Commentaire sur L’Exode 25:46

Now that G-d had told Israel face to face¹Deuteronomy 5:4. the Ten Commandments, and had further commanded them through Moses some of the precepts which are like general principles to the [individual] commandments of the Torah — in the same way that our Rabbis were accustomed to deal with strangers who come to be converted to the Jewish faith²Yebamoth 47 a: “We inform him of some of the light commandments and of some of the weightiest …” The convert to Judaism is thus not taught the whole Torah prior to his conversion but only some of the essentials thereof, which is followed by his total commitment to observe whatever the Torah will command. Ramban’s language clearly indicates that the procedure of the Rabbis with converts followed the pattern of events at Sinai. — and now that the Israelites accepted upon themselves to do all that He would command them through Moses and He made a covenant with them concerning all this, from now on they are His people and He is their G-d³See Leviticus 26:12. This is in accordance with the condition He made with them at the beginning: Now, therefore, if ye will indeed hearken unto My voice, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure,⁴Above, 19:5. and He said further: and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.⁵Ibid., Verse 6. They are now holy, in that they are worthy that there be amongst them a Sanctuary through which He makes His Divine Glory dwell among them. Therefore He first commanded concerning the Tabernacle, so that He have amongst them a house dedicated to His name, from where He would speak with Moses and command the children of Israel. Thus the main purpose of the Tabernacle was to contain a place in which the Divine Glory rests, this being the ark, just as He said, And there will I meet with thee, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover.⁶Further, Verse 22. Therefore He first gave the commandment about the ark and the ark-cover, for they are first in importance. Next to the ark He gave the commandment about the table and the candelabrum, which are vessels just like the ark, and because they indicate the purpose for which the Tabernacle was made. Moses, however, preceded to mention in the section of Vayakheil: the Tabernacle, its Tent, and its covering,⁷Ibid., 35:11. And then in the following verse mentioned: the ark… and in that order Bezalel made them [first the Tabernacle and then the ark],⁸Ibid., 36:8-38. 37:1-9. because from the practical end it is proper to build the house first [and then make its vessels].
The secret of the Tabernacle is that the Glory which abode upon Mount Sinai [openly] should abide upon it in a concealed manner. For just as it is said there, And the glory of the Eternal abode upon Mount Sinai,⁹Above, 24:16. and it is further written, Behold, the Eternal our G-d hath shown us His glory and His greatness,¹⁰Deuteronomy 5:21. so it is written of the Tabernacle, and the glory of the Eternal filled the Tabernacle.¹¹Further, 40:34. Twice is this verse, and the glory of the Eternal filled the Tabernacle¹¹Further, 40:34. mentioned in connection with the Tabernacle,¹²Ibid., and in Verse 35. to correspond with His glory and His greatness.¹⁰Deuteronomy 5:21. Thus Israel always had with them in the Tabernacle the Glory which appeared to them on Mount Sinai. And when Moses went into the Tabernacle, he would hear the Divine utterance being spoken to him in the same way as on Mount Sinai. Thus just as it is said at the Giving of the Torah: Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and upon earth He made thee to see His great fire,¹³Deuteronomy 4:36. so it is written of the Tabernacle, and he heard the voice speaking unto him from above the ark-cover…from between the two cherubim; and He spoke unto him.¹⁴Numbers 7:89. The expression “speaking unto him” is mentioned here twice in order to indicate that which the Rabbis have said in the Tradition¹⁵Bamidmar Rabbah 14:22. that the Voice would come from heaven to Moses from upon the ark-cover, and from there He spoke with him; for every Divine utterance with Moses came from heaven during daytime,¹⁶Vayikra Rabbah 1:3: “But to the prophets of Israel the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself at daytime.” and was heard from between the two cherubim,¹⁴Numbers 7:89. similar to what is said, and thou didst hear His words out of the midst of the fire.¹³Deuteronomy 4:36. It is for this reason that the two cherubim were made of gold.¹⁷Further, Verse 18. — In order to resemble “the fire” that was on Mount Sinai. (Tziyoni). And Scripture so states: where I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee;¹⁸Further, 29:42. and it shall be sanctified by My glory,¹⁹Ibid., Verse 43. for there [in the Tabernacle] will be the appointed place for the Divine utterance, and it will be sanctified by My glory.¹⁹Ibid., Verse 43.
Now he who looks carefully at the verses mentioned at the Giving of the Torah, and understands what we have written about them,²⁰See above, 20:16, 24:10, and further here, Verse 21. will perceive the secret of the Tabernacle and the Sanctuary [built later by King Solomon]. He will also be able to understand it from what Solomon in his wisdom said in his prayer in the Sanctuary: O Eternal, the G-d of Israel,²¹I Kings 8:23. just as is said at Mount Sinai: And they saw the G-d of Israel.²²Above, 24:10. Solomon however added the Name the Eternal because of a matter which we have alluded to above;²²Above, 24:10. for the G-d of Israel sitteth upon the cherubim,²³II Kings 19:15. just as is said: And the glory of the G-d of Israel was over them above. This is the living creature that I saw, under the G-d of Israel by the river Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim,²⁴Ezekiel 10:19-20. and David said, and gold for the pattern of the chariot, even the cherubim, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the Eternal.²⁵I Chronicles 28:18. Solomon also always mentions that the Sanctuary is to be for the name of the Eternal,²⁶I Kings 5:19. or for Thy name,²⁷Ibid., 8:44. and at each and every section of the prayer he says, then hear Thou in heaven²⁸Ibid., Verse 32 etc. — with the attribute of mercy. And it is further written: If Thy people go out to battle against their enemy… and they pray unto the Eternal toward the city which Thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Thy name, then hear Thou in heaven,²⁹Ibid., Verses 44-45. and in explanation Solomon said: But will G-d in very truth dwell with man on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee.³⁰II Chronicles 6:18. And it is written concerning the ark, And David arose… to bring up from thence the ark of G-d, whereupon is called the Name, even the Name of the Eternal of hosts that sitteth upon the cherubim,³¹II Samuel 6:2. and in the Book of Chronicles it is written: to bring up from thence the ark of G-d, the Eternal, Who sitteth upon the cherubim, whereon is called the Name³²I Chronicles 13:6. — for it is G-d Who sitteth upon the cherubim.

“Speak to the Children of Israel and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering. And this is the offering that you shall take from them...” “Three offerings are mentioned here, etc.” [Megilah 29b, Psikta Rabti] There are a few questions on this subject. For why did He attribute the first two offerings to G-d, as in the first He said ‘Have them take for Me’ –for My Name, and in the second one He said ‘You shall take My offering’, but in the third neither was mentioned; on the contrary, it is said regarding it ‘From them’, associating it with the donors...

If you will find that my commentary on the construction of the Tabernacle and the requisite furnishings and priestly garments is relatively brief, the reason is that my grandfather Rashi, of blessed memory, has already elaborated on most of it.

V. 2. ויקחו לי, es soll nicht unmittelbar etwas Gott gespendet werden, soll die Spende jedes einzelnen soll der Gesamtheit für Gottes Zweck übergeben werden. Somit ist es nicht der einzelne, sondern die Gesamtheit, die den Gotteszweck hinzustellen hat, und es sind nicht die einzelnen Spender, sondern die Gesamtheit, für welche der Gotteszweck festgestellt wird. תרומה von רום: über etwas erhoben sein, daher: ausgehoben, d. h. für eine höhere Bestimmung ausgesondert sein. נדב ,ידבנו (verwandt mit נטף: aus dem Innern herausträufeln, daher: נָטָף: Harz; übertragen: Gedanken aussprechen): zu Spenden anregen. Es bezeichnet die völlige Freiwilligkeit. — תקחו schließt selbst Mosche nur in die Gesamtheit ein.

[Answer:] For wherever there is the concept of humility and submission among those below, there is hidden the might of G-d, who dwells among the contrive and humble of spirit. However, wherever there is a tinge of haughtiness, G-d does not wish to associate His Name. Therefore, the first two gifts-where the hand of every man was equal, for the rich did not add and the poor did not subtract, and no one can brag over his fellow and say ‘My donation is greater than yours’ – were associated with G-d ...

In the same way, the objects made from these two donations were similar to the donation itself. For just as everyone was equal with no condescension of one over the other, so too, from one donation the sockets [for the Mishkan’s wall boards] were made – for all the sockets were equal to each other, and they were underneath the building as a threshold that is trodden upon, and they served as the foundations to the whole building. They were like their makers ... These sockets teach humility, since humility is the foundation upon which the entire house of Israel stands ...

From the second offering they brought the communal sacrifices which were also the same every day, one lamb in the morning and one in the afternoon. It states, “G-d’s [accepted] sacrifices are a broken spirit”, meaning to say that the purpose of sacrificing is to bring man to a state of a broken spirit. Therefore, this offering was also associated with G-d ... However, the third offering was not equal from all; some gave less, and some gave more. The rich who gave more had room to boast over the poor and say to him, “I have a greater share in the house of our G-d, as I gave a larger donation.”... There-fore it was not attributed to G-d.

ויקחו לי תרומה THAT THEY TAKE ME A HEAVE OFFERING — “Me” means to the glory of My Name (Midrash Tanchuma, Terumah 1).

דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה, tell the stewards of Israel that I desire that they should collect a contribution for Me. [the Torah had not specified “who” should take. Ed.] Moses also issued such instructions on his return from the mountain the third time as the Torah reports (Exodus 34,32) ואחרי כן נגשו כל בני ישראל, ויצום את כל אשר דבר ה' אתו בהר סיני, “after that all the people of Israel drew near, and he commanded them all that the Lord had talked about with him on Mount Sinai.” This was followed by ויאמר משה אל כל עדת בני ישראל קחו מאתכם תרומה in 35,4. The עדת בני ישראל who were to carry out this “taking (accepting) of the gifts were the Sanhedrin, the High Court. The Israelites were so anxious to contribute that they did not wait until the High Court organised all this, but they approached Moses personally bringing with them so many contributions that Moses was forced to call a halt to this (36,5). This was also the reason that there was nothing left for the princes of Israel (the tribal chiefs) to contribute other than the gemstones for Aaron’s breastplate and the various oils making up the “oil of anointing.”

דבר אל בני ישראל. "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out: "speak to the children of Israel" and did not content itself with the word לאמור at the end of verse one? It was clear that G'd meant for Moses to speak to the children of Israel! Alternatively, the Torah could have omitted the word לאמור at the end of verse one and simply have continued: "speak to the children of Israel, etc."

תרומה, the setting aside of the money or materials for the construction of the Tabernacle.

ויקחו לי תרומה, “let them take for Me a contribution.” After G’d had spoken to Moses face to face when He gave him the Ten Commandments, and He had already communicated some of the other 613 commandments which form the bedrock of the entire legislation known as Torah, a method comparable to our sages when they admitted proselytes to the Jewish faith and nation, the people in the meantime had accepted even all the laws they had not yet had time to become familiar with. G’d had concluded a covenant with them which confirmed them as His exclusive people for all time to come. He, in turn, would be their exclusive G’d. The time had come then to erect a Sanctuary for this G’d on earth, a structure which symbolized G’d’s presence not only on earth generally, but in the midst of His people. This represented the realization of G’d’s promise in Exodus 19,5 which spelled out the special relationship between G’d and the Jewish people. The principal reason for building this structure was to provide a home for the Shechinah, G’d’s benevolent presence among the people. The Holy Ark within that structure represented the holiest part of it. In connection with it, and after giving detailed instructions as to its size, the materials it was to be made of, and the lid and the cherubs adorning it, G’d had announced ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת מבין שני הכרובים אשר על ארון העדות, “there I will set My meetings with you, and I shall speak with you from atop the Cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the Ark of Testimony, etc.” This is why Moses began immediately with the construction of the Holy Ark, followed by the making of the Cover, followed by the Table and the Menorah, all of which are the furnishings of that Tabernacle The fact that G’d did indeed speak to Moses from that location, on the Cover of the Holy Ark, has been confirmed in Numbers

לי means for the sake of My Name. Everything in the world is His, [therefore it cannot mean, “so it will be Mine.”]

ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take for Me a contribution;” this portion had been told to Moses during the forty days that Moses was on Mount Sinai, immediately after the revelation at that Mountain, [In other words, before the smashing of the Tablets, and the golden calf episode. Ed.] G–d, at that time, had already told Moses where to erect the Tabernacle, and that it would house the Holy Ark, inside the Holy of Holies, symbolising G–d’s presence on earth. He told him that it would contain the Tablets, and that the Israelites would be encamped around the Tabernacle. This is what is meant in verse eight of our verse where G–d described Himself as residing in the midst of the people, i.e. as if surrounded by angels as He had been in heaven. Concerning this state of affairs, David had said in Psalms 82,6: אמרתי אלוהים אתם ובני עליון כולכם, “I had said: ‘you are the children of G–d all of you children of the Supreme Being.” [David bemoans the demotion of the Jewish people that followed the golden calf episode in the verse following. Ed.]

ויקחו לי תרומה, “they shall take for Me a contribution;” some commentators believe that this paragraph was revealed to Moses during the forty days that he had been on the Mountain immediately following the revelation, and that already at that time, before the sin of the golden calf, he had been instructed to build the Tabernacle, in which the Holy Ark was to be placed that would contain the Tablets.תקחו

תרומה is something set apart (cf. Onkelos); the meaning is: let them set apart from their possessions a voluntary gift in My honour.

מאת כל איש, G’d commanded that the procedure should not be like the imposition of every man’s contribution for the public charity fund which was treated as a tax. Contributions were to be accepted only from volunteers.

Setting aside. Rashi is explaining that here it does not mean “lifting up,” as it does in (29:27): “The shoulder of the terumah-offering.” (Re”m)

I believe that in order to understand this we must refer to Yuma 4, according to which a person is forbidden to relate to another what he has been told by a third party unless he had been specifically permitted or instructed to do so. The Talmud bases this on the phrase: "G'd spoke to Moses לאמור 'to say'." According to this rule the Torah had to employ the line: "speak to the children of Israel," as otherwise Moses would have understood that whereas he was permitted to convey G'd's words to the people he was not duty bound to do so. When you apply this rule you will be able to account for many other instances in the Torah where the word לאמר is followed by דבר, "speak!" Our Rabbis in Yalkut Re-uveni explain the line "speak to the children of Israel" as meaning that Moses was not to appoint members of the mixed multitude to positions of authority over the children of Israel. They understood the word דבר in this instance as derived from דברות ושררה, expressions denoting authority.

את תרומתי, “you are to take (accept) My contribution.” Rashi explains that this contribution consisted of 13 different types of materials. They are the following: gold, silver, copper; blue, purple and crimson yarns; fine linen, goat’s hair, ram skins, skins of techashim, acacia wood; oil for incense and oil for lighting; and the princes were to supply the gemstones for the High Priest’s garments.

ידבנו לבו — The word ידבנו is of the same root as נדבה (the נ in the latter being replaced by the Dagesh in the ד); it is a term denoting “good-will”, apaisement in old French (cf. Rashi on Genesis 33:10 and Leviticus 19:5).

Let them set aside from their possessions a donation. Rashi is answering the question: Since terumah here means “setting aside,” why does it not have a fixed amount, like terumah taken from grain and wine? Therefore Rashi explains that it is “from their possessions,” [not from their fields,] so it has no fixed amount. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: If terumah here means “setting aside,” why does the verse not state first what they are to set aside, and then write, “Have them take for Me a terumah-offering”? Thus Rashi adds the words, “From their possessions.” [This answers also a second] question: Does the verse not imply that the terumah should come from their very selves, as it is written, “A terumah-offering from every man”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Let them set aside from their possessions a donation.” This answers everything. “Have them take for Me a terumah-offering” indeed means “set aside,” as Rashi said, “Let them set aside from their possessions.” And we need not say that the terumah comes from their very selves, because it comes from their possessions. Accordingly, “From every man” is not to be read with the preceding phrase, “terumah-offering,” but with the phrase following “Whose heart impels him.” And since we might think that this setting aside is obligatory, Rashi tells us that it is a good-will donation, as implied by, “Whose heart impels him to generosity.” (Re”m)

ויקחו לי, and they shall take for Me, etc." Why is this paragraph introduced by the conjunctive letter ו? Perhaps we can explain this by a statement attributed to our sages in Shekalim 1,3 according to which a person had to pawn some of his possessions in order to to contribute the half shekel for the building of the Tabernacle. We read in the Tanchumah on our portion that actually the Torah speaks here about three different kinds of תרומות, contributions. Two of these contributions consisted of a shekel per head whereas the size of the third contribution varied in size according to the individual's generosity and ability to contribute. One of the fixed contributions was used for the silver sockets holding up the beams of the Tabernacle, the second one was each individual's contribution for the purchase of the animals required for the public offerings, whereas the third contribution was a free-willed gift towards the materials needed for the construction of the Tabernacle. Keeping the above in mind the conjunctive letter ו before the word יקחו suggests a contrast between this donation and the one following which was determined by the individual's generosity, and which was not imposed on each Israelite. The words בני ישראל indicate that the levy was imposed only on the male Israelites, not on the women. Only the males were counted as we we know from Exodus 30,13. Accordingly, the words: מאת כל איש, "from each man," indicate that the levy was of equal size for each person from whom it was taken. Even if a person wished to contribute more than the half-shekel the Torah legislated in פרשת כי תשא, he was not allowed to do so. The extra letter ו also alludes to the fact that something else had preceded the compulsory levy, namely the spirit of generosity mentioned in our verse. When we adopt this method of interpreting the verse, the Torah speaks here of the various kinds of contributions made in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. G'd wished for each one of these three contributions to be made due to a spirit of generosity; a person should not make a contribution until he was in the proper frame of mind.

תקחו את תרומתי YE SHALL TAKE MY HEAVE OFFERING — Our Rabbis said: the expression תרומה is used here three times, being an allusion to three different heave offerings; one is the heave offering which consisted of a beka (half a shekel) a head, and of which the sockets were made, as is set forth in the section אלה פקודי (Exodus 39:26-27); another is the heave offering for the altar — a beka a head that was given to the funds (more lit., “the basket”, in which collections for communal or charitable purposes were made) from which to purchase the communal sacrifices; (see Rashi on Exodus 30:15) and the other one is that implied in the word תרומתי “My heave offering” and referred to by the word כסף in the next verse — the heave offering for the Tabernacle which was a free-will gift from each individual (Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 1:1). Thirteen different articles (cf. Tanchuma) that are mentioned in this section were all required either for the work of the Tabernacle (i. e. the construction of the Tabernacle or making the articles contained therein), or for the priests’ garments, as you will find when you look closely into the matter.

ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי, “and from every person whose heart so moves him you shall accept the gifts for Me.” The plain meaning of the text is that these gifts were dedicated to G’d’s name. The word תרומה means something set aside. In other words, the Israelites were to set aside a voluntary contribution for the building of the Tabernacle each out of his or her own funds. The whole concept of the Tabernacle has to be understood as an internalized version of what transpired during the revelation at Mount Sinai (based on Nachmanides). The very attribute כבוד which rested on Mount Sinai for all to see afterwards was manifest inside the Holy of Holies on the ark between the cherubs on an ongoing basis. The principal difference was that it could no longer be seen. Moses had said in Deut. 5,21 “here the Lord has shown us His majestic Presence כבוד וגדלו,“ and this has been repeated in connection with the Tabernacle twice more. Once in Exodus 40,34: “and the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” In the verse immediately following, the Torah also writes that Moses was unable to enter the Tabernacle as the cloud had settled over it and “the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle.” Just as the Torah wrote in connection with the Mount Sinai experience (Deut. 4,36) “From the heavens He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on the earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst the fire you heard His words,” so a parallel experience is described in connection with the Tabernacle in Numbers 7,89: “he (Moses) would hear the voice addressing him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the covenant between the two cherubs; thus He spoke to him.” If, at Mount Sinai, the “nobles” were described as: “they saw the G’d of Israel,” we find something similar in connection with the Tabernacle in that the G’d of Israel “sat” on the cherubs (Samuel II 6,20). This is also what the prophet Ezekiel reported as seeing in his vision (Ezekiel 10,19-20) וכבוד אלו-הי ישראל עליהם מלמעלה, היא החיה אשר ראיתי תחת אלו-הי ישראל בנהר כבר ואדע כי כרובים המה, “and the glory of the G’d of Israel was above them; this was the Chayah which I saw beneath the G’d of Israel at the river Kevar.”

The same root as נדבה . . . It is as if it said ינדבנו , for the נ is represented by the dagesh of the ד .

This verse may also be explained in consonance with Baba Batra 8, according to which monies for charities may be collected by no fewer than two collectors, whereas distribution of such monies requires the presence of three people. This is in order not to allow arbitrary decisions of an a individual as to who should get part of this money and how much. The second person's presence when collecting the funds is in order that the collectors not be suspected of pocketing some of these funds for their own purposes. The Talmud derives this rule from the words: "and they shall take the gift, etc." Interestingly, both Tossaphot and the Ran claim that the presence of two collectors is mandatory when the amounts are fixed, such as a head tax levied for the poor, whereas when the amounts collected are subject to variation, i.e. each donor decides how much to contribute, three people are required to be present during the collection. Actually, according to halachah, even a single expert is empowered to collect a mandatory levy from people as we know from Sanhedrin 5 where the Talmud empowers an expert judge to pronounce judgment. Rabbi Nachman cites himself as an example of a solitary judge handing down decisions in monetary disputes. [Naturally, the litigants had first agreed to submit to the decision of the single expert judge. Ed.] Tossaphot there write that such a single judge can impose his decision on the litigant. If that is so in matters of litigation, it is obviously the case also where only a mere assertion of authority is involved such as in collecting donations, etc. If a situation normally requiring three judges may be handled by a single expert judge, how much more so can a single expert judge deal with matters which even under normal circumstances only require two laymen. This helps us to understand the words: "speak to the children of Israel" in the sense of "exercise authority." G'd empowered Moses to single-handedly exercise authority when it came to collecting funds for the building of the Tabernacle. Moses was empowered to both distribute the funds and the materials to the respective artisans without having to give an accounting and he was also empowered to collect these funds without anyone supervising what he did. This extraordinary power was restricted to Moses. Whenever anyone else engaged in a similar activity, the rule of "they shall take the contribution" applied. When you will examine the Torah's report of what actually happened (Exodus 36,3), you will find that the people took the various materials from Moses (only), seeing he alone had collected same. Moses did so both with the contributions which were of fixed amounts (the shekel "levy") as well as with the free-willed donations which varied in size and value. We now understand the letter ו which preceded the word יקחו as contrasting the extra-ordinary authority G'd had granted Moses at the outset of this portion with the normal procedures..

The expression תרומה is mentioned here three times. . . However, Scripture explains here only the “terumahoffering for the mishkon — the donation of each individual.” Otherwise, [if it does not allude to three different terumah-offerings,] why does it say תרומתי and וזאת התרומה ? Scripture should have written: ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו זהב וכסף ונחשת .

מאת כל איש, "from any man, etc." Perhaps the Torah means that if a certain individual was well known to be of a giving and generous nature they would not assess him as to what could be expected of him but they would accept without question whatever such an individual chose to contribute. When such an individual described his contribution as תרומתי, "this is my contribution," they would let it go at that.

The thirteen items mentioned. . . [Question: Are there not fifteen items listed here? The answer is:] Greenish-blue, dark red and crimson are all of wool, just with different dyes [so they count as one]. Another answer: The onyx stones and filling stones were brought by the leaders of the tribes, while Rashi is counting what the public donated.

The Torah also may wish to teach that the term "my gift," cannot be used except when the donor has donated it willingly, generously, with all his heart. This is why the Torah wrote: מאת אשר. If the donor had to be coerced into giving such a gift it does not qualify for the description תרומתי, [a gift truly meant for G'd. Ed.] but is merely referred to as תרומה, "a gift." The Torah alludes to this by writing ויקחו לי תרומה, "they will take a gift for Me."

A careful reading of the text will reveal that we have three expressions indicating three degrees of gifts. The Torah did not need to write מאת כל איש, as it would have sufficed to write מאשר ידבנו, "from anyone willing to donate." Perhaps all these nuances describe the three levels of charitable gifts that are commonly given by Israelites. They are: 1) gifts by the orphans; 2) gifts by women, and 3) gifts by people who are extremely affluent (or extremely poor). We are told in Baba Batra 8 that one does not obligate orphans to give charity even if the money is intended to free Jewish captives. If, however, such contributions by orphans will enhance their standing in the community, it is permitted to collect from them. We are taught in Baba Kama 119 that women are assessed only a nominal amount when charity is collected. The Talmud defines "nominal amount" in accordance with the economic standing of the women in question. Ravina is reported to have accepted golden chains from women in his town as a contribution. His rationale was that the women in Mechuzza (his town) could well afford it, that such a contribution was really something minor as far as they were concerned. As far as the extremely affluent, the third category mentioned is concerned, the Talmud in Baba Batra 8 forbids that such people be assessed a contribution. We read in Taanit 24 that the charity collectors were careful to keep out of sight of destitute people so as not to embarass them into contributing something they could not afford to give away. In our פרשה the Torah alludes to these three categories of people when it uses excess verbiage in describing the donations for the building of the Tabernacle.

According to the Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 1,5, the Tabernacle was a form of atonement for the sin of the golden calf. If so, there was a reason for the Torah to indicate that donations by the aforementioned three categories of people were not mandatory as we might have thought that unless these people also made their contributions they would not enjoy the atonement for their participation in the sin of the golden calf. The extra word את refers to the women; the extra word כל includes the orphans; the words איש אשר ידבנו לבו refer to the poor. It was permitted to accept even a substantial donation from each of these categories. We are also told in Shemot Rabbah 33,8 that Moses queried the Israelites' financial ability to build the Tabernacle. G'd said to him that even the most insignificant (poorest) Israelite was able to build the Tabernacle (donate the funds needed), and that this is why the Torah writes: "from any man who donates with his heart." This is based on the statement in the Tanchuma in connection with the manna where we are told that the descent of the manna was accompanied by a rain of precious stones and pearls. We are also told in Shir Hashirim Rabbah (Song of Songs 1,11) that the least wealthy Israelite took great amounts of loot out of Egypt and even more at the shores of the sea where the Egyptians had drowned. All this proves that the Israelites were wealthy at the time. Accordingly, the Torah wanted to make it plain that the restrictions the sages placed on raising charitable donations from the three categories of people we described earlier apply only to the norm. When people belonging to either of theses categories enjoyed affluence they were certainly expected to contribute in accordance with their means. The ruling that one does not accept (assess) charitable donations from the orphans applies only when the orphans are neither wealthy nor in need of atonement. When they are in need of atonement, such as at the time the donations for the Tabernacle were required, they certainly had to contribute. Not only that, but even if they made a nominally large donation this may have been accounted as an insufficient donation if they were truly wealthy. The donations were rated according each indiviual's financial ability. The same rule applies to the שוע, the wealthy patrician, who, even if he contributed all the materials for the building of the Tabernacle would not make a dent in his wealth. His contribution would not necessarily reflect largesse on his part. The Torah goes on to say תקחו את תרומתי, to tell us that contributions from these three categories of people are acceptable only because they are contributions to the Holy Tabernacle. Contributions for charities are not acceptable from such people.

A moral dimension of the verse may have to do with the attachment of the soul to G'd. Such a relationship may be reinforced by means of a tangible gift towards the construction of the Tabernacle. The collective soul of Israel is termed תרומה. This is based on Jeremiah 2,3: "Israel is holy unto G'd, ראשית תבואתה, the first of His harvest." The word ראשית is often applied to תרומה. Accordingly, acceptance of a tangible gift by the Jewish people achieves that G'd's Presence will dwell in Israel. The words תקחו את תרומתי refer to the שכינה which is called תרומת השם.

זהב וכסף ונחשת וגו׳ GOLD AND SILVER AND COPPER etc. — All these came (were brought) as voluntary gifts, each man giving as his heart prompted him, except that silver which was brought by all in equal quantities (cf. Rashi above), a half shekel by each person. For we do not find in the account of the entire work connected with the Tabernacle that any silver was needed for the work there described in detail over and above this, for it is said, (Exodus 38:25-26) “And the silver of them who were numbered of the congregation [was an hundred talents, etc.] … a beka for every man etc.” and vv. 27 and 28 inform us that of this silver were made the Sockets and the hooks. Of the other silver which came (was brought) there, as a free-will gift they made the holy vessels (lit., vessels for service), and it is this silver that is referred to in this verse and which is stated in the preceding verse as having been brought voluntarily.

V’ZOTH’ (AND THIS) IS THE OFFERING. By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], this is like the expression, And the Eternal gave Solomon wisdom.³³I Kings 5:26. — See my Hebrew commentary p. 454 that in the word zoth Cabalists saw an allusion to the Divine Glory. It is also written: ‘v’zoth’ (and this) is it that their father spoke unto them and blessed them;³⁴Genesis 49:28. ‘v’zoth’ (and this) is the blessing;³⁵Deuteronomy 33:1. the Eternal’s doing is ‘zoth’ (this).³⁶Psalms 118:23. — Bereshith Rabbah 100:12. The Rabbis have already alluded to this in Bereshith Rabbah on the basis of the verse, I understand from the elders.³⁶Psalms 118:23. — Bereshith Rabbah 100:12. The discerning student will understand.
And in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah³⁷Shemoth Rabbah 49:2. the Rabbis have said: “And this is the offering which ye shall take of them — this refers to the congregation of Israel, which is the heave-offering, as it is said, Israel is the Eternal’s hallowed portion, His first-fruits of the increase.”³⁸Jeremiah 2:3. And it is also said there:³⁹Shemoth Rabbah 33:1. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: I have sold you My Torah; and I, as it were, was sold with it, for it is said, ‘v’yikchu li terumah’” [which the Midrash takes to mean: “and they shall acquire Me as an offering”]. For the offering shall be Mine, and I am with it, similar to: My beloved is mine, and I am his.⁴⁰Song of Songs 2:16. Similarly, He said, according to all that I show thee,⁴¹Further, Verse 9. for it is I who show [the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all its vessels]. The statement, it hath been shown to thee,⁴²Ibid., 27:8. also alludes to the word “I”; similarly, which is being shown to thee.⁴³Further, Verse 40. And so did David say, All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me,⁴⁴I Chronicles 28:19. for the hand of G-d was upon David [to show him the pattern of the Sanctuary and of all its works].

וזאת התרומה, the word זאת means that no substitutes for the materials listed would be acceptable, such as perishables, for instance. Even the kind of gemstones (pearls, for instance) not usable for Aaron’s breastplate, were not accepted. The only type of contributions that were accepted were those that in themselves would be usable in the construction of the Tabernacle and its paraphernalia.

וזאת התרומה, This is what the gift consists of, etc. The conjunctive letter ו which introduces the word זאת may indicate that the duty of contributing to the Tabernacle could not be discharged by the offering of only one or a few of the categories of building materials required. Unless all the materials specified were contributed directly, the Israelites had not fulfilled their duty. The letter ו then stipulates an additional directive, i.e. not only must you donate generously, but you must donate of all the thirteen materials required. The Tabernacle which represented a re-enactment of the work of creation could not be completed without the presence of all the ingredients listed. Alternatively, the meaning could be that all of the thirteen kinds of materials should be equally welcome. Someone who contributed flax (linen) or skins was not to be looked down upon when compared to someone who contributed gold, for instance.

זהב וכסף ונחשת, “gold, silver, and copper.” The Torah mentions three types of metal and three types of wool (different colours). We do not find that silk was used in the construction of the Tabernacle. The reason is that silk is the product of the body of a שרץ, a worm, and the only materials which were found suitable for forming part of the materials used in the construction of the Tabernacle are those that originate in ritually pure animals (compare Shabbat 28). In this connection it is well to remember that our sages explain in connection with Tachash (Shabbat 28) that the color derived from such worms as the shamir is not derived from the actual body of the respective animal/worm but from a berry which was also inhabited by a worm which took its name from the berry. This applies also to the expression תולעת השני which does not mean that the red color was taken from the worm but that that worm used to lodge in a berry from which the red color for dying the wool was taken. Afterwards the Torah lists שש, another name for flax, i.e. linen. Immediately afterwards the Torah mentions contributions of עזים, i.e. goats’ wool, not the skins or the animals themselves. This is also the reason that Onkelos does not translate the words as עזיא, goat, but as מעזיא a product of the goat. The product in question is the hair, i.e. the wool. Even though the Torah has prohibited the combining of wool and linen, the priests when they entered the holy precincts had to wear garments in which wool and linen were interwoven. I shall explain the mystical dimension of this in Parshat Kedoshim where the prohibition is written.

The rest of the silver which was brought. . . [Rashi is answering the question: If] the silver was [obligatory, it was] different from the other donations. So why is it written here? We cannot say that the people brought silver twice, and the silver here was a goodwill donation like the other items, whereas the [obligatory] half-shekel was different silver. This is not so, for Rashi says: “We do not find in all the works of the mishkon that any more silver was needed.” Rashi answers: In fact there are two types of silver [included here. One was obligatory, and the other, not]. Although we said that no more silver was needed, this is not a difficulty, because “the rest of the silver which was brought voluntarily, they made from it the holy vessels,” [and it was not significant enough for Scripture to mention expressly].

'וזאת התרומה וגו, “and this is what the contribution is to consist of, etc.;” thirteen different categories of contributions are listed here. The prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 16,10, lists the thirteen garments (including jewelry) in which the Lord is going to dress the Jewish people in the future which correspond to this. (Tanchuma, section 5 on our portion)

"That you shall accept from them": Not donation of grain, wine, and oil, but gold, silver, and bronze. The Blessed, Holy One said: I set up thirteen things for you in Egypt; you, too, should offer thirteen. The thirteen which [God] did in Egypt are written down by Ezekiel: "I clothed you with embroidered garments, and gave you sandals of dolphin leather to wear, and wound fine linen about your head, and dressed you in silks. I decked you out in finery and put bracelets on your arms and a chain around your neck. I put a ring in your nose, and earrings in your ears, and a splendid crown on your head....the choice flour, the oil, and the honey, which I had provided for you to eat" (Ezekiel 16:10-12, 19) -- which come to thirteen. You, too, should offer me thirteen things: gold, silver, bronze; blue, purple, and crimson yarns; fine linen, goats’ hair; tanned ram skins, dolphin skins, and acacia wood, oil for lighting, spices for the anointing oil and for the aromatic incense; lapis lazuli and other stones for setting" (Exodus 25:4-7).....

וזהב וכסף ונחושת, “as well as gold, silver, and copper.” These three elements correspond to the gifts (tzedakah) a person dispenses; when he does so while in perfect health, it is compared to gold, i.e. as if he had handed out gold. If he dispenses charitable gifts while sick, this is accounted for him as if he had given away silver. If he bequeaths money to charity to be dispensed after he has died, it is considered as if he had handed out copper coins. An alternate interpretation: the word “gold,” is a reference to the Kingdom of Babylon concerning which we read in Daniel 2,38: אנתה הוא ראשה די דהב, “you are the head of gold.” [Daniel speaking to Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. Ed.] The word: “silver,” is an allusion to the Kingdom of Persia, and the ten thousand talents of silver Haman offered the King in order to be allowed to destroy the Jews [and compensate him for lost tax revenue. Ed.] (Esther 3,) Copper, which is the cheapest of all the metals, is an allusion to the Kingdom of the Greeks, which was the weakest of the three empires mentioned. This is followed, by the skins of the various animals forming the upper layers of the Tabernacle’s roof, which are an allusion to the empire of the Romans, considered inferior by our author. Finally, שמן, ”oil,” is an allusion to the Messiah, of whom we read in Psalms 132,17: ערכתי נר למשיחי, “I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one.” (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 35,5 as well as Tanchuma, section 7 on our portion).

ותכלת AND BLUE PURPLE — wool dyed with the blood of the חלזון (a kind of shell-fish), the colour of which was greenish-blue (Menachot 44a).

ותולעת שני, wool dyed red is called תולעת. The colour itself is called שני. We know this from Nachum 2,4 אנשי חיל מתולעים, “soldiers dressed in crimson.” The word also occurs in that sense in Lamentations 4,5 האמונים עלי תולע, “the ones who used to be robed in purple, etc.” The prophet Isaiah 1,18 holds out the hope that “if our sins were staining our clothing red, repentance would result in their becoming white as snow.” The prophet considers both the word שלג and שני as dyes, the former being a white dye, the latter a red dye. However the words תולע and צמר both refer to wool, the latter being undyed wool.

Wool that is dyed with the blood. . . Rashi explains ארגמן , too, as dyed wool. His proof is from the priestly vestments, which were made of these four types — תכלת , ארגמן , תולעת שני , ושש — yet in Scripture it is not written what material they were. But in Yechezkel 44:17, regarding the kohanim’s garb on Yom Kippur, it is written: “They shall wear vestments of linen, and vestments of wool shall not come upon them.” This implies that during the year they wore linen and wool vestments, but no other material. About the kohanim’s pants it is written (39:28): ואת מכנסי הבד שש משזר . Since בד is linen, שש is linen. And if שש is linen, then תכלת must be wool, [because the kohanim wore only linen and wool]. It cannot be the other way around because we see clearly that שש is linen. And since תכלת of the priestly vestments is [dyed] wool, also ארגמן [and תולעת שני ] must be types of dyed wool, [as all the dyed types were assumedly of the same material. But שש was not dyed].

ועזים, “and goats’ hair,” according to Rashi. He bases himself on Onkelos who translates: ומעזי, “something derived from goats;” anyone translating the word ועזים, as “and goats,” is in error therefore.

וארגמן AND RED PURPLE — wool coloured with a kind of dye the name of which is ארגמן

ושש, and linen. All the other materials used were different kinds of wool, i.e. dyed animal hair.

Hair of goats. . . [Rashi knows this] because if it meant skins of goats, Scripture should have written עורות עזים [as it is written for rams’ skins in next verse]. It is written “goats” instead of “goats’ hair” because they spun the threads from [the hair that was attached to] the goats themselves.

ושש — this is what we call LINEN (Yevamot 4b).

ועזים. Something weaved or spun from goats’ hair.

ועזים is GOATS’ HAIR; therefore Onkelos translates it by וּמְעַזֵּי which denotes something that comes from the goats — not the goats themselves, for the Aramaic translation of עזים is עִזַּיָּא‎.

מאדמים RED — they were dyed red after having been tanned.

ועורות תחשים, “and the skins of the tachash.” The tachash was some kind of free-roaming beast. Our sages in Shabbat 28 are of the opinion that the tachash was an animal which existed only during that generation and had a single horn on its forehead. Its whole function was to have its skin serve as one of the coverings of the Tabernacle. Apparently, the colour of their skin was so beautiful that it was not to be used again for secular purposes so that G’d allowed this animal to become extinct as soon as it had fulfilled its purpose. Our sages on that same folio explain that the fact that it had a horn on its forehead was proof that it was a ritually pure animal. According to our tradition the ox offered by Adam as a sacrifice also had only a single horn on its forehead. This is based on Psalms 69,32: “ותיטיב לה’ משור פר מקרן מפריס, “that will please the Lord more than oxen, than a bull with a horn and hooves.” The singular of the word קרן means that a particular bull had only one horn. Although the vowel pattern under the word מקרן suggests more than one, the absence of the letter י suggests that David speaks about a single-horned bull. At any rate, unless the tachash had been ritually pure, none of its parts would have qualified for use in the Tabernacle. We have a strong allusion to this in the words of Exodus 13,9 למען תהיה תורת ה’ בפיך, “so that what goes into your mouth should conform to the Torah of the Lord.” Seeing that the tachash had so many colours Onkelos translates ססגונה, “proud of its being multi-coloured.”

[They were dyed] red after they were tanned. [Rashi knows this] because if they were naturally red, it should say אֲדוּמִים , [not מְאָדָמִים ].

ועצי שטים, “and acacia wood.” Actually, the word שטים is a notrikon, an acrostic composed of the respective first letters in the words: שלום, טובה, ישועה, מחילה, “peace, goodness, salvation, and pardon.” There were some forests in the desert from which the Israelites were able to cut boards which they called shittim. This is also why we read in Joshua 2,1 that “Joshua sent out spies from (the forest around Shittim)” This is also what the prophet Isaiah referred to (Isaiah 41,19) when he wrote (in the name of the Lord) אתן במדבר ארז ,שיטה, והדס, “I will plant cedars in the deserts, acacias and myrtles, and oleasters.“ This is a very lightweight wood and it is very smooth. If we needed any proof that its wood was very light, consider the size of the boards of the Tabernacle’s which were 48 in number. Add two silver sockets for each board, i.e. 96 sockets, add all the upright boards use to surround the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which all had to be transported only by four wagons pulled by eight oxen, as spelled out in Numbers 4,29. Even though each board was 10 cubits high (6 meters) and their thickness was 1 cubit (60cm) and you will realise that unless the wood itself was extremely light, all of this could not have been pulled by only eight oxen. The other four oxen had to pull the weight of the carpets (4 layers) which formed the “roof” of the Tabernacle. We have been told in addition that the בריח התיכון, (Exodus 36,33), the center bolt, used to be Yaakov’s walking staff, the one with which he had crossed the river Jordan on his way to Lavan. Rashi claims that the shittim wood were trees that Yaakov had planted in Egypt as soon as he had come to Egypt, which the Israelites uprooted and took with them when departing from Egypt and which were used now to make the boards for the Tabernacle from. This is also what the liturgist bases himself on. Another interpretation found in the Midrash is that this was wood from the staff Yaakov had .taken with him on the way to Lavan. [I suppose that what the Midrash means is that Yaakov had planted that walking staff in the earth in Charan already, and it had developed. Ed.] This is why he had referred to it in Genesis 32,11, as a symbol of G–d’s providence guiding him during all the years he had been at Lavan. Ed.] It is not surprising therefore that he took those trees with him also to Egypt.

ועצי שטים, “and (boards of) acacia trees.” There were forests in the desert in which these trees grew. This is why the Israelites were described as dwelling at Shittim, (Numbers 25,1) The wood of these trees is light in weight and pleasant to look at. The 48 boards of the Tabernacle, as well as the pillars at the entrance and between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies were constructed of that wood and transported on the wagons donated by the princes as per Numbers 3,3634 and 4,3132. So were the bolts that were attached to link the boards to one another. They were all transported on these four wagons which were pulled by eight oxen under the supervision of the Levites from the family of Merari. (Numbers 7,8) Seeing that the boards were ten cubits (six meters) long each and one and a half cubits thick, it is extremely likely that the wood from which they were cut was light in weight.

תחשים TACHASH was a kind of wild beast. It existed only at that time (when Israel built the Tabernacle). It was multi-coloured and therefore it is translated in the Targum by ססגונה, and it is so translated because it delights (שָׂשׂ) and prides itself in its colours (גונא) (Shabbat 28; Midrash Tanchuma, Terumah 6).

ועצי שטים, “and wood of the Shittim tree.” Where did the Israelites take these trees from? According to Tanchuma Terumah 9 Yaakov foresaw in his holy spirit that these trees would be required when the Israelites would build a Tabernacle in the desert and having this in mind he brought acacia trees with him to Egypt which were planted there. He commanded his children that when they would leave Egypt they were to take these trees with them.

A kind of animal which existed only. . . [Question: Does it not say in Yechezkel 16:10 that they made shoes from tachash leather all the forty years that they were in the desert? The answer is:] The tachash of Yechezkel was a species of impure animal called Tala Ilan (Shabbos 28a).

ועצי שטים AND SHITTIM WOOD — But from where did they get this in the wilderness? Rabbi Tanchuma explained it thus: Our father Jacob foresaw by the gift of the Holy Spirit that Israel would once build a Tabernacle in the wilderness: he therefore brought cedars to Egypt and planted them there, and bade his children take these with them when they would leave Egypt (Midrash Tanchuma, Terumah 9; cf. Bereishit Rabbah 94 and Rashi on Exodus 26:15).

Where did they get it in the desert. . . [Rashi asks this] because it is written in Yeshaya 41:19: “I will place cedar, acacia. . . in the desert,” implying that in the future it will be so, but now it is not. (R. Noson)

שמן למאר OIL FOR THE LIGHT — “clear olive-oil … to make the flame ascend continually”).

SPICES FOR ANOINTING OIL AND FOR INCENSE OF ‘HASAMIM’ (AROMATICS). Some scholars⁴⁵I have not been able to identify these scholars. say that this is an elliptical verse,⁴⁶These scholars are of the opinion that b’samim (spices) and hasamim (aromatics) are two different terms. And since it says further on that for the incense take unto thee ‘samim’ (aromatics) (30:34), the word b’samim cannot refer also to the incense mentioned here. Hence they complete the sentence thus: “spices for anointing oil, and aromatics for incense and aromatics.” the sense being: “spices for anointing oil and aromatics for incense of aromatics.” And other scholars⁴⁷Mentioned in Ibn Ezra in the name of “contemporary scholars.” I found this in Chizkuni. say that the verse is to be understood as if it were inverted: “and for incense of aromatics they shall bring aromatics.” Scripture mentions them with the definite article [hasamim], in order to indicate that it is referring to those aromatics that are good as incense, for there also [i.e., further in the section of the Torah dealing with the incense — 30:34] He did not explain [fully the compound forming the incense].⁴⁸Hence He referred to them here by the definite article — hasamim — the aromatics that are known. See Ramban further 30:34 for full discussion of this subject. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the verse is to be taken in its simple sense, that spices be taken for both — for the anointing oil and for the incense, for included in the compound of the incense were these spices: spikenard and saffron and cinnamon, according to the words of our Rabbis.⁴⁹Kerithoth 6a. It was not necessary for Scripture to mention “spices and aromatics for the incense,” because it said the incense of aromatics, just as it did not say “oil for the anointing oil.” This is the correct interpretation.
All these opinions are necessary because according to the view of the linguists [samim and b’samim connote two different things]: samim are curative herbs which are not edible, such as frankincense and galbanum,⁵⁰Further, 30:34. while b’samim are those that are edible, and are called mis’adim (props)⁵¹This was a Medieval medicinal term for spices which were given to the sick to restore their vigor. See Hebrew dictionaries, under the term mis’ad. because they have a strengthening power by their fragrant odor.
However, in the opinion of Rashi samim is identical with b’samim. And such is the meaning of our Rabbis in the Midrash⁵²Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:61. in saying: “Eleven samonin (ingredients) were told to Moses on Mount Sinai” [which form the incense, and among them were spikenard and saffron and cinnamon which are b’samim, thus proving that they are all called by the term samim]. Onkelos also translates in both cases busmin [“busmaya for the anointing oil, and for incense of busmaya”]. This is correct in the understanding of this verse. But because Scripture changed the terms [calling one b’samim and the other samim] we might possibly say that the most important of aromatics and spices are called b’samim, a term which signifies the choicest and most famous of the spices, just as He said, ‘b’samim rosh’ (the chief spices).⁵³Further, 30:23. ‘b’rosh kol bosem’ (with chief of all spieces).⁵⁴Ezekiel 27:22. We are also correct in saying that the words b’samim and bosem are composite words: bo sem, bo samim (“in it is spice,” “in it are spices”). Proof to the words of the Rabbis [that the term b’samim includes also samim] is the verse, Take thou unto thee ‘b’samim rosh’ (the chief spices) of flowing myrrh,⁵³Further, 30:23. and myrrh, is counted among the samim since it is a curative, not an edible herb. Scripture further says, Spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense,⁵⁵Song of Songs 4:14. and the verse there continues: myrrh and aloes, with all the chief ‘b’samim’ (spices). And with reference to all of these Scripture says, Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that ‘b’samov’ (the spices thereof) may flow out.⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 16. Thus it is clear that the term b’samim (spices) includes also samim (aromatics), since it speaks of all of them as b’samim and lists amongst them myrrh, which is one of the samim. A further proof [to the opinion of the Rabbis that b’samim includes also samim] is the verse, and the princes brought… the ‘bosem’ and the oil for the light and for the annointing oil and the incense of aromatics,⁵⁷Further, 35:28. but it does not mention that they brought samim, from which we may conclude that they are all included in the bosem.

לשמן המשחה, from which to make the oil for anointing.

בשמים לשמן המשחה ולקטורת הסמים, “spices for the oil of anointment, and for the aromatic incense.” Nachmanides says that there are some commentators who consider this verse as having been abbreviated, and that its meaning is as if the Torah had written:וסמים לקטורת הסמים, “and fragrances to be used in the aromatic incense.” Other commentators interpret this verse as if the text had read: ולקטורת הסמים יביאו סמים, “and for the purpose of making the aromatic incenses they shall bring different fragrances.” The Torah mentions these fragrances collectively at this point, as the letter ה in front of the word סמים indicates that the various fragrances alluded to were well known, and did not require being listed. They were not even listed individually in the paragraph dealing with the making of the incense in Exodus 30,34-38, where only 5 out of a total of 11 are enumerated. [the other six are derived by the sages through interpretation of the text. Ed.] Ibn Ezra explains that there was no need to mention the other 6 ingredients as they were used both for the oil of anointment and for the making of the incense. There was no need to repeat the words בשמים and סמים as these words were mentioned already in connection with the “headings” for both the oil of anointing and the incense for burning up. The Torah also did not consider it necessary to write שמן לשמן המשחה, “oil for the oil of anointing,” as the “heading” שמן was implied by the term שמן למשחה as applicable to each of these ingredients. The reason why we need all these different explanations with which the commentators preoccupied themselves, is to counter the argument of the linguists that the word סמים refers to medications, or drugs, in other words, something used internally, in the body, not externally. According to these linguists the word פיטום as in פיטום הקטורת, denotes that these drugs exude a strong fragrance. However, Rashi thinks that the word סמים describes certain categories of spices, and this is also the opinion of Onkelos who translates both the word בשמים and the word סמים as בוסמיא, spices.

Clear olive oil. . . Rashi is answering the question: [Since it says, “Oil”,] why does it need to say, “For the lamp”? Thus he explains: Because this is “clear olive oil,” and is unique. They needed to pluck the [sun-ripened] olives from the top of the tree for it, as stated in Menachos 86a. Rashi is also answering the question: Why in fact did this oil need to be different from ordinary oil used for lighting? He answers: “To keep the lamp burning constantly,” so it will not go out.

שמן למאור, “oil for light;” it is somewhat puzzling why this verse has been inserted here, seeing that the entire chapter deals with materials used for building the Tabernacle with the exception of this item, although the requirements for the Table in the Tabernacle have not been mentioned here, although that would have been appropriate, if the Torah had wished to mention the requirements of the menorah, the lampstand. Also the firewood for the altar should have been mentioned, and the animals that were needed to be offered on the altar. Why was only the oil singled out? It is possible to answer this by saying that seeing that the oils for anointing was also used to anoint all the furnishings in the Tabernacle before they could perform their function, this oil had multiple functions and was not only used for providing the raw material from which lighting was supplied for the Tabernacle which had no windows. The same is true of the incense. In a king’s palace, in our physical universe, before the King enters it with a view to take up his residence, different pleasant smelling spices are scattered to dissipate remnants of unpleasant odours that had accumulated during its construction. It is clear therefore that no less would be done when a structure housing the presence of the shechinah, presence of the Creator would be made ready for His occupancy. We find that indeed the presence of the Lord in the Tabernacle was made possible only through the presence of the incense, i.e. the fragrance released by it through burning it; this thought has been spelled out in Leviticus 16,13: וכסה ענן הקטורת, “and the cloud of incense is to envelop the Holy Ark,” as well as again in verse 2 of the same chapter: כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I appear in the cloud upon the cover of the Ark.” Even though the oil of which the Torah speaks here is not required for physical illumination in the Tabernacle, it reflects the honour paid to the Holy Presence of the celestial presence in the midst of the Jewish people.

שמן למאור, “oil for lighting;” since it is not customary for a king to enter his palace until the palace is complete and its furnishings are in place, as well as the illumination having been lit, this is mentioned already here. The same oil was also used for anointing all the sacred vessels.

בשמים לשמן המשחה SPICES FOR THE ANOINTING OIL which was made for the purpose of anointing the vessels of the Tabernacle and the Tabernacle itself in order to sanctify it. For this oil spices were required as is set forth in the section כי תשא (Exodus 30:23 ff.).

ולקטורת הסמים, they brought spices to help make the incense, as is commanded in Exodus 30,34 קח לך סמים.

Made for the purpose of anointing the vessels of the mishkon. . . [Rashi is answering the question: Since it says, “Spices,” why does it need to say, “For anointing-oil”? Thus] he explains: The spices of the anointing-oil were not just any spices but specifically “pure myrrh, fragrant cinnamon, etc” (30:23). Moshe must have explained to them that the needed spices were pure myrrh, etc., but the verse is brief and simply writes, “For anointing-oil,” without giving the details. Re”m elaborates; see there.

בשמים, ‘fragrant spices;” these were mixed with the oil for anointing; Kings are in the habit of providing their palaces with aromatic fragrances before they take up residence in them.

ולקטרת הסמים AND FOR INCENSE OF AROMATIC SPICES that were burnt every evening and morning, as is set forth in the section ואתה תצוה (Exodus 30:7). The word קטרת signifies raising vapour (קיטור) and a column of smoke.

As is explained in the parsha ואתה תצוה . . . I.e., there it says to burn them evening and morning. The spices themselves are not explained in ואתה תצוה but in כי תשא . Re”m elaborates; see there.

ולקטורת הסמים, “and for the aromatic incense;” this verse has been inverted. We must understand it as if the Torah had written: והסמים לקטורת, “and the spices for the aromatic incense.” It does not mean: “spices needed for the aromatic incense, seeing that the aromatic incense consisted only of these aromatic spices.” Verses 30,3435 in Exodus make this quite clear.

אבני שהם ONYX STONES — two were required there for the needs of the “ephod” which is mentioned in ואתה תצוה (Exodus 28:6ff.).

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.

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.

מלואים, for the gemstone to fill the recessed area intended for it to be set in, similar to the rings used as signet rings.

אבני שוהם ואבני מילואים, “shoham stones, and stones for the settings.” Rashi explains that the reason why these stones were called מילואים, settings, is that they were set in gold which had been recessed to accommodate each stone so that it would be firmly set in its frame. The exact spot of this recessed hole is called משבצות in the Torah. (28,25)

Filling-stones for the breastplate. . . Rashi explains this so we will not say that both the onyx stones and the filling stones were for the eiphod, and similarly both were for the breastplate. Re”m explains that the breastplate, too, had onyx stones. But since “filling stones” include all the breastplate’s stones, the “onyx stones” that are stated pertain only to the stones for the eiphod.

אבני שהם, “onyx stones;” these, and the jewels which follow, were required for the breastplate and the epaulets of the garments of the High Priest. How precisely did this work? The two onyx stones were affixed each to one of the shoulder pieces of the ephod. (Exodus 28,9 as well as 28,12) The stones collectively described as אבני מלואים, “jewels to be placed within the twelve settings provided for them on the breastplate of the High priest.” (Exodus 28,9). These jewels are referred to euphemistically on numerous occasions in the Bible, perhaps the best known example being Psalms 113,5-6: המגביהי לשבת המשפילי לראות בשמים ובארץ, “Who, though enthroned high, sees what is below, and Who sees what is in heaven and what is on earth.” You find an onyx stone mentioned also in Exodus 28,20, where it is one of the jewels on the breastplate of the High Priest.

אבני שוהם, “gemstones called shoham.” These two were affixed to the apronlike garment of the High Priest known as Ephod,” as well as the gemstones to be inserted in the High Priest’s breastplate, choshen, (12 in number).

מלאים FOR SETTING (lit., filling in) — Because they made for them (for the stones) settings in gold — a kind of indentation — and they put the stone there (in it) to fill the indentation, they were called “filling-up stones”; the spot where the indentation is (i. e. the hollow spot) is called משבצת “setting”.

לאפוד ולחושן, “for the ephod and the breastplate.” The shoham stones were on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, and the jewels referred to as מילואים were inserted in the breastplate. They were משובצים, surrounded by the golden rim that protruded around the grooves within which these jewels were inserted. Nachmanides is troubled by this interpretation as it does not seem right to him that the stones should already have been named according to their ultimate function, although this was still many months in the future. At this time each jewel had a name by which it was known universally, regardless of which piece of jewelry it was used in. He also finds it strange that the Torah should refer to settings for these stones, seeing that even the breastplate and the ephod for which they were intended did not exist yet, and we have not been told what either of these two garments was. Furthermore, Nachmanides makes the point that the אבני שוהם also required to be placed in settings on the shoulder pads of the ephod, so that the expression אבני מילואים applies in equal measure to these two jewels. They are, however, nowhere described as other than משבצות זהב, “held in place by gold settings.” (28,11) Nachmanides also does not accept Rashi’s comment that the meaning of משבצות זהב is that the jewels set in a groove, depression in the gold, were held in place by a golden rim around the jewel. He prefers the translation by Onkelos מרמצן בדהב, enclosed in gold. This means that underneath each jewel there would be a golden receptacle with small fork-like pincers at the top, which would grip the jewel once it had been inserted in the golden setting. This concept is borrowed from the sages ברמצא דפרזלא, boring a hole with an iron pick. (Shabbat 103, Niddah 62) What is described is a kind of fork, the extreme ends of which can be bent so as to hold a precious object firmly in place. The jewels would be placed at the curved bottom of such a “fork,” before the prongs at the top would be bent over to hold the jewel inside firmly in its position. This is still the way it is done in our days (author speaking) The meaning of the word מילואים is that the stone be whole, stones that have not been worked over by diamond cutters and such. Just as hewn stones, אבני גזית, were not to be used in constructing the altar, so the jewels for the breastplate and the ephod of the High Priest had to be in their original state. It is an accepted assumption by people who believe in the therapeutic and other value of certain jewels, that if these jewels are not in their original state they will have no such therapeutic value. The reader interested in the subject, is encouraged to read up in my translation of the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya, pages 1286-1294 where he explains the therapeutic values of each of the stones in the breastplate of the High Priest. Some gemstones’ therapeutic value cured diseases of the body, others had beneficial effect for people mentally underprivileged. [The author claims that scientific texts in his time claimed that there are actually no more than12 kinds of genuine gemstones. Ed.] Apparently, when such gemstones are found in a river bed, they are flawed as far as their use both in the breastplate or as therapeutic aids is concerned, as the constant contact with the water of the river makes it impossible for them to be retrieved in their natural state. This is why here Onkelos translates the word מילואם as אשלמותא, emphasising the wholeness, whereas in connection with filling of vessels or filling in a hole, he translates it as מילוי, as this is an expression used when it concerns such an activity. When the Torah discusses the אבני אפוד, (28,11) it speaks of מעשה חרש אבן פתוחי חותם תפתח על שני אבנים, usually translated as “with a jeweler’s handiwork, engraved like a signet ring, shall you engrave the two stones.” In those instances, each gemstone had to have holes in them to accommodate engraving the names of the various tribes. This was the kind of work done by stonemasons. Concerning the gemstones on the breast plate however, the Torah does not use the expression חרש אבן, but ומלאת בו מלואת אבן, an expression which is repeated in 28,20 יהיו במלואותם, perhaps best translated as “in their mountings.” In view of all these considerations, Moses had no choice but to use the secretion of the shamir worm to accomplish this objective. He showed this worm to helpers of Betzalel, demonstrating that the gemstones would split by themselves in the desired places without the use of stonemasons’ tools, jewelers’ engraving tools. Seeing that the word במלואותם occurs only in connection with the jewels inserted in the breastplate, even though the sages say that Moses brought the shamir also to go to work on the jewels of the ephod, by moving that worm above the surface of these two jewels in a manner parallel to writing the respective names of the tribes on them. This is probably an incorrect reference to the jewels on the breastplate, seeing that the breastplate, after all, is known also as the חשן האפד “the breastplate of the ephod” seeing it was fastened by chains to the ephod. The meaning of the wordsאבני שוהם, accordingly, is: the three places where jewels were affixed, i.e. 2 on the shoulder pads of the ephod itself, plus the four rows of jewels on the breastplate. The expression אבני מלואים however refers merely to the jewels worn on the High Priest’s breastplate. If it was indeed the opinion of the sages that the jewels on the shoulder pads of the ephod were mounted in the same way as those on the breastplate, it is conceivable that they derived this from the wording in our verse, and they understood the words אבני מלואים as applying equally to the jewels of the ephod and the choshen, respectively.

Another reason for mentioning these stones last may be the fact that they were not used as part of the Tabernacle but only as part of the priestly garments. We have learned in Yuma 69 that it was permitted to make use of these priestly garments, i.e. that one was not guilty of מעילה, trespass, when having made profane use of such garments. Maimonides writes in chapter five of the laws dealing with such trespasses that the priestly garments are not subject to such laws. It follows that the sanctity of the priestly garments cannot be compared to the sanctity of the Tabernacle itself. It is quite logical then that these gemstones, though intrinsically more costly than gold and silver, should be mentioned last in the order of contributions listed by the Torah. While it is true that some of the other eleven materials also served to make the priestly garments, their principal function was to serve as materials from which to construct the Tabernacle itself.

לאפד ולחשן FOR THE EPHOD AND THE BREASTPLATE respectively: the onyx stones for the ephod and “stones for setting” for the breastplate. Ephod and breastplate are described in ואתה תצוה. They were a kind of ornament worn only by the High-Priest.

Moreover, there is an opinion cited in Yuma 75 according to which these gemstones originated in the celestial spheres and their attainment did not represent an effort on the part of their owners nor did their being given away represent a loss to those who donated them inasmuch as they had never toiled in order to acquire them.

ועשו לי מקדש AND LET THEM MAKE ME A SANCTUARY — Let them make to the glory of My Name (cf. Rashi on v. 2) a place of holiness.

'ושכנתי בתוכם ככל אשר אני מראה אותך וגו, “I will dwell among them permanently in order to receive their prayers and their sacrificial offerings in a manner similar to the way I displayed My presence at the mountain.” Henceforth My presence will be manifest between the two cherubs on the lid of the Holy Ark as part of the overall structure called the Tabernacle. [I will paraphrase from here on in. Ed.]The author perceives of different degrees of holiness, just as the kabbalists perceive holiness in the extra terrestrial world as consisting of spiritually progressively higher different levels. The outer structure known as תבנית המקדש, “the format,” visual image, lead up to the cherubs in the innermost part of that structure. The very concept of the Tabernacle leads the intelligent viewer to conclude that hidden deep within it, G’d’s presence, שכינה must be manifest. The prophet Isaiah 6,2 phrased this as the שרפים עומדין ממעל לו, the types of angels of a rank known as “Seraphim” were in attendance above G’d’s throne. This was the closest to G’d’s essence that the prophets were shown in their visions. The terrestrial Tabernacle, if viewed as parallel to G’d’s throne in the celestial domains, contained different sections of progressively higher levels of sanctity which progressively restricted the type of people allowed to approach those levels. The Torah itself, for which the Holy Ark served as repository, was in an ark constructed of wood but overlaid with gold on the inside and on the outside, to reflect the saying of our sages in Yuma 72 that every Torah scholar whose external appearance did not reflect his internal stature is not a Torah scholar at all. The levels of sanctity in the Tabernacle, beginning already with the courtyard around it, were not sealed off from one another, but, on the contrary, were connected to one another all the way to the innermost sanctuary to demonstrate that sanctity is attainable progressively. On top of the physical box containing the spiritual teaching, the Torah, there was placed a lid also made from pure gold which symbolised the image of G’d. [in the sense that man was created in the image of G.d.] This lid was not linked, attached, to the ark itself at all. The detached nature of this “lid, כפורת,” symbolised that at a certain level of holiness there is no longer a physical bond with the human body, with the terrestrial domain, a domain which is essentially mortal, i.e. requiring regeneration from time to time. The description of the cherubs on top of the כפורת facing each other (verse 20) symbolises the interaction of the spiritual message contained in the Torah and its transmission to the human being studying it. The cherubs themselves are described as facing the lid, i.e. facing the Torah that is beneath that lid. As a result of such an attitude to Torah, i.e. looking to it for inspiration, the cherubs are then described as spreading their wings in an upward direction, as if reflecting that they had received spiritual inspiration enabling them to fly. This description of the cherubs’ posture reflects what Solomon described in Proverbs 15,24 אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל, “for an intelligent man the path of life is upward.” As a result of our relating to Torah in the manner described, we will merit what Isaiah 66,2 describes as ואל זה אביט, when he refers to the prerequisite character traits necessary to merit Divine inspiration.

ועשו לי מקדש, "and they will make a Sanctuary for Me." Why does the Torah refer to the structure as מקדש, Sanctuary, whereas immediately afterwards and many times subsequently it is described variously as "Tabernacle" or "Tent of Meeting?"

מקדש, an alternate description of אהל מועד, a place where G’d would be sanctified and from which He would address the Israelites. Compare Exodus 29,43.

They shall make for the sake of My Name a house of holiness. Rashi is answering two questions. First: Why is it written “for Me,” when everything already belongs to Hashem? Second: Making a מקדש seemingly implies making any holy item, not necessarily one with an interior. If so, how then can it be written, “And I will dwell in their midst”? How can Hashem’s Presence dwell in something without an interior? Rashi answers: “‘They shall make’ — for the sake of My Name.” And it shall be “a house” — with an interior.

V. 8. ועשו לי מקדש וגו׳. Wir haben schon in unseren, in den III. —IV. Jahrgängen des Jeschurun gegebenen Grundlinien einer jüdischen Symbolik den symbolischen Charakter der Stiftshütte im allgemeinen, sowie die symbolische Bedeutung der dazu verwendeten Stoffe im besonderen mit ausführlicher Begründung nachgewiesen. Wir verweisen somit hinsichtlich alles folgenden auf die dort gegebenen, begründenden Erörterungen, indem wir die dort gewonnenen Resultate unsern Texterläuterungen zu Grunde legen.

ועשו לי מקדש, “they will construct a Holy Temple for Me.” A building designated for meetings at appointed times. Compare: בית מועד. (Rash’bam) Compare also Numbers 11,18: התקדשו למחר, “be prepared for tomorrow.” We also have an announcement by G-d in Exodus 29,43: ונועדתי לבני ישראל, “I will keep my appointment with the Children of Israel.”

And so should you make [it]. Hashem’s presence would dwell among them only by means of the Tabernacle. This was a step down from what He had promised them before the sin of the Calf, “In every place that I permit My Name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you” (20:21).

We may assume that the term Sanctuary covers the instruction to erect a Temple both at the time and during later periods of Jewish history. It is a comprehensive positive commandment basically applicable not only in the desert but whenever the Jewish people reside in the Holy Land. Actually this duty is incumbent upon Israel even while the nation is in exile. The only reason this commandment cannot be fulfilled when the people are exiled is that G'd has specifically forbidden that any site other than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem serve as such a Sanctuary once the first Temple had been built by Solomon. Compare the legislation in Deut. 12,9, where G'd speaks of Israel's having attained מנוחה ונחלה, "rest and inheritance," as prerequisites for the erecting of a permanent (as opposed to collapsible) Sanctuary for G'd. This is why the Torah does not introduce this subject matter by referring to a משכן, a temporary structure. Had the Torah mentioned this term first we would have thought that the commandment was of a temporary nature. Once the Torah had introduced the concept of a Sanctuary for G'd it could proceed to give us the details that were applicable in the desert at the time the Torah had been given. You will find that Maimonides writes in the first chapter of the section of his code dealing with the laws applicable to the Temple that it is a positive commandment to build a house for G'd as the Torah has written: "and they shall construct a Sanctuary for Me." He based himself on the fact that the Torah called the Sanctuary משכן already in the very verse following this commandment. Another reason it is called Sanctuary is that as soon as the people would begin construction it was already considered sacred although the structure had not yet been completed and G'd's presence had not yet taken up residence therein.

Es bedarf nur des Einblicks in das Kap. 26 des Wajikra, mit welchem תורת כהנים, die auf den mit diesem Kapitel des 2. B. M. beginnenden Bau der Stiftshütte folgende Gesetzgebung der Tempel- und Lebensheiligung, abschließt אם בחקתי תלכו וגו׳ וגו׳ וגו׳ ונתתי משכני בתוככם וגו׳, um sich mit entschiedenster Evidenz zu sagen: 1) dass das ושכנתי בתוכם unserer Stelle weit über die bloße Gottesgegenwart im Tempel hinausgehe und vielmehr die in dem ganzen Aufblühen des Einzeln- und Gesamtlebens schützend und segnend sich bekundende Bundesnähe Gottes in unserer Mitte begreife; zugleich aber auch: 2) dass diese schützende und segnende Schechinanähe Gottes nicht durch die bloße korrekte Herstellung und Unterhaltung des Tempelheiligtums bewirkt werde, sondern nur durch Heiligung und Dahingebung unseres ganzen Privat- und öffentlichen Lebens an die Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes zu gewinnen sei. Eine Wahrheit, die sich nicht nur durch die einmalige Zerstörung des Heiligtums zu Schilo und zweimalige Zerstörung des Tempels zu Jerusalem faktisch historisch vollzog, sondern sowohl in dem Buche des Gesetzes selber, so namentlich auch noch bei den Spitzen der ganzen Gesetzgebung ג׳׳ע ע׳׳ז und ש׳׳ד, Wajikra 20. 3; 4. B. M. 35, 34; Wajikra 15, 31; Dewarim 23, 10 u. 15), als auch sofort bei der Grundlegung und dem Aufbau des salomonischen Tempels (Kön. I. 6, 12 u. 9) und fast auf allen Blättern der Prophetenbücher, z. B. Jeremias 7, ausdrücklich warnend hervorgehoben wird.

That I may dwell among (within) them: It does not say "within it," which means that the place that God will sanctify to dwell there is within the children of Israel that encircle the Tabernacle with four banners.

Wenn daher gleichwohl unser Text das ושכנתי בתוכם als Folge des ועשו לי מקדש verheißt, so kann eben die Bedeutung des מקדש nichts anderes als Ausdruck jener Gesamtaufgabe sein, deren Lösung die verheißene Schechinagegenwart in Israel bedingt, und mit diesem Ausspruche: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, wären uns zwei Begriffe gegeben, deren symbolischer Ausdruck der ganze Bau der Stiftshütte und ihrer Geräte sein soll. Diese Begriffe sind: מקדש und מקדש ;משכן: der Ausdruck unserer ganzen Gott gegenüber zu lösenden Aufgabe, משכן: Ausdruck der als Folge dieser Lösung von Gott uns gegebenen Verheißungen. Jene Aufgabe fasst sich in dem Begriffe zusammen: Heiligende Dahingebung unseres ganzen privaten und öffentlichen Lebens an die Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes=מקדש; diese Verheißung ist nichts anderes, als die in dem Aufblühen unseres ganzen privaten und öffentlichen Lebens sich bekundende schützende und segnende Gottesgegenwart=משכן. Die Stiftshütte ist: מקדש, die Stätte der Heiligung, und משכן die Stätte der Gottesnähe, sie ist die Stätte, von der aus jene Heiligung und diese Nähe anzustreben und zu gewinnen sein soll. Jene Heiligung und diese Nähe, somit: das durch die Erteilung und Aufnahme des Gesetzes geschaffene gegenseitige Bundesverhältnis Gottes und Israels ist der Gesichtskreis, innerhalb dessen die Bedeutung der Stiftshütte im ganzen und einzelnen zu suchen und zu finden ist, und eben kraft dieser Bedeutung schließt sich dieser Bau mit diesem Kapitel an die vorangegangenen Grundzüge des Gesetzes und die auf Grund derselben vollzogene Bundesschließung unmittelbar an.

Avot d'Rebbe Natan:

Von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus werden die zum Bau des משכן=מקדש zu spendenden Stoffe die Elemente bezeichnen, sowohl mit welchen jene Heiligung zu vollziehen, als in deren segnender Gewährung diese Gottesnähe bekundet sein soll. Haben wir doch die Objekte unserer Hingebung selbst zuerst von Gott empfangen und empfangen sie in dieser Hingebung doppelt gesegnet zurück, wie dies Jakob bei dem allerersten Grundstein zum allerersten Gotteshause (Bereschit 28, 22) ausgesprochen: וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך, wie dies David bei der Vorbereitung zum ersten Tempelbau noch prägnanter zum Ausdruck brachte (Chron. I. 29, 14): כי ממן הכל ומידך נתנו לך, "von Dir stammt alles, und von Deiner Hand haben wir Dir gegeben", und wie dies ja soeben in dem dem Altar und dem Volke hin gewendeten Gießen der Bundesbluthälften (Kap. 10. 6 u. 8) in noch umfassenderer Kürze zum Bewusstsein gebracht war.

Wir haben in unseren Erörterungen, Jeschurun V. S. 232ff, nachgewiesen, wie in תנ׳׳ך Metalle überhaupt ihrer stofflichen Kohärenz zufolge als Metapher der Festigkeit und Stärke (z. B. Jeremias 1, 15; Job 6, 12 u. Jesaias 48, 4), hinsichtlich ihres Wertes als Ausdruck der Wertschätzung geistiger Güter (z. B. Prov. 2, 10; Ps. 19, 11 u. Job 28), ganz besonders aber wegen ihrer metallurgischen Eigenschaften als die treffendste Metapher für alles Sittliche und Wahre in allen Abstufungen der Mischung mit sittlich Schlechtem und Unwahrem, sowie für den ganzen Prüfungs- und Läuterungsprozess im Gebiete der Sittlichkeit und Wahrheit vorkommen (z. B. Job 23, 10; Secharja 13, 9;. Maleachi 3, 3; Pro. 17, 3; Jesaias 48, 10; Prov. 25, 4. 10, 20 u. 26, 23; Jeremias 6, 29 u. 30; Ps. 119, 119; Jecheskeel 22, 18; Jesaias 1, 22; Daniel 2, 32 u. 33). In allen diesen Stellen charakterisieren Metalle die verschiedenen Grade der sittlichen Reinheit und Wahrheit, und, während Kupfer das Unedle, die noch unveredelte Natur, repräsentiert, Silber die läuterungsbedürftige und läuterungsfähige Stufe bezeichnet, ist Gold, das vorzugsweise gediegen gefunden wird und andererseits die stärkste Probe aushält, Bild des reinsten, gediegensten, sittlichen Adels und der treuen echten Beständigkeit.

Indem Metalle den höchsten Grad von Bildsamkeit mit dem höchsten Grad von Festigkeit vereinen, unter Hammer und Feuer sich jeder beliebigen Form anschmiegend fügen, die einmal erhaltene Form aber mit einer Festigkeit bewahren, die nur der zerstörenden Macht der Gewalt weicht, vergegenwärtigen sie mit diesen Eigenschaften eben diejenige Charaktereigentümlichkeit, die wir dem Machtgebote der Pflicht und speziell dem uns geoffenbarten göttlichen Willen gegenüber betätigen sollen, dessen Wort sich ja auch als "Hammer" und "Feuer" (Jerem. 23, 29) ankündigt, und bieten sich daher wie nichts anderes am geeignetsten zum bildlichen Ausdruck unseres sittlichen Verhaltens zu unserer Bestimmung dar.

Nach den angedeuteten metallurgischen Eigentümlichkeiten entspricht somit

Kupfer der noch unveredelten Natur,

Silber der durch Läuterung zu gewinnenden,

Gold der ursprünglichen und probehaltigen, somit vollendetsten Reinheit und Güte.

Jeschurun V, 637ff. und VI, 80 ff. haben wir ausführlich erörtert und nachgewiesen, wie das menschliche Gewand überhaupt zum Ausdruck des Menschenwesens und Charakters dient, wie dieses Wesen eine vegetative Seite: die Ernährung und das geschlechtliche Leben mit allen durch diese Richtungen bedingten Reizen und Trieben, strebenden und genießenden Tätigkeiten, und eine animalische Seite: das Leben mit all seinen lebendigen Kräften des Erkennens, Wollens und Strebens umfasst, und wie auch im Zizit- und Schaatnesgesetze Wolle als Gewandstoff die animalische Seite des Menschenwesens und Flachs die vegetative Seite desselben repräsentiert.

Zur Verwendung für das Heiligtum werden hier wieder nur die Gewandstoffe Wolle und Flachs gespendet, תכלת ארגמן ותולעת שני: Wolle, שש: Flachs, und sind dieselben ferner noch durch ihre Farben: weiß, blau, rot in zwei Nuancen, besonders charakterisiert.

שש, Byssus, Flachs, Repräsentant des Vegetativen, ist weiß, und weiß, wie dort erläutert, ist die Farbe der Reinheit. Sittliche Reinheit bezieht sich aber im Gesetze vorzugsweise auf die Potenzen des vegetativen Lebens. Entartung im genießenden und geschlechtlichen Leben ist die schwerste Befleckung des reinen Menschenwesens. Reinheit heißt der Charakter, der gerade für die vegetative Richtung des Menschenwesens die Stufe der von Gott geforderten Veredlung bildet.

Wie Wolle, Repräsentant des Animalischen, dem Stoffe nach dem Tiere angehört, so sind auch die Farben, mit denen sie hier auftritt, blauer und roter Purpur und Karmoisin (שני), dem Tierreich entnommen. Von den beiden roten Farben ist, wie dort nachgewiesen, שני die geringere, ארגמן die edlere, und wenn rot überhaupt, als die Farbe des Blutes, das Leben repräsentiert, so ist שני die untergeordnetere, animalische Stufe des Lebens, ארגמן aber die höhere menschliche. Heißt ja der Mensch geradezu אדם, der "Rote" par excellence, das Leben in seiner höchsten Potenz. — תכלת, als die Farbe, die auf die "Grenze" unseres Horizontes, auf das über unseren sinnlichen Gesichtskreis hinausliegende Unsichtbare, Göttliche hinweist, wird am Gewandstoffe die Farbe des uns offenbar gewordenen Göttlichen, die Farbe des Gottesbundes mit dem Menschen, das Zeichen des mit dem reinen Menschen sich verbindenden und sein ganzes Leben gestaltend durchdringenden Göttlichen.

Wie Wolle, Repräsentant des Animalischen, dem Stoffe nach dem Tiere angehört, so sind auch die Farben, mit denen sie hier auftritt, blauer und roter Purpur und Karmoisin (שני), dem Tierreich entnommen. Von den beiden roten Farben ist, wie dort nachgewiesen, שני die geringere, ארגמן die edlere, und wenn rot überhaupt, als die Farbe des Blutes, das Leben repräsentiert, so ist שני die untergeordnetere, animalische Stufe des Lebens, ארגמן aber die höhere menschliche. Heißt ja der Mensch geradezu אדם, der "Rote" par excellence, das Leben in seiner höchsten Potenz. — תכלת, als die Farbe, die auf die "Grenze" unseres Horizontes, auf das über unseren sinnlichen Gesichtskreis hinausliegende Unsichtbare, Göttliche hinweist, wird am Gewandstoffe die Farbe des uns offenbar gewordenen Göttlichen, die Farbe des Gottesbundes mit dem Menschen, das Zeichen des mit dem reinen Menschen sich verbindenden und sein ganzes Leben gestaltend durchdringenden Göttlichen.

Es wäre somit durch

שש: das Vegetative,

שני: das Animalische,

ארגמן: das Menschliche,

תכלת: das Göttliche

im Menschenwesen repräsentiert und damit alle Bestandteile und Beziehungen des Menschenwesens in aufsteigender Linie gegeben.

עזים, Ziegenhaare, nur zu Säcken und Trauer- und Bußgewändern gebraucht, ist ein Schutz und Abwehr gewährender Stoff.

Über ערת אילים מאדמים ,ערת תחשים, siehe zu Kap. 26, 14.

עצי שטים. Währen עץ, Baum (das. S. 86) im allgemeinen das Bild der fortschreitenden Blüte und Entfaltung ist, tritt in ארז, der Ceder, zu deren zehn Arten שטה gehört, insbesondere das Merkmal der Kraft und Größe hinzu, und ist עץ שטים des Heiligtums und seiner Geräte im allgemeinen das Symbol einer starken, dauernden, immer frischen, fortschreitenden Entwicklung.

Die von VV. 3—5 genannten Stoffe sind alle durch ein Waw kopul. verbunden. Sie bilden zusammen dasjenige Material, aus welchem der eigentliche Bau der Stiftshütte und deren Geräte hergestellt werden sollen. V. 7 werden Edelsteine genannt, die zur Anfertigung der Priestergewänder notwendig waren, und sind damit Priester, sowie deren Gewänder als wesentlicher Bestandteil des Heiligtums selbst begriffen, sie gehören mit zu כלי מקדש, wie sie auch רמב׳׳ם im יד חזקה in sinniger Weise dahin klassifiziert, und wie wir dies uns noch bei Betrachtung der Opfergesetze zu vergegenwärtigen haben werden. In eigentümlicher Weise werden jedoch V. 6 auch Öl zur Leuchte und Gewürze zum Salböl und zum Räucherwerk genannt. שמן המשחה gehört nun zwar nicht im eigentlichen Sinne zum מקדש; allein, da es die Weihe desselben und seiner Geräte bedingt, und sie durch die Salbung erst eigentlich in den Charakter ihrer Bedeutung eingesetzt werden, so begreift sich dessen Nennung unter den übrigen konstituierenden Stoffen. Leuchtöl und Räucherwerk jedoch scheinen nur zum Dienste des Heiligtums, wie Mehl zu den Schaubroten, Holz zu dem Altarfeuer, Schafe zum täglichen Opfer usw. zu gehören, und ist deren Aufzählung unter den zum Bau der Stiftshütte zu spendenden Stoffen auffallend. Wenn jedoch, wie wir zu zeigen haben werden, durch die Leuchte im Heiligtume, das durch das Gesetz anzuregende und dem Gesetze zuzuwendende Geistesleben, und durch קטרת das Blütenideal aller Hingebungen an Gott: das gänzliche Aufgehen in göttliches Wohlgefallen seinen Ausdruck findet, so ist durch Nennung dieser Stoffe sofort bei der Bauspende gesagt, wie dieses auszuführende Werk die beiden höchsten Ziele des menschlichen Daseins erringen solle: das Ziel der Erleuchtung für den Geist und das Ziel des göttlichen Wohlgefallens für die Tat, und zwischen beiden Gewürze zum Salböl, durch welches das zu schaffende Werk als das unantastbar von Gott Gegebene zu der Geist und Tat beherrschenden heiligen Höhe gehoben wird, deren überordnende Heiligachtung die unerlässliche Voraussetzung so für die Entwicklung des Geistes wie für die gottgefällige Entfaltung des Tatenlebens bildet. —

אבני שהם וגו׳ (siehe Kap, 28. 9 u. 17). - כן תעשו. Es heißt nicht: כן תעשו, sondern: וכן תעשו, es ist somit nicht Nachsatz des Vorangehenden, sondern eine neue Bestimmung: und so sollt ihr auch in Zukunft machen, und wird dies (Sanhedrin 16 b). dahin verstanden, dass, wie hier die Stiftshütte nur unter Autorität und Anleitung Mosche, also auch in Zukunft jede Angelegenheit des Heiligtums nur unter Autorität und Anleitung des Sanhedrin, als der Nationalrepräsentanz, bewerkstelligt werden könne.

ככל אשר אני מראה אותך ACCORDING TO ALL THAT I AM SHOWING THEE here, את תבנית המשכן THE PATTERN OF THE DWELLING. — This verse must be connected with the verse that precedes it, thus: And let them make for Me a sanctuary … according to all that I am showing thee (the words ושכנתי בתוכם being a parenthesis).

AND SO SHALL YE MAKE IT — [also] “in future generations. If one of the vessels is lost, or when you make⁸⁵“Make.” In our Rashi: “make Me.” the vessels of the Sanctuary of Jerusalem,⁸⁶The Hebrew is beith olamim — “the Eternal House.” See in Seder Yithro Note 598. such as the tables,⁸⁷II Chronicles 4:8: And he made ten tables. the candelabrums,⁸⁸Ibid., Verse 7: And he made the ten candelabrums. the lavers,⁸⁹Ibid., Verse 6: And he made ten lavers. and the bases⁹⁰I Kings 7:27-39: And he made the ten bases… which Solomon made — after the pattern of these you shall make them. If, however, this [part of the verse] were not connected with the preceding part [which reads: According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all the vessels], Scripture should not have written: ‘and’ so shall ye make it, but: “so shall ye make it,” and then it would be speaking of the making of the Tent of Meeting⁹¹And not of the Sanctuary of Jerusalem and its vessels. But now that Scripture says ‘and’ so shall ye make it, the expression is not set apart from the preceding part of the verse but is connected with it, thus: “and” so shall you make the pattern of all the furniture of the Sanctuary. and its vessels.” Thus is Rashi’s language. But I do not know if this is true, that Solomon was bound to make the vessels of the Sanctuary of Jerusalem⁸⁶The Hebrew is beith olamim — “the Eternal House.” See in Seder Yithro Note 598. after the pattern of these vessels [of the Tabernacle]. The altar of brass which Solomon made was twenty cubits long and twenty wide!⁹²II Chronicles 4:1. The altar of the Tabernacle was five cubits long and five cubits broad (further, 27:1). And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “And so shall ye make — the vessels,⁹³The expression and so shall ye make it thus refers only to the pattern of all the furniture (mentioned right above), but does not refer to the pattern of the Tabernacle since the term “making” was already stated with reference to it, namely, and let them ‘make’ Me a Sanctuary. for at the beginning He said, And let them make Me a Sanctuary.”⁹⁴Above, Verse 8.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture there is no need for all this. Rather, the duplication [and so shall ye make it] has the purpose of expressing emphasis and eagerness. Thus He said: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary⁹⁴Above, Verse 8. — a house and vessels — as a Royal Sanctuary and seat of Majesty, that I may dwell in the midst of them in the house and on the Throne of Glory which they will make for Me there. According to all that I show thee the pattern of this Tabernacle of which I have said that I will dwell in the midst of them, and the pattern of all the vessels thereof. He repeated, and so shall ye all make it with eagerness and diligence. This is similar to the repetition found in the verse, and the children of Israel did according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses, so did they.⁹⁵Further, 39:32. Here, because the verse speaks of a command, it says, and so ‘shall’ ye make it, [whereas in the other verse the repeat states so ‘did’ they, because it speaks of a deed accomplished].

ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, "According to all I shall show you, etc." In Midrash Hagadol on our verse it is reported that when G'd told Moses to build a Sanctuary for Him, Moses was dumbfounded asking G'd that seeing that neither the heavens nor the heaven of heavens could contain Him, how could a structure on earth possibly house Him? G'd reassured him saying that Moses had misunderstood what G'd had in mind when He issued this directive. When G'd spoke of a Sanctuary He showed Moses a structure of twenty beams in the North, twenty beams in the South joined by eight beams in the West. G'd explained that he would "reduce Himself" in honour of Israel and out of love for them. We must ask ourselves who is the source that can tell us exactly what transpired between G'd and Moses at that time? Although the words of our sages are all based on tradition, the fact remains that scripture does not even hint at such a conversation.

ככל אשר אני מראה, corresponding to all the likenesses of the various utensils that have been shown to you in a vision. Compare Ezekiel 40,2 where the prophet was also shown a vision of all that pertained to the building of the second Temple. The meaning of the vision was then explained to the prophet in detail.

וכן תעשו, “and so you shall do.” According to Rashi these words are an instruction that the materials and dimensions mentioned here are applicable not only to the Tabernacle, its furnishings and the priestly garments about to be constructed, but that the same rules apply throughout later generations. Nachmanides is not sure at all that this is in fact so, as it would have obligated Solomon to make exact replicas of the vessels used in the Tabernacle, and we have clear evidence that Solomon built an altar of 20 by 20 cubits instead of 5 by 5 cubits as described in (compare Chronicles II 4,1) Ibn Ezra explains the need for the words וכן תעשו, as due to the fact that up until this point the Torah had spoken of the structure, not the furnishings. According to the plain meaning of the text, there is no need for all these explanations, as whenever the Torah repeats something, the objective is to urge the party addressed to proceed with the task at hand without any delay. G’d had first said: ועשו לי מקדש, “they shall make a Sanctuary for Me,” and now He repeats: “now that I explained what it is to consist of, I tell you to proceed with the job.” All the Israelites are addressed by the word תעשו, and they all responded, as we know from Seeing that in this verse we are dealing with a command, and instruction, the people are addressed in direct speech: “you are to do.” 25,10 ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark.” This refers to the Israelites referred to in verse 2. When the Torah switches to direct speech in the following verses, making it sound as if these commandments were all addressed to Moses personally, this must be understood in terms of Moses representing the entire Jewish people. The reason that the Torah first employed a plural mode was to encourage all the Israelites to take an active part in the making of the Tabernacle by contributing of their wealth, so that their participation in a sacred undertaking would guarantee each one of them a share in the Torah. However, only skilled people could take part in fashioning the parts and the furnishings. Actually 3 separate arks were made. The outer and inner one were made of gold, whereas the middle ark was of acacia wood. The reason that the Torah does not use the expression וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to overlay it with gold,” is that the ark was enclosed only from 5 out of 6 sides, the top remaining open, until the lid was placed on it, as a separate part.

Here, the form of the mishkon. . . Rashi is saying that we should not think it means, “According to all that I show you later” when you actually make the mishkon. Rather, it means, “that I am showing you here.” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should say, “That I will show you.”

וכן תעשו, “and this is how you shall do it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word וכן, is not necessary in this context; some commentators understand it as referring to what follows about the construction of the individual items of furniture for the Temple. The idea of the connective letter ו then would be: ”just as I instructed you first to build the structure, I will now instruct you to construct the furnishings to be housed in that structure.”

וכן תעשו AND SO SHALL YE MAKE IT also in future generations (cf. Sanhedrin 16b); if one of the vessels is lost, or when you make for Me the vessels for the “House of Eternity” (another name for the Temple in Jerusalem), — as e. g., the tables, candlesticks, lavers and stands which Solomon had made — you shall make them after the pattern of these (the vessels of the Tabernacle), If, however, the verse were not to be connected with the preceding one but formed a new statement, Scripture ought not to have written: וכן תעשו “and so shall ye make them” but כן תעשו “so shall ye make them” and then it would be speaking of the making of the tent of meeting and its vessels and not of the vessels of the Temple, and the translation would be: according to all that I am showing you the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels, even so shall you make them.

I believe we must assume that the sages of the Midrash were troubled by the fact that the verse does not make sense in its present form. If the verse is connected to what follows in verse 10, the Torah should not have spoken of תעשו in our verse at all. Moreover, verse 8 should have read תעשו לי מקדש. Besides, the letter ו in וכן תעשו makes no sense. On the other hand, if the words ככל אשר אני מראה אותך refer to the previous directive ועשו לי מקדש, the Torah should not have interrupted the verse by mentioning "so that I shall dwell amongst them." Seeing that G'd had mentioned prior to our verse that He was going to dwell amongst the Jewish people, this seemed to indicate that He had already completed the directive to build a Sanctuary for Him to dwell in. Our verse then would have been entirely unnecessary. It would have been sufficient to describe all the measurements of the Tabernacle without referring to something (a blueprint) which G'd showed Moses. It appears therefore that the report in the Torah indicates that the Torah corrected itself in order to prevent misunderstandings. Our sages in the Midrash concluded from all this that G'd and Moses had a conversation along the lines described in Pessikta Rabbati. They tried to reconstruct what could have transpired prior to the Torah correcting itself, as it were. It is a case of arriving at the nature of the question after one has heard the answer. The answer in our case was: "according to all that I show you." All that transpired was that Moses thought about the implications of what G'd had said. There is no need to authenticate the conversation between G'd and Moses as it was perfectly natural for Moses to have asked G'd what he did. G'd showed Moses a vision of the blueprint of the Tabernacle at that time. This is why the Torah did not use the future tense i.e. ככל אשר אראה. I will explain in due course why G'd did not content Himself with telling Moses but insisted on showing him.

We will pursue the same method to explain what our sages said in Berachot 55 concerning Exodus 38,22 where the Torah writes that Betzalel did in accordance with what G'd had commanded Moses. The Talmud adds that Betzalel even carried out work which Moses had not told him about seeing he was able to figure out for himself what G'd must have told Moses. The Talmud explains Betzalel's very name as indicative of his having stood in "G'd's shadow," i.e. becoming aware of what G'd told Moses. As an example the Talmud states that whereas Moses had instructed Betzalel to fashion the furnishings of the Tabernacle before constructing the Tabernacle itself, Betzalel reversed the procedure after having queried how one could build furnishings when one did not have where to put them. Upon hearing Betzalel's question Moses reminded Himself that G'd had indeed told him to build the structure first. He complimented Betzalel on his insight. We must ask ourselves how it was possible for Moses to have forgotten the instructions he had received from G'd in the matter? In order to account for Moses' error we must remember that G'd i.e. the Torah's report, had indeed listed most of the furnishings and their measurements such as the Holy Ark, the Lampstand, and the Table before listing details of the Tabernacle itself. Accordingly, Moses had been quite correct in first issuing instructions about the details of the furnishings to Betzalel. Why then did Moses reverse himself?

The answer is clear when we consider our verse wherein G'd is on record as showing Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle. Accordingly, when Moses received the details about the measurements of both the Tabernacle and its furnishings, he was told first about the furnishings. Moses misunderstood that these details were not communicated to him as an instruction to construct them first but that they merely complemented the picture G'd had already shown him of the overall structure. In other words, verse ten is merely a continuation of verse nine in which the visual appearance of the Tabernacle was described. The reason that G'd mentioned the Tabernacle first in 26,6, i.e. "the Tabernacle and its furnishings," is to reflect Moses' incredulity when he had first heard that G'd would take up residence in the Tabernacle. By telling Moses of the measurements of the Tabernacle, G'd emphasized the smallness of the structure. This verse also informs us of the fact that when G'd showed Moses the blueprint of the Tabernacle He showed him the furnishings at the same time. Perhaps the Torah also intended to convey the idea that there was no need for these furnishings to be of a large size.

Originally, Moses had decided that the sequence of construction should follow the report in the Torah which commenced in 25,10. When Betzalel questioned him he realised that he had erred and that he should have used verse nine as referring to the first part to be constructed. He excused himself by explaining that he had been informed about two possible venues and had chosen the wrong sequence. Seeing that G'd did not tell Moses the order in which the construction should proceed the author of Pessikta Rabbati is quite correct in saying that we must on no account imagine that Moses had forgotten G'd's instructions.

When Moses is reported in the Midrash as saying to Betzalel: "this is what I have heard from the mouth of G'd," this does not mean that G'd had told him in so many words that the Tabernacle was to be constructed first; it merely means that Moses meant that he had understood so from the sequence in which things had been shown to him.

To come back to our question why G'd had to show the blueprint to Moses instead of merely telling him of the measurements of the beams, etc. Had G'd merely told Moses of the measurements without showing him a visual image, Moses could have thought that the measurements were the minimum that had to be constructed but that the Israelites were free to build a larger Tabernacle if they so desired. By being shown an image of the Celestial Tabernacle, Moses realised that unless the Tabernacle on earth matched that in the celestial spheres it would not completely fulfil its purpose of transplanting a suitable residence for G'd to earth..

When we apply a moral dimension to the interpretation of this paragraph it will be seen that G'd spoke about taking up residence amongst the Jewish people not merely as a consequence of their constructing the Tabernacle but that He said: "I will dwell amongst them" even before having shown Moses what the Tabernacle was to look like (verses 8 and 9 respectively). The message is that the concept of sanctity in its various levels of intensity is independent of measurements. It is a concept which transcends such considerations. To illustrate what I mean take a look at Avot 3,7. Rabbi Chalafta describes that G'd's presence is attracted to even a single individual who occupies himself with words of Torah; he derives this from Exodus 20,21 where G'd says: "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you." Rabbi Chalafta had first made similar statements regarding groups of people engaging in Torah study. The reason he mentioned groups of different sizes was to show us that G'd's presence, i.e. sanctity, is found in different degrees of intensity depending on circumstances. This is why the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 74 tells us that G'd's presence is not to be found in a congregation numbering fewer than 600.000. The various statements of our sages dealing with the presence of the שכינה teach us that the quality of such Holy Presence varies almost infinitely, i.e. between a minimum of one and a maximum which is infinite. When G'd first told Moses that He would take up residence amongst the Jewish people Moses did not know what degree of Holiness such Presence implied. He therefore proceeded to ask G'd: "how can Your Holiness be confined to earth?" G'd replied by telling Moses that it would be in accordance with all that He would show Moses. By showing Moses the Celestial Tabernacle He made him aware that G'd would transfer His entire Holiness to earth, so to speak. The Israelites would therefore qualify to be the carriers of the מרכבה. This interpretation justifies the words כבל אשר אני מראה following the words .ושכנתי בתוכם

וכן תעשו, "in this manner you shall make it." Seeing that I have explained that G'd showed Moses the vision of the Tabernacle in order to make it clear that it had to be built according to the exact dimensions Moses had been shown, you may ask why the words וכן תעשו are needed. Have we not been taught in Shevuot 14 that: "it does not matter whether a ritually impure person enters the Temple courtyard or whether he enters the addition to the Temple courtyard (he becomes guilty in either event to offer a sin-offering to obtain atonement for his oversight), seeing that one may not add to the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard except with the approval of the king, the Supreme Court, the prophet, and the Urim Vetumim, [the parchment inside the breastplate of the High Priest which would enable the latter to receive answers to questions he addressed to G'd, Ed]." The Talmud cites our verse as the source for this ruling, stating that the directive contained in our verse applies throughout the generations. The Talmud derives this ruling not merely from the letter ו in front of the word כן, but from the entire expression וכן תעשו. Rashi confirms this in his commentary. [I have abbreviated this discourse of the author somewhat in the interest of brevity. Ed.]

I have seen that Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the letter ו in the words וכן תעשו refer to the furnishings of the Tabernacle seeing these had not been mentioned when G'd said: "and they shall make a Sanctuary for Me." Rabbi Ibn Ezra apparently did not bother to justify the words כן תעשו themselves although the measurements of all these furnishings are enumerated in the Torah separately. Our sages were quite correct when they understood the words ועשו לי מקדש as an overall directive which was followed by details later on. This is why the words כן תעשו pose a problem which our sages answered by saying that the measurements apply to all future generations unless they are altered with the consent of the authorities mentioned in the Talmud. I cannot understand why Rabbi ibn Ezra ignored the comment of the Talmud.

