Introduction

One of the principles of Torah study is to minimize the number of differences between the positions of the Sages.1 Accordingly, if possible, it is desirable to explain the Sages’ statements in such a manner that they do not conflict – even when the simple understanding of their words suggests that their perspectives vary.

This is particularly true when it appears that the difference of opinion concerns a point of fact,2 for one of the fundamental axioms of Torah scholarship is that “these and these are the words of the living G‑d,”3 i.e., that when there is a difference of opinion between Sages, both approaches possess theoretical validity. Seeing how that axiom applies is challenging when the two opinions differ about a point of fact.

On the basis of the above concept, it is difficult to understand the difference of opinion in the Talmud4between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi regarding the manner in which the words Kodesh LaHashem (“Holy unto G‑d”), are to be written on the tzitz, the forehead plate worn by the Kohen Gadol. The Sages maintain that these two words should be engraved in two lines: Yud Hei above, and Kodesh and a lamed below. However, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi states, “I saw it in the city of Rome and [the words] Kodesh LaHaShem were written on it in one line.”

On the surface, since Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi was a respected Sage, why did the other Sages reject his testimony? Moreover, the halachah follows the opinion of the Sages. Seemingly, that contradicts the actual fact.

In the sichah that follows, the Rebbe analyzes this difference of opinions, explaining how it is possible for both opinions to co-exist. In doing so, he also explains why the conception of the Menorah as understood by Rashi and Rambam should be followed even though the depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus is different.

Based on the principles he explains, he also shows how it is possible to maintain the validity of the accepted tradition regarding the manner certain words are written in Scripture, despite the archaeological discoveries of ancient scrolls that contain portions of the Tanach which appear to conflict with that tradition.

One Line or Two

1

Concerning the command to make the tzitz, the golden forehead plate worn by the Kohen Gadol, it is written,5 “You shall engrave upon it like the engraving of a seal,6 [the words] Kodesh LaHashem (‘Holy unto G‑d’).”

א

אִין דֶעם צִיוּוּי אוֹיף עֲשִׂיַּת הַצִּיץ שְׁטֵייט אִין פָּסוּק43: "וּפִתַּחְתָּ עָלָיו פִּתּוּחֵי חוֹתָם קֹדֶשׁ לַה' " – אַז אוֹיפְן צִיץ זָאל מֶען אוֹיסְקְרִיצְן44 דִי ווֶערְטֶער "קֹדֶשׁ לה' ".

There is a difference of opinion in the Talmud7 between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer8 ben Yossi regarding the manner in which these two words are to be written on the tzitz. The Sages maintain that these two words should be engraved “in two lines: Yud Hei above, and Kodesh [and a] lamed below.” As Rashi comments,9 this means, “[G‑d’s] full name on the top line, and [the word] Kodesh and [the letter] lamed on the lower line.” However, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi states, “I saw it in the city of Rome10 and [the words] Kodesh LaHaShem11 were written12 on it in one line.”

אִין דֶעם אוֹפֶן ווִי דִי צְווֵיי ווֶערְטֶער זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען "כָּתוּב עָלָיו" אִיז פַארַאן אַ פְּלוּגְתָּא45 צְווִישְׁן דִי חֲכָמִים מִיט רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר46 בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: דִי חֲכָמִים הַאלְטְן אַז "כָּתוּב עָלָיו בְּב' שִׁיטִין, יוּ"ד הֵ"א לְמַעְלָה וְקֹדֶשׁ לַמֶ"ד לְמַטָּה" ("הַשֵּׁם שָׁלֵם בְּשִׁיטָה עֶלְיוֹנָה וְקֹדֶשׁ לַמֶ"ד בְּשִׁיטָה תַּחְתּוֹנָה"47). אָבֶּער רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי זָאגְט: "אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּעִיר רוֹמִי48 וְכָתוּב עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ לַה' בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת".

Rambam13 rules, “Upon it is written [Kodesh LaHaShem in] two lines…. If [however, the words] were written in one line, it was valid. There were times when they were written in one line.”

דֶער רַמְבַּ"ם49 פַּסְקֶ'נְט "וְכוֹתֵב עָלָיו שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין כו' וְאִם כְּתָבוֹ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת כָּשֵׁר וּפְעָמִים כְּתָבוּהוּ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת". דֶערְפוּן אִיז פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק אַז נִיט קוּקְנְדִיק אוֹיף עֵדוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאבְּן דִי חֲכָמִים נִיט חֲרָטָה פוּן זֵייעֶר דֵיעָה אַז "כָּתוּב עָלָיו בְּב' שִׁיטִין",

From Rambam’s ruling we see that, regardless of the testimony of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi, the Sages did not retract their position that the words are to be written in two lines. Therefore, Rambam rules according to the Sages.14 He merely adds that, “after the fact, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s words can be followed as halachah.”15

In stating, “There were times when they were written in one line,” Rambam is referring to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s testimony and emphasizing that it definitively indicates that, after the fact, a tzitz is also acceptable if these words were written in one line.

[אוּן דֶערְפַאר פַּסְקֶ'נְט דֶער רַמְבַּ"ם ווִי דִי חֲכָמִים; עֶס אִיז נָאר אַז "בְּדִיעֲבַד מִיהָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי"50, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁכּוֹתֵב הָרַמְבַּ"ם "וּפְעָמִים כְּתָבוּהוּ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת", מֵיינֶענְדִיק דֶערְמִיט דִי עֵדוּת פוּן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אוּן ווָאס מֵהַאי עֵדוּת אִיז מוּכְרָח צוּ זָאגְן אַז בְּדִיעֲבַד אִיז כָּשֵׁר אוֹיךְ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת].

Meiri explains:16 “Although [one of] the great Sages testified, ‘I saw it in Rome and [the words] Kodesh LaHaShem were written on it in one line,’ even [his] eye-witness testimony did not cause [the Sages] to contravene [a tradition] known to them.”

דֶער מְאִירִי51 אִיז מְבַאֵר, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּגְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הֵעִידוּ אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּרוֹמִי וְכָתוּב עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ לַה' בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת, לֹא הִכְחִישׁוּ אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ אֶצְלָם – אַף בְּעֵדוּת רְאִיָּה.

On the surface, this is difficult to comprehend: We are speaking about the eye-witness testimony of “[one of] the great Sages,” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi. Certainly, there is no possibility of doubt – Heaven forbid – regarding the veracity of his testimony.

אִיז לִכְאוֹרָה תָּמוּהַּ: דָא רֶעדט זִיךְ דָאךְ ווֶעגְן דֶער "עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה" פוּן "גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים" פוּן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי (אִין ווֶעלְכֶער סְ'אִיז נִיט שַׁיָּיךְ קֵיין סָפֵק חַס וְשָׁלוֹם)?

In addition, according to the ruling of Rambam17 – as explained above – it follows that during those years when the two words were written on it in one line, the sacrificial service of the Kohen Gadol (– and the atoning effect the tzitz had even when not worn by the Kohen Gadolon his forehead –)18 was performed with a tzitz that was acceptable only after the fact.

Furthermore, when a practice performed in a given manner is acceptable after the fact, that license is of a temporary nature. As soon as it possible to perform it as required, one must do so.19 For example, in the case at hand, if a tzitz with the words Kodesh LaHaShem inscribed in one line was acceptable only after the fact, it would be acceptable only for the time it would take to inscribe the two words Kodesh LaHaShem in two lines on a golden forehead plate. That would lead to a conclusion that is difficult to accept – that the Beis HaMikdash was conquered by the Romans and the tzitz captured in this extremely brief period of time!20

וַאֲפִילוּ לְפִי פְּסַק הָרַמְבַּ"ם52 (לוֹיטְן פֵּירוּשׁ הַנַּ"ל) – קוּמְט דָאךְ אוֹיס אַז עֲבוֹדוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל יֶענֶע יָארְן (אוּן דָאס ווָאס הַצִּיץ מְכַפֵּר אֲפִילוּ כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ53) – אִיז גֶעווֶען מִיט אַ בְּדִיעֲבַד צִיץ?! וְעוֹד – בְּדִיעֲבַד בְּכַיּוֹצֵא בְזֶה אִיז שַׁיָּיךְ צוּ זָאגְן נָאר אוֹיף דֶער צַיְיט ווָאס סְ'דַארְף נֶעמֶען צוּ אוֹיסְקְרִיצְן אוֹיף אַ טַס שֶׁל זָהָב דִי צְווֵיי ווֶערְטֶער קֹדֶשׁ לַה' – וְעַל פִּי הַנַּ"ל קוּמְט אוֹיס אַז בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה אִיז נִלְכַּד בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְנִלְקַח הַצִּיץ*יא!?

A Comparison to the Menorah

2

The above point can be clarified by comparison to a similar issue which was discussed on a previous occasion at length.21 On the Arch of Triumph — built in Rome for Titus, ימ"ש, after his conquest of Jerusalem — is engraved an image of a Menorah that some say depicts the Menorah from the Beis HaMikdash. That Menorah is shown with its branches rising upward from the center shaft, each pair forming a half-circle.

On the surface, this image is a direct contradiction to the statements of the leading Torah authorities concerning the form of the Menorah. Rashi22explicitly writes that the Menorah’s branches “would extend upward diagonally,” i.e., they would ascend at an angle in a straight line. Moreover, this is the meaning of the word kaneh, translated as “branch.” In both the Written and Oral Law, that word refers to a reed that grows upward in a straight line, as can be seen on the banks of any river.23

Similarly, Rambam – when personally drawing an illustration of the Menorah in his Commentary to the Mishnah,24 as evident from the manuscript copies of that work – depicts its branches as ascending diagonally. His son, Rav Avraham, gave testimony25 that his father’s depiction of the branches as rising “in straight lines… not as [semi-] circles” was intentional.

The view of these authorities runs contrary to the depiction of the Menorah on the aforementioned arch, which, on the surface, is based on eyewitness testimony.

ב

ווֶעט מֶען דָאס פַארְשְׁטֵיין פוּן אַן עֶנְלֶעכְן עִנְיָן (ווֶעגְן ווֶעלְכְן מְ'הָאט שׁוֹין גֶערֶעדט אַמָאל בַּאֲרוּכָה54):

אוֹיף דֶעם "שַׁעַר הַנִּצָּחוֹן" ווָאס מֶען הָאט גֶעבּוֹיט אִין רוֹים פַאר טִיטוּס יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ – נָאךְ זַיְין נִצָּחוֹן אוֹיף יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אִיז דָא אַן אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְטֶע (צִיּוּר פוּן אַ) מְנוֹרָה ווָאס יֶשְׁנָם הָאוֹמְרִים אַז דָאס אִיז דֶער צִיּוּר פוּן דֶער מְנוֹרָה אִין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ – אִיז דִי מְנוֹרָה דָארְט מְצוּיָּר בְּאוֹפֶן, אַז דִי שִׁשָּׁה קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה צִיעֶן זִיךְ אַרוֹיף (פוּנֶעם קָנֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי) ווִי חֲצָאֵי קֶשֶׁת (הַאלְבּ-קַיְילֶעכְדִיק).

וְלִכְאוֹרָה: רַשִׁ"י זָאגְט בְּפֵירוּשׁ55 אַז דִי קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה זַיְינֶען "בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן נִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין", ווָאס מֵיינְט, אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן זִיךְ גֶעצוֹיגְן אִין אַ גְלַיְיכְן שִׁיפּוּעַ, ווָאס דָאס אִיז דָאךְ דֶער אָפְּטַיְיטשׁ פוּן "קָנֶה" בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתַב וּבַתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה – אַ גְלַיְיכֶער צֶמַח, ווִי מְ'זֶעט עֶס עַל שְׂפַת כָּל יְאוֹר56; אוּן פּוּנְקְט אַזוֹי זַיְינֶען דִי קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה אוֹיסְגֶעמָאלְט גֶעווָארְן פוּן רַמְבַּ"ם (ווִי מְ'זֶעט עֶס אִין דֶעם צִיּוּר הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁבְּגוּף כְּתַב יַד קֹדֶשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם57, אוּן ווִי רַבִּי אַבְרָהָם בֶּן הָרַמְבַּ"ם אִיז מֵעִיד58, אַז דָאס ווָאס אָבִיו הָאט מְצַיֵּיר גֶעווֶען דִי קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה "בְּיוֹשֶׁר . . לֹא בְּעִיגּוּל" אִיז גֶעווֶען בְּכַוָּנָה) – שְׁטִימְט עֶס דָאךְ נִיט מִיט דֶעם צִיּוּר הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁעַל שַׁעַר הַנַּ"ל, ווָאס אִיז לִכְאוֹרָה אַן עִנְיָן פוּן "עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה"?

It is possible to give a straightforward resolution for this issue: The depiction of the Menorah on the arch is not an accurate depiction of the Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash. As can be seen, there are several other elements of that depiction which differ from our Sages’ description of the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash.26 A further indication of the inaccuracy of the depiction of the Menorah on that arch is that it includes an image of a dragon, which obviously was not included in the Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash.

וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר הַבִּיאוּר בְּזֶה – בְּפַשְׁטוּת: דִי אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְטֶע מְנוֹרָה אוֹיפְן שַׁעַר אִיז נִיט דֶער (רִיכְטִיקֶער) צִיּוּר פוּן דֶער מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אוּן ווִי מְ'זֶעט דָארְט אִינֶעם צִיּוּר נָאךְ כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה פְּרָטִים ווֶעלְכֶע שְׁטִימֶען נִיט מִיט תַּבְנִית הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ59, בִּיז אַז אִין דֶער "מְנוֹרָה" שֶׁעַל הַשַּׁעַר אִיז מְצוּיָּר אַ צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן!

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that initially the depiction on the arch was not made as a copy of the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash, but rather as a copy of another Menorah27 that bore certain similarities to the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash.28

מִסְתַּבֵּר דֶערְפַאר צוּ זָאגְן, אַז צִיּוּר הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁעַל הַשַּׁעַר הָאט מֶען מִלְּכַתְּחִלָּה נִיט נָאכְגֶעמַאכְט דִי מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, נָאר אַן אַנְדֶער מְנוֹרָה60 ווָאס הָאט גֶעהַאט גֶעווִיסֶע עֶנְלֶעכְקַיְיטְן צוּ דֶער מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ*יח.

Since the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash was a very important object, it was common for people to make Menoros which resembled it. The worshipers of false deities in particular would make such copies for their deities. (This explains why they added the image of a dragon, because the dragon was a false deity.)29 The depiction of the Menorah on the arch was made based on one of those Menoros.

ווִיבַּאלְד דִי מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָאט גֶעהַאט גָאר אַ גְרוֹיסֶע חֲשִׁיבוּת, פְלֶעגְט מֶען מַאכְן מְנוֹרוֹת מִיט אַן עֶנְלֶעכְן אוֹיסְזֶען ווִי דִי מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבִפְרַט דִי עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶם (וְזֶהוּ הַבִּיאוּר דְּהוֹסָפַת צִיּוּר . . דְּרָקוֹן שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה61) – אוּן לוֹיט אֵיינֶער פוּן אַזֶעלְכֶע מְנוֹרוֹת הָאט מֶען גֶעמַאכְט דֶעם צִיּוֹר הַמְּנוֹרָה עַל הַשַּׁעַר.

What Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi Saw

3

Similar statements can be made with regard to Meiri’s understanding of the words engraved on the tzitz. Although Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw a tzitz in Rome, there is no conclusive proof that it was the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol. It is possible30 that it was an ornamental item that someone made in a form somewhat resembling the tzitz.31Afterwards, for whatever reason – perhaps to save the true tzitz from falling into the Romans’ hands – this ornament was placed together with the articles from the Beis HaMikdash that were taken to Rome.32 (Similar statements can be made regarding the Menorah.)28

ג

עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בְּנִדּוֹן דִּידַן – בְּעִנְיַן הַצִּיץ לְשִׁיטַת הַמְּאִירִי:

אַף עַל פִּי אַז רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאט גֶעזֶען אַ צִיץ אִין רוֹמִי, אִיז עֶס אָבֶּער נִיט קֵיין רַאְיָה בְּרוּרָה אַז דָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיץ שֶׁל הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. עֶס קֶען זַיְין62 אַז דָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען אַ תַּכְשִׁיט ווָאס אִימִיצֶער הָאט גֶעמַאכְט אִין אַ צִיּוּר ווָאס אִיז (קְצַת) דּוֹמֶה צוּם צִיץ63. דֶערְנָאךְ אִיז אָט דֶער תַּכְשִׁיט פַארְלֵייגְט גֶעווָארְן (מֵאֵיזוֹ סִבָּה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה – וְאוּלֵי כְּדֵי צוּ אַרוֹיסְרַאטֶעווֶען פוּן דִי רוֹמִיִּים דֶעם אֱמֶת'ן צִיץ64 – וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בְּהַמְּנוֹרָהכב) צוּזַאמֶען מִיט דִי כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ ווָאס זַיְינֶען גֶעלֶעגְן אִין רוֹמִי.

In particular, the above is plausible since the prohibition,33 “Do not make [an image] with Me…,” which our Sages34 interpret as forbidding making a house in the form of the Heichal, the inner Sanctuary of the Beis HaMikdash, or fashioning utensils identical to those used in the Beis HaMikdash, does not apply to the priestly garments. Therefore, it is possible that someone made an ornament that resembled the tzitz.

[וּבִפְרַט אַז אוֹיף דִי בִּגְדֵי כְּהוּנָּה גֶעפִינְט מֶען נִיט דֶעם אִיסּוּר פוּן "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי" – "בַּיִת תַּבְנִית הֵיכָל כו' "65, דֶערִיבֶּער אִיז מֶעגְלֶעךְ אַז אֵיינֶער הָאט פַאר זִיךְ גֶעמַאכְט אַ תַּכְשִׁיט ווָאס אִיז עֶנְלֶעךְ צוּם צִיץ.

Even if one would venture to say that the prohibition,35 “Do not make [an image] with Me…,” does apply in such an instance, it is possible that a non-Jew made a copy of the tzitz.27

וַאֲפִילוּ אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אַז עֶס אִיז יֶע דָא בְּזֶה דֶער אִיסּוּר פוּן "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי"66 – קֶען דָאךְ זַיְין אַז אַן אֵינוֹ יְהוּדִיכא הָאט דָאס נָאכְגֶעמַאכְט].

Therefore, since the Sages had received the tradition – to quote Meiri,12 it was “a tradition known to them” – that the words, Kodesh LaHaShem were written in two lines, it is assumed that this was the way it was written. This accepted tradition compels us to say that the ornament Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw in Rome was not the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.

אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער: ווִיבַּאלְד אַז דִי חֲכָמִים הָאבְּן גֶעהַאט אַ קַבָּלָה – בִּלְשׁוֹן הַמְּאִירִי: "יָדוּעַ אֶצְלָם" – אַז דִי ווֶערְטֶער "קֹדֶשׁ לַה' " זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען גֶעשְׁרִיבְּן בב' שִׁיטוֹת, אִיז אַ דָּבָר בָּרוּר אַז אַזוֹי אִיז גֶעווֶען דִי מְצִיאוּת. אוּן דִי קַבָּלָה גוּפָא אִיז מַכְרִיחַ צוּ זָאגְן, אַז דָאס ווָאס רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאט גֶעזֶען אִין רוֹמִי אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיץ פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi himself did not receive the above tradition from his teacher. Accordingly, when he saw the forehead plate in Rome, he was not obligated to accept such an unlikely possibility that a forehead plate from another place became intermingled with the instruments of the Beis HaMikdash, that the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol had not been copied, and the forehead plate he saw was not the real tzitz but rather an ornament that someone made that did not entirely resemble the tzitz. Therefore, he brought proof from his observation that the words Kodesh LaHaShem were engraved in one line on the tzitz.

– בַּיי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַצְמוֹ, ווָאס עֶר הָאט נִיט גֶעהַאט דִי קַבָּלָה פוּן זַיְין רֶבִּי'ן, אִיז בְּשַׁעַת עֶר הָאט גֶעזֶען דֶעם צִיץ בְּרוֹמִי, אִיז עֶר נִיט מְחוּיָּב צוּ אָננֶעמֶען אַזַא ווַיְיטֶע מֶעגְלֶעכְקַיְיט אַז צְווִישְׁן כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָאט זִיךְ אַרַיְינְגֶעמִישְׁט אַ צִיץ מִבַּחוּץ – דֶעם אֱמֶת'ן צִיץ הָאט מֶען נִיט מְצַיֵּר גֶעווֶען – וְהַמְּצוּיָּר אִיז דָאס נִיט דֶער צִיץ שֶׁל הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, נָאר אַ תַּכְשִׁיט כו' ווָאס אֵיימִיצֶער הָאט גֶעמַאכְט – אוּן אַנְדֶערְשׁ פוּן דֶעם צִיץ; אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער קֶען עֶר דֶערְפוּן בְּרֶענְגֶען אַ רַאְיָה אַז "כָּתוּב עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ לַה' בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת";

Nevertheless, since the Sages did have an accepted tradition regarding this matter, “even eye-witness testimony did not cause them to contravene [a tradition] known to them.” The rationale is that there is no possibility of doubt regarding the veracity of the accepted tradition. By contrast, regarding Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s eye-witness testimony, it is possible to say that the forehead plate he saw was not the tzitz from the Kohen Gadol.

ווִיבַּאלְד אָבֶּער אַז דִי חֲכָמִים הָאבְּן יֶע גֶעהַאט אַזַא קַבָּלָה, אִיז "לֹא הִכְחִישׁוּ אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ אֶצְלָם אַף בְּעֵדוּת רְאִיָּה" – ווַיְיל אִין דֶער קַבָּלָה אִיז נִיט שַׁיָּיךְ קֵיין סָפֵק, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנּוֹגֵעַ דֶער עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה קֶען מֶען זָאגְן אַז דָאס אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיץ שֶׁל הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, כַּנַּ"ל.

A Resolution that Satisfies Both Views

4

Based on the above, Rambam’s ruling – that the tzitz is valid after the fact, even though the two words were written in one line – requires serious analysis. In particular, this is true in light of what was said above regarding there having been a tzitz that was acceptable only after the fact in the Beis HaMikdash for an extended time. Rambam’s ruling is somewhat self-contradictory. On one hand, he accepts the testimony of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi. However, he accepts the Sages’ position as the initial preferred option. Now, if the tzitz that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw was in fact the real tzitz, how was it possible that it was used in the Beis HaMikdash for an extended time?

ד

עַל פִּי הַנַּ"ל – אִיז דָאךְ צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן גָּדוֹל לִכְאוֹרָה פְּסַק דִּין הָרַמְבַּ"ם, וּבִפְרַט – דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן הָאבְּן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּפּוֹעֵל אַ "בְּדִיעֲבַד צִיץ" אַ מֶשֶׁךְ זְמַן, כַּנַּ"ל?

It is possible to explain the above by first posing a rhetorical question. As mentioned, the hypothesis is that the forehead plate Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw was made to prevent the Romans from taking the actual tzitz. How could they be fooled into thinking that they were taking the tzitz by replacing it with a forehead plate that did not resemble one that been used in the Beis HaMikdash at any time? The question is reinforced by the well-known fact that the Romans describe the precise details of the Beis HaMikdash and its service in their books. Therefore, it can be said that Rambam was forced to say that such a tzitz is valid after the fact and that such a tzitz was actually worn, at least for a short time.

– וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר וּבְהַקְדִּים: ווִי הָאט מֶען גֶעקָאנְט אָפְּנַארֶען דִי רוֹמִיִּים דוּרְךְ אַ צִיץ ווָאס קֵיינְמָאל אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען דּוּגְמָתוֹ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – וּבִפְרַט לוֹיט הַיָּדוּעַ דִי בַּאשְׁרַיְיבּוּנְג אוֹיךְ בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם פוּן פְּרָטֵי בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהָעֲבוֹדוֹת בּוֹ – וְלָכֵן יֵשׁ לוֹמַר אִיז דֶער רַמְבַּ"ם מוּכְרָח לְפָרֵשׁ אַז בְּדִיעֲבַד כָּשֵׁר אוּן סְ'אִיז גֶעווֶען אַזוֹי בְּפּוֹעֵל, עַל כָּל פָּנִים אַ זְמַן קָצָר.

Or HaChayim36 goes further and writes that even the Sages who rule that Kodesh LaHaShem should be written in two lines do not consider doing so as absolutely mandatory after the fact. “Hence, Rambam’s ruling in ch. 9 of Hilchos K’lei HaMikdash need not be questioned.”

וִיתֵרָה מִזֶּה כָּתַב הָאוֹר הַחַיִּים67, אַז "אֲפִילוּ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא (דִי חֲכָמִים) אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב וּבְזֶה לֹא יִקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֶיךָ פְּסַק הָרַמְבַּ"ם פֶּרֶק ט מֵהִלְכוֹת כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ".

According to the above explanation,37 it is possible to offer – at least as a hypothesis – another (and perhaps preferable) reason for Rambam’s ruling, based on the principle that one should endeavor to minimize the amount of halachic differences of opinion.38 (This is especially true since a straightforward understanding of Meiri’s words implies that there was a difference of opinion with regard to a point of fact.)39

וְעַל פִּי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר – עַל כָּל פָּנִים בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְשָׁר – נָאךְ אַ טַעַם לִפְסַק דִּין הָרַמְבַּ"ם (וְאוּלַי – עִיקָר) – שֶׁלֹּא לַאֲפוּשֵׁי בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת (וּבִפְרַט אַז לְפֵירוּשׁ הַמְּאִירִי כִּפְשׁוּטָם, אִיז עֶס אַ מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּמְצִיאוּת).

Thus, it is unnecessary to say – as hypothesized above – that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi did not receive the tradition that the two words should be written in separate lines. It could be said that he received that tradition, but considered it merely an initial preference.33 This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

וּלְפִי זֶה דַארְף מֶען אוֹיךְ נִיט אָנְקוּמֶען צוּם חִילּוּק הַנַּ"ל אַז רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאט נִיט גֶעהַאט דִי קַבָּלָה הַנַּ"ל וכו'. וְקַל לְהָבִין. וְאֵין כַּאן מְקוֹמוֹ.

A Lesson for the Present

5

There is a point of instruction from the above discussion that is relevant in our time. In recent years, entombed scrolls40 from portions of the Tanach have been discovered. There are a number of differences between the manner certain words are written41 in these scrolls and the accepted tradition that we follow.

ה

מִכָּל הַנַּ"ל הָאט מֶען אוֹיךְ אַ הוֹרָאָה לְיָמֵינוּ אֵלּוּ:

בִּזְמַן הָאַחֲרוֹן זַיְינֶען נִתְגַּלֶּה גֶעווָארְן גְּנִיזוֹת פוּן מְגִילּוֹת מֵעִנְיָנֵי הַתְּנַ"ךְ אוּן דָארְטְן זַיְינֶען פַארַאן כַּמָּה שִׁינּוּיִים לְגַבֵּי אוּנְזֶער מְסוֹרָה בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְחָסֵר וְיַתִּיר וכו'.

It must be known that although these newly discovered scrolls are seemingly “eye-witness evidence,” they do not have the validity of our tradition. This is especially true because there is no way of knowing whether or not the person who wrote the scroll was “[one of] the great Sages.” Furthermore, it is very possible that the reason the scroll was entombed was because it was written in a manner that is in opposition to Torah Law.42

– דַארְף מֶען ווִיסְן, אַז דִי "גְנִיזוֹת", כָאטשׁ זֵיי זֶעעֶן אוֹיס ווִי אַן "עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה", זַיְינֶען זֵיי כְּלַל נִיט אַזוֹי ווִי אוּנְזֶער מְסוֹרָה. וּבִפְרַט אַז מֶען קֶען נִיט ווִיסְן ווֶער זַיְינֶען מְחַבְּרֵי הַ"גְּנִיזוֹת" צִי פוּן "גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים" אָדֶער נִיט. נָאךְ מֶער: עֶס קֶען גָאר זַיְין אַז דִי מְגִילּוֹת זַיְינֶען נִגְנַז גֶעווָארְן טַאקֶע דֶערְפַאר ווַיְיל זֵיי זַיְינֶען גֶעשְׁרִיבְּן גֶעווָארְן דְּלֹא כַּהֲלָכָה68!

By contrast, the tradition we have received has been conveyed from teacher to student, generation after generation in a chain extending back to Moshe. We can thus be certain that this tradition is true.

מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן דִי מְסוֹרָה ווָאס מִיר הָאבְּן, ווֶעלְכֶע אִיז אִיבֶּערְגֶעגֶעבְּן גֶעווָארְן אִישׁ מִפִּי אִישׁ, דּוֹר אַחַר דּוֹר לְמַעְלָה עַד מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ – אִיז אַ דָּבָר בָּרוּר אַז זִי אִיז אֱמֶת.

Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 26, p. 200ff. Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh, 5743 [1983]

(משיחת ש"פ תצוה תשמ״ג)