tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post8204482312181077576..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Why allude to the Churban specifically in Pekudei?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-63563505531249591352014-02-27T22:46:55.453-05:002014-02-27T22:46:55.453-05:00The Targum seems to equate srad with shimush, serv...The Targum seems to equate <i>srad</i> with <i>shimush</i>, service: they're garments for working in. Other translators relate it the Aramaic word <i>sarada</i> which means "lattice": they're garments made from net-work. <br /><br />My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the word "srad" would be superfluous if it means work garments: we don't need to be told that they made work garments when we're told that they were made for working in!Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-10722328812271259622014-02-27T16:05:52.644-05:002014-02-27T16:05:52.644-05:00What is the meaning and origin of the term "s...What is the meaning and origin of the term "srad" as in בגדי שרד (Shmos 39:1)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78004073503314424632014-02-26T17:21:02.559-05:002014-02-26T17:21:02.559-05:00Yitzchak, I think you're combining two potenti...Yitzchak, I think you're combining two potential meanings by saying that they both can be applied to people. Let's say that the two meanings are "census" and "auditor": a census is taken of people, and an auditor <i>is a</i> person. That doesn't mean that the two meanings are related and should therefore be preferred. <br /><br />In this case the pasuk is pretty clear that "pekudei" is a verb, because it goes on to say "which was "poukad" at the direction of Moshe, the labor of the Leviim ..." Also, your interpretation doesn't fit in with the fact that two of your "pekudim" aren't from the tribe of Levi. Even the remaining two "pekudim" don't make a pair: the audit was actually done by Itamar, albeit by Moshe's instruction. I think I recall a Midrash that asks why we're told that it was Moshe's instruction, and the answer given is that it reflects well on Moshe to show that he wanted to demonstrate that he had used public money honestly; how much more should we do so, etc.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23922748119211654322014-02-26T11:24:51.993-05:002014-02-26T11:24:51.993-05:00When I looked at the Concordance a number of years...When I looked at the Concordance a number of years ago, I came to the conclusion that "Pekudim" and "Pekudei" ALWAYS refer to people. If that's true here, the first paragraph of the Parshah tells us that the "Pekudim" of the Mishkan were the four individuals who are listed as being in charge of it (as in the phrase "Pekudei he-Chayyil") -- Moshe, Itamar, Betzalel, and Aholi'av. The second paragraph then goes on and gives an accounting of materials, but that's not the primary reference of the "Pekudim."Yitzchaknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79430292024920646152014-02-25T22:57:14.524-05:002014-02-25T22:57:14.524-05:00Perhaps the midrash is also responding to the fact...Perhaps the midrash is also responding to the fact that "pekudei" is plural, while "mishkan" is singular. A brief search indicates that the word "pekudei" is invariably applied to countable things, such as military units or families within a tribe; this appears to be the only case where it is applied to a singular object. From the perspective of peshat, this means "the counting of things associated with this object". From the perspective of midrash, however, we can ask why we need to "count" one object, and therefore read "pekudei" as "judgments" rather than "counts".Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.com