פירוש על שמות 30:45

מקטר קטרת FOR THE BURNING OF INCENSE — to raise smoke (קיטור) on it, viz., the smoke of incense.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE AN ALTAR TO BURN INCENSE UPON. Now the altar of incense being one of the articles in the inner part of the Sanctuary, it should have been mentioned with the table and the candelabrum together with which it was placed, as indeed they are mentioned at the actual construction in the section of Vayakheil.²³²Further, 37:25 — next to the making of the candelabrum. But the reason for mentioning it here after the Tabernacle and all its vessels and the sacrifices [for the seven days of consecration], is because of what He said at the completion of them all, and the Tent shall be sanctified by My Glory;²³³Above, 29:43. and I will dwell among the children of Israel.²³⁴Ibid., Verse 45. Therefore He now said that they will yet be obliged to make an altar for the burning of incense — to burn it for the glory of G-d. This was a secret which was transmitted to Moses our Teacher,²³⁵Shabbath 89a. that the incense checks the plague.²³⁶Numbers 17:11-13. For the incense is of the attribute of justice, as it is said, they shall put incense ‘b’apecha’,²³⁷Deuteronomy 33:10. It is generally translated: “before Thee,” but Ramban suggests that b’apecha is of the root aph (anger). which is of the root v’charah api (My wrath shall wax hot).²³⁸Above, 22:23. It is for this reason that He said of strange incense, and before all the people I will be glorified,²³⁹Leviticus 10:3. meaning that they will know My glory, for He will not pardon your transgression.²⁴⁰Above, 23:21. For this reason too He said here [of the altar of incense], And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the Testimony, before the ark-cover that is over the Testimony, where I will meet with thee.²⁴¹Verse 6. For why is it necessary to speak at length of all these matters, and why did He not say briefly, “and thou shalt put it before the ark of the Testimony in the Tent of Meeting,” as He said in the section of Vayakheil?²⁴²It is found in the section of Pekudei (further, 40:5). But the extended form of the verse here indicates the purport [of the altar of incense].

מזבח מקטר קטורת, he will put only a minimal amount of fire on that altar in order to burn the incense thereon. This altar did not have to be hollow, filled with earth, as was the copper altar which was filled with earth in order that the supply of fire be on the earth, literally. On this altar the fire was kept on the gold overlay. Seeing that there was only a minimal amount of fire kept going thereon this did not damage or burn wood underneath the gold overlay.
The reason that this altar has not been mentioned together with the major altar standing outside the sanctuary, details of which the Torah described in Parshat Terumah, is that this altar was not intended to ensure that the Shechinah made its permanent home among the Jewish people. The purpose of all the other furnishings in the Tabernacle was just that. (compare how G’d defined this purpose in Exodus 25,8-9) Its purpose was also not to attract the glory of the Lord into the Tabernacle, as was the purpose of all the other communal sacrifices burnt-offering, gift offerings, etc. Concerning G’d’s response to those offerings we had read in Exodus 29,43 ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל, “and there I will meet with the Children of Israel.” Moses himself had confirmed that this was the purpose of the furnishings, etc., in the Tabernacle when he said: (Leviticus 9,6) “and as a result the glory of the Lord will become manifest to you.”
The sole purpose of the golden altar was to honour G’d after He had accepted our service with goodwill mornings and evenings. We used this as a means to welcome His presence by presenting the incense. We find that Chronicles I 16,29 expresses this thought, David saying:הבו לה' כבוד שמו ובאו לפניו, “Ascribe to the Lord the glory of His name!”

ועשית מזבח מקטר קטורת, "You shall construct an altar for offering up incense, etc. I have already explained (Exodus 25,9) why the construction of this altar was mentioned last. The reason for the word תעשה (in addition to the directive "you shall make"), is to prevent something which Solomon did when he had no acacia wood and constructed the altar for incense completely out of gold.

ועשית מזבח מקטר קטורת, You are to construct an altar for the burning up of incense.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that the golden altar was considered one of the pieces of furniture of the Sanctuary, it should have been mentioned in the same chapter as the Table, the Menorah, and the ark. In fact, in Parshat Vayakhel the golden altar has indeed been listed together with the other furnishings of the Tabernacle, (compare chapter 37). The reason why here the golden altar, primarily used for the burning of the incense, has been mentioned only after the details of the construction of the Tabernacle have all been recorded, as well as details of the sacrifices, is to inform the reader that after all said and done, the crucial element in securing the presence of the Shechinah in the Tabernacle, i.e. within the encampment of the Jewish people was that the presentation of the incense on that altar was of such importance to Hashem, as we know already from Moses’ own reference to this importance of the presentation of incense in order to defuse G’d’s anger at His people. *Deuteronomy” Presentation of the incense repre-sented not a prelude to something that the Israelites expected from G’d in return, but was meant solely as an expression of honour and reverence for G’d. It was an expression of appreciation for being allowed to house the Shechinah on earth. [I added a few words of my own in order to make the concept clear. Ed]

To raise up on it burning. . . [Rashi knows this] because it does not say מזבַח as it does with מזבַּח העולה (38:1). Consequently, מזבֵּחַ is not connected with מקטר קטרת . It can connect only if we add the word להעלות (to raise up), so that it conveys: “An altar which is in order to raise up on it burning incense.” This is as Rashi explains: “Burning — smoke of incense.”

Kap. 30. V. 1. Erst nach völligem Abschluss der Herrichtungs- und Einweihungsvorschriften des ganzen Instituts des Heiligtums, und unmittelbar nach der Zusicherung der höchsten Zweckerreichung des ganzen Heiligtums, wird die Herstellung des Räucheraltars, und damit die Vervollständigung der Hechalstätte angeordnet. Beides ist tiefcharakteristisch für die Bedeutung des Räucheraltars. Schon seine Stellung im Hechal, und nicht im Vorraum, reiht ihn in den Kreis derjenigen Herstellungen ein, die zur Vergegenwärtigung des Ideals der jüdischen Aufgabe dienen, nicht aber, wie die Bestandteile des Vorraums, erst den Weg zu diesem Ideale zeigen wollen. Er gehört daher auch zu den כלים und nicht wie der eigentlich nur als erhöhte רצפה zu begreifende Opferaltar zu dem Gebäude des Heiligtums (Sebachim 27 b) und, in die Mitte zwischen ארון שולחן, Tisch und Leuchter vorgerückt, dem Gesetzeszeugnis gegenüber gestellt: מנורה מזכח הזהב lässt diese Stellung in ihm die Vereinigung der von der תורה gewährten materiellen und geistigen Güter in der Verwirklichung des von der הורה gelehrten Ideals erblicken. Der ארון gibt שלחן und מנורה, damit beide im מזבח הזהב dann vereinigt den Zwecken des ארון wieder zugewendet werden.

ועשית מזבח מקטר קטורת, “you will make an altar for burning incense;”Up until now he had only heard about the altar on which burnt offerings, etc. were to be offered up. The reason was that G-d wished to tell Moses that on that altar unauthorized incense must be offered, nor any libations or gift offerings. Moses had alluded to this altar after describing making of thecandlestick (35,14) when prohibiting the offering of “alien” incense on it, and again in 35,14, when the construction of this altar is discussed. It is mentioned again in verse 8 of our chapter after the time for lighting the lamps on the candlestick has been given. This was necessary as the lamps on the candlestick were also permitted to be lit by an ordinary priest. This is clear from 27,21, which refers to both Aaron and his sons.

Die Bedeutung des Vorraums des Heiligtums gipfelt in dem immer wiederkehrenden Ausdruck אשה ריח ניחוח לד׳. Die Höhe der עזרה ist die מערכה, der אריאל, die Stätte, auf welcher das Gesetzesfeuer mit der Anforderung hinausleuchtet, alles Irdische aufgebend und hingebend und hinanstrebend also emporzuläutern und zu weihen, dass es Nahrung des Göttlichen auf Erden und Wohlgefallen Gottes in der Höhe werde. An die völlig noch unveredelte Stufe (נחשת) knüpft das Werk der עזרה an, und lehrt durch הקטרה ,זריקה ,קבלה ,שחיטה, die Wege zum רוח ניחוח לד׳. Das jüdiche Ideal ist aber jene schlackenlose, gediegen reine, goldene (זהב) Stufe, auf welcher es nicht erst noch des läuternden Aufgebens und Hingebens bedarf, auf welcher bereits das ganze irdische Wesen und Dasein also vom Göttlichen durchgeistigt ist, dass es, ohne Substrat, durch und durch ריח ניחוח לד׳ ist, und diesem Ideale dient das קטרת על מזבח הזהב zum Ausdruck. Der מזבח הזהב ist somit in Wahrheit ein קרן des מזבח הנחשת, er ist die Höhe, zu der erst der מזבח הנחשת hinanstrebt. Jecheskeel 43, 13 wird auch — nach der Menachot 97 b und Eruwin 4 a gegebenen Erläuterung — der מזבח הזהב geradezu גב המזבח, die Altarhöhe des מזבח הנחשת genannt. So ausdrücklich (Joma .95): כוליה מזבח פנימי במקום חדא קרן דחיצון קאי.

Darum steht seine Herstellung auch erst nach dem zum Ausspruch gekommenen idealen Höheziel der durch die Wirksamkeit des Heiligtums zu erstrebenden Wiedergewinnung der שכינה auf Erden und im innigen Zusammenhang mit diesem. Beide zusammen bilden die vollendete Höhe des jüdischen Ideals. Eine vollendete Durchgeistigung des ganzen irdischen Daseins in allen seinen Fugen ohne Substrat, לריח ניחוח לד׳, ganz קטרת ohne שחיטה usw., die innige Durchdringung des שולחן durch מנורה. Und dem gegenüber und unmittelbar dadurch bedingt und gewonnen: die Gegenwart der Gottesherrlichkeit inmitten des irdischen Lebens, die durch das Aufblühen alles Irdischen zur abzugslosen Heilesblüte erfahren wird, ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל וגו׳ וידעו כי אני ד׳ וגו׳.

V. 2. אמה ארכה וגו׳. Der ganze מזבח ist nichts als ein aufstrebendes קרןץ Auch die קרנות des Opferaltars maßen eine Elle im Gevierten und zwar nach dem kleinen fünf-tefachigen Ellenmaß der כלים, wie der מזבח הזהב (Menachot u. Eruwin 1. c.). Sie waren aber nur ein Würfel von einer Kubikelle, während der Räucheraltar mit doppeltem Maß in die Höhe strebte. — ממנו קרנתיו: er war ja ganz קרן.

את גגו THE ROOF THEREOF — This altar had a top but the altar of burnt-offering had no top, but they filled in the hollow space enclosed by its sides with earth wherever they encamped (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:21:1).

V. 3. זר זהב: Durch diesen Reif tritt er in den Charakter der symbolischen Geräte wie ארון und שולחן, und wird durch ihn die Idee, die er zu vergegenwärtigen hat, als ein unantastbares Gedankenziel der Nation hingestellt.

. זר זהב סביב, a golden crownlike rim all around it. This was meant to enclose the thickness of the golden plate on top of the altar in every direction.

זר זהב A CROWN OF GOLD — an emblem of the crown of priesthood (Yoma 72b).

צלעתיו Here this word must signify “corners” (not “sides” as Rashi explains in Exodus 25:12), as it is translated in the Targum, since it is stated afterwards, על שני צדיו, “upon the two sides of it”, so that the phrases mean, “the two corners that are on its two sides”.

שתי צלעותיו, at the upper corners.

Here it has the meaning of “corners”. . . Although everywhere else it means “side.”

V. 4. תעשה לו וגו׳ על שתי צלעתיו תעשה על שני צדיו . Diese Wiederholung und das Verhältnis von צלעתיו zu צדיו ist dunkel. Ganz ebenso heißt die Ausführung Kap. 37,27: על שתי צלעתיו על שני צדיו. Raschi erklärt צלעתיו hier nach dem Vorgang von Onkelos für Winkel זויות, obgleich für diese Bedeutung es kein Beispiel gibt. Ohnehin dürfte auch diese Auffassung sich schwer rechtfertigen lassen. Waren die Ringe an die Winkel angebracht, so mussten es offenbar vier Ringe sein, so dass jede Stange durch zwei Ringe ging, und es wäre dann nicht einzusehen, weshalb es nicht hier ebenso wie beim Opferaltar heißt, dass vier Ringe gemacht werden sollen (Kap. 27, 4). Es scheint vielmehr durch die Beifügung על שני צדיו dieser Auffassung begegnet werden zu sollen. Man könnte das שתי טבעות על שתי צלעתיו dahin verstehen, dass an zwei Wänden je zwei Ringe, somit zusammen vier Ringe sein sollen, daher wird hinzugefügt: תעשה על שני צדיו, die beiden Ringe sollen an zwei Seiten, somit an jeder Seite nur ein Ring sein. Es waren somit die Ringe nicht wie beim Opferaltar על ארבע קצותיו, sondern: על צלעות המזבח על שני צדיו, an jeder Seite nur ein Ring in der Mitte der Altarwand. Es gingen somit die Tragstangen nur durch einen Ring, welcher bei der bedeutend kleineren Dimension des Räucheraltars auch vollkommen ausreichte und vielleicht seinen כלי-Charakter im Gegensatz zum Opferaltar kennzeichnen sollte. Es war ein Gerät mit jederseits einem Ohr zum Tragen. (Siehe zu V. 1.)

על שני צדיו, “on its two sides.” According to Rashi, what is meant here are the two corners of each side of the (golden) altar to which the rings had been fastened. Apparently, there were four rings which had been fastened to the four corners. This appears problematic. Seeing that the dimensions of the golden altar were only one cubit in length and one cubit in width, (60cm by 60cm), how could two men stand behind one another supporting the staves of this altar when carrying it? When explaining the position of the rings and the staves attached to the Holy Ark, it was understood that they were attached to the two long sides of the Ark, which were two and a half cubits long each. The reason they carried it in such a fashion was that the alternative, namely carrying it on the short sides which were one and a half cubits wide, (50% longer than the golden altar’s sides) was not considered long enough to enable two men to walk behind each other while carrying it, The only way we can understand Rashi, would be that only two men carried that altar, one on each side. They must have positioned themselves between the walls of the altar and the wooden staves supported by the rings through which they had been inserted.

לשאת אותו בהמה, the Levites carrying these furnishings would walk one behind another to carry it on either side of it.

והיה (lit., “and it shall be”, not “they shall be”) — i. e. the making of these rings (this ring-work) shall be (shall serve) —

שני צדיו, the side walls. [seeing that the altar was a cube, i.e. the sides were no longer than the length, I find this difficult. Ed.]

Since the verse states: “on its sides” ( על שני צדיו ) . . . Therefore we may infer that צלעותיו does not mean “sides,” which is why Rashi does not explain צלעותיו the usual way. Rashi adds the phrase, “On its two corners which are at its two sides,” so we will not think that על שני צדיו comes to explain צלעותיו . I.e., [we should not think] שני צדיו and שתי צלעותיו are the same. Rashi also parenthetically explains that “on its sides” means “at its sides.” This is because the corners are at the sides, not on top of them.

לבתים לבדים FOR PLACES FOR THE STAVES — i.e. the ring shall serve as a place for the stave (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:27).

The making of these rings. Rashi is saying that והיה refers to [the implied word] מעשה , which is missing from the verse. Otherwise, [if it refers to the rings themselves,] it should say והיו (plural).

The ring itself will be. . . [Rashi is saying:] it does not mean that the rings will be for houses and for poles. Rather, the rings will be houses, and the houses are for the poles.

לפני הכפרת BEFORE THE PARTITION VEIL — But this vail was drawn across the entire width of the Tabernacle, and you may perhaps say that the altar was not to be placed exactly before (exactly in a straight line with) the Ark but might be withdrawn from the straight line to the North or to the south since in that position, too, it would be before the partition vail; therefore it states further, “before the covering of the Ark”, i. e. exactly in front of the Ark but outside the veil.

ונתת אותו לפני הפרכת. in the sanctuary.

Lest you say that it should be somewhat drawn away from being exactly opposite the Ark. . . Rashi is explaining why it is written, “In front of the covering,” after it already said, “In front of the paroches.” It is because the paroches traversed the whole width of the mishkon. Therefore we might think that the altar was in front of the paroches not right in the middle; the altar was rather drawn towards the northern or southern wall. Therefore Scripture adds, “In front of the covering. . .”

V. 6. לפני הפרכת אשר על ארן העדות: Wie שולחן und מנורה erhielt er seine Stellung im היכל außerhalb des Allerheiligsten vor dem das Zeugnis scheidend schützenden Vorhang. Er gehört zu dem, durch das in der Lade ruhende Gesetz, zu verwirklichenden nationalen Leben, ja, drückt die höchste Vollendung desselben aus. Allein ebenso wie, der "materiellen und geistigen" Entwicklung der Nation gegenüber, das von Gott bezeugte Gesetz seines Willens unter besonderem Cherubimschutze ruht, also dass, wenn je das vom göttlichen Gesetze gewährte materielle und geistige Leben der Nation, statt der Erfüllung des Gesetzes sich unterzuordnen, sich in Gegensatz zu demselben stellen sollte, der Cherubimschutz das materielle und geistige Leben der Nation preisgibt und das Gesetz einer reineren, treueren Zukunft rettet: also kann auch das aus der Vermählung des Materiellen und Geistigen sich erzeugende Gemüts- und Seelenleben der Nation, das im קטרת seinen Ausdruck findet, statt sich den Begriff des ניחוה לד׳ aus dem Gesetze deuten zu lassen, selbstgebildete Träume an die Stelle der göttlichen Wahrheit sich zu Idealen bilden und mit dem gesetzentfremdeten Materiellen und Geistigen zusammen des Cherubimschutzes und der Gottesnähe verlustig gehen. Wie gegen die Verirrung des Materiellen und des Geistes, also ist auch die תורה gegen die Verirrung selbstgebildeter. Ideale zu schützen. (siehe Kommentar Kap. 26).

לפני הפרכת, “in front of the dividing curtain.” In other words, in the middle of the portion called: Sanctuary.

אשר על ארון העדות, a reference to the curtain dividing the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies.

לפני הכפרת וגו׳. Darum hat מזכח הזהב seine Stelle in gerader Linie dem כפרת gegenüber. Nur aus der תורה hat Israel seine Ideale zu schöpfen, nur die Verwirklichung des durch die Cherubim vergegenwärtigten Israelideals (siehe S. 341 f.) wird ניחוח לד׳, geht ganz als קטרת zu Gott empor, und nur eine solche aus der תורה erwachsene Erhebung zu Gott gewinnt die Gottesnähe, die das Heiligtum zum אהל מועד macht, von dem Gott gesprochen: אשר אועד לך שמה. Es heißt aber von dem מזבח הקטרת nicht wie bei שולחן und מחוץ לפרכת :מנורה (26, 35) sondern: לפני הפרכת er steht ebenso לפני הפרכת wie לפני הכפרת, oder, wie es Kap. 40. 5. geradezu heißt: לפני ארון העדות. In der höchsten Verwirklichung des von der תורה gelehrten Ideals findet das פרכת wie der כפרת seine bleibende integrierende Bedeutung, es kommen in ihm פרכת wie כפרת zu ihrer eigenen Verwirklichung, beide, שמירה und עשיה, gehen Hand in Hand, ja, je höher die Stufe, um so wesentlicher wird immer die שמירה, um so leichter der Fall, umsomehr wird man immer die gegebene Unantastbarkeit der תורה selber gegen sich selbst zu vertreten haben, wie ja auch die Cherubim gleichzeitig פרשי כנפים למעלה סככים בכנפיהם על הכפרת — (siehe S. 341 f).

בהטיבו WHEN HE TRIMMETH — This word is an expression for cleansing the bowls of the candelabrum from the ashes of the wicks which had burnt out during the night; and he used to clean them (the lamps) out every morning.

AND AARON SHALL BURN THEREON INCENSE. This commandment [of burning the incense] did not devolve upon the High Priest alone, but was also incumbent upon the common priests, as is the law of the lighting of the lamps mentioned right beside it, [every morning, when he dresseth the lamps], although of that too it says, And when Aaron lighteth the lamps,²⁴³Verse 8. and yet it does not apply to the High Priest alone, as He said above, Aaron and his sons shall set in order.²⁴⁴Above, 27:21. Therefore I do not know why He mentioned Aaron in both of them, and did not say “the priest” [which would signify any — even a common-priest]. Perhaps it is because of Scripture’s statement further, And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year,²⁴⁵Further, Verse 10. which was done by Aaron only, [because the reference there is to the Service on the Day of Atonement which could be performed only by the High Priest — therefore He also mentioned the name of Aaron in the verse before us and in the following verse]. Or it may be that He hinted that it was to be Aaron who [at the first time] was to begin the burning of the incense and the lighting of the lamps. Similarly at the end of Seder Emor el hakohanim He said, Aaron shall set in order,²⁴⁶Leviticus 24:3. and He did not mention his sons, because it was Aaron who performed it first. The phrase a statute forever mentioned there,²⁴⁶Leviticus 24:3. refers to the commandment [of kindling the lamps, and does not mean that it is a statute forever that only the High Priest do it].

והקטיר עליו אהרן קטורת סמים, “Aaron is to burn up on it the incense comprised of a variety of spices.” Nachmanides writes that contrary to first impressions, the command to offer the incense was not addressed to Aaron in his capacity as the High Priest, exclusively, but in his capacity as representative of the priesthood. The same holds true for the lighting of the menorah, which is mentioned immediately after this verse, and where the Torah also mentions Aaron by name, although he was not the only one authorized to perform this service. In that instance, the Torah adds that Aaron’s sons were charged with performing this task. (compare 27,21) I do not know why the High Priest Aaron has been mentioned twice, both with the incense and the lighting of the lamps on the menorah, nor does the Torah refer to him with the definitive article, i.e. הכהן. Perhaps, seeing that in verse 10, where the Torah describes Aaron as bringing atonement by way of the animals’ horns, once a year, only Aaron (i.e. the High Priest) is meant, we might have concluded that the same applies to the burning of incense on the golden altar, seeing the Torah also at the legislation about the kindling of the lamps refers to Aaron without mentioning his sons (Leviticus 24,2). We might have been misled, therefore at the end of that legislation, when the Torah speaks of חוקת עולם, an enduring statute, these words refer to the legislation itself, not to who is to kindle the lamps. Aaron was singled out because he was the first one to ever kindle that menorah, but other priests were allowed to do it subsequently.

בבקר בבקר, “morning after morning.” in connection with the daily communal offering known as תמיד, the Torah uses the word “morning” only once. We read in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד תעשה בבקר. The reason was that the incense would be offered before the תמיד sacrifice of the morning, so that it was not the first offering of the day.

VV. 7 u. 8. Es ist tief charakteristisch, und haben wir dies bereits oben zu Kap. 27, 20 bemerkt, dass der "Dienst der Leuchte" und das "Opfern des Räucherwerks" die nationale Geistesarbeit und die idealste Tatvollendung, Hand in Hand gehen. Ja, דישון מזבת הפנימי, die Bereitstellung des inneren Altars für die idealste ניחוח-Spende, geht der הטבת הנרות, der Bereitstellung des Leuchters voran, und nach den הכמים (Joma 14 b) wird sie am Morgen inmitten der Bereitmachung des Leuchters vollzogen, מפסיק בקטרת בין הטבת חמש נרות להטבת ב׳ נרות, und ebenso geht abends das קטרת dem Anzünden der Lampen voran (daselbst 15 a). Die höchste sittliche Vollendung der praktischen Tatenweihe muss von vornherein der jüdischen Geistesentwickelung als Ziel vorschweben, sie allein gibt der Entwicklung des Geistes ihren Wert. Genialität ist im jüdischen Lebensheiligtum kein Freibrief für Nichtachtung des Sittengesetzes, vielmehr ist die höchste Sittlichkeit die Wardeiung der höchsten Geistigkeit, und nur in ihr und durch sie hat sich der Adel des Geistes zu bewähren und seine Echtheit darzutun. Bedeutsam beginnt die "Ordnung" תצוה, dieses Kapitel über die jüdische Priesterweihe, mit dem Dienste des Lichtes und schließt mit dem Dienste der idealsten ניחוח-Spende, beide in inniger Vereinigung machen den Priester zum Priester.

והקטיר עליו אהרן קטורת, “and Aaron shall burn on it the incense;” the word “Aaron” cannot be understood literally, as he would not live forever. Even during his lifetime, his sons, i.e. ordinary priests, were permitted to offer incense on this altar. The reason he has been mentioned by name is that according to the Talmud in tractate Yuma, folio 26, whenever the High Priest demanded to offer the incense he took precedence over ordinary priests. The Talmud there describes the procedure used to determine which priest would be chosen each day for that task. One of the most important factors in choosing such a priest was if he had never had the opportunity to perform that duty he was given preference over his colleagues. There was a tradition according to which priests who had performed this duty would become wealthy. Normally, lots were drawn between the priests on duty on that particular day. Lighting the menorah, also described as being performed by Aaron in Exodus 27,21, was also permitted to be performed by ordinary priests, seeing that both Aaron and his sons are mentioned in that context.

והקטיר עליו אהרן, “and Aaron would burn incense on it;” here Aaron, i.e. the High Priest is meant in his capacity as High Priest. Other priests were also allowed to burn incense on the golden altar; [in fact the honour was highly prized, and was distributed by means of a lottery. Ed.]

הנרת THE LAMPS — luces in old French And this is the meaning of נרות whenever it is mentioned in connection with the candelabrum, except in any passage where the term העלאה “causing to ascend” (any verbal form which is the Hiphil of עלה), which denotes lighting is used, and there it signifies “lights”, (The translation here is therefore: “when he cleans out the lamps”, not “when he trims the lights”).

ובהעלת means when he kindles them by making their flame ascend (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:20 and on Numbers 8:2).

בין הערבים יקטירנה, “he shall bring it up in smoke in the afternoon.” It is a well known fact that the fragrance of incense burned in the late afternoon lingers longer than its counterpart burned in the morning. This is already referred to in Psalms 141,2: “take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice.” David emphasizes that which is offered in the afternoon/evening. When referring to his offering he did not mention such offerings as sin-offerings or guilt-offerings or even burnt-offerings, but asked G’d to look kindly on his offering of incense. All the other offerings are in expiation of some sin, even sins committed only in one’s thoughts and never carried out which are atoned for by the עולה, the burnt-offering. The incense offering has no connotation of sin associated with it at all. David asked that his prayer be accepted by G’d as if it had been incense. This is also why he said in the verse following שיתה ה' שמרה לפי, “O Lord set a guard over my mouth.” I believe that the word שיתה belongs together with the word לפי, as if David had said: שיתה ה' לפי, שמרה לפי, he meant that G’d should put suitable words in his mouth. David thereby alluded to what G’d had said to Moses in Exodus 4,11 מי שם פה לאדם, “who has provided man with a mouth?” David requested that G’d help him not to utter words which are not appropriate. This is the meaning of the latter half of the verse in Psalms 141,3 נצרה על-דל שפתי, “set a watch at the door of my lips.” The word דל is short for דלת שפתי. The idea of a mouth having a door is already described in Micah 7,5 where the prophet says שמר פתחי פיך, “be guarded in your speech.” He used the word פתח to describe the mouth which opens and closes just like a door. G’d uses similar language in Job 41,6 saying of Leviathan: דלתי פניו מי פתח, “who can pry open his face?” The word נצרה in Psalms 141,3 is in an imperative form just like מכרה in Genesis 25,31, or in Genesis 43,8 when Yehudah told his father Yaakov שלחה הנער אתי, “send the lad (Binyamin) with me!” The dagesh in the letter צ of the word נצרה is merely for aesthetical purposes to make the reading of the word more pleasant-sounding. It is similar to the dagesh in Exodus 15,17 in the letter ק of the word מקדש of the line מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך. It results in doubling the sound. The psalmist could have written נצור just as easily as he wrote נצרה.
Concerning the words משאת כפי מנחת ערב, “my upraised hands as a gift of the evening,” David requests here that his prayer at this time be even more welcome to G’d than an offering of incense in the morning. The reason he describes his prayer as “his outstretched palms,” is to compare it to the incense which is born on one’s hands, having in mind Leviticus 16,12: “and his cupped handfuls of finely ground incense.” Another thought David may have had in mind when he referred to מנחת ערב may have been related to the meaning of the word ערבות, “pleasing,” as in Maleachi 3,4, וערבה לה' מנחת יהודה וירושלים, “then the offerings of Yehudah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, etc.” Seeing that of all the sacrifices none is as welcome to G’d as the incense, its smoke begins to rise heavenwards immediately it is placed on the altar. This is why at the beginning of this hymn David describes it as קראתיך חושה לי, “when I call You hasten to me.”

Every single day. He burns one pras. . . This means half a maneh in the morning and half a maneh in the evening, making a full maneh every day.

קטרת תמיד, “a regular incense offering, at the time when other offerings were also being presented. This is why the Torah adds the words: לדורותיכם, “throughout your generations.”

יקטירנה HE SHALL BURN IT [A CONTINUAL INCENSE] — תמיד, “continual”, means every day regularly: a half he burnt in the morning and a half he burnt in the evening (Keritot 6b).

