What is the connection between the end of parshas Mishpotim and this parsha?
(25,2) “Speak to the children of Yisrael, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering.”
We can explain the juxtaposition of the end of parshas Mishpotim, which says “and Moshe was upon the mountain forty days and forty nights”, and the beginning of our parsha, with the gemara in Sotah 13b. There it says that although it says in Devarim (34,5) “and Moshe died there”, the word 'there' is extraneous, and therefore we can learn from the similarly extraneous 'there' in Shemos (34,28) “and he was there with Hashem forty days and forty nights”, that just as on Mount Sinai he was actively serving Hashem, so too in the posuk in Devarim he was actively serving Hashem, and thus we can learn that Moshe did not die.
Now, it says in the gemara Sanhedrin 39a that a certain heretic asked R. Abahu: Behold, your G-d is a Kohen, as it says “have them take for Me an offering (Terumah)”, so after He buried Moshe, in what did He immerse to purify Himself? But according to the gemara in Sotah which teaches that Moshe did not die, the question of the heretic disappears.
And so now we understand the juxtaposition: From the fact that “Moshe was upon the moutain forty days and forty nights”, we learn that Moshe did not die, as we mentioned above. If so, the question of the heretic falls away, and there is no problem with His being a Kohen and He is able to receive Terumah. Therefore it says “have them take for Me an offering”.
Why does giving Terumah avoid dishonouring Hashem’s name?
(25,2) “Speak to the children of Yisrael, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering.”
Rashi explains that “they shall take for Me” means for the sake of My name. We can explain what he means with the gemara in Berachos 63a, which asks: Why is the parsha of Sotah next to the parsha of Terumah? To teach you that if a person does not give his Terumah to a Kohen, in the end he will need to go to a Kohen because of his wife who he suspects of adulterous behaviour. As a result, Hashem’s name which is written in holiness will need to be erased in water in order to give the woman to drink. But if he gives Terumah he will not come to this. This is what our posuk is saying: “take for Me”, for the honour of My name, so that it will not come to be erased in water.
Why did the Targum translate the word tachash as ססגונא?
(25,5) “Red ram skins, skins of tachashim, and acacia wood.”
Rashi explained that tachashim were a species of animal which existed only temporarily, and it had many colours, and therefore the Targum Onkelos translates it ססגונא, which is a contraction of a phrase that means that it rejoices and prides itself about its colours.
But how did Rashi know that the word ססגונא is an explanation of the word tachash, meaning that it rejoices and prides itself about its colours? Maybe this is just its name in Aramaic, like any other word. And what was so different about this word that Rashi chose to explain the Targum here?
But behold, it is well known that Adam HaRishon called names to all the cattle and to every beast of the field, and whatever he called every living creature, that was its name for ever in the Hebrew language. And afterwards, in the Generation of the Dispersion, many new languages came into being, amongst them Aramaic.
Now, Rashi writes here that tachash existed only temporarily, for the needs of the building of the Mishkan. Thus, at the time of the tower of Bavel tachash did not exist, and so it could not have received an Aramaic name at that time. Nor does it exist now to receive a modern Aramaic name. If so, why did the Targum call it ססגונא? It should have left the word in the Targum the same as the word in the posuk - tachash. Therefore, Rashi wrote that this is not its name, but rather it translated it as ססגונא as a description, that it rejoices and prides itself in its many colours.
