The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT TERUMA

By Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Teruma begins with God's command concerning the construction of the Mishkan. After instructing Benei Yisrael to collect the necessary materials, He commands, "They shall make for Me a Sanctuary, and I shall dwell in their midst" (25:8). The Rambam, both in his Sefer Ha-mitzvot (mitzvat asei 20) and at the beginning of Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira, cites this verse as the Biblical source for the mitzva to build a Temple. As the Kesef Mishneh notes, the Semag ("Sefer Mitzvot Gadol") cites a different verse as the origin of this obligation, a verse from Sefer Devarim (12:11): "There shall be the site that the Lord your God shall choose to establish His Name – there you shall bring all that I am commanding you… " This verse, according to the Semag, establishes the obligation to construct a "site" dedicated to God's Name, or a Beit Ha-mikdash.

The Kesef Mishneh suggests an explanation as to why the Semag did not accept the Rambam's position, that we derive the obligation to construct a Temple from the verse in Parashat Teruma. The Semag likely felt that this verse refers only to the temporary Mishkan that served as Benei Yisrael's Sanctuary in the wilderness. God here commands Benei Yisrael to construct a Mishkan, not a Beit Ha-mikdash; naturally, then, we cannot point to this verse as the source for the eternally binding obligation to build and maintain a permanent Temple. (We must also bear in mind that at this point, Benei Yisrael were to spend only a week or so in the wilderness, before entering Eretz Yisrael, where they would construct the Temple. Thus, when God issued this command, He refers to a structure that was to function for a very short period of time. It was only as a result of the sin of the scouts that Benei Yisrael spent forty years in the wilderness before entering the Land.) The Rambam, however, felt that since the Mishkan and Temple both served the same basic function, as representing the divine presence and facilitating sacrificial worship, the imperative concerning the former applies equally to the latter.

The "Kin'at Sofrim" (a work composed to defend the Rambam's positions in Sefer Ha-mitzvot, printed in standard editions of the Sefer Ha-mitzvot) draws proof for the Rambam's view from a passage in the Sifrei (Parashat Beha'alotekha, 92). We read in Parashat Beha'alotekha that God commanded Moshe to appoint seventy elders to assist him in leading the nation: "Gather for Me seventy of Israel's elders…they shall share the burden of the people with you" (Bamidbar 11:16-17). The Sifrei comments, "Wherever it is stated, 'li' ['for Me'], it endures forever, for all eternity." Meaning, whenever God issues a command and emphasizes that the given action should be performed "for Me," the added emphasis indicates the requirement's application for all time. The Sifrei proceeds to cite several examples, including the aforementioned verse from Parashat Teruma: "Ve-asu LI Mikdash" – "They shall make FOR ME a Sanctuary." The word "li" indicates that this applies for all time.

Now there are different views as to which aspect of the Mishkan endures for eternity. Rav David Pardo, in his "Sifrei De-vei Rav" (a commentary on the Sifrei), explains that the Sifrei refers to the eternal sanctity of the site of the Temple, which remains intact even after its destruction. The Rambam, however, in his presentation of the mitzva to appoint a Sanhedrin (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, mitzvat asei 176), cites this passage in the Sifrei as proof to the fact that this obligation applies for all time. Clearly, then, the Rambam understood the Sifrei as establishng that the word "li" signals the given imperative's status as a permanently binding obligation. Accordingly, the "Kin'at Sofrim" notes, the Rambam very likely derived his position regarding the source of the obligation to construct a Mikdash from this passage in the Sifrei. The word "li," according to the Rambam's reading of the Sifrei, indicates that the obligation applies for all time, and thus the command to "make FOR ME" a Sanctuary must introduce an eternally binding obligation, and not merely a temporary requirement to build a Mishkan. The Semag presumably adopted the alternate interpretation of the Sifrei, that "forever" refers to the eternal sacred status of the Temple site, rather than the eternal nature of the obligation.

