פירוש על שמות 26:32

ארבעה עמודי FOUR COLUMNS inserted into four sockets. Hooks were fixed upon them, bent upward, upon each of which to hang a pole round which the top of the partition veil was wrappped. The hooks are the ווים mentioned in the text, for they were made in the form of the letter וי"ו. The partition veil was ten cubits long corresponding to the breadth of the Tabernacle and ten cubits wide as was the height of the boards. It was hung at one-third of the length of the Tabernacle from the western side so that from it there should be inward (i. e. to that side) ten cubits and from it outward (to the entrance) twenty cubits. It follows therefore that the Holy of Holies was ten by ten cubits, and this agrees with what is said, (v. 33) “and thou shalt hang up the partition veil under the catches” that coupled the two sections of the curtaining of the Tabernacle together. For the breadth of one section was twenty cubits and when it was laid over the top of the Tabernacle from the entrance to the west, its end with the catches came at two-thirds of the length of the Tabernacle (20 cubits), exactly where we have stated that the veil was hanging. The second section covered the other third of the length of the Tabornacle (10 cubits) and what was left over (10 cubits) hung behind to cover the boards (which were 10 cubits in height; cf. Rashi on v. 5).

וויהם, something such as a fork supported by pillars at the bottom. They were attached in such a way that the edge of the dividing curtain could be inserted in them from above.

The paroches was ten amohs long. . . Re”m writes: I do not know why Rashi places its length along the mishkon’s width, and its width along the mishkon’s height. Why not the other way around, with its width to the mishkon’s width, and its length to [the planks’] length? Furthermore, how can the paroches have a long side and a wide side, when it is square? I do not know the place [of Rashi’s source]. Nachalas Yaakov answers: It seems to me that the long side of the images on the paroches was along the mishkon’s width. The direction of the images determines what Rashi calls “length.”

על ארבעה עמודי שטים, “on four pillars made of acacia wood.” These pillars were freestanding, across the width of the Tabernacle they did not bother anyone seeing that only the High Priest one day of the year, the Day of Atonement would walk past them four times. The five pillars at the eastern entrance of the Tabernacle, however, were positioned differently, two each near the northern and southern side, and the fifth in the centre, so that there was plenty of room to walk on either side of the pillar in the middle, as the priests would enter and leave the Sanctuary frequently. If all these pillars had been spaced at equal distances from one another this would have been inconvenient for the priests. An alternate interpretation, (source unknown) the reason why there were only four pillars supporting the dividing curtain, whereas there were five such pillars supporting the curtain at the entrance of the Tabernacle, is that they were positioned between the planks of the Tabernacle on either side, so that these planks could be used as additional supports for the staves from which the curtain was suspended. These staves rested (also) on top of the plank to the north and south side respectively, so that actually the dividing curtain was supported by six pillars. The curtain at the entrance did not have parts of the planks supporting it. [According to the opinion that the dividing curtain was actually a double curtain so that the High Priest had to walk between it, it would have been much heavier, and therefore in need of stronger support. Ed.] The two outer pillars at the entrance, actually functioned as if an addition to the planks, but not joined to them. Our author prefers the first interpretation. Our author queries that if that interpretation were correct what was the purpose of the pillars that Rashi speaks about? The planks would have been sufficient to support the staves for the curtain.