출애굽기 25:15의 주석

לא יסרו ממנו THEY SHALL NOT DEPART THEREFROM for ever (cf. Yoma 72a).

לא יסורו ממנו, "they shall not be removed from it." The reason that the Torah had to add the word "from it," and could not simply write: "they must not be removed," may be that without the words "from it" we would have understood that as long as the staves were not taken out of the rings completely it did not matter. However, we are taught in Yuma 72 that Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina queried an apparent contradiction between verse 15: "the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark," and 27,7, where the Torah writes: והובא את בדיו בטבעות, "and its staves shall be placed through the rings." This appears to indicate that the staves were inserted in the rings again and again. If so, how could one comply with the need for the staves to remain within the rings? The respective ends of the staves must have been thicker so that they could not slip out of the rings as demanded by the words: "they shall not be removed from it," i.e. they had to be attached so that they could not move. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the words of the Talmud that the words לא יסורו are enough to teach us that movement of these staves is forbidden. Perhaps the word ממנו has a different meaning, i.e. that even motion of the staves backwards and forwards within the rings was prohibited. In order to prevent us from thinking that this was also not allowed, the Torah wrote והבאת in verse 14.

לא יסורו ממנו, ‘they are not to be removed from it.” Our sages in Yuma 72 explain that the staves were never totally removed from the rings through which they had been placed. Anyone who did remove the staves from the Ark contravened this commandment. Another comment found on that folio on the words והבאת את הבדים בטבעות is that the staves moved to and fro within the rings. You might assume that this means that sometimes they would slip out of the rings altogether? The Torah reassures you by saying לא יסורו הבדים, the staves will not be totally removed, i.e. “fall out of the rings.” Had the Torah only written these last words I would have thought that the staves never moved at all. This is why the Torah added והבאת את הבדים בטבעות, “place the staves through the rings.” How was this to be accomplished?” Answer: they were thicker at the extremities and thinner in the middle so that they could be introduced with ease but could be extracted only with great difficulty. [If you are interested in the tricky question of how both parts of the instructions in the Torah could be observed, see Or Hachayim on our verse. Ed.]

Forever. [Rashi knows this] because it is written at the beginning of the verse that the poles must remain in the ark’s rings. Why then write afterward that they must not be removed?

לא יסורו ממנו, “they (the staves) must not be removed from it.” The reason that these staves must not be tampered with, i.e. removing it and re-attaching it, was due to the sacred nature of the Holy Ark. When the Ark needed to be moved, the bearers took hold of the respective ends of these staves. As soon as they would have deposited it at its next destination, the bearers would immediately step away from it in order not to become ritually impure by any misstep they might make. Briefly, it was Moses who attached these staves to the Holy Ark the first time, and they were not ever to be detached from it again.

לא יסורו ממנו, “they shall not be removed from it.” In the Talmud tractate Yuma, folio 72, the question is raised that seeing the Torah had already written: “the staves for carrying the Ark are to be affixed to the Ark,” and it had instructed its craftsmen to insert the staves through these rings, its appears that the purpose was to insert these staves only when the need arose to carry the Ark. This could only be done if they were to be inserted from time to time when the occasion demanded this? The staves in the process of lifting the Ark or lowering it would slip out of the rings! How could the commandment never to remove them be possible to be observed? Answer: The staves were thicker at their respective ends so that they could only just fit through the rings, whereas in the middle they were thinner. [The reader who is interested in the mechanics of this is referred to the commentary by Or Hachayim on this verse, or on my translation of it on pages 775776. Ed.] This is also how Rashi explains the problem in his commentary on the Talmud on this folio. An alternate explanation: both in this instance and again in Exodus 40,18, it was Moses who had to insert the staves through the rings. In the Book of Numbers 4,56 however, we read that Aaron and his sons were to position the ark inside the Tabernacle as well as to position its staves in the proper places. The commandment for the staves not to be moved only came into force at that time. Alternately, although Moses had placed the staves through the rings (without having been instructed to so), G-d wished for this to be done by Aaron and his sons who were priests. It was at that point that the Holy Ark attained the pinnacle of its holiness. The fact is that even during the Israelites march through the desert there were only a few days during which the people were on the march, whereas during more than 99% of the time the people and the Tabernacle remained stationary in a part of the Tabernacle that even the High Priest only entered one single time during the year. (four times during that day). During all this time, there was no need for the staves to be attached to the Ark This is why the Torah wrote in Exodus 27,7 בשאת אותו, “when it is being carried.” (the altar)

It is also possible that but for the word והבאת I would have assumed that whereas the prohibition of removing the staves is not punishable by malkot, i.e. 39 lashes, as long as the staves had not been completely removed from the rings it is nonetheless forbidden. The word והבאת therefore comes to teach that if the Torah had wanted to forbid any kind of movement by these staves it would have written וקבעת, "you shall affix them," or וחברת "you shall attach them," instead of והבאת, "you shall insert them."

I have seen that Tossaphot on Yuma 72 ask why Rabbi Chanina based his query on the word והובא seeing that that verse deals with the staves that the copper altar was to be carried by while he ignored the word והבאת in our verse? Tossaphot ask further why Rabbi Chanina did not mention Numbers 4,5-7 which implies that the staves were removed each time the Israelites broke camp and dismantled the Tabernacle. This would contradict the Torah's directive not to remove the staves from the Holy Ark. Tossaphot answer that there were a total of eight rings and four staves attached to the Holy Ark. They base themselves on the wording: (Exodus 25,12) according to which four rings were to be attached to the four corners of the altar and another 4 rings, two each, to opposite sides of the ark. Accordingly, there would have had to be four staves, etc. I cannot justify the opinion expressed by Tossaphot. Many objections can be raised against that interpretation of the verse quoted. The matter is really very simple. The copies of the Talmud quoting Rabbi Chanina as basing himself on the word והובא are simply a scribe's error; Rabbi Chanina did indeed refer to the word והבאת.

As far as the question raised from Numbers 4,7: ושמו בדיו is concerned, I think that seeing that the purpose of the staves on the Holy Ark was that it be carried by means of them when G'd commanded that the dividing curtain be used to cover the ark when it would be transported, He instructed that the priests drape it over the ark in such a fashion that the Kehatites who would carry it on their shoulders would not need to set eyes on the exposed ends of these staves. Rabbi Yehudah of Orleans (in that Tossaphot) felt that the meaning of Numbers 4,7 is that the staves be put on the shoulders of the Levites. Other Tossaphists have already discounted such an explanation as you can see when perusing the text on Yuma 72. There are additional arguments which can be raised against Rabbi Orleans' suggestion. Considering all the arguments, it is better to adopt my solution. I have no idea how these Tossaphists propose to deal with the fact that our verse (25,12) speaks distinctly of "two rings on its side," not of four. Possibly, G'd commanded two rings to be affixed to the body of the ark in such a way that they could not move, whereas afterwards He commanded Moses to insert two more rings inside the original ones. The latter could be moved backward and forward. This would then be part of the artistic excellence employed when constructing the ark enabling those who carried it to do so with relative ease. At any rate, I cannot abide the thought that there were more than two staves by means of which the ark was carried.