A Favorite Tabernacle Artifact

Parshat Tetzave is primarily devoted to the objects of clothing and ornamentation[1] that the Kohanim are required to wear whenever they would perform the Divine Service, first in the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple. The four basic garments worn by every Kohen (Shemot 28:40, 42) are:

To these four were added four more (Shemot 28:4, 36) to be worn only by the Kohen Gadol (High Priest):

f) “Eiphod”: a type of apron worn backwards and from whose two shoulder straps would be suspended the “Choshen”.

And you shall make a plate of pure gold and you shall engrave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, “Kodesh LaShem” (holiness to God).

And you will put it on a blue lace, that it may rest upon the turban, at the front of the turban it shall be.

And it will be upon Aharon’s forehead, that Aharon may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the Children of Israel will make holy in all of their holy gifts; and it shall always be on his forehead.

And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it the writing, like the engravings of a signet, “Kodesh LaShem”.

And they tied it to a lace of blue, to fasten it on the turban above, as HaShem Commanded Moshe.

HaEmek Davar argues that the “Tzitz” was the most beloved of all of the various objects made for the Tabernacle, based upon the sequence of the Tora’s listing of the fabrication of the diverse artifacts:

“And they will make”—It would appear that the making of the “Tzitz” should have been stated prior to the fabrication of the “Ketonet” (Shemot 39:27 ff.) and the other articles as in the original Commandment (in Parshat Tetzave).[2] But just as (with regard to the listing of the pieces of furniture) the Tora began with the “Aron” (Shemot 25:10) since it is the most holy, so too the listing (of the High Priest’s clothing) concludes with the “Tzitz” because (in addition to the first in a series being important) the last (in a series) is similarly beloved, as it is stated in Megilla Chapt. 3 and it is for this reason that the verbs (in association with these last articles of clothing, in contrast to those associated with the furniture and structure of the Tabernacle) are plural forms[3] because all of the artisans wished to participate in their fabrication.

While NeTzIV’s analysis of the differing attitudes of the artisans towards the various aspects of the Tabernacle is intriguing—apparently even these individuals who were “Chachmai Lev” (wise of heart [due to God’s imbuing them with special talents—see Shemot 36:1]) had their preferences in terms of the different tasks which had to be accomplished—the citation from Megilla demonstrating that what is mentioned first or last in a list is most beloved, is questionable at best. Consider the Talmudic passage in its entirety:

(The Talmud is attempting to demonstrate that since the minimal number of verses that must be read in order to justify opening a Sefer Tora for reading is 10, and the minimum number of people called to the Tora at any given reading is 3, and the minimum number of verses that one reader must read is 3, inevitably one of these three readers will have to read 4 verses to make up the requisite minimum number of verses.)

Rava said: If the first reader reads 4 verses, he is praiseworthy; if the second reader reads 4 verses, he is praiseworthy; if the third reader reads 4 verses, he is praiseworthy.

If the first reader reads 4 verses he is praiseworthy, as we have learned in a Mishna (Shekalim 3:2): “With 3 baskets that contain 3 Se’ah’s each they make the withdrawal (of Shekalim which were originally collected within the context of the Half Shekel discussed in Shemot 30:11 ff.) And on these baskets were written (the letters) “Aleph”, “Beit”, “Gimel” in order to know which (money) was drawn first, since it is preferable to use the first one first.

If the middle one reads 4 verses, he is praiseworthy, as it was taught in a Baraita: The verse states (BaMidbar 8:2) “The seven lamps shall shine towards the face of the Menora.” This teaches that the Kohen makes the wicks of six lamps face towards the western lamp, which is the middle one. And the western lamp faces towards the Divine Presence. And R. Yochanan said: From here we see that the middle one is praiseworthy.

And if the last one reads 4 verses, he is praiseworthy, because of the general rule that in matters of holiness, we elevate and do not lower, (i.e., if the first two readers each read 3 verses, the last has to add to that number and read 4).

