Kommentar zu Bamidbar 7:96

ויהי ביום כלות משה AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE DAY THAT MOSES HAD FINISHED [RAISING THE TABERNACLE] — The word כלות is written defective (without ו after the ל) thus indicating: on the day that the Tabernacle was erected Israel was like a bride (כלה) who goes beneath the marriage canopy (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 20). (Cf. Rashi on Exodus 31:18.)

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE DAY THAT MOSES HAD FINISHED SETTING UP THE TABERNACLE. “Scripture does not say ‘on the day that Moses set up’ [but it states ‘on the day that Moses had finished setting up’]. This teaches us that on each of the seven days of initiation [of the priests] Moses erected and dismantled the Tabernacle, and on that day [the eighth day] he erected it but did not dismantle it. Therefore it says, on the day that Moses had finished setting up the Tabernacle, since it was on that day that he finished all his erections. This happened on the first of Nisan; on the second day the Red Heifer was burnt, on the third day they sprinkled [upon the Levites]¹²⁵Further, 8:7. the first sprinkling [of the water of purification in which the ashes of the Red Heifer were mingled],¹²⁶Ibid., 19:12. and on the seventh day [of Nisan, after having been sprinkled again]¹²⁶Ibid., 19:12. the Levites were shaven¹²⁵Further, 8:7. [and were ready to be initiated into their service].” This is Rashi’s language on the basis of the words of our Rabbis¹²⁷Sifre Naso 44. of blessed memory. But it is not a complete proof [that Moses set up the Tabernacle and dismantled it again on each of the seven days of initiation], for the expression on the day that he had finished is not connected only with the word l’hakim (setting up), but [its meaning is rather as follows]: “on the day that Moses had finished setting up the Tabernacle and anointing and sanctifying it, and [doing likewise to] the altar and all the vessels thereof — the princes offered their offerings, when all this was done.” Nonetheless [however we explain the verse], it was [indeed] on the eighth day [of the initiation of the priests].
This section was written here because on the first day of the initiation He called unto Moses out of the Tent of Meeting and G-d spoke to him¹²⁸Leviticus 1:1. all the sections [of the Torah] from the beginning of the Book of Leviticus until the section of Vayehi Bayom Ha’shemini,¹¹¹Leviticus 9:1. The verse referred to is ibid., 22. which all deal with the laws of the offerings. From that eighth day on Moses was told all the sections beginning with These are the beasts which ye may eat,¹²⁹Ibid., 11:2. which contain the laws of forbidden and permitted foods, since they are all related to the subject of the offerings, and these topics continued in their correct order up to this place [before us], as I have explained.¹³⁰In Exodus 40:2, and Leviticus 25:1. Thus when He had completed the commandments which Moses was ordered to say to Israel, all of them being laws of the Divine Service and the offerings, the charge of the Tent of Meeting and its Service, He reverted here afterwards to tell of the freewill offerings of the princes, which took place from the eighth day until the nineteenth day of Nisan,¹³¹This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba, who says that the first day of the initiation of the priests was the first of Nisan, and accordingly “the eighth day” [which marked the final erection of the Tabernacle] was on the eighth of Nisan. On that day the twelve princes began their offerings, and each one brought an offering on a separate day, so that they finished on the nineteenth of Nisan. or until the twelfth day of the month in accordance with the words of our Rabbis.¹³²This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and is also the finally agreed opinion of the Rabbis in general. Hence the language of Ramban [“in accordance with the words of our Rabbis”]. According to this opinion, the Tabernacle was first put up on the twenty-third of Adar, and “the eighth day” was therefore the first of Nisan, so that the princes completed their offerings on the twelfth of Nisan. See further on this matter in my Hebrew commentary p. 217, and in Ramban, Vol. II, pp. 616-622.

ואת המזבח ואת כל כליו, and to erect the altar and all its appurtenances, each in its proper place.

ביום כלות משה, on the day Moses completed, etc. Rabbi Levi in Midrash Hagadol on our verse claims that the word כלות is written without the letter ו. In our editions of the Torah it is spelled with the letter ו. How is it possible that scribes could take liberties with the spelling of the Torah? Such a situation would lead to apostasy and a denigration of the respect in which the scholars are held! You should know that the text of our sacred Torah, including every vowel has been carefully counted. Every letter or even crown is sacred enabling us to derive meanings from it. Let me give you a small example of how important an even minute departure from the accepted spelling would be. There are letters which are noticed only by the way they are pronounced, letters which do not even appear in the written text. An example of such a letter is the letter ו before the final ע in the word יהושע. When pronounced properly, we hear that there is a vowel shuruk which does not appear in the written text. On the other hand, such a vowel does appear in the written text in the same word between the letter ה and ש although it cannot be heard when we read the word aloud. This little example ought to alert the intelligent student to the fact that there can never be a question of altering the spelling in the written Torah such as adding a letter ו in the word כלות in our verse, even if only to ensure that the word would be pronounced correctly. If the Torah decided to write a letter ו in a place where we would not have expected it it serves to alert us to hidden meanings in the text. It may have been the intention of the Torah to include three letters of the holy name of G'd in the name of the righteous יהושע. If the Torah had written the letter ו before the letter ע and had omitted the letter ו after the letter ה, we would not have noticed that the Torah had intended to include the first three letters of the tetragram in the name of Joshua. When our sages speak about the word כלות being written without the letter ו, they mean that the letter ו which does appear in the text is to be viewed there as if it were only "on loan." The intelligent student will appreciate that this was the mystical dimension of Moses on whom was fulfilled the verse in Jeremiah 31,21 that נקבה תסובב גבר, that "the female will enclose the male." Moses' exclusive preoccupation with putting together the Tabernacle is alluded to in the word כלות a reference to the "groom-bride" relationship between him and the Tabernacle. When the Midrash says that the word כלות is spelled כלת, the author merely wishes to draw our attention to this relationship of bride and groom. The physical presence of the letter ו in the written text is an allusion to Moses, the גבר, i.e. the male. Inserting the ו into the word כלת is a clear indication of the male-female relationship between the two. No human being has the right to make up such an explanation out of his own mind. Such interpretations are traditional and reflect inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

ויהי ביום כלות משה, “It was on the day that Moses completed, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning of the word כלות, completing, as opposed to הקים erecting, is to tell us that on the first day when the Tabernacle was put up to become functional, i.e. on the seventh day of the מילואים, the consecration rites, Moses did not dismantle the Tabernacle as he had done on the previous days. Whereas G’d had spoken to Moses on the first of those seven days from inside the Tabernacle and He communicated to him all the chapters of the Torah beginning with the first chapter of Leviticus. He issued all the laws about the sacrifices, both animal and meal offerings. On the eighth day of the consecration rites, i.e. after their conclusion, G’d communicated to Moses the legislation about what may and may not be eaten (Leviticus chapter 11) All these laws contain some aspects of the legislation pertaining to sacrificial offerings, the maintenance of the Tabernacle, and the service to be performed in it by the priests. Having dealt with these aspects, the Torah proceeds to describe the donations of the people and the princes that enabled the Tabernacle to have been erected. The donations of the princes were brought between the 8th and the 19th day of Nissan.

ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, “It was on the day Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle, etc.” This chapter was written after the priests had bestowed their blessing on the people, i.e. in chronological order. On the day Aaron raised his hands over the people in blessing them the inauguration of the Altar commenced. This verse is proof of the opinion expressed in Sifri Nasso 43 that during the seven preceding days Moses erected and dismantled the Tabernacle each day.

Because he utterly dedicated. It appears that Rashi is answering the question: The notation above the words “Moshe finished” separate it from the words “erecting the Mishkon” meaning that “Moshe finished” is not to be read together with “erecting the Mishkon” and it is as if they are two separate topics. But what two topics could there be here? Rather one must say that the verse is to be explained as saying “It came to pass on the day that Moshe finished the making of the Mishkon and the erection of the Mishkon”. Thus Rashi asks “Betzalel and all the wise-hearted men…” He answers that “because he utterly dedicated himself…” With this one may answer the widely asked question: The verse merely attributes the erection of the Mishkon to Moshe, and he did this alone as is written previously in Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 39:33) Maharai explains that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah should have merely said “It came to pass, on the day Moshe erected the Mishkon. …

Kap. 7. V. 1. Wie wir bereits zum Eingange dieses vierten Buches bemerkt, schloss sich der Inhalt des ganzen dritten Buches der Errichtung des Heiligtums an, mit welchem das zweite Buch geendet hatte, indem es die Gesetze der Heiligung lehrte, welche das Heiligtum und das Gesetzeszeugnis, dem es errichtet war, als Aufgabe unseres Lebens setzen. Dieses vierte Buch hat nun das Verhältnis und das Verhalten der Nation zu diesem Gesetzesheiligtume zum Inhalt, und hatten die ersten sechs Kapitel die Gesamtnation in allen ihren Gliedern, Familien und Stämmen durch Zählung jedes einzelnen für den Dienst des Heiligtums berufen gezeigt, hatten sie dann in ihrer näheren und ferneren Gliederung — כהנים ,לויים ישראל — um das Heiligtum als ihren gemeinsamen Mittelpunkt geschart, hatten die Wirkung dieses heiligen Mittelpunkts auf die es umkreisende dreigliedrige nationale Umgebung symbolisch in שלוח מחנות, konkret in סוטה ,גזל הגר und נזיר vergegenwärtigt, und endlich die in der plastischen Darstellung des Heiligtums und seines Inhalts gegebenen Verheißungen einer die Gottesgegenwart bezeugenden nationalen Heilesblüte im täglichen Ausspruch des Priestersegens, ברכת כהנים, zum Ausdruck gebracht.

ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, “it was on the daythat Moses had completed erecting the Tabernacle;” the Torah here refers to chapter 4,116. The Torah there had discussed the tasks allocated to the sons of Kehat which needed to be performed by carrying the furnishings on their shoulders. Now it turns to discussing the tasks of the sons of Gershon and Merari, which could not be performed by carrying on their shoulders, and which needed to be transported on the wagons donated by the princes. The subject of consecrating the altar follows that of the priests, to teach that on the day that Aaron raised his hands in blessing the Jewish nation, this was followed immediately by the consecration of the altar. (Ibn Ezra)

כלות משה MOSES HAD FINISHED — Bezalel and Ohaliab and all the wise-hearted men made the Tabernacle (cf. Exodus 36:1), but Scripture attributes it to Moses (describes it as his work), because he devoted himself wholeheartedly to it, to see that the shape of each article was exactly as He had shewn him on the mountain — to show the workmen how it should be made; nor did he err in a single shape. — A similar thing do we find in the case of David: because he devoted himself to the building of the Holy Temple, — as it is said, (Psalms 132:1—5) “Lord, remember David, and all his affliction: How he swore unto the Lord … [I will not give sleep to mine eyes … until I find out a place for the Lord …]”, therefore it is called by his name, as it is said, (1 Kings 12:16) “Now see your own house, David" (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 13).

VAYIMSHACHEIM’ (AND HE HAD ANOINTED THEM), ‘VAYEKADEISH’ (AND SANCTIFIED) THEM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that “Moses anointed them with the oil of anointment, and sanctified them by [sprinkling upon them] the blood of the sin-offering, as it is said there, and he purified the altar, and poured out the remaining blood at the base of the altar, and sanctified it, to make atonement upon it. ”¹³³Leviticus 8:15. But it is not so, for it is likewise said about the Tabernacle [in the verse before us], and he had anointed it, and sanctified it and all its vessels, and yet the Tabernacle was not sanctified by means of [sprinkling upon it] the blood and any offering. Rather, the meaning [of the phrase vayimshacheim vayekadeish otham] is that “he anointed them in order [thereby] to sanctify them.”

וימשחם ויקדש אותם, after each component had been positioned in the place assigned to it.

ואת המזבח ואת כל כליו, “and the altar and all its appurtenances.” Conceptually, these words belong to the beginning of our verse, i.e. להקים, Moses did not only erect the Tabernacle on that day but also the altar etc., as he had been doing for the previous seven days. He also performed the anointing, etc. all on that day.

On the second the [red] cow was burned. Rashi wished to answer this so that you would not ask: Didn’t the Levites begin their service immediately after the erection of the Mishkon as is written shortly? How would they be permitted to do this, since they were impure due to contact with a corpse and could not be purified since the red cow has not yet been burned? One cannot say that the cow was burned before the erection of the Mishkon because concerning its sprinkling in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:4) the Torah writes “opposite the face of the tent” implying that the Mishkon has already been erected when it was slaughtered. He answers “on the second, the cow was burned…” thus it emerges that they were purified on the seventh.

Dieses siebente Kapitel greift nun etwas zurück auf den bereits im Schmot Kap. 40, 17 genannten Tag der definitiven Errichtung des Heiligtums, den ersten Nissan des zweiten Jahres, an welchen auch bereits das Kap. 9, 1 des dritten Buches wieder angeknüpft, und den der Anfang dieses Buches nur um einen Monat überschritten hatte, um durch die Zählung, Gliederung, Lagerung und die sich diesen anschließenden Gesetzesgruppen die durch dies errichtete Heiligtum veranlassten Anordnungen zu vollenden. Es greift dieses Kapitel auf jenen Tag der Errichtung des Heiligtums zurück, um nun diesen Anordnungen gegenüber zu berichten, wie selbst vor Erlass dieser Anordnungen, wie gleich am Tage der Errichtung des Heiligtums, die Stammesfürsten der Nation ihre Stellung zu diesem Heiligtum begriffen und in welcher Weise sie dieses Bewusstsein und diese Gesinnung betätigten.

וימשח אותו, “and he had anointed it;” having done so it became holy, i.e. ויקדש אותו. Our sages in the TalmudSh’vuot, folio 15 state that all the vessels which Moses anointed became holy through the act of having been anointed. They were ready for immediate use.

כלות משה להקים [AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE DAY] THAT MOSES HAD FINISHED SETTING UP [THE TABERNACLE] — but it is not said, “on the day Moses set up”; this (the phrase כלות … להקים, “had finished setting up”) teaches us that during each of the seven days of installation Moses used to erect and dismantle it (the Tabernacle), but on that day (the eighth) he erected it but did not again dismantle it; for this reason it is said: “on the day that (Moses) finished setting up” — i.e. on that day his several erections of it came to an end. — It was the New Moon (the first day) of Nisan (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:1 and Note thereon), on the second the Red Heifer was burnt, on the third they (the Levites) were sprinkled for the first time with the water in which its ashes were mingled (cf. Rashi on 8:7), and on the seventh day, after having been again sprinkled, they shaved their bodies and were ready to enter on their duties (cf. 8:6—7) (Sifrei Bamidbar 44).

AND THE ALTAR AND ALL THE VESSELS THEREOF. This is connected with the beginning of the verse, [so that the sense thereof is as follows]: “and it came to pass on the day that Moses had finished setting up the Tabernacle [and the altar]¹³⁴Tur. In our editions of Ramban this phrase is missing, but the Tur’s reading is clearly correct. and all its vessels, and had anointed them and sanctified them — [that the princes of Israel offered etc.].”

וימשחם ויקדש אותם, “He anointed them and sanctified them.” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra writes that the anointing was done with the special oil for anointing described in Exodus chapter 30, whereas the “sanctification” was accomplished by taking the blood from the sin offering as we read in Leviticus 8,15ויחטא את המזבח ואת הדם יצק אל יסוד המזבח ויחטאהו לכפר עליו, “he purified the Altar; he poured the remaining blood upon the base of the Altar and he sanctified it to provide atonement for it.” Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra, basing himself on similar language used by the Torah when describing the sanctification of the Tabernacle, and at that sanctification there certainly was no blood involved. (Compare our verse above)

And on the seventh they were shaven. This is the shaving mentioned in Parshas Beha’alosecha (Bamidbar 8:7) “and they shall pass a razor over their entire bodies…”

ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים וגו׳ (siehe zu Schmot 40, 17 u. 18). — וימשח אתו וגו׳ (siehe zu Schmot 30, 23 — 29). — וימשחם ויקדש אתם, diese Wiederholung wird im ספרי also erläutert: וימשח אותו ויקדש אותו ואת כל כליו שומע אני ראשון ראשון שנמשח היה קדוש ת׳׳ל וימשחם ויקדש אותם מגיד שלא קדש אחד מהם עד שנמשחו כולם, die משיחת וקדושת אותו ואת כל כליו war erst vollendet vollzogen, als וימשחם ויקדש אותם, d.h. die Heiligung eines jeden Teiles des Heiligtums war erst durch die Heiligung des Ganzen vollzogen. Bildet doch das Gesamtheiligtum eine einheitliche Idee, die in ihrer Ganzheit jedem einzelnen Teile die Weihe seiner Bedeutung erteilt. Jeder Teil für sich allein ist in mangelhafter Einseitigkeit nicht fähig, Träger der seine Heiligkeit bedingenden Bestimmung zu sein. Die Heiligkeit jedes Teils ist durch das ergänzende Hinzukommen aller übrigen bedingt. Und ebenso kann das Ganze nicht eines selbst seiner letzten Teile entraten. Nichts ist für die Idee des Ganzen entbehrlich, nichts bedeutungslos. Alles zusammen ist die plastische Darstellung des Satzes: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם. Wie aber ein Satz keines Wortes, keiner Silbe, keines Buchstabens entraten kann, hinwieder aber kein Buchstabe, keine Silbe, kein Wort für sich allein bedeutungsvoll ist: also ist auch das Heiligtum ein symbolisches Satzganzes, in welchem das Ganze keines Teiles und kein Teil des Ganzen entbehren kann.

