Daf Ditty Yoma 35: Pelusian vs Indian Linen

The Egyptian archeological mission working in Tel al-Farma (ancient

Pelusium) in North Sinai have uncovered part of a huge building dating to the
Graeco-Roman Period, used as a seat for the ancient Senate.

Polonius is giving his son, Laertes, advice before he leaves for France
in Act One, Scene 3.

Shakespeare intended this scene to bring some comic relief to the

play by having the pompous, simple-minded Polonius give his son
some long-winded advice.

Polonius tells his son, among other things, that he should listen,
rather than speak, and that he should spend most of his money on
quality clothing.

1
YOMA: CHAPTER 3 : MISHNA 7

In the morning he puts on Pelusin of twelve maneh, and afternoon, Hindvin of eight hundred zuz;
so Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, in the morning he put on of eighteen maneh, and in the afternoon
of twelve maneh, in all thirty maneh. These are from the congregation, and if he wanted to add, he
added from his own.

Kehati
This mishnah deals with the nature and value of the white garments in which the High Priest
performed the special service for Yom Kippur. The mishnah teaches that in the afternoon service
the High Priest wore white garments which were of lesser value than the white garments that he
wore for the morning service.

In the morning - for the morning service, he - the High Priest, put on Pelusin - white garments
made of fine, excellent linen which came from the city of Pelusium in Egypt; according to one
opinion, Pelusium is identical with Ramses: Targum Yerushalmi translates "Ramses" as
"Pelusin," of - worth - twelve maneh - one maneh = 100 dinars; and for
the afternoon service, Hindvin - white linen garments from India (see Tosefot Yom Tov), of eight
hundred zuz - eight maneh;

2
So Rabbi Meir - who holds that the total amount of money expended from Temple funds on the
garments of the High Priest is twenty maneh. But the Sages say, in the morning he put on of
eighteen maneh, and in the afternoon of twelve maneh, in all thirty maneh - the Gemara
explains that the Sages stated the total ("in all thirty maneh") in order to teach that within this
budgetary limit it is also permitted to reduce the morning garments and to increase the afternoon
garments; at any rate, all agree that the morning garments must be better and dearer than those of
the afternoon. The Gemara explains that this is learned from a passage in the Torah: "He shall put
on the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded
with the linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired" (Lev. 16:4) - the word "linen" is
mentioned four times, to teach that the garments shall be from the choicest fabric; and since this
passage refers to the morning service, we learn that during the morning he wears finer garments
than in the afternoon.

The Tosafists explain that the first "linen" teaches the basic law, that the garments should be of
linen; the second "linen" [bad] implies this as levad, (alone), i.e., he wears only these, and not
together with the gold garments, as all the other days of the year; the third "linen" implies that it
be of choicer fabric than that worn all the other days; and the fourth "linen" - that the morning
linen is superior to that of the evening.

These - thirty maneh according to the opinion of the Sages, or twenty maneh, according to Rabbi
Meir, are - he takes, from the congregation - i.e., from the Temple treasury, in order to purchase
the garments, and if he - the High Priest, wanted to add - and purchase more costly garments, he
added from his own - money, provided that he gives the additional amount as a present to the
Temple treasury (Gemara).

We have interpreted the mishnah as do most commentators, as referring to all four of the white
garments. Rambam, however, writes: "The white garments are the four in which the High Priest
serves on Yom Kippur...and they are from pure linen. And the High Priest has two other tunics,
one he puts on in the morning, and one in the afternoon. And the two are together
thirty maneh from the Temple treasury" (Hil. Kelei ha-Kodesh 5:3; see Mishneh Lemelekh, op.
Cit.). Rambam also writes: "The white garments in which he (the High Priest) serves on the fast
day, he may never use again and they are hidden away in the place where he takes them off...and
it is prohibited to derive benefit from them" (ibid., halakhah 5). This law is brought in a baraita in
the Gemara (Yoma 24a). It is learned from the passage in the Torah, "and shall put off the linen
garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place and shall leave them there" (Lev.
16:23): "and shall leave them there" teaches that they require hiding. According to another opinion,
they are fit for use by a common priest, and the passage "and shall leave them there" teaches that
the High Priest may not use them on another Yom Kippur.

3
MISHNA: They brought the High Priest to immerse a second time in the Hall of Parva, which
was in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him
and the people in the interest of modesty. And he sanctified his hands and his feet and removed
his garments. Rabbi Meir says that this was the sequence: He first removed his garments and
then he sanctified his hands and his feet. He descended and immersed a second time. He
ascended and dried himself. And they immediately brought him the white garments, in which
he dressed, and he sanctified his hands and his feet.

4
Steinzaltz

5
In the morning he would wear linen garments from the Egyptian city of Pelusium worth twelve
maneh, 1,200 dinars or zuz. These garments were very expensive due to their high quality. And in
the afternoon he wore linen garments from India, which were slightly less expensive, worth
eight hundred zuz.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the morning he would wear
garments worth eighteen maneh, and in the afternoon he would wear garments worth twelve
maneh. In total, the clothes were worth thirty maneh.

These sums for the garments came from the community, and if the High Priest wished to add
money to purchase even finer garments, he would add funding of his own.

Jastrow

6
7
RASHI

GEMARA: What is the meaning of the name Parva? Rav Yosef said: Parva is the name of a
Persian sorcerer, whose name is associated with the chamber due to a particular incident.

Jastrow

8
9
§ It was stated in the mishna: They spread there a sheet of fine linen. The Gemara asks: What is
different that the sheet that they spread was made of fine linen? Rav Kahana said: It was so that
the High Priest will be aware and remember that the service of the day is performed in fine
linen.

10
§ The mishna continues: In the morning, he would wear garments worth eighteen maneh, and
in the afternoon he would wear garments worth twelve maneh. In total, the clothes were worth
thirty maneh. The Gemara expresses surprise at the total in the mishna: Does the tanna come to
tell us the tally that eighteen and twelve equal thirty? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach
us that one may not fashion garments worth less than the total of these morning and afternoon
garments. The Gemara elaborates: If one decreases the value of these morning garments, and
raises the value of those afternoon garments, we have no problem with it. One can distribute the
total of thirty maneh between the two sets of garments in any manner that he chooses.

11
The Gemara comments: However, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, agrees that the
clothes of the morning are superior and must be more valuable than those of the afternoon. From
where do we derive this? Rav Huna, son of Rav Ilai, said that with regard to the linen garments
donned by the High Priest in the morning, the verse states:

-‫ וִּמְכ ְנֵסי‬,‫ַבּד ֹקֶדשׁ ִיְלָבּשׁ‬-‫ד ְכֹּתֶנת‬ 4 He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the
‫ וְּבַאְבֵנט ַבּד‬,‫שׂרוֹ‬ ָ ‫ְבּ‬-‫ַבד ִיְהיוּ ַﬠל‬ linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with the
-‫ וְּבִמְצֶנֶפת ַבּד ִיְצֹנף; ִבְּגֵדי‬,‫ַיְחֹגּר‬ linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired;
‫שׂ רוֹ‬ָ ‫ְבּ‬-‫ ְו ָרַחץ ַבַּמּ ִים ֶאת‬,‫ֹקֶדשׁ ֵהם‬ they are the holy garments; and he shall bathe his flesh in
.‫שׁ ם‬
ָ ‫וְּלֵב‬ water, and put them on.
Lev 16:4

“He shall be dressed in a sacred linen tunic, and with linen trousers next to his flesh, and he shall
be girded with a linen belt, and he shall wear a linen mitre” From the fact that the verse repeats
the term linen four times it is derived that the choicest linen should be used for this purpose.

12
Midrash Lekach Tov 16:4

13
 THE "BEIS HA'PARVAH"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Mishnah (34b) says that in the next stage of the order of the day, the Kohen Gadol was brought
to the Beis ha'Parvah for his second Tevilah. The Gemara here says that this chamber was named
after Parvah the "Amgusha," the "magician."

Why was part of the holy Beis ha'Mikdash named after a sorcerer?

RASHI writes that it was Parvah who built this chamber. The ROSH (Midos 5:3) adds that Parvah
must have been a Jew, because a non-Jew would not have been allowed to build a part of the Beis
ha'Mikdash (see Shekalim 4a, Erchin 6a).

Why, though, did they name this chamber after its architect, something they did not do for any
other part of Beis ha'Mikdash? Perhaps it was given the name of the person who built it in order
to show that it was built after the rest of the Azarah was built. This fact has Halachic ramifications:
since the Beis ha'Parvah was not part of the original construction of the Azarah, even its roof was
sanctified, as explained earlier.

RASH (Midos 5:3) points out that the Mishnah in Midos says that the Beis ha'Parvah was used as
the place in which the hides of Kodshim were salted. Accordingly, it was called "Parvah" because
of the hides of cows ("Parim") that were salted there. (Although the hides of all animals were salted
there, the word "Parvah" was chosen presumably because it also happened to be the name of the
person who designed it. Thus, the Rash's explanation does not contradict the Gemara here.)

TOSFOS (DH Parvah) relates an incident recorded by the ARUCH. This particular sorcerer
clandestinely dug an underground tunnel from outside the Beis ha'Mikdash in order to be able to
see the Kohen Gadol perform the Avodah. The Kohanim discovered him as he dug the tunnel and
captured him, and they named the place where they caught him, "Beis ha'Parvah." T

RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Midos 5:3) says that he dug a hole through the wall of the
Azarah, and that the Kohanim killed him at that spot. Apparently, they name that place "Beis
ha'Parvah" in commemoration of the miracle that Parvah was caught in time, before he entered the
Azarah.

TIFERES YISRAEL in Midos suggests that this chamber was named in honor of Parvah because
he developed an ingenious system, which seemed almost magical, for transporting water to the
Mikvah on its roof.

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-035.htm

14
 VALUE OF THE KOHEN GADOL'S HOLY GARMENTS ON YOM
KIPPUR

The Gemara asks why everyone (Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim) agrees that the Begadim the
Kohen Gadol wears in the morning of Yom Kippur are worth more than the Begadim he wears in
the afternoon (when he removes the Kaf u'Machtah from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim). The Gemara
answers with the verse that mentions "Bad" four times with regard to the morning Begadim
(Vayikra 16:4).

The Gemara then relates incidents in which mothers of Kohanim Gedolim made for their sons
extravagant garments to wear for "Avodas Yachid." Rashi says that this means "Hotza'as Kaf
u'Machtah," which was the afternoon Avodah. According to Rashi's explanation, the afternoon
Begadim were worth more than the morning Begadim! (See SEFER SHEMU'AS CHAIM, p.
422, and CHONEN DE'AH, p. 223, for a very novel approach to this question.)

CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) answers that perhaps the requirement that the
morning Begadim be worth more than the afternoon Begadim applies only when the Begadim are
purchased from the public funds. When the money of Hekdesh is used to buy the Begadim, the
morning Begadim must be worth more than the afternoon Begadim. However, this requirement
does not apply when private donations are used to buy the Begadim. The Kohen Gadol may use
private funds to make extravagant afternoon Begadim even though they will be worth more than
the morning Begadim. (See also Milu'im of the GEVURAS ARI to Yoma 34b.)

However, the Chafetz Chaim questions this approach. Since the privately-donated, expensive
Beged must be dedicated to the Tzibur, it becomes public funds and is considered as though the
public donated it.

The Chafetz Chaim concludes that this question is not difficult according to the Girsa and
explanation of the ME'IRI, who explains that "Avodas Yachid" does not refer to an Avodah done
on Yom Kippur. The Begadim contributed by the Kohen's mother were worn only during the
weekday service and not on Yom Kippur, as the Chafetz Chaim proves from a Tosefta. The Chafetz
Chaim favors this explanation of the Gemara over Rashi's explanation.

RAMBAM (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:3) writes that the Kohen Gadol may add to the value of
the Begadim as much as he wants. The Rambam makes no mention of the limitation that the
morning Begadim must be worth more than the afternoon Begadim. Similarly, RABEINU
YEHONASAN MI'LUNIL explains that the Gemara means that the Kohen Gadol may add to the
value of the afternoon Begadim even if he makes them worth more than the morning Begadim.
How do they understand the statement of the Gemara that the morning Begadim must be worth
more than the afternoon Begadim?

15
SI'ACH YITZCHAK explains that when the Mishnah and the Gemara say that the morning
Begadim are worth more, they mean merely that the common practice of the Kohanim is to spend
more on the morning Begadim, but not that there is any obligation to do so. (When the Gemara
says that for "Kulei Alma" the morning Begadim were worth more, it does not mean "according
to all of the Tana'im in the Mishnah," but rather it means "for all (i.e. most) of the Kohanim
Gedolim.")

However, the Si'ach Yitzchak does not explain how the Rambam understands the Gemara's source
that the morning Begadim must be worth more. According to his explanation, there is no verse that
teaches that the morning Begadim must be worth more.

