Chapter 26
\nAbraham the author says: Before I begin to discuss the Tabernacle\u2014which, like the Ark, has cherubim\u2014I must give you a general principle on which to rely. There are two ways in which things can exist: one, as a three-dimensional body; and two, incorporeally, like the holy angels or the human soul. God alone created both these ways of being. No created being could create (or uncreate) a physical object, let alone an incorporeal one.\u2026 The soul extends throughout the body, but those places where nerves are concentrated, like the eyes and ears, are more sensitive than places like the bones and the liver. God too fills the world, but His power is more evident in certain places.\u2026 Thus a particular place was chosen for the Temple. And if God gives you wisdom, you will understand the deeper meaning of the Ark, the cherubim, and all the other objects within and outside the Tabernacle.\u2026 I have alluded to all this because some people in our generation, who consider themselves scholars, might mock my words. But one who knows the mystery of the soul and the body will be able to know aspects of the upper world. For man, the acme of creation, is a microcosm of the universe, and the Tabernacle is a mesocosm, intermediary between the two; according to Hai b. Sherira, there are 18 different parallels between these three \u201cworlds.\u201d \u2026 In general, each cherub (parallel to the angels in the upper world, and to thought within man) was made to receive power from the upper world, so that the enlightened might be able to develop intellectually. There is no need to discuss this at length.\u2026 One might wonder how God could leave His pure angels and cause His Presence to dwell among disgusting human beings. But the Presence that He caused to dwell among the angels is many times greater than the Presence that He caused to dwell among Israel.\u2026 I will lead you along the path of truth. Pay attention and you will understand why the cover of the Ark has no thickness, why the lampstand is on the right and the table is on the left, and so forth. Once you have understood these, you will even understand the mystery behind the copper serpent of Num. 21:9.
\nPay attention, now, and I will give a brief explanation of the form of the Tabernacle. The 20 planks on each side are held together by the \u201ctwo tenons\u201d (v. 17) on each plank, which interlock to keep them standing, and there are tenons that fit into the sockets beneath each plank. Both the north and south sides of the Tabernacle were 30 cubits long, being made up of 20 cubit-and-a-half-wide planks, giving the Tabernacle a rectangular shape. The six planks on the western side, plus one-half cubit for each of the two corners, make a width of 10 cubits. V. 16 tells us the height of the Tabernacle: 10 cubits. The cloths were placed lengthwise over the 10-cubit width of the Tabernacle, leaving 18 cubits, of which 9 hang down on each side, leaving one cubit on each side uncovered. (It may have been done this way to keep them out of the mud.) Of the 11 goats\u2019-hair tent cloths, 10 match the 10 of the lower cloths, and the 11th cloth was folded over at the entrance to the Tabernacle. The tent cloths were arranged the same way as the lower cloths, but were 2 cubits longer, leaving an \u201cextra cubit\u201d (v. 13) hanging down on each side. Each plank stood on two sockets. The \u201ctwo tenons\u201d (v. 17) of each plank were parallel to each other, one in the front of the plank and one in the back, which fit into matching mortises on the adjacent plank. The two corners were to \u201cmatch at the bottom, and terminate alike at the top inside one ring\u201d (v. 24). But they had two tenons at the bottom like the other planks. Each plank was one cubit thick, but the planks on the west hid this cubit thickness of the planks on the north and south. Rings were put on the planks as housings for the bars. There were five bars on the south side, five bars on the north, and five bars on the west. On the south side there were two 15-cubit bars stretching between them from end to end, one pair on top and one on the bottom, with a long 30-cubit bar in the middle. The north side was the same, and so (with appropriately shorter lengths) was the west side. Perhaps, as I suggested in my comment to 25:5, these bars were assembled out of shorter pieces. We learn from the folding over of the 11th cloth at the front of the tent (v. 9) that the entrance to the tent was 10 cubits high. So the 40-cubit length of the cloths over the Tabernacle covered the length of it and all 10 cubits on the back, west, side.
\nAs for the Tabernacle. The word literally means \u201cdwelling-place,\u201d since it is the dwelling-place of God\u2019s Presence. Twisted linen. That is, not made of single strands. This word does not occur anywhere except in the description of the Tabernacle. A design of cherubim worked into them. According to our Sages, a \u201cworked design\u201d has different designs on its two sides, while an embroidered design has only one\u2014and this is correct. The straightforward sense of a \u201cworked design\u201d (literally, \u201ccalculated work\u201d) is that it is neither woven nor embroidered, but uses the same method as is done today with silk. The design is first figured out mentally, and afterward drawn. Then, using two threads held at a distance, each point on the drawing is pulled into a \u201cpucker,\u201d creating the design.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFine twisted linen. Again, this is choice Egyptian linen of six-fold weave (Gersonides). The linen was for the warp to create a white background, the yarns for the weft to create the design (Abarbanel). A design of cherubim. See Rashi\u2019s comment; weaving, unlike embroidery, requires designing in advance (Hizkuni). The \u201cdesign\u201d involves calculating the number of threads that will produce the image when it is woven (Gersonides).
\nExodus 26:2
\nIBN EZRA
\nTwenty-eight cubits. Some brainless people think this is meant to represent the 28 stages of the moon. Really, it is the 10 cloths that are important, since \u201cYou spread the heavens like a tent cloth\u201d (Ps. 104:2). That is why the Holy of Holies was a perfect cube of 10 by 10 by 10.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe length of each cloth shall be twenty-eight cubits. It would seem that the pegs of the Tabernacle must have been around six cubits high, and the cloths connected to them at the top, to allow the gold plating on the outside of the planks to be seen (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 26:3
\nExodus 26:3
\nRASHI
\nShall be joined. Sewn together with a needle, in two groups of five. To one another. Literally, \u201ca woman to her sister.\u201d But this is how Biblical Hebrew says \u201cto one another\u201d with reference to nouns of feminine gender, just as with nouns of masculine gender it says \u201ca man to his brother\u201d (see 25:20).
\nRASHBAM
\nJoined. Sewn together by needle.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo one another. Literally, \u201ca woman to her sister.\u201d I have already explained, in my comment to 15:3, that the word \u201cman\u201d need not refer only to a human being, but can express the essence of any being or even an object. Thus Isa. 40:26 says that when God calls the stars by name, \u201cnot a man of them fails to appear.\u201d If the gender of the word to which it refers is feminine, then the word \u201cwoman\u201d is used instead. The \u201cother\u201d object is the \u201csister\u201d of the first one in the sense that they are alike, having no difference between them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFive of the cloths shall be joined to one another. The Holy One commanded them to be made into two sets, since one set of 10 cloths would have been too heavy to carry (Bekhor Shor). They were to be joined in such a way that the design on one cloth would mesh with that on the next. But all 10 were not joined together in order to make a distinction between the Holy of Holies and the rest of the Tabernacle (Sforno).
\nExodus 26:4\u20138
\nExodus 26:4
\nRASHI
\nLoops. The translations follow Onkelos\u2019s interpretation of this unusual word. The one set \u2026 the other set. Each group of five cloths is called a \u201cset.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nThe outermost cloth of the one set. On the edge of the fifth strip of cloth.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLoops. The meaning of this Hebrew word (which occurs only in this context) is understood from the way the cloths must have been put together; the same is true of the word translated \u201cclasps\u201d in v. 6. Outermost. The two different words translated as \u201coutermost\u201d are etymologically related, both meaning \u201cend.\u201d The \u201coutermost\u201d cloths are each at the end of their set\u2014though both meet in the middle of the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 26:5
\nRASHI
\nThe loops to be opposite one another. Be sure that you make the loops equidistant from each other, with the same measurement for each strip of cloth, so that when you spread the two sets of cloth next to each other, the loops of one are exactly opposite the loops of the other. The word used for \u201copposite\u201d here is not the usual Biblical Hebrew one, but it is related to the Aramaic word Onkelos ordinarily uses for \u201copposite.\u201d The strips of cloth were 28 cubits long and 4 cubits wide, giving a width of 20 cubits for each set of five. Now the Tabernacle was 30 cubits along its east-west dimension, since (according to v. 18 and 20) its south and north sides were 20 planks wide and (according to v. 16) each plank was a cubit and a half wide. Similarly, it was 10 cubits wide along the north-south dimension, for the west side of the Tabernacle was made of six cubit-and-a-half-wide planks (v. 22), making 9 cubits, and a half cubit of each corner plank (v. 23) makes 10. (I shall explain these verses in their place.) The strips of cloth were placed lengthwise atop the Tabernacle, across its width. So the middle 10 cubits of the strips roofed over the empty space in the middle of the Tabernacle, and an extra cubit on either side covered the tops of the planks that served as the Tabernacle\u2019s walls, which were a cubit thick. This leaves 16 cubits of the 28-cubit length, 8 for the north side and 8 for the south side, covering the top 8 cubits of the planks, which were 10 cubits in height. So the two lower cubits of each plank were left uncovered. The total width of the strips of cloth, two each of 20 cubits, was 40 cubits. Thirty cubits roofed over the empty space of the Tabernacle along its length. One cubit covered the one-cubit thickness of the planks on the west, and one cubit covered the one-cubit thickness of the pillars on the east (for there were no planks on the east, but four posts, from which the screen was stretched and hung on hooks, like a set of drapes). The remaining 8 cubits hung behind the Tabernacle, covering the top 8 cubits of the planks on the west side, leaving their lower two cubits uncovered. I found all this in the text called 49 measurements. But according to B. Shab. 98b, the strips of cloth do not cover the tops of the posts on the east side, leaving 9 cubits hanging behind the Tabernacle. V. 33, \u201cHang the curtain under the clasps,\u201d seems to support this. If one follows the description given in 49 Measurements, the curtain would be one cubit west of the clasps.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOpposite. \u201cTaking\u201d each other, as it were. This unique form of the verb \u201ctake\u201d (found also only in the parallel verse, 36:12), follows a usage of this root well known from Aramaic. A comparable usage of the root is found in \u201cHe shall turn the force of his battering rams against [i.e., \u201copposite\u201d] your walls\u201d (Ezek. 26:9) and, some think, in \u201cShallum son of Jabesh conspired against him and struck him down opposite the people\u201d (2 Kings 15:10).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFifty loops. There were 49 half-cubit spaces in between them, amounting to 24\u00bd cubits, and the loops themselves took up the other 3\u00bd cubits; 5\u00bd cubits on the goats\u2019-hair cloths, because they were coarser (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 26:6
\nRASHI
\nGold clasps. One end attaches to a loop on the one set of cloths, and the other to the matching loop on the other set, thus attaching them.
\nRASHBAM
\nCouple the cloths to one another. Couple the two sets of cloths together by means of the clasps and the loops. So that the Tabernacle becomes one whole. The 10 strips of cloth called \u201cTabernacle\u201d will now be a single piece.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSo that the Tabernacle becomes one whole. An ordinary object is not called \u201cone,\u201d because it is made up of various smaller \u201cunits.\u201d But God, though He contains everything, is One and is called One. The same is true of the microcosm (man) and the mesocosm (the Tabernacle).
\nExodus 26:7
\nRASHI
\nFor a tent over the Tabernacle. To be spread over the lower cloths.
\nIBN EZRA
\nEleven. You will find a discussion of the form of this word in my grammatical text.
\nExodus 26:8
\nRASHI
\nThirty cubits. When you put them lengthwise over the width of the Tabernacle (as with the previous, 28-cubit ones), you find them one cubit longer on either side, covering one of the two cubits of the planks previously left uncovered. The bottom cubit of each plank, which is still left uncovered by cloth, is the cubit that is inserted into the hole of the socket. For the sockets were one cubit high.
\nExodus 26:9\u201314
\nExodus 26:9
\nRASHI
\nFold over the sixth cloth. The extra cloth on the upper (tent) cloths as opposed to the lower (Tabernacle) cloths. At the front of the tent. One half of the extra cloth hung down two cubits over the screen on the east side opposite the entrance (see v. 36), giving it the appearance of a bride modestly covering her face with a veil.
\nRASHBAM
\nFold over the sixth cloth. That is to say, half of it hangs down over the entrance to the tent, and half of the cloth at the back should \u201coverlap the back of the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 12) by two cubits more than the cloths of the Tabernacle. How so? The 10 lower cloths, when stitched together, were 40 cubits long and 28 cubits wide. The Tabernacle was 20 cubit-and-a-half-wide planks long, for a total of 30 cubits. So when the lower cloth was spread over the top, 10 cubits of it hung behind the Tabernacle. In the north-south dimension, 10 cubits of the cloths covered the Tabernacle and 9 cubits hung down the walls on the northern and southern sides. When the goats\u2019-hair cloths, 44 cubits long, were spread on top of these, half of one cloth\u20142 cubits\u2014hung down in front, and 30 cubits covered the Tabernacle. This leaves 12 cubits, of which 10 cubits hung down behind the Tabernacle on top of the lower set of cloths, and \u201can extra half-cloth\u201d (v. 12), 2 cubits, beyond the lower set of cloths. As far as the width of the upper set of cloths, this was 30 cubits\u201410 cubits covered the Tabernacle, and 10 hung down on either side, extending 1 cubit lower than did the lower set of cloths. This \u201cextra cubit at either end of each length of tent cloth\u201d (v. 13) reached all the way down to the ground, covering the cubit-high sockets. For the height of the planks, including the sockets, was 10 cubits.
\nIBN EZRA
\nFold over the sixth cloth at the front of the tent. That is, let half of the extra cloth hang down in front, leaving \u201cthe extra half-cloth [to] overlap the back of the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 12). Since \u201cfold over\u201d is literally \u201cdouble over\u201d (OJPS), some think it means to make a second cloth and double the thickness. But if this was what it meant, it would have mentioned a second cloth explicitly.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nJoin five of the cloths by themselves. Even with this upper tent cloth, of goats\u2019 hair, the distinction between the Holy of Holies and the rest of the Tabernacle was to be maintained (Sforno).
\nExodus 26:10
\nIBN EZRA
\nFifty loops. These matched the 50 loops on the Tabernacle cloths. They were not, however, immediately above them, but (because of the extra four cubits of the 11th cloth) shifted two cubits to the west.
\nExodus 26:11
\nIBN EZRA
\nFifty copper clasps. The clasps of the Tabernacle cloths (v. 6) were made of gold, since the Tabernacle had a higher status than the upper \u201ctent\u201d cloths, which were simply to protect it from the rain. Moreover, the copper clasps were not visible, since there were two further coverings (v. 14) on top of this one. The planks of the Tabernacle too were overlaid with gold, and their rings were of gold. The bars were overlaid with gold as well, and so were the posts on which the curtain was hung. Even the sockets for the Tabernacle were at least made of silver; but the sockets for the screen (27:17) were made of copper, since it was not part of the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 26:12
\nRASHI
\nAs for the overlapping excess of the cloths of the tent. Over the cloths of the Tabernacle. The \u201ccloths of the tent\u201d are the upper ones, of goats\u2019 hair, which were meant to be \u201ca tent over the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 7). \u201cTent\u201d in this case merely means that they serve as a sort of roof over the lower cloths, covering them like a tent. They extended half a cloth over the lower ones on the west side, since the other half of the extra, 11th, cloth hung over the entrance of the tent. So they hung two cubits farther down in back than the lower ones did. Shall overlap the back of the Tabernacle. To cover the two cubits of the planks that were left uncovered. The \u201cback\u201d of the Tabernacle is the west side, since the entrance, on the east side, is considered the \u201cfront.\u201d North and south would therefore be the right and left sides of the Tabernacle, respectively.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe extra half-cloth. As in the \u201chalf-tribe\u201d of Manasseh (Deut. 3:13 and elsewhere), \u201chalf\u201d here is approximate and not exact. Shall overlap. The same word is used in Ezek. 23:15, \u201cwith flowing turbans.\u201d
\nExodus 26:13
\nRASHI
\nThe extra half cubit at either end. North and south. Each length of tent cloth. Which was two cubits longer than the cloth of the Tabernacle. Shall hang down to the bottom of the two sides of the Tabernacle. The north and south sides, as I explained above. The Torah here teaches proper behavior. One should take special care of beautiful things.
\nExodus 26:14
\nRASHI
\nMake for the tent a covering. For this roof of goats\u2019-hair cloths, make still another covering of tanned ram skins, and above it yet another covering of dolphin skins. These latter two covered no more than the roof, having dimensions of 30 by 10. All of this is the opinion of R. Nehemiah; but according to R. Judah this was a single covering, half of ram skins and half of \u201cdolphin\u201d skins.
\nRASHBAM
\nA covering of dolphin skins above. \u201cAbove\u201d the ram skins. This is the straightforward, literal sense, and even on B. Shab. 28a there are some who interpret it this way.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAnd make for the tent a covering. To protect the goats\u2019-hair covering from the rain.
\nExodus 26:15\u201317
\nExodus 26:15
\nRASHI
\nYou shall make the planks. It ought to have said \u201cyou shall make planks\u201d as it does for all the other things. Why \u201cthe planks\u201d? Those that are standing ready especially for this project. Our ancestor Jacob planted cedars in Egypt; and when he was dying, he commanded his children to bring them along when they left Egypt. He told them: \u201cThe Holy One is going to command you to make a Tabernacle in the desert, out of acacia wood. Make sure you have this wood ready to hand.\u201d R. Solomon b. Judah the Babylonian wrote about this in the liturgical poem we recite on the first morning of Passover: \u201cUp flew the grove when he warned, \u2018Be wary\u2014beams for our cedar sanctuary!\u201d They were warned in advance to have them ready. Acacia wood, upright. The planks should be set vertically rather than horizontally.
\nRASHBAM
\nAcacia wood, upright. The planks were to be set vertically, not horizontally.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe planks for the Tabernacle. \u201cThe\u201d Tabernacle of 25:9 comprises the structure of planks and the lowest set of cloths, so it was possible to refer here to \u201cthe\u201d planks. Upright. Literally, \u201cstanding\u201d (OJPS), as trees do in their natural state. For \u201cthe length of each plank\u201d (v. 16) is its height, just as a man\u2019s \u201clength\u201d is his height. Or perhaps it means that the edges must be perfectly vertical.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAcacia wood, upright. Not wood that was felled long before and was now rotten, but trees that were still growing and would be newly cut. Incidentally, the Torah teaches proper behavior: Buildings should not be constructed from the wood of fruit trees (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 26:16
\nRASHI
\nThe length of each plank shall be ten cubits. We thus learn that the height of the Tabernacle was 10 cubits. The width of each plank a cubit and a half. So the length of the Tabernacle along the north and south sides, consisting of 20 cubit-and-a-half-wide planks, is 30 cubits.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTen cubits. We do not know whether the cubits of the Tabernacle were \u201clong\u201d cubits (like those of Ezekiel\u2019s visionary Temple) or not. Logically, those of Solomon\u2019s Temple must have been, since we read in 2 Chron. 3:3, \u201cThese were the dimensions Solomon established for building the House of God: its length in cubits, by the later measure, was 60, and its breadth was 20.\u201d But the thickness of the planks is not given. Our Sages said they were a cubit thick. But judging from the dimensions of the Tabernacle and tent cloths, this leaves only eight cubits for the western side, into which we somehow have to fit eight planks. Perhaps they needed this cubit thickness for the middle bar, which they thought ran inside the planks. If it is a tradition that they were a cubit thick, we shall obey and accept it. But if it is a deduction, there is another solution. The two corner planks were not the same width as the others; this is why the text mentions them separately. After all, we do not even know if these corner planks were squared or rounded off. As long as we admit we do not know the thickness of the planks, the nine cubits of the six western planks can be supplemented by the two corner planks to match a 10-cubit width.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe length \u2026 the width. But the thickness is not given. Our Sages say they were a cubit thick, but if so, 48 of them could not have been carried on four carts (Num. 7:8). In my opinion, the straightforward sense is that they cannot have been so thick (Gersonides). Of the various talmudic opinions, the one that the planks tapered to a finger\u2019s width at the top seems most logical to me; they might not have been a cubit thick at the bottom either (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 26:17
\nRASHI
\nEach plank shall have two tenons. The bottom of the plank would be cut, in the middle, to a height of one cubit, leaving a quarter of its width on either side; these are the \u201ctenons.\u201d A full half of the width of the plank would be cut out in the middle. The tenons would fit into the holes in the sockets, which were also one cubit high, all 40 of which sat flush against one another in a row. The tenons that went into the sockets were pared down on their three remaining sides by exactly the thickness of the walls of the socket, so that, once the tenons were inserted, the planks would be perfectly aligned with the sockets. If this were not done, there would end up being a space between each pair of planks equivalent to the thickness of the walls of the two sockets into which they were set. This is the meaning of \u201cthey shall match at the bottom\u201d (v. 24): that the tenons must be cut so that the planks will stand flush together. Onkelos translates \u201ctenons\u201d as \u201chinges,\u201d since the tenons fit into the socket as the pin of a door hinge fits into the hole in the bottom of the doorframe. Parallel. Like the rungs of a ladder\u2014separate from each other, but with their heads trimmed to fit into the hole in the socket, just as the rungs of a ladder are made to fit into the holes in the two uprights. To each other. They must be cut to exactly the same measurement, so that one tenon is not slightly closer to the front of the cubit-thick plank and one to the back.
\nRASHBAM
\nEach plank shall have two tenons. The planks were cut in the middle to leave two tenons on either side. Parallel to each other. The planks were cut all the way around each tenon so that each plank\u2019s tenons could fit into the sockets underneath it. The sockets were hollowed out in such a way as to have the tenons fit into them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nParallel. This word is unrelated to any other Hebrew word except that translated \u201cframes\u201d in 1 Kings 7:28\u201329.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nEach plank shall have two tenons. I find Rashi\u2019s comment that \u201ca full half of the width of the plank would be cut out in the middle\u201d quite surprising. This would make the thickness of the rim of each socket one-quarter of the width of each plank. If you then cut one-quarter away on either side to cover the outer rims of the sockets (which were of equal dimensions on every side), you have nothing left! The text from The Construction of the Tabernacle that he cites in v. 25 in support of his view would also leave nothing to serve as a tenon, which is equally surprising. In my opinion, The Construction of the Tabernacle, like the Torah, is not at all giving specific dimensions. Instead, it is saying that one-quarter of the (unspecified) amount that is cut away should be removed on each side, and one-half of it in the middle. This would cover the rims of the two sockets equally on both sides. One matter that everyone agrees requires further study is that, once the bottom cubit is cut to make the tenons, the planks themselves are only 9 cubits high, not 10. But perhaps this is nitpicking. In any case, Rashi\u2019s comment that \u201cthe tenons that went into the sockets were cut down on the three remaining sides by the thickness of the walls of the socket, so that the plank would cover the entire top of the socket once the tenons were inserted\u201d is correct, even though that is not mentioned in The Construction of the Tabernacle. Parallel. Rashi\u2019s explanation makes it sound as if \u201cparallel\u201d refers to the tenons, but \u201cto each other\u201d refers to the planks, which (in his words) \u201cmust be cut to exactly the same measurement, so that one tenon is not slightly closer to the front of the cubit-thick plank and one to the back.\u201d But the expression \u201ceach other\u201d here is grammatically feminine, matching the word for \u201ctenons,\u201d whereas the word for \u201cplanks\u201d is grammatically masculine. So Rashi must be understood to be saying that the tenons match exactly, an equal amount being cut away from \u201ceach\u201d of them. The sides of the tenons, like those of the sockets, were cut straight, not slanted, so that the planks would fit snugly together. But The Construction of the Tabernacle seems to explain this verse in reference not to pegs at the bottom, fitting into a socket, but to tenons on the side of each plank that would fit into a corresponding mortise on the next plank, the male tenon fitting into the female mortise. The Hebrew word for such a tenon is indeed feminine, matching our verse. (Admittedly it is found in 1 Kings 7:28 with a masculine-sounding plural ending, but other feminine nouns have such endings; nashim, \u201cwomen\u201d: pilagshim, \u201cconcubines.\u201d)
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTwo tenons. The tenons were cut in such a way as to resemble the letter \u05d7 (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 26:18\u201324
\nExodus 26:18
\nRASHI
\nThe south side. The word pe\u2019ah does not mean \u201ccorner\u201d here (as it does in Lev. 19:9) but the whole length in that direction; see Onkelos.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe south side. I have already explained this word for south\u2014literally \u201ctoward the Negeb\u201d\u2014in my comment to Gen. 12:9. The extra word omitted by NJPS, teimana, \u201csouthward\u201d (OJPS), derives from yamin, the right hand. Similarly, north can be referred to as \u201cleft.\u201d West is sometimes referred to as \u201cseaward,\u201d since the Great Spanish Sea is west of Israel.
\nExodus 26:19
\nIBN EZRA
\nSilver sockets. With regard to this silver, see my comment to 38:25.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSockets. These were one cubit long, reaching from inside to outside of a plank, and \u00be cubit (half a plank) wide. The holes were \u00bc cubit by \u00bc cubit square, leaving a \u00bc-cubit edge on either side and a \u215c-cubit edge in front and back; the tenons were cut to these same dimensions (Bekhor Shor). The same word is used in Job 38:6, \u201cOnto what were its bases sunk?\u201d (Kimhi).
\nExodus 26:22
\nRASHI
\nThe rear of the Tabernacle. Literally, as Onkelos translates, \u201cthe end of the Tabernacle.\u201d Since the entrance is on the east, that side is called the front or \u201cface\u201d and the west is the \u201crear\u201d or \u201chinder part\u201d (OJPS)\u2014the \u201cend\u201d as opposed to the \u201chead,\u201d which is the \u201cface\u201d or front. Make six planks. Giving a width of nine cubits.
\nRASHBAM
\nAnd for the rear of the Tabernacle \u2026 make six planks. Their north-south length would be 9 cubits. This left half a cubit of the western corner empty on the north and south sides. The two corner planks would fill this half-cubit space and cover the cubit-thick planks of the northern and southern sides. The space inside the Tabernacle was thus 10 cubits wide. The discontinuity at the corners was thus covered and equal on either side, while on the outside the corners of the Tabernacle were completely squared off.
\nExodus 26:23
\nRASHI
\nMake two planks for the corners of the Tabernacle. One for the northwest corner and one for the southwest corner. All eight planks are in a row, but the two end planks of the eight are not within the space of the Tabernacle except for a half cubit of each one, rounding out its width to 10 cubits. The extra cubit on either side matches the one-cubit width of the planks on the northern and southern sides of the Tabernacle, so that the outside corners end up square.
\nExodus 26:24
\nRASHI
\nThey shall match at the bottom. The planks shall \u201cmatch\u201d each other in the sense that the thickness of the sockets shall not be great enough to cause a separation between two adjoining planks. See my comment to v. 17. The corner planks on the western side are similarly cut so as to sit flush with the end planks on the northern and southern sides. Terminate alike. Rather, \u201cmatch together.\u201d The word tamim is essentially the same word as to\u2019amim, translated as \u201cmatch\u201d earlier in the verse. At the top. Of the plank. Inside one ring. On top of each plank there was a groove incised on either side, the whole thickness of the plank\u2014a groove as deep as the thickness of a ring. One ring was inserted into two adjacent boards to hold them together. But I do not know whether these rings were fixed or movable. In the end planks on the south and north sides, there were rings in a groove along the width of the plank. The tops of the corner planks on the west had grooves cut into them that would fit into these rings, connecting the northern, western, and southern walls together. Thus shall it be with both of them. The two planks at the corner, the one at the end of the north side and the one on the west side; and it shall be the same at each of the two corners.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTerminate. The root is \u05ea\u05de\u05dd, not \u05ea\u05d0\u05dd; note the dagesh in the mem, which doubles it.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey shall match at the bottom, and terminate alike at the top inside one ring. Rashi thinks \u201cthey\u201d refers to all the planks. But I cannot understand why the text would not have explicitly stated, \u201cYou shall make twenty gold rings,\u201d and mentioned the \u201cgroove\u201d that was to be in the planks. Moreover, it does not say \u201cone ring,\u201d but \u201cthe one ring\u201d (see OJPS). Perhaps this is because all such constructions were known to have a ring at the top of each plank. This could also be the assumption behind \u201ctheir rings\u201d (v. 29) and \u201ctheir hooks\u201d (v. 37). According to The Construction of the Tabernacle, \u201cterminate alike at the top\u201d does indeed refer to the groove in each plank, which was to penetrate as far down as the rings holding the upper bars. The text does not specify whether the rings should be of silver or gold, fixed or movable, or whether bands (as in 27:10) might be used instead. But The Construction of the Tabernacle says that Moses made rings. The straightforward sense of the verse, though, is that it refers only to the two corner planks.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nInside one ring. These rings were on the outside, for the attempt was to make this building beautiful on the inside (Gersonides).
\nExodus 26:25\u201328
\nExodus 26:25
\nRASHI
\nThus there shall be eight planks. Those mentioned in vv. 22\u201323. It is taught this way in The Construction of the Tabernacle: \u201cThey would make the sockets hollow, and cut into the plank one-quarter of the way in on either side, cutting out the middle two quarters, giving it two tenons, like two rundles.\u201d (To me it appears that this word should read not hamukin, \u201crundles,\u201d but havvakin, \u201crungs,\u201d like those of a ladder, separated from each other and trimmed to fit into the holes in the uprights of the ladder; this accounts for the word \u201cparallel\u201d in v. 17.) \u201cThese fit into the two sockets: \u2018two sockets under the one plank for its two tenons and two sockets under each following plank for its two tenons\u2019 [v. 19]. The plank would be grooved on top, at either side, one fingerbreadth in from the side, and put into a ring of gold so adjacent planks would not slide apart from each other: \u2018They shall match at the bottom, and terminate alike at the top inside one ring\u2019 [v. 24].\u201d I have suggested my interpretation of this text in my comments to the preceding verses.
\nExodus 26:26
\nRASHI
\nFive for the planks of the one side wall. These \u201cfive\u201d were really three, but the upper and lower bars were made of two pieces, each extending halfway along the wall and each inserted into the rings from either side and touching each other in the middle. Thus these two of the bars really were four. But the middle bar went the whole length of the wall, barring the wall \u201cfrom end to end\u201d (v. 28). The upper and lower ones had rings on the planks into which they were inserted. There were two rings per plank, dividing each plank into three sections: one quarter of the way down from the upper end of the plank, one quarter of the way up from the lower end of the plank, and half the plank in between, leaving all the rings aligned. The middle bar had no rings. Instead, each plank had a hole extending all the way through it, and the middle bar was inserted into these holes, which were aligned \u201cin the midst\u201d of the planks (v. 28, OJPS), not merely \u201chalfway up\u201d (NJPS). So the upper and lower bars on the northern and southern sides were each 15 cubits long, and the middle one was 30 cubits long, running \u201cfrom end to end\u201d (v. 28) that is, from east to west. The five bars on the western end were 6 cubits long (each of the two upper and two lower bars) and 12 cubits long (the middle bar), matching the 12-cubit width of eight 1 \u00bd-cubit planks. This is how it is explained in The Construction of the Tabernacle.
\nRASHBAM
\nBars of acacia wood: five. There were five rings on each plank, one under the other, into which the bars could be inserted, as well as a middle bar, which was inserted directly into an opening hollowed into the planks. Given the sockets beneath and the external bars, the placing of a central bar in a hollow inside the planks made the Tabernacle extraordinarily strong. The straightforward sense of the text is that there were three of these central bars, one each on the north, south, and west, from end to end on each wall. The corner planks connected the three walls of the Tabernacle. For the bars on the north and south sides extended into the corner planks, since one cubit of the corner planks on the west overlapped the other planks at the corners. So the ends of the northern and southern bars were fixed into the corners of the western side. But according to the words of our Sages, a single wooden bar went miraculously around all three sides, from end to end of the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 26:28
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe center bar. \u201cThe\u201d center bar, because it was obvious there was one. Shall run. Literally, \u201cshall bar it.\u201d This is the causative conjugation. Those who derive the similar-sounding word that describes Jonah \u201cfleeing\u201d (Jon. 1:3, in the simple conjugation) from this word, thinking that he was trying to \u201cbar himself\u201d within Tarshish, are incorrect.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe center bar \u2026 shall run from end to end. If, as our Sages say, this bar ran inside the planks, then the bar on the western side would have intersected with the bars on the north and south, and so would have to be slightly higher or lower. But \u201ccenter\u201d may refer to the center of the outside, rather than the center of the planks themselves (Gersonides).
\nExodus 26:29\u201333
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What accounts for the difference in construction of the curtain (vv. 31\u201335) and the screen (vv. 36\u201337), which are both used for a similar purpose?
\nExodus 26:29
\nRASHI
\nAs holders for the bars. The rings you make for the planks are to be holders into which the bars can be inserted. Overlay the bars with gold. Not that the gold was attached to the bars themselves\u2014for there was no covering upon them\u2014but two things like tubes of gold were attached to the plank, like two halves of a hollow reed, fixed opposite the rings on either side, their length filling the width of the plank from the ring to the edge of the plank on each side. The bar would slide into the \u201ctube\u201d on one side, from there into the ring, and on into the opening of the \u201ctube\u201d on the other side. The bars were thus \u201coverlaid\u201d with gold, when they were inserted into the planks. The bars were on the outside wall. The rings and the \u201ctubes\u201d could not be seen inside the Tabernacle. The inner wall was completely smooth.
\nExodus 26:30
\nRASHI
\nSet up the Tabernacle. After you are finished making it. That you were shown on the mountain. Rather, \u201cthat you will have been shown.\u201d For I am going to teach you and show you the manner in which it is to be set up.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSet up the Tabernacle. That is, have your experts do so. Or perhaps it meant that Moses himself was to set up the Tabernacle the first time\u2014with the help of others, for it took many hands to set up the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 26:31
\nRASHI
\nA curtain. The word parokhet implies a separation; in rabbinic Hebrew the related word pargod is the name for that which separates the king from the people. Blue, purple, and crimson yarns. Each consisting of six strands per thread. Worked into it. I have already explained in my comment to v. 1 that this was weaving with two sides, so that the designs on either side did not resemble each other.
\nRASHBAM
\nA curtain. From the context, this word obviously refers to something that separates two rooms. A design \u2026 worked into it. Literally, \u201cthe work of a designer.\u201d This refer to weaving, not embroidery.
\nIBN EZRA
\nCurtain. This word too is not used outside of the description of the Tabernacle.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA curtain. The curtain was of the same make as the cloths of the Tabernacle except that, since it marked a boundary, it was much thicker\u2014our Sages say, a full handbreadth thick (Gersonides). The only difference between this and the cloths of the Tabernacle was that the curtain was a 10-by-10 square (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 26:32
\nRASHI
\nFour posts. Fixed into four sockets. Hooks were fixed into them, curving upward, to hold the rod around which the top of the curtain was wrapped. The curtain was 10 cubits long, matching the width of the Tabernacle, and its height was 10 cubits, matching the height of the planks. It was hung one-third of the way through the Tabernacle, 10 cubits from the innermost end and 20 cubits from the entrance. This curtain marked the boundary of the Holy of Holies, making the dimensions of the Holy of Holies 10 cubits by 10 cubits. For (according to v. 33) the curtain was hung under the clasps that held together the two sets of cloths. Each of the sets was 20 cubits long, so when one of them was spread westward across the roof of the Tabernacle starting from the entrance, it covered two-thirds of the Tabernacle. The other covered the final third of the Tabernacle\u2014the Holy of Holies\u2014and the remaining 10 cubits hung behind it to cover the planks.
\nRASHBAM
\nHooks. These were a kind of projection on the posts, fixed so that the upper edge of the curtain could be attached to them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHang it upon four posts of acacia wood. And upon the wall on either side (Bekhor Shor). Set in four sockets of silver. The sockets had to be of silver because it is stronger than gold; they could not be of copper because of the sacredness of the place (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 26:33
\nRASHBAM
\nHang the curtain under the clasps. The golden clasps of v. 6, which were at the end of the 20 cubits of the cloths spread west from the entrance of the Tabernacle. For the Tabernacle was 30 cubits long, and the clasps were in the middle of the 40-cubit length of the 10 cloths. Thus the distance from the curtain to the entrance of the Tabernacle was the 20-cubit length of the sanctuary. West of it was the 10-cubit length of the Holy of Holies.
\nIBN EZRA
\nShall serve you as a partition. This Hebrew word is accented on the last syllable, which is quite unusual in this form of the verb.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nCarry the Ark of the Pact there, behind the curtain. This is not a command to \u201chang the curtain under the clasps\u201d and then bring the Ark inside the curtain, because this section does not deal with the setting up of the Tabernacle, but with its manufacture. (The same applies to \u201cPlace the cover upon the Ark of the Pact in the Holy of Holies,\u201d v. 34.) The point is that the curtain is to be hung under the clasps in such a way that the Ark is inside the curtain, which separates between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nShall serve you as a partition. \u201cYou\u201d in the plural, since it kept the priests and the people out of the Holy of Holies\u2014not Moses (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 26:34\u201327:2
\nExodus 26:34
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPlace the cover upon the Ark of the Pact in the Holy of Holies. See the previous comment. The cover, with its cherubim, should be in the Holy of Holies, inside the curtain. But when the setting up of the Tabernacle is commanded, it says, \u201cPlace there the Ark of the Pact, and screen off the ark with the curtain\u201d (40:3), which is how it was actually done (40:20\u201321).
\nExodus 26:35
\nRASHI
\nPlace the table outside the curtain. The table was on the north side of the Tabernacle, 2\u00bd cubits from the wall. The lampstand was on the south side, 2\u00bd cubits from the wall. The golden altar was placed opposite the space between the table and the lampstand, just slightly east of them. All of them were in the inner half of that part of the Tabernacle outside of the Holy of Holies. For the Tabernacle was 20 cubits long from entrance to curtain, and the altar, table, and lampstand were all more than 10 cubits west of the entrance.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBy the north wall. So that the light from the lampstand could fall on it from the south, as does the light of the sun on the earth (Hizkuni). The lampstand was placed on the right and the table on the left (from the perspective of the Ark-throne) in accordance with the verse, \u201cIn her right hand is length of days, in her left, riches and honor\u201d (Prov. 3:16) (Sforno).
\nExodus 26:36
\nRASHI
\nYou shall make a screen. A curtain to screen off the entrance. The Hebrew root is the same as in Job 1:10, \u201cYou have made a hedge about him.\u201d The connotation is that it is protective. The dimensions of the screen were the same as those of the curtain, 10 cubits by 10 cubits. Done in embroidery. The figures were to be made in it with needlework, so that the same image was seen on both sides. Literally, the phrase is \u201cthe work of the embroiderer\u201d (see OJPS).
\nRASHBAM
\nA screen for the entrance of the Tent. For there was no cloth there except the half-cloth hanging down at the top.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA screen. Its posts and their hooks were overlaid with gold out of respect for its location, but the sockets for the posts were of copper, since the screen was after all intermediate between the Tabernacle and the courtyard. Embroidery. This is inferior to a \u201cworked design.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA screen \u2026 done in embroidery. Unlike a woven design, this design would appear only on one side; I think it must have been on the inside (Gersonides). The curtain and the screen follow the idea in Prov. 25:2, \u201cIt is the glory of God to conceal a matter\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 26:37
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMake five posts of acacia wood for the screen. Since it was not between the walls, and could not be hung on them at either end as the curtain was (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 27:1
\nRASHI
\nThree cubits high. Three cubits means three cubits, according to R. Judah. But R. Jose observes: Both this altar and the incense altar of 30:2 are described as \u201csquare\u201d; since that altar is twice as high as it is long and wide, this altar too must be twice as high as it is long and wide\u201410 cubits. How then do I explain the phrase \u201cthree cubits high\u201d? It is three cubits high from the edge of the indentation to the top of the altar.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall make the altar. The outer altar, in the courtyard.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSquare. Literally, \u201ca quadrilateral\u201d (of which there are five types), but since the length and the width are equal, it is indeed a square. Three cubits high. Suppose this were literally true, in accordance with those who deny the words of our Sages that the altar had a ramp. What do they do with the altar of Solomon\u2019s Temple, which was 10 cubits high? The height of a man is no more than four cubits!
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe altar is to be square. This specification would be redundant unless the \u201cfive cubits\u201d is a suggested, not a required dimension; but we find no altar smaller than the golden altar of 30:2, which was one cubit by one cubit. From a description of the altar in the Second Temple, which was built on the basis of prophecy, one can understand the form of the altar in the Tabernacle (Gersonides). \u201cThe\u201d altar, because the Israelites knew there had to be one\u2014this was how all the ancients served their gods, by offering sacrifice on an altar (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 27:2
\nRASHI
\nThe horns to be of one piece with it. They must not be made separately and attached to it. Overlay it with copper. To atone for stubbornness. \u201cI know how stubborn you are\u2014your neck is like an iron sinew and your forehead copper\u201d (Isa. 48:4).
\nRASHBAM
\nThe horns to be of one piece with it. Not merely attached to it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIts horns. The horns that all altars were known to have; the same is true for the objects mentioned in v. 3 (Sforno).
\nExodus 27:3\u20135
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why was the sacrificial altar overlaid with copper (v. 2) and not gold or silver like all the other utensils of the Tabernacle?
\nExodus 27:3
\nRASHI
\nThe pails. These were a kind of kettle. For removing its ashes. Literally, \u201cfor ashing.\u201d The ashes were removed into these pails: that is how Onkelos translates it. There are some cases in Hebrew where a single word may change its interpretation to indicate either construction or destruction. Thus \u05e9\u05e8\u05e9 may mean \u201cto take root\u201d (Ps. 80:10; Job 5:3) or \u201cto uproot\u201d (Job 31:12); \u05e1\u05e7\u05dc \u201cto stone\u201d (1 Kings 21:13) or \u201cto de-stone\u201d (Isa. 5:2, 62:10). Here too the root means not \u201cto ashify\u201d but \u201cto de-ash.\u201d Its scrapers. These are the trowels with which one takes away the ashes; they are made like a kind of thin metal potlid, but with a handle. Basins. In which to collect the blood of the sacrifices. Flesh hooks. These were used to tear the flesh and to turn it on the embers of the fire to make it burn faster. Fire pans. These had a receptacle in which coals could be taken from the altar and carried to the inner, incense altar. Literally, they are \u201cscoopers,\u201d from the verb used in Isa. 30:14, \u201cTo scoop coals from a brazier,\u201d and Prov. 6:27, \u201cCan a man rake embers into his bosom without burning his clothes?\u201d But the verb is used only with reference to scooping fire from one place to another.
\nRASHBAM
\nScrapers. For gathering the ashes so they can be put into the pails in which they are removed to the outside of the camp (see Lev. 6:3\u20134). Basins. For collecting the blood of the sacrifices for sprinkling on the altar. Flesh hooks. For turning the sections of the sacrifices over on top of the coals so they can burn completely.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe pails. The same word is used for \u201cpots,\u201d which was the shape these had. For removing its ashes. In Hebrew, this whole phrase is a single verb. The same verb can also mean \u201cto fatten\u201d (see Prov. 15:30 and Isa. 30:23) and \u201cto approve a sacrifice\u201d (by burning it to ashes; see Ps. 20:4). Scrapers. The verb form is found in Isa. 28:17, \u201cHail shall sweep away the refuge of falsehood.\u201d Basins. To receive the blood. Flesh hooks. The same word is found in 1 Sam. 2:13, \u201cThe priest\u2019s boy would come along with a three-pronged fork while the meat was boiling.\u201d Fire pans. To carry the fire. But the text does not explain how many of them there were. Since the plural is used, there must have been at least two of each of these.
\nExodus 27:4
\nRASHI
\nA grating. The word, mikhbar, is related to kebarah of Amos 9:9, \u201ca sieve.\u201d It is a kind of covering made for the altar that is full of holes, like a net.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA grating of meshwork in copper. Rather, \u201ca copper grating in meshwork.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA grating. This grating was an inseparable part of the altar, made in such a way that when they put the poles in the four copper rings they lifted the entire altar with them (Gersonides).
\nExodus 27:5
\nRASHI
\nThe ledge of the altar. The word translated \u201cledge\u201d here (as we learn from its use on B. Hul. 25a) refers to rounded trim that encircles another object. Just as they make rounded grooves around the sides of wooden chests and benches, they made an indentation around the side of the altar, a cubit wide, for decoration, beginning three cubits from the top (see my comment to v. 1). The copper altar did not have a ledge surrounding it for the priests to walk on; instead, there was a walkway on top, inside its horns. As we learn on B. Zev. 62a, \u201cWhat was the \u2018ledge\u2019? It was between the horns.\u201d It was an indentation a cubit wide, with another strip inside it, also a cubit wide, for the priests to walk on. These two cubits were called \u201cthe ledge.\u201d The Talmud raises the difficulty that 38:4 says, \u201cHe made for the altar a grating of meshwork in copper, extending below, under its ledge, to its middle.\u201d If the grating was under the ledge, the ledge must have been on the side of the altar. The answer given in the Talmud is that there were two ledges\u2014one on the side of the altar, for decoration, and one on top, so the priests could walk without slipping. The grating under the decorative ledge on the side of the altar reached down its side to the halfway point (so it was also a cubit wide) and served as a marker to separate the sacrificial blood that had to be sprinkled at the top of the altar from that which had to be sprinkled at the bottom. In the permanent Temple, this was marked with a line of red paint all around the altar halfway up. Although the current passage says nothing about the ramp leading up to the altar, we know from 20:23 that it was accessed not by steps but by a smooth ramp. The Mekilta says the same. The \u201caltar of earth\u201d (20:21), to which 20:23 refers, is the same as the altar of our passage. They would fill its hollow frame with earth wherever they camped. The ramp was on the south side of the altar, separated from the altar by a hair\u2019s breadth. The foot of the ramp reached to within a cubit of the hangings of the enclosure, on the south side\u2014all in accordance with the view that this altar was actually 10 cubits high. But in the view of those who take v. 1 literally to say that the altar was only three cubits high, then the length of the ramp was no longer than 10 cubits. I found this discussion in the rabbinic text 49 Measurements. As far as the ramp\u2019s being separated from the altar by a hair\u2019s breadth, this comes from B. Zev. 62b, where it is derived from the Bible.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe ledge. The access to the altar, which was made narrower at the top so there could be a walkway around the altar. B. Hul. 25a uses a verbal form of this word to mean \u201ctrimmed around.\u201d The word applies both to reliefs and designs on vessels and to concavities in them. To the middle of the altar. To separate the areas for the blood sprinkled at the top of the altar and the blood sprinkled at the bottom. You can remember which goes where this way: A whole offering of birds is at the top, a sin offering of birds is at the bottom. With mammals it is the reverse, the sin offering at the top and the whole offering at the bottom. This is all covered on B. Zev. 53a.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe ledge of the altar. This is understood from context. The word translated \u201cledge\u201d is not etymologically related to any other Hebrew word that might help explain its meaning.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe ledge of the altar. The ledge was to prevent fire falling on the sides of the altar (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 27:7\u201310
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the metalwork in the enclosure (v. 10) partly copper and partly silver, rather than all of a single metal as in the other parts of the Tabernacle?
\n\u2666 Why is the order in which the various parts of the Tabernacle were commanded different\u2014in 12 specific ways\u2014than the standard order in which they appear every other time in the Book of Exodus, when they are constructed and set up? It cannot simply be by chance!
\nExodus 27:7
\nRASHI
\nThe rings. The four rings that were made for the grating (v. 4).
