Parshas Naso
1. The Rambam rules1: "בעת שמוליכין את הארון ממקום למקום אין מוליכין אותו לא על הבהמה ולא על העגלות אלא מצוה לנוטלו על הכתף .. שנאמר כי עבודת הקודש עליהם בכתף ישאו" ("When the ark is transported from place to place, it is not transported on an animal nor on wagons; rather, it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder . . as it says, 'For the service of the holy is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry'")2. And in the count of the mitzvos3 the Rambam counts this mitzvah — "לשאת את הארון על הכתף" ("to carry the ark on the shoulder")4 — as a mitzvah in its own right5.
The question is well known6: the verse that the Rambam cites states explicitly, "ולבני קהת לא נתן (עגלות) כי עבודת הקודש עליהם בכתף ישאו" ("But to the sons of Kehas he did not give (wagons), for the service of the holy is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry"), and as Rashi explains it, "משא דבר הקדושה הארון והשלחן וגו'" ("the burden of the holy things — the ark, the table, etc."). That is, the command "on the shoulder they shall carry" applies not only to the ark but also to the other vessels of the Sanctuary (the table, the menorah, the altars, etc.)7. Why, then, does the Rambam rule that the mitzvah is only "to carry the ark on the shoulder"?
Simply, one can say: in the count of the mitzvos, the Rambam counts only the mitzvos that apply for all generations8. Therefore he counts only "the carrying of the ark," because the verses and the statements of our Sages that the Rambam brings concerning "on the shoulder they shall carry" for all generations relate only to the ark, and not to the other vessels of the Sanctuary9 that were carried by the sons of Kehas — as can be seen from the proofs that he brings in Sefer HaMitzvos10.
Furthermore: R. Avraham, the son of the Rambam11, explains that from the verse12 (which speaks of the hiding away of the ark by Yoshiyahu) "ויאמר ללוים . . תנו את ארון הקודש בבית אשר בנה שלמה גו' אין לכם משא בכתף" ("And he said to the Levites . . 'Put the holy ark in the House that Shlomo built . . you have no burden upon your shoulders'"), both things are proven: that at that time (after the building of the Beis HaMikdash) (a) with regard to the ark there was still the obligation of carrying on the shoulder; and (b) with the other vessels of the Sanctuary this was not so, because the obligation of carrying on the shoulder with regard to them had been nullified (with the building of the Beis HaMikdash*12).
[And the fact that from then on, regarding the ark, "you have no burden upon your shoulders" does not nullify the mitzvah, such that because of this the carrying of the ark on the shoulder should not be called a mitzvah that applies for all generations — for "היא נוהגת בכל הדורות כל זמן שיצטרכו למשא כי אין בטול למצוה אלא מפני שאינה נוהגת לא מפני שאינה צריכה אלינו" ("it applies in all generations, whenever there is need for carrying, for a mitzvah is nullified only because it does not apply, not because we do not need it")13, as the Rambam explains in Sefer HaMitzvos14.]
2. This, however, is apparently not sufficient. For how can it be that the Rambam should not mention at all, nor even hint at, the distinction between the ark and the other vessels of the Sanctuary in the matter of carrying on the shoulder? The wonder is even greater regarding Sefer HaMitzvos, where his way is to bring proofs and the like15 — and in this very mitzvah he goes into detail: "ואע"פ שזה הצווי בא ללוים בעת ההיא אמנם הי' זה למספר מעוט הכהנים החייבין במצוה כו'" ("And although this command came to the Levites at that time, this was only because of the small number of the Kohanim who are obligated in the mitzvah, etc.") — and nevertheless he does not even hint at the distinction between the ark and the other holy vessels.
Moreover: according to the above, the verse "you have no burden upon your shoulders" provides a stronger proof that the carrying of the ark on the shoulder applied also after the building of the Beis HaMikdash16 — and the Rambam does not bring it.
From this it is implied that the Rambam holds that the difference between the carrying on the shoulder of the other vessels and the carrying of the ark on the shoulder is not only that with the other vessels the mitzvah was nullified while with the ark it is a mitzvah for all generations; rather, there is (also, and primarily) a difference in the very definition of the mitzvah (also as it was with the sons of Kehas in the wilderness).
Furthermore, one can say that the Rambam learns that the main command "for the service of the holy is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry" (to the point of being indispensable17) applies only to the ark and not to the other vessels.
And as it states explicitly in Midrash Rabbah18: "מעולין בשבט לוי משפחת קהת שהי' בן לוי נותן משאו או הקרשים או הבריחים או האדנים או כל דבר על העגלות אבל משפחות קהת היו טוענין בכתפיהם שלא הי' להם רשות ליתן הארון על העגלות שנאמר ולבני קהת לא נתן גו'" ("Distinguished in the tribe of Levi was the family of Kehas: for a son of Levi would place his burden — the boards, or the bars, or the sockets, or anything — on the wagons, but the families of Kehas would carry on their shoulders, for they did not have permission to place the ark on the wagons, as it says, 'But to the sons of Kehas he did not give...'"). From this it is understood that the (main) reason why "to the sons of Kehas he did not give (wagons)" is because of the ark, "for they did not have permission to place the ark on the wagons" — with the ark there is the mitzvah of "on the shoulder they shall carry"19.
