Parasha: Tetzaveh · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

ואתה תצוה, "And you shall command, etc." We need to explore why the Torah had to write the words "and you," seeing G'd had been speaking to Moses continuously; He had not spoken to anyone since He commenced chapter 25. Moreover, why did the Torah write תצוה instead of merely צו (as in Leviticus 6,2). Why did G'd employ an imperative altogether? Our sages in Torat Kohanim at the end of Parshat Emor have written a number of commentaries about this, such as that the word צו is employed when performance of the commandment involves a financial outlay by the person who is to fulfil the commandment.

Perhaps another reason is the very fact that lighting lamps in a Sanctuary which is supposed to be the source of our enlightenment seemed quite inappropriate. The Torah had to tell Moses that such considerations not withstanding, Aaron was to light the lamps on the Lampstand. This commandment was not given to Israel by G'd, for the reason I have just mentioned, but Moses himself (in his own name) should proceed to instruct the Israelites as a sign that they should honour the Lampstand by providing the oil to light its lamps. By saying to Moses ואתה, G'd hinted that the directive was to appear as if it had emanated from Moses rather than from G'd. By telling Moses to "command" the Israelites rather than merely to "speak" to them as was the norm, this served to make the matter more urgent in their eyes. Had G'd used the normal form of address the Israelites would not have felt especially urgent about this directive. G'd meant for Moses to add his own exhortation to that of G'd. The expression תצוה rather than צו was meant to make the directive appear as having emanated from Moses rather than from G'd Himself. G'd mentioned to Moses that although the directive was phrased as תצוה, and not as תדבר, and this was to convey the impression that it emanated from him, this was no reason to treat it more lightly than if it had appeared to emanate from G'd Himself. Using the root צו rather than the root דבר was meant to ensure that the people would relate to this commandment with urgency, eagerly. The combination of the use of the root צו on the one hand and the future tense as expressed by תצוה rather than the imperative צו, were meant to achieve that the donations for the oil should be motivated by the desire of the donors to honour the Tabernacle, i.e. to honour G'd. At the same time the fact that the directive appeared to emanate from Moses rather than from G'd was not to result in it being considered as an unimportant command. Perhaps the words: "and they shall take to you (pure olive oil)," are an expression of the nature of this commandment, i.e. that the people should feel they bring it to Moses, personally, not to Moses in his capacity as G'd's representative.

Furthermore, seeing that when G'd had commanded all matters concerning construction of the Tabernacle He had always used direct speech, i.e. He told Moses: "you shall do, etc.," and had thereby involved Moses personally in every aspect of the building of the Tabernacle, the switch to indirect speech, i.e. "and they shall take" may indicate that G'd told Moses that the only way in which he was superior to the rest of the people was that it was he who would command the people to do their part. This is why G'd said: ואתה, "and you." The letter ו preceding the word אתה was a reminder that there were others beside him involved in performance of the directive. G'd may have had something similar in mind when He said תצוה instead of צו.

The Torah may have introduced another element here altogether. Seeing the time had come for appointing Aaron as the High Priest, G'd used this opportunity to demonstrate to the people that Moses was to occcupy the position of king, and He "crowned" him. This is the deeper meaning of: "you shall command the children of Israel." Our verse then is G'd's blanket authority for Moses to perform the function normally performed by a crowned head, a king. Our verse would be analogous to Samuel I,13,14: "G'd has appointed him as ruler over His people." It is true that we had a similar and apparently more direct form of Moses' appointment as ruler in Exodus 6,13 when the Israelites were still in Egypt, and when the Torah stated: "He (G'd) ordered them to be in charge of the Israelites," and we stated there that the meaning of the verse was that G'd appointed Moses and Aaron as king and High Priest respectively. In our context G'd allocated the position of king specifically to Moses, and the position of High Priest specifically to Aaron. We have another instance where the Torah refers to the division of the people into different levels of authority, i.e. in Exodus 15,6 where the Torah says: "you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The word "kingdom" there referred to the people led by Moses, whereas the word "priests" referred to the people's religious leadership, i.e. Aaron and his sons, whereas the words "holy nation" referred to the Levites.

Perhaps the expression תצוה in our verse alludes to a thought expressed in the Zohar, section one page 83 that we find a spark of Moses' soul within the soul of every Torah scholar. This is why we have an instance in Sukkah 39 where the scholars called each other "Moses." This was because Moses personified the soul that is immersed in Torah-study. When the Torah uses the expression ואתה תצוה this may also be parallel to Psalms 91,11 in which the Psalmist speaks of כי מלאכיו יצוה לו, where the word יצוה may also refer to צוותא, a company of like-minded people. The Psalmist describes G'd as despatching His angels to keep company with deserving Jews as they are of equal status. There is no worthier pursuit than the study of Torah which supplies all enlightenment for the world. Compare the next verse.

