Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Awit 106:16

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION, CAME INTO THE WILDERNESS OF ZIN. “The congregation — an upright congregation, for those who were [punished] with death in the wilderness [on account of sinning in the matter of the spies] had already died, and these were designated to live” [i.e., they were the new generation which was to enter the Land]. This is Rashi’s language, and such is also the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, why was it necessary to mention this [same expression: even the whole congregation] when they came afterwards unto Mount Hor?⁶⁸Further, Verse 22: And they journeyed from Kadesh,; and the children of Israel, ‘even the whole congregation,’ came unto Mount Hor. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [there] that Scripture mentioned it because Edom had come out to fight them,⁶⁹Ibid., Verse 20. therefore it mentions that none of them was missing when they came back from the city of Edom. But this is not correct, since Israel turned away from him [Edom]⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 21. and did not wage battle with them at all.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it is the Scriptural style to mention [“the whole congregation”] when speaking of complaints, [just as in the following verses]: And all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai;⁷¹Exodus 16:1. See ibid., Verses 2-3, that they murmured for food. And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, by their stages … and encamped in Rephidim⁷²Ibid., 17:1. There too it is related in Verses 2-3 that they quarrelled with Moses, saying, “Give us water.” — and Scripture thereby informs us that they all [participated] in the complaint. Similarly, And all the congregation lifted up their voice;⁷³Above, 14:1. In that case they were discouraged by the report of the spies, and wanted to return to Egypt. And on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured.⁷⁴Ibid. 17:6. There they complained about the death of Korach and his followers. Scripture uses that expression when they came to Mount Hor⁷⁵Further, Verse 22. in order to tell us that they all took part in the mourning for Aaron, the holy one of the Eternal,⁷⁶Psalms 106:16. just as it is said, and they wept for Aaron … all the house of Israel,⁷⁷Further, Verse 29. and it states [furthermore]: in the sight of all the congregation.⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 27. In Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah⁷⁹Bamidbar Rabbah 19:9. I have seen mentioned the text [quoted above by Rashi] — “an upright congregation etc.” — only in connection with the second verse [speaking] about Mount Hor [i.e., Verses 22 and 27 quoted above, which say that ‘the whole congregation came’ to Mount Hor, and that Moses and Aaron went up into Mount Hor ‘in the sight of all the congregation’], for in the case of the first verse [i.e., the present verse, the expression all the congregation] is used because [Scripture wants to indicate that they all joined in] the murmuring, as I have explained.

WHEN THOU LIGHTEST THE LAMPS. “Why does the section dealing with the candelabrum follow [the section which tells of] the dedication-offerings of the princes? The reason is that when Aaron saw the dedication-offerings of the princes, he became disheartened because neither he nor his tribe participated with them in the dedication; whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: ‘By thy life! Thy contribution is [of] greater [significance] than theirs, for thou wilt kindle and trim the lamps every morning and evening.’”¹“Every morning and evening.” This is not found in our texts of Rashi. This is Rashi’s language, from a Midrash Agadah.²Tanchuma Beha’alothcha 5. — “Midrash Agadah.” Rabbinic texts on the Five Books of Moses are divided into two classes: “Midrash Halachah” (texts dealing mainly with the legal parts of the Torah), which consist of the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus, Sifra [or Torath Kohanim] on the Book of Leviticus, and Sifre on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. Another set of texts deal mainly with the narrative, ethical and homiletical aspects of the Scriptures. These comprise two major works — the Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma. There is in addition a large group of smaller Midrashim that belong to this category. The generic term “Midrash Agadah” includes all this second group of texts.
