Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Ezekiel 29:14

ושב ה' אלהיך את שבותך THEN THE LORD THY GOD WILL TURN THY CAPTIVITY — To express this idea it ought to have written והשיב את שבותך, “then He will bring back thy captivity”. But our Rabbis learned from this that, if one can say so of God, His Divine presence dwells with Israel in all the misery of their exile, so that when they are redeemed (i.e. when He speaks of their being redeemed), He makes Scripture write “Redemption” of Himself (i.e. He makes it state that He will be redeemed) — that He will return with them (Megillah 29a). Furthermore the following may be said in explaining the strange form ושב ... את, — that the day of the gathering of the exiles is so important and is attended with such difficulty that it is as though He (God) Himself must actually seize hold of each individual’s hands dragging him from his place (so that God Himself returns with the exile), as it is said, (Isaiah 27:12) “And ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel”. We find, however, the same expression in connection with the gathering of the exiles of other nations also, as e.g. (Jeremiah 48:47): ושבתי שבות מואב "And I shall bring back the exiles of Moab".

V. 3. ושב וגו׳. Sätze wie hier ושב וגו׳ את שבותך und so häufig in den Propheten und Psalmen: בשוב ד׳ שבות עמו (Ps. 14, 7) ושבתי את שבות עמי (Jirm. 30, 3), שב שבות אהלי יעקב (Jirm. 30, 18), ושבתי את שבות מצרים (Ezech. 29, 14) usw. legen die Ansicht nahe, daß in solchen Stellen שוב in transitiver Bedeutung, so viel als השיב, stehe. Allein abgesehen davon, daß, außer dieser Gedankenverbindung, es für eine transitive Bedeutung der Wurzel שוב kein Beispiel gibt, so dürfte schon unsere Stelle selbst gegen eine solche Auffassung sprechen. Offenbar sind ושב וגו׳ und ורחמך Akte, die der Zurückführung Israels in die Urheimat, dem ושב וקבצך usw. vorangehen. Nun könnte hier und in den meisten mit את konstruierten Stellen ושב את שבותך heißen: Gott kehrt mit deinen Vertriebenen zurück, d. h.: in demselben Grade und sobald du im Exil zu Gott zurückkehrst, kehrt er auch zu dir zurück. Allein die ohne את konstruierten Stellen wie: בשוב ד׳ שבות עמו usw. wären damit nicht erklärt. Vielmehr glauben wir, an die ganz normalen Erscheinungen erinnern zu dürfen, daß auch sonstige Verba intransitiva, ganz besonders aber, die eine Bewegung ausdrücken, das Ziel der Bewegung, und bei inneren Bewegungen das Moment, auf welches dieselbe gerichtet ist, das sie hervorgerufen und in welches sie sich konzentriert, im Akkusativ nach sich haben. So ja auch לך שוב מצרים :שוב (Schmot 4, 19), שובה ד׳ רבבות עמך (Bamidbar 10, 36), בשוב ד׳ ציון (Jes.52, 8), ויואב שב ירושלים (Sam. II. 20, 22). וצא השרה :יצא (Bereschit 27, 3), צאו ההר (Nehem. 8, 15), בצאתי שער (Job. 29,7). Auch mit את, wo dann der Akkusativ den Gegenstand bezeichnet, dessen Verlassen das Hinausgehen im Auge hat: יצאו את העיר (Bereschit 44, 4) כצאתי את העיר (Schmot 9, 26) und so auch בני יצאוני ואינם (Jirmija 10, 20). Auch ויגש דוד את העם :נגש (Sam. I. 30, 21). Auch הלך mit ואת בית ד׳ אני הולך :את (Richter 19, 18), wo er den ganzen Weg beschreibt, den er bereits zurückgelegt, und mit את בית ד׳ das eigentliche Ziel seiner Reise bezeichnet und hervorhebt, um hinzuzufügen: und doch nimmt mich keiner auf! ואין איש מאסף אותי הביתה.

