Comentários de Citação sobre Deuteronômio 2:19

מאת המדינים [AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] OF THE MIDIANITES — but not of the Moabites, for the Moabites entered into the matter out of fear, because they feared that they might plunder them, since about them it was stated only, (Deuteronomy 2:9) “Do not contend with them in battle”; but the Midianites, however, had got excited (had interfered) in a quarrel that did not concern them. Another explanation of why God forbade them to wage war against the Moabites, and which explains at the same time why they had been forbidden to wage war against the Ammonites (cf. Deuteronomy 2:19): because, said He, of the two goodly doves (virtuous women) which I am to bring forth from them, — Ruth the Moabitess, and Naamah the Ammonitess [Solomon's wife] (Bava Kamma 38b).

We know that the words: “G’d saw that it was good,” appear in connection with all the six days of creation [except the second day, but twice with the third day, Ed.]. This means that G’d’s directives calling the respective parts of the universe into existence and arranging for them to function were all the result of דבר בעתו, “a word spoken at the time appropriate for it.” This does not conflict with the view we expressed that the entire universe was created at one and the same moment. Our sages have already illustrated how we are to understand this apparent contradiction when they told us the parable about the farmer who planted six different seeds all at the same time. The plants growing out of these different seeds each germinated, grew and became ripe at different times (Bereshit Rabbah 12,3). Even though they were all put in the earth at the same time, they did not grow at a uniform rate of speed. Concerning such careful timing by G’d Solomon said in Kohelet 3,1: “He did everything at the appropriate time.” The creatures which matured later were not inferior, but on the contrary, they were superior, more sophisticated. As a result, man was the most superior creature of all coming into meaningful existence last. Similarly, the Sabbath is the best of all the days seeing it was last to make its appearance. Israel was the last nation to emerge as a separate nation, 70 other nations having preceded it. This makes the Jewish nation the choicest of them all. Although the last to make their appearance on the stage of history, G’d had planned to have a Jewish people on earth long before He made provision for all the other nations to become historical entities. By the same token, the hereafter, known as עולם הבא, precisely because it takes such a long time to mature, to emerge from its cocoon, is a superior world. We have evidence that Israel was first in G’d’s planning from Jeremiah 2,2: “Israel is holy to G’d the first (and choicest) of His harvest.” In other words, the first (and finest) harvest G’d looked forward to was Israel. The other nations may be viewed as “miscarriages,” fetuses prematurely aborted. When G’d referred to the Jewish people in the verse from Jeremiah we just quoted in translation, He did not use the adjective kadosh or kedoshim to describe their being holy, but He chose the word kodesh, a noun, meaning that Israel was holy in its own right. The implication is that the Jewish people draw on the source of holiness for their existence. We find a similar word when the Torah commands or promises the Jewish people that their destiny is to be or become אנשי קודש, “men (and women) devoted to holiness” (Exodus 22,30). When the Torah describes the Jewish people as G’d’s portion (Deut. 32,9), the idea is similarly that the Jewish people are part of G’d, i.e. of His Holiness. G’d did not assign inter-stellar forces, signs of the zodiac known as mazzalot to supervise the fortunes of the Jewish people as He had done for the 70 nations of the earth, but instead He supervises them personally by means of what is known as hashgachah peratit, “personal benevolent supervision of our collective and individual fates.” When Israel was described as G’d’s first harvest, ראשית תבואתה, (the reading of the last letter is “au”, i.e. the masculine pronoun referring to Hashem). Remember that there are five species of grain all of which are “harvested.” The word ראשית derived from ראש, head, means “the choicest.” The letter ה at the end of the word תבואתה may refer to the 5 kinds of physical harvests, i.e. the five different kinds of grain from which bread is made, or, in the case of the Jewish people, to the five kinds of spiritual harvest, i.e. the “Five Books of Moses,” the Torah. The choicest of the five species of grain is wheat, whereas the choicest Books of the Bible (Torah) are the Five Books of Moses. Concerning all this, the Midrash quotes a parable. There was a king who betrothed a bride to himself giving her five rings as token of the betrothal. The number “five” corresponded to the betrothal between G’d and Israel described in Hoseah 2,21-22 with the words: “I will betroth you to Me forever, with righteousness, with justice, with goodness and with mercy; and I will betroth you to Me with faithfulness, and you will be devoted to the Lord.” This then is the meaning of the word ראשית, i.e. it ranks first. The “first” of which the prophet speaks includes that Israel ranks higher in attributes than the other nations, and that it also enjoys an advantage in time, i.e. they were the first consideration G’d entertained when He planned to create man, etc. The word ראשית denoting superior quality is found in Amos 6,6 ראשית השמנים, “the choicest of the oils.” The same word describing precedence in terms of time occurs in Genesis 10,10 ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל, “the first country under his rule was Babylon.”