אתו ואת כל כליו ואת המזבח ואת כל כליו, es ist hier das Gesamtheiligtum in seinen beiden Hauptbestandteilen bezeichnet: משכן וכל כליו vergegenwärtigt die Aufgabe, (חצר) מזבח וכל כליו den Weg zur Lösung dieser Aufgabe.

להקים את המשכן, “to erect the Tabernacle.” Although the erection of the Tabernacle is credited by the Torah to Moses, the fact is that it erected itself, as we know from Exodus 40,17 הוקם המשכן, “the Tabernacle had been erected.” The Torah had not attributed this to any human being or combination of human beings.
A Midrashic comment based on Tanchuma Nasso 14: the words “to erect the Tabernacle,” are reminiscent of Numbers 24,5 "how goodly are you tents o Yaakov, your sanctuaries, o Israel.” If Bileam mentioned אהליך “your tents,” why did he also have to mention משכנותיך, “your sanctuaries?” The answer given is that the "tents” Bileam referred to were the various locations commencing in the desert where the temporary structure, the Tabernacle would be located. The word משכנותיך, is to be read slightly differently, i.e. משכונותיך, from the word משכון, “pledge, collateral.” The presence of the Tabernacle (containing the Shechinah) in the midst of the Jewish people was to be their pledge that they would be loyal to G’d. Remember that history bears out that this is exactly what happened. When the Jewish people sinned we experienced retribution as described already in Psalms 78,21 and 60. The forsaking of the Tabernacle in Shiloh in that latter verse was a direct consequence of the people’s failure to live up to their part of the bargain.
Another meaning of the words: “to erect the Tabernacle.” According to Rabbi Simon, at the time G’d gave instructions to the Jewish people to erect the Tabernacle, He instructed the angels in the celestial spheres to do something commensurate so that a celestial Sanctuary was established at the same time as the Tabernacle on earth. The celestial Sanctuary is the Tabernacle of the נער whose name is Mattatron. In that Sanctuary the souls of the righteous are being offered in order for them to atone for their errant brethren, the sinners of the Jewish people during the period the latter are in exile. This is why the Torah wrote את המשכן the word את alluding to the other Sanctuary which had been erected simultaneously. This is also the reason for the words מכון לשבתך פעלת ה',”the foundation of Your dwelling-place Hashem” (Exodus 15,17). Thus far the Midrash.

הם נשיאי המטת THESE ARE THE LEADERS OF THE TRIBES — They were the officers [appointed] over them in Egypt, and they were beaten on account of them, as it says (Exodus 5:14),“The officers of the children of Israel were beaten” (Sifrei Bamidbar 45).

הם נשיאי המטות, הם העומדים על הפקודים. Seeing they all occupied official positions the gift/offering each one brought was on behalf of his tribe and its members. Seeing each one was in charge of other people, he felt a sense of some members of his tribe being suspected of some misdemeanour. At the same time, seeing that they did not only represent the members of the tribes but were נשיאים, “princes” in their own right, they agreed to act as the interlocutors of their tribe in trying to obtain atonement for the errors committed by members of their tribe by offering a communal offering on their behalf.

הם העומדים על הפקודים. The ones who have already been mentioned by name in Numbers 1,5-16.

They were officers. Rashi is answering the question: What is the Torah teaching by saying that they were the leaders of the tribes? In response Rashi explains that they were officers over them in Egypt, and the verse is saying that they were the leaders who were appointed officers over them in Egypt. The taskmasters would beat the officers with clubs because they did not pressure Bnei Yisroel to fulfill their quota of bricks. [However this presents a difficulty:] Even those who stood by during the counting were not appointed until Iyar. The answer is that the Torah speaks about the future, when they would stand by during the counting on the first of Iyar. (Nachalas Yaakov) is puzzled: The officers who were beaten were only chosen for the Sanhedrin at the incident of the complainers in Parshas Beha’alosecha (11:16) where the Torah writes “gather seventy men for Me, from among the elders of Israel, men] whom you know to be the people’s elders and its officers.” Rashi explains that they are those “whom you know,” who were appointed as officers over them in Egypt during the hard labor. The incident of the complainers was on the twenty-second of Iyar and here it was Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Rather one must say that the greatness of becoming the Sanhedrin was more than the greatness of becoming the leaders. Therefore, here on Rosh Chodesh Nissan they merited to become leaders and on the twenty-second of Iyar at the time of the complainers they merited to become the Sanhedrin.

V. 2. ויקריבו וגו׳. Das Objekt zu ויקריבו ist קרבנם des folgenden Satzes, es heißt eigentlich: ויקריבו ויביאו את קרבנם וגו׳. Der Satz ist unterbrochen durch nähere Bezeichnung des Subjekts: נשיאי ישראל. Es waren נשיאי ישראל, Israels "gehobene Träger", die Männer, die vermöge ihrer Stellung, auf der Höhe der nationalen Bestimmung standen und von dieser Stellung aus die Nation zur gleichen Höhe hinanerheben sollten. Sie waren בית אב .ראשי בית אבותם sind die durch Abstammung aus einem Stammeshause zur Stammeseinheit vereinigten Familien. Diese in der Gesamtnation als die נשיאי ישראל hervorleuchtenden Männer waren eben diejenigen, welche innerhalb der zur Stammeseinheit vereinigten Familien vermöge des ihrer Persönlichkeit und ihrem sozialen Charakter geschenkten Vertrauens und gewährten Einflusses an die Spitze aller die Stammesinteressen berührenden Angelegenheiten berufen waren. Vermöge dieser doppelten Eigenschaft, als נשיאי ישראל und ראשי בית אבתם waren sie die Geeignetsten: נשיאי המטות zu sein. — Der seiner inneren Beziehung zufolge בית אב genannte Stamm heißt: מטה als "Ast" des großen Nationalganzen, der als solcher aus der Gesamtwurzel und dem Gesamtstamme den Nationalgeist in die Besonderheit der Stammeseinheit überleitet, um die Gesamtaufgabe innerhalb der Eigenart des Stammes zur Verwirklichung zu bringen. Als נשיאי ישראל der Gesamtheit und als ראשי בית אב der Stammesbesonderheit angehörend, waren sie daher die Berufensten als ראשי המטות die Gesamtinteressen innerhalb ihres besonderen Stammes zu vertreten; daher waren sie auch: הם העומדים על הפקודים diejenigen, die einen Monat später der Zählung der einzelnen nach Familien und Stämmen für die Gesamtgemeine zu assistieren hatten (siehe zu Kap. 1, 2 — 4).

ויקריבו נשיאי ישראל, “the princes of the house of Israel offered etc.;” the Torah follows up with telling us what it was that the princes of the house of Israel offered, i.e. the offering was individual and collective at one and the same time; (verse 3) [Their sacrifices (pl.) are described as קרבנם, “their offering” (singular) instead of קרבנותיהם, “their offerings, pl.)

הם העמדים על הפקדים THEY WHO STOOD OVER THE COUNTING — They stood with Moses and Aaron when they counted the Israelites, as it says,“With you [Moses and Aaron] there shall be [a man from each tribe]” (Numbers 1:4).

העומדים על הפקודים, “the ones who supervised the census.” According to Rashi, each prince had stood beside Moses and Aaron when the members of that prince’s tribe were being counted. He based himself on Numbers 1,4: ואתכם יהיו איש איש למטה איש ראש לבית אבותיו הוא, “and with you there shall be a man of every tribe, everyone head of his father’s house.” Therefore the construction of ויביאו את קרבנם, “they brought their atonement offering for counting the people of Israel,” is justified. We find another example of such an offering as atonement for counting in Numbers 31,50 after the successful punitive campaign against Midian, [both the soldiers who found that there had been no casualties, and the huge amount of booty collected. Ed.]

שש עגלת צב SIX COVERED WAGGONS — The word צב means “covered over”. Similar is, (Isaiah 66:20) “(And they shall bring all your brethren …] in covered wagons (בצבים) and upon mules”, where covered wagons are called צבים without the addition of a word denoting “wagons” (Sifrei Bamidbar 46 1).

AND THEY BROUGHT THEIR OFFERING BEFORE THE ETERNAL. Since the wagons [which the princes brought] were for the purpose of the offerings [i.e., for transporting the Tabernacle, where offerings are made before G-d] they are also called “offering.” Similarly, And we have brought the Eternal’s offering, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold,¹³⁵Further, 31:50. meaning “an offering” for the repairs of the Tabernacle. Now the princes thought that it would be impossible for the Levites to carry on their shoulders the boards of the Tabernacle and the sockets, which were very heavy, and therefore they brought the wagons of their own accord, for such is the way that all those who carry houses of kings and their palatial tents adopt, transporting them on wagons.
We may also explain that the expression And they brought their offering before the Eternal, six wagons ‘tzov,’ means six large wagons bearing their offerings, and twelve oxen drawing the wagons. Thus they brought the wagons laden [with the offerings], and the oxen [drawing the wagons] before the Tabernacle. And G-d commanded Moses, Take all of it of them, and the wagons and the oxen which were not brought for offerings shall do the service of the Tent of Meeting.¹³⁶Verse 5. Afterwards the princes took their offerings down from the wagons and brought them before the Tabernacle,¹³⁷Verse 10. intending to offer them all up on that day since they had been given permission to offer them before Him, but G-d commanded, each prince on his day¹³⁸Verse 11. shall they bring their offerings. And because of this [i.e., since the wagons that the princes brought contained the animals that they intended to offer up] it was not necessary now that He should say to Moses “take it of them,” [as the original statement¹³⁶Verse 5. already implies G-d’s consent to the offerings as well].¹³⁹But according to the first interpretation, that the wagons were empty and were brought so that the Levites could transport the Tabernacle in them, and G-d consented by saying to Moses, Take it of them, the question arises: when the princes came back and brought the actual dedication-offerings, why did G-d likewise not tell Moses to take the offerings from them? Hence the second interpretation is to be preferred. And it is a linguistic expression [in the Sacred Language] to say “wagons” when referring to their contents, just like: those who eat ‘shulchan Izebel’¹⁴⁰I Kings 18:19. [literally: “Jezebel’s table,” which means “the food on Jezebel’s table”]. So also: for all ‘sha’ar ami’ do know¹⁴¹Ruth 3:11. [literally: for all “the gates of my people” do know, which means: “for all the people in the gates of my people do know”]. And [likewise we find] in the language of the Sages:¹⁴²Baba Bathra 146 a. “a hundred wagons of pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil, and of silver and golden vessels” [the meaning being “the amount of wine and oil and vessels that can be contained in a hundred wagons,” and not just wagons of pitchers of wine and oil]. It is possible that the word tzov [six wagons ‘tzov’] means “full,” and so also: ‘uvatzabim’ and upon mules,¹⁴³Isaiah 66:20. which means “in wagons full of people.” In that case six wagons ‘tzov’ [in the verse before us] means “six wagons laden full,” their load being the dedication-offerings which Scripture specifies further on.
Now Scripture mentions the offerings of each of the princes individually and afterwards it includes them all in a general statement, saying, This was the dedication-offering of the altar, in the day when it was anointed, at the hands of the princes of Israel: twelve silver dishes,¹⁴⁴Further, Verse 84. and Rashi wrote:¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 85. “This teaches you that the vessels of the Sanctuary were exactly equal in weight [as specified in the verses: one silver dish, the weight whereof was a hundred and thirty shekels etc.]. If one weighed each one separately and then weighed them all together, it was neither more nor less [than the total should have been]. This is based on [the explanations of] Rabbi Moshe the Preacher.”¹⁴⁶This final statement [“This is based on … “] is not found in our editions of Rashi. Rabbi Moshe the Preacher is however quoted here in Verse 23. He was an older contemporary of Rashi’s who lived in the city of Narbonne. His work was in the nature of a Midrashic commentary compiled from earlier sources. See in Vol. I, p. 424 Note 196. But I cannot understand what they mean in saying this. If we are to consider this a miracle, what benefit is there in the occurrence of this miracle? And if this is the natural result with all weights, why should Scripture specifically mention it? In the Sifre the Rabbis have clearly said:¹⁴⁷Sifre Naso 54. “This is to teach you that the vessels of the Sanctuary¹⁴⁸Literally: “the Permanent House” (see Vol. II, p. 335, Note 598). Here, however, the term beith olamim refers both to the Tabernacle and to the Sanctuary. were not like ordinary vessels. In the case of ordinary vessels, if one weighs each separately and then weighs them all together, the total is sometimes more or less [than it should have been] etc.”¹⁴⁹Now this Sifre “clearly” states [as Ramban wrote above] that there was some special phenomenon in the weighing of the vessels. It does not yet explain what purpose it served; hence Ramban continues to quote from the Sifre the words of Rabbi Nathan. And there [in the Sifre] the Rabbis further said: “Rabbi Nathan says: If one were to weigh all the vessels of the Sanctuary together¹⁴⁸Literally: “the Permanent House” (see Vol. II, p. 335, Note 598). Here, however, the term beith olamim refers both to the Tabernacle and to the Sanctuary. and then turn them into bullion, and again make vessels of it, they would be neither more nor less [than the original weight].” He means to say by this that [these vessels were made of] a very pure gold [or silver, as the case may be], so that even if one melted them down and turned them into bullion, they still remained at their original weight. This was not because a miracle happened to them, but because they were made of a very pure gold.
The correct interpretation of the verse is that the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows honor upon those who fear Him, just as He said, for them that honor Me I will honor.¹⁵⁰I Samuel 2:30. Now all the princes brought this offering on the same day, because they all agreed to it simultaneously. But since it was impossible that one of them should not precede the others, He honored those who came first in [the position of] the standards to bring their offerings on the earlier days. He wanted, however, to mention them all by name and the details of their offerings, and to cite the day of each one, rather than honoring the first one by saying, This was the offering of Nachshon the son of Amminadab¹⁵¹Verse 17. and then saying “and so did each of the princes offer on his day,” for that would have been a diminution of the honor of the others. Afterwards [i.e., after having listed them all separately] He included them all again in a general verse,¹⁴⁴Further, Verse 84. in order to tell us that they were all equal before Him, blessed be He. And so did the Rabbis say in the Sifre:¹⁵²Sifre Naso 53. “Scripture tells us that just as they were all equal in the thought [of bringing these offerings] so were they all alike in merit. Twelve silver dishes¹⁴⁴Further, Verse 84. — these were the same ones that they donated, and nothing which would have invalidated them¹⁵³Such as becoming chipped or perforated, in which case a sacred vessel may no longer be used. (Kether Kehunah, commentary to Sifre ibid.). occurred to them.”
There is another explanation of this [chapter] in the interpretations of the Rabbis,¹⁵⁴Bamidbar Rabbah 13:13. namely that each of the princes intended to bring a dedication-offering to the altar which would be of the amount [specified in the verses, each one of them intending to bring the same offerings], but Nachshon [prince of the tribe of Judah] had a particular reason for [bringing] this number [of offerings], and each of the other princes thought of an independent reason. Thus the Rabbis said¹⁵⁵Mentioned by Rashi (in Verse 19) in the name of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher, who doubtless quoted an older source. that Nachshon thought he would bring a ka’arath keseph (a silver dish),¹⁵⁶Verse 13. since the numerical value of its [Hebrew] letters is nine hundred thirty,¹⁵⁷Kuph is 100; ayin 70; reish, 200; tav 400. Kaph is 20; samech 60; pei 80. The total is 930. corresponding to the years of the first man;¹⁵⁸Genesis 5:5. and the weight thereof was a hundred and thirty shekels¹⁵⁶Verse 13. indicating the years when he [Adam] begot children [to maintain the existence of the world, i.e., when he begot Seth,¹⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 3. from whom the world was founded] — and likewise the whole Midrash, as Rashi wrote it.¹⁵⁵Mentioned by Rashi (in Verse 19) in the name of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher, who doubtless quoted an older source. Or [the offerings of each prince were,] according to another Midrash,¹⁵⁴Bamidbar Rabbah 13:13. [an allusion to] the tradition each tribe had from our father Jacob about all that would happen to it until the days of the Messiah. And so Nachshon [prince of the tribe of Judah] began by bringing his offerings with reference to royalty. The dish and the basin¹⁵⁶Verse 13. corresponded to the two kings who would be descended from him, who would rule over the sea and land, these being Solomon and the Messianic King. This was why Nachshon brought a ka’arah (silver round dish), to symbolize the ocean which covers the whole world and is like a [round] dish.¹⁶⁰The basin indicated the earth, as will be explained further on. Incidentally we see clearly that the Midrashic Sages were aware of the spherical shape of the earth. [The weight of the dish was] a hundred and thirty shekels,¹⁵⁶Verse 13. since it was on the third day [of Creation] that the Holy One, blessed be He, gathered all seas together to one place and called them yamim, the numerical value of these letters being one hundred;¹⁶¹Yod is 10; mem 40; yod 10; mem 40 — totalling 100. and Solomon added one sea to the work of the Sanctuary, and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.¹⁶²I Kings 7:23. Thus you have one hundred and thirty. One silver basin of seventy shekels¹⁵⁶Verse 13. corresponds to the world which is shaped like a sphere. The seventy shekels symbolize that they [Solomon and the Messiah] will rule over the seventy nations.¹⁶³See Megillah 11b, where Solomon is mentioned as having ruled over the whole world. Both of them full,¹⁵⁶Verse 13. for gifts will be brought to them from all peoples.¹⁶⁴Isaiah 66:20. ‘Soleth’ (fine flour)¹⁵⁶Verse 13. corresponds to these [two kings — as in the expression: the precious sons of Zion] ‘hamesulaim’ (who were comparable to) ‘fine’ gold.¹⁶⁵Lamentations 4:2. Mingled with oil¹⁵⁶Verse 13. — A good name is better than precious oil.¹⁶⁶Ecclesiastes 7:1. Silver — as it is said, The tongue of the righteous is as choice silver.¹⁶⁷Proverbs 10:20. One golden pan of ten shekels,¹⁶⁸Verse 14. The continuation of the verse (“full of incense”) affords the basis for the allusion to the ten generations full of righteous deeds. this corresponds to the ten generations from Peretz to David¹⁶⁹See Ruth 4:18-22: And these are the generations of Peretz … and Jesse begot David. Ten generations are listed there. who were all righteous men full of good deeds, [as pleasant] as the odor of the incense.¹⁶⁸Verse 14. The continuation of the verse (“full of incense”) affords the basis for the allusion to the ten generations full of righteous deeds. One young bullock¹⁷⁰Verse 15. — in allusion to Abraham;¹⁷¹Of Abraham it is stated, And Abraham ran unto the herd (Genesis 18:7). one ram¹⁷⁰Verse 15. — in allusion to Isaac;¹⁷²Ibid., 22:13: and he [Abraham] took the ram — as a substitute for Isaac. one he-lamb¹⁷⁰Verse 15. — in allusion to Jacob.¹⁷³Ibid., 30:40: And Jacob separated the lambs. One male of the goats for a sin-offering,¹⁷⁴Verse 16. to atone for the deed of Judah who brought Joseph’s coat to his father [dipped in the blood of a he-goat].¹⁷⁵Genesis 37:31-32. And for the sacrifice of peace-offerings, two oxen — alluding to David and Solomon, who began the royal line [of the House of David], and who were righteous men [during whose reigns] the kingdom was whole.¹⁷⁶During the lifetimes of David and Solomon the kingdom was complete, ruling as they did over all the twelve tribes. After Solomon’s death the kingdom was divided into two parts — Judah and Israel. Hence the allusion here, and for the sacrifice of peace-offerings, two oxen. These are the two kings — David and Solomon — whose reigns were characterized by shelamim [“peace-offerings,” a term which also suggests “peace” and “completeness”]. Five rams, five he-goats, five he-lambs of the first year¹⁵¹Verse 17. — in allusion to the fifteen monarchs from Rehoboam to Zedekiah,¹⁷⁷See I Chronicles 3:10-16 — where all these fifteen kings of Judah are listed. who were kings and sons of kings [and may be classified in three groups, just as the fifteen peace-offerings came in three groups], some completely righteous, some average, and some very wicked. This was what Nachshon thought [in bringing these offerings, which symbolized the history of his tribe].
And Nethanel the son of Zuar [prince of the tribe of Issachar] also thought in his heart that he would bring a dedication-offering of this amount, but he had a different reason for it, bringing his offerings in allusion to the Torah, because the special merit of the tribe of Issachar was [in their knowledge] of the wisdom of the Torah.¹⁷⁸I Chronicles 12:33. See above, in Seder Bamidbar, Note 117. A silver dish¹⁷⁹Verse 19. — referring to the Torah which is called “bread,” as it is said, Come, eat of my bread,¹⁸⁰Proverbs 9:5. and it is said of the showbread, And thou shalt make the dishes thereof.¹⁸¹Exodus 25:29. And [the prince of the tribe of] Zebulun brought his offerings in relation to commerce, which he engaged in and exerted himself in, and [from the profits of which he maintained [through his generosity the Torah-studying tribe of] Issachar, with whom he [equally] shared the reward [for the studying of the Torah]. The [round] dish¹⁸²Verse 25. was symbolic of the ocean, since he [Zebulun] dwelled at the shores of the sea.¹⁸³Genesis 49:13. — Generosity in support of the study of Torah is thus evident throughout the generations, and its reward is extraordinary as the generous person becomes an equal partner in the sacred venture. Similarly the Rabbis found in that Midrash¹⁸⁴Bamidbar Rabbah, Chapters 13-14. a special reason for the offering of each and every tribe and for the amount of the offerings [in accordance with the subsequent history of the tribe]. It is for this reason that Scripture treated them all equally, giving the details of each one separately as if the others had not been mentioned, after which it mentioned them all together, to hint that at the same moment it occurred to each of them to bring the dedication-offering, and none of them preceded the other either in thought or in the actual bringing of the offerings to the Tabernacle. It is because of this Scripture mentioned them all in identical words.