ויקחו אליך, "and they shall take unto you, etc." We can understand the reason for the word אליך by referring to Shabbat 22 where the Talmud explains that the words: "outside the curtain of the testimony" mean that the "testimony" the Torah refers to is that all the people who came to see the Tabernacle realised that G'd's presence was hovering over the the Israelites. Rav defined the testimony as specifically the "Western Lamp," i.e. the light on top of the middle shaft of the Lampstand. [This lamp burned around the clock instead of only at night although not only did it not receive more oil than the other lamps, but the other lamps drew on its oil supply. Ed.] Shemot Rabbah 52,2 relates that the scoffers amongst the Jews ridiculed the idea that G'd would take up residence in a structure made by Moses. From this we see that not only did the Gentiles not credit the idea that the G'd of the Heavens had come down to earth, but even some of the Jews could not believe this. Accordingly, even though it was evident that G'd's presence was indeed in the Tabernacle on the first day of Nissan, the day the Tabernacle had been erected, they did not consider this as evidence that G'd's presence would remain there on a permanent basis. Once they observed the ongoing miracle of the Western Lamp, this served as testimony that G'd's presence was there to stay. The Torah impressed upon Moses that the oil for the Lampstand in the Tabernacle would become the vehicle by means of which G'd's presence in the Tabernacle would be demonstrated when the "eternal flame" would be lit. This matter would have far-reaching consequences for Moses' own standing as a prophet, hence the word אליך is of crucial importance. Perhaps G'd hinted at this already when He said: ואתה תצוה, i.e. "do not worry that the people will not believe you when you tell them that I will take up residence in the terrestrial regions." G'd's prediction indeed came to pass. Should you Moses ask how such a fact could be demonstrated, G'd continued by instructing Moses: ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך.

A moral-ethical approach to our verse may be based on the Zohar Chadash found on Genesis 8, that the Israelites were or would be redeemed from each of their four exiles due to a specific merit. The Jews were redeemed from their first exile in Egypt thanks to the merit of the patriarch Abraham. They were redeemed from the second exile thanks to the merit of Isaac; they were redeemed from the third exile thanks to the merit of Jacob, whereas they will be redeemed from the fourth exile thanks to the merit of Moses. Moses' merit was that of his dedication to Torah-study. The interminable wait for the redemption from the fourth exile is due to our not pursuing the study of Torah and the performance of its commandments with sufficient vigour and diligence. As long as we do not engage sufficiently in Torah study, Moses on his part is not willing to invoke his merit to redeem the Israelites who continue to neglect his Torah. By writing ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל the Torah hints at something we mentioned earlier in connection with Psalms 91,11, that G'd would despatch angels to commune with the Jewish people. The meaning of the line may be that the timing of the redemption depends in large measure on Moses seeing that it is his merit that will have to be invoked in order to orchestrate the final redemption. Alternatively, the word צו implies Royal authority. Moses will be our king in the future. When that future will occur depends on the amount and quality of Torah studied by the Jewish people. The words: "they will take to you pure olive oil" are an allusion to the Torah which has been compared to oil. Just as oil lights up the universe, so does the study of Torah result in enlightenment. This is basically, what the Zohar we have mentioned before had in mind.

The reason the Torah was careful to stipulate that the oil had to be זך, pure, was to convey that the study of Torah had to be motivated by pure, not by self-serving considerations. Impure thoughts fuelling Torah study would turn such study into a source of accusation by Satan instead of conferring merit on the student or scholar in question. Even the intent to become well known as a Torah scholar is considered an unworthy thought in this connection. Such thoughts may be considered as equivalent to oil which contains sediments.

The Torah adds the word כתית, pounded, as a further prerequisite for such oil to be used in the Lampstand of the Tabernacle. The idea is that true Torah study involves the student as flagellating himself (at least spiritually) as the Talmud Berachot 63 explained in connection with Numbers 19,14: "A person who dies in the tent." I have already dealt with this interpretation by the Talmud in my treatise Cheftzi chapter 5.

The reason the Torah adds the word למאור, for light, may also be understood in line with our approach to the subject. During exile, the Jewish people are perceived as dwelling in darkness of a lunar eclipse, the moon being known as the המאור הקטן, "the smaller luminary." This means (homiletically speaking) that the one who used to be Master has been demoted from his true position of eminence so that the handmaid has inherited his former place. This is why G'd commanded that Moses should aspire that the olive oil for the Lampstand in the Tabernacle should provide an specially potent light, i.e. the light of the great luminary mentioned in Genesis when these luminaries are described as being hung in the sky. You know from the words of the sages in Megillah 29 on Deut. 30,3 where G'd is described as "having returned with the exiles" instead of as "returning with the exiles in the future," that the presence of G'd had already previously returned with the Jewish people when they came out of exile. Our sages interpret Hoseah 11,9: "The Holy one is in your midst and I cannot come to the city (i.e. celestial Jerusalem)" in a similar fashion in Taanit 5.

