AND THEY SHALL PUT THEREON [on the ark of the Testimony] A COVERING OF ‘TACHASH’¹⁸⁶ was a kind of wild animal which only existed at the time [when Israel built the Tabernacle]. Its hide was multicolored” (Rashi, Exodus 25:5). SKIN, AND THEY SHALL SPREAD OVER IT A CLOTH ALL OF BLUE. Because of the importance of the ark, the covering of tachash skin was not visible [at all] upon it; for they covered [the ark firstly] with the Veil as a screening partition,¹⁸⁷ and then they covered both of them [the ark and the Veil] with the covering of the tachash skin [as a protection] against the rains, and above them all they spread a cloth all of blue so that this distinguished garment, which was the like of the very heaven for clearness,¹⁸⁸ should be seen upon it. But as for all the other vessels — the table, the candelabrum, and the altars — the covering of the tachash skin¹⁸⁶ was a kind of wild animal which only existed at the time [when Israel built the Tabernacle]. Its hide was multicolored” (Rashi, Exodus 25:5). was visible over them.¹⁸⁹ And some scholars¹⁹⁰ say that the meaning of the verse [before us] and they shall spread over it a cloth all of blue refers to the screening partition Veil [mentioned in the preceding Verse 5, thus meaning: “and they had already spread over it a cloth all of blue”], and they shall put thereon, that is, on the ark and the Veil, the covering of the ‘tachash’ skin.¹⁹¹-skin that was visible on top of the ark when it was carried, and beneath it was the cloth all of blue, and not, as explained before, that the cloth of blue was spread on top over the tachash skin. And they shall set the staves thereof. This means, they shall put them on the shoulders of the priests.¹⁹² is that they should replace the staves which they had previously removed while the ark was being wrapped. Ramban evidently rejects this interpretation because of the verse, The staves shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it (Exodus 25:15), which clearly states that the staves are to remain in the rings permanently. See text further. The correct interpretation is that the word v’samu (and they shall set) means that they should adjust them [the staves] so that they should protrude outside [the ark] in such a way that they can carry it by means of them, for the rings [in which the staves were permanently fixed] were wide, so that they were able to lengthen the staves at will, provided only that they were not taken out from them.¹⁹³

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ “Tachash ¹⁸⁷ Verse 5. ¹⁸⁸ Exodus 24:10. ¹⁸⁶ “Tachash ¹⁸⁹ Verses 8-14. ¹⁹⁰ This opinion is stated here by Ibn Ezra. ¹⁹¹ Thus according to this interpretation, it was the covering of the tachash ¹⁹² In Ibn Ezra, who quotes this interpretation in the name of “some scholars”, the reading is: “those who are to carry the ark,” namely the Levites of the Kohath family, instead of: “the priests”. See my Hebrew commentary p. 205, Note 74. — Ibn Ezra also mentions another interpretation, namely, that the meaning of the expression and they shall set the staves thereof ¹⁹³ See Note 192.

AND THE CONTINUAL BREAD SHALL REMAIN THEREON. On the table itself was to be the bread,¹⁹⁴. Ramban interprets the verse to mean: “and upon the table of showbread, on which the continual bread shall remain, they shall spread a cloth of blue etc.” and upon them [i.e., the twelve loaves of bread] a cloth of blue, and upon this cloth which was on the table they put all the vessels, and afterwards they spread upon the vessels and the table a cloth of scarlet.¹⁹⁵ For in honor of the bread which was arranged on the table according to the precept [of the Torah], they spread this cloth of blue in order to divide between the table and its bread [beneath the cloth], and the vessels [which lay above the cloth]; and the upper cover was a cloth of scarlet, which was a hue of red, because the table is a sign of the crown of royalty, which is [manifested by] the attribute of justice. But the ark and the golden altar were [covered on top] with a cloth of blue,¹⁹⁶ alluding to the attribute which is comprised of hakol (the All),¹⁹⁷ and the altar of the burnt-offering [was covered] with a purple cloth,¹⁹⁸ which is redder than the first [i.e., the cloth of scarlet which was upon the table], for it is there [on the altar of the burnt-offering] that the blood of the offerings, which is a ransom for the souls [of those who offer them], is sprinkled.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁴ The verse reads: And upon the table of showbread they shall spread a cloth of blue, and put thereon the dishes, and the pans … and the continual bread shall remain thereon ¹⁹⁵ Verse 8. ¹⁹⁶ Verse 6 (the ark); Verse 11 (the golden altar). ¹⁹⁷ See Vol. I, p. 292. ¹⁹⁸ Verse 13.

