Comentários de Citação sobre Êxodo 9:1

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.

ETH S’FIACH K’TZIRCHA’ (THAT WHICH GROWETH OF ITSELF OF THY HARVEST) THOU SHALT NOT REAP. “Even if you did not sow it, but it grew from the seed that had fallen [into the ground] at the time of the harvest [of the sixth year], and it is that which is called ‘s’fiach’ (aftergrowth) — thou shalt not reap, to take possession of it like other harvests, but is to be free for everyone. AND THE GRAPES OF ‘N’ZIRECHA’ — which you have barred and separated from people, and not declared ownerless — THOU SHALT NOT GATHER them. You may only gather them after they have been declared free for all.” Thus the language of Rashi.
The Rabbi’s [i.e., Rashi’s] meaning by [writing] this is because he is of the opinion that if a person guards his field and his fruits in the Sabbatical year [at the time of growth, and afterwards he declares them free for all], the produce does not become prohibited [as food]. So also did he [Rashi] write in his commentaries to Tractate Yebamoth⁶⁶Yebamoth 122 a. and to Tractate Succah.⁶⁷Succah 39 b. This is indeed so according to the law of the Torah, as is established by clear proofs. And that which is taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3. “And the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’ thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the soil [i.e., when it is in the process of growth] you shall not gather, but you may gather from that which was made free for all”⁶⁹From this text you might understand that if the fruits were guarded whilst they were growing, they become completely prohibited for ever. But this is not correct. Rashi will explain the text etc. — the Rabbi [Rashi] will explain it in the following way: “Grapes which have been kept away from people you may not gather as long as they are so barred; you must rather declare them all ownerless, and then you may gather them together with the poor.”
The correct interpretation of the verse is that the expression the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’ is like ‘s’fiach’ of thy harvest, and thou shalt not gather is like thou shalt not reap, for the purport of the whole section is to state a twofold law to the Israelites — warning with respect to fields and warning again with reference to vineyards. Thus: thou shalt sow thy field … thou shalt prune thy vineyard;⁷⁰Verse 3. thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.⁷¹Verse 4. Similarly, And six years thou shalt sow thy Land … but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow … In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard.⁷²Exodus 23:10-11. And the meaning of the verse [here] is that that which grows by itself in a field without intentional plowing and sowing is called “s’fiach of the harvest,” because it is “attached” to the harvest of the past year, this term being of the root, ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob.⁷³Isaiah 14:1. Likewise the vine which has not been cultivated, nor hoed or pruned, is called nazir, because [the owner] “held himself aloof and put it away from him” as if it were not his, of the root, because ‘nazoru’ from Me through their idols,⁷⁴Ezekiel 14:5. [which means] “they separated themselves from Me.” Similarly, ‘v’yinazru’ (and they separate themselves) from the holy things of the children of Israel.⁷⁵Above, 22:2. And Onkelos [also] translates here [and the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’] as shivkach, which means [those grapes that] “you have left” to be for briers and thorns.⁷⁶Isaiah 7:23.
It is possible that the custom in Israel was that a vineyard which was uncultivated, neither pruned nor hoed, and in which briers and thorns⁷⁷See ibid., 5:6. grew up, they called nazir, that is to say, it is a vineyard of the Nazirite, since the Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine nor eat fresh grapes or dried,⁷⁸Numbers 6:3. and he does not cultivate his vineyard. They also gave a name to long hair derived from the Nazirite, as it is said, Cut off ‘nizreich’ (thy hair) and cast it away.⁷⁹Jeremiah 7:29. This then is the sense of [the expression here] the grapes of ‘n’zirecha,’ the general purport thereof being that they are the grapes which grow without cultivation of the vineyard. Thus Scripture is stating that that which grows by itself in the field he may not reap, and the grapes which grow in the vineyard without work he may not gather. And the meaning of these negative commandments is that you may not reap them alone for your own needs, nor are you to gather the grapes for yourself [only], but it shall be a year of solemn rest for the Land⁸⁰Verse 5 before us. from sowing and pruning, and the Sabbath-produce of the Land,⁸¹Verse 6. that is, whatever the Land brings forth in its rest, whether s’fiach or nazir [as explained above] shall be unto all of you together for food, for thee,⁸¹Verse 6. and for thy poor, and for the beast and for the cattle.⁸²See Verses 6-7.
