Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Yesterday, we discussed the theory posited by the Maharal and others that the ark in the mishkan bore no significance and served no function without the luchot (tablets). Therefore, in the Second Temple, when the luchot were hidden with the first, original ark, no new aron was built. Once the luchot were inaccessible, there was no purpose to having an ark.

Rav Asher Weiss (in the same piece cited yesterday - "Minchat Asher," Masekhet Bava Batra 46:8) suggests that a parallel issue forms the basis of a dispute between the Rambam and Ra'avad concerning the bigdei kehuna (priestly garments). One of the eight special garments worn by the kohen gadol, as described in Parashat Tetzaveh, is the "choshen," the breastplate, in which were situated the Urim ve-Tumim. Chazal describe the Urim ve-Tumim as a device through which the kohen gadol would miraculously receive answers to his inquiries relevant to the nation. (See, for example, the formal appointment of Yehoshua as Moshe's successor - Bemidbar 27:21.) The Rambam, in Hilkhot Beit ha-Bechira 4:1, writes that although in the Second Temple the Urim ve-Tumim did not serve their normal function of responding to the kohen's inquiries, the kohanim gedolim of that period wore it nonetheless. The Torah strictly forbids a kohen from performing the Temple service without wearing all eight priestly vestments outlined in Parashat Tetzaveh. Therefore, the Rambam explains, the Urim ve-Tumim were necessary during the Second Temple period - although they did not fill their primary role - to enable the kohen to perform the service. (This is also the position of Tosefot, Yoma 21b.) The Ra'avad, however, disagrees, advancing a strong argument against the Rambam's position. Chazal's list of the eight garments of the kohen gadol does not include the Urim ve-Tumim. These eight vestments are: the "mitznefet" (turban), kutonet (tunic), me'il (robe), avnet (belt), ephod (apron), choshen (breastplate), tzitz (frontlet), and michnisayim (breeches). As the Urim ve-Tumim does not appear in this list, how could the Rambam establish that their absence renders the kohen gadol a "mechusar begadim" (missing one or more of the priestly garments)?

Rav Weiss explains the Rambam's position in light of the Maharal's theory concerning the aron. Just as an "aron" cannot be defined as such in the absence of the tablets, so does the choshen lose its formal status if it does not contain the Urim ve-Tumim. When the Rambam considered a kohen gadol "mechusar begadim" when he does not wear the Urim ve-Tumim, he meant that the kohen is, in effect, missing the choshen. Unless it contains the Urim ve-Tumim, the choshen becomes just an ornament, not a halakhically-defined "choshen."

The Ra'avad, however, distinguishes between the aron and the breastplate in this regard. The aron loses its formal, sacred status without the luchot because it serves no other function than housing the tablets. Once it cannot fill this role, it becomes halakhically meaningless. The choshen, however, has an identity independent of the Urim ve-Tumim. For example, as Rashi comments (28:15), the choshen - referred to by the Torah as the "choshen mishpat," or the "breastplate of justice" - atones for sins involving judicial impropriety. The Urim ve-Tumim, the Ra'avad would claim, constitute an additional feature of the choshen, not its sole purpose. Therefore, a choshen retains its status even without the Urim ve-Tumim, and the Urim ve-Tumim were therefore not needed during the period of the second Mikdash.

*****

Yesterday we discussed the "choshen," the breastplate, one of the eight special garments worn by the kohen gadol, as outlined in Parashat Tetzaveh. The Gemara in Masekhet Shabbat (139a) writes that wearing the choshen was a particularly great privilege and honor bestowed upon Aharon. He earned this unique merit for his warm, welcoming response to Moshe's appointment to leadership. Back in Parashat Shemot, God bid Moshe to return to Egypt and represent Benei Yisrael before Pharaoh and demand their release. His older brother, Aharon, was to fill the subordinate role of "spokesman." Yet, God promised, when Moshe would return to Egypt and inform Aharon of this arrangement, Aharon will be overjoyed (Shemot 4:14). In reward for the "joy of his heart," as described in that verse, Aharon wore the sacred breastplate upon his heart.

A different Midrash, however, points to a different quality of Aharon ha-Kohen. Shemot Rabba 38:6 writes that he earned the unique privilege of donning the priestly garments because of his "yegi'a ba-Torah," his diligent effort in Torah study.

