Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 4:17
וְטָבַ֧ל הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֶצְבָּע֖וֹ מִן־הַדָּ֑ם וְהִזָּ֞ה שֶׁ֤בַע פְּעָמִים֙ לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה אֵ֖ת פְּנֵ֥י הַפָּרֹֽכֶת׃
le pontife teindra son doigt de ce sang et en fera sept aspersions devant l’Éternel, dans la direction du voile;
Rashi on Leviticus
את פני הפרכת [AND THE PRIEST SPRINKLE IT …] BEFORE THE PARTITION VAIL — But above (v. 6) Scripture states את פני פרכת הקדש? A parable! This may be compared to the case of a king against whom the country revolted. If it is only a minority of it that revolts his council (familia) still exists, but if the whole country revolts his council no longer exists. So, also, here: When the anointed priest alone sinned, the appelation of sanctity that is attached to the place still remains on the Sanctuary, but as soon as all of them have sinned the holiness, God forbid, disappears (Zevachim 41b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashbam on Leviticus
את פני הפרכת, according to the plain meaning of the text the פרכת the Torah speaks of here is the dividing curtain between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. If, in verse 6, this dividing curtain was called פרכת הקודש, this may mean that the sprinkling of the blood had to be aimed at the middle of the curtain, i.e. at the area beyond which stood the Holy Ark, inside the Holy of Holies.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Bahya
והזה שבע פעמים לפני ה' את פני הפרוכת, “he is to sprinkle (the blood) seven times before the Lord, before the curtain.” When describing a similar procedure performed with the sin-offering of the High Priest, the Torah wrote את פני פרוכת הקודש. What is the difference? We may again use a parable to illustrate the difference. When a king faces the rebellion of a small number of his subjects, his regime and his ministers will endure. If all his subjects rebel his regime will topple. As long as only the High Priest was guilty of a sin, the matter is not serious enough for the inner Sanctum, i.e. Dividing Curtain and what is beyond to lose its “holiness,” i.e. symbol of the kingdom. When the whole people rebelled, i.e. the entire Jewish nation was guilty of a sin of disloyalty, the “Dividing Curtain” could no longer be described as “holy”; its whole function had been undermined. By omitting mention of the adjective “holy” when speaking about the Dividing Curtain the Torah alluded to this difference.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy