Kommentar zu Schemot 28:44

ואתה הקרב אליך AND THOU TAKE TO THEE after the work of the Tabernacle is finished.

AND THOU BRING THOU NEAR AARON THY BROTHER, AND HIS SONS WITH HIM … THAT THEY MINISTER UNTO ME IN THE PRIEST’S OFFICE, EVEN AARON, NADAB AND ABIHU, ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR, AARON’S SONS. The reason for mentioning Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar [when it mentioned already “and his sons”] is that Moses should not think that by anointing the father to minister as priest, his sons would automatically become priests; instead he had to initiate them personally into the priesthood. Thus Phinehas [the son of Eleazar] and others already born were excluded [from the priesthood], for only these four sons who were anointed with Aaron, and their children born to them henceforth, were appointed as priests.

ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרון אחיך, "And you shall bring near to you your brother Aaron, etc." We must understand the words: "and you- bring near- to you," in light of the statement in Shemot Rabbah 3,17 according to which it was G'd's original plan to appoint Moses as High Priest. This was changed due to Moses' repeated refusal to accept the role assigned to him by G'd which angered G'd. As a result (Exodus 4,14), G'd told Moses that his brother Aaron who had merely been a Levite up to that point, had now been promoted to be a High Priest. When G'd commanded Moses at this point to perform the ceremonies required for Aaron to assume the office of High Priest, He told Moses that he had to make his own contribution to this ceremony so that he would not be perceived as begrudging Aaron an office which had originally been intended for him. In fact, the appointment of Aaron to this position would serve as atonement for Moses who had resisted G'd's invitation to become leader of the Jewish people at that time.

נדב ואביהו אלעזר ואתמר, although the Torah had already indicated that this task was to be performed by “Aaron and his sons,” and we know the names of these sons of Aaron, the Torah names each one of them individually once more, in order to show that although both Aaron and his sons had been anointed with the oil of anointing, such had not been the case with Pinchos, Eleazar’s son, and that therefore at this time Pinchos was not included in the priests qualified to service the menorah. Once a priest had been ordained, his offspring born subsequently did not require anointing in order to be fully qualified as a priest.

After the work of the mishkon is completed. But not now. [Rashi knows this] because they were taken [as kohanim] only by means of the garments and the mishkon, as it is written (v. 4): “Make sacred garments for your brother Aharon. . .” [See Rashi on v. 3.] (Re”m)

Kap. 28. V. 1. ואתה הקרב, wie ואתה תצוה du als Überbringer und Vertreter des göttlichen Gesetzes. So ward auch später der jüdische Hohepriester nur durch den allerhöchsten Gerichtshof, ב׳׳ר של ע׳׳א, die an die Stelle Mosche in der Nachfolge traten, eingesetzt (Maim. הל׳ כלי מקדש IV, 15). Es ist die Nation, die für das Heiligtum des ihr anvertrauten Gesetzes dem Hohenpriester durch ihre Repräsentanz seine Würde erteilt. הקרב אליך: er erhält seine Würde, indem er aus der Mitte der Nation "dir" für dein Werk an die Nation, näher gestellt wird, indem er eine Wirksamkeit für die Erreichung des Zieles deiner Sendung erhält. —

לכהנו לי, “to minister unto Me.” Whenever the word לי is used in such a context it means that the instruction is of permanent validity. Compare Numbers 8,7: כי לי כל בכור בבני ישראל, “for every firstborn among the Israelites is Mine;” compare also Leviticus 25,55: כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, “for the Children of Israel are My slaves.” Compare further Leviticus 25,23: כי לי הארץ, “for the earth is Mine.”

לכהנו לי, “to serve Me as priests;” the letter ו at the end of the word: לכהנו, is superfluous, just as in Psalms 104 11, or in Numbers 24,3, or in Numbers 23,18. (Compare Ibn Ezra’s short commentary)

And his sons with him. The expression “with him” implies that they only merited the priesthood through being Aharon’s sons. This was the error of Nadav and Avihu when they offered the strange fire before God (Vayikra 10:1)—they thought they were worthy of performing the service on account of their own personal greatness.

The point mentioned last may be better understood in light of our tradition (Kabbalah) that when man opposes G'd, one of the many branches of his soul becomes detached from its holy root. At the time when Moses raised repeated objections to G'd's demand to accept the mantle of leadership, one of the branches of Moses' soul became detached from its celestial root. Although Moses had been punished for this, he had not obtained atonement until Aaron was inducted into the office of High Priest. Moses' active participation in this procedure would accelerate his atonement for this mistake. When the Torah speaks of ואתה הקרב אליך, we may understand this in the sense of "And you shall bring the estranged part of your soul close to you." G'd informed Moses that appointing Aaron would be his תקון, his rehabilitation for the error committed when he said to G'd: "send the one You are in the habit of sending (Exodus 4,13)."

כַהֵן לכהנו לי , im Piel heißt überall nicht: jemanden zum Priester einsetzen, sondern als Priester fungieren. So: ויכהן אלעזר (Bamidbar 3, 4). — לכהנו לי, ebenso V. 4: בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך ולבניו לכהנו לי es wird der Priesterdienst und so auch das, was durch die Gewänder zum Ausdruck kommen soll, zunächst auf Aaron, somit auf den כ׳הג׳, bezogen. Nadab, Abihu usw., die כהני הדיוט, stehen zu ihm nur wie Söhne zum Vater, helfend, an seiner Stelle einen Teil des Dienstes vollbringend. So konnte auch der כ׳הג׳ zu jeder Zeit ein jedes Opfer und jede עבודה vollziehen, ohne Rücksicht auf die für die andern כהנים bestehende Reihenfolge. Er gehörte keinem besonderen משמר und בית אב an, und hatte nicht mit zu losen, פייס (Joma 14 a). Waren doch im מקדש alle anderen nur seine stellvertretenden Gehilfen. Hinsichtlich der außer dem מקדש dem Priesterstamme zufließenden Gaben, קדשי גבול, hatte er keinerlei Vorrecht. (Maim. כלי מקדש. V, 12.)

This may also help us to understand a somewhat strange imperative in Berachot 54 according to which a person must pronounce a blessing when he receives evil tidings just as he is obligated to pronounce a blessing when he receives glad tidings. The Talmud explains on folio 60 of that treatise that this means that even evil tidings must be welcomed with joy. I have always found this demand difficult to accept. When we consider the fact that afflictions are the instrument which reunite the branches of the soul which have separated from their holy root, it becomes easier to accept. After all, what worse fate could befall a person than that his soul become estranged from his Creator? When a person receives evil tidings this means that he suffers an affliction as a result of which the part of his soul which has become estranged to G'd will become reunited. How could a person fail to rejoice over this aspect of the afflictions he is being subjected to?

AND THOU SHALT MAKE HOLY GARMENTS FOR AARON THY BROTHER FOR SPLENDOR AND BEAUTY — this means that he be distinguished and glorified with garments of distinction and beauty, just as Scripture says, as a bridegroom putteth on a priestly diadem.²⁷Isaiah 61:10. For these garments [of the High Priest] correspond in their forms to garments of royalty, which monarchs wore at the time when the Torah was given. Thus we find with reference to the tunic, and he made him a tunic of ‘pasim’²⁸Genesis 37:3. — meaning, a cloth woven of variegated colors, this being the tunic of chequer work [mentioned here], just as [Ibn Ezra] explained, which clothed him as a son of ancient kings.²⁹Isaiah 19:11. The same applies to the robe and the tunic, as it is written, Now she [Tamar] had a garment of many colors upon her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled,³⁰II Samuel 13:18. which means that a garment of many colors was seen clearly upon her, for such was the custom that the virgin daughters of the king wore robes with which they wrapped themselves; thus the coat of many colors was upon her as an upper garment. It is for this reason that it says there, and she rent her garment of many colors that was on her.³¹Ibid., Verse 19. The mitre [mentioned here] is to this day known among kings and distinguished lords. Therefore Scripture says with reference to the fall of the kingdom [of Judah], The mitre shall be removed, and the crown taken off.³²Ezekiel 21:31. Similarly it is written, and a royal diadem.³³Isaiah 62:3. Scripture also calls them the ornamented high caps,³⁴Further, 39:28. and it is further written, They shall have linen ornamented [caps] upon their heads,³⁵Ezekiel 44:18. which are for the beauty and glory of those that are adorned with them. The ephod and the breastplate are also royal garments, just as it is written, and thou shalt have a chain of gold about thy neck.³⁶Daniel 5:16. The plate [around the forehead, which the High Priest wore], is like a king’s crown. Thus it is written, ‘yatzitz nizro’ (his crown will shine).³⁷Psalms 132:18. — Ramban thus associates the word tzitz (plate) with the expression yatzitz nizro (his crown will shine), thus suggesting that the tzitz of the High Priest is a sort of royal crown. Furthermore, [the High Priest’s garments] are made of gold, blue-purple, and red-purple³⁸Further, Verse 5. [which are all symbolic of royalty]. Thus it is written, All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace; her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold,³⁹Psalms 45:14. and it is further written, thou shalt be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about thy neck.³⁶Daniel 5:16. As for the blue-purple, even to this day no man will lift up his hand⁴⁰Genesis 41:44. to wear it except a king of nations,⁴¹See Isaiah 14:9. and it is written, And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a ‘tachrich’ (robe) of fine linen and purple⁴²Esther 8:15. — the tachrich being a robe in which the wearer wraps himself.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala,] majesty is to kavod (glory) and to tiphereth (splendor),⁴³Cabalistic terms for certain Emanations. the verse thus stating that they should make holy garments for Aaron to minister in them to the Glory of G-d Who dwells in their midst, and to the Splendor of their strength, as it is written, For Thou art the Glory of their strength,⁴⁴Psalms 89:18. and it is further stated, Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee,⁴⁵Isaiah 64:10. meaning [“the house of] our Holy One” which is the Glory, and “of our Splendor” which is the Splendor of Israel. And it is further stated, Strength and beauty are in His Sanctuary,⁴⁶Psalms 96:6. and similarly, To beautify the place of My Sanctuary, and I will make the place of My feet glorious⁴⁷Isaiah 60:13. — meaning, that the place of the Sanctuary will be glorified by the Splendor, and the place of His feet, which is the place of the Sanctuary, will be honored by the presence of the Glory of G-d. And in Israel will He glorify Himself⁴⁸Ibid., 44:23. also means that in Israel He will show and designate His Splendor. Likewise He says further with respect to the garments of all of Aaron’s sons, that they are for splendor and for beauty.⁴⁹Further, Verse 40. Of the sacrifices He also says, they will come up with ‘ratzon’ (‘will’ — acceptance) on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house.⁵⁰Isaiah 60:7. Thus the altar is His Will and the house of His Glory is the Splendor.
The [priestly] garments had to be made with the intention to be used for that purpose. It is possible that in making them, intent of heart [for what they symbolize] was also needed on the part of their makers. It is for this reason that He said, And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom⁵¹Verse 3. — who will understand what they will do. And the Rabbis have already said [of Alexander the Great, that when asked by his generals why he descended from his chariot to bow before the High Priest Simon the Just, he answered]:⁵²Yoma 69a. The story told there is that when Alexander the Great conquered the Land of Israel the Samaritans petitioned him to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. Thereupon a procession of notables went out from Jerusalem headed by Simon the Just, the High Priest, who was attired in the high priestly garments. They walked a whole night with torches in their hand until dawn. In the morning as soon as Alexander saw Simon the Just, he descended from his chariot and bowed down to him. When the Samaritans said to him, “Such a great king as thou art dost thou bow thyself to that Jew?” He replied, “His image etc.” “His image glistened before me whenever I had a victory.”

לכבוד, to render honour and glory to the Almighty through the wearing of such resplendent garments when performing Temple service.

ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרון…לכבבוד ולתפארת, "And you shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron for splendour and beauty." These beautiful garments are an expression of joy, and will convince Aaron that Moses wanted him to appear robed in splendour. A person who only carries out a directive under duress does not go to the trouble of constructing such splendid garments for the person who replaces him in a role that had originally been slated for himself. Although the garments in question were a must for the person wearing them whenever he performed service in the Tabernacle, G'd followed the principle of allowing Moses to accumulate this merit for himself by allowing him to perform this commandment joyfully. In this instance, Moses' action represented a rapprochement between the souls of Moses and Aaron respectively. Perhaps G'd even meant that Moses should pay out of his own funds for these garments Aaron would wear during performing the functions of his new office. Although we have learned that as a rule the cost of the priestly garments was to be defrayed by the public purse (Yuma 3,7), the Talmud allowed for individuals to donate such garments and hand them over to the public. We need to explore the meaning of the word לכבוד, for honour, in this verse after G'd had already informed us of both the purpose and the nature of these garments. If all the Torah meant to tell us was that honour and glory would be conferred upon Aaron its wearer, what have we gained by this knowledge? Perhaps we can understand the meaning of this word by reference to Avodah Zarah 34. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Akiva as not having an answer concerning the question of what garments Moses wore (when he temporarily functioned as High Priest) during the seven days of the inaugural offerings of the priests. When he enquired in the academy they told him that Moses wore a white shirt while performing the service during those days. The fact that Moses wore only a white shirt during those days is clear evidence that the priestly garments themselves were not an essential part of the Temple-service except for Aaron and his sons. If any of the other priests performed the service without wearing their special garments the sacrifices offered by such priests would be acceptable to G'd. Accordingly, the word לכבוד means that these clothes are not for G'd's sake but for man's sake, merely for the sake of the image of the priest wearing them, especially when such a person was a priest on a permanent basis. Seeing Moses performed such service only on a temporary basis, he did not have to wear such garments.

For honor and splendor. This is only said about the garments of the Kohein Gadol. Aharon was required to act with special piety and to set himself apart from the people, which was liable to bring upon him an accusation of haughtiness. Therefore it was necessary that he be distinguished in his dress so that all would know that God had chosen him to be the “Throne” of the Shechinah.

ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make vestments to be worn during holy service.” Moses was not expected to fashion these garments himself, of course; this is a directive that he instruct the artisans charged with that task to insure that the vestments they would make would correspond to the details given in the Torah, Just as the skilled labourers constructing the Tabernacle itself were instructed by him personally, although Betzalel was the supervisor of the whole project to carry out their duties in consonance with the details recorded in Parshat Terumah.

And you shall make sacred garments: Behold, the garments that He commanded to make were ostensibly outer garments, such that their makeup is discussed - how the craftsmen are to make them with their work. But they really indicate inner clothes that the priests of God should make - to clothe their souls with thoughts and traits and proper tendencies, which are the clothes of the soul; and the craftsmen did not make those garments. But God commanded Moses that he should make these sacred garments - meaning to teach them how to refine their souls and traits, in such a way they will wear majesty and splendor upon their internal souls. And the explanation of "And you shall make sacred garments for glory," is that it is understood by us that every place that the soul of a man is called glory (as in Psalms 30:13, "In order that my glory sings"), you shall make sacred garments for the glory - meaning the soul - and I have already explained in my commentary to in Isiah (Chapter 5) that there is a distinction between glory and beauty, for a man is glorified also by his natural traits but is beautified only be his traits of volition. Corresponding to the spirituality within the soul naturally sourced in its depths is called glory, and corresponding to the light and splendor which one merits through divine service and its holiness is called beauty. And these two levels clothe in the holy garments that Moshe made, which is to say that he [Moshe] taught and aided them to merit to be garbed in precious garments and splendor and through this they "made holy garments" for the soul - which is called glory - and the soul - which is called beauty.

V. 2. בגדי קדש, eigentlich: Gewänder des Heiligtums, Gewänder, deren Bekleidung den Bekleideten als im Dienst des Heiligtums stehend bezeichnet. — כבוד ,לכבוד, ja das geistige כבֵד: das, worin sich der geistige und sittliche Gehalt, der Charakter eines Wesens ausprägt. In den Gewändern soll sich somit die Bedeutung der כהונה aussprechen. כבוד ist der reale Charakter der Gewänder. Zugleich sollen sie so gearbeitet sein, dass sie dem כהן zu תפארת gereichen. פאר, verwandt mit בחר ,בהר ,באר, denen allen der Begriff des Hervorleuchtens zu Grunde liegt. לתפארת setzt zugleich die formale Anforderung, dass sie unter Wahrung der durch לכבוד gegebenen realen Bedingungen auch dem Schönheitssinn genügen, dass sie den כהן schmückend auszeichnen. Dem durch כבוד zum Ausdruck kommenden Begriff wird durch תפארת die gebührende Wertschätzung gezollt.

ועשית בגדי קדש, “you are to make holy garments;” after G-d had taught Moses how to construct the Tabernacle, he now proceeds to teach him about the priestly vestments to be worn when the priests perform their duties in the Tabernacle.

ולתפארת, also the Priest should inspire awe among the Israelites who are all considered his disciples seeing he had the names of all the tribes engraved on these garments right opposite his heart when he wore them in his official capacity.

לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” Nachmanides writes that this means that by wearing the garments described forthwith the wearer would enjoy glory and splendour in the eyes of those who saw him wearing these garments. The reason was that the garments that will be described now were all of the type worn by Royalty only. Already when Yaakov had a tunic, כתנת, made for Joseph, this was meant to distinguish the wearer, to set him apart from less distinguished peers. The מעיל, robe, was similarly a garment worn only by Royalty or other highly distinguished individuals. This is why the sages decreed that after the collapse of the independent Jewish state, grooms under the wedding canopy were no longer allowed to adorn themselves with turbans, and the brides were not wearing crowns on their heads. (compare Maimonides Taanit, based on Ezekiel 21,32). The headgear of the priests is also referred to as פארי מגבעות, as the kind of hat conferring distinction on the wearer. The breastplate too is a garment worn by Royalty. They were usually made from blue wool, gold threads, as we know from Daniel 5,7 (et al) והמונכא די דהבא על צואריה, “will wear purple and a golden chain around his neck.” The ציץ, the golden headband, corresponds to the crown worn by kings. Their crowns are made of a combination of blue and red, purple wool and gold. In Psalms 45,15 we are told כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה ממשבצות זהב לבושה, “the royal princess, her dress embroidered with golden mountings,” etc. Finally, תכלת, the wool dyed a royal blue, was also the colour worn only by Royalty. It is also possible that the meaning of the words לכבוד ולתפארת is a way of saying that seeing that the High Priest is to perform service of the Lord, he is to do so while clad in suitably decorative attire, all in honour of Hashem. [the problem with this interpretation is that the High Priest was not allowed to wear these vestments inside the Temple, only outside of it. Ed.] The Biblical verse supporting such an interpretation would be Psalms 69,19 כי תפארת עוזמו אתה, “for You are the glory of its strength.”

Alternatively, G'd wanted to give us a reason why the Torah commanded that the High Priest wear 8 garments, 4 made of white linen and four containing gold. The Torah says that the reason is לכבוד ולתפארת, for splendour and for beauty. We find the following comment in the introduction of Tikkuney Ha-Zohar. "The four golden garments are an allusion to the four letters in the Ineffable Name, whereas the four white linen garments are an allusion to the four letters in G'd's name א־ד־נ־י." We should remember that the Ineffable Name reflects G'd's attribute of תפארת, whereas G'd's name א־ד־נ־י reflects His attribute כבוד. According to this, the word לתפארת in our verse would refer to the golden garments, whereas the word לכבוד would refer to the white garments. The Torah listed varying degrees of holiness in ascending order, hence the attribute לכבוד precedes the attribute תפארת.

Hints within the holy garments

G'd directed that eight garments were to be made for the High Priest in order for him to be able to obtain atonement for his people for the various imperfections that people are guilty of as a normal part of their lives. Aaron's wearing these garments would enable the Israelites concerned to achieve their proper place in the higher regions. Having said this, we need to understand why G'd was insistent that Aaron wear these garments whereas He did not provide similar garments for Moses to wear. The Talmud (Erchin 15) tells us that each of these eight garments conferred atonement for a specific type of sin. The reason that only Aaron and his sons were commanded to wear special garments was because such atonement could be obtained only by people who were intended to serve as priests all of their lives, something that did not apply in the case of Moses. Moses' function in temporarily serving as High Priest was only to obtain atonement for the sins of Aaron and his sons so that they could assume their office as priests. As a result, Moses wore only a white shirt when acting as priest.

We have already said that just like the external body is clothed, which is like clothing for the soul and it's external clothing, so too one should clothe the inner soul with it's internal garments and become enriched by them. And just like we call external clothing with the word "measure" (מד), for they are made to the specific measurements of each person, so too the garments of the soul are called "measurements" (מדות), for the attributes (מדות) of a person and his qualities garb the soul, and through them [one's traits] it's [the soul's] powers and greatness will be expressed. And when [Moshe is] commanded on the external garments of the priests, the essence of the intention was to teach them knowledge of how to dress their souls again in the attributes and qualities of purity and holiness. And Chazal say: The tunic [ketonet] atones for bloodshed, The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, the mitre atones for the arrogant, the belt atones for thought of the heart, the breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, the ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, the robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech, the frontplate of the High Priest atones for an act of brazenness'. And we will explain them in what seems a clarifying light these garments of the soul in the order of their donning. Behold the first garments are the ones through which the soul being an animalistic soul are covered, i.e. the power of lustful and of anger, and so come the trousers train and to clothe (immature) people to stop the lustful force to cover one's sexual organs, and the tunic which is an undergarment will remind him to squelch the power of anger, from which comes bloodshed. And a hint to this is (the verse brought in the Gemara) "...and dipped the tunic [ketonet] in the blood", for they dipped the inner tunic in the blood of anger and the vengeance came forth from the angry impulse which overpowered them. And it is known that of the imagery of the soul many are embarrassingly evil, and they are naturally imprinted in the depths of the soul, and at the time when these tendencies rise up to the heart a person thinks thoughts of evil, and about this it is said (Chronicles 1 29:18) "...keep this forever, even the imagery of the thoughts of the heart of Your people", for these are the imagery of the thoughts which come up from the depths of the soul to the heart. And on this is hinted the belt, which constricts around the heart to submerge the evil imagery in the bottom of the depths of the soul, and as such the length of it was 32 (ל"ב) Amos, like the number for heart (לב), and this act of embroidery alludes to the imagery that is made in it. And on this it's written [in the Gemara] that the belt atones for thought of the heart. And they said [in Pirkei Avos 4:28] "Jealousy, lust, and honor remove a person from the world", and after one's soul has become purified from jealousy which arises from the impulse of anger, and lust from the impulse of lust, then one must humble oneself from the attribute of arrogance. For it [arrogance] is the source of seeking honor, and through it comes the mitre to cover one's head because it's said the Shechinah [Divine presence] is above one's head, as it says [Talmud Shabbat 156b] "Cover your head so that the fear of Heaven will be upon you". For if one thinks that Hashem and all of His Holiness with him is above his own head, he will dress in humility and he "will be like dirt and ashes" in front of the honor of The King. And for this reason the mitre was 16 Amos, for the divine chariot which is above his head had 4 animals each with 4 faces, which is 16. And the mitre of the High Priest was even longer, because corresponding to his greatness he needed to surrender more and to recognize even more the greatness of his creator and his own lowliness, and this is what it [the Gemara] says 'mitre atones for the arrogant'. And all of these garments are equal for the High Priest and a normal priest, for they are garments of the (lower) animal soul, regarding which every human being is equal. However the High Priest in comparison to his brothers had another four garments to clothe his (upper) speaking & intellectual soul. For the first [garment] is that he should guard his speech and what comes out of his lips should. be nothing but Torah and Awe of Hashem, and he shouldn't increase idle chatter...

You should bring to yourself Aaron your brother from amongst the Jewish people: it says in the posuk make for me a sanctuary and I'll dwell within them, why doesn't it say I'll dwell in it? The answer is everything originally begins with female waters and then the male waters come, and the Torah says from any person with a generous spirit you should take my donation. What this means is the generosity of the heart and the good desire for the Mishkan was created from the good desires of the Jewish people that their hearts were magnanimous towards their Father in Heaven. Every single Jew merited that his gift would create something and sync with his devotion with Hashem. One person merited the level of the courtyard, one person merited the level of the heichel, and another person merited that his gift created the Holy of Holies. In the very same place where the arousal from below reaches that is where the response comes on from on high because words that come from the heart enter the heart. Meaning words that come from the heart of the Jews in this world enter into the heart of Heaven. This is then the meaning of the words "I shall dwell within them" within the inner most desire of the hearts of the Jewish people [and their desire and kavanah] that is what arouses the revelation of the Shechina. This is similar to the concept of the Ark carrying its bearers, and similar to the concept of how Kohen Gadol is given wealth from his brothers. Spiritually, they should agree in their heart that they want him to be the Kohen Gadol and, once they agree, he becomes sanctified for the Jewish people. This explains the verse "Bring your brother Aaron close to you from amongst the Jewish people [with their acceptance; that's how he is brought closer]." And that is the meaning of the word "bring his close to you," to you, refers to Moshe because the Torah says everything that G-d commanded is through Moshe. Everything from Moshe because he is the da'at of the Jewish people. Today as well everything happens through Moshe and the Moshe of that generation. Therefore, when Tora says "Hashem was angry at me because of you" the word "angry" is related to the word "pregnancy" [Hashem "impregnanted" within me various revelations for your sake]. Therefore, when a Jew does something altruistically it returns and connects again to Moshe Rabbeinu. And that is why the Torah says "they should bring your pure olive oil" pure means without sediment this referring to a mitzvah that is pure [without selfish motives] that is what should be brought back to you.

לקדשו לכהנו לי TO SANCTIFY HIM, TO APPOINT HIM AS PRIEST TO ME — to sanctify him, i. e. to instal him into the priesthood by means of the garments here specified, so that he may become priest unto Me. The expression of כהונה denotes service — serventrie in old French

ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, that they should carry out all the instructions mentioned in the Torah in the preceding verses.

ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, "And you are to speak to all wise-hearted men, etc." The reason the Torah introduces this verse with the word ואתה is that Moses was to involve himself personally in speaking to those people. Although G'd had already said: "you are to make the holy garments," G'd repeated instructions to Moses here to make clear that Moses was not personally to make these garments but that they should be made at his behest. If the Torah had not issued instructions for Moses to personally speak to the artisans who were to make the garments, we would have thought that as long as these garments were made according to Moses' instructions it would not matter if he had personally charged the artisans with their task.

ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, “and you shall speak to the wise-hearted people, etc.” The word ועשו which appears close to the word חכמה hints that the making of these garments required an exceptional degree of wisdom meaning that they had to be made לשמם, i.e. the people making them had to remain constantly aware of the purpose of these garments and the function of the people who were to wear them. The Torah wrote the word ועשית, in addition to the word ועשו to underline how important the כוונה was which had to be present in the weavers, embroiderers, etc. You will note that this short paragraph contains the words לכהנו לי three times. Each time it would have sufficed for the Torah to write לכהן לי, “to be a priest for Me.” The three extra letters ו whose numerical value totals 18 is a veiled reminder of the 18 High Priests which served during the 410 years which the first Temple remained standing.

The term כהונה denoting “service.” Accordingly, לכהנו does not mean to make him a kohein, but “to bring him into the service by means of the garments.” Rashi added the phrase, “So that he shall be a כהן unto Me,” in order to connect לכהנו with לי . Rashi did not comment on לכהנו לי in v. 1, where it first appeared, because he wanted to explain לקדשו , and say that it means לכהנו . Accordingly, our verse conveys: and how should Aharon be sanctified ( לקדשו )? By bringing him into the service ( לכהנו ).

And you shall speak: However, the outer garments which hint to the inner garments - make this with craftsmen expert in their craft. Nevertheless, even these craftsmen must be wise-hearted. For I have already clarified in [my] commentary on Proverbs1 that wise-hearted is a very high level. As a wise one is one who acts according to the laws of wisdom; yet he still has an inner war with his impulse. But one who is wise-hearted is one whose wisdom is acquired by his soul and fills all the chambers of his soul. And about this it states, "that I have filled him with a spirit of wisdom': It is an explanation of "to the wise-hearted" - one who has a spirit of wisdom that fills all of his heart, and there is no place found in his heart that is empty for desire, [an evil] impulse and thoughts that are counter to wisdom. And [it is] these wise-hearted ones that shall make Aaron's clothes to sanctify him; as they will understand to what these garments hint...

V. 3. ואתה תדבר, wie der כהן der Erwählte der Nation sein soll, so sollen auch die Gewänder, in denen allein er als כהן zu fungieren hat, von der Nation angefertigt, Nationaleigentum sein. Es ist das Kleid der Nation, in welchem der כהן zur עבודה hintritt (Joma 35 b). — Wenn hier bei den anzufertigenden Gewändern sofort besonders die für die Verfertiger erforderliche כמהn hervorgehoben wird, während für die Gesamtherstellung alles andern dieses Erfordernis erst Kap. 31 bei der Ernennung Bezalels und Ahaliabs ausgesprochen ist, so dürfte dies wohl in dem Umstand begründet sein, dass hinsichtlich des Heiligtums und seiner Geräte die Anfertigung an das im ganzen und einzelnen Mosche gezeigte Modell gebunden, hinsichtlich der Gewänder jedoch den Anfertigern ein größerer Spielraum gelassen war. ועשו וגו׳ לקדשו. Es scheint, dass die Gewänder zu dem Zweck gefertigt sein mussten, und nur dann dem כהן die קדושה verliehen. So auch רמב׳׳ן.

ועשו את בגדי אהרן, not only should they build the Tabernacle, provide oil for the Menorah, but they should also fashion the garments to be worn by Aaron, etc.

Wise in heart. Wisdom is usually associated with the head. “Wise in heart” refers specifically to the possession of awe of God, which is the beginning of true wisdom (Tehillim 111:10). The seat of awe is indeed in the heart.

The Torah is careful to say אל כל חכמי לב, "to all the wise-hearted men," as the fact that Moses would take out time to speak to all of them individually would be one of the signs demonstrating that he was personally anxious that Aaron be provided with such splendid robes. Had he not been enthusiastic about this task, Moses would have delegated as much of this task as he could and would certainly not have addressed every single artisan who was active in their construction.

Furthermore, the reason that the Torah employs the word ואתה no less than three times in these five verses is a sign that Moses would enjoy the merit of performing three distinct services in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. He would receive credit for a) issuing the instructions to bring the donations enabling the Tabernacle to be built; b) for the overall instructions for building Tabernacle including its furnishings and the priestly garments; c) for the service that would be performed in the Holy Tabernacle as a result of his being instrumental in the Tabernacle being built. This was one of the reasons G'd said that the Israelites were to take things to him, or to bring things to him, or why he was to speak personally to all the wise-hearted men. All of this made Moses a messenger of the people. It would therefore be accounted for him as if he himself had performed every single activity connected with the project. The instruction to bring Aaron close to himself meant that when Aaron would perform the Temple service he would also do so as Moses' messenger. This is why the Torah was careful to write: אליך, "to you." The above-mentioned considerations also account for G'd' issuing these instructions to Moses in direct speech rather than in the third person describing what the individuals who actually fashioned the Tabernacle and its furnishings were to do. G'd meant for Moses to issue directives for others to carry out the work.

חשן A BREAST-PLATE — an ornament borne in front of the heart.

ואלה הבגדים, And these are the garments, etc. Why does this verse list only six out of the eight priestly garments, omitting mention of the pants and the High Priest's ציץ, golden headband? Perhaps the missing garments have been alluded to already.The headband may have been alluded to in verse three as included in the line: "and they will make Aaron's garments to sanctify him." The words: "the garments of Aaron" in that verse were not really necessary; it would have sufficed to say: "and these are the garments, etc." The exclusive mention of Aaron alludes to the headband which was worn only by the High Priest. The reason it is mentioned together with the other garments is that it alone would not be able to perform any function. Aaron's (The High Priest's) eight garments performed their function only if all of them were worn by the High Priest at one time. This is also the justification for the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה, "these." At first glance that letter appeared to have referred to other garments over and above the eight garments listed in the Torah at this stage. Actually, it only suggests that all the garments that were now being mentioned were interdependent on each other, essential. As far as the pants are concerned, we find an entirely unnecessary line at the end of verse four, i.e. "and they will make sacred garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons so that he will be a priest unto Me." Seeing that this line was unnecessary, we may see in it a veiled reference to the pants. Both Aaron and his sons are mentioned in that line as both he and his sons had to wear pants beneath their long tunics.

ואלה הבגדים, they are all listed individually.

חושן ואפוד ומעיל וכתונת תשבץ ואבנט, “a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of chequer work, a turban, and a sash.” All the vestments have been mentioned here with the exception of the ציץ, the golden headband, and the trousers. It is possible that seeing that the Torah wrote that Moses was to address כל חכמי לב, “all the wise-hearted people,” there was no need to mention the two last mentioned garments, as making them did not involve any special skill.

ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, “These are the garments they are to make, etc.” Our sages in Erchin 16 say that just as the sacrifices themselves were instruments of atonement for the Jewish people, so the priestly garments (when worn at the right time in the right place by the right people) were also instruments helping the Jewish people to achieve atonement. This is the reason that the section dealing with the priestly garments was written right next to the section dealing with the sacrifices themselves (the consecration offerings 29,18). The breastplate would atone for sins committed erroneously by judges, as is written: ועשית חושן משפט, “you are to make the breastplate of judgment” (verse 15). The ephod would secure atonement for the sin of idolatry committed inadvertently as we are reminded by Hoseah 3,4: “and there will be no ephod and no teraphim.” It is also written in Judges 8,27 that Gideon converted gifts of gold given to him into a garment called ephod, something that was accounted a sin for him [seeing he did not treat it as a garment but as a sort of monument. Ed.]. The robe called מעיל secured atonement for loose use of one’s tongue, לשון הרע; this is symbolized by the bells at the lower hem of that tunic, מעיל. This robe had a number of bells at the lower edge of which could be heard when the High Priest wearing it was approaching. Just as the evil tongue is something that was spread in public, so the atonement procedure was by means of a garment heard in public. When evil was spoken in private by someone, (who was unaware that he was guilty of unfair comments) the means of atonement for this was the incense. The checkered tunic, כתונת תשבץ, would secure atonement for blood spilled inadvertently. This has been alluded to in Genesis 36,31: “they dipped the tunic in blood.” This tunic resembled a type of shirt and was worn next to the skin (like a T-shirt with sleeves). It was embroidered with gold threads designed in a checkered manner so that it appeared to have “stripes” through it. This is what is meant by (28,39) “you shall make the tunic of a box-like knit of fine linen.” The word תשבץ is the same as משבצות זהב (compare Maimonides Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 9,19). The headgear worn by the High Priest, i.e. the מצנפת, would obtain forgiveness for haughty bearing and deportment. It was appropriate that something worn high on top of one’s head should be the symbol by means of which haughtiness could be atoned for. The אבנט, belt, would secure atonement for lewd fantasies and other sinful thoughts. Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7,3 claim that the length of this belt was 32 cubits (about 20 meters) The golden head band, ציץ, worn by the High Priest on his forehead would atone for effrontery. We have a verse in Jeremiah 3,3 describing effrontery as associated with the forehead. The prophet speaks of the “brazenness of a harlot,” using the word מצח to define brazenness. Aaron had a total of eight garments of which the Torah lists only six. The Torah did not mention his linen trousers as only the garments Moses was to dress him in qualified for this paragraph. The headband, being made of pure gold, is also not enumerated as one of the garments, as, strictly speaking, it was an ornament rather than a garment. The instruction for Aaron to wear linen pants was given only in verse 42 after Moses had already been instructed to dress him in his garments. Had Moses been meant to dress Aaron in his pants the instructions to dress Aaron would not have been written only at the end of verse 42 The function of the pants as a means of securing atonement extended to sins of a sexual or incestuous nature as man is perceived as using his legs to run after chances to obtain sexual gratification.

It is thus made for the lower. . . I.e., toward his feet, and not toward his head. Rashi’s explanation, “Its width being the same as the width of the back of a man,” should not be to be taken literally, because Rashi explains in v. 6 that its width was “somewhat more” on each side.

V. 4. חשן kommt nur als Bezeichnung dieses Kleidungsstückes des Hohepriesters vor. Nach V. 16 war es eine Quadratspanne groß und hatte nach VV. 22.— 29 seine Stelle auf der Brust, deshalb übersetzt man es gewöhnlich: Brustschild. Lautverwandt ist damit ןoח, welches das Bewahren wertvoller Güter und Kräfte, und mit חצן, das den zum Festhalten und Tragen gebogenen Arm bedeutet. Demgemäß dürfte חשן, das nach V. 16 doppelt war und nach V. 30 die Bestimmung hatte, zwischen seiner Doppellage die Urim und Tumim zu bewahren, vielmehr einen solchen bewahrenden Behälter, etwa Brusttasche, bedeuten. (Das lautverwandte עשן, Rauch, dürfte diesen also bezeichnen, weil Rauch eben die unverbrannten, der Feuersgewalt gegenüber erhalten gebliebenen Teile fortführt. Rabbinisch heißt עשן geradezu wie חסן: stark).

ואלה הבגדים, “and these are the vestments “ Our author is stymied by the omission in this list of the “golden headband,” ציץ, listed in verse 36 of this chapter.

ואפוד AND AN EPHOD — I have heard no tradition nor have I found in the Boraitha any description of its shape, but my own mind tells me that it was tied on behind him; its breadth was the same as the breadth of a man’s back like a kind of apron which is called pourceint in old French which ladies of rank tie on when they ride on horse-back. Such, as mentioned, was the way in which the lower part was made, as it is said, (II Samuel 6:14) “And David was girded with a linen ephod” — this informs us that the ephod was something tied on the body. It is, however, not possible to say that it consisted of a girdle only, because it is said (Leviticus 8:7) “And he put the ephod upon him”, and afterwards it is stated “and he girded him with the חשב of the ephod” and this Onkelos translated by “the girdle of the ephod.” This, therefore, informs us that the חשב is the girdle and the אפור is the name of the ornamental garment itself. Further, it is not possible to assert that it was on account of the two shoulder-straps that it was called אפוד (i. e. that the term אפוד applies to these two straps and the girdle to which they were attached) for it is said, (v. 27) “the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod” — this tells us that the ephod is a separate name, the shoulderpieces a separate name and the girdle a separate name (i. e. each of these is the name of separate articles). Consequently I say that it is called אפוד in reference to the apron-like garment which hung down and that it was so called because they bedecked him (אופדו) and ornamented him with it, as it is said, (Leviticus 8:7) “And he bedecked (ויאפוד) him with it.” The חשב was the girdle which was on the upper portion of it (the ephod), and the shoulder-pieces were attached to it. Further, my own mind tells me that there is evidence that it was a kind of garment, for Jonathan ben Uzziel translates (II Samuel 6:14) “And David was girded with a linen ephod” by “a linen כרדוט” and exactly similarly does he translate מעילים, “robes”, by כרדוטין in the story of Tamar, Absolom’s sister, (II Samuel 13:18) “For with such robes (מעילים) were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled”.

חשן, something resembling a sheath, containing a pocket. Its precise nature depends on its use at the time.

We learn from this that the eiphod is a kind of belt. I.e., that the eiphod is a garment [which is belted on].

The question which remains is why the Torah did not list these two garmennts together with the list of the six garments listed in verse four so that the allusions which we just mentioned need not have been recorded at all? We may have to look at these two garments as being in a category by themselves, the headband because of its special significance, and the pants because of their being of inferior status as a garment symbolising the priest's holiness. This is why each of these is alluded to separately and is not lumped together with the other six priestly garments. The six garments mentioned in a row in our verse are basically of equal worth as far as their symbolising the status of their wearers as priests is concerned.

אפוד. Aus VV. 5—7 erkennen wir als wesentliche Bestandteile des Ephods: ein Rückenteil, von welchem zwei Achselblätter über die Schultern nach vorne hingehen und mit dem Rückenteil jederseitig unterhalb des Armes verbunden sind, und das ferner durch einen Latz (שבn) von beiden Seiten vorne unterhalb der Brust zugeknöpft oder sonst auf irgend eine Weise befestigt worden. Wir wissen ferner aus V. 31. מעיל האפוד, und Wajikra 8,7: ויתן עליו את הכתנת ויחגר אתו באבנט וילבש אתו את המעיל ויתן עליו את האפוד ויחגר אתו בחשב האפוד ויאפר לו בו, dass die wesentliche Bestimmung des Ephod in dem festen Anschluss an den Körper bestand, den dadurch der מעיל, das Obergewand, der Mantel, erhielt, dass sich somit אפוד zum מעיל, wie das אבנט, Gürtel, zum כתנת, zum Rock verhielt. Ja, wir wissen aus dieser letzteren Stelle sowie aus: ואפדת לו בחשב האפוד (Kap. 29, 5) dass die Wurzel אפד selbst ein Umgürten, einen festen An- und Zusammenschluss um den Körper bedeuten müsse, und müssen somit, da das Ephod hiervon seinen Namen hat, seine wesentliche Bedeutung als eine Umgürtung begreifen. Nach Raschi und auch nach Maim. הל׳ כלי המקדש IX , 9 ging auch noch vom Rückenteil ein Stück Gewand bis zu dem Fuße hinab. Im Texte ist jedoch davon keine Andeutung. Das: ויתן עליו את האפוד ויחגר אתו בחשב האפוד (Schmot 8, 7), woraus Raschi schließen zu müssen glaubt, dass der Ephod außer der Umgürtung noch einen Bestandteil gehabt haben müsse, dürfte dies, wie uns scheint, nicht notwendig erweisen. Der Ephod war allerdings mehr als ein gewöhnlicher Gürtel. Ein Gürtel umschließt nur die Lenden. Der Ephod fasste aber Rücken, Schultern, Brust und Lenden zusammen. Er tat dies aber eben nur dann, wenn er durch den Latz, חשב, vorne zugeknöpft war. Mit diesem חשב wurden zugleich Rücken und Schulterteile fest angeschlossen. Durch die Schließung des חשב wurde er eben אפוד, daher: ויאפר לו בו

חשן ואפוד, “a breastplate attached to an ephod.” At this point, linen trousers are not mentioned, as they were not constructed as a sign of distinction of the individual who wore them.

מעיל — This was a kind of shirt and so, too, the כתונת, except that the כתונת was worn immediately on the body and מעיל is a term for the outer shirt.

ואפוד, a garment which is at one and the same time decorative and protective, covering the chest of a person, worn as an outer garment.

“And he put the eiphod on it”. . . I.e., on the coat, as we see later.

An additional reason for listing only the six garments here may be that the Torah wanted us to know that the priestly garments needed to be constructed for that specific purpose. This is why the Torah emphasised: "they shall make holy garments." Even Aaron's pants had to be made especially for him to wear when performing his duties. If so, we would realise that the same rule applied in even greater measure to the making of the garments which were holier than the pants by definition. The first verse which we explained contained the allusion to the headband, also speaks of לקדשו, "to sanctify him;" in the case of the ציץ, it was not only sacred, but it was inscribed with the words: קדש לה׳ "Holy unto G'd."

Suchen wir die Bedeutung der Wurzel אפד, so stellt sich uns zunächst die Lautverwandtschaft mit אות ,אוד ,עבד ,עבת dar. Wie עבד ,אות ,אוד, die mechanische, geistige und soziale Vermittlung eines Zweckes bedeuten, so ist auch עבת vorwiegend kein beschränkendes, hemmendes Bindemittel, sondern ein die Dienstbarmachung der Kräfte für einen Zweck bewirkendes Sammeln und Binden derselben. So: קצץ עבות רשעים (Ps. 129, 4), עבות העגלה (Jes. 5, 18), חלם עבתות (Job 39, 10), עבתות (Hosea 11,4). Und so scheint auch אפד, das Zusammennehmen der Kräfte in den Dienst eines Höhern zu bedeuten und auszudrücken, sowie das Gegürtetsein überhaupt: bereit sein für eine Tätigkeit anzeigt. אפד ist somit innig verwandt mit עבד und das Tragen eines אפד ist der sprechendste Ausdruck für einen עבד לעבוד עבודה, für einen zur עבודה Gegürteten. Daher שאת אפד לפני ד׳ identisch mit Priestersein vor Gott (Sam. 1. 2, 28). Daher sich Gott als Diener darstellen durch das Tragen eines אפד ausgedrückt ward (Sam. I. 2, 18; Sam. II. 6, 14). Daher, während der hier angeordnete leinen-wollen-goldene Ephod zur Kleidung des Hohepriesters beim "Dienste" gehörte, die Priester überhaupt wohl außer dem Dienste, ebenso wie in den zuletzt zitierten Stellen Samuel und David, einen leinenen Ephod trugen (Sam. I. 22, 18).

ועשו בגדי קדש, “they (the artisans) shall make holy garments.” Other garments, such as the headband for Aaron and the trousers for his sons, are not mentioned at this stage.

תשבץ A QUILTED [INNER GARMENT] — made with משבצות as ornaments. These משבצות were a kind of indentations which are made in gold ornaments as a setting in which to fix precious stones and pearls, as it is said of the stones of the ephod, (v. 11) “enclosed in settings (משבצות) of gold.” In old French they call them castons.

תשבץ, a knitted one (tunic). This garment, being knitted, has small holes all over it, as do most such knitted garments when made from wool.

Because it adorns him and ornaments him. . . Rashi is saying that eiphod means an ornament. [Here,] it adorns the kohein. The term חֵשֶב that is written dealing with the priestly garments means a belt.

מעיל. Aus VV.31.—33 ersehen wir, dass מעיל ein Gewand war, das eine geschlossene runde Halsöffnung hatte, somit über den Kopf wie ein Hemd angezogen wurde, und, den ganzen Körper umgebend, von den Schultern bis auf die Füße hinabging. Aus allen Stellen, in denen sonst noch מעיל vorkommt, erkennt man es als ein Obergewand, das den Körper umhüllte, weshalb wiederholt davon עטה gebraucht wird, und das nur von den Vornehmen getragen wurde. Der מעיל war nach V. 31 ganz aus himmelblauer Wolle. —

מצנפת — a kind of domed helmet which they call cofea in old French, for in another passage (v. 40) it calls them מגבעות which we translate in the Targum by כובעין, helmets.

מצנפת, a kind of hat, cap, worn on the head. We encounter the word describing Royal headgear in Isaiah 62,3 וצניף מלוכה, “a royal diadem.”

While he likewise translated מעילים (robes). . . Robes are surely a garment. So the eiphod, too, is a garment.

כתנת ,כתנת תשבץ ist ein Gewand, das, wie wir aus Wajikra 8, 7 ersehen, unmittelbar auf den Leib angezogen wurde. Es war nach V. 39 von Byssus. Es erhält seinen besonderen Charakter durch die Beifügung תשבץ. Diese Beifügung kann keine bloße Verzierung desselben bedeuten, da die ganze Anfertigung V. 19 ושבצת הכתנת שש lautet. תשבץ muss somit eine Eigentümlichkeit des Stoffes selbst bezeichnen. V. 11 und V. 20 kommt שבץ als Fassung von Edelsteinen vor. Sam. II. 1, 9 lässt der Amalekite den sterbenden Saul sagen: אחזני השבץ und scheint dies dort Krampf, Todeskampf zu bedeuten, eine Bedeutung, die der fest umklammernden Fassung von Edelsteinen sehr verwandt ist. Nach Raschi und Maim. הל׳ כלי המקדש VIII. 16 bildete das Gewebe des כתנת lauter Kästchenvertiefungen, wie die Kästchen zur Einfassung von Steinen. כמו בית הכוסות fügt Maimonides erläuternd hinzu, wie der Netzmagen oder die Haube der Wiederkäuer, dessen innere Fläche lauter rautenförmige Vertiefungen bildet. Wir haben daher תשבץ: Kassettenarbeit übersetzt.

ואבנט — This was a girdle upon the inner-garment, and the ephod was the girdle over the outer-garment, just as we find it stated in the description of the order in which they were donned: (Leviticus 8:7), “And he put upon him the inner-garment (כתנת) and girded him with the belt (אבנט) and clothed him with the mantle (מעיל) and put the ephod (אפוד) upon him.”

ואבנט, a belt or sash of sorts. According to the plain meaning, this is the place where the trousers should have been mentioned. They were not mentioned as only garments of a distinctive character enhancing a person’s stature are listed here.

This was a type of shirt. . . Rashi is referring to the word מעיל in the verse, and explains it.

מצנפת. Aus Jesaias 22, 18 ergibt sich, dass צנף eine Kreisbewegung um einen Mittelpunkt bedeutet. Es kommt dort von dem Rollen eines Balles vor. Dem entspricht die Maim. הל׳ כלי המקדש VIII., 19 gegebene Erklärung, dass מצנפת aus einem sechszehn Ellen langen um den Kopf gewundenen Zeuge gebildet wurde. Aus V. 39 wissen wir, dass es aus Byssus verfertigt war.

בגדי קדש lit., GARMENTS OF THE HOLY THING — i. e. from the heave-offering that is sanctified (מקדשת) to My Name shall they make them (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 1 10).

A kind of a domed hat. Rashi is explaining that we should not think מצנפת is what is called hoiben in Yiddish, which lies flat on the head. For a hoiben does not have a dome. The verse’s מצנפת is rather a type of hat that is hard, with a dome-like space inside.

אבנט war ein nach Maim. das. drei Finger breiter und zweiunddreißig Ellen langer Gürtel, der, wie aus Wajikra 8, 7 ersichtlich, über den כתנת gegürtet wurde. Es war Vorschrift, ihn nicht höher, als unmittelbar über die Hüfte dem Ellenbogengelenke gegenüber zu gürten (das. 10, 1 u. 2). Er war nach V. 39 מעשה רקם, somit wie der Tür- und Torvorhang (Kap. 26, 36 u. 26, 16) von den drei wollenen Stoffen auf weißem Byssusgrunde (siehe das.).

Which Onkelos translates for us as “hats.” Rashi is saying that the מגבעת of ordinary kohanim is also a מצנפת , as it says in Yoma 25a: “The appointee took the מצנפת off one of the kohanim. . .” Thus we see that מצנפת is called מגבעת for ordinary kohanim, and [here] it says מצנפת in place of מגבעת . Since מצנפת means מגבעת , and Onkelos translates מגבעות as “hats,” it follows that מצנפת is a kind of hat. Sometimes it is called מצנפת because it wraps the head like a צניף (turban), and sometimes [i.e., for the ordinary kohanim] it is called מגבעת because it covers their [whole] head like a hat, [however, the מצנפת of the Kohein Gadol was smaller, in order to leave room for the ציץ ]. (Re”m)

ועשו בגדי קדש וגו׳, in dieser Wiederholung werden auch die Söhne genannt; sie erscheinen auch hier, wie schon zu V. 1 bemerkt, als Aaron untergeordnet und beigegeben.

From the terumah that was sanctified for My Name. . . Rashi is answering the question: The term “sacred garments” implies that the garments are sacred as soon as they are made. But they are not sacred until they are worn, because they are made for Aharon and his sons, [not for Hashem]!? Rashi answers, “From the terumah. . .” [I.e., they are called “sacred” because they are made from the funds of terumah which was collected from the people for the sake of Hashem, so they became sacred immediately].

....THE EDGE FOR THE OPENING etc. The hint here is that one's prayer should always be regarding the bitter exile of the Shekhinah (from which we should be quickly saved). The language from our mouths should be continual prayer regarding the pain of Shekhina's exile.

והם יקחו AND THEY SHALL TAKE — Those men, wise in heart (cf. v. 3), who are to make the garments shall receive from the donors את הזהב ואת התכלת THE GOLD AND THE BLUE PURPLE, in order to make the garments of them.

AND THEY SHALL TAKE THE GOLD. Now up to this point all the commands were directed to Moses himself: and thou shalt make,⁵³Verse 2. thou shalt make,⁵⁴Above, 26:1. but now He commanded that He should speak unto all that are wise-hearted that they make the garments. It is for this reason that He said, and they shall take the gold and the blue-purple, meaning that they are to receive the free-will gifts directly from the public, and make with them the garments. The purport thereof is to state that the gifts should not be weighed out to them, nor be counted, for they are trustworthy people, similarly to that which is said, Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to give to them that did the work; for they dealt faithfully.⁵⁵II Kings 12:16. And just as this is said with reference to the garments, the same applied to the whole work of the Tabernacle. Only on the first day [of its construction] is it written, and they received of Moses,⁵⁶Further, 36:3. and even then they took everything from him without an accounting. But on the other days the people brought the gifts directly to those who did the work. Therefore it is written, And they spoke unto Moses, saying: The people bring much more than enough⁵⁷Ibid., Verse 5. — for it was to them that the people brought the free-will gifts, not that they gave them to Moses for him to weigh it out to them. However, after the workers had collected everything, they did count and weigh it out, and told it to Moses, as it is written, and the gold of the offering was twenty and nine talents etc.⁵⁸Ibid., 38:24.

והם יקחו את הזהב, just as the correct degree of dedication to its purpose was required by these חכמי לב while they would be engaged in fashioning the Tabernacle and its paraphernalia, so the same degree of mental concentration on their holy task was required while they received these contributions from the people or their go betweens.

והם יקחו את הזהב, “and they shall take the gold, etc.” Up until this point all the directives had been addressed to Moses personally, whereas now G’d commanded that Moses address all the wise-hearted people to fashion the vestments, therefore the Torah had to continue with והם יקחו וגו', that these wise-hearted people had to get hold of the raw materials they were to employ when making these vestments. They would receive them directly from the donors and there would be no need for an accounting of the quantity of such materials handed over to the artisans entrusted with the work. They were all trustworthy. The same principle also applied to all the other people engaged in the construction of the Tabernacle. We know this from the fact that the only time mention is made of these donations being handed over by the people was on the first day they had been given such an opportunity, and Moses already had to stop them from binging additional contributions as the Tabernacle’s needs had already been oversubscribed. (compare 35,21 and 36,7) It is clear from there that the people brought their contributions directly to the artisans appointed to convert the materials into the respective furnishings of garments.

Shall receive from the donors. . . Rashi is explaining that the pronoun “they” does not refer to “Aharon and his sons,” mentioned immediately before, but to the “wise at heart” in v. 3. The word יקחו [usually] conveys legal acquisition, which is unrelated to craftsmanship and the artisans who perform their work. Therefore Rashi explains that here, יקחו means “they shall receive” the materials in order to make the garments. And because there is no receiver without one who gives, Rashi adds: “From the donors the gold. . .”

והם, “and they,” the artisans, יקחו את הזהב, “will take the gold; gold which has been discussed elsewhere, i.e. the donations of gold listed in Parshat T’rumah. G-d tells Moses that just as He wishes that Moses should use these donations of gold in the construction of the Tabernacle, so He also wishes that some of it be used for making the priestly vestments. People will not say that Aaron uses this in order to flatter himself, or to enrich himself, as they are aware that it is he who facilitates their obtaining forgiveness for their sins. This will all be spelled out later on.

ועשו את האפד AND THEY SHALL MAKE THE EPHOD — If I set myself to explain the making of the ephod and the breast-plate in the order of the verses, the description of them would be fragmentary and the reader might err in piecing the details together: therefore I shall write down how they were made, just as each of them was, in order that “he who runs may read” (may have a comprehensive idea of them in their entirety), and afterwards I shall explain it in the order of the verses. The ephod was made like that kind of apron of women who ride on horse-back. He (the priest) tied it on behind him opposite (at the height of) his heart below his elbows. Its breadth was equal to the measure of a man’s back and somewhat more (cf. Rashi, end of v. 26), and it reached to his heels. The belt was attached to its top edge along the whole of its width, being of weaver’s work (i. e. woven in one piece with the ephod) and it extended on both sides beyond the width of the ephod in order that it might go right round the body and gird on the ephod by means of it. The shoulder-pieces were attached to the belt, one on the right and one the left, behind the priest, at the two ends of the width of the apron, and when they were lifted up they stood (we should say “they lay”) upon his two shoulders, so that they were like two straps made of the same material as the ephod itself, and sufficiently long to lift them up to reach to his neck on both sides, and they hung over in front of him a little below his shoulders. The onyx stones were fixed in them, one on his right shoulder and one on his left shoulder, and the settings were placed in their ends in front of his shoulders on his breast. Two cords of gold were inserted through two rings which were on the breastplate at the two ends of its upper width (edge), one on the right and one on the left, and the two ends of the chain (or cord) were fixed in the setting on the right, and similarly the two ends of the left chain were fixed in the setting which was on the left shoulder. Consequently, the breast-plate hung in front of him over his heart from the settings of the ephod. Further, there were two rings at the two ends of the breast-plate on its lower edge, and opposite them two rings below on the two shoulder pieces of the ephod on the lower edge of each where this was joined to the belt. The under two rings on the breast-plate were opposite the rings on the ephod, lying one upon the other, and they fastened them (each pair of rings) together by a blue purple thread which was inserted through the rings in the ephod and breast-plate, so that the lower edge of the breast-plate should lie close to the belt of the ephod and should not move about and come apart from it, swinging to and fro.

אפוד, a garment that covers a person from the waist down. Its upper rim is constructed like a sash or belt, artistic work. This sash is used when the wearer ties the ephod above his tunic. This is the meaning of Leviticus 8,7ויחגור אותו בחשב האפוד, ויאפוד לו בו, “he girdled him with the belt of the ephod and thus adorned him with it.”

ועשו את האפוד; although my grandfather (Rashi) has explained both the ephod and the choshen in detail, I plan to concentrate on some aspects which he has not mentioned in his commentary.

The settings were put in their ends in front of his shoulders. . . I.e., the settings were put on the shoulder-straps in the place where the shoham-stones were fixed.

V. 6. Mosche hat nur die Arbeiter zu ernennen, sie aber empfangen die Stoffe zur Anfertigung der Kleider unmittelbar aus den Händen des Volkes. Bedenken wir, dass mit diesen Kleidern die für alle Zeiten bleibende Weihe und Würde der Aaroniden verbunden sein sollte, wodurch sie als die auserwählten Vertreter der Nation im Heiligtum zu hoher Auszeichnung gelangten, von der anderen Seite aber ihren Dienst im Heiligtum nur als Diener der Nation zu vollziehen hatten, und daher, wie bereits zu V. 2 bemerkt, das "Kleid des Volkes" im Heiligtum zu tragen hatten: so begreifen wir nach beiden Seiten hin die bei den Kleidern ausdrücklich hervorgehobene Bestimmung, dass die Verfertiger dieser Kleider den Stoff dazu unmittelbar aus den Händen des Volkes empfangen sollten. Es erklärt das Volk damit seine Zustimmung zu dieser Auszeichnung, und es ist das Volk, das mit seinem Kleide den Priester bekleidet.

ועשו את האפוד, “they are to make the ephod.” Apparently only a single ephod was to be made. When we read in Samuel I 23,6: “he brought down an ephod with him,” and in Samuel I 22,18: “he killed eighty five men on that day wearing a linen ephod,” this is no contradiction to what the Torah wrote, as none of these eighty five men also wore a breastplate attached to their ephod. The Jewish High Priests, when consulting G-d, did so only by means of the breastplate which had the urim and tumim folded in the pocket at the back of the breastplate. When in Samuel 23,9, David told the High Priest Evyatar to bring forth the ephod, he referred to the one attached to the breastplate that was attached to it. The artisans constructed the ephod, according to what is written in the Torah, and as explained by Rashi. There is proof that the ephod was a vestment, as we are told in Samuel II 6,14, that David was girded with an ephod. We also have proof that the daughters of the king would wear such a garment so as to be identified of their rank as princesses. (Compare Samuel II 13,18.)

זהב תכלת וארגמן תולעת שני ושש משזר OF GOLD, OF BLUE PURPLE, AND OF RED PURPLE, OF CRIMSON AND FINE TWISTED LINEN — The five materials were intertwined in every strand: they beat out the gold into the form of thin plates and from them they cut threads, and they wove that gold thread together with six threads of blue purple and a gold thread with six threads of red purple, and similarly with the crimson and similarly with the fine linen; because all the materials had their threads sixfold and there was a gold thread with each of them. Then they intertwined them all into one thread; it followed, therefore, that their thread was 28-fold. This is how it is explained in Treatise Yoma 72a and it is derived from the following verse: (Exodus 39:3) “And they beat out the gold into thin plates and cut it into threads to work the threads of gold in the blue purple and in the red purple, etc.” — this tells us that a gold thread was intertwined with each material.

Similarly the two ends of the chain. . . Explanation: These are the golden braided chains. After they are inserted in the rings [of the breastplate], each chain has two heads; they are thus double. [They are attached to] the settings of the eiphod, which are actually the settings on the shoulder straps [of the eiphod. They are so called] because everything connected to the eiphod is called “eiphod” — and the shoulder straps are connected to the belt of the eiphod.

מעשה חשב THE WORK OF AN ARTIST — I have already explained (Exodus 26:1) that this was weaving on both sides: that is, that the designs on both sides were not similar one to the other.

Lying on each other. . . Explanation: The rings of the shoulder straps were on the outside and the rings of the breastplate were on the inside. He then מרכסן , i.e., joins them with a thread of greenish-blue wool, so the breastplate will not move about and separate.

שתי כתפת וגו׳ TWO SHOULDER-PIECES, etc. — The apron was below and the חשב of the ephod was the belt, and this was joined to it on its top edge similar to the apron of ladies who ride on horseback. On the priest’s back there were joined to the belt two pieces like two wide straps, one opposite each shoulder. He lifted these up upon his two shoulders so that they hung down in front of him before his breast, and because they were joined to the rings in the breast-plate they were held fast in front of him upon his heart so that they could not fall off his shoulders backwards, just as is explained in this section (v. 28). Thus they lay on his back in an erect position and then passed over his shoulders and the two onyx stones were fixed on them, one stone upon each shoulder-piece.

שתי כתפות חוברות, carefully matched in the construction of their decorations.

שתי כתפות חוברות יהיה לו, according to my understanding the ephod was designed and constructed to cover only the lower half of the body from the waist down. It covered, (i.e. enclosed) this section both in front and at the rear. This is spelled out more clearly in Leviticus 8,7ויחגור אותו בחשב האפוד ויאפוד לו, “he put the tunic on him, girdled him with the decorated band (sash) with which he tied it to him.” This makes clear that the cheshev was a kind of belt or sash attached to the edge of the ephod firmly attached (sewn) to the body of the garment described as ephod. The shoulder pieces described here were so tightly attached to one another that they covered the entire back of a person from his waist upwards all the way up. [the shoulder pieces (straps) were joined to one another tightly from behind.] This is the reason the Torah repeats once more concluding with the word וחבר, vechubar, “so that it was properly joined together.” In other words, not only were the two shoulder pieces tightly joined together at the upper level of the torso, but they were also tied together by means of these bands at the level of the waist. The choshen was worn above it on his heart, being only one span wide and long (28cm square). This breastplate was also attached to the shoulder pieces above and to the ephod at waist level below. As a result, for practical purposes the breastplate and the ephod were really one garment. This had to be so, for, if the breastplate had only been fastened to the shoulder pieces of the ephod by means of the chains described, every time when the priest had occasion to bend down, the shoulder pieces would have been in danger of falling down.

V. 7. וחבר: die über die Schultern gehenden Teile sollen unterhalb derselben wieder jederseitig mit dem Rückenteile verbunden sein und so "der Ephod" ein einheitliches Ganze sein.

שתי כתפות, “two epaulettes;” these have been mentioned first in verse 7. They looked like short belts joined to one another, and they would be attached to both the front and the back of the ephod. They would rest both over his right shoulder and over his left shoulder. They bore the name “shoulderpieces,” as they stood upright forming a kind of collar around the High Priest’s neck.

אל שני קצותיו AT THE TWO EXTREMITIES THEREOF — on the width of the ephod; for its width was equal only to that of the priest’s back (and did not go entirely round his body, so that one may well speak of the two extremities of the ephod), and its height was up to the elbows — which they call coudes in old French — and not higher, because it is said (Ezekiel 44:18) “they shall not gird themselves (בַּיָּזַע),” i. e. they shall not gird themselves in the place where one perspires (במקום זיעה) namely, not higher than their elbows and not lower than their loins, but only by their elbows (Zevachim 18b).

אל שני קצותיו, toward the two outer extremes of its width.

אל שני קצותיו, to its two ends, which were behind the priest, the ends of the upper part of the ephod beside the sash.

According to a different opinion, these epaulettes were very wide, hence they were compared to shoulders. According to that opinion, this is why they were described as חוברות, for if they had been narrow like thin belts, they could not have been properly attached to the breastplate which would have been in danger of falling down.

וחבר IT — the ephod — SHALL BE JOINED with the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod: he shall join them below the belt with a needle and he shall not weave them together with it, but he must weave them separately and join them afterwards.

וחובר, as a result of which the ephod will be joined to the art work of the shoulder pads.

וחבר, this word from the end of verse 7, means that the shoulder pieces were joined to the ephod by means of pins (like safety pins).

וחשב אפדתו This signifies, and the girdle by means of which he bedecks it (the ephod) and puts it in order for the priest and adorns him (cf. Rashi on v. 4).

וחשב אפודתו, the belt attached to the sash acted as the connecting link tying things together, as described in Leviticus 8,7 which we already quoted.

V. 8. חשב. Grundbedeutung: Verbinden, jedoch so, daß auch in der Verbindung die Teile noch in ihrer Gesondertheit erscheinen. Dadurch unterscheidet es sich von חבר, das eine völlige Vereinigung ausdrückt, und wird zugleich Ausdruck für Gedankenkombination und Rechnen. Daher auch: חצב mit צ: gewaltsame Trennung, durchhauen. חֵשב, der die beiden Seiten eines Gewandes um den Körper, zeitweilig beim Tragen, verbindende Latz.

וחשב אפדתו, “and its skillfully woven band;” this was an integral part of the ephod, looking like a belt; this is why it was described in Leviticus 8,7: ויחגור אותו בחשב האפד, “he girded him with the girdle.”

אשר עליו WHICH WAS UPON IT — above on the edge of the apron: this is therefore the girdle.

אשר עליו, “which is upon it;” all around the circumference of the ephod this woven band was visible and protruding as if a single belt looking (its woven pattern) like the cloth parts of the ephod. It looked similar to the workmanship of the robe over which it was worn. In other words: the word עליו, refers to the ephod.

כמעשהו ACCORDING TO THE WORK THEREOF — as the weaving of the apron — the work of an artist and of the five materials — so the weaving of the belt, also, was the work of an artist and of the five materials.

ממנו יהיה, “it shall be of the same piece.” (verse 8) Compare my explanation on verse 25, until the word: ויורדות, “and hanging down slightly on both sides of his neck, facing the front of the ephod. ”You are to make two additional rings which you will attach to the two lower extremities of the breastplate pointing to the inner part of the ephod, underneath in its forepart of, above the skillfully woven band of the ephod, so that they were on a level with the lower edge of the breastplate. כמעשהו ממנו יהיה, “it shall be of one piece with it.” This is a reference to the woven patterns of the ephod. It shall not be woven as a separate piece of cloth. Afterwards it will be attached to the edge of the ephod. The ephod would have two epaulettes at its two extreme edges and these would be joined, (tied). They would be joined by means of a pin or needle (type of safety pin) so that they would be seen to protrude as if standing, this being the reason why the Torah called them כתפות, “shoulder pieces,” prominent like shoulders. According to a different opinion, these epaulettes were very wide, hence they were compared to shoulders. According to that opinion, this is why they were described as חוברות, for if they had been narrow like thin belts, they could not have been properly attached to the breastplate which would have been in danger of falling down.

ממנה יהיה IT SHALL BE OF THE SAME — it shall be woven together with it, and one shall not weave it separately, and join its afterwards.

ולקחת את שתי אבני שהם, "You are to take the two Shoham-stones, etc." The word את in this connection needs explaining. Perhaps the expression is to draw our attention to the previously mentioned Shoham-stones at the beginning of Parshat Terumah (25,7). The meaning of our verse then would be: "you shall take the two Shoham-stones which I have already commanded you to bring (as gifts)." This would account for the מתג, hyphen, between the words אבני and שהם, i.e. why only these two gemstones have been singled out here by name. These two stones performed a function additional to that of the gemstones called אבני מלואים, "stones to be set" (where the Torah did not employ the hyphen).

