호세아 3:4의 인용 해설

And this is the thing: Rabbi Anani bar Sasson said, "Why was the section about the sacrifices juxtaposed to the section about the garments of the priesthood? To tell you, just like the sacrifices atone, so too do the garments of the priesthood atone."⁴Rashi explained, Why in Parshat Tzav was, "This is the law of the burnt-offering, etc.," juxtaposed to what it goes to, "Take Aharon [etc.] and the garments." To here are his [words]. But in Arakhin 15a, it explains that the intention is about this section, which is the section of the inauguration, and it is juxtaposed to the section of the garments earlier. And it seems like the main approach is like the explanation in Arakhin. For the main section about the priestly garments is here. And I have also carefully noted in several place that when the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "Why was this section juxtaposed to that section," they always first took the passage that is written later in the Torah. For example, in Berakhot 10a, "Why was the section about Avshalom juxtaposed to the section about Gog and Magog (Psalms 2,3)?" And behold that the section of Avshalom is written after the section of Gog and Magog... And likewise in Moed Katan 28a, "Why was the the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the section about the heiffer?"... In all of them, they are arranged that the later is placed first. And here too, if it was like Rashi wrote here, that it is intending Parsaht Tzav, in which it is written, "This is the law of the burnt-offering," and then, "Take Aharon [etc.] and the garments," it should have said, "Why is the section about the garments of the priesthood juxtaposed to the section of the sacrifices." Examine this and you will find it simple.
And the simple understanding of the matter indicates that the garments of the priesthood themselves atone. But according to that, there is a need to investigate Rashi in Yoma 72b at the top, in his explanation of, "Were it not for the garments of the priesthood, nothing would have remained of [the Jewish people], etc." He wrote: Were it not for the garments of the priesthood, with which they would offer sacrifices that atone for the Jewish people. To here are his [words]. But why did he not explain more simply that the garments of the priesthood themselves atone, like the simple reading here? And it must be said that he holds that the garments only atone then when they are doing the holy service with them, the enactment of the sacrifices; and not with their being worn itself. The tunic atoned for the spilling of blood, as it is stated (Parsaht Vayeshev, Genesis 37:31), "and they slaughtered a goat, and immersed the coat in the blood."⁵This is a hint to the future when the atonement for the spilling of blood would be with the tunic of the garments of the priesthood. And immersion means atonement. And it is explained in the Gemara that this atonement is only with a murderer that is impossible to judge, such as if they did not warn him. But a murderer who is liable for death is not atoned towards the congregation so long as they have not judged him, as it is written (at the end of Parshat Maasei, "and for the land there can be no atonement for the blood that was spilled in it, except through the blood of the one who spilled it." And see what I have written at the beginning of Parshat Haazinu on the verse, "Let my instruction flow like rainfall" (Deuteronomy 32:2). But in the Yerushalmi, Yoma7:3, it is found that the tunic atones for those who have worn forbidden mixtures. And so is it in the Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Tzav; and Shir HaShirim [Rabbah] 4:7. However the reason of this thing, [that] the tunic atones for those who have worn forbidden mixtures, is not explained. And in the glosses of the Radal (R. David Luria) on the Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Tzav, he writes there it is because the tunic consisted of forbidden mixtures. And it is a great wonder about such an unusual genius as he, that he erred about something well known and simple: For in all of the garments of the priesthood, only the belt, the breastplate and the apron were [from forbidden mixtures;] (unless we say it was a copier's mistake in his words, and it should say, because the tunic did not consist of forbidden mixtures. Meaning that since there were no forbidden mixtures in it, that is why it atones for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. However according to this, it is not clear why specifically the tunic, and not the other garments of the priesthood that did not have forbidden mixtures? And that requires investigation.) And I wonder about that which the Maharil wrote (Laws of Yom Kippur 3:2), that the custom in Mainz on Yom Kippur is not to recite the penitential prayer, "But we are guilty," because it has fixed in it that the tunic of the high priest would atone for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. And the Ravah (R. Wolf Heidenheim) explained his words: It is because this is against the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, in Zevachim 88b, that the tunic atones for the spilling of blood; and not as it is written in the formula of [this] prayer, that it atones for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. To here are his [words]. And this is a wonderous thing! For behold this opinion is explicitly expressed in the Yerushalmi and in two places in the Midrash Rabbah! And that which the writer of the penitential prayer chose this opinion against that which is expressed in the Babylonian Talmud (and in general, we hold that the Babylonian Talmud is the main one) - that is nothing new with the liturgical poets. And the Tosafot in Chagigah 13a already wrote that the liturgical poets are accustomed in several places to put aside the the position of the Babylonian Talmud and to grasp on to the Yerushalmi. And see Tosafot on Chullin 109b, and these are their [words]: And [the liturgical poet] did everything according to the Yerushalmi. To here are their [words]. And the same is true here. However there is certainly no reason and logic at all to prevent the saying of the penitential prayer on account of this. And the pants atone for sexual prohibitions, as it is stated (Exodus 28:42), "Make for them linen pants to cover the nakedness of their flesh." The turban atones for those who are haughty, let something high come and atone for haughtiness. The belt atones for the thoughts of the heart, where it is.⁶As they would tie it across from the underarms, meaning across from the heart. And see Tosafot on Arakhin 15b. The breastplate atones for [incorrect] judgments, as it is stated (Exodus 28:15), "And you shall make a breastplate of judgment." The apron atones for idol worship, as it is stated (Hosea 3:4), "and without breastplate or oracle idols."⁷Rashi explained: When there is no apron, there is the iniquity of oracle idols. To here are his [words]. And I did not know where he found a hint to expound like this. And is not the simple understanding that there is no apron and also no oracle idols? And maybe he found a hint in the rest of the wording of that verse, "without a king, without officials, without sacrifice, without cult pillars and without an apron and oracle idols." And behold in every detail, it attached the word, without (ein), even though it could have written, "without king, or officials, without sacrifice or cult pillars." But since it wrote, "without," for each detail; and it only left out writing, "without," with the oracle gods; that is why he expounded, "without an apron (meaning, when there is no apron), there are oracle idols.The robe atones for evil speech. Let something with noise (kol) come and atone for an evil noise.⁸"Let something with noise come," means the bells in the robe, which give off a noise. And that which it describes evil speech with the word, noise, even though it is possible to also be muted - is because we learn the main matter of evil speech from the verse in Proverbs (27:14), "He who greets his fellow loudly," as it is explained in the discussion in Arakhin 16a. Indeed, it is the incense that actually atones for muted evil speech, as will be explained ahead in Parashat Korach, on the verse (Number 17:12), "and he put on incense and atoned for the people." And they said [about this], "Let something that is muted come (since the incense is done in a muted way, as it is written about this, 'No man shall be present in the Tent of Meeting'), and atone for something muted." See there ahead. And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. With the frontplate, it is written (Exodus 28:38), "And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead"; and with brazenness it is written (Jeremiah 3:3), "and you had a harlot’s forehead."⁹And the end of the verse is, "you refused to be ashamed." And it is the way of the brazen not to be ashamed. And see the Yerushalmi, Yoma 7:3; and in the Midrash Rabbah on Shir HaShirim 4 - there are different variants about this homily. (Zevachim 88b)

ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, “These are the garments they are to make, etc.” Our sages in Erchin 16 say that just as the sacrifices themselves were instruments of atonement for the Jewish people, so the priestly garments (when worn at the right time in the right place by the right people) were also instruments helping the Jewish people to achieve atonement. This is the reason that the section dealing with the priestly garments was written right next to the section dealing with the sacrifices themselves (the consecration offerings 29,18). The breastplate would atone for sins committed erroneously by judges, as is written: ועשית חושן משפט, “you are to make the breastplate of judgment” (verse 15). The ephod would secure atonement for the sin of idolatry committed inadvertently as we are reminded by Hoseah 3,4: “and there will be no ephod and no teraphim.” It is also written in Judges 8,27 that Gideon converted gifts of gold given to him into a garment called ephod, something that was accounted a sin for him [seeing he did not treat it as a garment but as a sort of monument. Ed.]. The robe called מעיל secured atonement for loose use of one’s tongue, לשון הרע; this is symbolized by the bells at the lower hem of that tunic, מעיל. This robe had a number of bells at the lower edge of which could be heard when the High Priest wearing it was approaching. Just as the evil tongue is something that was spread in public, so the atonement procedure was by means of a garment heard in public. When evil was spoken in private by someone, (who was unaware that he was guilty of unfair comments) the means of atonement for this was the incense. The checkered tunic, כתונת תשבץ, would secure atonement for blood spilled inadvertently. This has been alluded to in Genesis 36,31: “they dipped the tunic in blood.” This tunic resembled a type of shirt and was worn next to the skin (like a T-shirt with sleeves). It was embroidered with gold threads designed in a checkered manner so that it appeared to have “stripes” through it. This is what is meant by (28,39) “you shall make the tunic of a box-like knit of fine linen.” The word תשבץ is the same as משבצות זהב (compare Maimonides Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 9,19). The headgear worn by the High Priest, i.e. the מצנפת, would obtain forgiveness for haughty bearing and deportment. It was appropriate that something worn high on top of one’s head should be the symbol by means of which haughtiness could be atoned for. The אבנט, belt, would secure atonement for lewd fantasies and other sinful thoughts. Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7,3 claim that the length of this belt was 32 cubits (about 20 meters) The golden head band, ציץ, worn by the High Priest on his forehead would atone for effrontery. We have a verse in Jeremiah 3,3 describing effrontery as associated with the forehead. The prophet speaks of the “brazenness of a harlot,” using the word מצח to define brazenness. Aaron had a total of eight garments of which the Torah lists only six. The Torah did not mention his linen trousers as only the garments Moses was to dress him in qualified for this paragraph. The headband, being made of pure gold, is also not enumerated as one of the garments, as, strictly speaking, it was an ornament rather than a garment. The instruction for Aaron to wear linen pants was given only in verse 42 after Moses had already been instructed to dress him in his garments. Had Moses been meant to dress Aaron in his pants the instructions to dress Aaron would not have been written only at the end of verse 42 The function of the pants as a means of securing atonement extended to sins of a sexual or incestuous nature as man is perceived as using his legs to run after chances to obtain sexual gratification.

ותגנוב רחל את התרפים, in order that Lavan should not be able to locate the whereabouts of Yaakov and his family. We know from Hoseah 3,4 that Teraphim were credited with supplying such information to people believing in their power. Zecharyah 10,2 also refers to them as speaking, though deceptively. At any rate, they were widely consulted to provide information about the future, information of a supernatural dimension.