Комментарий о цитате к Йешайау 10:7

איש ואשתו, male and female The words are not to be understood literally as “man and wife,” i.e. exclusive mates, but are a figure of speech. The best example and proof that the expression is not meant literally, is found in Exodus 26,3 אשה אל אחותה, describing certain boards of the Tabernacle being close matches. No one in their right mind would translate these words as “woman and her sister.” When the Torah here speaks in cumbersome language of מן הבהמה אשר איננו טהורה, meaning the ritually impure animals, instead of simply writing מן הבהמה הטמאה, this is not an unusual stylistic expression. We find similar cumbersome language in similar contexts in Deuteronomy 23,11אשר לא יהיה טהור or in Samuel I 20,24 כי לא טהור הוא. There are numerous more examples. Our sages in Pessachim 3 say that the Torah meant to demonstrate that it is worthwhile to write a few extra words in order to avoid the use of coarse or unseemly language.

על כן לא יאכלו, “therefore it is appropriate that the Israelites do not eat, etc.;” this construction is parallel to Isaiah 10,7: והוא לא כן ידמה, “but it does not seem like this to him;” in other words: it would be right and proper to punish the Israelites not to eat that particular sinew as they should not have allowed their founding father to be exposed to hostile forces at night. Yaakov’s sons were physically strong, and they should have been at hand to assist their father if the need arose to do so. Seeing that they failed to do this, the blame for the injury sustained by their father was theirs. From now on they would have learned their lesson and would practice the commandment to accompany their father, or for that matter, any older and wiser person, especially at night. Yaakov himself set an example when he accompanied his son Joseph part of the way on a mission which he had sent him on, and which was potentially dangerous. (Genesis 37,14) A different approach to the verse above: as a result of their father Yaakov having stood up to the protective celestial force of Esau, his sons stopped eating the part of the body that the angel had been able to injure. They did this out of a feeling of pride in their founding father. A third approach to this verse: due to their father Yaakov having sustained an injury, his descendants voluntarily decided not to eat the part of the body of an animal that had been injured in their father’s body. This has to be understood better by the use of a parable; a person suffered from a headache or from pains in a different part of his body. As a reminder of that pain he decides not to eat that part of the body of an animal as a symbol of his having been healed from that pain, so that it (abstention) would serve as a remedy for them (preventive medicine) in the future. We have a Baraitah in Chulin 101 which relates that people came to Rabbi Yehudah who had expressed the opinion that the prohibition not to eat that part of an animal also applied to animals that were altogether forbidden to be eaten, questioning his interpretation by citing the fact that only the descendants of Israel were forbidden to eat this part of an animal, and that the Jews had never been called “Children of Israel” until they had been given the Torah at Mount Sinai. He answered them that it is true that this custom did not become law until the Torah was given, but it had been observed already earlier. It was recorded here only in order for us to understand the reason behind this prohibition. Prior to the legislation of dietary laws at Mount Sinai, Yaakov’s descendants were allowed to eat also the meat of animals that were outlawed at Mount Sinai.