Comentário sobre Êxodo 28:10

כתולדתם ACCORDING TO THEIR BIRTH — in the order in which they were born: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali upon one, and upon the other Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin — the last name being written full (plene, with a י before the last letter, thus: בנימין) for that is how it is written in the passage that tells of his birth (Genesis 35:18). This gives twenty-five letters on each stone (cf. Sotah 36a).

ששה משמותם על האבן האחת, "Six of their names on the one stone, etc." Why did the Torah use the unusual expression משמותם, "of their names," instead of saying simply ששה שמות, "six names," etc.? Besides, the word הנותרים, "the remaining ones," is quite unnecessary as we all know that there were only a total of twelve tribes. We are therefore forced to conclude that the adjective "the remaining ones," implies that the latter six tribes were inferior to the the first six. We find something similar after the death of Nadav and Avihu, where the Torah describes Eleazar and Ittamar as the "remaining" sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,12). Our sages in Yuma 87 describe the word הנותרים as referring to something inferior, using the word in Leviticus as their example. Bereshit Rabbah 73,9 discusses Genesis 30,36 where the Torah speaks about "the remaining flocks of Laban," and also describes the word "remaining" as referring to something inferior. If the meaning of the word הנותרים in our verse were to indicate that these tribes were inferior, this is most surprising seeing that the Torah underlines that they were recorded כתולדותם, "in the order of their (their founder's) birth." Why would the sons born to Jacob later be inferior to those born to him earlier? This seems especially unlikely seeing that Joseph was Jacob's favorite and is known as "Joseph the righteous." How could he be considered "inferior?" Moreover, we find that amongst the first 6 names listed are sons of the maidservants whereas several of the names inscribed on the second stone were of sons born by Jacob's true wives!

In the order that they were born. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not understand כתולדותם like other instances of תולדות in Scripture, i.e., [listing in the order of] who begat first, or whose number of offspring [is greater]. Therefore Rashi says that here, כתולדותם means: “In the order that they were born.”

V. 10. כתולדתם. Nach Sota 36 b heißt dies nicht nach der Reihenfolge ihrer Geburt, sondern ist nähere Erklärung des שמות, die Namen sollen nicht patronymisch: שמעוני ,ראובני usw. die von Reuben, Simon etc. Stammenden, sondern die Namen der Stammväter sein "wie sie diesen bei ihrer Geburt gegeben worden", also: Reuben, Schimeon usw. Nach ebendaselbst war die Ordnung: בני לאה כסדרן בני רחל אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן ובני שפחות באמצע, d.h. nach Raschi: die sechs Söhne Leas: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Jehuda, Isachar, Sebulon, auf einem Steine, und auf dem andern die beiden Söhne Rahels: Josef und Benjamin und zwischen ihnen beiden die Söhne der Mägde, nämlich: Benjamin, Dan, Nastali, Gad, Ascher, Josef; wie sie Schmot 1, 2—4 aufgezählt sind. Maim. הל כלי המקדש IX fasst die Ordnung anders auf. Siehe כ׳׳מ daselbst.

כתולדותם, “according to the order in which they were born.” Rashi interprets the meaning of the word as we have translated it here. His grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, does not agree, seeing that an analysis will show that Dan was not listed in the order of the birth of the twelve tribes’ births, seeing that he had been the fifth son born to Yaakov, and in the Book of Joshua 19,47, we read: “they called the name of the town according to the names of their forefather.” It would appear therefore that what was meant in our verses here is that the names of the tribes appeared on the jewels of the Ephod in the sequence in which these sons had been born by their respective mothers. The sons of Leah are mentioned first in order of their births, followed by the sons of Bilhah, in accordance with their births, followed by the sons of Zilpah in accordance of their births, followed by the sons of Rachel. You will find that the jewel Leshem was that alluding to Dan, and the jewel yoshpah alluded to Binyamin. This is the way they appear in the liturgist’s poem known as krovatz recited prior to the kedushah on Purim morning commencing with the words: ויאהב אומן. The Talmud in tractate Sotah folio 36, has a different order. The names of the tribes appeared in a different order on the two jewels of the Ephod (epaulettes) worn by the High Priest. Some commentators were concerned with the total numbers of letters of the tribes’ names being equally divided, i.e. 50 on one side of the Ephod and 50 on the other side. This, of course, would account for the names not appearing in the same order as the names on the breastplate. [As it is impossible at this stage to decide whose opinion is correct, I have not translated the balance of our author’s remarks on the subject. A booklet named bigdey kehunah by Rabbi Israel Chayim Blumenthal, elaborates on the various alternatives. Ed.]

