Comentários de Citação sobre I Samuel 12:11

Come up to the Eternal. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, the reason for this expression [when it should have said: “Come up unto Me”], is because it is the Scriptural style to mention the proper name instead of the pronoun, such as: And Lemech said… Ye wives of Lemech;⁴⁸⁹Genesis 4:23. It should have said: “My wives.” and the Eternal sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel.⁴⁹⁰I Samuel 12:11. Since Samuel was the speaker, he should have said: “and myself.” A similar case is the verse, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the Eternal’s sake.⁴⁹¹Daniel 9:17. It should have said: “for Thy sake.” In the Talmud,⁴⁹²Sanhedrin 38b. however, we find that they⁴⁹³“They” — the Rabbis, asked. To understand, however, the following references in Ramban it is necessary to know that the question was addressed by a min [a Jewish infidel], to Rav Idie for sectarian purposes. The answer here quoted was given by Rav Idie. asked, “It should have said, ‘come up to Me,’” and therefore they said, “this refers to Mattatron, whose name is even as the Name of his Master.”⁴⁹⁴See Ramban above, 23:20. That is to say, “And unto Moses He — the Divine Name mentioned at the beginning of this subject, namely, And the Eternal said unto Moses⁴⁹⁵Above, 20:19. — said, come up to Mattatron, for My Name is in him.” The meaning is thus: “Come up to the place of the Glory where the great angel is,” and the intention was that Moses should come into the midst of the cloud⁴⁸²Further, Verse 18. where the Glory of G-d was, but he should not come right up to the Proper Divine Name, for man shall not see Me, and live.⁴⁹⁶Further, 33:20. The intention of our Rabbis is thus not at all as Rashi had written above.⁴⁹⁷23:20. — Ramban refers to what Rashi wrote there, that the verse mentioned further on [after the sin with the golden calf], and I will send an angel before thee (33:2) has reference to Mattatron. That is not correct, for Moses did not consent that the angel mentioned there should go with them (Abusaula). See also Ramban above 23:20 for a full discussion. In Tractate Sanhedrin also the Rabbi [Rashi] turned the subject around.⁴⁹⁸In Sanhedrin 38 b, Rashi commented: “This is Mattatron. It was he who said Come up unto the Eternal.” Ramban’s opinion, as explained above, is that the Eternal said, “Come up to Mattatron.” Now I have already mentioned⁴⁹⁹Above, 23:20, and in Seder Bo 12:12. the Rabbis’ intention concerning this name [Mattatron], and all their words are true. In that homily, however, [related in Tractate Sanhedrin, concerning the infidel’s question to Rav Idie],⁴⁹³“They” — the Rabbis, asked. To understand, however, the following references in Ramban it is necessary to know that the question was addressed by a min [a Jewish infidel], to Rav Idie for sectarian purposes. The answer here quoted was given by Rav Idie. the Sages spoke in an abstract manner, since Rav Idie did not want, Heaven forbid, to reveal to that infidel who asked him the question, the matter of the great Mattatron and its secret! Instead, he mentioned to him that the verse speaks of the angel who is “the guide of the road” of the world below; and hence he told him, that “even as a guide we refused to accept him, for it is written [that Moses said], If ‘panecha’ — [literally: ‘Thy face’ or ‘Thy presence’] go not up, carry us not up hence,”⁵⁰⁰Further, 33:15. for we accepted no messenger, only the Revered G-d. I have already explained⁵⁰¹Above, 20:3. clearly the secret of panim (face) and the whole subject to those learned in the secret lore of the Cabala, in the section of the Giving of the Torah.

