וַיִּזְבַּ֣ח שְׁלֹמֹ֗ה אֵ֣ת זֶ֣בַח הַשְּׁלָמִים֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר זָבַ֣ח לַיהוָה֒ בָּקָ֗ר עֶשְׂרִ֤ים וּשְׁנַ֙יִם֙ אֶ֔לֶף וְצֹ֕אן מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים אָ֑לֶף וַֽיַּחְנְכוּ֙ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית יְהוָ֔ה הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ וְכָל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
E Salomone offrì per il sacrificio di pace, che offrì al Signore, ventiduemila buoi e centoventimila pecore. Così il re e tutti i figli d'Israele dedicarono la casa del Signore.
Rabbeinu Bahya
A Midrashic approach: the words: “It was on the day Moses completed the erecting of the Tabernacle” are reminiscent of Proverbs 27,18: “He who tends the fig tree will eat its fruit; he who waits on his master will be honoured.” G’d does not withhold the appropriate reward for any creature. If man has toiled and devoted his best efforts to something worthy he will be rewarded. The Midrash illustrates this with the example of David, his son Solomon, and the Temple. It is well known that the scheme to build the Temple originated with David. Not only did he amass most of the funds and materials for the project but he had drawn up detailed blue prints. This is why we find that psalm 30,1 credits the Temple to David rather than to his son Solomon who had spent seven years building it. At the inauguration the hymn commences with the words מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד, “a psalm for David. A song for the dedication of the House.” You will observe a similar phenomenon with the Tabernacle. Seeing that Moses had devoted so much effort to see the Tabernacle built, had assembled it, erected it, etc., we find here that though Betzalel was the chief architect and executive carrying out the construction, that the Torah speaks about the day “Moses completed the Tabernacle.” This is the way the Torah expresses its recognition of the contribution by people whose efforts is likened to those who plant a fig tree.
Another Midrashic insight: the words: “it was on the day Moses completed the Tabernacle,” are reminiscent of another part of Psalms 51,2--21 “May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings; the bulls will be offered on Your altar.” Seeing that in this world, at the inauguration of the Tabernacle the sacrifices were quantitatively minuscule, as described in verse 12, G’d could have reacted to such measly offerings with some degree of indignation. The Jewish people, forestalling such a complaint explained that seeing they were not in Jerusalem, did not yet have a home of their own, were traveling through the desert, they only presented a token of their esteem for their king G’d. They hinted in this psalm that as soon as their king would lead them to their permanent home they would reciprocate by presenting the King with sacrifices more in keeping with his stature. In fact when you will study the report of the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple and compare it with the inauguration of the Tabernacle you will be amazed at the quantitative difference. The courtyard of the Temple had to be enlarged (the sanctified area) in order to accommodate all the animals being slaughtered on that occasion. Kings I 8,63 tells of 22,000 oxen, 120,0000 sheep. being sacrificed at that time. Even during the days of Ezra, at the inauguration of the second Temple, when the economic and numerical condition of the Jewish people was a far cry from the glorious days of Solomon, we read that 100 bulls, 200 rams, 400 lambs, and 12 goats were offered on that occasion (Ezra 6,17).
Another interpretation: The choice of the word כלות in the verse ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן causes Rabbi Yochanan to understand the meaning of the word in the same sense as in Genesis 18,21 where it referred to total extinction of the people of Sodom. As long as the Tabernacle had not been erected the various destructive forces commonly known as demons had free reign on earth. When Moses had ascended Mount Sinai he recited Psalms 91,1 יושב בסתר עליון בצל שדי יתלונן, extolling “the Jewish people who had been allowed to reside in the shelter of the Most High and abide in the protection of Shaddai.” Tanchuma Nasso 23 understands these words slightly differently i.e. the word צל, shadow, has a numerical value of 120. This is the combined number of days (3 times 40) which Moses spent in that “hideout” near G’d on the mountain. In verse two of that hymn Moses says to G’d: “my refuge and stronghold, my G’d in whom I trust.” G’d responded: “seeing you placed your trust in Me, I will indeed stand by you.” This is why the following verses dealing with miraculous rescues refer particularly to David whom G’d rescued from certain death at the hands of King Shaul (compare Samuel I 23,26). On the words ותחת כנפיו תחסה צנה וסוחרה אמתו, “and under His wings you will find refuge; His fidelity is an encircling shield (verse 4),” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish comments in that same Midrash that G’d promises to act in the fashion described for all who are true students of Torah. The next verse in the psalm, speaking of there being no need to fear the terror by night or the arrow that flies by day, is a reference to destructive forces on earth known by Moses in the psalm, i.e. the ones who fly around by day. The term קטב מרירי mentioned in verse six is a destructive agent whose sighting the victim is not likely to survive at all. It kills man and beast alike without direct contact. To help identify this creature, our author describes its head as similar to the head of a calf, it sprouts one horn on the middle of its forehead; the time of year when it is rampant is between the 17th of Tammuz and the ninth of Av, i.e. the period when the city of Jerusalem and at the end the Temple were captured and destroyed.