V. 9. שהם. Obgleich שהם-Steine auch unter den אבני מִלֻאים, unter den einzufassenden Edelsteinen des חשן vorkommen, so werden sie doch schon bei der Aufforderung zur Spende (Kap. 25, 7) von diesen getrennt aufgeführt: אבני שהם ואבני מלאים. Es scheint das Wort שהם ebenso wie אבני מלאים ursprünglich nicht ein Eigenname, wie אדם פטדה usw. sondern ein Gattungsname wie מלאים zu sein, und die Verwendung des Steines zu bedeuten. Die Wurzel שהם weist wie כהן und בהן ,כון und רהב ,בון und רוב u.a.m. auf שום, die Wurzel von שם, Name hin, und dürfte einen ל Stein bezeichnen, der vorzugsweise zu Siegelgravierungen gebraucht wurde. Damit stimmt auch der ע׳׳ז 8 b enthaltene Satz überein: אנך וספר תורה איזה מהן יעשה בסיס לחברו אנך לס׳׳ת, dass ס׳׳ת wertvoller als ein Onyx sei, indem man den Onyx als Basis für die Schrift gebrauche. Nach Aruch ist אנך, Onyx, gleichbedeutend mit שוהם. Es würden sich dann die Schohamsteine des Ephod von den Edelsteinen des Choschen darin unterscheiden, dass erstere keine selbständige Bedeutung für sich haben, sondern ihre Bedeutung nur durch die darin eingravierten Namen erhalten, während die Edelsteine des Choschen schon an sich durch die Eigentümlichkeit eines jeden in bedeutsamer Beziehung zu dem Stamme, den sie repräsentieren, stehen dürften. Wonach sich auch der V. 21: והאבנים תהיין על שמת בני ישראל שתים עשרה על שמתם ,פתוחי חותם איש על שמו תהיין לשנים עשר שבט richtiger verstehen lassen dürfte, dass nämlich die erste Hälfte des Verses aussagt, auch ohne die Gravierung sollen die Steine an sich in enger Beziehung zu den auf sie einzugravierenden Namen der Stämme stehen. Damit stünde denn auch noch eine andere Bestimmung in innigem Zusammenhange. Sota 48 b wird das V. 20 von den Choschensteinen ausgesagte יהיו במלואתם dahin erklärt, dass die Namen nicht mit einem Grabstichel eingraviert, sondern durch שמיר in Form der Buchstaben an ihrer Oberfläche gesprengt wurden, so dass sie dabei stofflich במלואתם in ihrer vollen Ganzheit blieben. Abweichend von Raschi (das.) versteht Ramban zu Schmot 25, 7 diese Bestimmung für die Steine des Choschen. Die Schohamsteine wurden jedoch mit Grabstichel graviert, von denen es ja auch V. 11 ausdrücklich heißt: מעשה חרש אבן. Unserer Auffassung würde dies ganz entsprechen. Die Schohamsteine hatten keine andere Bedeutung, als Basis für die Stammesgravierung zu sein. Sie erhielten erst ihre Bedeutung durch die Eingravierung und durfte daher ihr Stoff dem Namen weichen. Die Choschensteine standen aber schon ohne Gravierung in bedeutsamer Beziehung zu den Stämmen, die sie repräsentieren sollten. Sie blieben daher in ihrer Ganzheit und es ging nur ihr Stoff in die Namen der Stämme bildende Risse auseinander.

ופתחת עליהם, “you are to engrave upon them;” in verse 21 of the same chapter we read: והאבנים תהיין על שמות בני ישראל, “and the stones (jewels) shall be according to the names of tribes of the Childern of Israel;” if that translation were correct we would face a contradiction. According to the first verse the letters would be engraved in the jewels, whereas according to the second verse the letters would protrude from the jewels. We must therefore assume that the Torah speaks once of how they appeared to the onlooker from the outside or from the inside, respectively.

כתולדתם ACCORDING TO THEIR BIRTH — in the order in which they were born: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali upon one, and upon the other Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin — the last name being written full (plene, with a י before the last letter, thus: בנימין) for that is how it is written in the passage that tells of his birth (Genesis 35:18). This gives twenty-five letters on each stone (cf. Sotah 36a).

ששה משמותם על האבן האחת, "Six of their names on the one stone, etc." Why did the Torah use the unusual expression משמותם, "of their names," instead of saying simply ששה שמות, "six names," etc.? Besides, the word הנותרים, "the remaining ones," is quite unnecessary as we all know that there were only a total of twelve tribes. We are therefore forced to conclude that the adjective "the remaining ones," implies that the latter six tribes were inferior to the the first six. We find something similar after the death of Nadav and Avihu, where the Torah describes Eleazar and Ittamar as the "remaining" sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,12). Our sages in Yuma 87 describe the word הנותרים as referring to something inferior, using the word in Leviticus as their example. Bereshit Rabbah 73,9 discusses Genesis 30,36 where the Torah speaks about "the remaining flocks of Laban," and also describes the word "remaining" as referring to something inferior. If the meaning of the word הנותרים in our verse were to indicate that these tribes were inferior, this is most surprising seeing that the Torah underlines that they were recorded כתולדותם, "in the order of their (their founder's) birth." Why would the sons born to Jacob later be inferior to those born to him earlier? This seems especially unlikely seeing that Joseph was Jacob's favorite and is known as "Joseph the righteous." How could he be considered "inferior?" Moreover, we find that amongst the first 6 names listed are sons of the maidservants whereas several of the names inscribed on the second stone were of sons born by Jacob's true wives!

In the order that they were born. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not understand כתולדותם like other instances of תולדות in Scripture, i.e., [listing in the order of] who begat first, or whose number of offspring [is greater]. Therefore Rashi says that here, כתולדותם means: “In the order that they were born.”

V. 10. כתולדתם. Nach Sota 36 b heißt dies nicht nach der Reihenfolge ihrer Geburt, sondern ist nähere Erklärung des שמות, die Namen sollen nicht patronymisch: שמעוני ,ראובני usw. die von Reuben, Simon etc. Stammenden, sondern die Namen der Stammväter sein "wie sie diesen bei ihrer Geburt gegeben worden", also: Reuben, Schimeon usw. Nach ebendaselbst war die Ordnung: בני לאה כסדרן בני רחל אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן ובני שפחות באמצע, d.h. nach Raschi: die sechs Söhne Leas: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Jehuda, Isachar, Sebulon, auf einem Steine, und auf dem andern die beiden Söhne Rahels: Josef und Benjamin und zwischen ihnen beiden die Söhne der Mägde, nämlich: Benjamin, Dan, Nastali, Gad, Ascher, Josef; wie sie Schmot 1, 2—4 aufgezählt sind. Maim. הל כלי המקדש IX fasst die Ordnung anders auf. Siehe כ׳׳מ daselbst.

כתולדותם, “according to the order in which they were born.” Rashi interprets the meaning of the word as we have translated it here. His grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, does not agree, seeing that an analysis will show that Dan was not listed in the order of the birth of the twelve tribes’ births, seeing that he had been the fifth son born to Yaakov, and in the Book of Joshua 19,47, we read: “they called the name of the town according to the names of their forefather.” It would appear therefore that what was meant in our verses here is that the names of the tribes appeared on the jewels of the Ephod in the sequence in which these sons had been born by their respective mothers. The sons of Leah are mentioned first in order of their births, followed by the sons of Bilhah, in accordance with their births, followed by the sons of Zilpah in accordance of their births, followed by the sons of Rachel. You will find that the jewel Leshem was that alluding to Dan, and the jewel yoshpah alluded to Binyamin. This is the way they appear in the liturgist’s poem known as krovatz recited prior to the kedushah on Purim morning commencing with the words: ויאהב אומן. The Talmud in tractate Sotah folio 36, has a different order. The names of the tribes appeared in a different order on the two jewels of the Ephod (epaulettes) worn by the High Priest. Some commentators were concerned with the total numbers of letters of the tribes’ names being equally divided, i.e. 50 on one side of the Ephod and 50 on the other side. This, of course, would account for the names not appearing in the same order as the names on the breastplate. [As it is impossible at this stage to decide whose opinion is correct, I have not translated the balance of our author’s remarks on the subject. A booklet named bigdey kehunah by Rabbi Israel Chayim Blumenthal, elaborates on the various alternatives. Ed.]

In order to understand what is meant in our verse let me first preface with a statement in Sotah 36. Our sages there relate: "The High Priest wore two gemstones on his shoulders. The names of the children of Israel were engraved on those stones, six of them on the one stone and six on the other." The Talmud quotes our verse as proof for this statement. The names on the second stone were in accordance with the order of birth of the founders of those tribes, whereas the names engraved on the first stone did not correspond to this order, seeing that the name Yehudah appeared on the first stone and each stone had 25 letters engraved on it. Rabbi Chanina son of Gamliel says that the names did not appear in the order in which the tribes were counted in Numbers 1, 1-15, but in accordance with their being enumerated in Exodus I, 2-4. In what order precisely were they engraved? The sons of Leah were listed on one stone, the sons of Rachel were listed one on top of the second stone, the other on the bottom, with the names of the sons of the maidservants in between. If so, how does this agree with the Torah's statement that they were engraved in accordance with their respective births? Answer: "according to the names their father Jacob called them, and not in accordance with the names that Moses called them, i.e. Reuveni, Shimoni, etc." Thus far the statement of Rabbi Chaninah. The apparent meaning of the opinions expressed in the Talmud seems to be that the first opinion (Rav Kahane) understands the word כתולדותם as a reference to both stones although Yehudah's name preceded that of Reuven so that the names which appeared on that stone were: Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Dan, Naftali, whereas the sequence on the second stone was: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Joseph, Benjamin in accordance with the order of their births. When you will count the number of letters which appear on each stone you will find that the first stone had 25 letters whereas the second stone had 24 letters. This would require the addition of the letter ה in the middle of the name Joseph, thus: יהוסף. Rabbi Nachman disagreed, claiming that Benjamin's name was spelled with an additional י, i.e. בנימין. The question of how many letters were engraved on each stone is not alluded to in the Torah but we rely on tradition for this knowledge. I believe that we can, however, find an allusion in scripture for the fact that Yehudah's name was engraved on top of that of Reuven, seeing that the word כתולדותם in accordance with their birth, does not appear until the end of the verse. Had the Torah insisted that all the names would appear strictly in accordance with their births, the Torah should have written: "and you shall engrave on them the names of the children of Israel in accordance with the order of their births," at the end of verse nine. I would then have understood clearly that the directive applied to the names on both stones. You are not to ask who it was who revealed that the names on the first stone were not meant to be engraved in accordance with the births of those sons, seeing that the name of Yehudah appeared on top, and that therefore the order in which the brothers were born did not matter at all when it came to engraving their names on the first stone. Such an assumption is untenable because if the names on the first stone could have been engraved in a different order such order should have paralleled either the order in which the names appear in Numbers or in accordance with their appearance in Exodus. If that were the case, it would be impossible to list the names on the second stone in order of their births and still wind up with 25 letters on each stone. It is therefore mandatory that any change concerning the order of the names on the first stone must be such that it would not interfere with the list of names on the second stone being in accordance with the order of the brothers' birth. It is perfectly logical that Yehudah's name should appear on top as his future standing amongst the Jewish people as the tribe which provided the kings justified his name appearing at the head of the list.

One could argue that the order in which the names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod were no reason to make the Ephod unfit for its function, and that it did not matter whether the name of Shimon appeared above that of Reuven. In order that we should not argue in this way the Torah wrote: "six of their names, etc., and the names of the remaining six, etc." The meaning is that only the remaining ones, i.e. the ones that you have not yet engraved, כתולדותם, have to be engraved according to their seniority. We can prove that this interpretation is correct by referring to the Tosephta in Menachot chapter 5 where we are not told that the order of the engraving of the names was indeed mandatory. Whereas the Tossephta states that the garments of the priests were mandatory, and that the presence of the gemstones was mandatory; not a word is mentioned about the order of engraving the names of the tribes being mandatory. It is quite possible that the sage who was the author of this Tossephta did not believe that the order was mandatory.

When Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah were engraved on the first stone in their order of seniority, he meant that the fact that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were born before the last two sons of Leah was ignored when the names were engraved on the first stone. On the other hand, the names which were engraved on the second stone were headed by that of Benjamin, though he was the youngest of all the sons of Jacob. According to his arrangement the number of letters on each stone could not possibly equal 25, seeing that the number of letters on the first stone totalled 28, whereas we would have 21 letters as the total on the second stone. Even if you add either the letter ה for Joseph's name or the letter י for the name of Benjamin, you will still only wind up with 22 letters on that stone. If we adopt Rabbi Chaninah's interpretation, the meaning of the words ששה משמותם will begin to make excellent sense. The wording would indicate that the names were not engraved in the order of seniority of the sons of Jacob. The meaning of the words הנותרים would be that the names of these tribes which should have been engraved on the first stone, if strict attention had been paid to the principle of seniority of birth, were "left out." Although also the names of Joseph and Benjamin were engraved on the second stone, seeing that the other tribes were the majority they are nonetheless described as "left over."

Let us now examine how Maimonides describes the arrangement of the names on these stones in chapter nine of Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh. This is what he writes: "Six were on one stone and six on the other stone. The name Joseph was spelled יהוסף. As a result there were 25 letters on the first stone and 25 letters on the second stone. The list of names on the first stone was: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph; the order on the second stone was: Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin." Maimonides' words do not agree with either of the views expressed in Sotah 36. His view does not even coincide with that of Rav Kahane which the Talmud rejected. The latter had given the following list: Reuven, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, and Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, Joseph, Benjamin on the second stone. The כסף משנה attempts to prove that Maimonides adopted the view of Rabbi Chaninah while explaining that when Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah appeared in order of their birth he meant that they would appear on alternate stones and that the same applied to the listing of the names of the sons of Rachel, top and bottom respectively, with the names of the maidservants in the centre.

I do not believe that the suggestion of the כסף משנה is acceptable for two reasons. 1) Why would Maimonides ignore the first sage mentioned in the Talmud and rule according to the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah? When the כסף משנה describes Rabbi Chaninah's view as logical, I beg to differ. I do not believe that his reasoning is logical at all seeing that he changes the plain meaning of the verse that the names were to be engraved in order of seniority of the sons of Jacob, i.e. the way Jacob named his sons and not the way Moses referred to them. What would prompt a person to call the sons of Jacob "Reuveni, Shimoni, etc.," instead of calling them by their original names? Besides, the meaning of כתולדותם according to כסף משנה is not "according to their seniority of birth, which is usually the meaning of that word throughout the Torah. There is absolutely no need to ignore the customary meaning of the word כתולדותם. At any rate, the problems we have raised so far are minor compared to another problem we are still going to raise.

2) According to the view of the כסף משנה that the names of the sons of Leah were written in such a fashion that one was on one stone and the name of the brother born next appeared on the second stone, "similar to the names of the sons of Rachel, the names of the sons of Rachel should not have appeared on the top and bottom of the second stone at all. All the כסף משנה had to say was that both the names of the sons of Leah and the names of the sons of Rachel were engraved at the end. Why did he add the words: "one on one stone and one on the other?" What precisely are the words: אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן supposed to mean? He should have said: "the name of one of each of the sons on each stone," as Rashi explains when he adds: "one at the head of the stone, the other at the bottom." This objection to the כסף משנה is still minor compared to the next one.

According to the words of the כסף משנה, the list of the names of the tribes at the beginning of Exodus would not follow the pattern he suggested here at all, seeing that there we find the names of the sons of Leah followed by the son of Rachel, Benjamin, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants, with Joseph at the very end. According to the opinion of Rabbi Chaninah as understood by Maimonides, Joseph's name was engraved beneath the names of the two sons of one of the maidservants, Naftali and Gad on the first stone, whereas the name Benjamin was engraved on the second stone beneath the names of the sons of the other maidservant, Dan and Asher. How could Rabbi Chaninah say: "in the manner they were divided in the Book of Exodus," when we find that the name Benjamin appeared ahead of the names of any of the names of the sons of the maidservants? Besides, why would he engrave the name Joseph before the name Benjamin, when it is a fact that Benjamin is mentioned first in Exodus? We cannot answer that the reason was to enable the names on both stones to total 25 letters so that each stone would have the identical number of letters engraved on them. The same number of letters would appear on the stone even if the name Benjamin preceded that of Joseph. Should Rabbi Chaninah insist that this was indeed what he had in mind, he would simply be wrong, seeing that he made the sequence dependent on the way the names were divided up in the Book of Exodus. His words would be unacceptable as the Torah there listed Benjamin's name before that of any of the sons of the maidservants whereas according to the כסף משנה the name of Benjamin would be the last one to be engraved?

What is Maimonides' source for alternating the names of the sons of Leah between the first and the second stone of the Ephod? According to the words of Rabbi Chaninah that the names of sons of Leah were engraved in their order (of birth) there is no suggestion that this would be on alternate stones! Where does Maimonides get his theory of interpreting Rabbi Chaninah in such a manner? Finally, the כסף משנה had difficulty with providing a reason as to why Maimonides wrote that in order to complete the 50 letters on the stones of the Ephod, the name Joseph had to be spelled with an additional ה. He quotes the Talmud (Sotah 36) which says as follows: "These 50 (letters) are in reality only 49 letters. Rabbi Yitzchok said that they added a letter to his name as we find in Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו ממצרים, 'they added a testimony to Joseph when he came out of Egypt.'" Rabbi Nachman questioned Rabbi Yitzchok that the Torah specified that the names should be engraved כתולדותם, i.e. as they had been known at the time of their respective births? Therefore Rabbi Nachman concludes (as opposed to Rabbi Yitzchok) that the extra letter was the letter י added to the name of Benjamin, seeing that his name is always spelled without the letter י before the final letter ן, except in Genesis 35,18 when his father Jacob named him בנימין with the additional letter י. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the quote of the Talmud that the idea of adding the letter ה to Joseph's name was rejected and that they accepted the alternative suggested by Rabbi Nachman. כסף משנה anwers that the rejection of Rabbi Yitzchok's theory by the Talmud applies only to the original view expressed in the Talmud concerning the arrangement of the names, but does not apply to the view expressed by Rabbi Chaninah, which is, after all, the view Maimonides' diagram is based on. The only meaning Rabbi Chaninah had derived from the Torah's directive was that the names should be כתולדותם, should not appear as Moses had referred to them, i.e. as Reuveni, Shimoni, etc. Seeing this is so, Maimonides remained entitled to accept Rabbi Yitzchok's suggestion that the name Joseph be spelled with the additional letter ה as in Psalms 81,6. Thus far the כסף משנה.

I confess that I find this reasoning very difficult. The first opinion cited in the Talmud did not even deal with the question of spelling the names but discussed only the meaning of the word כתולדותם as meaning that the names were to be inscribed in accordance with the order of the births of Jacob's sons. How could one question what the Tanna Kama in the Talmud meant by the word כתולדותם? Any question in the Talmud obviously was only directed at the viewpoint of Rabbi Chaninah that the word כתולדותם concerned the manner in which their father had called his sons. According to this, Rabbi Nachman answered that the name Benjamin was spelled מלא, i.e. with the extra letter י. It is absolutely clear from the wording of Maimonides that he considered the meaning of the word כתולדותם as describing the order in which the names of the tribes were to be inscribed and not as referring to the spelling that was to be used when engraving these names. Here are the words of Maimonides: ששה על אבן זו וששה על אבן זו כתולדותם. If Maimonides' intention had been to rule according to Rabbi Chaninah, he could not have concluded his words with the cryptic "כתולדותם," seeing that the Talmud queried the meaning of that word. Maimonides would have had to tell us the meaning of that word according to his view! The fact that he did not do so is evidence that he accepted the viewpoint of the תנא קמא. The כסף משנה would have done better to leave the problem he raised unsolved instead of attempting an answer which is clearly unacceptable.

Perhaps one may say that Maimonides did not understand the first version in the Talmud in which it is stated that the reason why the order of birth had to be observed only starting with the second name was "because Yehudah was to appear on top," as we have understood it thus far. He may have understood the words שניה כתולדותם ולא ראשונה כתולדותם, as applying to the difference in appearance when one reads across or when one read down, respectively. If one read the names across, שניה (i.e. assuming that the two stones were next to one another instead of on different shoulders of Aaron), they would appear to be in the order of their births כתולדותם. If, however, one read the names from the top to the bottom of the first stone, followed by reading the names on the second stone from the top to the bottom, i.e. ראשונה, "each stone as a unit by itself," then they would not be found to appear כתולדותם. According to Maimonides the names would appear (on the first stone) as: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph (with the ה), followed on the next stone by : Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin. Clearly, this arrangement does not correspond to the order of their births. The meaning of כתולדותם in front of us can be that the list is to correspond to the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. In that case, the names of the sons of Leah appear together followed by the names of the sons of Rachel, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants. Alternatively, we could use as our model for the word כתולדותם the list of names as it appears at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. There we find first the list of names of the sons of Leah, the names of the sons of the maidservants at the end, the name of Benjamin, one of Rachel's sons in between, with Joseph the remaining son of Rachel listed at the very end. The Tanna Kama did not elaborate on which method of these two he preferred. Even though he mentioned כתולדותם, he might have meant that listing all the names of one mother in the order of their birth fulfils the commandment of כתולדותם. As long as there is no mention of the sons of a different mother before the list of names of the sons of a mother mentioned previously has been completed, this meets the requirement implied in the word כתולדותם. Inasmuch as Leah was the first wife who bore sons for Jacob, all her sons are listed in the order she bore them, i.e. they are considered as one unit. We could accept this although these names do not appear in this order anywhere else in the Torah. Maimonides carefully examined the words of Rabbi Chaninah who said that the words כתולדותם are not to be interpreted as the order in which these names are listed in the Book of Numbers but in the manner in which they appear in the Book of Exodus. His words mean that unless specifically stated to the contrary, the Tanna Kama could accept either version as a role model for the order in which these names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod.

We are entitled to understand the Tanna Kama as agreeing with Rabbi Chaninah that the role model for the word כתולדותם is the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. The only argument between the two Tannaim is that the meaning of the words שניה כתולדותם is as we explained whether the names were to be read across, or as Rabbi Chaninah feels that the sons of Leah had to be arranged on a single stone, etc. Maimonides ruled in favour of reading the names across (alternating between the two stones) as the preferable way of complying with the requirement that they appear כתולדותם. This means that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Tanna Kama, and not as כסף משנה wanted us to believe as in accordance with the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah. If the names of Joseph and Benjamin had preceded that of the names of the maidservants' sons, even "the שניה" would not have been כתולדותם in accordance with the order of their respective births. The reason that in Maimonides' diagram the name of Naftali appears ahead of that of Dan (who was born earlier), is in order to ensure that there are 25 letters engraved on each of the two stones in accordance with the requirement listed by the Tanna Kama. Rabbi Chaninah had never spoken about such a requirement. While the fact that Rabbi Chaninah did not relate to the requirement that there should be 25 letters on each of the stones is not normally proof that he disagrees with the view of the Tanna Kama, in this instance we must assume that he does indeed disagree even without going on record that he does so. The reason is simply that according to Rabbi Chaninah's division of the names we find 28 letters on one stone, and 21 or maximum 22 letters on the other stone, as we have pointed out earlier. Maimonides completes his diagram by having the names of Joseph and Benjamin at the respective bottoms of each stone, adding the letter ה to Joseph's name in order to have 25 letters on each of the stones. This is the way we propose to explain the Baraitha according to the ruling of Maimonides. Perhaps Maimonides had another ancient text in front of his eyes in which all this is spelled out more specifically. Whatever the case may be, we have dealt with all the nuances in our verse satisfactorily.

Now let us look once more at the reason the Torah wrote ששה משמותם, instead of writing ששה שמות. Had the Torah written ששה שמות it would have been evident that the names were to appear on each stone in order of seniority and not partially so as indicated by the word משמותם, "of their names." The unusual word משמותם means that Moses was to engrave these names in pairs on the two stones starting with the order of the births of the respective sons. There will always be one name of such a pair "left over" to be engraved on the opposite stone. The six names left over, i.e. הנותרים. These "left over" names are to be engraved one beneath the other on the second stone of the Ephod. The very words ואת שמות השמות הנותרים mean that these names were previously "left over" and awaited being engraved on the second stone, כתולדותם, in accordance with the seniority of these sons, respectively. The appearance of the word כתולדותם at the end of the verse instead of after the words על האבן האחת, is perfectly justified then.

מעשה חרש אבן means THE WORK OF AN ARTIFICER IN STONES. This word חרש is in close connection (i. e. in the construct state) with the word that follows it and therefore it is punctuated with Patach in its last syllable. Similar is, (Isaiah 44:13) “The חָרַשׁ עצים stretcheth out a line” i. e. the worker in wood. So, also, (Isaiah 44:12) “the worker in (חָרַשׁ) iron maketh an axe.” All these examples of חָרַשׁ are in close connection with the words that follows them and are therefore punctuated with Patach.

מעשה חרש אבן, the words חרש אבן are in a construct mode; this accounts for the vowel patach under the letter ר in the word חרש. The meaning of the term is חרש של אבן, “a craftsman of gemstones,” someone expert in engraving. The reason why the vowel under the letter ח remains the kametz, is similar to the parallel mode of the word גנב, gannov, with the dagesh in both the letters ג and נ.

The work of one skilled with stones. . . Rashi is explaining that חרש is connected to אבן , so that חרש means “one skilled with stones.” Rashi says “stones” instead of “stone” [as in the verse], to tell us that “stone” means the category of stones, not a particular stone. [Rashi knows this] because one is not called skilled [by being skilled] with just a single stone.

פתוחי חותם LIKE THE ENGRAVINGS OF A SIGNET — Understand this as the Targum renders it: a distinct writing like the engraving of a signet-ring: the letters were incised in them just as one incises the seals of a ring which are used to seal letters — a clear and distinct writing.

פתוחי חותם, similar to the engravings made on signet rings.

כגלף דעזקא (like the engraving of a signet). . . כגלף means “like the engraving,” and עזקא is a signet ring. Rashi is telling us that פתוחי חותם means the engraving on a ring used for making seals, [not the seal that it makes. Rashi knows this] because engraving is done on the ring itself, not on the seal. He says, “Like the engraving,” so we will not think it means to carve the engravings of an actual signet ring into the stones. It rather means to carve writing that is “precise,” similar to the letters carved into a signet ring which are obvious and precise. So too should be the names of the Bnei Yisrael that are carved into the stones.

על שמות — This is the same as בשמות “with the names of”.

Same here as בשמות . Meaning: engrave the stones with names. [Rashi explains this] because the stones are not engraved on the names [as the verse seems to say, but the other way around].

מסבת משבצות SURROUNDED WITH SETTINGS [OF GOLD] — Thou shalt make the stones to be surrounded by gold settings: the meaning is that they should make as a setting for each stone a kind of indentation in the gold, of the same size as the stone and sink it in the setting; thus the setting surrounds the stone on all sides. That setting they attached to the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.

By gold settings. . . Meaning: the verse conveys that the stones are “surrounded by settings,” not that the stones surround the settings [as the verse seems to say].

לזכרון FOR A MEMORIAL — so that the Holy One, blessed be He, will see the names of the tribes written before Him and He will remember their righteousness (cf. Exodus Rabbah 38:8).

על שתי כתפיו לזכרון, in order to attract the attribute of Mercy to be invoked by their merit. (the merit of wearing the shoulder pads)

על כתפות האפוד. These shoulder pads of the ephod extended from his shoulder on either side up to the neck of the High Priest, from which point they curved and descended towards the breastplate he wore on the chest. There were chains which linked the ephod to the breastplate, and the two major gemstones known as אבני זכרון (as well as אבני שהם) that had the names of the tribes engraved on them and which he wore like epaulettes on his two shoulders. The breastplate was suspended from these chains, apart from being fastened additionally to the ephod.

As a remembrance. In Tehillim (115:12) it is written, “Ad-noy has remembered us; He will bless.” This teaches us that when God “remembers” the B’nei Yisrael it is in order to bless them.

The tribes written before Him. . . [Meaning:] not that Aharon should bear them in order to remember Hashem. This is because the engraved names make the tribes to be remembered, not Hashem to be remembered. Why did Rashi not explain this on, “As remembrance stones for the B’nei Yisrael”? Because there, “remembrance” is connected to “stones.” But here it is written, “Their names before Adonoy. . . as a remembrance,” which implies that God will remember. . . (Nachalas Yaakov)

ושמת את שתי האבנים על כתפות האפוד, “you are to place the two gemstones firmly on the two epaulettes;” this was to be done at the highest point of the High Priest’s shoulders.

אבני זכרון, as I will explain in connection with the golden plate ציץ worn on the forehead which had the words קדש לה' recessed into it. (compare verse 36).

ועשית משבצת AND THOU SHALT MAKE SETTINGS — two settings, for the minimum number of settings (the plural) is two. In this section it explains to you only part of their purpose, whilst in the section dealing with the breast-plate it completes for you the explanation about them.

ועשית משבצות זהב, a golden plate to serve as the background to the settings which held the various gemstones of the breastplate in place. The plate had holes through which the chains could be attached to them by fastening the chains to the breastplate, as described in more detail in verse 25, the whole would in effect be as if a single piece.

Only part of their purpose. . . I.e., for the chains should be inserted in them. But it does not explain here that the ends of the chains should be inserted in the settings on the two shoulder straps of the eiphod from above. And that these chains should be inserted through the rings of the breastplate from below, so that the breastplate does not detach from the eiphod. (Re”m)

V. 13. משבצות. Wo diese "Einfassungen" ihre Stelle am Ephod hatten, ist dunkel. Aus VV. 14 u. 25 ist klar, dass sie an den Achselblättern des Ephod oberhalb des Choschen ihre Stelle hatten und an sie die Ketten befestigt waren, an welchen das Choschen hing. Wir sind sehr geneigt, zu glauben, daß diese משבצות keine andern als die V. 11 erwähnten Einfassungen der Schohamsteine waren.

ועשית משבצות זהב, “you are to make frames for settings of the gemstones, out of gold;” these were indentations; like miniature frames surrounding a picture which is inset. They would form the place to which the braided chains of which the Torah speaks in verse 14 and 22, could be fastened.

שרשרת זהב means CHAINS OF GOLD — the word being the same as שלשלאות (the letters ל and ר being interchangeable, as in ארמנות for אלמנות; cf. the Aramaic ארמלתא)

מגבלות, constructed to precisely defined dimensions, so that they will be stretched tight from the edge of the shoulder pads to the upper edge of the breastplate.

מעשה עבות, seeing that normally, when we hear about “chains,” we think of rings inserted within the other in a continuous row, the Torah was at pains to describe these “chains” as being more like strands of ropes intertwined.

Made for wells. . . To draw water.

V. 14. שרשרות, es könnte von שרשר die Radix שרר, wie גלגל von גלל, sein, und die Bedeutung Kette aus שׁרר, Festigkeit, Stärke, entstehen. Allein V. 22 heißen dieselben Ketten שרשות, und so scheint die Wurzel vielmehr: שרש zu sein. Wir haben bereits den Zusammenhang von שרש mit זרז und סרס. (Bereschit 39, 1) und die Grundbedeutung: vermittelnde Förderung erkannt. Es ist möglich, dass daraus dem Begriff: Kette der Ausdruck geworden, indem eine Kette eine Kombination von Gliedern ist, vermittelst deren eine Kraft von einem Gliede auf das andere und von dem letzten auf einen bestimmten Gegenstand übertragen wird.

ושתי שרשרות, “and two chains etc.;” the chains mentioned here are to be worn by the High Priest lower down; the reason why they are mentioned here is that they were fastened also at the epaulettes, as we know from verses 22-25.

מגבלות means AT THE END OF THE BORDER (גבול) of the breast-plate תעשה אותם SHALT THOU MAKE THEM.

ונתת את שרשרות העבותות על המשבצות, you will construct them in the nature of heavy, thick ropes; the Torah still did not tell us where the ends of these ropes were to be attached. Later on in verses 24 and 25 the Torah will explain that the ends of these two (chains) ropes were to be threaded through two holes at either side of the gold plate forming the backdrop to the settings in the breastplate. The other two ends of these (chains) ropes would be attached to the ephod in front.

Rather, like those made for incense receptacles. . . They are sacks tied onto a small rope.

