Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Mazmur 5:2

אמור אל הכהנים, “say to the Priests, etc.” The repetition of the words: אמור ואמרת, are intended to signal that the adults are meant to train their youngsters in Judaism and its mores. Nachmanides writes that the warning by the Torah to train the children while they are still small occurs several times in the Torah. It occurs in connection with the legislation not to eat blood, as well as in the prohibition not to eat creepers and the ritual contamination caused by the dead bodies of such creepers. (Compare Midrash Proverbs 14,33) We learn from these various instances that under no circumstances are minors to be encouraged to do things the Torah forbade for adults. However, if such minors, on their own initiative, engage in activities for adults, the adults are not legally required to interfere. It seems to me, (Nachmanides continuing) that as far as ritual contamination is concerned the adults are required to prevent their youngsters from doing this even if the children had themselves initiated these activities forbidden to their parents. This is the reason why the sages did not say –as they had done in respect of eating dead carcasses-“that if a minor is observed eating such meat from dead animals that have not been ritually slaughtered that the court does not need to interfere.” [if the youngster has no father whose duty it is to raise him. Ed.] Nachmanides quotes Psalms 5,2 הקשיבו לקול שועי in support of his view, as well as the extraneous words לא תאכלום, “you must not eat them,” which appear in connection with the legislation to eat neither blood nor creepers. (Leviticus 11,42) The sages interpret this as if the Torah had written לא תאכילום, “do not feed them, etc.” (Yevamot 113) The only reason that the Torah had added this little statement after having forbidden the eating of these reptiles outright previously even with the rider that eating such creepers even contaminates one’s clothing, must be to add the prohibition not to feed such to anyone else with one’s own hands. In our verse here, where the Torah is concerned with the state of ritual purity to be maintained by the priests at all times, the wording is such that it even imposes the need to restrain youngsters from eating such contaminating food when the youngster got hold of it by himself and was not fed by an adult. The reason is that the ritual purity of the priests, even their minors, is to be inviolate as far as is humanly possible. Nachmanides, adding an aggadic interpretation to our verse, adds that the repetition of the words אמור ואמרת, are both addressed to the same priests, a second time, i.e. the Torah feels the need to repeat these instructions again and again to impress upon them the importance of their maintaining their ritual purity. Not only priests engaged in Temple service, not only adult priests, but any male born to the priesthood is charged with preserving his status of ritual purity. Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah had seen fit to alter its mode of address by writing here אל הכהנים בני אהרן instead of simply אל בני אהרן, the meaning is that the כהנים are to transmit the instructions to בניהם, their children even while they are still minors. Ibn Ezra writes that after the Torah had requested that the whole Jewish nation be careful of their ritual purity, the Torah now repeats this theme once more when addressing the priests to whom this is so much more important in their daily lives. It is possible that the interpretation of the words אמור אל הכהנים is a reminder that it is these priests who are charged with teaching the people the laws of the Torah, and it is their duty to warn the people not to become negligent in their observance of the laws of ritual impurity even when there is no immediate requirement to be ritually pure in their daily tasks. Nachmanides writes concerning the last mentioned interpretation that he does not agree with it, and that in his opinion the word אמור here is similar to the word דבר elsewhere in the Torah. אמור אל הכהנים is equivalent toדבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, [such as in connection with זב or ציצית et al. Ed.] The wording is dictated either by reason of the importance the Torah places on what follows, or because people were in the habit of disregarding the particular laws which followed. Concerning the word הכהנים in our verse, Nachmanides points out that when the Torah addresses the priests in their capacity as functionaries in the Temple carrying out the sacrificial service, etc., the term is simply דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” the fact that they are also priests is not even mentioned, whereas here when the subject is ritual purity, in other words something touching the essence of their being, the Torah does draw attention to this. The message is that not only must the priests be on guard not to enter the Tabernacle while ritually impure, etc., but, they must maintain such purity also “off duty,” so to speak. [This was important in later years when there were thousands of priests and each one had only two weeks’ service, and even during those two weeks only served on a single day in each week. Ed.] As a result of our verses here, priests who do not take part in funerals do not do so because they consider themselves superior, but because the Torah forced them to act in what to some might appear in the wrong light. They maintain a state of purity for G’d’s sake, so as always to be on “call,” if the occasion should arise.

