וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֙ וְהִגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ אֵ֖ת דְּבַ֥ר הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט׃
Engkau harus datang kepada para imam, orang-orang Lewi itu, dan kepada hakim yang ada pada masa itu, lalu engkau harus bertanya kepada mereka, dan mereka akan memberitahukan kepadamu keputusan hukumnya.
Rabbeinu Bahya
בני אהרן, “sons of Aaron,” etc. Our sages in Sotah 23 understand this as excluding female descendants of priests, i.e. “the sons of Aaron but not the daughters of Aaron.” I have explained the reason why the female offspring of priests is not considered as priests in the full sense of the word in my commentary on Parshat Tzav (Leviticus 6,19) as due to the woman having been the one who brought death into the world. This does not make them fit to act as priests, i.e. people who are concerned with preserving and extending life.
The reason that this paragraph of special laws for the priests has been written immediately after the verse prohibiting the law of how to deal with sorcerers, various kinds of performers of magic, is explained in the Midrash as justified by subsequent Jewish history. King Saul killed an entire city of Priests (Nof), compare Samuel I 22,18 appointing Doeg their accuser to be the executioner. [There had not been the kind of evidence that the priests had committed treason against Saul which would stand up in court. Ed.] Subsequently, when King Saul found himself in a quandary when he did want advice from G’d and was refused it, he turned to a necromancer despite the express prohibition to even allow such people to live in Leviticus 20,27. G’d had foreseen all this and had written these two commandments, i.e. to give precedence to the priests and to abhor necromancers as a warning to Saul and others not to become guilty of the sin described.
Isaiah 8,19 deals with this subject when he writes addressing the common folk who might be asked to practice the art of necromancy by saying: “should the people say to you, ‘inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan, for a people may inquire of its divine beings, of the dead on behalf of the living, for instruction and message;’ by responding: ‘surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn.” Isaiah’s point is that if such a practice is raising its head in Israel the people have to respond that they get any information they are desirous of from their G’d directly, not from charlatans, etc. The prophet Elijah had remonstrated with King Achazyah who had sent inquiries to idols of other nations, and had challenged him saying: “are there then no representatives of the true Lord in Israel that you saw fit to inquire from deities like Baal Zevuv and others?” (Kings II 1,6). In the event that the people feel that they have no legitimate address from which to inquire about their future, the Torah goes on record in Deut. 17,9: “you will come to the priests, the Levites, or to the judge who will officiate in those days; when you inquire they will tell you.”
Rabbi Yehoshua from the village Sakinin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that G’d showed Moses a bird’s eye view of all subsequent generations and their respective leaders. He showed him King Saul, his sons, and his death by the sword of the Jewish people’s enemies. This was part of the panorama G’d showed to Moses. Moses was aghast and exclaimed: “the first King of the Jewish people should have such a tragic end, should be stabbed by a sword?” Thereupon G’d told Moses to write down the paragraph we are now dealing with. Thus far Rabbi Yehoshua (compare Tanchuma Emor 2). I plan to explain the details about the various forms of necromancy, etc., in connection with Parshat Shoftim, (seeing there are different views about this subject).
The reason that this paragraph of special laws for the priests has been written immediately after the verse prohibiting the law of how to deal with sorcerers, various kinds of performers of magic, is explained in the Midrash as justified by subsequent Jewish history. King Saul killed an entire city of Priests (Nof), compare Samuel I 22,18 appointing Doeg their accuser to be the executioner. [There had not been the kind of evidence that the priests had committed treason against Saul which would stand up in court. Ed.] Subsequently, when King Saul found himself in a quandary when he did want advice from G’d and was refused it, he turned to a necromancer despite the express prohibition to even allow such people to live in Leviticus 20,27. G’d had foreseen all this and had written these two commandments, i.e. to give precedence to the priests and to abhor necromancers as a warning to Saul and others not to become guilty of the sin described.
Isaiah 8,19 deals with this subject when he writes addressing the common folk who might be asked to practice the art of necromancy by saying: “should the people say to you, ‘inquire of the ghosts and familiar spirits that chirp and moan, for a people may inquire of its divine beings, of the dead on behalf of the living, for instruction and message;’ by responding: ‘surely for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn.” Isaiah’s point is that if such a practice is raising its head in Israel the people have to respond that they get any information they are desirous of from their G’d directly, not from charlatans, etc. The prophet Elijah had remonstrated with King Achazyah who had sent inquiries to idols of other nations, and had challenged him saying: “are there then no representatives of the true Lord in Israel that you saw fit to inquire from deities like Baal Zevuv and others?” (Kings II 1,6). In the event that the people feel that they have no legitimate address from which to inquire about their future, the Torah goes on record in Deut. 17,9: “you will come to the priests, the Levites, or to the judge who will officiate in those days; when you inquire they will tell you.”
