Tzav in Tetzaveh

Summary: Why does Rashi only analyze the word tzav here?

Post: The very first Rashi in parashat Tzav analyzes the word tzav:

2. Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: That is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn with it.		ב. צַו אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ:
Command Aaron: Heb. צַו. The expression צַו always denotes urging [to promptly and meticulously fulfill a particular commandment] for the present and also for future generations. Rabbi Simeon taught: Scripture especially needs to urge [people to fulfill commandments,] where monetary loss is involved. — [Torath Kohanim 6:1]		צו את אהרן: אין צו אלא לשון זרוז מיד ולדורות. אמר ר' שמעון ביותר צריך הכתוב לזרז במקום שיש בו חסרון כיס:

Yet, the root of tzav also appears in the word tetzaveh, a word which also has a parasha named after it. And parashat Tetzaveh is earlier, in sefer Shemot:

20. And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for lighting, to kindle the lamps continually.

כ. וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד:

And there, Rashi does not say אין צו אלא לשון זרוז מיד ולדורות. Why the difference? Furthermore, if we wish to step up where Rashi was silent, how shall we explain the tzav in the word tezaveh over there?

This is a question posed by Siftei Chachamim on parashat Tzav:

"Rashi explains in the gemara that it means hurried and zealous. And if you say, why did Rashi not explain this above upon the verse in parashat Tetzaveh? And there is to say that the ziruz [there in Tetzaveh] comes because one needs extra skill to let it shrivel at the top of the olive tree and  to crush it with a machteshet so that it should be without dregs."

In terms of why Rashi did not explain this on parashat Tetzaveh, I think this is pretty straightforward. Rashi does not innovate his own midrashim. And here, he is simply channeling Toras Kohanim, otherwise known as the Sifra. The Sifra is only on Sefer Vayikra, and so does not comment on the pasuk in parashat Tetzaveh, which is in sefer Shemot. But Rashi will not innovate, and moving the derasha to another context would be innovating a new derasha from scratch.

It is entirely possible that the midrashic authors cited in Sifra would say something similar on parashat Tetzeveh. And then the zirus could even be about monetary loss, for this involves a donation. Or perhaps not, and tzav in its short form is targeted, rather than the root as found in any form.

Does Sifsei Chachamim know about time zones?

Summary: And that it can be night in one country while it is day in another? I think he can. Rav Chaim Kanievsky points out a difficulty in Sifsei Chachamim, in that it does not seem to work with a round earth. He answers that the division away from ערבוביא was only during the days of Creation. I suggest another resolution.

Post: The fourth pasuk of sefer Bereishit, with Rashi:

4. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.		ד. וַיַּרְא אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת הָאוֹר כִּי טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱ־לֹהִים בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ:
And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated: Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah: He saw it that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future. According to its simple meaning, explain it as follows: He saw it that it was good, and it was unseemly that it [light] and darkness should serve in confusion; so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night.		וירא א-להים את האור כי טוב ויבדל:אף בזה אנו צריכים לדברי אגדה ראהו שאינו כדאי להשתמש בו רשעים והבדילו לצדיקים לעתיד לבא. ולפי פשוטו כך פרשהו ראהו כי טוב ואין נאה לו ולחשך שיהיו משתמשין בערבוביא, וקבע לזה תחומו ביום ולזה תחומו בלילה:

Siftei Chachamim explains the בערבוביא, serving in confusion, that it would be in this country light and in that country darkness. Or one hour daylight and two hours night, and afterwards the reverse. But most decidedly not that light and darkness were literally mixed together one with the other.

In Taama deKra, after citing this pasuk, Rashi, and Siftei Chachamim -- specifically the bit about light in one medinah and darkness in another medinah, Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes:


"And this is difficult, for even during the day, half the globe is light and half of it is dark. And one can say that this was discussing the days of Creation, that there were some places which were light and some were darkness, and Hashem divided it, such that during the 'day', there would be throughout the entire globe day, and at night, all would be darkness. But after the Sun was created, always half of the globe would be day and half of it would be night."

This is an interesting catch. (And it is good to know that, despite the kol koreh of a few years back banning time zones, Rav Kanievsky maintains that the earth is round and there are, indeed, different time zones.)

Depending on when Siftei Chachamim wrote it, I would not dismiss out of hand the idea that he actually believes that the earth was flat and that there were no different time zones. After all, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the Vilna Gaon, and the Shevus Yaakov all seem to have been flat earthers.

Even so, I don't think that that was the Sifsei Chachamim's intent. He can believe in a round earth. And at the same time, I think that Rav Kanievsky's interpretation as applying only during the Days of Creation is somewhat forced. This is a creative act of division, setting up how the world operates, not a limited-time modification for the days of Creation. Rather, I would say that the Sifsei Chachamim's comment makes good sense in context.

