Jewish Life Digital Edition September 2015 | Page 92

YOM KIPPUR 5776
IF SUCH A ROPE WAS INDEED USED, IT REFLECTED THE
SORROWFUL STATE OF AFFAIRS PREVALENT IN THE LATE
SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD, WHEN SO MANY KOHANIM
GEDOLIM WERE UNWORTHY AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO
PERISH IN THE KODESH HAKODASHIM.
were unworthy and therefore liable to perish in the Kodesh Hakodashim. May we be
zocheh to soon see a worthy “unchained”
Kohen Gadol perform the Yom Kippur service in his pure white garments in the rebuilt Beit Hamikdash.
NOTES
1. I thank my wife, Dr Naomi Zivotofsky,
for pointing out that this hierarchy is not
obvious with regard to removing a dead
body, which a Kohen must avoid. Indeed,
Chasdei David on the Tosefta suggests,
without an explicit source, that this hierarchy applies to other forms of tumah but
not to tumat met (ritual impurity due to
“contact” with the dead).
2. These sources discuss entering the
Kodesh Hakodashim in order to effect repairs or to remove tumah. But entry may
be permitted for other needs. Ramban
(Bamidbar 18:10), in a bold (re)interpretation of a sifrei (and Zevachim 63a), suggests that if the Beit Hamikdash is surrounded by enemies the verse gives permission to eat sacrificial meat and meal offerings in the Kodesh Hakodashim. Rabbi
Shlomo Goren (Sefer Har Habayit, p. 405)
explains that this exception refers to Jewish soldiers/defenders who are required to
enter so as to continue to protect the Beit
Hamikdash, and while inside may eat sacrificial meat and meal offerings.
3. I thank Dr Yaakov Hoffman for bringing these sources to my attention.
4. The Malbim says if there had been a
need to enter, Moshe would have charged
the Kohanim with the task of retrieving
them. Ramban and Tur explain that a Kohen takes precedence over a Levite regard
to removing tumah from within the
Kodesh Hakodashim, but in this case
there was no Kohen who was permitted

88 JEWISH LIFE ■ ISSUE 88

to enter, hence the Levites did the job.
5. This omission may not be so surprising to some, because they would expect
Rambam to describe the pristine halachah only. This is not enti rely correct
because Rambam (Hilchot Yom Hakippurim 1:7) does mention the oath instituted because of the Tzedukim. During the
Second Temple period, before performing the service, the Kohen Gadol had to
take an oath that he would not alter any
of the Yom Kippur procedures.
6. It should be noted that his discussion
of the ritual of Yom Kippur (Antiquities,
Book 3, sections 240-243) is quite brief. I
thank Professor Louis Feldman for his assistance with Josephus.
7. This idea of a chain tied to the ankle
has a parallel in the rabbinic corpus. In
Kohelet Rabbah 9:8-9:10, it is reported
that Rabbi Haggai was preparing to enter
the tomb of Rabbi Hiyya Rabbah and
there was concern that he might die within. He suggested, “Bring a rope and tie it
to my leg. If I come out, good. If not, drag
me out by my leg!” (He emerged alive and
well.) Kohelet Rabbah is usually assumed
to be a relatively late midrash, several
hundred years post-Talmudic in composition. This source is noted by Rabbi Reuven Margaliot, Nitzotzei Zohar, Acharei
Mot (Jerusalem, 5730).
8. This is translated and cited in Mishnat
HaZohar, edited by Isaiah Tishby, vol. 2,
p. 229.
9. As an aside, the Zohar proceeds to explain about the red thread that hung outside the Beit Hamikdash building; if it
turned white, the Jewish people knew the
Kohen Gadol was successful in obtaining
God’s forgiveness for the nation; if it
stayed red, they knew he was not.
10. Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:5; 5:2 (cited by

Tosafot Yeshanim, Yoma 19b); Sukkah
4:6; Vayikra Rabbah 21:11-12.
11. See Ramban to Shemot 28:35 and
Rabbi Meir Dan plotzki (1867-1928; Klei
Chemdah, Tetzaveh, gimmel) regarding
the “bells” on the Kohen Gadol’s coat on
Yom Kippur.
12. Tosafot Yeshanim (based on Yerushalmi, Yoma 5:2) says that the Kohen Gadol
was Shimon Hatzaddik, and it is thus possible that while a rope was usually used,
in his case they deemed it unnecessary.
13. Of course, one could speculate that
the chain was instituted subsequent to
this story.
14. A gold chain can be justified by resorting to the Gemara’s (Rosh Hashanah 26a)
explanation of why a gold kafu’machta
(shovel and pan) were used. Only gold
items through which the “sinner” glorifies
himself are technically prohibited on Yom
Kippur. Nonetheless, the use of a gold
chain on Yom Kippur seems inappropriate.
15. I am suggesting that these gemaras
contradict the Zohar’s description of a
rope. Rabbi Yisrael Kimchi (Avodat Yisrael,
pp.163b-165b) views the gemaras as posing strong questions on the Zohar, but he
proposes two solutions: 1. The Talmud and
the Zohar disagree about the permissibility of entering the Kodesh Hakodashim in
case of an emergency. The Gemara understands that the Tosefta gives blanket approval to enter while the Zohar opines
that, like the Torat Kohanim states with
regard to Aharon’s sons, all efforts must be
taken not to enter. Hence the Zohar requires a rope while the Gemara has no
need for such ingenious solutions. 2. In an
attempt to reconcile the Gemara and the
Zohar he suggests a far-fetched interpretation of the Gemara, which is explained further in Avodat Yisrael.
16. See Yoma l0b for an example of where
the Kohen Gadol’s dignity was taken into
account.
17. Shiur from 3 Elul 5763, available at:
http://ravsharki.org/content/view/1537/
629/. JL
Reprinted with permission from Jewish Action Magazine, Autumn 5770/2009 issue