Exodus 34:1\u20133
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did God not carve the second set of tablets Himself, to make them exactly equivalent to the first set?
\n\u2666 Why is this set of tablets treated with greater sanctity than the original ones, with God saying (v. 3) that \u201cno one else shall come up with you\u201d\u2014not even Aaron and the others who came up the first time\u2014and that not even flocks and herds could graze at the foot of the mountain?
\nExodus 34:1
\nRASHI
\nCarve two tablets. P\u2019soll\u2019kha literally means \u201ccarve for yourself.\u201d He showed him a sapphire quarry right inside his tent, and told him, \u201cThe pasolet, the leftovers from the carving, shall be yours.\u201d This made Moses extremely rich. Another reading: \u201cYou broke the original ones\u2014now you carve yourself the replacements.\u201d It is comparable to a king who went overseas and left his fianc\u00e9e with the slave girls. Due to their degeneracy, evil rumors began to spread about her. Her representative tore up the engagement contract, thinking: If the king decides to kill her, I will tell him, \u201cShe is not yet your wife.\u201d The king investigated the rumors and found that there was no degeneracy except on the part of the slave girls, and was reconciled with her. The bride\u2019s representative told him, \u201cWrite yourself out another contract: unfortunately, the first one was ripped up.\u201d The king told him, \u201cYou ripped it up yourself! Buy her some more paper, and I will write the contract out in my own hand.\u201d The king in this parable represents the Holy One; the slave girls represent the mixed multitude: the bride\u2019s representative is Moses: and the Holy One\u2019s fianc\u00e9e is Israel. That is why He told Moses, \u201cCarve yourself two tablets.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nCarve two tablets of stone like the first. Like them in kind and in size. Saadia lists seven ways in which the second set of tablets outshone the first. But this is arrant nonsense, deserving of punishment. For it is well known that \u201cthe writing was God\u2019s writing\u201d (32:16) on both sets, making them equivalent in that respect. In my opinion, God Himself created the first set, while the second set was carved by Moses from stone. Is Moses\u2019 making of a higher status than God\u2019s? I also think that the first set contained the commandments as written in Exodus 20, while the second set had the commandments as written in Deuteronomy 5, as I will explain.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord said to Moses. On the night of the 29th of Av (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:3
\nRASHI
\nNo one else shall come up with you. The original tablets, having been given amid such tumult and in such a large crowd, fell under the power of the Evil Eye. There is no quality better than reserve.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNo one else shall come up with you. In contrast to the first time, when God told Moses, \u201cCome back together with Aaron\u201d (19:24). No one else shall be seen. Compare \u201cBeware of going up the mountain or touching the border of it\u201d (19:12). Anywhere on the mountain. No matter how far from the Presence.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNo one else shall come up with you. None of the elders who came up with you the first time shall come up this time. No one else shall be seen anywhere on the mountain. Even at the foot of the mountain, where the Israelites stood the first time. Neither shall the flocks and the herds graze at the foot of this mountain. More precisely, \u201cbefore\u201d the mountain (OJPS), opposite it. This too is unlike the first time, when the animals, like the people, were merely forbidden to touch the mountain. All of those previous warnings were still in effect at this time, for the Presence remained constantly on the mountain until the second set of tablets was given. But now, when that is about to happen, the restrictions are further tightened. At the giving of the first tablets the revelation of God\u2019s Presence was for all the Israelites, but this one was all for Moses, as a result of his merit and his prayer, and the Presence revealed on the mountain would be greater this time than last.
\nExodus 34:4\u20136
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the \u201cproclaiming\u201d of v. 5, if God\u2019s promise (33:19) to proclaim His name is fulfilled by v. 6?
\n\u2666 Why does God\u2019s action not exactly fulfill the promise of 33:19, omitting some things and doing others that were not originally included?
\n\u2666 Why does God come down \u201cin a cloud\u201d (v. 5)?
\n\u2666 \u201cHe stood with him\u201d\u2014but who stood with whom?
\n\u2666 Shouldn\u2019t \u201cthe Lord passed before him\u201d (v. 6) have been written before \u201cHe stood with him\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cThe Lord\u201d repeated?
\n\u2666 Why are the various attributes of God not all in the same grammatical form? The appropriate form would be an active verb.
\nExodus 34:4
\nRASHI
\nEarly in the morning he went up on Mount Sinai. Whenever Moses went up to God, he did so early in the morning.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe went up on Mount Sinai. Up to the top of the mountain, as he had been commanded: \u201cPresent yourself there to Me, on the top of the mountain\u201d (v. 2). The top of the mountain, so high above the ground, is symbolic of a state of being that is higher than the material world. Taking the two stone tablets with him. OJPS is more accurate here: the text does not say the tablets, but repeats \u201ctwo stone tablets.\u201d This is the biblical style. In Num. 8:19, you will find \u201cthe Israelites\u201d repeated five times, never replaced by a pronoun.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEarly in the morning. At dawn on the 29th (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:5
\nRASHI
\nHe \u2026 proclaimed the name Lord. Rather, as Onkelos translates, \u201cHe proclaimed the name of the Lord\u201d\u2014that is, it was Moses who proclaimed it.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe stood with him there. He stood with Moses, who was already stationed there: \u201cStation yourself on the rock\u201d (33:21). And proclaimed the name Lord. Although the Hebrew does not make explicit which of them proclaimed the name, the translations are correct that it was the Holy One who proclaimed it while He passed by, as the continuation of the text makes clear. It was written earlier as well: \u201cI will proclaim before you the name Lord\u201d (33:19).
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe stood with him there. Moses stood with Him, God, as commanded in v. 2, which literally says, \u201cStand before Me there.\u201d Or perhaps \u201cit,\u201d the cloud, stood with \u201chim,\u201d Moses. But God cannot be standing, for v. 6 tells us that He \u201cpassed before\u201d Moses. And proclaimed the name Lord. Nonetheless, the translations are correct that it was God who proclaimed the name Lord. See my comment to 33:19.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe stood with him there. The Hebrew is ambiguous, but the translations are correct that \u201cHe,\u201d God, stood with Moses there, just as He would with Samuel: \u201cThe Lord came, and stood there, and He called as before: \u2018Samuel! Samuel!\u2019 \u201d (1 Sam. 3:10). He stood with Moses, who had come into the cloud on the mountain, just as he had the previous time.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nProclaimed the name Lord. It is actually Moses who \u201cproclaimed the name,\u201d shrieking it out when he felt the wind carry him away from God and place him in the cleft of the rock (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 34:6\u20137
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord passed before him and proclaimed: \u201cThe Lord! the Lord!\u201d Some, like Saadia, group the Hebrew words to read \u201cThe Lord passed before him, and proclaimed the Lord, \u2018The Lord!\u2019 \u201d This would explain the existence of the pasek, the vertical line separating the two Lords in the Hebrew text. But when he counted the 13 attributes of God that are supposed to be in this proclamation, he contradicted himself by counting the first Lord as one of the attributes. In brief, if it is really a tradition that there are 13 attributes here, they are as follows: (1) The Lord, used here not as a Name but descriptively (as I have explained to you in my comment to 3:15 that it can be); (2) God; (3) compassionate; (4) gracious; (5) slow to anger; (6) abounding in kindness; (7) faithfulness; (8) extending kindness to the thousandth generation; (9\u201311) forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; (12) yet He does not remit all punishment; and (13) visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children\u2019s children, upon the third and fourth generations. But in my opinion the 13 attributes are someone\u2019s interpretation, not a tradition. Notice that Moses, in his prayer in Num. 14:18, lists only six of them: \u201cslow to anger and abounding in kindness; forgiving iniquity and transgression; yet not remitting all punishment, but visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and fourth generations.\u201d In my opinion, The Lord! The Lord! is merely telling Moses how he ought to address God in times of need. Notice the divine summons to \u201cAbraham! Abraham!\u201d (Gen. 22:11) and \u201cJacob! Jacob!\u201d (Gen. 46:2)\u2014both of which, by the way, also have a pasek between the two names. The word used here for God, el, is related to the word for \u201cpower\u201d (see, e.g., Ps. 88:5), to indicate that God is not merely compassionate, but has the power to exercise His compassion. God\u2019s compassion is the result of His seeing, but He is gracious because of what He hears: \u201cIf he cries out to Me, I will pay heed, for I am gracious\u201d (22:26). (The larger implication is that God is compassionate about things that are hidden from human sight and gracious about heeding the public cry of the oppressed.) Slow to anger is literally \u201clong-nosed,\u201d for the biblical idiom to express anger is that one\u2019s nose gets hot, and the longer the nose, the slower one is to anger. (By contrast, the \u201cimpatient man\u201d of Prov. 14:17 is literally \u201cshort-nosed.\u201d) What makes God abounding in kindness\u2014more precisely, \u201cgreat\u201d in kindness, as David rephrases it in Ps. 145:8\u2014is that He offers it even when not obligated to do so. His faithfulness refers to the reliability of His kindness. He is not merely extending kindness to the thousandth generation, but \u201ckeeps\u201d it (OJPS)\u2014he \u201ckeeps His covenant faithfully to the thousandth generation of those who love Him and keep His commandments\u201d (Deut. 7:9). The Hebrew idiom for forgiving iniquity is literally \u201ccarrying\u201d it away, but since iniquity is not physical, what is really meant is \u201cremoving\u201d it. But Biblical Hebrew also refers to a sinner \u201ccarrying\u201d his sin in the sense of bearing its burden. For instance, a husband who forces his wife to violate her oath \u201cshall bear her guilt\u201d (Num. 30:16). Iniquity denotes an intentional violation; transgression is even worse in that it implies a rejection of God\u2019s authority; but sin is a general term, referring primarily to unintentional violations (though it also includes sins committed in thought). It simply means a \u201cmiss,\u201d as in Judg. 20:16, \u201cEvery one of them could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.\u201d Up to this point, the attributes are all concerned with those who repent, but He does not remit all punishment for those who do not repent. The Biblical Hebrew idiom here repeats the verb twice, as if to say \u201cremitting\u2014He does not remit,\u201d and our Sages put a pause in between the two, from which they learn that He does indeed remit punishment for those who repent. But in my opinion, the two words combine (as the translations have it) to form a single phrase. The point of the expression is that God does indeed \u201clift\u201d the iniquity off the transgressor, but He does not fully \u201cclear\u201d him of sin (see OJPS) except by punishment. If the sinner dies before this clearing is completed, and his children follow in his sinful path, God visits the iniquity of parents upon children, as I have already explained in my comment to 20:5. This too, after all, is compassion, being patient with the father and not visiting punishment upon his children if they are good. What then is the meaning of \u201cvisiting the iniquity upon the children\u201d? The text speaks of the more common phenomenon. We know from Prov. 10:27 that \u201cthe fear of the Lord prolongs life, while the years of the wicked will be shortened,\u201d but, as Eccles. 7:15 points out, \u201csometimes a good man perishes in spite of his goodness, and sometimes a wicked one endures in spite of his wickedness\u201d\u2014sometime, because this is the less common phenomenon.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord passed before him. God is fulfilling the promise He made in 33:19, \u201cI will make all My goodness pass before you.\u201d The Lord! the Lord! a God. These three words are the holy names, which scholars refer to as \u201caspects.\u201d They are: the aspect of the master of repentance, the aspect of His compassion, and the aspect of His goodness. But this implies no multiplication of God\u2019s holy Name. The remaining 10 aspects of God mentioned in these verses\u2014compassionate, gracious, and so forth\u2014are attributes that also occur in human beings. From one perspective, all 13 are attributes of God. From another, only the last 10 are attributes, while the first three are named aspects of God to which the various other attributes refer. Thus compassionate and gracious, slow to anger all relate to God Most High. That is why these forms are all given as adjectives and not verbs. For these three are things that God is, not that He does. Abounding in kindness and faithfulness, extending kindness all relate to the aspect of compassion, for in His compassion He makes His kindness prevail over His might, His strength, and the Truth. To the thousandth generation. \u201cHe was mindful of His steadfast love and faithfulness toward the house of Israel\u201d (Ps. 98:3)\u2014not \u201cextending\u201d it, but as the verb more literally means, \u201ckeeping\u201d it in mind. Or it may mean that He makes His kindness \u201cgrow\u201d; a word from this same root is found with comparable meaning in Isa. 11:1, \u201cA twig shall sprout from his stock.\u201d In His Goodness He is forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. The phrase yet He does not remit all punishment, but visits the iniquity of parents upon children is an explanation of how the \u201cforgiving\u201d takes place. But it is still an aspect unto itself, because such visitation is what remits punishment. \u201cIniquity, transgression, and sin\u201d are three separate aspects, because each has its own special kind of forgiveness.
\nExodus 34:6
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord! the Lord! This name represents God\u2019s aspect of mercy\u2014one mention for before the person sins, and the second for after the persons sins and then repents. God. This name too represents the aspect of mercy: as the Psalmist asks, \u201cMy God, my God, why have You abandoned me?\u201d (Ps. 22:2). One would not ask God\u2019s aspect of judgment, \u201cWhy have You abandoned me?\u201d This I found in the Mekilta. Slow to anger. Deliberately so; He does not hurry to punish the sinner, hoping that he will repent. Abounding in kindness. For those who need it, having few merits of their own. Faithfulness. To reward those who do His will.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord passed before him and proclaimed. Moses heard, in a prophetic vision, a voice proclaiming God\u2019s \u201cways\u201d (Gersonides). The Lord! The Lord! I who always was, without beginning, and always will be, without end, who by this Name reward the righteous and punish the wicked, who have an aspect of justice and an aspect of mercy, who is Lord in this world and in the World To Come (Bekhor Shor). It should be translated, \u201cThe Lord is the Lord,\u201d as in 3:14, when God told Moses, \u201cEhyeh-Asher-Ehyeh\u201d (Gersonides). Compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness. The exact phrase is also found in Ps. 86:15 and Ps. 103:8, except that \u201cfaithfulness\u201d is omitted in Ps. 103:8 (Masorah). Slow to anger. Because He has all the time in the world, unlike a human being, who hurries to take revenge because he is here today and tomorrow in the grave (Hizkuni). From this we learn that the evils which occur to God\u2019s creations from His running of the universe are few and far between, and always have a good purpose, for example the reproof of sinners (Gersonides). This refers to the fact that God gives children some time before they are responsible for their actions\u2014in human courts, not until 13; in the Court on High, not until 20 (Abarbanel). Abounding in kindness. But He watches over those who love Him, to protect them from the evil that Fate would otherwise have in store for them (Gersonides).
\nExodus 34:7
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are \u201ciniquity, transgression, and sin\u201d listed in v. 7, but none of the other possible synonyms?
\n\u2666 Isn\u2019t it contradictory for God to say that He forgives iniquity but will not remit punishment?
\n\u2666 How can it be just for God to visit the parents\u2019 iniquity upon the children?
\n\u2666 Why does God proclaim only these names and attributes, and not others of the many that are associated with Him elsewhere in the Bible?
\n\u2666 Some of the attributes listed here\u2014as interpreted by our Sages\u2014fall into the category of compassion, and others fall into the category of retribution. But why are they mixed indiscriminately together?
\n\u2666 This list is traditionally understood to contain 13 attributes of God\u2014but how exactly are they counted to make 13?
\nExodus 34:7
\nRASHI
\nExtending kindness. Rather, \u201ckeeping\u201d (OJPS) the kindness that a person does for Him. To the thousandth generation. The word is plural, implying two thousand generations. Iniquity, transgression. \u201cIniquity\u201d refers to deliberate misdeeds, \u201ctransgression\u201d to those done out of rebelliousness. Yet He does not remit all punishment. The straightforward understanding of the phrase is that He does not remit punishment all at once, but punishes a little bit at a time. Our Sages explain the literal Hebrew formulation, \u201cremitting, He does not remit,\u201d to mean that He remits punishment for those who repent but not for those who do not repent. Visits the iniquity of parents upon children. When they hold on to their parents\u2019 behavior. For 20:5 makes clear that God \u201cvisits the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me.\u201d The third and fourth generations. Since the beneficent aspect extends 2,000 generations and the unfavorable one only 4, the beneficent one turns out to be 500 times as good as the unfavorable one.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nExtending kindness to the thousandth generation. In just this fashion, He brought the Israelites out of Egypt because of the Patriarchs (Gersonides). Iniquity. This is a sin that is deliberate, but caused by the person\u2019s evil inclination, which forces him to sin (Bekhor Shor). Yet He does not remit all punishment. Even for those who repent, if their repentance stems merely from fear of punishment (Sforno). Visits the iniquity of parents upon children. For a burden of punishment too heavy to be borne by one is easily borne by two, and a burden too heavy for two is easily borne by three; if everyone were fully punished for each and every sin he committed, the world could not continue to exist. So this 13th divine attribute, like the others, is a positive one (Hizkuni). The third and fourth generations. This is the most a man can hope to see in his lifetime. The whole phrase is found four times in the Torah; twice in the two versions of the Ten Commandments, once in Num. 14:18 after the incident with the spies, and once here (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 34:8\u20139
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does Moses ask God to pardon \u201cour iniquity and our sin\u201d (v. 9), but not \u201cour transgression\u201d\u2014omitting the additional word God included in v. 7?
\nExodus 34:8
\nRASHI
\nMoses hastened. When Moses saw the Shekhinah passing by, and heard the Voice proclaiming, he immediately hastened to bow low to the ground in homage.
\nRASHBAM
\nMoses hastened. Having seen the Holy One pass by and heard His voice, he immediately began to bow low in homage.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses hastened to bow low to the ground in homage. OJPS preserves the syntax: he \u201cbowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped.\u201d But it is really the latter verb that means \u201cto bow\u201d; the former verb implies touching the head to the ground. Translate it properly this way: \u201che touched his head to the ground, having bowed down.\u201d Some empty-headed people say that, having heard God threaten to visit the parents\u2019 iniquity \u201cupon the third and fourth generations\u201d (v. 7), Moses \u201chastened\u201d to make sure He would not add the fifth generation. But it is impossible to believe that Moses would interrupt God. That would have meant instant death. Anyway, how could Moses think God would add a fifth generation, when all Israel had heard Him stop after saying \u201cthe fourth generation\u201d (20:5) at Sinai?
