Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Genesis 30:8

וַתֹּ֣אמֶר רָחֵ֗ל נַפְתּוּלֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ נִפְתַּ֛לְתִּי עִם־אֲחֹתִ֖י גַּם־יָכֹ֑לְתִּי וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ נַפְתָּלִֽי׃

At sinabi ni Raquel: “Matinding pagsusumamo sa Diyos ang ipinagpumilit ko kasama ang aking kapatid, at nagtagumpay nga ako.” At tinawag niya ang kanyang pangalan na Neftali.

Rav Hirsch

V. 5. שחת לו לא בניו מומם, ein Satz, dessen Verständnis erhebliche Schwierigkeiten bietet. Man pflegt diese fünf Worte in zwei, oder selbst drei Sätze zu teilen, und zwar das שִחֵת mehr als Substantiv zu fassen, wie והדִבֵר אין בהם (Jirm. 5, 13). Entweder: das Verderben ist nicht ihm (ist nicht sein); seine Söhne, ihrer ist der Fehl. Oder: das Verderben ist es ihm? (ist es sein?) nein! seine Söhne, ihrer ist der Fehl. Gegen die erste Auffassung spricht, daß, soweit wir glauben, nirgends die Negation לא dem zu Negierendem nachfolgt, es hätte heißen müssen: שחת לא לו. Der zweiten steht entgegen, daß der Akzent in der Regel wohl Satzteile, nicht aber Sätze trennt. Auch für die Auffassung der Worte בניו מומם in beiden Erklärungen spricht weder der Akzent noch die Konstruktion. Verstehen wir ferner diese Auffassungen recht, so wäre שחת nicht das sittliche Verderbnis, sondern das in Folge derselben eingebrochene soziale und politische Verderben das Unglück. Dem gegenüber müsste denn auch מום also verstanden werden. מום ist aber nur ein persönlicher, gewöhnlich ja leiblicher Fehler, und kann sehr wohl auch auf sittliche Gebrechen übertragen sein, schwerlich aber individuelles oder allgemeines Unglück bedeuten. Vergleichen wir endlich die ganz gleiche Akzentuation מרכבת פרעה וחילו ירה בים (Schmot 15, 4), כי רחק ממני מנחם משיב נפשי (Klagel. 1,16). כאשר עוללת לי על כל פשעי (daselbst 22), השיב אחור ימינו אויב (daselbst 2, 3), בדמי ימי אלכה בשערי שאול (Jes.35, 10). Oder auch: פצו עלינו פיהם כל אויבינו ,כי לא יזנח לעולם ד׳ ,צוד צדוני כצפר איבי חנם (Klagel. 3, 31 u. 46, 52), so werden wir uns veranlasst sehen, auch שחת לו לא בניו מומם nur als einen Satz aufzufassen, und zwar מומם als Subjekt, שחת לו als Prädikat, לא בניו Adverbialbestimmung zu שחת .שחת Präteritum von שחת im Sinne sittlichen Verderbnisses wie כי שחת עמך (Schmot 32, 7) מומם: der ihnen von Alters her anhaftende Charakterfehler עם קשה עורף, der im folgenden durch דור עקש ופתלתול umschrieben wird. Also: Verderbt hat sie ihm bis zu Nichtkindern ihr alter Fehler: דור עקש ופתלתול. Die Stellen ומעקשים למישור. (Jes.42, 16), ואת כל הישרה יעקשו (Micha 3, 9) usw. lassen in עקש einen Gegensatz zum ישר erkennen. פתל haben wir bereits wiederholt in der Bedeutung einer durch festes inneres Zusammenhalten bewirkten Absonderung von andern erkannt (siehe zu Bereschit 30, 8; Bamidbar 15, 38 u. 19, 15). Auf den Charakter übertragen ist עקש die allem Geraden sich widersetzende Krümme, auch Gegensatz von תם. So תם אני ויעקשני (Job. 9, 20); vergl. Ps. 18, 27. פתלתול: der jeder Gesetzesleitung widerstreitende Ungehorsam.
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Ibn Ezra

The word perverse means to be confirmed and ongoing in one’s crookedness. Compare, “all of God’s twisted ways” [Genesis 30: 8]). Some say that the phrase to waste from him is to be understood as “to waste from them ” — i.e., they wasted themselves. Do not question the use of the singular, because such is the nature of the Hebrew language. Do we not also have the verse, “Remember [singular] ancient days; study [plural] the years of each generation” [: 7]? In my opinion, however, the correct interpretation is as follows: The object of the waste is God — in other words, they have perverted the ways of God which are innate, as well as the decrees which He has commanded — as if the verse had read, “A crooked generation, who are not His sons, has disregarded Him, this being their defect”. This interpretation is confirmed by the subsequent verse, Shall you render this to God . As for the letter heh which begins the verse, I have already explained its unusual size and vocalization in Sefer Moznayyim.
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Ibn Ezra

May Reuven live He begins with the eldest, as is customary. He does not mention Shimon, either because of the incident of Baal Peor [Numbers 25: 3], in which the worshipers were Shimonites, as evidenced by their decline in numbers [Numbers 26: 14] [cf. Numbers 1: 23], as well as by the fact that it was their chieftain who was killed [Numbers 25: 14]. or He follows Yaaqov’s example, who did not bless Shimon or Levi. Out of respect for Aaron, his tribe was excepted, borne up on the coattails of Aaron; but Shimon lacked a great man of equivalent stature. If one should object, and ask, Why, then, did Moshe bless Reuven? — the answer is that Yaaqov did bless Reuven, the blessing being “you shall not stand out” [Genesis 49: 4], i.e., that he should be as one of his brethren. After Reuven, he mentions Y e hudah, who was the standard-bearer, and the first to go into battle. Then Levi, and then Benjamin, on account of the Levites’ dwelling in Jerusalem, which lay between the territory of Y e hudah and the territory of Benjamin, as it is written [cf. Joshua 18: 28 , Judges 1: 8]. Then the tribe of Joseph, in order not to postpone them, having already given precedence to his younger brother. Then Zevulun, on account of his going into war [Judges 5: 18], and then Yissakhar. After completing the children of the major wives, he begins with Gad, who encamped under the standard of two children of the major wives, and then Dan, since he was a standard-bearer, and then Naftali, because he was greater than Asher.
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi

and his father was a Tyrian man He was a Jew who lived in Tyre, on the model of (II Sam. 6:10): “Obed-Edom the Gittite,” who lived in Gath, and who was a Levite. In I Kings (7:14), it is written: “He was a widow’s son, of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a Tyrian man.” His mother was from Dan, and his father was from Naphtali. Now why was it necessary to trace his genealogy, from which tribe his father and mother were? This is what is written (Gen. 30:6): “God judged me,” and also (ibid. 8): “I have fought a divine struggle, etc.” Rachel said, “I twisted cords; I went through contortions until I was able to compare to my sister Leah. If Leah will boast of her descendant Bezalel, who will make the Tabernacle, he will require one of the sons of Dan to participate in his work, as it is written (38: 23): ‘And with him was Oholiab the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan.’ Now if Solomon, the descendant of my sister, will build the Temple, some of the sons of Dan and Naphtali will have to participate with him.”
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi

פתיל is an expression denoting “joined” in the Arabic language. Similar is (Genesis 30:8; cf. Rashi thereon), נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי, “By bonds of God I have joined myself (נפתלתי) with my sister."
Magtanong sa isang RabbiBookmarkShareCopy