Now I will return to explain the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on this subject, because they are misleading [in their plain sense]. On the verse, And if ye shall say: ‘What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase,⁸³Further, Verse 20. the Rabbis taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim. Behar 4:5. “If people do not sow, what is there to gather? [So why then did Scripture prohibit gathering the increase, since there can be none to gather without sowing?] Said Rabbi Akiba: It is from here that the Sages found a Scriptural source for s’fichin (aftergrowths), [indicating] that they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year.” This Beraitha is quoted in the Gemara [of Tractate Pesachim] in the Chapter Makom Shenahagu (“A place where the custom is”).⁸⁵Pesachim 51 b. And it is further taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim. Behar 4:5. “But the Sages say: Aftergrowths are not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by decree of the Scribes. If so, why is it said, behold, we may not sow, nor gather?⁸³Further, Verse 20. [It means as follows:] You have told us not to sow, and what there is for us to gather — [the aftergrowths] — we may not bring in for storage [after the time of the Removal];⁸⁶See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. and then You have told us, ‘Remove it [from the house],’ what then shall we eat from the time of the Removal onwards?” Thus far [are the words of the Torath Kohanim].
Thus it is clear that according to the words of the Sages the prohibition of aftergrowths is only by law of the Rabbis, that is to say, it is they who decreed that they be prohibited altogether, because of the suspicion that the owners might sow and say that these are aftergrowths. It is for this reason that the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:⁸⁷Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P’nei Moshe there. “Rabbi Yannai said: All aftergrowths are forbidden [under the law forbidding theft, i.e., since they belong to the owner of the field, they may not be taken by a stranger during the non-Sabbatical years], except for those which come up in an uncultivated field, a plowed field, a field containing a vineyard, or a field sowed [with fenugreek]. [The aftergrowths of] an uncultivated field [are permissible to a stranger] because the owner pays no attention to such a field [and therefore it is considered ownerless]. A plowed field — the owner desires to clear of all growths. A field containing a vineyard — the owner does not want to forfeit his vineyard⁸⁸Deuteronomy 22:9. [because the aftergrowths of the grain in the vineyard constitute diverse kinds which are forbidden, and so he welcomes their being taken out by anyone]. A field sowed [with fenugreek] — the owner does not want to maintain aftergrowths therein [because they harm the fenugreek].”⁸⁹In other words, the aftergrowths of these four kinds of fields may be taken by anyone during all normal years, because the owners consider these growths ownerless; and in the Sabbatical year, since the owners are not suspected of having violated the law against planting them, they are permissible to the owners together with everyone else. But in all other fields, since the aftergrowths during any non-Sabbatical year are forbidden to be taken by strangers because the owners do not wish to relinquish their possession of them, in the Sabbatical year they are subject to the law of aftergrowths, as will be explained.
It is on the basis of this division of opinion [between Rabbi Akiba, who says that aftergrowths are forbidden in the Sabbatical year by law of the Torah, and the Sages, who are of the opinion that they are forbidden only by Rabbinical decree], that it is taught there in the Torath Kohanim:⁹⁰Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3. “That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap. It is from here that they found a Scriptural source for forbidding aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year.” They thus gave their teaching in accordance with the words of Rabbi Akiba, [who explains the phrase] thou shalt not reap as [prohibiting] altogether [any reaping, even of aftergrowths, by law of the Torah], But according to the words of the Sages [the verse means] that you are not to reap them [solely] for yourself, nor are you to gather the grapes [of your undressed vine solely] for yourself, but you are to treat them as if they were ownerless property. Similarly, and we do not gather in our increase⁸³Further, Verse 20. means that we do not gather [entirely] into our homes the fruits of the tree [which grow by themselves] nor the aftergrowths [of crops], because we must declare them ownerless for the poor, the beasts and the cattle, and at the time of Removal,⁸⁶See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. [and therefore one might say that] we are not able to live on them [since we cannot use them entirely as our own possession.]!
Now these aftergrowths which are forbidden according to Rabbi Akiba are those which have grown in the forbidden season. [i.e., the Sabbatical year]: in grain, all that has reached a third of its growth in the Sabbatical year, and in the case of vegetables, whatever has sprouted in the Sabbatical year are forbidden by law of the Torah. But according to the Sages they are forbidden by decree of the Scribes, except for those [aftergrowths] which come up in any of those [four kinds of] fields mentioned in the Yerushalmi⁸⁷Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P’nei Moshe there. which we have quoted above. However, vegetables that sprouted in the sixth year but were harvested in the seventh, are also subject to all the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [regarding Seventh year produce, which are as follows]: they must not be wasted [as they were given for food;⁸¹Verse 6. their money substitute may not be used] for [obligatory] offerings;⁹¹For if a person has an obligation to bring any offering, as for instance if he commits one of those sins for which he must bring a sin-offering, etc., he must discharge his duty from unhallowed money, and since the money-substitute of the Seventh-year produce is as sacred as the original produce, therefore this obligatory offering cannot be bought with this money. [they may not be used] for the purpose of trade, and they are subject to the law of Removal.⁸⁶See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. For even though these vegetables grew completely in the sixth year [nonetheless if they were harvested in the seventh year, they are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year], because we follow in the case of vegetables the time of collecting them in, whether for tithes⁹²In the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, as well as in the fourth and fifth years, the First and Second Tithes are given of all produce, while in the third and sixth years, the First and the Poorman’s Tithes are given. The First Tithe is given to the Levite; the Second Tithe belongs to the owner, but he must eat it in Jerusalem. The Poorman’s Tithe is given to the poor, and they may eat it wherever they are. Now each group of produce has different rules to determine which is the relevant year for its specific tithes, since different factors apply; for instance: the fruits, crops and vegetables. The point here is that in the case of vegetables the determining factor is the time when they are gathered. Hence if, for example, the vegetables grew in the second year and were collected in the third, the tithes given are the First and Poorman’s Tithes. Similarly, if they grew in the sixth year and were collected in the seventh, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to these vegetables, as specifically explained in the text. or for the Sabbatical year. But the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them, for they are not aftergrowths of the Sabbatical year since they grew in the sixth year, and even if they continued [their growth] in the seventh year, the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them. It is with reference to such vegetables that we were taught [in the Mishnah]:⁹³Shevi’ith 8:4. “If a man said to a laborer [in the Sabbatical year], ‘Here you have an issar [a coin equivalent to one twenty-fourth of the silver dinar], and gather me vegetables today’, his payment is permitted etc.”⁹⁴That is, the laborer is not restricted to buying only food, drink, or unguents with the money, as would have been the case if the money were subject to the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year. “But if he said to him, ‘In return for it [i.e., the issar] gather me vegetables today,’ his payment is forbidden” [i.e., he is restricted to using the money only for the above-mentioned purposes]. The difference between these two cases is generally explained to be that the latter transaction resembles a sale [in exchange for the coin he gathers for him the vegetables], and it is forbidden to sell Seventh-year produce; therefore the money is “seized” with the sanctity of the original produce. And similarly we were taught [there] in a Mishnah:⁹⁵Shevi’ith 7:3. “A man may not gather in the [wild] vegetables in a field and sell them in the market; but he may gather them in and his son may sell them for him;” and we were also taught there:⁹⁶Ibid., 9:1. “Rue, goosefoot, etc. may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these” [wild vegetables, and, since they are ownerless, the sanctity of the Sabbatical year does not apply to them].
