וַיִּתְּנוּ־לוֹ֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים כֶּ֔סֶף מִבֵּ֖יתּ בַ֣עַל בְּרִ֑ית וַיִּשְׂכֹּ֨ר בָּהֶ֜ם אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ אֲנָשִׁ֤ים רֵיקִים֙ וּפֹ֣חֲזִ֔ים וַיֵּלְכ֖וּ אַחֲרָֽיו׃
바알브릿 묘에서 은 칠십 개를 내어 그에게 주매 아비멜렉이 그것으로 방탕하고 경박한 유를 사서 자기를 좇게 하고
Ramban
UNSTABLE (‘PACHAZ’) AS WATER, YOU HAVE NOT THE EXCELLENCY. Pachaz is a noun, derived from the expression, Vain and reckless (‘upachazim’) fellows,80Judges 9:4. meaning “hasty and impulsive people.” Our Rabbis have made steady use of this word: “I was looking at my image in the water and my evil inclination rose (pachaz) within me,”81Nedarim 9b. that is “my evil inclination leaped upon me” They said further: “It is their recklessness (apichzeihu) which they are revealing,”82Sanhedrin 57a. See Note 63 in my Hebrew commentary, p. 265. meaning their impulsiveness. “A reckless (p’chizah) people, who spoke before listening, you still retain your recklessness (‘b’pachzuteich’),”83Shabbath 88a. meaning “hasty and impulsive.” It is possible that this word pachaz is a permutation of the word chipazon (hurry).84As is the case with the words; keves and kesev, both of which mean “lamb,” and other similar words. Jacob was thus saying: “Since you burst forth as water, you shall no longer excel for thou wentest up to thy father’s place of repose in thy haste and impulsiveness. Then didst thou profane them,85The Hebrew is mishk’vei (places of repose), which is in the plural form. Hence Ramban writes otham (them). when your recklessness ascended my couch like the rising and gushing water.” This is similar to the Scriptural description of water: Now, therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, mighty and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks; and he shall sweep through Judah, overflowing as he passeth through.86Isaiah 8:7-8.
Our Rabbis have said:87Shabbath 55b. It is found here in Rashi in the form mentioned by Ramban. “Then didst thou profane He Who hovered over my couch, meaning the Shechinah” that used to abide above my [Jacob’s] couch. Yet the verse says, Forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled his father’s couch,88I Chronicles 5:1. This clearly shows that it was “the couch” which was defiled and not, as the comment of Rashi would have it, the Shechina. Ramban proceeds to answer that Scripture modifies the expression out of respect for the Divine Presence. thus clearly stating that it was the couch which was defiled! But perhaps [out of respect for the Divine Presence, Scripture] modifies the expression there.
But if [we accept the explanation that Scripture modifies the expression], it is possible that the word alah (going up) refers to [Jacob, thus saying, “then didst thou profane my couch upon which I used to go up],” just as in the verse, Nor go up into the bed that is spread for me.89Psalms 132:3. Thus Jacob’s intent is to say: “Then thou didst defile me;” He spoke in the third person90Alah, “he” went up. only as a matter of respect. Similarly, the verse, Forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch,91I Chronicles 5:1. is a Scriptural modification, meaning “forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled the one who goes up92I.e., Jacob. His name though is not mentioned directly, as a matter of respect. upon his father’s couch.”
From the literal meaning of this verse it would appear as I have explained it in Seder Vayishlach,93Above, 35:22. i.e., that it was Reuben’s intention to disqualify Bilhah from his father so that she should no longer give birth to children, thus lessening his share as the firstborn. It was for this reason that Jacob said to him that it was reckless and impulsive to think that he would gain thereby, whereas he had no profit from it but only loss.
