פירוש על במדבר 8:27

Kap. 8. V. 1. In diesem Abschnitte wird die Geschichte der Entwicklung der aus Mizrajim Erlösten zum Gottesvolke wieder aufgenommen. Sie war mit dem 34. Kapitel des Buches Schmot, dem Kapitel der Bundeserneuerung nach gesühnter Egelverirrung, abgebrochen, um erst durch die Errichtung des Gesetzesheiligtums und die im ganzen dritten Buche und dem Anfange des vierten bis hierher diesem sich anschließende Gesetzgebung das Ideal niederzulegen, für welches Israel das Volk Gottes werden sollte, zu welchem aber es erst in dem ganzen Laufe der Jahrhunderte, ja, der selbst noch heute über unsere eigene Gegenwart hinaus reichenden Jahrtausende erzogen und herangebildet werden soll. Wir haben bereits im zweiten Buche angemerkt, wie gerade dieser Gegensatz, dieser erst nach Jahrhunderten und durch Jahrhunderte zu überwindende Gegensatz des wirklichen Israels der Gesetzgebungszeit zu diesem Gesetze und seinen Voraussetzungen und Anforderungen, das sprechendste Zeugnis für den göttlichen Ursprung dieses Gesetzes sein dürfte und es als das Unikum in der Geschichte der Menschheit kennzeichnet. Alle anderen Gesetze sind aus den Bedürfnissen ihrer Zeit und den in ihr gegebenen Voraussetzungen hervorgegangen, dieses Gesetz allein setzt sich als das absolute Höheziel menschlicher Gestaltungen auf Erden hin und wartet auf das Geschlecht, das für die Verwirklichung seines Ideals endlich reif geworden sein wird. —

Hinübergeführt in die Fortsetzung dieser Entwicklungsgeschichte werden wir durch die wiederholt gebotene Menoralichtpflege durch die Priester, die Einweihung der Leviten für ihre Dienststellung am Gesetzesheiligtume inmitten der Nation, die Belebung des Nationalbewusstseins des Gesamtvolkes als Gottesvolk auf Grund der immer neu im Pesachopfer zu begehenden Grundlegung des Israelberufes, und endlich den ersten Aufbruch und Weiterzug vom Berge der Gesetzgebung, der naturgemäss sofort in das Land der Verheißung hätte führen sollen, das für die Verwirklichung dieses Gesetzes durch dieses Volk für alle Zeit die Bestimmung trug und trägt. Hier macht mit V. 35 und 36, Kapitel 10, die Erzählung einen "Strich" — und führt uns in die Mitte des Volkslagers hinab, von nun an das Volk in seiner Entwicklungsbedürftigkeit für seine ihm gesteckten hohen Ziele uns kennen zu lehren.

בהעלתך WHEN THOU LIGHTEST [THE LAMPS] — Why is the section treating of the candelabrum put in juxtaposition with the section dealing with the offerings of the princes? Because when Aaron saw the dedication offerings of the princes, he felt distressed because neither he nor his tribe was with them in the dedication, whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life! Your part is of greater importance than theirs, for you will kindle and set in order the lamps” (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 5; see also Nachmanides).

WHEN THOU LIGHTEST THE LAMPS. “Why does the section dealing with the candelabrum follow [the section which tells of] the dedication-offerings of the princes? The reason is that when Aaron saw the dedication-offerings of the princes, he became disheartened because neither he nor his tribe participated with them in the dedication; whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: ‘By thy life! Thy contribution is [of] greater [significance] than theirs, for thou wilt kindle and trim the lamps every morning and evening.’”¹“Every morning and evening.” This is not found in our texts of Rashi. This is Rashi’s language, from a Midrash Agadah.²Tanchuma Beha’alothcha 5. — “Midrash Agadah.” Rabbinic texts on the Five Books of Moses are divided into two classes: “Midrash Halachah” (texts dealing mainly with the legal parts of the Torah), which consist of the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra [or Torath Kohanim] on the Book of Leviticus, and Sifre on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. Another set of texts deal mainly with the narrative, ethical and homiletical aspects of the Scriptures. These comprise two major works — the Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma. There is in addition a large group of smaller Midrashim that belong to this category. The generic term “Midrash Agadah” includes all this second group of texts.
But it is not clear to me why G-d consoled Aaron [by reminding him of his function] in lighting the lamps, rather than consoling him with the burning of the incense every morning and evening, which is [the specific function of his] with which Scripture praised him, as it is said, they shall put incense before Thee.³Deuteronomy 33:10. This was recited by Moses in praise of the whole tribe of Levi consisting of priests and Levites, and he singled out this function of the priests for special praise, thus indicating that the burning of incense was a highly significant act. So why did G-d not console Aaron with this special prerogative of his? Or [G-d could have reminded him of] all the offerings [performed only by his descendants], and the meal-offering of baked cakes [which is brought daily by the High Priest personally],⁴Leviticus 6:13-15. and the Service on the Day of Atonement which is only valid if done by him [i.e., Aaron and subsequent High Priests], and [by the fact that it is] he who enters into the innermost part of the Sanctuary, and he is the holy one of the Eternal,⁵Psalms 106:16. standing in His Temple to minister unto Him, and to bless in His Name,⁶Deuteronomy 10:8. and his entire tribe minister to our G-d! Moreover, what reason was there for Aaron’s uneasiness of mind [upon seeing the offerings of the princes]? Was not his [dedication-] offering greater than that of the [other] princes, for he offered up during those days — all the [seven] days of the initiation [of the priests] — many offerings? And if you reply that [he was disheartened because] his offerings were obligatory and he had been commanded to bring them, and therefore he was dispirited because he did not bring a voluntary offering for the dedication of the altar as they did — [this cannot be so] because the lighting of the lamps with which He consoled Aaron was also a duty which he had been commanded! [Therefore what consolation did Aaron derive for not sharing in the voluntary offerings by being given a commandment which was obligatory?]
But the intention of this homiletic text is to derive an allusion from this section [of the Torah] to the Chanukah (“Dedication”) of lights which occurred in the period of the Second Temple through Aaron and his sons, namely [Matithyahu] the Hasmonean, who was High Priest, and his sons.⁷See Vol. I, pp. 589-590. And I have found this explanation in the following text of Megillath Setharim⁸Literally: “Scroll of Hidden Things.” This was a kind of anthology of various subjects — law, tradition, Biblical exegesis, philosophy, as well as explanations of customs. It is possible that they were primarily notes which the author wrote down for his own benefit, not intending them for public use, hence its name — “Scroll of Hidden Things.” The book was popular in the era of the Rishonim [“the Early Scholars” of the eleventh and twelfth centuries]. It has been lost in the course of time. of Rabbeinu Nissim,⁹Rabbeinu Nissim lived in the first half of the eleventh century of the Common Era. He was the son of Rabbi Yaakov of Kairwan in North Africa, to whom Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon (see Vol. I, p. 97) addressed his famous letter, in which he gives a historical account of how the Mishnah was written and how the traditions were passed on through the later generations. After the death of his father, Rabbeinu Nissim together with Rabbeinu Chananel (see Vol. II p. 106, Note 45, and Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286) were the recognized authorities of the Kairwan community. Rabbeinu Nissim wrote a commentary on many tractates of the Talmud which is existing and is outstanding for its clarity of exposition. who mentions this tradition, saying: “I have seen in the Midrash: When [the princes of] the twelve tribes brought the dedication-offerings and the tribe of Levi did not etc., the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Speak unto Aaron, and say unto him: When thou lightest the lamps. There is another Dedication in which there will be lighting of the lamps, when I will perform through your sons miracles and salvation for Israel, and a Dedication which will be called by their name, namely, ‘the Chanukah of the sons of the Hasmonean.’¹⁰The sense of the verse here is thus: “It is you [Aaron and sons, through your descendants the Hasmoneans] who will kindle and trim the lamps in the days of the Second Temple.” Therefore He put this section [dealing with the lighting of the lamps] next to the section concerning the dedication of the altar.” Thus far is his [Rabbeinu Nissim’s] language.
And I have further seen in Yelamdeinu¹¹Tanchuma Beha’alothcha, 5. On the meaning of the term Yelamdeinu, see Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196. and also in the Midrash Rabbah¹²Bamidbar Rabbah 15:5. [the following text]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Go and tell Aaron — ‘Fear not! You are designated for something of greater importance than this. The offerings are brought only as long as the Sancutary is in existence, but the lamps will give light in front of the candelabrum forever; and all the blessings that I have given you with which to bless My children will never come to an end.’” Now it is an obvious fact that when the Sanctuary is not in existence and the offerings are not brought because of its destruction, the lighting of the lamps [of the candelabrum in the Sanctuary] also ceases [so what does the Midrash mean in saying that G-d promised Aaron that the lighting of the lamps would never stop]! Therefore [we must say] that the Sages of the Midrash were alluding to the lights of the Dedication of the Hasmoneans, which applies [on the festival of Chanukah] even after the destruction of the Sanctuary, in our exile. Similarly the priestly blessing¹³Above, 6:24-26. which is also juxtaposed to the dedication-offerings of the princes applies forever. Thus the Rabbis interpreted the proximity to the chapter of the dedication-offerings of the princes of both [the section] before and after it, in honor of Aaron who was not included with the princes [in those dedication-offerings].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that this section was placed next to [the verse above, stating, And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him …],¹⁴Ibid., 7:89. in order “to inform us that the Divine communication [to Moses] would come at night as well, for there [in the Tent of Meeting] the lamp would be burning and would not become extinguished.” But this is not so according to the opinion of our Rabbis, who say:¹⁵Mechilta Pis’cha 2. “Did He not speak to him [Moses] only in the daytime?” And if Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra would have understood the difference between the prophecy [experienced by] Moses and that of the other prophets,¹⁶Ramban clearly refers to the explanation of Rambam in his introduction to the tenth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, where he elucidates the ways in which the prophecy of Moses our teacher differed from that of all other prophets: “…Secondly, in the case of all other prophets, prophecy only comes to them either in the course of natural sleep … or when overtaken during the day by such a deep sleep as to be deprived of all consciousness, their minds being completely suspended … In the case of Moses, however, the word of G-d came to him during the day, and whilst he was standing between the two cherubim [of the ark of the covenant]” (see my translation of this introduction, in “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 275-276). he would not have thought so [i.e., that the Divine communication also came to Moses at night]; as Scripture states, If there be a prophet among you, I the Eternal do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so,¹⁷Further, 12:6-7. for his prophecy was not through a dream, since dreams take place when it is actually night. But the order of arrangement of these sections [of the Torah] is as I have explained,¹⁸In the introduction to this book, and above in Seder Naso 7:1. for Scripture’s purpose in this book is to complete the laws of the offerings and all that must be done in the Tent of Meeting. Now He had said originally, And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually,¹⁹Exodus 27:20. but He did not mention the candelabrum there, and therefore [one might have thought] that it indicates that they [only] have to kindle [the lamps] in the candelabrum when it is available, just as He said in [the section concerning] the making thereof, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it.²⁰Ibid., 25:37. But if it were perchance lost or broken [we might have thought that] they should light the lamps without the candelabrum, and that the candelabrum is not essential for the lighting, since the commandment is to cause a lamp to burn continually¹⁹Exodus 27:20. for all time. Therefore²¹The word “Therefore” is added in the Tur. He commanded again afterwards, [so that it would be applicable] at once and for all generations, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil,²²Leviticus 24:2. stating, He [Aaron] shall set in order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum,²³Ibid., Verse 4. meaning that he may only set the lamps in order upon the pure candelabrum. And since He completed here the account of the erection of the Tabernacle, He also finished all the laws of the lamps, and commanded that the seven lamps should always be burning for all generations in front of the candelabrum,²⁴In Verse 2 before us. just as He had mentioned at the making of the candelabrum, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it²⁰Ibid., 25:37. — but not without the candelabrum, and not unless all the lamps give light over against it. He did not mention the Tent of Meeting in this section, in order to instruct [us] that this [law] applies also in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem], for one might have thought that because there were no windows in the Tent of Meeting it was necessary to have this light, whereas in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem] where there were windows broad within, and narrow without²⁵I Kings 6:4. The windows were made in that way in order to indicate that it is not light from the outside world that comes into the Sanctuary but on the contrary — it is from the Sanctuary that the light goes forth to the world (Menachoth 86b, Rashi). [such a light] would not be necessary, therefore He did not mention here the Tent of Meeting.

בהעלותך את הנרות, when you kindle the six lamps,

דבר…ואמרת. speak…and say! We need to understand why the Torah wrote both "speak" and "say!" Also, why did the Torah choose two different expressions when referring to how Moses was to communicate with Aaron? Midrash Tanchuma 8 and others on our verse query the reason why the instructions about lighting the candlestick are written here instead of where the construction of the candlesticks is described. The Midrash answers that when Aaron observed that the princes of all 12 tribes had offered inaugural offerings for the altar, all except the tribe of Levi, he became despondent over the fact that neither he nor his tribe had been allowed to participate in this inauguration. Thereupon G'd assured him that his share in the inauguration would be greater than that of the princes who had just concluded bringing their respective offerings. G'd told him that he, Aaron, would light the candlestick in the Sanctuary on a daily basis and would prepare the oil and wicks both mornings and evenings. Thus far the words of the Midrash. These words themselves beg for an explanation. In what way did G'd console Aaron about not having participated in the inaugration of the altar when He told him he could perform duties relating to the candlestick? How is the candlestick and its function related to the altar and its function? Besides, why didn't G'd put Aaron's mind at rest by referring to all the public offerings he would offer on the altar on an ongoing basis as opposed to the princes who performed a one-time inaugural offering? He could offer the daily תמידים, the additional offerings on the festivals, as well as the twice daily portion of incense which would be offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. He even performed the rites when the bulls of the princes were placed on the altar and their blood sprinkled thereon. So why did G'd choose the matter of the candlestick as the vehicle which would appease Aaron?

'בהעלותך וגו, seeing that this is a procedure which is repeated daily it is mentioned here. Even though the Tabernacle had been completed, all the work had been done, the menorah was incomplete inasmuch as in order to remain functional the oil and the wicks had to renewed on a regular basis, and the lighting of the flame was required as an ongoing procedure on a daily basis.

בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you kindle the lights, etc.” The day on which the Tabernacle was erected was comparable to the day on which the universe was created. This is why just as the report of the creation of the universe began with G’d commanding that there be light, the Torah here begins with detailing how Aaron should kindle the lights of the menorah. The reason why the paragraph dealing with kindling the menorah was placed immediately after the paragraph describing the gifts of the princes on the occasion of the consecration of the Tabernacle, is, as Rashi has pointed out already, that Aaron had been upset that he had apparently not been given a role in those rituals. In order to set his mind at rest, G’d told him that He had reserved a more important role for him even than that of the princes, i.e. the kindling of the menorah. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s comments, asking why G’d consoled Aaron with the kindling of the lights, when He could so easily have pointed out to him that since he had been chosen for presenting the most welcome of the offerings, the incense, surely he must have realized that he had not been overlooked? There is a long list of sacrifices that is acceptable to Hashem only if offered by Aaron, or the High Priests after him, respectively, so that his mental depression seems totally unjustified? We must therefore try and understand the allegorical explanation quoted by Rashi in the name of the Midrash Tanchumah as referring to the Hasmoneans in the distant future, Aaron’s descendants, consecrating the entire Temple anew by lighting the menorah with oil that had been miraculously blessed by Hashem so that it burned for longer than could be expected (8 days instead of one day). Whereas on this occasion the inaugural rites were performed by members of the other tribes, not including the kindling of the lights, on that occasion, in the distant future, the kindling of the lights would become the central feature in the whole rededication of the Temple to the service of Hashem. Moreover, the consecration of the Temple in the days of the Hasmoneans was a more significant event than the consecration of the Altar, seeing that the Altar can only perform its function [the burning of animal sacrifices, etc. Ed.] as long as there is a Temple, whereas the consecration of the Temple by the Hasmonean priests was something of an enduring nature, seeing that we commemorate that event [the annual eight day celebration of Chanukkah and the kindling of the lights every evening. Ed.] still nowadays long after the Temple has been destroyed and there is no longer an Altar on which to offer animal sacrifices. It is clear therefore that the consecration of the Tabernacle was of a subordinate significance when measured against the millennia of Jewish history. Ibn Ezra states that the reason why the Torah attached our paragraph to that of the princes’ offerings is to teach that G’d communicated with Moses also at night, seeing that at least one light of the menorah would be burning around the clock. Nachmanides claims that Ibn Ezra’s comments do not conform to the opinion of our sages who claim that G’d communicated with Moses only during the day. [Rabbi Ch. Chavell, in his notes on Nachmanides’ commentary, points out that Abravanel has already justified Ibn Ezra’s commentary, and that what the sages meant was only that Moses did not receive communications from G’d at night, i.e. in a dream, such as other prophets. Ed.] Nachmanides adds that the sequence of the subject matters in our portion is justified, seeing that with these details about the kindling of the menorah the whole legislation pertaining to the offerings in the Tabernacle is concluded. The subject of the menorah and its function had commenced originally in Exodus 27,20 with the words: ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך כתית למאור להעלות נר תמיד, “you are to command the Children of Israel that they shall take for you pure, pressed olive oil for illumination, to kindle the light continuously.” In that verse the menorah had not even been mentioned. The impression left from that verse had been that the menorah be lit at all times as long as the menorah was itself in a usable condition. Should the menorah be stolen, become dysfunctional, etc., we would have assumed that the command to keep it lit would automatically have become redundant. This is why the Torah in Leviticus 24,4 elaborates על המנורה הטהורה יערוך את הנרות לפני ה' תמיד, that “Aaron shall arrange the lights on the ritually pure menorah before Hashem, continuously.” The condition that enables kindling the menorah is that it is in a state of ritual purity. Now, in our portion, when the Torah concludes with the subjects of the offerings, after the Tabernacle has been completed and become functional, the details of the seven lamps on the menorah, the décor on its arms, etc., are repeated once more. Even the fact that the lamp on the center shaft was more important than the three arms on either side of it is mentioned, seeing the lights on the arms were burning in the direction of the center shaft. The Tabernacle is not mentioned in our paragraph at all, as had it been mentioned we might have concluded that the need for the menorah existed only in the Tabernacle, a structure that was not equipped with windows. Solomon’s Temple, however, which had a number of windows, might not require artificial lighting during the daytime, at least. To avoid our arriving at such faulty reasoning the Torah skipped mention of the word “Tabernacle,” or its equivalent in our paragraph.

