Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Bilangan 4:25

You should appreciate that according to the Midrash the surprising feature of what occurred is that Tziporah performed the circumcision (verse 25). Surely, if Moses had been at the inn he himself should have performed this commandment! This is why Rabbeinu Chananel said that Moses was not at the inn at all, for the Torah had written earlier (verse 20) that Moses took his wife and children and let them ride on the donkey whereas he himself took the staff of G’d in his hand and walked. The meaning of these two verses is that Moses sent his wife and children ahead of him. If he had been walking and they were riding on the donkey it makes sense that they arrived at the inn before he did. When the Torah wrote of the angel: “he wanted to kill him,” the reference must be to the infant Eliezer. The angel assumed the shape of a snake devouring the upper half of the baby’s body down to the area where the circumcision should have occurred. The snake then spit out the baby and started to devour him from his feet upwards stopping at the same area as previously. At that point, Tziporah, realizing what the problem was, seized a sharp piece of flint and performed the act of circumcision. She had understood that the whole phenomenon was a punishment for not circumcising this infant on the eighth day after its birth. Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel at the beginning of his commentary on Parshat Yitro. On the other hand, I have seen that Rashi is of the opinion that Moses was present at the inn at the time but had been taken sick; since he was unable to perform the circumcision Tziporah acted as his surrogate.

AND THE PILLARS OF THE COURT ROUND ABOUT, AND THEIR SOCKETS, AND THEIR PINS, AND THEIR CORDS. “[These sockets, pins and cords refer only to] those of the pillars, because the pins and cords of the hangings were part of the burden of the Gershonites [as stated above in Verse 26, and here Scripture is speaking of the work of the sons of Merari]. For there were pins and cords for the curtains and hangings on their lower edges, so that the wind should not raise them, and there were [also] pins and cords round about the pillars, in order to suspend the hangings on them at their upper edges with poles and rails, as we have been taught in [the Beraitha] on the work of the Tabernacle.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not understand what pins have to do with the pillars!⁸The pins were made of brass (Exodus 27:19) and their purpose was to secure the hangings to the ground so that the wind would not blow them from side to side. The poles and rods to which the upper end of the hangings was fixed, however, were made of wood, not of brass, and are not included in the Hebrew word for pins. Therefore Ramban asks what do the pins [made of brass] have to do with the pillars? (Kur Zahav). Moreover, [even if the pillars did have pins], why were the pins of the pillars different from the other pins, in that [the other pins were given] to the sons of Gershon, and those [of the pillars were given] to the sons of Merari? Nor have I found in the Mishnah⁹See further in the following text, and also in Ramban on Exodus 26: 17, from which it is clear that Ramban when referring to the “Mishnah”, is in fact referring to the Beraitha on the construction of the Tabernacle. For the nature of this book, see Vol. II, p. 448, Note 108. on the work of the Tabernacle that there were pins to the pillars! Instead, the Rabbis taught there the following:¹⁰M’lecheth Hamishkan, Chapter 5 (p. 33, in Ish Shalom’s edition). “He [Moses] joined the rails by means of cords to the pillars, and attached them to the pins of the Tent. And just as there were pins to the Tabernacle, so were there pins to the court, as it is said, All the instruments of the Tabernacle in all the service thereof, and all the pins thereof, and all the pins of the court, round about, shall be of brass. ”¹¹Exodus 27:19. The expression “round about” is found ibid., 38:20. This is the language of the Beraitha. And it does not teach there that there were pins to the pillars.
But we must rather explain that the pins and cords of the hangings of the court¹²Above, Verse 26. were in the hands of the sons of Merari [not, as Rashi understands, that they were in the charge of the Gershonites]; whereas it is the cords and pins of the Tabernacle and Tent¹³See Note 179 in Seder Bamidbar. that were in the hands of the Gershonites, for [the prepositions] and ‘their’ cords, and all the instruments of ‘their’ service¹²Above, Verse 26. [mentioned in connection with the charge of the Gershonites] are a reference to the curtains of the Tabernacle and the Tent of Meeting¹⁴Ibid., Verse 25. mentioned in [the beginning of] the previous verse [relating to the work to be done by the Gershonite], and do not refer to [the hangings of] the court [as Rashi wrote]. Similarly, when He said above [with reference to the charge of the Gershonites], and the cords ‘of it’¹⁵Ibid., 3:26. [the preposition “it”] alludes to the Tabernacle mentioned there [in the preceding verse],¹⁶Ibid., Verse 25: And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle and the Tent etc. — Ramban is thus, interpreting the preposition “it” [and the cords of ‘it’] — in 3:26 — as referring back to Verse 25 which mentions the Tabernacle and Tent and does not refer to the hangings of the court mentioned in the selfsame Verse 26. To prove this method of exegesis, Ramban proceeds to bring examples from other places in Scripture where this principle perforce applies. and not to the hangings of the court [mentioned in the same verse]. A similar case [of a Scriptural reference to a prior subject] is [G-d’s command addressed to Aaron]: only ‘they’ shall not come nigh unto the vessels of holiness and unto the altar¹⁷Further, 18:3. [where the pronoun “they”] refers back to the more distant [phrase, namely: thy brethren, the tribe of Levi] the tribe of thy father¹⁸Ibid., Verse 2. [mentioned] in the preceding verse, and does not refer to the nearer [phrase] thy sons. So also the verse, And ‘their’ redemption-money — from a month old shalt thou redeem them¹⁹Ibid., Verse 16. [where the word “their”] refers back to the firstborn of man²⁰Ibid., Verse 15. [mentioned in the earlier part of the preceding verse], and not to the firstling of unclean beasts [stated at the end of the preceding verse]. There are many cases like this.
However, it appears to me that according to the text of the Beraitha [mentioned further on] the Gershonites only carried cloths, but [did] not [carry] any brass and wood at all. This is the Beraitha wherein we are taught:²¹M’lecheth Hamishkan, Chapter 13 (p. 80, in Ish Shalom’s edition). “The sons of Gershon were assigned [to pitch] on the west²²Above, 3:23. [of the Tabernacle], and they were in charge of all woven materials.” If so, the meaning of the term and their pins [mentioned in the verse before us dealing with the charge of the sons of Merari] is: “[the pins] of the Tabernacle and of the pillars of the court,” while [the term] and their cords refers only to those of the pillars of the court [since the cords of the Tabernacle itself were in the hands of the Gershonites]. Similarly He said above [with reference to the burden of the sons of Merari]: the boards of the Tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the pillars thereof, and the sockets thereof, and all the instruments thereof, and all that pertaineth to the service thereof,²³Ibid., Verse 36. including [in general terms] the pins thereof [i.e., of both the Tabernacle and the pillars of the court]. Therefore He mentioned the cords [in speaking of] both [the burdens of the sons of Gershon²⁴Verse 26. and those of Merari,²⁵In this verse. because the cords of the Tabernacle were carried by the sons of Gershon, and those of the pillars of the court by the sons of Merari], but the pins He mentioned only [in the verse before us] with reference to the sons of Merari [because the Gershonites carried no objects of brass or wood at all, but which instead were carried by the sons of Merari].

מסך, the construction of this word which means “screen” relative to the word מסיך, “something which screens,” (verbal mode), is similar to the word מגין, “something which protects,” to the word מגן (noun) “shield.” As a result of this consideration, even when this noun is used in the construct mode when we would expect the vowel kametz to be replaced by a chataf patach, i.e. masach, it does not change as the noun is really a derivative of the verb. This is not so in nouns such as דבר, or בקר, where the construct mode changes the vowel kametz to devar and bekar, respectively, seeing that both these words are nouns in their own right, are not derivatives of verbs. Examples are found in Numbers 4,25, as well as in Samuel II 1,21. Compare also Numbers 7,88 as well as Deuteronomy 15,2.