Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa 2 Samuel 14:4

SAY [UNTO THE PRIESTS] … AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO THEM. “[The repetition of the verb say … and thou shalt say is] to warn the adults about the children” [that they observe this law]. This is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis.¹Yebamoth 114 a. Now the meaning of this “warning” is to state that we are not to assist with our hands in the defilement of children [but it does not intend to warn us that we are obliged to prevent them from becoming defiled]. There are many admonitions in the Torah of this nature according to the interpretation of our Rabbis,¹Yebamoth 114 a. such being the prohibitions against eating blood and swarming things, and against the defilement [of priests], and from them we learn that [it is applicable to] all prohibitions of the Torah, that we must not assist children in any case to transgress the law. But if they are doing it of their own accord, we²I.e., the court. But his father is obliged to rebuke him and prevent him from doing that which is forbidden (ibid., and such is the final decision of the law, Shulchan Aruch, Hilchoth Shabbath, 343). are not commanded to prevent them [from so doing since they have not yet reached the training period of minors for religious practices, but if they have reached that stage, everyone is commanded to prevent them from doing a prohibited act].³Shulchan Aruch ibid., Rama, and Mishnah Brurah, 7. The meaning of the verse according to its interpretation is then: “say unto the priests … and thou shalt say it over again to them, that they are not to defile themselves,” the purpose of the many warnings being [to teach] that all sons of Aaron are to be guarded from defilement, even the young ones. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that say unto the priests refers to the section mentioned above [i.e., Seder Kedoshim], since they [the priests] are the teachers of the Torah and it is they who admonish the people; and thou shalt say unto them, meaning those specific commandments which devolve upon them alone to observe, [as mentioned in this section]. But it is not correct [to interpret two such adjacent phrases as referring to two different sections].
In my opinion the plain sense of the verse is as follows: The meaning of emor (say) is like that of dabeir (speak): Give ear to ‘amarai,’ O Eternal⁴Psalms 5:2. is like d’varai (my words). A similar case is ‘imrei’(words of) truth.⁵Proverbs 22:21. This is equivalent to ‘divrei’ emeth (words of truth) — Ecclesiastes 12:10. So also: for it hath heard all ‘imrei’ (the words of) the Eternal.⁶Joshua 24:27. Here too it is like ‘divrei’ Hashem (the words of G-d) in Exodus 24:3. And the expression Go in unto Pharaoh ‘v’dibarta’ (and thou shalt speak) to him⁷Exodus 9:1. is like v’amarta (and thou shalt say). ‘Vayedabeir Mosheh’ (And Moses spoke) unto Aaron, and unto Elazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left: ‘Take the meal-offering,’⁸Above, 10:12. is like vayomer Mosheh (and Moses said). And so also you find in many places that both [amor and dabeir are used in one verse, such as:] ‘Dabeir (Speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. such usage [of the two verbs] being found in those sections where He wishes to warn them strongly [about a certain law] either because of the stringency of the matter, or on account of their habit to commit that sin. Thus ‘emor’ (say) unto the priests … ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say) unto them [is like ‘dabeir’ (speak unto the priests) ‘v’amarta’ (and thou shalt say), as will be explained further on]. Similarly, Thus saith the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: Go ‘v’amarta’ (and say) to Zedekiah king of Judah ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto him: Thus saith the Eternal etc.¹⁰Jeremiah 34:2. means “Go dabeir (speak) to Zedekiah.” Similarly, ‘Vatomer ha’ishah ha’t'ko’ith’ (And when the woman of Tekoa said) to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and prostrated herself, ‘vatomer’ (and she said): ‘Help, O king’¹¹II Samuel 14:4. is like: “vatedabei’r ha’ishah (and the woman spoke) to the king vatomer (and she said), ‘Help, O king.’” The meaning of Say unto the priests … and thou shalt say unto them is thus like “speak to the priests and say to them,” similar to [that which we find elsewhere], ‘Dabeir’ (speak) unto the children of Israel, ‘v’amarta’ (and say) unto them,⁹Numbers 15:38. the meaning thereof being: “speak to the people in My Name, and say thus to them,” like, Go in unto Pharaoh, and say unto him: [‘Thus saith the Eternal: Let My people go’].¹²Exodus 7:26. — In brief, Ramban up to this point has explained that there is no difference between emor and dabeir, and that the double use of each of these verbs or the use of the two together is to indicate the importance of the subject discussed. I have found a similar view in Yonah ibn Ganach’s Sefer Hashorashim, root dabeir. Now many scholars¹³I have not identified these scholars. say that the meaning of ‘dabeir’ unto the children of Israel is like that of the term kriah (calling), thus: “call unto the children of Israel that they assemble themselves before you, and you shall say to them the following,” and similarly ‘emor’ to the priests means [“call them] to assemble themselves and to listen.”
[SAY UNTO] THE PRIESTS. The reason for [His mentioning the term] the priests [in this section is as follows]: In commandments relating to matters of the offerings He says, Command Aaron and his sons¹⁴Above, 6:2. Or: Speak unto Aaron and his sons (ibid., Verse 18). and does not refer to them by the name “the priests,”¹⁵“The priests.” In the Tur quoting Ramban: “and He does not refer to them by the term of priesthood.” because those subjects concern the offerings or the various degrees of holiness of the Sanctuary. But here He warns the priests that they should never defile themselves for the dead, even at a time when they do not come into the Sanctuary, this being a mark of distinction to them personally; therefore Scripture mentioned here the priests, meaning to say that it is because they are the priests of the Eternal and the ministers of our G-d that He told them to conduct themselves in a manner reflecting honor and greatness, and that they should never become defiled. Thus the priests who are unfit for the priesthood [i.e., those who are born from a marriage forbidden to their father], are excluded from this principle [i.e., they are permitted to defile themselves for the dead].
The explanation of ‘lo yitama’ (he shall not defile himself — in the singular) is that you [i.e., Moses] are to tell the priests that none of them is to defile himself for the dead among his people. Or it may be that [the use of the singular in lo yitama] is connected with the expression of ‘ba’al b’amav’ (a chief man among his people) mentioned below in Scripture,¹⁶Verse 4. and the meaning thereof [here] is: “the chief man among his people is not to defile himself [for the dead].” And the meaning of ba’al b’amav¹⁶Verse 4. is like the expressions: ‘miba’alei Yehudah;’¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. ‘ba’aleigoyim,’¹⁸Isaiah 16:8. namely “the dignitaries” or “the lords” among them [i.e., Judah¹⁷II Samuel 6:2. and the nations¹⁸Isaiah 16:8.], similar to the phrase: ‘ba’alav ein imo’¹⁹Exodus 22:13. — “the master is not with it; “‘ba’al habayith’ — “the master of the house;” as honored people are called “lords.” The verse here is thus stating: “the honored one among his people [i.e., the priest] is not to defile himself for the dead, [in which case] he would be treating his honor with irreverence.” Scripture is thus explaining that it is because of the distinction of the priest, seeing that he is fit to become the highest and most honored one among his people [i.e., the High Priest] that it warns him not to profane his distinction with the impurity of the dead. By means of this statement, Scripture intends to teach us that it should not occur to us to say that the warning [against the priests defiling themselves for the dead] is only when they come into the Tent of Meeting to perform the holy Service. Similarly in this whole section He states that all restrictions [on the priests mentioned here] are due to their distinction. Thus: she profaneth her father;²⁰Verse 9. and he shall not profane his seed.²¹Verse 15. Onkelos likewise translated [Verse 4]: “The chief among his people shall not defile himself, to be profaned thereby.” But in the Torath Kohanim²²Torath Kohanim, Emor 1:15. [ba’al b’amav]¹⁶Verse 4. is interpreted [literally] to refer to “a husband” with reference to his wife, as Rashi has written.²³Thus: “A husband [a priest] shall not defile himself for his wife’s corpse while it is among his people, meaning where there are other persons who can attend to her burial, this applying only to a wife who disqualified him from serving as a priest, because she was forbidden to him in marriage.” But otherwise the priest is to defile himself for his wife, even if there are other people to attend to her burial.

ונכרתו הנפשות העושות את התועבות האלה, “and the persons committing these (abominations) will be cut off from their people.” The karet penalty appears in the Torah in three different guises. There is a karet penalty which is applicable only to the body of the guilty party. There is also a karet penalty which applies only to the soul; finally, there is a karet penalty which applies both to the body and the soul of the sinner in question.
A karet penalty applied to the body only is recognisable by premature death of the guilty person. If someone has led a generally righteous life but has become guilty of a single sin punishable by the karet penalty he is condemned to die prematurely, living maybe only half the number of years allotted to him when he was born. An example of such a karet penalty is the student (young scholar in the Torah Academy) who had touched his wife during the days she had to observe the ritual waiting period before immersing herself in a ritual bath after she had stopped bleeding from her monthly cycle (Shabbat 13). This is called כרת של שנים, a karet penalty resulting in the loss of years;[Seeing that the sin was committed inadvertently through ignorance and it is not recorded that merely touching one’s wife is subject to this terrible penalty even when committed knowingly, it is hard to understand that this should have been the only reason for the early demise of this young scholar. The scholar giving the widow this reason for her husband’s early death may have implied that G’d is especially strict with Torah scholars who ought to have been models of pious conduct. Ed.].
