Comentários de Citação sobre Deuteronômio 4:17

TAKE YE THEREFORE GOOD HEED UNTO YOURSELVES. He warns them lest they mistakenly follow the voice they heard and they commit the corruption of “mutilating the shoots.”⁶⁴This consists of separating any of the Ten Emanations and worshipping it independently. See Vol. II p. 556, Note 308. He states first the likeness of male or female,⁶⁵Verse 16. [lest they corrupt themselves by making a graven image in the likeness of male or female] of the Being⁶⁶See my Hebrew commentary p. 362. from Whom the voice came. Afterwards he mentioned all that is on the earth of beast and of fowl,⁶⁷See Verse 17. of those that creep on the ground, and of the fish that are in the water,⁶⁸See Verse 18. and then he reverts to the host of heaven.⁶⁹Verse 19. Now I have already explained⁷⁰In Leviticus 18:25; Numbers 11:16. the expression, which the Eternal thy G-d hath allotted unto all peoples,⁶⁹Verse 19. for every nation has a star and constellation, and, above them⁷¹Ecclesiastes 5:7. the angels of the Supreme One, like those mentioned in the Book of Daniel, the prince of the kingdom of Persia,⁷²Daniel 10:13. and the prince of the kingdom of Greece⁷³Ibid., Verse 20. — this being the reason why they [the nations] make of them gods for themselves and worship them. Scripture continues, And you the Eternal hath taken,⁷⁴Verse 20 here. for you are the portion of the Eternal.⁷⁵Deuteronomy 32:9. You are thus not to appoint a prince or helper over yourselves except for Him, for it is He Who brought you forth out of the iron furnace⁷⁴Verse 20 here. when you were in Egypt in the midst of a furnace of fire and wood [i.e., a furnace of affliction] and He took you out from there in spite of their princes against whom He executed judgments.⁷⁶Exodus 12:12. See Ramban there, Vol. II, pp. 129-131. Had He not brought about their downfall you would not have gone out, for they were [so much] in their ascendancy that you would not be able to leave. Thus He has done all this in order that you be “an inheritance” to Him⁷⁷Deuteronomy 32:9: Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. and be to His Great Name a treasure from among all peoples.⁷⁸See Exodus 19:5.

רקיע השמים; there are many places in the Torah where the air (atmosphere) is simply referred to as שמים, to name just one such example: Deuteronomy 4,17, אשר תעוף בשמים, “which flies in the air.” [It would not occur to any thinking person to translate this line as “which flies in the heaven,” or even: “in the sky.” Ed.] Consider also Exodus 10,21 where Moses had been told: נטה ידך על השמים, which no one would understand as Moses being asked to “extend his hand above the heaven,“ but as an instruction to extend his hand over the air in front of him. The Torah also describes Canaanites as possessing cities fortified בשמים (Deuteronomy 9,1) which no one in his right mind would translate as “fortified right into heaven,” but would understand as the walls “rising high into the surrounding airspace.” The reason that we do not find the customary expression ויהי כן, “and so it came to be,” at the end of the report of G-d’s activities on the fifth day, is because seeing that the fish were created on that day and by far the greatest majority of them are never seen by man, it was not considered appropriate to insert that conclusion here.

And the fact that we prohibit [making] a full form of a human and a dragon, etc… So writes the Rosh in Chapter "All the Sculptures," and the text says: And the prohibition of [making] the form of a human and a dragon is only in a complete form but [making] just the head without a complete body is permitted, as "You shall not make with Me" is interpreted and also there is no concern for suspicion if the entire figure is not complete. End of quote. Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote: The bedspreads (מצעות) that have those images made on them are forbidden to make, For they are worshipped, and it is appropriate to excommunicate anyone who does not refrain from making them, and so wrote the commentaries. End of quote. *note start](From the "Ba"ah," wrote in "A" the Rashba in responsum #167 and #505 about an image of a lion without the inscription on a silver plate for healing purposes. According to a book of remedies where it is found that this is beneficial for a specific illness, and if it was made at a known time, he responded that even if a Jew made it, even if it was protruding, there is no prohibition on making it. For it is not like celestial images: the form of a lion stands alone and is not worshiped, but rather the faces of the living creatures of the chariot [Merkavah], these four living creatures. And someone who makes the face in the form of those creatures that have four faces is forbidden. But one of them alone [is not forbidden]. And he brought proofs to this. I heard that my teacher, the Ramban, used to make that image for that illness. And he wrote further that if it is for the sake of a remedy, and it is known to doctors that it works, there is no concern of following the practices of the Amorites. And furthermore, it seems to me that if it is not explicitly prohibited in the Gemara (Shabbat 67) among those mentioned as practices of the Amorites, it is permitted to make them for healing, even though it is not clear to us if it is indeed a remedy because the effectiveness of remedies is not known to us. And he brought evidence to this. And I found in the responsa of the later Catalan scholars that the Rashba was persuaded by his contemporaries regarding