Rav Avraham Pam zt"l, as quoted by his student, Rabbi Shalom Smith (The Pleasant Way, p. 102-104), explains that these two qualities of Aharon noted by the Midrash very closely relate to one another. Aharon's favorable reaction to Moshe's leadership reflected the relative unimportance he attributed to prestige and honor. The mantle of leadership and the glory associated therewith meant little to Aharon; he therefore never objected to Moshe's appointment as his superior. This attitude may very well have resulted from his intensive engagement in Torah study. Significantly, the Midrash does not describe Aharon as having studied Torah, but rather that he "exerted himself" - "yegi'a" -in Torah. Intensive Torah study affects one's priorities and puts all his worries, concerns, interests and desires into perspective. The serious student applies maximum effort into resolving a certain difficulty in the Rambam or clarifying the view of Tosefot; he is too preoccupied to concern himself with petty competition over prestige and honor.

This is certainly not to say that anyone who studies Torah is automatically freed from dreams of power and glory. It is worth reiterating the Midrash's use of the word "yegi'a" as opposed to just "limud" (study). Maximum effort in Torah scholarship helps one build a proper, balanced priority scale, so that only that which should concern a serious ben/bat Torah weighs on his mind.

*****

Today we will continue our discussion of the "choshen," the breastplate worn by the kohen gadol, as described in Parashat Tetzaveh (28:15-30). The Torah writes that twelve precious stones were to be set in the breastplate, with the names of the twelve tribes engraved on the stones (see 28:21). Chazal (Shemot Rabba 38:11; Yoma 73b) add that besides the names of the twelve tribes, the names of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov also appeared on the stones of the choshen. The purpose of the inscription of the names of the tribes is explicit in the parasha: "Aharon shall carry the names of Benei Yisrael on the choshen ha-mishpat on his heart when he enters the Sanctuary, as an eternal remembrance before God" (28:29). By carrying the names of the tribes on his heart as he performed the service, the kohen gadol associated his sacred work with the people he represented; the effect of his activity thus spread to the nation. But why would he carry the names of the patriarchs, as well?

Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson (Divrei Shaul, Mahadura Revi'a) suggests that the patriarchs' names represent the single root that unifies the disparate elements among Benei Yisrael. As the high priest enters the Temple to achieve atonement on behalf of his constituency, he recognizes the fact that the nation consists of a wide range of ethical and religious conduct; many elements within the nation have strayed and are independently undeserving of God's compassion. A close look at the nation may lead to the discouraging conclusion that it may not be worthy for the divine grace the kohen gadol seeks to invoke. The merit of the patriarchs, however, the source and foundation of Am Yisrael, allows for the possibility of expiation. The kohen brings to the Almighty the sacred foundation of His people, the general character and qualities thaindeed render them worthy of His kindness. Whilan examination of the individual "tribes" may invite criticism, a look at the nation's overall nature warrants compassion and forgiveness.

However, we cannot overlook the fact that the Torah chooses to omit any mention of the patriarchs' names in its illustration of the choshen. (Indeed, many different opinions exist as to the precise layout and appearance of the stones on the choshen and the arrangement of all the names.) Why? If, as Rav Nathanson suggests, the names of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov served such a critical function in the effectiveness of the choshen, why would the Torah mention only the names of the tribes?

If we follow the model we have developed, then the Torah may have wished to underscore the immense burden of responsibility weighing on the kohen gadol's shoulders as he entered the Mikdash on behalf of the nation. From his perspective, he carries only the names of the individual tribes, he represents the entire gamut of Am Yisrael, including all the different groups, factions, and levels of observance. While the merit of the patriarchs undoubtedly accompanies him as he petitions the Almighty on Am Yisrael's behalf, he must focus his attention on the individual elements among the nation that he represents.

This is perhaps the most difficult responsibility of any religious leader - to concern himself with all segments of his constituency, rather than ignoring certain elements while relying on their "zekhut avot." A leader must accept responsibility for everyone he is supposed to represent, and work towards the betterment of the entirety of the Jewish people.

*****

Parashat Tetzaveh concludes with the discussion of the mizbach ha-zahav, or mizbach ha-ketoret, the incense altar that was situated inside the mishkan. Many commentators have noted an obvious difficulty in the structure of the Torah's presentation of the mishkan and its accessories. By and large, beginning from Parashat Teruma, the Torah proceeds from the innermost chamber of the mishkan outward. After first introducing the aron (ark), situated in the mishkan's interior, the Torah moves on to the outer chamber, which contained the menorah and show-bread table. The Torah then describes the physical structure of the mishkan, the copper altar situated outside, and then the miscellaneous accessories and requirements unrelated to the physical structure of the mishkan: the priestly vestments, the consecration of the kohanim, etc. Clearly, the mizbach ha-zahav belongs in chapter 25, alongside the Torah's presentation of the menorah and shulchan (table), which were situated together with the mizbach ha-zahav in the outer chamber of the Tabernacle. Yet, the Torah delays the discussion of this altar until after it completes its illustration of the entire mishkan. Why?