\nExodus 27:8
\nRASHI
\nHollow, of boards. The altar was to be made out of boards of acacia wood on every side, and hollow in the middle, rather than a single block of wood five cubits on a side.
\nRASHBAM
\nHollow, of boards. When they camped, they would fill it with dirt and then offer sacrifice on it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHollow, of boards. That is, empty inside, like the \u201chollow man\u201d of Job 11:12, a man who is empty of wisdom\u2014there is none of it found inside him. As they say, \u201cA head without a brain.\u201d The laver, which is mentioned immediately after the altar in 38:8, is not mentioned here because it was not made from the contributions of all Israel (25:2), but from those of the women alone. Hence it is commanded in 30:18, immediately before the spices, which were also brought not by all Israel, but only by the chieftains (35:27\u201328).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHollow, of boards. When they set out, they would pick up the altar by the poles fixed at the edge of the grating, and the dirt would fall through the holes in the netlike bottom of the grating. When they stopped, they would refill it (Hizkuni). The altar was to be filled with earth because of the command in Lev. 6:6, \u201cA perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out\u201d (Sforno). As you were shown on the mountain. This command is repeated four times, in 25:9 (a general instruction), 25:40 (the lampstand), 26:30 (the assembly of the Tabernacle), and here. The reason requires investigation, but the most straightforward explanation was that these were the aspects that were hardest to visualize (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 27:9
\nRASHI
\nHangings. They were made just like the rigging of a boat, full of holes, and braided, not woven. Onkelos translates with a form of the same word he used for the \u201cgrating\u201d of v. 4, since both are perforated like a sieve.
\nRASHBAM
\nHangings. The translations follow Menahem ibn Saruq\u2019s understanding of this word kela\u2019im\u2014cloths. But he also assigns a second meaning to the word based on the usage in 1 Kings 6:18 and 1 Kings 6:32, where it refers to carvings. I think that the word refers to carvings and designs in the case of the Tabernacle enclosure as well.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHangings of fine twisted linen. Unlike the cloths of the Tabernacle, the hangings were made of linen only. The form of such hangings is well known.
\nExodus 27:10
\nRASHI
\nWith its twenty posts. There were five cubits between each pair of posts. Copper. The sockets sat on the ground, and the posts were inserted into them. For each post they made a kind of board, six handbreadths long and three handbreadths wide, with a copper ring fixed in the middle. The upper edge of the hanging would be wrapped around this board with cords, and the board would be hung by its ring on the hook on the pole. These hooks were shaped like the letter \u05d5 lying on its side, one end bent straight up and the other fixed into the post\u2014just like the hooks on which doors are mounted. The width of the hanging hung down vertically, forming the height of the partitions that form the boundary of the enclosure. The hooks. These are the hooks I have just mentioned. The \u2026 bands of the posts. The posts were encircled with strips of silver. But I do not know if they covered each one completely, or only the top or the middle. But I do know that the word translated as \u201cbands\u201d refers to something wrapped around something else; Onkelos uses the word to describe the harnessing of mules in Judg. 19:10.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe \u2026 bands of the posts to be of silver. The unusual word translated \u201cbands\u201d must refer to something that goes around the posts. This is the interpretation that makes sense in the context.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHooks. The ancients said that these hooks, called vav in Hebrew, had the shape of the letter (\u05d5) that we call vav today. The word \u201cand\u201d (NJPS) is not actually found in the Hebrew, since it would have been represented by still another vav at the beginning of the word, and it is difficult to pronounce three vavs in a row. Bands. That is, the things that make them \u201ccling\u201d together; the two words are used synonymously in Gen. 34:3 and Gen. 34:8.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe \u2026 bands of the posts. These went around the middle of the posts for decoration (Sforno).
\nExodus 27:12\u201318
\nExodus 27:12
\nRASHBAM
\nTheir ten posts. In this section, every five cubits there would be another post.
\nExodus 27:13
\nRASHI
\nThe front, or east side. The east is the \u201cfront\u201d just as the west is the \u201crear.\u201d See Deut. 11:24, where Onkelos translates \u201cthe hinder sea\u201d as \u201cthe Western Sea.\u201d Fifty cubits. These 50 cubits were not completely filled with hangings, since they also included the entrance to the enclosure. There were 15 cubits of hangings on either side of the entrance, leaving an entrance space between them of 20 cubits \u201cfor the gate of the enclosure,\u201d requiring \u201ca screen of twenty cubits\u201d (v. 16).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe front, or east side. The east has three major sections. The first is opposite Capricorn, which is as far south as the sun goes; the second, directly east along the equator, is between Aries and Libra; and the third, as far north as the sun goes, is opposite Cancer. The double names given for the directions in the Hebrew text (see also \u201csouth\u201d in v. 9) refer to these sections.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe front, or east side. Hebrew calls the east the \u201cfront\u201d and the west the \u201crear\u201d (see Num. 35:5, Job 23:8, Deut. 34:2, etc.). These synonyms are based on the image of a man facing the rising sun. The south is called the Negev because it is naguv, \u201cdried\u201d by the heat. Sometimes the synonym is immediately followed by the more literal name, as here and in 26:18. West is sometimes referred to as \u201cseaward,\u201d from the point of view of those who live in the land of Israel, for whom the Mediterranean Sea is in the west. There is no synonym for north, but its Hebrew name, tzafon, is derived from tzafun, \u201chidden\u201d\u2014for the sun is never seen in the north. The word for south is darom, derived from the phrase dar rom, for the sun \u201cdwells high\u201d in the sky in that direction. In accordance with the image of a man facing the sun, north is also referred to as \u201cleft\u201d and south as \u201cright.\u201d The deeper meaning of these names is known from Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the Chariot. Similarly, the reference to west as \u201cseaward\u201d can be understood from the saying in B. BB 25a, \u201cThe Shekhinah is in the west.\u201d For \u201cthe sea\u201d is a reference to the sefirah of Hokhmah or Wisdom. As the midrash says, \u201c \u2018Sea\u2019 means Torah\u2014\u2018Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea\u2019 [Job 11:9].\u201d I intend to return to this subject in my comment to Deut. 33:23, if my Rock blesses me to reach that verse.
\nExodus 27:14
\nRASHI
\nTheir three posts. There were five cubits between each pair of posts, starting with the one in the southeast corner and moving one by one to each of the posts along the east side. Since there were three posts for each of the two hangings and four for the screen of the enclosure, that makes 10 posts on the east side of the Tabernacle to match the 10 posts on the west side.
\nRASHBAM
\nFifteen cubits of hangings on the one flank. At the east side, at the entrance to the enclosure, there was a width of 50 cubits: 15 cubits of \u201changings\u201d on either side, and a 20-cubit screen in the middle. In this way the entire 50 cubits were covered.
\nExodus 27:17
\nRASHI
\nShall be banded with silver and their hooks shall be of silver; their sockets shall be of copper. This information was not specified for the east and west sides, as it was for the north and south; but we learn from this verse that they were to be the same.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBanded with silver. Since they were not plated like the other posts, they had to be banded so the dry heat of the sirocco would not split them (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 27:18
\nRASHI
\nThe length of the enclosure along its north and south sides shall be a hundred cubits, and the width fifty throughout. The eastern side of the enclosure was a 50-by-50 square. For the length of the Tabernacle was 30 cubits and its width 10. Its entrance was at the edge of the outer 50 cubits of the enclosure, leaving the Tabernacle itself completely within the inner 50 cubits. So there was a space of 20 cubits at the rear of the 30-cubit-long Tabernacle between the cloths covering the Tabernacle and the hangings of the enclosure, and (since it was 10 cubits wide) a similar space of 20 cubits on both the north and the south sides as well, leaving a 50-cubit by 50-cubit enclosure in front of it. The height five cubits. The height of the enclosure is the same as the width of the hangings. Their sockets shall be of copper. This refers to the sockets of the screen as well as those of the hangings, so that you not think the sockets of the screen might have been of some different material\u2014or so it appears to me. This would explain why the phrase from v. 17 is repeated here in v. 18.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe width fifty throughout. Literally, \u201cfifty by fifty.\u201d How so? The enclosure was 100 cubits long from east to west, since there were \u201ca hundred cubits of hangings\u201d (v. 11) along both the north and south sides. From north to south, the enclosure measured 50 cubits. The length of the Tabernacle was 30 cubits and its width 10. Since the entrance to the Tabernacle was located exactly on the 50-cubit line, an exact 50-by-50 square of the enclosure remained open in front of the Tabernacle. Its 30-cubit length and 10-cubit width left 20 cubits of open space on each of its other three sides.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe length of the enclosure shall be a hundred cubits. On both the north and south sides; its width, on the east and west sides, was 50 cubits. The Tabernacle itself was in the midst of this enclosure. The width fifty throughout. Literally, \u201cthe width fifty by fifty.\u201d The commentators understand this phrase to mean that there was an empty square, 50 cubits wide and 50 cubits in length, in front of the Tabernacle. When you figure in the 30-cubit length and 10-cubit width of the Tabernacle, you can see that the enclosure extended 35 cubits east of it and 35 cubits west of it, as well as 20 cubits north of it and 20 cubits south of it. But the opinion of the ancients was that the Tabernacle was located 50 cubits from the eastern end of the enclosure, and this alone is correct. The height of the entrance to the enclosure was obviously five cubits, since that was the height of all the posts. There were 15 hangings on each side of the entrance, with the entrance in the middle, on the eastern side of the enclosure (vv. 13\u201315).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe width fifty throughout. Since the Tabernacle was 32 cubits long (taking into account the one-cubit thickness of its planks), the eastern side of the enclosure was not literally 50 by 50, but 50 by 49, and the open space on the other three sides was 19 cubits, not 20 (Hizkuni). The essence of man\u2019s life is the first 50 years; the full 100 cubits represent the greatest possible extent of life (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 27:19
\nExodus 27:19
\nRASHI
\nAll the utensils of the Tabernacle. All that were necessary to assemble and dismantle it, like mallets to hammer in the pegs and the posts. Pegs. These were a kind of copper pin made for the tent cloths and the hangings of the enclosure, wrapped around with rope and tied onto the bottoms of the cloths and hangings so the wind could not pick them up. I do not know whether they were stuck into the ground or simply tied on for their weight to keep the bottoms of the cloths from being moved by the wind.
\nRASHBAM
\nIts pegs. Which were connected to the hangings and stuck into the ground so that the bottoms of the cloths should not flutter in the wind.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIts pegs \u2026 shall be of copper. So were the mallets with which they were knocked into the ground.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the utensils of the Tabernacle, for all its service. Hammers and mallets and the like\u2014the tools necessary for putting it up and taking it down (Sforno).
\nExodus 27:20
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are the instructions for kindling the lamps given (v. 20) before the Tabernacle has been constructed and the lampstand made?
\nExodus 27:20
\nRASHI
\nClear oil. Without any solid residue; see M. Men. 8:4, where the three grades of olive oil are specified. Beaten olives. They are crushed in a mortar, not ground in a mill, so that there is no residue in the oil. After the first drop is extracted, the olives are then put in a mill and ground. The oil that results from this second stage is unfit for use in the lampstand, but may be used with meal offerings; oil from beaten olives is required for lighting, but not for other purposes. For kindling lamps. Literally, \u201cfor raising a light.\u201d The lamp is to be kindled until the flame rises of its own accord. Regularly. \u201cContinually\u201d (OJPS) is more literal, but in fact the lamps are lit not continually but once a night. In Num. 28:6, the burnt offering that is offered once per day is also referred to as \u201ccontinual\u201d; so is the offering of cakes in Lev. 6:13, which is offered \u201chalf of it in the morning and half of it in the evening\u201d. The \u201ccontinual\u201d setting up of the bread of display (Lev. 24:8) is not even daily, but weekly.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall further instruct. At the beginning of the passage about the Tabernacle it says, \u201cTell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts\u201d (25:2). This was to provide whatever was needed for the one-time construction of the Tabernacle. But here, since the Israelites are being commanded for all time to bring oil for lighting, year after year, the language is changed to say (in the more literal translation of OJPS), \u201cthou shalt command\u201d the Israelites. Every time the word \u201ccommand\u201d is used, it applies to future generations. Both Sifra (to Leviticus) and Sifrei (to Numbers) say the same: Whenever the word \u201ccommand\u201d is used, it applies both immediately and for future generations. Clear. Without any solid residue. The olives for this oil must be crushed in a mortar, since oil from olives that are ground in a mill is not so clear.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall further instruct. Literally, \u201cthou shalt command\u201d (OJPS). For it is an ongoing commandment that the Israelite public bring olive oil. Num. 28:2, \u201cCommand the Israelite people and say to them: Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offerings of food due Me,\u201d is comparable. (As for the oil brought specifically by the chieftains in 35:27\u201328, that was the anointing oil.) The point of this verse is that, after Moses has \u201cset up the Tabernacle\u201d (26:30) and made \u201cthe enclosure of the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 9), Aaron was to light the lamps. Clear oil. This assumes that the Hebrew adjective zakh, \u201cclear,\u201d modifies the word \u201coil,\u201d as some commentators think. But in my opinion it modifies the word \u201colive,\u201d implying a particularly select kind of olive. The proof of this is the next word, \u201cbeaten,\u201d which everyone agrees modifies \u201colive.\u201d \u201cClear\u201d olives are those that have no mold growing on them and that have not been partially eaten\u2014the kind from which the oil that kings consume is made. Beaten olives. The word translated \u201cbeaten,\u201d katit, is etymologically related to the word katut, translated in Lev. 22:24 as \u201ccrushed.\u201d For kindling lamps. Literally for \u201craising\u201d lamps. For the light of a lamp customarily rises up in flame, since it falls into the category of fire.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall further instruct the Israelites. Throughout the passage on the Tabernacle, Moses is told \u201cyou shall make\u201d in a verb form that automatically means \u201cyou,\u201d even when the pronoun \u201cyou\u201d is not written. The sense is that Moses is to have the things made by others. But when the pronoun \u201cyou\u201d is specifically added, as it is here, Moses is being told, \u201cYou yourself must personally instruct them.\u201d Similarly, Moses is told, \u201cYou shall bring forward your brother Aaron, with his sons\u201d (28:1)\u2014he personally must call them and inform them that they are to become priests. But he is to instruct others to \u201cmake sacral vestments\u201d (28:2) and so forth. In 28:3 it again says, \u201cYou shall instruct all who are skillful,\u201d for he personally was responsible for evaluating their skill and distributing the work among each of them. But the vestments themselves were to be made by the experts, just as God \u201csingled out by name Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur\u201d (31:2) to do the rest of the work of making the Tabernacle. To bring you clear oil. They are not told to make olive oil (as they are the other things for the Tabernacle), but to bring it. For there was no way they could make olive oil in the desert. They must have kept some on their journey. It was the chieftains who brought it (35:27\u201328). The oil was to be brought to Moses so he could see whether it fit the requirement of being clear oil, and from beaten olives. (The same is true of Lev. 24:2.) For kindling lamps regularly. Rabbinic tradition interprets the verse somewhat differently than does Rashi. According to the Sifrei (to Num. 8:2), the westernmost lamp must indeed be kept constantly burning, so the other lamps can be lit from it at twilight. The Sifra (to Lev. 24:2) says the same thing. M. Tam. 3:9 says, \u201cThe one entitled to clean out the lamps\u2014if he found the two eastern lamps burning, he would clean out the others and leave those two burning. If he found that the two eastern lamps had gone out, he would clean them out, light them from the others that were burning, and then clean out the others.\u201d This ruling follows the opinion of R. Judah the Prince that \u201cthe westernmost lamp\u201d must refer to the second of the two eastern lamps, the one closer to the west. But if (as some think) the lamps were arranged along a north-south line, the \u201cwesternmost\u201d lamp was the one on the body of the lampstand, in the middle. In any case, this westernmost lamp was lit in the morning as well, so it at least did burn \u201ccontinually\u201d before the Lord.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall further instruct. This exact Hebrew phrase occurs only one other place in the Bible\u2014when Joshua is told to instruct the priests carrying the Ark across the Jordan to halt in the middle so that its waters will part to let the Israelites through dry-shod (Masorah). To bring you. As a contribution to Me (Bekhor Shor). It is for you to be able to see where you are coming and going; as for Me, I have no need for light (Hizkuni). This is not the commandment about lighting the lampstand (which comes in Leviticus 24, in the appropriate place), but a remark explaining to Moses why he must \u201cbring forward\u201d (28:1) Aaron and his sons as priests\u2014because he will one day instruct the Israelites to bring oil for the lamps, which must be lit by priests. The reason this paragraph begins with \u201cand\u201d (see OJPS) is that biblical narratives commonly begin with this word (Abarbanel). As it becomes necessary\u2014when the oil that is brought along with all the other voluntary contributions to the Tabernacle (25:6) runs out (Sforno). For lighting. Having arranged for the construction of the Tabernacle, God explains how it is to be lit\u2014just as, after arranging for the dry land to appear, God created the sun and moon to light it (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 27:21\u201328:1
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are \u201cAaron and his sons\u201d (v. 21) given instructions before it is even known that they are to become priests?
\n\u2666 Why does it say, \u201cYou shall instruct\u201d the Israelites, rather than simply commanding him, \u201cInstruct the Israelites,\u201d as is done on this same subject in Lev. 24:2?
\n\u2666 In fact, why is this subject introduced here at all, when it is repeated in Leviticus 24, which is its proper place?
\n\u2666 Why doesn\u2019t the instruction to make Aaron and his sons priests (v. 1) precede the instructions about the lamps and begin the weekly parashah, as it should?
\nExodus 27:21
\nRASHI
\nFrom evening to morning. The light must be provided with enough oil to burn from evening to morning. According to our Sages, on long winter nights this would require half a log of oil; so this amount is used every night throughout the year. It does not matter if there is some left over.
\nRASHBAM
\nOutside the curtain which is before the Pact.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAaron and his sons. That is, first Aaron and subsequently whichever of his sons replaces him as High Priest. Shall set them up. Japheth b. Ali suggests that ya\u2019arokh oto means not \u201cset them up\u201d but \u201cevaluate them,\u201d as in Lev. 27:12, where a related form means \u201cassess.\u201d The priest is to assess how much oil is necessary to keep the lamps burning all night. A more correct interpretation, however, is that he should \u201cset them up\u201d in a semicircle. I will have more to say on this. Which is over [the Ark of] the Pact. The explanatory insertion by NJPS is correct; see 40:21, \u201cThen he put up the curtain for screening, and screened off the Ark of the Pact.\u201d [To burn] from evening to morning. The Hebrew text sounds as if they were meant to \u201cset them up\u201d from evening to morning, but again the insertion is correct.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA due from the Israelites. In the present case, the chieftains were to bring it from whichever of the Israelites had any, just as the contributions for the Tabernacle were to come \u201cfrom every person whose heart so moves him\u201d (25:2).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAaron and his sons. Rather, \u201cAaron or his sons\u201d (Hizkuni). Over [the Ark of] the Pact. Rather, \u201con account of the Pact\u201d (Abarbanel). From evening to morning. Not that the lamps should not burn during the day, but because our Torah days begin at evening, with night preceding morning (Gersonides). For all time. As long as the Temple is in existence (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:1
\nRASHI
\nYou shall bring forward. After you finish the construction of the Tabernacle.
\nIBN EZRA
\nChapter 28
\nHaving mentioned in the previous verse that Aaron was to light the lamps, the text turns to the garb of the priests, and then to their sanctification; continues by pointing out that this applies to Aaron\u2019s descendants for all time; and then, having described all the offerings that were to be made on the copper altar, brings in the golden incense altar to make clear that no sacrifices of well-being or libations were to be made on it. This accounts for the contents of this section right to the end of Tetzaveh.
\nYou shall bring forward your brother Aaron. Aaron was the one chosen to be High Priest, but Moses was to bring them forward\u2014\u201coffer them,\u201d as one might translate it\u2014because he, as priest to the priests, would teach them what to do. I alluded in my comment on 6:23 to the reason Aaron was chosen as High Priest. It was in honor of Nahshon, whose sister he married. (But we cannot speak against Moses for marrying a Midianite woman. He was on the run\u2014who would have given him a Hebrew woman to marry?) Moreover, Moses was too busy judging the Israelites and teaching them the commandments to take on the High Priesthood. To serve Me as priests. I cannot agree with the assertion that the verb translated this way means \u201cto make him a priest to Me\u201d; that could hardly be the meaning of this word in v. 3. The extra vav at the end of the word in both places is not a suffix meaning \u201chim\u201d; like the extra vav of ma\u2019y\u2019no mayim, \u201cfountain of water,\u201d in Ps. 114:8, it carries no additional meaning. Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. Having mentioned Aaron\u2019s sons, the text now names them explicitly, perhaps because he had other sons who were not made priests. Aaron\u2019s family undoubtedly increased greatly in the wilderness; according to Josh. 21:19, they were assigned 13 towns.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron. The names are specified so that no one should think that anointing the father automatically gave these four sons priestly status as well; they too had to be specifically made priests. This excluded Eleazar\u2019s son Phinehas and any other of the sons and grandsons of Aaron who were already born at this time. Only these four sons who were anointed with him, and their progeny born after they were anointed, would be priests.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBring forward. Literally, \u201cbring close to you.\u201d It is as much as to say, Do you not realize that there is no one else among the Israelites as close to your level of prophecy as is your brother Aaron? As 19:24 says, \u201cCome back together with Aaron; but let not the priests or the people break through.\u201d No one suspected Moses of making this decision on his own, since if he had, he certainly would have chosen his own sons and not those of Aaron (Abarbanel). To serve Me as priests. There is a superfluous vav in the Hebrew word translated \u201cto serve,\u201d which occurs three times in this passage; since the numerical value of vav is 6, our Sages take these three vavs to represent the 18 High Priests who served in the First Temple (Abarbanel). Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron. As I shall prove in my comments to Numbers 25, the matter is not as Nahmanides explains it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:2\u20134
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why was it necessary to tell Moses to \u201cinstruct all who are skillful\u201d (v. 3) to make Aaron\u2019s vestments, when this was not done for the Ark, the table, or any of the other things that had to be made?
\n\u2666 Why was it necessary to say this here at all, when its proper place is in ch. 31, where \u201cthe skillful\u201d are identified?
\nExodus 28:2
\nRASHI
\nMake sacral vestments for your brother Aaron. But Moses himself, who served as priest by special dispensation during the seven days of ordination, did not wear special garments.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMake sacral vestments. So called because they are worn in the sacred place. Or perhaps the literal OJPS translation \u201choly garments\u201d is correct, as suggested by Ezek. 44:19, \u201cWhen they go out to the outer court\u2014the outer court where the people are\u2014they shall remove the vestments in which they minister and shall deposit them in the sacred chambers; they shall put on other garments, lest they make the people consecrated by contact with their vestments.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFor dignity and adornment. So that he should be dignified and adorned, in these dignified and ornamented vestments, \u201clike a bridegroom adorned with a priestly turban\u201d (Isa. 61:10). For these vestments are the kind of garments in which kings in the days of the Torah would dress. The \u201cstriped tunic\u201d that Jacob made for Joseph was the same as the \u201cfringed\u201d (really \u201ccheckered\u201d) tunic of v. 4 (see Rashi\u2019s comment), for he wished to dress him like \u201ca son of ancient kings\u201d (Isa. 19:11). Similarly, 2 Sam. 13:18 tells us that the daughters of kings wore striped tunics and robes. The headdress is still worn today by kings and high officials. As Ezek. 21:31 puts it, \u201cRemove the turban and lift off the crown!\u201d The priestly headdresses are called \u201cdecorated turbans\u201d in 39:28, using a different form of the same word translated here as \u201cadornment.\u201d The breastpiece and the ephod are royal garments as well, like the \u201cgolden chain on your neck\u201d (Dan. 5:16) that Belshazzar promised Daniel. The frontlet (tzitz) is a diadem; as Ps. 132:18 says, yatzitz nizro, \u201chis crown shall sparkle.\u201d Even today no one but a gentile king would dare to wear purple like that of the ephod.
\nBut according to the True interpretation, the words used here, kavod and tiferet, are associated with hod, \u201cMajesty.\u201d The garments are to be made so that, wearing them, Aaron can serve kavod, the \u201cPresence\u201d of God that dwells in their midst, and tiferet, the \u201cGlory\u201d of their strength. \u201cFor You are their strength in which they glory\u201d (Ps. 89:18). Isa. 60:13 describes the cypresses of Lebanon coming to Jerusalem (using the same words as our verse) \u201cto adorn the site of My Sanctuary, to glorify the place where My feet rest.\u201d The sanctuary is to be adorned with tiferet and glorified with the kavod of the Lord. The garments of Aaron\u2019s sons are also \u201cfor kavod and tiferet\u201d (v. 40). Thus the priestly garments were required to be made for their own sake, not merely as priestly accoutrements. It may even be that the one who made them was required to do so with kavanah, full intention that they should serve the purpose specified for them. This would explain why God tells Moses to personally assign their making to \u201call that are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom\u201d (v. 3, OJPS). For they must have the wisdom to understand just what they are doing. Our Sages, on B. Yoma 69a, note that Alexander the Great, when he saw Simeon the Just dressed in the garments of the High Priest, descended from his carriage and bowed down before him. He was asked: \u201cShould a great king like yourself bow down before this Jew?\u201d He answered: \u201cThis is a replica of the image which goes victorious before me when I wage war.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSacral vestments. Not \u201choly\u201d ones (as OJPS has it), but vestments \u201cfor dignity and adornment\u201d that are to be used only for ritual actions, so that the priests do not come before God in their ordinary clothes (Bekhor Shor). For dignity and adornment. If they are not worn \u201cfor dignity and adornment\u201d\u2014e.g., if they are worn or torn\u2014they are considered defective (Gersonides). Rather, \u201cfor honor,\u201d to honor God for whose service they are made, and \u201cfor splendor,\u201d so that he may be \u201ca priest to give instruction\u201d (2 Chron. 15:3), \u201cheld in awe by all around him\u201d (Ps. 89:8)\u2014his students the Israelites, whose names are engraved on his heart and on his shoulders (Sforno).
\nExodus 28:3
\nRASHI
\nFor consecrating him to serve Me as priest. For bringing him into the priesthood, by means of the vestments, so that he can serve Me as priest. The Hebrew word for priesthood, kehunah, denotes service.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhom I have endowed with the gift of skill. Since the suffix of the verb is singular, it really means, \u201ceach of whom I have filled with the gift of skill.\u201d Or, since the literal phrase is \u201cthe wise of heart\u201d (compare OJPS), the suffix may refer to the word \u201cheart\u201d: \u201cwhose heart I have filled with skill.\u201d For consecrating him. So that he can be distinguished by his clothing; no one else may wear anything comparable.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall instruct all who are skillful \u2026 to make Aaron\u2019s vestments. I command them to do so, just as I commanded you to have them make the Tabernacle, so that people do not say: \u201cLet Aaron hire someone to make his vestments\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Whom I have endowed with the gift of skill. We learn from this that any wisdom a man might have flows into him from God, may He be praised\u2014and this is the truth (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:4
\nRASHI
\nA breastpiece. An ornament worn over the heart. An ephod. I have never heard, nor found in The Construction of the Tabernacle, an explanation of its design. My heart tells me that it was belted in the rear, and that it was as wide as a man\u2019s back. It must have resembled the apronlike garment that noble ladies wear nowadays when they ride horses. It was, therefore, something worn below the waist; since \u201cDavid was girt with a linen ephod\u201d (2 Sam. 6:14), we learn that an ephod is something that one girds, or belts, around oneself. But it cannot be only a belt, for Moses first \u201cput the ephod\u201d on Aaron and subsequently \u201cgirded him with the decorated band of the ephod\u201d (Lev. 8:7). The ephod itself, then, must be a separate, ornamental garment. Since v. 27 refers to \u201cthe two shoulder-pieces of the ephod\u201d (OJPS), we know that the word cannot refer to the shoulder-pieces alone; the shoulder-pieces, the ephod, and the decorated band have distinct names. So I think that the ephod is named after this apron effect, because it girds him (ophedo) and ornaments him. The \u201cdecorated band\u201d is the belt that goes on top of it, and the shoulder-pieces are attached to it. My heart also tells me that there is evidence that it was a garment from the Aramaic translation of 2 Sam. 6:14. For Targum Jonathan uses the same word for \u201cephod\u201d there that it uses in 2 Sam. 13:18, \u201cfor maiden princesses were customarily dressed in such garments.\u201d A robe. The Hebrew word translated \u201cgarments\u201d in the verse just quoted is translated here as \u201crobe\u201d; it is a kind of coat. A fringed tunic. This is the same as the \u201crobe,\u201d except that the tunic is an undergarment, worn next to the skin, and the robe is an outer garment. \u201cFringed\u201d is more literally \u201ccheckered\u201d (OJPS) or \u201cplaited\u201d; the \u201cchecks\u201d are holes like those in which pearls and precious stones are set in gold jewelry. The \u201cframes of gold\u201d in v. 11 are etymologically connected with our word. A headdress. It was a kind of domed cap, as we know from the Aramaic translation of v. 40. A sash. This is what belted the tunic, while the ephod served to belt the robe. This is evident from the order in which they are donned: \u201cHe put the tunic on him, girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him\u201d (Lev. 8:7). Sacral vestments. They must be made from the gifts that were sanctified to My Name.
\nRASHBAM
\nThese are the vestments. They are all explained in what follows. A breastpiece. As it is presented in the context, it must be a kind of pouchlike container, for it is \u201cdoubled\u201d (v. 16). An ephod. This word refers to a garment that one wears above his other clothing, both for ornamentation and as a covering. Fringed. Rather, \u201cof checker work\u201d (OJPS)\u2014that is, made in a pattern of holes. A headdress. See Isa. 62:3, where the related word tzenif also refers to something worn on the head. And a sash. A straightforward reading suggests that the reason it was not necessary to mention the breeches (v. 42) here is that this verse mentions only the visible garments, those made \u201cfor dignity\u201d (v. 2).
\nIBN EZRA
\nA breastpiece. Just as the Ark is mentioned first among the furniture of the Tabernacle, the breastpiece is mentioned first among the clothes of the High Priest. It contains the Urim and is worn opposite the heart, a more honored place on the body than the shoulders. As far as the word itself, we find it nowhere but in connection with the High Priest\u2019s breastpiece. Saadia explains the word to mean \u201cheight.\u201d An ephod. This word does occur elsewhere in the Bible. The verses \u201cDavid was girt with a linen ephod\u201d (2 Sam. 6:14) and \u201cHe \u2026 put the ephod on him, girding him with the decorated band with which he tied it to him\u201d (Lev. 8:7) suggest that the word implies something that is girded on. It would thus be called \u201cephod\u201d because of the decorated band that was part of it. The description of its making in ch. 39 notes, \u201cThey hammered out sheets of gold and cut threads to be worked into designs among the blue, the purple, and the crimson yarns\u201d (39:3), and the breastpiece was of the same manufacture. V. 16 makes clear that the breastpiece was to be \u201ca span in length and a span in width,\u201d but the dimensions of the ephod are not given. This was not necessary, for it was made to fit the shoulders of a man of average height, as is made clear by the \u201ctwo shoulder-pieces attached\u201d (28:7), and by the fact that the two stones attached to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod were to fit on the shoulders of Aaron (v. 12). It was not meant for the giants who are more than twice as big as a normal human, as I shall explain in its place. The mystery behind the breastpiece and the ephod is esoteric, but I will reveal some things that hint to it. Doeg the Edomite, attacking the priests at King Saul\u2019s orders, killed \u201ceighty-five men who wore the linen ephod\u201d (1 Sam. 22:18). Since the ephod appears in our passage to be something worn only by the High Priest, many interpret the Samuel passage to mean \u201ceighty-five men worthy of wearing the linen ephod.\u201d But this interpretation is not correct. For the ephod of our passage is not made of linen alone, but of blue, purple, and crimson yarn, and gold as well. The other priests made ephods out of linen in the same pattern as this one\u2014which is not forbidden by the Torah. Notice that \u201cwhen Abiathar son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, he brought down an ephod with him\u201d (1 Sam. 23:6)\u2014not the ephod, merely an ephod. This differs from Saul\u2019s instruction to bring the ephod forward, an occasion when the Ark was present. If the ephod taken by Abiathar had been the ephod made by Moses, the breastpiece would have been with it, for (according to v. 28), the breastpiece \u201cdoes not come loose from the ephod.\u201d How could Saul have inquired of the Lord \u201cby Urim\u201d (1 Sam. 28:6) if Abiathar had taken the ephod, with the breastpiece, to Philistia? One who inquired of the Lord by means of an ordinary ephod could get an answer only by means of the two stones on the shoulder-pieces. Only the ephod made by Moses had the Urim, which could give a decisive answer. This is what made it \u201ca breastpiece of decision\u201d (v. 15), for it could bring a decisive answer to light. One might ask, if the matter was dependent solely on the breastpiece, why does he say, \u201cBring forward the ephod\u201d? But saying it this way is equally correct, for the breastpiece and the ephod are inseparably linked. One could not ask anything of the breastpiece if it were removed from the ephod. You will understand why from the mystery of the ephod that I shall reveal to you. Moreover, the ephod was bigger than the breastpiece, so it was reasonable to refer to the combination of the two as the ephod.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA headdress. Rashi\u2019s comment that the headdress was like a \u201cdomed cap\u201d is not correct. Our Sages tell us that the headdress was 16 cubits long, and was wound about his head again and again. The word Rashi refers to in v. 40 is never applied to the headdress of the High Priest, only to that of the ordinary priests. In fact, these too were wound, but set atop the head, with the folds piled up in such a way as to look like a helmet, as Onkelos suggests. In fact, migba\u2019at, \u201cheaddress,\u201d and koba, \u201chelmet,\u201d are etymologically related; k is often replaced by g. Rabbinic literature uses the word \u201cheaddress\u201d indiscriminately for that worn by the High Priest and that worn by the others.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThese are the vestments they are to make. Why is the frontlet not mentioned here? The breeches are omitted because they are intended to cover something not quite respectable (Hizkuni). A fringed tunic, a headdress, and a sash. These are made of linen (Gersonides). They shall make those sacral vestments. Rather, \u201cthey shall make holy garments\u201d (OJPS), others than those mentioned here: the frontlet and the breeches (Hizkuni). His sons. Those of his descendants who replace him as High Priests. But \u201cAaron\u2019s sons\u201d (v. 40) refers to his actual sons and the garments they will wear as ordinary priests (Bekhor Shor). For priestly service to me. NJPS omits the words \u201cto sanctify him\u201d (see OJPS). The priests are not sanctified when not wearing their priestly garments (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:5\u20137
\nExodus 28:5
\nRASHI
\nThey, therefore, shall receive. They who are \u201cendowed with the gift of skill\u201d (v. 3) shall receive the gold, the blue, purple, and crimson yams, and the fine linen from those who contribute it, in order to make the priests\u2019 garments.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey, therefore, shall receive the gold. Up to this point, all the commandments have been directed to Moses himself. Here, with the addition of the pronoun \u201cthey\u201d to the verb, those \u201cendowed with the gift of skill\u201d (v. 3) are personally commanded to receive the public contributions of gold, blue, and so forth, with which to make the vestments. The materials were not to be weighed or counted when they were given to them, for (like the men in charge of refurbishing the Temple in 2 Kings 12:16) it was taken for granted that they were honest. This applied not merely to the vestments, but to every aspect of the making of the Tabernacle. For when the work began, \u201cBezalel and Oholiab, and every skilled person whom the Lord had endowed with skill \u2026 took over from Moses all the gifts that the Israelites had brought, to carry out the tasks connected with the service of the sanctuary\u201d (36:2\u20133). Even these had never been inventoried by Moses, and from that point on, the contributions were brought directly to the artisans. Notice that it is they who must tell Moses, in 36:5, \u201cThe people are bringing more than is needed for the tasks entailed in the work that the Lord has commanded to be done.\u201d It was they themselves who weighed and counted the materials\u2014giving us, for example, the information that the gold used in making the Tabernacle amounted to \u201c29 talents and 730 shekels by the sanctuary weight\u201d (38:24)\u2014not Moses.
\nExodus 28:6
\nRASHI
\nThey shall make the ephod. If I were to explain the making of the ephod and the breastpiece in the order in which they are explained in the Bible, the reader would find this explanation scattered in several places, and would be liable to be confused in trying to put the explanations together. So I will explain how they were made in such a way that \u201che who runs may read it\u201d (Hab. 2:2). Afterward, I will explain each verse in order.
\nThe ephod was made like the kind of apron that women wear while riding horses. It went around the priest\u2019s back below the level of his elbows. It was wider than a man\u2019s back, and reached down as far as the heels. The \u201cdecorated band\u201d that went with it was woven on to the top of the ephod, extending enough on either side in order to encircle the body and belt the ephod on. The shoulder-pieces were attached to this band, one on the right and one on the left, behind the priest, on either side of the apron, so that when he pulled them up they would sit on his two shoulders. They were like two straps, made of the same material as the ephod, but long enough to be pulled up as high as his neck on either side, and draped down a bit in front of his shoulders. The lapis lazuli stones were attached to them, one on the right shoulder and one on the left, with the frames placed at the end of the straps, in front of his shoulders.
\nThe two gold chains were inserted into two rings at the far ends of the upper edge of the breastpiece, one on the right and one on the left. The two ends of the chain on the right were fastened to the frame on the right shoulder-piece, and the same for the left (see v. 11). So the breastpiece hung down from the frames on the ephod, over his heart. There were two more rings at either end of the bottom edge of the breastpiece, and opposite them two rings on the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod, at their lower ends, where they attached to the decorated band. The rings on the breastpiece lay opposite the rings on the ephod, and they would be held in place by blue cords running through both sets of rings in such a way that the bottom of the breastpiece was connected to the decorated band on the ephod and could not shift back and forth out of place.
\nOf gold, of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and of fine twisted linen. These five materials were twisted together in each and every thread. They would beat gold into thin sheets of foil, cut them into strands, and spin one strand of gold with six of blue, one strand of gold with six of purple, and the same with the crimson and the linen. In this way, each material was spun into a six-stranded thread with an additional strand of gold. Then the blue, purple, crimson, and linen threads would be twisted together into a single 28-stranded thread. B. Yoma 72a derives this information from 39:3: \u201cThey hammered out sheets of gold and cut threads to be worked into designs among the blue, the purple, and the crimson yarns, and the fine linen\u201d\u2014showing that a thread of gold was spun with each different material. Worked into designs. As I have already explained in my comment to 26:1, this expression indicates weaving on both sides of the cloth in such a way that the designs on either side are not the same.
\nRASHBAM
\nThey shall make the ephod. My grandfather, Rashi, has explained the ephod and the breastpiece. I will explain only things that were not already explained.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey shall make the ephod. Since the ephod was bigger than the breastpiece, the text describes it first. Pay attention, now. The ephod was in the form of a garment. At its two ends, two shoulder-pieces were attached, and there was a decorated band around the middle of it, with which Aaron could gird it on. There were two lapis lazuli stones on the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod, which fit on the shoulders of Aaron. Two chains were placed on two frames, and the frames were placed on top of the shoulder-pieces of the ephod. You should imagine the ephod as a square with four corners, the two frames with cords on the upper corners, and two rings on the lower corners, all facing the breastpiece and above the decorated band. The breastpiece was folded over the ephod, and had two chains on two rings at either end of it. There were two more rings on the inner side of the breastpiece, facing the ephod, as I have shown you, for one side of the breastpiece was folded under the ephod. In my opinion, the \u201cbraided chains\u201d (v. 22) were the gold chains on the frames on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod, and they are \u201cthe two golden cords\u201d of v. 24.
\nExodus 28:7
\nRASHI
\nIt shall have two shoulder-pieces attached. The apron was below, and the decorated band of the ephod is the belt attached to it on top, like a woman\u2019s apron. In back of the priest, two wide straps were attached to the decorated band, one for each shoulder, and they would be pulled over his shoulders and fall in front of his chest. By attaching them to the rings on the breastpiece, they would be held in front of him without falling off, as our passage explains. Each of them had one of the two lapis lazuli stones attached to it. They shall be attached. The two shoulder-pieces shall be attached to the ephod by sewing them on to the decorated band. They are not to be woven together with it, but woven separately from it and attached to it. At its two ends. On either side of the ephod (which was only as wide as the priest\u2019s back). The ephod was worn no higher than the elbows, for Ezek. 44:18 explains, \u201cthey shall not gird themselves anywhere that sweats\u201d\u2014not higher than the elbows or below the waist, but at elbow level.
\nRASHBAM
\nIt shall have two shoulder-pieces attached. These two shoulder-pieces are literally attached to each other all along their length, and cover the man\u2019s back from the waist up. Attached at its two ends. After they are attached to each other, reaching (on top) up to the man\u2019s shoulders, he attaches the bottom of them to the ephod. In my opinion, the ephod is a kind of half-garment, which covers the man front and back, but only from the waist down. This is what Lev. 8:7 describes: \u201cHe put the tunic on him, girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him, girding him with the decorated band with which he tied it to him.\u201d The \u201cdecorated band\u201d is a kind of sash made out of the upper edge of the ephod itself. The breastpiece is in front of him, over his heart (\u201ca span in length and a span in width,\u201d v. 16), its top being attached to the shoulder-pieces and its bottom to the ephod. Once the ephod is attached to the breastpiece and the shoulder-pieces, the three form a single garment that totally covers the priest\u2019s body. If the shoulder-pieces were not attached to each other, but were like two straps coming up to his neck and attached by chains to the breastpiece, then when the priest bent over in the course of his work, the shoulder-pieces would separate and fall off, and the breastpiece too would fall off. At its two ends. The two ends of the upper edge of the ephod, next to the decorated band, behind the priest\u2019s back.
\nExodus 28:8\u201312
\nExodus 28:8
\nRASHI
\nThe decorated band. Rather, \u201cthe band of decoration\u201d\u2014the belt by means of which Moses shall decorate the ephod and adorn and arrange it upon the priest. That is upon it. Above, on the upper edge of the apron. This is the belt. Shall be made like it. \u201cWorked into designs,\u201d like the ephod, and of the same five materials. Of one piece with it. It shall be woven as part of it, not woven separately and attached to it.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe decorated band that is upon it. This is what he was \u201cgirded\u201d with, to tie the ephod to him, according to Lev. 8:7.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe decorated band. This word heshev is related to the verb havash, \u201cgird\u201d; such switching of consonants is common in Hebrew (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 28:9
\nIBN EZRA
\nLapis lazuli. Saadia understands this Hebrew word to refer to a precious stone of a white color. He uses the Arabic word balor, which is the same as the Aramaic word burla, except that the order of the r and the l is reversed.
\nExodus 28:10
\nRASHI
\nIn the order of their birth. \u201cReuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali\u201d on the one, and on the other, \u201cGad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin.\u201d Benjamin\u2019s name was spelled with two yuds (even though in the Bible the second yud is normally omitted) because that is the spelling in Gen. 35:18, the verse where he is named. Moreover, the use of that spelling left exactly 25 letters on each stone.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSix of their names on the one stone. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, and Naphtali. And the names of the remaining six on the other stone. Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. Thus the names are written in the order of their birth.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSix of their names on the one stone, and the names of the remaining six on the other stone. The names were written alternately, beginning with the stone on the priest\u2019s right shoulder, since we know that the right is more honored than the left. Thus: Reuben was the first name on the right-hand stone, Simeon the first on the left, and so forth (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:11
\nRASHI
\nSeal engravings. As Onkelos makes clear, the letters were to be carved into it just as they are into the seal on a ring with which correspondence is sealed, in clear, distinct script. The work of a lapidary. Literally, \u201ca craftsman in stone,\u201d just as Isa. 44:12\u201313 mentions a \u201ccraftsman in iron\u201d and a \u201ccraftsman in wood.\u201d Having bordered them with frames of gold. The stones are bordered, literally \u201csurrounded,\u201d by the frames that serve as their setting. This frame is a kind of cavity in which the stone is sunk, leaving it encircled by the frame. These frames were to be attached to the shoulders of the ephod.
\nRASHBAM
\nSeal engravings. Like the engravings of various designs that are made on seal rings.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSeal engravings. Literally, \u201copenings\u201d of the seal; but everyone understands that this expression means \u201cengravings.\u201d Having bordered them. The gold frames are to go around the stones. It does not say whether the frames were to be square or round. But in my opinion, this particular word \u201cbordered\u201d\u2014literally, \u201csurrounded\u201d\u2014indicates that they were to be round.
\nExodus 28:12
\nRASHI
\nFor remembrance. So that the Holy One should see the names of the tribes written before him and remember their righteousness.
\nRASHBAM
\nTo the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod. The shoulder-pieces come up as high as the man\u2019s neck on either side, and fold over in front of him. It is there, at the tops of the shoulder-pieces, that the two stones are attached. They have two chains that reach as far as the breastpiece, opposite his heart, which hangs from them. Stones for remembrance. See my comment to v. 36 with regard to the frontlet on which is engraved, \u201cHoly to the Lord.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nFor remembrance. This will be made clear to you esoterically.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhose names Aaron shall carry upon his two shoulder-pieces for remembrance before the Lord. So that Aaron should always keep them in mind, with the result that when he was fit to receive prophecy, he would receive prophecy about them (Gersonides). Rather, \u201cwhose names Aaron shall lift up.\u201d When Aaron lifts up his hands to bless the people, he raises his hands up to the level of the shoulder-pieces with his fingers spread out in the shape of the name Shaddai, \u201cAlmighty\u201d\u2014a deep mystery (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:13\u201316
\nExodus 28:13
\nRASHI
\nMake frames. The plural indicates that there are two, but this is not stated explicitly until their use is specified in v. 25, in the passage about the breastpiece.
\nRASHBAM
\nMake frames of gold. Like a strip of gold that has a hole in the middle of it in which to insert the ends of the chains. Each end is a thick piece like the \u201cbutton\u201d (as we call it in French) that is made at the ends of silk suspenders, so that it can fit into the frame.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMake frames of gold. These would make the two lapis stones resemble two eyes.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThen make frames of gold. This is one of only 14 verses in the Torah that are exactly three words long (Masorah).
\nExodus 28:14
\nRASHI
\nBraid these. Rather, \u201cborder them,\u201d that is, put them at the edge of the breastpiece. Corded work. This is the phrase that indicates braiding. These chains were not to be made of hollow links, like those made to draw water up from cisterns, but like the braided chains on which censers for incense are swung. Fasten the corded chains. This whole verse is more properly translated not in the imperative but in the future tense (compare OJPS)\u2014for this is not the place where the commandment to make the chains and fasten them to the frames is given. That is found below in vv. 22\u201325, in the section about the breastpiece. Our verse merely conveys something of the reason why frames must be made for the ephod. Essentially the verse says, \u201cYou are going to need these frames when you make the chains for the breastpiece, in order to fasten the chains to them.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nCorded work. Really \u201cbraided\u201d or \u201cplaited\u201d work. Since there is another kind of chain, made by hooking hollow links together, the text must make clear that this is not the case here. Rather, each chain is separately braided all along its length, as ropes are in our day. Fasten the corded chains to the frames. It has not yet explained where the frames are to be fixed. But vv. 24\u201325 explain that the two ends of the cords are to be attached to the two rings of the breastpiece, and the other two ends, which are put on the frames, he should \u201cattach to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod, at the front.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nBraid these. Rather, \u201cset bounds around\u201d them. They are to have bounds set around them so that they are equal in size. Corded work. Though the Hebrew word sounds like a feminine plural ending in -ot, the -ot is really part of the original word, not a plural suffix. Chains. This is obvious.