When the psalmist (Moses) continues in verse 10 with: “no harm will befall you, no disease will touch your tent,” this is a reference to the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle. As long as the Tabernacle had not become functional these various destructive forces were commonplace; from the day described in our verse they ceased to exist.
Another Midrashic insight: the words: “it was on the day Moses completed the Tabernacle,” are reminiscent of another part of Psalms 51,2--21 “May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings; the bulls will be offered on Your altar.” Seeing that in this world, at the inauguration of the Tabernacle the sacrifices were quantitatively minuscule, as described in verse 12, G’d could have reacted to such measly offerings with some degree of indignation. The Jewish people, forestalling such a complaint explained that seeing they were not in Jerusalem, did not yet have a home of their own, were traveling through the desert, they only presented a token of their esteem for their king G’d. They hinted in this psalm that as soon as their king would lead them to their permanent home they would reciprocate by presenting the King with sacrifices more in keeping with his stature. In fact when you will study the report of the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple and compare it with the inauguration of the Tabernacle you will be amazed at the quantitative difference. The courtyard of the Temple had to be enlarged (the sanctified area) in order to accommodate all the animals being slaughtered on that occasion. Kings I 8,63 tells of 22,000 oxen, 120,0000 sheep. being sacrificed at that time. Even during the days of Ezra, at the inauguration of the second Temple, when the economic and numerical condition of the Jewish people was a far cry from the glorious days of Solomon, we read that 100 bulls, 200 rams, 400 lambs, and 12 goats were offered on that occasion (Ezra 6,17).
Another interpretation: The choice of the word כלות in the verse ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן causes Rabbi Yochanan to understand the meaning of the word in the same sense as in Genesis 18,21 where it referred to total extinction of the people of Sodom. As long as the Tabernacle had not been erected the various destructive forces commonly known as demons had free reign on earth. When Moses had ascended Mount Sinai he recited Psalms 91,1 יושב בסתר עליון בצל שדי יתלונן, extolling “the Jewish people who had been allowed to reside in the shelter of the Most High and abide in the protection of Shaddai.” Tanchuma Nasso 23 understands these words slightly differently i.e. the word צל, shadow, has a numerical value of 120. This is the combined number of days (3 times 40) which Moses spent in that “hideout” near G’d on the mountain. In verse two of that hymn Moses says to G’d: “my refuge and stronghold, my G’d in whom I trust.” G’d responded: “seeing you placed your trust in Me, I will indeed stand by you.” This is why the following verses dealing with miraculous rescues refer particularly to David whom G’d rescued from certain death at the hands of King Shaul (compare Samuel I 23,26). On the words ותחת כנפיו תחסה צנה וסוחרה אמתו, “and under His wings you will find refuge; His fidelity is an encircling shield (verse 4),” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish comments in that same Midrash that G’d promises to act in the fashion described for all who are true students of Torah. The next verse in the psalm, speaking of there being no need to fear the terror by night or the arrow that flies by day, is a reference to destructive forces on earth known by Moses in the psalm, i.e. the ones who fly around by day. The term קטב מרירי mentioned in verse six is a destructive agent whose sighting the victim is not likely to survive at all. It kills man and beast alike without direct contact. To help identify this creature, our author describes its head as similar to the head of a calf, it sprouts one horn on the middle of its forehead; the time of year when it is rampant is between the 17th of Tammuz and the ninth of Av, i.e. the period when the city of Jerusalem and at the end the Temple were captured and destroyed.