לא תעלו עליו YE SHALL NOT OFFER ON IT — on it, i. e. on this altar, but you may offer on the copper altar (cf. Menachot 50b),

YE SHALL NOT BRING UP ‘KTORETH ZARAH’ (STRANGE INCENSE) THEREON — “any incense brought as a freewill offering; for all [offerings of incense] are ‘strange’ to [this altar] except this one [prescribed here].” This is Rashi’s language. But Onkelos rendered ktoreth zarah: ktoreth busmin nuchra’in (“the burning of aromatics which are of strange components,”) and he did not translate it nuchritha “strange incense” [as Rashi interpreted it]. By this translation Onkelos wanted to explain that the sense of the verse is that he should not offer an incense of any other components except those prescribed as He commanded.²⁴⁷This is identical with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the verse. Ramban, however, called attention to Onkelos’ text because it required an explanation as mentioned. Similarly, if one were to add to the prescribed composition any other components one would transgress this negative commandment.
Ki Thisa

קטורת זרה,”alien incense.” Rashi understands this to mean that even similar incense offered as a free-willed donation, is considered “alien,” and as such carries a severe penalty. Onkelos translates the verse as referring to spices not listed in Parshat Ki Tissa that begins forthwith. The prohibition of changes in the composition of the spices includes even adding an additional spice to the ones the Torah authorized and whose proportions the Torah specified. (30,22-38)

Upon this altar. But on the copper altar, you may bring it.

V. 9. קטרת זרה. Jede andere, als diese hier vorgeschriebene Darbringung von Räucherwerk ist als זרה zu begreifen (Menachot 50 a u. b). Es ist damit jede Willkür in Bildung des höchsten Lebensideals ausgeschlossen. Es gibt somit nicht ein höchstes Lebensideal. Es gibt nur das höchste Lebensideal. Nur das vollständigste Aufgehen in den ausgesprochenen göttlichen Willen, mit Beseitigung aller Subjektivität, nur das Aufgehen in den im ארון העדות bezeugten Willen Gottes ist בניחוח לד׳ Und ebenso sind alle anderen Opfer, עולה מנחה נסכים, von diesem Altare ausgeschlossen. Alle anderen Opfer sind teils nur partieller, teils nur vorbereitender Bedeutung in Verhältnis zu der Ganzheit und Vollendung, deren Ausdruck der מזבח הקטרת geweiht ist.

קטרת זרה, “alien incense;” any incense which is not paid for by the congregation as a whole, even if paid for out of the High Priest’s personal funds, was prohibited. This was one of the sins committed by Nadav and Avihu, Aaron’s sons, each of whom had taken his own personal pan and offered incense paid for out of their own pockets. This is (one of the reasons) why they were so harshly punished. An alternate explanation: “alien incense,” is any incense that does not exactly correspond to the instructions given in the Torah concerning of which spices and how much of each it was to consist.

קטרת זרה STRANGE INCENSE — any incense brought as a freewill offering; all of them (all offerings of incense) are “strange” to it (to the altar) except this prescribed here.

Neither burnt-offering nor meal-offering. . . Rashi is explaining that the לא at the beginning of the verse refers also to the burnt-offerings [and meal-offerings]. It means, “And neither burnt-offerings nor meal-offerings.”

ועלה ומנחה means, nor burnt offering nor meal-offering. The עולה is an offering of an animal or bird; מנחה is one of bread.

וכפר אהרן AND AARON SHALL MAKE EXPIATION — This refers to the placing of the blood upon the horns of the altar.

אחת בשנה, on the Day of Atonement. This was confirmed in Leviticus 16,18 ויצא אל המזבח אשר לפני ה', “he shall go out to the altar that is before Hashem, etc.” On all the other days of the year the golden altar was used only for incense burning.

For the uncleanness of the mikdosh and its holy things. I.e., the bull and goat of Yom Kippur atone for the following: 1. The kohein knows he is unclean and accidentally enters the mikdosh, thinking it is a regular building. 2. The kohein knows he is unclean and accidentally eats korbonos, thinking it is regular meat. 3. The kohein knows it is the mikdosh but is unaware of his uncleanness. 4. The kohein knows it is korbonos but is unaware of his uncleanness.

V. 10. Wir haben schon oben (siehe Kommentar Kap. 28) die Bedeutung der "das Heiligtum sühnenden" כפרות angedeutet. Wenn etwas des Schutzes vor Trübung durch die Unvollkommenheiten der Wirklichkeit bedürftig ist, so ist es sicherlich das Ideal der höchsten sittlichen Vollkommenheit, das als Höheziel unaufhörlich vorschweben soll, wie es seinen Ausdruck auf dem מזבח הפנימי durch das קטרת zu finden hat. Priester und Volk haben sich einmal im Jahre diesen Abstand des Ideals von der Wirklichkeit im פר und שעיר zum Bewusstsein zu bringen und durch נתינת הדם an die Höhewinkel des מזבח הזהב sich den Höhestand zu vergegenwärtigen, auf welchem die Wirklichkeit stehen sollte.

וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה, “and Aaron is to perform atonement rites once a year on its horns (corners); this does not mean that no blood is to be sprinkled on the horns of this altar except once a year; after all the Torah wrote (Leviticus 4,7) that if the High priest has committed an inadvertent sin that he must atone for this by means of the blood of a bull, by sprinkling some of it on the horns of this altar, and the same procedure is also decreed to be performed in another instance mentioned in Leviticus 4,18,; but in our verse the Torah refers to the Day of Atonement when the High Priest performs all the rites pertaining to atonement for the entire nation, after having first made sure that his own sins and those of his family had been atoned for. This ritual had to be performed every year on the same day, whereas the other two rituals we cited may not have been called for many years.

אחת בשנה ONCE IN THE YEAR — On the Day of Atonement. This is what is said in the section אחרי מות, which describes the sacrificial service on that day, (Leviticus 16:18) “And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord and make an expiation upon it”.

Exclusively for these things. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say here: “It is Holy of Holies”?

קדש קדשים הוא לד׳. Sebachim 27 a wird vom מזבח הפנימי gelehrt מזבח הפנימי מקדש פסולין בין ראוי לו בין אין ראוי לו es ist ihm die Kraft symbolischer Heiligung somit noch in höherem Grade als dem מזבח החיצון zuerkannt, der nur מקדש פסולין הראוי׳ לו (siehe zu Kap. 29, 37). Wir glauben sagen zu dürfen, eben weil er der vollendetsten Durchgeistigung und Durchsittigung des Lebens in seiner ausnahmlosen Gesamtheit geweiht ist, darf nichts als nicht ראוי לו erscheinen, ist alles ראוי לו, muss es bei ihm in noch erhöhter Potenz als vom מזבח החיצון von allem heißen: אם עלו לא ירדו. Wenn jedoch die beschränkende Bedingung ראוי לו bei ihm wegfällt, so glauben wir dennoch, daß der Begriff פסולו בקדש auch bei ihm statthabe, und so הרובע ונרבע וכו׳ auch bei ihm אם עלו ירדו. Ein positiver Ausspruch hierüber ist uns nicht bekannt.

חטאת הכפרים SIN-OFFERING OF EXPIATION — These are the bullock and goat of the Day of Atonement which atone for the uncleanness of the Sanctuary and its holy offerings (Shevuot 2b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 16:11).

קדש קדשים [IT IS] MOST HOLY — the altar is sanctified for offering on it these things alone and not for any other sacrificial service.

[THE LORD] SPOKE, etc. When Moshe gathered Israel to separate out the offerings for the Mishkan, he counted them, and this silver was given for the service of the Mishkan, as it is written in [Parashat] Eleh P'kudei (Ex. 38:25), "The silver of the enumeration of the congregation was 100 etc."

V. 11. וידבר ד׳ וגו׳. Von Kap. 25, 1 bis zu diesem Verse war eine fortlaufende Gottesrede, durch welche die Stiftung und Heiligung des Tempels und der Priester geboten worden. Mit dieser nun folgenden Gottesrede wird nun das Verhältnis der Nation zum Tempelheiligtum gezeichnet. Wie von vornherein Tempel- und Nationalleben nicht als zwei getrennte Gebiete zu begreifen gelehrt worden, wie Sanhedrin neben dem Altare stehen, der Altar Recht und Friede und Sittenheiligung dem Nationalleben bringen sollte, und darum die Grundzüge des zu entwickelnden Lebens der Nation den Anordnungen über den Tempelbau vorangehen: so wird hier, nach Vollendung dieser Anordnungen, die Zusammenhörigkeit der Nation und des Tempelheiligtums durch das Schekelgesetz dauernd zum Bewusstsein gebracht und die große jüdische Wahrheit proklamiert: daß das Tempelheiligtum kein ein für allemal hergestelltes und nun fortan durch die Priester zu vollziehendes opus operatum sei, das ohne die ewig frisch und lebendig bleibende Beteiligung der Nation seinen Zweck erreichen könne, und dass ebenso die Bedeutung der einzelnen und der Nation im ganzen nur in der Leistung bestehe, durch welche das Tempelheiligtum, das ja nichts anderes als das Heiligtum des Nationalgesetzes ist, seine Verwirklichung findet.

כי תשא This has the meaning of obtaining: WHEN THOU TAKEST [THE SUM], (not of “lifting up” as in Genesis 40:13); as the Targum has it, תקבל. The sense is: when you wish to obtain the sum total of their number — to know how many they are — do not take their census by their polls but each of them shall give half a shekel, and you shall count these, and so ascertain their number.

The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses that when he takes a census of the children of Israel, they should each give a soul’s ransom — half a shekel; and He further told him, And thou shalt take the atonement-money¹Verse 16. mentioned, and shalt give it for the service of the Tent of Meeting.¹Verse 16. From this Moses would understand that he was to count them now. And so indeed he did, as Scripture says, And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was a hundred talents etc.²Further, 38:25. It was thus not necessary to state at length, “and now you should take their census and give the silver for the service of the Tent of Meeting,” for it is self-understood that he should count them now. The reason that He generalized the commandment — saying “when you will take their census you should do it in the prescribed way” — is in order to include in this general principle any time when a census was decided upon.
It appears to me that now [at this census, Moses] did not have to come to the people’s tents and count them, as he did in the census spoken of in the Book of Numbers,³In connection with that census the Midrash says specifically that when the enumeration of the Levites was taken “Moses went and stationed himself at the entrance of each tent etc.” (Tanchuma Bamidbar, 16). Ramban is here suggesting that the same was done with the other tribes as well. but he did it as our Rabbis have said through the [half] shekels they brought for the sacrifices; for he commanded them that all who know themselves to be from twenty years old and upward⁴Verse 14. should give that sum, and they brought him the ransom as a voluntary offering together with all the other voluntary offerings every morning.⁵Further, 36:3. That is why He said only, And thou shalt take the atonement-money,¹Verse 16. that is to say, “Behold, I have commanded you that when you count them they shall give their ransom, and now they will voluntarily give it and you should appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting.”¹Verse 16. This is the reason why it was not necessary now that Aaron and the princes [of the tribes] be present with Moses [at the taking of the half-shekels, as was required in the census spoken of in the Book of Numbers⁶Numbers 1:3-4.]. Do not object on account of the verse, This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered⁷Verse 13. [from which you might think that here too, Moses actually counted the people], for the meaning thereof is “those that are eligible to pass.”
Now because it has not been explained here whether this is a commandment binding for all time or only for that particular period of when Moses was in the wilderness, David erred and counted the people without shekels, and on account of this a plague broke out amongst them.⁸II Samuel 24:1-15. He confessed about this [sin], as it is said, And David said unto G-d, I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing.⁹I Chronicles 21:8.
Our Rabbis have derived¹⁰Yerushalmi Shekalim I, 1. from the many expressions [of “offering”] mentioned here,¹¹Half a shekel for an offering to the Eternal (Verse 13); he shall give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 14); when they give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 15). [an indication] that there were three [separate] offerings.¹²One was for the making of the sockets of the Tabernacle (further 38:26-27). The second was after the erection of the Tabernacle and the money was used for purchasing the public sacrifices. Both of these offerings were compulsory, each person giving a half-shekel. The third was voluntary and was used for the building of the Tabernacle. See also further on in the text. And so it appears from what Scripture says, [And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said unto him:] ‘Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the tax of Moses the servant of the Eternal, and of the congregation of Israel, for the Tent of Testimony?’¹³II Chronicles 24:6. From this it would appear that the tax of Moses was enjoined for all time — and that it was to be brought for the repair of the Temple even though no census was to be taken. Likewise the offering for [buying the public] sacrifices [was enjoined for all time] as the Sages have said, and it is so written [of Ezra and Nehemiah]: Also we made ordinances for us to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our G-d; for the showbread, and for the continual meal-offering and for the continual burnt-offering, of the Sabbaths, of the New Moons, for the appointed reasons, and for the holy things, and for the sin-offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our G-d.¹⁴Nehemiah 10:33-34. Here it is clearly stated that they used to bring shekels every year for the sacrifices and for the Temple repair. Scripture states that the levy was the third part of a shekel [whereas here it is stated that it is to be half a shekel]; this was because in the days of Ezra they added to the value of a shekel, so that the third of a shekel was then ten gerahs [the equivalent of a half a shekel in the days of Moses].¹⁵The shekel is twenty gerahs (Verse 13). In the days of Ezra a shekel was worth thirty gerahs; hence a third was ten gerahs.
In Tractate Shekalim we are taught:¹⁶Shekalim 2:4. “When Israel came up from [the Babylonian] exile they used to pay the [half-] shekel in darics [a Persian silver coin, each one giving one daric, as will be explained further]. Then they changed, and paid it in s’laim [each one giving one sela]. Again they changed and paid the shekel in tibin [each one giving one tiba], and they finally sought to pay it in denars [but these were not accepted of them].” The meaning of this Mishnah is as follows: When Israel came up from the exile and large funds were needed for the Temple repair, they paid the shekel in darics, which were larger than the s’laim, each one giving one daric. Then they changed and began paying in whole s’laim [each one giving one sela — since there was a decrease in the needs of the Temple repair]. Again they changed it to tibin — in the Yerushalmi¹⁷Yerushalmi ibid. it is explained that a tiba is half a sela.¹⁸A sela was the exact equivalent of the shekel that was in the days of Moses. Hence a tiba which is half a sela is the same as the half-shekel which the Torah commanded to be given by each Israelite. When they sought to pay it in denars [each one giving one denar]¹⁹There are four denars to a shekel [or sela]. Hence to give one denar only would be half of a half-shekel, and as will be explained further on that less than a half-shekel cannot be given. they did not accept it of them, for although the public can increase the levy to more than half a sela, provided only that everyone pays alike, as we have been taught in the Mishnah of Tractate Shekalim,¹⁶Shekalim 2:4. yet no one is permitted to decrease it and give less than half of a sela, be it one person or many people, for “the ransom of a soul” is not less than that [i.e. a half-sela], as it is written, This they shall give etc.⁷Verse 13. In the Yerushalmi¹⁷Yerushalmi ibid. the Rabbis have said with reference to what is written [that in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah they ordained that each one is to give] the third part of a shekel,¹⁴Nehemiah 10:33-34. “from here you learn that a person is responsible for shekels three times a year.²⁰According to the Yerushalmi the meaning of the verse (Nehemiah 10:33) is thus as follows: “we made ordinances for us to charge ourselves each third part of the year with the shekel mentioned in the Torah.” For by law of the Torah they were enjoined to give it only once; but because the needs for the Temple repair were so great [as explained above], they took it voluntarily upon themselves to donate it three times a year. Since three s’laim [or shekels of the Torah] make one daric, it is now clear why the Mishnah quoted above states that when Israel came up from the exile they paid the shekel in darics, and as Ramban clearly states, “each one giving a daric” which was equivalent to three shekels of the Torah. From here you also learn that we must not impose on the public more than three times a year” [for the Temple treasury].
Now Rashi wrote: “there are three offerings hinted at here¹¹Half a shekel for an offering to the Eternal (Verse 13); he shall give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 14); when they give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 15). — one was for the making of the sockets, for Moses counted them when they began to contribute towards the building of the Tabernacle after the Day of Atonement in the first year [of the exodus], — each one giving half of a shekel, and the total amounting to a hundred talents, as it is said, And the silver of them that were numbered was a hundred talents etc.²¹Further, 38:25. The second [offering] was also levied through a census, for he counted them after the Tabernacle was erected, this being the census referred to in the Book of Numbers: on the first day of the second month in the second year,²²Numbers 1:1. each one giving a half-shekel for purchasing the public sacrifices. And if you ask: How is it possible that on both of these occasions the number of Israelites was exactly the same — 603,550?²³Further, 38:26. Numbers 1:46. Were these two censuses not taken in two [different] years;²⁴The first census was taken in the month of Tishri [after the Day of Atonement in the first year of the exodus]. The second census — on the first day of Iyar — was seven months later. But since we calculated the beginning of a new year [in the count after the exodus] with Nisan, the second census was therefore in the second year. Thus the two censuses were in two years! thus it is impossible that there were no people aged nineteen at the time of the first census, [who accordingly were not counted], who became twenty years old [by the time the second census was taken, and thus must have added to the total]! The reply to this question is as follows: As far as the years of people’s ages are concerned, the two censuses were taken in one year, but counting from the exodus from Egypt, they were held in two years. For when we count from the exodus from Egypt, we calculate from Nisan, but when we count the years of man’s ages we count according to the era of the creation of the world, which begins with Tishri. In that way, the two censuses were in one year: the first census was in Tishri after the Day of Atonement, when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to Israel and they were commanded about the construction of the Tabernacle, and the second census took place [in the same year] on the first day of Iyar.” All these are the Rabbi’s words.
But I wonder! How is it possible that the number of deaths amongst such a great assemblage of people in a period of half a year did not run to the hundreds and thousands! For according to the words of the Rabbi [Rashi], they remained for about seven months [from about the middle of Tishri to the beginning of Iyar] without one fatality, and yet it is written, But there were certain men, who were unclean by the dead body of a man.²⁵Numbers 9:6. This happened in Nisan in the second year after the exodus. Thus it is clear that before the month of Iyar when the second census took place, there was at least one death in the camp. I have also another difficulty: The years of men’s ages are not counted according to the era of the creation of the world which begins with Tishri, but are counted in astronomical years beginning with the day of one’s birth. It is for this reason that it says with reference to the people counted, that they are to be from twenty years old and upward,²⁶Ibid., 1:3. meaning that they are to be a full twenty years old. Similarly, all countings of the Torah with respect to people’s ages are calculated in astronomical years, just as the Rabbis have said in Tractate Arakhin:²⁷Arakhin 18b. “The ‘year’ mentioned in connection with the hallowed offerings,²⁸Such as a he-lamb of the first year (Leviticus 12:6). and dwelling-houses in a walled city,²⁹If sold, these houses can be redeemed within the space of a full year (Leviticus 25:30). the two ‘years’ mentioned in connection with a field which is the owner’s by inheritance [which, if sold, he may not redeem until after two years],³⁰Leviticus 25:15, and Arakhin 29b. the six ‘years’ mentioned in connection with a Hebrew servant,³¹Above, 21:2. a son and daughter [explained further on], are all reckoned in astronomical years. Whence do we know this of the hallowed offerings? Scripture says, keves ben shnatho²⁸Such as a he-lamb of the first year (Leviticus 12:6). [literally: “a lamb of his year”] — his year, and not the year counted according to the era of the creation of the world etc.” Then [the Gemara] explains there: “In connection with what law does this principle affect ‘the son and daughter’ [mentioned above] ? Said Rav Gidal, It is in connection with Valuations.”³²If a person vows to give to the Sanctuary his “Valuation,” the sum is fixed by the Torah on the basis of years for a male and for a female (Leviticus 27:1-7). These years then are not counted according to the era of the creation of the world, but are calculated astronomically. And the reason for this is because [in the case of Valuations] it says, and upward,³³Leviticus 27:7: And if it be from sixty years old and upward… and in all censuses of the wilderness it is also written and upward.³⁴Numbers 1:3: from twenty years old and upward. Similarly, ibid., 26:2. The calculation of years in the census taken in the wilderness was thus alike in every respect to the calculation in the Valuations, as the Rabbis have said in [Tractate] Baba Bathra:³⁵Baba Bathra 121b. “The analogy is established on the basis of the identical phrase and upward [which is stated in the censuses taken in the wilderness, and its precise meaning is] derived from that mentioned in the law of Valuations.” And if so, all people born between Tishri and Iyar completed an astronomical year in the interim, thus between the two censuses there was bound to be a great number of people added to the total! But it would be more correct if we were to say that it so happened that the Israelites at the time of the first census [in Tishri] were 603,550 people, and in the following seven months many of them died, as is natural, and those who were twenty years old completed their twentieth year between Tishri and Iyar, and it so happened³⁶By way of miracle (L’vush Ha’orah). that their number corresponded exactly to that of those who died.
In my opinion, however, these identical numbers [of the two censuses] present no difficulty at all. For in the first census the tribe of Levi was counted together with the other tribes, since they had not yet been selected and were therefore not separated from the people, but at the second census Moses was told, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, and neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel.³⁷Numbers 1:49. Now the number of those whose twentieth year was completed between the two censuses was close to twenty thousand³⁸In the separate count that was taken of the Levites they numbered twenty-two thousand (ibid., 3:39). But since they were numbered from the age of a month upward, Ramban rightly assumes that the Levites who were twenty years old and upward were “approximate to twenty thousand.” Their numbers [not included in the figures of the second census], were made up by those Israelites who completed their twentieth year between the two censuses. [thus making up for the tribe of Levi which was not counted in the second general census]. This is clearly established [that the tribe of Levi was counted in the first census]. For since Scripture found it necessary to say at the second census, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, and neither take the sum of them,³⁷Numbers 1:49. it is proof that until then they were counted with the other tribes of Israel; and only now was the tribe of Levi selected and numbered by itself, in order to become “the legion of the King.”³⁹Numbers 1:49, Rashi. Now when Israel left Egypt they were ‘about’ six hundred thousand ‘g’varim’ (men) on foot⁴⁰Above, 12:37. — not “six hundred thousand;” of these there died a number of people corresponding to the number of young men whose twentieth year was completed [in the next six months between the exodus, which was in the middle of Nisan, and the first census which was taken in the middle of Tishri, when the number was 603,550]. Perhaps the term g’varim⁴⁰Above, 12:37. does not denote men of twenty years of age, but all those who had reached puberty — including all those from thirteen years old upwards — and that term [g’varim] is only used in order to exclude women and children, as it says, beside little ones.⁴⁰Above, 12:37.
It also appears to me that of the three offerings here alluded to, the one designed for purchasing the public sacrifices is not the one taken through a census and mentioned in the Book of Numbers, as the Rabbi [Rashi] said, for there it is said, Only thou shalt not count the tribe of Levi,³⁷Numbers 1:49. and all the Sages agree that the Levites too were liable to give the shekels for the sacrifices; and in accordance with the words of the Sages, even the priests had to give it,⁴¹Shekalim 1:4. and such is the established law as is explained in Tractate Shekalim.⁴¹Shekalim 1:4. Moreover, the duty of giving the [half-] shekel for the sacrifices was not dependent upon a man being twenty years old or more, [as is mentioned in the case of the second census], but as soon as he could produce two [bottom] hairs he became liable to give the shekel. It is so clearly stated there [in Tractate Shekalim].⁴²Ibid., 1:3. See also my Hebrew commentary p. 491. Rather, Scripture commanded that they bring for the work of the Tabernacle an offering of a half-shekel, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward,⁴Verse 14. and it hinted: The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half-shekel… to make atonement for your soul,⁴³Verse 15. for all who need atonement — that is, all who have reached the stage of being obligated to observe the commandments [which is at thirteen years and a day, corresponding to the period of puberty], shall being one half-shekel for the sacrifices [in addition to the half-shekel given for the work of the Tabernacle].

כי תשא..ונתנו איש כפר נפשו, the need to count human beings stems from the fact that human beings are not the same each time, i.e. ever since death was decreed upon mankind this reflects sin. Prior to sin man, who was meant to live indefinitely, would be the same at each count. The sages have said that no one dies unless he had committed a sin (Shabbat 55). It follows that mention of a head count of people is an oblique reminder of man’s sin, his guilt. This being so, it is most appropriate that at the time of such count he should pay some ransom on behalf of his soul, his life, so that he will qualify for atonement. This also explains why the poor must not give less nor the rich more, as a soul’s ransom is not calculated in terms of the amount of money offered to G’d.

כי תשא את ראש, "When you count the sum, etc." Why did the Torah choose the expression תשא to describe counting instead of the customary תפקד as we find in Numbers 3,15? Why did the Torah mention ראש and did not content itself with writing כי תשא את בני ישראל, seeing that the Israelites were not to be counted by means of a head count? Besides, what did the Torah have in mind with the word לפקדיהם?

כי תשא, when Moses would assemble the Jewish people in order for them to set aside the donations for the building of the Tabernacle he was to use this opportunity to count them. The silver would be given for the work in connection with the Tabernacle that required use of this metal. In Exodus 38,25 we are told that a total of 100 talents of silver were used in the construction of the Tabernacle.

כי תשא, “when you take a census, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the words כי תשא את ראש mean: ”when you take a census of the people, etc.,” they shall each give a half shekel as atonement for having legally forfeited their claim to life. Moses is to take the sum total of these half shekels and make use of them in connection with the sacrificial service in the Sanctuary. From these words in the Torah, Moses concluded that he was meant to conduct such a census at that time. Moses acted upon this, and this is why we read in 38,25 that the money from the census was used to provide the silver sockets of the beams in the Tabernacle. The fact that the Torah does not record Moses as being told to collect these monies from the people concerned shows that they had brought them along at the same time they brought the diverse donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. This is why there was no need for Aaron and the tribal princes to accompany Moses when he would go to the individual tents in order to collect the half shekel needed for each person’s contribution to the daily communal offerings as Moses was required to do during the census related in the Book of Numbers. (compare Numbers 1,4) Rashi raised the problem of how it was possible that two censuses seven months apart could produce the identical number of males between the ages of 20 and sixty, and his answer is that actually these censuses were taken in the same calendar year, one being the Jewish year which commences on the first of Nissan, the other the calendar used by the gentiles, which is based on the years since the creation begins on the first day of Tishrey, and that the first census took place immediately after Moses had returned from his last ascent to Mount Sinai, the day after the Day of Atonement, whereas the second census, as pointed out in Numbers 1,1-2, took place on the first day of Iyar of the year following. The reason why the numbers appear to match is that as far as the ages of the people counted were concerned, they celebrated their respective birthdays according to the day and month in which they had been born, whereas for the purpose of army service a single day during the year (presumably the first of Nissan) was the day on which all those who had attained the age of 20 during the preceding 12 months were now considered as 20 years of age. Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I do not believe that there was a problem to begin with. The first count was made during the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings, when the tribe of Levi had not yet been counted separately. In other words, the remarkable thing is not that the counts show the same total both times, but the remarkable thing is that in a period of 7 months the number of Israelites of the ages of 20 and up had increased to such an extent that the absence of any Levites during the second count was not even noticed in the final tally. The very fact that before the second census the Levites were specifically excluded from the total for the 12 tribes, is clear proof that during the first census the tribe of Levi was counted on exactly the same basis [not from 30 days and up, instead of from 20 years and up Ed.] as per the directives in the Book of Numbers. Seeing that we are entitled to assume that numerous people died between the Exodus and that time, at which time the Israelites were described as approx. 600000 strong, the natural increase was quite remarkable. I believe further, that the donations (money) mentioned in our paragraph here and the one mentioned in Numbers chapter 1, the purpose of which was to raise equally sized donations for financing the mandatory daily communal offerings, could not have been raised as part of that census either, as suggested by Rashi. If Rashi were correct, why should the members of the tribe of Levi not also have been required to contribute their half shekels for the communal offerings that were offered on their behalf? Furthermore, the people who were required to contribute half shekels for the communal mandatory offerings were all those who had demonstrated signs of puberty, by having at least 2 pubic hairs. It is clear therefore that the purpose of the census in our chapter, i.e. the three donations hinted at, were 1) for atonement, i.e. ½ shekel by each male above the age of 20, 2), contributions for the building of the Tabernacle, and 3) the emphasis on everyone passing the turnstile not contributing either more or less than ½ a shekel were people above the age of 13 (with two pubic hairs) whose contribution to the purchase of mandatory communal offerings, would enable them to benefit from the atonement provided by the offering of these communal sacrifice if and when due.

The meaning of “taking,” as Onkelos translates. . . כי תשא is like, “Do not accept ( תשא ) a false report” (Shemos 23:1). It does not mean “lift,” as in: “Pharaoh will lift off your head ( ישא את ראשך ) from you” (Bereishis 40:19). In Bamidbar 1:2, it says about B’nei Yisrael: שאו את ראש . [There, it indeed connotes, “Lift off their heads,”] because Hashem foresaw that He would decree against them: “In this desert they shall perish” (ibid 14:35). However, pertaining to the Levites it is written פקד את בני לוי (ibid 3:15), since they were not subjected to this decree.

V. 12. נשא ראש .כי תשא את ראש: der gewöhnliche Ausdruck für Zählen einer Menschenmenge. Man kann darüber zweifelhaft sein, in welchem Sinne das ראש in dieser Redeweise zu nehmen sei; ob als Kopf, und zwar kollektiv: die Köpfe aufnehmen, oder als Ausdruck für Summe. Da נשא nie absolut ohne Nennung des zu zählenden Gegenstandes als Zählen vorkommt, sondern stets נשא ראש oder auch נשא מספר (Dewarim 3, 40), außerdem auch ראש in Zusammenstellungen wie: ושלם אותו בראשו (Wajikra 5, 24) den Begriff Summe ausdrückt, so scheint es auch in נשא ראש die Summe zu bedeuten. Es scheint der Kopf physiologisch als derjenige Körperteil begriffen zu sein, in welchen alle aktiven und passiven Lebensfäden zusammenlaufen, und von wo aus sie sich durch den ganzen Körper verzweigen. In der Tat lässt sich das Gehirn als Zusammenfassung aller Lebensfasern betrachten, und daher dürfte "Kopf" zum Ausdruck für zusammenfassenden Inbegriff geworden sein.