I also fail to understand the comment of Nachmanides who challenges Rashi's explanation that these words are a directive to adhere to these measurements for future generations. According to Nachmanides, Solomon was not obligated to adhere to the measurements laid down in our portion when he built the Temple in Jerusalem. Nachmanides prefers to see in this repetition an exhortation to proceed with the building of the Tabernacle and its furnishings with all possible speed. When Nachmanides refers to the fact that Solomon (compare Chronicles II,4,8) built the Temple and altar according to entirely different dimensions than the ones described in our portion, he appears to have forgotten what the Talmud says. How could he argue against the Talmud? We must therefore assume that Nachmanides thought that the true meaning of the Talmud is that the words וכן תעשו refer to subsequent generations and were not meant to describe the dimensions of the furnishings but referred to the prohibition of introducing changes in the dimensions of the Temple and its site without the approval of the authorities listed in the Mishnah. We cannot accept his words. Who can decide who is right? Furthermore, if we accept Nachmanides' view, what is the meaning of the Talmud's query whether the rule about anointment of the furnishings applied only to the furnishings in Moses' time and not to those in subsequent Temples? In answering the Talmud falls back back on our verse to prove that only the furnishings of the Tabernacle in Moses' time were sanctified by anointment rather than by being put into use. If Nachmanides were correct, why did the Talmud not simply answer that not all of the details enumerated in our portion applied for future generations?

At any rate we need to counter Nachmanides' argument that Solomon used different dimensions when he constructed the altar for his Temple. I have seen that Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi attempted to answer the problem. He writes that the words וכן תעשו do not refer so much to the actual measurements as to the proportions of those measurements, i.e. the relationship between length, width, and height respectively. As long as these proportions were maintained the actual size did not matter. Accordingly, when Moses built an altar of five by five cubits, Solomon built it with a base of twenty by twenty cubits. Rabbi Mizrachi's argument is buttressed by Tossaphot in Shabbat 98 according to which we have a problem when, according to the Talmud there, the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. Whence does the Talmud arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps the width (inside) was eleven cubits? Rabbi Yehudah answers the query by claiming that we derive the information from the measurements of Solomon's Temple. The length of the Temple was sixty cubits, whereas it is described as having been twenty cubits wide. Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah claims that seeing that the length of the Tabernacle was thirty cubits, the width must have been ten cubits. He bases his view on the words וכן תעשו in our verse. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. He goes on to ask why Solomon did not construct the height of his altar to correspond to the proportion of Moses' altar, i.e. twelve cubits high? He answers that the words וכן תעשו apply only to the length and width of the dimensions, not to the height.

I do not believe that Rabbi Mizrachi's view that the words וכן תעשו mean "for all future generations," apply only to the proportions of the Temple and not to its actual measurements, is acceptable. Rabbi Mizrachi has failed to produce support from the Talmud and we cannot accept such an argument unless it is based on tradition. If we are troubled by the apparent contradiction to the Talmud posed by the fact that Solomon's Temple was of a different size, it is better to leave the question unresolved than to come forward with unsupported theories. I am prepared to deal even with the argument Rabbi Mizrachi purports to base on Rabbi Yehudah's opinion that the inside measurement of the width of the Tabernacle was ten cubits. There is no evidence that Rabbi Yehudah did not base his view on the interpretation of the words וכן תעשו. The fact is that Rabbi Mizrachi did not quote or copy Rabbi Yehudah accurately, but used his opinion to support his theory. The correct interpretation of Rabbi Yehudah's view is that whereas in the case of Solomon's Temple it is clear that the width of the Temple was twenty cubits, in the case of the Tabernacle it is doubtful whether the width was ten or eleven cubits. Rabbi Yehudah used the known measurements of Solomon's Temple merely to help resolve the doubt. It is also possible that the sages in Shabbat 98 had some other proof whence they deduced that the Tabernacle's width was ten cubits, something not based on our verse at all. The fact that Rabbi Yehudah himself does not refer to our verse is pretty strong evidence that he did not accept the theory of Rabbi Mizrachi that our verse speaks only of proportions and not of actual dimensions. Moreover, the very fact that Rabbi Mizrachi is forced to say that the height of the altar was הלכה למשה מסיני i.e. that we have no scriptural guidance concerning it as long as the requirement that it was square was observed, further weakens Rabbi Mizrachi's argument.

It is worth recalling that the Talmud Zevachim 59 quotes a disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yossi as to the height of the copper altars constructed by Moses, by Solomon, by the returning exiles from Babylonia, as well as the altar to be erected in the future. Rabbi Yossi holds that all these altars were or will be ten cubits high. He argues that when the Torah describes the altar in our portion as being only three cubits high this refers only to the part of the altar on top of its foundation. Rabbi Yehudah holds that the dimensions given for the altar built by Betzalel meant that it was three cubits high. The opinion of Rabbi Yossi is accepted as halachah by Maimonides in chapter two of his treatise on the laws of the Temple. The discussion in Menachot 97 also appears to accept that view. In view of the above, Rabbi Mizrachi's question is not in place at all. Rabbi Yehudah who disagrees and claims that the altar of the Tabernacle was only three cubits high follows the literal meaning of our text (27,1). Seeing that Rabbi Mizrachi's problem is only with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah -not accepted in halachah,- he should not have represented it as if it applied universally. As to the answer that the height of the altar was determined by הלכה למשה מסיני, I cannot agree that the Talmud leads to this conclusion. The Mishnah states that additions to the Temple Courtyard were to be made only with the consent of the authorities we listed earlier. Rabbi Shimi questions where we find scriptural proof for this. The Talmud answers by quoting the words וכן תעשו in our verse as proof that they apply throughout the ages. It is clear that Rabbi Shimi had not heard of the interpretation of the words in our verse as applying only to the height of the altar to the altar of the Tabernacle and not to subsequent structures serving as Temples. If so, why did not the questioner in the Talmud raise the problem of Solomon not having complied with the instructions of the Torah when he built his altar, i.e. the very question raised by Rabbi Mizrachi? Apparently, even assuming that there is a הלכה למשה מסיני concerning this, the questioner in the Talmud had not heard of it. Moreover, anyone immersing himself more deeply in the Talmud's treatment of the subject will conclude that Rabbi Mizrachi did not present the case accurately.

I wish to state that Nachmanides' question based on Solomon's altar having a base of tweny by twenty cubits is no problem at all. Rabbi Mizrachi's question about the height of the altars also does not present a problem. There is a lengthy Baraitha in Zevachim 62 which goes as follows: "The sages taught that the dimensions of the corner, the ramp, and the foundation of the altar as well as the fact that it had to be square were absolute, not subject to change. The dimension of the length, width, or height of the altar, however, was not absolute." The Talmud asks for the source of this information; the answer given is that the Torah speaks of ה־מזבח in 27,1 instead of merely מזבח. The letter ה always indicates that the measurements are essential and not subject to change. Thus far the Talmud in Zevachim. This teaches that if Moses had wanted to he could have constructed the altar of the Tabernacle to be a square of twenty by twenty cubits (as did Solomon) whereas he could also have made it higher than three cubits. In view of this, Rabbi Mizrachi's question has no basis in halachah. Solomon was perfectly within his rights to build an altar twenty by twenty cubits square, seeing G'd had revealed in the Torah that the dimensions of length, width, and height of the altar were not absolute. Apparently, Rabbi Mizrachi ignored the Baraitha and thought that Moses had not been allowed to build the altar to any specifications other than those mentioned in our portion. If not for this oversight, Rabbi Mizrachi did not need to give us the contradictory solutions we have quoted in his name. I believe that the simplest way to remember all these vexing problems is by remembering that the words וכן תעשו apply to all those dimensions of the altar which are absolute, i.e. the corner, the ramp, and the fact that it must be square as well as the fact that the base of the altar must on no account be less than five cubits square, i.e. the size of the altar constructed by Betzalel.

It remains for us to investigate which other parts of the Tabernacle were of dimensions that could not be changed in future Sanctuaries and which were subject to change. Maimonides writes in chapter one of Hilchot Beyt Ha-bechirah that future Sanctuaries could be constructed only of either stones or bricks. From my study of Maimonides' writings on the Sanctuary I have understood that there are only three furnishings which have to correspond both in materials and dimensions to those constructed in the time of Moses. They are: the Table, the Lampstand, and the golden altar (inside the Sanctuary). This is also stated explicitly in Menachot chapter 12. Concerning all the other measurements or the appearance of the Sanctuary itelf, the Tabernacle in the desert did not serve as a model. Accordingly, we could conclude that the meaning of the words וכן תעשו in our verse applies in the future only to these three furnishings. This is incorrect, however, seeing that in the Talmud they expressly applied these words also to the sanctity of the dimensions of the Temple Courtyard. If so, the words in our verse apply also to the structure of the Sanctuary itself. Moreover, we know that Solomon constructed the cherubs on the ark according to specifications different from those mentioned in the Torah (41,6). Solomon also made many changes in the construction of the other furnishings.

If we apply just a little intelligence to the problem we will find that there is no problem at all. We must realise that Solomon did not build either his Temple or its furnishings according to arbitrary considerations. He was not motivated by the desire to erect a magnificent edifice which would confer glory on its builder. He followed instructions received from the prophet. The prophet told Solomon that the very measurements he told him about were an ancient tradition (Chronicles I 28,11) where David handed Solomon the exact blueprints of the Sanctuary he himself had not been allowed to build. Every little detail had been ordained by G'd, and Rashi explains that the prophet Samuel had received the detailed instructions about the shape and size of the Temple from G'd. We have a story in Midrash Shemuel chapter 15 according to which Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shimon related that G'd had given Moses the details of the eventual Temple while the latter was standing. Moses transmitted the information to Joshua while the latter was standing; Joshua in turn conveyed this information to the elders while they were standing; they in turn conveyed it to David while the latter was standing. David relayed the information to his son Solomon. At that point everything had already been committed to writing as mentioned in Chronicles II 35,4 by king Yoshiyahu. All this proves that all these details had been handed down from generation to generation. Thus far the words of the Midrash. You will have noted that whatever Solomon did was based on higher authority. This is what we call הלכה למשה מסיני.

Rashi writes all this explicitly in his commentary on Chronicles I 28,19. I am quoting Rashi verbatim: "Samuel derived all this information from the Torah by means of the Holy Spirit. The area of the Temple Mount was 500 cubits square. He arrived at the conclusion that the length of the Courtyard was 100 cubits, its width 50 cubits by fifty cubits, etc." It is quite normal to expect that all these dimensions should be alluded to in the written Torah and accessible to people equipped with the Holy Spirit. We find in Kings I 6 that whereas Moses' Tabernacle contained only two cherubs, Solomon constructed four cherubs (verses 23 and 35 respectively). Not only did G'd not appear to have commanded this, but the dimensions of these cherubs were totally different from those fashioned by Betzalel. I believe we can find an allusion to these additional cherubs to be used in the Temple by looking closely at the text of our portion. According to what we have just described the people who were equipped with Divine insights would be guided by the restriction imposed by the words וכן תעשו in certain matters whereas in other matters where the Torah's text seemed to provide an opening for them they would apply such allusions when handing down the measurements applicable to the Sanctuary to be built by Solomon.

When we approach the subject in this fashion we are also able to resolve the string of questions Nachmanides raised against Rashi's commentary. We can also remove Rabbi Mizrachi's pain to see his revered teacher Rashi under attack by Nachmanides concerning the height of the altar in the desert having been of a fixed and unalterable height.

In view of the fact that our sages stated that the text of the Torah itself provides hints as to the dimensions of the Temple to be built by Solomon, I may be able to contribute two or three details of such allusions myself. Firstly, the fact that the Torah speaks first about ועשו לי מקדש, and continues with the words את תבנית המשכן is strange. The Torah should have continued with ועשו לי משכן instead of speaking of תבנית המשכן, i.e. the blueprint (dimension) of the Tabernacle. From the change in wording it is fairly clear that the Torah speaks of two different structures as we indicated at the beginning of the whole discussion. The Torah hinted at the fact that the Temple Courtyard was to be one hundred cubits by fifty cubits when it stated (unnecessarily) that the courtyard of the Tabernacle was to be one hundred by fifty cubits in 27,18. This information had already been contained in the verses 9-17. According to the rule that information not needed which is recorded in one verse may be applied to augment information missing elsewhere, I suggest that the Torah hinted at the size of the Temple itself when duplicating these dimensions here, and it is to be appended to the words ועשו לי מקדש. From the above it follows that the restrictive clause וכן תעשו does not apply to the dimension of the future Sanctuary itself, seeing we have a hint that the measurements of that Sanctuary are to be one hundred by fifty cubits.

We also note that according to Kings I 6,23 and 37 respectively, Solomon constructed a total of 4 cherubs as opposed to the two cherubs constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle. Moreover, Solomon's cherubs were of totally different measurements. We need to find justification for Solomon to have constructed additional cherubs.

It appears that there is an allusion to this in 25,18 where the Torah instructs that two cherubs be constructed of beaten gold, giving their size and adding that they are to extend from the respective ends of the lid covering the Holy Ark. Why did the Torah have to repeat the words: "and to make them" in verse 19 after having already said of the (supposedly) same cherubs in verse 18 "you shall make two cherubs, etc.?" Besides, once the Torah had told us that the cherubs were to extend from the respective ends of the lid (verse 18) why did it have to write: "one cherub from the one end and the other cherub from the other end?" The whole phrase seems superfluous! Why did the Torah add: "on its two ends you shall make them?"

Apparently the unnecessary words are an allusion to two additional cherubs which are to be constructed when the Temple would be built. The Torah used the expression ועשית "you shall construct" when speaking of the cherubs to be constructed for the Tabernacle, whereas concerning the cherubs to be constructed in the Sanctuary of the future the Torah speaks in the third person, writing: 'ועשה כרוב אחד וגו. "[The author seems to distinguish between ve-asseh, and va-asseh, considering the latter indirect speech. Ed.] Accordingly, the instruction in verse 19 is addressed to some future occasion. The additional cherubs to be constructed in that Temple in the future do not need to extend from one end of the lid to the other. In fact, the description of these cherubs in the Book of Kings has these cherubs with their feet on the floor (Kings I 6,23-32). Seeing that the wing tips extended to the respective walls, we must assume that the feet of the cherubs were on the ground. The meaning of the word מקצה may refer to wherever the wingspan ended. On the other hand, the meaning of the additional word מזה may be: "apart from this one," referring to another set of cherubs. At this point our verse refers back to the cherubs discussed as being constructed for the Tabernacle.נSubsequently the Torah returns to discussing the cherubs of the Tabernacle saying they have to be positioned on the lid of the Holy Ark. In order that we should not err and think that the Torah again speaks of cherubs of the future, the Torah once more instructs תעשו i.e. "you are to make these (now)." The word תעשו here is hard to justify unless it was meant to prevent some error we could have made as to the meaning of this verse. The words את הכרובים in verse 19 are totally superfluous if the Torah up until this point had been speaking of only one set of cherubs. These words can only be justified if they are meant to direct our attention to one set of cherubs as opposed to another set alluded to previously. When the Torah says תעשו את הכרובים, it is clear that the reference is not to the cherubs which had been mentioned immediately prior to this but to the ones which had been the subject of discussion prior to the present ones. The Torah added that the cherubs mounted on the lid of the Holy Ark are to extend על שני קצותיו, "on the two ends thereof," in order that we should not think that though they were mounted on the lid their feet could extend to the floor (as in the case of Solomon's cherubs). No such condition is mentioned when Solomon constructed his cherubs.

Although it is a fact that when the actual construction of the cherubs is reported in 37,7-9, the Torah repeats exactly what is written in our portion and you might ask why the duplication of certain words in that portion when obviously it could not refer to the cherubs to be constructed for Solomon's Sanctuary, I refer you to Rashi on 25,19. He explains that the reason this had to be repeated was so that we should not think there were to be two cherubs at each end of the lid. Unless Rashi had agreed that the Torah had already been hinting at a second set of cherubs (the ones of Solomon), why would the Torah have had to be afraid that we could be thinking in terms of four cherubs at all? Surely Rashi's very comment supports my thesis that the Torah contains allusions to the additional cherubs Solomon constructed in his Temple. None of what I have written affects the plain meaning of these verses seeing that Shemuel Haroeh has commented in connection with 27,18 that although the explanation of the meaning of the words: "50 by 50 cubits" offered in Eyruvin 23 could not be the plain meaning of the verse and we have drawn halachic conclusions from the exegesis, this still does not mean that the plain meaning of the verse has been abandoned. The same applies here when we adopt my approach. The plain meaning of the verse is not negated by the need to answer the questions we have raised. You will also observe that here in our portion the Torah speaks of va-asseh, an expression which is absent in the report in chapter 27. This would seem to confirm that in our portion the Torah speaks of (or alludes to) two sets of cherubs.

We find that Solomon (Kings I 7,48) hid the golden altar constructed by Betzalel for the Tabernacle and constructed another one in its place as explained in Menachot 99. Concerning the Lampstand and the Table there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud whether only the ones used in the Tabernacle were actually used in Solomon's Temple, or whether the additional Tables and Lampstand made for Solomon's Temple were also used in rotation for their respective functions. The Talmud agrees, however, that there was only a single golden altar in the Temple and that the original golden altar was hidden. It remains for us to understand why Moses' golden altar had to be hidden.

We will observe that the Torah alluded to this by not reporting the construction of the golden altar at the place where we would have expected to read about it. The Torah commenced by describing the dimensions of the Holy Ark, a piece of furniture that stood in the innermost part of the Tabernacle. This is followed by the dimensions of the lid of said Ark. Subsequently the Torah describes the Table, the Lampstand, followed by the directives to erect the beams, and the carpets forming the roof of the Tabernacle, as well as the supporting columns, the sockets and the priestly garments. This is followed by the directives to construct the copper altar, the one positioned in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the details about the courtyard, the anointing oil. Even the details of the inaugural offerings are all described before the Torah mentions the construction of the golden altar. Clearly, the fact that the Torah delayed mentioning the construction of the golden altar must have a special reason. The reason may be that the rules applying to it are significantly different from the rules applying to all the other components of the Tabernacle. Whereas the parts of the Tabernacle which were suitable for use in the eventual Temple were permitted to be used there, this was not the case with the golden altar. This in spite of the fact that the golden altar was only used for minute amounts of incense twice daily as compared to the Table and the Lampstand which were used far more during the over four hundred years which elapsed between the building of the Tabernacle and the building of the Temple. The original Table made for the Tabernacle in the days of Moses as well as the Lampstand made for the Tabernacle were superior to the ten Tables and ten Lampstands constructed by Solomon for his Temple. The allusions to the eventual Temple are, of course, only allusions.

ועשו ארון AND THEY SHALL MAKE AN ARK (ארון) — It is so called because it had the appearance of boxes (ארונות) which people make without feet — in the shape of a chest which is called escrin in old French which rests on its bottom.

AND THEY SHALL MAKE AN ARK. The plural [and ‘they’ shall make] refers back to the children of Israel mentioned above.⁹⁶Above, Verse 2. But afterwards Scripture states: And thou shalt overlay it,⁹⁷Verse 11. And thou shalt cast for it⁹⁸Verse 12. — all in the singular, as Moses is the leader of all Israel. It is possible that [in using the plural — and they shall make] He is indicating His wish that all Israel should share in the making of the ark because it is the holiest dwelling-place of the Most High,⁹⁹Psalms 46:5. and that they should all merit thereby [a knowledge of] the Torah. Thus the Rabbis have said in Midrash Rabbah:¹⁰⁰Shemoth Rabbah 33:3. “Why is it that with reference to all the vessels it says, and thou shalt make, and in the case of the ark it says, and they shall make? Said Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Shalom: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, Let all the people come and engage themselves in the making of the ark, so that they should all merit [a knowledge of] the Torah.” The “engaging themselves” of which the Rabbi speaks means that they should each offer one golden vessel [for the making of the ark, in addition to their general offering for the building of the Tabernacle], or that they should help Bezalel in some small way, or that they should have intent [of heart in the making thereof].¹⁰¹Thus even the desire to help Bezalel in the making of the ark was already accounted as an act of helping in the making thereof (Kli Chemdah). It may also hint that a mere genuine craving for Torah is praiseworthy before the Creator.

ועשו ארזן, "They shall construct an ark." It is strange that G'd phrased the directive to build the ark in indirect speech whereas the directives to construct the Tabernacle, the Altar, the Table, and the Lampstand are all phrased in direct speech, i.e. ועשית. Not only does the Torah employ indirect speech in this verse, but when elaborating on the details of the construction the Torah reverts to use of direct speech, i.e. "you shall cover it with pure gold, etc." Perhaps we can find in this anomaly a hint that the bulk of Torah cannot be fulfilled by any individual but requires participation of the entire nation. No single individual can fulfil all the commandments of the Torah, however much he may desire to do so. If an individual happens to be a priest he cannot fulfil the commandment of allocating the 24 gifts which the Torah directs the Israelite to give to the priest. He cannot fulfil the commandment of redeeming his firstborn son. A Levite also is prevented from fulfilling certain commandments by the mere fact that he is a Levite. The phrasing of ועשו ארון in the indirect plural may be intended to remind us of this fact.

ועשו ארון עצי שטים, seeing that the words belong together, i.e. “an ark of acacia wood,” the vowel under the letter א in the word ארון is a chataph patach instead of a kametz. [This had to be so as the tone sign tipcha under the word ארון suggests that the word belongs to the word ועשו preceding it. Ed.] Even so, when it came to the carrying out of these instructions we find that Betzalel, contrary to Moses’ instructions, first constructed the Tabernacle itself before fashioning the furnishings thereof, seeing he would not have a place wherein to place all these furnishings. Nevertheless, at the time of the instructions, the Ark, Table, etc., had to be mentioned first. The reason was that the construction of the Tabernacle was, after all, secondary to the furnishings inside it. It became necessary to build the Tabernacle only in order to house the Ark and other sacred furnishings.

ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark.” This refers to the Israelites referred to in verse 2. When the Torah switches to direct speech in the following verses, making it sound as if these commandments were all addressed to Moses personally, this must be understood in terms of Moses representing the entire Jewish people. The reason that the Torah first employed a plural mode was to encourage all the Israelites to take an active part in the making of the Tabernacle by contributing of their wealth, so that their participation in a sacred undertaking would guarantee each one of them a share in the Torah. However, only skilled people could take part in fashioning the parts and the furnishings. Actually 3 separate arks were made. The outer and inner one were made of gold, whereas the middle ark was of acacia wood. The reason that the Torah does not use the expression וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to overlay it with gold,” is that the ark was enclosed only from 5 out of 6 sides, the top remaining open, until the lid was placed on it, as a separate part.

ועשו ארון, the ark is a symbol of the righteous and intelligent man who is described as such only if his character qualities reflect the external image he portrays, projects. This is the reason why the ark was encased in gold both from the inside and the outside.
Just as the dimensions of the floor of the ark were two and a half cubits in length and one and a half cubits in width, resulting in a square area of four cubits minus one quarter cubit square, so the righteous person should remain constantly aware that the four elements which make up his physicality should not become the sum total of his existence, but should be augmented liberally by the physical performance of good deeds such as caring for others.
Just as the walls of the ark, when combined, total 12 cubits (when measuring the combined total of the exterior dimensions, 1,5+2,5;+1,5+2,5;+1,5+2,5). [the lid is not part of the measurements. Ed.] The combined lengths of the walls totaled 7.5 cubits, whereas the combined length of the short walls totaled 4.5 cubits. The righteous person is expected to fulfill all the 12 conditions set out in Psalm 15,1 as the necessary qualifications before one is deserving to sojourn in G’d’s holy tent, or on G’d’s holy mountain.
If one wishes to attain a loftier level of relative perfection than that of a “mere” righteous individual, the next step up is becoming a נביא, prophet, or at least acquiring the spiritual level expected of a prophet. This is symbolised by the kapporet above the Ark.
The fact that the entire kapporet was made of pure gold. that it was not merely overlaid with gold, indicates that it symbolised something even purer than the Ark itself. We know that a prophet is considered as כלו צדק, “totally righteous,” from Proverbs 8,8 “all the words of my mouth are with righteousness.” The cherubs above the kapporet are an allusion to the angels, beings on an even higher spiritual level than the prophets. They were spreading their wings heavenward as an allusion of their striving to be near the Shechinah, which is on a higher level spiritually than the angels, seeing that the angels are the throne, (foundation of) ever ready to welcome the attribute כבוד, i.e. the attribute which occupies the throne. This is the meaning of the words in verse 20: אל הכפורת יהיו הכרובים, “the faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the kapporet.” They had to look downwards, towards the lid and were forbidden to gaze at the Shechinah. Above everything is G’d Himself as is written in Samuel II 6,2 אשר נקרא שם שם ה' צב-אות יושב הכרובים עליו, “to which the Name was attached, the name of the Lord of Hosts Enthroned on the cherubs.” Solomon also constructed the cherubs in the Temple out of wood, as is written (Kings I 6,23) “he made in the sanctuary two cherubs out of olive wood.” [these wooden cherubs, ten cubits high, are not to be confused with the cherubs which are an integral part of the lid of the Holy Ark, made of solid gold, and which were in the Holy of Holies. Ed.]

V. 10. Die Anordnung beginnt mit den Geräten; denn diese sind das Wesentliche. Die Wohnung ist um der Geräte willen da, nicht die Geräte um der Wohnung willen. Die Geräte, die מזבח ,מנורה ,שלחן ,ארון :כלים, sind das מקדש, bringen die Heiligung und Hingebung, die Erhebung aller irdischen Verhältnisse zu Gott zur Anschauung; die Wohnung, das משכן, vergegenwärtigt die Folge dieser Hingebung, die Erfüllung der Verheißung ושכנתי בתוכם als Folge des ועשו לי מקדש.

ועשו ארון, “they are to construct an Ark;” it is noteworthy that the Torah, in these instructions about construction of the furnishings of the Tabernacle, addresses the artisans as individuals, i.e. ועשית, you, the individual, shall construct, whereas when speaking of the Holy Ark, it uses the impersonal plural of ועשו, “they shall construct.” The reason is that seeing that the Holy Ark, repository of the Tablets and the original Torah scroll, is to be something that every Israelite must feel that he had a part in making its construction possible. (Sh’mot Rabbah 34,2). If inert objects deserve such treatment with respect, how much more so do the Torah scholars, each in their own town, living bearers of the Torah’s wisdom, deserve to be treated with respect and be given honour by each Jew.

ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark;” the introductory letter ו in the word ועשו tells us that, of course, the building housing this ark had by that time already been constructed. As long as the building had not been constructed there was no place where to put the ark. We find a similar problem in Deuteronomy 10,1, when Moses recalls that G-d had told him to carve out the tablets on which the Ten Commandments would be inscribed a second time, and he constructed the ark first as he said himself in verse 3 in that chapter where he said: “I made an ark and then I carved out the Tablets.” This was not in accordance in which G-d had instructed him to proceed in verse 9 of our chapter. He had even reminded him that He had shown him an illustration of how to proceed, in that verse. If the Torah nonetheless reports matters in the reverse order, it is because we must remember to put first things first, i.e. that the structure would have been meaningless if not for the furnishings which it was to provide a home for.[Our author does not apparently accept the view of the commentators who claim that Moses had forgotten the right order and that Betzalel had to remind him when he received instructions he did not consider logical. Ed.]

Possibly, the use of the indirect plural here is an introduction to the construction of all the parts of the Tabernacle and its furnishings. By using the indirect plural at this point the Torah may wish to remind us that even where it uses the direct singular when giving directives, these directives are addressed to individuals only inasmuch as those addressed represent all the חכמי לב, (compare 36,1).

ועשו ארון, das erste und einzige כלי, dessen Gestaltung auch im Ausdruck der Anordnung von der ganzen Volksgesamtheit erwartet wird, ist der ארון, die Lade des Zeugnisses. Wie es zuvor hieß: ועשו לי מקדש, so hier unmittelbar darauf: ועשו ארון und so auch von den die Symbolik der Lade krönenden Cherubimgestaltungen, V. 19 מן הכפרת תעשו את הכרובים (siehe das.). Von allem anderen und weiteren heißt es: ועשית וצפית usw. Es scheint fast, als ob die ganze Aufgabe: ועשו לי מקדש in dem ועשו ארון עצי שטים konzentriert liege, und alles Fernere nur eine weitere Ausführung des ארון sei. ארון (von ארה: zum Genuss abpflücken, Hohel. 5, 2 u. Ps. 80, 13, verwandt mit הרה: einen Lebenskeim in sich aufnehmen, der Wurzel von תורה) bezeichnet einen Behälter, vermittelst dessen das darin Aufzunehmende für immer hingenommen wird. So Bereschit 50, 26: Sarg, und Kön. II. 12, 10 u. Chron. II. 24, 8: Empfangskasse für Heiligtumsspenden. Die Lade nimmt das Gesetz für Israel hin, oder vielmehr: Israel nimmt mit der Lade das Gesetz hin.

מבית ומחוץ תצפנו, “you are to overlay it both from the inside and from the outside. The famous Talmudic scholar Rava, derives from this phrasing that a Torah scholar, in order to deserve that title, must demonstrate that he is on the inside just as pure and faithful as what he projects to be on the outside to people he comes into contact with. Furthermore, the use of the impersonal plural “they” in our verse is an instruction to each Israelite to preoccupy himself with the study of Torah so that he can qualify for the reward in store for people doing so.

It is also possible that seeing that prior to receiving the second set of Tablets Moses himself constructed a wooden ark (compare Rashi on Deut. 10,1) in which he placed them as soon as he descended from Mount Sinai, the instructions given here refer to an alternate ark, the one to be constructed by Betzalel. In order to distinguish between these two arks the Torah changed its grammar. G'd had already used direct speech when He commanded Moses to construct the original ark in Deut. 10,1. At that time He added the word לך,"for yourself," to indicate that pending the construction of the permanent housing of the Tablets, Moses was to construct a temporary home for them. Whereas the directives ועשית in our portion always refer to the construction by Betzalel of something permanent, the same word in Deut 10,1 did not refer to something permanent. Moses complied personally with G'd's directive to construct a temporary ark (Deut. 10,3) as we know from: "he placed the Tablets inside" (Deut. 10,5). Phrasing the present directive in indirect plural, i.e. ועשו, was to make plain that G'd spoke of an additional ark. Had G'd merely said ועשית, I would have thought that just as the original ark was meant to be his, personally, i.e. to be paid for out of his own pocket, so the permanent ark was also meant to be paid for by himself. Alternatively, Moses could have thought that G'd spoke of the very ark Moses had already made and that now it was to be overlaid with gold inside and out, have staves attached to it, etc. In order to prevent any misuderstandings, the Torah wrote ועשו.

ארון עצי שטים: mit seiner, Israels, ewig frischen Entwicklungsfähigkeit und für diese immer fortschreitende Entwicklung hin. Das Gesetz ist abgeschlossen gegeben, es sind steinerne Tafeln. Sie bilden zusammen einen steinernen vollkommenen Würfel. Jede Tafel ist sechs טפהי׳ lang, sechs ט׳ breit und drei ט׳ dick, somit zusammen ein Würfel von sechs Kubik=טפחים: eine Kubikelle, die größte Maßeinheit im Würfel (Baba Bathra 14 a). Nicht das Gesetz, wir sind der Baum, wir können und sollen durch das Gesetz in unendlichem Fortschritte uns veredelnd entwickeln. Israel nimmt die תורה hin, auf dass es daran werde עץ שתול על פלגי מים וגו׳ (Ps. 1, 3).

אמתים וחצי וגו׳. Die Dimension ist durch dieses Größenverhältnis der Tafeln bedingt. Das hier angegebene Längen- und Breitenmaß bezieht sich auf den äußeren Umfang. Die Wände waren 1/2 טפח dick, die Elle — nach ר׳ מאיר — zu sechs טפחי׳ gerechnet, bleibt ein innerer Raum von vierzehn ט׳ Länge und acht ט׳ Breite. Die beiden nebeneinanderliegenden Tafeln nehmen einen Raum von zwölf ט׳ Länge und sechs ט׳ Breite ein. Ihnen zur Seite lag eine von Mosche verfertigte Abschrift des Gesetzes (Dewarim 31, 26). Nach ר׳ יהודה war die Maßbestimmung der Geräte nach kleinen Ellen von fünf טפחי׳, somit kein Raum für die ס׳׳ת im ארון, sie lag ihm zufolge außerhalb der Lade auf einer dafür angebrachten Leiste (siehe B. B. das.).

מבית ומחוץ תצפנו WITHIN AND WITHOUT SHALT THOU OVERLAY IT — Bezalel made three arks, two of gold and one of wood, each having four walls (sides) and a bottom, being, however, open at the top. He put the wooden ark into the larger golden one and the smaller golden one into that of wood and covered its upper rim (that of the wooden ark) with gold; consequently it can be said that the wooden ark was overlaid with gold within and without (Yoma 72b; Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 6:1).

זהב טהור, this does not mean that gold cannot become ritually impure; we know it can become defiled from Numbers 31,22. The expression טהור here means: ”pure, refined.”

וצפית אותו זהב טהור מבית ומחוץ תצפנו, “you are to overlay it with pure gold, from the inside and the outside you are to overlay it.” This verse is used by our sages (Yuma 72) to demand that Torah scholars must be able to demonstrate that they practice what they preach. They base this on the Ark which was gold on the inside as well as on the outside. Although no one actually saw the inside, it had to correspond to its exterior. Another verse which alludes to this subject is Job 29,14: “I clothed myself in righteousness and it robed me; Justice was my cloak and turban.” The repetition in this verse means that one’s inside must match the image one creates for oneself on the outside. Our sages add further on this subject: “why were the words of Torah compared to glass?, i.e. (Job, 28,17) “gold or glass cannot match its value?” Answer: just as glass is transparent and allows you to see not only the outside but also the interior, so bearers of Torah must be able to be equally transparent, not hiding character weakness not visible to their students or to their peers.

Bezalel made three arks. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps there was but one ark, gold-plated inside and out as goldsmiths generally make? R. Noson answers: This parsha is about the making of the ark which held the Tablets. On the Tablets was [written the Ten Commandments, containing] all the letters of the alef beis. This is because the [Ten Commandments on the] Tablets contain the entire Torah. This parsha of the making of the ark alludes to this by using all the letters of the alef beis, which comprise the Torah, except for the letter ג which is missing. Why? Perforce, there is no need for the allusion of the ג because the ark itself was made up of three ( ג ) layers. An alternative answer: The Torah writes the extra word תצפנו to teach that afterward, its upper rim should be covered with gold. Thus we may infer that there were three arks placed one within another, thereby making it covered on the inside and on the outside — except for the upper rim, which was covered afterward.

V. 11. וצפית. Zu der Empfänglichkeit und der lebendigen Entwicklungsfähigkeit muss zugleich die Festigkeit, die ehernstarke Beharrlichkeit und Unveränderlichkeit in allem Edeln und Guten, allem Wahren und Ächten sich gesellen, zu dem Holze das Metall, zu dem Baume das Gold sich fügen. Entwicklungsfähigkeit und Festigkeit zugleich fordert das göttliche Gesetz zu seiner Aufnahme, und es hat sich diese edle Festigkeit nach innen und außen zu bewähren: מבית ומחוץ תצפנו. Die Lade bestand aus drei Behältern, einem innern und einem äußern von Gold, und innerhalb derselben der vom Schittimholz: im innern und äußern Leben gediegen und fest, edel und echt, rein von allen Schlacken und der Veränderung und Verschlechterung widerstehend, das ist die Bedingung, es sind die goldenen Schranken, innerhalb derer sich das Leben aus dem Gesetze baumgleich fortschreitend entfalten soll. Unzugänglich für alles Schlechte, bereit für alles Gute, זהב und מצות לא — עץ תעשה und מצות עשה — Gefäße des göttlichen Gesetzes befähigt.

וצפית, “you are to cover it;” actually the Holy Ark was meant to be made of pure gold, not merely gold plate. The reason that it was not all gold, was that gold is very heavy and the Holy Ark plus its contents had to be carried on the Levites’ shoulders. [Even as it was, according to a calculation by Rabbi Eliyahu ki tov, the weight was 78000lbs. Ed.] The reader will wonder how a few Levites could possibly carry even such a weight, and having this in mind the Talmud in tractate Sotah folio 35, states that far from the Levites carrying the Ark, the Ark was transporting its carriers. [Especially while the entire nation crossed the river Jordan under the command of Joshua and the Levites carrying the Ark had to position themselves in a manner which would stop the waters of the Jordan flowing south until the last man had crossed.] (Joshua 3,17) Normally, and for brief periods, the Levites were able to carry the Ark, (with G–d’s help, of course, as when Yaakov rolled away a stone that several shepherds had been unable to move as much as an inch.) Our author questions that if carrying the Ark on their shoulders was a command that applied only on a certain occasion, why was Uzza punished when he tried to steady the wagon transporting the Ark. (Chronicles I 13,9-10, as well as Samuel II 6,7) He leaves the question unanswered. [The Talmud there even states that Uzzah went straight to the world to come, as a reward for his noble intention, I suppose. Ed.] Not only the Ark, but also the Table and the “golden” altar were not made of solid gold but their wooden base was overlaid with gold plate both from the outside and the inside. The same applied to the copper altar, which also had to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites during the journeys in the desert. (Compare Exodus 21,1) [This editor sees no contradiction in all this, as until the 40th year in the desert the Israelites lived on miracles, miracle water, miracle bread, clothing that did not wear out, complete protection against heat and cold by special clouds, etc. This only changed partially during the fortieth year when they conquered land, flocks and herds, etc. Presumably, crossing the Jordan river, brought that period to an end, as immediately after that the commandment to set aside challah from dough made from grain that had grown in the Holy Land, became applicable. Ed.]

וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to cover it with gold.” The ark was actually designed to be constructed completely of pure gold, but it would have been too heavy to carry, especially since the Torah had commanded the sons of Kehat to carry it on their shoulders. Compare Numbers 7,9. We find that the altar was also hollow and filled with earth, presumably for the same consideration. (Exodus 27,8)

זר זהב A BORDER OF GOLD — a crown-like ornament encompassed it (the ark) round about above its rim, for he (Bezalel) made the outer ark which was of gold higher than the inner ones so that it stood up over against the thickness of the cover which was made for it and even somewhat beyond it (Yoma 72b). Now when the cover lay upon the thickness of the sides of the two smaller arks the crown-like ledge rose a little above the entire thickness of the cover. It was a symbol of the “crown of the Torah” which was placed within that ark (Exodus Rabbah 34b).

ועשית עליו זר זהב סביב. Die Lade soll von einem aufwärts stehenden Reif umschlossen sein. Dieser Reif wurde durch die über den Deckel hinaufreichende Kante der äußeren goldenen Ladenwand gebildet. זר, Reif, von זור: fremd sein, vermöge seiner inneren Natur von andern entfernt sein, scheint sowohl seiner Gestalt, als seinem Namen zufolge an den Geräten des Heiligtums die Heiligkeit, die Unantastbarkeit zu bedeuten und in dieser Beziehung sowohl sprachlich als sachlich mit נזר, Krone, Diadem, verwandt zu sein. Indem er hier an der Lade kein besonderes Stück ist, sondern durch den hervorragenden Teil der Lade selbst gebildet wird, dürfte derselbe sagen: wenn Israel sich nur hingibt, seine Festigkeit und Stärke in gediegener Reinheit seines inneren und äußeren Lebens zu bewähren, wird es von selbst auch gegen außen unantastbar dastehen: וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ד׳ נקרא עליך ויראו ממך (Dewarim 28, 10), קדש ישראל לד׳ ראשית תבואתו כל אוכליו יאשמו רעה תבא עליהם (Jirmija 2, 3).

ועשית עליו זר זהב, “you will make around it a crown of gold.” The purpose of this was decorative. It was to symbolise the crown of the Torah. The expression זר, meaning “crown,” instead of the better known word: כתר, occurs in the Talmud, tractate Yuma, folio 72, where it is stated that there were three such “crowns.” The crown over the Holy Ark symbolised the “crown” of Torah, the “crown” around the surface of the Table symbolised the “crown” worn by monarchs, and the ”crown” surrounding the top of the altar symbolised the crown of the priesthood.” The latter crown was appropriated by Aaron, the High Priest, the crown symbolising hereditary monarchy was appropriated by King David, and the crown symbolising Torah was not appropriated by any individual or family, but is available to be worn by any individual worthy of it.

טהור, “pure;” not containing any foreign particles.

זר זהב סביב, “surrounded by crown like golden molding.” The purpose of this was to cover the wooden center part at the top completely. The wooden interior was to remain invisible.

ויצקת — a term used of casting metal, as the Targum has it.

AND THOU SHALT CAST FOUR RINGS OF GOLD FOR IT, AND PUT THEM IN THE FOUR ‘PA’AMOTHAV’ (CORNERS THEREOF). “The word pa’amothav is to be understood as the Targum rendered it: ‘corners thereof.’ It was on the upper corners near to the cover of the ark that the rings were placed. And two rings shall be on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. These are the very four rings which are mentioned at the beginning of the verse, but here Scripture explains that two of these rings were placed on one side [and the other two on the other side].” Thus did Rashi explain, and he explained it well. But I do not know why Rashi wrote that “on the upper corners near to the cover” the rings were placed. For in that case, the weight [of the ark and the tables of law hanging down from the staves] would be very much heavier. Moreover, the respectful way is that the ark be lifted up, resting high upon the shoulders of the priests¹⁰²In Numbers 7:9 it is clearly stated that it is the Levites the sons of Kohath who carried the ark, not the priests. See, however, “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 43-44, that in reality the fulfillment of this commandment, bearing the ark upon the shoulders, devolves upon the priests, but in the wilderness the duty was laid upon the Levites because of the limited number of priests then available. This is Rambam’s position. For Ramban’s opinion see my Note there, p. 44. [when carrying it].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “I have searched in all Scripture and I have not found the term pa’am to mean ‘corner’ but only ‘foot.’ Thus: How beautiful are p’amayich’ (thy feet);¹⁰³Song of Songs 7:2. The J.P.S. translation “steps” follows Ramban’s interpretation, explained further on. the feet of the poor, ‘pa’amei’ (the feet of) the needy.¹⁰⁴Isaiah 26:6. In J.P.S. translation: “steps,” as Ramban explains it. Therefore I felt bound to explain that the ark had feet to it [upon which it rested].” And so Ibn Ezra explained the meaning of the verse to be that there were altogether eight rings, the four bottom ones¹⁰⁵See my Hebrew commentary p. 459, that our Ibn Ezra texts have here a different version, and that it is only according to that different version that Ramban’s questions on Ibn Ezra can be understood. Principally Ramban differs with three points that Ibn Ezra made: 1. That there were eight rings to the ark; 2. that the staves for carrying the ark were inserted in the upper rings; 3. that the ark had feet. — It is on this second point that the texts differ. It must then be remembered that Ramban is directing his criticism on Ibn Ezra holding that it was the upper rings that were for carriage. Ramban’s opinion is that the lower rings were for the insertion of the staves with which the ark was carried. Ramban will also differ with Ibn Ezra on the other two points. being those through which the staves were inserted to carry the ark with, whilst the four upper rings were purely for ornamental purposes. His words are, however, not at all correct. For if, as he said, pa’am means foot, then Scripture is commanding that the rings should be in the lower corners upon which the ark rests, and these bottom corners are called “feet” because the Sacred Language adapts all forms according to the image of man. Thus it calls the upper part of any object rosh (head), and the bottom part regel (foot). [Accordingly there is no need to say as did Ibn Ezra that the ark had feet to it upon which it rested, since Scripture calls the bottom corners “feet.”] And this is indeed true, that the rings for the purpose of carriage were at the bottom corners, and the ark was thus lifted up above the staves, as I have explained above.
But in my opinion pa’am does not mean “foot” but is a term meaning “step.” How beautiful are ‘p’amayich’¹⁰³Song of Songs 7:2. The J.P.S. translation “steps” follows Ramban’s interpretation, explained further on. — your steps. This usage is similar to the phrase in the Talmud:¹⁰⁶Abodah Zarah 18a. “How beautiful are the steps of this maiden.” Similarly: why tarry ‘pa’amei’ (the steps of) his chariots?¹⁰⁷Judges 5:28. Translated: why tarry ‘the wheels’ of his chariots? The word pa’amothav here is Scripture’s reference to the steps of the priests¹⁰²In Numbers 7:9 it is clearly stated that it is the Levites the sons of Kohath who carried the ark, not the priests. See, however, “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 43-44, that in reality the fulfillment of this commandment, bearing the ark upon the shoulders, devolves upon the priests, but in the wilderness the duty was laid upon the Levites because of the limited number of priests then available. This is Rambam’s position. For Ramban’s opinion see my Note there, p. 44. that carry the ark, thus hinting at two things: that the rings be in the corners right at the bottom, near the seat of the ark, and that the whole length of the ark should interpose between the two rings. For, assuming that the length of the ark was placed in an east-west position, then there were two rings on its north side, one at the eastern head and one at the western, and likewise two rings on the south side of the ark [similarly placed], and the steps of the priests moved between the rings with their faces towards one another. In the Mishnah of the Tabernacle¹⁰⁸This is the Beraitha on the work of the Tabernacle. (Otzar Midrashim, Eisenstein, p. 301; Ish Shalom’s scientific edition, Breslau 1915.) For the name Beraitha see in Seder Bo, Note 209. — In the Holy of Holies the length of the ark was in a north-south position i.e., to the width of the holy place while the width of the ark was in an east-west position i.e., to the length of the holy place (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Beth Habchirah 3:13). When carrying the ark they carried it face to face, with their backs turned outward, and their faces set towards the ark (ibid. Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash 2:13). A reference to this point is found here in the text of Ramban. we have learned: “There were four gold rings affixed in the ark, two to the north thereof and two to the south, and in them the staves were inserted and were never moved therefrom etc.”

פעמותיו, the corners at its outer edges.

ויצקת לו, they would protrude beyond the outer edges of the Ark and not be an integral part of it.

על ארבע פעמותיו, “on its four corners.” Rashi, following Onkelos, understands the word פעמות as referring to the four corners of the ark, and suggests that these rings were fastened at the upper third of the ark close to the כפורת, the lid. There were altogether only four such rings. When the Torah writes later ושתי טבעות וגו', these are not additional rings, but the reference is to two out of the four rings being fastened on one of the sides of the ark. Nachmanides writes that there certainly were not more than four rings, but that he cannot agree with Rashi that these rings were fastened in the upper third of the ark, something he considers physically impossible, as it is a well known fact that the higher the rings for the staves were positioned the more difficult would it be for the carriers of the ark to carry their load. [this editor has seen a calculation by the late Rabbi Eliyahu Ki Tov, of sainted memory, that the ark with its combined content weighed approx 39000kg. If so, it could only be lifted with the help of a miracle, and Nachmanides’ concern is of no practical significance. Ed.] A second argument by Nachmanides against the view of Rashi, is that it is far more dignified that more of the ark would be exposed to view when it was being transported, seeing it was borne on the shoulders of the sons of Kehat. [I find this argument also irrelevant as the ark, in common with all the other furnishings was covered by blue woolen cloth, and thus not visible to the people at large while it was being transported. Ed.] The following is the commentary on the location of the rings. by my late father of sainted memory the רא'ש. “Personally, I prefer Rashi’s commentary to that of Nachmanides, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Shabbat chapter 8 states that if someone carries a load on the Sabbath more than 10 tefachim (100 cm) above ground he is guilty of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath, the reason being that the sons of Kehat carried the ark at a level higher than that. [This in itself is an unusual halachah as the domain known as רשות הרבים, the public domain, is not considered as such at a level above 10 tefachim. However, since all the details of forbidden activities on the Sabbath are directly derived from what was forbidden on the Sabbath for the Israelites in the desert, this anomaly resulted. Ed.] The Talmud derives this from the fact that according to the measurements given in the Torah, the height of the ark at one and a half cubits was 9 tefachim without the lid, which was an additional tefach thick. It is derived from there that any load that is transported by means of staves, (such as the ark) has the staves affixed at the juncture of the first and the second third from the top. The rationale given in the Talmud is that the major part of the height of the ark would be above the level of the shoulder height of the carriers, would be in constant state of swinging to and fro, a most uncomfortable if not impossible manner of transporting such a heavy load. On the other and, when two thirds of the height of the ark was below the shoulder height of the Kehatites carrying it, the task of carrying it would be much easier. I believe (Rosh speaking) that there were not 4 but 8 rings, 4 small rings attached to the 4 corners, in order to enable the ark to be properly positioned. There were another 4 rings along the respective sides each about one quarter of the distance from the respective corners. They were attached to the sides forming the width of the ark. The staves of which the Torah writes, were inserted through these latter 4 rings along the sides. This explains why in connection with the first 4 rings the Torah added the words על ארבע פעמותיו, whereas no mention of these corners is made in connection with the second set of 4 rings that were attached along the walls of the ark. Ibn Ezra writes that wherever else the wordפעמות appears, it refers to legs. He quotes verses from Isaiah, Psalms, and Song of Songs, to prove his point. He therefore concludes that the ark had legs attached to its four corners, and that it would have been disgraceful for such a holy vessel as the ark to be simply resting on the floor of the Tabernacle, [especially as the “floor” apparently was not even a carpet over the desert sand. Ed.] The four rings by which the ark was carried, were attached near the bottom, immediately above the legs. The other 4 rings were decorative, much higher than the ones by means of which the ark was carried. Nachmanides, while agreeing that the word פעמות appears elsewhere in our Scriptures always as meaning ”feet,” comes to the conclusion that it means the steps taken by the feet here, but that the feet referred to were those of the priests carrying the ark [through the Jordan river, for instance compare Joshua 4,15 Ed.] The Torah thereby hints that the rings were attached at the corners at the bottom of the ark, the length of the ark faced the eastern wall of the Tabernacle, whereas the rings faced north, one at the north east corner and the other at the northwestern corner. The two southern rings were exactly opposite them at the southeast and southwest corners respectively. The feet of the priests would move between the positions of the rings.