In order to understand what is meant in our verse let me first preface with a statement in Sotah 36. Our sages there relate: "The High Priest wore two gemstones on his shoulders. The names of the children of Israel were engraved on those stones, six of them on the one stone and six on the other." The Talmud quotes our verse as proof for this statement. The names on the second stone were in accordance with the order of birth of the founders of those tribes, whereas the names engraved on the first stone did not correspond to this order, seeing that the name Yehudah appeared on the first stone and each stone had 25 letters engraved on it. Rabbi Chanina son of Gamliel says that the names did not appear in the order in which the tribes were counted in Numbers 1, 1-15, but in accordance with their being enumerated in Exodus I, 2-4. In what order precisely were they engraved? The sons of Leah were listed on one stone, the sons of Rachel were listed one on top of the second stone, the other on the bottom, with the names of the sons of the maidservants in between. If so, how does this agree with the Torah's statement that they were engraved in accordance with their respective births? Answer: "according to the names their father Jacob called them, and not in accordance with the names that Moses called them, i.e. Reuveni, Shimoni, etc." Thus far the statement of Rabbi Chaninah. The apparent meaning of the opinions expressed in the Talmud seems to be that the first opinion (Rav Kahane) understands the word כתולדותם as a reference to both stones although Yehudah's name preceded that of Reuven so that the names which appeared on that stone were: Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Dan, Naftali, whereas the sequence on the second stone was: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Joseph, Benjamin in accordance with the order of their births. When you will count the number of letters which appear on each stone you will find that the first stone had 25 letters whereas the second stone had 24 letters. This would require the addition of the letter ה in the middle of the name Joseph, thus: יהוסף. Rabbi Nachman disagreed, claiming that Benjamin's name was spelled with an additional י, i.e. בנימין. The question of how many letters were engraved on each stone is not alluded to in the Torah but we rely on tradition for this knowledge. I believe that we can, however, find an allusion in scripture for the fact that Yehudah's name was engraved on top of that of Reuven, seeing that the word כתולדותם in accordance with their birth, does not appear until the end of the verse. Had the Torah insisted that all the names would appear strictly in accordance with their births, the Torah should have written: "and you shall engrave on them the names of the children of Israel in accordance with the order of their births," at the end of verse nine. I would then have understood clearly that the directive applied to the names on both stones. You are not to ask who it was who revealed that the names on the first stone were not meant to be engraved in accordance with the births of those sons, seeing that the name of Yehudah appeared on top, and that therefore the order in which the brothers were born did not matter at all when it came to engraving their names on the first stone. Such an assumption is untenable because if the names on the first stone could have been engraved in a different order such order should have paralleled either the order in which the names appear in Numbers or in accordance with their appearance in Exodus. If that were the case, it would be impossible to list the names on the second stone in order of their births and still wind up with 25 letters on each stone. It is therefore mandatory that any change concerning the order of the names on the first stone must be such that it would not interfere with the list of names on the second stone being in accordance with the order of the brothers' birth. It is perfectly logical that Yehudah's name should appear on top as his future standing amongst the Jewish people as the tribe which provided the kings justified his name appearing at the head of the list.

One could argue that the order in which the names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod were no reason to make the Ephod unfit for its function, and that it did not matter whether the name of Shimon appeared above that of Reuven. In order that we should not argue in this way the Torah wrote: "six of their names, etc., and the names of the remaining six, etc." The meaning is that only the remaining ones, i.e. the ones that you have not yet engraved, כתולדותם, have to be engraved according to their seniority. We can prove that this interpretation is correct by referring to the Tosephta in Menachot chapter 5 where we are not told that the order of the engraving of the names was indeed mandatory. Whereas the Tossephta states that the garments of the priests were mandatory, and that the presence of the gemstones was mandatory; not a word is mentioned about the order of engraving the names of the tribes being mandatory. It is quite possible that the sage who was the author of this Tossephta did not believe that the order was mandatory.

When Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah were engraved on the first stone in their order of seniority, he meant that the fact that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were born before the last two sons of Leah was ignored when the names were engraved on the first stone. On the other hand, the names which were engraved on the second stone were headed by that of Benjamin, though he was the youngest of all the sons of Jacob. According to his arrangement the number of letters on each stone could not possibly equal 25, seeing that the number of letters on the first stone totalled 28, whereas we would have 21 letters as the total on the second stone. Even if you add either the letter ה for Joseph's name or the letter י for the name of Benjamin, you will still only wind up with 22 letters on that stone. If we adopt Rabbi Chaninah's interpretation, the meaning of the words ששה משמותם will begin to make excellent sense. The wording would indicate that the names were not engraved in the order of seniority of the sons of Jacob. The meaning of the words הנותרים would be that the names of these tribes which should have been engraved on the first stone, if strict attention had been paid to the principle of seniority of birth, were "left out." Although also the names of Joseph and Benjamin were engraved on the second stone, seeing that the other tribes were the majority they are nonetheless described as "left over."

Let us now examine how Maimonides describes the arrangement of the names on these stones in chapter nine of Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh. This is what he writes: "Six were on one stone and six on the other stone. The name Joseph was spelled יהוסף. As a result there were 25 letters on the first stone and 25 letters on the second stone. The list of names on the first stone was: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph; the order on the second stone was: Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin." Maimonides' words do not agree with either of the views expressed in Sotah 36. His view does not even coincide with that of Rav Kahane which the Talmud rejected. The latter had given the following list: Reuven, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, and Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, Joseph, Benjamin on the second stone. The כסף משנה attempts to prove that Maimonides adopted the view of Rabbi Chaninah while explaining that when Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah appeared in order of their birth he meant that they would appear on alternate stones and that the same applied to the listing of the names of the sons of Rachel, top and bottom respectively, with the names of the maidservants in the centre.

I do not believe that the suggestion of the כסף משנה is acceptable for two reasons. 1) Why would Maimonides ignore the first sage mentioned in the Talmud and rule according to the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah? When the כסף משנה describes Rabbi Chaninah's view as logical, I beg to differ. I do not believe that his reasoning is logical at all seeing that he changes the plain meaning of the verse that the names were to be engraved in order of seniority of the sons of Jacob, i.e. the way Jacob named his sons and not the way Moses referred to them. What would prompt a person to call the sons of Jacob "Reuveni, Shimoni, etc.," instead of calling them by their original names? Besides, the meaning of כתולדותם according to כסף משנה is not "according to their seniority of birth, which is usually the meaning of that word throughout the Torah. There is absolutely no need to ignore the customary meaning of the word כתולדותם. At any rate, the problems we have raised so far are minor compared to another problem we are still going to raise.

2) According to the view of the כסף משנה that the names of the sons of Leah were written in such a fashion that one was on one stone and the name of the brother born next appeared on the second stone, "similar to the names of the sons of Rachel, the names of the sons of Rachel should not have appeared on the top and bottom of the second stone at all. All the כסף משנה had to say was that both the names of the sons of Leah and the names of the sons of Rachel were engraved at the end. Why did he add the words: "one on one stone and one on the other?" What precisely are the words: אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן supposed to mean? He should have said: "the name of one of each of the sons on each stone," as Rashi explains when he adds: "one at the head of the stone, the other at the bottom." This objection to the כסף משנה is still minor compared to the next one.

According to the words of the כסף משנה, the list of the names of the tribes at the beginning of Exodus would not follow the pattern he suggested here at all, seeing that there we find the names of the sons of Leah followed by the son of Rachel, Benjamin, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants, with Joseph at the very end. According to the opinion of Rabbi Chaninah as understood by Maimonides, Joseph's name was engraved beneath the names of the two sons of one of the maidservants, Naftali and Gad on the first stone, whereas the name Benjamin was engraved on the second stone beneath the names of the sons of the other maidservant, Dan and Asher. How could Rabbi Chaninah say: "in the manner they were divided in the Book of Exodus," when we find that the name Benjamin appeared ahead of the names of any of the names of the sons of the maidservants? Besides, why would he engrave the name Joseph before the name Benjamin, when it is a fact that Benjamin is mentioned first in Exodus? We cannot answer that the reason was to enable the names on both stones to total 25 letters so that each stone would have the identical number of letters engraved on them. The same number of letters would appear on the stone even if the name Benjamin preceded that of Joseph. Should Rabbi Chaninah insist that this was indeed what he had in mind, he would simply be wrong, seeing that he made the sequence dependent on the way the names were divided up in the Book of Exodus. His words would be unacceptable as the Torah there listed Benjamin's name before that of any of the sons of the maidservants whereas according to the כסף משנה the name of Benjamin would be the last one to be engraved?

