because of his age, Moshe can not more go out and come in. There is an apparent contradiction between this declaration of Moshe and the declaration at the end of parshat Vezot Haberacha that at 120 years old, Moshe retained his vigor:
Thus, Rashi opens things up by noting that in Vayelech, in the pasuk:
explanation of lo uchal, rather than an additional point. Then, Moshe cannot go out or come in, to take the Jews into Canaan, only because of Hashem's command. But of course he retained his vigor. Another explanation Rashi offers, on a more midrashic level, and based on Sotah 13b, is that the channels of transmission of Torah were closed to him, and that it what לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא means. Indeed, we would have to look more closely at it, but this apparent contradiction may in part be a source for that midrash.
Ibn Ezra appears to maintain that it refers to strength, but a particular kind of strength:
לצאת ולבוא -
במלחמה.
והטעם: כי אילו לא הייתי מת עתה, אין בי יכולת להלחם ואין לכם צורך למי שיעזור אתכם, כי השם ישמיד הגוים גם יהושע, והעד מה שראיתם בעיניכם במלחמת סיחון ועוג
Thus, now is his time to pass away, for if he did not, he does not have the ability to battle. But meanwhile, Hashem can help them via Yehoshua, as they have already seen.במלחמה.
והטעם: כי אילו לא הייתי מת עתה, אין בי יכולת להלחם ואין לכם צורך למי שיעזור אתכם, כי השם ישמיד הגוים גם יהושע, והעד מה שראיתם בעיניכם במלחמת סיחון ועוג
Perhaps his intent by making this about battle is that this is a different kind of vigor than the one described in Zos Habracha. And it certainly is plausible.
Seforno makes this about vigor (it would seem), but still manages to disconnect it from the 120 years old. He writes:
Thus, there are three points. He is 120, and thus his years have run out; even if he would live further, he would not be able לָצֵאת וְלָבא before them in his old age; and finally, even if he would have the ability, Hashem has decreed otherwise.בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנכִי הַיּום. וְאֵין לְהִתְעַצֵּב עַל מִיתָתִי, שֶׁלּא הָיִיתִי רָאוּי לִחְיות עוד בַּטֶּבַע.
לא אוּכַל עוד לָצֵאת וְלָבא. וְגַם אִם הָיִיתִי חַי, לא הָיִיתִי יָכול לָצֵאת וְלָבא לִפְנֵיכֶם בְּזִקְנוּתִי.
וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי לא תַעֲבר. וְגַם אִם הָיִיתִי יָכול לָצֵאת וְלָבא, הִנֵּה "ה' אָמַר אֵלַי לא תַעֲבר", וְאִם כֵּן טוב לָכֶם שֶׁאָמוּת כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוּכְלוּ לַעֲבר
The addition of לפניכם might well connote "in battle." But also, perhaps we can read this as that up to this point, he did have the vigor. But going forwards, if he would continue to live, he would not.
(Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (here, page 249, but you need a plugin to view these pages) has something similar to Seforno and Ibn Ezra. He says "if I would continue to live, I would not have the strength to go out in battle.)
Ramban writes:
Thus, besides giving his own interpretation, he lists the other interpretations of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and declared them incorrect. He has a bit more respect for the midrash from Sotah 13b which Rashi cited -- he cites it separately, and says this was bemaaseh nes, but he does not declare it incorrect, as he did to Rashi and Ibn Ezra. The midrash, perhaps, sits on a different plane. It does not contradict his words, and can be said to be a midrash simulaneously true with whatever peshat one decides upon. Also, perhaps it would be disrespectful (heretical?) to declare to midrash incorrect.ב): ויאמר אלהם בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום -
וזה לנחם אותם על ענינו, כלומר אני זקן ואין לכם עוד תועלת ממני, ועוד כי השם ציוני שלא אעבור שם. ואל תפחדו ואל תיראו, כי ה' יעבור עמכם לא יסלק שכינתו מכם בעבורי, ויהושע הוא העובר לפניכם במקומי. ואע"פ שמשה רבנו היה בתקפו ובבריאותו, כאשר העיד הכתוב (להלן לד ז): לא כהתה עינו ולא נס לחה, אמר להם כן לנחמם.
ורש"י כתב:
לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבוא לפי שה' אמר אלי לא תעבור את הירדן.ואינו נכון.
ועל דעת ר"א:
לצאת ולבוא למלחמה כי חלשו כוחותיו בזקנותו.וגם זה איננו נכון.
ורבותינו אמרו (סוטה יג ב):
מלמד שנסתתמו ממנו מעיינות חכמה.והיה זה במעשה נס, שלא ידאג לתת גדולה ליהושע בפניו:
At any rate, we see from this that Ibn Ezra indeed intended the vigor of battle to be a harmonization, and we see that Ramban dismisses it.
Instead, Ramban declares that it is indeed a contradiction, but this was Moshe comforting the people, and so he was not entirely truthful in the nechama. And as I suggested before, Ramban is not about to say the Narrator was lying in the eulogy. Ramban makes good sense on a peshat level -- understand the words within the context of their role, and in terms of the general theme of the verses.
Shadal does not really offer a resolution to the apparent contradiction. Though he does take sides in the Ibn Ezra / Ramban debate. Thus:
לא אוכל וגו ': לא אמר : להוציאכם ולהביאכם , או : לצאת לפניכם ולבא לפניכם , אלא : לצאת ולבוא סתם , והוא כמו וצאתך ובואך ידעתי ( מ"ב י"ט כ"ז וישעיה ל"ז כ"ח ), ענינו להתנועע ולפעול בזריזות .
Thus, the pasuk does not state לפניכם, as in the words used by Seforno. And it does not state "to take you out and to bring you in" (as a transitive, where Moshe is taking them), but rather plainly, to go in and out. He gives examples of this usage in Melachim Bet and Yeshaya.
In Melachim Bet:
| כז וְשִׁבְתְּךָ וְצֵאתְךָ וּבֹאֲךָ, יָדָעְתִּי; וְאֵת, הִתְרַגֶּזְךָ אֵלָי. | 27 But I know thy sitting down, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy raging against Me. |
| כח וְשִׁבְתְּךָ וְצֵאתְךָ וּבוֹאֲךָ, יָדָעְתִּי; וְאֵת, הִתְרַגֶּזְךָ אֵלָי. | 28 But I know thy sitting down, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy raging against Me. |
This would reinstate the contradiction. But then we could apply some other method of resolution, such as that this is going forward, or Ramban that this is for the purpose of nechama.
No comments:
Post a Comment