The Torah continues: להעלות נר תמיד, "to cause a lamp to burn continually." The expression תמיד denotes that the burning will be of unlimited duration. The homiletical meaning is that Israel should not ever again experience periods of spiritual darkness. Perhaps the expression למאור להעלות נר תמיד means that this oil should light the great luminary in a manner similar to the period the prophet Isaiah 62,8 speaks about when he says: "I will not ever again give your grain to your enemies for food," i.e. "you will proceed to rise ever higher."

מאת בני ישראל. From the children of Israel. We may interpret these words according to the Tossephta Shekalim chapter 2 where we are told that all public offerings which are offered on the first of Nissan should preferably be of money donated for the offerings of the year just beginning; even if they are from money donated during the previous year they are acceptable as long as the money for them has been donated by an individual who has first made it over to the treasurer of the Temple so that it becomes public property. Our verse tells us something similar; the oil donated for the Lampstand becomes public property after the donor has turned it over to Moses as representative of the people.

ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרון אחיך, "And you shall bring near to you your brother Aaron, etc." We must understand the words: "and you- bring near- to you," in light of the statement in Shemot Rabbah 3,17 according to which it was G'd's original plan to appoint Moses as High Priest. This was changed due to Moses' repeated refusal to accept the role assigned to him by G'd which angered G'd. As a result (Exodus 4,14), G'd told Moses that his brother Aaron who had merely been a Levite up to that point, had now been promoted to be a High Priest. When G'd commanded Moses at this point to perform the ceremonies required for Aaron to assume the office of High Priest, He told Moses that he had to make his own contribution to this ceremony so that he would not be perceived as begrudging Aaron an office which had originally been intended for him. In fact, the appointment of Aaron to this position would serve as atonement for Moses who had resisted G'd's invitation to become leader of the Jewish people at that time.

The point mentioned last may be better understood in light of our tradition (Kabbalah) that when man opposes G'd, one of the many branches of his soul becomes detached from its holy root. At the time when Moses raised repeated objections to G'd's demand to accept the mantle of leadership, one of the branches of Moses' soul became detached from its celestial root. Although Moses had been punished for this, he had not obtained atonement until Aaron was inducted into the office of High Priest. Moses' active participation in this procedure would accelerate his atonement for this mistake. When the Torah speaks of ואתה הקרב אליך, we may understand this in the sense of "And you shall bring the estranged part of your soul close to you." G'd informed Moses that appointing Aaron would be his תקון, his rehabilitation for the error committed when he said to G'd: "send the one You are in the habit of sending (Exodus 4,13)."

This may also help us to understand a somewhat strange imperative in Berachot 54 according to which a person must pronounce a blessing when he receives evil tidings just as he is obligated to pronounce a blessing when he receives glad tidings. The Talmud explains on folio 60 of that treatise that this means that even evil tidings must be welcomed with joy. I have always found this demand difficult to accept. When we consider the fact that afflictions are the instrument which reunite the branches of the soul which have separated from their holy root, it becomes easier to accept. After all, what worse fate could befall a person than that his soul become estranged from his Creator? When a person receives evil tidings this means that he suffers an affliction as a result of which the part of his soul which has become estranged to G'd will become reunited. How could a person fail to rejoice over this aspect of the afflictions he is being subjected to?

ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרון…לכבוד ולתפארת, "And you shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron for splendour and beauty." These beautiful garments are an expression of joy, and will convince Aaron that Moses wanted him to appear robed in splendour. A person who only carries out a directive under duress does not go to the trouble of constructing such splendid garments for the person who replaces him in a role that had originally been slated for himself. Although the garments in question were a must for the person wearing them whenever he performed service in the Tabernacle, G'd followed the principle of allowing Moses to accumulate this merit for himself by allowing him to perform this commandment joyfully. In this instance, Moses' action represented a rapprochement between the souls of Moses and Aaron respectively. Perhaps G'd even meant that Moses should pay out of his own funds for these garments Aaron would wear during performing the functions of his new office. Although we have learned that as a rule the cost of the priestly garments was to be defrayed by the public purse (Yuma 3,7), the Talmud allowed for individuals to donate such garments and hand them over to the public. We need to explore the meaning of the word לכבוד, for honour, in this verse after G'd had already informed us of both the purpose and the nature of these garments. If all the Torah meant to tell us was that honour and glory would be conferred upon Aaron its wearer, what have we gained by this knowledge? Perhaps we can understand the meaning of this word by reference to Avodah Zarah 34. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Akiva as not having an answer concerning the question of what garments Moses wore (when he temporarily functioned as High Priest) during the seven days of the inaugural offerings of the priests. When he enquired in the academy they told him that Moses wore a white shirt while performing the service during those days. The fact that Moses wore only a white shirt during those days is clear evidence that the priestly garments themselves were not an essential part of the Temple-service except for Aaron and his sons. If any of the other priests performed the service without wearing their special garments the sacrifices offered by such priests would be acceptable to G'd. Accordingly, the word לכבוד means that these clothes are not for G'd's sake but for man's sake, merely for the sake of the image of the priest wearing them, especially when such a person was a priest on a permanent basis. Seeing Moses performed such service only on a temporary basis, he did not have to wear such garments.

