רֽוּחַ־אִ֭ישׁ יְכַלְכֵּ֣ל מַחֲלֵ֑הוּ וְר֥וּחַ נְ֝כֵאָ֗ה מִ֣י יִשָּׂאֶֽנָּה׃
Ang espiritu ng tao ay makapagtitiis sa kanyang karamdaman, ngunit ang espiritung wasak, sino ang makapagdadala nito?
Ibn Ezra
A psalm; a song of dedication of the House – There are those who say that David commanded that the singers play this song at the dedication of the First Temple, and those who say at the dedication of the Second Temple or the Third, because he compared the time of exile to a time of sickness as I will explain. It seems to me that he composed this song at the dedication of his own house, the House of Cedars, because the psalm does not mention the House of God. This usage is similar to “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house,” (Samuel II 5:8) as I explained there. At that time David fell sick and then recovered from his sickness. R’ Moshe said that David mourned when Natan told him that he would not build the house for the Lord. When he told him that Shlomo his son would build the house he was clothed with joy in place of his mourning because his son was like him, and his enemies could not disparage him. And he said that suffering of the soul is similar to physical suffering, and even worse in the sense that “A man's spirit will sustain his illness…” (Proverbs 18:14)
Rabbeinu Bahya
This kind of mental anguish and sickness is far more serious than a bodily dysfunction as it is likely to result in a broken spirit. Proverbs 18,14 states: “a man’s spirit can sustain him during sickness, but who can lift up a dejected spirit?” The meaning of this verse is that the spirit, i.e. the soul, is able to relieve the sickness of the body to an extent as it sustains the sick body by itself going without food or drink for many days and offering solace to the body. When the mind is sick however, who can sustain it? Who will offer it solace or comfort?
Furthermore, just as there are physical afflictions so there are mental diseases. The latter are more serious and harder to combat than diseases of the body. Most people suffering mental disease are victims of sins committed or are the result of such a person (mind) having believed in the wrong values. This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 2,16: “to deliver you from the alien woman, from the strange woman whose talk is smooth.” He continues about this “strange woman” in Proverbs 5,3 “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey;” Solomon compares beliefs in the wrong values as equivalent to an alien woman who destroys her victim in the end.” This is why Solomon said: “but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword” (Proverbs 5,4). Another verse dealing with the same subject is Proverbs 5,5: “her feet go down to death, her steps support she'ol.” By having provided man with the ability to speak and to communicate his thoughts to others, G’d has also given man a decisive advantage over all other creatures. He enabled us to heal people whose minds are sick and to bring them close to the protective wings of G’d’s presence, the Shechinah (compare Ruth 2,12). Being under these protective wings of the Shechinah means to enjoy true and everlasting life. Avraham possessed this attribute of being able to heal spirits and this enabled him to attract so many people to the one and only G’d (compare Sotah 10). All of this he achieved by healing people through judicious use of his tongue. When the sages describe that he had a pearl around his neck which conferred a cure upon people they meant the power of speech (compare Baba Batra 16). We are told that the single pearl which hung around Avraham’s neck had the effect that any sick person who looked at it would be cured instantly. When Avraham died G’d took this pearl and made it part of the planet sun. The Midrash obviously needs elucidation as it is a euphemism expressing a certain idea. The author compared Avraham’s attribute which enabled him to gain converts to monotheism to the sun and its ability to illuminate matters that were previously concealed. The mention of Avraham’s neck in this connection is to be understood as the source of the “pearl” being in his throat, the source of verbalising one’s thoughts. What the author of the Midrash meant was that anyone suffering from spiritual dejection who listened to Avraham’s words would be cured.