We have established that whereas Israel was first in terms of G’d’s planning it was last in terms of that plan being executed. Consider the fact that Esau and the rulers descended from him preceded Yaakov’s development as a nation commencing with Esau’s birth which is described as “the first one emerged (from Rivkah’s womb) very reddish looking, etc.” (Genesis 25,25). Esau developed much earlier than his twin Yaakov. Esau married at the age of 40. The only reason the Torah bothered to tell us all these details about Esau and his descendants is to contrast them with Yaakov who was a “late bloomer,” not marrying until he was 84 years of age. Nonetheless, David already said in Psalms 40,6 “You have set out wonders and devised them for us.” We find a saying in the Kuzari 3,73 that תחלת המחשבה סוף המעשה, “that which came first in planning was the last to be carried out.”
Let us illustrate the reason for such apparently illogical behaviour. Reuven wanted to study Torah but did not have a study hall with the requisite library. In order to carry out his plan he first has to build the study hall and acquire the necessary books. In other words, the Torah study, the purpose of all these endeavors, can only be carried out after preparatory activities. The parable we just described has much in common with a comment by our sages on Deut. 2,19 exhorting us not to harass the Moabites or Ammonites. In answer to the question why G’d had singled out these two nations, warning the Israelites not to harass them, our sages in Baba Batra 35 explain hat this was on account of two great descendants that would emerge from these two peoples, Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite. Clearly, although these women were born many hundreds of years later than the Israelites’ trek through the desert, this is another example of future events casting long shadows ahead, i.e. G’d’s foreknowledge determining present day behaviour. All of the examples mentioned showed that fruits which develop later are superior to results which are visible immediately. One may compare this to someone who has lost a pearl at the beach and who sieves through bucket after bucket of sand, until finally, he finds the pearl. All that sand, though apparently having no immediate use, was necessary in order to enable the pearl to be found. All the tedium of sifting the sand proved worthwhile in retrospect. This explains much of human history, and even much of Jewish history. Tanchuma Vayeshev 1 explains the ten generations between Adam and Noach and the ones between Noach and Avraham as necessary preludes to someone like Avraham. All of human history and G’d’s frustrations with its disobedience to Him must find their justification in the eventual emergence of such pearls as Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.
The tedious process of ploughing, seeding, etc., etc., has only one ultimate but long delayed objective, i.e. the fruit which the soil or tree will yield as a result. Man is described by David in Psalms 139,5 as ראשון ואחרון צרתני, “You have formed me both first and last;” David meant that though man was the last creature to emerge on earth on the sixth day, he was the first in G’d’s planning of the entire creative process. The word ראשון in that psalm may also mean “choicest, most accomplished.” The word אחרון of course, applies to the process of actual creation.
As soon as G’d created man, He gave him the first positive commandment as well as a negative commandment. The first commandment was that he was to eat from all the trees in Gan Eden; the first negative commandment was that he was not to eat from the tree of knowledge.