Perhaps the answer is as follows. The GEVURAS ARI asks what the source is for the Mishnah's
teaching that the total minimum value of all of the Bigdei Kodesh worn on Yom Kippur according
to the Chachamim is 30 Manah. The Gemara brings no source for that requirement. The Gevuras
Ari answers that it must be a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Perhaps the Rambam understands that when the Gemara asks, "Mena Lan," it is not seeking a
source for the requirement that the morning Begadim be worth more than the afternoon Begadim.
Rather, it is seeking a source for the requirement that the total value of the Begadim be at least 30
Manah. The Gemara answers that the word "Bad" ("linen") appears four times in the verse that
discusses the morning Avodah of the Kohen Gadol. The word "Bad" appears one more time in the
verse that discusses the afternoon Avodah, for a total of five times. The Gematriya of the word
"Bad" is six, and since the word "Bad" appears five times, the total value is 30. This is the source
that the Begadim must be made of the finest linen, and that the two sets of Begadim together must
be worth at least 30 Manah. The verse does not teach that the morning Begadim must be worth
more than the afternoon Begadim.

How, though, does the Rambam understand the next question of the Gemara? The Gemara asks
that the verse in Yechezkel implies that the afternoon Begadim are more distinguished than the
morning Begadim. If there is no requirement that the morning Begadim be worth more, what is
the Gemara's question?

The answer is that in the Rambam's text of the Gemara, this question appeared later, as a question
on Rav Huna's statement that when a Kohen performs an Avodas Yachid, he may wear the Ketones
that his mother made for him. This indeed was the original Girsa before Rashi emended it.
The ME'IRI explains this Girsa in detail.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

After discussing the law that allows a kohen to make his own clothing, on the condition that it is
donated to the Temple (so that it is the property of the Temple when the avodah, or service, is
done) the Gemara tells of Rabbi Elazar ben Harsum, whose mother made him clothing that was so
fine that he was not allowed to wear it, as it allowed the outline of his body to be seen. Rabbi

2
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_30a36b/

16
Elazar ben Harsum served as kohen gadol for eleven years, and the Gemara mentions his great
wealth in a number of places.

This story leads the Gemara to quote a baraita that describes the arguments that will be made by
various people when they are called before the Heavenly tribunal:

• To the poor person who says “I was so busy supporting my family that I did not have time
to learn Torah,” the response will be “were you poorer than Hillel, who struggled to make
ends meet, yet always studied?”
• To the rich person who says “I was involved in managing my wealth,” the response will be
“were you richer than Rabbi Elazar ben Harsum who received a huge inheritance, yet found
time to study Torah?”
• To the evil person who says “I was an attractive person and spent my time preening
myself,” the response will be “were you better looking than Yosef, who avoided the
invitations of his master’s wife?”

The baraita goes into some detail with regard to each of these stories. Perhaps the best known is
the story of Hillel, who worked daily for a small sum of money, which he divided between his
family’s needs and the entrance fee to the Bet Midrash. One Friday during the winter, when he
could not find work, he climbed onto the roof of the study hall so that he could listen to the lecture.
The snow began to fall and it was not until the next morning that Shemaya and Avtalyon noticed
a form buried beneath three cubits of snow (the sheer volume of snow described by the baraita is
unusual in Jerusalem, although after one of the infrequent snowstorms, the snow could pile up to
such a height), at which point he was taken down into the Bet Midrash and revived.

The idea of having a guard at the door to the Bet Midrash who would limit access was in existence
at various times during the Talmudic period, specifically at the higher levels of learning.
Apparently at the beginning of this period there was a sense that the Torah leaders should be from
the upper class, so that they would be financially independent and thus not subject to pressures
from wealthy individuals. This expressed itself in the collection of tuition at the door of the Bet
Midrash.

When, later in life, Hillel became the head of the academy, he ended this system. Nevertheless,
the guard at the Bet Midrash door, whose job was to keep out students who were perceived as
inappropriate for intense Torah study, was reinstated at various periods in history. It was only
during the rule of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh that entrance to the study hall was truly open to all.

Sarah Wolf writes:3

In the mishnah on yesterday’s daf, we learned that the high priest has to wear very specific clothing
in order to perform the Yom Kippur service, and that these clothes must be provided by public
funds. However, today’s daf raises a question: What if a priest wants to wear garments that have

3
Myjewishlearning.com

17
special value to him personally? Specifically, what if the priest has a tunic, perhaps quite a fancy
one, that was made for him by his mother?

Why mention the priest’s mother specifically? After all, priesthood is a status that is exclusive to
males and passed down patrilineally, so it would seem that the mother of the priest is actually a
somewhat extraneous figure. Yet the mother of the high priest appears with surprising frequency
in the rabbinic imagination, often performing stereotypically maternal activities like providing
food and clothing. Though the rabbis’ ideas about gender roles may seem a bit retrograde, they
also are making space on the page for the importance of the priest’s female family members, even
if these women aren’t serving a role that is technically legally required.

Such is the case on our daf, where the rabbis agree that even though the priest’s mother’s
handiwork is not the clothing required for the Yom Kippur rite, it’s still possible to find a way for
him to wear it, at least briefly:

After the public service has concluded, a priest whose mother has made him a tunic may
wear it and perform a single element of the service, as long as he transfers its ownership to
the public.

This homemade garment may be worn for the performance of a Temple ritual as long as the priest
agrees to make it public property. But since this requirement of public ownership applies to all of
the priestly clothes — and indeed any tool — used for the Temple service, the rabbis then ask: Isn’t
this obvious?

In other words, why bother mentioning the need for public ownership in the particular case of the
mom-made tunic if it’s true across the board? The answer: Lest you think we are concerned that
he will not transfer it as he should, it teaches us otherwise.

The rabbis answer that a garment made by the priest’s mother, though it serves no halakhic or
functional purpose, is most likely to have sentimental value to the priest, and therefore the priest
might be unwilling to give up his personal stake in it. That might cause us to imagine that its use
would be forbidden out of concern that the priest would not in fact relinquish ownership of the
garment to the public. The final determination is that we need not worry about this possibility and
can trust that the priest will do what is required and transfer ownership of the tunic.

But by pointing out how tempting it might be for the priest to do otherwise, the rabbis are
reminding us of the emotional power of the world that exists outside of the (for them, anyway)
male-dominated world of ritual and rules, and encouraging even the most elite, skilled practitioners
of that world to find ways to commemorate the labor and the love of those outside it.

The Garments of the High Priest

18
Rav Michael Hattin writes:4

Parashat Tetzaveh continues the description of the building of the Mishkan. In exhaustive
detail, the Torah spells out the garments of the Kohanim or priests. The typical priest wears four
garments during the course of performing his service: breeches, a tunic, a belt and a turban. The
Kohen Gadol, or High Priest, wears these four basic garments (with some variation in form) and
four others in addition: a robe, an ephod, a breastplate, and a headband. Although we shall spend
some time describing the form of these garments, we shall concentrate to a greater degree on their
larger significance, and on the symbolism of the Kohen Gadol as an archetype.

"Separate your brother Aharon and his sons from among Bnei Yisrael and bring them close
to serve as my Kohanim: Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, Elazar and Itamar. Make sacred vestments for
Aharon your brother for honor and for glory."

Commenting on these verses, the Ramban (13th century, Spain) explains:

"Aharon ought to be honored and glorified by wearing garments of honor and glory...for these
garments resemble garments of royalty in form. At the time of the Torah, the monarchy would
have worn such clothing. The tunic signifies leadership just as Yosef was presented by his
father with a 'tunic of many stripes'...thus, Aharon was to be clothed as a king of ancient
times...the miter is still worn by royalty and nobility to this day...the breastplate and ephod are
regal attire...and the headband is a type of crown. The materials used to make these garments,
namely gold, sky-blue, purple and crimson, are precious and rare."

Thus, the Ramban understands that the Kohen Gadol represented a kind of sovereign, for his
garments of office were fashioned out of unique and expensive materials and in their appearance
resembled the vestments of a king. As we investigate the matter further, we shall discover that the
garments of the Kohen Gadol may have been royal and regal in form, but in substance were
something else altogether.

4
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-shemot/parashat-tetzaveh/garments-high-priest

19
The Special Four Garments

'Me'il' or Robe

Let us explore the idea further by considering the specific construction of some of these
garments. Recall that four out of the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol were worn by the regular
Kohen as well. The breeches, tunic, and belt of the Kohen Gadol were not substantially different
from those of the regular Kohen, although there are traditions maintaining that generally speaking,
the tunic and belt of the Kohen Gadol were prepared from more precious textiles or were woven
with a finer and more beautiful design. The turban or miter of the Kohen Gadol was either of an
entirely different type from that of the regular Kohen, or else was worn in a different manner. In
any case, the more significant differences obviously concern the additional four garments that the
Kohen Gadol donned as an expression of his special role.

The Me'il or robe was worn on top of the tunic and was woven entirely out of precious sky-
blue wool. Upon its bottom rim were placed woven 'pomegranates' made out of sky-blue, purple
and crimson wool. Either alternating between or else within the hollow pomegranates were small
bells of pure gold all around. "Aharon shall wear this robe when he performs the Divine
service. The sound of the bells shall be heard when he enters the Sanctuary before God and when
he goes out, so that he shall not die."

What could be the purpose of this garment? Let us consider that when wearing it, Aharon's
every step is announced by the serene and harmonious chiming of the bells. It is not possible to
walk in this garment without being gently but constantly reminded of its gravity. Although its
outer trappings may resemble the precious and golden vestments of monarchy, the primary
message of this robe is not one of power, wealth, authority or control. The Kohen Gadol is a 'king'
of a different sort. His steps are taken before God and he is always aware of His overarching
presence. The Kohen Gadol stands before God and ministers before Him. The aim of his activities
is to establish a cohesive connection between himself and the Deity. His clothing thus represents
the essential dignity of the human being, the 'regal' bearing of Man which is primarily expressed
by his unique potential to be aware and conscious of God.

20
 Bear in mind that clothing is the outer gesture of our special stature in the world as human
beings. No other creature has the need or the desire to fashion a covering for its naked and exposed
body. No other creature can understand the profound concepts of modesty, humility or restraint
that clothing fundamentally represents. These ideas are uniquely human, and are the product of
the recognition of a Transcendent God in Whose constant presence we live. To don the garments
of the Kohen Gadol is to take on the mantle of living life as a sanctified person, whose every
footstep bespeaks Godliness. As we shall see, the other garments of the Kohen Gadol amplify this
theme.

The 'Ephod' or Vest, and the Breastplate

The ephod was a vest or cape-like garment woven out of threads spun from gold, sky-blue,
purple, and crimson wool and twined linen. Worn on top of the robe, it had two shoulder straps
upon each of which was placed a precious onyx stone set in gold. Upon these two stones were
engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel: "Place the two stones upon the shoulders of the
ephod as remembrance stones for Bnei Yisrael. Aharon shall carry their names on his shoulders
before God as a remembrance." It is clear from this description that the ephod was not simply a
garment of royalty that glorified Aharon. An integral aspect of its construction was the placement
of the two stones on Aharon's shoulders as 'remembrance.' Thus, as Aharon ministers before God,
he carries upon his shoulders the symbolic burden of his office, for he represents the entire people
of Israel. Though he alone is selected to minister before God in the inner chambers of the
Sanctuary, he stands there not as a remote and detached priest of the Deity, as a single and
individual human being, but rather as the embodiment of the entire people. They too stand before
God, for their names are clearly inscribed on his shoulders. His activities as Kohen Gadol, the
deeds associated with hands and arms, are colored by the insignia of the people which he carries
upon the shoulders.

Extending from the shoulder straps of the ephod were two cables of gold from which was
suspended the breastplate, or 'Choshen.' This ornament was fashioned out of a piece of material
woven after the manner of the ephod. It was doubled over, and on its surface twelve gold settings
were placed. In each of the settings was a precious stone associated with one of the tribes. Within
the doubled fold of the breastplate was placed the mysterious 'Urim veTumim,' understood by
some as mystical names of God. Significantly, the theme of remembrance is also associated with
this ornament: "Aharon will carry the names of Bnei Yisrael in the Choshen of Judgement upon
his heart when he enters the holy place, as a constant remembrance before God. You shall place
the Urim veTumim in the breastplate and they shall be upon Aharon's heart when he enters to
minister before God. Aharon will carry the judgement of Israel upon his heart before God
always."

21
 Again, we have a precious, ornamental article of clothing that indicates not glorious
authority but rather the awesome responsibility of representing the people. The judgement of the
people, their standing before God, is symbolized by the placement of their names upon Aharon's
heart. His very life force, the sincerity and integrity of his being, the proverbial 'heart' that the
Torah associates with one's essential and true character, is here linked with the names of the
tribes. This breastplate, composed of the twin elements of the tribal names and the Divine
appellations, is worn upon the heart, for the possibility of a connection between God and Man is a
direct function of the sensitivity and receptivity of one's elemental core.