If the Talmud had exclusively demonstrated that the last in a list is the most important, beloved, special, etc., then the “Tzitz”’s appearance at the end of the fabrication of the Tabernacle’s artifacts, furniture and clothing would have been something to consider. But if it is as easy to prove that the first and the middle out of a group of three are as important as the last, has all that much been proven? Furthermore, the proof for the importance of the third of the three cases is dependent upon a rule rather than a primary source like a Mishna or Baraita, and therefore itself requires demonstration.

Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat Korach #752 (Menachot 99a contains a parallel source)

(BaMidbar 17:3) “Regarding the firepans of these, who have sinned against their souls, make them into beaten plates for a covering for the (outer) altar…”

Said R. Acha bar Yaakov: Because the verse says, “The firepans of these who have sinned…” They began as implements that served the altar; in the end they become incorporated into the altar.

R. Ami said: Because the verse states, (Shemot 40:18) “’VaYakem’ (And Moshe erected) the Tabernacle and fastened its sockets and erected its boards and put in its bars and ‘VaYakem’ its pillars.”

Tosefta: …Betzalel fabricated the Tabernacle, but Moshe, who was greater than him set it up…

Since both the beginning and end of this verse contain the verb “HaKama” (causing to stand up) we see that we don’t wish to discuss going down (but rather only going up).

Another explanation: His brothers the Kohanim did not assist him when setting up the beams and sockets, therefore one does not go down (i.e., once Moshe who is on a high level begins to do something, handing it off to those of lesser significance is not possible)…

An argument explaining why the “Tzitz” was an aspect of the Tabernacle that was deeply beloved by all, and that appears to be far less arbitrary than the NeTzIV’s contention, is the Tora’s explanation for what this golden plate worn on the Kohen Gadol’s forehead was designed to achieve.

And it will be upon Aharon’s forehead, that Aharon may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the Children of Israel will make holy in all of their holy gifts…

Aside from the extremely technical discussion in the Talmud as to what exactly the “Tzitz” could atone for (see e.g., Menachot 25a; Shavuot 9b; Yoma 7a; Pesachim 77a-b), the idea that the Jews were bringing something into existence by the work of their hands that would provide for them an escape from at least some of the sins which the complicated Tabernacle service made so probable—assuming that the sin of the Golden Calf took place after the Tabernacle was Commanded, but before it was actually constructed, the sin’s dire consequences must have caused considerable concern among the people wishing to avoid further Divine Punishments—inspired a sense of at least limited relief. Ironically, the very Tabernacle that offered the possibility to bring Sin, Guilt and Whole Burnt Offerings whereby an individual, a tribe, or even the entire community could atone for various and sundry sins, at the same time posed dangers by virtue of the infinite errors that were possible during the course of the offering up of these sacrifices. What eventually happens to Nadav and Avihu in VaYikra 10:1 ff. if anything deepened these fears considerably. Seeing the “Tzitz” prominently displayed on Aharon’s forehead offered a measure of reassurance to an intimidated people.

R. S.R. Hirsch adopts a different tack with respect to why the “Tzitz” was so reassuring:

…According to the way the Gemora in Zevachim 47a takes (VaYikra 19:5) “LiRetzonchem Tizbachuhu” (you shall offer it [the sacrifice] so that it will be favorably accepted), to mean “LeDa’atchem Tizbachuhu” (as an expression of your true intentions), so that “Ratzon” would not be referring to obtaining the Good Will of God, but to the good intention of the one who brings the sacrifice…the expression (Shemot 28:38) “and it (the ‘Tzitz’) shall always be on his (Aharon’s) forehead” may be here similarly taken to mean that …(the “Tzitz” will always be an expression of goodwill on their (the Jewish people’s) part before HaShem, i.e., the “Kodesh LaShem” on Aharon’s forehead shall constantly express Israel’s opinion and intentions regarding the Tabernacle, that the Tabernacle is dedicated solely and only to God, and by this positive declaration, do away with any possible misinterpretation.