כי תשא, “when you count,” in the second year; this has been spelled out in Numbers 1,1, i.e. בשנה השנית; it says there: שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, “count the sum total of the entire community of the Children of Israel; The expression of כי תשא, i.e. “when you count,” clearly refers to a point in the future. On the other hand, the command שאו, clearly is a command to be carried out forthwith. This portion was told to Moses on the first day of the month of Adar, i.e. the last month of the first year of the Exodus, in order to inform the people that the money, (shekalim) for the communal offerings in the Tabernacle had become due at that time. The service in the Tabernacle began on the first day of Nissan of the second year, i.e. a month after this command had been issued. It is clear that the work of building the Tabernacle must have been completed already by that time. ונתנו איש כופר נפשו, “they are each to give his personal ransom for his soul;” the communal offerings were meant as atonement for the people, as Rashi has explained on verse 15. The words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד, “you shall assign it (the proceeds) for the service in the Tent of Meeting,” is clear evidence of what these shekalim were to be used for. ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקוד אותם, “so that there will not occur a plague among them due to the manner in which they are being counted in the second year.” They had already paid the ransom for their souls. This assurance has been given here, seeing that when David took a census of the Jewish people a plague broke out and 70000 of them died as a result of that plague as punishment for an unauthorized census. (Compare Samuel II 116) Furthermore, our sages (Baba Metzia folio 42), state that blessings never accompany matters which are subject to counting, measuring or weighing. In light of this, the Torah here assures us that this census will not have any negative fallout, seeing that the atonement which accompanies this census neutralises any negative fallout accompanied with taking a census. You will not become victimized before your enemies, בפקוד אותם “when you count them prior to going into battle.”

ולא יהיה בהם נגף THAT THERE BE NO CALAMITY AMONG THEM — for numbers (i. e. things that have been numbered) are subject to the influence of the “evil eye”, and therefore if you count them by their polls pestilence may befall them, as we find happened, in the days of David (II Samuel 24:10 and 15).

ונתנו איש כופר נפשו , “they are each to hand over a ransom for their souls.” This had to be done at this point in time, seeing that they had participated in some manner in the sin of the golden calf. This was the reason why, in this instance, the shekel was used as the symbol of their atonement. Normally, whenever a census is taken, coins are not required, the only restriction is that it must not be a head count. This is why we find that King Sha-ul, prior to the campaign against the Amalekites, counted the soldiers by means of sheep and broken shards of clay.

Do not take a head count. . . Rashi is telling us not to think it means that after you take the sum total of their numbers, then, “Each man shall give an atonement pledge.” Therefore he explains, “When you will wish. . .” Rashi is saying: when you want to know their number, let each give a half-shekel. Then you will have the half-shekels, and thereby you will know their number. But do not take a head count of them. Rashi states it in the negative, “Do not take a head count.” He does not state it [only] in the positive — “When you will wish . . . let each give a half-shekel then count the shekalim and you will know their number” — even though it so appears in the verse. Rashi thereby tells us it is not a mitzvah to count them specifically by half-shekels, so as to make the sockets [of the mishkon from their silver]. Giving half-shekels is merely a means to keep the evil eye from them; they may be counted also by means of something else. Half-shekels are mentioned only because they can be used for the sockets, thus achieving two purposes. (Re”m)

Our sages comment that a sinner causes his head to be bowed as a result of his sins. Evil is defined as something which causes man to look only at what is below him, at the ground, whereas קדושה, sanctity, results in raising up one's head and elevating a person spiritually. We note that the Torah describes even the cave of Machpelah as undergoing an elevation after Abraham purchased it (Genesis 23,17). Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 describe the cave as undergoing an elevation. Inasmuch as the Torah commands this count after the sin of the golden calf as Rashi concluded based on the words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד "and you will appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting" in verse 16, we can understand why the expression כי תשא, "when you will raise," is appropriate. We encounter a similar use of the word תשא in Genesis 40,13 when the Torah refers to Pharaoh "raising" the head of the chief of the butlers who would be reinstated into his position. In our case, the Israelites will be enabled to hold their heads high again as a result of this count which served as atonement for the sin of the golden calf. Up until this time they had not felt able to raise their heads due to the shame of having had a part in that sin. לפקדיהם, "according to their number;" this is to be understood as parallel to Numbers 31,49 where the Torah states that not a single one of the 12,000 men whom Moses had sent on the punitive expedition against the Midianites had become a casualty during that war. There too the words נשאו את ראש meant that "they counted the sum." Shabbat 64 explains that the words ולא נפקד ממנו איש, meant that not a single one of those soldiers was guilty of a sin. ונתנו איש כפר נפשו, "each one will give (this) as ransom for his soul to G'd." This is a reference to the Israelites each having forfeited their lives through participation in the sin of the golden calf. בפקד אותם, "when numbering them." The meaning is literal.

לפקדיהם. Wir haben schon, aus der Lautverwandtschaft mit פקד ,בגד als das Bekleiden eines Gegenstandes mit seinen Attributen und daher auch als das Einsetzen eines Gegenstandes in einen Kreis, oder in seinen Kreis von Attributen begriffen, woraus sich die Bedeutung: denken, in ein Amt einsetzen, zählen usw. ergeben. Alles Zählen reiht die Gezählten einem gemeinsamen Begriff unter und lässt jedes Gezählte als integrierenden Träger dieses Begriffes schätzen. פקודי בני ישראל sind alle diejenigen, die als בני ישראל gedacht werden, in welchen der Begriff בני ישראל einen konkreten Träger hat. In dem Augenblick, in welchem jemand לפקודי בני ישראל gezählt wird, lernt er sich als בן ישראל schätzen, wird in ihm das selbstschätzende Bewusstsein geweckt, in sich den Begriff seiner Nation verkörpert zu sehen. Da tritt nun an ihn die bedeutsame Lehre hinan: Nicht durch das bloße Sein und Fürsichsein habe sein נפש, seine Persönlichkeit, Wert und Bedeutung, nicht insofern er des Daseins genießt, ist er integrierender Teil der Nation, ja nicht einmal das Recht des Daseins hat er durch sein bloßes Sein; nur gebend, leistend ist er zu zählen, nur gebend, leistend gewinnt er ein Recht auf Fortdauer seines Daseins, nur durch pflichtgemäße Leistung eine berechtigte Stelle in dem Kreis der von Gott mit Dasein gekrönten Wesen, eine berechtigte Stelle in der Gesamtheit seiner Nation; nur leistend darf er sich in die Zahl der Söhne Israels zählen. In dem Momente, in welchem er sich leistungslos zählen lassen, somit leistungslos ein berechtigtes Dasein beanspruchen wollte, in dem Augenblicke hätte er das Recht des Daseins verwirkt. Wo ist aber der Mensch, dessen Leistungen so voll seiner Pflicht entsprächen, dass er auf sie gestützt das volle Recht auf volles Dasein auch nur einer einzigen Minute beanspruchen könnte? Wo ist der Mensch, dessen Unvollkommenheiten ihn nicht im Momente des Gezähltwerdens der Sühne bedürftig erscheinen ließen, wo der Mensch, der sühnelos sich zählen lassen dürfte! Darum

Like the one which occurred in the days of David. In Shmuel II ch. 24, David counted the people without half-shekalim. He thought the half-shekalim were a one-time decree for making the sockets of the Tent of Meeting, rather than for all times to buy from them the korbonos. And he thought that “Thus there will be no plague among them” means [that donating shekalim saves] from plagues in general, along the lines of, “Charity saves from death” (Mishlei 10:2). You might ask: In Shmuel II 18:1-2, when David counted the people and sent a third [of the army] with Yoav, a third with Avishai ben Tzeruya, and a third with Itai Hagiti, why then was there not a plague? Perhaps the answer is: Only when all Yisrael are counted does it cause the evil eye.

The reason the Torah added the conjunctive letter ו before the word נתנו, is that in order to be effective as ransom each Israelite first had to acknowledge his guilt; only after he had done so could he contribute the half-shekel as ransom for his life.

Another meaning of the word לפקדיהס is that the only reason a count was justified at all was the fact that their number had diminished (due to the people who had either died or been executed during that episode). The count was meant to establish how many of the people had survived. The count in Numbers 31,49 we mentioned was also undertaken only to determine if and how many soldiers had become casualties during that campaign. Basically, a census was to be undertaken only in order to count the number of soldiers going to war or returning from war. The extra letter ו in ונתנו is to tell us of an additional condition, i.e. that these people were not only to be counted but that they also had to contribute a half-shekel as ransom for their souls. This was a unique occurrence. Future counts of the Jewish people were never accompanied by the handing over of a half-shekel of every person to be counted.

ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקד אותם, "so that there not be a plague amongst them when numbering them." Why did the Torah write the expression בפקד אותם twice in the same verse? Seeing that at the time when the commandment of this count was given Israel was already guilty of the sin of the golden calf, one could assume that at other times it would not matter if the count would be a head count instead of counting the number of half-shekel coins, the Torah had to refer to the future by saying: "so that there will not be a plague when they are being counted."

There is also an assurance here that not only would the Israelites obtain their atonement by means of this count and the manner in which it was conducted, but it would protect them against a plague in the future. We learn by inference that a head count would be liable to result in a plague for those so counted.

There may well be yet another message in our verse. G'd commanded two things. 1) The number of the Israelites should be arrived at by means of each person to be numbered handing over an object, i.e. ונתנו, as the Torah stated in verse 13: זה יתנו, "this is what they shall give." This was the atonement factor of this count. The second commandment implied here is that a count should never be a head count but should be conducted by means of some other object. This is why the Torah had to add: "so that there shall not be a plague on them, etc." The latter condition is not one that enhances the objective of the census, it merely ensures that there will be no negative fall-out. We find this confirmed when King Saul numbered the people he mobilised in his war against the men of Yavesh Gilead, where we are told (Samuel I 11,8) "he numbered them by means of shards" (based on Rashi, Yuma 22)." Unless you interpret the verse in this fashion we must ask who permitted Saul to conduct the count by means of shards seeing that the Torah had spoken of each person handing over a half-shekel? When you accept our interpretation that in future people to be counted would simply hand over some object (other than a coin) you will have no difficulty.

I have examined the count David conducted (Samuel II 24). According to scripture there it appears that David (or better Yoav at David's command) conducted a head count. How could King David be guilty of such a gross error? While it is true that our sages in Berachot 62 claim that David was misled by Heaven into committing an error which every student in an elementary school would not become guilty of, the meaning there is somewhat different than appears at first glance. The Talmud applied to David the verse in Samuel I 26,19 (which he himself had coined when proclaiming his loyalty to Saul) "If the Lord has incited you against me, etc." The fact that David suggested that G'd would incite Saul against him, an intolerable thought, produced an evil force (angel) in accordance with a general statement to that effect in Avot 4,13. The force the sinner creates will eventually be used against him who has created it. Thus it was not G'd who seduced David into sinning by letting him forget such an elementary prohibition but David was the author of his own seduction. All of this is part of the syndrome which our sages called עברה גוררת עברה, "one sin brings another sin in its wake." Inasmuch as a person of the calibre of David most certainly would not intentionally accuse G'd of inciting people's minds to do something wrong, the kind of "evil angel" his exclamation produced could not retaliate by causing him to commit a sin other than an unintentional one. In this instance the vehicle chosen was to cause him to forget a basic halachah concerning the conduct of a census.

While this explanation enables us to understand why David committed such an oversight, it does not explain why Yoav, his commander-in-chief, did not mention David's error to him before accepting the directive to perform a head count of the people. If he understood David's directive to count the people as an order to comply with the traditional method of counting by means of a half-shekel to be handed over by each person being counted, why did he not do so? On the other hand, if David specifically ordered a head count why did Yoav not remonstrate with him reminding him of the halachah? Why did Yoav carry out a command which contravened Torah law? In situations like this we apply the principle of דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים, that when the instruction by a human king (or human being) are contrary to standing orders of a senior king, i.e. G'd, we must obey the orders of the senior king, i.e. G'd. Maimonides spells out this rule very clearly in chapter 3 of his treatise on Hilchot Melachim. Even assuming that both David and Yoav had been ignorant of the halachah at the time, why did not the Jewish Supreme Court intervene before allowing a head count to take place? Even every individual about to be counted should have objected to the procedure, if only for fear of the plague threatened by the Torah against such a procedure! If their compliance was due to their considering the saving of the half-shekel as more important than jeopardising their lives, they should at least have argued that they could be counted by means of the shards as Saul had done when he counted the soldiers he mobilised against the Ammonites! How could it be that the entire nation was so careless and submitted to a procedure endangering their lives needlessly?

I believe we must assume that David ordered a census without mentioning whether it should be a head count or otherwise. He did not think he needed to specify the details of how to conduct the census seeing Yoav was a learned man and could be assumed to know the relevant halachot. He therefore assumed that Yoav would conduct the counting of the people in a manner similar to the count performed by Saul by means of shards. When the Talmud in Berachot 62 points to the fact that David's count was not by means of the "ransom for the soul," this means that whereas Yoav did not take a half-shekel from the people whom he numbered, he did take something else such as Saul did. We have already stated that the meaning of "counts should not be conducted בלא דבר," is that unless there was a genuine reason for conducting a census it should not be undertaken. In the case of David, no such reason was evident. Yoav himself protested the need to count the people when David directed him to undertake a census. Perhaps the plague could have been avoided if Yoav had counted the people by means of the half-shekel contribution as in our portion here. You will note that we read in Samuel II 24,1: "G'd continued to be angry at Israel and He enticed David against them to say: "go and count Israel and Yehudah." It is evident from this verse that Israel had already been guilty of another (undisclosed) sin. When they were counted for no good reason they attracted to themselves the attribute of Justice and were punished for their sin.

We may view the matter thus. Seeing that one of the conditions for counting the Jewish people is that there is a genuine reason for the count, the moment even one of the conditions justifying the count is absent, the people being counted are subject to a plague. David's error was that he had forgotten this. This also explains why Yoav questioned the need to take a census and tried to dissuade David (24,3) from counting the people. Had Yoav seen a genuine need to count the people he would not have objected to it. Clearly, if Yoav objected to the count because he saw no need for it, he would have objected even more strenuously if the census was to be a head count, something expressly prohibited. Perhaps when Yoav saw that David was very insistent to go through with the count, he concluded that the king must have an adequate reason justifying him in giving such a directive; he complied [though incompletely, Ed.] believing David must have a good reason for wanting to know the number of Israelites bearing arms. He may have feared to appear like a rebel if he refused point blank. At any rate, Yoav did not conduct a head count. We cannot fault the individual Israelites for not raising objections as they were not even aware individually that a census was being taken. Besides, they did not have to know which were good reasons for conducting a census and which were not. Since when does each individual Jew have to subject every single directive of the king to his personal scrutiny?

We may say that there are three הלכות which govern census taking. The first הלכה concerns the census taken after the episode of the golden calf at which time there was a need not only to count heads but each person subject to the census had to contribute a half-shekel in order to atone for his share in that sin. The second הלכה concerns a census which is taken whenever there is a legitimate reason to count the people. At such times there is no need for half-shekel contributions, a shard is just as good to avoid making a head count of the individuals. This is what Saul did when he counted the people. The third הלכה concerns a census which is not justified by legitimate considerations. Such counts are to be avoided at all costs. David's error was that he forgot this particular הלכה because of G'd allowing him to be misled. In such cases, however, if the people to be counted were to each give a half-shekel at the time this would protect them against a plague. You may well ask why David needed to count the people instead of relying on the annual half-shekel contribution for the communal sacrifices which every male over 20 years of age had to contribute? We would have to answer that the half-shekel contributions were not a reliable instrument since even minors used to contribute the half-shekel as we are told in Shekalim 1,3, whereas the numbers counted by Yoav were men who were trained in warfare (Samuel II 24,9). David wanted to know how many men he could send into battle, if the need arose.

זה יתנו THIS SHALL THEY GIVE — He (God) showed him (Moses) a kind of fiery coin the weight of which was half a shekel and said to him, “Like this shall they give” (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 9).

HALF OF A SHEKEL AFTER THE SHEKEL OF HOLINESS. Moses our Teacher instituted a silver coin in Israel, for he was a great king.⁴⁴See Deuteronomy 33:5. See also Ramban above, 15:25. He called it “shekel” [literally: “weight”] because that whole coin was a perfect weight, it had nothing defective in it and the silver contained no dross. And since the standard shekel of Valuations³²If a person vows to give to the Sanctuary his “Valuation,” the sum is fixed by the Torah on the basis of years for a male and for a female (Leviticus 27:1-7). These years then are not counted according to the era of the creation of the world, but are calculated astronomically. and the redemption of the firstborn,⁴⁵Numbers 18:16. which are holy matters, were given in that coin, as also all shekels mentioned in connection with the Tabernacle, and all moneys the amount of which is exactly specified in the Torah,⁴⁶Such as thirty shekels if an ox kills a slave (above, 21:32), etc. therefore Scripture calls it the shekel of holiness.
I hold that this is the same reason why our Rabbis call the language of the Torah “the Sacred Language,”⁴⁷Sotah, 32a. because the words of the Torah, and the prophecies, and all words of holiness⁴⁸A reference to the third section of the Bible which contains the Writings. were all expressed in that language. It is thus the language in which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with His prophets, and with His congregation [when He said], — I am the Eternal thy G-d, etc.⁴⁹Above, 20:2. and Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 3, and Makkoth 23b. and the other communications of the Torah and prophecy — and in that tongue He is called by His sacred names: E-il, Elokim, Tze-baoth, Sha-dai, Ya-h, and the Great Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. In that tongue He created His world,⁵¹Bereshith Rabbah 18:4. and called the names shamayim (heavens),⁵²Genesis 1:8. eretz (earth)⁵³Ibid., Verse 10. and all that is in them, His angels and all His hosts — He called them all by name.⁵⁴Isaiah 40:26. The names of Michael and Gabriel are in this Sacred Language.⁵⁵Michael [mi kamocha E-il] signifies “who is like unto Thee, O G-d.” Gabriel [gabri E-il] means “my strength is from G-d.” In that language He called the names of the holy ones that are in the earth:⁵⁶Psalms 16:3. Abraham,⁵⁷Genesis 17:5: but thy name shall be Abraham, for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee. Isaac,⁵⁸Ibid., Verse 19: and thou shalt call his name Isaac [of the Hebrew root meaning “to laugh”]. Jacob,⁵⁹Ibid., 25:26: and He called his name Jacob [“one that takes by the heel”], the word vayikra (and He called) referring to G-d (Rashi quoting the Midrash). Solomon,⁶⁰II Samuel 12:25: And he called his name Jedidiah, for the Eternal’s sake. and others.⁶¹See I Kings 13:2: Josiah will be his name.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the Moreh Nebuchim:⁶²Guide of the Perplexed III, 8. Ramban is following the text of Al Charizi’s translation [and not that of Ibn Tibbon]. “Do not think that our language is called the Sacred Language just as a matter of our pride, or it be an error on our part, but it is perfectly justified; for this holy language has no special names for the organs of generation in male or female, nor for semen, nor for urination or excretion, excepting in indirect language. Be not misled by the word sheigal [to take it to mean the act of intercourse; this is not the case,] but it rather denotes a female ready for intercourse. It says yishgalenah⁶³Deuteronomy 28:30. In Tibbon’s translation there is here a completely different text. in accordance with what has been written on it, and it means that ‘he will take the woman as a concubine.’”⁶⁴I have found this interpretation in Jonah ibn Ganach’s Sefer Hashorashim (under the root: shin, gimmel, lamed): “The most appropriate of the interpretations on it is that it is used in reference to a concubine.” Now there is no need for this reason [why Hebrew is called the Sacred Language], for it is clear that the Hebrew language is most holy, as I have explained. And the reason [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] mentioned is in my opinion not correct. The mere fact that [the masters of the Masorah] have circumscribed the word yishgalenah [to be read as] yishk’venah (he will lie with her), shows that the word mishgal is the term for sexual intercourse itself. Similarly the fact that they circumscribed the expression, to eat ‘et choreihem’⁶⁵II Kings 18:27. [to be read eth tzo’atam — “their dung”] shows that choreihem is an indecent term. And if the reason were indeed as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has said, they should have called [the Hebrew language not “the Holy Language” but] “the modest langauge,” similarly to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:⁶⁶Sanhedrin 68b. “until he grows a beard — the lower one and not the upper one [is meant], except that the Sages spoke in modest language.” The Rabbis have further said:⁶⁷Bereshith Rabbah 86:6. “Save the bread which he did eat,⁶⁸Genesis 39:6. — this is a refined expression [for it refers to his wife],” and so also in many places.
Now Scripture explained that the shekel is twenty gerahs, of silver. Onkelos translated gerahs as mo’ah, for the gerah was, in his opinion, a name for a coin which in Aramaic is called mo’ah. And so did Yonathan ben Uziel translate la’agorath keseph (a piece of silver):⁶⁹I Samuel 2:36. l’mo’ah d’chsaph (for a mo’ah of silver). So also did Onkelos translate after the shekel of holiness as sil’o, for such is the name of the [shekel] coin in Aramaic, and its measure is also known in the Talmud.
Rashi wrote:⁷⁰In Seder Mishpatim 21:32. “A shekel weighs four gold coins, making half an ounce according to the correct weight of Cologne.” Now when the Rabbi [Rashi] found it clearly written in the Gemara⁷¹Baba Metzia 34 b; Shebuoth 43a. that a [silver] sela [which is equivalent to the shekel] is four [silver] denars, he deduced [that a gold shekel is also equivalent to four gold denars], for the weight of the silver denars is as the weight of the gold denars. Thus he wrote in his commentary to the Gemara of Baba Kamma:⁷²Baba Kamma 36b. “A [silver] denar weighs as much as a gold [denar], and in Constantinople they even call the gold coin denar.” All this is correct. But as to the Rabbi’s estimation, that in terms of the gold coins found in his generation and in our generation the shekel is equivalent to half an ounce, as he mentioned — that is not so, for the kings of the peoples have lessened [the weight of] the gold coins. We find it already mentioned in the words of the author of Hilchoth Gedoloth⁷³See in Seder Mishpatim Note 70. and the first Gaonim,⁷⁴Following the close of the Talmud [in the year 500 of the Common Era] the recognized spiritual heads of Jewry were the heads of the Sura and Pumbeditha academies in Babylon. The recipients and interpreters of the traditions of the Rabbis of the Talmud, the Gaonim were active for over a period of five hundred years — during the height of the Moslem empires. that the denar mentioned throughout the Talmud is the denar shashdang,⁷⁵A small coin (Kohut, Aruch Hashalem). and it is so written in Tractate Kiddushin in the Halachoth (Laws) of our Rabbi [Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi] who said that “[the zuz⁷⁶A zuz is the same as a denar (ibid., zuz). shashdang] is the gold denar of the Arabs.” Now according to these estimations found in the words [of the Hilchoth Gedoloth and the Halachoth of Alfasi], the denars of the Talmud were larger than the gold coins current in our times by almost a third, and the shekel weighed three fourths of an ounce according to the weight of that country [and not as Rashi wrote that the shekel weighed four gold coins, making half an ounce etc.], and that is “the ounce” that the Rabbi [Rashi], of blessed memory, mentioned.⁷⁷At this point see the Addendum which Ramban added to the end of his commentary after he arrived at Acco and found some ancient Hebrew coins which when he weighed them he found that the result corroberated Rashi’s explanation.
Know that the shekels [mentioned in] the Torah are these s’laim [mentioned in the Talmud], each sela being four denars. But the shekel mentioned in the words of the Sages — such as that which we have been taught in a Mishnah:⁷⁸Shebuoth 43a. [“if a man lent his fellow money on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and the borrower said,] ‘You have lent me a shekel on it and it was worth a sela [and therefore you owe me two denars],’ or [the lender said,] ‘I lent you a sela on it and it was worth a shekel [and therefore you still owe me two denars]’” — [this shekel] is two denars, half of a sela. The reason for this [change in the meaning of the term shekel — the shekel of the Torah being four denars whilst the shekel of the Sages is two denars], is that the people called the half-s’laim [which were each two denars] “shekels,” since they used them every year to pay the [half-] shekel to the Sanctuary. And so it was adopted by the Sages in the style of the Mishnah. Therefore a man would say to his friend, “You have lent me a shekel,” that is, the “shekel” which Israelites give to the Sanctuary.⁷⁹Thus the shekel of the Torah is really four denars, but since the Torah enjoined the giving of a half-shekel, that half-shekel came to be called “shekel,” as that was the coin the people gave yearly to the Sanctuary, and hence the Sages adopted the usage of that term — so that when people say “shekel” they really mean a coin worth two denars. It is possible that in the time of the Second Sanctuary they actually made a silver coin of two denars, so that it should be available to be given to the Temple treasurer, and they would not have to give an allowance [for exchanging the full shekel of the Torah into two half-shekels]. That coin they called “shekel,” and the shekel of Moses which is the shekel of the Torah they called sela, as Onkelos translated it. Some scholars⁸⁰I have not identified them. say that the reason [they called the shekel of Moses sela] is because of what the Rabbis have said:⁸¹Bechoroth 5a. “The maneh⁸²The maneh is a weight equal to the sixtieth part of a talent. of the Sanctuary was double [as much as the common maneh],” and so also were all the coins. But this is not correct, for the [thirty] shekels that the owner of an ox who killed a slave must pay⁸³Above, 21:32. and the [fifty] shekels that the violator⁸⁴Deuteronomy 22:29. and seducer⁸⁵Above, 22:16. See Ramban here. must pay, were not connected with the Sanctuary.

זה יתנו, "This is what they shall give, etc." We are told in Tanchuma on this verse that G'd showed Moses a coin of fire situated beneath His throne. It appears strange that G'd did not rather inform Moses of the weight of the coin in question. This would have been easier to comprehend than a coin made of fire. Any image such as that described by the Midrash could at best have given Moses an approximation of the size of that coin.

TWENTY GEIRAH. It is a kind of coin.

מחצית השקל, “half of the coin known as ‘shekel.’” Nachmanides writes that in common with other important Kings, Moses designed a coin called “shekel” [from the word משקל, weight] to symbolize that it was of pure silver, without any dross. Seeing that this coin became the standard for the redeeming of the firstborn, all of whom were redeemed in terms of whole shekalim, the coin itself was called שקל הקודש, i.e. a silver coin used to redeem something holy. In Leviticus 27 we have a whole chapter dealing with the use of this coin in redeeming various kinds of vows made by man. Whenever the Torah speaks of definitive amounts of silver, the quantity referred to is expressed in terms of multiples of that coin. This also explains why the language in which the Torah has been written is called לשון הקודש, “the Holy Tongue,” seeing that so many subjects dealing with holiness and sanctity have been recorded in the Torah. This is also the language in which G’d communicated with the Jewish nation through His prophets. It is also the language in which His holy nation, when praying to Him utter His Holy name, the tetragram, the language He used when He created the universe and issued directives to His creatures. All the phenomena He created both in heaven and on earth were named in that language.

The likeness of a coin made of fire. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written זה , implying that God hinted to Moshe [to look at] a certain object.

V. 13. זה יתנו, nicht mit der konkreten Summe seiner wirklichen Leistungen, sondern mit dem symbolischen Ausdruck seiner ihm bewussten Leistungsobliegenheit hat er Gott sich zu nahen in dem Augenblick, in welchem er עובר על הפקודים sein soll, in welchem er aus dem Kreis der Nichtgezählten "hinübergehen" soll in den Kreis der Gezählten. Es gibt keinen höheren Adel und auch kein höheres Seligkeitsbewusstsein, als zu den פקודי ד׳, zu den für Gott und von Gott Gezählten zu gehören, in dem unscheinbarsten Kreis der bescheidensten Lebensstellung mit dem verschwindendsten Moment des vergänglichsten Daseins eine Stelle einzunehmen in Gottes Register, mit zu zählen in Gottes Heer. Nur mit dem gelobenden Bewusstsein der vollen Leistung seiner Pflicht geht man über aus der bedeutungslosen Schaar der egoistischen Menge in den geadelten Kreis der von Gott Gezählten, in das beseligende Bewusstsein, von Gott gezählt zu werden.

מחצית השקל, “a coin worth half a shekel.” This was to atone for the half day they had been guilty of not doing something to destroy the golden calf, as explained in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 89. According to Rabbi Akiva there the word boshesh in Exodus 32,1 usually translated as “tarried,” can be read as בשש, “at six hours,” i.e. at midday Moses came down from the mountain. The coin known as shekel (a silver coin) is valued as twenty geyrah, (copper coins). They had been guilty of transgressing all of the Ten Commandments, as transgressing the prohibition of idolatry is equivalent to transgressing all of the commandments of the Torah. The Talmud in tractate Z’vachim, quotes the oldest kabbalistic text, Pirke de rabbi Eliezer, chapter 48, where Rabbi Yishmael describes the five “fingers” on G–d’s right hand, as all involved in the process of redemption. His smallest finger was used for that purpose when He said to Noach (Genesis 6,15) וזה אשר תעשה אותה, “and this is how you are to construct it” (the ark), which would save him and his family from the deluge. The second smallest finger was used by G–d at the redemption of the Jewish people from Egypt (Exodus 8,15) as the sorcerers of Pharaoh recognised when they described the third plague, the vermin, as אצבע אלוהים, “a finger of G–d.” G–d’s middle finger, known as amah, אמה, was used when G–d inscribed the text of the Ten Commandments on the Tablets (Exodus 31,1) i.e. והלוחות כתובים באצבע אלוהים, “and the Tablets had been inscribed by the finger of Gd.” G–d’s fourth finger, known as bohen, בהן, next to the thumb, was used when He showed Moses the new moon (Exodus 12,2) also using the word: זה, “this”; and the fifth finger of G–d’s right hand, known as gudal, גודל, was used by Him when showing Moses the half shekel coin of which our portion speaks here. Finally, G–d will use His entire hand when in the future He will wipe out the descendants of Ishmael and Edom, as prophesied by the prophet Micah 5,8: תרום ידך על צריך וכל אויביך יכרתו, “Your hand will prevail over all Your foes, and all Your enemies will be cut down.”

