Commentary for Exodus 35:23

וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו AND EVERY MAN WITH WHOM WAS FOUND blue purple, or red purple, or crimson, or rams’ skins, or tachash skins — all of them brought whatever they had.

וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו תכלת וארגמן, “as well any man in whose possession there was blue wool and purple wool.” Finding such cloth dyed in the required colours was more difficult, as not many people owned such. We find a similar expression later when people who happened to own shittim wood for the beams of the Tabernacle are described as אשר נמצא אתו, “who possessed such.” On the other hand, when speaking of contributions of metal such as silver and copper, the Torah uses the word כל “all,” as if to hint that everyone possessed such metals in abundance, so that there was no problem in raising the contributions necessary in the required quantities or even more than that. This expression כל had not been used when the Torah spoke of contributions of gold, seeing that the gold was primarily donated by the women who had golden jewelry, but who did not own silver and copper in their own right. [they could not legally donate what belonged to their husbands. Ed.] In Parshat Pekudey the Torah refers to both gold and copper as תנופה, “a raised up” offering. The reason for this may be the absence of any reference to a donation, i.e. תרומה[the word תרומה from the root הרים, to elevate something, obviated the need for reference to תנופה when gold was mentioned earlier. Ed.] Silver donated is described there without being defined as either תרומה or תנופה, presumably because the half shekel silver coins contributed by all the males above 20 years of age were mandatory contributions, not the result of any feeling of generosity on the part of the donor who had to atone for a serious sin he had been guilty of. [seeing that there is a confusion in the text of the author’s manuscript about this, I have substituted my own interpretation. The Torah, after all, did write that the silver was the proceeds of the people numbered. (38,25,) Ed.] Copper may have qualified for a distinctive adjective as it was not common and much in demand, so that giving it away represented an act of special generosity.

Or rams’ skins or tachash skins — they all brought. Some ask: Why does Rashi not list them as they are written — “Greenish-blue wool, dark red wool, crimson wool, fine linen, goats’ hair, red dyed rams’ skins”? [Rather, Rashi omits fine linen and goats’ hair.] It seems to me that Rashi may be explained by first asking another question on Rashi: Why does he [need to] explain that the verse means or this, or that? Why would we [otherwise] have thought that only someone who has all these items should bring, and someone who does not, should not bring [anything]? A poor person who has only one item would be excluded! Yet Scripture said (25:2), “From every man whose heart impels him to generosity shall you take My terumah-offering.” Perforce, [Rashi explains this] because throughout the work of the mishkon and the garments of the Kohein Gadol, we find that the three items of greenish-blue wool, dark red wool and crimson wool are always [mentioned together]. Similarly, the red dyed rams’ skins and the tachash skins together formed the cover of the tent, as Rashi explains in 26:14. Thus we might think that whoever has all these things, [i.e., the three wools, or the two skins,] should bring. But he who has only one, should not. This is because all three are needed for the work; nothing is made of one without the other. Whereas the garments of ordinary kohanim are made of fine linen alone, and so are the four garments of the Kohein Gadol used for the inner service of Yom Kippur and for some other services. Similarly, goats’ hair was used only for the drapes of goats’ hair, [never together with other materials]. Therefore it is obvious that one could bring fine linen or goats’ hair by itself, and Rashi does not [need to] mention it because this is obvious. Furthermore, it is written: “All the women whose hearts inspired them. . . spun the goats’ hair” (v. 26), implying that goats’ hair was brought by itself. And “fine linen” (end of v. 25) is juxtaposed [specially] to “goats’ hair.” Throughout Scripture, fine linen is mentioned at the beginning [of the items], but here, it is [mentioned at the end,] next to goats’ hair. This comes to teach that fine linen should be compared to goats’ hair, which is brought by itself. This is why Rashi did not need to explain that fine linen and goats’ hair may be brought by themselves, [and he therefore omitted them].

V. 24. לכל מלאכת העבדה. Die ganze Herstellung des Heiligtums heißt: עבודה. Sie ist eine von höchster Seite gebotene Aufgabe, an deren Lösung die Nation ihre Kräfte hinzugeben hatte; das מקדש ist der gebotene und über die Kräfte der Nation gebietende Zweck, den sie als עבדים zu lösen haben; die Lösung ist: עבודה. So oben Kap. 30. 16: ונתת אתו על עבודת אהל מועד. So Kap. 31, 6: לעשות את כל מלאכת עבודת הקדש.