English translation — אחרי א

A.

At the beginning of our parshah,

where it is told "And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron etc. and he shall not come at all times into the holy place etc. With this shall Aaron come into the holy place",

it stands in the verse¹

: "A tunic of holy linen he shall wear etc."

Rashi stands on the words "tunic of linen etc." and explains: "It teaches that he does not serve inside²

in eight garments which he serves in them outside which have gold³

because an accuser cannot become a defender⁴,

but in four like a common priest and all of them of linen."

Simply, the plain meaning in Rashi's commentary<sup>5</sup>

: He comes here to answer why the command to put on the garments stands here

(“A holy linen tunic he shall wear, etc. holy garments they are, etc. and he shall wear them”)

as a new thing,

a novel matter; although this is already explicit in Parshat Tetzaveh<sup>6</sup>,

both the very obligation to make the garments and the obligation to wear them,

“When they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, they shall not bear iniquity and die, etc.”<sup>7</sup>.

What does the command here, in the speech to Aaron, add?

Rashi explains,

that the verse comes to say here,

"Maggid" —

(not to enumerate the priestly garments and the command that one must put them on when one enters to perform the service in the Holy,

but)

that he must put on only <b>the</b> garments,

and not the "eight garments"

(regarding which one learned <b>earlier</b> in Parshas Tetzaveh that in them Aaron served all the time).

B.

One must, however, further understand:

&lt;b&gt;The addition &lt;/b&gt;of the word "Maggid" in Rashi's commentary is generally in a case where the matter that Rashi says is not explicitly stated in the plain sense of the verse,

rather "Maggid" — the verse comes &lt;b&gt;to say &lt;/b&gt;a certain thing,

in addition to what it says explicitly&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;.

Here it is not understood: the matter that he wears only four garments,

not eight garments,

is stated explicitly in the verse?

Also one must understand the conclusion of Rashi's wording "but in four like a common priest and all of them of linen":

a)

One sees in the verse that four garments are enumerated here,

So why does Rashi need to say it?

b)

What does he add and innovate "like an ordinary priest"; we already know this from earlier

(in parshas Tetzaveh⁹)

that an ordinary priest wears only "four garments".

ג)

In any case: what is the practical difference that this is "like an ordinary kohen"?

ד)

"And all of them of linen" — it states

In the plain sense, there is no verse for each of the garments that it should be of "linen".

What does Rashi add "and all of them of linen"?

3.

At first glance, one could learn that Rashi comes to reject an entirely different interpretation:

Learning the verse "a sacred linen tunic etc.",

one could say: Since we already know from Parshat Tetzaveh¹⁰

that Aharon the High Priest had eight garments, all of which are "for honor and glory"¹¹,

how is it that when entering once a year into the Holy of Holies he should wear only four of the garments,

and not the other four — <b>diminish</b> in the "for honor and glory"¹²?

From this one would learn,

that the verse does not come to say that he must wear only <b>those</b> four garments,

for it is simple that he must wear

(all the more so from a whole year)

all eight garments

(and as is implied from other commentators on the Torah¹³).

The verse comes to state the <b>change</b>¹⁴

that on Yom Kippur — that the four garments must then be

(on Yom Kippur)

different: a whole year they are

The four garments

(as said in Parshas Tetzaveh¹⁵)

"the tunic of linen, the turban of linen, and the sash etc.",

were "linen twined"¹⁶,

but here on Yom Kippur it is "a tunic of <b>linen </b>and linen breeches etc. and a sash of <b>linen </b>etc. and a turban of <b>linen </b>etc." — not "linen twined",

only a single thread¹⁷.

And therefore the verse speaks only about

(the wearing of)

the four garments.

And this Rashi excludes with his commentary "magid etc." — not as one could have learned that the verse only specifies the <b>change</b>,

which is only in the four garments

(but it does not exclude the wearing of the other four garments),

but "he does not serve inside with eight garments",

the verse comes to exclude the garments "which he serves with outside",

"but <b>with four </b>as a common priest".

4.

But also this explanation is difficult,

because¹⁸

because after all Rashi does not add to what is explained in the verse,

he only rejects a mistaken explanation <b>not</b> like the meaning of the verse — is added to this]

The conclusion of Rashi's commentary "

(as a common kohen)

And all of them of linen" is not merely superfluous,

but this is an emphasis on the contrary; it gives room for error that the novelty of the verse is in <b>the </b>four garments

(which the verse enumerates),

that "all of them of linen" — opposite of the above in Rashi's commentary,

that the novelty of the verse is

(only)

in that he wears <b>not </b>the <b>other </b>four golden garments.

5.

So the explanation in this is:

Rashi comes to answer a question that arises in the verse: why is this verse placed

(regarding the wearing of the garments)

in this place?

Seemingly, it should have been placed — either <b>before</b> all the services and offerings of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur

(in the preceding verse),

or after the verse enumerates all the services that he had to do while dressed in the garments¹⁹.

From the fact that the Torah states this command here immediately after the verse "With this, etc., a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering," one would simply learn,

that he puts on the four garments only for this young bull for a sin offering and ram for a burnt offering,

these being the offerings <b>that are unique to him</b> on Yom Kippur.

But from the verses further on it is clear,

that: a)

his olah — the ram for the olah — is done in other garments,

"and he shall put on his garments,"

which means the "eight garments with which he serves all the days of the year"²⁰.

b)

that all these services until his olah — the two he-goats for the sin-offering of the congregation of the children of Israel and the service of the incense etc. that are enumerated

<b>According to </b>our verse — must also be done in the four garments.

Therefore Rashi explains: "indicating that he does not serve inside in the eight garments in which he serves outside etc."

Although the plain sense of the verse ostensibly implies that it pertains to both offerings mentioned in the previous verse,

both the sin-offering and the burnt-offering — the explanation is not so,

rather the verse comes to say that "he does not serve inside in the eight garments in which he serves outside",

and the ram for a burnt-offering is indeed its offering outside²⁰.

On the other hand,

all these subsequent services — the sprinkling of the blood of the two he-goats and the incense etc. — are indeed all inside

(or a need of inside²¹),

And consequently they are performed in the four garments.

And this itself is the reason that the matter of the garments stands specifically here after the verse "With this shall Aaron come into the holy place, etc."

not earlier before all the sacrifices and not later after the conclusion of the special sacrifices of Yom Kippur:

With this the verse says,

that the wearing of the four garments is not from the aspect

(service)

of the day of Yom Kippur,

but from the aspect of "With this shall Aaron come into the holy place" — the innovation of

(Yom Kippur,

the)

service within; the service within cannot be with eight garments "with which he serves outside"

(by which he means

(mainly)

not the service throughout the year,

but "with which he serves outside" on Yom Kippur itself).

6.

Based on this, it is also answered the question why Rashi does not defend a difficulty in the plain sense of the verse:

Since "a prosecutor cannot become a defender",

and therefore the Kohen Gadol may not serve in the golden garments — how is it that outside he should serve in the golden garments?

Regarding the service of the Kohen Gadol throughout the year — even when he performs a service whose subject is atonement — one could answer,

that "a prosecutor cannot become a defender" is said only on Yom Kippur,

that <b>the entire subject</b> of this day is

(as its name)

— <b>Kippurim</b>,

and therefore the service of this day must be with a special caution,

not to give any place for a matter of "prosecutor".

But regarding the service of Yom Kippur itself — it is not understandable: the entire service of Yom Kippur,

both service inside and service outside,

should not have been in golden garments²³

Is the explanation of this indicated in that the verse "linen tunic etc." comes in continuation to the verse "With this shall Aaron come etc.":

By prefacing immediately at the beginning of the service of Yom Kippur the words "With this shall come etc. with a bull etc." the verse teaches us,

that the point of Yom Kippur is

(not the <b>service</b> of the day,

but)

"<b>Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary</b>",

the entry into the Sanctuary

the holy things²⁴,

and this brings the atonement of Yom Kippur; but in order²⁵

the entry into the Holy should be as it needs to be — it must be "with this",

various sacrifices and services are required

(both inside and outside — like the ram for a burnt offering).

and consequently it is understood,

that the safeguard of "no prosecutor becomes a defender" is primarily

(in the <b>place</b> of atonement of Yom Kippur — )

in the service inside²⁶.

7.

Since according to Rashi's commentary the novelty of the verse "a linen tunic etc." is in the negation,

that inside one may not serve with the golden garments because a prosecutor cannot become a defender — it is not smooth:

When one learns the verses in Parshat Tetzaveh,

one sees the great care that must be in the wearing of the garments so that the service be done in a manner of "for glory and for beauty",

until that "one who serves lacking garments is liable to death"²⁷

— so how does it come,

that because of "a prosecutor cannot become a defender" the High Priest should not be

(in completeness)

"for glory and for beauty",

even not wear the full number of garments as usual?

that the High Priest must wear a different type of garments,

which is designated for Yom Kippur — it is not so difficult.

For just as throughout the year the Torah commanded a law of eight garments for a High Priest,

so too the Torah commanded a law of four garments designated for Yom Kippur;

But since according to Rashi there is no special law and novelty in the four garments that the High Priest wears,

there is only a prohibition to wear golden garments on Yom Kippur — the question becomes: after all

It turns out that the Kohen Gadol specifically on Yom Kippur is like a deficient in garments?]

Therefore Rashi must protect,

that the Kohen Gadol wears four "&lt;b&gt;as a common priest&lt;/b&gt;": that which the Kohen Gadol wears inside only four garments,

is not the interpretation that he wears four of &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;eight garments&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

but he is then &lt;b&gt;serving &lt;/b&gt;like a &lt;b&gt;common&lt;/b&gt; priest&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

whose number of garments is

(&lt;b&gt;ab initio&lt;/b&gt;)

four.

8.

With this one will also understand the conclusion of Rashi's language "and all of them of linen":

Rashi's intention is not only to emphasize that the four garments are not a matter of "prosecutor" — since "all of them of linen"; rather this is also an additional proof that the service inside on Yom Kippur is "as a common priest"³¹

About the belt of Aharon it stands in Parshat Pekudei&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

that it was made from "fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet wool, the work of an embroiderer"

(In Parshat Tetzaveh&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

where it stands the command regarding the making of the garments,

it stands only that the belt must be "the work of an embroiderer",

it says however not thereby of which kind

(or kinds)

it is made; unlike by the making of the garments in Pekudei

It says that the belt of Aharon the High Priest was from the types mentioned above).

It turns out,

that the belt of Aharon is <b>not</b> only from "linen" — so how does the verse say "and with a linen belt he shall gird himself"?

From this it is forced,

that the garments are not the garments of the High Priest,

but these are the "four <b>as a common priest</b>"³⁴,

And Rashi takes

(in the plain sense of Scripture),

that that which the verse distinguishes the girdle of Aharon

(in parshas Pekudei)

— and does not mention the girdles of his sons

(although there itself&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

the verse mentions the other three garments of the sons of Aharon)

— is because the verse speaks there &lt;b&gt;specifically &lt;/b&gt;about the girdle of Aharon,

but not so the girdles of the sons of Aharon were made differently

(only of linen)&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

9.

And it can be said that this is — from the wondrous matters according to the halachah in Rashi's commentary: Rashi disagrees with the Rambam regarding the nature of the garments of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur:

The Rambam³⁷

says "priestly garments three types,

garments of an ordinary priest and garments of gold and white garments — according to the Rambam's view the white garments of Yom Kippur are a <b>different type</b> of garments; not that there is a prohibition to wear garments of gold inside and therefore <b>remain</b> with him over

(only)

four of his eight garments,

rather it is a <b>third type</b> of garments³⁸.

— Rashi infers that inside he must serve in "four <b>like an ordinary priest</b>"

(as above at length).

Thus we see the difference between Rashi and the Rambam regarding the obligation of white garments in yet another matter:

The Rambam³⁹

says that "the services unique to this day [are performed] in white garments."

White garments is a law regarding the <b>services of the day</b>.

In which there is a difficulty — the ram of the burnt offering and the ram of the people are services unique to Yom Kippur⁴⁰,

and nevertheless they are not [performed] in white garments.

Rashi connects, however, the obligation of white garments with "&lt;b&gt;face/inside&lt;/b&gt;",

it is not dependent on the services of &lt;b&gt;the day &lt;/b&gt;but rather on the &lt;b&gt;place &lt;/b&gt;of the service — everything that is done in the face/inside

(or at least because of the service of the face/inside&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;)

must be done in white garments.

Because,

as discussed earlier,

according to Rashi

(according to the plain meaning of Scripture),

the primary atonement of Yom Kippur is from the aspect of the entry into the Holy of Holies,

and the services of the day are merely a condition and preparation for that entry.

10.

And perhaps one could say,

that the two matters mentioned above —

(a)

whether white garments is a

A negative matter or a positive matter,

(b)

Whether the white garments are connected with the service of the day or with entering within — are dependent on each other:

If one were to learn that it is a special and positive law of the white garments,

it is logical to say that this is a law in the service of the day.

For just as the priestly garments in general are connected with the service of the priests⁴²,

so is the special law of the white garments a detail in the unique service of that day.

If however the matter of white garments is a negative matter — there may not be golden garments — it is logical to say,

that the prohibition is connected

(not with the service itself,

but)

with the place of the service which "does not permit" a matter of gold.

Yes.

From this Rashi one derives a lesson in the service of G-d:

When a Jew wants to effect "before G-d you shall be pure"⁴³

regarding himself and regarding another

Jews and bring everyone "before G-d",

closer to the Most High, to His Torah and His commandments,

he must first of all know,

that for this it is required that he enter "lifnim" (inward).

He must ground himself,

"enter" into his innermost soul and with this power specifically can he effect an atonement and purification upon himself and upon another.

And the way to enter lifnim is — by removing his “for glory and splendor” the golden garments.

As long as he feels his “for glory and splendor,”

he cannot enter into “face,”

the inwardness of the intention.

Specifically when he feels himself like a kohen hedyot — not in golden garments but in white garments,

“all of them of linen” — by him the matter of simplicity shines⁴⁴

This specifically makes him worthy to enter lifnim,

and through this effect an atonement and purification and not only for himself,

but also for another,

until that

And he shall atone for himself and for his household and for all the congregation of Israel⁴⁵.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Acharei, 5736)