Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Bilangan 28:31

You should know that the ephod and breastplate contained five different kinds of materials whereas the פרוכת, the dividing curtain, contained four different kinds of materials. The pomegranate-like apples at the bottom of the robe contained three different kinds of materials. The breastplate of the ephod is described as containing: gold, blue wool, purple wool, scarlet coloured wool, and twisted linen (verse 15). Of the dividing curtain the Torah writes that it contained blue wool, purple wool, and scarlet coloured wool plus twisted linen (36,35). Of the pomegranates the Torah writes (39,24) that it contained blue wool, purple wool, and twisted scarlet coloured wool. No mention of linen is made in connection with the robe.
Our sages in Yuma 71 say that wherever the Torah mentions the word שש in connection with garments the meaning is that the strand consisted of six threads of that material. If the word שש is followed by the word משזר, however, the Torah refers to strands of eight threads. If the word משזר occurs without the word שש in front such as in connection with the רמונים, the pomegranates of the robe, then the meaning is 12-threaded strands. These descriptions refer to the various threads of each material, so that you find that the dividing curtain was made of a total of 24-threaded of material, the breastplate and ephod of 28, seeing that the dividing curtain had four different kinds of materials each of which was described as שש and four times 6 equals 24. The robe, on the other hand, was constructed of a total of only 12-thread thick strands seeing it was comparable to the פרוכת (verse 31). On the one hand, it was made of only a single material, i.e. blue wool, seeing the Torah writes כליל; on the other hand, seeing the word כליל is understood to mean גדיל, a certain type of strand woven or spun out of a double thread, the robe would have 12 threads of blue wool per strand instead of the 6-threaded strands used with the dividing curtain. This is why the מעיל, the robe, had thicker strands consisting of 12 threads each. The breastplate and ephod which had yet another variety of material in addition to any other garment had a total of 28-threaded strands. It is impossible to say that the golden strand also consisted of six threads (so that it would have 30-threaded strands) as the expression וקצץ פתילים is mentioned in connection with it (39,3) and we know that the word פתיל refers to something only twofold, so that if it was folded over it would be four-fold. This gives us 4 varieties of six-threaded strands and one variety of a four-threaded strand for the materials used on the חשן האפוד.

BESIDES THE BURNT-OFFERING OF THE MORNING. Scripture had to mention this here, in order to teach us that the burnt-offering of the people [which was a special offering for that day] did not exempt [them from bringing] the Daily burnt-offering, nor did it precede it [as nothing may ever be offered before the Daily burnt-offering of the morning]. But Scripture did not have to mention this about the seven days of consecration [namely that the offerings of those days were to be offered besides the burnt-offering of the morning], because those were offerings of individuals [i.e., Aaron and his sons] to consecrate them as priests, and it is self-understood that such offerings did not exempt [them from bringing] the Daily burnt-offering, nor did they precede it.
In the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have taught:³²Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 12. The meaning of this quote will be explained by Ramban further on in the text. “And the meal-offering was presented; and he filled his hand therefrom and burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning. What does this come to teach us? Shall we say it teaches us that if he could not obtain the meal-offering [which was offered with every burnt-offering] that he should nevertheless bring the animal [as a burnt-offering]? [That could not be the case], for it has already been stated, And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinances.³³Verse 16. If so, why does it say, and he burnt it [i.e., the meal-offering] upon the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning? It is to teach us that there were two meal-offerings there, one for the [Daily] burnt-offering and one [brought] by itself” [for the burnt-offering of the people, which was a special offering of that eighth day].
The meaning of this text [of the Torath Kohanim] is as follows: Had Scripture stated, “And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinance, besides the burnt-offering of the morning,” the sense thereof would have been to teach that the Daily burnt-offering precedes [the other offerings], as He says in the section of the Additional Offerings, it shall be offered beside the continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering thereof;³⁴Numbers 28:15. beside the continual burnt-offering.³⁵Ibid., Verse 31. But since He mentioned the meal-offering — stating, And the meal-offering was presented; and he filled his hand therefrom, and burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning — it appears that [the phrase, besides the burnt-offering of the morning] is said with reference to the meal-offering. Therefore the Rabbis commented that if it comes to say that he offered this meal-offering alone, but did not offer the drink-offering of the Daily burnt-offering nor that of the people’s burnt-offering [of the eighth day], because he only found [ingredients] for this freewill meal-offering — [that could not be the case]. For [in the preceding verse] it has already been stated, And the burnt-offering was presented, and he offered it according to the ordinance,³⁶Verse 16. This shows that the drink-offering was brought together with the people’s burnt-offering of the eighth day, for otherwise it would not have been according to the ordinance. The question then re-appears: why is the phrase besides the burnt-offering of the morning mentioned in connection with the meal-offering? which means that it was offered according to its ordinance, with the drink-offering. [Thus we cannot derive from here a principle that the lack of the drink-offering does not prevent the bringing of the offering itself, if the meal-offering and the wine for the drink-offering are not obtainable.] If so, why does it say, And the meal-offering was presented etc. and he burnt it on the altar, besides the burnt-offering of the morning? It is to teach that he offered this meal-offering [of the people’s burnt-offering brought on the eighth day] “besides the burnt-offering of the morning and its meal-offering,” for this meal-offering was not the drink-offering [which is an obligatory part of the Daily burnt-offering], but was the freewill meal-offering of Israel [namely part of the burnt-offering of the people which they brought on that day].³⁷For one might have thought that since the burnt-offering of the people brought especially on this eighth day was also a public one, it should be exempted from the duty of bringing a meal-offering, as the meal-offering of the Daily Whole-offering had already been brought; hence Scripture stated that this meal-offering which came with the people’s burnt-offering, was offered “besides the burnt-offering of the morning and its meal-offering.” It should be pointed out that Ramban refers to this meal-offering as minchath-nedavah (“freewill — meal-offering”) not because of its voluntary nature, namely that it be optional for Israel to bring it or not. The name minchath-nedavah is only to distinguish it from the meal-offering which constantly accompanied the Daily Whole-offering of the people, while this one represented the willing spirit of the people on this day. See further my Hebrew commentary p. 45.