וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ עָלָיו֙ פְּתִ֣יל תְּכֵ֔לֶת לָתֵ֥ת עַל־הַמִּצְנֶ֖פֶת מִלְמָ֑עְלָה כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ (ס)
און מע האָט אַרױפֿגעטאָן אױף אים אַ שנור פֿון בלאָער װאָל, כּדי אים אָנצוטאָן אױף דער הױב פֿון אױבן, אַזױ װי גאָט האָט באַפֿױלן משהן.
Rashi
על פתיל תכלת [AND THOU SHALT PUT IT] ON A BLUE PURPLE STRING — but in another passage (Exodus 39:31) is states, “And they put upon it (upon the Plate) a string of blue purple (so that the Plate was beneath the string, not upon it as is here commanded)! Then again, it is written here, “and it (the Plate) shall be upon the mitre”, whilst further on (v. 38) it says, “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead”! And 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”, thus informing us that the mitre was above on the crown of the head and was not so deep that the entire head went into it right down to the forehead, and that the Plate was beneath it with a space between them. Consequently the Plate was not on the mitre as seems to be stated in this verse! But I say that (cf. Rashi on Exodus 39:31 ואומר אני וגו׳) the strings were in holes and hung from it (from the Plate) at its two ends and at its middle point, six in these three places (i. e. one string in each hole, the centre of each string resting on the bottom point of the hole, the three thus forming six). Thus, at each hole, there was one string on top of the Plate — outside it, and one inside (between the Plate and the forehead). He tied the ends of the strings, the three of them, behind the neck; it follows therefore that the length of the Plate and the strings that were at its ends together encompassed his skull. The middle string which was on its top edge bound together with the ends of the two which were at the extremities of the Plate, passed over the breadth of the head above (over the crown). Consequently it (the Plate, together with the strings) formed a kind of helmet. It is with reference to the middle string that it states, “And it (the string just mentioned in the verse; not the Plate as was assumed) shall be upon the mitre”, for he placed the Plate, with the strings already tied in this manner, upon his head as a kind of helmet passing it over the mitre, and the middle string held it (the Plate) firm so that it could not fall, and thus the Plate hung in front of his forehead and did not fall lower down. In this way all these verses find their explanation — the string being on the Plate, the Plate on the string, and the string on the mitre above (cf. Chullin 138a).
Ramban
AND THOU SHALT PUT IT ON A BLUE-PURPLE STRING. “But in another place in Scripture it states, And they put upon it a string of blue-purple143Further, 39:31. [which indicates that the frontplate was beneath the string, not upon it as is here commanded]! Moreover, here it is written, and it shall be upon the mitre, and further on it says, And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead!144Verse 38. In the Tractate on the Slaughtering of Sacrifices145Zebachim 19 a-b. we have been taught: ‘The High Priest’s hair was visible between the frontplate and the mitre, whereon he placed the phylacteries.’ From this we learn that the mitre was above on the crown of the head [and was not so large that it covered the entire head right down to the forehead], and the frontplate was beneath it [with a space between them], and the strings were in holes and hung from the frontplate at its two ends and in its middle — six in these three places:146For, as the center of each string rested at the bottom point of the hole, the three strings became six. one string on top [of the frontplate], one outside and one inside [between the frontplate and the forehead]. He tied the ends of the three strings behind the neck, and thus it came to be that the length of the frontplate and the strings at its ends encompassed his whole skull. The middle string which was on top was tied together to the ends of the two strings [at the extremities of the frontplate], and passed over above the breadth of the head. Thus it came to be that [the frontplate with the strings] formed a kind of helmet. Now it is with reference to the middle string that Scripture states, and it shall be upon the mitre, for he placed the frontplate [together with the strings tied in the above manner] upon his head [as a kind of helmet, passing it over the mitre], and tightened it through the middle string so that it would not fall. Thus the frontplate hung in front of his forehead. All these verses are thus reconciled: the string was on the frontplate, and the frontplate upon the string, and the string on the mitre above.” All this is Rashi’s language.
