Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND THOU SHALT MAKE AN ALTAR TO BURN INCENSE UPON. Now the altar of incense being one of the articles in the inner part of the Sanctuary, it should have been mentioned with the table and the candelabrum together with which it was placed, as indeed they are mentioned at the actual construction in the section of Vayakheil. But the reason for mentioning it here after the Tabernacle and all its vessels and the sacrifices [for the seven days of consecration], is because of what He said at the completion of them all, and the Tent shall be sanctified by My Glory; and I will dwell among the children of Israel., Verse 45. Therefore He now said that they will yet be obliged to make an altar for the burning of incense — to burn it for the glory of G-d. This was a secret which was transmitted to Moses our Teacher, that the incense checks the plague. For the incense is of the attribute of justice, as it is said, they shall put incense ‘b’apecha’, is of the root aph (anger). which is of the root v’charah api (My wrath shall wax hot). It is for this reason that He said of strange incense, and before all the people I will be glorified, meaning that they will know My glory, for He will not pardon your transgression. For this reason too He said here [of the altar of incense], And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the Testimony, before the ark-cover that is over the Testimony, where I will meet with thee. For why is it necessary to speak at length of all these matters, and why did He not say briefly, “and thou shalt put it before the ark of the Testimony in the Tent of Meeting,” as He said in the section of Vayakheil? (further, 40:5). But the extended form of the verse here indicates the purport [of the altar of incense].

AND AARON SHALL BURN THEREON INCENSE. This commandment [of burning the incense] did not devolve upon the High Priest alone, but was also incumbent upon the common priests, as is the law of the lighting of the lamps mentioned right beside it, [every morning, when he dresseth the lamps], although of that too it says, And when Aaron lighteth the lamps, and yet it does not apply to the High Priest alone, as He said above, Aaron and his sons shall set in order. Therefore I do not know why He mentioned Aaron in both of them, and did not say “the priest” [which would signify any — even a common-priest]. Perhaps it is because of Scripture’s statement further, And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year, which was done by Aaron only, [because the reference there is to the Service on the Day of Atonement which could be performed only by the High Priest — therefore He also mentioned the name of Aaron in the verse before us and in the following verse]. Or it may be that He hinted that it was to be Aaron who [at the first time] was to begin the burning of the incense and the lighting of the lamps. Similarly at the end of Seder Emor el hakohanim He said, Aaron shall set in order, and He did not mention his sons, because it was Aaron who performed it first. The phrase a statute forever mentioned there, refers to the commandment [of kindling the lamps, and does not mean that it is a statute forever that only the High Priest do it].

YE SHALL NOT BRING UP ‘KTORETH ZARAH’ (STRANGE INCENSE) THEREON — “any incense brought as a freewill offering; for all [offerings of incense] are ‘strange’ to [this altar] except this one [prescribed here].” This is Rashi’s language. But Onkelos rendered ktoreth zarah: ktoreth busmin nuchra’in (“the burning of aromatics which are of strange components,”) and he did not translate it nuchritha “strange incense” [as Rashi interpreted it]. By this translation Onkelos wanted to explain that the sense of the verse is that he should not offer an incense of any other components except those prescribed as He commanded. Similarly, if one were to add to the prescribed composition any other components one would transgress this negative commandment. Ki Thisa

The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses that when he takes a census of the children of Israel, they should each give a soul’s ransom — half a shekel; and He further told him, And thou shalt take the atonement-money mentioned, and shalt give it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. From this Moses would understand that he was to count them now. And so indeed he did, as Scripture says, And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was a hundred talents etc. It was thus not necessary to state at length, “and now you should take their census and give the silver for the service of the Tent of Meeting,” for it is self-understood that he should count them now. The reason that He generalized the commandment — saying “when you will take their census you should do it in the prescribed way” — is in order to include in this general principle any time when a census was decided upon. It appears to me that now [at this census, Moses] did not have to come to the people’s tents and count them, as he did in the census spoken of in the Book of Numbers,, 16). Ramban is here suggesting that the same was done with the other tribes as well. but he did it as our Rabbis have said through the [half] shekels they brought for the sacrifices; for he commanded them that all who know themselves to be from twenty years old and upward should give that sum, and they brought him the ransom as a voluntary offering together with all the other voluntary offerings every morning. That is why He said only, And thou shalt take the atonement-money, that is to say, “Behold, I have commanded you that when you count them they shall give their ransom, and now they will voluntarily give it and you should appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting.” This is the reason why it was not necessary now that Aaron and the princes [of the tribes] be present with Moses [at the taking of the half-shekels, as was required in the census spoken of in the Book of Numbers]. Do not object on account of the verse, This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered [from which you might think that here too, Moses actually counted the people], for the meaning thereof is “those that are eligible to pass.” Now because it has not been explained here whether this is a commandment binding for all time or only for that particular period of when Moses was in the wilderness, David erred and counted the people without shekels, and on account of this a plague broke out amongst them. He confessed about this [sin], as it is said, And David said unto G-d, I have sinned greatly, in that I have done this thing. Our Rabbis have derived from the many expressions [of “offering”] mentioned here, (Verse 13); he shall give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 14); when they give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 15). [an indication] that there were three [separate] offerings. And so it appears from what Scripture says, [And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said unto him:] ‘Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the tax of Moses the servant of the Eternal, and of the congregation of Israel, for the Tent of Testimony?’ From this it would appear that the tax of Moses was enjoined for all time — and that it was to be brought for the repair of the Temple even though no census was to be taken. Likewise the offering for [buying the public] sacrifices [was enjoined for all time] as the Sages have said, and it is so written [of Ezra and Nehemiah]: Also we made ordinances for us to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our G-d; for the showbread, and for the continual meal-offering and for the continual burnt-offering, of the Sabbaths, of the New Moons, for the appointed reasons, and for the holy things, and for the sin-offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our G-d. Here it is clearly stated that they used to bring shekels every year for the sacrifices and for the Temple repair. Scripture states that the levy was the third part of a shekel [whereas here it is stated that it is to be half a shekel]; this was because in the days of Ezra they added to the value of a shekel, so that the third of a shekel was then ten gerahs [the equivalent of a half a shekel in the days of Moses]. (Verse 13). In the days of Ezra a shekel was worth thirty gerahs; hence a third was ten gerahs. In Tractate Shekalim we are taught: “When Israel came up from [the Babylonian] exile they used to pay the [half-] shekel in darics [a Persian silver coin, each one giving one daric, as will be explained further]. Then they changed, and paid it in s’laim [each one giving one sela]. Again they changed and paid the shekel in tibin [each one giving one tiba], and they finally sought to pay it in denars [but these were not accepted of them].” The meaning of this Mishnah is as follows: When Israel came up from the exile and large funds were needed for the Temple repair, they paid the shekel in darics, which were larger than the s’laim, each one giving one daric. Then they changed and began paying in whole s’laim [each one giving one sela — since there was a decrease in the needs of the Temple repair]. Again they changed it to tibin — in the Yerushalmi it is explained that a tiba is half a sela. was the exact equivalent of the shekel that was in the days of Moses. Hence a tiba which is half a sela is the same as the half-shekel which the Torah commanded to be given by each Israelite. When they sought to pay it in denars [each one giving one denar] to a shekel [or sela]. Hence to give one denar only would be half of a half-shekel, and as will be explained further on that less than a half-shekel cannot be given. they did not accept it of them, for although the public can increase the levy to more than half a sela, provided only that everyone pays alike, as we have been taught in the Mishnah of Tractate Shekalim, yet no one is permitted to decrease it and give less than half of a sela, be it one person or many people, for “the ransom of a soul” is not less than that [i.e. a half-sela], as it is written, This they shall give etc. In the Yerushalmi the Rabbis have said with reference to what is written [that in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah they ordained that each one is to give] the third part of a shekel, “from here you learn that a person is responsible for shekels three times a year. each third part of the year with the shekel mentioned in the Torah.” For by law of the Torah they were enjoined to give it only once; but because the needs for the Temple repair were so great [as explained above], they took it voluntarily upon themselves to donate it three times a year. Since three s’laim [or shekels of the Torah] make one daric, it is now clear why the Mishnah quoted above states that when Israel came up from the exile they paid the shekel in darics, and as Ramban clearly states, “each one giving a daric” which was equivalent to three shekels of the Torah. From here you also learn that we must not impose on the public more than three times a year” [for the Temple treasury]. Now Rashi wrote: “there are three offerings hinted at here (Verse 13); he shall give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 14); when they give the offering of the Eternal (Verse 15). — one was for the making of the sockets, for Moses counted them when they began to contribute towards the building of the Tabernacle after the Day of Atonement in the first year [of the exodus], — each one giving half of a shekel, and the total amounting to a hundred talents, as it is said, And the silver of them that were numbered was a hundred talents etc. The second [offering] was also levied through a census, for he counted them after the Tabernacle was erected, this being the census referred to in the Book of Numbers: on the first day of the second month in the second year, each one giving a half-shekel for purchasing the public sacrifices. And if you ask: How is it possible that on both of these occasions the number of Israelites was exactly the same — 603,550? Were these two censuses not taken in two [different] years; year of the exodus]. The second census — on the first day of Iyar — was seven months later. But since we calculated the beginning of a new year [in the count after the exodus] with Nisan, the second census was therefore in the second year. Thus the two censuses were in two years! thus it is impossible that there were no people aged nineteen at the time of the first census, [who accordingly were not counted], who became twenty years old [by the time the second census was taken, and thus must have added to the total]! The reply to this question is as follows: As far as the years of people’s ages are concerned, the two censuses were taken in one year, but counting from the exodus from Egypt, they were held in two years. For when we count from the exodus from Egypt, we calculate from Nisan, but when we count the years of man’s ages we count according to the era of the creation of the world, which begins with Tishri. In that way, the two censuses were in one year: the first census was in Tishri after the Day of Atonement, when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to Israel and they were commanded about the construction of the Tabernacle, and the second census took place [in the same year] on the first day of Iyar.” All these are the Rabbi’s words. But I wonder! How is it possible that the number of deaths amongst such a great assemblage of people in a period of half a year did not run to the hundreds and thousands! For according to the words of the Rabbi [Rashi], they remained for about seven months [from about the middle of Tishri to the beginning of Iyar] without one fatality, and yet it is written, But there were certain men, who were unclean by the dead body of a man. I have also another difficulty: The years of men’s ages are not counted according to the era of the creation of the world which begins with Tishri, but are counted in astronomical years beginning with the day of one’s birth. It is for this reason that it says with reference to the people counted, that they are to be from twenty years old and upward,, 1:3. meaning that they are to be a full twenty years old. Similarly, all countings of the Torah with respect to people’s ages are calculated in astronomical years, just as the Rabbis have said in Tractate Arakhin: “The ‘year’ mentioned in connection with the hallowed offerings, (Leviticus 12:6). and dwelling-houses in a walled city, the two ‘years’ mentioned in connection with a field which is the owner’s by inheritance [which, if sold, he may not redeem until after two years], the six ‘years’ mentioned in connection with a Hebrew servant, a son and daughter [explained further on], are all reckoned in astronomical years. Whence do we know this of the hallowed offerings? Scripture says, keves ben shnatho (Leviticus 12:6). [literally: “a lamb of his year”] — his year, and not the year counted according to the era of the creation of the world etc.” Then [the Gemara] explains there: “In connection with what law does this principle affect ‘the son and daughter’ [mentioned above] ? Said Rav Gidal, It is in connection with Valuations.” And the reason for this is because [in the case of Valuations] it says, and upward, and in all censuses of the wilderness it is also written and upward.. Similarly, ibid., 26:2. The calculation of years in the census taken in the wilderness was thus alike in every respect to the calculation in the Valuations, as the Rabbis have said in [Tractate] Baba Bathra: “The analogy is established on the basis of the identical phrase and upward [which is stated in the censuses taken in the wilderness, and its precise meaning is] derived from that mentioned in the law of Valuations.” And if so, all people born between Tishri and Iyar completed an astronomical year in the interim, thus between the two censuses there was bound to be a great number of people added to the total! But it would