Commento su Deuteronomio 32:5

שחת לו — Take it as the Targum has it: חבילו להון לא לה “Corruption is theirs, not His”.

THE CORRUPTION WAS TOWARDS HIM; THEY ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN [BECAUSE OF] THEIR BLEMISH. The blemish is called “corruption,” as it is said, their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them,¹²Leviticus 22:25. Here the word “corruption” is clearly associated with “blemish.” and similarly, and he sacrificeth unto the Eternal ‘a corrupted’ thing,¹³Malachi 1:14. [which means “a blemished” thing]. He [Moses] thus states that the blemish of Israel is the corruption towards the Rock of His people and His inheritance, and [therefore] he calls them not His children, just as, in an acceptable time¹⁴Isaiah 49:8. [a time when they conduct themselves properly] he calls them “His children.”¹⁵See above, 14:1. He states that they are a generation crooked and perverse, for crookedness is the opposite of uprightness, similar to what is said, and they make crooked all equity,¹⁶Micah 3:9. The text reads: v’eith kol hayesharah ye’akeishu. The contrast between yashar (straight) and akeish (crooked) is thus clear. and the perverse is the opposite of the righteous. Consequently, since He is just and right¹⁷Verse 4. and they are the opposite of that, they are not [considered] His children; rather, they are considered by Him to be corrupted. And the sequence of the verse is thus: “their corruption towards Him — which is their blemish — has caused them not to be considered His children, [for they are] a generation crooked and perverse.” The sense thereof is that the dimunition of their status did not result from the deed of the Rock, for He is perfect and there can never be imperfection in Him, but it is their blemish that corrupts them before their Father. And the meaning of the expression not His children is like And I will say to them that were not My people: ‘Thou art My people.’¹⁸Hosea 2:25. The expression not His ‘children’ is thus identical with not His ‘people.’ Similarly, They have aroused Me to jealousy with a no-god,¹⁹Further, Verse 21. meaning, with something that is not a god. So also, and they have sworn by no-gods.²⁰Jeremiah 5:7. Or it may be that the verse here states: “The corruption towards Him is their blemish, that they are not His children, for they are a generation crooked and perverse, the opposite of Him.”

שחת לו לא בניו מומם דור עקש ופתלתול, however, a twisted and perverse generation He does not view as His true children, such as when they made the golden calf. מומם, their blemish was not due to anything G’d had done Moses recalls that when G’d first told him about the people having become corrupt during his stay on the mountain that they were “your people” (Exodus 32,7), that although Moses, when accepting the conversion of the mixed multitude to Judaism had meant to sanctify the name of G’d, the fact was that instead of becoming a shining example to the world, these people had corrupted what would otherwise have been a kingdom of Priests. They had re-introduced idolatry among these people so recently weaned from it.

שחת לו לא בניו מומם, "Its corruption caused them no longer to be His fit children due to their blemish." When they become corrupt they cause harm to themselves. They are no longer called the children of the living G'd as our sages have said in Baba Batra 10: "as long as the children of Israel follow the path of G'd they are called "children;" if they stray, they are called "slaves." Moses mentions that if Israel becomes corrupt vis-a-vis G'd they are no longer His children. He adds the word מומם, their blemish, to remind Israel that if it does become blemished the fault is not with G'd but with themselves. Moses had to add this so that one would not conclude that the blemish found in the Israelites must eventually be traced back to G'd Himself, to their origin. G'd had created man, i.e. Israel, ישר, morally upright; we know this from Isaiah 5,1 where G'd describes Himself as "having owned a vineyard on a fruitful hill. He broke the ground, cleared it of stones and planted it with choice vines, etc. etc. Instead it yielded wild grapes." In other words, the corruption, the blemish, developed out of the people not out of their association with G'd. We are told in Sotah 3 that one does not commit a sin until after one's mind has been invaded by a streak of madness. This is the mystical dimension of Deut. 15,21 מום רע, "a severe blemish." The continued presence of this blemish is attributable exclusively to the deeds of man.

שחת לו, Israel induced its own corruption as the prophet Hoseah said in Hoseah 13,9 שחתך ישראל כי בי בעזרך, “You have caused yourself all your own injuries, corruption, for from Me you had received only help, assistance.”

שחת לו לא בניו מומם, ”Corruption is not His, the blemish is His children’s.” Nachmanides explains that the verse can best be understood if we read it as if it had been written in the sequence: מומם שחת אותם לו, ”His children’s blemishes have made them corrupt for Him, so much so that He no longer refers to them as His children.”