There is also another variation of the karet penalty being applied to the body only when the sin was committed late in the life of the guilty party so that the karet penalty through cutting off many years of the life of the person could no longer be applied. An example illustrating this type of the karet penalty is recorded in Moed Katan 28. We are told that when Rav Yoseph reached his 60th birthday he threw a party inviting all his colleagues the scholars. He celebrated the fact that he now had proof that up until that point in his life he had not been found guilty of the aforementioned karet penalty. He was, however, still subject to the karet penalty known as כרת של ימים, i.e. not living out his allotted time although he had reached what is considered “old age.” Rav Yoseph consoled himself with having definitely escaped the full impact of the karet penalty. Some scholars hold that the karet penalty described as כרת של ימים refers to sudden death, not being able to make preparations for one’s death.
Seeing that there is some confusion concerning the matter and the application of כרת של שנים, early death, is easily recognisable whereas the כרת של ימים is not, our sages expressed the view that G’d gives notice of this. If an old man dies after only three days of sickness this is a sign that he did not die of old age (the time which had been allocated to him being up) but died of that penalty. This is what the Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2,1 had in mind when the rhetorical question was asked: “if an old man had eaten forbidden fat or had deliberately violated basic laws of the Sabbath how do we know that he was punished by the karet penalty for his sin?” The answer given by the Talmud is that if he died one day after being taken sick this reflects some kind of anger of G’d at that person. If he died after two days of sickness this reflects death due to a different degree of anger of G’d known as behalah. If he died after three days of sickness this indicates that he was guilty of the karet penalty we described as כרת של ימים. When the Torah writes the words ונכרת האיש ההוא מקרב עמו, “this man will be cut off from the midst of his people,” the type of karet penalty which is meant is that which applies only to the body of the person in question, be it obvious premature death or fairly sudden death at an advanced age (after 60). The soul of such a person will merit immediate transfer to the hereafter in the world of the souls and his resurrection at the time when this will take place is assured.
The karet penalty which applies to the soul only applies to people who have sinned by violating very severe laws such as eating chametz on Passover, or eating on the Day of Atonement, or performing forbidden kind of work on that day. If he violated the עריות legislation in our chapter knowingly he is also subject to the karet penalty involving his soul. If the sum total of his sins was greater that his accumulated merits this penalty of karet is applied to his soul after it has been separated from his body. As a result he forfeits his share in the hereafter of the world of the disembodied souls. Concerning who is subject to such a karet penalty the Torah uses the formula ונכרתו הנפשות העושות, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה, ונכרתה הנפש ההיא לפני, והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, (such as here, or Leviticus 7,20; Leviticus 22,30; Leviticus 14,4 according to Sifra Emor 14,4). Although the last mentioned formula appears to speak of loss of physical life, it is possible that the Torah means that such a person does not experience premature physical death but destruction of his soul. After all, we find that many people guilty of deliberately flouting the laws of the Day of Atonement live to a ripe old age. Kohelet 7,15 already pointed out that some wicked people enjoy long life of undisturbed peace and tranquillity on earth.
Examples of karet manifest both in early death of the sinner and in loss of his hereafter apply to such sins as idolatry or sins equally serious such as blaspheming the name of the Lord (Numbers 15,30). People guilty of this will be removed from life on earth a well as from any life after death. Concerning which sins are subject to this harsh penalty the Torah writes הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “this person (soul) will most surely be cut off and will continue to bear its guilt” (Numbers 15,31). Our sages in Shevuot 13 stated that the word הכרת speaks of the destruction of the bodies of the guilty party whereas the word תכרת refers to destruction of his soul. We must understand the meaning of the word מעמיה, “from its people,” as applying to instances where only the karet of the soul is meant to mean that this soul after death will no longer be part of the Jewish souls who congregate together in the world of disembodied spirits awaiting the resurrection on earth. A soul subject to this penalty will be obliterated. In the words of Samuel II 14,4 לא ישא אלו-הים נפש, “Will not G’d forgive a soul and make plans so that the outcast can find his way back?” [The author uses the wording to show that unless G’d devises a plan to save that soul from oblivion it will indeed be consigned to eternal destruction. Ed.] This is an example of what is meant by the wording: ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מלפני, “this soul will be cut off from My presence” (Leviticus 22,3). What we have written on the subject of karet thus far is the opinion of Ibn Ezra. [Rabbi Chavell points out that our author ‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra contradicts what the latter writes on Leviticus 24,30. Ed.]