Комментарий к Шмот 26:17

שתי ידות לקרש האחד TWO TENONS THERE SHALL BE IN ONE BOARD — They cut out the lower part of the boards in the middle to a height of one cubit leaving one fourth of its width on the one side and one fourth of it on the other side. These pieces on each side of the boards were the ידות, the tenons. Thus the part cut out was one half of the breadth of the board (¾ cubit) in its centre. Now these tenons they fixed into the sockets which were made hollow. The sockets were one cubit in height and they lay in a line forty of them, one close against the other. The tenons of the boards that were fixed into the sockets were then cut away on three sides, the depth of the portions thus cut away being equal to the thickness of the rim of the sockets, so that when the boards were fixed in the sockets the wood of the board would cover the entire top of the socket. For if this were not so (if the tenons were not cut away on their outside edge) there would have been a space between one board and the next equal to the thickness of the rims of two sockets which would have separated them. That is what is meant when it says, (v. 24) “and they shall be coupled together beneath” — that they should cut away the sides of the tenons in order that the boards should join closely one to the other.

TWO TENONS SHALL THERE BE IN EACH BOARD. Rashi wrote: “He cut out the lower part of the board in the middle to a height of one cubit, and he left one quarter of its width on the one side and one quarter of it on the other side. These [pieces on each side] are the yadoth (the tenons). The part cut out between the tenons was one half of the breadth of the board, and these tenons they fixed into the sockets which were hollowed out. The sockets were one cubit in height, forty of them fitting closely one to the other. The tenons of the boards which were fixed into the sockets were cut away on three sides, the width of the portions cut away being equal to the thickness of the rim of the sockets, so that when the boards [were fitted into the sockets, the wood of the board] would cover the entire top of the socket. For if this were not so [if the same thickness were not cut away from the tenons], there would have been a space between one board and the other equal to the thickness of the rims of the two sockets which would have separated them. This is what is meant when it is said, And they shall be coupled together beneath,¹⁹⁷Verse 24. meaning, that they should cut away the sides of the tenons so that the boards should fit closely one to the other.” So I found the language of the Rabbi.
But I wonder! If the part cut away in the middle was half of the breadth of the board [as Rashi has it] — measuring four and a half handbreadths¹⁹⁸The whole breadth of the board was a cubit and a half (Verse 16) which are nine handbreadths, and a half thereof is four and a half. — it follows that the thickness of the rim of each socket must be the same as a fourth of the breadth of the board, which is two handbreadths and a thumb, in order that the thickness [of the rims] of the two sockets should cover the part cut away in the middle, which is half of the breadth of the board, and thus there would be no space between one socket and the other. But if so, if you cut away the boards¹⁹⁹“The boards.” In Mizrachi quoting Ramban: “the tenons.” This is correct. The Hebrew text before us also means the same, except that the term “boards” is here used in a general sense. on three sides in that way, there would be nothing left [for the tenons], since the rims of the sockets were alike on all sides! Moreover, the Rabbi [Rashi] brought proof further on in Verse 20, stating: “Thus it is taught in the Mishnah of ‘The structure of the Tabernacle:' The order of arranging the boards for making the Tabernacle was as follows: He made the sockets hollow and cut away from²⁰⁰The text in Rashi states v’choreitz (and he cuts away) — “and he cuts away a quarter on one side and a quarter on the other side.” Ramban will then ask: if in addition to these two quarters which he cuts away at the sides he also cuts away in the middle half of the width of the board — then there is nothing left for the tenons! Mizrachi answers that Rashi’s understanding of the Beraitha was that the expression “a quarter on one side etc.” does not refer to the cutting away but to what is “left” at the sides of the board as tenons. The translation would then be: “and he cuts the board at the bottom, [leaving] a quarter on one side and a quarter on the other.” To understand the text of Ramban though requires the first translation as above. the board at the bottom a quarter of its width on one side and a quarter on the other, and the cut-away portion in the middle totalled one half of its width. Thus they made for each board two tenons like two rungs of a ladder, and these they fixed into the two sockets.” But if one takes this Beraitha too in its ordinary sense, it would result in something exceedingly astonishing. For if he cuts away from the board a quarter on each side, and in the middle he cuts away half of the breadth of the board, then the whole bottom part [to the height of a cubit] is cut away, and nothing is left of it at all [to serve as a tenon]! In my opinion, however, this Beraitha did not specify the size of the amount cut away, since the Torah also gave no measurements for the thickness of the rims of the sockets. Therefore what the Rabbis [in this Beraitha] said is that he cut away a quarter of the total amount of the board on one side in order to cover one rim of the socket, and another quarter he cut away on the other side; and in the middle of the board he cut away half of the total amount cut away from the whole board, in order to cover the rims of the two sockets.
But according to all opinions it still needs to be clarified further, because the Tabernacle at the bottom to the height of a cubit was not wide ten cubits,²⁰¹That is to say, Scripture states that the height of each board was to be ten cubits (Verse 16). But because of the cutting away at the bottom to the height of a cubit for the tenons, its size was reduced to nine cubits high, as it lay on top of the sockets! since the thickness of the two sockets, one on each side, reduced its size! Perhaps there is no objection to that. And in the words of Rashi we read: “He cut away from the thickness of the tenons inside, out of the board which was a cubit thick, according to the thickness of the rims of the sockets”. This is correct, but it is not mentioned in the Beraitha.

