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 (Terumah); from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity you shall take My offering.”
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 can be explained according to the gemora in Sotah 13b, which says that Moshe Rabbeinu did not die. It learns this from a comparison of the word 'there' in Devarim 34:5 “and Moshe died there”, to the same word 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 did not die, but was actively serving Hashem (he ascended to heaven alive like Eliyohu).
Now, the gemora in Sanhedrin 39a writes that a heretic asked R. Abahu: Behold, your G-d is a Kohen, as it says “have them take for Me an offering (Terumah)”, so in what did He immerse to purify Himself after He buried Moshe? But according to the gemora in Sotah which teaches that Moshe did not die, there is no question to be answered.
This is what the juxtaposition is teaching us, that from the posuk “Moshe was upon the mountain forty days and forty nights” we learn that Moshe did not die. If so, the question of the heretic is void, and there is no problem with Hashem’s status as 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 (Terumah); 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 gemora 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 require the services of a Kohen because of his wife whom 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 the 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. 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, we know that Adam HaRishon gave names to “all the cattle and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field”, and “whatever he called every living creature, that was its name”, for ever. And we know also that later, in the Generation of the Dispersion, many new languages came into being, amongst them Aramaic.
Therefore, since Rashi writes here that tachash existed only temporarily for the needs of the building of the Mishkan, it was not around at the time of the tower of Bavel, and thus it could not have received an Aramaic name at that time, and it also does not exist now. 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 the translation is a description, that it rejoices and prides itself about its colours.