시편 112:5의 인용 해설

ושפטו את העם משפט צדק, “they shall judge the people with fair judgment.” This may be either a warning to the individual judge or to every individual Israelite not to appoint a judge who is not righteous as well as competent. If they fail to do so each Israelite will be an accessory to perversion of justice if and when it occurs.” The judgment is to be absolute. It is to correspond to Leviticus 15,15 בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, “you are to judge your fellow with righteousness.” Sanhedrin 6,2 phrased this as יקוב הדין את ההר, “let the judgment bore a hole into the mountain.” Rabbi Akiva adds that one does not mix mercy with justice (Ketuvot 84). [The aforementioned quotes mean that the time for possible arbitration is before a matter comes to court; once it has come to court only legal considerations are relevant. Ed.]. The wordמשפט implies something “in the middle,” i.e. a clear-cut decision between opposing claims. Compare Psalms 112,5: ”he conducts his affairs with equity.” Jeremiah 30,11 speaks of ויסרתיך במשפט, “He will discipline you with justice.” These applications of strict yardsticks are valid in the dispensation of justice by a human tribunal.
The expression צדק which also appears in our verses is reserved for application by G’d. G’d combines both attributes when He sits in judgment. This is why we find David say in Psalms 99,4: משפט וצדקה ביעקב אתה עשית, “justice and charity You applied in judging Yaakov.” משפט is known in kabbalistic terms as the קו האמצעי the “middle” line on the diagram of the emanations, and Yaakov is the patriarch who represents this line [to the left of חסד on the right, Avraham’s attribute, and to the right of גבורה ,דין Yitzchak’s attribute. Ed.].
This enables us to understand Jeremiah 10,24: יסרני ה' אך במשפט, אל באפך פן תמיעטני, “chastise me o Lord, but in measure; not in Your wrath, lest You reduce me to naught.” The prophet says that the attribute of Justice which is part even of the tetragrammaton should not be applied to him as otherwise he would not survive the chastisement. [The prophet utters a prayer by his people who are aware that the enemy army is close to capturing Jerusalem. Ed]. משפט as distinct from דין, is perceived as the mild aspect of justice at work, whereas אפך is the harsh aspect of justice at work. Tzedek is the attribute of Justice applied to the world, as we know from Psalms 9,9 והוא ישפוט תבל בצדק, “and He will judge the universe by employing צדק.” This attribute receives its input from a higher source known as elohim. This is the meaning of Psalms 58,12 אך יש אלו-הים שופטים בארץ, “there is indeed divine justice on earth.” The word שופטים in that verse in Psalms and the word שופטים in our verse here are mystically linked together. The Torah’s instructions here are to establish the mechanism demonstrating that there is divine justice on earth. If it sounds as if justice is to be tempered with mercy in a court of law, this is misleading. The truth is if the guilty receives sentence the innocent is exonerated and feels that righteousness has been done for him whereas justice has been done to the other litigant.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE ‘KE’AROTHAV VEKHAPOTHAV UKSOTHAV UMENAKIYOTHAV.’ Rashi explained: “Ke’arothav are the forms [the moulds that were made to fit the shape of the bread]; vekhapothav are spoons in which the incense was put;¹²⁶See Leviticus 24:7. uksothav are rods in the shape of halves of hollow canes [which were put between one loaf and another so that they would not become mouldy]; umenakiyothav are the trestles which were notched in [five places] to support the canes.” These vessels [that Rashi referred to] are indeed mentioned in the Gemara.¹²⁷Menachoth 97a. And the Rabbi further said: “The word mechilathei [which Onkelos used for the Hebrew menakiyothav] means ‘bearers,’ similar to the expressions: and I weary myself ‘kalkeil’ (to bear it);¹²⁸Jeremiah 20:9. I am weary ‘hachil’ (bearing it).¹²⁹Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. Now the Sages of Israel have differed on this. For some say that ksothav are the trestles, and menakiyothav are the hollow canes. But Onkelos who translated menakiyothav by [the Aramaic] mechilathei was of the same opinion as he who says that menakiyoth are the trestles [supporting pillars attached to the table].” These are Rashi’s words. But I do not find them to be correct, for the word mechilathei [of Onkelos] in the Aramaic language is but a term meaning measures, such as ephahs and the like. Thus Onkelos rendered, eiphath tzedek¹³⁰Leviticus 19:36. — mechilon dikshot (a true measure); Thou shalt not have in thy house ‘eiphah v’eiphah’¹³¹Deuteronomy 25:14. — thou shalt not have mechilta umechilta (diverse measures). In a similar sense it is found whenever mentioned in the Talmud and in the Sages’ words: kayal meikal (he was measuring);¹³²Menachoth 53 b: ka kayol. bimchilta d’kayil inish ba mitkil (with the measure that one measures others, with that he is measured).