Yesterday, we introduced the debate between the Rambam and the Semag as to where the Torah establishes the eternally binding mitzva to construct a Beit Ha-mikdash. The Rambam, both in Sefer Ha-mitzvot (mitzvat asei 20) and in the beginning of Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira, cites a famous verse from Parashat Teruma regarding the command to construct the Mishkan: "They shall make for Me a Sanctuary" (25:8). The Semag, on the other hand, presumably felt that this command refers only to the temporary structure of the Mishkan, and does not introduce any eternal obligation regarding a permanent edifice. He therefore cites as the source of the obligation a verse from Sefer Devarim (12:11): "There shall be the site that the Lord your God shall choose to establish His Name – there you shall bring all that I am commanding you… "

This debate might yield ramifications concerning a different issue, which is subject to a well-known dispute between Rashi and Ramban. Rashi (31:18) is of the opinion that the instructions concerning the Mishkan appear in the Torah out of chronological sequence, for in truth, they were transmitted later, after the sin of the golden calf. This position has basis in several Midrashic sources, including the Midrash Tanchuma in Parashat Teruma (8), which states clearly that the gold donated towards the Mishkan served to atone for the gold used to fashion the calf. The Ramban, by contrast, in his introductory remarks to Parashat Teruma (see also his introduction to Sefer Shemot), clearly maintained that the Torah's presentation follows chronological sequence. In his view, the construction of the Mishkan was required even before the sin of the calf, and did not serve merely as a response to, or means of atonement for, that unfortunate incident.

It is commonly understood that the Ramban and Rashi here argue as to whether the concept of a Temple represents the ideal, or became necessary only after the sin of the calf, when Benei Yisrael demonstrated the need for a physical representation of God's presence. However, as Rabbi Menachem Leibtag cogently argues (see http://tanach.org/shmot/truma/trumas1.htm), the concept of a physical Temple clearly preceded the sin of the golden calf. For one thing, Benei Yisrael make explicit, prophetic reference to the Beit Ha-mikdash in their song of praise sung after they crossed the Yam Suf: "You will bring them and plant them in Your own mountain, the place You made to dwell in, O Lord, the Sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands established" (15:17). Moreover, already in Parashat Mishpatim, God conveys the mitzva of bikkurim – bringing one's first fruits to the Temple: "The first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God" (23:19). And, two verses earlier, we are introduced to the obligation of "aliya le-regel" – to appear before God on the three pilgrimage festivals: "Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Sovereign, the Lord." Presumably, this refers to a site that will serve as the representative abode for God's presence. Thus, Rashi clearly could not have held that the idea of the Temple originated in the aftermath of the incident of the calf. Why, then, does he claim that God commanded Benei Yisrael to build a Mishkan only after this event?

Rabbi Leibtag explained that in Rashi's view, had it not been for the sin of the calf, Benei Yisrael would not have required a Sanctuary to accompany them as they crossed the wilderness on their way to Eretz Yisrael. As we parenthetically noted yesterday, Benei Yisrael's journey to the Land was to have taken no more than just several weeks; only the debacle of the scouts extended their stay in the desert to a forty-year ordeal. There was no need, then, for them to build a structure to serve as God's "place of residence" for such a short period of time. Soon they would enter Eretz Yisrael, where they would construct a permanent Beit Ha-mikdash, and therefore if not for the golden calf, the Mishkan would not have been necessary.

The Ramban, by contrast, viewed the Mishkan as the completion of the redemption process, the ideal culmination of the Exodus. As the Ramban writes, God released Benei Yisrael from Egypt in order to establish them as a nation in whose midst He would reside, so-to-speak; the revelation of Sinai was to continue for all time through an edifice that would serve as His representative abode. The temporary Mishkan was thus the ideal, rather than a necessity brought about as a result of the sin of the calf.