עגלה על שני הנשיאים. The reason that they shared a cart each was not that they were stingy, but that they wanted to demonstrate that there was no rivalry between them, but that, on the contrary, they felt like brothers one toward the other. Such sentiments have been recorded in the Torah in Deuteronomy 33,5 ויהי בישורון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם, יחד, “Moses was king in Yeshurun when all the people gathered together;” [a king is not someone aloof, in an ivory tower, but his distinction becomes relevant only in his being part of his people, יחד, together.” The opposite is reported in Hoseah 10,2 חלק לבם עתה יאשמו, “when its collective heart is divided, this is they their guilt.”

עגלות, seeing that the word is in a construct mode, i.e. עגלות צב, the vowel pattern is “eglot,” “draught carts”, instead of “agalot,” “carts.” We know similar vowel pattern changes in the word “essrot,” “tens of,” instead of simply assarot, tens. When the Torah writes that “one” cart was brought by a team of two princes it uses the standard vowel pattern agalah, as in that part of the verse the princes are the adjective (so to speak) and not the carts, as in the beginning of the verse.

ויביאו את קרבנם, “they brought their offering, etc.” Nachmanides, in justifying the Torah’s referring to the wagons presented by the princes as קרבן, a sacrificial offering, writes that seeing that these wagons were an indispensable part of the entire process known as service involving sacrificial offerings, claims that their description is קרבן are quite correct. He cites as proof for his approach Numbers 31,50 ונקרב את קרבן ה' איש אשר מצא כלי זהב וגו', “we have brought an offering each man who has found golden vessels [in the loot of the war against the Midianites. Ed.] There too the term קרבן, is applied to man-made items. The gold in question was brought as a gift to the Temple treasury. It appears that what motivated the princes to bring the wagons was that they could not imagine that the Levites would be able to carry all these heavy beams on their shoulders, nor that they would be able to carry the heavy silver sockets of each of those beams. They therefore brought these wagons without their having been requested. It was customary in those days that Royalty and similarly highly placed individuals would transport their belongings on wagons. It is also possible to interpret the words ויביאו את קרבנם לפני ה' שש עגלות צב וגו', to mean that the six wagons transported the sacrificial offerings of the princes, whereas the 12 oxen transported the wagons. The oxen and wagons came to a halt before the entrance of the Tabernacle, and then G’d commanded Moses to also accept the oxen and the wagons from them as gifts for the Temple treasury. As a result, both the oxen and the wagons now became לעבוד את עבודת המשכן “tools to perform the service connected with the work connected with the Tabernacle.” Subsequently, the princes took their respective sacrificial offerings and presented them in front of the Altar. They had meant originally to all present all their offerings on that very day. At this point in time, G’d told Moses that they were to present these offerings one prince at a time, one day at a time. This is why there was no need for the Torah to write קח מאתם, “accept it from them,” in connection with the princes’ respective sacrificial offerings. Why would Moses not accept these offerings until G’d had given him specific instructions to accept them? What they had been doing was no more than commonplace; however, in connection with the oxen [too old for the Altar as animal sacrifices, Ed.] as well as for the wagons Moses did have to have special instructions to accept these also. It is a norm in our holy tongue to describe even what is being transported on the wagons as being a part of the wagons, similar to when the prophet in Kings I 18,19 speaks of אוכלי שולחן איזבל, which, of course does not mean that “people were eating Izzevel’s table,” but that “people were eating food at Izzevel’s table.” It is possible that the meaning of the word צב in our context is: “loaded with,” as in Isaiah 66,20 where these “covered wagons“ are understood as being loaded with many travelers each. In that case the Torah describes the six wagons as fully loaded with the various sacrificial offerings of the princes.

Because Moshe did not accept. Because if this were not so what would be meant by “before the Mishkon,” surely it had already written “They brought their offerings before Hashem” meaning before the Mishkon where His Glorious Presence rested. For this reason Rashi also explains that “before the altar” (v. 10) means that he did not accept it from them. Since it had already written “The leaders brought forward the [offerings for] the consecration of the altar,” why would I need it to add that they placed them before the altar?

V. 3. ויביאו את קרבנם. Wir haben bereits zu Wajikra 1, 2 bemerkt, wie alles, womit man sich Gott zu nähern sucht, קרבן heißt. Auch diese Wagen waren vermittelst des Zweckes, für welchen sie dargebracht wurden, eine Spende, die die zu Gott hinanstrebende Gesinnung der Spender kund gab. צב ,עגלת צב findet sich auch Jesaias 66, 20 als Transportmittel wieder. Es dürfte, lautverwandt mit סבב, eine allseitige Umgebung des Wagenraums bedeuten, durch welche die in den Wagen gebrachten Personen oder Gegenstände geschützt werden. Hier, zum Transport der unverhüllt auf die Wagen geladenen Bestandteile der Wohnung, war eine solche Bedeckung unerlässlich. So auch כד מחפין :ת׳׳א. Diese Wagen brachten sie als נשיאי ישראל, als die Häupter der Gesamtnation. Sie betätigten darin das Nationalbewusstsein, dass die Nation das Gesetzesheiligtum als den Nationalschatz begriff, den die Nation auf allen ihren Wanderungen, wie der Körper die ihn belebende Seele, mit fort zu tragen habe. Dass sie diese Wagen als נשיאי ישראל, und nicht als ראשי בית אבתם und נשיאי המטות dem Heiligtume widmeten, sprach sich in der Vereinigung je zweier נשיאים zu einem Wagen nebst dessen Gespann aus. Es trat also keiner für seinen Stamm allein in einer Spende hin. מלמד שהביאום ומסרום לצבור :ויקריבו אותם לפני המשכן, sie machten die Wagen zum Nationaleigentum (מדרש רבות).

And they placed them. The leaders themselves, in all their honor, brought the wagons and their load before Hashem.

שש עגלות צב, “six covered wagons;” the expression צב, is derived from צבא, “army,” in the sense of mobilising.

ויקרבו אותם לפני המשכן AND THEY BROUGHT THEM BEFORE THE TABERNACLE — because Moses would not accept them (the gifts) at their (the princes’) hands until he was so bidden by the mouth of the Omnipresent (cf. v. 5). — Rabbi Nathan said: What reason had the princes to give their contributions here first of all the people, whereas at the work of the Tabernacle they were not the first but the last to contribute? But — he replied — the princes spoke thus: “Let the community in general contribute all they wish to give and then what will then be lacking we shall supply”. As soon as they saw that the community gave everything needed in its entirety (lit., that the community completed everything) — as it said, (Exodus 36:7) “For the stuff they had was enough [for all the work to make it]” — the princes asked, ‘What can we now do’? Therefore they brought the onyx stones, and stones for setting for the Ephod and for the breast plate. That is why they were here the first to contribute” (Sifrei Bamidbar 45 1).

צב, the word has different meanings in different contexts. In Isaiah 66,20 בצבים ובפרדים, “with mules and dromedaries,” it clearly refers to a category of animal. In our context it means animals that are used to be traveling with an army, צבא. The animals in question are able to travel long distances.

קח מאתם, Moses had thought that anything that the Levites would carry had to be carried on their shoulders, as the Torah had spelled out in connection with how the Kehatites were to perform their tasks (verse 9).

קח מאתם, "accept it from them!" The reason the Torah wrote the word מאתם (instead of מהם) is that as of that moment the gifts were still the property of the princes and had not as yet been transferred to Moses. The reason that Moses had not as yet accepted the gifts was that he had not been commanded that the Tabernacle be transported on wagons and did not know what else to do with them. The princes had reasoned that seeing the boards and the sockets of the Tabernacle were large and heavy respectively, they would need to be transported on wagons. As it turned out, G'd agreed with their reasoning.

ונתתה אותם אל הלוים איש כפי עבודתו, “you (Moses) will hand them over to the Levites, each in accordance with the needs of their specific tasks.” This left open the construction of additional wagons if the ones donated by the princes should prove insufficient. It is hardly likely that twelve oxen could pull the 48 sections of the Tabernacle’s walls, plus the one hundred sockets of silver each very heavy, plus all the pillars and the heavy skins and carpets making up the roof of the Tabernacle, not to mention the curtains and supports surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle.

כפי עבדתם [TWO WAGGONS AND FOUR OXEN HE GAVE UNTO THE SONS OF GERSHON,] ACCORDING TO THEIR SERVICE — only two wagons and four oxen, whilst the sons of Merari were given twice as many, because the burden of the sons of Gershon was lighter than that of the sons of Merari since they carried the boards, the columns and the sockets.

את שתי העגלות, “the two wagons, etc.” seeing that the weight of the curtains and skins for the roof, and other incidentals, were relatively light, only two of the wagons were assigned for that task.

.ואת ארבעת העגלות “and the other four wagons, etc.;” these four wagons would transport all the heavy parts of the Tabernacle.”

כי עבדת הקדש עלהם [BUT TO THE SONS OF KOHATH HE GAVE NONE (NO WAGGONS)] BECAUSE THE עבדת הקדש BELONGS UNTO THEM — (not the service of the Sanctuary devolved upon them, but the service in connection with) carrying the most holy objects: the ark, the table, etc. was incumbent upon them, therefore בכתף ישאו they should carry upon their shoulders (not in wagons).

ולבני קהת לא נתן כי עבודת הקודש עליהם, as opposed to what was called עבודת אהל מועד. G’d had commanded concerning these carts that they would form part of what was called עבודת אהל מועד, the task of the members of the family of Gershon and that of the family of Merari. The Kehatites did not transport anything which was part of the actual structure called משכן. They only transported furnishings which were part of the Tabernacle. Those were referred to as מקדש for short. (compare Numbers 10,21 ונשאו הקהתים נושאי המקדש.)