AND THE CHARGE OF ELEAZAR THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST SHALL BE THE OIL FOR THE LIGHT, AND THE SWEET INCENSE, AND THE CONTINUAL MEAL-OFFERING, AND THE ANOINTING OIL: HE SHALL HAVE THE CHARGE OF ALL THE TABERNACLE, AND OF ALL THAT THEREIN IS, IN THE SANCTUARY, AND IN THE VESSELS THEREOF. Scripture is stating that Eleazar was in charge of all these things, and the meaning of [the end of the verse] is that “he was in charge of all the Tabernacle and in charge of all that therein is.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that it means that “Eleazar’s charge extended also to the Tabernacle and to all its vessels, together with his brother Ithamar,¹⁹⁹ the son of Aaron who was in charge of the work of the sons of Gershon [in carrying the curtains, etc.] and of the work of the sons of Merari [in carrying the boards and bars of the Tabernacle, etc.]. Why then does Scripture state here that the charge of Eleazar was all the Tabernacle etc.? Ibn Ezra answers that Eleazar shared together with his brother Ithamar in the charge of all the Tabernacle etc., and that the first part of our verse is pointing out that in addition to sharing the general charge of the Tabernacle, Eleazar was, due to his great distinction, solely in charge of the oil for the light etc. Ramban objects to this interpretation and suggests his own explanation. and that due to Eleazar’s great distinction, he alone was in charge of the oil [for the light], and the incense.” But this is not correct, since Scripture states [that the services of the sons of Gershon and Merari were] under the hand of Ithamar²⁰⁰ [which thus indicates that Eleazar had no share in it]! And [Scripture] explained here [that Eleazar’s charge was] in the Sanctuary and in the vessels thereof, and similarly it stated above, And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, was prince over the princes of the Levites and had the oversight of them that keep the charge of the Sanctuary²⁰¹ meaning to say that he was the prince [who supervised] the charge of those that guarded the Sanctuary, which was in the hands of the Kohathites²⁰² inasmuch as he supervised the most holy things. In Verse 4 above it is clearly stated that the sons of Kohath — alone — were in charge of the most holy things, thus disproving Ibn Ezra’s explanation quoted above. If so, the phrase the charge of all the Tabernacle must be in apposition to the end of the verse namely in the Sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof, and the meaning is as follows: “the charge of the oil for the light, etc., the charge of all the Tabernacle, that is, in the Sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof which refers to the most holy things [the ark, etc.] they were given over to the Kohathites — and all these were under the charge of Eleazar,” just as Ithamar was in charge of the work of the sons of Gershon and Merari. In addition to supervising the Kohathites, and assigning each one his particular duty, Eleazar was also chief of all three main Levite families, as will be explained. [i.e., he supervised the most holy things — the ark, the table, candelabrum, altars, Veils and the vessels used in the Divine Service]. But the meaning of the charge of all the Tabernacle is that “the charge of … the oil for the light, and the incense, and the meal-offering, and the anointing oil, and the charge of all the Tabernacle — in the Sanctuary, and of all that therein is of the holy vessels — they were all under the hand of Eleazar,”²⁰² inasmuch as he supervised the most holy things. In Verse 4 above it is clearly stated that the sons of Kohath — alone — were in charge of the most holy things, thus disproving Ibn Ezra’s explanation quoted above. If so, the phrase the charge of all the Tabernacle must be in apposition to the end of the verse namely in the Sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof, and the meaning is as follows: “the charge of the oil for the light, etc., the charge of all the Tabernacle, that is, in the Sanctuary, and in the vessels thereof which refers to the most holy things [the ark, etc.] they were given over to the Kohathites — and all these were under the charge of Eleazar,” just as Ithamar was in charge of the work of the sons of Gershon and Merari. In addition to supervising the Kohathites, and assigning each one his particular duty, Eleazar was also chief of all three main Levite families, as will be explained. and they are those mentioned here when He stated, And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the Sanctuary and all the vessels of the Sanctuary.²⁰³ Eleazar was thus officer over the three princes²⁰⁴, Verse 30), and of the families of Merari, Tzuriel the son of Abichail (ibid., Verse 35). The prince over the princes of the Levites was Eleazar the son of Aaron (ibid., Verse 32). [of the Levites], and [also] overseer of the charge of the Kohathites, and Ithamar was overseer of [the charges of the families of] Gershon and Merari. Now since Scripture does not say that Eleazar “shall bear” [the oil for the light etc.] as is said of the Levites,²⁰⁵ it would appear that Eleazar did not carry them, but was in charge over them and would give them from hand to hand to those Kohathites whom he chose because of their zeal and piety. It was they who carried them, and they returned them to his control when the Tabernacle was set up. This also [is the meaning of the verse which says that Eleazar was the prince over the princes of the Levites,] having the oversight of them that keep the charge of the Sanctuary,²⁰⁶ and the verse stating, and by name ye shall appoint the vessels of the charge of their burden²⁰⁷ [conveying the same thought, that the individual families of the Levites were to be told by the overseer what their particular kind of work would be, and Eleazar, as the prince over the princes, was the overseer of all the service of the Levites]. But according to the opinion of the Yerushalmi²⁰⁸, (p. 192, Note 44). mentioned in the commentaries of Rashi²⁰⁹ that he [Eleazar himself] carried them [all the objects enumerated], it would be a heavy load! For the incense consisted of three hundred and sixty-eight manehs,²¹⁰ arid [surely] Moses our teacher would not have prepared [only] half of the required quantity,²¹¹ and the oil for the light for a whole year was a large amount, namely one hundred and eighty-three logs,²¹²). and as for [the ingredients required for] the continual meal-offering, we do not know how many days’ supply he carried! But [we would have to say that] Eleazar was very strong and powerful, as was our patriarch Jacob,²¹³ (Genesis 29:10) — “as easily as one draws the stopper from the mouth of a bottle. Scripture thus informs you how strong he was” (Rashi ibid., on the basis of Bereshith Rabbah 70:10). and so also were Moses our teacher²¹⁴ and his brother Aaron,²¹⁵ and they that wait for the Eternal shall renew their strength.²¹⁶

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ Ibn Ezra’s interpretation is intended to answer the following point: Scripture further on (4:28, 33) explains that it was Ithamar ²⁰⁰ Further, 4:28, 33. ²⁰¹ Above, 3:32. ²⁰² Ramban’s meaning is as follows. It is clear from Scripture’s explanations that Eleazar was the prince of the princes of the Levites ²⁰² Ramban’s meaning is as follows. It is clear from Scripture’s explanations that Eleazar was the prince of the princes of the Levites ²⁰³ Verse 15. ²⁰⁴ The prince of the Gershonites was Eliasaph the son of Lael (above, 3:24); of the Kohathites, Elitzaphan the son of Uzziel (ibid. ²⁰⁵ Further, Verse 25: And they shall bear … ²⁰⁶ Above, 3:32. ²⁰⁷ Further, 4:32. ²⁰⁸ Ramban is not referring to Rashi here, but to Rashi’s commentary to Shabbath 92 a. On the term “Yerushalmi,” see Leviticus, Seder Metzora ²⁰⁹ This expression [“mentioned in the commentaries of Rashi”] clearly indicates that Ramban does not mean Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, as he never refers to it by that description. Rather, the reference is to Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud. See Note 208. ²¹⁰ Kerithoth 6 a. There was one for each day of the solar year, and 3 extra manehs for the Service on the Day of Atonement. ²¹¹ “If he compounded only half the required amount [i.e., 184 manehs] it would be valid” (Yerushalmi Yoma IV, 5). This rule applies to the compounding of the incense, which was to be done once every year. But, continues Ramban, although valid if done in this manner, surely Moses would prepare the complete, and not just half, the required amount. Hence Eleazar carried the full quantity [except, of course, for the amount that had been used up from the time of the erection of the Tabernacle until the camps set forth]. ²¹² Half a log of oil was used up every night of the year (Menachoth 89 a). This was the measure that was estimated to be sufficient for the longest night of the year ; if any of the oil was left over on the shorter nights, it did not matter (ibid ²¹³ And Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth ²¹⁴ Nedarim 38 a. ²¹⁵ Vayikra Rabbah 26:10. Proof for his great strength is brought there from the fact that he lifted twenty-two Levites in one day (further, 8:21). ²¹⁶ Isaiah 40:31.

AND THEY [i.e., the Kohathites] SHALL NOT GO IN TO SEE THE HOLY THING ‘K’VALA’ (AS THEY ARE BEING COVERED) — “as they [the priests] put each vessel into its wrapping, as I have explained above in this section: ‘and they shall spread upon it such-and-such a garment, and they shall cover it with such-and-such a cover,’ the [term] ‘k’vala’ referring to its ‘covering.’” This is Rashi’s language. It is also Onkelos’ opinion [who translated the verse as quoted above]. But our Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin²¹⁷ that this verse constitutes a prohibition against stealing a sacred vessel, for which one suffers death [by the hand of Heaven], and zealous people have the right to strike such a thief, for stealing and robbing are referred to as b’liah (swallowing, devouring), as in the expressions: ‘bala’ (he hath swallowed down) *riches, and he shall vomit them up again;*²¹⁸ and I will bring forth out of his mouth ‘eth bil’o’ (that which he hath swallowed up).²¹⁹ But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained [the verse] in its plain sense: that [the Kohathites] should not come in to see when the screening Veil is removed and the ark becomes exposed; only afterwards when it is covered are they to come in to carry it. Accordingly, the expression k’vala eth hakodesh means [they shall not come in to see] “when the structure [i.e., the screening Veil] is being removed from the ark, which is hakodesh (the holiness),” [the word ‘k’vala’] being related to the expressions: ‘bila Hashem’ (the Eternal hath swallowed up) unsparingly²²⁰ [which means that He “destroyed the structure” of the habitations of Jacob mentioned further on in the verse]; Thy hands have framed me … together round about; yet ‘va’tval’eini’ (Thou dost destroy me).²²¹ Thus the Levites are warned not to touch the holy ark lest they die, and only by means of its staves are they to carry it. He furthermore warned them against coming in at all to see the dismantling of the structure, while Aaron is taking down the screening Veil, in a similar way to that which is said [of the people of Beth-shemesh that they were punished] because they had gazed upon the ark of the Eternal.²²² He [i.e., Ibn Ezra] has explained it well [i.e., the simple meaning of the verse]. But the [true] intention of the verse is that since the Glory that resides upon the cherubim [on the cover of the ark] is there, the Levites were warned not to break through “to see the Eternal”²²³ until the priests take down the Veil, for then the Glory is seen in the hiding of His power,²²⁴ and it returns to its former place²²⁵ in “the Holy of Holies.”²²⁶ In this way the expression k’vala eth hakodesh is to be understood in its literal sense. The student learned in the mysteries of the Cabala will understand. Naso

footnotes: ²¹⁷ Sanhedrin 61 b. ²¹⁸ Job 20:15. ²¹⁹ Jeremiah 51:44. ²²⁰ Lamentations 2:2. ²²¹ Job 10:8. ²²² I Samuel 6:19. ²²³ See Exodus 19:24. ²²⁴ Habakkuk 3:4. ²²⁵ See Hosea 5:15. ²²⁶ “In the Holy of Holies on Above” (Abusaula).

V’EITH KOL ASHER ‘YEI’ASEH’ LAHEM.¹ [literally: “and all which will be made to them”]. The question Ramban discusses is what the pronoun lahem (“to them” or “for them”) refers to and what the meaning of yei’aseh is. “[This is to be understood] as the Targum [of Onkelos rendered it]: ‘and with whatever is handed over to them,’ that is, to the sons of Gershon [so shall they serve].” This is Rashi’s language. But if so [if the pronoun lahem refers to the Gershonites, and not to all the vessels of the Tabernacle and altar mentioned in the first part of the verse], then the word yei’aseh [does not have its usual meaning of “doing,” but is to be understood as “possessions” or “articles in a person’s control,” the sense of the verse being: “and all ‘the objects handed over’ to them — they, the Gershonites shall serve with”], as in the verse: And there was a man in Maon ‘uma’aseihu’ were in Carmel,² which means “his possessions with which he ‘does’ [his occupation].” A more correct interpretation [of our verse] is that it means: “and with whatever [accessories] are made ‘for them’ — the Tabernacle and the altar — for they had many vessels [so shall they — the sons of Gershon — serve].”

footnotes: ¹ The verse is part of the section dealing with the work to be done by the families of the Gershonites in carrying the parts of the Tabernacle and its equipment. The verse before us states that they are to carry the hangings of the court … and their cords, and all the vessels of their service ‘v’eith kol asher yei’aseh lahem’ ² I Samuel 25:2. The verse obviously cannot be understood in its literal sense, “his deeds,” because if he was in Maon, how could “his deeds” be in Carmel! The context of the verse also indicates that it means “his possessions.”