be more correct if we were to say that it so happened that the Israelites at the time of the first census [in Tishri] were 603,550 people, and in the following seven months many of them died, as is natural, and those who were twenty years old completed their twentieth year between Tishri and Iyar, and it so happened that their number corresponded exactly to that of those who died. In my opinion, however, these identical numbers [of the two censuses] present no difficulty at all. For in the first census the tribe of Levi was counted together with the other tribes, since they had not yet been selected and were therefore not separated from the people, but at the second census Moses was told, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, and neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel. Now the number of those whose twentieth year was completed between the two censuses was close to twenty thousand, 3:39). But since they were numbered from the age of a month upward, Ramban rightly assumes that the Levites who were twenty years old and upward were “approximate to twenty thousand.” Their numbers [not included in the figures of the second census], were made up by those Israelites who completed their twentieth year between the two censuses. [thus making up for the tribe of Levi which was not counted in the second general census]. This is clearly established [that the tribe of Levi was counted in the first census]. For since Scripture found it necessary to say at the second census, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, and neither take the sum of them, it is proof that until then they were counted with the other tribes of Israel; and only now was the tribe of Levi selected and numbered by itself, in order to become “the legion of the King.” Now when Israel left Egypt they were ‘about’ six hundred thousand ‘g’varim’ (men) on foot — not “six hundred thousand;” of these there died a number of people corresponding to the number of young men whose twentieth year was completed [in the next six months between the exodus, which was in the middle of Nisan, and the first census which was taken in the middle of Tishri, when the number was 603,550]. Perhaps the term g’varim does not denote men of twenty years of age, but all those who had reached puberty — including all those from thirteen years old upwards — and that term [g’varim] is only used in order to exclude women and children, as it says, beside little ones. It also appears to me that of the three offerings here alluded to, the one designed for purchasing the public sacrifices is not the one taken through a census and mentioned in the Book of Numbers, as the Rabbi [Rashi] said, for there it is said, Only thou shalt not count the tribe of Levi, and all the Sages agree that the Levites too were liable to give the shekels for the sacrifices; and in accordance with the words of the Sages, even the priests had to give it, and such is the established law as is explained in Tractate Shekalim. Moreover, the duty of giving the [half-] shekel for the sacrifices was not dependent upon a man being twenty years old or more, [as is mentioned in the case of the second census], but as soon as he could produce two [bottom] hairs he became liable to give the shekel. It is so clearly stated there [in Tractate Shekalim]., 1:3. See also my Hebrew commentary p. 491. Rather, Scripture commanded that they bring for the work of the Tabernacle an offering of a half-shekel, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, and it hinted: The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half-shekel… to make atonement for your soul, for all who need atonement — that is, all who have reached the stage of being obligated to observe the commandments [which is at thirteen years and a day, corresponding to the period of puberty], shall being one half-shekel for the sacrifices [in addition to the half-shekel given for the work of the Tabernacle].

HALF OF A SHEKEL AFTER THE SHEKEL OF HOLINESS. Moses our Teacher instituted a silver coin in Israel, for he was a great king. He called it “shekel” [literally: “weight”] because that whole coin was a perfect weight, it had nothing defective in it and the silver contained no dross. And since the standard shekel of Valuations and the redemption of the firstborn, which are holy matters, were given in that coin, as also all shekels mentioned in connection with the Tabernacle, and all moneys the amount of which is exactly specified in the Torah, therefore Scripture calls it the shekel of holiness. I hold that this is the same reason why our Rabbis call the language of the Torah “the Sacred Language,” because the words of the Torah, and the prophecies, and all words of holiness were all expressed in that language. It is thus the language in which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with His prophets, and with His congregation [when He said], — I am the Eternal thy G-d, etc. and Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,, Verse 3, and Makkoth 23b. and the other communications of the Torah and prophecy — and in that tongue He is called by His sacred names: E-il, Elokim, Tze-baoth, Sha-dai, Ya-h, and the Great Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. In that tongue He created His world, and called the names shamayim (heavens), eretz (earth), Verse 10. and all that is in them, His angels and all His hosts — He called them all by name. The names of Michael and Gabriel are in this Sacred Language.] signifies “who is like unto Thee, O G-d.” Gabriel [gabri E-il] means “my strength is from G-d.” In that language He called the names of the holy ones that are in the earth: Abraham,. Isaac,, Verse 19: and thou shalt call his name Isaac [of the Hebrew root meaning “to laugh”]. Jacob,, 25:26: and He called his name Jacob [“one that takes by the heel”], the word vayikra (and He called) referring to G-d (Rashi quoting the Midrash). Solomon,. and others.. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the Moreh Nebuchim: “Do not think that our language is called the Sacred Language just as a matter of our pride, or it be an error on our part, but it is perfectly justified; for this holy language has no special names for the organs of generation in male or female, nor for semen, nor for urination or excretion, excepting in indirect language. Be not misled by the word sheigal [to take it to mean the act of intercourse; this is not the case,] but it rather denotes a female ready for intercourse. It says yishgalenah in accordance with what has been written on it, and it means that ‘he will take the woman as a concubine.’”): “The most appropriate of the interpretations on it is that it is used in reference to a concubine.” Now there is no need for this reason [why Hebrew is called the Sacred Language], for it is clear that the Hebrew language is most holy, as I have explained. And the reason [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] mentioned is in my opinion not correct. The mere fact that [the masters of the Masorah] have circumscribed the word yishgalenah [to be read as] yishk’venah (he will lie with her), shows that the word mishgal is the term for sexual intercourse itself. Similarly the fact that they circumscribed the expression, to eat ‘et choreihem’ [to be read eth tzo’atam — “their dung”] shows that choreihem is an indecent term. And if the reason were indeed as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has said, they should have called [the Hebrew language not “the Holy Language” but] “the modest langauge,” similarly to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “until he grows a beard — the lower one and not the upper one [is meant], except that the Sages spoke in modest language.” The Rabbis have further said: “Save the bread which he did eat, — this is a refined expression [for it refers to his wife],” and so also in many places. Now Scripture explained that the shekel is twenty gerahs, of silver. Onkelos translated gerahs as mo’ah, for the gerah