이사야 32:15의 인용 해설

MAKE US A GOD WHO ‘YEILCHU’ (SHALL GO — in the plural) BEFORE US. “They wished to have many gods. FOR THIS MOSES, THE MAN THAT BROUGHT US UP OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, and used to show us the way we were to go, WE KNOW NOT WHAT IT BECOME OF HIM. Now we need many gods which shall go before us.” This is Rashi’s language.
But his language does not fit [the verse, since Scripture indicates only that they wanted a leader in place of Moses, but not gods]. Rather, this verse is the key to understand the incident of the golden calf, and the thought of those who made it. For it is known that the Israelites did not think that Moses was a god, and that he did for them the signs and wonders through his own power. So what sense is there in their saying, “since Moses is gone from us, we will make ourselves gods?” Moreover, they clearly said, make us, ‘elohim’ who shall go before us — and not a deity who should give them life in this world or in the World to Come. Instead, they wanted another Moses, saying: “Moses, the man who showed us the way from Egypt until now,²⁵⁶Numbers 14:19. being in charge of the journeyings at the commandment of the Eternal by the hand of Moses,²⁵⁷Ibid., 9:23. he is now lost to us; let us make ourselves another Moses who will show us the way at the commandment of the Eternal by his hand.” This is the reason for their mentioning, Moses, the man that brought us up, rather than saying “the G-d who brought them up,” for they needed a man of G-d.²⁵⁸Deuteronomy 33:1. You can also understand this matter from Aaron’s answer to Moses our Teacher, when he asked him, What did this people do unto thee, that thou hast brought a great sin upon them,²⁵⁹Further, Verse 21. to which Aaron replied, And they said unto me: Make us a god etc. And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let him break it off; so they gave it to me; and I cast it into the fire.²⁶⁰Ibid., Verses 23-24. Now Aaron was apologizing to Moses and saying to him, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot,²⁶¹Ibid., Verse 22. and yet here he was speaking as if adding rebellion unto his sin,²⁶²Job 34:37. saying that they asked of him an idol and he made it for them with his hands! So why should Moses’ anger not burn against him! What greater sin than this is there?
But the matter is as I have stated, that they did not want the calf to be for them in place of a god who killeth and maketh alive,²⁶³I Samuel 2:6. whom they would take upon themselves to serve as a deity; instead, they wanted to have someone in place of Moses to show them the way. And this was the apology of Aaron. He argued that “they merely told me that I should make them elohim who would go before them in your place, my lord, because they did not know what had happened to you and whether you would return or not. Therefore they needed someone who would show them the way as long as you were not with them, and if perchance you would return they would leave him and follow you as before.” And so indeed it happened, for as soon as the people saw Moses, they immediately left the calf and rejected it, and they allowed him to burn it and scatter its powder upon the water,²⁶⁴Further, Verse 20. and no one quarrelled with him at all. Similarly you will note that he did not rebuke the people nor say anything to them, and yet when he came into the camp and he saw the calf and the dancing,²⁶⁵Verse 19. they immediately fled from before him; and he took the calf and burnt it [and scattered its powder upon the water] and made them drink of it, and yet they did not protest at all. But if the calf were to them in place of a god, it is surely not normal that a person should let his king and god be burnt in fire. Lo, if one burn their abominations before their eyes, would they not stone him?²⁶⁶See above, 8:22. Now it was Aaron who brought forth this shape, for they did not tell him what he should make, whether a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat,²⁶⁷Leviticus 22:27. or other forms. It is this which is the intention of the saying of the Sages who said,²⁶⁸Sanhedrin 63a. “The verse teaches us that they wished to have many gods,” For they did not know what to choose and which one would be best for them.
Now Aaron’s intention was as follows. Because Israel was in a wilderness, a desolate wasteland, and destruction and everlasting desolation come from the north, as it is written, Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land,²⁶⁹Jeremiah 1:14. the reference being not merely to the king of Babylon, as can be seen clearly from Scripture,²⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 15: For, lo, I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north etc. but rather [the intent of the verse is to state] that the attribute of justice comes to the world from the left,²⁷¹As one faces the east, his left hand is to the north. to requite upon all the inhabitants of the land according to their evil; and since in the account of the Divine Chariot it is said, and the four of them had the face of an ox on the left side²⁷²Ezekiel 1:10. — therefore Aaron thought that the destroyer [the ox, which was to the left, i.e. the north] points to the place of destruction where its great power is centered, and when worshipping G-d through there the spirit will be poured from on high,²⁷³Isaiah 32:15. just as it was put upon Moses. It is for this reason that Aaron said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal,²⁷⁴Verse 5. meaning that the services and the sacrifices would be to the Proper Name of G-d in order to obtain His favor upon the power [symbolized by] this image,²⁷⁵I.e., “the ox” which is on the left side of the Divine Chariot, and denotes the attribute of justice. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 507. for, it being before them, they would direct their thoughts towards the purport thereof [and thus would be able to mitigate the destructive forces of the wilderness].
