Comentários de Citação sobre II Reis 20:14

AZ YASHIR MOSHEH'(THEN MOSES WILL SING).⁹¹It is of course translated as a past tense: “Then Moses sang.” Rashi and Ramban will discuss why the future tense is used here by the Torah. Rashi comments: “[Then], when Moses saw the miracle, the thought came to his heart that he would sing a song,⁹²According to Rashi, this explains why the future tense — yashir (he will sing) — is used here by the Torah, since the expression denotes Moses’ thought that he should sing. Rashi thus interprets yashir to be a pure future. Ramban will differ with this interpretation. and thus he actually did, [as it is said], and they spoke, saying. Similarly, az yedabeir Yehoshua⁹³Joshua 10:12. Literally: “Then Joshua will speak.” means that when he saw the miracle [mentioned there], his heart prompted him to speak, and thus he actually did, [as it is said], and he said in the sight of Israel.⁹⁴Ibid. The same interpretation applies to the Song of the Well, which begins with the words, az yashir Yisrael,⁹⁵Numbers 21:17. Literally: “Then Israel will sing.” and Scripture explains after that, Spring up, O well, sing ye unto it.⁹⁶Ibid. This part of the verse shows that the preceding expression, az yashir Yisrael, denotes intent of heart to sing, thus: “Then, when they saw the miracle, their hearts told them that they should sing,” and so they did, as is indicated by the expression sing ye unto it, which is the call to the people to sing. Likewise: az yivneh Shlomoh,⁹⁷I Kings 11:7. Literally: “Then Solomon will build [a high place].” which the Sages of Israel explained it as meaning⁹⁸Sanhedrin 91b. that he proposed to build but did not build it.⁹⁹“Thus we learn that the yod as a prefix of the imperfect verb, [i.e., the future tense of a verb], indicates an intent to do a thing” (Rashi). This explanation serves to clarify the literal meaning of the text.”
But what will the Rabbi [Rashi] say concerning these verses: ‘Ya’asu’ [literally: “They will make”] a calf in Horeb;¹⁰⁰Psalms 106:19. How oft ‘yamruhu’ [literally: “will they rebel”] against Him in the wilderness, and ‘ya’atzivuhu’ [literally: “they will grieve Him”] in the desert!¹⁰¹Ibid., 78:40. The entire psalm is so written [in the future tense]: yaharog [literally: “He will destroy”] their vines with hail;¹⁰²Ibid., Verse 47. y’shalach [literally: “He will send”] among them swarms of flies¹⁰³Ibid., Verse 45. — [when all of these verbs refer to past events]! Similarly: And from whence ‘yavo’u’ [literally: “shall they come”] unto thee?¹⁰⁴II Kings 20:14. Of the wounds which the Arameans ‘yakuhu’ [literally: “shall smite him”].¹⁰⁵Ibid., 8:29. Likewise, Now Moses ‘yikach’ [literally: “will take”] the tent¹⁰⁶Further, 33:7. does not denote a continuous event,¹⁰⁷At this point, Ramban’s intent is directed to another statement in Rashi’s explanation, namely, that where an action is continuously happening, it is proper to use either the future tense or the past tense. Where the action is mentioned once and once only, the future cannot be used. However, Ramban points out, in the verse, Now Moses ‘yikach’ the tent, where the future tense “shall take” is used, the action is not one of continuous happening and still the future tense is used! since he took it only once.¹⁰⁸See Rashi further, 33:11, towards the end (“The Midrash explains, etc.”), that Moses’ removing his tent to pitch it outside the camp happened only once. Instead, [we must conclude that] it is the way of Scripture to use the future tense in place of the past form, and in many places the reverse is quite usual. The reason for this is that it is a distinctive way of language for a narrator of an event to place himself at a certain point of time which he desires, and he then alludes to the event. At times, he places himself at the moment of the action, and he speaks of it in the present tense as if he is watching it from its very beginning. He would say, “Israel is singing,” as if they were singing right before him, and so also in other cases. However, at times the narrator places himself after the event and says, “This has already been done.” It is all a matter of conveying an event realistically. It is for this reason that this interchangeable use of the tenses occurs in matters of prophecy.

בלק בן צפור, “Balak, son of Tzippor, etc.” He was one of three people mentioned in the Bible as not having answered G–d appropriately. The other two were Kayin and King Chizkiyah. When G–d had asked Kayin where his brother Hevel was (after Kayin had murdered and buried him Genesis 4,9) he answered: “am I my brother’s keeper?) He should have answered G–d that seeing G–d is omniscient He was well aware where Hevel was. Similarly, when G–d asked Bileam who the men were that had come to visit him that evening, he too should have answered that he was well aware that G–d knew full well who they were. When the prophet Isaiah, in Kings II 20,14 asked King Chizkiyah who his visitors were and what they had requested from him, he said only that they had come from Babylon. When Isaiah persisted in knowing why they had come, and what they had seen in his palace? He replied that he had shown them all the treasures in his palace. Isaiah then told him that as a result of the King’s foolishness, the time would come when the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem and take with them all the treasures the king had so foolishly shown them. I am troubled by the fact that the Talmud refers only to these three people, omitting Adam, who when asked by G–d where he was hiding, did not say that he knew that G–d must be well aware of where he was, but pretended that he had thought that he could hide from Him. If he was smart enough to have given all the animals appropriate names, he must have known that their Creator would know where each one was at any given time. We would say that Chizkiyah should be removed from that list and Adam should be substituted, Actually, of the four we have mentioned only three spoke to G–d directly, namely Adam. Chizkiyah had been spoken to by the prophet, and prophets do not know everything.