SAY [UNTO THE PRIESTS] … AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM. “[The repetition of the verb say … and thou shalt say is] to warn the adults about the children” [that they observe this law]. This is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.¹Yebamoth 114 a. Now the meaning of this “warning” is to state that we are not to assist with our hands in the defilement of children [but it does not intend to warn us that we are obliged to prevent them from becoming defiled]. There are many admonitions in the Torah of this nature according to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹Yebamoth 114 a. such being the prohibitions against eating blood and swarming things, and against the defilement [of priests], and from them we learn that [it is applicable to] all prohibitions of the Torah, that we must not assist children in any case to transgress the law. But if they are doing it of their own accord, we²I.e., the court. But his father is obliged to rebuke him and prevent him from doing that which is forbidden (ibid., and such is the final decision of the law, Shulchan Aruch, Hilchoth Shabbath, 343). are not commanded to prevent them [from so doing since they have not yet reached the training period of minors for religious practices, but if they have reached that stage, everyone is commanded to prevent them from doing a prohibited act].³Shulchan Aruch ibid., Rama, and Mishnah Brurah, 7. The meaning of the verse according to its interpretation is then: “say unto the priests … and thou shalt say it over again to them, that they are not to defile themselves,” the purpose of the many warnings being [to teach] that all sons of Aaron are to be guarded from defilement, even the young ones. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that say unto the priests refers to the section mentioned above [i.e., Seder Kedoshim], since they [the priests] are the teachers of the Torah and it is they who admonish the people; and thou shalt say unto them, meaning those specific commandments which devolve upon them alone to observe, [as mentioned in this section]. But it is not correct [to interpret two such adjacent phrases as referring to two different sections].
In my opinion the plain sense of the verse is as follows: The meaning of emor (say) is like that of dabeir (speak): Give ear to ‘amarai,’ O Eternal⁴Psalms 5:2. is like d’varai (my words). A similar case is ‘imrei’(words of) truth.⁵Proverbs 22:21. This is equivalent to ‘divrei’ emeth (words of truth) — Ecclesiastes 12:10. So also: for it hath heard all ‘imrei’ (the words of) the Eternal.⁶Joshua 24:27. Here too it is like ‘divrei’ Hashem (the words of G-d) in Exodus 24:3. And the expression Go in unto Pharaoh ‘v’dibarta’ (and thou shalt speak) to him⁷Exodus 9:1. is like v’amarta (and thou shalt say). ‘Vayedabeir Mosheh’ (And Moses spoke) unto Aaron, and unto Elazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left: ‘Take the meal-offering,’⁸Above, 10:12. is like vayomer Mosheh (and Moses said). And so also you find in many places that both [amor and dabeir are used in one verse, such as:] ‘Dabeir (Speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. such usage [of the two verbs] being found in those sections where He wishes to warn them strongly [about a certain law] either because of the stringency of the matter, or on account of their habit to commit that sin. Thus ‘emor’ (say) unto the priests … ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say) unto them [is like ‘dabeir’ (speak unto the priests) ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say), as will be explained further on]. Similarly, Thus saith the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: Go ‘v’amarta’ (and say) to Zedekiah king of Judah ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto him: Thus saith the Eternal etc.¹⁰Jeremiah 34:2. means “Go dabeir (speak) to Zedekiah.” Similarly, ‘Vatomer ha’ishah ha’t'ko’ith’ (And when the woman of Tekoa said) to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and prostrated herself, ‘vatomer’ (and she said): ‘Help, O king’¹¹II Samuel 14:4. is like: “vatedabei’r ha’ishah (and the woman spoke) to the king vatomer (and she said), ‘Help, O king.’” The meaning of Say unto the priests … and thou shalt say unto them is thus like “speak to the priests and say to them,” similar to [that which we find elsewhere], ‘Dabeir’ (speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. the meaning thereof being: “speak to the people in My Name, and say thus to them,” like, Go in unto Pharaoh, and say unto him: [‘Thus saith the Eternal: Let My people go’].¹²Exodus 7:26. — In brief, Ramban up to this point has explained that there is no difference between emor and dabeir, and that the double use of each of these verbs or the use of the two together is to indicate the importance of the subject discussed. I have found a similar view in Yonah ibn Ganach’s Sefer Hashorashim, root dabeir. Now many scholars¹³I have not identified these scholars. say that the meaning of ‘dabeir’ unto the children of Israel is like that of the term kriah (calling), thus: “call unto the children of Israel that they assemble themselves before you, and you shall say to them the following,” and similarly ‘emor’ to the priests means [“call them] to assemble themselves and to listen.”