The debate between the Rambam and the Semag may be understood along somewhat similar lines. The Rambam's position, viewing the command to build the temporary Mishkan as commanding as well the eventual construction of a permanent Temple, appears to blur the lines between the nature of the Mishkan and that of the permanent Mikdash. If already at Sinai God issues the eternal command that Benei Yisrael construct a Sanctuary, then it stands to reason that the Mishkan was not merely a temporary necessity, but rather the initial manifestation of the general Mikdash concept. This viewpoint accommodates the Ramban's view, that the Mishkan represents the ideal situation, rather than a necessary measure resulting from unfortunate circumstances. The Semag, by contrast, likely viewed the Mishkan as Rashi did, as a temporary necessity aimed at rectifying the disaster of the golden calf. It therefore cannot be seen as the precursor to the permanent Temple, which was clearly the ideal condition towards which Benei Yisrael were headed the moment they left Egypt.

*****

In Parashat Teruma, God commands Moshe with regard to the construction of the Mishkan and its furnishings, beginning with the aron (ark). The ark was made from acacia wood and both its interior and exterior were overlaid with gold (25:11). A well-known passage in the Talmud (Yoma 72b) comments that the aron, which contained the tablets given at Sinai as well as the original Sefer Torah, symbolizes the Torah scholar, who contains the Torah, so-to-speak, within his being. Just as the aron was plated with pure gold inside and out, so must the Torah scholar be pure both inside and out – "tokho ke-varo" ("his interior shall correspond to his exterior"). His pious exterior must reflect his true essence.

The question arises, if, indeed, the aron serves as a symbol of the Torah scholar, and the two levels of gold plating represent the need for both exterior and interior piety, then why not require that the ark be made entirely of gold? As mentioned, the actual substance of the aron was wood, and it was only overlaid with gold. But if, indeed, the gold of the ark served as a symbol of purity and Godliness, why was it not made entirely from gold, thus symbolizing the need for complete and comprehensive piety?

Rav Yaakov David Willowski (early 20^th-century rabbi in Slutzk, Chicago, and then Tzefat), in his "Nimukei Ha-Ridvaz," suggests that the wooden substance of the ark symbolizes the need for humility. Though his character and conduct must reflect gold-like purity, a Torah scholar must also retain an element of "wood," employed here as a symbol of self-effacing humility and submissiveness.

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda," suggests a different explanation. Whereas gold symbolizes pure spirituality, wood represents basic human tendencies, the physical and material drives which all mankind experience. The Torah scholar is not expected to consist of "pure gold" – complete spirituality, bereft of any human-like qualities. He, too, should be made of "wood," the standard human instincts and drives shared by everyone else, but those qualities must be overlaid with gold – they must be channeled toward lofty, spiritual goals and pursuits. Rav Ginsburg adds that this symbolism may shed light on an answer given to this question in the commentary, "Rabotenu Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot" (a collection of interpretations from the Tosafist period). This commentary explains that the ark could not have been made entirely of pure gold because the Levi'im, who were responsible for transporting the Mishkan and its furnishings during travel, would be unable to carry such a heavy structure. Rav Ginsburg explains the significance of this comment in light of his approach to the symbolic meaning of the gold and wood of the ark. A Torah leader who consists entirely of gold, who has no human-like qualities, is too "heavy," so-to-speak, for others to bear. He cannot guide and lead the laymen under his charge, because his demands will be simply overbearing. The Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat (33b) tells the famous story of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and his son, who, fleeing from the Roman authorities, spent twelve years hiding in a cave, spending their time engrossed in Torah study, eating and drinking only the bare minimum needed for survival. Upon exiting the cave, they saw people involved in plowing and sowing, and were astonished that people would forsake Torah learning for such mundane pursuits. Any place where they looked, the Gemara tells, would immediately catch fire. They had reached the point where they became entirely "gold" – they had overcome all basic human tendencies and drives. Scholars such as these cannot lead the masses and impact upon them, as their demands and standards are too "heavy" for others to "carry."

