AND THOU BRING THOU NEAR AARON THY BROTHER, AND HIS SONS WITH HIM … THAT THEY MINISTER UNTO ME IN THE PRIEST’S OFFICE, EVEN AARON, NADAB AND ABIHU, ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR, AARON’S SONS. The reason for mentioning Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar [when it mentioned already “and his sons”] is that Moses should not think that by anointing the father to minister as priest, his sons would automatically become priests; instead he had to initiate them personally into the priesthood. Thus Phinehas [the son of Eleazar] and others already born were excluded [from the priesthood], for only these four sons who were anointed with Aaron, and their children born to them henceforth, were appointed as priests.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE HOLY GARMENTS FOR AARON THY BROTHER FOR SPLENDOR AND BEAUTY — this means that he be distinguished and glorified with garments of distinction and beauty, just as Scripture says, as a bridegroom putteth on a priestly diadem.²⁷ For these garments [of the High Priest] correspond in their forms to garments of royalty, which monarchs wore at the time when the Torah was given. Thus we find with reference to the tunic, *and he made him a tunic of ‘pasim’*²⁸ — meaning, a cloth woven of variegated colors, this being the tunic of chequer work [mentioned here], just as [Ibn Ezra] explained, which clothed him as a son of ancient kings.²⁹ The same applies to the robe and the tunic, as it is written, Now she [Tamar] had a garment of many colors upon her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled,³⁰ which means that a garment of many colors was seen clearly upon her, for such was the custom that the virgin daughters of the king wore robes with which they wrapped themselves; thus the coat of many colors was upon her as an upper garment. It is for this reason that it says there, and she rent her garment of many colors that was on her.³¹, Verse 19. The mitre [mentioned here] is to this day known among kings and distinguished lords. Therefore Scripture says with reference to the fall of the kingdom [of Judah], The mitre shall be removed, and the crown taken off.³² Similarly it is written, and a royal diadem.³³ Scripture also calls them the ornamented high caps,³⁴ and it is further written, They shall have linen ornamented [caps] upon their heads,³⁵ which are for the beauty and glory of those that are adorned with them. The ephod and the breastplate are also royal garments, just as it is written, and thou shalt have a chain of gold about thy neck.³⁶ The plate [around the forehead, which the High Priest wore], is like a king’s crown. Thus it is written, ‘yatzitz nizro’ (his crown will shine).³⁷ (plate) with the expression yatzitz nizro (his crown will shine), thus suggesting that the tzitz of the High Priest is a sort of royal crown. Furthermore, [the High Priest’s garments] are made of gold, blue-purple, and red-purple³⁸ [which are all symbolic of royalty]. Thus it is written, All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace; her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold,³⁹ and it is further written, thou shalt be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about thy neck.³⁶ As for the blue-purple, even to this day no man will lift up his hand⁴⁰ to wear it except a king of nations,⁴¹ and it is written, And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a ‘tachrich’ (robe) of fine linen and purple⁴² — the tachrich being a robe in which the wearer wraps himself. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala,] majesty is to kavod (glory) and to tiphereth (splendor),⁴³ the verse thus stating that they should make holy garments for Aaron to minister in them to the Glory of G-d Who dwells in their midst, and to the Splendor of their strength, as it is written, For Thou art the Glory of their strength,⁴⁴ and it is further stated, Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee,⁴⁵ meaning [“the house of] our Holy One” which is the Glory, and “of our Splendor” which is the Splendor of Israel. And it is further stated, Strength and beauty are in His Sanctuary,⁴⁶ and similarly, To beautify the place of My Sanctuary, and I will make the place of My feet glorious⁴⁷ — meaning, that the place of the Sanctuary will be glorified by the Splendor, and the place of His feet, which is the place of the Sanctuary, will be honored by the presence of the Glory of G-d. And in Israel will He glorify Himself⁴⁸, 44:23. also means that in Israel He will show and designate His Splendor. Likewise He says further with respect to the garments of all of Aaron’s sons, that they are for splendor and for beauty.⁴⁹ Of the sacrifices He also says, they will come up with ‘ratzon’ (‘will’ — acceptance) on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house.⁵⁰ Thus the altar is His Will and the house of His Glory is the Splendor. The [priestly] garments had to be made with the intention to be used for that purpose. It is possible that in making them, intent of heart [for what they symbolize] was also needed on the part of their makers. It is for this reason that He said, And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom⁵¹ — who will understand what they will do. And the Rabbis have already said [of Alexander the Great, that when asked by his generals why he descended from his chariot to bow before the High Priest Simon the Just, he answered]:⁵² “His image glistened before me whenever I had a victory.”

footnotes: ²⁷ Isaiah 61:10. ²⁸ Genesis 37:3. ²⁹ Isaiah 19:11. ³⁰ II Samuel 13:18. ³¹ Ibid. ³² Ezekiel 21:31. ³³ Isaiah 62:3. ³⁴ Further, 39:28. ³⁵ Ezekiel 44:18. ³⁶ Daniel 5:16. ³⁷ Psalms 132:18. — Ramban thus associates the word tzitz ³⁸ Further, Verse 5. ³⁹ Psalms 45:14. ³⁶ Daniel 5:16. ⁴⁰ Genesis 41:44. ⁴¹ See Isaiah 14:9. ⁴² Esther 8:15. ⁴³ Cabalistic terms for certain Emanations. ⁴⁴ Psalms 89:18. ⁴⁵ Isaiah 64:10. ⁴⁶ Psalms 96:6. ⁴⁷ Isaiah 60:13. ⁴⁸ Ibid. ⁴⁹ Further, Verse 40. ⁵⁰ Isaiah 60:7. ⁵¹ Verse 3. ⁵² Yoma 69a. The story told there is that when Alexander the Great conquered the Land of Israel the Samaritans petitioned him to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. Thereupon a procession of notables went out from Jerusalem headed by Simon the Just, the High Priest, who was attired in the high priestly garments. They walked a whole night with torches in their hand until dawn. In the morning as soon as Alexander saw Simon the Just, he descended from his chariot and bowed down to him. When the Samaritans said to him, “Such a great king as thou art dost thou bow thyself to that Jew?” He replied, “His image etc.”