Now some [scholars] say⁹⁷This opinion is stated by Rambam, Hilchoth Sh’mitah V’yoveil 4:3. See my Hebrew commentary p. 170 for the text. that [in the case of] these vegetables mentioned [in the above Mishnah] and all similar ones, which people do not usually sow, but which grow by themselves on mountains and near rivers, the prohibition of aftergrowths does not apply to them at all even though they grew in the Sabbatical year, since the Rabbis only forbade [the aftergrowths of] those things which are normally planted, in order that one should not plant them [in the Sabbatical year and then say that they grew by themselves]. And so it appears from the Gemara of the Yerushalmi [mentioned above]. This is the subject of “aftergrowths” whenever the Sages mention it [in the Talmud].
Similarly it is [forbidden by law] of the Torah for a person to guard his field and lock it up from the poor in the Sabbatical year, even if he intends to declare them free for all at the time of gathering them in; instead, the field is to be ready and free for the poor throughout the year. Thus the Sages taught in the Mechilta:⁹⁸Mechilta, Kaspa 20. “That the poor of thy people may eat.⁹⁹Exodus 23:11. ‘Why did the Torah say this? Was it not so that the poor may eat it? If so, I am going to gather in the fruit and distribute it among the poor’. Therefore Scripture states, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow.⁹⁹Exodus 23:11. This teaches that the owner is even [obliged] to make breaches in the fence [so that everyone may come and take]. The Sages, however, as a precaution for the general good, allowed him to keep the fence.” Now the restraining measure which the Sages established was only that he need not make breaches in the fences of his field and vineyard, but not that he may guard his field and gather in the fruits, thereby transgressing the words of the Torah. Moreover, the Sages even decreed against buying fruits which have been guarded, or even from one who is under suspicion of so [guarding]. It is with reference to this that we have been taught in the Mishnah:⁹⁶Ibid., 9:1. “[The wild vegetables mentioned] may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these.” And in Tractate Succah the Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁰Succah 39 a-b. “One may not hand over to those ignorant of the law more of the monetary equivalent of fruits of the Sabbatical year than that needed for three meals.¹⁰¹Three meals are needed for the Sabbath, and since it is permitted to give it to him before the Sabbath in order that he may buy the three required meals, it is permitted throughout the week (ibid.). See also the following note for fuller explanation. This applies only where he buys [the fruits] from a field which was free for all,¹⁰²In other words, if the chaver (a person who is faithful in observing the law) sees the owner [who is ignorant of the law] taking the fruits from an unguarded field, he may give him the monetary equivalent of three meals’ worth of fruits; but he is not permitted to give the owner more money than that required for three meals, for since such money must be spent according to the restrictions of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [i.e., he must spend it only for food, drink or unguent] it is feared that the seller receiving such money may not do so. But the Sages permitted the chaver to give him the monetary equivalent of three meals so that he may have sufficient food for himself [for a day] (Rashi, ibid.). but if he buys from a guarded field, even the value of half an issar is forbidden.” And the reason for this is as follows: When the purchaser buys it from a field which was free for all — that is to say, from things which people usually bring from ownerless property, or if it is known that he brought them from a place which was declared free for all — then [the purchaser who knows and observes the law] is permitted to buy the fruit. However, if he gives the owner more money than is needed for his [three] meals on that day, we suspect that the [seller who is] ignorant of the law might use [this money] for the purpose of business [which he is forbidden to do]. But if he buys things which it is customary to guard, then even if it is [no more than the value of] half an issar, we suspect that [the seller, being ignorant of the law], guarded them, in which case it is forbidden to buy from him. However if he buys a perutah’s worth of fruits, or less than half an issar, the Sages did not prohibit this, because it is customary for people to gather them in from any [unguarded] place, even during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle.
