출애굽기 25:7의 주석

אבני שהם ONYX STONES — two were required there for the needs of the “ephod” which is mentioned in ואתה תצוה (Exodus 28:6ff.).

AVNEI SHOHAM’ (ONYX STONES) ‘V’AVNEI MILU’IM’ (AND STONES FOR SETTING). “Because they used to make a setting for the stone in gold — a kind of indentation — and they placed the stone there to fill the indentation, they are called avnei milu’im (stones for filling-in), and the place of the indentation is called mishbetzet (setting). FOR THE EPHOD AND THE BREASTPLATE. The onyx stones were for the ephod, and the stones for setting were for the breastplate.” This is Rashi’s language. Similarly Rashi explained: “They shall be inclosed in gold in their settings,⁵⁸Further, 28:20. — surrounded by gold settings of such a depth that each setting shall be filled by the thickness of the stone. This is the meaning of the word milu’otham (their filling),⁵⁸Further, 28:20. and this is the meaning of every expression of milui (filling) mentioned in this connection.”
But it does not appear to me to be at all correct to say that Scripture calls them already now avnei milu’im, because in some time as yet in the future He was to command that the indentations made for them were to be filled with these stones! Moreover, the onyx stones were also enclosed in settings of gold,⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. and yet He did not call them milu’im. Again, our Rabbis have already said in the Gemara:⁶⁰Sotah 48b. “These stones⁶¹The onyx stones for the ephod, and the stones for setting in the breastplate. Ramban will later suggest that the reference perhaps is only to the stones for setting in the breastplate. See further, Note 76. are not incised with a chisel,⁶²For the purpose of writing the names of the tribes upon the stones (further, 28:12, and 21). for it is said b’milu’otham⁵⁸Further, 28:20. (in their filling).” Now if the explanation b’milu’otham would be, [as Rashi has it], that they fill the indentations with the stones, there would have been no proof at all from this verse that they should not incise the names [of the tribes] on them with a chisel. Besides, the manner of the setting of the stones which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, namely that it was made in a kind of indentation, is not correct. Instead, it is as Onkelos rendered it: [meshubatzim zahav — inclosed in gold] meramtzan didhav,⁵⁸Further, 28:20. which means that they made at the bottom a gold setting according to the measure of the stone, and from it they projected a fork-like shape of three prongs which would hold the stone. [The word meramtzan mentioned by Onkelos] is similar to the expressions of the Sages: “and they take it out beramtza (with a pointed tool) made of iron;”⁶³Niddah 62a. “as when he bored a hole in it beramtza (with a pick) made of iron.”⁶⁴Shabbath 103a. This is how they also do it today when they set precious stones in rings, in order that they be seen from all angles and that their beauty and splendor should not be hidden in the indentations. You may know that this is so, for the two gold chains inserted in the two rings of the breastplate were attached to the mishb’tzoth on the shoulder-pieces of the ephod.⁶⁵Further, 28:24-25. Now if mishb’tzoth were [as Rashi said] frames for the setting of the stone, how would they attach to them the chains? And even [if there were there other mishb’tzoth not for the setting of the stone but for the purpose of inserting the chains] how would the indentations serve that purpose [as they were not perforated for the chains to go through]? Rather, the mishb’tzoth are the fork-like prongs as we have said and the holes for the chains were made in them. Associated with the word mishb’tzoth is, in my opinion, [Saul’s expression, Slay me] for ‘hashabatz’ hath taken hold of me⁶⁶II Samuel 1:9. these being the men who hold spear-like weapons with mounted forks on top to catch those that flee the battle-field, just as it is said, and lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him.⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 6.
And the meaning of musaboth mishb’tzoth⁶⁸Further, 28:11. is that he should fix the gold prongs “around it.” And in the opinion of Onkelos who translated [musaboth as] meshak’on [literally: “depressed,” “sunk”], the stones were sunk into the frames from which came forth prongs surrounding them above and holding them in place.