AND THEY SHALL TAKE THE GOLD. Now up to this point all the commands were directed to Moses himself: and thou shalt make,⁵³ thou shalt make,⁵⁴ but now He commanded that he should speak unto all that are wise-hearted that they make the garments. It is for this reason that He said, and they shall take the gold and the blue-purple, meaning that they are to receive the free-will gifts directly from the public, and make with them the garments. The purport thereof is to state that the gifts should not be weighed out to them, nor be counted, for they are trustworthy people, similarly to that which is said, Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to give to them that did the work; for they dealt faithfully.⁵⁵ And just as this is said with reference to the garments, the same applied to the whole work of the Tabernacle. Only on the first day [of its construction] is it written, and they received of Moses,⁵⁶ and even then they took everything from him without an accounting. But on the other days the people brought the gifts directly to those who did the work. Therefore it is written, And they spoke unto Moses, saying: The people bring much more than enough⁵⁷, Verse 5. — for it was to them that the people brought the free-will gifts, not that they gave them to Moses for him to weigh it out to them. However, after the workers had collected everything, they did count and weigh it out, and told it to Moses, as it is written, and the gold of the offering was twenty and nine talents etc.⁵⁸, 38:24.

footnotes: ⁵³ Verse 2. ⁵⁴ Above, 26:1. ⁵⁵ II Kings 12:16. ⁵⁶ Further, 36:3. ⁵⁷ Ibid. ⁵⁸ Ibid.

AND THE BREASTPLATE SHALL NOT BE ‘YIZACH’ (LOOSENED) FROM THE EPHOD. “Yizach is an expression of ‘breaking away’. It is an Arabic expression, as Dunash ben Labrat explained.”⁵⁹ This is Rashi’s language. It appears likely to me, however, that yizach is like yisach (break away), which is associated with the expressions: The Eternal ‘yisach’ (will pluck up) the house of the proud;⁶⁰ and the faithless ‘yis’chu’ (shall be plucked up) out of it⁶¹, 2:22. — referring to breaking and plucking, and the letter samech (in yisach), is interchanged with the letter zayin (of yizach), just as in the verses: *let the saints ‘ya’alzu’ (exult) in glory;*⁶² is with a zayin. *‘nithalsa’ (let us solace ourselves) with loves;*⁶³. *‘v’nitatztem’ (and ye shall break down) their altars;*⁶⁴ ‘nathsu’ (they break up) my path.⁶⁵ interchanges with the samech of the above verse. See in this connection Vol. I, p. 485. Similarly, *and they shall keep the watch of the house ‘masach’*⁶⁶ — from being torn away; he. [Jehoiada the priest] thus warned the guard that not one of them should leave his position and thus cause the watch to be broken. Perhaps the following verse can also be explained on this basis: ‘ulmeizach’ wherewith he is girded continually,⁶⁷ which means “for separation and breaking,” the verse stating that the wicked shall always be girded with the curse until they will be destroyed and broken up by it, just as others gird themselves with a girdle. There is no ‘meizach’ any more⁶⁸ — there is no more separation, the prophet [Isaiah] telling the people of Tyre: “overflow with the people of your land as the Nile to the land of Tarshish your trafficker; there will be no more separation and scattering for you — for not one will be separated from you there [in the hope of returning to his city], since he will not return to Tyre, because it will have been destroyed completely.” The term horeis applies to one who separates himself from the station of his colleagues, just as in the expression, let them not ‘yehersu’ (break through) towards the Eternal to see,⁶⁹ and it is written, and from thy station ‘yehersecha’ (shalt thou be pulled down).⁷⁰ Similarly: *He looseth ‘meziach aphikim’*⁷¹ — He abates the destruction of the aphikim, which are flooding rivers that inundate mountains and valleys. The term meizach⁶⁸ is in the same form as meitzach (forehead), both of them having the letter nun missing,⁷² (forehead) is of the root nitzuach (victory), since the strength of the head is in the forehead. Likewise the word meizah is of the root nosach or nozach which means pull or tear away. as [meitzach] is of the root nitzuach (enduring, victory), for the strength of the head is in the forehead.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ A pupil of Saadia Gaon, he was grammarian, exegete and poet. He wrote a criticism of Menachem ben Saruk’s Machbereth (see Vol. I, p. 156, Note 347), whose contemporary he was. He was born in Baghdad and ultimately settled in Cordova where, like Menachem, he was a protege of Hasdai ibn Shaprut. He flourished in the middle of the tenth century. ⁶⁰ Proverbs 15:25. ⁶¹ Ibid. ⁶² Psalms 149:5. — Here ya’alzu ⁶³ Proverbs 7:18. — Here the same root appears with a samech ⁶⁴ Deuteronomy 12:3. ⁶⁵ Job 30:13. In this case the tzade ⁶⁶ II Kings 11:6. ⁶⁷ Psalms 109:19. ⁶⁸ Isaiah 23:10. ⁶⁹ Above, 19:21. The beginning of the quote here comes from Verse 24 there. ⁷⁰ Isaiah 22:19. ⁷¹ Job 12:21. ⁶⁸ Isaiah 23:10. ⁷² As Ramban will explain, meitzach

AND THOU SHALT PUT IN THE BREASTPLATE OF JUDGMENT THE URIM AND THE THUMMIM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought to display wisdom in the matter of the Urim and the Thummim, by saying that they were made by a craftsman from gold and silver, and he continued his discussion of them in this vein, for he thought that they were akin to the forms which the astrologers make in order to know the thoughts of the one who comes to ask of them [about the future]. But what [Ibn Ezra] said is of no import. Rather, the Urim and the Thummim are as Rashi has written: “This was an inscription of the Proper Name of G-d which was placed between the folds of the breastplate.” It was for this reason that the breastplate had to be double⁷³ [i.e., made of a material that was folded in order to form a sort of bag, into which the Urim and the Thummim — the sacred Names of G-d, as explained further on, — were placed by Moses]. The proof for this is that in the work of the craftsmen the Urim and the Thummim are not mentioned at all, neither in the command nor in the [description of the] making thereof. Now concerning the garments He details: And he made the ephod,⁷⁴ and he made the breastplate,⁷⁵, Verse 8. but it does not say, “and he made the Urim and the Thummim.” And if it were the work of a skilled engraver He would have dealt with it in greater length than with all [the garments]. Even if perhaps He desired to shorten the discussion about them on account of their profundity, He would at least have said here, “and thou shalt make the Urim and the Thumim as it has been shown to you in the mount; of pure gold — or purified silver — you shall make them.” moreover, you will notice that He did not use the definite article in connection with any of the vessels [of the Tabernacle] which had not been previously mentioned. Instead, He said, *and they shall make an ark;*⁷⁶ *and thou shalt make a table;*⁷⁷, Verse 23. *and thou shalt make a candelabrum,*⁷⁸, Verse 31 and thus too in connection with all of them. In the case of the Tabernacle, however, He said, And thou shalt make ‘the’ Tabernacle,⁷⁹, 26:1. because He had already mentioned it [in saying], And let them make Me a Sanctuary.