But I wonder concerning Rashi’s words, for Scripture commands the making of only one blue-purple string, and he makes six! Moreover, Rashi combined the verses which tell of the command to make [the frontplate] with those which tell of the making thereof,147The verse mentioned by Rashi [And they put upon it a string of blue-purple] is found further (39:31) in connection with the actual making thereof. So how can the string mentioned in that verse be added to the one that is stated in the verse commanding the making of the frontplate? increasing the strings with the number of verses! One could count in such manner in the case of the ark, the table, and the candelabrum [two of each, since they are mentioned once in the command to make, and again in the narrative when they were actually made]! Furthermore, if Scripture commanded that they put the frontplate on a blue-purple string, how did they [do the opposite and] put a blue-purple string on it? Where were they commanded to do so? And why did they need the strings in the middle, since the frontplate was tied behind the neck, as are all frontplates which are worn by men and women?
Indeed, the matter is not as the Rabbi [Rashi] said. For there was only one string there; the plate reached from ear to ear and was pierced at its two ends and the blue-purple string was put through the two holes, the plate being thus tied behind the neck. Thus he wound the mitznepheth (mitre) around the head, not at all upon the forehead, but on the head where the hair grows. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis148Zebachim 19a. that he also left [uncovered] part of the hair of his head towards his face for the phylacteries, he wound [the mitznepheth] high above on the crown of the head, opposite the middle of the brain, covering the whole head at the back. Thus the mitznepheth lay above on the slope of the head opposite the brain, and the frontplate rested opposite his forehead from ear to ear, there being nothing intervening between his forehead and the frontplate. Thus the mitznepheth lay on the back of his head from ear to ear, opposite the whole neck, and the string which was tied to the frontplate was upon the mitznepheth. It is with reference to this that Scripture says, And thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string, meaning that he should put the string through the holes of the frontplate; and the string shall be upon the mitre behind his ears opposite the neck; towards the front of the mitre it shall be — that is, the frontplate, which shall be upon the forehead opposite the front part of the mitre. This is Scripture’s intent in stating, And thou shalt set the mitre upon his head,149Further, 29:6. that is to say, above on the crown of the head, unlike the migba’oth of which it is said, and thou shalt bind head-tires upon them,150Ibid., Verse 9. binding the head like one whose head hurts and he binds it for the purpose of strengthening the head. It further states, and thou shalt put the holy crown upon the mitre,149Further, 29:6. for it was upon the mitre that [the frontplate] was tied at the back. This is so stated: And they put upon it a string of blue-purple, to fasten it upon the mitre above,143Further, 39:31. for there upon [the mitre] the string [of the frontplate] was tied. Similarly, and upon the mitre, in front, did he set the golden plate,151Leviticus 8:9. means that he tied upon the front of the mitre the golden frontplate. Thus the term “placing” in all the verses refers to putting [the string of the frontplate] upon the mitre, for it was there that it was tied; the frontplate itself, however, was on the forehead opposite the mitre. There is then no difference between the expression And they put upon it a string of blue-purple,143Further, 39:31. and [in the verse before us] and thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string [unlike Rashi who distinguished between them], for in both cases it is as if it said, “and thou shalt place it with a blue-purple string,” “and thou shalt put a blue-purple string,” similar in usage to the expression, and thou shalt put them ‘on’ one basket,152Further, 29:3. which means “in” the basket. Likewise, escape ‘on’ thy life153Genesis 19:17. [which means “with your life,” as long as your life is in you, or “escape for your life”]. Or it may be that the word al (‘on’ — on a blue-purple string) here serves as el (to), thus stating: “and you shall put it to a blue-purple string,” “and they put a blue-purple string to it,” for the string was put [to the frontplate, and the frontplate was put] to it, for it rested on it for support. In essence, the meaning of the verses is only that they should place a string in the holes of the frontplate, and in that way it also came about that the frontplate was upon the string and the string upon the frontplate. Similarly, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof to the rings of the ephod with a string of blue-purple,154Above, Verse 28. from which Rashi brought a proof155In Rashi’s exposition of the frontplate he had explained (as mentioned above) that there were three double strings attached to it. To answer the question why Scripture speaks only of “a thread of blue-purple” in the singular, Rashi wrote (further 39:31). “Do not be puzzled because it does not say ‘threads of blue-purple,’ for we find the same thing in the case of the breastplate and the ephod, of which it is said, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof with a string of blue-purple (above, Verse 28), and you must admit that there could not have been less than two strings, for at the two ends of the breastplate were the two rings of the breastplate, and on the two shoulder pieces of the ephod were two rings opposite them. Now according to the way the breastplate was tied on, there were four threads, and under any circumstance it could not have been less than two [and yet Scripture speaks only of ‘a string’ of blue-purple]!” — To this proof of Rashi, Ramban answers that reference is only to one string, as explained in the text. [that there were three double strings in the frontplate], also refers to only one string, which they put through the rings of the breastplate and the rings of the ephod opposite them; so also on the other side there was one string, for these were two [separate] places, and in each place they tied [the breastplate by the rings thereof] with one string [of blue-purple to the rings of the ephod].
But I wonder concerning Rashi’s words, for Scripture commands the making of only one blue-purple string, and he makes six! Moreover, Rashi combined the verses which tell of the command to make [the frontplate] with those which tell of the making thereof,147The verse mentioned by Rashi [And they put upon it a string of blue-purple] is found further (39:31) in connection with the actual making thereof. So how can the string mentioned in that verse be added to the one that is stated in the verse commanding the making of the frontplate? increasing the strings with the number of verses! One could count in such manner in the case of the ark, the table, and the candelabrum [two of each, since they are mentioned once in the command to make, and again in the narrative when they were actually made]! Furthermore, if Scripture commanded that they put the frontplate on a blue-purple string, how did they [do the opposite and] put a blue-purple string on it? Where were they commanded to do so? And why did they need the strings in the middle, since the frontplate was tied behind the neck, as are all frontplates which are worn by men and women?
Indeed, the matter is not as the Rabbi [Rashi] said. For there was only one string there; the plate reached from ear to ear and was pierced at its two ends and the blue-purple string was put through the two holes, the plate being thus tied behind the neck. Thus he wound the mitznepheth (mitre) around the head, not at all upon the forehead, but on the head where the hair grows. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis148Zebachim 19a. that he also left [uncovered] part of the hair of his head towards his face for the phylacteries, he wound [the mitznepheth] high above on the crown of the head, opposite the middle of the brain, covering the whole head at the back. Thus the mitznepheth lay above on the slope of the head opposite the brain, and the frontplate rested opposite his forehead from ear to ear, there being nothing intervening between his forehead and the frontplate. Thus the mitznepheth lay on the back of his head from ear to ear, opposite the whole neck, and the string which was tied to the frontplate was upon the mitznepheth. It is with reference to this that Scripture says, And thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string, meaning that he should put the string through the holes of the frontplate; and the string shall be upon the mitre behind his ears opposite the neck; towards the front of the mitre it shall be — that is, the frontplate, which shall be upon the forehead opposite the front part of the mitre. This is Scripture’s intent in stating, And thou shalt set the mitre upon his head,149Further, 29:6. that is to say, above on the crown of the head, unlike the migba’oth of which it is said, and thou shalt bind head-tires upon them,150Ibid., Verse 9. binding the head like one whose head hurts and he binds it for the purpose of strengthening the head. It further states, and thou shalt put the holy crown upon the mitre,149Further, 29:6. for it was upon the mitre that [the frontplate] was tied at the back. This is so stated: And they put upon it a string of blue-purple, to fasten it upon the mitre above,143Further, 39:31. for there upon [the mitre] the string [of the frontplate] was tied. Similarly, and upon the mitre, in front, did he set the golden plate,151Leviticus 8:9. means that he tied upon the front of the mitre the golden frontplate. Thus the term “placing” in all the verses refers to putting [the string of the frontplate] upon the mitre, for it was there that it was tied; the frontplate itself, however, was on the forehead opposite the mitre. There is then no difference between the expression And they put upon it a string of blue-purple,143Further, 39:31. and [in the verse before us] and thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string [unlike Rashi who distinguished between them], for in both cases it is as if it said, “and thou shalt place it with a blue-purple string,” “and thou shalt put a blue-purple string,” similar in usage to the expression, and thou shalt put them ‘on’ one basket,152Further, 29:3. which means “in” the basket. Likewise, escape ‘on’ thy life153Genesis 19:17. [which means “with your life,” as long as your life is in you, or “escape for your life”]. Or it may be that the word al (‘on’ — on a blue-purple string) here serves as el (to), thus stating: “and you shall put it to a blue-purple string,” “and they put a blue-purple string to it,” for the string was put [to the frontplate, and the frontplate was put] to it, for it rested on it for support. In essence, the meaning of the verses is only that they should place a string in the holes of the frontplate, and in that way it also came about that the