After the work of the mishkon is completed. But not now. [Rashi knows this] because they were taken [as kohanim] only by means of the garments and the mishkon, as it is written (v. 4): “Make sacred garments for your brother Aharon. . .” [See Rashi on v. 3.] (Re”m)

The term כהונה denoting “service.” Accordingly, לכהנו does not mean to make him a kohein, but “to bring him into the service by means of the garments.” Rashi added the phrase, “So that he shall be a כהן unto Me,” in order to connect לכהנו with לי . Rashi did not comment on לכהנו לי in v. 1, where it first appeared, because he wanted to explain לקדשו , and say that it means לכהנו . Accordingly, our verse conveys: and how should Aharon be sanctified ( לקדשו )? By bringing him into the service ( לכהנו ).

It is thus made for the lower. . . I.e., toward his feet, and not toward his head. Rashi’s explanation, “Its width being the same as the width of the back of a man,” should not be to be taken literally, because Rashi explains in v. 6 that its width was “somewhat more” on each side.

We learn from this that the eiphod is a kind of belt. I.e., that the eiphod is a garment [which is belted on].

“And he put the eiphod on it”. . . I.e., on the coat, as we see later.

Because it adorns him and ornaments him. . . Rashi is saying that eiphod means an ornament. [Here,] it adorns the kohein. The term חֵשֶב that is written dealing with the priestly garments means a belt.

While he likewise translated מעילים (robes). . . Robes are surely a garment. So the eiphod, too, is a garment.

This was a type of shirt. . . Rashi is referring to the word מעיל in the verse, and explains it.

A kind of a domed hat. Rashi is explaining that we should not think מצנפת is what is called hoiben in Yiddish, which lies flat on the head. For a hoiben does not have a dome. The verse’s מצנפת is rather a type of hat that is hard, with a dome-like space inside.

Which Onkelos translates for us as “hats.” Rashi is saying that the מגבעת of ordinary kohanim is also a מצנפת , as it says in Yoma 25a: “The appointee took the מצנפת off one of the kohanim. . .” Thus we see that מצנפת is called מגבעת for ordinary kohanim, and [here] it says מצנפת in place of מגבעת . Since מצנפת means מגבעת , and Onkelos translates מגבעות as “hats,” it follows that מצנפת is a kind of hat. Sometimes it is called מצנפת because it wraps the head like a צניף (turban), and sometimes [i.e., for the ordinary kohanim] it is called מגבעת because it covers their [whole] head like a hat, [however, the מצנפת of the Kohein Gadol was smaller, in order to leave room for the ציץ ]. (Re”m)

From the terumah that was sanctified for My Name. . . Rashi is answering the question: The term “sacred garments” implies that the garments are sacred as soon as they are made. But they are not sacred until they are worn, because they are made for Aharon and his sons, [not for Hashem]!? Rashi answers, “From the terumah. . .” [I.e., they are called “sacred” because they are made from the funds of terumah which was collected from the people for the sake of Hashem, so they became sacred immediately].

Shall receive from the donors. . . Rashi is explaining that the pronoun “they” does not refer to “Aharon and his sons,” mentioned immediately before, but to the “wise at heart” in v. 3. The word יקחו [usually] conveys legal acquisition, which is unrelated to craftsmanship and the artisans who perform their work. Therefore Rashi explains that here, יקחו means “they shall receive” the materials in order to make the garments. And because there is no receiver without one who gives, Rashi adds: “From the donors the gold. . .”

The settings were put in their ends in front of his shoulders. . . I.e., the settings were put on the shoulder-straps in the place where the *shoham-*stones were fixed.

Similarly the two ends of the chain. . . Explanation: These are the golden braided chains. After they are inserted in the rings [of the breastplate], each chain has two heads; they are thus double. [They are attached to] the settings of the eiphod, which are actually the settings on the shoulder straps [of the eiphod. They are so called] because everything connected to the eiphod is called “eiphod” — and the shoulder straps are connected to the belt of the eiphod.

Lying on each other. . . Explanation: The rings of the shoulder straps were on the outside and the rings of the breastplate were on the inside. He then מרכסן , i.e., joins them with a thread of greenish-blue wool, so the breastplate will not move about and separate.

In the order that they were born. . . Rashi is explaining that we should not understand כתולדותם like other instances of תולדות in Scripture, i.e., [listing in the order of] who begat first, or whose number of offspring [is greater]. Therefore Rashi says that here, כתולדותם means: “In the order that they were born.”

The work of one skilled with stones. . . Rashi is explaining that חרש is connected to אבן , so that חרש means “one skilled with stones.” Rashi says “stones” instead of “stone” [as in the verse], to tell us that “stone” means the category of stones, not a particular stone. [Rashi knows this] because one is not called skilled [by being skilled] with just a single stone.

כגלף דעזקא (like the engraving of a signet). . . כגלף means “like the engraving,” and עזקא is a signet ring. Rashi is telling us that פתוחי חותם means the engraving on a ring used for making seals, [not the seal that it makes. Rashi knows this] because engraving is done on the ring itself, not on the seal. He says, “Like the engraving,” so we will not think it means to carve the engravings of an actual signet ring into the stones. It rather means to carve writing that is “precise,” similar to the letters carved into a signet ring which are obvious and precise. So too should be the names of the Bnei Yisrael that are carved into the stones.

Same here as בשמות . Meaning: engrave the stones with names. [Rashi explains this] because the stones are not engraved on the names [as the verse seems to say, but the other way around].

By gold settings. . . Meaning: the verse conveys that the stones are “surrounded by settings,” not that the stones surround the settings [as the verse seems to say].

The tribes written before Him. . . [Meaning:] not that Aharon should bear them in order to remember Hashem. This is because the engraved names make the tribes to be remembered, not Hashem to be remembered. Why did Rashi not explain this on, “As remembrance stones for the B’nei Yisrael”? Because there, “remembrance” is connected to “stones.” But here it is written, “Their names before Adonoy. . . as a remembrance,” which implies that God will remember. . . (Nachalas Yaakov)

Only part of their purpose. . . I.e., for the chains should be inserted in them. But it does not explain here that the ends of the chains should be inserted in the settings on the two shoulder straps of the eiphod from above. And that these chains should be inserted through the rings of the breastplate from below, so that the breastplate does not detach from the eiphod. (Re”m)

Made for wells. . . To draw water.

Rather, like those made for incense receptacles. . . They are sacks tied onto a small rope.

Its promise is true. . . Meaning: anything that one was not sure whether or not to do, would go to [and inquire from] the breastplate, which had all the letters of the *alef beis.*If Heaven wished to tell him to do it, letters would stand out and form a word. In that word was written whether or not to do it.

Here it is used in the sense of making its words clear. . . Meaning: משפט conveys three possibilities, one of which is “the handing down of the verdict.” The term משפט which is part of the name given to the breastplate refers to “the handing down of the verdict,” i.e., clarifying the matter.

As was the order of their birth so was the order of the stones. . . I.e., it was in the order by which the matriarchs [started to] give birth. Whoever gave birth first, [all her sons came before those of the next matriarch]. This disregards the order that the tribes were actually born — Reuvain, Shimon, Leivi, Yehudah, [Dan, Naftali] — as the תולדותם of the eiphod is ordered. Therefore here, Yissachar and Zevulun [who are sons of Leah, the first matriarch to give birth,] come before Dan and Naftali. As a result, Dan’s name was written on the leshem stone, as it is written in Yehoshua (19:47): “They called [the town of] Leshem ‘Dan,’ like the name of Dan their father” [see Rashi on Shoftim 18:29]. Re”m elaborated, and I summarized.

To fasten them by means of its rings. . . [Rashi explains that על החשן means “for the breastplate”] so we will not think that they [the chains] must be made on the breastplate, and may not be made elsewhere and then attached. For as Rashi explains on v. 23, [they are made elsewhere and then they are attached].

Is the same as “chain” in Mishnaic Hebrew. Accordingly, it means to make chains that will serve as “roots.”

We should have written at the beginning. . . Perforce, it means “for the breastplate,” and “you must also interpret it this way regarding the chains.”

In parshas Pekudei they are not mentioned twice. I.e., in the section of the breastplate, the עבותות are not mentioned, [only the שרשרות ].

**Of the eiphod. . .**As opposed to “toward the robe.” [Rashi knows this because if “Toward its face” meant toward the face of the kohein, what would it be as opposed to? The shoulder-straps of the eiphod are necessarily toward the face of the kohein who wears them.]

Where it is attached to the eiphod. . . I.e., to the belt of the eiphod.

Above the belt. . . Explanation: the shoulder straps were joined along their width to the belt, and the rings were placed above their [point of joining], right at the [upper] edge of the belt. Consequently, the bottom of the breastplate, [which was tied to the rings,] reached the top of the belt. [Rashi knows this] because it says, “Above the eiphod’s belt.”

Put on over it as a wrap around. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, a question arises: The robe and the eiphod are two different garments. Why then is it written, “The robe of the eiphod,” implying it is one garment?

