שְׁנֵ֥י שָׁדַ֛יִךְ כִּשְׁנֵ֥י עֳפָרִ֖ים תְּאוֹמֵ֣י צְבִיָּ֑ה הָרוֹעִ֖ים בַּשּׁוֹשַׁנִּֽים׃
Deine Brüste wie zwei junge Rehe, der Hirschkuh Zwillinge, die unter Rosen weiden.
Rabbeinu Bahya
I have already mentioned in connection with Exodus 16,32 that the Ark constructed by Betzalel was secreted inside the Temple (of Solomon) together with the bottle of manna and certain other sacred vessels at the instruction of King Yoshiah who hid them under an area of the Sanctuary known as מחילה. There was a special reason why these specific vessels were selected for hiding rather than others. The reason that King Yoshiah hid the Ark rather than most other sacred vessels was twofold; one reason was its superior holy status unmatched by other sacred vessels. Seeing that it was the first of the holy vessels to be constructed, its holiness was greater than the vessels fashioned later. It was perceived as a symbol of the celestial throne. As a result of such considerations it was feared that loss of the Ark would be equivalent to a departure of G’d’s presence from the land of Israel. The king knew that the state of Israel was going to be destroyed by Nevuchadnezzar as the prophets of his time had been threatening this if the people did not return to G’d wholeheartedly. It was clear to him that the conquerors would capture and take with them the holy vessels of the Temple to Babylon; this is why he was so concerned with the honour of the Holy Ark that he preferred to bury it and hide it.
The second reason was that the Holy Ark symbolized for him the journeys of the Jewish people. He experienced that the staves of the Holy Ark which protruded a long distance beyond either corner to enable it to be carried. [It was very heavy due to the outer and inner layer of solid gold plus the weight of the Stone Tablets. I have seen a calculation of the total weight of the Ark complete with contents in Eliyahu Ki Tov’s commentary on Parshat Terumah or Tetzaveh. If my memory does not deceive me the weight approximated 3 tons. (76,000 lbs) Ed.]
During the reign of King Yoshiah these staves became visibly shorter, making transportation by means of them impossible. They reverted to the size they had been in Moses’ time. The king viewed this as a bad omen. Originally, the staves could be seen protruding through the dividing curtain of the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies by causing the curtain to protrude into the airspace of the Sanctuary where it was pushed by these staves. The retraction in the length of these staves meant for King Yoshiah that the Ark was once more destined to travel, just as in the days of Moses. The Israelites, when looking into the open doors of the Sanctuary, could no longer perceive the curtain bulge at the point they were used to see it do so.
The king also saw that when the High Priest Chilkiyah came to perform the service in the Sanctuary (Kings II 22,8) that he found a Torah scroll on the side of the Holy Ark which had rolled into the Sanctuary instead of remaining in its assigned place in the Holy of Holies on top of the Ark (compare Deut. 31,26 and Talmud Baba Batra 14). These occurrences meant for him that the Temple would be destroyed. This is the reason why Targum Yonathan renders Ezekiel 1,1 “it was in the thirtieth year” as a reference to the year that Chilkiyah found the Torah scroll we mentioned. When considering these various omens King Yoshiah decided to hide the Holy Ark so that it would not have to travel into captivity.
We have established that the sanctity associated with the Ark applied to the Ark made by Betzalel, not the box made by Moses to accommodate the Tablets when he would come down from the mountain many months before the Tabernacle had been erected. Moses’ “ark” was strictly a temporary housing for the Tablets pending the construction of the Tabernacle. Concerning the Ark constructed by Betzalel, the Talmud in Eiruvin 63 taught that whenever the Ark and therefore the Presence of the Shechinah were not in their assigned abodes the Israelites were forbidden to engage in marital relations with their wives. It is totally impossible to understand this statement of the Talmud as applying to the ark made by Moses, i.e. the ark that went to war with the people. Seeing that the Holy Ark was held in captivity by the Philistines for seven months (Samuel I 6,1), we cannot assume that during all this time the people did not practice the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. [I do not understand the author here. He had previously accused the sons of Eli of taking Betzalel’s Ark to war without G’d’s authorization although normally only Moses’ ark would be taken to war. Moreover, note that in Samuel I 4, it is clear that it was not Moses’ ark the people took to war on that occasion. Ed.]
