עיין גם בגיליון קרח תשי"ט שעסק אף הוא בהפטרה.
See also the worksheet from 1959 that also dealt with the haftara.
| א. "את שור מי לקחתי" |
| A. “Or whose donkey have I taken” |
"Behold, here I am: answer me before the Lord, and before his anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed?"
אמר רב אבא בר כהנא: קשה הוא הגזל, ששני גדולי עולם הוצרכו להתווכח עליו, משה ושמואל: משה אמר (במדבר ט"ז) "לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי..." ושמואל אמר: "את שור מי לקחתי וכו'". ... ור' יהושע דסכנין בשם ר' לוי: וכי מה הניח משה לקפחין ולגנבים? אלא אמר משה: בשעה שהיה ישראל מתנדדין ממסע למסע, לא אמרתי לאחד מהם: "טול כלי זה בידך! טול כלי זה על חמורך", אלא נשאתי וטענתי. כמה את אומר (שמות ד' כ') "ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וכו'".
Midrash Shmuel 14
Rav Abba bar Kahana said, “Weighty is theft, as two greats of the world needed to argue about it – Moses and Samuel: Moses said, ‘I have not carried off one of their donkeys…’ (Numbers 16:15); and Samuel said, ‘or whose donkey have I taken, etc.’”… And Rabbi Yehoshua of Sakhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi [said], “And what did Moses leave over for the extortionists and thieves? Rather Moses said, ‘At the time that Israel was wandering from [one] journey to [another], I did not say to one of them, “Take this vessel in your hand; take this vessel on your donkey.” Rather I lifted it and loaded it [myself].’ As you would say (Exodus 4:20), ‘And Moses took his wife and his sons, etc.’”
1. Explain the meaning of the expression, “Weighty is theft.”
2. Explain the sense of Rabbi Levi’s question, “And what did Moses leave over….” And what is his approach in resolving this question?
| ב. מנהיגי ישראל - הקלים והחמורים |
| B. Leaders of Israel – The Lightweight and the Consequential |
"And the Lord sent Yerubba῾al, and Bedan, and Yiftaĥ, and Shemu᾽el"
(1) יְרֻבַּעַל. This is Gideon. (2) Bedan. This is Shimshon who came from the tribe of Don. (3) And Yiphtoch. Here are three insignificant leaders with three world-important leaders: Moshe, Aharon and Shmuel, to teach you that the insignificant leader in his generation is equal to the important leader in his generation. Every court which is appointed over the generation, must be followed as though its [members] were the mightiest of the nobility.
To explain to them that it was from the many kindnesses of God, may He be blessed, that He sometimes saved Israel from their enemies through those not very refined, even though they were not so fit for this on their own, like the matter with Yerubaal and Jephthah - for Yerubaal was an idolater when God called to him to save Israel; and we also did not see that Jephthah had a great virtue beside his power - and sometimes He saved them with the very refined, like the matter with Bedan and Samuel. And that is because we find that Bedan - who was Samson - was of the refined. For God, may He be blessed, had already performed a wonder through him. And when he called to God, He answered him. And this indicates his refinement and his being, in a certain respect, on the level of the prophets. For God, may He be blessed, does not perform wonders except through those fitting - as we have explained in the sixth Chapter of the Wars of God. And, of course, the refinement of Samuel is very, very clear. And this was from great Divine Providence over Israel. For when it was possible that there was a refined man among them through which He could do a miracle, He would raise him over them as a Judge and save them through him. But when there was no man with this description among them, He would also save them - [but] through one not refined, even though he is not fitting for this - on account of His providence over Israel. And it is as if he said this to teach them that they would not need a king to fight their wars, but rather the Lord, God of Israel, is their king; and He will save them when they return to Him - as He did in the days of the Judges, for He sent them Judges to save them [then]. But if they go away from the ways of the Torah, a king will not help them. Rather the hand of the Lord will be against them, as it was with their forefathers.