[And according to what is explained in the commentators20 regarding the subsequent law in the Rambam21 there, "כשנושאין אותו על הכתף נושאין פנים כנגד פנים ואחוריהם לחוץ ופניהם לפנים" ("When they carry it on the shoulder, they carry it face to face, with their backs outward and their faces inward"), that its source is this Midrash Rabbah* (where it continues: "ועוד בדבר אחד היו מעולין כו' בני קהת היו מהלכין אחוריהם ופניהם לארון כדי שלא ליתן אחור לארון" ("And they were distinguished in one more thing, etc.: the sons of Kehas would walk backward, with their faces toward the ark, so as not to turn their backs to the ark")) — it turns out that the sources of both laws in the Rambam are from the same Midrash, where both matters appear one after the other.]
Accordingly, it is understood why in several places the sons of Kehas are singled out as "טועני הארון" ("bearers of the ark")22, although they also carried the other holy vessels. This is not only because the ark is superior to all the vessels and the holiest among them23, for which reason they are called by its name — but because this was their (main) mitzvah: "bearers of the ark."
One must, however, understand the reasoning in this. After all, a verse does not depart from its plain meaning, and since "to the sons of Kehas he did not give (wagons)," they surely had to carry the other holy vessels on the shoulder as well. What, then, is the reason for the distinction between them?
3. This will be understood by first explaining the words of the Rambam in the above law in the Laws of the Temple Vessels, which read:
"בעת שמוליכין את הארון ממקום למקום אין מוליכין אותו לא על הבהמה ולא על העגלות אלא מצוה לנוטלו על הכתף, ולפי ששכח דוד ונשאו על העגלה נפרץ פרץ בעוזא, אלא מצוה לנשאו על הכתף שנאמר כי עבודת הקודש עליהם בכתף ישאו" ("When the ark is transported from place to place, it is not transported on an animal nor on wagons; rather, it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder. And because David forgot24 and carried it on the wagon, a breach was made against Uzza25. Rather, it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder, as it says, 'For the service of the holy is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry.'").
One must understand: the Rambam's work is a book of "הלכות הלכות" ("laws upon laws")26 — what bearing does the explanation "and because David forgot and carried it on the wagon, a breach was made against Uzza" have here on halacha?
Seemingly one could say that from this the Rambam proves that carrying the ark on the shoulder was an obligation and a mitzvah also after the time of the wilderness — the time when they would carry the Sanctuary from place to place — and consequently it is understood that this is a mitzvah for all generations.
But it is very forced to say that this is the entire reason, for then it lacks explanation: why in the Yad does he bring specifically this proof, whereas in Sefer HaMitzvos the Rambam brings other proofs?
From the plain wording of the Rambam, and especially from the fact that he repeats once more (after saying "and because David forgot, etc.") "rather, it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder," it is understood that the Rambam intends to bring proofs for both details27 that he states at the beginning of the halacha28. For the negation — "it is not transported on an animal nor on wagons" — he brings the proof "and because David forgot and carried it on the wagon, a breach was made against Uzza"; and for the second detail, the obligation — "rather, it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder" — he concludes "(rather, it is a mitzvah to carry it29 on the shoulder,) as it says, 'For the service of the holy is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry.'"
One must, however, understand: why does the Rambam learn that "it is not transported on an animal nor on wagons" is a separate matter (and that because of this "a breach was made against Uzza"), and moreover — place it before the command "on the shoulder they shall carry," and not (as is the plain meaning of the verses) that it is merely a consequence, and the breach came only because they had not fulfilled the mitzvah of "on the shoulder they shall carry"?
[In the above Midrash it indeed states explicitly "for they did not have permission to place the ark on the wagon." However, the Midrash brings as proof for this the beginning of the verse in our parsha, "as it says, 'But to the sons of Kehas he did not give...'" — whereas the Rambam does not bring this proof30, but rather "and because David forgot, etc." And seemingly, if the Rambam holds that from the beginning of the verse "But to the sons of Kehas he did not give..." there is no compelling proof that "it is not transported, etc." (the negation), because the verse continues "for (meaning that the reason for this is that) the service of the holy is upon them; on the shoulder they shall carry" — what is the emphasis (and from where is the proof) that this is a separate command and comes before the command "on the shoulder they shall carry"?]
One must also understand (as the Radbaz31 asks): why did the Rambam place the laws concerning the carrying of the ark in the Laws of the Temple Vessels, where he speaks (in chapter 1) of the making of the anointing oil and what is done with it, and (in chapter 2) of the making of the incense32 and what pertains to it? Seemingly33 he should have placed them in the following chapters: in chapter 3, where he speaks of the Levites34 and their service, or in chapter 4 — where he speaks of the Kohanim35.
Another question on this: in this law the Rambam does not mention at all who had to carry the ark; he says only, generally, "when the ark is transported, it is not, etc.; rather, it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder." Why does he not specify that this is the mitzvah of the Kohanim, as he explains in detail in Sefer HaMitzvos36?
From this it is understood that in the Rambam's view the carrying of the ark on the shoulder is not a detail in the obligations of the person (gavra), but a law in the object (cheftza) — the ark and its carrying37.
4. The explanation of this:
In the service of the Levites "בזמן שהיו נושאין המקדש ממקום למקום" ("at the time when they would carry the Sanctuary from place to place")38 — the service of carrying, to transport it from place to place — there were two modes: the carrying of the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari, who transported (the parts of the Mishkan) on the wagons; and the carrying of the sons of Kehas, who carried the holy vessels (the table, etc.) on the shoulder.
With the ark, however, there is a law in the ark itself: "on the shoulder they shall carry" — this is the "place" of the ark while it is being carried from place to place.
That is to say: just as during the encampment there is "the place of the ark," which is in the Holy of Holies39, so too "when the ark is transported from place to place," the ark has a (special) place — on the shoulder40*40.
And the Rambam indicates this by writing the mitzvah and the laws of carrying the ark at the end of chapter 2 of the Laws of the Temple Vessels, before he speaks of "those who serve in it"41 (in the Sanctuary); and moreover, he does not mention at all who had to be the bearers of the ark. All this emphasizes that carrying the ark on the shoulder is not a law and detail in the obligations of the person (those who serve in the Sanctuary), but in the object ("the vessels of the Sanctuary") — the ark itself. It is a law of "the place of the ark": when the ark is transported, its place is "on the shoulder."
5. Accordingly, the distinction between the other holy vessels in the carrying of the sons of Kehas and the carrying of the ark on the shoulder is simply understood:
The carrying of the other holy vessels on the shoulder by the sons of Kehas is in the same category as the carrying of the other parts of the Sanctuary on wagons by the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari. And this is not a detail in the parts of the Sanctuary themselves, but merely the manner of carrying and transferring the Tent of Meeting from place to place. And just as the carrying of the parts of the Mishkan by the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari is not a mitzvah for all generations (once they left the places of the wilderness*41), so too the carrying on the shoulder of the other holy vessels by the sons of Kehas is not a mitzvah for all generations (although the vessels of the Sanctuary were in the Beis HaMikdash also after "אוהל מועד קרשיו . . אדניו" ("the Tent of Meeting, its boards . . its sockets") were hidden away42).
Whereas "on the shoulder they shall carry" regarding the ark is in the object of the ark (not (only) a detail and law in the manner of bringing it from place to place). Hence it is understood that this does not depend on the place (and time) "when they would carry the Sanctuary from place to place," but on the object of the ark. Consequently, as long as the ark exists, there is the obligation of "its place" — in the Beis HaMikdash, in the Holy of Holies; and when it is transported from place to place, on the shoulder.
6. The distinction of the ark relative to the other holy vessels in the carrying of the sons of Kehas, the Rambam derives from the above statements of our Sages themselves. Since the distinction of Kehas is that they were "טוען הארון ששם התורה" ("bearing the ark, in which the Torah is")43, although they also carried the other holy vessels on the shoulder, it is understood from this that the carrying of the ark on the shoulder is not (only) because it is one of the holy vessels, but because "the Torah is there"44 — the Tablets (and the Sefer Torah)45 in the ark46 —
the importance and honor of the Torah demands that always, even while it goes (is transported) from one place to another, it must (also then) have a (special) "place."
And one can say that this is also one of the reasons why the Rambam brings, in the law in the Laws of the Temple Vessels, also the negation "it is not transported on an animal nor on wagons," and brings the proof "and because David forgot and carried it on the wagon, a breach was made against Uzza":
This brings out that when one carries the ark on a wagon, one (not only nullifies a mitzvah of carrying on the shoulder, but one) nullifies the matter of the fixed place of the ark — the Torah. Transporting it (on an animal or) on wagons emphasizes the opposite of a fixed place, and the matter of "he carried it on the wagon," which is the opposite of the honor of the Torah, brought about "a breach was made against Uzza."
And this itself is the reason why the Rambam places the negation "it is not transported, etc." before the obligation "it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder, etc." — to emphasize that the prohibition is not a consequence of the mitzvah "on the shoulder they shall carry"46, but a separate prohibition47, because of the disregard for the honor of the Torah (for which comes a special punishment, "a breach was made against Uzza").
7. A reason and proof for all the above can be learned from the Rambam himself, at the end of the Laws of Sefer Torah*47, regarding the honor of a Sefer Torah48, which reads:
"מצוה לייחד לספר תורה מקום ולכבדו ולהדרו יותר מדאי דברים שבלוחות הברית הן הן שבכל ספר וספר" ("It is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah, and to honor it and to glorify it exceedingly. The words on the Tablets of the Covenant are the very same as those in each and every Sefer Torah")49.
Seemingly this is not understood. The Rambam states this law close to the conclusion of the chapter, and in the preceding laws the Rambam states very many detailed laws regarding the honor of a Sefer Torah, beginning from halacha 2: "ס"ת כשר נוהגין בו קדושה יתירה וכבוד גדול" ("A valid Sefer Torah is treated with special holiness and great honor"), until he concludes in halacha 9: "כל הרואה ס"ת כשהוא מהלך חייב לעמוד מפניו, ויהיו הכל עומדים עד שיעמוד זה שהוא מהלך בו כו'" ("Whoever sees a Sefer Torah while it is moving must stand before it, and all should remain standing until the one who is carrying it stops, etc."). How, then, does it fit afterwards to begin in halacha 10, as if this were a new matter: "It is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah and to honor it and to glorify it, etc." — and he even adds, "the words on the Tablets of the Covenant are the very same as those in each and every Sefer Torah"50?!
