Комментарий о цитате к Берешит 22:5

And you, go (lekh lekha): We have already explained at the beginning of Parashat Lekh [Lekha] (Haamek Davar on Genesis 12:1) that the expression, "lekh lekha" here, is that no person should know about this except for you. [This was] so that hindrances to this wonderous thing not increase. And so did Avraham, our father, do. For he did not inform anyone [about it] - even to his lads with whom he walked, [he said nothing] until he said to them, "we will prostrate ourselves and we will return" (Genesis 22:5).

And that which he said, "do not read, 'graven (charut)'": According to what is apparent, this is a very distant teaching. For what is the relation of this to that which the verse (Exodus 32:16) said, "and the script was the script of God, graven upon the tablets" - that it should hint in this place, that the one who occupies himself with Torah is a free man. But this thing is like the other words of the Sages that appear very distant to someone who is lacking knowledge; and they hinted to something very magnificent here. And that is that the intellect is the design of reality; and likewise is the whole Torah, the design of reality. And likewise the script, which is the form and design of the writing. And any etching of writing is designated by the expression, "engraved (charut)" - because script has a form. And that is the concept of script - even though it has a material form, it nevertheless has the name, form, upon it. And it is appropriate to call anything that is form, with an expression of freedom (cherut). And we have explained this thing many times - that subjugation is from the the angle of the physical. As from the angle of form, there is no subjugation. And they, may their memory be blessed, hinted to this regarding a Canaanite slave (Yevamot 62a) - "'Remain here with the donkey' (Genesis 22:5) - a nation comparable to a donkey (chamur)." As, from the side of the subjugation that it has, it is similar to the physical (chomer). For that which is subjugated is acted upon by another. And this is the content of the physical, that it is acted upon. But with a form - since there is no acting upon a form at all - it is not applicable to say, subjugation, about a form, but rather only freedom. And this thing is understood.

CAN INFERENCES UNRELATED TO THE CONTEXT OF THE VERSE OR PARASHAH BE MADE FROM THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA?
SINCE SCRIPTURE is written in a [deliberately] ambiguous manner, it led our rabbis in many instances to make inferences regarding the intent [of Scripture], some related to the context of the parasha and others unrelated to the context. Derivations related to the context are, for example, those of the sages, of blessed memory, found in the Toras Kohanim, Mechilta, Sifrei and Midrashim¹Plural of midrash. that add flavor to the contextual exegesis. On the other hand, [the sages also] expounded [verses] in a manner that was not related to the context of that section of Scripture at all. For example, our sages concluded in Tractate Kiddushin 68a, that we derive a major principle that the marriage of a Jew to a Canaanite slave is ineffective,²Gen. 22:5. Gen. 22 pertains to the Binding of Isaac at Mount Moriah. When Abraham saw the mountain from a distance, he ordered the two young men with him, “Stay here by yourselves with the donkey.” The two superfluous words, im ha-hamor, “with the donkey,” can also be read as am ha-hamor, meaning they are “a nation similar to a donkey” in respect to legal status for marriage. from a verse [in the narrative of the Binding of Isaac], “[And Abraham said to his young men], you stay here with the donkey,” [since, like a donkey, the Canaanite slave is a chattel of his master]. [Another example is the way the sages derived a law pertaining to the halachic definition of bread and matzah from a verse in a passage discussing the punishments God will inflict on the Jewish people if they do not follow His commandments]. The verse states, “Ten women will bake your bread in one oven”³Lev. 26:26. [because people will be so destitute]. Pesahim 37b states that R. Yehuda derives from this verse that only dough baked in one oven is considered bread, meaning that [halachically] it is not considered to be bread if it has [first been fried] and then baked.⁴The conclusion in Pesahim is that once dough has been fried, it cannot become bread by being baked in an oven. [Since] it is not considered bread, it is exempt from the requirement that hallah⁵Hallah is a portion that was separated from the dough and given to the kohen. must be taken. Many other examples of derivations of laws not related to the context could also be cited.

AND THERE SHALL BE NO קדש (OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL] — one ever ready for pederasty (Sanhedrin 54b). Onkelos, however, rendered the verse by לא תהא אתתא מבני ישראל לגבר עבר, “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave”. Such a woman may also be termed a קדשה. because she, too, becomes a prostitute to illicit intercourse, since no marriage ceremony with her (קידושין) can for him have a hold on her (can be a valid ceremony), — for you see, they (the slaves) are compared to asses, as it is said, (Genesis 22:5), “Abide ye here עם החמור”, which is taken to mean (Kiddushin 68a), “[Abide ye here] עם החמור", “O ye peop1e who are like asses”. And the second half of the verse Onkelos renders by ולא יסב גברא מבני ישראל אתתא אמה “and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”, which is also an adequate translation, since he, too, becomes a קדש, “one devoted to illicit intercourse” through her, since every intercourse with her is an illicit intercourse, since his marriage to her is not binding (cf. Rashi on Kiddushin 69a s. v. או דיעבד קאמר‎).