English translation — במדבר ב

A.

At the end of the series Rashi copies from the verse: "And they shall not come to see as the swallowing of the holy" and explains¹

: "into its sheath",

or

(according to a second version²)

"when one puts the vessel into its sheath".

Afterwards he brings proofs on this,

that the holy vessels were placed into a sheath

(as below section b),

and concludes: "And its swallowing is its covering".

In this it is not understood:

a)

Rashi here apparently explains only the words "כבלע את הקדש" — why does he also copy the words "ולא יבואו לראות"?

And especially since this is a matter in itself: it speaks about the Levites; "כבלע את הקדש" — about the vessels.

The reason,

why the placing of the vessels of the Temple into their sheath is called "<b>כבלע</b> את הקדש",

is simply because through this the holy vessels are swallowed up and covered,

<b>covered</b>,

and as Rashi himself explains "ובלוע שלו זהו כסויו".

It is not understandable: why does Rashi need to first say "לתוך נרתק שלו" and then explain "ובלוע שלו כו׳" — it would seemingly have been sufficient if he writes briefly: "כבלע את הקדש — כשמכסין אותו"<sup>3</sup>?

b)

2.

After Rashi explains "into its sheath"

(Before he finishes the commentary itself)

he brings proofs,

that they placed the holy vessels into a sheath,

saying: "As I explained⁴

above in this parshah, 'And they shall spread over it a certain garment and cover it with a certain covering.'"

Also in this it is not understandable⁵

"And they shall spread a garment" and "And they shall cover it with a covering" are indeed words that stand <b>explicitly</b> in the earlier verses — and with a partial change of language — by each one of the holy vessels

(by the Ark,

Table,

Menorah,

Golden Altar,

vessels of incense and the Copper Altar),

now how does Rashi say about this "like <b>that I explained</b> above etc."⁶,

that <b>I</b>

(Rashi)

explained it above⁷?

On the other hand: if Rashi already says "like that I explained above in this parshah" — what then is the reason that he also brings down the language of <b>the verses</b>: "And they shall spread upon it such and such a garment and cover it with such and such a covering"?

3.

From that which Rashi brings here

(besides "and they shall cover it <b>with a covering</b> etc.")

also "and they shall spread upon it <b>a garment</b> such-and-such" — although "and its hollow is its <b>covering</b>",

it is proven that by "when the holy is swallowed" is meant not only the matter of "and they shall cover it with a covering" but also the matter of "and they shall spread upon it a garment"⁸

— because also the <b>garments</b> that they spread <b>covered</b> the holy vessels⁹.

With this one could answer why Rashi begins his commentary "into its sheath" and immediately continues and warns "as I explained etc.":

When "and they shall spread over it",

that one &lt;b&gt;spreads&lt;/b&gt; out a garment &lt;b&gt;over&lt;/b&gt; a vessel,

the vessel becomes through this,

in ordinary cases,

&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; covered from all sides.

Therefore there would be room to learn,

that with "and they shall not come to see &lt;b&gt;as swallowed&lt;/b&gt; the holy" is meant only the case of "and they shall cover it with a covering"

(because only the "covering" that had covered the holy vessel from all sides&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

is in accordance with the meaning of "as swallowed" — swallowed up,

i.e.

covered from all sides),

but not the case of "and they shall spread over it a garment"; therefore

(in order to negate this error)

Rashi says "&lt;b&gt;into its sheath&lt;/b&gt; as I explained above": since also the garments were in the form of a &lt;b&gt;sheath&lt;/b&gt; — as Rashi explains this earlier”

("I explained above"&lt;sup&gt;*11&lt;/sup&gt;)

"they shall put each vessel &lt;b&gt;into its sheath&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

etc.'"

(and a sheath covers indeed the object,

that is found in it,

from all sides)

— consequently it turns out,

that the meaning of "as swallowed the holy" includes also the manner of "and they shall spread over it a garment of such-and-such".

