נדב ואביהו אלעזר ואתמר, although the Torah had already indicated that this task was to be performed by “Aaron and his sons,” and we know the names of these sons of Aaron, the Torah names each one of them individually once more, in order to show that although both Aaron and his sons had been anointed with the oil of anointing, such had not been the case with Pinchos, Eleazar’s son, and that therefore at this time Pinchos was not included in the priests qualified to service the menorah. Once a priest had been ordained, his offspring born subsequently did not require anointing in order to be fully qualified as a priest.

ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make vestments to be worn during holy service.” Moses was not expected to fashion these garments himself, of course; this is a directive that he instruct the artisans charged with that task to insure that the vestments they would make would correspond to the details given in the Torah, Just as the skilled labourers constructing the Tabernacle itself were instructed by him personally, although Betzalel was the supervisor of the whole project to carry out their duties in consonance with the details recorded in Parshat Terumah.

לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” Nachmanides writes that this means that by wearing the garments described forthwith the wearer would enjoy glory and splendour in the eyes of those who saw him wearing these garments. The reason was that the garments that will be described now were all of the type worn by Royalty only. Already when Yaakov had a tunic, כתנת, made for Joseph, this was meant to distinguish the wearer, to set him apart from less distinguished peers. The מעיל, robe, was similarly a garment worn only by Royalty or other highly distinguished individuals. This is why the sages decreed that after the collapse of the independent Jewish state, grooms under the wedding canopy were no longer allowed to adorn themselves with turbans, and the brides were not wearing crowns on their heads. (compare Maimonides Taanit, based on Ezekiel 21,32). The headgear of the priests is also referred to as פארי מגבעות, as the kind of hat conferring distinction on the wearer. The breastplate too is a garment worn by Royalty. They were usually made from blue wool, gold threads, as we know from Daniel 5,7 (et al) והמונכא די דהבא על צואריה, “will wear purple and a golden chain around his neck.” The ציץ, the golden headband, corresponds to the crown worn by kings. Their crowns are made of a combination of blue and red, purple wool and gold. In Psalms 45,15 we are told כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה ממשבצות זהב לבושה, “the royal princess, her dress embroidered with golden mountings,” etc. Finally, תכלת, the wool dyed a royal blue, was also the colour worn only by Royalty. It is also possible that the meaning of the words לכבוד ולתפארת is a way of saying that seeing that the High Priest is to perform service of the Lord, he is to do so while clad in suitably decorative attire, all in honour of Hashem. [the problem with this interpretation is that the High Priest was not allowed to wear these vestments inside the Temple, only outside of it. Ed.] The Biblical verse supporting such an interpretation would be Psalms 69,19 כי תפארת עוזמו אתה, “for You are the glory of its strength.”

חושן ואפוד ומעיל וכתונת תשבץ ואבנט, “a breastplate, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of chequer work, a turban, and a sash.” All the vestments have been mentioned here with the exception of the ציץ, the golden headband, and the trousers. It is possible that seeing that the Torah wrote that Moses was to address כל חכמי לב, “all the wise-hearted people,” there was no need to mention the two last mentioned garments, as making them did not involve any special skill.

והם יקחו את הזהב, “and they shall take the gold, etc.” Up until this point all the directives had been addressed to Moses personally, whereas now G’d commanded that Moses address all the wise-hearted people to fashion the vestments, therefore the Torah had to continue with והם יקחו וגו', that these wise-hearted people had to get hold of the raw materials they were to employ when making these vestments. They would receive them directly from the donors and there would be no need for an accounting of the quantity of such materials handed over to the artisans entrusted with the work. They were all trustworthy. The same principle also applied to all the other people engaged in the construction of the Tabernacle. We know this from the fact that the only time mention is made of these donations being handed over by the people was on the first day they had been given such an opportunity, and Moses already had to stop them from binging additional contributions as the Tabernacle’s needs had already been oversubscribed. (compare 35,21 and 36,7) It is clear from there that the people brought their contributions directly to the artisans appointed to convert the materials into the respective furnishings of garments.

ונתת אל חשן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים, “you are to place within the folds of the breastplate the Urim and the Tumim.” Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra,in an effort to be very astute, wrote that the Urim andTumim were something constructed by human hands, by artisans. (compare Leviticus 8,8 where Moses is described as placing the Urim and the Tumim inside the breastplate after Aaron already wore the breast plate). He clearly thought that these Urim and Tumim were something man made of silver and/or gold. He appears to have thought that these mysterious inserts were similar to what the astrologers use in order to understand communications from their zodiac signs. [Before translating the scathing criticism by Nachmanides here on the personality of Ibn Ezra, the reader must be cautioned that the commentary by Ibn Ezra found on this verse in most editions of the Chumash is a one liner, not as in the version of the Ibn Ezra’s commentary published by Mossad Harav Kook by Asher Weisman in three volumes in 1976. Anyone reading that version (at the end of volume 2, in the so-called short version) will come away with a totally different impression than if he had read only the standard version available in most editions of the Chumash. Ed.] (continuing Nachmanides’ commentary) Ibn Ezra said absolutely nothing, but the Urim and Tumim were in accordance withRashi’s commentary a piece of parchment on which the Holy name of Hashem had been written and which Moses inserted between the folds of the cloth supporting the Choshen. The proof of all this is that we do not find a single mention in the Torah of the Urim vetumim as being one or two of the components of either the Tabernacle or the vestments of the priest being constructed by any of the artisans who fashioned all the other items. When the making of the ephod [to which the breastplate was attached. Ed.] was mentioned as well as that of the breast plate, (39,2-6), there is not a single word about the Urim and Tumim having been constructed. Neither is there a mention anywhere of the people having contributed from their materials for the construction of the Urim vetumim. We are dealing here with a mystical element, the apparent function of the Holy Name of Hashem, or a variety of them, being concealed within the folds of the breastplate enabling the letters engraved on the 12 gemstones which decorated the breastplate, to flash in response to queries directed by the wearer, the High Priest, to G’d, queries to which he required a direct answer from heaven as the Sanhedrin, Supreme tribunal, was not competent enough to answer them. One such example is found in Judges 1,1 when Joshua wanted to know which tribe should lead in the attack against the Canaanites. It is quite possible that these names of G’d which Moses wrote on the parchment which he inserted in the folds of the breast plate, were known as such to the elite of the Jewish people at the time, and that this would explain the use of the definitive article used here, i.e. האורים, התומים, something which is never used unless the subject is a known quantity, a phenomenon that at least some people are familiar with. This may also explain why David possessed an ephod comparable to that which Moses had in his time, and why we read that in Nov the city of priests (whom King Shaul murdered) there were 85 priests wearing such a type of ephod. (compare Samuel I 22,18) These priests were all trained by prophets, and possibly they used their ephods to address inquiries to G’d on certain occasions.

ועשית את מעיל האפוד, “and you are to make the robe of the ephod, etc*.” Rashi* explains that the robe was a kind of shirt. Nachmanides queries the expressionעוטה , wrapping, used in connection with the robe, as this expression certainly seems out of place in connection with a shirt. The word means to drape (oneself) as in a tallit, a garment which envelopes the body completely. It has neither sleeves, nor a collar, a cutout for the neck as described in verse 32, and called פי תחרא. This particular robe, according to the Torah’s directives, had to be of weaver’s work, ארוג, embroidered, and the wearer would slip it on overhead and would place his arms through the armpits provided. At the front it had two flaps that could be opened or closed according to the wishes of the wearer. We know this from Samuel I 15,27 where King Sha-ul is described as grabbing hold of the flap of the prophet’s Samuel’s robe

פעמון זהב ורמון, “a golden bell and a pomegranate.” According to Rashi the Torah speaks of two distinctly separate kinds of ornaments, one looked like a bell, the other like pomegranate. Nachmanides writes that if that were correct the “pomegranates” would not have served any purpose that we can understand. If we were to understand that the “pomegranates” were decorative only, why would he not have made them like apples, but made of gold? We must assume that the bells were surrounded on the outside by these “pomegranates,” the “pomegranates” being hollow, they were made to look like unripe small “pomegranates” that had not “opened” yet, and the bells were hidden within their cavities, but could be seen partially from the outside.

ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, “you shall fasten it to a cord made of blue wool.” Rashi points out that instead of the verb שים, i.e. ושמת, used by the Torah here, the Torah uses the verb נתן, i.e. ויתנו, in Exodus Not only that, but here the ציץ. is to be fastened to Aaron’s מצנפת, turban, though worn on his forehead, מצח, whereas in Parshat Pekudey it is described as being worn over the Turban. [Rashi, in discussing the implications at length, something that Nachmanides assumes the reader has already familiarised himself with, therefore comes to the conclusion that there were three locations on the ציץ to each of which a blue cord was attached in order to securely place the ציץ in such a way that there was room for Aaron to put on his phylacteries on the skin of his forehead. Ed.] Nachmanides expresses his amazement at Rashi’s interpretation, claiming that clearly the Torah mentions only a single blue wool cord in connection with the headband. According to Rashi, in Nachmanides’ view, there would have been six such cords. Furthermore, he accuses Rashi as unjustifiably lumping together verses that describe the instruction to make the headband, with verses (Parshat Pekudey) that describe the manner in which the directive was actually carried out. If indeed there were as many blue wool cords as described by Rashi, what would have been the purpose of the blue cord mentioned here which was in the center of the ציץ? According to Rashi, the headband had already been firmly secured in place behind Aaron’s head, at the nape of his neck! We must conclude that there was only a single such cord made of blue wool, this cord was stretched on Aaron’s forehead from one ear to the other and the headband itself had two holes in it at either of its two extremities, the cord being threaded through these holes so that the headband was securely tied together by means of this cord at the nape of Aaron’s neck. Simultaneously, the turban Aaron wore on his head covered this blue cord at the level of Aaron’s brain; whereas at the back of his head the turban covered this cord down to the level of the nape of the neck. In the front, the ציץ was worn so that it covered a major part of Aaron’s forehead, from ear to ear. The result of all this was that the rear of Aaron’s head was enclosed by the turban from ear to ear, whereas the front was covered by the golden headband from ear to ear. This is the meaning of the line: ושמת המצנפת על ראשו, i.e. “on the upper part of his head,” not like the מגבעות, the caps worn by the ordinary priests that enclosed the entire head, as we know from 29,9 וחבשת להם מגבעות, “you shall wrap the headdresses on them.” The meaning is that the entire head be covered by these מגבעות, headdresses, caps. As to what the Torah writes ונתת את נזר הקודש על המצנפת, “you are to place the crown of sanctity on the turban,” (29,6) the meaning is that that the ציץ is to be connected, tied, to the turban. There is no need to belabour the switch from the word ושמת to ונתת, and vice versa, as the Torah did not choose these two expressions for such interpretations, just as once the Torah writes that ויתנו עליו פתיל תכלת, whereas another time it writes ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת. The variations of the wording teach that as long as the principal purpose of fastening the headband both to the forehead and to the turban was accomplished, minor changes in the procedure did not matter. We find similar variations in language of the Torah in connection with the consecration offerings in chapter 29, where the Torah writes in verse 3: ונתת אותם על סל אחד והקרבת, “you are to place them on one basket (the loaves of bread) and present them as an offering, etc.,” where the word על does not mean “on,” but “inside.” Similarly, there are numerous occasions when the preposition על actually is used instead of the preposition אל. Here too it is quite in order to understand the words ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, as if the Torah had written ונתת אותו אל פתיל תכלת, “you are to fasten it to a cord of blue wool.” The fact is that the cord was fastened to the headband, ציץ. Inversely, the headband was also fastened to the cord made of blue wool. The result was that the cord was on the headband.

והלבשת אותם את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו, “ you will dress your brother Aaron and his sons with him with them.” Moses was to dress up Aaron and his sons in the garments described previously. The word אתו, normally translated as “with him,” means here that this procedure should be performed with all of them on the same day, just as their anointing took place on the same day.