It is our Rabbis who have taught us this interpretation, and it is they who have revealed the secret thereof. Thus they have said:²⁷⁶Ramban is quoting here a composite of Midrashim in Shemoth Rabbah — 3:2, 42:5, 43:8. “‘Ra’oh ra’ithi’ (I have surely seen) the affliction of My people.²⁷⁷Exodus 3:7. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: ‘Moses, you see them in one appearance, and I see them in two appearances.²⁷⁸Hence the double expression: Ra’oh ra’ithi, translated “I have surely seen.” You see them coming to Sinai and accepting My Torah, and I see them contemplating Me and how I came forth in My ‘travelling coach’ to give them the Torah, as it is said, The chariots of G-d are myriads, even thousands upon thousands,²⁷⁹Psalms 68:18. This whole psalm is interpreted in Midrash Tehilim with reference to the Revelation on Sinai. and they will unhitch one of My tatromulin,²⁸⁰This is a Greek word [as Ramban will explain further on] which denotes “four mules.” Here it is used in reference to the four chayoth (living creatures) in the Divine Chariot as described by Ezekiel (Chapter 1), which, as stated in Psalms quoted above, were also seen at the Revelation on Sinai. The sense here is thus that “they will unhitch one of the four chayoth (creatures) in My Chariot, and worship it.” of which it is written, and the face of an ox on the left side,²⁷²Ezekiel 1:10. and bring Me to anger with it.’” Tatromulin means “four mules,” for tetra in Greek means “four,” just as the Rabbis have said,²⁸¹Nazir 8b. [“If a person vowed, ‘I will be a Nazir] tetragon,’ he becomes [a Nazir for a period of] four times;” mulin means “mules,” just as in the expression, “The mula’oth (mules) of Rabbi’s house²⁸²Shabbath 52a. [used to go out with their bits on the Sabbath].” The word tatromulin is thus used as a symbol of the four chayoth (living creatures) who carried the Divine Chariot.²⁸³Ezekiel 1:5. And in Vayikra Rabbah [10:3] [we find the Midrash stating] that Aaron said, “Since I am building the altar, I will build it to the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal.’²⁷⁴Verse 5. It is not written here, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the calf,’ but to the Eternal.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that elohim in this case [Arise, make us ‘elohim’] means that Aaron should make them “something visible and corporeal on which the glory would rest. And if you will pay attention to the first journey,²⁸⁴Above, 14:19. And the angel of G-d, who went before the camp of Israel etc. (Bachya). you will understand this.” But this does not appear to me to be correct, since the calf was not made according to the manner of those proficient in the art of the constellations, so that the glory or some spiritual influence should dwell upon it; rather, the figure was made so that when the people would worship it they would direct their thoughts to the purport thereof [as explained above]. Now I have already explained²⁸⁵Above, 13:21. the secret of the first journey, and far it be from Aaron that he should want to be likened to him. Instead, his desire was merely to take of [the tatromulin, as explained above] so that their journeys [in the wilderness] should be on the side of that attribute. The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand.

ויעשהו עגל מסכה, “he made it into a calf cast of gold.” Nachmanides writes that the fact that the mass of gold emerged in the shape of a calf was Aaron’s doing as the people had merely demanded: ”arise, make for us a deity, etc.” They had neither stipulated that the cast symbol be an ox, a sheep, or a goat. Aaron’s considerations in deciding to make a calf were based on the fact that the Israelites were in a desolate desert, and desolation and disaster are always perceived as emanating from the north (compare Jeremiah 1,14: ‘for from the north disaster will break loose’). When Jeremiah made this statement he did not only have in mind the impending invasion by the Babylonians who were situated north of the land of Yehudah. That this is true is evident from the text of that chapter seeing that in verse 15 G’d speaks about “summoning all the peoples from all the kingdoms of the north.” This is merely a symbolic way of telling us that the attribute of Justice always comes from the north to bring retribution upon the peoples of the earth in proportion to their wickedness.
