Difference between revisions of "Warning Bells – "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ... וְלֹא יָמוּת"/2"
(Import script) |
(Import script) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <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><fn>This may also be how the Mishna interpreted the verse. See <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>.</fn> |
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Who might die?</b> – Rashbam asserts that the concern is lest an ordinary priest die due to his presence in the sanctuary while the high priest is atoning for the nation.<fn> The fear, perhaps, is that these priests might accidentally see the Divine presence during the high priest's service.</fn></point> | <point><b>Who might die?</b> – Rashbam asserts that the concern is lest an ordinary priest die due to his presence in the sanctuary while the high priest is atoning for the nation.<fn> The fear, perhaps, is that these priests might accidentally see the Divine presence during the high priest's service.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Parallel verses</b> – According to this approach, the verse in Shemot is integrally related 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 related to the command of Vayikra 16:17, "וְכָל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ".</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"הַקֹּדֶשׁ"</b> – | + | <point><b>"הַקֹּדֶשׁ"</b> – This refers to the Holy of Holies, which the high priest entered on the Day of Atonement.</point> |
− | <point><b>Entering the inner sanctum with robes?</b> – This position encounters considerable difficulty from | + | <point><b>Entering the inner sanctum with robes?</b> – This position encounters considerable difficulty from Vayikra 16 which suggests that the high priest did not enter the Holy of Holies on Yom HaKippurim while wearing his belled robe. Rashbam does not address the issue but one might suggest several solutions: |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><multilink><aht source="IbnEzraVayikra16-4">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraVayikra16-4">Vayikra 16:4</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink> on Vayikra 16:4 learns from our verse that on the Day of Atonement the priest did actually wear the garments mentioned here (the robe, tunic, and breastplate) into the inner chamber.<fn>According to him, Vayikra only mentions the white vestments since these others are assumed.</fn></li> | <li><multilink><aht source="IbnEzraVayikra16-4">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraVayikra16-4">Vayikra 16:4</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink> on Vayikra 16:4 learns from our verse that on the Day of Atonement the priest did actually wear the garments mentioned here (the robe, tunic, and breastplate) into the inner chamber.<fn>According to him, Vayikra only mentions the white vestments since these others are assumed.</fn></li> | ||
− | <li>Alternatively, one might suggest that there was a change in the law. Perhaps, initially the high priest was to be allowed into the Holy of Holies whenever he wanted, wearing his regular uniform. Only after the sin of Nadav and Avihu did Hashem limit entry to one day a year, and with specific garments.<fn>This might be supported by the position in <multilink><aht source="VayikraRabbah20-9">Vayikra Rabbah</aht><aht source="VayikraRabbah20-9">20:9</aht><aht parshan="Vayikra Rabbah" /></multilink> that asserts that Nadav and Avihu's sin was entering unrobed.</fn> Our verses, then, would not be limited to Yom HaKippurim, but would refer to any time the high priest wanted to atone in the inner sanctuary. | + | <li>Alternatively, one might suggest that there was a change in the law. Perhaps, initially the high priest was to be allowed into the Holy of Holies whenever he wanted, wearing his regular uniform. Only after the sin of Nadav and Avihu did Hashem limit entry to one day a year, and with specific garments.<fn>This might be supported by the position in <multilink><aht source="VayikraRabbah20-9">Vayikra Rabbah</aht><aht source="VayikraRabbah20-9">20:9</aht><aht parshan="Vayikra Rabbah" /></multilink> that asserts that Nadav and Avihu's sin was entering unrobed.</fn> Our verses, then, would not be limited to Yom HaKippurim, but would refer to any time the high priest wanted to atone in the inner sanctuary.<fn>This problem might lead to a slightly different read of the verses which might suggest that the ordinary priests were meant to evacuate not just when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, but any time he was serving in the Tabernacle at all.</fn></li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
<multilink><aht source="RYBSShemot28-35">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</aht><aht source="RYBSShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" /></multilink>, | <multilink><aht source="RYBSShemot28-35">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</aht><aht source="RYBSShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" /></multilink>, | ||
<multilink><aht source="RambanShemot28-35">Ramban</aht><aht source="RambanShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="Ramban">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</aht></multilink>, | <multilink><aht source="RambanShemot28-35">Ramban</aht><aht source="RambanShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="Ramban">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</aht></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><aht source="RBachyaShemot28-35">R. Bachya</aht><aht source="RBachyaShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Bachya b. Asher" /></multilink> | + | <multilink><aht source="RBachyaShemot28-35">R. Bachya</aht><aht source="RBachyaShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="R. Bachya b. Asher" /></multilink>, |
<multilink><aht source="RalbagShemot28-35">Ralbag</aht><aht source="RalbagShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="Ralbag">About R. Levi b. Gershon</aht></multilink> | <multilink><aht source="RalbagShemot28-35">Ralbag</aht><aht source="RalbagShemot28-35">Shemot 28:35</aht><aht parshan="Ralbag">About R. Levi b. Gershon</aht></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
<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 since they are 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 since they are described in Yehezkel 1:10 as having "פְּנֵי אָדָם".</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 similarly regarding the fact that there was no need to evacuate the angels on this special day.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Why is only the high priest commanded?</b> | <point><b>Why is only the high priest commanded?</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Status</b> – Ramban suggests that the command is aimed just at the high priest due to his higher stature and greater service.<fn>This is not really a sufficient explanation as to why the regular priests would not be in jeopardy if the ministering angels were not evacuated.</fn> Ralbag could similarly explain that the high priest was held to a higher standard due to the importance of his role.</li> | <li><b>Status</b> – Ramban suggests that the command is aimed just at the high priest due to his higher stature and greater service.<fn>This is not really a sufficient explanation as to why the regular priests would not be in jeopardy if the ministering angels were not evacuated.</fn> Ralbag could similarly explain that the high priest was held to a higher standard due to the importance of his role.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Ordinary priests absent</b> – Alternatively, one might suggest, as does Seforno, that in the dessert, the ordinary priests were never allowed in the Tabernacle at all.<fn>R. | + | <li><b>Ordinary priests absent</b> – Alternatively, one might suggest, as does Seforno, that in the dessert, the ordinary priests were never allowed in the Tabernacle at all.<fn>R. Meir Spiegelman, in his <a href="http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/parsha.php" rel="external">article</a>, "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. |
+ | </fn> As such, they obviously had no need for bells to announce their arrival or focus their thoughts since they never served inside the sanctuary.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | + | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Line 82: | Line 84: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
− | + | ||
Version as of 13:37, 5 February 2014
Warning Bells – "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ... וְלֹא יָמוּת"
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators disagree on what actions will serve 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. Finally, Ralbag also explains that the words relate to the bells, but he posits that the bells served to remind the high priest to mentally prepare for his year round service.
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.
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 on Vayikra 16:4 learns from our verse that on the Day of Atonement the priest did actually wear the garments mentioned here (the robe, tunic, and breastplate) into the inner chamber.3
- Alternatively, one might suggest that there was a change in the law. Perhaps, initially the high priest was to be allowed into the Holy of Holies whenever he wanted, wearing his regular uniform. Only after the sin of Nadav and Avihu did Hashem limit entry to one day a year, and with specific garments.4 Our verses, then, would not be limited to Yom HaKippurim, but would refer to any time the high priest wanted to atone in the inner sanctuary.5
Proper Respect or Intentions
The ringing of the bells insured that the high priest approached his service in the Tabernacle with proper respect and purity of thought, and thus he would not perish.
- A knock – According to most of these commentators, the bells were the high priest's way of knocking to request permission to enter.
- A warning – Ramban and R. Bachya additionally suggest that they served to alert the ministering angels who normally filled the Tabernacle to the arrival of the high priest. This would signal them to leave, ensuring that they did not harm the incoming priest.
- A reminder – For Ralbag, in contrast, the bells were a reminder to the high priest to properly channel his thoughts to the worship of Hashem.
- Status – Ramban suggests that the command is aimed just at the high priest due to his higher stature and greater service.7 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, as does Seforno, that in the dessert, the ordinary priests were never allowed in the Tabernacle at all.8 As such, they obviously had no need for bells to announce their arrival or focus their thoughts since they never served inside the sanctuary.