שתי ידות לקרש האחד, the boards were incised in the bottom cubit in order to accommodate the hollow dual sockets that these tenons would fit into.

שתי ידות לקרש האחד, “two tenons per beam.” Nachmanides, in commenting on the baraitha (Shabbat 98) quoted by Rashi, according to which each of these tenons had been left exposed after a quarter of its width had been removed on either side, so that the combined width of the two parallel tenons would be zero, and there would not have remained any part of the tenon to insert into the silver sockets. one cannot understand the baraitha at face value. There was no specific measurement prescribed for the lowest cubit of the beams to be made to fit into the silver sockets. The meaning of the word רביע in the baraitha, is that enough of the sides of both tenons had to be shaved off to enable them to fit inside the silver sockets, but at the same time forming a continuous line, flush with the outside of these sockets. The same amount of wood had to be shaved off in between the two tenons, seeing that each beam was fitted into two sockets. Personally, I think that apart from the baraitha, there is no problem, seeing that the words רביע מכאן ורביע מכאן, “a quarter from one side and a quarter from the other side,” do not refer to the thickness of the beams, but to the thickness of the hollow walls of the silver sockets. Seeing that the thickness of these was minimal, the baraitha describes this as רביע to describe an insignificant amount.

Were cut out on three of their sides. . . 1. The side [of the mishkon’s] interior. 2. The side [of the mishkon’s] exterior. [These are both sides] of the planks’ thickness. 3. The side of the planks’ width, [facing the adjacent plank. Rashi is not counting the hollow between the pegs].

V. 17. שלב ,משלבות, wahrscheinlich verwandt mit שלף herausziehen: aussprossen, hervorgehen lassen, wie die Sprossen einer Leiter. Die Bretter waren unten zu zwei Zapfen, die in die zu diesem Ende hohlen Füße gingen, entsprechend ausgeschnitten.

.שתי ידוה לקרש אחד, “two square pegs, rung like, for each plank.” Each peg was indented from all four sides so that the “lips” of the plank could fit over each side and be level front and back. When Rashi wrote (on Shabbat 98) that the pegs were cut out on three sides, he meant that these cut outs faced front and two sides of the next adjoining plank, the one in the middle not being called a “cut out of the peg,” but “a cut out of the plank.”

משלבת means made like the rungs (שליבה) of a ladder and separated from each other and planed at their ends in order that they could be inserted into the hollow of the sockets like a rung which is fixed in the hole in the ladder’s uprights.

משולבות, parallel to one another. There were also incisions around the bottom cubit of each board.

משלבות אשה אל אחותה, “parallel to one another.” Rashi explains that the two tenons at the bottom of each beam were parallel and matching one another, the Torah mentioning that they were not one protruding further than the other from their respective outer parameters, i.e 6x9. tefachim. Nachmanides explains the word שליבה, as “projection,” as the tenons of the rungs of the ladder which fit into the mortise of the sides of the ladder’s frame. The adjoining beam would have a similarly shaped projection so that they could dovetail into one another and make a solid joint. Each beam at the top would have two such projections.

Their cut away sections should be exactly alike. . . This refers to the three cut sides of the pegs [see previous entry], without [additional] cuts being made in the planks [themselves, as the Ramban suggests]. Therefore it is the pegs, not the planks, that are “parallel to each other.”