Because the flame rises. Rashi is answering the question: How is the term “When you cause to rise” appropriate for lamps such that Scripture writes בהעלותך (when you cause to rise) instead of בהדלקתך (when you light)? He answers that it is because the flame rises, meaning that this was why the terminology of ‘rising’ is appropriate. Rashi also answers another question: Nonetheless the Torah should have written “when you light,” so why does it write “when you cause to rise”? It is certain that the term “when you cause to rise” may also be appropriate regarding lamps, as Rashi explains “because the flame rises,” however the term “when you light” is more correct. He answers that it is written “when you cause to rise” in order to teach that “he is required to ignite…” However [one may ask another question:] in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20) regarding the lighting of the continual flame, Rashi only answers why it is written “to cause to rise” rather than “light.” He says that he is required to ignite [the lamp] until the flame rises by itself. The answer is that there it is written להעלות “to cause to rise” in the command form, therefore Rashi explains why the command was given with the term “to cause to rise” rather than the term “to light” which is a clearer command. He answers that because “he is required to ignite…” which is a component of the command, therefore it is written “to cause to rise.” See Re’m. Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:2) is the real source of this command, as Rashi explains there. The question is why did Rashi did explain anything there? The answer is that he relies upon his explanation in Parshas Tetzaveh about the term “to cause to rise” which was in the command form, as explained. Re’m explains similarly that a commentator will sometimes explain all matters that relate to a term, sometimes he will explain some of them and sometimes he will rely upon what he explained elsewhere. Therefore Rashi gave no explanation in Parshas Emor, even though the term “to cause the continual flame to rise” is written there.

V. 2. בהעלתך (siehe Schmot zu Kap. 27, 20). — מנורה ,אל מול פני המנורה im eigentlichen Sinne ist der die Mittellampe tragende Mittelschaft, aus welchem nach beiden Seiten je drei Arme hervorgehen, die ebenfalls jeder eine Lampe tragen. Es wird hier nun Aharon geboten, dass er die Seitenlampen von beiden Seiten der Richtung der Mittellampe auf dem Mittelschafte zukehren soll, so, dass alle sieben Lampen ihr Licht in diese eine Richtung vereinigen. Es ist dies nur eine nähere Ausführung des Schmot 25, 37 ausgesprochenen והאיר על עבר פניה Schmot zu 25, 39 haben wir die beiden Ansichten entwickelt, die hinsichtlich der Stellung der Menora im Heiligtume auseinandergehen. Nach der einen hatte sie die Stellung zwischen Nord und Süd, die Mittellampe war westwärts dem Allerheiligsten zugewendet, die drei Lampen rechts richteten ihr Licht von Nord zu Süd, die drei Lampen links von Süd zu Nord. Nach der andern hatte sie ihre Stellung zwischen Ost und West, ihr Mittellicht brannte gerade aufwärts auf dem Mittelschafte, die drei östlichen Lampen richteten ihr Licht westwärts, die drei westlichen Lampen ostwärts. In der ersten Stellung wäre der im Heiligtume zu pflegende Geist, der Gott in seinem Gesetze und in seinem um das Gesetz mit Israel geschlossenen Bundesverhältnisse suchende Geist, der mit seinen nordwärts gewandten Südlichtern das Ziel aller geistigen Erkenntnis in der Durchgeistigung alles Materiellen, und mit seinen südwärts gewandten Nordlichtern das Ziel alles Materiellen in dessen Hingebung an das Geistige als Fruchtboden für die Lichtsaaten des Guten und Rechten sucht, und mit beiden, dem das Materielle durchdringenden Geiste und dem dem Geistigen sich hingebenden Materiellen, nichts anderes, als die Verwirklichung des in dem Allerheiligsten ruhenden Gesetzes und der auf ihm als Verheißung ruhenden Gottesnähe anstreben will. In der andern Stellung kündigte sich das im Heiligtum zu pflegende Licht als der zu Gott hinaufstrebende Geist an, der mit seinen aus West nach Ost strahlenden Lichtern die aus dem im Allerheiligsten ruhenden Gesetze und aus der auf ihm ruhenden Verheißung der Bundesnähe Gottes zu schöpfende Erkenntnis dem seiner Heiligung und Weihe im Osten harrenden Israel entgegenträgt, und mit seinen aus Ost nach West gerichteten Lichtern alles Sinnen und Wollen des seiner Heiligung und Weihe harrenden Israels der aus dem göttlichen Gesetze und seiner Verheißung quillenden Erleuchtung und Belebung entgegenführt und mit beiden, mit dem in Israel zu verwirklichenden Geist des Gesetzes und mit Jisaels begeisterter Hingebung an diesen Geist, nichts als das einzige Hinaufleben zu Gott sucht und findet. In welcher Stellung auch immer sind diese מול פני המנורה einander zugewandten und im Mittellichte ihre Vereinigung suchenden und findenden sieben Lampen nichts, als die innigste Vereinigung der praktischen בינה, גבורה und יראת ד mit den theoretischen עצה ,חכמה und דעת zu einer von יראת ד getragenen, von יראת ד also belebten und vollendeten Blütenentfaltung des Geistes, dass ונחה עליו רוח ד dass auf dem also entwickelten Menschengeiste der Gottesgeist seine Ruhe nehme (Jesaias 11, 2. — Siehe Kommentar zu Schmot zur Menora, Kap. 25 Ende).

דבר אל אהרן, speak to Aaron, etc.; the commandment about lighting the lamps on menorah appears immediately following the consecration rites of the altar because we have heard about twelve tribal leaders each offering a sacrifice on that occasion, while the tribe of Levi, i.e. its representative, Aaron, has not been allocated any role in that important event. The Levites had started to grumble about having been excluded from these festivities. They wanted to know the reason why they had been excluded. As a result, G-d immediately told Aaron and his sons that what the representatives of the other tribes had done was only in the nature of something preparatory, whereas it had been reserved for them to do the actual consecration of the Temple/altar. The reader is referred by our author to Nachmanides’ lengthy and comprehensive commentary on this paragraph. Aaron is initially to involve his sons in these activities and subsequently also other members of the tribe of Levi.

בהעלתך lit., WHEN THOU MAKEST [THE LIGHTS] RISE — Because the flame rises upwards (עולה), an expression denoting “ascending” is used of kindling them (the lights), implying that one must kindle them until the light ascends of itself (Shabbat 21a). — Furthermore our Rabbis derived from here (from the expression בהעלתך) that there was a step in front of the candelabrum upon which the priest stood while preparing the lights (Sifrei Bamidbar 59).

אל מול פני המנורה, facing the lamp on the center shaft; this means that the wick is to be inclined towards this center shaft so that the flames will point in this direction from the respective sides of the menorah. Then, and only then,

אל מול פני המנורה, he was inclining the tips of the wicks on all seven lamps in the direction of the table to provide illumination for its surface.

בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you kindle the lamps, etc.” I am puzzled by the fact that here G’d apparently singled out Aaron for receiving these instructions, without including his sons at the same time. After all, any ordinary priest is entitled to perform the kindling of the lights on the menorah. When thinking about this it occurred to me that there is no problem seeing that the wording of what Moses was to tell Aaron was not a command at all. Aaron had not been told to light, i.e. תעלה, the lamps, but had been informed about the sequence in which the menorah’s lamps were to be lit. The same sequence would have to be followed by any priest who performed the ritual of kindling these lamps. It is possible that by addressing Aaron in the first instance, the Torah, alluded to the miracle of Chanukkah which occurred in the days of the Hasmoneans when they miraculously discovered a cruse of ritually pure oil, and a descendant of Aaron was able to proceed with the kindling of the menorah without having to wait a number of days until new oil would be prepared. Nachmanides writes that perhaps the words מחוץ לפרוכת יערוך אותו אהרן, “outside the dividing curtain Aaron is to arrange for the kindling of the lights” (Exodus 27,21), were an indication to Moses that his brother had been chosen for this task so that he understood the word ובניו which follows, as referring to after Aaron would have died, although subsequently not only the High Priest was allowed to perform this rite. This is also why the Torah reports in verse 3 that Aaron performed this rite, i.e. that as long as he was alive he would not delegate this task even to his sons.

That there was a platform. Even though we [already] learned from here that he had to ignite until the flame rises by itself, one may explain that the main source for expounding this is from the verse in Parshas Tetzaveh concerning the lighting of the continual flame, and here Rashi mentions it in passing. Another answer is that if it only came to teach that the flame should rise by itself, Scripture should have written “to cause to rise” and not “when you cause to rise.” And if it came only to teach about the platform then it should have written “when you rise up.” Rather the Torah writes “when you cause to rise” to expound both points. Re’m explains that the implicit meaning of this teaching (about the platform) and the one that the flame should rise by itself are evenly balanced; therefore [since neither is more implicit than the other] we are able to learn both.

This matter can best be understood in connection with Menachot 88. The Talmud there discusses the cleaning of the lamps on the candlestick and the filling up of the bowls (lamps) with half a log of oil each. The Talmud describes the removal of the bowls (lights) with their wicks, the bowl being deposited on the floor before being cleaned with a sponge and filled with oil and new wicks being inserted. According to the view that these bowls (lamps) were not detachable, the priest had to bend the candlestick in order to perform the cleaning of these bowls and the wicks (compare Rashi on the same folio).

Es waren, wie im Vorgehenden berichtet, die Fürsten der Stämme Israels mit dem Edelsten und Besten ihrer Habe, mit ihrem Silber und Gold, ihrem Mehle und Öl und würzigen Stoffen, mit dem Besten ihrer Herden zum Heiligtum hingetreten, hatten dieses alles zum Ausdruck der Hingebung aller Güter und alles Seins und Wollens an Gott und sein Gesetzesheiligtum und der Freude an dieser Hingebung für sich und ihre Stämme gestaltet und, indem sie damit ihre und ihrer Stämme einmütige Stellung zum Heiligtum bekundeten, damit zugleich die חנכת המזבח vollbracht und den Altar in die Wirksamkeit seiner Bestimmung eingeführt. Der Stamm Levi und Aharon sein נשיא (Kap. 17, 18), fehlten in dieser Kundgebung der Stämme Israels und ihrer Stammesfürsten. Ihrer war ja nicht das Mehl und das Öl, das Silber und Gold und die Würze der Wohlgerüche, ihrer ja nicht der Reichtum der Herden, sie standen ja überhaupt nicht zum Heiligtum, sondern beim Heiligtum, und das Heiligtum selber war ihr irdischer Anteil am Leben.

בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you light the lamps, etc.;” this command was issued on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected (and stayed up) because they started to light the lamps in order to teach that these lamps burned throughout the night, also. The light in the Tabernacle was like an eternal flame (Ibn Ezra) We find something similar in connection with the prophet Samuel, (Samuel I 34) 'ונר אלוקים טרם יכבה״״ויקרא ה אל שמואל“the lamp of G-d had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the Temple, when called to Samuel.” (Our author directs the reader to the commentary known as karney or, to follow up on this subject) בהעלותך את הנרות אל מול פני המנורה, “when you kindle the lamps towards the front of the menorah;” the priest or High Priest performing this procedure was to take up position facing the seven lamps on the menorah. As a result, the lights would all illuminate. The words: אל מול פני המנורה, do not refer to the words that follow: יאירו שבעת הנרות, as understood by Rashi, but as is clear from what Aaron actually did as reported in the verse following, אל מול פני המנורה העלה נרותיה, “he had lit the lamps while facing them.”A different interpretation: the words בהעלותך את הנרות, are to be understood literally. i.e. “when you raise the lamps;” you will then place the wicks in their positions. They are not considered as fixtures in their respective positions, seeing that we have read in Exodus 37,17: ויעש את המנורה, “he constructed the candlestick,” and subsequently we read: (Exodus 37,23) ויעש את נרותיה שבעה ומלקחיה, “and he made the lamps thereof, seven, and their tongs;”“ ,אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות He turned the seven mouths for the wicks towards the center shaft of the front of the candlestick, which faced the dividing curtain in the Sanctuary which was hung between the Sanctuary and the innermost holies housing the Ark. This would make sense according to the sage who claims that the position of the menorah was in a northsouth direction i.e. its broadside was facing the dividing curtain, in one direction whereas the opposite broadside faced the entrance of the Sanctuary. According to the sage who claims that the menorah was positioned in an eastwest direction, it would have faced the Table in the Sanctuary. This is how we can interpret what is written in Exodus 4,24: וישם את המנורה נוכח השולחן, “he placed the menorah opposite the Table.”

אל מול פני המנורה OVER AGAINST THE CANDLESTICK — i.e. over against the central lamp which is not on one of the branches, like the others, but on the body (the central shaft) of the candelabrum itself (cf. Menachot 98b).

יאירו שבעת הנרות, all seven lamps will fulfill their function of illuminating and being the conduits of spiritual light descending on to the Jewish people. [obviously, the individual lamps would be able to provide physical light before being positioned in the manner described. Ed.]
The mussar, allegorical lesson conveyed by the lights of the menorah is us that only by the “right” side representing preoccupation with eternal values, life in the future, working together with the “left” side which represents the concerns with physical life on our planet, will we be able to attain our purpose on earth. Our sages in Chulin 92 phrased it thus: אלמלי עלייא לא מתקיימא אתכליא, “if not for the input from celestial regions, spiritual input, the creatures on earth would not be able to survive at all.” [I have not found this precise quote, but it means more literally that if there were no wise people who could tutor the ignorant, the world as we know it would collapse. Ed.] In order for this universe to function as G’d wanted it to, all social levels of the people have to make their respective contributions.
A major function of the combined activity by the “tutored and the ignorant” is to ensure that G’d’s name would be hailed, revered and enthusiastically acknowledged by every segment of mankind, all of His creatures. An example of such a thing happening is found in Exodus 19,8 ויענו כל העם יחדו ויאמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה, the emphasis here being on the word יחדו, i.e. all the people in unison would combine to carry out G’d’s will.

אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות, “its seven lamps shall illuminate towards the center shaft of the menorah.” The commentators all ask that the wording is misleading, seeing that only 6 of the lamps can direct their light towards the center shaft. They answer that what is meant is that whereas the lamp on the center shaft illuminates the area perpendicularly above it, the other six lamps direct their light either to the left or to the right. Altogether there would be seven lamps.

Upon which the kohein stood. You might ask: Surely a man is four amos high, corresponding to twenty-four tefachim, while the height of the menorah was only eighteen tefachim, as Rashi explains in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:35). If so, why does he need a platform? The answer is that the tefachim of the Temple were ‘extended,’ such that the eighteen tefachim of the menorah were equal to twenty-four regular tefachim, i.e. equal to the height of a man. If one comes to clean the lamps he needs to see inside the lamps in order to clean them, therefore he needed a platform. (Divrei Dovid) Were all the kohanim of equal height? Surely it is possible that a kohein has a slightly shorter stature. Thus there needs to be a platform there so that every kohein can comfortably perform the service of the menorah.

Had I been present when the scholars discussed if the lamps were fixtures that could not be detached from their respective arms of the candlestick, I would have proven that they were most certainly detachable. Firstly, there is the fact that although the Torah gives us details of all the various parts and decorations of the candlestick, it did not mention anything about the lamps being part of the "cast candlestick." Only the parts which formed part of the single chunk of gold were mentioned in the Torah. Had the lamps been part of that chunk, the Torah would have had to report it. Another proof that these lamps were removable can be gleaned from Numbers 4,9 where the Torah described how the candlestick was to be wrapped up prior to transportation. The Torah there specifies a number of separate components. 1) the candlestick of the light, 2) and its lamps, 3) and its tongs, 4) and its snuff-dishes, 5) and all the oil vessels thereof. This is a clear indication that just as the tongs were separate from the main shaft so the lamps were separate components. If the lamps had been an integral part of the shafts the Torah had no business to mention them separately as they could not have been packed separately.

Während daher die Fürsten Israels ihre Chanuckaopfer zum Altare brachten und damit der Beziehung der Nation zum Heiligtum Ausdruck gaben, ward Aharon und sodann (V. 5 ff.) seinem Stamm ihre Stellung zum Heiligtum in Mitte der Nation zum Bewusstsein gebracht. להעלות את הנרות also, dass אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות, der Lichter also zu warten, dass die ganze Mannigfaltigkeit aller geistigen Bestrebungen sich in dem Streben zu Gott durch Verwirklichung seines Gesetzes vereinige, das ist die Aufgabe des Priesters und die Bedeutung und Wirksamkeit der Leviten im Volke fürs Heiligtum. Was in jenen gehobenen Tagen der Weihe durch die Fürsten der Nation zum Ausdruck gekommen, dessen haben die Priester täglich zu warten und dafür zu sorgen, dass dieser Geist der alltägliche werde und das ganze Leben der Nation, ihrer Bestimmung getreu seiner geistigen und sittlichen Vollendung unablässig entgegenreife. Dieser Priesteraufgabe hatte daher Aharon in allseitiger Zuwendung der Lichter zum Mittellichte den stillen Ausdruck im Heiligtum zu geben und, fügt sofort

יאירו שבעת הנרות, “the seven lamps shall provide illumination. This would refer to the six lamps, three on either side of the center shaft of the candlestick. According to our author this would be the correct text in Rashi, but the scribes of Rashi’s manuscripts have omitted a word by mistake, i.e. the word האמצעי, “the centre shaft” (the lamp on it)

יאירו שבעת הנרות SHALL THE SEVEN LAMPS GIVE LIGHT — the seven lamps: this central lamp itself which naturally gave light over against the shaft (the פני המנורה) and the six lamps which were on the six branches, viz., the three on the east side of the central shaft should have their wicks turned towards the central one, and similarly the three on the west should have the ends of their wicks turned towards the central one (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 59). And why was this? In order that people should not say: He (God) is in need of its (the candlestick’s) light (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 5).

Their wicks. Meaning that since it is written “shall the seven lamps cast light,” one is forced to say that it refers to the wicks, since they cast light. For if it refers to the lamps, the cups (containing the oil), it should have said “toward the face of the menorah shall the seven lamps tilt.” You might ask: The verse writes “toward the face of the menorah” meaning that all seven lamps should cast light towards the lamp of the middle branch, but Rashi explains that only six cast light towards the middle lamp. The answer is that Rashi is answering a different question: “Shall the seven lights cast light” implies that all of them cast light before the middle branch, i.e. above it, which is termed the ‘face of the menorah.’ However this is not possible. Granted that the lamp on the middle branch casts light above it, however the six other lamps only illuminate the area above their own branches. Such is the manner of all lamps, which cast light upon themselves. He answers that the six other lamps that were on the six branches also cast light towards the middle branch. Because of the six lamps that were on the six branches, the three eastern ones turned towards the middle … meaning that the ends of the wicks were bent towards the middle branch, and the same with the western ones. Thus “the seven lamps cast light” means that in this fashion the seven lamps cast light towards the middle branch. Re’m expands upon this. (See Responsa of Rivash siman 400). (Gur Aryeh) raises a difficulty: If this is so, the Torah should have said “the six lamps cast light” because only six cast light toward the menorah. Some explain that the verse is to be understood as follows: “When you light the lamps, towards the face of the menorah” meaning that when you light them the lamps should be towards the menorah — six should face toward the middle. But “the seven lamps shall cast light” is a separate phrase meaning that in this fashion the seven lamps should cast light.

In Chronicles II 4,20 where the candlesticks for Solomon's Temple are described we read: "and the candlesticks and their lamps." This means that the lamps are not included when one speaks of the candlesticks. Rashi comments as follows on that verse: "This is stated in order to disabuse the commentators of the belief that the lamps were part of the cast part of the candlestick. This is why the verse mentions the נרות, lamps, separately. Rashi continues at some length on the whole subject of the candlestick. At any rate, the plain meaning of the verse indicates that the lamps were detachable.

Let us now examine the answer G'd gave to Aaron according to the Midrash. G'd wanted Aaron to know that the task of taking the candlestick apart daily when he would clean the lamps and then reassemble them constituted a daily inaugural. In effect, Aaron put the candlestick together every single day. Every time he would light the candlestick would be like inaugurating the candlestick anew. According to the Midrash G'd told Aaron that he would light and clean the lamps evenings and mornings whereas in actual fact we find that he lit the lamps only in the evenings. We are told in Tamid 6,9 that the נר מערבי the lamp in the middle shaft of the candlestick, had to burn both night and day, i.e. it was cleaned only in the evening and immediately relit. [This is not actually spelled out there. Ed]. Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 24,2 comments as follows: "The words להעלות נר refer to the lighting of the נר תמיד, the eternal flame, the lamp which is to keep burning around the clock. In the event that it became extinguished, Aaron would clean it and rekindle it at once using the fire from the copper altar." Thus far Torat Kohanim. This means that the נר מערבי burned around the clock. At any rate, we see that Aaron inaugurated the candlestick daily whereas the princes performed only a single inauguration of the altar. The expression דבר introduced the commandment which was the necessary introduction to any commandment G'd conveyed to the people or to a specific person. The expression ואמרת describes that Moses should talk so softly when instructing Aaron that he would put his mind at ease concerning the inauguration service of the altar he had not been a part of. Moses did this by pointing out that Aaron's privileges were far greater than those of the princes. We could also interpret the word ואמרת as similar to the word והאמרת in Deut. 26,17, where it implies the spiritually elevated status of the people addressed.

According to the view that the lamps were an integral part of the candlestick, one must assume that the tubes which contained the oil were very narrow and that the whole candlestick had to be bent until it was almost horizontal in order to perform the daily cleaning of the lamps and the wicks. This too could be understood as a daily renewal, i.e. inaugural process.

בהעלותך את הנרות. "when you 'raise' the lamps," etc. Why did the Torah use the term "raise" when it could have used the normal term for lighting, i.e. בהדליקך? Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 15 as well as in the Sifri offer a variety of explanations about this, such as that the lamps were to be raised. Another problem with our verse is why G'd did not issue the instructions to kindle the candlestick on the first day when the first of the princes offered his offering, seeing that the kindling of the candlestick was part and parcel of the regular service in the Tabernacle? Moreover, the very commandment we have here has been recorded already in Exodus 25,37, i.e. והעלה את נרותיה והאיר על עבר פניה? "He who kindles its lamps will cause its light to shine towards its 'face' (centre)." Furthermore, why does the Torah speak about יאירו, they will cause it to give light, instead of תאיר, you shall cause it to give light? After all, the verse commenced in direct speech? When you compare the verse we quoted from Exodus you will find that the entire verse is in the third person, i.e. והעלה,…והאיר.

When you take into consideration our introduction to this subject from the Talmud in Menachot you will find that the wording makes perfect sense. The reason the verse commenced with the word בהעלותך is because seeing that the lamps were not an integral part of the candlestick G'd had to give a commandment that whenever the lamps would be removed for cleaning purposes this should be done in a prescribed sequence, i.e. in the order in which the lamps shone towards the centre shaft, the eternal light. The entire commandment was not an instruction to light the candlestick but to arrange its lights in a certain order. This explains why it would have been inappropriate to use the direct תאיר, "you shall let them give light."

This also explains why the Torah had to repeat what appeared at first glance to be a repetition of the instructions given in Exodus 25,37. Up until now Moses had performed these tasks during the seven days of the inauguration of the Tabernacle from the first to the seventh of Nissan. G'd was concerned that Aaron would think that it did not matter in which order the various lamps would be cleaned and filled with oil for the following day. In fact, Aaron would have reasoned that logic dictated that the various lamps be cleaned in a sequential order either from the left to the right, or from the right to the left and not as described in the Talmud that five lamps on one side were cleaned followed by two lamps on the other side. G'd had decided that this was the appropriate moment to instruct Aaron in these details and to impress on him that the correct order for this procedure was an essential part of the whole service. By not informing Aaron of these details when he was informed about other details of the sacrificial service, G'd wanted to demonstrate that He held Aaron in such high esteem that He had accorded him tasks that were more important than those performed by the princes.

אל מול פני המנורה, towards the front of the candlestick, etc. The reason for this line may be understood when we consider the Talmud Shabbat 22 where the words "outside the dividing curtain" are discussed. The Talmud asks if G'd needed the light of the candlestick? Was it not a fact that the Israelites marched through the desert for forty years receiving their light from G'd and not vice versa? The light of the candlestick therefore was merely testimony to the nations of the world that G'd's Presence resided amongst Israel. The Talmud goes on to ask "what kind of testimony was this?" Rav answered that the middle one of the lamps which did not receive any more oil than any of the other six lamps of the candlestick and which was used to kindle the other lamps nonetheless kept on burning even though all the other lamps went out in the morning. It was the last lamp to be cleaned and replaced on the following evening. Accordingly, the Torah gave instructions to light the lamps so that they faced the lamp in the middle to draw attention to the fact that everyone should point to the miraculous nature of that lamp in the centre called נר המערבי.

Tossaphot query why the Talmud speaks only of the 40 years the Israelites were in the desert when they enjoyed G'd's light. They say that all of mankind needs G'd's light at all times throughout the ages? They amend the text of the Talmud somewhat. Our author does not feel that Tossaphot's question was justified so that it needed to be answered. A look at the Talmud in Menachot 86 would take care of Tossaphot's question.

In view of the fact that the function of the candlestick was only to demonstrate the miracle of the נר המערבי burning longer than the lamps on either side, why did the Torah require a candlestick with seven lamps? Three lamps, one on either side of the נר המערבי would have sufficed! We may say that the other lamps were there for aesthetic reasons. It would not do to furnish the Tabernacle with a candlestick containing fewer than the accepted number of lamps.

If we were to use a symbolic approach we could see in the seven lamps a hint at the seventy nations, each lamp representing 10 nations. The idea would be that the miraculous nature of the lamp in the centre represents the Jewish nation; the other lamps all focus on the Jewish people, who in turn represent the concept of מערב, West, a concept familiar to students of kabbalah. The fact that all the other lamps burn out symbolises the eventual disappearance of all the other nations, only Israel surviving. The fact that the lamps burned only at night are a reminder of our exile, which is called לילה. The time of redemption is referred to by our prophets as בקר, morning, compare Isaiah 21,12. At that time the lights of the nations will go out only Israel's light remaining. When kindling the candlestick, the priest doing so should also think that its light should face the front of the candlestick, i.e. he should think of the needs of the Jewish people and that G'd should turn His face towards them.

ויעש כן אהרן AND AARON DID SO — This is stated in order to tell the praise of Aaron — that he did not deviate [from G-d's command] (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 60).

AND AARON DID SO. The meaning thereof is to state that it was Aaron who lighted the lamps all his life. For although the commandment may be validly performed by his sons, as it is said, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order,²⁶Exodus 27:21. it was he who was zealous in the fulfillment of this great commandment which alludes to an exalted matter and sublime secret.²⁷See my Hebrew commentary p. 222. Perhaps he deduced an allusion to this [i.e., that during his lifetime it was he who was to light the lamps] from the verse, Without the Veil of the Testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron set it in order from evening to morning,²⁸Leviticus 24:3. [implying] that it was him whom G-d chose [to light the lamps] as long as he lived. And it is for this reason that now too, He said, Speak unto Aaron … When thou lightest,²⁹Verse 2. and He did not say “Speak unto Aaron and his sons … When ye light [the lamps].”

ויעש כן אהרון, Aaron did so, etc. Why did the Torah have to write again אל מול פני המנורה, seeing this was already implied in the words: "Aaron did so?" The words: as G'd had commanded," are also superfluous as they are part of the line "Aaron did so." Perhaps we can explain this as follows: The words ויעש כן refer to the dismantling of the candlestick, i.e. the removal of its lamps. The Torah added the words כאשר צוה ה׳, to tell us that he cleaned the lamps so that the whole candlestick should be as new. This would justify what the Midrash had called the inaugural aspect of the cleaning of the candlestick. The reason the Torah adds the words אל מול פני המנורה is to tell us that Aaron kept to the sequence as he had been instructed, i.e. that the cleaning proceeded towards the centre lamp and not from right to left or from left to right. [Compare Yuma 33 for a full discussion of that procedure. Ed.] The reason the Torah wrote כאשר צוה, was to inform us that contrary to the fact that Aaron had received G'd's command during the daylight hours so that I might have expected him to carry it out during daylight hours, he did so at the time concerning which G'd commanded it, i.e. in the evening. Although we have said that the נר מערבי was lit by day, on occasion, this occurred rarely and always signified that Israel was out of favour, else that light would not have gone out prematurely. As long as Aaron was alive this never happened. The words also imply a compliment for Aaron. Whatever Aaron did he did not do in order to be viewed as distinguished but he did so purely in order to fulfil G'd's command.

To indicate his virtue. For if not so, why is it necessary to write “Aharon did so”? Would one think that he did not do what Hashem commanded him through Moshe? Even though we would know on our own that he fulfilled Hashem’s command, nonetheless, it is great matter and therefore the Torah attests to his righteousness, as it does in similar cases. One may inquire: why does it repeat “towards the face of the menorah he lit”? It appears that Rashi explains (v. 2) [that the lamps were directed] “towards the middle” so that one not say that He requires the light. Rather it is in order to elevate you above the nations, as the Midrash says “all the time that the lamps are lit, you will rule over the nations.” Even though the Rabbis say that Yisroel only received the Torah in order that no nation would rule over them, as it is stated “חרות (engraved) on the Tablets” (Shemos 32:16) do not read חרות (engraved) rather חירות (free). If so, why was the menorah needed? The answer is: Due to the severity of the sin of the golden calf which Aharon made, the nations would rule, as the Torah states “I had said, ‘You are godlike beings…’” (Tehillim 82:6). This was Aharon’s virtue, that he did not deviate from lighting opposite [the face of the menorah], even though doing so recalled his sin, which made the menorah necessary. R. Yaakov Triosh.

V. 3 hinzu, wenn Aharon dieses tat und der vom Priester zu pflegenden Zuwendung aller geistigen Bestrebungen der Nation zu Gott und seinem Gesetze in entsprechender Richtung der Menoralampen Ausdruck gab, so war dies keine Priesteranmaßung, sondern nur Erfüllung dessen, was Gott Mosche geboten hatte.

וזה מעשה המנרה AND THIS IS THE WORK OF THE CANDLESTICK — “This” — we may gather that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed it to him (Moses) with His finger, because he was puzzled by it (how to construct it); and that is why it states, “this is [the construction of the candlestick]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 61; Menachot 29a).

AND THIS WAS THE WORK OF THE CANDELABRUM, BEATEN WORK OF GOLD. The meaning thereof is to allude [to the law] that throughout all [future] generations the candelabrum must be beaten [and fashioned out of one solid piece of metal], and that this is essential [for the validity of the candelabrum and lighting the lamps therein]. This is why He expressly mentioned at the beginning [that it is to be] beaten work, but did not mention [here] that in the making thereof there should be branches [going out of the candelabrum], knops, and cups shaped like almond-blossoms.³⁰Exodus 25:33. But He did mention [here that it be of] gold, for it is likewise a commandment for all generations that it be made of gold, in order to glorify the House of our G-d.³¹Ezra 9:9. Then He repeated [in the verse before us] it was beaten work, in order to say that it is only [failure to make it] of beaten work that invalidates the candelabrum, but [the requirement] of gold is not [indispensable, since it is valid if made of any metal], and certainly its other embellishments [such as the cups and knops do not invalidate it if they are missing]. And thus have our Rabbis said in the Sifre³²Sifre Beha’alothcha 61. and in Tractate Menachoth.³³Menachoth 28a.

וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה, the very composition of the menorah as a single chunk of gold, with all its lights facing the lamp on the central shaft, symbolises this united endeavour to serve G’d, i.e. to look towards the spiritual light as symbolised by that in the center of the menorah, its “trunk.” המנורה מקשה, to underline the unity, the whole people jointly striving to attain the same spiritual objective.

וזה מעשה המנורה, And this is how the candlestick was made; The reason this verse is repeated here a third time after we have read it in Parshat Terumah as well as in Parshat Vayakhel, can be explained both according to those who hold that the lamps were detachable as well as according to the scholars who hold that the lamps were an integral part of the cast candlestick. We have explained that the word בהעלותך as distinct from בהדליקך meant that the candlestick had to be taken apart in order for the lamps to be prepared. This in turn might have led one to believe that the remainder of the candlestick did not have to be cast from one piece seeing the lamps were included in the description of the "candlestick." We could therefore have applied an exegetical method of דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא (compare Baraitha of Rabbi Yishmael, introduction to Sifra on Leviticus) according to which other parts of the candlestick would also qualify even if they were detachable. The fact that the verse specifically mentions the word מקשה, cast, would only have referred to the initial construction of the candlestick. Once it had been made according to G'd's instructions it would have been permissible to detach sections in a manner that allowed them to be re-assembled. The Torah had to repeat the manner in which the מנורה was to be made to ensure that we would not arrive at such a faulty conclusion. The repetition means that the candlestick was to remain exactly as it had been cast originally. The scholars who hold that the candlestick was cast including the lamps can accept this interpretation also.

וזה מעשה המנורה, “and this was the workmanship of the menorah:” Ibn Ezra writes that the wording of the Torah here is to be understood as pointing to the unique workmanship with which this menorah had been made. Nachmanides writes that the words וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה are to be read together, meaning that the unique feature of the workmanship of this menorah was that it was cast completely out of a single chunk of gold and then hammered into the desired shape. This feature was to be preserved throughout the generations whenever for whatever reason the menorah in the Temple had to be replaced. The fact that only this feature, מקשה has been repeated here, whereas the decorative features on the arms of the menorah have not been repeated here indicates that the indispensable feature was the fact that the entire menorah was to consist of a single chunk of gold. [When the people could not afford gold, a chunk of silver would also be acceptable. Ed.] (based on Sifrey)

Since he had difficulty with it. Meaning that the word “this” refers to the instruction, but the actual [making the menorah] was only at the time when Betzalel made it. Initially Moshe had difficulty with it until Hashem showed him by pointing with the finger. He again had difficulty until Hashem said to Moshe “take a kikar…” see above in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:31).