It is referring to this that the Sages have taught:¹⁰³Yebamoth 122 a. “If a non-Jew was selling fruits in the market, and he said [by way of praising his products], ‘These fruits are orlah [of the first three years’ growth, and are therefore better than the fruit of an old tree], or ‘they are of azeikah’ [a term explained further on], he has said nought [i.e., we do not believe his statement that the fruits are orlah etc., and hence forbidden; instead we say that these fruits come from the majority of trees which are nor orlah, and they therefore may be eaten]. For the seller only intended to praise his products.” Now Rashi explained there in the name of the early scholars,¹⁰⁴See in Seder Emor, Note 485. [that the term azeikah means that the fruits come] from an orchard “that is enclosed” with a fence around it, and it happens to be the Sabbatical year. Now if we were to believe him [the non-Jewish seller], it would be forbidden to buy the fruits from him in a city wherein most [of the inhabitants] are Jews, lest he is a tenant-laborer of a Jew and guards the field for him; or we would suspect that he may have gathered [these fruits] from a field belonging to a Jew [who has not declared them free for all] and he sells them; or that the fruits belong to a Jew and he is selling them for him. Or perhaps [even if the land belongs to the seller], a gentile cannot make such an acquisition in the Land of Israel as to negate the laws of the Sabbatical year [from his produce]. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the fruits of his field are to be regarded as those of an Israelite [and hence subject to all the laws of the Sabbatical year]. Nonetheless, the Sages did not prohibit the fruits of a guarded field [in the Sabbatical year] to everybody, but only [decreed] that one should not buy them directly from the owner who guarded them [but it is not the fruits themselves of a guarded field which are prohibited; thus if they have already been sold to a first purchaser, another Jew may buy them from him]. Therefore the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁰⁵Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3. “And the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the land you are not to gather, but you may gather from that which was free for all. Thou shalt not gather, in the [ordinary] manner of those who gather grapes. It was on the basis of this that the Sages said: ‘Seventh-year figs may not be cut with a special fig-knife [but may be cut with an ordinary knife]; grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, but one may press them in a vat.’” And the meaning thereof is as follows: Since it is not written “the grapes of the undressed vine thou shalt not reap,” but instead it is written ‘thy’ undressed vine, it is to be interpreted that you are not to gather them in the way you usually gather your grapes, but you may gather them together with the poor in the way that they gather them, meaning to say that he is not to guard them for himself, but he is to gather them with the poor as if they were ownerless. Similarly he is to treat them [after he has gathered them in] as the poor do, and press them in a vat. And it is further taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:¹⁰⁶Ibid., 1:5. “And the Sabbath-produce of the Land shall be for food for you.¹⁰⁷Verse 6. You are to eat from that which rested in the land [as will be explained], but you may not eat from that which was guarded. Hence the dictum of the Sages:¹⁰⁸Shevi’ith 4:2. The School of Shammai say, one may not eat from the produce of a field which has been industriously tilled.¹⁰⁹The Mishnah refers to a time when the Rabbis permitted tilling the ground once in the Sabbatical year in order to enable the people to pay the Roman government the tax imposed on land, as failure to do so could have led to mortal danger. But if the owner tilled the land twice, the question arises whether the produce thereof may be eaten, since a field which was tilled twice is treated as a field that was guarded. But the School of Hillel say that one may eat of it.’” That is to say, since the Torah stated that the produce of the Sabbath should be for us for food, and not that which was guarded, the School of Shammai say that the fruits themselves become prohibited [and therefore the produce of a field which was tilled twice, and considered as a field that was guarded, may not be eaten]; but the School of Hillel are of the opinion that the fruits themselves are not prohibited, for Scripture’s intention is only to forbid us to guard [our produce], in order that our crops should be from a field in which the Sabbatical rest was observed. Similarly when the Rabbis have said¹¹⁰Shevi’ith 8:6, and referred to in the Torath Kohanim (Behar 1:3) mentioned above. that seventh-year figs may not be cut with a [special] fig-knife, and grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, [these laws are] a “fence” and guard of Rabbinic origin, in order that people should not come to guard and gather in their crops, and rob them from the poor. This is [the meaning of] that which is taught here in these Beraithoth [of the Torath Kohanim], and it is the best and clearest exposition of the discussions in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Gemara. The scholar who is acquainted [with the Talmud] will succeed in finding these texts.

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.