Daf Ditty Yoma 51: the Dual nature of the Parochet

Embroidered Parokhet from the Altneushul in Prague, Czech Republic.

Patchwork embroidery depicting an Ark of the Law with a Torah curtain.

By Solomon Gold, 1592. The parochet (curtain or screen) covers the Aron Kodesh (Torah
Ark) containing the Sifrei Torah (Torah scrolls) in a synagogue.

1
2
MISHNA: The High Priest would then walk west through the Sanctuary until he reaches the
area between the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and the
space between them was one cubit. Rabbi Yosei says: There was only one curtain there, as it
is stated:

3
,‫ ַתַּחת ַהְקּ ָרִסים‬,‫ַהָפֹּרֶכת‬-‫לג ְוָנַתָתּה ֶאת‬ 33 And thou shalt hang up the veil under the clasps,
‫ ֵאת ֲארוֹן‬,‫ְוֵהֵבאָת ָשָׁמּה ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬ and shalt bring in thither within the veil the ark of the
‫ ֵבּין‬,‫ ָלֶכם‬,‫ָהֵﬠדוּת; ְוִהְבִדּיָלה ַהָפֹּרֶכת‬ testimony; and the veil shall divide unto you between
.‫ וֵּבין ֹקֶדשׁ ַהֳקָּדִשׁים‬,‫ַהֹקֶּדשׁ‬ the holy place and the most holy.
Ex 26:33

“And the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies”

4
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yosei is saying well to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yosei
provides solid support for his opinion. And the Rabbis could say to you: This applies only in
the Tabernacle, which had but one curtain. However, in the Second Temple, since there was
no one-cubit partition [teraksin] separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple,
as it was only in the First Temple that there was a one-cubit partition, and the Rabbis were
uncertain with regard to the sanctity of the space occupied by the one-cubit partition, whether
it had the sanctity of the inside of the Holy of Holies, or the sanctity of the outside area of the
Sanctuary, therefore the Sages of the time prepared two curtains to enclose this space of
uncertain status.

5
§ The Sages taught: When the High Priest walked to the Holy of Holies, he walked on the south
side between the inner altar and the candelabrum. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
Rabbi Meir says that he walked on the north side between the table and the altar. And some
say he passed between the table and the wall.

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is introduced by the title: Some say? Rav Ḥisda said: It is the
opinion of Rabbi Yosei in our mishna, according to whom there is only one curtain and who said
that the entrance was positioned in the north.

According to all opinions, the entrance to the Holy of Holies was located in the north, and since
Rabbi Yosei believed that there was just one curtain, the High Priest would walk in a straight line
toward this entrance along the north side of the Sanctuary.

6
And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there were two curtains, and therefore he could have said to
you that although the entrance to the Holy of Holies was on the north side, because there were two
curtains, one behind the other, the entrance was positioned in the south. The High Priest entered
on the south side and walked between the curtains to the north of the inner curtain where he entered
the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, in accordance with whose opinion does
he hold? If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the place
of the entrance, the High Priest should enter as explained by Rabbi Yehuda; conversely, if he
holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he should enter as explained by Rabbi
Yosei.

7
The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Yosei, and he could have said to you: The tables, the one holding the shewbread and other tables
next to it, were arranged north to south, and the table blocked him on the north side, and
therefore the High Priest could not enter in a direct line, as the space was too narrow.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the tables were arranged east to west, and due to the
honor of the Divine Presence, it was not proper conduct.

8
Summary
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1
The Mishna continues with the procedure of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur: He went through
the Heichal (while holding the shovelful of coal and the spoon of incense) until he came to the
place between the two curtains which separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies, and between
which there was a separation – the space of one cubit. Rabbi Yosisaid: There was only one curtain,
as it is written: and the curtain shall divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

The Gemora asks: Rabbi Yosi gave a proper response to the Rabbis (by citing that Scriptural
verse)!? The Gemora explains the Rabbis: They will tell you that the verse applied to the Mishkan,
but in the Second Temple, since there was lacking the amah-thick partition wall which had been
in the first Temple — and the Sages were doubtful as to whether its sanctity (the space which was
occupied by that wall) partook of the character of the Holy or the Holy of Holies, they made two
curtains.

The Gemora cites a braisa: He walked between the (Inner) Altar and the Menorah; these are the
words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: Between the Shulchan (the Table) and the Altar. [The
Shulchan was placed next to the northern wall, the Menorah next to the southern wall, and the
Golden Altar between them. According to R’ Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol walked toward the Holy
of Holies between the Altar and the Menorah - that is on the southern side. According to R’ Meir,
he walked between the Shulchan and the Altar, i.e., on the northern side.] And there are those who
say: Between the Shulchan and the wall.