מגבלות ist dunkel. Es, sowie שַרְשֹׁת גַבְלֻת V. 22, scheint durchaus eine Beschaffenheit der Ketten, nicht aber den Ort zu bezeichnen, wo sie anzubringen sein sollen. Abweichend von Raschi waren nach Maim. הלי כלי המקדש IX 8,9 u. חשן 10 und כתפות האפוד nicht durch zwei, sondern durch vier goldene Ketten mit einander verbunden. Rechts und links ging eine Kette von den משבצות der Achselblätter aus und war an einen Ring der oberen Seite des חשן befestigt und eine Kette vom חשן ausgehend an einen Ring der Achselblätter befestigt, somit jederseits zwei Ketten. Damit stimmte denn auch der Wortlaut des Textes besser überein. Die zwei Ketten des V. 14 wären die Ephodketten, die Ketten des V. 22 wären die beiden Choschenketten. V. 24. schriebe die Befestigung der beiden Ephodketten an die Choschenringe vor, V. 25 die Befestigung der beiden Choschenketten an die Ephodeinfassungsringe; man vermisste dabei im Texte nur die Angabe, dass außer den von ihnen ausgehenden Ketten an den Einfassungen auch zwei Ringe zur Aufnahme der Choschenketten sein sollen. (Wenn nach der Meinung רמבן's משבצות nicht Kästchen, sondern gekrümmte Spitzen gewesen, in welchen die Edelsteine à jour gefasst waren, so wurden auch die חשן-Ketten an solchen משבצות-Haken gehalten, und bedurfte es dann auch keines besonderen Ringes dazu). Im übrigen aber stimmt diese Auffassung bei weitem entsprechender mit dem Texte überein. Man entgeht damit der Schwierigkeit, die sonst in den Wiederholungen der VV. 22 u. 25 in Vergleich zu dem bereits V. 14 Gesagten läge. Und glauben wir dann auch die Bedeutung des מגבלות und גבלות gefunden zu haben. Der Text unterscheidet Ketten, die in einem an einem Gegenstande befindlichen Ringe eingehakt werden, und solche, die unmittelbar aus dem Ende eines Gegenstandes ausgehen, in welche der Gegenstand ausläuft. Diese letzteren heißen מגבדלות, ihre Beschaffenheit heißt גבלות, es sind Endketten, Ausläufer, die eigentlich die äußersten Enden des Gegenstandes selbst bilden. Die Verschiedenheit der Bedeutung dieser beiden Befestigungsarten springt in die Augen. Endet A. in einer גבלות-Kette und wird diese Kette in einen in B. befindlichen Ring gebracht, so wird damit A. an B. gekettet, nicht aber B an A. Geht aber gleichzeitig eine Endkette von B. aus und mündet in einen an A. befindlichen Ring, so ist die Verbindung eine vollständig gegenseitige. A. hält sich ebenso an B. wie B. an A. Jedes hält das andere und wird von ihm gehalten, und diese innigste Art von Verbindung soll zwischen אפד und חשן stattfinden. Von jedem gehen Endketten aus und münden in einen Ring des andern.

מעשה עבת OF CORD-LIKE WORK — made of plaited threads and not made of rings and hooks (somewhat like links) like those chains which are made for cisterns (to which the bucket is attached), but like those which are made for censers which are called encensiers in old French (cf. Rashi on Beitzah 22b).

מעשה עבות: Jede der Ketten soll nicht einfach, sondern aus mehreren Ketten, wie ein Seil zusammengedreht sein. So glauben wir den Ausdruck שרשרת עבתת verstehen zu müssen. Wenn, wie Raschi zu erklären scheint, damit gesagt sein sollte, dass sie gar nicht aus Gliedern, sondern קליעת חוטין aus zusammengeflochtenen Fäden bestehen sollten, so würde der Beisatz עכות den Begriff שרשרת völlig aufheben, es wären dann eben nicht Ketten, sondern Seile gewesen.

ונתת את שרשרת — This means, AND THOU WILT PLACE THE CHAINS OF CORD-WORK — i. e. the chains made of cord-work — upon these settings. This is not the place where the command is laid down about making the chains nor is this the command about fixing them: the word תעשה used here does not express a command, nor does the word ונתת used here express a command, but these express the future tense. For in the chapter about the breast-plate He returns to this, and there He lays down the command about making them (v. 22) and fixing them (vv. 24—25). This is written here only to point out part of the purpose of the settings which He commanded to be made together with the ephod, and He wrote this here to tell you: these settings you will require — when you will make chains at the ends upon the breast-plate you shall put them upon these settings.

חשן משפט THE BREAST-PLATE OF JUDGMENT — it was so called because it atoned for any error in judgment (cf. Zevachim 88b; Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 7:5). Another explanation of why it is called “the breast-plate of משפט”, is because it makes its statements clear (definite — so that there can be no doubt about their meaning) and its promise is true; discerement in old French, (sentence of judgment). Because the word משפט is used in three senses: the contentions of the parties to the law-suit, the pronouncement of the sentence and the punishment attendant on the sentence, whether it be punishment of death or punishment of flagellation or punishment involving a monetary payment; here it is used in the sense of making its statements definite, so that this is the breast-plate with the Urim and Thummim which explains and makes its statement clear.

חשן משפט, the name reflects the fact that in the pocket of the breastplate there was placed the parchment with the Holy name of G’d, known popularly as urim vetumim, the tool by means of which G’d could be consulted if the High Priest did not know the answer to a question involving Jewish religious law. He would then consult G’d and receive his answer by the letters on the breastplate becoming illuminated. (compare Numbers 27,21).

Its promise is true. . . Meaning: anything that one was not sure whether or not to do, would go to [and inquire from] the breastplate, which had all the letters of the alef beis. If Heaven wished to tell him to do it, letters would stand out and form a word. In that word was written whether or not to do it.

כמעשה אפד AFTER THE WORK OF THE EPHOD — the work of an artist and of the five materials.

Here it is used in the sense of making its words clear. . . Meaning: משפט conveys three possibilities, one of which is “the handing down of the verdict.” The term משפט which is part of the name given to the breastplate refers to “the handing down of the verdict,” i.e., clarifying the matter.

זרת ארכו וזרת רחבו A SPAN IN LENGTH AND A SPAN IN WIDTH, being double (Exodus 39:9) and it lay on him in front over his heart, as it is said, (v. 30) “And they shall be upon Aaron’s heart.” It was suspended from the shoulder-pieces of the ephod which came from behind him upon his shoulders and hung over and fell down a little way in front of him, and the breast-plate was suspended from them by means of the chains and rings, as is explained in the section (vv. 22—29).

כפול, something like a pocket. This was necessary in order to place the urim vetumim inside it.

V. 16. רבוע יהיה כפול: es war zwei Spannen lang und eine Spanne breit, so dass es zusammengeschlagen ein Quadrat von einer Spanne bildete.

כפול, “double;” the material from which the breastplate was made was folded over, the jewels being fastened to the upper side which was visible to all. The lower part was used as reinforcement to hold the jewels and their settings in place securely. This is the way this has been explained by Torat kohanim on Leviticus 2,4, section 10. on the section entitled “symbolisms of the jewels on the breastplate.” It is quite possible that just as the material for the breastplate was folded over so was the material containing the jewels on the Ephods, epaulettes. Rashi explains the words urim vetumim that the Torah describes as having been placed in the folds of the breastplate (verse 30), by writing that the word אורים explains the word המשפט, which precedes it as meaning מדינות, “establishment of legal rules,” whereas the word תמים would refer to the “limits set for the application of all these rules.” In practice, the High Priest during the period of Second Temple used the breastplate to obtain confirmation from G–d rather than to obtain instructions from G–d as in Isaiah 24,15:באורים כבדו את ה' , “honor the Lord with lights” [Rashi speaks of the High Priest’s breastplate during the time of the second Temple when the parchment with the tetragram from the first Temple was no longer in existence. During Moses’ lifetime, Aaron never needed to use the urim vetumim in order to communicate with G–d, as Moses spoke to G–d directly. During the period after Moses’ death and the destruction of the first Temple, the High Priest would address queries to G–d and these would be answered by letters on the breastplate being illuminated, and these had to be interpreted by the High Priest. During the period of the second Temple, -if I understand this correctly,- the High Priest phrased his query so that it required to be answered either positively or negatively, and the letters for “yes” or “no” would become illuminated. It is not known what Rashi’s source was for writing that the parchment with the tetragram was kept in the folds of the breastplate. Ed.] According to our author, the communication from the breastplate confirmed the boundaries of the parcels of land allocated to each tribe when he distributed it to the various tribes.

(2) ZERET. Half an amah.

ומלאת בו AND THOU SHALT FILL IT [WITH FILLINGS OF STONES] — Because the stones fill the hollows of the settings which were specially made for them it calls them by the term מלואים “fillings”.

ומלאת בו, recessed depressions in order to fill them with the respective gemstones.

V. 17. טור, lautverwandt mit דבר ,תפר ,דור ,תור die alle ein Aneinanderreihen ausdrücken. Auch טבור, der Nabel, scheint diesen als Verbindung des Fötus mit dem Mutterkörper auszudrücken.

אדם, a “carnelian;”

פתדה, a “chrysolite;”

ברקת “emerald;”

נפך, “a turquoise;”

ספיר, “a sapphire;”

יהלם, an “amethyst"

לשם, “a jacinth;”

שבו, "an agate;"

אחלמה, “a crystal;”

משבצים זהב יהיו SET IN GOLD SHALL THEY — the rows — BE במלאותם IN THEIR SETTINGS — surrounded by gold settings in depth of such a size that each shall be filled by the thickness of the stone. This is the meaning of במלאותם, “in their fillings”: of such a size as will be filled by the thickness of the stones shall be the depth of the settings, neither more nor less.

משובצים זהב יהיו במלואותם, “set in gold they shall be in their mountings.” The meaning of the words is that the stones should remain whole, in their golden settings. The principal instruction of this verse is that the stones should be on top of the gold and the inscriptions on top of the stones. There were a total of 72 letters corresponding to the 72 (lettered) name of Hashem (as pointed out at the beginning of verse 15).

תרשיש, "a beryl";

This reflects a great spiritual awakening reminding people of the great value of Torah which supersedes even all the accumulated gemstones found on the breastplate of the High Priest. By placing the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. the letters of the Torah, above the gemstones, and the gemstones above the golden mountings, the point that Torah values are supreme was made for all to see. The gold was the basis of the gemstones and the gemstones in turn were the basis of the letters of the Torah. Without the letters inscribed on top of the gemstones the gemstones and the gold would not have been of much significance. The significance of the letters lay in the fact that it was these which G’d employed in order to create this universe.

שהם, "a lapis lazuli";

ישפה, "jasper."

איש על שמו EVERY ONE WITH HIS NAME — As the order in which they were born shall be the order of the stones: a sardius for Reuben, a topaz for Simeon, and so in the case of all of them.

והאבנים תהיין על שמות בני ישראל, as soon as the Israelites when donating these various materials had dedicated them to their sacred purpose, i.e. that their names be inscribed on these gemstones, they became sacred, so that the word תהיין, meaning “they will remain, etc.,” is fully justified.”

As was the order of their birth so was the order of the stones. . . I.e., it was in the order by which the matriarchs [started to] give birth. Whoever gave birth first, [all her sons came before those of the next matriarch]. This disregards the order that the tribes were actually born — Reuvain, Shimon, Leivi, Yehudah, [Dan, Naftali] — as the תולדותם of the eiphod is ordered. Therefore here, Yissachar and Zevulun [who are sons of Leah, the first matriarch to give birth,] come before Dan and Naftali. As a result, Dan’s name was written on the leshem stone, as it is written in Yehoshua (19:47): “They called [the town of] Leshem ‘Dan,’ like the name of Dan their father” [see Rashi on Shoftim 18:29]. Re”m elaborated, and I summarized.

V. 21. והאבנים תהיין וגו׳, siehe oben zu V. 9. — פתוחי חותם וגו׳. Nach Joma 73 b stand außer den Namen der zwölf Stämme auch: אברהם יצחק ויעקב und שבטי ישורון und zwar, nach מ׳׳ר Ende תצוה, stand auf אברהם יצחק ויעקב ראובן :אדם, auf שמעון :פטדה, und so fort, bis auf בנימן שבטי ישורון :ישפה zu stehen kam. Dadurch befanden sich sämtliche Buchstaben des א׳׳ב behufs des Ausspruches der Urim und Tumim auf den Steinen; es würden sonst ט ,צ ,ק, n gefehlt haben, die in den Namen der Stämme nicht vorkommen.

איש על שמו, each jewel symbolised the name of the tribe in whose row it was placed and engraved.. According to Rashi, the order in which these jewels have been named here corresponded to the order in which the names of the twelve tribes had been arranged on the breastplate, in order of their ages. If Rashi were correct, then the jewel leshem should not have been the one symbolising the tribe of Dan, as is clear from Joshua 19,47. We would have to say therefore that the order followed the ages of their respective mothers, i.e. Leah, Bilhah, Zilpah, Rachel. When we accept this then the jewel leshem corresponds to the position of Dan on the breastplate. There is an argument between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish if the respective letters of the name of the tribe stood out, as for instance the letter ע of the name שמעון, and the letter ל in the name לוי, and no letter would move from its place to be joined to its counterpart, so that the whole name would not appear arranged consecutively, or that each name appeared on its jewel completely spelled out consecutively. [We must remember that according to tradition there were a total of 72 letters but seeing that they did not represent each letter in the alphabet, another verse had to be inscribed on the breastplate. [The significance of the number 72 is that it is the number of letters in the longest version of G-d’s name. Ed.]

שתים עשרה על שמותם, the Torah emphasises that the number 12 is not arbitrary but represents the names of the 12 tribes, no fewer nor any additional ones. [Joseph is represented by one gemstone not two, and the tribe of Levi was included though they did not share in the distribution of the land of Canaan to the tribes. Ed.]

פתוחי חותם איש על שמו, this sounds like an instruction to the engraver of these gemstones to have in mind the specific name of the tribe when he engraves letters on the gemstone representing that tribe.

על החשן means [AND THOU SHALT MAKE] FOR THE BREAST-PLATE (not upon it), — in order to fasten them (the plaited chains) on its rings, as is explained further on in the section.

גבלות, not in order to lengthen or shorten but precisely for a short distance between the top of the breastplate and the forward part of the shoulder pad as described in verse 14 merely to link these two sections of the High Priest’s garments.

ועשית על החשן שרשות גבלות, these are the rope-like chains described earlier inverse 14.

To fasten them by means of its rings. . . [Rashi explains that על החשן means “for the breastplate”] so we will not think that they [the chains] must be made on the breastplate, and may not be made elsewhere and then attached. For as Rashi explains on v. 23, [they are made elsewhere and then they are attached].

V. 22-—25. Siehe zu V. 14.

ועשית על החשן שרשות, “you shall make chains on the breastplate, etc.;” this is a reference to the two chains that had been mentioned already in verse fourteen.

שרשת — This is the same expression as the roots (שֹׁרֶשׁ) of a tree which hold the tree firm so that it may be held and kept fixed in the ground. Thus, also, these roots, as it were, shall hold the breast-plate firm because from them shall it hang on the ephod. These were really the two plaited chains which are mentioned above in the section on the settings (v. 14). Indeed, Menachem ben Seruk actually explained the word שרשרות as well in the sense of roots and he said that the second ר was redundant, just as the ם in שלשם and the ם in ריקם. I, however, do not agree with his statement, but I am of opinion that שַׁרְשֶׁרֶת in the Hebrew language is the equivalent of שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת in the Mishnaic language (Mishnah Kelim 14:3) (cf. Rashi on v. 14).

Is the same as “chain” in Mishnaic Hebrew. Accordingly, it means to make chains that will serve as “roots.”

גבלת — This is the same as מגבלות used above, (v. 14) meaning that thou shalt fix them in the rings which will be on the border (גבול) of the breast-plate. Wherever the word גבול occurs it has the meaning of end; à sommel in old French

מעשה עבת means PLAITED WORK.

על החשן means [AND THOU SHALT MAKE] FOR THE BREAST-PLATE (not upon it), — in order to fix them on it. And it would not be correct to say that this means that they should originally be made upon it (על), for if this were so why should it again say in this verse, “And thou shall put the two rings [on the two extremities]”? Would they not already have been lying upon it if they had been made together with the breast-plate? It should rather have written at the beginning of the verse, “And thou shalt make at the ends of the breast-plate two rings of gold.” In the case of chains, also, you must explain it similarly.

'ועשית על החשן וגו, at the outer ends of the upper edge you will fasten rings in order to thread the two thick rope-like chains through them. There were matching rings at the front of the shoulder pads corresponding to these rings at the upper end of the choshen to which the other end of the avatot (ropes) would be fastened. As a result of this, the breastplate would hang down on the chest of the High Priest, suspended from the ephod, but it would still be able to move sideways rather freely. In order to prevent this from happening it also had to be fastened to the ephod as will be explained later where we are told that there would be two rings, one from each side at the upper end of the ephod in the region of the sash (belt). The chains would be fastened to the upper edge of the ephod through these rings, but the אזור the sash, belt, would be tied over it around the High Priest’s waist.

We should have written at the beginning. . . Perforce, it means “for the breastplate,” and “you must also interpret it this way regarding the chains.”

ועשית על החשן שתי טבעות זהב, ונתת את שתי הטבעות האלה על שני קצות החושן, “you shall attach two rings to the two edges of the breastplate;” to the upper edges of the breastplate.

על שני קצת החשן ON THE TWO EXTREMITIES OF THE BREAST-PLATE — on its two corners that are close by his neck, on the right and on the left, which come opposite the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.

ונתת את שתי עבתת הזהב AND THOU SHALT PUT THE TWO עבתת OF GOLD — These are the selfsame שרשרת גבלות “chains on the ends” which are written about above (v. 14). There, however, it did not specify the place where they were to be fixed on the breast-plate, stating only that the ends were to be put on the settings; now it tells you that one should insert them in the rings which were on the breast-plate. And you can be certain that these are identical with the former ones, because in the section אלה פקודי they are not mentioned twice (in two separate paragraphs).

In parshas Pekudei they are not mentioned twice. I.e., in the section of the breastplate, the עבותות are not mentioned, [only the שרשרות ].

ונתת את שתי העבותות הזהב, “you shall attach two wreathen chains made of gold;” these are the golden chains of which we said that they were attached to the breastplate as a permanent fixture.

ואת שתי קצות means, AND THE TWO EXTREMITIES OF שתי עבתת THE TWO PLAITED CHAINS — (Rashi points out that קצות is in the construct state) — i. e. the two ends of each cord

Of the eiphod. . . As opposed to “toward the robe.” [Rashi knows this because if “Toward its face” meant toward the face of the kohein, what would it be as opposed to? The shoulder-straps of the eiphod are necessarily toward the face of the kohein who wears them.]

ואת שתי קצות העבותות, “and the other two ends of the wreathen chains, etc.;” this somewhat cumbersome formulation is also found in Exodus 15,16, where we read: עד יעבור עמך ה', עד יעבור עם זו קנית, “until Your people of Hashem has passed, until this people You have acquired has passed;” a similar construction is also found in Psalms 93,3: נשאו נהרות ה' נשאו נהרות קולם, “the ocean raises its voice o Lord, the oceans sound their thunder.” These are just a few examples of this type of construction. The meaning of the verse is as follows: the two ends of the two wreathen chains shall be attached to the two golden frames, משבצות, mentioned in verse 13, between the ephod and spread across the breastplate.

תתן על שתי המשבצות THOU SHALT FASTEN IN THE TWO SETTINGS — These are the selfsame settings which are mentioned above in the paragraph that is placed between the section on the breast-plate and the section on the ephod. There it did not explain their purpose and their position; now, however, it explains that he should fix into them the ends of the plaited chains which had been inserted in the rings of the breast-plate on the right and on the left near the neck. The two ends of the right chain he fixed in the setting on the right, and similarly in that on the left he fixed the two ends of the left chain.

ונתת, you are to place these two golden frames at the edge of the epaulettes of the ephod which are folded over and hanging down on either side of the High Priest’s neck, slightly protruding forward towards the face of it, i.e. opposite the upper edge which was at his back. It will be partially folded at the front of the High Priests due to the belt and the decorated band which he is tightening with his belt. In the earlier part of this paragraph the construction of these garments was described, whereas here the Torah describes how they were to be worn. [At the end of volume 4, I hope to attach illustrations of all this. Ed.]

ונתת AND THOU SHALT PUT the settings.

על כתפות האפד ON THE SHOULDER-PIECES OF THE EPHOD, one setting on this shoulder-piece and one on that. Consequently the shoulder-pieces of the ephod hold the breast-plate up so that it may not fall, and from them did it hang. But the lower edge of the breast-plate would still come and go (swing to and fro) and strike against his stomach and would not lie closely upon it; therefore two more rings were needed for its lower edge, as it goes on to explain.

אל מול פניו IN THE FOREPART THEREOF — i. e. in the forepart of the ephod. meaning that he should not put the settings on that surface of the shoulder-pieces which faced the מעיל, but on the upper surface which faced the outside. It is that latter surface which is called the forepart of the ephod, because the surface which is not seen, being turned towards the מעיל, cannot be called the פנים, the front.

על שני קצות החשן IN THE TWO EXTREMITIES OF THE BREAST-PLATE — These are its two lower corners on the right and on the left.

VV. 26.-— 28. Durch die vorgehend beschriebenen Ketten war das חשן mit den Achselblättern des Ephod verbunden, allein es hing mit seinem unteren Ende noch lose auf der Brust. Um es nun auch unterwärts fest anzuschließen, waren an seinem unteren Ende ביתה, nach innen, an der dem Ephod zugekehrten Fläche, אל עבר האפד, und so auch an dem unteren Ende der wieder mit dem Rückblatt verbundenen Achselblätter, לעמת מחברתו, oberhalb des Latzes, zwei Ringe, durch welche das untere Ende des Choschen vermittelst einer himmelblauen wollenen Schnur mit dem Ephod zusammengeschnürt wurde. ולא יזה החשן מעל האפד ist nicht bloß Zweckbestimmung, sondern Verbot, ebenso oben (Kap. 25, 15), hinsichtlich der לא יסורו ממנו :בדי הארון. Das Choschen durfte nie von dem Ephod getrennt werden (Joma 72 a). — יזח von זחח, lautverwandt mit מזעזעי) זעע Habakuk 2, 7) gleichbedeutend mit ולא קם ולא זע) זוע, Esther 5, 9): sich von der Stelle bewegen.

ועשית שתי טבעות זהב, “you will construct two golden rings;” additional ones. ושמת אותם על שתי כתפות מלמטה ממול פניו, ”attach them to the two ends of the breastplate at its edge, at its inner edge which faces the ephod”. In other words: these rings were attached to the inside of the breastplate so as to be in contact with the ephod. This is the meaning of the word:.ביתה

על שפתו אשר על עבר האפוד ביתה ON THE BORDER THEREOF WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EPHOD INWARD — Here you have two indications of the position of the rings: one, that he should place them on the two ends of the lower edge, for it was this which was over against the ephod, because its upper edge was not over against the ephod since it was close to the neck and the ephod was placed a little above his loins (consequently the upper edge of the breastplate which was near the priest’s neck was nowhere near the ephod which was girded round him just above the loins. See Rashi on v. 7). It gives another indication by the use of the word ביתה : that, he should not fix them on that side of the breast-plate which faced outside, but on that side which faced inward, because it is said ביתה, inward. It was that side which was turned toward the ephod, for the ends of the lower edge of that side of the breast-plate really lay upon the ephod since the priest tied the belt of the ephod around him and the apron was folded over in front of the priest upon his loins and upon a part of his stomach on both sides as far as against the ends of the breast-plate (i. e. the corners of the lower edge), the ends of which lay upon it.

על שתי כתפות האפוד מלמטה. ON THE TWO SHOULDER-PIECES OF THE EPHOD UNDERNEATH — underneath because the settings were placed on the upper ends of the shoulder-pieces of the ephod which came upon his shoulders beside his throat and which were folded over his shoulders and fell down in front of him; and the rings mentioned here He commanded to be put on the other end of each shoulder-piece which was joined on the ephod. This is the meaning of what is said לעמת מחברתו, “over against the joining thereof”, i. e. close by the spot where they were joined on to the ephod, namely, a little above the girdle, for the place of joining was over against the girdle. Thus these rings were placed a little above the place where the shoulder-straps began to rise from the girdle, and this is the meaning of what is said, “above the girdle of the ephod”. These were thus opposite (i. e. on a level with) the end (the lower edge) of the breastplate (but, of course, on the priest’s back, whilst the breast-plate lay in front of him). Now they placed a thread of blue purple in those rings and in the rings of the breast-plate and fastened them (the pair of rings) together by means of that thread on the right and on the left so that the lower edge of the breast-plate should not move forward and then return backward (should not move to and fro) and strike against his stomach. It followed, therefore, that it (the breast-plate) lay well upon the “Meil”.

ממול פניו, the letter מ at the beginning of the word ממול means that it is not to be at the level of his face but below, i.e. where the ephod’s sash is located not where the shoulder pads are located above his chest.

Where it is attached to the eiphod. . . I.e., to the belt of the eiphod.

ועשית (עוד) שתי טבעות זהב ונתת אותם על שתי כתפות למטה ממול פניו. “You are to make still another two rings and you shall put them on the two epaulettes of the ephod underneath on the front part thereof, close to the coupling thereof. This was at the rear of the High Priest’s back, at the lower end of where it was joined to the decorated band of the ephod. Some commentators claim that the ephod covered both the High Priest’s front and his back, similar to a short skirt known as korshit? They could not imagine that a garment worn beneath one’s loins could be described as “decorative.” We never find such garments except those designed to cover one’s private parts. Furthermore according to Rashi, the yarns used in these garments consisted of 28 threads each, and no one would have worn such heavy underwear. If the High Priest had had to wear such underwear it would have impeded him in carrying out some parts of his priestly duties. When he bent down they would have fallen off his shoulders. Therefore some commentators believe that they could only have covered the upper part of his torso. They would reach up to shoulder height.

ממול פניו TOWARDS THE FOREPART THEREOF — i. e. on the outer side.

לעומת מהברתו, on the level where the ephod’s sash is tied.

Above the belt. . . Explanation: the shoulder straps were joined along their width to the belt, and the rings were placed above their [point of joining], right at the [upper] edge of the belt. Consequently, the bottom of the breastplate, [which was tied to the rings,] reached the top of the belt. [Rashi knows this] because it says, “Above the eiphod’s belt.”

וירכסו — This is an expression for joining. Similar in meaning is, (Psalms 31:21) “[Thou hidest them] from the רֻכְסַי of men”, i. e. from the union of companies of wicked people. Similar is, (Isaiah 40:4) “And the רכסים shall become a plain” — i. e. the mountains which are close (almost joined) to one another so that it is not possible to descend into the valley between them except with great difficulty, since, in consequence of their closeness to each other, the valley is precipitous and deep — these רכסים, connected mountains, shall become a level plain and easy to travel upon.

AND THE BREASTPLATE SHALL NOT BE ‘YIZACH’ (LOOSENED) FROM THE EPHOD. “Yizach is an expression of ‘breaking away’. It is an Arabic expression, as Dunash ben Labrat explained.”⁵⁹A pupil of Saadia Gaon, he was grammarian, exegete and poet. He wrote a criticism of Menachem ben Saruk’s Machbereth (see Vol. I, p. 156, Note 347), whose contemporary he was. He was born in Baghdad and ultimately settled in Cordova where, like Menachem, he was a protege of Hasdai ibn Shaprut. He flourished in the middle of the tenth century. This is Rashi’s language.
It appears likely to me, however, that yizach is like yisach (break away), which is associated with the expressions: The Eternal ‘yisach’ (will pluck up) the house of the proud;⁶⁰Proverbs 15:25. and the faithless ‘yis’chu’ (shall be plucked up) out of it⁶¹Ibid., 2:22. — referring to breaking and plucking, and the letter samech (in yisach), is interchanged with the letter zayin (of yizach), just as in the verses: let the saints ‘ya’alzu’ (exult) in glory;⁶²Psalms 149:5. — Here ya’alzu is with a zayin. ‘nithalsa’ (let us solace ourselves) with loves;⁶³Proverbs 7:18. — Here the same root appears with a samech. ‘v’nitatztem’ (and ye shall break down) their altars;⁶⁴Deuteronomy 12:3. ‘nathsu’ (they break up) my path.⁶⁵Job 30:13. In this case the tzade interchanges with the samech of the above verse. See in this connection Vol. I, p. 485. Similarly, and they shall keep the watch of the house ‘masach’⁶⁶II Kings 11:6. — from being torn away; he. [Jehoiada the priest] thus warned the guard that not one of them should leave his position and thus cause the watch to be broken. Perhaps the following verse can also be explained on this basis: ‘ulmeizach’ wherewith he is girded continually,⁶⁷Psalms 109:19. which means “for separation and breaking,” the verse stating that the wicked shall always be girded with the curse until they will be destroyed and broken up by it, just as others gird themselves with a girdle. There is no ‘meizach’ any more⁶⁸Isaiah 23:10. — there is no more separation, the prophet [Isaiah] telling the people of Tyre: “overflow with the people of your land as the Nile to the land of Tarshish your trafficker; there will be no more separation and scattering for you — for not one will be separated from you there [in the hope of returning to his city], since he will not return to Tyre, because it will have been destroyed completely.” The term horeis applies to one who separates himself from the station of his colleagues, just as in the expression, let them not ‘yehersu’ (break through) towards the Eternal to see,⁶⁹Above, 19:21. The beginning of the quote here comes from Verse 24 there. and it is written, and from thy station ‘yehersecha’ (shalt thou be pulled down).⁷⁰Isaiah 22:19. Similarly: He looseth ‘meziach aphikim’⁷¹Job 12:21. — He abates the destruction of the aphikim, which are flooding rivers that inundate mountains and valleys. The term meizach⁶⁸Isaiah 23:10. is in the same form as meitzach (forehead), both of them having the letter nun missing,⁷²As Ramban will explain, meitzach (forehead) is of the root nitzuach (victory), since the strength of the head is in the forehead. Likewise the word meizah is of the root nosach or nozach which means pull or tear away. as [meitzach] is of the root nitzuach (enduring, victory), for the strength of the head is in the forehead.

וירכסו, same as ויחגרו, “they will girdle.”

וירכסו את החשן מטבעותיו, “They shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod with the thread of blue wool so that it will be above the skillfully woven band of the ephod, and so that the breastplate will be prevented from moving around on top of the ephod.” Rashi has explained this in detail in his commentary of Kedoshim (Leviticus 19,16.).

להיות על חשב האפוד THAT IT MAY BE UPON THE GIRDLE OF THE EPHOD — that the breast-plate (not the ring) may be attached to the girdle of the ephod.

ולא יזח SO THAT [THE BREAST-PLATE] BE NOT LOOSENED — יזח is an expression for “breaking away”. It is an Arabic expression according to the opinion of Dunash ben Labrat.

לזכרון לפני ה' תמיד. In order for G’d to always remember the merits of the founding tribal fathers of the Jewish people and to treat their offspring favourably when remembering their founders.

בחשן המשפט, “on the breastplate of judgment;” the term “judgment” here refers to the High Priest being able to receive answers to queries on Jewish law from G-d when these require to be clarified.

את האורים ואת התמים THE URIM AND THE THUMMIM — This was an inscription of the Proper Name of God which was placed between the folds (i. e. the two pieces forming the front and back) of the breast-plate through which it (the breast-plate) made its statements clear (lit., illuminated its words; מאיר from אור, light, this being an allusion to the אורים) and its promises true (מתמם from the root תמם, an allusion to תמים) (Yoma 73b). In the second Temple there was certainly the breast-plate (although other objects employed in the Temple Service were missing) for it was impossible that the High Priest should have lacked a garment, but that Divine Name was not within it. It was on account of the inscription which constituted the Urim and Thummim and which enabled it to give decisions that it was called “judgment”, as it is said, (Numbers 27:21) “And he shall enquire for him by the judgment of the Urim” (Numbers 27:21).

AND THOU SHALT PUT IN THE BREASTPLATE OF JUDGMENT THE URIM AND THE THUMMIM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought to display wisdom in the matter of the Urim and the Thummim, by saying that they were made by a craftsman from gold and silver, and he continued his discussion of them in this vein, for he thought that they were akin to the forms which the astrologers make in order to know the thoughts of the one who comes to ask of them [about the future]. But what [Ibn Ezra] said is of no import. Rather, the Urim and the Thummim are as Rashi has written: “This was an inscription of the Proper Name of G-d which was placed between the folds of the breastplate.” It was for this reason that the breastplate had to be double⁷³Verse 16. [i.e., made of a material that was folded in order to form a sort of bag, into which the Urim and the Thummim — the sacred Names of G-d, as explained further on, — were placed by Moses]. The proof for this is that in the work of the craftsmen the Urim and the Thummim are not mentioned at all, neither in the command nor in the [description of the] making thereof. Now concerning the garments He details: And he made the ephod,⁷⁴Further, 39:2. and he made the breastplate,⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 8. but it does not say, “and he made the Urim and the Thummim.” And if it were the work of a skilled engraver He would have dealt with it in greater length than with all [the garments]. Even if perhaps He desired to shorten the discussion about them on account of their profundity, He would at least have said here, “and thou shalt make the Urim and the Thumim as it has been shown to you in the mount; of pure gold — or purified silver — you shall make them.” moreover, you will notice that He did not use the definite article in connection with any of the vessels [of the Tabernacle] which had not been previously mentioned. Instead, He said, and they shall make an ark;⁷⁶Above, 25:10. and thou shalt make a table;⁷⁷Ibid., Verse 23. and thou shalt make a candelabrum,⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 31 and thus too in connection with all of them. In the case of the Tabernacle, however, He said, And thou shalt make ‘the’ Tabernacle,⁷⁹Ibid., 26:1. because He had already mentioned it [in saying], And let them make Me a Sanctuary.⁸⁰Ibid., 25:8. Now with reference to the Urim and the Thummim He said, And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment ‘the’ Urim and ‘the’ Thummim. He did not command him as to the making of them, and yet Scripture mentions them with the definite article! Moreover, Scripture mentions them with reference to Moses only, saying by way of command, and thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment…; similarly, at the time of making them it says, and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim,⁸¹Leviticus 8:8. since they were not the work of craftsmen. Neither craftsmen nor the congregation of Israel had any part whatsoever in their making or in their donation, for they were a secret transmitted by the Almighty to Moses, and he wrote them in holiness. They⁸²In Ricanti [quoting the language of Ramban]: “Or they were…” were thus of heavenly origin, and therefore they are referred to without any specification and with the definite article, in a similar usage to that which we have in the verse, and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim.⁸³Genesis 3:24. Here too Scripture uses the definite article [‘the’ cherubim] and yet nowhere previously do we read concerning them (Bachya). Now Moses took the inscription of the Urim and the Thummim, and placed them in the breastplate of judgment after he had clothed Aaron with the ephod and the breastplate, as it is said, And he put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the skilfully-woven band of the ephod… And he placed the breastplate upon him; and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim.⁸⁴Leviticus 8:7-8. For only after [Aaron was already clothed with the ephod and the breastplate] did Moses place the Urim and the Thummim between the folds of the breastplate.
Thus the Urim and the Thummim were the holy Names of G-d, and it was by virtue of the power residing in these Names that the letters inscribed upon the stones of the breastplate would light up before the eyes of the priest who inquired of their judgment.⁸⁵Numbers 27:21. For example, when they inquired, Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them,⁸⁶Judges 1:1. — Scripture continues [in Verse 2]: And the Eternal said: ‘Yehudah ya’aleh’ (Judah shall go up). the priest fixed his thoughts on those Divine Names which were the Urim [literally: “lights”], and the letters forming the name Yehudah lighted up before his eyes, and [for the word ya’aleh — “he shall go up”] the letter yod lighted up from the word Levi,⁸⁷The twelve stones in the breastplate bore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Since there was no letter tzade amongst these names, the patriarchs’ names [Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov] were also inscribed upon the stones. Finally to include the letter tet the words shivtei Y-ah (“the tribes of G-d”) were also written upon them (Yoma 73 b). The answer given to the priest who inquired of the Urim and Thummim was through the gleaming forth of the letters written upon the stones. Thus when the tribes asked, Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites? the name Yehudah gleamed forth, and as for the word ya’aleh, the yod of Levi lighted up etc. the ayin from Shimon, the lamed from Levi, and the hei from Avraham which was also written there, according to the opinion of our Rabbis,⁸⁸Yoma 73b. See Note above. or perhaps the hei from Yehudah lighted up a second time. Now when the letters lighted up before the eyes of the priest, he did not yet know their arrangement [that is, how these letters were to be grouped together into words], for from the letters forming the words Yehudah ya’aleh (Judah shall go up), it is possible to form the words: hoy heid alehah,⁸⁹“The echo of woe upon it.” or hie al Yehudah,⁹⁰“Lamentation upon Judah.” and very many other words. But then there were other sacred Divine Names [in the fold of the breastplate] called Thummim [literally: “perfection”], through whose power the priest’s heart was made perfect to understand the meaning of the letters which lighted up before his eyes. Thus, when he fixed his thoughts on the Divine Names in the Urim, and the letters lighted up, he would then immediately turn and fix his thoughts on the Divine Names in the Thummim, whilst the letters [of the Urim] were still lit up before him, and then it came to his mind that they combine to form the words Yehudah ya’aleh (Judah shall go up). This knowledge [of how to combine the letters that lit up in the breastplate into words], is one level of the degrees of Ruach Hakodesh.⁹¹Literally: “The Holy Spirit.” See Moreh Nebuchim II, 45, beginning: “second degree of prophecy.” It is lower than prophecy, and higher than the Bath Kol⁹²Literally: “echo” or “reverberating sound.” It is here used in the sense of a Divine Voice which on certain occasions was heard coming forth from the Holy of Holies (Sotah 33 a). which served [Israel] in the Second Sanctuary after prophecy had ceased, and after the Urim and Thummim had ceased, just as our Rabbis have mentioned.⁹³Yoma 21b. It is possible that after Moses placed the sacred Names of the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate, they became known to the great Sages of Israel, having been transmitted to them from Moses together with the secrets of the Torah. Hence we find that David possessed an ephod⁹⁴I Samuel 23:6., which was similar to the ephod of Moses, and together with it was a breastplate similar to the holy breastplate [in the Tabernacle]. It appears, however, that [instead of being made of gold, blue-purple etc.] it was made of linen, just as it says of Samuel that he was a child, girden with a linen ephod,⁹⁵Ibid., 2:18. and of Nob, the city of priests, it is said, fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.⁹⁶Ibid, 22:18. They would clothe a priest who was of the sons of the prophets,⁹⁷II Kings 4:1. A term denoting the disciples of the prophets, or those who sought the prophetic gift. and inquire of him [regarding certain events] and at times they were answered, just as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought on this point. However, as far as that which he [Ibn Ezra] said, that if [Rashi] had seen the responsum of Rabbeinu Hai,⁹⁸The last of the Gaonim. He was a son of Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon (see Vol. I, p. 97, Note 477). — Rabbeinu Hai Gaon wrote in a responsum that by invoking the Proper Name of G-d, or the names of the angels, one could not predict future events. Using this responsum as a basis, Ibn Ezra commented that if Rashi had seen this responsum he would not have written that the Urim and Thummim were inscriptions of the Proper Name of G-d etc. [as quoted above]. — To this comment of Ibn Ezra, Ramban answers caustically: “We have already seen this responsum of Rabbeinu Hai and have pondered its meaning, and we do know that it was Ibn Ezra’s understanding that did not grasp it.” he would not have explained as he did, [that the Urim and Thummim were inscriptions of the Proper Name of G-d] — now we have already seen that responsum and have considered it, and we know [for a certainty] that it was Rabbi Abraham whose opinion [shows that he] did not grasp it.

משפט בני ישראל על לבו, so that he will pray on their behalf that they would emerge exonerated in any judicial confrontation.

את האורים ואת התומים; the function was somewhat similar to that of oracles employed by the priests of idolatrous cults. If those had any value at all, -and we may assume that at least their worshippers had concluded that they did, -how much more influential would these urim vetumim in the sacred garments of the High Priest be in order to elicit answers to questions posed to G’d, seeing that the means employed were holy and sanctioned by G’d Himself?

ונתת אל חשן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים, “you are to place within the folds of the breastplate the Urim and the Tumim.” Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra,in an effort to be very astute, wrote that the Urim and Tumim were something constructed by human hands, by artisans. (compare Leviticus 8,8 where Moses is described as placing the Urim and the Tumim inside the breastplate after Aaron already wore the breast plate). He clearly thought that these Urim and Tumim were something man made of silver and/or gold. He appears to have thought that these mysterious inserts were similar to what the astrologers use in order to understand communications from their zodiac signs. [Before translating the scathing criticism by Nachmanides here on the personality of Ibn Ezra, the reader must be cautioned that the commentary by Ibn Ezra found on this verse in most editions of the Chumash is a one liner, not as in the version of the Ibn Ezra’s commentary published by Mossad Harav Kook by Asher Weisman in three volumes in 1976. Anyone reading that version (at the end of volume 2, in the so-called short version) will come away with a totally different impression than if he had read only the standard version available in most editions of the Chumash. Ed.] (continuing Nachmanides’ commentary) Ibn Ezra said absolutely nothing, but the Urim and Tumim were in accordance with Rashi’s commentary a piece of parchment on which the Holy name of Hashem had been written and which Moses inserted between the folds of the cloth supporting the Choshen. The proof of all this is that we do not find a single mention in the Torah of the Urim vetumim as being one or two of the components of either the Tabernacle or the vestments of the priest being constructed by any of the artisans who fashioned all the other items. When the making of the ephod [to which the breastplate was attached. Ed.] was mentioned as well as that of the breast plate, (39,2-6), there is not a single word about the Urim and Tumim having been constructed. Neither is there a mention anywhere of the people having contributed from their materials for the construction of the Urim vetumim. We are dealing here with a mystical element, the apparent function of the Holy Name of Hashem, or a variety of them, being concealed within the folds of the breastplate enabling the letters engraved on the 12 gemstones which decorated the breastplate, to flash in response to queries directed by the wearer, the High Priest, to G’d, queries to which he required a direct answer from heaven as the Sanhedrin, Supreme tribunal, was not competent enough to answer them. One such example is found in Judges 1,1 when Joshua wanted to know which tribe should lead in the attack against the Canaanites. It is quite possible that these names of G’d which Moses wrote on the parchment which he inserted in the folds of the breast plate, were known as such to the elite of the Jewish people at the time, and that this would explain the use of the definitive article used here, i.e. האורים, התומים, something which is never used unless the subject is a known quantity, a phenomenon that at least some people are familiar with. This may also explain why David possessed an ephod comparable to that which Moses had in his time, and why we read that in Nov the city of priests (whom King Shaul murdered) there were 85 priests wearing such a type of ephod. (compare Samuel I 22,18) These priests were all trained by prophets, and possibly they used their ephods to address inquiries to G’d on certain occasions.

ונתת אל חושן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים , “you are to place within the breastplate the Urim and the Tumim, etc.” The Torah introduces both the Urim and the Tumim with the letter ה in front as if we were dealing with known phenomena whereas in fact they have never been mentioned before. They had never been mentioned as being either part of the furnishings of the Tabernacle or as being part of the priestly vestments. Seeing that later on when the various furnishings and vestments are being described as having been made, we never read of ויעש את האורים ואת התומים, “he made the Urim and the Tumim,” it is clear that they were not something fashioned by craftsmen. They were something fashioned directly by celestial input. This is the reason they were introduced as a known quantity, something which had been in existence already. We observe something parallel in Genesis 3,24 when the Torah reports וישכן מקדם לגן עדן את הכרובים, “He positioned east of Gan Eden the cherubs, etc.” We had never been told of the existence of cherubs. There too the letter ה in front of the word כרובים taught us that such cherubs had already existed though we did not know of them seeing they had come from an extra-terrestrial domain.
The fact is that the words Urim ve-Tumim are the description of the names of holy beings by means of whom the High Priest was able to divine certain events in the future and to announce them to the people who had inquired about them. The two names Urim, Tumim, represent two different parts of such divine messages. The first refers to the lighting up of letters on the breastplate which were visible to the High Priest and enabled him to place the respective letters into sequences which formed an intelligible message. The flashing of the respective letters on the breastplate was called Urim, whereas the combining of these letters into an intelligent message by properly arranging the letters in question was called Tumim [from the words אור, light, and תמים, perfect, whole. Ed.] The holy name of the Lord was written on a parchment the High Priest folded underneath the breastplate so that the parchment was covered by the stones above and the fabric underneath. Moses placed the parchment inside the breastplate only after he had dressed Aaron in his vestments. This is the meaning of the verse in Leviticus 8,8: “He placed upon him the breastplate and he put inside the breastplate “the Urim and the Tumim.”
It was one of a number of levels of divine revelations such as Ruach hakodesh, Holy Spirit, which is considered a higher level than the revelation called Bat kol, “heavenly echo.” The communications received by the High Priest by means of the Urim ve-Tumim ranked below that called Nevuah, prophecy. We have been told in Berachot 4, that the reason the Urim and Tumim were called by these names is that the first word, i.e. Urim refers to their ability to convey what they had to say by means of light, i.e. the flashing of the letters we mentioned. The word Tumim, on the other hand, means that they would bring their message to an intelligible conclusion, i.e. their predictions would come true. These two phenomena were also known as כרתי ופלתי as we know from Samuel II 20,23, the names suggesting that the answers given to questions directed to these High Priests equipped with the breastplate were clear and unmistakable. When someone asked the High Priest concerning a future event and he received an answer based on the pronouncement of the Urim and Tumim as interpreted by the High Priest he would find that the event forecast would indeed occur. The High Priest would stand with his face towards the Holy Ark when referring the petitioner’s question to G’d for an answer. The person making the inquiry would stand behind the High Priest. He would not phrase his question or inquiry in a loud voice but would speak like people who engage in prayer not expecting anyone near them to hear the details of their prayer. Immediately after the petitioner had uttered his request the High Priest would be granted a measure of Holy Spirit and he would look at the breastplate and he would see the prophetic message flash on the breastplate’s letters, (such as עלה or לא תעלה in the event that the king had inquired if to engage in a certain war and if he would be successful.) The only people entitled to use this facility were the King or the community as a whole as has been pointed out in Yuma 71.

ונשא אהרן את משפט בני ישראל, “Aaron will bear the judgment of the Children of Israel on his heart;” i.e. he will inform G-d of the needs of the Jewish people so that he can give them guidance; we have encountered the term משפט in this sense Deuteronomy 18,3, as well as in Kings I 8,59 inSolomon’s blessing of the people after the consecration of the Temple he had built in Jerusalem.

את משפט בני ישראל [AND AARON SHALL BEAR] THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — the object by means of which they are judged and admonished whether they should do a particular thing or whether they should not do it. But according to the Midrashic statement (Zevachim 88b) that the breast-plate atoned for those who pervert judgment it was called “judgment” in allusion to the pardon thus given for perverse judgment.

את מעיל האפוד THE ROBE OF THE EPHOD — i. e. the robe over which the ephod was placed to serve the purpose of a girdle.

ME’IL’ (ROBE). Rashi commented:⁹⁹On Verse 4 above. “This was a kind of shirt, and so also was the k’thoneth, except that the k’thoneth was worn next to the body and the me’il is a term for the upper [outer] shirt.” But this is not so, for the me’il is a garment in which one wraps oneself, just as Scripture says, and he [Samuel] is covered with a ‘me’il’,¹⁰⁰I Samuel 28:14. and it is further written, ‘y’atoni’ (He hath covered me) with ‘me’il’ (the robe) of righteousness,¹⁰¹Isaiah 61:10. and the term atiyah (enwrapping) does not apply to a shirt, but to a garment with which one covers oneself, as it is said, ‘oteh’ (Who coverest Thyself) with light as with a garment,¹⁰²Psalms 104:2. it being associated with the term atoph (enveloping onself). And so we find: and his upper lip ‘ya’teh’ (he shall cover up,¹⁰³Leviticus 13:45. [which Onkelos renders] yitatoph.¹⁰⁴This shows that atiyah and atoph are identical terms. This is identical with the word kardunin¹⁰⁵In our Rashi: kardutin. from the Targum of Jonathan ben Uziel which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned [as his translation of the word me’il], for this kardunin is used for enwrapping oneself, something akin to the form of the ephod with which [the High Priest] envelops the half of his body that is towards his feet. But if a me’il was a kind of shirt [as Rashi said], then me’il and kardunin would not be alike at all. Another proof is the verse, and he seized the skirt of ‘me’ilo’ (his robe), and it rent.¹⁰⁶I Samuel 15:27. Thus the me’il has skirts and is not a kind of shirt. Rather, the me’il is a garment which enwraps the whole body from the neck downwards to the feet of the person, and has no sleeves at all. Now in other me’ilim there is a piece of garment for the neck, covering the whole of it, and sewed on [with a needle], this garment being called pi me’il (the hole of the robe), but with reference to this me’il Scripture commanded that it be woven together with the robe.¹⁰⁷Verse 32. The me’il is entirely slit frontwise till the bottom, and he put his head through the hole on top; thus the neck [of the priest] is enwrapped with the hole of the me’il, and in front of him are the two skirts with which he covers or uncovers himself at will — something like [our] cloak which has no head-tire. Now since the seam divides the front part of the me’il and separates it all the way downwards, therefore the term atiyah (enwrapping) is always used in connection with it [as explained above].
Nor do I know either¹⁰⁸I.e., “in addition to that which I did not understand in Rashi’s definition of the me’il [as explained above], I also do not know why etc.” why the Rabbi [Rashi] made the bells independent objects, stating that there was one bell between every two pomegranates.¹⁰⁹Rashi, Verse 33. For if so, the pomegranates served no purpose. And if they were made just for ornament, why were they made like hollow pomegranates? Let him rather make them like golden apples! Moreover, Scripture should have explained with what the bells should be hung, and whether rings should be made on which to hang the bells. Instead, [we must say that] the bells were inside the pomegranates themselves, for the pomegranates were hollow and made in the shape of small pomegranates that have not yet burst open,¹¹⁰Zebachim 88b. and the bells were hidden inside but visible through them. Now Scripture has not specified their number. But our Rabbis have said¹¹⁰Zebachim 88b. that there were seventy-two bells and within them there were seventy-two clappers; he hung thirty-six on one side and thirty-six on the other side, as is found in Tractate Zebachim, in the chapter The Altar Sanctifies.¹¹⁰Zebachim 88b. From here also you may learn that the me’il was not a sort of shirt or kthoneth [as Rashi wrote], but instead it had skirts [front and back, and therefore the Rabbis speak of “one side” and “the other side” of the me’il].
Similarly Rashi wrote⁹⁹On Verse 4 above. that “the mitznepheth (mitre) is a kind of domed helmet, for in another place¹¹¹Verse 40. the verse calls it migba’oth, which we translate in the Targum kov’in (helmets).” This also is not correct, for the Rabbis have said¹¹²The source is not known. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 476. that the mitznepheth was sixteen cubits long. Thus it was a sort of turban with which the head is wrapped, as he wound it around and around his head, fold upon fold. Moreover, the mitznepheth of the High Priest is nowhere called migba’oth [as Rashi said]. It is only with reference to the ordinary priests that Scripture calls the head-dress migba’oth,¹¹³Further, 39:28. [And they made… the ‘mitznepheth’ (mitre) of fine linen, and the ornamented ‘migba’oth’ (head-tires) of fine linen. — Thus Scripture distinguishes between the two garments, since the mitznepheth was made for Aaron and the migba’oth for Aaron’s sons. So how did Rashi write of the mitznepheth that in another place Scripture calls it migba’oth? and these too were a sort of turban,¹¹⁴Ramban’s intent is as follows: Even if we were to say that Rashi intended to state that the head-dress for the High Priest here called mitznepheth is for the common priest elsewhere called migba’at, that too, continues Ramban, would not be correct; since the head-dress for the common priest is also called mitznepheth, as explained in the text (Gur Aryeh). Thus according to Ramban the head-dress for the common priest is called both mitznepheth and migba’at, while that of the High Priest is called only mitznepheth. except that they were set upon¹¹⁵The difference between the two attires is thus clear. The head-dress of the High Priest — i.e., the mitznepheth — was wound around his head in several folds like a turban, and the one for the common priest was also wound in folds (hence its name mitznepheth) but set upon his head and came up like a conical helmet [hence its other name — migba’at]. See also Ramban further on Verse 37, and 29:7. the head and the folds came up like a sort of [conical] helmet which is the kovei’a, as Onkelos rendered it. For migba’at is like mikba’at, as I have said in Seder Mikeitz,¹¹⁶Genesis 41:47 (Vol. I, pp. 505-506). as the letter gimmel serves here as kuph, excepting that the migba’at was also wound like a mitznepheth. It is for this reason that the Sages always mention in Torath Kohanim¹¹⁷Sifra Tzav, 2:1. — For the term Torath Kohanim see above Note 19. the mitznepheth both in relation to the High Priest and the common priest. And in Tractate Yoma¹¹⁸Yoma 71b. we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “A High Priest ministers [the Divine Service] in eight garments, and a common priest in four — in tunic, breeches, mitznepheth (mitre), and belt. To these the High Priest adds the breastplate, the ephod, the upper garment, and the frontplate.”¹¹⁹Thus it is clear that the term mitznepheth applies to the head-dress of both the High Priest and the common priest. As to why the head-dress of the common priest is also called migba’at, see Note 115 above.

מעיל האפוד; the garment on which the ephod is worn.

ועשית את מעיל האפוד, “and you are to make the robe of the ephod, etc.” Rashi explains that the robe was a kind of shirt. Nachmanides queries the expressionעוטה , wrapping, used in connection with the robe, as this expression certainly seems out of place in connection with a shirt. The word means to drape (oneself) as in a tallit, a garment which envelopes the body completely. It has neither sleeves, nor a collar, a cutout for the neck as described in verse 32, and called פי תחרא. This particular robe, according to the Torah’s directives, had to be of weaver’s work, ארוג, embroidered, and the wearer would slip it on overhead and would place his arms through the armpits provided. At the front it had two flaps that could be opened or closed according to the wishes of the wearer. We know this from Samuel I 15,27 where King Sha-ul is described as grabbing hold of the flap of the prophet’s Samuel’s robe

ועשית את מעיל האפוד, You are to make the robe for the ephod.” The wording of the text teaches that the robe was attached to the ephod. Rashi also wrote that the ephod was placed over the robe much like a belt.

Put on over it as a wrap around. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, a question arises: The robe and the eiphod are two different garments. Why then is it written, “The robe of the eiphod,” implying it is one garment?

כליל תכלת signifies THE WHOLE OF IT BLUE PURPLE, meaning that there should be no other material mixed with it (Yoma 71b).

כליל תכלת, entirely of blue wool. I believe that the reason why this garment was totally blue is that seeing that both the ephod’s and the choshen’s function is to evoke the zikaron, the memory of G’d, the m’il, which is the base for the other two garments is also dyed in a colour symbolising memory as we know from the blue strand in the tzitziyot which the Torah describes as evoking the memory of heaven and G’d’s commandments in Numbers 15,35.

והיה פי ראשו AND THE HOLE IN THE HEAD OF IT SHALL BE — the hole of the Robe which is at its top — that is, the opening which serves as a receptacle for the neck,

לא יקרע, the robe should not have a regular collar and neckline running down the front of the garment open, but it should be round as a ring. The expression יקרע, is applied to vertical openings in a garment or building. The expression occurs in a similar sense in Jeremiah 22,14 וקרע לו חלוני, “provided with narrow windows cut out, etc.”

פי תחרא, an opening in the garment at the top, permitting the wearer to slip into it by pulling it down over his head.

So that it will not be torn. . . Rashi is saying that in the verse’s plain meaning, לא יקרע comes to explain what preceded it. [I.e., its opening should have a border so that it will not tear.] However, since it does not say שלא יקרע , we may infer that it is a negative precept on its own. In all the cases that Rashi brings, the proof is the same, [i.e., it does not say שלא .]

V. 32. והיה פי ראשו וגו׳. Die Öffnung seines oberen Endes soll nach innen geschlagen, somit doppelt werden, und dadurch einen starken, festen Saum bilden. Der Saum soll סביב ganz geschlossen und מעשה ארג, von Anfang an daran gewebt, nicht erst nachher durch Umnähen gebildet sein. — תחרא ,כפי תחרא, nach Onkelos: שריון, Panzer. Es kommt nirgends wieder vor und ist die Ableitung dunkel. — לא יקרע ist ebenfalls ein Verbot, das aber Joma 72 a auf alle Priestergewänder angewendet wird. Nach einer Auffassung wäre aber dieses Verbot bei allen anderen Gewändern nur hinsichtlich eines in vernichtender Absicht, דרך השחתה, geschehenen Zerreißens. Der geschlossene Saum des מעיל dürfe aber überhaupt nicht eingerissen werden. (Siehe ׳מ׳למ zu הל׳ כלי המקדש IX, 3.) —

בתוכו “inside it,” i.e. in its center. Compare to what the Torah wrote in Genesis 2,9, about the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

בתוכו IN THE MIDST THEREOF — Understand this as the Targum renders it: כפיל לגויה “turned in towards the inside” — the turn-in shall serve as its seam. It was weaver’s work (woven as such with the Robe) and not made with a needle.

בתוכו, in its middle (the middle of the top). להבדיל, similar to garments worn by the members of the clergy.

מעשה אורג, woven work; the Torah means that it was continuous along the entire neck of the garment. The garment had been woven from the neck down to its hem. At the top it was reinforced so as not to tear easily.

כפי תחרא AS IT WERE THE HOLE OF A HABERGEON — This informs us that their habergeons had the neck-opening turned in.

לא יקרע. The collar does not open downwards (like our shirtfronts) but one leaves an opening for the neck when weaving it before finishing it at the top.

לא יקרע means SO THAT IT BE NOT RENT — Indeed, whoever rends it, transgresses thereby a negative commandment because this is among the number of the negative commands contained in the Torah. The same is the case with (v. 28) “that the breast-plate be not loosened”, and similarly, (Exodus 25:15) “they shall not depart from it”, which is said of the staves of the ark (Yoma 72a).

רמוני POMEGRANATES — They were round and hollow, similar to that kind of pomegranates which are made like (have the form of) a hen’s egg.

בתוכם. between pomegranate and pomegranate, not inside the pomegranate.

V. 33. רמני תכלת וגו׳. Diese Granatäpfel sind die einzigen Gewandteile, wo die drei farbigen Wollstoffe zusammen ohne Byssus auftreten. Auch bei den Teppichen und Vorhängen des Heiligtums und Vorhofs kommt es nicht vor. Nach Sebachim 88 b. waren sie in der Form noch unaufgebrochener, somit den Samen noch in sich bergender Granatfrüchte. Die Glocken wechselten mit ihnen ab. Es waren nach ebendaselbst: zweiundsiebzig Glocken und so auch zweiundsiebzig Granatäpfel. Ramban ist der Meinung, es wären die Glocken innerhalb der Granatäpfel gewesen. Die Erklärung daselbst: dass sie ungeöffnete Granatäpfel gewesen רמונים שלא פתחו פיהן spricht für die erstere Auffassung, die Raschi und Maimonides (הל׳ כלי המקדש IX, 4) geben.

That is that He commanded the priests to wear special garments for glory and adornment, so they can then serve in the Temple. And that is His saying, "And make holy garments for your brother Aharon, for glory and adornment" (Exodus 28:2); "Then bring his sons forward; clothe them with tunics" (Exodus 29:8). And this is the commandment of the priestly garments - eight garments for the high priests and four for an ordinary priest. And anytime the priest serves with less than this number of special garments, or more than them, his service is disqualified and he becomes liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning for the one was lacking clothes and served. And likewise did they count him in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 83b) as one of those liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And this explanation does not appear in Scripture. But what does appear in Scripture is, "and you shall gird them with sashes [...] and they shall have priesthood" (Exodus 29:9). And the explanation appears - when their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them, and they are outsiders (non-priests). Behold it has been made clear to you that an outsider that serves [in the Temple receives] the death penalty. And they said in the Sifra (Sifra, Tzav, Mechilta d'Milium 1:7), "'And he placed the breastplate upon him': This section was learned for its time and for [all the] generations; for the daily service and for the Yom Kippur service. [However] every day he serves in the golden garments; and on Yom Kippur, in the white (linen) garments. And it already appears in the [Sifra], that wearing these garments is a positive commandment. And this is their saying (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 8:10), "From where [do we know] that Aharon did not wear the garments for his aggrandizement, but only to fulfill the decree of the King? As it is stated, 'and he did as the Lord commanded Moshe' - that is to say, the wearing of the garments." And even though they are the utmost in beauty - given that they are from gold, onyx, jasper and the other precious and beautiful stones - he should not have intention [in wearing them,] for their beauty, but rather only to fulfill the command that God, may He be exalted, commanded Moshe. And that is that he always wear these garments in the Temple. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Zevachim, Yoma and Sukkah. (See Parashat Tetzaveh; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 10.)

ופעמני זהב AND BELLS OF GOLD — bells, together with the clappers in them.

בתוכם סביב IN THE MIDST OF THEM ROUND ABOUT — i. e. between them (the pomegranates) all the way round the hem: between every two pomegranates there was one bell attached hanging from the hem of the Robe (cf. Zevachim 88b).

פעמן זהב ורמון פעמן זהב ורמון means a golden bell and a pomegranate next to it.

פעמון זהב ורמון, “a golden bell and a pomegranate.” According to Rashi the Torah speaks of two distinctly separate kinds of ornaments, one looked like a bell, the other like pomegranate. Nachmanides writes that if that were correct the “pomegranates” would not have served any purpose that we can understand. If we were to understand that the “pomegranates” were decorative only, why would he not have made them like apples, but made of gold? We must assume that the bells were surrounded on the outside by these “pomegranates,” the “pomegranates” being hollow, they were made to look like unripe small “pomegranates” that had not “opened” yet, and the bells were hidden within their cavities, but could be seen partially from the outside.

פעמון זהב ורמון, “with a golden bell and a pomegranate alternating along its lower rim.” The purpose of the pomegranate was to produce sound when the bell hit it while the High Priest was walking.

ולא ימות THAT HE DIE NOT — From what is included in this negative statement you may infer the positive: if he has these garments on him he will not incur death; consequently if he enters the Sanctuary lacking one of these garments he incurs death at the hands of God (cf. Sanhedrin 83).

THAT HE DIE NOT. “From this negative statement you infer the positive: if these garments are upon him, he will not incur death, but if he enters [the Sanctuary] lacking one of these garments he is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven].” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for if so He should have written this verse after having mentioned all eight garments [of the High Priest], and why did He mention it after three garments — the breastplate, the ephod, and the robe — before mentioning the frontplate, the upper garment, the mitre, the belt and the breeches! Furthermore, [the verse reads here,] and when he cometh out [of the Sanctuary], that he die not. But the act of going out [from the Sanctuary] is no function for which he should incur death if lacking the [proper number of] garments!
Similarly Rashi commented on the verse: “And they shall be upon Aaron and upon his sons¹²⁰Verse 43. — they means all these garments; upon Aaron and upon his sons, those which are proper to him, and those specified for them. [That they bear not iniquity,] and die¹²⁰Verse 43. — thus you learn that he who ministers [the Divine Service] lacking any of these garments incurs death [by the hand of Heaven].” And so indeed it appears from the simple meaning of Scripture. But according to the conclusion reached on these subjects in the discussions in the Gemara,¹²¹For meaning of the term Gemara see in Seder Bo, Note 204. The particular texts here referred to are mentioned further on. it would appear that this does not conform to the opinion of our Rabbis, for to them this commandment applies to all alike, to Aaron and his sons, but it refers only to the breeches, and the punishment [of death by the hand of Heaven for lacking them] likewise applies [only] to them [i.e. the breeches]. For He had commanded that they be made, [as it is said,] And thou shalt make them linen breeches,¹²²Verse 42. and then He commanded concerning their being worn [by the priests, saying,] And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons.¹²⁰Verse 43. As to the rest of the garments, He had already given the command above concerning the making of them and wearing them, [as it is said,] And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and upon his sons with him.¹²³Verse 41. If so, this command [And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons]¹²⁰Verse 43. refers wholly to the breeches, and the punishment likewise refers [only] to them.
We learn this from what the Rabbis have said in Tractates Sanhedrin¹²⁴Sanhedrin 83b. and The Slaughtering of Sacrifices:¹²⁵Zebachim 17b. “Whence do we know that a priest who ministered [the Divine Service] lacking the [proper number of] garments is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven]? Said Rabbi Abohu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and they arrived in the chain of tradition up to ‘in the name of Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon:' And thou shalt gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind head-tires on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute,¹²⁶Further, 29:9. the interpretation of which is: ‘So long as they wear their [appointed] garments, they are invested with their priesthood; when they do not wear their garments, they are not invested with their priesthood, and they become laymen, and it has been said that a layman who ministers [in the Sanctuary] incurs the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven].” Now if this verse [that they bear not iniquity, and die]¹²⁰Verse 43. were held by the Rabbis to apply to all the garments [of the priests], as the Rabbi [Rashi] said, they could have found in it an expressly stated punishment for one who ministers lacking all the garments, [and why did they need to base it upon an inference from another verse]! Rather, this verse refers only to the breeches, and the other verse to the rest of the garments, where the breeches are not mentioned at all. Proof to what the Rabbis have said [that this verse, And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons… that they bear not iniquity, and die,¹²⁰Verse 43. refers only to the breeches], is that further on when the order of putting on the garments is mentioned,¹²⁷Ibid., Verses 5-9. the breeches are not referred to at all, for having declared here the punishment if they are lacking [when ministering in the Sanctuary], there was no more need to mention them again further on, as it is understood already that he would wear them.
And that which He said above [i.e., in Verse 35 before us], and the sound thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Eternal, and when he goeth out, that he die not, is [not as Rashi has it that from here we learn that if he enters the Sanctuary lacking one of these garments he incurs death at the hand of Heaven, but is] in my opinion an explanation for the commandment of the bells [upon the robe], since there was no need to wear them, nor are they customary amongst dignitaries. Therefore He said that He commanded that they be made in order that the sound thereof be heard in the Sanctuary, that the priest enter before his Master as if with permission. For he who comes into the king’s palace suddenly, incurs the penalty of death according to the court ceremonial, just as we find in the case of Ahasuerus.¹²⁸Esther 4:11. All the king’s servants… do know, that whosoever… shall come unto the king… who is not called, there is one law for him, that he be put to death. It thus alludes to what the Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi Tractate Yoma:¹²⁹Yerushalmi Yoma I,5. — On Jerusalem Talmud see in Seder Bo, Note 204. “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goeth in to make atonement in the holy place¹³⁰Leviticus 16:17. — even those [heavenly beings] of whom it is written, As for the likeness of their faces they had the face of a man,¹³¹Ezekiel 1:10. they too are not to be then in the Tent of Meeting.” Therefore He commanded that [the ministering High Priest] make a sound be heard, as if crying out, ‘Cause everyone to go out from before me,’¹³²Genesis 45:1. so that he can come to minister before the King alone. Similarly, when going out from the Sanctuary his sound is heard in order to leave with permission, and that the matter be known so that the King’s ministers can go out before Him. In the Chapters of the Palaces¹³³Pirkei Heichaloth, 31. — This is an Agadic Midrash on “The Seven Palaces of Heaven.” See Wertheimer’s ed. of Batei Midrashoth Vol. I, p. 67. this subject is known. Thus the reason [for the bells upon the robe of the High Priest] is that he should not be encountered by the angels of G-d. He gave this warning concerning the High Priest¹³⁴Since the common priests also entered the Sanctuary in the regular daily service, the question arises why were these bells not necessary upon their garments so that their sound be heard when they come into the Sanctuary? Ramban’s answer is that this was on account of the high position of the High Priest. “For the greater the person the more are the powers of strict judgment stirred up against him” (Bi’ur Ha’lvush to Ricanti who quotes the language of Ramban). on account of his high position. This is Scripture’s intent in saying, when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Eternal, for it is the High Priest who passes¹³⁵Another reading: “ministers.” before Him so that He cause His Divine Glory to rest upon his service, for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts,¹³⁶Malachi 2:7. even though the common priests also enter the Sanctuary to burn the incense and to kindle [the lamps].¹³⁷Yet the High Priest is more distinguished; hence the bells were necessary upon his garments and not upon those of the common priests, as explained above (see Note 134).
Now I have seen in the Midrash Shemoth Rabbah¹³⁸Shemoth Rabbah 38:10. with reference to the stones upon the breastplate: “For what reason were the stones? It was in order that the Holy One, blessed be He, observe them in the garments of the priest when he enters on the Day of Atonement,¹³⁹When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement entered the Holy of Holies he did not wear the eight garments [amongst which was the breastplate], but instead, he wore the four linen garments [as prescribed in Leviticus 16:4]. The meaning of the Midrash must perforce be as follows: The merit of the High Priest wearing the breastplate all the year round when ministering in the Sanctuary, stood by him when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, although at that moment he did not wear it. and He be gracious to the tribes [whose names were inscribed upon the stones in the breastplate]. Rabbi Yehoshua in the name of Rabbi Levi says: This may be compared to a king’s son, whose tutor came before the king to speak in his defense, but was afraid of those standing there lest they strike him. What did the king do? He dressed him in his purple cloak in order that they see it and be afraid of him. In the same way Aaron entered at all times¹⁴⁰Reference here is to the four times that the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies during the special service for the Day of Atonement (Peirush Maharzav on Midrash Rabbah). the Holy of Holies, and were it not for the many merits that entered with him and helped him, he could not have entered. Why? Because of the ministering angels who were there. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He gave him a likeness of His sacred garment, as it is said, And He put on righteousness as a coat of mail.”¹⁴¹Isaiah 59:17. Thus far is the language of this Agadah. Now even though the High Priest did not enter into the innermost part of the Sanctuary [i.e., the Holy of Holies] with these garments, yet on the Day of Atonement he needed these [garments] even in the Tent of Meeting, for it is written, And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting.¹⁴²Leviticus 16:17. Therefore when the High Priest came into the Sanctuary during the service preceding his entrance into the Holy of Holies, he also had to wear these garments as his protection against those powers assailing him because of his high position.