When the psalmist (Moses) continues in verse 10 with: “no harm will befall you, no disease will touch your tent,” this is a reference to the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle. As long as the Tabernacle had not become functional these various destructive forces were commonplace; from the day described in our verse they ceased to exist.
Rabbeinu Bahya
A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Acharey 8): The emphasis of the text on the death of “two sons of Aaron dying” [without naming them, Ed.] suggests that actually all four of his sons were guilty of death dating back to Aaron’s share in the sin of the golden calf. Moses prayed on their behalf resulting in two of Aaron’s sons being spared. All of this is based on Moses recalling in Deut. 9,19: “G’d was also angry enough at Aaron ready to wipe him out.” The word השמדה which is the one used by Moses at that time invariably involves the death of someone’s children. Example: Amos 2,9 ואשמיד פריו ממעל ושרשיו מתחת, “I will wipe out his fruit from above and his roots from below.” Seeing that Moses prayed, G’d responded to half of his prayer saying to him: “did I not write in My Torah (Exodus 22,8) ‘concerning every liability, whether an ox a donkey, a sheep, or a garment-regarding any lost item about which he said: ‘this is it!” To the court shall come both their claims. Whomever the court finds guilty shall pay double to his fellow.’” Someone who incurred guilt on account of an ox deserves to be punished. The prophet Ezekiel 23,20 already said that the Israelites exchanged their honour (G’d) for an ox. Anyone incurring guilt “on account of a donkey,” refers to the Egyptians whose flesh has been described by Ezekiel as the flesh of donkeys in that same verse; the ones referred to were the converts whom Moses allowed to convert at the time and who were the initiators in the golden calf being made. When the verse in Exodus continues with “guilt incurred on account of a lamb,” the reference is to the Jewish people who have been referred to as a lamb in Jeremiah 50,17 when the prophet speaks of “Israel the scattered sheep.” This too is a reference to the mixed multitude of converts who had initiated the process resulting in the golden calf and had dragged the Israelites into following their lead and becoming guilty of that sin. Regarding the reference to the garment in the verse in Exodus 22,8 this is a simile for the leaders of the people, the ones wearing the priestly garments. These garments have been referred to as describing their important wearers in Isaiah 3,6 “in whose father’s house there is clothing, come be a chief over us.” The words “concerning every lost object” in the verse in Exodus are a simile for people who have lost their way, and therefore are looking for a leader. The absence or failure of Moses to return when expected triggered the whole episode of the people wanting a replacement for him. The words “of which he says: ‘this is it,’” is a veiled reference to the Israelites saying about the golden calf: ‘this is your G’d O Israel who has taken you out of Egypt.’” The words “concerning which he says “this is he;” this is also a veiled reference to the instigators saying of the absent Moses “for this man Moses, etc.” (Exodus 32,1). The words “to a judge (court) shall come both their claims,” refers to Moses whom G’d had appointed as a judge for Pharaoh (Exodus 7,1). The people were to lay their problems in front of Moses and he would arbitrate them. The words: “whomever the court will find guilty”, refer to Aaron whom Moses had accused (declared guilty) saying to him: what did the people do to you that you brought this guilt upon them?” (Exodus 32,21).The words: “they shall pay twice to his fellow” is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who paid the price for his involvement in the affair of the golden calf. This is why the Torah wrote: ”the two sons of Aaron who died.”