Imagine a patchwork, with swirling areas of light and dark. It could be dark in one place in the patchwork, light a bit north, then dark again. Each country could have light or darkness as this patchwork moves from one place to the other. There is no regularity to it, not like the Sun's progression across the sky.

It seems rather clear that this is what Sifsei Chachamim had in mind. Compare to the patchwork of specific hours, with a total lack of regularity. So of course he knew that different countries can have day and night at different times, but that is simply not what he meant. And sof kol sof, the main point of Sifsei Chachamim is that the described ערבוביא is not light and dark mixed in the same location. And so, we need not give a farfetched interpretation, and say that this division Hashem made between day and night was a creative step just for the limited span of the days of Creation.

*How* does the pasuk trace the lineage of the wicked man for shame?

In the beginning of parshat Pinchas, we are told of the identity of the man who was sleeping with Cosbi:

יד וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה, אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית--זִמְרִי, בֶּן-סָלוּא: נְשִׂיא בֵית-אָב, לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי.

14 Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a fathers' house among the Simeonites.

Rashi writes on this:

The name of the Israelite man: In the place it [Scripture] traces the lineage of the righteous man for praise, it traces the lineage of the wicked man for shame. — [Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 2, Num. Rabbah 21:3]

ושם איש ישראל וגו': במקום שייחס את הצדיק לשבח ייחס את הרשע לגנאי:

My own explanation of this, which I believe holds up even after analyzing the sources, is that in the previous section, at the end of parshat Balak, it was an unnamed Israelite man and an unnamed Midianite woman. Here, the Torah shines a spotlight on him, and deprives him of his anonymity. How embarrassing for Zimri. And this shame is not only cast upon him, but on his entire family. Thus, it provides a very complete yichus. And it does the same for Cosbi bat Tzur, who was previously anonymous. And similarly, Hashem praises Pinchas' actions, and in doing so mentions him, his father, and his grandfather, just to make sure everyone knows who did this and to give praise to everyone associated with him.

If we look at Rashi's sources, we see something interesting. He does not mention yichus, but rather pirsum, promulgation. This fits in precisely with my theory. Thus, in Midrash Tanchuma,

ושם איש ישראל המוכה וגו
כשם שהקדוש ברוך הוא מתעסק בשבחן של צדיקים לפרסמן בעולם, כך מתעסק בגנות הרשעים לפרסמן בעולם.
פרסם פנחס לשבח,
ופרסם זמרי לגנאי.
עליהם נאמר: זכר צדיק לברכה, ושם רשעים ירקב (משל' י ז

Now, it is true that it follows it up immediately with an analysis of his various names in various unflattering interpretations:

זמרי בן סלוא נשיא בית אב.

אמרו רבותינו זיכרונם לברכה:

שלשה שמות היו לזמרי, ואלו הן:

זמרי בן סלוא,

ושאול בן הכנענית,

ושלומיאל בן צורישדי.

זמרי, על שנעשה על אותה המדינית כביצה מוזרת.

בן סלוא, שהסליא עון משפחתו.

שאול, על שהשאיל עצמו לעבירה.

בן הכנענית, שעשה מעשה כנען.

ומה שמו?

שלומיאל בן צורישדי שמו.

and that is one of the suggestions Rabbenu Ephraim offers in explaining Rashi, that the yichus to Genai is the unflattering meanings of all these names attributed to him. Perhaps this was Rashi's intent, and I would add why Rashi changes פרסם to יחס. But really, in terms of the midrash, it seems that one subject ends and another begins here, and I believe we can understand Rashi in this way as well, of shining the spotlight on him and his entire lineage, rather than let him hide in anonymity.

Another source for Rashi, from the Judaica Press translation above, is Bemidbar Rabba. But Bamidbar Rabba is a late midrash, perhaps authored about the same time as Rashi. Many scholars say that it was not available to Rashi. But Bemidbar Rabba reworks this midrash a bit, in terms of order, in a way to truly sever the two points. Thus:

מה ראה הקב"ה ליחס פינחס אחר מעשה זה?
שבשעה שנדקר זמרי בן סלוא אמרו חכמים:
ו' שמות יש לו לזמרי:
זמרי בן סלוא,
ושאול בן כנענית,
ושלומיאל בן צורי שדי.

זמרי, שנעשה על אותה מדינית, כביצה המוזרת.
בן סלוא, בן שסילא עון משפחתו.
שאול, שהשאיל עצמו לעבירה.
בן הכנענית, שעשה מעשה כנען.

