A Neglected Torah Portion

Part I. The Eyfode and Choshen

I. A further review of the Mishcan

The Torah’s discussion of the Mishcan – the Tabernacle – extends through five consecutive portions. Parshat Pekuday is the final portion in the series. The parasha opens reporting the tally of some of the materials donated for the Mishcan’s construction and how these materials were used. The parasha continues with a description of the actual fabrication of the Mishcan and the vestments of the Kohen Gadol and Kohanim. The parasha concludes with Moshe’s assembly of the Mishcan. Most of the material is covered in the preceding portions. First, these present the commandment for the construction of the Mishcan and the vestments. Then, they record Moshe’s instruction to Betzalel and his workers. Because the parasha does not seem to include new material, it is somewhat neglected. However, the parasha provides interesting insights into the Mishcan and the vestments. Let us consider a few of these.

And he made the Eyfode. [He made it from] gold thread, blue techelet thread, purple thread, scarlet thread, and spun wool. (Sefer Shemot 39:2)

II. The Eyfode’s design

This passage introduces the account of the manufacture of the Kohen Gadol’s – the High Priest’s – vestments.

The first vestment described is the Eyfode. There are different opinions regarding the specific design of the garments. The above image reflects Rashi’s position.[1] The Eyfode was a cloth panel worn like an apron and opening in the front. Sewn into the Eyfode were a cloth belt – the cheshev – and two cloth shoulder straps – ketayfote. The belt was sewn into the top of the Eyfode and tied at the Kohen Gadol’s waist.[2] The ketayfote straps were sewn into cheshev behind the Kohen Gadol. They extended up and over his shoulders, hanging down in front of him.

The ketayfote had two functions. First, on the top of each shoulder was a shohum stone. On each stone was engraved the names of six Shevatim – tribes. Together, these stones bore the names of all twelve tribes. Second, the breastplate of the Kohen Gadol – the Choshen – hung from the ketayfote.

Rashi explains that the cheshev and ketayfote of the Eyfode were parts of the Eyfode. In other words, the Eyfode was composed of three parts – the panel, the cheshev that bound it to the Kohen Gadol, and the ketayfote straps whose functions are described above.[3] Because they combined to create a single vestment, they shared the same thread combination. What about the Eyfode and the Choshen that was suspended from it? Were these a single vestment or separate vestments? From the first time they are described, the Torah consistently refers to these are separate vestments.[4] This raises a question. What is the relationship between these two vestments? Was the Choshen the more significant vestment and the Eyfode supported it? Was the Eyfode the more fundamental vestment and the Choshen adorned it?

And he made the Choshen, the work of a craftsman, like the design of the Eyfode – [made of] gold thread, blue thread, purple thread, scarlet thread, and spun wool. (Sefer Shemot 39:8)

III. The Choshen – Eyfode relationship

The above passage describes the design of the Choshen. It was made of the same thread combination as the Eyfode. However, the Torah adds that its design should be like that of the Eyfode. The implication is that its design is determined by the Eyfode. This suggests that the Eyfode was the more fundamental vestment and that the Choshen’s design was dictated by it. 

This seems odd. The Choshen was a very important vestment. It was encrusted with gems that were engraved with the names of the Shevatim. It was certainly visually more prominent than the Eyfode. Also, it had important functions. These included playing a central role in the Kohen Gadol’s prophetic pronouncements.[5]

Rabbaynu Bachya responds to this issue. He explains that we must consider the relationship between these two vestments from two perspectives. An illustration will help explain his insight.

I purchase a beautiful tie. I decide I will wear it this Shabbat. I select a suit to wear that complements the tie. I dress in the suit and the tie. Which garment is more fundamental to the outfit – the suit or the tie? The answer depends on perspective. A tie is an accent element. It is not a fundamental garment. From the perspective of the inherent relationship between the garments, the suit is more fundamental than the tie. However, my objective in selecting the suit was to accommodate the tie. From the perspective of purpose and objective, the tie is more fundamental in the creation of the outfit.

