וְשַׂמְתָּ֣ שָׁ֔ם אֵ֖ת אֲר֣וֹן הָעֵד֑וּת וְסַכֹּתָ֥ עַל־הָאָרֹ֖ן אֶת־הַפָּרֹֽכֶת׃
און זאָלסט אַרײַנטאָן אַהין דעם אָרון פֿון געזעץ, און פֿאַרהענגען דעם אָרון מיטן פָּרוֹכֶת.
Chizkuni
אל פני הכפורת אשר על הארון, “before the cover of the Holy Ark;” why did the Torah have to write that the lid was on the Holy Ark, when we have all been familiar with this? The reason is that we read in connection with the curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of holies [in which the Holy Ark and this cover stood, Ed.] וסכות על הארון, “you shall screen the Ark with the veil.” (Exodus 40,3) This could have confused us into thinking that the dividing curtain was considered as a cover for the Holy Ark [seeing it screened it from all human eyes except once a year on the Day of Atonement. Ed.] We have therefore been taught that it was not the function of the dividing curtain to serve as a cover for the Holy Ark. ולא ימות, “so that he will not die as a result.” Now that we have heard the penalty for this sin, where do we find the warning not to commit this sin? It is part of the words: כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I am capable of being seen above the lid.” [And we know that G-d had told Moses that no human being while connected to its body is granted the privilege to have a visual image of G-d’s essence. (Exodus 33,20) Ed.] כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I will only appear screened by a cloud above the lid.” We have another verse explaining the same in Kings I 8,12: ה' אמר לשכון בערפל, “the Lord has said (of Himself) that He resides within a thick cloud.”
Ramban
THOU SHALT SET UP THE TABERNACLE OF THE TENT OF MEETING. G-d did not explain to Moses in this command the order of putting it up, as it is clearly set forth in the actual construction: and he laid its sockets, and set up the boards thereof etc.71Further, Verse 18. The reason for His not explaining it here is because He had already shown it to him visually, as He said, And thou shalt put up the Tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which hath been shown thee in the mountain.72Above, 26:30. Similarly, He shortened the account here, saying, And thou shalt put therein the ark of the Testimony,73Verse 3. and did not mention and in the ark thou shalt put the Testimony,74Above, 25:21. for since He used the phrase: the ark of the Testimony, Moses would understand this, since the ark is only termed “the ark of the Testimony” when the Tablets of the Testimony are in it, and they were already commanded at the beginning, And thou shalt put the ark-cover above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the Testimony that I shall give thee.74Above, 25:21. It was necessary here to mention it only in order to tell him the order of priority, namely that the putting of the ark with the Tablets [into the Tabernacle] should precede the setting up of all other vessels. Similarly He shortened the account of the table and the candelabrum, since He had already commanded him in what place of the Tabernacle they were to be set up.75Ibid., 26:35. He also shortened the subject of the dressing of Aaron and his sons, saying merely, And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments,76Further, Verse 13. and with reference to Aaron’s sons He said, and thou shalt put tunics upon them,77Ibid., Verse 14. for He had already told and commanded Moses in detail about the order of putting on their garments.78Above, 29:5-9. Here the intention was only to fix the time of the dressing in its correct order, namely, after the whole Tabernacle had been set up. Of the priestly garments He mentioned only the tunics, because it is with them that the dressing began.
Tosafot Yom Tov
...THAT G-D SETS ASIDE REWARD FOR HIM? FROM THE VERSE “LET HIM SIT ALONE AND BE SILENT, FOR HE HAS TAKEN IT [Heb. natal] UPON HIMSELF.” Rav: it is as if the giving of the Torah was entirely for his sake. So also Rambam. But they had the version quoted by Maharal in Derech Chaim and by Midrash Shmuel in the name of Ramah: whence do we see that scripture considers even one person who sits and studies as if he has upheld the entire Torah? From the verse “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken it upon himself.”
As for the text printed in our editions, we prefer the explanation of Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rambam, that “he has taken it upon himself” means that he has been paid his reward in full, or that he has already taken his reward, for it had been prepared for him. Cf. the commentary of Rashi that I will quote shortly for a different take.
I see Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav the way we have it and explains that natal here has the meaning of “covering, shielding,” because Onkelos translates the word “you shall cover [Heb. vesakota]” (Exodus 40:3) as vetatel. He renders natal as “He has covered,” meaning that the shechina covers him to save him from all manner of evil, to be a protective shade over his head. In our editions Rav writes this as an explanation of mishna 6.