⁸⁰, 25:8. Now with reference to the Urim and the Thummim He said, And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment ‘the’ Urim and ‘the’ Thummim. He did not command him as to the making of them, and yet Scripture mentions them with the definite article! Moreover, Scripture mentions them with reference to Moses only, saying by way of command, and thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment…; similarly, at the time of making them it says, and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim,⁸¹ since they were not the work of craftsmen. Neither craftsmen nor the congregation of Israel had any part whatsoever in their making or in their donation, for they were a secret transmitted by the Almighty to Moses, and he wrote them in holiness. They⁸² were thus of heavenly origin, and therefore they are referred to without any specification and with the definite article, in a similar usage to that which we have in the verse, and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim.⁸³] and yet nowhere previously do we read concerning them (Bachya). Now Moses took the inscription of the Urim and the Thummim, and placed them in the breastplate of judgment after he had clothed Aaron with the ephod and the breastplate, as it is said, And he put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the skilfully-woven band of the ephod… And he placed the breastplate upon him; and in the breastplate he put the Urim and the Thummim.⁸⁴ For only after [Aaron was already clothed with the ephod and the breastplate] did Moses place the Urim and the Thummim between the folds of the breastplate. Thus the Urim and the Thummim were the holy Names of G-d, and it was by virtue of the power residing in these Names that the letters inscribed upon the stones of the breastplate would light up before the eyes of the priest who inquired of their judgment.⁸⁵ For example, when they inquired, Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them,⁸⁶ Eternal said: ‘Yehudah ya’aleh’ (Judah shall go up). the priest fixed his thoughts on those Divine Names which were the Urim [literally: “lights”], and the letters forming the name Yehudah lighted up before his eyes, and [for the word ya’aleh — “he shall go up”] the letter yod lighted up from the word Levi,⁸⁷ amongst these names, the patriarchs’ names [Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov] were also inscribed upon the stones. Finally to include the letter tet the words shivtei Y-ah (“the tribes of G-d”) were also written upon them (Yoma 73 b). The answer given to the priest who inquired of the Urim and Thummim was through the gleaming forth of the letters written upon the stones. Thus when the tribes asked, Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites? the name Yehudah gleamed forth, and as for the word ya’aleh, the yod of Levi lighted up etc. the ayin from Shimon, the lamed from Levi, and the hei from Avraham which was also written there, according to the opinion of our Rabbis,⁸⁸ or perhaps the hei from Yehudah lighted up a second time. Now when the letters lighted up before the eyes of the priest, he did not yet know their arrangement [that is, how these letters were to be grouped together into words], for from the letters forming the words Yehudah ya’aleh (Judah shall go up), it is possible to form the words: hoy heid alehah,⁸⁹ or hie al Yehudah,⁹⁰ and very many other words. But then there were other sacred Divine Names [in the fold of the breastplate] called Thummim [literally: “perfection”], through whose power the priest’s heart was made perfect to understand the meaning of the letters which lighted up before his eyes. Thus, when he fixed his thoughts on the Divine Names in the Urim, and the letters lighted up, he would then immediately turn and fix his thoughts on the Divine Names in the Thummim, whilst the letters [of the Urim] were still lit up before him, and then it came to his mind that they combine to form the words Yehudah ya’aleh (Judah shall go up). This knowledge [of how to combine the letters that lit up in the breastplate into words], is one level of the degrees of Ruach Hakodesh.⁹¹ It is lower than prophecy, and higher than the Bath Kol⁹² which served [Israel] in the Second Sanctuary after prophecy had ceased, and after the Urim and Thummim had ceased, just as our Rabbis have mentioned.⁹³ It is possible that after Moses placed the sacred Names of the Urim and Thummim in the breastplate, they became known to the great Sages of Israel, having been transmitted to them from Moses together with the secrets of the Torah. Hence we find that David possessed an ephod⁹⁴, which was similar to the ephod of Moses, and together with it was a breastplate similar to the holy breastplate [in the Tabernacle]. It appears, however, that [instead of being made of gold, blue-purple etc.] it was made of linen, just as it says of Samuel that he was a child, girden with a linen ephod,⁹⁵, 2:18. and of Nob, the city of priests, it is said, fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.⁹⁶, 22:18. They would clothe a priest who was of the sons of the prophets,⁹⁷ and inquire of him [regarding certain events] and at times they were answered, just as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought on this point. However, as far as that which he [Ibn Ezra] said, that if [Rashi] had seen the responsum of Rabbeinu Hai,⁹⁸ he would not have explained as he did, [that the Urim and Thummim were inscriptions of the Proper Name of G-d] — now we have already seen that responsum and have considered it, and we know [for a certainty] that it was Rabbi Abraham whose opinion [shows that he] did not grasp it.

footnotes: ⁷³ Verse 16. ⁷⁴ Further, 39:2. ⁷⁵ Ibid. ⁷⁶ Above, 25:10. ⁷⁷ Ibid. ⁷⁸ Ibid. ⁷⁹ Ibid. ⁸⁰ Ibid. ⁸¹ Leviticus 8:8. ⁸² In Ricanti [quoting the language of Ramban]: “Or they were…” ⁸³ Genesis 3:24. Here too Scripture uses the definite article [‘the’ cherubim ⁸⁴ Leviticus 8:7-8. ⁸⁵ Numbers 27:21. ⁸⁶ Judges 1:1. — Scripture continues [in Verse 2]: And the ⁸⁷ The twelve stones in the breastplate bore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Since there was no letter tzade ⁸⁸ Yoma 73b. See Note above. ⁸⁹ “The echo of woe upon it.” ⁹⁰ “Lamentation upon Judah.” ⁹¹ Literally: “The Holy Spirit.” See Moreh Nebuchim II, 45, beginning: “second degree of prophecy.” ⁹² Literally: “echo” or “reverberating sound.” It is here used in the sense of a Divine Voice which on certain occasions was heard coming forth from the Holy of Holies (Sotah 33 a). ⁹³ Yoma 21b. ⁹⁴ I Samuel 23:6. ⁹⁵ Ibid. ⁹⁶ Ibid ⁹⁷ II Kings 4:1. A term denoting the disciples of the prophets, or those who sought the prophetic gift. ⁹⁸ The last of the Gaonim. He was a son of Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon (see Vol. I, p. 97, Note 477). — Rabbeinu Hai Gaon wrote in a responsum that by invoking the Proper Name of G-d, or the names of the angels, one could not predict future events. Using this responsum as a basis, Ibn Ezra commented that if Rashi had seen this responsum he would not have written that the Urim and Thummim were inscriptions of the Proper Name of G-d etc. [as quoted above]. — To this comment of Ibn Ezra, Ramban answers caustically: “We have already seen this responsum of Rabbeinu Hai and have pondered its meaning, and we do know that it was Ibn Ezra’s understanding that did not grasp it.”

ME’IL’ (ROBE). Rashi commented:⁹⁹ “This was a kind of shirt, and so also was the k’thoneth, except that the k’thoneth was worn next to the body and the me’il is a term for the upper [outer] shirt.” But this is not so, for the me’il is a garment in which one wraps oneself, just as Scripture says, and he [Samuel] is covered with a ‘me’il’,¹⁰⁰ and it is further written, ‘y’atoni’ (He hath covered me) with ‘me’il’ (the robe) of righteousness,¹⁰¹ and the term atiyah (enwrapping) does not apply to a shirt, but to a garment with which one covers oneself, as it is said, ‘oteh’ (Who coverest Thyself) with light as with a garment,¹⁰² it being associated with the term atoph (enveloping onself). And so we find: and his upper lip ‘ya’teh’ (he shall cover up,¹⁰³ [which Onkelos renders] yitatoph.¹⁰⁴ and atoph are identical terms. This is identical with the word kardunin¹⁰⁵. from the Targum of Jonathan ben Uziel which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned [as his translation of the word me’il], for this kardunin is used for enwrapping oneself, something akin to the form of the ephod with which [the High Priest] envelops the half of his body that is towards his feet. But if a me’il was a kind of shirt [as Rashi said], then me’il and kardunin would not be alike at all. Another proof is the verse, and he seized the skirt of ‘me’ilo’ (his robe), and it rent.¹⁰⁶ Thus the me’il has skirts and is not a kind of shirt. Rather, the me’il is a garment which enwraps the whole body from the neck downwards to the feet of the person, and has no sleeves at all. Now in other me’ilim there is a piece of garment for the neck, covering the whole of it, and sewed on [with a needle], this garment being called pi me’il (the hole of the robe), but with reference to this me’il Scripture commanded that it be woven together with the robe.¹⁰⁷ The me’il is entirely slit frontwise till the bottom, and he put his head through the hole on top; thus the neck [of the priest] is enwrapped with the hole of the me’il, and in front of him are the two skirts with which he covers or uncovers himself at will — something like [our] cloak which has no head-tire. Now since the seam divides the front part of the me’il and separates it all the way downwards, therefore the term atiyah (enwrapping) is always used in connection with it [as explained above]. Nor do I know either¹⁰⁸ [as explained above], I also do not know why etc.” why the Rabbi [Rashi] made the bells independent objects, stating that there was one bell between every two pomegranates.¹⁰⁹ For if so, the pomegranates served no purpose. And if they were made just for ornament, why were they made like hollow pomegranates? Let him rather make them like golden apples! Moreover, Scripture should have explained with what the bells should be hung, and whether rings should be made on which to hang the bells. Instead, [we must say that] the bells were inside the pomegranates themselves, for the pomegranates were hollow and made in the shape of small pomegranates that have not yet burst open,¹¹⁰ and the bells were hidden inside but visible through them. Now Scripture has not specified their number. But our Rabbis have said¹¹⁰ that there were seventy-two bells and within them there were seventy-two clappers; he hung thirty-six on one side and thirty-six on the other side, as is found in Tractate Zebachim, in the chapter The Altar Sanctifies.¹¹⁰ From here also you may learn that the me’il was not a sort of shirt or kthoneth [as Rashi wrote], but instead it had skirts [front and back, and therefore the Rabbis speak of “one side” and “the other side” of the me’il]. Similarly Rashi wrote⁹⁹ that “the mitznepheth (mitre) is a kind of domed helmet, for in another place¹¹¹ the verse calls it migba’oth, which we translate in the Targum kov’in (helmets).” This also is not correct, for the Rabbis have said¹¹² that the mitznepheth was sixteen cubits long. Thus it was a sort of turban with which the head is wrapped, as he wound it around and around his head, fold upon fold. Moreover, the mitznepheth of the High Priest is nowhere called migba’oth [as Rashi said]. It is only with reference to the ordinary priests that Scripture calls the head-dress migba’oth,¹¹³. — Thus Scripture distinguishes between the two garments, since the mitznepheth was made for Aaron and the migba’oth for Aaron’s sons. So how did Rashi write of the mitznepheth that in another place Scripture calls it migba’oth? and these too were a sort of turban,¹¹⁴ is for the common priest elsewhere called migba’at, that too, continues Ramban, would not be correct; since the head-dress for the common priest is also called mitznepheth, as explained in the text (Gur Aryeh). Thus according to