Difference between revisions of "Warning Bells – "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ... וְלֹא יָמוּת"/2"
(Original Author: Rabbi Hillel Novetsky, Neima Novetsky) |
(Original Author: Rabbi Hillel Novetsky, Neima Novetsky) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Context of "וְלֹא יָמוּת"</b> – Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi reads "וְלֹא יָמוּת" as referring, not to the phrase regarding the bells (‏"וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ..."‏) which immediately precedes it, but rather to the words at the beginning of the verse "וְהָיָה עַל אַהֲרֹן לְשָׁרֵת".‎<fn>See below for the parallel phrasing in Shemot 28:43.</fn> In fact, according to Rashi, it refers to the need for the high priest to wear all of the garments commanded throughout the entire chapter,<fn>Ramban disputes this interpretation, noting that the <multilink><aht source="BavliSanhedrin83b">Bavli Sanhedrin</aht><aht source="BavliSanhedrin83b">Sanhedrin83b</aht><aht parshan="Talmud Bavli">About the Bavli</aht></multilink> derives the prohibition of incomplete priestly attire from "וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם כְּהֻנָּה לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם" in Shemot 29:9 (which follows the dressing of the priests in their special clothing), rather than from our verse. Ramban thus explains that our verse refers solely to the bells on the robe of the high priest, and that the similar verse in Shemot 28:43 is speaking only of the pants worn by the priests. See also <multilink><aht source="TosafotSanhedrin83b">Tosafot Sanhedrin</aht><aht source="TosafotSanhedrin83b">Sanhedrin 83b s.v. "אין"</aht><aht parshan="Baalei HaTosafot">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</aht></multilink>. In contrast, Rashi takes the opposite position, explaining both our verse and 28:43 as referring to all priestly clothing, and interpreting Shemot 29:9 to be speaking of the act of consecration of the priests rather than their clothing.</fn> and not merely to the robe.<fn>Vayikra Rabbah, on the other hand, specifies the robe as the particular vestment whose absence results in punishment.</fn> Thus, this approach understands the words "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לִפְנֵי ה' וּבְצֵאתוֹ" as a parenthetical interlude.<fn><multilink><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort28-35">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort28-35">Shemot Short Commentary 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink> cites an opinion which goes a step further than Rashi, suggesting that our entire verse (and not just the last two words) delineates what results from the priest wearing his required clothing. According to this position, when the priest dresses as commanded there is a dual benefit: Hashem hears his voice and accepts his prayers, and the priest does not die.</fn></point> | <point><b>Context of "וְלֹא יָמוּת"</b> – Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi reads "וְלֹא יָמוּת" as referring, not to the phrase regarding the bells (‏"וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ..."‏) which immediately precedes it, but rather to the words at the beginning of the verse "וְהָיָה עַל אַהֲרֹן לְשָׁרֵת".‎<fn>See below for the parallel phrasing in Shemot 28:43.</fn> In fact, according to Rashi, it refers to the need for the high priest to wear all of the garments commanded throughout the entire chapter,<fn>Ramban disputes this interpretation, noting that the <multilink><aht source="BavliSanhedrin83b">Bavli Sanhedrin</aht><aht source="BavliSanhedrin83b">Sanhedrin83b</aht><aht parshan="Talmud Bavli">About the Bavli</aht></multilink> derives the prohibition of incomplete priestly attire from "וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם כְּהֻנָּה לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם" in Shemot 29:9 (which follows the dressing of the priests in their special clothing), rather than from our verse. Ramban thus explains that our verse refers solely to the bells on the robe of the high priest, and that the similar verse in Shemot 28:43 is speaking only of the pants worn by the priests. See also <multilink><aht source="TosafotSanhedrin83b">Tosafot Sanhedrin</aht><aht source="TosafotSanhedrin83b">Sanhedrin 83b s.v. "אין"</aht><aht parshan="Baalei HaTosafot">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</aht></multilink>. In contrast, Rashi takes the opposite position, explaining both our verse and 28:43 as referring to all priestly clothing, and interpreting Shemot 29:9 to be speaking of the act of consecration of the priests rather than their clothing.</fn> and not merely to the robe.<fn>Vayikra Rabbah, on the other hand, specifies the robe as the particular vestment whose absence results in punishment.</fn> Thus, this approach understands the words "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לִפְנֵי ה' וּבְצֵאתוֹ" as a parenthetical interlude.<fn><multilink><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort28-35">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort28-35">Shemot Short Commentary 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink> cites an opinion which goes a step further than Rashi, suggesting that our entire verse (and not just the last two words) delineates what results from the priest wearing his required clothing. According to this position, when the priest dresses as commanded there is a dual benefit: Hashem hears his voice and accepts his prayers, and the priest does not die.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Parallel verses</b> – Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi view our verse as parallel to <aht source="Shemot28-42">Shemot 28:43</aht> which similarly describes a punishment of death if the priests are lacking proper attire. | + | <point><b>Parallel verses</b> – Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi view our verse as parallel to <aht source="Shemot28-42">Shemot 28:43</aht> which similarly describes a punishment of death if the priests are lacking proper attire. See the <aht subpage="1#Table">table</aht> in the Introduction which highlights the parallels between the verses. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</point> | </point> | ||
<point><b>Who might die?</b> According to this interpretation, it is the high priest himself who might die if he violates the priestly dress code.</point> | <point><b>Who might die?</b> According to this interpretation, it is the high priest himself who might die if he violates the priestly dress code.</point> | ||
Line 49: | Line 41: | ||
<multilink><aht source="RashbamShemot28-35">Rashbam</aht><aht source="RashbamShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="Rashbam">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</aht></multilink> | <multilink><aht source="RashbamShemot28-35">Rashbam</aht><aht source="RashbamShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="Rashbam">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</aht></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>Who might die?</b> – Rashbam asserts that the concern is lest | + | <point><b>Who might die?</b> – Rashbam asserts that the concern is lest the ordinary priests die from being present in the sanctuary when the high priest enters the Holy of Holies to atone for the nation.<fn>It is likely that the fear is that these priests might accidentally see the Divine presence during the high priest's service.</fn> However, he does not explain why the singular form of the word "יָמוּת" is used.</point> |
<point><b>Parallel verses</b> – According to this approach, the verse in Shemot is integrally connected to the command of Vayikra 16:17, "וְכָל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ".</point> | <point><b>Parallel verses</b> – According to this approach, the verse in Shemot is integrally connected to the command of Vayikra 16:17, "וְכָל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ".</point> | ||
<point><b>"הַקֹּדֶשׁ"</b> – This refers to the Holy of Holies,<fn>See Vayikra 16:2,16,20 for other verses in which the term "הַקֹּדֶשׁ" seems to refer to the Holy of Holies.</fn> which the high priest entered on the Day of Atonement.<fn>See, similarly, <multilink><aht source="RAvrahamShemot28-35">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</aht><aht source="RAvrahamShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham Maimonides" /></multilink>. Cf. the <multilink><aht source="MishnaTamid6-3">Mishna Tamid</aht><aht source="MishnaTamid6-3">Tamid 6:3</aht><aht parshan="Mishna">About the Mishna</aht></multilink> and <multilink><aht source="MishnaKeilim1-9">Mishna Keilim</aht><aht source="MishnaKeilim1-9">Keilim 1:9</aht><aht parshan="Mishna">About the Mishna</aht></multilink> which speak of the common priests keeping their distance even when the high priest offered incense in the outer chamber.</fn></point> | <point><b>"הַקֹּדֶשׁ"</b> – This refers to the Holy of Holies,<fn>See Vayikra 16:2,16,20 for other verses in which the term "הַקֹּדֶשׁ" seems to refer to the Holy of Holies.</fn> which the high priest entered on the Day of Atonement.<fn>See, similarly, <multilink><aht source="RAvrahamShemot28-35">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</aht><aht source="RAvrahamShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham Maimonides" /></multilink>. Cf. the <multilink><aht source="MishnaTamid6-3">Mishna Tamid</aht><aht source="MishnaTamid6-3">Tamid 6:3</aht><aht parshan="Mishna">About the Mishna</aht></multilink> and <multilink><aht source="MishnaKeilim1-9">Mishna Keilim</aht><aht source="MishnaKeilim1-9">Keilim 1:9</aht><aht parshan="Mishna">About the Mishna</aht></multilink> which speak of the common priests keeping their distance even when the high priest offered incense in the outer chamber.</fn></point> | ||
Line 80: | Line 72: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | <point><b>Parallel verses</b> – According to Ramban and R. Bachya, the verse in Shemot is connected to the command of Vayikra 16:17, "וְכָל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ". They understand the phrase "וְכָל אָדָם" to include angels, described in Yehezkel 1:10 as having "פְּנֵי אָדָם".</point> | + | <point><b>Parallel verses</b> – According to Ramban and R. Bachya, the verse in Shemot is connected to the command of Vayikra 16:17, "וְכָל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ". They understand the phrase "וְכָל אָדָם" to include angels, described in Yehezkel 1:10 as having "פְּנֵי אָדָם".<fn>Ramban cites <multilink><aht source="YerushalmiYoma1-5">Yerushalmi Yoma</aht><aht source="YerushalmiYoma1-5">Yoma 1:5</aht><aht parshan="Yerushalmi">About the Yerushalmi</aht></multilink> as the source for this.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Who might die?</b> According to these commentators, it is the high priest himself who was in danger.</point> | <point><b>Who might die?</b> According to these commentators, it is the high priest himself who was in danger.</point> | ||
<point><b>"הַקֹּדֶשׁ"</b> – R. Chananel, Ramban, and R. Bachya interpret this to refer to only the outer part of the sanctuary. They point out that on Yom HaKippurim, there was a special dispensation for the high priest to enter without "knocking", apparently because of the closer relationship to Hashem on this day.<fn>R. Bachya explains that there was similarly no need to evacuate the angels on this special day.</fn></point> | <point><b>"הַקֹּדֶשׁ"</b> – R. Chananel, Ramban, and R. Bachya interpret this to refer to only the outer part of the sanctuary. They point out that on Yom HaKippurim, there was a special dispensation for the high priest to enter without "knocking", apparently because of the closer relationship to Hashem on this day.<fn>R. Bachya explains that there was similarly no need to evacuate the angels on this special day.</fn></point> |
Version as of 02:58, 7 February 2014
Warning Bells – "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ... וְלֹא יָמוּת"
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators disagree on what served to prevent death from occurring in the sanctuary. Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi view the final words of the verse ("וְלֹא יָמוּת") as related to the wearing of all of the priestly garments, the absence of any one of which would have fatal consequences. Rashbam, in contrast, understands the words to refer specifically to the ringing bells of the high priest's robe which would alert the ordinary priests to evacuate the Tabernacle while the purification rite was being performed on Yom HaKippurim. Finally, Ralbag also explains that the words relate to the sound of the bells, but he posits that the bells had a year-round function to remind the high priest that he must always be mentally prepared for the service of Hashem.
Wearing Full Attire
The high priest will not die if he wears all of the required vestments for serving in the Tabernacle, and the bells of the robe play no special role as far as this.
- 28:35 which comes at the conclusion of the commands to fashion the special vestments of the high priest5 and refers specifically to the high priest.
- 28:43 which follows the instructions regarding the basic priestly garments and applies to all priests.
Evacuation of the Sanctuary
The bells of the high priest's robe served to warn the ordinary priests to leave the sanctuary prior to the high priest's entry. The priests' exit protected them from potential death.
- Ibn Ezra learns from our verse that on the Day of Atonement the priest did, in fact, wear the special garments mentioned here (including the robe with its bells) into the inner chamber, in addition to his all white clothing.10
- Alternatively, one might suggest that the law changed between Shemot 28 and Vayikra 16. Initially, the high priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies wearing his regular eight piece uniform, which included the robe and its bells. Only after the sin of Nadav and Avihu and their deaths, did Hashem mandate that special white attire would be required for entering the inner sanctum.11
Preparation or Protection of the High Priest
The ringing of the bells insured that the high priest approached his service in the Tabernacle with proper respect and purity of thought, or protected him from the dangers inherent in his duties.
- Permission request – According to most of these commentators, the ringing bells were the high priest's way of knocking to request permission to enter.12
- Protection – Ramban and R. Bachya additionally suggest that the bells served to alert the ministering angels (who normally filled the Tabernacle) that the high priest was arriving. Their departure would ensure that they did not harm the incoming priest.
- Reminder – For Ralbag, in contrast, the bells were a reminder for the high priest himself to properly channel his thoughts to the worship of Hashem.
- Status – Ramban suggests that the command is aimed only at the high priest due to his higher stature and greater service.15 Ralbag could similarly explain that the high priest was held to a higher standard due to the importance of his role.
- Ordinary priests absent – Alternatively, one might suggest, like Seforno, that in the desert, the ordinary priests were never allowed in the Tabernacle at all,16 but were limited to sacrificing at the external altar.17 As such, they obviously had no need for bells to announce their arrival or to focus their thoughts, since they never served inside the sanctuary.