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses hastened to bow low to the ground in homage. Because God had passed by him, he bowed low to offer the prayer recorded in v. 9.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses hastened to bow low to the ground in homage. Having heard that God was compassionate and gracious, he was no longer worried that He might destroy the people (Bekhor Shor). Others say that, because Moses saw God passing by, he hastened to pray before He disappeared from view (Hizkuni). The faster one bows, the more one acknowledges the greatness of the thing that one is bowing for (Sforno).
\nExodus 34:9
\nRASHI
\nLet the Lord go in our midst. As You promised. Having said that You forgive iniquity\u2014even though this is a stiffnecked people and they rebelled against You, leading You to say, \u201cI will not go in your midst, since you are a stiffnecked people, lest I destroy you on the way\u201d (33:3)\u2014You will pardon our iniquities. The word ki means \u201cif\u201d or \u201ceven though\u201d as NJPS translates it, not \u201cfor\u201d as OJPS translates. Take us for Your own! The verb implies, \u201cTake us as your own special possession.\u201d It is the same request made in 33:16, not to let the Shekhinah rest on the other nations.
\nRASHBAM
\nEven though this is a stiffnecked people. But You will be able to go in our midst, for You are merciful and forgiving.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLet the Lord go in our midst. As when God promises, \u201cI will march before you and level the hills that loom up\u201d (Isa. 45:2). Even though this is a stiffnecked people. NJPS is correct. Pardon our iniquity. If the iniquity referred to here is that of the Golden Calf, then Moses is including himself with the other Israelites as their representative. But I think he is asking a general pardon for future iniquity. Notice that he does not add \u201cand our transgression,\u201d in which (out of self-respect) he could not include himself. Take us for Your own! Possess us, make us your possession (OJPS \u201cinheritance\u201d), as in Deut. 9:29, \u201cThey are Your people and Your possession.\u201d Others take it as a doubly transitive verb, as if to say, \u201cPossess us of the land, give us possession of it.\u201d The verb is used this way in Num. 34:17.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord. It will not have escaped you that these two names are not the Tetragrammaton but the plain Hebrew word \u201cLord,\u201d which is why God said what He did in v. 10. Even though this is a stiffnecked people. The straightforward meaning follows the Hebrew: \u201cfor\u201d this is a stiffnecked people (see OJPS). Moses wants God to go in their midst because they are stiffnecked. Once God is reconciled to them, He will be easier on such a stiffnecked group than an angel would be, for He would seek the best for them, given that they were His people and His inheritance. Just as, when He was angry, their stiffneckedness would have made it better to have an angel go with them \u201clest I destroy you on the way\u201d (33:3), now that God is reconciled with them they are better off with the Shekhinah, which will be more compassionate and gracious toward His servants. Pardon our iniquity and our sin. He does not include \u201cour transgression,\u201d for that represents active rebellion against God and cannot be pardoned, only forgiven (to the extent of not destroying them).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEven though this is a stiffnecked people. Rather, \u201cfor this is a stiffnecked people.\u201d As my grandfather, R. Levi ha-Kohen, explained it, Moses is telling God, \u201cThey are so stubborn that, if only You will pardon them until they are immersed in Your faith, they will cling as stubbornly to that as they did to the previous one, and You will own them forever\u201d\u2014an interpretation that nicely fits both the language of the verse and the topic (Gersonides).
\nExodus 34:10\u201314
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What is the point of God\u2019s \u201ccovenant\u201d to \u201cwork such wonders as have not been wrought on all the earth \u2026 for you\u201d (v. 10), seeing that no such wonders are subsequently found in the text?
\n\u2666 Why are all the commandments in the next section\u2014which have all been given previously\u2014repeated here?
\n\u2666 Why must the God-fearing Moses be personally warned (v. 11) to \u201cmark well what I command you this day\u201d?
\n\u2666 What is the difference between \u201cmark well\u201d of v. 11 and \u201cbeware\u201d of v. 12, which are simply different forms of the same Hebrew verb?
\n\u2666 Why does the commandment not to worship any other god (v. 14) intervene between two repetitions (vv. 12 and 15) of the prohibition against making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land?
\nExodus 34:10
\nRASHI
\nI hereby make a covenant with regard to this. I will work such wonders.\u201cWonders\u201d (nifla\u2019ot) uses the same language as nifleinu, \u201cso that we may be distinguished\u201d (33:16). The \u201cwonder\u201d that I will work is that they will be distinguished by the fact that My Shekhinah will rest on no other nation.
\nRASHBAM
\nI hereby make a covenant. That I shall go with you, and also that I will do \u201cthis thing\u201d that you asked Me (in 33:16) about distinguishing you. For before all your people I will so distinguish you that all the people who are with you shall see how awesome is the greatness that I give you: \u201cAnd all the Israelites \u2026 were in awe of coming near him.\u2026 The Israelites would see how radiant the skin of Moses\u2019 face was\u201d (v. 30,35).
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe said. God said. I hereby make a covenant. With you and with all Israel. But with you alone I will work such wonders as have not been wrought on all the earth\u2014rather, \u201cin all the land\u201d from which you came forth, an allusion to the wonders God worked in Egypt\u2014or in any other nation. The wonder to which this latter phrase refers is the radiance of Moses\u2019 face (v. 29).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI hereby make a covenant. This is God\u2019s reply. I will work such wonders. Just as Moses requested in 33:16 (see my comment to that verse). All the people who are with you shall see how awesome are the Lord\u2019s deeds which I will perform for you. For you, personally, though the covenant is for the whole people. The verse cannot be interpreted to say that God will perform \u201cwonders such as have not been wrought\u201d for the Israelites, because in fact none such are performed\u2014none greater than those performed in Egypt and at the Sea. The greater wonders have already been done for them. But this is an allusion to the dwelling of the Shekhinah among them, where it will be with Moses \u201cfor glory and splendor\u201d (28:2) with regard to hidden, wonderful things, as Moses requested, and as I have explained. May the Holy One show us wonders from His Torah.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI hereby make a covenant. The covenant was that He would grace Moses with the light of the intellect, so that his soul would cleave to the higher beings (Kimhi).
\nExodus 34:11
\nRASHI
\nI will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Only six nations are listed here, for the Girgashites up and left of their own accord.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMark well what I command you this day. This is addressed to Moses, telling him that he must \u201ckeep\u201d these terms (in the sense of not adding to them or subtracting from them), record them in writing, and announce them to all Israel. The first of the conditions is: I will drive out before you the Amorites, etc. Saadia suggests that the phrase \u201cyou will drive them out\u201d (as in 23:31) is omitted here. For how could God command them to \u201cbeware of making a covenant\u201d with them, if He was going to drive them out? But none of this is necessary. The passage is to be understood as follows: \u201cI will drive them out before you little by little [see 23:30]; in the meantime, do not make a covenant with them.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMark well what I command you this day. God has never previously used the words \u201cI command you.\u201d From this we infer that He means: Observe what I command you this day, and do not do with them what you did with the ones I commanded you previously\u2014for you transgressed them all in order to worship idols. He promises here to drive out the Canaanites, and warns them against making a covenant with them or following them into idolatry, just as He did in 23:23\u201324. It is a return to the earlier conditions.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMark well what I command you. This was directed not at Israel, but at Moses personally\u2014for him to remember what God said so he could write it down (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 34:12
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBeware of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. Once a great lord has helped a man defeat his enemies, it is only polite that the man not make peace with them without the permission of the one who helped him (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 34:13
\nRASHI
\nTheir sacred posts. These were trees that were worshiped.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSacred posts. These were made of wood.
\nExodus 34:14
\nRASHI
\nWhose name is Impassioned. He is impassioned to punish and will not forgo it. This is what kanna, \u201cimpassioned\u201d or (as OJPS has it) \u201cjealous,\u201d always means: maintaining His superiority and punishing those who abandon Him.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAn impassioned God. See my comment to 20:5.
\nExodus 34:15\u201320
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why must v. 17 prohibit the making of \u201cmolten gods\u201d if worship of other gods has already been prohibited?
\n\u2666 Why must the commandments to observe the festivals, which were all given already a month previously (in 23:14\u201317), be repeated here?
\n\u2666 Why are \u201cthe day of sounding the horn\u201d and the Day of Atonement not included among the festivals mentioned here, as they are in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28\u201329?
\n\u2666 Why does the command that \u201cevery first issue of the womb is Mine\u201d (v. 19) come in between the commandments about the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Weeks?
\nExodus 34:15
\nRASHI
\nYou will eat of their sacrifices. You think there is no punishment for merely eating their sacrifices, but I take it as your acknowledgment of their idol worship. For as a natural consequence you will \u201ctake wives from among their daughters for your sons\u201d (v. 16).
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou must not make a covenant. The reason for the prohibition of v. 12 is now given.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou will eat of their sacrifices. Rashi thinks the point is that they will end up intermarrying. But I say that, in the opinion of our Sages, this is the verse that prohibits the consumption of food brought as offerings to idols. For they said that this was forbidden by the Torah, and we find no reference to it anywhere but here. In fact, the verse says it quite explicitly.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou must not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land. For you will gradually become more and more assimilated into them (Gersonides).
\nExodus 34:16
\nIBN EZRA
\nWill cause your sons to lust after their gods. Because of their intense desire to have sex with the daughters of the Canaanites.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen you take wives. More precisely, \u201cand you will take wives\u201d (compare OJPS). Vv. 15 and 16 are two separate prohibitions, which both follow from the beginning of v. 15, \u201cYou must not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land.\u201d
\nExodus 34:17
\nIBN EZRA
\nMolten gods. All idolatry is prohibited, even in a case like the Golden Calf, through which they intended to worship God.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not make molten gods for yourselves. This is added to the earlier conditions, to warn them not to do as they did with the calf. They may not even make such a god merely \u201cto lead them,\u201d with no thought of anything other than Heaven.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not make molten gods for yourselves. These are talismans that are made at a particular conjunction of the stars; they are molten so that the entire shape can be formed at a single moment (Sforno).
\nExodus 34:18
\nRASHI
\nThe month of Abib. The month of first fruits, when the crops are beginning to ripen.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Feast of Unleavened Bread. The connection with the context is that this is the occasion for remembering that God took us out of Egypt, so we ought not to serve any other god.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But you shall not invent feasts of your own, like Aaron\u2019s \u201cfestival of the Lord\u201d (32:5) (Bekhor Shor). All the commandments from here through v. 26 are a sign that we are the subjects of the Holy One, bringing Him gifts at set times to welcome Him, as one does for a king; that is why these commandments are connected with the covenant He made (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:19
\nRASHI
\nEvery first issue of the womb is Mine. This applies to human beings. From all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. This refers to \u201cevery first issue\u201d of cattle or sheep. \u201cIssue\u201d (petter) is a word that refers to \u201copening,\u201d as in Prov. 17:14, \u201cTo start a quarrel is to open a sluice.\u201d The verb \u201cdrop\u201d is feminine here, being used with reference to the female livestock, which are the ones that actually give birth.
\nRASHBAM
\nEvery first issue of the womb is Mine. This is written here, following the mention of the exodus in the previous verse, because it was by the killing of the Egyptian first-born that the first-born of the Israelites were consecrated to God.
\nIBN EZRA
\nEvery first issue of the womb is Mine. As a memorial to the exodus from Egypt, when God slew the first-born of the Egyptians. Livestock. Ordinarily it is a masculine word, but (for obvious reasons) it is treated as feminine in this instance. It is a common grammatical phenomenon for nouns to be used both as masculine and as feminine. That drop a male. Female first-borns are excluded.
\nExodus 34:20
\nRASHI
\nThe firstling of an ass. But not of any other unclean animal. You shall redeem with a sheep. You give a sheep to the priest\u2014for whom it remains a secular, not a sacred, possession\u2014and may then use the ass for whatever task you wish. You must break its neck. With a hatchet. Having cost the priest money, you must lose the equivalent amount. You must redeem every first-born among your sons. Such redemption is fixed at five shekels: \u201cTake as their redemption price, from the age of one month up, the money equivalent of five shekels by the sanctuary weight\u201d (Num. 18:16). None shall appear before Me empty-handed. The straightforward interpretation is that this expression is stated on its own, and is not connected with the matter of the first-born, for there is no \u201cappearing\u201d before God connected with the redemption of the first-born. Instead, it is a totally different prohibition: When you go on pilgrimage to appear before Me, you shall not appear empty-handed. You must bring an \u201cappearance\u201d offering. But according to the midrash on B. Kid. 17a, this is a superfluous expression in our verse, where it provides the verbal analogy to tell us the meaning of \u201cempty-handed\u201d elsewhere, in the discussion of freeing a slave: \u201cWhen you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat\u201d (Deut. 15:13\u201314). Just as in our text there is a redemption fee of five shekels, so in the case of furnishing the slave, the use of the word \u201cempty-handed\u201d from our verse implies that you must give him five shekels worth of each: livestock, grain, and wine.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe firstling of an ass. See my comment to 13:13. None shall appear before Me empty-handed. This too is in remembrance of the exodus, when \u201cHe led Israel out with silver and gold\u201d (Ps. 105:37).
\nExodus 34:21\u201323
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does the Sabbath commandment (v. 21) too come in between the commandments about the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Weeks, instead of being mentioned before the yearly cycle, as it is elsewhere?
\n\u2666 Why is the phrase \u201cNone shall appear before Me empty-handed\u201d (v. 20) associated here with the firstlings, when in 23:15 it is connected specifically with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and in Deut. 16:16 with all three of the pilgrimage festivals?
\n\u2666 What is the meaning of the expression \u201cthe Sovereign Lord,\u201d which appears only in connection with the commandment to appear before God?
\nExodus 34:21
\nRASHI
\nEven at plowing time and harvest time. Why are these mentioned? Some of our Sages say that \u201cplowing\u201d refers to the last plowing before the sabbatical year, during which the land rests, and \u201charvest\u201d to the first harvest after it; the point being that one should extend a sacred time period into the otherwise nonsacred period before and after it. In this context, it is interpreted to mean: Know that there is a time when even on the six days of work that I permit you, plowing and harvesting is forbidden. For there is no need to say that they are forbidden during the sabbatical year itself, since this is already explicit in Lev. 25:4\u20135, \u201cBut in the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest, a sabbath of the Lord: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines.\u201d Others of the Sages say that the verse refers explicitly to the Sabbath, and the point of mentioning plowing and harvest is to make clear that only harvesting that is discretionary (like plowing) is forbidden on the Sabbath. But harvesting the first sheaf, which is commanded and not discretionary, overrides the prohibition of work on the Sabbath.
\nRASHBAM
\nSix days shall you work. \u201cWork\u201d with no other qualifier refers to agricultural work, as we know from the use of the word in Gen. 4:12, \u201cIf you work the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you,\u201d and Prov. 12:11 (= Prov. 28:19), \u201cHe who works his land shall have food in plenty.\u201d You shall cease from labor even at plowing time and harvest time. Which is the most important and necessary work that people do. It goes without saying that one must cease from all other labor on the Sabbath.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSix days shall you work. At this point, 23:12\u201319 are essentially repeated. The reason for this is explained in the parable in my comment to 32:19. Even at plowing time and harvest time. \u201cEven\u201d is added by NJPS, correctly: for these are times when human life may hang in the balance. The earth might be moist on the Sabbath but, if not sown then, dry by the next day. And of course crops that are left unharvested may be stricken. Anan the Karaite (may his name vanish like the \u201ccloud\u201d that anan means) says that \u201cplowing\u201d is a euphemism for sex. Shame on him! \u201cPlowing\u201d can be done at human discretion\u2014but Anan was too discreet to try to interpret \u201charvest time\u201d as a euphemism.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nEven at plowing time and harvest time. The straightforward interpretation is that plowing and harvest are mentioned here because they are the basis of human life, and that the Sabbath is included here among the holidays in order to juxtapose it to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (v. 18) and the laws concerning the first-born (vv. 19\u201320). For all of them are a remembrance of the work of creation. For the exodus from Egypt too teaches about creation, as I have explained in my comment to 20:2. Sabbath in turn is a remembrance of the exodus, as is explained in the Sabbath commandment in the Deuteronomy version: \u201cRemember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the sabbath day\u201d (Deut. 5:15). I will explain further there, with the help of God, may He be blessed and exalted.
\nExodus 34:22
\nRASHI
\nThe first fruits of the wheat harvest. When you bring the two loaves. They are \u201cfirst fruits\u201d in that they are the first offerings which come to the Temple from the new crop of wheat. For the offering of the first sheaf that is brought at Passover is of barley. The Feast of Ingathering. When you gather your crop from the field into your house. \u201cGathering\u201d implies taking it into the house. The same Hebrew word is used with regard to finding a lost object: \u201cYou shall bring it home\u201d (Deut. 22:2). At the turn of the year. The beginning of the coming year.
\nExodus 34:23
\nRASHI
\nAll your males shall appear. There are many commandments in the Torah, like this one, that are repeated, some of them even three or four times. The purpose of this is to put us under multiple obligation to fulfill all of both the prohibitory and the obligatory aspects of that particular commandment.
\nRASHBAM
\nBefore the Sovereign Lord. I have already explained this phrase in my comment to 23:17.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThree times a year. This repeats 23:17. The reason is obvious, for it follows the prohibitions against idolatry. I have already explained this in my comments to 20:20\u201322.
\nExodus 34:24\u201326
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does God say that He \u201cwill drive out nations from your path\u201d (v. 24), having already promised in v. 11 to \u201cdrive out\u201d the nations?
\n\u2666 Why the repetition of appearing before God \u201cthree times a year\u201d at the end of v. 24?
\n\u2666 Why, of all the commandments given at Sinai, are only vv. 25\u201326\u2014an exact repetition of 23:18\u201319\u2014included here, where they seem to have no connection to the context?
\nExodus 34:24
\nRASHI
\nI will drive out nations from your path. The root of the verb implies \u201cinheritance,\u201d but NJPS is correct to follow Onkelos here. The use of this verb to mean \u201cdriving out\u201d the other nations is common: \u201cBegin the occupation: take possession of his land\u201d (Deut. 2:31); \u201cThey captured its dependencies and dispossessed the Amorites\u201d (Num. 21:32). Enlarge your territory. Which will mean that you are far from the Temple and cannot appear before Me continually. So I fix these three times of pilgrimage for you.
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will drive out nations from your path and enlarge your territory. As a reward for appearing before Me. No one will covet your land. And seize it from you.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will \u2026 enlarge your borders. Beyond what I promised Abraham. For to him I gave only the land west of the Jordan, but now I add the lands of Sihon and Og (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:25
\nRASHI
\nYou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened. You shall not slaughter (as the verb literally means) the passover while there is still anything leavened in your possession. This warning applies to the one who slaughters it, to the one who sprinkles the blood, and to any member of the group that will be eating it. The sacrifice of the Feast of Passover. The sacrificial parts. From this verse, you learn the rules for sacrificial fat and pieces of all kinds. Shall not be left lying. Following Onkelos, it is not considered to be \u201cleft lying\u201d as long as it is placed on top of the altar before dawn.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe sacrifice of the Feast of Passover shall not be left lying until morning. The straightforward sense is that it refers here to the entire festival offering, but Onkelos translates it the same as he does in 23:18, \u201cthe fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying until morning,\u201d for all these commandments are repetitions of the earlier ones. See Rashi\u2019s comment. In my comment to Lev. 6:2, I will explain all this, with God\u2019s help. There is actually a disagreement about this topic on B. Zev. 87b, where the opposite point of view from Rashi is also found.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe sacrifice of the Feast of Passover shall not be left lying until morning. The prohibition in 23:18 applies only to the fat, this one to the sacrifice as a whole (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:26
\nRASHI
\nThe choice first fruits of your soil. Of the seven species mentioned in praise of your land: \u201ca land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey\u201d (Deut. 8:8). \u201cHoney\u201d refers to date-honey. You shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. This is the prohibition of milk and meat. The same phrase occurs three times in the Torah, once to prohibit eating them together, once to prohibit using them together in any way, and once to prohibit cooking them together. (Since birds do not have mother\u2019s milk, the prohibition against poultry and milk is not from the Torah; it is rabbinic.) The word translated \u201ckid\u201d refers to the young of any animal, including calves and lambs. We know this because the text is required in some cases to specify \u201ca kid of the goats\u201d (e.g., Gen. 38:17). You learn from this that \u201ckid\u201d by itself refers to any suckling animal.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. I have already explained this in my comment to 23:19.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. This is juxtaposed to the statement about the first fruits, because first-born kids and lambs are supposed to be brought at the same time. Since the goats are still growing, the mothers have milk at this period, and often they would bring the mother up to Jerusalem with the first-born (who was still suckling) so that it should not die. Those who came to celebrate the festival would enjoy eating the first-born along with all the other delicacies that they would share with the priests, which is why the prohibition is mentioned in connection with the first fruits. But Deut. 14:21 repeats it in the context of forbidden foods, after mentioning unclean animals, fish, and fowl, and carcasses. For that was the proper place to mention it. It is, in fact, a prohibition of eating, not just of cooking, as is thought by those of little faith and less intellect.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not boil a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. Rather, \u201cyou shall not ripen a kid in its mother\u2019s milk,\u201d that is, you shall not let it reach its full growth still drinking its mother\u2019s milk (Bekhor Shor). The prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother\u2019s milk extends to all animals, but the text speaks of what is common: People ordinarily eat kids, not lambs. And the reason a young animal is mentioned is because an older animal\u2019s flesh does not cook quickly enough to be edible by the time the milk is cooked (Kimhi). As do the foreigners who think it will increase the fertility of their crops or livestock (Sforno).
\nExodus 34:27\u201328
\nExodus 34:27
\nRASHI
\nWrite down these commandments. These commandments only; you are not permitted to write down the Oral Torah.
\nRASHBAM
\nWrite down these commandments. Those mentioned in the passage beginning at v. 11. For in accordance with these commandments. That you not follow other gods, that you not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land or intermarry with them, and that you appear before Me at the pilgrimage festivals.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWrite down these commandments. As I explained in my comment to v. 11.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWrite down these commandments. God commands Moses to write down a record of the covenant and read it to the people, so that they may accept it with \u201cAll that the Lord has spoken we will faithfully do!\u201d as they had the first time (24:7). For He wanted to repeat with the second set of tablets everything that had occurred with the first set. There is no doubt that Moses did this, but the text did not bother to say so at length. (I have shown you the same phenomenon in many other places.) I think that, since it was the Israelites who had sinned and thus violated the original covenant, the Holy One had to create a new covenant with them, in order not to suspend His covenant with them. That is why He told Moses to write them down. For in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel. \u201cWith you,\u201d because I make the covenant \u201cwith Israel\u201d for your sake.\u2014They did not have to bring themselves within the bounds of the covenant, but He (may He be blessed) had to make a covenant with them based on having forgiven them. So he wrote down the forgiveness and the terms of the covenant.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWrite down these commandments. Because of their sin, you must write the tablets (Sforno). For in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel. You thought I would give a new set of commandments to purge them of the sin of the Golden Calf? No, the commandments are the same as in the covenant of ch. 24 (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 34:28
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe wrote down on the tablets. The translations are wrong; it should say \u201cHe,\u201d God, wrote. God wrote them down, as He promised (in v. 1) that He would do. Deut. 10:4 makes the same point: \u201cThe Lord inscribed on the tablets the same text as on the first.\u201d The terms of the covenant. The general principles underlying all of the commandments. Some say that the first set had the things said by God (as reported in Exodus 20), and the second set, the things said by Moses at God\u2019s command (as reported in Deuteronomy 5). Others say that each set had one tablet with the words of God and one with the words of Moses. Still others say that the two tablets were exactly the same, except that one side said \u201cRemember the sabbath day\u201d (20:8) and the other \u201cObserve the sabbath day\u201d (Deut. 5:12). Others say that the first five commandments were on one side and the last five on the other, each commandment corresponding to the one opposite it. \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d (20:2) corresponds to \u201cYou shall not murder\u201d (20:13), because human beings were created in God\u2019s image. The prohibition of idolatry corresponds to that of sexual crimes, as we see in the case of the Moabite women: \u201cWhile Israel was staying at Shittim, the people profaned themselves by whoring with the Moabite women, who invited the people to the sacrifices for their god. The people partook of them and worshiped that god\u201d (Num. 25:1\u20132). False swearing is the equivalent of theft: \u201cThe curse shall enter the house of the thief and the house of the one who swears falsely by My name\u201d (Zech. 5:4). The prohibition of false witness corresponds to the Sabbath commandment because one who works on the Sabbath essentially testifies, falsely, that God did not rest on the seventh day. Finally, the prohibition of coveting corresponds to honoring one\u2019s parents.
\nPersonally, I cannot decide, since the dimensions of the tablets are not specified; there is a dispute on this point in rabbinic literature. Even if the dimensions were given, we would still not know whether the writing on them was large or small, all the more so as it was God\u2019s writing. The Second and Fourth Commandments are comparatively long, while the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth are quite short. I think the full text must have taken both sides to write, and it was God\u2019s words, the Exodus 20 version, that was written there. (In my commentary to Deuteronomy 5 I will explain all the differences in that version.) But possibly the text was written twice, once on each side\u2014both of them the Exodus 20 version. \u201cInscribed on the one side and on the other\u201d (32:15) would thus mean that both sides were exactly equal.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. According to our Sages, he was there on the mountain for 40 days while he wrote down the terms of this second covenant, but before this happened he was also there for 40 days praying for the people: \u201cWhen I lay prostrate before the Lord those forty days and forty nights, because the Lord was determined to destroy you\u201d (Deut. 9:25). At 33:12 it does not explain how long Moses spent in this prayer, which obviously lasted from the time he went up the mountain until he came down to carve the tablets. But the 40 days of writing are noted specifically to make clear that the second set of tablets were like the first in every respect\u2014both in the writing being God\u2019s and in the length of time spent\u2014so that Moses should not think that he had already learned the Torah the first time and so would not have to spend very long up there this time. And he wrote down on the tablets the terms of the covenant. Rather, \u201cHe,\u201d God, wrote them down. It does not refer to Moses, as the translations think. For in v. 1 God says, \u201cI will inscribe upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets,\u201d and in Deut. 10:4 Moses says, \u201cThe Lord inscribed on the tablets, the same writing as on the first.\u201d From the fact that Moses says \u201cthe same writing,\u201d we know that the second set too was \u201cinscribed with the finger of God\u201d (31:18). So \u201cI will inscribe\u201d (v. 1) must mean \u201cwith My finger.\u201d And you know the meaning of \u201cfinger\u201d from that of \u201cthe hand.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. For a third time, from dawn on the 29th of Av until dawn on the 10th of Tishrei. There is no day or night in heaven, but when the Holy One taught him the Written Law, Moses knew it was day, and when He taught him the Oral Law, he knew it was night; when he saw the moon and stars bowing to the Holy One, he knew it was day, and when he saw the sun bowing, he knew it was night (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:29\u201331
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 What was God\u2019s purpose in performing the miracle by which the skin of Moses\u2019 face was made radiant (v. 29)?
\n\u2666 What exactly was the nature of this \u201cradiance\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why did this happen to Moses only now, and not at the original giving of the Torah, or when Moses was given the first set of tablets?
\n\u2666 Why does v. 29 repeat \u201cSo Moses came down\u201d and \u201cAs Moses came down\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why does the text not describe how Moses\u2019 face became radiant, rather than introducing it merely by mentioning that Moses was not aware of it?
\n\u2666 Why does the text say that Moses\u2019 face was radiant \u201cwhile He talked with him\u201d (OJPS), when it was radiant all the time?
\n\u2666 How could Moses not be aware of the radiance?
\n\u2666 What made \u201cAaron and all the chieftains\u201d so afraid of the radiance?
\nExodus 34:29
\nRASHI
\nSo Moses came down from Mount Sinai. When he brought down the second set of tablets, on the Day of Atonement. Was radiant. The verb karan is related to the word keren, \u201chorn.\u201d For the light radiated from his face in hornlike rays. And where did Moses get these \u201chorns\u201d of majesty? Our Sages say he got them when he was hidden in the cave in the rock, when the Holy One put His hand over Moses\u2019 face: \u201cI will put you in a cleft of the rock and shield you with My hand until I have passed by\u201d (33:22).
\nRASHBAM
\nThe skin of his face was radiant. This indicates majesty, as in \u201cIt is a brilliant light which gives off rays on every side\u2014and therein His glory is enveloped\u201d (Hab. 3:4). Anyone who, because the verb karan sounds like keren, the word for \u201chorn,\u201d takes it to mean that Moses had horns is nothing but a fool. For there are many roots in Biblical Hebrew that have two separate sets of meanings. Menahem ibn Saruq the lexicographer explains the word as I do.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe skin of his face was radiant. \u201cRadiant\u201d derives from the root meaning \u201chorn.\u201d Similarly, in \u201cIt is a brilliant light which gives off rays on every side\u201d (Hab. 3:4), the \u201crays\u201d are literally \u201chorns,\u201d but the poetic parallelism of the two halves of the verse shows that \u201crays\u201d are meant. Hiwi (that transgressor, may his bones crumble!) thinks Moses\u2019 face was as dry as \u201chorn\u201d because he had not eaten, and that is why the people shrank from him. But why wouldn\u2019t Moses have kept the veil permanently over his face if that was so? Didn\u2019t Hiwi read that \u201cMoses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated\u201d (Deut. 34:7)? At this point in the story, he is only 80, and his face was certainly not \u201cdry.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSo Moses came down. On Tuesday, the 10th of Tishrei. What is missing here is the ark that Moses made (see Deut. 10:3) to keep the tablets in until the Tabernacle was set up on the 1st of Nisan and they could be put in the Ark made by Bezalel (Hizkuni). The skin of his face was radiant. From the glow of God\u2019s hand covering the cave he was in. The radiance also served to prove that this set of tablets was divinely given; it was not necessary for the first set, which was given publicly (Hizkuni). As if he were pure intelligence, with no material body. The \u201cface\u201d implies the material form, which separates and screens the human form from the higher truths (Gersonides). In the course of nature, one would expect his skin to have darkened, from hunger and from the weather. But God made sure that his skin was as bright as that of anyone else, and even more so (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 34:30
\nRASHI
\nThey shrank from coming near him. Come see how great is the power of transgression. Before they had put forth their hands to transgress, what does it say? \u201cThe Presence of the Lord appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire\u201d (24:17). Yet they had no fear and did not tremble. But once they had made the Golden Calf, they recoiled trembling even from Moses\u2019 radiance.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey shrank from coming near him. OJPS is more literal here, but NJPS has the correct sense; they actually retreated from him. For v. 31 tells us that they \u201creturned to him.\u201d
\nExodus 34:31
\nRASHI
\nAll the chieftains in the assembly. The expression is similar to \u201call the chieftains of the assembly.\u201d They were not actually in the assembly, but returned (with Aaron) separately from the rest of the people. Moses spoke to them. He spoke to them the message with which he had been sent by God. This whole passage is to be understood not in the past, but in the repetitive tense: \u201cMoses would speak to them\u201d and so forth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses spoke to them. Rashi\u2019s comment is not correct. What the text is saying, as the translations have it, is that the people fled from him in fear when they saw the radiance of his face (perhaps they thought that the Presence or the angels were with him), but Aaron and the chieftains came back and Moses reassured them, giving them the good news about the forgiveness of their iniquity and the tablets that he had brought down. Once all the rest of the people saw that he was talking with the chieftains, they all \u201ccame near\u201d (v. 32), and \u201che gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in Mount Sinai\u201d (OJPS). That is, the second set of the Ten Commandments that He had given him, and everything from vv. 11\u201326. Moses told them that God had commanded him to make a new covenant with them on these terms, but the text describes this only briefly, in general terms.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses called to them. When they recognized his voice, they realized that it was he, not an angel (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 34:32\u201334
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses call Aaron and the chieftains first, and the Israelites only \u201cafterward\u201d (v. 32), if all were equally afraid of him?
\n\u2666 If God wanted Moses\u2019 face to be radiant, how could Moses try to conceal it (v. 33) by putting a veil over his face?
\n\u2666 Since Moses did not wear the veil when he was speaking with God or with the Israelites, what was the point of putting it on when he was by himself?
\nExodus 34:32
\nRASHI
\nAfterward all the Israelites came near. After he had taught the elders, he would repeat the passage or the law and teach it to the Israelites. Our Sages taught: What was the schedule of instruction? Moses would learn from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron would come into the tent, and Moses would teach him his lesson. Aaron would move aside and sit at Moses\u2019 left. His sons would come in, and Moses would teach them their lesson; then they would move aside, Eleazar sitting at Moses\u2019 right, and Ithamar at Aaron\u2019s left. The elders would come in, Moses would teach them their lesson, and they would move to sit on the sides. Then all the rest of the people would come in, and Moses would teach them their lesson. In this way, the whole people would hear it once, the elders twice, Aaron\u2019s sons three times, and Aaron four times. (See B. Er. 54b, which goes on to say that Moses would leave, after which Aaron would teach and then leave, and so forth until each group had heard the lesson four times.)
\nRASHBAM
\nAll that the Lord had imparted to him on Mount Sinai. Before the Golden Calf incident. The reference is to chs. 25\u201331, as well as to the commandments in this chapter, vv. 12\u201326.
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe instructed them concerning all that the Lord had imparted to him. The terms of the covenant, vv. 11\u201326. For Moses may have never given them the instructions in 23:12\u201319, because he found them occupied with the Golden Calf.
\nExodus 34:33
\nRASHI
\nHe put a veil over his face. Onkelos gives us the meaning of the word translated \u201cveil,\u201d for it is an Aramaic word. B. Ket. 60a uses an Aramaic verb from this root to mean \u201clook,\u201d and here too the \u201cveil\u201d is a garment that covers the face and the eyes. Moses put the veil over his face on account of the horns of majesty that radiated from it, so that they would not feast their eyes on them. He removed the veil when he was speaking with Israel, and also while God was communicating with him.
\nRASHBAM
\nA veil. The vav in this word masveh is indeed part of the root, just like the vav in sutoh, \u201chis robe\u201d (Gen. 49:11)\u2014but these are two separate roots and two different garments. In the latter word, the t is also a root letter. That is how Dunash b. Labrat explains them, and his explanation makes sense.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA veil. We understand what the word means from the way it is used in this context. The \u201crobe\u201d of \u201cHis robe in blood of grapes\u201d (Gen. 49:11) is etymologically related. Many people are of the opinion that Moses put the veil over his face because of his role in judging the people. He was afraid that those who appeared before him would be so scared by the glow of his face that they would forget what they had intended to say. He would take it off when he went into the Holy of Holies, for there was no need for it there. When he came out, he would leave his face uncovered until he had finished speaking everything that God had told him to command Israel. But in my opinion this is not correct. Moses\u2019 face radiated light when God spoke with him. We know from the fact that \u201call the Israelites came near\u201d (v. 32) that, even if those who saw him were afraid at first, their fear left them. Now the radiance of Moses\u2019 face was continually restored from the glow of the Glory of the Presence when God spoke with him. This is why he left off the veil when he went into the Tent of Meeting\u2014to get the light. He would come out and tell Israel what he had been commanded, and the radiance was a reliable witness that God had indeed spoken with him. The light from his face would stay all the while he was speaking with them, but then he would put the veil back over his face so that the eyes of the ignorant should not see that the light would then depart, and his face would return to its ordinary state. If you read the passage carefully, you will see this. Some think that \u201cHis eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated\u201d (Deut. 34:7) attests to the fact that the radiance remained constant, but it really has nothing to do with it. You should realize that no prophet ever exhibited a greater wonder than this. For every marvel that God created to confirm a prophecy actually occurred to someone other than the prophet, and only once. But this occurred to Moses himself, and times without number. Blessed is He who chose Moses and placed His holy spirit within him.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe put a veil over his face. For he had noticed the radiance when he came back\u2014or perhaps someone mentioned it to him.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe put a veil over his face. That is, he tried to restore the barrier between him and the higher world long enough so that he could speak with Israel. This is the pinnacle of miraculousness. For anyone else, it would be difficult to withdraw into this world of the spirit; for Moses, it was difficult not to. We have at times found something like this in ourselves, that it was difficult to restrain our thoughts from higher things even when eating, drinking, or chatting with friends. It is this that enabled us to understand this passage\u2014despite the fact that the difference between these two kinds of contemplation is so great. If it were a literal veil, there would be no need to remove it when he received prophecy (Gersonides).
