וֵ֭אלֹהִים מַלְכִּ֣י מִקֶּ֑דֶם פֹּעֵ֥ל יְ֝שׁוּע֗וֹת בְּקֶ֣רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Padahal Allah adalah Rajaku sejak dahulu kala, yang mengerjakan penyelamatan di tengah-tengah bumi.
Radak
Yet I have set My king: – He says: They, forsooth, are purposing to root out the kingdom from the house of David, though I have made him king and set him up! And the word נסכתי connotes chieftainship and greatness, as (in the verse) “the princes (נסיכי) of Sihon” (Josh. 13:21); and also “their gods with their princes” (נסכיהס) (Dan. 11:8). My king – he means to say, The king that is Mine in that I have made him king; just as it is said (1 Sam. 16:1) “For I have provided among his sons a king for Myself.” He means by for Myself, for My worship, and so he says My king. And conversely it is said (Ps. 74:12): “And God is my King from of old,” where the meaning is, who rules over me. Thus is the usage of the pronominal suffixes. And so (in the verse) “Remove Thy stroke from me” (Ps. 39:11); “Aloof from My plague do they stand” (Ps. 38:12); “and I will make them joyful in My house of prayer” (Is. 56:7); “I have heard thy prayer” (1 Kings 9:3; 2 Kings 20:5; Is. 38:5; 2 Chron. 7:12), and other similar (examples), as we have explained in the book Miklol in the grammatical section of it. And he says:
Radak
ויאמר למך לנשיו, our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 state that when Lemech wanted to sleep with his wives they refused him. They used several arguments, one being that they were afraid of the deluge and they did not want to give birth to children already doomed. Lemech countered that if Kayin whose deed of foul murder had resulted in suspension of his death sentence for 7 generations, then he, Lemech, who had killed inadvertently, accidentally, would not be punished for far longer than that, and his wives had no reason to worry. Even if a deluge would come tomorrow, he was free from the taint of sin and would not become its victim. He went further, saying that even assuming he had deliberately killed a man or a child, G’d would forgive him, seeing he had many merits which would offset one such sin. Kayin had not had such merits even before he killed his brother but had sinned so that G’d had rejected his offering, and still his sentence had not been carried out for seven generations. This is how he arrived at the expression שבעה ושבעים as opposed to שבעתים the period during which G’d had suspended the carrying out of the sentence of death on Kayin. He appealed to G’d’s patience to extend this patience to him. It is also possible that Lemech’s logic was totally foolish, as hinted at by Rashi, as the wives of Lemech did not worry about retribution for Lemech’s sin but the long overdue retribution for Kayin’s sin, something that would include all of Kayin’s offspring. We have to assume that Lemech’s speech to his wives took place before his wife Adah had given birth to Yaval.
Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment.
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished.
According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party.
Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment.
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished.
According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party.
Chidushei Agadot
And he said, "Scatter my ashes across the seven seas, so that the God of the Jews should not find me, etc.": The seven seas are according to the seven climates, based on the seven planets. And this wicked one blashpemed towards the Above - that He does not have power in the seven seas, but rather gave [their] governance to the seven planets above, "so that God should not find him, etc." - since He does not have governance over them. And there is also a hint to this in the [Psalm] that it brought [above]. As it stated (Psalms 74:10), "Till when, O God, will the foe blaspheme, etc." He blasphemes even after his death, that Your governance is not on the seven seas. "But God is my King from of old, etc." (Psalms 74:12). As You already showed Your power and Your salvation in all of the seas. For, "You drove back the sea with Your might (ozecha), etc." (Psalms 74:13). That is hinting to the angel of the sea, who is called Uza - that You drove him back with Your governance. And "You split open springs and torrents, etc. You made mighty rivers run dry, etc." (Psalms 74:15) - for Your power is in all of the seas and the rivers. And it stated (Psalms 74:16), "The day is Yours, the night is also Yours, etc." - meaning to find [something] in darkness as in light, and [that] there is nothing hidden from in front of Your eyes. That is the opposite of what he said, "So that the God of the Jews should not find me."