But it is not clear to me why G-d consoled Aaron [by reminding him of his function] in lighting the lamps, rather than consoling him with the burning of the incense every morning and evening, which is [the specific function of his] with which Scripture praised him, as it is said, they shall put incense before Thee.³Deuteronomy 33:10. This was recited by Moses in praise of the whole tribe of Levi consisting of priests and Levites, and he singled out this function of the priests for special praise, thus indicating that the burning of incense was a highly significant act. So why did G-d not console Aaron with this special prerogative of his? Or [G-d could have reminded him of] all the offerings [performed only by his descendants], and the meal-offering of baked cakes [which is brought daily by the High Priest personally],⁴Leviticus 6:13-15. and the Service on the Day of Atonement which is only valid if done by him [i.e., Aaron and subsequent High Priests], and [by the fact that it is] he who enters into the innermost part of the Sanctuary, and he is the holy one of the Eternal,⁵Psalms 106:16. standing in His Temple to minister unto Him, and to bless in His Name,⁶Deuteronomy 10:8. and his entire tribe minister to our G-d! Moreover, what reason was there for Aaron’s uneasiness of mind [upon seeing the offerings of the princes]? Was not his [dedication-] offering greater than that of the [other] princes, for he offered up during those days — all the [seven] days of the initiation [of the priests] — many offerings? And if you reply that [he was disheartened because] his offerings were obligatory and he had been commanded to bring them, and therefore he was dispirited because he did not bring a voluntary offering for the dedication of the altar as they did — [this cannot be so] because the lighting of the lamps with which He consoled Aaron was also a duty which he had been commanded! [Therefore what consolation did Aaron derive for not sharing in the voluntary offerings by being given a commandment which was obligatory?]
But the intention of this homiletic text is to derive an allusion from this section [of the Torah] to the Chanukah (“Dedication”) of lights which occurred in the period of the Second Temple through Aaron and his sons, namely [Matithyahu] the Hasmonean, who was High Priest, and his sons.⁷See Vol. I, pp. 589-590. And I have found this explanation in the following text of Megillath Setharim⁸Literally: “Scroll of Hidden Things.” This was a kind of anthology of various subjects — law, tradition, Biblical exegesis, philosophy, as well as explanations of customs. It is possible that they were primarily notes which the author wrote down for his own benefit, not intending them for public use, hence its name — “Scroll of Hidden Things.” The book was popular in the era of the Rishonim [“the Early Scholars” of the eleventh and twelfth centuries]. It has been lost in the course of time. of Rabbeinu Nissim,⁹Rabbeinu Nissim lived in the first half of the eleventh century of the Common Era. He was the son of Rabbi Yaakov of Kairwan in North Africa, to whom Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon (see Vol. I, p. 97) addressed his famous letter, in which he gives a historical account of how the Mishnah was written and how the traditions were passed on through the later generations. After the death of his father, Rabbeinu Nissim together with Rabbeinu Chananel (see Vol. II p. 106, Note 45, and Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286) were the recognized authorities of the Kairwan community. Rabbeinu Nissim wrote a commentary on many tractates of the Talmud which is existing and is outstanding for its clarity of exposition. who mentions this tradition, saying: “I have seen in the Midrash: When [the princes of] the twelve tribes brought the dedication-offerings and the tribe of Levi did not etc., the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Speak unto Aaron, and say unto him: When thou lightest the lamps. There is another Dedication in which there will be lighting of the lamps, when I will perform through your sons miracles and salvation for Israel, and a Dedication which will be called by their name, namely, ‘the Chanukah of the sons of the Hasmonean.’¹⁰The sense of the verse here is thus: “It is you [Aaron and sons, through your descendants the Hasmoneans] who will kindle and trim the lamps in the days of the Second Temple.” Therefore He put this section [dealing with the lighting of the lamps] next to the section concerning the dedication of the altar.” Thus far is his [Rabbeinu Nissim’s] language.
And I have further seen in Yelamdeinu¹¹Tanchuma Beha’alothcha, 5. On the meaning of the term Yelamdeinu, see Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196. and also in the Midrash Rabbah¹²Bamidbar Rabbah 15:5. [the following text]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Go and tell Aaron — ‘Fear not! You are designated for something of greater importance than this. The offerings are brought only as long as the Sancutary is in existence, but the lamps will give light in front of the candelabrum forever; and all the blessings that I have given you with which to bless My children will never come to an end.’” Now it is an obvious fact that when the Sanctuary is not in existence and the offerings are not brought because of its destruction, the lighting of the lamps [of the candelabrum in the Sanctuary] also ceases [so what does the Midrash mean in saying that G-d promised Aaron that the lighting of the lamps would never stop]! Therefore [we must say] that the Sages of the Midrash were alluding to the lights of the Dedication of the Hasmoneans, which applies [on the festival of Chanukah] even after the destruction of the Sanctuary, in our exile. Similarly the priestly blessing¹³Above, 6:24-26. which is also juxtaposed to the dedication-offerings of the princes applies forever. Thus the Rabbis interpreted the proximity to the chapter of the dedication-offerings of the princes of both [the section] before and after it, in honor of Aaron who was not included with the princes [in those dedication-offerings].