ונתתה על ארבע פעמותיו, “you shall place it (them) on its four corners.” Rashi writes that the word פעמותיו is to be understood in accordance with the rendering by Onkelos i.e. זויתה, “its corners.” The rings were attached at the corners close to the top of the Ark, immediately beneath the kapporet. I believe that the correct explanation of the verse is found in the commentary by Nachmanides who understands the word פעמותיו as derived from, or similar in meaning to, פסיעות, steps. The word פעמות occurs as meaning “steps” in Song of Songs 7,2 מה יפו פעמיך, “how lovely are your steps.” It is a fact that the rings were attached at the respective corners near the very bottom of the Ark as it would not have been seemly for the Ark to be sort of suspended below the shoulders of the priests who carried it. It was much more dignified and in keeping with the lofty ideals that the Ark represented that it be carried above the shoulders of those priests charged with transporting it.

Two on one side and two on the other, along the width of the ark. . . But if it was two on each side along the length of the ark, two people carrying it could not walk next to each other, since the space between [the poles] was only an amoh and a half.

VV. 12 — 15. ברים, Tragstangen, sind nicht ein Vehikel, das nur im Momente des Tragens notwendig wäre, sie durften nie von der Lade weichen, לא יסורו ממנו והמסיר בדי ארון לוקה (Joma 72 a). Sie gehören wesentlich zur symbolischen Darstellung der Lade, so sehr, dass sie, dem Wortlaute unseres Textes zufolge, sogar an der Lade bereits vorhanden sein sollen, bevor das Zeugnis hinein und der Deckel darauf gelegt wurde. — (תוספו׳ das. vermuten sogar, dass zwei Paar Stangen zur Lade gehörten. Ein Paar, das stets an der Lade war und nie von ihr weichen durfte, jedoch nicht zum Tragen gebraucht wurde, somit völlig symbolisches Zubehör war, und ein zweites Paar, das nur im Augenblick des Tragens und zum Behufe desselben angelegt wurde. Eine Vermutung, die den Wortlaut der Verse 12 und Bamidbar 4, 6 für sich, dagegen den Wortlaut des V. 14 gegen sich hat). Jedenfalls ist die wesentliche Bedeutsamkeit der Stangen für die Lade durch die gesetzliche Bestimmung des "Nimmerweichens von der Lade", im Gegensatz zu den anderen Heiligtumsgeräten, gesichert. Kön. I. 8, 8 erfahren wir sogar, dass die Vorderenden der Tragstangen den Vorhang hervordrängten und sich so verhüllt sichtbar machten, somit das Einzige waren, wodurch sich das Dasein der Bundeslade hinter dem Vorhange den Betretern des Heiligtums ankündigte.

ויצקת לו ארבע טבעות זהב, “you shall pour four golden rings for it.” According to the plain meaning these were small rings which were actually an integral part of the outer wall of the ark.

פעמתיו — Understand this as the Targum renders it: ON ITS CORNERS. It was on the upper corners near to the cover that the rings were placed — two on one side of the ark and two on the other along the breadth of the ark, and the staves were put into them (the rings). The length of the ark thus formed a space of two cubits and a half between one stave and the other so that two men who were carrying the ark could walk with ease between on the same side. Thus is it explained in Treatise Menachot in the section beginning with the words, "Shtei HaLehem" (Menachot 98b).

ושתי טבעות על צלעו האחת, the side, wall of the Ark, is called צלע. G’d had commanded therefore that these rings be attached at the four corners of the Ark. G’d therefore commanded that there were to be four such rings at the four corners. Furthermore, G’d commanded that they not be attached along the short sides of the Ark but along the long sides of the ark. [this contradicts the commentary of both Rashi and Rash’bam. Ed.]

ושתי טבעות, of the total of four such rings.

Die בדים Traghebel an der Lade, symbolisch genommen, bezeichnen die Bestimmung und die Aufgabe: die Lade und ihren Inhalt auch über die Grenze ihres gegenwärtigen Standortes, wenn es sein muss, fortzutragen, und die Bestimmung, dass diese Traghebel nie fehlen durften, hielt somit für alle Zeit von vornherein die Wahrheit gegenwärtig: dass dieses Gesetz und seine Aufgabe nicht an die Scholle gebunden sei, auf welcher zur Zeit der Tempel und sein Heiligtum stehe.

על ארבע פעמותיו, “on its four sides. There is another explanation which understands the word פעמון, as leg, in the sense of feet taking steps. Compare Song of Songs 7,2: מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים, “how lovely are your feet in sandals?, or Isaiah 26,6: רגלי עני פעמי דלים, “by the feet of the needy, the soles of the poor.” According to this view it would not be appropriate for the Holy Ark to stand directly on the floor. There would be also two large rings as housings for the staves by which the Ark would be carried on the shoulders of the Kehatites while the people were wandering. These were lowered with the small rings permanently attached to the walls of the ark, as G-d did not wish for the carriers of the Ark to come into direct contact with the Ark while inserting the staves through the rings. [Once inserted, the staves were never to be removed from the Ark. Ed.] (verse 15)

שתי הלחם ושתי טבעות על צלעו האחת AND TWO RINGS IN THE ONE SIDE OF IT — These are the very four rings spoken of in the beginning of the verse but here Scripture explains to you where they were fixed. This ו of the word ושתי (the first time the word occurs here) is really redundant and the interpretation is as though it read, שתי טבעת (see Note on Exodus 24:12). Since however the ו is there you may make it fit in thus: and two of these rings shall be on the one side of it and two on the other side thereof.

על צלעו האחת, along the width of the Ark (the shorter side) seeing that the staves protruded in the direction of the sanctuary (backwards, seeing the Ark itself was in the inner sanctum) The length of the Ark had to be positioned in a north/south direction so that the staves would face east/west.

Diese Bedeutung der ewigen Präsenz der בדים als Dokumentierung der lokalen Unbedingtheit des göttlichen Gesetzes erhält noch eine bedeutsame Schärfe in dem Gegensatz der Lade zu den anderen Heiligtumsgeräten, insbesondere zu dem Tische und dem Leuchter, die der permanenten Traghebel entbehren. Es spricht sich darin sofort der Gedanke aus: Israels Tisch und Israels Leuchter — sein materielles Leben in seiner Fülle und sein Geistesleben in seiner Blüte — sind an den Boden des heiligen Landes gebunden. Israels Thora ist es nicht.

על צלעו האחת, ושתי טבעות על צלעו השנית, “on one of its sides and two rings on its opposite side.” In other words, seeing that there were four sides, on the four corners. The ark was positioned inside the Holy of Holies with its longer side facing north. so that the carriers would walk on its eastern and western side.

צלעו means THE SIDE OF IT.

Joma 72 a wird auf den scheinbaren Widerspruch der Stellen: בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים לא יסורו ממנו (Kap. 25,15) und והבאת את הברים וגו׳ לשאת וגו׳ (V.15) parallel mit והובא את בריו בטבעות (Kap. 27, 7) beim Altar, hingewiesen (siehe תוספו׳ das.), und die Lösung in der Beschaffenheit der Stangen gegeben: מתפרקין ואין נשמטין, d.h. sie ließen sich mit Gewalt herausnehmen, entschlüpften aber nicht von selbst. Sie waren, nach Raschi, an den Enden dicker als in der Mitte. Das Verbot לא יסורו ממנו uחd המסיר בדי ארון לוקה, setzt schon die Möglichkeit des Herausnehmens voraus. Die Hebel sollen nicht weichen, aber sie können weichen, können der Lade gewaltsam entrissen werden. Die Lade bliebe dabei aber unversehrt und wartete — auf neue Träger!

פעם פעמתיו, als Winkel kommt nur hier und Kap. 33, 3 beim ארון, und außerdem noch beim ים של שלמה (Kön. I. 7, 30) vor. Da פעם eigentlich Schritt bedeutet, so bezeichnete es nach רמב׳׳ן z. St. die unteren Winkel. Vielleicht ist auch damit gesagt, dass die Ringe in der Schrittrichtung, d. h. also angebracht werden sollen, dass die Stangen in der Schrittrichtung, d. h. in der Richtung, in welcher die Lade getragen würde, durchgesteckt werden können. Die Länge der Lade stand nämlich im Heiligtume von Nord zu Süd, die Stangen reichten von West zu Ost, so dass die 21/2 Ellenlänge der Lade zwischen den Stangen war und vorn und hinten für je zwei Träger Raum gewährte, die die Lade in der Richtung ihrer Breite forttrugen (Menachoth 98 a u. b).

בדי means STAVES.

לא יסרו ממנו THEY SHALL NOT DEPART THEREFROM for ever (cf. Yoma 72a).

לא יסורו ממנו, "they shall not be removed from it." The reason that the Torah had to add the word "from it," and could not simply write: "they must not be removed," may be that without the words "from it" we would have understood that as long as the staves were not taken out of the rings completely it did not matter. However, we are taught in Yuma 72 that Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina queried an apparent contradiction between verse 15: "the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark," and 27,7, where the Torah writes: והובא את בדיו בטבעות, "and its staves shall be placed through the rings." This appears to indicate that the staves were inserted in the rings again and again. If so, how could one comply with the need for the staves to remain within the rings? The respective ends of the staves must have been thicker so that they could not slip out of the rings as demanded by the words: "they shall not be removed from it," i.e. they had to be attached so that they could not move. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the words of the Talmud that the words לא יסורו are enough to teach us that movement of these staves is forbidden. Perhaps the word ממנו has a different meaning, i.e. that even motion of the staves backwards and forwards within the rings was prohibited. In order to prevent us from thinking that this was also not allowed, the Torah wrote והבאת in verse 14.

לא יסורו ממנו, ‘they are not to be removed from it.” Our sages in Yuma 72 explain that the staves were never totally removed from the rings through which they had been placed. Anyone who did remove the staves from the Ark contravened this commandment. Another comment found on that folio on the words והבאת את הבדים בטבעות is that the staves moved to and fro within the rings. You might assume that this means that sometimes they would slip out of the rings altogether? The Torah reassures you by saying לא יסורו הבדים, the staves will not be totally removed, i.e. “fall out of the rings.” Had the Torah only written these last words I would have thought that the staves never moved at all. This is why the Torah added והבאת את הבדים בטבעות, “place the staves through the rings.” How was this to be accomplished?” Answer: they were thicker at the extremities and thinner in the middle so that they could be introduced with ease but could be extracted only with great difficulty. [If you are interested in the tricky question of how both parts of the instructions in the Torah could be observed, see Or Hachayim on our verse. Ed.]

Forever. [Rashi knows this] because it is written at the beginning of the verse that the poles must remain in the ark’s rings. Why then write afterward that they must not be removed?

לא יסורו ממנו, “they (the staves) must not be removed from it.” The reason that these staves must not be tampered with, i.e. removing it and re-attaching it, was due to the sacred nature of the Holy Ark. When the Ark needed to be moved, the bearers took hold of the respective ends of these staves. As soon as they would have deposited it at its next destination, the bearers would immediately step away from it in order not to become ritually impure by any misstep they might make. Briefly, it was Moses who attached these staves to the Holy Ark the first time, and they were not ever to be detached from it again.

לא יסורו ממנו, “they shall not be removed from it.” In the Talmud tractate Yuma, folio 72, the question is raised that seeing the Torah had already written: “the staves for carrying the Ark are to be affixed to the Ark,” and it had instructed its craftsmen to insert the staves through these rings, its appears that the purpose was to insert these staves only when the need arose to carry the Ark. This could only be done if they were to be inserted from time to time when the occasion demanded this? The staves in the process of lifting the Ark or lowering it would slip out of the rings! How could the commandment never to remove them be possible to be observed? Answer: The staves were thicker at their respective ends so that they could only just fit through the rings, whereas in the middle they were thinner. [The reader who is interested in the mechanics of this is referred to the commentary by Or Hachayim on this verse, or on my translation of it on pages 775776. Ed.] This is also how Rashi explains the problem in his commentary on the Talmud on this folio. An alternate explanation: both in this instance and again in Exodus 40,18, it was Moses who had to insert the staves through the rings. In the Book of Numbers 4,56 however, we read that Aaron and his sons were to position the ark inside the Tabernacle as well as to position its staves in the proper places. The commandment for the staves not to be moved only came into force at that time. Alternately, although Moses had placed the staves through the rings (without having been instructed to so), G-d wished for this to be done by Aaron and his sons who were priests. It was at that point that the Holy Ark attained the pinnacle of its holiness. The fact is that even during the Israelites march through the desert there were only a few days during which the people were on the march, whereas during more than 99% of the time the people and the Tabernacle remained stationary in a part of the Tabernacle that even the High Priest only entered one single time during the year. (four times during that day). During all this time, there was no need for the staves to be attached to the Ark This is why the Torah wrote in Exodus 27,7 בשאת אותו, “when it is being carried.” (the altar)

It is also possible that but for the word והבאת I would have assumed that whereas the prohibition of removing the staves is not punishable by malkot, i.e. 39 lashes, as long as the staves had not been completely removed from the rings it is nonetheless forbidden. The word והבאת therefore comes to teach that if the Torah had wanted to forbid any kind of movement by these staves it would have written וקבעת, "you shall affix them," or וחברת "you shall attach them," instead of והבאת, "you shall insert them."

I have seen that Tossaphot on Yuma 72 ask why Rabbi Chanina based his query on the word והובא seeing that that verse deals with the staves that the copper altar was to be carried by while he ignored the word והבאת in our verse? Tossaphot ask further why Rabbi Chanina did not mention Numbers 4,5-7 which implies that the staves were removed each time the Israelites broke camp and dismantled the Tabernacle. This would contradict the Torah's directive not to remove the staves from the Holy Ark. Tossaphot answer that there were a total of eight rings and four staves attached to the Holy Ark. They base themselves on the wording: (Exodus 25,12) according to which four rings were to be attached to the four corners of the altar and another 4 rings, two each, to opposite sides of the ark. Accordingly, there would have had to be four staves, etc. I cannot justify the opinion expressed by Tossaphot. Many objections can be raised against that interpretation of the verse quoted. The matter is really very simple. The copies of the Talmud quoting Rabbi Chanina as basing himself on the word והובא are simply a scribe's error; Rabbi Chanina did indeed refer to the word והבאת.

As far as the question raised from Numbers 4,7: ושמו בדיו is concerned, I think that seeing that the purpose of the staves on the Holy Ark was that it be carried by means of them when G'd commanded that the dividing curtain be used to cover the ark when it would be transported, He instructed that the priests drape it over the ark in such a fashion that the Kehatites who would carry it on their shoulders would not need to set eyes on the exposed ends of these staves. Rabbi Yehudah of Orleans (in that Tossaphot) felt that the meaning of Numbers 4,7 is that the staves be put on the shoulders of the Levites. Other Tossaphists have already discounted such an explanation as you can see when perusing the text on Yuma 72. There are additional arguments which can be raised against Rabbi Orleans' suggestion. Considering all the arguments, it is better to adopt my solution. I have no idea how these Tossaphists propose to deal with the fact that our verse (25,12) speaks distinctly of "two rings on its side," not of four. Possibly, G'd commanded two rings to be affixed to the body of the ark in such a way that they could not move, whereas afterwards He commanded Moses to insert two more rings inside the original ones. The latter could be moved backward and forward. This would then be part of the artistic excellence employed when constructing the ark enabling those who carried it to do so with relative ease. At any rate, I cannot abide the thought that there were more than two staves by means of which the ark was carried.

ונתת אל הארן — It must be explained as though it were written בארון: [AND THOU SHALT PUT] INTO THE ARK,

ונתת אל הארון, the details were spelled out seeing this vessel had nothing to do with, and would not have been suitable for, sacrificial service.

את העדות, the Tablets which represented the testimony and covenant between G’d and Israel. This is also the reason why Moses refers to them as לוחות הברית, “Tablets of the covenant,” in Deuteronomy 9,9.

The Torah, which is testimony. . . [Question:] It is written in 40:20, “He took the Testimony and placed it into the ark,” and Rashi explains it means the Tablets. Furthermore, the Torah was not written until the end of the forty years. [Why then does Rashi here say that “Testimony” means the Torah?] It seems the answer is: In our verse it is written, “The Testimony that I will give you,” in the future tense. But, the Ten Commandments were already given! Although the Tablets were broken, Moshe assumedly wrote it down or he prayed that the Tablets be restored to their original form. Perforce, our verse refers to the entire Torah, which would be written later.

V. 16. ונתת אל הארן את העדות: Dem mit goldgleicher Gediegenheit und Festigkeit und mit baumgleicher Entwicklungsfrische zum ewigen Forttragen des Gesetzes bereiten Volke wird das Gesetz anvertraut. Des Gesetzes Repräsentanz sind die עדותTafeln, deren Dasein selbst allen Folgegeschlechtern die Tatsache der Offenbarung des Gesetzes bezeugen und daher עדות: Zeugnis heißen. Von vornherein hat somit Gott auf Leugner und Verächter seines Gesetzes gerechnet, für deren Belehrung und Warnung er das "Zeugnis" niederlegte. Ist ja ein Zeugnis nur Zweiflern und Leugnern gegenüber vonnöten.

ונתת אל הארון את העדות, “you (Moses) will place within it the testimony which I will give to you.” This verse does not contain the essence of this commandment, as in verse 21 this line has been repeated. The reason it appeared in our verse is merely to tell us why the Ark was not to be moved, (unless for accompanying the Israelites on their journey through the desert). It sanctity was such that any unnecessary moving of the Ark would diminish its sanctity in the eyes of the beholder. It possessed such sanctity already on account of housing the Testimony and the original Torah scroll in the future, after G–d would give the Tablets to Moses upon his having completed his lengthy visits to the top of Mount Sinai.

'ונתת אל הארון וגו, “you are to deposit inside the Ark, etc;” this verse provides the justification for the words written earlier that the Ark be treated with the utmost reverence. This was because it contained the Tablets upon which the words of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people had been written by G-d himself.

העדות THE TESTIMONY — the Torah (the Tablets; cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:20) which is a testimony between Me and you that I have ordained the commandments written in it (Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 4).

The word אל here has been chosen instead of the prefix letter ב, which means “in,” or “into.” This is not a unique construction as we have found it also in Exodus 15,25: וישלך אל המים, “he threw it into the water,” as well as in Numbers 19,6: אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “into the fire consuming the cow;” or Numbers 19,17: מים חיים אל כלי, “fresh water from a well into a vessel.”

כפרת — A cover for the ark which was made open on top. He laid it upon it, flat like an ordinary slab.

כפורת, an expression meaning “cover.”

And you shall make the cover: ... And the two keruvim resembled children, to teach that [only] if the teacher is like an angel of God and clean of all sin - like a one-year-old child - they should then seek Torah from his mouth. And he needs to be clean from [sin against] God and from [sin against] man. For the wings were pointed upward to [show] his fulfilling [his obligation] towards the Heavens. And one was looking towards the other [to show] his fulfilling [his obligation] towards the creatures, [and also] teaches about the peace that is given to those that love the Torah. And they were twins together in peace and friendship. (Verse 20:) "The faces of the cherubim being turned toward the cover" -  that the entire endeavor of their attention (literally, faces) be to the Torah in the ark; not like those that are sages in their own eyes and expound for their own glory and not for the glory of the Torah.

Its thickness was a tefach. [Rashi knows this] because in Vayikra 16:2 it is written פני הכפורת , and פנים (face) is at least a tefach in size.

VV. 17 — 20. כפורת. Alle sonstigen Bedeutungen der Wurzel כפר, Pech, Reif, Dorf, Löwenoberhaupt, Sühne, gehen in den einen Grundgedanken: Decken, Schützen, Bewahren, zusammen, und demgemäß heißt auch כפורת nichts anderes, als ein Deckel zum Schutz und zur Bewahrung. Aus dem Deckel gingen zwei כרובים hervor. Diese Cherubim waren nicht dem Deckel angefügt, sie waren קשה — ) מקשה, verwandt mit ישה, wovon יש und ישע, welche beide eine Intensität des Seins bedeuten, bezeichnet einen hohen Grad stofflicher Kohärenz: hart, massiv, daher מקשה: massive, nicht aus Stücken zusammengesetzte, aus einem Stück getriebene Arbeit —), sie waren mit dem Deckel aus einem Stücke, משני קצות הכפורת, sie gingen aus den beiden Enden des Deckels hervor: der Deckel selbst ward in seinen beiden Enden zu Cherubim.

ועשית כפרת, “you are to construct a lid;” the Torah did not give measurements for the thickness of this lid, seeing that only the surface of it would be visible. The height of the outer golden wall of the Ark would completely enclose its depth.

אמתים וחצי ארכה TWO CUBITS AND A HALF SHALL BE THE LENGTH THEREOF, as was the length of the ark, and its (the cover’s) breadth was as the breadth of the ark (i. e. of the inner wooden ark, cf. Rashi on v. 11); thus it rested on the thickness of its four walls. Although it does not assign any size for its (the cover’s) thickness our Rabbis have explained (applying to it a ג"ש) that the thickness thereof was one handbreadth (Sukkah 5a).

'אמתים וחצי ארכו וגו, corresponding to the dimensions of the Ark.

Der ארון hat sich uns als die Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes durch Israel mit goldreiner Festigkeit gegen alles Schlechte und baumgleicher Tatentfaltung alles Guten ausgesprochen. Zu dieser Erfüllung fügt der כפורת die Hut, das משמרת, das Hüten und Bewahren dieser Aufgabe, die שמירה der מצות, die in Verbindung mit der Erfüllung — ושמרתם ועשיתם — alles umfasst, was Gott von Israel für sein Gesetz erwartet. Wie aber die Cherubim פניהם אל הכפרת und סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת, geistige Aufmerksamkeit und materiellen Schutz dem כפרת zuwenden, so haben auch die Weisen in der durch den כפרת dem Gesetze bestimmten שמירה die doppelte Aufgabe erkannt: die geistige Aufmerksamkeit, תלמוד, das stete Richten des Geistes auf das Gesetz, zum Erfassen und Bewahren seiner Gebote im Geiste, und: den tatsächlichen Schutz, סיגים ותקנות, jene Zaungesetze und Einrichtungen, durch welche Israel selbst ein משמרת um das Gesetz, und sich einen Sporn und eine Förderung der Erfüllung alles Guten gesetzt.

ארון und כפורת zeigen somit die Hingebung aller Geistes- und Tatkraft zur Hut und Erfüllung des aus Gottes Händen hingenommenen Gesetzes.

Die Cherubim aber, zu denen sich die Enden des כפורת gestalten, zeigen die Folgen, die diese Hut und Erfüllung für Israel, das erfüllende und hütende, habe. כרובים erscheinen im Kreise des heiligen Schrifttums in doppelter Bestimmung: als Wächter und Schützer und als Träger der göttlichen Herrlichkeit.

Zu Wächtern des Weges zum Baume des Lebens werden Bereschit 3, 24. כרובים bestellt. "את כרוב, du bist ein Cherub", lautet Jechesk. 28, 14 f. das Wort an die tyrische Königsmacht, "du bist ein Cherub, ממשח הסוכך, durch Salbung zum Schirmer!" und wird sie sofort auch "schützender Cherub!" genannt. Die Bedeutung der Cherubim als Wächter und Schützer dürfte somit unzweifelhaft sein. Nicht minder sicher ist auch diejenige als Träger der göttlichen Herrlichkeit. Auf Cherub getragen eilt Gott Ps. 18, 11 welterschütternd zu Davids Rettung herbei. Jechesk. 9 u. 10 erscheinen Cherubim als Träger der göttlichen Herrlichkeit. Insbesondere aber ists das (Ps. 80, 2 u. 99, 1; Sam. I. 4. 4; Sam. II. 6, 2; Kön. II. 19, 15; Chron. I. 13,6; Jes. 37. 16) stereotype Attribut יושב הכרובים, das den Cherubim diese Bestimmung vindiziert. Indem es nicht יושב בכרובים oder על הכרובים, sondern יושב הכרובים heißt, so ist, wie die Vergleichung der Ausdrücke יושב בארץ und יושב הארץ, sowie aller der Stellen, in welchen יושב mit oder ohne Präposition vorkommt, lehrt, nicht eine vorübergehende, sondern eine bleibende Gegenwart, ein Wohnen bezeichnet, und bezieht sich demnach wohl das הכרובים nur auf die Cherubim im Heiligtume.

Auch hier erscheinen die Cherubim offenbar in dieser doppelten Bestimmung als Schirmer und Träger. Schon die Beschreibung, ihrer Stellung spricht dies aus: "Die Cherubim sollen ihre Flügel aufwärts ausbreiten — (למעלה: aufwärts, nicht מלמעלה: darüber) — deckend, סוככים, mit ihren Flügeln über den Deckel, ihr Angesicht einer dem andern zugewendet; "zum Deckel hin soll das Angesicht der Cherubim gerichtet sein". Die Bestimmung zu schützen und zu schirmen ist ausdrücklich. Sowohl das סוככים der Flügel als die Richtung des Angesichts auf den Deckel spricht diese Bestimmung deutlich aus. Allein auch die andere Bestimmung, das Tragen der göttlichen Herrlichkeit, scheint uns in dem פורשים כנפים למעלה ausgesprochen zu sein. Sie waren aufwärts zum Tragen aus der Höhe gebreitet. Die über den Deckel hin aufwärts gebreiteten Flügel erfüllten gleichzeitig die doppelte Bestimmung, sie schützten den Deckel und trugen die göttliche Herrlichkeit. Die schirmende und bewahrende Bestimmung tritt allerdings in der Erscheinung in den Vordergrund: sowohl das Schirmende, als das zu schirmende Objekt ist sichtbar. Die zweite Bestimmung spricht sich jedoch nur durch die zum Tragen eines oberhalb Ruhenden gebreitete Stellung der Flügel aus. Die Träger und die tragende Tätigkeit sind sichtbar, unsichtbar aber das zu Tragende. Denn das ist eben die in kein Bild zu fassende Herrlichkeit Gottes.

Die Cherubim erscheinen nun nicht unmittelbar als Hüter und Wächter des Zeugnisses selbst, sondern als Hüter und Wächter des סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת ,כפרת, אל הכפרת יהיו פני הכרובים, sowohl ihre geistige Aufmerksamkeit, als ihr materieller Schutz ist dem כפורת zugewendet. Indem aber andererseits die Cherubim nichts anderes sind als der Deckel selbst, der, nachdem er den Schutz des Zeugnisses vollendet hat — משני קצות הכפרת — sich über sich selber erhebt und zu seinen eigenen Cherubim wird, die ihn schützen und die Gottesherrlichkeit tragen, so ist damit in prägnantester Weise der Gedanke ausgesprochen:

Durch die Hut des göttlichen Gesetzes wird der Hüter sein eigener und der göttlichen Herrlichkeit Cherub; seine Hut des göttlichen Gesetzes wird zu seiner eigenen Hut und zugleich Träger der Herrlichkeit Gottes auf Erden.

Mit jeder Hut und Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes bedingt Israel nur die eigene Erhaltung und Förderung des eigenen Heils und bereitet sich zu einer Stätte der göttlichen Herrlichkeit auf Erden. Israels der Hut und der Erfüllung der תורה zugewandte Geisteskraft und Gewissenhaftigkeit werden zu Cherubim -— כרובים משני קצות הכפרת — die es selber erhalten und schirmen und die שכינה, die Gottesherrlichkeit, auf ihm ruhen lassen. Der Anblick der goldenen, das göttliche Gesetz in Gold und Holz umschließenden, mit goldenem, zu schützenden und tragenden Cherubim sich vollendendem Deckel das göttliche Gesetz schirmenden Lade des Zeugnisses sagt jeglichem das, was Gott zu Josua, dem Führer Israels, gesprochen:

רק חזק ואמץ מאוד לשמור לעשות ככל התורה אשר צוך משה עבדי אל תסור ממנו ימין ושמאול למען תשכיל בכל אשר תלך, לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה למען תשמור לעשות ככל הכתוב בו אז תצליח את דרכך ואו תשכיל, הלא צויתיך חזק ואמץ אל תערץ ואל תחת .כי עמך ד׳ אלקיך בכל אשר תלך

Da tritt die goldene Stärke und Festigkeit in den Vordergrund, die sich in Erfüllung und Hut des Gesetzes zu bewähren hat, durch die unverwandte geistige Beschäftigung mit dem Gesetze bedingt ist, und die vernunftgemäße und glückliche Gestaltung des ganzen irdischen Wandels, und die in allem und bei allem helfende und segnende Gotttesnähe zur Folge hat.

Sagt jeglichem das, was Gott unserer ganzen Gesamtheit als Folge der vollendeten Hut und Erfüllung seines Gesetzes verheißen:

והיה עקב תשמעון את המשפטים האלה ושמרתם ועשיתם אותם ושמר ד׳ אלדיך לך את הברית ואת החסד אשר נשבע לאבתיך ואהבך וברכך והרבן .וגו׳ וגו׳ וגו׳

Das endlich, was das göttliche Gesetz selber von sich auf allen Seiten verkündet, dass mit seiner Hut und seiner Erfüllung Israel nur seine eigene Erhaltung und sein eigenes Heil begründet und sich die segnende Bundesnähe seines Gottes erhält.

So ist ארון וכפרת die Vergegenwärtigung der Aufgabe: ועשו לי מקדש und die כרובים die Vergegenwärtigung der daraus hervorgehenden Folge: ושכנתי בתוכם.

Wir hätten nur noch die Frage zu stellen und deren Lösung zu versuchen: warum שני כרובים, warum zwei Cherubim? Der כפורת, der in seinen Enden sich zu Cherubim erhebt, die Gesetzeshut, die in ihren Folgen Schutz und segnende Gottesnähe gewährt, Israel, das durch die Hut des anvertrauten Gotteszeugnisses sein eigener und zugleich der Cherub der Gottesgegenwart auf Erden wird, alles dieses ist ein einheitlicher Begriff und dem würde ein einziger Cherub entsprechen. Woher zwei Cherubim? Diese Frage ist um so notwendiger, da in dem Bisherigen noch ein Umstand nicht mit in Betrachtung gezogen worden, dessen Verständnis wesentlich durch Lösung dieser Frage bedingt ist. Die Cherubim haben nicht nur das Angesicht dem כפורת, sondern auch ausdrücklich einer dem andern zugewandt, נופניהם איש אל אחיו es müssen daher hier zwei Momente ihre Darstellung haben, die, während sie gemeinschaftlich die Hut des כפורת, die Hut des Gesetzhüters, vollbringen, sich gegenseitig beachten und bezwecken, oder vielmehr die, indem sie sich gegenseitig beachten und bezwecken, gemeinschaftlich die Hut des Gesetzhüters vollbringen. Es heißt ja: והיו הכרובים פרשי כנפים וגו׳ ופניהם איש אל אחיו אל הכפרת יהיו פני הכרובים.

Der ארון, sowie sein Inhalt und die Verhältnisse, die er zur Anschauung bringt, bieten verschiedene Anknüpfungspunkte zur Lösung dieser Frage. Überall tritt ein Dualismus hervor. Das Zeugnis, das Objekt der Hut, besteht aus zweien Tafeln. Die Lade, die Aufnahme des Zeugnisses, die dem Zeugnis gewidmete Erfüllung, besteht aus zweien Stoffen, aus zwei Aufgaben. Die Hut selbst, wie wir erkannt, vollzieht sich durch zwei Momente, die theoretische und die praktische Hut. Jeder dieser drei Bestandteile, die den Begriff und die Bedeutung der Lade erschöpfen, das Objekt, die Erfüllung, die Hut, besteht somit aus zwei Seiten, die beide gleich wesentlich, beide sich gegenseitig ergänzen, sich gegenseitig zu beachten und zu bezwecken haben, die somit auch in der Hut dualistisch, aber in gegenseitiger Beachtung und Bezweckung einheitlich, zur gemeinsamen Lösung der Hut des Gesetzhüters sich vereinigen können, somit in der Hut als zwei sich gegenseitig und zusammen dem כפורת mit dem Angesichte zugewandte Cherubim erscheinen können, wie wir diese Gedanken, als mögliche Lösung unserer Frage Jeschurun VI. S. 246 f. vollständiger wiederzugeben versucht haben.

Dem von uns in den "Grundlinien einer jüdischen Symbolik" aufgestellten hermeneutischen Kanon gemäß, demzufolge die Deutung eines Symbols nicht über das unmittelbar darin Gegebene hinausgehen dürfe, und sich diejenige Deutung als die wahrscheinlichere empfiehlt, deren Voraussetzungen dem Gedankenkreise des durch das Symbol zu Belehrenden am natürlichsten nahe liegen, dürften nur zwei Auffassungen festzuhalten sein, die sich noch dazu in vollkommener Weise ihrem innersten Wesen nach als Eine Idee darstellen.

Für die Auffassung, dass die Gepaartheit der Cherubim aus der Gepaartheit des Objektes hervorgehe, das den eigentlichen Gegenstand und Inhalt der Lade bildet, spricht eben das Moment, dass dieses Objekt ein für das allgemeinste Bewusstsein in den beiden Tafeln, dem ersten und wesentlichsten Inhalte der Lade, gegebener Gegenstand ist, dessen stete Vergegenwärtigung beim Anblick der Cherubim und deren Auffassung am leichtesten vorausgesetzt werden konnte. Lagen doch die beiden Tafeln, wie oben zu V. 10 bemerkt, neben einander, also dass, wenn man vor der Lade stand und sich den Deckel rechts und links in zwei Hälften dachte, jede Hälfte eine Tafel deckte, also dass, wenn jede Deckelhälfte sich zu einem Cherub erhob, dieser Cherub eben aus der Hut einer der Tafeln hervorging. Diese beiden Tafeln waren nun einander an Größe völlig gleich, לחת כתיב ,שני לחת העדות: sie kündigten sich als eine Einheit an. Wenn die eine Tafel vorzugsweise מצות שבין אדם למקום, die Grundlage unserer Beziehungen zu Gott, die andere מצות שבין אדם לחברו, die Grundlage unserer sozialen Beziehungen zum Nebenmenschen enthält, so sind doch beide Beziehungen in ihrer Dignität vor Gott und in ihrem, unser Heil bedingenden Einflusse einander völlig gleich, keine kann der anderen entbehren, keine die andere ersetzen, keine darf die andere außer Augen lassen. Soll die Hut des Gesetzes Israel, den Hüter, selber hüten und ihn zum Träger der Gottesherrlichkeit vollenden: so muss diese Hut beiden Tafeln in gleicher, sich gegenseitig ergänzender und bezweckender Beachtung gelten, so muss diese Hut in ihrer Vollendung sich nicht als ein Cherub, sondern als ein Cherubimpaar erheben, das sich gegenseitig beachtet und bezweckt, und indem es zusammen des Hüters Hut vollbringt, sich zugleich gemeinschaftlich der Gottesherrlichkeit zur Stätte auf Erden darbietet: משני קצות הכפרת שנים כרובים — פניהם איש אל אחיו — סככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת ואל הכפרת פניהם — פרשי כנפים למעלה!

Allein um die Gepaartheit der Cherubim zu begreifen, bedarf es nicht einmal eines Zurückgehens auf den doch immerhin dem Auge entzogenen Inhalt der Lade. Der sich unmittelbar als "Hüter des Gesetzes" aussprechende כפורת selbst bietet das Motiv zu dieser Gepaartheit dar. Wenn der Cherubimdeckel den Gedanken ausspricht: "durch die Hut des göttlichen Gesetzes wird der Hüter sein eigener und der göttlichen Herrlichkeit Cherub, die Hut des göttlichen Gesetzes wird zu seiner eigenen Hut, und zugleich zum Träger der göttlichen Herrlichkeit auf Erden" so ist ja dieser Hüter nichts anderes als Israel, das im ארון das Gesetz mit seiner Tatkraft und Festigkeit zur Erfüllung aufnimmt und im כפורת dessen Hut mit seiner schirmenden Festigkeit vollbringt. Dann kann aber auch das Cherubimpaar, zu welchem der כפורת in seinen Enden wird, das Bild Israels vorstellen, wie es als Folge der vollendeten Gesetzeshut und aus derselben hervorgehen soll.

Wie sich uns aber bei der Betrachtung der Gesamtheitsopfer ergeben wird, kennt das göttliche Gesetz eine zweifache Darstellung der Gesamtheit: als eine Einheit und als eine Zweiheit. So wie die Volksgesamtheit sich auch im Wort zweifach darstellt: als גוי und als עם, jenes die Gesamtheit als Volk, als einen Körper (גו), als eine geschlossene Einheit nach außen, dieses aber die Gesamtheit als Gesellschaft in ihrer zusammenverbundenen (עם ,עמם) Vielheit nach innen begreift, — so tritt auch im Heiligtume die Gesamtheit in zwiefacher Darstellung auf: als einheitliches Ganze durch die Zahl eins, und in der Vielheit aller ihrer zusammengehörigen Glieder durch die Zahl zwei, das Minimum der Vielheit. Somit wäre auch hier die Gesamtheit Israels nicht durch einen Cherub, sondern durch zwei Cherubim, durch ein Cherubimpaar zum Ausdruck gebracht, und die holz-goldene Lade des Zeugnisses mit dem goldenen Cherubimdeckel spräche die Wahrheit aus:

Wenn Israel mit goldener Festigkeit die tatkräftige und pflichtgetreue Erfüllung des ganzen ihm übergebenen Gesetzes bis zur Vollendung hütet, dann gestaltet es durch diese Hut in ihrer Vollendung sich nicht nur in seiner einheitlichen Gesamtheit zum גוי קדוש, sondern in allen seinen Gliedern zum ממלכת כהנים, zu einer Gesamtheit, deren jegliches Glied die dreifache Bestimmung erfüllt: des Nächsten Heil fördert, das Gesamtheil schirmt und Mitträger ist der göttlichen Herrlichkeit auf Erden — dann wird Israel zu Cherubimpaaren, die, in gegenseitiger Achtung und Beachtung einander friedlich zugewandt, einer für den andern da sind, einer für den andern Bürge, einer dem andern anvertraut, — in brüderlichem Gesamtwirken die Gesetz hütende Gesamtheit schirmen, — und sich zusammen zu einem Throne der göttlichen Herrlichkeit auf Erden vollenden, — dann wird Israel zu שנים כרובים משני סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת — פניהם איש אל אחיו — קצות הכפרת — אל הכפרת פניהם - פורשי כנפים למעלה —; dann wird יושב הכרובים identisch mit יושב תהלות ישראל.! (Ps. 22, 4.)

Wenn wir hier Israel selbst als Cherub begreifen, dürfte es nicht überflüssig sein, daran zu erinnern, wie ja (Jecheskeel 28, 14) selbst Tyrus als כרוב סוכך, als schirmender Cherub ausführlich geschildert wird. War Tyrus ein "Cherub", dem die materielle Macht und die Kultur der Völker zur Hut übergeben waren, so kann mit um so größerem Fug Israel als "Cherub" erscheinen, dem das Gottesgesetz der Menschheit anvertraut worden, das auf Erden gesetzt ist לשמור דרך עץ החיים, und von dem Gott gesprochen: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם — —

Beide Auffassungen dürften sich in tieferem Grunde als völlig identisch herausstellen. Denn: enthalten die beiden Tafeln des Zeugnisses etwas anderes, als eben jene doppelte Beziehung, die sich auch sowohl im Blick als in der Flügelbreitung der Cherubim offenbart? Sind die mit Geist und Tat zu erfüllenden מצות שבין אדם לחברו der einen etwas anderes, als die einander zugewandten Blicke und die über die das Gesetz hütende Gesamtheit sich deckenden Cherubimflügel? Und sind die mit Geist und Tat zu erfüllenden מצות שבין אדם למקום der andern etwas anderes, als die der Gesetzeshut zugewandten Cherubimblicke und die sich der Gottesherrlichkeit aus der Höhe entgegenbreitenden Cherubimfittiche? Und ist somit die Lade mit ihrem Cherubimdeckel etwas anderes, als die Vergegenwärtigung des vollen Inhaltes des in der Lade bewahrten göttlichen Gesetzes in seiner reinsten, vollendetsten Verwirklichung?

כרבים CHERUBIM — They had the form of a child’s face (Sukkah 5a).

כרובים. Birds. (shapes of) We base this on Ezekiel 28,14 את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “as a cherub with protective outstretched wings.” (compare Rashi) It is a large bird. Our sages (Sukkah 5) understand the word to mean “having the faces of young children, toddlers.”

They had the likeness of a child’s face. [Rashi knows this] since it is written , כרובים we [could] read it as כרביא , i.e., “like a youth.” Onkelos [elsewhere] translates “child” as רביא , and the כ of כרובים means “like.”

שנים כרובים, “two cherubs.” Compare Ezekiel28,14, את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “like a cherub with outstretched wings;” they are a certain type of bird. Seeing that birds are both clean animals and move in a clean atmosphere most of the time; even though the Torahin the second of the Ten Commandments had expressly forbidden us to make anything that is like creatures on earth or in the sky, the reason why the making of the cherubs is exempt from this was that it was not made to be worshipped, but to remain hidden inside the most inaccessible part of the Temple. We have a parallel of this in Isaiah 6,12 where the prophet described having had a vision of the Lord seated on His throne surrounded by such creatures each having six wings. Even in the Torah we find exceptions to overriding commands, such as “anyone who performs forbidden work on the Sabbath being guilty of legal execution,” (Exodus 35,2) while the priests performed such work in the Temple every Sabbath when offering the daily communal sacrifices. Not only that, even individuals, when becoming fathers of a boy baby born on the Sabbath circumcised him on the following Sabbath. (Leviticus 18,16) The Torah strictly forbade marrying the wife of a brother, but made an exception if said brother had died without children, and encouraged a surviving brother to marry the widow who had been his brother’s wife in order to provide him with issue. Similar exceptions are in place for wearing wool garments with tzitzit, ritual fringes, including wool and linen. There is a positive commandment to this effect (Compare Deuteronomy 22,12)

מקשה תעשה OF BEATEN WORK SHALT THOU MAKE [THEM] — i. e. thou shalt not make them separately (apart from the actual lid) and join them to the ends of the lid after they have been made, like goldsmith’s work which is called in old French souder (English solder) — but lay down a large mass of gold (lit., much gold) when thou beginnest to make the lid and beat upon the middle part of it (the gold) with a hammer or with a mallet, so that its ends will project upward (stand out in relief), and then shape the cherubim out of the projecting edges.

מקשה, hammered out of the thickness of the lid, i.e. the whole was a single chunk

The extreme ends of the cover. These are the ends of the ark’s length, not its width. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, one cherub’s back would be to the Tent of Meeting, which is improper. Furthermore, it is written (v. 22): “I will set My meetings with you there, and I will speak with you from above the cover.” If the back of one cherub was toward the Tent of Meeting, its body would be an obstruction between the Tent of Meeting and the place from where Hashem’s voice emanated.

מקשה batediz (beaten work) in old French Similarly we have (Daniel 5:6) “and his knees knocked (נקשן) one against another”.

קצות הכפרת means THE EXTREMITIES OF THE COVER.

ועשה כרוב אחד מקצה AND MAKE ONE CHERUB FROM ONE EXTREMITY — In order that you should not say that the preceding verse means two cherubim on each extremity, it was necessary to expressly state: “one cherub from the one extremity and one cherub from the other extremity”.

מקצה, from the center of the border in the width of the Ark so that the cherubs would be facing the sanctuary when mounted on the Ark.

מן הכפרת תעשו, “you shall make them integral parts of the Ark’s lid.” Incidentally, the cherubs constructed in Solomon’s Temple were not mounted on the Ark’s lid. (Kings I 6, 2327)

מן הכפרת FROM THE COVER itself, תעשו את הכרבים SHALL YE MAKE THE CHERUBIM — This is the explanation of: (v. 18) “of beaten work shalt thou make them” — that thou shalt make them out of the cover itself and that thou shalt not make them by themselves and afterwards join them to the cover.

פרשי כנפים [AND THE CHERUBIM SHALL] SPREAD THEIR WINGS [ON HIGH] — i. e. that you shall not make their wings touching the body but spreading on high slightly above but almost on the same level with their heads so that the hollow space between the wings and the cover shall be ten handbreadths, as it is explained in Treatise Sukkah 5b.

והיו הכרובים, our prophets have already explained to us that when they had visions involving angels, such angels appeared to them in the guise of cherubs. This means that they had faces like humans but were equipped with wings. In spite of appearing as if physical beings, the fact that they represented disembodied intelligence was indicated by the fact that their motion was ever upwards when the prophet observed them as if being in motion. In other words, any motion ascribed to them was in the direction of facing towards G’d exclusively. Each one of these cherubs, whenever and to whomsoever they appeared, did so according to his respective level, rank, in the celestial hierarchy. והיו הכרובים פורשי כנפים, the cherubs were always in a posture of having extended wings. The human intelligence is one that aspires to attain union with its counterpart (the source from which it is derived). The process leading to this involves the understanding of certain mental disciplines in which the owner of this intelligence divests himself of any and all consideration involving concretization, i.e. concepts involving the material universe. Only in this manner can a human being attain the kind of understanding of the Divine that he is willing and capable of attaining, each according to the level of his intelligence and his piety. Such insights are achieved by intelligently looking at the manifestations of G’d in this world, studying about His attributes by gaining knowledge about how and when He does intervene in history by overriding the laws of nature which He Himself formulated and instituted. Knowing under what circumstances G’d will resort to such extraordinary miracles, and appreciating the rationale behind it, is what enables the prophet at certain times to evoke G’d’s direct involvement in the fates of individuals. When Moses asked G’d הןדיעני נא את דרכך, “please instruct me in Your ways,” (33,13) he wanted precisely these kinds of guidelines. When the Torah describes the cherubs as פורשי כנפים למעלה, this describes the source from which all this inspiration has to come. The sages already explained that these cherubs had the faces of a young boy and a young girl, (Yuma 54) a reference to the initiation of actions originating in a domain which is part of the abstract world. What is initiated there resembles something masculine, as the male is symbolic of initiating matters whereas the female’s role is more responsive in nature. ופניהם איש אל אחיו, this describes that what is initiated in abstract, disembodied regions of the universe, i.e. in heaven, is accepted, received willingly and in a complementary fashion by the creatures in this concrete, i.e. physical part of the universe, Only by a merging of these two basic constituent parts of our universe can “perfection” on earth be attained. The reason why the Torah continues in describing these cherubs as facing the lid of the Ark, i.e. looking downwards whereas their wings are spread upwards, is a reminder that although inspiration originates in heaven, understanding of G’d and how He works can only come by paying close attention and studying what He does in our material, “lower” part of His universe. The ideal means of unraveling the meaning of G’d’s actions is through His revealed word, the Torah, of which the Ark has become the repository. The upshot of the message contained in the symbolism represented by the cherubs, their shape, their posture, etc., is that for us on earth the key to obtain all these insights must be obtained by study of the Torah. By giving us the Torah, allowing us to build the Tabernacle, etc.,

למעלה, toward their heads. ופניהם איש אל אחיו, facing the center area on the surface of the lid. (from the outside toward the center and each other)

One to another. This is to teach regarding strong love, like the groom when he sees the bride, and enjoys just looking at her.

סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפורת , “spreading their wings over the kapporet.” This verse refers to these cherubs which were 10 handbreadths in height; this is the source of the sages proving that the interior height of the Sukkah, exclusive of its covering must not be less than ten handbreadths (Sukkah 5). The cherubs occupied the lower third of the Tabernacle seeing that the interior of the Tabernacle was 10 cubits high and the cubit comprised 6 handbreadths. We have already shown that the height of the Ark including the kapporet but excluding the cherubs was also ten handbreadths, so that the cherubs occupied the upper ten of the lower 20 handbreadths. This is what was meant by the statement that they were standing in the “third” of the Tabernacle, i.e. the lower third. The words סוככים על הכפורת mean that there was enough space beneath their wings to form the minimum height for a Sukkah.

