Tetzaveh
Six of their names shall be on one stone and the names of the six remaining ones shall be on the second stone in accordance with their births.
What does “כתולדתם, in accordance with their births” mean? To this we have an entire sugya in Sotah (36a-b). We will quote and analyze this passage at length, resolving a number of difficulties that appear in it.
The Gemara quotes a beraisa which contains two opinions. The first, that of the Tanna Kamma, that שנית כתולדתם ולא ראשונה כתולדתם. We take the word כתולדתם as qualifying the previous words האבן השנית – only the names engraved upon the second stone of the Ephod were “in accordance with their births,” that is, in theorder of the births of Yaakov’s sons, not the first. For while the second stone consisted of: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Yosef, and Binyamin – in preciseage order – the first stone had one exception: מפני שיהודה מוקדם, Yehudah preceded all of his brothers; thus, it consisted of: Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Dan, and Naftali.
Let us pause our citation of the passage to ponder this point. We’re told that the
first stone contained an anomaly מפני שיהודה מוקדם, because Yehudah is preceded. The impression is that this is a given, a fact known to us independent of our beraisa. Where indeed would this come from? The other option would be that this itself is the derivation from כתולדתם, that there is an anomaly in the first stone. Yet this prompts the question as to how such a vague allusion is translated into such a specific instruction. And even if we accept this premise – shouldn’t the language have been אלא שיהודה מוקדם, rather we see from here that Yehudah must have come first - ?
Another question that comes to mind is why it is necessary to expound this order when it could be logically deduced. How so? Chazal * tell us that when the Nesi’im brought their inaugural offerings at the dedication of the Mishkan over the course of twelve days, the consensus was that Nachshon ben Aminadav, leader of Yehudah, deserved the honor of the first day, owing to his initiative in plunging into the Red Sea. The assumption was that the rest of the days would follow the ages of the tribes’ progenitors, however, Moshe received specific instructions from on High to the contrary. Armed with this information, should we not have applied it to the order of the names upon the stones, relieving us of the need to expound our way to it?
Returning to our text, the Tanna Kamma continues that there were fifty letters upon these stones, divided evenly between them.
The beraisa continues with a second opinion, that of R’ Chanina ben Gamliel. He posits that the order followed that given in the beginning of the Book of Shemos: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, and Zevulun upon one stone, and Binyamin, Dan, Naftali, Gad, Asher, and Yosef upon the other. Being that this is not the order of their birth, what then is the meaning of כתולדתם? It teaches that the names must be in accordance with those given them at birth, and not flanked with an additional hei and yud as listed in the Book of Bamidbar. **
As is customary in analyzing a Talmudic dispute, it is appropriate to wonder what point it revolves on; why does each disputant prefer his position to that of his opponent?
Continuing with the sugya: the Gemara picks up on the statement that there are fifty letters upon the stones, observing that a count yields only forty-nine. Rashi notes that this question relates specifically to the second stone, for it is the one that lacks a letter. We should wonder why Rashi felt compelled to point this out – the location of the missing letter is seemingly irrelevant to our question. And isn’t it obvious to anyone who bothers to make the count?
The Gemara attempts to resolve this by suggesting that Yosef’s name was spelled with an extra letter hei, as we find in one instance, in Tehillim, *** עדות ביהוסף שמו. This is rejected, however, by invoking the beraisa’s statement that the names were spelled in accordance with their birth names. Therefore, another answer is suggested and seemingly accepted: whereas throughout Tanach Binyamin’s name is typically spelled lacking a second yud, on the stone it included one, in accordance with the manner in which it is spelled at his birth. A glaring problem that pops up in this section is that is ought to be addressing the Tanna Kamma, the source of the teaching of the fifty letters. Why, then, in both the repudiation of the first resolution and the conclusion, does the Gemara assume the derivative of כתולדתם that the engravings needed to reflect the birth names, a notion advanced by R’ Chanina ben Gamliel?
Turning away from the Talmudic text itself, there are further difficulties in its treatment by the Rishonim. Rashi, in his commentary to this verse, explains כתולדתם to mean in the order of births – on one: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Dan, and Naftali; on the second: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Yosef, and Binyamin (written with the extra yud). This would seem to skirt both opinions in our beraisa: the order generally follows that of the Tanna Kamma, yet Yehudah takes his natural place in the queue. ****
Additionally, both the Rambam ***** and the Ritva ****** describe the stones as containing the name of Yosef with the extra hei, in seeming contradiction to our gemara’s conclusion.
In order to cut through this knot of questions, let us first address why the Tanna Kamma rejects R’ Chanina’s approach, that כתולדתם precludes the spelling including the hei and the yud. What is the significance of spelling the names of the Shevatim with those letters? As Chazal ******* tell us, by adding one of His Names – that of yud and hei – to those of the Jews it served as a testimony that their purity wasn’t compromised during the centuries of Egyptian slavery. Seemingly, argues the Tanna Kamma, these letters would have served the same function upon the stones of the Ephod – yet, there was no such need. For as the Gemara tells us on this very page of Sotah, Yosef was dissuaded from sinning with his master’s wife through the message that he would thus forfeit the inclusion of his name upon the stones. As such, it follows that each name which was included serves as a testimonial to the uncompromised purity of its bearer. There was, therefore, no need to signal that message through the additional letters, and thus no need for the word כתולדתם to preclude them. Consequently, the Tanna Kamma derives an alternative lesson from this word.