ובצאתו ולא ימות. "and when he comes out, so that he will not die." It appears from this verse that if the High Priest's tunic did not have the bells that could be heard he would be guilty of the death penalty to be administered by Heaven. Were this not so and the verse had referred to the absence of the garment to which the bells were attached or to any of his special garments, the words: "so that he will not die" should have beeen written after the list of the garments was complete in verse 43. The fact that the Torah did not wait with this clause until then is to teach us that even the absence of the bells only made the High Priest liable to death at the hands of Heaven. Repetition of the threat of death in verse 43 refers to a priest who serves without one or more of the garments he is to wear at that time.

ונשמע קולו בבאו אל הקדש, the golden bells will knock against each other even though they are separated from one another by the woolen pomegranates.

Subject to the death penalty at the hands of Heaven. Rashi is telling us that the verse does not come to teach that he will not die; rather, it teaches that this negative precept bears the death penalty. [Rashi is further telling us] that “So that he will not die” applies to all the priestly garments, not just to the robe of the eiphod which preceded this warning. When Rashi says, “While lacking one of these garments,” he means any of the aforementioned garments. In Zevachim 17b, this law is derived from the verse, “And the priesthood [i.e., the garments] shall be for them an everlasting statute” (29:9), [which is interpreted to mean:] “When their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. When their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them.” Thus they are subject to the death penalty, since a non-kohein who serves is subject to the death penalty (Sanhedrin 9:6). See more on this in Re”m.

V. 35. לשרת. Vergleichen wir die Stellen, in denen שרה noch außer dem von den Priestern im Heiligtum zu leistenden Amte vorkommt, so ergibt sich seine Bedeutung in Verhältnis zu dem synonymen עבד dahin: עבד heißt ganz allgemein, seine Kräfte einem andern, sei es Zweck, Sache oder Person, zu Gebote stellen und unter diesem Gebote betätigen. Es ist, wie wir erst oben zu V. 4 bemerkt, lautverwandt mit עבת: zweckvermittelndes Binden und עבט: Pfand. שרת heißt aber ganz speziell nicht sowohl dienen, als vielmehr: bedienen, die persönlichen Bedürfnisse eines andern befriedigende Leistungen verrichten. Wenn nun die Tätigkeit des כהן im Heiligtum unter den Begriff שרת gefasst wird, so wird damit die durch das מקדש zum Ausdruck kommende Gegenwart Gottes im Volke — שכינתו בתוכם — als Gottes Wunsch und Wille, zugleich aber auch als eine solche bezeichnet, die an Bedingungen geknüpft ist, deren Erfüllung eben der "Dienst" des כהן im Heiligtum zum Ausdruck bringen soll. Der Dienst des כהן wird daher wegen dieser gleichsam persönlichen Beziehung zu Gott ein "Bedienen" genannt. Er wird in der תורה nie direkt mit עבודה bezeichnet, vielmehr (Bamidbar 18, 7) zur Unterscheidung von dem Dienst der Leviten, der allerdings עבודה ist (und nur in deren persönlichen Beziehungen zu den כהנים als deren Gehilfen: שרת genannt wird), als עבודת מתנה, als "Dienst der Hingebung", d. h. als ein Dienst charakterisiert, dessen spezielle Aufgabe die Begehung derjenigen Handlungen ist, welche die "Hingebung" des Individuums und des Volkes an Gott zum Ausdruck bringen, eine Hingebung, die eben die Bundesgegenwart Gottes im Volke bedingt. עבודת מתנה ist nichts als Umschreibung des שרת und bildet daher den gesetzlichen Begriff derjenigen עבודות, hinsichtlich derer dort ausgesprochen ist: והזר הקרב יומת und der (Joma 24 a) also präzisiert wird: עבודת מתנה ולא עבודת סילוק "Dienst positiver Hingebung" (wie זריקה הקטרה וניסוך המים ויין) nicht aber "negativen Räumens" (wie תרומת הדשן). Außerdem ist noch das Merkmal bedingend, daß es zugleich עבודה תמה sei, d. h. eine einen Opferakt abschließende Handlung. — Wie hier wird auch Kap. 39, 26 der Zweck, לשרת beim מעיל besonders hervorgehoben, und dürfte dieser Begriff für das Verständnis der Gewänder nicht unerheblich sein (siehe unten).

ונשמע קולו, “its sound would be audible;” [the High Priest did not wear these garments inside the Tabernacle on the Day of Atonement. Ed.] The sound was meant to alert the people that the time for him to perform the service in the Tabernacle had arrived. According to another interpretation, the sound was necessary to warn the other priests not to enter the Holy of Holies. On the Day of Atonement there was no need for it, seeing that only the High Priest performed sacrificial service on that day.

ציץ — This was a kind of golden Plate, two fingers in breadth, going round the forehead from ear to ear (Shabbat 63b).

קדש לה׳. "Holy unto G'd." This means that as long as the words "Holy unto G'd" appeared on the headband (golden plate), this was acceptable. When the Talmud said in Shabbat 63 that the words were arranged in two rows, this means that the name of י־ה was engraved on top and the word קדש followed by the letter ל underneath. Such an arrangement of the words was not mandatory. You will find there that Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yossi reported that while in Rome he personally had seen the ציץ which the Romans had captured, and that the words "Holy unto G'd" were engraved on it in a single line. This proves that the order in which the words were engraved did not matter. When Maimonides wrote in chapter nine of his treatise on Kley Hamikdosh that the words appeared in two rows, with the word קדש in the second line, this does not present a difficulty. He referred only to the preferred way of engraving these words.

ועשית ציץ. The name ציץ reflects the fact that this head-plate is worn on a place that everybody looks at on the forehead of the High Priest. We explained this point in our commentary on 12,7.

V. 36. ציץ, in Lautverwandtschaft mit זיז und שׂישׂ, äußere und innere rege werdende Bewegung, heißt ציץ, das Hervorbrechen zur Sichtbarkeit und daher: die aufbrechende Blüte, ציצת ראש: das hervorquellende Lockenhaar. מציץ בין החרכים (Hohelied 2, 9): den Blick zwischen Gitter hervordringen lassen. Davon heißt wohl hier ציץ: etwas, was sich dem Anblicke in auffälliger Weise darbietet, augenfällig ist. Es war nach Schabbat 63 b ein von Ohr zu Ohr reichendes, zwei Finger breites, goldenes Blech, welches die Inschrift: קדש לה׳ trug, den Gottesnamen in erster Linie; nach Maimonides הל׳ כלי המקדש IX, ר׳ אליעזר ברבי יומי 1 berichtet (dort), er habe es unter den Trophäen in Rom gesehen mit der Inschrift קדש לד׳ in einer Zeile, woraus Maimonides schloss, dass die zweizeilige Schreibweise nicht als unumgänglich statuiert sei.

ועשית ציץ, “you are to make a frontlet; (of gold),” a sparkling kind of jewelry. We find that term in such a connection in Ezekiel 1,7: ונוצצים כעין נחשת קלל, “they were sparkling like the luster of burnished copper or in Psalms 132,18: “and his crown will sparkle on him;”ועליו יציץ נזרו.

'קדש לה. The names of the tribes of Israel are engraved on both the gemstones of the ephod as well as on the breastplate. These names were to remind G’d of the merits of the founding fathers of these tribes and to facilitate atonement for the sins of their descendants. The specific sins referred to are inadvertent violations involving sacred sites entered in violation of the law, or the consuming of sacred sacrificial meat by people either not entitled to eat them or not in a ritually pure state which would be the prerequisite for eating same. While the High Priest wore the ציץ G’d undertook to forgive such inadvertent violations committed by the people concerned.

על פתיל תכלת [AND THOU SHALT PUT IT] ON A BLUE PURPLE STRING — but in another passage (Exodus 39:31) is states, “And they put upon it (upon the Plate) a string of blue purple (so that the Plate was beneath the string, not upon it as is here commanded)! Then again, it is written here, “and it (the Plate) shall be upon the mitre”, whilst further on (v. 38) it says, “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead”! And in the Treatise on the Slaughter of the Sacrifices (Zevachim 19a) we learn: “His (the High Priest’s) hair was visible between the Plate and the mitre, whereon he placed the Tephillin”, thus informing us that the mitre was above on the crown of the head and was not so deep that the entire head went into it right down to the forehead, and that the Plate was beneath it with a space between them. Consequently the Plate was not on the mitre as seems to be stated in this verse! But I say that (cf. Rashi on Exodus 39:31 ואומר אני וגו׳) the strings were in holes and hung from it (from the Plate) at its two ends and at its middle point, six in these three places (i. e. one string in each hole, the centre of each string resting on the bottom point of the hole, the three thus forming six). Thus, at each hole, there was one string on top of the Plate — outside it, and one inside (between the Plate and the forehead). He tied the ends of the strings, the three of them, behind the neck; it follows therefore that the length of the Plate and the strings that were at its ends together encompassed his skull. The middle string which was on its top edge bound together with the ends of the two which were at the extremities of the Plate, passed over the breadth of the head above (over the crown). Consequently it (the Plate, together with the strings) formed a kind of helmet. It is with reference to the middle string that it states, “And it (the string just mentioned in the verse; not the Plate as was assumed) shall be upon the mitre”, for he placed the Plate, with the strings already tied in this manner, upon his head as a kind of helmet passing it over the mitre, and the middle string held it (the Plate) firm so that it could not fall, and thus the Plate hung in front of his forehead and did not fall lower down. In this way all these verses find their explanation — the string being on the Plate, the Plate on the string, and the string on the mitre above (cf. Chullin 138a).

AND THOU SHALT PUT IT ON A BLUE-PURPLE STRING. “But in another place in Scripture it states, And they put upon it a string of blue-purple¹⁴³Further, 39:31. [which indicates that the frontplate was beneath the string, not upon it as is here commanded]! Moreover, here it is written, and it shall be upon the mitre, and further on it says, And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead!¹⁴⁴Verse 38. In the Tractate on the Slaughtering of Sacrifices¹⁴⁵Zebachim 19 a-b. we have been taught: ‘The High Priest’s hair was visible between the frontplate and the mitre, whereon he placed the phylacteries.’ From this we learn that the mitre was above on the crown of the head [and was not so large that it covered the entire head right down to the forehead], and the frontplate was beneath it [with a space between them], and the strings were in holes and hung from the frontplate at its two ends and in its middle — six in these three places:¹⁴⁶For, as the center of each string rested at the bottom point of the hole, the three strings became six. one string on top [of the frontplate], one outside and one inside [between the frontplate and the forehead]. He tied the ends of the three strings behind the neck, and thus it came to be that the length of the frontplate and the strings at its ends encompassed his whole skull. The middle string which was on top was tied together to the ends of the two strings [at the extremities of the frontplate], and passed over above the breadth of the head. Thus it came to be that [the frontplate with the strings] formed a kind of helmet. Now it is with reference to the middle string that Scripture states, and it shall be upon the mitre, for he placed the frontplate [together with the strings tied in the above manner] upon his head [as a kind of helmet, passing it over the mitre], and tightened it through the middle string so that it would not fall. Thus the frontplate hung in front of his forehead. All these verses are thus reconciled: the string was on the frontplate, and the frontplate upon the string, and the string on the mitre above.” All this is Rashi’s language.
But I wonder concerning Rashi’s words, for Scripture commands the making of only one blue-purple string, and he makes six! Moreover, Rashi combined the verses which tell of the command to make [the frontplate] with those which tell of the making thereof,¹⁴⁷The verse mentioned by Rashi [And they put upon it a string of blue-purple] is found further (39:31) in connection with the actual making thereof. So how can the string mentioned in that verse be added to the one that is stated in the verse commanding the making of the frontplate? increasing the strings with the number of verses! One could count in such manner in the case of the ark, the table, and the candelabrum [two of each, since they are mentioned once in the command to make, and again in the narrative when they were actually made]! Furthermore, if Scripture commanded that they put the frontplate on a blue-purple string, how did they [do the opposite and] put a blue-purple string on it? Where were they commanded to do so? And why did they need the strings in the middle, since the frontplate was tied behind the neck, as are all frontplates which are worn by men and women?
Indeed, the matter is not as the Rabbi [Rashi] said. For there was only one string there; the plate reached from ear to ear and was pierced at its two ends and the blue-purple string was put through the two holes, the plate being thus tied behind the neck. Thus he wound the mitznepheth (mitre) around the head, not at all upon the forehead, but on the head where the hair grows. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁴⁸Zebachim 19a. that he also left [uncovered] part of the hair of his head towards his face for the phylacteries, he wound [the mitznepheth] high above on the crown of the head, opposite the middle of the brain, covering the whole head at the back. Thus the mitznepheth lay above on the slope of the head opposite the brain, and the frontplate rested opposite his forehead from ear to ear, there being nothing intervening between his forehead and the frontplate. Thus the mitznepheth lay on the back of his head from ear to ear, opposite the whole neck, and the string which was tied to the frontplate was upon the mitznepheth. It is with reference to this that Scripture says, And thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string, meaning that he should put the string through the holes of the frontplate; and the string shall be upon the mitre behind his ears opposite the neck; towards the front of the mitre it shall be — that is, the frontplate, which shall be upon the forehead opposite the front part of the mitre. This is Scripture’s intent in stating, And thou shalt set the mitre upon his head,¹⁴⁹Further, 29:6. that is to say, above on the crown of the head, unlike the migba’oth of which it is said, and thou shalt bind head-tires upon them,¹⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 9. binding the head like one whose head hurts and he binds it for the purpose of strengthening the head. It further states, and thou shalt put the holy crown upon the mitre,¹⁴⁹Further, 29:6. for it was upon the mitre that [the frontplate] was tied at the back. This is so stated: And they put upon it a string of blue-purple, to fasten it upon the mitre above,¹⁴³Further, 39:31. for there upon [the mitre] the string [of the frontplate] was tied. Similarly, and upon the mitre, in front, did he set the golden plate,¹⁵¹Leviticus 8:9. means that he tied upon the front of the mitre the golden frontplate. Thus the term “placing” in all the verses refers to putting [the string of the frontplate] upon the mitre, for it was there that it was tied; the frontplate itself, however, was on the forehead opposite the mitre. There is then no difference between the expression And they put upon it a string of blue-purple,¹⁴³Further, 39:31. and [in the verse before us] and thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string [unlike Rashi who distinguished between them], for in both cases it is as if it said, “and thou shalt place it with a blue-purple string,” “and thou shalt put a blue-purple string,” similar in usage to the expression, and thou shalt put them ‘on’ one basket,¹⁵²Further, 29:3. which means “in” the basket. Likewise, escape ‘on’ thy life¹⁵³Genesis 19:17. [which means “with your life,” as long as your life is in you, or “escape for your life”]. Or it may be that the word al (‘on’ — on a blue-purple string) here serves as el (to), thus stating: “and you shall put it to a blue-purple string,” “and they put a blue-purple string to it,” for the string was put [to the frontplate, and the frontplate was put] to it, for it rested on it for support. In essence, the meaning of the verses is only that they should place a string in the holes of the frontplate, and in that way it also came about that the frontplate was upon the string and the string upon the frontplate. Similarly, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof to the rings of the ephod with a string of blue-purple,¹⁵⁴Above, Verse 28. from which Rashi brought a proof¹⁵⁵In Rashi’s exposition of the frontplate he had explained (as mentioned above) that there were three double strings attached to it. To answer the question why Scripture speaks only of “a thread of blue-purple” in the singular, Rashi wrote (further 39:31). “Do not be puzzled because it does not say ‘threads of blue-purple,’ for we find the same thing in the case of the breastplate and the ephod, of which it is said, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof with a string of blue-purple (above, Verse 28), and you must admit that there could not have been less than two strings, for at the two ends of the breastplate were the two rings of the breastplate, and on the two shoulder pieces of the ephod were two rings opposite them. Now according to the way the breastplate was tied on, there were four threads, and under any circumstance it could not have been less than two [and yet Scripture speaks only of ‘a string’ of blue-purple]!” — To this proof of Rashi, Ramban answers that reference is only to one string, as explained in the text. [that there were three double strings in the frontplate], also refers to only one string, which they put through the rings of the breastplate and the rings of the ephod opposite them; so also on the other side there was one string, for these were two [separate] places, and in each place they tied [the breastplate by the rings thereof] with one string [of blue-purple to the rings of the ephod].

ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, there was a single strand of blue wool at either end of the tzitz which extended from ear to ear so that the head-band could be tied by means of it. There were also three strings above the tzitz which crossed the High Priest’s head (linking up with the woolen strand and attached to the מצנפת, the turban like shaped headgear worn by the High Priest.

ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, “you shall fasten it to a cord made of blue wool.” Rashi points out that instead of the verb שים, i.e. ושמת, used by the Torah here, the Torah uses the verb נתן, i.e. ויתנו, in Exodus Not only that, but here the ציץ. is to be fastened to Aaron’s מצנפת, turban, though worn on his forehead, מצח, whereas in Parshat Pekudey it is described as being worn over the Turban. [Rashi, in discussing the implications at length, something that Nachmanides assumes the reader has already familiarised himself with, therefore comes to the conclusion that there were three locations on the ציץ to each of which a blue cord was attached in order to securely place the ציץ in such a way that there was room for Aaron to put on his phylacteries on the skin of his forehead. Ed.] Nachmanides expresses his amazement at Rashi’s interpretation, claiming that clearly the Torah mentions only a single blue wool cord in connection with the headband. According to Rashi, in Nachmanides’ view, there would have been six such cords. Furthermore, he accuses Rashi as unjustifiably lumping together verses that describe the instruction to make the headband, with verses (Parshat Pekudey) that describe the manner in which the directive was actually carried out. If indeed there were as many blue wool cords as described by Rashi, what would have been the purpose of the blue cord mentioned here which was in the center of the ציץ? According to Rashi, the headband had already been firmly secured in place behind Aaron’s head, at the nape of his neck! We must conclude that there was only a single such cord made of blue wool, this cord was stretched on Aaron’s forehead from one ear to the other and the headband itself had two holes in it at either of its two extremities, the cord being threaded through these holes so that the headband was securely tied together by means of this cord at the nape of Aaron’s neck. Simultaneously, the turban Aaron wore on his head covered this blue cord at the level of Aaron’s brain; whereas at the back of his head the turban covered this cord down to the level of the nape of the neck. In the front, the ציץ was worn so that it covered a major part of Aaron’s forehead, from ear to ear. The result of all this was that the rear of Aaron’s head was enclosed by the turban from ear to ear, whereas the front was covered by the golden headband from ear to ear. This is the meaning of the line: ושמת המצנפת על ראשו, i.e. “on the upper part of his head,” not like the מגבעות, the caps worn by the ordinary priests that enclosed the entire head, as we know from 29,9 וחבשת להם מגבעות, “you shall wrap the headdresses on them.” The meaning is that the entire head be covered by these מגבעות, headdresses, caps. As to what the Torah writes ונתת את נזר הקודש על המצנפת, “you are to place the crown of sanctity on the turban,” (29,6) the meaning is that that the ציץ is to be connected, tied, to the turban. There is no need to belabour the switch from the word ושמת to ונתת, and vice versa, as the Torah did not choose these two expressions for such interpretations, just as once the Torah writes that ויתנו עליו פתיל תכלת, whereas another time it writes ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת. The variations of the wording teach that as long as the principal purpose of fastening the headband both to the forehead and to the turban was accomplished, minor changes in the procedure did not matter. We find similar variations in language of the Torah in connection with the consecration offerings in chapter 29, where the Torah writes in verse 3: ונתת אותם על סל אחד והקרבת, “you are to place them on one basket (the loaves of bread) and present them as an offering, etc.,” where the word על does not mean “on,” but “inside.” Similarly, there are numerous occasions when the preposition על actually is used instead of the preposition אל. Here too it is quite in order to understand the words ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, as if the Torah had written ונתת אותו אל פתיל תכלת, “you are to fasten it to a cord of blue wool.” The fact is that the cord was fastened to the headband, ציץ. Inversely, the headband was also fastened to the cord made of blue wool. The result was that the cord was on the headband.

At these three places. . . Since the threads were inserted through holes, each was doubled, and three threads became six. The middle thread was in the middle of the diadem. One of its strands was on top of the diadem, on the outside, and the other strand was under the diadem, opposite the first thread. Therefore it says here, “Set it on a greenish-blue cord,” but elsewhere it says, “Put over it a greenish-blue cord.” The middle thread holds it so it does not fall; otherwise it would slip downward.

אל מול פני המצנפת יהיה, “upon the forefront of the mitre (liturgical, pointed headdress) on his forehead it shall be.”

אל מול פני המצנפת יהיה, the headband was to be worn immediately below the lower rim of the mitznefet.

ונשא אהרן AND AARON SHALL BEAR [THE INIQUITY OF THE HOLY THINGS] — The word נשא is an expression of forgiveness, but nevertheless it does not move from (lose) its ordinary meaning of “bearing”: Aaron bears the load of iniquity so that it follows that the iniquity is lifted off the holy things.

לרצון להם לפני ה׳. "that they may be accepted on their behalf by G'd with goodwill." We need to understand why the two words "Holy unto G'd" possessed the ability to attract G'd's goodwill. Perhaps the word "Holy" referred to the people of Israel. We find Israel described as "Holy" by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2,3). The word "unto G'd" are meant to convey that the Jewish people as a whole are devoted and dedicated to G'd. This fact (and not merely the words on the ציץ) ensure G'd's goodwill towards the people. This is the mystical dimension of the words אני לדודי ודודי לי, in Song of Songs 6,3. Solomon means that "if I am devoted to G'd, as a result G'd i.e. דודי, will turn His benevolent attention towards me."

ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים, according to the plain meaning of the text the reference is not to sacred things which have been allowed to become ritually impure, but the meaning is as follows: the fact that the High Priest would wear the tzitz would facilitate the atonement needed by the various members of the Jewish people requiring same by means of the sacrificial offerings prescribed by the Torah to expiate their sins.

V. 38. ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים, der Nachsatz: והיה וגן׳ לרצון וגו׳ beweist, dass der Ausdruck נשא עון hier nicht im Sinne des Aufsichladens und Tragens einer Schuld zu nehmen sei, sondern wie נושא עון: sühnendes Hinwegheben einer solchen bedeutet. — עוה ;עון הקדשים, wovon עון, bedeutet zunächst: die Krümme (verwandt damit das chaldäische: חויא, Schlange). Im sittlichen Gebiete ist es somit Gegensatz von ישר, dem Geraden, und bezeichnet eine jede Abweichung von der geraden Richtung, d. i, von der sittlichen Bestimmung. Von Personen auf Sachen, hier speziell: Heiligtümer, übertragen, bezeichnet es in buchstäblichem Sinne: eine Entfernung derselben von der ihnen durch die Weihe an Gottes Heiligtum gegeben sein sollenden Richtung, somit einen Umstand, der ihnen eine Entfremdung von ihrer Bestimmung, eine von ihrer Bestimmung abweichende Richtung aufdrücken würde. Der Umstand muss rein sachlicher Natur sein, עון הקדשים, nicht עון מקדישים, ein der Richtung ihrer Weihe konträr widersprechender Umstand, der sie für den Begriff dieser Weihe untauglich, פסול, machen würde. Dadurch, dass die Stirne des Hohepriesters, der den ganzen Dienst des Heiligtums repräsentiert, die Aufschrift קדש לד׳ trägt, somit Gott, wie ihn der Name ה׳ in der ganzen Fülle seiner freien, persönlichen Wesenheit vergegenwärtigt, als den Einzigen positiv ausspricht, dem das Heiligtum geweiht ist, und auf den somit alle diesem Heiligtum zugewendeten Heiligtümer gerichtet sind, ist dies geeignet, einen etwaigen Anhauch von Trübung aufzuheben, den etwa Heiligtümer dieses Heiligtums hinsichtlich ihrer Richtung auf den einen Einzigen erleiden könnten. Der positive Ausspruch קדש לה׳, der sich von der Stirne des Hohepriesters auf das ganze Heiligtum und über alle Heiligtümer innerhalb desselben verbreitet und allen Heiligtümern die Bestimmung קדש לד׳ positiv ausdrückt, kann eine Missdeutung aufheben, der sonst unter Umständen Heiligtümer erliegen könnten, so lange diese Umstände nur sachlicher Natur, in der Beschaffenheit des Objekts gelegen sind, und speziell innerhalb des engsten Kreises dieses Heiligtums verharren. Die Überlieferung (Peßachim 80 b, 77 a u. 9.; Menachot 25 a; Sebachim 23 a u. b) lehrt, dass die durch das קדש לד׳ des ציץ aufzuhebende Störung der Tauglichkeit sich nur auf טומאה bezieht, und zwar entschieden nur auf עולין, d. h. auf diejenigen Opferteile, die wie דם ,קומץ ,אימורים dem Altare, als unmittelbare Hingebung an ד׳ zugewendet werden, nicht so entschieden schon auch auf אכילות, wie בשר, wo die Beziehung zu Gott schon eine vermittelte ist, und der das Opfer genießende Priester oder Eigentümer in den Vordergrund tritt. Ebenso wenig auf טומאת הגוף der weihenden oder opfernden Priester, es sei denn טומאת התהום, solche טומאה, deren Vorhandensein im Momente der Mitteilung für kein menschliches Bewusstsein erkennbar gewesen, oder die, wie bei — קרבנות צבור שקבוע להם זמן, bei von dem Zeitmoment geheischten Gesamtheitsopfern (auch die täglichen חביתי כה׳׳ג und פר כה׳׳ג ביה׳׳כ als einer die Gesamtheit repräsentierenden Persönlichkeit stehen in demselben Begriff, woraus sich der bleibende Ausdruck טומאה דחויה בצבור erklären dürfte, obgleich nur der Begriff קבוע להם זמן maßgebend ist. כה׳׳ג als Gesamtheitsrepräsentanz begriffen, gibt es kein Opfer, das קבוע לו זמן, das nicht zugleich in weiterem Begriff קרבן צבור wäre. Siehe Temura 14 a. Ohnehin tritt der Begriff צבור bei פסח הבא בטומאה, der Quelle dieser Bestimmung, bedingend hervor, da יחיר נדחה לפסח שני) — bereits durch die Bedeutung des Momentes und der Gesamtheit in den Hintergrund gedrängt ist. Daher die Sätze: הציץ מרצה על טומאת הדם ואין הציץ מרצה על טומאת הגוף נטמא טומאת התהום הציץ מרצה (Peßachim 81. a). נטמא הקומץ והקריבו הציץ מרצה יצא והקריבו אין הציץ מרצה שהציץ מרצה על הטמא ואינו מרצה על היוצא (Menachot 25. a). טומאה דחויה היא בצבור ובעיא ציץ לרצות (Peßachim 77 a). אין ציץ מרצה על אכילות (das.). Nun gibt es in der Tat keinen פסול מוקדשים der also dem reinen Gottesbegriff, wie ihn ה׳ dem jüdischen Bewusstsein vergegenwärtigt, und dessen ungetrübte Reinhaltung also die ganze Weihe und Bestimmung des Heiligtums bedingt, konträr entgegensteht, dem also die positive Aufschrift des ציץ: קדש לד׳ einen aufhebenden Protest entgegenzuhalten fähig wäre, als: der פסול טומאה. Alle andern חוץ למקומו ,חוץ לזמנו ,יוצא :פסולים, lassen den Gottesgedanken an sich unberührt und bringen nur störende Vorstellungen innerhalb des Kreises unserer Beziehungen zu Ihm, die somit durch die Wahrheit: קדש לד׳ keine Beseitigung finden. טומאה jedoch greift den Gottesbegriff selber an, indem er somit eine Negierung des קדש לד׳ wäre, wird er selber durch קדש לד׳ negiert. Es ist nämlich טומאה ein Zustand, der, wie ihr Urborn טומאת מת, der Tod, eine physische Macht vergegenwärtigt, der alles Lebende, und auch der Mensch, der zur sittlichen Freiheit Berufene, erliegt, eine blind zwingende Naturgewalt, die in tiefem Grunde die höchste Gottheit des Heidentums aller Zeiten bildet, das den freien Gott wie den freien Menschen leugnet, und alles in den physischen Zwang einer blind waltenden Notwendigkeit aufgehen lässt. Diese Vorstellung befindet sich aber zu einem Heiligtum, das eben auf der Tatsache des — s.v.v. — frei sittlichen Gottes den freien, sittlichen Menschen erbauen will, im geraden Gegensatz. Von dem Finger der טומאה berührtes Blut, berührte Fett und Nieren, berührte handvoll Mehl und Öl auf den Altar gebracht, könnte den missdeutenden Anhauch mitbringen, als ob Leben und Streben und Nahrung und Gesundheit eben jener blind physischen vermeintlichen Allgewalt huldigend dargebracht werden sollte, deren vernichtendem Schritt vermeintlich alles dieses erliegt. Diesem in buchstäblichem Sinne עון הקדשים, dieser die Heiligtümer aus ihrer reinen geraden, einzig wahren Richtung abwendenden Missdeutung, steht das fröhlich heitere קדש לד׳ auf reinem goldenen Grunde an Aarons Stirne entgegen, und tilgt jeden solchen Anhauch eines düsteren Wahns, indem es alle Heiligtümer des Altars dem einen Einzigen, freien, lebendigen, wahrhaftigen Gott vindiziert, dessen Geschöpf und Diener alle physischen Naturgewalten und alle physischen Naturgesetze sind, die das heidnische Bewusstsein zitternd anbetet, und der, wie er selber in seiner allmächtig freien Energie über allen Naturzwang frei erhaben ist und waltet, also auch den Menschen durch sein ihm eingehauchtes göttlich freies Wesen hoch hinauf über alle blinde Naturnotwendigkeit, zu einem in sittlich freier Energie zu vollendenden, Gott, und nur Gott dienenden, heiligen, das ist eben von aller blinden Naturnotwendigkeit sich frei machenden, Leben beruft.

והיה על מצחו תמיד, “it shall be worn on the front of mitre whenever he wears same.” It had the tetragram engraved on the golden band.

את עון הקדשים [HE SHALL BEAR] THE INIQUITY OF THE HOLY THINGS — atoning for the blood and fat of sacrifices which had been offered when they were unclean, as we have learned (Pesachim 17b; Yoma 7a): What iniquity is it that it (the Plate) bears (atones for)? If you say that it is the iniquity caused by פגול — but it is already said in reference to this, (Leviticus 19:7) “it cannot be atoned for”! If you say it is the iniquity caused by נותר — but it is said in reference to this, (Leviticus 7:18) “It shall not under any circumstances be accounted [unto him] as a sacrifice”! Nor can one say that it (the Plate) atoned for the iniquity of the priest who offered a sacrifice when he was unclean because it is stated here, “[shall bear] the iniquity of the holy things” and it does not state “the iniquity of those who offer the sacrifices” — thus it (the Plate) atones only in so far as to make the sacrifice a fitting one if there had been anything irregular about it.

והיה על מצחו תמיד וגו׳. Joma 7 b scheidet sich die Ansicht des ר׳ שמעון und ר׳ יהודה in Entscheidung der Frage, ob die טומאה aufhebende Wirkung des ציץ nur von dessen Vorhandensein für die Stirne des Hohepriesters bedingt, oder auf die Zeit beschränkt ist, in welcher dieser damit bekleidet ist. Nach ר׳ יהודה ist das letztere der Fall: עודהו על מצחו מרצה אין עודהו על מצחו אינו מרצה. Diese Ansicht ist auch Maimonides הל׳ ביאת המקדש IV, 8rezipiert. — לרצון להם לפני ד׳. Nach der Auffassung des לרצונכם תזבחהו (Wajikra 19, 5), das Sebachim 47. a לדעתכם זבוחו "zum Ausdruck eures Wollens opfert es" erklärt, somit רצון nicht auf das von Gott zu erzielende Wohlwollen, sondern auf den zum Ausdruck kommenden Willen des Opfernden bezieht, und so auch in ת׳׳כ das לרצנו לפני ד׳ (das. 1, 3) לרצונכם תמים (das. 22, 19) in gleicher Weise auffasst, dürfte auch das:והיה על מצחו תמיד לרצון להם לפני ד׳ ebenso zu verstehen sein: "das Schauband soll auf Aarons Stirne stets zum Willensausdruck für sie vor Gott sein", d. h. das קדש לד׳ auf Aarons Stirne soll fortwährend Israels Meinung und Absicht hinsichtlich des Heiligtums aussprechen, dass das Heiligtum nur Gott geweiht sei, und durch diesen positiven Ausspruch jede Missdeutung aufheben.

