Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Yehezkiel 8:6

Like the smiting of him who smote him did He smite him Have you seen My might, that like the smiting of the one who smote Jacob, I smote him. They drowned them in the water, and I drowned them in the water. There are some other rhetorical questions that warrant an affirmative answer, e.g. (I Sam. 2:27), “Did I appear to the house of your father?” Also (Ezek. 8:6), “Do you see what they are doing?”

הלבן SHALL A CHILD BE BORN TO ONE WHO IS A HUNDRED YEARS OLD? — There are some questions expressing astonishment which do not imply a doubt but rather affirm the certainty that the circumstance referred to has happened or will happen, as (1 Samuel 2:2) “Did I reveal myself [unto thy father’s house?]” (Of course, I did) and (Ezekiel 8:6) “Seest thou what they do?” (You, of course, have seen it). This question, too, affirms the certainty that it is possible for God to cause Abraham, at the age of hundred, to beget a son and this is in effect what he said to himself: Would there be done to another man one hundred years old this favour that the Holy One, blessed be He, is doing to me”? (Rashi means that the words must be translated, “would a child be born to any other person who is a hundred years old?”).

AND THOU SHALT NOT LIE CARNALLY³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. WITH THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “For there is a threefold purpose to sexual intercourse: one is to beget children, a second is to relieve the body of its fluids, and the third is for passion, which is likened to that of the animals. Now when Scripture said l’zara,³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. it means ‘even l’zara’ [i.e., even for the purpose of begetting children], and thus it prohibited [having intercourse with another man’s wife] altogether.” It is possible that He said l’zara in order to mention the reason for the prohibition, since it will not be known to whom “the child” belongs, and as a result, great and wicked abominations³⁰⁹See Ezekiel 8:6 and 9. might be done by both.³¹⁰I.e., both the child and the father. For not knowing their true relationship, they might marry one of the forbidden relations, etc. Now Scripture did not mention [this expression l’zara further on when it speaks] of the punishment [for this sin],³¹¹Further, 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife … both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. because even for intimacy of the first stage without emitting seed, he is already liable to punishment. It is for this reason that [in the case of a suspected adulteress] Scripture states, and a man lie with her carnally,³¹²Numbers 5:13. The Hebrew shichvath zera literally means “a lying of seed.” for it is on account of the zera³¹³Literally: “seed.” In the light of what Ramban has written above, it may also mean that his jealousy is aroused on account of his children, whose legitimacy will henceforth be questioned. that he suspects her. Similarly in the case of a betrothed bondswoman it also says, lieth carnally³¹⁴Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera, which literally means “a lying of seed.” with her, because the prohibition is on account of the child that he will beget from a bondwoman [who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant].³¹⁵Kerithoth 11 a.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that since another man’s wife is completely forbidden to one, whosoever toucheth her shall not go unpunished,³¹⁶Proverbs 6:29. therefore Scripture had to say here l’zara.³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. For had it said only: “and thou shalt not lie with thy neighbor’s wife,” it would have appeared that it forbids [by punishment of excision] even lying with her just for embracing and kissing, since here [in this section] it speaks only of those forbidden relations that are punishable with excision. Therefore it was necessary to mention that the intimacy was l’zara,³⁰⁸Literally: “to seed.” See text further. in order to explain that He is prohibiting here sexual intercourse. This is also the reason for the expression in the case of the betrothed bondswoman,³¹⁴Further, 19:20. Here too the term used is shichvath zera, which literally means “a lying of seed.” because she is like another man’s wife. Similarly it states in the case of another man’s wife, And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife,³¹⁷Further, 20:10. and it does not state “lieth,” for it is not mere lying with her that He prohibits [under punishment of death]. He does not state here [in the verse before us forbidding intercourse with another man’s wife], “to uncover her nakedness,” for He only mentions this expression with reference to the next of kin and a menstruant,³¹⁸Verse 19. since the prohibition there is because of the uncovering, just as He said, for he hath made naked his near kin.³¹⁹Further, 20:19.