출애굽기 28:40의 주석
וְלִבְנֵ֤י אַהֲרֹן֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה כֻתֳּנֹ֔ת וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ לָהֶ֖ם אַבְנֵטִ֑ים וּמִגְבָּעוֹת֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה לָהֶ֔ם לְכָב֖וֹד וּלְתִפְאָֽרֶת׃
너는 아론의 아들들을 위하여 속옷을 만들며 그들을 위하여 띠를 만들며 그들을 위하여 관을 만들어서 영화롭고 아름답게 하되
Rashi on Exodus
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Or HaChaim on Exodus
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.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashbam on Exodus
לכבוד ולתפארת, seeing that the headgear of the High Priest was especially decorative.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rav Hirsch on Torah
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.).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Chizkuni
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy