In addition to the aforementioned question regarding Rashi’s concluding words — “and all of its vessels for all the work in the Mishkan are enumerated” — we also need to clarify Rashi’s opening words: “In this parshah, all the weights of the contributions to the Mishkan are enumerated — of the silver, the gold, and the copper.”
The gist of Rashi’s comments also appears in Rashbam’s commentary. However, Rashbam writes this concisely: “These are the pekudei — the accounting of the silver, gold, and copper.” Rashi’s wording, in contrast, is more elaborate:
- a) “In this parshah... are enumerated....” If Rashi would simply say, “the accounts of the weights of the contributions to the Mishkan...,” we would already know that the phrase, “These are the pekudei,” refers [not back to parshas Vayakhel — where there is no mention of an accounting of the donations to the Mishkan — but rather] to “this parshah.” Why does Rashi need to emphasize “in this parshah”?
Commentators explain: The Torah interrupts this topic with several verses before giving its accounting. Therefore, Rashi must clarify that “These are the pekudei of the Mishkan” is still appropriate because the accounts appear “in this parshah.”
But we need to clarify: If so, Rashi should say, “These are the pekudei, the accounts of the weights of the contributions to the Mishkan... which are stated in this parshah” (or something similar). [Meaning, first, he would need to explain the meaning of the words, “These are the pekudei” (“the accounts of the weights...”); afterward, he should add where the Torah mentions them (“in this parshah”).] This would be consistent with Rashi’s words at the beginning of parshas Toldos: “These are the descendants of Yitzchak — Yaakov and Esav, who are mentioned in this parshah.” Why does Rashi begin with the words, “in this parshah... are enumerated...”?
b) “The accounts of all the weights of the contributions to the Mishkan....” Why is this emphasis necessary?
Moreover, Targum Yonasan and Targum Onkelos offer different renditions: Targum Onkelos writes, “These are the accounts of the Mishkan,” whereas Targum Yonasan writes, “These are the accounts of the weights and totals of the Mishkan.” Thus, Onkelos (whose rendition always leans closer to pshat, as known, in line with Rashi’s approach) only mentions “accounts.” Rashi, however, chooses wording (similar to that) of Targum Yonasan and adds “the weights.” On the other hand, Rashi omits the word “totals.”