כל העובר על הפקודים, “everyone that passes as recorded in the census, etc.;” at the time when the census took place, the individuals being counted had to pass through a door leading outside. (Bechor shor)

העבר על הפקדים [EVERY ONE] THAT PASSETH AMONG THEM THAT ARE MUSTERED — Scripture uses the expression כל העבר על הפקדים instead of merely saying כל הפקדים because it is the practice of those who count animate beings to make these pass before them one after the other, counting them as they pass. Similar are: (Leviticus 27:32) “whatever passeth (יעבר) under the rod”; (Jeremiah 33:13) “the flock shall pass again (תעברנה) under the hands of him that counteth them”.

The weight of the shekel which I set aside for you. . . Rashi is answering the question: מחצית השקל בשקל הקודש seemingly implies they should bring a half-shekel, along with a whole shekel. But if so, Scripture should have written, “A shekel and a half”! Thus Rashi explains [that בשקל means]: “Based on the weight” of the sacred shekel.

Moreover, why was G'd interested in a half-shekel? He should have at least asked for a full shekel! Why did G'd forbid the wealthy to contribute more and the poor to contribute less than the half-shekel?

Der symbolische Ausdruck der Leistungsobliegenheit eines jeden ist aber מחצית השקל, die Hälfte eines Schekels. Objektiv wird auch die höchstvollendete Leistung des einzelnen nie das Ganze, nie ein Ganzes schaffen können, Bruchstück bleibt jedes Einzelwirken, es bedarf der gleich hingebungsvollen Hingebung des Bruders, um ein Ganzes herzustellen. Es wird auch von keinem einzelnen das Ganze gefordert, לא עליך המלאכה לגמור. Aber es sei ein Beitrag zum Ganzen, auf der Waage des Heiligtums gewogen: zwanzig Gera zählte der Schekel, und zehn, somit an sich, subjektiv, ein gerundetes Ganze, sei, was der einzelne leiste. Sein Ganzes sei es, gewissenhaft habe er es abgewogen; welch kleinen Bruchteil seine Leistung auch im Verhältnis zu dem zu schaffenden Ganzen bedeute, er habe nichts unterlassen, keine Kraft, keine Fähigkeit, kein Vermögen, die das Heil des Ganzen fördern könnte, habe er zurückgehalten, obgleich לא עליך המלאכה לגמור, so doch ולא אתה בן חורין להבטל ממנה (Aboth 11, 21). Sein halber Schekel wiege zehn Gera auf der Waage des Heiligtums.

מחצית השקל, the “half” shekel symbolised the fact that the dancing around the golden calf had occurred at midday. (Daat Zekeynim)

מחצית השקל בשקל הקדש THE HALF OF A SHEKEL AFTER THE SHEKEL OF HOLINESS – i. e. after the weight of the shekel which I have appointed for you as the standard by which to weigh the shekels used for sacred purposes, as, for instance, those shekels mentioned in the section dealing with estimating things dedicated to the Sanctuary and with “fields of possession” so dedicated (Leviticus ch. 27).

It now clarifies for you. . . I.e., the shekel was mentioned before, in parshas Mishpatim, but there Scripture did not clarify for us how much it is. And “it now clarifies for you how much it is.”

There are mystical elements involved in this legislation which are not evident to the average person. The Midrash alluded to this when it described the manner in which G'd explained the appearance, i.e. significance, of the coin in question. The very expression זה יתנו of which our verse speaks begs the question. G'd told Moses that the visible element in the legislation is secondary to the invisible element. This is why the coin described as being shown to Moses is presented as only an image, not as the real thing. We have mentioned several times that the Presence of G'd is usually referred to by our sages as the Throne of G'd's Glory. This "Throne" and its location are determined in large measure by the conduct of the Jewish people. The prophet Isaiah refers to this in Isaiah 50,1 when he describes G'd telling the Jewish people that not He had divorced them, but their iniquities had resulted in the alienation between them. Solomon uses a similar hyperbole in Proverbs 16,28 when he describes quarrel-someness as alienating one's friends. The alienation between Israel and its G'd resulted from the episode of the golden calf which affected the roots of all the Jewish souls. G'd therefore commanded that the people give a "half-shekel" to symbolise that their previous action had resulted in something whole having become divided. The contribution of this half-shekel was to repair the damage done to the whole through the people's participation in the sin of the golden calf. When G'd showed Moses the coin of fire as being immediately beneath the throne of G'd, He drew his attention to the mystical dimension of this legislation. Payment of a ransom is not merely a transaction in this material world, but has far-reaching effects in a spiritual domain. Performance of G'd's commandments is predicated on the participation of the heart of the performer in his deed, i.e. רחמנא לבא בעי. Every מצוה is meant to close a gap that may exist between man and G'd. This is why the Torah added the words את תרומת השם, the contribution restores one's closeness with G'd.

עשרים גרה השקל A SHEKEL IS TWENTY GERAHS — Having stated that it must be a holy shekel it now tells you exactly how much it is.

For an אגורה of silver. . . אגורה , too, means מעה .

We can now understand that if the wealthy person were allowed to contribute more, the whole purpose of the half-shekel would be denied. The same applies to the prohibition for the poor to contribute less than the half-shekel. The symbolic meaning of the "half" was paramount in drawing people's attention to what was to be accomplished. The Torah wanted to stress this element and that is why it first stressed the details about the amount. Ordinarily, the Torah should have spoken about a תרומה, a gift, a contribution, and only afterwards about the size of the contribution. The Torah changed its regular syntax in order to draw our attention to the primacy of the amount of the gift.

גרה in Hebrew denotes what is called a מעה, a coin of small value, in Aramaic. And in this sense we find it in the book of Samuel (I Samuel 2:36) “[every one that is left] shall come and crouch to him for a piece of (אגורת) silver and a morsel of bread” which the Targum renders by למעה דכסף.‎

תרומה לה', “an offering for G’d.” The expression תרומה, gift, heave-offering, occurs three times in this paragraph. The Torah wanted to remind us that there were in fact three distinct such gifts. The first gift was the contribution of the materials for building the Tabernacle. The second contribution was the half-shekel mentioned here; the third תרומה, contribution, was the money (shekel) for the public offerings on the altar in the Tabernacle. I have already mentioned the details of this in connection with 25,2.
The half-shekel mandatory contributions mentioned here were the ones from which the silver sockets containing the beams of the Tabernacle were constructed. Each socket was made of a whole talent of silver (38,27) so that between the 100 talents of silver contributed by 600,000 men over the age of 20 almost all of it was used up for these sockets, seeing each beam had two sockets and there were a total of 48 such beams. The pillars supporting the dividing curtain, four in number, also had one such socket each. Any overage, i.e. the shekels of the 3000 plus people over the number 600,000 was used to support the hangings of the curtains around the courtyard of the Tabernacle.

A whole shekel. . . Rashi is answering the question: First it is written מחצית השקל . Why then is it written עשרים גרה השקל , implying they should give a whole shekel? Rashi answers: “A whole shekel.” I.e., a whole one is twenty geirah, of which they give half, which is ten geirah.

If we are looking for a moral-ethical dimension in this paragraph we may find in it an answer to the age-old problem of why some outstandingly pious and valuable people die prematurely. At first glance such people appear to share the same fate as that of confirmed sinners to whom G'd does not grant a normal lifespan. When the average individual reflects on this phenomenon he is apt to arrive at one of two conclusions. 1) He will deny our system of reward and punishment and conclude that there is no point in living a life dedicated to the service of the Lord. 2) Or, if he is not daring enough to accuse his mentors of having misled him and of having taught him a set of illusory values, he will conclude that the person who died prematurely was a charlatan and that his "piety" was only make-believe so that G'd punished him by having him die early. The result of such an attitude is that one would deny anyone who died prematurely the good reputation he had established while alive. The Torah counters such thinking by saying: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, "when you elevate i.e. remove to a higher world, a leader of the Jewish community through premature death," לפקדיהם, "and he does not live a normal lifespan," then the reason is ונתנו איש כפר נפשם, that "the people who have now been deprived of the leadership provided by such a person have to pay for their sins by being deprived of the presence of the pious person in question." We have used the word לפקדיהם in the sense that the Torah used it in Numbers 31,49 when it means becoming a casualty. The idea of the leader serving as atonement for the multitude is taken from our sages' interpretation of Song of Songs 1,14: אשכול הכפר דודי לי, "the person who combines within him every virtue serves as atonement for me for my beloved (G'd)." The expression לפקדיהם may also be understood in accordance with the comment of Zohar Chadash on the words כל העובר על הפקדים in verse 13. The Zohar translates these words as: "anyone who transgresses the commandments, etc." This means that the reason for the premature absence (death) of these pious people we referred to are the sins of their contemporaries. Let no one draw negative conclusions about the character of people who die prematurely and have led an exemplary life as far as their contemporaries were able to judge.

עשרים גרה השקל A SHEKEL IS TWENTY GERAHS — For a full shekel is four zuz and a zuz was originally five meahs (consequently a shekel was twenty meahs or gerahs); only that they increased it (the zuz) by one sixth and so raised its value to six meahs of silver. Now THE HALF OF THIS (the original) SHEKEL of which I have spoken to you SHALL THEY GIVE AS A HEAVE OFFERING TO THE LORD.

One sixth was added. . . Rashi added this comment so we will not object: The verse says the shekel is twenty geirah, but really it should be twenty-four, for a whole shekel is four zuz, and a zuz is six מעה . Thus Rashi explains, “One sixth was added. . .”

G'd said that inasmuch as it is their contemporaries who have caused the premature death of such pious people, the ones they left behind have to pay a ransom for having been the root cause of this early death by the righteous. This is the meaning of ונתנו איש כפר נפשו. We find this concept spelled out in greater detail in Isaiah 57,2: כי מפני הרעה נאסף הצדיק, "the righteous has died because of the evil (sins)." This can mean that: a) the premature death of the righteous acts as a catalyst for the people whom he left behind to mend their ways, or, b) the righteous was removed from the earth before his time in order that he not share the retribution G'd will bring on his contemporaries. One of the ways in which the survivors express their repentance is the payment of the half-shekel as a ransom for their own sins.

The words: בפקוד אותם, mean that the process of repentance had to commence immediately, i.e. when they were being counted." In the event that they would be tardy in doing so, G'd threatened the people in question with the plague as punishment for their participation [even though passively, seeing the active participants had already been executed by either the Levites or by the hand of G'd. Ed.] It is an historic fact (according to Sanhedrin 113) that whenever pious people died prematurely in order to awaken the survivors to do Teshuvah, failure by the survivors to do so resulted in almost immediate mass retribution by G'd. The author cites occurrences in his own time as proof of this theory.

When the Torah commences with the words: זה יתנו, this introduces the manner in which atonement is to be achieved. The word זה is a veiled reference to the Torah scroll which is described as זה in Joshua 1,8: לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך. Our sages also say that just as the Torah commanded the king to always have a Torah scroll with him (Deut. 17,19), so G'd Himself always has a Torah scroll in front of Him. This is the mystical dimension of G'd pointing with a finger and saying to Moses: "This is what they are to give!" G'd must have referred to something which lies in front of Him all the time, seeing He did not define the "This" further. The message is that the atonement will accrue to the people to be counted by means of their immersing themselves in the study of the Torah and in the performance of the commandments which are written therein. According to Menachot 110 Torah study protects a person, assures him of atonement for his sins, and it is the single most potent factor in amassing merits in this world. It is an effective antidote against punishment even if the person studying Torah had been guilty of many sins previously. The Talmud there interprets the verse in Leviticus 7,37: זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם to mean that if one concentrates on the study of Torah this is equivalent to one's having offered all the kinds of sacrifices listed in this verse in order to achieve atonement. The relationship of זה and כל העובר על הפקדים is that anyone who has violated the orders (of G'd) will be able to rehabilitate himself by means of the Torah. The words כל העובר על הפקדים may also be read as belonging to what follows, i.e. that they should contribute a half-shekel each. Seeing that not everyone is capable of "immersing" himself in Torah, we have here an allusion to the traditional partnership of Zevulun and Yissachar, the former supplying the latter with the financial means to enable him to devote himself to Torah without the need to worry about making a livelihood (compare Sotah 21 on the subject). There are many people nowadays who allocate half of their money (חצי שקל) for the scholars who toil studying Torah.

The words בשקל הקודש may be translated as "for the sake of the holy shekel, i.e. Torah." Alternatively, the meaning could be that people who contribute of their money to enable scholars to study undisturbed thereby acquire a merit similar to those who do the studying. Perhaps this is what Solomon referred to in Kohelet 7,12 כי בצל החכמה בצל הכסף, "for to sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money." Were it not for the money supplied by generous donors the scholar could not afford to sit in the academy and study Torah. Concerning the "holy shekel" and the misleading term בקע לגלגלת, we are taught in Bechorot 5 that the holy shekel comprised twice the weight of silver in an ordinary shekel. There is a profound moral significance in this dual use of the word shekel. If a scholar who is subsidised by a layman should feel that inasmuch as he "shares" the merit of his Torah study with the donor he does so at the cost of "losing" part of the merit accumulated by his study, and both of them would wind up with only "half a shekel's worth of merit," this is not so. Inasmuch as the "holy shekel" is worth twice what an ordinary shekel is worth, both parties individually enjoy the full merit due to their respective input.

When the Torah describes a full shekel as consisting of 20 geyrah, this is an allusion to the two units of ten [the standard symbol for anything holy, as the author has mentioned on occasion, Ed.] which together form the concept of שכינה, the Presence of G'd, i.e. His throne and His sitting on it in His capacity as King of Kings. These two units are intended to fuse, just as the ideal personality of a human being is achieved through his studying Torah on the one hand and his practicing its precepts on the other. The combination of these two factors leads to the ideal possible. When the Torah emphasises מחצית השקל תרומה לה׳, this is an allusion to the damage caused to the union of G'd and His throne through the sin of the golden calf the Israelites had become guilty of. This damage can be repaired only through Torah study and performance of its precepts. Even when two people combined in fulfilling these two requirements, each one will receive the reward for having fulfilled both parts of the commandment as we already pointed out in connection with the respective roles of Zevulun and Yissachar.

העשיר לא ירבה means that he who donates his half-shekel in this world should not view himself as having made a substantial donation, begrudging it, and thereby reducing its moral value. On the other hand, והדל לא ימעיט means that a person should not use the excuse of his poverty to refrain from making his fair contribution. In both instances the consideration that must be uppermost in the heart of either the wealthy or the poor is לתת תרומת ה׳ לכפר על נפשותיכם, that this relatively insignificant gift to G'd counts as a ransom payment and atones for the capital sin committed during the episode of the golden calf. Considering that we have it on the authority of Satan in Job 2,4 that man willingly sacrifices all his material possessions in order to save his life, the amount G'd demanded is very paltry indeed.

The Torah stipulates that the minimum age at which a person had to make this half-shekel contribution was from twenty years and up. The Torah revealed a secret here when it did not demand that males from the age of 13 and up had to make this contribution. Seeing that males are considered as adults from the age of 13, why would teenagers not have been liable for this ransom? They also had participated in the golden calf episode! The Torah told us here that a person's personality (נפש) has not matured until age 20 as he has not had time to absorb and comprehend the various spiritual components which make up a true Israelite until he has reached that age. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 2,7: "You are My son, I have fathered you this day." Compare what the Zohar Mishpatim 98 has to say on that verse. [The Zohar on Exodus 21,9 writes that man is called בן from the age of 13, and בן להקב׳ה from the age of 20. Ed.] There is a sound reason why man should not be liable to punishment at the hands of heaven until he has reached that age, seeing that he has not yet matured emotionally and intellectually. Such maturity is essential to enable us to successfully battle the evil urge and to appreciate G'd's message to man. By the time man has reached the age of 20 he is considered as fully equipped to cope with all kinds of temptations.

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND ABOVE — Scripture teaches you here that anyone less than twenty years of age does not go forth to the host nor is he to be counted among the “men” (of whom v. 12 speaks).

Here it teaches you. . . [How does Rashi know this?] Because it is written מבן עשרים שנה , so why does it need to say also כל העובר על הפקודים ? Perforce, because “here it teaches you. . .” The term פקודים is used for the army, as in (Bamidbar 31:14), “Moshe was angry with the commanders ( פקודי ) of the army,” and as in (Shmuel I 13:15), “Shaul counted ( ויפקוד ) the people [of the army].” Thus, our verse uses the term הפקודים to tell us “that no one below twenty years of age goes into the army.” Accordingly, the passage means: “When you take the count of the B’nei Yisrael to go into the army for war, they shall be from twenty years and older.” You might ask: Why do we need to be taught here [by inference] that no one below twenty goes into the army? We were already taught this [expressly]: “From twenty years old and above, all those eligible for the army” (Bamidbar 1:3). The answer is: We might think Scripture was particular [about age] only regarding obligatory wars [such as the conquest of Eretz Yisrael], but not regarding optional wars [such as the conquest of surrounding lands]. Thus Scripture repeated it, [to teach that] for optional wars also, no one below twenty goes out to war.

V. 14. Schekalim I, 1 wird die in diesem Satze erwähnte תרומת ד׳ nicht auf die in den vorangehenden Versen gebotene Halbschekelspende bezogen, sondern als besondere Verpflichtung begriffen, ohne fixierte Größe zu den Bedürfnissen des Heiligtums zu spenden. Dafür spricht auch überhaupt die Wiederholung ( — die Bestimmung: מבן עשרים וגו׳ hätte in einen der vorangehenden Verse eingefügt werden können —) und das durch trennenden Akzent hervorgehobene כל. Die fixierte תרומה heißt auch im folgenden Verse את תרומת ד׳, während es hier heißt: יתן תרומת ד׳, er gebe eine Gotteshebe, also eine unbestimmte. — מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה. Nicht soll die jüdische Kindheit dem Heiligtum, das Mannesalter aber der selbstischen Karriere des Brotsuchens überantwortet werden, und so der Egoismus des Mannes die Weihe der Kindheit verdrängen. Nicht spricht das jüdische Heiligtum: lasst die Kleinen zu mir kommen; auf die Großen wartet es, auf den Ernst und die Kraft des männlichen Lebens und Strebens. Mit dem Alter, in welchem der Mensch, wie man spricht, den Beruf bekommt, an sich zu denken und für sich zu streben, ruft das jüdische Heiligtum uns in seinen Dienst: der jüdische Mensch wird Mann für Gottes Gesetzesheiligtum, und auch sein Ansichdenken und Fürsichstreben soll dem Heiligtum des Gottesgesetzes zugute kommen, soll ein Denken sein an dies Heiligtum und ein Streben für dieses Heiligtum.

כל העובר,”everyone that passes, etc.;” the verb עבר in this verse is used as in Jeremiah 33,13: “תעבורנה הצאן על המונה” “the sheep shall pass under the hands of the one who counts them;” Sheep are counted by their shepherds when being led to their pens.

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, “from twenty years and up;” anyone under that ages is not subject to punishment at the hands of heaven, though on earth he is punishable from the age of 13, or 12 in the case of girls. Therefore the people younger than twenty did not need to obtain their forgiveness by means of this ransom payment. The total amount raised by this census amounted to one talent of silver. How do we arrive at that amount? Most people do not live for more than seventy years. The first twenty years they do not need atonement as their sins have not been registered in the celestial ledger. This leaves 50 years during which they may need atonement by means of the holy half shekel which is equivalent to a secular shekel. When you multiply this by 600000, the number of able bodied soldiers amongst the Israelites you get 300000 holy shekels per year, or 100 talents of silver per year. (1 talent is equal to 3000 holy shekels. Seeing that the wicked Haman was familiar with this, he offered the king ten thousand talents of silver to compensate for the king’s loss of taxes from the Jews. 600000 Jews giving 1/2 holy shekels for 50 years would amount to 100000 talents of silver.)

לכפר על נפשתיכם TO MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR YOUR SOULS — in order that you may not be liable to the plague in consequence of the census. Another explanation of לכפר על נפשתיכם is that it was really an atonement for their sins: because Scripture alludes here to three different heave offerings since it uses the expression תרומת ה׳ three times (twice in vv. 14 and 15, ‘תרומת ה, and once in vers 13, ‘תרומה לה). One mention is an allusion to the heave offering that was to be used for the making of the sockets, for he (Moses) counted them when they began to contribute towards the building of the Tabernacle, when each gave half a shekel, the total amounting to a hundred talents, as it is said, (Exodus 38:25) “and the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was an hundred talents”, and of these the sockets were made, as it is stated, (Exodus 38:27) “And of the hundred talents of silver [were cast the sockets of the Sanctuary etc.]”. The second heave offering was also levied by way of census, for he numbered them again after the Tabernacle was erected; that is the census referred to in the beginning of the Book of Numbers: (Numbers 1:1) “[And the Lord spake unto Moses] … on the first day of the second month in the second year … [Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel]”, and on that occasion, too, each of them gave half a shekel. These were employed in purchasing the communal sacrifices for each year. Rich and poor were made alike in regard to these half shekels; and it is with reference to this heave offering that Scripture uses here the expression לכפר על נפשתיכם, “to make expiation for your souls”, for sacrifices were brought in order to make atonement. The third heave offering was that offered for the building of the Tabernacle, as it is said, (Exodus 35:24) “Every one that did offer an offering of silver and brass…”. In this heave offering, however, they did not all participate alike, but each one brought whatever his heart prompted him to give (Talmud Yerushalmi Shekalim 1:1; cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:1).

THE RICH SHALL NOT GIVE MORE, AND THE POOR SHALL NOT GIVE LESS. The meaning of this is that they should all bring the specified amount of money in equality. It would appear from this verse that if the poor man gave as his shekel-dues less than the half-shekel [prescribed by the Torah], he transgresses this negative commandment, since this verse constitutes a prohibition. For even if we were to say that the phrase the rich shall not give more constitutes a mere negation,⁸⁶See in Seder Mishpatim, Note 71. meaning that it is enough for him to give the half-shekel, we could not so interpret and the poor shall not give less. If so, they must both be prohibitions: thus if the individual rich man gave more, or the poor man gave less, he transgressed this negative commandment. Perhaps the reason why the Temple — officers used to take up the shekel-dues in baskets [out of the shekel-chamber], with the intention also to cover the shekels lost and those still to be collected,⁸⁷Kethuboth 108a. When the shekels were collected they were put in a chamber. Three times in the year the officers of the Temple would take up three basketfuls out of the chamber for the purpose of purchasing the public sacrifices. And in order to cover every Jew, even those living in the remote parts of the Diaspora, [whose shekel contribution has not arrived yet], or to cover anyone whose shekel was lost, the officers in taking up the shekels would do it also on behalf of those people whose shekels were lost and those whose shekels were yet to arrive. Ramban on the basis of the verse before us suggests an additional reason for this procedure. was to rectify this matter, for if the poor gave less, the balance was destined to be collected from him, but as for the rich who gave more, the Temple-officers would not “take up” his surplus, for they would not take possession of these surpluses [on anyone’s behalf]. However, I have noticed that neither the author of the Hilchoth Gedoloth nor all other scholars who counted the commandments [including the Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvoth], have mentioned this as one of the negative commandments.

העשיר לא ירבה והדל לא ימעיט, “the wealthy must not contribute more, nor the poor less, etc.” According to Nachmanides this is one of the 365 negative commandments in the Torah, i.e. anyone violating this directive has become guilty of a transgression of a Biblical prohibition. He feels that a wealthy man who contributed more than one shekel,-contrary to the Torah’s instructions,- could compensate by contributing less the next time, and the poor man who contributed less than a half shekel could make up for it at a future occasion, is reminded by the wording of the Torah precludes such a תיקון, adjustment, but having failed to do it as directed, the person is guilty of a transgression which cannot be made good. It is not as if someone who had sent the correct amount by means of a messenger, and for some reason this shekel never reached the proper destination, he can compensate by replacing the lost shekel with a replacement. According to the Talmud Ketuvot 108, in the latter case the person whose shekel did not arrive in time (before the end of that year) did not violate the commandment but merely did not get credit for fulfilling it, whereas according to Nachmanides the incorrect contribution constitutes a transgression. None of the other authorities lists this directive as a negative commandment in their count of the 613 commandments. [in Ramban’s commentary on Maimonides’ ספר המצות, we do not find it mentioned either. Ed.]

So that you not be struck. . . But it does not mean to atone for your sins, like other atonements mentioned in the Torah. [Rashi knows this] because [otherwise,] why is the atonement connected to the counting?

V. 15. Indem in diesem Verse der Zweck einer fixierten Halbschekelspende לכפר על נפשתיכם, als Beitrag für כפרה der Gesamtheit und nicht als כפר נפשו, wie V. 12 als individuelle Sühne des Spendenden, und überhaupt nicht die Spende an sich als כפר sondern als Beitrag zur Erwirkung von כפרה bezeichnet wird, so wird (Schekalim 1, 1) auch diese תרומה nicht auf die V. 12 besprochene כפר-Spende im Momente einer Zählung begriffen, sondern als regelmäßig bleibende Pflicht einer jährlich von jedem zu leistenden Halbschekelspende zum Behufe der Gesamtheitsopfer.

העשיר לא ירבה, “the wealthy person must not contribute more;” (in order to help make up the required total). No one was allowed to be able to claim that he had made a greater contribution to the Tabernacle than his neighbour.

העשיר לא ירבה, “a wealthy person must not contribute in excess of this,” for if the Torah were to allow the wealthy to contribute more and the poor to contribute less than a half holy shekel each, how could each of them attain the same level of atonement?

העשיר לא ירבה והדל לא ימעיט: eben in dieser Gleichheit spricht sich der symbolische Charakter der fixierten Halbschekelspende aus. Wenn der Reiche und der Arme vollkommen jeder das Seine, sein Ganzes leistet, so wiegen, Gott und seinem Heiligtume gegenüber, Hunderte und Tausende der Reichen nicht mehr als die Einer und Zehner der Armen, und die Einer und Zehner der Armen ganz gleich den Hunderten und Tausenden der Reichen. Der Reiche kann nicht mehr und der Arme soll nicht weniger als die Hälfte eines Schekels leisten. Gott und das Heiligtum wägen nicht die absolute, sondern die relative Größe der Leistung, schätzen sie im Verhältnis zu dem Vermögen und der Fähigkeit des Leistenden. Jeder, der die volle Kraft des ihm an Fähigkeit und Vermögen Verliehenen im Dienste Gottes, in Förderung seines Heiligtums verwendet, der hat damit seine מחצית השקל als sein "Symbolum" auf Gottes Altar gelegt.

לכפר על נפשותיכם, “to obtain atonement for yours sins.” The sin being that they had made it necessary for G-d to take a census of them as a result of the sin of the golden calf, [and in order to count the victims as absentees. Ed.] Moreover, how would we know the total number of shekels that had been raised by these contributions, and how could we have been sure there were enough to construct the sockets of the Tabernacle from them? From the wording of the Torah it is clear that atonement was achieved before the actual census.

ונתת אתו על עבדת אהל מועד AND THOU SHALT GIVE IT FOR THE SERVICE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — From this statement you may learn that he (Moses) was commanded to take their census when they began to contribute towards the building of the Tabernacle, after the incident of the golden calf, because the pestilence had befallen them, as it is said, (Exodus 32:35) “and the Lord plagued the people”. A parable: To what may this be compared? To a flock that is dear to its owner upon which there fell pestilence. As soon as it ceased he said to the shepherd, “I beg of you, count my sheep and ascertain how many of them are left”. He did this to show that it (the flock) was dear to him (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 9). — It is, however, impossible to say that the census mentioned here is identical with that spoken of in the Book of Numbers (1:1), for there (in Numbers 1:1) Scripture states, “[And God spake to Moses …] on the first day of the second month … [Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel etc.]”, whilst the Tabernacle was set up on the first day of the first month as it is said, (Exodus 40:2) “On the first day of the first month shalt thou set up [the Tabernacle etc.]”, and from this census (that mentioned in this paragraph) — from the shekels obtained by it — the sockets used for its boards were made, for it is said, (Exodus 38:27) and of the hundred talents of silver were cast [the sockets of the sanctuary]”. Consequently you learn from this that two censuses were taken, viz., one at the beginning of their contributing towards the Tabernacle, after the Day of Atonement (when Moses first commanded the people to engage in the construction of the Tabernacle; see Rashi on Exodus 33:11, last sentence), in the first year, and the other in the second year, in Iyar, after the Tabernacle had already been set up. If you ask, however: is it at all possible that on both of these occasions the number of the Israelites was exactly the same, viz., 603,550, for in the account of how the silver of those that were numbered of the congregation was used (Exodus 38:27) it is so stated, and in the Book of Numbers (1:46) exactly the same is stated, “Even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty”; were not these censuses taken in two different years, and surely it is impossible that there were not at the time of the first census people nineteen years old who accordingly were not counted and who became twenty years old in the second year when the second census was taken and this must have added to the total?! The reply to this question is: As far as the years of men’s ages are concerned they were counted in the same year, but reckoning from the time of the exodus from Egypt they were two different years in which the censuses were held. For when we speak of a period beginning with the exodus from Egypt, which took place in Nisan, we calculate from Nisan, as we have learned in Treatise Rosh Hashanah 2b. Consequently the Tabernacle was being built in the first year and was erected in the second year, because a new year began on the first of Nisan following the exodus. The years of people’s ages, however, were counted according to the era of the creation of the world which begins with Tishri, consequently from this point of view both censuses took place in the same year: the first in Tishri after the Day of Atonement when the Omnipresent became reconciled with Israel to grant them His pardon and when they received the command regarding the construction of the Tabernacle, and the second on the first of Iyar, so that those who were only 19 years old after the Day of Atonement when the first census was taken, were not yet regarded as twenty in Iyar when the second census was held even though they were born between Tishri and Iyar.

כסף הכפורים, silver intended to atone for the sin of forfeiting one’s life.

