Or HaChaim on Exodus 25:15/אור החיים על שמות כ״ה:ט״ו

1 לא יסורו ממנו, "they shall not be removed from it." The reason that the Torah had to add the word "from it," and could not simply write: "they must not be removed," may be that without the words "from it" we would have understood that as long as the staves were not taken out of the rings completely it did not matter. However, we are taught in Yuma 72 that Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina queried an apparent contradiction between verse 15: "the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark," and 27,7, where the Torah writes: והובא את בדיו בטבעות, "and its staves shall be placed through the rings." This appears to indicate that the staves were inserted in the rings again and again. If so, how could one comply with the need for the staves to remain within the rings? The respective ends of the staves must have been thicker so that they could not slip out of the rings as demanded by the words: "they shall not be removed from it," i.e. they had to be attached so that they could not move. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the words of the Talmud that the words לא יסורו are enough to teach us that movement of these staves is forbidden. Perhaps the word ממנו has a different meaning, i.e. that even motion of the staves backwards and forwards within the rings was prohibited. In order to prevent us from thinking that this was also not allowed, the Torah wrote והבאת in verse 14.

2It is also possible that but for the word והבאת I would have assumed that whereas the prohibition of removing the staves is not punishable by malkot, i.e. 39 lashes, as long as the staves had not been completely removed from the rings it is nonetheless forbidden. The word והבאת therefore comes to teach that if the Torah had wanted to forbid any kind of movement by these staves it would have written וקבעת, "you shall affix them," or וחברת "you shall attach them," instead of והבאת, "you shall insert them."

3I have seen that Tossaphot on Yuma 72 ask why Rabbi Chanina based his query on the word והובא seeing that that verse deals with the staves that the copper altar was to be carried by while he ignored the word והבאת in our verse? Tossaphot ask further why Rabbi Chanina did not mention Numbers 4,5-7 which implies that the staves were removed each time the Israelites broke camp and dismantled the Tabernacle. This would contradict the Torah's directive not to remove the staves from the Holy Ark. Tossaphot answer that there were a total of eight rings and four staves attached to the Holy Ark. They base themselves on the wording: (Exodus 25,12) according to which four rings were to be attached to the four corners of the altar and another 4 rings, two each, to opposite sides of the ark. Accordingly, there would have had to be four staves, etc. I cannot justify the opinion expressed by Tossaphot. Many objections can be raised against that interpretation of the verse quoted. The matter is really very simple. The copies of the Talmud quoting Rabbi Chanina as basing himself on the word והובא are simply a scribe's error; Rabbi Chanina did indeed refer to the word והבאת.

4As far as the question raised from Numbers 4,7: ושמו בדיו is concerned, I think that seeing that the purpose of the staves on the Holy Ark was that it be carried by means of them when G'd commanded that the dividing curtain be used to cover the ark when it would be transported, He instructed that the priests drape it over the ark in such a fashion that the Kehatites who would carry it on their shoulders would not need to set eyes on the exposed ends of these staves. Rabbi Yehudah of Orleans (in that Tossaphot) felt that the meaning of Numbers 4,7 is that the staves be put on the shoulders of the Levites. Other Tossaphists have already discounted such an explanation as you can see when perusing the text on Yuma 72. There are additional arguments which can be raised against Rabbi Orleans' suggestion. Considering all the arguments, it is better to adopt my solution. I have no idea how these Tossaphists propose to deal with the fact that our verse (25,12) speaks distinctly of "two rings on its side," not of four. Possibly, G'd commanded two rings to be affixed to the body of the ark in such a way that they could not move, whereas afterwards He commanded Moses to insert two more rings inside the original ones. The latter could be moved backward and forward. This would then be part of the artistic excellence employed when constructing the ark enabling those who carried it to do so with relative ease. At any rate, I cannot abide the thought that there were more than two staves by means of which the ark was carried.