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that this section was placed next to [the verse above, stating, And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him …],¹⁴Ibid., 7:89. in order “to inform us that the Divine communication [to Moses] would come at night as well, for there [in the Tent of Meeting] the lamp would be burning and would not become extinguished.” But this is not so according to the opinion of our Rabbis, who say:¹⁵Mechilta Pis’cha 2. “Did He not speak to him [Moses] only in the daytime?” And if Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra would have understood the difference between the prophecy [experienced by] Moses and that of the other prophets,¹⁶Ramban clearly refers to the explanation of Rambam in his introduction to the tenth chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin, where he elucidates the ways in which the prophecy of Moses our teacher differed from that of all other prophets: “…Secondly, in the case of all other prophets, prophecy only comes to them either in the course of natural sleep … or when overtaken during the day by such a deep sleep as to be deprived of all consciousness, their minds being completely suspended … In the case of Moses, however, the word of G-d came to him during the day, and whilst he was standing between the two cherubim [of the ark of the covenant]” (see my translation of this introduction, in “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 275-276). he would not have thought so [i.e., that the Divine communication also came to Moses at night]; as Scripture states, If there be a prophet among you, I the Eternal do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so,¹⁷Further, 12:6-7. for his prophecy was not through a dream, since dreams take place when it is actually night. But the order of arrangement of these sections [of the Torah] is as I have explained,¹⁸In the introduction to this book, and above in Seder Naso 7:1. for Scripture’s purpose in this book is to complete the laws of the offerings and all that must be done in the Tent of Meeting. Now He had said originally, And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually,¹⁹Exodus 27:20. but He did not mention the candelabrum there, and therefore [one might have thought] that it indicates that they [only] have to kindle [the lamps] in the candelabrum when it is available, just as He said in [the section concerning] the making thereof, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it.²⁰Ibid., 25:37. But if it were perchance lost or broken [we might have thought that] they should light the lamps without the candelabrum, and that the candelabrum is not essential for the lighting, since the commandment is to cause a lamp to burn continually¹⁹Exodus 27:20. for all time. Therefore²¹The word “Therefore” is added in the Tur. He commanded again afterwards, [so that it would be applicable] at once and for all generations, Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil,²²Leviticus 24:2. stating, He [Aaron] shall set in order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum,²³Ibid., Verse 4. meaning that he may only set the lamps in order upon the pure candelabrum. And since He completed here the account of the erection of the Tabernacle, He also finished all the laws of the lamps, and commanded that the seven lamps should always be burning for all generations in front of the candelabrum,²⁴In Verse 2 before us. just as He had mentioned at the making of the candelabrum, and he shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it²⁰Ibid., 25:37. — but not without the candelabrum, and not unless all the lamps give light over against it. He did not mention the Tent of Meeting in this section, in order to instruct [us] that this [law] applies also in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem], for one might have thought that because there were no windows in the Tent of Meeting it was necessary to have this light, whereas in the Sanctuary [at Jerusalem] where there were windows broad within, and narrow without²⁵I Kings 6:4. The windows were made in that way in order to indicate that it is not light from the outside world that comes into the Sanctuary but on the contrary — it is from the Sanctuary that the light goes forth to the world (Menachoth 86b, Rashi). [such a light] would not be necessary, therefore He did not mention here the Tent of Meeting.