But the sense of the word milu’im is that the stones be whole as they were created, and that they should not be hewn stones which were cut from a large quarry, or from which anything has been chipped off. It is also known in the natural sciences that the complete powers of precious stones and the particular qualities that distinguish them, exist only when in their natural state, as when smooth stones are taken from the river. This is why Onkelos translated [avnei milu’im — avnei] ashlamutha (stones of perfection). But the term milui (filling of) vessels or an indentation [Onkelos] translates literally, — thus: 'va’t'malei' (and she filled) her pitcher,⁶⁹Genesis 24:16. Onkelos translated: u’mleiah (and she filled), and similarly in all other cases — but here he translated the term milui to mean shleimuth (perfection). Similarly, he translated the verse, ‘milei’ (He filled) them with wisdom of heart⁷⁰Further, 35:35. — ashleim (“He perfected” them with wisdom of heart), as wisdom is not something that you can fill a vessel with, but instead it denotes perfection, that they [i.e. Bezalel and Oholiab — who did the workmanship of the Tabernacle] were perfect in wisdom. This is the intent of the verse, and in cutting of stones 'l’maloth'⁷¹Ibid., 31:5. — that they knew how to engrave like the engravings of a signet upon stones in their [natural] perfect state.
Now in the case of the stones of the ephod it is said, however, with the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shalt thou engrave the two stones, according to the names of the children of Israel⁵⁹Ibid., Verse 11 — in the case of the ephod. [but it does not say here b’milu’otham — “in their perfect state”], because they made an incision in them when writing the names [of the tribes upon them] as stone engravers do, and thus the stones were no longer in their [natural] perfect state. But in the case of the stones for the breastplate it is written, ‘umileitha’ in it ‘miluath’ of stone,⁷²Ibid., 28:17. and again it is written of them, they shall be ‘b’milu’otham;’⁷³Ibid., Verse 20. and the stones [of the breastplate] were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names⁷⁴Ibid., 38:14. — not the work of engravers [who make incisions upon the stones]. Therefore Moses our teacher could find no way [of inscribing the names of the tribes of Israel upon the twelve stones in the breastplate] except by means of the shamir [a worm that cuts stones with its glance] which our Rabbis mentioned, just as they have said in Tractate Sotah:⁷⁵Sotah 48b. “These stones⁷⁶I.e. the stones of the breastplate. See above Note 61. are not written upon with ink, for it is said, like the engravings of a signet,⁷⁷Further, 28:21. “And this means carving” (Rashi, ibid., Sotah). — The verse is mentioned in connection with the stones of the breastplate. and they are not incised with a chisel, for it is said b’milu’otham (in their perfect state).⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 20. — Also in connection with the stones of the breastplate. But instead [Moses] brought the shamir and showed it the stones and they split of their own accord.” Now the word b’milu’otham is said only in connection with the stones of the breastplate. Do not be troubled by what is mentioned in the Agadah (homily, tradition) that the Rabbis said to Solomon:⁷⁹Gittin 68a. In preparing to build the Sanctuary, Solomon asked the Rabbis: “How shall I accomplish the cutting of the stones without using iron tools?” They replied: “There is the shamir etc.” “There is the shamir with which Moses cut the precious stones of the ephod.” [From this you might argue that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham — in their perfect natural state — which would be contrary to what we have said above, that this applied only to the stones of the breastplate! Do not be troubled by this statement,] for the breastplate is called ephod by the Rabbis by way of metaphor, because the breastplate is attached thereto. It is also written, Bring hither the ephod,⁸⁰I Samuel 23:9. and it was of the breastplate that they asked [for guidance].⁸¹See Ramban further, 28:30. Thus the explanation of the verse before us is as follows: “onyx stones three — two for the ephod⁸²Further, 28:9. and one for the breastplate;⁸³Ibid., Verse 20. and stones of ‘milu’im’ for the breastplate.” And in case the opinion of our Rabbis was that the stones of the ephod also had to be in their full natural state [as the stones of the breastplate], then both the onyx stones and the stones of ‘milu’im’ were for both, for the ephod and for the breastplate.⁸⁴In other words, if that be the opinion of the Rabbis that the stones of the ephod also had to be b’milu’otham (in their full natural state), then they derived it from this verse as explained in the text. For — the ephod and the breastplate — had both the onyx stones and the stones of milu’im. Of the ephod it is clearly written that it had two onyx stones (further, 28:9), and according to the Rabbis these were also b’milu’otham (in their full natural state). In the case of the breastplate b’milu’otham is clearly mentioned (ibid., Verse 20) and so is the onyx stone (ibid.). Thus the verse before us, stones of onyx and stones of ‘milu’im’ means that both were for the ephod and for the breastplate.

אבני שהם ואבני מלאים, onyx stones, and stones to be set, etc. Why were these items mentioned only after the other eleven types of materials? They should have been listed even ahead of gold and silver seeing they are of superior value! Perhaps the reason is that the princes who contributed these stones did so only after the people had contributed all their donations. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,16 that G'd was so displeased with the tardiness of the princes in bringing their donations that the Torah does not even spell the word נשיאים fully in the relevant passage but omits the letter י in their title (compare Numbers 7,10). Mentioning their contribution last was a punishment for their tardiness.

מלואים, for the gemstone to fill the recessed area intended for it to be set in, similar to the rings used as signet rings.

אבני שוהם ואבני מילואים, “shoham stones, and stones for the settings.” Rashi explains that the reason why these stones were called מילואים, settings, is that they were set in gold which had been recessed to accommodate each stone so that it would be firmly set in its frame. The exact spot of this recessed hole is called משבצות in the Torah. (28,25)

Filling-stones for the breastplate. . . Rashi explains this so we will not say that both the onyx stones and the filling stones were for the eiphod, and similarly both were for the breastplate. Re”m explains that the breastplate, too, had onyx stones. But since “filling stones” include all the breastplate’s stones, the “onyx stones” that are stated pertain only to the stones for the eiphod.

אבני שהם, “onyx stones;” these, and the jewels which follow, were required for the breastplate and the epaulets of the garments of the High Priest. How precisely did this work? The two onyx stones were affixed each to one of the shoulder pieces of the ephod. (Exodus 28,9 as well as 28,12) The stones collectively described as אבני מלואים, “jewels to be placed within the twelve settings provided for them on the breastplate of the High priest.” (Exodus 28,9). These jewels are referred to euphemistically on numerous occasions in the Bible, perhaps the best known example being Psalms 113,5-6: המגביהי לשבת המשפילי לראות בשמים ובארץ, “Who, though enthroned high, sees what is below, and Who sees what is in heaven and what is on earth.” You find an onyx stone mentioned also in Exodus 28,20, where it is one of the jewels on the breastplate of the High Priest.

אבני שוהם, “gemstones called shoham.” These two were affixed to the apronlike garment of the High Priest known as Ephod,” as well as the gemstones to be inserted in the High Priest’s breastplate, choshen, (12 in number).

מלאים FOR SETTING (lit., filling in) — Because they made for them (for the stones) settings in gold — a kind of indentation — and they put the stone there (in it) to fill the indentation, they were called “filling-up stones”; the spot where the indentation is (i. e. the hollow spot) is called משבצת “setting”.