Alternatively, G'd wanted to give us a reason why the Torah commanded that the High Priest wear 8 garments, 4 made of white linen and four containing gold. The Torah says that the reason is לכבוד ולתפארת, for splendour and for beauty. We find the following comment in the introduction of Tikkuney Ha-Zohar. "The four white linen garments are an allusion to the four letters in the Ineffable Name, whereas the four golden garments are an allusion to the four letters in G'd's name א־ד־נ־י." We should remember that the Ineffable Name reflects G'd's attribute of תפארת, whereas G'd's name א־ד־נ־י reflects His attribute כבוד. According to this, the word לכבוד in our verse would refer to the golden garments, whereas the word לתפארת would refer to the white garments. The Torah listed varying degrees of holiness in ascending order, hence the attribute לכבוד precedes the attribute תפארת.

G'd directed that eight garments were to be made for the High Priest in order for him to be able to obtain atonement for his people for the various imperfections that people are guilty of as a normal part of their lives. Aaron's wearing these garments would enable the Israelites concerned to achieve their proper place in the higher regions. Having said this, we need to understand why G'd was insistent that Aaron wear these garments whereas He did not provide similar garments for Moses to wear. The Talmud (Erchin 15) tells us that each of these eight garments conferred atonement for a specific type of sin. The reason that only Aaron and his sons were commanded to wear special garments was because such atonement could be obtained only by people who were intended to serve as priests all of their lives, something that did not apply in the case of Moses. Moses' function in temporarily serving as High Priest was only to obtain atonement for the sins of Aaron and his sons so that they could assume their office as priests. As a result, Moses wore only a white shirt when acting as priest.

ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, "And you are to speak to all wise-hearted men, etc." The reason the Torah introduces this verse with the word ואתה is that Moses was to involve himself personally in speaking to those people. Although G'd had already said: "you are to make the holy garments," G'd repeated instructions to Moses here to make clear that Moses was not personally to make these garments but that they should be made at his behest. If the Torah had not issued instructions for Moses to personally speak to the artisans who were to make the garments, we would have thought that as long as these garments were made according to Moses' instructions it would not matter if he had personally charged the artisans with their task.

The Torah is careful to say אל כל חכמי לב, "to all the wise-hearted men," as the fact that Moses would take out time to speak to all of them individually would be one of the signs demonstrating that he was personally anxious that Aaron be provided with such splendid robes. Had he not been enthusiastic about this task, Moses would have delegated as much of this task as he could and would certainly not have addressed every single artisan who was active in their construction.

Furthermore, the reason that the Torah employs the word ואתה no less than three times in these five verses is a sign that Moses would enjoy the merit of performing three distinct services in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. He would receive credit for a) issuing the instructions to bring the donations enabling the Tabernacle to be built; b) for the overall instructions for building Tabernacle including its furnishings and the priestly garments; c) for the service that would be performed in the Holy Tabernacle as a result of his being instrumental in the Tabernacle being built. This was one of the reasons G'd said that the Israelites were to take things to him, or to bring things to him, or why he was to speak personally to all the wise-hearted men. All of this made Moses a messenger of the people. It would therefore be accounted for him as if he himself had performed every single activity connected with the project. The instruction to bring Aaron close to himself meant that when Aaron would perform the Temple service he would also do so as Moses' messenger. This is why the Torah was careful to write: אליך, "to you." The above-mentioned considerations also account for G'd' issuing these instructions to Moses in direct speech rather than in the third person describing what the individuals who actually fashioned the Tabernacle and its furnishings were to do. G'd meant for Moses to issue directives for others to carry out the work.

ואלה הבגדים, And these are the garments, etc. Why does this verse list only six out of the eight priestly garments, omitting mention of the pants and the High Priest's ציץ, golden headband? Perhaps the missing garments have been alluded to already.The headband may have been alluded to in verse three as included in the line: "and they will make Aaron's garments to sanctify him." The words: "the garments of Aaron" in that verse were not really necessary; it would have sufficed to say: "and these are the garments, etc." The exclusive mention of Aaron alludes to the headband which was worn only by the High Priest. The reason it is mentioned together with the other garments is that it alone would not be able to perform any function. Aaron's (The High Priest's) eight garments performed their function only if all of them were worn by the High Priest at one time. This is also the justification for the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה, "these." At first glance that letter appeared to have referred to other garments over and above the eight garments listed in the Torah at this stage. Actually, it only suggests that all the garments that were now being mentioned were interdependent on each other, essential. As far as the pants are concerned, we find an entirely unnecessary line at the end of verse four, i.e. "and they will make sacred garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons so that he will be a priest unto Me." Seeing that this line was unnecessary, we may see in it a veiled reference to the pants. Both Aaron and his sons are mentioned in that line as both he and his sons had to wear pants beneath their long tunics.

The question which remains is why the Torah did not list these two garmennts together with the list of the six garments listed in verse four so that the allusions which we just mentioned need not have been recorded at all? We may have to look at these two garments as being in a category by themselves, the headband because of its special significance, and the pants because of their being of inferior status as a garment symbolising the priest's holiness. This is why each of these is alluded to separately and is not lumped together with the other six priestly garments. The six garments mentioned in a row in our verse are basically of equal worth as far as their symbolising the status of their wearers as priests is concerned.

An additional reason for listing only the six garments here may be that the Torah wanted us to know that the priestly garments needed to be constructed for that specific purpose. This is why the Torah emphasised: "they shall make holy garments." Even Aaron's pants had to be made especially for him to wear when performing his duties. If so, we would realise that the same rule applied in even greater measure to the making of the garments which were holier than the pants by definition. The first verse which we explained contained the allusion to the headband, also speaks of לקדשו, "to sanctify him;" in the case of the ציץ, it was not only sacred, but it was inscribed with the words: קדש לה׳ "Holy unto G'd."

ולקחת את שתי אבני שהם, "You are to take the two Shoham-stones, etc." The word את in this connection needs explaining. Perhaps the expression is to draw our attention to the previously mentioned Shoham-stones at the beginning of Parshat Terumah (25,7). The meaning of our verse then would be: "you shall take the two Shoham-stones which I have already commanded you to bring (as gifts)." This would account for the מתג, hyphen, between the words אבני and שהם, i.e. why only these two gemstones have been singled out here by name. These two stones performed a function additional to that of the gemstones called אבני מלואים, "stones to be set" (where the Torah did not employ the hyphen).

ששה משמותם על האבן האחת, "Six of their names on the one stone, etc." Why did the Torah use the unusual expression משמותם, "of their names," instead of saying simply ששה שמות, "six names," etc.? Besides, the word הנותרים, "the remaining ones," is quite unnecessary as we all know that there were only a total of twelve tribes. We are therefore forced to conclude that the adjective "the remaining ones," implies that the latter six tribes were inferior to the the first six. We find something similar after the death of Nadav and Avihu, where the Torah describes Eleazar and Ittamar as the "remaining" sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,12). Our sages in Yuma 87 describe the word הנותרים as referring to something inferior, using the word in Leviticus as their example. Bereshit Rabbah 73,9 discusses Genesis 30,36 where the Torah speaks about "the remaining flocks of Laban," and also describes the word "remaining" as referring to something inferior. If the meaning of the word הנותרים in our verse were to indicate that these tribes were inferior, this is most surprising seeing that the Torah underlines that they were recorded כתולדותם, "in the order of their (their founder's) birth." Why would the sons born to Jacob later be inferior to those born to him earlier? This seems especially unlikely seeing that Joseph was Jacob's favorite and is known as "Joseph the righteous." How could he be considered "inferior?" Moreover, we find that amongst the first 6 names listed are sons of the maidservants whereas several of the names inscribed on the second stone were of sons born by Jacob's true wives!

In order to understand what is meant in our verse let me first preface with a statement in Sotah 36. Our sages there relate: "The High Priest wore two gemstones on his shoulders. The names of the children of Israel were engraved on those stones, six of them on the one stone and six on the other." The Talmud quotes our verse as proof for this statement. The names on the second stone were in accordance with the order of birth of the founders of those tribes, whereas the names engraved on the first stone did not correspond to this order, seeing that the name Yehudah appeared on the first stone and each stone had 25 letters engraved on it. Rabbi Chanina son of Gamliel says that the names did not appear in the order in which the tribes were counted in Numbers 1, 1-15, but in accordance with their being enumerated in Exodus I, 2-4. In what order precisely were they engraved? The sons of Leah were listed on one stone, the sons of Rachel were listed one on top of the second stone, the other on the bottom, with the names of the sons of the maidservants in between. If so, how does this agree with the Torah's statement that they were engraved in accordance with their respective births? Answer: "according to the names their father Jacob called them, and not in accordance with the names that Moses called them, i.e. Reuveni, Shimoni, etc." Thus far the statement of Rabbi Chaninah. The apparent meaning of the opinions expressed in the Talmud seems to be that the first opinion (Rav Kahane) understands the word כתולדותם as a reference to both stones although Yehudah's name preceded that of Reuven so that the names which appeared on that stone were: Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Dan, Naftali, whereas the sequence on the second stone was: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Joseph, Benjamin in accordance with the order of their births. When you will count the number of letters which appear on each stone you will find that the first stone had 25 letters whereas the second stone had 24 letters. This would require the addition of the letter ה in the middle of the name Joseph, thus: יהוסף. Rabbi Nachman disagreed, claiming that Benjamin's name was spelled with an additional י, i.e. בנימין. The question of how many letters were engraved on each stone is not alluded to in the Torah but we rely on tradition for this knowledge. I believe that we can, however, find an allusion in scripture for the fact that Yehudah's name was engraved on top of that of Reuven, seeing that the word כתולדותם in accordance with their birth, does not appear until the end of the verse. Had the Torah insisted that all the names would appear strictly in accordance with their births, the Torah should have written: "and you shall engrave on them the names of the children of Israel in accordance with the order of their births," at the end of verse nine. I would then have understood clearly that the directive applied to the names on both stones. You are not to ask who it was who revealed that the names on the first stone were not meant to be engraved in accordance with the births of those sons, seeing that the name of Yehudah appeared on top, and that therefore the order in which the brothers were born did not matter at all when it came to engraving their names on the first stone. Such an assumption is untenable because if the names on the first stone could have been engraved in a different order such order should have paralleled either the order in which the names appear in Numbers or in accordance with their appearance in Exodus. If that were the case, it would be impossible to list the names on the second stone in order of their births and still wind up with 25 letters on each stone. It is therefore mandatory that any change concerning the order of the names on the first stone must be such that it would not interfere with the list of names on the second stone being in accordance with the order of the brothers' birth. It is perfectly logical that Yehudah's name should appear on top as his future standing amongst the Jewish people as the tribe which provided the kings justified his name appearing at the head of the list.

One could argue that the order in which the names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod were no reason to make the Ephod unfit for its function, and that it did not matter whether the name of Shimon appeared above that of Reuven. In order that we should not argue in this way the Torah wrote: "six of their names, etc., and the names of the remaining six, etc." The meaning is that only the remaining ones, i.e. the ones that you have not yet engraved, כתולדותם, have to be engraved according to their seniority. We can prove that this interpretation is correct by referring to the Tosephta in Menachot chapter 5 where we are not told that the order of the engraving of the names was indeed mandatory. Whereas the Tossephta states that the garments of the priests were mandatory, and that the presence of the gemstones was mandatory; not a word is mentioned about the order of engraving the names of the tribes being mandatory. It is quite possible that the sage who was the author of this Tossephta did not believe that the order was mandatory.

When Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah were engraved on the first stone in their order of seniority, he meant that the fact that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were born before the last two sons of Leah was ignored when the names were engraved on the first stone. On the other hand, the names which were engraved on the second stone were headed by that of Benjamin, though he was the youngest of all the sons of Jacob. According to his arrangement the number of letters on each stone could not possibly equal 25, seeing that the number of letters on the first stone totalled 28, whereas we would have 21 letters as the total on the second stone. Even if you add either the letter ה for Joseph's name or the letter י for the name of Benjamin, you will still only wind up with 22 letters on that stone. If we adopt Rabbi Chaninah's interpretation, the meaning of the words ששה משמותם will begin to make excellent sense. The wording would indicate that the names were not engraved in the order of seniority of the sons of Jacob. The meaning of the words הנותרים would be that the names of these tribes which should have been engraved on the first stone, if strict attention had been paid to the principle of seniority of birth, were "left out." Although also the names of Joseph and Benjamin were engraved on the second stone, seeing that the other tribes were the majority they are nonetheless described as "left over."

Let us now examine how Maimonides describes the arrangement of the names on these stones in chapter nine of Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh. This is what he writes: "Six were on one stone and six on the other stone. The name Joseph was spelled יהוסף. As a result there were 25 letters on the first stone and 25 letters on the second stone. The list of names on the first stone was: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph; the order on the second stone was: Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin." Maimonides' words do not agree with either of the views expressed in Sotah 36. His view does not even coincide with that of Rav Kahane which the Talmud rejected. The latter had given the following list: Reuven, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, and Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, Joseph, Benjamin on the second stone. The כסף משנה attempts to prove that Maimonides adopted the view of Rabbi Chaninah while explaining that when Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah appeared in order of their birth he meant that they would appear on alternate stones and that the same applied to the listing of the names of the sons of Rachel, top and bottom respectively, with the names of the maidservants in the centre.

I do not believe that the suggestion of the כסף משנה is acceptable for two reasons. 1) Why would Maimonides ignore the first sage mentioned in the Talmud and rule according to the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah? When the כסף משנה describes Rabbi Chaninah's view as logical, I beg to differ. I do not believe that his reasoning is logical at all seeing that he changes the plain meaning of the verse that the names were to be engraved in order of seniority of the sons of Jacob, i.e. the way Jacob named his sons and not the way Moses referred to them. What would prompt a person to call the sons of Jacob "Reuveni, Shimoni, etc.," instead of calling them by their original names? Besides, the meaning of כתולדותם according to כסף משנה is not "according to their seniority of birth, which is usually the meaning of that word throughout the Torah. There is absolutely no need to ignore the customary meaning of the word כתולדותם. At any rate, the problems we have raised so far are minor compared to another problem we are still going to raise.

2) According to the view of the כסף משנה that the names of the sons of Leah were written in such a fashion that one was on one stone and the name of the brother born next appeared on the second stone, "similar to the names of the sons of Rachel, the names of the sons of Rachel should not have appeared on the top and bottom of the second stone at all. All the כסף משנה had to say was that both the names of the sons of Leah and the names of the sons of Rachel were engraved at the end. Why did he add the words: "one on one stone and one on the other?" What precisely are the words: אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן supposed to mean? He should have said: "the name of one of each of the sons on each stone," as Rashi explains when he adds: "one at the head of the stone, the other at the bottom." This objection to the כסף משנה is still minor compared to the next one.

According to the words of the כסף משנה, the list of the names of the tribes at the beginning of Exodus would not follow the pattern he suggested here at all, seeing that there we find the names of the sons of Leah followed by the son of Rachel, Benjamin, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants, with Joseph at the very end. According to the opinion of Rabbi Chaninah as understood by Maimonides, Joseph's name was engraved beneath the names of the two sons of one of the maidservants, Naftali and Gad on the first stone, whereas the name Benjamin was engraved on the second stone beneath the names of the sons of the other maidservant, Dan and Asher. How could Rabbi Chaninah say: "in the manner they were divided in the Book of Exodus," when we find that the name Benjamin appeared ahead of the names of any of the names of the sons of the maidservants? Besides, why would he engrave the name Joseph before the name Benjamin, when it is a fact that Benjamin is mentioned first in Exodus? We cannot answer that the reason was to enable the names on both stones to total 25 letters so that each stone would have the identical number of letters engraved on them. The same number of letters would appear on the stone even if the name Benjamin preceded that of Joseph. Should Rabbi Chaninah insist that this was indeed what he had in mind, he would simply be wrong, seeing that he made the sequence dependent on the way the names were divided up in the Book of Exodus. His words would be unacceptable as the Torah there listed Benjamin's name before that of any of the sons of the maidservants whereas according to the כסף משנה the name of Benjamin would be the last one to be engraved?

What is Maimonides' source for alternating the names of the sons of Leah between the first and the second stone of the Ephod? According to the words of Rabbi Chaninah that the names of sons of Leah were engraved in their order (of birth) there is no suggestion that this would be on alternate stones! Where does Maimonides get his theory of interpreting Rabbi Chaninah in such a manner? Finally, the כסף משנה had difficulty with providing a reason as to why Maimonides wrote that in order to complete the 50 letters on the stones of the Ephod, the name Joseph had to be spelled with an additional ה. He quotes the Talmud (Sotah 36) which says as follows: "These 50 (letters) are in reality only 49 letters. Rabbi Yitzchok said that they added a letter to his name as we find in Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו ממצרים, 'they added a testimony to Joseph when he came out of Egypt.'" Rabbi Nachman questioned Rabbi Yitzchok that the Torah specified that the names should be engraved כתולדותם, i.e. as they had been known at the time of their respective births? Therefore Rabbi Nachman concludes (as opposed to Rabbi Yitzchok) that the extra letter was the letter י added to the name of Benjamin, seeing that his name is always spelled without the letter י before the final letter ן, except in Genesis 35,18 when his father Jacob named him בנימין with the additional letter י. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the quote of the Talmud that the idea of adding the letter ה to Joseph's name was rejected and that they accepted the alternative suggested by Rabbi Nachman. כסף משנה anwers that the rejection of Rabbi Yitzchok's theory by the Talmud applies only to the original view expressed in the Talmud concerning the arrangement of the names, but does not apply to the view expressed by Rabbi Chaninah, which is, after all, the view Maimonides' diagram is based on. The only meaning Rabbi Chaninah had derived from the Torah's directive was that the names should be כתולדותם, should not appear as Moses had referred to them, i.e. as Reuveni, Shimoni, etc. Seeing this is so, Maimonides remained entitled to accept Rabbi Yitzchok's suggestion that the name Joseph be spelled with the additional letter ה as in Psalms 81,6. Thus far the כסף משנה.

I confess that I find this reasoning very difficult. The first opinion cited in the Talmud did not even deal with the question of spelling the names but discussed only the meaning of the word כתולדותם as meaning that the names were to be inscribed in accordance with the order of the births of Jacob's sons. How could one question what the Tanna Kama in the Talmud meant by the word כתולדותם? Any question in the Talmud obviously was only directed at the viewpoint of Rabbi Chaninah that the word כתולדותם concerned the manner in which their father had called his sons. According to this, Rabbi Nachman answered that the name Benjamin was spelled מלא, i.e. with the extra letter י. It is absolutely clear from the wording of Maimonides that he considered the meaning of the word כתולדותם as describing the order in which the names of the tribes were to be inscribed and not as referring to the spelling that was to be used when engraving these names. Here are the words of Maimonides: ששה על אבן זו וששה על אבן זו כתולדותם. If Maimonides' intention had been to rule according to Rabbi Chaninah, he could not have concluded his words with the cryptic "כתולדותם," seeing that the Talmud queried the meaning of that word. Maimonides would have had to tell us the meaning of that word according to his view! The fact that he did not do so is evidence that he accepted the viewpoint of the תנא קמא. The כסף משנה would have done better to leave the problem he raised unsolved instead of attempting an answer which is clearly unacceptable.

