ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף במדבר 8:4

A Midrashic approach to the words שבעת הנרות, based on Tanchuma Behaalotcha 6. The matter is best approached by means of a parable. A king had a close friend, and one day he told this friend that he planned to have a meal at his house. He asked the friend to set a place for him at his table. The friend prepared for his honored guest to the best of his ability. When the king arrived he brought with him an entire entourage of servants, butlers, fancy candlesticks, etc., etc. When his host saw all this splendor he was so ashamed of his comparatively puny effort that he hid whatever he had set out for his guest. When the king saw that the friend apparently had not made any preparations to receive him, he said to his host: “did I not tell you that I was going to have a meal with you, so why did you not make suitable preparations?” The host told the king that he had indeed made preparations to the best of his modest ability but that when he saw what the king’s servants brought he felt so inadequate that he removed his inferior dishes, etc. Upon hearing this the king said to his friend: “I am going to abandon all the fancy chandeliers and other vessels which my servants have brought, and instead I am going to use only your vessels, all in appreciation of your fondness of me.” Seeing that G’d is all “light” in the most brilliant form, He decided not to use His own light in the Tabernacle but to allow His “friend” the Jewish people to provide Him with the kind of light they are able to provide. This is why G’d commanded the Menorah to be kindled daily in the Tabernacle to demonstrate His fondness of His host, the Jewish people. Seeing that Moses had constructed the Tabernacle for G’d and all its appurtenances and this constituted the best he was able to do and when the Shechinah did arrive Moses found himself unable to enter, (Exodus 40,35) G’d now called to Moses to the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him. What was the subject of this conversation? The instruction to kindle the Menorah regularly, etc. Israel was pleasantly surprised, saying: “G’d who illuminates the entire universe wants us to provide light for Him?!” When the Temple was destroyed the Menorah was hidden (because of the powerful sanctity it exuded). This reflects what our sages told us already in the Tanchuma that Moses had extreme difficulty in comprehending exactly how the Menorah was to be constructed. In the end, G’d commanded Moses to throw the requisite amount (1 kikar) of gold into a crucible and the Menorah emerged completely formed. This is the meaning of the words תיעשה המנורה, “the Menorah emerged ready.” There is no mention made of Betzalel or anyone else fashioning the Menorah. (compare Exodus 25,31) The expression מקשה normally translated as “cast” also alludes to the difficulty קשה Moses had with the concept of the Menorah. [Although Exodus 37,17 gives the impression that Betzalel had made the Menorah, the absence of his name may indicate that although G’d made it he received credit for it seeing he was so dedicated. (Compare Shemot Rabbah 50,5. Ed.)]
These were the details of the Menorah: it was 18 tefachim high, corresponding to the numerical value of the letters in the word וזה (verse 4). Concerning the word מקשה, our sages state that Moses had difficulty with four different instructions by G’d until He had to show him with a “finger” what the finished product was going to look like. The Menorah, the sacrificial offerings, the shekel contribution, and the new moon were the four pieces of legislation which Moses did not understand in the mere abstract. Each of these pieces of legislation has been described at one point or another by the Torah with the word זה, “this,” meaning that Moses was given help by being shown a graphic illustration. (Compare Leviticus 6,13 regarding the sacrifice of Aaron; Exodus 12,2 regarding new moon; Exodus 30,13 regarding the shekel, i.e. half-shekel, and our verse here).
Even though our sages said in connection with such verses as Leviticus 11,29 וזה לכם הטמא, and “this will be impure for you,” that G’d took Moses by the hand and showed him the animals in question, in those instances Moses did not have conceptual difficulties and this is why the Midrash spoke only of four examples (Compare Chulin 44).

