Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Jeremias 27:8

Y’VI’EHA’ (LET HIM BRING IT), THE ETERNAL’S OFFERING. This is like “yavi (let him bring) the Eternal’s offering.” But Scripture mentions a pronoun and then returns to explain it. Similarly: And she opened and saw him, the child;¹⁹Above, 2:6 when he went in, the man;²⁰Ezekiel 10:3. It should have said: b’vo ha’ish — when the man went in. the nation and the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar;²¹Jeremiah 27:8. which I do give to them, the children of Israel.²²Joshua 1:2. There are many similar instances.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], the phrase here is like “let him bring it ‘with’ the Eternal’s offering,” meaning that he is to bring the higher offering as alluded to in the secret of and they take for Me an offering.²³Above, 25:2. I have already explained it.²⁴Ibid., Verse 3. Our Rabbis have a Midrash²⁵Sotah 12b. on the verse, and she opened and saw him, the child,¹⁹Above, 2:6 that she saw with him the Divine Glory.
Now it was necessary for Moses to tell the whole congregation all the work which G-d had commanded him, in order to let them know that they had to bring large donations, for the work is great.²⁶I Chronicles 29:1. That is why he told them, The Tabernacle, its tent, and its covering etc.,²⁷Verse 11. mentioning all in a general way. The reason for the definite article in ‘eth hamishkan’ (the Tabernacle),²⁷Verse 11. ‘eth ha’aron’ (the ark),²⁸Verse 12. ‘eth hashulchan’ (the table),²⁹Verse 13. and all those mentioned with the definite article, is as if to say: “the Tabernacle and the vessels which we will explain to the wise men doing the work in their details and measurements,” but speaking now to the whole congregation, he told them only their names in general.

AND THOU SHALT GIRD THEM WITH BELTS. This alludes to Aaron and his sons, and then Scripture reverts and explains, Aaron and his sons. This is similar to the expressions: let him bring it, the Eternal’s offering;¹⁷⁹Further, 35:5. The word it alludes already to the Eternal’s offering, but then Scripture itself reverts and explains it. The same principle applies in the next example. the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar.¹⁸⁰Jeremiah 27:8. Such are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, [the following phrase in the verse before us,] and thou shalt bind ‘migba’oth’ on them refers only to some of them [mentioned before, namely, Aaron’s sons], for Aaron’s head-dress was not of the migba’oth, and besides, the mitznepheth is already on his head [as mentioned in Verse 6]. It is possible that the explanation of the verse is: “and thou shalt gird them with belts, and Aaron and his sons.” The verse is thus stating that he should gird Aaron’s sons mentioned with belts, and Aaron himself should be girded with his sons. For since the belt was alike for all of them [for Aaron and his sons], it was not mentioned above among the particular garments of Aaron; therefore it now became necessary to say that he should gird Aaron too with a belt like his sons. The breeches were not mentioned here as it was not necessary, as I have explained.¹⁸¹Above, 28:35. “For having declared there [above] the punishment for lacking them there was no more need to revert and mention them [here], as it is understood already that he would wear them.” And the reason why the breeches were singled out from the rest of the garments [by not being mentioned here] is that it was Moses who clothed them with all the garments, as G-d commanded, and thou shalt clothe them.¹⁸²Verse 8. But the breeches which were to cover the flesh of their nakedness,¹⁸³Above, 28:42. they themselves put on in privacy. Therefore He did not mention them here among the garments — and thou shalt take the garments, and clothe Aaron…¹⁸⁴Verse 5. and therefore He separated them [from the other garments] in command and in punishment, as I have mentioned above.¹⁸¹Above, 28:35. “For having declared there [above] the punishment for lacking them there was no more need to revert and mention them [here], as it is understood already that he would wear them.”

THEN THEY SHALL ‘GAM’ (ALSO) ‘SHNEIHEM’ (BOTH OF THEM) DIE. “This excludes unnatural gratification from which the woman derives no satisfaction. Gam (also) — this is intended to include in the death-penalty those who come after them” [as explained further on]. This is the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi]. But I do not understand what this means. Is this the case of a virgin that we must exclude or include those who come after them [to commit adultery with her? The verse here speaks of a married woman, therefore] what difference is there between the first [adulterer] and the second and third? Moreover, the text should have read “those who come after ‘him’” [instead of “after ‘them’ “]! And in our versions of the Sifre it is stated:²¹³Sifre, Ki Theitzei 241. However, the text there is as Rashi has it. See Horovitz’s edition of Sifre, and his note there. “Both of them — this excludes unnatural gratification. Since the verse states ‘gam’ both of them it includes those who come from their backs,” meaning unnatural sexual intercourse [sodomy]. Scripture included it here, but all cases of adultery are deduced from this one.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture the phrase ‘gam shneihem’ (also both of them) means “[not only] the man who is the more responsible for the sin because he demands it, he seduces her, and commits the act — but ‘gam’ (also) the woman.” Scripture itself mentions this, explaining the phrase also both of them — the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. Such is the customary manner of Scripture to ascribe the sin to the man, as I have explained in connection with the verse, he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.²¹⁴Leviticus 20:21. However in Ramban there it is not found. According to the Techeileth Mordechai, the text here should read: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness (ibid., Verse 17), the thought here alluded to by Ramban is developed there.
And some scholars²¹⁵Ibn Ezra on Exodus 35:5. say that the phrase the man that lay with the woman, and the woman is but an additional explanation [of the pronoun — both of them], like let him bring it, the Eternal’s offering;²¹⁶Exodus 35:5 (Vol. II, p. 598). [the kingdom which will not serve] him, Nebuchadnezzar.²¹⁷Jeremiah 27:8. And in the Sifre it is stated:²¹⁸Sifre, Ki Theitzei 241. “The man that lay with the woman — even if she was a minor; and the woman — even if she had intercourse with a minor.” If so, the meaning of also both of them is “also either one of them, the man or the woman who has reached the age to be culpable of punishment.”