Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Ulangan 16:19

A Midrashic approach: Bereshit Rabbah 65,7 attributes Yitzchak’s failing eyesight to his being bribed with venison by his son Esau. The Torah had taught in Exodus 23,8 that one must not accept bribes and that accepting bribes “blinds the eyes of the seeing.” At that point, the Torah addresses judges and warns them not to accept bribes. Continuing with that subject, Rabbi Yitzchak said: “if someone who accept bribes from someone (such as his son who is obligated to feed him in his old age) is punished for accepting such favours, how much more is this true of someone who accepts such favours from a person who does not owe him anything!” Another approach of an homiletical nature is this: Yitzchak’s eyesight was impaired in order to enable Yaakov to obtain the blessing (Tanchuma Toldot 8). Still another approach: Yitzchak’s failing eyesight was due to the smoke from the incense his daughters-in-law offered to idols. [This leaves open why Rivkah’s eyes were not similarly affected. Maybe because she was so much younger. Ed.] Yet another reason offered in the Midrash: It was to prevent Yitzchak from leaving his house so that when people saw him they should not point to him as the father of the wicked Esau (compare Bereshit Rabbah 65,10). G’d hit on a stratagem to keep him indoors by blinding him. This would be reflected in the verse (Proverbs 28,28) “when the wicked rise up, other men go into hiding;” this prompted our sages to say that if someone raises a son who turns out to be wicked his eyes will become dimmed. They quote what happened to Yitzchak as proof for their contention. The reason that Achiyah Hashiloni lost his eyesight was that Jerobam ben Nevat, the King who placed golden calves on the road to Jerusalem to prevent his subjects from travelling to the Temple, was his star pupil.
A totally different approach (Bereshit Rabbah 65,10) ascribes Yitzchak’s failing eyesight not to his age but to the fact that while he was bound on the altar he had beheld a forbidden vision of G’d, something which G’d did not want to punish him for at that stage. However, G’d decreed at that very hour that He would deprive Yitzchak of his eyesight at some time in the future. If G’d had punished Yitzchak immediately, He would have subjected not only Avraham to a test but also Yitzchak; this was not His intention at the time. This is based on the Torah writing מראות, “as a result of seeing something.” Had the Torah simply wanted to inform us that Yitzchak’s failing eyesight was a normal phenomenon it would have written מלראות, i.e. “his eyes became too weak to see.” Bereshit Rabbah 65,10 illustrates this with a parable. A King went for a private stroll behind the gate of his palace. When he raised his eyes he noticed that the son of a dearly beloved friend espied him from his window. Thereupon the King reasoned as follows: “if I kill that son, I will cause anguish to my friend. I will instead decree that the windows all be closed so that the son in question can no longer use it to spy on me.” A similar thing happened during the binding of Yitzchak. If G’d had punished Yitzchak for not closing his eyes and watching something he was not supposed to watch, He would be causing anguish to Avraham at the very moment when He was testing him. This is the meaning of Isaiah 5,23 מצדיקי רשע עקב שוחד וצדקת צדיקים יסירו ממנו, “who vindicate him who is in the wrong in return for a bribe, and withhold vindication from him who is in the right.” The prophet alludes to Yitzchak who, because of the venison he used to provide for his father, enjoyed his father’s favour. The second half of the verse refers to Moses and the fact that his eyesight was not withheld from him even at the age of 120 as he had never accepted any bribe.

Before them. And not before gentiles, even in a case where the nations judge according to the laws of Israel, etc. (Gittin 88b). This matter requires sufficient explanation. Let us preface this explanation with what we find in the Midrash (see Esther Rabbah 1:12) that on King Solomon’s throne there were six steps, and it was written on the first, Do not pervert justice, and on the second, Do not show partiality, and on the third, Do not accept bribes, and on the fourth, Do not plant for yourself an Asherah, and on the fifth, Do not set up for yourself a pillar, and on the sixth, Do not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or sheep which has a blemish. Any thoughtful person would be astonished at this sight: what relevance do these three prohibitions — do not plant, do not set up, and do not sacrifice — have to a throne prepared for one who sits in judgment? Is it merely because they are adjacent in the Torah that they were placed on the throne? It would have been more appropriate to write in their place he shall not increase wives for himself, he shall not increase horses for himself, and silver and gold he shall not increase for himself. From this, there is clear evidence that all these six prohibitions speak about matters of justice. And from where did King Solomon learn to say this? Surely he understood this from the juxtaposition of the section of Mishpatim [laws] to the section of the altar, indicating that the Sanhedrin should be placed near the altar. And what is the practical difference that God commanded to place the Sanhedrin near the altar? Certainly to teach wisdom to the people that whatever disqualifies the altar and what is offered upon it also disqualifies the Sanhedrin, specifically regarding the matters mentioned at the end of Parashat Yitro concerning the altar.

“You shall not judge unfairly” [16:19]. You should be warned to choose judges who will not flatter, and such a judge who knows all the laws and is not an ignoramus. Whoever chooses an ignoramus to be a judge; it is like he gave false judgments. Therefore, he wrote, “you shall not set up a sacred post” [16:21]. This means, you should not plant a linden tree, like the gentiles do near their foreign gods. It wants to teach us that when somebody chooses an ignoramus or someone argumentative to be a judge, it is like he had worshiped a foreign god. Therefore, it is written that you should not place a linden tree near the altar. This shows us that the judge should not be like a linden tree. It is very tall and beautiful. However, it has no fruit and one finds no help from it. There are some judges who are very handsome and appear to be pious, but their heart is false. Therefore, the Torah wrote here, “you shall not set up a sacred post” [16:21]. You should not plant a linden tree near the altar, since the judges sat near the altar.³Bahya, Deuteronomy, 16:19.

ושחד לא תקח AND THOU SHALT TAKE NO GIFT, even if you mean to give a true judgment in favour of the giver, and it is a matter of course that you must not accept one to wrest judgment, and therefore there is no need for Scripture to forbid this, for with regard to wresting judgment, whether you take a bribe or not, it is distinctly stated, (Deuteronomy 16:19) “Thou shalt not wrest judgment” (Ketubot 105a).

לא תטה משפט גר יתום THOU SHALT NOT PERVERT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STRANGER, OR OF THE FATHERLESS — and with regard to the well-to-do one has already been forbidden to do so (Deuteronomy 16:19): “Thou shalt not pervert judgment”, (which is a general prohibition including both poor and rich), but it (Scripture) repeats it regarding the poor in order to make one who perverts the judgment of the poor transgress two negative commands. Because it is easier to pervert the judgment of the defenseless poor than that of the rich, therefore Scripture lays down a prohibition regarding him a second time (Sifrei Devarim 281:1).