In a manner paralleling what G’d commanded Adam when He had placed him in Gan Eden, in the previous portion the Torah devoted three paragraphs to different categories of life in this terrestrial earth and how such animals may or may not interact with superior forms of life, i.e. man. First the Torah deals with the mammals, animals whose primary raw material is earth, dust, i.e. the most primitive of the four elements making up the terrestrial universe which we discussed already. Secondly, it deals with what may and what may not be eaten of the animals primarily formed from the element water, a slightly more sophisticated element. Thirdly, it dealt with which birds may not be eaten, i.e. creatures whose primary element is the רוח, the wind, i.e. an element much closer to the celestial domain than the previous two. Finally, beginning with our portion, the Torah addresses the most superior creature, i.e. man and immediately repeats the commandment of circumcision as if to emphasise that further refinement of man the species was still necessary. The Torah makes plain by means of this commandment that the principal reason man has been created is to perform G’d’s commandments. This is what Job had in mind (Job 5,7) when we are told there that אדם לעמל יולד, “man has been born in order to toil.” The “toil” referred to is the effort involved in studying and observing G’d’s Torah. This is the reason why the commandments connected to a woman giving birth are surrounded by a variety of commandments both before and after that particular paragraph. The commandments preceding the laws to be observed in connection with the birth of a human being all deal with permitted or forbidden food. This is what our sages (in Tanchuma Tazria 1) had in mind when they interpreted the above-mentioned verse in Psalms 139,5 to mean that the אחור, “after,” the prophet referred to were all the mammals, birds and creeping creatures which had been created before man, whereas the word קדם they understand as applying to the human baby being born to whom G’d already gave directives concerning how to conduct itself after it would leave the mother’s womb. In other words, man’s creation or birth is conditional on his keeping G’d’s commandments. The immediate commandment is the perfor- mance of circumcision of the male baby. [Or, seeing the fetus is taught the Torah while still in its mother’s womb, this is what entitles it to be born. Ed.]

BECAUSE THEY MET YOU NOT WITH BREAD AND WITH WATER. We find it stated [in Moses’ message to Sihon], Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink etc. as the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, and the Moabites that dwell in Ar did unto me.²²⁶Above 2:28-29. [This clearly states that the Moabites did not deprive them of bread and water, and in the verse before us it is mentioned that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water!] Now, many scholars²²⁷Mentioned so in Ibn Ezra (above, 2:29). say that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water, but that the Israelites bought it from them. But this is baseless, for it is adequate for a camp that they be sold [food] when they want to buy. Moreover, Israel came not within the border of Moab,²²⁸Judges 11:18. and the Moabites brought them forth bread and water for money, and Scripture tells that the Moabites acted as did the children of Esau — why, then, were the Moabites forever banned [from the congregation of Israel] on account of this [for not having met them with bread and water], and of the Edomites it declared that we are not to abhor them?²²⁹Verse 8. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra stated²²⁷Mentioned so in Ibn Ezra (above, 2:29). that “the expression as the children of Esau … and the Moabites did unto me²³⁰Above, 2:29. refers to the verse, Let me pass through thy land; I will go along by the highway,²³¹Ibid., Verse 27. but neither [the Edomites nor the Moabites] sold them bread and water. For the Israelites passed through Mount Seir [in Edom] and Ar [in Moab]; it was only to pass through his city where he dwelled that the king of Edom did not permit them — this being the sense of the expression, Thou shalt not pass ‘through me’²³²Numbers 20:18. [but he did allow them entry through other parts of Edom].” This interpretation [of Ibn Ezra] is also baseless, for the Israelites said to the king of Edom, “Let me pass through thy land,”²³³Ibid., Verse 17. The language there is: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land. and Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border.²³⁴Ibid., Verse 21. Thus they did not enter the border of Edom at all! And so it is written, And they journeyed from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom²³⁵Ibid., 21:4. because they had to retreat by way of the Red Sea from Mount Hor which is on the border of the land of Edom, but they did not come into the land of Edom itself at all. Jephthah said it clearly: But when they came up from Egypt, and Israel walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying: Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom hearkened not. And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not; and Israel abode in Kadesh. Then he walked through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they pitched on the other side of Arnon, but they came not within the border of Moab.²³⁶Judges 11:16-18. Thus it is clearly explained that they did not come into the land of Edom or the land of Moab at all. Had they come there, the Edomites and Moabites would have sold them bread and water, for it is not customary for one who allows an army to pass through a land not to sell them bread and water.
