Comentários de Citação sobre Ester 4:1

GIVE ME CHILDREN. The commentators⁹⁸Rashi and Ibn Ezra. said that this means that Rachel asked Jacob to pray on her behalf. Or else I die — Rashi comments: “For one who is childless may be considered as dead.” This is a Midrash of our Rabbis.⁹⁹Bereshith Rabbah 71:19.
But I wonder. If so, why was Jacob angry with her? And why did he say, Am I in G-d’s stead?¹⁰⁰Verse 2 here. for G-d hearkens to the righteous.¹⁰¹See Psalms 69:34. [I wonder concerning] that which Jacob said [to Rachel, as quoted in Rashi:¹⁰⁰Verse 2 here. “You say that I should do as did my father, who prayed on behalf of Rebekah, but I am not circumstanced as my father was. My] father had no children at all. I, however, have children. It is from you that He had withheld children and not from me.” Do not the righteous pray on behalf of others? There were Elijah¹⁰²I Kings 18:21. and Elisha¹⁰³II Kings 4:33. who prayed on behalf of strange women.
It would appear that on account of Jacob’s answer, our Rabbis took him to task, saying in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁰⁴71:10. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, ‘Is this the way to answer a woman who is oppressed by her barrenness? By your life! Your children are destined to stand before her son Joseph!’”
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, Rachel asked of Jacob that he give her children, but her intent was truly to say that he should pray on her behalf and continue indeed to pray until G-d would, in any case, grant her children, and if not, she would mortify herself because of grief. In her envy she spoke improperly, thinking that because Jacob loved her he would fast, put on sackcloth with ashes,¹⁰⁵Esther 4:1. and pray until she would have children, so that she should not die of her grief.

Wir folgen, wie schon wiederholt bemerkt, unseren Weisen, und halten es nicht für unsere Aufgabe, die Apologeten unserer großen Männer und Frauen zu sein, so wenig wie das Gotteswort es unterlässt, auch Verirrungen und Schwächen von ihnen zu berichten. Hat Rebekka Jakob veranlasst, den Vater zu täuschen, so steht da ungeschminkt: בא אחיך במרמה. R. Chanina äußert sich ( 67, 4 ב"ר) über die in diesem Kapitel erzählten Vorgänge: כל מי שאומר הב"ה וותרן הוא, "wer etwa sagt, Gott lasse seinen Frommen etwas hingehen, "fromme" Männer dürfen sich schon etwas erlauben, יותרון מעיר, dem sollen die Eingeweide umgewendet, (eigentlich losgerissen) werden", אלא מאריך רוחיה וגבי דיליה ,זעקה אחת הזעיק יעקב אבינו לעשו אימתי נפרע לו בשושן הבירה ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה Gottes Langmut (Esther 4, 1 wie Bereschit 27, 34) borgt lange und fordert doch zuletzt das ihre, einen Schrei ließ Vater Jakob den Esau schreien, und der ward in Susa bezahlt, wo Jakobs Enkel über Esaus Enkel ebenso bitter schreien mußte". ג׳ דמעות, "drei Tränen׳, heißt es im Tanchuma, ג׳ דמעות הוריד עשו אחת מימינו ואחת משמאלו ואחת נסתלקה בתוך עינו והיא האכילתם לחם דמעה ותשקמו ברמעות שליש ,"drei Tränen weinte Esau, eine entquoll seinem rechte, eine seinem linken Auge und eine unterdrückte er, und sie, die bitterste, die nichtgeweinte hat uns das Brot des Exils mit Tränen gesalzen und uns die Tränen in vollem Dreimaß zu kosten gegeben". — Allein wenn eine besonnene, ruhige Betrachtung dieses Ereignisses eine Überzeugung aufnötigen sollte, bei welcher daßelbe viel von seinem Herben verlieren dürfte, so glauben wir nicht dieselbe deshalb unterdrücken zu müssen, um nicht als Apologeten zu erscheinen. Wird ja immer noch genug übrig bleiben, das sich der Billigung entzieht, zumal wenn es an dem Charaktermaßstab eines Volkes gemessen wird, dessen Ehrennamen, "ישורן" lautet, das nur auf "geradem" Wege alle seine Ziele erreichen, und dem jede Krümme für jedes Ziel widerstehen soll. —

AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN, WENT OUT, etc. This means that he went out among the children of Israel,⁵²⁰In the Hebrew, the word vayeitzei (and he went out) is not adjoined to the phrase, among the children of Israel. Ramban thus calls attention to the fact that they are to be understood together: “and there went out among the children of Israel,” or “into the midst of the children of Israel, the son of an Israeli woman” etc. similar to the expression: and he went out into the midst of the city,⁵²¹Esther 4:1. meaning that he [Mordecai] went out from his house or from where he was abiding into the city. Similarly, this [son of an Israelite woman] went out from his tent or from his place, and came into the midst of the people, and they strove there. The meaning of the word bamachaneh [“in the camp” — and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together ‘in the camp’], is that the quarrel took place in the camp and many people heard it, and [when they heard the son of the Israelite woman blaspheming the Name], they took hold of him and they brought him unto Moses⁵²²Verse 11. into [his] tent. And the reason why Scripture mentions this episode here, is as the words of the Sage⁵²³Rabbi Berachyah (Tanchuma, Emor 23) and mentioned in Rashi. who says: “He ‘came forth’ from the section above [i.e., he began his argument by speaking contemptuously of a law mentioned in the above section], for he sinned with his lips concerning the fire-offerings of the Eternal,⁵²⁴Above, Verse 9. In that section the law is stated concerning the showbread; that it was to be set on the table in the Sanctuary every Sabbath, and the following Sabbath it was to be removed, and after the frankincense was burnt as a memorial for the showbread, the bread was to be eaten by the priests. When this law was announced, the son of the Israelite woman said: “It behoves a king to eat fresh bread daily, and not stale bread!” and an Israelite man rebuked him, whereupon they strove and he became angered and then blasphemed “himself.”⁵²⁵This is a euphemism, the real intent of which is the Ineffable Name.
The intention of the expression the son of an Israelite woman and a man of Israel, is to teach that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not deemed Jewish. And although we have rendered the final decision in the Gemara⁵²⁶Yebamoth 45 a. that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman whether she is single or married, the child is a fully-qualified Jew, yet they have said,⁵²⁷Bechoroth 47 a. “the child is ‘rejected,’” meaning that it is disqualified for the priesthood;⁵²⁸Thus, if the child was a girl she may not be married to a priest (Yebamoth 45 a). and certainly it is not considered a fully-qualified Israelite by name as far as genealogy is concerned, with respect to the standards [i.e., as to where he was to take his place under one of the four main standards that were set up],⁵²⁹See Numbers Chapter 2. and inheriting of the Land, for it is written of them, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.⁵³⁰Ibid., 26:55 (with respect to inheritance). With regard to the standards it is also written, The children of Israel shall pitch by their fathers’ houses (ibid., 2:2). And that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 14:1. “Among the children of Israel, this teaches that he had become a proselyte,” does not mean that he needed conversion, for he was like all Israelites who entered into the covenant by circumcision, immersion, and the expiation by blood, at the time of the Giving of the Torah.⁵³²Exodus 24:6. See in Vol. II, p. 260, Note 79 for full discussion of this matter. But the intention of the Rabbis [in this text of the Torath Kohanim] was to state that he was reared by his mother and became attached to Israel, this being the meaning of the expression among the children of Israel, that he was with them and he did not want to go after his father to be an Egyptian. Similarly, that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³¹Torath Kohanim, Emor 14:1. “Although there were no mamzerim at that time, he was like one,” this text follows the opinion of a single Sage [who says that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is deemed a mamzer], but the final decision of the law is that the child is a fully-qualified Jew.
And the French Rabbis⁵³³I found this opinion in the commentary of Chizkuni (see my Hebrew commentary, beginning with the fifth edition, p. 535). say that the reason why this son of the Israelite woman required conversion [according to the Torath Kohanim mentioned above], was because he lived before the Giving of the Torah, and his status was determined by that of the male parent, as is to be deduced from what the Rabbis have said:⁵³⁴Kiddushin 67 a. “Where [the parents of a child are of] non-Jewish nations, we go [as far as the status of the child is concerned] by that of the father.” And when this [son of the Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian] was born, they did not circumcise him, for his status was that of an Egyptian, but when he grew up he voluntarily converted and was circumcised.⁵³⁵All this is the opinion of the “French Rabbis.” Essentially this opinion is based upon the theory that up till the Giving of the Torah the Israelites had a status [in the law of the Torah] similar to that of all other nations, and hence the law quoted [“Where the parents of a child are of non-Jewish nations etc.”] applied. Ramban is now to differ with this opinion, and holds that since Abraham entered the covenant, he and his seed already enjoyed that status later defined as that of Israelites, and under such law the son of the Israelite woman assumed her status, and hence there was no need for his official conversion. The statement of the Torath Kohanim that he was converted must mean only, as explained above, that he was reared by his mother and he became attached to Israel. But such is not my opinion, for since the time that Abraham entered into the covenant [with G-d], they [i.e., his descendants through Isaac and Jacob] were Israelites and were not to be reckoned among the nations,⁵³⁶Numbers 23:9. just as the Rabbis have said with respect to Esau:⁵³⁷Kiddushin 18 a. “Perhaps the case of an Israelite who is an apostate is different!” [Thus the Rabbis referred to Esau, who was long before the Giving of the Torah on Sinai, as an “Israelite.”] And is it not an argument from minor to major! “If after the Giving of the Torah when a Cuthean has sexual relations with a daughter of Abraham, and he is forbidden to her by a negative commandment and his betrothal to her is not valid, yet she is the source of purification of the nations, so that her child becomes fully-qualified and of her own standing — does it not follow all the more so that before the Torah was given, she purifies her child to be of her own standing, so that circumcision be incumbent upon him as upon the seed of Abraham, and that he be part of the community of the children of Israel!”