Comentários de Citação sobre Isaías 19:21

AND THE CANAANITE, THE KING OF ARAD, HEARD. We find [mentioned] amongst the conquests of Joshua: the king of Arad, one.²¹⁷Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: Moreover, in the section dealing with the [stages of the Israelites’] journeyings [in the wilderness], it is written, And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,²¹⁸Further, 33:40. and Scripture does not refer to [that land which is] on the eastern side of the Jordan as “the land of Canaan” without qualification, just as He said, the land of Canaan according to the borders thereof.²¹⁹Ibid., 34:2. Verses 10-12 ibid., define the eastern boundary of Canaan as the Jordan: hence we see that the word “Canaan” does not include land east of the Jordan. So the question reappears: how come that the king of Arad, a land west of the Jordan, came to fight the children of Israel who were now encamped east of the Jordan? Furthermore, [if Arad was to the east of the river Jordan], Moses should have given the land of the king of Arad to one of the tribes of Israel [as their inheritance, in the same way that he divided up the other lands which he conquered]; but Scripture always tells²²⁰Ibid., Verses 13-15; Joshua 12:6, etc. that it was the land of Sihon and Og, the two Amorite kings, which Moses gave to the two tribes [Reuben and Gad] and to the half-tribe [of Menasheh], whereas the nine tribes and the [other] half-tribe [of Menasheh] received their inheritance after they crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan. Perhaps we may explain [that the reason for this is] that Israel utterly destroyed their land, and did not settle therein at all. But that is not [the] correct [explanation of the word v’hacharamti in Verse 2]. Similarly Rashi explains [that the expression: And Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal, and said, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand,] then ‘v’hacharamti’ their cities²²¹Further, verse 2. means that Israel would dedicate the spoils [of those cities] to the Most High [and not that they would destroy the cities themselves].²²²Hence the question would be: If Arad was on the eastern side of the Jordan, why did Moses not give it to any of the tribes?
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this king of Arad dwelt in the south²¹⁸Further, 33:40. on the western side of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan near the Jordan, bordering onto the land of the children of Judah, near Hebron which is in the south;²²³Above, 13:22: And they went up into the south, and came unto Hebron. and he heard from afar of the coming of the children of Israel,²¹⁸Further, 33:40. so he [the king] came by the way of Atharim²²⁴Here in Verse 1. to the plains of Moab to fight there against Israel. This is the meaning of the word ‘vayishma’ (and he heard) [i.e., he heard from a distance]. Therefore Scripture relates that he dwelt in the south in the land of Canaan,²¹⁸Further, 33:40. [to point out] that he came from another land, to the place where Israel was [encamped]. Then Israel vowed a vow unto the Eternal²²¹Further, verse 2. that if He would deliver him [the king of Arad] into their hand, they would dedicate all that they had to G-d. And Scripture [further] relates²²⁵Further, Verse 3. that G-d heard their prayer, and the vow that they had vowed unto G-d, they fulfilled,²²⁶See Isaiah 19:21: and they shall vow a vow unto the Eternal, and shall perform it. for they killed them now in the days of Moses, as He had commanded, None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,²²⁷Leviticus 27:29. See Ramban ibid. and they gave all their spoils into the treasury of the House of the Eternal.²²⁸Joshua 6:24. Scripture continued by relating here²²⁵Further, Verse 3. that Israel also laid their cities waste when they came into the land of Canaan, after the death of Joshua, in order to fulfill the vow which they had made, and they called the name of the cities Hormah [Utter Destruction].²²⁹Ramban is thus saying that the account in Verse 3 of the destruction of the cities refers to an event which took place after Joshua’s death, and which is recorded in detail in the Book of Judges, as will be explained further on. Thus we must say that this future event was told by G-d to Moses, who wrote it down — like the rest of the Torah — at the command and dictation of G-d. Compare Ramban’s remarks in his introduction to the Commentary on the Torah, (Vol. I p. 9): “However, it is true and clear that the entire Torah — from the beginning of Genesis to in the sight of all Israel [the last words in Deuteronomy] — reached the ear of Moses from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He”. Since there is no difference in time for G-d, it is written in the past tense, for past, present, and future are all the same to Him. See also Ramban Vol. II, p. 192, for the reason why the tenses are often used interchangeably in prophetic statements. It is with reference to this that it is stated in the Book of Judges, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad,²³⁰Judges 1:16. and it is [further] written, And Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they smote the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. And he called the name of the city Hormah.²³¹Ibid., Verse 17. It was then that this vow [recorded here] was fulfilled, but Scripture, however, completed the account of the matter here, just as it did in the section speaking of the descending of the manna, [where it states]: and Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept. And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan,²³²Exodus 16:34-35. [an event which occurred] after the death of Moses, until the morrow after the Passover.²³³Joshua 5:11. Similarly, These are the names of the men that shall take possession of the Land for you etc.²³⁴Further, 34:17. constitutes a prophecy that these men will [still] live and function [at that time]; for it is impossible [to say] that G-d would specify for them men about whom there was a doubt [as to whether they would still be living; for if so], He should rather have commanded Joshua [about them] at the time of the division of the Land. [But since the command was already given to Moses, we see that the Torah speaks of future events, and that this constitutes a Divine promise that these specified men would live until the time of the division of the Land.]
It is also correct to say that already now in the days of Moses the Israelites destroyed this king [of Arad] and his people with the edge of the sword,²³⁵Exodus 17:13. and called the place of the battle Hormah, and after they crossed the Jordan, Joshua also killed the [then] king of Arad²¹⁷Joshua 12:14. Ramban is to ask: since the verse in Joshua clearly indicates that Arad was in Canaan proper, to the west of the river Jordan: so how — as indicated in this section — could its king fight against Israel whilst they were still on the eastern bank of the Jordan: who ruled after [the one in the days of Moses], together with the [other] Canaanite kings who ruled at that time. When the children of Judah came into their cities, they destroyed them as well, and called the name of the cities Hormah,²³¹Ibid., Verse 17. because [by destroying them] they fulfilled the vow which their fathers had made, and I will utterly destroy their cities.²²¹Further, verse 2. Therefore He stated here, and he called the name of ‘the place’ Hormah,²²⁵Further, Verse 3. but there [in the Book of Judges] it is written, and he called the name of ‘the city’ Hormah,²³¹Ibid., Verse 17. meaning the name of every city which belonged to the king of Arad, as they fulfilled their vow, and their spoils were dedicated to the Sanctuary. Thus [according to this interpretation] everything mentioned here happened at the same time [in the days of Moses], except that He mentioned, and their cities,²²⁵Further, Verse 3. [the destruction of which] occurred at a later time, when they came into their cities. It is for this reason that it says [here], and I will utterly destroy their cities,²²¹Further, verse 2. and does not say “[I will destroy] them and their cities,” because the verse [only] mentions their vow concerning the future, but they themselves [the people] died in the battle [at the time of Moses] and were destroyed there. And the language of the verse fits in well with this explanation of ours, for it should have said: “and He delivered up the Canaanites ‘into their hand,’ and ‘they’ utterly destroyed them and their cities, and ‘they’ called the name of the place Hormah.” But Scripture omitted the pronouns²³⁶Thus it does not say that He gave the Canaanites “into their hand” [which would refer exclusively to the hand of the Israelites of the days of Moses]. Nor does it say vayacharimu (and “they” destroyed), but instead says: ‘vayachareim’ [literally: “and ‘he’ destroyed” — i.e., the one who destroyed them — now, or later on in the days of Joshua]. Similarly it does not say vayikr’u (“and ‘they’ called”), the name of the place Hormah [in the days of Moses] but ‘vayikra’ [“and ‘he’ called” — the one who called — now or later on]. in order to indicate that He delivered the Canaanites into the hand of whoever of the Israelites He delivered them, some of them now and some of them at a later time, for G-d hearkened to their prayer, and they fulfilled their vow.

נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר לא ירצה. Nachdem V. 18 בעל מום, von jedem Opfer לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם, sei es zur Lösung eines נדר oder als נדבה, ausgeschlossen ist, so kann hier unmöglich mit dem נדבה תעשה אותו dessen Darbringung als נדבה gestattet sein. Ohnehin wäre der Ausdruck נדבה תעשה אותו für Darbringung eines zum Opfer geweihten Tieres nicht korrekt. Wo עשה beim Opfer die Vollziehung der Opferhandlungen bezeichnet, hat es als Objekt das Tier und dessen Opfercharakter bei sich, der die Opferhandlungen bestimmt und in ihnen vollzogen wird. So ואת השני יעשה עולה כמשפט (Kap. 5, 10), ועשה הכהן את החטאת (Kap. 14, 19), ועשה וגו׳ את האחד חטאת ואת האחד עולה (daselbst 30, 31), ועשיתם עולה (Bamidbar 29, 2), וכי תעשה בן בקר עולה (daselbst 15, 8) usw. Allein נדבה ist nichts, was erst durch die Opferhandlung zum Vollzug kommt oder dieselbe charakterisiert, ist vielmehr eine Veranlassung, die dem Opfer vorangeht und zu welcher das Opfer in Beziehung steht. ,Bezeichnete daher hier תעשה die Opferhandlung, so würde es לנדבה תעשה אותו heißen wie V. 21: ואיש כי יקריב זבח וגו׳ לנרבה oder: ועשיתם וגו׳ עולה וגו׳ לפלא נדר או בנדכה (Bamidbar 15, 3)נדבה תעשה , kann daher nur die Tätigkeit bezeichnen durch welche ein Tier נדבה wird: die weihende Tätigkeit, die sich in der Formel הרי זו נדבה ausspricht. So heißt auch Kap. 16, 8 ועשהו חטאת die Bestimmung des Tieres zum חטאת. Indem es aber hier im Gegensatz zu dem לא ירצה des folgenden Satzes steht, welches das letzte und höchste Moment des Opferzweckes bedeutet, so kann dem gegenüber hier auch das תעשה nur eine solche weihende Tätigkeit bezeichnen, die nicht erst noch folgende Handlungen einleitet, sondern die ebenso einen Abschluss bildet, wie das לא ירצה des folgenden. Es erläutert daher auch die Halacha (Temura 6b): נדבה תעשה אותו זה קדשי בדק הבית ולנדר לא ירצה זה קדשי מזבח und ist damit die Bestimmung gegeben, daß בעלי מומים wohl zu קדשי בדק הבית, d. h. zu Heiligtümern der Tempelunterhaltung, nicht aber zu קדשי מזבח, zu Opfern für den Altar geweiht werden dürfen. קדשי בדק הבית sind nur ihrem Werte nach heilig, קדושת דמים, sie werden entweder in Natura für den Tempel verwendet oder sie werden ausgelöst und ihr Lösewert fällt der Tempelkasse zu gute. קדשי מזבח haben קדושת הגוף sind an sich heilig, sie haben, so lange sie מום-frei sind, keine Auslösung, sondern kommen selbst als Opfer auf den Altar. Dieser Begriff der קדשי בדק הבית ist hier durch נדבה ausgedrückt, ebenso wie die Weihespenden zum משכן-Bau, die ersten קדשי ברק הבית (Bamidbar 35, 29 und 36, 3) נדבה genannt werden. Dessen Gegensatz, קדשי מזבח die Bestimmung zum Opfer, ist durch ולנדר לא ירצה untersagt. Daß hier von קדושת הגוף, von der Weihe des Tieres zum Opfer die Rede ist, das ist durch die Aussage: לא ירצה außer Zweifel. Irren wir aber nicht, so ist hier der Opferbegriff überhaupt in sehr bezeichnender Weise als Gegensatz zu נדבה durch נדר ausgedrückt und damit der Begriff des פסול מום in helles Licht gesetzt. Jedes Opfer ist nämlich seiner eigentlichen Bedeutung nach ein נדר, es löst nicht sowohl ein Gelübde, als es ein Gelöbnis ausspricht. Der Opferbringende gelobt, sein Blut, die Nieren und das חלב seiner Triebe und Ziele, die Glieder seiner ganzen Tätigkeit also ferner der Erfüllung ,des göttlichen Gesetzes zum göttlichen Wohlgefallen hinzugeben, wie dies mit dem דם den אימורים und איברים seines Opfers zum symbolischen Ausdruck gelangt. אספו לי חסירי כרתי בריתי עלי זבח lautet Ps.50, 5 der Ruf, mit welchem Gott die Seinen zum Gerichte mit Israel um sich versammelt. חסיר ist der sich Gott hinopfernde, der mit jedem Opfer sein Bundesgelöbnis mit Gott erneut, und diese Selbsthinopferung ist es, die sich jeder mit seinem Opfer zum gelobenden Vorsatz machen soll. זבח לאלקים תורה ושלם לעליון נדריך lautet die Anforderung, die dieses die missbräuchliche Auffassung der Opfer rügende Kapitel an jeden setzt. תודה , ein Gott huldigendes Bekenntnis soll das Opfer sein und ihm die Erfüllung der damit ausgesprochenen Gelöbnisse folgen. Wo in den Psalmen und in den Propheten die zeitgenössischen Opferdarbringungen getadelt werden, da wird nirgends das Opfer an sich, sondern die missbräuchliche Auffassung desselben gerügt, die in dem Opfer ein opus operatum erblickt und vergißt, daß Opfer nur dann Wert haben, wenn sie nicht Pflichttreue ersetzen, sondern die erneute Einleitung eines pflichtgetreuen Lebens sein sollen, daß aber זבח רשעים, die für ihren Frevel gegen das göttliche Gesetz sich durch Opfer mit Gott ab finden wollen, תועבה ist. Es ist dies ein Tadel, der in ganz gleichem Ernst und ganz gleicher Schwere auch Beten und Festtagsfeier (siehe Jesaias 1) trifft, wenn diese ein pflichtgetreues Leben ersetzen und nicht vielmehr fördern sollen. Der Psalmist und der Prophet würde in ganz gleicher Weise sein zürnendes Wort den Stab über den Gottesdienst so mancher heutigen synagogalen Kreise brechen lassen. Daher finden wir auch an anderen Stellen נדרים mit Opfern verbunden: ויזבחו זבח לד׳ וידרו נדרים (Jona 1 16), ועבדו זבח ומנחה ונדרו נדר לד׳ ושלמו (Jes.19. 21), und offenbar sind da Gelübde und deren Erfüllung nicht Ursache, sondern Folgen der Opfer: es sind die beim Opfer gefaßten Vorsätze.