frontplate was upon the string and the string upon the frontplate. Similarly, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof to the rings of the ephod with a string of blue-purple,154Above, Verse 28. from which Rashi brought a proof155In Rashi’s exposition of the frontplate he had explained (as mentioned above) that there were three double strings attached to it. To answer the question why Scripture speaks only of “a thread of blue-purple” in the singular, Rashi wrote (further 39:31). “Do not be puzzled because it does not say ‘threads of blue-purple,’ for we find the same thing in the case of the breastplate and the ephod, of which it is said, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof with a string of blue-purple (above, Verse 28), and you must admit that there could not have been less than two strings, for at the two ends of the breastplate were the two rings of the breastplate, and on the two shoulder pieces of the ephod were two rings opposite them. Now according to the way the breastplate was tied on, there were four threads, and under any circumstance it could not have been less than two [and yet Scripture speaks only of ‘a string’ of blue-purple]!” — To this proof of Rashi, Ramban answers that reference is only to one string, as explained in the text. [that there were three double strings in the frontplate], also refers to only one string, which they put through the rings of the breastplate and the rings of the ephod opposite them; so also on the other side there was one string, for these were two [separate] places, and in each place they tied [the breastplate by the rings thereof] with one string [of blue-purple to the rings of the ephod].
Em LaMikra
And they shall make for themselves, fringes (tzitzit): It is a sign of their priesthood, of their eternal priesthood, as it is written (Exodus 19:6), "And you will be to Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." And just as the Children of Aharon are separated from other Jews by their clothing, because they are priests of our nation; so too is Israel separated from the nations with their clothing. For they are the priests of the entire [human] specie. And I see an amazing similarity: For with the high priest, it states (Exodus 28:36), "And you shall make a tzitz (diadem) of pure gold"; and with Israel it states, "And they shall make for themselves, tzitzit on the corners of their garments." With the high priest, it states (Exodus 39:31), "They put on it a greenish-blue string (ptil tekhelet)"; and with Israel, it states "and they will place with the fringes of each corner a greenish-blue string." And you will not find, "a greenish-blue string" anywhere besides these two articles. With the high priest, it states (Exodus 28:36), "and engrave on it, etc., 'Holy unto the Lord'"; and with Israel, it is stated, "In order that you shall remember, etc. and you shall be holy to your God." With the high priest, it states (Exodus 28:38), "And it shall be on his forehead always, for favor upon them before the Lord"; and with Israel, it is stated, "and you will look upon it and you will remember etc. and you will not search, etc." And even though it is written, tzitz, with the high priest; whereas it is written, tzitzit, with the commanded shawl (talit), the derivation of the word [in both cases] is the same. For both of them are from the expression, flower and bud (tzitz). And that is why hair on the head is called, tzitzit - since they are like buds that emerge from a sapling and from a tree. And likewise did Rabbi Abarbanel understand it. As he wrote that the emergence of the flower and the bud from the staff of Aharon was because the high priesthood was fit for him. And [he wrote as follows]: And since it stated (Numbers 17:23), "vayatzetz tzitz (and it had blossomed a blossom,)," it taught that Aharon was designated for the high priesthood and would merit the garments of the high priesthood. For the tzitz is the greatest in stature among them. To here [are his words]. Behold he made the tzitz of the high priest to be like the matter of, "it had put forth a sprouting-flower, it had blossomed a blossom." And this is in the fashion that we wrote. And likewise are the children of a person called, tzetzaim; and so too is the expression, tzitz and tzitzit, one of going out and of giving birth. It is true that this is not the opinion of Gesenius about the word, tzitz. For he wrote that it is called this as it emits splendor, since it shines. But, if so, it would have been appropriate to also call the other articles of gold that were on the high priest and the Temple [this], since they [also] shine - especially the breastplate and the stones of the smock (ephod). And do not argue that it is [so described] from the word, urim (associated