The same question can be asked about the following law in the Rambam (the last law of this chapter), which reads: "הי' מהלך ממקום למקום וספר תורה עמו לא יניח ספר תורה בתוך השק ויניחנו ע"ג החמור וירכב עליו . . מניחו בחיקו כנגד לבו והוא רוכב על הבהמה והולך" ("If he was traveling from place to place with a Sefer Torah, he should not put the Sefer Torah in a sack, place it on a donkey, and ride on it . . he places it in his bosom opposite his heart and rides on the animal and goes").
— For seemingly, this law (how one must hold a Sefer Torah while riding on a donkey) would fit better in continuation of the preceding laws51, where he speaks of the detailed laws of how one must conduct oneself with a Sefer Torah when entering a bathhouse, etc.52, and similarly of the prohibition "לישב על מטה שספר תורה עלי'" ("to sit on a bed on which there is a Sefer Torah")53. Why does the Rambam place this law only at the conclusion of the chapter (after the law "it is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah and to honor it, etc.")?
One must also understand: from where does the Rambam take the law that "he places it in his bosom opposite his heart"54 and rides, etc.?
Simply, the source (as commentators55 say) is tractate Berachos56: "המוליך עצמות ממקום למקום הרי זה לא יתנם בדסקייא ויתנם על גבי חמור וירכב עליהם מפני שנוהג בהם מנהג בזיון . . וכדרך שאמרו בעצמות כך אמרו בספר תורה" ("One who transports bones from place to place should not put them in a saddlebag, place them on a donkey, and ride on them, because he treats them in a disgraceful manner . . and just as they said regarding bones, so they said regarding a Sefer Torah")57. But there it does not state*57 (the detail) that "he places it in his bosom opposite his heart"58.
[Wording similar to the above is stated regarding tefillin59, but there it speaks60 (not of traveling from place to place, but) of when one removes them in order to go to the lavatory, to guard against the opposite of honor61.]
8. The explanation of this:
In the laws in this chapter until the law (10) "It is a mitzvah to designate, etc.," the Rambam speaks mainly of the obligations of honoring a Sefer Torah that are incumbent upon the person62: "it is treated with special holiness and great honor"63. In halacha 10, however, he begins a new matter: "It is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah, and to honor it and to glorify it exceedingly. The words on the Tablets of the Covenant are the very same as those in each and every Sefer Torah."
That is to say: here he begins to speak (mainly) of a law of honor that stems from the object of the Sefer Torah. Since "the words on the Tablets of the Covenant are the very same as those in each and every Sefer Torah"64, therefore, just as with the ark (because of the Tablets of the Covenant within it) there is a law of "place" because of the honor of the Torah, so too, because of the object of the Sefer Torah, there is a "mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah and to honor it, etc."65 (to honor also the place66)67.
And this is also the continuation68 in the following law, "If he was traveling from place to place with a Sefer Torah" — that also when traveling from place to place there is a law of "place"69: "אם אין שם פחד מניחו בחיקו כנגד לבו" ("if there is no fear there, he places it in his bosom opposite his heart"); just as with the ark (in which are the Tablets of the Covenant), where there is a law of "place" even when it is transported from place to place — one carries it on the shoulder70.
9. Here too one sees the correspondence of the revealed part of the Torah with the inner part of the Torah
— and as has been spoken of many times71: since the revealed and the inner parts of the Torah are compared to a "body" and a "soul"72, then just as the body corresponds in all its details to the soul that is enclothed in it, so too all matters of the revealed part of the Torah correspond to their meaning and explanation in the soul of the Torah:
Chassidus73 explains that the reason for "the carrying of the ark on the shoulder" is that the essence of the ark is the Tablets of the Covenant within it, and the Tablets are "entirely face," for "מזה ומזה הם כתובים" ("on one side and on the other they were written"), "משני עבריהם" ("on both their sides") — there is no (front and) back in them74. And this matter in physicality derives from the fact that spiritually the Tablets are the level of the Face Above, in which there is no level of back. And for this reason the ark must be carried specifically on the shoulder, because through the Tablets in the ark one connects and unites even the shoulders with holy service, the level of face75.
And this is the reason why the carrying of the ark is (as cited above from the Rambam) in the manner of "face to face . . with their faces inward" — which shows that it is entirely face.
— We thus see that the reason for carrying the ark on the shoulder is not simply a law in the honor of the ark (which would apply also to the other vessels of the Sanctuary); rather, the "shoulder" is the special place that corresponds in its content to the matter of the ark specifically (because of the Tablets within it, the Torah as it is in the ark). From this also comes the law in the revealed part of the Torah that carrying the ark on the shoulder is a law bound up with the object of the ark: the object of the ark demands a special "place" (even while it is being carried) because of the Torah within it, and this is — "on the shoulder" specifically.
10. Accordingly, the special connection of Parshas Naso to the Time of the Giving of our Torah is understood76.
[For Parshas Naso is read close to the festival of Shavuos — either in the week of the festival of Shavuos, or on the Shabbos before the festival of Shavuos (as the calendar falls this year — 574477)] —
It is explained in Chassidus (in the places cited above78) that the drawing down of the level of face (connected with the Torah) was accomplished at the time of the Giving of the Torah, when "פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם" ("Face to face G‑d spoke with you").