\nExodus 34:34\u201335
\nRASHBAM
\nHe would leave the veil off and speak to the Israelites, with his face uncovered, what he had been commanded. Then he would cover his face again until he went in to speak with the Shekhinah, when he would uncover it again.
\nExodus 34:34
\nRASHI
\nHe would leave the veil off until he came out. He would come out leaving his face unveiled until after he had told the Israelites what he had been commanded and they could see the horns of majesty radiating from his face.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhenever Moses went in. After having described the events of that particular day, the text now (as the translations say) switches to the repetitive verbs, to let us know that this is how he behaved throughout this period.
\nExodus 34:35
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why must Moses\u2019 name be mentioned three separate times in v. 35 (see OJPS), which could easily have been written without it?
\nExodus 34:35
\nRASHI
\nThe Israelites would see how radiant the skin of Moses\u2019 face was. When he left them, Moses would \u2026 put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with Him. When he went in to speak with Him, he would take the veil off again.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses would then put the veil back over his face. So that they should not get used to the radiance and begin to think it ordinary (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 35:1\u20133
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 If Moses has convoked the community to give them the commandments about the Tabernacle, why does he begin with the Sabbath commandment (vv. 2\u20133), which has already been given many times?
\n\u2666 Why is the Sabbath commandment given in ch. 31 at the end of the instructions for the Tabernacle, and again here at the beginning of the actual construction of it?
\nExodus 35:1
\nRASHI
\nMoses then convoked the whole Israelite community. On the day after the Day of Atonement, on which he had come down the mountain.
\nRASHBAM
\nMoses then convoked the whole Israelite community. To get the half-shekel per head from them, and also to give them the commandments about the Tabernacle.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses then convoked the whole Israelite community. Having come down with the second set of tablets, he now told them about the construction of the Tabernacle. The \u201cwhole community\u201d was responsible for paying a ransom for themselves for the service of the Tabernacle. These are the things. Saadia explains the use of \u201cthese\u201d with reference to the Sabbath (instead of \u201cthis is the thing\u201d) as implying that the Sabbath is worth all the other commandments put together. Or it may refer to the 39 different categories of work that are prohibited on the Sabbath. But in my opinion it refers to the instructions about the Tabernacle and its furnishings: that is why it adds to do.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses then convoked the whole Israelite community. This included both men and women, for they all contributed to the construction of the Tabernacle. After having told Aaron, the chieftains, and all the male Israelites what God had commanded him on Mount Sinai (34:31\u201332), Moses put the veil over his face and then convened \u201cthe whole community,\u201d men, women, and children. This may have occurred on the day after he came down from the mountain. He then told them everything that he had been commanded about the Tabernacle before the breaking of the tablets, for at this point the Holy One was once again reconciled with them, and had given him a second set of tablets and made a new covenant with him. They thus returned to their previous relationship with God (\u201cThe devotion of your youth, your love as a bride,\u201d as Jer. 2:2 has it), one in which He desired that \u201cthey should make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them\u201d (25:8). So Moses now gives them all the instructions about the Tabernacle that he was originally given. These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to do. This refers to the Tabernacle and its furnishings. The subsequent commandment about the Sabbath is to make clear that the building of the Tabernacle does not supersede the observance of the Sabbath. Again, this rule is derived from v. 2, \u201cOn six days work may be done\u201d on the Tabernacle, and not from the use of \u201cnevertheless\u201d in 31:13, as I have explained in my comment to that verse.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses then convoked the whole Israelite community. So that no one would be able to complain, \u201cWe did not have a chance to contribute, because we were not told until those who knew had already contributed everything necessary\u201d (Bekhor Shor). At his Tent of Meeting, outside the camp (Abarbanel). These are the things. This Hebrew phrase occurs only six times in the Bible: here, 19:6, at the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy, Isa. 42:16, Jer. 30:4, and Zech. 8:16 (Masorah). This phrase refers back to the things Moses has previously told them; all of these are the things God has commanded for the six days on which work may be done (Sforno).
\nExodus 35:2
\nRASHI
\nOn six days work may be done. Moses precedes the commandment to make the Tabernacle with the Sabbath commandment, to let them know that the building of the Tabernacle does not supersede the Sabbath.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSix days. God has indeed commanded that you make a Tabernacle, but you must make it only on six days of the week. Whoever does any work on it, even though what he does is God\u2019s work, shall be put to death. He has already forbidden them in the covenant to do any work on the Sabbath, but here He specifies the punishment for violating this particular commandment\u2014for the prohibitions vary in the punishment connected with them. For example, the punishment for one who insults the deaf is not the same as that for a murderer.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhoever does any work on it shall be put to death. Even the holy work of building the Tabernacle (Bekhor Shor). Note that Moses gives the Israelites the Sabbath commandment, which God had given him at the end of the instructions about the Tabernacle, before he tells them about the Tabernacle. This was to make clear that the making of the Tabernacle did not supersede observance of the Sabbath (Gersonides).
\nExodus 35:3
\nRASHI
\nYou shall kindle no fire. Some of our Sages say that this particular form of work is specifically singled out to make it a mere misdemeanor rather than a capital violation of the Sabbath; others think the specific mention implies that each of the 39 categories of work that might be performed on the Sabbath would be a separate violation.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall kindle no fire. Since with regard to festivals we are told, \u201cOnly what every person is to eat, that alone may be prepared for you\u201d (12:16), it is clear that fire may be kindled on festivals for baking or cooking. But with regard to the manna gathered on Friday, the Israelites were told, \u201cBake what you would bake and boil what you would boil\u201d (16:23)\u2014while it is still day. So we are specifically warned here not to kindle fire on the Sabbath even for cooking purposes. It goes without saying that all the other kinds of work, which are prohibited even on festivals, are prohibited on the Sabbath as well.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall kindle no fire. Since it has already been made clear in the manna episode that food is not to be prepared on the Sabbath (and there is no way to prepare food without lighting a fire), this is to warn the Israelites that they must not light a fire even though the priests do light fires and lamps on the Sabbath. May God double the reward of Saadia, who (in a charming book) completely refuted the position of the Karaites, who prohibit even having an existing fire on the Sabbath. A Karaite got friendly with me once, and I said to him, \u201cLet\u2019s forget about rabbinic tradition, and follow nothing but the written Torah.\u201d Naturally, he was happy to hear me say this. So I asked him, \u201cWho prohibited us from lighting the lamp on Sabbath eve after sunset?\u201d He replied, \u201c \u2018You shall kindle no fire.\u2019 \u201d I responded, \u201cThat verse says only \u2018on the sabbath day.\u2019 You certainly agree that circumcision \u2018on the eighth day\u2019 (Lev. 12:3) means that the child cannot be circumcised during the night!\u201d He replied, \u201c \u2018And there was evening and there was morning, one day\u2019 (Gen. 1:5). Both the evening and the morning together are called \u2018day,\u2019 and the evening that goes with the morning is the one preceding it.\u201d \u201cThat cannot be,\u201d I said. \u201cFor the same verse says, \u2018God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.\u2019 How can you say that He called the darkness Day?\u201d (I have already explained this in my comment to that verse.) At this point, the Karaite was quite befuddled. He came back to me a few days later, citing \u201cwhoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel\u201d (12:15). But I replied to this also. He went off disgusted with himself. A month later he came back in an extremely cheerful mood, having found the verse, \u201cThis is a day of good news\u201d (2 Kings 7:9), which continues, \u201cIf we wait until the light of morning, we shall incur guilt.\u201d I replied, \u201cIs that the only place in the Torah you could find nighttime referred to as \u2018day? What about \u2018on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt\u2019 (Num. 3:13)? The smiting of the first-born took place at midnight!\u201d In fact, the Hebrew word yom has two meanings: first, the 24-hour \u201cday,\u201d and second, a period of time. Thus \u201cin that day\u201d (Isa. 17:4) means \u201cat that time, on that occasion.\u201d I have mentioned all these things because people of understanding can explain biblical verses in many different ways. That is why, when it comes to the commandments, we require tradition and the Oral Law, as I explained at the beginning of my Torah commentary.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day. Since fire as a kind of work has already been prohibited on the Sabbath, the point of this verse is undoubtedly to prohibit food preparation, for which fire is indispensable. This was necessary because of the subtle distinction between our v. 2 and the prohibition of Sabbath work in the Ten Commandments. That verse says \u201cyou shall not do any work\u201d (20:10), while our v. 2 (despite the English translations) literally says \u201canyone who does work.\u201d Since our v. 2 does not specifically prohibit any work, we might deduce that this was intended to leave a loophole permitting the preparation of food, just as is permitted on festivals. For with regard to the Festival of Unleavened Bread too Deut. 16:8 says merely \u201cyou shall not do work\u201d\u2014not \u201cyou shall not do any work.\u201d So our passage makes clear that this reasoning does not apply to the Sabbath. R. Nathan makes the same argument in the Mekilta, coming close to what we have said previously, that the prohibition in v. 2 did not include \u201cwork\u201d that was done for one\u2019s physical pleasure. It is clear from the instructions about the Friday portions of manna, \u201cBake what you would bake and boil what you would boil\u201d (16:23), that food preparation is ruled out on the Sabbath. But this would leave all sorts of other things permissible as part of one\u2019s Sabbath enjoyment: lighting a lamp or a fire, or washing with hot water. \u201cYou shall kindle no fire\u201d prohibits all these, however.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall kindle no fire. This had to be mentioned specially because it does not seem so much like work. A metalworker might think, I will do no work on the Sabbath, but I will get the fire going so that I can start work immediately after the Sabbath ends. So it is made clear that even preparation for work is forbidden on the Sabbath (Bekhor Shor). Since burning is one of the four methods of capital punishment, we learn that such punishment, though it fulfills a commandment, is not to be carried out on the Sabbath. For (as with the Tabernacle) the commandment to inflict capital punishment is not linked to a specific date (Gersonides). Ordinarily fire is destructive, not constructive; but it is prohibited because it is used in all, or at least most, of the prohibited categories of work (Sforno). Throughout your settlements. But in the sanctuary it is permissible (Hizkuni). Whether in the land of Israel or outside it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:4\u20135
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does Moses repeat \u201cThis is what the Lord has commanded\u201d (v. 4)?
\nExodus 35:4
\nRASHI
\nThis is what the Lord has commanded me to tell you. OJPS \u201csaying\u201d is literally \u201cto say\u201d: This is what He commanded me \u201cto say\u201d to you.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses said further. \u201cFurther\u201d is not in the Hebrew text; but NJPS is correct to add it. I would have said, \u201cAfterward.\u201d This is what the Lord has commanded. With regard to the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 35:5
\nRASHI
\nGifts for the Lord. I have already explained the contributions for the Tabernacle, and the work to be done for it, in the passage where God gives the command to Moses.
\nIBN EZRA
\nShall bring them\u2014gifts for the Lord. The latter phrase is in apposition, an explanatory addition.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nShall bring them\u2014gifts for the Lord. It is quite common for the Bible to use a pronoun and only afterwards specify what the pronoun refers to (see, e.g., the Hebrew texts of 2:6; Ezek. 10:3; Jer. 27:8; Josh. 1:2; and many others). But according to the True interpretation, et is not the direct object marker here, but the word \u201cwith.\u201d They should bring their contributions \u201cwith\u201d gifts for the Lord\u2014the higher gifts referred to in the secret meaning of \u201cTell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts\u201d (25:2). I have explained this in my comment to 25:3. Our Sages midrashically interpret 2:3 the same way: \u201cShe opened it, and saw it with the child\u201d\u2014\u201cit\u201d being the Shekhinah.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEveryone whose heart so moves him shall bring them\u2014gifts for the Lord. Moses did not ask for a specific minimum gift from each one, nor would collectors go from tent to tent to get the gifts (Abarbanel). Rather, \u201cshall bring them with the [obligatory half-shekel] contribution for the Lord\u201d mentioned in ch. 25 (Sforno).
\nExodus 35:8\u201317
\nExodus 35:8
\nRASHBAM
\nFor the aromatic incense. More precisely: \u201cfor the incense, [bring] aromatics.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nOil for lighting. Rather, \u201coil for the light\u201d (OJPS); having specified this, there was no need to add that it was \u201coil of clear, beaten olives.\u201d
\nExodus 35:10
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet all among you who are skilled come and make all that the Lord has commanded. For the work of skilled artisans is also a contribution (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:11
\nRASHI
\nThe Tabernacle. The undermost strips of cloth, those that are visible inside, are called \u201cthe Tabernacle.\u201d Its tent. These are the cloths of goats\u2019 hair that are made to be the roof. Its covering. This is the cover of ram skins and \u201cdolphin\u201d skins.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Tabernacle, its tent and its covering, etc. Moses had to tell the whole community all the details that God had instructed him, to let them know that they would have to bring a large amount of gifts, for there was a lot of work to be done. He mentions every item, though only in general terms. When he says \u201cthe\u201d Tabernacle, \u201cthe\u201d Ark (v. 12), \u201cthe\u201d table (v. 13), and so forth, he means, \u201c \u2018the\u2019 Tabernacle and \u2018the\u2019 furnishings whose details and dimensions we will specify for the experts who are to make them.\u201d At this point, speaking to the community as a whole, he merely refers to them by their general names.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Tabernacle, its tent and its covering, and so forth. Moses listed each item individually, so that the artisans would be able to volunteer for each different item as it was called out (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:12
\nRASHI
\nThe curtain for the screen. The curtain of separation. Etymologically, the \u201cscreen\u201d is related to a root that implies creating a barrier, whether it is \u201cscreened\u201d vertically or \u201ccovered\u201d horizontally. Other words from this root are found in \u201cIt is You who have fenced him round\u201d (Job 1:10) and \u201cAssuredly, I will hedge up her roads with thorns and raise walls against her\u201d (Hosea 2:8).
\nExodus 35:13
\nRASHI
\nThe bread of display. I have already explained that the literal name for this \u201cface\u201d bread is based on the fact that it showed a \u201cface\u201d in either direction, being made in the shape of a box with two of its sides broken out.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe bread of display. For which the table was made.
\nExodus 35:14
\nRASHI
\nIts furnishings. Tongs and fire pans. Its lamps. The dishes in which the oil and wicks are put. The oil for lighting. This too required the services of skilled artisans, being different from regular oils, as is explained on M. Men. 8:4 and B. Men. 86a: It is made of olives picked from the top of the tree\u2014clear oil of beaten olives.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe oil for lighting. For which the lampstand was made.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIts lamps. The Hebrew word ner sometimes refers to the burning wick and sometimes to the dish in which it burns (Kimhi).
\nExodus 35:15
\nRASHI
\nThe entrance screen. The curtain on the east side, where there were neither planks nor cloths.
\nExodus 35:16
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe laver. The laver and its stand have no poles. Perhaps they were transported on the carts.
\nExodus 35:17
\nRASHI
\nIts posts and its sockets. The first \u201cits\u201d treats the word \u201cenclosure\u201d as if it were grammatically masculine, the second as if it were grammatically feminine. But there are many such cases. The screen for the gate of the court. A curtain that stretched across the middle 20 cubits of the east side of the enclosure, which was 50 cubits wide. The 15 cubits to the north and south of it were already blocked off: \u201cfifteen cubits of hangings on the one flank\u201d (27:14) and so forth.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIts posts and its sockets. Ordinarily the Hebrew word translated \u201cenclosure\u201d is feminine; but here it is treated as both masculine and feminine.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIts posts and its sockets. See Rashi\u2019s comment. The change in the gender of \u201cits\u201d in the Hebrew is not uncommon with reference to Hebrew words that do not represent living things. Alternatively, the pronouns refer to two different things: the posts for the hanging and the sockets of the enclosure (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 35:18\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 If the \u201cservice vestments\u201d (v. 19) are the priests\u2019 garments, why does Moses mention them separately? But if they are the covers for the furnishings of the Tabernacle, how can he say that God commanded them this commandment is not given in the text, and why are they not mentioned in the description of the actual making of the Tabernacle and its furnishings?
\nExodus 35:18
\nRASHI
\nThe pegs. To fix the ends of the cloths to the ground so that they would not blow back and forth in the wind. Their cords. The connecting ropes.
\nExodus 35:19
\nRASHI
\nThe service vestments. To cover the Ark, the table, the lampstand, and the altars when they are packed up for travel.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor officiating in the sanctuary. To cover the furnishings of the Tabernacle when you are carrying them from place to place.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe service vestments. The cloths that cover the holy things when they are traveling. For officiating. With which \u201cto officiate\u201d (as the Hebrew literally says). Or perhaps the verbal form is a gerund, as the English translations take it. But OJPS \u201cto minister\u201d is a little better; the Hebrew word means something closer to \u201cserve a need, provide what is necessary.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe service vestments.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe service vestments. Rashi may be correct, but more likely these are cloths to be used for cleaning and polishing the various furnishings of the Tabernacle. Those things that were directly commanded by God were symbolic, while the others, like these service vestments, were strictly utilitarian (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:20
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe whole community of Israel left Moses\u2019 presence. Since the tent was not big enough to hold them all, they must have come in groups.
\nExodus 35:21
\nRASHBAM
\nFor the work of the Tent of Meeting. The cloth for the Tabernacle and the curtain. For all its service. The hangings of the enclosure, and the sacred objects.
\nIBN EZRA
\nEveryone who excelled in ability. More literally, \u201cwhose heart stirred him up\u201d (OJPS)\u2014that is, whose intelligence lifted him above the rest. (Note Prov. 15:32, \u201cHe who heeds reproof gains \u2018heart\u2019 \u201d\u2014that is, understanding.) V. 26 has the same idiom, and confirms the meaning. Everyone whose spirit moved him. So two groups came forward: knowledgeable people and generous ones.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nEveryone who excelled in ability. More literally, \u201ceveryone whose heart stirred him up\u201d (OJPS), but it certainly refers to the artisans, for we never find the idiom of the heart \u201clifting\u201d someone in connection with the bringing of the contributions. Rather, they are described as being \u201cmoved,\u201d as in the next phrase of this verse. We are told that the experts\u2019 \u201chearts\u201d moved them toward the work of the Tabernacle because not one of them had learned these crafts from a teacher, or ever practiced them before. Each of them simply found that he naturally knew how to do so, for \u201chis mind was elevated in the ways of the Lord\u201d (2 Chron. 17:6) to go and tell Moses, \u201cI will do all that my lord commands.\u201d I have already mentioned this in my comment to 31:2. It was only after all \u201cwho excelled in ability\u201d and everyone whose spirit moved him came of their own accord to Moses that he told them that God had singled out Bezalel and Oholiab. Then he summoned the other artisans and gave them the contributions.
\nExodus 35:22
\nRASHI
\nMen and women. More literally, \u201cthe men along with the women.\u201d Brooches. The Hebrew word really refers to a round gold ornament that goes on the arm: a bracelet. Pendants. \u201cGirdles\u201d (OJPS) almost catches the implication. The word refers to a gold object that women wear opposite \u201cthat place.\u201d Our Sages took the Hebrew word, kumaz, as an acronym: \u1e35an m\u0331ekom \u1e95imah, \u201chere is the place of depravity.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nMen and women. Rather, \u201cthe men as well as the women,\u201d that is, the women brought their gifts and afterward the men did so. Others take the Hebrew idiom to mean that the men came at the women\u2019s request. But others, like the translators, take it to mean \u201ctogether with,\u201d a meaning it has many other places. Brooches. Some take this word to mean \u201cnose-ring,\u201d an opinion followed by OJPS. Earrings. In my opinion, it is this Hebrew word that refers to nose-rings; see Isa. 3:21, where this is made explicit. The preceding word refers to earrings. Rings. Those worn on the finger. Pendants. Worn on the arm. No other word from this root is found in Hebrew.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMen and women. A large portion of the contributions came from jewelry, which is more commonly found among women. They all had jewelry, and they all took off their rings and so forth immediately, and brought them first. The men who had jewelry brought theirs \u201calong with\u201d the women (which would be a somewhat more precise translation of the Hebrew al here). In any case, the text clearly indicates that the women were there first and the men joined them. Our verse tells us that they all, men and women, had gold jewelry of various kinds, which they brought, while some of them also had gold objects of all kinds\u2014broken pieces of gold, or coins\u2014which they brought as \u201can elevation offering.\u201d But v. 23 mentions \u201ceveryone who had in his possession blue, purple, and crimson yarns,\u201d for only a few of them had these, and v. 24 goes on to mention \u201ceveryone who had in his possession acacia wood,\u201d for even fewer of them had this. And see the next comment.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMen and women. Literally, \u201cthe men came [to remove the jewelry from] upon the women.\u201d For the objects specified in the rest of the verse are women\u2019s jewelry (Bekhor Shor). Both were eager to bring whatever was necessary (Gersonides).
\nExodus 35:23\u201327
\nExodus 35:23
\nRASHI
\nEveryone who had in his possession blue, purple, and crimson yarns. Here, and throughout the verse, it should read not \u201cand,\u201d but \u201cor.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nEveryone. This is preferable to OJPS \u201cevery man,\u201d for the women spun not only these yarns, but also the goats\u2019 hair, which is an art that demands exceptional skill.
\nExodus 35:24
\nIBN EZRA
\nGifts of silver. This phrase includes both the obligatory half-shekel and the voluntary contributions.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nEveryone who would make gifts of silver or copper. Most of the men had silver and copper, both in coins and in the form of various objects, but the women had no silver or copper, but only gold, in their jewelry: \u201cthe gold rings that are on the ears of your wives\u201d (35:2). \u201cAll who would make an elevation offering of gold to the Lord\u201d (v. 22) were much fewer than those with silver or copper, and the quantities were smaller as well, so gold was considered \u201can elevation offering,\u201d while silver and copper were simply \u201cgifts.\u201d The verb used to indicate the \u201celevation\u201d offering really means \u201cto wave,\u201d perhaps because one who brought gold would wave his hand to indicate the importance of his gift, or perhaps because those who collected it would wave it in praise of the one who brought it. In 38:29, the copper too is called an \u201celevation offering.\u201d But this is because the word \u201cgifts\u201d is simply not used in that passage at all; the silver mentioned there is reported as having come from the \u201chalf-shekel a head \u2026 for each one who was entered in the records\u201d (38:26). It may also be that copper is called an elevation offering there because they considered it more important than silver, being less commonly found among them, or because they really considered it intrinsically of great value, as might be indicated by Ezra 8:27, \u201cshining copper, as precious as gold.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEveryone who had in his possession acacia wood. Whether this was cut from the forest near Mount Sinai or purchased from the gentile merchants who came to the Israelite camp to sell their wares, there cannot have been much of it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:25
\nRASHBAM
\nAnd all the skilled women spun with their own hands. More accurately: \u201cEach woman skilled with her hands\u2014they all spun.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nAnd all the skilled women spun with their own hands. The preposition here is superfluous. A more accurate translation would be: \u201cEvery skilled woman\u2014her hands spun.\u201d (In my opinion, \u201cBy His wind the heavens were calmed\u201d of Job 26:13 exhibits the same phenomenon, and should be translated, \u201cHis wind calmed the heavens.\u201d)
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSpun \u2026 and brought what they had spun. Rather, \u201cspun \u2026 or brought spun wool.\u201d For some women had brought such wool out of Egypt with them (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:26
\nRASHI
\nSpun the goats\u2019 hair. This was a special skill, for they spun the hair while it was still on the goats.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the women who excelled in that skill spun the goats\u2019 hair. As our Sages said, they spun it right on the goats; this was what made it special, for ordinarily in such cases (taking honey from a hive, and so forth) something of the original is lost in the process of transferring it (Sforno).
\nExodus 35:27
\nRASHI
\nThe chieftains brought lapis lazuli and other stones. Said R. Nathan: Why is it that at the dedication of the altar the chieftains were the first to contribute, but not so with the Tabernacle? They thought: Let the public contribute whatever it can, and we will make up the difference. But the public contributed everything that was necessary: \u201cTheir efforts had been more than enough for all the tasks to be done\u201d (36:7). The chieftains thought: What else is there left for us to do? So they brought the precious stones. That is why, when it came time to dedicate the altar, they made sure to be the first to contribute. But here, the Hebrew word that refers to them lacks the letter \u05d9 (which ordinarily would appear in it) as punishment for their having stood back at the first.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe chieftains brought lapis lazuli. On which the names of their tribes were to be written.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe chieftains brought lapis lazuli. For when the Israelites despoiled the Egyptians on their way out of the country, everyone borrowed items befitting his status.
\nExodus 35:28\u201336:3
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why do the descriptions of making the various things for the Tabernacle usually say \u201che made,\u201d but once \u201call the skilled workers made,\u201d and once \u201cBezalel made\u201d?
\nExodus 35:28
\nRASHBAM
\nThe anointing oil. Which required \u201ca hin of olive oil\u201d (30:24).
\nIBN EZRA
\nOil for lighting. It is remarkable that the chieftains had any of this left so many months after leaving Egypt.
\nExodus 35:29
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the men and women whose hearts moved them to bring anything for the work that the Lord \u2026 had commanded to be done. This verse is not a repetition, but makes clear that they all brought their contributions in order to serve God, and not for show (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 35:30
\nRASHI
\nHur. He was Miriam\u2019s son.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSee, the Lord has singled out by name Bezalel. Moses tells them just as God told him, \u201cSee, I have singled out by name Bezalel\u201d (31:2). The point was that first Moses, and then all the people, should \u201csee\u201d\u2014that is, understand\u2014how great was Bezalel\u2019s wisdom.
\nExodus 35:32
\nIBN EZRA
\nHas inspired him to make designs. OJPS \u201cto devise\u201d is a bit closer. He would devise designs in his mind that had never before been seen.
\nExodus 35:34
\nRASHI
\nOholiab. From the tribe of Dan, one of the lowliest of the tribes, being descended from one of the maidservants. Yet in the construction of the Tabernacle God made him the equivalent of Bezalel, who was from Judah, one of the greatest of the tribes, all to fulfill the verse, \u201cHe is not partial to princes; the noble are not preferred to the wretched; for all of them are the work of His hands\u201d (Job 34:19).
\nRASHBAM
\nTo give directions. To the others.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo give directions. Literally, \u201cHe hath put in his heart that he may teach\u201d (OJPS). For there are skilled, intelligent people who cannot teach well.
\nExodus 36:3
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey. The Israelites. To him. To Moses.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey took over from Moses all the gifts that the Israelites had brought. So on a single day they brought all these gifts to the Tent of Meeting\u2014that is, Moses\u2019 tent\u2014and the artisans collected the gifts from him both that day and early the next morning. On the second day the people brought more gifts to Moses\u2019 tent, and he ordered them to bring them directly to the artisans. But the artisans told him that they were bringing too much\u2014they had all they needed, and more. The extra amounts were not so great that the \u201crecords\u201d of 38:21\u201329 tell us what was done with them. Perhaps they were left in the tent to pay for maintenance of the Tabernacle, or to make various other service utensils, as M. Shek. 4:4 tells us was done with the surplus in the Temple.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMorning after morning. \u201cThese\u201d refers to the artisans themselves, who not only volunteered their services but brought contributions as well. But \u201cmorning after morning\u201d is more properly translated \u201cearly in the morning.\u201d Before the Israelites resumed contributing on the second day, the artisans had brought in their contributions (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 36:5\u20137
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why in general was so much repetition about the Tabernacle necessary? Why couldn\u2019t the text simply say, \u201cMoses told the Israelites everything that the Lord had commanded him about the Tabernacle, and just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so they did\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why is it not said that Bezalel and the other skilled workers did \u201cas the Lord had commanded Moses,\u201d as it is over and over again with regard to the priestly garments in ch. 39?
\nExodus 36:5
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe people are bringing more than is needed. Though the gifts were being brought to Moses, the artisans were informed of the quantities that were brought.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe people are bringing more than is needed. This is included in the text both in praise of the people for bringing so much, and to glorify the honesty of the artisans. Their leader is to be praised as well, for having all this proclaimed (in v. 6) throughout the camp. For he had no desire for their silver and gold, as do other national leaders. As he says later, \u201cI have not taken the ass of any one of them\u201d (Num. 16:15).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe work that the Lord has commanded to be done. For with the Tabernacle, exact dimensions and quantities were fixed\u2014unlike the temples built by Solomon and Herod (Sforno).
\nExodus 36:6
\nRASHBAM
\nThroughout the camp. For, as 35:25 tells us, the women were doing the spinning at home.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLet no man or woman make further effort toward gifts for the sanctuary! \u201cEffort\u201d is the same word translated elsewhere as \u201cwork\u201d (see OJPS). But the word refers here to material wealth, as in 22:7, \u201cthe other\u2019s property,\u201d and Gen. 33:14, \u201cat the pace of the cattle before me.\u201d The intent was that they should bring no more gifts for the holy work. But it was phrased as \u201cdo no further work\u201d to include the spinning of the goats\u2019 hair that the women were doing. In any case, even \u201cbringing\u201d is work or effort of a kind. But Moses called everything to a halt.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nLet no man or woman make further effort toward gifts for the sanctuary. Literally, \u201cLet them do no more work.\u201d From this verse, which calls carrying \u201cwork,\u201d our Sages derived the prohibition on carrying from one jurisdiction to another on the Sabbath (Hizkuni). We learn that one must not offer God more of one\u2019s possessions than is reasonable; the same applies to charity\u2014according to B. Ket. 50a, no more than 20% (Gersonides). For the artisans had asked him whether they should stop accepting contributions, or simply store the extra materials. Moses ordered that the Israelites should stop bringing materials for the \u201cwork\u201d\u2014that is, the construction\u2014but the gold, silver, and copper, as well as the silk and yarn, were kept, to make new clothes for the priests and to pay for the public sacrifices and other things that might be necessary later (Abarbanel). Not no further \u201ceffort,\u201d but no further work\u2014like spinning the goats\u2019 hair, cutting the planks, tanning the animal hides, and so forth (Sforno). So the people stopped bringing. They ceased to bring even the things that could have been kept for later use (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 36:7
\nRASHI
\nTheir efforts had been more than enough for all the tasks to be done. \u201cEfforts\u201d and \u201ctasks\u201d are the same Hebrew word, perhaps better translated as \u201cwork.\u201d Despite the English translations, what the verse is really saying is that the work the people had done in bringing supplies was more than enough for the work to be done in constructing the Tabernacle. The verse literally says, \u201cenough for them,\u201d that is, for those who were making the Tabernacle.
\nRASHBAM
\nMore than enough. The mem at the end of dayam, the word translated \u201cenough,\u201d is not a possessive, but an adverbial suffix; the same phenomenon occurs with reikam of Gen. 31:42 and ha-kinam of 8:13.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTheir efforts had been more than enough. Literally, the \u201cwork\u201d the people had done in bringing the gifts. But some interpret the word to refer to the amount, or the value, of the gifts, as the word is used in 22:10, \u201cthat the one has not laid hands on the property of the other.\u201d The suffix on dayyam means that their efforts were more than enough \u201cfor them,\u201d referring either to the people who had brought the gifts, or to those who were to carry out the work.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTheir efforts had been more than enough. So the artisans did not need to cut corners for fear they would run out of materials (Sforno).
\nExodus 36:8\u201311
\nExodus 36:8
\nRASHBAM
\nAll the skilled among those engaged in the work made the Tabernacle. They made the Tabernacle first, and then its furnishings, as I explained in my comment to 25:10.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThen all the skilled among those engaged in the work made the Tabernacle of ten strips of cloth. The construction of the Tabernacle is repeated five times in the Torah:
\n\u2022 When God gives the details to Moses (chs. 25\u201330).
\n\u2022 When God summarizes what he has said (31:7\u201311). The reason for this is that God wanted Moses to give Bezalel, Oholiab, and the rest of the experts a complete picture of the project before they set to work. For they would not be properly fit for the holy work until they had heard all about it, understood it, and, knowing how to complete it, could accept the responsibility.
\n\u2022 When Moses repeats the general command to the whole community (35:11\u201319). Not a single detail is included in the text at this point, but undoubtedly Moses had to give them not merely the general instructions listed here, but the specific details: \u201cten strips of cloth, of such-and-such a length and such-and-such a width,\u201d and so forth for each of the tasks. The text does not include these details, but it is obvious from the fact that they did them that he must have told them everything in the correct order. But he did not have to instruct them about each tiny detail, as given in the original instructions and in the report of the actual making, because they were expert enough to understand what to do as long as he gave them enough information. For example, he would tell them to make 10 strips of cloth in sets of five, and they understood that they had to make and attach matching clasps to join them. So by leaving out the details at this point, the text alludes to the skill and intelligence of the artisans.
\n\u2022 In the details given starting with our verse and going on through the next chapters, matching the specifics given in the original instructions. The text might simply have said, \u201cMoses told the whole Israelite community all that the Lord had commanded him,\u201d and then skipped to 39:42. But it wanted to show how Moses had persuaded the people to make the contributions that were necessary for so great an undertaking, and how he had laid out the project for the artisans so they could decide whether to accept such a task. Then each detail of the Tabernacle is repeated to show that (except for the Ark) all the artisans played a part in its construction.
\n\u2022 When all was complete, and \u201cthey brought the Tabernacle to Moses, with the Tent and all its furnishings\u201d and so forth (39:33\u201342). Displaying their wisdom, they brought everything to him at once, all in order, rather than each of them bringing him their individual piece before \u201call the work of the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting was completed\u201d (39:32). They first said to him, \u201cMaster, here is the Tent and here are its furnishings,\u201d and then continued, \u201cHere is the Ark and here are its poles,\u201d and so forth for the whole of the work. With regard to the priestly garments, each item was said to have been made \u201cas the Lord commanded Moses\u201d (39:1,5,7, etc.). But \u201cBezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, had made all that the Lord had commanded Moses\u201d (38:22) makes the same statement just once for the entire construction of the Tabernacle, perhaps because Bezalel did things in a different order than Moses had told him, as our Sages mentioned.
\nAll this repetition is an affectionate and distinctive way to say that God took pleasure in the work, and mentioned it in His Torah many times to multiply the reward for those engaged in it. As a midrash says, \u201cThe conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is more precious to the Holy One than the Torah of their descendants. The story of Eliezer goes on for pages!\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA design of cherubim. But the 11 cloths, which were concealed above by the covering of skins and below by the tabernacle of 10 cloths, had no designs on them (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 36:9
\nIBN EZRA
\nTwenty-eight cubits. Literally, \u201ctwenty-eight by \u2018the\u2019 cubit,\u201d perhaps a reference to the \u201cnoble\u201d cubit used in the First Temple.
\nExodus 36:11
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey made loops. From here on, the OJPS translation is more accurate: \u201che made.\u201d The reference is not to Bezalel, but to whichever of the individual craftsmen (with his servants and his assistants) did that particular job (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 36:16\u201319
\nExodus 36:16
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey joined five of the cloths by themselves, and the other six cloths by themselves. The folding over of the sixth cloth at the front of the tent is not mentioned here, for the sake of brevity. Aaron the Ga\u2019on of Pumbedita thinks that there were five and a half cloths in each set, but that the text preferred to speak in whole numbers, rounding one set down to five and the other up to six. He explains the folding over of the sixth cloth prescribed in 26:9 as a reference to this half-cloth, his proof being \u201cthe extra half-cloth\u201d of 26:12. But the truth is what I have said.