V. 9. כי עבודת הקדש עליהם, im Gegensatz zu עבדת אהל מועד im engeren Sinne des V. 5. Ihnen lag der Dienst des קדש im eigentlichen Sinne ob, jener Gegenstände, die die eigentlichen Objekte bilden, für welche das אהל מועד errichtet worden. Sie sind das eigentlich Heilige, durch dessen Heiligkeit alle anderen Heiligtümer ihre Heiligkeit erhalten, sie sind das קדש der קדש הקדשים ,קדשים, wie sie Kap. 4, 4 genannt werden. Sie sind dasjenige קדש, in welchem die ganze von uns zu lösende Aufgabe ihren Ausdruck hat, für welche wir daher die eigenste Kraft unseres Wesens einzusetzen haben, daher: בכתף ישאו

ויקריבו הנשאים את חנכת המזבח AND THE PRINCES OFFERED FOR DEDICATING THE ALTAR — After they had presented the waggons and the oxen for carrying the Tabernacle, their heart prompted them to present offerings for the altar, in order to dedicate it (Here, ויקריבו denotes: they offered sacrifice).

ויקריבו הנשיאים את חנכת המזבח, they sanctified it.

ויקריבו הנשאים את חנוכת המזבח, The princes brought the dedication-offering for the altar. It appears that all the princes wanted to offer their gifts on the first day on which the altar was being inaugurated, as they all wanted to be part of this inauguration together. G'd, however, said that only one prince per day could offer his respective offering. This is why the Torah added that the period of inauguration extended for the entire twelve days during which the princes offered their gifts (compare wording in verse 11 where the word לחנוכת המזבח appears once more). In this instance G'd did not have to tell Moses "accept it from them!." This means that Moses did not need to obtain G'd's permission to accept these gifts. He had no doubt about G'd's willingness to accept the princes' offerings including the gold and the silver vessels. The only reason that G'd had to involve Himself was that all the princes wanted to bring all their gifts on the same day. I have seen the following comment by Sifri on our verse: "The verse reveals that just as the princes had made free-willed contributions to the materials from which the Tabernacle was constructed so they now contributed for the inauguration of the altar; Moses did not want to accept this from them until he had been instructed to do so by G'd Himself, and that is why the Torah wrote: 'they shall offer their offerings for the inauguration of the altar.'" The author of the Sifri derived this from the apparently superfluous words יקריבו את קרבנם, which he interpreted as permission for Moses to accept the offerings. We must examine why Moses refused to accept these offerings until G'd had given permission for them to be accepted. Perhaps Moses was not sure whether the inauguration of the altar was the province of Aaron and himself or that of the princes. This was especially so seeing the list of princes did not include a representative of the tribe of Levi. Please read what we have written in this connection at the beginning of Parshat Beha-alotcha.

ויקריבו הנשיאים, “the princes brought the offerings, etc.” The נשיאים referred to here are the respective tribal leaders. When the Torah repeats the same words again in the same verse they refer to the celestial counterparts of these tribal heads. You will note that the first time the word נשיאים appears in our verse it has the letter י to show that the word is in the plural, whereas the second time this letter י denoting the plural of the subject is absent. The allegorical message is that the effect of the sacrifice is unifying making a single unit of what had been diverse. This is because the sacrifice was addressed to the One and indivisible Hashem. When we try and reinforce the image of G’d throughout His universe, He in turn demonstrates His unifying power on earth.

Moshe did not accept [the gift] from their hands until… Because if this were not so, what would be meant by “before the altar” and “Hashem said to Moshe…” which comes afterwards (v. 11)? This implies that if Hashem had not said this to him he would not have accepted them. When Hashem said to him “one leader each day…” Even though we do not find that Moshe was uncertain about this, as Rashi explained only (v. 11) “whether in order of their birth…” Nevertheless Hashem Himself answered, without Moshe’s question, lest he err and say that all should bring their offerings on one day. Since all of them had brought forward their offerings together, and they were all zealous in performing the mitzvah, it would have been correct for them to be equal in bringing them, thus Hashem had to say “one leader each day”. Re’m writes that he was also uncertain whether they should all would bring their offerings on one day or each one on his individual day. Immediately Hashem answered him “one leader each day.” See his question and answer there. However, since it was not needed for the explanation I have been brief and not quoted it. Re’m writes that one might wonder how Moshe could have been uncertain as to the order of those offering, whether it was in order of their birth or in the order of the traveling. Surely the order of the traveling was not established until the first of Iyar, as is explained in Parshas Bamidbar (1:1). One answer is that from the time that Moshe was at Mount Sinai for the second set of forty days Hashem informed him that the firstborn were replaced by the Levites and the division of the banners and the order of the traveling of the camps. It appears to me Moshe knew the order of the traveling and the division of the banners from Yaakov, as Rashi explains in Parshas Bamidbar on the verse “each man at his own banner with the insignia…” (2:2) “by the sign their forefather [Yaakov] gave them …” It stands to reason that with the traveling it was also so, because there is no reason for the travels to be different from the banners.

V. 10. ויקריבו הנשאים darauf brachten sie, nicht als נשיאי ישראל als die Häupter der Gesamtheit, sondern als ראשי בית אבתם und נשיאי המטות, als die Stammesfürsten, חנכת המזבח. Wir haben bereits zu Bereschit 14, 14 den Begriff חנך als das Einführen eines Objektes in seine Bestimmung erläutert. Wir haben dort bemerkt, wie diesem Begriffe ein negatives und ein positives Merkmal innewohnt. Es ist eine verneinende und eben dadurch eine um so intensivere Aktivität gewährende Begrenzung. — (Passivität ist dort zu berichtigender Druckfehler. Ebenso das Zitat am Schlusse Kap. 9, 9 soll heißen: 2, 18.) — Die verneinende, den Altar von jeder anderen Bestimmung sondernde Heiligung war bereits durch משיחה ausgedrückt und das Positive seiner Bestimmung zugleich nur durch die würzigen Bestandteile des שמן המשחה (siehe Schmot 30, 25) angedeutet. In die Betätigung dieses positiven Inhalts seiner Bestimmung wollten die Fürsten der Stämme Israels sofort nach seiner משיחה den Altar einführen. Das auf dem Altar als אש אוכלה leuchtende אש דת-Feuer ist ja eine Aufforderung an jeden, sich mit allem, was dieses sein "Ich" umfasst, der Macht des göttlichen Gesetzes zur "Nahrung" des Göttlichen auf Erden und zur Gestaltung alles Irdischen zum "göttlichen Wohlgefallen" hinzugegeben. Dieser stillschweigenden mit dem Moment der vollendeten משיחה ergehenden Aufforderung fühlten sich die Fürsten der Stämme Israels gedrungen sofort zu entsprechen und damit zugleich zu bekunden, wie sie diese mit der משיחה des Altars inmitten der Nation beginnende Wirksamkeit des Heiligtums in der Nation verstünden und beherzigten. Daher uיקריבו הנשאים את קרבנם לפני המזבח, und sie brachten es gleichzeitig und zusammen, die Gleichheit der von ihnen vertretenen Stämme und die Einmütigkeit ihrer Gesinnung dem Gesetzesheiligtum gegenüber damit bezeugend.

ויקריבו הנשיאם את קרבנם לפני המזבח AND THE PRINCES BROUGHT THEIR OFFERING BEFORE THE ALTAR, because Moses would not accept them at their hands until he was so bidden by the mouth of the Almighty (Sifrei Bamidbar 47).

ויקריבו הנשיאים את קרבנם לפני המזבח, after they had sanctified it as a sacrifice the brought it before the altar.

ויקריבו הנשאים, the princes offered, etc. The reason the Torah repeats this expression once more is to tell us that the princes went to the trouble to bring the entire gift up to the entrance of the Tabernacle personally, although this might have been considered below their dignity seeing they were "princes." Another reason why the Torah repeated this expression is that instead of handing their sacrifice over to the priest who was to present (part of) it on the altar, they themselves placed it at the entrance of the Tabernacle close to the altar. They hinted by their action that they wished their respective offerings to be the first to be presented on the altar on that day. When the Torah writes in a similar vein in verse 3 that the princes brought the wagons to the Tabernacle, this also means that they wished their gifts to be the first ones to be accepted by the Temple -treasury on that day.

יקריבו את קרבנם לחנכת המזבח THEY SHALL OFFER THEIR OFFERING, [EACH PRINCE ON HIS DAY] FOR THE DEDICATING OF THE ALTAR — but Moses did not yet know how they were to bring their offerings — whether according to the order of their birth (i.e. according to the order in which the sons of Jacob after whom the tribes were named were born, in which case the prince of the tribe of Reuben would have offered first), or according to the order in which they moved off on the journeys, (when Judah would be the first), until he was told by the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He: “according to the order on the journeys shall they offer” — yet each prince on his day (and not three together as they actually journeyed) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 47).

V. 11. ויאמר ד׳ וגו׳ Gott aber bestimmte, dem Fürsten eines jeden Stammes solle ein Tag zur Darbringung seines Opfers eingeräumt werden. Repräsentiert doch jeder Stamm eine Eigenart sozialer Menscheneigentümlichkeit, deren Läuterung, Durchdringung mit dem Geiste des Gesetzes, und deren Betätigung in Verwirklichung der Anforderungen desselben einen durchaus wesentlichen selbständigen Beitrag zur Lösung der Gesamtaufgabe der Nation bildet

נשיא אחד ליום, “one prince each day, etc.” the presentation of these offerings were spread over 12 days in order to accord honour to each of the princes. Seeing that the tribe of Yehudah represented Royalty in the future, the prince of Yehudah, Nachshon, was the first one to present his offering. In order to ensure that he would not say that seeing he had been the first one to present his offering, he would also join the other princes on each in their offering, the Torah limits the number of offerings to be presented to one on each day. By extending the period of these offerings for 12 days, the festive nature and the attending joy among the people was considerably enhanced.

ביום הראשון ON THE FIRST DAY — That day received ten crowns (was distinguished in ten different ways): it was the same day as was the first day of Creation, the first day on which the princes offered etc., as it is set forth in Seder Olam 7 (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:1 and Note 2 thereon).

המקריב ביום הראשון, the one who presented (his gift) on the first day, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words את קרבנו, (what else did he offer)? Perhaps the Torah wanted to emphasize that the princes each paid for these sacrifices (gifts) out of their own pockets. It was not paid for by the respective tribe's treasury. Sifri item 48 derive this from the repetition of the words: "this was the offering of so and so," after each report of the prince who offered his sacrifice. The reason the Torah also wrote קרבנו, "his offering," before listing the nature of the offering is because the offering consisted of two aspects. 1) acknowledgment of the exceptional merits of the prince bringing the offering; 2) the offering itself. Bamidbar Rabbah 13,10 extols Nachshon's merits for instance, telling us details of his accomplishments. The words הקריב את קרבנו mean that in addition to the visible aspect of the offering there was an invisible aspect, i.e. the devotion to G'd of the person offering the gift. It is well to remember that whenever a person offers an offering to G'd as a gift, such an offering is accompanied by the forces of sanctity which surround such a person. Moreover, it is the nature of the offering to activate various "branches" of sanctity. Our verse testifies that Nachshon succeeded in "offering his sacrifice," i.e. to imbue it with the "sparks" of sanctity and to thereby accomplish all that it is possible to accomplish by means of such a gift-offering.

נחשון בן עמינדב למטה יהודה, “Nachshon, son of Aminadav, of the tribe of Yehudah.” It is noteworthy that the title of these princes, i.e. נשיא, is mentioned with all of them except with the prince of Yehudah. This was a lesson to the other princes to be humble and not to introduce themselves with their title when asked who they were. A classic example is when Yehudah begs Joseph to accept him as a slave instead of his brother Binyamin, and he says ישב נא עבדך תחת הנער עבד לאדוני, “let your servant take the place of the lad as your servant, my lord.” (Genesis 44,33) We find similarly that David is described as דוד הקטן Samuel I 17,14, [although as opposed to his older brothers he had already been the king’s court musician. Ed.]

ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון נחשון בן עמינדיו, “The prince who brought his offering on the first day was Nachshon son of Aminadav of the tribe of Yehudah.” As mentioned previously, the tribe of Yehudah usually is found in the lead, in the matter of the flags, the tribal offerings, warfare, and even distribution of the land of Israel (Joshua chapter 15). In the future, during the period of the ultimate redemption, the tribe of Yehudah will again be in the forefront (Zecharyah 12,1).
There is what appears to be a grammatical anomaly when the Torah describes the offering of Nachshon with the word וקרבנו, “and his offering,” whereas the offerings of all the other princes are introduced with the word קרבנו, “his offering.” We would have expected the reverse seeing that Nachshon’s offering did not follow the offering of anyone before him. The Torah used the extra letter ו as a veiled warning to that tribe or individual not to consider the fact that he had been the first in that procession of princes as something to boast about. On the other hand, the way the Torah describes the offering of each of the other princes could allow each one to think that his offering had been the first of the string. This idea is reinforced by the absence of the title נשיא, prince, in connection with Nachshon, whereas each of the other princes has his title mentioned alongside his name.

But not that he solicited [payment]. Meaning that the meaning of the lamed in למטה יהודה (of the tribe of Yehudah) is not like the lamed of אמרי לי (say for me) (Bereishis 20:13), in which case it would have meant “for the tribe of Yehudah” — that he solicited payment from his tribe and brought it forward. Thus the meaning of למטה is like ממטה (from the tribe). (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did it write למטה? It should have written “the one that brought his offering on the first day [was] Nachshon the son of Aminadav, leader of Yehudah” as it writes for the other leaders. Then it would not have had to write that it was the offering of Nachshon. It appears that the answer is that the verse comes to say that this leader did not merit greatness — to offer first — because of who he was. All of the leaders were equivalent [in their personal qualities]. Rather it was because of his tribe, the tribe of Yehudah, who were fitting be first. Thus the Torah writes “of the tribe of Yehudah” meaning that he was secondary and his significance came to him by virtue of his tribe, the tribe of Yehudah who were the primary factor.

V. 12. ויהי המקריב וגו׳. Es geschah die Darbringung ganz in der Reihenfolge der Kap. 2 für die Lagerung und Wanderung gegebenen Stellung und Gruppierung der Stämme (siehe daselbst).

ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון, “and the prince who was the first one to present these offerings, etc.” The Torah underlines the fact that Nachshon was the first of the twelve princes to present this offering, although merely reading the list would have made this clear, as it wanted us to know that although he did not possess the seniority to be the first, he was accorded that honour. Seeing that in the future the tribe of Yehudah would provide the first Royal dynasty with the appointment of King David, this development, as predicted by Yaakov on his deathbed, is hinted at here. Alternately, he was accorded this honour seeing that he was the brother-in-law of Aaron the High Priest.

נחשון בן עמינדב, “Nachshon, son of Aminadav.” He has not been accorded his title here as have all the other princes, i.e. “prince of such and such a tribe,” in order that he should not feel proud for having been chosen to be the first one to offer this sacrifice. The other princes were all given their title when mentioned as recognition of the fact that none of them protested Nachshon having been chosen to be the first one.

למטה יהודה [NACHSHON THE SON OF AMINADAB,] OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH — By these words Scripture merely states his genealogy after his tribe, and they do not mean that he collected the offerings from his tribe and offered them on their behalf. Or perhaps it does state למטה יהודה only to intimate that he collected the offerings from his tribe and then brought them? Scripture, however, states, (v. 17): this was the offering of Nachshon — he brought it of that which was his own (Sifrei Bamidbar 48).

למטה יהודה, of the tribe of Yehudah. The Torah omitted the word נשיא prince, although this title is used in connection with all the other princes when they are introduced as offering their respective gifts. The reason for this is that Nachshon was on a spiritually sufficiently high level to have qualified as the first one to bring this offering even if he had not been the prince of his tribe. The status of most of the other princes was due only to their having been elected as princes of their respective tribes. The Torah also wanted us to know that Nachshon did not think of himself in terms of his title, his position, but considered himself as "one of the people." Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua in Tanchuma on verse 48 make an attempt to interpret the respective names of the princes as describing each prince's special accomplishments. According to their reasoning Nachshon's name reflects that he was the only one willing to risk his life by marching into the sea of reeds before Moses was given instructions to split the sea. The letter נ in his name can be exchanged for the letter ל seeing he confronted the spirit of the waves נחשול when he precipitously entered the sea and became the catalyst which led to the splitting of the sea of reeds (the following letters are sometimes used interchangeably ד,ל,נ,ת for the letter נ).

ביום הראשון, “on the first day, which was the first day of the month of Nissan.”

שניהם מלאים סלת BOTH OF THEM WERE FULL OF FINE FLOUR — for a free-will meal-offering.