¹³³Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 38:26. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’¹²⁹Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. means “I am weary of being a holding measure” [of G-d’s fury], and it is associated with these expressions: alpayim bath yachil (it held two thousand baths);¹³⁴I Kings 7:26. v’chol bashalish aphar ha’aretz (and He comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure);¹³⁵Isaiah 40:12. too little ‘meihachil’ (to receive) the burnt offering.¹³⁶I Kings 8:64. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’¹²⁹Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. is in my opinion not an expression of “bearing” but is instead a form of that very same meaning of “holding,” thus saying, “I am weary of holding” [G-d’s fury], similar in usage to these expressions: the land is not able ‘l’hachil’ (to hold) all his words;¹³⁷Amos 7:10. the spirit of a man ‘y’chalkeil’ his infirmity,¹³⁸Proverbs 18:14. meaning that he will be able to hold the pain within himself and not become weary [and broken in spirit] because of it. Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot ‘y’chalkelucha’¹³⁹I Kings 8:27. — they cannot hold and contain the greatness of Your exaltedness, for there is no limit and measure to You — how much less this house that I have built!¹³⁹I Kings 8:27. 'Y’chalkeil' his words rightfully¹⁴⁰Psalms 112:5. means that he is not a fool who spendeth all his spirit,¹⁴¹Proverbs 29:11. but holds his words within himself when necessary, and uses them as necessary. 'Vay’chalkeil Yoseiph'¹⁴²Genesis 47:12. means that Joseph gave them as much food as they could hold; he gave neither too much nor too little, but bread according to the want of their little ones.¹⁴³See Ramban on Genesis 41:48 (Vol. I, p. 507) that Joseph had gathered all food essential to life “even figs, fresh and dried, etc.” Now of this kind of food he gave his family abundantly, but bread he gave them according to the want of their little ones (Genesis 47:12). And such is the explanation of all [other similar expressions].
But Onkelos’ opinion [who translated umenakiyothav — umechilathei] is not clear. Perhaps menakiyothav is in the opinion of Onkelos a term for measures, since they had [in the Tabernacle and later in the Sanctuary] a measure holding two tenth parts [of an ephah] flour, with which to measure one cake,¹⁴⁴Leviticus 24:5. and they did not measure it twice with the one tenth measure of the meal-offering. We must then say that Onkelos differs from the Mishnah which teaches:¹⁴⁵Menachoth 87a. “There were two dry-measures in the Sanctuary: the tenth, and the half-tenth” [of an ephah], and in his opinion there were three dry-measures: the tenth, the half-tenth, and the two tenths.
The correct interpretation of Onkelos’ opinion appears to me to be that mechila is the form (mould) made for the dough, just as the Rabbis have said:¹⁴⁶Ibid., 94a. “There were in the Tabernacle three moulds [for the showbread]: he placed it in a mould whilst it was still dough; when baked in the oven it was put in another mould, and when he took it out he placed it in a [third] frame so that it should not spoil.”¹⁴⁷The first and third moulds were made of gold; the one for the oven was an iron mould. This [third] frame which was used so that it should not spoil did not have to be shaped to the form of the bread and its size; instead, it was made like a sort of dish to support the sides of the bread, this being the ke’arothav mentioned in the verse. But the first mould for the dough was shaped to the form of the bread and its size, namely, ten [handbreadths] long and five wide, and its horns¹⁴⁸Small pieces of dough were put on the four corners of each of the breads (Menachoth 96 a). seven fingerbreadths [high]. Into this mould the dough was put, measured and shaped to fit its form, and for this reason it was called mechila because it was made to “the measure.” The term menakiyoth then [according to Onkelos] is a name just like ephah and s’ah [a third of the ephah measure is a s’ah], similar, to ke’arothav and ksothav and other nouns which are not descriptive. Perhaps those just measures which are called a just ephah, and a just hin,¹⁴⁹Leviticus 19:36. and termed menakiyoth [of the root naki — clean] because they are clean of any falsehood, and thus they clear their owners of any cheating and sin. And ksavoth is a general term covering the canes [which were put between one loaf and another] and the trestles [notched in five places upon which the canes separating the loaves rested]. Perhaps because of their notches they were so called [ksavoth], with the letter tzade [ktzavoth — sides, corners] being used instead of the letter sin [ksavoth], this word [ksavoth] being similar to [the word ktzavoth found in the following verse]: so that they that dwell in ‘ktzavoth’ (the uttermost parts) stand in awe of Thy signs,¹⁵⁰Psalms 65:9. by interchanging the letter tzade with the sin, just like in the word s’chok [“laughter,” which is the word tzchok].