(33) On its hem make pomegranates of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, all around the hem, with bells of gold between them all around:(34) a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, all around the hem of the robe.(35) Aaron shall wear it while officiating, so that the sound of it is heard when he comes into the sanctuary before ה׳ and when he goes out—that he may not die.

(3) בתוכם סביב IN THE MIDST OF THEM ROUND ABOUT — i. e. between them (the pomegranates) all the way round the hem: between every two pomegranates there was one bell attached hanging from the hem of the Robe (cf. Zevachim 88b).

ME’IL’ (ROBE). Rashi commented: “This was a kind of shirt, and so also was the k’thoneth, except that the k’thoneth was worn next to the body and the me’il is a term for the upper [outer] shirt.” But this is not so, for the me’il is a garment in which one wraps oneself, just as Scripture says, and he [Samuel] is covered with a ‘me’il’, and it is further written, ‘y’atoni’ (He hath covered me) with ‘me’il’ (the robe) of righteousness, and the term atiyah (enwrapping) does not apply to a shirt, but to a garment with which one covers oneself, as it is said, ‘oteh’ (Who coverest Thyself) with light as with a garment, it being associated with the term atoph (enveloping onself). And so we find: and his upper lip ‘ya’teh’ (he shall cover up, [which Onkelos renders] yitatoph. This is identical with the word kardunin from the Targum of Jonathan ben Uziel which the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned [as his translation of the word me’il], for this kardunin is used for enwrapping oneself, something akin to the form of the ephod with which [the High Priest] envelops the half of his body that is towards his feet. But if a me’il was a kind of shirt [as Rashi said], then me’il and kardunin would not be alike at all. Another proof is the verse, and he seized the skirt of ‘me’ilo’ (his robe), and it rent. Thus the me’il has skirts and is not a kind of shirt. Rather, the me’il is a garment which enwraps the whole body from the neck downwards to the feet of the person, and has no sleeves at all. Now in other me’ilim there is a piece of garment for the neck, covering the whole of it, and sewed on [with a needle], this garment being called pi me’il (the hole of the robe), but with reference to this me’il Scripture commanded that it be woven together with the robe. The me’il is entirely slit frontwise till the bottom, and he put his head through the hole on top; thus the neck [of the priest] is enwrapped with the hole of the me’il, and in front of him are the two skirts with which he covers or uncovers himself at will — something like [our] cloak which has no head-tire. Now since the seam divides the front part of the me’il and separates it all the way downwards, therefore the term atiyah (enwrapping) is always used in connection with it [as explained above].
Nor do I know either why the Rabbi [Rashi] made the bells independent objects, stating that there was one bell between every two pomegranates. For if so, the pomegranates served no purpose. And if they were made just for ornament, why were they made like hollow pomegranates? Let him rather make them like golden apples! Moreover, Scripture should have explained with what the bells should be hung, and whether rings should be made on which to hang the bells. Instead, [we must say that] the bells were inside the pomegranates themselves, for the pomegranates were hollow and made in the shape of small pomegranates that have not yet burst open, and the bells were hidden inside but visible through them. Now Scripture has not specified their number. But our Rabbis have said that there were seventy-two bells and within them there were seventy-two clappers; he hung thirty-six on one side and thirty-six on the other side, as is found in Tractate Zebachim, in the chapter The Altar Sanctifies. From here also you may learn that the me’il was not a sort of shirt or kthoneth [as Rashi wrote], but instead it had skirts [front and back, and therefore the Rabbis speak of “one side” and “the other side” of the me’il].
Similarly Rashi wrote that “the mitznepheth (mitre) is a kind of domed helmet, for in another place the verse calls it migba’oth, which we translate in the Targum kov’in (helmets).” This also is not correct, for the Rabbis have said that the mitznepheth was sixteen cubits long. Thus it was a sort of turban with which the head is wrapped, as he wound it around and around his head, fold upon fold. Moreover, the mitznepheth of the High Priest is nowhere called migba’oth [as Rashi said]. It is only with reference to the ordinary priests that Scripture calls the head-dress migba’oth, and these too were a sort of turban, except that they were set upon the head and the folds came up like a sort of [conical] helmet which is the kovei’a, as Onkelos rendered it. For migba’at is like mikba’at, as I have said in Seder Mikeitz, as the letter gimmel serves here as kuph, excepting that the migba’at was also wound like a mitznepheth. It is for this reason that the Sages always mention in Torath Kohanim the mitznepheth both in relation to the High Priest and the common priest. And in Tractate Yoma we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “A High Priest ministers [the Divine Service] in eight garments, and a common priest in four — in tunic, breeches, mitznepheth (mitre), and belt. To these the High Priest adds the breastplate, the ephod, the upper garment, and the frontplate.”

(1) THAT HE DIE NOT. “From this negative statement you infer the positive: if these garments are upon him, he will not incur death, but if he enters [the Sanctuary] lacking one of these garments he is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven].” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for if so He should have written this verse after having mentioned all eight garments [of the High Priest], and why did He mention it after three garments — the breastplate, the ephod, and the robe — before mentioning the frontplate, the upper garment, the mitre, the belt and the breeches! Furthermore, [the verse reads here,] and when he cometh out [of the Sanctuary], that he die not. But the act of going out [from the Sanctuary] is no function for which he should incur death if lacking the [proper number of] garments! Similarly Rashi commented on the verse: “And they shall be upon Aaron and upon his sons — they means all these garments; upon Aaron and upon his sons, those which are proper to him, and those specified for them. [That they bear not iniquity,] and die — thus you learn that he who ministers [the Divine Service] lacking any of these garments incurs death [by the hand of Heaven].” And so indeed it appears from the simple meaning of Scripture. But according to the conclusion reached on these subjects in the discussions in the Gemara, it would appear that this does not conform to the opinion of our Rabbis, for to them this commandment applies to all alike, to Aaron and his sons, but it refers only to the breeches, and the punishment [of death by the hand of Heaven for lacking them] likewise applies [only] to them [i.e. the breeches]. For He had commanded that they be made, [as it is said,] And thou shalt make them linen breeches, and then He commanded concerning their being worn [by the priests, saying,] And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons. As to the rest of the garments, He had already given the command above concerning the making of them and wearing them, [as it is said,] And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and upon his sons with him. If so, this command [And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons] refers wholly to the breeches, and the punishment likewise refers [only] to them. We learn this from what the Rabbis have said in Tractates Sanhedrin and The Slaughtering of Sacrifices: “Whence do we know that a priest who ministered [the Divine Service] lacking the [proper number of] garments is liable to death [by the hand of Heaven]? Said Rabbi Abohu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and they arrived in the chain of tradition up to ‘in the name of Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon:' And thou shalt gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons, and bind head-tires on them; and they shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute, the interpretation of which is: ‘So long as they wear their [appointed] garments, they are invested with their priesthood; when they do not wear their garments, they are not invested with their priesthood, and they become laymen, and it has been said that a layman who ministers [in the Sanctuary] incurs the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven].” Now if this verse [that they bear not iniquity, and die] were held by the Rabbis to apply to all the garments [of the priests], as the Rabbi [Rashi] said, they could have found in it an expressly stated punishment for one who ministers lacking all the garments, [and why did they need to base it upon an inference from another verse]! Rather, this verse refers only to the breeches, and the other verse to the rest of the garments, where the breeches are not mentioned at all. Proof to what the Rabbis have said [that this verse, And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons… that they bear not iniquity, and die, refers only to the breeches], is that further on when the order of putting on the garments is mentioned, the breeches are not referred to at all, for having declared here the punishment if they are lacking [when ministering in the Sanctuary], there was no more need to mention them again further on, as it is understood already that he would wear them. And that which He said above [i.e., in Verse 35 before us], and the sound thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Eternal, and when he goeth out, that he die not, is [not as Rashi has it that from here we learn that if he enters the Sanctuary lacking one of these garments he incurs death at the hand of Heaven, but is] in my opinion an explanation for the commandment of the bells [upon the robe], since there was no need to wear them, nor are they customary amongst dignitaries. Therefore He said that He commanded that they be made in order that the sound thereof be heard in the Sanctuary, that the priest enter before his Master as if with permission. For he who comes into the king’s palace suddenly, incurs the penalty of death according to the court ceremonial, just as we find in the case of Ahasuerus. It thus alludes to what the Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi Tractate Yoma: “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goeth in to make atonement in the holy place — even those [heavenly beings] of whom it is written, As for the likeness of their faces they had the face of a man, they too are not to be then in the Tent of Meeting.” Therefore He commanded that [the ministering High Priest] make a sound be heard, as if crying out, ‘Cause everyone to go out from before me,’ so that he can come to minister before the King alone. Similarly, when going out from the Sanctuary his sound is heard in order to leave with permission, and that the matter be known so that the King’s ministers can go out before Him. In the Chapters of the Palaces this subject is known. Thus the reason [for the bells upon the robe of the High Priest] is that he should not be encountered by the angels of G-d. He gave this warning concerning the High Priest on account of his high position. This is Scripture’s intent in saying, when he goeth in unto the holy place before the Eternal, for it is the High Priest who passes before Him so that He cause His Divine Glory to rest upon his service, for he is the messenger of the Eternal of hosts, even though the common priests also enter the Sanctuary to burn the incense and to kindle [the lamps]. Now I have seen in the Midrash Shemoth Rabbah with reference to the stones upon the breastplate: “For what reason were the stones? It was in order that the Holy One, blessed be He, observe them in the garments of the priest when he enters on the Day of Atonement, and He be gracious to the tribes [whose names were inscribed upon the stones in the breastplate]. Rabbi Yehoshua in the name of Rabbi Levi says: This may be compared to a king’s son, whose tutor came before the king to speak in his defense, but was afraid of those standing there lest they strike him. What did the king do? He dressed him in his purple cloak in order that they see it and be afraid of him. In the same way Aaron entered at all times the Holy of Holies, and were it not for the many merits that entered with him and helped him, he could not have entered. Why? Because of the ministering angels who were there. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He gave him a likeness of His sacred garment, as it is said, And He put on righteousness as a coat of mail.” Thus far is the language of this Agadah. Now even though the High Priest did not enter into the innermost part of the Sanctuary [i.e., the Holy of Holies] with these garments, yet on the Day of Atonement he needed these [garments] even in the Tent of Meeting, for it is written, And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting.

Like an apple tree among trees of the forest,
So is my beloved among the youths.
I delight to sit in his shade,
And his fruit is sweet to my mouth.

Your lips are like a crimson thread,
Your mouth is lovely.
Your brow behind your veil
[Gleams] like a pomegranate split open.

Your cheeks. This is the upper part of the face, called pomels in O.F., next to the eyes. And in the language of the Talmud, it is called “ the pomegranate of the face.” It resembles the split half of a pomegranate from the outside, which is red and round. This is a praise in terms of a woman’s beauty. Our Rabbis explained the allegory as follows: Even the worthless ones רֵיקָנִים among you are full of mitzvos as a pomegranate.

And now, know and see what I shall answer to those who question me concerning my writing a commentary of the Torah. I shall conduct myself in accordance with the custom of the early scholars to bring peace of mind to the students, tired of the exile and the afflictions, who read in the Seder on the Sabbaths and festivals, and to attract them with the plain meanings of Scripture and with some things that are pleasant to the listeners and which give grace to the scholars. And may the gracious G-d be merciful unto us and bless us so that we shall find grace and good favor in the sight of G-d and man.

כי יד על כס יה BECAUSE THE HAND IS UPON THE THRONE OF JAH — the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, is raised to swear by His throne that He will have war and enmity against Amalek to all eternity. And what is the force of כס — why does it not say as usual כסא? And the Divine Name, also, is divided into half (יה is only the half of the Tetragrammaton)! The Holy One, blessed be He, swears that His Name will not be perfect nor His throne perfect until the name of Amalek be entirely blotted out. But when his name is blotted out then will His (God’s) Name be perfect and His throne perfect, as it is said, (Psalms 9:7) “The enemy is come to an end, he whose swords were for ever” — and this refers to Amalek of whom it is written, (Amos 1:11; the paragraph is a prophecy against Edom — Esau — the father of Amalek) “he kept his wrath for ever”. The verse in the Psalm continues: “and thou didst uproot enemies, their very memorial is perished”, What does it say immediately after this? (Psalms 9:8) “But the Lord (the Divine Name as given here is the Tetragrammaton) shall now remain for ever” — you see that the Name will be perfect (after Amalek is entirely rooted out as is mentioned in v. 7); “He establishes his throne (כסאו not כס) in righteousness” — so you see that His throne will then be perfect (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 11).