Comentario sobre Exodo 25:7
אַבְנֵי־שֹׁ֕הַם וְאַבְנֵ֖י מִלֻּאִ֑ים לָאֵפֹ֖ד וְלַחֹֽשֶׁן׃
Piedras de onix, y piedras de engastes, para el ephod, y para el racional.
Rashi on Exodus
אבני שהם ONYX STONES — two were required there for the needs of the “ephod” which is mentioned in ואתה תצוה (Exodus 28:6ff.).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ramban on Exodus
AVNEI SHOHAM’ (ONYX STONES) ‘V’AVNEI MILU’IM’ (AND STONES FOR SETTING). “Because they used to make a setting for the stone in gold — a kind of indentation — and they placed the stone there to fill the indentation, they are called avnei milu’im (stones for filling-in), and the place of the indentation is called mishbetzet (setting). FOR THE EPHOD AND THE BREASTPLATE. The onyx stones were for the ephod, and the stones for setting were for the breastplate.” This is Rashi’s language. Similarly Rashi explained: “They shall be inclosed in gold in their settings,58Further, 28:20. — surrounded by gold settings of such a depth that each setting shall be filled by the thickness of the stone. This is the meaning of the word milu’otham (their filling),58Further, 28:20. and this is the meaning of every expression of milui (filling) mentioned in this connection.”
But it does not appear to me to be at all correct to say that Scripture calls them already now avnei milu’im, because in some time as yet in the future He was to command that the indentations made for them were to be filled with these stones! Moreover, the onyx stones were also enclosed in settings of gold,59Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. and yet He did not call them milu’im. Again, our Rabbis have already said in the Gemara:60Sotah 48b. “These stones61The onyx stones for the ephod, and the stones for setting in the breastplate. Ramban will later suggest that the reference perhaps is only to the stones for setting in the breastplate. See further, Note 76. are not incised with a chisel,62For the purpose of writing the names of the tribes upon the stones (further, 28:12, and 21). for it is said b’milu’otham58Further, 28:20. (in their filling).” Now if the explanation b’milu’otham would be, [as Rashi has it], that they fill the indentations with the stones, there would have been no proof at all from this verse that they should not incise the names [of the tribes] on them with a chisel. Besides, the manner of the setting of the stones which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, namely that it was made in a kind of indentation, is not correct. Instead, it is as Onkelos rendered it: [meshubatzim zahav — inclosed in gold] meramtzan didhav,58Further, 28:20. which means that they made at the bottom a gold setting according to the measure of the stone, and from it they projected a fork-like shape of three prongs which would hold the stone. [The word meramtzan mentioned by Onkelos] is similar to the expressions of the Sages: “and they take it out beramtza (with a pointed tool) made of iron;”63Niddah 62a. “as when he bored a hole in it beramtza (with a pick) made of iron.”64Shabbath 103a. This is how they also do it today when they set precious stones in rings, in order that they be seen from all angles and that their beauty and splendor should not be hidden in the indentations. You may know that this is so, for the two gold chains inserted in the two rings of the breastplate were attached to the mishb’tzoth on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.65Further, 28:24-25. Now if mishb’tzoth were [as Rashi said] frames for the setting of the stone, how would they attach to them the chains? And even [if there were there other mishb’tzoth not for the setting of the stone but for the purpose of inserting the chains] how would the indentations serve that purpose [as they were not perforated for the chains to go through]? Rather, the mishb’tzoth are the fork-like prongs as we have said and the holes for the chains were made in them. Associated with the word mishb’tzoth is, in my opinion, [Saul’s expression, Slay me] for ‘hashabatz’ hath taken hold of me66II Samuel 1:9. these being the men who hold spear-like weapons with mounted forks on top to catch those that flee the battle-field, just as it is said, and lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him.67Ibid., Verse 6.
And the meaning of musaboth mishb’tzoth68Further, 28:11. is that he should fix the gold prongs “around it.” And in the opinion of Onkelos who translated [musaboth as] meshak’on [literally: “depressed,” “sunk”], the stones were sunk into the frames from which came forth prongs surrounding them above and holding them in place.
