Vayikra Rabbah (21:10) For what reason did the High Priest not enter the Holy of Holies clad in the golden garments? Because the accuser cannot act as defender. It was in order that no opportunity might be given to Satan of bringing accusations and saying: ' The other day they made for themselves a god of gold and to-day they seek to officiate in garments of gold! R. Joshua of Siknin in the name of R. Levi says: It was in order to save Israel expenses.
Why did the high priest and other kohanim have shatnez garments even though it's explicitly forbidden by the Torah?
ReplyDeleteClassic example of the high priest and other kohanim had garments with shatnez because the divine service in the Temple created a unique state where the prohibition was overridden, essentially a "sanctuary exception". While the general prohibition against mixing wool and linen (shatnez) was a general law (chok), the garments of the priests, especially those worn during the Temple service, were a special case where the mixing was not only permitted but essential for their function.
ReplyDeleteHow could they slaughter animals on Shabbos? Same answer.
Zevachim are explicit part of the temple service. Shaatnez is not. It's explicitly forbidden. That's the difference.
DeleteThe temple has been destroyed for 2000 years. Will need greater Torah understanding before it can be rebuilt
The prohibition of **shatnez**—the mixing of wool and linen in garments—is derived from Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11, which explicitly forbid wearing such a combination. However, the **Bigdei Kehuna** (priestly garments) worn by the Kohanim (priests) in the Temple included shatnez, notably in the **Avnet** (sash) and other components, which combined wool and linen. The Talmudic analysis reconciles this apparent contradiction through a principle known as **"Aseh docheh lo ta’aseh"** (a positive commandment overrides a negative one) and specific scriptural exegesis.
Delete### Talmudic Analysis:
1. **Source of the Prohibition and Exception**:
- The prohibition of shatnez is a **lo ta’aseh** (negative commandment) in the Torah.
- The Torah also commands the Kohanim to wear specific garments for their service in the Temple (Exodus 28), which include materials like wool and linen woven together, as detailed in the descriptions of the **Avnet** and other priestly vestments.
2. **Talmudic Discussion (Yoma 6a and Menachot 43a)**:
- The Talmud notes that the priestly garments are explicitly mandated by the Torah (a positive commandment, or **aseh**). For example, Exodus 28:5 describes the materials used in the priestly garments, including linen and dyed wool.
- The sages apply the principle of **"Aseh docheh lo ta’aseh"**—when a positive commandment conflicts with a negative one, the positive commandment takes precedence, provided they occur simultaneously. In this case, the positive command to wear the Bigdei Kehuna overrides the negative command prohibiting shatnez.
3. **Conditions for the Exception**:
- The Talmud specifies that this leniency applies only **during the time of service** in the Temple. The Kohanim were permitted to wear shatnez only when actively performing their sacred duties, as the positive commandment to serve in the prescribed garments is directly tied to their role.
- Outside of their service, the Kohanim were subject to the same prohibition of shatnez as anyone else.
4. **Exegetical Support**:
- The sages derive further support from the juxtaposition of verses. The Torah’s detailed instructions for the priestly garments (Exodus 28) imply a deliberate allowance for shatnez, as the materials are specified without any caveat about the general prohibition.
- Some Talmudic opinions suggest that the sanctity of the Temple service elevates the act, making the combination of materials permissible in that sacred context.
5. **Scope of the Allowance**:
- The permission for shatnez in the Bigdei Kehuna is limited to the garments explicitly commanded in the Torah. For instance, the **Avnet** (sash) and parts of the **Ephod** and **Choshen** (breastplate) included both wool and linen, as described in Exodus 28:6-8 and 39:29.
- The Talmud clarifies that this exception does not extend to other garments or non-priestly contexts.
### Conclusion:
The Talmud concludes that shatnez is permitted in the Bigdei Kehuna because the positive commandment to wear the prescribed priestly garments during Temple service overrides the negative commandment prohibiting shatnez. This allowance is strictly limited to the Kohanim during their sacred duties and does not apply outside that context. The principle of **"Aseh docheh lo ta’aseh"** and the explicit Torah instructions for the priestly garments form the basis for this exception, ensuring that the Kohanim can fulfill their divinely mandated roles without violating the Torah’s laws.
The Torah doesn't actually mention wool. It mentions techelet, argaman. These are dyes. Yechezkel also says that wool was prohibited to be worn by the kohanim. There's a very interesting divergence between Rashi and Radak on what Yechezkel is saying.
DeleteIf "Aseh docheh lo ta’aseh", why can't we bring korbanot today?
ReplyDeleteIe in a state of impurity, and/or at a location not at the Beit hamikdash?
Can we do korbanot in har nof or bnei brak?
High Priest not enter the Holy of Holies clad in the golden garments Why?Today’s daf hayomi debates the punishment for the terrible action of bringing a korban a pig/tiger/whatever obviously terrible/bad/forbidden/whatever.
ReplyDeleteTractate Zevachim 34a
It was stated: In the case of one who offers up the limbs of a non-kosher animal upon the altar, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, while Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara explains the logic for each opinion: Reish Lakish says that he is flogged, because there is a positive mitzva to sacrifice an offering from the herd and the flock (see Leviticus 1:2), which are kosher animals. Therefore, it can be inferred that a kosher animal, yes, one may sacrifice, but a non-kosher animal one may not sacrifice, and one who transgresses a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is flogged for it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is not flogged for it, as one who transgresses a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is not flogged for it.
My theory. Reish Lakish follows better the plain spirit of the Torah that mandates capital punishment (for murder, kidnapping etc), death by Heaven (for Kohain sinning etc), cut off (Leviticus 18:29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people etc). Rabbi Yoḥanan ruling leniency: He is not flogged, why, the sinner goes free with no punishment, this may induce and motivate him to sin more and more. God rules precisely the clothing the High Priest enters the holies of holies and when and how to bring korbanot etc. No, Rabbi KA, we cannot do korbanot in har nof or bnei brak.
Yes, my NYS case Aranoff v Aranoff is still open, TIAA pays my ex-wife who refused to join me to make Aliya 1991 whom I pleaded face to face 1992 and divorced 1993, 55% of my pension from early 1994 with no end in sight, now $1,400 monthly.
Thank you Rav Gerry, that's a very interesting vort. And i wish you good luck in A vs. A.
DeleteMy question relates to a concept in the gemara of Aseh doche lo Taaseh. Maybe poskim don't like this to become widely known or used, but in fact it is very good to deal with certain situations. Consider we are under Karet for not doing certain mitzvos, eg bringing the Korban pesach.