\nExodus 28:15
\nRASHI
\nA breastpiece of decision. Rather, \u201cof judgment\u201d (OJPS). Its purpose was to provide atonement for judicial mistakes. Another reading: it is \u201ca breastpiece of judgment\u201d because its judgments are clear and one can be sure that they are true. For the word \u201cjudgment\u201d carries three meanings: one, the process of judging; two, the verdict; and three, the sentence, whether it is death, flogging, or a fine. Here it refers to the verdict. The breastpiece renders its verdict clearly and explicitly. In the style of the ephod. \u201cWorked into designs\u201d using the five materials.
\nRASHBAM
\nA breastpiece of decision. It is called this because they put in it the Urim and the Thummim, which make decisions for the Israelites to provide for their needs. Thus Joshua \u201cshall present himself to Eleazar the priest, who shall on his behalf seek the decision of the Urim before the Lord\u201d (Num. 27:21).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA breastpiece of decision. It was called this because, when asked a question, the High Priest could use it to give a terse, yes-or-no answer (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:16
\nRASHI
\nA span in length and a span in width. It was a square of these dimensions after it is folded in half. It hung in front of him opposite his heart, so that the Urim and Thummim \u201care over Aaron\u2019s heart when he comes before the Lord\u201d (v. 30). It would be hung from the shoulder-pieces of the ephod, which come from behind the priest\u2019s back over the shoulders to hang down slightly in front of him. The breastpiece is hung from them by means of chains and rings, as our passage explains.
\nRASHBAM
\nDoubled. Like a pouch, for they put the Urim and the Thummim into it. A span. Half a cubit.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA span in length and a span in width. In my opinion, these dimensions are meant to refer to the dimensions of the circular frame that was around the area where the precious stones were set. But this is not the general opinion.
\nExodus 28:17\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why was the breastpiece to have four rows of stones (v. 17)?
\n\u2666 Why are the names of the tribes to be engraved on the stones (v. 21)?
\n\u2666 Why are the names on the breastpiece not said to be engraved \u201cin the order of their birth,\u201d as were those on the stones of the shoulder-pieces?
\n\u2666 How were the names arranged?
\nExodus 28:17
\nRASHI
\nSet in it. Literally, \u201cfill into it.\u201d For the stones fill the cavities in the frames that are constructed for them.
\nRASHBAM
\nSet in it indentations into which to seat the stones.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSet in it. Literally, \u201cfill into it.\u201d The engraving of the names should be of the same size as the stones, not leaving any empty space. If one should protest that the names themselves are of different sizes\u2014\u201cReuben\u201d is longer than \u201cGad\u201d\u2014it is possible to engrave the shorter name in such a way that it too fills up the space. Four rows of stones. In my opinion, we have no way of identifying what they were, having no tradition on which to rely. Carnelian. Saadia identified this word odem with adom, \u201cred,\u201d but there are many precious stones that are red. There are five visible colors\u2014white, lightning, red, green, and black\u2014and since red is the middle one, it comes in many shades. Chrysolite. Saadia simply identified this however he wanted, without offering any proof. Emerald. Bareket is clearly related to the word barak, \u201clightning,\u201d but again many precious stones could fit this description.
\nExodus 28:18
\nIBN EZRA
\nTurquoise. Saadia suggests nofekh could be a reference to something as dark as pukh, \u201ckohl,\u201d but this is farfetched. Sapphire. He considers this a white stone because he understands the phrase livnat ha-sappir (24:10) to refer to the color \u201cwhite,\u201d lavan. But he did not explain this verse correctly. Amethyst. This word yahalom too Saadia simply explained as he liked without offering any proof. It would have been more plausible to derive it from the word halmah in Judg. 5:26, \u201cShe struck Sisera\u201d; such a word could name a diamond, a jewel hard enough to break all other precious stones.
\nExodus 28:19
\nIBN EZRA
\nCrystal. Some say this is called ahlamah because the nature of a crystal is to show dreams, halomot, to one who wears it on his finger. One should not be surprised at this, for there is a different natural power in each and every stone. One stone attracts iron, another stops bleeding, a third repels vinegar.
\nExodus 28:20
\nRASHI
\nThey\u2014the rows\u2014shall be framed with gold in their mountings. Literally, their \u201cfillings.\u201d That is, the gold frames shall be exactly deep enough so that they are totally filled by the thickness of the stones\u2014no more and no less.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLapis lazuli. Listing the names of the tribes in birth order, this would be assigned to Joseph. But the lapis stones on the ephod represent all of Israel, as I have informed you. In any case, the stones on the ephod and the stones on the breastpiece are both in remembrance of the Throne and of the firmament described in the Book of Ezekiel as being \u201cabove the heads of the creatures\u201d (Ezek. 1:22). Jasper. Saadia says this word, yashfeh, is related to the similar Arabic word that has a simple s instead of sh. But the truth is that we are all groping \u201clike blind men along a wall\u201d (Isa. 59:10), and we simply cannot know what all these stones are.
\nExodus 28:21
\nRASHI
\nCorresponding to their names. The stones shall be arranged in order corresponding to the order in which the sons were born\u2014carnelian for Reuben, chrysolite for Simeon, and so forth.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe stones shall correspond in number to the names of the sons of Israel. \u201cThe stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone\u201d (Ps. 118:22)\u2014the sons of Israel were the building blocks of the nation (Abarbanel). Corresponding to their names. Rashi\u2019s comment cannot be correct, for according to his system, Dan would not correspond to leshem, \u201cjacinth.\u201d But it did, according to Rashi\u2019s commentary to Judg. 18:27, where he notes that the Danites \u201cchanged the name of Leshem to Dan\u201d (Josh. 19:47). But if one lists the names also according to the birth order of each of the four mothers (Leah, Bilhah, Zilpah, and Rachel), then it comes out right. Rabbinic tradition notes that the letters spelling out the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the phrase \u201cthe tribes of Jeshurun,\u201d were added to the various names so there would be six letters on each stone, filling the stones completely, adding the letters \u05e6 and \u05d8 (which were missing from the names of the tribes), and corresponding to the 72 letters of God\u2019s name on the inside of the breastpiece (Hizkuni). I think the names were not arranged in birth order as on the shoulder-pieces (I am surprised that Rashi did not realize this), but in the order given in Numbers 2 of the groups of three that were to camp around the Tent of Meeting. Hence there was no stone for the tribe of Levi, and instead of one stone for Joseph there were two, one with the name of Ephraim and the other with the name of Manasseh (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:22
\nRASHI
\nOn the breastpiece. Rather, \u201con account of the breastpiece,\u201d that is, for the breastpiece. Make cords to attach to the rings of the breastpiece, as is explained in the continuation of this passage. Braided. As in v. 14, it really means \u201cbordered.\u201d The chains are to be attached to rings that are on the border, the edge, of the breastpiece. Chains. The word sharshot is etymologically related to shoresh, the \u201croot\u201d that holds a tree fast to the ground, just as these hold the breastpiece fast. For it is to be hung from the ephod by them; they are the two chains mentioned above in v. 14 in connection with the frames. Menahem ibn Saruq also connects sharsheret, the word for \u201cchain\u201d used elsewhere in this chapter, to shoresh. He thinks the second r in the Hebrew word is simply a grammatical element, not part of the basic word. But I don\u2019t agree. Rather, sharsheret in Biblical Hebrew is the same as shalshelet in Mishnaic Hebrew. Corded work. Again, it is this phrase that indicates that the chains are \u201cbraided.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nOn the breastpiece make braided chains. These are the chains on the frames (v. 14).
\nIBN EZRA
\nBraided chains. In my opinion, these sharshot are the sharsherot of v. 14. The latter form of the word simply contains a repetition of the r. difficult to explain the word translated \u201cbraided\u201d as a Hebrew word, and the same is true of many of the words used in the description of the breast-piece\u2014including hoshen, \u201cbreastpiece,\u201d itself.
\nExodus 28:23\u201327
\nExodus 28:23
\nRASHI
\nOn the breastpiece. As in the previous verse, this means \u201cfor the breastpiece.\u201d It cannot mean \u201cmake them on the breastpiece,\u201d because what would be the sense of fastening them on the breastpiece if they were made on it in the first place? The expression must be interpreted the same way in v. 22, for the same reason. At the two ends of the breastpiece. The two corners of the breastpiece, at the neck on the right and the left, where they meet the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.
\nRASHBAM
\nMake two rings of gold on the breastpiece. On its two upper corners, you must put two rings, into which the two chains can be put. The two ends on the frames are to be put on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod. In this way, the breastpiece is hung on the ephod. The bottom edge of the breastpiece could still move back and forth, so it too is attached to the ephod, as the text goes on to explain. They made two rings underneath the bottom corners of the breastpiece, one at either side, and two rings on the upper edge of the ephod, at the bottom of the shoulder-pieces, where they are attached to the ephod (below the rings) and the decorated band (above them). The rings of the breastpiece were at the bottom of the breastpiece, and those of the ephod were at the top of the ephod. When the blue cord would go from the rings on the ephod to those on the breastpiece, the breastpiece was above and the ephod below.
\nExodus 28:24
\nRASHI
\nAttaching the two golden cords. These are the \u201cchains of corded work\u201d mentioned in v. 22. That verse did not say where on the breastpiece they were to be attached. Now the text makes clear that they are to be threaded through the rings. It is clear from the description of their making, in 39:15\u201321, that only a single set of chains is being described.
\nExodus 28:25
\nRASHI
\nThe two ends of the cords. Both ends of each cord. The two frames. These are the frames mentioned in v. 13, in between the paragraph about the ephod and the paragraph about the breastpiece, where their place and function were not specified. Now it is explained that the two ends of the chains running through the rings on the breastpiece at the neck, on the right and the left, are to be attached to the frames, the ends of the chain on the right to the right frame and the ends of the chain on the left to the left frame. Which you shall attach to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod. One frame on each shoulder-piece. So it is the shoulder-pieces of the ephod, to which the breastpiece is attached, that keep it from falling off. But the bottom edge of the breastpiece would still be loose, knocking against his belly, and not properly attached to him. So, as v. 26 goes on to explain, two more rings are necessary at the bottom. At the front. Of the ephod. The frames are not to be attached beneath the ephod, facing the robe, but on its outer side. The text literally calls this the \u201cface\u201d of the ephod. The side that cannot be seen could not be called the \u201cface.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nAt the front. Facing the breastpiece.
\nExodus 28:26
\nRASHI
\nThe two ends of the breastpiece. That is, the bottom corners on the right and the left. At its inner edge, which faces the ephod. More literally, \u201ctoward the side of the ephod inward\u201d (OJPS). This is indicating two separate things. One is that he should put them on the bottom corners, which face the ephod. For the top does not face the ephod, being opposite the neck, while the ephod is at the waist. The other is that he should put them not on the part of the breastpiece that faces outward, but \u201cinward,\u201d on the side that faces in. That was the side facing the ephod. For the priest belts on the decorated band, and this wraps the apron in front of the priest above his waist, covering just a little of his abdomen at either side, just as far as the edge of the breastpiece, whose lower corners overlap it.
\nExodus 28:27
\nRASHI
\nOn the front of the ephod. Facing outward. Low on the two shoulder-pieces. The frames are put on the tops of the shoulder-pieces, which lie on his shoulders opposite his throat and hang down in front of him. These rings are to be put on the other ends of the shoulder-pieces, the ends attached to the ephod, at his waist. This is close to its seam, that is, near the place where the shoulder-pieces are attached to the ephod, a little above the belt. For the seam is close to the belt, and the rings are placed just a little higher than this on the shoulder-pieces, above the decorated band, at the level of the lower edge of the breastpiece. He puts the blue cord through these rings and the rings that are on the breastpiece, and holds them in place with this cord on the right and the left so that the bottom of the breastpiece should not move back and forth and knock against his belly. It ends up sitting nicely on top of the robe.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOn the front of the ephod. Rather, \u201copposite the front of the ephod\u201d\u2014in back of the High Priest. Given the heaviness of the ephod, some think it could not have been worn below the waist, around his legs, but must have been above the waist, on his trunk (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 28:28\u201330
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are the frontlet (v. 36) and the breeches (v. 42) not mentioned in v. 4 among the vestments to be made for Aaron?
\n\u2666 What were the \u201cUrim and Thummim\u201d (v. 30), and why is there no command to make them?
\n\u2666 If the Urim and Thummim are lower in degree than prophecy, why were they always available to the priests, when prophecy is not always available to a prophet? If they are higher than prophecy, how is it possible that they were available to every High Priest, no matter whether he was a great man or an insignificant one?
\nExodus 28:28
\nRASHI
\nDoes not come loose. The verb is an unusual one in Hebrew; it is an Arabic word, according to Dunash b. Labrat.
\nRASHBAM
\nHeld in place. Belted on.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHeld in place. All the commentators understand this word as the English translators do. But Moses Gikatilla understands it to mean \u201ctwisted on,\u201d and that is correct. See Ps. 31:21, where the word refers to \u201ctwisted\u201d men.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDoes not come loose. Rashi takes this word yizzah to come from Arabic. I believe it is related to yissah in Prov. 15:25, \u201cThe Lord will tear down the house of the proud,\u201d and Prov. 2:22, \u201cWhile the wicked will vanish from the land and the treacherous will be rooted out of it.\u201d It is not unknown for z and s to alternate in otherwise comparable words; see Ps. 149:5 vs. Prov. 7:18 and Deut. 12:3 vs. Job 30:13. Our word may similarly be found in 2 Kings 11:6, Ps. 109:19, and Isa. 23:10. Something that is separated from its place may be referred to in Hebrew as \u201cdestroyed\u201d; this is in fact the idiom used when God tells Moses, \u201clet not the priests or the people break through to come up to the Lord\u201d (19:21).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDoes not come loose. This word yizzah is the same as yissah; letters that are pronounced in the same place in the mouth are often found alternating with each other, as Rashi explains in his comment to Lev. 19:16 (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 28:29
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAaron shall carry the names of the sons of Israel on the breastpiece. Above them were the names of the Patriarchs, and below them the words \u201cthe tribes of the Lord,\u201d So that Aaron should be thinking of all 12 together, not each one separately (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:30
\nRASHI
\nThe Urim and the Thummim. This was an inscribed Tetragrammaton, which would be put within the folds of the breastpiece. By means of it the breastpiece would bring its words to light, ur, and fulfill them, thammim. In the Second Temple they still had a breastpiece\u2014for it would be impossible for a High Priest not to have a complete set of priestly garments\u2014but that Name was not inside it. It was because of this inscription that it was called \u201ca breastpiece of judgment\u201d (v. 15), as we see from Num. 27:21, \u201cHe shall present himself to Eleazar the priest, who shall on his behalf seek the judgment of the Urim before the Lord.\u201d The instrument of decision for the Israelites. Literally, \u201cthe judgment of the Israelites\u201d (OJPS). This was the instrument by which they judged and decided whether to do a thing or not to do it. According to the midrash, the breastpiece was called \u201cthe breastpiece of judgment\u201d or \u201cof justice\u201d because it makes atonement for perversions of justice.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Urim and the Thummim. These were a sort of divinely sanctioned conjuring with names, that would be put in the breastpiece, to make decisions for them and help them provide for their needs. If the other nations have magical idols that tell the future by means of an unclean spirit, then\u2014not to mention them in the same breath with something pure\u2014how much more so should it be possible for a holy spirit to tell the Israelites such things.
\nIBN EZRA
\nInside the breastpiece of decision you shall place the Urim and the Thummim. As with \u201cthe tablets of the Pact\u201d (25:16), when Moses is told to deposit them in the Ark, the Urim and Thummim have not yet been described. But it was the craftsmen who set the stones in the breastpiece (39:10), and Moses who \u201cput into the breastpiece the Urim and Thummim\u201d (Lev. 8:8). Thus the Urim cannot refer to the four rows of stones. In any case, the Urim and the Thummim are clearly two different things (see also Neh. 7:65). Rashi says that they were an inscribed Tetragrammaton, but the truth is that the Urim were what their name implies, made of gold and silver, and the Thummim were a round number. Now open your eyes, for the Throne rests on two hinges, and the \u201cdecorated band\u201d is the line that divides them in half. Conceptually, there are six constellations in the north, and six in the south. Only on the breastpiece, in which justice is rooted, do they appear visibly. For those 12 stones can be distinguished one from another. But if I were even to begin to explain the mystery of the ephod and the breastpiece, I could not do so even in a book as long as the one I have devoted to my entire commentary. For no one could understand it who has not learned astronomy. In any case, Rashi could not have said what he did if he had seen the responsum of Hai b. Sherira, which denies that the Name of God can be used to foretell the future.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nInside the breastpiece of decision you shall place the Urim and Thummim. Ibn Ezra decided to show off his wisdom with regard to the Urim and Thummim, going on at great length about how they were objects of silver and gold like those used by astrologers to divine what is in the thoughts of the one who is consulting them. But that is nonsense. They were, as Rashi explains, \u201can inscribed Tetragrammaton which would be put within the folds of the breastpiece.\u201d (This is why it had to be doubled.) The proof is that the Urim and Thummim are not mentioned among the things that had to be made by the artisans, they are never commanded to be made, and they are not mentioned when the making of the Tabernacle is described. We are told that the ephod was made (39:2) and that the breastpiece was made (39:8), but we are never told that the Urim and Thummim were made. If in fact they were something that had to be made by a skilled craftsman, the text would have described this at greater length than anything else. If for some reason their making was to be kept mysterious, it would have at least said, \u201cMake Urim and Thummim as you were shown on the mountain. Make them of pure gold and refined silver.\u201d Notice too that the text introduces all the objects to be newly made by telling Moses to make \u201can ark\u201d (25:10), \u201ca table\u201d (25:23), \u201ca lampstand\u201d (25:31), and so forth. But here he is not commanded to make them at all, merely to put the Urim and Thummim inside the breastpiece (which was done in Lev. 8:8). For they were not made by the artisans, and were not part of the contributions brought by the community, but were a mystery transmitted to Moses directly from the Almighty, and he wrote them in holiness. And they were made in heaven. They were holy Names, by whose power the letters on the stones of the breastpiece could light up, for the priest who was inquiring of them to read. For example, when the Israelites inquired, \u201cWhich of us shall be the first to go up against the Canaanites and attack them?\u201d (Judg. 1:1), the priest concentrated on those names that were the Urim\u2014the \u201clights\u201d\u2014and saw the name Judah light up, along with the yud of Levi, the ayin of Simeon, the lamed of Levi, and the heh of Abraham (which was written there too, according to the opinion of our Sages; or perhaps the heh of Judah lit up a second time). Now these letters could have been arranged in any number of ways to spell words. But there were other holy Names there, called Thummim, through whose power the mind of the priest was \u201cperfected,\u201d thammim, in the knowledge of how to interpret the letters. With the letters of the Urim still glowing before his eyes, he would turn his attention to the Thummim, and the correct interpretation\u2014in this case, yehudah ya\u2019aleh, \u201cJudah shall go up\u201d\u2014would come into his mind. This was done on the level of the Holy Spirit, which is below that of prophecy but above that of the bat kol, or heavenly voice, which (as our Sages tell us) was used during the Second Temple period, once prophecy and the Urim and Thummim had ceased. It may be that, once Moses had put them into the breastpiece, he passed the mystery of them down, along with other secrets of the Torah, to the great sages of Israel. This would explain how David came to have an ephod and a breastpiece modeled after those made by Moses. David\u2019s ephod, however, was apparently made of linen, like that of Samuel, who \u201cwas engaged in the service of the Lord as an attendant, girded with a linen ephod\u201d (1 Sam. 2:18). Similarly, the priests killed by Doeg (1 Sam. 22:18) are described as \u201ceighty-five men who wore the linen ephod.\u201d Such an ephod would be put on a priest who happened to be a prophet, and he would be asked questions and would sometimes be able to answer, as Ibn Ezra thought. As far as Ibn Ezra\u2019s remark that if Rashi had seen the responsum of Rabbi Hai he would not have commented as he did\u2014we have seen this responsum and considered it, and have come to the conclusion that Ibn Ezra did not fully comprehend it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Urim and Thummim. This refers to cities (like \u201cUr\u201d of the Chaldeans, Gen. 11:28) and boundaries (where a city\u2019s territories, thammim, come to an end). Inside the breastpiece, opposite the tribal names engraved on the stones on the outside, were descriptions of their territories: \u201csuch-and-such a territory is assigned to the tribe of So-and-So.\u201d This \u201cinstrument of decision for the Israelites\u201d would prevent territorial disputes between them. When the land was apportioned by lot in Joshua\u2019s time, the allotments fell out (through the Holy Spirit) exactly as written in the breastpiece (Bekhor Shor). Clearly no special skill was required to make them, which would have forced Moses to have someone else do it. Some of the ancients say that the mysterious Name of God was written on them by Moses, and to me this makes perfect sense (Gersonides). In my opinion, Nahmanides is not quite right; the letters did not go on all at once, but blinked on and off in the correct order to spell the message (Abarbanel). Aaron shall carry the instrument of decision for the Israelites over his heart. Literally, \u201cAaron shall carry the judgment of the Israelites upon his heart\u201d\u2014that is, he shall constantly pray that God judge them to be innocent (Sforno).
\nExodus 28:31\u201332
\nExodus 28:31
\nRASHI
\nThe robe of the ephod. The robe on which the ephod is placed as a belt. Pure blue. \u201cAll of blue\u201d (OJPS), with none of the other colors of yarn mixed in with it.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe robe of the ephod. The robe on top of which he puts the ephod. Pure blue. As I see it, since the robe is visible underneath the ephod and the breastpiece, which are worn \u201cfor remembrance\u201d (vv. 12, 29), the blue too, which resembles the blue of the firmament, is for remembrance. As our Sages said of the blue cord on the ritual fringes, the blue resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory. That is why it is completely blue and not interwoven with purple and crimson.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe robe of the ephod. This is straightforward. Pure blue. Entirely blue.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe robe. What Rashi says about the robe and the tunic in his comment to v. 4 is not correct. The robe is something that wrapped about the person: \u201cHe is wrapped in a robe\u201d (1 Sam. 28:14); \u201cHe has clothed me with garments of triumph, wrapped me in a robe of victory\u201d (Isa. 61:10). But one cannot \u201cwrap\u201d oneself in a tunic, only in a garment that covers one. Moreover, if the \u201cwrapping\u201d is to be like that of the ephod, it would cover only the lower half of the body. If the robe were a \u201ccoat,\u201d it would not resemble the ephod at all. It is not a coat, but a sleeveless cloak, which surrounds the whole body from the neck down to the feet. Other robes have a collar sewn onto them, which completely covers the neck. V. 32 stipulates that this robe shall have a collar woven onto it. When the priest puts his head through the opening, his neck is completely covered, but he can still open or close the rest of the cloak\u2014which is otherwise completely split from top to bottom\u2014as he likes. It is like a cloak without a hood, which is why it is appropriate to refer to putting it on as wrapping oneself.
\nExodus 28:32
\nRASHI
\nThe opening for the head. Literally, its \u201cmouth.\u201d In the middle of it. As Onkelos explains, this means folded into it as a hem. Woven work. Not sewn with a needle. Like the opening of a coat of mail. We learn from this that the coats of mail in those days had their openings folded inside in this way. So that it does not tear. This is in fact a legal prohibition, so that someone who does tear it violates a commandment. The same is true of \u201cSo that the breastpiece \u2026 does not come loose\u201d (v. 28) and \u201cThe poles shall remain in the rings of the ark: they shall not be removed from it\u201d (25:15).
\nRASHBAM
\nThe opening for the head shall be in the middle of it. Like\u2014not to mention them in the same breath\u2014the garments worn by Christian priests. So that it does not tear. The collar should not be cut into the cloth, as in our garments, but woven onto the garment as it is made.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe opening for the head. Such an opening is called a \u201cmouth\u201d (as it literally is here) in Ps. 133:2 as well: \u201cIt is like fine oil on the head running down onto the beard, the beard of Aaron, that comes down over the collar\u201d\u2014literally, \u201cthe mouth\u201d\u2014\u201cof his robe.\u201d Like the opening of a coat of mail. This translation correctly follows Onkelos.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSo that it does not tear. Rather, \u201cit shall not be opened\u201d (see Jer. 22:14 for this use of the word). The opening for the head must be woven in, not cut open after the garment is made (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 28:33\u201335
\nExodus 28:33
\nRASHI
\nPomegranates. They were to be round and hollow, like the kind of pomegranates that are shaped like a chicken egg. Bells of gold. Complete with the clappers inside them. Between them all around. Attached to the hem of the robe there must be a bell in between each two pomegranates.
\nRASHBAM
\nBetween them. Literally, \u201cin the midst of them\u201d; but of course it means between each two pomegranates, not inside each pomegranate.
\nIBN EZRA
\nPomegranates. Not actual fruit, of course, but pomegranate-shapes. But the text does not tell us how many of them there were. Golden bells. The word translated \u201cbell\u201d is found in the Bible only in this context; but it is clear from v. 35 what it means. Between them. This follows the opinion of our Sages: others think that the bells were hidden (as it literally says) \u201cwithin\u201d the pomegranates and rang from inside them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPomegranates \u2026 with bells of gold between them all around. I also do not understand why Rashi puts a separate bell in between each two pomegranates. If this were so, the pomegranates would serve no purpose. If they are for decorative purposes, why make them like hollow pomegranates? Make them like golden apples! The text ought also to have told us how the bells were to be attached to the hem of the robe\u2014were they to be hung by rings? In fact, the bells were not \u201cbetween\u201d the pomegranates, but (as the text literally says) inside the pomegranates. For they were hollow, and the bells were visible inside them. The text does not explain how many of them there were, but our Sages say on B. Zev. 88b that there were 72 of them, 36 on one side and 36 on the other. (The fact that the robe had two sides is further proof that it was like a cloak, and nothing like a tunic.)
\nExodus 28:34
\nRASHI
\nA golden bell and a pomegranate next to it, a golden bell and a pomegranate next to it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA golden bell and a pomegranate. The pomegranate is made in such a way that the bell will knock against it and make a sound (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 28:35
\nRASHI
\nThat he may not die. From this prohibition one can deduce the corresponding positive commandment\u2014he must be wearing it in order not to be liable for the death penalty. If he does enter the sanctuary lacking a single one of the prescribed garments, he is liable to death \u201cat the hands of heaven.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nSo that the sound of it is heard when he comes into the sanctuary. For the bells knock against each other despite the intrusion of the pomegranates in between them. Since the Holy One commanded that \u201cwhen he goes in to make expiation in the Shrine, nobody else shall be in the Tent of Meeting until he comes out\u201d (Lev. 16:17), He likewise commanded that the sound must be heard when he comes into the sanctuary so that everyone who hears it can distance himself.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSo that the sound of it is heard. Not \u201chis voice,\u201d as it might also be translated, but the sound of the robe. But some say that when he officiates in these garments \u201chis voice is heard\u201d and heeded by God, to answer the prayer he makes when he comes into the sanctuary.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThat he may not die. Rashi says that if he enters the sanctuary lacking a single one of the prescribed garments, he is liable to death, but I do not think this is correct. If it were, the text ought to have said this after all eight of the garments were mentioned. But so far only the breastpiece, the ephod, and the robe have been indicated, leaving the frontlet, the tunic, the headdress, the sash, and the breeches yet to be designated. Moreover, why should it matter what he is wearing \u201cwhen he goes out\u201d? For at that point he is not performing any ritual that would require him to wear the vestments. It is true that a straightforward reading of v. 43 would seem to support Rashi (and see his comment there). But the discussion in the Talmud suggests that v. 43 refers only to the breeches, for the making and wearing of the other vestments is commanded elsewhere. If Rashi were correct, why would B. Sanh. 83b and B. Zev. 17b have to ask, as they do, for the source of the prohibition of performing priestly rituals without wearing all eight of the vestments? In my opinion, our verse is an explanation of the commandment about the bells. There is certainly no need to wear them on one\u2019s clothing, nor do bells confer dignity on those who wear them. Hence the explanation that the sound is supposed to announce his presence, so that he may (as it were) be granted permission to enter before his Lord. For according to royal protocol, one who enters the king\u2019s palace unexpectedly is liable to death. As Esther told Mordecai, \u201cAll the king\u2019s courtiers and the people of the king\u2019s provinces know that if any person, man or woman, enters the king\u2019s presence in the inner court without having been summoned, there is but one law for him\u2014that he be put to death\u201d (Esther 4:11). It alludes further to what is said in Y. Yoma 1:5, that even the angels were supposed to vacate the Tent of Meeting so that Aaron could serve the King in private. Similarly, Aaron must leave with permission just as he came in, and must signal the angels that they are permitted to return. This matter is known from the heikhalot literature. The point is that the angels should not encounter him. The High Priest is particularly warned of this since, because of his rank, he was the most in danger. For when he comes into the sanctuary, he is indeed \u201cbefore the Lord,\u201d because the Shekhinah rests upon the sanctuary when the High Priest is serving in it. \u201cFor he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts\u201d (Mal. 2:7), which is not true of the regular priests who come into the sanctuary to offer sacrifice and tend the lamps. Exodus Rabbah has the following midrash: \u201cIt is like the tutor of a prince, who came before the king to report on the prince\u2019s failings. He was afraid that the king\u2019s attendants would strike him. The king put his own royal purple on him, so that all might see and fear him. Aaron too might have to go into the Holy of Holies at any time. If it were not for the great merits that accompanied him and assisted him, he would not have been able to do so, because the ministering angels were there. The Holy One gave him a replica of His own holy raiment; as Isaiah says of God, \u2018He donned victory like a coat of mail\u2019 (Isa. 59:17).\u201d Even though the garments described in our chapter were not the actual ones in which he entered the Holy of Holies, on the Day of Atonement they were necessary even outside the Holy of Holies, in the Tent of Meeting: \u201cWhen he goes in to make expiation in the Shrine, nobody else shall be in the Tent of Meeting until he comes out\u201d (Lev. 16:17).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSo that the sound of it is heard. So he does not sneak in on Me like a thief in the night. From this we learn good manners: One should not simply walk unannounced into someone else\u2019s home, in case he is doing something that requires privacy (Bekhor Shor). So that people would know when the ritual was being performed, and direct their thoughts to their Father in heaven (Hizkuni). Possibly this was to let them know on the outside that the priest in the Holy of Holies was still alive (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:36\u201337
\nExodus 28:36
\nRASHI
\nFrontlet. This was a kind of strip made out of gold, two fingers wide, surrounding the forehead from ear to ear.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall make a frontlet. Since it is to be placed on the forehead, the place where the sense of sight is located, it is called tzitz, a word that refers to sight in Song 2:9, \u201cpeering [metzitz] through the lattice\u201d; I explained 12:7 similarly. That is how I see it. Holy to the Lord. On the ephod and the breastpiece were the names of the Israelites, for remembrance, for the Holy One to absolve the Israelites (whose names were written below the frontlet on the stones of the ephod and the breastpiece) of \u201cany sin arising from the holy things that the Israelites consecrate\u201d (v. 38). \u201cHoly to the Lord\u201d implies that the Holy One will be satisfied with their atonement for any sin arising from the holy things.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall make a frontlet. The word translated \u201cfrontlet,\u201d tzitz, is related to the word used in the phrase \u201cby the hair [tzitzit] of my head\u201d (Ezek. 8:3).
\nExodus 28:37
\nRASHI
\nSuspend it on a cord of blue. But 39:31 observes, \u201cThey put onto [the frontlet] a cord of blue to fix it upon the headdress above\u201d\u2014the cord is put on the frontlet, rather than the frontlet on the cord, as here. Our verse continues, so that it may remain on the headdress, but v. 38 says that it \u201cshall be on Aaron\u2019s forehead.\u201d On B. Zev. 19a\u2013b we read, \u201cHis hair was visible between the frontlet and the headdress, leaving enough room for the phylacteries of the head.\u201d From this we learn that the headdress was on the very top of the head, not deep enough to come down over the head as far as the forehead. The frontlet was below it, and the cords were hung from holes in the frontlet, one on each end and one in the middle. The three cords were doubled over into six, one of each being on top of the frontlet and one below it. The cords at either end of the frontlet were pulled around his head, while the one in the middle was pulled up over his head, and all three doubled cords were tied at the back, forming a kind of helmet. It is the middle cord that shall remain on the front of\u2014rather, \u201catop\u201d\u2014the headdress. The frontlet is a kind of helmet over the headdress, the middle cord holding it on so that it does not fall off. The strip of gold hangs over his forehead, thus fulfilling all of the verses that describe the frontlet: The frontlet is \u201con a cord of blue\u201d (our verse), there is a cord of blue on the frontlet (39:31), and the frontlet is \u201con the headdress\u201d (our verse again).
\nRASHBAM
\nSuspend it on a cord of blue. There was a cord at either end of the frontlet, stretching from ear to ear, by which the frontlet was tied, and a third thread on top of the head. These threads made it into a kind of helmet on top of the headdress. It shall remain on the front of the headdress. Rather, it\u2014the frontlet\u2014shall remain on his forehead, covering it from ear to ear opposite the headdress.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA cord of blue. The whole robe is of this same blue. On the front of the headdress. Rashi found it necessary to emend the one blue cord of this verse into three, but there is no need for more than a single cord to keep the frontlet \u201con the front\u201d of the headdress\u2014that is, in front of it, on the forehead. The \u201cheaddress\u201d itself was really a turban; see my comment to v. 40. High officials in the Islamic world wear a gold frontlet in front of their turbans, on the forehead.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA cord of blue. I am astonished at Rashi\u2019s comment. For the text commands only a single cord of blue, and he makes six of them! Moreover, he compounds the verse commanding the cord of blue with the verse about it being made, adding on cords each time. Following this method, one could have two arks, two tables, and two lampstands! If the text commanded that they put it on a cord of blue, how could they reverse things and put a cord of blue on it, as they did in 39:31? Where was this commanded? What was the purpose of Rashi\u2019s middle cord, seeing that the frontlet was tied at the back of the neck just like the ones worn by ordinary men and women? In reality, it was not as Rashi describes it at all. Rather, there was just a single cord. The strip of metal went from ear to ear. It had a hole at either end, and the cord went into both of these holes, going around the nape of the neck to tie the frontlet on. The headdress would be wound around the head, not on the forehead, but higher up, on the hair. In the opinion of our Sages, he even left a bit of his hair showing for the phylacteries, and the headdress was atop the head opposite the middle of the brain, and covered the entire back of the head. This puts the headdress slanted back on the head, and the frontlet opposite the forehead, from ear to ear, with nothing intervening between forehead and frontlet, and with the headdress covering the nape of the neck from ear to ear. The cord that held the frontlet would go over the headdress, which is what is meant by \u201csuspend it on a cord of blue\u201d\u2014the cord goes into the holes on the frontlet and around the headdress in the back, behind his ears, over the nape. It shall remain on the front of the headdress. Rather, \u201cit\u201d\u2014the frontlet\u2014\u201cshall be opposite the headdress,\u201d as we have described. The frontlet is on his forehead, opposite the headdress, which covers the same part of his head in the back. \u201cPut the headdress on his head\u201d (29:6) literally means \u201con,\u201d that is, atop his head, and not in front, unlike the turbans, which are wound around the heads of the ordinary priests (29:9) as one might wind a bandage around an aching head. \u201cPlace the holy diadem upon the headdress\u201d (29:6) simply means that the cord that ties the frontlet in back goes over the headdress, not that the frontlet itself does. As 39:31 explains, \u201cthey attached to it a cord of blue to fix it upon the headdress.\u201d It would be wrong to press the distinction between our verse, saying to put the frontlet on a cord of blue, and 39:31, which says to put a cord of blue on it; both mean essentially the same thing. The preposition literally translated \u201con\u201d here can simply mean \u201cby means of,\u201d as it does in 29:3 and elsewhere, or even \u201cwith,\u201d as it also sometimes means. The cord is on the frontlet and the frontlet is on the cord. Rashi\u2019s argument in his comment to 39:31 that our v. 28 similarly uses the word \u201ccord\u201d to refer to multiple cords is not convincing. That verse refers to a single cord for each side.
\nExodus 28:38\u201340
\nExodus 28:38
\nRASHI
\nThat Aaron may take away any sin. To \u201cbear the iniquity\u201d (as OJPS has it) is indeed an idiom referring to forgiveness of sin. But it retains its literal meaning as well: Aaron \u201ccarries\u201d the burden of the iniquity away from the holy things. Any sin rising from the holy things. He makes blood or fat that has been offered in a ritually impure condition acceptable. As it says on B. Pes. 16b, \u201cWhat iniquity does he bear? It cannot be the iniquity of offering a sacrifice with the wrong intention, for Lev. 19:7 says of such a sacrifice, \u2018It is an offensive thing, it will not be acceptable.\u2019 It cannot be the iniquity of sacrificial meat left over after the permitted time, since Lev. 7:18 says of that too, \u2018It shall not be acceptable.\u2019 \u201d It cannot refer to the iniquity of a priest who offers sacrifice while in a state of ritual impurity, for it says \u201cthe holy things,\u201d not \u201cthose who offer sacrifice.\u201d So it can only be the \u201choly things,\u201d the sacrifice itself, that he makes acceptable. It shall be on his forehead at all times. This cannot literally mean \u201cat all times,\u201d since he only wears it when he is engaged in the ritual. Rather, \u201cat all times\u201d goes with the next phrase, to win acceptance for them. The frontlet wins acceptance for them even when it is not on his forehead, at a moment when the High Priest himself is not serving in the Temple. But one who insists that it \u201cwins acceptance\u201d for them only while it is actually on his forehead must interpret the words to mean \u201cit shall be on his mind at all times\u201d\u2014he must touch it while it is on his forehead so that his thoughts do not stray from it.
\nRASHBAM
\nThat Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things. According to the straightforward reading, this is a reference not to the possible impurity of the holy things, but to the following situation: Whatever offerings the Israelites might bring\u2014whether whole offerings, sin offerings, or guilt offerings\u2014to make expiation for themselves, the frontlet helps make the offering a remembrance before the Holy One. It insures that the offerings are a satisfactory remembrance so that the Israelites achieve expiation by means of them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThat Aaron may take away any sin. Literally, \u201cbear\u201d any sin (OJPS). But NJPS understands it correctly: He shall make expiation for it. I will explain this further in my comment to 34:7. Since the frontlet has \u201cHoly to the Lord\u201d (v. 36) written on it, it expiates for transgressions that involve the holy things. The reference is to transgressions committed in the priest\u2019s thoughts, which begin at the forehead, where the five senses are located. It shall be on his forehead at all times. At all times when he comes into the sanctuary.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt shall be on his forehead at all times. Whenever he is wearing the headdress, the frontlet must be on it (Hizkuni). That Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things. But he does not take away sin arising from those who offer them (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:39
\nRASHI
\nYou shall make the fringed tunic of fine linen. You shall make it plaited, and entirely of fine linen.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall make the fringed tunic of fine linen. Some think there was gold in it, but this is not so. It was not \u201ccheckered\u201d in gold, but with the linen itself. The \u201ccheckering\u201d resembled a pattern of coins, a square within a circle. You shall make the sash. Of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and fine linen.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall make the sash of embroidered work. Our Sages figured out logically that the sash of the High Priest was not made the same as those for the ordinary priests. I think that of the High Priest must have been more beautifully made, while those of the ordinary priests had only a single kind of yarn (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:40
\nRASHI
\nAnd for Aaron\u2019s sons also you shall make tunics. Only these four garments, and no others: the tunic, the sash, the turban (that is, the headdress), and the breeches mentioned in v. 42.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor dignity and adornment. \u201cFor splendor and for beauty\u201d (OJPS). Because the turbans are placed prominently on the head, they are required to be especially beautiful.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall make tunics. Four tunics, one each. The same goes for the sashes. Logically, they were to be made just like Aaron\u2019s sash, but there is no proof of this. But the tunics, unlike Aaron\u2019s, were not checkered. Turbans. Both these migba\u2019ot and geba\u2019ot, \u201chills,\u201d are so named because of their lofty height. So \u201cturbans\u201d is not the correct translation. Rather, they were like the tall hats that men wear in this part of the world. It is the \u201cheaddress\u201d of the High Priest that was a turban, a long, thin cloth wrapped around the head\u2014a bit like the headdress worn by women in these parts. But in Arabia, Spain, Africa, Egypt, Babylonia, and Baghdad, such a turban is never worn by women, but only by the most highly respected men. Only one who understands how to wind a turban will correctly understand Ezek. 21:31; winding a turban is an art in and of itself.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMake turbans for them. The headdress of the High Priest was like the turban but smaller, so there would be room for the phylacteries of the head in between it and the frontlet (Hizkuni). The turbans are called migba\u2019ot because they were shaped like two geba\u2019ot, \u201chills,\u201d with a \u201cvalley\u201d in between them (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 28:41\u201342
\nExodus 28:41
\nRASHI
\nPut these on your brother Aaron. \u201cThese\u201d refers to all the garments previously mentioned in connection with him: the breastpiece, the ephod, the robe, the fringed tunic, the headdress, the sash, the frontlet, and the breeches mentioned (in v. 42) in connection with all of the priests. And on his sons as well. With regard to the sons, \u201cthese\u201d refers only to the breeches and the three garments mentioned in v. 40. Anoint them. \u201cThem\u201d refers not to the garments, but to Aaron and his sons\u2014anoint them with the anointing oil. Ordain them. Literally, \u201cfill their hands.\u201d This expression implies consecration (see OJPS). When someone is inaugurated, entering upon a particular task from that day on, his hand is \u201cfilled\u201d with it. Here in Europe, when someone is appointed to a position, the ruler puts a leather glove in his hand, called a \u201cgauntlet,\u201d by means of which he is invested with the office and takes possession of it. Such a transmittal of authority is \u201cfilling the hand.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nPut these on your brother Aaron and on his sons. When the Tabernacle is set up.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAnoint them. With the \u201csacred anointing oil\u201d (30:25). Ordain them. Saadia understands the literal expression used here, \u201cfill their hands,\u201d as an idiom meaning \u201ccommand them to fulfill their obligation\u201d; similarly, they \u201cfulfill the obligation\u201d of consecrating the altar in Ezek. 43:26. It seems more likely to me that the idiom refers to the priestly procedures. Don\u2019t you see? During the days of \u201cfilling\u201d his hand, the priest learns the procedures, to accustom his hand to them, so that his hand will be completely full with its procedures and lack nothing. As far as the \u201chand\u201d of the altar in Ezek. 43:26, I have explained this in its place. When Moses tells the Levites, after they have killed 3,000 of the people who worshiped the Golden Calf, \u201cDedicate yourselves to the Lord this day\u201d (32:29), he uses the same idiom, \u201cfill your hands,\u201d to mean \u201cfinish the killing completely.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPut these on your brother Aaron and on his sons as well. Rashi explains that only the garments appropriate for the sons are put on them, not those of the High Priest. \u201cAs well\u201d (literally, as OJPS has it, \u201cwith him\u201d) implies that the vestments are to be put on Aaron and his sons on the same day. Anoint them, and ordain them. I do not understand Rashi\u2019s explanation of how \u201cfilling the hands\u201d implies being invested with a particular task. As far as Rashi\u2019s reference to the gauntlet, does he mean that \u201cfilling the hand\u201d actually refers to such a glove, bringing the French custom as proof? You should understand that the French custom was derived from the Bible, using the same manner of validating a transaction as does Boaz in Ruth 4:8. In fact, in Ruth 4:7\u2014where this custom is explained (\u201cNow this was formerly done in Israel in cases of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would take off his sandal and hand it to the other. Such was the practice in Israel\u201d)\u2014their translation replaces the word \u201csandal\u201d with \u201cgauntlet\u201d! By the way, in Ruth 4:8, \u201cSo when the redeemer said to Boaz, \u2018Acquire for yourself,\u2019 he drew off his sandal,\u201d the Christians take it to mean that \u201che,\u201d the other redeemer, took off his sandal and handed it to Boaz. This custom of theirs is described in the books of their sages. In any case, the whole discussion is nonsense. \u201cFilling the hands\u201d in the Torah is a reference to completeness, as when Jacob tells Laban, \u201cMy time is fulfilled\u201d (Gen. 29:21), or when the 180 days during which Ahasuerus displayed the riches of his kingdom were \u201cfilled\u201d (Esther 1:5), that is, completed. More to the point is Lev. 8:33, where Moses tells Aaron and his sons not to go out of the Tent of Meeting \u201cuntil the day that your period of ordination is completed,\u201d literally \u201cuntil the day when your days of filling are filled.\u201d The implication of the idiom is that the layman, when he would perform some service (whether ritual or royal), finds his hand lacking in the performance of that service. When he qualifies to perform the service, his hand is \u201cfull\u201d of the competence to do so. One finds the expression used in the case of the Levites who killed 3,000 of the Israelites after the Golden Calf incident (32:29) and in David\u2019s reference in 1 Chron. 29:5 to those who would make freewill offerings to the Temple\u2014and of course the \u201cram of fulfilling\u201d in 29:26. The Palestinian Targum actually uses the Aramaic word for \u201ccompletion\u201d in all these cases. Onkelos, on the other hand, translated freely rather than literally, as he often does. Some explain the expression \u201cfilling the hand\u201d to mean that the sacrifices fill their hand. But the way I have explained it is the correct one.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOrdain them. That is, offer the sacrifices by means of which they shall enter the priesthood (Gersonides).
\nExodus 28:42
\nRASHI
\nFor them. For Aaron and his sons. Linen breeches. Including the breeches, there are eight separate garments for the High Priest and four for an ordinary priest.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall also make for them linen breeches. Five pairs, one for Aaron and one for each of his sons. From the hips to the thighs. They must be short enough not to get in the way.
\nExodus 28:43\u201329:4
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the purpose of these offerings of ordination (vv. 1\u20132)?
\nExodus 28:43
\nRASHI
\nThey shall be worn by Aaron and his sons. The appropriate garments shall be worn by each. When they enter the Tent of Meeting. That is, the Temple or the Tabernacle. And die. From this you learn that officiating without being dressed in all the proper garments is a capital offense. A law for all time for him. Wherever the text says \u201ca law for all time,\u201d it is a decree that the law in question is absolutely indispensable, both immediately and in future generations.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen they enter the Tent of Meeting. To offer sacrifice or kindle the lamps.
