Komentarz do Wyjścia 30:4

צלעתיו Here this word must signify “corners” (not “sides” as Rashi explains in Exodus 25:12), as it is translated in the Targum, since it is stated afterwards, על שני צדיו, “upon the two sides of it”, so that the phrases mean, “the two corners that are on its two sides”.

שתי צלעותיו, at the upper corners.

Here it has the meaning of “corners”. . . Although everywhere else it means “side.”

V. 4. תעשה לו וגו׳ על שתי צלעתיו תעשה על שני צדיו . Diese Wiederholung und das Verhältnis von צלעתיו zu צדיו ist dunkel. Ganz ebenso heißt die Ausführung Kap. 37,27: על שתי צלעתיו על שני צדיו. Raschi erklärt צלעתיו hier nach dem Vorgang von Onkelos für Winkel זויות, obgleich für diese Bedeutung es kein Beispiel gibt. Ohnehin dürfte auch diese Auffassung sich schwer rechtfertigen lassen. Waren die Ringe an die Winkel angebracht, so mussten es offenbar vier Ringe sein, so dass jede Stange durch zwei Ringe ging, und es wäre dann nicht einzusehen, weshalb es nicht hier ebenso wie beim Opferaltar heißt, dass vier Ringe gemacht werden sollen (Kap. 27, 4). Es scheint vielmehr durch die Beifügung על שני צדיו dieser Auffassung begegnet werden zu sollen. Man könnte das שתי טבעות על שתי צלעתיו dahin verstehen, dass an zwei Wänden je zwei Ringe, somit zusammen vier Ringe sein sollen, daher wird hinzugefügt: תעשה על שני צדיו, die beiden Ringe sollen an zwei Seiten, somit an jeder Seite nur ein Ring sein. Es waren somit die Ringe nicht wie beim Opferaltar על ארבע קצותיו, sondern: על צלעות המזבח על שני צדיו, an jeder Seite nur ein Ring in der Mitte der Altarwand. Es gingen somit die Tragstangen nur durch einen Ring, welcher bei der bedeutend kleineren Dimension des Räucheraltars auch vollkommen ausreichte und vielleicht seinen כלי-Charakter im Gegensatz zum Opferaltar kennzeichnen sollte. Es war ein Gerät mit jederseits einem Ohr zum Tragen. (Siehe zu V. 1.)

על שני צדיו, “on its two sides.” According to Rashi, what is meant here are the two corners of each side of the (golden) altar to which the rings had been fastened. Apparently, there were four rings which had been fastened to the four corners. This appears problematic. Seeing that the dimensions of the golden altar were only one cubit in length and one cubit in width, (60cm by 60cm), how could two men stand behind one another supporting the staves of this altar when carrying it? When explaining the position of the rings and the staves attached to the Holy Ark, it was understood that they were attached to the two long sides of the Ark, which were two and a half cubits long each. The reason they carried it in such a fashion was that the alternative, namely carrying it on the short sides which were one and a half cubits wide, (50% longer than the golden altar’s sides) was not considered long enough to enable two men to walk behind each other while carrying it, The only way we can understand Rashi, would be that only two men carried that altar, one on each side. They must have positioned themselves between the walls of the altar and the wooden staves supported by the rings through which they had been inserted.

לשאת אותו בהמה, the Levites carrying these furnishings would walk one behind another to carry it on either side of it.

והיה (lit., “and it shall be”, not “they shall be”) — i. e. the making of these rings (this ring-work) shall be (shall serve) —

שני צדיו, the side walls. [seeing that the altar was a cube, i.e. the sides were no longer than the length, I find this difficult. Ed.]

Since the verse states: “on its sides” ( על שני צדיו ) . . . Therefore we may infer that צלעותיו does not mean “sides,” which is why Rashi does not explain צלעותיו the usual way. Rashi adds the phrase, “On its two corners which are at its two sides,” so we will not think that על שני צדיו comes to explain צלעותיו . I.e., [we should not think] שני צדיו and שתי צלעותיו are the same. Rashi also parenthetically explains that “on its sides” means “at its sides.” This is because the corners are at the sides, not on top of them.

לבתים לבדים FOR PLACES FOR THE STAVES — i.e. the ring shall serve as a place for the stave (cf. Rashi on Exodus 25:27).

The making of these rings. Rashi is saying that והיה refers to [the implied word] מעשה , which is missing from the verse. Otherwise, [if it refers to the rings themselves,] it should say והיו (plural).

The ring itself will be. . . [Rashi is saying:] it does not mean that the rings will be for houses and for poles. Rather, the rings will be houses, and the houses are for the poles.