Warning Bells – "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ... וְלֹא יָמוּת"/2

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.

Sources: Vayikra Rabbah20:921:8 (Margulies)21:8 (Vilna)About Vayikra Rabbah, RashiShemot 28:35Shemot 28:43Yoma 44b s.v. "ניאשתיק"About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki

Context of "וְלֹא יָמוּת" – 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".‎¹ 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,² and not merely to the robe.³ Thus, this approach understands the words "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לִפְנֵי ה' וּבְצֵאתוֹ" as a parenthetical interlude.⁴

Parallel verses – Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi view our verse as parallel to Shemot 28:43 which similarly describes a punishment of death if the priests are lacking proper attire. See the table in the Introduction which highlights the parallels between the verses.

Who might die? According to this interpretation, it is the high priest himself who might die if he violates the priestly dress code.

Why is only the high priest commanded here? According to Vayikra Rabbah and Rashi, the admonition against serving with improper attire applies equally to the high priest and to ordinary priests. Thus, there are two separate verses:

• 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.

"הַקֹּדֶשׁ" – As this term appears in the middle part of the verse which speaks of the robe and its bells, it refers to the outer chamber in which the high priest would wear the golden garments, rather than to the Holy of Holies in which he would wear only white vestments. The prohibition of being dressed inappropriately, though, applies in all areas of the Tabernacle, from the Holy of Holies to the courtyard.

Function of the bells – Vayikra Rabbah views the ringing of the bells as part of appropriate manners to knock before entering the Tabernacle. The lack of such etiquette, though, might not warrant the death penalty. Rashi in Yoma adds that when the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies on Yom HaKippurim without wearing the robe with its bells, a special metallic attachment to the censer (מחתה) would be employed instead to make a ringing sound upon entry.⁶

Evacuation of the Sanctuary

The bells on 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.

Sources: RashbamShemot 28:35Vayikra 16:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir

Who might die? – 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.⁷ However, he does not explain why the singular form of the word "יָמוּת" is used.

Parallel verses – 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 עַד צֵאתוֹ".

Why is only the high priest commanded? – According to Rashbam, it is logical for the high priest alone to wear the robe with the bells, as it is his entry which necessitates that the other priests exit.

"הַקֹּדֶשׁ" – Rashbam may understand this term to refer to the Holy of Holies,⁸ which the high priest entered on the Day of Atonement.⁹

Entering the inner sanctum with bells? – This position encounters considerable difficulty from Vayikra 16 which ostensibly indicates that the high priest did not wear his robe when he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom HaKippurim, but rather wore only pure white garments. Rashbam does not address the issue, but there are a couple of possible solutions:

• Ibn EzraVayikra 16:4About R. Avraham 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.

Sources: R. ChananelYoma 52aAbout R. Chananel, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 28:35About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanShemot 28:35About R. Moshe Nachmanides, R. BachyaShemot 28:35About R. Bachya b. Asher, RalbagShemot 28:35About R. Levi b. Gershon

Function of the bells

• 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.

Parallel verses – 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".¹³

Who might die? According to these commentators, it is the high priest himself who was in danger.

"הַקֹּדֶשׁ" – 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.¹⁴

Why is only the high priest commanded? This approach must address why the same level of preparation or protection was not afforded the ordinary priests as well. There are different ways of resolving this difficulty:

• 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 SefornoVayikra 24:3About R. Ovadyah 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.

¹ See below for the parallel phrasing in Shemot 28:43.

² Ramban disputes this interpretation, noting that the Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin83bAbout the Bavli 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 Tosafot SanhedrinSanhedrin 83b s.v. "אין"About Ba'alei HaTosafot. 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.

³ Vayikra Rabbah, on the other hand, specifies the robe as the particular vestment whose absence results in punishment.

⁴ Ibn EzraShemot Short Commentary 28:35About R. Avraham ibn Ezra 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.

⁵ The command regarding the צִּיץ follows this verse, but the צִּיץ may be considered an accessory which is distinct from the set of three cloth vestments of the ephod, breastplate, and robe. See also the list of garments in Shemot 28:4 where the "חֹשֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד וּמְעִיל" are mentioned without the צִּיץ. Cf. Ramban, in his critique of Rashi, who argues from that (according to Rashi) our verse should not have appeared before the צִּיץ.

⁶ Cf. R. Chananel below who maintains that there was no need to knock on Yom HaKippurim.

⁷ It is likely that the fear is that these priests might accidentally see the Divine presence during the high priest's service.

⁸ See Vayikra 16:2,16,20 for other verses in which the term "הַקֹּדֶשׁ" seems to refer to the Holy of Holies.

⁹ See, similarly, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 28:35About R. Avraham Maimonides. Cf. the Mishna TamidTamid 6:3About the Mishna and Mishna KeilimKeilim 1:9About the Mishna which speak of the common priests keeping their distance even when the high priest offered incense in the outer chamber.

¹⁰ According to him, Vayikra only mentions the white vestments, as the others were taken for granted because of their prior mention.

¹¹ This might be supported by the position in Vayikra Rabbah20:9About Vayikra Rabbah that asserts that Nadav and Avihu's sin was entering without wearing a מעיל.

¹² See Ramban who refers to the parallel from Esther 4:11: "כָּל אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל הֶחָצֵר הַפְּנִימִית אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִקָּרֵא אַחַת דָּתוֹ לְהָמִית".

¹³ Ramban cites Yerushalmi YomaYoma 1:5About the Yerushalmi as the source for this.

¹⁴ R. Bachya explains that there was similarly no need to evacuate the angels on this special day.

¹⁵ He does not explain why the regular priests would not be in jeopardy if the ministering angels were not evacuated.

¹⁶ This would readily explain why Nadav and Avihu were punished when they entered the Tabernacle to offer incense.

¹⁷ R. Meir Spiegelman, in his article, "בין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט", elaborates on the idea, pointing out that throughout Torah, all the cultic services that take place in the Tabernacle itself are assigned to Aharon specifically. Thus it is Aharon (or the "anointed priest") who is commanded to bring the incense, to light the candelabrum, and to sprinkle the blood of the ox of the anointed priest. The ordinary priests play a role only with regards to the altar in the courtyard.

Shemot 28:43, "וְהָיוּ עַל אַהֲרֹן וְעַל בָּנָיו בְּבֹאָם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אוֹ בְגִשְׁתָּם אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ" would appear problematic as it suggests that the ordinary priests, too, entered the sanctuary. R. Spiegelman responds that the phrase "בְּבֹאָם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" refers to Aharon, while "בְגִשְׁתָּם אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" refers to his sons. However, the plural form of "בְּבֹאָם" still requires explanation. Vayikra 10:9, similarly poses a problem as it states, "יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד", suggesting that ordinary priests also entered the Tabernacle.