והיה על מצחו תמיד — It is not possible to say that this means that it should be on his forehead continually because, as a matter of fact, it was on it only at the time of the sacrificial service. But the word תמיד is to be connected with the words that follow: “continually to make atonement for them”, even if it be not then upon his forehead, i. e. when the High Priest was not officiating, and therefore was not wearing the Plate, at that time when the unclean animal was being sacrificed by an ordinary priest. But according to the opinion (if we adopt the opinion) of him (Rabbi Judah) who says that only whilst it was on his forehead did it atone and effect pardon, and that if it was not on his forehead it did not effect pardon, the following inference must be derived from the phrase על מצחו תמיד: it informs us that he must constantly touch it whilst it is on his forehead, so that he should not divert his attention from it (Yoma 7b).

ושבצת means make them with many checkered figures, and entirely of fine linen.

ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנת AND FOR AARON’S SONS THOU SHALT MAKE INNER GARMENTS — these four garments and no more; viz., the three mentioned in this verse, — the inner garment, the girdle and the מגבעות which are identical with what is elsewhere called the mitre, — and the breeches prescribed later in this section (v. 42).

לכבוד ולתפארת. "for splendour and for beauty." The reason the Torah repeats this expression again is to allude to something we have learned in Zevachim 18. The Talmud there states that if the priestly garments were soiled or torn they were unfit to be worn when the priests were about to perform service in the Temple. According to a Baraitha quoted there the garments had to be made from new cloth. The Talmud there also says that if they were new this was alright whereas if they were old or made from recycled material this was inadmissible. Another Baraitha is quoted saying that recycled material was acceptable but that the requirement that they be made from new material was recommended but not mandatory. The word לכבוד concerns the rule that they were not to be torn, an absolute law, whereas the word ולתפארת refers to the garments being new as a condition which was not mandatory though desirable. This is the reason the Torah had to write both expressions. If our interpretation were not correct, the Torah would have written only the word לתפארת which implies more than the word לכבוד. [There is an opinion offered in the Talmud according to which the garments which became dirty as a result of contact with the אבנט, the girdle, did ot become disqualified. However, if they were dirty when the priest put them on they were disqualified. Ed.]

לכבוד ולתפארת, seeing that the headgear of the High Priest was especially decorative.

These four garments and no more. . . Rashi is saying that it does not mean we should make an undershirt, sash-belt, turban and pants only for Aharon’s sons, and not for Aharon himself. [This is not so] because these garments were made for Aharon as well. Rather, it means that among Aharon’s eight garments, these four should also be made [for his sons].

V.40. Die Röcke und Gürtel der Söhne waren ganz denen Aarons gleich. Die Röcke waren kassettenartig von Byssus und die Gürtel mit den drei farbigen wollenen Fäden auf weißem Byssusgrunde gestickt (Joma 12 b). — גבע ,מגבעות verwandt mit גבה usw., wovon ja auch גבעה, der Hügel; die Kopfbedeckung des כה׳׳ג war מצנפת, ein rund gewundener Bund. Diejenigen der כהני הדיוט waren spitz gewunden, in die Höhe spitz zulaufend. (Siehe Maimonides ה׳ כלי המקדש VIII, 2 כ׳׳מ das.).

ועשית להם אבנטים ומגבעות, “you will make for them sashes and turbans.” According to Rashi, the word מגבעות is an alternate for the word מצנפת, “headgear.” When worn by an ordinary priest it is called מגבעת, whereas the headgear worn by the High Priest is called מצנפת. Actually, the headgear of the ordinary priest was not as high as that of the High Priest, in order to allow for space where he could wear his phylacteries between the tzitz and the mitznefet.

והלבשת אתם את אהרן AND THOU SHALT PUT THEM ON AARON — i. e. those which are mentioned in connection with Aaron: the breast-plate, the ephod, the Robe, the inner garment of checker-work, the mitre, the girdle and the Plate, and the breeches which are prescribed later for all of them (for all the priest’s and therefore for Aaron also).

AND THOU SHALT PUT THEM UPON AARON THY BROTHER AND UPON HIS SONS WITH HIM — “those which are mentioned in connection with them.” This is Rashi’s language. The meaning of with him is that they were all clothed with the priestly garments and anointed on the same day.

ומלאת את ידם. Ensure that they complete their task to perfection so that the priests will be equipped to perform the service in the Tabernacle wearing suitable garments.

והלבשת אותם…ומשחת אותם, "and you will dress Aaron and his sons in them and anoint them, etc." The Torah means that the priests are first to put on the garments and that they are to be anointed while still wearing these garments. The act of anointing the priests with the anointing oil helped to make them into priests. When the Torah speaks of ומלאת את ידם, instead of merely of ומלאת אותם, this may mean that the priests would be affected emotionally by this procedure so that they would become recipients of G'd's kindness, known as "His great Hand." Students of the Kabbalah will understand what I refer to.

והלבשת אותם, as soon as the Tabernacle would be erected.

והלבשת אותם את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו, “ you will dress your brother Aaron and his sons with him with them.” Moses was to dress up Aaron and his sons in the garments described previously. The word אתו, normally translated as “with him,” means here that this procedure should be performed with all of them on the same day, just as their anointing took place on the same day.

Those that are mentioned regarding Aharon. . . Not only the undershirt, turban and sash-belt written just before this.

V. 41. מלא יד ,ומלאת את ידם, ganz entsprechend unserem: bevollmächtigen jemandem Macht und Befugnis erteilen.

וקדשת אותם, “you will sanctify them.” This refers to an oral sanctification. (Ibn Ezra) It is comparable to the oral declaration of someone being declared ritually impure by the priest when with the skin disease tzoraat, in Leviticus 13,44.

ואת בניו אתו [AND THOU SHALT PUT THEM ON AARON …] AND ON HIS SONS WITH HIM — i. e. put on them those garments which are prescribed for them.

AND THOU SHALT ANOINT THEM ‘UMILEITHA ETH YADAM’ [literally: “and fill their hands”]. “Every expression of ‘filling the hand’ denotes installation, when one enters for the first time into an office which one is to hold from that day onwards.” This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood his words. How does the expression of “filling the hand” come to mean “installation?” And as to that which the Rabbi said that “in the [old] French language — when a person is appointed to be in charge of any matter, the ruler puts into his hand a leather glove which they call gant, and by means of that glove gives him the right to that matter, and it is this which is called ‘filling the hand,’” — I do not know whether the Rabbi’s intent is to state that because of that glove the installation is called “filling the hand,” and to this he brought proof from a custom [in France]! Know that this custom they derived from the Torah, as to them this form of taking possession is [what is meant by] the acquisition by exchange mentioned in connection with Boaz, for so they translated: [Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging…] a man drew off ‘na’alo’ (his shoe)¹⁵⁶Ruth 4:7. — “a man drew off his gant,” and they say¹⁵⁷Our accepted law is that acquisition by exchange is accomplished with something that originally belongs to the buyer. Hence it was Boaz [the buyer] who “drew off his shoe” and gave it to the near kinsman. But “they say” differently, that it was the near kinsman [the seller] that gave it to Boaz. Hence they derived the custom that it is the prince [who is in the position of the bestower or seller] who pulls off his gant and gives it to the recipient. that it was the near kinsman that gave it to Boaz. This custom of theirs is mentioned in the books of their scholars. Thus we have engaged in vain talk!
The correct interpretation of milui yadayim in the Torah is that it is an expression of perfection, similar in usage to these verses: ‘ki malu yamai’ (for my days are completed);¹⁵⁸Genesis 29:21. ‘ubimloth’ hayamim ha’eileh’ (and when these days were fulfilled);¹⁵⁹Esther 1:5. until the days ‘m’loth’¹⁶⁰Leviticus 8:33. — be fulfilled. Similarly, ‘b’keseph malei’¹⁶¹Genesis 23:9. means “for the full price.” And the reason for this expression is that one might say of a stranger [i.e., a non-priest] who cannot perform the offering for his cleansing, or of any person who is not empowered to perform some royal service, that his hand misses that function; and when he becomes empowered to do it, his hand has thereby been perfected and made fit for all kinds of work and service. Thus, ‘milu yedchem hayom’¹⁶²Further, 32:29. [generally translated: consecrate yourselves today] means that: “now your hands are full with the whole service of G-d, for even every man upon his son, and upon his brother¹⁶²Further, 32:29. have you served Him [that day].” Or it may be that Moses was hinting to the sons of Levi that by virtue of this merit they would be chosen to perform the Divine Service in the Tabernacle, as it is said, At that time the Eternal separated the tribe of Levi.¹⁶³Deuteronomy 10:8. Similarly King David said to Israel on the occasion of the donations for the House [of G-d], Because I have set my affection on the house of my G-d, seeing that I have a treasure of mine own of gold and silver, I give it into the house of my G-d,¹⁶⁴I Chronicles 29:3. and then he continued saying, Who then offereth willingly ‘l’maloth yado’ this day unto the Eternal?¹⁶⁵Ibid., Verse 5. — meaning “to perfect his hand [this day unto the Eternal],” for by doanting towards the building of the House [of G-d] their hands become full with all the sacrifices and all manner of services, for Israel’s worship of G-d is only a complete one in the Sanctuary. Similarly, the ram of ‘milu’im’ mentioned in this section¹⁶⁶Further, 29:22. is so called because the filling of the priests’ duties was accomplished through this offering, for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 5. were to effect atonement, and this ram was to fill the priest’s hand with [the right to] sacrifice. I have also found that in Targum Yerushalmi the ram of ‘milu’im’ is translated: d’ashlamutha, (of perfection);¹⁶⁸This translation I found in Targum Yonathan ben Uziel to Leviticus 8:22. similarly also in all expressions of milui yadayim it translated “perfection.” Onkelos, however, [in translating umileitha eth yadam — ‘and you will bring their sacrifices’¹⁶⁹On the seven days of installation it was Moses who acted in the role of the priest and performed the rites of the sacrifices. Hence Onkelos’ translation: “and you [i.e., Moses] will bring their sacrifices,” as during these seven days of installation you will be the priest to offer their sacrifices.] followed the sense of the subject and was not pedantic as to the literal language, as is his custom in many places. Some scholars¹⁷⁰Found in R’dak’s Sefer Hashorashim, root male. explain umileitha eth yadam as meaning that he will fill their hands [with the gifts] from the sacrifices. Similarly: whosoever would, he [Jeroboam] ‘yemalei eth yado’¹⁷¹I Kings 13:33. means that he could fill his hands at will from the sacrifices. But the correct interpretation [of the term milui yadayim] is as I have explained. And the meaning of the expression, whosoever would, ‘yemalei eth yado’ that he might be one of the priests of the high places¹⁷¹I Kings 13:33. is that he would bring for himself an offering of installation as he devised of his own heart,¹⁷²Ibid., 12:33. in order to initiate himself into his office, and thereby he became one of the priests of the high places, for they acted in a manner similar to the ways of the Torah.¹⁷³See Leviticus 6:13. This is also applied to the ordinary priest who brought a meal-offering when he officiated for the first time. Ramban’s intent is thus that in the days of Jeroboam when the king installed a new group of priests in the kingdom of Israel to officiate at the sacrifices on the Bamoth (high places) he adopted the ways of the Torah as explained, in order to give the appearance of his remaining loyal to the commandments of the Torah.

ומלאת את ידם, “you will inaugurate them.” According to Rashi whenever the expression מלוי ידים occurs, it refers to a kind of consecration, inauguration. The party so described begins a new assignment, one that is a long term assignment, not a short term one. Nachmanides explains the words ומלאת את ידם as being similar to מלאת ימים, completing a certain length of preparatory days, such as the nine months of pregnancy, or completing a tour of service, as when Yaakov demanded to be given Rachel as his wife, his reason being described with the words כי מלאו ימי, “the seven years I contracted to work for her are complete..” (Genesis 29,21). We encounter the phrase ובמלאת הימים האלה, “at the completion of these years, etc.” (Esther 1,5) It describes what the occasion was for the party Ahasverus gave to both his ministers, and subsequently to the citizens of Shushan. The connection with our consecration is that any non-priest who nonetheless performs service in the Tabernacle, even if he copies the exact procedure performed by the priests, lacks something. This something is added through the anointment to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons, and the garments they wore that were testimony to their qualifications as priests. The ”uniform” completes the act of consecration, officially makes the wearer the appointee to the King’s service, his “guard.” Another element completing this appointment to the priesthood was the איל המלואים, the ram as well as the other offerings listed in chapter 29 which were one-time offerings to mark this occasion. The occasion could not recur, as from that time on the priesthood became a hereditary status. Having offered these sacrifices once, initiated Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, so that their performing similar tasks on behalf of others had become legitimate.

Mentioned later concerning all of them. . . I.e., [the verse about] pants refers both to the Kohein Gadol and to ordinary kohanim.

וקדשת אותם, "and you will sanctify them." This refers to the performance of the sacrificial service which (Moses) would perform in order to sanctify them. This had to be mentioned here in order for us to know that until Aaron and his sons wore the priestly garments and had been anointed, the sacrificial service performed by Moses did not accomplish the change in their status.

ומשחת אתם AND THOU SHALT ANOINT THEM — viz., Aaron and his sons, with the oil of anointing.

Those that are mentioned in connection with them. Which are: the undershirt, turban and sash-belt, along with the later-mentioned pants.

ומלאת את ידם AND THOU SHALT CONSECRATE THEM (more lit., fill their hand) — wherever the term “filling the hand” is used it denotes the installation ceremony performed when one enters for the first time into an office, as a sign that he is entitled to it from that day and henceforth. And in the old French language — when a person is appointed to the charge of a matter, the Prince puts into his hand a leathern glove which they call “gant” in old French and by that means he gives him a right to the matter, and they term that transmission of the glove and the office, revestir in old French This is the connection between the literal and the metaphorical meaning of “filling the hand”.

Aharon and his sons. . . Rashi is coming to tell us that [this term אותם ] does not refer to the garments, as does the term אותם at the beginning of the verse. Rashi says, “With the anointing oil,” to tell us that it does not mean with olive oil or something else. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in the next section: “Take the garments. . . and take the anointing oil, etc.” (29:5-7).

And that is the expression of filling the hand. Explanation: When one’s hand fills a glove it acts as a sign that he has control over that to which he has been appointed. This is because a person has control over that which he holds in his hand. And holding on with a full hand gives one more control than holding it with only part of his hand. Therefore, he who takes control over something does so by “filling the hand.”

ועשה להם AND MAKE FOR THEM — for Aaron and his sons —

ועשה להם מכנסי בד, "and make for them pants of linen, etc." Why did the Torah wait so long with the commandment to make pants for the priests? Inasmuch as the Torah had instructed Moses to dress the priests in their service garments I would have thought that this instruction included the need for Moses to put on their pants. In order for us to know that the priests were to put on the pants themselves, the Torah delayed telling us about the pants until after commanding Moses to put the other garments on Aaron and his sons. We must not conclude from the positioning of this commandment that the pants were the last garment the priests were to put on. The Torah mentions in Leviticus 16,4 that the pants should cover the flesh of the priests, and we learned in Yuma 23 that the pants were the first garment the priests were to put on. Our interpretation of the delay in mentioning the need for the priestly garments to include pants is correct then.

Linen pants. These pants were of lesser sanctity than the other garments. The other garments imparted holiness to the wearer; the pants merely concealed their private parts. The kohanim were dressed for the first time in their other garments by Moshe; the pants they donned themselves. The other garments were donned in the courtyard; the pants were put on outside the Holy Temple.

VV. 42 u. 43. Die nur bis zum Knie reichenden, die Blöße bedeckenden, selbst aber von den Röcken bedeckten Beinkleider werden nicht unter den בגדים לכבוד ולתפארת, sondern besonders erwähnt. Sie tragen sie nicht bloß als Priester, sondern schon als Menschen, und indem durch sie bereits dem Notwendigsten der Anforderungen der Schamhaftigkeit genügt ist, kann den anderen Gewändern ihre speziell priesterliche Bedeutung gewahrt bleiben. Gleichwohl waren sie auch בגדי קדש, ihnen von der Nation im Dienst des Heiligtums gereicht, und bedingen in gleichem Maße wie die anderen Gewänder den Priestercharakter. Ja, es heißt von ihnen hier sofort bei dem Gebot der Anfertigung im besonderen Ausspruch: והיו על אהרן וגו׳ ולא ישאו עון ומתו, dass eine ohne deren Bekleidung vollzogene עבודה Todesschuld (מיתה בידי שמים) sei, während hinsichtlich der anderen Kleider diese Bestimmung erst aus dem Kap. 29, 9 bei dem Bekleidungsgebot enthaltenen Ausspruch resultiert: ולקחת את הבגדים וגו׳ וגו׳ והיתה להם כהנה welches Sanhedrin 83 b dahin erläutert wird: בזמן שבגדיהם עליהם כהונתם עליהם אין בגדיהם עליהם אין כהונתם עליהם d. h. ohne die vollständige Bekleidung mit den Priestergewändern hat der כהן nur den Charakter eines זר, eines Nichtpriesters. Weshalb die עבודה eines מחוסר בגדים ebenso חיוב מיתה nach sich zieht, wie die eines זר. Zum כהן הדיוט gehörten also vier Kleider: מגבעות ,אבנט ,כתנת ,מכנסים. Zum כה׳׳ג acht: die vier des כהן הדיוט, nur dass statt מגבעות er ein מצנפת trug, und ferner: מעיל, ציץ ,חושן ,אפוד. Fehlt eines dieser Gewänder, so heißt er מחוסר בגדים, eine jede von ihm als מחוסר בגדים vollzogene עבודה ist ungültig, פסולה, er ist מחלל העבודה (Sebachim 18 a), und, ist es eine עבודת מתנת ועבודה תמה (siehe oben zu V. 35), für welche ein זר חייב מיתה wäre, so zieht sie auch für den כהן מחוסר בגדים die Todesschuld nach sich. — Das לשרת בקדש ist übrigens Zweckobjekt für den ganzen Satz, auch für בבאם אל אהל. Denn auf ביאה ריקנית, auf bloßes Betreten des היכל ohne zum Behufe einer עבודה ist ein מחוסר בגדים nicht חייב מיתה (siehe תוספו׳ Sanhedrin 83. a). ועי׳ ר׳מ׳׳כן לס׳׳מ מ׳׳ע ע׳׳ג ס׳ל ג׳כ דאביאה ריקנית לא מחייב. וע׳׳ע תוספ׳ יומא ה׳׳ב׳ ד׳׳ה להביא

. מכנסי בד, “linen trousers;” we know that these were trousers, as their purpose is described as covering their private parts, and the Torah does not add the words: לכבוד ולתפארת, “for splendour and for beauty.”

מכנסי בד LINEN BREECHES — this makes eight garments for the High Priest and four for the ordinary priest.

Another reason for listing the pants as the last of the priestly garments may be the Torah's intention to position this commandment immediately adjacent to the warning in verse 43 for the priests not to become guilty of an iniquity as a result of which they would die. Had the Torah included the commandment for the priests to wear special pants when the other garments were listed, I might have concluded that the warning in verse 43 applied only to the garments other than the pants seeing that the reason the priests had to wear pants was for the sake of chastity, something applicable to every male, not just to priests. By positioning the requirement that the priests were to have special pants to be worn when they performed the service in the Temple, the Torah made it clear that whatever rules applied to the other priestly garments also applied to their pants.

Die בגדי כהונה.

Welche Bedeutsamkeit den Priestergewändern innewohnen müsse, dürfte schon aus der in den Schlussworten des Kapitels niedergelegten gesetzlichen Bestimmung hervorleuchten, dass sie überhaupt, und zwar ganz in der vorgeschriebenen Weise — es heißt חקת עולם — den Priestercharakter und dieser wiederum die Gültigkeit der Opferhandlung bedingen, dass der כהן ohne sie dem Heiligtum gegenüber als זר, als Nichtkohen dasteht, und ihm wie diesem gesagt ist: כל הזר הקרב יומת! —

Nun begreift sich bereits aus der schon zu VV. 2 und 3 bemerkten Tatsache, dass die Priestergewänder משל צבור sein müssen, die tiefeingreifende Folge, dass nur ein mit diesen Gewändern bekleideter Kohen überhaupt als Kohen dastehe. Nur so erscheint er als Diener der Nation für das Gesetzesheiligtum, nur so geschieht die durch ihn vollzogene Handlung als das von der Nation dem Gesetzesheiligtum des göttlichen Gesetzes zu Leistende, nur so erlangt der durch die Handlung zum Ausdruck kommende Gedanke den Charakter einer durch das von Gott der Nation gegebene Gesetz gebotenen Aufgabe, sie wird überhaupt nur so קרבן לד׳ ,שרת ,עבודת מתנה, ein durch Hingebung an den im Gesetze geoffenbarten göttlichen Willen zu betätigendes Gehorchen, ein Genügen der die göttliche Nähe bedingenden Anforderungen, ein Nähertreten und Näherbringen zu Gott. Ohne sie steht der Kohen nur als Individuum da, seine Handlung trägt rein den Charakter subjektiven Beliebens, bildet somit den geraden Gegensatz zu derjenigen Gesinnung, deren Pflege die Grundbedingung des Gesetzesheiligtums ist. — Fügen wir sofort hinzu: ohne sie tritt überhaupt die Individualität des fungierenden Priesters nackt hervor und bildet mit allen, auch dem Besten anwohnenden Schwächen und Gebrechen, nur zu leicht ein höchst mangelhaftes Ideal dessen, was im Opfer als dem göttlichen Gesetze entsprechendes Vorbild vorleuchten soll, wie Hosea (4, 8) die Unwürdigkeit der Priester geißelt: הטאת עמי יאכלו ואל עונם ישאו נפשו, "das Sühnopfer meines Volkes essen sie und heben zu ihrer Sünde die Seele meines Volkes empor", "machen ihr sündiges Leben damit zum Vorbild für mein Volk." Im Priestergewand erscheint der Kohen nicht in dem Charakter, den er hat, sondern den er nach Anforderung des göttlichen Gesetzes haben soll, und eben indem er die Priestergewänder für den Dienst des Heiligtums anzieht, bringt er sich und andern seine Unvollkommenheit, den Anforderungen des Heiligtums gegenüber, zum Bewusstsein.

Dass Kleider den Priestercharakter zum Ausdruck bringen können, liegt sowohl sprachlich als sachlich in der jüdischen Anschauung des "Kleides". Der Lautverwandtschaft בגד mit פקד haben wir sonst schon bei Gelegenheit gedacht. Wie פקד das geistige Bekleiden eines Gegenstandes mit den ihm entsprechenden Attributen ist, so drückt auch בגד nicht eine bloße Verhüllung, sondern eine dem Menschen die entsprechende Erscheinung verleihende Bekleidung aus. Wie daher פקד zugleich das Einsetzen in ein Amt bedeutet, so kann naheliegend auch בגד den Ausdruck für einen solchen Akt darbieten. Hat doch auch sachlich das Kleid einen bedeutsamen Ursprung in der Geschichte der sittlichen Menschenerziehung und steht aus diesem Ursprung in hoher sittlicher Bedeutung. Als ewige Mahnung an seinen sittlichen Menschenberuf ward es vom Vater der Menschheit seinem mit der Gefahr tierischer Verirrung aus dem Paradiese in die Erziehungsschule der Arbeit und Entsagung entlassenen Kinde gereicht. Das Kleid an sich ist Mahner an den sittlichen Menschenberuf, es ist für die Erscheinung die erste und augenfälligste Charakterisierung eines Wesens als Menschen.

Daher wird עטה ,לבש ,בגד zum Ausdruck für das Aufgehen einer Persönlichkeit in eine Eigenschaft oder ein Merkmal, so dass diese Eigenschaft oder dieses Merkmal gleichsam das geistige Gewand derselben für das geistige Auge des Betrachters wird. So selbst von Gott: Gott bekleidet sich mit Hoheit, mit Stärke und umgürtet sich damit (Ps. 93, 1), hat sich in הוד und הדר gekleidet (Ps. 104. 1), hüllt sich in Licht wie in ein Gewand (das. 2), bekleidet sich mit Gerechtigkeit als Panzer, Helm des Heils auf seinem Haupte, legt Gewänder der Vergeltung als Bekleidung an und hüllt sich wie in einen Mantel in Eifer (Jes. 59, 17) und sonst. So aber insbesondere auch von Menschen: Gott bekleidet uns mit Gewändern des Heils und umhüllt uns mit dem Mantel der Pflichttreue (Jes. 61, 10), Job kleidet sich in Gerechtigkeit und ihm ist Mantel und Kopfbund sein Recht (29, 14); Zion soll sich in seine Stärke kleiden (Jes. 52, 1). Das wackere Weib ist in Stärke und Würde gekleidet (Prov. 31, 25). Dem einstigen Davidsprößling ist Gerechtigkeit und Treue der Gurt seiner Lenden (Jes. 11, 5). Oder: unsere Pflichttreue ist nur wie ein Lappenkleid (Jes. 64, 5). Der Hohepriester Josua war noch in unsaubere Gewänder gekleidet und soll hinderungslose Kleidung bekommen (Secharja 3, 3 u. 4). Die Feinde sollen sich in Scham und Schande kleiden (Js. 35, 26). Wer sich in Fluch wie in ein ihm angemessenes Gewand kleidet, dem wird er auch wie ein Kleid bleiben, das ihn umhüllt, und zum steten Gurt legt er ihn an (Ps. 109, 19). — Und auch speziell von Priestern: Gottes Priester kleiden sich in Gerechtigkeit (Ps. 132, 9), in Siegeshilfe (Chron. II. 6, 41). Gott kleidet Zions Priester in Heil (Ps. 132, 16).

Nach allen diesen sprachlichen Tatsachen halten wir uns zu der Annahme berechtigt, dass auch die, die Erscheinung der Priester als Priester bedingenden Kleider den Charakter auszudrücken haben, den der Kohen als solcher vergegenwärtigen soll. Dass sie kein bloß äußerlicher Schmuck sein sollen, dass sie etwas bedeuten müssen, das nicht nur dem Anschauenden, sondern auch dem Kohen selbst zu Bewusstsein kommen soll, dafür spricht auch die gesetzliche Bestimmung, שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינם לבשרו (Sebachim 19. a). dass nicht das Geringste zwischen ihnen und dem Leibe des Kohen scheiden dürfe, sie müssen unmittelbar und ganz die Teile bekleiden, die zu bekleiden sie bestimmt sind, er muss somit ganz in sie aufgehen. Ebenso erklärt der symbolische Charakter der Kleider und ihrer Stoffe die Bestimmung, dass die dazu zur Verwendung kommende purpurblaue הכלת Wolle ausdrücklich und ausschließlich zu dieser Bestimmung gefärbt sein müsse, צביעה לשמה, dass טעימה פסולה und טעמה פסלה, dass ein z. B. zur Probe gefärbter Faden untauglich ist, und ein zur Probe in den Farbkessel eingetauchter Faden die im Kessel befindliche Farbe untauglich macht (Menachot 42 b. Es ist auffallend, daß Maimonides diese Bestimmung wohl in הל׳ ציצית, nicht aber in כלי המקדש aufführt).

Indem mit dem Gewande der Priester in den Dienst des Heiligtums tritt, und es die Nation ist, die ihm dieses Gewand reicht, so spricht die Priesterkleidung den Charakter aus, dessen Verwirklichung die Nation als die von dem Heiligtum des göttlichen Gesetzes geforderte Aufgabe begreift, sie spricht die קדושה aus, die das מקדש der jüdischen Persönlichkeit bringen soll, die es von ihr erwartet. Und insofern die בגדי כהונה sich in בגדי כה׳׳ג uחd בגדי כהן הדיוט teilen, der כה׳׳ג aber (אהרן) der eigentliche Träger des מקדש ist, dem die בניו) כהני הדיוט) nur als untergeordnete Gehilfen zur Seite stehen (siehe V.1), zu den בגדי כה׳׳ג ferner auch die vier des כהן הדיוט gehören, zu denen nur hinzukommend seine besonderen vier die hohepriesterliche Kleidung vollenden: so werden wir die בגדי כה׳׳ג als das jüdische Ideal, als ישראל in der Idee zu begreifen haben, zu welchem die בגדי כ׳ הדיוט, die die Vorstufe bildenden Eigenschaften vergegenwärtigen.

מכנסים kleiden בשר ערוה, von מתנים עד ירכים, in sechsfädigen weißen Byssus, sie kleiden somit die ganze vegetative Natur des Menschen (Nahrung, Fortpflanzung) in den Charakter der ihrer geschöpflichen Bestimmung entsprechenden Reinheit. Charakteristisch wird bei diesem die sittliche Reinheit in prägnantester Bedeutsamkeit zum Ausdruck bringenden Gewande — wie bereits wiederholt bemerkt, wird die Heiligung hinsichtlich des genießenden und geschlechtlichen Lebens ganz besonders unter den Begriff der Reinheit gefasst — obgleich auch כתונת und מגבעות von denselben Byssusstoff waren, — dieser Stoff durch den botanischen Namen des Flachses: בד bezeichnet, ja Kap. 39, 28 heißt es geradezu: ואת מכנסי הבד שש. Joma 71 b wird dieser Name des Flachses als Bezeichnung der Eigentümlichkeit seiner Pflanzenform erklärt: דבר העולה מן הקרקע בד בד, er erhebt sich aus dem Boden in geraden, gesonderten, ungeästelten Stengeln. Die Form vergegenwärtigt schon das gerade, abweichungslos in vorgezeichneter Linie zum vorgesteckten Ziele Emporstreben. Eine Form, die begrifflich innig dem Charakter der Reinheit verwandt ist, als deren Grundbedingung Entschiedenheit, Sonderung, Fernhalten von allem Unlautern zu begreifen ist. Alle die (ע׳׳ז 20 b) genannten Vorstufen der זהירות זריזות נקיות פרישות :טהרה, vergegenwärtigt das Wort und die sachliche Bedeutung: בד. Daher auch die Byssusränder des כה׳׳ג am י׳׳כ (Wajikra 16, 4) nur mit diesem Namen bezeichnet sind.

כתונת תשבץ bekleidet den Oberkörper, Rücken, Brust, Arme, und auch die durch מכנסים noch unbedeckt gebliebenen Beine — er reicht von den Schultern bis zur Ferse — also die animalische Natur des Menschen (Empfindung und Wille, Tätigkeit und Bewegung) — (implizite aber auch die schon mit Reinheit umkleidete vegetative Natur der Begierden und Reize) — mit dem Charakter der ihrer geschöpflichen Bestimmung entsprechenden Reinheit, die aber durch תשבץ noch ein besonderes Merkmal erhält. Der ganze Rockstoff bestand, wie bereits zu V. 4 erklärt, aus lauter Vertiefungen in Form von Kästchen zu Steineinfassungen. Während Reinheit zunächst ein negativer Begriff ist, sich im Fernhalten alles Unlautern und Fremdartigen bewährt, und überall als das סור מרע die erste Stufe sittlicher Vollendung bedingt, bereitet schon das תשבץ den Eintritt in die höhere Stufe des Positiven vor. Die damit bekleideten Glieder und die durch diese repräsentierten Fähigkeiten und Kraftäußerungen erhalten damit die Bestimmung: sich als Gefäß für etwas Höheres darzubieten. Die durch Reinheit dem Gemeinen und Schlechten enthobenen Menschenkräfte — und auch die niedern, durch Reinheit aus dem Bereiche der sinnlichen Unfreiheit in das Reich des freien Sittlichen gehobenen Triebe und Reize seiner vegetativen Natur sollen es — sollen sich für den Dienst des zu vollbringenden Guten und Edeln empfänglich machen, sich zur Aufnahme der die positive Verwendung aller dieser Vermögen anweisenden Lehre darbieten. Irren wir nicht, so bezeichnet der כתונת תשבץ den damit Bekleideten als Schüler oder Jünger des im Heiligtum bewahrten Gesetzes. Ist doch rabbinisch "Kasten", תיבה, Ausdruck für "Wort" als "sinnliches Gefäß für einen geistigen Inhalt".

אבנט. Es ist zu bedauern, dass die spezielle Bedeutung des Wortes, somit die besondere Art von Gürtel nicht bekannt ist, die dies Wort bezeichnet. Es kommt nur vom Priestergürtel und noch einmal in der Amtskleidung des königlichen Dieners Schebna (Jesaias 22, 21) vor. Wir können uns daher nur an die allgemeine Bedeutung: Gürtel halten. Gürtel und Gürten bezeichnet aber überall: ein Gerüstetsein und sich Rüsten zur Tätigkeit. Der gewöhnliche Ausdruck אזר bezeichnet ein Zusammennehmen der Kraft. also ein Konzentrieren derselben auf ein zu erreichendes Ziel. Indem der Gürtel auch des כהן הדיוט aus den vier Stoffen der hohepriesterlichen Kleidung, — auf weißem Byssusgrunde gestickt zwiefach rote und himmelblaue Wolle, — bestand, so setzt er eben diese hohepriesterliche Stufe positiver Vollendung als das mit Zusammennehmen aller Kraft zu erreichende Ziel. Der כהן הדיוט steht noch nicht auf dieser Stufe, aber er ist für sie gegürtet. Ist weiß die Farbe der Reinheit, rot die Farbe des Lebens, (und zwar in doppelter Nuance, des niedern und höhern, sinnlichen und geistigen, animalischen und menschlichen, siehe Kap. 25, 8), himmelblau des mit dem Menschen verbündeten Göttlichen, und tritt in dieser Kombination das Rote in dem Verhältnis von 2 zu 1 überwiegend hervor: so drücken diese vier Farben, doppelrote und blaue Wolle auf weißem Byssus, auf Priestergewandgürtel gestickt, ein auf sittenreinem Grunde sich erbauendes, vom Göttlichen durchdrungenes, allseitig sich verwirklichendes Leben als Höheziel des priesterlichen Strebens aus. Und indem alle diese Stoffe sechsfädig sind, wird dieses Priesterideal nicht als ein übersinnliches, übermenschliches, sondern lediglich als Verwirklichung der geschöpflichen Bestimmung des Menschen begriffen.