INSTRUMENTS OF VIOLENCE ‘M’CHEIROTHEIHEM.’ According to Onkelos and all commentators,¹⁰¹Rashi and R’dak. the meaning of the verse is as if it were written: instruments of violence ‘m’garotheihem’ (in their sojournings). This is similar to the verses: Thy sojourning (‘m’chorothayich’) and thy nativity,¹⁰²Ezekiel 16:3. There too m’chorothayich is as if it were written m’gorothayich. into the land of their sojourn (‘m’churatham’).¹⁰³Ibid., 29:14. Thus the commentators said that the meaning of the verse is that they did violence in the land of their sojourn.¹⁰⁴That is, the people lived with them in peace, and they did not act accordingly. Now if so, the approximate sense of the verse is as follows: “They had instruments of violence in the land of their sojournings,” it being referred to as “the land of their sojournings” since they lived there afterwards.¹⁰⁵At the time when Simeon and Levi wrought punishment upon the city of Shechem, they had just entered the land. How then could Jacob refer to the event as having taken place in the land of their sojourning? Ramban answers that this is a reference to the future.
But in my opinion Jacob is saying that “the instruments of violence are their dwelling places,” i.e., the essence of their lives, even as the expression, the days of my pilgrimage (‘m’gurai’).¹⁰⁶See above, 47:9. He is thus saying that the very instruments of violence are their dwelling places for they live and sustain themselves by them. A similar expression is found in the verse: The desert yieldeth them bread for their children.¹⁰⁷Job 24:5. The word “yieldeth” is not in the Hebrew text. Ramban interprets the meaning of the verse as follows: “The desert is to him bread for his children,” for there he has the opportunity to rob and plunder. Similarly, the verse here says that the sword is their livelihood. Ramban’s interpretation of the above verse in the book of Job is also found in his commentary to that book. See Kitvei Haramban, I, p. 80. And it is on account of this that their father divided them in Jacob¹⁰⁰Verse 7 here. so that they should not unite and scattered them in Israel so that they should not assemble. This was indeed so, for Simeon’s inheritance in the Land was contained in the inheritance of the children of Judah, as it is written, And their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah,¹⁰⁸Joshua 19:1. with the cities of Simeon set apart from one another throughout the entire tribe of Judah. And Levi’s inheritance consisted of the Cities of Refuge,¹⁰⁹See Numbers 35:1-8. which were scattered through all Israel.¹¹⁰See Joshua, Chapter 21.

according to the sanction of Heb. כְּרִשְׁיוֹן as the sanction of the king was upon them to build the Temple. כְּרִשְׁיוֹן is an expression of permission (רְשּׁוּת) derived from רשּׁה ; since from אבה to want, he says [i.e., derives] אֶבְיוֹן, a needy person; and from צבה, to desire, צִבְיוֹן, desire; and from חזה to see, חִזָיוֹן, a vision; and from רעה, רַעְיוֹן, thought; from חבה, חֶבְיוֹן, hiding; and from רשּׁה, he says רְשּׁוּת, permission; like from, ענה, עֱנוּת, affliction; and from שּׁבה, שְּׁבוּת,captivity; and from ראה, רְאוּת, a sight; and from זנה, זְנוּת, harlotry. The result is that רְשּׁוּת and רִשְׁיוֹן are derived from the same root according to the gauge of grammar, and they are the same expression. Menahem, (p. 34) however, associated it with (Ps. 21:3): “and the speech of his lips (וַַַַַאֲרֶשֶּׁת),” but he was not exact with its root. Nevertheless, these two manners [of defining words] are close to each other in their meanings.

and your cities will not return [Heb. תָשֹּׁבְנָה,] not as I said about Egypt (above 29:14): “And I will return the captives of Egypt”; (Jer. 49:6): “And afterward, I will return the captivity of the children of Ammon.” And this is what Malachi (1:3) said, “And I hated Esau, and I made his mountains desolate,” for I made them destined for everlasting desolations.

I shall cut off As the matter that is stated (Ezek. 29: 14): “And I shall lay My vengeance against Edom by the hand of My people, Israel.” They will cut off the horn of Esau (the enemy), and then the horns of the Righteous One of the world—Israel, who are the praise of the Holy One, blessed be Hewill be upraised.

concerning the coming of Nebuchadnezzar This was a second blow, [viz.] that Nebuchadnezzar laid Egypt waste in the twenty-seventh year of his reign (Ezek. 29:17), as we learned in Seder Olam (ch. 26).