Sacrifices are particularly sensitive to missteps in intention, whether on the part of the Kohen actually offering up what has been brought, or the person who is bringing the sacrifice, and to be not only visually reminded what the focus ought to be when one is present in the Tabernacle,[4] but to also be assured that Aharon’s/the High Priest’s holy intentions will be substituted for any error in “Kavana” on the part of any individuals unable to focus with the requisite intensity, once again puts minds at ease.

Nevertheless, even when leaders such as Aharon sometimes have the problems of the community thrust upon them, with the expectation that these exceptional individuals will save their followers from their inadequacies and errors, it should be clear that ideally, sooner or later, each of us is expected to step forward accept responsibility for the areas in which we have failed, and resolve to improve in the future. The “Tzitz” on Aharon’s forehead, as well as the institution of sacrifices in general, served as a means to an end, whereby individuals could be granted second and third chances, rather than avenues of forever avoiding confronting his personal shortcomings and failed commitments. It was precisely when members of the Jewish community cynically would “launder” their sins by means of the Temple rites, when they depended once too often on Aharon’s “Tzitz”, fully intending afterwards to return once again to exactly the same transgressions that they had so solemnly asked to gain atonement for, that HaShem Decrees that the Temple is to be destroyed, the sacrifices cease, and the “Tzitz” disappears.

Shabbat Shalom, and may the image of the “Tzitz” inspire us to truly become “Kodesh LaShem” in our own rights, and thereby serve HaShem with sincerity and devotion.

[1] The word “ornamentation” has to be mentioned exclusively with regard to the “Tzitz” that was placed on the Kohen Gadol’s forehead. This is the only object that was not worn like a piece of clothing, but rather as an adornment. Rabbeinu Bachya explains:

…Behold the “Tzitz” is included among the 8 “Bigdei Kehuna” (lit. clothing of the priests) but it is not a garment. Rather it is a decoration. And the fact that ChaZaL are always referring to the “8 ‘Bigdei Kehuna’”, they are simply referring to the majority of the objects, since in fact only 7 of them are pieces of clothing that the Kohen Gadol dresses with.

[2] NeTzIV’s argument is based upon the sequence of the articles listed in Parshat Pekudei:

a) “Ephod” Shemot 39:2 ff.

b) “Choshen” Ibid. 39:8 ff.

c) “Me’il” Ibid. 39:22 ff.

d) “Kutanot” Ibid. 39:27.

e) “Mitznefet” Ibid. 39:28.

f) “Migba’ot” Ibid.

g) “Michnesai Bad” Ibid.

h) “Avnet” Ibid. 39:29

Since articles d) through h) were not unique to the Kohen Gadol (with the exception of the Mitznefet, which instead of truly being an additional garment or one that had extremely unique characteristics unto itself, was basically a turban similar to that worn by the regular Kohanim—both are even mentioned in the same verse!), it is implied that the special High Priest objects had been completed. When the i) “Tzitz” is then described in 39:30-1, it seems to be out of order. The order appearing in Pekudai is in contrast to that in Tetzave, where the order appears in two forms, first in a single verse, and then as instructions are given regarding each individual object:

Shemot 28:4—the single verse

b) “Choshen”; a) “Ephod”; c) “Me’il”; d) “Ketonet”; e) “Mitznefet”, h) “Avnet”,

with both g) “Michnesai Bad” and i) “Tzitz” being omitted entirely.

The sections for the individual objects:

a) “Ephod” Shemot 28:6 ff.

b) “Choshen” Ibid. 28:15 ff.