Perhaps one may say that Maimonides did not understand the first version in the Talmud in which it is stated that the reason why the order of birth had to be observed only starting with the second name was "because Yehudah was to appear on top," as we have understood it thus far. He may have understood the words שניה כתולדותם ולא ראשונה כתולדותם, as applying to the difference in appearance when one reads across or when one read down, respectively. If one read the names across, שניה (i.e. assuming that the two stones were next to one another instead of on different shoulders of Aaron), they would appear to be in the order of their births כתולדותם. If, however, one read the names from the top to the bottom of the first stone, followed by reading the names on the second stone from the top to the bottom, i.e. ראשונה, "each stone as a unit by itself," then they would not be found to appear כתולדותם. According to Maimonides the names would appear (on the first stone) as: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph (with the ה), followed on the next stone by : Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin. Clearly, this arrangement does not correspond to the order of their births. The meaning of כתולדותם in front of us can be that the list is to correspond to the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. In that case, the names of the sons of Leah appear together followed by the names of the sons of Rachel, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants. Alternatively, we could use as our model for the word כתולדותם the list of names as it appears at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. There we find first the list of names of the sons of Leah, the names of the sons of the maidservants at the end, the name of Benjamin, one of Rachel's sons in between, with Joseph the remaining son of Rachel listed at the very end. The Tanna Kama did not elaborate on which method of these two he preferred. Even though he mentioned כתולדותם, he might have meant that listing all the names of one mother in the order of their birth fulfils the commandment of כתולדותם. As long as there is no mention of the sons of a different mother before the list of names of the sons of a mother mentioned previously has been completed, this meets the requirement implied in the word כתולדותם. Inasmuch as Leah was the first wife who bore sons for Jacob, all her sons are listed in the order she bore them, i.e. they are considered as one unit. We could accept this although these names do not appear in this order anywhere else in the Torah. Maimonides carefully examined the words of Rabbi Chaninah who said that the words כתולדותם are not to be interpreted as the order in which these names are listed in the Book of Numbers but in the manner in which they appear in the Book of Exodus. His words mean that unless specifically stated to the contrary, the Tanna Kama could accept either version as a role model for the order in which these names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod.

We are entitled to understand the Tanna Kama as agreeing with Rabbi Chaninah that the role model for the word כתולדותם is the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. The only argument between the two Tannaim is that the meaning of the words שניה כתולדותם is as we explained whether the names were to be read across, or as Rabbi Chaninah feels that the sons of Leah had to be arranged on a single stone, etc. Maimonides ruled in favour of reading the names across (alternating between the two stones) as the preferable way of complying with the requirement that they appear כתולדותם. This means that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Tanna Kama, and not as כסף משנה wanted us to believe as in accordance with the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah. If the names of Joseph and Benjamin had preceded that of the names of the maidservants' sons, even "the שניה" would not have been כתולדותם in accordance with the order of their respective births. The reason that in Maimonides' diagram the name of Naftali appears ahead of that of Dan (who was born earlier), is in order to ensure that there are 25 letters engraved on each of the two stones in accordance with the requirement listed by the Tanna Kama. Rabbi Chaninah had never spoken about such a requirement. While the fact that Rabbi Chaninah did not relate to the requirement that there should be 25 letters on each of the stones is not normally proof that he disagrees with the view of the Tanna Kama, in this instance we must assume that he does indeed disagree even without going on record that he does so. The reason is simply that according to Rabbi Chaninah's division of the names we find 28 letters on one stone, and 21 or maximum 22 letters on the other stone, as we have pointed out earlier. Maimonides completes his diagram by having the names of Joseph and Benjamin at the respective bottoms of each stone, adding the letter ה to Joseph's name in order to have 25 letters on each of the stones. This is the way we propose to explain the Baraitha according to the ruling of Maimonides. Perhaps Maimonides had another ancient text in front of his eyes in which all this is spelled out more specifically. Whatever the case may be, we have dealt with all the nuances in our verse satisfactorily.

Now let us look once more at the reason the Torah wrote ששה משמותם, instead of writing ששה שמות. Had the Torah written ששה שמות it would have been evident that the names were to appear on each stone in order of seniority and not partially so as indicated by the word משמותם, "of their names." The unusual word משמותם means that Moses was to engrave these names in pairs on the two stones starting with the order of the births of the respective sons. There will always be one name of such a pair "left over" to be engraved on the opposite stone. The six names left over, i.e. הנותרים. These "left over" names are to be engraved one beneath the other on the second stone of the Ephod. The very words ואת שמות השמות הנותרים mean that these names were previously "left over" and awaited being engraved on the second stone, כתולדותם, in accordance with the seniority of these sons, respectively. The appearance of the word כתולדותם at the end of the verse instead of after the words על האבן האחת, is perfectly justified then.