## Or HaChaim on Exodus Chapter 28 ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:1:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:1:1) **וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ.** טַעַם אָמְרוֹ **וְאַתָּה**, גַּם אָמַר לְשׁוֹן הַקְרָבָה, גַּם אָמַר תֵּיבַת **אֵלֶיךָ**, יִתְבָּאֵר עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (שמות רבה ג,יז) כִּי הַכְּהוּנָה לְמֹשֶׁה הָיְתָה לְמָנָה, אֶלָּא לְצַד שֶׁמֵּאֵן לָלֶכֶת בִּדְבַר ה׳ אַחַר כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים חָרָה ה׳ בּוֹ וְהֵסִירוֹ מִגְּבִירַת הַכְּהוּנָה, בְּאָמְרוֹ (שמות ד:יד) ״הֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הַלֵּוִי״, פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁהָיָה לֵוִי וְעַכְשָׁיו נַעֲשָׂה כֹּהֵן, עַד כָּאן. לָזֶה אָמַר לוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה **וְאַתָּה**, פֵּרוּשׁ, לֹא לְצַד שֶׁאֲנִי מְצַוְּךָ לְבַד אֶלָּא גַּם אַתָּה מִצַּד עַצְמְךָ **הַקְרֵב** אֶת אַהֲרֹן בִּמְקוֹמְךָ וְתַעֲשֶׂה הַדָּבָר כְּאִלּוּ אַתָּה חָפֵץ בּוֹ, כִּי זֶה לְךָ בִּמְקוֹם קָרְבָּן לְכַפָּרָה עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵעַזְתָּ פָּנֶיךָ לִפְנֵי ה׳. וְאָמְרוֹ **אֵלֶיךָ** לְכַפָּרָתְךָ, בְּהַקְרִיב אֶת אַהֲרֹן וְיִתֵּן לוֹ גְּדֻלָּתוֹ, אֵין לְךָ קָרְבָּן גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרון אחיך, "And you shall bring near to you your brother Aaron, etc."** We must understand the words: "and you- bring near- to you," in light of the statement in *Shemot Rabbah* 3,17 according to which it was G'd's original plan to appoint Moses as High Priest. This was changed due to Moses' repeated refusal to accept the role assigned to him by G'd which angered G'd. As a result (Exodus 4,14), G'd told Moses that his brother Aaron who had merely been a Levite up to that point, had now been promoted to be a High Priest. When G'd commanded Moses at this point to perform the ceremonies required for Aaron to assume the office of High Priest, He told Moses that he had to make his own contribution to this ceremony so that he would not be perceived as begrudging Aaron an office which had originally been intended for him. In fact, the appointment of Aaron to this position would serve as atonement for Moses who had resisted G'd's invitation to become leader of the Jewish people at that time. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:1:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:1:2) **עוֹד** יִרְמֹז בְּאָמְרוֹ **הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ**, כִּי עַל יְדֵי חֵטְא הָאָדָם מִתְרַחֵק בְּחִינַת עָנָף נִשְׁמָתוֹ שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד אוֹתוֹ עָנָף שֶׁבּוֹ חָטָא מִשָּׁרְשׁוֹ, הַגָּדוֹל כְּפִי גָּדְלוֹ וְהַקָּטָן וְכוּ׳, וְהִנֵּה בְּאֶמְצָעוּת הַהַפְצָרוֹת שֶׁהִפְצִיר בִּשְׁלִיחוּת ה׳ גָּרַם לְהִתְרַחֲקוּת עָנָף אֶחָד מֵעַנְפֵי נִשְׁמָתוֹ מִשָּׁרְשָׁהּ, וַהֲגַם כִּי ה׳ הֶעֱנִישׁוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כָּל עוֹד שֶׁלֹּא קִבֵּל הָעֹנֶשׁ הַפְּגָם עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְהָרָחוֹק עוֹדֶנּוּ מְרֻחָק, לָזֶה בִּשְׁעַת תַּכְלִית הַדָּבָר הוֹדִיעוֹ כִּי בָּזֶה יִהְיֶה מִתְקָרֵב הָרָחוֹק, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ**, פֵּרוּשׁ, הַקְרֵב לְעַצְמְךָ, פֵּרוּשׁ לִבְחִינָתְךָ שֶׁרְחוֹקָה בְּאֶמְצָעוּת הַחֵטְא הַהוּא, וְנִתְכַּוֵּן ה׳ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ כִּי זֶה תִּקּוּנוֹ (שמות ד:יג). **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** The point mentioned last may be better understood in light of our tradition (Kabbalah) that when man opposes G'd, one of the many branches of his soul becomes detached from its holy root. At the time when Moses raised repeated objections to G'd's demand to accept the mantle of leadership, one of the branches of Moses' soul became detached from its celestial root. Although Moses had been punished for this, he had not obtained atonement until Aaron was inducted into the office of High Priest. Moses' active participation in this procedure would accelerate his atonement for this mistake. When the Torah speaks of ואתה הקרב אליך, we may understand this in the sense of "And you shall bring the estranged part of your soul close to you." G'd informed Moses that appointing Aaron would be his תקון, his rehabilitation for the error committed when he said to G'd: "send the one You are in the habit of sending (Exodus 4,13)." ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:1:3 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:1:3) וּמִזֶּה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיל עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בְּסוֹף בְּרָכוֹת (נד:) חַיָּב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה וְכוּ׳, וּמְפָרֵשׁ בַּגְּמָרָא (שם ס:) לְקַבֵּל הָרָעָה בְּשִׂמְחָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשָּׂמֵחַ בַּטּוֹבָה, עַד כָּאן. וְהָיָה הַדָּבָר קְצָת בְּעֵינַי רָחוֹק, וְעַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בָּעִנְיָן הִנֵּה הַיִּסּוּרִין הֵם מַקְרִיבִין עַנְפֵי הַנְּשָׁמָה שֶׁהָיוּ רְחוֹקִים מִשָּׁרְשָׁם, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ רַע וָמַר כְּעָזְבוֹ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו, וּבְאֶמְצָעוּת הַיִּסּוּרִין יִתְקָרֵב הָרָחוֹק, וְעַל זֶה יִשְׂמַח לֵב הַמַּשְׂכִּיל. וְאָמַר **וְעָשִׂיתָ בִגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ** וְגוֹ׳ **לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת** שֶׁהֵם הֵם סִימָנֵי הַשִּׂמְחָה שֶׁיַּרְאֶה שֶׁחָפֵץ וְדִבֵּר לְפָאֲרוֹ, אֲשֶׁר זֶה הוּא שָׂנוּי לְעוֹשֶׂה הַדָּבָר לְצַד הַהֶכְרֵחַ, וַהֲגַם שֶׁהַבְּגָדִים הֵם חוֹבַת גַּבְרָא הָעוֹמֵד לְשָׁרֵת, עִם כָּל זֶה רָצָה ה׳ לְזַכּוֹת לְגַלְגֵּל זְכוּת זֶה עַל יָדוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָם לְחִבָּה וּלְשִׂמְחָה בְּאָחִיו, וְדָבָר זֶה הוּא בְּחִינַת נְשָׁמָה לַנְּשָׁמָה בְּעִקַּר מַעֲשֶׂה זֶה. וְאוּלַי שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן ה׳ לוֹמַר לוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַבְּגָדִים מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וַהֲגַם שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ (משנה יומא פ״ג מ״ז) בִּגְדֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בָּאִים מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ שֶׁיָּחִיד יָכוֹל לְהִתְנַדְּבָם וּלְמָסְרָם לַצִּבּוּר, וּכְמוֹ כֵן צִוָּה ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** This may also help us to understand a somewhat strange imperative in *Berachot* 54 according to which a person must pronounce a blessing when he receives evil tidings just as he is obligated to pronounce a blessing when he receives glad tidings. The Talmud explains on folio 60 of that treatise that this means that even evil tidings must be welcomed with joy. I have always found this demand difficult to accept. When we consider the fact that afflictions are the instrument which reunite the branches of the soul which have separated from their holy root, it becomes easier to accept. After all, what worse fate could befall a person than that his soul become estranged from his Creator? When a person receives evil tidings this means that he suffers an affliction as a result of which the part of his soul which has become estranged to G'd will become reunited. How could a person fail to rejoice over this aspect of the afflictions he is being subjected to? ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:2:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:2:1) **וְעָשִׂיתָ וְגוֹ׳ לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת.** צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת מַה הִיא כַּוָּנַת ה׳ בְּאָמְרוֹ **לְכָבוֹד** וְגוֹ׳, אַחַר שֶׁמּוֹדִיעַ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם וְאָפְנֵיהֶם, וְאִם לְהוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁבְּגָדִים אֵלּוּ יֵשׁ בָּהֶם לְאַהֲרֹן כָּבוֹד וְתִפְאֶרֶת, מַה יֵצֵא לָנוּ מִזֶּה. וְאוּלַי שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר עַל פִּי מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּפֶרֶק אֵין מַעֲמִידִין (עבודה זרה לד,א) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בַּמֶּה שִׁמֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, לֹא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אָתָא וְשָׁאַל בֵּי מִדְרָשָׁא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: בְּחָלוּק לָבָן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אִמְרָא, עַד כָּאן. הִנֵּה מִמַּה שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה בְּשִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים בְּחָלוּק זֶה, יַגִּיד שֶׁאֵין הַבְּגָדִים מְעַכְּבִין אֶלָּא לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, אֲבָל זוּלַת הַכֹּהֲנִים תִּתְרַצֶּה עֲבוֹדַת הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת בְּלֹא בְגָדִים. וְהוּא מַה שֶׁמּוֹדִיעוֹ בְּאָמְרוֹ **כָּבוֹד** וְגוֹ׳, לוֹמַר, לֹא תַחְשֹׁב כִּי הַבְּגָדִים לְצָרְכֵי עֲבוֹדָה לְבַד, וְיִתְחַיֵּב הַדָּבָר לְלָבְשָׁם מֹשֶׁה בַּעֲבוֹדַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, וְלֹא כֵן הוּא. אֵינָם אֶלָּא לְכָבוֹד וְגוֹ׳ לַמְּשָׁרֵת קָבוּעַ לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, אֲבָל לְצַד הָעֲבוֹדָה לְבַד כְּשֶׁתִּהְיֶה בְּזוּלַת אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, יַעַבְדוּ בְּחָלוּק לָבָן, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכֵּן שִׁמֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה כַּנִּזְכָּר. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ועשית בגדי קדש לאהרון…לכבוד ולתפארת, "And you shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron for splendour and beauty."** These beautiful garments are an expression of joy, and will convince Aaron that Moses wanted him to appear robed in splendour. A person who only carries out a directive under duress does not go to the trouble of constructing such splendid garments for the person who replaces him in a role that had originally been slated for himself. Although the garments in question were **a must** for the person wearing them whenever he performed service in the Tabernacle, G'd followed the principle of allowing Moses to accumulate this merit for himself by allowing him to perform this commandment joyfully. In this instance, Moses' action represented a rapprochement between the souls of Moses and Aaron respectively. Perhaps G'd even meant that Moses should pay out of his own funds for these garments Aaron would wear during performing the functions of his new office. Although we have learned that as a rule the cost of the priestly garments was to be defrayed by the public purse (*Yuma* 3,7), the Talmud allowed for individuals to donate such garments and hand them over to the public. We need to explore the meaning of the word לכבוד, for honour, in this verse after G'd had already informed us of both the purpose and the nature of these garments. If all the Torah meant to tell us was that honour and glory would be conferred upon Aaron its wearer, what have we gained by this knowledge? Perhaps we can understand the meaning of this word by reference to *Avodah Zarah* 34. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Akiva as not having an answer concerning the question of what garments Moses wore (when he temporarily functioned as High Priest) during the seven days of the inaugural offerings of the priests. When he enquired in the academy they told him that Moses wore a white shirt while performing the service during those days. The fact that Moses wore only a white shirt during those days is clear evidence that the priestly garments themselves were not an essential part of the Temple-service except for Aaron and his sons. If any of the other priests performed the service without wearing their special garments the sacrifices offered by such priests would be acceptable to G'd. Accordingly, the word לכבוד means that these clothes are not for G'd's sake but for man's sake, merely for the sake of the image of the priest wearing them, especially when such a person was a priest on a permanent basis. Seeing Moses performed such service only on a temporary basis, he did not have to wear such garments. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:2:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:2:2) **אוֹ** יֹאמַר כִּי בָא ה׳ לָתֵת טַעַם לָמָּה צִוָּה שְׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים, אַרְבָּעָה לָבָן וְאַרְבָּעָה זָהָב, וְאָמַר הַטַּעַם הוּא **לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת.** פֵּרוּשׁ, עַל פִּי דִּבְרֵיהֶם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (הקדמת תיקונים) כִּי הַשְּׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים, אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁל בִּגְדֵי לָבָן יִרְמְזוּ אֶל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁם הֲוָיָ״ה בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְאַרְבָּעָה בִּגְדֵי זָהָב יִרְמְזוּ אֶל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁם אדנ״י. וְדַע כִּי שֵׁם הֲוָיָ״ה בָּרוּךְ הוּא יִתְיַחֵס אֵלָיו כִּנּוּי הַתִּפְאֶרֶת כַּיָּדוּעַ, וְשֵׁם אדנ״י יִתְיַחֵס אֵלָיו כִּנּוּי הַכָּבוֹד. וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **וְעָשִׂיתָ בִגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ** וְגוֹ׳ **לְכָבוֹד** כְּנֶגֶד בִּגְדֵי זָהָב, **וּלְתִפְאָרֶת** כְּנֶגֶד בִּגְדֵי לָבָן. וְסִדֵּר הַכָּתוּב סֵדֶר הַדְרָגוֹת הַקְּדֻשָּׁה זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ, וְהִקְדִּים **לְכָבוֹד**, וְהָבֵן. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** Alternatively, G'd wanted to give us a reason why the Torah commanded that the High Priest wear 8 garments, 4 made of white linen and four containing gold. The Torah says that the reason is לכבוד ולתפארת, for splendour and for beauty. We find the following comment in the introduction of *Tikkuney Ha-Zohar*. "The four white linen garments are an allusion to the four letters in the Ineffable Name, whereas the four golden garments are an allusion to the four letters in G'd's name א־ד־נ־י." We should remember that the Ineffable Name reflects G'd's attribute of תפארת, whereas G'd's name א־ד־נ־י reflects His attribute כבוד. According to this, the word לכבוד in our verse would refer to the golden garments, whereas the word לתפארת would refer to the white garments. The Torah listed varying degrees of holiness in ascending order, hence the attribute לכבוד precedes the attribute תפארת. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:2:3 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:2:3) וְצִוָּה ה׳ עֲשׂוֹת שְׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים, שֶׁבְּאֶמְצָעוּתָם יִתְכַּפֵּר פְּגָמִים אֲשֶׁר יְסַבְּבוּ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יַגִּיעַ לְמָקוֹם עֶלְיוֹן, וּבָזֶה יְכֻפַּר הֶעָוֹן הַהוּא. וּלְדֶרֶךְ זֶה יֵשׁ לָתֵת טוּב טַעַם לָמָּה הִקְפִּיד ה׳ עַל הַבְּגָדִים בְּאַהֲרֹן וְלֹא בְּמֹשֶׁה, עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (ערכין טז,א) כִּי שְׁמוֹנָה בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה מְכַפְּרִים עַל שְׁמוֹנָה מִינֵי עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר עַל כֵּן לֹא צִוָּה ה׳ הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְהַכֹּהֵן הָעוֹמֵד לְשָׁרֵת הוּא וּבָנָיו כָּל הַיָּמִים לְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן מֹשֶׁה שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶׁשִּׁמֵּשׁ בְּשִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים לֹא הָיָה אֶלָּא לְכַפָּרַת אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו לְמַלֵּא אֶת יָדָם לַעֲבֹד לִפְנֵי ה׳, לֹא הָיָה צֹרֶךְ לְמַה שֶׁיְּכַפְּרוּ הַבְּגָדִים כַּנִּזְכָּר, לָזֶה שִׁמֵּשׁ בְּחָלוּק וְגוֹ׳. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** G'd directed that eight garments were to be made for the High Priest in order for him to be able to obtain atonement for his people for the various imperfections that people are guilty of as a normal part of their lives. Aaron's wearing these garments would enable the Israelites concerned to achieve their proper place in the higher regions. Having said this, we need to understand why G'd was insistent that Aaron wear these garments whereas He did not provide similar garments for Moses to wear. The Talmud (*Erchin* 15) tells us that each of these eight garments conferred atonement for a specific type of sin. The reason that only Aaron and his sons were commanded to wear special garments was because such atonement could be obtained only by people who were intended to serve as priests all of their lives, something that did not apply in the case of Moses. Moses' function in temporarily serving as High Priest was only to obtain atonement for the sins of Aaron and his sons so that they could assume their office as priests. As a result, Moses wore only a white shirt when acting as priest. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:3:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:3:1) **וְאַתָּה תְּדַבֵּר.** טַעַם אָמְרוֹ **וְאַתָּה**, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ לְהִתְטַפֵּל בַּדָּבָר לְדַבֵּר לְחַכְמֵי לֵב, וַהֲגַם שֶׁאָמַר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ בִּגְדֵי״ וְגוֹ׳, חָזַר ה׳ וּפֵרֵשׁ דְּבָרָיו כִּי לֹא הוּא יַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא עַל פִּיו יִהְיוּ נַעֲשִׂים. וּכְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבִין שֶׁהָעִקָּר הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נַעֲשִׂים עַל פִּי מֹשֶׁה וְאֵין צֹרֶךְ בַּדָּבָר שֶׁיְּדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה מִפִּיו אֶל חַכְמֵי לֵב, לָזֶה בָּאָה הַמִּצְוָה וְאָמַר **וְאַתָּה** בְּפִיךָ **תְּדַבֵּר אֶל כָּל** וְגוֹ׳. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב, "And you are to speak to all wise-hearted men, etc."** The reason the Torah introduces this verse with the word ואתה is that Moses was to involve himself personally in speaking to those people. Although G'd had already said: "you are to make the holy garments," G'd repeated instructions to Moses here to make clear that Moses was not personally to make these garments but that they should be made at his behest. If the Torah had not issued instructions for Moses to personally speak to the artisans who were to make the garments, we would have thought that as long as these garments were made according to Moses' instructions it would not matter if he had personally charged the artisans with their task. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:3:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:3:2) וְדִקְדֵּק לוֹמַר **אֶל כָּל**, כִּי זֶה הוּא אֶחָד מִסִּימָנִים הַמֻּבְהָקִים שֶׁהַדָּבָר הוּא מֵהַשְׁלָמַת הַדַּעַת וּמֵרְצוֹן הַלֵּב, שֶׁיְּדַבֵּר הַדְּבָרִים לְכֻלָּם יַחַד. שֶׁאִם הָיָה הַדָּבָר בָּא בְּדַאֲבוֹן נֶפֶשׁ, יִשְׁתַּדֵּל לוֹמַר הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי רַבִּים, וְכָל עוֹד שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר דְּבָרָיו לִפְנֵי אֶחָד לֹא יְדַבֵּר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם, כִּי הַדָּבָר הוּא פְּחִיתוּת לְמֹשֶׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה הוּא רָאוּי לְשָׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. אֲשֶׁר עַל כֵּן צִוָּה ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת סִימָן לַדָּבָר ״אֶל כָּל חַכְמֵי לֵב״, וּבָזֶה יִוָּדַע לְעֵינֵי הַכֹּל כִּי נֶפֶשׁ חֲפֵצָה וְלֵב שָׁלֵם. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** The Torah is careful to say אל כל חכמי לב, "**to all** the wise-hearted men," as the fact that Moses would take out time to speak to all of them individually would be one of the signs demonstrating that he was personally anxious that Aaron be provided with such splendid robes. Had he not been enthusiastic about this task, Moses would have delegated as much of this task as he could and would certainly not have addressed every single artisan who was active in their construction. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:3:3 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:3:3) **עוֹד** נִרְאֶה כִּי טַעַם שֶׁאָמַר ה׳ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה פְּסוּקִים אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים **וְאַתָּה**, כִּי בָא לָתֵת לוֹ מַעֲלָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים, וְהֵם: נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן בִּכְלָלוּתֶיהָ אֶחָד, וּמְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְכֵלָיו וּבִגְדֵי כְּהוּנָה אֶחָד, וַעֲבוֹדַת בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶחָד. וְאָמַר ה׳ אֵלָיו כִּי הוּא נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר כְּאִלּוּ הוּא עָשָׂה הַכֹּל. כְּנֶגֶד הֲבָאַת נִדְבַת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אָמַר **וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה** וְגוֹ׳, וְאֵלֶיךָ הֵם מְבִיאִין, וְהוּא מַה שֶׁגָּמַר אוֹמֶר **וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ**, פֵּרוּשׁ, אֲנִי לְךָ מְצַוֶּה לְהָבִיא וְהֵם יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת. וּכְנֶגֶד מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אָמַר **וְאַתָּה תְּדַבֵּר אֶל כָּל חַכְמֵי לֵב**, וּבָזֶה אֵינָם אֶלָּא שְׁלוּחֶיךָ. וְדִקְדֵּק לוֹמַר **אֶל כָּל** כְּדֵי שֶׁכָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נַעֲשִׂים בַּמִּשְׁכָּן יִהְיוּ נַעֲשִׂים בִּשְׁלִיחוּתְךָ וּכְאִלּוּ הוּא עֲשָׂאָם. וּכְנֶגֶד עֲבוֹדַת בֵּית ה׳ אָמַר **וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ אֶת אַהֲרֹן** וְגוֹ׳, שֶׁיָּבֹא וְיַעֲבֹד בִּשְׁלִיחוּתְךָ, וְלָזֶה דִּקְדֵּק לוֹמַר **אֵלֶיךָ.** וּלְטַעַם זֶה מְצַוֶּה ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּמְלַאכְתּוֹ וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ לְנוֹכֵחַ, כִּי אַחַר הָאֱמֶת עָלָיו הוּא הַמְּצֻוֶּה, אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּוָּה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא יְצַוֶּה אֲחֵרִים בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** Furthermore, the reason that the Torah employs the word ואתה no less than three times in these five verses is a sign that Moses would enjoy the merit of performing three distinct services in connection with the building of the Tabernacle. He would receive credit for a) issuing the instructions to bring the donations enabling the Tabernacle to be built; b) for the overall instructions for building Tabernacle including its furnishings and the priestly garments; c) for the service that would be performed in the Holy Tabernacle as a result of his being instrumental in the Tabernacle being built. This was one of the reasons G'd said that the Israelites were **to take things** to him, or to **bring** things to him, or why he was to speak personally to all the wise-hearted men. All of this made Moses a messenger of the people. It would therefore be accounted for him as if he himself had performed every single activity connected with the project. The instruction to bring Aaron close to himself meant that when Aaron would perform the Temple service he would also do so as Moses' messenger. This is why the Torah was careful to write: אליך, "to you." The above-mentioned considerations also account for G'd' issuing these instructions to Moses in direct speech rather than in the third person describing what the individuals who actually fashioned the Tabernacle and its furnishings were to do. G'd meant for Moses to issue directives for others to carry out the work. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:4:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:4:1) **וְאֵלֶּה הַבְּגָדִים וְגוֹ׳.** קָשֶׁה לָמָּה לֹא מָנָה הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה בְּגָדִים וְהִשְׁמִיט צִיץ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּמִכְנָסַיִם? וְאוּלַי שֶׁרְמָזָם הַכָּתוּב שְׁנֵיהֶם, הַצִּיץ רְמָזוֹ בְּפָסוּק שֶׁלִּפְנֵי זֶה **וְעָשׂוּ אֶת בִּגְדֵי אַהֲרֹן לְקַדְּשׁוֹ**, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה נִצְרָךְ לוֹמַר אֶלָּא ״וְאֵלֶּה הַבְּגָדִים״ וְגוֹ׳, אֶלָּא נִתְכַּוֵּן אֶל הַצִּיץ שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּיר בְּפָסוּק ״וְאֵלֶּה הַבְּגָדִים״. וְלָזֶה אָמַר ״לְאַהֲרֹן״ וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר לְבָנָיו כִּי לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן אֶלָּא עַל הַצִּיץ. וְאָמְרוֹ לְשׁוֹן רַבִּים לְצַד שֶׁהוּא לְבַדּוֹ לֹא יוֹעִיל כִּי שְׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, לָכֵן אָמַר עָלָיו לְשׁוֹן רַבִּים. וּבָזֶה יְדֻיַּק גַּם כֵּן אָמְרוֹ **וְאֵלֶּה** שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמוֹסִיף עַל בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים, לְצַד שֶׁכְּבָר קָדַם וְצִוָּה עַל קְצָת, וְלֹא הֻצְרַךְ לְבָאֵר כִּי סָמַךְ עַל מַה שֶׁעָתִיד הוּא לְפָרְטָם אֶחָד אֶחָד, וּבִפְרָטָן תִּמְצָא מְבֹאָר הָרָמוּז. וּכְנֶגֶד הַמִּכְנָסַיִם, אַחַר שֶׁהִזְכִּיר ״אֵלֶּה הַבְּגָדִים״ וְגוֹ׳ אָמַר **וְעָשׂוּ בִגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וּלְבָנָיו**, וּפָסוּק זֶה מְיֻתָּר הוּא, לוֹמַר עַל הַמִּכְנָסַיִם, וְלָזֶה הִזְכִּיר **אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו** כִּי הַמִּכְנָסַיִם צְרִיכִין בֵּין לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בֵּין לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ואלה הבגדים, And these are the garments, etc.