COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. “This is the section containing the [actual] commandment of lighting the lamps. And the section of V’atah Tetzaveh (And thou shalt command)⁵⁰⁸ [where the same subject is mentioned], is stated only for the sake of giving an orderly account of the work of the Tabernacle, explaining what the purpose of the candelabrum is, and the sense of the verse there is as follows: ‘and thou wilt at some future time command the children of Israel on this matter.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for that section [there in Exodus 27:20] is not in fact adjoined to the section of the candelabrum [which is mentioned previously in Exodus 25:31-40]; and [also] it has already been stated, And he lighted the lamps before the Eternal, as the Eternal commanded Moses,⁵⁰⁹, 40:25. thus both the commandment and fulfillment were already mentioned and kept! Rather, the need for [restatement of] this section is for two purposes. For there He commanded that they bring you a donation on the behalf of the children of Israel,⁵¹⁰, 27:21. that is to say, from every man with whom was found pure olive oil [beaten] for the light,⁵⁰⁸ together with the other donations for the Tabernacle. And so they did, as it is said, And the princes brought etc. and the spice, and the oil, for the light.⁵¹¹, 35:27-28. And although it says there, it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations,⁵¹⁰, 27:21. this refers to the lighting of the lamps. But now the oil which the princes brought as a donation was used up, and therefore He commanded that the children of Israel take from the public treasury throughout the generations⁵¹² pure olive oil beaten for the light, as was the first oil [of the princes]. This is similar to the expression, that they bring thee a Red Heifer,⁵¹³ meaning that they should seek it and it is to be brought from the public treasury. Also, there [in the section of V’atah Tetzaveh]⁵⁰⁸ He stated only, Aaron and his sons shall set it in order etc.,⁵¹⁰, 27:21. which might mean [set it in order] on the candelabrum, or without the candelabrum if it is broken or lost, as happened when they returned from the [Babylonian] exile.⁵¹⁴ Therefore now He stated clearly, He shall order the lamps upon the pure candelabrum,⁵¹⁵ teaching that they should only light the lamps upon the pure candelabrum. And the interpretation of our Rabbis is as follows:⁵¹⁶ 13:12. “Upon the pure candelabrum.⁵¹⁵ This means upon the very candelabrum itself, that he is not to support them [i.e., the lamps] with pieces of wood or pebbles [but the lamps are to be upon the candelabrum itself, with nothing intervening between them]. He shall set the lamps before the Eternal.⁵¹⁵ This teaches that he is not to set them outside the Sanctuary and bring them inside. Continually,⁵¹⁵ even on the Sabbath; continually, even in impurity.”⁵¹⁷

footnotes: ⁵⁰⁸ Exodus 27:20. ⁵⁰⁹ Ibid. ⁵¹⁰ Ibid. ⁵⁰⁸ Exodus 27:20. ⁵¹¹ Ibid. ⁵¹⁰ Ibid. ⁵¹² Verse 3 here. ⁵¹³ Numbers 19:2. ⁵⁰⁸ Exodus 27:20. ⁵¹⁰ Ibid. ⁵¹⁴ Bamidbar Rabbah 15:7: “Therefore when the [First] Sanctuary was destroyed the candelabrum was hidden. And this was one of the five things that were hidden: the ark, the candelabrum, etc.” ⁵¹⁵ Verse 4. ⁵¹⁶ Torath Kohanim, Emor ⁵¹⁵ Verse 4. ⁵¹⁵ Verse 4. ⁵¹⁵ Verse 4. ⁵¹⁷ If all the priests have been rendered impure, they may yet proceed to minister the Service.

V’HAYTHAH’ (AND IT SHALL BE) FOR AARON AND HIS SONS — “[The feminine word ‘v’haythah’ refers to] the meal-offering,⁵¹⁸ (and it shall be) is in the feminine, and in the preceding verse [7] lechem (bread) is mentioned, which is in the masculine, the word minchah (meal-offering) which is in the feminine must then be added to v’haythah. Ramban will suggest this is not necessary, as will be explained in the text. for anything which is offered of grain is included within the term minchah (meal-offering). [The masculine suffix in] ‘va’achaluhu’ (and they shall eat it), refers to the lechem” [“bread” mentioned in Verse 7, which is a masculine noun]. This is Rashi’s language. It is possible that the verb v’haythah [“and it shall be” — in the feminine] refers to each of the two ma’arachoth [“rows” of six loaves mentioned in Verse 6, since ma’arachah is in the feminine, and hence v’haythah is also in the feminine]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabalah], ‘v’haythah’ (and it shall be) for Aaron and his sons refers back to brith olam [“an everlasting covenant” at the end of the preceding Verse 8, since the word brith is in the feminine], similar to what is said, ‘Brithi haythah’ (My covenant was) with him of life and peace.⁵¹⁹

footnotes: ⁵¹⁸ The point of Rashi’s comment is that since the word v’haythah ⁵¹⁹ Malachi 2:5.

AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN, WENT OUT, etc. This means that he went out among the children of Israel,⁵²⁰ (and he went out) is not adjoined to the phrase, among the children of Israel. Ramban thus calls attention to the fact that they are to be understood together: “and there went out among the children of Israel,” or “into the midst of the children of Israel, the son of an Israeli woman” etc. similar to the expression: and he went out into the midst of the city,⁵²¹ meaning that he [Mordecai] went out from his house or from where he was abiding into the city. Similarly, this [son of an Israelite woman] went out from his tent or from his place, and came into the midst of the people, and they strove there. The meaning of the word bamachaneh [“in the camp” — and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together ‘in the camp’], is that the quarrel took place in the camp and many people heard it, and [when they heard the son of the Israelite woman blaspheming the Name], they took hold of him and they brought him unto Moses⁵²² into [his] tent. And the reason why Scripture mentions this episode here, is as the words of the Sage⁵²³ 23) and mentioned in Rashi. who says: “He ‘came forth’ from the section above [i.e., he began his argument by speaking contemptuously of a law mentioned in the above section], for he sinned with his lips concerning the fire-offerings of the Eternal,⁵²⁴ and an Israelite man rebuked him, whereupon they strove and he became angered and then blasphemed “himself.”⁵²⁵ The intention of the expression the son of an Israelite woman and a man of Israel, is to teach that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not deemed Jewish. And although we have rendered the final decision in the Gemara⁵²⁶ that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman whether she is single or married, the child is a fully-qualified Jew, yet they have said,⁵²⁷ “the child is ‘rejected,’” meaning that it is disqualified for the priesthood;⁵²⁸ and certainly it is not considered a fully-qualified Israelite by name as far as genealogy is concerned, with respect to the standards [i.e., as to where he was to take his place under one of the four main standards that were set up],⁵²⁹ and inheriting of the Land, for it is written of them, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.⁵³⁰, 26:55 (with respect to inheritance). With regard to the standards it is also written, The children of Israel shall pitch by their fathers’ houses (ibid., 2:2). And that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³¹ 14:1. “Among the children of Israel, this teaches that he had become a proselyte,” does not mean that he needed conversion, for he was like all Israelites who entered into the covenant by circumcision, immersion, and the expiation by blood, at the time of the Giving of the Torah.⁵³² But the intention of the Rabbis [in this text of the Torath Kohanim] was to state that he was reared by his mother and became attached to Israel, this being the meaning of the expression among the children of Israel, that he was with them and he did not want to go after his father to be an Egyptian. Similarly, that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁵³¹ 14:1. “Although there were no mamzerim at that time, he was like one,” this text follows the opinion of a single Sage [who says that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is deemed a mamzer], but the final decision of the law is that the child is a fully-qualified Jew. And the French Rabbis⁵³³ say that the reason why this son of the Israelite woman required conversion [according to the Torath Kohanim mentioned above], was because he lived before the Giving of the Torah, and his status was determined by that of the male parent, as is to be deduced from what the Rabbis have said:⁵³⁴ “Where [the parents of a child are of] non-Jewish nations, we go [as far as the status of the child is concerned] by that of the father.” And when this [son of the Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian] was born, they did not circumcise him, for his status was that of an Egyptian, but when he grew up he voluntarily converted and was circumcised.⁵³⁵ But such is not my opinion, for since the time that Abraham entered into the covenant [with G-d], they [i.e., his descendants through Isaac and Jacob] were Israelites and were not to be reckoned among the nations,⁵³⁶ just as the Rabbis have said with respect to Esau:⁵³⁷ “Perhaps the case of an Israelite who is an apostate is different!” [Thus the Rabbis referred to Esau, who was long before the Giving of the Torah on Sinai, as an “Israelite.”] And is it not an argument from minor to major! “If after the Giving of the Torah when a Cuthean has sexual relations with a daughter of Abraham, and he is forbidden to her by a negative commandment and his betrothal to her is not valid, yet she is the source of purification of the nations, so that her child becomes fully-qualified and of her own standing — does it not follow all the more so that before the Torah was given, she purifies her child to be of her own standing, so that circumcision be incumbent upon him as upon the seed of Abraham, and that he be part of the community of the children of Israel!”

