Cytowanie Komentarza do Wyjścia 7:26

SAY [UNTO THE PRIESTS] … AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM. “[The repetition of the verb say … and thou shalt say is] to warn the adults about the children” [that they observe this law]. This is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.¹Yebamoth 114 a. Now the meaning of this “warning” is to state that we are not to assist with our hands in the defilement of children [but it does not intend to warn us that we are obliged to prevent them from becoming defiled]. There are many admonitions in the Torah of this nature according to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹Yebamoth 114 a. such being the prohibitions against eating blood and swarming things, and against the defilement [of priests], and from them we learn that [it is applicable to] all prohibitions of the Torah, that we must not assist children in any case to transgress the law. But if they are doing it of their own accord, we²I.e., the court. But his father is obliged to rebuke him and prevent him from doing that which is forbidden (ibid., and such is the final decision of the law, Shulchan Aruch, Hilchoth Shabbath, 343). are not commanded to prevent them [from so doing since they have not yet reached the training period of minors for religious practices, but if they have reached that stage, everyone is commanded to prevent them from doing a prohibited act].³Shulchan Aruch ibid., Rama, and Mishnah Brurah, 7. The meaning of the verse according to its interpretation is then: “say unto the priests … and thou shalt say it over again to them, that they are not to defile themselves,” the purpose of the many warnings being [to teach] that all sons of Aaron are to be guarded from defilement, even the young ones. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that say unto the priests refers to the section mentioned above [i.e., Seder Kedoshim], since they [the priests] are the teachers of the Torah and it is they who admonish the people; and thou shalt say unto them, meaning those specific commandments which devolve upon them alone to observe, [as mentioned in this section]. But it is not correct [to interpret two such adjacent phrases as referring to two different sections].
In my opinion the plain sense of the verse is as follows: The meaning of emor (say) is like that of dabeir (speak): Give ear to ‘amarai,’ O Eternal⁴Psalms 5:2. is like d’varai (my words). A similar case is ‘imrei’(words of) truth.⁵Proverbs 22:21. This is equivalent to ‘divrei’ emeth (words of truth) — Ecclesiastes 12:10. So also: for it hath heard all ‘imrei’ (the words of) the Eternal.⁶Joshua 24:27. Here too it is like ‘divrei’ Hashem (the words of G-d) in Exodus 24:3. And the expression Go in unto Pharaoh ‘v’dibarta’ (and thou shalt speak) to him⁷Exodus 9:1. is like v’amarta (and thou shalt say). ‘Vayedabeir Mosheh’ (And Moses spoke) unto Aaron, and unto Elazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left: ‘Take the meal-offering,’⁸Above, 10:12. is like vayomer Mosheh (and Moses said). And so also you find in many places that both [amor and dabeir are used in one verse, such as:] ‘Dabeir (Speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. such usage [of the two verbs] being found in those sections where He wishes to warn them strongly [about a certain law] either because of the stringency of the matter, or on account of their habit to commit that sin. Thus ‘emor’ (say) unto the priests … ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say) unto them [is like ‘dabeir’ (speak unto the priests) ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say), as will be explained further on]. Similarly, Thus saith the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: Go ‘v’amarta’ (and say) to Zedekiah king of Judah ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto him: Thus saith the Eternal etc.¹⁰Jeremiah 34:2. means “Go dabeir (speak) to Zedekiah.” Similarly, ‘Vatomer ha’ishah ha’t'ko’ith’ (And when the woman of Tekoa said) to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and prostrated herself, ‘vatomer’ (and she said): ‘Help, O king’¹¹II Samuel 14:4. is like: “vatedabei’r ha’ishah (and the woman spoke) to the king vatomer (and she said), ‘Help, O king.’” The meaning of Say unto the priests … and thou shalt say unto them is thus like “speak to the priests and say to them,” similar to [that which we find elsewhere], ‘Dabeir’ (speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. the meaning thereof being: “speak to the people in My Name, and say thus to them,” like, Go in unto Pharaoh, and say unto him: [‘Thus saith the Eternal: Let My people go’].¹²Exodus 7:26. — In brief, Ramban up to this point has explained that there is no difference between emor and dabeir, and that the double use of each of these verbs or the use of the two together is to indicate the importance of the subject discussed. I have found a similar view in Yonah ibn Ganach’s Sefer Hashorashim, root dabeir. Now many scholars¹³I have not identified these scholars. say that the meaning of ‘dabeir’ unto the children of Israel is like that of the term kriah (calling), thus: “call unto the children of Israel that they assemble themselves before you, and you shall say to them the following,” and similarly ‘emor’ to the priests means [“call them] to assemble themselves and to listen.”