(The reversal between the original listing in 28:4 and the actual description of each article might be accounted for by suggesting that 28:4 lists the articles in terms of their ultimate importance, while 28:6 ff. followed by 28:15 ff. describe the practical order, i.e., since the “Choshen” is to be suspended from the straps of the “Ephod”, the latter have to be made first. A similar approach is reflected in the original listing of the construction of the Tabernacle in Parshat Teruma where first the furniture and vessels are described, followed by the outer curtains and beams portion of the Mishkan [1) “Aron” Shemot 25:10 ff.; 2) “Shulchan” Ibid. 25:23 ff.; 3) “Menora” Ibid. 25:31 ff.; 4) outer portion Ibid. 26:1 ff.] [[Here too, there appears to be a problem with the sequence, with the 5) “Mizbe’ach HaZahav” which was located in the inner portion of the Tabernacle in the same chamber where the “Menora” and “Shulchan” were to stand, is only first mentioned in Shemot 30:1 ff.]], and their actual fabrication as described in Parshat VaYakhel [Shemot 35:11-15 in general; specifically: 4) outer portion Ibid. 36:8 ff.; []Yet another inconsistency is manifest when the manufacture of more of the outer portions of the Tabernacle are discussed again in 38:1 ff.]]; 1) “Aron” Ibid. 37:1 ff.; 2) “Shulchan” Ibid. 37:10 ff.; 3) “Menora” Ibid. 37:17 ff.; 5) “Mizbe’ach HaZahav Ibid. 37:25 ff.] Shemot Rabba 35:30 explains the inconsistency with regard to the sequence of the components of the Tabernacle as Moshe presenting these objects in terms of the priority of their importance, while Betzalel, the Tabernacle’s chief artisan, fabricates them in the order that will be the most practical, i.e., you first need a structure in which to place the furniture before you go on to make the furniture itself. To this Moshe is to have responded: You are certainly “BeTzeil Keil” [in the shadow of God] since you understand better than me what is required for this project.)

c) “Me’il” Ibid. 28:31 ff.

i) “Tzitz” Ibid. 28:36 ff.

d) “Ketonet” Ibid. 28:39.

e) “Mitznefet” Ibid.

h) “Avnet” Ibid.

with g) “Michnesai Bad” being omitted. (Aharon, who served as the first Kohen Gadol, is described as wearing them in Shemot 28:43. However, their construction specifically for the Kohen Gadol is not mentioned.)

(The garments for the ordinary Kohanim are listed in Shemot 28:40, 42.)

While it could be claimed that since the “Tzitz” is decidedly not an article of clothing (see. fn.1), therefore it is listed separately, NeTzIV suggests a different answer to account for its positioning.

[3] In Parshiot VaYakhel and Pekudei, the verb forms appearing in association with each of the articles manufactured adhere to the following pattern:

Individual Plural

Curtains Shemot 36:8 ff. --

Beams “ 36:20 ff. --

“Aron” “ 37:1 ff. --

“Shulchan” “ 37:10 ff. --

“Menora” “ 37:17 ff. --

“Mizbe’ach HaZahav” Ibid. 37:25 ff. --

“Mizbe’ach HaOla” “ 38:1 ff. --

Laver Shemot 38:8 --

Court “ 38:9 ff. --

“Ephod” “ 39:2 ff. Metallic threads for clothing 39:3 ff.

Shoulderpieces for “Ephod” 39:4

Onyx stones for “Ephod” 39:6 ff.

“Choshen” “ 39:8 ff. Attaching precious stones

to “Choshen” 39:10 ff.

Attaching golden chains,

Settings, rings to

“Choshen” 39:15-16

Attaching the “Choshen to

the “Ephod” 39:20 ff.

“Me’il” 39:22 ff. Making pomegranates and

bells for the “Me’il” 39:24 ff.

“Katnot”, “Mitznefet”, “Migbaot”,

“Michnesai Bad”, “Avnet” 39:27 ff.

“Tzitz” 39:30 ff.

(As opposed to the other articles of

Clothing where there is at least an introductory verse that is in the singular, with respect to the “Tzitz” only plural verbs are employed.)

[4] The “Kodesh LaShem” on Aharon’s forehead serves at least in part as do the various verses and phrases that are strategically placed around a synagogue to encourage worshippers to maximize their concentration levels during services.