ביום כלות משה, on the day Moses completed, etc. Rabbi Levi in Midrash Hagadol on our verse claims that the word כלות is written without the letter ו. In our editions of the Torah it is spelled with the letter ו. How is it possible that scribes could take liberties with the spelling of the Torah? Such a situation would lead to apostasy and a denigration of the respect in which the scholars are held! You should know that the text of our sacred Torah, including every vowel has been carefully counted. Every letter or even crown is sacred enabling us to derive meanings from it. Let me give you a small example of how important an even minute departure from the accepted spelling would be. There are letters which are noticed only by the way they are pronounced, letters which do not even appear in the written text. An example of such a letter is the letter ו before the final ע in the word יהושע. When pronounced properly, we hear that there is a vowel shuruk which does not appear in the written text. On the other hand, such a vowel does appear in the written text in the same word between the letter ה and ש although it cannot be heard when we read the word aloud. This little example ought to alert the intelligent student to the fact that there can never be a question of altering the spelling in the written Torah such as adding a letter ו in the word כלות in our verse, even if only to ensure that the word would be pronounced correctly. If the Torah decided to write a letter ו in a place where we would not have expected it it serves to alert us to hidden meanings in the text. It may have been the intention of the Torah to include three letters of the holy name of G'd in the name of the righteous יהושע. If the Torah had written the letter ו before the letter ע and had omitted the letter ו after the letter ה, we would not have noticed that the Torah had intended to include the first three letters of the tetragram in the name of Joshua. When our sages speak about the word כלות being written without the letter ו, they mean that the letter ו which does appear in the text is to be viewed there as if it were only "on loan." The intelligent student will appreciate that this was the mystical dimension of Moses on whom was fulfilled the verse in Jeremiah 31,21 that נקבה תסובב גבר, that "the female will enclose the male." Moses' exclusive preoccupation with putting together the Tabernacle is alluded to in the word כלות a reference to the "groom-bride" relationship between him and the Tabernacle. When the Midrash says that the word כלות is spelled כלת, the author merely wishes to draw our attention to this relationship of bride and groom. The physical presence of the letter ו in the written text is an allusion to Moses, the גבר, i.e. the male. Inserting the ו into the word כלת is a clear indication of the male-female relationship between the two. No human being has the right to make up such an explanation out of his own mind. Such interpretations are traditional and reflect inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

קח מאתם, "accept it from them!" The reason the Torah wrote the word מאתם (instead of מהם) is that as of that moment the gifts were still the property of the princes and had not as yet been transferred to Moses. The reason that Moses had not as yet accepted the gifts was that he had not been commanded that the Tabernacle be transported on wagons and did not know what else to do with them. The princes had reasoned that seeing the boards and the sockets of the Tabernacle were large and heavy respectively, they would need to be transported on wagons. As it turned out, G'd agreed with their reasoning.

ויקריבו הנשאים את חנוכת המזבח, The princes brought the dedication-offering for the altar. It appears that all the princes wanted to offer their gifts on the first day on which the altar was being inaugurated, as they all wanted to be part of this inauguration together. G'd, however, said that only one prince per day could offer his respective offering. This is why the Torah added that the period of inauguration extended for the entire twelve days during which the princes offered their gifts (compare wording in verse 11 where the word לחנוכת המזבח appears once more). In this instance G'd did not have to tell Moses "accept it from them!." This means that Moses did not need to obtain G'd's permission to accept these gifts. He had no doubt about G'd's willingness to accept the princes' offerings including the gold and the silver vessels. The only reason that G'd had to involve Himself was that all the princes wanted to bring all their gifts on the same day. I have seen the following comment by Sifri on our verse: "The verse reveals that just as the princes had made free-willed contributions to the materials from which the Tabernacle was constructed so they now contributed for the inauguration of the altar; Moses did not want to accept this from them until he had been instructed to do so by G'd Himself, and that is why the Torah wrote: 'they shall offer their offerings for the inauguration of the altar.'" The author of the Sifri derived this from the apparently superfluous words יקריבו את קרבנם, which he interpreted as permission for Moses to accept the offerings. We must examine why Moses refused to accept these offerings until G'd had given permission for them to be accepted. Perhaps Moses was not sure whether the inauguration of the altar was the province of Aaron and himself or that of the princes. This was especially so seeing the list of princes did not include a representative of the tribe of Levi. Please read what we have written in this connection at the beginning of Parshat Beha-alotcha.

ויקריבו הנשאים, the princes offered, etc. The reason the Torah repeats this expression once more is to tell us that the princes went to the trouble to bring the entire gift up to the entrance of the Tabernacle personally, although this might have been considered below their dignity seeing they were "princes." Another reason why the Torah repeated this expression is that instead of handing their sacrifice over to the priest who was to present (part of) it on the altar, they themselves placed it at the entrance of the Tabernacle close to the altar. They hinted by their action that they wished their respective offerings to be the first to be presented on the altar on that day. When the Torah writes in a similar vein in verse 3 that the princes brought the wagons to the Tabernacle, this also means that they wished their gifts to be the first ones to be accepted by the Temple -treasury on that day.

המקריב ביום הראשון, the one who presented (his gift) on the first day, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words את קרבנו, (what else did he offer)? Perhaps the Torah wanted to emphasize that the princes each paid for these sacrifices (gifts) out of their own pockets. It was not paid for by the respective tribe's treasury. Sifri item 48 derive this from the repetition of the words: "this was the offering of so and so," after each report of the prince who offered his sacrifice. The reason the Torah also wrote קרבנו, "his offering," before listing the nature of the offering is because the offering consisted of two aspects. 1) acknowledgment of the exceptional merits of the prince bringing the offering; 2) the offering itself. Bamidbar Rabbah 13,10 extols Nachshon's merits for instance, telling us details of his accomplishments. The words הקריב את קרבנו mean that in addition to the visible aspect of the offering there was an invisible aspect, i.e. the devotion to G'd of the person offering the gift. It is well to remember that whenever a person offers an offering to G'd as a gift, such an offering is accompanied by the forces of sanctity which surround such a person. Moreover, it is the nature of the offering to activate various "branches" of sanctity. Our verse testifies that Nachshon succeeded in "offering his sacrifice," i.e. to imbue it with the "sparks" of sanctity and to thereby accomplish all that it is possible to accomplish by means of such a gift-offering.

למטה יהודה, of the tribe of Yehudah. The Torah omitted the word נשיא prince, although this title is used in connection with all the other princes when they are introduced as offering their respective gifts. The reason for this is that Nachshon was on a spiritually sufficiently high level to have qualified as the first one to bring this offering even if he had not been the prince of his tribe. The status of most of the other princes was due only to their having been elected as princes of their respective tribes. The Torah also wanted us to know that Nachshon did not think of himself in terms of his title, his position, but considered himself as "one of the people." Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua in Tanchuma on verse 48 make an attempt to interpret the respective names of the princes as describing each prince's special accomplishments. According to their reasoning Nachshon's name reflects that he was the only one willing to risk his life by marching into the sea of reeds before Moses was given instructions to split the sea. The letter נ in his name can be exchanged for the letter ל seeing he confronted the spirit of the waves נחשול when he precipitously entered the sea and became the catalyst which led to the splitting of the sea of reeds (the following letters are sometimes used interchangeably ד,ל,נ,ת for the letter נ).

וקרבנו, and his offering, etc. The justification for the letter ו in this word is found in what we wrote about every offering consisting of two aspects in our commentary on the word המקריב. It is a reference to the hidden spiritual aspect of the sacrifice which preceded the Torah's revelation of the material aspect. One may also simply understand the letter as alerting us to the many qualities Nachshon possessed in addition to initiating the kind of offering the princes brought at this time.

ביום השני, On the second day, etc. The reason the tribe of Issachar was accorded the honour of offering this sacrifice on the second day was that their prince represented a tribe which would become renowned for its command of Torah. This is why he preceded Reuben although the latter was the senior member of the tribes. Not only this, but also the prince of Zevulun was placed ahead of Reuben seeing that it was the generosity of that tribe which would allow the members of the tribe of Issachar to study Torah without worrying about where their livelihood would come from (compare Deut. 33,18 where Moses even blessed Zevulun ahead of Issachar).

הקריב נתנאל בן צוער, Netanel the son of Tzuar offered his gift. In this instance the Torah mentioned the name of the prince before telling us that Netanel was one of the princes. This was also intended to demonstrate that his merit was such that he could have claimed the right to be number two in the lineup even if he had not been a prince. We do not find this again amongst all the other ten princes which follow. Netanel's name is a reminder of the Torah and the means by which it was acquired. Solomon refers to the Torah in Proverbs 4,2 as כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, i.e. that what G'd has given (the Torah) is a good instruction. The means by which we acquired the Torah is reflected in Netanel's father's name בן צוער, an allusion to pain, צער. The message is that Torah can only be truly acquired through one's undergoing a process of afflictions. We are taught in Gittin 57 that the line אדם כי ימות באהל (Numbers 19,14) is a reminder that in order to truly acquire Torah one must "kill oneself" in the tent of Torah, i.e. in the hall of study by deeply immersing oneself in the mysteries of the Torah. Perhaps this is another reason why Netanel's name precedes his title, to hint that his tribe's immersion in Torah is already reflected in his very name. The first time the Bible mentions that the members of this tribe were outstanding Torah scholars is in Chronicles I 12,33 where the small number of delegates sent by this tribe to David's coronation is explained by the fact that these delegates were יודעי בינה לעתים, "aware of the need of the times." The manner in which their prince "killed" himself in order to study Torah may have contributed to the members of his tribe emulating him and becoming יודעי בינה לעתים.

הקריב את קרבנו, brought his offering, etc. These words are superfluous, seeing the Torah already wrote in verse 18 that Netanel brought an offering. The Torah may have intended to stress its regard for Nachshon's offering. The Torah did this by mentioning the fact that Nachshon brought his offering three times. It mentions Netanel as having brought his offering twice, and mentions all the other princes only once as having brought their respective offerings. They were not on the spiritual levels of either the kings of Yehudah or the tribe of Issachar [in the future Ed.].

The reason the word hikriv is spelled here without the customary letter י is to enable us to use the exegetical approach of the sages of the Messorah who understood the word as an imperative. Traditionally, (Sifri item 52 on our verse) the tribe of Reuben had protested when informed that Issachar would be in line after Yehudah. G'd therefore gave specific instructions i.e. hakrev that Issachar was to be next. This is alluded to by the absence of the letter י in the written text, though the word is read in the past tense, i.e. hikriv.

אליאב בן חלון. He was called so seeing he, or his tribe, enabled Issachar to devote themselves to the uninterrupted study of Torah. Similar considerations prompted Moses in Deut. 33,18 to mention the tribe of Zevulun ahead of the tribe of Issachar in his blessings although Issachar was senior to Zevulun by birth. The most appropriate way of translating his name would be "it behooves me to be called father (in relation to Issachar)." The word חלון emphasises that although, biologically speaking, he is only the descendant of chulin, someone secular, occupied with trading instead of Torah study, he nevertheless has attained the rank of seniority to Issachar being the one who provides the wherewithal for Issachar to study Torah.

אליצור בן שדיאור, Perhaps there is an allusion in this name that G'd had forgiven the sin of Reuben which the Torah recorded (Genesis 35,22). He may have put balsam or balm, i.e. צרי, on his wound. The letters אלי mean אלקי, my G'd; the letters צור are to be understood as similar to Jeremiah 8,22: הצרי אין בגלעד, "is there no more balm in Gilead?" The word בן שדיאור is to be broken up into בן שדי and אור, i.e. a hint that he was a son of G'd who is also known as שדי. The combined name then is reminiscent of the story in the Torah that Reuben slept with Bilhah. The Torah reported immediately afterwards that the sons of Jacob numbered 12 which shows that any damage inflicted by Reuben had been healed. This prompted our sages in Shabbat 55 to say that if someone were to accuse Reuben of having committed a sin he is in error.