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “There is an error in Chronicles,¹⁵¹I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. for in speaking of the vessels of the table in place of ke’aroth [mentioned here] it writes mizrakoth (basins); in place of kapoth [mentioned here] it writes kiporim (bowls); ksavoth is mentioned there as here; and in the place of menakiyoth it speaks of mizlagoth (forks). And all these were made of gold for the purpose of the table [and yet we do not find the mizrakoth, kiporim, and mizlagoth mentioned here in connection with the table in the Tabernacle]! Perhaps these were other vessels which David commanded to be placed on the tables¹⁵²II Chronicles 4:8. which his son Solomon would make, but the table in the Tent of Meeting did not have these vessels.” The error, however, is in Rabbi Abraham’s words, [not in the Book of Chronicles], for that which Scripture states, and the forks, and the basins, and the jars of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl,¹⁵¹I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. is not connected only with the tables of showbread¹⁵³I Chronicles 28:16. [mentioned in the preceding verse], but it reverts back to that which Scripture stated [several verses above], and for all the work of the service of the house of the Eternal, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Eternal.¹⁵⁴Ibid., Verse 13. And then it continues, of gold, for all vessels of every kind of service,¹⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 14. and then it mentioned, and the forks, and the basins¹⁵¹I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. which are vessels of the altar, and the jars for the table, and the bowls for the altar. And finally it stated, and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight,¹⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 18. concluding: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.¹⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 19. Thus David [in speaking to his son Solomon] included all needs of the Sanctuary.

And here I have space to explain these four hands, which contain an allusion to a person who covets money and does not depart from the world with even half his desires fulfilled — if he has 100, he desires 200, etc. Every person has two hands with which they toil and labor to acquire what they can grasp through their own strength and might, according to what their hands can attain. Thus, all that is within one’s power is achievable through their two hands. If one is not content with what God has granted them — a handful — they covet another handful, meaning the work of four hands, double what is attainable with their two hands. This is essentially the same measure as one who has 100 and covets 200 — double what is already attainable through their two hands. Anyone who covets money is not charitable, and therefore is not fit for kingship. For our Sages said (Sanhedrin 49) that it was in the merit of David doing justice for this one and charity for that one that Joab was victorious in battle. Therefore, it is said of Judah his hands are sufficient for him [yadav rav lo] (Deuteronomy 33:7). It should have said “yarbu lo” [they shall be abundant], since “hands” is plural while “rav” [sufficient] is singular. Rather, this indicates that he did not covet money requiring two additional hands, as his two hands were sufficient for him. For rav here means “enough,” as in enough for you [rav lecha], do not continue. This hints that he was satisfied with the labor of his two hands and did not seek more than that. Therefore, You shall be a help against his adversaries, for this contentment leads to charity, through whose merit enemies fall before him, as evidenced by Joab. As it is written Good is the man who is gracious and lends… his heart is steadfast, he shall not fear, until he sees his desire upon his adversaries (Psalms 112:5). Similarly, it concludes in Bava Kamma (17a) that one who engages in acts of kindness, his enemies fall before him as casualties. Therefore it states that because his hands were sufficient for him — the labor attainable through his two hands was enough and he did not seek excess — he became charitable. Thus, You shall be a help against his adversaries. This was said about Judah, who came from Perez. But Zerah was not content with his hands being sufficient; rather, he sought the labor of four hands and coveted money that was not rightfully his, as it is said regarding Achan I coveted them and took them (Joshua 7:21). Therefore, “his right hand was turned back”, like one withdrawing his hand, for the right of the firstborn and kingship would not be his, as every king needs to be victorious over enemies, and he was not capable of this, as explained.