Parashat Hashavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion

This parasha series is dedicated
Le-zekher Nishmat HaRabanit Chana bat HaRav Yehuda Zelig zt"l.

********************************************************

PARASHAT VAYAKHEL-PEKUDEI

*********************************************************

In loving memory of Rabbi Lawrence J. Hordes z"l, dedicated by his family.

*********************************************************
Yeshivat Har Etzion joins in mourning the passing of Mrs. Rae Wolf a"h,
beloved mother of Rav Daniel Wolf, Hershel Wolf, and Dr. Barry Wolf,
after a very long illness. May the entire family be comforted among the mourners of Tzion veYerushalayim.
*********************************************************

The Efod

By Rabbanit Sharon Rimon

The parashot of Vayakhel-Pekudei describe the construction of the Mishkan, concerning which Bnei Yisrael were commanded in detail in the parashot of Teruma-Tetzaveh.

Parashat Vayakhel describes the construction of the actual Mishkan and its vessels, while Pekudei describes the fashioning of the priestly garments, and the establishment of the Mishkan.

What is the logic behind the order of the garments as addressed in the Torah?

The first garment mentioned in Parashat Pekudei is the efod:

“And from the blue and purple and scarlet they made the uniforms with which to serve in the holy place, and the fashioned the holy garments belonging to Aharon, as God had commanded Moshe.

And he made the efod…” (Shemot 39:1-2)

In our study of Parashat Tetzaveh, we noted that the breastplate (choshen) is the first garment mentioned in the command conerning the garments; this apparently reflects its importance.[1] However, in the detailed command concerning the fashioning of each garment, the breastplate does not appear first. Rather, the efod comes first, and the breatplate follows.

Why is this so? If the breastplate is indeed the most important of all the garments, why does it not appear here first? (In contrast, the detailed command concerning the Ark does come before all the other vessels of the Mishkan.)

Ibn Ezra, in his long commentary, explains as follows:

“The reason for the efod [being mentioned first] is that it is larger than the breastplate, and it must not move from the girdle.”

To Ibn Ezra’s view, the command to make the efod comes first not because it is more important than the breastplate, but simply because the breastplate is attached to the efod, and therefore it is necessary first to make the efod and only afterwards to make the breastplate and attach it. This is a logical enough explanation, but it is more appropriate as an explanation of the order in Parashat Pekudei, which describes order in which the garments were made.

 In Parashat Tetzaveh we find the actual command. The order of the command does not necessarily need to correlate with the order of its execution. It seems more logical that the order here should reflect the respective level of importance of each item (as we find in relation to the Ark), rather than the merely technical matter of the order of creating them.

Another place where we find the efod and breastplate mentioned together is where the Torah describes the the precious stones required for the Mishkan:

 “Shoham stones and stones to be inlaid in the efod and the breastplate.” (Shemot 25:7)

The exact same words appear again in Shemot 35:9, and again in verse 27, where the Torah describes the contributions being brought. It is interesting to note that in the context of the contributions, too, the efod is mentioned before the breastplate in all three places.

Both in the contribution and in the construction, the efod is mentioned before the breastplate. Why is this so?

·  Is the efod mentioned first for purely technical reasons, since the breastplate rested on and was fastened to the efod, and therefore the efod had to be made first? Perhaps the efod is nothing more than the basis for the breastplate, devoid of any independent importance, such that its creation is the first stage in the fashioning of the breastplate, and it is for this reason that it is mentioned only in relation to the breastplate.

·  Alternatively, it may be that the efod is mentioned first for exactly the opposite reason – to emphasize its own importance. Perhaps, in a certain sense, the efod is more important than the breastplate.

·  Is the efod simply a garment to which the breastplate is attached, or does it have some independent signficance?

What is the efod? In what way does its function differ from that of the breastplate?

In order to attain a better understanding of why the efod is mentioned first, and the relationship between it and the breastplate,  let us review the fashioning of the efod as described in Parashat Tetzaveh:[2]

“They shall make the efod with gold, blue, and purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen; an artistic creation.” (Shemot 28:6)

The efod was made from fabric that was woven from five different types of thread that were spun together into a single fiber.

The Torah provides no description as to how the efod itself looked; it tells us only how the shoulderpieces and the girdle should look:

“It shall have two shoulder-pieces joined to its two edges, and it shall be joined.

And the finely wrought girdle of the efod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, in accordance with its fashioning: gold, blue and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.” (7-8)

Rashi, commenting on the efod in 28:4, notes:[3]

“I have neither heard nor found in any Beraita an explanation of its form; I imagine that it was worn at the back and was as wide as the girth of a man’s back, like a sort of apron that the ministers wear when they ride upon horses. So was its fashioning from below…."