דור עקש ופתלתל, “a perverse and twisted generation.” Now Moses addresses his people, calling them by an unflattering description. These words belong together with the words in the next verse הלה' תגמלו זאת, “are you really going to repeat the mistakes of Adam, Kayin and Hevel and act likewise against Hashem?” (The author states that the period sign after the word פתלתל does not present an obstacle to how he reads these two verses). Seeing that Moses had already told the people in 31,29 that he foresaw how they would become corrupt after his death and serve idols after the death of Joshua, he now urgently warns them against pursuing such a path.

They destroy themselves, not Him. This means “And not Him, not the Holy One, Blessed Is He.” This is what the verse means: “They destroy.” And who have they destroyed? It continues, “not Him,” i.e. not the Holy One, Blessed Is He. Based on this [reading] the term, “Him” is connected to the word, “not” which follows it, rather than to the word “destructiveness.” Based on the words of the verse, [Onkelos] should have translated as “and to Him not.” Instead he translated it based on common usage. He had to add the word, “themselves” after the word “destructiveness” because otherwise, this the verse would not be understandable. For whom did they destroy? And the phrase “not Him” would not fit in since we do not know who they destroyed? (Re”m)

V. 5. שחת לו לא בניו מומם, ein Satz, dessen Verständnis erhebliche Schwierigkeiten bietet. Man pflegt diese fünf Worte in zwei, oder selbst drei Sätze zu teilen, und zwar das שִחֵת mehr als Substantiv zu fassen, wie והדִבֵר אין בהם (Jirm. 5, 13). Entweder: das Verderben ist nicht ihm (ist nicht sein); seine Söhne, ihrer ist der Fehl. Oder: das Verderben ist es ihm? (ist es sein?) nein! seine Söhne, ihrer ist der Fehl. Gegen die erste Auffassung spricht, dass, soweit wir glauben, nirgends die Negation לא dem zu Negierendem nachfolgt, es hätte heißen müssen: שחת לא לו. Der zweiten steht entgegen, dass der Akzent in der Regel wohl Satzteile, nicht aber Sätze trennt. Auch für die Auffassung der Worte בניו מומם in beiden Erklärungen spricht weder der Akzent noch die Konstruktion. Verstehen wir ferner diese Auffassungen recht, so wäre שחת nicht das sittliche Verderbnis, sondern das in Folge derselben eingebrochene soziale und politische Verderben das Unglück. Dem gegenüber müsste denn auch מום also verstanden werden. מום ist aber nur ein persönlicher, gewöhnlich ja leiblicher Fehler, und kann sehr wohl auch auf sittliche Gebrechen übertragen sein, schwerlich aber individuelles oder allgemeines Unglück bedeuten. Vergleichen wir endlich die ganz gleiche Akzentuation מרכבת פרעה וחילו ירה בים (Schmot 15, 4), כי רחק ממני מנחם משיב נפשי (Klagel. 1,16). כאשר עוללת לי על כל פשעי (daselbst 22), השיב אחור ימינו אויב (daselbst 2, 3), בדמי ימי אלכה בשערי שאול (Jes.35, 10). Oder auch: פצו עלינו פיהם כל אויבינו ,כי לא יזנח לעולם ד׳ ,צוד צדוני כצפר איבי חנם (Klagel. 3, 31 u. 46, 52), so werden wir uns veranlasst sehen, auch שחת לו לא בניו מומם nur als einen Satz aufzufassen, und zwar מומם als Subjekt, שחת לו als Prädikat, לא בניו Adverbialbestimmung zu שחת .שחת Präteritum von שחת im Sinne sittlichen Verderbnisses wie כי שחת עמך (Schmot 32, 7) מומם: der ihnen von Alters her anhaftende Charakterfehler עם קשה עורף, der im folgenden durch דור עקש ופתלתול umschrieben wird. Also: Verderbt hat sie ihm bis zu Nichtkindern ihr alter Fehler: דור עקש ופתלתול. Die Stellen ומעקשים למישור. (Jes.42, 16), ואת כל הישרה יעקשו (Micha 3, 9) usw. lassen in עקש einen Gegensatz zum ישר erkennen. פתל haben wir bereits wiederholt in der Bedeutung einer durch festes inneres Zusammenhalten bewirkten Absonderung von andern erkannt (siehe zu Bereschit 30, 8; Bamidbar 15, 38 u. 19, 15). Auf den Charakter übertragen ist עקש die allem Geraden sich widersetzende Krümme, auch Gegensatz von תם. So תם אני ויעקשני (Job. 9, 20); vergl. Ps.18, 27. פתלתול: der jeder Gesetzesleitung widerstreitende Ungehorsam.

שחת לו, לא בניו, “Is corruption His? No, His children’s is the blemish. What Moses is explaining is that if His children, the Jewish people perform corrupt deeds, it is not He who will suffer from this; the fallout of their evil deeds will leave a blemish on the children of those who have performed these deeds. They will bear the shame of the deeds of their fathers. This is also the meaning of the Targum on this verse. Rabbi Moses from Pontresia was bothered by the fact that if this interpretation is correct the Torah should have spelled the two words lo in the reverse manner, i.e. לא, לו. As a result, he interpreted the meaning as follows: “the blemish will not adhere to their children, but to them who have performed the corrupt deeds.” This is also what the prophet Hosea said in Hoseah 2,4: כי היא לא אשתי והם לא בני כי בני זנונים המה, “for she is not My wife and I am not her husband, for they are the brood of harlotry.” [though bastards cannot be blamed for the deeds of their progenitors. Ed.]

שחת לו לא בניו, “Is corruption His? No His children’s is the blemish.” Did G-d cause them to become corrupted, so that they would no longer be His children? Compare Hoseah 2,1: !לא עמי אתם, “You are not My people!” Rather it was your sins which have made you corrupt, so that you are no longer fit to be identified with your “father” in heaven.

בניו מומם HIS CHILDREN, THEIR FAULT — i.e., they were His children, and the corruption which they wrought is their fault.

לא, no one else is to blame;

דור עקש ופתלתול, “a perverse and twisted generation.” Moses explains the reason why none of this has a negative effect on the Creator as being that since He is perfect, He can –metaphorically speaking- be compared to a Rock that was constructed to be perfect forever. It will not develop weaknesses, faults, etc. However, the Israelites’ blemishes will expose themselves to their enemies with dire consequences.

His erstwhile children, etc. Rashi is asking: Why does He call them “His children” after they had sinned?

דור עקש ופתלתל, "a perverse and twisted generation." If the generation were smitten only with perversion the words of Torah might suffice to straighten out these people. Who is responsible for the people to have become so twisted? None other than their inherent tendency to be stiff-necked, not to be willing to admit they had been mistaken. It is tragic to be a witness to all kinds of heresy being rampant during these generations and whenever someone comes along and tries to straighten out the misguided thinking of these heretics they become reinforced and even more entrenched in their heresy. This leads to these people losing their homeland.

בניו מומם, “His children have become blemished, have caused it themselves;” Compare Leviticus 22,25, (according to Seforno) כי משחתם בהם מום בם, “for their corruption is within them, not only external.”

בניו מומם means: it was the fault of His children not His fault.

בניו מומם, the word מומם is an alternate for שחת ישראל, i.e. a repetition of the same thought, their corruption. Similarly, the wordבניו is an alternate for ישראל, in other words, G’d’s children are themselves to blame for their having become corrupt. If we needed further proof for the meaning of the word שחת, we find it in Leviticus 22,25 כי משחתם בהם מום בם “for their mutilation, defectiveness is inherent in them etc.”

The defect was His children’s, not His defect. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written “their defect” rather than simply, “defect”? In which case the phrase, “His children” would refer back to “destructiveness” as if to say, “His children destroyed.” For this reason he translated “They destroy themselves” as if to say, “The children destroyed themselves, not He, and that is their defect,” i.e., the defect does not pertain to Him. This means the same as the phrase above, “destructiveness does not apply to Him.” The verse repeats itself using different words, as is the style in poems and prophecies. (Re”m)

דור עקש means, [A] CROOKED AND PERVERTED [GENERATION]. עקש has the same meaning as the verb in (Micah 3:9) “and pervert (יעקשו) all equity”. In Mishnaic Hebrew we have (Chullin 56a): a weasel whose teeth are bent and crooked (עקושות).

And winds around a pendant. In the same way that they make a wick for an oil lamp, where they wrap around a [strand of] straw.

ופתלתל entortille in old French, Engl, twisted: like a thread (פתיל), which one twines and twists round the central strand. The word פתלתל is of the “doubled” words (in which the two last letters are the same), like (Leviticus 13:49): ירקרק. אדמדם; (Psalms 38:31): סחרחר; (‎1 Kings 7:23; Targum Jonathan on): סגלגל‎.