ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף שמות 28:38

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)

Ganz besonders tritt aber hier noch der Begriff צבור bedeutsam ein. Es scheint uns nämlich der Gedanke nicht irrig, daß ein קרבן שזמנו קבוע in dem Sinne des Gesetzes nur von einem צבור als Obliegenheit getragen werden könne, und daher קרבנות שזמנן קבוע in Wahrheit nur קרבנות צבור sein können. Nur die Gesamtheit kann einen bestimmten Zeitmoment bei jeder Wiederkehr desselben durch ein קרבן begehen. Nur die Gesamtheit ist in jedem solchen wiederkehrenden Zeitmomente da, das Individuum nicht; das Individuum vergeht, ist sterblich, אין צבור מת, die Gemeinde stirbt nicht, ist in der Einheit ihrer Erscheinung unsterblich ewig. Damit ist aber sofort die Gesamtheit, wie sie in קרבנות שזמנן קבוע auftritt, selbst das positiv sprechendste Zeugnis von dem über טומאת מת erhabenen, von ihr nicht erreichbaren, geistig göttlichen, sittlich freien Menschentum. Denn nicht das Leibliche, dem Verschwinden im Tode Verfallende: das geistig Göttliche, sittlich Freie ist es, in dessen Gemeinsamkeit die Vielheit sich zum צבור eint und durch welches auch der in die Gesamtheit aufgehende einzelne, über seinen leiblichen Tod hinaus in der Gesamtheit ewig fortlebend, mit allem gegenwärtig bleibt, was er an geistig Göttlichem, an sittlich Freiem mit seinem Hiersein in die Gesamtheit hinein gelebt, und worin er noch hienieden in ewiger Fortwirkung lebendig bleibt. Daher טומאה דחויה oder טומאה הותרה בצבור, und daher die Beschränkung dieser דחיה auf טומאת מת. (Daher dürfte denn auch der Begriff צבור neben dem Begriffe ומנו קבוע seine wesentliche Bedeutung bewahren und daher שלמי חגיגה und עולות ראיה nicht דוחה שבת וטומאה sein, die, wenn sie gleich auf das רגל beschränkt sind und אם יעבור רגל אין להם תקנה, doch, da יש להם תשלומין כל שבעה, sie nicht also בכנופיא, nicht also in einem Momente in Gesamtversammlung wie פסח dargebracht werden, und bei ihnen der Begriff צבור nicht rein und prägnant erscheint, und damit sich die in תוספו Pesachim 76b angeregten Fragen lösen. Vergl. לחם משנה zu Chagiga l, 8, wo diese Fragen in etwas anderer Weise gelöst werden.)

so macht die Priesterbinde es wohlgefällig. Der Stirnbinde des Hohenpriesters wohnte nach dem Wortlaute der Schrift die Kraft inne, einen den Opfern anhaftenden Makel aufzuheben (Exod. 28, 38: ונשא אהרן את עין הקדשים). Diese Wirkung erstreckt sich nach der Überlieferung jedoch nur auf den Makel der Unreinheit, sie hat zur Folge, dass das Opfer als vollzogen gilt und durch kein anderes ersetzt zu werden braucht.

לתת על המצנפת מלמעלה TO FASTEN IT ON HIGH UPON THE MITRE — and by means of the threads he placed it on the mitre as though it were a kind of crown. It is, however, impossible to say that לתת על המצנפת means to put the plate on the mitre, for in the Treatise on the Slaughter of the Sacrifices (Zevachim 19a) we learn: His (the High Priest’s) hair was visible between the plate and the mitre, whereon he placed the Tephillin”. Now the plate rested on his forehead (cf. Exodus 28:38), consequently the mitre was above (on the crown of the head) and the plate beneath (on the forehead). What then can be the meaning of “to fasten it on high upon the mitre”? Besides, I have put another question about this: here it says, “and they put upon it (the plate) a thread of blue purple” and in the section where the command is given it states, (Exodus 28:37) “And thou shalt put it on a blue purple string” (so that the plate was above the thread, not beneath it as is here commanded). I therefore say that this פתיל of blue purple mentioned here was not an ornament but threads by which to tie it (the plate) on the mitre. For the plate reached only from one ear to the other, so with what could they tie it to his forehead? So blue purple threads were attached to it at its (the plate’s) two ends and on the middle by means of which they tied it on and hung it on the mitre whenever this was on his head. There were two threads on each end (of the plate) one on its upper side and the other underneath, on the side next to the forehead and so also at the middle of it (the plate) — because in this way it was easy to tie it on. Since, however, the way of tying a thing on is by not less than two threads the text is justified in saying both, (Exodus 23:37) “[And thou shalt put it] on a blue purple thread” and here “and they put upon it a thread of blue purple”. He (the High Priest) tied both ends of all of them (of all the threads) together behind him on his neck, and thus placed it (the plate) on the mitre. Do not be puzzled because it does not say “threads of blue purple” seeing that there were many (three double threads altogether), for we find the same thing in the case of the breast-plate and the ephod: (Exodus 28:28) “And they shall fasten the breast-plate by the rings thereof unto the rings of the ephod … with a string (and not with strings) of blue purple” and you must admit that there could not have been less than two strings, for at the two ends of the breast-plate were the two rings of the breast-plate and on the two shoulder-pieces of the ephod were the two rings of the ephod opposite to them. Now according to the way the breast-plate was tied on there were four threads, and under any circumstances with less than two it would have been impossible to tie it on, and yet Scripture speaks of “a string” of blue purple.