Many answers have been suggested; we will focus on one suggestion by Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his "Oznayim le-Torah." Instinctively, when assessing the two altars in the mishkan, one might conclude that the golden incense altar exceeds its copper counterpart - the mizbach ha-ola - in importance and significance. Besides the difference in materials - the incense altar is plated with gold and the mizbach ha-ola with copper - their locations are also quite suggestive: the mizbach ha-zahav is situated inside the mishkan, whereas the mizbach ha-ola is placed outside in the courtyard surrounding the Tabernacle. What more, while the mizbach ha-ola is the site of animal and meal offerings, the mizbach ha-zahav is used exclusively for the fragrant incense, which Chazal refer to as "the choicest of all offerings."

In order to counter such a notion, the Torah excluded the section dealing with the golden altar from the main body of the mishkan's description. In this way, Chumash dispels the possible bias towards the mizbach ha-zahav.

Understanding the underlying symbolism behind the different areas of the mishkan may yield a greater appreciation for this approach. The mishkan's interior, which houses the Ark of the Covenant, the menorah, table and mizbach ha-zahav, may symbolize absolute purity, the abstract ideals of the Torah untainted by contact with the mundane. Everything situated inside the mishkan is plated or made from pure gold, the symbol of total purity. The courtyard surrounding the mishkan, by contrast, represents the complex encounter between those pristine ideals and the realities of mundane life. The occupants of the courtyard are thus made from silver or copper rather than gold. One's natural instinct may afford exclusive importance to the abstract ideals themselves, and undermine the significance of their application to the world of the mundane. Such an encounter might be seen as an unfortunate compromise and something we ought to avoid. The "relegation" of the mizbach ha-zahav may come to teach us that this is not the case. We cannot separate the Torah's ideals and principles from their real-life, practical application. What we learn and experience through prayer and study in our synagogues and educational institutions mustn't remain within the confines of those institutions; neither can one permanently withdraw from practical living and dwell exclusively inside the purely spiritual domain of the mishkan. The implementation of the Torah's ideals within mundane life is as important, meaningful and significant as the ideals themselves.

*****

The first half of Parashat Tetzaveh describes the various "bigdei kehuna," the priestly vestments worn by Aharon and his sons. God bids Moshe to call upon "those wise of heart" to fashion the special garments in accordance with God's instructions, outlined in this parasha. As this charge is directed generically towards all who meet the qualification of "wise at heart," it appears that members of all tribes could participate in this task. Rav Aharon Lewin, in his "ha-Derash ve-ha-Iyun," notes that this invitation to artisans of all tribes may call into question the view of Rabbenu Tam, cited in Tosefot, Masekhet Gittin (45b) concerning the preparation of other mitzva materials. Rabbenu Tam is of the view that women, who are exempt from the mitzvot of tzitzit and arba minim (the four species taken on Sukkot), may not tie tzitzit onto a garment or bind together the arba minim to prepare them for the mitzva. Tzitzit and arba minim are suitable for use only if they are prepared by someone himself included in the obligation. Rav Lewin notes, however, that the institution of the bigdei kohen should perhaps dictate otherwise. If the Torah permitted non-kohanim to manufacture the kohanim's garments, then it seemingly allows for the preparatory stages of a given mitzva to be performed by those not bound by it.

Rav Lewin suggests distinguishing between bigdei kehuna on the one hand and the cases addressed by Rabbenu Tam on the other. Rabbenu Tam worked under the assumption that a strong connection exists between a mitzva and the necessary preparation for its execution. On one level or another, preparing an object for mitzva use is included as part of the performance of the mitzva; only this can explain why the preparatory stages must be performed by someone obligated in that particular mitzva. This is not the case, however, with regard to the priestly garments. Fashioning the garments and wearing them constitute two distinct obligations. Just as all of Benei Yisrael were commanded to contribute towards the construction of the mishkan and all its components and accessories, so were they obligated to produce the priestly garments. Thus, once we separate the fashioning of the bigdei kehuna - which constitutes an independent requirement, beyond its preparatory nature, from the kohanim's donning of the garments, we may allow non-kohanim to manufacture the garments.

*****

Parashat Tetzaveh outlines eight garments worn by the kohanim; four are reserved exclusively for the kohen gadol, while the other four are worn by both the kohen gadol and other kohanim. One of the garments shared by both the kohen gadol and regular kohanim was the "avnet," the belt (28:39-40). Chazal teus that two of the kohen gadol's special garments - the breastplate and apron - contained "sha'" (a mixture of wool and linen). Though one generally may never wear clothing made from sha'atnez, the Torah made a dispensation with regard to these garments. The kohen gadol's avnet, too, was made from sha'atnez. The Gemara in Masekhet Yoma (6a) brings a dispute as to whether the belts worn by the other kohanim also contained sha'atnez. According to one view, no garments worn by the regular kohanim were made from sha'atnez, whereas the other argues that their avnet did, indeed, contain sha'atnez.