V. 4. וזה מעשה וגו׳. Wenn die an dieser Stelle wiederholte Anweisung Aharons zur Pflege der Menora nur in deren Beziehung zu den vorangehenden Chanuckaopfern der Fürsten und in der Stellung Aharons zu ihnen ihre Begründung hätte, schwerlich würde dann dabei mit diesem Verse auf die Konstruktion und die Konstruktionsarbeit der Menora hingewiesen und uns die Darstellungsart derselben vergegenwärtigt worden sein. Die ganze Konstruktion der Menora ist ja ausführlich im Buche Schmot gegeben. Allein wir glauben mit der Annahme nicht zu irren, dass diese erneute Hinweisung auf die Bedeutung und Aufgabe Aharons und des Stammes Levi an dem Eingange dieses Abschnittes gleichzeitig auch auf die in ihm beginnende Fortsetzung der Entwicklungsgeschichte Israels zu seiner großen Bestimmung vorbereiten soll. Wenn diese Geschichte ergibt, wie fernab Israels Anfang im Ganzen noch von der Höhe jener Hingebung und jenes Aufgehens in Gott und sein Gesetz war, die das Ideal seiner Aufgabe bilden, so war doch bereits ein ganzer Stamm in ihm, der schon seine Begeisterungstreue für Gott und sein Gesetz bewährt hatte und daher zu Dienern, Vertretern und Verfechtern dieses Ideals im Volke gewählt zu werden gewürdigt worden war, dem Gott das Ideal "seiner Sittenvollendung und Erleuchtung" überantworten und erwarten konnte, dass wie sie in der Vergangenheit שמרו אמרתו, so auch in Zukunft ינצרו בריתו und יורו משפטיו ליעקב ותורתו ישראל (Dewarim 33, 8-10); — so sollen wir nur vor allem auf die Menora hinblicken und uns ihre Konstruktion und Bedeutung gegenwärtig halten: מקשה זהב עד ירכה עד פרחה מקשה הוא! Ein durch Hammerschlag, durch wiederholte Hammerschläge vom Wurzelstock bis zur Blüte aus einem Stück vollendeter goldener Baum ist die מנורה, ist der Träger der zu Gott und seinem Gesetze aufblühenden Lichtfülle im Heiligtume! Durch und durch golden, in unveränderlicher, der Läuterung nicht bedürftiger Reinheit gegeben ist das Geistige, dessen Darstellung und Pflege das Heiligtum bestimmt ist. Allein sein Träger ist ein Baum, ein vom tiefsten Wurzelstock bis zur höchsten Blüte sich entfaltender Baum. Im Individuum — und so auch im Volke — erfordert die Entwickelung zur höchsten Geistesblüte: Zeit. Das Individuum zählt nach Jahren, nach Jahrhunderten das Volk. Aus einem Stück ist der Baum gebildet. In der Masse, aus welcher er gebildet wird, ist bereits der Stoff zu allem vorhanden, Stoff zum Wurzelstock und Stoff zur Blüte. מקשה, schwere Hammerschläge von Israels und der Welten Meister bildeten die rohe Masse zum Wurzelstock und haben noch einst die letzte Blüte am Lichtfruchtwipfel zu bilden, מקשה זהב עד ירכה ער פרחה מקשה היא; was Mosche fürs Heiligtum gestaltete, war Darstellung des Jisraels, das Gott ihm als den Baum der ganzen Zukunft Israels gezeigt hatte, המאמין לא יחיש — :כמראה אשר הראה ד׳ את משה כן עשה את המנורה (Jes.28, 16).

וזה מעשה המנורה, “and this was the work of the candlestick;” this verse is one of three verses with which Moses had difficulty, according to our sages. This is hinted at by the word: וזה. (Compare Talmud tractate Menachot folio 29) According to Sifri here the three were: our verse, the second one the verse in Exodus 12 about the position of the moon at new moon, and the third was the verse dealing with creeping animals. The reason that the Sifri did not include the word זה in זה יתנו, “this they shall give” (the half shekel coin in Exodus 30,13) is that Moses had no problem imagining the size and shape of a coin.

מקשה means batediz in O. F., — [English = beaten], an expression of the same meaning as in (Daniel 5:6) “[and his feet] knocked (נקשן) one against another”. There was a block weighing a talent of gold and he (who made the candlestick) beat it with the hammer, and cut away with a chisel in order that its branches might be made to spread out as they should do, and it was not formed of separate pieces made into a whole by joining them together.

ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH THE ETERNAL HAD SHOWN MOSES, SO ‘HE’ MADE THE CANDELABRUM — that is, Moses mentioned above, for it was he who made efforts to learn about it and directed the making thereof by command. And so the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:³²Sifre Beha’alothcha 61. “[This is stated] in order to praise Moses, [by emphasizing] that he made it exactly as the Holy One, blessed be He, told him to make [the candelabrum].” And Rashi wrote: “So he made — [the word ‘he’ refers to] the one who made it [i.e., to whomever it was that made it, and does not refer to Moses]. But a Midrash Agadah²Tanchuma Beha’alothcha 5. — “Midrash Agadah.” Rabbinic texts on the Five Books of Moses are divided into two classes: “Midrash Halachah” (texts dealing mainly with the legal parts of the Torah), which consist of the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra [or Torath Kohanim] on the Book of Leviticus, and Sifre on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. Another set of texts deal mainly with the narrative, ethical and homiletical aspects of the Scriptures. These comprise two major works — the Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma. There is in addition a large group of smaller Midrashim that belong to this category. The generic term “Midrash Agadah” includes all this second group of texts. has it: [The subject ‘he’ refers to the Eternal, for] it was made of its own accord [without human intervention], by the Holy One, blessed be He.”

Lump. Lump is a term meaning “piece.”

עד ירכה עד פרחה UNTO THE SHAFT THEREOF, UNTO THE FLOWERS THEREOF — Its ירך was the boxlike base which was above the feet (thus, the feet stood beneath this; cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:31), hollow, like the candlesticks of princely houses (lit., as the candlesticks standing before the princes).

Shears. [Like] scissors.

עד ירכה עד פרחה — This phrase means as much as: the whole body of the candlestick and everything attached to it.

The menorah proper. Rashi is resolving the apparent contradiction: Here it implies that it was only beaten from its base until its flowers, while in Parshas Terumah (ibid.) it is written that it was entirely beaten out.

עד ירכה — FROM THE BASE which is a massive part.

Delicate work. Meaning that from its largest point until the thinnest it was all one piece. Thus the word עד (lit. until) is used in the sense of “between.” Rashi makes a similar explanation in Parshas Bo (Shemos 11:5) referring to the verse “from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on the throne…”

עד פרחה — UP TO ITS FLOWER, which was the most slender piece of work in it — all was beaten out of the lump. The double form of עד … עד) עד) is used in this sense (to include everything), as e.g., (Judges 15:5) “[and he (Samson) burnt up everything] from the shocks to (עד) the standing corn and to (ועד) the vineyard and the olives".

According to the form. Rashi is answering the question: “According to the vision” implies the sense of an appearance which denotes color, but it is not correct to say that Hashem showed him the color of the menorah. Alternatively “according to the vision” refers to a vision of prophesy, meaning that just as he saw in the prophetic vision of fire, they too should make a menorah of fire. However, this cannot be so because he did not make it of fire. Therefore Rashi explains “according to the form” meaning that “according to the vision” is understood as “according to the form,” as we see written elsewhere, “Observe and make them according to the form” (Shemos 25:40). The “form” was described in terms of a “vision” because by seeing [the vision] he learned its form.

כמראה אשר הראה וגו׳ ACCORDING UNTO THE PATTERN WHICH [THE LORD] HAD SHOWED [MOSES] — i. e. according to the shape which he had shewn him on the mountain, as it is said, (Exodus 25:40) and see, that thou make them after their pattern [which was shewn thee in the mountain]".

The one who made it. Meaning the one who made all of the utensils; this was Betzalel.

כן עשה את המנורה SO HE MADE THE CANDELABRUM — “he” means, the one who made it (not Moses, as might be assumed from the wording of the text; the subject is suppressed and it means no more than: so was the candlestick made). A Midrashic explanation is: By the instrumentality of the Holy One, blessed be He, it was made of itself (according to this the subject is “God” who is mentioned immediately before) (Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 3; cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:31).

It was made spontaneously. This is explained in Parshas Terumah. This Midrash disagrees with the first explanation.

Now after the firstborn and the Levites had been counted,³⁴Above, 3:39-43. and the Levites were commanded about their [individual] work and charges, and He gave them the wagons,³⁵Ibid., 7:5-8. He completed the commandments referring to the priests with the [laws of the] candelabrum; then He came to give the commandments concerning the Levites so that they could begin their service, and therefore it was necessary to purify them and to effect atonement for them. This is the reason why this chapter [of the purification of the Levites] is put in juxtaposition to this [section on the candelabrum]. He finished [the laws of the Levites] with a commandment applicable for all generations: From twenty and five years old and upward ‘yavo litzvo tzava’ (they shall come to be counted among the host) for the work of the Tent of Meeting.³⁶Further, Verse 24.
Now Rashi commented: “Here it says, from twenty and five years old; but in another place it is said, from thirty years old!³⁷Above, 4:3. How are these [contradictory verses to be reconciled]? From twenty-five years of age the Levite comes to learn the laws of the service, and he studies for five years, and at the age of thirty he performs the service. From here [we derive the principle] that if a pupil studying under his master does not see progress in his study after five years, he will never see such progress.” If this is so, the expression yavo litzvo tzava³⁶Further, Verse 24. means that “he shall come and assemble among those who are gathered” for the work of the Tent of Meeting, meaning that he is to stay with them and continually observe the service [of the older Levites] by day and night, in order to learn the laws of the service in theory and practice. This is why He did not state here “to do service,” as He said above [From thirty years old and upward … ‘to do’ service],³⁸Ibid., Verse 23. For since Scripture speaks there of the Levites above the age of thirty years, it uses the expression ‘la’avod avodah’ (to do service). Here, however, it refers to the five-year period of their training; hence the expression ‘ba’avodath’ (in the service), as they were not yet permitted to do the actual service. but He stated, ‘yavo litzvo tzava’ (they shall come to be counted among the host) ‘ba’avodath’ (for the work of) the Tent of Meeting,³⁶Further, Verse 24. meaning that he is to come among those who are gathered for the purpose of the service. But I do not know whether this [explanation that there was a five-year period of training for the Levites] is the unanimous opinion of our Rabbis, for I find it taught in the name of a single Rabbi in the Sifre:³⁹Sifre Beha’alothcha 62. “Rabbi Nathan says: One verse states, From twenty and five years old etc.” And it furthermore appears that these words [of the Sifre as quoted by Rashi] are merely Scriptural support for the practice of the pupils [i.e., the new Levites] who used to study the laws of the service for five years.
According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the [Levites] counted by the hand of Moses and Aaron were aged thirty years old and over, and it is they whom he appointed every one to his service, and to his burden.⁴⁰Above, 4:49. But here He commanded that every Levite who [although not counted by Moses] knows himself to have reached the age of twenty-five years, is permitted to do the service, and may come with all the desire of his soul⁴¹Deuteronomy 18:6. to work with them and help them in the service, but he may not be a chief officer⁴²Jeremiah 20:1. over any particular task. And the reason for this is that every person pays attention to [the passing of] his decades, since there are physical changes at these stages, therefore he knows when he reaches the age of twenty or thirty; for even his neighbors, relatives, his father and mother and his children notice it and inform him of it. But when a person reaches twenty-five years of age, they do not notice it so much; therefore He only commanded Moses to go to the trouble of counting those Levites above the age of thirty, when a man is recognizable by his years. And so did David say, And the Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upward.⁴³I Chronicles 23:3. Thirty is the age when a person attains full strength (Aboth 5:24).
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the plain meaning of Scripture is that from thirty years old they were to do the work of bearing burdens, and from twenty-five years old they did work in the Tent of Meeting.⁴⁴On the nature of the work in the Tent of Meeting, see Ramban on the verse that follows. But this is not correct. For there also [when speaking of the Levites who were more than thirty years old] it is said, all that came to perform the service, to do the work in the Tent of Meeting,⁴⁵Above, 4:23. and it is also said [of this group], to serve and to bear burdens.⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 24. Moreover, it is written of the Sanctuary: These were the sons of Levi after their fathers’ houses, even the heads of the fathers’ houses, according to their numberings, in the number of names by their polls, who did the work for the service of the House of the Eternal, from twenty years old and upward. For David said: ‘The Eternal, the G-d of Israel, hath given rest unto His people, and He dwelleth in Jerusalem forever; and also the Levites shall no more have need to carry the Tabernacle and all the vessels of it for the service thereof.’ For by the last ordinances of David the sons of Levi were numbered from twenty years old and upward. For their station was at the side of the sons of Aaron for the service of the House of the Eternal, in the courts, and in the chambers.⁴⁷I Chronicles 23:24-28. Thus it is stated that by the last ordinances of David when the House [of G-d] is built and the Levites no longer have to carry [the parts of the Tabernacle] on their shoulders, and their service will be only in the courts, and in the chambers, he counted them from twenty years old and upward, while at first [before the building of the Sanctuary] he counted them from the age of thirty upwards.⁴³I Chronicles 23:3. Thirty is the age when a person attains full strength (Aboth 5:24). And according to Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s words, he should have counted them from twenty-five years old [since this is, according to him, the age for general work in the Sanctuary as opposed to the work of carrying its parts]!

V. 5. Siehe über Bedeutung dieser Levitenweihe im Zusammenhange mit den vorangegangenen Chanuckaopfern der Fürsten und der nachfolgenden Fortsetzung der Entwickelungsgeschichte Israels das zu Versen 2 und 4 Bemerkte. An dem Tage, an welchem die Aufrichtung des Heiligtums vollendet war, dem 1. Nissan, dem achten Tage der מלואים, an welchem die Weihe der Priester ihre Vollendung erreichte und die חנוכה-Opfer der נשיאים begannen, ward auch diese Weihe der Leviten angeordnet. Es war die פרה אדומה (Kap. 19) am zweiten Nissan vollzogen und die angeordnete Levitenweihe am dritten vorgenommen (ספרי zu נשא Kap. 7, 1; Gittin 60 a). — וטהרת אותם. Aus מחנה לויה war טומאת מת nicht verwiesen, und wenn der Dienst der Leviten nur im Wachehalten außerhalb des Heiligtums und im Tragen des zerlegten auf der Wanderung zu leisten gewesen wäre, sie hätten schwerlich der טהרה von טומאת מת, die hier offenbar durch die הזית מי חטאת erzielt wird, bedurft. Den heiligen Geräten durften sie erst nach deren Einhüllung nahen, und wenngleich selbst nach völligem Abbruch die Idee des Heiligtums, wie zu Kap. 2, 17 bemerkt, ihren Einfluss auf מחנה לויה und מחנה ישראל bewahrte, so war doch מחנה שכינה aufgehoben (siehe תוספו׳ Sebachim 61 a). Und ihren Wachtdienst dürften sie auch wohl nur außerhalb der קלעי החצר, also in מחנה לויה gehalten haben. Auch im מקדש scheint dieser Beruf sie nur außerhalb der עזרת ישראל, also ebenfalls במחנה לויה geführt zu haben (siehe Middot I, 1; siehe jedoch מל׳מ zu הל בית הבחירה VIII, 4). Allein, wie bereits oben Kap. 4, 47 bemerkt, bildeten einen wesentlichen Teil ihres Dienstes am und im Heiligtum die Gesänge, שיר, womit sie die Nationalopfer, קרבנות צבור, zu begleiten hatten, und dieser Teil ihres Berufs rief sie allerdings täglich in die innersten Altarräume hin, die kein טמא מת betreten durfte.

קח את הלוים means, win them over with fine words: “Happy are ye that ye are privileged to be servants of the Omnipresent!” (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 8:2.)

קח את הלוים, "Take the Levites! etc." Rashi explains that the word "take!" means by means of words. Apparently Rashi means that Moses was to separate the Levites from the camps of the Israelites and make a separate camp for them seeing the Levites had to guard their ritual purity more than ordinary Israelites. The proof is to be found in the words וטהרת אותם, "and purify them!" Clearly what concerns the Torah at this point is the need for the Levites to maintain a state of ritual purity.

קח את הלוים, “take (aside) the Levites, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why this paragraph was written here is to teach us that whereas only Aaron would perform the kindling of the lights, there were many other functions connected with the Temple service in which the Levites could participate, thus lightening the burden of the priests. [My edition of the Ibn Ezra describes the Levites as having been scattered among all the tribes, and they were now to be concentrated in one area. The same supposedly applied to the other tribes, also. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that after the firstborn and the Levites had been counted, they lined up in front of Moses awaiting his instructions. They were presented with the wagons that the princes had donated ready to commence their diversified duties around the complex occupied by the Tabernacle. There was an immediate need to ritually purify the Levites, who previously had not needed to be especially concerned about this in their daily routines.

קח את הלוים מתוך בני ישראל, “take the Levites from among the Children of Israel, etc.” The paragraph dealing with the separation of the Levites was written immediately after that of the Menorah, as the former was the exclusive domain of the priests, whereas now the Torah prepares the Levites for assuming their duties. The next paragraph deals with the Passover as an historical commandment remembering the Exodus, a commandment involving every single Israelite. This is the meaning of 9,2: “The Israelites shall make the Passover.” You will observe therefore that these paragraphs have been arranged in a careful manner in a descending order of those to whom they apply, i.e. the Priest, the Levite, the Israelite. The reason that G’d had to say: “take the Levites from among etc., etc.,” was that until then they had been an integral part of the other tribes.

Take them with words of persuasion. [The Torah] does not mean to physically “take” them, in the sense of an acquisition and the bringing of something into one's domain. The Levites were not acquired and they were not brought into his domain. See Parshas Lech Lecha (16:3) Bereishis on the verse “Sorai, wife of Avrom, took.”

קח את הלוים, “take the Levites;” this line was said on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected; (Talmud, tractate Gittin 60) seeing that the laws pertaining to the Levites were recorded in writing on that day, as on that day they commenced the part of their service that involved their daily songs of praise. The paragraph was written in chronological order, and the two previous paragraphs, one of which commenced with הקרב את מטה לוי, (Numbers 3,6) and the other which commenced with the words: ואני הנה לקחתי את הלוים, (Numbers 3,12) these paragraphs referred to the position where the Levies encamped around the Tabernacle. After the Tabernacle had been erected and the positioning of the flags had been arranged and the lights of the menorah had been kindled, G-d (Moses) ordered the Levites to commence their daily service. The paragraph dealing with the Levites’ service was written next to that of the kindling of the lights in order to tell us that the priests were to busy themselves with that at the same time as when the Levites were performing their service. Apart from that they would assist the Levites in their service, [seeing they were Levites also. Ed.] (Ibn Ezra)

מתוך בני ישראל, “from among the Children of Israel.” Up until that time they had been part of the ordinary Israelites. (Ibn Ezra).

הזה עליהם מי חטאת SPRINKLE UPON THEM WATER OF PURIFYING — water in which the ashes of the Red Heifer are mingled; on account of those among them who might have become unclean through contact with dead persons.

והעבירו, the vocalisation ve-he-eviru means that it is a modified version of the future tense known as vav hahipuch, the letter ו reversing the tense. Had the vocalisation been veha-aviru it would have been an imperative mode, just as in Exodus 8,4 העתירו אל ה', “plead with the Lord!”

הזה עליהם מי חטאת והעבירו תער על כל בשרם, “sprinkle upon them water of purification, and let them pass a razor over their entire flesh.” Ibn Ezra points out that the shaving of their flesh had preceded their being sprinkled with the waters of purification. [He derives this from the switch by the Torah from the singular הזה, an instruction to Moses, whereas the word והעבירו is in the plural, referring to something the Levites had already done.]

וכה תעשה להם לטהרם הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “so you shall do to them to purify them.” The מי חטאת refers to the ash of the red heifer. The need for this was due to people who had been contaminated through contact with the dead of the people who had been executed due to their involvement in worshipping the golden calf. At the time Moses had issued instructions to the Levites to kill the guilty persons even if they were close relatives of the Levites (Exodus 32,27).

For some of them were defiled by contact with the dead. Not by other forms of impurity, because other forms of impurity do not require sprinkling.

V. 7. הזה עליהם מי חטאת וגו׳ siehe Kap. 19,. 19. Dieses Ansprengen mit dem מי חטאת durfte nicht vor dem dritten Tage der טומאה geschehen, und musste dann am siebten wiederholt werden, הזית שלישי ושביעי, und, wie wir bereits zu Bereschit 1, 11 bemerkt, auch wenn an einem späteren Tage geschehen, war die erste הזיה immer in der Bedeutung des dritten Tages zu begreifen, so dass die zweite הזיה erst nach vier Tagen, als am siebten, vorgenommen werden konnte. Hier wird nun die anzustrebende טהרה durch das unmittelbar hinzugefügte הזה עליהם וגו׳ entschieden als eine טהרה von טומאת מת bezeichnet, so dass das folgende והעבירו וגו׳ וכבסו וגו׳ nur als zur הזיה gehörende Vollendung der טהרה erscheint, was ja auch der Schluss והטהרו ergibt, womit die zu erlangende טהרה als das Resultat aller vorhergehenden Handlungen erscheint. In der Tat gehört ja zu הזיה auch טבילה, die am siebten Tage nach geschehener zweiten הזיה vorzunehmen war, und diese טבילה ist hier, wie Wajikra 11, 25 u. 28 und sonst durch כבוס בגדים ausgedrückt. Es begreift das die טבילה des Leibes und der Gewänder (siehe Wajikra 11, 25). Es ist hier jedoch ein sonst nicht bei טמא מת vorgeschriebener Akt angeordnet, והעבירו תער וגו׳, der seiner Stellung nach entschieden zur טהרה gehört und zwar, den Akzenten nach, der sonst am siebten Tage vorzunehmenden טבילה vorangefügt ist. Ganz hiermit übereinstimmend lehrt auch נשא) ספרי zu 7, 1 nach unseren Ausgaben des ספרי; in der jüngst mit הגהות הגרא׳׳וו ז׳׳ל erschienenen Ausgabe sind die vier Worte durch Klammern als Interpolation bezeichnet): תחת הזאה שנייה גלחן. Ausführlicher in ותחת הזייה שנייה שהיו צריכין הלויים לחזור מפני :רבות שהיו כלם טמאי מתים במה שהרגו בעובדי העגל צוה המקום לגלחם במקום הזיה של יום שביעי. Wir haben bereits zu Bereschit 1, 11 die Ansicht geäußert, dass die erste הזיה der Erhebung der vegetativen Seite, des geschlechtlich genießenden Lebens, des Menschenwesens aus dem Bereiche der sittlichen Unfreiheit, die zweite jedoch, die הזיה des siebten Tages, der Erhebung des Menschen der Tat in das Bereich der sittlichen Freiheit gelte. Dass העברת תער die Aufhebung isolierender Selbstheit zum Bewusstsein bringen soll, haben wir bereits wiederholt zu erkennen geglaubt. Wenn daher eine so völlige Enthaarung, העברת תער על כל בשר, den Leviten in dem Momente ihrer Berufsweihe ein völliges Aufhören alles bisherigen Fürsichseins, ein völliges Ein- und Aufgehen ihres ganzen Wesens in den Dienst des Allgemeinen in eindrucksvollster Weise zum Bewusstsein brachte, so dürfte wohl sichs begreifen, wie eine solche Entkleidung des wirkenden Menschen von jeder Selbsthörigkeit, ein solches Bereitstellen der ganzen Persönlichkeit für den Dienst nationaler Zwecke, den Eintritt des Mannes der Tat in das Bereich sittlicher Freiheit in positivster Weise bezeichnete, und somit hier für die טהרה der Leviten גלוח die Stelle der הזיה שניה vollkommen vertreten konnte.

הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “sprinkle the water of purification on them;” it is impossible to say that this command was issued on the day when this paragraph was revealed, as on the day when the Tabernacle had been erected the procedure of burning the red heifer had not yet been performed. (Jerusalem Talmud tractate Megillah 3,3, and quoted by Rashi on Gittin folio 60) The red heifer was burned on the day following. We therefore have to understand the sequence as being as follows: it is taken for granted that the sprinkling of the purification waters took place after the procedure with the red heifer had been performed. (Numbers chapter 19) Even though the Levites were obligated to purify themselves in anticipation of performing their service as otherwise they could not have sung their songs, since the day when the Tabernacle had been erected, we must assume that they used the oil with which they had been anointed in lieu of the waters containing the ash of the red heifer. Commencing with that day, it became the task of the Levites to dismantle the Tabernacle and to reassemble it as the progress of the Israelites’ journeys demanded this. Prior to that, when they needed to become purified they used either blood from the altar or some of the oil of anointment. The Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4 states that the water of the red heifer took the place of blood which had been used previously in the procedure of purification.

והעבירו תער AND LET THEM SHAVE [ALL THEIR FLESH] — I have found in the work of R. Moses the Preacher the following: Because they were made propitiatory substitutes for the firstborn who had worshipped the idol (the Golden Calf), and it (idolatry) is called (Psalms 106:28) “offerings to the dead”, and the leper is also called dead (cf. Numbers 12:12), it (Scripture) requires them to shave their body like lepers.

והעבירו תער על כל בשרם "They should pass a razor over their entire flesh." The instructions to pass a razor over the entire flesh of the Levites includes the beard and sideburns. The Levites were required to shave just as one who is afflicted with tzoraat (Lev. 14,9), being that they replaced the firstborn who had previously functioned as priests. The firstborn had become disqualified for further service due to their involvement in the sin of the golden calf, and were hence considered as having been associated with זבחי מתים, offerings addressed to the dead (as opposed to the living G’d). When someone is afflicted with tzoraat he is also considered as equivalent to the dead. These Levites had not yet been purified and in their present state they could not have commenced their sacred duties. This is why the Torah writes: “after that the Levites may come and perform their service,” in connection with the Tabernacle (verse 15).

Who practiced idolatry. (Minchah Blulah) Even though others who practice idolatry are not required to shave, these were different because they served the golden calf and were afflicted with leprosy. As the Rabbis expounded the verse “for it is פרוע (revealed), for Aharon has פרעה (revealed) it” (Shemos 32:25) where they learn a gezeirah shavah to the leper — where the Torah writes “his head shall be פרוע (unshorn)” (Vayikra 13:45).

הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “sprinkle water of purification on them” Seeing that from that day on they were charged with the dismantling and reassembling the Tabernacle, they would have to undergo this sprinkling on the third and seventh day of a seven day period. [This editor finds it difficult to reconcile this with the Torah’s statement that on occasion the Tabernacle was put up only for a single day, as the Israelites moved on again as soon as the cloud above it moved. (Numbers 9,1823) Ed.] The reason that this was needed was that it was impossible for the Levites not to have been in contact with dead bodies while the people were encamped, especially after the sin of the spies when dying had to have become a daily occurrence.

והעבירו תער על כל בשרם, “and let the cause a razor to pass over all their flesh;” they had to do this every time prior to the sprinkling of the ash in the water of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of their purification ritual. Rashi mentions in his commentary here that he found in the writings of Rabbi Moshe hadarshan, that seeing that the Levites had functioned as the instruments of atonement for the firstborn who had been guilty during the episode of the golden calf, and that was called a זבחי מתים, “offering of the dead,” and the “leprous” (מצורעים) people also referred to as “dead,” [compare Numbers 12,1113. Ed.] the Levites required shaving of all body hair as required from “leprous” people during their purification process after the priest has declared them as healed. (Leviticus chapter 14)

ולקחו פר בן בקר AND LET THEM TAKE A YOUNG BULLOCK, — and this was to be a burnt offering, as it is said, (v. 12) “and thou shalt offer the one [as a sin offering] and the other as a burnt offering”, and it (a bullock) was the communal offering prescribed (Numbers 15:24) in case of idol worship committed by the community (here the firstborn are regarded as a community).

What does the Torah teach [by specifying] ‘a second’? Though it is written “and the second sheep…” (Bamidbar 28:4) regarding the Tamid offering, this was because it is [also] written “the first sheep.” However here it is not written “the first,” therefore the terminology of “a second” is not appropriate.

V. 8. פר בן בקר ,ולקחו וגו׳: es treten die Leviten in ihrer Gesamteinheit, in dem Bewusstsein ihrer künftigen Berufsarbeit, als פר, als Arbeiter im Dienste Gottes hin und geloben im חטאת: sich stets auf der sittlichen Höhe dieses Berufs zu halten, und im עולה samt dazu gehöriger מנחה: stets thatkräftig zu den Höhezielen ihres Berufes mit der ganzen Energie ihres Wesens emporzustreben, und nur von dem Standpunkte dieses Strebens aus alle von Gott ihnen werdende Nahrung und Begüterung zu würdigen. In mehrfacher Beziehung zeichnet sich aber die Anordnung dieser Levitenמלואים aus. Die Bestimmung des ersten פר ist nicht ausgesprochen, und nur aus V. 12 erkennen wir, dass er עולה sein soll. Während ferner bei Aharons מלואים (Wajikra 2, 9) auch in der Anordnung חטאת voransteht, steht hier dasselbe nach. Während ferner ein jedes sonstige חטאת, dessen Blut nur auf den מזבח החיצון kommt, den כהנים zum Genuss wird, wird dieses חטאת nach Horiot 5 b nicht gegessen, sondern verbrannt. Wir haben diese Eigentümlichkeiten bereits zu Kap. 6, 14 besprochen und deren Motiv in der geschichtlichen Tatsache gefunden, die der Erwählung der Leviten zu Grunde lag. Wir fügen hier nur noch hinzu, dass sich hierdurch auch der Wechsel der Personen ולקחו וגו׳ ופר שני וגו׳ תקח erklären dürfte. Es ist damit noch deutlicher gesagt, dass dieses הטאת nicht aus "ihnen", nicht aus einem Rückblick auf ihre Vergangenheit, sondern aus dem Hinblick auf die Zukunft hervorgehe, die jetzt durch Mosche an sie herangebracht wird, daher nicht ולקחו, sondern: תקח.

ולקחו פר בן בקר, “then let them take a young bullock, etc,” this was to serve as a consecration rite for the services they would perform henceforth. An alternate interpretation: they have to take a young bullock seeing that the firstborn whom they replaced had served the golden calf at the instruction of others, at that time. We derive this from the line in Exodus 32,4: אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods, Israel.” In other words: someone, the mixed multitude seduced the Israelites. We find in Numbers 15,24: “then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it having been hidden from their eyes, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, etc,” The subject there is the person who had inadvertently committed the sin of idolatry

ופר שני AND ANOTHER BULLOCK [THOU SHALT TAKE TO BE A SIN OFFERING] — What is the force of the word שני, the second? (There is no corresponding word אחד at the beginning of the sentence!). But it is used to suggest a comparison between the two sacrifices: How is it in the case of the burnt offering? It is not permitted to be eaten (for it is entirely burnt on the altar)! So, too, is this sin-offering not permitted to be eaten (in spite of being a חטאת חיצונה which as a rule may be eaten; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 9:11). And in this fact (that the חטאת prescribed was not eaten) there is some support in the statement of Torath Cohanim just quoted for his (R. Moses the Preacher’s) view (that the עולה which is paired with it was that enjoined for idolatry committed by the community) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 3 4). — I, however, say that it (the fact that this חטאת was not to be eaten) was an occasional (exceptional) decision (הוראת שעה) (contrary to the rule of a חטאת חיצונה, and not because it was intended as a חטאת לע"ז as asserted by R. Moses), for if his view were correct they would have had to offer a goat (as prescribed in Numbers 15:24 not a bullock) as a sin offering to expiate for idolatry together with a bullock for a burnt offering mentioned here.

ופר שני, “and a second bullock, etc.;” in commenting on the word שני, second, Rashi points out that the sin offering when applicable, must precede the offering of a burnt offering. [How could a burnt offering be welcome before the Lord as long as the person guilty of bringing a sin offering for his atonement has not first done so? Ed.] The point of the Torah using this sequence therefore is to teach us that just as no parts of a burnt offering may be eaten by the donor or the priest, so in this instance, no part of the sin offering may be eaten either. Our author, in elaborating on that Rashi, adds that the Levites used this bullock as their consecration offering as is clear from Leviticus 9,11,where it is spelled out specifically, and it was a sin offering.

That it was a temporary ruling. Meaning that when Rashi explains “so the sin-offering was not eaten” even though other sin-offerings are eaten, this was a temporary ruling. And you should know that it was a temporary ruling, because they should have brought a goat as a sin-offering for idolatry along with the bullock burnt-offering, as is normal when the congregation performs idolatry. Why then did they bring a bullock for the sin-offering — it must have been a temporary ruling, therefore regarding this matter (eating the offering) it was also a temporary ruling. However even without this, we could still say that it was a temporary ruling. For external sin-offerings (those offered outside the Sanctuary) are eaten, but this one for the inauguration of the Levites, who were installed through it, was burned. One should not say that this sin-offering was offered inside the Sanctuary, given that it was burned and then say that “just as a burnt-offering is burned so too the sin-offering was burned,” that it is offered inside. R’em.

תקח לחטאת, “you shall take as a sin offering.” When it came to “taking,” i.e. sanctifying and setting the offering aside for its purpose, the Torah mentions the burnt offering first. The reason is that the more valuable one of these two bullocks was the one used for the burnt offering. Nonetheless, when it came to the sequence of which of these two animals would be offered on the altar first, the sin offering took precedence. The Torah paid the Levites a compliment, by not requiring them to offer a male goat as a sin offering, for if it had insisted on this, the impression could have been created that the Levites had to atone for the inadvertently committed sin of idolatry. They had not been guilty of that. (B’chor shor)

והקהלת את כל עדת AND THOU SHALT GATHER THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY [OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] TOGETHER — Because the Levites were made, so to speak, an expiatory offering in their stead, let them come and stand at their offering and put their hands upon them (the Levites) as is prescribed in the case of an offering (cf. Leviticus 1:4).

And stand near. Even though the Levites were only an atonement-offering for the firstborn, as explained above, nonetheless, since the firstborn were part of the congregation of Yisroel, they were termed the entire congregation of Yisroel as if they were all of Yisroel.

.והקרבת את הלוים לפני אהל מועד , “you shall present the Levites at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting;” we find a similar construction in Leviticus 14,11, where the priest is presenting the person to be purified at the entrance of the Tabernacle, i.e. “before the Lord.”

V. 10. וסמבו וגו׳ (siehe zu Kap. 1, 4). Mit dieser סמיכה spricht die Nation aus, dass alles mit den Leviten vorzunehmende Folgende in ihrem Namen geschehe und es ihr Wille sei, dass die Leviten ihre Stellvertreter dem Heiligtum gegenüber werden.