MESHULAVOTH ISHAH EL ACHOTHAH’ (SET IN ORDER ONE TO ANOTHER). “Meshulavoth means made like shlivoth (rungs of) a ladder. One to another, this means that they should correspond exactly one to the other, and should be separated from each other, and so planed at their ends that they may be inserted into the hollow of the sockets, just like a rung enters the holes of a ladder’s uprights; further, that the portions cut away [from the boards] in their fronts and backs should be alike, one identical to the other, in order that there should not be two tenons, one of which extends towards the front and the other towards the back in relation to the thickness of the board which was one cubit.” This is Rashi’s language.²⁰²It should be noted that the version of Rashi here in Ramban is somewhat different in the order of the phrases from the standard editions of Rashi.
Thus according to Rashi the word meshulavoth refers back to the tenons, that they be planed at their ends so that they enter the hollow of the sockets, and ishah el achothah (one to the other) refers only to the boards, that they be fitted close together. But the Hebrew word krashim (boards) is masculine, and therefore it should have rather said ish el achiv [“one to the other” — in the masculine form]!²⁰³And not ishah el achothah — which is in the feminine form. Perhaps [Rashi] will interpret ishah el achothah as meaning that the shlivoth [literally: “the rungs” but here referring to the yadoth, the tenons — a feminine form] correspond exactly one with the other, and the thickness of wood cut away from each of the tenons be exactly alike, for in that way the boards will fit closely together. Now the tenons were not planed in a sloping fashion, for the hollow of the sockets was alike in each of them; they were cut only on their sides in order that the boards fit closely one to another.
But in the Beraitha on the work of the Tabernacle I found the following text: “Two sanin (‘pegs’) [as explained further] projected from the boards, two from each of them, fitting into corresponding holes, for it is said, meshulavoth ishah el achothah. These are the words of Rabbi Nechemyah. For Rabbi Nechemyah says: It should not have said meshulavoth; what does Scripture teach us then by using that word? It is to teach us that he make them like the rungs of an Egyptian ladder.” Now the meaning of the word sanin is similar to the device they make in chests to tighten and hold the boards together, a sort of wooden peg, somewhat like that which we have been taught in the Mishnah of Keilim:²⁰⁴Keilim 10:6. “If [two boards] were fastened together with sanin (pegs) or joints they need not be plastered in the middle.”²⁰⁵Since the pegs or joints hold the boards together tightly they need not be plastered in the middle to afford protection from corpse uncleanness. In the Talmud²⁰⁶Baba Metzia 117a. they likewise speak of “reeds and sanin.” Accordingly it would appear that Scripture is telling us that he is to make a projection on the side of the board, like a sort of “male shafts,”²⁰⁷Succah 12b. and on the opposite side of the board next to it he is to make a corresponding cavity into which the arrow-head is set. The same he is to do on the other board, thus dovetailing each board twice [one on each side]. Meshulavoth ishah el achothah is thus a reference to these shlivoth (pegs) themselves [and not to the tenons as Rashi has it], and is here properly in the feminine form [ishah el achothah, because of the word shlivah which is feminine]. And so did the Sages make mention of this term in the feminine: “The shlivah (rundle) slipped from under him;”²⁰⁸Makkoth 7b. “In a ladder it depends on the material of shlivothav (its steps).”²⁰⁹Shabbath 60a. And if the steps are of metal the whole ladder is susceptible to uncleanness. And even though we find the plural of this word in the masculine form — between ‘hashlabim’ (the stays)²¹⁰I Kings 7:28. — it is like nashim (women) and pilagshim (concubines) whose plural form is in the masculine.

אשה אל אחותה, parallel to one another. Rashi understands this as applying to the thickness of each plank which was one cubit (60 cm. approx). He arrived at this conclusion by basing himself on the two planks at the northwestern end of the Holy of Holies and the southwestern corner. [If his opinion would not be correct, we could not account for the measurements given by the Torah for the overall length and width of the Tabernacle. Ed.]

אשה אל אחתה ONE TO THE OTHER — i. e. the tenons should correspond exactly one to the other; the meaning is that the portions cut away from the fronts and backs shall be precisely equal, one portion cut away having the same measurement as another portion cut away in order that of two tenons one should not diverge from a straight line towards the front and the other diverge towards the outside (the back) in reference to the thickness of the board which was one cubit. The Targum renders ידות by צירין, pivots, because they resembled, in one respect, the pivots of a door which are inserted in the hole in the threshold.