Since neither the Torah nor any Beraita describe how the efod looked, Rashi is forced to imagine its appearance, based on existing forms of clothing.

To his view, the efod is a sort of long apron that is worn at the back, open at the front, and tied in the front.

The Torah makes no mention of this part of the efod. It addresses only the shoulder pieces and the girdle.

Why does Rashi add a part that appears nowhere in the Torah? Why does he not conclude that the shoulder pieces and the girdle are themselves the efod?

Rashi, in fact, raises this question, and answers it:

“We cannot say that it posessed only a girdle, for it is written, 'He put upon him the efod' (Vayikra 8:7) – and then afterwards, 'And girded him with the wrought girdle of the efod'… Thus, we conclude that the 'artistically wrought girdle' is a belt, while the efod is an independent article of decoration.

Nor can we say that what is referred to as the efod is the two shoulder pieces, for the Torah states, 'The two shoulder pieces of the efod' (27). Thus, we conclude that there is an efod, there are shoulder pieces, and there is a girdle.

Therefore I conclude that the name efod refers to the apron [that hangs] down, since he [the kohen] is bound and decorated by means of it, as it is written, 'And he bound him with it' (Vayikra 8:7) The girdle is the belt at the top of it, and the shoulder pieces are attached to it.”

The Torah describes the shoulder pieces and the girdle as being joined to the efod; hence, they themselves cannot be the efod.

The efod itself, then, is not described in the Torah[4]. According to Rashi, it is sort of long apron that is worn at the back and tied in front.

Shoulder pieces of the efod:

How are the shoulder pieces meant to look? The description in the text is not altogether clear, and there is some controversy in this regard. To Rashi’s view (commenting on verse 6), the shoulder pieces were attached to the efod from behind, and then came up to hook over the kohen’s shoulders.[5]

What is the “wrought girdle”?

The “wrought girdle” is the belt by means of which the efod is tied.

The verse emphasizes, “It shall be of the same, in accordance with its fashioning.” From here Rashi deduces that “it is woven together with it; it is not to be woven alone and then attached to it.” In other words, when the efod is woven, the top part of it is made longer, so as to create a belt with which to tie the efod.

The Shoham Stones

“And you shall take two Shoham stones, and engrave upon them the names of the children of Israel.

Six of their names on one stone, and the names of the six others on the other stone, according to their birth.

With the work of an engraver in stone, like the engravings of a signet, shall you engrave the two stones with the names of the children of Israel; you shall place them in settings of gold.

And you shall place the two stones upon the shoulder pieces of the efod…” (9-12)

On the shoulder pieces of the efod, upon the kohen’s shoulders, there were two gold settings – one on each side; each of them held a Shoham stone.

The Shoham stones were engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel – six names on each stone.

There are differences of opinion as to the order in which the names were written on the stones. According to Rashi, they were written in order of their birth.[6]

The second part of verse 12 describes the function of these stones set in the shoulder pieces worn by the kohen:

“… As stones of remembrance for the children of Israel; and Aharon shall bear their names before God, upon his two shoulders, as a remembrance.”

The purpose of the Shoham stones on the shoulder pieces of the efod is reminiscent of the function of the stones set in the breastplate. In verse 29 we read, concerning the stones of the breastplate:

“Aharon shall bear the names of the children of Israel… as a remembrance before God at all times.”

Aharon’s bearing of the names of the children of Israel, as a remembrance, before God, includes all three elements that were also mentioned in relation to both the breastplate and the efod. On the basis of the similarity between the function of the breastplate (mentioned in verse 29) and the function of the efod (mentioned in verse 12), it would seem that the efod and the breastplate share the same function.

Is something here superfluous?

Is there indeed no difference between the efod and the breastplate? Do they share the same function of bearing the names of the children of Israel as a remembrance before God?

If our conclusion was indeed that both share the same function, then we could explain why the efod appears before the breatplate. The Torah would be seeking to teach us that the efod itself, too (independently of the breastplate) plays a role in the “bearing of the names of the children of Israel as a memorial before God." However, if we adopted this view, we would have to ask: what need is there for two garments that both share exactly the same function? Isn’t one of them redundant?

Obviously, the breastplate cannot be redundant, since it also has another function: it is not only a set of stones bearing the naes of Bnei Yisrael before God; it also contains the “urim and tumim,” by virtue of which the breastplate becomes the “breastplate of judgment,” facilitating inquiries of God. This other function of the breastplate is mentioned in verse 30, and there is no parallel function in the case of the efod. If the breastplate has an additional function that does not exist in the case of the efod, then clearly the breastplate cannot be redundant.

This leads us to consider the possibility that the efod is redundant. After all, if the breastplate alone also fulfills the function of bearing the names of Bnei Yisrael before God, then what need is there for the efod?