When they began to contribute to the mishkon. . . Explanation: The mitzvah of “When you take the count” is general, for all time. [I.e., it teaches that a head count is always forbidden]. But it does not say to count them now. However, we see from “Donate it for the work of the Tent of Meeting,” which was for the sockets of the mishkon, that Moshe was specifically commanded to count them before the erection of the mishkon.

V. 16. כסף הכפרים ist eben das V. 12 besprochene כסף כפר נפש (vergl. אם כפר יושת עליו Kap. 21, 30), und bezieht sich somit dieser Satz auf die im Momente der Zählung zu leistende Halbschekelspende; hier erwirkt dies כסף die כפורים im Moment der Spende, es ist כפר נפשו לד׳, und fehlt nur noch die Angabe seiner Verwendung. Diese wird hier bestimmt: עבדת אהל מועד .ונתת אתו על עבדת אהל מועד ist nie Tempeldienst in dem Sinne, den wir mit dieser Bezeichnung verbinden. Es ist nie der Dienst im Tempel, also nie die Verrichtung der Opferhandlungen usw. Nur einmal wird der Priesterdienst עבודה genannt (Bamidbar 18, 7) und da wird er durch die Beifügung עבודת מתנה spezialisiert, und nur Ein Opfer wird insbesondere עבודה genannt. Es ist dies das קרבן פסח, wie wir dies bereits (Kap. 12, 25) bemerkt. עבודת אהל מועד ist durchweg nicht der Dienst im Tempel, sondern für den Tempel, für die äußere Herstellung und Erhaltung des Tempels, und bezeichnet entweder den Dienst der Leviten, oder wie Kap. 35, 21. 36, 1, 3 u. 39. 32, 40: die Herstellung des Gebäudes und seiner Geräte. Da hier von einer Verwendung von Geld die Rede ist, so kann es nur im letzteren Sinne verstanden werden. In der Tat wurde vor Herstellung des Tempelzeltes die Nation mit Halbschekelspenden gezählt und das Silber zur Anfertigung der silbernen Wand- und Säulenfüße, sowie der silbernen Haken und Umrankungen der Säulen verwendet. (Kap. 38, 27 u. 28.)

ונתת אותו, “you will give it (to be used).” Rashi explains here that the respective ages of the people being counted now were based on their birthdays according to the calendar year commencing with the month of Tishrey (Rosh Hashanah), not according to the new calendar year for the kings [political rather than religious purposes, Ed] as introduced in Exodus chapter 12. The Talmud, (Rosh hashanah, folio 11) is of two opinions as to when the universe as we know it was created, whether in the fall, on Rosh Hashanah, or in the spring, the month in which we celebrate Passover. [Since none of us was around at the time neither scholar could prove his point. Ed.] According to the opinion that the universe was created in Tishrey, we have no problem reconciling the figures given here and the ones given seven months later in the Book of Numbers. According to the second opinion, the report in the Torah is difficult to reconcile, seeing that the totals of the two censuses which clearly took place at an interval of seven moths, i.e. the first one immediately after the golden calf and the second one in the second month (Iyar) after the erection of the Tabernacle, which had been erected in the first month (Nissan) of the second year and produced the same result. This question is reinforced as supposedly the ages of the people were based on the ages on the history of mankind having been based on the years that the first human being, Adam, had lived. According to that opinion only a single census could have taken place. If so, it is possible that seeing that the total was based on the census in that year, the Torah considered the people counted retroactively as having been 20 years of age already in Tishrey of the previous year. Seeing that from the count reported here the sockets for the Tabernacle which had been erected in the sockets of the Tabernacle had been made it must have taken place before the Tabernacle had been erected. According to the calendar used by the men counted, they had been counted in the first year of the Exodus, whereas according to the calendar in use since the month of Nissan after the golden calf episode, this was now considered the second year.

את כסף הכפירים, “the money for the atonement;” it is now called “money of atonement,” as the Torah had introduced it as becoming such in verses 12 and 15. The reason why the paragraph of the census appears here is because the Torah had spoken of the once a year atonement in connection with Aaron’s offering blood for atonement once a year on the horns of the golden altar. (30,10) This money for atonement is only collected once a year. The Torah now continues with the instructions for the laver and its supporting stand, from which the priests and Levites will have to wash their hands and feet as required on different occasions, as well as the paragraphs about the ingredients making up the oil for anointing and the spices for the daily incense offering. The chief architect supervising a team of skilled people was Betzalel, and his second in command, Oholiov. The Torah repeats that the work prohibitions of the Sabbath override the need to complete the Tabernacle as soon as possible. This is followed by Moses’ prayer on behalf of the people when informed by G-d that they had become guilty of idolatry during his absence. The Torah had to briefly relate to us what had occurred during Moses stay on the Mountain, else how did Moses know what to pray for and why? Moses experienced glory when G-d spoke to him “face to face,” although this is not to be understood literally, of course, seeing that G-d went out of His way to explain to him that mortal beings cannot experience a visual revelation. He was given an opportunity to supply G-d with a second set of Tablets upon which to engrave the Ten Commandments which G-d had engraved on the first set of Tablets which consisted of celestial raw material. Moses’ return to the people was crowned by the fact that his face radiated so much holiness that he had to cover his forehead with a cloth so as not to frighten the people away.

על עבדת אהל מועד FOR THE SERVICE OF THE APPOINTED TENT — i. e. for the sockets that were made of it (the expiation money).

על עבודת אהל מועד, as spelled out later in 38,27 where we read מאת אדנים למאת הככר ככר לאדן, “100 sockets totaling 100 talents, 1 talent per socket.

Whereas the ages of the people are calculated. . . Thus, they cannot become a year older until Rosh Hashanah. And even those born [shortly] before Rosh Hashanah become a year older with the arrival of Rosh Hashanah.

והיה לבני ישראל לזכרון לפני ד׳. Es bleibt zum ewigen Andenken, daß vor allem die Basis, auf welcher das Heiligtum sich erhebt, in der ganz gleich zu würdigenden Hingebung der Gesamtheit in allen ihren Gliedern bestehe, auf dass auch das Ziel, die durchs Heiligtum zu gewinnende כפרה, der Gesamtheit in allen ihren Persönlichkeiten gelte: לכפר על נפשתיכם.

לבני ישראל לזכרון, “as a reminder for the Children of Israel.” Seeing that every Israelite has contributed to the making of the Tabernacle, it follows that every time I remember the Tabernacle, I will remember him.

ג׳ תרומות נאמרין בפרשה. Es sind somit drei Spenden in diesem Kapitel besprochen: zwei fixierte Halbschekelspenden und eine nicht normierte, deren Größe dem freien Willen eines jeden überlassen ist. Die eine fixierte (VV. 12 u. 16) war vorübergehend, durch das Bedürfnis einer Zählung bedingt; ihr Ertrag ward zu den Füßen der Wände und Säulen des Heiligtums verwendet. Die andere fixierte Halbschekelspende (V. 15) war eine regelmäßig jährliche Pflicht zur Bestreitung der Gesamtheitsopfer, קרבנות צבור, an welchen Reich und Arm denselben Anteil haben sollten, und die immer aus der neuen jährigen Erhebung zu bestreiten waren. Es waren dies die מחצית השקל-Spenden, die alljährlich im Adar erhoben wurden, damit, wie am ersten Nissan die erste Aufrichtung des Tempels war (Kap. 40, 17), also alljährlich mit dem ersten Nissan die Opfer aus der immer neu lebendig sich betätigenden Hingebung der Nation hervorgehen sollten. Diese Erhebung heißt: תרומת הלשכה. Die dritte hier besprochene Hebe (V. 14) war ebenfalls eine bleibende. Sie war jedoch keine normierte, sondern eine freiwillige, wie die erste Hebe zum Bau des Heiligtums (Kap. 25, 2f.), und hatte auch wie diese die Bestimmung zur Erhaltung des Tempelgebäudes; ihre Bestimmung hieß: קדשי בדק הבית. Es bildeten sich somit zwei getrennte Tempelkassen: תרומת הלשכה und קדשי בדק הבית. Die aus den jährlichen מחצית השקל-Spenden sich bildende תרומת הלשכה-Kasse kam immer ganz zur Verwendung, es konnte sich nichts darin ansammeln, sondern sie war jährlich neu zu bilden. In der ברק הבית-Kasse konnte sich ein Tempelschatz sammeln. Die Bestimmung der beiden Kassen ist höchst charakteristisch. Nur das Leblose, das Feste, das Gebäude des Tempels und dessen bauliches Zubehör, מזבח העולה הלשכות והעזרות, wurde aus dem בדק הבית-Schatze hergestellt und unterhalten, konnte somit durch die Freigebigkeit einzelner, durch die Hingebung früherer Zeiten für alle Zeiten sicher gestellt werden. Allein das Lebendige, das durch den Tempel zu weckende Leben, die Gesamtheitsopfer, sowie alles zur Verwirklichung des Gesetzes zu betreibende: הקטרת וכל קרבנות צבור ,מבקרי מומין ,תלמידי חכמים, המלמדין הל׳ שחיטה והל׳ קמיצה לכהנים ,מגיהי ספרים ,דייני גזלות ,שומרי ספיחים בשביעית וכו׳ wurde aus der תרומת הלשכה bestritten, sollte somit nur aus der immer aufs neue zu bewährenden lebendigen Teilnahme einer jeden zeitgenössischen Gegenwart der Nation hervorgehen, ja konnte nach der Auffassung des ראב׳׳ד nicht einmal subsidiarisch aus der בדק הבית-Kasse bestritten werden (הל' שקלים 4, 10. Siehe Komm. קרבן העדה zu Jeruschalmi Schekalim 5, Ende). In der תרומת הלשכה-Kasse konnte sich aber kein Fonds ansammeln, da alle etwaigen Überschüsse, מותר תרומת הלשכה, zu קיץ המזבתת d.h. zu עולות נדבה של צבור verwendet wurden.

לכפר על נפשותיכם, “to atone for your souls.” Some commentators claim that as long as the silver from this contribution remained in existence, there was no need to make another such contribution when a census would be taken. This is why no mention is made of a further contribution when the Israelites were counted once more in the 40th year after the debacle at Shittim, and Pinchas’ slaying the prince of Shimon, Zimri. (Numbers 25,13) By the time another census was taken some 400 years later in the time of David, this silver even if it still existed, could not be identified.

Durch den großen jährlichen Bedarf der halben Schekel waren dieselben sehr gesucht, und ließen sich die Geldwechsler für die Umwechselung ganzer in halbe Schekel ein Agio bezahlen, das קלבון hieß, und hatten daher zwei מחצית השקל-Pflichtige, die zusammen einen ganzen Schekel brachten, dieses Agio noch beizufügen. ( — Der Name קלבון bietet ein merkwürdiges Beispiel von Wanderschaft, der oft Worte unterliegen. Offenbar stammt das Wort aus dem Hebräischen, oder dem verwandten Phönizischen: חלף, wechseln, und lautete ursprünglich: חלפון. Die Griechen, zu denen dieses semitische Wort, wie noch manche andere kommerzielle Ausdrücke, z. B. άϱϱβων ערבון, wahrscheinlich durch Vermittlung der Phönizier gekommen, umwandelten es in ϗ,ολλυβος und in diesem griechischen Gewande kehrte es in die ursprüngliche hebräische Heimat als קלבון zurück. —)

Der שקל der תורה wog 320 Gerstenkörner. Während des zweiten Tempels wurde sein Gewicht zu 384, also um 1/5 erhöht. Ihm entspricht der סלע des Talmud. Ein סלע hatte: 4 דינרין, ein מעין 6 :דינר. Eine מעה hieß zu Mosche' Zeiten גרה. Ein מעה hatte 2 פונדיונין, ein איסרין 2 :פונדיון, ein פרוטות 8 :איסר, eine פרוטה wog 1/2 Gerstenkorn Silber. (Siehe Maim. הל' שקלים 1, 2, 3.)

V. 17. Während im vorangehenden Schekalimgesetze das Heiligtum als eine Gesamtheitsinstitution und die ganze Nation in allen ihren Gliedern in ihrem Berufe für das Heiligtum begriffen wurde, wird hier durch die כיור-Anordnung selbst den ministrierenden Priestern stets zum Bewusstsein gebracht, wie selbst sie nicht etwa auf Grund ihrer bereits im Leben verwirklichten Heiligkeit "des Handelns und Wandelns" für die Nation zum Gesetzesheiligtum hintreten, sondern auch sie nur in symbolischem Charakter, als Vergegenwärtigung der von diesem Gesetze geforderten Heiligung des Lebens, die priesterliche Bedeutung haben.

כיור A LAVER — like a large pot with teats which discharged water by the way of their openings.

ועשית כיור, this is another vessel which has not been mentioned before with the other vessels that were part of the Tabernacle. The reason is that the basin was not instrumental in attracting the presence of the Shechinah to the Tabernacle. Its function was merely preparatory to the priests’ service in the Tabernacle.

ונתת שמה מים. "you will put water into it." Apparently it did not have to be Moses who had to fill the basin with water. Any non-priest was qualified to perform that chore.

ובין המזבח, “and between the altar.” Rashi writes that the altar mentioned in this verse is the copper altar outside the Sanctuary. Accordingly, this basin was positioned slightly to the left of the entrance to the Sanctuary so as not to block it but at the same time between the west side of the altar and the Sanctuary. There was nothing blocking the view from the altar to the entrance of the Sanctuary. This is made plainer in 40,6. The whole subject is discussed in Zevachim 59. The basin itself had 12 spouts (like the teats on the udder of a cow) so that the 12 priests who were on duty when performing the daily communal offering could wash their hands from it simultaneously (Yuma 37). [These details referred to the Temple, not the Tabernacle in the desert when there were not yet 12 priests altogether. Ed.] Actually, there were a total of 13 priests involved in the daily communal offering as the Mishnah lists 13 different tasks being performed by these priests (Yuma 25). However, seeing that from a ritual point of view the actual slaughtering of the sheep could be performed by a non-priest, only 12 priests were actually required for the service under discussion. Even a priest did not need to wash his hands and feet prior to slaughtering the sacrificial animal.

This refers back to the wash basin. Rashi is answering the question: How could they wash from the base? Thus he explains, “This refers back to the wash basin.”

VV. 18 u. 19. Dem ganzen übrigen Körper wird dieser symbolische Priestercharakter durch die Bekleidung mit den Priestergewändern erteilt (siehe Kap. 28). Nur die Hände und Füße, die Hauptvermittler des Handelns und Strebens, bleiben unbekleidet. Für sie tritt das Waschen aus dem Becken, buchstäblich: das Überstürzen der Hände und Füße mit Wasser aus dem כיור, ein. (רחץ, verwandt mit רעץ, heißt, wie bereits bemerkt, eigentlich: überstürzen). Dass dieses Waschen nicht in der konkreten Bedeutung der Sauberkeit zu fassen sei, das ist aus allen Bestimmungen dieser Vorschrift klar. So z. B. genügte es nur, wenn es בכלי שרת בפנים geschehen war, aber: קידש בכלי שרת בחוץ או בכלי חול בפנים או שטבל במי מערה ועבד עבודתו פסולה (Sebachim 20 b). לינה והיסח הדעת פוסל בקידוש: mit Anbruch eines neuen Tages, oder auch mitten im Tage, wenn die Aufmerksamkeit von der Dienstweihe abgezogen war, musste das Waschen wiederholt werden (daselbst) usw. Allein es ist ebenso sofort aus diesen Bestimmungen klar, dass dieses symbolische Waschen auch nicht in der Bedeutung der symbolischen טבילה, des Untertauchens in das Wasserelement stehe, das nur das negative Zurücktreten in einen von טומאה unerreichbaren Zustand bedeutet. Im geraden Gegensatz zu diesem, ist hier כלי wesentlich bedingend und zwar כלי שרת, so dass das Wasser קדוש, und wie alles, was von כלי שרת aufgenommen worden, פסול בלינה wird. כיור ist unwesentlich, es konnte vermittelst jedes andern כלי שרת vollzogen werden, das Wasser sollte Element des Heiligtums sein, und nicht בו, sondern ממנו sollte das Element des Heiligtums Hände und Füße überströmen und sie — wie die Heiligtumsgewänder den übrigen Körper — mit dem Elemente des Heiligtums bekleiden. שלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים steht daher ganz in dem Begriff von מחוסר בגדים (Sebachim 19 b). (Siehe zu Kap. 28, 42 u.43.)

ועשית כיור, “you are to make a laver;” the reason why this vessel has not been mentioned earlier when the furnishings of the Tabernacle have been listed, is that the function of the laver was only as something preparatory for the performance of a commandment, not a commandment itself.

וכנו — Understand this as the Targum renders it: בסיסה ITS BASE, i. e. a stand specially made for the laver.

Auffallend ist die Stellung: בין אהל מועד ובין המזבח, oder wie es im späteren מקדש heißt: בין האולם והמזבח. Da, wie aus V. 20 ersichtlich, קידוש ידים ורגלים auch בגשתם אל המזבח לשרת וגו׳ erforderlich war, so hätte man die Stellung des כיור vor dem Opferaltare und nicht erst hinter demselben erwarten sollen. תוספות (Joma 5 b; Sanhedrin 83 a u. b) lässt es unentschieden, ob שלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים im היכל auch אביאה ריקנית, d. h.: das bloße Betreten des היכל auch ohne die Absicht, dort eine עבודה zu verrichten, חיוב מיתה wäre, oder in dieser Beziehung היכל und מזבח החיצון ganz gleich seien, bei welchem ja ausdrücklich nur גישה לשרת להקטיר וגו׳ verpönt ist. Tosefot neigt sich der letzteren Annahme zu und so fasst es hier auch Raschi zu V. 20 auf. Jedoch entschieden ist es nicht, und spräche die Satzverbindung der VV. 19, 20 u. 21 viel mehr für die erstere Annahme, daß im היכל schon ביאה ריקנית, in der עזרה aber nur גשת לשרת usw. חייב מיתה mache. Dann erklärt sich vielleicht auch die Stellung. Wir haben schon oben Kap. 27, 8 angedeutet, wie der מזבח הנחשת in seiner aufwärts strebenden Konstruktion als Wegweiser zu der im היכל dargestellten Verwirklichung des Ideals des Gesetzes begriffen werden könne. Einfache ביאה בהיכל und גשת אל המזבח לשרת להקטיר אשה לד׳ sind somit ihrer Bedeutung nach identisch und spräche somit das כיור, zwischen Altar und Eingang zum היכל gestellt, beides aus. Ist doch überhaupt das zwecklose Betreten des היכל ohne צורך עבודה für jeden כהן verboten (Menachot 27 b) und wäre hier nur für den שלא רחוץ ידים ורגלים noch zu חיוב מיתה gesteigert. Es bedürfte dann nur noch der Erklärung, warum diese Steigerung nicht auch für מחוסר בגדים eintritt.

The copper laver and its stand were not equipped with staves by means of which to carry them, but they were transported on the wagons as were the planks of the Tabernacle.

לרחצה TO LAVE WITHAL — This, of course, refers to the laver and not to the base.

בין אהל מועד ובין המזבח, “between the Tent of Meeting and between the altar, outside the Sanctuary, so that the priests could enter after having purified themselves.

ובין המזבח BETWEEN [THE APPOINTED TENT AND] THE ALTAR — the altar of burnt offering of which it is written, (Exodus 40:6) that is was to be set “before the entrance of the dwelling of the appointed tent”. The laver was drawn a little to the side and stood facing the open space which was between the altar and the Tabernacle, and it did not stand between them at all because it is stated (Exodus 40:29) “and he put the altar of burnt offering by the entrance of the dwelling of the appointed tent” which implies that the altar was in front of the entrance of the appointed tent, but that the laver was not in front of the entrance of the appointed tent. How was it arranged? It was drawn a little towards the south. Thus is it stated in Treatise Zevachim 59a.

את ידיהם ואת רגליהם THEIR HANDS AND THEIR FEET The priest washed his hands and his feet simultaneously. Thus we learn in Zevachim 19b: How was the procedure in washing hands and feet? He placed his right hand upon his right foot (knee) and his left hand upon his left foot (knee) and thus washed both simultaneously.

AND AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL WASH THEIR HANDS AND THEIR FEET THEREAT. This washing was out of reverence for Him Who is on high, for whoever approaches the King’s table to serve, or to touch the portion of the king’s food, and of the wine which he drinks,⁸⁸Daniel 1:5. washes his hands, because “hands are busy”⁸⁹Succah 26b. [touching unclean things automatically]. In addition He prescribed here the washing of feet because the priests performed the Service barefooted, and there are some people who have impurities and dirt on their feet.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], these parts of the body had to be washed because the extremities of the person’s body are his hands and feet, for when the hands are upraised they are higher than the rest of the body, and the feet are the lowest point. They allude in the human form to the Ten Emanations, with the whole body between them, just as the Rabbis have said in Sefer Yetzirah:⁹⁰Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation), 6:4. “He made a covenant with him [i.e., Abraham] between the ten fingers of his hands and the ten fingers of his feet, with the protrusive part of the tongue and with the protrusive part of the nakedness.” Therefore the ministers of the One on High were commanded to wash their hands and feet, this washing being for the sake of holiness, as Onkelos translated here, l’rochtzah (to wash): l’kidush (to sanctify).⁹¹But in all other places (such as Genesis 18:4) Onkelos renders the term rochtzah (washing) literally. It is on the basis of the idea of this commandment that our Rabbis have instituted the washing of hands before prayer,⁹²Berachoth 60b. in order that one should direct one’s thoughts to this matter, just as in the uplifting of hands by the priests when blessing the people.⁹³When reciting the Benediction for the washing of hands one must lift up the hands. This is comparable to the raising of the hands of the priests in order to bring down the blessings from on High; so also the washer raises his hands for that purpose.
It is the washing which is the essence of the commandment, but He commanded [the making of] the laver only in order that the water should be ready in it. Thus the absence of the laver does not invalidate the washing, neither is there any duty [to do the washing specifically from the laver]; thus on the Day of Atonement the High Priest washed his hands and feet from a golden jug⁹⁴Yoma 43b. which they made in his honor. However, what we do learn from the laver [that the Torah mentions], is that the washing [of the hands and feet by the priests] must be performed from a vessel.

את ידיהם ואת רגליהם. "their hands and their feet." The two words את were not really necessary. The reason the Torah wrote the word את each time is to tell us that washing of the hands without washing of the feet at the same time, or washing of the feet without washing of the hands at the same time did not accomplish its purpose. In other words the word את really means עם. The source for our explanation can be found in Zevachim 19 where we are told that the priest had to sanctify hands and feet simultaneously.

ורחצו אהרן ובניו ממנו את ידיהם ואת רגליהם, “Aaron and his sons are to wash their hands and their feet with the water from this basin.” This was a standard procedure, observed by people who ventured into the presence of their king’s table in order to perform valet services there. They would wash their hands and feet immediately before commencing their duties. The procedure was not a ritual, but was purely hygienic in nature. Hands and feet are by definition more likely than any other part of the body to touch matters which contaminate them. This is why the Rabbis insisted on our washing our hands before prayer. [nowadays, when the feet are encased in shoes, the feet are less likely to become contaminated so that this part of the regulation has been relaxed. Ed.]

He simultaneously washed his hands and feet. . . I.e., when they wash their hands, they must wash their feet with them. [Rashi knows this] because [the extra words] את come to add something. When it says את ידיהם ואת רגליהם , it conveys: “‘With’ their hands shall be their feet, and ‘with’ their feet shall be their hands,” i.e., both simultaneously.

ורחצו ממנו, they are to wash themselves from its waters, outside, not within the Tabernacle.

בבאם אל אהל מועד WHEN THEY COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT to burn incense in the morning and at evening, or to sprinkle of the blood of the bullock offered by the anointed High-Priest (Leviticus 4:5, 7) and of the he-goats offered as atonement for the sin of idolatry (all of which services were performed in the interior of the Sanctuary) (Zevachim 19b).

The incense, morning and afternoon. . . Rashi [mentions burning the incense because he] holds that there is no death penalty for merely entering [the Tent of Meeting without washing,] if they do not perform service. And so it says in Zevachim 19b, that the words “for Divine service” in our verse refer [also] to “Entering the Tent of Meeting.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

ירחצו מים, “they shall wash with water;” this has been repeated as they had to wash themselves both before going in or even when approaching the golden altar to offer incense.

ולא ימתו THAT THEY DIE NOT — thus it follows that if they do not wash they will die: You may rightly draw this conclusion for in the Torah laws are sometimes stated only by implication: consequently from what is said here in the negative (that they die not) you may derive the positive (that they will die if they do not observe the law here laid down).

In the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference. . . It seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse not say, “And if they do not wash, they will die”? This is a stronger exhortation than saying, “They will not die.” Thus Rashi explains [that this indeed is the intent]: “But, if they do not wash, they will die, for in the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference.” Re”m explains: It is the way of Scripture to state the punishment that a person is liable for, not that which he is not liable for. This brought Rashi to explain, “In the Torah there were said things intended to be understood by inference, hence from the inference of the negative you may derive the positive.” Question: If so, is not the verse in effect saying, “If they do not wash, they will die”? Perhaps [the answer is:] Re”m indeed meant what I wrote above.

אל המזבח [OR WHEN THEY STEP] NEAR THE ALTAR — i. e. the outer altar, in which case there is no entering into the appointed tent but the service is performed in the court.

The outer. . . Rashi is answering the question: Since it is forbidden to enter the Tent of Meeting without washing, is it not obvious that one may not go to the [incense] altar? Therefore Rashi explains, “The outer altar.”

ולא ימתו THAT THEY DIE NOT — This statement is intended to declare subject to the death penalty anyone who ministers at the outer altar without having washed his hands and his feet, because from the first mention of “death” (v. 20) we can only infer that one is subject to death for entering the Sanctuary under these circumstances.

חק עולם, an eternal law. Even though the priest may have just emerged from immersing himself in a ritual bath in order to purify himself from a more severe category of impurity, this does not relieve him of the need to wash his hands and feet from the water of the כיור. The Torah warns the priest for the fifth time not to risk the death penalty to warn him that the ritual immersion did not replace the commandment to wash their hands and feet before either entering the Sanctuary or approaching the copper altar in the courtyard to perform service therein.

V. 21. חק עולם לו וגו׳, eigentlich: eine für ewige Zeiten von den Priestern dem Heiligtum zu leistende Gebühr. Durch קידוש ידים ורגלים zollen die Priester dem Heiligtum die Anerkennung seiner idealen Überordnung, dass sie nicht vermöge ihrer konkreten Individualität, sondern vermöge der durch sie symbolisch zu repräsentierenden Anforderungen des Heiligtums als dessen Diener aufzutreten gewürdigt seien. Das והיתה bezieht sich wohl auf רחצה (V. 18) Dieses Waschen soll ihnen usw.

ורחצו ידיהם, ‘they are to wash their hands;” this has also been repeated to stress that this was a law for all future generations.

בשמים ראש PRINCIPAL SPICES — i. e. excellent ones.