\nExodus 36:19
\nIBN EZRA
\nFor the tent. Rather, \u201cas a tent.\u201d
\nExodus 37:1\u201310
\nExodus 37:1
\nRASHI
\nBezalel made the ark. He is given credit for it because he put so much more of himself into the work than did the other craftsmen.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBezalel made the ark. Because of the special honor associated with the Ark, Bezalel\u2019s name is recorded here explicitly. But he made all the furnishings of the Tabernacle, as the singular verbs in vv. 10, 17, and so forth show.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBezalel made the ark. The greatest artisan of them all made the Ark entirely by himself. For he was \u201cendowed with a divine spirit\u201d (31:3) so that he would be able to understand God\u2019s design for it and keep in mind, while making it, the intention to do so as God desired. For the work involved in making the Ark was not particularly complicated; there were other tasks that required more skill.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBezalel made the ark. The individual craftsman who made the Ark was Bezalel himself; no one else laid a finger on it (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 37:10
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe made the table. In Ibn Ezra\u2019s opinion, \u201che made\u201d of vv. 10, 17, and so forth implies that it was Bezalel who made all the furnishings of the Tabernacle. But in my opinion this is not so. For 38:9 likewise says, \u201cHe made the enclosure,\u201d which must certainly refer to \u201ceveryone who is skillful\u201d (a phrase that is singular in the Hebrew).
\nExodus 37:29
\nExodus 37:29
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe sacred anointing oil and the pure aromatic incense. They are mentioned together because both contain spices.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe prepared the sacred anointing oil and the pure aromatic incense. The details of their preparations are not given as are those of the other things described in this chapter. But these details are also omitted in the original instructions, as I have explained in my comment to 30:34. Not even all the ingredients for the incense are listed, for (as our verse says) it was to be expertly blended. The details of its making also did not need to be given, since this was left to the expertise of the perfumers.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe prepared the sacred anointing oil. It is curious that this verse is inserted here; the oil is meant to anoint all the furnishings of the Tabernacle, including those that follow in ch. 38 (Hizkuni). The pure aromatic incense. It had to be pure, because oil and incense are ruined by the slightest contamination; in the words of Eccles. 10:1, \u201cDead flies turn the perfumer\u2019s ointment fetid and putrid\u201d (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 38:7\u20138
\nExodus 38:7
\nRASHI
\nHollow, of boards. There were boards of acacia wood on all four sides, with an empty space in the middle.
\nExodus 38:8
\nRASHI
\nFrom the mirrors of the women who performed tasks. The Israelite women had mirrors that they used when they were adorning themselves. But they did not hesitate to bring even these as contributions to the Tabernacle. Moses spurned them as having been made for the purposes of the evil inclination. The Holy One told him: Accept them! They are more precious to Me than all the rest. For by means of them the women produced vast armies of Israelites in Egypt. When their husbands were exhausted from the ruthless toil imposed on them by the Egyptians, they would take them something to eat and drink, and would bring along the mirrors. Each of them would look at herself and her husband in the mirror, and entice him, saying, \u201cI\u2019m better looking than you are!\u201d In this way they would arouse their husbands\u2019 desire and have relations with them, conceive, and bear children: \u201cUnder the apple tree I roused you\u201d (Song 8:5). So the words of our verse can also be translated: \u201cBy means of the mirrors, the women made armies!\u201d
\nThe laver was made from these mirrors because of its role in maintaining peace between a husband and his wife. For it is from the water in this laver that the woman who is suspected by her jealous husband, because she has been alone with another man, drinks to prove her innocence. You can be sure that the word means \u201cmirrors\u201d here, and not \u201cvisions\u201d or \u201cappearances\u201d as it sometimes does elsewhere. For the laver and stand are not mentioned among the items made from the 70 talents of copper mentioned in vv. 29\u201330; as R. Tanhuma points out, they must have come from this separate contribution of actual copper. OJPS translates more literally: \u201cthe serving women that did service,\u201d but the Hebrew word is the particular word used for the armed services. The implication is that the women came in armies to bring these mirrors as their special contribution.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe laver. Its dimensions are not given, as are those of the lavers built by Solomon. It was simply made of as much copper as all the mirrors that were brought. The stand. Naturally this was made of the correct size to fit the laver. The mirrors of the women who performed tasks. These were the skillful women who spun the five types of cloth previously mentioned. Or it may refer to the women who came regularly to pray at the tent, and to study the commandments. They had abandoned all the vanities of the world; hence they gave up their mirrors, which they no longer needed. For ordinarily women have no other occupation than to beautify their faces every morning in copper or glass mirrors, and to arrange their hats (see Isa. 3:20). For the customs of Israel were the same as those preserved to this day in Islamic countries. The verb does not mean \u201cto perform tasks,\u201d but \u201cto show up in armies,\u201d for there were so many of them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe mirrors of the women. The point of the midrash given by Rashi is that, in every aspect of the construction of the Tabernacle, the women\u2019s jewelry was accepted for use, even the kumazim, which (according to the midrash cited by Rashi) were something shameful. (See his comment, and mine, to 35:22.) But the jewelry was lumped together with all the rest of the contributions for the Tabernacle. Moses had no intention of making some particular object with the jewelry devoted to the evil inclination until specifically instructed by the Almighty to do so. Who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. I do not know how this is to be explained. It may mean that the women brought this particular gift to Moses\u2019 tent (which \u201cwas called the Tent of Meeting,\u201d 33:7), and he was told by a divine communication to accept it\u2014for the tent of the Tabernacle had not been made yet. Onkelos translates the phrase as \u201cthe women who came to pray\u201d and so forth, which lends some credence to the explanation of Ibn Ezra, who says that they came there each day to pray and to study the commandments. It may also be part of the straightforward meaning of the text to say that it was a vast \u201carmy\u201d of women who gathered at the tent to give their mirrors, voluntarily. The copper of the mirrors was burnished and quite lovely, which was why it was specially set aside right from the start for the laver and its stand. When the women saw this, they trooped in army after army, so that all of them could have their mirrors made into the laver and the stand. It is also correct to say that they understood right from the start that this laver would be used to test the women who were suspected of adultery, and they accepted this joyfully and volunteered to bring all of their mirrors for this purpose.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFrom the mirrors of the women. Rather, \u201cin the sight of the women\u201d (because the wives of jealous husbands would be tested with the water from this laver). The laver was \u201cin their sight\u201d because, though it was between the Tent and the altar, it was not in a straight line with them, but shifted slightly to the north (Bekhor Shor). Who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. They crowded at the entrance to pray and to hear the priests and Levites praise the Holy One (Hizkuni). To hear the words of the living God, as described in 33:7, \u201cwhoever sought the Lord would go out to the Tent of Meeting that was outside the camp\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 38:10\u201318
\nExodus 38:10
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe hooks and bands of the posts. The hooks were pegs in the shape of the letter \u05d5 (hence the name) on which sacrifices were hung to be flayed (Kimhi).
\nExodus 38:18
\nRASHI
\nLike that of the hangings of the enclosure. \u201cAnswerable to the hangings\u201d (OJPS), but (as NJPS correctly implies) the meaning is that its height was the same.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt was twenty cubits long. For the hangings on either side totaled 30 cubits, leaving a breadth of 20 in between, the length of \u201cthe gate of the enclosure\u201d and therefore of the screen. Its height\u2014or width\u2014. The breadth of this 20-cubit long screen\u2014that is, its height when set in place\u2014was five cubits.
\nExodus 38:21\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Does \u201cThese are the records of the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 21) refer to what precedes it, or what follows, or both? Wouldn\u2019t this statement make more sense either before 36:8 or at the end of ch. 40?
\n\u2666 Why is the making of the Tabernacle called \u201cthe work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest\u201d?
\n\u2666 What is the point of mentioning Bezalel again here (v. 22)?
\nExodus 38:21
\nRASHI
\nThese are the records. In this section are listed the weights of gold, silver, and copper that were contributed, as well as all of the furnishings to be used for all its service. The Tabernacle, the Tabernacle. The repetition alludes to the Temple, which was \u201crepossessed\u201d in two destructions because of Israel\u2019s sins. Of the Pact. Rather, \u201cof the testimony\u201d (OJPS). It served as testimony to Israel that the Holy One had forgiven them for the Golden Calf incident, for He had let His Shekhinah rest among them. The work of the Levites. Both the records of the Tabernacle and its furnishings were the work assigned to the Levites in the wilderness. They had to carry it, to dismantle it, to set it up\u2014each and every one according to the task that had been assigned him, as Num. 4:49 tells us. Under the direction of Ithamar. He was in charge of giving each ancestral house its assigned task.
\nRASHBAM
\nThese are the records. The accounts of the silver, gold, and copper.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThese are the records. That is, these are the records of the furnishings, which are included within the meaning of the word \u201cTabernacle.\u201d The Tabernacle of the Pact. \u201cThe Pact\u201d (or \u201ctestimony,\u201d as OJPS has it) is the tablets. God\u2019s writing made them true testimony indeed. The work of the Levites. Their work was the portage. Under the direction of Ithamar. Who was appointed to be in charge of most of the furnishings of the Tabernacle (see Numbers 7). Saadia thinks \u201cthe work of the Levites\u201d is an allusion to the songs of David, referring to their musical role in worship; but what then does he make of \u201cunder the direction of Ithamar\u201d?
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThese are the records. Many people think this phrase refers to what precedes it, the \u201crecords\u201d of the Tabernacle and the courtyard and everything made for them\u2014\u201cthe work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar.\u201d But the furnishings (the ark, the table, the lampstand, and the altars) are not (according to them) included in this phrase, for they were made under the direction of Ithamar\u2019s brother Eleazar. But this is not my opinion. Why would the text mention the work done under the direction of Ithamar and not the more important work done under the direction of Eleazar? Rather, \u201cThese are the records\u201d refers to what follows, the records of what was done with the contributions of silver and copper, all of which Moses put under Ithamar\u2019s control. The text does not mention what was done with the gold, because only some of it, the part used to overlay the planks and bars, was under the direction of Ithamar; that used for the ark and its cover, the table, the lampstand, and the golden altar was under the direction of Eleazar. Since it was not known exactly how much gold had been used to overlay each different part, the text does not say how much gold Moses gave to each of them. The work done under the direction of Eleazar is not mentioned here at all, for the purpose of this passage was only to describe the construction of the Tabernacle, not its ongoing operation. It should not trouble you that the copper altar, which was under Eleazar\u2019s charge, is mentioned here. For it was necessary to mention that it had been made from \u201cthe copper from the elevation offering\u201d (v. 29). The text did not bother to specifically exclude this single item from the category \u201cunder the direction of Ithamar.\u201d This is the practice of Scripture in many places. Notice also that the laver and its stand are not mentioned at all, for they were not made from this copper, but from all the mirrors donated by the women. Moses did not know their total weight. It may also be that they were not part of the work done under Ithamar\u2019s direction, but rather belonged among the duties assigned to the Kohathites, who were under Eleazar\u2019s direction: \u201cthe ark, the table, the lampstand, the altars, and the sacred utensils that were used with them, and the screen\u2014all the service connected with these\u201d (Num. 3:31). The laver and stand were certainly part of \u201cthe service connected\u201d with the altar. So they do not fall into the category described in our passage. The Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of the Pact. The \u201ctabernacle\u201d is the \u201cten strips of cloth\u201d that God commanded to be made \u201cof fine twisted linen\u201d and so forth (26:1); see also 36:8, where it was made. But \u201cthe Tabernacle of the Pact\u201d is an all-inclusive name for the entire construction meant to house the tablets of the Pact.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThese are the records. As is standard with accounting, three different groups are mentioned here: Moses, who ordered the accounting to be made; the Levites, under Ithamar\u2019s direction, who did the accounting; and Bezalel, who reported, \u201cThis is what I took in and this is what I spent\u201d (Abarbanel). \u201cRecords\u201d are pikudim; the reference is to the preceding passage, which fulfills the command given in Num. 4:32, \u201cyou shall list by name [tiphkedu] the objects that are their porterage tasks.\u201d For each of the individual objects in the Tabernacle deserved special mention (Sforno). The Tabernacle of the Pact. To make sure that you don\u2019t confuse it with some other tabernacle (Bekhor Shor) \u2026 such as the \u201ctabernacle\u201d of Korah, as Num. 16:27 might literally be translated (Hizkuni). Under the direction of Ithamar. Who, according to Num. 4:28 and Num. 4:33, was in charge of the Gershonites and the Merarites. They carried the entire Tabernacle except for the furnishings, which were carried by the Kohathites, under the direction of Eleazar (Bekhor Shor). The \u201cwork of the Levites\u201d mentioned here as being under his direction was the counting of the gold, silver, and copper. Undoubtedly these records were updated daily (Gersonides).
\nExodus 38:22
\nRASHI
\nAll that the Lord had commanded Moses. It does not say \u201call that Moses had commanded,\u201d but \u201call that the Lord had commanded Moses.\u201d Bezalel even did things that his master had not told him to do, so completely had he conformed his thoughts to what was told to Moses on Sinai. Moses told Bezalel to make the furnishings first, and afterward the Tabernacle. Said Bezalel, \u201cThe usual way is to make the house first and then to put the furniture into it.\u201d Moses replied, \u201cPerhaps you were be-zel el, \u2018in the shadow of God,\u2019 when He spoke to Me? For that is exactly what the Holy One commanded me.\u201d And that is what Bezalel did: He made the Tabernacle first, and afterward its furnishings.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, had made all that the Lord had commanded Moses. That is, he was in charge of having it all done. He taught all the artisans, who would do everything in his presence and show him all their work. For he was \u201cto give directions\u201d (35:34). But the work was actually done by \u201call the skilled among those engaged in the work\u201d (36:8). In the opinion of our Sages, this verse is written in praise of Bezalel, to say that, even with regard to things that his master had not told him, he had conformed his thoughts to that which was told to Moses on Sinai. But it is not meant to say that he made everything himself, merely that, in everything done under his authority, he fulfilled what God had commanded Moses. That is why it does not say for every item mentioned up to this point that it had been made \u201cas the Lord spoke to Moses.\u201d For that would imply that he had done all that Moses said, according to the word of the Lord. But Bezalel did things in a different order than was told to him by Moses. So the text uses the general statement given here, as I explained in my comment to 36:8.
\nExodus 38:24\u201325
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the amount of gold listed (v. 24), but not (as with the silver and copper) what was made from it?
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cthe silver of those of the community who were recorded\u201d listed here (v. 25), but not the amount of the silver that was freely contributed, or what was made of it?
\nExodus 38:24
\nRASHI
\nCame to 29 talents and 730 shekels by the sanctuary weight. A talent is 60 minas. Since the mina used in measuring the sacred things was a double one, the talent comes to 120 ordinary minas. The mina is 25 shekels, making the talent used for sacred measurements 3,000 shekels. So the text specifies the odd shekels that came out to less than 3,000 and did not therefore make up another whole talent.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAll the gold. Saadia asks why the text does not mention what was done with the gold (as it does in vv. 27\u201328 with the silver). His answer is that the text has given us a basis for deducing it on our own. The lampstand and its accouterments were to be made \u201cout of a talent of pure gold\u201d (25:39). Each of the 48 planks used half a talent, the Ark and its cover (combined) used a talent, the table and the golden altar (taken together) used another talent, and two talents went for the four posts on which the curtain was hung. The odd 730 shekels were used for the other furnishings. But this is hot air. How can we deduce from the talent of gold used for the lampstand that the planks\u2014which were gold-plated only on one side\u2014used half a talent each? On the other hand, how could a bit more than one-fifth of a talent be enough to plate the 15 bars of the Tabernacle and the two gold frames of the ephod? Not to mention the chains, six rings, the diadem of the holy frontlet, the golden bells on the High Priest\u2019s robe, the clasps holding the two cloths of the Tabernacle together, the hooks on the poles for the screen, and all the gold ornamentation on the ephod and the breastpiece.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the gold \u2026 came to 29 talents and 730 shekels. If you research it carefully, you will see that the total amount of gold used for the work of the Tabernacle was 1,456 pounds and 20 gold pennies. But our text does not describe what was done with the gold as it does for the silver and copper because (other than the lampstand and the Ark cover) the gold was used only as an overlay, not as the primary material for any object (Hizkuni). The \u201ctalent\u201d of the Torah is 12,300 Italian ducats (Abarbanel). The gold, silver, and copper that was used in the Tabernacle was much less than that used in the First Temple (as the Book of Kings makes clear), and that used in Herod\u2019s Temple was greater still. Yet the Shekhinah was much more constantly present in Moses\u2019 Tabernacle than in the First Temple, while in the Second Temple it was not present at all. For \u201cthe Lord values those who fear Him\u201d (Ps. 147:11), and their deeds\u2014that is why He dwells among them (Sforno).
\nExodus 38:25
\nRASHBAM
\nThe silver of those of the community who were recorded came to 100 talents and 1,775 shekels by the sanctuary weight. For 600,000 people, at half a shekel a head, comes out to 300,000 shekels; a mina is 25 shekels, but a mina \u201cby the sanctuary weight\u201d is double, 50 shekels. Given that a talent is 60 minas, every talent is 3,000 shekels, making 100 talents equal to 300,000 shekels.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe silver of those of the community who were recorded. All of Israel was recorded in the first year. But because, as Deut. 10:8 says, at that time the Lord had already \u201cset apart the tribe of Levi,\u201d the Levites paid no ransom for themselves, for they themselves were given to God. The proof of this is v. 26, \u201cfor each one who was entered in the records,\u201d that is, everyone of military age, and the Levites did not do military service. For the meaning of \u201cthose who were recorded,\u201d see my comment to 30:13. 100 talents. The talent is 3,000 shekels, as is clear from the figures given in the next verse.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe silver of those of the community who were recorded. The people voluntarily contributed a great deal of silver, but all that was necessary for the Tabernacle turned out to be the 100 talents and 1,775 shekels from the collection of the half-shekels; the rest was put in the treasury. The same is true for the gold and the copper. For it is impossible to believe that the voluntary contributions came to exactly the amount needed and no more. There must also have been contributions from 18-year-olds and from those in their sixties and above, who are not included in the count given in v. 26 (Bekhor Shor). This amount works out to 12,071 minas, or \u201cmarks,\u201d as we call them (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 38:26\u201339:1
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are the laver and its stand not mentioned among the items made of copper (vv. 30\u201331)?
\n\u2666 Why are the amounts of yarn (v. 1) and the other materials not listed as were the gold, silver, and copper?
\n\u2666 Why are \u201cAaron\u2019s sacral vestments\u201d described in detail, but not those of his sons, nor the curtains, screens, and hangings made of the same materials?
\nExodus 38:26
\nRASHI
\nA half-shekel. The \u201cbeka\u201d of OJPS is the name for a half-shekel weight. 603,550 men. This was the total number of Israelites enrolled, as given in Num. 1:46. Here too in listing the contributions for the Tabernacle, they arrived at the same total: 600,000 silver half-shekels comes out to \u201c100 talents\u201d (v. 25) of 3,000 shekels each. The extra 3,550 half-shekels come out to \u201c1,775 shekels by the sanctuary weight.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nA half-shekel. The Hebrew word is \u201cbeka\u201d (see OJPS), that is, a shekel nibeka, \u201csplit,\u201d in half. 603,550. It is a real surprise that their number here, in the first year of the wandering, is exactly the same as their number in the second year (Num. 1:46). But it is correct, for 39 years later, their number has only changed by 1,820.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA half-shekel a head. The total silver collected proved exactly sufficient for the work of the Tabernacle, which is why the One who spoke and the world was created chose this amount for the contribution (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 38:27
\nRASHI
\nThe sockets of the sanctuary. For the 48 planks of the Tabernacle, which required 96 sockets. The sockets for the curtain. There were four of these, giving a total of 100 sockets. All the other sockets used for the Tabernacle are described as being made of copper.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe 100 talents of silver were for casting the sockets of the sanctuary. We are told what was done with the silver because its contribution (as \u201cexpiation money,\u201d 30:16) was mandatory, and because it was meant to \u201cserve the Israelites as a reminder before the Lord\u201d (30:16). Don\u2019t you see? The whole Tabernacle would stand on the sockets that were made from this silver.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe sockets for the sanctuary and the sockets for the curtain. The text calls the Tabernacle \u201cthe sanctuary\u201d\u2014literally \u201cthe holy\u201d\u2014and separates the curtain from that category, just as the curtain itself separates the holy from the Holy of Holies. It is as if our verse said, \u201cthe sockets for the holy, and the sockets for the Holy of Holies.\u201d
\nExodus 38:28
\nRASHI
\nOverlay for their tops. The tops of the posts. For \u201cthe overlay of their tops was of silver\u201d (38:19).
\nExodus 38:29
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe copper from the elevation offering came to 70 talents and 2,400 shekels. Which is 8,592 marks (Hizkuni). You must know that in Egypt and all the East, copper is highly valued (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 39:1
\nRASHI
\nThe blue, purple, and crimson yarns. But \u201cfine linen\u201d is not mentioned here. That is why I say these \u201cservice vestments\u201d cannot be the vestments of the priests, for those included linen. The service vestments are the cloths that covered the sacred objects when they were moved, for there was no linen in these.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe service vestments. Those described in Numbers 4. For example, God commands that the Ark be covered, out of respect, with the curtain, which was covered by dolphin skin, over which there was \u201cspread a cloth of pure blue on top\u201d (Num. 4:6). Logically, the blue cloth was used out of respect for the Ark, but only if the weather was clear. When it rained, the blue cloth would be removed, leaving the covering of dolphin skin in place. The same was true of the table (Num. 4:7\u20138), the lampstand (Num. 4:9\u201310), and the golden incense altar (Num. 4:11).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe service vestments. See my comment to 31:10. The additional information added in this passage about \u201cthe records of the Tabernacle\u201d (38:21) is the details of the amounts of gold, silver, and copper contributed by the Israelites for them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe blue, purple, and crimson yarns. These and the other materials were not as highly valued as gold, silver, and copper, and so no accounting was made of them (Abarbanel). Service vestments. Rather, \u201cneedle vestments,\u201d for they had no recognizable design other than what was made by simply knitting them. This was enough for covering the furnishings of the Tabernacle (Sforno).
\nExodus 39:3\u20136
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the making of each of Aaron\u2019s garments followed by the words \u201cas the Lord had commanded Moses\u201d (vv. 4, 7, etc.), rather than letting them, like everything else made for the project, be covered by the general statement in v. 32?
\nExodus 39:3
\nRASHI
\nThey hammered out. As Onkelos translates it, they \u201cstamped\u201d or \u201cflattened\u201d out these sheets, just as God \u201cspread out the earth over the water\u201d (Ps. 136:6), which uses the same verb. They hammered out the gold into thin strips. The verse is explaining how they were able to spin the gold with the other materials. They hammered it into thin strips and cut them into threads the length of the strip. These threads could be combined with each of the other materials needed for the breastpiece and the ephod, which were to be made \u201cof gold, of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, and of fine twisted linen\u201d (28:6,15). One thread of gold was spun with six of blue yarn and so forth, so that six strands of each kind of material were spun with a seventh of gold.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey hammered out sheets of gold. The text explains how they managed to use gold in making the fabrics\u2014they hammered it into sheets. NJPS translates the same verb as \u201ccrush\u201d in 2 Sam. 22:43. It was then cut into threads.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey hammered out sheets of gold. This is the only place in the entire passage that describes how a particular craft was done. One might have expected the text to proceed directly from v. 2 to v. 4, as with all the rest. But perhaps the innovative method of making gold thread was described here because they found it so surprising that gold could be spun and twisted like wool or flax. For nothing like it had ever been heard of up to that time.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey hammered out sheets of gold. Those who contributed the gold did this, so that it would be ready for the artisans to cut threads (Sforno).
\nExodus 39:5
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAs the Lord had commanded Moses. Since the text that describes each of the priestly garments is slightly different here than in the original command, each is followed by the assurance that it was made exactly \u201cas the Lord had commanded Moses\u201d (Abarbanel). Everything the artisans did was done with the intent to fulfill God\u2019s will as He had commanded it to Moses (Sforno).
\nExodus 39:6
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey bordered the lazuli stones. Literally, they \u201cmade\u201d them (see OJPS), but NJPS understands it correctly.
\nExodus 39:23\u201327
\nExodus 39:23
\nRASHI
\nThe opening of the robe. The collar.
\nExodus 39:24
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOn the hem of the robe they made pomegranates of blue, purple, and crimson yarns. They did not make them on the hem, but so that they could be put on the hem.
\nExodus 39:25
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey also made bells of pure gold, and attached the bells between the pomegranates. Rather, they put the bells inside the pomegranates (as the Hebrew literally says), before they were attached to the hem of the robe with the bells inside them. This is why the phrase \u201cinside the pomegranates\u201d (not \u201cbetween,\u201d as the translations have it) is mentioned twice; the bells were inside the pomegranates when they were originally made, and were then attached to the robe that way. Since the bells could not be \u201cbetween\u201d the pomegranates before they were attached to the robe, the repetition of the phrase is further proof of the way we have explained this in our comment to 28:33.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nBetween the pomegranates. \u201cBetween\u201d is correct; between each pair of pomegranates there was a bell (Kimhi).
\nExodus 39:27
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey made the tunics of fine linen \u2026 for Aaron and his sons. It would appear from this that the tunics for father and sons were the same, despite the fact that 28:39\u201340 describes Aaron\u2019s as a \u201cfringed tunic of fine linen\u201d and those of the sons as simply \u201ctunics.\u201d Apparently that reference meant \u201ctunics like the one just described.\u201d Similarly, in 28:4, \u201cThese are the vestments they are to make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a fringed tunic, a headdress, and a sash. They shall make those sacral vestments for your brother Aaron and his sons, for priestly service to Me,\u201d the vestments made for both \u201cAaron and his sons\u201d must be the fringed tunic, the headdress, and the sash, which were the same for both.
\nExodus 39:28\u201333
\nExodus 39:28
\nRASHI
\nThe decorated turbans. This is the correct translation.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe headdress. For Aaron. And the decorated turbans. For his sons. These are two different types of headgear.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe headdress of fine linen, and the decorated turbans. This also included both Aaron and his sons, for the headdresses were the same for both, but were worn differently, as I explained in my comment to 28:4. The turbans, however, were not \u201cdecorated,\u201d but \u201cworn high on the head,\u201d as the Hebrew word here is used in Isa. 3:20 and Ezek. 44:18.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe decorated turbans. Hai Gaon understands them to have had a sort of button on top (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 39:29
\nRASHBAM
\nSashes of fine twisted linen. The Hebrew word is singular, \u201cthe sash\u201d (see OJPS). Our Sages disagree about whether this refers to the sash of the ordinary priests, or only to that of the High Priest.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSashes of fine twisted linen, blue, purple, and crimson yarns. This detail was not given in the original command, but it was obvious from the fact that it said they should be made \u201cof embroidered work\u201d (28:39), like the screen, which did mention all four kinds of thread. One rabbinic opinion has it that Aaron and his sons wore the same kind of sash; another, that only the High Priest\u2019s was done in embroidery of this kind, while those of the ordinary priests were made simply of linen. According to this opinion, 28:40, \u201cAnd for Aaron\u2019s sons also you shall make tunics, and make sashes for them,\u201d implies that the sashes, like the tunics, were to be of linen alone.
\nExodus 39:30
\nIBN EZRA
\nIncised upon it. Literally, \u201cwrote upon it\u201d (OJPS). But NJPS is correct, as OJPS goes on to explain: \u201clike the engravings of a signet.\u201d
\nExodus 39:31
\nRASHI
\nTo fix it upon the headdress above. Using the cords, he would set it over the headdress like a kind of crown. But it is impossible to say that the frontlet was \u201con\u201d the headdress, for at B. Zev. 19a\u2013b we read: \u201cHis hair was visible between the frontlet and the headdress, where he would put the head phylacteries.\u201d The frontlet was thus on his forehead, below the headdress. So what is the meaning of \u201cupon the headdress above\u201d? Moreover, as I have pointed out, They attached to it a cord of blue creates another difficulty, since 28:37 commands, \u201cSuspend it on a cord of blue.\u201d Is the cord \u201con it,\u201d as our verse literally says, or is it \u201con\u201d the cord, as 28:37 commands? Here is what I say: This \u201cblue cord\u201d was the strings that tied the frontlet onto the headdress, for the frontlet extended no farther than from ear to ear. How then was it to be tied on? They attached threads of blue at either end of it and in the middle, by which it was to be held on top of the headdress. All three of these threads were doubled over, so that one side ran above the frontlet and one below it, next to his forehead, making it easy to tie. For one cannot tie something with less than two threads. Thus the frontlet is both \u201con\u201d\u2014that is, over\u2014one part of the cord of blue, and has the other half of the cord of blue \u201con\u201d\u2014that is, over\u2014it. The two ends of each thread were all tied together at the back of his neck, and the whole thing would sit on top of the headdress. Don\u2019t be surprised that the text does not say \u201ccords\u201d of blue, for the breastpiece too was to be \u201cheld in place by a cord of blue\u201d (28:28), and you must admit that there cannot have been less than two cords. For the two ends of the breastpiece had two rings, and there were two rings on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod opposite them. In the ordinary way of things we would expect there were four cords to hold them together. There certainly cannot have been less than two. Yet the word is singular, just like the word in our verse.
\nExodus 39:32
\nRASHI
\nThe Israelites did so. Rather, \u201cthey made\u201d all the work just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThus was completed all the work of the Tabernacle. On the 25th of Kislev, according to our Sages (Hizkuni). The Israelites did so. Whether they contributed or did the work, all of Israel participated in completing the Tabernacle (Sforno).
\nExodus 39:33
\nRASHI
\nThen they brought the Tabernacle to Moses. For they could not set it up. Since Moses himself had not done any of the work for the Tabernacle, the Holy One left it to him to set it up. For no one else could do so because the planks were so heavy that no human being could lift them upright. But Moses did so. Moses said to the Holy One, \u201cHow is it possible for the Tabernacle to be set up by human hands?\u201d He replied, \u201cJust look as if you are doing it, and it will set itself up.\u201d So \u201cthe Tabernacle was set up\u201d (40:17) on its own. This is from Midrash Tanhuma.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThen they brought the Tabernacle to Moses, with the Tent and all its furnishings. NJPS \u201cwith the Tent\u201d is correct (contrast OJPS), though \u201cTent\u201d should not be capitalized. The cloths of fine twisted linen were the Tabernacle (see 26:1), and the goats\u2019-hair cloths were the tent (26:7). The same syntax is found in 35:11. It is true that sometimes the entire building is called the \u201cTent\u201d of Meeting (e.g., 31:7), for (as God told Moses) it was the place \u201cwhere I will meet with you\u201d (30:6). V. 40 in our chapter also refers to the entire Tabernacle as \u201cthe Tent of Meeting.\u201d
\nExodus 39:37\u201340:2
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are all the items that have already been mentioned so many times listed again (vv. 33\u201341) after \u201cthey brought the Tabernacle to Moses\u201d?
\nExodus 39:37
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLamps in due order. It may be that lamps were sometimes put into other lampstands merely for ornamentation, or for additional light on special occasions. But this was not so of the holy lampstand in the Tabernacle, which had only seven lamps. They were \u201cto be set in order\u201d (OJPS) every night at twilight.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe pure lampstand. \u201cPure\u201d because it was made \u201cof pure gold\u201d (25:31). The gold in every item in the Tabernacle was equally pure, but the lampstand was the only object that was made entirely of gold without any additional wood (Bekhor Shor). \u201cPure\u201d because no blood was sprinkled on it (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 39:42
\nNAHMANIDES
\nSo the Israelites had done all the work. All the work of constructing the Tabernacle. But the word used for \u201cwork\u201d here is not melakhah (as when work is prohibited on the Sabbath), but avodah, the word used for the \u201cservice\u201d of God. For that was why they made the Tabernacle, to follow the commandment, \u201cYou shall serve the Lord your God\u201d (23:25); \u201cserve none but Him\u201d (Deut. 13:5). It could be that \u201call the work\u201d here refers to the utensils, comparable to \u201call the furnishings for the service [avodah] of the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 40). This would imply that, even with the smallest details, the Israelites took great care; afterward, in v. 43, \u201cMoses saw that they had performed all the tasks\u201d (reverting to the standard word melakhah) to refer to the completion of the entire project.
\nExodus 39:43
\nRASHI
\nMoses blessed them. He said to them, \u201cMay it be God\u2019s will that the Shekhinah rest upon the work of your hands, and \u2018May the favor of the Lord, our God, be upon us; let the work of our hands prosper\u2019 (Ps. 90:17).\u201d This is one of the 11 psalms in the section \u201cA prayer of Moses.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen Moses saw that they had performed all the tasks as the Lord had commanded \u2026 Moses blessed them. We learn from this that a leader ought to bless those under his direction when they obey him, so that they will be the readier to do his will (Gersonides). He was astounded that not a single mistake had been made and not a single detail forgotten, which demonstrated both their skill and their eagerness to serve God (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 40:2
\nIBN EZRA
\nOn the first day of the first month. This is the beginning of the world, and it is a great mystery.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOn the first day of the first month you shall set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting. According to our Sages, this date was the eighth day of the ordination of the priests. The intent of this verse is that the Tabernacle should be set up on that day and should stay up, not be dismantled and set up again. For when the Israelite camp traveled, the Levites would dismantle it and set it back up, not Moses. Moses did not need to be commanded here to set it up for the first seven days of ordination, for he had already been commanded to do so in 26:30: \u201cSet up the Tabernacle according to the manner of it that you were shown on the mountain.\u201d (He was also shown the correct order in which to assemble it.) Being told here that on the eighth day it should be set up permanently, Moses realized that on the first seven he had to set it up and dismantle it again each day. Perhaps this was to accustom the Levites to the task by letting them see him do it so they could do the same, or it may have been meant to give the eighth day a special sort of \u201ccrown.\u201d It would appear that, in the opinion of our Sages, on the first seven days Moses would set it up early in the morning, leave it standing all day and all night, and then at dawn dismantle it and set it up again. For in Lev. 8:35 Moses instructs Aaron and his sons to \u201cremain at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting day and night for seven days,\u201d and of course the Tent could only have an entrance if it was set up. Leviticus Rabbah says that Moses set up and took down the tent twice each day, and the great R. Hanina bar Hama says he did it three times, once for the regular offering of the morning, once for the ordination offering, and once for the regular offering at twilight. It could be that this was all for the purpose of demonstrating how and in what order it was to be assembled, and that it did not actually remain dismantled for any significant length of time. When v. 34 says that \u201cthe cloud covered the Tent of Meeting,\u201d in the opinion of our Sages this took place on the eighth day. For it occurred \u201cwhen Moses had finished the work\u201d (v. 33) by setting up the Tabernacle, on the 1st of Nisan, for the final time. Rashi cites in his comment to Lev. 9:23 the midrash that the Israelites were upset that the Shekhinah did not descend on the Tabernacle during the first seven days of the ordination process. And the Sifra says explicitly that the cloud covered the Tabernacle on the eighth day of ordination, and that it was the 1st of Nisan. So all of our ch. 40 must be describing the events of that day. The text, then, is telling us that God commanded Moses to complete the setting up of the Tabernacle on the 1st of Nisan, and that Moses did so; it then returns, in Lev. 1:1, to the first divine communication that Moses received at the Tent\u2014all in a sensible order. Num. 7:1, \u201cOn the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle,\u201d lends support to this rabbinic view. For if he had not taken it down and set it back up during the first seven days, why would the text say on the eighth day that he had finished setting it up? Admittedly, everything from the beginning of Leviticus until \u201cthe eighth day\u201d (Lev. 9:1) was said to Moses at the Tent. But the cloud did not cover it\u2014notice that in Lev. 9:23, \u201cthe Presence of the Lord\u201d can still appear to all the people\u2014and the Israelites thought that Moses was receiving the communication from heaven, just as he had in Egypt. Song of Songs Rabbah thinks that chs. 1\u20138 of Leviticus were actually said to Moses after what is described in ch. 9, and that the communication to Aaron in Lev. 10:8\u201311 took place on the next day. For how could Aaron receive a divine communication at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before Moses did? But I do not know whether this opinion is unanimously held or simply that of an individual; the midrash attributes it to R. Ishmael.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOn the first day of the first month. It is clear that Nisan is the first month from 12:2, \u201cThis month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you.\u201d Nisan makes more sense as the beginning of the year than does Tishrei, for at that time the sun moves closer to inhabited areas, plants and fruits are renewed, and all life rejoices (Gersonides).
\nExodus 40:3\u20134
\nExodus 40:3
\nRASHI
\nScreen off the ark. The implication is that it was shielded, for the screen served as a partition.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPlace there the Ark of the Pact. Again God spoke tersely. He did not have to tell Moses to put the Pact into the Ark, for Moses would understand that it could not be called \u201cthe Ark of the Pact\u201d until the Pact was put inside it. The point of the command is that it was important that the Ark, with the tablets inside it, precede all the other furnishings into the Tabernacle. The rest of the passage is similarly terse.
\nExodus 40:4
\nRASHI
\nLay out its due setting. The two rows of the bread of display.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nLay out its due setting \u2026 light its lamps. After the Tabernacle has been consecrated for use by anointing; see my comment to v. 17. This commandment is explicitly directed to Moses; see my comment to v. 27.
\nExodus 40:10\u201319
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Since the text says of the instructions that God gave Moses (vv. 1\u201315) that \u201cMoses did just as the Lord had commanded him\u201d (v. 16), why is every item then listed in detail, each time with the assurance that everything was done \u201cas the Lord had commanded Moses\u201d?
\nExodus 40:10
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe altar shall be most holy. Literally, \u201choly of holies.\u201d For even though it was out in the enclosure, the most holy sacrifices were offered upon it. Note that the Tabernacle itself is merely \u201choly\u201d (v. 9), for the only place in the Tabernacle that was \u201cmost holy\u201d was the place of the Ark: \u201cCarry the Ark of the Pact there, behind the curtain, so that the curtain shall serve you as a partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies\u201d (26:33). It may be that the altar was \u201choly of holies\u201d because it had the power to make things holy. For \u201cwhatever touches the altar shall become consecrated\u201d (29:37).
\nExodus 40:15
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThis their anointing shall serve them for everlasting priesthood throughout the ages. Future generations of priests will not have to be anointed in order to make them priests, though each High Priest does have to be anointed in order to become High Priest (Gersonides).
\nExodus 40:16
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nJust as the Lord had commanded him, so he did. This confirms that Moses fulfilled the commandment to make the Tabernacle; see my comment to v. 19 (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 40:17
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIn the first month of the second year, on the first of the month. According to our Sages, this verse marks Moses\u2019 fulfillment on the 1st of Nisan of the commandment given to him in v. 2. But \u201cMoses set up the Tabernacle\u201d (v. 18) describes what he did on each of the first seven days of the priests\u2019 ordination, starting with the 23rd of Adar. This passage does not mention the anointing of the Tabernacle and its furnishings (vv. 9\u201311), the anointing of Aaron and his sons (vv. 12\u201315), or the sacrifices of ordination. For Moses did not perform any of these things until the whole procedure was complete, when he was commanded a second time, \u201cTake Aaron along with his sons, and the vestments, the anointing oil, the bull of sin offering, the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread; and assemble the whole community at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting\u201d (Lev. 8:2\u20133).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIn the first month of the second year. After their departure from Egypt. According to this count Nisan is the first month, but for ordinary purposes the year is understood to begin in Tishrei (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 40:18
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses set up the Tabernacle. That is, the 10 strips of cloth, which he set up on a wooden frame with ropes. Afterward, he set up the planks, the sockets, and the poles.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses set up the Tabernacle. The 10 strips of cloth with the design of cherubim were set up before the planks were, whether by people holding them or by a miracle, as our Sages say. For this was the essential Tabernacle; the planks, sockets, and bars, the tent, and the rest were simply to hold it up and to cover it (Sforno).
\nExodus 40:19
\nRASHI
\nHe spread the tent over the Tabernacle. These were the cloths of goats\u2019 hair.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nJust as the Lord had commanded Moses. This and the comparable comments in vv. 21, 23, and so forth confirm that Moses fulfilled the commandment to set up the Tabernacle (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 40:20\u201329
\nExodus 40:20
\nRASHI
\nThe Pact. The tablets.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe took the Pact and placed it in the Ark. He took the tablets from the wooden container in his tent where they had been kept and brought them to the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 40:22\u201323
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe placed the table in the Tent of Meeting.\u2026 Upon it he laid out the setting of bread. As we have already seen from v. 9, the Tabernacle is not sanctified for use until it has been anointed. So this must mean that he placed the table in the Tent of Meeting in order to be able to lay out the setting of bread once the Tabernacle was anointed. Similarly vv. 24\u201325 must mean that he placed the lampstand in the Tent of Meeting in order to light the lamps.
\nExodus 40:22
\nRASHI
\nOn the north side of the Tabernacle. In the northern half of the space. Literally, the word \u201cside\u201d is \u201cthigh\u201d; for the thigh is at a man\u2019s side.
\nExodus 40:23
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe laid out the setting of bread. The two rows (see Lev. 24:6). Lev. 24:8 says that the priest is supposed to do this on the Sabbath, which Moses did not do. For they left Elim \u201con the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from the land of Egypt\u201d (16:1), which was a Sabbath. This means that the 1st of Nisan that year was on a Thursday. And the days of the week do not shift against the calendar by as little as a day or two in a year\u2014unless we are talking about a solar year.
\nExodus 40:27
\nRASHI
\nOn it he burned aromatic incense. Morning and evening: \u201cHe shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamp, and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps\u201d (30:7\u20138).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe burned aromatic incense. Moses did this for all of the first seven days of the priests\u2019 ordination. Despite the fact that he had not been commanded to do so, he understood that this was part of the procedure, since he had been commanded to lay out the bread, light the lamps, bring the offerings, and burn the incense. It was Moses who, in 29:38\u201341, was commanded to do these things. But 29:42, \u201ca regular burnt offering throughout the generations,\u201d extends this obligations to the priests. That is why Num. 28:6 calls it \u201cthe regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai,\u201d for Moses began it there. In all aspects of the service of God, our master Moses was the first priest; naturally, then, he \u201cburned aromatic incense\u201d as well. Perhaps the command in v. 5 to \u201cplace the gold altar of incense before the Ark of the Pact\u201d implied that he was to burn incense there right away, and the instruction in 30:7 that \u201con it Aaron shall burn aromatic incense\u201d refers to the permanent procedure once Aaron took up his priestly duties, on the eighth day. I have seen in Rashi\u2019s commentary that he understands our verse to say that Aaron burned the incense; I don\u2019t know whether this might be a scribal error.
\nExodus 40:29
\nRASHI
\nOn it he offered. Even on the eighth day of the priests\u2019 ordination, which was the day on which the Tabernacle was set up, Moses still officiated. He offered all of the public sacrifices except for those which were commanded specifically for that very day, which Moses told Aaron to offer. (See Lev. 9:7.) The burnt offering. The regular burnt offering. The meal offering. The regular meal offering, with its libation. \u201cNow this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two yearling lambs each day, regularly.\u2026 There shall be a tenth of a measure of choice flour with a quarter of a hin of beaten oil mixed in, and a libation of a quarter hin of wine for one lamb\u201d (29:38,40).
\nRASHBAM
\nHe offered up the burnt offering and the meal offering. Aaron did, with his sons, every day.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe offered up the burnt offering and the meal offering. Again, this was not done until its proper time. At this point the enclosure around the Tabernacle has not been set up, and sacrifices are not offered if the hangings of the enclosure are not in place. For this would mean they were being offered outside the sacred area. But Moses offered them at the proper stage in the procedure.
\nExodus 40:31\u201335
\nExodus 40:31
\nRASHI
\nFrom it Moses and Aaron and his sons would wash their hands and feet. On the eighth day of the ordination, they were all priests alike. Onkelos translates in the past tense, \u201cThey sanctified their hands and feet,\u201d indicating that on that day Moses washed along with them.
\nExodus 40:33
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe set up the enclosure around the Tabernacle. You must know that some people say that the western edge of the Tabernacle was all the way over at the western side of the enclosure, leaving an enclosure of 70 cubits, all on one side of the Tabernacle. But I do not share this opinion; he set up the enclosure around the Tabernacle. When Moses had finished the work. Of setting up the Tabernacle.
\nExodus 40:34
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe cloud covered the Tent of Meeting. It was called \u201cthe tent\u201d because the tent of goats\u2019 hair was what was visible from the outside, for the Tabernacle (of blue, purple, crimson, and so forth) was covered by it. Presumably the cloud did not cover the Tabernacle until Moses had finished setting it up and gone outside.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe cloud covered the Tent of Meeting. The cloud would cover it on every side until it was covered and totally hidden within it. The Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle. The interior space of the Tabernacle was totally filled with the Presence, which dwelt inside the cloud inside the Tabernacle, as when \u201cMoses approached the thick cloud where God was\u201d (20:18).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe cloud covered the Tent of Meeting. Immediately, to show the Holy One\u2019s love for Israel (Hizkuni). This was not a natural cloud that formed from water vapor, but a cloud created ex nihilo by God on the first day of creation\u2014a \u201cdarkness over the surface of the deep,\u201d as Gen. 1:2 calls it. There are many parallels between the story of creation and that of the Tabernacle. I have interpreted some of the verses in the story of creation differently in my commentary to Genesis than I do here, to fit the interpretation to the context, but there is no contradiction; the Torah has 70 faces (Abarbanel). This happened the instant that Moses had completed all the work necessary to achieve it (Sforno).
\nExodus 40:35
\nRASHI
\nMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting. Yet Num. 7:89 says, \u201cMoses went into the Tent of Meeting.\u201d In accordance with the 13th exegetical rule of R. Ishmael, a third text comes to decide between them: Because the cloud had settled upon it. I deduce that when the cloud had settled upon it, he could not enter; but when the cloud departed, he could enter and He would communicate with him.
\nRASHBAM
\nMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting at the moment when it was set up because the cloud had settled upon it immediately, to show the Holy One\u2019s love for Israel. Afterward, the cloud withdrew from the Tent and settled upon the Ark: \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 concerning the Israelite people\u201d (25:22). Then Moses entered the Tent of Meeting: \u201cWhen Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the Voice addressing him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the Pact between the two cherubim; thus He spoke to him\u201d (Num. 7:89). You find the same phenomenon in the Temple: \u201cThe cloud had filled the House of the Lord and the priests were not able to remain and perform the service because of the cloud, for the Presence of the Lord filled the House of the Lord\u201d (1 Kings 8:10\u201311). When the Temple was complete, the Holy One would sanctify it with the cloud, and afterward would diminish His Presence until it rested atop the Ark, between the poles.
\nWhoever is attentive to the word of our Creator, let him not stray from the explanations of my grandfather Rashi, and not budge from them. For most of the laws and midrashim in them are close to the straightforward meaning of the texts, or can be derived from superfluous expressions or variations in the language. It is best that you grasp what I have explained without letting go of the other.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting. Not at that moment, not until \u201cthe Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting\u201d (Lev. 1:1). It goes without saying that no one else could enter. But once God called him, Moses would speak with Him face to face in the place where, later, the High Priest dared enter only once a year in a cloud of incense. For Moses was at home there. I am forced to conclude this because Moses put the tablets in the Ark and then put the cover with the two cherubs on it, and that was where God\u2019s Presence continually rested. So when the Tabernacle was dismantled in order to move it, how did Aaron and his sons take down the screen and approach the Ark? I say that Moses would immediately cover the Ark with the screen so that Aaron and his sons would not see it. Others think the priests covered it themselves, but facing the opposite direction, because Num. 4:5 says that Aaron and his sons would do the covering. But I assume this means that they would help Moses.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting. He could not even approach the entrance, because the cloud covered it, and he was not authorized to enter the cloud. Moreover, if the Tabernacle was filled with God\u2019s Presence, how could Moses go in? The point of our verse is that Moses could not enter the Tent without permission. But if He called him, he could enter the cloud just as he did on Mount Sinai: \u201cOn the seventh day He called to Moses from the midst of the cloud \u2026 and Moses went inside the cloud\u201d (24:16,18). The straightforward sense of Lev. 1:1, \u201cThe Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting,\u201d is that Moses stood at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, without going in. Our Sages contrast \u201cMoses could not enter the Tent of Meeting\u201d with Num. 7:89, \u201cMoses went into the Tent of Meeting,\u201d and say that the second part of our verse must be translated not Because the cloud had settled upon it but \u201cWhen the cloud settled upon it.\u201d For in their opinion the Numbers verse suggests that Moses could go into the Tent whenever he wanted to, without being called. Since that verse continues, \u201cHe would hear the Voice addressing him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark,\u201d it appeared to them that Moses must have stood inside the tent, before the Ark cover. But of course whenever \u201cthe Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle,\u201d Moses could not go in. They understood, therefore, that Moses could only go in once the cloud had departed, that is, ceased to cover the entire Tent, at which point the Presence did not fill the Tabernacle. But the Presence first \u201cfilled the Tabernacle\u201d only on the eighth day of the priests\u2019 ordination; previous to that, the communication between God and Moses occurred (even according to the Sages) as I have described in my comment to v. 2. The Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle. It could be that the repetition of this phrase alludes to the permanent dwelling of the Presence within the Tabernacle.
\nThus ends the Book of Redemption, in which \u201cthe Lord, the God of Israel, has come\u201d (Ezek. 44:2) for \u201cIsrael, the people close to Him\u201d (Ps. 148:14) and \u201cdelivered them from the foe, redeemed them from the enemy\u201d (Ps. 106:10). \u201cExtolled be the Lord who desires the well-being of His servant\u201d (Ps. 35:27), who \u201chas helped us up to now\u201d (1 Sam. 7:12), who renews one\u2019s youth in old age and satisfies one\u2019s hunger with His Torah, feeding one \u201choney from the crag and oil from the flinty rock\u201d (Deut. 32:13). For he has \u201cset his mind on worshiping God\u201d (2 Chron. 30:19), and blesses His name morning and evening. Blessed be He of whose bounty we have eaten and by whose goodness we live.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle. That is, the Tabernacle was filled with the Presence of the Lord; but the terms are switched out of respect, to give the Presence the active role. Otherwise it might look as if the Tabernacle was somehow containing the Presence (Bekhor Shor). The \u201cPresence of the Lord\u201d in the Bible refers to two different things: to the light that the Israelites could see inside the cloud, and, more correctly, to the higher, spiritual Presence that our Sages call \u201cthe Shekhinah\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 40:36\u201338
\nExodus 40:36
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen the cloud lifted from the Tabernacle. In fact, it never lifted except when the Israelites had to travel, a phenomenon that did not occur in Shiloh or at the First or Second Temples. But it will be this way and even more so with the Third Temple (may it be built and established speedily in our days), as Zech. 2:9 says, \u201cI Myself\u2014declares the Lord\u2014will be a wall of fire all around it, and I will be a glory inside it\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 40:37
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey would not set out. OJPS says \u201cthen\u201d they would not set out; this translates va, usually \u201cand,\u201d which NJPS omits entirely. This usage of va matches the Arabic fa.
\nExodus 40:38
\nRASHI
\nIn the view of all the house of Israel throughout their journeys. On each journey they took, the cloud would settle at the spot where they were to encamp. For the Hebrew word massa means not only \u201cjourney\u201d but the spot at which one camps, the \u201cstages\u201d (see Gen. 13:3). Since one \u201cjourneys\u201d from each campsite, it too is called a \u201cstage.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nBy day. This form of yom, with the adverbial ending -am, always means \u201cday\u201d in the sense of daytime, not a 24-hour \u201cday.\u201d Fire would appear in it by night. \u201cIt\u201d could be either the cloud or the Tabernacle, but it is the former that is correct. Throughout their journeys. Until they came to the land of Israel. Note that it says \u201cthroughout their journeys,\u201d not \u201ctheir encampments.\u201d Though it is not written anywhere that the Israelites traveled at night, if \u201cfire would appear in it by night \u2026 throughout their journeys,\u201d then it must be so. I am forced to this conclusion also by Num. 14:14, \u201cYou go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOver the Tabernacle a cloud of the Lord rested by day, and fire would appear in it by night. These miracles were renewed so that the Israelites would follow the Lord in such a way as to deserve individual divine providence (Gersonides). Both were continually there, but the cloud was visible during the day; and at night, when it was too dark to see the cloud, the light within it was visible (Abarbanel).
\nWhy is there so much unnecessary repetition in this story, and indeed in many of the stories of the Torah? No explanation has been found that is sufficient to cover every example. It may be that it was the custom in those days to have a great deal of repetition in stories, and the prophet spoke according to this custom. But perhaps the Torah is so long-winded in these many harmless places to show us that when it is brief in profound places that is not simply a matter of style. We are thus awakened to the necessity of seeking the reason for the Torah\u2019s brevity in these profound places, which we must attribute to the nature of the subjects discussed in them. In such places every aspect of the text must be examined in order to discover their true meaning. In the case of the Tabernacle, however, the repetition is so extraordinary that each of its details must have its own particular meaning (Gersonides).
\n>>>>>>>>><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Exodus 34:1\u20133 ABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS \u2666 Why did God not carve the second set of tablets Himself, to make them exactly equivalent to the first set? \u2666 Why is this set of tablets treated with greater sanctity than the original ones, with God saying (v. 3) that \u201cno one else shall come up with you\u201d\u2014not even … <\/p>\n