The Headband

Finally, we have the "Tzitz" or headband that the Ramban understands as a type of
crown. Made out of pure gold, it was inscribed with two words: "Kodesh LaHashem" or "Holy
to God." "This plate shall be worn on Aharon's forehead. Aharon shall thus carry the expiation
for the sacred offerings of Bnei Yisrael...It shall be upon his forehead at all times to make the
offerings of Bnei Yisrael acceptable before God." The headband, like the other 'royal' clothing of
the High Priest, is prepared out of precious and valuable material. But also like those other
vestments, it carries with it a text, a statement of its purpose and meaning. Engraved on its surface
are but two words, but they are the two words that best capture the essential mission of the Kohen
Gadol. He is holy and consecrated to God, for the purpose of his service is to establish a
connection with God and to stand before His presence as a representative of the people. The robe
rings with awareness, the epaulettes of the ephod speak of deeds, the placement of the breastplate
suggests 'heart' or spirit, and the Golden Headband signifies thought. Worn upon the head, it
consecrates the intellect to God's service, for it is acts, emotions, and understanding that make up
the human personality.

The Explanation of Saadia Gaon

In his abridged interpretation to the Book of Shemot, Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (12th
century, Spain) quotes the words of Saadia Gaon (10th century, Babylon) to the effect that the
Mishkan represents a microcosm of the universe as well as a macrocosm of the human
being. Saadia explains that the construction and vessels of the Mishkan have parallels in the larger
universe as well as in the small human being. Thus, for example, the Mishkan contained curtains
to partition its spaces in a hierarchical way. In parallel fashion in the universe at large, the sky
divides the earth from the heavens; in the miniature universe of the human being the diaphragm
separates the 'higher' organs of respiration from the 'lower' organs of digestion. In the larger
universe there are spiritual beings known as 'angels,' in the intermediate dimension of the Mishkan
there are the cherubs which sat upon the Ark, and in the miniature world of the human personality
there is the capacity for thought. Rav Saadia delineates eighteen principal features of the Mishkan,

22
which link it to the universe at large as well as to the human being. Some of the links seem less
convincing than others, but the general thrust of his interpretation is quite compelling.

Most significant for our purposes, Saadia asserts that the Kohen Gadol also has a
counterpart in the larger universe as well as in the microcosm of the human being: "In the world
is humanity, in the Mishkan is the Kohen Gadol, and in the human being is the heart." In other
words, the Kohen Gadol is not to be misunderstood at all as an intermediary, as some sort of
necessary link that bridges the great divide between God and the people of Israel. Rather, when
clothed in his majestic attire he represents all of humanity, and in his capacity as High Priest
proclaims the singular message that the greatest and most honored role of the human being is to
live life in the constant embrace of God. The chasm can indeed be spanned, for the innate qualities
of the human being, the 'heart' of creation, are attuned to a connection with God.

The intrinsic dignity of the person, the so-called royal garments of the Kohen Gadol, is a
function of having been created 'in the Divine image.' That image, however, is only a potential, a
latent state that must be nurtured and developed, in order to be realized. The message of the Kohen
Gadol is that God has given us the opportunity to feel His presence, to sanctify our lives with His
closeness, and to achieve our ultimate purpose as human beings through that nexus. Paradoxically,
however, we must live our lives conditioned by the reality of His proximity in order to encounter
that proximity. By donning the garments of the High Priest we submit to a way of life that is never
far from the experience of God's presence. This experience is not an intellectual or conceptual
construct but rather the most actual and concrete Reality conceivable.

The Mysterious White Garments of Yom Kippur

Rav Yonatan Grossman writes:5

With the conclusion of the unit dealing with ritual impurity (chap. 11-15), Sefer Vayikra proceeds
to discuss the purity of the mishkan itself. After having examined the many forms of ritual impurity
that endanger the Shekhina's residence within the Israelite camp, the Torah now addresses the
solution to this problem: the process of the mishkan's purification, conducted once annually, on
Yom Kippur.

I would like to try to identify the function of the special "bigdei lavan," the white linen garments
donned by the kohen gadol on this special day, referred to by the verse as "bigdei habad" - "linen
clothing." Why must the kohen change out of his standard clothing? Does this change mark a
heightened spiritual quality or perhaps a lower status?

5
https://www.hatanakh.com/sites/herzog/files/herzog/Achrei%20Mot%20-%20Rav%20Yonatan%20Grossman.pdf

23
The Ramban (Vayikra 16:4), quoting Vayikra Rabba, appears to have paved the way for the many
others who followed, by viewing the donning of these garments as indicative of an additional
quality assumed by the kohen gadol during the Yom Kippur service:

"Like the service in the upper spheres - so is the service in the lower spheres: just as in the
service of the upper spheres, one 'person' in [the angels'] midst wears white (seeYechezkel 9:3,
Daniel 10:5), the same occurs in the service in the lower spheres - 'He shall be dressed in a
sacral linen tunic.'"

According to the Ramban, these vestments afford the kohen gadol the appearance of an angel. On
this day, when the kohen purifies the mishkan and the entirety of Benei Yisrael becomes cleansed
from its wrongdoing, the kohen gadol earns this unique quality.

If, however, this is the case, then we would expect to find a similar basis for other instances of the
kohen's wearing bigdei ha-bad. Yet, a review of the other contexts in which the kohen wears these
garments demonstrates just the opposite: a lowering of the kohen's stature.

The Torah makes explicit mention of bigdei ha-bad in two other instances.

1) THE TERUMAT HA-DESHEN, taking up the ashes from the altar (Vayikra 6:3):

"The kohen shall dress in linen apparel, and he shall wear linen trousers on his skin, and he shall
take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar and place them
beside the altar."

A clear parallel exists between this verse and that describing the kohen's garb on Yom Kippur: "He
shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic, and linen trousers shall be on his skin."

This parallel can only mean that the kohen's changing from his traditional vestments on these two
occasions serves the same function in both. Why does the kohen wear special clothing for
removing the ashes from the altar? Chazal (Sifra 82:1; Yoma 23b) understood that the verse in fact
does not require that the kohen change his clothing, but rather teaches that his garments must fit
his size (Rashi and Ramban follow this approach). However, the clear textual association drawn
to the Yom Kippur service indicates that the kohen did, in fact, perform this particular service in
special linen garments.

In a shiur on Parashat Tzav,6 I addressed this brief segment and suggested that the verses describe
two stages of the removal of the ashes from the altar to outside the camp. In the first stage, the
kohen lifts the ashes from altar. As this ritual involves direct contact with the altar, the kohen must
wear the bigdei ha-bad. After this stage concludes with the kohen's placing the ashes "next to the
altar," the verse then proceeds to the second stage: the removal of ashes from the altar's side to an
area outside the camp. The kohen no longer works at the altar itself and may therefore wear other
clothing. According to the Ramban, he may even don ordinary, laymen's clothing; he need not
wear priestly vestments at all. (By contrast, Rashi, following Chazal in Yoma 23b, maintains that
the kohen wears clothing of lower quality but that are nevertheless special priestly garments.) Once

6
http://www.vbmtorah.org/parsha.61/24tzav.htm

24
the kohen takes the ashes outside the camp, the second and last stage of the ashes' trip reaches its
conclusion. According to the simple reading of the text, this procedure must be performed each
morning.

As stated, the ashes' removal consists of two stages, the second of which occurs outside the
boundaries of the mishkan and hence does not require priestly vestments. It involves neither the
mishkan nor the altar, but rather the technical necessity of removing the remaining ashes from atop
the altar. By contrast, during the first stage of this process the kohen comes in direct contact with
the altar and may therefore not wear ordinary clothing during the execution of this task. However,
since this activity is not inherently part of the sacred avoda (service), but rather merely the removal
of ashes, the kohen does not wear the standard priestly garments. Instead, he dons the bigdei ha-
bad. It thus emerges from this commandment that these linen garments reflect not the kohen's
attainment of an additional level, but on the contrary, the lower status of the activity at hand:
preparing the altar for future rituals.

2) THE KOHANIM'S TROUSERS (Shemot 28:42): The second context in which we

encounter a command concerning bigdei bad does not involve a special or specific event;
rather, one of the priestly garments was made of linen. The Torah writes:

"You shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall extend from the hips
to the thighs. They shall be worn by Aharon and his sons when they enter the Tent of Meeting or
when they approach the altar to officiate in the sanctuary, so that they do not incur punishment
and die. It shall be a law for all time for him and for his offspring to come."

How must we understand the significance of the linen in the kohanim's trousers? In order to arrive
at a clearer understanding of this issue, we must address a broader topic: the general role of the
trousers and their relationship to the other priestly vestments. Chapter 28 in Sefer Shemot, which
describes the various garments, opens with a general command listing the vestments to be prepared
for the kohanim:

"These are the vestments they are to make: a breast piece, an ephod, a robe, a checkered tunic, a
headdress, and a sash. They shall make those sacral vestments for your brother Aharon and his
sons, for priestly service to Me." (Shemot 28:4)

The Torah then proceeds one-by-one down this list, outlining the details of the fashioning of each
garment. Surprisingly, however, this brief introductory survey of the garments omits two of them:
the head-plate ("tzitz") and the trousers! The issue of the headplate does not concern us right now,
and we should note that the Torah does devote three verses to describe its fashioning later in this
chapter (36-38). The trousers, by contrast, are absent not only from the introductory verse, but
even from the detailed list presented thereafter.

This presentation concludes in verse 41: "Put these on your brother Aharon and on his sons, as
well; anoint them, ordain them and consecrate them to serve Me as kohanim." This concluding
verse strongly resembles the introduction - "They shall make those sacral vestments for your
brother Aharon and his sons, for priestly service to Me," thus forming a clear, self-contained,

25
literary framework of the priestly garments. Only after the Torah completes this presentation does
it mention the trousers: "You shall make for them linen trousers…"

Why did the Torah delay this commandment until after the conclusion of this section dealing with
the kohanim's garments? Why do the trousers appear as a mere afterthought of sorts? The answer
lies in the verse's characterization of this garment's particular role. Whereas the other vestments
serve to reflect "glory and adornment" (Shemot 28:2), as well as to "sanctify [Aharon] to serve Me
as kohen" (28:3), the trousers are worn "to cover their nakedness… They shall be worn by Aharon
and his sons when they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar to officiate in
the sanctuary, so that they do not incur punishment and die" (28:43). The trousers clearly do not
reflect glory and adornment, nor do they involve the sanctification or consecration of the kohen as
an attendant of the Almighty. They merely fill the technical role of "covering their nakedness."

Here, too, it would seem, the verse refers to the trousers as bigdei bad specifically on account of
their lesser importance compared with the other vestments.

Returning to the Yom Kippur service, I believe that we must view the bigdei ha-bad mentioned in
this parasha in a similar vein. The kohen does not earn an elevated stature by wearing these
garments; to the contrary, he detaches himself entirely from his priestly vestments and wears
clothing of a stature lower than that of his regular priestly garments. Similarly, at the outset of the
parasha, the Torah lists four garments worn by the kohen gadol during the Yom Kippur service,
whereas a kohen gadol generally wears eight special vestments.

The Sages have pointed out that from here we see that the kohen gadol officiates on Yom Kippur
as a kohen hedyot, a regular kohen, who wears only four priestly garments. (See Rashi, 16:4.) If
at first glance a lowering of the kohen gadol's stature on Yom Kippur seems surprising, at second
glance it becomes understandable and even compelling. In an article on the relationship between
Yom Kippur and the initial consecration of the mishkan (the "milu'im"),

Rav Yoel Bin-Nun explains that this relationship is manifest in four ways:7

1. The Torah presents the Yom Kippur service after its description of the eighth and final day of
the milu'im and emphasizes this association in the opening verse of our parasha: "God spoke to
Moshe after the death of Aharon's two sons [which occurred on the final day of the milu'im]"
(16:1).

2. Both Yom Kippur and the eighth day of the milu'im feature two distinct systems of korbanot:
those of the kohanim and those of Am Yisrael. Throughout the seven days of the consecration,
too, we find a double system of korbanot.

3. A strong textual parallel between the two contexts also underscores this association. On the
eighth day of the consecration, Moshe tells Aharon, "Approach the altar and sacrifice your sin
offering and your burnt offering and atone for you and for the nation; and sacrifice the people's
offering and atone for them, as God had commanded" (Vayikra 9:7). Compare this verse with the
following expressions found in the Torah's description of the Yom Kippur service: "Aharon shall

7
see http://www.vbmtorah.org/parsha/26shemin.htm or Megadim vol. 8, pp. 34-39

26
sacrifice the bull of his sin offering and atone for himself and for his household… He shall atone
for himself and for his household and the entire congregation of Israel" (Vayikra 16:6,11,17).

4. On both the eighth day of the milu'im and Yom Kippur, the Shekhina descends. In the former
case, the entire nation earned this revelation, which occurred on the outer altar, whereas on Yom
Kippur the Shekhina is revealed only to the kohen gadol, in the innermost sanctuary.

In addition to these bases of association, we should mention that many parallels exist in Talmudic
literature between the laws of Yom Kippur, including the preparations for the day ("The kohen
gadol would be separated from his home for seven days prior to Yom Kippur" - Mishna Yoma
1:1), and the eighth day of the mishkan's consecration.

