וְאֶכְתֹּב֙ עַל־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָי֛וּ עַל־הַלֻּחֹ֥ת הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר שִׁבַּ֑רְתָּ וְשַׂמְתָּ֖ם בָּאָרֽוֹן׃
Aku akan menuliskan pada loh-loh itu firman yang tertulis pada loh-loh yang semula, yang telah kaupecahkan, lalu engkau harus menaruhnya di dalam tabut.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
A Midrashic (Tanchuma Vayakhel 7) approach concerning the words: “Betzalel constructed the Ark,” Rabbi Chanina of Tzippori said that he actually made three arks, two of gold and one of acacia wood. He inserted the wooden one into the golden outer one; then he inserted the inner golden one into the wooden one. He covered the edges with gold to fulfill the instruction in Exodus 25,11: “you shall overlay it with gold from the inside and from the outside.” He understood the wording of the Torah to mean that although the wood of the Ark was totally enclosed, invisible, it was to be accorded honor seeing that the Torah is contained within it. The people even treated the broken first Tablets with honor placing the broken pieces within the Holy Ark, together with the Torah scroll and the second set of Tablets. The reason that the wood used for the Holy Ark was shittim wood was to remind the people of the sin the Israelites were to commit at a place called Shittim and to help atone for that sin. The wording of Deut. 10,2 “and place them in the Ark,” refers to the words immediately previous, i.e. אשר שברת “the ones you have broken.” The moral message was that even if one encounters a Torah scholar who is impoverished and whose exterior reflects this, one is to treat him with respect and honor as his body houses the Torah.
When G’d gave the instructions to build the Tabernacle, He had used the expression ועשית “you are to make, etc.” with every single item except in the case of the Ark where he said: ועשו, “they are to make the Ark” (25,10). The reason was so as not to allow any Israelite to say to another Israelite that he did not also have a share in the Torah. This was also one of the reasons that the Torah was given to the Jewish people in the desert, a region which is ownerless, has not been claimed by anyone as their own. The moral message is that the words of Torah are “ownerless,” no one has an exclusive on them, there is no law of copyright protecting the Torah. A person could not claim that seeing he was a natural born Jew that he had a claim to Torah not shared by converts who joined Judaism after the Torah had been given to the Jewish people. This is part of the meaning of Deut. 33,4 תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב, “Moses commanded us the Torah, it is to be handed down as an heritage to the Community of Yaakov.” The Torah chose the word קהלת יעקב to teach that anyone who joins the community of Yaakov has an equal claim to that heritage. Any convert has an equal claim to Torah provided he makes it the focus of his study and observance. When the Torah defined the purpose of the Torah, it wrote “in order that האדם, should perform its laws and live thereby.” The Torah did not write: “in order that a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite should perform its laws and live by it,” but it chose the all-embracing term האדם, (Leviticus 18,5).
It is worthwhile to compare what is written in Chronicles I 2,55 i.e. “the families of the scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, etc., etc., these are the Kenites who came from Hammath, father of the house of Rechav.” According to Tanchuma these people sat in the office of the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, (on the Temple Mount), were members of it, studied, taught, and occupied positions of distinction. This proves how accessible Torah is and was to converts at all times. The words describing this are very similar to the ones used in the Torah (Deut. 27,9) where Moses exhorts the people to study Torah and to listen carefully to instruction in Torah. Some commentators even understand the word “the Tirathites” as a play on words, referring to people who had heard the sound of the Teruah at Mount Sinai (according to the view that Yitro arrived in the Jewish camp prior to the giving of the Torah). The “Kenites descended from Rechav” are definitely identified as descendants of Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law.
In Yuma 72 we are told that Betzalel constructed three Arks, the inner one of gold being eight handbreadths in height, the middle one, the wooden one, being nine handbreadths in height, whereas the golden outer one was slightly over ten handbreadths in height. To the question how much higher than ten handbreadths the outer Ark was, the Talmud answers זיר, a measurement of approx. the height to accommodate the kapporet to fit on the inside and yet leave a crest to form a sort of crown or border. [According to this view the kapporet must have been considerably thinner than a handbreadth. Ed.]