The Gemora asks: Who are the ‘some’? Rav Chisda said: It is Rabbi Yosi, who said: The entrance
was to the north. [R’ Yosi maintained that there was but one curtain, clasped on the north side, and
since the entrance was on the north side, he naturally walked on that side.] The Gemora notes that
Rabbi Yehudah will tell you that the entrance was to the south.

The Gemora asks: According to whose view was that of Rabbi Meir? If he agreed with Rabbi
Yehudah’s opinion, let him enter as Rabbi Yehudah stated (for R’ Yehudah also agreed that the
immediate entrance into the Holy of Holies had to be on the northern side, but he maintained that
there were two curtains, with the outer one clasped to the southern side, through which the Kohen
Gadol first entered; therefore, he was walking along the southern wall until he reached the outer
entrance, then he walked along between the two curtains towards the north until he reached the
second entrance leading immediately into the Holy of Holies), and if he agreed with Rabbi Yosi,
let him enter as Rabbi Yosi stated!?

The Gemora answers: In truth he agrees with Rabbi Yosi, but he will tell you that the (ten) Tables
(that King Shlomo made) were placed between north and south, therefore, they would interrupt his
walk, preventing him from entering (along the northern wall). [King Shlomo made ten tables
arranged in two rows of five tables, to the left and right of the Shulchan, which contained the

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yoma_51.pdf

9
showbread. The Sages discuss if these tables were placed lengthwise from south to north, or from
east to west. R’ Meir held the former view, so that all the tables were placed in the northern half
of the Sanctuary. Now the width of the Sanctuary was twenty cubits, its northern half ten cubits;
the length of a table two cubits, so that each row of five tables filled the northern half of the Temple
hall, without any free space between tables and wall. It emerges that the tables would block the
Kohen Gadol on his walk between the table and the wall.]

Alternatively, you might say that, in truth, the tables were placed from east to west, but it does not
seem proper for the Kohen Gadol to go straight ahead (to its entrance). Rabbi Yosi, however,
maintains that the Jews are so beloved that the Torah does not wish to send a messenger (and since
he himself is beloved, he may proceed directly). The Gemora explains that according to Rabbi
Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol cannot walk between the Menorah and the wall, for his clothing would
be blackened.

Open, Shut them

A student of the Rosh brings from his Rebbe that they used to fold over the end of the curtain on
Erev Yom Kippur to enable the Kohen Gadol to enter into the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kippur.
The rest of the year it remained closed, so the Kohanim should not see that area (between the other
curtain), for that might have the sanctity of the Kodesh Kodashim. Rabbi Meir holds that this is
the reason why the Kohen Gadol would walk between the Shulchan and the Altar, and not by the
wall, for then he might feast his eyes on the Kodesh Kodashim (Rashi). Reb Dovid Meyers in his
Sefer Mileches Hamishkan brings a proof to this from a Mishna in Menochos which states that
there were Kohanim on both sides of the Shulchan placing the lechem hapanim and the bezichin
onto the Shulchan. If the curtain was opened all year, why weren't we concerned that they might
gaze at the Kodesh Kodashim? Obviously, it was closed during the year.

On the Right: From the Direction of the Kodesh HaKodashim

The Table stood on the north side of the Temple and the Menorah was to the south. The Menorah
was then to the left of those entering, contrary to what we would expect, that the Menorah, which
symbolizes wisdom and Torah, should be put on the right, the more important side. The masters
of musar pay attention to this fact and say that indeed this is true. He who enters from outside, the
mundane street, sees the Menorah to his left. But he who comes from the direction of the kodesh
hakodoshim encounters the Menorah to his right…

THE TEN SHULCHANOS IN THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Meir, and Rebbi Yosi ("Yesh
Omrim") argue with regard to the path the Kohen Gadol took as he walked from the entrance

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-051.htm

10
of the Heichal to the entrance of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rebbi Yehudah says that he
walked between the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and the Menorah (at a south-westerly angle). Rebbi
Meir says that he walked between the Mizbe'ach and the Shulchan (at a north-westerly
angle). Rebbi Yosi says that he walked along the northern wall, between the wall and the
Shulchan. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Meir agrees with Rebbi Yosi that the entrance to
the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was on the north side of the Heichal, but he maintains that it was
not possible to walk along the northern side between the wall and the Shulchan because the
Shulchanos of Shlomo ha'Melech blocked the way.