So that it will not be torn. . . Rashi is saying that in the verse’s plain meaning, לא יקרע comes to explain what preceded it. [I.e., its opening should have a border so that it will not tear*.*] However, since it does not say שלא יקרע , we may infer that it is a negative precept on its own. In all the cases that Rashi brings, the proof is the same, [i.e., it does not say שלא .]

Subject to the death penalty at the hands of Heaven. Rashi is telling us that the verse does not come to teach that he will not die; rather, it teaches that this negative precept bears the death penalty. [Rashi is further telling us] that “So that he will not die” applies to all the priestly garments, not just to the robe of the eiphod which preceded this warning. When Rashi says, “While lacking one of these garments,” he means any of the aforementioned garments. In Zevachim 17b, this law is derived from the verse, “And the priesthood [i.e., the garments] shall be for them an everlasting statute” (29:9), [which is interpreted to mean:] “When their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them. When their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them.” Thus they are subject to the death penalty, since a non-kohein who serves is subject to the death penalty (Sanhedrin 9:6). See more on this in Re”m.

At these three places. . . Since the threads were inserted through holes, each was doubled, and three threads became six. The middle thread was in the middle of the diadem. One of its strands was on top of the diadem, on the outside, and the other strand was under the diadem, opposite the first thread. Therefore it says here, “Set it on a greenish-blue cord,” but elsewhere it says, “Put over it a greenish-blue cord.” The middle thread holds it so it does not fall; otherwise it would slip downward.

These four garments and no more. . . Rashi is saying that it does not mean we should make an undershirt, sash-belt, turban and pants only for Aharon’s sons, and not for Aharon himself. [This is not so] because these garments were made for Aharon as well. Rather, it means that among Aharon’s eight garments, these four should also be made [for his sons].

Those that are mentioned regarding Aharon. . . Not only the undershirt, turban and sash-belt written just before this.

Mentioned later concerning all of them. . . I.e., [the verse about] pants refers both to the Kohein Gadol and to ordinary kohanim.

Those that are mentioned in connection with them. Which are: the undershirt, turban and sash-belt, along with the later-mentioned pants.

Aharon and his sons. . . Rashi is coming to tell us that [this term אותם ] does not refer to the garments, as does the term אותם at the beginning of the verse. Rashi says, “With the anointing oil,” to tell us that it does not mean with olive oil or something else. [Rashi knows this] because it is written in the next section: “Take the garments. . . and take the anointing oil, etc.” (29:5-7).

And that is the expression of filling the hand. Explanation: When one’s hand fills a glove it acts as a sign that he has control over that to which he has been appointed. This is because a person has control over that which he holds in his hand. And holding on with a full hand gives one more control than holding it with only part of his hand. Therefore, he who takes control over something does so by “filling the hand.”

Into the Sanctuary as well as into the mishkon. [Gur Aryeh:] I.e., when the Temple will be built, the term “Tent of Meeting” will refer to the Sanctuary. [Re”m:] The term “Tent of Meeting” refers only to the mishkon. However, the Sanctuary is learned from the mishkon by kal vachomer. (Nachalas Yaakov:) This is not so, for it says clearly in Shavuos 16: “If it said mishkon and did not say mikdosh, I would say. . . And if it said mikdosh and did not say mishkon, I would say. . .” This implies that we cannot learn one from the other either by kal vachomer or by bameh matzinu. Therefore, it seems that Rashi learned [the law of the Sanctuary] from what the Toras Kohanim in parshas Shemini says about [the prohibition of drinking] wine [before entering] in the Tent of Meeting: “I know only for the Tent of Meeting [in the desert, that it is prohibited]. From where do I know that it applies also to [the mishkon in] Shiloh, and to the permanent beis hamidkash? Thus it says, ‘An everlasting statute.’” This is what Rashi meant when he wrote here: “‘An everlasting statute for him’. . . it is a decree for the immediate present and for future generations.”

One who performs. . . lacking any of the garments [is liable to] the death penalty. [This verse is needed] because ולא ימות (28:35) teaches only about the six garments that preceded it, not about the pants and the diadem that follows it. Question: why were these two garments not written earlier, and included with the others, so that ולא ימות would apply to them all? And then, our verse ולא ישאו עון ומתו could have been omitted. Perhaps the answer is: [Our verse is needed] so we will not think that the kohein is liable only when he has all eight garments, and serves without wearing them all. But if he does not have all eight, for example, if they were lost or defiled, we might think that he may serve with the remaining garments, in order that the korbon will not be suspended due to lack of garments. Thus it repeats here ומתו to teach that one who serves while lacking garments [for whatever reason] is liable for the death penalty.