ומה שמו?
שלומיאל.
את מוצא בשעה שנדקר זמרי עמדו השבטים עליו ואמרו: ראיתם בן פוטיאל זה שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודת כוכבים הרג נשיא מישראל!
לפיכך בא הכתוב ליחסו, פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן, לכך אמר: הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, שעדיין הוא קיים.
וכן הוא אומר: (מלאכי ב) בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשלום ואתנם לו מורא וייראני ומפני שמי נחת הוא.

והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ויכפר
וכי קרבן הקריב, שנאמר: בו כפרה?
אלא ללמדך, שכל השופך דמן של רשעים כאלו הקריב קרבן.

ושם איש ישראל המוכה אשר הכה את המדינית
כשם שהקדוש ברוך הוא מתעסק בשבחן של צדיקים לפרסם בעולם, כך מתעסק בגנותן של רשעים, לפרסמן בעולם. פינחס פרסמו לשבח וזמרי לגנאי, עליהם נאמר: (משלי י) זכר צדיק לברכה ושם רשעים ירקב.

נשיא בית אב לשמעוני
שכל הפוגם את עצמו פוגם את משפחתו עמו.

True, it talks about the yichus of Pinchas and then the material of the negative interpretation of Zimri's names, before transitioning into the accusations of the hamon am about Yisro fattening calves for Avodah Zarah.

But all of that ended well above. And then, only towards the end, separate from any negative interpretations of Zimri's names, on the pasuk mentioning Zimri, it just talks about pirsum of the righteous for good and the wicked for shame. And indeed, Midrash Rabba follows it up by explaining that the mention of נשיא בית אב לשמעוני is that he is not only embarrassing himself, but his family as well.

The ending phrase, from Mishlei, of זכר צדיק לברכה ושם רשעים ירקב, is not the only place we find pirsum lignai. In Yoma 38a, we have a Mishna which states:

דף לח, א משנה ואלו לגנאי של בית גרמו לא רצו ללמד על מעשה לחם הפנים של בית אבטינס לא רצו ללמד על מעשה הקטורת הוגרס בן לוי היה יודע פרק בשיר ולא רצה ללמד בן קמצר לא רצה ללמד על מעשה הכתב על הראשונים נאמר (משלי י) זכר צדיק לברכה ועל אלו נאמר (משלי י) ושם רשעים ירקב:

The previous Mishna was pirsum lishvach:

דף לז, א משנה בא לו למזרח העזרה לצפון המזבח הסגן מימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו ושם שני שעירים וקלפי היתה שם ובה שני גורלו' של אשכרוע היו ועשאן בן גמלא של זהב והיו מזכירים אותו לשבח בן קטין עשה י"ב דד לכיור שלא היה לו אלא שנים ואף הוא עשה מוכני לכיור שלא יהיו מימיו נפסלין בלינה מונבז המלך היה עושה כל ידות הכלים של יוה"כ של זהב הילני אמו עשתה נברשת של זהב על פתח היכל ואף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה נקנור נעשו נסים לדלתותיו והיו מזכירין אותן לשבח:

And so it seems pretty clear to me that this is what is going on.

There is another possibility, which I personally do not find the most likely. In parshat Vaychi, in Yaakov's blessings, Rashi says:

6. Let my soul not enter their counsel; my honor, you shall not join their assembly, for in their wrath they killed a man, and with their will they hamstrung a bull.		ו. בְּסֹדָם אַל תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי בִּקְהָלָם אַל תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי כִּי בְאַפָּם הָרְגוּ אִישׁ וּבִרְצֹנָם עִקְּרוּ שׁוֹר:
Let my soul not enter their counsel: This is the [future] incident of Zimri [that Jacob is referring to], when the tribe of Simeon gathered to bring the Midianitess before Moses, and they said to him, “Is this one forbidden or permitted? If you say she is forbidden, who permitted you to marry Jethro’s daughter?” Let my name not be mentioned in connection with that affair. [Therefore, the Torah depicts Zimri as] “Zimri the son of Salu, the prince of a father’s house of the Simeonites” (Num. 25:14), but [Scripture] did not write, “the son of Jacob.” - [from Sanh. 82a, Gen. Rabbah 99:6]		בסודם אל תבא נפשי: זה מעשה זמרי, כשנתקבצו שבטו של שמעון להביא את המדינית לפני משה, ואמרו לו זו אסורה או מותרת, אם תאמר אסורה, בת יתרו מי התירה לך, אל יזכר שמי בדבר, שנאמר (במדבר כה יד) זמרי בן סלוא נשיא בית אב לשמעוני, ולא כתב בן יעקב:
my honor, you shall not join: My name shall not join them there, as it is said: “Korah the son of Izhar the son of Kehath the son of Levi” (Num. 16:1), but it does not say, “the son of Jacob.” In (I) Chronicles (7:22f.), however, it says,“the son of Korah the son of Izhar the son of Kehath the son of Levi the son of Israel.” - [from Tanchuma Vayechi 10] \b my honor, you shall not join \b0כָּבוֹד, honor, is a masculine noun. [Therefore,] you must explain [this passage] as if he (Jacob) is speaking to the honor and saying, “You, my honor, shall not join them,” like“You shall not join (תֵחַד) them in burial” (Isa. 14:20). [Since the word (תֵּחַד) includes a prefixed“tav,” it can be either the second person masculine or the third person feminine. Since כָּבוֹד is a masculine noun, the verb must be second person.]		בקהלם: כשיקהיל קרח שהוא משבטו של לוי את כל העדה על משה ועל אהרן:
their assembly: When Korah, who is of the tribe of Levi, assembles the whole congregation against Moses and against Aaron. — [From Tanchuma Vayechi 10]		אל תחד כבודי: שם, אל יתיחד עמהם שמי, שנאמר (במדבר טז א) קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי, ולא נאמר בן יעקב אבל בדברי הימים כשנתייחסו בני קרח על הדוכן, נאמר (דה"א ו כב) בן קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי בן ישראל:

and he has the noted sources to back him up in this. In this instance, we of course have Korach with whom Yaakov does not associate his name, but he is paired with Zimri, who also has a lineage who only goes up to Shimon.

This could be Rashi's intent in yichus for genai, since there is no association with Yaakov; Pinchas, admittedly, has no association with Yaakov, but he is associated with Aharon. And that way Rashi could be somewhat consistent across his various commentaries.

Siftei Chachamim suggests this, that the genei is the severing of the yichus, and grapples with it in all its farfetched glory. But besides the forced nature of this peshat, I don't think Rashi intended this, because Rashi was working off of Midrash Tanchuma and this is not at all the meaning of Midrash Tanchuma.

Rather, I would assert that the meaning is as I explained above -- shining the spotlight on both the wicked and the righteous, with all their lineage, to respectively grant them notoriety and glory.

The dots over Aharon

There is an interesting textual feature in parshat Bemidbar Sinai, in Bemidbar 3:39. On the word "veAharon", there is a dot over every letter.

There is a midrash discussing Ezra's fixing the text of the Chumash. Where he was unsure of whether a word should be present, he put the word in but put dots over the word. To explain, rather than cross out words, scribes put dots over words they accidentally insert, to note that it should be deleted. We see this in various manuscripts. Ezra's reasoning was that if Eliyahu comes and determines that the word should be there, behold, it is in there. And if he comes and complains that the word should not in fact be in there, behold, there are dots over the word!

Elsewhere, a fairly standard method of derasha is that if there are dots over certain letters (specifically a minority), to interpret the word as if those letters were missing.

This seems like a likely explanation of the dots over Aharon -- that there is some standard variant text in which Aharon is missing. And the grammar would not be harmed by deleting Aharon, for pakad is the singular.

I came to this conclusion before checking any variant text. And then I checked, and what follows are my results.

In the Septuagint, Aharon appears. Thus:

39. πᾶσα ἡ ἐπίσκεψις τῶν *λευιτῶν οὓς ἐπεσκέψατο *μωυσῆς καὶ Aαρων διὰ φωνῆς κυρίου κατὰ δήμους αὐτῶν πᾶν ἀρσενικὸν ἀπὸ μηνιαίου καὶ ἐπάνω δύο καὶ εἴκοσι χιλιάδες

However, in the Samaritan Bible, Aharon is indeed missing. Thus, what is pictured to the right. Should we say that this is the "correct" text? No. We should try to evaluate based on other merits, and possibly come to know concrete conclusion, if one is not possible. And that is just what we have in our Masoretic text.

Meanwhile, Rashi notes the dots and explains it based on a gemara in Bechoros. Either he is not familiar with the Samaritan text, or else he is drawn anyway to explain this on traditional, midrashic grounds. Or because this is a fairly old explanation. He writes:

counted by Moses and Aaron: There are dots over the word וְאַהֲרֹן to show that he was not included in the sum of the Levites. [Bech. 4a]

That gemara reads:

לא קשיא כדמר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא
דאמר פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלה רחמנא ואהרן שלא היה באותו מנין לא ליפקע

דתניא למה נקוד על אהרן שבחומש הפקודים שלא היה באותו מנין

Thus, this explanation goes back at least to Tannaitic times, and the dots go back to Tannaitic times, which makes sense, given how far back the Samaritan Chumash cropped up.

Now, the straightforward reading of Rashi, and of this gemara, is that Aharon was not included in the countees, rather than the counters. This troubles some supercommentaries on Rashi. See Sifsei Chachamim.

Thus, Mizrachi poses this counters / countees issue. And Sifsei Chachamim suggests that Aharon was included in neither. And that was why it bothered to first include it, and then put the dots over it, to be able to teach us this extra point.