\nExodus 29:1
\nRASHI
\nTake. This unusual form, lekah, means the same as the normal kah. But they are two separate roots, \u05dc\u05e7\u05d7 and \u05e7\u05d7, though both have the same meaning. A young bull. To atone appropriately for the sin of the Golden Calf.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTake. The root \u05dc\u05e7\u05d7 is treated as a strong verb in this form; ordinarily the first consonant of this verb drops out in the imperative. The same phenomenon of two forms is found with \u05d9\u05e6\u05e7 in 2 Kings 4:41 and Ezek. 24:3. Without blemish. This applies to the bull as well as to the two rams.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA bull. Of two years old (Gersonides). Two rams without blemish. As the saying goes, once the advocate has made his case, the gift follows after. First the bull is offered as atonement; then a ram is offered as a gift of appeasement; then there is a second ram as a peace offering. For the sacrificial parts of the latter animal go on the altar, the breast and thigh go to the priest, and the rest to the owner of the animal, so that all appear to be eating together, as people do after a peaceful reconciliation (Bekhor Shor). The rams must be at least one year and 31 days old (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:2
\nRASHI
\nUnleavened bread, unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, and unleavened wafers. These are three separate varieties: \u201csoaked\u201d cakes, regular unleavened bread, and wafers. The first variety is that called a \u201ccake of oil bread\u201d in v. 23, for it contains as much oil as the latter two varieties combined. Ten of each variety are used. \u201cWith oil mixed in\u201d means that the flour from which they are made is sprinkled with oil, which is then mixed into it. Spread with oil. After they are baked, they are spread with oil in the shape of a Greek chi, which is made something like our letter nun. Like this: \u05e0.
\nRASHBAM
\nUnleavened bread. Though unleavened, being oven-baked it is nonetheless called \u201cbread.\u201d There was oil in it as well, for this is the \u201coil bread\u201d mentioned in Lev. 8:26. Unleavened cakes \u2026 and unleavened wafers. These are explained in B. Men. 74b\u201375a. There were to be 10 of each of the three kinds.
\nIBN EZRA
\nUnleavened cakes with oil mixed in. Literally, \u201cwith the oil\u201d\u2014the olive oil that one is supposed to use. Each cake was made of two-tenths of a measure of flour. Some say the unleavened bread was round and the cakes were square. Wafers. As the word\u2019s derivation from rek, \u201cempty,\u201d shows, these were thin, by comparison with the cakes, which were thick. Choice wheat flour. Some connect this word, solet, with mesillah, \u201chighway\u201d\u2014but this is way implausible. (It is true that the t of the word is not part of the root, but a feminine grammatical ending, as Lev. 24:5 shows.) The word implies flour from which all the chaff is separated. Bread is made from such flour in Islamic countries: there is none finer.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nUnleavened bread, unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, and unleavened wafers spread with oil. We know that there were 10 of each, since one of each kind is offered, and the highest proportion of such offerings found anywhere in the Torah is 1 out of 10 (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:3
\nRASHI
\nPresent them. In the courtyard of the Tabernacle, on the day it is set up.
\nRASHBAM
\nPresent them in the basket. Bring them in the basket to the temple courtyard.
\nIBN EZRA
\nPresent them. At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPresent them. At \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 4); the two verses are a single sentence: \u201cPresent the bread (in the basket), the bull, the two rams, and Aaron and his sons at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.\u201d
\nExodus 29:4
\nRASHI
\nWash them with water. This means total immersion of the body.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWash them. Rather, \u201chaving washed them.\u201d I have already showed you many such cases in which the \u201cconverted perfect\u201d form of the verb retains its past tense. Having washed them, you then \u201cclothe Aaron with the tunic\u201d (v. 5) and so forth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLead Aaron and his sons. The verb is the same one translated \u201cpresent\u201d in v. 3; see the comment to that verse, though wash them applies only to Aaron and his sons. But perhaps the translations are correct after all, and v. 3 does not say where the bread, bull, and rams are to be presented because it was obvious that they should be taken to the place where the priests were waiting.
\nExodus 29:5\u201310
\nExodus 29:5
\nRASHI
\nGird him. Literally, \u201cephod him\u201d\u2014adorn him with the belt and apron and adjust them around him.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe vestments. The breastpiece too is called a \u201cvestment,\u201d since it covers the part of the body opposite the heart.
\nExodus 29:6
\nRASHI
\nThe holy diadem. This is the \u201cfrontlet\u201d of 28:36. Upon the headdress. As I explained in my comment to 28:37, the cord in the middle of the frontlet and the two cords at either end of it are tied together at the back of his neck, holding it \u201cupon the headdress\u201d like a kind of helmet.
\nExodus 29:7
\nRASHI
\nAnoint him. This anointing too is in the shape of a chi. He puts oil on his head and between his eyebrows and connects them with his finger.
\nIBN EZRA
\nPour it on his head. On his head alone, not those of his sons, for only the High Priest was \u201cthe anointed priest.\u201d The oil was poured right on his head: \u201cIt is like fine oil on the head running down onto the beard, the beard of Aaron\u201d (Ps. 133:2). So it must have been done before the headdress was put on him.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTake the anointing oil and pour it on his head. Ibn Ezra says that the oil is poured right on top of his head, and hence this must have been done before the headdress is put on. But I do not think he is correct. When it was actually done, Moses \u201cset the headdress on his head\u201d and afterward \u201cpoured some of the anointing oil upon Aaron\u2019s head and anointed him\u201d (Lev. 8:9,12). Actually, the turban was wound all around his head, leaving the top of it exposed; that was where he poured the oil. If the anointing was in several places on the head, as Rashi describes, then the oil was poured on the place where the phylacteries of the head would rest (which was left uncovered), and from there it was drawn into a chi.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nPour it on his head and anoint him. Only a little bit was used, since (according to 30:32) this oil was made only once for all time. The priest was anointed with a Greek \u03c7, a tradition that our Sages had from the prophets who saw it with their own eyes (Gersonides). Aaron\u2019s anointing is commanded twice; first, in 28:41, when he puts on his vestments, he is to be anointed as High Priest; and second, here, he is to be anointed with his sons to grant their descendants the priesthood for all time (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 29:8
\nIBN EZRA
\nThen bring his sons forward. To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Do this after having washed them with water, just as you did their father. The verse abridges this detail.
\nExodus 29:9
\nRASHI
\nOrdain Aaron and his sons. By means of this procedure. Literally, again, \u201cyou shall fill the hands of\u201d Aaron and his sons with their assignment to the tasks of the priesthood.
\nRASHBAM
\nGird both Aaron and his sons with sashes. There is a dispute among the Sages on B. Yoma 5b about whether Aaron and his sons were to be girded with the sashes at the same time, as Moses seems to be instructed here, or separately, as is done in Leviticus 8, where the order is different. But the straightforward sense of our verse does not preclude the way it was done in the Leviticus passage.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWind turbans upon them. The same verb is used in Isa. 1:6 with reference to the winding of bandages. Gird both Aaron and his sons with sashes. The same goes for the breeches. You shall then ordain Aaron. During the course of seven days.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nGird both Aaron and his sons with sashes. The literal syntax (see OJPS) is potentially confusing; NJPS has sorted it out correctly\u2014the turbans were to be put only on Aaron\u2019s sons. For Aaron had no turban, and the headdress was already (see v. 6) on his head. But the putting on of Aaron\u2019s sash\u2014which was the same as that worn by his sons\u2014has not yet been mentioned. The breeches are not mentioned because (as I explained in my comment to 28:35) they were commanded separately from the other vestments. Moses was to \u201cclothe them\u201d (v. 8) with all the other vestments, but the breeches, whose purpose was to cover their nakedness, they would put on themselves, in private. This is why they are not listed in v. 5, and why they were commanded separately.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAnd so they shall have priesthood as their right for all time. And this inaugural ritual will not be necessary in future generations; their descendants would be priests automatically. But each High Priest would still need to be anointed, since not all of the High Priest\u2019s sons could become High Priest\u2014for there was only one High Priest at a time (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:10
\nIBN EZRA
\nLead the bull etc. This has already been mentioned in v. 3. Our verse means, \u201cWhen you lead the bull up to the front of the Tent of Meeting, then let Aaron and his sons\u201d and so forth. Lay their hands. Some interpret the singular verb here (by contrast with v. 15) to mean that in the case of the bull, Aaron laid his hands on it first and his sons did so afterward. But a comparison of v. 19 and Lev. 8:22 shows that (despite the difference in verbs) they always did this together, not one after the other.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLead the bull up to the front of the Tent of Meeting. Ibn Ezra understands this verse to say, \u201cWhen you lead the bull to the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands upon it.\u201d After all, v. 3 has already told us to present the bull in front of the Tent of Meeting. But I think the way I explained it in my comment to v. 4 (followed by NJPS) is correct. v. 3 merely says \u201cpresent\u201d the bull, but it does not say where. Obviously it was to go to the place where the priests stood ready to receive it, in front of the entrance to the sacred enclosure. Now, however, it had to be brought before the entrance to the Tent, where it was to be slaughtered (v. 11)\u2014for that is where the laying on of hands would take place.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet Aaron and his sons lay their hands upon the head of the bull. The plural shows that both hands were used. The purpose was to demonstrate that the sins were separated from them and (as it were) placed onto the animal; but clearly the laying of hands was not sufficient for this. It had to be accompanied by repentance (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:11\u201314
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why must the bull of ordination be burnt outside the camp (v. 14)?
\nExodus 29:11
\nRASHI
\nAt the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. In the courtyard of the Tabernacle, in front of the entrance.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSlaughter the bull. It was Moses who slaughtered it, took \u201csome\u201d (but not all; see v. 12) of its blood, put it on the horns of the altar, poured out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar, and turned the sacrificial pieces into smoke. Before the Lord. Both the incense altar and the altar for burnt offerings were exactly aligned with the Ark, which was precisely in the middle of the western side of the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 29:12
\nRASHI
\nOn the horns of the altar. Actually on top of the horns, not merely on the corners of the altar. At the base of the altar. A sort of receptacle was made, projecting all around it, a cubit above ground level.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThen pour out. A priest shall pour it out.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAt the base of the altar. At the southwest corner, underneath the horn where the last of the blood had been put; there were holes in the base here so that the blood could drain away and not pollute this honored place (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:13
\nRASHI
\nThe fat that covers the entrails. This is the membrane over the stomach. The protuberance. This is the serous membrane of the liver. On the liver. Rather, \u201calong with the liver.\u201d He should take some of the liver along with the protuberance.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe fat that covers the entrails. The \u201cbroad tail\u201d of v. 22 is omitted here, for bulls and goats do not have them. Kidneys. Some say this word kelayot is related to the verb kaltah in Ps. 84:3, \u201cI long, I yearn for the courts of the Lord,\u201d for they are the seat of sexual desire.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAll the fat that covers the entrails. I think Rashi is correct that \u201cthe fat that covers the entrails\u201d is the membrane, but the fact that it says \u201call the fat that covers the entrails\u201d would seem to suggest an allusion to more than one kind of fat\u2014the fat of this membrane and also the thick fat that covers the entrails: \u201cthe fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is about the entrails\u201d (Lev. 3:3). The latter verse refers to both types of fat specifically; our verse, like Lev. 8:16, combines them by using the term \u201call.\u201d But v. 22 here, like Lev. 3:3, lists them separately: \u201cthe fat parts, the broad tail, the fat that covers the entrails.\u201d \u201cThe fat parts\u201d are \u201cthe fat that is about the entrails,\u201d the second type mentioned in Lev. 3:3.
\nExodus 29:14
\nRASHI
\nShall be put to the fire. This is the only case of a sin offering that is made on the outer altar being burnt.
\nIBN EZRA
\nShall be put to the fire outside the camp. By one of Aaron\u2019s sons. Logically, one would expect them to wash it free of dung before burning it. A sin offering. An expiation of sin for Aaron and his sons.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nShall be put to the fire. Rashi points out that this is the only case of a sin offering that is made on the outer altar being burnt, which our Sages explain as an ad hoc measure. Since all is revealed before God, this bull was to be slaughtered as a sin offering in expiation of the Golden Calf incident, on behalf of the anointed priest. In Lev. 4:5\u20136, Aaron will be commanded to \u201ctake some of the bull\u2019s blood and bring it into the Tent of Meeting \u2026 in front of the curtain of the Holy.\u201d But since the Tent has not yet been sanctified at this point, and the Shekhinah has not yet rested upon it, it cannot really be called \u201cthe Holy\u201d yet. So it could not be described in those terms. But this \u201coutside\u201d sacrifice is really to end up being an inner one. Even though it is the sin offering of the High Priest, Aaron\u2019s sons must also lay their hands upon it (v. 10), for \u201cthe Lord was angry enough with Aaron to have destroyed him\u201d (Deut. 9:20). The \u201cdestruction\u201d of Aaron implies the extermination of his children, who must therefore participate in offering it as expiation. As far as its being burnt outside, this is comparable to the burning of the red heifer (Num. 19:1\u201310). The mystery behind it is known from the goat that is sent off to the wilderness to make expiation (Lev. 16:10).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIts dung. That which is found in the animal\u2019s digestive system (Kimhi). Shall be put to the fire. Rashi says this is the only case of a sin offering made on the outer altar being burnt, but the sin offerings of Lev. 9:11, Num. 8:8, Ezek. 45:22, and Ezra 6:17 are all burnt (Hizkuni). The sin offering was completely burnt because it atoned for sins committed with the material body, whose ultimate fate is to perish and return to its four elements: air, earth, fire, and water. For this same reason, there were four sprinklings of blood on the four horns of the altar (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 29:15\u201321
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are the two rams (vv. 15\u201321) treated differently?
\n\u2666 Why is Aaron sprinkled with the anointing oil in v. 21 when he has already been anointed with it in v. 7?
\nExodus 29:15
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe one ram. Whichever of the two you wish. Lay their hands. Here the verb is singular, while in v. 19 the verb is plural. But there is no difference between them.
\nExodus 29:16
\nRASHI
\nDash it. From a container. He holds it in a basin and dashes it against the corner of the altar so that it can be seen on both sides. The only offering that requires the blood to be put on the altar with the finger is a sin offering. The rest of the sacrifices require neither that the blood be put directly on the horn of the altar, nor that it be applied with the finger. For their blood is supposed to be put on the lower half of the altar. So the priest does not go up the ramp, but stands on the ground and dashes the blood from there. Against all sides of the altar. OJPS is more literal: \u201cround about against the altar.\u201d As B. Zev. 53b explains, the blood is dashed \u201caround\u201d the altar by two dashings, one against one corner and a second against the corner diagonally opposite to it. Since each dashing makes the blood appear on either side of the corner, it ends up being on all four sides of the altar and hence all \u201caround\u201d it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nDash it against all sides of the altar. Rather than putting some on the horns and pouring out the rest, as with the bull.
\nExodus 29:17
\nRASHI
\nWith its quarters. Literally, \u201cwith its sections\u201d (compare OJPS)\u2014the remaining sections.
\nIBN EZRA
\nCut up the ram into sections. This is not mentioned with regard to the bull, which presumably was burnt whole. Wash its entrails and legs. Moses was to order this done, not to do it himself. And this was the rule for every High Priest.
\nExodus 29:18
\nRASHI
\nA pleasing odor. Read re\u2019ah, \u201codor,\u201d as if it read ru\u2019ah, \u201cfeeling\u201d\u2014\u201cIt is a pleasant feeling for Me to know that I speak and My will is done.\u201d An offering by fire. An isheh is the turning of the sacrificial pieces into smoke on the esh, the fire.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt is a burnt offering. Some take the word olah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d to refer to an offering made in expiation for a sin that \u201carises\u201d (also olah) in thought, while a sin offering expiates for actual deeds.
\nExodus 29:19
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe other ram. This is the \u201cram of ordination\u201d (v. 31).
\nExodus 29:20
\nRASHI
\nThe ridge of Aaron\u2019s right ear. That is, the cartilage in the middle of the ear. The thumbs. On the middle joint.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe ridge. It is clear what this is, though the word is never used except in connection with the ear.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTake some of the blood and put it on the ridge of Aaron\u2019s right ear \u2026 their right hands, and \u2026 their right feet; and dash the rest of the blood against every side of the altar round about. This was after the same manner as the making of the covenant in 24:6\u20138. The ears represent \u201cwe shall hear\u201d and the hands and feet \u201cwe shall do\u201d (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:21
\nIBN EZRA
\nTake some of the blood that is on the altar and some of the anointing oil. Since the altar is sacred, the blood that is on it is sacred as well, and so is the \u201csacred anointing oil\u201d (30:25). So when they are sprinkled on Aaron and his vestments, they too become sacred. It is comparable to when Zipporah \u201ccut off her son\u2019s foreskin, and touched his legs with it\u201d (4:25), for, like what Zipporah did, the ram is also an expiation for sin. Lev. 17:11 explains it: \u201cFor the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar.\u201d Upon Aaron and his vestments. He is sprinkled both beneath the vestments and upon them.
\nExodus 29:22\u201326
\nExodus 29:22
\nRASHI
\nThe fat parts. This is not a general term but, as in OJPS, the first of the specific items. It refers to the fat of the small intestines or of the maw. The broad tail. From the kidneys on down; as Lev. 3:9 explains, it \u201cshall be removed close to the backbone.\u201d Read that word not as atzeh, \u201cbackbone,\u201d but eitzah, \u201cwise counsel,\u201d which comes from the kidneys. This \u201cbroad tail\u201d is not included among the sacrificial portions of a bull, since it is only offered in rams, ewes, and lambs. But oxen and goats do not require sacrificing a \u201cbroad tail.\u201d The right thigh. This is the only case in which the right thigh is burnt with the sacrificial pieces. For this is a ram of ordination. Literally, of \u201cfilling,\u201d because this offering is completely \u201cfilled,\u201d that is, perfect in every way. The verse explains that the offerings of ordination are shlemim, offerings of well-being, for they bring well-being, shalom, to the altar, to the one who performs the ritual, and to the owner of the animal. This is why God requires that the breast be given to the one who performs the ritual (vv. 26\u201328). In this case it was Moses who performed the ordination ritual, and Aaron and his sons, as owners of the sacrificial animals, who ate the rest, as the passage explains.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe protuberance on the liver. Etymologically the yoteret, \u201cprotuberance,\u201d is something that is yoter, extra or superfluous to the liver. The right thigh. The thigh and breast of sacrifices of well-being are given to the priests. But in this case, Moses (as priest to the priests) got the breast. A ram of ordination. Literally, \u201ca ram of filling,\u201d but the reference is to \u201cfilling the hand,\u201d the idiom for ordination. Some, however, say that it is called this because it is literally placed \u201con the palms of Aaron and his sons\u201d (v. 24), or because its blood was placed on the thumbs of their right hands.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe right thigh. The right front thigh of the animal is the equivalent of the right hand of the priest, with which he performs his duties, and which is being \u201cfilled\u201d as he is ordained (Sforno).
\nExodus 29:23
\nRASHI
\nOne flat loaf of bread. From the unleavened cakes. One cake of oil bread. From the \u201csoaked\u201d variety. One wafer. The third variety, making one out of the 10 from each variety. Again, this is the only occasion where we find an offering of bread that is turned into smoke along with a sacrifice. For in the case of a thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev. 7:13) or the nazirite\u2019s ram (Num. 6:19), the bread that accompanies it is given to the priests along with the breast and thigh. In this case, Moses got nothing but the breast.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOne flat loaf of bread. This is the \u201cunleavened bread\u201d of v. 2.
\nExodus 29:24
\nRASHI
\nPlace all these on the palms of Aaron and his sons, and offer them. Both the owner and the priest are involved in the waving of the offering. How so? The priest puts his hand under that of the owner and waves it. Again, in this case Aaron and his sons filled the role of the owner and Moses that of the priest. An elevation offering. The OJPS translation, \u201cwave-offering,\u201d is to be preferred. He waves it back and forth to the One to whom all four directions belong, and this waving prevents evil spirits coming from any of the four directions; then he waves it up and down to the One to whom heaven and earth belong, which prevents evil dews.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOn the palms of Aaron and his sons. On both palms of each. Offer them as an elevation offering. \u201cThem\u201d refers to the sacrificial gifts, not to Aaron and his sons. As in the case of \u201cSolomon had completed the construction of the House\u201d (1 Kings 6:14), the implication is that Moses should have Aaron and his sons offer them as an elevation offering.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nPlace all these on the palms of Aaron and his sons. First on those of Aaron, and then on those of his sons (Gersonides). Offer them as an elevation offering. As if to say, \u201cI am gifting this to the Holy One,\u201d after which the officiant takes it and turns it into smoke (Bekhor Shor). Moses would put his hands under their palms and offer them (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:25
\nRASHI
\nWith the burnt offering. Literally, \u201con top of\u201d the burnt offering\u2014that is, in addition to the first ram that you put on the altar as an offering. As a pleasing odor. To give a pleasant feeling to the One who spoke and His will was done. To the Lord. To the Name of the Lord, for the Lord\u2019s sake.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA pleasing odor before the Lord. One who understands the secret of the human soul will understand this.
\nExodus 29:26
\nIBN EZRA
\nAaron\u2019s ram of ordination. It was his sons\u2019 as well, but Aaron was the important one to mention.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAaron\u2019s ram of ordination. Though the sons are not mentioned here, it is a ram of ordination for them all. The fact that the breast is made an elevation offering is because Aaron is not officiating as priest here, but is the one for whom the sacrifice is being offered; and it is standard procedure that the breast does not belong to the one who brings the animal for sacrifice. Once the verse has noted that even Aaron does not (in this situation) get the breast, it is superfluous to mention that his sons, who would be secondary to him in any case, do not get it.
\nExodus 29:27\u201330
\nExodus 29:27
\nRASHI
\nYou shall consecrate the breast that was offered as an elevation offering and the thigh that was offered as a gift offering. You shall consecrate them for all future generations, which will have the practice of offering and waving the breast and thigh of the shlemim, the sacrifices of well-being\u2014but will not burn them (as was done here with the ram of ordination). Instead, they \u201cshall be a due for all time from the Israelites to Aaron and his descendants\u201d (v. 28) to eat. Again, OJPS is closer to the correct meaning of the Hebrew. The word translated by NJPS as \u201celevation\u201d really indicates \u201cmoving to and fro,\u201d while the thigh that was \u201coffered\u201d is really \u201celevated,\u201d in the sense of being moved up and down.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall consecrate the breast that was offered as an elevation offering and the thigh that was offered as a gift offering. OJPS translates more literally here. But NJPS is correct that both terms reflect their being \u201cseparated\u201d\u2014that is, designated\u2014as offerings. Only the breast is here called an \u201celevation offering,\u201d for it alone was elevated and eaten; in this case, the thigh was burnt. But after the first time this ceremony was performed, both the breast and the thigh were eaten.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall consecrate the breast that was offered as an elevation offering. The same applies to every offering of well-being that the Israelites would bring.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFrom that which was Aaron\u2019s and from that which was his sons\u2019. OJPS is to be preferred here: \u201cthat which is Aaron\u2019s,\u201d and so forth. The sense is that the breast and thigh, which are offered here on behalf of Aaron and his sons, are the parts that will ordinarily belong to them when they officiate as priests.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAn elevation offering \u2026 a gift offering. The two Hebrew words are synonymous; different words were used here simply for stylistic reasons, to avoid repetition (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 29:28
\nRASHI
\nA due for all time from the Israelites. For the offerings of well-being belong to the owners, but they must give the breast and thigh to the priest. For they are a gift. This breast and thigh.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSacrifices of well-being. These sacrifices are called shelamim because they are offered not in expiation of sin, but to ensure the continual well-being, shalom, of those who offer them. Or the name may allude to the fact that they are offered by a soul that is shelemah, \u201ccomplete,\u201d and not lacking due to sin, het, whose literal meaning is that there is something \u201cmissing\u201d from the soul.
\nExodus 29:29
\nRASHI
\nTo his sons after him. To whichever of them attains the rank of High Priest after him. To be anointed. Metaphorically. That is, to attain the High Priesthood. For \u201canointment\u201d can refer to attainment of a lofty position, as in Ps. 105:15, \u201cDo not touch My anointed ones; do not harm My prophets.\u201d Notice that in Num. 18:8, \u201cthe sacred donations of the Israelites\u201d are called \u201can anointment, a due for all time\u201d to Aaron and his sons. Ordained. By donning the garments, he is ordained as High Priest.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor them to be anointed \u2026 in. Not to be literally anointed, but to be elevated to greatness in them as if by anointing. The great are always called \u201canointed,\u201d as in Ps. 105:15, \u201cDo not touch My anointed ones; do not harm My prophets.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nFor them to be anointed and ordained in. When the previous High Priest dies.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFor them to be anointed and ordained in. Rashi may be correct, for the anointing of the Israelite king and High Priest has been made into a metaphor for every sort of inauguration. For example, God tells Elijah to \u201canoint Hazael as king of Aram\u201d and \u201cElisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah to succeed you as prophet\u201d (1 Kings 19:15\u201316). But here it refers to anointing the descendants of Aaron who become High Priest by clothing them in the anointed vestments, thus ordaining them to offer sacrifice. Even with Hazael and Elisha, he may literally have anointed them as a sign that it was God\u2019s decree, even though it is not explicitly written. The same may be true of King Cyrus of Persia, who is called in Isa. 45:1 God\u2019s \u201canointed one.\u201d (Admittedly, our Sages on B. Meg. 12a read this verse differently.) All of these were literally anointed with oil. Only Isa. 61:1, \u201cThe spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me,\u201d is metaphoric, after the manner of Eccles. 7:1, \u201cA good name is better than fragrant oil.\u201d
\nExodus 29:30
\nRASHI
\nHe among his sons who becomes priest in his stead. When he is appointed High Priest. \u201cIn his stead\u201d teaches that if the High Priest has a son who is capable of taking his place, he should be appointed High Priest after him. Who enters the Tent of Meeting. The one who is ready to enter the innermost part of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement; that is, the High Priest. For only he may properly perform the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Seven days. Seven days in a row.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe among his sons who becomes priest in his stead \u2026 shall wear them. When he is inaugurated as High Priest.
\nIBN EZRA
\nShall wear them seven days. He shall not take them off, day or night.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe among his sons. This is one of the three verses that both begin and end with the letter \u05e9 (Masorah). One who has a certain rank ought not to be deprived of it as long as he remains worthy of that rank (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:31\u201336
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did the offerings have to be made \u201ceach day\u201d (v. 36) of the priests\u2019 installation?
\nExodus 29:31
\nRASHI
\nThe sacred precinct. The courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. For these offerings of well-being are as sacred as can be.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBoil its flesh. Have someone boil its flesh.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBoil its flesh in the sacred precinct. We do not know whether this was an ad hoc decree that the flesh of that sacrifice must be boiled by Moses, or whether he was permitted to have the flesh boiled by someone else, as Ibn Ezra thinks. In any case, it had to be boiled within the sacred precinct, because it fell into the same category as public sacrifices of well-being, which had to be eaten, before midnight, within the hangings of the enclosure of the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 29:32
\nRASHI
\nAt the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. This refers to the entire courtyard.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe flesh of the ram. Including the thigh. This is a general rule; it is all eaten by the priests except for the breast and the prescribed sacrificial portions. The bread that is in the basket. The bread that is left.
\nExodus 29:33
\nRASHI
\nShall be eaten. See OJPS for a more literal translation of this verse. Only by those. Aaron and his sons. For whom expiation was made. Expiation for anything objectionably unpriestly they might have done in their previous lives. When they were ordained. By means of the ram and the bread. And consecrated. By means of the ordination, they were consecrated to the priesthood. For they are holy. The holiest of the holy. We learn from this verse that laymen are prohibited from eating anything that falls into this category, for the text explains the reason: \u201cThey are holy.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey may not be eaten by a layman. A Levite or ordinary Israelite; only by a priest.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThose for whom expiation was made. Expiation for the Golden Calf (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 29:35
\nRASHI
\nThus shall you do to Aaron and his sons, just as I have commanded you. The redundancy of \u201cthus\u201d and \u201cjust as\u201d is meant to emphasize that if a single element of this procedure is neglected, they are not ordained as priests, and whatever ritual they perform is not valid. You shall ordain them through seven days. By following this procedure on each day.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall ordain them through seven days. For seven days, before \u201cthe eighth day\u201d (Lev. 9:1) on which Aaron and his sons took over the ritual duties, Moses would set up the Tabernacle each day, bring the offerings, and in the evening he would take it down. On the eighth day\u2014the 1st of Nisan\u2014he set up the Tabernacle permanently, as described in 40:17\u201333. From that point on Aaron and his sons performed the ritual duties.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall ordain them through seven days. The fact that the ordination procedure takes seven days is now specified.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSeven days. The first time it was done was to ordain the priests and consecrate the altar; the other six times were to teach Aaron and his sons the rules of priestly service (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 29:36
\nRASHI
\nFor expiation. To expiate for the altar anything objectionably unpriestly. This verse is necessary because the procedure to be repeated \u201cthrough seven days\u201d (v. 35) only takes care of expiation for the priests. But up to this point we have not heard of anything that takes care of the altar, like the bull mentioned here that purges it of sin. A midrash explains, \u201cThe altar requires expiation in case anyone contributed to the construction of the Tabernacle or the altar something that was stolen.\u201d You shall purge the altar. Literally, \u201cyou shall de-sin the altar\u201d; Onkelos makes clear that this indicates a process of cleansing or purification. The specific process that is called \u201cde-sinning\u201d is that of applying blood to the altar directly with the finger. You shall anoint it. With the anointing oil. Like all the other anointings, this too is in the shape of a Greek chi.
\nIBN EZRA
\nPrepare a bull as a sin offering. On each of the seven days, the sin offering described in v. 10\u201314 is to make expiation for the altar. You shall purge the altar. That is, you shall bring a sin offering for it and make expiation for it. The expiation is necessary because of the earth that is used to fill the altar. Who knows what idolatrous rites might have been performed on that earth? The commentators understand the word translated \u201cpurge\u201d to mean \u201cpurify,\u201d as \u201cby performing purification\u201d (literally \u201cexpiation\u201d) also suggests. The altar is treated the same way as the priests: You shall anoint it to consecrate it.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nEach day you shall prepare a bull as a sin offering for expiation. NJPS follows Rashi\u2019s opinion; but OJPS has the correct translation here: not \u201cfor expiation\u201d but \u201cbesides\u201d\u2014literally, \u201con top of\u201d\u2014\u201cthe other offerings of atonement.\u201d That is, the bull is offered every day in addition to the two rams that make expiation for Aaron and his sons, the ones \u201cfor whom expiation was made with them\u201d (v. 33). It is true that the bull too, as a sin offering, does make expiation (see Lev. 8:34), as Ibn Ezra explains.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEach day you shall prepare a bull as a sin offering. This is not the bull of v. 1, for the items mentioned there and in v. 2 were all provided at Aaron\u2019s own expense. This bull is a separate offering, provided at public expense (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 29:37\u201340
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are only the \u201cregular\u201d offerings mentioned here (v. 38), and none of the other offerings the Israelites would eventually be instructed to make?
\nExodus 29:37
\nRASHI
\nThe altar shall become most holy. And in what does its holiness consist? Whatever touches the altar shall become consecrated. Even a sacrifice that is not valid, once it is put up on the altar, is consecrated enough by merely touching the altar that, though it is still invalid, it may not be removed but must be burnt there. I might think that this consecration applies to anything that is put on the altar, whether fit to be there or not, such as things that were invalid for sacrifice even before being brought into the sacred area\u2014e.g., an animal that has had sex with a human being; an animal that was consecrated to some form of idolatrous worship, or that was worshiped itself; a diseased animal; and the like. Since the very next verse specifies \u201cThis is what you shall offer,\u201d we learn that the touch of the altar can only \u201cconsecrate\u201d an offering that was intrinsically proper, but that became invalid for some reason after being brought into the sacred area, such as sacrificial flesh that is kept overnight before being burnt; an animal brought in for sacrifice that is then taken out of the sacred area; an animal that someone slaughters with the intention of eating its flesh after the proper time for eating it has expired, or outside the proper area for its consumption; and so forth.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhatever touches the altar shall become consecrated. It should be translated \u201cwhoever.\u201d Whoever comes close enough to the altar to touch it must be ritually purified before he does so.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSeven days you shall perform purification. When you have performed purification on the altar for seven days (having anointed it), the altar shall become most holy. Rather, \u201cit shall attain the holiness of the holy things.\u201d This phrase, kodesh kodashim, differs grammatically from the phrase with the definite article, kodesh ha-kodashim, the \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d or the most sacred possible things. The gentiles have made this mistake in their explanation of the phrase \u201cto anoint the most holy place\u201d (Dan. 9:24), which lacks the definite article. It actually refers there too to the altar, as I have shown you in my commentary to the Book of Daniel. Whatever touches the altar shall become consecrated. Rather, \u201cwhoever touches the altar must be consecrated.\u201d This is to prevent a layman from touching the altar, which must only be done by a consecrated priest. But many have explained it as do the English translations.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhatever touches the altar shall become consecrated. Whatever or whoever. The point of this is to keep them from touching the altar unnecessarily (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 29:38
\nIBN EZRA
\nTwo yearling lambs each day. One in the morning and one in the evening.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNow this is what you shall offer on the altar. Having commanded them to make an altar, He goes on to specify what they are to do with it (Bekhor Shor). The altar, and the priestly service in general, are not for sin offerings\u2014better that a man should never sin and not have to bring one!\u2014but for this regular offering in thanks to God for what He did for His people (Abarbanel). Two yearling lambs each day. For the two great gifts God gave his people: the spiritual gift of the Torah, which was given \u201cas morning dawned\u201d (19:16), and the material gift of the exodus from Egypt, marked by the slaughter of the passover \u201cat twilight\u201d (12:6). The language here is derived directly from those verses (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 29:39
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAt twilight. Rather, \u201cbetween the twilights\u201d\u2014that is, at noon; but it may be performed at any time between noon and sundown (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:40
\nRASHI
\nA tenth of a measure. A tenth of an ephah, the equivalent of 43.2 \u201ceggs.\u201d Beaten oil. Not that it must be \u201cbeaten\u201d oil, but that it may be. One might think that the specification of \u201cclear oil of beaten olives for lighting\u201d in 27:20 means that such oil was meant only for kindling lamps, so our verse makes clear that it is permitted. In fact, the only reason 27:20 refers to this variety of oil as oil \u201cfor lighting\u201d is to make clear that such oil is not required for offerings, which may be made even with oil produced by grinding olives in a mill. A quarter of a hin. Three logs or 18 \u201ceggs.\u201d A libation. This is poured into bowls. As we learn in M. Suk. 4:9, there were two silver bowls on top of the altar, pierced with holes so as to form two thin \u201cnostrils.\u201d The priest would put wine into the bowl, and it would gush out of the \u201cnostril\u201d and spill onto the top of the altar. On the altar in the Temple, it would run down from there into drainage pits. On the copper altar of the Tabernacle, it would simply run off the altar onto the ground.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA libation. Some say that the word used here etymologically implies mixing with water. But the tradition that it refers to pouring is correct. A hin. The hin is an Egyptian measure.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA tenth of a measure of choice flour. This is exactly the amount of manna that each Israelite received every day; for this offering is in memory of that miracle (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 29:41\u201345
\nExodus 29:41
\nRASHI
\nA pleasing odor. This includes the \u201cmeal offering,\u201d since the meal offering that accompanies a libation is completely burnt. The lamb is offered first, and afterward the meal offering, as indicated by the order given in Lev. 23:37, \u201cburnt offerings, meal offerings, sacrifices, and libations.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nWith its libation. That of the morning.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA pleasing odor. I think the intent of this strong odor must be to arouse the one who brings the sacrifice to contemplate the reason for the sacrifices in order that they might derive the intended benefit from them, which is that prophecy should come to any of the priests who are worthy of it (Gersonides).
\nExodus 29:42
\nRASHI
\nA regular burnt offering. \u201cRegular\u201d (OJPS \u201ccontinual\u201d) in the sense that it is to be offered day after day, without a day intervening in which no burnt offering is made. There I will meet with you. When I set a time for a meeting to speak with you, it is there, in that place, that I set it. Some of our Sages learn from this verse that once the Tabernacle was set up, the Holy One would speak with Moses from atop the copper altar. Others say that He spoke with him from atop the cover of the Ark, following 25:22, \u201cThere I will meet with you, and I will impart to you\u2014from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Pact\u2014all that I will command you.\u201d According to this opinion, \u201cthere\u201d in our verse does not refer to the altar, but to the Tent of Meeting, which is mentioned immediately before it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA regular burnt offering throughout the generations. Once they get to Canaan. Logically, the Israelites could not have offered sacrifice while they were in the wilderness, except at Sinai and on the Day of Atonement in the second year\u2014perhaps 50 times in all. As Amos 5:25 asks, \u201cDid you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me those forty years in the wilderness, O House of Israel?\u201d Where, in the \u201cempty, howling waste\u201d (Deut. 32:10) where they spent 38 years, did they find half a hin of olive oil and of wine every day? Did they bring 14,000 hins of olive oil and wine with them? Where did they get two yearling lambs a day, not to mention the extras for Sabbaths and festivals? The Tent of Meeting. The explanation of the name immediately follows: For there I will meet with you, and there I will speak with you. The first \u201cyou\u201d is plural, referring to Israel, but the second is singular, referring to Moses alone.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA regular burnt offering. The phrase occurs only three other times in the Bible: Num. 28:6, Ezek. 46:15, and Ezra 3:5 (Masorah).
\nExodus 29:43
\nRASHI
\nThere I will meet with the Israelites. I will meet with them in speech, like a king who sets a place to speak with his subjects. And it\u2014the altar\u2014shall be sanctified by My Presence. For My Shekhinah shall rest upon it. A midrash: Do not read the word translated \u201cMy Presence\u201d as kevodi, literally \u201cMy glory\u201d (OJPS), but as kevudai, \u201cMy glorified ones.\u201d Here God hints to Moses that two of Aaron\u2019s sons will die on the day that the Tabernacle is set up. This would explain how Moses could say to Aaron in Lev. 10:3, \u201cThis is what the Lord meant when He said: \u2018Through those near to Me [kerovai] I show Myself holy.\u2019 \u201d Where did He say this? In our verse: \u201cThe altar shall be made holy by those glorified by Me.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nIt shall be sanctified by My Presence. For I will appear to the Israelites when the Tabernacle is set up, and fire will come from above and consume the offerings. As Moses tells the people on the eighth day, \u201cFor today the Lord will appear to you\u201d (Lev. 9:4), after which \u201cthe Presence of the Lord appeared to all the people. Fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts on the altar\u201d (Lev. 9:23\u201324).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThere I will meet with the Israelites. This is an allusion to the place where prayers should be offered. It shall be sanctified by My Presence. The Tent shall be sanctified by My Presence, which will be within it.
\nExodus 29:44
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will consecrate Aaron and his sons. My Presence in the Tent will consecrate them.
\nExodus 29:45
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will abide among the Israelites. Literally, \u201cin the midst of\u201d the Israelites (see further my comment to 33:17). This is an allusion to the fact that the tribes will be arranged in all four directions, with the camp of the Levites in the middle, and the camp of the Shekhinah\u2014that is, the Tabernacle\u2014in the midst of the camp of the Levites. I will be their God. They must believe in Me and they are obligated to serve Me.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will abide among the Israelites. My Providence will adhere to them by virtue of what they acquire by means of the Tabernacle and the service that is performed in it. I will be their guide and rescue them from the evils astrologically determined for them, by means of the knowledge that will come to them by prophecy (Gersonides). I will abide among them to accept their service and hear their prayer (Sforno). I will be their God. To guide their fate without any intermediary. As Jer. 10:2 says, let them \u201cnot be dismayed by portents in the sky; let the nations be dismayed by them!\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 29:46\u201330:3
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the purpose of the incense altar (v. 1)?
\nExodus 29:46
\nRASHI
\nThat I might abide among them. I brought them out of Egypt in order to abide among them.
\nRASHBAM
\nThat I might abide among them. I brought them out of Egypt in order to abide among them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThat I might abide among them. As I explained to you in my comment to 3:12, God is saying, \u201cI brought them out of Egypt to have them make Me a sanctuary so that I might abide among them.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThat I might abide among them. The English translations follow Rashi\u2019s interpretation. But the preposition le- used here is never found with this meaning. Perhaps, however, le- is used here like be-, meaning, \u201cThey will know, when I abide among them, that I the Lord am their God, who brought them out from the land of Egypt. For they will experience My Presence and believe that it was I who brought them out.\u201d This grammatical usage is found in such verses as \u201cDavid was successful in all his undertakings\u201d (1 Sam. 18:14); \u201cI know that you side with the son of Jesse\u201d (1 Sam. 20:30); \u201cBecause you disobeyed my command at the waters of Meribah\u201d (Num. 20:24); and the like. Now Ibn Ezra says that God only brought Israel out of Egypt in order to abide among them. And he explained it well. But if so, there is a deep mystery in the matter. For according to a straightforward reading of the situation, the Shekhinah dwells among Israel because of their need, not because of any need of the Highest; but Isa. 49:3 tells us that Israel is \u201cMy servant \u2026 by whom I will be glorified.\u201d Joshua too asks God, \u201cWhat will You do about Your great name?\u201d (Josh. 7:9). In fact, there are many similar verses: \u201cFor the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His seat. \u2018This is My resting-place for all time; here I will dwell, for I desire it\u2019 \u201d (Ps. 132:13\u201314); \u201cThen will I remember My covenant with Jacob; I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham; and I will remember the land\u201d (Lev. 26:42).
\nExodus 30:1
\nRASHBAM
\nFor burning incense. But not for burnt offerings, offerings of well-being, meal offerings, or libations.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall make an altar for burning incense. Given that this is one of the furnishings that belong inside the Tabernacle, it ought to have been mentioned with the table and the lampstand, where it was to be put. In ch. 37, it is included with them. Here, however, the intent was to delay mentioning it until (at the end of the description of the Tabernacle, its furnishings, and its sacrifices) the text could say, \u201cit shall be sanctified by My Presence \u2026 I will abide among the Israelites\u201d (29:43,45). Only at that point are they further obligated to make an altar for burning incense for the Presence of the Lord. It was a secret transmitted to our master Moses that incense could stop the spread of plague. For incense is involved with God\u2019s aspect of judgment; Deut. 33:10 says literally that incense is offered for God\u2019s \u201cnose,\u201d but we know from Deut. 31:17 and elsewhere that the same word means \u201canger.\u201d This was what God meant by saying (with reference to the deaths of Nadab and Abihu), \u201cThrough those near to Me I show Myself holy, and gain glory before all the people\u201d (Lev. 10:3): \u201cThey must know that My Glory \u2018will not pardon your offenses\u2019 [23:21] and be careful of My Glory.\u201d Why else does v. 6 say so awkwardly, and at such great length, \u201cPlace it in front of the curtain that is over the Ark of the Pact\u2014in front of the cover that is over the Pact\u2014where I will meet with you\u201d? Why not simply say \u201cbefore the Ark of the Pact\u201d as in 40:5? Because here it is teaching that the burning of the incense involves an encounter with the kavod, the Glory or Presence, of God.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall make an altar for burning incense. Its purpose was to teach that \u201cthe soul returns to God who bestowed it\u201d (Eccles. 12:7), and to express the ascent of the soul to its beginnings when it separates itself from matter (Gersonides). It was not mentioned in chs. 25\u201327, for it was not part of the structure or process by which God would \u201cabide\u201d with the Israelites. Once He did so, however, it was only proper to welcome Him with incense (Sforno).
\nExodus 30:2
\nIBN EZRA
\nTwo cubits high. This was to make it half a cubit higher than the table on the north side of the sanctuary. For the altar was in between the table and the lampstand (It may have been half a cubit higher than the lampstand too.) The altar was on a direct line with the cherubim that were on top of the Ark with their wings spread upward.
\nExodus 30:3
\nRASHI
\nIts top. Unlike the wooden altar on which sacrifices were burnt, which was simply filled with earth whenever the Israelites encamped, this altar did have a top. A gold molding. Symbolic of the \u201ccrown\u201d of priesthood.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOverlay it with pure gold. The incense altar was called \u201cthe golden altar\u201d because of this overlay. Its top. The text has \u201cits top,\u201d not \u201cits width.\u201d The \u201ccopper altar\u201d (for the sacrifices) had no top.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOverlay it with pure gold. Though the overlay was no thicker than a gold dinar, they burnt incense on this altar for generation after generation and yet it was miraculously undamaged (Bekhor Shor). Since only incense was burned on this altar, only a small fire was necessary. So it did not need to be hollow and filled with earth, for the fire was never great enough to harm the wood of the altar underneath the gold overlay (Sforno).
\nExodus 30:4\u201310
\nExodus 30:4
\nRASHI
\nOn its two side walls. Here, unlike 25:12, the word NJPS translates as \u201cside walls\u201d really means \u201ccorners\u201d (as Onkelos translates it), for the next phrase adds, \u201cupon the two sides of it\u201d (OJPS). Our phrase should be translated, \u201con the two corners that are on its two sides,\u201d and not as NJPS translates.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOn opposite sides. This is simply an additional phrase of explanation.
\nExodus 30:5
\nIBN EZRA
\nOverlay them with gold. Like the poles of the Ark.
\nExodus 30:6
\nRASHI
\nIn front of the curtain. You might think it could be placed in front of the curtain but to the north or south of the Ark. So the verse continues: In front of the cover that is over the Pact. It is to be placed outside the curtain, directly opposite the Ark.
\nRASHBAM
\nPlace it in front of the curtain. In the sanctuary of the Tabernacle, outside the Holy of Holies. That is over the Ark of the Pact. This is the curtain that separates the Ark from the sanctuary.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn front of the curtain. Outside the Holy of Holies.
\nExodus 30:7
\nRASHI
\nWhen he tends the lamps. This refers to cleaning the remains of the wicks from the previous night out of the dishes of the lampstand. He would do this every morning. The \u201clamps\u201d are the individual lights on the lampstand. This is what the word nerot means whenever it is used in connection with the lampstand, unless the verb \u201ckindle\u201d is used, in which case it means not \u201clamps\u201d but \u201clights.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nAromatic incense. According to 25:6, this includes spices; but perhaps it is the aromatics that are the crucial element. When he tends the lamps. When he adjusts the wicks to improve the light.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOn it Aaron shall burn aromatic incense. This commandment does not apply only to the High Priest; as with the tending of the lamps in the next verse, it may be done by an ordinary priest. As 27:21 says of the lamps, \u201cAaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain that is over the Ark of the Pact, to burn from evening to morning before the Lord.\u201d I don\u2019t know why vv. 7 and 8 specifically mention Aaron, rather than simply saying \u201cthe priest.\u201d Perhaps it is because v. 10 does refer to something that only the High Priest can do. Or perhaps it implies that the first time the incense is burnt and the lamps lit it should be done by Aaron. Lev. 24:3 specifically says, \u201cAaron shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting outside the curtain of the Pact to burn from evening to morning before the Lord regularly,\u201d without mentioning \u201chis sons,\u201d since he was to begin the practice. (The continuation of that verse, \u201cit is a law for all time throughout the ages,\u201d refers to the commandment to bring oil\u2014it does not mean that it must be done \u201cfor all time\u201d by the High Priest.)
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen he tends the lamps. When he lights them\u2014for he lights some of them in the morning, when this is necessary (Gersonides).
\nExodus 30:8
\nRASHI
\nAaron shall burn it. Each day half of it is burnt in the morning, and half at twilight. When he lights the lamps. Literally, when he \u201craises\u201d the lamps\u2014when he kindles the lights in order to raise their flame.
\nExodus 30:9
\nRASHI
\nAlien incense. That is, you shall not offer on it any other incense that may be contributed; all such is \u201calien\u201d to it. Only the incense of the regular offering may be offered on it. On it. On this particular altar. A burnt offering. Of beast or bird. A meal offering. Of bread.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAlien incense. Not \u201calien incense\u201d but \u201cother incense\u201d than that described in 30:34.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAlien incense. The translation of Onkelos offers a different explanation than does Rashi. His language implies that alien incense is incense made of any spices other than the ones that God would command them to use. Even if one were to use the commanded spices but add others to them, it would violate this prohibition.