MOR DROR’ (FLOWING MYRRH) FIVE HUNDRED SHEKELS. The commentators⁹⁵Ibn Ezra quoting Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon. — including Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon]⁹⁶Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash, 1:3: “Mor is the blood gathered up [in the abdomen] of a certain animal in the land of India known to all, which is used in perfumery.” — have agreed that mor is that perfume which is called musk [an animal perfume].⁹⁷See Jastrow: muskin and mor. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra objected to this interpretation, since [musk] is not a spice [as are the sweet cinnamon and the sweet calamus mentioned here in the same verse], even though it has a pleasing odor. Perhaps this is why Scripture separated it from the spices.” And then [Ibn Ezra] asked: “But is it not written, I have gathered ‘mori’ (my myrrh),⁹⁸Song of Songs 5:1. which shows that mor is something gathered [like spices], while those who bring musk say that it is a substance gathered in a glandular sac under the skin of the neck of the deer?⁹⁹In other words, this proves that mor is not musk as Saadia Gaon said, for the verse speaks of mor being gathered while musk is not “gathered.” Moreover, the verse states, and my hands dropped with myrrh,¹⁰⁰Song of Songs 5:5. [and musk does not drop]. But perhaps it does do so, due to its moistness.” [Thus far are Ibn Ezra’s words].
It is possible that we say that Scripture states I have gathered ‘mori’⁹⁸Song of Songs 5:1. because mor is the blood gathered up in the abdomen of an animal of the hind species known in the land of India; when it walks between the shrubs on very hot days it scratches against the sac and the blood comes out in thickened mass, which is then gathered from the reed-grass. It states and my hands dropped ‘mor,’¹⁰⁰Song of Songs 5:5. because Scripture imagines its odor to be such that one’s hands drop globules of water because of it.
Others¹⁰¹Reference is to Rabbi Abraham ben David [Rabad] who commented on Rambam’s language (see Note 96): “My opinion does not accept this, that there should enter into sacred things the blood of any animal in the world, and all the more the blood of an unclean animal.” have argued: how could there be included in the incense¹⁰²Among the eleven components of the incense was ‘mor’ (myrrh, cassia, spikenard etc.) (Kerithoth 6 a). and the sacred oil the blood of an unclean animal? This too is no question, for that moisture gathered up in the animal because of its abundant blood, which drops from [the animal] whilst still alive, is not susceptible to uncleanness, nor is it repulsive.
The word dror they¹⁰³R’dak, in his Book of Roots, under the root of dror. have explained to be of the expression, and ye shall proclaim ‘dror’ (liberty),¹⁰⁴Leviticus 25:10. here meaning that it should be free from any imitation or adulteration. Perhaps we might say that Scripture requires it to be gathered when free, meaning that it should be taken from that deer whilst it is free, wandering between the beds of spices and enjoying itself at will, because once it is captured and held in the possession of man, it produces but little mor (musk) and it does not have such a pleasant odor. This is clear.
Yet despite all this [that we have written to justify the opinion of Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon and Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, that mor mentioned here is musk], it appears to me from the words of our Rabbis that mor is not musk, for they have said in Midrash Chazita:¹⁰⁵Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4:29. See Vol. I, p. 292, Note 73, for explanation of the name “Chazita.” “Mor¹⁰⁶Song of Songs 4:14. means inmirinon” [an unguent scented with Arabian myrtle], while musk is so called even in the language of the Sages, just as it is said in Tractate Berachoth:¹⁰⁷Berachoth 43a. [“Over all spices put on coals one recites the Benediction: ‘Blessed… Who createst diverse kinds of spices’], except over musk, because it is derived from an animal.” In the Yerushalmi there¹⁰⁸Yerushalmi Berachoth VI, 6. they likewise say, [with respect to this Benediction]: “excepting muskin,” and the author of the Aruch¹⁰⁹Rabbi Nathan ben Yechiel of Rome [flourished in the middle of the eleventh century] was a contemporary of Rashi. His work the “Aruch” is not only a complete dictionary of Talmudic and Midrashic language but is also a veritable storehouse of explanations of Rabbinic texts. It is thus both a dictionary and commentary. It has had a lasting influence on Jewish learning. — The particular reference here is to the Aruch, under the term: mushk. wrote that it is also so called in Greek. In Midrash Chazita it furthermore says:¹¹⁰Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:58. “My beloved is unto me a bag of ‘hamor’¹¹¹Song of Songs 1:13. — this refers to Abraham. Just as the mor is the chief of all kinds of spices,¹¹²Ramban will further on explain that the intent thereof is, that in the verse before us where the spices [for the making of the Oil of Anointment] are listed, the myrrh heads the list, or it may mean that for aromatic purposes it is the best of all spices. so was Abraham the chief of all righteous people. Just as this mor exudes only through the fire, so Abraham’s deeds were not known until he was thrown in the fiery furnace.¹¹³See Vol. I, p. 160. And just as with this mor [we see that] whoever gathers it with his hands develops bad sores, so did Abraham cause himself to be distressed and afflicted with suffering” [for the sake of his love of G-d.] Now the musk exudes its odor [spontaneously], without being put upon the flame! Moreover, we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹¹⁴Mikvaoth 9:5. “These interpose in vessels:¹¹⁵When immersing an unclean vessel in an Immersion-pool to be cleansed, for the immersion to be valid there must be nothing interposing between the body’s surface and the water of the pool. pitch and mor etc. on a packsaddle. Rabban¹¹⁶The title “Rabban” [instead of “Rabbi”] signifies that he was the Nasi (Prince) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [They interpose only] if they are as big as an Italian issar [a Roman coin].” And it further teaches there:¹¹⁷Mikvaoth 9:7. “This is the general principle: Anything about which a person is particular, interposes [and invalidates the immersion]; anything about which he is not particular that does not interpose.” Now musk is not something which sticks [to a vessel or to a garment] so that it should interpose [and invalidate the immersion, and so, if mor is musk, why does the Mishnah state that it does interpose]! And even if perhaps they fix it in such a way that it does attach to vessels, a person is not particular about it, so that it should interpose even on a packsaddle! Moreover, the verse ‘mor va’aholoth k’tzioth’ are all thy garments¹¹⁸Psalms 45:9. [Yonathan ben Uziel] translated: ‘mura,’ aloe-wood and cassia. [Thus it is clear that mor is not musk, for mura is myrrh.]
It is likely that mor is so called in Arabic as there are diverse kinds of it — mur achmar ve’abitz. It is used for incense, and when burned produces a sweet odor. Thus all languages — Hebrew, Aramaic, and also Arabic — are alike in the usage of this term. And in the language of the Agadah [quoted above]¹¹⁹See the text from the Midrash Chazita, at Note 105. — be it Persian or Greek¹²⁰In Kohut’s Aruch Hashalem [and in Jastrow’s Dictionary] inmirinon is explained as a word of Greek origin. — it is a similar expression: inmirinon. In Latin as well it is called myrrha. The consensus of the languages on this term would thus indicate that [the mor of the Torah] is indeed that substance [called myrrh or its equivalent in the above-mentioned languages — and not the musk mentioned by Saadia Gaon], and it is counted among the spices.
And as to that which the Rabbis said above,¹²¹See the text from Midrash Chazita mentioned above at Note 110. that “the mor is the chief of all kinds of spices,” they mean that [in the verse before us where the spices are listed] the Torah mentioned it first, or it may mean that for aromatic purposes it is the best of all spices. Possibly amongst its diverse kinds there may be a still more aromatic one, and that is called dror, and the one who gathers it [as the Midrash quoted above said], develops bad sores on his hands, because it is bitter as wormwood. And the Rabbis have taught in the Sifra:¹²²Sifra, Vayikra Chova 22:7. “Things which cannot be recognized, such as a mixture of water into wine, or of gum in myrrh,” for this is how they falsify the myrrh, by putting into it a certain gum which resembles it, called tzemeg in Arabic. This is why He said mor dror, meaning that it be clear of any of these usual adulterations. It is possible that the term dror always indicates “clean” (or “pure”). Similarly, and ye shall proclaim ‘dror’ throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,¹⁰⁴Leviticus 25:10. means that all people of the land be “clean” from servitude, and from all subjection attaching to their persons or lands, similar to the expression, and the owner of the ox shall be quit.¹²³Above, 21:18. And as to that which Scripture says, And my hands dropped with ‘mor’, and my fingers with flowing ‘mor,’¹⁰⁰Song of Songs 5:5. it is possible that the meaning is as follows: “and my hands dropped with oil of myrrh,” for it is customary to apply it also to the hands in order to make them gentle and soft, as it is written, six months with oil of myrrh,¹²⁴Esther 2:12. which our Rabbis have explained to be: “the oil of olives that have not reached a third of their growth, because that makes the hair fall out and improves the complexion.” And the purport thereof is that that oil was prepared with myrrh and therefore it was so called [“oil of myrrh”]. This then is the meaning of ‘natphu’ (dropped with) ‘mor’,¹⁰⁰Song of Songs 5:5. [the dropping being not from the myrrh but from the oil put in it]. I hold this to be the inmirinon mentioned in the Midrash [quoted above,¹⁰⁵Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4:29. See Vol. I, p. 292, Note 73, for explanation of the name “Chazita.” namely that it is identical with the oil of myrrh mentioned in the Scroll of Esther], for similarly the Rabbis in the Yerushalmi¹²⁵Yerushalmi Demai I, 3. call “oil of v’rad” (roses): vardinun [and in the same way they called “the oil of mor” — inmirinon]. Such is the customary usage for names of oils in the various languages of the nations. [Finally,] it is also possible that they extract oil from the myrrh, as is done with gum mastic and other kinds of gums. Thus it is correct to call it “myrrh,” and “oil of myrrh.”

ואתה קח לך, "And as for you, take for yourself, etc." The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses was to pay for the anointing oil out of his own pocket. This is why the Torah prefaced the directive with the word ואתה. Moses was to perform this particular commandment personally, as opposed to the other commandments concerning which G'd had also addressed him in direct speech, commanding him to perform the respective directive. Even though the Torah included the oil and the various spices in the list of items to be donated by the general public (25,3), the Torah here revealed its intention that these items be contributed by Moses personally.

בשמים ראש, valuable fragrances, spices. We know this also from Song of Songs 4,14 עם כל ראשי בשמים. “with all the choice perfumes.” I believe that the word בשמים by itself refers to perfumes and fragrances derived from trees as we also know from Song of Songs 4,16 הפיחי גני ידלו בשמיו, “blow upon my garden that its perfume may spread.” בשמים ראש on the other hand, refers to the sap, or resin from such trees, or to other fragrant plants derived from the soil directly.

מור דרור, “pure myrrh, etc.” according to Nachmanides all the scholars are agreed that the myrrh described here originates with a certain musk ox found in India, the animal is a variety of the family of deers. Near the neck of that animal a concentration of this musk is found, the reason it is accumulated there is the extremely hot climate in the regions where these animals abound. It oozes out of the pores of that animal. The meaning of the word דרור in our verse is that it is pure, not contaminated by other materials which would render it unfit for use as part of the spices prescribed by the Torah for the oil of anointing. Ibn Ezra disagrees with this explanation claiming that מור is not a spice even though it does exude a pleasant fragrance. Perhaps this is the reason why מור was mentioned separately from other spices listed.

Half of what is brought shall be two hundred fifty. . . [Rashi knows] it is not half its measure, because then Scripture should simply write, “Five hundred,” [stating its full measure]. And since it is required to be brought twice, we may infer that it has tippings of the scale. But you cannot say that מחציתו refers back to the myrrh, conveying that the cinnamon is half the measure of the myrrh, i.e., two hundred and fifty. For if so, Scripture should simply write, “The fragrant cinnamon is two hundred and fifty,” without the word מחציתו . Perforce, מחציתו refers to the cinnamon [as Rashi explained].

V. 23. ואחה קח לך. Nur beim שמן המשחה steht diese Formel, durch welche die Herstellung des Gegenstandes ganz speziell auf Mosche bezogen wird. Durch שמן המשחה ward ja dem Heiligtum und allen seinen Teilen im Namen Gottes die heiligende Bestimmung und Weihe erteilt. Es war daher nur durch Mosche, das Organ des göttlichen Willens, herzustellen, und blieb auch das von Mosche Hergestellte das einzige Salböl, auch für die Salbung der Davidischen Könige und der Hohepriester für alle Zeit.

בשמים ראש, “chief spices;” seeing that previously the Torah had written: בשמים לשמן המשחה, “spices for the oil of anointing,” (Exodus 25,6) without specifying those spices, now both the spices and their respective amounts are being spelled out. The word ראש occurs here as number, i.e. “first in rank,” just as it does in verse 12, כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, “when you count the number, i.e. sum total, of the Children of Israel,” or in ראש חודש, “first of the month.” Compare also Amos 6,6: וראשית שמנים ימשחו, “and anoint themselves with the choicest oils.” Compare also Song of Songs 4,14: עם כל ראשי בשמים, “with all the choicest spices.”

בשמים ראש, “choice spices;” the expression ראש, usually translated as “head,” is linguistically related to חשבון, an account, itself related to חשוב, important, significant. It has been used at the beginning of our portion i.e. כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, “when you count, i.e. elevate the sum total of the Children of Israel.” Each person counted individually, attains a higher social rank merely by his name being recorded. Seeing that previously the Torah had only summarised the oil for anointing in chapters 28 and 29 without informing us of the ingredients making up this oil, it now gives us the relevant details including the quantities to be used of each in the mixture.

וקנמן בשם AND OF CINNAMON SPICE — Because cinnamon is the bark of a tree there is some of good quality, having fragrance and a pleasant taste and there is some which is merely like wood; Scripture therefore felt itself compelled to state, “Cinnamon בשם — with sweet scent”: of the good species.

V’KINMON BESEM’ (AND OF CINNAMON SPICE) HALF SO MUCH. “Since cinnamon is the bark of a tree [and it is of two kinds], one which has a good taste and fragrance, whilst the other is just like [any other] wood, therefore Scripture had to say: kinmon besem — of the good kind.” This is Rashi’s language. And Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] said¹²⁶In his commentary to the Mishnah, at the beginning of Tractate Kerithoth. See, however, in my Hebrew commentary p. 497, Note 8, that this definition that Ramban quotes in the name of Rambam on kinmon besem, is in our texts of Rambam’s commentary found on a different name altogether. The term mentioned here is in Arabic since Rambam wrote his commentary to the Mishnah in Arabic. See also following note. that it is “kesher salichah.”¹²⁷In Joseph Kapach’s new Hebrew translation of Rambam’s commentary in Arabic, he comments on this term that it is “Cinnamonum Zeylanicum” (Kerithoth, p. 229, Note 49). Other scholars¹²⁸Mentioned by Ibn Ezra [in his short commentary on Exodus] in the name of Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon. hold that it is that precious tree called itib. But none of these interpretations is correct, for the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah¹²⁹Bereshith Rabbah 65:13. and in Midrash Chazita:¹³⁰Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4:29. See Vol. I, p. 277. “‘kinmon’ grew in the Land of Israel, and goat and deer ate of it.” Thus it is like the grass of the field from which the sheep pasture. In my opinion kinmon besem is the aromatic grass called in Arabic adbar, and in Latin ascinant,¹³¹See Dictionary under “ascidium.” which is an important spice, called in the vernacular, saika domika, and where it grows it is used as fodder for camels. Our Rabbi [Yitzchak Alfasi] wrote in [his Halachoth on Tractate] Pesachim,¹³²In the Chapter Arbei Pesachim. [in connection with the spices put into charoseth in memory of the straw from which the Israelites in Egypt made the bricks]: “such as kinmon and sanbal, which are similar to straw.”
Kidah¹³³Mentioned in Verse 24. is known from the Aramaic language, [as Onkelos rendered it] k’tziah (cassia). It is also so in Arabic.

מר דרוד, myrrh is globally considered as a valuable source of a fragrance, as is מר עובר, (Song of Songs 5,5) a spice well known and treasured by merchants throughout the world.

וקנמון בושם, “and fragrant cinnamon;” according to Rashi this was the bark of the cinnamon tree. Nachmanides, commenting on Maimonides, cites him as writing that the Torah refers to a tree that grows in India. [The fact is that there are conflicting statements as to what Maimonides thought, and his writings do not bear out what Nachmanides attributed to him. Ed.] Nachmanides himself holds that all the scholars up to then were wrong but that what is meant is what is described in Midrash Rabbah as a kind of grass which grows in the land of Israel, and which is known as something that sheep and deer feed on. I believe that it is the dried out version of that grass, known in Arabic as ad’brand, and in Latin as Ashkent, a potent fragrance.

For things cannot be weighed to their absolute exactness. . . Explanation: things cannot be weighed [on opposite arms of a scale] perfectly equally, without the scale tipping.

We have a Baraitha in Keritut 5 according to which Moses boiled the oil he took to anoint the priests with during the seven-day inaugural service of the Tabernacle. The remnants of the oil were preserved for future occasions. We have been taught that no such oil was ever again prepared at any time as the oil Moses had prepared was used again and again and it did not diminish in quantity. Maimonides rules in chapter in chapter 1 of his treatise Kley Hamishkan that apart from the quantity of anointing oil prepared by Moses, none was ever made again. This is the additional dimension of the words ואתה קח לך, indicating to Moses that only he would have the privilege to prepare this oil for anointing. Yalkut Shimoni item 764 sees in these words an allusion to the fact that in Messianic times it will be the resurrected Moses who will personally perform the Temple service. While it is true that the Torah also uses the expression: קח לך in connection with the fragrances for the frankincense in verse 34, the word ואתה does not appear in connection with that directive.

בשמים ראש, so auch ראשי בשמים (Hohel. 4, 14) Gewürze in bester Qualität. — מור ,קנמון וגו׳. Mit Sicherheit sind die hier genannten Gewürzarten nicht zu ermitteln. Wir folgen in der Übersetzung der gewöhnlichen Annahme. דרור findet sich nur noch in der Bedeutung wie וקראתם דרור. (Wajikra 25, 10 und sonst), und in dem Vogelnamen: דרור. In der ersten Bedeutung heißt es entweder Freiheit oder Heimkehr, unter dem Vogel דרור versteht man die Schwalbe, die nach Beza 24. a דרה בבית כבשדה, sich in den Häusern des Menschen so frei bewegt, wie im Felde. Man glaubt daher, dass es auch hier: frei, d. h. rein von allem Fremdartigen bedeute. — Auch der Unterschied der Form בֶשֶם und בשֶׁם wäre zu ermitteln. בֶשֶם als Singular von בשמים bezeichnet wohl den Gewürzstoff nach seiner aromatischen Eigenschaft, während die Form בֹשֶׂם, wie קֹדֶש usw. mehr die Verwendung, den Gebrauch der Gewürze bedeutet. — מחציתו חמשים וגו׳, kann nicht wohl heißen, dass vom Cinnemon nur die Hälfte des von Myrrhe zu verwendenden Quantums genommen werden soll; es wäre מחציתו dann völlig überflüssig. Vielmehr bezieht sich das Suffix. מחציתו ־ו auf קנמן בשם selbst. Cinnemon soll in Hälften genommen werden; nicht 500 Schekel zusammen, sondern in zwei Hälften von 250 (Keritot 5 a).

בשמים, “spices,” these are fragrances growing on trees, or roots, as we know from Song of Songs 4,16: הפיחי גני יזלו בשמיו, “that its perfume may spread throughout my garden.” סמים, by contrast, are a kind of resin, as opposed to roots, which drip from the trunks of the trees.

מחציתו חמשים ומאתים [AND OF CINNAMON SPICE] HALF SO MUCH, EVEN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY [SHEKELS] — The half of what is to be brought shall be 250 shekels; consequently the whole weight of this species was 500 shekels exactly the same as that of the myrrh. But if this be so, why is it (the quantity to be brought) expressed in halves? It is the ordinance of Scripture that it should be brought in halves only, so that the quantity may be increased by two overweights, for there was no exact balancing of the scales in weighing the spices, but a little was always added. Thus it is stated in Keritot 5a.

ומחציתו, this has been explained in Rashi on Keritut 5

[in view of the obvious confusion and inability of our sages to agree on which of the fragrances can be matched to fragrances we are familiar with nowadays, I will not bother to translate the author’s comments on this subject any further. Ed.]

That contain no spices. They are only wood.

וקנמן בשם מחציתו, "and half as much sweet cinnamon, etc." According to the Talmud in Keritut 5 this means that Moses was to bring five hundred units of sweet cinnamon but was to use only half of it in preparing the oil for anointing. The Talmud wonders if perhaps the directive in the Torah meant that Moses was only to bring two hundred and fifty units, i.e. "half," just like the amount of Kneh bossem mentioned immediately afterwards. The answer given is that if this had been the Torah's intention the directive should have read: קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה, ומחצה חמישים ומתאים. Thus far the Talmud on the subject.

וקנה בשם AND CALAMUS SPICE — i. e. cane of sweet spices. Because there are canes which do not bear sweet spices Scripture had to state (add the word) בֹשֶׂם‎

The amount of the total weight. I.e., we should not think that half the calamus is two hundred fifty, as it is with the cinnamon. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should write קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה ומחצה חמשים ומאתים . But now [that מחציתו is written only once, between cinnamon and calamus, it explains both the cinnamon and the calamus, as follows:] מחציתו as it relates to cinnamon refers to the cinnamon itself, [and conveys: “Half the cinnamon.” Thus] its whole measure is five hundred. But מחציתו as it relates to calamus refers back to what was mentioned above, [i.e., the cinnamon. Thus] it conveys: “The calamus is half the measure of the cinnamon,” as in total it is only two hundred and fifty.

Perhaps we can suggest an additional answer to the question raised by the Talmud. If the Torah had meant for Moses to contribute only a total of 250 units of sweet cinammon, the word "half of it," would have been totally superfluous; who does not know that 250 is half of 500? The Torah intended for two quantities of 250 units to be weighed [on opposite sides of the scale but that only one half was to be mixed in as an ingredient at that time. Ed.]

חמשים ומאתים TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY was the amount of its entire weight (not of the half of it as in the case of the preceding ingredient).

מחציתו חמשים ומאתים, “half its quantity, i.e. 250.” Who did not know that half of 500 is 250? Why did the Torah not merely say: “half the amount?” Our sages in Keritut 5 have had a tradition that the weight of the cinnamon was actually 500 just like the weight of the מור דרור. The Torah stipulated for reasons unknown to us that whereas the quantity of the former was mixed in all at once, the cinnamon was divided into two lots of 250 each and weighed separately each time before being mixed into the oil.

I have seen a comment by Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra who writes that it is not the custom of the Arabs to add even as much as the weight of a single grain of mustard to the recipe according to which they prepare such oils for incense. I do not think that this is correct. The process of weighing requires that one adds the quantities gradually in order to know when the correct weight has been achieved. I have seen that when the most experienced goldsmiths weigh gold they add another small weight to one side of the scales [and then presumably withdraw it, Ed.] in order to be certain that they have the correct weight. The reason that the Talmud did not mention our answer may be that according to the understanding of the Talmud the one unit of 250 remained separate at all times. The word מחציתו, "half of it," would then mean that Moses was to bring two amounts of 125 units each.

וקדה AND OF CASSIA [FIVE HUNDRED SHEKEL] — קדה is the name of a root of a certain herb. In the language of our Sages it is called קציעה (cf. Onkelos).

That is that He commanded the priests to wash their hands and their feet any time they needed to enter the [Temple] chamber and do the service. And this is the sanctification of the hands and the feet. And this is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And let Aharon and his sons wash their hands and feet [from it]. When they enter the Tent of Meeting" (Exodus 30:19-20) And one who transgresses this positive commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning to say that a priest that serves in the Temple without sanctification of the hands and feet is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, "they shall wash with water, that they may not die" (Exodus 30:20). And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in the second chapter of Zevachim. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 8.)

ושמן זית הין, there can be no doubt that the small quantity of oil mentioned here could not have been sufficient to anoint all the sacred vessels mentioned here including the Tabernacle itself. This could only have been achieved if merely a minute part of each vessel had to be covered with that oil, or, if the quantity of anointing oil mentioned here had been placed in a large container with water and had first been boiled in it, so that the thinned down version was used to accomplish what is described here as “anointing.” There is a disagreement of how precisely this was done in Horiyot 11.

To coat the roots this amount would be insufficient! סיפק אינו means “not enough”.

הין ONE HIN — twelve logs. The Sages in Israel are of different opinions as to the purpose of the oil. R. Meir said: in it the roots were boiled. Whereupon R. Jehuda said to him: Surely it (the quantity of oil) was not sufficient even to smear the roots with it, but they were steeped in water so that, being saturated with it, they should not absorb the oil; the oil was then poured upon them and they were left thus until it (the oil) absorbed their scent and then they skimmed the oil off the roots (Horayot 11b; Keritot 5a).

But they soaked them in water. . . שראום means “soaking.”

Skimmed the oil off the roots. I.e., they poured and skimmed the oil off the roots.

רקח מרקחת A COMPOUND COMPOUNDED — רקח is a noun and its accent proves it, for it is on the first syllable, on the ר, so that it is a noun just as are רֶקַח in (Song 8:2) “I would cause thee to drink of the mixed wine (מיין הרקח)” and רֶגַע in (Exodus 33:5) “one moment (רֶגַע אחד)”, and it is not a participle like (Isaiah 51:15) “[I am the Lord] who stireth up (רוֹגַע) the sea”, or (Isaiah 42:5) “Who spreadeth forth (רֹקַע) the earth”, where the accent is on the last syllable. Any thing (ingredient) which is mixed with another so thoroughly that one becomes impregnated with the other as regards the smell or the taste is called a מרקחת.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE IT A HOLY ANOINTING OIL, A PERFUME COMPOUNDED AFTER THE ART OF THE PERFUMER. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, the preparation of the Oil of Anointment was in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said¹³⁴Kerithoth 5a. that they first soaked the spices in water in order that they would not absorb the oil which was poured upon them Now this soaking [of which Rabbi Yehuda speaks] was not mere soaking in water alone. Rather, they put ground spices in a vessel full of water and then they poured upon them a hin of olive oil.¹³⁵Verse 24. Then they placed this vessel upon another vessel full of water, and put it over a low flame with embers, and boiled it until the water [in the upper vessel] evaporated, and they retained the oil which was upon it. Such indeed is the way that perfumers make all aromatic oils. This is why Scripture shortened the explanation and commanded merely that they make this oil a perfume compounded after the art of the perfumer, without explaining the process by which it is to be made, for the way of the perfumers was known among them. And so I found in Tractate Shekalim of the Yerushalmi:¹³⁶Yerushalmi Shekalim VI, 1. “Rabbi Yehudah says: They boiled [the spices] in water and put the oil on top of it; as soon as [the oil] retained the odor [of the spices] they would take off the oil, just as druggists do, for it is said, And thou shalt make it a holy anointing oil, a perfume compounded after the art of the perfumer.”

רוקח מרקחת, a mixture of spices of a mixture of same, i.e. the result of two mixtures, having been boiled in water after having been mixed thoroughly with the other listed ingredients.

רקח מרקחת, very intensely perfumed.

And the accent’s being on the first syllable indicates this. למעלה means at the beginning of the word.

V. 25. רקח. Es ist nicht ganz sicher, welche Art der Operation bei der Parfümbereitung unter רקח verstanden ist. Nahe liegt die Lautverwandtschaft von רקח und ריח. In ריח selbst liegt aber, wie bereits zu Bereschit 8, 21 bemerkt, ursprünglich der Begriff feinster Zerteilung, woher ja auch ריחים, die Mühle, und ist es daher zweifelhaft, ob man bei רקה an die mechanische Zerreibung der Gewürzstoffe, oder an die Durchdringung anderer Stoffe, hier des Öles, mit deren Aroma zu denken habe. Ausdrücke wie שמן רוקח (Kohel. 10. 1), יין הרֶקַח (Hohel. 2, 8) sprechen für die letztere Annahme. So auch: Job 41, 23: ים ישים כמרקחה, wo offenbar mehr an einen siedenden Destillierapparat, als an eine Pulverisierschale oder einen Mörser zu denken ist.

That is that He commanded the priests to kindle the lamps regularly in front of the Lord. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, "Aharon and his sons shall set them up" (Exodus 27:21)." And this is the commandment of arrangement of the lamps. And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth chapter of Menachot, in the first chapter of Yoma and in Tractate Tamid. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 3.)

מעשה רקח, “compounded by a perfumer;” a concoction recognisable immediately as being the work of an expert in his field, something impossible to have been manufactured by a layman.

Thus רקח מרקחת (lit., a mixing of a mixture) means a compounding effected by skilled art and perfect mixing.

It is the same as רֶקח or רֶגע . . . I.e., it is vocalized רֶ — unlike רוֹגע הים , which is a verb.

שמן משחת קדש: Der Begriff קדושה, wie bereits wiederholt bemerkt, enthält wesentlich zwei konstituierende Merkmale: das negative der Absonderung von allem andern, פרישה, und das positive, die absolute Hingebung, wie wir es nannten: die Bereitstellung. für den einen hohen Zweck. Das den Ausdruck dieser Huldigung vermittelnde Medium enthält daher auch diese beiden Bestandteile, den negativen: Öl (משה משח), das Scheiden und Heraussondern aus allem andern, und den positiven: Gewürze, Wohlgeruch, das Entsprechen dem höheren Wohlgefallen. Das und der Gesalbte ist nur von allem andern ausgesondert, um sich einem Höhern, um sich dem Höchsten völlig unterzuordnen. Diese absolute Hingebung an das Höchste bedingt die Aussonderung aus allem Niederen.

מעשה רקח THE WORK OF A COMPOUNDER — רֹקֵחַ is the name given to a workman skilled in this matter.

That one absorbs from the other. . . קופח means that one takes from the other.

ומשחת בו AND THOU SHALT ANOINT WITH IT — All anointings mentioned in Scriptures were made in the form of a Greek X except the anointing of kings which were made round the head like a crown (wreath) (Keritot 5b).

Anointings were done in the form of the Greek chi. . . כ"י means a Greek chi, which looks like a Hebrew נ .

VV. 27 u.28. Bei שולחן und מזבח העולה heißt es: ואת כל כליו, während bei מנורה das כל fehlt. Dass bei dem Leuchter, dem Symbole der geistigen Entwicklung, auch alle die vorbereitenden Mittel und Tätigkeiten, כלים, in die heiligende Weihe mit inbegriffen sind, scheint mehr als selbstverstanden vorauszusetzen zu sein, als bei dem die materielle Wohlfahrt repräsentierenden שולחן und dem aus der materiell sinnlichen Stufe zur geistig-sittlichen Höhe den Weg weisenden מזבח העולה.

That is that He commanded the priests to burn incense every day twice on the golden altar. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "On it Aharon shall burn incense of spices: he shall burn it every morning when he arranges the lamps" (Leviticus 30:7). And the regulations of this commandment and the process of burning every day have already been explained at the beginning of Keritot and various places in Tractate Tamid. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offering and Additional Offerings 3.)

That is that He commanded the priests to burn incense every day twice on the golden altar. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "On it Aharon shall burn incense of spices: he shall burn it every morning when he arranges the lamps" (Leviticus 30:7). And the regulations of this commandment and the process of burning every day have already been explained at the beginning of Keritot and various places in Tractate Tamid. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offering and Additional Offerings 3.)

וקדשת אתם AND THOU SHALT SANCTIFY THEM — This anointing (mentioned v. 26) sanctifies them so that they become most holy. And in what consists their holiness? כל הנגע בהם וגו׳ that WHOSOEVER TOUCHETH THEM [SHALL BECOME HOLY]. — Whatever is proper for use in a particular sacred vessel becomes itself holy (more lit., becomes holy with bodily holiness) as soon as it comes into it, so that it becomes invalid as an offering under the following conditions: when after it had been placed in the vessel it had been taken (lit., had gone forth) outside the fore-court, or when it had been left the whole of the night without being placed on the altar, or when it has come into contact with a טבול יום (a person who had been unclean and has taken the ritual immersion but is awaiting sunset to be regarded as clean, as is prescribed in Leviticus 22:7). Moreover it cannot be redeemed by payment of its value to the Temple treasury, thereby to reassume its ordinary character. But whatever is not proper to them (to these vessels) they do not make holy (Zevachim 87a). A similar statement is made in an uncontroverted (Hebrew: perfect) Boraitha (Zevachim 83b) about the hallowing power of the altar: Since it is said, (Exodus 29:37) “Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall become holy”, I might infer that this applies to a thing whether it was fitting to be an offering at the time when it was brought into the Sanctuary or whether it was not fitting; Scripture therefore states immediately afterwards, (Exodus 29:38) “[Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar]; two lambs”. Now how is it in the case of the lambs? They are fitting for the altar! So, also, does the preceding statement, “Whatsoever [touches the altar shall become holy]”, refer only to anything that is fitting (i. e. that was already fitting to be brought upon the altar and became disqualified only after it had been brought into the forecourt of the Sanctuary). — In all cases where the term משח, “to anoint”, is used with reference to the Tabernacle or priests or kings it is rendered by the Targum by the appropriate form of the verb רבה, “to raise to high rank”, “to distinguish”, because the anointing of them had no other purpose than to show the distinction that was being bestowed upon them. For thus did the Heavenly King ordain (Rashi uses here the words of the text, (Esther 1:9) that this should constitute their installation in their high office. In any other case, however, where משח is used, — for instance, (Exodus 29:2) “wafers [unleavened] משוחים with oil”; (Amos 6:6) “and with the chief ointments ימשחו” — the Aramaic expression for them in the Targum is the same term as the Hebrew text, viz., a form of משח; (because in these passages anointing is an end in itself, whilst in the former case it is an indication only of elevation to a distinguished position).