Our Rabbis have said:87Shabbath 55b. It is found here in Rashi in the form mentioned by Ramban. “Then didst thou profane He Who hovered over my couch, meaning the Shechinah” that used to abide above my [Jacob’s] couch. Yet the verse says, Forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled his father’s couch,88I Chronicles 5:1. This clearly shows that it was “the couch” which was defiled and not, as the comment of Rashi would have it, the Shechina. Ramban proceeds to answer that Scripture modifies the expression out of respect for the Divine Presence. thus clearly stating that it was the couch which was defiled! But perhaps [out of respect for the Divine Presence, Scripture] modifies the expression there.
But if [we accept the explanation that Scripture modifies the expression], it is possible that the word alah (going up) refers to [Jacob, thus saying, “then didst thou profane my couch upon which I used to go up],” just as in the verse, Nor go up into the bed that is spread for me.89Psalms 132:3. Thus Jacob’s intent is to say: “Then thou didst defile me;” He spoke in the third person90Alah, “he” went up. only as a matter of respect. Similarly, the verse, Forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch,91I Chronicles 5:1. is a Scriptural modification, meaning “forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled the one who goes up92I.e., Jacob. His name though is not mentioned directly, as a matter of respect. upon his father’s couch.”
From the literal meaning of this verse it would appear as I have explained it in Seder Vayishlach,93Above, 35:22. i.e., that it was Reuben’s intention to disqualify Bilhah from his father so that she should no longer give birth to children, thus lessening his share as the firstborn. It was for this reason that Jacob said to him that it was reckless and impulsive to think that he would gain thereby, whereas he had no profit from it but only loss.
Rav Hirsch
Es ist zu bedauern, daß die Radix פחז nicht öfter vorkommt. Aus אנשים רקים ופוחזים sieht man ebenfalls, daß es einen Charaktermangel bedeutet (Richter 9, 4). Allein unbestimmt bleibt, welchen. Unglücklicherweise steht es hier mit Wasser zusammen. Es gibt aber kaum etwas, das so verschiedene Auffassungen zulässt wie Wasser. Wasser hat keine innere Festigkeit, somit: Haltlosigkeit wie Wasser. Wasser fließt immer nach unten, strebt nach dem Niedrigen (wofern es nicht vergeistigt zur Regenbildung in Wolken aufsteigt). Wasser ist flüssig, bewegt sich rasch vorwärts etc. Im Munde unserer Weisen heißt איפחו צלוחיתו: das Überfließen des Glases. Die allgemeinste, dem Flüssigen als solchem innewohnende Eigenschaft wäre: der Mangel an Kohäsion, somit die Haltlosigkeit. — אל תותר ist Hiphil und heißt darum wohl nicht: du darfst keinen Vorzug haben, sondern ist Prädikat zum Subjekt פחז, die Haltlosigkeit deines Charakters gestattet dir den Vorzug nicht, weil du etc., da hast du den entweiht, der etc., also: dich; es ist milde umschrieben. Indem nun aber gleichwohl hier gesagt ist: du bist der köstlichste Edelstein in meinem Schatz, bist כחי וראשית אוני, allein zum Führer der Familie taugst du nicht, der muß עז sein, der darf sich nicht durch linde, schmeichelnde Winde und auch nicht durch stürmende Orkane bewegen lassen, muss innere Charakterfestigkeit haben, nicht haltlos wie Wasser sein — so ergibt sich aus allem dem, daß denn doch der ganze Vorgang nicht jene Bedeutung haben könne, die in dem schroffen Worte וישכב sein יתר שאת ויתר עז war und כח אביו וראשית אונו liegt. Einem Sohne, der וגו׳ sollte, wird auch ein sonst leichteres Vergehen hoch angerechnet. Ein wirkliches Verbrechen hätte ein Jakob bei einem Reuben nicht so milde und leicht als פחז כמים bezeichnet.
Ramban
BIKORETH’ (AN INVESTIGATION) SHALL BE MADE. “It is for the court to investigate the matter in order not to make him liable to death [that is to say, if she were a free woman betrothed to a man, and she had committed adultery, the punishment would be death, but this is not the case in this instance]. BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT FREE, and her betrothal was not complete.” This is Rashi’s language, and so did all the commentators140Ibn Ezra, R’dak in his Sefer Hashorashim, root bakeir. interpret the verse. And if so, Scripture then is warning the court to make this investigation because she is like a married woman, and they might [easily] make a mistake [in deciding his punishment]. But their interpretation does not please me, for it is a fact that is self-understood that the matter will be investigated, and that the court will not kill a person in vain. For they do such an investigation in all cases involving the death penalty!
Now it is my opinion that this [word bikoreth] is a unique one in Scripture, but it is a common term in the Aramaic language and in the expressions of our Rabbis, namely, the word hefkeir [“ownerless” — with the letter beth in bikoreth and the letter fei in hefkeir interchanging]. For the word is essentially hevkeir [with the letter veth, which is equivalent to the beth in bikoreth], just as the Rabbis have said [in a Mishnah]:141Peah 6:1. “The School of Shammai say: Hevkeir [produce that is proclaimed ownerless] for the benefit of the poor [only], is deemed hevkeir [and therefore the produce is free from the obligation to give tithes, since ownerless produce is exempt from tithes].142Thus we find the Mishnah using the word hevkeir [with the letter veth] instead of hefkeir [with the letter fei]. And the School of Hillel say: [It is not valid] unless the owner makes it equally free for the rich, just as in the Sabbatical year” [when the produce of the field is free for poor and rich alike, and is exempt from tithes]. And again we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:143Shevi’ith 9:4. “One may eat [produce of the Sabbatical year] which has been brought into the house al hamuvkar144Here too, the Mishnah uses the term hamuvkar instead of hamufkar. In our text of the Mishnah the latter usage is found. [only as long as similar produce is still found ‘free’ in the field as food for the animals], but not as long as it is still found watched over in private ownership.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated, vain and light fellows145Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. as “idlers uvakrin,” — “and ‘free’ men” [i.e., men defying the law]. By their lies and ‘by their wantonness’146Jeremiah 23:32. [Yonathan ben Uziel translated] uvakrithon147Here too Yonathan uses the veth [uvakrithon] instead of the fei [ufakrithon — “and their irreverence”]. (“and by their irresponsibility”). They also say148It would seem that the Targum Yerushalmi quoted here was not before Ramban. Hence he quotes it by hearsay: “They also say …” that the expression, and the seventh year thou shalt let it rest ‘u’n'tashta’,149Exodus 23:11. the Jerusalem Targum150See in Vol. I, p. 371, Note 128. renders as uthevakarno [“and thou shalt renounce ownership thereof,” thus also using the root hefkeir in the form of hevkeir]. Similarly throughout the Mishnah [the term hefkeir] is written with a veth [i.e., hevkeir]. But in the Gemara they became used to saying hefkeir [with a fei], as these letters [the veth and the fei] were used interchangeably by them, just as from the expression the grains ‘ovshu’ (shrivel),151Joel 1:17. they used the word ‘ofshu’ (musty). This is likewise found in many places in the Scriptures, as I have mentioned on the verse Thou didst blow with Thy wind.152Exodus 15:10. And the interpretation of this verse [before us] is as follows: He says concerning this bondmaid that “although she is ‘attending’ this man, she is not considered his wife because she is to him bikoreth, that is to say, she is treated by him as a loose person, and therefore they are not to be put to death as is the law of the adulterer and the adulteress when the woman is [properly] married; for freedom has not been given to her [from her status as a bondmaid] to be his real wife [and therefore he who lies carnally with her is not to be put to death], but instead he is to bring a guilt-offering because she is designated for a man.” And Onkelos who translated ‘bikoreth’ shall be made as “bikurto shall be made,” uses a language similar to that of Yonathan ben Uziel, in his rendition [of the Hebrew ufochazim145Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. (and light follows)] as uvakrin (men defying the Law).153Ramban’s intention is to point out that Onkelos’ rendition here of the Hebrew bikoreth as bikurto is thus similar to Yonathan’s rendition of the Hebrew ufochazim as uvakrin, which is of the root hevkeir, or in its later form hefkeir, which denotes something ownerless, loose, etc. It thus corroborates Ramban’s interpretation that the word bikoreth in the verse before us is of the term hefkeir, as explained in the text.
Now it is my opinion that this [word bikoreth] is a unique one in Scripture, but it is a common term in the Aramaic language and in the expressions of our Rabbis, namely, the word hefkeir [“ownerless” — with the letter beth in bikoreth and the letter fei in hefkeir interchanging]. For the word is essentially hevkeir [with the letter veth, which is equivalent to the beth in bikoreth], just as the Rabbis have said [in a Mishnah]:141Peah 6:1. “The School of Shammai say: Hevkeir [produce that is proclaimed ownerless] for the benefit of the poor [only], is deemed hevkeir [and therefore the produce is free from the obligation to give tithes, since ownerless produce is exempt from tithes].142Thus we find the Mishnah using the word hevkeir [with the letter veth] instead of hefkeir [with the letter fei]. And the School of Hillel say: [It is not valid] unless the owner makes it equally free for the rich, just as in the Sabbatical year” [when the produce of the field is free for poor and rich alike, and is exempt from tithes]. And again we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:143Shevi’ith 9:4. “One may eat [produce of the Sabbatical year] which has been brought into the house al hamuvkar144Here too, the Mishnah uses the term hamuvkar instead of hamufkar. In our text of the Mishnah the latter usage is found. [only as long as similar produce is still found ‘free’ in the field as food for the animals], but not as long as it is still found watched over in private ownership.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated, vain and light fellows145Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. as “idlers uvakrin,” — “and ‘free’ men” [i.e., men defying the law]. By their lies and ‘by their wantonness’146Jeremiah 23:32. [Yonathan ben Uziel translated] uvakrithon147Here too Yonathan uses the veth [uvakrithon] instead of the fei [ufakrithon — “and their irreverence”]. (“and by their irresponsibility”). They also say148It would seem that the Targum Yerushalmi quoted here was not before Ramban. Hence he quotes it by hearsay: “They also say …” that the expression, and the seventh year thou shalt let it rest ‘u’n'tashta’,149Exodus 23:11. the Jerusalem Targum150See in Vol. I, p. 371, Note 128. renders as uthevakarno [“and thou shalt renounce ownership thereof,” thus also using the root hefkeir in the form of hevkeir]. Similarly throughout the Mishnah [the term hefkeir] is written with a veth [i.e., hevkeir]. But in the Gemara they became used to saying hefkeir [with a fei], as these letters [the veth and the fei] were used interchangeably by them, just as from the expression the grains ‘ovshu’ (shrivel),151Joel 1:17. they used the word ‘ofshu’ (musty). This is likewise found in many places in the Scriptures, as I have mentioned on the verse Thou didst blow with Thy wind.152Exodus 15:10. And the interpretation of this verse [before us] is as follows: He says concerning this bondmaid that “although she is ‘attending’ this man, she is not considered his wife because she is to him bikoreth, that is to say, she is treated by him as a loose person, and therefore they are not to be put to death as is the law of the adulterer and the adulteress when the woman is [properly] married; for freedom has not been given to her [from her status as a bondmaid] to be his real wife [and therefore he who lies carnally with her is not to be put to death], but instead he is to bring a guilt-offering because she is designated for a man.” And Onkelos who translated ‘bikoreth’ shall be made as “bikurto shall be made,” uses a language similar to that of Yonathan ben Uziel, in his rendition [of the Hebrew ufochazim145Judges 9:4. See my Hebrew commentary p. 124, Note 55, about a different version in our text of Yonathan. (and light follows)] as uvakrin (men defying the Law).153Ramban’s intention is to point out that Onkelos’ rendition here of the Hebrew bikoreth as bikurto is thus similar to Yonathan’s rendition of the Hebrew ufochazim as uvakrin, which is of the root hevkeir, or in its later form hefkeir, which denotes something ownerless, loose, etc. It thus corroborates Ramban’s interpretation that the word bikoreth in the verse before us is of the term hefkeir, as explained in the text.