ומלאת את ידם, “you will inaugurate them.” According to Rashi whenever the expression מלוי ידים occurs, it refers to a kind of consecration, inauguration. The party so described begins a new assignment, one that is a long term assignment, not a short term one. Nachmanides explains the words ומלאת את ידם as being similar to מלאת ימים, completing a certain length of preparatory days, such as the nine months of pregnancy, or completing a tour of service, as when Yaakov demanded to be given Rachel as his wife, his reason being described with the words כי מלאו ימי, “the seven years I contracted to work for her are complete..” (Genesis 29,21). We encounter the phrase ובמלאת הימים האלה, “at the completion of these years, etc.” (Esther 1,5) It describes what the occasion was for the party Ahasverus gave to both his ministers, and subsequently to the citizens of Shushan. The connection with our consecration is that any non-priest who nonetheless performs service in the Tabernacle, even if he copies the exact procedure performed by the priests, lacks something. This something is added through the anointment to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons, and the garments they wore that were testimony to their qualifications as priests. The ”uniform” completes the act of consecration, officially makes the wearer the appointee to the King’s service, his “guard.” Another element completing this appointment to the priesthood was the איל המלואים, the ram as well as the other offerings listed in chapter 29 which were one-time offerings to mark this occasion. The occasion could not recur, as from that time on the priesthood became a hereditary status. Having offered these sacrifices once, initiated Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, so that their performing similar tasks on behalf of others had become legitimate.

והיו על אהרן ועל בניו..... ולא ישאו עון ומתו, “they shall be on Aaron and his sons…..so that they shall not bear a sin and die.” According to Rashi this verse is the source of the law that a priest who performs his duties in the Sanctuary without all the appropriate garments is guilty of the death penalty at the hands of heaven. This law applies equally to the High Priest and to the ordinary priest. Nachmanides (on 28,35) queries Rashi’s comment by writing that if this were indeed so, the Torah should have written this verse much earlier immediately after all the priestly garments have been listed. Why would such a statement be made when only three of the eight garments have been listed as yet? Furthermore, our verse continues: ובצאתו ולא ימות, “when he leaves the Sanctuary he will not die,” something that has no longer anything to do with any shortcoming in the procedure of doing the sacrificial service, and still the Torah mentions the word “death. He concludes therefore that the death penalty applies only to priests not wearing trousers when performing their service in the Temple. This raises the question whence does the Talmud derive the death penalty for priests who perform their service while not wearing their other special garments? (compare Zevachim 18) The Talmud derives it from a different verse. What is clear from the discussion in the Talmud there is that there is no difference which of the priestly garments the priest omitted to wear when it comes to his being guilty of death. The death penalty mentioned in connection with the robe, מעיל, referred only to the ornamental pendants at the lower rim of that robe, the bells and the pomegranates. The reason that the Torah repeated mention of the death penalty in that instance is that seeing that these ornamental pendants did not serve any visible purpose, one might consider them as not essential if unaware that the failure to append them put the life of the High Priest at risk. Moreover, seeing that ordinary Royalty are not known to wear garments with these kinds of ornaments, one might not comprehend how these ornaments symbolized the כבוד ותפארת, the glory and splendour which are the purported effect these garments have on the people seeing the wearer dressed in them. The pealing of the bells at the rim of the robe announce that the High Priest is approaching the Sanctuary. It is as if to announce that he has been granted an audience with the Shechinah, similar to the commoner who is granted an audience by a king of flesh and blood, who would not dare to enter the King’s chambers without first being announced. Were he to do so, he too would put his life at risk, as he would be perceived by the king’s guards as planning to assassinate their ruler or otherwise harm him or insult him. In the Talmud Yerushalmi, the sages see an allusion in the line (Leviticus 16,17) וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד, “no other human being is to be in the Sanctuary when the High Priest enters there in order to obtain atonement, etc.,” as including the angels. This is why the approach of the High Priest must be audible. [I assume that the Yerushalmi that author has in mind is in Yuma 5,2 where it is recounted that for the 40 years that the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik officiated on the Day of Atonement, he would see an angel with a face like a human being accompanying him to the Holy of Holies, except for the last time when he entered there. He told his friends that he would die during that year, something he gathered from the fact that on that occasion this angel did not materialize. Ed.] Joseph ordered that every person other than his brothers be removed from his chambers before he revealed himself to them. Similarly, during intimate audiences granted by kings, only the immediately concerned party is permitted to be closeted with the King. [Incidentally, this enabled the judge Ehud to kill King Eglon of Moav. Ed. (compare Genesis 45,2, and Judges 3,20)