Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Awit ng mga Awit 4:7

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)

And maidens beyond number: These are the countries and cities.
This is why the sages of Israel composed six orders [of Mishnah], parallel to the six extentions, comprising sixty tractates, parallel to the sixty queens. In the order called “Women” there are seven tractates, comprising seventy-one chapters. The Sanhedrin number seventy-one, since they are in charge of justice.¹⁹⁵The text may be assuming the special relationship, well known in later Kabbalah, between the female and din or “justice.” The rabbis said in the tractate Kiddushin:¹⁹⁶Kiddushin 76a. “You do not check [for impurities in the family tree] beyond membership in the Sanhedrin. Why? Because it is taught that just as the court is pure with regard to its judgment, so is it pure of any other defect. Said Amemar: ‘What is the basis in Scripture? “You are entirely beautiful, my love; there is no defect in you” [Cant. 4:7].’” This means to say that they are like the shekhinah, which comprises seventy-one, and they have to be as free of any defect as She is.
The sages also said, regarding the verse “I have said, ‘How shall I place you among the sons and give you a land of delight?’” [Jer. 3:19], that this is like the tale of a king who had concubines and many children born of them. He also had a single son from the queen, his wife, whom he loved very greatly. The king gave fields and vineyards to all the sons of the concubines. Then he gave his son but a single orchard, saying to him: “By your life! All my treasuries are filled only by this orchard! Because I love you so much more than your brothers I have given it to you.”¹⁹⁷Midrash Tanḥuma, Kedoshim 12. Thus the blessed Holy One created the nations of the world, as it says: “Sixty are the queens and eighty concubines, maidens without number.” These are the nations.

SPEAK UNTO AARON, SAYING: WHOSOEVER HE BE OF THY SEED THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS. He does not state here “speak unto Aaron and his sons” as He does in all [other] sections,⁵⁵Above, 6:2, etc. because there in the Scriptural portions He commanded the laws of the offerings: This is the law of the burnt-offering;⁵⁵Above, 6:2, etc. This is the law of the sin-offering,⁵⁶Ibid., 6:18. and of the guilt-offering,⁵⁷Ibid., 7:1. and so on [and these laws apply to all priests — Aaron and his sons alike]. But here, if He were to have said “Speak unto Aaron and his sons,” He would have had to continue by saying: “Whosoever of you be throughout your generations” [which would have included Aaron among priests that might have a blemish, which this section discusses], and He did not want to warn Aaron himself about the law of blemishes, because Aaron the holy one of the Eternal⁵⁸Psalms 106:16. is all fair⁵⁹Song of Songs 4:7. And there is no blemish in thee. and there shall be no blemish in him. Instead He admonished him concerning his seed, that he is to teach them these laws and warn them throughout their generations. In the section on impurity immediately following, however, He does say: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,⁶⁰Further, 22:2. because it is possible that even Aaron might happen to become impure by touching a corpse or a dead swarming thing.⁶¹Above, 11:29-31. But when He comes to mention the impurity of leprosy or a flux, He again says, What man soever of the seed of Aaron,⁶²Further, 22:4. because this would not happen to the body [of Aaron], for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts.⁶³Malachi 2:7. At the end of this section He states, So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel,⁶⁴Further, Verse 24. [although Moses had been told, Speak unto Aaron, saying, etc.], because Moses wanted to warn Aaron’s sons as well in order that they should receive the instruction directly from his mouth. He also said so to the children of Israel, which means that he warned the court of Israel on this matter.
Now in the Torath Kohanim I have found this text:⁶⁵Torath Kohanim, Emor 3:5. “Whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.⁶⁶Verse 18. Why is this said [since it has already been mentioned in the preceding verse]? But because it says the seed of Aaron,⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish.”⁶⁶Verse 18. Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “The seed of Aaron.⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law [of blemishes] applies to Aaron’s offspring. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse which states, For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish. ”⁶⁶Verse 18. Similarly it has been taught there:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Emor 4:1. “The seed of Aaron.⁶⁷In Verse 17 before us: Speak unto Aaron … Whosoever he be of thy seed. Also in Verse 21: of the seed of Aaron. I would only know that this law applies to Aaron’s seed. How do I know that it applies to Aaron himself? From the verse and he is a leper, or hath an issue.”⁶²Further, 22:4. Now [that which the Torath Kohanim states] “Aaron himself,” means [any] High Priest that shall be in his stead among his sons,⁶⁹Above, 6:15. [but it does not mean Aaron personally, since, as explained above, Scripture does not mention Aaron’s name with reference to having a blemish or suffering from leprosy or an issue. It did, however, have to include the High Priest in the law of blemishes], because having permitted the High Priest [to officiate] whilst he is an onen, one might perhaps think that it also permits him [to officiate] although he has a blemish or leprosy. For this reason it became necessary to include him in this law. Or it may be that [the Torath Kohanim] is alluding to the law about Aaron himself, for the Torah in its prohibitions does not rely on a miracle. However, it concealed it [the prohibition] in connection with Aaron, in his honor, thus hinting that this would [in fact] not happen to him.