English translation — תרומה ב

Talk b<pg>131</pg>

A.

Regarding the manner of placing the curtains on the Mishkan,

Rashi brings in his commentary on the Torah<sup>1</sup>

two opinions,

And his language is:

"The width of the curtains was forty cubits when they were joined..

Thirty of them were for the roof of the space of the Tabernacle along its length,

And one cubit opposite the thickness of the tops of the boards in the west,

And one cubit to cover the thickness of the pillars in the east..

Eight cubits remained hanging over the back of the Tabernacle in the west, and two cubits at the bottom were exposed,

This I found in the baraita of the forty-nine²

measures³.

But in tractate Shabbat⁴

The curtains do not cover the pillars of the east, and nine cubits hang behind the Tabernacle.

And what is written in this portion⁵

supports us,

"And you shall place the curtain under the clasps,

And if according to the words of this baraita, the curtain is found to be drawn from the clasps westward a cubit."

Explanation⁶

: The curtain was at the end of ten cubits of the Holy of Holies⁷

(which is toward the west of the Tabernacle),

And according to the words of the baraita,

that only eight cubits

(out of the twenty cubits of the width of the first set of curtains)

covered the

(eight cubits of the)

boards on the west side,

And another cubit — for the thickness of the tops of the boards in the west,

behold it is found,

that the end of the set of curtains

(where the clasps are)

is at the end of the eleventh cubit

(from the west side)

of the roof of the Tabernacle

[8,

1,

11 = 20 cubits],

And the curtain

(which is at the end of the tenth cubit)

is not under the clasps;

But not according to the Talmud

(in Tractate Shabbat),

that nine cubits of the boards of the western side were covered,

the curtain was exactly under the hooks

(9,

1

(of the thickness of the tops of the boards),

10 = 20).

And it requires examination: It has been stated many times that Rashi in his commentary on the Torah did not intend to bring in his commentary all the opinions of the Sages regarding a particular matter,

but only to explain the plain meaning of the verse,

in Rashi's language<sup>8</sup>

: "And I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse and the Aggadah that settles the words of the verse,"

And as we find in our very matter: in tractate Shabbos there the dispute is brought about the thickness of the boards,

that according to Rabbi Yehuda only from below their thickness is a cubit,

but "from above they taper and go until a fingerbreadth",

and according to Rabbi Nechemya "just as from below their thickness is a cubit, so from above their thickness is a cubit",

and there is a practical difference much between them regarding the manner of placing the curtains on top of the Mishkan,

both in their length and in their width

(as explained in detail in the sugya there),

for according to Rabbi Nechemya the curtains need to cover a cubit of the thickness of the tops of the boards,

but not so according to Rabbi Yehuda

(that at the tops of the boards there is only a fingerbreadth)

a cubit of the curtains remained that covered another cubit

(approximately)

of the boards

(of the north and south,

and also that in the west)

— and this view was not mentioned<pg>132</pg>

In general in Rashi<sup>9</sup>,

because it is not at all according to the plain meaning<sup>10</sup>,

And based on this, one must examine — since Rashi writes in his commentary that the verse of our section supports the opinion of the Talmud,

why did he bring the opinion of the baraita of the thirteen principles at all?

[And although in the commentaries<sup>11</sup>

they resolved the verse "and you shall place the curtain under the clasps" also according to the opinion of the baraita — nevertheless,

behold, apparently Rashi's words are clear,

that the verse supports the opinion of the Talmud,

and it must be said that he holds that the resolutions in the commentaries are forced<sup>12</sup>,

and if so, why does he need to bring the opinion of the baraita at all].

2.

And further it is puzzling: below regarding the curtains of goats [hair],

which were wider than the lower curtains by one curtain that is four cubits,

it is said¹³

: "And the excess of the tent curtains, the half of the extra curtain, shall hang over the back of the Mishkan",

and in Rashi: "And the excess of the tent curtains..

the tent curtains are the upper ones of goats [hair]..

and they were exceeding the lower ones by half a curtain to the west, that the half of one eleventh curtain was doubled over opposite the front of the tent¹⁴

[namely toward the opening which is on the east side],

there remained two cubits width, half of it exceeding the width of the lower ones.

shall hang over the back of the Mishkan,

to cover the two cubits that were exposed on the boards".