אברבנאל:
(אחרי הביאו דברי הדרש המובא ברש"י:) אבל כפי הפשט זכרם כפי מעלתם בנבואה ובנסים, ...וזכר בכאן שפעמים צעקו ישראל בזמן המלחמות ושלח לפניהם שופטים, והזכיר מהם ארבעה, אשר עלו על לבו ראשונה ואשר רוח ה' דיבר בם והיו יותר קרובים למעלת הנבואה, להודיע כי גם באותו הזמן לא הקים להם מלכים כי אם נביאים ושופטים. ואפשר לומר עוד, שזכר מהשופטים אחד נביא ממדרגה שפלה כירובעל גדעון, ואחד נפעם השכל כשמשון, ואחד משכיל ונבון כיפתח ולא נביא, ואחד נביא מובהק כשמואל, וזכר אם כן כל מיני השופטים: נביא קטן – גדעון; נביא גדול – שמואל; שופט משכיל – יפתח; שופט סכל – שמשון. וזה להודיע , שאין מעצור לה' להושיע ברב או במעט, בנביא מובהק או נביא קטן המעלה, שופט חכם או שופט סכל ונפעם התבונה.
Abarbanel:
(After citing the words of the homily brought in Rashi): But according to the plain sense, he mentioned them according to their levels in prophecy and miracles…. And he mentioned [them] here, since sometimes Israel yelled out at the time of wars; and He sent them Judges [to serve] in front of them. And he mentioned four that come to his [mind] first and through which the spirit of the Lord spoke and were closer to the level of prophecy; to inform [them] that also at that time, he did not raise kings for them but rather prophets and Judges. And it is also possible to say further that he mentioned of the Judges: One prophet from a low level, like Yerubaal-Gideon; one whose mind was inspired, like Samson; one who was discerning and understanding like Jephthah; and one who was a prophet par excellence, like Samuel. And if so, he mentioned all types of Judges: A minor prophet - Gideon; a great prophet - Samuel; a discerning Judge - Jephthah; a foolish Judge - Samson. And this is to show that there is nothing preventing God from saving with the great or the small; a prophet par excellence or a prophet of minor stature; a wise Judge or a foolish Judge [only] inspired by understanding.
1. What is the difficulty; and what is the difference between the four answers mentioned above?
2. Explain the highlighted sections in Ralbag.
3. What is the difficulty that Ralbag resolves with his last words ("as it was with their forefathers")?
| ג. המדבר בגוף נסתר |
C. The Speaker in Third Person
"And the Lord sent Yerubba῾al, and Bedan, and Yiftaĥ, and Shemu᾽el"
S.v. And Samuel:... This is a customary usage [found] in many places. And homiletically: Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Zimrah, "Even Samuel, the teacher of the prophets, prophesies and does not know what he prophesies, as it is stated, 'And the Lord sent Yerubbaal, and Bedan, and Jephthah, and Samuel'... since he did not know what he was prophesying."
1. What is his difficulty in our verse?
2. What is the customary usage to which he hints? Give an example from among the "many places" in which we found this customary usage.
3. What is the difference between the first explanation and the second explanation?
4. What is the weakness of the first answer?
5. Are you able to resolve this difficulty in our verse with a different resolution, according to the plain meaning of Scripture?
| ד. בביאור "והייתם גם אתם" וכו' |
| D. Explanation of "and you shall be, both you, etc." |
" and if both you and also the king that reigns over you"
Moshe Tsvi Segal (on the Book of Samuel) explains our verse according to II Samuel 5:8 and Exodus 32:32.
1. Explain what the difficulty is in our verse.
2. How is the difficulty resolved according to the two verses mentioned above?
3. Is it possible to resolve this difficulty in a different way?
| ה. "לא חמור אחד מהם" - מבנה תחבירי |
| E. Syntactic Structure of "not one of their donkeys" |
"And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: ‘Respect not thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.’"
לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי. לֹא חֲמוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָטַלְתִּי.
לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי means, I have not taken the ass of any one of them; —
לָא חֲמָרָא דְחַד מִנְהוֹן שְׁחָרִית.
