Commento su Numeri 7:84

ביום המשח אתו [THIS WAS THE DEDICATION OFFERING OF THE ALTAR] IN THE DAY WHEN IT WAS ANOINTED — This implies that on the very same day that it was anointed an offering was brought; but how, then, can I explain, (v. 88) “[This was dedication of the altar] after that it was anointed”? As intimating that it was first anointed and afterwards — but still on the same day — the offering was brought. Or, perhaps, these words אחרי המשח mean “some time (i.e. many days) after it was anointed”, and the phrase here ביום המשח אתו is merely intended to intimate that it was anointed during the day-time (and not at night)! This cannot be so, because when it states, (Leviticus 7:36) “In the day that he anointed them (Aaron and his sons)” we learn that it (the altar) was anointed during the day-time. What, then, must be the meaning of ביום המשח here? What we first suggested — that on the very same day that it was anointed the offering was brought (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 53).

זאת חנכת המזבח, when we compare the consecration of the altar of the Tabernacle to that of the consecration of Solomon’s Temple, this appears as so insignificant as to be hardly worth mentioning. (compare Kings I chapter 8)

ביום המשח אותו, on the day it was anointed. This verse is proof that our contention that all the princes had come to offer their gifts simultaneously on the first of Nissan is correct, but that G'd arranged that only one prince should offer his gift on any single day.

זאת חנוכת המזבח, “this was the consecration of the Altar, etc.” In this instance the Torah had first familiarized us with all the details of the ritual, and then proceeded to summarize it once more. Rashi says that the reason why the Torah summarized all this once more was to teach us that the weights described here were so accurate that when each bowl or basin had been weighed individually, and when subsequently they were weighed collectively, the total corresponded precisely to the multiple we were led to believe. Nachmanides writes that he did not understand what Rashi had in mind when he wrote these lines, quoting Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan. What possible advantage could we gain from having this information? If he considered the fact that the weights correspond to one another as so remarkable that this was considered a miracle, what purpose would this miracle serve? G’d does not work miracles unless they were needed. If it was something natural, why did this fact deserve special mention? Rashi, i.e. Rabbi Moshe hadarshan, wanted us to learn that ordinary vessels are not judged by the same standards as holy vessels, vessels used in the Temple. When ordinary vessels are weighed you will find that their weight varies slightly each time they are being weighed. When holy vessels are weighed they weigh precisely the same each time they are put on the scales. Rabbi Nathan described an experiment performed with the vessels used in the Temple. (Second Temple) according to which the vessels were not only melted down, but coins were minted from them. Subsequently, the coins were melted down and reconverted into the original vessels. It was found that there had been no loss of the original weight at all. All of this proves that already originally the gold used in those vessels was of the most refined kind, so much so that it contained no dross that would be burnt off during the repeated processes of melting those vessels down. Nachmanides concludes that the lesson to be learned from all this is that G’d honours those who fear Him. The princes brought all their various offerings on the same day, a day that all of them had agreed upon previously, so that it would become unavoidable that one of them would get his turn before his colleague when they lined up. Each prince would be given his flag in recognition of his offering. The order of the days in which the offerings were accepted on the altar corresponded to when the prince in question had received his flag. It was important to G’d (the Torah) that each prince and his offering would be named individually, as this was part of the honour paid to them by G’d. This is why the Torah did not write simply: “on the first day Nachshon brought the following offering, and he was followed by 11 other princes presenting duplicates of Nachshon’s offering”, although the Torah would have saved about 75 verses if it had done so. The reason for summarizing the offerings once more was to convey that the second prince had not needed to be inspired by his predecessor, etc., but that all had presented themselves at the entrance of the Tabernacle already on the first of Nissan, the first day when such offerings could be brought.

On the day [they were] anointed. (Kitzur Mizrochi) It appears to me that this is a copyist’s error and it should read “on the day אותו (it) was anointed,” this refers that which was written above “It came to pass on the day Moshe finished…” (v. 1). For we do not find a verse anywhere referring to the day that he anointed them, however we do find written “on the day they were anointed” (Vayikra 7:36) regarding the sons of Aharon. This is quoted here in Bamidbar Rabbah in relation to another matter and consequently the copyists erred and also wrote אותם (them) here.

V. 84. זאת חנכת וגו׳ usw. Diese Rekapitulation und zusammenfassende Zusammenstellung spricht die Gleichheit und die einmütige Zusammenstimmung der Fürsten Israels in der durch diese חנכת המזבח ausgesprochenen Stellung der einzelnen von ihnen vertretenen Stämme zu dem Gesamtheiligtume aus.

קערת כסף שתים עשרה TWELVE CHARGERS OF SILVER — This intimates: these are the same chargers which they had brought as free-will gifts and nothing to disqualify them had happened to them in the meantime (Sifrei Bamidbar 53).

These are the very ones. Rashi is answering the question: Why do I need it to count one spoon for each day since I know that the will total twelve?

מאת נשיאי ישראל, from the princes of Israel, etc. Why did the Torah have to write these words? Perhaps the Torah wanted to praise the princes for having acted spontaneously in order to inaugurate the altar. The word מאת is as if the Torah had written מאתם, i.e. that the idea originated with the princes and they had not been prompted. Our sages in Sifri volume 1 item 53 state that they all had an equal share in the single מצוה. What the sages meant was the offerings themselves were accounted as if they were a single offering. Different princes acquired different amounts of merit for their part in the offering, however. Nachshon's merit was the greatest of them all.