מעיל hüllt nun den bereits in der Farbe der Reinheit, des reinen Jüngertums gekleideten und zur Pflichttat gerüsteten Körper ganz in die Farbe des Gottesbundes. Mit dem מעיל tritt das ganze Menschenwesen, nachdem es von allem Unlautern gereinigt, das Wort der Lehre empfangen und sich für den Dienst der Tat gerüstet, ausnahmlos in den Dienst der Pflicht. Dieser Begriff hebt alle Seiten des Menschenwesens auf eine Stufe, erteilt allen Beziehungen ausnahmlos, der vegetativen nicht minder als der animalisch menschlichen, den Charakter des Göttlichen, "kleidet sie alle in die Farbe des Himmels". Darum empfing der מעיל mit einem starken, eingewebten, ungeteilt geschlossenen Saum, "der nicht aufgerissen werden durfte", den Hals, d. i. die Vereinigung des vegetativen und animalischen Organismus (ושט und קנה), und wallte von da über den Körper bis auf die Ferse hinab.

Am unteren Saume, der Erde zugekehrt, waren "Granatäpfel" aus תכלת ארגמן ותולעת שני, es waren dies die einzigen Stücke, in welchen diese drei Stoffe ohne den vierten, שש, vorkommen. רמונים, Granatäpfel, sind nach dem bekannten Ausdruck: מלאין Eruwin 19 a) wegen ihrer Fülle an Samenkörnern, die ihre Fruchtschale) מצות כרמון ausfüllten, ein Bild fruchtreicher Saat. Erwägen wir, dass hier die mehr negative weiße Farbe fehlt, und sie nur aus den positiven animalischen doppelrotblauen Farben und Stoffen bestanden, so dürften sie sich als: eine reiche Saat mit Gott verbündeten Lebens aussprechen. Am Saum des מעיל's, der Erde zugewendet, gibt dies die Nuance: es ist nicht der Himmel, es ist die Erde, welcher die Früchte der Gottesweihe zukommen sollen; der Gottesdienst der Pflicht, in den das ganze Menschenwesen durch die empfangene Lehre des Heiligtums aufgeht, soll eine reiche Saat mit Gott verbündeten Lebens in die Erde streuen.

Außer den Granatäpfeln waren noch פעמנים, Schellen, Glöckchen, an dem Saum des מעיל, und heißt es von ihnen: ונשמע קולו בבאו אל הקדש לפני ד׳ ובצאתו ולא ימות, damit ist der Zweck dieser פעמנים ausdrücklich gegeben: er soll "gehört" werden, wenn er ins Heiligtum eingeht und wenn er ausgeht, ולא ימות. Der einfache Zusammenhang, sowie die Beifügung: ובצאתו spricht für die Auffassung des רמב׳׳ן, dass dies ולא ימות sich auf ונשמע קולו, und nicht auf והיה על אהרון לשרת als מחוסר בגדים sich bezieht, hinsichtlich dessen מיתה anderweit ausgesprochen ist. Siehe zu V.42, 43. Schwerlich aber dürfte dies ונשמע קולו als eine Verkündigung seines Kommens, das "unangemeldet" "anstandswidrig" wäre, zu begreifen sein. Vielmehr glauben wir, dass dies "Gehörtwerden" sich auf die Genossen und die Gesamtheit bezieht, als deren Repräsentant und in deren Namen er vor Gott hintritt, und glauben dann auch die ernste Bedeutung zu verstehen, die dem ונשמע קולו durch den Beisatz: ולא ימות gegeben ist. Nicht als Individuum und nicht für sich, als Repräsentant der Gesamtheit und für dieselbe, und damit sein Hintreten vor Gott von der Gesamtheit gedacht und beherzigt werde, hat er vor Gott hinzutreten. Ohne Ausdruck dieses Begriffes und dieser Absicht wäre sein Hintreten ebenso wie זר ,מחוסר בגדים-gleiche Vermessenheit. Daher begreift sich auch das ובצאתו. Der Ausgang aus dem Heiligtum ist nicht nur so wesentlich wie der Eingang, er ist noch wesentlicher. Nicht an dem, wie du eingegangen bist, an dem, wie du das Heiligtum verlässest, ist zu erkennen, ob und wie du vor Gott gestanden hast. Daher ja vielleicht auch Jecheskel 43, 11, indem das Bild des Heiligtums dem Volke als das Ideal vorgehalten werden soll, vor dem sie zu erröten hätten, מוצאיו vor מובאיו, die Ausgänge vor den Eingängen genannt werden.

Von dem מעיל heißt es ganz besonders: והיה על אהרן לשרת dass Aaron ihn zum Ausdruck des "Bedienens" tragen solle. Der מעיל kleidet ja alles Irdische in die Farbe des Himmels, d. h. ja die Gestaltung aller irdisch-menschlichen Verhältnisse nach dem göttlichen Wohlgefallen, also, dass Gott gerne in die Bundesnähe zu dem menschlich Irdischen trete, und das ist ja der wesentliche Begriff: שרת; siehe zu V. 35.

אפוד und חשן: weiß, doppelrot, blau, gold. Durch אפוד und חשן (siehe zu 2. 4) wird der bereits mit seinem ganzen Wesen in den Dienst der Pflicht eingetretene Mensch nunmehr für die höchste Stufe der Menschenvollendung gegürtet, es wird namentlich die höhere Seite des Menschenwesens — der אפוד umbindet nur den Operkörper — Empfindung (Rücken), Wille (Brust), Tat (Achsel, Armwurzel), und Kraft (Lenden), energievoll zur Hingebung an das jüdische Menschenideal zusammengenommen, das durch die Verbindung aller vier Stoffe mit Gold in Wirkerarbeit und durch dasjenige zum Ausdruck kommt, was אורים ותומים bedeuten.

Der Gürtel der Vorstufe, אבנט, war מעשה רקם. Ein Stoff, und wie wir glauben, der Byssus, bildete die Grundlage und auf sie waren die anderen positiven Stoffe und Farben gestickt aufgetragen. Die Gürtung der Vollendung, אפוד, war מעשה חשב, die Fäden waren selbständig zu einem ganzen Gebilde verbunden, alle in gleicher Geltung, nur dass der Begriff des Lebens durch das relative Übergewicht der roten Farbe in den Vordergrund trat. Jeder der vier Stoffe bestand ferner nicht aus sechs Fäden, in der Zahl des Geschöpflichen, sondern es trat in jedem ein goldener Faden, der Stoff des gediegenen, unveränderlich Edeln hinzu und erhob ihn in die Bedeutung der Zahl "sieben", der Zahl der Vollendung, der Zahl des das Unsichtbare tragenden und verkündenden Sichtbaren, des mit seinem Gotte verbundenen Geschöpflichen. Es treten hier somit alle Seiten des Menschenwesens durch den höchsten sittlichen Adel in gleicher Würdigkeit zum vollendetsten Leben zusammen, dessen Herz die אורים und תומים bilden.

Was אורים und תומים waren, ist ein unnahbares Geheimnis, allein die Worte weisen auf "Erleuchtung und sittliche Vollkommenheit" hin. Und zwar אור in der Form אור, in welcher es auch die wärmende, ja überwältigend verzehrende Kraft des Feuers mit einschließt. תומים ist die Pluralform von תום, die Vollkommenheit. Die Pluralform von אורים ותומים weist auf eine Vielheit von Objekten hin, denen läuternd belebende Erleuchtung des Geistes und sittliche Vollendung als Eigenschaft oder Wirkung innewohnt. Bekannt sind uns nur die Worte Gottes, die תורות und מצות, die, wie sie aus dem Quell der höchsten Erkenntnis und der höchsten Vollkommenheit stammen, auch den höchsten geistigen und sittigenden Einfluss auf uns zu üben bestimmt und fähig sind. Die im ארון הברית bewahrte תורה wird zu אורים und תומים in der Brust des jüdischen Menschen und des jüdischen Volkes. Sie trägt ihr Repräsentant, der כה׳׳ג, als bewahrenden Schatz (בחשן siehe zu V. 4) "auf dem Herzen", und die aus dem Worte Gottes zu schöpfende Erkenntnis des "Wahren und Guten" gestaltet sich zu משפט בני משפט .ישראל im stat. constr. wie משפט המלך ,משפט אלקי הארץ ,משפט הכהנים, משפט הנער oder mit pron. poss. wie משפטי ודיני usw. bedeutet durchweg das einem Wesen Gebührende, das seinem Rechte und seiner Bestimmung Entsprechende. משפט בני ישראל wäre somit: das Jisrael Gemäße, das seiner Bestimmung Entsprechende, das, was es seiner Bestimmung gemäß zu erwarten und anzustreben haben soll. Indem dieses משפט בני ישראל nur durch אורים ותומים ermittelt wird, so ist damit gesagt, dass Israels Ziele und Wünsche sich nur unter Einfluss der אורים und תומים gestalten sollen, dass ergebenden Maße des "Wahren und Guten" gemäß sei. ונשא אהרן את משפט בני ישראל על לבו לפני ד׳ תמיד hieße somit nichts anders, als: Aaron trage Israels Anliegen, Israels Wünsche und Streben auf seinem Herzen stets vor Gott, entsprechend dem: ויהיו דברי אלה אשר התחננתי לפני ד׳ קרובים אל ד׳ אלקינו יומם ולילה לעשות משפט עבדו ומשפט עמו ישראל דבר יום ביומו (Kön. I. 8, 59).

Auf Achsel und Brust trug aber der כה׳׳ג die Namen der Volksstämme לזכרון לפני ד׳. Damit erscheint der כה׳׳ג eben als Vergegenwärtigung der jüdischen Nationalgesamtheit. Es ist die Tatkraft der Nation und die Erkenntnis und der Wille der Nation, die hier ihr Ideal, ihren symbolischen Ausdruck finden sollen. Und es soll אפוד והשן ,חשן ואפוד es soll die Tatkraft der Nation und das durch אורים ותומים geweckte und gestaltete Erkennen und Wollen nie von einander weichen, אורים ותומים sollen Tat werden und die Tat soll sich nur von אורים ותומים leiten lassen. Es soll der jüdische Wille ganz in den göttlichen Willen aufgehen, משפט בני ישראל und משפט zusammenfallen. — Und es sind goldene Ketten der edelsten sittlichen אורים ותומים Kraft, die die Tatkraft der Nation für immer mit dem חשן המשפט verbinden, und es ist ein פתיל תכלת, es ist der starke Faden göttlicher Bundespflicht, der die gesammelte Energie (חשב) des ganzen sinnlich geistigen Menschenwesens für immer an die אורים ותומים des חשן המשפט gebunden hält.

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns die Stufen der fortschreitenden sittlichen Vollendung, die die בגדי כהונה vergegenwärtigen, so erscheinen dieselben dreifaltig. מכנסים וכתונת. Reinheit von sittlichem und sozialem Unrecht entspricht dem Begriffe: צדק, der Gerechtigkeit, das seinem tiefen Wesen nach ein negativer Begriff ist; מעיל, das Eingehen des ganzen Menschen in das Diktat der Pflicht: אפוד ;צדקה, die Hingebung aller Kräfte in den Dienst und als Werkzeug zur Vollbringung der Gotteszwecke: חסד. Dem entsprechen die Sätze: כהניך ילבשו צדק (Ps. 132, 9), מעיל צדקה יעטני (Js. 61, 10), תומיך ואוריך .(Dewarim 33, 8) לאיש חסידך

מצנפת ,מגבעות. Ausdrücke wie: צניף מלוכה בכף אלדיך (Jes. 62, 3). הסיר המצנפת והרים העטרה (Jechesk. 21, 31) lassen in מצנפת ein spezifisches Abzeichen einer "Würde" erkennen, ähnlich der Krone. Ein das Haupt umgebender Reif, Band, Bund usw. sondert die Persönlichkeit von allen andern aus. Er war beim Priester lediglich aus weißem Byssus, ihn an Reinhaltung von allem Unlautern als Grundbedingung mahnend. Der Kopfbund des כה׳׳ג war flachrund, in ihm kam die Priesterwürde zum Abschluss. Die Kopfbekleidung der כהני הדיוט waren מגבעות, spitz in die Höhe zulaufend. Ihre Würde bezeichnet die noch erst hinanstrebende Vorstufe.

An einer תכלת-Schnur, an dem Faden göttlicher Bundespflicht, trägt die מצנפת des כה׳׳ג, die Hohepriesterwürde, auf Gold, auf reinster, edelster, unveränderlichster Basis, sich und andern zu stetem Bewusstsein (Joma 8 a) den Ausspruch: קדש לד׳, der das Gesamtheiligtum Gott, dem einen Einzigen, in der ganzen Fülle seiner ausschließenden Wahrheit vindiziert (siehe zu V. 36 u. 38).

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns den כהן הדיוט in seinen בגדי לבן und den כה׳׳ג in seinen בגדי זהב so steht der כהן הדיוט auf der Vorstufe des חצר, der auch die Grundfarbe der Reinheit trägt, während der כה׳׳ג mit den Stoffen und Farben des קדש und קדש הקדשים bekleidet ist.

Es stehen ferner die בגדי כהונה in einer engen Beziehung zu den קרבנות. Das Hingeben der אימורים, der חלב ,כליות und יותרת הכבד an das אש דת des Altars ist nichts als ein Bekleiden des בשר ערוה von מתנים עד ירכים mit מכנסים, und deren positive Umhüllung mit כתונת und מעיל ist nichts als Läuterung und Weihe der sinnlich vegetativen Seite des Menschen durch den Charakter der Reinheit und der göttlichen Bundespflicht, sowie die Opferung der איברים in ganz ähnlichem Sinne der Umkleidung derselben mit כתונת und מעיל entspricht. Jeder mit den ihm von der Nation gereichten Heiligtumsgewändern bekleidete כהן ist eine Aufforderung an die Nation und jedes Glied derselben, sich opfernd mit dem Charakter zu bekleiden, den eben durch das Priestergewand die Nation selbst als Anforderung des nationalen Gesetzesheiligtums anerkennt.

Eine solche enge Beziehung der בגדי כהונה zu den קרבנות ist auch bereits Sebachim 88 b und Arachin 16 a angedeutet: למה נסמכה פרשת קרבנות לפרשת בגדי כהונה לומר לך מה קרבנות מכפרין אף בגדי כהונה מכפרין ,כתונת מכפרת על שפיכות דם שנ׳ וכו׳ מכנסים מכפרי׳ על גלוי עריות שנא׳ וכו׳ מצנפת מכפרת על גסי הרוח מניין וכו׳ אבנט מכפר על הרהור הלב היכא דאיתיה חשן מכפר על הדינין שנ׳ וכו׳ אפוד מכפר על ע׳׳א שנ׳ וכו׳ מעיל מכפר על לשון הרע מנין וכו׳ וציץ מכפר על עזות פנים בציץ כתיב וכו׳.

Diese Sätze dürften wohl schon im allgemeinen eine vollkommene Bestätigung unserer symbolischen Auffassung der Priestergewänder gewähren und zeigen, dass auch die Weisen sie in sehr wesentlicher und inniger Beziehung zum sittlichen Menschencharakter und zur sittlichen Aufgabe des Menschen begriffen. Eine nähere Erwägung dürfte aber auch noch die hier aufgestellten ganz speziellen Sühnebeziehungen der einzelnen Gewandstücke zu bestimmten sittlichen Vergehen und Verbrechen in harmonischem Einklange mit unserer Auffassung erkennen lassen. Bei dem bei weitem größten Teile dieser Sätze scheint uns die Übereinstimmung augenfällig. Wir haben uns nur zuvor eine eigentümliche Seite des Begriffs כפרה nach der תורה zu vergegenwärtigen und dies umsomehr, da hier das Missverständnis einer gänzlich ohne Zutun und Bewusstsein des zu Sühnenden sich vollziehenden כפרה nahe zu liegen scheint. Die תורה kennt ein zwiefaches כפרה-Bedürfnis: das eine, das sich auf denjenigen bezieht, der sich einer Abirrung von dem Gesetze schuldig gemacht; das andere, das sich auf das Gesetzesheiligtum und dessen Träger bezieht. Ein jedes ungerügt bleibende Verbrechen schließt nämlich die Gefahr in sich, dass dadurch der Begriff der Lebensheiligung getrübt werde, die das Gesetzesheiligtum als Anforderung an uns setzt. Das konkrete Leben der Nation, in deren Mitte das Gesetzesheiligtum sich befindet, wird mit allen seinen Verirrungen so lange als von diesem Gesetzesheiligtume gebilligt und seinen Anforderungen adäquat betrachtet werden, so lange nicht die Missbilligung abseiten des Gesetzesheiligtums irgendwie zum Ausspruch gekommen, oder die Verirrung an der Person des Schuldigen strafend als solche zum Bewusstsein gebracht ist. So wird durch die עבודת י׳׳כ der Gegensatz zum Bewusstsein gebracht, in welchem sich das Ideal des Gesetzesheiligtums zu der konkreten Wirklichkeit des Volkslebens befindet, es wird damit das Gesetzesheiligtum vor den seiner Heiligkeit verderblichen Folgen der Volksverirrung geschützt, das heißt ja: וכפר על הקדש מטמאת בני ישראל ומפשעיהם לכל חטאותם, und dadurch zugleich von dieser Seite der Notwendigkeit einer strafenden Rüge an dem Volke selbst vorgebeugt, wie beide Seiten der כפרה in dem Satze zusammengefasst sind: וכפר את מקדש הקדש ואת אהל מועד ואת המזבח יכפר ועל הכהנים ועל כל עם הקהל יכפר (Wajikra 16, 33).

Ähnlich hier. Dadurch, dass durch die Gewänder, die der Priester Namens der Nation und des Heiligtums trägt, die sittlichen Anforderungen positiv zum Ausdruck kommen, die die Nation als Diktat des Heiligtums für sich und ihre Glieder anerkennt, können Verirrungen gegen dieses Sittengesetz die Gefährlichkeit für die Integrität des sittlichen Nationalbewusstseins verlieren und können auf gewisser Stufe sowohl der Kognition der Gerichte als der strafenden Gotteshand entzogen bleiben. Durch den positiven nationalen Heiligtumsausdruck der Anforderung des Sittengesetzes, den die בגדי כהונה gewähren, ist der Schein beseitigt, als ob die Nation und das Heiligtum die Verirrungen billigen, und von dieser Seite gewähren die בגדי כהונה, wie die Opfer, מכנסים .כפרה setzen Sittenreinheit als erstes Postulat für das ganze vegetative, geschlechtliche und genießende Leben, sprechen somit die nationale Mißbilligung jeder geschlechtlichen Abirrung aus, sind somit מכפר על ג׳׳ע, so weit diese sich der richterlichen Erkenntnis entziehen. כתונת, den Oberkörper, Arm und Fuß, somit den Menschen der Tat mit dem Charakter schuldloser, auf das Gesetz hinhorchender Reinheit bekleidend, spricht ebenso die Nationalmissbilligung jedes sozialen Verbrechens, somit des שפיכות דמים in weitestem Sinne aus. אבנט fordert die Sammlung aller Kräfte für die positive Lebenserfüllung, eine Sammlung, die sündhaftem Sinnen keinen Raum lässt (siehe oben Kap. 27, V. 8, über עולה) und ist somit מצנפת .מכפר על הרהורי הלב mahnt selbst den höchsten nationalen Würdenträger an stete Aufmerksamkeit auf seine Reinhaltung von allem Unlautern, somit Verbannung jeder Selbstüberschätzung als Grundbedingung seiner Würde, ist somit חשן .מכפר על גסי הרוח unterwirft משפט בני ישראל, alles Wollen und Streben der Nation, den אורים und תומים, den "Licht- und Vollkommenheits-Aussprüchen" des göttlichen Willens, beseitigt somit den Schein, als geschehe irgend eine richterliche Abirrung vom göttlichen Gesetz unter der absichtlichen Billigung der Nation, ist somit מכפר על הדינין.

Schwieriger sind die Sätze über מעיל ,אפוד und ציץ.

Es heißt: אפוד מכפר על ע׳׳ז. Vielleicht fällt die folgende Betrachtung nicht weit von der Wahrheit. In der Geschichte des so verderblich gewordenen פסל מיכה (Richter 17 und 18) steht ein אפוד in ganz entschiedenem, und zwar sehr hervorragendem Zusammenhange mit תרפים פסל ומסכה, also mit ע׳׳ז. Ebenso scheint er Richter 8, 27 in einem solchen Zusammenhange zu stehen, wenigstens nach Gideons Tode in einen solchen Zusammenhang gesetzt worden zu sein (siehe Jeruschalmi Aboda Sara III, 6). Die Form eines אפוד, wie der Ausdruck selbst, vergegenwärtigt, wie wir gesehen, das Zusammennehmen, das Dienstbarmachen des Empfindens, Wollens und Tuns eines Wesens für die Zwecke eines andern. Ein solcher אפוד für sich, d. h. ohne sichtbaren, damit zu bekleidenden Körper, dahingestellt, kann den Wahn oder die Absicht ausdrücken, dass damit irgend ein unsichtbares Wesen, irgend eine unsichtbare Macht unseren Zwecken dienstbar. gemacht werden solle. Wir vermuten, dass dies die Absicht und der Wahn der ע׳׳ז beim götzentümlichen אפוד war. Schwebte doch dem heidnischen Kult vor allem das Ziel vor Augen, die, ihrem Wesen nach dem menschlichen Wohle feindlichen, Mächte sich gewogen, ja, durch die Kunst der Magie und der Mantik sich dienstbar zu machen, einen Bann über sie zu üben. Es wäre dann אפוד ein Mittel gewesen, Götter zur Tat, sowie תרפים, sie zum Ausspruch zu nötigen, und begriffe sich dann die Zusammenstellung: אפוד ותרפים. Zu allem diesem steht das Judentum in diametralem Gegensatz, es will nicht die Gottheit sich, sondern sich Gott dienstbar machen, und indem der jüdische Hohepriester statt dem אפוד einen Götterkult zu bereiten, ihn sich anlegte, sprach er den entschiedensten Protest gegen das Heidentum aus, und es begreift sich der Satz: אפוד מכפר על ע׳׳ז.

Dunkler ist der Satz: מעיל מכפר על לשון הרע. Er soll die nationale Missbilligung der Bösrede, somit jener Gesinnung enthalten, die die sittlichen Blößen des Nächsten geflissentlich zur Schau bringt. Es muss somit die Bedeutung des מעיל eine Seite haben, die die entgegengesetzte Gesinnung als Postulat setzt, die auch bei dem sittlich Mangelhaftesten noch eine gute Seite voraussetzt, daran sowohl seinen nie ganz zu verscherzenden sittlichen Wert für das Nationalganze, sowie die Hoffnung seiner möglichsten Veredlung anknüpft. In der Tat bietet der מעיל durch die ihm eigentümlichen רמונים und פעמונים eine solche Seite dar. Es ist eine Fülle von Saatkörnern, die die Tatenfrucht charakterisieren, mit welcher das jüdische Pflichtleben den Acker des irdischen Daseins zu bestellen hat. Hundertfältig wie das Leben sind die Aufgaben des Gesetzes und es bedarf daher der verschiedenstgearteten Menscheneigentümlichkeiten zu seiner Verwirklichung. Daher finden auch die verschiedensten Menschen nach ihrem Naturell verschiedene Gebiete, ihren sittlichen Beruf zu bewähren, Schwächen und Tugenden kompensieren sich in dem Individuum und ergänzen sich in der Gesamtheit — man denke an den Satz der Weisen אפי׳ ריקנים שבך מלאי מצות כרמון — und ihrer aller Heiligung vertritt und sie alle ladet zur Teilnahme an der Heiligung der Ruf der פעמונים, wenn der mit dem Mantel der Pflicht bekleidete Hohepriester eingeht ins Heiligtum. Nach dieser Erwägung dürfte es nicht so ferne liegen, dass מעיל מכפר על ל׳׳הרע.

צ׳ץ endlich מכפר על עזי פנים, die Beziehungen dieses Satzes bleiben uns am dunkelsten. Wir bemerken jedoch: Alle die bisher erwähnten Charaktereigentümlichkeiten, die durch בגדי כהונה כפרה finden sollen, stehen entschieden auf Seiten sittlicher Mangelhaftigteit, עזות aber ist an sich unentschieden; die höchste sittliche Vollendung ist durch עזות, durch Unbiegsamkeit des Charakters bedingt, sowie sie ebenso zum sittlichen Abgrund führt, es gibt ein עזות לד׳ und ein עזות לעזאזל, wie dies die שני שעירי יום הכפורים vergegenwärtigen. Mit edelstem Metall gepanzert, hat die Stirn des Hohepriesters die Wahrheit: קדש לד׳ jedem die Reinheit des Heiligtums trübenden Wahn protestierend entgegenzutragen. Es erhält damit die Entschiedenheit, die Unbiegsamkeit, die sich im Widerkampfe gegen Lüge und Wahn bewährende Charakterfestigkeit die Weihe der edelsten Bestimmung. Ob sich dies nicht zugleich als Zurückweisung jedes unedlen Missbrauchs des עזות, nicht als Sühne des überhaupt Vorhandenseins des עזות begreifen ließe?

והיו על אהרן AND THEY SHALL BE UPON AARON — “they” means all these garments (not only the breeches which are the last-mentioned garments); upon Aaron shall be those which are proper to him,

והיו על אהרן ועל בניו..... ולא ישאו עון ומתו, “they shall be on Aaron and his sons…..so that they shall not bear a sin and die.” According to Rashi this verse is the source of the law that a priest who performs his duties in the Sanctuary without all the appropriate garments is guilty of the death penalty at the hands of heaven. This law applies equally to the High Priest and to the ordinary priest. Nachmanides (on 28,35) queries Rashi’s comment by writing that if this were indeed so, the Torah should have written this verse much earlier immediately after all the priestly garments have been listed. Why would such a statement be made when only three of the eight garments have been listed as yet? Furthermore, our verse continues: ובצאתו ולא ימות, “when he leaves the Sanctuary he will not die,” something that has no longer anything to do with any shortcoming in the procedure of doing the sacrificial service, and still the Torah mentions the word “death. He concludes therefore that the death penalty applies only to priests not wearing trousers when performing their service in the Temple. This raises the question whence does the Talmud derive the death penalty for priests who perform their service while not wearing their other special garments? (compare Zevachim 18) The Talmud derives it from a different verse. What is clear from the discussion in the Talmud there is that there is no difference which of the priestly garments the priest omitted to wear when it comes to his being guilty of death. The death penalty mentioned in connection with the robe, מעיל, referred only to the ornamental pendants at the lower rim of that robe, the bells and the pomegranates. The reason that the Torah repeated mention of the death penalty in that instance is that seeing that these ornamental pendants did not serve any visible purpose, one might consider them as not essential if unaware that the failure to append them put the life of the High Priest at risk. Moreover, seeing that ordinary Royalty are not known to wear garments with these kinds of ornaments, one might not comprehend how these ornaments symbolized the כבוד ותפארת, the glory and splendour which are the purported effect these garments have on the people seeing the wearer dressed in them. The pealing of the bells at the rim of the robe announce that the High Priest is approaching the Sanctuary. It is as if to announce that he has been granted an audience with the Shechinah, similar to the commoner who is granted an audience by a king of flesh and blood, who would not dare to enter the King’s chambers without first being announced. Were he to do so, he too would put his life at risk, as he would be perceived by the king’s guards as planning to assassinate their ruler or otherwise harm him or insult him. In the Talmud Yerushalmi, the sages see an allusion in the line (Leviticus 16,17) וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד, “no other human being is to be in the Sanctuary when the High Priest enters there in order to obtain atonement, etc.,” as including the angels. This is why the approach of the High Priest must be audible. [I assume that the Yerushalmi that author has in mind is in Yuma 5,2 where it is recounted that for the 40 years that the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik officiated on the Day of Atonement, he would see an angel with a face like a human being accompanying him to the Holy of Holies, except for the last time when he entered there. He told his friends that he would die during that year, something he gathered from the fact that on that occasion this angel did not materialize. Ed.] Joseph ordered that every person other than his brothers be removed from his chambers before he revealed himself to them. Similarly, during intimate audiences granted by kings, only the immediately concerned party is permitted to be closeted with the King. [Incidentally, this enabled the judge Ehud to kill King Eglon of Moav. Ed. (compare Genesis 45,2, and Judges 3,20)

והיו על אהרן ועל בניו, “and they shall be (worn) by Aaron and his sons, etc.” The meaning of the verse is that Aaron should wear the eight priestly garments mentioned since the beginning of our portion. They are: the breastplate and ephod, the robe, the chequered tunic, the turban, and the belt, the head-plate and the linen trousers. His sons are to wear four priestly garments when performing their part of the service. This is the meaning of the words: “so that they shall not bear guilt and die.” A High Priest performing the service with fewer than eight priestly garments, or an ordinary priest performing the service with fewer than four priestly garments commits a capital sin. He is called in Talmudic parlance מחוסר בגדים, “devoid of clothing,” his service is null and void, and he is guilty of death at the hands of heaven just as a non-priest who undertook to perform service in the Temple/Tabernacle (compare Sanhedrin 83). This is based on 29,9: “You shall girdle them with a sash,- Aaron and his sons- and you shall wrap the headdresses on them. The priesthood shall be an eternal duty for them.” At the time when they wear the garments the priesthood is part of them. At times when they do not wear these garments their priesthood is not part of them, and they are no better than non-priests. Of non-priests performing service in the Temple the Torah has written והזר הקרב יומת, “and the non-priest who approaches (to do service) shall be killed” (Numbers 18,7).

Into the Sanctuary as well as into the mishkon. [Gur Aryeh:] I.e., when the Temple will be built, the term “Tent of Meeting” will refer to the Sanctuary. [Re”m:] The term “Tent of Meeting” refers only to the mishkon. However, the Sanctuary is learned from the mishkon by kal vachomer. (Nachalas Yaakov:) This is not so, for it says clearly in Shavuos 16: “If it said mishkon and did not say mikdosh, I would say. . . And if it said mikdosh and did not say mishkon, I would say. . .” This implies that we cannot learn one from the other either by kal vachomer or by bameh matzinu. Therefore, it seems that Rashi learned [the law of the Sanctuary] from what the Toras Kohanim in parshas Shemini says about [the prohibition of drinking] wine [before entering] in the Tent of Meeting: “I know only for the Tent of Meeting [in the desert, that it is prohibited]. From where do I know that it applies also to [the mishkon in] Shiloh, and to the permanent beis hamidkash? Thus it says, ‘An everlasting statute.’” This is what Rashi meant when he wrote here: “‘An everlasting statute for him’. . . it is a decree for the immediate present and for future generations.”

ולא ישאו עון ומתו, “so that they will not bear iniquity and die;” Rashi states that we derive from this verse that if the priests do not wear any of the garments they are supposed to wear while performing service in the Temple, they have become guilty of the death penalty. Rabbi Yitzchok, son of Rabbi Avraham of blessed memory, questioned this statement by Rashi on the basis of what we learned in the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 83, where the Talmud derives this rule from Exodus 29,9, from the words: והיתה להם כהונה לחוקת עולם, “and they will remained consecrated as priests perpetually. The Talmud there understands these words as applying to when the priests wear their priestly garments. When they do not wear those garments, they are treated as if ordinary Israelites, who if they dare to enter the holy Temple become guilty of death. (Numbers 1,51) In order to answer the query by Rabbi Yitzchok, we are forced to say that our verse here adds the new dimension that even the trousers (though meant to cover the private parts) of the priests are considered as part of their uniform and their not wearing same as prescribed already makes them guilty of the death penalty.

ולא ישאו עוון ומתו, “so that they do not incur guilt and die.” Rashi comments on this phrase: “from this verse we learn that appearing in the Temple without the appropriate garments is a capital offence.” The Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 83 explains it simply: when a priest wears the priestly garments (in the Temple) he is considered as a priest. When he does not, he is considered as a nonpriest who is forbidden to enter the Temple on pain of death. Even omitting his belt, avnet, is considered as being disrobed. There is a dissenting view which limits the death penalty only to priests appearing without trousers.

ועל בניו AND UPON HIS SONS, those prescribed for them.

חקת עולם לו ולזרעו עד עולם, “an eternal statute for him and his descendants forever.” The statute that the High Priest wear the eight priestly garments at the time he performs the service is an eternally valid statute; similarly, an ordinary priest must wear four priestly garments whenever he performs the priestly duties assigned to him. They are: linen trousers, a tunic, a cap-like headgear, and a belt. The ordinary priests who performed service on a daily basis experienced a great miracle. Although the only garment covering their bodies was the tunic, i.e. a shirt, and they were exposed to rain and cold, they did not die from exposure. This is why our sages (Shekalim 5,1) said that they used to appoint one of the priests whose duty it was to visit sick priests and to heal them from intestinal disorders seeing that this was an occupational disease suffered by many of the priests. Moreover, the fact that they had to perform their service barefoot standing and walking on cold stone floors contributed to their suffering these diseases. [According to Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 5,1 a contributing factor was the consumption of much meat and the drinking of water (instead of wine?) Ed.])

One who performs. . . lacking any of the garments [is liable to] the death penalty. [This verse is needed] because ולא ימות (28:35) teaches only about the six garments that preceded it, not about the pants and the diadem that follows it. Question: why were these two garments not written earlier, and included with the others, so that ולא ימות would apply to them all? And then, our verse ולא ישאו עון ומתו could have been omitted. Perhaps the answer is: [Our verse is needed] so we will not think that the kohein is liable only when he has all eight garments, and serves without wearing them all. But if he does not have all eight, for example, if they were lost or defiled, we might think that he may serve with the remaining garments, in order that the korbon will not be suspended due to lack of garments. Thus it repeats here ומתו to teach that one who serves while lacking garments [for whatever reason] is liable for the death penalty.

בבאם אל אהל מועד WHEN THEY COME INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — into the Temple, and similarly when they come into the Tabernacle.

ומתו AND THEY DIE — thus you may learn that he who officiates lacking any of these garments is liable to death (Midrash Tanchuma, Achrei Mot 6).

חקת עולם לו AN ORDINANCE TO HIM FOR EVER — Wherever it is said “an ordinance forever” it is an enactment for the immediate present time and for future generations, and the phrase is used to make invalid thereby (through the fact that this phrase is used) any rite where the details prescribed are not fully carried out (cf. Menachot 19a).