It would seem that the basic relationship drawn by the Torah between these two events points to
one's functioning as the continuation of the other. On Yom Kippur, the kohen purifies the mishkan
and altar from the impurities generated throughout the year, effectively restoring the mishkan to
its earliest beginnings before the surfacing of any impurity. Meaning, on Yom Kippur the mishkan
returns to the status it had on the eighth day of its initial consecration, when the Shekhina first
entered its "home," so to speak. We could perhaps formulate this idea in allegorical terms: Yom
Kippur marks the renewed "birthday" of the mishkan, the point at which it returns to its original
state, thus allowing the Shekhina to dwell in a home clean of spiritual impurities. On this day, the
mishkan is thoroughly cleansed from the "defects" it accumulated over the course of the year as a
result of Benei Yisrael's impurity.

This comparison, however, involves more than just the cleansing of the mishkan. Just as the
mishkan's initial consecration involved an additional stage beyond the anointing of themishkan's
vessels with oil (preparing them for the Shekhina), so must we anticipate a parallel feature on Yom
Kippur. We refer to the kohanim's donning of their priestly garments. The Torah emphasizes this
component of the original consecration of the mishkan:

"Moshe brought Aharon and his sons forward and washed them with water. He put the tunic on
him, girded him with the sash, clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod on him, girding him
with the decorated band with which he tied it to him. He put the breastpiece on him and put into
the breastpiece the Urim Ve-tumim. And he set the headdress on his head; and on the headdress,
in front, he put the gold frontlet, the holy diadem - as God had commanded Moshe." (Vayikra 8:6-
9)

The importance of this ceremony, the dressing of the kohanim, cannot be overlooked. As an
integral part of the mishkan, they, like the vessels therein, required formal consecration through
the sprinkling of blood and oil (as described there in chapter 8) as well as through dressing them
in their special vestments. As we have seen, these garments serve, among other purposes, as "glory
and adornment;" they prepare the kohanim for their service in the mishkan. As such, the donning
of the special clothing earns its place as part of the milu'im, the general process of preparation for
the Shekhina's descent onto the mishkan.

What about Yom Kippur? Are the kohanim dressed anew in the priestly garments then, too? Do
they, too, undergo renewed purification on this "birthday" of the mishkan? Undoubtedly, the Torah

27
strongly emphasizes the kohanim's atonement as an individual community on Yom Kippur, not
merely as part of Am Yisrael; the special sacrifices of the kohen gadol serve this very purpose.
Beyond that, however, even the kohanim's donning of their priestly garments undergoes a renewal
on this day, just as during the original consecration.

It seems that the white garments of the kohen gadol, the bigdei ha-bad, serve precisely this
function. As we have seen, when serving with these garments, the kohen descends from his normal
stature, reflected by his usual clothing. The verse must emphasize that "they are sacred garments"
(16:4) because this is not at all self-evident. These garments allow the kohen gadol to serve in the
mishkan despite their falling short of the stature of his usual vestments. However, these garments
serve but one purpose: to define the kohen as returning to his "pre-garment" state. He wears these
bigdei ha-bad only so that he can change into his normal priestly garments later that day, assuming
his renewed appointment for service in the mishkan.

As we saw earlier regarding the terumat ha-deshen, the kohen wears the bigdei ha-bad in instances
where he must officiate in the mishkan without his usual, unique stature as a kohen. Whereas when
dusting off the altar this results from a lower-level activity, on Yom Kippur this involves the return
of the kohen - together with the mishkan - to its prior state, before his original consecration.

If so, then we must identify the precise point during the Yom Kippur service at which the kohen
changes back into his year-round garments. It seems to me that the Torah refers to this clothing
change immediately following the sending of the scapegoat (se'ir la-azazel):

"Aharon shall go into the Tent of Meeting, take off the linen vestments that he put on when he
entered the Shrine, and leave them there. He shall bathe his body in water in the holy precinct and
put on his vestments." (16:23)

At this point, when the entire service has been completed, the kohen receives permission to once
again wear "his vestments," his usual priestly garments. (This follows the majority view held by
Chazal and most commentators; Ibn Ezra disagrees.) The formulation of this verse seems to stress
the contrast between the two changes of clothing: "[He shall] take off the linen vestments that he
put on when he entered the Shrine." Why must the Torah reiterate the kohen's having worn these
linen clothes when performing the service in the Sanctuary? We would have expected the verse to
state more simply that he changes his clothing, and we would have naturally associated this
reference with the garments he currently wears, the same clothing worn during the service - the
bigdei habad. Can one change out of clothing other than those he currently wears?

Apparently, the verse wishes to highlight the contrast between the two types of clothing of which
it speaks: "the linen vestments that he put on when he entered the Shrine" on the one hand, and
"his vestments" on the other. The first refers to clothing with no inherent connection to the person
wearing them; they are worn only for a specific purpose and function. These garments are not
those of the kohen gadol, but rather those worn when he enters the Sanctuary for the Yom Kippur
service. The second change of clothing, by contrast, are "HIS vestments," the garments of the
kohen gadol, his special clothing worn regularly as he attends to his responsibilities in the mishkan.

28
It is worth noting that the term "begadav," "his vestments," appears in two additional instances in
the Yom Kippur section in our parasha, both in reference to one's normal clothing. (See verse 26
regarding the clothing of the one commissioned to send away the goat, and verse 28 in reference
to the one who burns the sin-offerings.)

The kohen must immerse himself prior to receiving and wearing his priestly vestments. Together
with the mishkan that has now been purified and the entire nation whose sins have now been
forgiven, the kohen is granted permission to conduct the sacred service of his Creator for an
additional year.

The Kohen Gadol Clothes of Adam HaRishom

Rabbi Zave Rudman writes:8
The Ba’al HaTurim teaches us that there is a correlation between the clothes that HaShem gave
Adam HaRishon and the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol . What are we meant to learn from
this?

If we further follow the path of Adam’s clothing we find that it is passed down from generation to
generation till it reaches Nimrod. Nimrod is described as a “Great hunter before HaShem” and he
uses this garment to attract the animals that he is trapping . Eisav then tricks Nimrod into giving
him these clothes, he uses them to kill Nimrod, and he then keeps them

.
If so what is the connection between the clothes of the Kohen and the ability to attract the animals?

8
https://rabbirudman.wordpress.com/about/

29
Further, why were the special clothes that HaShem gives Adam as he is evicted from Gan Eden,
unique in that they can attract animals? Why does Adam need that ability as he leaves Gan Eden?

If we continue to follow the history of these clothes, Eisav stores them by his mother, and Yaakov
then uses them to disguise himself to get the Berachos . Why does Yaakov need them at this
moment? Even more difficult, since Yitzchak is blind it would seem that clothes are the least
important part of the disguise to deceive a blind person? Also, what is the meaning of the Rashi
that Eisav was concerned his wives would steal them so he kept the clothes by his parents?

To understand this, we need to analyze the confrontation between Yaakov and Eisav. The original
plan of the twins of Yaakov and Eisav was that Yaakov is Yisaschar, the learner of Torah, the Ish
Tam sitting in the tent. Eisav is Zevulon, the Ish Sadeh involved in the world of commerce to
support Yaakov. Yaakov is perfectly happy with this arrangement; he has no desire to be involved
in the outside world. And this arrangement is what Yitzchok thinks he is strengthening by giving
Eisav all the Berachos of the physical world . Yitzchok who is blinded by the tears of the Akeidah
can see only the upper spiritual realms and cannot see the baser aspects of Eisav and is sure that
the partnership between Yaakov and Eisav is the optimum way to further the goals of the Avos.
Rivkah on the other hand is aware that Eisav will take the Berachos and use them for his own
purposes, and not use them to further the efforts of Yaakov. Therefore, she commands Yaakov to
take the Berachos for himself, to use them for the proper ends, and Yaakov then becomes both
himself and Eisav, Yisachar and Zevulon.

In a parallel sense the service of the Kohen is to take the physical parts of the world; animals, birds,
flour wine etc. and brings them to HaShem. So what Yaakov is actually getting with the Berachos
is the Kehuna. Therefore, Yaakov needs the Bigdei Kehuna at this point.

In a perfect world all the physical parts of the world would come on their own to be used by man
to serve HaShem. In Gan Eden that happened. There were angels who did everything for Adam .
When Adam sinned, he was evicted, but HaShem leaves him a connection to the world of Gan
Eden where all that he needs to serve HaShem is brought to him. These are the garments that bring
all the animals to him to enable Adam’s continued service of HaShem with all the components of
the physical world.

We find this idea that the animals come on their own volition to be used to serve HaShem in four
places. Firstly, by the Ark of Noah. It is brought down that the animals came on their own to fulfill
HaShem’s will that they be saved . Secondly, the Midrash says that in Shlomo’s time the animals
that were used in his palace lined up each morning to be shechted. Thirdly, the cow that was
brought on Har HaCarmel by Eliyahu went willingly to its sacrifice. And lastly, if not for the Satan
trapping the ram in the brush, the ram of the Akeidah was running towards the Mizbeach to be
brought as a Korban.

30
By Eisav we see the opposite. Each animal that he trapped to bring to his father, was released by
an angel. This is the same idea as the angels helping Adam, but in the inverse. Since Eisav’s goal
was not to serve HaShem the world acts against him .

But any power can also be used incorrectly. Nimrod and Eisav used this ability to attract the
animals and misused this power not to serve HaShem but for their own evil purposes. Yaakov at
the time of receiving the Berachos is retrieving this power and returning it to good. The Midrash
describes Yaakov as the Kohen Gadol . He is now getting all the blessings of the physical world
and directing them toward Hashem. Therefore, there is nothing more appropriate than to retrieve
Adam’s clothing from Eisav who has mis-used them, to use it for its correct purpose.

That is why Eisav keeps the garments in his parents’ home. This is the only place where he is
involved in mitzvoth, the Mitzvah of Kibud Av, and, therefore, this is where he wears his garments
of Avodah. And that is why he keeps them away from his wives. Since this is the one place where
Eisav does do something good, he does not want his wives to abuse those clothes as he did .

This idea of the proper use of the Kehuna is the original debate between Yaakov and Eisav. Yaakov
asks Eisav to sell him the Bechora. This takes place right after Eisav steals the Bigdei
Adam/Kehuna from Nimrod . Eisav asks, “What is the Bechora?” Yaakov says it is the Kehunah.
Says Eisav, what do I need that for! Eisav wants the clothes but not to be the Kohen. Yaakov wants
to be the Kohen and therefore needs the clothes .

This can also explain why Dama ben Nesina does a great Mitzvah of Kibud Av through a part of
the Bigdei Kohen Gadol .

In the Megila we learn that Achashveraus wears the clothes of the Kohen Gadol at his feast . Based
on what we have explained, this can be seen as a continuation of the battle between Yaakov and
Eisav. Achashveraus wants to use those garments to bring all physical pleasures down into his
realm, to celebrate what he thought was the ultimate nullification of the bais hamikdash. But
instead, from that feast where Vashti was executed, as a result, Esther became queen, and her son
Daryavesh rebuilt the Bais HaMikdosh, and we returned the Bigdei Kehuna to their rightful status.

On Purim we reenact the confrontation of Yaakov and Eisav, and we are also meant to use our

31
physical gifts to serve HaShem. But as each of us goes through life, are we using Adam’s clothes
that we all wear as Eisav or as Yaakov?9

Royal Clothing

Rabbi Ari Kahn writes:10

While parshat Terumah addressed the materials needed to construct the Mishkan and its utensils,
parshat Tetzaveh addresses those who would serve in the Mishkan; the kohanim - Aharon and
sons. (Ex 27:20-30:10)

And take to you Aharon your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, that
he may serve me as a kohen; Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, Elazar and Itamar, Aharon's sons. And
you shall make holy garments for your brother Aharon for splendor and for glory. (Shmot 28:1-2)

The Torah then describes the clothing of the kohanim:

And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and an
embroidered tunic, a turban, and a sash; and they shall make holy garments for your brother Aharon
and his sons, to serve me as kohanim. And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet
wool, and fine linen. (Shmot 28:4-5)

These instructions contain a combination of materials that is prohibited in all other garments:

You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not
sow your field with mixed seed; nor shall a garment mixed of linen and wool come upon
you. (Vayikra 19:19)

You shall not wear shaatnez (a garment made of different sorts), wool and linen
together. (Devarim 22: 11)

Why would something which is forbidden in one context be deemed not only permissible, but a
crucial part of divine service, in another context? This is not an insurmountable problem in theory:
just as God declares this combination inappropriate in non-divine usage, He declares this as an
approved element of ritual service in the Mishkan. And yet, unassailable as this logic may be, the
reader is left with the task of understanding the underlying truths contained in both the prohibition
and its exception. Perhaps if we understand why the Torah prohibits making garments from a
mixture of wool and linen, we will be better able to understand why that prohibition is set aside
for the bigdei kehuna, the priestly clothes.