How would R’ Chanina respond to this challenge to his position? He would counter that the simple presence of a name upon the stone is not rock-solid evidence of the purity in question. The proof to this is the working assumption (raised in the Gemara) that Yosef’s name was spelled with an additional hei. As Chazal tell us, ******** this inclusion of a Divine Name served as a testimony to Yosef’s character. So, although Yosef’s name appeared upon the stone, it still required the additional letter! It is therefore plausible that the other Shevatim would require this as well, and thus reasonable for the word כתולדתם to preclude it.
With the assumption that even R’ Chanina subscribes to the fifty-letters, we can resolve Rashi’s comment that the Gemara’s issue of the missing letter is according to the Tanna Kamma. In theory, the question now applies to R’ Chanina as well. Yet Rashi was of the opinion that it was formulated only according to the Tanna Kamma. He indicated this by narrowing the question to the second stone of twenty-four letters – which is so only according to the Tanna Kamma, for according to R’ Chanina’s order there are only twenty-one letters there. *********
In resolution of the missing letter, the Gemara suggests the hei of יהוסף, yet rejects it because כתולדתם teaches that their birth spelling must be used. We had objected that this notion is R’ Chanina’s – how then can it be used in a discussion of the Tanna Kamma’s position? The answer is now apparent: the sole reason for the Tanna Kamma’s rejection of R’ Chanina’s position is that which the names are self-testimonial, and R’ Chanina had retorted with the case of יהוסף. Now that the Tamma Kamma has accepted the idea of יהוסף as well, he must concede to R’ Chanina’s defense, forcing him to accept כתולדתם as advocating for the birth names. As such, the Gemara is in the right in using this drashah in clarifying the Tamma Kamma’s position.
Not only is the birth name approach possible according to the Tanna Kamma, it is critical. For if there is a need for fifty letters, it is only possible if we eschew the spelling of hei and yud, otherwise the count will be far greater. By necessity, he must come around to R’ Chanina’s כתולדתם. But if so, what source is left for his original exposition, that the names were in their birth order with the exception of Yehudah?
The answer to this leads us back to the outset of our exposition, when we wondered why a drashah is necessary, as we have a precedent from the Chanukas ha-Mizbei’ach. Having reassigned כתולדתם, we can now indeed use this precedent as the Tanna Kamma’s source.
If so, our understanding of the beraisa’s presentation of the Tanna Kamma is faulty and must be reinterpreted. When he states שנית כתולדתם ולא ראשונה כתולדתם, that only the second stone is כתולדתם, we can take that term to mean as we now understand it: with the birth spelling. That is, only the second stone needs to be stipulated as following the birth spelling, for it contains the name of Binyamin, and we need to be instructed to spell it with a second yud so as to reach a total of fifty letters. The first stone needs no instruction for all of its names are unequivocal. And there is no need to preclude the hei and yud, since the fifty-letter rule demands the birth spelling (as spelled out above).
The unspoken challenge of the beraisa is why we don’t take the aforementioned words in their straightforward sense, that there is a birth order but only in the second stone. To this the response is מפני שיהודה מוקדם, i.e., if we follow this suggestion and the first stone is not in birth order, we would have no indication as to what order we ought to use. We would need to fall back on precedent, namely from the Nesi’im, that Yehudah comes first. Well, if that is the approach, why not rely completely on reason, that Yehudah comes first and is followed by the birth order of the other brothers? This would render the drashah pointless. By necessity, this entire approach is wrongheaded. Thus, concludes the beraisa, we can feel secure in our understanding that כתולדתם is meant to include a yud in Binyamin. **********
The last loose end to tie up is the other Rishonim’s use of יהוסף despite its rejection by the Gemara. The answer to that may be that whereas Rashi pegged the question of the fiftieth letter on the Tanna Kamma, they may have assumed it to be relevent to R’ Chanina as well. When the Gemara pushes back against יהוסף from כתולדתם it does so from R’ Chanina’s perspective alone, for, as we pointed out at the beginning, it is only he who seems to advocate the birth spelling. What emerges is that while the conclusion of the Gemara for R’ Chanina is that the fiftieth letter lies in Binyamin, there is no reason for the Tanna Kamma to not maintain that it is in יהוסף. ***********
___________________________________________________
* Sifrei Zuta 7:11.
**Chapter 26, regarding Reuven and Shimon.
*** 81:6.
**** As observed by Maharsha, who assumes inexactitude on Rashi’s part.
***** Peirush ha-Mishnah, Yoma 7:4; Hil. Klei ha-Mikdash 9:9.
****** Yoma 73a.
******* Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 4:12.
******** As implied in the ensuing gemara in Sotah.
********* [Left unexplained is why Rashi made this assumption.]
********** With this understanding of the beraisa, Rashi’s comment on Chumash is resolved (Eichen edition, footnote 73).
********** [See Mahari Korkos, who anticipates this approach. The language of Ritva, however, indicates that he is merelyciting Rashi’s explanation.]