I find this unlikely, even within this midrashic explanation. Because there is a difference between giving an extra midrashic twist and making your midrash explicitly contradict a pasuk, and make it a falsehood. By way of comparison, with the dots on Esav's kissing Yaakov, the explanation is put forth that he bit under the guise of kissing. To say that Aharon was nowhere, not even among the counters, is to declare the Torah false. And I do not believe a midrash would do that. Rather, the midrash might be saying that he was there in one respect, namely counting, but there is a pegam in his presence, in that he was not counted.

Update: See also my follow-up post on the implications of my answer of the reason for these dots.

Chukas: What Does Temima Mean?

Chukas begins:

ב זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה לֵאמֹר: דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ, עֹל.

2 This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.

What does temimah mean? A quick rundown of meforshim, and then my own take. We will use a graphic for this. It may pay to click on it to see it larger, in another window.

Let us start with Rashi. We can already see what he is going to say by the way he groups the words. He cites aduma temima and not the word para. Thus, the temimut, completeness, is in the redness. He is basically chanelling a derasha from Sifrei on Chukat, and calling it peshat:

perfectly red Heb. אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה, lit., red, perfect. It shall be perfect in redness, so that two black hairs disqualify it. — [Sifrei Chukath 5]

And just because it appears in a midrash does not mean that it is not peshat. Indeed, there is dispute about this, and this struck me as a pasuk it would be useful to check out the Karaites on.

And indeed, if we look at the explanation of Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite, we see that he endorses Rashi, and the Sifrei's explanation, that temima is modifying the adjective of aduma. This is a parsing issue, so there is no reason why not to accept this as a reading. They reject a separate requirement that the hooves and horns be red, such that if they are black (or in another girsa, white), they are invalid. Because such cannot manifest in reality. The supercommentary connects this to the Mishna in Para, 2:2, פרה שקרניה וטלפיה שחורים, יגוד, which means that they must be cut off and then it is valid.

But regardless, they see temima and modifying aduma. And you can even see this from what they cite, which is the same as Rashi, namely aduma temima.

Ibn Ezra parses it slightly differently. You can see this from the fact that he cites the full phrase para aduma temima. He says that this means that the female cow is not a ketana, but is rather fully mature. I think he is parsing it such that temima modifies para.

One could argue it in all sorts of ways, but I think the trup supports Ibn Ezra more than Rashi here. (Click to see the picture.) The trup, as you can see above, on para aduma temima is kadma veazla revii. The kadma is a conjunctive trup, while the azla and revii are disjunctive. Effectively, this groups para aduma together on one branch, and temima on the other branch, such that temima would be modifying the entire entity, which is the red cow, which is in other words the cow. If it were complete in redness, wouldn't we expect to see aduma temima grouped together? It is possible I am missing something, but I would guess so.

Of course, if my trup chart above is correct, it is not modifying just para aduma but rather entire phrase of vayikchu eilecha fara aduma. It seems in this way to stand alone, away from all that. This makes me less likely to endorse temima as going on aduma. I think it modifying the full cow is still possible, but there is yet another possibility.

Who says that a peshat must accord with the trup, though. The trup is just another perush, and while biblical commentators try to remain true to the trup, they on occassion feel free to diverge.

Sifsei Chachamim (above) gives a reason for Rashi's peshat. He notes that the pasuk continues with אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם. Why would the pasuk repeat itself to no valid purpose. Therefore, rather than taking temima as an adjective in and of itself ("faultless/unblemished"), it modifies the adjective "red".

So here we have a tempting alternative. Temima means "faultless." And in some pashtanim, Tanach does repeat itself. It is called kefel lashon.

This is indeed what Shadal writes:

תמימה אשר אין בה מום: כפל לשון, כמו ( ויקרא כ"ב כ"א) תמים יהיה לרצון כל מום לא יהיה בו

You can see even by his dibbur hamatchil his explanation. He connects temima to asher ain bah mum. Thus, it means faultless. He cites Vayikra 22:21 as an example.

כא וְאִישׁ, כִּי-יַקְרִיב זֶבַח-שְׁלָמִים לַה', לְפַלֵּא-נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה, בַּבָּקָר אוֹ בַצֹּאן--תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן, כָּל-מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה-בּוֹ.

21 And whosoever bringeth a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the LORD in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering, of the herd or of the flock, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

Here, again, it appears that tamim is defined as lacking a mum.

I would offer an expansion upon this idea. Namely, they are not synonyms. Rather, the cow must be temima. The portion of the pasuk after the etnachta is the definition.

Thus, temima means entirely pure and dedicated. How so?

1) אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם -- thus physically whole and perfect
2) אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל -- and never dedicated to another purpose, so untouched in this way.