Rather, spread open. . . Rashi is saying that the term פורשי (lit. “shall spread”) means פרושי (are spread open). [Rashi explains that the term is in the passive form] because the cherubim are not living beings [and cannot spread their wings]. It would have been sufficient for Rashi just to explain that פורשי means פרושי . But because פורשי refers to the [action of the] cherubim, while פרושי refers to the [state of the] wings, therefore Rashi says: “Do not make their wings lying” [i.e., in a closed position] — to show that the term refers to the wings.

פורשי כנפים מעלה, “spreading their wings upwards;” the wings were spread above their heads. This was to symbolise humility. [If the head were to be above the wings, this would be a sign of arrogance; this is why Jews always cover their heads when under an open sky. Ed.]

פורשי כנפים, “spreading wings;” to make them look like birds; the reason for this was that birds are viewed as the cleanest creatures (compare what we wrote on verse 18),

Toward the ark-cover. To teach us that the vision of the Holy One and Israel, together, is toward the Torah in the ark, and this is what explains [the saying that] the Holy One, and Israel, and the Torah are one, as it is known.

So that there be ten tefachim in the space. . . [Rashi knows this] because the mishkon was one-third the size of the mikdosh, which was thirty amohs high. The cherubim reached until the top one-third of its height, i.e., ten amohs. But the mishkon was ten amohs high, the equal of sixty tefachim. Therefore the cherubim needed to reach until [the top] one-third [the height] of the mishkon, i.e., twenty tefachim. The ark was one and a half amoh or nine tefachim high, and the cover was a tefach, totaling ten tefachim. [The wings were spread and occupied a space of ten tefachim above the cover, reaching a height of twenty tefachim].

אל הכפורת, “in the direction of the lid of the Ark.” Their faces were turned downwards.

למעלה, “upwards;” above their head; in a posture of modesty and humility. This is matched by the way Isaiah describes his vision of these seraphim covering their bodies with their wings including their faces, (Isaiah 6,2)

ופניהם איש אל אחיו, “and they are to face one another;” these details all prove that these cherubs were not intended to be deities to be worshipped, else they would have faced their onlookers so that these could prostrate themselves in front of them. How is this proof? Supposing there had been only one cherub on the lid of the Holy Ark, or if the face of one of them (if there were two) had been turned toward the people, one could have perhaps understood the symbolism as meaning that their purpose was to inspire awe of them in their onlookers. Seeing, however, that they faced each other, is clear proof that they had no interest in any onlooker. Furthermore, though their wings were pointing upwards, their faces were looking down at the lid, i.e. the space from which G-d’s words would emanate to Moses, and the area in which the Torah was kept. The most important proof that they were not meant to be worshipped by anyone, is the fact that they were in a place that was inaccessible to the people on pain of death. Their function therefore was merely to be servants of G-d rather than His competitors, just as the cherubs (seraphim) in Isaiah 6,2 were perceived as G-d’s servants standing in attendance before G-d’s throne.

ואל הארן תתן את העדות AND IN THE ARK THOU SHALT PUT THE TESTIMONY — I do not know why this is repeated for it has already been commanded, (v. 16) “and thou shalt put the Testimony in the ark”. One may say that it intends to tell us that whilst the ark is still by itself — i. e. without the cover — he should first put the Testimony into it, and only afterwards should he put the cover on it for the first time. Thus indeed do we find: that when he (Moses) erected the Tabernacle it is stated, (Exodus 40:20) “and he [took and] put the Testimony into the ark”, and afterwards it says, “and he put the cover upon the ark above it” (cf. Talmud Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1).

AND IN THE ARK THOU SHALT PUT THE TESTIMONY THAT I SHALL GIVE THEE. “I do not know why this is repeated, for it has already been stated [in Verse 16], And thou shalt put into the ark the Testimony which I shall give thee? One may answer that it intends to teach us that while the ark was still by itself, without its cover, he should first place the Testimony into it and then place the cover on it [for the first time]. Thus we find also when Moses set up the Tabernacle that Scripture says, And he put the Testimony into the ark,¹⁰⁹Further, 40:20. and after that it says,¹⁰⁹Further, 40:20. and he put the cover of the ark above.” This is Rashi’s language.
But if this be a command [as Rashi has it], the sense thereof would rather seem to be that after he puts the cover on the ark as G-d had commanded, [he should then remove the cover and] put the Testimony into the ark, for the term “ark” applies also when there is a cover on it. Moreover, one can also ask why did Scripture repeat the phrase from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the Testimony,¹¹⁰Verse 22. when it is known already from the preceding verses that the cherubim are upon the ark of Testimony? And what need is there to explain this again, seeing that He has already stated, from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubim?¹¹⁰Verse 22. But the explanation thereof is as follows: Because He had commanded that the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high,¹¹¹Verse 20. but had not said why they should be made altogether, and what function they should serve in the Tabernacle, and why they should be in that form, therefore He now said, and thou shalt put the ark-cover with the cherubim, for they are all one, above upon the ark, because in the ark thou shalt put the Testimony that I shall give thee, so that there be for Me a Throne of Glory, for there will I meet with thee and I will cause My Glory to dwell upon them, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubim because it is upon the ark of the testimony.¹¹⁰Verse 22. It is thus identical with the Divine Chariot which the prophet Ezekiel saw, of which he said, This is the living creature that I saw under the G-d of Israel by the river Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim.¹¹²Ezekiel 10:20. This is why He is called He Who sitteth upon the cherubim,¹¹³I Samuel 4:4. for they spread out their wings on high in order to teach us that they are the Chariot who carry the Glory, just as it is said, and gold for the pattern of the chariot, even the cherubim, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the Eternal,¹¹⁴I Chronicles 28:18. as I have mentioned.
In the opinion of our Rabbis¹¹⁵Chagigah 13b. the cherubim had the forms of a human being, the word being of the Aramaic language which calls a lad ravya. In that case the letter kaf in the word k’rubim (cherubim) is not part of the root of the word, but merely serves in a comparative function [meaning “as lads”], the name indicating their substance. If you will further contemplate as to why their faces were turned one to another,¹¹¹Verse 20. and why they were of beaten work,¹¹⁶Verse 18. you will be able to know that it was proper for them that they be spreading out their wings on high,¹¹¹Verse 20. for they are the throne of the Supreme One, sheltering the Testimony which is the writing of G-d.¹¹⁷Further, 32:16. This is the meaning of the expression, the pattern of the chariot,¹¹⁴I Chronicles 28:18. for the cherubim which Ezekiel saw carrying the Glory are the pattern of the cherubim [on high], these being the Glory and the tipheret (beauty); and the cherubim which were in the Tabernacle and in the Sanctuary were of a likeness to them, for one higher than the high watcheth, and there are higher than they.¹¹⁸Ecclesiastes 5:7. And this is the meaning of and I knew¹¹²Ezekiel 10:20. [and not “and I saw”], for Ezekiel saw one and knew the other [on high]. This is why he said “they” [and I knew that ‘they’ were cherubim]. The student learned in the mysteries of the Cabala will understand.

ונתת את הכפרת על הארון מלמעלה, "And you shall put the lid on top of the ark, from above;" Why did the Torah have to repeat that the "testimony" (Tablets with the Ten Commandments) should be placed inside the ark? We have already been told of this in 25,16! Rashi answers this problem saying that Moses was to first put the Tablets inside and subsequently to put the lid on the ark. He quotes 40,20 where the Torah describes Moses carrying out the instructions given here. Rashi's commentary suggests that unless the Torah had repeated itself one could have erred and thought that the Tablets were to be placed on top of the lid of the ark. I am not satisfied with this. First of all, there was no room on top of the lid for the Tablets as the whole top of the lid was taken up by the cherubs. Besides, if the Torah was concerned about the reader making such an error, it only had to add the word בתוך, "inside," in verse 16 instead of writing אל! There are other objections that could be raised against Rashi's commentary. The comments by Rabbi Eliyah Mizrachi on this duplication are not compatible with his usually profound insights. He wanted to defend Rashi by using the fact that Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra did not see any need to comment as proof that there is no difficulty at all. With all due respect, I feel that Rabbi Mizrachi succeeded in defending Rabbi Ibn Ezra's words rather than those of Rashi. The instructions in verse 16 had to precede those in verse 21 as otherwise the Torah would have commanded placing the lid on an empty ark, seeing that the instruction to put the Tablets inside it would have been issued after the directive to put the lid on top of the ark!

ואל הארון תתן, “and you are to place within the ark, etc.” Rashi explains that the reason why this verse appears to repeat what has been written already in verse 16, is to tell us that the Tablets were to be placed inside the ark even before the lid was placed on it. I might have thought otherwise that only after the lid had been constructed was the ark considered complete enough to house the Tablets. After that the lid would be placed on the ark. I do not understand what Rashi is saying. It is the most obvious thing that the Tablets could not have been placed inside the ark unless the lid was off at the time. Perhaps Rashi meant to say that the lid was not to be put on the ark at all, not even in order to move it from one site to another, unless the Tablets had already been placed inside it. Nachmanides, referring to Rashi’s commentary, writes that if indeed our verse is an instruction, this sounds most illogical; it would be far more likely that the Torah would instruct not to put the Tablets into an as yet incomplete piece of furniture, and only after the ark had been fitted with the lid were the Tablets to be placed inside. After all, the Torah writes that the Tablets are to placed inside the ark, and the ark is not called “ark,” unless it has been fitted with the lid first. Nachmanides also questions the words מעל הכפורת אשר על ארון העדות, “from above the lid, which is on top of the ark of the testimony.” Why would this information have to be repeated? We know that the cherubs were part of the lid, the כפורת! He therefore explains that seeing the Torah had neither explained the need for the cherubs, nor why they had to have their wingspans extended vis a vis each other, it is explained now that the voice of G’d when He spoke to Moses would appear to emanate from precisely this spot between the extended wings of the cherubs on top of the lid of the ark. Keeping all this in mind, the Torah repeats that seeing that the Shechinah will speak to Moses from between the outstretched wings of the cherubs, it is fitting that they are placed on the equivalent of a “throne,” כסא הכבוד. This “throne” for the Shechinah on earth, is the Holy Ark, when it is the repository of the Tablets that had been written by G’d Himself. Some commentators think that the reason the line was repeated is simply to teach that the first set of Tablets, the ones Moses had broken, were also to be placed inside the same Ark.

V. 21. Das Gesetz bildet das eigentliche Wesen der Lade, nur durch sein "Zeugnis" gewinnt die Lade Bedeutung, und nur auf die mit dem zu ihrem Inhalt aufgenommenen Gesetze bezieht sich der Cherubimdeckel mit seiner inhaltreichen Bedeutung. Der ארון muss erst ארון העדות geworden sein, bevor der כפרת auf ihn gesenkt wird. Somit ist das Tempelheiligtum dem "Gesetze" errichtet, und das, was im Leben die höchste und allgemeinste Herrschaft gewinnen soll, ist auch das, was im Tempel als das Allerheiligste verwahrt wird; der jüdische Staat und der jüdische Tempel bilden keine verschiedenen Kategorien. Sie dienen beide vereint einem und demselben Zwecke, der Verwirklichung des Gesetzes, das das einzige Prinzip der jüdischen Gesamtheit bildet.

ונתת את הכפרת על הארון מלמעלה, “you are to position the lid on top of the Ark.” This is followed by the instruction to place the Tablets inside the Ark after G-d would give these to Moses. How is this to be understood? As of the previous month of Ellul, when Moses had received the second set of Tablets they had rested in the ark which Moses had constructed prior to ascending the Mountain in order to receive them, as pointed out in Deuteronomy 10,3, when he said: “I made an Ark of shittim wood, and then I proceeded to carve out the two stone Tablets.” On the 25th day of Kislev following, when the construction of the Tabernacle and all its furnishings had been completed, he put the lid on the ark for the first time. This is what the commandment: “place the lid on the Ark,” (in our verse) refers to. The Tablets remained in the ark which Moses had constructed until the first day of Nissan when the Tabernacle together with all its furnishings was anointed. Concerning that Ark, the Torah said that Moses was to place the Tablets inside the Holy Ark. This was the Ark constructed by Betzalel. Of this Ark the Torah wrote: ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and put the Testimony inside the Ark.”According to the plain meaning of the text (according to Ibn Ezra), Moses had already placed the Tablets inside, and after that he placed the lid on the Ark. Seeing that the lid had been mentioned already several times it states once more that once the lid had been put on the Ark the entire Tabernacle could be considered as having been completed.

I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is to underline that not only are the Tablets to be placed inside the ark but they are not to be taken out again forever, similar to the original Torah scroll which Moses was commanded to place next to the Tablets. Our sages in Devarim Rabbah 9,9 say that if ever there is a discrepancy between the Torah scrolls of one tribe and that of another tribe [the 13 original ones were all written by Moses personally, Ed.], the Torah scroll to be used as the one to compare to is the one which was kept inside the ark. [One could compare what was written in that scroll without removing the scroll from the ark. Ed.] This also helps us to understand why the Torah in our verse mentions the placing of the lid on the ark before mentioning the fact that the Tablets were to be placed in it. All the verse came to tell us is that once the Tablets had been placed inside the ark and the lid had been placed on top they were to stay there forever.

ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and into the Ark you are to place the Testimony.” At this point this was a commandment. Previously when the Torah wrote: ונתת אל הארון, “you will place into the Ark, etc,” we would do well to understand these words as a prediction, or explanation for the purpose of the lid. According to one opinion it would also be an explanation for why the Ark, i.e. with the staves attached to it, were never to be moved.

Another meaning of the verse, i.e. the repetition of what was mentioned in verse 16, is that Moses was to wait with placing the Tablets inside until all three parts of the ark had been completed together with the lid and the cherubs on it. This would appear to be so, based on the sequence of the words: ונתת את הכפרת…followed by אל הארון תתן את העדות.

אשר אתן אליך, “which I am going to give you.” This was a reference to the second set of Tablets, seeing that G-d knew that the first set would never get there in one piece. Not only that, but these words were spoken to Moses on the fortieth day of his last stay on the Mountain. (The first set of Tablets had been smashed on the 17th day of Tammuz)25,22. ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת, “when I speak to you it will be from above the lid;” you may ask that we read in Leviticus 1,1, that “G-d spoke to Moses from the Tent of Meeting,” not from above the lid of the Ark which was inside the Holy of Holies? We must understand the Torah as follows: whenever Moses was standing outside the Tabernacle, he perceived the voice of G-d as emanating from inside the Tabernacle. When he was being addressed by G-d while he was inside the Tabernacle G-d’s voice emanated from above the lid of the Ark. This is the meaning of (Numbers 7,89) “when Moses had entered the Tent of Meeting he heard the voice speaking to him from above the lid of the Ark.”

A third possibility is, as our sages stated in Baba Batra 14, that the ark contained both the second set of Tablets and the broken pieces of the first Tablets. The two instructions to place the Tablets inside the ark would then refer to the two sets of Tablets, respectively.

There may also be a moral-ethical lesson in the wording of these instructions. The Torah first describes the lid as being on top of, i.e. spiritually higher than the Tablets which are inside the ark. At the same time the wording of the subsequent verse gives the impression that the Tablets are on top of the lid, i.e. that the Tablets represent spiritually higher values than those inside the ark. The Torah therefore succeeds in conveying to its readers that it is on a spiritually higher level than even the lid with its cherubs, the source of G'd's voice speaking with Moses. If the Torah had used the words ונתת את הכפרת על הארון מלמעלה in verse 16, we would have concluded that the כפרת represented the symbol of supreme spirituality.

ונועדתי AND [THERE] I WILL BE MET [BY THEE] — When I shall appoint you a place of meeting to speak to you that place will I appoint as the place of meeting whither I will come to speak to you.

ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך, G’d assures Moses that this is the site where He will communicate with him and become as familiar to him as it is possible for G’d to become familiar to man. This is where the Shechinah’s presence will become “stationed,” as already spelled out in the opening verses of our chapter (8-9) with the words ושכנתי בתוכם ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, “I will dwell among them in accordance with the blueprint which I have shown you.” The meaning of the words וכן תעשו at the end of verse 9, is that once the Jewish people or their elite engage in study of the relationship of physics to metaphysics, something known in the parlance of the Talmud as מעשה מרכבה, and they will do so motivated by the acceptable purpose, i.e. to become better servants of the Lord, not only will the Shechinah assist us but the ministering angels will also be of help in furthering such study. (Chagigah 14)

I will set My meetings with you there. The Divine light radiated outward from the ark affecting everything around it. Thus the Sages say that it actually bore those who appeared to bear it. This is a hint that those who support Torah scholars are actually supported by them.

The letter ו' here is superfluous. . . Although [in our Torah scrolls] it is not written ואת , in Rashi’s Torah scroll it was written with a ו , according to [his] Masoretic tradition.

V. 22. ונועדתי, von יעד, verwandt mit יחד, Ort und Zeit zu einer Zusammenkunft bestimmen. Nicht in Folge einer besonderen individuellen Beziehung Mosche zu Gott spricht Gott mit Mosche, sondern nur in Folge der göttlichen Bundesnähe mit Israel, in Folge der göttlichen Gegenwart in Mitte des sein Gesetz bewahrenden Volkes — מעל הכפרת מבין שני הכרבים אשר על ארון העדות — gelangt das Wort Gottes an Mosche. Wie sehr die Offenbarung an Mosche durch die Würdigkeit des Volkes bedingt war, wird in der Mechilta בא (anfangs zum Worte לאמר) und ebenso Sifra (zum ersten לאמר) in dem Umstande nachgewiesen, dass כל ל'ח שנה שהיה כועס על ישראל לא היה מדבר עמו שני ויהי כאשר תמו כל אנשי המלחמה למות וידבר ד׳ אלי dass während der achtunddreißig Jahre, in welchen Gott Israel ungewogen (דברים ב׳ י׳׳ה) war (von der מרגלים-Versündigung bis zum vierzigsten Jahre), das offenbarende Wort Gottes an Mosche nicht geworden, denn es heißt: als das ganze Geschlecht ausgestorben war, sprach Gott zu mir usw. (So auch B. B. 121 a u. b, wo der fünfzehnte Ab. noch als festliches Andenken an diese Wiederkehr des Offenbarungswortes an Mosche erklärt wird).

ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת, “when I speak to you it will be from above the lid;” you may ask that we read in Leviticus that “G-d spoke to Moses from the Tent of Meeting,” not from above the lid of the Ark which was inside the Holy of Holies? We must understand the Torah as follows: whenever Moses was standing outside the Tabernacle, he perceived the voice of G-d as emanating from inside the Tabernacle. When he was being addressed by G-d while he was inside the Tabernacle G-d’s voice emanated from above the lid of the Ark. This is the meaning of (Numbers 7,89) “when Moses had entered the Tent of Meeting he heard the voice speaking to him from above the lid of the Ark.”

ודברתי אתך מעל הכפרת AND I SHALL SPEAK WITH THEE FROM ABOVE THE COVER — In another passage, however, it says, (Leviticus 1:1) “And God spake unto him out of the appointed tent, saying” — this is that part of the Tabernacle outside the partition veil whilst the ark and the cover were on the other tide of the veil — consequently we have two verses contradicting each other! But there comes a third verse and reconciles them: (Numbers 7:89) “And when Moses came into the appointed tent to speak with Him, he heard the voice speaking unto him from off the covering etc.” This verse explains exactly what happened. Moses came into the Tabernacle and as soon as he had passed the entrance a voice fell from heaven to the place on the cover which was between the cherubim, and from there it issued and was heard by Moses in the tent of meeting (outside the Holy of Holies; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 58 and Rashi on Numbers 7:89).

ואת כל אשר אצוה, “and all that I shall command;” in other words: all that G-d plans to command He will communicate to Moses from there.

ואת כל אשר אצוה אותך אל בני ישראל AND OF ALL WHICH I SHALL COMMAND THEE CONCERNING THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This ו of the word ואת is redundant and without import; there are many sentences similar to this in Scripture. However if you wish to explain this ו the verse must be interpreted as follows: [I shall speak with thee from above the cover] and that which (ואת) I shall speak to you will be everything I shall command thee concerning the children of Israel.

קמתו THE HEIGHT THEREOF — i. e. the height of its legs together with the thickness of the table-board.

ועשית שלחן, after the Ark, which symbolised G’d’s throne on earth, as expressed by the words ונועדתי לך שם, “I will designate this for My meeting place with you,” (verse 22) had been completed, G’d commanded the construction of the Table and the Lamp stand, essential furnishings for a guest room, as we know from King II 4,10 where the lady in Shunem, planning to provide private accommodation for the prophet Elisha who was her frequent guest, discusses such details with her husband. According to our sages in Yuma 72 the crown-like border surrounding the surface of the table symbolised the crown of the kingdom of G’d. A king’s task in administering the affairs of state is divided into two aspects. 1) He must dispense justice, or appoint people who see to it that justice is dispensed. 2) He must concern himself with the defense of the realm, again, either personally, or by delegating his authority to loyal experts. This is how the people requesting that Samuel appoint a king for them defined the king’s duties in Samuel I 8,20. Accordingly, the table actually had two “crowns.” (this exegesis differs from that of Rashi who holds that there was only one such “crown.”) One of the “crowns” is for the table as such, the table symbolising the physical nourishment of the people and the general conduct of its affairs, the second symbolises an “enclosure, security fence,” מסגרת, a defensive system against harm to the people from whatever source, signaling that any attacker will not only be repelled but will be crushed.

אמתים ארכו, its length two cubits, etc. When you "cube" the dimensions of the Table, i.e. multiplying the two cubits length by one cubit width and by one and a half cubits height, you will find that you have a total of three cubits, or three times one cubit. This corresponds to the influence on our material world by the mystical dimension of the Celestial Table which represents the three levels of נצח, הוד and יסוד.

ועשית שלחן, “you are to construct a table;” the reason is that the table is the symbol of wealth, honour, distinction, grandeur. Nachmanides writes that the significance of placing the table in the Tabernacle lies in it being a reminder that all material blessings are channeled to us from its original source, from G’d, ever since He created the world. However, in order for that blessing to continue and to grow, it must have some root that it can draw on. The table represents this root. The matter became evident when the prophet Elisha asked the woman whose creditors were threatening to take her children as slaves in settlement of her deceased husband’s debts, (Kings II 4,1) “what can I do for you?” Seeing that all she had was the remnants of a small jar of oil, he told her: “get yourself some containers from your neighbours first.” After she had done so, Elisha used the existing oil to fill all the containers. The lesson we learn from that story is that even a blessing must have something it can focus on, something of substance in this world. Something similar was demonstrated by the prophet Elijah, Elisha’s mentor in Kings I The table on which the show-breads were stacked, fulfilled the same function on behalf of the entire Jewish people. Our sages illustrated the effectiveness of this heavenly blessing channeled through the show-breads by stating that any priest who ate as little as the size of a bean from these show-breads found that he was completely sated.

ועשית שלחן, the table represented the kings of Israel who entertain the Torah scholars at their table This is what David told his son Solomon on his death-bed: “Barzilai’s sons shall be among the people who are regular guests at your table. (Kings I 2,7) We also have a verse in Kings I 5,2 describing the lavishness of King Solomon’s table and the quantities of food consumed on a daily basis.
The Torah, in describing the table in the Tabernacle as overlaid with gold, illustrates that the function of Royalty was primarily to make a great impression on the outside world. After Samuel had told Saul that he would be replaced as king by someone more worthy, Saul still begged the prophet to honour him at least in public as he wanted to maintain the appearance although he realised that this was no longer his position. (compare Samuel I 15,30).
The reason that the length of the table was 21/2 cubits was in order to symbolize two requirements which every king has to meet. 1) He must be competent in meting out justice; 2) he must be competent in waging war. This is what the people had told Samuel when they asked him to appoint a king for them (Samuel I 8,20).
The size and height of the walls [the table did not have legs like our tables, Ed.] which amount to nine cubits cumulatively, symbolise the 9 commandments in the Torah specifically addressed to a Jewish King. 1) “he shall not keep many horses;” 2) “he shall not send the people back to Egypt in order to add to his supply of horses;” 3) “he shall not have too many wives.” 4) “he shall not become haughty;” 5) “he must not turn away from G’d’s commandments either to the left or to the right.” 6) “he shall write for himself two copies of the Torah;” 7) he shall read from the Torah every day of his life;” 8) he shall not amass too much silver and gold;“ 9) he shall not turn away from the commandments.” (Deuteronomy 17,8-20).
The function of the border around the surface of the table was to prevent any of the show-breads from falling off the table for whatever reason. It was intended to protect the show-breads, just as the Levites and the priests are supposed to be on guard against the king deviating from the path of the Torah. We have an example of this in Chronicles II 24,2: “Yoash, the king, did what was right in the eyes of the Lord as long as Yehoyadah the High Priest was alive.” In connection with King Uzziah we read in Chronicles II 26,5: “he applied himself to the worship of G’d during the time of Zecharyah, instructor of the visions of G’d.”
All the details that the Torah writes about in connection with all the vessels of the Tabernacle contain similar allusions of a moral-ethical nature. The Ark represents the righteous people. The table corresponds to the kings of Israel. The Menorah corresponds to the scholars of Israel. The golden altar corresponds to the priests, whereas the copper altar corresponds to the people at large.

V. 23. שולחן, Tisch, ist, wie wir bereits Jeschurun Vl, S. 484 ff., bemerkt, im Gebiete der heiligen Schrift nicht zunächst ein Hausgerät, auf welchem eine Hantierung vorgenommen wird, ein Arbeitstisch, sondern, worauf auch der Name שלחן von שלח, schicken, hinreichen, führt, ein Hausgerät, das Gegenstände zum Gebrauche und zum Genusse darreicht. Fast ausschließlich erscheint er als Speisetisch, ebenso, wie ja auch wir mit "Tisch" zunächst diesen Begriff verbinden. Er wird daher bildlich zum Ausdruck der Nahrung, des Genusses, der materiellen Fülle und des Wohlstandes (Ps. 78, 19 u. 23, 5; Jes. 65, 11; Job 36, 16). Der Tisch ist (V. 30) bestimmt, das Wajikra 24, 5 f. näher vorgeschriebene לחם הפנים, somit "Brot und Weihrauch" zu tragen. Dass Brot Nahrung repräsentiert, bedarf keines weiteren Nachweises. Ebenso stellt sich leicht die Bedeutung des Geruchs überhaupt als Ausdruck des Behagens, Wohl- oder Missbehagens, heraus, das man an einem Gegenstande findet. Wir erinnern nur an den Ausdruck: הבאשתם את ריחנו. Schmot 5, 21. Wohlgeruch entspräche somit dem Wohlbehagen, der Befriedigung, die an etwas gefunden wird. Und insofern Weihrauch zum קטרת, dem Räucherwerke, allgemein wie das Einfache zu dem Zusammengesetzten, Künstlichen, sich verhält, so dürfte Weihrauch allein, und zwar לבונה זכה, reiner Weihrauch, dem reinen, einfachen, natürlichen Wohlbehagen entsprechen.

ועשית שלחן, “you are to construct a table;” it is no more than elementary courtesy that the king’s servants and members of his household should eat at his table.

Make a ledge. The table signifies wealth while the ledge around it indicates that a person must take measures to see that his wealth is not lost. The way to do this is by giving generously to charity. Thus the four legs supporting the table signify the poor, the proselyte, the orphan and the widow (Alsheich).

Wenn aber der Tisch Nahrung und Wohlbehagen, somit das trägt, oder vielmehr darreicht, was wir Wohlstand nennen, so können wir den Tisch an sich nur als dasjenige begreifen, was den Wohlstand gewährt, somit als diejenige Seite des nationalen Lebens, die Wohlstand schafft: die Entwicklung des materiellen Staatslebens.

Der Tisch ist daher vorzugsweise עצי שטים ,עץ, ein immer frisches, fortschreitendes Entwickeln, ohne andere Schranken, als die es sich selbst setzt, die somit seine eigene Blüte bedingen, auch das מסגרת (V. 25), der einschließende Rand, oder die zusammenhaltende Leiste (siehe das.), war עץ. Er behält diesen עץCharakter, obgleich seine Platte (V. 24) mit Gold, dem Symbol der Festigkeit und Stärke, belegt ist. Dieses Metall verschwindet in den allgemeinen Charakter seiner Bedeutung, שאני שלחן דרחמנא קרייה עץ, sowie es auch in der äußeren Erscheinung weniger hervortrat, es war צפוי שאינו עומד (siehe Menachoth 97 a u. 96 b).

זר זהב A BORDER OF GOLD — a symbol of the royal crown, for the table is an emblem of wealth and greatness, as may be seen from the fact that people speak of one’s “royal table” when they wish to state one is exceedingly wealthy (cf. Yoma 72b).

A CROWN OF GOLD ROUND ABOUT. “This is a symbol of the crown of royalty, for the table represents wealth and prominence, just as the Rabbis say¹¹⁹Yebamoth 24 b: “He who becomes a proselyte for the sake of ‘the royal table.’” ‘the royal table.’” This is Rashi’s language. And this explanation is indeed the truth, for in this lies the secret of the table [in the Tabernacle]. For since the time that the world came into existence, G-d’s blessing did not create something from nothing; instead, the world follows its natural course, for it is written, and G-d saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good.¹²⁰Genesis 1:31. But when the root of the matter¹²¹Job 19:28. already exists, the blessing descends upon it and increases it, just as Elisha said, tell me; what hast thou in the house?¹²²II Kings 4:2. and then the blessing came upon the pot of oil that she already had, and she filled all the vessels from it.¹²³Ibid., 6. And in the case of Elijah it is said, The jar of meal was not spent, neither did the cruse of oil fail.¹²⁴I Kings 17:16. And so also was the case with the showbread on the table; upon it rested the blessing, and from it came abundance to all Israel. That is why the Rabbis have said:¹²⁵Yoma 39a. “Every priest who received even only as much as the size of a bean [of the showbread] ate it and was satisfied.”

וציפית אותו זהב טהור, “you shall overlay it with pure gold.” We find here an allusion to the three basic benedictions which comprise our grace after meals which are considered as Biblical in nature. They are the acrostic formed by the respective first letters in the words זן, הארץ, בונה . forming the word זהב.

V. 24 u. 25. Wenn aber die Tätigkeit, die den Wohlstand schafft, im immer grünenden Holze ihren Ausdruck findet, so hat sie doch für diesen Wohlstand, den sie schafft, zunächst die "reine solide Basis" zu schaffen, sie hat den Wohlstand auf goldreiner, gediegener Unterlage darzureichen, auf צפוי זהב טהור, — und ועשית לו זר זהב סביב. Die Stellung dieses goldenen Reifes wird, noch im folgenden Verse nähe präzisiert: ועשית זר זהב למסגרתו סביב. Diese wiederholte Erinnerung an den goldenen Reif um den Tisch und seine von derjenigen des Reifes um die Lade abweichende Stellung weist demselben für den Tisch eine besondere Bedeutsamkeit zu.

וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to cover its surface with gold.” The surface of the table was to be covered by a sheet of gold both on top and underneath it. This would still leave the wood of its legs visible. This is why the Torah added: ועשית זר זהב סביב, “you are to construct a golden molding around it.” This would cover all the exposed wooden parts of the table.

Wir haben bereits (V. 11) im זר nach Gestalt und Namen das Zeichen des Fernhaltens alles Fremdartigen, Ungeweihten, somit das Zeichen der Heiligkeit und Unantastbarkeit des vom Reifen umschlossenen Gegenstandes erkannt. Der Reif der Lade überragte dieselbe, ruhte gleichsam auf ihr, ועשית עליו זר זהב סביב lautet die Anordnung, er umgab die Lade nicht, sondern stand als ein aus ihr selbst hervorgehender und sie überragender Fortsatz ihrer goldenen Bedeckung da. Wir glaubten daher beim ארון dieses Zeichen der Heiligkeit und unantastbaren Weihe mehr in Beziehung nach außen begreifen zu müssen.

Hier aber ist der Tisch selbst, der im übrigen bis auf eine dünne Belegung der Platte nur aus Holz bestand, von einem goldenen Reif umgeben. Wir glauben hier daher den Reif auf den Tisch selbst beziehen zu müssen und darin die Heiligung, d.i. die Fernhaltung alles Unlauteren und Unheiligen aus den durch den Tisch repräsentierten Tätigkeiten und Zwecken zu erkennen. —

Der Tischreif erhielt seine besondere Stelle um den מסגרת. Hinsichtlich der Bedeutung dieses מסגרת ist die Überlieferung zweifelhaft. Nach Menachoth 96 a war dasselbe entweder ein aufwärts stehender Rand der höheren Tischplatte, oder eine die Füße zum Tragen der Platte zusammenfassende Leiste. Im ersten Falle war dasselbe nach Sucka 5 nur ein הכשר כלי, ein Zubehör der Platte, somit in die Bedeutung der Platte selbst aufgehend. Im zweiten Falle war dasselbe ein besonderer Teil selbständiger Bedeutung. זר um das מסגרת im ersten Falle, als goldner Reif um den Rand der Tischplatte, würde die Heiligkeit als besondere Bedingung der durch die materielle Lebenstätigkeit zu gewinnenden Basis des Wohlstandes und insbesondere der geschützten Erhaltung derselben — מסגרת — darstellen; in letzterem Falle aber, als goldener Reif um die Tragleiste der Füße, diese Heiligkeit als Bedingung der Zielerreichung der ganzen materiellen Tätigkeit setzen. Der wesentliche Charakter der "Wohlstand schaffenden materiellen Lebenstätigkeit" ist ja, wie wir aus dem Stoffe des Tisches erkannt, vorwiegend eine frische, fortschreitende Kraftentfaltung; שטים-Holz ist sein wesentlicher Bestandteil. Um so nachdrücklicher war wiederholt auf die Heiligkeit und Reinheit des materiellen Strebens, als allgemeinste Grundbedingung hinzuweisen. Eben weil im materiellen sinnlichen Streben die größte Gefahr der Verunlauterung und Entheiligung des reinen Menschenlebens lauert, war wiederholt an die Umschränkung desselben durch den זר זהב טהור, durch den goldenen Reif der reinen heiligenden Weihe zu mahnen. Überhaupt tritt bei keinem anderen Geräte des Heiligtumes so die Reinheit in ihren verschiedenen Nuancen: נקי ,זך ,טהור — als מנקיות ,זהב טהור ,לבונה זכה — wie beim Tische hervor, und obgleich das "reine Gold" nur als Beleg der Platte und als Reif am Tische selbst erschien, war doch diese goldene Reinheit so sehr Grundbedingung für den Tisch des jüdischen Wohlstandes, dass der ganze Begriff des Tisches, auf welchen das Brot vor Gott geschichtet werden soll. Wajikra. 24, 6, in die Bezeichnung השלחן הטהור: "der reine Tisch" zusammengefasst wird. Nur als reiner Tisch steht auch unser Tisch vor Gott, השלחן הטהור לפני ד׳. Und nur זר, die Reinheit, macht unser מסגרת zum מסגרת, gibt unserem Streben die Kraft und unserem Errungenen die Dauer.

מסגרת — Understand this as the Targum renders it: גדנפא, A RIM. The Sages in Israel are of different opinion as to what this מסגרת signifies. Some say it was on top all the way round the table like the vertical ledge that is on the edges of the table of noble men, whilst others say it was fixed beneath the table from leg to leg on the four sides of the table and that the table-top rested upon that ledge (cf. Menachot 96b and Sukkah 5a).

מסגרת, a kind of rim or edge which it is customary to attach to top of tables, to guard against spillage. Others say that it was attached to the underside of the tables reinforcing the legs at each corner.

ועשית לו מסגרת טפח, “you are to construct for it a rim one handbreadth wide all around.”

ועשית זר זהב למסגרתו AND THOU SHALT MAKE A GOLDEN BORDER TO THE RIM THEREOF —This is the same border spoken of above (v. 24), and here it explains to you that it was fixed to the rim.

ועשית זר זהב למסגרתו, “you are to make a golden rim as an overlay all the way around the rim.” The first ring the Torah speaks of here was made of wood, just as the table itself. Its golden rim would look like a hollow tube cut open lengthwise, so that the wooden rim would fit inside that golden rim, and its outside would be completely invisible. After completing the instructions no onlooker would be able to see any of the table’s wooden parts. We read in Exodus37,11, that Betzalel made both the wooden rim and a golden molding all around it.

V. 26. ארבע הפאות אשר לארבע רגליו, die vier Ecken des Tisches gingen in die vier Füße über.

על ארבע הפאות אשר לארבע רגליו, “(to be fastened) to the four corners of its legs.” Seeing that the dimensions of the table were about 1,2 meters in length and 60 centimeters in width there was enough room for the carriers of the table to position themselves, two in front next to one another and two behind them near the rear end do carry it comfortably, just as they with the Holy Ark, [although the Ark fully loaded weighed over 78000 lbs, which accounts for the fact that the Rabbis say that the Ark had to carry its bearers. This calculation is according to Rabbi Eliyahu ki tov, to the best of this Editor’s memory. Ed.]

לעמת המסגרת תהיין הטבעת OVER AGAINST THE RIM SHALL THE RINGS BE — inserted in the legs over against the extremities of the border.

לבתים לבדים, as housings for the staves. Whereas I have explained in connection with the rings of the ark that Betzalel had to cast four rings and attach them firmly to the ark, whereas he would insert a second set of rings inside the first ones to support the staves, the Torah here alters its instructions. Here there was no need to make a second set of rings. The rings mentioned here were the ones into which the staves were inserted directly.

לעומת המסגרת, these were attached at the underside of the table but not to the border (מסגרת).

Houses — for the purpose of being receptacles. I.e., the rings are for the purpose of being receptacles for the poles.

V. 27 u. 28 verglichen mit V. 14 u. 15 zeigt die wesentliche Grundverschiedenheit der Bedeutung der Tragstangen an der Lade und am Tisch. Diese letzteren waren nur ונשא בם את השלחן ,לשאת את שלחן, waren nur für den konkreten Zweck des Transportes und im Momente des Transportes an dem Tische, somit völlig ohne symbolische Bedeutung.

That is that he commanded us to place the bread of display always in front of Him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And on the table shall you set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). And you already know the language of the Torah about placing new bread every Shabbat, and that frankincense be with it and that the priests eat the bread made for the previous Shabbat (Leviticus 23:8,7,9). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 11 of Menachot. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2).

לעומת המסגרת תהיינה, “they (the rings) were attached to the rim at the of the table as holders for the staves, i.e. on the outer edges of the table.

לבתים לבדים FOR PLACES FOR THE STAVES — These rings shall be receptacles in which to put the staves.

As Onkelos translates it: “a place for the poles.” Re”m explains that “A place for the poles” means that the rings are to be receptacles, and the receptacles are for the poles — not that the rings are for the receptacles and the poles.

לבתים means for the purpose of being (to serve as) receptacles for the staves, as the Targum has it: places for the staves.

ונשא בם — The word ונשא is a passive (Niphal) form; the meaning is: THAT THE TABLE MAY BE BORNE BY THEM.

ועשית קערתיו וכפתיו AND THOU SHALT MAKE THE DISHES THEREOF AND THE SPOONS THEREOF — קערתיו are the forms (moulds) that were made to fit the shape of the bread (Menachot 97a). The bread was shaped like a case broken open as regards two of its sides (two opposite sides of which have been removed; these are what we would call the front and the back). It had a bottom underneath, but no top, and this bottom was turned up on both ends to form, as it were, walls. On this account it was called לחם הפנים, “bread with faces” — because it had faces (surfaces) looking in both directions towards the sides of the House (the Sanctuary). The bread was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table with its sides standing up exactly in a line with the edge of the table. There were made for it a golden mould and an iron mould: in the iron one it was baked, and when it was taken out from the oven it was put on the golden one until the next day, the Sabbath, when it was arranged on the table (the mould then being removed). This golden mould is here called קערה (Menachot 94a; cf. also Berliner’s Rashi 2nd ed. p. 426).

AND THOU SHALT MAKE ‘KE’AROTHAV VEKAPOTHAV UKSOTHAV UMENAKIYOTHAV.’ Rashi explained: “Ke’arothav are the forms [the moulds that were made to fit the shape of the bread]; vekapothav are spoons in which the incense was put;¹²⁶See Leviticus 24:7. uksothav are rods in the shape of halves of hollow canes [which were put between one loaf and another so that they would not become mouldy]; umenakiyothav are the trestles which were notched in [five places] to support the canes.” These vessels [that Rashi referred to] are indeed mentioned in the Gemara.¹²⁷Menachoth 97a. And the Rabbi further said: “The word mechilathei [which Onkelos used for the Hebrew menakiyothav] means ‘bearers,’ similar to the expressions: and I weary myself ‘kalkeil’ (to bear it);¹²⁸Jeremiah 20:9. I am weary ‘hachil’ (bearing it).¹²⁹Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. Now the Sages of Israel have differed on this. For some say that ksothav are the trestles, and menakiyothav are the hollow canes. But Onkelos who translated menakiyothav by [the Aramaic] mechilathei was of the same opinion as he who says that menakiyoth are the trestles [supporting pillars attached to the table].” These are Rashi’s words. But I do not find them to be correct, for the word mechilathei [of Onkelos] in the Aramaic language is but a term meaning measures, such as ephahs and the like. Thus Onkelos rendered, eiphath tzedek¹³⁰Leviticus 19:36. — mechilon dikshot (a true measure); Thou shalt not have in thy house ‘eiphah v’eiphah’¹³¹Deuteronomy 25:14. — thou shalt not have mechilta umechilta (diverse measures). In a similar sense it is found whenever mentioned in the Talmud and in the Sages’ words: kayal meikal (he was measuring);¹³²Menachoth 53 b: ka kayol. bimchilta d’kayil inish ba mitkil (with the measure that one measures others, with that he is measured).¹³³Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 38:26. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’¹²⁹Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. means “I am weary of being a holding measure” [of G-d’s fury], and it is associated with these expressions: alpayim bath yachil (it held two thousand baths);¹³⁴I Kings 7:26. v’chol bashalish aphar ha’aretz (and He comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure);¹³⁵Isaiah 40:12. too little ‘meihachil’ (to receive) the burnt offering.¹³⁶I Kings 8:64. Similarly, I am weary ‘hachil’¹²⁹Ibid., 6:11. The beginning of the verse reads: Therefore I am full of the fury of the Eternal. is in my opinion not an expression of “bearing” but is instead a form of that very same meaning of “holding,” thus saying, “I am weary of holding” [G-d’s fury], similar in usage to these expressions: the land is not able ‘l’hachil’ (to hold) all his words;¹³⁷Amos 7:10. the spirit of a man ‘y’chalkeil’ his infirmity,¹³⁸Proverbs 18:14. meaning that he will be able to hold the pain within himself and not become weary [and broken in spirit] because of it. Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot ‘y’chalkelucha’¹³⁹I Kings 8:27. — they cannot hold and contain the greatness of Your exaltedness, for there is no limit and measure to You — how much less this house that I have built!¹³⁹I Kings 8:27. 'Y’chalkeil' his words rightfully¹⁴⁰Psalms 112:5. means that he is not a fool who spendeth all his spirit,¹⁴¹Proverbs 29:11. but holds his words within himself when necessary, and uses them as necessary. 'Vay’chalkeil Yoseiph'¹⁴²Genesis 47:12. means that Joseph gave them as much food as they could hold; he gave neither too much nor too little, but bread according to the want of their little ones.¹⁴³See Ramban on Genesis 41:48 (Vol. I, p. 507) that Joseph had gathered all food essential to life “even figs, fresh and dried, etc.” Now of this kind of food he gave his family abundantly, but bread he gave them according to the want of their little ones (Genesis 47:12). And such is the explanation of all [other similar expressions].
But Onkelos’ opinion [who translated umenakiyothav — umechilathei] is not clear. Perhaps menakiyothav is in the opinion of Onkelos a term for measures, since they had [in the Tabernacle and later in the Sanctuary] a measure holding two tenth parts [of an ephah] flour, with which to measure one cake,¹⁴⁴Leviticus 24:5. and they did not measure it twice with the one tenth measure of the meal-offering. We must then say that Onkelos differs from the Mishnah which teaches:¹⁴⁵Menachoth 87a. “There were two dry-measures in the Sanctuary: the tenth, and the half-tenth” [of an ephah], and in his opinion there were three dry-measures: the tenth, the half-tenth, and the two tenths.
The correct interpretation of Onkelos’ opinion appears to me to be that mechila is the form (mould) made for the dough, just as the Rabbis have said:¹⁴⁶Ibid., 94a. “There were in the Tabernacle three moulds [for the showbread]: he placed it in a mould whilst it was still dough; when baked in the oven it was put in another mould, and when he took it out he placed it in a [third] frame so that it should not spoil.”¹⁴⁷The first and third moulds were made of gold; the one for the oven was an iron mould. This [third] frame which was used so that it should not spoil did not have to be shaped to the form of the bread and its size; instead, it was made like a sort of dish to support the sides of the bread, this being the ke’arothav mentioned in the verse. But the first mould for the dough was shaped to the form of the bread and its size, namely, ten [handbreadths] long and five wide, and its horns¹⁴⁸Small pieces of dough were put on the four corners of each of the breads (Menachoth 96 a). seven fingerbreadths [high]. Into this mould the dough was put, measured and shaped to fit its form, and for this reason it was called mechila because it was made to “the measure.” The term menakiyoth then [according to Onkelos] is a name just like ephah and s’ah [a third of the ephah measure is a s’ah], similar, to ke’arothav and ksothav and other nouns which are not descriptive. Perhaps those just measures which are called a just ephah, and a just hin,¹⁴⁹Leviticus 19:36. and termed menakiyoth [of the root naki — clean] because they are clean of any falsehood, and thus they clear their owners of any cheating and sin. And ksavoth is a general term covering the canes [which were put between one loaf and another] and the trestles [notched in five places upon which the canes separating the loaves rested]. Perhaps because of their notches they were so called [ksavoth], with the letter tzade [ktzavoth — sides, corners] being used instead of the letter sin [ksavoth], this word [ksavoth] being similar to [the word ktzavoth found in the following verse]: so that they that dwell in ‘ktzavoth’ (the uttermost parts) stand in awe of Thy signs,¹⁵⁰Psalms 65:9. by interchanging the letter tzade with the sin, just like in the word s’chok [“laughter,” which is the word tzchok].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “There is an error in Chronicles,¹⁵¹I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. for in speaking of the vessels of the table in place of ke’aroth [mentioned here] it writes mizrakoth (basins); in place of kapoth [mentioned here] it writes kiporim (bowls); ksavoth is mentioned there as here; and in the place of menakiyoth it speaks of mizlagoth (forks). And all these were made of gold for the purpose of the table [and yet we do not find the mizrakoth, kiporim, and mizlagoth mentioned here in connection with the table in the Tabernacle]! Perhaps these were other vessels which David commanded to be placed on the tables¹⁵²II Chronicles 4:8. which his son Solomon would make, but the table in the Tent of Meeting did not have these vessels.” The error, however, is in Rabbi Abraham’s words, [not in the Book of Chronicles], for that which Scripture states, and the forks, and the basins, and the jars of pure gold; and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl,¹⁵¹I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. is not connected only with the tables of showbread¹⁵³I Chronicles 28:16. [mentioned in the preceding verse], but it reverts back to that which Scripture stated [several verses above], and for all the work of the service of the house of the Eternal, and for all the vessels of service in the house of the Eternal.¹⁵⁴Ibid., Verse 13. And then it continues, of gold, for all vessels of every kind of service,¹⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 14. and then it mentioned, and the forks, and the basins¹⁵¹I Chronicles 28:17. The verse there reads: ‘v’hamizlagoth’ (and the forks), ‘v’hamizrakoth’ (and the basins), ‘v’haksavoth’ (and the jars), of pure gold; ‘v’lichphorei’ (and the bowls of) gold by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl); ‘v’lichphorei’ (and for the bowls of) silver by weight ‘lichphor uchphor’ (for every bowl). — Ibn Ezra’s comment is to the effect that there are new vessels here mentioned for the table in the Sanctuary that are not found here in the Torah in connection with the table in the Tabernacle. — Ramban will point out mat Ibn Ezra erred in thinking that this Verse 17 refers back to the tables of showbread mentioned above in Verse 16, since it really refers back to Verse 13, as explained in the text. which are vessels of the altar, and the jars for the table, and the bowls for the altar. And finally it stated, and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight,¹⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 18. concluding: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Eternal hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.¹⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 19. Thus David [in speaking to his son Solomon] included all needs of the Sanctuary.

קערותיו וכפותיו, these vessels were popularly used at Royal banquets, etc.

קערתיו. a form similar to the one in which bread is baked.

Make its dishes … and its supports (menakios). The word menakios derives from a root meaning “clean.” The menakios are listed last to indicate that one’s livelihood must be “clean” of any taint of theft and that one must welcome the poor in a way that is “clean” of any taint of disgrace.