9
Yaakov brings to Yitzchak two goats. Rashi says that those are two Korbanos, the Korban Pesach and a Chagiga. Based on
what we said above, he puts on the Bigdei Kehuna, and when he brings them to his father who is obviously a Talmid Chochom;
that is like bringing a Korban. (Interestingly, Kayin and Hevl bring a Pesach, Avrohom and now Yaakov.)
10
https://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/84909537.html

32
However, this poses a problem for Shaatnez is categorized as a hok, a law whose rationale eludes
us. But while the reasons or reasoning behind laws of this type are not expressly stated in the
Torah, our sages were not against offering suggestions of their own to explain hukim. In general,
a distinction is made between mishpatim and hukim: Mishpatim are laws which might logically or
naturally spring from the necessity to regulate and organize human interaction. Devoid of any
divine imperative, people could have or would have created laws similar to those categorized as
mishpatim. Their rationale is logical, clear, and would likely have been dictated by human nature
and the necessity for a "social contract". Laws prohibiting murder, theft and adultery would easily
fit into this category.

Hukim are laws which operate on different strata; often, they are symbolic representations of larger
ideas. These laws are not intuitive, nor would human intelligence alone enable us to anticipate
their necessity. Nonetheless, rabbinic tradition does not consider the rationale of
a hok impenetrable or beyond our understanding.(1) Shaatnez is a prime example: Wool comes
from the animal kingdom, while linen grows from the ground, and the writers of the midrash
explain that these two divergent sources represent two individuals, who at the dawn of history
delved into these two respective realms.

And she again bore his brother Hevel. And Hevel was a keeper of sheep, but Kayin was a tiller of
the ground.

Kayin was a farmer, and his brother Hevel was a shepherd. Each of them, apparently
independently, attempts to serve God by bringing an offering. This, then, is the first time in history
that men initiate sacrifice as a means of coming closer to God. It is this aspect of their offering that
is reminiscent of the service of the kohanim, the agents through which all of Israel can bring their
individual and collective sacrifices before God.

An era ended (in the course of time), and Kayin brought some of his crops as an offering to God.
Hevel also offered some of the firstborn of his flocks and from the fattest ones, and God paid heed
to Hevel and his offering. And to Kayin and his offering God paid no heed, and Kayin became
furious and crestfallen. (Bereishit 4:3-5)

Although each of the brothers hoped to serve God in his own way, jealousy plagued their
relationship, and soon Hevel became the victim of his brother's rage. The Midrash explains that as
a result of this senseless murder a new law was introduced - a law that preserves and separates the
two different realms of Kayin and Hevel, represented by wool and linen.(2) The rationale of
this hok may be best expressed as a method of separating divergent strands, re-establishing clarity
that was obscured by sin.

Kayin's behavior deserves a closer look in this context: while it contained no shaatnez, there was
clearly something terribly wrong with his offering. A common denominator exists between Kayin
and the prohibition against shaatnez: The Zohar teaches that Kayin himself was combination of
two species. Kayin was conceived in the aftermath of the sin, indelibly stamped with the confusion
of good and evil that resulted from his parents' eating from the forbidden tree. Thus, the
prohibitions of kilayim and shaatnez are an outgrowth of that first sin, that first confusion. The
poison which the Serpent convinced Hava to ingest was, in a word, confusion of good and evil. It

33
is this venom that runs through Kayin's veins, and eventually mutates into the evil that gives birth
to murder.

The Talmud traces this particular strand of evil down through the ages,(3) from the Serpent through
Eve to Kayin.(4) The spiritual heirs of this satanic streak are to be found in certain key positions
throughout our history and are embodied in the tribe of Amalek. One of the most insidious
descendants of Amalek was a man named Haman, and rabbinic tradition stresses Haman's spiritual
origins:

Haman was an extension of the confusion of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Where is Haman indicated in the Torah? In the verse: 'Did you eat from the tree (hamin ha'etz)
[from which I commanded you not to eat]?' (Talmud Bavli Hullin 139b)

Like the Serpent, like Kayin, Haman was blinded by jealousy and hatred, and, as before, his fury
turned murderous. The Serpent sought Adam's death, Kayin sought Hevel's death, and Haman was
willing to destroy the entire Jewish people because he was slighted by one Jew.

Who was this one Jew, the bane of Haman's existence and the object of his murderous wrath? The
Talmud's very brief comments give us a wealth of information:

Where is Mordecai indicated in the Torah? In the verse (Shmot 31): 'Flowing myrrh', which the
Targum renders as mira dachia. (Talmud Bavli Hullin 139b)

Mordechai is associated with the incense brought in the Mishkan. One of the primary tasks of
the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur is to bring the incense into the inner chamber, and the association
of Mordechai with this central ritual of atonement is echoed and reinforced throughout the Book
of Esther.

The theme of the clothes of the Kohen Gadol, detailed in this week's parsha, serves as an ironic
subtext to the story of Purim. As the Megilah begins, we are told of the ostentatious celebrations
King Ahashverosh orchestrates, to which he wears the finest splendor.

When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellent majesty many
days, one hundred and eighty days. (Esther 1:4)

The Talmud notes a linguistic relationship between the clothing of the king and the clothing of
the Kohen Gadol:

"When he showed the riches of his glorious [tif'eret] kingdom": R. Yose b. Hanina said: 'This
shows that he arrayed himself in the priestly robes. It is written here [Esther 1:4], 'the riches of his
glorious [tif'eret] kingdom', and it is written elsewhere [in connection with the priestly
garments, Shmot 28], 'for splendor and for glory, [tif'eret]. (Talmud Bavli Megila 12a)

34
This linguistic similarity is more than coincidental. The Talmud unlocks for us a rich and
significant sub-text by highlighting the use of these very specific descriptions. The great
celebrations in Shushan were far from benign:

"In the third year of his reign, he made a feast." (Esther 1:3) R. Yehudah and R. Nehemiah gave
different explanations. R. Yehudah said: 'It means, in the third year of the making of the throne.
When he finished making the throne, "he made a feast for all his princes and his servants."' R.
Nehemiah said: 'In the third year after he stopped the building of the Temple. When three years
had passed after he stopped the building of the Temple, he made a feast...) (Midrash Rabbah
- Esther 1:15)

Ahashverosh donned the clothing of the Kohen Gadol and celebrated the fact that his Jewish
subjects would remain dispersed and disunited. The construction of the new Temple had come to
a halt; Jerusalem would remain barren, and the Jews would remain in exile.

The atmosphere among the Jews of Shushan was one of total confusion; instead of partaking in
the Chanukat Habayit, the dedication of the Temple by the Kohen Gadol, they participate in
festivities that mark the failure to rebuild the Temple. A drunken, lecherous despot wears the
clothes of the High Priest. Confusion reigns; death and destruction seem close at hand.

Mordechai alone seems unconfused. He remembers who he is and where he is. He knows what the
Jews need, what they must do. But he also fears that without the Temple, without repentance, they
have little hope. There is no Kohen, no incense, no sacrificial rite with which to bring about a
national awakening. Even the holy garments of the Kohen Gadol have been captured. And so,
Mordechai dons sackcloth, shedding all the confusion that the trappings of the court engender,
rejecting every expression of reconciliation with the festive atmosphere around him. In this
context, other seemingly minor elements of the Book of Esther are cast in a new light: When
Ahashverosh looks for a fitting reward for a loyal supporter, Haman's response resonates with new
overtones: the honoree should be dressed in clothing worn by the king - not "the kings clothing",
but the clothing that the king has worn. We now understand that this is no arbitrary suit of clothes:
it is the clothing of the Kohen Gadol that Haman wants. But at that point Haman is humiliated and
forced to give these royal clothes to Mordechai.

Mordechai does not attend the party; he refuses to drink the wine, declines the king's offer of
forbidden fruit.(5) He alone will not bow to temptation; he will not bow to Haman.(6) With prayer
and a great deal of Divine intervention, his cousin Esther is catapulted to the palace and soon a
plan takes form. The plan itself seems to play on the jealousy and anger of two evil men; through
their weakness, salvation emerges. Haman's own hunger for power and glory lead to Mordechai
being paraded through Shushan in the clothes of the Kohen Gadol. Haman's murderous fury leads
to his own hanging from the gallows he prepared for Mordechai. Achashverosh's delight in the
collapse of the aspirations of the Jewish People leads to the birth of new hope and the eventual
completion of the Temple.

Parshat Tetzaveh describes the clothing worn in the Temple, and these clothes are necessarily
different from our normal attire. Ours is a world steeped in petty jealousy and hatred, a world
driven mad by the confusion between good and evil. The prohibition against shaatnez is a

35
symbolic reminder of the confusion that leads to death. As we are diligent in our dress, and we
take care to maintain the distinction between the realms represented by wool and linen, we make
a symbolic commitment. Through observance of the laws of shaatnez in our daily comportment,
we remind ourselves that the hatred and jealousy between Kayin and Hevel resulted in fratricide,
and we commit ourselves never to repeat this sin.(7)

Life within the confines of the Temple is quite different. The Temple is our meeting place with
God. Here, as we approach God, confusion is dispelled. Within the Beit HaMikdash, wool and
linen can be combined, must be combined. Here, sanity reigns; clarity triumphs. The Temple is a
place of unity, straddling the territories of Yehuda, son of Leah, and Binyamin, son of Rachel.(8)
Here, brothers are united; here, even Kayin and Hevel can exist side by side. This unity is the
defining trait of Mordechai:

There was a man of Yehuda in Shushan the capital, and his name was Mordechai, son of Yair, son
of Shim'i, son of Kish, a Benjaminite. (Esther 2:5)

Like the Beit HaMikdash itself,(9) Mordechai is both of Yehuda and of Binyamin. Mordechai
represents unity and harmony, reconciliation and clarity. He was uniquely capable of seeing
through the confusion. He was a symbol of the Temple, and of the Kohen Gadol. Like the incense
that brought about forgiveness for the people, Mordechai was an agent of healing. He was the
rightful owner of the 'garments of splendor and glory,' the rightful heir of the Kohen Gadol who
used incense to dispel the confusion that causes sin. In truth, the holy clothing in which he was
eventually adorned were an expression of his own inner 'splendor and glory.'(10)

NOTES
1. See Rabbi Abraham Besdin's adaptation of the lectures of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, Man of Faith in the Modern World:
Reflections of the Rav, volume 2 (Hoboken New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 1989), pp. 91-116.

2. According to the Midrash, the produce that Kayin offered was linen. See MidrashTanchuma Bereishit (Warsaw edition) section
9; Zohar part 3: 87a; Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer chapter 21; Hizkuni and Baalei Tosafot to Devarim 22:10; Vilna Gaon commentary to
the "Sifra Dezt'niuta" chapter 4. Also see Explorations (Jerusalem: Targum Press, 2000), Parshat Bereishit and Parshat Kedoshim.

3. Shaatnez has the same letters as SaTaN AZ, which means 'powerful satanic force'. See Recanati on the Torah, Parshat Tetzaveh;
Rabbi Yeshayahu Horowitz, Shnei Luchot Habrit Parshat Ki Tetzeh.

4. For more on this theme see my essay on In Search of the Serpent http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2009/10/parshat-bereshit-5770-in-
search-of.html

5. According to many commentaries, the fruit of the forbidden tree in Eden was grapes, wine.

6. The Serpent tried to convince Hava that eating from the forbidden tree would transform them into gods; Haman, who required
obeisance from all the king's subjects, attempted to set himself up as a deity as well.

36
7. See my book Explorations Parshat Kedoshim, where I note that the prohibition on shatnez immediately follows the verse
instructing us to "love your neighbor as yourself".

8. For a more detailed discussion of this idea, see my notes on Parshat Ki Tisa-Purim
5769: http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2009/03/parshat-ki-tisa-purim-5769-mar-dror.html

9. See Talmud Bavli Yoma 12a.

10. But even these garments, the unique and otherwise-prohibited combination of wool and linen, do not complete the picture. The
Zohar notes that on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when the Kohen Gadol enters the inner sanctum to seek forgiveness for
the sins of the nation, he wears garments of pure linen, not mixed with wool. Significantly, it is linen clothing, the clothing
reminiscent of Kayin, the man with blood on his hands, that is worn on Yom Kippur when approaching God. This is paralleled by
Aharon who bore guilt for the idolatrous calf entering into the Mishkan on Yom Kippur (the holiday which commemorates the
forgiveness granted the Jews after the Golden Calf). This garment represents Kayin's attempt to serve God prior to his offering
being rejected. See Rav Yehonatan Eybeshitz, Yaarot Dvash part one drush 5.

THE HISTORY OF LINEN FABRIC

JESSICA BUCCI writes:11

Back in the days of early civilization, clothing was (obviously) not the most glamorous. Namely,
you would throw on an animal pelt and call it a day. Fabric as we know it today didn’t exist, and
so garments were heavy and probably pretty gross.

Fortunately, us humans are resourceful creatures, and would come to discover the fiber that
inspired the fabrics we are familiar with today: linen.

Linen is beautiful, soft, and perhaps the earliest known constructed textile. For example, in the
country of Georgia, archaeologists discovered 34,000 year old flax fibers that had evidently been
dyed bright, lovely colors by our creative forefathers.

Indeed, once civilization reached the point of being able to cultivate land, this became a game-
changer for clothing and fabric. People began to grow flax, and from this plant linen was made.
The fibers were woven up into fabric and pelts were shed in favor of this more manageable (and
probably cleaner) raw material.

11
https://startupfashion.com/linen/

37
Since the flax plant is native to many places around the world, from Northern Africa to India to
Western Europe, linen has roots and history in a variety of cultures.

In Mesopotamia, the labor-intensive growing and manufacturing process for linen made it
extremely valuable. So much so, that only royalty or religious leaders such as priests could be
deemed worthy of wearing it, or even afford it.

In ancient Egypt, linen was also prized for it’s rarity, but other factors contributed to its value as
well. Egyptians recognized its quality; linen is lightweight, resistant to insects and wicks away
moisture- perfect for a hot climate. Additionally, in ancient Egyptian culture hygiene was
extremely important, and linen, with its anti-microbial properties and smooth texture was
considered to be a pure material. In fact, it was believed that the whiter the fabric, the purer the
garment, even going so far as to call it “woven moonlight.”

Knowing all of this, it’s no surprise that Egyptian priests were only allowed to wear linen. The
fabric (and bright white color) was in high demand for use in various rituals. Back then; the job of
“Chief Royal Bleacher” was an actual profession, albeit a rigorous one. Art from the time depicts
an intense process of rising and scrubbing the fabric, pounding it on a stone, rubbing the fabric
with leather, and repeating until it can finally be laid to dry in the sun. Linen was so well taken
care of, that when archaeologists discovered the pharaoh Tutankhamun in 1922, parts of the linen
wrappings that covered the body were almost perfectly preserved, despite the centuries that had
passed.

When the Romans conquered Egypt in the 4th century B.C., their take on linen went in the exact
opposite direction. While Egyptian fabrics were characterized by the whitest of whites, Romans
brought with them vivid, bright dyes.

In his writings, Pliny the Elder spoke of a competition hosted by Alexander the Great as he was
sailing the Indus River. As the first man to attempt to dye linen, he presented a challenge to his
generals: who could dye his sails the most striking color? He even had spectators from the
riverbanks serve as judges while the ships sailed by. The Roman color craze continued into
Caesar’s reign. The dictator even ordered the linen awnings that stretched across the entirety of
the Roman Forum to be “dyed blue and spangled with stars”.

Phoenician traders first brought linen to Europe around 900 B.C., and Romans established linen
factories in both Britain and Gaul in order to keep up with supply and demand for their colonial
forces. However, its use did not come to prominence within Europe until the Middle Ages.

All kinds of clothing were cut from linen cloth, and by the 16th century, flax cultivation was
widespread. Rather than being reserved for a select few, the fabric had exploded in popularity.

38
 12

It is the Jews of Babylon, living on the way between the Land of Israel and India, who had the first
historically palpable, pragmatic encounters with Indian people and goods. No longer is India a
remote, unnamed place which sends spices to the Temple and fairy-tale animals to the king as in
the First Temple period, nor is it the mythical home of moral heroes who prefer to kill themselves
rather than betray their beliefs, as reported in Hellenistic stories. For the Jews of Babylon, who
elaborated the Babylonian Talmud, India is real and it is near.

In Talmudic times, Babylonian Jews knew the location of India. However, some of the Sages still
argued about the location of the two countries when they commented on the phrase me-hodu-ve-
od-kush (from India to Ethiopa), which is found early in the Book of Esther – the only mention of
India in the Hebrew Bible. Some did understand that India was “at one end of the world, Kush at
the other,” but others thought they were neighbors.38 Some of this confusion is probably due to
the powerful Kushan Empire, which rose in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and collapsed in the 3rd and
4th centuries, exactly when the Mishnah and Talmud were written. Kushan comprised a large part
of today’s Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the Hindu-Kush mountain range, and, hence, was
indeed adjacent to Persia and India.

The Talmud has many direct and indirect Indian references, but the Indian origin of particular
goods is purely incidental. The Talmud knows three categories of products from India. The first
and most important includes products indispensable for religious services. The second is luxury
foodstuffs the Jews could not do without. The third includes staple products of daily necessity.

To the first category belongs a precious Indian textile. The Mishnah discusses the immersions of
the High Priest in the Temple on Yom Kippur. When he emerged from the immersion in the
afternoon, he would don the finest, expensive Hinduyin, that is Indian or Hindu, linen.39 Also, we
find again, as in the Bible, the spices and fragrances necessary for Temple services. The Talmud
gives the exact recipe for the required spice mixture, many of them Indian.40 Among these, the
Temple fragrance cinnamon, produced from an Indian tree bark, had a magic reputation that
spawned nostalgia “When they would burn some of these, their fragrances would waft through all
of the Land of Israel. But when Jerusalem was destroyed they were hidden and only the size of a
barley grain remained.”41 Of comparable religious importance was and is the Etrog fruit, necessary
for the Sukkot celebrations. The Etrog appears in the Mishnah. It is not a Semitic word. Rabin was
convinced that the word, as well as the fruit itself, came from South India.42

The second category contains two Indian luxury foodstuffs for which there was apparently great
Jewish demand in Babylon: pepper and ginger. The Jews, like the Romans, loved pepper, pilpalta
in Aramaic and pilpel in Hebrew, both derived from Sanskrit pippali. Those “earlier ones (the

12
http://jppi.org.il/en/article/india/toc/chapters/history/mishnah-talmud/#.YJugcmZKh0t

39
generations before the start of the pepper trade) who did not have pepper” had to be content with
a less delicious spice.43 Pepper even appears in popular proverbs: “One sharp pepper (sharp
argument) is better than a basketful of pumpkins (weak arguments).”44 From ancient to early
modern times, India was the only source of pepper reaching the Middle East and Europe, and the
Jews must have been aware of its origin, no less than the Greeks and Romans. Indian ginger,
zangvila in Aramaic and zangvil in Hebrew, a name of ancient Indian origin, was equally popular
– particularly when it was used for a sweet Indian delicacy called in Aramaic hamalta, made of
ground ginger and honey. However, hamalta raised issues of religious law, which is the only reason
why it is mentioned. Was it allowed or forbidden? “The hamalta that comes from the land of the
Hindus is allowed?,” asks the Talmud. Is it not forbidden to eat food cooked by gentiles? Yes, but
ginger can be eaten raw, hence hamalta is not considered “food cooked by gentiles.”45 Hamalta is
again raised in the context of the laws of fasting on Yom Kippur. One authority reports that it is
allowed. How is this possible? Is not ginger proper food? “No problem,” says the Talmud.
Forbidden is fresh ginger, but here we speak of dry ginger, which is allowed (to be tasted).46 It
seems the rabbis made special efforts to accommodate the Jewish addiction to this Indian delicacy.

Among the staple products that the Jews imported from India were rice and iron. Chaim Rabin
argued for a South Indian origin of rice and found an apparent root for the Talmudic word for rice,
ores, in the Tamil arici, peeled rice.47 Rice was an important Jewish food staple for many centuries.
It came by sea to South Arabia and Babylon, and from there, by land to Israel. Again, its
consumption raised religious questions. What type of cereal is it, and therefore, which religious
blessings have to be said before consuming rice? Such questions fill several pages in the
Talmud.48 The Talmud does not mention the Indian origin of rice, but it does so for Indian raw
iron. Why is there a problem with trading in Indian iron? Because idolaters could hammer it into
weapons in order to commit murder, and Jews are forbidden to facilitate murder. This should not
be a problem, states the Talmud: “Said Raw Ashi: to the Persians who protect us (we sell the
iron)!”49 Apparently, the alliance between the Jews and their Persian protectors initiated by King
Cyrus eight centuries earlier was still intact.

The Talmud tells two fascinating anecdotes about an Indian convert to Judaism. “Rabbi Yehuda
Hinduyi” the Indian or Hindu, was a storyteller; like other rabbis, he, too, used fables to convey
moral messages. “Once we were going on a ship and we saw a certain precious stone (meaning
human wisdom or intellect) which was surrounded by a sea monster. A diver descended to bring
it up. Then the monster approached with the purpose of swallowing the ship, when a raven came
to bit off its head.”50 The monster is a metaphor for the yetzer harah, evil inclination or craving for
forbidden pleasure, explain some of the traditional Talmudic commentators. The “evil inclination”
was and is indeed a Rabbinic preoccupation. Did Rabbi Yehuda infuse his adopted Judaism with
Hindu principles of asceticism and abstinence, which were familiar to him? Did he regard them as
comparable to Rabbinic teaching? The hypothesis is tempting but impossible to verify. Later, when
Rabbi Yehudah lay on his deathbed, Mar Zutra visited him. Three sages have the name Mar Zutra.
The one in question here was either Mar Zutra I, the head of the famous Talmud academy of
Pumpedita (4th century CE) or Mar Zutra II, the Resh Galuta, or “Exilarch,” the political and
spiritual leader of Babylonian Jewry (ca. 500 CE). Mar Zutra started a proceeding to ensure he
would inherit his friend’s slave. In Talmudic law, the property of a convert who did not father
children after becoming a Jew is free for all to take at the owner’s death. As Rabbi Yehudah had
no Jewish children, his slave would have become a freeman and a Jew – except that Mar Zutra had

40
other ideas about the man’s future.51 The impending death of the Indian convert was an opportunity
for the Talmud to raise some legal fine points in regard to the inheritance of a convert’s estate.
From Mar Zutra’s friendship we can infer that Rabbi Yehudah was himself a highly respected
personality. Mar Zutra’s endeavors to keep the convert’s slave should be seen as a sign of affection,
not of greed. Mar Zutra wanted this man, who would soon be the only living memory of his dying
friend, to remain near to him.

Again, a great Jewish scholar looked for spiritual impacts of ancient India on Judaism’s sacred
scriptures. Prof. Chaim Rabin’s effort to prove that King Solomon’s “Song of Songs” had roots in
ancient South Indian love poetry was mentioned above. Rabin’s contemporary, Prof. David
Flusser, tried to show that the Upanishads influenced the early Rabbinic legends, which describe
how Abraham discovered the one true God. The Upanishads are philosophical texts that provide a
basis for Hinduism. They were likely composed between the 6th and 2nd centuries BCE (although
this is still an unsettled matter of academic debate). A monotheistic streak can be read into many
of these texts. The Upanishads speak of Brahman as the omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and
absolute principle, which can be interpreted as the “Highest God.” “Abraham’s search for God is
a central concept in Upanishadic religiosity,” writes Flusser.52 He shows similarities between
Upanishadic texts and post-Biblical Rabbinic texts that speak of Abraham. Although he knows his
hypothesis is “adventurous,” he argues that India’s old monotheistic theme may have reached the
Jews through ancient Persia. Flusser does not try to hide his a priori approach: “I hope … the hero
of the story of Abraham’s discovery of God changed from the Biblical patriarch to an Indian
sage.”53 It seems Flusser had a strong drive to “Indianize” Judaism. Raphael Patai, who was
teaching history and Jewish studies in various American universities, analyzed similarities
between certain schools of Hinduism and the Kabbalah. He, too, believed to see a direct influence
and concluded “Hindu concepts were known to some Kabbalists in 13th century Spain, just as
certain Yoga-practices were.”54

Great civilizations can develop spiritual similarities accruing from a shared humanity or from
similar historical experiences, not from influences. The German philosopher Karl Jaspers warned
against the temptation to look for “influences” between the great “Axial Age” civilizations.
Flusser, Rabin, Patai, and others could not resist the temptation.

History of linen in Indian Subcontinent

Ritu Pandey writes:13

13
http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/history-linen-indian-subcontinent

41
Linen was one of the earliest textile materials used in various ancient civilizations and has
found innumerable mentions in the holy texts of Hinduism. The paper summarizes ancient
Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scriptures to reveal widespread production, use and importance
of linen in Indian subcontinent. History of linen production and use dates back to 12000
BC (Vedic age) to 1500 CE (Medieval period) in the region. Reports establish that flax was
an important economic crop in the entire subcontinent and traded to Italy and other
European countries. Linen was used for making garments, furnishings, flags and to write
missives. Linen was available in several qualities and considered a precious cloth.

Introduction
Linen in Indian history finds innumerable mentions in the holy books like Vedas,
Puranas, Upanishads and in ancient literature for its beauty, holiness, fineness,
softness, and royal insignia. Modern Indian historians accepted this fact with
cynicism. It has been the subject of dispute among some Indian historians whether
‘ksauma’ refers to linen, silk or cotton. However, great Sanskrit Scholar Prof.
Dandekar of Pune, noted historian Hem Chandra, Sadhu Sundara Gani, Dr Moti
Chandra, and author Madhu Sen toiled hard to solve this puzzle and stated
“ksauma” word referred in Vedas, upanishads and in ancient literatures as fibre from
the bark of linseed called linen (Dandekar 1946; Chandra 1973; Sen 1974; Kumar,
1984). Ancient literatures open the record of textile materials used in the past.
Indian clothing and different types of garments worn during Vedic age, Brahman age,
sutra age and epic age were made of bark, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax, and animal
skin (Gillow and Barnard, 2002; Gusain, 2014). Ksauma, kauseya, avikayoh, and
karpasa words were used to signify the garments made of linen, silk, wool, and
cotton respectively in ancient Indian texts (William et al., 1921; Keith, 1995;
Berrieble, 1995; Saundararajan, 2002). Fine linen was referred as Dukula.
Similar to ancient Indian textile history, European and Egyptian history of textile
flaunt the use of linen for making splendid costumes for wealthy bourgeoisies and
royalty. Be it Dorians of Sparta, Frank, Gaul, Romans, or Asiatic Dacians, all
acknowledge the aestheticism of linen. It was an emblem of simplicity for Ionians and
accepted with a touch of luxurious embellishments by Carlovingians (Tortora and
Eubank, 1994). In a recent declaration, 5000-year-old Tarkhan dress, made of linen,

42
found in a mummy case, inside one of the Egyptian pyramids is considered to be the
world’s oldest garment (Meier, 2016). European and Egyptian textile history
inscribed in various literatures, paintings, sculptures and coloured hieroglyphics also
demonstrates that linen was one of the earliest textile materials used by various
civilizations. Besides, archaeologists’ unearthed fragments of flax fibres at an
excavation site in Turkey and Georgia (Europe) preserved for 34,000 years
(Thanjan, 2011). A brief description of the use of linen as described in ancient Indian
literatures are given below.