RASHI (DH Shulchanos) quotes the verse in Divrei ha'Yamim II (4:8) which relates that
Shlomo ha'Melech made ten additional Shulchanos which were placed in the Heichal, five to
each side of the original Shulchan. Similarly, the verse (ibid. 4:7) relates that Shlomo
ha'Melech made ten additional Menoros which were placed to the sides of the original
Menorah.

If one Shulchan and one Menorah sufficed for the Mishkan of Moshe Rabeinu, why did
Shlomo ha'Melech make ten Shulchanos

The EZRAS KOHANIM (Midos 4:7) cites the YALKUT CHADASH (Erech "Beis ha'Mikdash"
and Erech "David" 138, based on MIDRASH TADSHEH, ch. 2) who writes that in the times
of Moshe Rabeinu the Mishkan had one Menorah with seven candles, because Moshe
Rabeinu led the nation to Eretz Yisrael where they conquered seven nations, bringing the
light of the Torah (symbolized by the Menorah) to the land of the seven nations. Shlomo
ha'Melech, on the other hand, conquered all seventy nations (Megilah 11a). Therefore, he
added an additional ten Menoros, with seventy candles, to show that he had brought the light
of Torah to all seventy nations.

We know that the Shulchan, which held the Lechem ha'Panim, represented sustenance,
Parnasah. Since Moshe Rabeinu led the people through the desert where very little
agricultural activity was conducted, one Shulchan sufficed to bring the blessing of Parnasah.
Shlomo ha'Melech, though, ruled over the people in Eretz Yisrael, the fertile land which had
great potential for agricultural productivity, and therefore additional blessing was necessary
for the land to provide its produce. (Perhaps he added specifically ten Shulchanos to
represent the portions of the ten Shevatim that received land to cultivate, excluding Levi and
Shimon who received only cities and not farmland.)

The Ezras Kohanim points out that according to this reasoning, there should have been no
need for ten Menoros during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, when the Jewish nation
did not have dominion over the seventy nations. Similarly, there should have been no need
for ten Shulchanos during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, because the land was
not as productive as it was during the era of the first Beis ha'Mikdash (see Nechemyah 9:35-
37).

SHEVET YEHUDAH, as cited by the Ezras Kohanim (ibid.), writes that Shlomo ha'Melech
built ten Shulchanos to surround the Shulchan of Moshe Rabeinu and to give honor to it. (The
Gemara in Berachos (51a) teaches with regard to "Itur" of a Kos Shel Berachah that one
shows honor to an object by surrounding it with other similar objects.) Similarly, Shlomo
ha'Melech made ten Menoros to give honor to the Menorah of Moshe Rabeinu.

11
According to this reason, the additional Shulchanos and Menoros should have been present
in the second Beis ha'Mikdash as well, to give honor to the Shulchan and Menorah of Moshe
Rabeinu. This reason, therefore, is more consistent with the Gemara here which discusses
the second Beis ha'Mikdash and says that the Shulchanos of Shlomo ha'Melech were
present.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

How did the kohen gadol enter the Holy of Holies to perform the Yom
Kippur service?
The Mishnah on our daf presents the opinion of the Tanna Kamma, who believes that the Holy of
Holies was separated from the kodesh by a double curtain. The kohen gadol would enter the cubit-
wide space between the two curtains, walk the width of the Temple, and enter the kodesh
kodashim. The double curtain was introduced in the Second Temple to replace the wall that existed
in the first Temple, which was an amah thick. Rashi explains that since the second Temple was
much taller than the first Temple, and the wall could not be thicker than a single cubit, it was
impossible to build the wall so high, and it was replaced by the curtains. The idea of using a curtain
came from the Mishkan, where there was a single curtain separating the different areas of
the kodesh. Rabbi Yossi argues with the Tanna Kamma, claiming that even during second Temple
times there was just a single curtain.

The Gemara quotes three opinions about how the kohen gadol crossed the area of the kodesh,
which included the menorah, the mizbe’ach and the shulchan.

According to Rabbi Yehuda the kohen gadol walked between the menorah and the mizbe’ach.

According to Rabbi Meir, he walked between the shulchan and the mizbe’ach

Rabbi Yossi suggests that he walked between the shulchan and the northern wall.

The Gemara explains that the difference between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi is based on their
different opinions about which side of the Temple had the opening in the curtain. Rabbi Meir’s
opinion is based on his understanding of how the table was placed, and the concern that there was
not enough room for the kohen gadol to walk along the wall.