And Bnei Yisroel shall lay. The Levites were like an offering that atones, because they were set apart for Torah and service in the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, Bnei Yisroel were commanded to treat them as an offering, with the laying of hands and waving.

וסמכו בני ישראל את ידיהם “and the Children of Israel shall place their hands, etc;” the “Children of Israel” referred to here are the firstborn for whom the Levites had served as atonement. Every firstborn Israelite would place his hands on the Levite who was to perform that service for him.

Bnei Yisroel refers to some of the great men of Israel who were emissaries for all of Israel.

וסמכו בני ישראל את ידיהם על הלוים, we find this kind of procedure also in Numbers 27,18, where G-d tells Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor, i.e. וסמכת ידך עליו, “you are to place your hand upon him.” Whenever this procedure is mentioned in the Bible it means that authority is being transferred by the person placing his hand or hands on the person to be appointed. The first person to do so was Yaakov in Genesis 48,14, where he placed his right had on Joseph’s younger son Ephrayim, indicating that he should be treated as his firstborn.

והניף אהרן את הלוים תנופה AND AARON SHALL MAKE A WAVING WITH THE LEVITES — just as the guilt offering of the leper (to whom the Levites are compared in some respect; cf. Rashi on v. 7) required waving whilst alive. — Three times is the command of waving the Levites mentioned in this section (vv. 11, 13, 15): the first refers to the sons of Kohath; therefore (because it is they who are referred to) Scripture adds with regard to them, “that they may execute the service of the Lord” — for it was upon them (the sons of Kohath) that the service of the most holy objects: the Ark, the table, etc., devolved. The second refers to the sons of Gershon, and therefore Scripture adds with regard to them, “a waving for the Lord”, for upon them devolved the service of the holy (though not the most holy) objects: the hangings and the catches which were visible in the Holy of Holies. The third refers to the sons of Merari.

והניף אהרן את הלוים תנופה, “Aaron shall wave the Levites as a wave-service.” The word תנופה, “waving,” appears three times in this paragraph It appears in verse 11 as “Aaron shall wave the Levites...in the presence of the Lord.” It appears again in verse 15 ”you shall perform a wave-service with them.” It appears a third time in verse 13 in a similar connotation. According to Rashi the reason it appears three times is once each for the Kehatites, once for the Gershonites and once for the Merarites. This is the reason why the Torah varies the job-description of the Levites each time, once speaking of עבודת ה', i.e. the Kehatites who carried the Sanctuary (literally), i.e. the sacred vessels including the Holy Ark. When the Torah justified the other wave-offering describing the Levites in question as (כי עבודת הקדש עליהם (7,9, this was a job description of the Kehatites. Concerning the Gershonites the Torah merely writes 'תנופה לה, “a wave-offering for the Lord,” seeing that they too carried the woven materials of the roof and the courtyard. The third group of Levites, the Merarites who transported the beams, the sockets, etc., are referred to simply as undergoing a תנופה waving, but there is no mention of the word לה', “for the Lord,” seeing that this group was furthest from the center of sanctity. At the end of the whole paragraph (verse 21) we find once more that “Aaron waved (all) the Levites as a wave-offering in the presence of the Lord,” in order to show that all the Levites had qualified. As to the meaning of the words נתונים נתונים המה לי, “for presented, presented they are to Me,” in verse 16, this means that they have been presented to the Lord to perform either the song and music or the work of transportation, as the case may be at different times. Alternatively, these words are a justification for the appointment of the Levites to these sacred tasks in recognition of when they had presented themselves as totally dedicated to G’d during the golden calf episode.

Requires waving. A leper is termed “dead” as it says at the end of the Parshah “please, let her not be like the dead” (12:12) and the Levites were as an atonement for the firstborn who worshiped idols, which is termed “sacrifices of the dead.” Therefore, the Levites required “live waving” like the guilt-offering of a leper. Furthermore, the waving of the Levites would only be possible while they were alive.

V. 11. והניף אהרן וגו׳. Dreimal kommt in diesem Akt, der Levitenweihe תנופה vor: Verse 11, 13 und 15. Die Bedeutung der תנופה-Handlung als Ausdruck der "Widmung" eines Objektes, des Zuwendens, ist bekannt. Die Weihe der Leviten vollzieht sich nun in einer dreifachen Widmung, wie diese in Versen 16-19 erläutert wird: Israel widmet sie Gott, Gott widmet sie Aharon und seinen Söhnen, Aharon und seine Söhne widmen sie dem Dienste des Heiligtums. Es ist daher im Namen Gottes, im Namen der Nation und im Namen Aharons, dass die Leviten ihre Stellung innenehmen und ihren Beruf zu erfüllen haben, und diese drei Beziehungen ihres künftigen Berufes werden durch die drei תנופות zum Bewusstsein gebracht. Hier zuerst die Übergabe der Leviten von Israel an Gott: והניף וגו׳ לפני ד׳ מאת בני ישראל והיו לעבד את עבדת ד׳.

והניף אהרן את הלוים מאת בני ישראל, “and Aaron is to wave the Levites (as an offering) from the Children of Israel;” Aaron was chosen to do this as he was the agent appointed for this by the nation.

Three wavings. Rashi does not ask why the verse states three wavings, because one may answer that it is a decree of the Torah that he had to wave them three times. However, now that Rashi explained “just as the leper’s guilt-offering requires waving…” and the guilt-offering of a leper only requires one waving, he asks why are three wavings required here?

V. 12. והלוים יסמכו וגו׳. Wie sie diesen ihren "Dienst Gottes", dem sie fortan angehören, in "ausharrender Treue" und in "tatkräftigem Hinanstreben" zu erfüllen geloben, das sprechen ihre חטאת- und עולה-Stiere aus, und damit treten sie eine, von keiner Schwäche irgendwelcher Vergangenheit getrübte, völlig neue Zukunft an לכפר על הלוים)).

על ראש הפרים, “on the heads of the bullocks;” on the head of each one of them.

והנפת אותם, Aaron waved them first, followed by Moses. (compare verse 11)

V. 13. והעמדת וגו׳. Die עבודת ד׳, in welche die Leviten mit ihrer Widmung an Gott getreten, reicht weiter als ihre bloße Beziehung zu Aharon und der Dienst am und im Heiligtum. Sie umfasst die Vertretung des Gesetzes, die "Wahrung des Bundes" im Volke mit, für welchen sie sich mit der Gottestat gegen den Egelabfall geadelt. Innerhalb dieser Gotteshörigkeit im allgemeinen wird ihnen aber nun auch die besondere Hingebung an die von den Priestern zu versorgenden Zwecke. Daher: והעמדת וגו׳ לפני אהרן וגו׳ והנפת אתם תנופה לד׳. Diese תנופה drückt deren Widmung an Aharon aus. Es bleibt aber diese Widmung eine תנופה לד׳: nur für Gotteszwecke, nicht für Privatzwecke, werden sie den Priestern untergeordnet.

והעמדת את הלוים לפני אהרן ולפני בניו, “and you shall position the Levites in front of Aaron and his sons;” this was to show the people that the Levites were under the authority of the priests, as we explained already.

והבדלת את הלוים, this “separation” will express itself in their having separate areas in which they would encamp, i.e. the Levites who were members of the people who had participated in the Exodus and their children growing up in the desert;

V. 14. והבדלת וגו׳. Auf diese Weise sonderst du die Leviten aus der Mitte der Nation und sprichst ihre Gotthörigkeit aus, ואחרי כן, und erst nachher, nachdem sie, wie V. 13 angeordnet, Aharon und seinen Söhnen untergeben worden, יבאו וגו׳, kamen sie zum Dienste des Heiligtums, und eben um dieses Dienstes willen musste ihrer תנופה erst טהרה vorangehen.

והיו לי הלוים, and both they and their descendants, (when they would not all live next to the Temple) would be for “Me,” i.e. ready and prepared to carry out their duties as Levites.

ואחרי כן יבאו הלוים, the ones existing now.

וטהרת אותם, “you will purify them;” you will sprinkle ash from the red heifer on them on the third and seventh day of the purification rites.

נתנים נתנים FOR THEY ARE GIVEN, GIVEN ARE THEY [UNTO ME] — i.e., given twice: dedicated for bearing the holy objects and dedicated to sing in chorus in the Sanctuary.

כי נתונים נתונים המה לי, they have devoted themselves to me and My service, as the Torah testified in Exodus 32,26 when all of them responded to Moses’ call that whoever was for the Lord should assemble around him. מתוך בני ישראל, they are also “נתונים” by the Children of Israel who will provide them with a livelihood by means of giving them their tithes, i.e. the מעשר ראשון 10% of their harvest after hey had set aside the t’rumah for the priests.

V. 16. כי נתונים usw. Der Begriff "נתונים" "gegeben" setzt ein Recht, setzt mindestens einen Anspruch voraus, den der Geber an dem Objekt seiner Gabe bisher gehabt und auf welchen er nun zu Gunsten des Empfängers Verzicht geleistet. Sehen wir uns nach einer solchen Beziehung um, in welcher bisher die Leviten zur Nation gestanden haben können, dass mit einem Verzicht hierauf zu Gunsten ihres neuen Berufes der Begriff מתנה מתוך בני ישראל überhaupt auf ihre Berufsweihe Anwendung finden konnte, so dürfte dies in Folgendem zu erkennen sein. Eine jede nationale Gesamtheit hat wohl an jedes ihrer Glieder die Anforderung zu stellen, dass dasselbe seinerseits nach seinen Kräften produktiv sei, d. h. zur Mehrung der materiellen Existenz- und Wohlfahrtsgüter beitrage, dass es מתעסק בישובו של עולם sei nach dem Ausdruck der Weisen; nur um diesen Preis hat auch wieder die Gesamtheit die Pflicht, jedem einzelnen die Teilnahme an der allgemeinen Wohlfahrt zu garantieren. Indem hier die Nation einen ganzen Stamm ihrer Volksstämme Gott und seinem Dienste bereit stellet, dispensierte sie denselben von der Arbeit für die eigene und die soziale Existenz, ja übernahm vielmehr ihrerseits die Verpflichtung, für dessen materielle Erhaltung mit zu arbeiten, und aus diesem Gesichtspunkte konnte in Wahrheit die Levitenweihe als eine מתנה der Nation an Gott und sein Heiligtum begriffen werden. Und eben um dieser aus der תנופת הלויים für die Nation implizite erwachsenen Verpflichtung willen ist wohl, dieser Begriff durch das wiederholte נתונים ,נתונים so nachdrücklich hervorgehoben. Es soll die Nation wissen, was sie mit dieser תנופה übernimmt. Ohne eine solche Übernahme hätte ja die תנופה abseiten der Nation keinen Sinn.

כי נתונים נתונים המה לי, “for they are wholly given to Me;” the Levites are viewed as a gift given by the Jewish people to G-d, Who, in turn, passed this gift on to Aaron.

פטרת means OPENING OF (such that open the womb, i. e. firstborn).

תחת פטרה כל רחם, who had originally been assigned the duties now assumed by the Levites.

אדם ובהמה :כל ,בכור כל wie V. 17; vergl. Kap. 3, 45.

לקחתי אותם לי, “I have taken them unto Me.” G-d is saying: “I have accepted this gift from the people.”

כי לי כל בכור FOR ALL THE FIRSTBORN [OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] ARE MINE — This means: they became Mine by strict right (lit., by the line of justice), because I protected them distinguishing between them and the firstborn of Egypt, and I took them as Mine — until they sinned by worshipping the Golden Calf, but now ואקח את הלוים I HAVE TAKEN THE LEVITES in their stead.

כי לי כל בכור, I had already owned the firstborn whose duty it had been to perform the tasks now given to the Levites. The reason that the firstborn had originally been charged with the duties was that they were the most distinguished members of their respective families and one delegates those to represent one before one’s lord and master, before G’d.

Since I protected them. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Hashem say “for every firstborn [of Bnei Yisroel] is Mine” which implies that they are still His, when it is written (v. 18) “I have taken the Levites” which implies that He had already taken them. In response [to this question] Rashi explains that “they were Mine by the rules of justice” [meaning according to the strict interpretation of the law]. Re’m writes that with this he answers that “for every first born is Mine” does not refer to the present, because they were disqualified when they erred with the golden calf. It merely means that they were His initially. Rashi also informs one of the reasons why they were His by the rules of justice — “because I protected them…” Rashi states “I took them for Myself” instead of “I have sanctified them [to be mine]” in order to correspond with “I have taken the Levites instead of all firstborn” (v. 18) which means I have now taken them for Myself in the place of those whom I had taken before. He adds a vav on the word ולקחתי (and I have taken) which is in the place of הקדשתי (I have sanctified) in order to indicate that they are two different ideas — “for every firstborn is mine … on the day in which I slew…” and also “I have sanctified them” at that time for my service. However, once they sinned they were disqualified and I took the Levites instead of them. Rashi concluded “now I have taken” so that you should not say “I took them” (v. 18) refers to the time that I sanctified the firstborn for Myself. For it is written, “instead of all firstborn” which implies that they had left the service and the others entered in their place.

ביום הכותי כל בכור, “on the day when I smote every firstborn. On a different occasion, in Exodus 12,29, the smiting of the firstborn was not described as having occurred on “a day,” but as having occurred at midnight. We see from here that every time the Torah uses the term: יום, “day,” it speaks of a 24 hour period, i.e. night and day.

ביום הכותי כל בכור בארץ מצרים הקדשתי, the reason why I required them now to undergo the procedure of being redeemed from their sanctity and the duties that were part of this that from the day I had sanctified them, was that they were not supposed to engage in mundane activities, such as earning a livelihood, at all.
Firstborn male animals that are acceptable as sacrifices on the altar may not be used for mundane purposes, i.e their owners must neither let them perform work, not shear their wool and use it for themselves. This was in order for Me to have demonstrated their holy character. These regulations were imposed in order to justify these firstborn not being killed along the firstborn of the rest of the Egyptians and their herds. Having been part of the Egyptian culture, and having been the most distinguished in their respective families, they should, ordinarily, have become part of Psalms 78,49 calls the משלחת מלאכי רעים, “the wrath inflicted by the band of deadly messengers.” The surviving firstborn humans and their offspring, in order not to lead a life of idleness, therefore have to be “redeemed,” so that they can at least lead normal lives. G’d therefore accomplished this by the stratagem known as פדיון, redemption.

ואקח את הלוים תחת כל בכור, a regulation applicable only during the generation addressed by Moses at the time, a one-time procedure, as we explained previously.

ואקח את הלוים, “I shall take the Levites, etc.” Ibn Ezra comments that in spite of the fact that G’d had already said (past tense) לקחתי אותם לי, “I have taken them for Me,” (8,16) it is the style of the Torah to repeat what had been said before if an interruption had occurred in the interval, one that interferes with one’s trend of thought. (Verse 17 which provides historical background) The Torah is saying that as soon as the Levites had been singled out by G’d, He handed them over for instruction in their duties by the priests.

ואקח את הלוים תחת כל בכור, “I have taken the Levites instead of the firstborn.” If all the firstborn were to perform service in the Temple, this would lead to the people suffering a plague, as there was no guarantee that the father of the firstborn performing that service had also been a firstborn, neither his grandfather. As a result, that family had not had an opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with all the intricacies of Temple service. Failure to perform the service properly would result in G-d’s killing such a person as we know from what happened to the two older sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu. Once the Levites had been appointed and the status had become a hereditary one, each member of each family made a point of being thoroughly familiar with all their duties. This is why the Torah writes: 'לא יהיה ללוי חלק ונחלה וגו, “the Levite is not to own ancestral land in the lad of Israel;” (Deuteronomy 18,1) by not owning land and growing crops they were free to concentrate on their tasks as Levites. They should not acquire too much familiarity with the tools used by farmers and artisans, so that they would not be diverted from their principal vocation, service in the Temple. If the Levite were to devote himself to those mundane activities, his fingers would become too coarse to play the musical instruments efficiently to accompany the choir of Levites during the time when Temple service was in progress.

לעבוד את עבודת בני ישראל, “to perform the service of the Children of Israel (collectively), which basically had been the task of the firstborn of each family in each tribe.

ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף, “and the there will not be a plague among the Children of Israel,” even a single one of them. We can find similar constructions in Exodus 21,11: ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה לה, “and if (her master) does not do one of these three economically constructive actions for her, etc.” (Exodus 21,11) Compare also Judges 12,7, “he was buried in the towns of the region of Gilead.” [All the people of surrounding towns took part in Yiftach’s burial. Ed.]

ואתנה וגו׳ AND I HAVE GIVEN [THE LEVITES etc.] — Five times are the “children of Israel” mentioned in this verse (where the last four times they might have been alluded to by a personal pronoun), in order to show what affection they are held by the Lord in that the mention of them is repeated five times in one verse corresponding in number to the “Five Books of the Torah”. Thus I have seen stated in Genesis Rabbah (Leviticus Rabbah 2:4; cf. Genesis Rabbah 3:5).

ואתנה את הלוים, since they are by themselves “given” to perform service for Me, they are now at the disposal of Aaron and his sons, My delegates on earth.