the allowance of this image and retracted his opinion. *note end Mordechai wrote in Chapter "All the Sculptures" that Rabbeinu Ephraim responded regarding images of birds and horses painted in the synagogue. It is not comparable to a seal with an image because there it is a form of an idol, a human face, or images of the sun and moon and dragon that are worshipped. But images of birds and horses. And these things are not worshipped by non-Jews even when they are standalone images, let alone when they are painted on clothes. And we learned that all images are permitted except for the image of a human, and the Talmud explains that the image of a human is only prohibited if it is found, according to Rabbi Yehuda, but the Rabbis permit even the image of a human if it is found. Therefore, there is no concern here. End of quote. And Rabbeinu Elikim explained that the text "all images are permitted except for the image of a human" means in the case of making [the image] as explained by Abaye. And the term "all" is not absolute, for the image of the sun, moon, and dragon are included in the prohibition. Since they are considered objects of worship. And it can be said that Abaye's opinion is only concerning those who make them, but we follow Rava who says that all images are permitted if found. It is (the opinion of) Rabbi Yehuda, from which we learn that found (images) are permitted, but making them is forbidden. And in the Mekhilta, it forbids making even the image of an animal, birds, grasshoppers, and fish, as it is said: "the form of any animal that is on the earth" (Deuteronomy 4:17). Based on these proofs, it was commanded to remove the images of lions and snakes that were drawn in the synagogue in Cologne. End of quote. And in the Hagahot Ashri, it is written in the name of the Or Zarua regarding the words of Rabbeinu Elikim, and he gave another reason because it says in Berakhot 5b that we require nothing to come between a person and the wall (during prayer). And also, as it says in Bava Batra 25b, "One who wishes to become wealthy should turn to the north," thus it will appear as though they are bowing to those images. And he wrote further: "When my father was a boy, they would draw in the synagogue images of trees and birds, and he judged this to be forbidden." Now it has become clear to us that all of these are forbidden to be made, such as the images of faces, which are those of humans, animals, and living creatures, and images such as birds, fish, snakes, and worms. And statues, such as anything in the form or shape of something — anyone who makes them transgresses a prohibition. But if others made them for him, it is permitted according to Torah law but prohibited by Rabbinic law until their form is altered. End of quote. And it has already been explained above that according to the latter opinion, which the Ra"n wrote, all forms are permitted, even protruding ones, except for those that the Torah forbids because of "You shall not make with Me" (Exodus 20:20). And similarly, Maimonides of blessed memory wrote in Chapter 3 of the Laws of Idolatry, and this is what he said: The forms of animals and other living creatures, excluding humans, and the forms of trees, grasses, and the like, are permitted to be fashioned, even if the form is protruding. And this is clarified according to the words of Rabbeinu Ephraim. Even according to the first opinion, which the Ra"n ruled in favor of, and which our teacher quoted in the name of the Ramban of blessed memory, although he forbids other forms when they are protruding, nevertheless, when they are sunken, they are permitted. And it has already been explained above that what is drawn with symbols on a board or tablet is considered sunken (i.e., not protruding). And the Mordechai also wrote in the name of Rabbi Meir (the R”M) and permitted drawing forms using various colors because they are not protruding. Therefore, from the words of all of them, we learn that in such a case where they were painted on the wall, it is permitted, and not like the opinion of Rabbeinu Elikim. Furthermore, even according to the opinion of the Ra"n and Ramban, since non-Jews do not worship those forms, even if they were protruding, they are permitted. And as it is written earlier in the name of the Ra"n of blessed memory, therefore, we hold like the opinion of Rabbeinu Ephraim, as all agree with him, and the opinion of Rabbeinu Elikim is not followed, as he is an individual against the majority. And what Rabbeinu Elikim explained, that the teaching 'all faces are permitted except for the face of a human' — this 'all' is not literal, for the forms of the sun, moon, and dragon are included in the prohibition. I do not know what benefit there is in this explanation, since all other forms except for these three are still permitted. And that incident where they painted in the synagogue, since they were not from these forms, it is certainly permitted. And what he wrote, and alternatively, that only Abaye establishes this case as 'one who makes,' but we hold like Rava who says it is all in the context of 'finding' — meaning that found items are permitted, and making them is forbidden. It can be said that Rava did not depart from Abaye's explanation except because it was difficult for him to establish the beginning and end (of the teaching) in one way and the middle in another way, and therefore, he established it all in the context of 'finding. But regarding the law, indeed, he holds like Abaye, who permits making all forms except for the face of a human. Since