When you consider the visions Ezekiel saw when he portrayed for us the מעשה מרכבה in the first chapter of his book, you will find described that the face of the ox was on the left of the four chayot he saw (Ezekiel 1,10). Aaron believed that seeing that destructive forces emanate from the north and the calf symbolizes destructive forces, if, on the morrow, as he suggested, the people would declare a holiday dedicated to Hashem (verse 5), this would be a way to ward off evil and harmful influences. He hoped, as described in Isaiah 32,15 where the prophet describes a desolate place turning into a beautiful mountain like Mount Carmel, that spiritually negative forces could be sublimated into spiritually positive forces. After all, at this very Mount Chorev, his brother Moses had first become imbued with prophetic insights and had developed into the outstanding personality he had become.
Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 3,3-42,8-and 15,9 have taught us the mystical dimension of all this when they commented on Exodus 3,7 where G’d told Moses ראה ראיתי את-עני עמי, “I have most certainly seen the afflictions suffered by My people in Egypt.” The Midrash quotes G’d as saying to Moses: “you Moses see only one single instance of such an affliction of the Jewish people; I, G’d see two such “afflictions” (this is why the wordsראה ראיתי were repeated). “You, Moses, see the people arriving at Mount Sinai and accepting My Torah, I on the other hand, can see how when I am about to give them this Torah they have many thoughts so that they even upset one of the four supports of My מרכבה, “My carriage,” so that they cause Me to become angry at them. (The Midrash quotes Ezekiel 1,10 and Psalms 68,18 in support of its illustrations). The word טטרא used there in the Midrash when it speaks about מטטרראמולין to describe a carriage drawn by four animals, (mules) means “four.” It is a reference to the four animals which Ezekiel saw in his vision, i.e. the מרכבה, the carriage transporting the glory of the Lord. Thus far the Midrash.

AND WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH IN THE OPEN FIELD. “Our Rabbis have said that this includes the upper board and the side board [of a coffin, when found in the open field]. And the plain meaning [of the verse] is: in the open field where there are no tents, a corpse conveys uncleanness [only] by contact.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the opinion of the Sages³⁵The reference here is to Rabbi Yishmael, whose opinion on this matter is, according to Ramban, the accepted decision of the law. Rashi’s comment, however, follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiba (Chullin 72a) who does derive the principle of the upper board and the side board of the coffin from the verse before us (Mizrachi). the [law that the] upper and side boards of the coffin [convey uncleanness] is not derived from Scripture, but is a tradition [handed down by Moses who received it at Sinai]. Therefore a Nazirite [who has become impure by coming into contact with them] is not subject to [the law of] shaving his hair,³⁶See above, 6:9. In other words, since this impurity is not derived from a Scriptural verse, although it is in fact a law of the Torah and not merely of the Rabbis, the Nazirite is not considered as having defiled himself to the extent that he must start his period as a Nazir anew. and likewise [one who becomes impure through contact with them] is not liable to punishment for defiling the Sanctuary [by entering it when impure] or [by eating] the hallowed offerings [in such a state of uncleanness]. Rather, [the expression] in the open field is to be understood according to our Rabbis in its literal sense, i.e., that he touches a person who is slain by the sword, who has fallen in the open field, and there is nothing covering over the corpse. And since this verse is now [seemingly] superfluous, [since it has already been stated in Verse 11 above that one who touches a corpse becomes impure], the Rabbis derived from it the following interpretation, and they said in Tractate Nazir in the Chapter “The High Priest:”³⁷Nazir 53b. “And whosoever toucheth in the open field. This refers to one who ‘covers over’ a corpse” [and tells us that he becomes impure], since by covering over it he “touches” the open field. [According to this interpretation of the Rabbis the expression] bachalal cherev (slain by the sword) is lacking the [connective letter] vav — u’bachalal cherev, [meaning: “or slain by the sword”].³⁸Thus according to the interpretation of the Rabbis, two separate principles are enunciated in this verse: 1) and whosoever ‘touches’ upon the face of the field, i.e., who leans over a corpse or covers it with his body, because in doing so he “touches” the corpse; 2) or whosoever touches directly one slain by the sword. And since Scripture says ‘pnei’ hasadeh [literally: “the face” of the field] and does not [just] say “the field”, Rabbi Yishmael further interpreted it³⁹Chullin 72a. to exclude the [case of a] foetus which died whilst still in its mother’s womb [so that if the midwife put her hand inside the mother and touched it, she does not become impure], because it is impurity which is “swallowed up,” and is not “upon the face” of the place.
