וְהָיָה֙ כְּעַרְעָ֣ר בָּֽעֲרָבָ֔ה וְלֹ֥א יִרְאֶ֖ה כִּי־יָב֣וֹא ט֑וֹב וְשָׁכַ֤ן חֲרֵרִים֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר אֶ֥רֶץ מְלֵחָ֖ה וְלֹ֥א תֵשֵֽׁב׃ (ס)
Siya ay magiging gaya ng nag-iisang punungkahoy sa kaparangan, at hindi niya makikita kapag dumating ang mabuti; maninirahan siya sa mga tigang na dako sa ilang, sa lupaing maalat na hindi tinatahanan.
Rabbeinu Bahya
אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך, “do not worry Avram, I will be your shield.” One may understand G’d’s promise to Avram in this verse as including three separate assurances:
1) He should not be afraid on account of the kings whom he had slain. The words: “do not be afraid,” are only addressed to someone who is already afraid. Avram was afraid that the sons of these kings would want to avenge their fathers and attack him. This is why G’d said; “I will be a shield for you.”
The second assurance concerned Avram’s having a son of his own. This is alluded to in the words שכרך הרבה מאד, “your reward will be very great.” Actually, all G’d had to say was שכרך רב, “your reward is great.” The addition of two letters ה which were not really called for indicated that by means of the two letters ה which would be added both to the name אברם and to the name שרי, Yitzchak would be able to emerge as their son. This was an assurance concerning reward in this life.
The third assurance was an assurance concerning the hereafter, and it is alluded to by the addition of the word מאד, “very much,” to the promise of much reward. We find something similar in Job 35,15 ולא ידע בפש מאד, “and he does not know that it may be long drawn out.” Elihu had attacked Job for denying that G’d personally supervises the fate of individuals. He accused him of recounting his afflictions day after day, whereas he had no idea of the serenity in store for the righteous in the hereafter.
Seeing that of these three assurances, only the first one was explicit whereas both the promise of children and that of an afterlife were only allusions, Avram related only to the visible, and did not understand the allusion which was included in G’d’s words. This is why he felt constrained to ask G’d: “what can You give me?” He meant: “seeing that I have no children I am comparable to a bush in the desert (Jeremiah 17,6), i.e. something that has no future”. In his reference to Eliezer, Avram meant that not only did he not have a biological heir, but his heir-apparent Eliezer was not even from his home-town Charan but from Damascus.
At this point G’d began to tell Avram in detail what He had previously only hinted at. Firstly, He told him that Eliezer would not be his heir but that someone who was his biological son would inherit him. When G’d added the words הוא יירשך, “he will inherit you,” this was really superfluous and meant that the ”הוא“ of the world i.e. G’d Himself, would be his heir.” He meant that he, Avram, would be the heir of G’d inasmuch as the name הוא is one of the attributes of G’d. This is a familiar concept from Exodus 34,9 ונחלתנו, “and make us Your heritage.”
1) He should not be afraid on account of the kings whom he had slain. The words: “do not be afraid,” are only addressed to someone who is already afraid. Avram was afraid that the sons of these kings would want to avenge their fathers and attack him. This is why G’d said; “I will be a shield for you.”
The second assurance concerned Avram’s having a son of his own. This is alluded to in the words שכרך הרבה מאד, “your reward will be very great.” Actually, all G’d had to say was שכרך רב, “your reward is great.” The addition of two letters ה which were not really called for indicated that by means of the two letters ה which would be added both to the name אברם and to the name שרי, Yitzchak would be able to emerge as their son. This was an assurance concerning reward in this life.
The third assurance was an assurance concerning the hereafter, and it is alluded to by the addition of the word מאד, “very much,” to the promise of much reward. We find something similar in Job 35,15 ולא ידע בפש מאד, “and he does not know that it may be long drawn out.” Elihu had attacked Job for denying that G’d personally supervises the fate of individuals. He accused him of recounting his afflictions day after day, whereas he had no idea of the serenity in store for the righteous in the hereafter.
Seeing that of these three assurances, only the first one was explicit whereas both the promise of children and that of an afterlife were only allusions, Avram related only to the visible, and did not understand the allusion which was included in G’d’s words. This is why he felt constrained to ask G’d: “what can You give me?” He meant: “seeing that I have no children I am comparable to a bush in the desert (Jeremiah 17,6), i.e. something that has no future”. In his reference to Eliezer, Avram meant that not only did he not have a biological heir, but his heir-apparent Eliezer was not even from his home-town Charan but from Damascus.
At this point G’d began to tell Avram in detail what He had previously only hinted at. Firstly, He told him that Eliezer would not be his heir but that someone who was his biological son would inherit him. When G’d added the words הוא יירשך, “he will inherit you,” this was really superfluous and meant that the ”הוא“ of the world i.e. G’d Himself, would be his heir.” He meant that he, Avram, would be the heir of G’d inasmuch as the name הוא is one of the attributes of G’d. This is a familiar concept from Exodus 34,9 ונחלתנו, “and make us Your heritage.”
Ramban
WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, SINCE I ‘HOLECH’ (GO) CHILDLESS? They232Jonathan and R’dak. Jonathan translates: “For I pass from the world.” R’dak expressly says that Abraham feared that he might “die” childless. have explained the word holech as meaning “I die childless,” even as is the meaning of that word in the verse, For man is ‘holech’ (going) to his eternal home.233Ecclesiastes 12:5. Now just as holech here refers to death, so in the words of Abraham it has the same connotation.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that at first he [Abraham] complained: “What can my reward be since I have no children and I go as a vagrant and vagabond alone in a strange land, like a tamarisk in the desert,234Jeremiah 17:6. no one going out, and no one coming in235Joshua 6:1. in my house except Eliezer, a stranger that I brought to me from Damascus, not from my family, and not from my country.” Then Abraham said, “Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed236Verse 3 here. as Thou hast promised me, and lo my household slave, the one mentioned, will be mine heir, as I am old without child, and my time will come to die childless. I am thus punished, having lost the reward which Thou hast promised me at first.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that at first he [Abraham] complained: “What can my reward be since I have no children and I go as a vagrant and vagabond alone in a strange land, like a tamarisk in the desert,234Jeremiah 17:6. no one going out, and no one coming in235Joshua 6:1. in my house except Eliezer, a stranger that I brought to me from Damascus, not from my family, and not from my country.” Then Abraham said, “Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed236Verse 3 here. as Thou hast promised me, and lo my household slave, the one mentioned, will be mine heir, as I am old without child, and my time will come to die childless. I am thus punished, having lost the reward which Thou hast promised me at first.”
Ramban
NEITHER SHALT THOU SUFFER THE SALT OF THE COVENANT OF THY G-D TO BE LACKING FROM THY MEAL-OFFERING. “For a covenant was established with salt as far back as the six days of Creation, for the lower waters [i.e., those of the oceans] were promised that they would be offered upon the altar in the form of salt, and [also as water] at the libation of water, on the Festival of Tabernacles.”219During the morning Daily Whole-offering on the seven days of the Festival of Succoth, there was in addition to the regular libation of wine, a libation of water on the altar. The drawing of the water from the fountain of Shiloah was marked by a great public festivity held in the Court of the Sanctuary during the evenings of the festival. They were known as the Simchath Beth Ha’sho’evah (Rejoicing of the Drawing of the Water). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a homiletic exposition of the Sages.220Numbers 18:19. See Rabbi M. Kasher’s Torah Shleimah here, Note 111. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it in line with the plain meaning of Scripture as follows: “I have brought you into a covenant and made you swear that you would not offer a saltless offering, nor shall it [i.e., a saltless offering] be eaten,221Ibn Ezra’s intention in using this phrase [“Nor shall it be eaten”] is unclear to me. Perhaps he means that the priests when eating the flesh of certain offerings [such as the sin-offering, guilt-offering etc., or the Israelite eating the peace-offering] must salt it, otherwise the food is without flavor and thus they show their contempt for it, as they did not take the effort to prepare it properly. The commentators on Ibn Ezra are silent on this point. because it is a mark of contempt.” Now since salt is the covenant of the offerings, Scripture made this accord the pattern for all such agreements, saying of the gifts given to priests and the dynasty of David that they are [an everlasting] covenant of salt,222Numbers 18:19 [referring to the gifts of the priests]; II Chronicles 13:5 [referring to the kingdom of the House of David]. meaning that they are as everlasting as the covenant of salt of the offerings. There, however, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained:223Numbers 18:19. “A covenant of salt — a covenant decreed, it being of the root, a fruitful land into a salt waste,224Psalms 107:34. since a salt waste is as if it has been decreed [upon it that nothing should grow therein].”225So clearly explained in Ibn Ezra (Numbers 18:19). But there is no sense to his words.