ואתנה את הלוים נתנים לאהרון ולבניו, "and I have given the Levites,-they are given to Aaron and his sons, etc;" why did the Torah repeat the word נתנים, "they are given?" This may be intended to obligate the recipient of a gift to accept that gift and not to refuse it. Although in matters of inter-personal relationships it is perfectly in order for a person to decline to accept a gift as long as it has not come into his possession (his hands) and he has thereby acquired it, in this instance the Torah obligates the priests to accept this gift although acceptance involves negative aspects. By accepting the new status of the Levites -even though they were subordinate to the priests- the kind of duties performed by the priests became forbidden to the priests on pain of death. This is the view of Sifri on Numbers 18,3. The wording there is: "both they and you will be subject to the death penalty; you when you interfere in matters allocated to them and they when they interfere in matters allocated to you." This contrasts somewhat with what Maimonides wrote in chapter 3 of Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh where he describes Levites who performed service in the Temple, i.e. the domain of the priests, as guilty of death at the hands of Heaven. However, he describes priests who perform tasks allocated to the Levites as guilty of transgressing only an ordinary negative commandment, and not guilty of death. At any rate, Maimonides also agrees that such a transgression on the part of the priests qualifies for some retribution. Considering this we could understand why the priests would decline the gift of the Levites. The Torah therefore had good reason to repeat the word נתנים to deny the priests the option to decline this gift.

ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף בגשת בני ישראל אל הקודש, “so that there will not be a plague among the Children of Israel when the Children of Israel approach the Sanctuary.” The plague will be prevented as the Levites ensure that the Israelites do not cross the line into sacred precincts which are out of bounds to them. You will find the word ישראל five times in this verse. Whenever the name of a person or group of persons is repeated in this fashion this reflects the extreme fondness of the author writing this comment about the people concerned. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,4 illustrate this point by means of the parable of the father who has a young son just about ready to begin his schooling. The father constantly inquires about his son whether he drinks properly, eats properly, sleeps properly, etc. This is why we also find that all matters pertaining to the Tabernacle have been written in the Torah five times (compare author’s comment on Exodus 35,1 where he points out that most matters have been written repeatedly). The reason the Torah wrote these matters five times was to correspond to the five Books of the Torah the Jewish people observe. These Books are what keep the world going, seeing the world was created with the letter ה, as we pointed out in connection with the under-sized letter ה in Genesis 2,4 בהבראם. These five Books were not designed for any nation other than the Jewish people. We know already that the Tabernacle was a microcosm of the terrestrial world so that referring to its details five times makes excellent sense.

Bnei Yisroel are mentioned five times. Rashi brought this here because he was answering the question: He had explained that the words “I took them for Myself,” in the past tense, refer to the firstborn — meaning that “I took them for Myself and at that time I sanctified them for Myself.” Why then does the Torah need to say that Hashem had chosen them previously, did it not merely come to explain that he rejected them because they erred with the golden calf? Rashi answers that because of their preciousness and despite their rejection, He did not wish to mention their sin. Rather He mentions their praises and merits when Hashem brought them in to his service. You should know this by the fact that they were mentioned five times in one verse, due to their preciousness. In some editions of Rashi I have found the text “and I have given the Levites … [Bnei Yisroel are mentioned] five times…” and this more correct. (This appears to be our text).

V. 19. נתנים לאהרן וגו׳. Aharon und seine Nachkommen haben kein ursprüngliches Recht an die Leviten, sie sind ihnen "gegeben", von Gott zu bestimmtem Zweck gegeben. לעבד וגו׳: der Dienst am Heiligtum und im Heiligtum, der der Nation in erster Linie obliegt und den sie ursprünglich durch ihre Erstgeborenen zu leisten haben sollten, soll fortan durch die Leviten zur Erfüllung kommen. ולכפר על בני ישראל: Verstehen wir diesen Ausdruck recht, so dürfte diese Entfernung der בכורי ישראל und deren Ersatz durch die Leviten eine fortdauernde כפרה für Israels Abfall beim Egel sein. Es ist dies eine fortgesetzte Mahnung an diese erste große Verirrung, in welcher der noch vorhandene große Abstand der Nation von ihrer großen Bestimmung und ihre Erziehungsbedürftigkeit zu derselben an den Tag trat, und wozu sie sich eben durch die willige Bestellung der Leviten an die Stelle ihrer Erstgeborenen bekannten und bekennen. ולא יהיה בבני ישראל וגו׳, zugleich ist diese Entfernung der בני ישראל vom Heiligtum nichts als eine Fortsetzung jener הגבלה, mit welcher sofort am Tage der Gesetzgebung eben dieser noch vorhandene Abstand der Nation von der Höhe ihrer im Gesetze gezeichneten Bestimmung zum Bewusstsein gebracht und die Tatsache für alle Zeiten dokumentiert worden war, dass das Gesetz ein "gegebenes", ein an das Volk gekommenes, nicht aus dem Volke hervorgegangenes war, das somit ein für alle Zeit unantastbares bleibt, und es nie als Israels Aufgabe oder Befugnis erscheinen kann, sich aus eigenem subjektiven Belieben eine "Gottesverehrung" zu gestalten, eine Tatsache, deren Verkennung im tiefen Grunde die Wurzel der Egel-Verirrung bildete. (Siehe, was wir im Buche Schmot über die הגבלה und das עגל-Ereignis angemerkt.)

ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף [AND I HAVE GIVEN THE LEVITES … TO DO THE SERVICE OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] THAT THERE BE NO PLAGUE AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL [WHEN THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL COME NIGH UNTO THE SANCTUARY] — The meaning is: I have given them etc. so that it should be unnecessary for them to come near to the Sanctuary, because [having sinned by worshipping the Calf], if they came near there would be a plague among them.

לעבוד את עבודת בני ישראל באהל מועד, to perform the very duties which, previously, it had been the duty of the firstborn to perform on behalf of the Children of Israel.

[If] they approach. Meaning that this is an abbreviated phrase. For it should have said “I have given the Levites … to atone for the Bnei Yisroel so that the Bnei Yisroel will not need to approach the Holy and so that there will not be [a plague…].” The reason that the Levites were given to the Kohanim was so that they could serve, and the Israelites would not need to approach — so that there would not be a plague among Yisroel for if they were to approach, there would be a plague. The verse means to say the positive (if they approach there will be a plague), and not the negative “there will not be a plague among Yisroel” (if they do not approach). It is as if the Torah had said “Why were the Levites given to Aharon and his sons — in order that the Bnei Yisroel would not need to enter for this service and approach the Holy. And why should they not approach the Holy — in order that there will not be a plague among them.” Re’m. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Is it because He now took the Levites that there would not be a plague with their approach to the Holy? Surely, it is written “the foreigner who approaches shall die” (Bamidbar 1:51). Therefore he explains that “so there will not be a plague among them” means “so for they will not need to approach the Holy.” For otherwise there would be a concern over a plague among them when they were to approach the Holy.

מתוך בני ישראל, from among the children of Israel, etc. Our verse repeats the expression בני ישראל five times, apparently without reason. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 2,1 consider mention of that word an expression of G'd's fondness for the Jewish people. The five-fold mention corresponds to the five books of the Torah. This is all homiletics, of course. According to the plain meaning of the verse the number of times the children of Israel are mentioned appears absolutely justified. When the Torah writes מתוך בני ישראל, it refers to the Jewish people as long as these included the tribe of Levi on an equal footing. When it referred to the עבודת בני ישראל this is a reference to the firstborn of the Israelites who had performed the priestly functions up until then. The Levites had now taken over their functions. The Torah had to refer to these firstborns as בני ישראל instead of merely writing עבודתם, "their service," seeing it was no longer "their service." When our verse continues with the expression לכפר על בני ישראל, it refers to a description of the entire Jewish people. The reason the Torah did not choose the shorter לכפר עליהם is that this would have sounded as if it referred to the people mentioned or rather referred to last, i.e. the firstborn. When the Torah continues with ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף instead of ולא יהיה בהם נגף, it does so in order that we should not understand that the absence of such a plague is merely the result of the atonement mentioned previously. The Torah speaks of two separate benefits devolving on the Israelites as a result of the Levites performing their tasks. 1) There will be no mental illness due to sins perpetrated for which the Levites attain atonement. 2) There will be no physical plague which would result through the unauthorised entry of the Israelites into the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle. It makes eminent sense that this is what the Torah has in mind here as the message is not related to what had been discussed previously. When the Torah continues with בגשת בני ישראל, it means that even though only individuals might become guilty of violating these sacred precincts, the ramifications of the sin of these individuals would involve the whole people. G'd's anger would be vented at the people as a whole. We know from the uprising of Korach which involved only a few people, that Moses had to remonstrate with G'd when he noticed that G'd held the entire nation responsible (compare Numbers 16,21-22).

ולכפר על בני ישראל, and to be the instrument of the people’s atonement by their accepting the tithes tendered them by the people so that they would be free to perform the duties G’d has now assigned to them. G’d had come to despise the firstborn, seeing that they participated also in the sin of the golden calf which had caused G’d so much grief.

ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף, both among the Israelites and among the Levites.

בגשת בני ישראל אל הקודש, the Israelites’ sin would be that of entering domains out of bounds to them, whereas the Levites’ sin would be allowing them to do so without trying to prevent them from entering holy precincts. All of them would make themselves guilty and would die at the hands of G’d as spelled out in 18,3.

ויעש משה ואהרן וכל עדת וגו׳ AND MOSES AND AARON AND ALL THE CONGREGATION … DID [TO THE LEVITES ACCORDING UNTO ALL THAT THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES] — i.e. Moses presented them (v. 13), Aaron made the waving with them (v. 11) and the Israelites put their hands (v. 10) upon the Levites’ heads (cf., however, Ibn Ezra).

ויעש משה ואהרן וכל עדת בני ישראל ללוים, the prefix ל in the word ללוים means “on behalf of, in aid of them.” They assisted with the shaving, the laundering of their clothing, as well as in preparation of the requisite offering.

ויעש משה…וכל עדת בני ישראל..כן עשו להם בני ישראל. And Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation of Israel did….so the children of Israel did to them (the Levites). Why did the Torah have to repeat the line: "so they did?" Why did the Torah speak about the "whole community of the children of Israel" at the beginning of the verse, whereas at its conclusion it only speaks of "the children of Israel?" It appears that the line כן עשו בני ישראל is repeated as it is a reference to the firstborn who are being complimented for agreeing to their new status seeing they were the ones who lost many privileges due to this change. This is also the reason that at the end of the verse the Torah did not speak of "the whole community of Israel," since only the firstborn of the Israelites were meant.

ויעש משה ואהרן וכל עדת בני ישראל ללוים, “and Moses and Aaron together with the whole congregation of the Children of Israel did to the Levites, etc.” Moses was putting the Levites on their feet, whereas Aaron was “waving” them. This is the meaning of the words in verse 13 והעמדת את הלוים לפני אהרן ולפני בניו. The fact that Aaron performed the “waving” is mentioned specifically in verse 11 והניף אהרן את הלוים תנופה לפני ה’. This procedure consisted of Aaron personally lifting up each individual Levite, waving him in different directions. This reflected the fact that Aaron possessed exceptional physical strength. [It was one of the 5 qualifying attributes of a High Priest that he be physically strong. Ed] Lifting 22,000 people individually all in one day was certainly no mean accomplishment. Alternatively, the entire procedure took place with a heavenly assist, i.e. a miracle. Aaron may have been able to call upon such assistance as he represented the attribute of Mercy and was able to command assistance from the attribute of חסד as well as that of גבורה. The attribute of Mercy is composed of large parts of חסד, and a smaller part of גבורה. (Compare author’s comment on Leviticus 21,10 under the heading “a kabbalistic approach”) This is also the meaning of the words in Malachi 2,6 בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי, “he (Aaron) walked with Me in peace and equity.” The reason that Aaron at the time had chosen the zodiac sign of the ox was also that this was the chayah which appeared to the prophet Ezekiel on the left in his famous vision of the merkavah, the divine entourage. He used to atone for the iniquities of the people of Israel, sins which had their origin in the North [Compare our author’s explanation on Exodus 32,4. Ed.]
The Israelites placed their hands on these Levites investing them with the authority to be their “agents.” This is the meaning of verse 10: “the Israelites shall place their hands on the Levites.” It is most likely that the entire procedure relied heavily on G’d’s miraculous assist.

The Israelites rested their hands. So that you not say that all of them stood the Levites up, or that all of them waved them or all of them rested their hands. Rather the word “did” refers to the specific action of each one — Moshe placed them…

כן עשו להם בני ישראל, “so did the Children of Israel.” They placed their weight with their hands upon them.

ככל אשר צוה ה' את משה ללוים. As G’d had commanded Moses that he, in turn, should command the Levites to do.

כן עשו להם בני ישראל, the wording reflects how promptly these instructions were carried out. They were so eager to please their Maker.

ויתחטאו, as per the instruction in verse 7:הזה עליהם מי חטאת, “sprinkle on them of the waters containing the ash of the read heifer.”

וינף אהרן אותם תנופה...ויכפר עליהם, “Aaron performed a waving motion with each of them,…..and he provided atonement for them.” Ibn Ezra again explains that at that stage the atonement had already been provided for them. [The steps leading to their atonement had already been described in the previous verse. Ed.]

V. 21. ויתחטאו הלוים ist die הזיה במי חטאת. Vergl. Kap. 19, 12. ויכבסו טבילה :בגדיהם, siehe V. 7. — ויכפר עליהם אהרן: durch Vollziehung ihres חטאת und עולה (V. 12). — לטהרם: durch diese קרבנות erhielt ihre טהרה die positive Vollendung, ohne sie waren sie מחוסרי כפרה und durften noch nicht das מקדש betreten.

ויתחטאו הלוים, “the Levites purified themselves.” They did so by means of sprinkling the waters containing the ash of the red heifer upon themselves.

כאשר צוה ה' ... כן עשו AS THE LORD HAD COMMANDED [MOSES CONCERNING THE LEVITES] SO DID THEY [UNTO THEM] — This is repeated (cf. v. 20) to tell the praise of those who performed the rite (Moses, Aaron and the Israelites) and those who had it performed on them (the Levites) — that none of them put any obstacle in the way.

כאשר צוה ה' את משה על הלוים, G’d had commanded that the task of the Levites would be to stand guard, to form the choir chanting the psalms and to carry the parts of the Tabernacle whenever the situation called for this. They would be assigned their immediate duties by Aaron and his sons.

No one objected. For if this were not so, why would this [phrase “so they did unto them”] be necessary, surely the Torah already stated that “Moshe did … [just as Hashem commanded]” (v. 20). Re’m writes that there is still a difficulty: This implies that because the Torah above wrote “Moshe did…” we infer both the praiseworthiness of those who did and those with whom it was done. If so, regarding the verse “Aharon did so” (v.3) where it does not previously write that he did so, one could say that this comes to teach about the matter itself — that he fulfilled the commandment that he was instructed, and that it does not to relate his praiseworthiness. One could ask a similar question in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 14:4) where the Torah does not initially write that he did so, and in many other places – where they expounded in the same manner. It seems to me that certainly in any place where the Torah writes “he did so” or “they did so” it would not have been necessary to do so, because ordinarily the Jews fulfilled and accepted all mitzvos that Moshe commanded, and “he did so” is written only in order to recount their praiseworthiness. However here, if it were not for the phrase “as [Hashem] commanded” we would not have inferred their praiseworthiness from the phrase “Moshe did [all that Hashem commanded].” One would have said that it was necessary, to teach that they fulfilled the mitzvah, because one could not say that this was obvious. Hashem Himself had to make “effort” in this regard, instructing Moshe “take the Levites” (v.6) which Rashi explains as meaning “take them with words — fortunate are you…” Many prohibitions and death penalties were dependant upon this mitzvah and the firstborn Israelites had been disqualified from the service of Hashem. Therefore it was necessary, to teach that they fulfilled what He commanded. However, one cannot learn their praiseworthiness from here; therefore the verse writes “as [Hashem] commanded” to relate their praiseworthiness.

כן עשו להם, “so they did unto them.” The Levites did so to the priests. An alternate interpretation: “so did Aaron and his sons to the Levites.” This interpretation is based on Numbers 4,19: וזאת עשו להם וחיו, “this is what you are to do unto them so that they will live.”

כן עשו להם, Aaron and his sons would organise them, allocate to them their specific duties.

זאת אשר ללוים THIS IS THAT WHICH BELONGETH TO THE LEVITES [FROM TWENTY FIVE YEARS etc.] — This suggests: years (the question of age) can disqualify them for the service (i.e. if they are younger than 25 and older than 50 years), but bodily blemishes cannot disqualify them, [as in the case of priests] (Sifrei Bamidbar 62; Chullin 24a).

זאת אשר ללוים, this is a new commandment which had not been mentioned elsewhere. Both in Bamidbar and in Nasso G’d had instructed to appoint the Levites to their respective tasks of carrying, etc. from the age of thirty. The number 25 had not been mentioned at all. Here we are told that even though Levites below the age of 30 were not considered as mature enough physically for “active duty,” they were enlisted for “passive duty,” i.e. guard duty which did not require physical exertion, already from the age of twenty-five. This will be spelled out a little later.

מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה יבוא לצבא צבא, “from 25 years of age and up he shall join the legion of service.” Rashi, in commenting on the apparent contradiction in Numbers 4,3 where the Torah gives this age as 30, says that the Levites are to commence training for their duties from the age of 25 and to assume those duties once they have attained the age of 30. Nachmanides commenting on Rashi, says that if so, the meaning of the words לצבא צבא have to be understood as the Levites joining the community of their older colleagues from that age and stand there observing how their senior colleagues performed their duties and to familarise themselves with the details of all the laws governing their activities. This would also explain the absence of the words לעבוד עבודה, “to perform service,” as we are used to reading in connection with this. According to the plain meaning of the text, the people counted by Moses and Aaron were indeed the thirty year olds, whereas here the Torah calls upon those who knew that they were at least 25 years old to come forward on their own. Such relatively young men were allowed to perform duties although they were not promoted to the status of supervisors over other Levites. In those days, while people did not necessarily keep track of each year they had lived, they did keep track of decades they had lived, as it was commonly known that certain changes in one’s body are experienced with the passing of every decade. Turning 25 did not leave a noticeable impression on their bodies, so that there was no point in counting 25 year olds. Everybody knew when he turned 30. Ibn Ezra claims that the Levites were employed to perform heavy duties from the age of 30 and up, whereas until that age they were allowed to perform only duties carried out within the confines of the Tabernacle. Nachmanides does not accept this, as the Torah uses the term לצבא צבא both for the 25 year olds and for the ones above 30 years of age.

