Comentários de Citação sobre Isaías 51:1

For this reason, the phrase “And God appeared to him” is not mentioned at the beginning of this vision. Rather, it only appears after he entered the land [of Israel], for then he was ready to see divine visions. But before this, while he was still outside the Land [of Israel], he only heard the voice of words, for God had not yet appeared to him until he came to the Land, as will be explained shortly. Therefore, he called that place “Sulama of Tzur” [the ladder of the rock], as it appears in the Yalkut on this portion: “When Abraham reached Sulama of Tzur, he said ‘Let my portion be in this land.’” How did the author of the Midrash know that Abraham reached Sulama of Tzur? Certainly, his intention refers to Mount Moriah, for that is the location of the ladder that Jacob saw standing in Beth El, and through that ladder souls ascend and descend, and there is the rock from which the body is hewn, as it is written Look to the rock from which you were hewn (Isaiah 51:1). For from that rock, which is called the Foundation Stone [Even Shetiyah], the general world was founded, and also man, who is called a small world, was formed from the place of that rock, where the ladder for the soul is also located, as mentioned. And for this reason, the phrase “lech lecha” is used here, and in the story of the Binding [of Isaac], and similarly in the verse I will go for myself to the mountain of myrrh, and the rain is over and gone for itself — it has gone to its source, for mist rises from the earth. And similarly Rise up and cross over the brook for yourselves (Deuteronomy 2:13) — this also refers to the Land of Israel. And likewise I will go for myself to the great ones (Jeremiah 5:5) — for there is the dwelling of the complete ones. And so too, all instances of “li” [for/to me], “lo” [for/to him], “lecha” [for/to you], and “lahem” [for/to them] in Scripture are explained in this way, and Abraham understood from the words lech lecha to go to the land of Canaan, even though he was not told which land to go to.

הצור תמים פעלו, “the Rock, Whose work is perfect!” According to the plain meaning of the text the term צור applies to G’d and describes strength, toughness, such as the essence of a rock. Just as rocks appear to be the foundation of the earth, so G’d has founded the earth and the description fits Him. At this point, Moses starts speaking to the witnesses and says: “this Master about whom I wish to speak is the Rock, and there is none as strong and enduring as He. Nonetheless, His works are perfect” [although He could get away with being imperfect and no one could challenge Him successfully, He obeys His own rules. Ed.]. David used similar language when praising the Lord in Samuel II 22,31 ה-אל תמים דרכו, “the G’d Whose path is perfect.” He meant that in spite of G’d’s overwhelming power, He deals with His creatures in absolute perfection. We have another verse, in Job 36,22-23 where Elihu mentions that no one ever reproached G’d for His conduct in spite of the great power He represents. He is even very generous in forgiving His creatures.
Our sages (Megillah 31) state that whenever G’d’s power is mentioned we always find examples of His “modesty,” i.e. of how He restrains Himself in exercising this power. They cite proof of this both from verses in the Torah, the Books of the Prophets, as well as from Scriptures. If David used the expression תמים פעלו, that “His works are perfect,” it is because no other forces of the universe can be perceived as performing their duties in a perfect fashion. Their imperfections consist in that they need divine input in order to perform their tasks at all. They do not originate anything.

If, despite all the arguments to the contrary, God does in fact govern and there is individual Providence, then it should take account of two factors: (i) man's inherent uncleanliness by reason of the manner of his conception and birth; (ii) that man has no free-will, his fate being predetermined from above.⁶During the 18th century a fierce debate raged between those who believed that the growth and development of an embryo was 'epigenetic', i.e., all its limbs and parts emerge from the primordial material and become recognizable at the same rate, and those who believed in the doctrine of 'preformation' according to which the primordial germ already contains a miniature replica of the adult and this only has to enlarge and unfold before birth. Whereas the former theory required an agency which conjured the limbs from the undifferentiated primordial material the latter just involved an inherent mechanical process. Aristotle, who advocated the epigenetic model, regarded the semen as being the spiritual agency that conjured the limbs and other body parts from the menstrual blood.
True to his eclectic ways, Malbim combines elements of both theories in his interpretation of this verse as a demand that God make allowances for man's innate unclean tendencies when he judges him. As he writes:
For is the branch not always like its root and the plant like the seed from which it grew? And so, how can man who is born out of uncleanliness, for he is born of woman – from semen and menstrual blood which is an unclean thing – how can he change his nature and not be at one with the lowliness of the source of his birth 'and the quarry from which he was hewn' (Isaiah 51.1)? He therefore tends to uncleanliness from his birth and from the womb and from conception.

וקרקר AND UNDERMINETH — This is an expression denoting “digging”, as in (2 Kings 19:24): “I have dug (קרתי)”; (Isaiah 51:1): “The hole of the pit from which you were dug out (נקרתם); (Proverbs 30:17) “The ravens of the valley shall dig it out (יקרהו)". In O. F. forer.