Citazione Commento su II Re 4:30

YIDOR NEDER LA’SHEM (VOWETH A VOW ‘UNTO’ THE ETERNAL). The meaning of [the expression] ‘yidor neder la’shem’ is not like that of ‘asher nishba la’shem (how he — David — swore ‘unto’ the Eternal),³¹Ibid., 132:2. for that [expression mentioned by David] is like ‘vayishava lo’ (and he swore ‘to him’)³²This is in reference either to Genesis 24:9, where Eliezer swore to Abraham to find a wife for Isaac from the country of his birthplace, or to Genesis 47:31, Joseph swearing to Jacob that he would bury him together with his fathers. In both cases the meaning of the prepositional lamed [‘lo’] is its literal meaning — “unto him,” and the intention is to say that the oath was “for his benefit.” Likewise the prepositional lamed [in the word la’shem] used by David has its literal meaning — “for ‘the benefit’ [so to say] and glory of G-d,” since the oath concerned his determination to build the House of G-d. which means that he swore to him for his [the recipient’s] benefit. But [the use of the prepositional lamed in the case of vows is equivalent to the use of the preposition beth (“by”)³³The gist of Ramban’s reasoning is as follows: The prepositional lamed in the case of oaths [in the examples cited above] has the meaning of “to” — to the benefit of the recipient, as is the case of Eliezer where the oath was for the benefit of Abraham. This principle, however, cannot be made to apply to vows, since in our verse it says if a man vows a vow ‘la’shem,’ and the verse is not speaking exclusively about vows to the benefit of the Sanctuary but refers to vows of all sorts, even of secular matters. Hence we must say that the prepositional lamed in vows has the same meaning as the beth [not the lamed] in oaths, which in both cases means “by” — by G-d. In other words, the prepositional lamed in vows and the beth in oaths are identical in meaning. Finally, Ramban will conclude that the Cabala does offer an explanation why a different preposition is used in each case. Thus it is shown that the mystic character of the Sacred Language is deeply embedded in the text of the Torah. in the case of oaths, for] in the case of oaths Scripture says: ‘u’vishmo’ (and ‘by’ His Name) shalt thou swear;³⁴Deuteronomy 6:13. v’ashbiacha ‘ba’shem’ (and I will make thee swear ‘by’ the Eternal);³⁵Genesis 24:3. as I swore ‘lecha’ (unto thee) ‘ba’shem’ (‘by’ the Eternal), the G-d of Israel, saying: Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me;³⁶I Kings 1:30. swear ‘li’ (unto me) here ‘bei’Elokim’ (‘by’ G-d).³⁷Genesis 21:23. But in the case of a vow Scripture does not say: “he vows ‘ba’shem’ (‘by’ G-d)” but la’shem (‘to’ G-d). The Sages in the Sifre have already alluded to the reason for this matter [the different terminology], saying:³⁸Sifre, Matoth 153. See Vol. I, p. 66, where Ramban quotes this Sifre. “What is the difference between vows and oaths? Vows are like vowing³⁹This is the text in the Sifre and in Ramban here. In Genesis, however, Ramban has “swearing” (Vol. I, p. 66). The intent of the texts in both places is equivalent. ‘by the life of the King;’ oaths are like swearing ‘by the King Himself.’ Although there is no [clear] proof for this explanation [in Scripture], there is an allusion to it: By the living G-d, and by the life of your soul. I will not leave thee.”⁴⁰II Kings 4:30. See Vol. I, p. 66, Note 290 where this text is explained in detail. And the secret thereof is that the shevuah (oath) is derived from the word shivah [“seven” — alluding to the seven Emanations], for she [wisdom] hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars,⁴¹Proverbs 9:1. whereas the vow is on [the level of] understanding, the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old.⁴²Ibid., 8:22. Thus you find that vows take precedence over the Torah, and therefore they apply to commandments just as to optional matters [as explained above]. Thus all vows are la’shem (“to” the Eternal), whereas all who swear [do so] “by” Him.

AND HE BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE. This alludes to the superiority of the soul, its foundation and secret, since it mentions in connection with it the full Divine Name.²⁸⁴And the ‘Eternal G-d’ formed… and He breathed into his nostrils…. And the verse says that He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life in order to inform us that the soul did not come to man from the elements, as He intimated concerning the soul of moving things, nor was it an evolvement from the Separate Intelligences.²³⁷Intelligences without matter, generally referring to the angels and spheres. See Rambam, Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 3:9. Also Moreh Nebuchim, I, 49: “The angels are likewise incorporeal; they are intelligences without matter, etc.” (Friedlander’s translation.) Rather, it was the spirit of the Great G-d: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and discernment.²⁸⁵Proverbs 2:6. For he who breathes into the nostrils of another person gives into him something from his own soul.²⁸⁶Similarly, since G-d breathed into man’s nostrils, it follows that the soul in man is of Divine essence. It is this which Scripture says, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding,²⁸⁷Job 32:8. since the soul is from the foundation of binah (understanding) by way of truth and faith.²⁸⁸Truth and faith here signify Cabalistic concepts. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 33. This corresponds to the saying of the Rabbis in the Sifre:²⁸⁹Numbers, beginning of Seder Matoth. “Vows are like swearing ‘by the life of the King:’ oaths are like swearing ‘by the King Himself.’ Although there is no proof for it in Scripture, there is an allusion to it: By the living G-d, and by the life of your soul.”²⁹⁰II Kings 4:30. Here in the verse where an oath is being expressed, it says, by the living G-d. It does not say “by the life of G-d,” which would indicate that His life is independent of Him; rather it says, by the living G-d, thus indicating that life is His very essence. (The correctness of this translation is indicated by the patach under the word chai, which is not in the construct state, and therefore means “the living G-d.”) See my Hebrew commentary, p. 33, for further elucidation of this point. Thus there is an allusion here to the teaching of the Sifre that “an oath is like swearing ‘by the King Himself,’” since in this verse quoted, where an oath is being given, it says, by the living G-d. This is an oath “by the King Himself.” In the case of a person, however, it says “by the life of your soul,” thus indicating that in a human being his life and his soul are two independent things. This explains the tzere under the word chei, which indicates a construct state combining two independent nouns. Thus there is an allusion to “Vows are like swearing ‘by the life of the King.’” See also Note 293. And in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah we find:²⁹¹Sefer Habahir, 57. See above, Note 42. “What is the meaning of the word vayinafash (and He rested)?²⁹²Exodus 31:17. It teaches us that the day of the Sabbath preserves all souls, for it is vayinafash” [i.e., from the word nefesh, soul]. It is from here that you will understand the expression, speaking the oath of G-d.²⁹³Ecclesiastes 8:2. This denotes that an oath is like swearing “by G-d Himself.” See Note 290 above. The person learned in the mysteries of the Torah will understand.
Know that those who engage in research have differed concerning man. Some say that man has three souls. One is the soul of growth, like that in a plant; or you may call this “the force of growth.” Then there is also a soul of movement in him, which Scripture mentioned concerning fish, animals, and everything that creeps upon the earth. The third is the rational soul. And there are some philosophers who say that this soul in man which comes from the Most High comprises these three forces while the soul is but one.²⁹⁴The division of opinion among the philosophers as to the nature of the soul is clearly marked in Jewish philosophy. Ibn Ezra (Ecclesiastes 3:7) writes at length to prove that the soul in man consists of three parts. He quotes Saadia Gaon to be of the same opinion. The poet-philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol (M’kor Chayim 5:20) also held this theory. Rambam, however, in his Sh’monah P’rakim, Chapter 1, holds that man’s soul is but one. This verse in its plain meaning so indicates for it states that G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, but he lay there lifeless like a dumb stone, and the Holy One, blessed be He, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then man became a living soul, able to move about by virtue of this soul, just like the animals and the fish, concerning which He said: ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’²⁹⁵Above, 1:20. and ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature.’²⁹⁶Ibid., Verse 24. This is the meaning of the expression here, ‘lenefesh chayah’ (into a living soul) man was made, meaning man turned into a soul in which there is life, after having been as a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth.²⁹⁷Isaiah 45:9. For the letter lamed in the word lenefesh indicates the opposite, [namely, that from being a potsherd he became a living soul]. And so it is in the verses, And the water shall turn ‘ledam’ (into blood) upon the dry land;²⁹⁸Exodus 4:9. And it turned ‘lenachash’ (into a snake);²⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 3. And He made the sea ‘lecharavah’ (into dry land).³⁰⁰Ibid., 14:21.
Onkelos, however, said: “And it became a speaking soul in man.” From this it would appear that his opinion coincides with those who say that man has various souls and that this rational soul which G-d breathed into his nostrils became a speaking soul.
It appears to me that this also is the opinion of our Rabbis, as we may deduce from what they said:³⁰¹Sanhedrin 65b. “Rava created a man. He sent him to Rabbi Zeira who spoke to him but he did not answer. Said Rabbi Zeira to him: ‘You are created by one of the colleagues; return to your dust.’”³⁰²This story indicates that man has various souls, since Rava was able to bestow the soul of movement upon the man he created, but he could not give him the soul of speech. And in Midrash Vayikra Rabbah we find written:³⁰³32:2. “Said Rabbi Avin: When a man sleeps, the body tells the neshamah (the moving spirit), and the neshamah tells the nefesh (the rational soul), and the nefesh tells the angel.”³⁰⁴The Midrash there concludes that each soul in man communicates to the other its sense of agreement that G-d’s judgment is just. At the same time it is obvious from this Midrash that the Rabbis are of the opinion that there are various souls in man. So also the verse, He gathers unto Himself his spirit and his breath,³⁰⁵Job 34:14. indicates, according to its plain meaning, that his spirit and breath are two distinct things.
That being so, the verse, And the Eternal G-d formed man, states the formation of movement, that man was formed into a creature capable of movement since “formation” denotes life and perception by virtue of which he is a man and not a kneaded mass of dust, just as it is said, And the Eternal G-d formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and He brought them unto the man.³⁰⁶Further, Verse 19. And after He formed him with the power of perception, He breathed into his nostrils a living soul from the Most High, this soul being in addition to the formation mentioned, and the whole man became a living soul since by virtue of this soul he understands and speaks and does all his deeds and all other souls and their powers in man are subject to it. The letter lamed in the word lenefesh is thus the lamed indicating possession, just as in the following verses: My lord, O king, ‘lecha ani’ (I am thine), and all that I have;³⁰⁷I Kings 20:4. ‘lakoneh’ (to him that bought) it, throughout his generations;³⁰⁸Leviticus 25:30., ‘lecha ani’ (I am thine), save me.³⁰⁹Psalms 119:94. Or, it may be that the verse is stating that man wholly became a living soul and was transformed into another man, as all His formations were, from now on, directed towards this soul.

כי הולך הוא, that his purpose in accompanying them was not to lead others as in Kings II 4,30 where Gechazi followed the dead boy’s mother to be shown the way, etc. Bileam, on the other hand, went as if he had his own agenda, attempting to foil the will of the Lord. The delegates had not come to ask for his advice at all.