\nExodus 30:10
\nRASHI
\nOnce a year. On the Day of Atonement. \u201cHe shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and purge it\u201d (Lev. 16:18). \u201cPurge\u201d there is the same Hebrew word that is translated in our verse as \u201cperform purification.\u201d Aaron shall perform purification. By placing the blood. The sin offering of purification. This refers to the bull and the goat that are sacrificed on the Day of Atonement, which make atonement for the possible ritual impurity of the sanctuary and the holy things. Most holy. This altar is to be devoted to these particular things only, not for any other ritual.
\nRASHBAM
\nOnce a year. On the Day of Atonement. \u201cHe shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and purge it: he shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and apply it to each of the horns of the altar\u201d (Lev. 16:18). But during the whole rest of the year there was no blood on this altar\u2014only incense.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOnce a year. On the 10th day of the 7th month. Aaron. Or the High Priest descended from him. The sin offering of purification. The sin offering of \u201cthe bull and of the goat\u201d (Lev. 16:18). It is most holy to the Lord. See my comment to 29:37. But unlike the altar for offerings, the incense altar is holy \u201cto the Lord.\u201d This is due to the fact that it is so exalted; after the Ark itself, there is nothing more exalted than the incense altar.
\nExodus 30:12\u201314
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 If God has commanded Moses to take a census and collect half a shekel from each Israelite, why doesn\u2019t the text say so?
\n\u2666 If the census was not God\u2019s command, and it would cause such devastation, why didn\u2019t God simply command Moses not to count the people?
\n\u2666 Why would a plague come upon the Israelites just because a census was taken?
\n\u2666 Why would a \u201cransom\u201d stop such a plague?
\nExodus 30:12
\nRASHI
\nWhen you take a census. One does not literally \u201ctake\u201d the count, but \u201creceives\u201d it (as Onkelos translates). The verse is saying, when you desire to get a count of how many of them there are, do not count each \u201chead\u201d (which is the literal translation of the object of the verb in this verse), but let everyone contribute half a shekel. Then count the shekels and you will know the total. That no plague may come upon them. For the evil eye rules over census-taking, and a pestilence might come upon them, as happened in the days of David.
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen you take a census. When Moses gathered the Israelites in order to collect their contributions to the Tabernacle, he counted them. This is the silver that was dedicated to the service of the Tabernacle, as noted in 38:25, \u201cThe silver of those of the community who were recorded came to 100 talents and 1,775 shekels by the sanctuary weight.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen you take a census. Literally, \u201cwhen you lift the head\u201d; but this is an idiom for counting. It is the custom of census-takers to record the names row after row, and to raise the total up to the head, that is, the top, of each page. Those who are trained in accounting do the same. A ransom for himself. As v. 16 explains, this offering is made \u201cas expiation for your persons.\u201d No plague. Literally, \u201cno injury\u201d\u2014by war. For one who dies in war dies before his time. But some think that anything that is counted is fated to end up falling short of the counted total. It is these people who take this word as \u201cplague,\u201d their proof being the census taken by Joab. But I think otherwise.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen you take a census. This commandment is given about census-taking in general. There was no need to specify that he should take a census now, since this would be self-evident from the fact that God tells Moses in v. 16 what to do with \u201cthe expiation money\u201d collected in the census. It seems to me that Moses would not have been required to go to each person\u2019s tent to count them, as he did for the census recorded in Numbers 1. Instead, he simply commanded all those who acknowledged that they were 20 or older to pay the required amount, which they brought in along with all the other contributions for the Tabernacle, \u201cmorning after morning\u201d (36:3), just as our Sages say was done with the annual half-shekel contributions that paid for the sacrifices. David\u2019s mistake in numbering them without collecting this half-shekel was that he did not know whether this was a commandment for all time or simply an ad hoc instruction to Moses during the wilderness wandering. Our Sages understood this passage to be referring to three separate contributions: \u201ceveryone \u2026 shall pay\u201d (v. 13); \u201ceveryone \u2026 shall give\u201d (v. 14); \u201cwhen giving the Lord\u2019s offering\u201d (v. 15). We certainly find from \u201cthe tax imposed by Moses\u201d (2 Chron. 24:6) that there was an annual tax (not connected with a census), commanded by Moses, for the upkeep of the Temple. According to our Sages, the same applied to the sacrifices, which is confirmed by Neh. 10:33\u201334, \u201cTo charge ourselves one-third of a shekel yearly for the service of the House of our God\u2014for the rows of bread, for the regular meal offering and for the regular burnt offering, for those of the sabbaths, new moons, festivals, for consecrations, for sin offerings to atone for Israel, and for all the work in the House of our God.\u201d (One-third of a shekel in Ezra\u2019s day was worth 10 gerahs, the same as a half-shekel in Moses\u2019 time.) Our Sages relate that the coinage in which this amount was paid varied a number of times after the return from exile, and that it sometimes rose to more than the value of a half-shekel in Moses\u2019 time, but never fell to less\u2014for less than that amount would not achieve \u201cexpiation for your persons\u201d (v. 16).
\nI must say that I am surprised at Rashi\u2019s comment to v. 16. According to him, almost seven months elapsed between the two censuses, and yet not a single man died. In a population that size, one would expect some hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of deaths during that period. Someone must have died, since Num. 9:8 tells us that there were some men who were \u201cunclean by reason of a corpse.\u201d I also do not understand how Rashi can say that people\u2019s ages were counted according to years beginning on the 1st of Tishrei. In fact, people\u2019s ages are counted according to their birthdays. According to B. Ar. 18b, all the \u201cyears\u201d mentioned in the Bible are counted from the particular date involved in each case, not from the same arbitrary date for everyone. So all the 19-year-olds born between Tishrei and Iyar would have turned 20 in between the two censuses, greatly increasing the count. It would be more correct to say that this increase happened to be exactly balanced by the number of deaths during this period.
\nBut in my opinion this is not really even a question. In the first census, the tribe of Levi was counted along with all the other Israelites, since they had not yet been distinguished from the rest of the people. But for the second census, God told Moses, \u201cDo not on any account enroll the tribe of Levi or take a census of them with the Israelites\u201d (Num. 1:49). Once this tribe was chosen as \u201cthe King\u2019s Legion,\u201d they were numbered separately. So there must have been almost 20,000 boys who reached the age of 20 in between the two censuses. Do not forget that the Israelites who left Egypt were \u201cabout six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children\u201d (12:37)\u2014not exactly 600,000. Some died, and others reached maturity. Moreover, \u201cmen\u201d in 12:37 may refer not to those over 20, but to those over 13.
\nIt also seems to me that the contribution for the public sacrifices was not made through the census of Numbers 1, as Rashi says. For the Levites, who were not numbered then, are as responsible for their own sacrifices as anyone. According to our Sages, even the priests must pay for their own sacrifices (see M. Shek. 1:4). Moreover, the responsibility to pay for these does not begin at 20, but when one reaches puberty (see M. Shek. 1:3). It was the contribution for the Tabernacle that applied to \u201ceach one who was entered in the records, from the age of twenty years up\u201d (38:26). The remark in v. 15 that \u201cthe rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than half a shekel when giving the Lord\u2019s offering as expiation for your persons\u201d was a hint that everyone who had reached 13, the age of obligation to the commandments, should bring a second half-shekel for the sacrifices.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen you take a census. This is the census mentioned in Num. 1:2, starting on the 1st of Adar, to provide for the sacrifices that were to start on the 1st of Nisan (Hizkuni). \u201cBecause\u201d you take a census (Abarbanel). That no plague may come upon them. In the second year, having paid their expiation money; but some interpret it to mean that their enemies would not plague them (Hizkuni). We do not know exactly how the Evil Eye causes this plague. What I think is that the eye emits some kind of vapor, which can easily penetrate (through the eyes, ears, or nose) to the brain. Notice that when the counting is done by finger, as with the on-duty priests in temple times, no harm is incurred (Gersonides). For \u201ccharity saves from death\u201d (Prov. 10:2); these payments were voluntary contributions (Abarbanel). Enrolled. For war (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 30:13
\nRASHI
\nThis. God showed Moses a coin of fire, half a shekel in weight, and told him, \u201cA half-shekel like this is what everyone shall pay.\u201d Everyone who is entered in the records. Literally, \u201ceveryone who passes by among the enrolled.\u201d For what census-takers do is cause everyone to go past them, one after another, as in Lev. 27:32, \u201cAll tithes of the herd or flock\u2014of all that passes under the shepherd\u2019s staff, every tenth one\u2014shall be holy to the Lord.\u201d And see Jer. 33:13, \u201cSheep shall pass again under the hands of one who counts them.\u201d A half-shekel by the sanctuary weight. Literally, \u201cthe shekel of the sacred.\u201d The shekel that I assigned as the standard to be used for sacred obligations, such as the various amounts in Leviticus 27. Twenty gerahs to the shekel. The text now explains how much it was. A \u201cgerah\u201d is a kind of coin; see 1 Sam. 2:36, where the related word agorah describes an amount of money. A whole shekel is worth 20 gerahs, for the shekel is four zuzim, and the zuz, or dinar, was originally worth five silver coins. But in the rabbinic period they added one-sixth to it, raising it to six silver coins.
\nRASHBAM
\nTwenty gerahs to the shekel. The gerah was a coin of some kind.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThis is what everyone \u2026 shall pay. This is the amount. Note that in the instructions given to Noah, \u201cThis is how you shall make it\u201d (Gen. 6:15) refers to the specific dimensions of the Ark. Everyone who is entered in the records. Rather, \u201ceveryone who passes\u201d (compare OJPS). Everyone for whom 20 years of life have already passed, that is, almost three \u201cweeks\u201d of years. By then he is a person of complete understanding and has reached his full growth. Twenty gerahs. A gerah is a gargir, a carob seed, in weight.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA half-shekel. Moses was a great king, and so naturally established coinage for the Israelites. He called it \u201cshekel\u201d from the Hebrew verb meaning \u201cto weigh,\u201d for each coin contained a full weight of pure silver. The sanctuary weight. Rather, \u201cthe sacred shekel.\u201d Since in the case of the redemption of the first-born and similar payments the shekels that were paid would literally become sacred, the shekel by which all fixed amounts given in the Torah were paid is called \u201cthe sacred shekel.\u201d I might add that our Sages called Hebrew \u201cthe holy tongue\u201d for a similar reason. For the words of the Torah and the Prophets and all the sacred writings were said in that language, the language in which the Holy One spoke with His prophets and His people. God\u2019s own holy names are in Hebrew, as are those of His angels, not to mention that \u201cthe holy ones that are in the land\u201d (Ps. 16:3)\u2014Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, and the rest\u2014have Hebrew names. Moreover, He created His world by speaking in that language. Maimonides says in Guide 3:8 that Hebrew is called the holy tongue because it has no words but euphemisms for the genitals and the excretory functions, but there is no need for this argument, since Hebrew is clearly the holiest of languages, as I have explained. In any case, Maimonides is incorrect, for some of the terms he cites are forbidden to be read aloud, but must be replaced by euphemisms\u2014which shows that they are the actual terms. Besides, the term for euphemism in rabbinic literature is not \u201choly language,\u201d but \u201cclean language.\u201d Twenty gerahs to the shekel. Rashi (in his comment to 21:32) says that \u201ca shekel weighs the same as four gold coins, which is half an ounce according to the honest weight of Cologne.\u201d He found written in the Talmud that a sela\u2014the Talmudic word for a shekel\u2014was four dinars, and assumed (since in Constantinople a gold coin is called a dinar) that the Talmudic dinar was the same as is used now. But actually the gentile kings have diminished the amount of gold in the coins. Various halakhic sources make clear that the Talmudic dinar was almost one-third bigger than that of today, making the biblical shekel three-quarters of an ounce, not one-half. The problem is complicated by the fact that the Talmud actually uses the word \u201cshekel\u201d to refer to half a sela. So the Talmudic shekel is worth half of the shekel found in the Bible, because that half-shekel was the amount that they \u201cweighed,\u201d shakal, every year. Perhaps a coin of this weight was minted to make it easier to pay the tax. When this amount became the \u201cshekel,\u201d the shekel of Moses began to be referred to as a sela, the Aramaic word by which Onkelos translated it.
\nGod has so blessed me that, since finishing my commentary, I have been able to travel to Acre, where I found in the possession of the elders a silver coin, engraved on one side with an almond branch and on the other with some sort of jar. Both sides had inscriptions, which were shown to the Samaritans, who read them immediately. For this was the ancient Hebrew script, which the Samaritans still use (see B. Sanh. 21b). One side said, \u201cthe Shekel of Shekels,\u201d and the other, \u201cJerusalem the Holy.\u201d They said that the branch was the rod of Aaron and the jar was the jar of manna (16:33). We weighed it, and it came out to 10 pennyweights of sterling silver\u2014exactly Rashi\u2019s one-half ounce. I also saw a coin of the same kind and of half the weight, which must have been the coin used for the contributions that paid for the sacrifices. So this lends great support to Rashi\u2019s opinion.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA half-shekel. The Israelites voluntarily contributed plenty of the other things needed for the Tabernacle, but the only silver they had were the shekel and half-shekel coins that they needed to buy the things brought to them by the gentile merchants of the vicinity (Abarbanel). Twenty gerahs to the shekel. Rashi is correct about its weight; God has chanced it that I have in my own possession a \u201choly shekel\u201d coin weighing exactly one-half ounce (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 30:14
\nRASHI
\nFrom the age of twenty years up. This teaches that no one under 20 goes to the army or is counted among the men.
\nExodus 30:15\u201316
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why the insistence that \u201cthe rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less\u201d (v. 15)? Wouldn\u2019t it be praiseworthy to give more if one were able?
\nExodus 30:15
\nRASHI
\nAs expiation for your persons. So that you are not stricken by plague as a result of the census. Another reading: The phrase \u201cthe Lord\u2019s offering\u201d is used three times here, in vv. 13, 14, and 15, to point to the following three offerings of silver that were made: The first was \u201cthe 100 talents of silver\u201d (38:25) that were \u201cfor casting the sockets of the sanctuary and the sockets for the curtain, 100 sockets to the 100 talents, a talent a socket\u201d (38:27), which came from the original offerings for the Tabernacle, a half-shekel from each. The second, another offering based on a count, came from the census (described in Num. 1:2) that was taken when the Tabernacle was erected. At this point too everyone gave a half-shekel; these were to be used for purchasing the animals for the annual public sacrifices, which would be used \u201cas expiation for your persons.\u201d In both of these offerings, rich and poor are exactly equated. The third offering is that described in 35:24, \u201cEveryone who would make gifts of silver or copper brought them as gifts for the Lord.\u201d In this third offering they were not equal, but everyone contributed whatever his heart moved him to give.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe rich shall not pay more. Because this offering is given as expiation for your souls.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less. That is, both should bring exactly the specified amount. If the poor man gives less, he obviously transgresses a commandment. So, although we would naturally understand the first half of the sentence to mean that the rich man \u201cneed not\u201d pay more, in fact he too must actually be prohibited from doing so. The actual procedure was to turn this money over to the Temple in batches, so that those who had not yet paid, or whose payments had been lost, could be considered to have contributed as part of the whole. The poor man could certainly be counted as one who had not yet paid, and it could simply be declared that none of the money in the current batch was from an amount over one-half shekel paid by a rich man. But I have never seen this prohibition of giving too much in any of the works that contain lists of the 613 commandments.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less. If this were to happen, it would not be possible to figure out the total count from the number of shekels (Bekhor Shor). God did not want a crude man who had become rich to be able to give more than a distinguished person who had lost his wealth, giving him \u201cno end of scorn and provocation\u201d (Esther 1:18) (Abarbanel). As expiation for your persons. Notice that the expiation takes place before they are counted (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 30:16
\nRASHI
\nAssign it to the service of the Tent of Meeting. You learn that (though it is not mentioned explicitly) a commandment to count them was given when the contributions for the Tabernacle first began, after the Golden Calf incident, when they had been ravaged by plague: \u201cThen the Lord sent a plague upon the people, for what they did with the calf that Aaron made\u201d (32:35). It is like a flock of sheep, loved by its owner, that is struck by disease. When the disease abates, he tells the shepherd, \u201cPlease, count my sheep and find out how many of them are left,\u201d just to make clear how much he cares for them. It is impossible for the census implied here to be that of the Book of Numbers, which was commanded \u201con the first day of the second month\u201d (Num. 1:1), for the Tabernacle had already been erected \u201con the first day of the first month\u201d (40:2), and the silver sockets for the Tabernacle were made from the money collected through this first census; see 38:27. You learn, therefore, that there were two censuses: one at the beginning of the contributions, after the Day of Atonement in the first year of the wilderness period, and the other in Iyar of the second year, after the Tabernacle was erected. You may wonder how it is possible that Israel could number exactly 603,550 both times (38:26; Num. 1:46). After all, there must have been some 19-year-olds who were not counted in the first census but were old enough to be counted by the time of the second census. The solution to the problem is that, though the censuses were taken in two different years of the wilderness wandering (for which, according to B. RH 2b, we count \u201cthe first month,\u201d Nisan, as the beginning of the year), people\u2019s ages were counted according to the calendar of creation, beginning on the 1st of Tishrei, the \u201cseventh month.\u201d So the two censuses were carried out in separate years of the wandering, but in the same \u201cbirth year.\u201d The first came in Tishrei, after the Day of Atonement, when God had forgiven Israel, and the second on the 1st of Iyar. The sockets made with the silver from the first census were for \u201cthe service of the Tent of Meeting.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nThe expiation money. The money that \u201cmakes expiation for your persons\u201d (v. 15). To the service of the Tent of Meeting. \u201cThe 100 talents of silver were for casting the sockets of the sanctuary and the sockets for the curtain, 100 sockets to the 100 talents, a talent a socket\u201d (38:27).
\nIBN EZRA
\nAssign it to the service of the Tent of Meeting. How this was done is specified in 38:27\u201328. For all the sockets and hooks mentioned there came from this expiation money. Saadia asks: If this is so, what need was there for the freely given silver mentioned in 25:3, \u201cAnd these are the gifts that you shall accept from them: gold, silver, and copper\u201d? He explains that this silver was used for trumpets, snuffers, and basins (as we find in Ezra 1:9), even though in the Torah itself only silver trumpets are mentioned. But in my opinion, because 15 of the 16 items to be contributed were voluntary contributions, the text there did not complicate matters by explaining that the silver was an obligatory contribution. I have shown you a similar phenomenon in my comment to Gen. 35:26. A reminder. The sockets made from this silver will serve as a reminder, for the Tabernacle could not stand without the sockets made from these expiation payments. Our Sages have passed on the tradition that all Jews are commanded to give a half-shekel every year before the month of Nisan in expiation of their persons, and that if they do not give this, there will be a plague among them. But once they give it, they need not worry if their king decides to count them\u2014there is no need to give a second time. We have found a reliable witness to this tradition that the half-shekel contribution was annual in the question that Joash asked Jehoiada, \u201cWhy have you not seen to it that the Levites brought the tax imposed by Moses, the servant of the Lord, and the congregation of Israel from Judah and Jerusalem to the Tent of the Pact?\u2026 A proclamation was issued in Judah and Jerusalem to bring the tax imposed on Israel in the wilderness by Moses, the servant of God\u201d (2 Chron. 24:6,9). The money was needed to pay for the daily and additional sacrifices.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA reminder before the Lord. The annual contribution of one half-shekel will reminder the Lord of the half-shekels they contributed on this occasion, a reminder that will save them from all evil and serve them \u201cas expiation for their persons\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 30:17\u201319
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does the section about the laver and the stand follow the passage about the census and the half-shekel, rather than the description of the copper altar in 27:1\u20138, where it belongs?
\n\u2666 Why are Aaron and his sons commanded to wash twice, in vv. 19 and 20?
\nExodus 30:17
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord spoke to Moses. \u201cThe lord spoke\u201d again to introduce a new topic. Saadia thinks that the fact that the passage about the laver follows here implies that the conduit and the pool that supplied it were partially paid for by the collection of the half-shekel of silver. The same is true of the spices, which follow next, and the mention of Bezalel and the other sages in ch. 31 would similarly imply that their payment for teaching the priests how to perform the slaughtering and scooping of offerings also came from this silver, as did payment for the judges who decided when to put to death someone who profaned the Sabbath (31:14).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFor washing. For how could a priest who had been offering sacrifice enter the Tabernacle with his hands full of fat and blood? (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 30:18
\nRASHI
\nA laver. This is a kind of large basin with spigots to let out the water. A stand. As Onkelos translates it, a \u201cbase\u201d on which the laver can sit. For washing. It is the laver, not the stand, which is \u201cfor washing.\u201d The altar. This was \u201cthe altar of burnt offering,\u201d which was \u201cat the entrance of the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (40:29). The laver was pulled out just a bit so that it was \u201cbetween\u201d the Tent and the altar but not directly in between them, so that the altar, not the laver, would be \u201cat the entrance\u201d of the Tent. According to B. Zev. 59a, it was just south of the direct line between them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA laver of copper. Its form is well known. A stand. The word is known also from Gen. 40:13, \u201cIn three days Pharaoh will pardon you and restore you to your post.\u201d The stand of the laver was an object bigger than the laver on which it would rest. The ken of our verse has the same meaning as the mekonah of 1 Kings 7:43, describing the lavers and stands in Solomon\u2019s Temple. Its length and width are not specified, for its size was dependent on the number of copper mirrors from which it was made, as I shall explain in my comment to 38:8. It was set up in between the altar and the Tent, to make sure that no one would enter the Tent without washing. Between the Tent of Meeting and the altar. Obviously the altar was not right next to the Tent, but close to it. It makes no sense for the laver to be in a direct line with the incense altar and, therefore, with the Ark cover. So, although the text does not mention it, the laver was set slightly to one side.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA laver of copper and a stand of copper. These had no poles, but were transported on carts (Hizkuni). The \u201claver\u201d was a pipe bringing water from outside, which would run when the tap was opened (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 30:19
\nRASHI
\nTheir hands and feet. They would wash hand and foot simultaneously, as B. Zev. 19b explains: \u201cHow was the sanctification of the hands and feet performed? He would put his right hand on his right foot and his left hand on his left foot, and sanctify them.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nLet Aaron and his sons wash. But no one else may wash with water drawn from it. In 40:31 Moses too washes with this water; but he is priest to the High Priests, and served as priest even before Aaron did. In fact, Moses continued to use it as long as he lived. In water drawn from it. The words \u201cin water drawn\u201d are added to the translation on the basis of the tradition of our Sages, of blessed memory, that there were two pipes in the laver, so that the priests could wash \u201cfrom it.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLet Aaron and his sons wash their hands and feet. This washing was done out of respect for God. For anyone who comes to the king\u2019s table to serve, and to handle the king\u2019s food and wine, must wash his hands. For the hands are always occupied and have touched many things. The priests were also required to wash their feet, because they served barefoot, and because there are some people whose feet are hideously filthy. But according to the True interpretation, this is required because the hands and feet are the top and bottom of man. For the hands can be lifted high above his body, and the feet are beneath it, and the figure of a man with his hands stretched up in this fashion, with his whole body between hands and feet, symbolizes the 10 sefirot. As Sefer Yetzirah says of Abraham, \u201cHe made a covenant with him between the 10 fingers of his hands\u2014the covenant of the tongue\u2014and between the 10 toes of his feet\u2014the covenant of circumcision.\u201d So this washing was an act of holiness. In fact, instead of \u201cwash,\u201d Onkelos translates \u201csanctify.\u201d It is on the basis of this practice that our Sages established the washing of hands before prayer, so that the worshiper may prepare himself spiritually as if he were a priest, lifting his hands to bless the people. In water drawn from it. It is the washing that is the commandment here. The instructions about the laver were simply so that it would be on hand for this purpose; if the priests washed with water from some other source, it would not prevent them from serving, for the water\u2019s being drawn from the laver is not part of the commandment. On the Day of Atonement the High Priest washed his hands and feet with water from a dipper of gold that was made in his honor. We do learn from the laver that he must wash with water from a utensil.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAaron and his sons. We learn that the laver had to contain enough water for four to wash, because Aaron and his sons were four: Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar, and Phinehas (Gersonides). Wash their hands and feet. They went barefoot in the Temple so as to be continually in direct contact with it (Gersonides).
\nExodus 30:20\u201323
\nExodus 30:20
\nRASHI
\nWhen they enter the Tent of Meeting. Whether to offer the morning or evening incense, the blood of the bull that atones for the sins of the High Priest, or the goats that atone for idolatry. That they may not die. If they do not wash, they will die. For the Torah is sometimes written in implications, and from the statement that if they wash \u201cthey will not die\u201d (as it literally says) one can infer that if they do not wash, they will die. The altar. The altar outside the Tent. In this case they are not entering the Tent of Meeting, but are merely in the courtyard.
\nExodus 30:21
\nRASHI
\nThat they may not die. This repetition of the phrase applies to those who \u201capproach the altar\u201d (v. 20), as the translations make clear. The similar phrase in v. 20 applied only to those who \u201center the Tent of Meeting.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey shall wash their hands. This second command to wash applies to the descendants of Aaron\u2019s sons who will eventually replace them. Or perhaps it is to warn them that if they do not wash, they are dead men.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey shall wash their hands and feet. Since all priests had to do this, not just those who offered sacrifice, we learn that it was not simply a matter of cleanliness\u2014for the sacrificial offerings are pure and holy (Abarbanel). That they may not die. It goes without saying that any ritual they perform without having washed is invalid (Gersonides).
\nExodus 30:22
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord spoke to Moses. Again, this introduces a new topic.
\nExodus 30:23
\nRASHI
\nChoice spices. Literally, \u201chead spices\u201d\u2014the most highly regarded ones. Half as much\u2014two hundred and fifty. The phrase is reversed from the Hebrew order (see OJPS); it is to be read as follows: \u201cFragrant cinnamon\u2014half the amount: 250.\u201d If half the amount of cinnamon is 250, then the whole amount is 500, the same as the amount of myrrh. Why then is the half-amount mentioned? To indicate that it must be added in two batches with a little bit extra in each, and is not weighed precisely; see B. Ker. 5a. Fragrant cinnamon. Since cinnamon is the bark of a tree, sometimes it has a good aroma and taste, and other times it is just like a piece of wood. So not just cinnamon, but \u201cfragrant\u201d cinnamon is commanded. Aromatic cane. Again, there is cane that is not aromatic, so the aromatic variety had to be specified. In this case, the phrase \u201chalf the amount\u201d is omitted, so 250 is the full weight.
\nRASHBAM
\nChoice spices. Literally, \u201chead spices\u201d: the most highly regarded ones. A comparable phrase is used in Song 4:14. It seems to me that \u201cspices\u201d in general refer to those that grow on trees (\u201cAwake, O north wind, come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden, that its spices may spread,\u201d Song 4:16). But \u201chead\u201d spices must refer to kinds of sap, or to roots that are dug out of the ground. Solidified myrrh. Rather, \u201cchoice\u201d myrrh, just as the mor ov\u00e9r of Song 5:5 is the myrrh that is most highly regarded by all the international merchants. Half as much. Rather, \u201ceach half portion\u201d shall be 250; see B. Ker. 5a.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNext take. Some say (on the basis of this verse) that it was Moses who furnished the spices and herbs, but 35:28 says that it was the chieftains who provided them. The point of telling Moses himself to \u201ctake\u201d them was to prevent him from entrusting them to someone else, or to say that he might requisition them from anyone who had them. Choice spices. The Hebrew phrase\u2014literally \u201cspices of the head\u201d\u2014may either mean \u201cchoice spices\u201d (as it does in Song 4:14) or \u201cthe tops of each spice,\u201d which were the choicer parts. Solidified. This is exactly the opposite of what the word really means, which is much better expressed by OJPS \u201cflowing.\u201d Literally the word means \u201cfree\u201d (as in Lev. 25:10, \u201cProclaim liberty throughout the land\u201d), not worked into a solid form. Myrrh. Saadia took this word mor to mean \u201cmusk,\u201d basing himself on the phrase \u201ca bag of myrrh\u201d in Song 1:13; but what does he do with Song 5:1, \u201cI have plucked my myrrh and spice\u201d? For musk is not something that is \u201cplucked\u201d (not to mention Song 5:5, \u201cMy hands dripped myrrh\u201d); according to the suppliers, it is produced in the throat of a deer. The Spanish scholar Judah ibn Balaam says that mor can refer to two different substances. But in my opinion the word means the same in Hebrew as it does in Arabic and Latin\u2014myrrh. It is expensive because it is used to prevent garments from rotting away. Half as much\u2014two hundred and fifty. Our Sages say this means two halves of 250 each, giving an equal amount of every ingredient\u2014and I accept this. But I do not understand the purpose of mentioning it in halves. In Muslim countries, it is not the custom to add so much as a mustard seed to the precise weight, especially in formulating this kind of mixture. Fragrant cinnamon. According to Saadia, this is a moist wood. Aromatic cane. This \u201ccane\u201d is well known
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSolidified myrrh. The scholars, Maimonides among them, explain that what is meant here is not \u201cmyrrh\u201d but \u201cmusk.\u201d Ibn Ezra points out that musk is not picked from a tree (as mor is in Song 5:1), but is produced in the throat of a deer. But it may be that the musk is blood that coagulates in the abdomen of a deerlike animal known in India. In the hot days of summer, walking through the underbrush, it rubs the sac, depositing clumps of this blood that can be \u201cplucked\u201d from the tall grass. With regard to \u201cMy hands dripped myrrh\u201d (Song 5:5), the image is of a fragrance so intense that it drips like water. Some object that the blood of an impure animal could surely not be used for the sacred incense and oil. But this liquid that collects because of an overabundance of blood, and oozes from the animal while it is living, has no uncleanness and is not disgusting. The word dror does indeed mean \u201cfree\u201d (as it is used in Lev. 25:10), but what it means here is \u201cfree from impurities and admixtures.\u201d Others think it means that the musk must be obtained from an animal that is \u201cfree\u201d to walk about the beds of spices and enjoy itself, for the musk produced by the domesticated animal is sparse and not fragrant. Notwithstanding all this, it seems to me from a study of rabbinic literature that mor does not mean \u201cmusk,\u201d which is actually called musk in rabbinic Hebrew. (According to the Dictionary of Nathan b. Jehiel, it is called the same in Greek.) Meanwhile mor is described in ways that make clear that it cannot be musk. In fact, the word mor is related to comparable words in rabbinic Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Persian, Greek, and Latin, which all show that it means \u201cmyrrh,\u201d as the English translators have it. Cinnamon. Maimonides agrees with Rashi, and other scholars too hold that this item comes from a tree. But none of them are correct. For rabbinic literature tells us that it is something that goats eat in the land of Israel. Hence it must be some kind of pasture grass. In my opinion, it must be the fragrant straw called adbar in Arabic, which is used as camel fodder.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nChoice spices. Literally, \u201chead\u201d spices; but \u201chead\u201d may mean \u201ccount,\u201d as it does in v. 11. So this would mean \u201ctake the following quantities of spices\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Cinnamon \u2026 cane. These are the outer bark and the inner part of the same plant, which is why their combined amount matches the amount of myrrh and cassia (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 30:24\u201329
\nExodus 30:24
\nRASHI
\nCassia. This is the root of a grass; though the Biblical Hebrew word is different, rabbinic Hebrew calls it \u201ccassia,\u201d as does the English. A hin. Twelve logs. Olive oil. Our Sages disagree about how the oil was used. R. Meir says that the spice roots are boiled in this oil. Said R. Judah to him: There is barely enough oil even to rub on the spices! What they did was to soak them first in water, so that they would not simply absorb the oil. Then they would pour the oil over them until it absorbed the fragrance from the spices and retained it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nCassia. We know what this is from Saadia\u2019s commentary, but he gives no explanation for his comment. Hin. An Egyptian measure.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nCassia. This translation is correct, as is known both from Aramaic and from Arabic.
\nExodus 30:25
\nRASHI
\nA compound of ingredients. The word rokah, \u201ccompound,\u201d is a noun; as the accent shows, it is not roke\u2019ah, the verb. Expertly blended. \u201cBlending\u201d implies that they are mixed until one absorbs the aroma or the taste of the other. \u201cThe art of the perfumer\u201d (OJPS) is more literal in that it recognizes that roke\u2019ah is the term that refers to one who is expert in this process.
\nRASHBAM
\nA compound of ingredients. A straightforward reading would mean that they were crushed, placed in oil, and blended well. The Hebrew word used here refers to mixing, as in Job 41:23, \u201cHe makes the sea boil like a seething mixture.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nA compound of ingredients. The word rokah is actually a gerund, while its cognate, merkahat (which follows) is a noun. So a better translation would be: \u201ca compounding of ingredients.\u201d Expertly blended. They are simmered in water until only the oil is left.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMake of this a sacred anointing oil, a compound of ingredients expertly blended. The straightforward explanation of this is that the oil was made (as described by R. Judah in Y. Shek. 6:1) by first soaking the roots in water so that they would not absorb the oil. They would put the pounded spices in a container of water to which they would add a hin of olive oil. They would set this container on top of another container full of water, which they would put over a low fire of coals. They would simmer it until all the water had evaporated, leaving the oil to absorb all the fragrance. This is how perfumers always make fragrant oils. The text was able to say this tersely: \u201cexpertly blended\u201d\u2014blended in the way that the experts are known to do it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nExpertly blended. Because of its importance, it must look professionally done (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 30:26
\nRASHI
\nAnoint. Every instance of anointing is done in the form of a chi, except for the anointing of kings, which is done in the form of a crown.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWith it anoint the Tent of Meeting. That is, the Tabernacle and all that is in it, as explained in vv. 27\u201328. The Ark of the Pact. It is mentioned first because of its preeminence among the furnishings of the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 30:28
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThese herbs. NJPS translates according to the straightforward meaning\u2014but our Sages are always right (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 30:29
\nRASHI
\nThus shall you consecrate them. This anointing consecrates them to be most holy. And in what does their holiness consist? Whatever touches them shall be consecrated. Anything that is fit for use in the temple service, once it is put into a consecrated vessel, becomes intrinsically holy. It can be rendered unusable in various ways, but it cannot return to secular status. But anything that is not fit for such service cannot be consecrated in this way. B. Zev. 83b states this clearly with regard to the altar: \u201cSince 29:37 says that \u2018whatever touches the altar shall become consecrated,\u2019 I might think that it does not matter whether or not it was something fit for sacrifice. Since 29:38 adds, \u2018Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two yearling lambs,\u2019 I realize that only things that are fit for use in the first place can become consecrated.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nWhatever touches them shall be consecrated. Rather, \u201cwhoever touches them must (first) be consecrated.\u201d Once they have been anointed, anyone who is to touch them must first be purified.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhatever touches them shall be consecrated. The translations are correct, as we can learn from Hag. 2:12, \u201cIf a man is carrying sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy? In reply, the priests said, \u2018No.\u2019 \u201d If touched by the garment, the answer is \u201cNo\u201d; but they would if touched by the flesh itself.
\nExodus 30:30\u201334
\nExodus 30:30
\nRASHI
\nYou shall anoint. The Aramaic version always translates the word \u201canoint\u201d (in connection with priests and kings) as \u201cmagnify.\u201d Indeed, the only purpose of anointing them is as a mark of greatness, for the Great King established this as the ritual of dedication to a high position. But in the case of other anointings, such as that of the bread in 29:2, and Amos\u2019 comment, \u201cThey drink straight from the wine bowls and anoint themselves with the choicest oils\u201d (Amos 6:6), the Aramaic translates the Hebrew literally.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAnd his sons. But no one else.
\nExodus 30:31
\nRASHI
\nThis shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages. Our Sages interpret this phrase to mean that the entire amount of oil survives forever, even to the World To Come. For literally the text reads, \u201cThe sacred anointing oil shall be this to Me.\u201d Since the numeric value of the Hebrew word zeh, \u201cthis,\u201d is 12, the implication is that the amount of oil will remain a constant 12 logs \u201cthroughout the ages.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThis shall be an anointing oil sacred to me. Whenever it is necessary to sanctify the priests, they shall make an oil like this one.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThis shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages. This batch made by Moses. For v. 33 prohibits anyone else from making it\u2014not just \u201cin the same proportions,\u201d as with the incense (v. 37), but at all. Since King Josiah hid the anointing oil, the Second Temple had no anointed priests (Gersonides).
\nExodus 30:32
\nRASHI
\nIt must not be rubbed on any person\u2019s body. More precisely: \u201cNo person shall rub it on his body\u201d (the verb is active, not passive). You must not make anything like it in the same proportions. With exactly the same amount of ingredients per hin of oil. But with a bit more or less, it is permissible. Even if something like it is made with the exact same proportions, one who rubs it on his body is not guilty of a violation \u2014only the one who compounds it is. The word translated \u201cproportions\u201d is the same used in 5:8, \u201cImpose upon them the same quota of bricks as they have been making heretofore.\u201d And see also v. 37.
\nRASHBAM
\nIn the same proportions. With the same ratio of spices as given here.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt must not be rubbed. For pleasure, as in Dan. 10:3, \u201cI did not rub oil on myself until the three weeks [of mourning] were over.\u201d It was a Jewish custom for both men and women to rub oil on themselves. Not even priests may do so with this oil, for the anointing of the priests was specifically done by pouring oil on the head and spreading it from there. The verb yisakh would seem to be passive, though it is vocalized with a yud instead of a vav. But perhaps our verb is not from the root \u05e1\u05d5\u05da, as in Daniel, but \u05d9\u05e1\u05da. In the same proportions. With the same weights of the same spices. It is sacred, so it is to be held sacred by you.
\nExodus 30:33
\nRASHI
\nWhoever puts any of it. Of the original oil. On a layman. Not for the purpose of anointing a priest or king.
\nRASHBAM
\nPuts any of it. Of the batch of oil prepared by Moses.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA layman. That is, anyone who is not of Aaron\u2019s family. NJPS agrees with the viewpoint of Saadia, who understands the word to refer to anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron, except for the family of David. But there is no evidence in the text for this view, which he accepts only because Solomon was anointed with this oil. But that was an ad hoc measure legitimized by one of the prophets, Nathan or Gad.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA layman. See the comments of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. But v. 31 says, \u201cThis shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages\u201d\u2014to Me, not to Aaron and his sons, a wording that is used with regard to the \u201csacral vestments\u201d in 29:29. Unlike the vestments, the oil is sacred \u201cto Me,\u201d to anoint with it whomever I choose. But it must not be put on a \u201cstranger\u201d (OJPS), that is, one who is not Mine. So the kings and the high priests, God\u2019s anointed ones, were all anointed with it. \u201cI have found David, My servant: anointed him with My sacred oil\u201d (Ps. 89:21). But it is not to be rubbed (v. 32) on anyone\u2019s body, priest, king, or layman. When used at all, it is to be used for anointing, by pouring it on the head of the anointed person. But even for him it cannot be used simply as an after-bath lotion. The text says all this quite straightforwardly. Note that our Sages, based on v. 32, prohibit the High Priest from taking anointing oil from his head and rubbing it on himself.
\nExodus 30:34
\nRASHI
\nStacte. This is elsewhere called \u201cbalm.\u201d Since it is the sap that \u201cdrips,\u201d notef, from the balsam tree, it is called by the word used here, nataf. It comes from what we would call a \u201cgum tree,\u201d and the sap is referred to as \u201ctheriac.\u201d Onycha. This is a fragrant root that is smooth and shiny like horn, which in fact it is called in rabbinic Hebrew. Onkelos translated it this way, as well. Galbanum. This is an aromatic with an unpleasant aroma. The text includes it in the recipe for the incense to teach us that we should not think it beneath us to have sinners join us when we are making our prayers and supplications. These herbs. Rather, other herbs (see OJPS). Pure frankincense. From this text our Sages learned that 11 spices were mentioned to Moses at Sinai: The first use of the word \u201cherbs,\u201d as a plural, counts for two; stacte, onycha, and galbanum make three more; the repetition of the word \u201cherbs\u201d doubles the previous amount, making 10; and frankincense makes 11. And what were they? Balm, horn, galbanum, frankincense, myrrh, cassia, spikenard, saffron, costus, aromatic peel, and cinnamon. The \u201clye obtained from leeks\u201d mentioned in connection with these spices on B. Ker. 6a was not part of the compound, but was used to whiten the horn for appearance\u2019s sake. Let there be an equal part of each. Of the four mentioned explicitly here. B. Ker. 6a teaches that there should be 70 minas of each. The literal phrase used here, bad b\u2019vad, appears to me to mean \u201cone by one\u201d\u2014the unusual word for \u201cone,\u201d bad, being a shortened form of levad, \u201calone.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nHerbs. I have already explained this word. These herbs together with pure frankincense. NJPS has added \u201cthese\u201d to make the syntax clear. According to the straightforward reading, frankincense is therefore not an \u201cherb.\u201d The Bible will frequently introduce a general term, specify the particular things it means, and sum them up by again using the general term. For example, in Gen. 9:12\u201317, God tells Noah, \u201cThis is the sign that I set for the covenant between Me and you, and every living creature with you, for all ages to come\u201d; He then describes the rainbow in detail, and concludes, \u201cThat shall be the sign of the covenant that I have established between Me and all flesh that is on earth.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nTake. See my comment to v. 23. These herbs. There are two possibilities for what this means. One is that of NJPS, where \u201cthese herbs\u201d is simply a general comment summing up the three particular herbs just mentioned. In this case an equal part of each would refer to four different kinds. The second possibility, following tradition, is that \u201csweet spices\u201d implies two (unidentified) spices; the four that are specifically mentioned make six; and the repetition of \u201cherbs\u201d (\u201csweet spices\u201d in OJPS) is to be understood in the traditional way. The second interpretation has trustworthy witnesses, and it is the truth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThese herbs. NJPS follows the first possibility given by Ibn Ezra with regard to the syntax here. But the biblical text does not repeat words in this way except when the topic is broken by a long interruption, or to indicate that such-and-such a thing is always so. The truth lies with our Sages, that these \u201csweet spices\u201d (OJPS) are others than the ones just mentioned. Rashi counts 11 spices here, but one has to wonder why the text does not mention them explicitly. Perhaps the extra \u201csweet spices\u201d are not mentioned specifically because it is only these four that cause the smoke from the cloud of incense to rise, and the number and proportions of the other spices, added to give the smoke a sweet fragrance, did not need to be specified. Like the anointing oil, the incense was to be \u201cexpertly blended\u201d (v. 35). God relied on their expertise to know which other spices to add. This incense was to be put before the Ark of the Pact so that its smoke might rise, as is customary with kings. It may be that the exact recipe for the incense was given orally to Moses on Mount Sinai as that for the anointing oil was (even though the text leaves it in the hands of the perfumers); or perhaps for the incense God really did not care what they did and actually did leave it up to the experts. For Song of Songs Rabbah tells us that our Sages \u201cinvestigated\u201d and found the 11-spice recipe to be the best. It seems to me that the Sages must have chosen some of the spices they did because they are mentioned in the Song of Songs. In any case, the Hebrew words samim (\u201cherbs\u201d) and besamim (\u201cspices\u201d) may really mean the same thing; see my comment to 25:6. Stacte. This is balm, the sap that drips from the balsam tree, as Rashi says. But \u201ctheriac\u201d is not a single spice; rather it is a blend of many ingredients: leaven, honey, and a variety of insect parts (which certainly could not go into the incense). I do not know whether this is a copyist\u2019s error, or whether someone gave Rashi false information.
\nExodus 30:35\u201336
\nExodus 30:35
\nRASHI
\nRefined. Rather, as Onkelos translates it, \u201cmixed.\u201d He should mix the powders together very well. I think malah, \u201csailor,\u201d comes from the same root as this word memulah. For sailors mix the water with their oars when they propel the boat just as one beats eggs with a spoon to incorporate the water. Anything that one wants to mix extremely well must similarly be turned over again and again with the finger or with a spoon.
\nRASHBAM
\nRefined. Rather, \u201cmixed.\u201d The word memulah, used here, is related to malah, \u201csailor,\u201d since sailors mix the water with their oars as they go.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRefined, pure. Rather, \u201cseasoned with pure salt\u201d (compare OJPS), like Dead Sea salt\u2014salt that does not come from somewhere foul. Others say that the first word refers to salt that is finely ground.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nRefined. Rather, \u201csalted\u201d with Dead Sea salt. Onkelos, however, translates it as \u201cmixed.\u201d What he means is that the spices should be \u201crubbed out\u201d\u2014ground so fine, and mixed so well together, that the individual spices are no longer recognizable. This verb malah is found with a similar meaning in Isa. 51:6, \u201cThough the heavens should melt away like smoke.\u201d (Admittedly, in this verse niml\u2019hu may simply be a form of nimhu, \u201cbe erased,\u201d since this phenomenon is known to occur.) Rashi thinks sailors are called malahim because they \u201cmix\u201d the water with their oars, but in my opinion they are so called because they know whether the sea is sweet or salt, melah. That is, they know when the sea will be sweet and pleasant to voyagers, or bad and bitter to them. In any case, it is not oarsmen who are called malahim, but the expert sailors, the \u201cold salts.\u201d Ezek. 27:29 distinguishes three different kinds of seamen: \u201cAll the oarsmen and mariners, all the pilots of the sea.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nRefined. NJPS is correct; Ezek. 16:4, properly understood, uses the word the same way (Hizkuni). Pure. That is, free of any impurities. This was not necessary with the spices used for the anointing oil, since after the oil was prepared the spices did not remain in it (Sforno).
\nExodus 30:36
\nRASHI
\nPut some before the Pact in the Tent of Meeting. That is, burn some of this incense every day on the inner altar in the Tent of Meeting. Where I will meet with you. All the occasions that I set to speak with you, I set them for that place.
\nRASHBAM
\nBeat some of it into powder. To fulfill what the High Priest is commanded to do on the Day of Atonement: \u201ctake \u2026 two handfuls of finely ground aromatic incense, and bring this behind the curtain\u201d (Lev. 16:12).
\nIBN EZRA
\nPut some before the Pact. That is, on the incense altar.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPut some before the Pact in the Tent of Meeting. Perhaps this is to be understood: Before the Pact, in the Holy of Holies, on the Day of Atonement, and in the Tent of Meeting, the rest of the Tabernacle, every day. Or perhaps it means on the inner altar, which according to 40:5 is to be placed \u201cbefore the Ark of the Pact.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhere I will meet with you. For the purpose of the incense was to bring down the divine flow of prophecy onto our master Moses (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 30:37\u201331:3
\nExodus 30:37
\nRASHI
\nIt shall be held by you sacred to the Lord. You must not make it except for My sake.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBut when you make this incense. The verb is singular because it refers specifically to Moses. You must not make any. This time the verb is plural; it refers to all the Israelites.