Rabbi Yehoshua from the village Sakinin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that G’d showed Moses a bird’s eye view of all subsequent generations and their respective leaders. He showed him King Saul, his sons, and his death by the sword of the Jewish people’s enemies. This was part of the panorama G’d showed to Moses. Moses was aghast and exclaimed: “the first King of the Jewish people should have such a tragic end, should be stabbed by a sword?” Thereupon G’d told Moses to write down the paragraph we are now dealing with. Thus far Rabbi Yehoshua (compare Tanchuma Emor 2). I plan to explain the details about the various forms of necromancy, etc., in connection with Parshat Shoftim, (seeing there are different views about this subject).
Ramban
AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIEST THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS — to the priest that shall be there in those days, for first-fruits, like all offerings, are given to the men of the [priestly] Division [who are assigned to the Sanctuary for a week at a time],10See Vol. IV, p. 17, Note 92. but he may not bring along a priest from his city in order to offer him his first-fruits.
Now, Rashi wrote: “You have none else than the priest who lives in your days as he is.” But I have not understood this, for in the case of an elder [of the Sanhedrin] it is proper to say [and thou shalt come …] unto the judge that shall be in those days,11Above, 17:9. meaning that even though he is not as great and wise as the early judges in the ages which were before us,12Ecclesiastes 1:10. still he [the elder] is obligated to hearken to him [the judge], for “Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation.”13Rosh Hashanah 25b. The prophet Samuel is cited by Scripture as being equal to Moses and Aaron (Psalms 99:6). Elsewhere Jephthah is mentioned together with Samuel (I Samuel 12:11), thus teaching us that Jephthah in his generation was entitled to obedience just as was Samuel in his generation. But when bringing first-fruits, to whom shall he bring them if not to the priest that shall be in his days? Now, I have also seen the following text in the Sifre:5Sifre, Ki Thavo 298. “And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days. This is what Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, And would it occur to you to come to the priest that is not in your days? Rather, [I must say that the verse requires one to come to] the priest who is considered by you to be established and fit in those days. Kinsmen who have ceased to be kinsmen are qualified.14This statement will be explained further on by Ramban as applying to a judge who was disqualified from rendering judgment involving a member of his family. This stricture does not apply to the bringing of first-fruits to a kindred priest who is ministering in the Sanctuary. And so it is also said, Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ ”15Ecclesiastes 7:10. The word days thus refers to “the judges of the former days.” Do not say that the judges of the former generations were better than those of the present, and therefore I would not listen to them. Instead you are to listen to them, for you are only concerned with them (Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 25b). It appears that the Sages interpreted in this connection that if one brought first-fruits or a burnt-offering to a priest who was presumed to be qualified and afterwards it was discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman, [a defiled priest not entitled to perform the Divine Service, nor to receive the priestly gifts] the offerings are nevertheless valid, as is mentioned in the last chapter16In our text of the Gemara it is found in the third chapter of Kiddushin 66b. The tractate contains four chapters. of Tractate Kiddushin. Also included in this principle is [the rule] that a kinsman who has ceased to be a kinsman is qualified, this applying to an elder who may not be judged by a relative,17But if he ceased to be his kinsman — for example, a son-in-law [of the elder] whose wife died — he becomes qualified to judge. but it is not relevant to first-fruits.