V. 4. הצור וגו׳. Mit diesem Worte beginnt die eigentliche צור .שירה als bildliche Bezeichnung Gottes kehrt wiederholt in dieser שירה wieder und erscheint als charakteristischer Begriff derselben. Der erste Gedanke, man kann sagen, der Grundgedanke der hier beginnenden קריאת שם ד׳ ist: צור (nach einigen hier auch mit großem צ). Nach der Auffassung der Weisen im ספרי liegt in צור der Doppelgedanke: התקיף, der Starke, und: הצייר, der Bildner. In der Tat, wenn צור in der gewöhnlichen Bedeutung als Fels das natürliche Bild des Festen, Starken, Unveränderlichen und Unüberwindlichen und so den Ausdruck für den stärksten und zuverlässigsten Halt und Schutz bietet, so liegt doch schon in der Verbalbedeutung der Wurzel צור eine zwiefache Betätigung der im Substantiv צור vergegenwärtigten Stärke. צור heißt als Verbum meistens: belagern, einengen, somit die Stärke in einer festen Umschränkung, Einschließung äußern. כי תצור אל עיר (Dewarim 20, 19) מצור, Belagerung und Belagerungswerkzeug (daselbst 19, 20), auch in schützendem Sinne: ערי מצורות (Chron. II, 11, 21) feste Städte, ähnlich wie מצודה, von צוד fangen, sowohl den festen Platz bedeutet, in welchen man jemanden zur Gefangennehmung, als auch in welchen jemand sich selbst zur Vekteidigung einschließt. צור heißt aber auch bilden, formen. ויצר אותו בחרט (Schmot 32, 4), צורתו ,צורותו ,צורת הבית (Ezechiel 43, 11). Ist doch auch ein jedes Formen, Bilden, die feste, bleibende Beschränkung des Stoffes in zweckentsprechende begrenzende Umrisse. צור als Substantiv kommt daher auch außer der Bedeutung Fels als Ausdruck dieses zwiefachen Begriffes der unveränderlichen Festigkeit und der alle anderen Stoffe bewältigenden Härte vor. Ps. 49, 15 bedeutet צור das dem Menschen inwohnende der Verwesung nicht erliegende unsterbliche Teil: וצורם לבלות שאול מזבול לו, und ihr unsterbliches Wesen ist bestimmt, selbst die Gruft zu überdauern, daß dieses ihm keine Stätte sei. Psalm 89, 44 bezeichnet es die harte Schärfe des Schwertes: אף תשיב צור חרבו. Du lässest die Schärfe seines Schwertes zurückprallen, d. i. du nimmst ihm die schneidende Kraft. Auf Gott übertragen ist צור bildlicher Ausdruck für das Unveränderliche und das absolut Bewältigende. Er ist der absolute Urgrund alles Seins und aller Art des Seins. Was er zum Sein bestimmt, findet in Ihm seinen ewigen Halt, und jede von Ihm beabsichtigte Gestaltung gelangt mit absoluter Gewissheit zur Verwirklichung. Daher Jesaias 26, 4 der Satz: בטחו בד׳ עדי עד כי ביה ד׳ צור עולמים. Der zweibuchstabige Gottesname drückt, wie wir dies zu Schmot 15, 2 bemerkt, die sich in siegreicher Bewältigung alles Entgegenstehenden zeigende Gotteskraft aus. Wäre dies die einzige Weise der Gotteswaltung, es würden alle Gestaltungen auf Erden dem Ideale des göttlichen Willens sofort und unwandelbar entsprechen. Sie wären eben das Produkt der unwiderstehlichen göttlichen Willensmacht. Allein, es hat Gott mit der dem Menschen verliehenen Willensfreiheit die Gestaltung Seiner Ziele einer erst in freier Entwicklung, aber darum nicht minder mit absoluter Gewissheit sich verwirklichenden Zukunft – wie dies der vierbuchstabige Name bezeichnet – überwiesen. Daher: "vertrauet auf Gott bis zum endlichen Ziele; denn in יה ד׳ liegt der ewige Halt beider Welten", der jetzigen mit allen ihr noch anhaftenden Unvollkommenheiten, und der einstigen des verwirklichten Gottesideales auf Erden. In Beziehung zu Israel spricht daher die Bezeichnung Gottes als צור die doppelte Gewissheit aus. Israel hat in Gott den ewigen Halt seines geschichtlichen Daseins. Gott will, daß es sei, darum geht es nimmer verloren. Allein Gott will auch eine bestimmte Art seines Seins, die Er ihm in seinem Gesetze offenbart. Diesen Anforderungen kann sich Israel nimmer entziehen. Sie sind ebenso unwandelbar wie Gottes Sein und Wollen. Und welche Geschickeswandlungen Israel auch durchzumachen hat, sie haben alle die endliche Verwirklichung dieser Gottesbestimmungen an Israel und durch Israel zum Ziele, sie sind eben nichts als die gestaltenden Hammerschläge der unwiderstehlichen Gestaltungskraft der göttlichen Waltung, כי ביה ד׳ צור עולמים (vergl. zu Bamidbar 8, 4). – Daher der Name צור das Charakteristikon der שירת האזינו, in ihm liegt der Schlüssel dieses Gottes Waltungen an Israel, mit Israel und durch Israel schauend offenbarenden Gesanges. —