The other is pulled more to the outside in relation to the thickness of the plank. . . For if so, the planks would not line up straight but would stand slanted.

KEIDMAH MIZRACHAH’ (ON THE EAST SIDE EASTWARD).²¹¹Further, 27:13. — At this point Ramban begins to explain the significance of the Hebrew terms for “east, west etc.,” which are mentioned in connection with the arrangement of the boards. The word kedem (east) is not found in connection with the boards, as the Tabernacle on that side had only a curtain. Hence Ramban chose a verse from the following chapter which mentions kedem, and then he will revert to the theme of the boards, and explain the terms negbah, teimanah (the south side, southward) mentioned here in the following Verse 18. The reason for this expression is that the Sacred Language calls the east kedem, just as it is said, And ye shall measure without the city for the side of ‘keidmah’ (east) two thousand cubits,²¹²Numbers 35:5. and calls the west achor (back), just as it is said, Behold, I go ‘kedem’ (forward), but He is not there, v’achor (and backward), but I cannot perceive Him.²¹³Job 23:8. Similarly: As far as ‘ha’achron’ (the hinder) sea,²¹⁴Deuteronomy 34:2. which means the western sea. Both [kedem and achor] are borrowed terms, as the Sacred Language adopts these substitute forms from the standpoint of a person who turns to the light of the sun [thus calling the east panim, “face,” because his face is turned eastward to the rising sun, and the west achor, “back,” because his back is then to the west]. Similarly it says, and they went l’achor (backward) and not ‘l’panim’ (forward).²¹⁵Jeremiah 7:24. According to Ramban the sense of the verse is: they went away from the light [the word of G-d] and did not go towards it. And the south is called negev (dry, parched) because the land is dried up on account of the heat. At times Scripture mentions the borrowed term and then explains it by name. Thus it says keidmah, a term which is borrowed, and explains it by saying mizrachah (eastward),²¹¹Further, 27:13. — At this point Ramban begins to explain the significance of the Hebrew terms for “east, west etc.,” which are mentioned in connection with the arrangement of the boards. The word kedem (east) is not found in connection with the boards, as the Tabernacle on that side had only a curtain. Hence Ramban chose a verse from the following chapter which mentions kedem, and then he will revert to the theme of the boards, and explain the terms negbah, teimanah (the south side, southward) mentioned here in the following Verse 18. which is the name itself. Similarly, it says negbah, which is the borrowed name, and explains it by its proper name — teimanah (southward).²¹⁶Verse 18 (here in Chapter 26 before us). See above Note 211. And the west is called by the substitute name yam [which also means “sea”] because the language adopted it from the standpoint of the people living in the Land of Israel to whom the Great Sea is on the west. The north on the other hand has no by-name, and is so called tzaphon [which means “hidden”] because the sun never appears on that side. The south is called darom, just as it is said, The wind goeth toward ‘darom’ (the south), and turneth about into the north.²¹⁷Ecclesiastes 1:6. It is really a double word [dor rum — “it abides in the height,” a reference to the sun that always reaches its greatest height on that side], with one letter reish missing because of the combination of two similar letters: dor rum, which means that the sun [always] moves at its highest point on that side. The south is also called yamin [which means “right”] and the north is called smol [meaning “left”] with reference to a man who turns eastward [to face the light of the rising sun, in which case his right hand is to the south, and his left to the north], as I have mentioned.
The secret of these names is known from the mystic speculations on the Chariot on high [i.e. the vision of Ezekiel of the Divine Chariot]. Likewise, [the secret of] the name for the west which is yam (sea) is known from that which the Rabbis have said:²¹⁸Baba Bathra 25a. “The Divine Glory is in the west,” for the yam alludes to “the wisdom of Solomon,” just as the Rabbis have said in the Midrash:²¹⁹The exact source is unknown to me. See, however, in my Hebrew commentary p. 468, Note 52 for a similar thought in Yerushalmi Shekalim VI, 1. “Yam always signifies Torah, as it is said, and broader than ‘yam’ (the sea).”²²⁰Job 11:9. I intend to mention this in the section of V’zoth Habrachah²²¹Deuteronomy 33:1. on the verse, possess thou ‘yam’ (the sea) and the south,²²²Ibid., Verse 23. if my Creator will bless me to reach there.