we do not find that Abaye disagrees on this, we do not establish a dispute between them, and you will understand from what is said in the Gemara about the middle case, that it is certainly about 'making. And like the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who said that the face of a human is forbidden because of 'You shall not make with Me,' and since there was no need to bring proof for the permission of other forms. And only to prohibit the face of a human was it necessary to bring the ruling of Rav Huna, implying that other forms are certainly permitted. For even the face of a human would have been permitted if not for the verse brought by Rav Huna. And regarding other forms for which we do not find anyone bringing a verse for prohibition, they are certainly permitted to everyone. And what was written, that in the Mekhilta it forbids making even the face of an animal, etc.. It can be said that this [refers to] only protruding [images], in accordance with the view of Ramban and Ra"n, of blessed memory. And in the fifth chapter (54a) regarding the statement there that Rav only acquired his garden through a form, Rashi explains that it was a form of an animal or bird. Mordechai wrote that from here Rabbi Meir deduced that the teaching in the Mekhilta—'Do not make for yourself a graven image,' etc.—means that it prohibits making a carved image (protruding), but a sunken image (engraved) is permitted. [The verse says,] 'and any form,' even an animal, wild beast, bird, fish, or locusts. This refers specifically to a complete face carved out; a carved form refers to a protruding image, and a sunken form refers to an engraved image. But it is permitted to use colored images, even for a Jew for his own purposes, as is implied here by Rashbam. However, a protruding or engraved seal is forbidden for a Jew to make. However, if others made it, it is permitted to use it in a place where many people frequent, as there is no concern of suspicion, as is implied in the chapter 'All the images'—and that is the end of it. And in my humble opinion, it seems to me that the Mekhilta is referring to one who makes an actual idol, even for a non-Jew, or to forms that non-Jews customarily worship. This is why it brings the verse 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image. But forms that are not customarily worshiped by non-Jews are permitted, as Ra"n of blessed memory wrote. And what was written, that based on this evidence he ordered the removal of the images of lions and snakes that were painted in the synagogue in Cologne—I do not know what was achieved by this ruling. For according to all opinions, other forms are permitted if found, and since they are permitted when found, even though it was possible to suspect that they might be worshiped, we do not worry about that. And it implies that maintaining [such forms] is also permitted, since there is no concern of idolatry. Why should we prohibit maintaining it? And it implies that the same applies if a Jew made them. Even though the maker committed a transgression, maintaining them is still permitted. And the one who commits the transgression did so at the time of making it, and afterward, there is no remedy, even if he removes them. It is possible to say that nevertheless, he did not want there to be any remembrance or permanence of something that was made in violation, according to his opinion, of blessed memory, But I have already written that all the decisors disagree with him and permit making them, even from the outset. The Maharik wrote in his responsa, section 75, that which it is taught: a seven-branched menorah should not be made, even though its height differs from that of the menorah in the Temple, because the requirement that the Temple menorah must be 18 handbreadths high is not an absolute requirement. And he further wrote that regarding the teaching that a portico in the form of a hall is prohibited, Tosafot wrote that even though the hall had four walls, it can be said that since its entrance was very wide and high, it appeared as if it had only three walls. end of quote. And he brought proof from there that it depends on appearance. So too, since it has seven branches, even though it is not 18 handbreadths high, it resembles the one in the Temple. And even though Rashi explained that a house in the form of the sanctuary must be similar in its length, width, height, and the measurements of its doorways, if it is altered slightly, it is permitted. This implies that we need an exact replica of the Temple. It can be said that a house is different, because if it is not made exactly like the Temple, it is not easily recognizable as a replica of the Temple. For many houses are made tall and long. But regarding a menorah, one cannot say this. And even if we say that [Maharik] disagrees with Tosafot and does not accept their reasoning regarding the portico. Nevertheless, regarding the height of the menorah, we can say that he does not disagree. For the length, height, and breadth of the sanctuary, as well as the dimensions of its doorways, are explicitly written in the verse. But the height of the menorah is not written. And even if we say that [Maharik] disagrees with them, who would dare interject themselves between Rashi and Tosafot on a biblical prohibition? And he wrote in the name of Rabbi Isaac of Corbeil that the form of a seven-branched menorah is forbidden even without the cups. And he, of blessed memory, wrote that the same applies even without the knobs and flowers; it is also forbidden.