Tanchuma Acharey 1 exploits our verse to explain what Kohelet 9,2 referred to when Solomon wrote: “For the same fate is in store for all; for the righteous, and for the wicked; for the good and pure, and for the impure; for him who sacrifices, and for him who does not sacrifice; for him who is pleasing, and for him who is displeasing; and for him who swears, and for him who shuns oaths.” In that verse Solomon reviews his findings after he had looked at the history of man, had examined the relative fates of the righteous and the wicked. and had found that the righteous and the wicked share similar experiences “under the sun;” this is what Solomon referred to as “the evil which takes place under the sun” (Kohelet 9,3). The righteous of whom Kohelet speaks was Avraham of whom G’d had said in Genesis 18,19 “for I know him well, so that he will command his offspring to observe the path of the Lord to practice charity and justice,” etc. The “wicked” of whom Solomon spoke in Kohelet was Nimrod who instigated a rebellion against G’d throughout the world. Both of them died. This is whom Solomon had in mind when he said that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate. When Solomon added “and to the good,” he meant Moses; the Torah had reported of Moses that his mother “saw that he was good,” as soon as he was born (compare Exodus 2,2). When Solomon spoke about the “pure” in that verse in Kohelet he referred to David of whom it is written in Samuel I 16,12: “so they sent and brought him. He was ruddy-cheeked, bright eyed and handsome.” When speaking about the “impure” in Kohelet, Solomon referred to King Nevuchadnezzar. David laid the foundations of the Holy Temple and ruled for 40 years, whereas Nevuchadnezzar destroyed that Temple and also ruled for 40 years. The repetition of the words “the same fate is common to them all,” refers to the people who offer sacrifices to the Lord, i.e. Solomon, of whom we are told in Kings I 8,63 that he offered 22.000 cattle offerings at the consecration of the Holy Temple, whereas his successor Jerobam did not offer any sacrifices in that Temple. Not only that, Jerobam prevented the Israelites from making their pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Temple. Solomon had continued in Kohelet that the “good” one i.e. Moses, experienced the same fate as the “sinner.” The good one he referred to was Moses whereas the sinner referred to the spies who had slandered the land of Israel. Both died and did not get to inherit that land. When Solomon added in Kohelet 9,3 that the one who renders an oath is equal to the one who does not, he meant Tzidkiyahu King of Yehudah whom Nevuchadnezzar blinded, (Chronicles II 36,13) as a result of his having dishonoured his oath of allegiance to him, whereas Samson who had not sworn an oath of allegiance to Israel’s enemies was also blinded (by the Philistines Judges 15,12).
An alternative way of explaining Kohelet 9,3: The words that the “good and the sinners” experience the same fate refers to the sons of Aaron being the good, whereas Korach and his rebellious colleagues are referred to as the sinners. The former were burned by heavenly fire (Numbers 16,38), whereas the sons of Aaron were burned by similar fire as reported in Leviticus 10,2.
Concerning such similarities in the fates of the good and the wicked, Tanchuma Acharey 8 understands Elihu saying in Job 37,1: “because of this too, my heart quakes, and leaps from its place.” He wondered how it could be that a dry stick of wood which was deposited in the Sanctuary began to blossom and to bear fruit, (compare Numbers 17,22-23) whereas the sons of Aaron who entered there alive and offered a gift to G’d were burned instead and had to be removed from there as corpses? Rabbi Acha commented that Kohelet 2,2 which has Solomon saying: “I said of laughter ‘it is mad, and of joy what does it accomplish?’ that Solomon referred to the attribute of Justice.”
He himself had violated the three restrictions which the Torah imposes on the lifestyle of a Jewish king; 1) not to have too many wives, 2) not to have too many horses, and 3) not to amass too much gold and silver (Deut. 17,16). Solomon had 700 wives of full wifely status and three hundred concubines (Kings I 11,3); he had 40.000 stables for his horses (Kings I 5,6) and such an amount of silver and gold that they did not bother to keep count of the silver (Kings I 10,27). When Solomon downplayed the value of joy, G’d said to him: ‘in that case what do you need this crown for?’ He suggested that he descend from his throne briefly. In the interval someone resembling the king ascended the throne and claimed to be Solomon. No amount of protest by Solomon helped, he was treated as if insane, beaten as a pretender to the throne, fed inferior food, etc., and became a refugee in his own kingdom. When all this befell him he was moved to exclaim (Kohelet 22,10) “this is my share after all my labors!”
Another explanation of the words in Kohelet 2,2 “I said of laughter it is madness:” This was the laughter by the attribute of Justice when it heard that Elisheva, wife of Aaron, prided herself on the morning of the first of Nissan of that year that she had merited four separate joyful occasions on that day; she had seen her husband appointed High Priest; her brother Nachshon had been elevated to the position of tribal head; her two oldest sons had been appointed as deputy High Priests; As soon as these two sons entered the Sanctuary they were burned to death. Solomon referred to the brief duration of Elisheva’s joy on that occasion and on the futility of enjoying such moments.