ועשית קערותיו, “you will make its dishes, etc.” Onkelos translates that which Rashi describes as קערות, the forms in which the show-breads were baked (iron forms, and subsequently displayed), golden forms, as being the מנקיות. In a dispute on the subject, in the משנה, (compare Tossaphot 96,b commencing with the words לא היה) Onkelos decides in favour of the view of the sage who considers the מנקיות as being sort of branch-like semi-open tubes, מכילתא, in Aramaic. The reason advanced by the author for his view is that these מנקיות supported the weight of the forms in which the show-breads were displayed on the table, especially the highest layer of the show-breads. The source, linguistically speaking, is the phraseהכיל ,נלאתי in Jeremiah 6,11, which means: “I am exhausted and cannot contain it anymore.” Nachmanides, not assuming that the word may have an Aramaic origin, quotes numerous verses in Scripture where the word means: “supporting something.” He explains that what Onkelos means is that these are the forms in which the show-breads had been baked, and, due to their thinness, they could not be allowed to lie there without being enclosed as during the seven days that each bread stayed on the table from one Sabbath to the next, they would have broken up into small pieces without such support. The Talmud speaks of three kinds of forms, one of which was exactly matching the dimensions of the bread, i.e. the dough that was baked in them; these were the ones called here מנקיות. In Aramaic they are called מכילתא, as they had to be true to the measurements of the dough. Incidentally, Onkelos translates the words איפת צדק, “a true measure,” as מכילין דקשוט. (Leviticus 19,36) This was a form, presumably made of wood or clay, in which the dough was placed prior to being transferred for baking into a similar form made of iron. Finally, there was a form made of gold, to which the breads were transferred after having cooled off, and they were placed on display on the two parallel racks above the table. The measurements of these latter forms did not have to be so meticulously tight fitting. The main purpose of the latter forms was to act as containers. The קשוות is a term which includes the various other small utensils including the shelving tubes. Perhaps they were named thus as they were meant to prevent the breaking up of these breads, and the letter ש in this word is used in lieu of the letter צ. We find a similar substitution of the letter ש for the letter צ in Psalms 65,9 וייראו יושבי מאותותיך, “the dwellers at the far corners of the earth were awed by Your signs (miracles).” The word מנקיות describes a certain measuring cup, or something similar; they are called thus to symbolize that they are accurate, not deceptive, i.e. איפה צדק “true measure.” (Lev. 19,36) The owners will be perceived as free from sin, נקי, as they do not use these devices to enrich themselves by deceiving their customers. I find it difficult to understand, if that were the meaning, why the מנקיות should not have been mentioned first.

It was bent upwards at both ends. . . Meaning: the dough was erect at each end, like walls, with space in the middle between them. It was like an upside-down ח .

V. 29. Wenn צפוי זהב טהור, gediegene Reinheit, die Basis bildet, auf welcher der jüdische Wohlstand dargereicht wird (V. 24 u. 25), so sind für die Erhaltung und segensreiche Zweckerreichung des Wohlstandes feste bestimmte Formen und Normen, Stützen und reinhaltende Ventilationsmittel — קערתיו ,כפתיו ,קשותיו מנקיותיו — aus reinem Golde gegeben.

ועשית קערותיו, “you are to make its bowls, etc.;” in which to knead the dough for the showbreads which would be displayed on it (the table).

וכפתיו AND ITS SPOONS — ladles (or rather, cups with flat bottoms) in which the incense was put. There were two such vessels for the two handfuls of incense which was put upon the piles in which the loaves were arranged, as it is said, (Leviticus 24:7) “And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each pile”.

וכפותיו, for the two spoonfuls of frankincense as mentioned in Leviticus 24,2 ונתתה על המערכת לבונה זכה, ”with each row you shall place pure frankincense, etc.”

Lined up with the edge of the shulchan. . . The showbread was right at the edge of the shulchan, so that the thickness of the shulchan[’s tabletop] was lined up with the [“face” of the] showbread. And similarly at the other edge. As a result, “It has a ‘face’ ‘looking’ in two directions towards the sides of the House (i.e., mishkon).” This was because the length of the table was placed to the width of the mishkon. I.e., to the width of the [section of the] Tent of Meeting that was outside the Curtain [of the Holy of Holies].

קערתיו אלו הדפוסים נקערתיו (Menachoth 97 a). Die Schüsseln waren Formen um dem Brote bis zur Hinordnung auf den Tisch die bestimmte Form zu erhalten. Das Brot "des jüdischen Wohlstandes" ward nämlich in bestimmten metallenen Formen gebacken und zur Erhaltung dieser Form in goldenen Formen bis zum Hinordnen auf den Tisch bewahrt. Diese Form war nach ר׳ חנינא, dessen Überlieferung das Meiste für sich hat (siehe Menachoth 94 b und תוספו׳ das.), eine an beiden Enden aufwärts gebogene Fläche: |__|, כמין תיבה פרועה, und zwar betrugen die beiden aufwärts stehenden Wände zusammen so viel — nach ר׳׳מ fast so viel — als die Grundfläche. Durch diese Form bot jedes Brot so viel, oder fast so viel, zum Tragen des nächsten Brotes dar, als es mit seiner Grundfläche einnahm! Spricht dies etwas anderes, als die allen Egoismus beseitigende, die brüderlichste Hingebung fordernde Bedingung alles Wohlstandes aus: dass jeder eben so sehr für den andern als für sich erwerbe und besitze, eben so viel, oder doch fast so viel dem Nächsten als der Fülle des eigenen Tisches zuwende? (Ja, nach der anderen Überlieferung: כמין ספינה רוקדת, bildete jedes Brot nur mit dem vierzigsten Teil seiner Länge eine zollbreite Grundfläche und strebte mit allem übrigen allmählich zu dem nächsten auf ihm liegenden hin). Diese Brüderlichkeit tritt in solchem Maße in allen Beziehungen des Brotes hervor, daß wir sie notwendig als die Grundbedingung dessen betrachten müssen, was durch dieses Brot seinen Ausdruck finden soll, somit nach unserem Verständnisse als die Grundbedingung des jüdischen Wohlstandes. Schon von vornherein bestand jedes Brot aus zwei עשרונים. (Wajikra 24, 5). Ein עשרון ist aber das tägliche Maß des Lebensbedarfs eines einzelnen, entsprechend dem עומר לגולגלת des vom Himmel gespendeten Manna. Zwei Zehntel sind somit von vornherein der doppelte Bedarf, für sich und zugleich für den Nächsten. Sie wurden ferner nicht nur in der bezeichneten Form, sondern überhaupt nur paarweise gebacken: נאפות שתים שתים ובדפוס (das. 94 a). Endlich waren es im ganzen zwölf Brote (den zwölf jüdischen Volksstämmen entsprechend), die in zwei gleichen Schichten neben einander gepaart auf den Tisch geordnet wurden (das. 98 a). Stoff, Form, Bereitung und Ordnung tragen somit ausgeprägt den Charakter der Brüderlichkeit.

כפותיו, “its ladles,” within which to place the frankincense, between the two rows of the showbreads.

וקשתיו — These had the form of halves of hollow canes which are split along their length (Menachot 96a). Articles similar to these were made of gold and three of them were set in a row above each loaf so that another loaf (that above it) should rest on top of the “canes”; thus they (these canes) separated one loaf from another so that air could enter between and they would not become mouldy (Menachot 97a). In the Arabic language anything hollow is called קסוא (and this corresponds to the root of this word, which therefore denotes something hollow).

קשותיו ומנקיותיו, the details of these tools are all spelled out in Menachot 94 seeing that the 12 show-breads were arranged in two stacks of six each, with adequate ventilation between each form containing these breads. Here these utensils are referred to as subordinate, part of the table, whereas in Numbers 4,7 the same utensils are described as subordinate to the libation, i.e. קשות הנסך. The reason is that these utensils were designed to provide cover, the root of נסך there being סכך as in the covering used for the Sukkah. These utensils covered and separated one layer of reads from the other.

A golden form and a metal form were made for it. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Its dishes” (in the plural form), implying there were two dishes. And so with all [the table’s accessories, written in plural]; they all were multiple.

Aus Menachoth 96 a ist ersichtlich, dass aus den vier Enden der perpendikulären Brotflächen קרנות: aufwärts gehende Höhewinkel wie am Altare hervorgingen, die aber horizontal geneigt wurden, um dem nächsten Brote zum Stützpunkte zu dienen: קרנות לגוויה דלחם כייף להו ולחם עלייהו נח ליה. Bezeichnen קרנות, wie wir das beim Altare näher nachzuweisen haben, das aufwärts zu Gott Emporstreben, so geben dieselben an dem Brote des jüdischen Wohlstandes in der eben bezeichneten Weise den Gedanken: außer dem Nächsten sei der jüdische Wohlstand noch Gott zugewandt. Das Gott Zugewandte erhalte aber eben darin seine Verwendung, dass es der Unterstützung des Nächsten zu gute komme.

וקשותיו, “and its jars;” in which the water for preparing the dough for the showbreads would be kept. קשוה is a vessel as we know from the Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 81 where the stealing of it is described as so serious a sin that if the thief is caught and killed on the spot by someone incensed at this sin, this is considered as an acceptable punishment, and the person administering it is not considered as having committed murder.

מנקיותיו — It is translated in the Targum by ומכילתיה “and the trestles (supports) thereof” (cf. Menachot 96a). According to him these were attachments to the table like a kind of golden pegs (pillars) standing on the floor and reaching in height far above the table up to the height of the pile of bread. They were notched in five places, one above the other, and the ends of the canes which were between one loaf and another were supported on these notches so that the weight of the upper loaves should not press heavily upon the lower ones in which event these would be broken. The word מכילתיה used by Onkelos as a rendering of מנקיותיו denotes “bearers;” it is of the same root as the verb in (Jeremiah 6:11) “I am weary to bear (הכיל) it.” But as for the term מנקיות (which is a Piel of נקה and would denote “cleansers”) I do not know how it is applicable to these attachments the purpose of which was not to keep the bread clean but merely to serve as supports for the canes. But there are some of the Jewish Sages who hold that קשתיו (connected with קשה “hard”) are the pegs (or pillars) and they are so called because they served to keep it (the loaves) hard and firm, so that it should not break, whilst מנקיותיו are the “canes” which kept the bread clean so that it should not become mouldy. Onkelos, however, who translated מנקיותיו by מכילתיה understood it according to the opinion of him who holds that מנקיות were the supporting pillars (cf. Menachot 97a).

אשר יסך, by means of these utensils the libations were to be offered.

Were as a covering over it. . . Meaning: the half tubes that were inserted between one bread and the other acted as sort of a covering over the bread. Although the verse makes no mention of bread, “By which they shall be covered” refers to that which needs to be covered, i.e., the bread.

Durch diese Richtung auf Gott wird die brüderliche Hingebung Pflicht, die Liebespflicht wird Rechtspflicht, סדn wird צדקה. Was der Nächste nur zu hoffen hat, hat Gott ein Recht zu fordern, und Gott fordert für den Nächsten!

ומנקיותיו, “and its cleansing tools, bowlshaped used to clean out the oven as well as the surface of the table.”According to Rashi these were multiple shelflike structures on each of which one of the showbreads would be placed in a manner that allowed fresh air to circulate around each and thus prevent it from becoming moldy, as they were on display from one Sabbath to the next. They would also protect these thin breads from break into crumbs due to their weight if each had rested on the one beneath it. All this is discussed in the Talmud in minute detail. (Menachot, folio 94) Our author quotes all these details. As the Torah did not, and alas in our time we do not possess a Temple, I have decided to omit translating this and refer the interested reader to the Talmud.

אשר יסך בהן means BY WHICH THEY SHALL BE COVERED. It is of the קשות, the “canes,” that the words אשר יסך are said, because these lay over it like a cover and a screen. Thus, too, in another passage (Numbers 4:7) it says, ואת קשות הנסך, “and the קשות for covering;” both words, יסך and הנסך, denote screening and covering.

כפתיו אלו בזיכין נכפתיו (das.). Der Weihrauch lag sofort in Opferschalen bereit, um als Räucherwerk Gott gestreut zu werden. (Tamid V. 4, VI. 3 ist בזך auch für das tägliche קטרת das ordnungsmäßige Gefäß). Ist Weihrauch der Ausdruck für das Wohlbehagen, die Befriedigung und Zufriedenheit, die eben das Brot, die Nahrung erst zum Wohlstande machen, so bringen die Opferschalen, in welchen der Weihrauch, dieser Ausdruck der eigenen Zufriedenheit, zum Weihrauch für Gottes Altar, also zum Ausdruck des zu erringenden göttlichen Wohlgefallens bereit liegt, den Gedanken: dass das eigene Wohlgefallen ganz in das göttliche Wohlgefallen aufzugehen habe, wir an dem Wohlstande nur so viel Freude finden können, als diese Freude Gott zur Freude gereicht, und Gottes Zufriedenheit die volle Bedingung der eigenen Zufriedenheit sei. Unser eigenes Wohlbehagen muss in reiner Opferschale Gott zum Wohlgefallen bereit sein. Auch die בזיכין waren zwei, und ihre Gepaartheit wesentlich wie die der Schichten מעכבין זה את זה (Menachoth 27 a). Wenn demnach die Form und die Gepaartheit der Brote und des Weihrauchs Menschenbrüderlichkeit als eine erste Bedingung des Wohlstandes setzten, so stellen die בזיכין, die Opferschalen, in welchen der Weihrauch bereit stand, das Gotteswohlgefallen als eine zweite Bedingung des Wohlstandes auf.

אשר יוסך בהן, “wherewith to pour them (the libations).”

קשותיו אלו סניפין ומנקיותיו אלו קנים אשר יוסך בהן שמסככין בהן את הלחם (das.). Aus der Mischna 96 a und das. 94 b ergibt sich, dass jede Schicht zwei goldene Säulen zur Stütze hatte (סניפין, im Texte: קשות), die mit kleinen Vorsprüngen, פיצולין versehen waren, auf welchen Halbröhren (קנים, im Text: מנקיות) ruhten, die zwischen ein Brot und das andere zum Schutze der Brote gelegt waren. Schon der Umstand, dass diese Säulen anderwärts (Bamidbar 4, 7) קשות הנסך, "die Träger der Deckung" genannt werden, ergibt, dass diese Stützen eigentlich zu den Röhren אשר יוסך בהן, womit das Brot belegt wurde, gehörten, zunächst für sie die Stütze bildeten, diese das Brot deckenden Röhren trügen. Dies spricht somit entschieden für die Auffassung Raschis (das.), während nach תוספו׳ die Säulen nur das untere Brot zu stützen hatten, das doch unmittelbar auf dem Tische ruhte, daher am wenigsten der Stütze bedurfte. Der Ausdruck קשות הנסך fände nach תוספו׳ schwer eine Erklärung. Von den סניפין heißt es 94 b, dass sie dem Brote zur Stütze dienten, סמכי ליה ללחם damit die Brote nicht durch die aufeinander drückende Last zerbrachen, אגב יוקרא דלחם תלח, sie vermittelten dies jedoch durch die auf ihnen ruhenden Zwischenröhren. Wenn, nach תוספו׳, die Röhren nur auf den Broten geruht hätten, so würden sie die Last nur vermehrt, nicht aber durch Mittragen erleichtert haben. Von anderer Seite trugen aber auch die Röhren das Brot nicht allein, sondern in Gemeinschaft mit dem von ihnen gedeckten Brote; die aufstehenden Brotwände waren eingekerbt, in diese Einkerbungen die Röhren so weit. eingesenkt, dass sie durch die Stützen nur um ein Unbedeutendes über die Brotwände gehalten wurden und so nur ganz unmerklich die Brote vor gegenseitiger Berührung schützten, שקועי משקע להו ומגבה להו פורתא (das. 96 a).

Wir betrachten somit die Stützen mit den die Brote deckenden Röhren, קשות und מנקיות, als eine zusammen gehörende Veranstaltung. Die von den goldenen Stützen gehaltenen, die Brote von einander scheidenden goldenen Halbröhren hatten die doppelte Bestimmung: אגב יוקרא דלחם תלח, die Brote vor Zerbrechen durch den auf ihnen lastenden Druck des nächsten Brotes, und משום איעפושי sie vor Fäulnis durch die zu nahe Berührung zu schützen. Während die קערות den Broten diejenige Gestaltung gaben und erhielten, die sie für ihre Bestimmung befähigte: Träger eines des andern zu sein, somit die brüderliche Vereinigung vermittelten, wurde durch קשות הנסך, durch die Deckunghalter jene Sonderung hergestellt, die die unverletzte und ungetrübte Erhaltung jedes einzelnen bedingt. Jene bewirkten, dass trotz der Sonderung das eine das andere trug. Diese: dass trotz der Vereinigung keines das andere verletzte und verderbte, jedem vielmehr seine Selbständigkeit und seine eigene Atmosphäre gewährleistet blieb.

Übertragen wir diese durch die Anschauung gegebenen Momente auf den Gedankenkreis der den Nationalwohlstand tragenden Bedingungen, innerhalb dessen uns jene Formen als die Brüderlichkeit, die Liebe, erschienen: so haben wir den Begriff zu suchen, der ebenso die besitzenden Kreise zur Erhaltung ihrer unverletzten und unverkümmerten Selbständigkeit sondert, wie jener sie zur gegenseitigen Unterstützung brüderlich vereint. Dieser Begriff ist aber sofort kein anderer als: das Recht. Die Grundsätze des Rechts sind die goldenen, unveränderlich festen Säulen, die die goldenen, unveränderlich festen Marklinien zwischen den zum brüderlichen Ganzen in Liebe vereinigten Persönlichkeiten tragen und die Selbständigkeit eines jeden gegen Verletzung und Verkümmerung durch den Nächsten decken. Die Grundsätze des Rechts sind die קשות הנסך, sind die קשות und מנקיות, sind die Stützen und die reinhaltenden Elemente, die das Walten der freien ל Liebe erst ermöglichen. Ohne das tragende und sondernde Recht stürzt alles zu einer personlosen, unfreien Masse, zertrümmert und verkümmert durch Gewalt und Verderbnis der Menschen, zusammen. Erst das Recht schafft Persönlichkeiten selbständigen Eigentums, das die durch Gott zur Pflicht erwachsene Liebe frei der Miterhaltung des Nächsten zuwendet. Schwerlich ließe sich das Recht erschöpfender darstellen, als dies durch die סניפים und קנים in allen ihren feinsten Nuancen geschehen.

Zum Begriff der Brüderlichkeit, der dem Brote des jüdischen Wohlstandes durch Stoff, Form, Bereitung und Ordnung so wesentlich aufgedrückt ist, gesellt sich somit der Begriff des Rechts, der erst dem Ganzen Stütze und Dauer und die Möglichkeit des Daseins sichert.

Fassen wir alles zusammen, was die Darstellung des Tisches ausspricht, so sagt derselbe: dem jüdischen Wohlstande schafft ein in den Schranken des Heiligen und Reinen sich frei entwickelnder Fleiß die goldene Basis — שולחן עצי שטים וזר זהב טהור סביב ועליו צפוי זהב טהור.

Brüderlichkeit ist sein gestaltendes Prinzip: דפוס לחם הפנים כמין תיבה פרוצה,

Recht seine erhaltende Säule: קשותיו ומנקיותיו,

Gottes Wohlgefallen das Beglückende in ihm: בזיכי לבונה.

Es sind somit alle die unsere Tätigkeit beherrschenden Prinzipien des göttlichen Gesetzes im Grundriss:

die Schranken des Heiligen und Reinen: חקים,

die Brüderlichkeit: מצות,

das Recht: משפטים,

das Gotteswohlgefallen: עבודה,

und nur für einen von solchen und für solche Normen gebauten Tisch heißt es:

לחם הפנים SHEW-BREAD (lit., bread of faces) — It was so called because it had “faces” (פנים) as I have explained (v. 29). The number of loaves and the way they were set in piles are fully explained in the Sidrah אמר אל הכהנים (Leviticus 24:5—9).

LECHEM PANIM’ (SHOWBREAD). “It is called lechem panim [which literally means ‘bread of faces’] because it had ‘faces’ [surfaces] looking in both directions towards the sides of the House [Tabernacle or Sanctuary]. The loaf was set lengthwise across the breadth of the table with its sides standing up exactly in a line with the edge of the table.” This is the language of Rashi. This conforms with the language of the Mishnah:¹⁵⁸Menachoth 96a. “Ben Zoma says: lechem panim — [it is so called] because it is to have surfaces” [looking in both directions]. But all this is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage¹⁵⁹Rabbi Chanina (ibid., 94 b). who says: “How did they make the showbread? Like a case broken open.”¹⁶⁰“With its cover and two of its opposite sides removed, thus leaving the bread the two sides [facing each other] and the bottom underneath” (Rashi ibid.). The figure thus is: . But according to the Sage¹⁶¹Rabbi Yochanan (ibid). who says that it was shaped “like a rocking boat,”¹⁶²The sides of which narrowed downwards until there was but a fingerbreadth at the bottom and it had no covering on top (Rashi ibid.). The figure is: V. then it could not have been [called lechem panim because of the parallel surfaces looking in both directions, as it had none]! And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that it is called lechem panim because it is before Me always.¹⁶³The word panim meaning “face” is thus explained by l’phanai tamid (before Me always): it is lechem panim literally: “bread of the face” because it is before Me always.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], when you will understand the word l’phanai (before Me)¹⁶⁴Literally: “to My face.” you will understand its name [i.e., why it is called “the bread of panim”] and its secret, for because of that [the table] was placed on the north side [of the Tabernacle],¹⁶⁵Further, 26:35. seeing that the blessing of the Eternal maketh rich,¹⁶⁶Proverbs 10:22. similar to what is said, in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee.¹⁶⁷Above, 20:24. I have already alluded to this.¹⁶⁸Ibid., 20:3. — So explained in Bachya.
Where shall be found the wisdom embodied in the candelabrum, its cups and knops and flowers, seeing that it is so hidden from the eyes of all living!¹⁶⁹See Job 28:20-21. But as to the reason for its being of beaten work, with the six branches coming out of the seventh, and upon them the lamp of G-d¹⁷⁰I Samuel 3:3. and all [six lamps] to give light over against it¹⁷¹Further, Verse 37. — all this you can understand from our words that we have written in another place.¹⁷²I have not been able to identify that “other place.” The basic concept though is explained by Abusaula that it is an allusion to the lower six emanations all being one beaten work (Verse 36), symbolizing a perfect Unity, with the lamp of G-d, alluding to the Supreme One, above them. This is the intent of the saying of the Sages¹⁷³Menachoth 29a. that Moses found difficulty with the candelabrum.¹⁷⁴Meaning, that he found it perplexing to understand the secret of its cups and knops and flowers, for it is extremely hidden from the eyes of all living (Abusaula).

לחם פנים, according to the plain meaning of the text the word פנים means that the quality of the bread was such that it was fit to be served, to be displayed for approval to ministers and kings. In other words: “beautiful, first rate bread.” Compare Leviticus 24,5 “take choice flour and bake of it twelve loaves, etc.” Other verses in which gifts are associated with the expression פנים are found in Genesis 43,34 וישא משאת מאת פניו אליהם, “He served portions to them from his (Joseph’s, the viceroy) table.” Clearly a reference to the choicest which was served in the palace. In Samuel I,1,5 similar language is used to describe Elkanah giving his childless wife Channah the choice portion of the meal, apparently from the bowl placed before her husband. The master of the house is always given the best and choicest. Seeing that we are told that G’d had sealed her womb, but that her husband loved her best in spite of this, it is clear that he did what he could to pamper her as compensation for her grieving that she had not been able to provide her husband with children.

לחם פנים, “show-bread.” Rashi explains the name פנים, faces, to mean that these breads had two ”faces,” i.e. that the manner in which they were displayed enabled people from opposite sides of the Tabernacle to see them clearly. He accepts the view of the sage who describes the manner in which they were displayed as resembling a box that has split open. According to the view that these breads, when in their forms, resembled the shape of a ship, this cannot be the meaning of the word פנים. Ibn Ezra explains simply that the breads were called thus as the Torah itself describes G’d as viewing them as constantly in His presence, i.e. enjoying His attention,לפני תמיד.

V. 30. ונתת וגו׳ "und auf diesen Tisch gibst du Angesichtsbrot vor mein Angesicht stets!" Nur auf einem solchen Tische und für einen solchen Tisch wird das Brot לחם הפנים, "Angesichtsbrot": unter Gottes Angesicht gewonnen und genossen, und von Gottes Angesicht gewährt, geschützt und gesegnet.

לחם פנים, breads to be on display, (showbread(s).) They were called thus as the table was always displaying them. In the Talmud quoted, folio 96, the word פנים is understood as partitions.

מקשה תיעשה המנורה OF BEATEN WORK SHALL THE CANDELABRUM BE MADE — i. e. one should not make it of separate pieces nor shall one make its branches or its lamps as separate limb — a kind of work called souder in old French, Engl, to solder, but is was to be made in its entirety of a single mass of gold. He (who made it) beat it with the hammer and cut away with the implements of his craft thus making the branches spread out in this direction and in that (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 61:1).

ועשית מנורת זהב טהור. This commandment follows the establishment of “2 crowns,” the crown of Torah as represented by the Ark, and the crown of Royalty as represented by the Table. The Torah arranged the subject of the Menorah as something that it totally integrated, i.e. just as the Menorah was to be constructed of a single chunk of gold, not as a composite structure, so the seven lights were also to be arranged in such a way that the light from the lamps would converge in one above the light burning on top of the central shaft. This is the meaning of the words והאיר על עבר פניה, (verse 36) this means that the lights both on the right of the center shaft and those on the left should be arranged so that the respective flames would focus in the direction of the middle. Inasmuch as the lights symbolised spiritual “enlighten-ment,” the lesson is that in all our efforts at obtaining such enlightenment, and during all the digressions that the pursuit of such disciplines necessarily entails, we must never lose sight of the direction in which we are striving and keep this central idea of such enlightenment resulting in us becoming better servants of the Lord, constantly in front of our mental eye. The reason that there were lights on both the right side of the center shaft as well as on the left side, is that pursuit of enlightenment expresses itself both in gaining of theoretical knowledge, ethical imperatives, but no less so in the practical application of such lessons learned. Both must be placed in the service of the נר המערבי, the light from the center shaft, the one which faces the Shechinah directly. Only the focusing on our spiritual goal ensures that the six lights on the various arms will continue to burn without hindrance. The thought we just tried to portray is expressed in Numbers 8,2-4 בהעלותך את הנרות אל מול פני המנוה יאירו שבעת הנרות “when you kindle the lamps, toward the face of the Menorah shall the seven lamps cast light.” This is the symbolism contained in the words וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה, (Numbers 8,4) i.e. in spite of what appears to be a multiplicity of lights emanating from this Menorah, their function is singular, one of unification, just as the Menorah from which they emanate was cast out of a single chunk of gold, something unified.

תיעשה המנורה, the Lampstand shall be made. Why did the Torah need to write these words at all? Was it not enough to write: "you shall construct a Lampstand made of gold?" Our sages in Menachot 28 comment that the word תיעשה allows for the fact that if necessary the Lampstand could be constructed of other metals. The passive form of תיעשה rather than תעשה, "you shall make," is justified then, seeing that in Moses' time there was no need to take advantage of the permission to construct the Lampstand of inferior materials.

'ועשית מנורת וגו, to illuminate the breads on the table as is mentioned in 26,35 where the position of this Menorah is specifically described as being opposite the table.

Because Moshe had difficulties with it. Hashem saw that Moshe had difficulty, therefore He showed him a menorah of fire. But Moshe still had difficulty, so He said, “Throw the mass into the fire.” This was done by Betzalel. Thus in actuality, the menorah was made by itself, although Hashem never expressly told Moshe that it would be made by itself. This is learned from the word תיעשה , which is written with a י , rather than תעשה . Re”m elaborates here, but I was brief.

V. 31 u. 32. Die Bestimmung, dass der Leuchter מקשה, nur massiv aus einem Stücke gearbeitet sein muss, sowie die vorgeschriebenen Kelche, Knaufe und Blüten, waren nur unumgänglich, wenn er aus Gold verfertigt war, באה זהב באה גביעים כפתורים ופרחים באה זהב באה מקשה אינה באה זהב אינה באה וכו׳ (Menachoth 28 a). Nie jedoch durfte er aus Bruchmetall (גרוטאות), und immer musste er aus Metall verfertigt sein (das.) und auch die übrigen Bestandteile: Fuß, Schaft, Arme sind unumgänglich (das.). Dass, wenn die Umstände die Anfertigung aus Gold nicht erlauben — wie dies in der ersten Zeit der makkabäischen Restauration der Fall war — der Leuchter auch von minder wertvollem Metall angefertigt werden durfte, ist im Texte durch die Wiederholung des תיעשה, nachdem es bereits ועשית וגו׳ hieß, angedeutet. Durch diese Wiederholung wird die Satzform כלל ופרט וכלל und das vorangehende זהב exemplifikatorisch, כעין הפרט: Metall (das. b). Dies dürfte denn auch die ungewöhnliche Schreibweise תיעשה erklären. Es ist damit die passive Form auch ohne Vokalisierung sichtbar gemacht, zur besonderen Beachtung hervorgehoben, und damit die Anfertigung des Leuchters "unter allen Umständen" geboten, תֵיעָשֶה: er soll hergestellt werden!

תיעשה המנורה, “the lampstand shall be made;” the word: תיעשה is spelled here with the letter י, the only time in the Bible it is spelled in this manner, in order to serve as a reminder that Solomon placed ten such lampstands into the Temple that he built.

ועשית מנורת זהב טהור, “you are to construct a candlestick of pure gold;” the function of this candlestick was to provide light for what was on the table. This is why the Torah reports in Exodus 40,24 that Moses positioned the menorah opposite the table.

מקשה — This word is translated in the Targum by נגיד, an expression for “drawing out;” he renders it thus because the parts of the candle-stick were drawn from the lump in this direction and in that by the blow of the hammer. The term מקשה denotes knocking with the hammer — batediz in old French — as the verb in (Daniel 5:6) “and his knees knocked (נקשן) one against another”.

מקשה, he took a chunk of gold and peeled from its side arms, cup-shaped ornaments, flowers, etc., all with aid of a hammer.

ירך ist die Basis, der Fuß, קנה der Schaft. Basis und Schaft bilden die eigentliche מנורה worunter speziell immer der Mittelschaft zur Unterscheidung von den Seitenarmen zu verstehen ist. So auch VV. 34 u. 37 und Bamidbar 6, 2. — גביעים sind Kelche, כמין כוסות אלכסנדריים, nach Art der alexandrinischen Kelche, länglich schmal (Raschi); כפתורים apfelförmige Knaufe, כמין תפוחי הכרתיים, wie kretensische Äpfel; פרחים, Blüten: כמין פרחי העמודים, wie die Blütenformen an Säulen (Menachoth das.). Es waren dies Verzierungen an dem Leuchter, die V. 34 noch näher bestimmt sind. Der Leuchter war 18 טפחים (Faust-, Handbreite) hoch. Unmittelbar auf der Basis war eine "Blüte", פרח, aus der sich der Schaft erhob. Basis und Blüte zusammen nahmen 3 טפחי׳ ein. Darauf stieg der Schaft 2 טפחי׳ ohne Verzierung hinauf. Den 6. טפח füllte ein Kelch-, Knauf- und Blütenstand aus. 2 טפחי׳, somit der 7. und 8. ט׳, stiegen wieder glatt hinauf, den 9. טפח bildete ein Knauf, aus dem, wie VV. 32 und 35 beschrieben, zwei Arme rechts und links ausgingen und sich bis zur Höhe des Leuchters erhoben, der 10. ט׳ stieg glatt hinauf, den 11. füllte wieder ein Knauf aus, aus welchem rechts und links zwei Arme bis zur Höhe des Leuchters ausgingen, der 12. ט׳ wieder glatt, den 13. füllte ein dritter Knauf mit zwei Armen aus, der 14. und 15. ט׳ stieg wieder glatt hinauf, den 16., 17. und 18. טפח nahmen drei Kelche, ein Knauf und eine Blüte ein. Auf dem Schaftgipfel ruhte sodann die Lampe נר. — Aus dem den Mittelschaft bildenden Leuchter gingen zu beiden Seiten קנים, Arme, und zwar drei Paare, zusammen sechs Arme hervor; diese Arme erhoben sich zur gleichen Höhe des Mittelschaftes, so dass oben sieben Lampen in paralleler Linie brannten.

וירכה, “its base;” this is a reference to the base of the menorah;” its total height was eighteen handbreadths, of which the base with its three legs took up three handbreadths. We have a hint of its height in Numbers 8,4 where the subject of the menorah is introduced with the word: וזה, “and this was;” the numerical value of the letters in that word is 18.

מקשה תיעשה, “it shall be made of hammered work.” According to Rashi the reason why the word תיעשה here is spelled with an extra letter י in the middle, was in response to difficulties Moses had in understanding how Betzalel would be able to comply with the detailed instructions concerning the candlestick. What puzzled him most of all was that as opposed to all the other furnishings he had not been given a measurement for the height of this candlestick.

תיעשה המנורה [OF BEATEN WORK] SHALL THE CANDELABRUM BE MADE — The passive form used here in contradistinction to the active forms of עשה used throughout this section in connection with the making of the vessels indicates that it shall be made of itself (automatically). Because Moses was puzzled by it (the work of the candlestick), the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Cast the talent of gold into fire and it will be made of itself.” For this reason it does not say here תַּעֲשֶׂה “thou shalt make” (Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 3)

ירכה, the wide base (legs) in touch with the floor, upon which the entire lamp stand was erected.

גביעיה, its cups; all these adornments were to be an integral part of the center shaft, so that if any oil spilled from the top it could be absorbed by the decorations each of which was shaped in, the shape of a receptacle. If the highest one of these became full, the excess could be absorbed by the next lower one, etc.

ירכה — the foot (the base) below, which was made in form of a box, three legs coming out from it underneath.

וקנה, a reference to the central shaft from which three subsidiary arms would branch out in either direction.

וקנה — ITS SHAFT — its middle branch that rose from the central point of the base vertically upwards. On it was the middle lamp, made in the form of a cup into which to pour the oil and to put the wick.

גביעיה כפתוריה ופרחיה ממנה יהיו, all of these would emanate from the center shaft. Wherever there was a knob, two relatively thin arms would branch out, one to the right and one to the left. All this is spelled out in verse 35.

גביעיה — They were like that kind of goblets which are made of glass and which are long and slender; in old French they are termed maderins (cf. Rashi on Genesis 44:2). These, however, were made of gold and came out as projections from each branch to the number which Scripture enjoins for them. They were on it for embellishment only.

כפתריה ITS KNOBS — These were like apples, globular, projecting all round the middle branch (shaft), such as are made for candlesticks of princely houses (lit., which stand before the princes), and which are called pommeaux in old French, apple-shaped ornaments. Their number is stated in this section — how many knobs projected from it (the middle branch) and how much was left plain between one knob and the other.

ופרחיה AND ITS FLOWERS — Figures were made on it in the shape of flowers.

ממנה יהיו SHALL BE OF THE SAME — All shall be of beaten work coming out of this block-shaped piece: one must not make them separately and then join them on the branches.

יצאים מצדיה [AND SIX BRANCHES] SHALL GO OUT OF ITS SIDE — on each side slantwise extending on high up to the level of the candlestick proper, i. e. of the middle branch. They came out from the middle branch, one above the other — the lowest being the longest, that above it being shorter than it, and the upper one even shorter than that, for the height of their tops was to be the same as the height of the middle branch — the seventh, the central one, from which the other six branches came out.

משקדים — Understand this as the Targum has it, מְצָיְרִין, chased. They were “modelled” in the way that is done on gold and silver vessels, a kind of work called in old French nieller.

שלושה גביעים, hollow, similar to a cup. These made it appear as if the center shaft was full of holes.

כן לששת הקנים היוצאים מן המנורה, “likewise for the six branches that protrude forth from the Menorah.” Seeing that thus far only two of these “arms” have been mentioned, the Torah had to add the word “כן,” “likewise, similarly, i.e. that the same pattern applied to all the six arms. In the verse following, (35) where all six “arms” have been mentioned specifically, there was no need for the extra word כן. This was necessary only where I could have thought that a different six “arms” were referred to. We did need to be told that the knobs, almond shaped decorations, and blossom shaped decorations, were all to be integral on each of these “arms.”

V. 33. An jedem der sechs Arme waren drei Kelche, ein Knauf und eine Blüte. Die Kelche werden משוקדים bezeichnet, welches mandelförmig oder mandelartig bedeuten kann. Nach Joma 52 a u. b ist es zweifelhaft, ob sich dieses mandelartige nicht auch auf die Knaufe und Blüten (wenigstens des Mittelschaftes, siehe הל׳ בית הבחירה ,מ׳למ׳ III, 2) erstreckt. Der Trennungsakzent auf משוקדים V. 34 spricht dafür.

שלשה גבעים THREE GOBLETS, projecting from each branch,

משוקדים, almond-shaped, protruding in the outer walls of these cup-shaped ornaments. [The author describes jewelry in his time that was constructed in a similar fashion, something this editor is not too familiar with. Ed.]

כפתור ופרח AND A KNOB AND A FLOWER was also on each branch.

כפתור ופרח, these knobs and flowers alternated with one another at halfway up the arms of the lamp stand.

ובמנרה ארבעה גבעים AND IN THE CANDELABRUM SHALL BE FOUR CUPS — i. e, on the body of the candlestick (on the vertical branch), were four goblets, viz., one jutting out from beneath the branches and three above the points from which emerged the branches that went out from its sides.

V. 34. ובמנורה, an dem Mittelschafte, dem eigentlichen Leuchter. Vier Kelche: einer im 6. טפח und drei innerhalb des 16. bis 18. כפתורים — .ט׳, Knaufe befanden sich, außer den im folgenden Verse beschriebenen drei Knaufen unter den drei Armenhaaren, zwei am Mittelschaft: einer im 6. ט׳ und einer innerhalb des 16. bis ,Blüten, waren am Mittelschaft drei: eine unmittelbar auf der Basis ,פרחים - .ט׳ .18 innerhalb der untersten drei ט׳, eine im 6. ט׳ und eine innerhalb der obersten drei טפחי׳.

משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה GOBLETS MODELLED, WITH THEIR KNOBS AND THEIR FLOWERS (or it may be translated also: GOBLETS, MODELLED WITH THEIR KNOBS AND FLOWERS — The word משקדים being separated from the preceding by an אתנחתא seems to belong to the next words, to כפתוריה ופרחיה, but the fact that in the preceding verse it had been used of the goblets only suggests the reading גביעים משקדים. This is one of the five verses in Scripture the syntactical construction of which is undecided: it is not clear whether one should read גביעים משקדים or משקדים כפתריה ופרחיה (Yoma 52b).

וכפתר תחת שני הקנים AND THERE SHALL BE A KNOB UNDER TWO BRANCHES — The branches were drawn out from the two sides of the knob to this direction and to that. Thus we are taught in the Baraitha dealing with the construction of the Tabernacle (ch. 10): The full height of the candlestick was eighteen handbreadths, the legs and the flower taking up three handbreadths. — This is the flower mentioned in connection with the base, as it says, (Numbers 8:4) “unto the base thereof, unto the flower thereof”. — Then there was a space of two handbreadths that was plain; then one handbreadth in which was one of the four goblets (mentioned Exodus 25:34) and a knob and a flower of those two knobs and those two flowers that are mentioned together with the candlestick proper — for it states, (v. 34) “[And on the candelabrum (i. e. on the shaft) there shall be four cups] made like unto almonds with their knobs and their flowers,” which teaches us that there were on the middle branch two knobs and two flowers (the plural כפתריה ופרחיה without stating the number suggesting “two” of each kind; besides the three knobs from which the branches emerged and of which it is said, (Exodus 25:35) “And there shall be a knob under the two branches etc.” — Then there were the following: two handbreadths that were plain; a handbreadth made up of a knob from which two branches emerged on each side, extending upward to the level of the candlestick proper; one handbreadth plain; one handbreadth made up of a knob with two branches emerging from it; one handbreadth plain, and a handbreadth made up of a knob from which two branches emerged and rose to the level of the candlestick proper; two handbreadths plain. Thus there remained three handbreadths in which were three goblets (three of the four mentioned in v. 34) and one knob and one flower (of the two mentioned Exodus 25:34-35). Consequently the goblets were twenty-two — eighteen on the six branches, there being three on each, and four on the candlestick proper, making altogether twenty-two; — and there were eleven knobs, — six on the six branches, one on each, and three on the candlestick proper from which the branches emerged, and two more knobs on the candlestick proper, — for it says, “made like unto almonds with its knobs”, and the minimum number implied by the plural כפתורים, is two. One of these was below near the base and the other in the upper three handbreadths together with the three goblets. Furthermore it had nine flowers, six on the six branches, — as it says, (Exodus 25:33) “with a knob and a flower on the one branch” — and three on the candlestick proper, viz., two as is implied in what is said “made like unto almonds with its knobs and its flowers” — and the minimum number to be understood by the plural פרחים is two, and one that is mentioned in the section בהעלתך, (Numbers 8:4) “unto the base thereof and the flower thereof.” If you will study the above quoted Boraitha minutely you will find them (the different parts of the candlestick) enumerated according to their number, each in its position as laid down in this section (Menachot 28b).

וכפתור תחת שני הקנים, a knob and a flower in the center shaft beneath each set of arms branching out from it.

V. 35. Im ganzen waren zweiundzwanzig Kelche, elf Knäufe und neun Blüten, und wird aus Menachot 28 gelehrt, dass diese Teile so wesentlich waren, dass der Mangel eines einzigen derselben den ganzen Leuchter unbrauchbar machte: גביעים מעכבין זה את זה .כפתורים מ׳ ז׳ א׳ ז׳ ,פרחים מ׳ ז׳ א׳ ז׳ ,גביעים כפתורים ופרחים מעכבין זה את זה.

לששת הקנים, three times. (seeing two arms extended from the center shaft at the same height each time) The words וכפתור did not need to be repeated three times in our verse as the count had already been made in verse 33.

כפתריהם וקנותם ממנו יהיו, Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it. We are taught in Menachot 28 that both the seven branches of the Lampstand and the seven lamps were essential. [if even one of these items were to be missing the Lampstand could not fulfil its function. Ed.] The Talmud bases this rule on the use of the word יהיו in connection with this directive. This appears difficult as the word יהיו appears only after the mention of the branches, and not in connection with the lamps. The word יהיו appears altogether only twice in connection with the Lampstand, once in our verse and once previously in verse 31 where the making of the Lampstand is commanded. If the Talmud were correct, why does the Torah not mention the word יהיו when describing the construction of the lamps in verse 37? The fact that verse 31 does not speak about the lamps at all surely suggests that only the items mentioned prior to the word יהיו are essential? Even though the Mishnah does not mention anything but the Lampstand itself and its branches, Tossaphot already added that this ruling also applies to the cups, knops, and flowers mentioned in verse 31, but that the reason the Mishnah does not mention those items is that they would not apply when the Lampstand is not made of gold. Maimonides writes in the same vein in chapter three of his Hilchot Beyt Ha-Bechirah. The fact remains that the word יהיו does not appear in connection with the lamps themselves. There is an argument in Menachot 98 as to whether the lamps were an integral part of the Lampstand or whether they were removable. According to the view that the lamps were removable and were separate utensils, whence do we know they were considered essential seeing the word יהיו is not mentioned in connection with them? Even according to the view that the lamps were integral to the Lampstand, surely the sage holding that view concedes that they were not cast in one piece with the rest of the Lampstand, and our problem remains? The problem discussed by our sages in the Talmud appears to center around the question whether the Lampstand consumed the whole talent of gold mentioned in verse 39, or whether the various other utensils were all cast out of the same talent of gold mentioned in verse 39. When the Torah singled out the knops, the flowers and the cups as being מקשה, i.e. cast as a single piece with the Lampstand, no mention is made of the lamps. Seeing that the Torah went to some length to describe the details of the construction of the Lampstand, it is rather evident that any utensils not mentioned were not an integral part of the Lampstand. Besides, when one considers that the Torah emphasises concerning the items mentioned in verse 31 that they were to be ממנה, an integral part of the Lampstand, surely the rules implied by the word יהיו apply to all of them, as mentioned by Tossaphot!

V. 36. Das Suffix וקנתם ist auffallend. Es kann sich doch nur auf die Arme beziehen, und kann man doch nicht die Arme den Armen selbst zueignen. Man hätte: קניה וכפתריהם erwarten sollen. Die Arme sind Teile des Leuchters und die Knaufe Teile der Arme. Es scheint jedoch ein Unterschied zwischen קנים und קנות zu sein. קנים sind die Arme im ganzen. Der Arm besteht aber aus Knaufen, כפתורים, und glatten Teilen, die sich zu ihnen wie die Stiele zu der Frucht verhalten, und daher קנות heißen, sie sind Träger der כפתורים.

Perhaps we can say that seeing that the Torah took pains to reveal the function of the seven shafts of the Lampstand, namely to place the lamps on top of them, this is sufficient evidence that just as the shafts of the Lampstand were essential so were the lamps which had to be placed on top of them. This may be the reason the Talmud did not even bother to mention the status of the lamps when it stipulated what was essential and what was not.

את נרתיה ITS LAMPS — a kind of small bowls into which the oil and the wicks were put.

נרותיה, a reference to the little bowls in which both the oil and the wick would be placed. The priest would point the direction of each flame towards the center shaft so that they would illuminate also each other. [the word פניה refers to the table standing across from the Menorah which would be indirectly illuminated by these seven lights.] This same point is repeated in Numbers 8,2 making sure we understand that the lights of the Menorah illuminated the breads on the table opposite it.

והאיר על עבר פניה, (verse 36) this means that the lights both on the right of the center shaft and those on the left should be arranged so that the respective flames would focus in the direction of the middle. Inasmuch as the lights symbolised spiritual “enlighten-ment,” the lesson is that in all our efforts at obtaining such enlightenment, and during all the digressions that the pursuit of such disciplines necessarily entails, we must never lose sight of the direction in which we are striving and keep this central idea of such enlightenment resulting in us becoming better servants of the Lord, constantly in front of our mental eye. The reason that there were lights on both the right side of the center shaft as well as on the left side, is that pursuit of enlightenment expresses itself both in gaining of theoretical knowledge, ethical imperatives, but no less so in the practical application of such lessons learned. Both must be placed in the service of the נר המערבי, the light from the center shaft, the one which faces the Shechinah directly. Only the focusing on our spiritual goal ensures that the six lights on the various arms will continue to burn without hindrance. The thought we just tried to portray is expressed in Numbers 8,2-4 בהעלותך את הנרות אל מול פני המנוה יאירו שבעת הנרות “when you kindle the lamps, toward the face of the Menorah shall the seven lamps cast light.” This is the symbolism contained in the words וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה, (Numbers 8,4) i.e. in spite of what appears to be a multiplicity of lights emanating from this Menorah, their function is singular, one of unification, just as the Menorah from which they emanate was cast out of a single chunk of gold, something unified.

Their shine would be turned towards. . . Rashi is saying that the phrases of, “They shine toward it,” and, “Its lamps shall be lit,” do not teach the manner in which the menorah shall be lit because this parshah is not speaking about the manner of lighting the menorah but on how it should be constructed. Perforce, the verse is instructing the craftsman to make its lamps in a way that the lamps will shine toward the middle branch once the menorah is lit. This is accomplished by making the mouths of the six lamps, which are on the six branches, turned towards the middle one. (Re”m)

V.37. Wie schon zu V. 32 bemerkt, gingen die Arme aus dem Mittelschafte hervor und erhoben sich bis zur Höhe desselben. Mit ihm zusammen waren aber sieben Lampen in gerader Linie. Hier wird nun angeordnet, dass die auf den sechs Armen ruhenden Lampen ihr Licht der Richtung der von dem Mittelschafte getragenen Lampe zuwenden sollen, also, dass die drei der rechten Seiten links, die der linken Seite rechts gewendet waren. Diese Bestimmung wird Bamidbar 8, 2 nochmals wiederholt: מלמד .אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות heißt es darüber (Menachot 98 b) שהיו מצדדין פניהם כלפי נר אמצעי

והאיר, ”it will illuminate, etc.” the meaning of the verse is that the lights from the menorah will illuminate the showbreads on the Table opposite it. This is spelled out in detail in Exodus 49,24. The plain meaning of the verses dealing with this is that the broadside of the lampstand faced from east to west so that it could easily provide light for the Table standing opposite it. According to the view of the scholar claiming that the position of the menorah had been in a north-south direction, we would have to assume that the lamp burning on top of the center shaft was pointing westward, whereas all the other six lamps were facing towards the center shaft. This is not very convincing, as clearly the purpose of the lamps was primarily to illuminate the showbreads on the Table. Alternately, we would have to accept Rashi’s explanation that the six lamps were facing in the direction of the lamp in the center in order to emphasize the light of that particular lamp.

ועשית את נרותיה, “and you are to make its lamps etc.;” the reason why the word: ועשית is repeated here is that these lamps were separate vessels, not part of the shaft and its six arms. Proof of this is provided by the wording: כפתוריהם וקנותם ממנה היו, “its knobs and shaft (only) were all of the same chunk (of gold).” In addition, the Torah uses a separate verse in 37,23 to tell us that Betzalel made these seven lamps. This proves that they were separate vessels.

