Comentários de Citação sobre Juízes 15:16

And it said to the woman. Some say that Chavah understood the gesticulations of the animals. According to Rav Sadyah Gaon, however, whenever speech is ascribed to an animal it is actually an angel that is speaking on its behalf. Alternatively, it is possible that these verses are to be taken literally, since it is no more difficult for Hashem to give intelligence to a serpent than to human beings.

In fact [by reviewing the references to gemiri] in many places [throughout the Talmud], one is compelled to accept that [gemiri] does not refer to a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai. See Nazir 4b²¹The Netziv cites 5b. [which proves that the book of Shoftim relates], according to which Shimshon intentionally became impure by having contact with the dead by gemara gemiri lah.²²An act of killing in battle, not in self-defense, proves that he did not have the same status as a true Nazirite. One bound by the Nazirite vow sets himself apart for Divine service. He must abstain from all products of the vine, including grapes, and from intoxicating drinks, avoid proximity with dead bodies, and let his hair grow. [After attempting to find sources from the book of Shoftim,²³The verses are “With the jawbone of a donkey I have killed a thousand men” (Judges 15:16) and “He went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty men of them, and he took their clothing” (ibid. 14:19). The Talmud mentions that perhaps Shimshon avoided having contact with the dead by throwing the jawbone of the donkey, or that he took their clothing before killing them. the Talmud concludes (Nazir 4b) that these sources are inconclusive and the only way we know that Shimshon did defile himself with the dead is by tradition. [A tradition received from Moshe at Sinai could not possibly be used to provide an interpretation of a verse in a book of the Prophets which was written so much later than the time of Moshe.]²⁴The wording of the Netziv implies that he is following the interpretation of Tosafos on Nazir 4b, s.v. “ela gemara gemiri lah.” In addition, [the Gemara in] Berachos 28a states, “Gemiri, that we may promote [a person or thing] to a higher grade of sanctity, but we must not downgrade.” Yet we see in Menahos 99a that this same principle [not to downgrade] is derived from a Torah verse [and because a scriptural source is not cited when it is a law received from Sinai, this principle cannot have come from Moshe at Sinai]. Furthermore, in Hullin 9b, the Talmud notes “gemiri” [regarding the law that when there is a doubt if something became defiled in a public area, it is deemed to be pure]. Yet this ruling is derived from the laws of sotah²⁵A woman suspected of committing adultery who was required to drink the bitter waters (see Devarim 5:12–31). [and if it is a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai, there would be no need to derive it from the laws of sotah]. See also Kiddushin 37a, noting [that according to the first opinion stated in the Mishnah], the laws of orlah²⁶The fruit of a tree during the first three years after the tree was planted, which may not be eaten. and kela’im²⁷The forbidden mixing of heterogeneous plants (see Vayikra 19:19). are not applicable outside the Land of Israel [and that this law] is hilchesa gemiri lah. Yet Shmuel [in Kiddushin 38a] is of the opinion that these [same laws] are hilchesa medinah [a law that people of the provinces had voluntarily accepted upon themselves, which obviously occurred after the time of Moshe].[It is clear that after analyzing the use of the term hilchesa gemiri lah and variations thereof in various parts of the Talmud, the phrase cannot possibly mean a law received from Moshe at Sinai.] This [observation that hilchesa gemiri lah refers to a tradition from previous generations rather than a law that was received from Moshe at Sinai] has also been noted in the responsa of the Havos Yair (ch. 192) and in the Tosafos Yom Tov on Sotah 2:2.

אם בחוקותי תלכו, ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה, “and five of you will put one hundred of your adversaries to flight;” there is something peculiar about the ratios here. Why would 100 Israelites be able to put 10000 adversaries to flight, not 2000 as we would have expected from the first example given? We can understand this better when comparing the efficacy of a prayer said in the privacy of one’s home, and a prayer said in the Synagogue when each person is part of a congregation. The latter prayers are far more effective, and presumably reach the throne of the Almighty more speedily. In Deuteronomy 32,30 Moses asked the rhetorical question of how it had been possible that under certain circumstances one gentile could put 1000 times his number of Israelites to flight, and only two enemies could put 10000 Israelites to flight? Besides, seeing that we have a tradition according to which blessings are always described as more powerful than corresponding curses, (Compare Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 100), how come Moses in Deuteronomy appears to paint the opposite of that scenario? Contrary to what we might think, that Moses in Deuteronomy 32,30 speaks about enemies chasing Israelites; he said that if the Israelites had only reasoned logically, they would have realised that the disproportionate numbers in both instances could only have occurred through direct intervention by Hashem. The gentiles had realised this in retrospect when the Israelites had fallen out of favour with their G–d. Previously they had mistakenly credited the Israelites with superhuman abilities. The best example of this completely unbelievable performance in battle, is found in the Book of Judges 15,16, where Samson has been credited with killing one thousand Philistines using only the jawbone of an ass as his weapon. A similar feat of unbelievable military success is reported in the Book of Samuel, I chapter 14, where King Shaul’s son Yonathan and his arms bearer, is credited with putting the Philistine army to flight, killing many on the way. Yonathan had seen a sign that G–d was on his side by judging the Philistines’ behaviour. [It is suggested that the reader read up that chapter in the Book of Samuel. Ed.]