Perhaps the efod is indeed devoid of any inherent significance; perhaps its entire purpose is to serve as the basis to which the breastplate is attached. However, this does not seem possible: the Torah emphasizes that upon the efod there are Shoham stones, and these have an independent function: bearing the names of Bnei Yisrael as a memory before God.

In light of this it would seem that the efod does, in fact, have its own independent significance, unrelated to the breastplate. If we were to hear of the breastplate, and only afterwards be introduced to the efod, we would think that the function of the efod - to bear the names of Bnei Yisrael before God -  applies only when the breastplate is attached to it. However, by describing the efod first, rather than the breastplate, the Torah emphasizes that even without the breastplate, the efod has an important function. In other words, is has a function in its own right.

Aside from this, we may deduce from a careful study of the language of the verses that the efod and the breastplate have signficant roles that differ from one another, and therefore it is clear that each of them has its own independent importance.

In verses 29-30, which describe the function of the breastplate, emphasis is placed on the expression, “before God.” Likewise, in Bamidbar 27, describing the function of the breastplate, the expression “before God” appears.

In contrast, when it comes to the efod, it is the matter of “memorial” or “memory” that is emphasized. In verse 12, describing the role of the ‘efod,’ the word “zikaron - memorial” appears twice - at the beginning of the description of the role of the efod, and at the end, such that a framework is created that highlights the “memory”:

“Stones of memorial for the children of Israel; and Aharon shall bear their names before God, upon his two shoulders, as a memorial.”

In Parashat Pekudei (39:7), too, the Torah teaches:

“He put them on the shoulders of the efod – stones of memorial for Bnei Yisrael.”

In Parashat Pekudei, the function of the efod is described very briefly. When the function of the efod is compressed in this way, the crux of it stands out clearly: the essence of the efod is the matter of “remembrance.”

      In contrast, with regard to the breastplate, the Torah teaches:

“Aharon shall bear the names of Bnei Yisrael… as a memorial before God, at all times.

And you shall place upon the breastplate of judgment the urim and the tumim, and they shall be upon Aharon’s heart when he comes in before God, and Aharon shall bear the judgment of Bnei Yisrael upon his heart, before God, at all times.” (29-30)

Attention should be paid here to the difference: the crux of the role of the efod is to serve as a memorial for Bnei Yisrael. The breastplate, on the other hand, is meant mainly to be “before God.” Admittedly, the breastplate is also “a remembrance,” and the matter of “before God” is mentioned in connection with the efod, too, but these are not the most central, defining symbols of these garments.

What is the significance of the “remembrance”?

Obviously, the implication is not that God “forgets,” and therefore needs reminding. Rather, the “memorial” invokes God’s Providence; His guidance of people’s lives.

The efod symbolizes God’s special providence towards Bnei Yisrael. When the efod is worn for the Divine service, Bnei Yisrael must remember the special relationship between them and God, with the special guidance that He gives.

The breastplate emphasizes the aspect of Bnei Yisrael standing before God. Aharon’s approach of the holy place, before God, represents all of Israel standing before God.

These two elements are strongly interdependent, and for this reason the efod and the breastplate are attached to one another. For the same reason there are also parallels in the description of their functions – to the extent that we have the impression of them sharing the same function. Nevertheless, the efod has its own importance and significance, and the fact that it is described prior to the breastplate, separately from it, demands that we pay attention to its uniqueness.

Only after the Torah notes the fashioning of the efod, and its function, does it go on to describe the fastening of the breastplate to the efod:

“And you shall make fittings of gold.

And you shall make them two chains of pure gold at the ends, of braided work, and you shall attach the braided chains to the fittings.” (13-14)

The efod and the breastplate both have fittings/settings of gold. Gold chains attached the golden fittings of the efod and the golden settings of the breastplate.

The efod does have its own importance and significance, but it is attached to the breastplate, and this attachment unquestionably imbues it with an added, higher significance.

The missing breastplate

If we review the biblical narratives that describe the use of the efod and the breastplate, we discover an interesting phenomenon:

·  The breastplate is never mentioned as a vessel used for inquiring of God. In fact, the breastplate is mentioned nowhere in the whole of Tanakh, except in the parashiyot dealing with the construction of the Mishkan and its vessels!

·  The urim and tumim, whose function is to facilitate inquiring of God, are mentioned only twice in this context. The first occasion concerns the appointment of Yehoshua:

“He shall stand before Elazar the kohen, and he shall seek the judgment of the urim for him, before God.” (Bamidbar 27:21)

The second occasion is during Shaul’s last battle, when he attempts to inquire of God, via the urim, and God does not answer him:

“Shaul inquired of God, but God did not answer him – neither in dreams, nor through the urim, nor by means of the prophets.” (I Shemuel 28:6)

There is no other mention of inquiring via the urim anywhere else in Tanakh.

However, we find that there are several instances of Israel inquiring of God before going out to war (as well as in certain other situations).[7] We assume that the inquiry was made via the urim and tumim, which are meant to serve as the channel for such communication. Nevertheless, it is interesting that no explicit mention is made of the fact that the urim and tumim were involved.

·  The efod, in contrast, appears in several places. It, too, is mentioned as a vessel used for inquiring of God (which is most surprising: nowhere in the Torah is there any indication that this is part of its function). The impression arising from this is that the efod is a vessel (or garment) of great importance.

Let us examine some sources that make mention of the efod:

a.        The creation of an efod for purposes of Divine service:

   Two narratives include the fashioning of an efod (i.e., an item is made, apparently similar in form to the efod of the Mishkan, but not as a garment to be worn by priests; it is apparently made of gold) that is used for Divine service:

“Gidon made it into an efod and he displayed it in his city, in Ofra, and all of Israel went astray there after it, and it became a snare to Gidon and to his household.” (Shoftim 8:27)

“The man, Mikha, had a shrine, and he made an efod and terafim, and he consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.” (Shoftim 17:5)

Obviously, in these narratives the use that is being made of the efod is unlawful, but what we learn from this is that the efod itself was significant, and therefore there was good reason to reproduce it.

b.        Efod of linen as a garment for the kohanim:

In a number of places, mention is made of the kohanim as wearing a linen efod:

“Shemuel ministered before God, as a child, girded with a linen efod.” (I Shemuel 2:18)

“…Doeg the Edomi turned and he smote the kohanim, and there died on that day eighty-five men, wearers of the linen efod.” (I Shemuel 22:18)

“David leaped about with all his might before God, and David wore a linen efod.” (II Shemuel 6:14)

In all of the above instances, it is clear that the reference is not to the efod that Moshe was commanded to make, to which the breastplate was attached. There was only one such efod, and this garment was worn only by the Kohen Gadol. As Ibn Ezra explains, in his long commentary, on verse 6:

“… The linen efod was made of some sort of linen. The efod of Moshe was not made of [linen] fabric, but rather [was woven from] gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen all together. And it was not only of the breastplate of judgment that they inquired…”

Nevertheless, we learn from here that the efod was a garment that signified either priesthood or some other important status.

c.        Description of the kohen as wearing an efod:

In God’s revelation to Eli, He says:

“I chose him out of all the tribes of Israel to minister to Me, to offer sacrifice upon My altar, to offer incense, to wear the efod before Me….” (I Shemuel 2:28)

God mentions specifically the efod as a symbol of the importance of the priesthood.

d.        Efod as a vessel by means of which to inquire of God:

The efod appears several times as a means of inquiring of God:

1.                        In the battle waged by Shaul and Yehonatan against the Pelishtim, in I Shemuel 14, mention is made of the kohen wearing the efod:

“Achiya, son of Achituv, brother of I-khavod son of Pinchas, the son of Eli, was God’s priest at Shilo, wearing an efod.” (3)

Further on in the story, we read of an attempt to inquire of God; no mention is made of the breastplate, but the account features the Ark:

“Shaul said to Achiya: Bring the Ark of God (for the Ark of God was, at that time, with Bnei Yisrael).

And it was, while Shaul was speaking to the priest, that the tumult in the camp of the Pelishtim grew increasingly great, and Shaul said to the priest, Withdraw your hand.” (18-19)

In these verses we find the efod and the Ark mentioned as being connected to the inquiry of God, but the breastplate is entirely absent.[8]

2.                        In David’s battle against Ke’ila, we read that David inquired of God by means of the efod:

“David inquired of God, saying: Shall I go and smite these Philistines…

And it was, when Evyatar, son of Ahimelekh, feld to David at Ke’ila, that he came down with an efod in his hand…

David new that Shaul had devised this evil against him, and he said to Evyatar the priest: Bring the efod.” (I Shemuel 23:2,6,9)

3. David’s battle against Amalek in Tziklag:

“David said to Evyatar, the priest… Please bring the efod to me. So Evyatar brought the efod to David.

And David inquired of God, saying: Shall I pursue this legion? Shall I catch them? And God said to him: Pursue, for you shall surely catch them, and you shall surely save.” (I Shemuel 30:7-8)

A review of all of the above verses gives rise to a difficulty: according to the Torah, inquiry of God is performed using the breastplate, by means of the urim and tumim. Why, then, is no mention made of the breastplate? Why does the text, in all of these places, refer only to the efod?

Perhaps these verses are meant to imply that it was the breastplate that was consulted, but since it is attached to the efod, the combined vessel is referred to as an efod.

In addition, the Torah itself also emphasizes that the breastplate must be fastened to the efod. In other words, the breastplate can never stand alone.