AT THE COMMANDMENT OF AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL BE ALL THE SERVICE OF THE SONS OF THE GERSHONITES — “and which of Aaron’s sons shall be appointed over them? Ithamar” [as is stated in the following verse]. This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct for [if only Ithamar was appointed], why mention Aaron [at all — at the commandment of Aaron etc.]? Rather, the meaning of [the expression] at the commandment of Aaron and his sons shall be all the service is that the services of the Gershonites shall be at their command. They are to appoint the Gershonites to their work, saying: “This particular Gershonite shall be the overseer for such-and-such a matter” — “This one shall sing [at the services] in such-and-such a way, or attend to the gates³ in a certain manner, or shall carry a certain number of the curtains.” At the time of journeying they were also not permitted to dismantle the Tabernacle or to begin loading it until Aaron and his sons commanded them to do so. Thus all of them [Aaron and his sons] were needed for the appointed charge, Eleazar being the chief over the three princes [of the three main families of the Levites],⁴ Note 204. and Ithamar being the overseer over the sons of Gershon⁵ and Merari.⁶ Scripture states and ‘ye’ shall appoint unto them in charge [all which they have to carry]⁷ because Moses was to be with them at the time of the appointments, when the charges were given to them; but their charge shall be under the hand of Ithamar,⁵ meaning that each one was to return the vessels to his control when the Tabernacle came to rest, saying to him: “Here you have the vessels that were handed over to me.”

footnotes: ³ See further Note 31. and for Scriptural basis see my translation of Sefer Hamitzvoth (“The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 32-33). ⁴ See in Seder Bamidbar ⁵ Verse 28. ⁶ Verse 33. ⁷ Verse 27. ⁵ Verse 28.