But the sense of the word milu’im is that the stones be whole as they were created, and that they should not be hewn stones which were cut from a large quarry, or from which anything has been chipped off. It is also known in the natural sciences that the complete powers of precious stones and the particular qualities that distinguish them, exist only when in their natural state, as when smooth stones are taken from the river. This is why Onkelos translated [avnei milu’im — avnei] ashlamutha (stones of perfection). But the term milui (filling of) vessels or an indentation [Onkelos] translates literally, — thus: 'va’t'malei' (and she filled) her pitcher,69Genesis 24:16. Onkelos translated: u’mleiah (and she filled), and similarly in all other cases — but here he translated the term milui to mean shleimuth (perfection). Similarly, he translated the verse, ‘milei’ (He filled) them with wisdom of heart70Further, 35:35. — ashleim (“He perfected” them with wisdom of heart), as wisdom is not something that you can fill a vessel with, but instead it denotes perfection, that they [i.e. Bezalel and Oholiab — who did the workmanship of the Tabernacle] were perfect in wisdom. This is the intent of the verse, and in cutting of stones 'l’maloth'71Ibid., 31:5. — that they knew how to engrave like the engravings of a signet upon stones in their [natural] perfect state.
Now in the case of the stones of the ephod it is said, however, with the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones, according to the names of the children of Israel59Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. [but it does not say here b’milu’otham — “in their perfect state”], because they made an incision in them when writing the names [of the tribes upon them] as stone engravers do, and thus the stones were no longer in their [natural] perfect state. But in the case of the stones for the breastplate it is written, ‘umileitha’ in it ‘miluath’ of stone,72Ibid., 28:17. and again it is written of them, they shall be ‘b’milu’otham;’73Ibid., Verse 20. and the stones [of the breastplate] were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names74Ibid., 38:14. — not the work of engravers [who make incisions upon the stones]. Therefore Moses our teacher could find no way [of inscribing the names of the tribes of Israel upon the twelve stones in the breastplate] except by means of the shamir [a worm that cuts stones with its glance] which our Rabbis mentioned, just as they have said in Tractate Sotah:75Sotah 48b. “These stones76I.e. the stones of the breastplate. See above Note 61. are not written upon with ink, for it is said, like the engravings of a signet,77Further, 28:21. “And this means carving” (Rashi, ibid., Sotah). — The verse is mentioned in connection with the stones of the breastplate. and they are not incised with a chisel, for it is said b’milu’otham (in their perfect state).78Ibid., Verse 20. — Also in connection with the stones of the breastplate. But instead [Moses] brought the shamir and showed it the stones and they split of their own accord.” Now the word b’milu’otham is said only in connection with the stones of the breastplate. Do not be troubled by what is mentioned in the Agadah (homily, tradition) that the Rabbis said to Solomon:79Gittin 68a. In preparing to build the Sanctuary, Solomon asked the Rabbis: “How shall I accomplish the cutting of the stones without using iron tools?” They replied: “There is the shamir etc.” “There is the shamir with which Moses cut the precious stones of the ephod.” [From this you might argue that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham — in their perfect natural state — which would be contrary to what we have said above, that this applied only to the stones of the breastplate! Do not be troubled by this statement,] for the breastplate is called ephod by the Rabbis by way of metaphor, because the breastplate is attached thereto. It is also written, Bring hither the ephod,80I Samuel 23:9. and it was of the breastplate that they asked [for guidance].81See Ramban further, 28:30. Thus the explanation of the verse before us is as follows: “onyx stones three — two for the ephod82Further, 28:9. and one for the breastplate;83Ibid., Verse 20. and stones of ‘milu’im’ for the breastplate.” And in case the opinion of our Rabbis was that the stones of the ephod also had to be in their full natural state [as the stones of the breastplate], then both the onyx stones and the stones of ‘milu’im’ were for both, for the ephod and for the breastplate.84In other words, if that be the opinion of the Rabbis that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham (in their full natural state), then they derived it from this verse as explained in the text. For — the ephod and the breastplate — had both the onyx stones and the stones of milu’im. Of the ephod it is clearly written that it had two onyx stones (further, 28:9), and according to the Rabbis these were also b’milu’otham (in their full natural state). In the case of the breastplate b’milu’otham is clearly mentioned (ibid., Verse 20) and so is the onyx stone (ibid.). Thus the verse before us, stones of onyx and stones of ‘milu’im’ means that both were for the ephod and for the breastplate.