with lights, orim) and tumim! For the urim and tumim are not the stones themselves. As it is written thus (Exodus 28:30): "Place in the breastplate the urim and tumim." It is [then] a proof from there that the urim are not the stones. But if you want to say that the tzitz of the high priest is from an expression of light, tzitzit is also close to this. As it appears that it can be resolved as being from this idea, and that such is [actually] more acceptable than the [connection to the] tzitz itself. For behold, it is written explicitly about tzitzit, "and you will look upon it," Behold, it was given for seeing. And, if so, it is probable to say it is from the [same] usage as, "peering (metzitz) [through] the lattice" (Song of Songs 2:9). But we have not found a proof for the golden tzitz, except that which we have found in the words of our Rabbis that he should not remove his thoughts from it. And behold that is mental sight, similar to, "and you will look upon it," concerning the tzitzit. And now I thought to point out some of the other similarities that are between them, meaning between the commanded talit and the priestly garments. And they are really amazing! For they will show to anyone who speaks truth in his heart that all of the words of our mouth [here] are right: 1] In the making of the strings of the tzitzit, it is learned in the Sifrei, that it needs to be twisted. As it is learned that, "greenish-blue" is [also] found about the tabernacle - just like there [the fibers must be] twisted, here too [they must be] twisted. And how pleasant are these words of the Sifrei, and the comparison to the tabernacle, in that it is the place of priestly service, so that the priestly garments are also included. And even though the Rambam did not mention this to be the law, the Raavad (on Mishneh Torah, Laws of Fringes 1:10), may his memory be blessed, nevertheless already objected against this. And even the Kesef Mishneh, whose approach is to defend the Rambam, found almost nothing to say. And the Rambam himself in his answer to the Sages of Lunel, concluded [as follows]: And I do not have any other proof about this. And the Rabbi, Kesef Mishneh, commented well with [these words]: And it appears that because he saw those weaknesses in his words, he wrote, "And I do not have any other proof about this." 2] The four [sets of] fringes impede one another (all of them must be present to be effective, Menachot 28, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Fringes 1). And likewise a high priest who served with less then eight [priestly] garments or a simple priest with less than four, is called lacking garments (and so, is ineffective, Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those Who Serve Therein 10). 3] How do we make fringes, etc. One puts in four strings and doubles them up in the middle. It comes out that there will be eight strands hanging down from the corner (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Fringes 1:6). And with the priestly garments, any place that it states, twisted, the string must be made of eight [strands]. Moreover, Item 1 can be said [here also], that it is learned that the fringes must be twisted from the twisting of the tabernacle. 4] It is permissible to enter a toilet or a bathhouse with fringes. If the white or greenish-blue strings get severed, they can be thrown to the trash heap, since it is a commandment that has no holiness in its substance (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Fringes 3:9). It is [similarly] permissible to derive benefit form priestly garments, even not during the time of service. (Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those Who Serve Therein 8). And while priestly garments do have holiness in their substance, it is the opinion of the Ritva that they are not holy in their substance in the same way as the serving vessels, but their law is rather one of holiness of the value, see there in the Rabbi, Mishneh LeMelekh. And likewise did the Rambam write about fringes: It is forbidden to sell a fringed garment to a non-Jew until he removes the fringes - not because there is holiness in the substance, etc. 5] And more than anything else, that which fringes is an exception to the rule, to push off the prohibition of shatnez (forbidden mixture of wool and linen) - since the greenish-blue [fabric] is wool and the Torah obligates [us] to place it in a garment of wool or of linen, this coming from the juxtaposition of, "Do not wear a forbidden mixture [..." and,] "Make yourself twisted-cords" (Deuteronomy 22:11-12) - and who will not be amazed when he remembers that forbidden mixtures are not permitted anywhere else in the entire Torah except in only one other topic, and that would be the priestly garments!?!