Historical perspective

Vedic age (1500 BC – 1100 BC)

Immortality of the linen is evident from the fact that Ayurveda, the oldest collection of
knowledge till date, instructs, “Parivrittam” with “ksauma vastra”, that a newborn
child must be wrapped in linen clothing and a neonatal intensive care unit must
comprise of linen bed covering. Thus, its significance symbolizes that of mother’s
care, love, and affection. Specific Vedic hymns were recited during spinning and
weaving, and cloths adorned were a potential source of positive holistic energy of the
wearer. Hymns dedicated to warp, weft, looms, and female weavers were distinctly
referred in Vedic literature (Rig Veda, VI 92; Mehta, 1960; Pal, 1978). Goddess of Dawn,
Usha was referred as ‘clothed with radiance’. Yajurveda envisions “Uma ksauma-
Vastropadana bhutas trnavisesah”: Linen is produced by a particular kind of grass
known as flax (Satpatha Brahmana). Maharishi Panini, who devised world’s most
ancient language Sanskrit, also explains the word flax (uma) in Astadhyayi in the
same context. Panini also mentioned about lac, madder, and indigo dyes, used to
colour textiles. References of linseeds cultivation in Vedic age are found.
Atharvaved enlightens us about the compulsion of wearing of sacred threads dyed in
turmeric colour and clothing made of linen by young men at the time of initiation
(upnayan). Maitrayani Samhita describes linen garment. Three unstitched garments
of Vedic age were uttariya, antariya, and kayabandh were made of linen and
embroidered in gold and precious stones. Wool, cotton and silk were also used as

43
dress material.

Epic age (1000BC-600BC)

Spinning and weaving was a highly perfected art during the epic age (Mehta, 1960).
Linen found references on numerous occasions in Valmiki Ramayana, confirming, it
was specially used as ceremonial cloth during that period.
Saa kSauma vasanaa hrstaa nityam vrata paraayaNaa |
Agnim juhoti sma tadaa mantravat krta mangalaa ||
Taam shuklakshaumasamviitaam vratayogena karshitaam |
Arpayantiim dadarshaadbhiH devataam devavarNiniim ||
“Queen Kausalya clad in linen sari, practicing religious vows, appears as a shining angel and
the linen is compared with the whiteness of milky ocean.” (Ayodhya Kand, Chapter 20)
Kambalamancha mukhyanam ksaumya kotyambani cha’
“Wedding gifts of princess Sita included large quantity of linen garments along with
silk, blanket and ordinary clothing.” (Balakand, Chapter 74th)
Dasaratha’s Queens were clad in linen while welcoming their daughters-in-law and
taking them to the temple. On the auspicious occasion of Rama’s proposed
coronation as Prince of Ayodhya, Rama clothed himself in linen. On this occasion
queen Kausalya and royal courtesans of the palace were also dressed in linen. This
again is testimony to the use of linen for ceremonial purposes by all rank of the
society. On one of the occasion, leaving aside his usual clothing, king Bharat redone
himself in linen before paying visit to sage Bhardwaj, as befitting the grandeur of
occasion. King Rawana’s dead body was dressed with linen at his cremation. Hence
it can be conveniently said that, linen made its presence felt from cradle to grave
during epic age.
The later Vedic literature illustrates fine linen from the fibers of flax for elites. Linen
was reserved for special occasions such as Mahabharata indicates Yudhishthara donning linen
during Ashwamedha (king’s ritual for imperial sovereignty). Yudhishthara was presented linen as
special gift by the people of eastern region including Kalinga, Pundra (Bengal), Vanga and
Tamralipta (Ganguli, 1896). Yellowcoloured linen uttariya of Krishna is constantly mentioned in

44
ancient scriptures. On an occasion Krishna is compared with ocean of milk and linen as white
waves on theocean of milk.
Ksirabdhi-rupi tu haris tvam eva hi taraggita-ksauma-sita taraggini
sragbhir vicitra-malyabhir
manju-sinjat-sad-anghribhih
dukula-ksauma-kauseyair
nana-vastrair virajitam
“The castle was fully embellished with wreaths of charming flowers that attracted
sweetly humming bees and with coloured tapestries of linen, silk and various other
fabrics.” (Padyavali, Text 274)

Sutra age (500-100BC) and Buddhist literature (500CE to 300CE)

Various sutra literatures reveal prominent position of the art and culture and
extensive use of linen garments. Weaver is displayed wearing flaxen dhoti (“sana
satika”). Text describes linen fabric measuring eighteen hands lengthwise, and
twelve hands and four digits weft wise. “Adhvaryu” is described measuring folded
linen garment with hands while purchasing it. Linen, silk and woollen garments were
often embroidered. Grihya Sutra Kandika, a treatise on domestic rituals and
regulations prescribed in 500 BC, expresses that there are four kinds of garments
and youths were directed to wear garments made of linen or hemp (sana) fabric, on
the day of initiation of studentship (Kumar, 1984). Dyeing was a flourishing art as
evident from the fact that Bhrigu samhita was written using natural dyes. Linen is omnipresent in
Buddhist and jain scriptures, frequently mentioned as
heavenly robe of linen in various colours (Parinirvana Sutra, T375.12.647 a-c).
Buddhist and Jain literature states about the artisans working at clothing industry,
weavers, tailors, embroiders. Various kinds of cloth described were silk, linen, wool,
hemp, bark, straw and deer skin. Use of spindle for spinning is mentioned in texts as
one of the household chores performed by women. Mahavagga III describes about
clothing material, art of wearing cloth and also dyeing and storage of cloth. King of
Kashi presented 500 linen blankets to the Buddha (Kumar,1984). Texts also states

45
Buddhist monks and nuns were permitted to accept the linen fabric as gift. Monks
wore reddish brown vegetable dyed cloth. However, Indigo, turmeric, black, magenta
and crimson dyed cloth were prohibited for monks. King Pasenadi gifted a soft fine
linen shawl to a nun. Divyavadana, a collection of early Buddhist text dating 2nd
Century CE, explores wool and linen (dukula) blended fine clothing material.
Lalitvistara, Sanskrit text of Gautam Buddha’s life, which is believed to be as old as
3rd Century CE, described linen as white cloth known as ‘pandu dukula’ (Chaudhury,
1959; Kumar, 1984). Nisitha Curni explains the process of making linen: flax plant is
soaked in water and pounded with wooden beater to extract fibres’ (Sen, 1974).
Acaranga mentions, Sakra presented Lord Mahavira the finest linen cloth which was
so light that it can be blown away by a gentle breeze.

Maurya (322 BC. - 180 BC.) and Satavahana period (271 BC.- 220 CE.)

Mauryan Dynasty plays a significant part in history as art and culture. Agriculture and
textile trade thrived at international level. Private irrigation systems to improve
agriculture productivity and land laws were framed. Flax was an important cash crop
during this time, grown for seeds and fiber both. Chanakya’s Arthshastra details
about flax spinning, its fineness, economic importance and the taxes enforced for its
commercialization. Duty charged on linen was one fifteenth parts. Duties of weaving
technologists are elaborated and weaving department manufactured yarns, coats,
ropes, fabric, bed sheets, and curtains. Arthshastra also describes whole process of
textile manufacturing. Skill in the art of Spinning, weaving and embroidery was
considered sacred and only women were entrusted this duty during those period.
Weaver’s workshops were conducted under the patronage of king. Fine linen, silk,
wool and cotton cloths were manufactured and wages of the weavers were decided
based on the fineness of the yarn they spun. Excellence in textile was rewarded and
textile was a medium of artistic expression. Weavers were presented with gifts and
garlands to encourage them. Cut and stitched garments were in fashion; blue
coloured indigo dyed robe of king is frequently mentioned. The art of dyeing yarn and
fabric was a usual practice. Arthshastra also praises about the valuable linen

46
produced in Subernyakundya in Assam and compares its colour with brightness of
sun, and softness as that of a precious gem (Dasgupta, 2005; Choudhuri, 1959;
Kumar, 1984). Hence, it is evident that linen was in use in Assam and also a
celebrated cloth for royalty.

Satavahana Empire is notable for export trade of agricultural products to European

countries. Evidence of production and use of linen is found in Satavahana Empire.
Besides food grains, agricultural land was also utilized for cultivating flax, cotton,
coconut and other fibers, which were recognised as an important cash crop.
Weaver’s guilds were formed for fabric manufacturers. Yarn and fabric dyeing was
well known to the weavers. An inscription found in excavations, states two different
prices for two different quality of linen. The Periplus of Erythraean Sea described
extensively about the trade of finest weaves, thin flimsy cloth, various kinds of cotton, silk, pure
linen and yarn from Indian sub continent to Egypt, Italy and Malaysia
through navigation during Satavahana Era.

Gupta period (320 CE.- 550 CE.)

Gupta king Vikrmaditya’s Empire, said to be the Golden period in arts and
administration, is reckoned from 375 CE to 415 CE. Agriculture production and
management from manure application to proper storage facility was at its prime.
During this period, textile material of finest texture and colour is described in
literature. Roots of berry, lac and kermes were used to dye fabric. Soft linen
Pennants in bright colours were fluttered around the city. Kalidas, the greatest poet
till date echoed the beauty of linen robe in Bhakti Kavya and Raghuvamsa
(VII,18,19). Kalidas also expresses brides and grooms donning dukula during
wedding in Kumarasambhava (VII, 7,26,73) and also indicating it to be a fabric for
elites. Amarsimha, another literary gem, in the court of emperor Vikramaditya,
explains ksauma and dukula both as linen in Amarkosha. Amara said “ksaumam
dukulam syat”: ksauma and dukula are synonyms. He further wrote that bleached
linen is known as dukula and linen sheets were called as nivita and pravrata. Strabo

47
(270 AD), Megasthnese, Neacherous wrote about the literary excellence of Indian
poets and also that, linen cloth was used by Indians for the purpose of writing
missives.

Ancient and Medieval period (500CE – 1500CE)

Hieun Tsang mentions King Harsh Vardhan (CE. 606—641) used linen fabric
derived from flax, jute and hemp. He also referred to linen as beautiful as autumn
moon’s light, and dukula, the finest linen was presented to King Harsha by Bhaskarvarman. During
Gupta period, textiles were divided into four types (Kalika
Puraan, Kumar, 1984) (Table 1).

Hieun Tsang also found textile is a flourishing industry in India. Women have been
displayed wearing colourful dress and ornaments. Textile was the main source of
home décor in ancient period. King Harsh’s palace was elegantly decorated
exhibiting rich display of textile materials including fine linen, silk and cotton, at the
time of his sister Rajyasri’s marriage. Border design with a pair of swan was fashion
during Gupta period. Before going to battlefield, King Harsha Vardhan wore linen
with a pair of swan woven using golden yarn kalavattu in border. Banabhatta,
Sanskrit poet in the court of the King Harsha Vardhan, has used word dukula and

48
dugula for linen and also mentioned linen, uttariya, saris, garments, bed sheets and
covers in his literary work. As per his literature, the plant was grown in Pundra or
modern day Bengal and was most valuable cloth. Banabahtta says in Kadambari,
Sudrka wore linen as white as the foam of the nectar and has a border design of a pair of swan.
Banabhatta also reffered umberella presented to king Harsha was
wrapped in dukula. Hieun Tsang also wrote about the people of Kashmir weaving
cloth of white linen, but no reference of cotton being grown in Kashmir was found
(Ahmad, 2014).

Poet Somdeva (10 CE) in his Yashastilaka used the word dukula on several
occasions and it is clear from his writings that it was auspiciously worn majestic and
costly dress. Kalika Purana, dating 9th to 10th Century, one of the uppurana (sub text)
of sanatan religion describes at length about not only the material used for the
clothes worn during that period but also its classification. As per Halayudha (10th CE)
dukula and ksauma were synonyms: “dukulam ksaumamisyate.” He also said “atasi
syad uma ksauma”: “Atasi, Uma and ksauma are synonyms”. Other important fibers
for textiles were Cotton, silk and wool. Geet Govind by Jayadev referred to linen four
times while describing playfulness of lord Krishna and household chores of Yashoda.
Prose and poems elegantly described the colours of the attire worn by Krishna as
well as pleasing castle decoration with flags, festoons, and tapestries of linen, silk
and artistic work of variegated colours. In 15th Century, Kalluka mentions ksauma
was a cloth made of atasi (flax) fibre and Dukula was considered to be the finest and
highly prized linen (Gait, 1906, Kumar, 1984).

Reasons for widespread popularity of linen through the ages

The Vedic vision was to manufacture employing natural materials, and thus creating
sustainable industry and sustainable societies. Flora and fauna was worshipped and

49
use of eco-friendly textiles preserved natural environment. Agriculture has been the
mainstay of the people of India as it fulfils all three basic needs of human beings
directly or indirectly. Indian subcontinent is blessed with renewable rich resources of vegetable
fibres’ and dyes. Rig-Veda tells us the economic value of plants and over
the years people learned the utilization of agricultural plants for various purposes
besides food (Das, 1944). Farmers since Vedic age used all the latest techniques
available at that time like quality seeds, manure, irrigation, crop rotation and
agriculture implements etc., for improving agricultural productivity [Douglas, 1960;
Jain, 2015]. Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) is one of the oldest crops, and the only
plant from the family of Linaecea which is of economic value. Ancient Indians
realized the medicinal properties of flax seeds and fiber both, as evident from the
Sushrut Samhita where in its medicinal properties is described for food consumption.
Alsi neelpushpi parwatit syaduma Ksauma
Ushna vrish shukravatanthi kaf pitt vinashini
‘Blue flowered Alsi (linseed), Parwati, Uma and Ksauma are synonyms and it is able
to cure cough, liver problems and improves vigor and vitality.’
Sushrut recommended flax bedding for neonatal care [Murthy, 2003; Khatri, 2013;
Mishra, 2015]. Linen was used in India before the use of cotton, and cultivation of
flax dates back to the Neolithic and late period of Stone Age [Dhoni, 1994]. Linen
flourished well in Indian subcontinent as it grows well in both the peninsular south
and alluvial soil of the north. Widespread popularity of flax is also due to the fact that
flax in India is a semi-arid rain fed crop, grows with fewer irrigation and pesticide
applications than other natural fibres’. Linen was an important fabric for apparel and
furnishings and the leftover lint was used to make fiber wick. Holistic spinning and
weaving gave rise to the production of exclusive handmade pieces distinctive from
each other and a wider scope for weavers to always make improvements in yarn and
fabric quality. This trend continued till the Europeans knocked the door and industrial revolution
began in the west. Mass production and consumption of artificial textiles
and fast fashion, as a result of industrial revolution is environmentally and socially
highly unsustainable leading to the environmental destruction and skin problems.
Carcinogenic and toxic effects of artificial fibers and dyes during manufacturing and

50
wearing are now identified and many such chemicals are banned world over such as
Nonylphenol, benzidine, chloroaniline etc. Advantages of eco-friendly natural fibres’
and its wide scope of application is being recognised again in every corner of the
world, as they are non-allergic and non-polluting.

Due to eco-efficiency, even today linen is considered to be the most environment

friendly, dignified fabric and accepted in the same way as was adorned by the
generations through the ages. Consumers in developed countries are showing their
interest for alternative bio source slow fashion to maximise use of available
renewable resources and enhance material recyclability. Agricultural fibres’ thus are
the need of the hour to reduce skin irritation and have lower environmental impact.
Flax when cultivated for their fibre is known as flax and when cultivated for seed are
called linseed. Characteristics features of flax include great strength, lustre and
dimensional stability. Enhanced strength on wetting, microbial resistance, rapid
wetting and quick drying are its speciality. It turns softer and more lustrous with use.
Its highly moisture absorbent property makes it cool to wear in hot climate and fit for
medicinal purposes (Kirby, 1964). Every part of the plant is utilized; fibre for linen
apparels, nonwovens and various diversified textile and non textile applications such
as fire extinguishing hose, reinforced plastic, medicinal, geo and chemotextiles.
Remaining plant wood scraps of seed and fibre flax is used to manufacture bio
composites, particle boards, quality paper, briquette and furniture. Anti bedsore
property of flax is now being used for the benefits of bed ridden patients [Kozlowsky, 2009].
Linseed is a good source of lignan, mucilage, omega-3, oleic, linoliec acid,
and edible fibres’, all of which contains medicinal properties and are perfect raw
material for food processing, natural pharmaceuticals, and cosmetic industries.
Widespread industrial application of linseed in paint, printing ink, varnish, and
linoleum manufacturing is well known. Seed hull is used as animal feed [Kozlowsky,
2009; Jhala and Hall, 2010]. First Indian flax type variety named ‘Tiara’ has been
released very recently in the year 2015. Flax Standards for important physical
parameters are available now (Akin, 2005). Environment friendly methods like
enzymatic and microbial are being used to extract flax fibre besides traditional water

51
retting method (Sharma and Van Sumere 1992; Akin et al. 2001; Faulk et al 2008;
Pandey et al, 2014; Pandey, 2016). A number of dual purpose varieties have been
released which is suitable for both fiber and oil purposes (Pandey and Dayal, 2003;
Pandey, 2016). India occupies 11.82 percent of world acreage and ranks third in
area of the flax crop after Canada and China. Flax fibre accounts for ~2% of the
production of natural fibres’ in India. Import of linseed commodity by India increased
75% in the last five years, whereas, area under production decreased. India imports
about 0.18 million tonnes of flax worth Rs 396.36 crores (FY 2011-2012) to meet
indigenous demand particularly in defence. At present linen is being manufactured in
India utilizing the flax imported mainly from Europe (Anand, 2011). Current political
leaders like Narendra Modi and leading bollywood actors have also added to linen’s
sheen and popularity by using it in public life; a fact which has brightened the
prospects of European flax growers and exporters (Ruitenberg, 2015).
Ancient Indian textile history is richly described all through the pages of ancient texts,
literature and temple architecture. Ancient temples, Ellora, Ajanta cave murals,
Kurnool and Bhimbetka rock paintings (30,000 years old), were all coloured in natural colours and
some of them appear as bright as they were when painted
thousands of years back. These natural colours survived the extreme natural
calamities and today they are mute testimony to our glorious past. It is certain that, if
some remnants of Vedic textiles ever found in future in Indian subcontinent, it will be
the fiber of natural origin and in all probability a linen, because only linen could
withstand the harsh environmental conditions through the times as it did in the
middle east and came out with flying colours.

References
Akin, D. E. 2005. Standards for flax fibre. Standardization News, ASTM
Subcommittee D13.17 on Flax and Linen.

Akin, D. E., Faulk, J. A., Dodd, R. B. and Mcalister, D. D. 2001. Enzyme retting of
flax and characterization of processed fibres. Journal Biotechnology, 89: 193-203.

Anand, S.N. 2011. And now, Linen made in Kochi. The Hindu, Jan 20.

Ahamad, M. 2014. Kashmir and its Economy under Hindu Rule (Ancient Period).
Macrothink Institute, 1(2):65-76.

Barnes, Ruth. 2004. Textiles in Indian Ocean Societies. 28.

52
Berrieble, A. 1995. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects: Vol 1- 5, 212.
Chandra, M. 1973. , Costumes, Textiles, Cosmetics and Coiffure of Ancient and
Medieval India, New Delhi. 6-11, 34.

Choudhury, P.C. 1958. History of Civilization of Assam. 364-365.

Dandekar, R.N. 1946. Vedic Bibliography. I-VI.

Dandekar, R N and P.D. Navathe. 1981. Proceedings of the fifth World Sanskrit
conference, Varanasi, India, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan Oct. 21-26, 968.

Das, S. K. 1944. Economic History of Ancient India. 43, 44, 45, 120- 121, 202, 203,
219, 221.

Dasgupta, B. 2005. European Trade and Colonial Conquest. Vol-I, 349-350.

Dhoni, A. H. 1994. Assam in the Prehistoric Period: The Different Ages.

Douglas, E. 1960. Agricultural Development in Ancient Period: From Vedic to 12th

Century AD, In Conference on Intensive Agricultural District Programme, Directorate
of Extension, Ministry of Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation,
New Delhi.2,3.

Foulk, J.A., Akin, D.E. and Dodd, R.B. 2008. Influence of pectinolytic enzymes on
retting effectiveness and resultant fibre properties. BioResources, 3(1): 155-169.

Gait, E. A. 1906. History of Assam. Thacker, Spink & Co.

Ganguli, K. M. 1896. The Mahabharata Translation. Bharat Press, Calcutta.

Gillow, J. and Barnard, N. 2002. Traditional Indian Textiles. Thames & Hudson Ltd.
London, 7.

Gusain, P. 2014. Costumes of Ancient India. Web content: indianetjone.com, March

14, June 25, 2016,

Hein,N. 1986. Epic sarvabhutahite ratah: a byword of non Bhargava editors. Annals
of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 67:17-34.

Jhala, A. J. and Hall, L. M. 2010. Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): Current Uses and
Future Applications. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4(9): 4304-
4312.

Jacobi, H. 1893. Das Ramayana. Bonn.

Jain, P. 2015. Vedic Agriculture in Ancient India.

www.importantindia.com/15407/vedic-agriculture-in-ancient-india/ April14’2016.

Keith, A. B. 1995. Vedic Index of Names andSubjects. I, 212.

Khatri, R. V. 2013. Kumaragara An Ancient Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Journal of

Biological & Scientific Opinion, 1(3):225-227.

Kozlowski, R. 2009. Green fibres and their potential in diversified applications.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1873E/y1873eOb.htm. July 3’2016.

Kumar, R. 1984. Encyclopaedia of Untouchables: Ancient, Medieval and Modern. 52,

57- 58, 60, 61, 63, 68, 77, 134-135, 159.

Kumar, S. L. The Comprehensive History of Assam. Shodhganga, Vol I, II, III, V. 86,
87, 89, 156.

53
Mahdihassan, S. 1986. Ephedra as Soma Meaning Hemp Fibers: With Soma later
Misidentified as the Hemp PlantItself. 21(1): 1-6.

Mehta, R. J. 1960. The Handicrafts and Industrial Arts of India. Tarporvala’s,

Bombay.
Meier, A. 2016. A 5,000-Year-Old Linen Dress Is the World’s Oldest Woven
Garment. Hyperallergic news, posted on February 29, accessed on March 5,2016

Mishra, D.P. 2015. A Bird Eye View on Rakshakarma in Ayurved. International

Ayurvedic Medical Journal, 3(6): 1858-1867.

Murti, S. 2003. Astang Hridaya (Uttara Sthan). Chaukhamba Orientalia Publication,

Varanasi, 1: 25-27.

narasimhan.com/SK/Culture/culture_history/culture_hist_fashions.htm, July 4’2016.

narasimhan.com/SK/Culture/culture_history/culture_hist_dailylife_epic.htm, July
1’2016

Pal, P. 1978. The ideal image: The Gupta sculptural Tradition and its influence,
Asiatic society, new York,

Pandey, I. 1988. Dress and ornaments in ancient india. New Delhi, 6.

Pandey, R. and Dayal, R .2003. FIax-jute and flax-cotton blended fabric. Asian
Textile Journal. 11: (7) 51-55.

Pandey, R.; Dayal, R. and Srivastava, R.S.L. 2014. Flax Fiber Processing
Technology. Univ. Press, 5.

Pandey, R. 2016. Fiber Extraction from Dual Purpose Flax. Journal of Natural Fibers.
13 (5): 565- 577.
Ruitenberg, R. 2015. Love of Wrinkled Linen in India Brightens Europe Flax Fields.
Bloomberg news, USA, 14 July.

Saundararajan, K. V. 2002. Concise Classified Dictionary of Hinduism, II:176.

Sen, C. 1978. A Dictionary of Vedic Rituals: Based on the Srauta and Grihya Sutra.
62.

Sen, M. 1974. A Cultural Study of the Nisitha Curni. Sohanlal Jain Dharma
Pracharak Samiti, Amritsar.

Sharma, H.S.S. and Van Sumere, C.F. 1992. The biology and processing of flax. M
publications, Belfast. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/68309/13/13_chapter%205.pdf
March 19’2016.

Swamy, P. 2000. Encyclopaedic Dictionary of vedic terms. I, 638.

Thanjan, D. K. 2011. Pebbles, Bookstand Publishing, Morgan Hill, CA,12.

The Comprehensive History of Assam Vol I, II, III, V. In, History of Assam
http://online assam.gov.in: web content Id=109367.

The Great Parinirvana Sutra, The Buddhist Sutra, Edited by Fa Hui, Translated into
English by Charles Patten, T375.12.647 a-c.

The Peryplus of Erythryaean Sea. 68CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Chapters 48,

49:18. June 25, 2016.

Tortora, P. G. and Eubank, K. 1994. Historic Costume. Fairchild Publications, New

York, 9, 45, 53, 70.

54
Washburn, H. E. 1926. The Original Ramayana. Journal of the American Oriental
Society, 46: 201.

Washburn, H. E. 1901. The Great Epic of India. New York. Scribner.

William, T.; Davids, R. and Stede, W. 1921. Pali English Dictionary. 239.

55