What is Maimonides' source for alternating the names of the sons of Leah between the first and the second stone of the Ephod? According to the words of Rabbi Chaninah that the names of sons of Leah were engraved in their order (of birth) there is no suggestion that this would be on alternate stones! Where does Maimonides get his theory of interpreting Rabbi Chaninah in such a manner? Finally, the כסף משנה had difficulty with providing a reason as to why Maimonides wrote that in order to complete the 50 letters on the stones of the Ephod, the name Joseph had to be spelled with an additional ה. He quotes the Talmud (Sotah 36) which says as follows: "These 50 (letters) are in reality only 49 letters. Rabbi Yitzchok said that they added a letter to his name as we find in Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו ממצרים, 'they added a testimony to Joseph when he came out of Egypt.'" Rabbi Nachman questioned Rabbi Yitzchok that the Torah specified that the names should be engraved כתולדותם, i.e. as they had been known at the time of their respective births? Therefore Rabbi Nachman concludes (as opposed to Rabbi Yitzchok) that the extra letter was the letter י added to the name of Benjamin, seeing that his name is always spelled without the letter י before the final letter ן, except in Genesis 35,18 when his father Jacob named him בנימין with the additional letter י. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the quote of the Talmud that the idea of adding the letter ה to Joseph's name was rejected and that they accepted the alternative suggested by Rabbi Nachman. כסף משנה anwers that the rejection of Rabbi Yitzchok's theory by the Talmud applies only to the original view expressed in the Talmud concerning the arrangement of the names, but does not apply to the view expressed by Rabbi Chaninah, which is, after all, the view Maimonides' diagram is based on. The only meaning Rabbi Chaninah had derived from the Torah's directive was that the names should be כתולדותם, should not appear as Moses had referred to them, i.e. as Reuveni, Shimoni, etc. Seeing this is so, Maimonides remained entitled to accept Rabbi Yitzchok's suggestion that the name Joseph be spelled with the additional letter ה as in Psalms 81,6. Thus far the כסף משנה.

I confess that I find this reasoning very difficult. The first opinion cited in the Talmud did not even deal with the question of spelling the names but discussed only the meaning of the word כתולדותם as meaning that the names were to be inscribed in accordance with the order of the births of Jacob's sons. How could one question what the Tanna Kama in the Talmud meant by the word כתולדותם? Any question in the Talmud obviously was only directed at the viewpoint of Rabbi Chaninah that the word כתולדותם concerned the manner in which their father had called his sons. According to this, Rabbi Nachman answered that the name Benjamin was spelled מלא, i.e. with the extra letter י. It is absolutely clear from the wording of Maimonides that he considered the meaning of the word כתולדותם as describing the order in which the names of the tribes were to be inscribed and not as referring to the spelling that was to be used when engraving these names. Here are the words of Maimonides: ששה על אבן זו וששה על אבן זו כתולדותם. If Maimonides' intention had been to rule according to Rabbi Chaninah, he could not have concluded his words with the cryptic "כתולדותם," seeing that the Talmud queried the meaning of that word. Maimonides would have had to tell us the meaning of that word according to his view! The fact that he did not do so is evidence that he accepted the viewpoint of the תנא קמא. The כסף משנה would have done better to leave the problem he raised unsolved instead of attempting an answer which is clearly unacceptable.

