Comentários de Citação sobre Isaías 44:26

כה אמר ה, ”thus has the Lord said, etc.;” other prophecies which have been introduced with this introductory phrase are numerous, as are commandments (in the future) which have been introduced with the introductory: “thus the Lord has said.” The author cites: Exodus 11,5; 32,27; Numbers 19,2; Numbers 30,2 as well as reminding us that in the Books of the prophets, especially Isaiah and Ezekiel, this formula is used frequently. It happens several times that what was predicted has not later on in the text been spelled out as having happened; [one of the reasons is that when the prophecy is a warning of something unpleasant it need not be fulfilled if the circumstances changed. Ed.] At any rate, in this case it was important for G-d to show Pharaoh that a prophecy by Moses would be fulfilled, because Moses, G-d’s spokesman, had said that it would. This is what Isaiah 44 26 had in mind when he said that G-d fulfills promises or threats made by His servants. (Compare our author on Exodus 11,4)

EVEN HIM WHOM HE HATH CHOSEN WILL HE CAUSE TO COME NEAR UNTO HIM. The meaning of this repetition [since the first half of this verse already says, and who is holy, He will cause him to come near unto Him] is that [at first Moses said] the Eternal will make known who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him tomorrow, and He will have regard for his offering,⁴⁶See Genesis 4:4. whereas He will not turn to the others and to their offerings. Even him whom He hath chosen forever to stand to minister before Him, him and his seed forever,⁴⁷See Deuteronomy 18:5. will He cause to come near unto Him tomorrow. Thus he is saying that this test will be a proof to them throughout their generations not to contest [the rights of] him who is chosen, nor those of his seed forever.
Now Rabbeinu Chananel⁴⁸See (Exodus), Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, for a brief biography of this great Rabbinic scholar. See also (Leviticus), Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286. wrote that all these people who assembled [against Moses] were Levites, of the same tribe as Korach, this being the reason for the expressions [by Moses]: ye take too much upon you, ‘ye sons of Levi;’⁴⁹Further, Verse 7. Hear now, ‘ye sons of Levi.’⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 8. Perhaps they thought that their whole tribe had been chosen for the priesthood, and that it was Moses of his own accord who gave the honor to his brother. Thus far [are the words of Rabbeinu Chananel]. But G-d forbid that there should be in the tribe of the ministers of our G-d two hundred and fifty men¹⁴Verse 2. — of the most distinguished [of the people], and princes — who were sons of rebellion,⁵¹Ibid., 17:25. rejecting their leader, the greatest of their tribe, and murmuring against G-d! And [furthermore], if these [rebels] were only of that tribe [of Levi, as Rabbeinu Chananel wrote], then all the tribes of Israel would not have murmured on the next day [after the rebels were killed] saying: ‘Ye have killed the people of the Eternal,’⁵²Ibid., Verse 6. since not one of their own tribe died, [and those who did die were] only of Moses’ and Aaron’s tribe. Similarly the sign of the rod⁵³Ibid., Verses 16-24. Each tribe had to deposit a rod with its name written on it in the Tent of Meeting, before the ark of the Testimony, and Moses placed another rod there with Aaron’s name written on it. G-d promised that he would make the rod of the one who was chosen bud miraculously. Thus the fact that each tribe had to put a rod there shows that the controversy embraced them all. also proves that the controversy embraced all tribes of Israel. In addition, Scripture expressly states, [and they rose up in the face of Moses,] with certain men ‘of the children of Israel,’⁵⁴Above, Verse 2. in order to point out that the men were from all the tribes, not only from the two tribes [previously] mentioned [Reuben and Levi]. But the reason why [Moses said] ye take too much upon you, ‘ye sons of Levi’⁴⁹Further, Verse 7. is that Korach won the tribes over to his side [by persuading them] that it was because of their honor that he wanted to restore the service [of the offerings] to their firstborns, as he said, seeing all the congregation are holy.⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 3. But Moses in his wisdom laid bare the hidden motives of Korach’s heart to the whole people, namely that he was only protesting because of his own [failure to attain the] priesthood; therefore Moses said to him that he had sufficient [honor] in the honor bestowed upon his tribe, for “you have enough honor, you sons of Levi.” Then Moses continued and said, Hear now, ye sons of Levi.⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 8. [This he said] to Korach their leader — as is shown by [the first part of] that verse, And Moses said unto Korach⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 8. — but he included in his words all the Levites, since Moses in his wisdom spoke conciliatory words to Korach and all his tribe, so that none of them should be drawn after him.
