A Personal Attribute that can Cut Both Ways

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parashat Tetzave/Zachor 5769

The need to commemorate the destruction of the Jerusalem Temples is codified within R. Yosef Karo’s great legal compendium:

Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chayim 560:1

From the time that the Temple was destroyed the scholars of that generation decreed that from that time forward a building should not be constructed that is completely plastered and decorated in the manner of palaces…but rather an area 1 Ama by 1 Ama (an Ama = 1 ½ ft.) opposite the doorway without plaster…

A profound historical commemoration of the destruction of the Second Temple is to be found in Rome, the Arch of Titus:[1]

The Menora depicted in the relief on this victory arch dramatically displays one of the spoils of war, the Holy Menora described in Parshiyot Teruma (Shemot 25:31-35) and VaYakhel (Ibid., 37:17-20.) The realization that this Menora might still be extant today, and theoretically when the Third Temple is constructed, instead of having to make a new Menora, the original candelabrum that actually was used in the Second Temple could be returned to its rightful place and use, is nothing less than astonishing.

The Talmud suggests that at least[2] two other artifacts from the Temple were to be found in the Emporor’s vaults:

Me’ila 17a-b

…The (Roman) Government had once issued a decree that Jews could not keep the Shabbat, circumcise their children, and that they should be intimate with menstruant women…

The Jews conferred as to who should go to Rome to work for the annulment of the decrees. Let R. Shimon bar Yochai go because he is experienced in miracles. And who should accompany him? R. Elazar son of R. Yose…Then Ben Temalyon (a demon) came to meet them. He said: Is it your wish that I accompany you (in order for you to carry out your mission successfully?) Thereupon R. Shimon wept and said: The handmaid of my ancestor’s house (Hagar) was found worthy of meeting an angel three times,[3] and I never met him once! However let the miracle be performed (R. Shimon’s assumption was that the decrees in question would be rescinded only via supernatural intervention,) no matter how. Thereupon he (Ben Temalyon) advanced and entered into the Emporor’s daughter (possessing her and creating the need for an exorcism.) When he (R. Shimon) arrived there (according to RaShI the daughter repeatedly called out R. Shimon’s name, which resulted in his being invited to her bedside,) he called out, “Ben Temalyon leave her! Ben Temalyon leave her!” and as he proclaimed this, he left her. He (the Emporor) said to them, “Request whatever you desire.” They were led into the treasure house to take whatever they chose. They found the bill (upon which were inscribed the decrees,) took it, and tore it to pieces. It was with reference to this visit that R. Eliezer the son of R. Yosi related: I saw it (the “Parochet” (curtain) separating the Holy of Holies from the outer chamber in the Heichal—see Shemot 26:33) and there were on it several drops of blood (RaShI explains that these droplets remained from the Temple service—see VaYikra 4:6, 17.)[4]

While the passage in Tractate Me’ila describes the Parochet that R. Eliezer son of R. Yosi saw, another Talmudic passage refers to a different Temple artifact that this same Rabbinic personality reports to have personally seen:

Shabbat 63b

The “Tzitz” (the golden band worn by the Kohen Gadol on his forehead—see Shemot 28:36-8) was a kind of golden plate two fingerbreadths wide and it stretched around the forehead from ear to ear, and upon it was written in two lines “Yod Heh” (lit. the letters “Yod” and “Heh”, the first two letters of the Tetragrammaton. This is the Talmud’s shorthand for stating that the actual Tetragrammaton was written on the first line) above and “Kodesh L” (lit. Holy to) below. But R. Eliezer son of R. Yosi said: I saw it in the city of Rome and “Kodesh LaShem” was written in one line.