לאפוד ולחושן, “for the ephod and the breastplate.” The shoham stones were on the shoulder pieces of the ephod, and the jewels referred to as מילואים were inserted in the breastplate. They were משובצים, surrounded by the golden rim that protruded around the grooves within which these jewels were inserted. Nachmanides is troubled by this interpretation as it does not seem right to him that the stones should already have been named according to their ultimate function, although this was still many months in the future. At this time each jewel had a name by which it was known universally, regardless of which piece of jewelry it was used in. He also finds it strange that the Torah should refer to settings for these stones, seeing that even the breastplate and the ephod for which they were intended did not exist yet, and we have not been told what either of these two garments was. Furthermore, Nachmanides makes the point that the אבני שוהם also required to be placed in settings on the shoulder pads of the ephod, so that the expression אבני מילואים applies in equal measure to these two jewels. They are, however, nowhere described as other than משבצות זהב, “held in place by gold settings.” (28,11) Nachmanides also does not accept Rashi’s comment that the meaning of משבצות זהב is that the jewels set in a groove, depression in the gold, were held in place by a golden rim around the jewel. He prefers the translation by Onkelos מרמצן בדהב, enclosed in gold. This means that underneath each jewel there would be a golden receptacle with small fork-like pincers at the top, which would grip the jewel once it had been inserted in the golden setting. This concept is borrowed from the sages ברמצא דפרזלא, boring a hole with an iron pick. (Shabbat 103, Niddah 62) What is described is a kind of fork, the extreme ends of which can be bent so as to hold a precious object firmly in place. The jewels would be placed at the curved bottom of such a “fork,” before the prongs at the top would be bent over to hold the jewel inside firmly in its position. This is still the way it is done in our days (author speaking) The meaning of the word מילואים is that the stone be whole, stones that have not been worked over by diamond cutters and such. Just as hewn stones, אבני גזית, were not to be used in constructing the altar, so the jewels for the breastplate and the ephod of the High Priest had to be in their original state. It is an accepted assumption by people who believe in the therapeutic and other value of certain jewels, that if these jewels are not in their original state they will have no such therapeutic value. The reader interested in the subject, is encouraged to read up in my translation of the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya, pages 1286-1294 where he explains the therapeutic values of each of the stones in the breastplate of the High Priest. Some gemstones’ therapeutic value cured diseases of the body, others had beneficial effect for people mentally underprivileged. [The author claims that scientific texts in his time claimed that there are actually no more than12 kinds of genuine gemstones. Ed.] Apparently, when such gemstones are found in a river bed, they are flawed as far as their use both in the breastplate or as therapeutic aids is concerned, as the constant contact with the water of the river makes it impossible for them to be retrieved in their natural state. This is why here Onkelos translates the word מילואם as אשלמותא, emphasising the wholeness, whereas in connection with filling of vessels or filling in a hole, he translates it as מילוי, as this is an expression used when it concerns such an activity. When the Torah discusses the אבני אפוד, (28,11) it speaks of מעשה חרש אבן פתוחי חותם תפתח על שני אבנים, usually translated as “with a jeweler’s handiwork, engraved like a signet ring, shall you engrave the two stones.” In those instances, each gemstone had to have holes in them to accommodate engraving the names of the various tribes. This was the kind of work done by stonemasons. Concerning the gemstones on the breast plate however, the Torah does not use the expression חרש אבן, but ומלאת בו מלואת אבן, an expression which is repeated in 28,20 יהיו במלואותם, perhaps best translated as “in their mountings.” In view of all these considerations, Moses had no choice but to use the secretion of the shamir worm to accomplish this objective. He showed this worm to helpers of Betzalel, demonstrating that the gemstones would split by themselves in the desired places without the use of stonemasons’ tools, jewelers’ engraving tools. Seeing that the word במלואותם occurs only in connection with the jewels inserted in the breastplate, even though the sages say that Moses brought the shamir also to go to work on the jewels of the ephod, by moving that worm above the surface of these two jewels in a manner parallel to writing the respective names of the tribes on them. This is probably an incorrect reference to the jewels on the breastplate, seeing that the breastplate, after all, is known also as the חשן האפד “the breastplate of the ephod” seeing it was fastened by chains to the ephod. The meaning of the wordsאבני שוהם, accordingly, is: the three places where jewels were affixed, i.e. 2 on the shoulder pads of the ephod itself, plus the four rows of jewels on the breastplate. The expression אבני מלואים however refers merely to the jewels worn on the High Priest’s breastplate. If it was indeed the opinion of the sages that the jewels on the shoulder pads of the ephod were mounted in the same way as those on the breastplate, it is conceivable that they derived this from the wording in our verse, and they understood the words אבני מלואים as applying equally to the jewels of the ephod and the choshen, respectively.

Another reason for mentioning these stones last may be the fact that they were not used as part of the Tabernacle but only as part of the priestly garments. We have learned in Yuma 69 that it was permitted to make use of these priestly garments, i.e. that one was not guilty of מעילה, trespass, when having made profane use of such garments. Maimonides writes in chapter five of the laws dealing with such trespasses that the priestly garments are not subject to such laws. It follows that the sanctity of the priestly garments cannot be compared to the sanctity of the Tabernacle itself. It is quite logical then that these gemstones, though intrinsically more costly than gold and silver, should be mentioned last in the order of contributions listed by the Torah. While it is true that some of the other eleven materials also served to make the priestly garments, their principal function was to serve as materials from which to construct the Tabernacle itself.

לאפד ולחשן FOR THE EPHOD AND THE BREASTPLATE respectively: the onyx stones for the ephod and “stones for setting” for the breastplate. Ephod and breastplate are described in ואתה תצוה. They were a kind of ornament worn only by the High-Priest.

Moreover, there is an opinion cited in Yuma 75 according to which these gemstones originated in the celestial spheres and their attainment did not represent an effort on the part of their owners nor did their being given away represent a loss to those who donated them inasmuch as they had never toiled in order to acquire them.