When Avraham died he did not leave behind him any person or creature capable of teaching the Divinity of G’d and His uniqueness other than the planet sun; this is why G’d removed this “pearl” and hung it around the “sun in its orbit.” This is confirmed by Psalms 19,2: “the heavens proclaim G’d’s glory,” and this is also the meaning of the words מרפא לשון עץ חיים which we quoted from Proverbs as the introduction to this essay. The healing power demonstrated by the judicious use Avraham made of his tongue was the reason that so many of the people with whom he came into contact adopted his belief in monotheism. These were the people referred to in Genesis 12,5 as ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “and the people whom they had converted to monotheism while in Charan.”
The healing power of Moses’ tongue was demonstrated in verse 8 of our chapter when the Torah reports Moses as telling his father-in-law about all the miracles G’d had performed on behalf of the Jewish people. Yitro converted to Judaism after hearing his son-in-law describe what had transpired since he had left him. He abandoned his prestigious position in Midian as the High Priest, wealth, and his many children, and went into the desert in order to place himself under the protective wings of G’d’s Shechinah as soon as he hard Moses tell him what had happened since he had returned to Egypt at the time.
Furthermore, just as there are physical afflictions so there are mental diseases. The latter are more serious and harder to combat than diseases of the body. Most people suffering mental disease are victims of sins committed or are the result of such a person (mind) having believed in the wrong values. This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 2,16: “to deliver you from the alien woman, from the strange woman whose talk is smooth.” He continues about this “strange woman” in Proverbs 5,3 “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey;” Solomon compares beliefs in the wrong values as equivalent to an alien woman who destroys her victim in the end.” This is why Solomon said: “but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword” (Proverbs 5,4). Another verse dealing with the same subject is Proverbs 5,5: “her feet go down to death, her steps support she'ol.” By having provided man with the ability to speak and to communicate his thoughts to others, G’d has also given man a decisive advantage over all other creatures. He enabled us to heal people whose minds are sick and to bring them close to the protective wings of G’d’s presence, the Shechinah (compare Ruth 2,12). Being under these protective wings of the Shechinah means to enjoy true and everlasting life. Avraham possessed this attribute of being able to heal spirits and this enabled him to attract so many people to the one and only G’d (compare Sotah 10). All of this he achieved by healing people through judicious use of his tongue. When the sages describe that he had a pearl around his neck which conferred a cure upon people they meant the power of speech (compare Baba Batra 16). We are told that the single pearl which hung around Avraham’s neck had the effect that any sick person who looked at it would be cured instantly. When Avraham died G’d took this pearl and made it part of the planet sun. The Midrash obviously needs elucidation as it is a euphemism expressing a certain idea. The author compared Avraham’s attribute which enabled him to gain converts to monotheism to the sun and its ability to illuminate matters that were previously concealed. The mention of Avraham’s neck in this connection is to be understood as the source of the “pearl” being in his throat, the source of verbalising one’s thoughts. What the author of the Midrash meant was that anyone suffering from spiritual dejection who listened to Avraham’s words would be cured.
When Avraham died he did not leave behind him any person or creature capable of teaching the Divinity of G’d and His uniqueness other than the planet sun; this is why G’d removed this “pearl” and hung it around the “sun in its orbit.” This is confirmed by Psalms 19,2: “the heavens proclaim G’d’s glory,” and this is also the meaning of the words מרפא לשון עץ חיים which we quoted from Proverbs as the introduction to this essay. The healing power demonstrated by the judicious use Avraham made of his tongue was the reason that so many of the people with whom he came into contact adopted his belief in monotheism. These were the people referred to in Genesis 12,5 as ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “and the people whom they had converted to monotheism while in Charan.”
The healing power of Moses’ tongue was demonstrated in verse 8 of our chapter when the Torah reports Moses as telling his father-in-law about all the miracles G’d had performed on behalf of the Jewish people. Yitro converted to Judaism after hearing his son-in-law describe what had transpired since he had left him. He abandoned his prestigious position in Midian as the High Priest, wealth, and his many children, and went into the desert in order to place himself under the protective wings of G’d’s Shechinah as soon as he hard Moses tell him what had happened since he had returned to Egypt at the time.
Ramban
AND THOU SHALT MAKE ‘KE’AROTHAV VEKHAPOTHAV UKSOTHAV UMENAKIYOTHAV.’ Rashi explained: “Ke’arothav are the forms [the moulds that were made to fit the shape of the bread]; vekhapothav are spoons in which the incense was put;126See Leviticus 24:7. uksothav are rods in the shape of halves of hollow canes [which were put between one loaf and another so that they would not become mouldy]; umenakiyothav are the trestles which were notched in [five places] to support the canes.” These vessels [that Rashi referred to] are indeed mentioned in the Gemara.127Menachoth 97a. And the Rabbi further said: “The word mechilathei [which Onkelos used for the Hebrew menakiyothav] means ‘bearers,’ similar to the expressions: and I weary myself ‘kalkeil’ (to bear it);128Jeremiah 20:9. I am weary ‘hachil’ (bearing it).129Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. Now the Sages of Israel have differed on this. For some say that ksothav are the trestles, and menakiyothav are the hollow canes. But Onkelos who translated menakiyothav by [the Aramaic] mechilathei was of the same opinion as he who says that menakiyoth are the trestles [supporting pillars attached to the table].” These are Rashi’s words. But I do not find them to be correct, for the word mechilathei [of Onkelos] in the Aramaic language is but a term meaning measures, such as ephahs and the like. Thus Onkelos rendered, eiphath tzedek130Leviticus 19:36. — mechilon dikshot (a true measure); Thou shalt not have in thy house ‘eiphah v’eiphah’131Deuteronomy 25:14. — thou shalt not have mechilta umechilta (diverse measures). In a similar sense it is found whenever mentioned in the Talmud and in the Sages’ words: kayal meikal (he was measuring);132Menachoth 53 b: ka kayol. bimchilta d’kayil inish ba mitkil (with the measure that one measures others, with that he is measured).133Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 38:26. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’129Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. means “I am weary of being a holding measure” [of G-d’s fury], and it is associated with these expressions: alpayim bath yachil (it held two thousand baths);134I Kings 7:26. v’chol bashalish aphar ha’aretz (and He comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure);135Isaiah 40:12. too little ‘meihachil’ (to receive) the burnt offering.136I Kings 8:64. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’129Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. is in my opinion not an expression of “bearing” but is instead a form of that very same meaning of “holding,” thus saying, “I am weary of holding” [G-d’s fury], similar in usage to these expressions: the land is not able ‘l’hachil’ (to hold) all his words;137Amos 7:10. the spirit of a man ‘y’chalkeil’ his infirmity,138Proverbs 18:14. meaning that he will be able to hold the pain within himself and not become weary [and broken in spirit] because of it. Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot ‘y’chalkelucha’139I Kings 8:27. — they cannot hold and contain the greatness of Your exaltedness, for there is no limit and measure to You — how much less this house that I have built!139I Kings 8:27. 'Y’chalkeil' his words rightfully140Psalms 112:5. means that he is not a fool who spendeth all his spirit,141Proverbs 29:11. but holds his words within himself when necessary, and uses them as necessary. 'Vay’chalkeil Yoseiph'142Genesis 47:12. means that Joseph gave them as much food as they could hold; he gave neither too much nor too little, but bread according to the want of their little ones.143See Ramban on Genesis 41:48 (Vol. I, p. 507) that Joseph had gathered all food essential to life “even figs, fresh and dried, etc.” Now of this kind of food he gave his family abundantly, but bread he gave them according to the want of their little ones (Genesis 47:12). And such is the explanation of all [other similar expressions].