I also see that Midrash Shmuel, in quoting Rashi’s commentary to our mishna, writes that he found written in Rashi’s commentary to mishna 6 the following: “...and be silent, etc.” For he has taken for himself reward for that deed. And some say that it is a term of covering or protection, as in the verse vesakota etc.89 Midrash Shmuel seems to suggest that this commentary, while printed on mishna 6, properly belongs here. Tosafot Yom Tov will dispute this. The commentary of Rashi as printed in Maharal’s Derech Chaim also includes this explanation. If I were not afraid to say so, I would say that this explanation properly belongs there on mishna 6 and not here, and that Rashi had the text from the verse, “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself” and not “wherever I cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I will bless you”. For it is there, in that mishna, that we say that the shechina dwells even with one person. I further claim that Rashi had the text “wherever etc.” in our mishna, for which reason he wrote no commentary on this part of the mishna, because none is necessary. For the verse explicitly says “and I will bless you,” and there can be no greater setting aside of reward than this. So it seems to me. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that in our editions the text reads and whence do we know that G-d sets aside reward even a single person studying Torah, and that the shechina is with him? From the verse, let him sit alone, etc. If we accept this version, we may say that Rashi here is explaining that the Hebrew natal is like vesakota.90In which case, Tosafot Yom Tov agrees with Midrash Shmuel that the commentary belongs here.
The Talmud in Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of a single person, what need is there to say it of two people? [The answer is:] The words of two people studying are “written in the book of rememberance,” while the words of one are not.91The Talmud evidently saw in our mishna that the shechina dwelt even with one person, supporting the version adduced in Derech Chaim above. And our mishna adds to the case of a single person that “G-d sets aside reward for him” not beause two don’t get reward, but because in the case of one the verse says so explicitly, as it says, “for he has taken for himself.” Both ideas—that of reward, and that of the shechina dwelling—are derived from the word natal, which is explained using vesakota as above and according to the meaning “to take,” i.e. to take reward. The reason the verse says this of a single person is because it will then be understood to be true all the more so in the case of two people.
As for the text printed in our editions, we prefer the explanation of Midrash Shmuel in the name of Rambam, that “he has taken it upon himself” means that he has been paid his reward in full, or that he has already taken his reward, for it had been prepared for him. Cf. the commentary of Rashi that I will quote shortly for a different take.
I see Midrash Shmuel quotes Rav the way we have it and explains that natal here has the meaning of “covering, shielding,” because Onkelos translates the word “you shall cover [Heb. vesakota]” (Exodus 40:3) as vetatel. He renders natal as “He has covered,” meaning that the shechina covers him to save him from all manner of evil, to be a protective shade over his head. In our editions Rav writes this as an explanation of mishna 6.
I also see that Midrash Shmuel, in quoting Rashi’s commentary to our mishna, writes that he found written in Rashi’s commentary to mishna 6 the following: “...and be silent, etc.” For he has taken for himself reward for that deed. And some say that it is a term of covering or protection, as in the verse vesakota etc.89 Midrash Shmuel seems to suggest that this commentary, while printed on mishna 6, properly belongs here. Tosafot Yom Tov will dispute this. The commentary of Rashi as printed in Maharal’s Derech Chaim also includes this explanation. If I were not afraid to say so, I would say that this explanation properly belongs there on mishna 6 and not here, and that Rashi had the text from the verse, “let him sit alone and be silent, for he has taken upon himself” and not “wherever I cause my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and I will bless you”. For it is there, in that mishna, that we say that the shechina dwells even with one person. I further claim that Rashi had the text “wherever etc.” in our mishna, for which reason he wrote no commentary on this part of the mishna, because none is necessary. For the verse explicitly says “and I will bless you,” and there can be no greater setting aside of reward than this. So it seems to me. Maharal writes in Derech Chaim that in our editions the text reads and whence do we know that G-d sets aside reward even a single person studying Torah, and that the shechina is with him? From the verse, let him sit alone, etc. If we accept this version, we may say that Rashi here is explaining that the Hebrew natal is like vesakota.90In which case, Tosafot Yom Tov agrees with Midrash Shmuel that the commentary belongs here.
The Talmud in Berakhot 6a: since this is true even of a single person, what need is there to say it of two people? [The answer is:] The words of two people studying are “written in the book of rememberance,” while the words of one are not.91The Talmud evidently saw in our mishna that the shechina dwelt even with one person, supporting the version adduced in Derech Chaim above. And our mishna adds to the case of a single person that “G-d sets aside reward for him” not beause two don’t get reward, but because in the case of one the verse says so explicitly, as it says, “for he has taken for himself.” Both ideas—that of reward, and that of the shechina dwelling—are derived from the word natal, which is explained using vesakota as above and according to the meaning “to take,” i.e. to take reward. The reason the verse says this of a single person is because it will then be understood to be true all the more so in the case of two people.