was, in his opinion, a name for a coin which in Aramaic is called mo’ah. And so did Yonathan ben Uziel translate la’agorath keseph (a piece of silver): l’mo’ah d’chsaph (for a mo’ah of silver). So also did Onkelos translate after the shekel of holiness as sil’o, for such is the name of the [shekel] coin in Aramaic, and its measure is also known in the Talmud. Rashi wrote: 21:32. “A shekel weighs four gold coins, making half an ounce according to the correct weight of Cologne.” Now when the Rabbi [Rashi] found it clearly written in the Gemara that a [silver] sela [which is equivalent to the shekel] is four [silver] denars, he deduced [that a gold shekel is also equivalent to four gold denars], for the weight of the silver denars is as the weight of the gold denars. Thus he wrote in his commentary to the Gemara of Baba Kamma: “A [silver] denar weighs as much as a gold [denar], and in Constantinople they even call the gold coin denar.” All this is correct. But as to the Rabbi’s estimation, that in terms of the gold coins found in his generation and in our generation the shekel is equivalent to half an ounce, as he mentioned — that is not so, for the kings of the peoples have lessened [the weight of] the gold coins. We find it already mentioned in the words of the author of Hilchoth Gedoloth Note 70. and the first Gaonim, that the denar mentioned throughout the Talmud is the denar shashdang, and it is so written in Tractate Kiddushin in the Halachoth (Laws) of our Rabbi [Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi] who said that “[the zuz is the same as a denar (ibid., zuz). shashdang] is the gold denar of the Arabs.” Now according to these estimations found in the words [of the Hilchoth Gedoloth and the Halachoth of Alfasi], the denars of the Talmud were larger than the gold coins current in our times by almost a third, and the shekel weighed three fourths of an ounce according to the weight of that country [and not as Rashi wrote that the shekel weighed four gold coins, making half an ounce etc.], and that is “the ounce” that the Rabbi [Rashi], of blessed memory, mentioned. Know that the shekels [mentioned in] the Torah are these s’laim [mentioned in the Talmud], each sela being four denars. But the shekel mentioned in the words of the Sages — such as that which we have been taught in a Mishnah: [“if a man lent his fellow money on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and the borrower said,] ‘You have lent me a shekel on it and it was worth a sela [and therefore you owe me two denars],’ or [the lender said,] ‘I lent you a sela on it and it was worth a shekel [and therefore you still owe me two denars]’” — [this shekel] is two denars, half of a sela. The reason for this [change in the meaning of the term shekel — the shekel of the Torah being four denars whilst the shekel of the Sages is two denars], is that the people called the half-s’laim [which were each two denars] “shekels,” since they used them every year to pay the [half-] shekel to the Sanctuary. And so it was adopted by the Sages in the style of the Mishnah. Therefore a man would say to his friend, “You have lent me a shekel,” that is, the “shekel” which Israelites give to the Sanctuary., but since the Torah enjoined the giving of a half-shekel, that half-shekel came to be called “shekel,” as that was the coin the people gave yearly to the Sanctuary, and hence the Sages adopted the usage of that term — so that when people say “shekel” they really mean a coin worth two denars. It is possible that in the time of the Second Sanctuary they actually made a silver coin of two denars, so that it should be available to be given to the Temple treasurer, and they would not have to give an allowance [for exchanging the full shekel of the Torah into two half-shekels]. That coin they called “shekel,” and the shekel of Moses which is the shekel of the Torah they called sela, as Onkelos translated it. Some scholars say that the reason [they called the shekel of Moses sela] is because of what the Rabbis have said: “The maneh of the Sanctuary was double [as much as the common maneh],” and so also were all the coins. But this is not correct, for the [thirty] shekels that the owner of an ox who killed a slave must pay and the [fifty] shekels that the violator and seducer must pay, were not connected with the Sanctuary.

THE RICH SHALL NOT GIVE MORE, AND THE POOR SHALL NOT GIVE LESS. The meaning of this is that they should all bring the specified amount of money in equality. It would appear from this verse that if the poor man gave as his shekel-dues less than the half-shekel [prescribed by the Torah], he transgresses this negative commandment, since this verse constitutes a prohibition. For even if we were to say that the phrase the rich shall not give more constitutes a mere negation,, Note 71. meaning that it is enough for him to give the half-shekel, we could not so interpret and the poor shall not give less. If so, they must both be prohibitions: thus if the individual rich man gave more, or the poor man gave less, he transgressed this negative commandment. Perhaps the reason why the Temple — officers used to take up the shekel-dues in baskets [out of the shekel-chamber], with the intention also to cover the shekels lost and those still to be collected, was to rectify this matter, for if the poor gave less, the balance was destined to be collected from him, but as for the rich who gave more, the Temple-officers would not “take up” his surplus, for they would not take possession of these surpluses [on anyone’s behalf]. However, I have noticed that neither the author of the Hilchoth Gedoloth nor all other scholars who counted the commandments [including the Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvoth], have mentioned this as one of the negative commandments.

AND AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL WASH THEIR HANDS AND THEIR FEET THEREAT. This washing was out of reverence for Him Who is on high, for whoever approaches the King’s table to serve, or to touch the portion of the king’s food, and of the wine which he drinks, washes his hands, because “hands are busy” [touching unclean things automatically]. In addition He prescribed here the washing of feet because the priests performed the Service barefooted, and there are some people who have impurities and dirt on their feet. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], these parts of the body had to be washed because the extremities of the person’s body are his hands and feet, for when the hands are upraised they are higher than the rest of the body, and the feet are the lowest point. They allude in the human form to the Ten Emanations, with the whole body between them, just as the Rabbis have said in Sefer Yetzirah: “He made a covenant with him [i.e., Abraham] between the ten fingers of his hands and the ten fingers of his feet, with the protrusive part of the tongue and with the protrusive part of the nakedness.” Therefore the ministers of the One on High were commanded to wash their hands and feet, this washing being for the sake of holiness, as Onkelos translated here, l’rochtzah (to wash): l’kidush (to sanctify). (washing) literally. It is on the basis of the idea of this commandment that our Rabbis have instituted the washing of hands before prayer, in order that one should direct one’s thoughts to this matter, just as in the uplifting of hands by the priests when blessing the people. It is the washing which is the essence of the commandment, but He commanded [the making of] the laver only in order that the water should be ready in it. Thus the absence of the laver does not invalidate the washing, neither is there any duty [to do the washing specifically from the laver]; thus on the Day of Atonement the High Priest washed his hands and feet from a golden jug which they made in his honor. However, what we do learn from the laver [that the Torah mentions], is that the washing [of the hands and feet by the priests] must be performed from a vessel.

MOR DROR’ (FLOWING MYRRH) FIVE HUNDRED SHEKELS. The commentators — including Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon], 1:3: “Mor is the blood gathered up [in the abdomen] of a certain animal in the land of India known to all, which is used in perfumery.” — have agreed that mor is that perfume which is called musk [an animal perfume]. and mor. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra objected to this interpretation, since [musk] is not a spice [as are the sweet cinnamon and the sweet calamus mentioned here in the same verse], even though it has a pleasing odor. Perhaps this is why Scripture separated it from the spices.” And then [Ibn Ezra] asked: “But is it not written, I have gathered ‘mori’ (my myrrh), which shows that mor is something gathered [like spices], while those who bring musk say that it is a substance gathered in a glandular sac under the skin of the neck of the deer? is not musk as Saadia Gaon said, for the verse speaks of mor being gathered while musk is not “gathered.” Moreover, the verse states, and my hands dropped with myrrh, [and musk does not drop]. But perhaps it does do so, due to its moistness.” [Thus far are Ibn Ezra’s words]. It is possible that we say that Scripture states I have gathered ‘mori’ because mor is the blood gathered up in the abdomen of an animal of the hind species known in the land of India; when it walks between the shrubs on very hot days it scratches against the sac and the blood comes out in thickened mass, which is then gathered from the reed-grass. It states and my hands dropped ‘mor,’ because Scripture imagines its odor to be such that one’s hands drop globules of water because of it. Others have argued: how could there be included in the incense (myrrh, cassia, spikenard etc.) (Kerithoth 6 a). and the sacred oil the blood of an unclean animal? This too is no question, for that moisture gathered up in the animal because of its abundant blood, which drops from [the animal] whilst still alive, is not susceptible to uncleanness, nor is it repulsive. The word dror they. have explained to be of the expression, and ye shall proclaim ‘dror’ (liberty), here meaning that it should be free from any imitation or adulteration. Perhaps we might say that Scripture requires it to be gathered when free, meaning that it should be taken from that deer whilst it is free, wandering between the beds of spices and enjoying itself at will, because once it is captured and held in the possession of man, it produces but little mor (musk) and it does not have such a pleasant odor. This is clear. Yet despite all this [that we have written to justify the opinion of Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon and Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, that mor mentioned here is musk], it appears to me from the words of our Rabbis that mor is not musk, for they have said in Midrash Chazita: “Mor means inmirinon” [an unguent scented with Arabian myrtle], while musk is so called even in the language of the Sages, just as it is said in Tractate Berachoth: [“Over all spices put on coals one recites the Benediction: ‘Blessed… Who createst diverse kinds of spices’], except over musk, because it is derived from an animal.” In the Yerushalmi there they likewise say, [with respect to this Benediction]: “excepting muskin,” and the author of the Aruch. wrote that it is also so called in Greek. In Midrash Chazita it furthermore says: “My beloved is unto me a bag of ‘hamor’ — this refers to Abraham. Just as the mor is the chief of all kinds of spices, so was Abraham the chief of all righteous people. Just as this mor exudes only through the fire, so Abraham’s deeds were not known until he was thrown in the fiery furnace. And just as with this mor [we see that] whoever gathers it with his hands develops bad sores, so did Abraham cause himself to be distressed and afflicted with suffering” [for the sake of his love of G-d.] Now the musk exudes its odor [spontaneously], without being put upon the flame! Moreover, we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “These interpose in vessels: pitch and mor etc. on a packsaddle. Rabban (Prince) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [They interpose only] if they are as big as an Italian issar [a Roman coin].” And it further teaches there: “This is the general principle: Anything about which a person is particular, interposes [and invalidates the immersion]; anything about which he is not particular that does not interpose.” Now musk is not something which sticks [to a vessel or to a garment] so that it should interpose [and invalidate the immersion, and so, if mor is musk, why does the Mishnah state that it does interpose]! And even if perhaps they fix it in such a way that it does attach to vessels, a person is not particular about it, so that it should interpose even on a packsaddle! Moreover, the verse ‘mor va’aholoth k’tzioth’ are all thy garments [Yonathan ben Uziel] translated: ‘mura,’ aloe-wood and cassia. [Thus it is clear that mor is not musk, for mura is myrrh.] It is likely that mor is so called in Arabic as there are diverse kinds of it — mur achmar ve’abitz. It is used for incense, and when burned produces a sweet odor. Thus all languages — Hebrew, Aramaic, and also Arabic — are alike in the usage of this term. And in the language of the Agadah [quoted above] — be it Persian or Greek is explained as a word of Greek origin. — it is a similar expression: inmirinon. In Latin as well it is called myrrha. The consensus of the languages on this term would thus indicate that [the mor of the Torah] is indeed that substance [called myrrh or its equivalent in the above-mentioned languages — and not the musk mentioned by Saadia Gaon], and it is counted among the spices. And as to that which the Rabbis said above, that “the mor is the chief of all kinds of spices,” they mean that [in the verse before us where the spices are listed] the Torah mentioned it first, or it may mean that for aromatic purposes it is the best of all spices. Possibly amongst its diverse kinds there may be a still more aromatic one, and that is called dror, and the one who gathers it [as the Midrash quoted above said], develops bad sores on his hands, because it is bitter as wormwood. And the Rabbis have taught in the Sifra: 22:7. “Things which cannot be recognized, such as a mixture of water into wine, or of gum in myrrh,” for this is how they falsify the myrrh, by putting into it a certain gum which resembles it, called tzemeg in Arabic. This is why He said mor dror, meaning that it be clear of any of these usual adulterations. It is possible that the term dror always indicates “clean” (or “pure”). Similarly, and ye shall proclaim ‘dror’ throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof, means that all people of the land be “clean” from servitude, and from all subjection attaching to their persons or lands, similar to the expression, and the owner of the ox shall be quit. And as to that which Scripture says, And my hands dropped with ‘mor’, and my fingers with flowing ‘mor,’ it is possible that the meaning is as follows: “and my hands dropped with oil of myrrh,” for it is customary to apply it also to the hands in order to make them gentle and soft, as it is written, six months with oil of myrrh, which our Rabbis have explained to be: “the oil of olives that have not reached a third of their growth, because that makes the hair fall out and improves the complexion.” And the purport thereof is that that oil was prepared with myrrh and therefore it was so called [“oil of myrrh”]. This then is the meaning of ‘natphu’ (dropped with) ‘mor’, [the dropping being not from the myrrh but from the oil put in it]. I hold this to be the inmirinon mentioned in the Midrash [quoted above, namely that it is identical with the oil of myrrh mentioned in the Scroll of Esther], for similarly the Rabbis in the Yerushalmi call “oil of v’rad” (roses): vardinun [and in the same way they called “the oil of mor” — inmirinon]. Such is the customary usage for names of oils in the various languages of the nations. [Finally,] it is also possible that they extract oil from the myrrh, as is done with gum mastic and other kinds of gums. Thus it is correct to call it “myrrh,” and “oil of myrrh.”
V’KINMON BESEM’ (AND OF CINNAMON SPICE) HALF SO MUCH. “Since cinnamon is the bark of a tree [and it is of two kinds], one which has a good taste and fragrance, whilst the other is just like [any other] wood, therefore Scripture had to say: kinmon besem — of the good kind.” This is Rashi’s language. And Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] said, is in our texts of Rambam’s commentary found on a different name altogether. The term mentioned here is in Arabic since Rambam wrote his commentary to the Mishnah in Arabic. See also following note. that it is “kesher salichah.” Other scholars hold that it is that precious tree called itib. But none of these interpretations is correct, for the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah and in Midrash Chazita: “‘kinmon’ grew in the Land of Israel, and goat and deer ate of it.” Thus it is like the grass of the field from which the sheep pasture. In my opinion kinmon besem is the aromatic grass called in Arabic adbar, and in Latin ascinant, which is an important spice, called in the vernacular, saika domika, and where it grows it is used as fodder for camels. Our Rabbi [Yitzchak Alfasi] wrote in [his Halachoth on Tractate] Pesachim,. [in connection with the spices put into charoseth in memory of the straw from which the Israelites in Egypt made the bricks]: “such as kinmon and sanbal, which are similar to straw.” Kidah is known from the Aramaic language, [as Onkelos rendered it] k’tziah (cassia). It is also so in Arabic.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE IT A HOLY ANOINTING OIL, A PERFUME COMPOUNDED AFTER THE ART OF THE PERFUMER. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, the preparation of the Oil of Anointment was in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that they first soaked the spices in water in order that they would not absorb the oil which was poured upon them Now this soaking [of which Rabbi Yehuda speaks] was not mere soaking in water alone. Rather, they put ground spices in a vessel full of water and then they poured upon them a hin of olive oil. Then they placed this vessel upon another vessel full of water, and put it over a low flame with embers, and boiled it until the water [in the upper vessel] evaporated, and they retained the oil which was upon it. Such indeed is the way that perfumers make all aromatic oils. This is why Scripture shortened the explanation and commanded merely that they make this oil a perfume compounded after the art of the perfumer, without explaining the process by which it is to be made, for the way of the perfumers was known among them. And so I found in Tractate Shekalim of the Yerushalmi: “Rabbi Yehudah says: They boiled [the spices] in water and put the oil on top of it; as soon as [the oil] retained the odor [of the spices] they would take off the oil, just as druggists do, for it is said, And thou shalt make it a holy anointing oil, a perfume compounded after the art of the perfumer.”

OR WHOSOEVER PUTTETH ANY OF IT UPON A ZAR'… — “When it is not required [for anointing a person] into the [high-] priesthood or kingship.” This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra retorted that zar in this connection means anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron and his sons mentioned,, it follows that the expression, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a ‘zar’ means that anyone who is not of the seed of Aaron is a zar (a stranger). So why did Rashi say that the oil may also be used for the anointing of a king? just like the verse, and the ‘zar’ that draweth nigh shall be put to death, — by the hand of Heaven” (Rashi). which means any stranger not included in those mentioned. Similarly: There shall no ‘zar’ eat of the holy thing, [which means anyone not of the seed of Aaron]; to the end that no ‘zar’ that is not of the seed of Aaron, draw near… It is for this reason that [Ibn Ezra] thought that the anointing of Solomon which was done by Zadok [the priest] taking the horn of oil out of the Tent, — which refers to the Oil of Anointment [which Moses prepared] — was a special, temporary decree by authority of prophecy [permitting the oil to be used upon one who was not of the seed of Aaron]. But this is not the opinion of our Rabbis. And I say that [the opinion of our Rabbis is borne out by the language of the verse]. For Scripture states, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations, and it would have been correct if it were to say instead, “This shall be a holy anointing oil for Aaron and his sons throughout their generations,” just as He said in the case of the garments, And the holy garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him; or that He say, “And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto Me, and it shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations.” But now that He mentioned only them, [And Aaron and his sons thou shalt anoint] and then continued by saying that it should not be put upon any zar, it could mean that [the prohibition extends] to all people [even High Priests after Aaron] except those mentioned specifically [i.e., Aaron and his sons] ! Similarly He said, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured, [which might be taken to mean upon anyone’s flesh — even that of the High Priests after Aaron], and yet Scripture explicitly states, And the anointed priest that shall be in his [Aaron’s] stead, from among his sons! But such is the explanation: He commanded that at the moment Aaron and his sons should be anointed with this oil, and then He continued, This shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me, — to anoint with it My holy anointed ones whom I will choose — throughout your generations, and it shall not be put upon a zar (stranger) whom I have not designated unto Me. It is for this reason that kings and High Priests were anointed with this oil, for both of them are “the anointed ones of G-d.” Thus it is written, I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him — meaning, with the oil which is the holy anointing oil unto Me. And the meaning of the verse, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured, is as an admonition to all men [even to Aaron and his sons after they have been anointed with it], since He did not say, “upon the flesh of a zar shall it not be poured.” Thus the purport thereof is that he [Moses] is to pour of the oil upon Aaron’s head in order to anoint him, and then he is to anoint also his sons, but he is not to pour this oil upon any man, even upon the anointed priests, merely as people apply good oils to their bodies in order to scent themselves with hands soaked in oil, after bathing, something like it is said, Wash thyself and anoint thee; Then I washed thee with water… and I anointed thee with oil. This is the plain meaning of the verse and its intention. And so did our Rabbis say: “How do we know that if the High Priest took some of the oil of anointment which was upon his head and put it upon his stomach, that he is liable [to punishment]? Scripture therefore says, Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured.”

TAKE UNTO THEE ‘SAMIM’ (AROMATICS), STACTE, AND ONYCHA, AND GALBANUM; ‘SAMIM’ (AROMATICS) WITH PURE FRANKINCENSE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that by way of the plain meaning of Scripture the interpretation of the verse is: “take unto you the aromatics which are stacte, onycha and galbanum; these spices [you are to take], and pure frankincense with them.” But it is not correct that Scripture should just repeat the word samim [in such a short verse], for it is not the normal way of Scripture to repeat words unless there is some lengthy interpolation or in order to indicate that it is a continuing thing. The truth is as our Rabbis have said, that the second word samim refers to other aromatics. Now Rashi wrote: “‘Samim’ — the least number of aromatics implied by the plural form of this word is two. Stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, make together five. ‘Samim’ adds a similar number to those already prescribed, thus making ten. With frankincense, makes eleven [altogether].” But one wonders! Why did Scripture not mention them explicitly? Perhaps Scripture is saying: “Take unto thee aromatics, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, many aromatics with pure frankincense,” thus insisting only on these four spices, for they were the ones that caused the cloud of the smoke of the incense to ascend; but He commanded that they add to them many other aromatic spices in order that the pillars of smoke [of the incense] should be fragrant. This is why He did not explain [in the case of the incense] the weight of each component [as He did in the case of the Oil of Anointment], nor how much of it should be burnt [daily], since He insisted only that these four [spices mentioned] should be alike [in weight], and that he should add to them other good spices for the burning. The reason for this is that just as He had said with reference to the Oil of Anointment that they make it in accordance with the art of the perfumer, and did not specify how it was to be made but relied upon it [that they knew how to make it], so He said in respect of this incense that he take an equal weight of these four [mentioned] aromatics, and add to them other aromatics and make out of all the components one incense, done after the art of the perfumer, [which implies by] using spices known to blend well with these [four] and by preparing them through the process by which they are usually prepared. It is of this incense that he had to put before the Testimony, so that its pillar of smoke should go up, as was the custom to put spices on coals before kings. In the same way He shortened the account of how to make the incense, and did not mention it when He referred to all the other spices. In a similar vein the Rabbis have said in the Gemara: “Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the word k’toreth? It is something which circles and rises.” (incense) is thus of the root kateir (surrounding, circling), because the smoke of the burning incense circles and rises. Thus the Torah only commanded in connection with the incense to use those spices the smoke of which circles and rises, in a way similar to the art of the perfumers. Perhaps it was explained to Moses on Sinai by word of mouth which spices are best for that purpose, as well as the whole process of making the incense, for the process of making the Oil of Anointment was likewise explained to him in this manner, even though Scripture made it dependent upon the art of the perfumers. Or it may be that He insisted only on those [four spices] expressly mentioned in the verse, commanding that he perfume them with other spices after the art of the perfumers. And so the Rabbis have said in Midrash Chazit: “The Sages investigated and found no more fitting components for the incense than those eleven spices.” It is also possible that samim (aromatics) and b’samim (spices) denote the same thing, as I have mentioned, and these three components These are generally translated as being various kinds of fragrant spices: “stacte, and onycha, and galbanum.” But Ramban will now question the two terms [stacte and galbanum]. which He specified are not spices, for ‘nataph’ and ‘chel’bnah’ are saps, and shcheileth is the onycha which comes from the ocean. And Scripture states: “Take unto you the mentioned samim [i.e., all components mentioned above in the preparation of the Oil of Anointment — namely, the flowing myrrh, the cinnamon, the calamus, and the cassia — as all these b’samim also went into the incense, as will be explained], and the nataph, and shcheileth and the chel’bnah, and other samim [in addition, as will be explained], with pure frankincense, and make of them a perfumed incense, after the art of the perfumer.” For the samim mentioned above in connection with the Oil [of Anointment] — flowing myrrh, cinnamon, and cassia — also went into the incense. And the knei bosem [mentioned among the components of the oil] is in my opinion the kiluphah mentioned by the Sages, called dratzini in Arabic, and so also in the language of the Gemara,,” which Rashi explained as “cinnamon.” which is a cane [of sweet spices] resembling reeds. And the samim which He commanded to add [to all those mentioned above] are: spikenard and saffron and the costus, in accordance with that which the Sages have taught. Perhaps Scripture only insisted on these nine — the cane of sweet spice — and cassia], and the four expressly stated in the making of the incense [nataph, shcheileth, chel’bnah, and frankincense]. With the three components [spikenard, saffron, and costus] added by the second word samim they form the eleven components of the incense. which He mentioned, but was not particular as to [the nature of] those included by means of the repetition of the word samim, except inasmuch as they are to be sweet, so that they may make a perfumed incense. Thus He shortened the account of the making thereof, as well as of the weights of the other components [except for the four mentioned in the making of the oil, where the weights are prescribed], because He commanded that they make it after the art of the perfumer. It appears to me that the Sages chose three spices [spikenard, saffron, and costus] because they are mentioned in the Song of Songs: Spikenard and saffron… and ‘oholoth,’ which is the costus. Its name is in the plural from [oholoth] because there are two kinds of it, the sweet and the bitter. Now Scripture mentioned there, calamus and cinnamon… frankincense, and myrrh together with these three [spikenard, saffron, and costus], and then said, with ‘all’ the chief spices, so as to include cassia. Thus you have there all the components of the incense. Now before that Scripture mentioned there: ‘k’pharim im n’radim’ (henna with spikenard plants). This is to include nataph ushcheileth v’chel’bnah [mentioned here in the verse] which are saps, for k’pharim is of the root ‘v’chapharta othah’ (and thou shalt pitch it), it being an adhesive sap. And the Targum Yerushalmi rendered: myrrh and ‘oholoth’ — [pure myrrh and] aksi lalu’an, means tree. See also Jastrow under the term aksiloliyon. which is that precious tree called in Latin linga lubin as aksi means “tree” in Aramaic, and lalu’an is the name of the tree. In Greek it is actually so called: aksiluin,) for the Greek term. and so it is called in Arabic — al urtib. But Onkelos rendered: ‘ka’aholim’ planted of the Eternal — k’busmaya (as spices), without specifying a particular name [for oholim, as did the Targum Yerushalmi mentioned above].
NATAPH’ — is tzori (balsam). Now in Rashi’s commentary it is written: “The balm itself is called triga,. — To this term Ramban will object, since a theriac is an electuary [a medical compound] composed of many ingredients. but because it is merely the sap which ‘drips’ from the wood of the balsam it is called nataph (dripping).” But I do not know whether this is the scribe’s mistake, or the one who so told Rashi misinformed him. For theriac [the triga mentioned by Rashi] is not one ingredient but is a compound of many ingredients, containing leaven and honey, the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, for the powder of dried scorpions and the flesh of the viper go into it, this being the reason why it is so called [theriac], for “poison” in Greek is called theriac. So also in the language of the Talmud: “Torkai (stung by) a serpent.” Similarly this compound is mentioned in the language [of the Rabbis]: “as theriac is good for the whole body.” And Heaven forbid that there should be in the incense the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, leaven and honey, for it is written, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Eternal. Rather, the tzori is the oily sap which drips from the balsam tree, called in the language of the Sages k’taph. It is this which we have been taught: “Rabban (Prince) of the Sanhedrin. Shimon ben Gamaliel says: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph (balsam) tree.” Perhaps it is called k’taph (plucking off) because they break off its branches on days in the hot season, and the balm runs down from the place where it is broken. In the Gemara of Chapter Bameh Madlikin it is stated: “Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: We do not light [the Sabbath lamp] with tzori, and so did Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar say: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap exuding from the balsam tree.” And there in the Gemara, 25b. the Sages explained the reason [why that balm is not used for the Sabbath lamp], because its fragrance spreads and he may come to use it as food [and taking off oil from a burning lamp is considered the same as extinguishing it]. Thus it is clear that the tzori mentioned [for the incense] is that good oil mentioned [in the above Gemara]. And I wonder! For Onkelos translated: ‘n’choth’ (spicery) ‘u’tzri’ (and balm) and labdanum — sh’aph u’ktaph. Similarly he rendered: a little ‘tzori’ (balm), 43:11. — k’taph. But nataph [here in this verse] he translated n’tupha, and did not translate it as he did in the case of the word tzori! as the Aramaic k’taph, he should have translated likewise here the Hebrew nataph, for as said above nataph is tzori, and so why did he translate it as k’topha? And Yonathan [ben Uziel] translated everywhere tzori as sh’aph, which is a term for an anointing oil in the language of the Talmud, such as in their saying: “[for him whose eyes hurt] they make shipha (an ointment of various components) in a vessel,” the word shipha being short of the letter ayin, which would make it she’ipha. A similar example is: “D’sha’yeiph (he anoints) him with the same kind he gave him” to eat. Here too, the word d’sha’yeiph is like d’sha’iph [with the letter ayin]. It appears from their opinions as k’taph, and from Yonathan who translated it as sh’aph. that both the balsam tree and its fruit are called tzori in the Sacred Language, just like t’einah (fig), rimon (pomegranate), ethrog, and many other names like them. The term n’choth is thus, according to them, [Onkelos and Yonathan], a generic name for all notable and fragrant oils. That is why Scripture states, and he [Hezekiah] showed them all the house ‘n’chothoh’ (of his treasure), because the treasure-house where the precious oil is stored is called by that name, seeing that it is the choicest of all treasure, and there in fact it is also written, and the precious oil. Therefore Onkelos said in the case of the present that Jacob sent to Joseph, that they brought him sh’aph [which is the Aramaic translation for the Hebrew n’chot],, 43:11. which is the term for that notable oil. And they further brought [in the present for Joseph] from the branches of the tzori-tree called k’taph. In other places where Scripture mentions tzori alone, speaking of it as a beneficial medicine — such as in the verse, Is there no ‘tzori’ in Gilead? — Yonathan translates it as referring to the oil called sh’aph. Onkelos translated [here] nataph as netupha, which is an oil called by that name because it “drips” from the broken branches. There is no justification here to translate nataph as sh’aph, for the incense did not contain any ointment. Now I have seen that Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] 2:4. included in the incense the bark of a tree called in Arabic od balsan. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel who said: “The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph-tree” thereby intended to differ with the Sages [who counted the tzori among the eleven components of the incense], and to say instead that tzori was not one of the ingredients of the incense, since tzori is nothing but a sap, and it was not the sap [of the k’taph] that was put into the incense, but the [bark of the] k’taph itself.

MEMULACH’ (SEASONED WITH SALT), PURE AND HOLY. This means that it be seasoned with salt of Sodom, just as the Rabbis have said: “Of salt of Sodom, the fourth part of a kab.” Onkelos translated [memulach as] m’areiv (mixed together). By this he intended to say that memulach means “rubbed out” — that the ingredients should all be so well-ground and mixed so thoroughly together, that their identity is “rubbed out” and none of the [individual] ingredients can be recognized. This is of the expression: For the heavens ‘nimlochu’ (shall vanish away) like smoke. Similarly: ‘u’vloyei m’lachim’ (and worn rags); A fruitful land ‘limleichah’ (into a salt waste). These are all expressions of destruction and annihilation. And Rashi explained that the term memluach means that it be thoroughly mixed together in the grinding of the ingredients one with another. To this interpretation Rashi brought proof from the verse similar in meaning: ‘malachayich’ (thy mariners) and thy pilots, who are so called “because they turn over the water with the oars when they propel the ship, like a person who stirs up beaten eggs with a spoon in order to mix them thoroughly.” In my opinion mariners are called malachim [of the root melach — salt] because they know the “taste” of the sea, as if they could feel if it is “salty” or “sweet;” that is to say, they know when it will be sweet and pleasant for those travelling by sea, and when it will be bad and bitter for them. It is not those who hold the oars [propelling the ship] who are called malachim [as Rashi said], for it is written on Tyre, The inhabitants of Sidon and Arvad were thy ‘shotim’ (rowers);, Verse 8. The elders of Gebal and the wise men thereof were in thee thy calkers; all the ships of the sea ‘u’malacheyhem’ (and their mariners) were in thee., Verse 9. For it is the older captains who know the sea that are called malachim. And it is further written, And all that handle the oar, ‘malachim’ (the mariners), and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land., Verse 29. Thus three categories are mentioned: those that handle the oar, the mariners, and the pilots [which proves that malachim — the mariners — are not those that handle the oar]. Similarly, a fruitful land ‘limleichah’ means “to a salt land,” for in a salt land nothing will grow, just as is written of Sodom, The whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and a burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, and it is further written, and he sowed it with salt. It is possible that the letter lamed is redundant in the verse, for the heavens ‘nimlochu’ like smoke, the intent thereof being as in the word nimchu (erased), which would make it similar to these cases: ba’l'umim; (among the nations). wholly ‘shalanan’ (at ease) and quiet. (ease).

AND THOU SHALT PUT OF IT BEFORE THE TESTIMONY IN THE TENT OF MEETING, WHERE I WILL MEET WITH THEE. We may possibly explain that Scripture mentions here all the [various] regulations concerning the burning of the incense. It thus states that he should burn of it before the Testimony in the Holy of Holies, which refers to the incense burnt on the Day of Atonement, and that he should also burn of it in the Tent of Meeting, [referring to that burnt] every day. The phrase, where I will meet with thee refers back to [before] the Testimony [from where He spoke to Moses]. It is possible that He refers to the putting of the incense on the inner altar which is set before the ark of the Testimony, does not allude to the incense burnt on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies, as explained above, but is instead to be understood as follows: “and thou shalt put of it [daily] on the inner altar which is set in the Tent of Meeting before the Testimony in the Holy of Holies.” as He says in the section of Vayakheil. (40:5): And thou shalt set the golden altar for incense before the ark of Testimony.