It appears to me that Scripture banned these two brothers [Ammon and Moab, sons of Lot — from the congregation of Israel] because they were the beneficiaries of the lovingkindness of Abraham who saved their father and mother from the sword and captivity²³⁷See Genesis 14:16. and, by virtue of Abraham’s merit, G-d sent them out of the midst of the overthrow [of Sodom]²³⁸Ibid., 19:29. — hence they were obligated to do good to Israel and instead they did them evil. One of them [the Moabites] hired Balaam the son of Beor against Israel, and one [the Ammonites] did not meet them with bread and water as they approached their territory, as it is written, Thou art this day to pass over the border of Moab, even Ar; and thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon.²³⁹Above, 2:18-19. Now Scripture warned the Israelites [concerning the children of Ammon] harass them not, nor contend with them.²⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 19. And yet the Ammonites did not meet them at all [with bread and water], for otherwise Scripture would have stated, “As the children of Esau, and the Moabites, ‘and the Ammonites’ did unto me,” but the verse²³⁰Above, 2:29. does not mention Ammon because they did not meet them. Thus Ammon acted more wickedly than all of them, for the children of Esau and the Moabites, when they knew that the Israelites were warned against contending with them in battle, brought bread and water out of their border, but Ammon did not wish to do so. This is the meaning of the phrase, because they met you not, that they did not come forth toward them with bread and water as the others did. Therefore Scripture mentioned an Ammonite first [An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Eternal],²⁴¹Verse 4. and it cited his sin first, because they met you not with bread and water, and then it mentioned a Moabite and his sin [and because they hired against thee Balaam].
Now our Rabbis interpreted:²⁴²Yebamoth 76b. “An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess [if she is converted to Judaism she may be married to an Israelite]. A Moabite, but not a Moabitess, because it is customary for a man to meet [a passing camp with bread and water] but it is not customary for a woman to meet,” to bring forth food outside of the border of the land. And so the Rabbis also mentioned in the Yerushalmi²⁴³Yerushalmi Yebamoth VIII, 3. and in the Scroll of Ruth Rabbathi:²⁴⁴Ruth Rabbathi 4:8. “It is customary for a man to hire but it is not customary for a woman to hire.”²⁴⁵Hence the Ammorite and Moabite women were not considered as having partaken in the sins of the men and, therefore, the women were excluded from the prohibition. When Ruth the Moabitess adopted the faith of Israel, therefore, Boaz was permitted to marry her.

ואל תתגר בם וגו׳ AND DO NOT CONTEND WITH THEM [IN WAR] — As regards Moab He forbade them (the Israelites) only war against them, but they may frighten them, appearing before them when equipped for war; therefore it is written, (Numbers 22:3) "And Moab was afraid because of the people", because they took plunder and loot from them. But about the children of Ammon it is said, (v. 19) “Do not contend with them" — no provocation of any kind, — as a reward for the modesty shown by their ancestress, Lot's younger daughter, who did not publicly divulge regarding her father's conduct, as his elder daughter did, who called her son's name “Moab" (i.e. born of the father) (Bava Kamma 38b; see Rashi on Genesis 19:37).

כי עז FOR [THE BOUNDARY OF THE CHILDREN OF AMMON] WAS STRONG — And what constituted its strength? The warning of the Holy One, blessed be He, who had said to them (the Israelites), (Deuteronomy 2:19), Harass them not, etc.”.