The Midrash relates Job 39,27-30 to that event. We read there of G’d saying to Job: “does the eagle soar at your command, building high its nest, dwelling in the rock, lodging upon the fastness of a jutting rock? From there he spies out his food, from afar his eyes see it. His young gulp blood; where the slain are there is he.” In those verses G’d said to Job in effect; “if you were able to command the eagle where and when to build his nest, then you would also be greater than Aaron at whose bidding I allowed My Shechinah to rest on top of the Holy Ark.” The various further similes such as “the fastness jutting out of a rock,” refer to the second Temple. The rock is a reference to the אבן שתיה which was the substitute in the second Temple for the Holy Ark, the kapporet and the cherubim of the first Temple and the Tabernacle. The reason that slab of stone was called אבן שתיה, “the stone of drinking,” was that the entire earth’s food supply is channeled by G’d through the site of where this stone is located. When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prayed for the economic welfare of the Jewish people, he said: ”may it be Your will O Lord that the coming year will be one of dew and adequate rainfall, a year of plenty, a year of grace before You, a year of blessing, a year of successful business dealings, a year in which the Jewish people should not have to depend on one another for handouts nor for handouts from Gentile nations. May it be a year when the people should not try and impose their will on each other by force. Their eyes should be focused on distant targets,” i.e. they should know what would be at the end of the year.
How would this blessing and the fact that it was granted be evident? If the smoke from the altar’s offerings rose in a southerly direction this would forecast prosperity for the people living in the south of the country. Similarly, if that smoke rose in a westerly direction it would signify prosperity for the Israelites living close to the sea. If it rose straight up, it would indicate that the whole country (or the whole world) would enjoy prosperity during that year. The נשר in that verse in Job is a simile for G’d who is described elsewhere as like an eagle having transported the Children of Israel out of Egypt for the first 120 kilometers on “eagle’s wings.” All of the complimentary comments in those verses in Job apply to Aaron. In spite of this great stature of Aaron, “his young gulp blood,” i.e. his sons died and yet he kept silent, did not question or complain as did Job when disaster struck him. The very presence of the Shechinah did not prevent the disaster. Thus far the Tanchuma.
Tanchuma Acharey 1 exploits our verse to explain what Kohelet 9,2 referred to when Solomon wrote: “For the same fate is in store for all; for the righteous, and for the wicked; for the good and pure, and for the impure; for him who sacrifices, and for him who does not sacrifice; for him who is pleasing, and for him who is displeasing; and for him who swears, and for him who shuns oaths.” In that verse Solomon reviews his findings after he had looked at the history of man, had examined the relative fates of the righteous and the wicked. and had found that the righteous and the wicked share similar experiences “under the sun;” this is what Solomon referred to as “the evil which takes place under the sun” (Kohelet 9,3). The righteous of whom Kohelet speaks was Avraham of whom G’d had said in Genesis 18,19 “for I know him well, so that he will command his offspring to observe the path of the Lord to practice charity and justice,” etc. The “wicked” of whom Solomon spoke in Kohelet was Nimrod who instigated a rebellion against G’d throughout the world. Both of them died. This is whom Solomon had in mind when he said that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate. When Solomon added “and to the good,” he meant Moses; the Torah had reported of Moses that his mother “saw that he was good,” as soon as he was born (compare Exodus 2,2). When Solomon spoke about the “pure” in that verse in Kohelet he referred to David of whom it is written in Samuel I 16,12: “so they sent and brought him. He was ruddy-cheeked, bright eyed and handsome.” When speaking about the “impure” in Kohelet, Solomon referred to King Nevuchadnezzar. David laid the foundations of the Holy Temple and ruled for 40 years, whereas Nevuchadnezzar destroyed that Temple and also ruled for 40 years. The repetition of the words “the same fate is common to them all,” refers to the people who offer sacrifices to the Lord, i.e. Solomon, of whom we are told in Kings I 8,63 that he offered 22.000 cattle offerings at the consecration of the Holy Temple, whereas his successor Jerobam did not offer any sacrifices in that Temple. Not only that, Jerobam prevented the Israelites from making their pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Temple. Solomon had continued in Kohelet that the “good” one i.e. Moses, experienced the same fate as the “sinner.” The good one he referred to was Moses whereas the sinner referred to the spies who had slandered the land of Israel. Both died and did not get to inherit that land. When Solomon added in Kohelet 9,3 that the one who renders an oath is equal to the one who does not, he meant Tzidkiyahu King of Yehudah whom Nevuchadnezzar blinded, (Chronicles II 36,13) as a result of his having dishonoured his oath of allegiance to him, whereas Samson who had not sworn an oath of allegiance to Israel’s enemies was also blinded (by the Philistines Judges 15,12).
An alternative way of explaining Kohelet 9,3: The words that the “good and the sinners” experience the same fate refers to the sons of Aaron being the good, whereas Korach and his rebellious colleagues are referred to as the sinners. The former were burned by heavenly fire (Numbers 16,38), whereas the sons of Aaron were burned by similar fire as reported in Leviticus 10,2.
Concerning such similarities in the fates of the good and the wicked, Tanchuma Acharey 8 understands Elihu saying in Job 37,1: “because of this too, my heart quakes, and leaps from its place.” He wondered how it could be that a dry stick of wood which was deposited in the Sanctuary began to blossom and to bear fruit, (compare Numbers 17,22-23) whereas the sons of Aaron who entered there alive and offered a gift to G’d were burned instead and had to be removed from there as corpses? Rabbi Acha commented that Kohelet 2,2 which has Solomon saying: “I said of laughter ‘it is mad, and of joy what does it accomplish?’ that Solomon referred to the attribute of Justice.”
He himself had violated the three restrictions which the Torah imposes on the lifestyle of a Jewish king; 1) not to have too many wives, 2) not to have too many horses, and 3) not to amass too much gold and silver (Deut. 17,16). Solomon had 700 wives of full wifely status and three hundred concubines (Kings I 11,3); he had 40.000 stables for his horses (Kings I 5,6) and such an amount of silver and gold that they did not bother to keep count of the silver (Kings I 10,27). When Solomon downplayed the value of joy, G’d said to him: ‘in that case what do you need this crown for?’ He suggested that he descend from his throne briefly. In the interval someone resembling the king ascended the throne and claimed to be Solomon. No amount of protest by Solomon helped, he was treated as if insane, beaten as a pretender to the throne, fed inferior food, etc., and became a refugee in his own kingdom. When all this befell him he was moved to exclaim (Kohelet 22,10) “this is my share after all my labors!”
Another explanation of the words in Kohelet 2,2 “I said of laughter it is madness:” This was the laughter by the attribute of Justice when it heard that Elisheva, wife of Aaron, prided herself on the morning of the first of Nissan of that year that she had merited four separate joyful occasions on that day; she had seen her husband appointed High Priest; her brother Nachshon had been elevated to the position of tribal head; her two oldest sons had been appointed as deputy High Priests; As soon as these two sons entered the Sanctuary they were burned to death. Solomon referred to the brief duration of Elisheva’s joy on that occasion and on the futility of enjoying such moments.
The Midrash relates Job 39,27-30 to that event. We read there of G’d saying to Job: “does the eagle soar at your command, building high its nest, dwelling in the rock, lodging upon the fastness of a jutting rock? From there he spies out his food, from afar his eyes see it. His young gulp blood; where the slain are there is he.” In those verses G’d said to Job in effect; “if you were able to command the eagle where and when to build his nest, then you would also be greater than Aaron at whose bidding I allowed My Shechinah to rest on top of the Holy Ark.” The various further similes such as “the fastness jutting out of a rock,” refer to the second Temple. The rock is a reference to the אבן שתיה which was the substitute in the second Temple for the Holy Ark, the kapporet and the cherubim of the first Temple and the Tabernacle. The reason that slab of stone was called אבן שתיה, “the stone of drinking,” was that the entire earth’s food supply is channeled by G’d through the site of where this stone is located. When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prayed for the economic welfare of the Jewish people, he said: ”may it be Your will O Lord that the coming year will be one of dew and adequate rainfall, a year of plenty, a year of grace before You, a year of blessing, a year of successful business dealings, a year in which the Jewish people should not have to depend on one another for handouts nor for handouts from Gentile nations. May it be a year when the people should not try and impose their will on each other by force. Their eyes should be focused on distant targets,” i.e. they should know what would be at the end of the year.
How would this blessing and the fact that it was granted be evident? If the smoke from the altar’s offerings rose in a southerly direction this would forecast prosperity for the people living in the south of the country. Similarly, if that smoke rose in a westerly direction it would signify prosperity for the Israelites living close to the sea. If it rose straight up, it would indicate that the whole country (or the whole world) would enjoy prosperity during that year. The נשר in that verse in Job is a simile for G’d who is described elsewhere as like an eagle having transported the Children of Israel out of Egypt for the first 120 kilometers on “eagle’s wings.” All of the complimentary comments in those verses in Job apply to Aaron. In spite of this great stature of Aaron, “his young gulp blood,” i.e. his sons died and yet he kept silent, did not question or complain as did Job when disaster struck him. The very presence of the Shechinah did not prevent the disaster. Thus far the Tanchuma.
Rabbeinu Bahya
A Midrashic approach based on Bamidbar Rabbah 12,17-21: “The six covered wagons corresponded to six of the heavens. You may ask that after all, there are seven heavens! Rabbi Avin answered that the seventh heaven is reserved as a residence for the “king” (G’d Himself) and is not included in the regular count of heavens. Moses reportedly said to G’d: “supposing one of the animals will die or one of the wheels will fall off one of the wagons, is not the entire offering of the princes going to be disqualified and the entire Tabernacle discredited?” [I suppose this is based on only the combined total number of all the princes’ offerings making up the number required to complete the symbolism involved. Ed.]
In response to this G’d said to Moses: קח מאתם והיו לעבודת וגו', “take it from them so they can be used in the service of the Tabernacle” (verse 5). The word והיו in this verse which is not really necessary means that these animals and wagons will have an enduring existence (the normal meaning of the word in connection with the story of creation, for instance). This raises the question for how long did these animals live and these wagons remain functional? Answer: until the building of Solomon’s Temple some 480 years later. These oxen were slaughtered and sacrificed on the Altar of the Temple at the inauguration. We read in Chronicles II 7,5 ויזבח המלך שלמה את זבח הבקר עשרים ושנים אלף, "King Solomon slaughtered there as sacrifices 22,000 oxen, etc. We would have expected to read the words זבח בקר instead of the expression זבח הבקר. The latter expression suggests that we have heard about these oxen previously. When did we hear about them? In our passage here. This led Rabbi Meir to state that the animals donated by the princes at this time survived until the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple. During all these years these animals had sustained neither blemish nor developed signs of old age (which would have disqualified them as suitable for the Altar).
In fact there is logic in all this: if the oxen whose function in connection with the Tabernacle was merely peripheral, i.e. they served as beasts of burden transporting parts of the Tabernacle, and as a result G’d endowed them with such longevity and enduring youthful vigour, how much more so must the Tabernacle exert this kind of influence on the Israelites who made the Tabernacle the centre of their existence! This is testified to by Moses in his final address to the Jewish people in Deut. 4,4 when he points out to them that the reason they were alive and well on the day he spoke to them was that ואתם הדבקים בה' “you who have been cleaving to the Lord.” Thus far the Midrash.
There is another Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah (6,10) on Song of Songs 6,4 on the words יפה את רעיתי כתרצה, “You are beautiful My love when your deeds are pleasing.” The Midrash there also implies that the reason these animals lived so long was because the owners who donated them for the purpose were possessed of purity of thought in doing so. It appears that this Midrash too is based on the wording of a verse on the same procedure but in Kings I 8,63 which prompted the Midrash Rabbah in Nasso. The Midrash in Shir Hashirim uses a different nuance of the verse in Kings I 8,63 where the same offering is described. In that verse in Kings the word בקר appears immediately next to the word לה'. The wording we would have expected there was עשרים ושנים אלף בקר. The association of the word בקר and ה' then are the background to the longevity of these animals. It may well have been a long-standing tradition the sages had on the matter.