FINE FLOUR (MINGLED) WITH OIL FOR A MEAL-OFFERING. The princes dedicated the altar with all the kinds of offerings that can be brought upon it. Therefore they brought a meal-offering, incense, a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering. Now the incense and the sin-offering were [permitted to be brought by] a special temporary decree, since they cannot usually be brought as freewill offerings. But [this exception was made] in order to complete the dedication with all kinds of offerings, for no other offerings can be brought in Israel except for these offerings [mentioned here], the sin-offering and the guilt-offering being the same thing and having the same name, and there is one law for them.¹⁸⁵Leviticus 7:7: As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them. Hence although no guilt-offering was brought as part of the dedication-offerings, it may yet be said that all kinds of offerings were brought on these days of dedication, since the sin-offering was brought.
Now the Glorious G-d¹⁸⁶Deuteronomy 28:58. agreed to the intention of the princes and commanded, they shall present their offering, each prince on his day.¹⁸⁷Verse 11. Therefore it is possible that this is a commandment for all generations, that the Sanctuary and the altar should always be dedicated [with special offerings upon their completion]. It is for this reason that Solomon made a dedication of the House [of G-d], as it is written, So the king and all the people dedicated the House of G-d.¹⁸⁸II Chronicles 7:5. Similarly the men of the Great Assembly dedicated [the Second Temple], as it is written, And the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites, and the rest of the children of captivity, kept the dedication of this House of G-d with joy.¹⁸⁹Ezra 6:16. And so [will it be also] in the days of the Messiah, as it is said in the Book of Ezekiel, Seven days shall they make atonement for the altar and cleanse it; so shall they consecrate it. And when they have accomplished the days, it shall be that upon the eighth day, and forward, the priests shall make your burnt-offerings upon the altar, and your peace-offerings,¹⁹⁰Ezekiel 43:26-27. this being the dedication of the altar with offerings to consecrate it. Thus the subject of this commandment is similar to that of the section about the impure people on Passover,¹⁹¹Further, 9:1-13. and the section concerning the sons of Joseph,¹⁹²Ibid., Chapter 36. See also in Seder Korach, Note 67. whose opinion coincided with the opinion on High, and which we were commanded to observe in all subsequent generations.
Beha’alothcha

'וקרבנו קערת כסף אחת, וגו; each one of the princes offered all these components as part of his offering. They comprised: a burnt offering, עולה, a gift offering, מנחה, a sin offering, חטאת, as well as peace offerings, שלמים, and incense, קטורת. The reason why the Torah does not simply lump all these offerings together but tells us separately, 12 times what each prince’s offering consisted of, is that each one had intended thereby to atone for all the sins he was aware of that members of his tribe had committed, had been guilty of. Each prince performed the סמיכה, the act of placing all his weight on the animal becoming the sin offering on behalf of the members of his tribe guilty of sins requiring such a sin offering to atone for their sins. This was a regular procedure when communal offerings were being brought.

וקרבנו, and his offering, etc. The justification for the letter ו in this word is found in what we wrote about every offering consisting of two aspects in our commentary on the word המקריב. It is a reference to the hidden spiritual aspect of the sacrifice which preceded the Torah's revelation of the material aspect. One may also simply understand the letter as alerting us to the many qualities Nachshon possessed in addition to initiating the kind of offering the princes brought at this time.

וקרבנו, a reference to the sacrifice mentioned previously in verse 12. The components of Nachshon’s sacrifice (gift) are being enumerated now. Just as the Torah had listed separately the composition of the four army camps of the Israelites headed by 1 flag each in Numbers chapter 2, so it lists the gift of each of the princes separately in our chapter.

וקרבנו, “and his offering, etc.” At this point the Torah wrote an apparently superfluous letter ו at the beginning of the word וקרבנו, seeing Nachshon was the first one of the princes to offer his קרבן, so that a prefix connecting it to something previous appears totally uncalled for. Similarly, we find an uncharacteristic letter ו in the word עתודים, rams, in verse 17. [On the other 13 occasions when that word occurs in the Torah it is always spelled defective, i.e. without the letter ו. Ed.] The reason for these exceptions is to draw our attention to 6=ו new developments which occurred on that day. 1) It was the first day on which priests performed their functions. 2) It was the first day that the priests began the daily routine of blessing the people. 3) It was the first day on which the publicly financed sacrificial offerings in the Tabernacle were presented on the Altar. 4) It was the first day of the first month of the year. 5) It was the first anniversary of the calendar reform introduced in honour of the Exodus from Egypt. 6) On that day the first red heifer was burned and its ashes preserved to enable the Israelites to purify themselves. Ibn Ezra writes that the meaning of the additional letter ו at the beginning of the word וקרבנו is grammatically completely justified in view of the Torah having written previously in verse 12 that Nachshon was the first of the princes to offer this particular offering. The Torah continues therefore by listing the details of his offering. Of the princes who offered the parallel offering on the second day, (verse 18) the Torah writes: הקריב קרבנו, although at first glance these words appear superfluous, because so much verbiage had been written since verse 12. We have similar examples of such apparently superfluous verbiage when the Torah writes (Genesis 22,7) ויאמר יצחק אל אברהם אביו ויאמר אבי!, “Yitzchok said to his father Avraham, saying: “My father!” You will note that the Torah does not bother to write the word הקריב, ”he presented the offering,” in connection with any of the other 10 princes. This was in order to be as brief as possible without becoming misleading.

As a voluntary meal-offering. This is the first meal-offering mentioned in Vayikra, not the meal-offering of the libations. This is learned from the context. Just as “filled with incense” (v. 14) refers to a voluntary offering, so too “the fine flour” is also a voluntary offering.

V. 13. קערה .וקרבנו וגו׳ ist ein כלי שרת, in welchem ein מנחה die Heiligung seiner Aufnahme vom Heiligtum empfängt und in welchem es durch הגשה im S.-W., der Seite des dem Gesetze zugewandten und an dem Gesetze sich erleuchtenden Geistes dargereicht wird. מזרק ist eigentlich ein Wurfgefäß für die זריקה des Blutes zu den Altarhöhen hinan. Nach ספרי waren beide Gefäße, obgleich an Gewicht verschieden, doch an Umfang gleich, מזרק war nur dünner, גלדו דק, so dass sie beide das gleiche Quantum fassten, eine Gleichheit, die in dem שניהם מלאים ihren Ausdruck hat (vergl. Wajikra 16, 5). Indem der Stammesfürst als ראש בית אבתיו und נשיא מטהו beide mit Mehl und Öl gefüllt zu einem מנחה brachte sprach er damit den Gedanken aus, dass, was sein Stamm an Gütern der Nahrung und des Wohlstandes nach seiner Eigenart erwirbt, dem Geiste des göttlichen Gesetzes huldigend geweiht sein solle, und dass sein Stamm nie in dem Schaffen und dem toten Besitze dieser Güter sozialen Wohlstandes an sich ein Moment der Größe erblicken, dass vielmehr aller materielle Güterreichtum ihm nur so viel bedeuten solle, als die Güter lebendig gemacht, als das Mehl und das Öl in "Blut", in נפשות umwandelt würden, die zu der Höhe ihrer gottgewiesenen Bestimmung hinanleben, dass in dem künftigen דם der מזרקות das סולת und שמן selbst den sittlichen Adel eines zu Gott hinanstrebenden Lebens gewinnen solle.

וקרבנו, “and his offering;” the prefix letter ו in this verse is superfluous. [i.e. available for exegesis. Ed.] The Rabbis understand it, i.e. “and his,” as a warning to Nachshon not to allow this honour to go to his head and to boast about it. [The fact that he is the only one of the princes presenting these offerings not to be given his title, is evidence of his modesty. Ed.]

וקרבנו, “and his offering, etc.” the strange prefix of the letter ו meaning: “and,” when no other offering had been offered as yet, is explained by the Torah having written in verse 12; ויהי המקריב, “and he that presented, etc.” By adding this prefix the Torah wishes us to understand that what follows was what the person mentioned in verse 12 presented. An alternate approach: the reason that Nachshon’s offering is introduced by the connective letter ו is that he should not boast about having been the first prince to be allowed to present this offering. [If he even did not mind that his title was omitted, he was hardly likely to boast about anything. Ed. ]

סלת בלולה בשמן למנחה, “filled with fine flour, mixed with oil, as a meal-offering.” Nachmanides writes that the princes consecrated the Altar with all the different kinds of offerings that would be offered on it in the future; this was the reason why they also offered meal-offerings on this occasion. Seeing that neither the incense offering nor the sin offering were of the categories that qualified for free-willed offerings, special dispensation had been required to enable them to present these offerings. Seeing that the guilt offering, אשם and the sin offering, חטאת are in respect of inadvertent transgressions, they are basically the same kind of offering so that the guilt-offering is not mentioned separately. It is possible that what is legislated here is a מצוה לדורות, not just a one time legislation, but whenever a Temple and an Altar would be inaugurated, the same procedures would apply, and that would explain why when Solomon consecrated his Temple he performed rites called חנוכת הבית, as did the men of the great Assembly when the second Temple was consecrated. (Compare Chronicles II 7,5 and Ezra 6,15) In all these instances the people initiating these rituals had divine inspiration and G’d subsequently anchored what they had done in the Holy Scriptures, eternalizing it..

'קערת כסף אחת וגו, “one silver dish;” the weight of this dish, i.e. one hundred and thirty shekels, is an allusion to Yocheved, Moses’ mother’s age at the time she gave birth to him.

קערת כסף, “a silver dish,” what is the difference between a קערה and a מזרק, a basin? According to the Sifri, a bowl is thick and a מזרק is thin. It weighed only slightly more than half the weight of a מזרק

מזרק אחד כסף, “one silver basin, etc.,” the basin’s weight, i.e. seventy shekels, is an allusion to the seventy elders who assisted Moses in his arduous task of leading his people.

שניהם מלאים סלת בלולה בשמן, “both of which, i.e. the dish and the basin, filled with incense mixed with oil;” in order that we should not think that Aaron was inferior to Moses, the Torah adds the word: מלאים, “filled,” i.e. one was equal to the other.

עשרה זהב — Understand this as the Targum does: there was in it (it contained) the weight of ten shekels of the Sanctuary.

The weight of ten. Rashi is answering the question: “Ten gold [shekolim]” implies that there were ten gold coins, and how could this be, because if it was a spoon it could not have been a gold coin.

V. 14. כף .כף וגו׳ ist ein Gefäß, sowohl zur Darstellung und Darbringung des zum לחם הפנים gehörenden Weihrauchs (Schmot 25, 29) als zur täglichen und besonderen Darbringung des קטרת am י׳׳כ (Joma 47 a und Tamid 5, 4). Zum מנחת סלת gehört normal eigentlich לבונה (siehe zu Wajikra 2, 1). Statt dessen tritt hier die הקטרה לריח ניחוח selbständig und in dem gesteigerten höchsten Ausdruck des קטרת auf. Wie bereits zu Schmot 30, 34 f. bemerkt, ist קטרת der höchste Ausdruck der idealsten Hingebung, des vollendetsten Aufgehens in Gott, es ist das ריח ניחוח an sich, zu welchem alle anderen auf dem Altare des Vorraums zu vollbringenden Handlungen nur den hinanstrebenden Weg bahnen. Seine Darbringung ist daher dem מזבח הזהב im היכל vorbehalten, und kann sonst nie בנדבה gebracht werden. Es ist das höchste Ideal, das gesteckt ist, das eben nur als gesteckt, als das vom Heiligtum gewiesene hohe Ziel erscheinen darf, dessen aus נדבה hervorgehende Darbringung aber eine die Höhe dieses Ziels verkennende Anmaßung in sich fassen würde. Seine Darbringung hier בנדבה und auf מזבח החיצון war daher nur הוראת שעה, eine aus der Bedeutung des Momentes und des momentanen Zweckes hervorgehende ausdrückliche Gestattung. Als חנכת המזבח zeigt es eben das ריח נחוח, zu dem hinan der מזבח החיצון die Wege fortan lehren soll, in seiner reinsten Vollendung, und von dem Stammesfürst als Stammesfürsten dargebracht, spricht es das Gelöbnis aus, dass dieses höchste Ziel jüdischer Vollendung auch seinem Stamme als solchem als ein mit allen Gütern und Gaben alle kommenden Zeiten hindurch anzustrebendes ewig voranleuchten soll. Alle Wünsche seines Stammes sollen in Befriedigung der göttlichen Wünsche aufgehen. All sein ריח נחוח ein ריח ניחוח לד׳ werden.

כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטורת, “one golden pan ten shekels in weight.” The number “ten,” is an allusion to the Ten Commandments. Moses had received these Ten Commandments [inscribed on the Tablets, Ed.], which are symbolised here by the pleasant fragrance of the incense. It is possible to prove from this wording that when the sages said that the cup of wine that accompanies the reciting of the grace after the meal is worth 40 gold pieces. (Compare Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 87) Our verse therefore is to be understood as follows: the letter כ in the expression כף אחת, numerical value 20, represents 20 of the 100 benedictions we are to pronounce each day. The letter ף in the word כף, numerical value 80, total 100. It follows that the cup of blessing, כוס של ברכה, recited over the meal which consists of four separate blessings, is worth 40 shekels of gold.

כף אחת עשרה זהב, “one golden pan weighing ten shekel; the shekel is a weight measure applied to silver, not usually to gold.

מלאה קטרת FULL OF FRANKINCENSE — We do not find frankincense prescribed as an offering for an individual, nor to have been offered on the outer altar except this one alone; this offering of frankincense by the princes was therefore an הוראת שעה, a temporary measure (Menachot 50b).

We do not find. Meaning that we do not find any individual who brought incense upon either of the two altars. Furthermore incense is only burned upon the inner altar. Thus here there were two changes from the norm.

Zusammengefasst sprechen מזרק ,קערה und כף allgemein die drei Grundweihehandlungen הקטרה ,זריקה ,קבלה: Aufnahme, Hingeben, Aufgehen aus, die an und auf dem Altare zur Vollziehung kommen werden und also den Grund der חנכת המזבח bilden, und zwar beginnt die Aufnahme in den Kreis des Heiligtums schon mit den äußeren Gütern: קערה, die Hingebung vollzieht sich mit dem lebendigen Wesen der Persönlichkeit: מזרק, und das vollendetste Aufgehen in Gott, כף, vollzieht sich vor allem mit dem Gott entstammenden, Gott zuwallenden Göttlichen im Menschen. Vielleicht haben diese oder ähnliche Betrachtungen bei der Wahl der Gewichtzahl dieser Geräte mitgewirkt. כף ,70 :מזרק .130 :קערה: Zehn als Einheit genommen, gibt die Zahlen 13, 7, 1 offenbar eine absteigende, sich verjüngende Proportion mit der Differenz: 6, 13 - 6 = 7 - 1. Nun kennen wir sechs als das Zeichen des Geschöpflichen. Es ist aber der Mensch ein Doppelkreis des Geschöpflichen, des vegetativen und des animalischen, mit der Einheit eines Göttlichen verbunden. In Zahlen ausgedrückt, ist der Mensch 6 + 6 + 1 = 13. Für die קערה, das Weihegefäß der äußeren Güter der Nahrung und des Genusses ist die volle Zahl 13 gewählt. סולת und שמן an sich repräsentieren schon die eine geschöpfliche Seite, die vegetative, und sie haben die Bestimmung in das mit dem Göttlichen zum Menschen verbundene Animalische umwandelt zu werden. Ihre Signatur ist daher 6 und 7 = 13. Die נפש, welche in dem Blute des מזרק ihre Hingebung erhalten soll, findet ihren Ausdruck in der Zahl 7. In ihr ist das eine Geschöpfliche, das Vegetative, bereits in das mit dem Göttlichen zum Menschen verbundene Animalische aufgegangen. Sie ist 13 - 6 = 7. Die Signatur des מזרק ist daher 7. Das im קטרת ganz in Gott Aufgehende ist das mit dem Animalischen im Menschen verbundene Göttliche an sich. Es ist das göttliche Menschenwesen nach Abzug des animalisch Geschöpflichen, es ist 7 - 6 = 1. Die Signatur des כף ist daher: 1.

פר אחד ONE BULLOCK — i.e. that which is unique (מיוחד) in the herd (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 50).

The best. Here the Torah does not mention any number that is greater than one such that it had to explicitly write the word “one” to distinguish this from the other number. Rather this came in order to expound. Another answer is that because the Torah deviated, writing “one bull, young” and did not write “a young bull, one” (as with the other animals in this verse) this certainly came in order to expound.