כל הגוגע בהם יקדש, he must first purify himself as otherwise he would not become consecrated by touching people or utensils who have been anointed with these oils.

It is this anointing which sanctifies them. Thus the verse means, “Anoint them, and they thereby become sanctified” — not that they should be anointed and also sanctified. I.e., their sanctification is not a separate action. See the Minchas Yehudah who explains why Rashi did not explain this before, on: “All anointings were done in the form of the Greek chi.”

V. 29. כל הנגע בהם יקדש daher der Satz: כשם שהמזבח והכבש מקדשין את הראוי להן כך הכלים מקדשין (Sebachim 86 a). Siehe Kap. 29, 37.

וקדשת אותם, “you shall sanctify them;” by means of anointing them with these fragrances.

והיו קדש קדשים, “so that they will be most holy.” They will be just as holy as the furnishings inside the Sanctuary.”

כל הנוגע בהם יקדש, “any unauthorized person or object coming into direct contact with them will become ‘holy,’ (in the sense of out of bounds, no longer may be used for secular purposes.)”If such a person wished to touch these vessels, provided he was basically permitted to be in the compound where they stood, he would first have to sanctify himself by washing himself with the waters from the laver. We have a similar expression in Exodus 19,22: 'הכהנים הנגשים אל היתקדשו, “the priests who wished to come closer to Hashem shall first sanctify themselves.”

לדרתיכם THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS — From here our Rabbis derived that it (the oil of anointment) was miraculously preserved in its entirety for the time to come (for the Messianic days) (Horayot 11b).

יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם, this oil of holy anointing for Me will last throughout your generations.

זה . The numerical value corresponds to the twelve logs. You might ask: Why does Rashi [explain the words of] the verse in reverse order? The answer is: [Rashi brings this explanation of זה ] as a contradiction to the teaching of our Sages, that “the entire שמן המשחה will be preserved for the time yet to come.” Assumedly, our Sages so interpreted because it is written זה לי לדורותיכם , not כזה , thus implying that the oil itself will be “to Me for all your generations.” But, [argues Rashi,] this does not prove the Sages’ teaching, because זה teaches that there were twelve logs. [Thus, the Sages were interpreting Midrashically.] An alternative answer: On the contrary, Rashi is bringing a proof to the teaching of our Sages. The verse is saying: “For all your generations” will the number be represented by [the numerical value] זה , namely twelve logs.

VV. 31 — 33. שמן המשחה ist das Gottessiegel der Heiligung und Weihe für Personen und Gegenstände. Es begreift sich, wie ein Nachmachen dieses "Siegels" oder dessen missbräuchliche Verwendung zu anderem als dem von Gott gebotenen Zwecke der Heiligung ein das Faktum der Gottesheiligung negierendes, oder den Begriff der Gottesheiligung profanierendes Verfahren wäre, das כרת, "Entwurzelung aus der jüdischen Gegenwart und Zukunft" nach sich zöge. — ייסָך, eine ungewöhnliche Form wie ויִישֶם. (Bereschit 50, 27 siehe daselbst). Vielleicht ist sie auch hier eine zwischen aktiver und passiver Bedeutung schwebende Form. So wird sie auch Keritot 6 b aufgefasst: כל שישנו בסך ישנו בבל ייסך וכל שאינו בסך אינו בבל ייסך, dass nämlich das Verbot nur durch Salbung solcher Objekte übertreten werde, an die auch das Verbot gerichtet ist, und daher ובמתכנתו — .הסך בשמן המשחה לבהמה ולכלים לכותים ולמתים פטור siehe zu Kap. 5, 8. Bemerkenswert ist, dass eine Nachmachung des Salböls nur in gleichem Mischungsverhältnisse (במתכנתו) und in gleichem Quantum (כמהו) verpönt ist, während die Nachahmung des קטרת (V. 37) schon lediglich in gleichen Mischungsverhältnissen (במתכנתה) wenn auch nicht in gleichem Quantum, strafbar ist. קטרת שפטמה לחציין חייב שמן שפטמה לחציין פטור (Keritot 5 a).

יהיה זה לי, “this shall be for Me;” this is why I have said: ‘“he shall sanctify himself before coming into direct contact with it.”

זה has the numerical value of 12, alluding to the 12 “logs” which was the measure for the oil of anointment (Horayot 11b; cf. Rashi v. 24).

לא ייסך with two “yods” has the meaning “he shall not do something” (i. e. it is 3rd person masc. sing. Kal), similar to ייטב in (Deuteronomy 6:18) “that it may be well (ייטב) with thee”.

קדש הוא, "it is holy." This refers to the quantity being sacred. Even if the oil would be compounded of materials not listed here, i.e. something altogether profane, a combination of components in the quantities mentioned here would make it "sacred" in the sense of "forbidden." Anyone concocting such a mixture would be as guilty as a layman offering a total offering or sin-offering on his own behalf. If all such a person wanted to do was to train himself in the art of making such compositions, or in order to donate it to the community, this is permissible as we learned in Keritut 5.

ובמתכנתו, corresponding to the proportions of the various ingredients listed here.

In proportion to the measure of a hin of oil. . . Explanation: Had Scripture written only ובמתכנתו , we would think that if he made it with the weight of these spices, he is liable even if he decreased or increased in proportion to a hin of oil. Therefore it is written also לא תעשו כמוהו , to say that if he decreased or increased [the weight of these spices] he is not liable.

לא ייסך, “it shall not be poured;” an unusual formulation, meaning the same as if it had been spelled לא יוסך. We encounter a similar pattern in Genesis 50,26 in connection with Joseph’s temporary burial in Egypt, where the Torah reports that his remains were preserved in a casket, by writing: ויישם בארון במצרים, “he was placed in a casket in Egypt,” instead of writing: ויושם.

על בשר אדם לא ייסך UPON MAN’S FLESH SHALL IT NOT BE POURED — anything from that selfsame oil (which Moses had prepared).

The wording: "it is holy and it shall remain holy" may have yet another meaning. The words "it is sacred" refer to the oil for anointing made by Moses; it possessed an additional degree of holiness in that any private person using it to smear it on himself would be guilty of Karet. The Talmud understands the words "from it" in verse 33 as referring to the oil of anointing prepared by Moses. Any oil for anointing prepared by somebody other than Moses would not be forbidden on pain of this harsh penalty. The words "it will be holy," refer to such mixtures which would be prepared in the future. Unless such oil for anointing conformed to the exact measurements or weights as mentioned here, the user would not face any penalty. Had the Torah not written ממנו "from it," this would not have sufficed as I would have concluded that unless one smeared one's whole body with such oil one would not be guilty of the penalty threatened by the Torah.

ובמתכנתו לא תעשו כמהו AND ACCORDING TO ITS PROPORTION YE SHALL NOT MAKE ANY LIKE IT — In regard to the quantities of its spices ye shall not make any other oil like it — i. e. in regard to the weights of these spices in proportion to the measure of a hin of oil; but if one uses less or more of these spices in proportion to the measure of a hin of oil, it is permitted to do so. And even if it is made in the same proportions as this (the oil made by Moses) it is not the one who anoints himself with it that is punishable (for this applies only to one who anoints himself with the oil made by Moses) but he who compounds it (Keritot 5a).

Our sages in Keritut 6 derive from the wording of this verse that the oil for anointing had to be prepared in a holy area. If they would be right, the Torah should have written such a provision where it formulated the commandment not where it only threatened the penalty. We may therefore conclude that the sages in the Talmud do not really mean that their ruling has Biblical force; they only looked for some hint in the written text to drive home their point. Presumably, they had a tradition concerning this requirement to prepare the oil for anointing on holy ground. Our explanation follows the plain meaning of the text.

ובמתכנתו is a term denoting amount, as (Exodus 5:8) “the quantity (מתכנת) of bricks”. Similar is the word מתכנת used of the incense (v. 37).

ואשר יתן ממנו WHOSOEVER PUTTETH ANY OF IT — of that made by Moses (Keritot 5a)

OR WHOSOEVER PUTTETH ANY OF IT UPON A ZAR'… — “When it is not required [for anointing a person] into the [high-] priesthood or kingship.” This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra retorted that zar in this connection means anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron and his sons mentioned,¹³⁷For since He mentioned first (in Verse 30): And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, it follows that the expression, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a ‘zar’ means that anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron is a zar (a stranger). So why did Rashi say that the oil may also be used for the anointing of a king? just like the verse, and the ‘zar’ that draweth nigh shall be put to death,¹³⁸Numbers 1:51. “Shall be put to death — by the hand of Heaven” (Rashi). which means any stranger not included in those mentioned. Similarly: There shall no ‘zar’ eat of the holy thing,¹³⁹Leviticus 22:10. [which means anyone not of the seed of Aaron]; to the end that no ‘zar’ that is not of the seed of Aaron, draw near…¹⁴⁰Numbers 17:5. It is for this reason that [Ibn Ezra] thought that the anointing of Solomon¹⁴¹I Kings 1:39. which was done by Zadok [the priest] taking the horn of oil out of the Tent,¹⁴¹I Kings 1:39. — which refers to the Oil of Anointment [which Moses prepared] — was a special, temporary decree by authority of prophecy [permitting the oil to be used upon one who was not of the seed of Aaron]. But this is not the opinion of our Rabbis.¹⁴²For according to the Talmud (Kerithoth 5 b) every High Priest who would be appointed was to be anointed with this oil, as were also some of the kings. Generally an heir to the throne of Israel did not have to be anointed, though in order to avoid disputes over the royal succession [as was the case with Solomon] anointing was resorted to. See further on this topic “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 45.
And I say that [the opinion of our Rabbis is borne out by the language of the verse]. For Scripture states, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations,¹⁴³Verse 31. and it would have been correct if it were to say instead, “This shall be a holy anointing oil for Aaron and his sons throughout their generations,” just as He said in the case of the garments, And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him;¹⁴⁴Above, 29:29. or that He say, “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto Me, and it shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.” But now that He mentioned only them, [And Aaron and his sons thou shalt anoint] and then continued by saying that it should not be put upon any zar, it could mean that [the prohibition extends] to all people [even High Priests after Aaron] except those mentioned specifically [i.e., Aaron and his sons] ! Similarly He said, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured,¹⁴⁵Verse 32. [which might be taken to mean upon anyone’s flesh — even that of the High Priests after Aaron], and yet Scripture explicitly states, And the anointed priest that shall be in his [Aaron’s] stead, from among his sons!¹⁴⁶Leviticus 6:15. This shows that it is impossible to say that the High Priests after Aaron should not be anointed with this oil. And if so, the question appears why did Scripture use here language which might indicate the opposite, as explained above? But such is the explanation etc. But such is the explanation: He commanded that at the moment Aaron and his sons should be anointed with this oil, and then He continued, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me,¹⁴³Verse 31. — to anoint with it My holy anointed ones whom I will choose — throughout your generations,¹⁴³Verse 31. and it shall not be put upon a zar (stranger) whom I have not designated unto Me. It is for this reason that kings and High Priests were anointed with this oil, for both of them are “the anointed ones of G-d.” Thus it is written, I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him¹⁴⁷Psalms 89:21. — meaning, with the oil which is the holy anointing oil unto Me. And the meaning of the verse, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured,¹⁴⁵Verse 32. is as an admonition to all men [even to Aaron and his sons after they have been anointed with it], since He did not say, “upon the flesh of a zar shall it not be poured.” Thus the purport thereof is that he [Moses] is to pour of the oil upon Aaron’s head in order to anoint him, and then he is to anoint also his sons, but he is not to pour this oil upon any man, even upon the anointed priests, merely as people apply good oils to their bodies in order to scent themselves with hands soaked in oil, after bathing, something like it is said, Wash thyself and anoint thee;¹⁴⁸Ruth 3:3. Then I washed thee with water… and I anointed thee with oil.¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 16:9. This is the plain meaning of the verse and its intention. And so did our Rabbis say:¹⁵⁰Kerithoth 7a. “How do we know that if the High Priest took some of the oil of anointment which was upon his head and put it upon his stomach, that he is liable [to punishment]? Scripture therefore says, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured.”¹⁴⁵Verse 32.

ואשר יותן ממנו, from the oil of anointing prepared by Moses.

אשר יתן ממנו על זר. “and he anoints an alien with this, etc.” according to Rashi the word זר here means anyone neither a priest nor Royalty (from the house of David) who would be in line for this oil of anointing. Ibn Ezra explains that seeing the Torah first mentioned Aaron and his sons as the ones to be anointed with this oil, and now the Torah writes that a זר must not be anointed with this oil on pain of the most severe penalty karet, it is clear that the word זר includes only non priests. Nachmanides writes that it certainly appears at first glance as if the word זר only applies to non-priests, i.e. anyone not descended from Aaron, so that even a King may not be anointed with this oil. However, we must examine the text more closely and try to understand the meaning of the words שמן משחת קודש יהיה זה לי, “oil of sacred anointment this shall be for Me.” If the word זר were to be used as narrowly as suggested by Ibn Ezra, the Torah, instead of writing יהיה זה לי “shall this be for Me,” should have written יהיה זה לאהרן ובניו לדורותם, “shall this be for Aaron and his offspring throughout their generations.” This would then be parallel to what the Torah wrote about the priestly garments and who were not allowed to wear them, (compare 29,29) We must therefore conclude that the correct interpretation about who may be anointed with this oil is that at this time Aaron and his sons are to be anointed with it. The reason that the Torah used the somewhat vague expressionשמן משחת קודש is that the Torah, i.e. G’d, reserves the right at some time in the future when a titular political head will be appointed for the people as per the instructions of a prophet, authorized to sanction this in the name of G’d, the appointee will also be anointed with this oil as proof that the appointment had been sanctioned by G’d. The reason that the Torah does not prohibit with the words על בשר זר, “on the flesh of an alien,” is that even a priest who is not in need of this oil for ritual purposes must not be anointed with it.

From the one which Moshe blended. This was already prohibited in the previous verse. It is written again, “If he places from it upon an unauthorized person,” to teach that the punishment is kareis. It conveys: “He who pours it on any man shall be cut off from his people.” However, nowhere does Scripture forbid us to pour oil made according to its formula on the flesh of any man. [This is how Rashi knows it is only, “From the one which Moshe blended,”] since there can be no punishment unless Scripture forbids it.

איש אשר ירקח כמוהו, “anyone who will compound like it, etc.” the same prohibition has been applied also to anyone compounding incense on the same basis, i.e. ingredients and quantities, as that used in the Tabernacle. Just as here on earth it would be considered as an insult to the reigning monarch if a subject would make use of his scepter in the way the king uses it, so it is forbidden to make use of something designed exclusively in our service of the Lord for a secular purpose. Our sages extended this prohibition to anyone building himself a house patterned on the measurements or materials of the Tabernacle or Temple. (Rosh Hashanah, folio 24) This is also why we do not make or use candlesticks with seven arms.

על זר UPON A STRANGER — when it is not required for installing a person into the high-priesthood or kingdom (Keritot 5b).

The priesthood or kingdom. This refers to the Kohein Gadol. Even a regular kohein is considered an unauthorized person [pertaining to the use of the anointing oil]. And even the Kohein Gadol and the king themselves, after having been anointed, are considered unauthorized [pertaining to further use of the oil].

נטף is balsam. Because it is merely the sap which drips from the wood of the balsam tree it is called נטף, “dripping” (Keritot 6a). In old French it is called gomme; English gum. The balm itself, however, is called thériaque (cf., however, Ramban).

TAKE UNTO THEE ‘SAMIM’ (AROMATICS), STACTE, AND ONYCHA, AND GALBANUM; ‘SAMIM’ (AROMATICS) WITH PURE FRANKINCENSE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that by way of the plain meaning of Scripture the interpretation of the verse is: “take unto you the aromatics which are stacte, onycha and galbanum; these spices [you are to take], and pure frankincense with them.” But it is not correct that Scripture should just repeat the word samim [in such a short verse], for it is not the normal way of Scripture to repeat words unless there is some lengthy interpolation¹⁵¹See Ramban above, 4:9. or in order to indicate that it is a continuing thing.¹⁵²See Ramban above, 15:6. The truth is as our Rabbis have said,¹⁵³Kerithoth 6b. that the second word samim refers to other aromatics.
Now Rashi wrote: “‘Samim’ — the least number of aromatics implied by the plural form of this word is two. Stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, make together five. ‘Samim’ adds a similar number to those already prescribed, thus making ten. With frankincense, makes eleven [altogether].”
But one wonders! Why did Scripture not mention them explicitly? Perhaps Scripture is saying: “Take unto thee aromatics, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, many aromatics with pure frankincense,” thus insisting only on these four spices, for they were the ones that caused the cloud of the smoke of the incense¹⁵⁴Leviticus 16:13. to ascend; but He commanded that they add to them many other aromatic spices in order that the pillars of smoke [of the incense] should be fragrant. This is why He did not explain [in the case of the incense] the weight of each component [as He did in the case of the Oil of Anointment], nor how much of it should be burnt [daily], since He insisted only that these four [spices mentioned] should be alike [in weight], and that he should add to them other good spices for the burning. The reason for this is that just as He had said with reference to the Oil of Anointment that they make it in accordance with the art of the perfumer, and did not specify how it was to be made but relied upon it [that they knew how to make it], so He said in respect of this incense that he take an equal weight of these four [mentioned] aromatics, and add to them other aromatics and make out of all the components one incense, done after the art of the perfumer,¹⁵⁵Verse 35. [which implies by] using spices known to blend well with these [four] and by preparing them through the process by which they are usually prepared. It is of this incense that he had to put before the Testimony,¹⁵⁶Verse 36. so that its pillar of smoke should go up, as was the custom to put spices on coals before kings. In the same way He shortened the account of how to make the incense, and did not mention it when He referred to all the other spices. In a similar vein the Rabbis have said in the Gemara:¹⁵³Kerithoth 6b. “Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the word k’toreth? It is something which circles and rises.”¹⁵⁷The word k’toreth (incense) is thus of the root kateir (surrounding, circling), because the smoke of the burning incense circles and rises. Thus the Torah only commanded in connection with the incense to use those spices the smoke of which circles and rises, in a way similar to the art of the perfumers. Perhaps it was explained to Moses on Sinai by word of mouth which spices are best for that purpose, as well as the whole process of making the incense, for the process of making the Oil of Anointment was likewise explained to him in this manner, even though Scripture made it dependent upon the art of the perfumers. Or it may be that He insisted only on those [four spices] expressly mentioned in the verse, commanding that he perfume them with other spices after the art of the perfumers. And so the Rabbis have said in Midrash Chazit:¹⁵⁸Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3:7. “The Sages investigated and found no more fitting components for the incense than those eleven spices.”
It is also possible that samim (aromatics) and b’samim (spices) denote the same thing, as I have mentioned,¹⁵⁹Above 25:6. and these three components¹⁶⁰I.e., Nataph ushcheileth v’chel’bnah’ These are generally translated as being various kinds of fragrant spices: “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum.” But Ramban will now question the two terms [stacte and galbanum]. which He specified are not spices, for ‘nataph’ and ‘chel’bnah’ are saps, and shcheileth is the onycha which comes from the ocean.¹⁶¹Onycha… supposed to be the operculum of a marine gastropod (Dictionary). And Scripture states: “Take unto you the mentioned samim [i.e., all components mentioned above¹⁶²Above, Verses 23-24. in the preparation of the Oil of Anointment — namely, the flowing myrrh, the cinnamon, the calamus, and the cassia — as all these b’samim also went into the incense, as will be explained], and the nataph, and shcheileth and the chel’bnah, and other samim [in addition, as will be explained], with pure frankincense, and make of them a perfumed incense, after the art of the perfumer.” For the samim mentioned above in connection with the Oil [of Anointment] — flowing myrrh, cinnamon, and cassia — also went into the incense. And the knei bosem [mentioned among the components of the oil]¹⁶³Verse 23. Generally translated “sweet calamus.” is in my opinion the kiluphah mentioned by the Sages,¹⁶⁴Kerithoth 6a. called dratzini in Arabic, and so also in the language of the Gemara,¹⁶⁵Shabbath 65a. In connection with what is taught in the Mishnah there that a woman may go out on the Sabbath with “anything that she puts in her mouth” [to have a good breath], the Gemara explained, “such as dartzuna,” which Rashi explained as “cinnamon.” which is a cane [of sweet spices] resembling reeds. And the samim which He commanded to add [to all those mentioned above] are: spikenard and saffron and the costus, in accordance with that which the Sages have taught.¹⁶⁴Kerithoth 6a. Perhaps Scripture only insisted on these nine¹⁶⁶“Nine.” The reading should be “eight” (as explained above): the four components mentioned in the making of the Oil of Anointment [myrrh, cinnamon, kanah — the cane of sweet spice — and cassia], and the four expressly stated in the making of the incense [nataph, shcheileth, chel’bnah, and frankincense]. With the three components [spikenard, saffron, and costus] added by the second word samim they form the eleven components of the incense. which He mentioned, but was not particular as to [the nature of] those included by means of the repetition of the word samim, except inasmuch as they are to be sweet, so that they may make a perfumed incense. Thus He shortened the account of the making thereof, as well as of the weights of the other components [except for the four mentioned in the making of the oil, where the weights are prescribed],¹⁶²Above, Verses 23-24. because He commanded that they make it after the art of the perfumer.
It appears to me that the Sages chose three spices [spikenard, saffron, and costus] because they are mentioned in the Song of Songs: Spikenard and saffron… and ‘oholoth,’¹⁶⁷Song of Songs 4:14. which is the costus. Its name is in the plural from [oholoth] because there are two kinds of it, the sweet and the bitter. Now Scripture mentioned there, calamus and cinnamon… frankincense, and myrrh¹⁶⁷Song of Songs 4:14. together with these three [spikenard, saffron, and costus], and then said, with ‘all’ the chief spices, so as to include cassia. Thus you have there all¹⁶⁸I.e., eight components: spikenard, saffron, costus, calamus, cinnamon, frankincense, myrrh, and cassia. Three more will follow. Thus Ramban found the eleven components of the incense mentioned in the Song of Songs. the components of the incense. Now before that Scripture mentioned there: ‘k’pharim im n’radim’ (henna with spikenard plants).¹⁶⁹Song of Songs 4:13. This is to include nataph ushcheileth v’chel’bnah [mentioned here in the verse] which are saps, for k’pharim is of the root ‘v’chapharta othah’ (and thou shalt pitch it),¹⁷⁰Genesis 6:14. it being an adhesive sap. And the Targum Yerushalmi rendered: myrrh and ‘oholoth’¹⁶⁷Song of Songs 4:14. — [pure myrrh and] aksi lalu’an,¹⁷¹“A tree of bitter aloe wood.” Ramban will further on explain that aksi means tree. See also Jastrow under the term aksiloliyon. which is that precious tree called in Latin linga lubin as aksi means “tree” in Aramaic, and lalu’an is the name of the tree. In Greek it is actually so called: aksiluin,¹⁷²See Jastrow (ibid.) for the Greek term. and so it is called in Arabic — al urtib. But Onkelos rendered: ‘ka’aholim’ planted of the Eternal¹⁷³Numbers 24:6. — k’busmaya (as spices), without specifying a particular name [for oholim, as did the Targum Yerushalmi mentioned above].

קח לך סמים, the ones already mentioned in connection with the oil of anointing in verse 23-24 plus the three mentioned in this verse, i.e. נטף, שחלה, חלבנה, and in addition to these some other spices known to act as improving the mixture of those already listed. According to our sages in Keritut 6 Shibbolet, Nerd, Karkom and Kosht were such spices which when blended in with the ones listed in the Torah already would provide the balance of fragrance the Torah wanted to achieve. [The problem facing commentators is the fact that even when we add all the spices or oils mentioned in this chapter together, even assuming that frankincense is one of them, we only arrive at a total of eight, whereas traditionally there were supposed to be 11 as we mention in our daily prayer of Pittum haketoret. Ed.]

סמים; we explained this already earlier. (where?)

קח לך סמים, ”Take yourself spices, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there are scholars who hold that the plain meaning of the line קח לך סמים וגו' is: “take yourself spices, namely נטף, שחלת, חלבנה,” whereas what follows are not spices but are varieties of frankincense, לבונה, such as pure frankincense mixed into the whole mixture. These scholars are not correct, as it is not the custom of the Torah to write the word סמים a second time just for reasons of style and syntax. The Torah does not use unnecessary repetition. Rashi explains that the very word סמים, seeing it is used in the plural mode, refers to a number of (2 seeing no number is specified) different spices, i.e. take a variety of spices, namely the ones named forthwith, i.e. a total of 5 varieties and an equal number, the ones used for the oil of anointing, plus the last named, i.e. לבונה, making a total of eleven spices which make up the offering of incense. If so we have reason to wonder why the Torah did not name all the varieties? Perhaps we have to conclude that the verse which commences with the words קח לך סמים נטף ושחלת וחלבנה, did not consider the unnamed additional varieties as so important, as long as they were pure, זכה. However, only the varieties named are so important that they each need to be part of the mix prescribed. The reason may have to do with the cloud of smoke generated when burning these varieties of spices. The unnamed varieties would contribute the sweet smelling fragrances, whereas the ones named would contribute what was visible to the eye as opposed to what could be inhaled. This may also be the reason why no quantities are mentioned in the Torah in connection with the incense. What interested the Torah was only that the proportions of the named spices be equal to one another. The addition of other spices was left vague, just as in the case of the olive oil in the oil of anointing no quantity was specified. The Torah relied on what had been written before, i.e. that the composition should follow certain ratios already outlined. The מעשה רוקח, “handiwork of the perfumers,” was a commonly known mix and the Torah merely writes that in the making of the incense the same basic procedures should be followed which are followed when preparing perfume. In due course, the completed incense was to be deposited in front of the Holy Ark in order that the fragrance would rise as they do when presented to kings of flesh and blood. Alternatively, we may infer that what was not spelled out here in writing had been communicated to Moses orally in which all the details about fragrances and incense were explained. It is also possible to explain that סמים and בשמים are different names for the ingredients and that the three ingredients that have been named in connection with the oil of anointing are not סמים, for נטף and חלבנה are actually a form of שרפים, resin from either the tree trunks or other plants. (Maimonides in hilchot kley hamikdash calls these עצי הקטף, derived from the wood of the balsam tree). The ingredient described as שחלת, may be a clove, possibly grown in the sea. The Torah would then have instructed Moses to take סמים which people were familiar with, i.e. the ones named, which would be added to the oil of anointing, seeing that the ingredients described asמור, דרור, קנמן were all part of the mixture which made up the incense, קטורת. The reason that the word סמים is repeated was to inform Moses that additional ingredients, all under the generic name of סמים would be part of the mixture. These additional סמים are then named, viz. שבולת, נרד, כרכום, קושט in accordance with what our sages have taught us in tractate Keritot 6. To this mixture frankincense, לבונה, was added. The whole would resemble the type of concoctions produced by the handiwork of the perfumers, מעשה מרקחת.

Including in our gatherings. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, galbanum should have been mentioned either at the beginning or at the end, but not [in the middle] among them.