But it does not appear to me to be at all correct to say that Scripture calls them already now avnei milu’im, because in some time as yet in the future He was to command that the indentations made for them were to be filled with these stones! Moreover, the onyx stones were also enclosed in settings of gold,59Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. and yet He did not call them milu’im. Again, our Rabbis have already said in the Gemara:60Sotah 48b. “These stones61The onyx stones for the ephod, and the stones for setting in the breastplate. Ramban will later suggest that the reference perhaps is only to the stones for setting in the breastplate. See further, Note 76. are not incised with a chisel,62For the purpose of writing the names of the tribes upon the stones (further, 28:12, and 21). for it is said b’milu’otham58Further, 28:20. (in their filling).” Now if the explanation b’milu’otham would be, [as Rashi has it], that they fill the indentations with the stones, there would have been no proof at all from this verse that they should not incise the names [of the tribes] on them with a chisel. Besides, the manner of the setting of the stones which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, namely that it was made in a kind of indentation, is not correct. Instead, it is as Onkelos rendered it: [meshubatzim zahav — inclosed in gold] meramtzan didhav,58Further, 28:20. which means that they made at the bottom a gold setting according to the measure of the stone, and from it they projected a fork-like shape of three prongs which would hold the stone. [The word meramtzan mentioned by Onkelos] is similar to the expressions of the Sages: “and they take it out beramtza (with a pointed tool) made of iron;”63Niddah 62a. “as when he bored a hole in it beramtza (with a pick) made of iron.”64Shabbath 103a. This is how they also do it today when they set precious stones in rings, in order that they be seen from all angles and that their beauty and splendor should not be hidden in the indentations. You may know that this is so, for the two gold chains inserted in the two rings of the breastplate were attached to the mishb’tzoth on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.65Further, 28:24-25. Now if mishb’tzoth were [as Rashi said] frames for the setting of the stone, how would they attach to them the chains? And even [if there were there other mishb’tzoth not for the setting of the stone but for the purpose of inserting the chains] how would the indentations serve that purpose [as they were not perforated for the chains to go through]? Rather, the mishb’tzoth are the fork-like prongs as we have said and the holes for the chains were made in them. Associated with the word mishb’tzoth is, in my opinion, [Saul’s expression, Slay me] for ‘hashabatz’ hath taken hold of me66II Samuel 1:9. these being the men who hold spear-like weapons with mounted forks on top to catch those that flee the battle-field, just as it is said, and lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him.67Ibid., Verse 6.
And the meaning of musaboth mishb’tzoth68Further, 28:11. is that he should fix the gold prongs “around it.” And in the opinion of Onkelos who translated [musaboth as] meshak’on [literally: “depressed,” “sunk”], the stones were sunk into the frames from which came forth prongs surrounding them above and holding them in place.
But the sense of the word milu’im is that the stones be whole as they were created, and that they should not be hewn stones which were cut from a large quarry, or from which anything has been chipped off. It is also known in the natural sciences that the complete powers of precious stones and the particular qualities that distinguish them, exist only when in their natural state, as when smooth stones are taken from the river. This is why Onkelos translated [avnei milu’im — avnei] ashlamutha (stones of perfection). But the term milui (filling of) vessels or an indentation [Onkelos] translates literally, — thus: 'va’t'malei' (and she filled) her pitcher,69Genesis 24:16. Onkelos translated: u’mleiah (and she filled), and similarly in all other cases — but here he translated the term milui to mean shleimuth (perfection). Similarly, he translated the verse, ‘milei’ (He filled) them with wisdom of heart70Further, 35:35. — ashleim (“He perfected” them with wisdom of heart), as wisdom is not something that you can fill a vessel with, but instead it denotes perfection, that they [i.e. Bezalel and Oholiab — who did the workmanship of the Tabernacle] were perfect in wisdom. This is the intent of the verse, and in cutting of stones 'l’maloth'71Ibid., 31:5. — that they knew how to engrave like the engravings of a signet upon stones in their [natural] perfect state.
Now in the case of the stones of the ephod it is said, however, with the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones, according to the names of the children of Israel59Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. [but it does not say here b’milu’otham — “in their perfect state”], because they made an incision in them when writing the names [of the tribes upon them] as stone engravers do, and thus the stones were no longer in their [natural] perfect state. But in the case of the stones for the breastplate it is written, ‘umileitha’ in it ‘miluath’ of stone,72Ibid., 28:17. and again it is written of them, they shall be ‘b’milu’otham;’73Ibid., Verse 20. and the stones [of the breastplate] were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names74Ibid., 38:14. — not the work of engravers [who make incisions upon the stones]. Therefore Moses our teacher could find no way [of inscribing the names of the tribes of Israel upon the twelve stones in the breastplate] except by means of the shamir [a worm that cuts stones with its glance] which our Rabbis mentioned, just as they have said in Tractate Sotah:75Sotah 48b. “These stones76I.e. the stones of the breastplate. See above Note 61. are not written upon with ink, for it is said, like the engravings of a signet,77Further, 28:21. “And this means carving” (Rashi, ibid., Sotah). — The verse is mentioned in connection with the stones of the breastplate. and they are not incised with a chisel, for it is said b’milu’otham (in their perfect state).78Ibid., Verse 20. — Also in connection with the stones of the breastplate. But instead [Moses] brought the shamir and showed it the stones and they split of their own accord.” Now the word b’milu’otham is said only in connection with the stones of the breastplate. Do not be troubled by what is mentioned in the Agadah (homily, tradition) that the Rabbis said to Solomon:79Gittin 68a. In preparing to build the Sanctuary, Solomon asked the Rabbis: “How shall I accomplish the cutting of the stones without using iron tools?” They replied: “There is the shamir etc.” “There is the shamir with which Moses cut the precious stones of the ephod.” [From this you might argue that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham — in their perfect natural state — which would be contrary to what we have said above, that this applied only to the stones of the breastplate! Do not be troubled by this statement,] for the breastplate is called ephod by the Rabbis by way of metaphor, because the breastplate is attached thereto. It is also written, Bring hither the ephod,80I Samuel 23:9. and it was of the breastplate that they asked [for guidance].81See Ramban further, 28:30. Thus the explanation of the verse before us is as follows: “onyx stones three — two for the ephod82Further, 28:9. and one for the breastplate;83Ibid., Verse 20. and stones of ‘milu’im’ for the breastplate.” And in case the opinion of our Rabbis was that the stones of the ephod also had to be in their full natural state [as the stones of the breastplate], then both the onyx stones and the stones of ‘milu’im’ were for both, for the ephod and for the breastplate.84In other words, if that be the opinion of the Rabbis that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham (in their full natural state), then they derived it from this verse as explained in the text. For — the ephod and the breastplate — had both the onyx stones and the stones of milu’im. Of the ephod it is clearly written that it had two onyx stones (further, 28:9), and according to the Rabbis these were also b’milu’otham (in their full natural state). In the case of the breastplate b’milu’otham is clearly mentioned (ibid., Verse 20) and so is the onyx stone (ibid.). Thus the verse before us, stones of onyx and stones of ‘milu’im’ means that both were for the ephod and for the breastplate.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Or HaChaim on Exodus
אבני שהם ואבני מלאים, onyx stones, and stones to be set, etc. Why were these items mentioned only after the other eleven types of materials? They should have been listed even ahead of gold and silver seeing they are of superior value! Perhaps the reason is that the princes who contributed these stones did so only after the people had contributed all their donations. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,16 that G'd was so displeased with the tardiness of the princes in bringing their donations that the Torah does not even spell the word נשיאים fully in the relevant passage but omits the letter י in their title (compare Numbers 7,10). Mentioning their contribution last was a punishment for their tardiness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy