטי in Giṭṭin πϱοβολή und βοήϑεια, Vorbeugung und Beistand, Schutz des Gläubigers gegen den Schuldenerlass und Hilfe für den Bedürftigen, der sich sonst vergebens um ein Darlehen bemühen würde (תקנה לעשירים ותקנה לעניים).

AND THE GARMENTS OF ‘HA’SROD.’²¹⁴Rashi explains it as “the garments of net-work” [with which the sacred vessels were covered during the journeyings]. Ramban will differ with this interpretation. I do not know why He did not command the making of these garments at the beginning, as He did concerning all the [rest of the] work of the Tabernacle and the garments of Aaron and his sons, for it would have been proper that He say to Moses, “and thou shalt make cloth of blue-purple to cover with it the ark,²¹⁵Numbers 4:6. and a red-purple cloth to cover with it the altar,²¹⁶Ibid., Verse 13. and a cloth of scarlet to cover with it the table,” and now when charging Moses about those who were to make these things, He should have included these garments with the rest of the work. Perhaps there was no insistence on how they were to be made, and they could have made these garments of srod of one kind alone, but they made them of blue-purple, red-purple and scarlet. They did not want to make them of linen, as that is not distinguished, as are those other colors. After they made them, G-d willed that the blue-purple cloth be for the ark, the red-purple for the altar, and the scarlet for the table. Therefore, it was sufficient to command them in brief [here] when He gave the command about those who were to do all the work, for these garments of ‘ha’srod’ were to be made according to their understanding.
Now it is not befitting that a garment made to cover [the sacred vessels] should have many holes in it, as Rashi has said. Rather, the word ha’srod is of the term sarid (a lone survivor), because all these garments were of one kind,²¹⁷I.e. wool, excepting that they were colored differently: blue-purple, red-purple, and scarlet. as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said.
All this I have written in accordance with the line of thought of Rashi. Yet all this availeth me nothing.²¹⁸Esther 5:13. For what meaning is there in the Holy One, blessed be He, saying to Moses that they should make “garments of kela,”²¹⁹The Hebrew word kla’im (hangings) (above 27:9) Onkelos translates s’radin. Similarly he translates the Hebrew word michbar (grate) (ibid., Verse 4) as s’rada. On the basis of these translations of Onkelos, Rashi suggests here that the word ha’srod is an Aramaic term, which means “garments of net-work,” because they were made with many holes. — It is with reference to this basis for Rashi’s explanation that Ramban says, “garments of kela.” or “garments of s’ridah,” without explaining to him how many of them there should be, two or a hundred, how long and wide they should be, and why they should be made altogether, since the matter cannot be understood at all from this communication [stated here]? Moreover, why are they mentioned always before the garments of Aaron?²²⁰In the verse before us: And the garments of ‘ha’srod,’ and the holy garments for Aaron etc. — Likewise further, 35:19, and 39:41. Besides, what is the meaning of the phrase, the garments of ‘ha’srod’, for ministering in the holy place,²²¹Further, 35:19. for this seems to refer to the sacrificial rites in the holy place, just as He says, or when they come near to the altar to minister²²²Above, 30:20. in the holy place. Similarly, even he who cometh into the Tent of Meeting to minister in the holy place²²³Ibid., 29:30. does not refer to outer work, or the carrying of the holy vessels. Furthermore, it is written, and they will make all that I commanded thee: the Tent of Meeting etc., and the garments of ‘ha’srod’ etc., and the incense of sweet spices; according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do.²²⁴Verses 6-11. But He had not commanded him before about the garments of ‘ha’srod’ at all!
What appears from the words of our Rabbis is that the garments of ‘ha’srod’ are the actual garments of the priesthood. This is mentioned in Tractate Yoma.²²⁵Yoma 72 a-b. “What is the meaning of the verse, the garments of ‘ha’srod’ for ministering in the holy place (further 35:19)? If not for the garments of the priesthood [which are worn during the service which brings atonement to Israel], there would not have been left a survivor [a sarid] of Israel’s enemies.” The final expression is a euphemism. But the whole quotation shows that the garments of ‘ha’srod’ refer to the actual garments of the priests. If that is so, it is correct that we translate the garments of ‘ha’srod’ as “the garments of uniqueness,” that is to say, the garments which when worn designate the outstanding one of the people, the highest among his brethren.²²⁶Leviticus 21:10. Similarly, ‘u’basridim’ whom the Eternal shall call²²⁷Joel 3:5. means the remnants of those who have survived, [the word being] of the root, escape ‘v’sarid’ (and remain).²²⁸Jeremiah 44:14. [The garments of ‘ha’srod’] thus allude to the garments of Aaron, which are so called [‘unique’] because only one of the generation may wear them — Aaron in his lifetime, and after him the priest that is highest… upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments.²²⁶Leviticus 21:10. And Scripture always mentions Aaron’s garments in a way of honor, as it says: for splendor and for beauty;²²⁹Above, 28:2. holy garments;²³⁰Ibid., Verse 4. the golden plate, the holy crown.²³¹Leviticus 8:9. It is for this reason that they are called the garments of ‘ha’srod’ — garments of royalty. This is the meaning of the verse, And the garments of ‘ha’srod’ (the High Priest) to minister in the holy place, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, Scripture thus reverting [in the second half of the verse] to explain [that the garments of ha’srod are for Aaron]. Similarly it is mentioned in the section beginning, And they brought the Tabernacle unto Moses.²³²Further, 39:33. In Verse 41 there it is stated: the garments of ‘ha’srod'… the holy garments for Aaron the priest. And the reason why in this section of See, I have called by name²³³Verse 2. it says, And the garments of ‘ha’srod,’ ‘and’ the holy garments for Aaron the priest [when the second half of the verse should have been without the connective vav which signifies “and,” since, as explained, it is in apposition to the first²³⁴See also Note 232; further in 39:41 the connective “and” is not used by Scripture. The question then appears why is it mentioned here.], is to indicate that these garments are superior in two qualities: they are garments of ha’srod [the High Priesthood], and they are garments of holiness. This is in order to tell us that only the outstanding one among the people should wear them, [and only] when he comes in to minister in the holy place. And seeing that He did not mention here the phrase, to minister in the holy place,²²³Ibid., 29:30. He added in explanation that they are garments of s’rod and garments of holiness. Besides, there are many cases in Scripture where a redundant vav occurs. And the reason why Scripture states, And of the blue-purple, and red-purple, and scarlet, they made garments of ‘srod,’²³⁵Further, 39:1. And if, as explained above, srod is a term referring to the garments of the High Priest, why then does the verse not mention the linen, of which the garments of Aaron were also made? This is because etc. is because it comes to explain These are the accounts of the Tabernacle,²³⁶Ibid., 38:21. giving an accounting — because of their importance — of the gold, silver and brass, how much of them the Israelites brought and what they did with them; therefore it then said afterwards that of the blue-purple, and the red-purple, and scarlet which were brought to them they made the garments of ‘srod’ (the High Priest), neither more nor less. Thus it did not mention the linen because it is not as costly a matter [as the rest]. Perhaps they brought so much [of the linen] that it was left over [and therefore Scripture did not mention it]. Then Scripture there refers back and explains [what they did with the blue-purple, the red-purple, etc.] and says, and they made the holy garments for Aaron, as the Eternal commanded Moses,²³⁵Further, 39:1. And if, as explained above, srod is a term referring to the garments of the High Priest, why then does the verse not mention the linen, of which the garments of Aaron were also made? This is because etc. And he made the ephod of gold,²³⁷Ibid., 39:2. and then finished the [whole] subject.

שויתי I made equal; supply נפשי myself;¹⁸A. V., I reckoned that. or I compared the illness¹⁹In either case שויתי must be considered as an elliptical phrase; but the ellipsis of נפשי, which turns the transitive verb into a reflective one, is more natural. The sense of the whole sentence is: I made myself a lion, in resisting the fierce attacks of the illness; or, I considered the illness as a lion, that tried to break my bones.¹⁹In either case שויתי must be considered as an elliptical phrase; but the ellipsis of נפשי, which turns the transitive verb into a reflective one, is more natural. The sense of the whole sentence is: I made myself a lion, in resisting the fierce attacks of the illness; or, I considered the illness as a lion, that tried to break my bones. in its fierce attacks on me, with a lion which generally breaks the bones. From day even to night it maketh peace with me, to my great surprise, after the attacks during the night.²⁰This remark is to explain the repetition of this idea in this verse, after its having been expressed in the same words in the preceding one.