Ramban the head-dress for the common priest is called both mitznepheth and migba’at, while that of the High Priest is called only mitznepheth. except that they were set upon¹¹⁵ — was wound around his head in several folds like a turban, and the one for the common priest was also wound in folds (hence its name mitznepheth) but set upon his head and came up like a conical helmet [hence its other name — migba’at]. See also Ramban further on Verse 37, and 29:7. the head and the folds came up like a sort of [conical] helmet which is the kovei’a, as Onkelos rendered it. For migba’at is like mikba’at, as I have said in Seder Mikeitz,¹¹⁶ as the letter gimmel serves here as kuph, excepting that the migba’at was also wound like a mitznepheth. It is for this reason that the Sages always mention in Torath Kohanim¹¹⁷, 2:1. — For the term Torath Kohanim see above Note 19. the mitznepheth both in relation to the High Priest and the common priest. And in Tractate Yoma¹¹⁸ we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “A High Priest ministers [the Divine Service] in eight garments, and a common priest in four — in tunic, breeches, mitznepheth (mitre), and belt. To these the High Priest adds the breastplate, the ephod, the upper garment, and the frontplate.”¹¹⁹ applies to the head-dress of both the High Priest and the common priest. As to why the head-dress of the common priest is also called migba’at, see Note 115 above.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ On Verse 4 above. ¹⁰⁰ I Samuel 28:14. ¹⁰¹ Isaiah 61:10. ¹⁰² Psalms 104:2. ¹⁰³ Leviticus 13:45. ¹⁰⁴ This shows that atiyah ¹⁰⁵ In our Rashi: kardutin ¹⁰⁶ I Samuel 15:27. ¹⁰⁷ Verse 32. ¹⁰⁸ I.e., “in addition to that which I did not understand in Rashi’s definition of the me’il ¹⁰⁹ Rashi, Verse 33. ¹¹⁰ Zebachim 88b. ¹¹⁰ Zebachim 88b. ¹¹⁰ Zebachim 88b. ⁹⁹ On Verse 4 above. ¹¹¹ Verse 40. ¹¹² The source is not known. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 476. ¹¹³ Further, 39:28. [And they made… the ‘mitznepheth’ (mitre) of fine linen, and the ornamented ‘migba’oth’ (head-tires) of fine linen ¹¹⁴ Ramban’s intent is as follows: Even if we were to say that Rashi intended to state that the head-dress for the High Priest here called mitznepheth ¹¹⁵ The difference between the two attires is thus clear. The head-dress of the High Priest — i.e., the mitznepheth ¹¹⁶ Genesis 41:47 (Vol. I, pp. 505-506). ¹¹⁷ Sifra Tzav ¹¹⁸ Yoma 71b. ¹¹⁹ Thus it is clear that the term mitznepheth

THAT HE DIE NOT. “From this negative statement you infer the positive: if these garments are upon him, he will not incur death, but if he enters [the Sanctuary] lacking one of these garments he is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven].” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for if so He should have written this verse after having mentioned all eight garments [of the High Priest], and why did He mention it after three garments — the breastplate, the ephod, and the robe — before mentioning the frontplate, the upper garment, the mitre, the belt and the breeches! Furthermore, [the verse reads here,] and when he cometh out [of the Sanctuary], that he die not. But the act of going out [from the Sanctuary] is no function for which he should incur death if lacking the [proper number of] garments! Similarly Rashi commented on the verse: “And they shall be upon Aaron and upon his sons¹²⁰ — they means all these garments; upon Aaron and upon his sons, those which are proper to him, and those specified for them. [That they bear not iniquity,] and die¹²⁰ — thus you learn that he who ministers [the Divine Service] lacking any of these garments incurs death [by the hand of Heaven].” And so indeed it appears from the simple meaning of Scripture. But according to the conclusion reached on these subjects in the discussions in the Gemara,¹²¹, Note 204. The particular texts here referred to are mentioned further on. it would appear that this does not conform to the opinion of our Rabbis, for to them this commandment applies to all alike, to Aaron and his sons, but it refers only to the breeches, and the punishment [of death by the hand of Heaven for lacking them] likewise applies [only] to them [i.e. the breeches]. For He had commanded that they be made, [as it is said,] And thou shalt make them linen breeches,¹²² and then He commanded concerning their being worn [by the priests, saying,] And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons.¹²⁰ As to the rest of the garments, He had already given the command above concerning the making of them and wearing them, [as it is said,] And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and upon his sons with him.¹²³ If so, this command [And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons]¹²⁰ refers wholly to the breeches, and the punishment likewise refers [only] to them. We learn this from what the Rabbis have said in Tractates Sanhedrin¹²⁴ and The Slaughtering of Sacrifices:¹²⁵ “Whence do we know that a priest who ministered [the Divine Service] lacking the [proper number of] garments is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven]? Said Rabbi Abohu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and they arrived in the chain of tradition up to ‘in the name of Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon:' And thou shalt gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind head-tires on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute,¹²⁶ the interpretation of which is: ‘So long as they wear their [appointed] garments, they are invested with their priesthood; when they do not wear their garments, they are not invested with their priesthood, and they become laymen, and it has been said that a layman who ministers [in the Sanctuary] incurs the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven].” Now if this verse [that they bear not iniquity, and die]¹²⁰ were held by the Rabbis to apply to all the garments [of the priests], as the Rabbi [Rashi] said, they could have found in it an expressly stated punishment for one who ministers lacking all the garments, [and why did they need to base it upon an inference from another verse]! Rather, this verse refers only to the breeches, and the other verse to the rest of the garments, where the breeches are not mentioned at all. Proof to what the Rabbis have said [that this verse, And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons… that they bear not iniquity, and die,¹²⁰ refers only to the breeches], is that further on when the order of putting on the garments is mentioned,¹²⁷, Verses 5-9. the breeches are not referred to at all, for having declared here the punishment if they are lacking [when ministering in the Sanctuary], there was no more need to mention them again further on, as it is understood already that he would wear them. And that which He said above [i.e., in Verse 35 before us], and the sound thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Eternal, and when he goeth out, that he die not, is [not as Rashi has it that from here we learn that if he enters the Sanctuary lacking one of these garments he incurs death at the hand of Heaven, but is] in my opinion an explanation for the commandment of the bells [upon the robe], since there was no need to wear them, nor are they customary amongst dignitaries. Therefore He said that He commanded that they be made in order that the sound thereof be heard in the Sanctuary, that the priest enter before his Master as if with permission. For he who comes into the king’s palace suddenly, incurs the penalty of death according to the court ceremonial, just as we find in the case of Ahasuerus.¹²⁸. It thus alludes to what the Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi Tractate Yoma:¹²⁹, Note 204. “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goeth in to make atonement in the holy place¹³⁰ — even those [heavenly beings] of whom it is written, As for the likeness of their faces they had the face of a man,¹³¹ they too are not to be then in the Tent of Meeting.” Therefore He commanded that [the ministering High Priest] make a sound be heard, as if crying out, ‘Cause everyone to go out from before me,’¹³² so that he can come to minister before the King alone. Similarly, when going out from the Sanctuary his sound is heard in order to leave with permission, and that the matter be known so that the King’s ministers can go out before Him. In the Chapters of the Palaces¹³³ this subject is known. Thus the reason [for the bells upon the robe of the High Priest] is that he should not be encountered by the angels of G-d. He gave this warning concerning the High Priest¹³⁴ on account of his high position. This is Scripture’s intent in saying, when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Eternal, for it is the High Priest who passes¹³⁵ before Him so that He cause His Divine Glory to rest upon his service, for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts,¹³⁶ even though the common priests also enter the Sanctuary to burn the incense and to kindle [the lamps].¹³⁷ Now I have seen in the Midrash Shemoth Rabbah¹³⁸ with reference to the stones upon the breastplate: “For what reason were the stones? It was in order that the Holy One, blessed be He, observe them in the garments of the priest when he enters on the Day of Atonement,¹³⁹ and He be gracious to the tribes [whose names were inscribed upon the stones in the breastplate]. Rabbi Yehoshua in the name of Rabbi Levi says: This may be compared to a king’s son, whose tutor came before the king to speak in his defense, but was afraid of those standing there lest they strike him. What did the king do? He dressed him in his purple cloak in order that they see it and be afraid of him. In the same way Aaron entered at all times¹⁴⁰ the Holy of Holies, and were it not for the many merits that entered with him and helped him, he could not have entered. Why? Because of the ministering angels who were there. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He gave him a likeness of His sacred garment, as it is said, And He put on righteousness as a coat of mail.”¹⁴¹ Thus far is the language of this Agadah. Now even though the High Priest did not enter into the innermost part of the Sanctuary [i.e., the Holy of Holies] with these garments, yet on the Day of Atonement he needed these [garments] even in the Tent of Meeting, for it is written, And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting.¹⁴²

footnotes: ¹²⁰ Verse 43. ¹²⁰ Verse 43. ¹²¹ For meaning of the term Gemara see in Seder Bo ¹²² Verse 42. ¹²⁰ Verse 43. ¹²³ Verse 41. ¹²⁰ Verse 43. ¹²⁴ Sanhedrin 83b. ¹²⁵ Zebachim 17b. ¹²⁶ Further, 29:9. ¹²⁰ Verse 43. ¹²⁰ Verse 43. ¹²⁷ Ibid. ¹²⁸ Esther 4:11. All the king’s servants… do know, that whosoever… shall come unto the king… who is not called, there is one law for him, that he be put to death ¹²⁹ Yerushalmi Yoma I,5. — On Jerusalem Talmud see in Seder Bo ¹³⁰ Leviticus 16:17. ¹³¹ Ezekiel 1:10. ¹³² Genesis 45:1. ¹³³ Pirkei Heichaloth, 31. — This is an Agadic Midrash on “The Seven Palaces of Heaven.” See Wertheimer’s ed. of Batei Midrashoth Vol. I, p. 67. ¹³⁴ Since the common priests also entered the Sanctuary in the regular daily service, the question arises why were these bells not necessary upon their garments so that their sound be heard when they come into the Sanctuary? Ramban’s answer is that this was on account of the high position of the High Priest. “For the greater the person the more are the powers of strict judgment stirred up against him” (Bi’ur Ha’lvush to Ricanti who quotes the language of Ramban). ¹³⁵ Another reading: “ministers.” ¹³⁶ Malachi 2:7. ¹³⁷ Yet the High Priest is more distinguished; hence the bells were necessary upon his garments and not upon those of the common priests, as explained above (see Note 134). ¹³⁸ Shemoth Rabbah 38:10. ¹³⁹ When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement entered the Holy of Holies he did not wear the eight garments [amongst which was the breastplate], but instead, he wore the four linen garments [as prescribed in Leviticus 16:4]. The meaning of the Midrash must perforce be as follows: The merit of the High Priest wearing the breastplate all the year round when ministering in the Sanctuary, stood by him when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, although at that moment he did not wear it. ¹⁴⁰ Reference here is to the four times that the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies during the special service for the Day of Atonement (Peirush Maharzav on Midrash Rabbah). ¹⁴¹ Isaiah 59:17. ¹⁴² Leviticus 16:17. Therefore when the High Priest came into the Sanctuary during the service preceding his entrance into the Holy of Holies, he also had to wear these garments as his protection against those powers assailing him because of his high position.

AND THOU SHALT PUT IT ON A BLUE-PURPLE STRING. “But in another place in Scripture it states, And they put upon it a string of blue-purple¹⁴³ [which indicates that the frontplate was beneath the string, not upon it as is here commanded]! Moreover, here it is written, and it shall be upon the mitre, and further on it says, *And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead!*¹⁴⁴ In the Tractate on the Slaughtering of Sacrifices¹⁴⁵ we have been taught: ‘The High Priest’s hair was visible between the frontplate and the mitre, whereon he placed the phylacteries.’ From this we learn that the mitre was above on the crown of the head [and was not so large that it covered the entire head right down to the forehead], and the frontplate was beneath it [with a space between them], and the strings were in holes and hung from the frontplate at its two ends and in its middle — six in these three places:¹⁴⁶ one string on top [of the frontplate], one outside and one inside [between the frontplate and the forehead]. He tied the ends of the three strings behind the neck, and thus it came to be that the length of the frontplate and the strings at its ends encompassed his whole skull. The middle string which was on top was tied together to the ends of the two strings [at the extremities of the frontplate], and passed over above the breadth of the head. Thus it came to be that [the frontplate with the strings] formed a kind of helmet. Now it is with reference to the middle string that Scripture states, and it shall be upon the mitre, for he placed the frontplate [together with the strings tied in the above manner] upon his head [as a kind of helmet, passing it over the mitre], and tightened it through the middle string so that it would not fall. Thus the frontplate hung in front of his forehead. All these verses are thus reconciled: the string was on the frontplate, and the frontplate upon the string, and the string on the mitre above.” All this is Rashi’s language. But I wonder concerning Rashi’s words, for Scripture commands the making of only one blue-purple string, and he makes six! Moreover, Rashi combined the verses which tell of the command to make [the frontplate] with those which tell of the making thereof,¹⁴⁷] is found further (39:31) in connection with the actual making thereof. So how can the string mentioned in that verse be added to the one that is stated in the verse commanding the making of the frontplate? increasing the strings with the number of verses! One could count in such manner in the case of the ark, the table, and the candelabrum [two of each, since they are mentioned once in the command to make, and again in the narrative when they were actually made]! Furthermore, if Scripture commanded that they put the frontplate on a blue-purple string, how did they [do the opposite and] put a blue-purple string on it? Where were they commanded to do so? And why did they need the strings in the middle, since the frontplate was tied behind the neck, as are all frontplates which are worn by men and women? Indeed, the matter is not as the Rabbi [Rashi] said. For there was only one string there; the plate reached from ear to ear and was pierced at its two ends and the blue-purple string was put through the two holes, the plate being thus tied behind the neck. Thus he wound the mitznepheth (mitre) around the head, not at all upon the forehead, but on the head where the hair grows. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁴⁸ that he also left [uncovered] part of the hair of his head towards his face for the phylacteries, he wound [the mitznepheth] high above on the crown of the head, opposite the middle of the brain, covering the whole head at the back. Thus the mitznepheth lay above on the slope of the head opposite the brain, and the frontplate rested opposite his forehead from ear to ear, there being nothing intervening between his forehead and the frontplate. Thus the mitznepheth lay on the back of his head from ear to ear, opposite the whole neck, and the string which was tied to the frontplate was upon the mitznepheth. It is with reference to this that Scripture says, And thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string, meaning that he should put the string through the holes of the frontplate; and the string shall be upon the mitre behind his ears opposite the neck; towards the front of the mitre it shall be — that is, the frontplate, which shall be upon the forehead opposite the front part of the mitre. This is Scripture’s intent in stating, And thou shalt set the mitre upon his head,¹⁴⁹ that is to say, above on the crown of the head, unlike the migba’oth of which it is said, and thou shalt bind head-tires upon them,¹⁵⁰, Verse 9. binding the head like one whose head hurts and he binds it for the purpose of strengthening the head. It further states, and thou shalt put the holy crown upon the mitre,¹⁴⁹ for it was upon the mitre that [the frontplate] was tied at the back. This is so stated: And they put upon it a string of blue-purple, to fasten it upon the mitre above,¹⁴³ for there upon [the mitre] the string [of the frontplate] was tied. Similarly, and upon the mitre, in front, did he set the golden plate,¹⁵¹ means that he tied upon the front of the mitre the golden frontplate. Thus the term “placing” in all the verses refers to putting [the string of the frontplate] upon the mitre, for it was there that it was tied; the frontplate itself, however, was on the forehead opposite the mitre. There is then no difference between the expression And they put upon it a string of blue-purple,¹⁴³ and [in the verse before us] and thou shalt put it on a blue-purple string [unlike Rashi who distinguished between them], for in both cases it is as if it said, “and thou shalt place it with a blue-purple string,” “and thou shalt put a blue-purple string,” similar in usage to the expression, and thou shalt put them ‘on’ one basket,¹⁵² which means “in” the basket. Likewise, escape ‘on’ thy life¹⁵³ [which means “with your life,” as long as your life is in you, or “escape for your life”]. Or it may be that the word al (‘on’ — on a blue-purple string) here serves as el (to), thus stating: “and you shall put it to a blue-purple string,” “and they put a blue-purple string to it,” for the string was put [to the frontplate, and the frontplate was put] to it, for it rested on it for support. In essence, the meaning of the verses is only that they should place a string in the holes of the frontplate, and in that way it also came about that the frontplate was upon the string and the string upon the frontplate. Similarly, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof to the rings of the ephod with a string of blue-purple,¹⁵⁴ from which Rashi brought a proof¹⁵⁵ of blue-purple,’ for we find the same thing in the case of the breastplate and the ephod, of which it is said, And they shall bind the breastplate by the rings thereof with a string of blue-purple (above, Verse 28), and you must admit that there could not have been less than two strings, for at the two ends of the breastplate were the two rings of the breastplate, and on the two shoulder pieces of the ephod were two rings opposite them. Now according to the way the breastplate was tied on, there were four threads, and under any circumstance it could not have been less than two [and yet Scripture speaks only of ‘a string’ of blue-purple]!” — To this proof of Rashi, Ramban answers that reference is only to one string, as explained in the text. [that there were three double strings in the frontplate], also refers to only one string, which they put through the rings of the breastplate and the rings of the ephod opposite them; so also on the other side there was one string, for these were two [separate] places, and in each place they tied [the breastplate by the rings thereof] with one string [of blue-purple to the rings of the ephod].

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Further, 39:31. ¹⁴⁴ Verse 38. ¹⁴⁵ Zebachim 19 a-b. ¹⁴⁶ For, as the center of each string rested at the bottom point of the hole, the three strings became six. ¹⁴⁷ The verse mentioned by Rashi [And they put upon it a string of blue-purple ¹⁴⁸ Zebachim 19a. ¹⁴⁹ Further, 29:6. ¹⁵⁰ Ibid. ¹⁴⁹ Further, 29:6. ¹⁴³ Further, 39:31. ¹⁵¹ Leviticus 8:9. ¹⁴³ Further, 39:31. ¹⁵² Further, 29:3. ¹⁵³ Genesis 19:17. ¹⁵⁴ Above, Verse 28. ¹⁵⁵ In Rashi’s exposition of the frontplate he had explained (as mentioned above) that there were three double strings attached to it. To answer the question why Scripture speaks only of “a thread of blue-purple” in the singular, Rashi wrote (further 39:31). “Do not be puzzled because it does not say ‘threads

AND THOU SHALT PUT THEM UPON AARON THY BROTHER AND UPON HIS SONS WITH HIM — “those which are mentioned in connection with them.” This is Rashi’s language. The meaning of with him is that they were all clothed with the priestly garments and anointed on the same day.