[SAY UNTO] THE PRIESTS. The reason for [His mentioning the term] the priests [in this section is as follows]: In commandments relating to matters of the offerings He says, Command Aaron and his sons¹⁴Above, 6:2. Or: Speak unto Aaron and his sons (ibid., Verse 18). and does not refer to them by the name “the priests,”¹⁵“The priests.” In the Tur quoting Ramban: “and He does not refer to them by the term of priesthood.” because those subjects concern the offerings or the various degrees of holiness of the Sanctuary. But here He warns the priests that they should never defile themselves for the dead, even at a time when they do not come into the Sanctuary, this being a mark of distinction to them personally; therefore Scripture mentioned here the priests, meaning to say that it is because they are the priests of the Eternal and the ministers of our G-d that He told them to conduct themselves in a manner reflecting honor and greatness, and that they should never become defiled. Thus the priests who are unfit for the priesthood [i.e., those who are born from a marriage forbidden to their father], are excluded from this principle [i.e., they are permitted to defile themselves for the dead].
The explanation of ‘lo yitama’ (he shall not defile himself — in the singular) is that you [i.e., Moses] are to tell the priests that none of them is to defile himself for the dead among his people. Or it may be that [the use of the singular in lo yitama] is connected with the expression of ‘ba’al b’amav’ (a chief man among his people) mentioned below in Scripture,¹⁶Verse 4. and the meaning thereof [here] is: “the chief man among his people is not to defile himself [for the dead].” And the meaning of ba’al b’amav¹⁶Verse 4. is like the expressions: ‘miba’alei Yehudah;’¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. ‘ba’aleigoyim,’¹⁸Isaiah 16:8. namely “the dignitaries” or “the lords” among them [i.e., Judah¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. and the nations¹⁸Isaiah 16:8.], similar to the phrase: ‘ba’alav ein imo’¹⁹Exodus 22:13. — “the master is not with it; “‘ba’al habayith’ — “the master of the house;” as honored people are called “lords.” The verse here is thus stating: “the honored one among his people [i.e., the priest] is not to defile himself for the dead, [in which case] he would be treating his honor with irreverence.” Scripture is thus explaining that it is because of the distinction of the priest, seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., the High Priest] that it warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead. By means of this statement, Scripture intends to teach us that it should not occur to us to say that the warning [against the priests defiling themselves for the dead] is only when they come into the Tent of Meeting to perform the holy Service. Similarly in this whole section He states that all restrictions [on the priests mentioned here] are due to their distinction. Thus: she profaneth her father;²⁰Verse 9. and he shall not profane his seed.²¹Verse 15. Onkelos likewise translated [Verse 4]: “The chief among his people shall not defile himself, to be profaned thereby.” But in the Torath Kohanim²²Torath Kohanim, Emor 1:15. [ba’al b’amav]¹⁶Verse 4. is interpreted [literally] to refer to “a husband” with reference to his wife, as Rashi has written.²³Thus: “A husband [a priest] shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse while it is among his people, meaning where there are other persons who can attend to her burial, this applying only to a wife who disqualified him from serving as a priest, because she was forbidden to him in marriage.” But otherwise the priest is to defile himself for his wife, even if there are other people to attend to her burial.

and he understood it in the vision Heb. וּבִינָה and to make him understand it in the vision. Now this word is not a noun, like (Job. 38:4): “if you know understanding (בִּינָה) Instead, the “hey” is superfluous, and it is like (Ps 5:2) “understand (בִּינָה) my thoughts” Therefore, the accent is above on the “beth,” and its meaning is like הָבֵן, understand.

And if you wish, understand And if you wish, understand. hearken to this This בּינה is not a noun but an imperative expression, like (Ps. 5:2), “consider (בּינה) my meditation.” Therefore, these two are accented on the first syllable, on the “beth,” whereas all the others are accented on the final syllable, on the “nun.”

appointed him by God Heb. אִמְרוֹ. What was said about him from before the Omnipresent. The word אִמְרוֹ is in the masculine gender, from the form of (Ps. 5:2), “Give ear to my words (אַמָרַי).” אִמְרָתוֹ appears (ibid. 147:15) in the feminine gender, from the form of (ibid. 12:7) “pure words (אַמָרוֹת).”