והאיר על עבר פניה AND MAKE THEM GIVE LIGHT OVER AGAINST IT — Make the mouths of those six lamps which are on the top of the branches that come out from its sides so that they are turned towards the middle branch, in order that when you kindle the lamps they shall cast their light over against its (the candlestick’s) front-side, i. e. their light should be directed in the direction of the front of the central branch which forms the candlestick proper.

(2) HE, the kohen, SHALL MOUNT.

נרותיה שבעה, “its lamps seven.” This was to symbolise the seven days of the week, as well as the seven zodiac constellations that provide illumination in the universe; the Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars.

(3) THE LAMPS. Seven on the seven stems.

והעלה, “he shall light;” [the priest, as no one else was allowed in there. Ed.] את נרותיה, “its lamps.” Seven lamps on the seven arms of the candlestick. והאיר, “it will illuminate,” על ער פניה, “on its front side;” it will give light so that all its shafts/arms will be visible. [The wicks were so arranged that they were directed at the center shaft. Ed.] והאיר, “it will illuminate,”

(4) SO AS TO GIVE LIGHT ON ITS FRONT SIDE. He should light the wicks toward the side facing [in the direction across from] the lampstand, which is the side of the table, which is opposite it, as it is written (Exod. 26:35), "and the lampstand opposite the table," and it is likewise written (Num. 8:2), "Towards opposite [JPS: at the front of] the lampstand shall the seven lamps give light."

ומלקחיה — These were tongs made for taking the wicks out from the oil, to put them in position and to draw them into the mouths. Because people took things with them they were called מלקחים, (from לקח, “to take”). The word צבתהא by which Onkelos renders it is the same as the more familiar term צבת, “a pair of tongs”; tenailles in old French

ומלקחיה, ומחתותיה זהב טהור; both its tongs and its snuffdishes to be of pure gold. The Torah had to mention the words "pure gold" here as everybody agrees that these utensils were not cast from the previously mentioned talent of gold.

ומלקחיה, the tongs needed to handle the wicks in order to insert them in the lamps.

ומחתותיה, “and its pans.” Rashi explains that these “pans,” were meant to accommodate the wicks after they had burnt out. Other commentators claim that these “pans” were small receptacles in which the oil for each of the lamps was placed. This seems unlikely, as it would pose the question what does the word נרותיה in verse 37 mean?

V. 38. Die Zangen und Pfannen waren zum täglichen Dienste des Leuchters, der Säuberung und Herrichtung des Öls und der Dochte (הטבה) notwendig.

ומחתתיה AND ITS SNUFF-DISHES — These were like small bowls into which the High Priest raked the ashes every morning when he cleansed out the lamps from the ashes of the wicks that had burned all night and had become extinguished. The word מחתה is fougère (feuchière) in old French, as in, (Isaiah 30:14) “to rake (לחתות) fire from the hearth.”

ומחתותיה, the ash-pans in which the leftover, possibly still glowing, remnants of the wicks and any unburned oil would be removed when cleaning out the lamps each morning.

ככר זהב טהור OF A TALENT OF PURE GOLD [SHALL HE MAKE IT WITH ALL THESE VESSELS] — i. e. that its weight together with (את) all its vessels shall he exactly one talent, neither more nor less (cf. Menachot 88b). A common (not holy) kikkar (one used for weighing ordinary articles) was sixty manehs, that used for sacred purposes double as much, hundred and twenty manehs; a maneh was equal to a litra (the Roman libra, a pound) by which silver is weighed, according to the standard weight of Cologne. This is hundred denars which is the equivalent of twenty-five Sela’im, one Sela being four denars (cf. Bekhorot 5a).

OF A TALENT OF PURE GOLD SHALL HE MAKE IT WITH ALL THESE VESSELS. This means “that its weight together with all its vessels shall be exactly one talent, neither less nor more.” This is Rashi’s language. And such indeed is the simple meaning of Scripture. But if that be so, there is here a point which is greatly to be wondered about, namely that Scripture should not specify at all how much of the talent of gold should go into the candelabrum itself! For in that case half of the talent or even more could then go into the making of the tongs and the snuffdishes¹⁷⁵Verse 38. which are vessels separate from the candelabrum, while the candelabrum itself could be made of less than half the talent, or perhaps the candelabrum would be made of the entire talent less one maneh [a sacred talent consisted of one hundred and twenty manoth] and all these vessels would be made of the one maneh! Moreover, what reason is there that the total weight of the candelabrum with its many separate vessels should be given as one talent, and why was it not explained how many tongs and snuffdishes should be made from it?
But the opinion of our Rabbis is not as the Rabbi [Rashi] stated it, for thus did the Sages teach in Tractate Menachoth:¹⁷⁶Menachoth 88b. “The candelabrum and its seven lamps¹⁷⁷Verse 37. — These were a kind of small receptacle into which the oil and the wicks were put (Rashi). came from the talent, but not its tongs and snuffdishes. And if you ask how will I then explain, [Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it,] with all these vessels? Then I reply that this includes the lamps. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Nechemyah says: the candelabrum [alone] came from the talent but not its lamps, tongs, and snuffdishes. And if you ask how will I then explain the expression, with all these vessels? I answer that it teaches that they all be made of gold [aside of the talent mentioned].” There in Tractate Menachoth the Rabbis have further said, that according to Rabbi Yehudah [who says that the lamps came from the talent], the lamps were also of beaten work together with the candelabrum; yet Scripture calls them these ‘vessels,’ because they are receptacles for the oil, known by a name of their own, since in all other candelabrums they are separate from them [although here they were hammered out of the same talent of gold from which the whole candelabrum was made]. And according to Rabbi Nechemyah [who says that the lamps did not come from the talent, the Rabbis] have said there that the lamps were not of beaten work together with the candelabrum. Thus according to Rabbi Yehudah included in the weight of the talent — with that which was of beaten work with it — is only the candelabrum itself but none of the separate vessels thereof. And according to Rabbi Nechemyah the Rabbis have said there: “And if you ask how will I then explain the expression, with all these vessels? I answer, it teaches that they all be made of gold, this being necessary to be stated because of the mouth of the lamps.”¹⁷⁸One might think that the mouth of the lamps where the wicks burn and become blackened should not be made of pure gold, since the Torah cares for the wealth of Israel; therefore Scripture let it be known that even the mouth of the lamps be made of pure gold (Rashi, Menachoth 88 b).
According to the simple meaning of Scripture the verse states: “Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it; all these vessels he shall [also] make of pure gold,” since He did not explain at first that the lamps¹⁷⁹That the tongs and snuffdishes are to be made of pure gold is clearly stated in Verse 38. However, concerning the lamps He did not mention at all (in Verse 37) that they be made of pure gold. Hence the reverting to them in Verse 39 before us. should be of gold. Similarly, Scripture relates at the time of the making of the candelabrum, And he made the lamps thereof, seven, and the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, of pure gold,¹⁸⁰Further, 37:23. the expression of pure gold referring only to the tongs and the snuffdishes [but not to the lamps], and therefore He explained it further and said, Of a talent of pure gold he made it, and all the vessels thereof,¹⁸¹Ibid., Verse 24. the meaning being that all its vessels he [i.e., Bezalel] made of pure gold, not that he made them out of the talent of gold. Included in the expression all the vessels thereof are the oil vessels, for he made with the candelabrum many vessels besides those mentioned, just as it is said during the journeyings, And they shall cover the candelabrum of the light, and its lamps, and its tongs, and its snuffdishes, and all the oil vessels thereof, wherewith they minister unto it.¹⁸²Numbers 4:9. And the verse which states, unto the base thereof, and unto the flowers thereof, it was beaten work,¹⁸³Ibid., 8:4. likewise indicates according to its plain sense that only the candelabrum itself was of beaten work but not its lamps. All this is in accordance with the line of teaching of the Gemara.
But in the Beraitha of the work of the Tabernacle¹⁸⁴See above, Note 108. it is taught in another way. “The candelabrum which Moses made in the wilderness was made of gold. It had to be made by a process of beating, and had to have cups, knops, and flowers, for it is said, And thou shalt make a candelabrum of pure gold.¹⁸⁵Above, Verse 31. I might have thought that [the cups etc.] may be made separately and then soldered on to the candelabrum; Scripture therefore states, they shall be of one piece with it.¹⁸⁶Verse 36. How do we know that this includes lamps, so that they must also be made of one piece with it? Scripture therefore says, [Of a talent of pure gold] he shall make.¹⁸⁷Verse 39 before us. I might think this also includes its cups, knops, and flowers? Scripture therefore says, it [he shall make ‘it’]. Now how do you know that you are to include its lamps and exclude its cups, knops and flowers? Since Scripture has here used a term of amplification and followed it by a term of limitation,¹⁸⁸A literal translation of the text here reads: “After it included its lamps Scripture limited.” I have followed on this point Ish Shalom’s text (see Note 108). The thought conveyed would seem to be identical in both versions. I reason as follows: I include its lamps because they have to be made with the candelabrum, and I exclude its cups, knops and flowers because they do not always have to be made with it.¹⁸⁹The intent, as explained further on, is as follows: even if the candelabrum is made of any other metal beside gold it must also contain the branches. But cups, knops, and flowers are to be made only if the candelabrum is made out of gold. — When the Hasmonean kings recaptured the Temple from the hands of the Greeks the candelabrum was first made of iron, then of silver and finally when the people could afford it, they made it of gold (Menachoth 28 b). Now when it was made of iron or silver it did not need cups, knops etc. And how do I know that I am to include its malkocheha¹⁹⁰Up to this point we have followed all standard commentators — Rashi, Onkelos, etc. as well as all translations — that melkochayim are “tongs.” But from this point on it is clear [and Ramban will so clarify it further] that melkochayim are a sort of cover-like part for each of the lamps so that no impurities fall into the lamp while it is burning. Ramban’s comment that “in the same way they make today in candelabrums for kings” is obviously a reference to what he had personally seen in the royal palace of the Kingdom of Aragon which as the recognized leader of the Jews he often visited. and machtotheha?¹⁹¹The same change applies to machtoth which we have translated till now as “snuffdishes.” But it is clear that Ramban interprets it now as meaning that underneath each lamp there was a small receptacle for the sparks to fall into. Scripture therefore says, [of beaten work] shall it be done.¹⁸⁵Above, Verse 31. I might think I am also to include the tzvatim (tongs) and the snuffers; Scripture therefore says, [Of a talent of pure gold he shall make] it.¹⁸⁷Verse 39 before us. And how do you know that you are to include the malkocheha and machtotheha and exclude the tongs and the snuffers? Since Scripture has here used a term of amplification and followed it by a term of limitation, I reason as follows: I include the malkocheha and machtotheha because they are used with the candelabrum, and I exclude the tongs and the snuffers because they are not used with it. Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Korcha says: It [i.e., the candelabrum] is made of the talent, but not its vessels, for it is said, Of a talent of pure gold he shall make ‘it.’¹⁸⁷Verse 39 before us. And if you ask how will I then explain the expression, and all its vessels? Then I reply that it means that they should be made of pure gold [but not of the talent].” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha.
It appears from that which the Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said, that the lamps, the melkochayim, and the machtoth were all made of beaten work together with the candelabrum; since the melkochayim were not tongs [as we understood the word till now]¹⁹²And as Rashi and Onkelos interpreted melkochayim to mean “tongs.” but they were rather golden lids which were made on the rim of the lamps for opening and closing, and would cover them so that nothing fell into the oil, in the same way that they make today in candelabrums for kings. This usage [of the word melkochayim] is associated with the expression, and my tongue cleaveth ‘malkochay’¹⁹³Psalms 22:16. — the palate and bottom parts of the mouth being called melkochayim [of the root loko’ach — “taking”] because they “take in” the tongue between them.¹⁹⁴The above-mentioned verse from the Psalms would then mean: “and my tongue cleaveth to the roof and bottom of my mouth.” The machtoth are receptacles under each lamp to catch the sparks of fire which might fall from them. The melkochayim and the machtoth were all of one beaten work with the candelabrum and were made out of the talent of gold. But the tongs and the snuffers, which were not used in the candelabrum itself but were instead vessels separate from it and not attached thereto, did not come from the talent at all. Similarly this Beraitha excluded its cups, knops and flowers, so that if he wanted to make them not of beaten work together with the candelabrum he was so permitted, the reason according to the Beraitha being “because they are not made with it,” that is to say, they do not invalidate the candelabrum. For if he made it of any other metal besides gold, it did not come with cups, knops and flowers, but the [six] branches [with the central shaft] always invalidated the candelabrum if lacking therefrom.
According to this Beraitha then, the Scriptural expression, and all the vessels thereof¹⁸¹Ibid., Verse 24. means that Bezalel made of gold all vessels needed for the proper use of the candelabrum and appropriate to it — these being the tongs and the snuffers that are necessary in the use of all candelabrums. Similarly, All the instruments of the Tabernacle in all the service thereof¹⁹⁵Further, 27:19. means all instruments needed for [erecting] the Tabernacle. These He did not explain but mentioned only that they were to be made of brass. But the verse before us which states, Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it, with all these vessels, refers to those vessels mentioned [in the preceding verse, namely, malkocheha and machtotheha], and they were all of beaten work with it. It is possible that the statement which Scripture uses at the construction, namely, and all the vessels thereof,¹⁸¹Ibid., Verse 24. alludes to these vessels [the malkocheha and machtotheha] mentioned there in the preceding verse, so that they were all to be made with the candelabrum of beaten work, as is the plain meaning of Scripture. But the vessels of oil¹⁸²Numbers 4:9. were not mentioned at the construction just as they were not mentioned at the command [for making the candelabrum], but they made them on their¹⁹⁶I.e., Bezalel and Oholiab. own accord. Perhaps Bezalel did not make them but certain individuals made them and dedicated them to the public.
In summary, the candelabrum itself came from the talent, but nothing outside of it came therefrom, according to the words of all authorities.

ככר זהב טהור, a talent of pure gold. We have a Baraitha in Menachot 88 which states: The words: "he shall make the Lampstand out of one talent of pure gold," teach that the Lampstand including its lamps are to be made out of the same talent of gold. How did I arrive at the conclusion that the lamps themselves are included in the amount of one talent of gold mentioned? It says in our verse: "all these utensils." This might have led me to believe that the snuffdishes and tongs were also to be made out of the same talent. To prevent me from thinking this, the Torah uses the restrictive clause אותה, "it (alone)."

ככר זהב טהור, “one talent of pure gold.” Rashi explains that the Torah means that the menorah including all its auxiliary vessels, should weigh neither more nor less than one talent of gold. Nachmanides comments that when looked at from the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Rashi is certainly correct. However, if it is so, this poses the question how much the chunk of gold known as the menorah was to weigh by itself? Why would the Torah not have given us this detail concerning the by far largest part of this major piece of furniture in the Sanctuary? The Torah might at least have revealed how much the total of all the auxiliaries weighed, and we would have been able to calculate how much the menorah itself weighed? By not revealing this detail we might even assume that the various auxiliaries together weighed more than the menorah itself! When perusing the discussion about all this in the Talmud, Menachot 85, it appears that Rashi departed from the views expressed there. Apparently, the words ואת כל כליה, “and all its auxiliary vessels,” in our verse, do not refer to vessels constructed separately, not part of the chunk of gold, but refer to the basic auxiliaries such as the lamps which were also part of the single cast chunk of gold which constituted the menorah. If, in spite of the fact that they were an integral part of the menorah, the Torah describes these lamps as נרותיה ואת כל, clearly implying that they were subordinate to the menorah itself, the reason is that all other candelabras that we are familiar with, always have these lamps attached as a detachable auxiliary to the candlestick itself. They deserve a name in their own right precisely because as a rule they are separate attachments. According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of the line ככר זהב טהור יעשה אותה ואת כל כליה, is that even all the auxiliary vessels of the menorah were made of pure gold. Seeing that it was quite unusual for vessels constantly in touch with fire to have been made of gold, the Torah, in describing the weight of the gold used for the single cast menorah describes the weight as pertaining to אותה, “it,” before including the auxiliary vessels, that, while made of gold, were not part of that talent of pure gold described previously. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah mentions the weight of the menorah, whereas no such weights were given for the Holy Ark, for instance, or for the Table, for that matter, is that it was the only one of the furnishings in the Sanctuary which consisted of pure gold only, both the Ark and the Table were only overlaid with gold. Moreover, the Torah was interested in informing us in an oblique manner that the maximum size of such a menorah that could be fashioned out of a single talent of pure gold was well known, so that the Torah did not need to spell out the height of the menorah, though the sages did tell us the measurements i.e. eighteen tefachim. There was also no need to describe the size of the crown-like borders around the Table and the Holy Ark, as they were thin and were directly attached to the Table and Ark, respectively. Although, according to our sages the thickness of the lid for the Ark, the כפורת, was one tefach, there was still no need to mention the size or weight, as it too corresponded precisely to the measurements of the Ark which the Torah has provided. Seeing, that the basic size of the menorah was not spelled out, the Torah, giving us the weight of it, enabled the sages to calculate its size on that basis. The height of the menorah was such that it had to provide illumination for the surface of the Table when the show-breads would be placed there and would be exchanged on the following week. As to the reason why Rashi quoted the Midrash according to which the word תיעשה in the passive mode means that the menorah emerged from the crucible on its own, i.e. without having been cast by Betzalel in a specific mould, you may interpret this as not conflicting with the view expressed in the Midrash that G’d showed Moses a precise image of what the menorah would look like, but that Moses still had difficulty envisioning the construction of the menorah even after G’d had shown him the vision referred to.

V. 39. Die im vorigen Verse erwähnten Bedienungsgeräte waren nicht in den Kikar mit inbegriffen. Aus ihm wurde nur alles mit dem Leuchter aus einem Stücke Bestehende verfertigt, somit Leuchter, Arme, die Kelch-, Knauf- und Blütenteile und auch die Lampen, die nach Menachoth 88 b ebenfalls massiv aus einem Stücke mit dem ganzen Leuchter gearbeitet waren. Diese Teile und Lampen sind hier unter כלים begriffen.

ככר זהב, “one talent of gold.“ (3000 holy shekels in weight, i.e. 6000 shekels, according to the weight of ordinary profane shekels.)

Let us take a look at the true meaning of the various exclusions and inclusions in the Torah's text. What is it that we have not yet been told concerning the commandment of the Lampstand so that our verse became necessary at all? Apparently, but for our verse I would not have any idea of the amount of gold needed to carry out G'd's instructions to construct the Lampstand. Ergo, our verse provided this information, i.e. the amount of gold required was one talent of pure gold. Having received this information we became doubtful whether the one talent of gold was enough to include the making of the lamps themselves or not. Such doubt did not include the snuffdishes or tongs, seeing the Torah employed the words "pure gold" when speaking of their construction. Had they been part of the talent of gold mentioned by the Torah, the Torah would not have had to stipulate that they too were to be made of "pure gold," seeing the Lampstand itself was made of pure gold. On the other hand, we cannot argue that the Torah's not mentioning "pure gold" in connection with the lamps proves that they must have been made as part of the talent of gold mentioned. It is entirely possible that seeing that the lamps would be in constant use and the Torah had not mentioned what materials they were to be made of is proof that it did not matter to G'd of what materials the lamps would be made. The Torah had to add the words את כל הכלים "all the utensils," in order that we should know that G'd was very much concerned with what material the lamps were to be made. They were to be part of the talent of gold mentioned earlier. I have no doubt, however, that the snuffdishes and tongs were not part of that talent of gold, otherwise the Torah did not need to stress the words "pure gold" in connection with their construction. Therefore, I am not likely to make a mistake when I read the words "all these utensils."

Fragen wir nun nach der Bedeutung des Leuchters im Heiligtume des göttlichen Gesetzes, so dürfte eine Beantwortung dieser Frage auf den ersten Blick sehr nahe liegend scheinen. Der Leuchter mit seinen brennenden Lampen spricht seine Bedeutung von selbst durch das Licht aus, das er verbreitet, und Licht, dürften wir meinen, spricht sich wiederum von selbst als Repräsentanten der Erkenntnis aus, und wir würden nichts näher liegend finden, als daß der Leuchter, insbesondere in seiner Stellung dem Tische gegenüber vor der Bundeslade des göttlichen Gesetzes, die geistige Erkenntnis zu vergegenwärtigen habe, die eben mit dem Tische, dem Repräsentanten der materiellen Wohlfahrt, zusammen, das Produkt des dem göttlichen Gesetze entspringenden und dem göttlichen Gesetze geweiht bleibenden jüdischen Nationallebens ausmachen dürfte.

After all this, what does remain difficult is the word אותה, "it," which clearly intends to exclude something else. Is this word intended to exclude the snuffdishes and tongs? If so, why was a further word needed to do this? It would appear that a further careful examination of the text reveals that the very fact that the Torah mentions the talent of gold only after having already instructed Moses to construct the knops, cups, and flowers, that they must surely be included in that talent of gold. The Torah therefore had to write the word אותה to exclude said items from that talent of gold.

Eine eingehende Prüfung auf dem Gebiete des heiligen Schrifttums dürfte uns jedoch in der Beantwortung dieser Frage zu einigem Schwanken berechtigen.

There are two reasons why G'd may have decided to write the verse about the snuffdishes, etc. prior to the verse telling us that the Lampstand was to be constructed of one talent of pure gold. 1) The first reason is that the Torah writes in 25,40: "and see that you make them after their pattern which was shown you on the mount." This means that the Torah mentions the overall appearance of the Lampstand immediately after telling us about the amount of pure gold to be used in its constructions plus all its utensils. Had the Torah written verse 39 prior to verse 38, it would have meant that the items mentioned in verse 38 were included in those mentioned in verse 40 about the vision shown Moses on the mount. This would have been misleading, however, as it is entirely possible that G'd had never shown Moses all these snuffdishes, etc. when he had the vision on the mount.

Wohl ist auch im Gebiete des heiligen Schrifttums נר und אור, Licht und Lampe eine nicht ungewöhnliche Metapher für Quelle und Spender geistiger Erkenntnis, und האיר, leuchten, für: geistiges Licht, Erleuchtung und Einsicht gewähren. Eine Lampe für unseren Fuß ist das Gotteswort und Licht für unsere Pfade (Ps. 119, 105). "Denn eine Lampe ist das Gebot und Licht ist die Lehre" (Prov. 6, 23). "Gottes Gebot ist klar, erleuchtet die Augen (Ps. 19, 9). Schon "der Eingang seines Wortes leuchtet, gibt Einsicht den Unerfahrensten" (Ps. 119, 130). Und Israel hat Gott "in Gerechtigkeit berufen, hat es an der Hand erfasst, hat es bewahrt und bestimmt zum Bündnis der Nationen, zum Lichte der Völker (Jes. 42, 6); "denn von Ihm geht die Lehre aus und Seinem Rechte schaffet Er die ruhige Stätte, daß es leuchte den Völkern'" (das. 51, 4). "Auf, lasset uns wandeln im Lichte Gottes!" sprechen sie dann zum Hause Jakobs (das. 2, 5). Denn "siehe, Finsternis decket die Erde und Dunkel Nationen, über Israel aber strahlet Gott und seine Herrlichkeit erscheint über ihm, und Völker wandeln bei seinem Lichte und Könige beim Strahl seiner Morgenröte" (das. 60, 2). Wo aber die Gesellschaft in Mord und Weh zu Grunde geht, da geschiehts, weil "sie sich wider das Licht empörten, nimmer Gottes Wege erkannten und nie die Ruhe in seinen Pfaden suchten" (Hiob 24, 13).

2) Another reason why the Torah chose to write about the snuffdishes in connection with the lamps is to let us know that just as the snuffdishes were constructed separately, so the lamps were also constructed separately, though the gold used for their construction was part of the talent of gold described in verse 39. The fact that these lamps were constructed from the gold of the talent mentioned did not obligate the Torah to mention it with the Lampstand itself, seeing that their construction was not part of the requirement "you shall make them of beaten work," as were the knops, cups, and flowers (verse 31). Although I explained earlier that the fact that the lamps are not mentioned in the same context as the other details of the construction of the Lampstand as being beaten work, and that this fact proved that they were not included in the directives applicable to construction of the Lampstand, the fact that the Torah wrote about the talent of gold where it did indicates that there are some matters in which these items were comparable to the Lampstand itself. Logic would have suggested that the common factor was that the lamps also had to be made of beaten work seeing that we do not find any item which is specifically excluded from that directive. The Torah therefore had to mention the lamps in context with the snuffdishes to ensure we would not misunderstand its intention.

Allein ebenso unzweifelhaft und noch bei weitem häufiger begegnen wir נר und אור, Lampe und Licht, als metaphorischem Ausdruck für die Quelle des Gedeihens und des Lebens, der Entwicklung und der Blüte, des ungetrübten Fortschrittes und des Glückes, der Heiterkeit und der Freude. "Wer", klagt Hiob, "gäbe mir wieder der Vergangenheit Monde, die Tage, wo Gott mich schützte! Wo seine Lampe über meinem Haupte strahlte und bei seinem Lichte ich durchs Dunkel wandelte!" (Hiob 29. 2. 3.) "Dort lasse ich wachsen Davids Horn, habe dort geordnet eine Lampe meinem Gesalbten", spricht Gott von Zion (Ps. 132, 17). "Wie lange aber dauerts, verlischt die Lampe der Bösen und Unglück kommt über sie" (Hiob 21, 17). So das Erlöschen der Lampe" Ausdruck für Aufhören des Glückes: (Prov. 13, 9; 20, 20; 24. 20). Dagegen ist "Licht gesäet für den Gerechten und für die Geraden Freude" (Ps. 97, 11). "Das Licht der Gerechten ist heiter, während der Bösen Lampe verlischt" (Prov. 13, 9). "Das Licht der Augen erfreut das Herz" (Prov. 15, 30). "Das Licht ist süß" (Eccl. 11,7). Job "hoffte auf Gutes und es kam Böses, auf Licht und es kam Finsternis" (Job 30, 26; Jes. 59, 9; Jirm. 13, 16). Den Jehudim ward Licht und Freude, Wonne und Würde (Esther 8, 16). "Gott erlöst den zum Bessern Gewandten von dem Weg ins Grab, dass seine Seele noch ins Licht schaue, dass er noch bestrahlt werde vom Lichte des Lebens (Job 33, 28, 30). "Deine Toten leben auf, meine Leichen erheben sich — wachet auf und jauchzet, Staubesschläfer! Denn Tau des Lichtes ist dein Tau, während die Erde Hingeschiedene zu Boden wirft" — (Jesaias 26, 19) u. a. m.

Seeing it had become necessary for the Torah to write the verse about the talent of gold after the verse dealing with the snuffdishes, etc., for the reasons we have mentioned, the Torah was afraid that intelligent people examining the subject should not misunderstand G'd's intention in the matter. They should not clim that the reason the Torah wrote about the snuffdishes prior to mentioning the talent of gold is that the gold for it was to be part of that talent. They should not think that the Torah forced itself to write the words "pure gold" in order that we should learn something from the extra word "pure," such as that the purity of the gold used for these utensils was essential in order for them to be capable of performing their function. This would be so even if the Lampstand itself did not have to be constructed out of gold. The Torah wisely used the word אותה to indicate that the snuffdishes, etc., were not part of that talent of gold the Torah spoke of as being "the materials of the Lampstand itself together with its knops, etc." The information that the lamps themselves are to be made of the gold which is derived from the words את כל הכלים, "with all the utensils," remains valid. We can now say with certainty that the reason the Torah listed the verse containing the directives about the snuffdishes, tongs, etc., prior to the verse mentioning the talent of gold, is because of the considerations we have already mentioned. This is the reason that the sage of the Mishnah explains the word אותה as excluding the snuffdishes and pans and all the other utensils including the lamps. He even concludes from the expression את כל הכלים that every single one of the lamps must be constructed from the gold of that talent. I have only expanded this thought by not interpreting all this from the absence of the letter ו which we would have expected the Torah to write in front of the words את כל הכלים. [According to the author these words are best translated as "together with all these utensils." Ed.]

Nehmen wir daher alle die Tatsachen zusammen, die uns in zahlreichen Beispielen über die Bedeutung des Lichts für den Kreis der jüdischen Anschauungen an die Hand gegeben sind, so würde "Erkenntnis" nur halb und einseitig den Begriff wiedergeben, den "Licht" im heiligen Schrifttum repräsentiert. "Bewegung" ist die andere Seite, die erst mit der Erkenntnis zusammen die Wirkung, und somit die Bedeutung von "Licht" erschöpft, Bewegung nicht im mechanischen Sinne äußerer Ortsveränderung, sondern Bewegung in jener organischen Bedeutung, in welcher sie den gemeinschaftlichen Begriff bildet, welchem sich alle Vorgänge organischer, lebendiger und geistiger Entwicklung als die einzelnen Momente der Erscheinung unterordnen. Das Licht leuchtet und weckt Leben, diese beiden Wirkungen machen Licht gleichzeitig zur Metapher der Erkenntnis und der Lebensfreude. Denn Freude ist nichts als das Gefühl, das Innewerden des wachsenden Lebens (vergl. ציץ=שיש ,צמח=שמח). Treten wir nun in den Kreis derjenigen Verhältnisse, in denen sich zunächst die Gedanken der jüdischen Symbolik im allgemeinen, und diejenigen der Symbole des Heiligtums insbesondere bewegen, in den Kreis der individuellen oder nationalen geistigen und sittlichen Menschenbeziehungen, und suchen wir dort dasjenige Moment auf, das gleichzeitig die Erkenntnis und die Tat, das Licht und das Leben vermittelt, zugleich leuchtet und bewegt, das somit im Lichte seinen entsprechendsten Symbolausdruck finden konnte: so begegnen wir nur einem, dem רוח, dem Geiste. רוח, Geist, ist gleichzeitig das Erkenntnis, Einsicht, Weisheit Gewährende und das zum sittlichen Wollen und Vollbringen Bewegende.

Joseph, der mit höherer Erkenntnis Begabte, ist ein Mann, in welchem Gottes Geist ist (Bereschit. 41, 38). Bezalel ist mit dem Geiste der Weisheit, mit dem Geiste Gottes erfüllt (Schmot 35, 31). Auf Bileam kommt Gottes Geist (Bamidbar 24, 2). Mosche soll den Josua als seinen Nachfolger einsetzen, denn er ist ein Mann, in welchem Geist ist (das. 27, 18), er ist voll vom Geiste der Weisheit (Dewarim 34, 9). Geist kommt auf die erwählten Ältesten Israels (Bamidbar 11, 16 f.) und: "Wer gäbe", wünscht Mosche, "das ganze Volk Gottes würde Propheten, dass Gott seinen Geist auf sie gäbe!" (das. 29). Gottes Geist sprach durch David und sein Wort war auf seiner Zunge (Sam. II, 23, 2). Gottes Geist ruht auf Israel und Gottes Worte in seinem Munde (Jes. 59, 21), seinen Geist gießt Gott auf unsere Kinder (das. 44. 3) und einst auf alles Fleisch (Joel 3, 1). Wer ermisst den Geist Gottes! (Jes. 40, 13.) Zum Toren wird der Prophet, wahnsinnig der Mann des Geistes (Hoseas 9, 7), — in allen diesen und in vielen anderen Stellen, sowie (Ps. 77, 7) mein Geist fing an zu grübeln, es ist der Geist im Menschen und der Gottesodem, der die Erfahrungen der Jahre versteht (Job 32, 8), der Geist, der dem Job aus seiner Einsicht antwortet (Job 20. 3) u.a.m, in allen diesen Stellen ist Geist das Erkennende und Erkenntnis Gewährende.

Dagegen in den Stellen:

Weil ein anderer Geist mit Kaleb war und er mir voll nachgefolgt (Bamidbar 14, 24). Es kam ein jeder, den sein Herz erhob, und jeder, den sein Geist dazu bewegte, brachte die Gotteshebe (Schmot 35, 21). Sichons Geist ließ Gott hart sein und kühn sein Herz, um ihn in Israels Hand zu geben (Dewarim 2, 30). Der böse Geist zwischen Abimelech und den Herren von Sichem (Richter 9, 23). Der Geist Gottes, der auf Jiphtach kam (das. 11, 29), der Simson bewegte (das. 13, 25), der sich in Gideon und Abischai kleidete (das. 6, 34; Chron. I, 12, 18). Der Geist, der den König Assurs zur Rückkehr bewegte (Kön. II, 19, 7). Cyrus Geist, den Gott weckte, um Israel die Rückkehr zu gestatten (Esra 1, 1). Der Geist der Untreue, der irreführt (Hoseas 4, 12 u. 5, 4), der Geist der Unlauterkeit, den Gott von der Erde entfernt (Sech. 13, 2), der feste Geist, der freie Geist, um dessen Erneuung David fleht (Ps. 51, 12, 14), der neue Geist, den Gott Israel verheisst (Jech. 11, 19; 18, 31; 36, 26; 27. 14) — in allen diesen Stellen ist Geist nicht das Erkennende, sondern das sittliche, die Willenskraft zur guten oder bösen Tat Bewegende. Selbst in den Stellen, wie Bereschit 26, 35 Rebekkas Schwiegertöchter waren ihr eine Geisteskränkung, Sam. I, 1, 15 Channah war gedrückten Geistes, die Geistes gedrückten (Ps. 34. 19), der gebrochene Geist (das. 51, 19), der geschlagene Geist, der hohe Geist, der niedrige Geist (Prov. 16, 18 u. 19) und sonst so oft, wo Geist derjenigen Seite unseres Seelenlebens entspricht, die wir Gemüt nennen, ist es ja eben die Bezeichnung desjenigen Momentes, in welchem unser Verhalten zu den Objekten außer uns seine Äußerung findet, in welchem sich unsere Zu- oder Abneigung, unsere Stimmung für oder gegen irgend einen Gegenstand, einen Zustand, eine Handlung vollzieht, und ist somit die Bezeichnung eben jenes Momentes, das die Geburtsstätte unserer Entschlüsse zum Guten oder Bösen bildet.

Wir würden somit uns berechtigt halten, das Licht im Heiligtume als symbolischen Repräsentanten des Geistes, und zwar in seiner doppelten Beziehung: der theoretischen und praktischen, des Erkennens und Wollens, der Erkenntnis und der Bewegung zur Tat, zu begreifen.

Glücklicher Weise kommt uns das Gotteswort selbst mit gleichem Aufschluss unzweideutig entgegen.

Secharjah, dem Gottesboten an Serubabel, dem Volksführer, der auf den Trümmern des untergegangenen jüdischen Staates den Grundstein zu einem neuen jüdischen Volksleben legen und damit ein Werk vollbringen sollte, welchem bei jedem Schritte "das Hindernis zur Hand stand" ward der Leuchter mit seinen sieben Lampen gezeigt, und als er den Engel, der ihm das Gotteswort brachte, um Aufschluss über die Bedeutung dieser Erscheinung gefragt und auf dessen Entgegnung, ob er denn nicht wisse, was diese Lampen bedeuten, "nein, mein Herr!" erwidert hatte, sprach der Engel zu ihm: "das ist das mitzuteilende Gotteswort an Serubabel: Nicht mit Heeresmacht, nicht mit Leibeskraft, sondern mit meinem Geiste, spricht ד׳ צבאו׳! (Sech. 4, 6.) Es ist uns somit hier Geist, und zwar Gottes Geist als dasjenige dokumentiert, das durch den sieben Lampen tragenden Leuchter vergegenwärtigt wird, und zwar muss diese symbolische Bedeutung eine so natürliche, allgemein verständliche sein, dass die Gegenfrage des Engels: "Weißt du denn nicht, was diese bedeuten?" wie ein halber Vorwurf klingt, dass der Prophet zum Verständnis dieser symbolischen Erscheinung noch des besonderen Ausschlusses bedürfe. Bemerken wir zugleich, dass, wenn Serubabel hier auf den Gottes Geist als auf dasjenige hingewiesen wird, womit und wodurch er seine Sendung vollbringen werde, hier wiederum Geist nicht als bloßes Medium der Erkenntnis, sondern zugleich als Medium der vollbringenden Tat erscheint. Denn das Wort war an Serubabel, den Führer, nicht den Lehrer des Volkes gerichtet, der den Gotteswillen nicht zu lehren, sondern zu erkennen und zu vollbringen hatte, dem die Legung eines Grundsteins anvertraut worden, auf den und dessen zu vollendenden Ausbau die "Fülle der göttlichen Vorsehung" gerichtet war.

Hat uns doch im Übrigen das göttliche Wort an anderer Stelle selbst ausgesprochen, welcher Art und welchen Inhalts der Geist sei, den Gott "seinen Geist" nennt. ונחה עליו, heißt es Jesaias 11, 2 von dem aus Jischais Wurzelstamm zu erwartenden Reis, רוח ד׳, und dieser Geist Gottes wird sofort näher erklärt als רוח חכמה ובינה ,רוח עצה וגבורה ;רוח דעת ויראת ד׳, als der Geist der Weisheit und der Einsicht, der Geist des Rates und der Stärke, der Geist der Kenntnis und der Gottesfurcht, und dürfte damit ebenfalls unzweifelhaft bestätigt sein, daß der Geist, den Gott seinen Geist nennt, und der, wie uns Secharja belehrt, durch den Lampenleuchter vergegenwärtigt wird, nicht ein Geist bloß theoretischer Kenntnis und Erkenntnis sei, sondern die Erkenntnis und die Tat zu gleicher Zeit vermittelt.

Die מנורה

Wenn aber das Licht, das die Menora trägt, den von Gott verliehenen Geist der Erkenntnis und der Tat vergegenwärtigt, in welcher Bedeutung steht nun dieser Leuchter zu dem Lichte, das er trägt?

Vergegenwärtigen wir ihn uns in seiner äußeren Erscheinung, so kündigt er sich mit seinem Blütenschaftfuß, ירכה ופרחה, seinem Stamm und seinen Armen mit ihren mandelförmigen Kelchen, Knaufen und Blüten, קנה וקנים עם גביעים כפתורים ופרחים משוקדים, sofort als einen Baum an, der sich, von seinem Wurzelstock aufwärts blühend, zum Träger dieses Lichtes entwickelt.

Erwägen wir zugleich, dass er das einzige Gerät war, das ganz aus Metall und zwar aus Gold bestand, so bietet er sofort das Eigentümliche dar, dass er seinem Stoffe nach eben das Feste, Beharrliche, Unveränderliche, seiner Form nach aber die Entfaltung und Entwickelung, zusammen somit das Entfalten und Entwickeln des Festen, Beharrlichen, sich ewig Gleichbleibenden repräsentiert. Er bildet somit in seiner Erscheinung den vollsten Gegensatz zum Tische. Dieser, der Tisch, seinem Stoffcharakter nach überwiegend Holz, das in stetem Fortschritt sich Entwickelnde repräsentierend, das nur durch Form und Zubehör, Schranke, Stütze, Festigkeit und Dauer erhält, hat zu seinem Gegenstand das Materielle, das seiner Natur nach aller wechselnden Umwandlung des Keimens und Wachsens, des Blühens und Reifens und — Absterbens unterliegt, und eben im Gottesheiligtum durch den Geist und die Ordnung des göttlichen Gesetzes Maß und Ziel, Festigkeit und Dauer und die Bedeutung für die Ewigkeit gewinnt. Dem gegenüber der Leuchter, durch und durch golden, somit durch seinen Stoff gerade das unveränderlich Feste und Ewige als seinen Gegenstand ankündigend, das eben, wie seine Form es ausspricht, im Gottesheiligtum, durch den Geist des göttlichen Gesetzes zur Blüte und Entfaltung kommen soll. Fest, unveränderlich und ewig ist aber im Menschen nichts, als das ihm innewohnende Göttliche, das im Erkennen des Wahren und im Wollen des Guten uns zum Bewusstsein kommt. Dies Erkennende und Wollende im Menschen, sowie die Gegenstände seiner Tätigkeit, das Wahre und Gute, sie sind an sich ewig, unveränderlich, unterliegen weder einer Abstufung, noch Umwandlung. Wie unendlich reicher das Göttliche auch in dem vollendeten Manne dem in der Brust des Kindes schlummernden Göttlichen gegenüber erscheint, so ist doch das in der Kindesbrust schlummernde Göttliche an sich mit dem in der vollendeten Mannesbrust zur Entfaltung gekommenen in völlig gleichem Grade göttlich und rein. Nur der Umfang der äußeren Erscheinung bildet den Gradmesser der Stufe. Ebenso sind die einfachsten, wie die höchsten, sublimsten Wahrheiten, das allgemeinste, wie das höchste, seltenste Gute, an sich in gleichem Grade wahr und gut. Alles wirklich Wahre und Gute ist eben wahr und gut, leidet kein Mehr und Minder. In dem Entwicklungsgange des Sinnlichen baut sich jede höhere Stufe nur auf Kosten der niederen auf. Niedere Formen sterben ab, auf dass höhere, vollendetere entstehen; jedes Höhere, Vollkommenere, ist eine Verneinung des vorangegangenen Niederen, Unvollkommenen; ein Grab ist die Wiege jedes Lebens, und phönixgleich erhebt sich alles Leben aus der Asche vergangener Gestalten und Geschlechter. Im geistigen Gebiete des Wahren und Guten verliert aber das Wahre und Gute auf keiner Stufe und für keine Stufe seine Geltung und Berechtigung. Was einmal wahr und gut, bleibt immer und für immer wahr und gut. Alles höhere Wahre und Gute ist keine Verneinung, sondern eine Verwirklichung alles vorangegangenen Wahren und Guten. Es kann der vollendetste Greis der Tugenden seiner Kinderjahre nicht entbehren, ja seine vollendetste Tugend ist nichts als die Verwirklichung derselben Tugend in umfassenderer Lebensstellung, die er als Knabe in dem verjüngten Kreis des Kinderlebens zu entfalten hatte. Es kann das komplizierteste System der höchsten, folgenreichsten Wahrheit der einfachsten Wahrheiten nicht entbehren, die ihm zu seinem Ausgangspunkt gedient; ja eben in dem festen unantastbaren Bestand jener einfachsten Wahrheiten, von dem es ausgegangen, wurzelt das ganze Bestehen seiner fernsten, weitestreichenden Wahrheiten, die — wenn sie überall wahr — in ihrem letzten, wahrhaftigen Grunde eben nichts als der auseinandergelegte und zum Bewusstsein gebrachte Inhalt dessen sein können, was bereits unentwickelt und für das Bewusstsein verhüllt in jenen einfachen Grundwahrheiten gelegen.

Somit ist der Baum der Erkenntnis und der Vollbringung des Wahren und des Guten ein goldener Baum, von der Wurzel bis zur Blüte golden, in jedem Teile und auf jeder Stufe der Entfaltung golden, — in jedem Teilchen und auf jeder Stufe gleich goldrein und gediegen wahr und gut, — und in höchster Vollendung von der Wurzel bis zur Blüte aus einem, unzertrennbaren, nicht nach und nach zusammengefügten, sondern von vornherein für den ganzen Umfang seiner höchsten Vollendung gegebenen Stücke, kurz, es ist ein Baum, wie er uns in der מנורת זהב טהור, die מקשה. תיעשה, und deren ירכה וקנה גביעיה כפתריה ופרחיה ממנה יהיו, wie er uns in der mit Fuß, Schaft, Armen, Kelchen, Knaufen und Blüten aus einem Stück gearbeiteten, durch und durch goldreinen Menora in höchster Vollendung vorgebildet ist.

Betrachten wir nunmehr deren einzelne Teile, so sagen uns zuerst im allgemeinen die sieben Lampen, dass der Geist, der hier zur Pflege kommt, kein einseitig beschränkter sei, dessen Darstellung eine Lampe entsprechen würde, sondern, daß dieser Geist eine Mannigfaltigkeit umfasse, die, wenn wir uns der bereits im Artikel Milah, Jeschurun Jahrgang 1858 und 1859, erkannten Bedeutung der Zahl "sieben" erinnern, wir sofort nicht als eine bloße Mannigfaltigkeit, sondern als eine vollendete Fülle alles geistigen Erkennens und sittlichen Wollens begreifen werden. Betrachten wir die Lampen näher, so tritt sofort zu diesem Charakter der Mannigfaltigkeit zugleich der Begriff der höchsten harmonischen Einheit hinzu. Wir sehen die Mittellampe ihr Licht aufwärts oder vor sich hin (siehe S. 359 f.) leuchtend, rechts und links aber von beiden Seiten die Lampen mit ihren Lichtern diesem Mittellichte also zugewandt, dass die drei der rechten Seite links, die drei der linken Seite rechts, alle zusammen somit ihr Licht dem einen Mittellichte zuwenden, in dessen Richtung sich alle sieben Lichter vereinigen. Es ist somit dieses Mittellicht End- und Strebeziel aller Lichter des Leuchters, oder vielmehr das, wohin dieses Licht leuchtet, ist zugleich das gemeinsame Strebeziel aller übrigen Lichter des Leuchters. Diese Lichter selbst sind ferner von sieben Armen getragen. Allein es hat von ihnen nicht jeder seine besondere Basis und seinen besonderen Stamm. Vielmehr stehen sie alle auf einer Basis, eine Wurzel, ein Stamm trägt sie alle. Ja, eine genauere Betrachtung zeigt, wie auch die Anordnung des göttlichen Wortes vorschreibt, den Stamm, auf welchem das mittlere Licht ruht, und der gerade aufwärts aus dem Wurzelstock sich erhebt, als den eigentlichen, den Stammleuchter, aus welchem erst von der Mitte an aufwärts zu beiden Seiten die übrigen sechs Leuchterarme sich paarweise abzweigen. Wiederholt werden wir darauf hingewiesen, dass diese sechs Arme aus dem Mittelstamm hervorgehen. Das Mittellicht ist somit nicht nur das vereinigende Endziel, sondern zugleich der gemeinsame Ausgangspunkt aller Lichter. Sie gehen alle aus dem einen Mittelstamm hervor und streben alle in das eine Mittellicht zusammen. Wir haben somit die sieben Lichter nicht als einfache Siebenzahl, sondern als eins und sechs zu begreifen, als ein Eins, aus welchem sechs hervorgehen und in welchem die sechs sich wieder zusammenfinden. Nun hat sich uns bereits in unseren Versuchen über Mila und Zizit, Jeschurun Jahrgang 1858 und 1859, die Zahl "sechs" als Zeichen der sinnlichen Schöpfungswelt, und in Verbindung damit die Zahl eins, das siebente, als Zeichen für den Einen, Übersinnlichen, außerhalb der sinnlichen Welt und in Verbindung mit ihr Stehenden, als Zeichen für den einen einzigen Gott und für das von ihm stammende Göttliche dargestellt. Demgemäß hätten wir den einen Mittelstamm mit seinem einen Mittellichte als den zu Gott emporstrebenden Geist des Erkennens und Wollens, als den Gotteserkenntnis und Gottesdienst anstrebenden Geist zu begreifen, in den sechs Armen mit ihren sechs Lichtern hingegen die der sinnlichen Welt zugewandten geistigen Bestrebungen des Erkennens und Wollens zu erblicken. Indem aber der eine Mittelstamm selbst sich in diese sechs Seitenarme abzweigt, die sechs Seitenarme aus dem einen Mittelstamm hervorgehen und mit ihren sechs Seitenlichtern in die Richtung des einen Mittellichtes zusammengehen, ist der in dem Heiligtum des göttlichen Gesetzes gepflegte Geist der Gotteserkenntnis und des Gottesdienstes kein abstrakter, isolierender, der Welt, ihrer Erkenntnis und ihren Tatbestrebungen abgewandter, sondern vielmehr eben ein solcher, der in den Welt erkennenden und Welt bauenden Bestrebungen des Geistes und der Tat seine volle Betätigung findet, und hören alle die auf die Welt, ihre Erkenntnis und ihre Anforderungen gerichteten Bestrebungen des Geistes und der Tat eben damit auf, Gott, seiner Erkenntnis und seinem Dienste fremd und abgewandt zu sein; vielmehr finden sie eben in dem Gott zugewandten Erkennen und Wollen ihren eigenen Ausgangs- und Zielpunkt. den ganzen Boden ihrer Berechtigung und Weihe; alle Wissenschaft und sittliche Tat hat ihren Anfang aus Gott und ihr Ziel und ihren Höhepunkt in Gott; alles wahre Geistige und Sittliche hat nur einen Boden, eine Wurzel, ein Ziel: Gott ist sein Anfang und Gott sein Ende, תהלת חכמה יראת ד׳ und ראשית חכמה יראת ד׳ — Anfang der Weisheit ist Gottesfurcht, und Blüte der Weisheit ist Gottesfurcht. —

Während in der Anordnung des göttlichen Wortes zuerst diese Unterscheidung des einen Mittelschaftes — des eigentlichen Leuchters — von seinen sechs Seitenarmen entschieden hervorgehoben ist, ועשית מנורת זהב־ וששה קנים יוצאים מצדיה, werden andererseits diese Seitenarme selbst wiederholt nach ihrer Zweiteiligkeit: "drei Arme des Leuchters aus seiner einen Seite und drei Arme des Leuchters aus seiner zweiten Seite", unterschieden und diese Unterscheidung noch ferner dadurch präzisiert, dass immer zwei Arme aus einer Stelle des Leuchters über einem Knauf zugleich hervorgehen: וכפתר תחת שני הקנים ממנה וגו׳. Es stellt sich somit das Gott einheitlich zugewandte Mittellicht (das siebente), in seiner die sinnliche Welt beherrschenden Erscheinung (sechs) in einer doppelten, gegensätzlichen Erscheinung dar. In dem der konkreten Welt zugewandten Lichte geht es in einen Gegensatz auseinander, der aber wiederum zu einer Vereinigung in den Mittelpunkt seines Ursprungs harmonisch zusammenstrebt. Nun haben wir bereits oben gefunden, wie רוח, Geist, als dessen Repräsentant sich das Licht des Tempelleuchters ankündigt, als das Erkennende oder Erkenntnisgewährende und als das Bewegende oder Bewegunggewährende begriffen wird. Wir haben im Menschen diesen Gegensatz als Erkenntnis und Wille aufgefunden, geistiges Erkennen und sittliches Wollen als die beiden Seiten erkannt, in deren Erzeugung sich die Gegenwart des Geistes bekundet, und würden wir schon aus diesen Tatsachen uns für berechtigt halten, in den beiden Seiten des Leuchters diesen Gegensatz des Geistigen und Sittlichen zu erkennen. Beide sind in ihrem Ursprung und in ihrer Wirklichkeit ja so unzertrennlich eins, dass das eine das andere notwendig voraussetzt. Das wahre Sittliche, d. h. die freie Verwirklichung des als gut erkannten Guten, setzt eben die erkennende Tätigkeit, die Erkenntnis voraus, sonst wäre es ein bewusstloses Schaffen, das der Unfreiheit und nicht der Sittlichkeit angehörte. Ebenso aber setzt auch schon der bloße Akt der Erkenntnis ein sittliches Wollen voraus; denn er verlangt die freie Richtung der Erkenntniskräfte auf den zu erkennenden Gegenstand; jedes bewusstvolle Hinwenden einer Kraft auf ein zu erstrebendes Ziel ist aber bereits eine Tätigkeit des sittlichen Wollens. Es ist somit der in dem Menschen lebendige Geist wesentlich erkennend und wollend zugleich, wollende Erkenntnis und erkennender Wille heißt das Leben des Geistes, und es ist nur die Abstraktion unserer Auffassung, die je nach dem überwiegenden Zwecke einer Geistestätigkeit, ob nämlich das innere Erkennen, oder die äußere Tat Ziel des Strebens ist, das eine als theoretische Erkenntnis, das andere als praktischen Willen unterscheidet. Dieser Unterschied liegt im Produkt, nicht in der Quelle. In ihrer Wurzel sind sie eins, und streben auch wieder in ihren Zielen zusammen. Alle Erkenntnis des Wahren hat nur Wert, wenn sie auf Vollbringen des Guten gerichtet ist, wenn sie dem Vollbringen des Guten in ihrem letzten Ziele zu Gute kommt. Und alles Vollbringen des Guten muss stets auch der Erkenntnis des Wahren zugewandt bleiben, kann nur aus dem Erkenntnisborn der Wahrheit sein Regulativ und die Bürgschaft seines wirklichen, wahrhaftigen Wertes schöpfen. Ganz so wie aus einem Punkte des Mittelleuchters die beiden Seitenarme entspringen, die wieder oben, zu gleicher Höhe gelangt, ihr Licht einander, und damit zugleich dem gemeinsamen Mittelpunkte zuwenden. Ist aber nun wie hier dieser Mittelpunkt der "siebente" somit der zu Gott aufstrebende und im Heiligtum aufstrebende und im Heiligtum seines Gesetzes genährte und gepflegte Geist, so erkennen wir noch umsomehr, wie in diesem Mittelpunkte alles Erkennen und Wollen aus einer gemeinsamen Wurzel entspringt und sich zu einem gemeinsamen Höheziel vereinigt. Denn wir vermögen diesen zu Gott emporstrebenden Wurzelstamm unseres geistigen Lebens in nichts anderem, als in dem, Geist und Herz in gleicher Ursprünglichkeit und Kräftigkeit erfassenden, erfüllenden, belebenden und vollendenden Geiste zu erkennen, den das heilige Wort: יראת ד׳ nennt. Die Gottesfurcht nämlich, die das heilige Wort יראת ד׳ nennt, ist eben die höchste Erkenntnis, die zugleich und sofort die höchste Sittlichkeit erzeugt, sie ist eben der Geist, in welchem sich die Erkenntnis der höchsten Wahrheit mit dem Vollbringen des höchsten Guten paart, und nicht umsonst ist daher ירא und ראה so innig verwandt, eine Verwandtschaft, die auch in der Konstruktion mit את־ ihren entsprechenden Ausdruck findet.