[SAY UNTO] THE PRIESTS. The reason for [His mentioning the term] the priests [in this section is as follows]: In commandments relating to matters of the offerings He says, Command Aaron and his sons¹⁴Above, 6:2. Or: Speak unto Aaron and his sons (ibid., Verse 18). and does not refer to them by the name “the priests,”¹⁵“The priests.” In the Tur quoting Ramban: “and He does not refer to them by the term of priesthood.” because those subjects concern the offerings or the various degrees of holiness of the Sanctuary. But here He warns the priests that they should never defile themselves for the dead, even at a time when they do not come into the Sanctuary, this being a mark of distinction to them personally; therefore Scripture mentioned here the priests, meaning to say that it is because they are the priests of the Eternal and the ministers of our G-d that He told them to conduct themselves in a manner reflecting honor and greatness, and that they should never become defiled. Thus the priests who are unfit for the priesthood [i.e., those who are born from a marriage forbidden to their father], are excluded from this principle [i.e., they are permitted to defile themselves for the dead].
The explanation of ‘lo yitama’ (he shall not defile himself — in the singular) is that you [i.e., Moses] are to tell the priests that none of them is to defile himself for the dead among his people. Or it may be that [the use of the singular in lo yitama] is connected with the expression of ‘ba’al b’amav’ (a chief man among his people) mentioned below in Scripture,¹⁶Verse 4. and the meaning thereof [here] is: “the chief man among his people is not to defile himself [for the dead].” And the meaning of ba’al b’amav¹⁶Verse 4. is like the expressions: ‘miba’alei Yehudah;’¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. ‘ba’aleigoyim,’¹⁸Isaiah 16:8. namely “the dignitaries” or “the lords” among them [i.e., Judah¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. and the nations¹⁸Isaiah 16:8.], similar to the phrase: ‘ba’alav ein imo’¹⁹Exodus 22:13. — “the master is not with it; “‘ba’al habayith’ — “the master of the house;” as honored people are called “lords.” The verse here is thus stating: “the honored one among his people [i.e., the priest] is not to defile himself for the dead, [in which case] he would be treating his honor with irreverence.” Scripture is thus explaining that it is because of the distinction of the priest, seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., the High Priest] that it warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead. By means of this statement, Scripture intends to teach us that it should not occur to us to say that the warning [against the priests defiling themselves for the dead] is only when they come into the Tent of Meeting to perform the holy Service. Similarly in this whole section He states that all restrictions [on the priests mentioned here] are due to their distinction. Thus: she profaneth her father;²⁰Verse 9. and he shall not profane his seed.²¹Verse 15. Onkelos likewise translated [Verse 4]: “The chief among his people shall not defile himself, to be profaned thereby.” But in the Torath Kohanim²²Torath Kohanim, Emor 1:15. [ba’al b’amav]¹⁶Verse 4. is interpreted [literally] to refer to “a husband” with reference to his wife, as Rashi has written.²³Thus: “A husband [a priest] shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse while it is among his people, meaning where there are other persons who can attend to her burial, this applying only to a wife who disqualified him from serving as a priest, because she was forbidden to him in marriage.” But otherwise the priest is to defile himself for his wife, even if there are other people to attend to her burial.

AND THE MAGICIANS SAID UNTO PHARAOH: THIS IS THE FINGER OF G-D. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that because the magicians had done as Aaron did with the serpent and also with the plagues of blood and the frogs and now they could not do so, they therefore said to Pharaoh: “This plague of gnats has not come through Aaron for the sake of Israel. Rather it is a plague of G-d due to the particular [evil] stars under which the land of Egypt found itself at the time.” Pharaoh did not deny the existence of the Creator¹⁴²See Ramban above in Seder Shemoth 5:3. but only the Divine Name which Moses mentioned to him. This is similar in sense to the verse, It was not His hand that smote us; it was a chance that happened to us.¹⁴³I Samuel 6:9. Therefore Pharaoh’s heart was hardened. And Ibn Ezra brought proof for his explanation from the fact that Scripture does not state that the magicians said, “This is the finger of the Eternal,” which would have been a reference to the G-d of Israel, just as Pharaoh said to Moses and Aaron, Entreat the Eternal.¹⁴⁴Verse 4. Another proof [which Ibn Ezra brought for his explanation] is that in the case of the smiting of the river, Moses had forewarned Pharaoh,¹⁴⁵Above 7:17-18. And so also was there a forewarning in the case of the frogs (ibid., Verses 27-29). but he mentioned nothing to him about the plague of gnats. [Therefore the magicians felt justified in saying that it was not a plague for the sake of Israel but merely due to the evil stars.]
Ibn Ezra’s interpretation does not appear to me to be correct. “A chance” is not called “the finger of G-d.” Only a plague which comes directly from Him as a form of punishment is called the hand of the Eternal¹⁴⁶I Samuel 5:9. and the finger of G-d, just as it is written in the verse which [Ibn Ezra] mentioned: It was not His hand that smote us.¹⁴³I Samuel 6:9. And it is furthermore written: And Israel saw the great hand;¹⁴⁷Further, 14:31. And the hand of the Eternal shall be against you;¹⁴⁸I Samuel 12:15 and ibid., 5:11. the hand of G-d was very heavy there.¹⁴⁸I Samuel 12:15 and ibid., 5:11. Moreover, in the next plague of swarms, as well as in the following ones, Pharaoh no longer called upon the magicians to stand before Moses to do the same things, even though there had been a forewarning of their coming!¹⁴⁹How then could Ibn Ezra say that because Moses had not forewarned Pharaoh of the coming of the gnats, the magicians said that the plague came through the evil stars and not from the Eternal? In the following plagues when Pharaoh was forewarned of their coming, why did he not call upon the magicians to do likewise? The answer must be, as Ramban explains, that in the case of the plague of the gnats, the magicians already admitted that it was from the Eternal and therefore they could not do likewise. There was thus no need for Pharaoh to call upon them in the following plagues of which he was forewarned, since those were surely from the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, before Whom the magicians were helpless.
But the subject, in accordance with the simple explanation of Scripture, is as follows: When the magicians saw that they could not bring forth the gnats, they admitted Aaron’s deed to be through an act of G-d, and this is why Pharaoh no longer called upon them from that time on. They [the magicians] said, This is ‘the finger’ of G-d, and not “the hand” of G-d [as is the customary way of the Scriptures to refer to plagues, as e.g., It was not His ‘hand’ that smote us]¹⁴³I Samuel 6:9. in order to minimize the plague, that is to say, it is but a small plague from Him [which we can easily endure].¹⁵⁰In his Discourse “The Law of the Eternal is Perfect,” Ramban adds: “Nevertheless the magicians [thereby] admitted [that it was an act of G-d], and thus they became apprised of the fact that Moses’ deed was effectuated by the Lord of the universe.” They did not, however, say to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of ‘the Eternal,’” [but instead they said, “This is the finger of ‘G-d’”]. Pharaoh and his servants would not mention the Proper Divine Name except when speaking to Moses because he mentioned that Name to them. [In addressing Pharaoh, however, the magicians would not use that Name since that would be an open recognition on their part of His existence and power. Therefore they said to Pharaoh, “ This is the finger of ' G-d, ’” although their intent was to say, “This is the finger of ‘the Eternal.’ “] That the magicians could not bring forth the gnats was [not because they really could not do it, but it] was by reason of the fact that G-d so caused it to happen to them. He confounded their counsel in accordance with His Will, for everything is His and it is within His power to do all.
It appears to me further that in the first two plagues — in the one of blood, where the water naturally¹⁵¹Since water and blood are both liquids, the change of the one into the other may be spoken of as in “the nature” of things inasmuch as both are classified under the element of water. See above, Note 117, on the four elements. changed into blood, and in the one of the frogs, which consisted of bringing them up from the river — since they did not involve the creation of some new phenomenon out of nothing or some act of new formation,¹⁵²The Hebrew text reads: bri’ah o yetzirah. See Vol. I, p. 23, that only the term bara (or bri’ah) signifies “bringing forth something from nothing.” the magicians could do [as Aaron did]. Scripture does not say, “and the frogs came into existence,” but only, and the frogs came up;¹⁵³Verse 2. they assembled and came up. In the plague of gnats, however, there was an act of creation, for it is not in the nature of dust to turn into gnats. Therefore He said, that it may become gnats.¹⁵⁴Verse 12. The word “become” suggests a new act of creation. The verse, And the magicians did so with their secret arts to bring forth gnats,¹⁵⁵Verse 14. is similar in intent to: Let the earth bring forth the living creature, etc., and it was so.¹⁵⁶Genesis 1:24. In other words, the expression here, “to bring forth the gnats,” means a new act of creation, just as in the Book of Genesis. But only the Creator, praised and magnified be He, can perform such a [new] act of creation. The verse, And the magicians did so…but they could not,¹⁵⁵Verse 14. means they incanted the demons to do their command, but they were powerless.
Confirming me in my opinion concerning the frogs, [i.e., that there was no new act of creation there], is the following text [of the Talmud]:¹⁵⁷Sanhedrin 67b. ‘Rabbi Akiba said that there was only one frog¹⁵⁸As Verse 2 has it: ‘Vata’al hatz’phardei’a’ (and the frog came up), in the singular. which swarmed and filled the whole land of Egypt. Rabbi Eliezer¹⁵⁹“Eliezer.” In our text of the Gemara, “Eleazar,” and so also further in Ramban. ben Azaryah said to him: ‘Akiba, what have you to do with Agadah (homily)? Turn from these matters and go instead to [delve in the difficulties of] Negaim¹⁶⁰Negaim (Leprosies) is the name of a treatise in the Mishnah dealing with the laws of leprosy. It is considered a very difficult subject. and Oholoth.¹⁶¹Oholoth (Tents) is one of the most difficult treatises of the Mishnah. It deals with the laws regarding the uncleanness of a corpse as affecting a house and its vessels, as well as human beings. It was only one frog croaking to all other frogs, and so they gathered.’” Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah could not accept the opinion [of Rabbi Akiba] that the magicians should have been able to bestow a new nature upon the frog, i.e., that one frog should give birth to so many, which is contrary to its nature, but rather they gathered them in order to bring them up. In the opinion then of Rabbi Akiba, the verse And the river shall swarm with frogs,¹⁶²Above, 7:28. means that the river should swarm with them more than its due. But according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah, the sense of that verse is like, ‘shirtzu’ in the earth,¹⁶³Genesis 9:7. Said to Noah and his sons. which connotes movement, as I have explained in Seder Bereshith,¹⁶⁴Ibid., 1:20 (Vol. I, pp. 47-48). and here its meaning is that the frogs gather and move about in the river and from there go up upon Egypt.
Now with regard to the gnats, our Rabbis have said¹⁶⁵Sanhedrin 67 b, and mentioned by Rashi here in Verse 14. that the demon [through whose power this was to be done by the magicians] is powerless in the case of a creature that is smaller than a lentil.¹⁶⁶“Lentil.” In our text of the Gemara, as well as in Rashi here: “a barley-corn.” At any rate, it was completely unnecessary for Scripture to inform us that the magicians could not bring forth gnats, as these are creatures smaller in size than a barley-corn. The expression, but they could not, must hence mean as explained in the text. Such is Ramban’s intent as explained by Rabbeinu Bachya. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 313. The expression, but they could not, must therefore mean that they could not assemble gnats from their [breeding] places and bring them.
In Midrash Rabbah, the Rabbis have further said:¹⁶⁷Shemoth Rabbah 10:7. “Perceiving that they cannot bring forth the gnats, the magicians at once recognized that [Aaron’s deed] was an act of G-d and not an act of the demons. From that moment on, therefore, they were no longer anxious to liken themselves to Moses by bringing forth the plagues.”
Now with regard to Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s statement that Moses did not inform them of the coming of the plague of gnats, it appears to me that Aaron struck [the dust of the earth] with the rod in the sight of Pharaoh, just as he did in the case of the soot of the furnace.¹⁶⁸Further, 9:8. In other words, just as in the case of boils it is said that it was done in the sight of the king, so also in the case of gnats, where the verse reads, And Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod and smote the dust of the earth (Verse 13), it was done in the sight of the king. However, there was no forewarning here, since the Holy One, blessed be He, warned Pharaoh only of those plagues which entailed the death of people. In the case of the frogs, [there was also death involved], as it is written: And [He sent among them] frogs, which destroyed them,¹⁶⁹Psalms 78:45. which is an allusion to death or to the kind of destruction mentioned by our Rabbis,¹⁷⁰Shemoth Rabbah 10:4. i.e., that the frogs made them impotent. Similarly, [He warned him of] the locusts, [which destroyed the crops], because it would cause the Egyptians to die of hunger, for they ate up the residue of that which escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail.¹⁷¹Further, 10:5. All this reflects His mercies towards man, just as it is said, Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.¹⁷²Ezekiel 33:9. Therefore, He did not warn Pharaoh of the plagues of gnats, boils, and darkness, [as these did not entail the loss of human lives]. He warned him¹⁷³Further, 9:3-4. only of the pestilence of cattle because it involved death which should have taken effect also on man, as He told him afterward, For now I might have stretched out My hand and I might have smitten thee and thy people with pestilence. But in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, etc.¹⁷⁴Ibid., Verses 15-16. Therefore He informed him of what was to happen.

In the case of certain plagues, [i.e., blood, swarms, and hail], G-d said to Moses, Rise up early in the morning … lo he cometh forth to the water.¹⁷⁵The three verses are mentioned by Ramban more fully later in the text. Here he mentions the text in a general way although it is based on Verse 16 here. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture,¹⁷⁶Rashi commented (above, 7:15): “Lo, he goeth forth unto the water to ease himself. Pharaoh claimed to be a god and asserted that [because of his divine powers], he did not need to ease himself. Therefore he would rise early and go forth to the Nile to ease himself in secret.” This interpretation of Rashi which is based upon a Midrash (Tanchuma Va’eira, 14) is alluded to by Ramban’s words that his own explanation is “in line with the plain meaning of Scripture,” thus implying that there is a Midrashic or homiletic interpretation of the verse, namely, that of Rashi mentioned above. this was the time when the kings were wont to go forth in the morning to enjoy themselves in the waters, and the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses to go there. The reason for it is that since the plague of blood was the first one [of the plagues], He wanted Moses to do it in the sight of the king and without fear of him. This is the sense of the expression, and thou shalt place thyself towards him.¹⁷⁷Above, 7:15, in the case of the first plague. Similarly, in the plague of swarms it is said, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh; lo, he cometh forth to the water,¹⁷⁸Here in Verse 16. and also in the case of hail it is said, Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh,¹⁷⁹Further, 9:13. which likewise took place when the king went forth to the water. He wanted these two plagues to be wrought [at that particular time] because since swarms and hail brought death and punishment upon the people, the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted the warning to be given in the sight of all people. When the king went forth to the water, a multitude of people followed him, and when Moses will then forewarn him in their sight, perhaps they might plead with their master to return from his evil way. In case they do not do so, they will deserve punishment. But in the case of the other plagues, the warning given to the king alone was sufficient, and therefore in connection with them it is said, Go in unto Pharaoh,¹⁸⁰Above, 7:26 (in the plague of frogs); further, 9:1 (pestilence), and 10:1 (locusts). meaning that Moses was to go into the palace. In the case of gnats and boils, it does not say [that Moses was to go into the palace] because Aaron had to strike the dust of the earth [to bring on the plague of the gnats], and in the king’s palace there is no dust, as it has a pavement of green and white marble.¹⁸¹Esther 1:6. In the case of boils, Moses had to throw the soot of the furnace heavenward.¹⁸²Further, 9:10. Thus [we must say that] these two plagues, [i.e., gnats and boils], were done in the sight of Pharaoh when he was in the court of the garden of the king’s palace,¹⁸³Esther 1:5. or some similar place.