Now it was Moses himself who thought of this procedure, and chose the burning of incense [as the test to show who was suitable for the priesthood] rather than any of the other offerings, because he had already seen in the case of Nadab and Abihu that when they offered strange incense before the Eternal they were burnt.⁵⁶Leviticus 10:1-2. Therefore he permitted Aaron to burn the incense, because of the special needs of the time,⁵⁷See Exodus 30:9 (Vol. II, p. 509) that all offerings of incense are forbidden as “strange” incense, except for those especially prescribed [e.g., the daily offering of incense]. In times of emergency and special need, however, such as when the overall authority of the Torah is at stake, it is permitted to suspend temporarily the operation of a particular law or prohibition, and it was this power which Moses now made use of when he allowed Aaron to offer up this non-prescribed incense. Or it may be, as Ramban continues, that this test took place at the Service of the Morning Whole-offering, which included the burning of incense, so that there is no need to say that Moses resorted to special emergency powers. or maybe it was the [daily] incense of the morning which he used to burn when he kindled⁵⁸In the Tur: when he “dressed” the lamps. See Vol. II, pp. 472-474, for an explanation of the Service done in connection with the lamps at the daily Morning Service. See also my Hebrew commentary here, p. 257. the lamps, according to the ordinance, and Moses trusted that G-d confirmeth the word of His servant, and performeth the counsel of His messengers.⁵⁹Isaiah 44:26.
And some scholars⁶⁰So quoted by Ibn Ezra in Verse 4. say that [the meaning of the verse], And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face,⁶¹Above Verse 4. is [that he did so] in order to inquire of G-d to know what to do, and then he was told, In the morning the Eternal will make known etc.;⁶²Verse 5 before us. According to this interpretation, the test of incense was declared by G-d, as is implied in Moses’ falling on his face to ask for Divine guidance, and the verse only tells us what G-d told him to do when mentioning Moses’ speech to Korach and all his company. but it is mentioned only in Moses’ account to the people. I have already shown you⁶³See e.g., Vol. II, pp. 101, 111. that in many places Scripture will sometimes deal at length with the account of G-d’s communication to Moses, but mention [the matter] in brief in Moses’ narration thereof, and at other times it does the opposite. At other instances [still] it does not mention one of the communications at all, such as in the story of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben, where Scripture tells the event [only] with respect to Moses himself [that he gave them the land east of the Jordan as a conditional inheritance], and [this whole matter] was [in fact] done by the commandment of the Eternal, as they said, As the Eternal hath said unto thy servants, so will we do.⁶⁴Further, 32:31. And in [the Book of] Joshua it is written, [And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Menasheh returned … to go] unto the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, ‘according to the commandment of the Eternal by the hand of Moses’.⁶⁵Joshua 22:9. And if we say that [Moses in fact gave these lands to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Menasheh on his own authority, and the above-mentioned verse which says that it was done according to the commandment of the Eternal] refers to G-d’s [subsequent] agreement to Moses’ action, similar to that which it says, This is the Land wherein ye shall receive inheritance by lot, which the Eternal hath commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half-tribe,⁶⁶Further, 34:13. The verse thus indicates that G-d agreed that the nine and a half tribes should take their inheritance west of the Jordan, and therefore that the remaining two and a half tribes should take the land Moses gave them on the east side of the Jordan. in which case this would be one of the occasions when Moses acted of his own accord and the Holy One, blessed be He, [later] approved his decision⁶⁷In Shabbath 87a, the Talmud mentions three occasions when Moses acted on his own authority and G-d subsequently approved his decisions. Ramban is thus saying here: “In case one should suggest that Moses’ decision to grant the lands east of the Jordan as an inheritance to the two and a half tribes was in reality his own decision, which was subsequently approved by G-d — this hypothesis cannot be correct because etc.,” as Ramban continues. — See also at the end of Seder Naso where Ramban cites cases, where man’s opinion coincided with that on High. There is a marked difference though between the cases of Moses and those mentioned above. Moses according to tradition acted on his own reasoning, and G-d subsequently approved. In the cases mentioned above [such as in the section about the impure people on Passover, etc.] inquiry was first made for Divine guidance, and it happened that the opinion of those seeking guidance coincided with that on High. — [this cannot be so because] it is not right [to say] that Moses would have done anything in connection with the division of the Land without [Divine] permission. For [in dividing the Land] he did everything at the command of G-d, as it is written, [And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying:] Unto these the Land shall be divided etc.⁶⁸Further, 26:53. The verse saying And the Eternal spoke unto Moses clearly indicates that he acted originally on Divine instruction.