But Onkelos’ opinion [who translated umenakiyothav — umechilathei] is not clear. Perhaps menakiyothav is in the opinion of Onkelos a term for measures, since they had [in the Tabernacle and later in the Sanctuary] a measure holding two tenth parts [of an ephah] flour, with which to measure one cake,144Leviticus 24:5. and they did not measure it twice with the one tenth measure of the meal-offering. We must then say that Onkelos differs from the Mishnah which teaches:145Menachoth 87a. “There were two dry-measures in the Sanctuary: the tenth, and the half-tenth” [of an ephah], and in his opinion there were three dry-measures: the tenth, the half-tenth, and the two tenths.
The correct interpretation of Onkelos’ opinion appears to me to be that mechila is the form (mould) made for the dough, just as the Rabbis have said:146Ibid., 94a. “There were in the Tabernacle three moulds [for the showbread]: he placed it in a mould whilst it was still dough; when baked in the oven it was put in another mould, and when he took it out he placed it in a [third] frame so that it should not spoil.”147The first and third moulds were made of gold; the one for the oven was an iron mould. This [third] frame which was used so that it should not spoil did not have to be shaped to the form of the bread and its size; instead, it was made like a sort of dish to support the sides of the bread, this being the ke’arothav mentioned in the verse. But the first mould for the dough was shaped to the form of the bread and its size, namely, ten [handbreadths] long and five wide, and its horns148Small pieces of dough were put on the four corners of each of the breads (Menachoth 96 a). seven fingerbreadths [high]. Into this mould the dough was put, measured and shaped to fit its form, and for this reason it was called mechila because it was made to “the measure.” The term menakiyoth then [according to Onkelos] is a name just like ephah and s’ah [a third of the ephah measure is a s’ah], similar, to ke’arothav and ksothav and other nouns which are not descriptive. Perhaps those just measures which are called a just ephah, and a just hin,149Leviticus 19:36. and termed menakiyoth [of the root naki — clean] because they are clean of any falsehood, and thus they clear their owners of any cheating and sin. And ksavoth is a general term covering the canes [which were put between one loaf and another] and the trestles [notched in five places upon which the canes separating the loaves rested]. Perhaps because of their notches they were so called [ksavoth], with the letter tzade [ktzavoth — sides, corners] being used instead of the letter sin [ksavoth], this word [ksavoth] being similar to [the word ktzavoth found in the following verse]: so that they that dwell in ‘ktzavoth’ (the uttermost parts) stand in awe of Thy signs,150Psalms 65:9. by interchanging the letter tzade with the sin, just like in the word s’chok [“laughter,” which is the word tzchok].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “There is an error in Chronicles,151I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. for in speaking of the vessels of the table in place of ke’aroth [mentioned here] it writes mizrakoth (basins); in place of kapoth [mentioned here] it writes kiporim (bowls); ksavoth is mentioned there as here; and in the place of menakiyoth it speaks of mizlagoth (forks). And all these were made of gold for the purpose of the table [and yet we do not find the mizrakoth, kiporim, and mizlagoth mentioned here in connection with the table in the Tabernacle]! Perhaps these were other vessels which David commanded to be placed on the tables152II Chronicles 4:8. which his son Solomon would make, but the table in the Tent of Meeting did not have these vessels.” The error, however, is in Rabbi Abraham’s words, [not in the Book of Chronicles], for that which Scripture states, and the forks, and the basins, and the jars of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl,151I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. is not connected only with the tables of showbread153I Chronicles 28:16. [mentioned in the preceding verse], but it reverts back to that which Scripture stated [several verses above], and for all the work of the service of the house of the Eternal, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Eternal.154Ibid., Verse 13. And then it continues, of gold, for all vessels of every kind of service,155Ibid., Verse 14. and then it mentioned, and the forks, and the basins151I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. which are vessels of the altar, and the jars for the table, and the bowls for the altar. And finally it stated, and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight,156Ibid., Verse 18. concluding: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.157Ibid., Verse 19. Thus David [in speaking to his son Solomon] included all needs of the Sanctuary.
But Onkelos’ opinion [who translated umenakiyothav — umechilathei] is not clear. Perhaps menakiyothav is in the opinion of Onkelos a term for measures, since they had [in the Tabernacle and later in the Sanctuary] a measure holding two tenth parts [of an ephah] flour, with which to measure one cake,144Leviticus 24:5. and they did not measure it twice with the one tenth measure of the meal-offering. We must then say that Onkelos differs from the Mishnah which teaches:145Menachoth 87a. “There were two dry-measures in the Sanctuary: the tenth, and the half-tenth” [of an ephah], and in his opinion there were three dry-measures: the tenth, the half-tenth, and the two tenths.
The correct interpretation of Onkelos’ opinion appears to me to be that mechila is the form (mould) made for the dough, just as the Rabbis have said:146Ibid., 94a. “There were in the Tabernacle three moulds [for the showbread]: he placed it in a mould whilst it was still dough; when baked in the oven it was put in another mould, and when he took it out he placed it in a [third] frame so that it should not spoil.”147The first and third moulds were made of gold; the one for the oven was an iron mould. This [third] frame which was used so that it should not spoil did not have to be shaped to the form of the bread and its size; instead, it was made like a sort of dish to support the sides of the bread, this being the ke’arothav mentioned in the verse. But the first mould for the dough was shaped to the form of the bread and its size, namely, ten [handbreadths] long and five wide, and its horns148Small pieces of dough were put on the four corners of each of the breads (Menachoth 96 a). seven fingerbreadths [high]. Into this mould the dough was put, measured and shaped to fit its form, and for this reason it was called mechila because it was made to “the measure.” The term menakiyoth then [according to Onkelos] is a name just like ephah and s’ah [a third of the ephah measure is a s’ah], similar, to ke’arothav and ksothav and other nouns which are not descriptive. Perhaps those just measures which are called a just ephah, and a just hin,149Leviticus 19:36. and termed menakiyoth [of the root naki — clean] because they are clean of any falsehood, and thus they clear their owners of any cheating and sin. And ksavoth is a general term covering the canes [which were put between one loaf and another] and the trestles [notched in five places upon which the canes separating the loaves rested]. Perhaps because of their notches they were so called [ksavoth], with the letter tzade [ktzavoth — sides, corners] being used instead of the letter sin [ksavoth], this word [ksavoth] being similar to [the word ktzavoth found in the following verse]: so that they that dwell in ‘ktzavoth’ (the uttermost parts) stand in awe of Thy signs,150Psalms 65:9. by interchanging the letter tzade with the sin, just like in the word s’chok [“laughter,” which is the word tzchok].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “There is an error in Chronicles,151I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. for in speaking of the vessels of the table in place of ke’aroth [mentioned here] it writes mizrakoth (basins); in place of kapoth [mentioned here] it writes kiporim (bowls); ksavoth is mentioned there as here; and in the place of menakiyoth it speaks of mizlagoth (forks). And all these were made of gold for the purpose of the table [and yet we do not find the mizrakoth, kiporim, and mizlagoth mentioned here in connection with the table in the Tabernacle]! Perhaps these were other vessels which David commanded to be placed on the tables152II Chronicles 4:8. which his son Solomon would make, but the table in the Tent of Meeting did not have these vessels.” The error, however, is in Rabbi Abraham’s words, [not in the Book of Chronicles], for that which Scripture states, and the forks, and the basins, and the jars of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl,151I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. is not connected only with the tables of showbread153I Chronicles 28:16. [mentioned in the preceding verse], but it reverts back to that which Scripture stated [several verses above], and for all the work of the service of the house of the Eternal, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Eternal.154Ibid., Verse 13. And then it continues, of gold, for all vessels of every kind of service,155Ibid., Verse 14. and then it mentioned, and the forks, and the basins151I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. which are vessels of the altar, and the jars for the table, and the bowls for the altar. And finally it stated, and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight,156Ibid., Verse 18. concluding: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.157Ibid., Verse 19. Thus David [in speaking to his son Solomon] included all needs of the Sanctuary.