\nExodus 30:38
\nRASHI
\nTo smell of it. But you may make it, at your expense, for public use.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo smell of it. According to Saadia, it is forbidden for laymen to smell the incense being offered in the Temple, and the priest must warn them not to do this. As a matter of tradition, this is correct. But the text does not say that it is forbidden to smell of the anointing oil\u2014it is only forbidden to make oil like it in order to smell of it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhoever makes any like it \u2026 shall be cut off. V. 33 says the same about the sacred anointing oil. \u201cIt is not right for someone else to use the king\u2019s scepter.\u201d The same principle explains the prohibition of wearing a mixture of wool and linen, since this is what the priestly garments were made of (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 31:2
\nRASHI
\nI have singled out by name. Literally, \u201cI have called by name\u201d (OJPS)\u2014I have called him to do My work.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI have singled out by name Bezalel. To be singled out in this way is a high honor, as when one of King Ahasuerus\u2019 concubines \u201cwould be summoned by name\u201d (Esther 2:14). I have discussed the story that Bezalel was not even 13 years old when he built the Tabernacle in my comment to 24:14.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSee, I have singled out by name Bezalel. In 35:30, Moses will repeat this remark to the Israelites. In Egypt, the Israelites were so ground down by laboring with bricks and mortar that they learned nothing of how to work with gold, silver, and precious stones\u2014they never even saw such things. It is a miracle that God found anyone among them who knew all the things Bezalel did. For even among those who have the opportunity to study one does not find a man who is expert in all of the different crafts simultaneously. Even the most skillful of the Israelites, spending all day with his hands in clay and mud, would lose the ability to do delicate, beautiful work. But Bezalel not only was expert in all crafts, but had the wisdom to understand the mystery of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, and everything that they symbolized. That is why God told Moses, \u201cSee!\u201d He wanted him to see what a miracle it was, and to understand that it was God who had \u201cendowed him\u201d (v. 3) with the ability to make the Tabernacle. For it had always been God\u2019s will to make the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and \u201cHe who announced the generations from the start\u201d (Isa. 41:4) created Bezalel for His own glory. \u201cBefore I created you in the womb, I selected you\u201d (Jer. 1:5). Exodus Rabbah has the following midrash: God showed Moses the Book of Adam, and told him, \u201cAt the very first moment of creation, I prepared one person for every task, as the Torah says, \u2018I have singled out by name Bezalel.\u2019 \u201d This is what I have explained. Our Sages also said, \u201cBezalel knew the combinations of letters by which heaven and earth were created.\u201d For the Tabernacle symbolized the universe, and it was Bezalel who knew and understood this mystery.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI have singled out by name Bezalel. I have chosen Bezalel and Oholiab (v. 6); you choose the experts who will help them (Bekhor Shor). I think many Israelites must have felt capable of doing the work of the Tabernacle, and there were factions supporting the different candidates. Moses knew that Bezalel was superior, but\u2014since Bezalel was his sister Miriam\u2019s grandson\u2014was afraid to appoint him until God instructed him to do so (Abarbanel). The work must be done by someone specifically chosen by God, who will work with the intent to fulfill the purpose of the commandment to make the Tabernacle (Sforno).
\nExodus 31:3
\nRASHI
\nSkill. OJPS \u201cwisdom.\u201d What one learns by hearing it from others. Ability. OJPS \u201cunderstanding.\u201d What one understands by thinking about what one has learned. Knowledge. The holy spirit.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSkill, ability, and knowledge. He had great skill, and knew all sorts of hidden mysteries. For only one who was extremely skillful was capable of constructing the Holy of Holies, and Bezalel understood mathematics, biology, physics, and metaphysics far beyond anyone else of his generation. He so understood the mystery of the Tabernacle that he understood the mystery of its thickness. This too teaches us that he was not a boy, for when could a boy have learned all this knowledge? Solomon, who tradition says was 12 when he became king, does not prove the contrary. For we are not told how long he reigned, and therefore do not know how old he was when he became king. Moreover, he asked God for, and possessed, only \u201can understanding mind to judge Your people\u201d (1 Kings 3:9), whereas Bezalel possessed wisdom of all kinds. In my commentary to Proverbs I have explained the difference between wisdom, understanding, and knowledge (as OJPS translates these words). Hokhmah (or, as the Arab philosophers describe it, \u201ccalculation\u201d) resides in the back part of the brain, tevunah (\u201cintrospection\u201d) in the middle of the brain, and da\u2019at (\u201cimagination\u201d) in the front of the brain, next to the sense receptors. In every kind of craft. There are those who have wisdom of every kind but cannot actually do any kind of work successfully. But Bezalel could do this. NJPS omits the \u201cand\u201d that makes this point clear; see OJPS \u201cand in all manner of workmanship.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI have endowed him with a divine spirit. As I have discussed in my book Wars of the lord, this verse shows us that any wisdom we acquire flows to us from God, may He be exalted; this goes even for practical skills (Gersonides). Knowledge in every kind of craft. Ordinarily one who reaches the highest level of intellect is lacking in practical knowledge; one finds that scholars who isolate themselves in study are often fools in political matters. So it was quite miraculous that Bezalel had both intellectual and practical wisdom (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 31:4\u201310
\nExodus 31:4
\nRASHI
\nTo make designs. NJPS has the sense, though OJPS is more literal. It refers to weaving.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo make designs. Literally, \u201cto think thoughts\u201d\u2014to create new things out of his imagination, by the power of his thought, in gold, silver, and copper.
\nExodus 31:5
\nRASHI
\nTo cut stones \u2026 to carve wood. Literally, \u201cstone workmanship \u2026 wood workmanship.\u201d The translations follow Onkelos in specifying a particular word for each. For setting. Literally, \u201cfor filling\u201d: to cut the stones so that they exactly fit their setting.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo cut stones. \u201cTo cut\u201d is a generalized skill, for the word can be applied to stone or to wood. To carve wood. The Hebrew word is the same as to \u201ccut\u201d stones. He had the ability to make anything necessary out of acacia wood. To work in every kind of craft. According to 35:35, this catchall phrase would include embroidery and weaving.
\nExodus 31:6
\nRASHI
\nI have also granted skill to all who are skillful. All others among you who are skillful.
\nRASHBAM
\nI have also granted skill to all who are skillful. All the skillful people who will come to make the Tabernacle\u2014it is I who have granted them skill, so that they may make everything that I have commanded you.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI have assigned to him Oholiab. For Oholiab, though highly skilled, was not Bezalel\u2019s equal in wisdom. Saadia thinks that Bezalel and Oholiab were chosen because their two tribes, Judah and Dan, are both compared to lions, and the Temple, like a lion, was wide in front and narrow in back. But this is midrash. What is the point in asking why these two were chosen? There was no one else comparable in their generation. Besides, they built the Tabernacle (which was equal in size front and back), not the Temple. I have also granted skill to all who are skillful. For one finds people who have the innate talent to solve complex geometrical problems without ever having studied geometry.
\nExodus 31:7
\nRASHI
\nThe Ark for the Pact. The Ark for keeping the tablets of the Pact.
\nExodus 31:8
\nRASHI
\nThe pure lampstand. \u201cPure\u201d because it is made out of pure gold (25:31).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe pure lampstand. Only the lampstand (here) and the table (in Lev. 24:6) are called \u201cpure,\u201d of all the furnishings of the Tabernacle\u2014for no blood ever came in contact with them (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 31:10
\nRASHI
\nThe service vestments. I think that a straightforward reading of the verse cannot possibly understand this phrase to refer to \u201cthe priestly vestments,\u201d since the continuation of the verse, which mentions the vestments, is introduced by the Hebrew word for \u201cand\u201d (omitted by NJPS, but see OJPS). The \u201cservice\u201d vestments must be the blue, purple, and crimson cloths mentioned in Num. 4:8,12\u201313 in connection with the storage of the Tabernacle and its utensils for transport. My explanation is supported by 39:1, where \u201cthe blue, purple, and crimson yarns\u201d are mentioned explicitly in connection with the service vestments\u2014but linen is not mentioned. And you will find that not one of the priestly vestments includes purple or crimson yarn but not linen. The translation \u201cservice\u201d follows Onkelos\u2019s Aramaic translation. There is no Biblical Hebrew root that could give it this meaning, so I think it must be an Aramaic word related to those used to translate \u201cgrating\u201d (27:4) and \u201changings\u201d (27:9), both of which were woven in an open, lacelike fashion.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe service vestments. These were a kind of hanging overlaid upon the Ark, the table, and the lampstand: \u201cThey shall lay a covering of dolphin skin over [the Ark] and spread a cloth of pure blue on top\u201d (Num. 4:6); \u201cThey shall remove the ashes from the copper altar and spread a purple cloth over it\u201d (Num. 4:13); \u201cThey shall spread over [the table] a crimson cloth which they shall cover with a covering of dolphin skin\u201d (Num. 4:8). These \u201cvestments\u201d were of latticework.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe service vestments. These were the cloths with which the sacred vessels were covered when the Ark was transported. In fact, the phrase might possibly be translated \u201cthe traveling cloths.\u201d The Hebrew word, serad, is at least somewhat comparable to sarid, which refers to one who flees. As 39:1 explains, \u201cOf the blue, purple, and crimson yams they also made the service vestments\u201d\u2014each of a single color of yarn; see Num. 4:5\u201314.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe service vestments. I do not know why these vestments were not commanded with all the rest of the things for the Tabernacle, including the vestments for Aaron and his sons. Moses should have been given instructions to \u201cmake a cloth of pure blue to cover the Ark,\u201d and so forth. But they are simply included now among the instructions Moses is to give to those who do the actual work. Perhaps the nature of these cloths was not important, and was left to their discretion, so that they might have made them all alike instead of in blue, purple, and crimson. Once they made them as they did, however, it was God who decreed that the blue cloth should be for the Ark, the purple one for the altar, and the crimson one for the table. But it is certainly not fitting that a cloth meant to cover something should be made full of holes, as Rashi describes them. Ibn Ezra derives the word, correctly, from sarid, \u201cone who escapes,\u201d because each was made of a single color of yarn, having \u201cescaped\u201d from the combination thread used for all the other things made of cloth.
\nSo far I have followed Rashi\u2019s understanding that these are the cloths mentioned in Numbers 4. \u201cYet all this means nothing to me\u201d (Esther 5:13). What would be the point of the Holy One telling Moses to make lacy cloths, or cloths of a single type of yarn, without telling him how many of them to make\u20142 or 100\u2014and how long and wide they were to be, and what they were for?! What God tells Moses here is simply incomprehensible. And why is every mention of them followed by a mention of Aaron\u2019s vestments? Certainly to call them \u201cthe service vestments for officiating in the sanctuary\u201d (39:1) cannot refer to portage outside the sanctuary. Moreover, everything in this section is for \u201cthe Tent of Meeting\u201d (v. 7). It appears from the words of our Sages that these \u201cservice vestments\u201d are indeed the priestly garments themselves (see B. Yoma 72a\u2013b). The term is therefore to be explained not as \u201cgarments of one material,\u201d but as \u201cunique garments,\u201d the garments that make the one member of the people \u201cwho is exalted above his fellows\u201d (Lev. 21:10) unique, in short, Aaron\u2019s garments. They are called by this name to emphasize that only a single person in each generation may wear them\u2014Aaron in his lifetime, and after him the one who would be anointed with the sacred oil and ordained to wear these garments. The text always refers to Aaron\u2019s garments in terms of the highest honor. Essentially, they are royal garments. The repetition of Aaron\u2019s \u201cvestments\u201d after each mention of them is to add further explanation. In our passage, the point is to say that they are both unique and holy. Only one person may wear them, and only when he comes to serve in the holy sanctuary.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe service vestments. The word serad is related to sarid, \u201can escapee\u201d; these coverings were made from the material that \u201cescaped,\u201d being left over from the tent cloths and the priest\u2019s garments (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 31:11\u201313
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why must the Israelites be told to \u201ckeep My sabbaths\u201d (v. 13) here as part of the instructions about the Tabernacle, when the Sabbath commandment is one of the Ten Commandments and has already been reiterated in 23:12?
\n\u2666 What is the purpose of making the expression \u201cMy sabbaths\u201d plural?
\n\u2666 Why must the Sabbath be commanded four times in this one short section, in vv. 13, 14, 15, and 16?
\nExodus 31:11
\nRASHI
\nThe aromatic incense for the sanctuary. It is the incense alone that is \u201cfor the sanctuary,\u201d not the anointing oil.
\nExodus 31:12
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord said to Moses. The distinction between 1 and the other numbers is discussed in one section (omitted in this edition) of the long essay on God\u2019s name at 3:13\u201315. NJPS omits \u201csaying\u201d (OJPS). Literally the word means \u201cto say,\u201d and the meaning of the idiom is, \u201cHe spoke in order to say to him.\u201d But here it means, \u201cHe said to him \u2018to say\u2019 this to Israel.\u201d
\nExodus 31:13
\nRASHI
\nSpeak to the Israelite people. Literally, \u201cyou\u201d speak to the Israelite people (see OJPS). Even though I have already instructed you to command them about the construction of the Tabernacle, do not think that you might just as well cancel the Sabbath in order to get it done. Nevertheless, you must keep My sabbaths. Even though you are anxious to finish the work, do not cancel the Sabbath because of it. From a legal perspective, every use of \u201cnevertheless\u201d or \u201conly\u201d is restrictive; in this case, \u201cnevertheless\u201d excludes the Sabbath from the construction of the Tabernacle. For this is a sign between Me and you. The fact that I have bequeathed My day of rest for you to rest on is a great sign between us that I have chosen you. That you may know. The literal Hebrew says only \u201cto know.\u201d What it means is \u201cthat the other nations may know\u201d that I the Lord have consecrated you.
\nRASHBAM
\nNevertheless, you must keep My sabbaths. Even the construction of the Tabernacle must not be done on the Sabbath. For this is a sign. That you are resting, like Me, because you are My people.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNevertheless. Having commanded them to do God\u2019s work, the text insists that, nevertheless, they must not do it on the Sabbath. Rather, they must keep every Sabbath and not do even the holy work on them. My sabbaths. One of our great Sages says that, since only the first Sabbath of creation can literally be called God\u2019s, the plural here must mean that the world will last 6,000 years, and the seventh millennium will be God\u2019s \u201csabbath.\u201d But in fact the sabbatical year is a sabbath, and there are many Sabbaths throughout each year. For this is a sign. Saadia says that one can only be identified as a Jew through keeping the Sabbath\u2014closing one\u2019s business if one lives in the city; avoiding travel if one is on the road. Similarly, Gen. 17:11 calls circumcision \u201ca sign,\u201d and one who sees that a man\u2019s penis is circumcised recognizes that he is a Jew. That you may know that I the Lord have consecrated you. This is an allusion to the fact that one must not merely rest from work, but must also learn Torah every Sabbath. As the husband of the Shunammite woman asks her, when she sets off to see Elisha, \u201cWhy are you going to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath\u201d (2 Kings 4:23). For on the Sabbath both men and women would go to prophets and sages to hear words of Torah. The sabbatical year proves it. Not only does the land rest, but \u201cevery seventh year, the year set for remission, at the Feast of Booths, you shall read this Teaching aloud in the presence of all Israel, that they may hear and learn\u201d (Deut. 31:10\u201312).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNevertheless. Rashi\u2019s comment makes no sense to me. The rabbinic interpretation of \u201cnevertheless\u201d and \u201conly\u201d always limits the commandment that follows them, not some other commandment. If \u201cnevertheless\u201d were to be interpreted in connection with the Tabernacle, it would have to mean that it would be permissible to work on the Tabernacle, Sabbath notwithstanding. What it really means is that circumcision, saving a life, and so forth are permissible \u201ceven\u201d on the Sabbath, as our Sages say (B. Yoma 85b). Moreover, we know that work on the Tabernacle does not supersede the Sabbath from the very fact that the Sabbath command is reemphasized here. A straightforward reading of the passage would be: Build the Tent of Meeting, but always keep My Sabbaths. You must keep My sabbaths. \u201cSabbaths\u201d is plural here to include all the Sabbaths of the year. But according to the True interpretation, this commandment involves the mystery of \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d (20:8) and \u201cObserve the sabbath day\u201d (Deut. 5:12) to which I have alluded in my comment to 20:8, and that is the reason \u201cSabbaths\u201d is plural. But the text continues to say of both of them\u2014the Sabbath in general\u2014that this is a sign between Me and you \u2026 that you may know.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNevertheless, you must keep My sabbaths. The building of the Tabernacle does not override the requirement to rest on the Sabbath. It is from this verse that we learn that the categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath are those tasks that were necessary to make the Tabernacle (Bekhor Shor). The terms \u201csabbaths\u201d is inclusive, covering both Sabbath and festivals, because the essence of both is rest from work. The reason the building of the Tabernacle (unlike the offering of sacrifice) does not supersede the Sabbath is that no time limit was set for its completion (Gersonides). Nahmanides\u2019 criticism of Rashi is unfounded. \u201cNevertheless\u201d excludes the subject that comes before it; to say that it excludes the subject to which it is connected is a rabbinic interpretation. Rashi\u2019s interpretation of the verse is the straightforward one. \u201cSabbaths\u201d is plural in reference both to the material Sabbath and to the spiritual Sabbath of eternal rest from all physical cares (Abarbanel). For this is a sign between Me and you. This is a reference to the material Sabbath (Abarbanel). So that if you violate the Sabbath, there is no point in your making a Tabernacle for Me to dwell in (Sforno).
\nExodus 31:14\u201315
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the Sabbath a sign \u201cthat I the Lord have consecrated you\u201d (V. 13)? It is the purity laws that are a sign of consecration; the Sabbath teaches about creation, not consecration!
\n\u2666 How can we reconcile v. 14, which says both that anyone who profanes the Sabbath \u201cshall be put to death\u201d\u2014which implies stoning\u2014and that anyone who works on the Sabbath \u201cshall be cut off from among his kin\u201d\u2014which implies death at the hands of heaven?
\n\u2666 If the purpose of the Sabbath commandment is to enforce rest on the seventh day, why is it always accompanied (here, v. 15) by the instruction to work on the other six days?
\nExodus 31:14
\nRASHI
\nHe who profanes it. Not one who profanes it, but one who acts during the sacredness of the Sabbath in a profane, that is, secular, fashion. Shall be put to death. If he has been warned not to profane the Sabbath and there are witnesses that he then did so. That person shall be cut off. If he has not been warned.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall keep the sabbath. It must be a holy day, on which you do no necessary work. For v. 13 refers only to the work of the Tabernacle. But Saadia thinks \u201ckeeping\u201d the Sabbath refers to adding nonsacred time to the Sabbath at its beginning and its end. For something can only be \u201ckept\u201d if it is kept inside something else. He who profanes it. All of those who profane it. Shall be put to death. This applies when the Sabbath was profaned in public. Whoever does work on it in private, that person shall be cut off. But Saadia understands the verse to mean that if the Sabbath violator is not put to death by a court, he will be cut off \u201cat the hands of heaven.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhoever does work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his kin. For \u201cthe dust returns to the ground as it was, and the soul returns to God Who bestowed it\u201d (Eccles. 12:7). But one who cuts his soul off from unification with God on the Sabbath deserves to be \u201ccut off\u201d from his kin.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt is holy for you. This is a reference to the spiritual Sabbath (Abarbanel). He who profanes it shall be put to death. By stoning, as we learn from Num. 15:32\u201335, the incident of the man gathering wood on the sabbath day (Gersonides). That person shall be cut off from his kin. From the category of those souls of his people who will have eternal life (Sforno).
\nExodus 31:15
\nRASHI
\nA sabbath of complete rest. Not a fleeting rest, but one that is relaxing. Holy to the Lord. Its sacred character must be kept for My sake and at My command.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA sabbath of complete rest. The meaning of this is specified elsewhere. The repetition here is necessary to make clear what constitutes profanation of the Sabbath, which is whoever does work on the sabbath day, whether it is God\u2019s work or man\u2019s. As far as the specific categories of prohibited work, these we know from tradition. Sabbath. The Hebrew word shabbat is grammatically a difficult one. In my opinion, the tav at the end is the feminine ending, and the tav of the root \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea, which ought to be there, is missing, because the two are assimilated together. (This occurs in the feminine form of the word ahat, \u201cone,\u201d as well as in the word mesharat of 1 Kings 1:15.) Anyway, the noun is feminine, though we find it treated as masculine in Num. 28:10 and Isa. 56:2.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord. For the Sabbath is the foundation of the world.
\nExodus 31:16\u201318
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are the Israelites commanded in the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments to \u201cremember\u201d the Sabbath, while here (v. 16), as in the Deuteronomy version of the Ten Commandments, they are commanded to \u201ckeep\u201d it?
\nExodus 31:16\u201317
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA covenant for all time \u2026 a sign between Me and the people of Israel. It is \u201can eternal covenant,\u201d a sign that the Sabbath is on the seventh day, and both the seventh day and the Sabbath are signs \u201cfor all time.\u201d He ceased from work and was refreshed. This refers to the \u201cextra soul\u201d that one acquires on the Sabbath, which comes from the Foundation of the World, \u201cIn whose hand is every living soul\u201d (Job 12:10). Now you have the whole Sabbath passage explained. I have already alluded to this subject in my comment to 20:8. One who is understanding will comprehend.
\nExodus 31:16
\nIBN EZRA
\nObserving the sabbath. Literally, \u201cto do the Sabbath.\u201d Resting, of course, is not something that one \u201cdoes,\u201d for one must \u201cdo\u201d everything necessary for the Sabbath before it begins, so that one can rest\u2014e.g., preparing food, not setting out on a journey on Friday if there is a chance one could not complete the journey before the Sabbath, and so forth. So the verse is really saying that one must keep the Sabbath by \u201cdoing\u201d for it, not forgetting anything that might need to be done so that one can rest on the Sabbath.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Israelite people shall keep the sabbath. This is the fourth time in four verses that the Sabbath has been commanded. Nahmanides says that this passage is to be interpreted kabbalistically, but I have not been privileged to learn this. I can say that the prohibition of work on the Sabbath also includes the aspect of giving the person a period of quiet relaxation in which to study Torah (Abarbanel). The Israelite people shall keep the sabbath, in this world, observing the sabbath throughout the ages in the World To Come where it is always Sabbath (Sforno).
\nExodus 31:17
\nRASHI
\nRefreshed. As Onkelos translates it, \u201crested.\u201d The verb va-yinnafash comes from the same root as nefesh, \u201csoul, breath.\u201d One refreshes one\u2019s soul and catches one\u2019s breath when one relaxes from one\u2019s labor. Even the One who \u201cnever grows faint or weary\u201d (Isa. 40:28), and who performs all His actions by speech, had it written here that He had rested, in order to speak in language that the human ear could understand.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA sign for all time between Me and the people of Israel. V. 13 has already mentioned the sign; now its significance is explained. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth. So anyone who does work on the Sabbath is denying the work of creation. Some interpret the phrase \u201ca sign for all time\u201d as \u201ca sign about the world\u201d\u2014it is a sign that the world was created. But I have searched the entire Bible and have not found the word olam with a meaning other than the one of \u201call time.\u201d The word olam means \u201cworld\u201d only in rabbinic Hebrew. Refreshed. Literally, \u201cresouled,\u201d like one who feels so tired that he needs rest to restore his soul. Admittedly, God \u201cnever grows faint or weary\u201d (Isa. 40:28), but the Torah speaks here in human terms so that even the foolish can understand.
\nExodus 31:18
\nRASHI
\nWhen He finished. The word translated \u201cHe finished,\u201d b\u2019kalloto, is spelled without a vav indicating the first o, so that it can also be read as b\u2019kallato\u2014\u201chis bride.\u201d God gave Moses the Torah as a gift, as a bride to a groom. For he could not learn it all in such a short time. Another reading: Just as a bride adorns herself in 24 different ways (see Isa. 3:18\u201324), so a scholar must be expert in all 24 books of the Bible. Speaking with him. When He finished speaking to him the laws and rules of chs. 21\u201323. The fact that He was speaking \u201cwith\u201d him teaches us that Moses would hear what the Almighty spoke, and then the two of them would go over the halakhah together. He gave Moses the two tablets of the Pact. The Torah is not written in sequential order. The Golden Calf incident took place many days before the commandment to make a Tabernacle was given. For the tablets were broken on the 17th of Tammuz, and the Holy One was reconciled with Israel three months later on the Day of Atonement. On the next day they began to bring contributions for the Tabernacle, which was erected six months later on the 1st of Nisan. Stone tablets. The word luhot, \u201ctablets,\u201d is written without the vav that makes the o explicit. So it can also be read as a singular, indicating that the two tablets were exactly equal.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen He finished speaking with him. About the Tabernacle and the Sabbath. Stone tablets. See my comment to 24:12. Inscribed with the finger of God. This is a great and permanent miracle. Again, since an ordinary writer writes with his finger, the text speaks metaphorically of God in this way. But all that God does is achieved by speech.
\nSome empty-headed people wonder what Moses could have done on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights. They do not realize that even if Moses had spent four times this many years he could not have acquired a thousandth part of an understanding of God\u2019s deeds and ways, and the reasons for the commandments. These people think the commandments are about what one does, but they are really about what one does and what one thinks as well. As Jeremiah put it, \u201cLet not the wise man glory in his wisdom \u2026 but in understanding and knowing Me\u201d (Jer. 9:22\u201323). And one cannot know God without knowing one\u2019s own soul, one\u2019s spirit, and one\u2019s body For what wisdom does a person have if he does not understand the quality of his own soul? Even Moses, shortly before his death admits to God that He had \u201cjust begun\u201d to show His greatness to him (Deut. 3:24).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe gave Moses. The subject of the sentence is withheld until the end of the verse, but it is to be read: \u201cElohim gave Moses.\u201d Both the writing and the speech (20:1) are connected with that aspect of God called elohim. \u201cThe tablets were Elohim\u2019s work, and the writing was Elohim\u2019s writing, incised upon the tablets\u201d (32:16). So, too, the giving was done by Elohim.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai. Some of the commentators think this refers to a time immediately after the end of ch. 24, but I believe these passages are all written in the correct order (Abarbanel). Two tablets of the Pact. Literally, \u201cof the Testimony\u201d (OJPS)\u2014two, because testimony is not valid unless there are two witnesses (Bekhor Shor). Stone tablets. Which would not decay (Bekhor Shor). Also, because most of the punishments involve death by stoning (Hizkuni). Inscribed with the finger of God. A kind of writing that is indelible (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:1
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What made the people think that Moses was overdue in returning (v. 1)?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses\u2019 delay make them ask for \u201ca god who shall go before us\u201d? Moses was not a god.
\n\u2666 Since Aaron was a prophet, why did they not simply ask him what had happened to Moses?
\n\u2666 Why didn\u2019t they ask Aaron to take Moses\u2019 place?
\nExodus 32:1
\nRASHI
\nThat Moses was so long in coming down. The verb used here, boshesh, ordinarily means \u201cto be ashamed.\u201d The translations, correctly, follow Onkelos. The unusual use of this verb to mean \u201cdelay\u201d is also found in the verse explaining that King Eglon\u2019s servants \u201cwaited a long time\u201d (Judg. 3:25) and when Sisera\u2019s mother wondered, \u201cWhy is his chariot so long in coming?\u201d (Judg. 5:28). When Moses went up the mountain, he had told them, \u201cI will be back after 40 days, before noon.\u201d They thought that the day he went up the mountain was the first of the 40, but he actually meant 40 full days, including both night and day. The day he went up the mountain did not, of course, include the previous night, when that day actually began. Since he went up the mountain on the 7th of Sivan, the 40th day works out to be the 17th of Tammuz. On the 16th, Satan came and disturbed the natural order, producing an illusion of darkness and fog and tumult to make the Israelites think, \u201cMoses has surely died, and that is why the world is in such a tumult.\u201d Satan told the Israelites, \u201cMoses must be dead, for ba shesh, the sixth hour has come\u2014it is past noon and he is not back.\u201d (See the whole story on B. Shab. 89a.) The explanation that it was a cloudy day and they were mistaken about when noon came is impossible, for Moses did not come down until the next day (see v. 6). A god who shall go before us. Rather, what they wanted was \u201cgods who shall go before us.\u201d The plural verb shows that the translations are incorrect. That man Moses. Neither translation gets it exactly right: \u201cthis man Moses.\u201d Satan showed them the illusion of Moses\u2019 corpse being carried through the air up into the heavens. Who brought us from the land of Egypt. Since it was he who taught us which way to go forth from Egypt, now that he is gone we need gods to go before us.
\nRASHBAM
\nMake us a god who shall go before us. Literally, \u201cMake us gods\u201d\u2014some sort of idols, made by sorcery, that would tell them everything they needed to know.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI must expound at length on the Golden Calf episode. Some say that the Aaron mentioned here was not the Aaron who was Moses\u2019 brother, but that is not true, for we find no one else in the Torah with this name. One might as well say that when God told Malachi, \u201cBe mindful of the Teaching of My servant Moses, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel\u201d (Mal. 3:22) he was speaking of some other Moses! Moreover, why would the people have gathered around someone other than Moses stand-in? Remember that Moses had told them, \u201cWait here for us until we return to you. You have Aaron and Hur with you\u2019 (24:14). If it were some other Aaron who happened to be a metalworker, why would Moses have prayed for him? He would have simply begun the killing with him! Some say Aaron asked the men for their wives\u2019 rings in order to put them off, for he thought that the women would not give them up. But this is absurd. For women are under their husbands\u2019 authority. Our Sages deduced that Aaron, seeing that Hur had been killed, made the calf because he was afraid. Their evidence that Hur was killed is that he is never mentioned after this. But it is certainty implausible that Hur would have been more righteous than Aaron, refusing to make the calf when Aaron did not. Others say that what Aaron was afraid of was that if they killed him, too, then God would kill them all. The real question is how Aaron could become God\u2019s priest after having made an idol. The idea that the calf Aaron is told (in Lev. 9:2) to sacrifice is connected with the Golden Calf is just midrash. The \u201cevidence\u201d of Hur can be discounted too\u2014if you don\u2019t think so, show me where in the Torah Nahshon appears, once he has made his offering in Num. 7:17! Do we say that he must have been killed?!
\nOthers say that they deceived Aaron, making a calf-shaped mold into which he unwittingly threw the gold: \u201cI hurled it into the fire and out came this calf!\u201d (v. 24). This is ridiculous too. How could God choose someone to serve Him who would be so stupid as to be fooled in this way? Saadia says that Aaron\u2019s intent was to unmask the secret idolaters among the people through trickery, as Jehu would later do. He understands v. 25, saying that the people had been let loose (see OJPS), to mean that the idolaters were exposed. He bases this on the use of the same verb, in Lev. 10:6, to means baring one\u2019s head. But I disagree with both these interpretations. He says further that God was angry at Aaron for waiting until Moses came down, and not killing the idolaters immediately\u2014a delay that led to the breaking of the tablets. He thinks that when Aaron said \u201cTomorrow shall be a festival of the Lord!\u201d (v. 5) he really meant \u201ca slaughter\u201d (see Isa. 34:6, \u201cFor the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom\u201d). But this is not true either. What would be the point of calling for the slaughter to be on the next day? In fact, they did have a festival, just as Aaron had commanded them. I have already explained, in my comment to 5:1, that a \u201cfestival\u201d implies the bringing of offerings, which happens in our story in v. 6.
\nSaadia says further that the reason it was made in the form of a calf is that there are people in India who think this form channels a higher power, an ability that the Israelites also attributed to Moses. But I will reveal the secret of the calf to you allusively. I have already explained to you the verse, \u201cI place you in the role of God to Pharaoh\u201d (7:1). All the people wanted was someone to go before them \u201cto seek out a resting place for them\u201d (Num. 10:33). They assumed that the reason Moses did not come down was that he was dead. It was for the Lord that Aaron built the altar and for the Lord that Aaron offered the sacrifices, but he did so improperly\u2014that is, not in a state of sanctity. There were some among the Israelites who thought that it was genuine idolatry, which is why they exclaimed, \u201cThese are your gods\u201d (v. 4). (The text regularly, as it does here, speaks in group terms even about an action performed by a few individuals. Notice that when Achan violates the proscription, in Joshua 7, God tells Joshua, in Josh. 7:11, \u201cIsrael has sinned!\u201d In this case, only 3,000 of them\u2014one-half of one percent\u2014committed idolatry or even thought about doing so.) In fact, one who understands the workings of the heavens will understand why it was made in the form of a calf.
\nMoses was so long in coming down. I disagree with the standard grammatical understanding of the unusual word translated by NJPS as \u201cwas so long\u201d; I have explained how I see it in my book Basic Hebrew Grammar. Anyway, it shows us that Moses had not told them when he would return. The people gathered. When this verb is followed by the preposition al, it always connotes strife. Hence NJPS is preferable here. Come, make us a god. That is, a divine presence embodied in physical form, like the \u201cangel of God\u201d (14:19) who guided Israel in the form of a pillar of cloud when they originally left Egypt. That is why they asked for a \u201cgod\u201d who shall go before us.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMake us a god. Rashi\u2019s comment to this verse is somewhat off target. In fact, this whole verse is key to understanding the episode of the Golden Calf and the intentions of those who made it. Obviously the Israelites did not think that Moses was God, or that he had performed the signs and wonders by his own power. So why would it make sense to say, \u201cMoses is gone, let\u2019s make a god\u201d? They explicitly asked for a god who shall go before us, not one who would give them life, in this world or the World To Come. What they wanted was a second Moses. What they meant was, \u201cMoses, who has guided us from Egypt to this place [for all of Israel\u2019s marches were \u201cat the command of the Lord through Moses\u201d (Num. 4:37)] is lost to us. Let us make a new Moses who will guide us at God\u2019s command.\u201d That is why they called Moses \u201cthe man\u201d (OJPS) who brought us from the land of Egypt, not \u201cthe god.\u201d What they needed was a new \u201cman of God.\u201d You can learn from Aaron\u2019s excuse to Moses that it is as I have explained: \u201cThey said to me, \u2018Make us a god to lead us\u2019 \u201d (v. 23)\u2014not a god to worship. He explained to Moses, \u201cAs long as you were gone, they needed a guide. If you should return, they would leave him and follow you, as they had done at first.\u201d In fact, this is exactly what happened. As soon as the people saw Moses, they abandoned the calf contemptuously, letting Moses burn it and grind it to powder without anyone intervening. In fact, they fled from the calf without Moses\u2019 saying a word to them. If they had really worshiped the calf, they certainly would not have let Moses burn it without stoning him to death! In any case, it was Aaron who made it into a calf\u2014they did not tell him what to make. This is the real meaning of the rabbinic saying to which Rashi alludes, that they wanted many gods. They did not know whether it would be better to make an ox or a sheep or a goat or what have you. But Aaron chose an ox because that was the face on the left, or north, of the chariot seen by Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:10), and it is from the left that God\u2019s aspect of judgment comes to the world. Moreover, Jer. 1:14 tells us, \u201cAnd the Lord said to me: From the north shall disaster break loose upon all the inhabitants of the land!\u201d That is why Aaron told them, \u201cTomorrow shall be a festival of the Lord!\u201d (v. 5). He wanted them to focus on that aspect of God to obtain His favor with regard to that destructive power. Our Sages have revealed all this to us in their story that God told Moses, \u201cThey will unhitch one of the four \u2018mules\u2019 that pull My chariot, and provoke Me by worshiping it.\u201d Ibn Ezra thinks the word \u201cgod\u201d implies that they asked for a physical being on which the Presence would rest, but I do not think this is right. For none of the astrological calculations necessary to do this were made when the calf was formed. As far as his comment about how the Israelites originally left Egypt, I have already explained this in my comment to 13:21.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses was so long in coming down. Moses himself did not know how long he would be gone, for God told him to \u201cwait\u201d (24:12), but He did not tell him how long (Hizkuni). After he was gone for two or three days, they began to be afraid that he was dead (Gersonides). Make us a god. Not a \u201cgod,\u201d but (as elohim frequently means) a judge or magistrate, in the sense of a leader. They did not intend it for idolatry, God forbid (Bekhor Shor). What they wanted was a sort of talisman that would have divine power: it was all based on Egyptian religion, in which such figures were made (Gersonides). I have no doubt that they asked Aaron for this not just one day, not just two, but many days in a row. They did not simply ask Aaron to take over, having realized after Moses\u2019 presumed death that (in the words of Job 14:1) \u201cman born of woman is short-lived and sated with trouble\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 32:2
\nExodus 32:2
\nRASHI
\nOn the ears of your wives. Aaron thought, The women and children will not want to give up their jewelry, and this will delay things. Meanwhile, Moses will show up. But in fact they did not hesitate, and took them off of their own accord.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTake off the gold rings. The verb implies, \u201ctear them off.\u201d The same verb is used when God passes by Elijah on Mount Sinai, \u201csplitting mountains and shattering rocks\u201d (1 Kings 19:11).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTake off the gold rings. Gold and not silver because it teaches about God\u2019s aspect of justice, and because its appearance is that of fire. As our Sages said, \u201cthe gold was from Parvaim\u201d (2 Chron. 3:6) because it resembles the blood of a par, a bull, which is why the Temple, built for sacrifices, was made all of gold. The incense altar and the cherubim were of gold as well. (As our Sages point out, if the cherubim are made of silver, they become like the \u201cgods of silver\u201d that 20:20 forbids us to make.) Of course, gold also looks more like a calf than silver does.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTake off the gold rings. Aaron went along with them because he thought, If I suggest that they make Caleb son of Jephunneh or Nahshon son of Amminadab or someone like that their leader, when Moses returns he will not want to give up power. And Moses will not like it if I suggest myself (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:3\u20134
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Who gave Aaron the power to make a god? How could he say of the calf that he had made, \u201cThis is your god, O Israel\u201d (v. 4)?
\n\u2666 How could the people be stupid and crazy enough to believe that the Golden Calf was the First Cause who had brought them out of the land of Egypt? Had they forgotten \u201cI the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt\u201d (20:2)?
\n\u2666 How could Aaron, a prophet and God\u2019s holy one, so presume to lead the people into sin?
\nExodus 32:3
\nRASHI
\nTook off. Unlike the previous verse, where this verb is in the intensive conjugation, here it is in the reflexive conjugation, implying the removal of a burden from off oneself\u2014the men took them off their own ears. For their wives would not do it\u2014which, according to my old teacher (of blessed memory), is why women were given the commandment not to work on the New Moon as a reward.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTheir ears. Those of the wives, sons, and daughters mentioned in v. 2. Wearing earrings was an Egyptian custom.
\nExodus 32:4
\nRASHI
\nCast in a mold. There are two possible ways to translate this Hebrew phrase: first, as \u201cwrapped in a cloth\u201d (see 2 Kings 5:23, \u201che wrapped the two talents of silver in two bags\u201d); and second, as OJPS takes it, \u201cfashioned with a graving tool.\u201d The verb is the same as the word used to describe how an artisan engraves letters on a tablet. (It is used with regard to writing in Isa. 8:1.) This is how Onkelos takes it, using the word zifa (from zi\u2019uf, \u201cforgery\u201d), which refers to the tool with which artisans fill letters and other designs with gold, in the process we call \u201cniello\u201d\u2014and with which seals can be forged. A molten calf. Once he threw it into the furnace, the wizards among the mixed multitude that had come up from Egypt with the Israelites turned it into a calf by magic. Some say that Micah was there, who (according to rabbinic legend) came out of Egypt with the magic name and the inscription \u201cUp, ox! Up, ox!\u201d that Moses had used to bring up Joseph\u2019s coffin from the bottom of the Nile. Micah cast it into the furnace, and out came the calf. The word translated \u201cmolten\u201d actually refers to \u201cmetal.\u201d Another explanation of the word is that, matching its numerological equivalent, there were 125 talents of gold in it. This is your god. Really \u201cthese are your gods.\u201d But since Aaron did not say, \u201cthese are our gods,\u201d we learn that it was the mixed multitude who assembled around him and made the calf, and who afterward led Israel to go astray after it.
\nRASHBAM
\nCast in a mold. He took the gold from each of them, and wrapped up all the rings in a cloth, while they made a mold of asphalt and wax, as the smelters do, with which they made the image of a calf. They hurled the gold into it, and it was made into a calf. The verb va-yatzar does not mean \u201ccast,\u201d but \u201cwrapped,\u201d as in 2 Kings 5:23: \u201cHe wrapped [va-yatzar] the two talents of silver in two bags.\u201d This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt! Could they really be so foolish as not to understand that this calf, which had just been created, had not brought them out of Egypt? Of course not. All idolaters know that our God in heaven created the world. Their mistake was made because idols have in them an unclean spirit, just as the prophets have in them a holy spirit. Here, they thought that the calf, which could speak by means of an unclean spirit, was speaking by means of a holy spirit from Above. Saying \u201cThis is your god\u201d meant: \u201cSince the holy spirit is in it, it is as if the holy spirit is going before us.\u201d In just this fashion, when Rachel stole his idols, Laban challenged Jacob, \u201cWhy did you steal my gods?\u201d (Gen. 31:30). It was to test Israel that God put an unclean, magic spirit into the Golden Calf. (Similarly, God puts into ghosts and familiar spirits the power to contradict the heavenly retinue and predict the future.) The purpose of it all was to find out whether they would be \u201cwhole-hearted with the Lord their God\u201d (Deut. 18:13), and not have among them \u201ca soothsayer, a diviner, or a sorcerer\u201d (Deut. 18:10), or believe in the signs given by a false prophet. \u201cEven if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream-diviner. For the Lord your God is testing you to see whether you really love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul\u201d (Deut. 13:3\u20134). But Moses saw that the people were bent on evil.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThis he took from them and cast. He ordered it cast. A mold. NJPS, not OJPS, is correct here. See my comment to Isa. 8:1, where the word is used to indicate \u201ca human form.\u201d It has nothing to do with cloth. Molten. The same word is found in Ezek. 22:22, \u201cAs silver is melted in a crucible\u201d; our root \u05e0\u05e1\u05da has the same meaning as the root \u05e0\u05ea\u05da used in Ezekiel. Who brought you out. In place of Moses, who brought us out.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThis is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt! This too teaches you that they did not worship the calf. For no one in the world could be so stupid as to think that the gold in their ears brought them out of Egypt. They thought that the power of this form had brought them up from there, but you will never find them saying anywhere that the calf brought them out, for they completely acknowledged the One who said, \u201cI the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt\u201d (20:2). What the text keeps saying (see OJPS) is, \u201cwho brought you up from the land of Egypt.\u201d For they took this calf as representing the \u201cmighty hand\u201d (13:9) \u201cthat dried up the Sea \u2026 that made the abysses of the Sea a road the redeemed might walk\u201d (Isa. 51:10). It is this that is referred to by the verse \u201cThey exchanged their Glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass\u201d (Ps. 106:20). When it says there that \u201cthey forgot God who saved them\u201d (Ps. 106:21), it means that they forgot what He had commanded them, \u201cYou shall have no other gods besides Me\u201d (20:3), as I have hinted in my comment to that verse. Understand this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nCast in a mold. Rather, as OJPS translates, he carved it (knowing that this would take a long time) as a delaying tactic (Gersonides). A molten calf. But not a lamb, so as to keep them from returning to the corrupt religion from which they had escaped; since Taurus follows Aries, Aaron was clever enough to choose a calf instead (Gersonides). This is your god. Literally, \u201cThese are your gods,\u201d a plural of majesty (see Josh. 24:19); or perhaps they referred to the calf and Aaron, thinking he would lead them (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:5\u20137
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did God tell Moses, \u201cYour people \u2026 have made a molten calf\u201d (vv. 7\u20138), when it was really Aaron who made it?
\nExodus 32:5
\nRASHI
\nWhen Aaron saw this. When he saw that the calf was alive. For Ps. 106:20 describes it as feeding on grass. When Aaron saw that Satan\u2019s effort had succeeded, he realized that nothing he could say would stop them. He built an altar. As a ploy to put them off. Aaron announced: \u201cTomorrow shall be a festival of the Lord!\u201d He said \u201ctomorrow\u201d rather than \u201ctoday,\u201d assuming that Moses would show up before they actually worshiped it.
\nThat is the straightforward interpretation of this verse. But Leviticus Rabbah interprets it midrashically as follows: Aaron \u201csaw\u201d many things. He saw his nephew Hur murdered for reproving them. We know this from the phrase va-yiven mizbe\u2019ah l\u2019fanav, \u201che built an altar before it,\u201d which can also be read to say, va-yaven mi-zabu\u2019ah l\u2019fanav, \u201che understood from the one who was slaughtered before him,\u201d that he too would be killed if he resisted. He also \u201csaw\u201d\u2014that is, he understood\u2014that it would be better if the infamy of this sin was attached to him than to the Israelites as a whole. He also saw that if he let the Israelites build the altar, this one would bring a pebble and that one would bring a stone and it would be done in no time, while if he built it himself, he could take his time, hoping that meanwhile Moses would show up. Tomorrow shall be a festival of the Lord! Aaron felt confident that it would indeed be a festival of the Lord. He was sure that Moses would show up and that they would end up worshiping the true God.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen Aaron saw this. That the calf had been made so quickly. Tomorrow shall be a festival of the Lord! I have already explained to you, in my comment to 3:15, that this alone is God\u2019s unique Name. All other \u201cnames\u201d for God in the Bible\u2014like Almighty, God, Lord\u2014are mere nouns.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen Aaron saw. He saw them \u201cbent on evil\u201d (v. 22). He built an altar \u2026 and \u2026 announced: \u201cTomorrow shall be a festival of the Lord!\u201d so that they would be sacrificing to the Lord, on the altar that he built, rather than building their own \u201caltars to Shame\u201d (Jer. 11:13) and sacrificing to someone other than God alone. It is possible that he said \u201cTomorrow\u201d in order to delay until Moses returned. But Early next day, the people offered up burnt offerings and brought sacrifices of well-being. Notice that it does not say they offered sacrifices \u201cto it.\u201d For some of them were directing their worship toward the Holy One, as Aaron had announced, while others were indeed sacrificing to the calf. It was these latter about whom God told Moses, \u201cThey have made themselves a molten calf and bowed low to it and sacrificed to it\u201d (v. 8). And if, perhaps, it was Aaron who offered the sacrifices, this would explain why the subject of \u201cbowed low to it and sacrificed to it\u201d is not made explicit. Aaron\u2019s action was directed toward God, but their intention was to offer it to the calf. The idolatrous intentions of the owners of the sacrificial animals automatically invalidate the sacrifice. They sat down to eat and drink. Unlike the other verbs referring to the people in this verse, \u201csat\u201d is actually in the singular. They sat down as one to eat themselves full and drink themselves drunk, as on a festival. Afterward, they rose to dance with their idols. This foreshadows \u201cthe sound of song\u201d mentioned in v. 18. Moses found them dancing before it, and \u201chis mind was elevated in the ways of the Lord\u201d (2 Chron. 17:6) to take it and burn it as he did. God told Moses to \u201churry down\u201d (v. 7) as soon as they bowed down to it and sacrificed to it, but by the time he got down, they had already finished their meal and begun to dance. This too supports my theory. For God did not tell Moses to go down as soon as Aaron made the calf, but waited until they actually sacrificed to it the next morning.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen Aaron saw this. That they were under the impression that he would work a miracle so that the calf could lead them (Bekhor Shor). He built an altar. As another delaying tactic, and to keep control of the situation in the guise of an idolatrous priest, on God\u2019s behalf (Gersonides).
\nExodus 32:6
\nRASHI
\nEarly next day. Satan bestirred them to sin. To dance. The verb has sexual implications; it is the same one used in the accusation lodged by Potiphar\u2019s wife against Joseph: \u201cThe Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house came to me to dally with me\u201d (Gen. 39:17). It implies violence as well, for it is also in the phrase that Abner said to Joab, \u201cLet the young men come forward and sport before us\u201d (2 Sam. 2:14), with the result that the 12 champions of Saul\u2019s tribe of Benjamin and the 12 champions of David\u2019s army killed each other. In the calf incident too there was a killing\u2014that of Hur.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo eat and drink. As a celebration of the day on which the calf was dedicated.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe people offered up burnt offerings. To heaven, in thanks for their new leadership, as in 1 Sam. 11:15, when the people declared Saul king at Gilgal and \u201coffered sacrifices of well-being there before the Lord\u201d (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:7
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord spoke to Moses. One would expect \u201cthe Lord said to Moses.\u201d \u201cSpoke\u201d implies that He spoke harshly, as when Joseph \u201cspoke harshly\u201d to his brothers (Gen. 42:7). Hurry down. \u201cDown\u201d from your greatness\u2014for I only made you great for their sake.\u2014At that moment Moses was ostracized by the heavenly court. Your people \u2026 have acted basely. Not \u201cthe people,\u201d but \u201cyour people\u201d\u2014the mixed multitude whom you accepted on your own and converted to Judaism without consulting Me, thinking that they would be better off adhering to the Shekhinah. They have acted basely and caused the others to act basely!
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYour people \u2026 have acted basely. He told Moses that they had done \u201ca twofold wrong\u201d (Jer. 2:13). The first is that they had \u201cacted destructively\u201d (as the Hebrew expression frequently means) by (in the expression of our Sages) \u201ccutting down the plants.\u201d The second is that they had worshiped the calf. God alone knew of the first wrong, \u201cfor He knows the secrets of the heart\u201d (Ps. 44:22), but the second was done in public. It was a majority of the people who sinned in this episode, for \u201call the people took off the gold rings\u201d (v. 3). Had it not been so, God would not have wanted to destroy them all. Those who were actually killed for this sin were a small minority, for most of them sinned only by evil thoughts, as I have explained. Whom you brought out of the land of Egypt. Rather, brought \u201cup\u201d (OJPS); see my comment to v. 4. In saying \u201cwhom you brought up,\u201d God was either relying on the verse \u201cMoses caused Israel to set out from the Sea of Reeds\u201d (15:22), or sarcastically citing what the people themselves had said in v. 1. Moses was careful to respond (v. 11, \u201cYour people, whom You delivered from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand\u201d) that it was God alone who had brought them out, \u201cYour right hand, O Lord, shatters the foe!\u201d (15:6), as I have hinted in my comment to that verse.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHurry down. Since \u201cyour people\u201d have acted basely, you have no need for the Torah and your presence here is no longer required (Abarbanel). Your people. Since you brought them out of Egypt, they are your people whether they like it or not (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:9\u201311
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses ask God why He was angry (see v. 11 in the more literal OJPS) when the reason was obvious?
\nExodus 32:9
\nRASHI
\nA stiffnecked people. They turn the napes of their necks stiffly toward those who try to reprove them and refuse to listen.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA stiffnecked people. Which does not listen to what it is commanded. The image is that of a man walking down the road who, if someone calls him, will not turn his head. The point is that the Israelites had worshiped idols in Egypt, where God had warned them, \u201cCast away, every one of you, the detestable things that you are drawn to, and do not defile yourselves with the fetishes of Egypt\u201d (Ezek. 20:7).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord further said to Moses. God had ceased to speak, waiting to see what Moses would say, but Moses was too ashamed to answer; so God was forced to speak again (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 32:10
\nRASHI
\nLet Me be. We have not yet been told that Moses had prayed for them. In actuality, God was giving Moses an opening here, letting him know that His behavior depended on Moses. If he would pray for them, God would not destroy them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLet Me be. Do not pray for them. Of course, once He told Moses that the Israelites\u2019 destruction was up to him, he was forced to pray for them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLet Me be. This does not mean \u201clet Me be angry.\u201d For if God was not angry already, how was He going to get angry after Moses \u201clet Him\u201d do so? The straightforward sense of the phrase is \u201cLet Me destroy them in My anger.\u201d Compare \u201cLet Me alone and I will destroy them\u201d (Deut. 9:14). According to the True interpretation, it means, \u201cLet My compassion rest, and My aspect of justice will blaze forth against them and I will destroy them with it, for ordinarily it has no authority over them.\u201d That is why Moses implored \u201cthe face\u201d of God (as v. 11 literally says). Notice that in the retelling, Moses prays to \u201cLord God\u201d (Deut. 9:26)\u2014first to Adonai, the aspect of justice, and then to the Tetragrammaton, the aspect of mercy. But it could be that va-y\u2019hal, \u201cimplore,\u201d implies tehillah, \u201cbeginning.\u201d Know and understand this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet Me be. If Moses were not to be comfortable with this destruction, the Israelites would be protected from it, because of God\u2019s love for him (Gersonides).
\nExodus 32:11
\nRASHI
\nLet not Your anger, O Lord, blaze forth against Your people. A sage is not jealous except of another sage, nor a warrior except of another warrior.
\nRASHBAM
\nYour people. Not \u201cmy\u201d people, as You called them (in v. 7). Whom You delivered. It was not I who delivered them, but You.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses implored the Lord his God. Literally, \u201cthe face of the Lord his God.\u201d In my opinion, the expression is comparable to the expression used in 1 Sam. 1:18, where \u201cshe no longer had her face\u201d implies that she \u201cwas no longer downcast.\u201d It would be an error to think that this Hebrew verb by itself means \u201cimplore\u201d; only in combination with the word panim, \u201cface,\u201d does it carry this meaning. Some say this is the prayer mentioned in Deut. 9:25\u201329, and therefore should have been written down after Moses comes back to the mountain in v. 31 of our chapter. After all, once God \u201crenounced the punishment\u201d (v. 14), why would Moses have to tell the people, \u201cPerhaps I may win forgiveness for your sin\u201d (v. 30)? Others think this prayer is not that mentioned in Deuteronomy. In my opinion, the two prayers are the same. How could Moses beg God\u2019s forgiveness before he had burnt the calf and killed the sinners? At this point, God merely hints to him that he must come back and pray for forgiveness after dealing with the situation. Since God told Moses, \u201clet Me be\u201d (v. 10), the text includes his prayer here. It really belongs after v. 31, but the Torah is not written in chronological order. It is impossible to believe that Moses could pray for Israel while they were still committing idolatry.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLet not Your anger, O Lord, blaze forth. Moses ought to have begun his prayer with a confession, as he did later in v. 31, \u201cAlas, this people is guilty of a great sin.\u201d (See similarly Ezra 10:1 and Ezra 9:4.) It was not right for him to simply ask why God should be angry. Our Sages respond to this with a number of midrashim offering reasons for minimizing the sin. But according to the True interpretation, what Moses is saying is as follows: \u201cWhy do You permit Your aspect of justice to rule over Your people? You brought them out of Egypt for Your own sake, by deploying Your aspect of mercy on their behalf and Your aspect of justice against their enemies.\u201d
\nThis prayer would seem to be the one Moses mentions in Deut. 9:26, \u201cO Lord God, do not annihilate Your very own people, whom You redeemed in Your majesty and whom You freed from Egypt with a mighty hand,\u201d since the two prayers say the same thing. Yet here the prayer comes before Moses goes down the mountain, while in Deuteronomy it comes after he goes down. Ibn Ezra thinks that Moses would not pray on Israel\u2019s behalf as long as there was idolatry among them, but when God told him, \u201cLet Me alone and I will destroy them\u201d (Deut. 9:14), he realized that their fate depended on him, went down and got rid of the calf, and then returned to pray on their behalf during the 40 days he spent on the mountain. The order of events given here is no problem for Ibn Ezra, since he follows the dictum that \u201cthe Torah is not recorded in chronological order.\u201d But I disagree with this. If vv. 11\u201313 and vv. 31\u201332 are all part of the same prayer made during the 40 days after he went back up the mountain, why does our text divide them into two? In fact, they are two separate prayers. When God said, \u201cLet Me be, that My anger may blaze forth against them\u201d (v. 10), Moses responded immediately, fearing that, if he did not, the plague would break out at once. (This is how Exodus Rabbah explains it.) At this point, God is not reconciled with the Israelites\u2014He merely agrees not to destroy them. This gives Moses an opportunity to go down and get rid of the calf, after which he tells the people, \u201cI will now go up to the Lord; perhaps I may win forgiveness for your sin\u201d (v. 30). In Deuteronomy, however, Moses tells it differently, for he is castigating the people for their sins, which he lists cumulatively until he concludes by saying, \u201cAs long as I have known you, you have been defiant toward the Lord\u201d (Deut. 9:24). At that point, he goes back to describe all he had done for them, including these prayers in Deut. 9:25\u201326. Having said (in Deut. 9:25) that he had prayed for them for 40 days, it was not necessary to repeat the second prayer given here in Exodus. Even here, he does not include the entire prayer\u2014who could write down 40 days worth of supplications?! The Deuteronomy passage does mention that Moses prayed on Aaron\u2019s behalf, which is not recorded here\u2014but that is out of respect for Aaron. In this passage, while Aaron was still alive, Moses did not want to embarrass him. By the time of Deuteronomy, when Aaron had died, Moses recorded the truth for us. This is the correct explanation of these passages.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses implored. Rather, \u201che made himself sick\u201d over the potential destruction of the Israelites (Gersonides). Let not Your anger, O Lord, blaze forth. If it does, You will cause people to think there is some foolishness or some fault or some alteration in God\u2019s law, and You Yourself will be responsible for distancing them from faith in You (Gersonides). Against those of Your people who did not sin with the Golden Calf (Sforno).
\nExodus 32:12\u201313
\nExodus 32:12
\nRASHI
\nRenounce the plan. Rather, \u201cchange Your mind\u201d about it\u2014come up with a different plan that will be better for them than \u201cthis evil\u201d (OJPS) that You intend to do to them.
\nRASHBAM
\nLet not the Egyptians say. Do this for the sake of Your name, which would otherwise be sullied.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt was with evil intent that He delivered them. Rather, \u201cHe brought them out in evil,\u201d that is, during a conjunction of the stars that portended their destruction, which He was powerless to overcome\u2014that is why He killed them. If the Egyptians were to think this, it would be a desecration of God\u2019s Name. Renounce the plan. As at the time of Noah\u2019s flood; see my comment to v. 14.
\nExodus 32:13
\nRASHI
\nRemember \u2026 Abraham. Even if they have violated all 10 of the Commandments, still, their father Abraham has not yet received the reward for the 10 trials by which he was tested. Give it to him! Let his 10 pay for their 10. Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. If they are to be burnt, remember Abraham, who gave himself over to the fire for Your sake in Ur of the Chaldeans. If they are destined to die by the sword, remember Isaac, who bared his neck to the knife when he was bound on Mt. Moriah. If they are destined to exile, remember Jacob, who was exiled to Haran. If the merit of these Patriarchs is not enough to rescue their ancestors, what is the point of Your telling me, \u201cNow, let Me be, that I may make of you a great nation\u201d (v. 10)? If a three-legged stool cannot stand before You in the hour of Your anger, how could a one-legged stool do so?! How You swore to them by Your Self. You did not swear to them by something finite\u2014like the heavens or the earth, the mountains or the hills\u2014but by Your Self. For Your Self, and Your oath, exist forever. That is how You swore to Abraham, \u201cBy Myself I swear, the Lord declares\u201d (Gen. 22:16); to Isaac, \u201cI will fulfill the oath that I swore [by Myself] to your father Abraham\u201d (Gen. 26:3); and to Jacob, \u201cI am El Shaddai. Be fertile and increase; a nation, yea an assembly of nations, shall descend from you. Kings shall issue from your loins\u201d (Gen. 35:11). He swore to him by El Shaddai, that is, by Himself.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRemember. The point of asking God to remember what He swore to the Patriarchs is to get Him to fulfill that oath now.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAbraham, Isaac, and Israel. The Patriarchs are called \u201cAbraham, Isaac, and Israel\u201d elsewhere only in 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chron. 29:18, and 2 Chron. 30:6 (Masorah).
\nExodus 32:14\u201316
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses take the \u201ctwo tablets of the Pact\u201d (v. 15) down the mountain, instead of breaking them immediately or simply leaving them there? What was the point of breaking them at the foot of the mountain?
\nExodus 32:14
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord renounced the punishment He had planned. Heaven forbid that God should \u201cchange His mind,\u201d as the verb would otherwise be translated. For \u201cHe is not human that He should change His mind\u201d (1 Sam. 15:29). But here, as when God \u201cchanged His mind\u201d about having created humanity (Gen. 6:6), the Torah speaks from the human perspective, according to which it seems that God has changed His mind.
\nExodus 32:15
\nRASHI
\nInscribed on both their surfaces. The letters could be read from either side of the tablets, which had to be done by a miracle.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses turned. Some take this word to mean that Moses \u201cturned\u201d to face God while walking away backward out of respect. But I find this implausible. After all, \u201cPharaoh turned and went into his palace\u201d (7:23), and he certainly would not have walked backward away from Moses. The word is used here metaphorically, as of someone who is occupied with a particular matter and then turns his attention to something else. Bearing the two tablets of the Pact. NJPS omits \u201cin his hand\u201d (see OJPS). But this is metaphoric for \u201cin his possession, in his control,\u201d as in \u201cTake ten men in your hand.\u201d One wonders how Moses could carry even a single tablet of such weight\u2014let alone two in one hand. Inscribed on both their surfaces. Some of our Sages say that the \u05dd and the \u05e1 on the tablets remained in place by a miracle. But this is illogical. (Our Sages are not even agreed on whether or not the Torah was originally given in Paleo-Hebrew, in which script \u05dd and \u05e1 have a completely different shape.) In my opinion, there is no need to see a miracle here. The stone of which the tablets were made was not a precious stone, but thick rock; and the tablets were inscribed, just as the text says, \u201con both their surfaces.\u201d It cannot have been the same inscription visible on both sides, for on one side the letters would be reversed. On the one side and on the other. See my comment to 34:28. We certainly do not know whether the stones were completely covered with writing, or whether margins were left on all four sides, as we do with our books; or whether the writing was large or small. There is no point in guessing about such things if we have not received a tradition concerning them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses turned. He turned his mind to the problem of what to do; or perhaps he turned aside from the divine influences that were flowing upon him on the mountain (Abarbanel). Bearing the two tablets of the Pact. Even though he intended to break them, he did not want to leave them around where God could see \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (20:2) and \u201cYou shall have no other gods besides Me\u201d (20:3) and remember what the Israelites had done (Hizkuni). The tablets were quite thin, like the tablets upon which learned men write; had they been thick, they would not have broken (Abarbanel). He assumed that they would repent when they saw him; if they did not, he would break the tablets before their eyes to see whether that would make them repent (Sforno). Inscribed on the one side and on the other. Our Sages understand that the words were carved straight through the stone, \u05dd and \u05e1 being held up by a miracle. Apparently the point is that the tablets were full of holes and would break easily when Moses hurled them to the ground (Bekhor Shor). It is self-evident that the story that the words were carved straight through the stone is midrash; the letters on the second side would be reversed and unreadable (Gersonides).
\nExodus 32:16
\nRASHI
\nThe tablets were God\u2019s work. The plain sense is that He Himself made them. Another reading: They were God\u2019s occupation. It is like someone who says to his friend, \u201cSo-and-So spends all of his time doing such-and-such.\u201d God\u2019s enjoyment of the Torah is like that. Incised. This Hebrew word, spelled with a tav, means the same as the similar sounding word spelled with a tet.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe tablets were God\u2019s work. It was not Moses who carved them, as he was told to do afterward for the second set (34:1). Incised. The word harut with a tav is the same as harut with a tet, \u201cengraved,\u201d or harush, \u201cplowed,\u201d i.e., \u201cengraved.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe tablets were God\u2019s work. Saadia takes this to mean that God created them ex nihilo. Our Sages say that they were made on the sixth day of creation, just before the first Sabbath. But I don\u2019t understand who got us into all this trouble. For the Hebrew really says that the tablets were of God\u2019s \u201cmaking,\u201d and this is not the word used for \u201ccreating.\u201d It simply means that they were not carved from stone by Moses like the second set. It was the writing that was miraculous. Incised. There is no other example of this word in the Bible. Some think that the letter tav and shin are interchangeable and say, e.g., that the brotim of Song 1:17 are cypresses, which are elsewhere called broshim. But in my opinion, the only interchangeable letters are aleph, heh, vav, and yud, as well as the two \u201cs\u201d letters, samekh and sin. Others think our word harut comes from hatar, \u201cto break through,\u201d by metathesis. What the midrash says about this word is well known.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe tablets were God\u2019s work. One would have expected that the text would record all the information about the tablets in 31:18, \u201cHe gave Moses the two tablets of the Pact, stone tablets inscribed with the finger of God.\u201d This verse is added to emphasize that, despite their special qualities, Moses had no compunction about breaking them. When he saw their evil deed, he simply could not restrain his anger. Or the explanation of our Sages may be the correct one, that when Moses brought the tablets to the edge of the realm of impurity and sin that centered around the Golden Calf, the writing flew off.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe tablets. This is one of 11 verses in the Torah whose first word (disregarding prepositions and the like) is the same as their last word (Masorah).
\nExodus 32:17\u201320
\nExodus 32:17
\nRASHI
\nIn its boisterousness. The word refers to the making of loud noises. They were shouting and laughing.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen Joshua heard. As I have explained in my comment to 24:13, Joshua was waiting for Moses at the foot of the mountain and knew nothing about the Golden Calf. In its boisterousness. The same word is used in Mic. 4:9, \u201cNow why do you utter such cries?\u201d It is etymologically related to the teruah call of the shofar. The heh ending on the word indicates \u201chis,\u201d just as a vav suffix usually does; there is another such example in Gen. 9:21, \u201chis tent.\u201d
\nExodus 32:18
\nRASHI
\nIt is not the sound of the tune of triumph. Literally, \u201cof might\u201d; but NJPS understands correctly: It is not the tune of mighty men crying \u201cVictory!\u201d nor that of the weak crying \u201cWoe!\u201d or \u201cRun for your life!\u201d The sound of song. Rather, \u201ca tortuous sound\u201d\u2014the sound of blasphemy, which tortures the spirit of one who hears it or even merely hears about it.
\nRASHBAM
\nDefeat. This word halushah actually means \u201ctriumph\u201d or \u201cvictory\u201d; the verb form va-yahalosh is used in 17:13, \u201cJoshua overwhelmed the people of Amalek with the sword.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe answered. This is Moses speaking. Note that v. 19 continues, \u201cas soon as he came\u201d near the camp (see OJPS), and this is obviously Moses. But Saadia thinks it is Joshua speaking here. The sound of the tune. The verb anah carries its musical connotation here, as NJPS correctly notes. For another example, see Isa. 27:2, \u201cIn that day, they shall sing of it: \u2018Vineyard of Delight.\u2019 \u201d What they were hearing was the music when the people \u201crose to dance\u201d (v. 6).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIt is the sound of song that I hear! NJPS is correct that Moses is speaking, but for the translation of these words, OJPS is to be preferred. Moses did not tell Joshua that he knew what was going on. He did not say, \u201cIt is the sound of song,\u201d but \u201cI hear the sound of song.\u201d The meaning is that, as a great master of all wisdom, Moses could understand the import of voices just from their sounds, even if he could not distinguish the words. A midrash interprets this verse as a rebuke to Joshua: \u201cCan it be that the future leader of Israel cannot distinguish one sound from another?!\u201d Moses recognized the sound of idolatry when he heard it, but (out of his great humility, and because he did not want to speak evil of the Israelites) he did not explain to Joshua what was going on. He merely told him, \u201cI hear gleeful song.\u201d
\nExodus 32:19
\nRASHI
\nHe hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain. He thought: If the passover offering, which is merely one of the commandments, is such that \u201cno foreigner shall eat of it\u201d (12:43)\u2014well, I have the entire Torah here, and all of Israel has apostasized! How can I give it to them?
\nRASHBAM
\nHe hurled the tablets from his hands. The translations do not quite have the correct sense here. When he saw the calf, his strength failed him. Though he no longer had any strength, he cast the tablets a little bit away from him, so that they would not hurt his feet when they fell, just as anyone who no longer had the strength to carry a burden would do. This is how I have seen it told in the midrash Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and that is essentially the straightforward sense of the text.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe calf and the dancing. The dancing around the calf. Shattered them. One opinion has it that the writing disappeared from the tablets, and that is why Moses shattered them. Others say that God commanded him to shatter them. To me, the most plausible explanation is what is written\u2014that, out of jealousy for God, \u201che became enraged\u201d and shattered them. It is like a husband who grew angry at the wife he married when young, because she violated the conditions of the understanding that was between them. Returning to her, he tells her, \u201cBe careful not to violate the agreement again as you did, and I will make a new covenant with you.\u201d The tablets of the covenant are the original marriage contract between them, which is tom up at this point.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them. Besides his anger, he had also noticed that one letter of the alphabet, \u05d8, was missing from them; it was added to the commandment to honor one\u2019s parents in the Deuteronomy 5 version, on the second set of tablets (Hizkuni). I suspect that he broke them on the very spot where he had built the altar at the foot of the mountain when the covenant was made (Abarbanel). Once he saw them \u201cexult while performing their evil deeds\u201d (Jer. 11:15), he despaired of being able to straighten out the situation (Sforno).
\nExodus 32:20
\nRASHI
\nMade the Israelites drink it. He intended to test them, just as the woman suspected of adultery is tested. Three different kinds of death sentences were issued after the Golden Calf episode. Those who were warned not to commit the sin but did so anyway, in front of witnesses, were killed by the sword, like the inhabitants of an idolatrous city, who commit their crime en masse. Violators who were seen by witnesses but not previously warned were killed by plague: \u201cThen the Lord sent a plague upon the people\u201d (v. 35). But those who were neither warned nor seen by witnesses were killed by drinking this powder, by dropsy. The water tested them and made their bellies swell.
\nRASHBAM
\nMade the Israelites drink it. In order to test them as women suspected of adultery are tested.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBurned it. Some think this means he melted it, but there is no need to go this far. For there is a substance that can be mixed with gold so that it can be burnt and will never again be gold. This has been tested and it is true. Strewed it upon the water. This water was the brook that came down from the mountain. As Moses tells the people later, \u201cI threw its dust into the brook that comes down from the mountain\u201d (Deut. 9:21). Made the Israelites drink it. Saadia understands the verb to mean that Moses let the Israelites drink the water from the brook (even though the remains of the calf had been scattered there). In my opinion, the translations are correct, and the reason he threw the powder into the brook was to make the Israelites drink it. It could be that the water would create a sign marking those who had worshiped the calf, as do the bitter waters to the woman who really has committed adultery, while leaving the innocent woman untouched. Otherwise, how did the Levites know who had worshiped the calf? Remember that very few acted with evil intent; in general, they thought they were acting properly.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe \u2026 strewed it upon the water and so made the Israelites drink it. He \u201cthrew its dust into the brook that comes down from the mountain\u201d (Deut. 9:21). Possibly, as Ibn Ezra says, burnt gold would not necessarily melt, but could be ground to a fine powder. Either this would float on the water, in which case he could make them drink it; or he scattered it a little at a time and dipped it out of the water before it could sink; or it was miraculous. What he wanted was to show contempt for what they had done, by grinding up their god and sending it into their bellies to come out as excrement, after the fashion of Isa. 30:22: \u201cYou will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. \u2018Out!\u2019 you will call to them.\u201d Our Sages are additionally of the opinion that he intended to test them as women are tested for adultery, and that is the truth.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBurned it. That is, melted it to destroy its form\u2014for gold does not burn (Kimhi). Ground it into powder. By filing it down Strewed it upon the water. He thus returned it to the four elements\u2014earth, air, fire, and water\u2014showing that it was material and not divine (Abarbanel). Made the Israelites drink it. The straightforward translation is that he was the \u201ccause\u201d that they drank, that is, he did not make them drink, but (since the powder was strewn on their only water source) they simply had no choice but to drink it. Christians like to make fun of this episode, but they would not do so if they understood what it implies: that there is no reality to a god whom one eats and drinks, as they do theirs (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:21\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses ask Aaron what the people had done to him to force him to make the calf (v. 21)? In a case of idolatry, one is supposed to die rather than let oneself be forced to sin!
\nExodus 32:21
\nRASHI
\nWhat did this people do to you? What kind of tortures did you withstand before finally bringing this sin upon them?
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhat did this people do to you? Moses asked why Aaron had had to make the calf, after which Aaron described the incident to him briefly.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhat did this people do to you that you have brought such great sin upon them? I do not think Rashi is correct. For idolatry is one of the three sins for which one must be willing to be killed rather than commit. Perhaps Moses meant to make Aaron feel more guilty. But I would compare it to the question that David asked Jonathan: \u201cWhat have I done, what is my crime and my guilt against your father, that he seeks my life?\u201d (1 Sam. 20:1). What Moses is asking Aaron is, \u201cWhat hatred do you have for this people, that you have plotted to destroy them once and for all?\u201d He said this because Aaron\u2019s relationship to the people was supposed to be that of one who reproves and makes atonement for the people, and has compassion upon them. \u201cBut you have treated them like an enemy, who seeks the worst for those who have never done him any wrong.\u201d Moses ought to have first castigated him for his own sin, and only then for the people\u2019s guilt: \u201cHow could you commit this great sin against God, and make so many others stumble in the same way?\u201d But Moses, in his great humility, was careful of his older brother\u2019s honor, and mentioned only the people\u2019s sin. And it could well be that Moses was certain that his brother had not intended any sin, but did think Aaron guilty for letting the people sin. Aaron\u2019s response is that the people had led him astray.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThat you have brought such great sin upon them. This \u201cfestival\u201d led them to worship the calf, which is far worse than just making it (Sforno).
\nExodus 32:22
\nRASHI
\nBent on evil. They always follow an evil path, constantly testing God.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBent on evil. Literally the text says merely, \u201cin evil.\u201d Some say the preposition is superfluous here (a phenomenon that does occur in the Bible); the translations follow another suggestion, that a word is lacking here that must be supplied. They might also have translated, \u201cborn in evil\u201d or \u201craised in evil.\u201d But what Aaron is really saying is that the Israelites were \u201cin evil,\u201d that is, among the \u201cmixed multitude\u201d of non-Israelites who had escaped Egypt along with them. \u201cThey said to me\u201d (v. 23) and \u201cI said to them\u201d (v. 24) also refer to this mixed multitude.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou know that this people is bent on evil. He is saying, \u201cThis people was on an evil path, for what they wanted was a guide to lead them, to replace you in case you should not return (for perhaps you would).\u201d
\nExodus 32:24\u201326
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Aaron lie (v. 24) about how the calf was made?
\n\u2666 Why are the people punished, and many of them killed, for making the calf that was actually made by Aaron? Yet Aaron, astonishingly, is never punished for it at all, and is even made the High Priest, who will atone for the Israelites!
\nExodus 32:24
\nRASHI
\nI said to them. All I said to them was, \u201cWho has gold?\u201d But they hastened to take it off and gave it to me. I hurled it into the fire. I had no idea that the calf would come out, but out came this calf!
\nRASHBAM
\nOut came this calf! It \u201ccame out\u201d in the sense of being finished: \u201cThe dross having been separated from the silver, a vessel emerged for the smith\u201d (Prov. 25:4).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOut came this calf! Aaron did not want to go on at length about the people\u2019s evil intentions to bow to the calf and sacrifice to it, so he spoke elliptically, \u201cOut of it came this evil affair that you see.\u201d
\nExodus 32:25
\nRASHI
\nOut of control. Rather, \u201cuncovered.\u201d Their degradation was revealed. The same word is used about the woman suspected of adultery: \u201cThe priest shall \u2026 let the hair of the woman\u2019s head go loose\u201d (Num. 5:18). A menace to any who might oppose them. Rather, \u201ca derision among their enemies\u201d (OJPS).
\nRASHBAM
\nOut of control. Having been unleashed from their Creator\u2019s commandments. The verbal form of the same root is used in \u201cYou spurned all my advice, and would not hear my rebuke\u201d (Prov. 1:25) and \u201cAvoid it; do not pass through it\u201d (Prov. 4:15). A menace. Rather, as OJPS has it, \u201ca derision.\u201d As in Job 4:12, \u201cMy ear caught a whisper of it,\u201d the word clearly refers to some kind of speech.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOut of control. As in the verse \u201cFor lack of vision a people lose restraint\u201d (Prov. 29:18), the root implies disorder. A menace. As shown by the usage in Job 26:14, \u201cThe mere whisper that we perceive of Him,\u201d the Hebrew word refers to something that is spoken. So OJPS \u201ca derision\u201d is to be preferred here.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses saw that the people were out of control. Despite Aaron\u2019s apology for himself, Moses \u201csaw\u201d\u2014that is, he realized\u2014that the people were faru\u2019a, \u201cout of control.\u201d \u201cFor they are a folk void of sense, lacking in all discernment\u201d (Deut. 32:28); \u201cYou spurned [tifre\u2019u] all my advice\u201d (Prov. 1:25). Since Aaron had let them get out of control. Having withheld his counsel and discipline from them, they were like sheep scattered over the hills with no one to guide them. The text points this out because they had thought that the calf would show them the way, but in fact they had no idea where to go or what to do. For some of them believed that they were worshiping the real God through the calf, while others were completely idolatrous, and each followed his own path. A menace to any who might oppose them. Rather, \u201ca derision\u201d (OJPS). Even the ones whose intentions were not evil would be derided throughout the ages. So it was indeed the whole people who had \u201cspurned advice and would not hear rebuke\u201d (Prov. 1:25). This follows Onkelos, who understands kameihem, literally \u201ctheir uprisers,\u201d not as \u201ctheir enemies\u201d (OJPS) but as \u201cthose who will rise up after them\u201d\u2014future generations of Israelites. But this would in fact be a \u201cmenace\u201d to future generations, for they might think, \u201cOur ancestors did not worship this calf for nothing. They knew that it was he who had brought them up from Egypt, and found some benefit in worshiping him. Let us do the same.\u201d This is exactly what happened in the days of Jeroboam I, who \u201ctook counsel and made two golden calves. He said to the people, \u2018You have been going up to Jerusalem long enough. This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!\u201d \u2019 (1 Kings 12:28). Moses foresaw this. The word shemetz, translated as \u201cmenace\u201d by NJPS and \u201cderision\u201d by OJPS, always implies a diminution. \u201cThese are but glimpses of His rule, the mere whisper that we perceive of Him; who can absorb the thunder of His mighty deeds?\u201d (Job 26:14). Here too the text is saying that Aaron exposed them to the belittling of their enemies, for the commission of this great sin would belittle them. Or it may mean that it would reduce the heavenly merit that they would bring to any war with their enemies. As Jer. 10:24 says, \u201cChastise me, O Lord, but in measure; not in Your wrath, lest You reduce me to naught.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOut of control. Rather, \u201cbroken loose\u201d (OJPS), paru\u2019a in the sense of \u201claid bare,\u201d as in Num. 5:18, \u201cthe priest shall bare [para] the woman\u2019s head.\u201d Their idiocy was revealed for all to see (Bekhor Shor). A menace to any who might oppose them. Rather, as OJPS has it, \u201ca derision.\u201d The other nations are always laughing at us for making the Golden Calf\u2014they who make heap after heap of statues on a daily basis (Bekhor Shor). The correct translation is: \u201cAaron had spurned them\u201d\u2014prevented them from achieving their scheme\u2014\u201cto diminish the uprisers\u201d\u2014those who had risen against Aaron to ask for a god to lead them. He managed to keep all but 3,000 people from worshiping the calf, which is why Moses accepted his excuse (Gersonides).
\nExodus 32:26
\nRASHI
\nWhoever is for the Lord, come here! \u201cCome\u201d is not in the Hebrew text, but the translations understand it correctly. All the Levites. This demonstrates that none of the Levites had participated in worshiping the Golden Calf.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses stood up in the gate of the camp. This teaches that the people were camped in orderly ranks, inside a structure with a gate. A camp that lasts for a year or so will have huts and gates. In a camp where people stay for a year or more, it is possible to have a gated enclosure, since \u201cthere shall be an area for you outside the camp, where you may relieve yourself\u201d (Deut. 23:13) applies only to a military encampment. Whoever is for the Lord, come here! Literally, \u201cto me!\u201d The verb is implied. All the Levites. Being from his own clan.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses stood up in the gate of the camp. This was Moses\u2019 response to the derision that he saw was in store for the people, which would be a profanation of God\u2019s name. He called out in a loud voice, Whoever is for the Lord, come here! and publicly killed all who had worshiped the calf, so that \u201cany who might oppose them\u201d (v. 25) would hear of it. In this way he replaced their profanation of the name of Heaven with a sanctification of it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the Levites rallied to him. There were many others as well who were \u201cfor the Lord,\u201d all who had not sinned. But the only tribe of which \u201call\u201d its members rallied to him was that of Levi (Bekhor Shor). The straightforward sense of the text is that the Levites, being Moses\u2019 relatives, had not agreed to replace him with another leader (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 32:27\u201329
\nExodus 32:27
\nRASHI
\nThus says the Lord. Where did He say this? \u201cWhoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone shall be proscribed\u201d (22:19). That is how the Mekilta explains it. Brother. Since the Levites were all innocent, this must be a non-Levite half-brother from the same mother.
\nRASHBAM
\nBrother. If he sinned with the Golden Calf.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord, the God of Israel. Moses said this in response to v. 4, \u201cThis is your god, O Israel!\u201d Slay brother, neighbor, and kin. Even your brother, neighbor, and kin\u2014any of them who are marked as idolaters, or who are known to you to be idolaters.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThus says the Lord, the God of Israel. The Name \u201cGod of Israel\u201d is used here because the calf-worshipers intended to sacrifice to that Name. The divine aspect of justice, which is symbolized by that Name\u2014\u201cjudgment is God\u2019s\u201d (Deut. 1:17)\u2014therefore struck them for having \u201ccut down the plants.\u201d This is why Num. 16:9 says of the Levites that \u201cthe God of Israel has set you apart from the community of Israel.\u201d For the sacrificial service is offered to this Name, and they were awarded it because of the merit they earned by doing this deed. The Lord \u201csaid\u201d this in a commandment given directly to Moses, which he did not write in the Torah, at the time when \u201cthe Lord renounced the punishment He had planned to bring upon His people\u201d (v. 14). \u201cSince you do not want Me to destroy them, then you handle it, after the fashion of \u2018Take all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before the Lord, so that the Lord\u2019s wrath may turn away from Israel\u2019 [Num. 25:4].\u201d I have noted a number of such commandments, where we are not told when they were given; e.g., \u201cLet one omer of [the manna] be kept throughout the ages\u201d (16:32). Each of you put sword on thigh. The calf-worshipers were so many that they could not be brought to court. As our Sages say, \u201cIf you cannot put the violator to death by the appropriate means, use any means you can.\u201d It was an emergency measure for the sanctification of the Name. For they were not warned against committing their sin, as is technically necessary; yet the Levites recognized that those whom they killed were the calf-worshipers. But for those who, like Rashi in his comment to v. 20, think that the procedural rules of warning and witnesses did apply in this case, we must say as follows: Moses told them to arm themselves for the purpose of bringing the violators to court (to Moses or to the Sanhedrin). Those properly found guilty would be killed by stoning, as is proper for idolaters\u2014or perhaps in this case by beheading, as applies to the idolatrous city of Deut. 13:13\u201319. (Since all the Levites were \u201cfor the Lord\u201d [v. 26], we can presume that they must have warned the others not to worship any but \u201cthe Lord\u201d alone, for whom Aaron had proclaimed the festival, as I have explained.) In fact, the opinion expressed on B. Yoma 66b is correct. Whoever sacrificed and burned incense was beheaded; whoever embraced the calf and kissed it died in the plague; whoever rejoiced secretly died of dropsy induced by drinking the water with the ashes in it. But this was all an emergency decree, since plague is not a standard judicial punishment. Slay brother, neighbor, and kin. Do not pity or have mercy on them because of your being related to them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nGo back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp. To atone for those who did not sin but did not try to prevent the sinners from doing so; as they did not prevent them, so they will not prevent you (Sforno). Slay brother, neighbor, and kin. The fact that Moses gives specific permission for this teaches us that, under ordinary circumstances, a judge may not sit in judgment over a relative (Gersonides).
\nExodus 32:28
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Levites did as Moses had bidden. But not \u201call\u201d the Levites who had rallied to him in v. 26.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Levites did as Moses had bidden. They especially; but \u201cslay brother, neighbor, and kin\u201d (v. 27) shows that Israelites from every tribe were involved. For the Levites had no kin to slay, having all rallied to Moses (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:29
\nRASHI
\nDedicate yourselves. You who are killing them are dedicating yourselves, by this act, to be priests to God. Each of you. \u201cOf you\u201d has been added, correctly, by NJPS; see the more literal OJPS. The sense is: Each of you dedicates himself today, by taking sword in hand against son and brother.
\nRASHBAM
\nDedicate yourselves to the Lord this day. In Num. 32:12, Moses uses the same phrase of Caleb and Joshua, who alone of their generation dedicated themselves to the Lord. Literally, the phrase is \u201cfill your hand\u201d\u2014\u201cdedicate your hands today, each and every one of you, in sacrifice to the Lord. For each of you has sent your hands against son and brother, on heaven\u2019s behalf.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses said. Moses had said (before the killing). I have already shown you many cases of this grammatical phenomenon. Dedicate yourselves. I have explained this in my comment to 28:41. For each of you has been against son and brother. \u201cHas been\u201d is not in the Hebrew; the tense must be supplied. It is to be read, \u201cEach of you must be against the violator even if it is his son or his brother.\u201d But the description of Levi in Deut. 33:9, \u201cWho said of his father and mother, \u2018I consider them not,\u2019 \u201d cannot refer to the Golden Calf incident, since v. 26 tells us that \u201call the Levites\u201d rallied to Moses, meaning there were no Levites, not even \u201cfathers and mothers,\u201d among the violators. That He may bestow a blessing upon you today. \u201cAt that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the Ark of the Lord\u2019s Covenant, to stand in attendance upon the Lord, and to bless in His name, as is still the case\u201d (Deut. 10:8). The \u201cblessing\u201d He gave them was this additional status, which had previously belonged to the first-born. So Saadia is mistaken in saying that the Levites too made expiation for their persons with the half-shekel of silver for the Tabernacle. I will discuss this further in my comment to Num. 3:1.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThat He may bestow a blessing upon you this day. I have heard that this blessing is that found in Deut. 33:11, where Moses blessed them, though Jacob, in Gen. 49:7, had not (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:30\u201333
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses have to \u201cgo up to the Lord\u201d to \u201cwin forgiveness\u201d for their sin (v. 30), when he had already persuaded God to renounce their punishment (v. 14)?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses describe the people\u2019s sin as making \u201ca god of gold\u201d (v. 31) rather than \u201ca calf of gold\u201d?
\nExodus 32:30
\nRASHI
\nI may win forgiveness for your sin. Literally, \u201cin front of\u201d your sin. I will put an annulment, an erasure, an obstruction in front of your sin, to separate you from it.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will now go up to the Lord. The Shekhinah had not departed, but was still resting on the mountain. As he tells them in Deut. 9:15, when he started down the mountain, it was still \u201cablaze with fire.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nPerhaps I may win forgiveness. Your sin is so great that there is some doubt (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 32:31
\nRASHI
\nA god of gold. It is You who caused them to do it, having showered them with gold and everything else they wanted. What else were they going to do but sin? It is like a king who gave his son food and drink and adornments, hung a bag of gold around his neck, and left him at the door of a brothel. How could the son not sin?
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses went back. The text says that he went \u201cback\u201d because he had come down from there. Alas. Rather, \u201cplease\u201d\u2014this word anna is conciliatory. This people is guilty of a great sin. Moses is confessing their sin.
\nExodus 32:32
\nRASHI
\nNow, if You will forgive their sin, well and good. Again, NJPS has correctly added \u201cwell and good\u201d to the original (see OJPS). If You will forgive their sin, well and good\u2014I will not ask You to \u201cerase me.\u201d But if not, erase me. The abbreviated style of this verse is quite common. From the record which You have written. From the entire Torah. I do not want it said of me that I was not worthy of gaining Your mercy for them.
\nRASHBAM
\nErase me from the record. The \u201cBook of Life\u201d which You have written. The concept is known from Isa. 4:3, \u201cAll who are inscribed for life in Jerusalem.\u201d Moses is saying, \u201cIf You would deal thus with me, kill me rather!\u201d (Num. 11:15).
\nIBN EZRA
\nErase me. As if to say, \u201cIf You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You\u201d (Num. 11:15). From the record which You have written. Many take this to be metaphoric, using the image of a king before whom records are written and read out, as I have explained in my comment to Dan. 7:10, \u201cThe court sat and the books were opened.\u201d In my opinion, the \u201crecord\u201d is literally that which was written \u201cwith the finger of God\u201d (31:18). That is, as the wise understand, God\u2019s \u201crecord\u201d is written in the stars, which even determine how many children one will have and how long (and how well) one will live. But (as I have explained) God can add to the record written in the stars for one who fears Him.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNow, if You will forgive their sin, well and good; but if not, erase me from the record. If Rashi\u2019s comment is correct, what is the meaning of God\u2019s reply in v. 33? I suppose Rashi could interpret this to mean, \u201cI only erase one who sins against Me, and you have not sinned against Me.\u201d But this is not correct. Ibn Ezra thinks the \u201crecord\u201d implies the astrological determinations on which fates in the world below hang. That is, \u201cI will only \u2018erase\u2019 those who sinned against Me in thought but were not killed.\u201d According to him, this is what happens in v. 35. But I do not think he is correct. For besides those who were killed by the Levites and in the plague, the majority of the community sinned, as I have said. In my opinion, Moses is saying, \u201cIf you will not forgive them, then erase me from the Book of Life instead of them, and I will bear their punishment.\u201d This is like the idea expressed in Isa. 53:5, \u201cHe was wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his bruises we were healed.\u201d But the Holy One told him, \u201cI will erase the sinner from My record, and not you, who have not sinned.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nErase me from the record. Since I too have sinned, having broken the tablets. Or is there some favoritism involved here? (Bekhor Shor). This cannot mean the Torah, which had not yet been written; it means \u201cfrom the Book of Life\u201d (Hizkuni). Moses uses the metaphor of the \u201cBook of Life\u201d because a book mimics the reality of the world of the senses, from which it draws its existence, in just the same way as that world mimics the world of the divine intellect, from which it draws its existence (Gersonides). Erase my merits from the record, and transfer them to the Israelites\u2019 account so they can be pardoned after all (Sforno).
\nExodus 32:33
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe who has sinned against Me, him only will I erase from My record. This is God\u2019s answer to Moses\u2019 request. But Saadia takes it to mean, \u201chim only will I kill, not the whole people\u201d (as He had originally intended). Now, only those who had sinned in thought would be killed.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe who has sinned against Me, him only will I erase. But you did right to break the tablets; they did not deserve them (Bekhor Shor). The Hebrew does not say \u201conly\u201d; God is saying what strict justice requires, but telling Moses, \u201cI am letting you off\u201d (Hizkuni). Have I ever erased anyone who sinned against Me from My book? In fact, I have never punished anyone to the full extent that he deserved (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 32:34\u201333:1
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How can one reconcile God\u2019s telling Moses to \u201clead the people where I told you\u201d (v. 34), when His determination to \u201cbring them to account\u201d shows that He is still angry?
\n\u2666 Having already told Moses to \u201clead the people where I told you\u201d (32:34), why does God tell him further, \u201cSet out from here\u201d (v. 1)?
\nExodus 32:34
\nRASHI
\nMy angel. But not I Myself. When I make an accounting. For the time being, I have heeded you, and will not destroy them all together. But whenever I bring them to account for their other sins, I will add to their account a little of this sin along with the others. So no punishment shall come to the Israelites that does not contain a bit of punishment for the sin of the calf as well.
\nRASHBAM
\nLead the people. To the land of Israel. But when I make an accounting. That is, when from time to time, at My own discretion, I make an accounting\u2014not all at once.
\nIBN EZRA
\nGo now, lead the people. I have pardoned their sin on account of your prayer, so now, if you love them so much, you can lead them where I told you. But even though I have been patient with them, I will eventually make an accounting. The fact that God says \u201cwhere I told you\u201d and not \u201cto Canaan\u201d demonstrates His impatience. My angel shall go before you. He did not say \u201cthe angel,\u201d which would have referred to the angel mentioned in 23:20. When I make an accounting. Literally, \u201con the day when I make an accounting\u201d (see OJPS). There is a Day of Reckoning to come, but it is a secret.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nGo now, lead the people. \u201cSince I have renounced the punishment I intended to bring upon them, go take them where I told you, to the land of \u2018the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites\u2019 [34:11].\u201d But He does not say it explicitly here, because He is angry. He is also saying, \u201cI will do what I told you, for your sake, but I will not forgive their sin. For when I make an accounting, I will bring them to account for their sins\u201d\u2014after they come to the land. This may be an allusion to the time of exile, or to the rabbinic saying, \u201cEvery punishment Israel receives contains an ounce of the punishment for the Golden Calf.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nGo now, lead the people. Get back to work (Hizkuni). My angel shall go before you. That is, the general providence that flows from the heavenly causes (for that can also be called \u201can angel\u201d). But the specific, individual providence that is a result of cleaving to God would not accompany them. More precisely, God is saying: I will fulfill the promise to the Patriarchs when the time comes, but they have not earned the right to have it fulfilled immediately (Gersonides). When I make an accounting, I will bring them to account for their sins. I forgive them this time. But if they sin again, I will bring them to account for that sin and for this one too (Bekhor Shor). That is, when the stars portend evil for them, it will happen (Gersonides). This refers to the incident of the spies, which is when the plague of v. 35 happened (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 32:35
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord sent a plague upon the people. Death \u201cat the hands of heaven,\u201d for those who were seen by witnesses, but had not been warned against committing the sin.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA plague. The Hebrew word is more general (see OJPS), but NJPS is correct. But in my opinion, this plague did not take place until after they left Mount Sinai. The fact that in 38:26 all 603,550 men who left Egypt are still alive suggests that I am correct.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThen. Even after telling Moses to take them to Canaan. It may be that He wished to reduce the great amount of their sin so that they should be worthy of entering the land, or it may have been irrevocably decreed before Moses prayed for them. The Lord sent a plague upon the people. The text does not say how many were killed, though it does tell us how many were killed by the Levites (v. 28) and how many died in the plagues that followed Korah\u2019s rebellion (Num. 17:14) and the Baal-peor incident (Num. 25:9). Perhaps no one died immediately from the plague, but the plague made them die (later) before their time. Or perhaps it simply does not bother to give the number, just as it does not give the number of the people who were struck down at Kibroth-hattaavah after gorging on meat (Num. 11:33). But the number of those killed by the Levites is given, out of respect for the Levites, to show that they killed so many without fear, trusting in God. For what they did with the calf. For the ones killed here were not among those who prostrated themselves to it, or sacrificed to it. But they did participate in making it. That is, they were the ones who \u201cgathered against Aaron\u201d (v. 1) and brought him the gold. The OJPS translation, \u201cbecause they made the calf,\u201d might be correct as well. It is true that they did not make it, but the text shows us that Aaron made it at their command.