My own opinion in this matter [of Moses’ command to Korach and his company to take censers and burn incense], and in that which he said to Aaron [during the outbreak of the plague], Take thy fire-pan, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense thereon⁶⁹Ibid., 17:11. is that the hand of the Eternal was upon him⁷⁰See Ezekiel 37:1. in these matters, and it is this which is called Ruach Hakodesh,⁷¹Literally: “The Holy Spirit.” See in Moreh Nebuchim, II, Chapter 45, beginning: “the second degree of prophecy.” See also further, Seder Balak Note 63, and Ramban ibid. as happened with the books of David and Solomon which were written by Ruach Hakodesh,⁷²Such is also the opinion of Rambam in his Moreh Nebuchim II, 45. and as David said, The spirit of the Eternal spoke by me, and His word was upon my tongue.⁷³II Samuel 23:2. For Moses our teacher was trusted in all His house,⁷⁴See above, 12:7. and I have explained the matter of “the house”⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 6. and mentioned it many times;⁷⁶See e.g. Exodus 32:19. but since this was not in the usual course of Moses’ prophecy, Scripture did not mention G-d’s communication to him about these matters.
Now I have seen in Onkelos’ translation that every time the word k’toreth (incense) appears in this section, he rendered it in his language [Aramaic also] as k’toreth and he did not translate it [as he does in all other places] as k’toreth busmin (aromatic incense), as he usually does.⁷⁷See e.g. Onkelos ibid. 30:8. — But note, however, that in our versions of Onkelos, the word k’toreth in this section is translated as k’toreth busmin (aromatic incense). In the opinion of the author of Minei Targima (Rabbi Yeshayah Pick), Ramban’s version of the text of Onkelos here is the correct one, and later copyists mistakenly amended the text. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 258. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that this was not the aromatic incense used in the Sanctuary [i.e., Tabernacle], but it [consisted of] frankincense and similar ingredients which he [Moses] made them burn for the test. Onkelos translated likewise in the case of Aaron’s sons [Nadab and Abihu, who burnt the strange incense, for there too he did not render the Hebrew k’toreth as he usually does: k’toreth busmin, but as k’toreth].⁷⁸Leviticus 10:1. In our version of Onkelos, again, the text there is k’toreth busmin (aromatic incense), which in the opinion of the author of Minei Targima is likewise a copyist’s mistake. But in the opinion of our Rabbis⁷⁹Tanchuma Korach 5. it was the sacred incense, and this is the correct interpretation. Perhaps Onkelos [agrees that this was the sacred incense, but he] did not want to praise the incense by adding thereto the word busmin (aromatics), except when it [the incense] was used in performance of the [daily] commandment [to burn incense].

ALSO NOW IT WERE RIGHT TO BE ACCORDING TO YOUR WORDS. “Indeed, this is only right. Verily it should be according to your words since you are all guilty in this matter. When there are ten men and a stolen thing is found in the possession of one of them, all of them are arrested. I, however, will deal with you inside the bounds [of justice, that is, I will deal with you more leniently]. He with whom it shall be found, he alone shall be my servant.” Thus the language of Rashi.
But according to this interpretation, the words, gam atah (also now), do not fit in well.²²⁴For since Rashi writes that this is a din emeth (a true decision), how can the words gam atah (also now) fit into the context since these words suggest that now a new law is established. (Aboab.) See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 238. Perhaps Rashi is saying: “Also now, when according to your words, it is the law [that all be held guilty in the matter], he with whom it shall be found shall be my servant.”²²⁵Thus, Joseph’s verdict is not at all related to the established law concerning theft, but is primarily designed to bespeak his kindness in keeping only Benjamin as a servant while the rest go completely free. Hence the words gam atah (also now) apply since this is a principle newly set forth. But this can hardly be correct since Joseph said, Far be it from me to do so.²²⁶Verse 17 here. This shows that it is not the law that they all be held responsible for the theft. It is for this reason that he said: “Far be it from me, for I am the judge of the whole land, and far be it from me to do you wrong,” for all ten men are not guilty if a stolen article is found in the possession of one of them unless they all planned the theft and were united in going to steal it. Then, if one of them took it with the knowledge of all, they are all liable.
The correct interpretation would seem to be that at first he accused them all: Why have you repaid evil for good?²²⁷Verse 4 here. You have done evil in so doing.²²⁸Verse 5 here. And they freed themselves of the accusation by saying, “With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, let him die, since he is the thief, and we also, who are guiltless of the theft, will be my lord’s servants.²²⁹Verse 9 here. Thus their opinion was that the thief, in whose possession it might be found, was the only one with knowledge of the theft, for if they were all involved in the theft, why should that one alone be put to death while the rest remain alive. In that case, all of them should be put to death or all of them should become servants, for they all bear equal legal responsibility. Rather, they pleaded that the others had no knowledge of the theft. They agreed that they should become servants as a self-punishment only. This is why Joseph said to them, “Gam atah (also now) that you are assembled and are together,²³⁰The fact that you are now all found together suggests that you all had a hand in the stealing. it were right to be according to your words; nevertheless, he with whom it is found, he alone is the thief, and he alone is deserving of punishment, and he will be a servant to me for I desire his services more than his death. But you shall be guiltless, for perhaps you did not know about the theft, as you say.”
Perhaps the meaning of the words kein hu (it were right) is that “it shall be so,” meaning, “also now that the law is not so,²³¹For you said that only as an act of self-punishment you agree to be servants. That is not the law, for since there is a suspicion upon all of you, you should be arrested until the matter is clarified. Yet so shall it be according to your words, and ye shall be guiltless. according to your words so shall it be.” A similar case is the verse, And she said: According to your words, ‘kein hu,’ and she sent them away, and they departed,²³²Joshua 2:21. which means, “so shall it be.” This is the correct interpretation in my opinion. This conforms to the words of our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah,²³³92:8. who say, “If ten people are discovered with a stolen article, are they not all to be imprisoned? I will not do so, but he with whom it is found shall be my servant.” They thus intended to interpret the verse as I have explained it,²³⁴That the brothers were denying that under the law they were all responsible. It was only as a form of self-punishment that they agreed to be servants. Joseph, however, argued that since suspicion does fall upon them they should be imprisoned until their innocence is established. and not in accordance with the words of Rashi.²³⁵That the brothers agreed that under the law they all could be held responsible.
We might correct the interpretation in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbi [Rashi] by stating that Joseph said: “Far be it from me to do this and deal more harshly with you than my house-steward, who freed you at the outset by saying to you, but ye shall be guiltless,²³⁶Verse 10 here. for I will confirm the words of my servant, and the counsel of my messenger will I perform.”²³⁷See Isaiah 44:26.
Vayigash