Scripture states slain ‘by the sword’ because it speaks of the usual [way of events], but the same law applies if the person was slain by a stone or fist. It mentions those killed and those who die [naturally, stating: one that is slain by the sword, or one that dieth of himself] in contrast to animals for [those animals, which are permitted as food] are pure if they are slaughtered properly, but if they die of their own accord [or were not slaughtered properly] convey impurity as carrion; whereas all human corpses convey impurity, regardless of how the person met his death]. Since it appears superfluous, however, our Rabbis interpreted it in the following manner, namely [that the expression one that is slain by the sword is intended to teach us] that the sword [with which the person was slain] is exactly like the slain person himself, and the whole purpose of the verse is to equate the slain and the sword, so as to say that it [the sword] becomes an avi avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity),⁴⁰In the process of conveying impurity from one source to another, the general rule is always that the defilement of the recipient is of a lesser degree than that of the conveyor. But here in the case of a dead body there is a point of novelty. Since the corpse itself is considered an ‘avi’ avoth hatumah (a progenitor of a primary source of impurity) the sword which touched him should have become only an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), while the rule is that it becomes an avi avoth hatumah just like the dead itself. Hence a person that touches the sword which was so defiled becomes an av hatumah (a primary source of impurity), and not a rishon l’tumah (a first degree of impurity) as would be the ordinary rule. See further on these laws in Vol. III, p. 148, Note 252. It should also be pointed out [for the sake of the following text of Ramban] that the above principle of the sword [becoming an avi avoth hatumah just as the corpse] applies also to all metal vessels which have been rendered impure by a corpse. just like the dead person himself, and it conveys impurity of seven days’ duration to people and vessels. It appears from the text of the Mishnah and Gemara⁴¹See Ramban in his commentary to Baba Bathra 20a where he discusses at length these “texts of the Mishnah and Gemara” which corroborate his opinion. It is of interest to note that Ramban cites there also the varying opinion of Rabbeinu Tam [the outstanding authority among the masters of the Tosafoth] who holds that the sword is equated entirely to a corpse, even in regard to the impurity of ohel (see Note 32 above). — For the term Gemara see in Vol. II p. 132, Note 204. that it [the sword and all metal vessels] convey impurity by contact and through carrying just like the corpse, but it is unlike the corpse in [that it does not] convey impurity by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [i.e., if it is in a tent or building together with a person or object, that person or object remains pure]. Perhaps the Rabbis based this exclusion on the verse dealing with the tent, which says: when ‘a man’ dieth in a tent,⁴²Verse 14. [thus implying that the law of “the tent,” i.e., that of conveying impurity by ohel], applies only to the dead body itself. And if a sword [or metal vessel] which became impure by [touching] a corpse were to convey impurity of ohel, the priests would be forbidden to enter all buildings [even after the removal of the corpse], for they all have a “sword” [i.e., some metal vessel]⁴³See Note 40 above. which has become impure, and it would defile them by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [and it is obviously impossible to say that priests may never enter all buildings]!⁴⁴This problem was proposed by Rabbeinu Chayim Hakohen to Rabbeinu Tam: “If so, what house would you build for them [the priests], and what place may be their resting place?” (see my Hebrew commentary p. 270). It further appears in the Gemara⁴⁵Nazir 54b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 270. that a sword [or metal vessel] which touches a corpse does not render a person [who touches it] impure to the extent that he requires to be sprinkled [with the waters of purification] on the third and seventh days,⁴⁶Verse 12. even though the person who touches [the sword or vessel] becomes a “father of impurity.” This is because in the second verse where He states and he shall sprinkle upon the tent⁴⁷Verse 18. The fact, that in this verse which speaks of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the impure, it does not mention that he became defiled by having touched “one that is slain with a sword,” indicates that he is rendered impure for a seven days’ duration, yet he does not require the sprinkling of the waters mentioned. it says, and upon him that touched the bone, or ‘the slain,’ or the dead or the grave,⁴⁷Verse 18. The fact, that in this verse which speaks of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the impure, it does not mention that he became defiled by having touched “one that is slain with a sword,” indicates that he is rendered impure for a seven days’ duration, yet he does not require the sprinkling of the waters mentioned. but it does not say “or one that is slain with a sword.” If so, the sword [and all metal vessels] are like the corpse [in degree of impurity] only to the extent that one who touches it is rendered impure for seven days’ duration, but not [to the extent that a sword conveys impurity] by ohel³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. [as does a corpse], nor [to the extent that one who touches it] requires sprinkling [of the waters of purification]. Likewise a Nazirite does not have to cut off his hair [on account of being in a tent together with it], nor is there any prohibition at all against a priest touching it [whereas he is prohibited from touching the corpse itself.]⁴⁸Leviticus 21:1. This is the most likely and reasonable explanation, based on the words of our Rabbis. But we because of our sins are now impure in the exile, and we do not know of the purity of holiness until the spirit be poured upon us from on High,⁴⁹Isaiah 32:15. and G-d will sprinkle clean water upon us⁵⁰Ezekiel 36:25. and we shall become pure. Amen, and may this be the will [of G-d] speedily in our days.