Comentario sobre Exodo 28:43

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).