Now it seems to me that since Scripture here states, the covenant of thy G-d, and does not say “the covenant of the Eternal,” which would have been in consonance with the language of the section and the way all the offerings are mentioned [throughout Scripture], or did not say, “the covenant of the Eternal thy G-d” — that the reason for this is because salt is derived from water, and it is through the power of the sun which shines upon it that it becomes salt. Now the nature of water is that it soaks into the earth and makes it bring forth and bud; but after it becomes salt it destroys every place and burns it, that it is not sown, nor beareth.226Deuteronomy 29:22. Since a covenant is inclusive of all attributes, water and fire come into it, and unto her shall come the former dominion227Micah 4:8. — the Kingdom of G-d, just like salt which seasons all foods and helps to preserve them, but destroys them when they are over-saturated with it. Thus salt is like the covenant. It is for this reason that Scripture states, Ought ye not to know that the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt228II Chronicles 13:5. forever? For this too is the attribute of David. Therefore He says in connection with the offerings, it is an everlasting covenant of salt,223Numbers 18:19. for the covenant is “the salt of the world,” and by virtue of it [the world] exists or may be destroyed. I have already taught you to understand from our words in other places the meaning of these three words, brith olam hi (it is a perpetual covenant).229See Exodus 31:16-17, and Ramban there at the end of Verse 13 (Vol. II, p. 548).
Now it seems to me that since Scripture here states, the covenant of thy G-d, and does not say “the covenant of the Eternal,” which would have been in consonance with the language of the section and the way all the offerings are mentioned [throughout Scripture], or did not say, “the covenant of the Eternal thy G-d” — that the reason for this is because salt is derived from water, and it is through the power of the sun which shines upon it that it becomes salt. Now the nature of water is that it soaks into the earth and makes it bring forth and bud; but after it becomes salt it destroys every place and burns it, that it is not sown, nor beareth.226Deuteronomy 29:22. Since a covenant is inclusive of all attributes, water and fire come into it, and unto her shall come the former dominion227Micah 4:8. — the Kingdom of G-d, just like salt which seasons all foods and helps to preserve them, but destroys them when they are over-saturated with it. Thus salt is like the covenant. It is for this reason that Scripture states, Ought ye not to know that the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt228II Chronicles 13:5. forever? For this too is the attribute of David. Therefore He says in connection with the offerings, it is an everlasting covenant of salt,223Numbers 18:19. for the covenant is “the salt of the world,” and by virtue of it [the world] exists or may be destroyed. I have already taught you to understand from our words in other places the meaning of these three words, brith olam hi (it is a perpetual covenant).229See Exodus 31:16-17, and Ramban there at the end of Verse 13 (Vol. II, p. 548).
Rabbeinu Bahya
Para lamang sa mga Premium memberRabbeinu Bahya
Para lamang sa mga Premium memberRashi
Now in view of this, that we wish to destroy the Temple Now in view of this matter, that we wish to implement the destruction of the Temple. דִי מְלַח is an expression of destruction and desolation, like Jer. 17:6): “barren (מְלֵחָה) land that is uninhabitable.”