AND THOU SHALT ANOINT THEM ‘UMILEITHA ETH YADAM’ [literally: “and fill their hands”]. “Every expression of ‘filling the hand’ denotes installation, when one enters for the first time into an office which one is to hold from that day onwards.” This is Rashi’s language. But I have not understood his words. How does the expression of “filling the hand” come to mean “installation?” And as to that which the Rabbi said that “in the [old] French language — when a person is appointed to be in charge of any matter, the ruler puts into his hand a leather glove which they call gant, and by means of that glove gives him the right to that matter, and it is this which is called ‘filling the hand,’” — I do not know whether the Rabbi’s intent is to state that because of that glove the installation is called “filling the hand,” and to this he brought proof from a custom [in France]! Know that this custom they derived from the Torah, as to them this form of taking possession is [what is meant by] the acquisition by exchange mentioned in connection with Boaz, for so they translated: [Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging…] *a man drew off ‘na’alo’ (his shoe)*¹⁵⁶ — “a man drew off his gant,” and they say¹⁵⁷ and gives it to the recipient. that it was the near kinsman that gave it to Boaz. This custom of theirs is mentioned in the books of their scholars. Thus we have engaged in vain talk! The correct interpretation of milui yadayim in the Torah is that it is an expression of perfection, similar in usage to these verses: *‘ki malu yamai’ (for my days are completed);*¹⁵⁸ *‘ubimloth’ hayamim ha’eileh’ (and when these days were fulfilled);*¹⁵⁹ *until the days ‘m’loth’*¹⁶⁰ — be fulfilled. Similarly, *‘b’keseph malei’*¹⁶¹ means “for the full price.” And the reason for this expression is that one might say of a stranger [i.e., a non-priest] who cannot perform the offering for his cleansing, or of any person who is not empowered to perform some royal service, that his hand misses that function; and when he becomes empowered to do it, his hand has thereby been perfected and made fit for all kinds of work and service. Thus, *‘milu yedchem hayom’*¹⁶² [generally translated: consecrate yourselves today] means that: “now your hands are full with the whole service of G-d, for even every man upon his son, and upon his brother¹⁶² have you served Him [that day].” Or it may be that Moses was hinting to the sons of Levi that by virtue of this merit they would be chosen to perform the Divine Service in the Tabernacle, as it is said, At that time the Eternal separated the tribe of Levi.¹⁶³ Similarly King David said to Israel on the occasion of the donations for the House [of G-d], Because I have set my affection on the house of my G-d, seeing that I have a treasure of mine own of gold and silver, I give it into the house of my G-d,¹⁶⁴ and then he continued saying, *Who then offereth willingly ‘l’maloth yado’ this day unto the Eternal?*¹⁶⁵, Verse 5. — meaning “to perfect his hand [this day unto the Eternal],” for by doanting towards the building of the House [of G-d] their hands become full with all the sacrifices and all manner of services, for Israel’s worship of G-d is only a complete one in the Sanctuary. Similarly, the ram of ‘milu’im’ mentioned in this section¹⁶⁶ is so called because the filling of the priests’ duties was accomplished through this offering, for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering¹⁶⁷, Verse 25. were to effect atonement, and this ram was to fill the priest’s hand with [the right to] sacrifice. I have also found that in Targum Yerushalmi the ram of ‘milu’im’ is translated: d’ashlamutha, (of perfection);¹⁶⁸ similarly also in all expressions of milui yadayim it translated “perfection.” Onkelos, however, [in translating umileitha eth yadam — ‘and you will bring their sacrifices’¹⁶⁹] followed the sense of the subject and was not pedantic as to the literal language, as is his custom in many places. Some scholars¹⁷⁰. explain umileitha eth yadam as meaning that he will fill their hands [with the gifts] from the sacrifices. Similarly: whosoever would, he [Jeroboam] *‘yemalei eth yado’*¹⁷¹ means that he could fill his hands at will from the sacrifices. But the correct interpretation [of the term milui yadayim] is as I have explained. And the meaning of the expression, whosoever would, ‘yemalei eth yado’ that he might be one of the priests of the high places¹⁷¹ is that he would bring for himself an offering of installation as he devised of his own heart,¹⁷², 12:33. in order to initiate himself into his office, and thereby he became one of the priests of the high places, for they acted in a manner similar to the ways of the Torah.¹⁷³ (high places) he adopted the ways of the Torah as explained, in order to give the appearance of his remaining loyal to the commandments of the Torah.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Ruth 4:7. ¹⁵⁷ Our accepted law is that acquisition by exchange is accomplished with something that originally belongs to the buyer. Hence it was Boaz [the buyer] who “drew off his shoe” and gave it to the near kinsman. But “they say” differently, that it was the near kinsman [the seller] that gave it to Boaz. Hence they derived the custom that it is the prince [who is in the position of the bestower or seller] who pulls off his gant ¹⁵⁸ Genesis 29:21. ¹⁵⁹ Esther 1:5. ¹⁶⁰ Leviticus 8:33. ¹⁶¹ Genesis 23:9. ¹⁶² Further, 32:29. ¹⁶² Further, 32:29. ¹⁶³ Deuteronomy 10:8. ¹⁶⁴ I Chronicles 29:3. ¹⁶⁵ Ibid. ¹⁶⁶ Further, 29:31. ¹⁶⁷ Ibid. ¹⁶⁸ This translation I found in Targum Yonathan ben Uziel to Leviticus 8:22. ¹⁶⁹ On the seven days of installation it was Moses who acted in the role of the priest and performed the rites of the sacrifices. Hence Onkelos’ translation: “and you [i.e., Moses] will bring their sacrifices,” as during these seven days of installation you will be the priest to offer their sacrifices. ¹⁷⁰ Found in R’dak’s Sefer Hashorashim, root male ¹⁷¹ I Kings 13:33. ¹⁷¹ I Kings 13:33. ¹⁷² Ibid. ¹⁷³ See Leviticus 6:13. This is also applied to the ordinary priest who brought a meal-offering when he officiated for the first time. Ramban’s intent is thus that in the days of Jeroboam when the king installed a new group of priests in the kingdom of Israel to officiate at the sacrifices on the Bamoth