When G’d gave the instructions to build the Tabernacle, He had used the expression ועשית “you are to make, etc.” with every single item except in the case of the Ark where he said: ועשו, “they are to make the Ark” (25,10). The reason was so as not to allow any Israelite to say to another Israelite that he did not also have a share in the Torah. This was also one of the reasons that the Torah was given to the Jewish people in the desert, a region which is ownerless, has not been claimed by anyone as their own. The moral message is that the words of Torah are “ownerless,” no one has an exclusive on them, there is no law of copyright protecting the Torah. A person could not claim that seeing he was a natural born Jew that he had a claim to Torah not shared by converts who joined Judaism after the Torah had been given to the Jewish people. This is part of the meaning of Deut. 33,4 תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב, “Moses commanded us the Torah, it is to be handed down as an heritage to the Community of Yaakov.” The Torah chose the word קהלת יעקב to teach that anyone who joins the community of Yaakov has an equal claim to that heritage. Any convert has an equal claim to Torah provided he makes it the focus of his study and observance. When the Torah defined the purpose of the Torah, it wrote “in order that האדם, should perform its laws and live thereby.” The Torah did not write: “in order that a priest, a Levite, or an Israelite should perform its laws and live by it,” but it chose the all-embracing term האדם, (Leviticus 18,5).
It is worthwhile to compare what is written in Chronicles I 2,55 i.e. “the families of the scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, etc., etc., these are the Kenites who came from Hammath, father of the house of Rechav.” According to Tanchuma these people sat in the office of the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, (on the Temple Mount), were members of it, studied, taught, and occupied positions of distinction. This proves how accessible Torah is and was to converts at all times. The words describing this are very similar to the ones used in the Torah (Deut. 27,9) where Moses exhorts the people to study Torah and to listen carefully to instruction in Torah. Some commentators even understand the word “the Tirathites” as a play on words, referring to people who had heard the sound of the Teruah at Mount Sinai (according to the view that Yitro arrived in the Jewish camp prior to the giving of the Torah). The “Kenites descended from Rechav” are definitely identified as descendants of Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law.
In Yuma 72 we are told that Betzalel constructed three Arks, the inner one of gold being eight handbreadths in height, the middle one, the wooden one, being nine handbreadths in height, whereas the golden outer one was slightly over ten handbreadths in height. To the question how much higher than ten handbreadths the outer Ark was, the Talmud answers זיר, a measurement of approx. the height to accommodate the kapporet to fit on the inside and yet leave a crest to form a sort of crown or border. [According to this view the kapporet must have been considerably thinner than a handbreadth. Ed.]
Kli Yakar
The commentaries bring this juxtaposition in four places. First, the juxtaposition of the death of Aaron’s sons to Yom Kippur which atones (Leviticus 16:1). Second, the juxtaposition of Miriam to the red heifer. Third, the juxtaposition of Aaron’s death to the priestly garments which atone (Numbers 20:28), as our Sages explained (Moed Katan 28a). Fourth, the juxtaposition of Aaron’s death to the breaking of the tablets (Deuteronomy 10:2–6), teaching that the death of the righteous is as severe as the breaking of the tablets.
This is because from every righteous person, four types of benefits come to the people of his generation. The first is that the entire world is sustained by his merit, as our Sages said (Berakhot 17b), “The entire world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” as we explained in the portion of Vayechi regarding Goren ha-Atad and in the portion of Emor on the verse “except for his relative.” They are like a mother nursing her child, as it is written (Tanchuma Shemot 12:28), “Your two breasts are like Moses and Aaron,” and as Rashi explained (Song of Songs 4:5). Similarly, we find that in Miriam’s merit they had the well which provided for all of Israel’s needs. This is the connection of her death to the red heifer, the mother of the calf that comes to rectify the damage of her offspring.
The second benefit is that the righteous person teaches them effectively about the way of God and commandments; therefore, his passing is comparable to the breaking of the tablets.
The third benefit is that his merit protects like a shadow and like a garment made to protect from cold and heat. With his death, his protective shadow is removed, and they are left naked without any covering, as it is said (Numbers 20:29), And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died, and our Sages interpreted (Rosh Hashanah 3a) “va-yir’u” [they saw] with the letter yud vocalized with a tzere, meaning “they became visible,” referring to the removal of the cloud which was likened to a garment. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to the priestly garments.
The fourth benefit is that he atones for the people through his death. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to Yom Kippur, and it is easily understood.
This is because from every righteous person, four types of benefits come to the people of his generation. The first is that the entire world is sustained by his merit, as our Sages said (Berakhot 17b), “The entire world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” as we explained in the portion of Vayechi regarding Goren ha-Atad and in the portion of Emor on the verse “except for his relative.” They are like a mother nursing her child, as it is written (Tanchuma Shemot 12:28), “Your two breasts are like Moses and Aaron,” and as Rashi explained (Song of Songs 4:5). Similarly, we find that in Miriam’s merit they had the well which provided for all of Israel’s needs. This is the connection of her death to the red heifer, the mother of the calf that comes to rectify the damage of her offspring.