David is also reported to tell Uriah (Bat Sheva’s first husband) to go home and engage in marital relations, all of this while war was in progress (Samuel II 11,8). Surely the prohibition mentioned in the Talmud could have applied only to the Ark of Betzalel. The lesson the sages taught must have been “When the HOLY ARK was not ‘at home,’ i.e. G’d was not at home, how could the people feel “at home,” by indulging in marital relations and carry on “business as usual!”
The second reason was that the Holy Ark symbolized for him the journeys of the Jewish people. He experienced that the staves of the Holy Ark which protruded a long distance beyond either corner to enable it to be carried. [It was very heavy due to the outer and inner layer of solid gold plus the weight of the Stone Tablets. I have seen a calculation of the total weight of the Ark complete with contents in Eliyahu Ki Tov’s commentary on Parshat Terumah or Tetzaveh. If my memory does not deceive me the weight approximated 3 tons. (76,000 lbs) Ed.]
During the reign of King Yoshiah these staves became visibly shorter, making transportation by means of them impossible. They reverted to the size they had been in Moses’ time. The king viewed this as a bad omen. Originally, the staves could be seen protruding through the dividing curtain of the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies by causing the curtain to protrude into the airspace of the Sanctuary where it was pushed by these staves. The retraction in the length of these staves meant for King Yoshiah that the Ark was once more destined to travel, just as in the days of Moses. The Israelites, when looking into the open doors of the Sanctuary, could no longer perceive the curtain bulge at the point they were used to see it do so.
The king also saw that when the High Priest Chilkiyah came to perform the service in the Sanctuary (Kings II 22,8) that he found a Torah scroll on the side of the Holy Ark which had rolled into the Sanctuary instead of remaining in its assigned place in the Holy of Holies on top of the Ark (compare Deut. 31,26 and Talmud Baba Batra 14). These occurrences meant for him that the Temple would be destroyed. This is the reason why Targum Yonathan renders Ezekiel 1,1 “it was in the thirtieth year” as a reference to the year that Chilkiyah found the Torah scroll we mentioned. When considering these various omens King Yoshiah decided to hide the Holy Ark so that it would not have to travel into captivity.
We have established that the sanctity associated with the Ark applied to the Ark made by Betzalel, not the box made by Moses to accommodate the Tablets when he would come down from the mountain many months before the Tabernacle had been erected. Moses’ “ark” was strictly a temporary housing for the Tablets pending the construction of the Tabernacle. Concerning the Ark constructed by Betzalel, the Talmud in Eiruvin 63 taught that whenever the Ark and therefore the Presence of the Shechinah were not in their assigned abodes the Israelites were forbidden to engage in marital relations with their wives. It is totally impossible to understand this statement of the Talmud as applying to the ark made by Moses, i.e. the ark that went to war with the people. Seeing that the Holy Ark was held in captivity by the Philistines for seven months (Samuel I 6,1), we cannot assume that during all this time the people did not practice the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. [I do not understand the author here. He had previously accused the sons of Eli of taking Betzalel’s Ark to war without G’d’s authorization although normally only Moses’ ark would be taken to war. Moreover, note that in Samuel I 4, it is clear that it was not Moses’ ark the people took to war on that occasion. Ed.]
David is also reported to tell Uriah (Bat Sheva’s first husband) to go home and engage in marital relations, all of this while war was in progress (Samuel II 11,8). Surely the prohibition mentioned in the Talmud could have applied only to the Ark of Betzalel. The lesson the sages taught must have been “When the HOLY ARK was not ‘at home,’ i.e. G’d was not at home, how could the people feel “at home,” by indulging in marital relations and carry on “business as usual!”
Kli Yakar
The commentaries bring this juxtaposition in four places. First, the juxtaposition of the death of Aaron’s sons to Yom Kippur which atones (Leviticus 16:1). Second, the juxtaposition of Miriam to the red heifer. Third, the juxtaposition of Aaron’s death to the priestly garments which atone (Numbers 20:28), as our Sages explained (Moed Katan 28a). Fourth, the juxtaposition of Aaron’s death to the breaking of the tablets (Deuteronomy 10:2–6), teaching that the death of the righteous is as severe as the breaking of the tablets.