שלמיאל בן צורישדי. The name of the prince of Shimon alludes to the original Shimon whom G'd paid back for what he had done to Joseph by having Joseph incarcerate him in Egypt. It also includes a reference to G'd repaying that tribe for the conduct of Zimri [its prince 40 years later Ed.]. He is understood as exclaiming צורי שדי, "enough (punishment) my G'd." Once Zimri had been slain the plague stopped as we know from Numbers 25,8.

אליסף בן דעואל. The name of the prince of the tribe of Gad includes a hint that this was the first tribe of the Israelites which was settled in their permanent home. Only the able-bodied men of that tribe crossed the Jordan to form the vanguard of the Israeli army at the time of the conquest. Furthermore, according to Sifri volume two item 299 the lands formerly owned by Sichon and Og were not part of the lands promised by G'd to Abraham. We also find in the rules pertaining to the laws of the land of Israel that the land is divided into three different districts, Transjordan being one of those districts (compare Sheviit 9,2). Please refer to my comments in Parshat Mattot on 32,3-4 where I have explained this in greater detail. Inasmuch as these lands had been "grabbed" by the Jewish people, the letters יסף in the name of its prince are an allusion to that tribe inheriting land which was not part of the heritage promised to the patriarchs. The word בן דעואל is a hint that that tribe as well as all the other tribes are fully loyal to G'd and His Torah, i.e. "know the Lord," compare Joshua 22,27 and 22,34.

אלשמע בן עמיהוד. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah are quoted in Tanchuma on our verse as saying that the name Elishama suggests that whereas "Joseph listened to the commands of G'd, he did not listen to the command of his mistress to sleep with her. He did not make common cause with the wicked." Joseph did not desist from sinning because he was not tempted but because he was obedient to G'd's imperatives as he pointed out to the wife of Potiphar when he described giving in to his urge as a sin against G'd (Genesis 39,9). This is what is meant by Elishama, i.e אלי שמע, "he listened to Me." Our sages in Sotah 36 explained that at the crucial moment he had a vision of the face of his father. Clearly, this is a reference to a divine image which resembled the face of Jacob. After all, his father was in Canaan and had no inkling of what temptation his son faced at the time not even knowing that Joseph was still alive. What Joseph beheld in the vision was what is known as אביר יעקב אלוקי ישראל. When the sages in the Midrash spoke of the wicked in the plural, they may have referred to many similar temptations that Joseph withstood successfully. The reason the same idea occurs a second time in the name of the father of Elyasaph, i.e. עמיהוד is to hint what the Torah told us in that verse in Genesis that he did not listen to Mrs Potiphar who requested that Joseph agree to be physically close to her. Joseph preferred to remain close to G'd, i.e. עמי הודו.

גמליאל בן פדהצור. Our sages interpret the word גמליאל as "He did favours for me." They also interpret the word פדהצור as "He liberated me from prison." One may also see the following allusion in this name: Joseph gave thanks to G'd who not only had shown him kindness by freeing him from prison but who showed him his father's image at a crucial time to save him from committing a sin." In other words: פדה צור, G'd liberated him from sin.

אבידן בן גדעוני. This is an allusion to King Saul who was referred to by David as אבי, "my father" (compare Samuel I 24,11) when David had cut off Saul's mantle instead of killing him. Saul had deserved to be killed seeing that G'd had already judged him, דן, and told him he had forfeited his crown (Samuel I 15). There is also an allusion in this name to Mordechai who destroyed the seed of Amalek. The word בן גדעוני means that he (David) was the one on whose account Saul's kingdom had been taken from him.

אחיעזד בן עמישדי. Perhaps there is an allusion here to Samson. The letters אחי in this name refer to the spirit of the Lord which overcame Samson (compare Judges 14,6). The reason that spirit is described as אחי may be related to Psalms 122,8 "למען אחי ורעי" which is understood by Rabbi Moshe Alshich as a reply by the Holy Spirit. The words בן עמישדי allude to what happened to Samson after the Philistines had gouged out his eyes and he called out to G'd to avenge what they had done to him. G'd answered him and he killed thousands of them.

פגעיאל בן עכרן. Sifri volume 2 item 355 claims it was Asher who had told his brothers of what Reuben had done, whereupon the brothers rebuked him. When Reuben confessed that he had done what Asher had reported, the brothers included Asher again in their circle. This is the meaning of the word פגעי אל, his brothers met him again after first having ostracised him.

Another meaning of the name may be related to the blessing of Asher (Deut. 33,23) "Asher is blessed more than the other sons." Our sages comment on this that "none of the other tribes received as generous a blessing as did Asher." We find that the blessing of the sons was conditioned by their proximity to a holy site, to sanctity. In order to determine this you may assume that the Holy Ark was the centre of sanctity. When this ark was hosted by Oved Edom Hagitti (compare Berachot 63) the host was blessed exceedingly as outlined in the Talmud and the Book of Chronicles. The word פגעי אל means that "G'd has granted me many children." The second part of his name, בן עכרן may be an allusion to a tradition (Tanna be bey Eliyahu 9) that even if the daughters of Asher had sinned, i.e. that they had lost their virginity prior to marriage (figuratively speaking), something עכור, shameful, G'd treated them as if their hymen were intact, i.e. as if they had not sinned at all. [The tradition seems based on those daughters not bleeding when their hymen was ruptured. Ed.]

אחירע בן עינן. This name appears to contain an allusion to the statement of the Sifri on Deut. 33,23 that Naftali was satisfied with favour, i.e. that he did not strive for more than had been granted to him. He enjoyed the fruits of Ginnosaur, the fish of the lake of Kinneret, etc. The word אחי רע suggests that in Naftali's eyes his brothers had received a share inferior to his. His "eye," i.e. his aspirations had been fully met by the blessing he received at the hands of Moses.

ביום המשח אותו, on the day it was anointed. This verse is proof that our contention that all the princes had come to offer their gifts simultaneously on the first of Nissan is correct, but that G'd arranged that only one prince should offer his gift on any single day.

מאת נשיאי ישראל, from the princes of Israel, etc. Why did the Torah have to write these words? Perhaps the Torah wanted to praise the princes for having acted spontaneously in order to inaugurate the altar. The word מאת is as if the Torah had written מאתם, i.e. that the idea originated with the princes and they had not been prompted. Our sages in Sifri volume 1 item 53 state that they all had an equal share in the single מצוה. What the sages meant was the offerings themselves were accounted as if they were a single offering. Different princes acquired different amounts of merit for their part in the offering, however. Nachshon's merit was the greatest of them all.

כל הבקר לעולה, All the oxen used for the total-offering, etc. The word בקר is in the singular as each one formed part of the same collective offering. This is also the reason the Torah used the word זבח השלמים in verse 88 describing the sacrifice as one.

הקול מדבר אליו, the Voice speaking to him, etc. We have already explained on Exodus 20,1 that when G'd speaks an angel is created as a result of such speech and it is the voice of that angel which man (prophet) hears. I have explained all the instances in which the word לאמור appears as unnecessary such as when G'd's message to Moses or Aaron is introduced. This is what is meant here when the Torah speaks of "the Voice" speaking to Moses. The Torah underlines that in this instance G'd's voice spoke to Moses directly, not the voice of an angel. Although there is a dagesh in the letter ד to tell us that the meaning is מתדבר, i.e. the voice itself was doing the talking, it was not the projection of someone else "behind" the voice. This form is grammatically admissible; the intelligent reader will understand what I mean.