Thus, it is not just kefel lashon, but a general description of the requirement of temima followed by two elaborations to make clear just what temima means.

Naso: Ufkudav - As Hashem Commanded Moshe

Towards the beginning of parshat Naso, the pasuk states:

מט עַל-פִּי ה פָּקַד אוֹתָם, בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה--אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל-עֲבֹדָתוֹ, וְעַל-מַשָּׂאוֹ; וּפְקֻדָיו, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה. {פ}

49 According to the commandment of the LORD they were appointed by the hand of Moses, every one to his service, and to his burden; they were also numbered, as the LORD commanded Moses. {P}

and upon this Rashi states:

They were counted as the Lord had commanded Moses Those that were counted were as commanded, from the age of thirty years until the age of fifty years.

Or in Hebrew:
ואותן הפקודים היו במצוה מבן שלשים שנה ועד בן חמשים

Shadal cites Sefer haZikaron, which is a supercommentary on Rashi, that one needs to say כמצוה, thus changing the bet to a kaf:

(ברש"י צ"ל: כמצוה (ע' ס' הזיכרון.

This would seem to be a minor edit, but perhaps it shifts the meaning.

What is "bothering" Rashi here? What is motivating him? The span of pesukim read:

מו כָּל-הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר פָּקַד מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, וּנְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--אֶת-הַלְוִיִּם: לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, וּלְבֵית אֲבֹתָם.	46 All those that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron and the princes of Israel numbered, by their families, and by their fathers' houses,
מז מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה, וְעַד בֶּן-חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה: כָּל-הַבָּא, לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדַת עֲבֹדָה וַעֲבֹדַת מַשָּׂא--בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.	47 from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered in to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens in the tent of meeting,
מח וַיִּהְיוּ, פְּקֻדֵיהֶם--שְׁמֹנַת אֲלָפִים, וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וּשְׁמֹנִים.	48 even those that were numbered of them, were eight thousand and five hundred and fourscore.
מט עַל-פִּי ה פָּקַד אוֹתָם, בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה--אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל-עֲבֹדָתוֹ, וְעַל-מַשָּׂאוֹ; וּפְקֻדָיו, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה. {פ	49 According to the commandment of the LORD they were appointed by the hand of Moses, every one to his service, and to his burden; they were also numbered, as the LORD commanded Moses.

What exactly does Rashi add to pasuk 49? The pasuk itself, and the phrase itself, upon which Rashi comments, says וּפְקֻדָיו אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה. Is this not just a translation? How else could we have understood this?

One important point, I would suggest, is that the etnachta is on וְעַל-מַשָּׂאוֹ, so the word וּפְקֻדָיו is not joined with וְעַל-מַשָּׂאוֹ. How does one make sense of וּפְקֻדָיו אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה? One important thing Rashi does is include the text from וּפְקֻדָיו until the end of the pasuk in his citation, thus noting that this was a statement by itself.

But that statement seems syntactically awkward. What is the function of the word asher? It almost reads like a subordinate clause -- אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה. Thus, "his numbering, which the LORD commanded Moses." If so, it would be a sentence fragment. His numbering, which the Lord commanded Moses, was what?!

The answer is that the word asher is to be understood as kaasher. Thus, "and his numbering, was as the Lord commanded Moses." How so? As per the instructions at the beginning of pasuk 47 above, at the top of the instruction -- מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה, וְעַד בֶּן-חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה.

Thus, to my reading, Rashi's concern is syntactic, and with making the text of the pasuk flow smoothly.

Who is the antecedent of וּפְקֻדָיו according to this reading? It doesn't really matter. It could be Moshe's counting. It could be the tribe of Levi -- "his" people who were counted. Or it could be his individual enumeration -- the visitation, or counting, of the individual Levite. However one wants to read it, the point is to smooth the reading of the verse. We can understand ואותן הפקודים as a translation of וּפְקֻדָיו, and thus וּפְקֻדָיו means approximately "his counted people." But we can cast it in other ways along this line of explanation as well.

Indeed, Ramban cites Rashi and understands the antecedent to be Moshe. Thus, his counting means Moshe's counting, and thus the rules of counting were "as the LORD commanded Moses." The alternative, Ramban notes, is along the lines of Ibn Ezra. And that is that the antecedent is the individual Levite. Thus, וּפְקֻדָיו means "his appointing." Because pakad means counting but can also mean assigning an individual role. Thus, that last pasuk has:

עַל-פִּי ה פָּקַד אוֹתָם, בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה: Moshe appointed them based on Hashem's command
אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל-עֲבֹדָתוֹ, וְעַל-מַשָּׂאוֹ: each person to his job
וּפְקֻדָיו, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה: and each man's personal appointment was that which Hashem commanded Moshe.

So Rashi is not just motivated by a desire to smooth the reading, syntactically speaking, but to clarify the semantics of the pasuk. He holds that that etnachta divides וּפְקֻדָיו from וְעַל-מַשָּׂאוֹ, and then refers to Moshe's act of counting, as in the beginning of the pasuk עַל-פִּי ה פָּקַד אוֹתָם.

In this instance, I am not enamored with Siftei Chachamim's questions and answers.He writes the text pictured to the right. First, he notes the antecedent is Moshe (the pekudim of Moshe as translation of ufekudav), but then senses an awkwardness in the repetition of Moshe later -- it should have said אליו. He gives precedence in the Biblical style for this type of shift and repetition. As I noted above, I am not so convinced that the antecedent needs to be Moshe. Rather, one can say that read it as referring to the counting of each individual Levite, or the tribe of Levi. Perhaps this is due to the distinction of כמצוה vs. במצוה. If one says it was "in the commandment," the connotation may be that Moshe was here fulfilling the commandment, so Moshe should be the antecedent. But with כמצוה, each person's counting could be "in accordance with" that which Hashem commanded. Even though I don't agree with the premise, Siftei Chachamim's question here is a fair one.

The second question seems to miss the mark. He asks why Rashi sees the need to explain that it was מבן שלשים שנה ועד בן חמשים. He answers that there were specifications. In Behaalotecha, in Bemidbar 8:24:

כד זֹאת, אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם: מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמַעְלָה, יָבוֹא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, בַּעֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

24 'This is that which pertaineth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to perform the service in the work of the tent of meeting;

other commands to count, such as in Behaalotecha, from the age of 25 and on. Thus Rashi is clarifying, and proving from the fact that אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה refers to a previous command of Hashem, and thus must refer to the rules for counting specified a few verses earlier.

I sincerely doubt that this hava amina ever ran through Rashi's mind. The question was rather as cast by Ramban, as whether וּפְקֻדָיו referred to a counting (as per Rashi) or an appointment to a job (as per Ibn Ezra). By citing the specifications for the count from a few verses earlier, Rashi is clarifying that וּפְקֻדָיו refers to the count, and that אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה refers to the specifications of the count.

Siftei Chachamim appears to miss the motivation of Rashi, and thus asks a baseless, under the extremely questionable assumption that Rashi is trying to teach us something new about the specifics of this counting. And thus he comes up with an extremely farfetched "problem" that Rashi is solving here. The command to count, was specified a pasuk or two above, with the rules for counting! Why would one even think that the rules for counting would be according to the specifications from Behaalotecha, rather that the specifications in the immediate context?!

This may be instructive to the whole enterprise of determining "what is bothering Rashi." For this is not the only time people misread the motivation, and then come up with a "problem" Rashi is solving that almost makes Rashi out to be a dope. Rashi was just making use of the words of the earlier pasuk to clarify his interpretation of that last phrase, and that it was referring to counting specifications.

The other explanation of Rashi, which Sifrei Chachamim cites from a godol echad, is also extremely weak. That parse is that וּפְקֻדָיו refers to those "appointed" over them, namely Eleazar and Itamar. And Rashi is innovating that these, too, must be within this age span. This is a fairly farfetched reading of Rashi, but it is motivated by the same misunderstanding -- that Rashi is coming to tell us new information about the specification, rather than coming to tell us that this is a counting specification.

Vayakhel: Upon the Women - Does Onkelos Intend a Drash?

At the beginning of parshat Vayakhel we encounter the following pasuk (Shemot 35:22):

כב וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, עַל-הַנָּשִׁים; כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב, הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל-כְּלִי זָהָב, וְכָל-אִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב לַה.

22 And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing-hearted, and brought nose-rings, and ear-rings, and signet-rings, and girdles, all jewels of gold; even every man that brought an offering of gold unto the LORD.

Onkelos translates:
כב וּמֵיתַן גֻּבְרַיָּא, עַל נְשַׁיָּא; כֹּל דְּאִתְרְעִי לִבֵּיהּ, אֵיתִיאוּ שֵׁירִין וְשַׁבִּין וְעִזְקָן וּמָחוֹךְ כָּל מָן דִּדְהַב, וְכָל גְּבַר, דַּאֲרֵים אֲרָמוּת דַּהְבָּא קֳדָם יְיָ.

There is an interesting "Rashi" associated with this statement of Onkelos, and associated with this pasuk. It reads:

with the women Heb. עַל הַנָּשִׁים, lit., [the jewelry was still] on the women. The men came with the women and [stood] near them. (The reason the Targum [Onkelos] left the passage in its simple sense is that he does not render וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאִנָשִׁים as וַאִתוֹ גַבְרַיָא, and the men came, but he renders: וּמַיְתַן, [and the men] brought, meaning that they brought bracelets and earrings while they were still on [i.e., being worn by] the women, as Rashi writes on “spun the goat hair” (verse 26), [which signifies that the women spun the hair while it was still on the goats].)

There are two aspects to Onkelos which are off, and which prompt this "Rashi." The first is that he translates al hanashim as al neshaya. That is, he does not translate al at all, and move it to its more peshat-oriented sense, "with," by saying im. Contrast this with Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, and see that he translates im neshaya. The second aspect which seems off is that he translates vayavo`u as umaytan, "and they brought," rather than va`atu. Meanwhile, Onkelos himself translates vayavo`u in the previous verse as va`atu, and this is how Targum Pseudo-Yonatan translates both verses.

This then causes one to think in terms of the other known midrash, that the women well unwilling to donate to the golden calf, so the husbands pulled them off of them. So too here, where these donations somewhat atone for those earlier actions, they "brought bracelets and earrings while they were still on the women."

Note that Rashi in all likelihood did not say this. It does not appear in Mossad haRav Kook's edition at all. In the Judaica Press translation (above), and in my Mikraos Gedolos, it appears in parentheses. And to make it clearer, the author of this statement makes reference to Rashi by name, saying "as Rashi writes on “spun the goat hair”," rather than "as I wrote..."

Did Onkelos intend this? It certainly is possible, but it is by no means certain, to my mind. In terms of translating al, Onkelos takes no positive action. This might be to preserve the ambiguity of the word al, since al is after all an Aramaic word as well, and the phrase might mean "with the women" (proximate to them), or "besides the women" (that both groups gave), or "on behalf of the women" (since, as Siftei Chachamim notes, the men had final say over the finances, for significant expenses). Or some fourth explanation I did not manage to brainstorm just now. I know that I often deliberately leave such ambiguities in, when translating Rif. This does not mean that he must be channeling the midrash. Indeed, I somewhat doubt it. In terms of translating vayava`u, that too is by no means certain. The point Onkelos might be trying to make is that in the previous pasuk, it was traveling to a location. But here, the same word means donating, given the context of the items which are donated in the verse. Thus, it has nothing to do with al, but rather with the fact that actual donation occurs in this verse. And so, I am not so sure I agree with this statement added into Rashi.

A funny point associated with this derasha is that it must insist that it was the "bracelets and earrings," that is, חָח וָנֶזֶם, which were brought "while they were still on" the women. But of course, the list given in the verse also includes kumaz, כוּמָז, about which Rashi says

This is a golden ornament placed over a woman’s private parts. Our Rabbis explain the name כּוּמָז as [an acrostic]: כַּאן מְקוֹם זִמָּה, [meaning] here is the place of lewdness. -[from Shab. 64a]

It would obviously be the height of non-tznius to bring the kumaz while still on the woman. What was she to do once it was donated? Thus, this commentary takes care to specify that he is only referring to חָח וָנֶזֶם. But if making the derasha from the phrasing of the pasuk, and from Onkelos, what basis is there to sever the list in the middle, and omit the kumaz?

Let us turn now to the part of Rashi not placed in parentheses:

The men came with the women and [stood] near them.

It is not even clear that this is Rashi. Mossad haRav Kook's edition does cite these words, but puts it in parentheses, and notes that it does not appear in the first printing of Rashi.

But assuming it is Rashi, or even assuming not, what is bothering (actually, motivating) Rashi here? He changes al to im, and explains it as proximity.

Siftei Chachamim offers the following:

It is difficult for him, for we do not accept tzedaka from women, except for a small amount. Therefore he said that the men came together with the women.

Possible. I would not readily agree to this explanation, though. I would instead note that the word al is awkward, that Onkelos leaves it pristine in its ambiguity (and Rashi often makes reference of what Targum says), and that there is that midrash floating around based on al meaning "still on." Therefore, Rashi wants to make clear that the peshat in this verse is "with." He further explains the sense of al which means "with," that they were proximate to them, and thus that upon the group of women, we also have proximate the group of men. So this statement is just clarification of how to translate the verse in its simple meaning. Siftei Chachamim's suggestion, and proposed motivation, is reading Rabbinic halacha into the verse, somewhat anachronistically and thus midrashically. And since Rashi is not trying for midrash here, but rather peshat, I doubt that Siftei Chachamim's suggestion is correct here.

I would also guess that Siftei Chachamim did not have the words of the supercommentary on Rashi, which got embedded in his commentary, and which spoke of Onkelos and the midrash of the jewelry still on the women. If it was before him, it probably would have influenced what he saw as Rashi's motivation.