Now, Rashi wrote: “You have none else than the priest who lives in your days as he is.” But I have not understood this, for in the case of an elder [of the Sanhedrin] it is proper to say [and thou shalt come …] unto the judge that shall be in those days,11Above, 17:9. meaning that even though he is not as great and wise as the early judges in the ages which were before us,12Ecclesiastes 1:10. still he [the elder] is obligated to hearken to him [the judge], for “Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation.”13Rosh Hashanah 25b. The prophet Samuel is cited by Scripture as being equal to Moses and Aaron (Psalms 99:6). Elsewhere Jephthah is mentioned together with Samuel (I Samuel 12:11), thus teaching us that Jephthah in his generation was entitled to obedience just as was Samuel in his generation. But when bringing first-fruits, to whom shall he bring them if not to the priest that shall be in his days? Now, I have also seen the following text in the Sifre:5Sifre, Ki Thavo 298. “And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days. This is what Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, And would it occur to you to come to the priest that is not in your days? Rather, [I must say that the verse requires one to come to] the priest who is considered by you to be established and fit in those days. Kinsmen who have ceased to be kinsmen are qualified.14This statement will be explained further on by Ramban as applying to a judge who was disqualified from rendering judgment involving a member of his family. This stricture does not apply to the bringing of first-fruits to a kindred priest who is ministering in the Sanctuary. And so it is also said, Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ ”15Ecclesiastes 7:10. The word days thus refers to “the judges of the former days.” Do not say that the judges of the former generations were better than those of the present, and therefore I would not listen to them. Instead you are to listen to them, for you are only concerned with them (Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 25b). It appears that the Sages interpreted in this connection that if one brought first-fruits or a burnt-offering to a priest who was presumed to be qualified and afterwards it was discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman, [a defiled priest not entitled to perform the Divine Service, nor to receive the priestly gifts] the offerings are nevertheless valid, as is mentioned in the last chapter16In our text of the Gemara it is found in the third chapter of Kiddushin 66b. The tractate contains four chapters. of Tractate Kiddushin. Also included in this principle is [the rule] that a kinsman who has ceased to be a kinsman is qualified, this applying to an elder who may not be judged by a relative,17But if he ceased to be his kinsman — for example, a son-in-law [of the elder] whose wife died — he becomes qualified to judge. but it is not relevant to first-fruits.
Rav Hirsch
Damit bricht aber alles zusammen, was man gedankenlos von jüdischer Hierarchie faselt, um das jüdische Priestertum zu Vater und Mutter aller hierarchischen Anmaßung zu machen. Eine als Axiom von Mund zu Mund gehende Annahme, die, wie durch die Theorie des jüdischen Gesetzes, ebenso durch die Fakta der jüdischen Geschichte völlig zu Schanden gemacht wird. Nirgend tritt in den Jahrtausenden der jüdischen Geschichte eine Autorität der Priester als solcher einen wichtigen Einfluss auf die Gestaltung der Gesamtheit übend hervor. Die bei weitem überwiegende Majorität der Männer, die lehrend und leitend auf das jüdische Nationalleben influierten, waren Nichtpriester, und diejenigen, die unter ihnen Priester waren, verdankten nicht ihrer Priesterweihe diesen Einfluss, sondern persönlichen Eigenschaften, die ihnen die Gemüter und Geister ihres Volkes unter allen Umständen geöffnet hätten, wenn sie auch nicht aus dem Stamme der Aharoniden gewesen wären. Wenn daher Dewarim 17, 9 die Appellation an die höchste Gesetzesautorität: ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט וגו׳ ausgedrückt wird, so ist dieses, ganz konsequent mit der in unserer Stelle gegebenen Grundbestimmung, im Sifri z. St. dahin erläutert, daß, wenn sich unter Aharoniden und Leviten für die Mitgliedschaft im allerhöchsten Gesetzestribunal qualifizierte Persönlichkeiten finden, es eine מצוה sei, daß in diesem, an der Stelle der Gesamtnation Recht sprechenden Rate auch Aharoniden und Leviten seien, nicht aber, daß ihre Anwesenheit die Autorität der Sanhedrin bedinge, geschweige denn, daß sie nur aus Priestern zu bestehen gehabt hätten: מצות ב׳׳ד שיהו בו כהנים ולוים אע׳׳פי שאין בו כהנים ולוים כשר. Sanhedrin 42b wird ferner durch die Zusammenstellung des höchsten Gerichtes mit dem Priester die Kompetenz des höchsten Gerichts in ihrer Vollkraft an das Vorhandensein des priesterlichen Tempeldienstes gebunden erklärt, wie ja die höchste Synhedrialautorität ja auch an die Örtlichkeit im Tempelraume gebunden war, מלמד שהמקום גורם , und dadurch die jüdische Justiz nicht als ein besonderes Bereich etwa politisch-nationaler Zwecknotwendigkeiten, sondern als Ausfluss eben desselben Gotteswillens dazustehen hatte, der seine Gesetze seinen Altar erbauen hieß, und der die Verwirklichung seines Willens in seinem Heiligtum durch die dem Feuer seines Gesetzes darzubringenden Opfer zu veranschaulichen gebot. Was der Priester im Heiligtume symbolisch lehrte, dessen Verwirklichung im konkreten Leben hatte das Sanhedrin zu erwirken. Beides war עבודת ד׳.