This is because from every righteous person, four types of benefits come to the people of his generation. The first is that the entire world is sustained by his merit, as our Sages said (Berakhot 17b), “The entire world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” as we explained in the portion of Vayechi regarding Goren ha-Atad and in the portion of Emor on the verse “except for his relative.” They are like a mother nursing her child, as it is written (Tanchuma Shemot 12:28), “Your two breasts are like Moses and Aaron,” and as Rashi explained (Song of Songs 4:5). Similarly, we find that in Miriam’s merit they had the well which provided for all of Israel’s needs. This is the connection of her death to the red heifer, the mother of the calf that comes to rectify the damage of her offspring.
The second benefit is that the righteous person teaches them effectively about the way of God and commandments; therefore, his passing is comparable to the breaking of the tablets.
The third benefit is that his merit protects like a shadow and like a garment made to protect from cold and heat. With his death, his protective shadow is removed, and they are left naked without any covering, as it is said (Numbers 20:29), And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died, and our Sages interpreted (Rosh Hashanah 3a) “va-yir’u” [they saw] with the letter yud vocalized with a tzere, meaning “they became visible,” referring to the removal of the cloud which was likened to a garment. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to the priestly garments.
The fourth benefit is that he atones for the people through his death. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to Yom Kippur, and it is easily understood.
This is because from every righteous person, four types of benefits come to the people of his generation. The first is that the entire world is sustained by his merit, as our Sages said (Berakhot 17b), “The entire world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” as we explained in the portion of Vayechi regarding Goren ha-Atad and in the portion of Emor on the verse “except for his relative.” They are like a mother nursing her child, as it is written (Tanchuma Shemot 12:28), “Your two breasts are like Moses and Aaron,” and as Rashi explained (Song of Songs 4:5). Similarly, we find that in Miriam’s merit they had the well which provided for all of Israel’s needs. This is the connection of her death to the red heifer, the mother of the calf that comes to rectify the damage of her offspring.
The second benefit is that the righteous person teaches them effectively about the way of God and commandments; therefore, his passing is comparable to the breaking of the tablets.
The third benefit is that his merit protects like a shadow and like a garment made to protect from cold and heat. With his death, his protective shadow is removed, and they are left naked without any covering, as it is said (Numbers 20:29), And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died, and our Sages interpreted (Rosh Hashanah 3a) “va-yir’u” [they saw] with the letter yud vocalized with a tzere, meaning “they became visible,” referring to the removal of the cloud which was likened to a garment. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to the priestly garments.
The fourth benefit is that he atones for the people through his death. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to Yom Kippur, and it is easily understood.
Ezra ben Solomon
Solomon called it the Song of Songs, a song composed in the form of an allegorical parable replete with inner meaning. A person must thus interpret the song, establishing upon its foundations. But he must understand that it is filled with many elements provided for the sake of the narrational continuity of the allegory and the context of its imagery, rather than for any other purpose or function. For example, let me quote one verse from this book. It states: “Let him kiss me with the kisses …” [Cant. 1:2]. The kiss symbolizes the soul’s adhesion to God, as we will explain. The verse further states “the kisses of his mouth.” There is no additional meaning here. But having analogized the soul’s adhesion to God with a kiss, the verse is constrained to state “the kisses of his mouth” in order to tie the allegorical figure to its context. Thus one of the wise men of the generation has already written. Know that there are parables in this work whose details should in no manner undergo exegesis, such as: “the buds appear in the land, the time of pruning has come, the song of the turtledove is heard in our land” [Cant. 2:12]. We are not to minutely examine such and similar texts. Rather, we are simply to interpret it as an allegorical figure referring to the efflorescence of the coming days of release, while the winter rains refer to departing days of exile. Similarly: “Your belly is a heap of wheat” [Cant. 7:3–4]; and “Your breasts are like twin gazelles” [Cant. 4:5]. Neither through the exercise of rational nor traditional means of exegesis should you seek out their detailed meaning, for you will mire your mind in a multitude of words, vanities, and obstacles galore: “Hear this and accept it” [Job 5:27].