출애굽기 28:31의 주석

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.