Thus here Rashi ruled according to the opinion of the Baraisa,

that two cubits were exposed,

whereas according to the opinion of the Talmud

(in tractate Shabbos)

that "nine cubits

[of the lower curtains]

hang behind the Mishkan",

only one cubit of the boards was exposed¹⁵.

[And also in Rashi's commentary at the beginning of the matter there,

on the verse¹⁶

"And you shall double the sixth curtain opposite the front of the tent",

he stated according to the opinion of the baraita of the forty-nine measures,

and this is his language: "And you shall double the sixth curtain,

the surplus in these upper ones more than the lower ones.

Opposite the front of the tent,

half its width was hanging and doubled over the screen in the east opposite the entrance, like a modest bride who is covered with a veil on her face.'"

And this explanation

(that two cubits were hanging over the screen in the east)

applies apparently only according to the opinion of the baraita,

for according to the opinion of the Talmud that "the curtains

[the lower ones]

do not cover the pillars of the east",

there is not "half its width"¹⁷

of the sixth curtain

[two cubits]

hanging "over the screen in the east opposite the entrance",

for one cubit of it covers the tops of the pillars of the east

(which was not covered by the lower curtains),

and only one cubit remained that was hanging over the screen¹⁸].

<pg>133</pg>

And it requires further examination greatly — after Rashi wrote in the commentary that the verse supports the opinion of the Talmud,

how did he then conclude according to the opinion of the baraita of the forty-nine methods?

!

In the Ra'am¹⁹

he writes "And Rashi, of blessed memory, adopted the baraita as primary and continued the explanation of the verses according to the baraita even in a place where the text stands against him."

And at first glance his words are perplexing,

for how can it be said,

that Rashi, who came only to explain the plain meaning of the verse, would adopt the baraita as primary "even in a place where the text stands against him"?

3.

And therefore it seems to me — in accordance with the rules of Rashi that have been explained several times — that this that he brought the opinion of the baraitha of the forty-nine measures,

and even before the opinion of the Talmud,

this is because it is the primary interpretation in the plain sense of Scripture,

and on the contrary,

the simple logic requires only this interpretation

(for several reasons,

as below section 4),

and the reason that compels him to bring also the interpretation of the Talmud is only because of the support&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

from the verse "and you shall place the curtain under the clasps."

And this itself is the reason that Rashi brought support for the interpretation of the Talmud,

even though in most places his way is to explain Scripture without proofs and evidence for his interpretation

(or the difficulty that comes to resolve),

because in our case, ostensibly there is no place for this interpretation,

and therefore it is necessary to explain why he brought it.

And one must say,

that this is also the precise language of Rashi "and the verse in this portion assists us" — and he did not use the expression "proves"

(and the like),

as his language

(in many places&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;)

when his intention is to bring a proof

(complete)

for his interpretation — because in these verses there is no proof to decide according to this interpretation&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

for the reasons for the first interpretation are much stronger than this assistance

[and in particular one must say,

that the Tanna of the Baraita holds that it is appropriate to say that the curtain is "under the hooks" even if it is drawn from them one cubit&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

for according to the measure of the length of thirty cubits

(of the Mishkan),

behold even when it is under the hooks at a distance of one cubit,

"under them" it is called]

— rather it is only Rashi's reason that he brought as a second interpretation.

4.

Explanation of the matter:

Regarding the manner of placing the curtains across the width&lt;pg&gt;134&lt;/pg&gt;

the Mishkan,

as Rashi here&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;,

and his language: "The curtains, their length twenty-eight..

the width of the Mishkan from north to south ten cubits..

he places the curtains their length across the width of the Mishkan,

ten cubits in the middle for the roof of the space of the width of the Mishkan and a cubit from here and a cubit from here for the thickness of the tops of the planks whose thickness is a cubit, there remained sixteen cubits, eight to the north and eight to the south covering the height of the planks whose height is ten, thus the two lower cubits were exposed."

And based on this, the reason is understood that Rashi brought

(in continuation to this)

the opinion of the baraitha of the forty-nine measures,

that also the width of the curtains was placed upon the Mishkan in a manner that they covered eight cubits of the boards on the west side "and two cubits of the lower ones were exposed" — according to this, it is found,

that the lower edge of the curtains was equal²⁴

on all three sides²⁵

; but not so according to the opinion of the Talmud,

behold on the north and south sides the curtains covered eight cubits,

whereas on the west side they covered nine cubits.

[And although the curtains of goats did not cover the boards on all sides in an equal manner,

for on the north and south sides,

where the excess of the curtains of goats over the lower curtains was "a cubit from here and a cubit from here"²⁶,

they covered only one cubit

("from the two cubits that remained exposed"²⁶),

"and the lower cubit of the board that the curtain does not cover it is the cubit inserted into the socket of the base that the bases were a cubit high"²⁶

; but not so on the west side,

where there were two cubits of excess

(half the width of the extra curtain),

"to cover two cubits that were exposed in the boards"²⁷

(as above in section 2)

— there is to distinguish,

that since the Holy of Holies is on the west side therefore they needed to cover the entire wall that is on this side,

for the honor of the Shechinah²⁸

(but this is not a reason to change the measure of the lower curtains,

that on the west side they should cover nine cubits,

since without this they did not cover all the ten cubits of the boards,

and furthermore,

they were not visible to the eye of the beholder — and if so, why should they not be equal to the curtains on the two sides)].

5.

Based on this, Rashi adopted the explanation of the baraisa as the first and primary explanation,

it is also possible to explain the reason in his commentary on the verse "and the excess etc. the half of the excess curtain shall hang over the back of the Mishkan"

(regarding the curtains of goats)

Rashi adopted only according to the explanation of the baraisa

(as above section 2)

— because from these verses there is yet a strong proof for the explanation of the baraisa:

According to the opinion of the Talmud,

that the lower curtains covered nine cubits of the planks on the west side,

it follows,

that "the half of the excess curtain"

(which is two cubits)

which must be "on the back of the Mishkan"

(to cover what remained uncovered from the lower curtains),

one cubit of it covered the tenth cubit of the planks,

and the second cubit — lay on the ground²⁹

!

[And as explained in Tractate Shabbat there,

that this curtain was "dragged on the ground"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

and as he brings there&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

"The academy of Rabbi Yishmael taught: To what is the Tabernacle comparable? To a woman walking in the market and her skirts

(the hems of her garments.

Rashi)

drag after her"].

&lt;pg&gt;135&lt;/pg&gt;

But according to the plain sense,

it is difficult to say that the curtains of the Tabernacle were dragged on the ground&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;,

for this is the opposite of honor&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

And especially since Rashi brings as the reason that the excess of the goats' hair curtains

(on the north and south sides)

"shall be spread over the sides of the Tabernacle from here and from there to cover it"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

— "The Torah taught proper conduct, that a person should spare the beautiful"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

for even though this refers

(in the plain sense)

to the lower curtains&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;,

that because they were beautiful, they spared them to cover them

(with the goats' hair curtains),

nevertheless,

it is understood,

that the same conduct of "proper conduct" also obligates being careful with the goats' hair curtains

(which are also precious)

and not to disgrace them so that they would be dragged on the ground&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

!

And therefore Rashi explains the verse only according to the explanation of the baraisa,

that "the half of the extra curtain" covered "two cubits that were exposed on the boards",

that according to this it was not dragging on the ground at all.

6.

And we must explain the opinion of the Talmud — that the curtains of goats [hair] were dragging on the ground — according to the inner aspects of the matters:

The inner distinction between the ten lower curtains and the eleven goatskin curtains is³⁸

:

Holiness is divided into ten levels

(ten sefirot),

but in the side of impurity there are eleven crowns of impurity,

and so in our matter: the lower curtains allude to the encompassing light that surrounds all ten levels of holiness,

and therefore they were in number ten; while the upper curtains allude to a higher encompassing light,

which has the power to refine even the side of impurity,

"that the shell will be a guard for the fruit and the shell will not oppose the fruit"³⁹,

and therefore they are in number eleven.

And this is also the hint in that the curtains of goats were dragged on the ground,

in accordance with their inner content,

to refine also the earthly,

that also it will be permeated with the light of holiness.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Teruma 5741)