Not the donkey of one of them did I requisition.
... כי מעולם לא לקחתי מהם אפילו חמור אחד לעשות צרכי...
... For never did I take even one donkey from them for my needs...
... שלא קיבלתי מהם אפילו חמור אחד בהשאלה...
... For I did not accept even one donkey from them as a loan...
ר' וולף היידנהיים, (בפירושו "הבנת המקרא" על רש"י):
כוונתו מבואר, שאין אחד תואר לחמור עד שיתפרש "לא נשאתי מהם חמור אחד" – וכמו שפירשו המפרשים – אבל הוא תואר השם בעצמו ו-"חמור" סמוך עליו... (בהמשך מצטט רוו"ה את דברי רשב"ם וחזקוני שטענו שלפי רש"י היה לו לנקד "אחד" בשני פתחים). והיא באמת טענה גדולה, שיהיה "אחד מהם" שבראשית הפסוק שווה בטעם אל "אחד מהם" שבסופו, אף על פי שהם משונים בניקוד... שכן לעיקר מדקדק לעברי אין לו אלא פירוש רש"י ז"ל, שהוא מיוסד בדקדוק התיבה. גם הוא מקויים מבעל הטעמים שהפריד תיבת "מהם" מן "נשאתי" וחיבר אותה אל "אחד". ואילו לפירוש רשב"ם היה לו להטעים "לא-חמור אחד מהם נשאתי" (בטעמים: מהפך פשטא מונח זקף קטן). ולכן גם אונקלוס הסכים עם רש"י... (בהמשך מסביר רוו"ה בהרחבה יתרה, שישנן שתי צורות יסודיות של "אחד": משקל כבד ומשקל קל. ומסיים:) הרי לך מבואר, שאין פירושו "לא חמור של שום איש מהם נשאתי" אלא "לא חמור של המיוחד מהם נשאתי" והיינו ההקדש. וזכינו לדין שפירושי רש"י ורז"ל הם בהירים ומדקדקים למעיינים בם הדק היטב. והם מיוסדים בעיקר על הלשון יותר מכל פירושי זולתו. לכך הפוך בהם ומהם לא תזוע.
Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim (In his commentary, Havanat HaMikra, on Rashi):
His intention is clear; that "one" is not a description of "donkey," such that it would be understood: "I did not pick up one donkey from them" - as the commentators explained. But rather it is a description of a noun in itself; and "donkey" is in construct state (smikhut) relative to it... (And in the continuation, R. W. Heidenheim quotes the words of Rashbam and Chizkuni who argue that according to Rashi, "one" [echad] should have been vocalized with two patachs [achad]). And that is truly a great argument. For [how is it, that] "one of them" at the beginning of the verse has the same understanding as "one of them" at its end, even though they are vocalized differently... As in general, one who is exacting about Hebrew grammar has no commentary [to rely upon] besides Rashi, may his memory be blessed - which is based on the grammar of the word. It is also supported [here] by the author of the cantillation marks, who separated between the words, "of them," and "picked up," but connected ["of them"] to "one." Whereas according to the explanation of Rashbam, it should have been [cantillated], "Not the one donkey of them did I pick up" (as one phrase; with the cantillaton marks - mahpach, pashta, munach, zakef katan). And hence the [Aramaic] translation of Onkelos agrees with Rashi... (In the continuation, R. W. Heidenheim explains at great length that there are two basic forms of "one": The heavy form and the light form. And he concludes:) Behold it is clear to you that its explanation is not, "I have not lifted the donkey of any man from among them." Rather, it is "I have not lifted the donkey from the Unique (Meyuchad) one of them" - which is sanctified property. And we have merited to determine that the explanations of Rashi and the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, are clear and exact for those that look into them with 'proper precision.' And they are generally based more on the language than any of the other commentaries. Hence, 'turn them over' and 'from them do not move.'
1. Explain the words of Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim.
2. Why do the cantillation marks support Rashi's explanation.?