footnotes: ⁵²⁰ In the Hebrew, the word vayeitzei ⁵²¹ Esther 4:1. ⁵²² Verse 11. ⁵²³ Rabbi Berachyah (Tanchuma, Emor ⁵²⁴ Above, Verse 9. In that section the law is stated concerning the showbread; that it was to be set on the table in the Sanctuary every Sabbath, and the following Sabbath it was to be removed, and after the frankincense was burnt as a memorial for the showbread, the bread was to be eaten by the priests. When this law was announced, the son of the Israelite woman said: “It behoves a king to eat fresh bread daily, and not stale bread!” ⁵²⁵ This is a euphemism, the real intent of which is the Ineffable Name. ⁵²⁶ Yebamoth 45 a. ⁵²⁷ Bechoroth 47 a. ⁵²⁸ Thus, if the child was a girl she may not be married to a priest (Yebamoth 45 a). ⁵²⁹ See Numbers Chapter 2. ⁵³⁰ Ibid. ⁵³¹ Torath Kohanim, Emor ⁵³² Exodus 24:6. See in Vol. II, p. 260, Note 79 for full discussion of this matter. ⁵³¹ Torath Kohanim, Emor ⁵³³ I found this opinion in the commentary of Chizkuni (see my Hebrew commentary, beginning with the fifth edition, p. 535). ⁵³⁴ Kiddushin 67 a. ⁵³⁵ All this is the opinion of the “French Rabbis.” Essentially this opinion is based upon the theory that up till the Giving of the Torah the Israelites had a status [in the law of the Torah] similar to that of all other nations, and hence the law quoted [“Where the parents of a child are of non-Jewish nations etc.”] applied. Ramban is now to differ with this opinion, and holds that since Abraham entered the covenant, he and his seed already enjoyed that status later defined as that of Israelites, and under such law the son of the Israelite woman assumed her status, and hence there was no need for his official conversion. The statement of the Torath Kohanim that he was converted must mean only, as explained above, that he was reared by his mother and he became attached to Israel. ⁵³⁶ Numbers 23:9. ⁵³⁷ Kiddushin 18 a.

AND HE THAT SMITETH A BEAST MORTALLY SHALL PAY FOR IT; ‘NEFESH’ (LIFE) FOR ‘NEFESH’ (LIFE). This does not mean a real animal, that he must buy him an animal similar to his one [that was killed], but rather it means that he is to give him monetary compensation equal to the damage he caused him. Similarly, breach for breach, eye for eye⁵³⁸ [also means monetary compensation], according to the opinion of our Rabbis.⁵³⁹

footnotes: ⁵³⁸ Verse 20. ⁵³⁹ Baba Kama 83 b.

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. “This includes the leaning of hands,⁵⁴⁰ casting from a height, and hanging the dead body, as well as the regulation, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree.”⁵⁴¹ [This is the language of the] Torath Kohanim.⁵⁴². And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the plain meaning thereof is that from that day onwards they acted in accordance with the law concerning one who wounds [a fellowman or causes him damage, mentioned here above in Verses 17-21]. But it is not a correct [explanation] that this verse be referring to the future. The plain meaning thereof is as follows: “and they stoned him with stones because the children of Israel did according to the commandment which the Eternal commanded Moses.” Such a repetition of expressions is found with respect to all those who keep the commandments of G-d, just as it is said in the section of the Passover,⁵⁴³ and as He stated in the section of the census, *Thus did the children of Israel; according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses, so did they;*⁵⁴⁴ and so also with regards to the rods of the princes: Thus did Moses; as the Eternal commanded him, so did he.⁵⁴⁵, 17:26. The correct interpretation here appears to me to be that since Scripture mentioned first the stoning, it went back afterwards and stated, and the children of Israel did etc., for the meaning of Scripture is to declare that when Moses spoke to the children of Israel they immediately brought forth him that had cursed, and they stoned him; and all the children of Israel did so in order to keep and fulfill [the commandment] as the Eternal commanded Moses, but not out of hatred to the son of the Egyptian who had striven with the Israelite, for [they did it] in order to remove the unworthy one from their midst. Behar

footnotes: ⁵⁴⁰ Verse 14. ⁵⁴¹ Deuteronomy 21:23. ⁵⁴² Torath Kohanim, end of Emor ⁵⁴³ Exodus 12:28. ⁵⁴⁴ Numbers 1:54. ⁵⁴⁵ Ibid.