The second benefit is that the righteous person teaches them effectively about the way of God and commandments; therefore, his passing is comparable to the breaking of the tablets.
The third benefit is that his merit protects like a shadow and like a garment made to protect from cold and heat. With his death, his protective shadow is removed, and they are left naked without any covering, as it is said (Numbers 20:29), And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died, and our Sages interpreted (Rosh Hashanah 3a) “va-yir’u” [they saw] with the letter yud vocalized with a tzere, meaning “they became visible,” referring to the removal of the cloud which was likened to a garment. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to the priestly garments.
The fourth benefit is that he atones for the people through his death. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to Yom Kippur, and it is easily understood.
Kli Yakar
And the Children of Israel traveled from Beeroth Benei-Yaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died. Rashi explains: Didn’t Aaron die at Mount Hor, etc.? There are several questions regarding this matter:
First, if the intention is to inform us that they returned backwards from Mount Hor to Moserah, it should have said that they traveled from Mount Hor to Kadesh, etc., until Moserah. Why does it omit all the journeys and mention only that they traveled from Beeroth Benei-Yaakan to Moserah?
Second, why is the term “Beeroth” [wells of] Benei-Yaakan mentioned here, while in Parashat Masei this language of “Beeroth” is not mentioned?
Third, here [Rashi] concludes that they returned backwards eight journeys, while in Parashat Chukat, Rashi explains they returned seven journeys.
Fourth, There Aaron died — Rashi explains that they conducted a eulogy there. Why specifically there in Moserah and not earlier?
Fifth, what is the purpose of stating and Eleazar his son served as priest in his place, as this is not related to the rebuke.
Sixth, From there they journeyed to Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Yotvata, a land of flowing water. Why is this encampment at Yotvata detailed more than all other encampments, and why are flowing waters mentioned here but not in Parashat Masei?
Seventh, regarding the statement At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi — this separation occurred at the beginning of the 40 [years], so what is its relevance here?
Eighth, regarding the statement and to bless in His name, to this day. To which day is He pointing to say to this day? And were they not set apart from then onwards?
Ninth, Rashi’s explanation that the sons of Levi brought them back — from where did Rashi derive this interpretation? If it is a tradition, we will accept it.
Tenth, Rashi’s explanation that “this teaches you that the death of the righteous is as difficult as the breaking of the Tablets” — but this entire section speaks of the second Tablets, and the phrase which you broke, that verse is not adjacent to Aaron’s death.
Eleventh, Rashi’s explanation that “this day which they said let us appoint a head and return [to Egypt] was as difficult as the day they made the golden calf.” The calf was not mentioned at all, as it does not appear anywhere in this section.
First, if the intention is to inform us that they returned backwards from Mount Hor to Moserah, it should have said that they traveled from Mount Hor to Kadesh, etc., until Moserah. Why does it omit all the journeys and mention only that they traveled from Beeroth Benei-Yaakan to Moserah?
Second, why is the term “Beeroth” [wells of] Benei-Yaakan mentioned here, while in Parashat Masei this language of “Beeroth” is not mentioned?
Third, here [Rashi] concludes that they returned backwards eight journeys, while in Parashat Chukat, Rashi explains they returned seven journeys.
Fourth, There Aaron died — Rashi explains that they conducted a eulogy there. Why specifically there in Moserah and not earlier?
Fifth, what is the purpose of stating and Eleazar his son served as priest in his place, as this is not related to the rebuke.
Sixth, From there they journeyed to Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Yotvata, a land of flowing water. Why is this encampment at Yotvata detailed more than all other encampments, and why are flowing waters mentioned here but not in Parashat Masei?
Seventh, regarding the statement At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi — this separation occurred at the beginning of the 40 [years], so what is its relevance here?
Eighth, regarding the statement and to bless in His name, to this day. To which day is He pointing to say to this day? And were they not set apart from then onwards?
Ninth, Rashi’s explanation that the sons of Levi brought them back — from where did Rashi derive this interpretation? If it is a tradition, we will accept it.
Tenth, Rashi’s explanation that “this teaches you that the death of the righteous is as difficult as the breaking of the Tablets” — but this entire section speaks of the second Tablets, and the phrase which you broke, that verse is not adjacent to Aaron’s death.
Eleventh, Rashi’s explanation that “this day which they said let us appoint a head and return [to Egypt] was as difficult as the day they made the golden calf.” The calf was not mentioned at all, as it does not appear anywhere in this section.
Rashi
ואנכי עמדתי בהר AND I REMAINED ON THE MOUNT to receive the last (second) tablets. — Since it does not state above (v. 2) how long he remained on the mount at this last ascent, he begins again with it (with that incident).