AND THE PILLARS OF THE COURT ROUND ABOUT, AND THEIR SOCKETS, AND THEIR PINS, AND THEIR CORDS. “[These sockets, pins and cords refer only to] those of the pillars, because the pins and cords of the hangings were part of the burden of the Gershonites [as stated above in Verse 26, and here Scripture is speaking of the work of the sons of Merari]. For there were pins and cords for the curtains and hangings on their lower edges, so that the wind should not raise them, and there were [also] pins and cords round about the pillars, in order to suspend the hangings on them at their upper edges with poles and rails, as we have been taught in [the Beraitha] on the work of the Tabernacle.” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not understand what pins have to do with the pillars!⁸ of the hangings was fixed, however, were made of wood, not of brass, and are not included in the Hebrew word for pins. Therefore Ramban asks what do the pins [made of brass] have to do with the pillars? (Kur Zahav). Moreover, [even if the pillars did have pins], why were the pins of the pillars different from the other pins, in that [the other pins were given] to the sons of Gershon, and those [of the pillars were given] to the sons of Merari? Nor have I found in the Mishnah⁹ on the work of the Tabernacle that there were pins to the pillars! Instead, the Rabbis taught there the following:¹⁰ “He [Moses] joined the rails by means of cords to the pillars, and attached them to the pins of the Tent. And just as there were pins to the Tabernacle, so were there pins to the court, as it is said, All the instruments of the Tabernacle in all the service thereof, and all the pins thereof, and all the pins of the court, round about, shall be of brass. ”¹¹, 38:20. This is the language of the Beraitha. And it does not teach there that there were pins to the pillars. But we must rather explain that the pins and cords of the hangings of the court¹² were in the hands of the sons of Merari [not, as Rashi understands, that they were in the charge of the Gershonites]; whereas it is the cords and pins of the Tabernacle and Tent¹³. that were in the hands of the Gershonites, for [the prepositions] and ‘their’ cords, and all the instruments of ‘their’ service¹² [mentioned in connection with the charge of the Gershonites] are a reference to the curtains of the Tabernacle and the Tent of Meeting¹⁴, Verse 25. mentioned in [the beginning of] the previous verse [relating to the work to be done by the Gershonite], and do not refer to [the hangings of] the court [as Rashi wrote]. Similarly, when He said above [with reference to the charge of the Gershonites], and the cords ‘of it’¹⁵, 3:26. [the preposition “it”] alludes to the Tabernacle mentioned there [in the preceding verse],¹⁶, Verse 25: And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle and the Tent etc. — Ramban is thus, interpreting the preposition “it” [and the cords of ‘it’] — in 3:26 — as referring back to Verse 25 which mentions the Tabernacle and Tent and does not refer to the hangings of the court mentioned in the selfsame Verse 26. To prove this method of exegesis, Ramban proceeds to bring examples from other places in Scripture where this principle perforce applies. and not to the hangings of the court [mentioned in the same verse]. A similar case [of a Scriptural reference to a prior subject] is [G-d’s command addressed to Aaron]: only ‘they’ shall not come nigh unto the vessels of holiness and unto the altar¹⁷ [where the pronoun “they”] refers back to the more distant [phrase, namely: thy brethren, the tribe of Levi] the tribe of thy father¹⁸, Verse 2. [mentioned] in the preceding verse, and does not refer to the nearer [phrase] thy sons. So also the verse, And ‘their’ redemption-money — from a month old shalt thou redeem them¹⁹, Verse 16. [where the word “their”] refers back to the firstborn of man²⁰, Verse 15. [mentioned in the earlier part of the preceding verse], and not to the firstling of unclean beasts [stated at the end of the preceding verse]. There are many cases like this. However, it appears to me that according to the text of the Beraitha [mentioned further on] the Gershonites only carried cloths, but [did] not [carry] any brass and wood at all. This is the Beraitha wherein we are taught:²¹ “The sons of Gershon were assigned [to pitch] on the west²² [of the Tabernacle], and they were in charge of all woven materials.” If so, the meaning of the term and their pins [mentioned in the verse before us dealing with the charge of the sons of Merari] is: “[the pins] of the Tabernacle and of the pillars of the court,” while [the term] and their cords refers only to those of the pillars of the court [since the cords of the Tabernacle itself were in the hands of the Gershonites]. Similarly He said above [with reference to the burden of the sons of Merari]: the boards of the Tabernacle, and the bars thereof, and the pillars thereof, and the sockets thereof, and all the instruments thereof, and all that pertaineth to the service thereof,²³, Verse 36. including [in general terms] the pins thereof [i.e., of both the Tabernacle and the pillars of the court]. Therefore He mentioned the cords [in speaking of] both [the burdens of the sons of Gershon²⁴ and those of Merari,²⁵ because the cords of the Tabernacle were carried by the sons of Gershon, and those of the pillars of the court by the sons of Merari], but the pins He mentioned only [in the verse before us] with reference to the sons of Merari [because the Gershonites carried no objects of brass or wood at all, but which instead were carried by the sons of Merari].

footnotes: ⁸ The pins were made of brass (Exodus 27:19) and their purpose was to secure the hangings to the ground so that the wind would not blow them from side to side. The poles and rods to which the upper end ⁹ See further in the following text, and also in Ramban on Exodus 26: 17, from which it is clear that Ramban when referring to the “Mishnah”, is in fact referring to the Beraitha on the construction of the Tabernacle. For the nature of this book, see Vol. II, p. 448, Note 108. ¹⁰ M’lecheth Hamishkan, Chapter 5 (p. 33, in Ish Shalom’s edition). ¹¹ Exodus 27:19. The expression “round about” is found ibid. ¹² Above, Verse 26. ¹³ See Note 179 in Seder Bamidbar ¹² Above, Verse 26. ¹⁴ Ibid. ¹⁵ Ibid. ¹⁶ Ibid. ¹⁷ Further, 18:3. ¹⁸ Ibid. ¹⁹ Ibid. ²⁰ Ibid. ²¹ M’lecheth Hamishkan, Chapter 13 (p. 80, in Ish Shalom’s edition). ²² Above, 3:23. ²³ Ibid. ²⁴ Verse 26. ²⁵ In this verse.