\nExodus 33:1
\nRASHI
\nSet out from here. Literally, \u201cgo up from here\u201d (cf. OJPS). The land of Israel is at a higher elevation than all other countries, which is why Moses is told to go \u201cup.\u201d Another reading: Having told him, when He was angry, \u201cHurry down\u201d (32:7), once He was appeased He said, \u201cGo up.\u201d You and the people. He does not say, as He did in 32:7, \u201cyour people.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nSet out from here. Literally, \u201cgo up\u201d (OJPS), that is, go north. God goes back to explain his command in 32:34 more fully.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSet out from here, you and the people. This is as much as to say, \u201cThe plague will not wipe out their sin to the extent that I will dwell among them.\u201d The land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the plague did wipe out a small part of their sin, reconciling God to them enough so that He reiterated that He would keep the promise he had made to their ancestors.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSet out. Again, Moses made no reply, and again God was forced to repeat Himself: \u201cWhat are you, sleeping? Set out from here, you and the people!\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 33:2\u20135
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Since \u201cnone [of the people] put on his finery\u201d (v. 4), why must God insist that Moses tell them in v. 5 to take it off? (Again, see the more literal OJPS.)
\n\u2666 What was this \u201cfinery\u201d of theirs?
\nExodus 33:2
\nRASHI
\nI will drive out the Canaanites. Only six nations are mentioned here; the seventh, the Girgashites, up and left of their own accord.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will send an angel before you. This too explains 32:34 more fully. The Canaanites, etc. This is an abbreviated list, omitting the Girgashites.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will drive out the Canaanites. Despite their remaining sin, God would still drive out the six nations, as He had promised in 3:8.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will send an angel before you. This was as much as they had coming to them from God\u2019s providence for the Patriarchs (Gersonides).
\nExodus 33:3
\nRASHI
\nA land flowing with milk and honey. The verse literally begins with \u201cunto\u201d (OJPS). \u201cSet out from here [v. 1] \u2026 to a land flowing with milk and honey.\u201d But I will not go in your midst. That is why I told you, \u201cI will send an angel before you\u201d (v. 2). Since you are a stiffnecked people. When My Shekhinah is in your midst and you rebel against Me, I get too angry at you. Lest I destroy you. NJPS is correct.
\nRASHBAM
\nLest I destroy you. Rather, \u201cconsume\u201d you (OJPS). \u201cFor the Lord your God is a consuming fire\u201d (Deut. 4:24).
\nIBN EZRA
\nA land. That is, \u201cthe land of which I swore\u201d (v. 1). Flowing. The verb used here is actually the same as that used in Lev. 15:2, \u201cWhen any man has a discharge issuing from his member, he is unclean.\u201d In both cases it refers to an effortless flow. Joel 4:18 expresses it this way: \u201cThe mountains shall drip with wine, the hills shall flow with milk, and all the watercourses of Judah shall flow with water.\u201d Honey. Many commentators explain this to mean \u201cdate honey.\u201d But I will not go in your midst. They should not set up the Tabernacle. The sense of the whole passage is, \u201cYou prayed to me, on Israel\u2019s behalf, to bring them to the land. My angel will go there to bring them, or (if you like) you may lead them. For I will not go in your midst now.\u201d Lest I destroy you. It is as a matter of kindness that I will not go with you. For if you were to do a second time what you have already done, I would destroy you. The pointing of this verb is somewhat unusual, but NJPS translates it correctly.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA land flowing with milk and honey. Nor would their sin destroy the land or defile it. But I will not go in your midst. For your own good. This is a promise, not a threat. Lest I destroy you on the way. Because you are so stiffnecked. There are two punishments for Israel here: one, that the Shekhinah would not rest upon them (that is why our verse emphasizes \u201con the way\u201d); the other, that (once the six nations have been driven out) He does not promise them even an angel to help them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA land flowing with milk and honey. Where you can support yourselves. For here you can only be kept alive by a miracle that you do not deserve (Sforno). But I will not go in your midst. Because you yourselves have not earned My providential care (Gersonides). A stiffnecked people. Who will not bend their neck to the yoke (Bekhor Shor). Who refuse to leave the corrupt beliefs in which you grew up (Gersonides).
\nExodus 33:4
\nRASHI
\nThis harsh word. That the Shekhinah would not rest upon them as they traveled. None put on his finery. The crowns that had been given to them at Horeb, when they said, \u201cWe will do and we will hear!\u201d (24:7).
\nRASHBAM
\nFinery. A kind of jewelry. They left them off because they were in mourning, and because they had been told by the Holy One (in v. 5) to take them off.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen the people heard this harsh word. The harsh word that they heard was that God had said to Moses, \u201cYou are a stiffnecked people\u201d (v. 5). There are many such cases where the verb must be translated not in the past (\u201csaid\u201d) but the pluperfect (\u201chad said\u201d). See, e.g., my comment to Ps. 78:23. They went into mourning. That is, they took off their fine clothes and put on mourning garments, on account of the Golden Calf episode, for all their days\u2014\u201cfrom Mount Horeb on\u201d (v. 6).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen the people had heard this harsh word. The two punishments mentioned in the previous comment. None put on his finery. Because they were in mourning.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHis finery. The gold, silver, and clothing that they had brought with them from Egypt (Hizkuni). The \u201ccrowns\u201d of Torah. Learning that God would not accompany them, as they had been promised when they received the Torah, they removed their necks from its yoke\u2014a second rebellion (Gersonides).
\nExodus 33:5
\nRASHI
\nIf I were to go in your midst for one moment, I would destroy you. \u201cIf I were to go in your midst, and in your stiffneckedness you rebelled against Me, I would be angry at you for one moment\u201d\u2014for that is the duration of His anger: \u201cHide but a little moment, until the indignation passes\u201d (Isa. 26:20)\u2014\u201cand I would destroy you. So it is better for you that I send an angel.\u201d Now, then. Right now, you shall suffer the following punishment: taking off your finery. As for the rest \u2026 I will consider what to do to you. Rather, \u201cI know\u201d\u2014as far as making an accounting for the rest of the transgressions, I know what it is that I intend to do to you.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLeave off your finery. NJPS follows Saadia\u2019s understanding that this was meant to be a general rule. But in my opinion there is no need for this interpretation; God had told them to \u201cput off\u201d their finery (OJPS), which they did in v. 4. I will consider what to do to you. Literally, \u201cthat I may know\u201d (OJPS). Saadia says it means \u201cthat I may let you know.\u201d Grammatically, that is impossible, but that is clearly what it means. It is like a man saying to his servant who has sinned against him, \u201cOnce I see that you have repented of your sin, then I will know what to do with you.\u201d I am also going to explain \u201cI know thee by name\u201d (v. 12, OJPS).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSay to the Israelite people. Up until now it has been \u201cyour people\u201d (32:7) or \u201cthe people\u201d (v. 1). But now that they are in mourning, the God of mercy, full of compassion, addresses them by His pet name for them. He tells Moses to let them know that He is staying away from them for their own good, and that they have done right to repent and go into mourning over their sin. Leave off your finery. The text would literally read, \u201cTake off your finery\u201d (compare OJPS). But (since they have already done this in v. 4) NJPS understands the meaning correctly. \u201cI will make an accounting of their sin based on the mourning and repentance that they demonstrate by leaving off their finery. For \u2018I the Lord probe the heart, search the mind\u2019 [Jer. 17:10].\u201d I will consider what to do to you. Literally, \u201cthat I may know\u201d (OJPS). According to the True interpretation, He will decide what to do to them based on the knowledge gained by His aspect of mercy. See my comment to Gen. 18:21.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLeave off your finery. They had already taken it off (v. 4). But being ashamed is one thing, and being shamed is something completely different (Hizkuni). The \u201cfinery\u201d is the spiritual preparation that they received at Mount Sinai. Having given it to them, God cannot demand it back from them without their consent (Sforno).
\nExodus 33:6\u20137
\nExodus 33:6
\nRASHI
\nSo the Israelites remained stripped of their finery from Mount Horeb on. \u201cOn\u201d is not in the original; they were stripped of \u201ctheir finery from Mount Horeb.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Israelites remained stripped of their finery. Rather, \u201cthey stripped themselves\u201d (OJPS). Having been told what God had said in v. 5, they removed even more of their finery than they originally had. Onkelos translates the word not as \u201cfinery,\u201d but as \u201cmilitary equipment.\u201d He is thinking of the midrash that says that, at the time of the giving of the Torah, the Holy One girded Israel with protection against plague and against the Angel of Death. (This protection consisted of the Names of the Holy One.) By stripping themselves of this protection, they willingly accepted upon themselves the punishment of death for their sin with the Golden Calf. This shows great repentance and regret for their sin.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFrom Mount Horeb on. \u201cOn\u201d is not in the text. The fact that it is \u201cfrom Mount Horeb\u201d shows that it cannot literally be \u201cfinery,\u201d but must be Torah. This is what has prompted us to interpret it this way. Torah is so perfect and beautiful in and of itself that one is not compelled to accept it but is drawn to it on one\u2019s own (Gersonides).
\nExodus 33:7
\nRASHI
\nMoses would take the Tent. NJPS has the tense of the verb correct. Moses said, \u201cOstracized by the Master\u2014ostracized by the disciple.\u201d At some distance. Two thousand cubits. As the people were told in Josh. 3:4, \u201cKeep a distance of some two thousand cubits\u201d from the Ark. It was called the Tent of Meeting. Literally, \u201cHe [Moses] used to call it the Tent of Meeting.\u201d It was a place of meeting for seekers of Torah. Whoever sought the Lord. We learn from this that whoever seeks the presence of an elder is like one who welcomes the presence of the Shekhinah. Would go out to the Tent of Meeting. Again, the tense is correct. Another reading: Even the ministering angels, when they sought the whereabouts of the Shekhinah, their companions would tell them, \u201cIt is in Moses\u2019 tent.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nMoses would take the Tent. Rather, \u201cMoses took the Tent.\u201d At some distance. He ostracized them, for the Holy One did not want to speak with Moses in the midst of the Israelite camp.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses would take the Tent. It simply means \u201cMoses took the Tent.\u201d He took it out of the camp when he came down the mountain with the second set of tablets and the Israelites began to construct the Tabernacle. The Torah is not written in chronological order. The Tent of Meeting. He called his tent \u201cthe Tent of Meeting\u201d because that is where God met with him before the Tabernacle was set up. But some think this was the Tabernacle, which was set up outside the camp; it only entered the midst of the Israelites 50 days later, \u201cin the second year, on the twentieth day of the second month\u201d (Num. 10:11), when the first march organized by standards, with the Tabernacle in the middle, took place.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses would take the tent. Rashi assigns this procedure to the period from the Day of Atonement until the Tabernacle was set up on the 1st of Nisan (see his comment to v. 11). Ibn Ezra too thinks all this took place after Moses brought down the second set of tablets, under the principle that the Torah is not written in chronological order. But I do not think this is correct. What would be the point of mentioning this out of context in the middle of our passage? The verb cannot have the repetitive sense given to it by the translations, since Moses only took the Tent outside the camp once. All through the Midrash, our Sages tell us that Moses took the Tent outside the camp because of the sin of the Golden Calf, under the principle \u201cOne who is excommunicated by the master is excommunicated for his disciple as well.\u201d As Rashi puts it, God told Moses, \u201cI am angry and you are angry\u2014so who will bring them near to Me?\u201d Now, if this took place after the Day of Atonement, well, by that time both the Holy One and Moses were reconciled with Israel.
\nI see the chronology as follows. Moses came down the mountain on the 17th of Tammuz. He burned the calf and punished those who worshiped it. The next day, he told them he would go back up the mountain to seek expiation for them, and did so (32:31). At this point everything up through v. 6 took place. Then Moses realized that the situation was still unresolved, and that he did not know how it would end. At this point he took the Tent and pitched it outside the camp so that the Shekhinah would speak with him there (which it would not have done if the Tent had remained in the midst of the people). Whoever sought the Lord. The text continues by explaining everything that happened as long as the Tent was outside the camp, until the Tabernacle was set up; according to our Sages, this period lasted from the Day of Atonement until the 1st of Nisan.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses would take the tent. He took the tent outside the camp until they should repent and return to God, because he was so angry that they had lost the precious Torah that had been in their hands (Gersonides). It was called the Tent of Meeting. Literally, \u201cHe\u201d\u2014God\u2014\u201ccalled it the Tent of Meeting\u201d to let Moses know that from now on He would meet with him there, and not in the camp of the Israelites (Sforno). Outside the camp. One who sought a judgment, or anything else, would have to go out there (Bekhor Shor). He undoubtedly pitched it at a high point on Mount Sinai, so that everyone in the camp could see from the entrance to his own tent when the cloud descended to speak with Moses (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 33:8\u201311
\nExodus 33:8
\nRASHI
\nWhenever Moses went out of the camp to go to the Tent, all the people would rise. They would stand in his presence, not sitting until he had vanished from their sight. And gaze after Moses. This was in praise of him, as if to say, \u201cHappy is the man born of woman who is assured that the Shekhinah will follow him into his tent!\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhenever Moses went out to the Tent. Rather, \u201cwhen Moses went out to the Tent\u201d after coming down with the second set of tablets. Others say this occasion took place after he \u201ccaused Israel to set out from the Sea of Reeds\u201d (15:22). It is written in the Torah at this spot because of \u201cI will go in the lead and will lighten your burden\u201d (v. 14), as I will explain in my comment to that verse and in the summary following v. 17.
\nExodus 33:9
\nRASHI
\nWhile He spoke with Moses. Onkelos translates this verb in the reflexive conjugation, for \u201cHe\u201d (though the Hebrew, of course, has no capital letter to indicate it) refers to the Presence of the Shekhinah. See Num. 7:89, which also uses the reflexive conjugation to describe how the voice of God speaks to Moses. The implication is that the Voice is \u201cspeaking\u201d to itself, and the ordinary human is overhearing. But when the normal verb \u201cspeak\u201d is used, it implies that the King is speaking to the ordinary person.
\nExodus 33:10
\nRASHI
\nAll the people would rise and bow low. To the Shekhinah.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the people would rise and bow low. Their bowing to the Shekhinah shows that they had returned to God (Gersonides).
\nExodus 33:11
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord would speak to Moses face to face. He would \u201cspeak to Himself\u201d with Moses. He would then return to the camp. After communicating with God, Moses would return to the camp and teach the elders what he had learned. Moses did this from the Day of Atonement until the Tabernacle was erected, but no longer. For the tablets were broken on the 17th of Tammuz, the calf was burnt and the sinners judged on the 18th, and he went up the mountain on the 19th (\u201cThe next day Moses said to the people, I will now go up to the Lord,\u2019 \u201d 32:30). He spent 40 days there seeking mercy for the people (\u201cI threw myself down before the Lord\u2014eating no bread and drinking no water forty days and forty nights, as before\u2014because of the great wrong you had committed, doing what displeased the Lord and vexing Him,\u201d Deut. 9:18). On the 1st of Elul, he was told, \u201cIn the morning come up to Mount Sinai\u201d (34:2) to get the second set of tablets, and again he spent 40 days there (\u201cI had stayed on the mountain, as I did the first time, forty days and forty nights,\u201d Deut. 10:10). If Moses \u201cstayed\u201d as he had the first time, then the third period of 40 days, like the first, must have been one of divine favor; I conclude that the middle period of 40 days was one of anger. On the 10th of Tishrei God was reconciled with Israel joyfully and with a whole heart, and told Moses, \u201cI pardon, as you have asked\u201d (Num. 14:20). Then He gave Moses the second set of tablets, and Moses came down and began to give them the commandments about the construction of the Tabernacle. It took them until the 1st of Nisan to build it. But once it was built, God no longer communicated with him except from the Tent of Meeting. Following Onkelos\u2019s translation, the English translators note that these things \u201cwould\u201d happen on a regular basis.
\nBut midrashically the verse is interpreted literally as if the verbs were in the past tense: The Lord spoke to Moses to tell him to return to the camp. He said, \u201cI am angry, and you are angry. So who will draw them near to Me?\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord would speak to Moses face to face. Rather, \u201cHe spoke with Moses face to face\u201d\u2014after Moses\u2019 request in v. 18. And see my comment to that verse. His attendant, Joshua son of Nun, a youth. He lived to the age of 110. Our Sages say that he spent seven years conquering the land and seven allocating it, which means that at this point, 40 years before the conquest, he would be 56. So how could the text be calling him \u201ca youth\u201d? Rather, the verse should be translated: \u201cJoshua son of Nun, attending him as a servant \u2026\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nJoshua son of Nun. \u201cSon of\u201d is bin here instead of the normal ben. It is true that bin is found elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Prov. 30:1, Jon. 4:10, Deut. 25:2). But it is still surprising that in the name of this righteous man, it never appears the normal way. I think it must have been a name of honor, derived in the following way. He was the greatest of all the students of our master Moses, and thus acquired the nickname binun, that is to say, \u201cthe understanding one.\u201d For there was no one as wise and understanding as he. Or it may mean \u201cJoshua, the understanding-begotten\u201d\u2014bin in the sense of \u201cunderstanding,\u201d and nun as used in Ps. 72:17, \u201cwhile the sun lasts, may his name endure [yinnun].\u201d A youth. See Ibn Ezra\u2019s comment. In my opinion, it is simply an idiom of Biblical Hebrew to call any servant a \u201cyouth,\u201d as if the master were the \u201cman\u201d and the servant a \u201cboy.\u201d In 2 Kings 4:12, \u201chis servant Gehazi\u201d is literally \u201chis youth Gehazi\u201d; there are similar examples in 2 Sam. 2:14 and 18:15, and many others elsewhere. If this is correct, then our verse is to be understood as saying, \u201cHis attendant Joshua was in constant attendance, and would not stir out of the Tent.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFace to face. This phrase occurs only five times in the Bible: Gen. 32:31, our verse, Deut. 34:10, Judg. 6:22, and Ezek. 20:35 (Masorah). Not \u201cprostrate, but with eyes unveiled\u201d (Num. 24:4), but in full possession of his senses (Sforno). Joshua \u2026 would not stir out of the Tent. He would not go into the camp at all (Bekhor Shor). To make sure none of the other Israelites, who were still being ostracized by God, would go into a place where the Shekhinah might rest at any moment (Sforno).
\nExodus 33:12
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How can Moses say, \u201cYou have not made known to me whom You will send with me\u201d (v. 12), when God has just told him in 32:34, \u201cMy angel shall go before you\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why does Moses keep repeating the word \u201cYou\u201d even when it is grammatically unnecessary?
\nExodus 33:12
\nRASHI
\nSee. Direct Your eyes and Your heart to Your own words. You have not made known to me whom You will send with me. I will not take \u201cI am sending an angel before you\u201d (23:20) as \u201cmaking it known to me\u201d\u2014for this is something I do not want. You have said, \u2018I have singled you out by name.\u2019 You have distinguished me from the rest of humanity by naming me as the most important of them. For You said to me, \u201cI will come to you in a thick cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after\u201d (19:9).
\nRASHBAM
\nSee, You say to me, \u2018Lead this people forward.\u2019 As mentioned in 32:34. But You have not made known to me whom You will send with me. Except for telling me, \u201cMy angel shall go before you\u201d (32:34). But I only want You to go with us Yourself.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSee, You say to me. Moses says \u201csee\u201d idiomatically: \u201cLook\u201d at the predicament that I am in. Whom You will send with me. Which angel it is. For 32:34 had made clear that it would not be Michael, of whom God had said, \u201cMy Name is in him\u201d (23:21). You have said. God said this to him when he was on the mountain, though it is not recorded explicitly until this point. I have singled you out by name, and you have, indeed, gained My favor. This should be translated as follows: \u201cYou have said that I would know You, and also, \u2018You have, indeed, gained My favor.\u2019 \u201d V. 13 is Moses\u2019 request that, if he has indeed gained God\u2019s favor, He should let Moses know Him, as He promised.
\nNow, listen closely to my opinion. You must know that the hosts of heaven and of earth all owe their continuation in existence to God\u2019s thought. The forms correspond to God\u2019s thoughts, and the categories of created beings correspond to the forms. Thus, within God, the knower becomes one with the known, which is why they say of divine knowledge that He is both the knower and the known. The knowledge of created beings does not work this way, for their individuality prevents the knower from being the known. Knowing God by name implies that Moses, by adhering so closely to God, has been raised to a level at which he too is both the knower and the known. This is why God created signs and wonders in the world through Moses.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSee, You say to me. This took place on Mount Sinai, when he ascended it on the 19th of Tammuz. The text did not need to mention the ascent, since it could be taken for granted that, as long as the Presence rested on Mount Sinai, that was where all divine communication with Moses took place. \u201cMoses went back to the Lord\u201d (32:31) is similar. You have not made known to me whom You will send with me. Rashi\u2019s comment is not consistent with the text. Moreover, why would Moses say this now after having been silent in 23:20, when God told him, \u201cI am sending an angel before you\u201d? Was Moses trying to turn the Golden Calf episode to his advantage? In fact, Moses is responding to v. 2, \u201cI will send an angel before you,\u201d and what he means is, \u201cYou have not told me who this angel is. Is it the one of whom You said, \u2018My Name is in him\u2019 [23:21]?\u201d This is the implication of the phrase You have said, \u201cI have singled you out by name\u201d (literally, \u201cI know you by name\u201d; compare OJPS): You have known me and exalted me by means of Your Name. And this is how Ibn Ezra understands it. In his opinion, the angel the Israelites wanted was Michael, the angel mentioned in 23:20\u201321 (see his comment to the latter verse). His fine intelligence well comprehended from these verses that the original angel was pleasing to Moses and to Israel. But he was not able to understand the Truth, for he had never been taught it and did not acquire it independently by prophecy.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou have not made known to me whom You will send with me. Which angel. So I do not know whether I will have as much help as I need.\u2014If it were the Active Intellect, that would be enough, as is explained in Parts 4 and 6 of my Wars of the Lord (Gersonides). For \u201cI will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites\u201d (v. 2) presumably would apply only once they entered the land (Sforno).
\nExodus 33:13\u201315
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What prompted Moses to ask (v. 13) out of the blue, \u201cLet me know Your ways\u201d? Why does he invoke his gaining of God\u2019s favor in order to justify the question? He does not do this when he asks (in v. 18) to behold God\u2019s \u201cPresence,\u201d a much more serious request.
\n\u2666 Why does Moses assume (v. 13) that knowing God\u2019s ways is the equivalent of knowing God?
\n\u2666 How can \u201cfinding grace in God\u2019s sight\u201d (see the OJPS translation of v. 13) be both the reason for God\u2019s telling him His ways and the result of his learning God\u2019s ways?
\n\u2666 How can God\u2019s response, \u201cI will go in the lead and will lighten your burden\u201d (v. 14), possibly be an answer to Moses\u2019 request?
\n\u2666 Once God has already said that He would \u201cgo in the lead,\u201d how can Moses respond to him by saying (v. 15), \u201cUnless You go in the lead, do not make us leave this place\u201d?
\nExodus 33:13
\nRASHI
\nIf I have truly gained Your favor. NJPS has, correctly, added \u201ctruly\u201d to the original (see OJPS). Pray let me know Your ways. Let me know what reward you give to those who have gained your favor. For the righteous do not always seem to be rewarded appropriately, nor the wicked punished appropriately. That I may know You and continue in Your favor. Rather, \u201cthat by this I may know how great is the reward You give for gaining Your favor.\u201d Consider, too, that this nation is Your people. Do not say, \u201cI will make of you a great nation\u201d (32:10) and abandon these others. Consider that they have been Your people since ancient times. If you reject them, I can hardly rely on my own descendants surviving. Make known to me with this people what reward you will give me.\u2014Our Sages (on B. Ber. 7a) have interpreted this verse after their own fashion. But I have come in order to resolve the meaning of the biblical verses as they fit contextually, in their actual order.
\nRASHBAM
\nPray let me know Your ways. You Yourself must let us know the way\u2014You show me Your ways and I will follow You.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLet me know Your ways. A created being has no power to know the Creator of the world, except through His ways. But one who does know His ways will know Him, for then he will be raised to the level of the angelic forms. That is why Moses said, Let me know Your ways, that I may know You. Consider, too, that this nation is Your people. This is his prayer on their behalf.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet me know Your ways. He thought, If I can understand God\u2019s ways, I will know whether it would be good to have Him go with us or not (Bekhor Shor). How, by knowing alone, You give existence to all things, and how, despite Your unimpeachable knowledge of the future, Your creatures still have free will (Sforno).
\nExodus 33:14\u201315
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will go in the lead. Literally, \u201cMy face will go,\u201d which all the commentators understand to mean \u201cI Myself will go,\u201d based on the use of a similar expression in 2 Sam. 17:11. Unless You go in the lead, do not make us leave this place. According to Rashi, this means, \u201cThat is what I want. Do not make us leave this place by means of an angel.\u201d But Heaven forbid that Moses should say \u201cunless You go\u201d when God has already told him, \u201cI will go\u201d! Ibn Ezra takes v. 14 to mean that God will go with Moses alone and v. 15 to be Moses\u2019 response that He must go with all the people. This too does not fit the language of the text. For Moses in v. 12 says \u201cwith me,\u201d and even in 23:20\u201321, before the sin of the Golden Calf, God said, \u201cI am sending an angel before you,\u201d in the singular. If you agree that Moses there represents all of Israel, you must say the same for our passage. Moreover, if Moses is asking for the name of the angel, that means that he is satisfied with having an angel do it. In which case, God\u2019s reply is giving him far more than he asked for, in saying that He Himself would go. But actually it is impossible for anyone who has not heard the mystical secrets of the Torah to make coherent sense out of this passage. Here is the True interpretation:
\nMoses says, \u201cYou have not made known to me the name of the angel whom You will send with me,\u201d and requests that God fulfill two promises: First, \u201cI have known you by name,\u201d that is, \u201cFor your sake, I will make Myself known by My Name,\u201d the highest degree of prophecy. It may well be that \u201cYou have said\u201d (v. 12) refers, in this context, to \u201cI am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name\u201d (6:2\u20133; see my comment there). The second promise is \u201cYou have, indeed, gained My favor\u201d (v. 12), by which is meant intellectual cleaving to God. Read v. 13 as follows: \u201cIf I have truly gained Your favor\u201d\u2014the favor of Your aspect of justice\u2014\u201cpray let me know Your ways\u201d by which You may be known by Your Name, \u201cthat I may know\u201d how to unify You so that I may gain the greatest favor. \u201cConsider, too, that this nation is Your people\u201d\u2014You are their father and they Your children. The Holy One replies, \u201c \u2018My face\u2019 will go\u201d\u2014\u201cthe angel of the covenant that you desire\u201d (Mal. 3:1), in whom \u201cMy face\u201d appears. Isa. 49:8 says of this, \u201cIn an hour of favor I answer you,\u201d \u201csince My Name is in him\u201d (23:21). \u201cI will lighten your burden\u201d from him, for he will not treat you with strict justice alone, but with the aspect of justice that is included within the attribute of mercy. Moses answers, If Your \u201cface,\u201d Your immediate Presence itself, does not \u201cgo in the lead, do not make us leave this place\u201d\u2014You must be with us, \u201cface to face,\u201d for these were the conditions You promised originally: \u201cI am the Lord. I will free you from the labors of the Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and through extraordinary chastisements. And I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God\u201d (6:6\u20137). Moses has reminded Him of this already in 32:11, \u201cYour people, whom You delivered from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand.\u201d Now he asks that God take them into the land \u201cwith great power and with a mighty hand,\u201d just as He had taken them out of Egypt that way.
\nExodus 33:14
\nRASHI
\nHe said, \u201cI will go in the lead.\u201d Literally, \u201cMy face will go.\u201d But the meaning is as Onkelos translates, \u201cMy Presence shall go\u201d (OJPS)\u2014I will not send an angel any longer; I Myself will go. The idiom of the \u201cface\u201d going forward is found also in 2 Sam. 17:11, when Hushai tells Absalom, \u201cyou yourself march into battle.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nI will go in the lead. I Myself will go, as you requested. Lighten your burden. Rather, \u201cI will give thee rest\u201d (OJPS)\u2014I will go with you to conquer the land until I give you rest from all your enemies roundabout, as in \u201cWhen the Lord your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you\u201d (Deut. 25:19). To interpret it as \u201clighten your burden\u201d is nonsense. Is there ever another occasion when the Holy One grants Moses\u2019 request and tells him, \u201cI am lightening your burden\u201d? It would be an entirely superfluous remark.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will go in the lead. Literally, \u201cMy face will go,\u201d but meaning (as OJPS puts it) \u201cMy Presence shall go\u201d\u2014with you personally. Others explain it to mean, \u201cMy anger will pass,\u201d relating it to what is said of Hannah in 1 Sam. 1:18, \u201cHer \u2018face\u2019 left her,\u201d that is, \u201cshe was no longer downcast.\u201d Others think \u201cMy face\u201d refers to the Angel of the Presence, who is called in Isa. 63:9 \u201cthe angel of His face.\u201d But in my opinion it means \u201cI Myself.\u201d A comparable phrase means \u201cyou yourself\u201d in 2 Sam. 17:11. Lighten your burden. Yours, but not theirs.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will go in the lead. You will be better off that way (Bekhor Shor). \u201cMy face\u201d (as it literally says) may mean My providence, or it may refer to the nonmaterial intelligences of the heavenly spheres, who are so elevated as to be near the face of God (Gersonides). But not \u201cin your midst\u201d (v. 3) (Sforno). Lighten your burden. Having made the decision for you (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 33:15
\nRASHI
\nAnd he said to Him. What I desire is that You not make us leave this place by means of an angel.
\nRASHBAM
\nUnless You go in the lead. For unless You come with us, \u201cHow shall it be known that Your people have gained Your favor?\u201d (v. 16).
\nIBN EZRA
\nUnless You go in the lead, do not make us leave this place. \u201cUs,\u201d meaning \u201call Israel.\u201d
\nExodus 33:16\u201317
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What does Moses\u2019 comment in v. 16 have to do with what he originally requested?
\n\u2666 In v. 17, God seems to be agreeing to do a second \u201cthing\u201d that Moses has asked\u2014but what is it?
\nExodus 33:16
\nRASHI
\nFor how shall it be known\u2014\u201cit\u201d being that I (see OJPS) and Your people have gained Your favor\u2014unless You go with us? And I ask one more thing of You\u2014that You not let Your Shekhinah rest any longer on the other nations of the world, so that we may be distinguished by this means from every people on the face of the earth. The verb is the same as that used in 9:4, \u201cBut the Lord will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of the Egyptians.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nSo that we may be distinguished, Your people and I. \u201cI and Thy people\u201d (OJPS); NJPS has reversed the order. But these are two separate requests. First, I, Moses, request of You that I be distinguished from the rest of the people of Israel, that they know that I am trustworthy as a prophet and rebuker and that they heed me alone. Second, I also request that Your people be distinguished, by the fact of your going with them, from every people on the face of the earth.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThat Your people have gained your favor. Literally, \u201cthat I have found grace in Thy sight, I and Thy people\u201d (OJPS). Moses understands that he has gained God\u2019s favor from God\u2019s telling him, \u201cAll that you have said I will do, only for your sake.\u201d So that we may be distinguished. Saadia thinks that, since every people on earth has an angel who is responsible for it, Moses is asking that Israel alone not have such an angel intervening between them and God. But he has forgotten that Dan. 10:21 identifies Michael as the angel of Israel. It is he who tells Joshua, \u201cI am captain of the Lord\u2019s host\u201d (Josh. 5:14). What Moses wants is for Israel to be distinguished by the presence of the Shekhinah, who will rest upon the cherubim in the Tabernacle. Israel\u2019s travels through the desert will be directed by God, though \u201cHe did not do so for any other nation\u201d (Ps. 147:20).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSo that we may be distinguished, Your people and I. Rather, nifleinu means \u201cso that our portion may be with the nifla, the miraculous,\u201d unlike all other nations on the face of the earth.
\nExodus 33:17
\nRASHI
\nI will also do this thing. Not to let My Shekhinah rest any longer upon the other nations of the world. Balaam\u2019s ability to prophesy was not due to the resting of the Shekhinah upon him, for he was \u201cprostrate, but with eyes unveiled\u201d (Num. 24:4), just as in Job 4:12 \u201ca word came to me in stealth.\u201d That is, they heard God\u2019s word through an intermediary.
\nRASHBAM
\nI will also do this thing that you have asked. \u201cThis thing also\u201d\u2014that you be distinguished as a magistrate and leader over them\u2014besides the fact of going with you, of which I have already assured you.\u2014Moses\u2019 personal request was granted (as I shall explain in its place) by means of the radiance of his face, of which 34:10 says, \u201cBefore all your people I will work such wonders as have not been wrought on all the earth or in any nation; and all the people who are with you shall see how awesome are the Lord\u2019s deeds which I will perform for you.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will also do this thing that you have asked. This, God\u2019s response to Moses\u2019 question of v. 16, is what permits him to request later, \u201cPray, let the Lord go in our midst\u201d (34:9). For you have truly gained My favor. I will do everything you have asked, for your sake alone. I have singled you out by name. Literally, \u201cI know you by name\u201d (compare OJPS). God knows particular details not as individual pieces of knowledge, but through His knowledge of All, as a single, unified whole. Saadia understands it as does NJPS, but he offers no argument for his interpretation.
\nThe point of this whole passage is as follows: God told Moses, before the Golden Calf incident, \u201cLet them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them\u201d (25:8). Once they made the calf, He said, \u201cI will not go in your midst\u201d (v. 3), meaning that the Tabernacle need not be made. But when Moses pleaded with Him, He told him that the Shekhinah would rest upon the Tent\u2014that is, Moses\u2019 tent. Moses pleaded with Him a second time, on Israel\u2019s behalf, at which point God agreed that He would indeed dwell in the midst of Israel. (Know that, indeed, the Shekhinah continually remained within the camp of the Levites, and they within the camp of the Israelites, except for a period of three days, as I will explain in my comment to Num. 10:31.) So the Tabernacle was to be made after all. Saadia thinks God merely meant that He would not go with them until they had left and camped elsewhere, while Moses insisted that Israel be forgiven right on the spot. But the way I have explained it is correct.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will also do this thing that you have asked. This may have been said at the end of the second period of 40 days, when God was reconciled with him and told him, \u201cCarve two tablets of stone like the first\u201d (34:1).
\nExodus 33:18\u201320
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does Moses ask God to \u201clet me know Your ways\u201d (v. 13) but to \u201clet me behold Your Presence\u201d (v. 18)?
\n\u2666 How could Moses, the lord of all the prophets, ask the Holy One to convey His entire essence to him? For this is a thing that is intrinsically impossible\u2014as the Sage says, \u201cIf I knew Him, I would be Him.\u201d
\n\u2666 Why does God tell Moses (v. 20), \u201cYou cannot see My face,\u201d when this too is intrinsically impossible, and Moses never asked for it?
\nExodus 33:18
\nRASHI
\nHe said, \u201cOh, let me behold Your Presence.\u201d Moses saw that it was \u201ca favorable moment\u201d (Ps. 69:14) and that his requests were being accepted, so he added the request that God let him behold His Presence.
\nRASHBAM
\nLet me behold Your Presence! One has to wonder how the heart of our master Moses could become so full as to desire to enjoy the radiance of the Shekhinah, when earlier it is written\u2014in praise of him!\u2014\u201cMoses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God\u201d (3:6). God forbid! Moses meant only to make a covenant with Him, about the two things that He had promised him: the radiance of his face and the fact that He would go with the Israelites. What Moses is saying is, \u201cLet me behold your Presence\u201d as a confirmation of the covenant about these things that You promised me. God did the same for Abraham in the covenant between the pieces. Abraham said, \u201cO Lord God, how shall I know that I am to possess it?\u201d (Gen. 15:8). What happened was that \u201cwhen the sun set and it was very dark, there appeared a smoking oven, and a flaming torch which passed between those pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram\u201d (Gen. 15:17\u201318). Moses was asking for something similar here, as confirmation of the covenant, and the Holy One obliged him. \u201cThe Lord passed before him and \u2026 said: I hereby make a covenant\u201d (34:6,10), to distinguish you just as you requested: \u201cAll the people who are with you shall see how fearsome are the Lord\u2019s deeds which I will perform for you\u201d (34:10)\u2014which is why \u201cthe Israelites \u2026 feared to come near him\u201d (34:30).
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe said, \u201cOh, let me behold Your Presence!\u201d That is, Yourself (the proof of this comes in v. 22, where \u201cMy Presence\u201d is used interchangeably with \u201cI\u201d). Saadia says that \u201cYour Presence\u201d (or \u201cglory,\u201d as OJPS has it) was a light that God created especially for this occasion. So he interprets \u201cI\u201d in v. 22 as shorthand for \u201cMy Presence.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOh, let me behold Your Presence! He requested that he might literally see with his eyes the Presence or Glory (OJPS) of God. Possibly \u201cGlory\u201d here means \u201cthe great Glory\u201d\u2014the clear glass.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet me behold Your Presence! Let me understand how the existence of everything can be drawn from Your existence despite the distance of the relationship between You and Your creation (Sforno).
\nExodus 33:19
\nRASHI
\nI will make all My goodness pass before You. The moment has come when you will see as much of My Presence as I shall let you see, since I need to teach you the order of the prayers. For when you were forced to ask mercy for the people and reminded Me of the merit of the Patriarchs, you may have thought that once you had used the credit that the Patriarchs gained with Me, there would be no more hope. So I will make My aspect of goodness pass before you while you are hidden in a cave in the rock. And I will proclaim before you the name Lord. To teach you the correct order of prayer to use when asking for mercy, even once the merit of the Patriarchs is used up. Just as you see Me wrapped up in a prayer shawl and calling out the 13 attributes of God, you must teach Israel to do the same. When they call Me \u201ccompassionate and gracious\u201d (34:6), they will be answered\u2014for My compassion is inexhaustible. The grace that I grant. Those occasions on which I wish to be gracious. And the compassion that I show. The times when I desire to be compassionate.\u2014Up to this point, He has promised only that sometimes He would answer them and other times not. But when He actually did proclaim these things, He told Moses, \u201cI hereby make a covenant\u201d (34:10), promising Him that the Israelites would never return from prayer empty-handed.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe grace that I grant and the compassion that I show. There I will make clear to you My attributes.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will make all My goodness pass before you. God\u2019s \u201cgoodness\u201d refers to His \u201cface.\u201d I will proclaim before you the name Lord. The cantillation marks show that this phrase is not to be translated, \u201cthe name of the Lord,\u201d as OJPS has it; there is a slight separation between the two Hebrew words, not a connection. The same applies to 34:5. The sense is that the Lord called out the name \u201cLord.\u201d The grace that I grant. Even though I tell you that I am \u201ccompassionate and gracious\u201d (34:6), I will grant grace only to those to whom I wish to grant it, as I in my wisdom decree.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will make the aspect of all My goodness pass before you. You will achieve contact with My goodness, enabling you to understand it better than any other human. But the innermost vision that you requested you cannot see. It is to this that Num. 12:7, \u201cNot so with My servant Moses; he is trusted in all My house,\u201d refers. For a man\u2019s goodness is in his house. I will proclaim before you the name Lord. The great Name that you cannot see, and the grace that I grant and the compassion that I show by means of it. You will know, through this proclamation, how My aspects of grace and of compassion are gracious and compassionate through My name and My goodness.
\nExodus 33:20
\nRASHI
\nYou cannot see My face. Even when I \u201cmake all My goodness pass before you\u201d (v. 19), I will not give you permission to see My face.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMan may not see Me and live. He would immediately die. As Manoah said to his wife, \u201cWe shall surely die, for we have seen a divine being\u201d (Judg. 13:22).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMan may not see Me and live. The meaning is not that if a man sees Him, he will die. The meaning is that, before he can achieve that level of seeing, his soul will separate from him. Even seeing merely an angel, Daniel says, \u201cMy lord, because of the vision, I have been seized with pangs and cannot summon strength\u201d (Dan. 10:16).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMan may not see Me and live. Some explain this to mean, \u201cMan may not see Me and, as a consequence, live forever\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Hearing this, Moses thought, Perhaps He is upset with me and will not show me anything. But what God told him in v. 21 reassured him (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 33:21\u201323
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What was Moses afraid of that God had to hide him in \u201ca place near Me\u201d (v. 21)?
\n\u2666 Why are vv. 19\u201321, which are really a single utterance, each introduced by a verb indicating that God \u201csaid\u201d them, when vv. 22\u201323 are not?
\n\u2666 Why does God first promise that He will \u201cshield\u201d Moses with His hand (v. 22), and then say (v. 23) that He will take this protection away?
\n\u2666 Why must God reiterate (v. 23) that \u201cMy face must not be seen\u201d?
\nExodus 33:21
\nRASHI
\nThere is a place near Me. On the mountain where I always speak with you, I have a place prepared for you, where I can hide you so that you are not harmed, and from there you will see what you see.\u2014That is the straightforward meaning of the verse. Midrashically, it is taken to refer to the place where the Shekhinah is, and God says, \u201cThere is a place with Me\u201d rather than \u201cthere is a place where I am\u201d because the world is not the place of the Holy One, but He is the Place of the world.
\nIBN EZRA
\nStation yourself on the rock. On \u201cthe top of the mountain\u201d (34:2).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSee, there is a place near Me. On this mountain, where My Shekhinah is. Station yourself on the rock. Which is on the mountain. As He had promised, \u201cI will be standing there before you on the rock at Horeb\u201d (17:6).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThere is a place near Me. Though you cannot see My face, you can achieve a certain level of My reality (Gersonides).
\nExodus 33:22
\nRASHI
\nAs My Presence passes by. When I pass before you. In a cleft of the rock. The word \u201ccleft\u201d is from the same root as the verb \u201cto gouge\u201d (see Num. 16:14; Prov. 30:17). It means a place that is \u201cdug out\u201d of the rock. Shield you with My hand. The fact that Moses needs shielding in such a circumstance teaches us that once destructive forces are unleashed, they are free to work their destruction. Onkelos translates euphemistically, \u201cI will shield you with My Word,\u201d to avoid making it sound as if God had to shield him with a physical hand.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn a cleft of the rock. The \u201crock\u201d is Mount Sinai. As God told Moses, \u201cI will be standing there before you on the rock at Horeb\u201d (17:6); Horeb is another name for Sinai. \u201cIn a cleft of the rock\u201d means \u201cin His shade\u201d; see the next comment. I will \u2026 shield you with My hand. Like a cloud, which covers the light of the sun, so that no eye can see it. This refers metaphorically to the fact that one who is united with the nonmaterial realm has no sense impressions, for at that time the spirit leaves the body. But this is also what made Moses\u2019 skin radiant. (So the instruction in 34:3, \u201cNo one else shall come up with you, and no one else shall be seen anywhere on the mountain; neither shall the flocks and the herds graze at the foot of this mountain,\u201d was actually for their own protection.) The experience that Moses had on this day was comparable to the experience that Israel had on the day of the giving of the Torah. Our Sages say that it took place on the Day of Atonement. I will reserve my own opinion for my comment on Deut. 10:1. They think that Moses spent 40 days on the mountain three separate times. When you calculate that he went up on the 7th of Sivan and came down twice\u2014once because of the Golden Calf incident, and a second time to carve the second set of tablets.\u2026
\nExodus 33:23
\nRASHI
\nYou will see My back. God showed him the knot on the back of His phylacteries.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou will see My back. After I pass before you in confirmation of the covenant, you will be able to see Me. Jer. 34:18, \u201cI will make the men who violated My covenant, who did not fulfill the terms of the covenant which they made before Me, like the calf which they cut in two so as to pass between the halves,\u201d makes clear that such \u201cpassing\u201d was the way covenants were made.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou will see My back. The remark of our Sages that God showed him the knot on His phylacteries is correct, but not literally so, as contemporary scholars think. It is a profound mystery. Saadia takes this to mean \u201cYou will see the end of My light, but you cannot see its beginning.\u201d In my opinion, the text speaks of God here in human terms, as it customarily does. For we know quite clearly that God has no material body and therefore cannot be seen, since the eye can see only material things. So I think Moses does not mean \u201cbehold\u201d literally. After all, \u201cThe Lord would speak to Moses face to face\u201d (v. 11) does not mean that God has a mouth. Rather, He spoke with him through a kind of direct communication for which \u201cspeech\u201d is merely a metaphor. \u201cAs one man speaks to another\u201d (v. 11) merely means that Moses communicated directly with the Creator, without an angelic intermediary. But My face must not be seen. The purpose of Moses\u2019 request was to unite with the \u201cforms\u201d that have no material content, for they are the ladder by which one ascends to the Sublime. No living being can do this, because of his materiality; hence \u201cman may not see Me and live\u201d (v. 20). You must understand that every compound physical body has a \u201cface\u201d and a \u201cback.\u201d But the sun, the greatest and most glorious of all created things, has no face and no back. Nor do the stars, much less their Creator. So every soul is attached to God, and He alone has no beginning and no end. The soul that is attached to Him has no end from the perspective of God. But it does have a beginning, the moment at which it became attached to God.
\nWith regard to these upper realms of sun, moon, and stars, \u201cHe made them endure forever, establishing an order that shall never change\u201d (Ps. 148:6). They were created this way for the sake of those who would be subject to their influence. But the upper worlds cannot change their motions in any way. So one who prays to the stars achieves nothing. Whatever is decreed for him by their position at his birth is going to happen\u2014unless he is protected by some Power higher than theirs.
\nLet me explain with a story. It was in the stars that a river would rise and flood a certain city, drowning its inhabitants. A prophet came and warned them to repent before their day of evil, which they wholeheartedly did. Once they had cleaved to God, He put into the hearts of the people of the city to go out of the city to pray to Him. It was on the very day they did so that the river suddenly rose (as rivers do) and flooded the city. What God had decreed to happen in nature did not change its course\u2014and yet He saved them.
\nConsider that the planets run like horses on a highway\u2014not with the purpose of doing good or evil, but simply running on their way. Imagine a blind man on the road, who cannot see when the horses are running to the right and when they are running to the left. He must rely on someone with sight to protect him by leading him to this side or that. The horses do not change their course, but the blind man is saved. In just this way, \u201cthe Lord took you and brought you out of Egypt, that iron blast furnace, to be His very own people\u201d (Deut. 4:20). It is in this respect that Israel is \u201cdistinguished \u2026 from every people on the face of the earth\u201d (v. 16).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMy back. This word may be used as it is in the verse \u201cYou hedge me before and behind\u201d (Ps. 139:5), as interpreted by our Sages. My face must not be seen. The \u201cclear\u201d face, as I have explained in my comment to v. 18.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou will see My back. Be aware that this is strictly a metaphor; even the angels, as Ezek. 1:6 explains, do not have backs. The expression implies: in such a way as not to be able to fully comprehend, like a man who sees his friend from behind and not face to face (Bekhor Shor). \u201cMy back\u201d means: \u201cthe events that I leave in My wake\u201d (Gersonides). You will see how the actions of everything below come from Me (Sforno). But My face must not be seen. But you will not see how their existence is drawn from My existence, as you asked (Sforno).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n