Rabbi Meir’s additional contribution to this tradition was merely to establish a conceptual link why the Israelites themselves who were devoted to the Tabernacle should be blessed with long life. There were a total of eighteen wagons and animals drawing them, the number eighteen, i.e. חי, i.e. an allusion to the life-sustaining power of the Tabernacle and those connected with its functions.
Two of the wagons were given to the sons of Gershon in accordance with the demands of their work. The other four wagons were given to the sons of Merari in accordance with the demands of the work assigned to them. The work-load of the sons of Merari was much heavier than that of the sons of Gershon. This is why the wagons were not evenly divided between the Levites who had not been commanded to carry the furnishings of the Tabernacle on their shoulders, i.e. the Kehatites. Details of who carried what have been discussed at the beginning of the Parshah.
In response to this G’d said to Moses: קח מאתם והיו לעבודת וגו', “take it from them so they can be used in the service of the Tabernacle” (verse 5). The word והיו in this verse which is not really necessary means that these animals and wagons will have an enduring existence (the normal meaning of the word in connection with the story of creation, for instance). This raises the question for how long did these animals live and these wagons remain functional? Answer: until the building of Solomon’s Temple some 480 years later. These oxen were slaughtered and sacrificed on the Altar of the Temple at the inauguration. We read in Chronicles II 7,5 ויזבח המלך שלמה את זבח הבקר עשרים ושנים אלף, "King Solomon slaughtered there as sacrifices 22,000 oxen, etc. We would have expected to read the words זבח בקר instead of the expression זבח הבקר. The latter expression suggests that we have heard about these oxen previously. When did we hear about them? In our passage here. This led Rabbi Meir to state that the animals donated by the princes at this time survived until the inauguration of Solomon’s Temple. During all these years these animals had sustained neither blemish nor developed signs of old age (which would have disqualified them as suitable for the Altar).
In fact there is logic in all this: if the oxen whose function in connection with the Tabernacle was merely peripheral, i.e. they served as beasts of burden transporting parts of the Tabernacle, and as a result G’d endowed them with such longevity and enduring youthful vigour, how much more so must the Tabernacle exert this kind of influence on the Israelites who made the Tabernacle the centre of their existence! This is testified to by Moses in his final address to the Jewish people in Deut. 4,4 when he points out to them that the reason they were alive and well on the day he spoke to them was that ואתם הדבקים בה' “you who have been cleaving to the Lord.” Thus far the Midrash.
There is another Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabbah (6,10) on Song of Songs 6,4 on the words יפה את רעיתי כתרצה, “You are beautiful My love when your deeds are pleasing.” The Midrash there also implies that the reason these animals lived so long was because the owners who donated them for the purpose were possessed of purity of thought in doing so. It appears that this Midrash too is based on the wording of a verse on the same procedure but in Kings I 8,63 which prompted the Midrash Rabbah in Nasso. The Midrash in Shir Hashirim uses a different nuance of the verse in Kings I 8,63 where the same offering is described. In that verse in Kings the word בקר appears immediately next to the word לה'. The wording we would have expected there was עשרים ושנים אלף בקר. The association of the word בקר and ה' then are the background to the longevity of these animals. It may well have been a long-standing tradition the sages had on the matter.
Rabbi Meir’s additional contribution to this tradition was merely to establish a conceptual link why the Israelites themselves who were devoted to the Tabernacle should be blessed with long life. There were a total of eighteen wagons and animals drawing them, the number eighteen, i.e. חי, i.e. an allusion to the life-sustaining power of the Tabernacle and those connected with its functions.
Two of the wagons were given to the sons of Gershon in accordance with the demands of their work. The other four wagons were given to the sons of Merari in accordance with the demands of the work assigned to them. The work-load of the sons of Merari was much heavier than that of the sons of Gershon. This is why the wagons were not evenly divided between the Levites who had not been commanded to carry the furnishings of the Tabernacle on their shoulders, i.e. the Kehatites. Details of who carried what have been discussed at the beginning of the Parshah.