Rabbaynu Bachya explains that viewed from the perspective of the inherent relationship between components, the Eyfode was more the fundamental vestment of the Kohen Gadol. It was the central component of the ensemble of vestments. The Choshen was an adornment. However, from the perspective of function, the Choshen is the more prominent. In other words, the prominent vestment – the Choshen – was worn as an adornment of the Eyfode.[6] 

Part II. The placement of the objects in the Mishcan

And he brought the Aron to the Mishcan. He placed the Parochet curtain and covered the Aron of Testimony as Hashem commanded Moshe. He put the Shulchan table in the Ohel Moed on the north side of the Mishcan, outside of the Parochet. …. He placed the Menorah candelabra in the Ohel Moed opposite the Shulchan, on the south side of the Mishcan. … He placed the entry-curtain of the Mishcan. He placed the Gold Altar… The Olah Altar he placed…. He placed the Laver… (Sefer Shemot 40:22-30)

I. Moshe assembles the Mishcan

Moshe assembles the Mishcan. He places its contents in their proper places. The above passages describe the placement of the various components and the contents. The verses use three different verbs to describe the placement of the components and contents. The Aron – the Ark – is brought (hayvee) into the Mishcan. The Shulchan – table – is put (natan) in its place by the north side of the Mishcan. All other objects are placed (sum). Why are these first elements brought or put into the Mishcan and the others placed?

II. The role of the Aron and Shulchan

The Aron was brought into the Mishcan; the Shulchan was put in the Mishcan. These two objects were unique. The Aron and Shulchan were assigned unique, inherent places in the Mishcan. Their placements directly or indirectly determined the placements of every other object in the above passages. With the installation of the Aron and Shulchan, the positions of all the other objects were determined. This is reflected in the choice of verbs used to describe in object’s installation. The verb “place” is used to communicate that the object was installed into its predetermined position in relation to another object. They were installed in positions in relationship to and determined by the Aron and Shulchan. Moshe filled each spot with its appropriate object. In contrast to the Aron and Shulchan, the other objects in the passages did not have inherent positions.  

III. The position of the Menorah

Let us consider the Menorah. Where did Moshe install it? He installed it on the south side of the Mishcan, opposite the Shulchan. When the Shulchan was installed, the position of the Menorah was determined. When Moshe installed the Menorah, he placed it in a specific spot in relation to the Shulchan. Its position was identified with with the installation of the Shulchan and the Menorah “filled” that spot.  

IV. The placement of the other objects

Each use of the verb “place” communicates this same phenomenon. The object was placed in a spot determined by the placement of a preceding object. The object fills this spot. The installation of the Aron determined the placement of the Parochet curtain. It must be positioned before the Aron. The installation of the Parochet curtain determined the placement of the Gold Altar. It must be “before the Parochet”. The raising of the Mishcan determined the placement of the entry curtain – at the opening to the Mishcan. It also determined the placement of the Olah Altar – at its entrance. The Lavar’s position was between the Olah Altar and Mishcan.

V. The beauty of the Mishcan

The parasha provides many more insights into the Mishcan and the vestments. The Torah is teaching us that a comprehensive system of halachah governs their design and use. An important message emerges from careful study of the five Torah portions that discuss the Mishcan and vestments. Their design and use are not dictated solely by aesthetic considerations. Halachah plays a prominent role in their design and use. Their beauty is not only superficial and aesthetic; it was also found in the pervasive system of underlying halachah.

The Torah’s treatment of the Mishcan and the vestments illuminates the nature of the authentic religious experience. It is not the aesthetic aspect of the experience that endows it with meaning. Beautiful melodies, sung in an impressive sanctuary do not themselves create an authentic religious experience. The Torah requires that the experience be based upon and give expression to a system of underlying halachah.

[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 28:6.

[2] In the above image, the cheshev is tied in the front. Rashi 28:6 explains that the cheshev was tied behind the Kohen Gadol.

[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 28:6.

[4] Sefer Shemot 28:4.

[5] The Kohen Gadol received prophetic messages in a visual form. The names of the tribes were engraved upon the Choshen’s gems. The prophetic communication appeared to him in these letters.

[6] Rabbaynu Bachya ben Asher ibn Halawa, Commentary on Sefer Shemot 28:6.