And the flower Our Rabbis explained that this corresponds to the flower that Moses added in the section, “Behaalothecha”: (Num. 8:4) “to its rootstock, to its flower, etc.,” which is not mentioned in “Terumah.”

וכפתר תחת שני הקנים AND THERE SHALL BE A KNOB UNDER TWO BRANCHES — The branches were drawn out from the two sides of the knob to this direction and to that. Thus we are taught in the Baraitha dealing with the construction of the Tabernacle (ch. 10): The full height of the candlestick was eighteen handbreadths, the legs and the flower taking up three handbreadths. — This is the flower mentioned in connection with the base, as it says, (Numbers 8:4) “unto the base thereof, unto the flower thereof”. — Then there was a space of two handbreadths that was plain; then one handbreadth in which was one of the four goblets (mentioned Exodus 25:34) and a knob and a flower of those two knobs and those two flowers that are mentioned together with the candlestick proper — for it states, (v. 34) “[And on the candelabrum (i. e. on the shaft) there shall be four cups] made like unto almonds with their knobs and their flowers,” which teaches us that there were on the middle branch two knobs and two flowers (the plural כפתריה ופרחיה without stating the number suggesting “two” of each kind; besides the three knobs from which the branches emerged and of which it is said, (Exodus 25:35) “And there shall be a knob under the two branches etc.” — Then there were the following: two handbreadths that were plain; a handbreadth made up of a knob from which two branches emerged on each side, extending upward to the level of the candlestick proper; one handbreadth plain; one handbreadth made up of a knob with two branches emerging from it; one handbreadth plain, and a handbreadth made up of a knob from which two branches emerged and rose to the level of the candlestick proper; two handbreadths plain. Thus there remained three handbreadths in which were three goblets (three of the four mentioned in v. 34) and one knob and one flower (of the two mentioned Exodus 25:34-35). Consequently the goblets were twenty-two — eighteen on the six branches, there being three on each, and four on the candlestick proper, making altogether twenty-two; — and there were eleven knobs, — six on the six branches, one on each, and three on the candlestick proper from which the branches emerged, and two more knobs on the candlestick proper, — for it says, “made like unto almonds with its knobs”, and the minimum number implied by the plural כפתורים, is two. One of these was below near the base and the other in the upper three handbreadths together with the three goblets. Furthermore it had nine flowers, six on the six branches, — as it says, (Exodus 25:33) “with a knob and a flower on the one branch” — and three on the candlestick proper, viz., two as is implied in what is said “made like unto almonds with its knobs and its flowers” — and the minimum number to be understood by the plural פרחים is two, and one that is mentioned in the section בהעלתך, (Numbers 8:4) “unto the base thereof and the flower thereof.” If you will study the above quoted Boraitha minutely you will find them (the different parts of the candlestick) enumerated according to their number, each in its position as laid down in this section (Menachot 28b).