In truth, one might obviate the need for all these explanations in light of the comments of the Midrash Tanchuma (Vayakhel, 7) concerning the ark. The Midrash Tanchuma also views the gold plating as symbolic of the need for a correspondence between a scholar's internal qualities and external impression, but also addresses the meaning of the aron's wood:

Thus, the wooden substance of the ark symbolizes poverty, and thus conveys the message that we must respect those who are plated with "gold," with Torah and spirituality, regardless of their economic status. Just as we afford honor and reverence to the wooden ark, so must we show honor to even impoverished scholars, due to the ideals of piety and Torah scholarship that they represent.

*****

The Torah in Parashat Teruma presents the guidelines for the construction of the Mishkan and its various furnishings, beginning with the aron (ark). God instructed that four rings be placed on the four edges of the ark to contain the poles used for transporting it during travel (25:12). The Torah does not specify, however, on which four corners these rings should be placed. The ark stood at a height of 1.5 amot (25:10), or approximately 2.25 feet. The question thus arises as to whether the rings for the poles were placed on the four corners near the ark's rim, or on the four corners along the bottom perimeter. Rashi writes that the Torah here refers to the upper corners, and the rings were placed "samukh la-kaporet" – near the kaporet, which covered the top of the ark.

The Ramban cites Rashi's view and raises two objections. Firstly, he claims, had the rings been placed along the upper perimeter, inordinate pressure would be exerted on the rings when the Levi'im lifted the poles to carry the ark. (Recall from yesterday's discussion that the ark was plated inside and out with pure gold.) It seems more reasonable, he claims, to place the rings along the bottom of the ark, such that the weight of the ark would rest on the carriers' shoulders, rather than pull at the rings. Secondly, the Ramban argues, it is far more respectable to carry the ark high above the ground. He therefore concludes that the rings were placed along the bottom perimeter and the entire ark rested on top of the Levi'im's shoulders.

Several writers came to the defense of Rashi's position and even drew proof against the Ramban's claim. The "Levush Ha-ora" suggests a number of different practical considerations that led Rashi to his conclusion, that the rings were situated along the upper perimeter of the ark. For one thing, it would be very difficult for the Levi'im to lift the ark off the ground when preparing for travel if the poles rested on the ground when the ark was stationary. It seems far more likely that the poles were located along the top of the ark, so that the Levi'im could easily lift the poles onto their shoulders when the time came to embark. Likewise, the Levi'im would encounter considerable difficulty putting the ark down during encampment if the poles had to rest on the ground. And during travel, too, the Levi'im would have to bear the full weight of the ark on their shoulders if the poles ran along its bottom. According to Rashi's view, that the poles were placed at the top of the ark, gravity assisted the Levi'im, who merely had to keep the ark suspended by the poles. Finally, the "Levush Ha-ora" writes, had the aron been held above the Levi'im's shoulders during travel, then the two back carriers would be blinded by the ark in front of them.

The Maharal, in his "Gur Aryeh," draws proof to Rashi's view from the Gemara's description (Menachot 98b; Yoma 54a) of the aron's position in the kodesh kodashim (the inner sanctum of the Mishkan/Mikdash). The Gemara describes that the aron was positioned such that the poles protruded against the parokhet (curtain), which separated the kodesh kodashim from the exterior chamber. Thus, the Gemara describes, although the poles could not actually be seen from outside the kodesh kodashim, their protrusion was easily discernible. Now if, as the Ramban claimed, the poles ran along the bottom of the ark, they would have continued underneath the parokhet, rather than protrude against it, unless the Ramban held that the parokhet draped all the way to the floor, which is difficult to imagine. Seemingly, then, the poles ran along the top rim of the aron, and thus protruded against the curtain.

The Peirush Ha-Tur records that his father, the Rosh, drew even more compelling evidence for Rashi's position from a passage in the Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat (92a). The Gemara there calculates how high in the air the altar was held during transport. The various categories of activity forbidden on Shabbat are those that were performed in the Mishkan, and the specific prohibition against carrying on Shabbat is based upon the transport of the Mishkan and its furnishings. The Gemara therefore seeks to determine the height at which the various items were carried, which will establish at which heights one is forbidden to carry on Shabbat. In any event, at one point in its discussion, the Gemara records a tradition that whenever an object is transported by poles on people's shoulders, one-third of the object's height remains above the individual's shoulder, whereas the bottom two-thirds are below the shoulder. Meaning, the correct way to transport a heavy item is to place the poles just beneath the top third of the item. The Gemara assumes that this procedure was followed when the Levi'im transported the altar and the ark. Accordingly, it seems clear that the poles were situated near the top third of the ark, as Rashi claimed, rather than towards the bottom, as the Ramban held. As mentioned, many writers (including the Panim Yafot, the Minchat Chinukh, the "Hagahot Ben Aryeh" on Masekhet Shabbat, and the Nimukei Rashi) note this difficulty with the Ramban's position, without suggesting any solution. (See, however, Rav Chavel's notes to the Ramban's commentary, where he cites a possible resolution to the Ramban's position from the Chatam Sofer.)

*****

Yesterday, we discussed the issue concerning the location of the rings on the aron (ark), which contained the poles used to transport the ark, as described in Parashat Teruma. Today, we will address a different question – the number of rings that were affixed to the aron. In yesterday's discussion, we worked off the assumption that the aron featured four rings, which is indeed the straightforward implication of the verse which introduces the requirement to place rings: "Cast four gold rings for it [the ark], to be attached to its four corners" (25:12). The continuation of the verse, however, gives rise to some confusion: "and two rings on one of its side walls and two on the other." The conjunction "u" ("and") at the beginning of this clause might indicate that the verse now speaks of four other rings attached to the ark, such that altogether the ark contained eight rings.

The Midrash Lekach Tov, however, comments on this second clause, "Meaning, and two of the four golden rings shall be on one side wall, and likewise on the second side wall." According to the Midrash Lekach Tov, this clause simply comes to explain how the aforementioned four rings are to be arranged on the ark: two on one side, and two on the other. Rashi follows this approach in his commentary: "These are the same four rings [mentioned] earlier in the verse, and it explains for you how they should be [arranged]." Other classic commentaries, including the Rashbam, Ramban and Abarbanel, adopt this interpretation, as well.

Others, however, claim that the ark indeed contained eight rings, though this approach appears in several different versions. Tosfot in Masekhet Yoma (72a) suggest (albeit with some ambivalence) that the Torah here requires affixing eight rings to the ark, into which four – rather than two – poles were placed. Four of the rings contained the two poles that remained permanently alongside the ark, as the Torah requires several verses later: "The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it" (25:15). The other four rings remained empty while the ark was stationary, and when the time came to embark, two other poles were placed in these rings and used for transport. During travel, then, four poles ran alongside the ark, two on each side, but only two of which were used by the Levi'im to carry the aron. Tosfot advances this theory to resolve the contradiction that emerges between the aforementioned verse, which requires that the poles remain permanently in the ark's rings, and a verse in Sefer Bamidbar (4:6), which instructs placing the poles in the ark's rings in preparation for travel.

Ibn Ezra, in his "Peirush Ha-arokh," posits a different theory, that the ark did, indeed, contain eight rings, but only four of them were needed for transportation purposes. The other four, he argues, served merely as decoration. Addressing the aforementioned verse in Sefer Bamidbar, which appears to require placing poles in the ark's rings before travel, Ibn Ezra suggests a different reading of that phrase ("ve-samu badav"), namely, that the kohanim would place the poles on the Levi'im's shoulders. Accordingly, the Torah never implies that poles were placed inside the ark's rings in preparation for travel, for in truth, the poles were never removed. It should be noted that in his "Peirush Ha-katzar," which Ibn Ezra wrote at some point after he composed his "Peirush Ha-arokh," he retracts this theory, and accepts the view of Rashi, that the aron contained only four rings.

Yet another approach is suggested by Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni and Or Ha-chayim, who claimed that the ark contained four sets of two rings. Four rings were affixed to the ark at its four corners, and then another ring was placed inside each of those four. The four outer rings contained the poles used for transport, and when the aron was returned to its place, the outer rings, together with the poles, sloped down alongside the sides of the ark onto the ground.

Finally, Malbim adopts the general approach taken by Tosfot, that four of the aron's rings were used when it stood in place, and four others were used during transport. However, unlike Tosfot, who claimed that there were two sets of two poles, Malbim suggests that only a single set of poles was used. When the time came to embark, the kohanim preparing the ark for travel would remove the poles from their rings and place them into the other four rings. This easily reconciles the discrepancy between the prohibition against removing the poles and the description in Sefer Bamidbar. The Torah here indeed forbids allowing the ark to remain without the poles in its rings. In Bamibar, however, we are told that in preparing the ark for travel, the kohanim moved the poles from the rings that contained them during encampment, to the other four rings which contained the poles during travel.

We conclude with the Minchat Chinukh's remarks after summarizing the various views regarding this issue (98): "This requires further inquiry, until the righteous one [the Mashiach] will come and teach, speedily in our days, Amen."

*****

The Gemara in Masekhet Yoma (72a) poses an enigmatic question concerning the transport poles of the aron (ark), which, as we've discussed this week, the Torah describes in Parashat Teruma. The Gemara's question involves what it considers a contradiction between two verses; it is unclear, however, which two verses the Gemara seeks to reconcile, and why they appear to contradict one another. According to all readings of the Gemara, the first verse cited is the prohibition against removing the ark's poles from the rings affixed to the corners of the ark: "The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it" (25:15). Regarding the second verse, however, there is considerable controversy among the various commentators. In the prevalent editions of the Talmud, the Gemara cites a verse from later in the parasha, in the context of the copper altar, which also required poles for transport: "The poles shall be inserted into the rings" (27:7). Somehow, according to this version of the text, this verse, which speaks of the altar's poles positioned in the altar's rings along its edges, contradicts the verse that forbids removing the ark's poles from their rings. Tosfot claim that this version of the text appears in all authentic manuscripts of the Talmud, and on this basis struggle to explain how the Torah's description of the altar's poles contradicts the verse forbidding the removal of the ark's poles.

Rashi, in his commentary to the Gemara, follows a different version of the text, by which the Gemara cites the verse immediately preceding the requirement that the aron's poles remain attached to its sides. The verse states, "You shall insert the poles into the rings on the side walls of the ark, for carrying the ark" (25:14). Rashi explains that the Gemara read these two verses as giving two opposing descriptions of the ark's poles. The first verse, "You shall insert the poles into the rings," implies that the poles could be inserted and removed from their rings, whereas the second verse – "they shall not be removed from it" – suggests that the poles could never be removed. The Gemara thus answers, "Mitparkin ve-ein nishmatin"- literally, "they can be loosened but not removed." Rashi explains that the edges of the poles were thicker than the rings' circumference, such that they could never be removed from the rings. However, since the middle of the poles were narrower, the poles could slide back and forth, until the thicker portion at the pole's edge reached the ring, at which point it could proceed no further. This thus reconciles the otherwise contradictory implications as to whether the poles were movable or entirely stationary.

However, as the Ritva and others point out, this reading, too, is difficult to accept. After all, the earlier verse, which orders "inserting the poles into the rings," most likely refers to the poles' initial installation, after which, as the next verse instructs, they shall never again be moved. Why, then, does the Gemara view these verses as contradicting one another?

The Ritva suggests that indeed, the Gemara never sought to resolve any contradiction between these verses. Rather, the Gemara felt that the first verse is entirely unnecessary and superfluous. Once we are told in the second verse, "The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it," there is no need for the Torah to instruct Moshe to "insert the poles into the rings." Necessarily, the Ritva explains, this otherwise superfluous verse serves to emphasize the point that the poles are movable, thus requiring the Gemara's explanation, that the poles slid back and forth but could never slip out of the rings entirely.

The Netziv, in his "Ha'amek Davar," suggests a particularly novel interpretation of the Gemara. Recall that the earlier of the two verses reads, "You shall insert the poles into the rings on the side walls of the ark, for carrying the ark." This verse's construction, the Netziv explains, strongly suggests that the poles serve the sole purpose of enabling the ark's transportation; it instructs inserting the poles specifically "for carrying the ark." The Gemara naturally questions this implication based on the very next verse, which explicitly requires leaving the poles in the ark's rings even during encampment, presumably ascribing to them significance beyond their usefulness during travel. This is the contradiction the Gemara seeks to resolve. According to the Netziv, the Gemara's cryptic answer, "they can be loosened but not removed," very subtly alludes to the resolution. He suggests that the first verse – which speaks of inserting the poles "for carrying the ark" – instructs Betzalel (who oversaw the Mishkan's instruction) to insert the poles in a manner suitable for transportation. Namely, the poles should be placed evenly, with exactly the same length protruding at either end of the Mishkan. The second verse refers to the second function of the poles, which requires a different arrangement. As we saw yesterday, the ark's poles would protrude against the parokhet – the curtain that separated the interior chamber, in which the ark was located, and the exterior chamber of the Mishkan. This protrusion allowed the ark's presence to be discerned, even though nobody actually saw the ark directly. In order for this to happen, the ark's poles had to be shifted slightly such that they would push against the parokhet. Thus, the Gemara resolved the contradiction by noting that the poles could slide back and forth alongside the side of the ark, such that they could be easily adjusted to perform their second function, of pushing against the parokhet and thereby create some visible indication of the ark's presence.

Rav Menachem Kasher, in his "Torah Sheleima" (chapter 25, note 118), notes that the Riva and Moshav Zekeinim bring yet a third version of the Gemara's text. According to this version, the Gemara addresses the contradiction we discussed yesterday, between the prohibition against removing the poles, mentioned here in Parashat Teruma, and a verse in Sefer Bamidbar (4:5), which seemingly requires placing the poles in the ark's rings in preparation for travel. Whereas here in Parashat Teruma we are told that the poles must permanently remain attached to the ark, we read in Parashat Bamidbar that the kohanim, as part of their preparations for the Mishkan's transportation when the nation embarked, had to place the ark's poles in its rings. It is this question, these sources claim, that the Gemara seeks to resolve. These sources do not, however, explain how the Gemara's answer reconciles these two contradictory verses. The Gemara simply mentions that the poles could slide back and forth but could not be detached. How does this explain why the kohanim had to place the poles in the rings in preparation for travel?

Rav Kasher suggests that according to this version of the Gemara's text, the Gemara explains that the kohanim had to fasten the poles to the rings to prevent them from shifting during travel. Since the poles could slide back and forth through the rings, even though they could not come out completely, it was necessary to somehow tie the poles in place such that the carriers on all sides of the aron bore the same amount of weight. (Indeed, as Rav Kasher encyclopedically cites, a number of commentaries, including the Panei'ach Raza, Rav Ovadya of Bartenura, and the Meiri in Masekhet Yoma, suggest on their own this resolution to the contradiction between the verse here in Parashat Teruma and the verse in Sefer Bamidbar.) This explanation of the Gemara was suggested as well by Rav Yehuda Nachshoni, in his "Hagot Be-parshiyot Ha-Torah."

(See also Malbim, who suggests his own approach to the Gemara based on his position discussed yesterday, that the Mishkan contained eight rings.)

