Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Rut 1:13

AND IN ALL THE MIGHTY HAND. This alludes to the division of the Red Sea concerning which it is said, And Israel saw the great hand.³⁴⁷Exodus 14:31. AND IN ALL THE GREAT TERROR. This is a reference to the Revelation³⁴⁸Literally: “‘the stand’ (ma’amad) at Mount Sinai.” See Vol. II, p. 251, Note 17. concerning which it is stated and that His fear may be before you.³⁴⁹Exodus 20:17. He mentioned concerning these [two events] that they were done in the sight of all Israel, because he had already referred to all that was done to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land.³⁵⁰Verse 11. And in the Sifre it is stated:³⁵¹Sifre, end of Brachah. “And in all the mighty hand — this refers to the smiting of the firstborn, about which it is said, for by a mighty hand shall he send them away.³⁵²Exodus 6:1. And in all the great terror — this alludes to the division of the Red Sea. Another interpretation: And in all the great terror — this is the Giving of the Torah.”
And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the mighty hand is the attribute of justice, similar to the expressions: the hand of the Eternal was upon me;³⁵³Ezekiel 37:1. for the hand of the Eternal hath wrought this.³⁵⁴Job 12:9. Therefore it is said with reference to [His] judgment, for the hand of the Eternal is gone forth against me.³⁵⁵Ruth 1:13. And the great terror is the attribute of mercy, similar to what is written, Him shall ye sanctify, and let Him be your fear.³⁵⁶Isaiah 8:13. The Rabbis in the Sifre³⁵¹Sifre, end of Brachah. meant this when referring to the smiting of the firstborn [which was done by the mighty hand, alluding to the attribute of justice] and the division of the Red Sea [which is alluded to in the phrase and in all the great terror referring to the attribute of mercy], for concerning them it is written, to make Thyself a Glorious Name.³⁵⁷Ibid., 63:14. The rescue of Israel at the Red Sea displayed G-d’s mercy to His people just as the retributive punishment upon the Egyptian firstborn manifested His justice. Both were to make Him a glorious Name.

Rather. Meaning: Why does it need to say: “Behold, today they brought...”? It would have been sufficient to say: “Such [tragedy] befell me, if I had eaten...” Rather, this is what it means to say: Moshe said to them [Elozor and Isomor]: Perhaps you sprinkled its blood as אוננים after the death of your brothers, and an אונן who performs the service profanes it? Therefore, you did not eat it. Moshe did not see their actions because he was heavily involved with the Shechinoh on that day And he was afraid they found the blood of this he-goat that had not yet been sprinkled and they sprinkled it. Aharon answered him: “And did they, who are ordinary kohanim, bring [it], so that you would think it is invalid? I brought [it], for it is incumbent upon me, as it is written (9:7): “Approach the altar,” and a kohein godol may bring [a sacrifice while being] an אונן. Accordingly, the ן of הן היום is in place of a ם, [meaning: Did they bring today?], as in (Rus 1:13): “הלהן תשברנה (Would you wait for them?).” Re’m explained this at length, but I was brief. Re’m writes: “[You might ask:] Bringing a sacrifice is more lenient than eating it, for a kohein godol may bring a sacrifice while he is an אונן but he may not eat from it, and here they were permitted even to eat from it while they were אוננים, so much more so they [would be permitted to] bring the sacrifice. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe said to them: “Perhaps you erred and thought...” This raises a difficulty, though, for according to Re’m’s words — that the bringing of the sacrifice is more lenient and it is permitted [to an אונן] — if so, why did Aharon reply: “And did they bring it...” which implies that it would be invalid if they indeed brought it, from the perspective of bringing it. [On the contrary,] Aharon should have answered better: “Would it be invalid today? It is permitted! Rather, the reason it was burnt was because such [tragedy] befell me, and there was no one to eat it, since there is a difference in the law between the sacrifices earmarked for a [specific] time and the sacrifices prescribed for generations.” Therefore, it appears to me that it should be interpreted according to its plain meaning: An אונן who performs Divine service actually profanes it, and Aharon ruled as the law is for [future] generations. The kal vachomer, indeed, can be refuted, because the leniency for eating the sacrifices of an אונן is different here, in that it was only so the sacrifices would not become נותר (left-over), for there were no other kohanim in the world, only these, and they were אוננים. This is not so regarding the bringing of the sacrifice, however, since the kohein godol was permitted to bring it. Thus, it remained prohibited [for an ordinary kohein to bring it]. It would be impossible, however, for the kohein godol to eat the entire amount, and ultimately it would become נותר. This is the reason for the law of [future] generations as well: A kohein godol may bring sacrifices while he is an אונן since there are many Divine services that only he is allowed to perform. However, [regarding to eating from the sacrifices] all kohanim are allowed to eat from the sacrifices, therefore, the kohein godol may not eat. [The point is that] it is not because the prohibition of eating the sacrifice is more stringent than the prohibition of bringing it, and therefore there is no kal vachomer (Nachalas Yaakov). Gur Aryeh explains that Divine service is more stringent than eating [sacrifices], because we find that a kohein with a blemish may eat sacrifices, but he is invalid to perform Divine service. If so, we cannot use the [following] kal vachomer: Eating [sacrifices] is more stringent because it is prohibited to a kohein godol when he is an אונן, yet it was permitted to the sons of Aharon while they were אוננים, then the Divine service, which is more lenient, in that it is permitted to the kohein godol when he is an אונן, is it not logical that it should be permitted to the sons of Aharon who are אוננים! [This kal vachomer can be refuted] because we can object: Eating has a leniency that it is permitted to a kohein with a blemish [whereas such a kohein is invalid to perform Divine service].

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. This refers to his daughter and his son’s daughter.⁹⁶Since Jacob had. only one daughter, Dinah, the expression “and his daughters” in the plural must include some other person. Ramban first suggests that the term includes his granddaughter, Serach the daughter of Asher. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 211-2. Now it is possible that his daughters-in-law are also included in this category, for in Scripture they too are called “daughters,” or as the saying of the Sages has it:⁹⁷Bereshith Rabbah 84:19. “A person does not refrain from calling his daughters-in-law ‘daughters.’” So did Naomi say to her daughters-in-law: Go, turn back, my daughters;⁹⁸Ruth 1:8; 1:12. Nay, my daughters;⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 13. Go, my daughter.¹⁰⁰Ibid., 2:2. It is nothing but an expression of love, just as, Hearest thou not, my daughter?¹⁰¹Ibid., Verse 8. This was said by Boaz to Ruth and can certainly not indicate the relationship of daughter or daughter-in-law.