AND BY NAME YE SHALL APPOINT THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE CHARGE OF THEIR BURDENS. This means that he [Ithamar] should put the vessels which they were to carry in the hands of each man, according to the number of names, by their polls.²⁶ He [Ithamar] is to say: “This person shall carry a certain number of the boards, and that person a certain number of the bars or of the pillars,” rather than commanding [generally]: “The sons of Merari as a whole shall carry all the boards, sockets and pillars.” He mentioned this first in the case of the sons of Merari although this principle applied also to the work done by the sons of Kohath and Gershon because of the weight of their burdens, for each one [of the sons of Merari] might [be inclined to] make his load lighter by putting it upon his fellowman, [therefore the command had to be given to each person individually].

footnotes: ²⁶ Above, 1:18.

UPHKUDAV’ (THUS WERE THEY NUMBERED OF HIM) ‘ASHER’ THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. “A Masorah²⁷ is the tradition handed down from generation to generation of the exact Scriptural text, and also refers to a collection of exegetical notes on the Scriptural text. The comment before us is of this second class. has it: Five [words in the Scriptures] are written asher (‘which,’ or ‘that’) but they are to be understood as ka’asher (‘as’),²⁸ literally meaning: [and his countings] “which the Eternal commanded,” and Rashi on the basis of a Masorah interpreted it to mean: ka’asher tziva Hashem — [thus were they numbered] “‘as’ the Eternal commanded.” Ramban later on interprets the text asher tziva Hashem in its literal meaning. [this being one of the five cases, and therefore the above expression is to be interpreted as follows: thus were they numbered of him ‘as’ the Eternal commanded Moses]. And those counted were, in accordance with the command, from thirty to fifty years old.” This is Rashi’s language. If this is so, the word, uphkudav refers to Moses [thus were they numbered ‘of him’ — by Moses]. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that [the meaning of the verse is as follows]: every one, that is to say, of the three [Levitical] families — namely, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari — Moses appointed to his service, and to his burden as Scripture mentioned above [that he should appoint them]. And this is the meaning of [the word] uphkudav, namely “[the appointment] of every one” mentioned. But it is possible that the expression ‘asher’ tziva be understood in its plain sense [i.e., “which” He commanded, and not, as Rashi has it, as if it said ‘ka’asher’ tziva — “as” He commanded]. Scripture would thus be saying that Moses appointed [each of the sons of] these three brothers [i.e., Gershon, Kohath, and Merari] to his service and to his burden as explained above; ‘uphkudav’ (and the numbered individuals) of each of them ‘which’ the Eternal commanded Moses to count by their polls, he appointed to his service, and to his burden. Thus the verse mentioned that Moses numbered them by their families, and also that he appointed the [numbered] individuals by their polls, every one to his service, and to his burden.²⁹ is to be understood as ka’asher tziva (“as” the Eternal commanded). b) Rashi explains uphkudav as meaning “his countings,” i.e., those of Moses. Ibn Ezra interprets it as “his appointments,” the pronoun “his” referring to each of the three Levitical families. c) Ramban explains asher tziva in its literal sense, “which” the Eternal commanded [as explained in the text], the word uphkudav he understands as does Rashi, i.e., as “countings,” but the pronoun [“his”] Ramban explains as referring to each of the three brothers [Gershon, Kohath, and Merari — not personally, but in the sense of the descendants of each of them] ‘which G-d commanded’ Moses to count by their polls — each of them he assigned to his individual work. And such indeed is the law, that a Levite [of one group] is not permitted to do the work of another group or to assist therein, just as the Rabbis have said:³⁰ “It once happened that Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Chananyah wanted to help [his fellow-Levite] Rabbi Yochanan the son of Gudgada to close the gates [of the Sanctuary]; whereupon [the latter] said to him: ‘Turn back, [for if you do not do so] your life is already forfeit, since I am one of the gatekeepers, and you are one of the singers.’”³¹

footnotes: ²⁷ The Masorah ²⁸ This whole sentence is not found in our texts of Rashi. See however, Berliner’s edition of Rashi, p. 286. — The point though is clear. The Hebrew text reads: asher tziva Hashem ²⁹ In brief: a) according to Rashi asher tziva ³⁰ Arakhin 11b. ³¹ All the Levites were divided into two groups, those who attended only to the gates in the Sanctuary, and those who attended to the singing at the Services. It was forbidden for a Levite of one group to do the work generally assigned to one of the other group (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 70-72).