*****

Over the last several days we have discussed the rings affixed to the aron (ark) for the purpose of containing the transport poles, with which the Levi'im carried the aron during travel. The verse in Parashat Teruma (25:12) instructs affixing these rings "al arba pa'amotav" – on the ark's four "pa'amot." Targum Onkelos translates this obscure word to mean "corners," an interpretation adopted by Rashi and others. Ibn Ezra, however, writes, "I searched throughout Scripture and I have not found [any instance where] 'pa'am' means corners." Instead, Ibn Ezra interprets "pa'am" to mean feet, and he cites evidence from a number of verses in Tanakh. For example, the prophet Yeshayahu (26:6) speaks of "raglei ani, pa'ami dalim" – "the feet of the needy, the 'pe'amim' of the poor." Clearly, "pe'amim" here corresponds to the word "raglayim" – feet – and thus has the same meaning. Similarly, in Tehillim (85:14) the Psalmist describes how "justice goes before" God as He "places His 'pe'amim' on the road," meaning, before He sets out on His way, as it were. Here, too, "pe'amim" refers – metaphorically, of course – to feet, in this instance of the Almighty, so-to-speak. Thus, Ibn Ezra concludes that the ark had four legs on which it stood, rather than resting flat on the ground. He even provides a rational basis for this contention: "for it would be degrading for the ark to sit on the ground." Abarbanel adopts this theory, as well.

The Ramban, however, cites Ibn Ezra's comments and disagrees. He argues that the word "pa'am" in the aforementioned verses refers not to feet, but rather to footsteps. He draws rather compelling evidence from a verse in the famous "shirat Devora" – the song sung by the prophetess Devora after Benei Yisrael's triumph over the Canaanite king Yavin. Towards the end of her song, Devora depicts the image of the mother of Sisra – the Canaanite general – who agonizingly peers through the window hoping that her beloved son would return from battle. As time passes and she fears for her son's fate, she wonders, "Madu'a echeru pa'amei markevotav" – "Why so late, the 'pe'amim' of his chariots?" (Shoftim 5:28). Clearly, these "pe'amim" refer not to the chariots' "feet," but rather to their motion. In our context, too, the Ramban claims, the Torah refers to the footsteps of the kohanim who carried the aron. The Torah requires placing the rings on the edges of the bottom of the ark, near the feet of those who transport it. As we discussed earlier this week, the Ramban held that the poles were affixed to the bottom of the ark, rather than to its top, as most other commentators claim.

Rashi, in his commentary several verses earlier (25:10, writes explicitly that the aron rested flat on the ground without feet. He mentions this in his commentary to the Talmud (Yoma 72b), as well.

Rav Chayim Hirschensohn, in his "Nimukei Rashi," proves Rashi's position, that the aron did not have feet, from the Gemara's discussion towards the beginning of Masekhet Sukka (5a). As the Torah mentions several verses later (25:22), God spoke to Moshe from in between the keruvim, which were situated on top of the ark. As the Gemara notes, the ark stood 1.5 cubits high (25:10), which is equivalent to nine handbreadths (six handbreadths to a cubit), and the aron's cover (the kaporet) was one handbreadth thick. (The Gemara suggests several proofs to this assumption, that the kaporet was one handbreadth thick.) It thus turns out, the Gemara concludes, that God spoke to Moshe from a height of ten handbreadths. Now if, as Ibn Ezra maintains, the aron had feet beneath its corners upon which it stood, then the Gemara should have taken the feet's height into consideration when calculating the height from which God spoke to Moshe.

Of course, as Rav Hirschensohn himself notes, one might refute this proof by arguing that the aron's height mentioned in the Torah already takes the feet into account. Rav Hirschensohn easily dismisses this refutation based on a different Talmudic passage, in Masekhet Shabbat (92a), which we discussed earlier this week. The Gemara there determined the manner in which the altar and ark were transported based on a general rule that when people carry a heavy item by poles, it is most efficient to position the poles just below the top third of the item. On the basis of this principle, the Gemara concludes that only the bottom two-thirds of the ark's ten handbreadths was beneath the poles during travel (since the poles were presumably situated one-third the way down the sides of the ark). Clearly, applying the one-third system to the ten handbreadths of the ark assumes that the ark' weight was evenly distributed throughout the entire ten handbreadths. If the height of ten handbreadths included the ark's feet, then clearly we would not apply the one-third system, as the top third would be disproportionately heavy, given that the bottom portion of the ark consisted of only feet.

This Gemara, then, seemingly provides compelling proof to the position of Rashi and the Ramban, that the aron in fact rested flat on the ground, rather than on feet.