Perhaps one may say that Maimonides did not understand the first version in the Talmud in which it is stated that the reason why the order of birth had to be observed only starting with the second name was "because Yehudah was to appear on top," as we have understood it thus far. He may have understood the words שניה כתולדותם ולא ראשונה כתולדותם, as applying to the difference in appearance when one reads across or when one read down, respectively. If one read the names across, שניה (i.e. assuming that the two stones were next to one another instead of on different shoulders of Aaron), they would appear to be in the order of their births כתולדותם. If, however, one read the names from the top to the bottom of the first stone, followed by reading the names on the second stone from the top to the bottom, i.e. ראשונה, "each stone as a unit by itself," then they would not be found to appear כתולדותם. According to Maimonides the names would appear (on the first stone) as: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph (with the ה), followed on the next stone by : Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin. Clearly, this arrangement does not correspond to the order of their births. The meaning of כתולדותם in front of us can be that the list is to correspond to the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. In that case, the names of the sons of Leah appear together followed by the names of the sons of Rachel, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants. Alternatively, we could use as our model for the word כתולדותם the list of names as it appears at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. There we find first the list of names of the sons of Leah, the names of the sons of the maidservants at the end, the name of Benjamin, one of Rachel's sons in between, with Joseph the remaining son of Rachel listed at the very end. The Tanna Kama did not elaborate on which method of these two he preferred. Even though he mentioned כתולדותם, he might have meant that listing all the names of one mother in the order of their birth fulfils the commandment of כתולדותם. As long as there is no mention of the sons of a different mother before the list of names of the sons of a mother mentioned previously has been completed, this meets the requirement implied in the word כתולדותם. Inasmuch as Leah was the first wife who bore sons for Jacob, all her sons are listed in the order she bore them, i.e. they are considered as one unit. We could accept this although these names do not appear in this order anywhere else in the Torah. Maimonides carefully examined the words of Rabbi Chaninah who said that the words כתולדותם are not to be interpreted as the order in which these names are listed in the Book of Numbers but in the manner in which they appear in the Book of Exodus. His words mean that unless specifically stated to the contrary, the Tanna Kama could accept either version as a role model for the order in which these names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod.

We are entitled to understand the Tanna Kama as agreeing with Rabbi Chaninah that the role model for the word כתולדותם is the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. The only argument between the two Tannaim is that the meaning of the words שניה כתולדותם is as we explained whether the names were to be read across, or as Rabbi Chaninah feels that the sons of Leah had to be arranged on a single stone, etc. Maimonides ruled in favour of reading the names across (alternating between the two stones) as the preferable way of complying with the requirement that they appear כתולדותם. This means that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Tanna Kama, and not as כסף משנה wanted us to believe as in accordance with the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah. If the names of Joseph and Benjamin had preceded that of the names of the maidservants' sons, even "the שניה" would not have been כתולדותם in accordance with the order of their respective births. The reason that in Maimonides' diagram the name of Naftali appears ahead of that of Dan (who was born earlier), is in order to ensure that there are 25 letters engraved on each of the two stones in accordance with the requirement listed by the Tanna Kama. Rabbi Chaninah had never spoken about such a requirement. While the fact that Rabbi Chaninah did not relate to the requirement that there should be 25 letters on each of the stones is not normally proof that he disagrees with the view of the Tanna Kama, in this instance we must assume that he does indeed disagree even without going on record that he does so. The reason is simply that according to Rabbi Chaninah's division of the names we find 28 letters on one stone, and 21 or maximum 22 letters on the other stone, as we have pointed out earlier. Maimonides completes his diagram by having the names of Joseph and Benjamin at the respective bottoms of each stone, adding the letter ה to Joseph's name in order to have 25 letters on each of the stones. This is the way we propose to explain the Baraitha according to the ruling of Maimonides. Perhaps Maimonides had another ancient text in front of his eyes in which all this is spelled out more specifically. Whatever the case may be, we have dealt with all the nuances in our verse satisfactorily.

Now let us look once more at the reason the Torah wrote ששה משמותם, instead of writing ששה שמות. Had the Torah written ששה שמות it would have been evident that the names were to appear on each stone in order of seniority and not partially so as indicated by the word משמותם, "of their names." The unusual word משמותם means that Moses was to engrave these names in pairs on the two stones starting with the order of the births of the respective sons. There will always be one name of such a pair "left over" to be engraved on the opposite stone. The six names left over, i.e. הנותרים. These "left over" names are to be engraved one beneath the other on the second stone of the Ephod. The very words ואת שמות השמות הנותרים mean that these names were previously "left over" and awaited being engraved on the second stone, כתולדותם, in accordance with the seniority of these sons, respectively. The appearance of the word כתולדותם at the end of the verse instead of after the words על האבן האחת, is perfectly justified then.