** Why does this verse list only six out of the eight priestly garments, omitting mention of the pants and the High Priest's ציץ, golden headband? Perhaps the missing garments have been alluded to already.The headband may have been alluded to in verse three as included in the line: "and they will make Aaron's garments to sanctify him." The words: "the garments of Aaron" in that verse were not really necessary; it would have sufficed to say: "and these are the garments, etc." The exclusive mention of Aaron alludes to the headband which was worn only by the High Priest. The reason it is mentioned together with the other garments is that it alone would not be able to perform any function. Aaron's (The High Priest's) eight garments performed their function only if all of them were worn by the High Priest at one time. This is also the justification for the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה, "these." At first glance that letter appeared to have referred to other garments over and above the eight garments listed in the Torah at this stage. Actually, it only suggests that all the garments that were now being mentioned were interdependent on each other, essential. As far as the pants are concerned, we find an entirely unnecessary line at the end of verse four, i.e. "and they will make sacred garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons so that he will be a priest unto Me." Seeing that this line was unnecessary, we may see in it a veiled reference to the pants. Both Aaron and his sons are mentioned in that line as both he and his sons had to wear pants beneath their long tunics. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:4:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:4:2) וְנִשְׁאַר לָדַעַת לָמָּה לֹא סִדְּרָם הַכָּתוּב יַחַד עִם הַשִּׁשָּׁה וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְכָל זֶה. וְאוּלַי שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֵינָם בְּגֶדֶר אֶחָד עִם הַשִּׁשָּׁה: הַצִּיץ לְצַד מַעֲלָתוֹ יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה בִּגְדֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְלָזֶה הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְהַמִּכְנָסַיִם לְצַד הֱיוֹתָם בְּהַדְרָגָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה בִּגְדֵי כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וְלָזֶה אִחֲרוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁשָּׁה הֵם הַדְרָגָה שָׁוָה. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** The question which remains is why the Torah did not list these two garmennts together **with the list** of the six garments listed in verse four so that the allusions which we just mentioned need not have been recorded at all? We may have to look at these two garments as being in a category by themselves, the headband because of its special significance, and the pants because of their being of inferior status as a garment symbolising the priest's holiness. This is why each of these is alluded to separately and is not lumped together with the other six priestly garments. The six garments mentioned in a row in our verse are basically of equal worth as far as their symbolising the status of their wearers as priests is concerned. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:4:3 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:4:3) עוֹד נִרְאֶה טַעַם עֲשׂוֹתוֹ כָּכָה, שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לוֹמַר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת בִּגְדֵי כְּהוּנָּה לִשְׁמָן, לָזֶה פֵּרַט בַּפָּסוּק **וְעָשׂוּ בִגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ** שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּהוּ בַּמִּכְנָסַיִם, וְאָמַר **לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וּלְבָנָיו לְכַהֲנוֹ לִי**, פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹתָם לְשֵׁם אַהֲרֹן לְשָׁרֵת לִפְנֵי ה׳, וּמִזֶּה תִּלְמוֹד לִשְׁאָר בְּגָדִים. וּבְפָסוּק רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ בַּצִּיץ אָמַר **לְקַדְּשׁוֹ** וְגוֹ׳, כִּי מִלְּבַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ לְשֵׁם כְּהוּנָּה עוֹד יוֹסִיף לִכְתּוֹב בּוֹ ״קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** An additional reason for listing only the six garments here may be that the Torah wanted us to know that the priestly garments needed to be constructed for that specific purpose. This is why the Torah emphasised: "they shall make holy garments." Even Aaron's **pants** had to be made especially for him to wear when performing his duties. If so, we would realise that the same rule applied in even greater measure to the making of the garments which were holier than the pants by definition. The first verse which we explained contained the allusion to the headband, also speaks of לקדשו, "to sanctify him;" in the case of the ציץ, it was not only sacred, but it was inscribed with the words: קדש לה׳ "Holy unto G'd." ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:9:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:9:1) **וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת שְׁתֵּי וְגוֹ׳.** צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה אָמַר **אֶת** וְגוֹ׳. וְאוּלַי שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן אֶל אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם שֶׁכְּבָר הִזְכִּיר בִּתְחִלַּת הַמִּצְוָה בְּפָרָשַׁת תְּרוּמָה (שמות כה:ז). וְזֶה הוּא שִׁעוּר הַכָּתוּב ״וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת שְׁתֵּי אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לְהָבִיא״. וּבָזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן בְּמֶתֶק דְּבָרָיו יִתְבָּרַךְ לָתֵת לוֹ טַעַם לָמָּה פֵּרַט אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם מִכְּלַל כָּל הָאֲבָנִים, כִּי אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִצְוָה אַחַת פְּרָטִית מִלְּבַד אַבְנֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים, וְלָזֶה אָמַר אֵלָיו **וְלָקַחְתָּ אוֹתָם אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם** שֶׁפֵּרַטְתִּי לְךָ. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ולקחת את שתי אבני שהם, "You are to take the two Shoham-stones, etc."** The word את in this connection needs explaining. Perhaps the expression is to draw our attention to the previously mentioned Shoham-stones at the beginning of Parshat Terumah (25,7). The meaning of our verse then would be: "you shall take the two Shoham-stones which I have already commanded you to bring (as gifts)." This would account for the מתג, hyphen, between the words אבני and שהם, i.e. why only these two gemstones have been singled out here by name. These two stones performed a function additional to that of the gemstones called אבני מלואים, "stones to be set" (where the Torah did not employ the hyphen). ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:1) **שִׁשָּׁה מִשְּׁמוֹתָם וְגוֹ׳.** צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת לָמָּה אָמַר **מִשְּׁמוֹתָם** וְלֹא אָמַר שִׁשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת וְגוֹ׳ וְשִׁשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת עַל וְגוֹ׳ כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם. גַּם לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״הַנּוֹתָרִים״, כִּי רוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁנּוֹתָרִים הֵם. וּבְהֶכְרֵחַ לְפָרֵשׁ **נוֹתָרִים** הַפְּחוּתִים, עַל דֶּרֶךְ אָמְרוֹ ״עַל אֶלְעָזָר וְגוֹ׳ הַנּוֹתָרִים״, וְדָרְשׁוּ זַ״ל (יומא פז,א; זהר ח״ג נו:) הַפְּחוּתִים כוּ׳, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ גַּם כֵּן (בראשית רבה פג,ט) בְּפָסוּק ״צֹאן לָבָן הַנּוֹתָרוֹת״ יְעֻיַּן שָׁם. וְזֶה יַבְהִיל, כִּי מֵאָמְרוֹ **כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם** מַשְׁמַע כַּסֵּדֶר שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ לְיַעֲקֹב, וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה הַנּוֹלָדִים בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה פְּחוּתִים מֵהָרִאשׁוֹנִים, וּמַה גַּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּאַחֲרוֹנִים בְּנֵי הַגְּבִירוֹת, יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִין, זְבוּלוּן וְיִשָּׂשכָר בֶּן תּוֹרָה, וְיֵשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנִים מִבְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, וְאֵיךְ יִקְרָא הַכָּתוּב לִבְנֵי הַגְּבִירָה נוֹתָרִים בְּעֵרֶךְ בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ששה משמותם על האבן האחת, "Six of their names on the one stone, etc."** Why did the Torah use the unusual expression משמותם, "of their names," instead of saying simply ששה שמות, "six names," etc.? Besides, the word הנותרים, "the remaining ones," is quite unnecessary as we all know that there were only a total of twelve tribes. We are therefore forced to conclude that the adjective "the remaining ones," implies that the latter six tribes were inferior to the the first six. We find something similar after the death of Nadav and Avihu, where the Torah describes Eleazar and Ittamar as the "remaining" sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10,12). Our sages in *Yuma* 87 describe the word הנותרים as referring to something inferior, using the word in Leviticus as their example. *Bereshit Rabbah* 73,9 discusses Genesis 30,36 where the Torah speaks about "the remaining flocks of Laban," and also describes the word "remaining" as referring to something inferior. If the meaning of the word הנותרים in our verse were to indicate that these tribes were inferior, this is most surprising seeing that the Torah underlines that they were recorded כתולדותם, "in the order of their (their founder's) birth." Why would the sons born to Jacob later be inferior to those born to him earlier? This seems especially unlikely seeing that Joseph was Jacob's favorite and is known as "Joseph the righteous." How could he be considered "inferior?" Moreover, we find that amongst the first 6 names listed are sons of the maidservants whereas several of the names inscribed on the second stone were of sons born by Jacob's true wives! ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:2) וּלְהָבִין הָעִנְיָן אֶל זֶה אַבִּיט לְמַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּסוֹטָה (לו,א) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: תָּנוּ רַבָּנָן, שְׁתֵּי אֲבָנִים הָיוּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַל כְּתֵפוֹ וְכוּ׳, וּשְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, שִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְשִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״שִׁשָּׁה״ וְגוֹ׳, שְׁנִיָּה כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹנָה כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּהוּדָה מֻקְדָּם, וַחֲמִשִּׁים אוֹתִיּוֹת – עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִים בְּחֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִים בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי, כֵּיצַד? בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִדְרָן, בְּנֵי רָחֵל אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן, וּבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת בָּאֶמְצַע. וְאֶלָּא מַה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״? כִּשְׁמוֹתָם שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶם יַעֲקֹב, וְלֹא כַּשֵּׁמוֹת שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה ״רְאוּבֵנִי שִׁמְעוֹנִי״ וְגוֹ׳, עַד כָּאן. פְּשָׁטָן שֶׁל דְּבָרִים הוּא כִּי לְתַנָּא קַמָּא ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ חוֹזֵר עַל שְׁמוֹת שְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁיַּקְדִּימוּ יְהוּדָה לִרְאוּבֵן עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: יְהוּדָה, רְאוּבֵן, שִׁמְעוֹן, לֵוִי, דָּן, נַפְתָּלִי בְּאֶבֶן אַחַת, וּבָאֶבֶן הַשְּׁנִיָּה: גָּד, אָשֵׁר, יִשָּׂשכָר, זְבוּלֻן, יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִין כְּסֵדֶר לֵדָתָן. וּכְשֶׁתַּחְשׁוֹב הָאוֹתִיּוֹת תִּמְצָא עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ בְּאַחַת וְעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּאַחַת. וְאָמְרוּ בַּשַּׁ״ס (סוטה לו,א): רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר הוֹסִיף לוֹ יְהוֹסֵף, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר בִּנְיָמִין