And when the time of the Giving of the Torah comes each and every year, it is an auspicious time for every Jew to receive additional strength to bring about in himself that his face be toward the ark79,
[that his innermost will and desire be only in G‑dliness, and his back outward — that his use of the matters necessary for the existence of the world and the existence of his body be only out of necessity, and not with his inner self and his pleasure80],
and in particular, this granting of strength begins in the Three Days of Limitation, which come (this year — 5744) after Shabbos Parshas Naso Es Rosh.
And through this preparation one receives "התורה בשמחה ובפנימיות" ("the Torah with joy and with inwardness")81.
(From the sichos of Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Naso 5739, and Motzaei Shabbos Yud Shvat 5730)
Notes
1) Laws of the Temple Vessels, ch. 2, halacha [OCR unclear].
2) Our parsha, 7:9.
3) In Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 34, and in the sources cited in the next note.
4) This is the Rambam's wording in the count of the mitzvos at the beginning of the Yad, and similarly in the heading of the Laws of the Temple Vessels (mitzvah [OCR unclear]).
5) And this is also the view of the Semag, positive commandment 168; Chinuch, mitzvah 379.
6) The Rebbe, the Tzemach Tzedek — Or HaTorah, our parsha, p. 256 (and he concludes: "and it requires resolution; in any case, however it may be, all the halachic authorities wrote like the Rambam"). Minchas Chinuch on the Chinuch there.
7) See also Rashi, Shabbos 92a, s.v. "Tlasa milei'la." And note his wording in Sotah 35a, end, s.v. "Lo nasan." This is not the place to elaborate.
8) As he elaborated in Sefer HaMitzvos, Principle 3.
9) According to this, it is well understood why, in the transfer of the ark from place to place in the days of David (see below, section 3 [OCR unclear]), no mention at all is made of the other holy vessels — for only regarding the ark is an explanation required of how they transferred it.
And one can explain that it is also for this reason that the Rambam's proof (see section 3 there) is specifically from the verse in Ezra.
10) Accordingly, one can say that the proofs he brought in Sefer HaMitzvos there (end of positive commandment 34) come to prove [not only that the mitzvah for all generations is incumbent on the Kohanim (see there, and in Kin'as Sofrim), but] also the very mitzvah itself, as he concludes: "Thus it has been made clear to you that this mitzvah is among the mitzvos."
11) In the book Ma'aseh Nissim, sec. 2. And see Margenisa Tava on the Principles there, item 6.
12) Divrei HaYamim II 35:3.
*12) So it is in Ma'aseh Nissim there. And see Divrei HaYamim I 23:25-26: "And He dwells in Jerusalem . . and also the Levites need not carry the Mishkan and all its vessels for its service." And in the Principles there, regarding "and he shall no longer serve" — that it applied "only in the wilderness." And see the critiques of the Ramban and the commentators on Sefer HaMitzvos there. This is not the place to elaborate.
13) The wording of the Ramban in the Principles there. And see also the Ramban's critique on positive commandment 34 (in positive commandment 33). The other commentators on Sefer HaMitzvos in the Principles there.
14) In positive commandment 187 — cited by the Ramban in the Principles there.
15) See the Rambam's introduction to Sefer HaMitzvos, toward its end, s.v. "Velachen ra'isi."
16) See the sources cited in note 11.
17) For in practice the sons of Kehas then carried all the vessels, since they had no wagons at all. And note the Raavad's commentary on Tamid, end of ch. 2: "But in any case one may wonder why Moshe made the altar so small; and if it was because of the weight, they could have added more Levites so that they could carry it well, and it is not [carried] on wagons like the boards." This is not the place to elaborate.
18) Bamidbar Rabbah 5:8.
19) And see also Bamidbar Rabbah 22:4 and Tanchuma, Matos 3: "And the holy vessels — this is the ark, as it says, 'For the service of the holy...'" From this it is evident that they hold that the above verse refers primarily to the ark (but see the commentary of Maharzu on Bamidbar Rabbah there).
20) See Responsa Sho'el U'Meishiv (first edition, part 3, end of sec. 53): "Regarding what the Rambam wrote in the Laws of the Temple Vessels . . its source was not found, and the Gaon, Moharam, of blessed memory, of Lubavitch said that this is explained in Midrash Rabbah, Parshas Bamidbar, and his words are pleasant and true." — It should be noted that from this it appears that [OCR unclear] the author of Responsa Sho'el U'Meishiv "repeated" [OCR unclear] the words of the Tzemach Tzedek. Perhaps the meaning is that the Tzemach Tzedek gave this answer to someone who asked him for the source of the above. It should also be noted that the above responsum was written "to the distinguished rabbi, R. Moshe of Yassy," and from the wording of the responsum it appears that this is part of what the "questioner" wrote to the author of Sho'el U'Meishiv. It is possible that the questioner was the well-known Chassid R. Yitzchak Moshe of Yassy — see about him Likkutei Dibburim, vol. 1, 29b; Beis Rebbi, end of part 2 (106a); and elsewhere. — And so too wrote the Chiddushei HaRadal and the Rashash on Bamidbar Rabbah there. And so it is explicit in the Meiri, Avodah Zarah 24b. And see Tzafnas Paneach, cited below in note 70.
21) Laws of the Temple Vessels, there, halacha 13.
*) The above derashah is also cited in Sotah 43a and in the Sifri on the verse in Matos 31:6. But there is no proof from there, since the verse of our parsha is not cited (in Sotah there no verse at all is cited for this; and the Sifri cites the verse (at the end of Parshas Bamidbar) "ולא יבואו לראות כבלע את הקודש גו'" ("But they shall not come in to see when the holy things are covered...")).
22) Bamidbar Rabbah 5:1; on our parsha, ch. 7 (sec. 1; 2 (at its end); 4; 8); and elsewhere.
23) Note also Bamidbar Rabbah 5, there (at its end).
24) The Kesef Mishneh cites Sotah (35a, end). It should be noted that the wording "and because David forgot" in the Rambam there (and so too in the Semag cited in note 5) is not found in Sotah there; nor is it in the Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 10:2; and elsewhere. And several commentators on the above (the commentators on the Ein Yaakov (Sotah there) and the commentators on the Midrash) explain how David erred* — that he held that it is not a mitzvah for all generations (or the like); see there. But the Rambam's wording is "forgot"**. And see the explanation of this (and the precision regarding forgetting) according to Chassidus — in the places cited below, note 73.
*) See also the Chinuch cited in note 5: "The Sages considered David as having erred in the matter, etc." And see Bamidbar Rabbah 21:12: "that you will ultimately err . . he erred and placed it, etc." (but see there in the continuation of the matter, "[OCR unclear], etc.," and in Matnos Kehunah there).
**) See Bamidbar Rabbah 4:20: "Why was he punished? Because the verse was hidden from his eyes, etc." And see also the Sifri and Bamidbar Rabbah (12:20) on the verse "And to the sons of Kehas...": "It was hidden from David's eyes that they did not carry, etc." (cited in Mahari Korkos (cited in note 31)). The intent is apparently not that he erred in this, but rather that he forgot the verse (unlike the other places, where it is possible to explain that he erred). But see the commentators on the Sifri.
25) Shmuel II 6:7-8. Divrei HaYamim I 13:10-11.
26) The Rambam in his introduction to the Yad.
27) It should be noted that there is a practical difference between them when he carried it in his hands or the like. And it is very forced to say that the only way of carrying vessels is on the shoulder. See (Bamidbar 4:15) "And the charge of Elazar...," and in the Yerushalmi (Shabbos 10:3), cited in Rashi, Shabbos 92a, s.v. "Shekein." And see the Ramban and Sefer Zikaron (on Bamidbar there) and Meleches Shlomo on the Mishnah, Shabbos there, from which it appears somewhat that their version of Rashi on Bamidbar there read so. And see Otzar HaGeonim on Shabbos there, that before citing the words of the Yerushalmi it writes: "Whether in his right hand or in his left, in his bosom or on his shoulder — these are the four that are taught as liable, for such was the carrying of the sons of Kehas."
28) See the Semag there. Kiryas Sefer (of the Mabit), Laws of the Temple Vessels, there — with a change in the order of the two matters (the obligation and then the negation) and of the proofs for them ("on the shoulder they shall carry" and then "and because David forgot"). From there too it is understood as explained in the text here.
29) Apparently one can say that this is why, although at first he writes "to take it," when he brings the proof from "on the shoulder they shall carry" he changes to "a mitzvah to carry it." And see below, note 46.
30) If he held of this proof, he should have counted it in the count of the negative commandments.
31) Printed in the Schulsinger edition of the Rambam, at the end of [the Book of] Avodah, "Commentaries of Mahari Korkos and the Radbaz . . from an old manuscript," p. 26.
32) Note what is written in the Moreh Nevuchim, part 3, end of ch. 45, regarding the reasons for the prohibition against making the anointing oil and the incense, and the reason for carrying the ark on the shoulder — according to which their subjects are connected to one another. But (besides the fact that this is not in keeping with his approach in the Yad HaChazakah) — in the Moreh there he continues in the same vein also regarding damaging the form of the Ephod and the Breastplate, and even regarding the loosening, etc., and this he did not write here, but rather later, in (the Laws of the Temple Vessels) ch. 9, halacha 10.
33) The Radbaz there answers: "For included in the mitzvah of the incense is to offer it on Yom Kippur once before the ark, and we say that he would place the pan between the poles of the ark; and this is why the Rav, of blessed memory, juxtaposed this mitzvah: that although they carried it with the poles on the shoulder, they were careful that the poles not slip out, etc." See there. This requires further study, for in this chapter the Rambam did not mention that the incense is offered on Yom Kippur between the poles of the ark. Moreover, the Rambam speaks here of the ark not when it is in its place (when the matter of the incense is relevant) but when it is being carried. And in any case, according to his explanation the Rambam should have put first the conclusion of halacha 13, "and they are careful that the poles not slip out, etc."
34) And in Rashi on Eikev 10:8 (s.v. "to carry the ark"), who explains the verse "At that time [G‑d] separated . . to carry the ark" to mean that the carrying of the ark is by the Levites (and not the Kohanim — see Rashi's following comment there; and see the next note)*. But see the Ramban there, at the end: "for the tribe of Levi was separated at that time so that the Kohanim would be from them, for they too carry the ark, etc."
*) It should be noted that as an introduction to this verse the Rambam there, in ch. 3, writes: "And know that the entire tribe of Levi is set apart for the service of the Sanctuary, as it says, 'At that time...'"
35) As the Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos (cited above, note 10), that the carrying of the ark for all generations is by the Kohanim (see the next note).
36) Apparently one could say that in the Yad he retracted what he wrote in Sefer HaMitzvos there, and did not decide upon whom the obligation of carrying the ark rests (and therefore he did not write this law in ch. 3 — with the service of the Levites — nor in ch. 4 — with the Kohanim). But it is understood that this is forced.
37) As for the Rambam not writing the law about this in the Yad — who must carry the ark — perhaps one can say that in the Rambam's view there is no practical difference in this (since it is a law in the object of the ark), and it may be done either by the Kohanim or by the Levites — see the commentators on the Rambam cited in the above notes. This is not the place to elaborate.
38) The Rambam's wording there, ch. 3, halacha 8.
39) And it stands to reason to say that the ark too is included in them. This requires further study.
40) It can be said that specifically through this the existence of the Holy of Holies and the sanctity of the House come about — see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 21 (p. 158ff.), in explaining the words of the Rambam at the beginning of ch. 4 of the Laws of the Chosen House.
*40) Accordingly, the wording of the Yerushalmi (Eruvin 5:1) is better understood: "the sons of Kehas, upon whom the ark was placed" (and not "who carried the ark").
41) This being the full name of these laws: "Laws of the Temple Vessels and Those Who Serve in It."
*41) See above, note *12.
42) Sotah 9a, end.
43) Bamidbar Rabbah 7:1. And see the other places cited above in note 22.
44) And Bamidbar Rabbah 5:8 (cited above in the text, section 2) concludes: "But since they came to carry the ark, etc., the Holy One, blessed be He, said: The Torah is life, as it says . . and the sons of Kehas hold on to the Torah, which is life — this is the ark that they carry, in which is the Torah, etc."
45) See Bava Basra 14a ff., that the Tablets and the broken Tablets lay in the ark, and there is a dispute regarding the Sefer Torah, whether it lay in the ark or beside it. And see also Bamidbar Rabbah 4:20 (in continuation of the statement about David and the bringing of the ark).
46) And so it is explicit in the Chinuch there, in the roots of the mitzvah of carrying the ark on the shoulder: "Because the whole essence of the honor of Israel is the Torah, through which they were distinguished from the other nations and became the portion of G‑d, blessed be He; therefore it is fitting and proper to carry it on the shoulders of the honored and sanctified men among us."
46) Accordingly, one can explain the change of wording of the Rambam in this halacha: in the first clause he wrote "it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder," and in the second clause "it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder." The intent of "rather, it is a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder" at the beginning is not the fulfillment of the mitzvah "on the shoulder they shall carry," but the obligation of taking it, because of the prohibition of transporting the ark on an animal or wagons (due to disrespect to the Torah); therefore he used the term "taking," meaning taking it from place to place (and not the act of carrying itself). Whereas the latter clause refers to the mitzvah of carrying it, from the verse "on the shoulder they shall carry," and therefore he wrote "to carry it."
47) In other words: putting the negation "it is not transported, etc." first emphasizes that the content of the positive command "on the shoulder they shall carry" is not merely an obligation of the person, but a law in the object of the ark, which requires a special "place" because of the honor of the Torah, as in the text.
*47) From the daily study portion in the Mishneh Torah for Sunday of this week — Parshas Naso 5744 (for those who learn three chapters each day).
48) Note the conclusion in the Chinuch there (on the above mitzvah): "And what they have become accustomed to do in the exiles today, to take out a Sefer Torah to greet the kings of the nations — this is not at all part of the obligation of this mitzvah, for all Jews are permitted to carry it. And if, out of the way of honor of the Torah, they choose even today that it be carried by Levites, blessing will come upon them."
49) Ch. 10, halacha 10.
50) Whereas in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, sec. 282, this law — "A person is obligated to treat a Sefer Torah with great honor, and it is a mitzvah to designate a place for it and to honor, etc." — is brought at the beginning of the section (and it does not bring at all "the words on the Tablets, etc." But see the Tur — cited below, note 64), and after it come the laws in the Rambam, halacha 10 (and details from halacha 11), and then (in se'if 2) in the Shulchan Aruch there, from the Rambam there, halacha 9; and in se'if 3 — from the Rambam there, the beginning of halacha 11; and in se'if 4 — from the Rambam there, halacha 6; and so on. See there.
51) See the previous note — the order in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.
52) Halacha 6 there.
53) See the Biur HaGra on the Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 2, that what the Rambam writes in halacha 11, "and place it on the donkey and ride on it," means on the donkey and not on the Sefer Torah. According to this, it is the same law as in halacha 6 — that it is forbidden to sit on a bed on which there is a Sefer Torah; and in any case, they are related to each other.
54) Note the law of a king with his own Sefer Torah (in the Yad, Laws of Sefer Torah, ch. [OCR unclear], halacha 2): "It shall be with him, etc.; when he reclines, it is opposite him." — And the Kesef Mishneh remarks, leaving it as requiring further study, that in Sanhedrin (21b) it says that he makes it like a kind of amulet and hangs it on his arm. — And the later authorities remarked: how is it possible to hang a Sefer Torah on one's arm?
55) As cited in the Kesef Mishneh and the Migdal Oz.
56) 18a.
