This week's parsha discusses the Bigdei Kehuna (sacred vestments of the Kohen).
The Medrash offers profound insights into their atoning properties:
"The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it states: 'Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness' (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the haughty, just as you say: 'You shall place the mitre on his head' (Exodus 29:6).The tunic would atone for murderers, just as it states: 'They dipped the tunic in blood' (Genesis 37:31); some say for those who don garments of diverse kinds, just as it states: 'He made for him a fine tunic' (Genesis 37:3)"(Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:5)
The symbolism of the trousers atoning for sexuality makes sense; sexuality is an exposing act and the trousers cover over.
And as for the mitre addressing haughtiness, that also makes intuitive sense; the head was "inflated" and needs the tzitz fastened to it to humble it.
But regarding the tunic, there is an anomaly; the tunic was to atone for shatnez (according to one explanation in the Medrash), yet the tunic itself was made out of shatnez!
Second, the connection drawn by the Medrash to Yosef's kesones pasim (technicolor coat) suggests that Yaakov deliberately crafted a shatnez garment for his son (just like the Kesones was Shatnez, by way of Gezeira Shava, see meforshim to Medrash).
This is also a wonder; why would Yaakov deliberately make a coat of Shatnez for Yosef to wear?
Rav Daniel Eisenberg offers the following answer. The Tanchuma in Bereishis (9) and Pirkei D'Reb Eliezer (21) say that although Shatnez is a chok (a statute beyond human understanding), its prohibition carries symbolic weight, because the first ever "fight" involved wool and linen - that of Cain and Abel.
Cain brought an offering of linen, while Abel brought one of wool, and that story ended up in mortal tragedy. Therefore those two materials were forever seen as "a recipe for disaster" and were prohibited to be put together.*
We see that wool and linen together represent our natural inclination toward conflict.
However, the Kohanim wore that very mixture of shatnez as a symbol of acknowledging the natural human tendency toward strife - and taking responsibility to temper it.
The Kohanim wore shatnez not as an act of defiance or "doubling down," but to atone for unbridled strife and to show that when used responsibly with divine wisdom and proper boundaries, it can actually atone for misconduct.
Perhaps what we can learn from here is that we all have personality traits and tendencies (nature or nurture, take your pick). Our job is to recognize those qualities and temper and tackle them head on.**
Choose your adventure!
Good Shabbos!
Sources and Footnotes:
שִׁנַּיִךְ כְּעֵדֶר הַקְּצוּבוֹת, מִלִּין קְצוּבִין, אֵלּוּ בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה גְדוֹלָה, דִּתְנֵינַן תַּמָּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנָה בְּגָדִים וְהַהֶדְיוֹט בְּאַרְבָּעָה, בִּכְתֹנֶת, וּמִכְנָסַיִם, מִצְנֶפֶת וְאַבְנֵט. מוֹסִיף עָלָיו כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, חשֶׁן, וְאֵפוֹד, וּמְעִיל, וְצִיץ נֵזֶר הַקֹּדֶשׁ. כְּתֹנֶת הָיְתָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (בראשית לז, לא): וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל לוֹבְשֵׁי כִּלְאַיִם, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (בראשית לז, ג): וְעָשָׂה לוֹ כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים. מִכְנָסַיִם מְכַפְּרִים עַל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כח, מב): וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִכְנְסֵי בָד לְכַסּוֹת בְּשַׂר עֶרְוָה. מִצְנֶפֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כט, ו): וְשַׂמְתָּ הַמִּצְנֶפֶת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ...
“Your teeth are like a flock of ordered ewes” (Song of Songs 4:2) – defined matters, these are the vestments of the High Priesthood, as we learned there:41Yoma 71b The High Priest serves in eight vestments and the common [priest] in four: tunic, trousers, mitre, and sash. The High Priest adds beyond these the breastplate, ephod, robe, and the sacred frontplate.
The tunic would atone for murderers, just as it states: “They dipped the tunic in blood” (Genesis 37:31); some say for those who don garments of diverse kinds, just as it states: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3).42This verse refers to the tunic that Jacob made for Joseph. According to one opinion, it contained wool and linen (see Bereshit Rabba 84:8). At the very least, its stripes could be reminiscent of different types of materials. The midrash takes this as an allusion to the fact that the tunic of the High Priest atones for the transgression of diverse kinds. The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it states: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the haughty, just as you say: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6).
(ו) וְאֵת הַבְּגָדִים (ויקרא ח, ב), אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַקָּרְבָּנוֹת מְכַפְּרִים כָּךְ הַבְּגָדִים מְכַפְּרִים, דִּתְנַן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמֹנָה בְּגָדִים וְהַהֶדְיוֹט בְּאַרְבָּעָה, בְּכֻתֹּנֶת וּבְמִכְנָסַיִם בְּמִצְנֶפֶת וּבְאַבְנֵט, מוֹסִיף עָלָיו כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חשֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד וּמְעִיל וְצִיץ, הַכֻּתֹּנֶת לְכַפֵּר עַל לְבוּשֵׁי כִּלְאַיִם, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (בראשית לז, ג): וְעָשָׂה לוֹ כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים. מִכְנָסַיִם לְכַפֵּר עַל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, כְּמָה דְתֵימַר (שמות כח, מב): וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִכְנְסֵי בָד לְכַסּוֹת בְּשַׂר עֶרְוָה. מִצְנֶפֶת לְכַפֵּר עַל גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, הֵיךְ כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כט, ו): וְשַׂמְתָּ הַמִּצְנֶפֶת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ...
“And the vestments,” Rabbi Simon says: Just as the offerings atone, so do the vestments atone, as it is taught: The High Priest serves in eight vestments, and the common priest in four: In a tunic, trousers, a mitre, and a belt. The High Priest adds upon his: A breastplate, an ephod, a robe, and a frontlet.14Mishna Yoma 7:5.
The tunic is to atone for those wearing diverse kinds,15This refers to the prohibition of wearing a garment made from wool and linen. just as it says: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3).16Some say that Joseph’s tunic was linen adorned with wool. The priest’s tunic is just linen to atone for those who adorn their linen with wool. The trousers are to atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it says: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre is to atone for haughtiness, just as it says: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6)...
(א) וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים וַיָּבֵא קַיִן וְגוֹ'... וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, מַהוּ? מִן מוֹתַר מַאֲכָלוֹ. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי, זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן הָיָה, וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַּם הוּא מִבְּכוֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן לְפִיכָךְ נֶאֱסַר צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז וְגוֹ' (דברים כב, יא). וְאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּתְעָרֵב מִנְחַת הַחוֹטֵא עִם מִנְחַת הַזַּכַּאי לְפִיכָךְ נֶאֱסַר.
(1) And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground. (Gen. 4:3) ...What did he bring as his offering? He brought only the leftovers of his meal. However, the rabbis maintained that Cain brought flaxseed, while Abel brought firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof (ibid., v. 4). That is why it is ordained that wool and flax must not be mixed, as it is said: Thou shalt nor wear mingled stuff, wool and linen together (Deut. 22:11).31The source of the law of shatnez, prohibiting the wearing of wool and linen together. The Holy One, blessed be He, declared: It is not fitting that a sinner’s offering and the sacrifice of a virtuous man should be coupled. Hence it is forbidden to combine them in a garment.
(ה) הֵבִיא קַיִן מוֹתַר מַאֲכָלוֹ קְלָיוֹת, זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן. וְהֵבִיא הֶבֶל מִבְּכוֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵיהֶן, כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁלֹּא נִגְזְזוּ לְצֶמֶר. וְנִתְעַב מִנְחַת קַיִן, וְנִרְצֵית מִנְחַת הֶבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשַׁע ה' אֶל הֶבֶל וְאֶל מִנְחָתוֹ״.
(ו) רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, ״אַל יִתְעָרְבוּ מִנְחַת קַיִן וְהֶבֶל לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁמָּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם יִתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֶרֶג בֶּגֶד״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז״ וְכוּ'. אֲפִלּוּ הִיא מְרֻקֶּבֶת לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ״.
(5) (Cain) brought the remnants of his meal of roasted grain, (and) the seed of flax, and Abel brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of their fat, he-lambs, which had not been shorn of their wool. The offering of || Cain was precluded, and the offering of Abel was acceptable, as it is said, "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering" (Gen. 4:4).
(6) Rabbi Joshua ben Ḳorchah said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Heaven forbid ! Never let the offerings of Cain and Abel be mixed up (with one another), even in the weaving of a garment, as it is said, "Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together" (Deut. 22:11). And even if it be combined let it not come upon thee, as it is said, "Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together" (Lev. 19:19).
*(Parenthetically, I had a question on thus, the involvement of wool and linen is entirely arbitrary; the point of contention was the brotherly jealously and competition, if so why should wool and linen be “punished”? The Seforno indeed says that a primary cause of the altercation was the absence of the father and mother and them being out alone. I saw in Seforno HaShalem V’Hamevuar (Rav Yehuda Kuperman, printed 1992) who uses this comment as a “wonder” on Yaakov Ainu who sent Yosef to his brothers “without any parental supervision”, and didn’t learn from what happened with Cain and Abel! Clearly, we see, that the issue was one of brotherly jealously and not wool and linen? Tzarich iyun.)
**Rav Zilberstein (Aleinu LeShabe'ach Parshas Vayeishev, p. 440) talks about the importance of controlling the middah of argumentativeness.
רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל גְּנִיבָא עֲלַיְיהוּ, אֲמַר חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: נֵיקוּם מִקַּמֵּיהּ, דְּבַר אוֹרְיָין הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: מִקַּמֵּי פָּלְגָאָה נֵיקוּם?! אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא אִיהוּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּמַאי עָסְקִיתוּ? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בְּרוּחוֹת.
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were sitting, and Geneiva passed by them. One said to the other: Let us stand before him, as he is a son of the Torah. The other said to him: Shall we stand before a quarrelsome person? In the meantime, Geneiva came to them and said to them: With what were you dealing when you were sitting together? They said to him: We were dealing with winds.
פלגאה - בעל מריבה שהיתה לו מריבה עם מר עוקבא שהיה אב ב"ד כדאמרי' בפ"ק (לעיל גיטין דף ז.) בני אדם העומדים עלי ובידי למוסרם למלכות והוא היה גניבא כדמפרש התם:
תלמיד חכם כל שאינו מצויין במדותיו וטכסיסיו אין שאר חכמים חייבים לנהוג בו כבוד של תלמידי חכמים והוא שאמרו כאן ברב הונא ורב חסדא דהוו יתבי וחליף גניבא קמייהו אמר ליה חד לחבריה ניקום מקמיה דבר אוריין הוא ואמר ליה מקמי פלגא ניקום ורוצה לומר בעל מריבה ומחלקת...
Rav Eliyashev says that it seems that the only reason why one of these Amoraim didn't stand up for Geneiva was because of his lack of effort and "tactics" towards improving his character trait of argumentativeness.
Another place where we find the idea of having a balance in middos:
(ה) וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה (אסתר ב, ז), מָה הֲדַסָּה רֵיחָהּ מָתוֹק וְטַעֲמָהּ מַר, כָּךְ הָיְתָה אֶסְתֵּר מְתוּקָה לְמָרְדֳּכַי וּמָרָה לְהָמָן.
(5) “He fostered Hadassa, that is, Esther, (Esther 2:7)“He fostered Hadassa” – just as myrtle [hadassa] has a sweet fragrance and a bitter taste, so was Esther sweet to Mordekhai and bitter to Haman.