It remains, however, still not understood:

a)

What would be difficult in the plain meaning of "ולא יבואו לראות כבלע את הקדש" if one were to learn that "כבלע" means <b>only</b> the "וכסו אותו במכסה"

(that in order to avoid this difficulty Rashi must say "לתוך נרתק שלו" and thereby emphasize that also "ופרשו עליו כו'" is included in it)?

b)

Since through "ופרשו עליו בגד" alone,

which is stated regarding each of the holy vessels,

they were already covered from all their sides — it would seemingly now have to be the opposite: that "כבלע את <b>הקדש</b>" means

(not "וכסו אותו כו'",

but)

<b>only</b> "ופרשו עליו כו'"

(completing the full covering,

for most of the holy vessels¹³,

after <b>before</b> וכסו כו'").

But again there is the aforementioned compulsion: since Rashi also brings the "וכסו במכסה",

it means then that also it is included in "כבלע את הקדש".

From where does Rashi take¹⁴

this proof¹⁵?

4.

In addition to the aforementioned questions in the general explanation of Rashi,

one must also understand:

a)

By the vast majority of the holy vessels the order was,

that first one spread a garment over them and afterwards one covered them with the covering of tachash skin.

By the Ark, however,

the <b>first</b> of the enumerated holy vessels in the portion,

was an opposite order: first one covered it with the “covering of tachash skin”¹⁶

and only afterwards — “and they shall spread a cloth entirely of blue <b>above”</b><b>¹⁷</b>

According to this, Rashi should seemingly have also brought down

(first)

“and they shall cover it with a certain covering

(and afterwards)

and they shall spread upon it a certain garment” — in accordance with the order by the Ark which comes <b>at the beginning</b> of the portion — and not in the reversed order as they come in his commentary?

b)

The language in Rashi is: "And they shall spread over it a garment of <b>such-and-such</b> and cover it with a covering of <b>such-and-such</b>".

And at first glance,

That he says the term "such-and-such" regarding a garment — is understandable,

Because the <b>garments</b> consisted of various materials: of techeilet,

tola'at shani and argaman.

But it is not understood why he says the term "in a covering of such-and-such": the covering was indeed for <b>all</b> vessels made of "tachash skin" — if so, Rashi,

instead of "covering of such-and-such",

should have said in the language of <b>the verse</b> "in a covering of tachash skin"?

One could seemingly answer: Since regarding the Ark it says¹⁸

"And they shall take down the screening curtain and <b>cover</b> with it the Ark of the Testimony and place upon it a covering of tachash skin" — that besides the "covering of tachash skin" they also covered it with the "screening curtain" — therefore Rashi uses the term "in a covering of such-and-such",

in order to include in this also the "screening curtain".

It is however difficult to answer thus: with the Paroches HaMasach one could not cover the Ark from all its sides.

Because it is clear,

that in order for the

(garment or)

covering should cover the vessel from all its sides,

also the part where the poles were,

it could be achieved only in a manner that in the garment and covering one made an opening

(or slit)

and through it let the poles through to the outside.

Since the "Paroches HaMasach" was used as a curtain between the Holy and the Holy of Holies — and only during the journeys did they cover the Ark with it — it is understood,

that in it there was not allowed to be any opening¹⁹,

and consequently it could not cover also the part of the Ark where the poles were inserted²⁰.

And since so,

it is not reasonable,

that with the phrase "covering of so-and-so" — which Rashi uses regarding "&lt;b&gt;covering&lt;/b&gt; the sacred" and which indicates a covering from all sides

(as above section 3)

— he should mean the "Paroches HaMasach"²¹.

5.

So the explanation in all the above is:

One does not find anywhere in the Torah,

that with the expression "bliah" should be meant the concept of covering

that covering of the holy vessels should be designated with the word "bliah".

Because when one says that an item becomes absorbed in another,

it means that the swallowed one becomes nullified and lost in that which swallowed it.

As Rashi says in a <b>previous</b> parshah²²

"<b>And forgotten</b> all the satiety — that is the explanation of <b>the swallowing</b>".

But not so when one covers a certain item,

although through this the item is not seen,

it remains however in its entirety and strength; and on the contrary: here the covering becomes entirely secondary and nullified to that which it covers²³].

And therefore,

if not for Rashi,

one would learn that the meaning of "when they swallow the holy" is: at the "dismantling",

of the dismantling the "holy" — i.e.

i.e.

at the time of "and they shall take down the screening curtain etc."²⁴

— and the explanation would be smooth and understandable thereby that the language "swallowing" regarding dismantling the Mishkan is found in other verses,

as for example "swallowed the Lord and did not spare"²⁵

which is stated regarding the destruction of the Temple.

Therefore Rashi also brings the words "and they shall not come to see",

because from them he takes the proof that "when they swallow the holy" means the covering,

and not the dismantling,

of the holy:

If the Torah's warning had been,

that the sons of Kehot may not be in the Mishkan at the time of "when swallowing up the holy [items]",

one could have interpreted that this means when one is &lt;b&gt;dismantling&lt;/b&gt; the holy [items]; however, since it says "and they shall not come &lt;b&gt;to see&lt;/b&gt;",

which is indeed a command that applies to them also &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; they had dismantled the holy [items],

as long as they had not covered the vessels and prevented them from sight — and as it says earlier in the portion "And Aaron and his sons shall finish covering etc. and after that the sons of Kehot shall come to carry"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

— then one can no longer learn that "when swallowing up" means dismantling,

because then it would imply that immediately after "when swallowing up the holy [items]"

(before they had covered the "holy [items]" after the dismantling)

they would have been permitted to be there — in contradiction to "and they shall not come &lt;b&gt;to see"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

Therefore Rashi teaches "and its swallowing up, that is its covering",

that the warning "and they shall not come to see",

is

(also)

for the time when they had covered the "holy [items]" and only afterwards,

after "And Aaron and his sons shall finish covering etc." — they were permitted to enter there.

6.

But there is still lacking understanding in this:

Why does the word "כבלע" need to appear at all?

If the verse had only said "ולא יבואו לראות את הקדש"

(without the word "כבלע")

one would also have known that the sons of Kehat may not watch as they cover the holy [vessels],

because it is certainly unavoidable that while looking at the act of covering the holy [vessels], one should not see the holy [vessels] themselves during the action.

— What then is the purpose of the word "כבלע"?

It is in order to also answer the question,

Rashi says "ובלוע שלו זהו כסויו",

that the "כבלע את הקדש" is only completed by "וכסו אותו במכסה פלוני" which comes after "ופרשו עליו בגד פלוני":

If it would have said "ולא יבואו לראות את הקדש",

it would have come out that immediately after placing the holy vessels into their sheath

(before one covers them with the covering of tachash skin),

one is already completely protected from the command "ולא יבואו &lt;b&gt;לראות&lt;/b&gt;",

because being found in their sheath they are covered from all sides and it is not possible that one should see them.

Therefore the verse says "ולא יבואו לראות &lt;b&gt;כבלע&lt;/b&gt; את הקדש",

that one may not see also when one covers the holy vessels &lt;b&gt;במכסה&lt;/b&gt; so-and-so,

even after they are already found in their sheath&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

It remains however still difficult:

a)

How does the term "bluah" fit — which indicates a thing that becomes <b>forgotten and nullified</b>

(as above section 5)

— upon the covering of consecrated property,

at the time when here the covering is entirely nullified to the consecrated property?

b)

Since covering is called "bluah",

it must follow that as soon as the holy vessels are covered by placing them into their sheath,

the "bluah" is already completed.

It turns out exactly the opposite: that from the phrase "ולא יבואו לראות כבלע את הקדש" it is implied that for the sons of Kehat it is only forbidden to look at the time when one places the holy object "into its sheath".

But after the completion with the sheath,

the "כבלע את הקדש" has also already ended, and therefore they may then look at the time of "וכסו במכסה".

Therefore Rashi elaborates "ופרשו עליו בגד פלוני וכסו אותו במכסה פלוני ובלוע שלו זהו כסויו": If with the holy vessels there were <b>only</b> the "וכסו במכסה פלוני",

it would indeed not be called by the name "bluah",

because on the contrary: the covering is nullified to the holy object as above.

Since, however, that besides it there was previously the covering of "ופרשו עליו בגד פלוני"

being like a sheath,

covered the holy object from all its sides

(as above)²⁹],

and on top of that one then covered

(the holy object)

with another covering — therefore the second covering was not nullified to the holy object,

ואדרבה: it <b>swallowed</b> the "holy object".

And this is an example of the law that is stated in the Gemara³⁰

(And since the Gemara says it simply,

not bringing to it any proofs etc.,

it implies that it is so understood in plain reason,

and consequently it has a place in study via the simple meaning)

: "A house that has a Torah scroll or tefillin etc. until he takes them out or places them <b>a vessel within a vessel".</b>

8.

One can ask³¹

on this proof: That which "a vessel within a vessel" helps was said specifically "in a vessel that is not their vessel.

But in a vessel that is their vessel, even ten vessels are like one vessel"³⁰

; but in our case both covers,

both the garment and the covering were designated for the holy vessels — then apparently also the second covering should have been nullified to the holy and <b>not</b> effect the "swallowing up the holy"?

Rashi explains this with his precise wording "ופרשו עליו <b>בגד</b> פלוני וכסו אותו <b>במכסה</b> פלוני": a garment in general is made exactly according to the measure of the thing that is designated to be worn in the garment.

In contrast, a covering means simply a cover³²,

which was not made so that it should be fitted <b>only</b> to the thing³³.

Therefore it is plausible to say,

that each "covering" of all these holy vessels was not designated specifically for a particular vessel; each "covering of tachash skin" could and may have been used as a cover for one vessel as well as for another,

a third one.

— and consequently it turns out that the "covering" was "not its vessel".

9.

According to the above, it remains seemingly difficult: by the copper altar it says "And they shall spread over it a garment of scarlet, and put on it all its vessels etc., and they shall spread over it a covering of tachash skin"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

— it would then come out,

that the &lt;b&gt;vessels&lt;/b&gt; of the copper altar were covered with only &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; covering,

now how does the matter "swallowing the holy" also apply to the vessels of the copper altar?

The explanation in this: the holiness of the vessels of the outer altar

(and likewise of the table),

was in simple terms lesser than the holiness of the altar

(and the table)

itself&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

Which this is understood from that which they spread a garment between the altar and "all its vessels"

(and likewise between the table and its vessels&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;)

— in order to interpose between the altar

(and table)

and its vessels&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

And since the vessels of the altar had a lesser holiness&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore for them it was sufficient&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

also &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; covering&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

And there is no contradiction to the above from this, that the "service vessels" of the golden altar needed two coverings — "and they shall place them into a blue cloth and cover them with a covering of tachash skin" — because with the service vessels they served

(not only "at the inner altar" but)

also "within the Tabernacle, which is holy"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore,

because of their greatness of holiness,

they needed to have &lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; coverings.

Tenth.

According to the above,

that each "cloth" was fitted according to the form and measure of &lt;b&gt;its&lt;/b&gt; vessel

(with which "cloth" distinguishes itself from "covering"),

one must say,

that the "cloth entirely of blue" which they spread upon the Ark "from above"

(over the "covering of tachash skin")

— was in this detail different from all other cloths of the vessels&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

For it cannot be painted,

that after they "placed" upon the Ark a "covering of tachash skin" — not according to the exact measure of the Ark — one should be able to put on it a "cloth" that is exactly measured and fitted to the Ark.

One must therefore say,

that the verse calls him by the name "&lt;b&gt;garment&lt;/b&gt; of pure blue" only because it is

(just like a "garment" in general)

was designated for the Ark

(despite the fact that it was &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; according to its exact measure)

— and not like "the covering of tachash skin",

that the same covering could be used for any vessel.

And with this it becomes understandable what Rashi says the phrase "with the covering of &lt;b&gt;so-and-so&lt;/b&gt;" and not "with the covering of tachash skin",

because with the word "so-and-so" he intends to include also the "garment of pure blue",

which, not being according to the measure of the Ark,

was no more than a "covering".

And with this will also be correctly understood why Rashi brings down first "and they shall spread on it a garment of such-and-such" and afterwards "and they shall cover it with a covering of such-and-such" — although regarding the Ark,

the first of the vessels,

it says "and they shall spread a garment" <b>after</b> "and they shall place upon it a covering" — because "garment" means here Rashi one that is according to the measure of the vessel

(and the "garment" of the Ark is indeed,

as above,

a type of "covering").

And since <b>this</b> type of garment was only by the <b>other</b> vessels and by them it comes indeed <b>before</b> "covering" — therefore Rashi precedes it also in his commentary.

Yes.

One of the "wondrous topics"⁴³

(in the section of halacha)

that are here in Rashi on this:

From Rashi's wording "כבלע את הקדש — into its sheath" it is understandable,

that the insertion of the holy vessels into their sheath is not merely a &lt;b&gt;cause&lt;/b&gt; that afterwards &lt;b&gt;through "וכסו במכסה"&lt;/b&gt; there should be "כבלע את הקדש"

(and as above

(section 7)

that specifically because the "וכסו" comes after the insertion into the sheath,

becoming a &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt; vessel,

can the holy be swallowed into the &lt;b&gt;cover&lt;/b&gt;),

but the insertion

(into the sheath)

itself becomes a part of the "כבלע".

And the practical difference — as follows.

The explanation in this: When there is only one vessel,

it is indeed &lt;b&gt;nullified&lt;/b&gt; to the "holy" that is found in it.

But when it has with it a second vessel,

the second also acts upon the first and both &lt;b&gt;together&lt;/b&gt; do the "כבלע".

12.

From where does Rashi actually take that through both vessels together the sacred becomes absorbed?

So the explanation of this is: If one were to assume that the innermost vessel is only a cause that the outer vessel can perform

(by itself)

the "absorption",

then it would have to result that even when the inner vessel is a "vessel that is not a vessel" — but if the outer vessel is "a vessel",

it is not called "absorption" — because since only through the outer vessel can the "absorption" of the sacred be performed,

it must be "not a vessel".

And since by the Ark the "garment entirely of blue" was "above" the "covering of tachash skin",

and nevertheless the verse says "when swallowing the holy"

(meaning thereby,

of course,

also

(and all the more so)

the Ark),

it is therefore understandable,

that the swallowed holy is through both.

And therefore it is so also regarding the Ark that the first covering was "with a covering of tachash skin" — it is not a vessel.

So according to this it turns out,

that the law which is ruled regarding a vessel within a vessel,

that "we do not say between upper is a vessel and lower is not a vessel, where it is the opposite, in any case it is permitted"

— has

(according to Rashi)

a source from an explicit verse!

13.

Between the matters of "the wine of Torah" and our Rashi:

Parshat Bamidbar is read before the giving of the Torah⁴⁵.

Is in the three coverings

"the covering of tachash skin" and "the entirely blue garment"]

that were upon the Ark

(the matter of the Torah),

alluded to an essential matter in the giving of the Torah

(as below sections 15 and 16).

The explanation of Moshe Rabbeinu,

that specifically to a flesh-and-blood person must one give the Torah — opposite the claim of the angels "a hidden treasure ..

You seek to give it to a flesh-and-blood person ..

set Your glory upon the heavens"⁴⁶

— divides itself in general into three parts and types:

a)

From the aspect of the body of a Jew and his needs.

Just as "a father and mother you have" from whom comes the existence of the body^*46

; "they do work" and "business dealings" — through which the person receives the needs of the body.

b)

From the side of the animal soul and evil inclination⁴⁷

Which is there among them — "jealousy is among you,

evil inclination is among you".

c)

From the side of that which Jews are situated "among the nations" — that the nations worship idolatry.

14.

Because the three matters mentioned above are divided one from the other — and in primary divisions,

they are also divided in their connection to the Ten Commandments:

The matters of the body and its needs,

are related to the <b>fulfillment</b> of the commandments.

Such as "doing work

(that you need rest)

with which is connected the "Sabbath day to sanctify it"; likewise "business and commerce" which determines

(most of the time)

the "that which is your neighbor's",

etc.

And all the more so "Honor your father and your mother",

which is relevant only when "you have a father and a mother".

But not so the connection of the lower-hey and the evil inclination to the Ten Commandments,

is

(<b>not</b> regarding their existence,

to the <b>warning</b> that is in them: since "jealousy is among you, the evil inclination is among you" — one must <b>guard</b> "You shall not murder, etc."; and so on,

that because "among the nations you dwell, who worship idols" — therefore one must <b>guard</b> "You shall have no other gods".

And the reasoning for this,

is understood simply:

The body of a Jew is holy.

Even more: the "and us You have chosen from every people and tongue",

is primarily

(not in the soul,

but)

but)

in the <b>body</b><b>⁴⁸</b>

And therefore,

is

(although he is "similar in his materiality to the bodies of the nations of the world"⁴⁹

and therefore conceals the soul,

it is however)

not possible that he should, heaven forbid, oppose the fulfillment of the commandments,

on the contrary: the fulfillment of the commandments

(in physicality)

is <b>relevant</b> to him and is <b>specifically</b> through him;

From the side of the animal soul and evil inclination,

it is indeed possible that one should, heaven forbid, transgress a sin,

even a most severe sin,

even — idolatry and forbidden sexual relations and murder

(and kidnapping⁵⁰),

and the Torah must warn "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal";

Nevertheless,

is

(from their own perspective,

are)

also the animal soul and evil inclination of a Jew,

a "demon of the demons of Y'hordain"⁵¹

and all the more so that one need not warn him about idolatry — "heresy against the principle"⁵².

But from the aspect that "for among <b>nations</b> they dwell, etc." — one must already warn also about "You shall have no other gods".

67.

These three matters mentioned above,

due to which the Jews were given the Torah,

because of which His wisdom, blessed be He, was contracted and descended down into the matters of the Torah down here — <b>three</b> thousand parables⁵³

— so that every soul or spirit and soul <b>that is in the body</b> <b>of man</b> could comprehend in its intellect and fulfill them, etc.⁵⁴

— are also hinted at in the three covers that were upon the Ark:

The curtain of the screen alludes to the body.

Because just as the curtain was <b>itself</b> a part of the "Holy of Holies"⁵⁵,

and also the Ark it did not cover from all its sides: so too the body,

that in it <b>itself</b> there is holiness,

and also its concealment of the soul — consists only in that it should have a connection to materiality,

but not to do, heaven forbid, contrary to the matters of the soul.

The garment of pure blue — the animal soul⁵⁶.

Because the "garment" was

<b>specifically</b> for the Ark,

so that the name "garment"

(in general)

indicates that it is fitted and has the exact measure,

of the thing that is clothed in it.

And

from the aspect that the garment is "blue",

even a <b>multitude</b> of garments cannot "swallow up" the thing that is clothed in them

(as above section 8),

— in the likeness of the animal soul and the evil inclination,

which them-

(a)

are fitted to the divine soul,

until their existence becomes brought into being from

(the contraction of)

the divine soul⁵⁷.

And therefore it is

(b)

however low they may be

(<b>many</b> garments),

there cannot be the existence of "<b>covering</b> the holy".

And as above section 14,

that the animal soul and evil inclination of a Jew

(<b>from their own side</b>)

— one need not guard against them.

Covering of tachash skin,

which is

(a)

(a)

<b>not</b> connected

(as above sections 7 and 8)

with the ark,

and therefore

(b)

(b)

through it is completed the <b>covering</b> of the holy — in the likeness of "among <b>nations</b> they dwell" which

(a)

they have no connection to Jews

(but nevertheless — the ultimate intention is that they be in the manner of "and <b>strangers</b> will stand and pasture your flocks"⁵⁸

and this is their perfection),

and therefore

(b)

they effect upon the animal soul and evil inclination that they should be completely nullified to the materiality⁵⁹,

until one must guard — "You shall not have etc."

16.

When a Jew considers the situation in which he finds himself,

that in addition to the fact that his soul is covered with a "curtain of the screen" and a "garment"

(body and the animal soul and the evil inclination),

he is furthermore

(not in subtlety,

but simply,

heaven forfend)

swallowed up

(by the addition of the "tachash skin" ⁶⁰),

he is in exile "among nations that worship idols" — he can, heaven forfend, fall into despair,

— they tell him,

that on the contrary: this is the way through which one receives the Torah,

and this is the order of the <b>journeys</b>:

At the time when the Mishkan stood in one place,

the Ark was revealed.

Specifically when they needed to have the "when the Ark traveled",

they needed to come to a higher level,

then they needed to cover it with all three coverings mentioned above,

And specifically through this one comes to a higher journey and yet a higher one,

until one comes to "Yarden Yericho"

(from the term scent⁶¹)

which indicates Moshiach,

about whom it says "and he shall scent the fear of the Lord — he smells and judges"⁶²,

he will come and redeem us speedily, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar 5725)