VV. 15 u. 16. Nachdem in מנחה die Güterweihe des Stammes vollzogen, schreitet in עולה und חטאת die חנכה zu einer von sittlichem חטאת-Ernste getragenen Tatenweihe des Stammes fort. Es soll sein Stamm jederzeit שעיר-gleich die unverlockbare Festigkeit auf der Höhe eines jeden sittlichen Standpunktes bewähren und im Dienste Gottes eine ungeschwächte Arbeitskraft (פר בן בקר), im Kreise der Bruderstämme ein fortschrittsmächtiges Vorangehen (איל), und in der Nachfolge Gottes eine nie sich überhebende, der Leitung nie sich entwachsen glaubende Treue (כבש בן שנתו) in zu Gott emporstrebender Tat (עולה) bewähren (siehe zu Kap. 6, 14). Auch die Darbringung dieses חטאת נדבה ist הוראת שעה, gehört dem חנכה-Momente an (siehe zu Wajikra 4, 24).

פר אחד בן בקר, “one young bullock;” compare the word בן as describing something you when used in connection with pigeons, i.e. בן יונה.

שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת ONE KID OF THE GOATS FOR A SIN-OFFERING, to make expiation for uncleanness caused by a grave in the depths of the earth, (i.e. one that is not known to exist and it might therefore be assumed that people passed over it and thereby unwittingly became unclean), which was only a doubtful uncleanness (one about which there exists a doubt as to whether it actually has been incurred or not) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 51).

To atone for the grave of the abyss. Meaning of “the grave of the abyss” is when one did not realize about at all, as if it had been buried in the abyss where a person does not think that there may be a grave. It was still necessary for them to purify themselves from this “impurity” and from contact with a doubtful impurity. If they did not then they would not be permitted to come to the sanctuary or to the courtyard because their doubtful impurity that can be atoned for by way of the he-goat sin-offering must be atoned for. However a definite impurity would be overridden by a communal offering such as the Pesach-offering, this overrides impurity if most of the community are impure, as the Torah writes “in its time” — even in impurity. Re’em expands upon this, but I have been brief.

V. 17. ולזבח השלמים וגו׳. Es gipfelt aber die חנכה des Altars in dem זבח שלמים, in dem Opfer, in welchem — die Güter- und Tatenweihe vorausgesetzt, — der Stamm zur Freude an dem eigenen Sein und Wollen vor Gott, zu dem gottfrohen heiteren Genuss seiner selbst gelangt. Es tritt darin ein Opfertier auf, das nirgends wieder speziell als solches erscheint, es sind dies עתודים. Es sind dies nach רד ק die größeren älteren Böcke im Vergleich zu שעיר, dem sonst charakteristischen Opfertiere vom Ziegengeschlechte. Es liegt nahe, in עתודים daher diejenigen Tiere des Ziegengeschlechts zu erkennen, in welchen der עז- und שעיר-Charakter in gesteigertem Maße erscheint, es sind die עתודים, die stets "bereiten", die großen starken, kampfbereiten Böcke der Herde. Daher Jesaias 14, 9 עתורי ארץ zur Bezeichnung aller anderen Babel gleich über die Schaubühne der Geschichte ziehenden kriegerischen Großmächte der Erde. Es freut sich daher der Stamm seines Seins und Wollens vor Gott als בקר: in der Mitarbeit an dem großen Gotteswerke auf Erden, als איל: in dem Vorwandeln in dem Kreise der nationalen Genossen, als עתוד: in dem Verteidigungskampfe nach außen, endlich als כבש: in der treuen Hingebung an die Führung des "Hirten Israels". Charakteristisch sind die Zahlen. Es tritt dabei eine Zahl auf, die auch sonst nie als Zahlbestimmung bei Opfern erscheint, es ist dies die Zahl: fünf. Erwägen wir, dass zehn die Grundzahl einer עדה, einer zu einer Einheit geschlossenen Vielheit ist, so stellt sich fünf als Halbheit, als nicht geschlossene Vielheit dar, und wir begreifen, warum in שלמים im Ausdruck der Freude an seinem Sein und Wollen vor Gott der Stamm nicht als geschlossene Einheit, sondern als ungeschlossene, der Vereinigung mit einem Bruderstamm bedürfende Halbheit sich darstellen will. Im עולה, im Ausdruck dessen, was er soll, durfte er als פר אחד usw. hintreten; denn es soll jeder Stamm vermöge seiner Eigenartigkeit ein besonderes "Eins" bilden in der Summe des Gottesvolkes. Aber in שלמים, im Ausdruck der Freude an dem, was er ist, begreift sich der Stamm nicht als Einheit und nicht als geschlossene Einheit, nicht "eins" und nicht "zehn" ist das Zahlzeichen seiner Opfer. Als בקר, in der Gott dienenden Lebenstat, bekennt er sich als בקד שנים, als "Vielheit", er gedenkt des Beitrags an für Gottes Werk arbeitender Lebenstat, der in jeder Hütte, jeder Brust seines Stammes geleistet wird, mit welchem jedes Individuum seiner Gesamtheit sich nur mit hineinzählt in die "Tausende und Zehntausende Israels". Und in der Freude an seinem איל-Einfluss nach innen, an seiner עתורים-Macht nach außen und an seinem כבש-Bewusstsein der Gottesführung, begreift er sich nur als Teil des Ganzen, fühlt er sich nur im Bruderanschluss ganz, und drückt sein Freudebewusstsein als אילים חמשה ,עתודים חמשה ,כבשים בני שנה חמשה aus.

ולזבח השלמים, “and as the peace offerings, etc.” this part of the offering symbolised the entire Torah, as it has been described as “peace” by Solomon in Proverbs 3,17: וכל נתיבותיה שלום, “and all her paths are peace.”

זה קרבן, “this was the offering, etc.” This apparently superfluous word was to hint that these princes added incense to their offerings, something not usually permitted to an offering of an individual. Not only that, but they also offered a sin offering each, although they had not been guilty of any sin requiring this. In addition, and even more remarkable, at least one of them offered his offering on the Sabbath when individual offerings must not be offered. (Compare Sifri)

בקר שנים, “two oxen;” a hint at the Torah, whose principles have been spelled out on the two Tablets.

אילים חמשה, עתודים חמשה, “five rams and five he-goats.” An allusion to the five commandments engraved on each of the two Tablets.

כבשים בני שנה חמשה,”five yearling sheep, during the first year of their lives.” This is an allusion to the Five Books of Moses. Whenever the word עתודים appears it is not spelled with letter ו as it is spelled here. Our sages said that this is to remind us that on this particular day when Nachshon offered his consecration offering there were six things that had never occurred previously in human history. 1) It was the first day that the priests began to function as such. 2). Nachshon was the first of tribal princes to function in that capacity. 3) He was the first of the Israelite people to present his offering next to the Tabernacle. 4) It was the first day of the first month in the Jewish calendar. 5) It was the first anniversary of the Exodus from Egypt. 6) It was the first day when it became forbidden to offer sacrifices to the Lord anywhere but in the Tabernacle. Private altars became taboo, even if the sacrifice offered was addressed to Hashem. Our author adds that this is what he had found (not quoting the source) He adds that he does not quite agree, quoting Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 10, having said that this day had been crowned with 10 crowns. It would follow that more than 6 items in human history occurred on that day for the first time.- In light of the above, it appears to me that the word וקרבנו, “and his offering,” is intended as a warning to Nachshon not to be proud of having been the first of the princes to be allowed to offer this sacrifice. The letter ו at the beginning of that word is a hint at the six outstandingly righteous descendants of Nachshon in the future, which I have explained earlier and which are found in Bamidbar Rabbah, on Numbers 13,7-9. As to the reason why he and all the other princes offered relatively inexpensive offering animal offerings, [apart from the expensive gifts which were not destined for the altar, obviously, Ed.] this may best be understood by a parable. When a king set out on a journey, his servants provided him with the minimum food and other necessities in order to make his journey pleasant. To the king’s question: “is this how you think you can accord me the honour due me,?” His servants replied: “this is what we provide at the time when you set out on the journey. Once you will have arrived at your destination, we will, of course, honour you far more appropriate to your achievements. When the Tabernacle was erected, the princes offered relatively inexpensive gifts. They explained that as long as the people were still in the desert they were not able to honour the Lord in the manner fitting for Him. As soon as the permanent Temple would be built, they would demonstrate that they would honour Him in style, as can be seen from the inauguration ceremonies when Solomon’s Temple was built, as described in Kings I, chapter eight at length. This is also what the Psalmist referred to in Psalms 51,20; “the You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness burnt and whole offerings; then bulls will be offered on Your altar. Similar consecration rites also were performed in the days of Ezra, when the second Temple was inaugurated. (Ezra, 6,17). (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 13,1)

הקריב נתנאל בן צוער... הקרב את קרבנו NETANEL BROUGHT HIS OFFERING...HE BROUGHT HIS OFFERING: Why is the word הִקְרִב, “brought [his offering],” used in connection with the tribe of Issachar, but is not used in connection with any of the [other] tribes? Because [the tribe of] Reuben came and complained, “Is it not enough that my brother Judah has preceded me? Let me [at least] offer up after him.” Moses said to him,“I was told by the Almighty that they should offer up in the order in which they travel, according to their divisions.” This is why it says: הִקְרִב אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ, [in which the word הִקְרִב is] missing a“yud,” [thus] giving it the meaning of הַקְרֵב, in the imperative for he was commanded by the Almighty,“Bring the offering!” What is the meaning of הִקְרִב … הִקְרִב, twice? For because of two reasons he [Issachar] merited to be the second of the tribes to offer their sacrifices: One, because they were [well] versed in the Torah, as it says,“And of the sons of Issachar, those who had understanding of the times” (I Chron. 12:32). Another, because they advised the princes to contribute these offerings (Sifrei Bamidbar 53). In the treatise of Rabbi Moses Hadarshan [“the preacher”], I found [the following]: Rabbi Pinchas the son of Yair says [that] Netanel the son of Zu’ar gave them this idea.

ביום השני, On the second day, etc. The reason the tribe of Issachar was accorded the honour of offering this sacrifice on the second day was that their prince represented a tribe which would become renowned for its command of Torah. This is why he preceded Reuben although the latter was the senior member of the tribes. Not only this, but also the prince of Zevulun was placed ahead of Reuben seeing that it was the generosity of that tribe which would allow the members of the tribe of Issachar to study Torah without worrying about where their livelihood would come from (compare Deut. 33,18 where Moses even blessed Zevulun ahead of Issachar).

ביום השני הקריב נתנאל בן צוער נשיא יששכר, הקרב את קרבנו, “on the second day, Netanel son of Zuor prince of Issachar brought an offering. He brought his offering, etc.” In verse 19 the letter י is absent in the word הקרב. Why is that? Moreover, in connection with the offerings of all the other princes we find the sequence 'קרבנו קערת כסף אחת וגו', whereas in the case of Netanel the Torah wrote הקרב את קרבנו, “he brought forward his offering.” The Torah implies with these words that Netanel was instructed by G’d to offer his sacrifice after Nachshon. There had been a protest by the other princes who felt they should take precedence being that the tribe of Yissachar is the fifth in the order of the tribes. To counter such claims the Torah hints by omitting the letter י from the word הקרב that G’d specifically commanded that Yissachar be the second tribe to bring the offering. This omission implies that they were initially distanced by the other tribes before G-d intervened and 'brought them close'. The tribe of Yissachar merited this honor due to the fact that there were many Torah scholars amongst them, as related in Divrei Hayamim I 12:33 "Of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times, to determine how Israel should act; their chiefs were 200, and all their brethren followed them" — this implies that the entire nation "followed them" in Halachic matters.

VV. 18 u. 19. ביום השני הקריב וגו׳ הקרב וגו׳. Die Darbringung am zweiten Tage wird wiederholt mit הקריב eingeleitet, um ihr, und so auch allen folgenden, die darauf nur mit der kürzer berichtenden Fassung: ביום הרביעי נשיא, ביום השלישי נשיא וגו׳ usw. aufgeführt werden, obgleich sie alle nur die Wiederholung des ersten für ihren Stamm waren, ganz dieselbe selbständige Dignität wie dem ersten zu bewahren. Im ספרי wird darin eine Auszeichnung des Stammes Jissachar erkannt, der sich als יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל (Chron. I. 12, 32) auszeichnete und dessen Fürst, Nethanel, eben derjenige war, der diese ganze חנכת המזבח angeregt und entworfen hatte.

ביום השני הקריב ...נשיא ישכר, “on the second day the prince of Issachar offered his inaugural offering; [an identical one as were those of all the twelve princes. Ed.] The reason that this tribe was accorded the honour of being the second, although according to seniority he was far younger, was that the members of this tribe excelled in Torah knowledge as has been testified to in Chronicles I 12,32: ומבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים, “and from among the members of the tribe Issachar, who knew how to interpret the signs of the times.” [Whereas the other tribes all sent delegations of between 20000 and 10000 for the official coronation of King David, Issachar sent only two hundred, who made up in quality for what they lacked in quantity. Ed.] This is also the reason why the word הקרב which is always spelled with the letter י after the letter ר is spelled defectively here. Rashi offers a different reason for this

הקריב נתנאל בן צוער, Netanel the son of Tzuar offered his gift. In this instance the Torah mentioned the name of the prince before telling us that Netanel was one of the princes. This was also intended to demonstrate that his merit was such that he could have claimed the right to be number two in the lineup even if he had not been a prince. We do not find this again amongst all the other ten princes which follow. Netanel's name is a reminder of the Torah and the means by which it was acquired. Solomon refers to the Torah in Proverbs 4,2 as כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, i.e. that what G'd has given (the Torah) is a good instruction. The means by which we acquired the Torah is reflected in Netanel's father's name בן צוער, an allusion to pain, צער. The message is that Torah can only be truly acquired through one's undergoing a process of afflictions. We are taught in Gittin 57 that the line אדם כי ימות באהל (Numbers 19,14) is a reminder that in order to truly acquire Torah one must "kill oneself" in the tent of Torah, i.e. in the hall of study by deeply immersing oneself in the mysteries of the Torah. Perhaps this is another reason why Netanel's name precedes his title, to hint that his tribe's immersion in Torah is already reflected in his very name. The first time the Bible mentions that the members of this tribe were outstanding Torah scholars is in Chronicles I 12,33 where the small number of delegates sent by this tribe to David's coronation is explained by the fact that these delegates were יודעי בינה לעתים, "aware of the need of the times." The manner in which their prince "killed" himself in order to study Torah may have contributed to the members of his tribe emulating him and becoming יודעי בינה לעתים.

קערת כסף — The numerical value of its letters (of the letters of these two words) is 930 corresponding to the years of Adam ha-Rishon (Numbers Rabbah 14:12).

הקריב את קרבנו, brought his offering, etc. These words are superfluous, seeing the Torah already wrote in verse 18 that Netanel brought an offering. The Torah may have intended to stress its regard for Nachshon's offering. The Torah did this by mentioning the fact that Nachshon brought his offering three times. It mentions Netanel as having brought his offering twice, and mentions all the other princes only once as having brought their respective offerings. They were not on the spiritual levels of either the kings of Yehudah or the tribe of Issachar [in the future Ed.].

930 corresponding to the years. Rashi brings these allusions in order to relate to the simple understanding of the verses. For if this were not so, what is the relevance detailing these utensils by their number and weight, and similarly in detailing the animals teaching that all the leaders agreed to them, neither subtracting or adding? This is even though it is not the manner of Rashi to bring interpretations such as this (Re’m). (Gur Aryeh) Rashi brought these numerical values here upon the offerings of Nesanel the son of Tzu’ar because he gave this advice and if there had not been an important symbolism with wisdom and appropriate reasoning they would not have listened to him, also they would not have needed this advice. You might ask: How are the ages of Adam and Noach relevant here? The answer is that the Mishkon was representative of the creation of the world, as is brought in Shemos Rabbah, Parshas Pekudei. Therefore their offerings were related to all of the foundations of the world — Adam, Noach and the seventy nations, the Torah, the Ten Commandments and the fathers of the world upon whom the world stands.