זאת אשר ללוים, ”this shall apply to the Levites, etc.” according to the plain meaning of the text the word זאת refers to the limitation (in age) when they are on active duty.

Favorable indications in his studies for five years. The expectation is that the Torah only gave him these five years in order to study [the laws of the service] because this is the maximum time that one needs to engage in his studies. If so, one who does not see a favorable sign in all of these years will never see them.

V. 24. זאת וגו׳. Oben Kap. 4, 2 ist für den Dienstantritt der Kehatiden das zurückgelegte dreißigste Jahr bestimmt, und wenn hier allgemein, für alle Leviten das zurückgelegte fünfundzwanzigste Jahr angeordnet ist, so wird dies (Chulin 24 a) dahin erläutert: חמש ועשרים ללמוד ושלשים לעבודה, dass nach zurückgelegtem fünfundzwanzigsten Jahre sie in die Lehre des Dienstes eintreten, aber erst nach zurückgelegtem dreißigsten Jahre zur Ausübung des Dienstes zugelassen werden. Zweifelhaft ist die Scheidung zwischen שרת und עבודה im V. 26. Nach dem Wortlaute des מלמד שחוזר לנעילת שערים ולעבודת בני גרשון ספרי)) scheint unter עבודה nur der schwerere Dienst der Kehatiden, die lediglich mit ihrer eigenen Körperkraft zu tragen, und der Dienst der Merariden, die die schweren Gerüstteile des משכן aufzuladen hatten, zu verstehen zu sein, dagegen alles, was die Gerschoniden zu leisten hatten, also, der allen obliegende Sängerund Wachedienst und das Aufladen der Teppiche usw. wäre von allen selbst nach dem fünfzigsten Jahre zu leisten gewesen. Es gehen jedoch hierüber die Auffassungen der Kommentatoren auseinander (siehe Misrachi z. St.). Es hat übrigens diese Beschränkung des Levitendienstes auf bestimmte Jahre nur für die Zeit ihre Geltung, so lange das Heiligtum, wie in der Wüste, aufzustellen, abzubrechen und zu transportieren war, בשילה ובית עולמים אין נפסלין אלא בקול, in Schilo und Jerusalem werden Leviten nur durch Verlust ihrer Stimme untauglich (Chulin daselbst).

זאת אשר ללוים, ”this is what pertains to the Levites:” Levites are disqualified from performing their tasks if either too young or too old. They are not disqualified if afflicted by physical blemishes as are the priests. (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 24.) Priests are not disqualified by age limitations, (if otherwise healthy and fit.) This paragraph was only written (or taught) for use in the desert, as we learned on that same folio in the Talmud. We read there as follows: “a Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty, is fit to perform all the tasks that he is designated to perform. After that he is unfit regardless of his physical condition.”Under what circumstances does this rule apply? During the period of the Tabernacle in the desert, seeing that as long as the people had not yet settled, parts of the service that had to be performed involved carrying the furnishings of the Tabernacle on their shoulders, like the Kehatites who had to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders. This could only be done by people who had attained the age of thirty, which is generally understood as the age of maximum physical strength. Once the Tabernacle was stationary (for 369 years) at Shiloh, and the people were settled, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yossi, the Levites would become disqualified only if their voices revealed that they had aged. Wherefrom did he derive such a rule? He quoted Chronicles II 5,13, where we read: ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ומשוררים להשמיע קול אחד, “their singing became as if they all sang with one voice (choir) as the sound of the trumpets and the cymbals; which sounded as if of one voice.” In other words, if the voice of a Levite had changed due to aging, he was no longer capable of being part of this choir. This is how Rashi explains the text in the chapter called הכל שוחטים in the first chapter of the Talmud, tractate Chulin.

From the age of twenty-five. The Torah spoke here of the times of the obligation. The Levite is obligated at age 25 and over to study the laws of the Divine service. Beforehand, he is not obligated but he may come to learn if he wants.

מבן חמש ועשרים FROM TWENTY AND FIVE [YEARS] AND UPWARD [THEY SHALL GO IN TO WAIT UPON THE SERVICE] — But in another passage, it states, (Numbers 4:3) “from thirty years old [and upwards … all that enter into the host to do the work in the tabernacle]”! How are these apparently contradictory passages to be reconciled? In the following way: From twenty five years on he (the Levite) comes to learn the laws regulating the service, and he studies for five years, and at the age of thirty he may actually do the service. — From here we may derive the principle that a pupil who does not see an auspicious omen (i. e. success) in his study during five years will never see it. (Sifrei Bamidbar 62; Chullin 24a.)

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה יבא לצבא בעבודת אהל מועד; guard duty, as will be explained immediately. ושרת את אחיו לשמר משמרת.

A Midrashic approach (based on Vayikra Rabbah 21,8): Whenever the word זאת appears it refers to the Torah. Compare Deut. 4,44 וזאת התורה. “זאת“ is the Torah.” The Levites were the teachers of the Torah. This has been made clear already by Moses in his blessing in Deut. 33,10 where he said: “They shall teach Your ordinances to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.”

מבן חמש ועשרים שנה, “from twenty five years of age and up;” this appears to contradict the statement in Numbers 4,3, where the Torah speaks of “from thirty years and up;” according to the plain meaning all the Levites were mobilised from the age of 25 years and up, at which time they began to perform tasks, such as standing guard and to sing in the choir; in other words, to perform the relatively easy tasks. By the time they reached the age of thirty, they were also required to perform the physically difficult tasks. The Kehatites began then to carry the Ark on their shoulders, and the members of the family of Gersonides and Merari then began to load the wagons with the parts of the Tabernacle each had been assigned to, and to the dismantling and reerecting the structure.

A kabbalistic approach: The words זאת אשר ללוים are to be understood in the same vein as Psalms 118,23 מאת ה' היתה זאת, “This (covenant) emanated from Hashem.” We know this from Genesis 17,10: זאת בריתי, “This is My covenant.” In connection with the tribe of Levi the Torah writes ובריתך ינצורו, “they have observed Your covenant meticulously” (Deut. 33, 9). When the Levites were counted the Torah wrote the words על פי ה' (Numbers 3,16), an expression we do not find in connection with the census of the other tribes. The idea is that the מדה, the particular attribute applicable to the Levites is that they are the transmitters of the פי ה', the word of G’d, the Torah.

מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה יבא לצבא צבא בעבודת אהל מועד, “from twenty-five years old and up he shall join the legion of the service of the Tent of Meeting.” In Numbers 4,23 the Torah had described the years when a Levite serves as between 30-50. How do we reconcile this?

According to the plain meaning we could make a distinction between two kinds of service. The service within the Tent he may commence at the age of 25, whereas he does not qualify for the labour of carrying the parts of the Tabernacle until he reaches the age of 30, traditionally the age at which the body reaches full strength.

According to the Talmud (Chulin 24a), what is written here refers to when the Levite enrolls in the training program, i.e. at the age of 25. He does not qualify for active service, however, until he reaches the age of 30. This arrangement prompted our sages to say that when a Torah student does not seem to make proper progress by the time he has studied for five years, he is not likely to accomplish much by remaining in the academy.

ולא יעבד עוד [AND FROM THE AGE OF FIFTY YEARS HE SHALL CEASE WAITING UPON THE SERVICE] AND SHALL DO NO MORE SERVICE — the service of bearing loads on the shoulder, but he still returns (i. e. may be called upon) for closing the Temple gates, for the service of singing and for loading sacred articles upon the wagons; for this is the meaning of (v. 26) “But he shall serve את אחיו” i. e. together with his brethren, just as the Targum renders it (not, “he shall serve his brethren, i. e. wait upon them) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 63).

AND FROM THE AGE OF FIFTY YEARS HE SHALL RETURN FROM THE SERVICE OF THE WORK, AND HE SHALL SERVE NO MORE — “the service of carrying loads upon the shoulders, but he returns [i.e., he may still serve] to close the gates, or to sing, or to load the wagons.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Sifre⁴⁸Sifre Beha’alothcha 63. the Rabbis mentioned only that “he returns to close the gates or to the work of the sons of Gershon”⁴⁹The reference is also to the work of the sons of Merari, since the work of both of them [the sons of Gershon and Merari] consisted only of loading the wagons during transport, and serving as gate-keepers when the Tabernacle was in its place. The Sifre, however, speaks only of “the sons of Gershon” since they are mentioned (above, in Chapter 4, where the work was assigned to each of the three main families of the Levites) next to the sons of Kohath, whose work consisted of carrying the loads on their shoulders. [but they did not say that he may return to the service of singing]! And this indeed appears correct [that a Levite above the age of fifty was not allowed to take part in the singing] — for if it were as the Rabbi [Rashi] has written, why were the twenty-year old Levites not appointed to sing, to close the gates and to load the wagons until they reached the required age,⁵⁰In other words, since the maximum age of fifty applied to the bearing of burdens, which was the specific work of the Kohathites — see above, Chapter 4 — but not to the service of singing, the minimum age of twenty-five likewise does not refer to the service of singing, and the same reasoning applies to serving as gate-keepers and loading the wagons. If so, why were the Levites [including the Kohathites] not counted from the age of twenty, and with no upper age limit? and why were they counted from thirty to fifty years old and only for the work of bearing burdens [since both before and after these two age-limits they could still serve by singing etc., therefore they should have been counted from twenty years, with no upper limit]? Moreover, why were the sons of Gershon and Merari counted in this way [from thirty to fifty] since all their work [i.e., singing, closing the gates and loading the wagons] could be done when they were older?
We must rather say that since they were appointed to carry the ark at the age from thirty to fifty, they [therefore] were not appointed to sing, which was the main function of the Levites, unless they were also qualified to carry the ark, for all those who were appointed to sing were qualified to perform all the services [including the carrying of the ark]. And since the Kohathites [who were the only ones permitted to carry the ark] were counted from thirty to fifty years old, even for singing, they were all counted in this manner, in order that the sons of Gershon and Merari should not be qualified to sing during these years [i.e., below the age of thirty and above the age of fifty] and the sons of Kohath be disqualified. [Hence the age limits of thirty and fifty applied to the Kohathites’ singing, which was their main function, as well as to their carrying of the parts of the Tabernacle, and therefore these age limits applied to the function of singing of the sons of Gershon and Merari as well, and they could not, as Rashi wrote, return to the singing.] But for closing the gates or loading the wagons all of them were qualified [even after the age of fifty, as quoted in the Sifre above]. Furthermore it is written, from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered in to do the work of the service, and the work of bearing burdens in the Tent of Meeting,⁵¹Above, 4:47. “This is the song [of the Levites] accompanied with cymbals and harp, this being ‘the service’ attached to another ‘service’” [i.e., the Service of the Offerings] (Rashi). and the Rabbis interpreted in the Tractate of Shechitath Chullin:⁵²Literally: “The Slaughtering of Ordinary Animals,” now generally called Chullin (Ordinary Animals). The text quoted is found there on 24a. — The name Shechitath Chullin is in contrast to the Tractate Schechitath Kodashim (The Slaughtering of Hallowed Animals), now generally called Zebachim (Offerings). “I might think that in Shiloh and in the Eternal House [at Jerusalem,⁵³See Vol. II, p. 335, Note 598, and Vol. III, p. 123, Note 122. when the services of the Levites were limited to gatekeeping and singing] it was also so [that the Levites were disqualified after the age of fifty]; Scripture therefore says, to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens.⁵¹Above, 4:47. “This is the song [of the Levites] accompanied with cymbals and harp, this being ‘the service’ attached to another ‘service’” [i.e., the Service of the Offerings] (Rashi). I have only said so with respect to a time when there is bearing burdens upon the shoulders.” Now [the expression] ‘avodath avodah’⁵¹Above, 4:47. “This is the song [of the Levites] accompanied with cymbals and harp, this being ‘the service’ attached to another ‘service’” [i.e., the Service of the Offerings] (Rashi). [the work of service, but literally “a service of a service”] is a reference to singing, as Rashi has written above in Seder Naso;⁵¹Above, 4:47. “This is the song [of the Levites] accompanied with cymbals and harp, this being ‘the service’ attached to another ‘service’” [i.e., the Service of the Offerings] (Rashi). if so [it is clear that] when there was [the duty of] bearing the burdens upon the shoulders, the Levites were disqualified from singing as well [after the age of fifty]. And so it is said in the words of David, And the Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upward,⁵⁴I Chronicles 23:3. and it is further written there, Of these twenty and four thousand were to oversee the work of the House of the Eternal etc.,⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 4. and four thousand praised the Eternal with the instruments which I made to praise therewith.⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 5. For until the House [of G-d in Jerusalem] was built, when they still had to carry [the ark and the Tabernacle] on their shoulders, they only appointed Levites to sing who were also fit to carry [i.e., from the age of thirty to fifty]; but David counted them again from twenty years old⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 27. to meet the requirements of the House [of G-d] when it was built, as has been explained [above at the end of Verse 4].

ומבן חמשים שנה ישוב מצבא העבודה של משא, as soon as he has attained the age of fifty he will retire from the duties of carrying parts of the Tabernacle.

ולא יעבוד עוד, “and he shall work no longer.” This does not mean that a Levite above the age of 50 will “retire,” but that he will no longer perform the kind of physical labour involving carrying heavy loads either on his shoulders or otherwise. He will, however, participate in such tasks as opening the Temple’s gates, sing in the choir accompanying the priests’ sacrificial service, etc., etc. This is Rashi’s understanding of the words ולא יעבוד עוד. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation saying that if correct the Torah would not have placed an age limit on the Levites’ participating in the choir, and if so why were the Gersonides and the Merrari-ites counted from the age of thirty and up only to the age of 50 seeing that neither of them had to perform such physically strenuous labour as the Kehatites even when they were younger than 50 years of age? He claims therefore that the Levites above the age of 50 were also excluded from participating in the choir accompanying the Temple service, and this was the reason why the other two groups of Levites are counted only if they were between 30 and 50 years of age. [At this point, at least according to this editor’s understanding of both the versions available to us, Nachmanides and the Sifrey, matters become a bit confusing, and I believe the simplest solution is that in the desert when the functions of the Kehatites were different from that of the other Levites as they had to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders, etc, they might have completely retired from activities in and around the Tabernacle, whereas once there was a permanent Temple instead of a collapsible structure, there no longer was such a distinction between the members of the Kehatites and the other Levites. Ed.]

On the shoulder. Rashi is answering the question: [Isn’t this phrase redundant, since] it is written afterwards “but he shall serve his brethren” (v. 26)? Therefore one is forced to say that “and he shall no longer work” refers to the [work of] carrying on the shoulder. The subsequent statement “but he shall serve his brethren” means “with his brothers.” However, one should not think that this is like the service of a slave to his master. Rather he shall serve with his brothers, the sons of Merori and Gershon, locking the gates, loading of the wagons and singing.

ומבן חמשים שנה ישוב, “and from fifty years he would retire from whichever part of the service he had been assigned to.”

The words ולא יעבוד עוד בצבא are to be understood as referring both to the ones younger than 30 and the ones above the age of 50, i.e. both groups not having to performing the physically strenuous type of service. What then were they to do with their time? They were to render service in the form of guard duty, i.e. בשמרותם. The words ככה תעשה ללוים במשמרותם are to be understood as referring to the “training” period of 5 years between their reaching the age of 25 and their attaining the age of 30 when they would assume “active” duties.

ולא יעבוד עוד “and he would no longer perform service.” According to Rashi, this refers only to service involving carrying with his shoulder, but he would still perform such tasks as opening and closing the gates. According to Rashi, these verses were not addressed to the members of the families of Gershon and Merari, for if they were, how could he have said that they were still performing the tasks of loading and unloading? We must therefore conclude that the over fifty year old members of the families of Gershon and Merari also retired from their specific duties at that age. Perhaps Rashi had in mind the 369 years that the Tabernacle stood in Shiloh, when these tasks did not have to be performed as the Tabernacle was no longer a prefab to be moved from time to time. The words: “to load the wagons,” in Rashi would then have applied only to the periods when the Jewish people were in the desert.

לשמר משמרת TO KEEP THE CHARGE — i.e. to encamp round about the tent of meeting in order to keep strangers away, and to erect and dismantle it at the time of finishing and beginning the journey.

(1) THEY MAY ASSIST/SERVE -- both groups -- THEIR BROTHER LEVITES ... BY STANDING GUARD, BUT THEY SHALL PERFORM NO LABOR.

ושרת את אחיו, “but shall minister with their brethren;” when this Levite turns fifty, he shall minister with the other Levites who have already turned fifty. This is based on Numbers 1,50: “they are to encamp immediately around the Tabernacle.”

(2) THUS YOU SHALL DEAL WITH THE LEVITES IN REGARD TO THEIR DUTIES. Five years before the 30th year and from age 50 on they shall be commanded regarding the guarding of the Mishkan.

ועבודה לא יעבוד עוד, “he is no longer to perform physical tasks.”