AND MOSES ALONE SHALL COME NEAR UNTO THE ETERNAL. In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra this too is a case where a proper name is used instead of a pronoun, for after the expression, Come up unto the Eternal, it should have said, “and you alone shall come near,” but such is the Scriptural style, as I have mentioned.⁵⁰²Above, Verse 1. Similarly: And the Eternal caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Eternal,⁵⁰³Genesis 19:24. which means “from Him;” And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law,⁵⁰⁴Numbers 10:29. which means “his father-in-law.” Also: And the Eternal sent Jerubaal, and Bedan, and Jephthah, and Samuel,⁴⁹⁰I Samuel 12:11. Since Samuel was the speaker, he should have said: “and myself.” and similarly: Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes… unto King Solomon.⁵⁰⁵I Kings 8:1. The meaning is: he gathered them “to himself.”
The correct interpretation here appears to me to be that this commandment was addressed also to Aaron, and he too heard the Voice of G-d saying to Moses, Come up unto the Eternal, thou, and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.⁵⁰⁶Above, Verse 1. And if so, it was necessary that the name of the one who was to draw near [i.e., Moses] be expressly mentioned, for it was he alone who was to come near [and not Aaron]. And even if [we were to explain that when G-d said, Come up unto the Eternal etc.] He spoke to Moses directly [and Aaron did not hear it], it would still be necessary to explain that “you Moses alone shall come near unto the Eternal,” and the mere pronoun “thou” would not have sufficed.⁵⁰⁷For since Aaron’s name was after all mentioned in the command [in Verse 1], it was already necessary that Moses’ name be designated in Verse 2, so that he would know that it was he who was to come near, otherwise it would have included Aaron as well. Therefore etc. Therefore He said, And Moses alone shall come near; but they shall not come near. This is the reason for the word l’vado (alone), to exclude Aaron who had been included previously with Moses as far as the commandment [to “come up”].

AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIEST THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS — to the priest that shall be there in those days, for first-fruits, like all offerings, are given to the men of the [priestly] Division [who are assigned to the Sanctuary for a week at a time],¹⁰See Vol. IV, p. 17, Note 92. but he may not bring along a priest from his city in order to offer him his first-fruits.
Now, Rashi wrote: “You have none else than the priest who lives in your days as he is.” But I have not understood this, for in the case of an elder [of the Sanhedrin] it is proper to say [and thou shalt come …] unto the judge that shall be in those days,¹¹Above, 17:9. meaning that even though he is not as great and wise as the early judges in the ages which were before us,¹²Ecclesiastes 1:10. still he [the elder] is obligated to hearken to him [the judge], for “Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation.”¹³Rosh Hashanah 25b. The prophet Samuel is cited by Scripture as being equal to Moses and Aaron (Psalms 99:6). Elsewhere Jephthah is mentioned together with Samuel (I Samuel 12:11), thus teaching us that Jephthah in his generation was entitled to obedience just as was Samuel in his generation. But when bringing first-fruits, to whom shall he bring them if not to the priest that shall be in his days? Now, I have also seen the following text in the Sifre:⁵Sifre, Ki Thavo 298. “And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days. This is what Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, And would it occur to you to come to the priest that is not in your days? Rather, [I must say that the verse requires one to come to] the priest who is considered by you to be established and fit in those days. Kinsmen who have ceased to be kinsmen are qualified.¹⁴This statement will be explained further on by Ramban as applying to a judge who was disqualified from rendering judgment involving a member of his family. This stricture does not apply to the bringing of first-fruits to a kindred priest who is ministering in the Sanctuary. And so it is also said, Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ ”¹⁵Ecclesiastes 7:10. The word days thus refers to “the judges of the former days.” Do not say that the judges of the former generations were better than those of the present, and therefore I would not listen to them. Instead you are to listen to them, for you are only concerned with them (Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 25b). It appears that the Sages interpreted in this connection that if one brought first-fruits or a burnt-offering to a priest who was presumed to be qualified and afterwards it was discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman, [a defiled priest not entitled to perform the Divine Service, nor to receive the priestly gifts] the offerings are nevertheless valid, as is mentioned in the last chapter¹⁶In our text of the Gemara it is found in the third chapter of Kiddushin 66b. The tractate contains four chapters. of Tractate Kiddushin. Also included in this principle is [the rule] that a kinsman who has ceased to be a kinsman is qualified, this applying to an elder who may not be judged by a relative,¹⁷But if he ceased to be his kinsman — for example, a son-in-law [of the elder] whose wife died — he becomes qualified to judge. but it is not relevant to first-fruits.