AND YE SHALL GIVE HER UNTO ELEAZAR THE PRIEST. “[The proper fulfillment of] the commandment is [only when it is done] by the deputy High Priest.” This is Rashi’s language. But his intention is not to say that the obligation to perform this commandment [always] devolves upon the deputy High Priest rather than devolving upon the High Priest or any ordinary priest; but that this was a [special] temporary command in the case of the first Red Heifer that it should be done by Eleazar, who [happened to be] the deputy High Priest. In the words of the Sifre:²²Sifre, Chukath 123. “‘Scripture here teaches that the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the deputy High Priest. This is made evident [by the fact] that [although] Aaron was still living, Eleazar [who was the deputy High Priest] burnt the heifer. And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest.¹²Verse 3. This [first heifer] was to be prepared by Eleazar,²³This interpretation is based upon the apparently redundant othah [“her” — and you shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar]. Hence Rabbi Meir explains that it means that it was this first Red Heifer that was to be done by Eleazar, whereas all others must be done only by the High Priest. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov, however, are of the opinion that the word othah teaches us that only this Red Heifer was to be done by the deputy High Priest, whereas in subsequent generations it may be done even by an ordinary priest. Ramban further on explains the deeper significance of this whole matter. but all other heifers [in subsequent generations] must be prepared by the High Priest.’ These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer the son of Yaakov say: ‘this one was done by Eleazar [the deputy], and all other heifers may be done either by the High Priest or an ordinary priest.’” The purport of this is to tell us that this commandment, because of its profound secret, deserved to be given to the greatest of the priests, and yet it was not given to Aaron [but to Eleazar the deputy]! Perhaps this was because of his [Aaron’s] greatness, for he was the holy one of the Eternal²⁴Psalms 106:16: and of Aaron the holy one of the Eternal. and His pious one, who effects atonement in His Sanctuary; therefore He did not want to give him a service which is performed outside [the Sanctuary]. Or perhaps [this was to be done by Eleazar] in order to crown him, and initiate him during the lifetime of his father by means of one of the commandments of the high priesthood. Or it may be [that the performance thereof was not given to Aaron] as a punishment for [his part in the incident of] the [golden] calf, as Rabbi Moshe the Preacher wrote.²⁵“Since Aaron had made the [golden] calf, therefore this service was not done by him, because the prosecuting counsel cannot become the defending counsel” (Rashi on Verse 22, quoting the explanation of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher). See above, Seder Naso, Note 146. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, treated Aaron also as a prophet in this commandment, and he and Moses our teacher were to give it [the Red Heifer] to Eleazar, who was the greatest of the priests after Aaron, and he was the one who had been anointed with the Oil of Anointment.²⁶Exodus 30:30. See also Numbers 3:3: the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed. See further Ramban on Leviticus 10:6 (Vol. III, p. 117) where he clearly states that in a certain respect Aaron’s sons were considered like the High Priest because of their anointment during the days of the consecration. This is [therefore] a hint that in subsequent generations the Red Heifer was to be prepared by the greatest of the priests, namely the High Priest. Similarly we have been taught in a Mishnah:²⁷Parah 4:1. “If the Heifer of Purification²⁸See Rashi on Verse 9. was not slaughtered by the High Priest, it is invalid. But Rabbi Yehudah says it is valid.” And in the Gemara of Tractate Yoma [it is stated]:²⁹Yoma 42b. “And ye shall give ‘her’ unto Eleazar the priest. ‘Her’ [i.e., this first Red Heifer] you shall give to Eleazar [the deputy High Priest], but in subsequent generations it is not to be given to Eleazar. Some Rabbis say that in subsequent generations it is to be given to an ordinary priest, and some say that in subsequent generations it is to be given [only] to the High Priest.” This [latter statement] is the opinion of the anonymous Mishnah [quoted above, namely that if the Red Heifer was not slaughtered by the High Priest it is invalid], and it is the correct opinion. According to the Sages who are of the opinion that during later generations it may be prepared [even] by an ordinary priest, [the reason why here] Eleazar was commanded to do it is because there was no [ordinary] priest, for it would not be fitting that his younger brother [Ithamar] should take precedence over him [and at that time there were only three priests — Aaron, and his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar].