“And from the blue wool and the purple wool and the red wool they made the packing cloths” (Sh’mos 39:1). Although I used Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation of the words “bigday has’rad” (“packing cloths”), which is how most commentators explain them, others translate them as “knitted uniforms” (or something similar), which more closely reflects how the Talmud (Yoma 72a-72b) and other commentators explain them. The term “bigday has’rad” appears four times in Tanach, all four in relation to the Mishkan (31:10, 35:19, 39:1 and 39:41). Curiously, the first time these “garments” are mentioned is after the initial commandment to build the Mishkan was completed (25:1-30:38), as part of the summation of what B’tzalel and his co-workers were responsible for (31:1-11). Why weren’t they included in the initial commandment?

Before attempting to explain their initial omission, an overview of the two basic opinions of what “bigday has’rad” are is warranted. Although Rashi, in his commentary on the Talmud (Chulin 137, Succah 51a), says that “bigday has’rad” are the priestly garments, in his commentary on the verses themselves (31:10, 35:19 and 39:1) he states his self-proclaimed own opinion (even though there are some Midrashim, or Midrash-like commentators, with the same understanding; see Torah Sh’laimah 31:22* and 23) that they are the cloths used to cover the Mishkan’s vessels during transport. He cites two strong proofs for his opinion. First of all, one verse (31:10) explicitly mentions both (“bigad has’rad” and the priestly garments), presenting them as two separate things. (The other verses also mention both, but the way they are presented could be explained as one being a clarification of the other.) Secondly, another verse (39:1) mentions the materials they were made from, which do not completely match up with the materials of the priestly garments (as the latter use two additional materials, including linen, which was in almost every priestly garment), while being an exact match with the materials the “packing cloths” were made from (see Bamidbar 4:6-12). It is likely that because of these two points, the majority of the commentators (e.g. Radak — root word sin-reish-daled, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Chizkuni, et al) also explain “bigday has’rad” to be the packing cloths.

Ramban (see also Tosfos) is a notable exception, explaining “bigday has’rad” the way the Talmud does; another term for the priestly garments. Aside from the two points raised above, another issue with this approach is why two separate terms are needed (let alone used in the same verse). Additionally, although the priestly garments were mentioned extensively in the original commandment, they weren’t called “bigday has’rad” there; even if the question of why the packing cloths were initially completely omitted is a stronger question than why the priestly garments weren’t initially referred to as “bigday has’rad,” it is a question nonetheless. And we’d still have to explain why, if they refer to the priestly garments, there is no mention anywhere (not in the initial commandment, nor in the subsequent summaries of the commandment, when the commandment is relayed to the nation, or in the description of the fulfillment of the commandment) of the packing cloths. Their first appearance would be in the commandment delineating the procedure for packing up the Mishkan, in Bamidbar. Where would these cloths come from if there was never a commandment to make them? Why is there no mention of them until then?

Mishneh L’Melech (Hilchos K’lei HaMikdash 10:4), tries to reconcile Rashi’s explanation in Chumash (that “bigday has’rad” refers to the packing cloths) with his commentary on the Talmud (where he says they were the priestly garments). Referencing Mizrachi’s oft-stated refrain that Rashi’s purpose in his commentary on Chumash is to give the simplest, most straight-forward explanation of the verses, he says that Rashi (on Chumash) is explaining “bigday has’rad” the way it makes the most sense on a p’shat level, while following the Talmud’s explication, which is on a d’rash level, when explaining the Talmud. [Mishneh L’Melech doesn’t use the word “d’rash,” but this is how his suggestion is commonly understood, especially by those who give varying suggestions as to what the Talmud’s “d’rasha” is based on (i.e. the word “s’rad,” the word “bigday” and/or the implication of the “the” that they had been already referenced). Netziv (35:19) says both explanations are valid on a “p’shat” level, and both are included in the intent of the verses.] Ramban’s objections aside (and his objections do fall away if we take the perspective that both explanations were intended whenever the term is used), it is therefore likely that the Torah uses the term “bigday has’rad” to refer to both simultaneously. It is stated separately from the “holy garments” because it refers to the packing cloths, but are called “garments” (and the other “d’rash” clues) because it teaches us things about the priestly garments as well. The question that remains is why there is no reference to the packing cloths in the original commandment. [It should be noted that Rabbeinu Bache (31:10) does find a place in the original commandment where the packing cloths are hinted to, but it is only a hint (at best), and does not fully answer the question.]

One possibility is based on one of the reasons given for using the word “s’rad” to describe the packing cloths; they were made from the leftover dyed wool from the priestly garments and the curtains/screens of the Mishkan (see Chizkuni on 31:10). If the leftover wool was supposed to be used (for whatever reason, whether it be so that those who donated the wool shouldn’t be concerned that their donation wasn’t needed or so that it should be prepared with the other wool, giving it a certain status, or for another reason), including the packing cloths in the original commandment would undermine this possibility. How could this wool be considered “extra” if it was needed, from the outset, for the packing cloths? Even if these cloths could be made from any material, and were “upgraded” to dyed wool because there was some left, they couldn’t be included in the initial commandment, where every item was described in full detail, if the material which they would eventually be made from had to be “leftovers,” or would be different than how it was originally commanded? (Besides, it would defeat the purpose of using leftover materials in order not to upset the donors if they were told that the task the material was used for didn’t require this material.)

One issue with this possibility is that the first mention of “bigday has’rad” (31:10) was well before the work was started, and the second (35:19) was also before the material could be considered “leftovers.” However, in these two instances, there were no details given (for any of the items mentioned), so there was no need to have to avoid saying that they should be made from leftover materials. And even though we now know (in retrospect) that they were called “bigday has’rad” because they were made from leftover materials, since there could have been/are other reasons for them to called that, it would not defeat the purpose of using leftovers. It was only in the initial commandment, where the details of how they should be made would have to be fully explained, that cloths made from leftover materials couldn’t be included. (They could be hinted at, but not explicitly included.) But there’s another possibility as well.

Previously (https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/parashas-eikev-5773/), I discussed the nature of prophecy, specifically how the concepts being communicated by G-d to a prophet do not consist of just (or even primarily) words; even when the word “dibur” (usually translated as “speech”) is used, it refers to a concept being conveyed, not the words themselves (even if the concept is expressed through words). This is especially true when it came to the Mishkan, as numerous times a vision of how the Mishkan and its vessels should look is mentioned in the commandment itself (25:9, 25:9, 26:30, 27:8). Last year (https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/parashas-pekuday-5774/) I referenced Rabbi Yehonasan Eibeschitz (Chidushay Rebbi Yehonasan on B’rachos 55a, Tiferes Yehonasan on Sh’mos 25:9 and Y’aras D’vash 1:2), who uses this idea to explain how Moshe could have taught Betzalel things in the wrong order (first the vessels then the structure rather than first the structure then the vessels) based on the perspective Moshe had when viewing this vision. I applied this concept to explain how details not included in the words of the initial commandment could still be considered having been “commanded to Moshe,” as Moshe was able to know and understand details not included in the words of the commandment by having “seen” these details in the vision. The conceptual takeaway (or at least one of them) is that the words used to describe the initial commandment are a representation of what Moshe saw when he was shown a “working model” of the Mishkani. His job was to recreate the vision he saw while atop Mt. Sinai in the center of the nation’s camp below.

If Moshe was shown a “working model” of the Mishkan, the only things he could have seen in that vision (which became the basis for the words used in the initial commandment) were those needed when the Mishkan was built and fully functional. Anything needed when it was not operating, such as the wagons used to transport the beams, would not have been part of this vision. (True, the vessels had poles attached, which were used to carry them when the Mishkan was being transported, but they were part of the vessels at all times, so were included in the vision.) The packing cloths had no function while the Mishkan was up and operational, so were not part of Moshe’s vision. And if they were not part of that vision, they couldn’t have been included in that initial commandment, which were only a manifestation of the vision itself.