V. 19. ובבא משה וגו׳ (vergl. Schmot 25, 22 und das daselbst Bemerkte). Der vorangehenden durch die נשיאי ישראל bewirkten חנכת המזבח und der dadurch zum Ausdrucke gelangten Tatsache, dass die Stämme Jisraels in einmütiger Zusammenstimmung in dem Gesetzesheiligtume ihr Gesetzesheiligtum und in ihm die Führung, Leitung und Heilesförderung ihres ganzen nationalen Wesens erkennen, schließt sich damit korrespondierend der Bericht der Tatsache an, dass, wenn Mosche in das Heiligtum trat, לדבר אתו, weil Gott an ihn ein Wort richten wollte, וישמע וגו׳ מעל הכפרת אשר על ארן העדות מבין שני הכרובים er die an ihn sich aussprechende Stimme vernahm , von dem auf dem ארון העדות ruhenden כפרת herab zwischen den beiden כרובים hervor; denn, wie wir dort bemerkt, nicht in Folge einer besonderen individuellen Beziehung Mosche zu Gott, sondern nur in Folge der göttlichen Bundesnähe mit Israel, wie diese eben durch ארון und כפורת ausgedrückt ist, in Folge der göttlichen Gegenwart in Mitte des Sein Gesetz, bewahrenden Volkes, lässt Gott sein Wort an Mosche gelangen.

שלשים ומאה משקלה THE WEIGHT THEREOF WAS AN HUNDRED AND THIRTY SHEKELS — in allusion to the fact that when he (Adam) first raised children to maintain the world in existence he was 130 years old, for it is said, (Genesis 5:3) “and Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and then begat [a son]” (Numbers Rabbah 14:12).

The reason the word hikriv is spelled here without the customary letter י is to enable us to use the exegetical approach of the sages of the Messorah who understood the word as an imperative. Traditionally, (Sifri item 52 on our verse) the tribe of Reuben had protested when informed that Issachar would be in line after Yehudah. G'd therefore gave specific instructions i.e. hakrev that Issachar was to be next. This is alluded to by the absence of the letter י in the written text, though the word is read in the past tense, i.e. hikriv.

מזרק אחד כסף — The numerical value of these words is 520, being an allusion to Noah who begot children at the age of 500 and also an allusion to the twenty years before his offspring were born when the decree regarding the flood was made (thus together 520 years) — just as I have set forth in my comment upon the verse (Genesis 6:3): “yet his days shall be 120 years”. — It is for this reason that it is here said, מזרק אחד כסף and it is not said, מזרק כסף אחד, the number being placed at the end of the phrase, as it is said of the charger (קערת כסף אחת), — to indicate that the letters of the word אחד, too, should be taken into account in this reckoning (Numbers Rabbah 14:12).

שבעים שקל SEVENTY SHEKELS — corresponding to the seventy nations that descended from his (Noah’s) sons (Numbers Rabbah 14:12).

כף) כף אחת also denotes “hand”) — in allusion to the Torah that was given from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He (Numbers Rabbah 13:16).

עשרה זהב — TEN SHEKELS, GOLD — corresponding to the Ten Commandments (Numbers Rabbah 13:16).

מלאה קטרת — The total of the word קטרת according to their numerical value is 613, the number of the Biblical commandments, except that you must exchange the קו"ף by דל"ת, according to the “Method of Permutation” known as א׳׳ת ב"ש ג"ר ד"ק (by which the first letter of the Alphabet may take the place of the last, the second that of the one before last etc.) (Numbers Rabbah 13:16).

פר אחד ONE BULLOCK, [A YOUNG ONE, בן בקר] — in allusion to Abraham of whom it states, (Genesis 18:7) “And he took a young bull (בן בקר)" (Numbers Rabbah 13:14).

איל אחד ONE RAM — in allusion to Isaac, with reference to whom Scripture states, (Genesis XXII 13) “and he (Abraham) took the ram (האיל) [and offered it up … in the stead of his son]” (Numbers Rabbah 13:14).

כבש אחד ONE LAMB — in allusion to Jacob of whom Scripture states, (Genesis 30:40) “and Jacob did separate the lambs” (Numbers Rabbah 13:14).

שעיר עזים [ONE] KID OF THE GOATS — in order to make expiation for the “selling of Joseph” with reference to whom it states, (Genesis 37:31) “and they slaughtered a kid of the goats” (Numbers Rabbah 13:13).

ולזבח השלמים בקר שנים AND FOR A SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS TWO OXEN — The two peace-offerings are an allusion to Moses and Aaron who made peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven (Numbers Rabbah 13:19).

אילם כבשים ועתדים — three species — in allusion to the three divisions of the nation: priests, Levites and ordinary Israelites, and also in allusion to the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, the three sections of the Holy Scriptures. There are three times “five”, in allusion to the “Five Books of Moses”, to the five Commandments written on one of the Tablets and to the five written on the other (Numbers Rabbah 14:10). Thus far have I found in the work of R. Moshe the Preacher.

ביום השלישי וגו׳ means, ON THE THIRD DAY, THE PRINCE who offered WAS OF THE SONS OF ZEBULUN, and similar is the meaning of the parallel statement in the case of all of them (all the other tribes). In the case of Nethaneel, however, of whom it is stated, (v. 18) הקריב “[on the second day] did Nethaneel the son of Zuar offer”, it is appropriate to use after it the phrase: “the prince of Issachar”, since it has already mentioned his name and the fact that he offered, whilst in the case of the others of whom it is not stated “he offered”, this phrase is the appropriate one, viz., the prince belonging to the sons of that-and-that tribe, when the meaning of the entire sentence is: on that day the prince who offered was of the sons of so-and-so.

אליאב בן חלון. He was called so seeing he, or his tribe, enabled Issachar to devote themselves to the uninterrupted study of Torah. Similar considerations prompted Moses in Deut. 33,18 to mention the tribe of Zevulun ahead of the tribe of Issachar in his blessings although Issachar was senior to Zevulun by birth. The most appropriate way of translating his name would be "it behooves me to be called father (in relation to Issachar)." The word חלון emphasises that although, biologically speaking, he is only the descendant of chulin, someone secular, occupied with trading instead of Torah study, he nevertheless has attained the rank of seniority to Issachar being the one who provides the wherewithal for Issachar to study Torah.

On the third day, the leader was. Rashi is answering the question: “On the third day the leader was…” implies that on the third day he was the leader, but afterwards he was not the leader.

אליצור בן שדיאור, Perhaps there is an allusion in this name that G'd had forgiven the sin of Reuben which the Torah recorded (Genesis 35,22). He may have put balsam or balm, i.e. צרי, on his wound. The letters אלי mean אלקי, my G'd; the letters צור are to be understood as similar to Jeremiah 8,22: הצרי אין בגלעד, "is there no more balm in Gilead?" The word בן שדיאור is to be broken up into בן שדי and אור, i.e. a hint that he was a son of G'd who is also known as שדי. The combined name then is reminiscent of the story in the Torah that Reuben slept with Bilhah. The Torah reported immediately afterwards that the sons of Jacob numbered 12 which shows that any damage inflicted by Reuben had been healed. This prompted our sages in Shabbat 55 to say that if someone were to accuse Reuben of having committed a sin he is in error.

That is that He commanded the priests to carry the ark on their shoulders, when we want to move it from place to place. And that is His saying, "they bore it on their shoulders" (Numbers 7:9). Even though this command came to the Levites at that time, that was in fact because of the paucity (at that time) of priests who were [actually] obligated with the commandment. If so, the commandment is obligatory on the priests; and they would be the ones to carry it, as it is explained in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 3:6) and in the Book of Samuel (II Samuel 15:25). And when David commanded that the ark be carried the second time, he said in Chronicles (I Chronicles 15:15), "The Sons of Levi carried the Ark of God by means of poles on their shoulders, as Moshe had commanded, in accordance with the word of the Lord." And likewise when it mentions the divisions of the priests into twenty four watches in Chronicles, it states (I Chronicles 24:19), "According to this allocation of offices by tasks, they were to enter the House of the Lord according to the ordinance given to Aharon their father, as the Lord, God of Israel, had commanded him." The Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained that this hints to the service of the priests being to carry the ark on the shoulder. And that is (what is meant by), "as the Lord, God of Israel, had commanded him." And the language of Sifrei is "'According to the ordinance, etc., as the Lord had commanded him' - where did He command him? 'But to the Sons of Kehat he did not give any; since theirs was the service of the [most] sacred objects, they bore it on their shoulders.'" Behold it has been made clear to you that this commandment is included in the commandments. (See Parashat Nasso, Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)

שלמיאל בן צורישדי. The name of the prince of Shimon alludes to the original Shimon whom G'd paid back for what he had done to Joseph by having Joseph incarcerate him in Egypt. It also includes a reference to G'd repaying that tribe for the conduct of Zimri [its prince 40 years later Ed.]. He is understood as exclaiming צורי שדי, "enough (punishment) my G'd." Once Zimri had been slain the plague stopped as we know from Numbers 25,8.

אליסף בן דעואל. The name of the prince of the tribe of Gad includes a hint that this was the first tribe of the Israelites which was settled in their permanent home. Only the able-bodied men of that tribe crossed the Jordan to form the vanguard of the Israeli army at the time of the conquest. Furthermore, according to Sifri volume two item 299 the lands formerly owned by Sichon and Og were not part of the lands promised by G'd to Abraham. We also find in the rules pertaining to the laws of the land of Israel that the land is divided into three different districts, Transjordan being one of those districts (compare Sheviit 9,2). Please refer to my comments in Parshat Mattot on 32,3-4 where I have explained this in greater detail. Inasmuch as these lands had been "grabbed" by the Jewish people, the letters יסף in the name of its prince are an allusion to that tribe inheriting land which was not part of the heritage promised to the patriarchs. The word בן דעואל is a hint that that tribe as well as all the other tribes are fully loyal to G'd and His Torah, i.e. "know the Lord," compare Joshua 22,27 and 22,34.

אלשמע בן עמיהוד. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah are quoted in Tanchuma on our verse as saying that the name Elishama suggests that whereas "Joseph listened to the commands of G'd, he did not listen to the command of his mistress to sleep with her. He did not make common cause with the wicked." Joseph did not desist from sinning because he was not tempted but because he was obedient to G'd's imperatives as he pointed out to the wife of Potiphar when he described giving in to his urge as a sin against G'd (Genesis 39,9). This is what is meant by Elishama, i.e אלי שמע, "he listened to Me." Our sages in Sotah 36 explained that at the crucial moment he had a vision of the face of his father. Clearly, this is a reference to a divine image which resembled the face of Jacob. After all, his father was in Canaan and had no inkling of what temptation his son faced at the time not even knowing that Joseph was still alive. What Joseph beheld in the vision was what is known as אביר יעקב אלוקי ישראל. When the sages in the Midrash spoke of the wicked in the plural, they may have referred to many similar temptations that Joseph withstood successfully. The reason the same idea occurs a second time in the name of the father of Elyasaph, i.e. עמיהוד is to hint what the Torah told us in that verse in Genesis that he did not listen to Mrs Potiphar who requested that Joseph agree to be physically close to her. Joseph preferred to remain close to G'd, i.e. עמי הודו.

ביום השביעי נשיא לבני אפרים, “on the seventh day (it was the turn) the prince of the tribe Ephrayim.” This day was the Sabbath, as the first day of these inaugural offerings was presented on the first day of the week, to symbolise the day on which G–d began to create the universe we live in. Seeing that the original Joseph had been observing the Sabbath, long before it had become designated a day of rest for the Jewish people, a descendant of his was honoured by presenting his offering on that day. The sages deduce the fact that Joseph observed the Sabbath from Genesis 43,16 in which the word, והכן, “he had prepared it,” appears an allusion to the fact that the animals he served his brothers had been slaughtered and prepared on the day before. The Torah, in Exodus 16,5, had instructed the Jewish people to prepare for the first Sabbath after the manna fell from heaven and to prepare their food from it before the onset of the Sabbath, seeing that they had received a double portion on that day. Normally, no offerings of individuals are allowed to be offered on the Sabbath. Seeing that the founding father of the tribe of Ephrayim had honoured the Sabbath when this had not been required, the Sabbath honoured him by allowing him to offer his sacrifice on that day. This is also recalled in Psalms 60,9: לי גלעד ולי מנשה ואפרים מעוד ראשי יהודה מחוקקי, “Gilead and Menashe would be Mine; Ephrayim My chief stronghold, Yehudah My scepter.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that if someone would question the right of Elijah the prophet to have built a private altar on Mount Carmel in his confrontation with the priests of the Baal during a period when this was absolutely forbidden, the psalmist answered that לי גלעד, “He did it at My command.” Rabbi Shimon be Lakish added: if someone were to tell you that Gideon performed seven acts all of which were violations of the Torah’s commandments, including building a private altar, sacrificing on it though he was not a priest, using wood from an idolatrous tree for firewood, etc; (compare Judges chapters 6-25-26) this is what the psalmist had in mind when he said: לי מנשה, Menashe is Mine, i.e. Gideon from the tribe of Menashe did all this at G–d’s instruction. If someone were to tell you that Joshua desecrated the Sabbath when he marched around Jericho for seven days in a row, one of which must have been the Sabbath, (Joshua 6, 3-4) all of this was done at the express command of Hashem It is therefore not so strange to read that G–d permitted the “desecration” of the Sabbath on this occasion by allowing the prince of the tribe of Ephrayim to present his inaugural offering on the Sabbath. This incident is referred to by the psalmist quoted earlier as: “Yehudah My scepter” יהודה מחוקקי. If someone were to tell you that David violated a negative commandment, G–d said that what David did was similar to what a scribe does when he inscribes (as an illustration what is forbidden to write on the Sabbath) The psalmist refers to this in Psalms 51,15, with the words: אלמדה פשעים דרכיך וחטאים אליך ישובו, “by my actions I teach the transgressors Your ways, and the sinners will return to You.” Midrash Tanchuma section 28, on our portion goes as far as quoting The Talmud in tractate Avodah zarah folio 4 where we find Rabbi Yochanan saying, quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai having said: “if David became guilty of a gross misconduct in the episode with Bat Sheva, this had been allowed to happen only in order to teach the common people that it is possible to do penitence, both as an individual sinner, i.e. David, or, as in the case of the people sinning at the golden calf, for a community, to do penitence, without the world having come to an end for either that individual or that community.

ביום השביעי, “on the seventh day;” this day was a Sabbath; permission was granted to not interrupt this string of sacrifices of which G-d had told Moses that they should be offered on consecutive days. (Verse 11)

גמליאל בן פדהצור. Our sages interpret the word גמליאל as "He did favours for me." They also interpret the word פדהצור as "He liberated me from prison." One may also see the following allusion in this name: Joseph gave thanks to G'd who not only had shown him kindness by freeing him from prison but who showed him his father's image at a crucial time to save him from committing a sin." In other words: פדה צור, G'd liberated him from sin.

אבידן בן גדעוני. This is an allusion to King Saul who was referred to by David as אבי, "my father" (compare Samuel I 24,11) when David had cut off Saul's mantle instead of killing him. Saul had deserved to be killed seeing that G'd had already judged him, דן, and told him he had forfeited his crown (Samuel I 15). There is also an allusion in this name to Mordechai who destroyed the seed of Amalek. The word בן גדעוני means that he (David) was the one on whose account Saul's kingdom had been taken from him.

אחיעזד בן עמישדי. Perhaps there is an allusion here to Samson. The letters אחי in this name refer to the spirit of the Lord which overcame Samson (compare Judges 14,6). The reason that spirit is described as אחי may be related to Psalms 122,8 "למען אחי ורעי" which is understood by Rabbi Moshe Alshich as a reply by the Holy Spirit. The words בן עמישדי allude to what happened to Samson after the Philistines had gouged out his eyes and he called out to G'd to avenge what they had done to him. G'd answered him and he killed thousands of them.

פגעיאל בן עכרן. Sifri volume 2 item 355 claims it was Asher who had told his brothers of what Reuben had done, whereupon the brothers rebuked him. When Reuben confessed that he had done what Asher had reported, the brothers included Asher again in their circle. This is the meaning of the word פגעי אל, his brothers met him again after first having ostracised him.