V. 34. סמים. Wir haben schon zu Bereschit 11, 6 aus der Lautverwandtschaft der Wurzeln סמם ,צמם ,זמם die Bedeutung סמים als Bezeichnung solcher Stoffe erkannt, die in kleinstem Umfange eine große Fülle wirkungsreicher Kräfte enthalten. Es sind dies hier mit ätherischem Aroma gefüllte Stoffe. Die Satzform: סמים נטף ושחלת וחלבנה סמים ולבנה זכה kündigt sich als כלל ופרט וכלל mit noch nachgefügtem פרט, פרט אחרון, an. כלל ,סמים, vergegenwärtigt den ganzen Kreis der unter diesen Begriff zu fassenden Stoffe, פרט ,נטף שחלת חלבנה, hebt aus diesem ganzen Kreise nur diese speziell hervor, und würde ohne weitere Beifügung, als כלל ופרט, aus der ganzen סמים-Kategorie die gesetzliche Vorschrift nur auf die drei genannten, mit Ausschluss aller übrigen, beschränken אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט. Indem aber dem פרט nochmals סמים als כללא בתרא) כלל) folgt, werden damit die im פרט genannten Stoffe zum כלל erhoben, sie werden exemplifikatorisch, und beschränken erweitert die gesetzliche Vorschrift auf alle solche סמים-Stoffe, die ihnen in allen wesentlichen Merkmalen gleichen, אי אתה רן אלא כעין הפרט. Dadurch würde לבונה, welchem eines dieser Merkmale fehlt, ausgeschlossen sein, und muss somit als Ausnahme nachgefügt werden. Die drei als פרט genannten נטף שהלת וחלבנה haben die beiden wesentlichen Merkmale gemeinsam: sie entwickeln einen starken, gerade aufsteigenden Dampf, und verbreiten Geruch, שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף. Sie waren aber alle zu nennen, weil sie andererseits sich von einander unterschieden. נטף ist vegetabilisch, שחלת ,מין אילן ist mineralisch, גידולי קרקע, sie waren also beide zu nennen, um die Auswahl der Stoffe nicht auf das eine oder das andere Naturreich zu beschränken. חלבנה war zu nennen, weil es einen unangenehmen Geruch verbreitet und man es somit nicht unter קטרת genommen hätte, wenn es nicht ausdrücklich vorgeschrieben wäre. לבונה fehlt das eine wesentliche Merkmal, es ist nicht מקטר ועולה (Keritot 6 a). Die Halacha lehrt, dass zum קטרת elf Ingredienzien zu nehmen waren: חלבנה ,(שחלת) צפורן ,(נטף) צרי קנמון ,קושט ,כרכום ,שבולת נרד, קדה( קציעה ,מר ,לבונה), und zwar nicht in gleichen, sondern in verschieden bestimmten Quantitäten, außerdem noch מעלה עשן, und behufs der Zubereitung בורית כרשינה und יין קפריסין, und ferner מלח סדומית, hinsichtlich dessen es zweifelhaft ist, ob es unter die Vorschrift ממלח (V. 35) oder mit zur Bereitung gehörte. Auch diese Zahl ist im Texte angedeutet. Unter סמים, als Plural, sind mindestens zwei zu verstehen, mit נטף שחלת חלבנה sind es fünf, das zweite סמים, wodurch der Begriff erweitert wird, fügt auch noch fünf hinzu, und mit לבונה sind es elf. Gewiss hat jeder Stoff im קטרת und im שמן המשחה seine besondere Bedeutung. Leider fehlt uns darüber jede Kunde und folgen wir in der Übersetzung nur der gewöhnlichen Annahme.

בד בבד, “each is to have the same weight.” (customary translation) The Talmud, tractate k’ritut folio 5 understands this expression as based on the word בדד, “separate, isolated,” i.e. each individual unit of spice should have the same weight. The Talmud even discusses if when weighing it, it suffices to note that both scales of the scales are at the same level, or if the spice in question must actually tip the scale downwards a little. They also discuss if, as is customary, a stone or equivalent which had proved to be of the required weight can be used for weighing the next quantity of spice, or if each spice has to be weighed independently without any weights being used. According to Rashi in the Talmud there, weights must not be used instead, only spices must be placed on the scale. Our author does not understand why the use of weights should have been forbidden.

קח לך סמים, “take for yourself a variety of resins;” (alternate translation: sweet incense, presumably because how can one beat sticky resin?)” the latter varieties were not included in this list. [There are contradictory opinions regarding the list given here and that in verses 2225, and their uses. Seeing we have no eyewitnesses of what was used when, I will not detail them except to point out that the group in verses 2225 were described as בשמים, and the group mentioned here were all summed up under the heading סמים. Ed.]

ושחלת AND ONYCHA This is a root of a fragrant herb, smooth and transparent like a fingernail, In the language of the Mishna it is called צפורן, a nail (cf. Keritot 6a). This is exactly how Onkelos renders it: וטופרא, which is the Aramaic word corresponding to the Hebrew צפורן‎.

NATAPH’ — is tzori (balsam). Now in Rashi’s commentary it is written: “The balm itself is called triga,¹⁷⁴In our Rashi: theriaque. — To this term Ramban will object, since a theriac is an electuary [a medical compound] composed of many ingredients. but because it is merely the sap which ‘drips’ from the wood of the balsam it is called nataph (dripping).” But I do not know whether this is the scribe’s mistake, or the one who so told Rashi misinformed him. For theriac [the triga mentioned by Rashi] is not one ingredient but is a compound of many ingredients, containing leaven and honey, the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, for the powder of dried scorpions and the flesh of the viper go into it, this being the reason why it is so called [theriac], for “poison” in Greek is called theriac. So also in the language of the Talmud:¹⁷⁵Shabbath 109b. “Torkai (stung by) a serpent.” Similarly this compound is mentioned in the language [of the Rabbis]:¹⁷⁶Nedarim 41b. “as theriac is good for the whole body.” And Heaven forbid that there should be in the incense the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, leaven and honey, for it is written, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Eternal.¹⁷⁷Leviticus 2:11. Rather, the tzori is the oily sap which drips from the balsam tree, called in the language of the Sages k’taph. It is this which we have been taught:¹⁶⁴Kerithoth 6a. “Rabban¹¹⁶The title “Rabban” [instead of “Rabbi”] signifies that he was the Nasi (Prince) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon ben Gamaliel says: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph (balsam) tree.” Perhaps it is called k’taph (plucking off) because they break off its branches on days in the hot season, and the balm runs down from the place where it is broken. In the Gemara of Chapter Bameh Madlikin¹⁷⁸“With what may they light” [the Sabbath lamp]? — Shabbath 26a. it is stated: “Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: We do not light [the Sabbath lamp] with tzori, and so did Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar¹⁷⁹In Ramban manuscripts: “Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.” So also in some manuscripts of the Talmud (see Dikdukei Sofrim, Shabbath, p. 48 Note 1). say: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap exuding from the balsam tree.” And there in the Gemara¹⁸⁰Ibid., 25b. the Sages explained the reason [why that balm is not used for the Sabbath lamp], because its fragrance spreads and he may come to use it as food [and taking off oil from a burning lamp is considered the same as extinguishing it]. Thus it is clear that the tzori mentioned [for the incense] is that good oil mentioned [in the above Gemara].
And I wonder! For Onkelos translated: ‘n’choth’ (spicery) ‘u’tzri’ (and balm) and labdanum¹⁸¹Genesis 37:25. — sh’aph u’ktaph. Similarly he rendered: a little ‘tzori’ (balm)¹⁸²Ibid., 43:11. — k’taph. But nataph [here in this verse] he translated n’tupha, and did not translate it as he did in the case of the word tzori!¹⁸³For since Onkelos translated (in Genesis 37:25) the Hebrew tzori as the Aramaic k’taph, he should have translated likewise here the Hebrew nataph, for as said above nataph is tzori, and so why did he translate it as k’topha? And Yonathan [ben Uziel] translated everywhere tzori as sh’aph, which is a term for an anointing oil in the language of the Talmud, such as in their saying:¹⁸⁴Chullin 111b. “[for him whose eyes hurt] they make shipha (an ointment of various components) in a vessel,” the word shipha being short of the letter ayin, which would make it she’ipha. A similar example is:¹⁸⁵Beitzah 16a. “D’sha’yeiph (he anoints) him with the same kind he gave him” to eat. Here too, the word d’sha’yeiph is like d’sha’iph [with the letter ayin].
It appears from their opinions¹⁸⁶From Onkelos who translated (in Genesis 37:25) tzori as k’taph, and from Yonathan who translated it as sh’aph. that both the balsam tree and its fruit are called tzori in the Sacred Language, just like t’einah (fig), rimon (pomegranate), ethrog, and many other names like them. The term n’choth¹⁸¹Genesis 37:25. is thus, according to them, [Onkelos and Yonathan], a generic name for all notable and fragrant oils. That is why Scripture states, and he [Hezekiah] showed them all the house ‘n’chothoh’ (of his treasure),¹⁸⁷II Kings 20:13. because the treasure-house where the precious oil is stored is called by that name, seeing that it is the choicest of all treasure, and there in fact it is also written, and the precious oil.¹⁸⁷II Kings 20:13. Therefore Onkelos said in the case of the present that Jacob sent to Joseph, that they brought him sh’aph [which is the Aramaic translation for the Hebrew n’chot],¹⁸²Ibid., 43:11. which is the term for that notable oil. And they further brought [in the present for Joseph] from the branches of the tzori-tree called k’taph.¹⁸⁸This explains Onkelos’ translation in Genesis 43:11. In other places where Scripture mentions tzori alone, speaking of it as a beneficial medicine — such as in the verse, Is there no ‘tzori’ in Gilead?¹⁸⁹Jeremiah 8:22. — Yonathan translates it as referring to the oil called sh’aph. Onkelos translated [here] nataph as netupha, which is an oil called by that name because it “drips” from the broken branches. There is no justification here to translate nataph as sh’aph, for the incense did not contain any ointment.
Now I have seen that Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon]¹⁹⁰Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash 2:4. included in the incense the bark of a tree called in Arabic od balsan. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel who said:¹⁶⁴Kerithoth 6a. “The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph-tree” thereby intended to differ with the Sages [who counted the tzori among the eleven components of the incense], and to say instead that tzori was not one of the ingredients of the incense, since tzori is nothing but a sap, and it was not the sap [of the k’taph] that was put into the incense, but the [bark of the] k’taph itself.

ולבונה זכה, this pure frankincense did not need to be mixed with any other ingredient to achieve the Torah’s purpose as part of the incense. This helps us arrive at the number 11 our sages state were contained in the mixture presented on the golden altar.

סמים ולבונה זכה, according to the plain meaning, the Torah first describes the ingredients used for the incense in a general manner, before listing each individually. There follows a description of precisely what was included in the general term סמים. נטף ושחלה וחלבנה, stacte, onycha and galbanum, these are fragrant herbs which I commanded you to use. In addition, you are to take pure frankincense; According to the plain meaning of the text לבונה זכה is not to be counted as one of the spices, fragrances, listed, but the word סמים after the list נטף, שחלה, חלבנה concludes the list of the spices. It is the custom of the Torah to repeat something which had been used as a heading for an introduction when that particular part of the subject has been concluded. We find an example of this in Genesis 9,17 when G’d concluded a covenant with Noach involving the rainbow. He said זאת אות הברית, “this is the sign of the covenant,” both in 9,12, and again in 9,17.

נטף, “balsam, also known as צרי.” Rashi adds that צרי in French is equivalent to resin from trees. Nachmanides claims that this is wrong, and that someone misspelled what Rashi wrote, and that the French word attributed to Rashi erroneously, is actually a mixture of leaven and honey and a variety of dead insects, and the like, something that the Torah most certainly would not have instructed Moses to prepare as oil of anointing or incense, the offering G’d supposedly receives with maximum goodwill. He therefore concludes that צרי is another word for שרף the resin oozing out of trees when the trunk has been sawed off or branches have been broken off. This may be the reason our sages coined the phrase עצי הקטף, to describe the origin as being trees or wood which had been injured, cut off.

They should be counted with us. In order that Hashem will see that even the sinners are repenting, and thus He will have mercy on us. (Gur Aryeh)

בד בבר יהי׳. Das Verständnis ist nicht sicher. Nach Keritot 5 a fordert es entweder die genaue, oder die besondere Abwägung eines jeden der Stoffe.

בד בבד, “each kind was to be of equal weight to its counterpart.” It would undergo individual treatment by the perfumer.

וחלבנה — This is a malodorous spice which is called galbanum. Scripture enumerates it among the spices of the incense to teach us that we should not regard as a light thing the duty of associating with ourselves when we band together for fasts and prayers Israelites who are transgressors — that they should be counted as ourselves (Keritot 6b).

נטף ושחלת וחלבנה, “stacte, onycha and galbanum; נטף is the same as צרי, balsam, which Rashi translates as theriaque. Nachmanides disagrees and writes that it is a tree’s resin called gome. According to him it is a single kind of spice, supposedly similar to שחלת, חלבנה and לבונה, frankincense. The spice (mixture) called theriaque mentioned by Rashi is a mixture of a variety of spices. It includes honey, yeast, and the ashes of dead scorpions as well as the flesh of the hyena. It is quite inconceivable that such a mixture should have been included in incense which the Torah has described as טהור קודש, “something pure and holy.” How could the remains of reptiles or creeping animals which are the epitome of ritual impurity be part of such a mixture? Even honey and yeast (leavening) are matters which the Torah has expressly forbidden as being offered on the altar (compare Leviticus 2,11). To believe that they could be part of the incense is sheer nonsense! The resin called נטף (from “drippings”) which is from the balsam tree is a single ingredient of a specially aromatic quality. The tree is called קטף, as one plucks the leaves which are dripping with resin. All of this accounts for Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar saying in Shabbat 25 that one must not light the Sabbath lamp with resin from the balsam tree as its fragrance is strong (and one may be tempted to use some of that oil for himself thus diminishing the supply for the lamp and causing it to be extinguished prematurely).
The incense called חלבנה is foul-smelling (Keritut 6); nonetheless the Torah saw fit to include it in the list of spices for the incense. It suggests the lesson that on a fast-day, a day of supplication we must not congregate in prayer without also including people whose conduct stamped them as sinners. Our sages (in Keritut) have taught us that any congregation which does not include sinners is not really called a congregation. The meaning of this strange statement is that G’d’s “reputation” is enhanced at a time when sinners join the righteous in prayer indicating that they are becoming penitents. This also reflects positively on the righteous assembled in prayer. If there were no potential penitents in that congregation the “righteous” would share the fate of the sinners as they share responsibility for the conduct of all the Jews, not just for themselves. Every Jew has a responsibility to help the sinners return to the fold. This is the reason that the willow branch, a plant without fruit or pleasant fragrance, must make up one of the four species of plants over which we recite a benediction on Sukkot. The willow branch symbolises the Jew who neither observes the commandments regulating life between people (good deeds) nor the commandments regulating our relationship vis-a-vis G’d (performance of religious ritual) and His requirements of us directly.

So as to add an amount equal to the above. . . You might ask: How does Rashi know it means to add an amount equal to the above? Perhaps סמים means to add two spices, like the first סמים means. The answer is: Rashi’s proof is that it is not written סמים סמים together, at the beginning or end. Rather, [the second סמים ] is written here in order to add an amount equal to the above.

סמים means other SPICES also.

ולבנה זכה AND PURE FRANKINCENSE — From here our Rabbis learned that eleven spices were mentioned to Moses on Sinai (a technical term, like הלכה למשה מסיני) as the ingredients of the incense. For the least number implied by the plural סמים is two; balsam, onycha and galbanum are three, making together five. The word סמים that follows (without stating any number) is intended to add a similar number as these already prescribed, viz., five, making ten, and frankincense makes eleven. They are the following: balm, onycha, galbanum, frankincense, myrrh, cassia, spikenard and saffron, altogether eight — for שבלת and נרד are one, it being given this compound name only because the nard resembles a שבלת, a spike, — costus, aromatic bark and cinnamon, altogether eleven. “Borith karshina” (lye obtained from a species of vetch) which is also mentioned in Keritotot 6a in connection with the ingredients of the incense was not burnt itself as incense, but the onycha was rubbed with it in order to whiten it — that it should be (look) better (Keritot 6a).

בד בבד יהיה means, these four ingredients mentioned here shall be equal, weight for weight — as the weight of one so shall be the weight of another. Thus indeed we learn (Keritot 6a): the balm, the onycha, the galbanum and the frankincense shall each have the weight of seventy manehs. The term בד seems to me to mean “a single article” (cf. בָּדָד, לְבַד) – they shall be “one equal with one”: they shall be the one the same as the other.

ממלח TEMPERED TOGETHER — Understand this as the Targum renders it: מעורב, mixed — that they should thoroughly intermix the powder of the ingredients. I think that similar in meaning to it are the nouns in (Jona 1:5) “Then the mariners (המלחים) were afraid”; (Ezekiel 27:27) “thy mariners (מלחיך) and thy pilots”, who are so called because they turn over (stir up) the water with oars when they propel the ship — like a person who stirs up beaten eggs with a spoon in order to mix them with water. Anything that a person wishes to mix up thoroughly he stirs up with his finger or with a spoon.

That is that He commanded us that we have oil made according to the special recipe, ready to anoint the high priest when he is appointed - as He said, "The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured" (Leviticus 21:10). And some of the kings were [also] anointed with it, as it is explained in the the law of this commandment. And the Tabernacle and all of its vessels have already been anointed by it. The vessels are not anointed for [all of the] generations (when new ones are made). For they said in the explanation, in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 44), "That with the anointment of these" - meaning the vessels of the Tabernacle - "all the future vessels were consecrated." He, may He be elevated and may His name be blessed, said, "This shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages" (Exodus 30:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Keritot. (See Parasht Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 1.)

That is that He commanded us that we have oil made according to the special recipe, ready to anoint the high priest when he is appointed - as He said, "The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured" (Leviticus 21:10). And some of the kings were [also] anointed with it, as it is explained in the the law of this commandment. And the Tabernacle and all of its vessels have already been anointed by it. The vessels are not anointed for [all of the] generations (when new ones are made). For they said in the explanation, in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 44), "That with the anointment of these" - meaning the vessels of the Tabernacle - "all the future vessels were consecrated." He, may He be elevated and may His name be blessed, said, "This shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages" (Exodus 30:31). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Keritot. (See Parasht Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 1.)

MEMULACH’ (SEASONED WITH SALT), PURE AND HOLY. This means that it be seasoned with salt of Sodom, just as the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁴Kerithoth 6a. “Of salt of Sodom, the fourth part of a kab.” Onkelos translated [memulach as] m’areiv (mixed together). By this he intended to say that memulach means “rubbed out” — that the ingredients should all be so well-ground and mixed so thoroughly together, that their identity is “rubbed out” and none of the [individual] ingredients can be recognized. This is of the expression: For the heavens ‘nimlochu’ (shall vanish away) like smoke.¹⁹¹Isaiah 51:6. Similarly: ‘u’vloyei m’lachim’ (and worn rags);¹⁹²Jeremiah 38:11. A fruitful land ‘limleichah’ (into a salt waste).¹⁹³Psalms 107:34. These are all expressions of destruction and annihilation.
And Rashi explained that the term memluach means that it be thoroughly mixed together in the grinding of the ingredients one with another. To this interpretation Rashi brought proof from the verse similar in meaning: ‘malachayich’ (thy mariners) and thy pilots,¹⁹⁴Ezekiel 27:27. who are so called “because they turn over the water with the oars when they propel the ship, like a person who stirs up beaten eggs with a spoon in order to mix them thoroughly.”
In my opinion mariners are called malachim [of the root melach — salt] because they know the “taste” of the sea, as if they could feel if it is “salty” or “sweet;” that is to say, they know when it will be sweet and pleasant for those travelling by sea, and when it will be bad and bitter for them. It is not those who hold the oars [propelling the ship] who are called malachim [as Rashi said], for it is written on Tyre, The inhabitants of Sidon and Arvad were thy ‘shotim’ (rowers);¹⁹⁵Ibid., Verse 8. The elders of Gebal and the wise men thereof were in thee thy calkers; all the ships of the sea ‘u’malacheyhem’ (and their mariners) were in thee.¹⁹⁶Ibid., Verse 9. For it is the older captains who know the sea that are called malachim. And it is further written, And all that handle the oar, ‘malachim’ (the mariners), and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land.¹⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 29. Thus three categories are mentioned: those that handle the oar, the mariners, and the pilots [which proves that malachim — the mariners — are not those that handle the oar].
Similarly, a fruitful land ‘limleichah’¹⁹³Psalms 107:34. means “to a salt land,” for in a salt land nothing will grow, just as is written of Sodom, The whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and a burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth,¹⁹⁸Deuteronomy 29:22. and it is further written, and he sowed it with salt.¹⁹⁹Judges 9:45. It is possible that the letter lamed is redundant in the verse, for the heavens ‘nimlochu’ like smoke,¹⁹¹Isaiah 51:6. the intent thereof being as in the word nimchu (erased), which would make it similar to these cases: ba’l'umim;²⁰⁰Psalms 44:15. The structure of the word is ba’umim (among the nations). wholly ‘shalanan’ (at ease) and quiet.²⁰¹Job 21:23. The structure of the word is shanon (ease).

רקח, each of whom would collect different spices and after mixing them all they would become

ממלח טהור קדוש. Salted, pure, holy. It appears that the meaning of "pure" refers to colours. The incense was to be of a uniform colour throughout. Seeing that it consisted of many different spices and a quantity sufficient for 368 portions of it was prepared at one time, it would most likely have had a mottled appearance unless the Torah had directed that it should be mixed in such a way that its spices would merge into a single uniform colour. Even though it possessed a uniform colour after having been thoroughly mixed, if someone examined it carefully he would notice that the uniformity was not due to all of its components being of the same colour. Such uniformity would not qualify for the definition "pure." The words: "salted, pure" mean therefore that it was to be so finely ground that even upon visual examination from close quarters its colour would appear to be uniform. This required expertise on the part of the people who pounded it into small particles.

ממולח, thoroughly mixed. The word may reflect the word מלחים, sailors, oarsmen, as these mix and stir the waters which they row.

ממולח, “thoroughly mixed;” Rashi understands the word ממולח, as thoroughly mixed, whereas Nachmanides sees in the word its original meaning, i.e. “salted,” and the Torah would instruct that just as meat offerings have to be salted so even the incense has to be salted. This is why the Talmud referred to the quarter kav of salt from the Dead Sea, which was part of the mixture.

Thoroughly blended shall it be. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does “Make it into. . .” apply to “pure and holy”? Something becomes pure and holy [not by what we do to it, but] by the absence of making impure and secular use of it. Thus Rashi explains: “Thoroughly blended shall it be, pure shall it be, and holy shall it be.” I.e., it shall be thoroughly blended by our making it so. But it shall be pure and holy on its own accord.

V. 35. ממלח. Wir haben schon bemerkt, daß es von einigen auf den Zusatz von מלח סדומית bezogen wird. Allgemeiner wird es jedoch auf die Bereitungsart bezogen, wofür auch der Zusammenhang und die Form מְמֻלּח spricht. Hieße es gesalzen, so würde es eine so starke Beizung fordern, welcher das Quantum 1/4 Kab im Verhältnis zur Masse der übrigen Stoffe schwerlich entsprechen könnte. Die Schwere des sodomitischen Salzes im Verhältnis zu Wasser einmal wie 3 zu 1 angenommen, würde 1/4 Kab=1 Log=4/4 Log, nach der Maimonides הל׳ עירובין I, 12 und כלי המקדש II, 3 gegebenen Berechnung, sich zu der ganzen übrigen Masse des קטרת verhalten, wie 210 zu 36800. 1 רביעית Wasser wiegt 171/2 לוג 1 ,דינר sodomitisches Salz nach obiger Annahme somit 12 x 17 1/2=210 דינר, die elf Spezereistoffe des קטרת wogen zusammen 368 Mena, die Mena zu 100=36.800 דינר. Schwerlich dürfte aber durch den Zusatz von 1/175 Salz eine Masse מְמֻלָח werden. Wir haben aber bereits an einem anderen Orte aus der Lautverwandtschaft מלה und מלא die Grundbedeutung von מלח als innigste Durchdringung, als eine solche Durchdringung vermutet, durch welche ein Stoff in allen seinen Teilen von einem anderen "voll" wird, woher dann die Bedeutung: Salz durch den Begriff entstünde. Demgemäß könnte dann auch hierמַלֵחַ die innigste Durchdringung, die vollkommenste Mischung bezeichnen. Die Stoffe sollen zuerst jeder gesondert, völlig fein zerrieben und dann מְמֻלָח, zur vollkommensten Durchdringung mit einander gemischt werden. So auch Onkelos: מערב.

ממולח, “seasoned with salt;” compare Ezekiel 16,4: והמלח לא הומלחת, “and you had not been rubbed with salt.” Compare also Ezra 4,14: די מלח היכלא מלחנא, “seeing that we have eaten from the salt of the palace, etc.” [i.e. the king has fed us generously. Ed.]

ממלח טהור קדש TEMPERED TOGETHER, PURE AND HOLY — i. e. tempered together shall it (the compound) be, pure shall it be, and holy shall it be.

מעשה רוקח, crushed, mixed, etc., a druggist’s handiwork. These various spices did not undergo uniform treatment at the hands of the spicer, druggist..

ממולח, thoroughly mixed, none of its ingredients remaining identifiable as separate substances.

טהור. refined to such a degree that it did not contain any foreign substances. The reason why this was of the essence was the fact that the burning up of the incense consisted of burning up the actual spices, derivatives or auxiliaries not being a part of that sacrifice at all. However, with the oil of anointing these extreme precautions did not apply seeing that it was in the nature of the ingredients that auxiliary components were not mixed with it or attached to it before the oil became refined.

ונתת ממנה וגו׳ AND THOU SHALT PUT OF IT [BEFORE THE TESTIMONY IN THE APPOINTED TENT] — This refers to the incense which was burnt daily on the inner altar that was in the tent of meeting.

AND THOU SHALT PUT OF IT BEFORE THE TESTIMONY IN THE TENT OF MEETING, WHERE I WILL MEET WITH THEE. We may possibly explain that Scripture mentions here all the [various] regulations concerning the burning of the incense. It thus states that he should burn of it before the Testimony in the Holy of Holies, which refers to the incense burnt on the Day of Atonement, and that he should also burn of it in the Tent of Meeting, [referring to that burnt] every day. The phrase, where I will meet with thee refers back to [before] the Testimony [from where He spoke to Moses]. It is possible that He refers to the putting of the incense on the inner altar which is set before the ark of the Testimony,²⁰²In this way the phrase before the Testimony does not allude to the incense burnt on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies, as explained above, but is instead to be understood as follows: “and thou shalt put of it [daily] on the inner altar which is set in the Tent of Meeting before the Testimony in the Holy of Holies.” as He says in the section of Vayakheil.²⁰³It is in the section of Pekudei (40:5): And thou shalt set the golden altar for incense before the ark of Testimony.

ונתתה ממנה לפני העדות באהל מועד אשר אועד לך שמה, “you are to place some of it in front of the Testimonial Tablets in the Tent of Meeting, where I shall designate a time to meet you.” The Torah emphasises that this offering is to be presented twice daily, on the golden altar, inside the Sanctuary, quite close to the Holy Ark. Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that the reason why the Holy Ark is mentioned here is that the Torah wanted to include every aspect of the offering called קטורת, and that it is so holy that on the Day of Atonement it was even taken into the Holy of Holies, the room reserved for the Holy Ark from whose lid the voice of the Shechinah would emanate whenever it addressed Moses. The words אשר אועד לך שמה, are referring to the presentation of the incense in the Holy of Holies, as distinct from the rest of the year when it is presented in the Sanctuary, the היכל.

This refers to the daily incense burning. . . Rashi is explaining that it does not mean to place some of it before the Ark as a remembrance; rather, to burn it.

VV. 36 u. 37. Das שמן המשחה spricht durch seine beiden Bestandteile, Öl und Wohlgeruch, die Bestimmung פרוש לריח ניחוח über Personen und Gegenstände des Heiligtums aus. Dieses ריח ניחוח als höchstes Ziel des ganzen Heiligtums in seiner reinsten, idealsten Verwirklichung drückt, wie bereits (zu Kap. 30, 1) bemerkt, das קטרת aus. Wir begreifen, wie das nationale Ideal des קטרת ebenso sehr wie das Gottessiegel des שמן המשחה vor Profanierung durch Nachahmung zu schützen gewesen sei. Eine Herstellung desselben in den gleichen Mischungsverhältnissen zum profanen Gebrauch ist eine Parodie des Symbols und eine Höhnung der Idee, die es ausdrückt. Ist doch ebenso die Nachbildung des Heiligtums und seiner Geräte unter das Verbot לא תעשון את (Kap. 20, 20) begriffen.

ושחקת ממנו הדק, “you shall beat some of it into powder;” this was necessary in order to fulfill what is written about the incense offering on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16,12: קטורת סמים דקה, “incense consisting of sweet incense beaten small;”

אשר אועד לך שמה WHERE I WILL BE MET BY THEE — All appointments for the purpose of speaking unto you which I shall make with you I shall confine to that place (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:22).

That I will set up to speak with you. . . Rashi is explaining: And why is it called “Tent of Meeting”? Because every meeting place and time that I will set to speak with you, will be only there.

במתכנתה means, according to the quantity of spices used by Moses.

והקטרת אשר תעשה, "And the incense which you are to make, etc." According to Keritut 6 the words: "you shall make," mean that Moses was to separate an amount needed for the daily incense offerings from the total on the day it would be used. This means that if an individual would compound an amount of incense of even half the daily portion offered on the altar, [the daily portion was divided into a half to be offered in the morning and the other half to be offered close to evening. Ed.] such an individual would be guilty of the most severe karet penalty; he would be cut off from his people (for all times).

'ושחקת ממנה וגו, the reason some had to be rubbed into fine particles was that on Yom Kippur the incense was to be of fine particles as we know from Leviticus 16,12 קטורת סמים דקה.

You shall do it only for My Name. I.e., it does not mean literally [to make incense] for Adonoy, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I was hungry I would not tell you [to feed Me], for Mine is the world and its fullness.” Similarly with (25:2), “Have them take for Me a terumah-offering”; [it does not mean literally for Hashem]. Gur Aryeh writes that Rashi explains this here, rather than on: “This shall be sacred anointing oil to Me” (v. 31), because here the verses contradict each other. It is written: “It shall be holy of holies to you” (v. 36), and: “It shall be sacred to you” (v. 37). Yet it is written also: “For Adonoy” (v. 37). Therefore Rashi explained: “‘It shall be holy for you’. . . meaning: You shall do it only for My Name.”

‘קדש תהיה לך לה IT SHALL BE UNTO THEE HOLINESS FOR THE LORD — This means that you must not make it except in honour of My Name.

לא תעשו, "you must not make it, etc." This means that even if the person making it had no intention of smelling the incense he had made he would still be guilty of a penalty though not the same penalty as if he had smelled the fragrance of the incense he had compounded. We derive this conclusion from the fact that the Karet penalty is mentioned in our portion only in verse 38 where the Torah speaks of someone smelling the incense.

להריח בה [WHOSOEVER SHALL MAKE LIKE UNTO THAT] TO SMELL THERETO [SHALL BE CUT OFF] — but you may make some according to these quantities of your own spices for the purpose of selling it to the community (cf. Keritot 5a).