מָלֵא. וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן זֶה לֹא נִרְמַז בַּפָּסוּק אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּךְ בָּאָה לָהֶם הַקַּבָּלָה – עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ בְּאַחַת וְעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ בְּאַחַת. וְהַקְדָּמַת יְהוּדָה לִרְאוּבֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כִּי מֵהַכָּתוּב דּוֹרֵשׁ לָהּ, מִמַּה שֶׁכָּתַב ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, וְלֹא כָּתַב עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ ״וּפִתַּחְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶם שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״, וְאָז יִהְיֶה נִשְׁמָע שֶׁבָּאָה מִצְוַת ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ עַל סֵדֶר שְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** In order to understand what is meant in our verse let me first preface with a statement in *Sotah* 36. Our sages there relate: "The High Priest wore two gemstones on his shoulders. The names of the children of Israel were engraved on those stones, six of them on the one stone and six on the other." The Talmud quotes our verse as proof for this statement. The names on the second stone were in accordance with the order of birth of the founders of those tribes, whereas the names engraved on the first stone did not correspond to this order, seeing that the name Yehudah appeared on the first stone and each stone had 25 letters engraved on it. Rabbi Chanina son of Gamliel says that the names did not appear in the order in which the tribes were counted in Numbers 1, 1-15, but in accordance with their being enumerated in Exodus I, 2-4. In what order precisely were they engraved? The sons of Leah were listed on one stone, the sons of Rachel were listed one on top of the second stone, the other on the bottom, with the names of the sons of the maidservants in between. If so, how does this agree with the Torah's statement that they were engraved in accordance with their respective births? Answer: "according to the names their father Jacob called them, and not in accordance with the names that Moses called them, i.e. Reuveni, Shimoni, etc." Thus far the statement of Rabbi Chaninah. The apparent meaning of the opinions expressed in the Talmud seems to be that the first opinion (Rav Kahane) understands the word כתולדותם as a reference to both stones although Yehudah's name preceded that of Reuven so that the names which appeared on that stone were: Yehudah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Dan, Naftali, whereas the sequence on the second stone was: Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Joseph, Benjamin in accordance with the order of their births. When you will count the number of letters which appear on each stone you will find that the first stone had 25 letters whereas the second stone had 24 letters. This would require the addition of the letter ה in the middle of the name Joseph, thus: יהוסף. Rabbi Nachman disagreed, claiming that Benjamin's name was spelled with an additional י, i.e. בנימין. The question of how many letters were engraved on each stone is not alluded to in the Torah but we rely on tradition for this knowledge. I believe that we can, however, find an allusion in scripture for the fact that Yehudah's name was engraved on top of that of Reuven, seeing that the word כתולדותם in accordance with their birth, does not appear until the end of the verse. Had the Torah insisted that **all** the names would appear strictly in accordance with their births, the Torah should have written: "and you shall engrave on them the names of the children of Israel in accordance with the order of their births," at the end of verse nine. I would then have understood clearly that the directive applied to the names on both stones. You are not to ask who it was who revealed that the names on the first stone were not meant to be engraved in accordance with the births of those sons, seeing that the name of Yehudah appeared on top, and that therefore the order in which the brothers were born did not matter **at all** when it came to engraving their names on the first stone. Such an assumption is untenable because if the names on the first stone could have been engraved in a different order such order should have paralleled either the order in which the names appear in Numbers or in accordance with their appearance in Exodus. If that were the case, it would be impossible to list the names on the second stone in order of their births and still wind up with 25 letters on each stone. It is therefore mandatory that any change concerning the order of the names on the first stone must be such that it would not interfere with the list of names on the second stone being in accordance with the order of the brothers' birth. It is perfectly logical that Yehudah's name should appear on top as his future standing amongst the Jewish people as the tribe which provided the kings justified his name appearing at the head of the list. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:3 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:3) וְאֵין לְהַקְשׁוֹת: מִי גִּלָּה כִּי מַה שֶׁאֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָהּ כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם הוּא לְצַד הַקְדָּמַת יְהוּדָה, וְדִלְמָא לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם סֵדֶר כָּל עִקָּר? זֶה אֵינוֹ, כִּי בְּהֶכְרֵחַ כְּשֶׁתָּבוֹא לוֹמַר בְּאֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹנָה סֵדֶר אַחֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם, תִּבְחַר בְּאֶחָד מֵהַסְּדָרִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָם בַּכָּתוּב, אוֹ סֵדֶר שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּחֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים אוֹ בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי. וּלְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶם כְּשֶׁתָּבוֹא לְסַדֵּר אֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם, תֵּצֵא בְּהֶכְרֵחַ אֶבֶן הַשֵּׁנִית שֶׁלֹּא כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם. וְאִם כֵּן, הֲרֵי בִּטַּלְתָּ ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ בִּשְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים, אֲשֶׁר עַל כָּרְחֲךָ תִּתְחַיֵּב לוֹמַר שֶׁהַשִּׁנּוּי שֶׁמְּבַטֵּל ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ בְּאֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל גַּם בַּשְּׁנִיָּה. וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? בְּהֶכְרֵחַ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא שֶׁיַּקְדִּים יְהוּדָה. וְדָבָר זֶה סְבָרָא הוּא, כִּי הוּא מֶלֶךְ וְלוֹ רָאוּי לְהַקְדִּים, וְגַם מָצִינוּ לוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם בְּהַקְרָבַת חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וַהֲגַם שֶׁגַּם יִשָּׂשכָר קָדַם, אִם בָּאנוּ לְהַקְדִּימוֹ כָּאן הֲרֵי בִּטַּלְנוּ ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ שֶׁל אֶבֶן שְׁנִיָּה. וּלְדֶרֶךְ זֶה מַה שֶׁדִּקְדַּקְנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁוֹ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ מֻנָּח. וְאֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר כִּי נִתְכַּוֵּן לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הַסֵּדֶר מַפְסִיל בְּאַבְנֵי הָאֵפוֹד, שֶׁאִם הִקְדִּים שִׁמְעוֹן לִרְאוּבֵן אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. לָזֶה אָמַר **שִׁשָּׁה מִשְּׁמֹתָם** וְגוֹ׳, **וְאֶת שְׁמוֹת** וְגוֹ׳ **הַנּוֹתָרִים** – פֵּרוּשׁ, אֵין לִכְתֹּב אֶלָּא הַנּוֹתָר בְּיָדְךָ שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַבְתָּ אוֹתוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְיֵשׁ לְהוֹכִיחַ כֵּן מִמַּה שֶׁלֹּא תָּנָא בְּתוֹסֶפְתָּא דִּמְנָחוֹת (תוספתא מנחות ה) סֵדֶר כְּתִיבַת הַשֵּׁמוֹת מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, כִּדְתָנֵי בִּגְדֵי כֹּהֲנִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם וְאַבְנֵי מִלּוּאִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, כְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּיהֶן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה – הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר גַּם כֵּן סֵדֶר הַשֵּׁמוֹת מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁסּוֹבֵר שֶׁאֵין מְעַכֵּב. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** One could argue that the order in which the names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod were no reason to make the Ephod unfit for its function, and that it did not matter whether the name of Shimon appeared above that of Reuven. In order that we should not argue in this way the Torah wrote: "six of their names, etc., and the names of the remaining six, etc." The meaning is that **only the remaining ones,** i.e. the ones that you have not yet engraved, כתולדותם, have to be engraved according to their seniority. We can prove that this interpretation is correct by referring to the *Tosephta* in *Menachot* chapter 5 where we are not told that the order of the engraving of the names was indeed mandatory. Whereas the *Tossephta* states that the garments of the priests were mandatory, and that the presence of the gemstones was mandatory; not a word is mentioned about the **order** of engraving the names of the tribes being mandatory. It is quite possible that the sage who was the author of this *Tossephta* did not believe that the order was mandatory. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:4 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:4) **וְרַבִּי** חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סוֹבֵר: בְּאֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹן בְּנֵי לֵאָה כֻּלָּן כְּסִדְרָן, פֵּרוּשׁ – וְאֵין לְהַקְדִּים בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה הֲגַם שֶׁקָּדְמוּ בַּלֵּידָה, וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה בִּנְיָמִין בְּרֹאשׁ הָאֶבֶן קוֹדֶם בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי, וְאַחֲרָיו בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת כְּסֵדֶר לֵידָתָן, וְיוֹסֵף בְּסוֹף הָאֶבֶן, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ ״אֶחָד מִכָּאן״. וּלְפִי סֵדֶר זֶה נִמְצָא חֶשְׁבּוֹן הָאוֹתִיּוֹת אֵינָם חֲלוּקִים עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ, כִּי אֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבָּהּ בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִדְרָן יֵשׁ בָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה אוֹתִיּוֹת, וּבְאֶבֶן שְׁנִיָּה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת, וְלִכְשֶׁתּוֹסִיף הָאוֹת אוֹ ה״א בְּיוֹסֵף אוֹ יו״ד בְּבִנְיָמִין יִהְיוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם. וְלִסְבָרָא זוֹ יִתְבָּאֵר מַה שֶׁדִּקְדַּקְנוּ בַּכָּתוּב עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: **שִׁשָּׁה מִשְּׁמֹתָם** – פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, מֵהֶם שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ תְּחִלָּה וּמֵהֶם שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ אַחַר הַשִּׁשָּׁה הַנּוֹתָרִים, וְהֵם יִשָּׂשכָר וּזְבוּלֻן שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ אַחַר כָּל בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת. וְאָמְרוֹ **הַנּוֹתָרִים** – פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ נוֹתָר מִסֵּדֶר הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן, כְּשֶׁתָּבוֹא לְסַדֵּר סֵדֶר הַנּוֹלָדִים תְּחִלָּה תִּמְצָא שֶׁהַשְּׁנַיִם קָדְמוּ לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי לֵאָה וְהוֹתִירָם ה׳ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְלָזֶה קָרָא לָהֶם נוֹתָרִים. וַהֲגַם שֶׁעִמָּהֶם יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִין, אָמַר ״הַנּוֹתָרִים״ לְצַד הָאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבָּהֶם. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** When Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah were engraved on the first stone in their order of seniority, he meant that the fact that the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah were born before the last two sons of Leah was ignored when the names were engraved on the first stone. On the other hand, the names which were engraved on the second stone were headed by that of Benjamin, though he was the youngest of all the sons of Jacob. According to his arrangement the number of letters on each stone could not possibly equal 25, seeing that the number of letters on the first stone totalled 28, whereas we would have 21 letters as the total on the second stone. Even if you add either the letter ה for Joseph's name or the letter י for the name of Benjamin, you will still only wind up with 22 letters on that stone. If we adopt Rabbi Chaninah's interpretation, the meaning of the words ששה משמותם will begin to make excellent sense. The wording would indicate that the names were not engraved in the order of seniority of the sons of Jacob. The meaning of the words הנותרים would be that the names of these tribes which should have been engraved on the first stone, if strict attention had been paid to the principle of seniority of birth, were "left out." Although also the names of Joseph and Benjamin were engraved on the second stone, seeing that the other tribes were the majority they are nonetheless described as "left over." ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:5 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:5) **וָאָבוֹא** אֶל הָעַיִן מַה שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ״ם בְּפֶרֶק ט׳ מֵהִלְכוֹת כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: שִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְשִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ, וְכוֹתְבִין שֵׁם יְהוֹסֵף, וְנִמְצָא עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ וְעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ, וְכָךְ הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין, עַד כָּאן. וּדְבָרָיו זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה אֵינָם לֹא כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְלֹא כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל (סוטה לו,א), אֵין זֶה אֶלָּא בִּנְיָן חָדָשׁ, וְלֹא כִּסְבָרַת רַב כָּהֲנָא שֶׁהֵבִיא הַשַּׁ״ס וּדְחָאָהּ, שֶׁהוּא אָמַר בְּאֶבֶן רִאשׁוֹנָה: רְאוּבֵן, גָּד, אָשֵׁר, זְבוּלוּן, דָּן, נַפְתָּלִי, וּבָאֶבֶן הַשֵּׁנִית שִׁמְעוֹן, לֵוִי, יְהוּדָה, יִשָּׂשכָר, יוֹסֵף, בִּנְיָמִין וְגוֹ׳. וּמַהֲרִי״ק (בכסף משנה) דָּחַק וּפֵרֵשׁ כִּי פָּסַק רַמְבַּ״ם כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וּמְפָרֵשׁ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עַל זֶה הָאוֹפֶן: בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִדְרָן, פֵּרוּשׁ אֶחָד כָּאן וְאֶחָד כָּאן, בְּנֵי רָחֵל אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי קְצוֹת הָאֲבָנִים מִלְּמַטָּה, וּבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת בָּאֶמְצַע, פֵּרוּשׁ בְּאֶמְצַע שְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים, עַד כָּאן. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** Let us now examine how Maimonides describes the arrangement of the names on these stones in chapter nine of *Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh.* This is what he writes: "Six were on one stone and six on the other stone. The name Joseph was spelled יהוסף. As a result there were 25 letters on the first stone and 25 letters on the second stone. The list of names on the first stone was: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph; the order on the second stone was: Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin." Maimonides' words do not agree with either of the views expressed in *Sotah* 36. His view does not even coincide with that of Rav Kahane which the Talmud rejected. The latter had given the following list: Reuven, Gad, Asher, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, and Shimon, Levi, Yehudah, Yissachar, Joseph, Benjamin on the second stone. The כסף משנה attempts to prove that Maimonides adopted the view of Rabbi Chaninah while explaining that when Rabbi Chaninah claimed that the names of the sons of Leah appeared in order of their birth he meant that they would appear on alternate stones and that the same applied to the listing of the names of the sons of Rachel, top and bottom respectively, with the names of the maidservants in the centre. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:6 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:6) **וְלִי** נִרְאֶה שֶׁאֵין דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִתְקַבְּלִים בְּלֵב כָּל חֲכַם לֵב מֵאַרְבָּעָה טְעָמִים: א׳, אֵיךְ יַנִּיחַ תַּנָּא קַמָּא וְיִפְסוֹק כְּר׳ חֲנִינָא, וּמַה שֶׁאָמַר הָרַב שֶׁטַּעְמוֹ שֶׁל ר׳ חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִסְתַּבֵּר, אַדְרַבָּה טַעְמוֹ דְּר׳ חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא מִסְתַּבֵּר כְּלָל, דְּמַפִּיק הַכָּתוּב מִמַּשְׁמָעוּתוֹ, שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ – כַּשֵּׁמוֹת שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם וְלֹא כַּשֵּׁמוֹת שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה, כִּי מִנַּיִן יַעֲלֶה עַל דַּעַת אֱנוֹשׁ שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב רְאוּבֵנִי וְגָדִי שֶׁיּוּצְרַךְ לְמַעֲטָם. וְעוֹד, ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ לֹא מַשְׁמַע שַׁפִּיר שֶׁרְצוֹנוֹ לוֹמַר עַל שְׁמוֹתָם בְּלֵדָתָם, וְאֵין הֶכְרֵחַ לְהוֹצִיא הַתֵּבָה מִפְּשָׁטָהּ שֶׁהוּא כְּסֵדֶר לֵדָתָם כִּסְבָרַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וְיוֹתֵר מִסְתַּבֵּר טַעְמֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא. וְקוּשְׁיָא זוֹ קַלָּה מִמַּה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** I do not believe that the suggestion of the כסף משנה is acceptable for two reasons. 1) Why would Maimonides ignore the first sage mentioned in the Talmud and rule according to the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah? When the כסף משנה describes Rabbi Chaninah's view as logical, I beg to differ. I do not believe that his reasoning is logical at all seeing that he changes the plain meaning of the verse that the names were to be engraved in order of seniority of the sons of Jacob, i.e. the way Jacob named his sons and not the way Moses referred to them. What would prompt a person to call the sons of Jacob "Reuveni, Shimoni, etc.," instead of calling them by their original names? Besides, the meaning of כתולדותם according to כסף משנה is not "according to their seniority of birth, which is usually the meaning of that word throughout the Torah. There is absolutely no need to ignore the customary meaning of the word כתולדותם. At any rate, the problems we have raised so far are minor compared to another problem we are still going to raise. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:7 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:7) ב׳: לִסְבָרַת הָרַב שֶׁאָמַר שֶׁבְּנֵי לֵאָה אֶחָד מִכָּאן כִּבְנֵי רָחֵל, לָמָּה אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִדְרָן, בְּנֵי רָחֵל אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן, שֶׁמּוֹרֶה בְּאֶצְבַּע שֶׁבְּנֵי לֵאָה אֵינָם אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן? שֶׁאִם פֵּרוּשׁ ״כְּסִדְרָן״ הוּא אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן, גַּם בְּנֵי רָחֵל כְּסִדְרָן שֶׁל בְּנֵי לֵאָה הֵם, וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר אֶלָּא ״בְּנֵי רָחֵל לְבַסּוֹף״. וְעוֹד, מַשְׁמָעוּת ״אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן״ לֹא יַגִּיד כִּדְבָרָיו, כִּי הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ״אֶחָד בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ וְאֶחָד בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ״, כִּי ״אֶחָד מִכָּאן״ וְכוּ׳ יַגִּיד כְּדִבְרֵי רַשִׁ״י, שֶׁהוּא אֶחָד בְּרֹאשׁ הָאֶבֶן וְאֶחָד בְּסוֹפָהּ. וְקֻשְׁיָא זוֹ קַלָּה מִשֶּׁלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** 2) According to the view of the כסף משנה that the names of the sons of Leah were written in such a fashion that one was on one stone and the name of the brother born next appeared on the second stone, "**similar to the names of the sons of Rachel,** the names of the sons of Rachel should not have appeared on the top and bottom of the second stone at all. All the כסף משנה had to say was that both the names of the sons of Leah and the names of the sons of Rachel were engraved at the end. Why did he add the words: "one on one stone and one on the other?" What precisely are the words: אחד מכאן ואחד מכאן supposed to mean? He should have said: "the name of one of each of the sons on each stone," as Rashi explains when he adds: "one at the head of the stone, the other at the bottom." This objection to the כסף משנה is still minor compared to the next one. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:8 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:8) ג׳: כְּפִי פֵּרוּשׁ דִּבְרֵי הָרַב אֵין סֵדֶר זֶה בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי, כִּי בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי בְּנֵי לֵאָה בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וּבִנְיָמִין אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וּבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת אַחַר בִּנְיָמִין, וְיוֹסֵף לְבַסּוֹף. וּלְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְדִבְרֵי רַמְבָּ״ם יוֹסֵף אַחַר שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת בָּאֶבֶן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּבִנְיָמִין מְאוּחָר אַחַר שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים בָּאֶבֶן הַשֵּׁנִית, וְאֵיךְ קָאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִים בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי, וַהֲלֹא בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי בִּנְיָמִין קוֹדֶם כָּל בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת? וְעוֹד לָמָּה הִקְדִּים יוֹסֵף לְבִנְיָמִין וַהֲלֹא בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי בִּנְיָמִין קוֹדֵם, וְאֵין לִדְחוֹת שֶׁהֲפָכָם כְּדֵי לְדַיֵּק חֶשְׁבּוֹן עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּכָל אֶבֶן שֶׁהֲרֵי חֶשְׁבּוֹנָם שָׁוֶה הוּא חֲמִשָּׁה בְּכָל אֶחָד. וּבֶאֱמֶת אִם יַעֲמֹד רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְיֹאמַר כִּי לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן, לֹא יֻצְדְּקוּ דְּבָרָיו, כֵּיוָן שֶׁתָּלָה הַדָּבָר וְאָמַר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִים בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי, וְגַם אֵין דְּבָרָיו מִתְקַבְּלִין כִּי הַכָּתוּב הִקְדִּים בִּנְיָמִין לִבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, וְלִדְבָרָיו הוּא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁבָּאַחֲרוֹנוֹת. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** According to the words of the כסף משנה, the list of the names of the tribes at the beginning of Exodus would not follow the pattern he suggested here at all, seeing that there we find the names of the sons of Leah followed by the son of Rachel, Benjamin, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants, with Joseph at the very end. According to the opinion of Rabbi Chaninah as understood by Maimonides, Joseph's name was engraved beneath the names of the two sons of one of the maidservants, Naftali and Gad on the first stone, whereas the name Benjamin was engraved on the second stone beneath the names of the sons of the other maidservant, Dan and Asher. How could Rabbi Chaninah say: "in the manner they were divided in the Book of Exodus," when we find that the name Benjamin appeared ahead of the names of any of the names of the sons of the maidservants? Besides, why would he engrave the name Joseph before the name Benjamin, when it is a fact that Benjamin is mentioned first in Exodus? We cannot answer that the reason was to enable the names on both stones to total 25 letters so that each stone would have the identical number of letters engraved on them. The same number of letters would appear on the stone even if the name Benjamin preceded that of Joseph. Should Rabbi Chaninah insist that this was indeed what he had in mind, he would simply be wrong, seeing that he made the sequence dependent on the way the names were divided up in the Book of Exodus. His words would be unacceptable as the Torah there listed Benjamin's name before that of any of the sons of the maidservants whereas according to the כסף משנה the name of Benjamin would be the last one to be engraved? ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:9 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:9) הַד׳: מִנַּיִן מָצָא רַמְבַּ״ם לְסַדֵּר בְּנֵי לֵאָה חֶצְיָם בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ וְחֶצְיָם בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ? הֲלֹא פַּשְׁטָן שֶׁל דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל ״בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִדְרָן״ לֹא מַשְׁמַע כֵּן, וּמִנַּיִן נִתְהַוָּה לְרַמְבַּ״ם סְבָרָא זוֹ בְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? וְאַחֲרוֹן הִכְבִּיד, מַה שֶׁכָּתַב הַכֶּסֶף מִשְׁנֶה בְּטַעַם רַמְבַּ״ם שֶׁכָּתַב לְהַשְׁלִים הַחֲמִשִּׁים אוֹתִיּוֹת בְּתוֹסֶפֶת ה״א בְּיוֹסֵף, וְהִקְשָׁה עַל זֶה מֵהַשַּׁ״ס דְּקָאָמַר הָתָם (סוטה לו,א) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: הָנֵי חֲמִשִּׁים – חֲמִשִּׁים נְכֵי חֲדָא הָוְיָין, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק יוֹסֵף הוֹסִיפוּ לוֹ אוֹת אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פא:ו) ״עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף״, מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב נַחְמָן ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ בְּעֵינָן! אֶלָּא בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה בִּנְיָמִן וְהָכָא בִּנְיָמִין שָׁלֵם, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית לה,יח) ״וְאָבִיו קָרָא לוֹ בִּנְיָמִין״, עַד כָּאן. הֲרֵי שֶׁדָּחָה הַשַּׁ״ס תֵּרוּץ יְהוֹסֵף דְּלֹא מִתּוֹקְמָא יְהוֹסֵף, וְהֶעֱלָה אֶלָּא בִּנְיָמִין כָּתוּב בִּשְׁנֵי יוֹדִין. וְתֵרֵץ הָרַב כִּי קֻשְׁיַת הַשַּׁ״ס מִ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ לֹא הָוֵי אֶלָּא לִסְבָרַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא, אֲבָל לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא מַקְשֶׁה, כִּי הוּא לֹא אָמַר שֶׁשָּׁלַל ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִכְתֹּב רְאוּבֵנִי שִׁמְעוֹנִי, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכֵּן אוֹקִימְתָּא רִאשׁוֹנָה דִּיהוֹסֵף בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת, וְרַבֵּינוּ פָּסַק כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כַּנִּזְכָּר עַד כָּאן. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** What is Maimonides' source for alternating the names of the sons of Leah between the first and the second stone of the Ephod? According to the words of Rabbi Chaninah that the names of sons of Leah were engraved in their order (of birth) there is no suggestion that this would be on alternate stones! Where does Maimonides get his theory of interpreting Rabbi Chaninah in such a manner? Finally, the כסף משנה had difficulty with providing a reason as to why Maimonides wrote that in order to complete the 50 letters on the stones of the Ephod, the name Joseph had to be spelled with an additional ה. He quotes the Talmud (*Sotah* 36) which says as follows: "These 50 (letters) are in reality only 49 letters. Rabbi Yitzchok said that they added a letter to his name as we find in Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו ממצרים, 'they added a testimony to Joseph when he came out of Egypt.'" Rabbi Nachman questioned Rabbi Yitzchok that the Torah specified that the names should be engraved כתולדותם, i.e. as they had been known at the time of their respective births? Therefore Rabbi Nachman concludes (as opposed to Rabbi Yitzchok) that the extra letter was the letter י added to the name of Benjamin, seeing that his name is always spelled without the letter י before the final letter ן, except in Genesis 35,18 when his father Jacob named him בנימין with the additional letter י. Thus far the Talmud. It is clear from the quote of the Talmud that the idea of adding the letter ה to Joseph's name was rejected and that they accepted the alternative suggested by Rabbi Nachman. כסף משנה anwers that the rejection of Rabbi Yitzchok's theory by the Talmud applies only to the original view expressed in the Talmud concerning the arrangement of the names, but does not apply to the view expressed by Rabbi Chaninah, which is, after all, the view Maimonides' diagram is based on. The only meaning Rabbi Chaninah had derived from the Torah's directive was that the names should be כתולדותם, should not appear as Moses had referred to them, i.e. as Reuveni, Shimoni, etc. Seeing this is so, Maimonides remained entitled to accept Rabbi Yitzchok's suggestion that the name Joseph be spelled with the additional letter ה as in Psalms 81,6. Thus far the כסף משנה. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:10 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:10) **וּדְבָרָיו** תְּמוּהִים בְּעֵינַי עַד לִמְאוֹד. הֲלֹא לְדַעַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא לֹא דִקְדֵּק בַּשֵּׁמוֹת כְּלָל, וּמְפָרֵשׁ תֵּיבַת ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ עַל סֵדֶר לֵידָתָם, רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, וּמַה מָקוֹם לְהַקְשׁוֹת הַשַּׁ״ס לְדַעַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא מִ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״? אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁלֹּא הִקְשָׁה מֵעִיקָרָא אֶלָּא לְדַעַת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁמְּפָרֵשׁ ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ כַּשֵּׁמוֹת שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם, וְתֵרֵץ רַב נַחְמָן ״בִּנְיָמִין״ מָלֵא. וְלִכְשֶׁנַּנִּיחַ הַנָּחָה סוֹבֶרֶת כִּי תִּהְיֶה הַקֻּשְׁיָא לְדַעַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לִסְבָרַת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁמְּדַיֵּק ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ עַל הַשֵּׁמוֹת. וְעוֹד מִדִּבְרֵי רַמְבַּ״ם מוּכָח שֶׁמְּפָרֵשׁ ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ עַל הַסֵּדֶר וְלֹא עַל הַשֵּׁמוֹת, שֶׁכָּתַב וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: שִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְשִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם, עַד כָּאן. וְאִם הָיְתָה כַּוָּנַת רַמְבַּ״ם לִפְסֹק כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לֹא הָיָה סוֹתֵם לוֹמַר ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״, שֶׁמָּצִינוּ רָאִינוּ כִּי הַשַּׁ״ס הִקְשָׁה אוֹתָהּ וְהֻצְרַךְ לְפָרְשָׁהּ, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲשֶׁר עַל כֵּן יוֹתֵר הָיָה נָכוֹן לְהַנִּיחַ הַדָּבָר בְּצָרִיךְ עִיּוּן מִלּוֹמַר כָּזֶה. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** I confess that I find this reasoning very difficult. The first opinion cited in the Talmud did not even deal with the question of **spelling** the names but discussed only the meaning of the word כתולדותם as meaning that the names were to be inscribed in accordance with the order of the births of Jacob's sons. How could one question what the *Tanna Kama* in the Talmud meant by the word כתולדותם? Any question in the Talmud obviously was **only** directed at the viewpoint of Rabbi Chaninah that the word כתולדותם concerned the manner in which their father had called his sons. According to this, Rabbi Nachman answered that the name Benjamin was spelled מלא, i.e. with the extra letter י. It is absolutely clear from the wording of Maimonides that he considered the meaning of the word כתולדותם as describing **the order** in which the names of the tribes were to be inscribed and not as referring to the **spelling** that was to be used when engraving these names. Here are the words of Maimonides: ששה על אבן זו וששה על אבן זו כתולדותם. If Maimonides' intention had been to rule according to Rabbi Chaninah, he could not have concluded his words with the cryptic "כתולדותם," seeing that the Talmud queried the meaning of that word. Maimonides would have had to tell us the meaning of that word **according to his view!** The fact that he did not do so is evidence that he accepted the viewpoint of the תנא קמא. The כסף משנה would have done better to leave the problem he raised unsolved instead of attempting an answer which is clearly unacceptable. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:11 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:11) **וְאֶפְשָׁר** לוֹמַר כִּי רַמְבַּ״ם לֹא גָּרַס בְּמִילְתֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּהוּדָה רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: שְׁנִיָּה **כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם**, פֵּרוּשׁ בְּהִצְטָרְפוּת שְׁנִיָּה הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִמְצָאִים סְדוּרִים כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: רְאוּבֵן בָּאַחַת, שִׁמְעוֹן בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, לֵוִי בָּאַחַת, יְהוּדָה בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וְכֵן עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ. נִמְצֵאת כְּשֶׁאַתָּה בָּא לִקְרוֹתָם בְּסֵדֶר שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת יִהְיוּ כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם. וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם אֲבָל רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינָהּ כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם, כִּי הֵם סְדוּרִים בָּהּ עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ: רְאוּבֵן, לֵוִי, יִשָּׂשכָר, וְאֵין זֶה כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם בְּשׁוּם אֹפֶן. וּפֵרוּשׁ **כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם** לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁנֵי דְּרָכִים: הָאֶחָד הוּא סֵדֶר חֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים שֶׁהוּא עַל זֶה הַדֶּרֶךְ – בְּנֵי לֵאָה יַחַד, בְּנֵי רָחֵל אַחֲרֵיהֶם, בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶן. וְהַשֵּׁנִי הָאָמוּר בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי – בְּנֵי לֵאָה רִאשׁוֹנִים, בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, בְּנֵי רָחֵל – יוֹסֵף לְבַסּוֹף וּבִנְיָמִין בֵּין בְּנֵי לֵאָה וּבֵין בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא לֹא בֵּאֵר בְּמַה בָּחַר, וַהֲגַם שֶׁאָמַר ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ אֵין הוֹכָחָה לִסְבָרָתוֹ, כִּי יָכוֹל לֵאָמֵר כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם הֲגַם שֶׁיַּקְדִּים כָּל בְּנֵי לֵאָה לְצַד שֶׁלֹּא יַפְסִיק בֵּין בְּנֵי אֵם אַחַת, וַהֲגַם שֶׁהַמִּעוּט מֵהֶם נוֹלְדוּ אַחַר בְּנֵי בִּלְהָה, יָכוֹל לֵאָמֵר ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ בְּסֵדֶר הָאִמָּהוֹת – לֵאָה יָלְדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְכָל הַבָּנִים יֵחָשְׁבוּ כְּבֵן אֶחָד לְהַקְדִּים כֻּלָּם יַחַד, אוֹ גַּם כֵּן לְצַד שֶׁרֹב הַבָּנִים הֵם קָדְמוּ. וְגַם לְצַד שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ שֶׁנִּסְדְּרוּ בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּסֵדֶר לֵידָתָן עַל זֶה הָאֹפֶן. וְדִיֵּק רַמְבַּ״ם דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לֹא כְּסֵדֶר שֶׁחֲלוּקִים בְּחֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים חֲלוּקִים וְכוּ׳, זֶה יַגִּיד כִּי דָּבָר זֶה יָכוֹל לִכָּנֵס בְּדִבְרֵי תַנָּא קַמָּא שֶׁבָּא לִשְׁלֹל אוֹתוֹ. וְזֶה לְךָ הָאוֹת כִּי כַּוָּנַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא בְּאָמְרוֹ ״כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם״ שֶׁהוּא בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי הַדְּרָכִים: אוֹ כְּסֵדֶר חֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים אוֹ סֵדֶר חֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי, וּבָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְשָׁלַל חֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים וּבָחַר בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי. וְסָבַר רַמְבַּ״ם שֶׁאֵין הֶכְרֵחַ בְּדִבְרֵי תַנָּא קַמָּא, וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁכָּךְ הִיא דַּעַת תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְפָרֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּסֵדֶר חֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים. וַהֲגַם שֶׁמִּדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נִרְאֶה כִּי תַּנָּא קַמָּא סוֹבֵר כֵּן, לֶהֱיוֹת שֶׁדְּבָרָיו שְׁקוּלִים הֵם, לָזֶה הֻצְרַךְ לְבָאֵר, אֲבָל אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ לְפָרֵשׁ בְּדִבְרֵי תַּנָּא קַמָּא אֶלָּא כְּדַעַת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כָּל שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁחָלַק עָלָיו. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** Perhaps one may say that Maimonides did not understand the first version in the Talmud in which it is stated that the reason why the order of birth had to be observed only starting with the **second** name was "because Yehudah was to appear on top," as we have understood it thus far. He may have understood the words **שניה** כתולדותם ולא ראשונה כתולדותם, as applying to the difference in appearance when one reads across or when one read down, respectively. If one read the names across, שניה (i.e. assuming that the two stones were next to one another instead of on different shoulders of Aaron), they would appear to be in the order of their births כתולדותם. If, however, one read the names from the top to the bottom of the first stone, followed by reading the names on the second stone from the top to the bottom, i.e. ראשונה, "each stone as a unit by itself," then they would **not** be found to appear כתולדותם. According to Maimonides the names would appear (on the first stone) as: Reuven, Levi, Yissachar, Naftali, Gad, Joseph (with the ה), followed on the next stone by : Shimon, Yehudah, Zevulun, Dan, Asher, Benjamin. Clearly, this arrangement does not correspond to the order of their births. The meaning of כתולדותם in front of us can be that the list is to correspond to the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. In that case, the names of the sons of Leah appear together followed by the names of the sons of Rachel, followed by the names of the sons of the maidservants. Alternatively, we could use as our model for the word כתולדותם the list of names as it appears at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. There we find first the list of names of the sons of Leah, the names of the sons of the maidservants at the end, the name of Benjamin, one of Rachel's sons in between, with Joseph the remaining son of Rachel listed at the very end. The *Tanna Kama* did not elaborate on which method of these two he preferred. Even though he mentioned כתולדותם, he might have meant that listing all the names of one mother in the order of their birth fulfils the commandment of כתולדותם. As long as there is no mention of the sons of a different mother before the list of names of the sons of a mother mentioned previously has been completed, this meets the requirement implied in the word כתולדותם. Inasmuch as Leah was the first wife who bore sons for Jacob, all her sons are listed in the order she bore them, i.e. they are considered as one unit. We could accept this although these names do not appear in this order anywhere else in the Torah. Maimonides carefully examined the words of Rabbi Chaninah who said that the words כתולדותם are not to be interpreted as the order in which these names are listed in the Book of Numbers but in the manner in which they appear in the Book of Exodus. His words mean that unless specifically stated to the contrary, the *Tanna Kama* could accept **either** version as a role model for the order in which these names were engraved on the stones of the Ephod. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:12 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:12) וּמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְתַנָּא קַמָּא הִיא בְּמַשְׁמָעוּת **כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם.** תַּנָּא קַמָּא סוֹבֵר שְׁנִיָּה כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם עַל דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ, אֲבָל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִדְרָן, פֵּרוּשׁ, בְּאֶבֶן אַחַת בְּנֵי רָחֵל, אֶחָד בְּרֹאשׁ הָאֶבֶן וְאֶחָד בַּסּוֹף, וּבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת בְּאֶמְצַע הָאֶבֶן, אִם כֵּן אֵינָם כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם וְהֻצְרַךְ לְפָרֵשׁ כַּשֵּׁמוֹת וְגוֹ׳. וּפָסַק הָרַב כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא וְסִדֵּר בְּנֵי לֵאָה אֶחָד בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ וְאֶחָד בְּאֶבֶן זוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּבוֹא הַשְּׁנִיָּה כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם, וּבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת אַחֲרֵיהֶם כַּסֵּדֶר הַנִּזְכָּר. וְטַעַם שֶׁהִקְדִּימָם כִּי הֵם נִסְדְּרוּ בְּחֻמַּשׁ שֵׁנִי קוֹדֶם יוֹסֵף, וְגַם בָּזֶה יִצְדַּק אָמְרוֹ ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״, שֶׁאִם יַקְדִּים יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִין אָז אֲפִלּוּ הַשְּׁנִיָּה אֵינָם כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם שֶׁהֲרֵי קָדְמוּ בְּנֵי רָחֵל לִבְנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת. וְטַעַם שֶׁהִקְדִּים נַפְתָּלִי לְדָן לְהַשְׁלִים עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא, כִּי לֹא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר דָּבָר זֶה, וַהֲגַם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מָקוֹם לוֹמַר כִּי מִן הַסְּתָם אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק, מֵאֶמְצָעוּת הַדְּבָרִים תִּתְחַיֵּב לוֹמַר שֶׁחוֹלֵק, כֵּיוָן שֶׁחִלֵּק אוֹתָם בְּסֵדֶר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה בְּאַחַת וְעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם בְּאַחַת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ סִדֵּר יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִין וְהִשְׁלִים הַמִּנְיָן בְּאוֹת בִּיהוֹסֵף, כִּי לֹא דָחָה הַתַּלְמוּד סְבָרָא זוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֲבָל לֹא לְתַנָּא קַמָּא, כִּי אֵינוֹ מְפָרֵשׁ ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ עַל הַשֵּׁמוֹת. וְלֹא כָּתַב יְהוּדָה בִּתְחִלָּה כִּי לֹא גָּרַס לָהּ בַּשַּׁ״ס כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ. זֶה הוּא מַה שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִדְחוֹק לְיַשֵּׁב הַבָּרַיְתָא לִסְבָרַת רַמְבַּ״ם. וְאוּלַי שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֵיזֶה בָּרַיְתָא וּפָסַק אוֹתָהּ. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** We are entitled to understand the *Tanna Kama* as agreeing with Rabbi Chaninah that the role model for the word כתולדותם is the list we find at the beginning of the Book of Exodus. The only argument between the two Tannaim is that the meaning of the words שניה כתולדותם is as we explained whether the names were to be read across, or as Rabbi Chaninah feels that the sons of Leah had to be arranged on a single stone, etc. Maimonides ruled in favour of reading the names across (alternating between the two stones) as the preferable way of complying with the requirement that they appear כתולדותם. This means that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of the *Tanna Kama,* and not as כסף משנה wanted us to believe as in accordance with the dissident view of Rabbi Chaninah. If the names of Joseph and Benjamin had preceded that of the names of the maidservants' sons, even "the שניה" would not have been כתולדותם in accordance with the order of their respective births. The reason that in Maimonides' diagram the name of Naftali appears ahead of that of Dan (who was born earlier), is in order to ensure that there are 25 letters engraved on each of the two stones in accordance with the requirement listed by the *Tanna Kama.* Rabbi Chaninah had never spoken about such a requirement. While the fact that Rabbi Chaninah did not relate to the requirement that there should be 25 letters on each of the stones is not normally proof that he disagrees with the view of the *Tanna Kama,* in this instance we must assume that he does indeed disagree even without going on record that he does so. The reason is simply that according to Rabbi Chaninah's division of the names we find 28 letters on one stone, and 21 or maximum 22 letters on the other stone, as we have pointed out earlier. Maimonides completes his diagram by having the names of Joseph and Benjamin at the respective bottoms of each stone, adding the letter ה to Joseph's name in order to have 25 letters on each of the stones. This is the way we propose to explain the Baraitha according to the ruling of Maimonides. Perhaps Maimonides had another ancient text in front of his eyes in which all this is spelled out more specifically. Whatever the case may be, we have dealt with all the nuances in our verse satisfactorily. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:13 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:10:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:10:13) וִיהִי מָה לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ שֶׁל רַמְבָּ״ם יִתְיַשְּׁבוּ הַדִּקְדּוּקִים שֶׁדִּקְדַּקְנוּ בַּכָּתוּב עַל נָכוֹן. אָמְרוֹ **שִׁשָּׁה מִשְּׁמוֹתָם** וְלֹא אָמַר שִׁשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת, שֶׁאָז תָּבִין שֶׁהֵם כְּסִדְרָן כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם בְּכָל אֶבֶן וָאֶבֶן, אֶלָּא **מִשְּׁמוֹתָם** פֵּרוּשׁ, מִכָּל שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם תִּקַּח אֶחָד וְתִכְתְּבֶנּוּ עַל הָאֶבֶן הָאַחַת, וְיִהְיֶה נוֹתָר אֶחָד, וְכֵן לְזוּג הַשֵּׁנִי וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְכוּ׳, וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּקַּח אוֹתָם הַשִּׁשָּׁה שֶׁנּוֹתְרוּ מִכָּל זוּג וָזוּג וְיִהְיֶה עַל הָאֶבֶן הַשֵּׁנִית, וְעַל זֶה דִּקְדֵּק לוֹמַר **וְאֶת שְׁמוֹת הַשִּׁשָּׁה הַנּוֹתָרִים** פֵּרוּשׁ, שֶׁנּוֹתְרוּ בְּיָדְךָ כָּאָמוּר. וּכְפִי זֶה אָמְרוֹ **כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם** הוּא עַל סִדְרָן בִּשְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים, וְלָזֶה אִחֵר לוֹמַר **כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם** אַחַר שֶׁהִזְכִּיר שְׁתֵּי הָאֲבָנִים, וְהָבֵן: **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** Now let us look once more at the reason the Torah wrote ששה משמותם, instead of writing ששה שמות. Had the Torah written ששה שמות it would have been evident that the names were to appear on each stone in order of seniority and not partially so as indicated by the word משמותם, "of their names." The unusual word משמותם means that Moses was to engrave these names **in pairs** on the two stones starting with the order of the births of the respective sons. There will always be one name of such a pair "left over" to be engraved on the opposite stone. The six names left over, i.e. הנותרים. These "left over" names are to be engraved one beneath the other on the second stone of the Ephod. The very words ואת שמות השמות הנותרים mean that these names were previously "left over" and awaited being engraved on the second stone, כתולדותם, in accordance with the seniority of these sons, respectively. The appearance of the word כתולדותם at the end of the verse instead of after the words על האבן האחת, is perfectly justified then. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:35:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:35:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:35:1) **וּבְצֵאתוֹ וְלֹא יָמוּת.** נִרְאֶה שֶׁאִם לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ הַפַּעֲמוֹנִים שֶׁמַּשְׁמִיעִים אֶת הַקּוֹל, חַיָּב מִיתָה לַשָּׁמַיִם. שֶׁאִם לֹא כֵן, וְלֹא הָיְתָה כַּוָּנָתוֹ אֶלָּא לִמְחֻסַּר בְּגָדִים, הָיָה אוֹמֵר ״וְלֹא יָמוּת״ אַחַר תַּשְׁלוּם הַבְּגָדִים, אוֹ לְפָחוֹת אַחַר תַּשְׁלוּם אַרְבָּעָה בִּגְדֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְלֹא בָּאֶמְצַע. אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַפְּרָט בָּא, שֶׁחַיָּב אֲפִלּוּ עַל הַפַּעֲמוֹנִים. וּבַפָּסוּק הָאָמוּר בְּסוֹף מַעֲשֵׂה הַבְּגָדִים דִּכְתִיב ״וְהָיוּ עַל אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳ וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָוֹן וָמֵתוּ״ (שמות כח:מג), שָׁם חִיֵּיב עַל הָעוֹבֵד מְחֻסַּר בְּגָדִים. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ובצאתו ולא ימות. "and when he comes out, so that he will not die."** It appears from this verse that if the High Priest's tunic did not have the bells that could be heard he would be guilty of the death penalty to be administered by Heaven. Were this not so and the verse had referred to the absence of the garment to which the bells were attached or to any of his special garments, the words: "so that he will not die" should have beeen written after the list of the garments was complete in verse 43. The fact that the Torah did not wait with this clause until then is to teach us that even the absence of the bells only made the High Priest liable to death at the hands of Heaven. Repetition of the threat of death in verse 43 refers to a priest who serves without one or more of the garments he is to wear at that time. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:36:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:36:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:36:1) **קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳.** מַשְׁמַע שֶׁכָּל מְצִיאוּת שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב ״קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ כָּשֵׁר. וּמַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (שבת סג:) שֶׁהָיָה כָּתוּב שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין יוֹ״ד הֵ״א לְמַעְלָה, ״קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ לְמַטָּה – לֹא לְעִכּוּבָא. וְלָזֶה תִּמְצָא שָׁם שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר׳ יוֹסֵי: אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּרוֹמִי כָּתוּב עָלָיו ״קוֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת וְגוֹ׳, הֲרֵי שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר מְעַכֵּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. וּבָזֶה לֹא יִקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֶיךָ פְּסַק רַמְבָּ״ם (הלכות כלי המקדש פרק ט) יְעֻיַּן שָׁם. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **קדש לה׳. "Holy unto G'd."** This means that as long as the words "Holy unto G'd" appeared on the headband (golden plate), this was acceptable. When the Talmud said in *Shabbat* 63 that the words were arranged in two rows, this means that the name of י־ה was engraved on top and the word קדש followed by the letter ל underneath. Such an arrangement of the words was not mandatory. You will find there that Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yossi reported that while in Rome he personally had seen the ציץ which the Romans had captured, and that the words "Holy unto G'd" were engraved on it in a single line. This proves that the order in which the words were engraved did not matter. When Maimonides wrote in chapter nine of his treatise on *Kley Hamikdosh* that the words appeared in two rows, with the word קדש in the second line, this does not present a difficulty. He referred only to the preferred way of engraving these words. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:38:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:38:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:38:1) **לְרָצוֹן לָהֶם לִפְנֵי ה׳.** צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת מַה עִנְיָן יַגִּידוּ שְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁבָּהֶם יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳, וְאוּלַי שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן בְּאָמְרוֹ **קֹדֶשׁ** עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּאָמְרוֹ (ירמיה ב:ג) ״קֹדֶשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְתֵיבַת **לַה׳** יִרְצֶה כִּי כְּלָלוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַנִּקְרָאִים, קֹדֶשׁ הֵם לַה׳, חֲשׁוּקִים דְּבוּקִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים, וְלָזֶה יִהְיֶה **לְרָצוֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳** שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רָצוֹן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶמְצָעוּת הַכְּתָב, וְהוּא סוֹד (שיר השירים ו:ג) אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי – וּבָזֶה יִתְרַצֶּה דּוֹדִי לִי. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **לרצון להם לפני ה׳. "that they may be accepted on their behalf by G'd with goodwill."** We need to understand why the two words "Holy unto G'd" possessed the ability to attract G'd's goodwill. Perhaps the word "Holy" referred to the people of Israel. We find Israel described as "Holy" by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2,3). The word "unto G'd" are meant to convey that the Jewish people as a whole are devoted and dedicated to G'd. This fact (and not merely the words on the ציץ) ensure G'd's goodwill towards the people. This is the mystical dimension of the words אני לדודי ודודי לי, in Song of Songs 6,3. Solomon means that "if I am devoted to G'd, as a result G'd i.e. דודי, will turn His benevolent attention towards me." ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:40:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:40:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:40:1) **לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאָרֶת.** טַעַם שֶׁאָמַר כֵּן פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה, לִרְמוֹז מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּזְבָחִים (זבחים יח:) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: הָיוּ מְטוּשְׁטָשִׁין אוֹ מְקוֹרָעִין וְעָבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְתַנְיָא עוֹד שָׁם: ״בַּד״ – שֶׁיִּהְיוּ חֲדָשִׁים. וְאָמְרוּ בַּשַּׁ״ס: חֲדָשִׁים אִין, שְׁחָקִים לֹא, וְהַתַּנְיָא: מְשׁוּחָקִים כְּשֵׁרִים וְכוּ׳, אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה וְכוּ׳. וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **לְכָבוֹד** כְּנֶגֶד קְרוּעִים וְזֶה לְעִכּוּבָא, **וּלְתִפְאָרֶת** כְּנֶגֶד חֲדָשִׁים וְזֶה לְמִצְוָה. וְלָזֶה הֻצְרַךְ הַכָּתוּב לוֹמַר שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְזוּלַת זֶה הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר ״לְתִפְאָרֶת״ שֶׁהוּא יוֹתֵר מֵאָמְרוֹ ״לְכָבוֹד״. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **לכבוד ולתפארת. "for splendour and for beauty."** The reason the Torah repeats this expression again is to allude to something we have learned in *Zevachim* 18. The Talmud there states that if the priestly garments were soiled or torn they were unfit to be worn when the priests were about to perform service in the Temple. According to a Baraitha quoted there the garments had to be made from new cloth. The Talmud there also says that if they were new this was alright whereas if they were old or made from recycled material this was inadmissible. Another Baraitha is quoted saying that recycled material was acceptable but that the requirement that they be made from new material was recommended but not mandatory. The word לכבוד concerns the rule that they were not to be torn, an absolute law, whereas the word ולתפארת refers to the garments being new as a condition which was not mandatory though desirable. This is the reason the Torah had to write both expressions. If our interpretation were not correct, the Torah would have written only the word לתפארת which implies more than the word לכבוד. [There is an opinion offered in the Talmud according to which the garments which became dirty as a result of contact with the אבנט, the girdle, did ot become disqualified. However, if they were dirty when the priest put them on they were disqualified. Ed.] ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:41:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:41:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:41:1) **וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אוֹתָם וְגוֹ׳ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ וְגוֹ׳.** פֵּרוּשׁ, אַחַר שֶׁיַּלְבִּישֵׁם בְּעוֹד הַבְּגָדִים עֲלֵיהֶם יִמְשָׁחֵם וְלֹא קֹדֶם, וּבָזֶה הִגִּיעָתָם הַכְּהֻנָּה לְיָדָם, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ **וּמִלֵּאתָ אֶת יָדָם.** וְאוּלַי כִּי יְכַוֵּן בְּאָמְרוֹ **אֶת יָדָם** בָּזֶה לוֹמַר כִּי בְּאֶמְצָעוּת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה הֵם נִשְׁפָּעִים בִּבְחִינַת הַחֶסֶד הַמִּתְיַחֶסֶת לַיָּד הַגְּדוֹלָה, וְהָבֵן: **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **והלבשת אותם…ומשחת אותם, "and you will dress Aaron and his sons in them and anoint them, etc."** The Torah means that the priests are first to put on the garments and that they are to be anointed while still wearing these garments. The act of anointing the priests with the anointing oil helped to make them into priests. When the Torah speaks of ומלאת את ידם, instead of merely of ומלאת אותם, this may mean that the priests would be affected emotionally by this procedure so that they would become recipients of G'd's kindness, known as "His great **Hand**." Students of the Kabbalah will understand what I refer to. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:41:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:41:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:41:2) **וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ.** פֵּרוּשׁ, בְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, כְּאָמְרוֹ ״וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם לְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתָם״ (שמות כט:א). וְטַעַם שֶׁהִזְכִּיר הַדָּבָר כָּאן, לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא יְקַדֵּשׁ אוֹתָם עַד שֶׁיַּקְדִּים לַעֲשׂוֹת הַלְּבִישָׁה וְהַמְּשִׁיחָה, וְהָבֵן: **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **וקדשת אותם, "and you will sanctify them."** This refers to the performance of the sacrificial service which (Moses) would perform in order to sanctify them. This had to be mentioned here in order for us to know that until Aaron and his sons wore the priestly garments and had been anointed, the sacrificial service performed by Moses did not accomplish the change in their status. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:42:1 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:42:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:42:1) **וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִכְנְסֵי בָד.** קָשֶׁה לָמָּה אִחֵר מִצְוַת הַמִּכְנָסַיִם? וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר, לְצַד שֶׁאָמַר ״וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ אוֹתָם אֶת אַהֲרֹן״, לָזֶה אִחֵר הַמִּכְנָסַיִם לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר עָלָיו מִצְוַת ״וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ״ וְגוֹ׳. וְאֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן לוֹמַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לְבִישָׁתָם בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר (ויקרא טז:ד) ״וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִהְיוּ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ״, וְדָרְשׁוּ בְּיוֹמָא (יומא כג.) שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֵם לַמִּכְנָסַיִם, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי לַטַּעַם שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** **ועשה להם מכנסי בד, "and make for them pants of linen, etc."** Why did the Torah wait so long with the commandment to make pants for the priests? Inasmuch as the Torah had instructed Moses to dress the priests in their service garments I would have thought that this instruction included the need for Moses to put on their pants. In order for us to know that the priests were to put on the pants themselves, the Torah delayed telling us about the pants until after commanding Moses to put the other garments on Aaron and his sons. We must not conclude from the positioning of this commandment that the pants were the last garment the priests were to put on. The Torah mentions in Leviticus 16,4 that the pants should cover the flesh of the priests, and we learned in *Yuma* 23 that the pants were the **first** garment the priests were to put on. Our interpretation of the delay in mentioning the need for the priestly garments to include pants is correct then. ###### Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:42:2 [Or HaChaim on Exodus 28:42:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Exodus/r/28:42:2) עוֹד נִרְאֶה שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לְכָתְבוֹ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּלְהַסְמִיךְ לוֹ מִצְוַת ״וְהָיוּ עַל אַהֲרֹן״ וְגוֹ׳ (שמות כח:מג) ״וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָוֹן וָמֵתוּ״, וְאִם הָיָה כּוֹלְלוֹ עִם שְׁאָר בְּגָדִים וְאוֹמֵר ״וְהָיוּ עַל אַהֲרֹן״ וְגוֹ׳, תָּבֹא הַסְּבָרָא לוֹמַר כִּי לֹא בָּאָה הָאַזְהָרָה אֶלָּא עַל שְׁאָר בְּגָדִים, אֲבָל הַמִּכְנָסַיִם אֵינָם בָּאִים אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּגָּלֶה עֶרְוָה וְאֵין בָּהֶם צֹרֶךְ קְדֻשַּׁת עֲבוֹדָה, לָזֶה אֲמָרָם לְבַסּוֹף וְסָמַךְ לָהֶם הָאַזְהָרָה וְהָעֹנֶשׁ, לוֹמַר כִּי מְעַכֵּב הוּא לִקְדֻשַּׁת הַכְּהֻנָּה כִּשְׁאָר בְּגָדִים. **Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009:** Another reason for listing the pants as the last of the priestly garments may be the Torah's intention to position this commandment immediately adjacent to the warning in verse 43 for the priests not to become guilty of an iniquity as a result of which they would die. Had the Torah included the commandment for the priests to wear special pants when the other garments were listed, I might have concluded that the warning in verse 43 applied only to the garments other than the pants seeing that the reason the priests had to wear pants was for the sake of chastity, something applicable to every male, not just to priests. By positioning the requirement that the priests were to have special pants to be worn when they performed the service in the Temple, the Torah made it clear that whatever rules applied to the other priestly garments also applied to their pants.