Another meaning of the name may be related to the blessing of Asher (Deut. 33,23) "Asher is blessed more than the other sons." Our sages comment on this that "none of the other tribes received as generous a blessing as did Asher." We find that the blessing of the sons was conditioned by their proximity to a holy site, to sanctity. In order to determine this you may assume that the Holy Ark was the centre of sanctity. When this ark was hosted by Oved Edom Hagitti (compare Berachot 63) the host was blessed exceedingly as outlined in the Talmud and the Book of Chronicles. The word פגעי אל means that "G'd has granted me many children." The second part of his name, בן עכרן may be an allusion to a tradition (Tanna be bey Eliyahu 9) that even if the daughters of Asher had sinned, i.e. that they had lost their virginity prior to marriage (figuratively speaking), something עכור, shameful, G'd treated them as if their hymen were intact, i.e. as if they had not sinned at all. [The tradition seems based on those daughters not bleeding when their hymen was ruptured. Ed.]

אחירע בן עינן. This name appears to contain an allusion to the statement of the Sifri on Deut. 33,23 that Naftali was satisfied with favour, i.e. that he did not strive for more than had been granted to him. He enjoyed the fruits of Ginnosaur, the fish of the lake of Kinneret, etc. The word אחי רע suggests that in Naftali's eyes his brothers had received a share inferior to his. His "eye," i.e. his aspirations had been fully met by the blessing he received at the hands of Moses.

ביום המשח אתו [THIS WAS THE DEDICATION OFFERING OF THE ALTAR] IN THE DAY WHEN IT WAS ANOINTED — This implies that on the very same day that it was anointed an offering was brought; but how, then, can I explain, (v. 88) “[This was dedication of the altar] after that it was anointed”? As intimating that it was first anointed and afterwards — but still on the same day — the offering was brought. Or, perhaps, these words אחרי המשח mean “some time (i.e. many days) after it was anointed”, and the phrase here ביום המשח אתו is merely intended to intimate that it was anointed during the day-time (and not at night)! This cannot be so, because when it states, (Leviticus 7:36) “In the day that he anointed them (Aaron and his sons)” we learn that it (the altar) was anointed during the day-time. What, then, must be the meaning of ביום המשח here? What we first suggested — that on the very same day that it was anointed the offering was brought (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 53).

זאת חנכת המזבח, when we compare the consecration of the altar of the Tabernacle to that of the consecration of Solomon’s Temple, this appears as so insignificant as to be hardly worth mentioning. (compare Kings I chapter 8)

ביום המשח אותו, on the day it was anointed. This verse is proof that our contention that all the princes had come to offer their gifts simultaneously on the first of Nissan is correct, but that G'd arranged that only one prince should offer his gift on any single day.

זאת חנוכת המזבח, “this was the consecration of the Altar, etc.” In this instance the Torah had first familiarized us with all the details of the ritual, and then proceeded to summarize it once more. Rashi says that the reason why the Torah summarized all this once more was to teach us that the weights described here were so accurate that when each bowl or basin had been weighed individually, and when subsequently they were weighed collectively, the total corresponded precisely to the multiple we were led to believe. Nachmanides writes that he did not understand what Rashi had in mind when he wrote these lines, quoting Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan. What possible advantage could we gain from having this information? If he considered the fact that the weights correspond to one another as so remarkable that this was considered a miracle, what purpose would this miracle serve? G’d does not work miracles unless they were needed. If it was something natural, why did this fact deserve special mention? Rashi, i.e. Rabbi Moshe hadarshan, wanted us to learn that ordinary vessels are not judged by the same standards as holy vessels, vessels used in the Temple. When ordinary vessels are weighed you will find that their weight varies slightly each time they are being weighed. When holy vessels are weighed they weigh precisely the same each time they are put on the scales. Rabbi Nathan described an experiment performed with the vessels used in the Temple. (Second Temple) according to which the vessels were not only melted down, but coins were minted from them. Subsequently, the coins were melted down and reconverted into the original vessels. It was found that there had been no loss of the original weight at all. All of this proves that already originally the gold used in those vessels was of the most refined kind, so much so that it contained no dross that would be burnt off during the repeated processes of melting those vessels down. Nachmanides concludes that the lesson to be learned from all this is that G’d honours those who fear Him. The princes brought all their various offerings on the same day, a day that all of them had agreed upon previously, so that it would become unavoidable that one of them would get his turn before his colleague when they lined up. Each prince would be given his flag in recognition of his offering. The order of the days in which the offerings were accepted on the altar corresponded to when the prince in question had received his flag. It was important to G’d (the Torah) that each prince and his offering would be named individually, as this was part of the honour paid to them by G’d. This is why the Torah did not write simply: “on the first day Nachshon brought the following offering, and he was followed by 11 other princes presenting duplicates of Nachshon’s offering”, although the Torah would have saved about 75 verses if it had done so. The reason for summarizing the offerings once more was to convey that the second prince had not needed to be inspired by his predecessor, etc., but that all had presented themselves at the entrance of the Tabernacle already on the first of Nissan, the first day when such offerings could be brought.

On the day [they were] anointed. (Kitzur Mizrochi) It appears to me that this is a copyist’s error and it should read “on the day אותו (it) was anointed,” this refers that which was written above “It came to pass on the day Moshe finished…” (v. 1). For we do not find a verse anywhere referring to the day that he anointed them, however we do find written “on the day they were anointed” (Vayikra 7:36) regarding the sons of Aharon. This is quoted here in Bamidbar Rabbah in relation to another matter and consequently the copyists erred and also wrote אותם (them) here.

V. 84. זאת חנכת וגו׳ usw. Diese Rekapitulation und zusammenfassende Zusammenstellung spricht die Gleichheit und die einmütige Zusammenstimmung der Fürsten Israels in der durch diese חנכת המזבח ausgesprochenen Stellung der einzelnen von ihnen vertretenen Stämme zu dem Gesamtheiligtume aus.

קערת כסף שתים עשרה TWELVE CHARGERS OF SILVER — This intimates: these are the same chargers which they had brought as free-will gifts and nothing to disqualify them had happened to them in the meantime (Sifrei Bamidbar 53).

These are the very ones. Rashi is answering the question: Why do I need it to count one spoon for each day since I know that the will total twelve?

מאת נשיאי ישראל, from the princes of Israel, etc. Why did the Torah have to write these words? Perhaps the Torah wanted to praise the princes for having acted spontaneously in order to inaugurate the altar. The word מאת is as if the Torah had written מאתם, i.e. that the idea originated with the princes and they had not been prompted. Our sages in Sifri volume 1 item 53 state that they all had an equal share in the single מצוה. What the sages meant was the offerings themselves were accounted as if they were a single offering. Different princes acquired different amounts of merit for their part in the offering, however. Nachshon's merit was the greatest of them all.

שלשים ומאה הקערה אחת וגו׳ EACH CHARGER OF SILVER WEIGHING AN HUNDRED AND THIRTY SHEKELS etc. — Why is this stated at all since it has already been staled several times? But because it has only been said “the weight thereof was 130 shekels”, but it does not explain according to which shekel this is reckoned, it (Scripture) therefore repeats it (the number of shekels) here and then makes a general statement with regard to all of them: “all the silver of the vessels was [two thousand and four hundred shekels] after the shekels of the Sanctuary”.

By which shekel standard. Meaning that if not for this verse one would have said that the “holy shekel” written regarding the bowl referred to it alone. Therefore it wrote “one hundred thirty [shekolim was the weight of] each tray…”

כל כסף הכלים ALL THE SILVER OF THE VESSELS [WAS TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED SHEKELS etc.] — By giving the sum total of the shekels it teaches you that the vessels of the Sanctuary had their weight exact (thus e.g. a bowl of 70 shekels was exactly 70, neither more nor less) — whether one weighed them each separately or whether one weighed them all together he got neither more nor less than it should have been ( Sifrei Bamidbar 54).

Precision. Meaning that each one was precisely the weight of the other, even though the scales of an individual do not normally weigh exactly, however the Sanctuary vessels were exactly the same. It appears to me that the reason was to show that even though the thoughts of each leader were directed towards his tribe, as Rabbeinu Bachaye writes in this Parshah, the volumes and the weights were equal to show that they all intended them for the same God.

כפות זהב שתים עשרה THE GOLDEN SPOONS WERE TWELVE — Why is this stated at all, since we have been told that twelve princes brought each one spoon? But because it is stated in each instance: “one spoon עשרה זהב”, I might explain it either as meaning: it was of gold but its weight was ten shekels of silver, or, perhaps, not so, but it means: one spoon of silver and the weight thereof ten gold-shekels — and the gold-shekels have not their weight equal to those of silver-shekels — Scripture therefore states here, “golden spoons” — the spoons themselves were of gold ( Sifrei Bamidbar 55).

It was golden and it weighed. Meaning that I would not know whether the word “gold” written regarding the spoon refers to the spoon — which was golden, or whether it was actually silver and its weight was “of gold”, given that the shekolim of gold and those of silver were not equal. Therefore the Torah said “golden spoons”, juxtaposing the words “gold” and “spoon” to teach that the spoon was golden and that [the words] “ten gold” refers to the spoon. Re’m. You might ask: Why didn’t Rashi answer as he did previously, that the number was written because they were the exact same ones that were donated. For even without his answer one would have to say so, given that the Torah writes “bowls of silver, twelve” where this raises the difficulty: Why do I need the number? One must answer that they are the exact ones etc. Thus, we see that it is normal of the Torah to teach the same novelty for each and every utensil. It appears to me that Rashi was answering the question: Why did it write “golden” when it should have just written “twelve spoons”? Re’m answers that the number was written in order to tell one that they were the exact same ones that were donated, however since the word “gold” and “spoons” were juxtaposed we also learn like I explained above.

כל הבקר לעולה, All the oxen used for the total-offering, etc. The word בקר is in the singular as each one formed part of the same collective offering. This is also the reason the Torah used the word זבח השלמים in verse 88 describing the sacrifice as one.

אחרי המשח אותו, at the conclusion of the 12 days when the Tabernacle had already been consecrated the total amounted to the figures listed here.

ובבא משה AND WHEN MOSES CAME [INTO THE TENT OF MEETING … THEN HE HEARD THE VOICE SPEAKING UNTO HIM FROM OFF THE COVERING THAT WAS UPON THE ARK OF THE TESTIMONY] — When two Scriptural verses apparently contradict each other there comes a third and reconciles them. We have got such a case here: one verse says, (Leviticus 1:1) “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spoke unto him out of the appointed tent”, which was outside the Vail, and another verse says, (Exodus 25:22). “And I shall speak unto thee from off the Ark-lid”, thus within the Vail — then this (our verse) comes and reconciles them: Moses entered the appointed tent, and there he heard the Voice which came from above the Ark-lid, from between the two Cherubim — the Voice issued from Heaven unto the space between the two Cherubim, and from there it issued into the appointed tent where it was heard by Moses. (Sifrei Bamidbar 58 1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:22.)

ובבא משה אל אהל מועד לדבר אתו וישמע את הקול, even though in physical terms the Tabernacle was insignificant compared to the magnificent structure Solomon had built, in terms of spiritual achievement the Tabernacle far outranked Solomon’s Temple, which in turn outranked the second Temple. During the entire period of the second Temple (420 years) not a single prophet had been able to enter the Temple and there to hear the voice of G’d at any given moment. If at this point Moses was able to do this it proved that G’d had approved the consecration and had drawn near Moses as the shepherd of the Jewish people. In spite of all this spiritual grandeur of the Tabernacle in the desert and the clear manifestation of G’d’s presence over it or in it, even this was a far cry from the presence of G’d in the Israelite camp during the period of the revelation at Mount Sinai, and the 40 days before the sin of the golden calf. Once Moses entered the Tabernacle he was able to hear the voice of G’d, something he had been able to hear all the time before the sin of the golden calf, and without the benefit of the Tabernacle and the hallowed ground it stood on.

הקול מדבר אליו, the Voice speaking to him, etc. We have already explained on Exodus 20,1 that when G'd speaks an angel is created as a result of such speech and it is the voice of that angel which man (prophet) hears. I have explained all the instances in which the word לאמור appears as unnecessary such as when G'd's message to Moses or Aaron is introduced. This is what is meant here when the Torah speaks of "the Voice" speaking to Moses. The Torah underlines that in this instance G'd's voice spoke to Moses directly, not the voice of an angel. Although there is a dagesh in the letter ד to tell us that the meaning is מתדבר, i.e. the voice itself was doing the talking, it was not the projection of someone else "behind" the voice. This form is grammatically admissible; the intelligent reader will understand what I mean.

וישמע את הקול, “he would hear the voice speaking with Him(self);” the letter ה at the beginning of the word הקול, makes it plain that this was the same voice that had spoken to Moses at Mount Sinai; he recognised it as such. The principal reason for this verse is to inform us that this voice emanated from between the cherubs on top of the kapporet, the lid over the Holy Ark. From that location the voice filled the Tent of Meeting; this is the meaning of the additional words אל אהל מועד לדבר אתו, “to the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with him (Moses).” Anyone standing outside the walls of the Tabernacle would not hear this voice at all. According to Rashi the reason that the Torah concludes this chapter with the words וידבר אליו, “He spoke directly to him (Moses),” is to make sure that we understand that Aaron was not included. It is possible to explain these apparently redundant words to mean that Moses was the subject. These words would demonstrate the enormous spiritual stature of Moses compared to all other subsequent prophets. He was not taken aback by being addressed by G’d; on the contrary, he engaged in conversation with G’d as attested to by G’d Himself in Exodus 33,11: “Hashem would speak to Moses face to face, as a man would speak with his fellow.” How does a man speak with his fellow? The former initiates the conversation whereas the latter responds. Our verse here would report a similar message to that in Exodus, i.e. that Moses engaged freely in conversation with Hashem. Proof that Moses was on this level is supplied in Numbers 9,8 where Moses had not known the answer to the question how the people who had not purified themselves in time for the Passover should conduct themselves. Instead of telling the people who had raised the point to come back on the following day so that he would have a chance to get a ruling from G’d, Moses simply said עמדו ואשמעה, “stand still and I will hear (G’d’s reply) immediately.” This stature of Moses is mentioned here just as it had been mentioned at the time the people stood at Mount Sinai where the Torah wrote Exodus 19,19 משה ידבר והאלו-הים יעננו בקול, "Moses would speak and G'd would respond in an audible voice." The meaning of those words is that "Moses would respond after G'd had addressed him audibly.” Basically, the Torah reveals here that Moses had attained the ultimate level of spirituality that it is possible for man to attain while alive on earth. His knowledge of G'd was similar to that of a trusted butler long in the service of the same master who is thoroughly familiar with the way of life of his employer. This is what G’d had in mind when He said of Moses in Numbers 12,7: “not so My servant Moses; he is trusted in My entire household.”

ובבא משה, “and when Moses entered;” seeing that the subject here is the consecration of the altar, we are told here that the Presence of the Lord was manifest over the Tabernacle, and that G-d’s voice emanated from within it. Some commentators feel that the beginning of the Book of Leviticus completes the report about the consecration of the altar. (Ibn Ezra)

וישמע את הקול AND HE HEARD THE VOICE — One might think it was a very low voice! Scripture, however, states “the Voice” (with the definite article — the well-known Voice) — it was that thunderous Voice with which He spoke to him on Sinai, and yet when it reached the door of the appointed tent it broke off and did not issue beyond the appointed tent (and therefore it states Leviticus 1:1 מאהל מועד from the appointed tent, and not באהל מועד, because the Voice confined itself to the Interior of the אהל מועד; see Rashi on Leviticus 1:1) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 58:2).

מדבר, read “mi-dabber,” talking to Himself. [According to Moreh Nevuchim 1,68 and in accordance with Aristotele’s concept of G’d, there is no division between subject and predicate in the sphere of understanding something, defining it, actively or passively when we speak of G’d, as is the case when we speak of His creatures. A creature, by definition is subjective vis-à-vis itself, G’d is never subjective, always objective. Having said this you will understand that the translation of G’d “speaking to Himself,” i.e. being both at the receiving end and at the initiating end at the same time is not a contradiction in terms.” Ed.] Proverbs 16,4 כל פעל ה' למענהו, reveals that in the final analysis, all that G’d does has an intelligent purpose known to Him and approved by Him, so much so that the fact that He has seen fit to do it automatically means that it is beneficial for His universe and those in it. We need to keep this in mind whenever we read a line such as וידבר ה'. It is as if the Torah reminded us that the One described as מדבר

מדבר is the same as מתדבר (it is the Hitphael form with assimiliated ת) — “He heard the Voice uttering itself”. It is out of reverence for the Most High God that Scripture speaks thus: “The Voice was speaking to itself”, and Moses would listen in (i. e., he could not help hearing it).

וידבר אליו AND HE SPOKE UNTO HIM — unto him: thus excluding Aaron from the Divine communications (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:1, s. v. אליו).