The Sha'agat Aryeh (29) raises an interesting question relevant to either of these two views. While the Yom Kippur service may be performed only by the kohen gadol, throughout the year the standard sacrificial duties may be carried out by any kohen. Of course, a kohen gadol may also perform the service throughout the year. Now a kohen or kohen gadol must wear all his required garments when performing the avoda in the Mikdash. It thus turns out that when the kohen gadol wishes to perform the avoda, he dons generally forbidden sha'atnez material. According to the view that none of the standard kohanim's garments contained sha'atnez, what right does the kohen gadol have to voluntarily bring about a situation requiring the overriding of a Torah prohibition? If the avoda is perfectly valid when performed by a regular kohen, who can execute the given tasks without having to override a prohibition, why would we allow the kohen gadol to volunteer to perform the service? The Sha'agat Aryeh adds that this question applies as well to the second view, that the even the standard kohen's garments contained sha'atnez. Since a kohen gadol wears three garments containing sha'atnez, whereas the standard kohen (according to this view) wears only one, the same problem arises: why would we allow the kohen gadol to necessitate overriding additional prohibitions?

The Sha'agat Aryeh concludes that the kohen gadol's donning of sha'atnez garments does not involve "overriding" ("dechiya") a Biblical prohibition. Rather, the Torah canceled altogether (rather than merely suspended) the sha'atnez prohibition in the context of the avoda in the Temple. This prohibition is not overridden by the mitzva of performing the service; it rather does not even apply to this setting. Hence, no problem whatsoever is involved in the kohen gadol's volunteering to bring on a situation requiring his donning of his sha'atnez garments.

Others have suggested resolving the Sha'agat Aryeh's question according to a somewhat revolutionary theory posited by Rav Yosef Rosen of Rogatchov (in his "Tzofnat Pa'anei'ach"). The Rogatchover distinguishes between the requirement of wearing the bigdei kehuna with regard to the kohen gadol and other kohanim. The other kohanim fulfill no independent mitzva when they don their priestly garments; these garments are simply a prerequisite to their ability to perform the avoda. The kohen gadol, by contrast, performs a mitzva act by virtue of his wearing his garments, independent of the prohibition against performing the avoda without them. Thus, as the wearing of the vestments itself constitutes a mitzva, a kohen gadol may indeed volunteer to bring about a situation necessitating the wearing of sha'atnez, as the wearing itself fulfills a mitzva.

*****

One of the special garments worn by the kohen gadol, as described in Parashat Tetzaveh, is the "me'il" - the long robe woven entirely from "tekhelet "(bluish dye - Shemot 28:31-35). Chazal (Zevachim 88b) inform us that the me'il atones for the specific sin of lashon hara (gossip). Many different theories have been suggested as to which qualities of the me'il correspond to this specific transgression. The Keli Yakar views the bluish color of the me'il as a possible point of correspondence. The color of the "tekhelet" dye from which the entirety of the me'il is made resembles the color of the ocean. The ocean's waves constantly "try" to overtake the dry land, only to retreat from the earth. The ocean thus symbolizes the repression of the urge to expand beyond designated borders. Similarly, suggests the Keli Yakar, the prohibition of lashon hara sets a limit on one's mouth; it must be restricted from expansion beyond its permitted boundaries.

How are we to understand the specific relevance of this theme to the prohibition of lashon hara? After all, does not every prohibition involve, on one level or another, setting restrictions on one's activity?

We may perhaps slightly alter the Keli Yakar's approach to arrive at a deeper understanding of the prohibition against lashon hara. Every person is entitled to privacy; the Torah respects the personal domain of the individual and prohibits the unwanted intrusion of others into his private quarters. Gossip about another may be seen as "social trespassing" on that person's "private property." Meddling into the affairs of others in effect means leaving the boundary lines of one's own private life and entering the personal life of his fellow. While we are required to try and help others, rather than isolating ourselves in our own worries and concerns, purposeless intrusion into the private affairs of other people violates their basic right to privacy.

The ocean, then, indeed serves as an accurate symbol of this particular prohibition. Like the sea, an individual is assigned to his own territory and is confined to his designated area. The Nile River, as described in the Midrashim, would overflow its banks and feed streams and brooks providing invaluable irrigation for the surrounding region. To help others, we may indeed "overstep" our boundaries and concern ourselves with the lives of those around us. The salty ocean water, by contrast, is agriculturally useless at best, destructive at worst. Similarly, gossip amounts to no more or less than leaving our own lives to concern ourselves with those of others for no constructive purpose. The "me'il tekhelet," which resembles the ocean, thus atones for this most destructive sin.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il