57) In the Gemara there it concludes that the statement "just as they said regarding bones, so they said regarding a Sefer Torah" refers "to the latter clause" (if he was afraid of gentiles or of robbers, it is permitted). But this is because "regarding the first clause it is obvious — is a Sefer Torah any less than bones?", and the Baraisa did not need to specify it.
*57) Note Avodah Zarah 2b: "The Holy One, blessed be He, brings a Sefer Torah and places it in His bosom." There, 18a: "and a Sefer Torah lying in his bosom."
58) See the heading in the Kesef Mishneh there: "If he was traveling from place to place, etc. . . . until 'and goes'"* (and so it is in the first printing of the Kesef Mishneh (Venice 5334), which was printed in his lifetime). And similarly in the Migdal Oz, which wrote: "If he was traveling from place, etc. . . . until 'riding on the animal and goes'" (and so it is in the first printing of the Rambam in which the Migdal Oz was printed (Constantinople 5269)).
*) So is the heading in the Kesef Mishneh, and so in the Migdal Oz. And this is their way in several places: they copy the wording of the Rambam in abbreviated form, and in place of the middle words (of the Rambam's wording) they write "until."
59) Berachos 23a. And so too the Biur HaGra on the Shulchan Aruch there cites it as the source for the law regarding a Sefer Torah.
60) And cited in the Rambam, Laws of Tefillin, ch. 4, halacha 17.
61) Therefore he holds them rolled up, "and he should take care that no strap, etc." — Rambam there (from Berachos there).
62) And similarly the prohibition of disgracing, etc., a Sefer Torah, in halacha 8.
63) His wording in halacha 2, as above. And similarly what is explained in halacha 9, as above.
64) It should be noted that the Tur wrote "the words on the Tablets of the Covenant are the very same as those in the Sefer Torah; therefore one must honor it" regarding the laws of honor that are in the Rambam, halacha 9.
65) See the Biur HaGra there, end of se'if katan 1.
66) See the Tur there at the beginning (and similarly in the Shulchan Aruch), in place of "and to honor it" in the Rambam: "and to honor that place." And in the Yemenite manuscripts, and also in the Rambam printed by R. Moshe ben Shealtiel (Spain or Portugal, before 5252 or 5257), the reading in the Rambam too is "and to honor that place." And see also Kiryas Sefer of the Meiri (on the laws of Sifrei Torah, Tefillin, and Mezuzos), discourse 4, part 1.
67) It requires further study whether the continuation in the Rambam, "one should not spit opposite a Sefer Torah nor uncover himself, etc.," applies also opposite the place of the Sefer Torah, even though he does not specify it.
68) Whereas the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah there, which write (primarily) the laws needed for practice, wrote the matters in the order suited to actual conduct.
69) Unlike tefillin — see Berachos 24a, end (cited in Tzafnas Paneach on the Rambam here): "You might have thought it requires 'placing' like a Sefer Torah."
70) Note the Lechem Mishneh, Laws of Mourning, ch. 4, halacha 14, who explains the Rambam's view here: when there is no danger, slinging (the Sefer Torah) behind him does not suffice; rather, it must be in front of him, opposite his heart — unlike the other halachic authorities. And see the Bach on the Tur there, and elsewhere. And the Tzafnas Paneach, Hafla'ah, in the omissions to the Laws of Sefer Torah (58d), cites — on the Rambam's statement "and he should not turn his back to the Sefer Torah" — the Rambam at the end of ch. 2 of the Laws of the Temple Vessels: "When they carry it, etc."
71) Note also Derech Mitzvosecha 22b. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 187, and the notes there.
72) [OCR unclear] 152a.
73) Kuntres Acharon in Tanya, s.v. "Dovid zemiros karis lehu" (161a). Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 18c. Derech Mitzvosecha, the mitzvah of carrying the ark on the shoulder. Or HaTorah cited in note 6.
74) See the sources cited in Derech Mitzvosecha there (40b).
75) In any case, I have not found anywhere that the other Temple vessels carried by the sons of Kehas (who had no wagons) may be carried by hand or the like.
76) In addition to the very connection according to what is written in Bamidbar Rabbah at the beginning of the parsha, on "Take a census of the sons of Gershon, they too" — that Scripture placed Kehas first because of the honor of the Torah. And see also the sources cited in the other places in note 22. And see Kli Yakar at the beginning of our parsha; Likkutei Torah, our parsha, the discourses beginning "(Vayedaber...) Naso..." (and its explanation), the first and the second. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 33, p. 42ff.
77) In four of the calendar configurations (two in ordinary years and two in leap years), the festival of Shavuos falls on Friday and Shabbos before Parshas Naso (see Itim LeBinah, essay 16).
78) Likkutei Torah there. Derech Mitzvosecha there, at the end of the discourse. And elsewhere.
79) See Likkutei Torah, Shelach (42d), on "without a heart and a heart."
80) Derech Mitzvosecha there.
81) The wording of the blessing of our Rebbeim, our Nesi'im, for the festival of Shavuos.
Key Lesson
Because the Torah resides within it, the ark requires its own special, fixed "place" even while being transported — on the shoulder — and so too a Sefer Torah must be given a place of honor even when traveling. Each year at the time of the Giving of the Torah, every Jew receives new strength to set his face toward the ark: to direct his innermost will to G‑dliness alone, to engage in worldly matters only as necessary, and thereby to receive the Torah with joy and inwardness.