Whether or not such objects are yet to be found in the catacombs and recesses of Rome or the Vatican does not prevent us from reflecting upon the spiritual and symbolic significance of the rituals that were carried out in the structure that contained the Menora and Parochet by the individual wearing the Tzitz. One evocative source associates the 8 pieces of clothing worn only by the High Priest, including the headplate, with various human failings,[5] asserting that the Kohen Gadol’s attire was designed to atone for these categories of shortcomings:[6]

Zevachim 88b

R. Inyani bar Sasson also said: Why are the sections on sacrifices and the priestly garments close together?[7] To teach you as sacrifice make atonement,[8] so do the priestly garments make atonement. The “Ketonet” (coat) atones for bloodshed, as it is said, (Beraishit 37:31) “And they killed a goat and dipped “HaKetonet” (the coat) in its blood.” The “Michnasayim” (underwear) atoned for sexual impropriety, as it is said, (Shemot 28:42) “And you will make them linen “Michnasayim” to cover their nakedness.” The “Mitznefet” (turban” atoned for arrogance. How do we know it? R. Chanina said: Let an article of clothing placed high up atone for an offense of arrogance. The “Avnet” (belt) atoned for impure thoughts, because of where it was placed (at the level of the heart.) The “Choshen” (breastplate) atoned for errors in judging/neglect of civil laws, as it is said, (Shemot 37:15) “And you will make a “Choshen” of judgment.” The “Ephod” (a unique article of clothing that looked like an apron, but was worn in the opposite manner of an apron, i.e., the solid portion would be placed at the High Priest’s back with the connecting straps coming over his shoulders and from which the “Choshen” would be suspended), atoned for idolatry, as it is written, (Hoshea 3:4) “Without the “Ephod” there would be Teraphim (a form of idol, referring in general to idol worship.) The “Me’il” (robe) atoned for slander. How do we know it? R. Chanina said: Let an article of sound[9] come and atone for a sin of sound. The “Tzitz” (headplate) atoned for brazenness. Of the “Tzitz” it is written, (Shemot 28:38) “And it shall be upon Aharon’s forehead,” while concerning brazenness it is written, (Yirmiyahu 3:3) “You have a harlot’s forehead.”[10]

Reflecting upon the fact that while according to the Talmud, all of the garments of the High Priest were intended to achieve atonement for the sins of the people, only the “Tzitz” had associated with it the evocative spiritual statement “Holy unto God,” Tosefet Beracha (Baruch HaLevi Epstein, vol. on Sefer Shemot, Moreshet, Tel Aviv, pp. 268-9) raises the possibility that the quality of brazenness associated with this article of clothing might represent something unique when compared to the other sins and personality traits listed.[11]

…The quality of brazenness can be applied to holy contexts, as stated in the Mishna of Avot (5:20), “…Be as brazen as the leopard[12] to carry out the Will of your Father in Heaven…” and the Tur (Tur Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chayim) explains at the beginning of Siman Alef, that although brazenness is included among the reprehensible human traits, nevertheless there are times when is it appropriate to utilize it, i.e., when one wants to perform a Commandment but is embarrassed by others who will deride him. The interpretation (reflected in Avot) is that one should act brazenly in the face of his detractors and not hold back from carrying out the Commandment. This was the intent of the Tanna (R. Yehuda ben Teima) when he stated, “…Be as brazen as the leopard to carry out the Will of your Father in Heaven…” i.e., be brazen before them (the detractors) and do your Mitzva…

The verse states, (Shemot 28:36) “And you will make the ‘Tzitz’…(Ibid., 38) …to find favor…” only then, (i.e., to sanctify one’s actions for the Sake of God, as inscribed on the headplate) can you utilize this otherwise negative attribute.

Tosefet Beracha implies that the other qualities listed in the passage from Zevachim do not have this reversible quality, and therefore are not in need of a symbolic caveat, i.e., some form of “Kodesh LaShem,” explicitly suggesting that conscious mental intention—the plate is worn opposite the brain—either can justify or condemn such a practice or attitude. It can easily be agreed that murder, idolatry, sexual impropriety, arrogance, impure thoughts, the perversion of justice, and slander have no inherently redeeming contexts in the same way that brazenness is also devoid of general justification; however there are contexts that appear in Rabbinic literature and are evocatively categorized as “Aveira LeShma” (transgressions for the sake of Heaven) which might suggest that with the right intention, other negative behavior could be deemed not only acceptable but even admirable! See for example the Talmudic discussions in Nazir 23b and Horiot 10b regarding Yael’s actions which led to her assassination of the general Sisero (the incident is described in Shoftim 4.) However commentators point out that one has to be on a very rarified spiritual level to be able to say unequivocally about his own actions, particularly when ostensibly questionable behavior is involved, that they were in fact pure and holy. Perhaps the manner in which Tosefet Beracha views the Tur’s context for brazenness as more easily acceptable even when carried out by someone who is not deemed so righteous, reflects the fact that brazenness per se is only being utilized for fulfilling a bonafied Mitzva, e.g., studying Tora when others are urging me to participate with them in something frivolous, attending regularly Minyan despite being teased about my “frumkeit,” etc., whereas the “Aveira LeShma” category applies to actions that outwardly are sinful, and all we have are the attestations of the perpetrator that he meant well when he was engaged in doing it. (The case of Yael is supported by the prophetess Devora in Shoftim 5:24, lending further credibility to her pure and atypical intentions.)

So here we have yet again a reason to bemoan the destruction of the Temples—the lack of means for atonement for our shortcomings. We are left to our own devices to try to spiritually perfect ourselves.

---

[1] The arch built in Rome in commemoration of the capture of Jerusalem (70 CE)…by Titus and his father Vespasian. Titus became emperor in 79 CE. The arch is richly sculptured and the tropies taken at the desecration of the Temple are shown in relief. –Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, rev. Adrian Room, Harper Collins, New York, 1995, p. 49

[2] When accounts describe two objects, the “Parochet” and the “Tzitz”, should it be assumed that these were the only ones not seen, but that actually existed in the Emporor’s vaults, or is it possible that either more were seen, but we have recorded statements concerning only these two, or although more were not seen, they nevertheless existed. It is also interesting to note that while the “Parochet” was a feature of the Tabernacle/Temple structure, the “Tzitz” were one of the garments of the High Priest. Could this suggest that each object represented the totality of things associated with each of these categories, and they were all seen in toto?

[3] Beraishit 16:9-11 mentions an angel speaking with Hagar three separate times. In accordance with the principle that each angel has a singular mission—see RaShI on Beraishit 18:2—it is possible that each of these communications necessitated the involvement of a different angel. Hagar encounters an angel at a later point, in 21:17. There one finds only a single communication, perhaps because there was only one piece of information to be conveyed to Hagar.

[4] The application of blood upon the “Parochet” was also a feature of the Yom Kippur service. See ArtScroll Yom Kippur Machzor pp, 566-7

He would exert his feet to run and he would stand outside the curtain that separated (between the Holy and the Holy of Holies). At the embroidered curtain he would sprinkle (the blood of the bull) with the same procedure as toward the Ark’s cover. He would then rush and repeat the sprinkling with the blood of the he-goat.

[5] R. S.R. Hirsch (Shemot 28, “The Bigdei Kehuna [following his commentary on the last verses of the chapter] understands that particularly on Yom HaKippurim, when the people were particularly sensitive to the need for both national and individual atonement, these garments and the sins that are associated with them, would have an important cathartic effect:

(p. 673 in the new Haberman translation) In the Tora there are two kinds of atonement: one regarding a person who has transgressed the Tora, and another regarding the Sanctuary of the Tora and its constituents. Any unatoned sin endangers the purity of the ideal of sanctification of life, which the Sanctuary of the Tora demands of us. As long as the sin has not been denounced by the Sanctuary in any way, or as long as the sinner remains unpunished, it appears as though the Sanctuary of the Tora—which stands in the midst of the people—condones the people’s actions, including all their sins, and as though these sins can be reconciled with the standards of the Tora.

Avodat Yom HaKippurim shows us the discrepancy between the ideal of the Sanctuary of the Tora and the reality of the life of the people. This protects the Sanctuary of the Tora from the people’s sins, whose effects could be detrimental to its sanctity; as it says, (VaYikra 16:16) “And he will atone for the Holy due to the impurity of Israel and their sins for all of their iniquities.” The atonement of the Sanctuary also eliminates the need for the imposition of punishment on the people…

Consequently, the (rather optimistic) view that just seeing the Temple Service as well as the Kohen Gadol’s various pieces of clothing will not only define these actions are reprehensible but also inspire repentance on the part of the people is according to R. Hirsch, reflected in the passage from Zevachim cited below.

[6] While the institution of Shliach Tzibbur (representative of the congregation for the purposes of prayer) has largely become moot due to the spread of literacy and the wide availability of printed Siddurim, allowing most individuals to pray on their own behalves, in Temple times, only the Kohanim in general and the High Priest in particular with regard to Yom HaKippurim, were able to offer up sacrifices. Consequently the concept that everything rode on the shoulders of particular individuals with the rest of the people being relegated to the role of helpless bystanders was very much in play. Even if the sinner would repent, he still depended upon a good outcome vis-à-vis God via the correct, precise and mindful actions of his representatives offering sacrifices and carrying out Temple rituals. Perhaps this accounts in part for the harsh punishment suffered by Nadav and Avihu (VaYikra 10:1-2) They were training not only to represent themselves, but all of the Jewish people. The additional responsibility narrowed their margin of error and heightened their responsibility and accountability.

[7] VaYikra 8 follows VaYikra 7. The hermeneutic principle “Semichut HaParshiyot” (the juxtaposition of sentences or paragraphs discussing different topics) generates the thought of connections between these topics since it is assumed that the ordering of the Tora was done self-consciously. Such an assumption particularly supports the idea that the Tora was written down all at once at the end of Moshe’s life, rather than piece by piece, as each topic was revealed—see Gittin 60a. The latter position could still be substantiated were one to claim that the order of the Revelations also was arranged with the connections between topics in mind, but, in my opinion, that appears to be more of a “stretch.”

[8] The most powerful depiction of this process in my view, is found in RaMBaN on VaYikra 1:9 where the commentator suggests that the sacrifice is a vicarious means by which the individual offers himself in toto to God, and thereby expiates sins which in essence came about due to self-indulgence, and putting oneself ahead of God’s Demands and Ideals.

[9] Bells (Shemot 28:34-5) were places on the hem of the Me’il, with their ringing indicating the approach of the High Priest.

[10] The methodology of this Aggadic passage is intriguing by its inconsistency. While some (Ketonent, Ephod and Tzitz) are interpreted via the hermeneutic principle of Gezeira Shava (the same word is used in two different contexts, suggesting a link between the topics being discussed), others (Michnasayim and Choshen) are defined by verses within their own context that shed light upon their purpose. A third group (Mitznefet, Avnet and Me’il) are given logical explanations, two attributed specifically to R. Chanina, without resorting to any textual basis. Should we assume that R. Inyani bar Sasson, being aware of the textual associations proceeded to assume that some type of similar explanation has to be found for all 8 of the High Priest’s garments and therefore resorted to logic when no textual references came to mind?

[11] During the course of the Yom HaKippurim prayers, the Vidui (confessional) is recited both during the Silent Devotion as well as within the Shliach Tzibbur’s repetition of the Amida. See e.g., ArtScroll Yom Kippur Machzor, pp. 20-23. The Vidui consists of 77 statements. Concerning the 8 areas that are each associated with a different part of the High Priest’s clothing, 6 out of the 8 appear in the list of the Confessional in the following order: Sexual impropriety--#30; Arrogance--#55; Impure thoughts--#33; Perversion of justice--#58; Slander--#47; Brazenness--#56. While one might think that bloodshed and idolatry are so serious that merely confessing having perpetrated them might lead to the false conclusion that nothing else is required in order to gain atonement, the third of the three sins categorized as “Yeihareig VeAl Ya’avor” (one should better allow oneself to be killed than to transgress them—see Sanhedrin 74a.,) sexual impropriety is included in the Vidui. Does this reflect the sense that the participation of consenting adults in this sin could be misconstrued as a lesser transgression, and therefore it becomes necessary to mention it specifically?

[12] Tosefet Beracha even supplies a gloss on the choice of leopard as referent for brazenness. Yeshayahu 56:11 as well as Beitza 25b identify the dog (should all dogs be included? Are pit bulls and rotweilers the exemplars for such behavior?) as the animal most associated with this quality. R. Epstein suggests based upon zoological research that whereas dogs will act brazenly whether provoked or not (again suggesting attack dogs that either do this by nature, or which have been trained to act in this manner) cats will only act aggressively when provoked. Consequently, if the context is to be brazen in the face of detractors, this is more in keeping with the behavior of a cat, even a large one, than with a dog.