Menachot 98 b ist die Überlieferung über die Stellung des Leuchters im Heiligtum zweifelhaft. Jedenfalls hatte er seine Stelle an der Südseite, dem Tische gegenüber, zweifelhaft ist nur, in welcher Richtung er mit seinen Armen gestanden; ob dieselben zwischen Ost und West oder zwischen Nord und Süd gerichtet waren. Im ersteren Falle stieg das Mittellicht gerade aufwärts in der Richtung des Mittelschaftes empor, die Seitenlichter waren jedoch einerseits von West gen Ost, andererseits von Ost gen West gewendet. Im zweiten Falle war das Mittellicht nach West, dem Allerheiligsten, zugewendet, und die Seitenlichter halten ihre Richtung einerseits von Süd nach Nord, andererseits von Nord nach Süd. Wir werden später, so Gott will, der Bedeutung der Seiten des Heiligtums eine besondere, eingehende Betrachtung zu schenken haben, da dieselben insbesondere bei den Opferhandlungen als sehr wesentlich charakteristisch hervortreten. Wir greifen jener Untersuchung hier mit der Bemerkung vor, dass die Seiten des Heiligtums eben durch die ihnen angewiesenen Geräte ihre Bedeutung finden dürften. Im Westen stand die Gesetzeslade mit dem Cherubimdeckel, an der Nordseite der Tisch mit den Schaubroten, an der Südseite der Leuchter mit den Lichtern, die Ostseite war dem Volke zugekehrt, dort war der Eingang und dort standen auch hintereinander in zwei verschiedenen Räumen die Altäre, die eben das Volk zur opferfreudigen Dahingebung an das in Westen seiner harrende Gottesgesetz luden. Wir glauben nicht zu irren, wenn wir in der Westseite die Richtung auf das Gesetz und die dadurch bedingte Gottesgegenwart, in der Nordseite das materielle, in der Südseite das geistige Leben und im Osten das konkrete, zur hingebenden Weihe an Gott und sein Gesetz geladene Volk vergegenwärtigt erblicken. Stand der Leuchter zwischen Nord und Süd, so war das Mittellicht westwärts, der im Allerheiligsten ruhenden Bundeslade zugekehrt, und wäre somit der von Gott verliehene und in seinem Heiligtume gepflegte Geist als derjenige näher präzisiert, der Gott in seinem geoffenbarten Gesetze und in dem um dasselbe mit Israel geschlossenen Bundesverhältnisse sucht, wie beides die Bundeslade vergegenwärtigt, ein Geist, der sodann mit seinen nordwärts gewandten Südlichtern die der Durchgeistigung des Materiellen bestimmte Erkenntnis, und mit seinen südwärts gewandten Nordlichtern das dem Geistigen zugewandte, das Geistige im Materiellen verwirklichende sittliche Wollen und Vollbringen erzeugt, und mit beidem immer aufs neue zu seiner Quelle im Mittelpunkte, zu Gott und seinem Gesetze und seinem Bunde zurückkehrt. Es war sodann dieses Mittellicht zugleich jenes נר מערבי, jenes נר תמיד, jenes nimmer verlöschende, ewig zu unterhaltende Licht שממנה מדליק ובה היה מסיים, "an welchem man die anderen Lichter alle anzündet und mit dessen Pflege man immer wieder endet", jenes Licht, dessen Nimmerverlöschen das Zeugnis sein sollte, dass die Gottesgegenwart in Israel ruhe, עדות היא שהשכינה שורה בישראל das somit in seiner ganzen Erscheinung und Wartung eben jenem Charakter entspräche, den wir ohnehin der ganzen Konstruktion des Mittelschaftes aufgedrückt fanden. (Siehe שבת 22ב )

Hatte der Leuchter seine Richtung zwischen Ost und West, so war das Mittellicht einfach aufwärts gekehrt und es würde dann der im Gottesheiligtume gepflegte, Gott zugewandte Geist als ein solcher bezeichnet sein, der mit seinen aus West nach Ost strahlenden Lichtern seine Erkenntnis aus dem Gottesgesetze und dem um dasselbe geschlossenen, es geschichtlich durchtragenden Gottesbund schöpft und diesen Geist dem seiner Heiligung und Weihe harrenden Israel zur lebendigsten Durchdringung entgegenträgt, und mit seinen aus Osten nach Westen strebenden Lichtern alles Wollen und Vollbringen Israels dem aus dem Allerheiligsten des Gesetzes und des Bundes strahlenden Geiste zur Heiligung und Weihe entgegenbringt, und beides, den Thorageist und die Israelstat, stets um die gemeinsame Wurzel und das gemeinsame Ziel, um den zu Gott hinaufstrebenden Geist zusammenführt. Die Thora sucht in Israel ihre Verwirklichung, Israel in der Thora seine Gestaltung, und beides, Thora und Israel, לימוד ומעשה, hat nur Wert, wenn es לשם שמים, wenn es der Lösung des einen Zieles geweiht ist, in allem und mit allem zu Gott emporzustreben, und in diesem Streben seinen gemeinsamen Mittelpunkt findet. In dieser Stellung fiele aber das נר מערבי nicht mit dem Mittellichte zusammen, wäre vielmehr das mittlere der westwärts gewandten Ostlichter, und wäre somit der Schwerpunkt für die Pflege des Geistes — הטבה והדלקה — nicht auch da zu suchen, wo, der Konstruktion und Darstellung der Menora zufolge, Ursprung und Ziel des Geistes liegt. Indem das mittlere der von Ost nach West gewandten Lichter jenes נר מערבי wäre, das תמיד לפני ד׳ un5 das ממנה מדליק ובה מסיים, so fände vielmehr die Pflege des Geistes ihren steten Anknüpfungspunkt in dem Israel innewohnenden, nimmer verlöschenden, immer in Fortschritt begriffenen, Gott und seinem Gesetz zuwallenden Streben, und eben darin, daß dieser Funke in Israel nie erlischt, dass Israel stets Gottes, stets das Volk seines Gesetzes, Israel stets der über dem Gesetze ruhenden Schechina zugewandt bleibe, darin eben zeigte und bezeugte sich, daß die Schechina in Israel throne. — Welche dieser beiden Annahmen als die richtigere anzuerkennen wäre, dürfte schwer aus den überlieferten Quellen zu entscheiden sein. רמב׳׳ם in הל׳ בית הבחירה פ׳׳ג folgt der ersteren, daß die Richtung des Leuchters zwischen Nord und Süd gewesen. רשי׳ ,ראב׳׳ד und die meisten anderen Autoritäten entscheiden sich für die Annahme, dass die Richtung des Leuchters zwischen Ost und West gewesen, und folgen wir dieser Meinung in Stellung unserer י im בי׳הכ am Chanuckafeste. (Siehe Menachot 97 b; Schabbat 22b; Raschi das. כסף משנה zum Rambam 1. c מזרחי Bamidbar 8, 2)

Wir wurden schon oben durch den Aufschluss, der Secharja (Sech. 4, 6) über die Bedeutung der Menora als Symbol des רוח ד׳ gegeben wird, auf den Kommentar hingeführt, den Jesaias 11, 2 über den näheren Inhalt dieses רוח ד׳ liefert. Diese Stelle, in welcher der auf einem Menschen ruhende Gottesgeist in seiner höchsten Potenz geschildert wird, zeigte uns schon beim ersten Anblick diesen Geist in einer zweiseitigen Entfaltung, die sich uns einerseits als הכמה ,עצה ,דעת, andererseits als בינה ,גבורה, יראה, somit als den Geist der Theorie und der Praxis, den Geist des Erkennens und Vollbringens angekündigt und uns dasjenige bestätigt, was wir schon ohnehin über die Bedeutung von "Geist" im heiligen Schrifttum erkannt. Betrachten wir diese Stelle näher, so tritt uns eine überraschende Übereinstimmung mit allem demjenigen entgegen, was wir als Konstruktionsschema der Menora gefunden, und diese Übereinstimmung ist so schlagend, dass man sich kaum des Gedankens erwehren kann, es sei in der Tat diese Stelle nichts als Wortausdruck des Menorasymbols.

ונחה עליו רוח ד׳ ,רוח חכמה ובינה ,רוח עצה וגבורה ,רוח דעת ויראת ד׳. Hier ist der Geist in seiner Gesamtheit eine Einheit, die sich aber in sechs Glieder entfaltet. Diese sechs Glieder bilden drei Paare, jedes Paar hat einen gemeinsamen Träger, es heißt nämlich nicht: רוח חכמה ורוח בינה וגו׳, sondern: רוח חכמה ובינה וגו׳.

Es ist dies vollständig: מנורת זהב ,ששה קנים יוצאים מצדיה ,שלשה מצדה האחד ושלשה מצדה השני וכפתר תחת שני הקנים ממנה וכפתר תחת שני הקנים ממנה וכפתר תחת שני הקנים ממנה לששת הקנים היוצאים מן המנרה. Ja, es fährt die Stelle fort: והריחו ביראת ד׳, und "הריחו" kann nach aller sprachlichen Analogie nichts anderes heißen, als jemanden mit Geist durchdringen, mit Geist erfüllen, jemanden begeistigen. Nachdem somit zuerst der auf Jischais Sprosse zur Ruhe kommende Gottesgeist in der siebenfachen Fülle seiner reichen Erscheinung geschildert ist, wird eine dieser Seiten als diejenige hervorgehoben, die als die Wurzel und das Medium dieser ganzen Durchgeistigung bezeichnet wird, ganz so, wie ja auch unter dem Lichtersieben des Leuchters ein Licht war, von dem das Anzünden aller übrigen Lichter begann und zu welchem die Lichtpflege immer wiederkehrte ממנה מדליק ובה מסיים! Ja, um die Parallele voll zu machen, geht der Träger dieses siebenstrahligen Gottesgeistes als Reis aus einem Wurzelstock hervor, und auf ihm ruht der eine Gottesgeist mit seinen sechsgliedrigen Entfaltungen. Also, dass, wenn wir uns diese Stelle in ihrem Gedankengange vergegenwärtigen (siehe vorstehend), wir das Bild der Menora in seinem Gedankenausdrucke haben dürften.

Wir haben bis jetzt nur diejenige Konstruktion der Menora in Betracht gezogen, die unbedingt und selbst dann Vorschrift ist, wenn sie nicht aus Gold, sondern aus irgend einem anderen Metalle angefertigt wird. Es gehörte hierher noch die Bestimmung, dass sie nie מן הגרוטאות, nie aus Bruchmetall bestehen soll, und dürfte wohl diese Bestimmung zum Ausdruck des Gedankens dienen, dass dasjenige Vermögen des Menschenwesens, das zum Träger des Gottesgeistes entwickelt werden soll, ein ursprüngliches, dem Menschen von seinem Entstehen an mitgegebenes, nicht aber ein aus anderen Vermögen abgeleitetes und künstlich kombiniertes sei. Es ist damit zugleich die Wahrheit ausgesprochen, dass zu dieser geistigen Entwicklung ein jeder, und nicht nur etwa besonders Begabte, berufen sei. Ebenso wie die Menora nicht nur aus Gold, dem edelsten Metall, zu bestehen hat, sondern in Ermangelung dessen auch aus anderem Metalle herzustellen ist, und zwar dann selbst nötigenfalls stückweise, nicht מקשה, zusammengesetzt werden kann. Wenn wir uns erinnern, dass die geistige Entwicklung, die hier zum Ausdruck kommen soll, nicht jene unfruchtbare, einseitig theoretische, die nur spekulativen Wert hätte, sondern diejenige ist, die die Bedingung der sittlichen Vollendung bildet, so werden wir den Gedanken damit im vollen Einklange finden, dass zum Träger des Lichtes, das die Menora vergegenwärtigt, ein jeder vermöge seiner natürlichen Anlage berufen sei und die Entwicklung dahin anzustreben habe. Jeder auf seiner Stufe mit seinem Maß von Kräften kann das dieser Stufe und diesem Maß entsprechende höchste Ziel geistig sittlicher Vollendung, und damit die Höhe seiner persönlichen geistig sittlichen Bestimmung erreichen, jeder des רוח ד׳, des רוח חכמה ובינה עצה וגבורה דעת ויראת ד׳ nach Verhältnis seiner Begabung teilhaftig werden. Und wie für das Individuum, so ist auch für die jüdische Gesamtheit nicht etwa nur ein goldenes, etwa ein Davidisches oder Salomonisches Zeitalter, das zum Gottesgeiste emporzustreben berufene, sondern unbedingt von günstigen äußeren Verhältnissen, selbst in ehernen und eisernen Zeiten bleibt Israel seiner göttlichgeistigen Bestimmung angehörig und hat sich zur Höhe dieser Bestimmung emporzuarbeiten. Allein andererseits ist freilich das geistigsittliche Ziel, das die Menora vergegenwärtigt, die an sich höchste geistigsittliche Vollendung, die überhaupt dem Menschen als solchem beschieden ist, und nimmt daher, wo sie vorhanden sind, die edelsten Kräfte in Anspruch. Das Edelste im Menschen dem Höchsten. Wo aber diese geistigsittliche Entwicklung sich an goldreinsten, edelsten Anlagen vollzieht, da ist sie nicht nur von Anfang bis zu Ende מקשה, aus einem Stück mit Stoff gestaltender Meisterkraft bewirkt, sondern es tritt dann auch diese Entwicklung in noch besonderen eigenen Gestaltungen zu Tage, die wir noch zu betrachten haben.

War die Menora aus Gold, dann waren an Fuß, Schaft und Armen גביעים כפתורים ופרחי׳ "Kelche, Knäufe und Blumen"; deren Stelle und Zahl genau bestimm, מעכבין ,und die so wesentlich waren, dass nicht ein einziges dieser Gebilde fehlen durfte .בזה את זה

Unter diesen drei Gebilden ist wohl die Bedeutung der פרחים die entschieden deutlichste. פרח ist der allgemeinste Name für Blüte, פרוח der allgemeinste Ausdruck für blühen, und wo uns daher פרחים als symbolische Gestalten entgegentreten, sind wir zunächst nicht berechtigt, an eine weiterliegende Bedeutung als an "Blüten und Blühen" zu denken, ja haben auch von hier aus die Bedeutung der anderen mit ihnen in Verbindung stehenden Gebilde, hier der גביעים und כפתורים, zu suchen.

גביע hat auch die ganz zweifellose Bedeutung: Kelch. Aus Jeremias 35, 3 scheint ferner hervorzugehen, daß גביע nicht eigentlich das Gefäß bedeutet, aus welchem getrunken wurde. Vielmehr scheint גביע das größere Gefäß zu bedeuten, in welchem der Wein aufgetragen wurde, den man sodann aus כוסות trank. Man stellte גביעים מלאים יין וכוסות hin. Dem entsprechen auch die Bedeutungen der Wurzeln כוס und גבע. Während כוס in dem verwandten כסס die Bedeutung: bestimmen, zuzählen, gewinnt und daher ein Gefäß bedeutet, in welchem dem Trinkenden ein für ihn bestimmtes Maß gereich wird (wodurch es sodann als Metapher für alles von Gott dem Menschen Zugeschickte und Bestimmte auftritt), weist גביע in allen verwandten Wurzeln und Ableitungen: גבע ,גבעה ,גבא ,גבה ,גבח etc. auf ein Ansammeln von Stoffen hin. גביע wäre somit der Behälter, in welchem die Masse des zu trinkenden Getränkes aufgenommen, gesammelt und zusammen gehalten ist. כוס das Gefäß, in welches aus גביע dem Trinkenden ein für ihn bestimmter Teil geschüttet wird. Somit stünde גביע seiner Grundbedeutung nach in einem Gegensatz zu פרח. Während nämlich, wie wir gesehen, גביע die Bedeutung des Stoffsammelns innewohnt, trägt פרח in allen verwandten Wurzeln und Ableitungen: אפרה ,פרא ,פרע, das rabbinische und chaldäische פרח, fliegen etc. die Bedeutung: frei werden.

Für כפתור fehlt jedoch jede Analogie aus der Sprache und Schrift und sind wir damit lediglich an die Überlieferung gewiesen, die uns Menachot 28 b lehrt, dass sie die Gestalt kretensischer Äpfel hatten, כמין תפוחי הכרתיים. Es waren dies somit fruchtähnliche Knäufe, die an Schaft und Armen hervortraten.

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns diese Teile in ihrer Zusammenhörigkeit und gleichbleibender Aufeinanderfolge: כפתור ,גביע und פרח, so kündigen sich uns dieselben als die zusammengehörenden Teile eines einheitlichen Systems an, das wir durch die entschiedene Bedeutung פרח, Blüte, Blume, sowie durch die damit zusammenstimmende Erläuterung der כפתורים als fruchtförmige Gebilde, veranlasst werden, im Gebiete des Pflanzenbaues zu suchen. Auf dieses Gebiet werden wir auch noch durch den Ausdruck משוקדים, mandelartig oder mandelförmig, gewiesen, der zur näheren Charakteristik dieser Gebilde beigefügt ist, und der sich uns auch noch ohnehin für das Ganze als höchst bedeutsam erweisen wird, der aber ja jedenfalls auch seinerseits nur wiederum in das Gebiet des Pflanzenlebens einführt.

Zum Glück brauchen wir nicht weit zu gehen, um im Pflanzenbau ein organisches System zu finden, das eben in solchen Formationen seine vollständige Darstellung gewinnt. פרח selbst, die Blüte, gibt die Data für die Erkenntnis der Bedeutung dieser Gebilde an die Hand. Jede normale Blüte besteht nämlich wesentlich aus drei Teilen: aus einer äußeren, meist grüngefärbten Blatthülle, dem Kelche, einer den Samen bergenden und den befruchtenden Staub vermittelst des Griffels aufnehmenden Kapsel, dem Fruchtknoten (die künftige Frucht), und einer die Staubfäden umgebenden Blumenkrone, der Blume. Es sind dies vollständig die drei Gebilde unseres Leuchters: Kelch, Knoten und Blume, und hätten wir somit diese Gebilde zuerst als allgemeines Zeichen für fruchtentwickelndes Blühen zu erkennen. Wir begriffen sodann auch, warum diese Gebilde gerade dann als unentbehrlich auftreten, wenn der Leuchter מקשה זהב, in vollendeter Reinheit, golden aus einem Stücke bestand. Eben dann war das Zeichen notwendig, dass, obgleich dieser ganze lichttragende Baum wie aus einem Stücke und er in allen seinen Teilen in reiner Vollendung dastand, kein starres Sein, vielmehr eben ein ewiges fruchtzeitigendes Blühen sein Leben wesentlich bedeutet.

Kelch, Fruchtknoten, Blumenkrone haben wir, sollten die Fäden mit dem befruchtenden Staub, diesem belebenden Elemente des Ganzen, fehlen? Wir wissen aus Menachot 28 b, dass die Kelche, Knoten und Blüten die letzten drei טפחים der Schafthöhe ausfüllten, dass somit der Schaft mit der Blume, פרח, endete, in welcher daher das Gefäß, נר, mit dem lichttragenden Dochte ruhte. Wir wissen aus Kelim 11. 7, dass פרה überhaupt der Name der Vertiefung an einem Leuchter wurde, die das Licht aufzunehmen bestimmt war. Gipfelte somit unser Leuchter in Kelchen, Fruchtknoten und Blumenkrone, und aus dieser Blumenkrone heraus brannte das Licht am Dochte, so war eben der brennende Docht der Befruchtung tragende Staubfaden, es war das Licht, es war der Geist, der Gottesgeist, das befruchtende Element, das die am Lichtbaum zum Dasein gekommenen, der Belebung, Entwicklung und Vollendung harrenden Fruchtkeime belebt, entwickelt und zur reifen Frucht vollendet.

Wir haben somit: Kelch, Fruchtknoten, Blumenkrone und Licht, das befruchtende Element am Staubfaden. Sollten sich uns Kelch, Fruchtknoten und Blume nicht ebenso in Begriffen aussprechen, wie sich uns von selbst die Staubfäden mit ihrem befruchtenden Pollen, als das befruchtende und belebende Element des Lichtes und Geistes dargestellt?

Das heilige Wort hat uns eben selbst das Licht der Menora als den Geist Gottes und diesen Geist wieder in einer sechsfachen Ausstrahlung ausgesprochen. Einer näheren Betrachtung stellen sich diese sechs Seiten geistiger Entfaltung in Wahrheit zunächst nur als drei Seiten, drei Stufen, drei Momente heraus, indem sich die sechs Momente nur als drei gepaarte Glieder aussprechen:

חכמה ובינה

עצה וגבורה

.דעת ויראת ד׳

Wie? Wenn sich diese drei Momente geistiger Entwicklung zu dem רוח ד׳, ihrem Born und Gipfel, ganz so verhielten wie כפתור ,גביע und פרח, wie Kelch, Fruchtknoten und Blumenkrone zum נר, zu dem Staubfaden mit seinem erregenden, bewegenden und belebenden Elemente?

גביע, der Kelch, hat sich uns nach sprachlicher und sachlicher Bedeutung als "Sammler" verkündet. Und in der Tat spricht auch der Kelch an der Blüte die Bestimmung aus, dass hier die Kräfte und Säfte des Baumes nicht zum Fortsetzen des Zweiges weiter schreiten, sondern dass sie hier gesammelt werden sollen zu einem neuen Gebilde. Wo eine Blüte entsteht, da endet der Zweig, da ist das Wachsen zu Ende; es werden vielmehr die gewonnenen Säfte und Kräfte gesammelt und festgehalten zur Fruchterzeugung, diesem höchsten Ziele der ganzen Pflanzenentwicklung, und das erste Gefäß zu dieser festhaltenden Sammlung ist der Kelch.

כפתור im Fruchtknoten gestaltet sich der ganze Stoff-, Saft- und Kraftreichtum, der Pflanze zu Keimen neuer Pflanzenschöpfungen. Während alles, was bis jetzt an der Pflanze wuchs, Stamm, Ast, Zweig, Blatt, nur unfrei und unselbständig in dem Pflanzenindividuum und an ihm verharrte, haben die Gebilde des Fruchtknotens die Bestimmung, äußerlich zu werden, sich von dem Pflanzenindividuum abzulösen, aus ihm herauszutreten, ein eigenes, selbständiges Entwicklungsleben zu beginnen. Eine ganz ureigene Zukunft mit einer unendlichen Fülle von Gestaltungsmitteln und einer unendlichen Fülle von Gestaltungskräften schlummert in den kleinen Samenkeimen, die der Fruchtknoten birgt. Allein diese Zukunftskeime schlummern im Fruchtknoten. Sie harren der Freiwerdung zum eigenen Leben. Allein diese Weckung und Freiwerdung zum Leben vermag ihnen der Fruchtknoten selbst nicht zu gewähren. Im Fruchtknoten selbst liegen sie in einer der Lösung harrenden Gebundenheit. (Ist vielleicht daher der Name כפת=כפתור Binden und פתר [vergl. פטר] Lösen??) Diese Weckung und Lösung zur Freiheit und zum Leben vermag ihnen nur der befruchtende Blütenstaub zu bringen, welchen

פרח, die Blumenkrone, an ihren Staubfäden wahrt und zeitigt. פרה sind die "Freiheitsflügel" der Pflanze, die hauchend und schützend emporstreben, um den Lebensstaub an ihren Fäden zu gewinnen, der den Saatkeimen des Fruchtknotens Weckung und Gestaltung, Reife und Leben, Erlösung und Freiheit zu bringen bestimmt ist.

Betrachten wir dem gegenüber jene drei genannten Erscheinungspaare des zum רוח ד׳ auswachsenden geistigen Lebens.

חכמה ובינה, beides Tätigkeiten der Erkenntnis des Wahren und Guten. Alle Wahrheit — und die Wahrheit umfasst ja das Wahre und das Gute, jenes die Wahrheit des Seins, dieses die Wahrheit des Sollens — alle Wahrheit ist aber ein Gegebenes, und jede Erkenntnis ist im tieferen Grunde nur ein Schöpfen und Aufnehmen eines objektiv unabänderlich Gegebenen. Mag gleich הכמה mehr die rezeptive, בינה die produktive Geistestätigkeit bezeichnen, הכמה sich im Auffassen, Verstehen, Begreifen und Festhalten dargebotener Erkenntniswahrheit betätigen, בינה aber sich im הבין דבר מתוך דבר, in der kombinierenden und folgernden Tätigkeit bewähren und neue Wahrheiten zu erzeugen scheinen. Dieser Schein ist nur Schein. Die neue Wahrheit ist nur subjektiv neu, sie ist nur insofern neu, als sie dem Bewusstsein des erkennenden Geistes bis dahin nicht gegenwärtig war; sie ist aber nur insofern wahr, als sie objektiv in dem bereits zuvor als Wahrheit Erkannten enthalten gewesen, und hat nur ihr Kreditiv darin, dass sie als in einer bereits als Wahrheit erkannten Prämisse enthalten nachgewiesen werden kann. Das Verdienst der בינה ist nur, jede gegebene Wahrheit zugleich mit allen in ihr implizite gegebenen Konsequenzen zu überschauen. Eine neue Wahrheit, die mehr sein will, als eine bis dahin nicht zum Bewusstsein gekommene Seite oder Folgerung einer alten Wahrheit, will eben aufhören Wahrheit zu sein und begibt sich in das Bereich der Phantasmen und Täuschungen. In Welt und Offenbarung hat Gott die für den Menschen erkennbare Wahrheit niedergelegt. In ihnen ist die Summe aller für den Menschen erkennbaren Wahrheit abgeschlossen worden. חכמה ובינה haben lediglich das Geschäft, diese gegebenen Schätze zu heben, zu sammeln, aufzufassen, zur vollständigern, allseitigen, bis in ihre kleinsten Nuancen und ihre fernsten Folgen deutlichen und klaren Erkenntnis zu bringen und im Bewusstsein festzuhalten. חכמה ובינה sind der sammelnde und bewahrende Kelch der für die Erkenntnis vorhandenen Wahrheiten.

Wirklich produktiv wird der Geist erst in

עצה וגבורה, in dem Ratschluss und der Tatkraft, durch welche sich die durch חכמה ובינה gewonnene Erkenntnis zu Tatvorsätzen gestaltet, vermittelst welcher das bis dahin nur denkende Individuum bereit ist, über sich selbst hinauszugehen, tätig einzugreifen in die Welt des Geschehenden und in. diese aus Ursachen und Wirkungen sich ererbende Welt der Ereignisse auch seine freie Tat als eine folgenschwere Saat hinauszustreuen, die die Zukunft gebiert. עצה וגבורה sind der ;Fruchtknoten, der Vorsätze und Entschlüsse als die Saatkeime der Zukunft in seinem Schoße gestaltet und sie für die Reife zur Tat bereit hält.

Allein, dass diese Vorsätze zur Tat reifen, zur rechten, somit zur einzig wahrhaften und wirklich in die Ewigkeit reichenden, lebendigen, lebensfähigen und lebenschaffenden Tat gelangen, dazu muss — wie der Kelch sich in der Blume veredelt erhebt, um für die Saatkeime des Fruchtknotens das befruchtende Element des Blütenstaubes zu gewinnen — also die edelste Blüte der Erkenntnis:

דעת ד׳ ויראת ד׳, Gotteserkenntnis und Gottesfurcht emporstreben, um im רוח ד׳ den rechten Geist zu gewinnen, der allein Entschluss und Kraft zur rechten Tat zeitigt und vollendet. Wenn nicht alle Erkenntnis der Welt zum Schauen Gottes in der Welt und zum Begreifen der Welt aus Gott führt, wenn nicht die Erkenntnis der Offenbarung zur Gottesfurcht, zur Erkenntnis und Anerkenntnis des eigenen Verhältnisses zu Gott führt, in dieser Gotteswelt nichts als Diener sein zu wollen, dann schlummern vergebens in der Entschlussfähigkeit, der freien Selbstbestimmung und der Tatkraft die Keime Welt und Ewigkeit bauender Tat. Die Keime verkümmern, das Edelste und Göttlichste im Menschen bleibt ungeboren, weil allem Wissen und aller Kraft der belebende und leitende Gotteshauch fehlt, der nur da sich niederläßt, wo alles Wissen in Gotteserkenntnis und alle Kraft in Gottesfurcht gipfelt, und Gotteserkenntnis und Gottesfurcht den Gottesgeist zur Befruchtung des Menschenrats und der Menschenkraft zulässt, und Rat und Kraft dem Gottesgeist zur Belebung hingibt. דעת ד׳ ויראת ד׳ sind die Blumenkrone, die den Tatkeimen menschlicher Entschlüsse und Kräfte den Gottesgeist zur Befruchtung und Belebung gewinnen.

Wir wagen daher die Zusammenstellung:

רוח ד׳=נר=Blütenstaub,

דעת ויראת ד׳=פרח=Blumenkrone,

עצה וגבורה=כפתור=Fruchtknoten,

חכמה ובינה=גביע=Kelch.

Dass wir in den Gebilden, deren Betrachtung uns beschäftigt, ihrer äußeren Erscheinung nach Pflanzenteile, ihrer Bedeutung nach geistige Tätigkeiten, ja die Tätigkeit des Geistes in seinen eminentesten Entwickelungsstadien vor uns haben, darauf weist noch mit großer Entschiedenheit ein Ausdruck hin, auf den wir bereits hingedeutet. משוקדים, mandelförmig oder mandelartig werden die Kelche der Menora wiederholt charakterisiert, und ist, wie wir dies bereits oben erwähnt, die Überlieferung schwankend, ob nicht Schmot 25, 34 — wie auch die Akzentstellung zeigt — dies משוקדים auch zum Charakter der כפתורים und פרהים gehört. Nun ist aber שקד, sowohl sprachlich als Verbum, als sachlich, Mandel, im symbolischen Gebrauch, der spezifische Ausdruck für die intensivste Richtung und Dahingebung der Geistestätigkeit an einen Gegenstand oder einen Zweck. Sowie der Mandelbaum am frühesten blüht (bei uns schon im März) und früher Blüten als Blätter hat, so ist שקד, sein Name, überhaupt Ausdruck für eifrige, rastlose, rasch zum Ziele strebende, wache und fleißige Geistesanstrengung, Ausdruck für das, was wir Fleiß und Studium nennen würden. "Wenn Gott die Stadt nicht schützt, vergebens שקד, wacht der Wächter" (Ps. 127, 1). "Glücklich der Mensch", spricht Prov. 8, 34 die Weisheit, "der mir zuhört, לשקוד, emsig an meinen Türen Tag für Tag zu wachen": "Wie ich שקדתי עליהם, über sie mit Eifer, rastlos zu zertrümmern und zu zerstören gestrebt", heißt es Jerem. 31, 28, "so אשקד עליהם לבנות ולנטוע, so werde ich rastlos, mit Eifer, über sie streben zu bauen und zu pflanzen". "Was siehst du", wurde Jirmijahu Kap. 1, 11 gleich bei seiner ersten Berufung gefragt, "מקל שקד, einen Mandelstab sehe ich", lautete die Antwort. "Du hast gut geschaut", erwiderte Gott, "denn שקד אני על דברי לעשתו, eifrig betreibe ich mein Wort zu erfüllen": Bamidbar 17, 16 ff. sollte der Stammesfürst als der geistig Erwählte von Gott bezeichnet sein, dessen Stab blühen werde, und dieser Stab sollte als ewiges Denkmal vor dem Zeugnis bewahrt bleiben. Aarons Stab nun, durch dessen Blühen der Stamm Levi und in diesem Stamm das Haus Aaron als die für das Priestertum geistig Erwählten dokumentiert sein sollten, ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמל ,"שקד" "!brachte Blumen, trieb Staubfäden und reifte Mandeln!" שקדים die ernste, rastlose, eifrige, tätige und erfolgreiche Hingebung an den Beruf sehen wir also hier als denjenigen Charakter bezeichnet, der den Stamm der Aaroniden für die Erwählung zu dem hohen geistigen Berufe des jüdischen Priestertums befähigt zeigte, und glauben wir hierin eine nicht geringe Bestätigung für unsere Auffassung der mandelartigen Blütengebilde an der Menora zu finden. Tragen ja Schaft und Arme des Leuchters eben dieselben Symbole, die den vor dem Zeugnis ruhenden Aaronsstab als Priesterstamm charakterisierten. Hier wie dort Mandeln reifende Blüten! Wir haben ציץ mit Staubfäden wiedergegeben. Wir glauben, daß ציצת Jechesk. 8, 3 das Lockenhaar, und ציצת, die Fäden an den Gewandecken, für diese Erklärung sprechen.

Bezeichnend ist es nun ferner, daß dieser שקד=Charakter, dieser Charakter der rastlosen, raschen Erfolg erzielenden Emsigkeit, insbesondere den גביעים, den aufnehmenden, Erkenntnis sammelnden Kelchen, חכמה und בינה, aufgedrückt erscheint. Tritt ja ohnehin die mit diesen Kelchen bezeichnete Tätigkeit auch schon dadurch so bedeutsam in den Vordergrund, dass dem einen כפתור und der einen פרח immer ein dreifacher Kelch שלשה גביעים משקדים, vorangeht und ist somit die גביעים-Tätigkeit extensiv (שלשה) und intensiv (משקדים) vor den übrigen hervorgehoben. Diese geistige גביעים-Tätigkeit, dieses Sammeln, Aufnehmen und Festhalten der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit ist nun aber ja keine andere als die, die wir mit "למוד" "Lernen" bezeichnen, und dies aber wiederum gerade die Tätigkeit, die unsere unausgesetzte Hingebung יומם ולילה beansprucht. Die גביעים משקדים an unserer Menora rufen uns zu: הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה! und die שלשה גביעים משקדים aus welchen der eine כפתור, und die eine פרח hervorgeht, lehren: וגדול לימוד שמביא לידי מעשה!

Wenn die von uns gewagte Parallele: Kelche: חכמה ובינה, Fruchtknoten: עצה וגבורה, Blüte: דעת ויראת ד׳ nicht ganz der Wahrheit entbehrt, so hätten wir in den drei Seitenpaare des Leuchters, in welchen wir ja ebenfalls dieselben Manifestationen des Geistes zu erblicken uns veranlaßt sehen, nur dasjenige zu einer selbständigen Erscheinung ausgebildet vor uns, was auf dem Wege zum רוח ד׳=נר ד׳ am Mittelschafte nur als Stadium im Fortschrittsgange der Entwicklung auftritt. Indem nun ferner dieselben Kelche, Fruchtknoten und Blüten auch an den Seitenarmen hervortreten, so hätten wir den Gedanken: Wenn חכמה ובנה ,עצה וגבורה ,דעת ויראת ד׳ im Menschengeiste in solchem Maße zur Entwicklung kommen, dass sie רוח ד׳ zu ihrer Belebung und Vollendung gewinnen, dann wird durch eben diesen רוח ד׳ eine jede Seite dieser Geistesentfaltung in so reicher Fülle befruchtet, dass eine jede derselben als eine besondere, vom Gottesgeist gereifte Frucht in selbständiger Manifestation hervorblüht, und zur Vollendung einer jeden derselben der Verein aller übrigen Energien des Geistes konkurriert. הכמה wie בינה ,עצה wie דעת ד׳ ,גבורה wie יראת ד׳, jede dieser Ausstrahlungen des einheitlichen geistigen Lebens bedarf, um zum höchsten Ziel ihrer Vollendung zu gelangen, des mandelkelchartigen emsigsten Schöpfens der Wahrheit, der gestaltenden Bildung methodischen Geistes und schaffender Kraft, und der die Belebung im Gottesgeist suchenden Erkenntnis Gottes und Furcht Gottes.

Für jede dieser Zweigmanifestationen des Gottesgeistes gibt daher der Träger desselben, der Mittelschaft, einen Fruchtknoten ab, כפתור תחת שני הקנים ממנה; denn der עצה וגבורה des Geistes und der Kraft — des mit Bewusstsein Zweck anstrebenden Geistes: עצה, und der Schwierigkeiten obsiegenden Kraft: גבורה, — in konzentrierter Potenz, כפתור, in gesammelter Steigerung, bedarf es, um jede dieser Manifestationen des Geistes in göttlicher Reinheit und Vollendung zur Wirklichkeit zu bringen.

In höchst bedeutsamer Weise ziehen nun noch Teile dieser Fruchtblütengebilde an zwei Stellen des Mittelschaftes unsere Aufmerksamkeit auf sich.

ירך, der Fuß, der Wurzelstock, aus welchem der ganze Lichtbaum hervorgeht, trägt unterhalb des aus ihm hervortretenden Stammes פרח, eine Blume ohne Kelch und ohne Fruchtknoten. Nach einem Zwischenraum von zwei טפחים befindet sich im dritten טפח, dem sechsten der Gesamthöhe von unten, ein vollständiger Blütenstand von Kelch, Fruchtknoten und Blume, jedoch in verjüngtem Maßstabe. Während nämlich der Blütenstand am Gipfel des Schaftes drei טפחים einnimmt, indem jedem Teile desselben ein טפת eingeräumt ist, sind bei diesem verjüngten Blütenstand Kelch, Fruchtknoten und Blume in einen טפה konzentriert (siehe תוספו׳ Menachot), und hat derselbe auch nur einen einfachen Kelch, während der Gipfelblütenstand drei Kelche zählt. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns den Anblick der Menora, so sehen wir daher die Blüten in vier verschiedenen Stadien in immer größerer Vollendung hervortreten: a. פרח am ירך — b. גביע ,כפתור und פרח im sechsten טפח — c. כפתור תחת שני הקנים ממנו usw. — d. שלשה גביעים ,כפתור und פרח in den letzten drei טפחי׳ am Gipfel des Schaftes, und fällt es sofort in die Augen, dass diese Blütenentwicklung auf unterster Stufe mit demselben beginnt, womit sie in höchster Gipfelvollendung endet. פרח, die Blumenkrone ist die letzte Sprosse am Gipfel des Schaftes, und פרח, eine Blumenkrone bezeichnet den Anfang einer Blütensprosse auf der frühesten Stufe. Freilich ist es eine Blumenkrone, der weder ein Kelch vorangeht, noch die bereits einen Fruchtkeim hat, für welchen sie das belebende Element im Blütenstaub des Lichtes zu gewinnen hätte. Es ist vielmehr nur eine Blume, durch welche erst der ganze Stamm aus der Wurzel hervortreibt. Wir haben diese Blumenkrone am Baume des Geistes als Erkenntnis Gottes und Furcht Gottes דעת ד׳ ויראת ד׳ erkannt, und sind nicht in Wahrheit die Gotteserkenntnis und die Gottesfurcht, wie sie die edelsten und höchsten Blüten des aus dem Menschen heraus sich entfaltenden Geisteslebens bilden, die auf höchster Stufe die Gewinnung des Gottesgeistes bedingen und den Menschengeist zum Träger des Gottesgeistes vollenden, sind sie denn nicht zu gleicher Zeit in Wahrheit diejenigen Momente, womit überhaupt im frühesten Kindesalter die erste Geistesentwicklung aus dem Wurzelstock des geistigen Lebens zu beginnen hat? Sind sie nicht in Wahrheit im doppelten Sinne ראשית דעת, der früheste Anfang und die höchste Blüte des menschlichen Wissens? Und ist hier nicht am symbolischen Baume der menschlichen Geistesentwicklung im Gottesheiligtume die tiefe, unerschütterliche Wahrheit niedergelegt, dass: soll einst im reifen Mannesalter die höchste Gotteserkenntnis und Gottesfurcht zur Gewinnung des Gottesgeistes sich entfalten, an der Wurzel des geistigen Daseins, in frühester Kindheit diese Erkenntnis und Furcht Gottes gepflegt werden und mit ihr der Grund zu aller andern geistigen Entfaltung gelegt werden müsse? Freilich ist es da eine Blume ohne Kelch und Fruchtknoten. Es ist da eine דעת ויראת ד׳, ein Wissen von Gott und ein Gottfürchten, das weder aus bereits geschöpften Kelchen der הכמה ובינה hervorgegangen, noch bereits auf Zeitigung der Tatfrucht: עצה וגבורה, gerichtet ist. Es ist vielmehr eine Blume der Gotteserkenntnis und Gottesfurcht, die unmittelbar mit dem Wurzelstock des menschlichen Geistes — ירכה ופרחה — gegeben ist - מפי עוללים ויונקים יסדת עוז — und aus dessen innerstem und tiefstem Kern sich ohne theoretische Vorbereitung — ohne Kelch — erziehend wecken und hervorrufen lässt. Und es hat auf dieser frühesten Stufe diese kindliche דעת ויראת ד׳ noch nicht sich in Zeitigung und Zurreifebringung der Fruchtkeime der עצה וגבורה zu betätigen, — diese Tat schaffende Saat der עצה וגבורה kindliche דעת ויראת ד׳ zunächst nur in dem — mehr unbewussten — aber willigen Hingeben und Emporwachsen auf dem Wege zum Lichte zu betätigen, um erst als Knabe die Anfänge jener drei Manifestationen des Geisteslebens zu bilden, erst die Fähigkeit zum Schöpfen der חכמה ובינה, die Fähigkeit zum Schaffen der עצה גבורה, die Fähigkeit zur Tat zeitigenden דעת ויראת ד׳, somit erst die Anlagen zu diesem allen, גביע כפתור ופרח verjüngtem Maßstabe zu üben und zu entwickeln; sodann als Jünglinge erst alle עצה וגבורה, alle Energie des Vorsatzes und der Kraft zur gesonderten Ausbildung aller dieser drei Manifestationen zu verwenden — כפתור תחת שני קנים ממנה, וכפתור תחת שני קנים ממנה ,וכפתור תחת שני קנים ממנה —; um endlich als Mann ל alle diese Richtungen wieder dem einen Mittelpunkte zuzuwenden und aus dem vollen Born der חכמה ובינה eine דעת ד׳ ויראת ד׳ zu entfalten, die, zur Belebung und Reife aller Tat erzeugenden עצה וגבורה, das Licht und den belebenden Geist von oben in dem נר ד׳ des Gottesgeistes zu gewinnen weiß:

שלשה גבעים משקדים כפתר ופרח ועליה נר ד׳!

וראה ועשה AND SEE AND MAKE — See here, in the mountain, the pattern which I shew thee. This teaches you that Moses was puzzled about the workmanship of the Menorah until the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him the pattern of it in a candlestick of fire (Menachot 29a).

מראה, a past participle of the verb when it is used transitively, i.e. describing an action performed by a third party.

The pattern which I show you. . . Rashi is explaining that this is an elliptical verse. Scripture should have written: “Observe the pattern which I show you, and make them like the pattern. . ..” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what is the meaning of, “Make them like the pattern”? Scripture never mentioned that Hashem showed Moshe their pattern! Rashi adds, “See here on the mountain,” in order to explain that the verse’s phrase of “On the mountain” refers to the mountain [in general] which Moshe was standing on, not to a specific place on that mountain. Otherwise, [if it referred to a specific place,] the verse would not say, “That will be shown to you on the mountain,” which is general, but rather the verse would specify the exact place on the mountain. [If Rashi had said only,] “Here,” it would have implied a specific place. [Therefore Rashi says, “Here on the mountain.”] (Re”m)

.וראה ועשה בתבניתם, “note well, and follow their patterns,” (as have been shown to you while on the Mountain.)

אשר אתה מראה WHICH WAS SHOWN THEE — Translate as the Targum does: דאת מתחזי בטורא which thou hast been shown on the mountain. If it were punctuated with Patach (מַרְאֶה) it would mean which you show to others,” now, however, that it is punctuated with חטף קמץ (our קמץ חטוף, short Kametz) it signifies, “which thou hast been shown” — i. e. which others show thee [for the punctuation distinguishes between the words denoting “one who does something” and “one who has something done to him” (i. e. between the active participle מַרְאֶה and the passive participle מָרְאֶה).]

אשר אתה מראה בהר, G’d had literally shown Moses a visual likeness of the Tabernacle while he had been on Mount Sinai. This must be contrasted with such expressions as Genesis 12,7 לה' הנראה אליו, where the image Avraham received was one which originated within him rather than externally.

Until God showed him a menorah made of fire. Here it is implied that Moshe made the menorah. You might ask: Did not Rashi earlier explain that תיעשה means it was made by itself? The answer is: Even [when God showed him the menorah, as stated here,] it did not help, and it was made by itself, as Rashi explained above.