When the first Temple was built, King Solomon added ten extra tables to the Biblically
mandated shulchan. According to most opinions, these additional shulchanot did not exist in
the second Temple, and there was certainly room for the kohen gadol to walk between them table
and the wall. Nevertheless the tanna’im still argue, since the traditions of the first Temple were
still kept during the second Temple period.

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_5157/

12
Mark Kerzner writes:4

The High Priest continues on his way with the incense to the Holy of Holies. He walks through
the Sanctuary until he reaches the two curtains that separate it and the Holy of Holies. The space
between two curtains measured one amah (about two feet). Rabbi Yose says that there was only
one curtain, as the Torah describes it, " And the curtain shall divide between the Sanctuary and the
Holy of Holies. "

Rabbi Yose seems to be in the right, since he has a quote from the Torah to support him, what do
the Sages answer? They says that this was true in the First Temple, which was relatively low.
There the wall, which had a thickness of one amah, served as a partition, and a door in that wall
was used as an entrance. However, the Second Temple was higher, and the wall could no longer
stand on its own, due to its weight. Therefore, there were two curtains instead, marking the outer
and inner parts of the would-be wall.

Tosafos Yeshanim and Ritva explain the reason why having two curtains was the best way to deal
with the one amah strip between the Sanctuary and the Kodesh Kodoshim. The status of the
kedushah of this area was uncertain.5

If there would be one curtain, and it would be hung at the inner border along the Kodesh Kodoshim,
this would leave the one amah area open and exposed to the Sanctuary. As this space was possibly
part of the Kodesh Kodoshim, if a kohen in the Sanctuary would traverse this space, he would be
in violation of the verse (Vayikra 16:2) “he may not come at all times into the holy.” The other
possibility would be to hang the curtain on the outer limit of the amah strip of undetermined status,
closer to the Sanctuary, thus including the area in the Kodesh Kodashim.

But as part of this area might, in fact, officially be part of the Sanctuary, when the Kohen Gadol
enters on Yom Kippur to bring the ketores or to sprinkle the blood of the bull or of the goat, and
he might stand upon this area, he will not actually be in the Kodesh Kodashim. ‫ ארי גבורת‬adds
another factor which resulted in the need for a double curtain.

The purpose of this curtain is to separate between the Kodesh (the Sanctuary) and the Kodesh
Kodashim— ‫ הקדש בין לכם הפרוכת והבדילה‬. By definition, a curtain which is a barrier will serve its
function when it is in the correct spot, and it stands as a line of demarcation. The one side must be
bordering on the Sanctuary, while the other marks off where the Kodesh Kodashim begins.
However, because we are not precisely sure where this border is, we have no choice other than to

4
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma51.html
5
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20051.pdf

13
hang two curtains, just to ensure that at least one of them is at the edge between the Sanctuary and
the Kodesh Kodashim.

The Baraisa teaches three opinions regarding the route of the Kohen Gadol through the Sanctuary:
between the Altar and the Menorah, between the Shulchan and the Altar, and some say between
the Shulchan and the northern wall.

The Chida, zt”l, states that every element of the Mishkan and Beis HaMikdash teaches us a very
deep lesson about coming close to Hashem. The table represents those who support Torah, and
can also symbolize those who learn bekiyus to gain breadth because, as Chazal explained, the
Torah has been laid out clearly before the Jewish people “like a set table.” (Eiruvin 54b)

The Menorah represents those who learn Torah in depth, and the Altar represents prayer. There
are many ways to “approach the Kodesh Kodashim,” and each person must find his own way to
utilize his various strengths to achieve this lofty goal. As we see in the metaphor conveyed by the
Baraisa, some find that they are successful by focusing their energies on learning Torah in depth
while others find that they are more successful by putting their emphasis on covering a lot of
ground.

What works for one person will not necessarily work for another. Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapira,
zt”l, was once warned by the Brisker Rav, zt”l, “The method of study of Brisk is not suited for
every person or for every ability. Some people have more of a talent for bekiyus and some for
sharp analysis, still others have a stronger talent for innovative lines of reasoning.”

The Brisker Rav continued, “Each person must search for his particular way to learn Torah.
Someone whose talents are not suited for learning by the Brisker method and goes against his
natural tendencies to force himself into our mold will never develop those talents that he does
have. And he will not master the Brisker method of learning either!”

The sacred doorway.

RABBI ELLIOT GOLDBERG WRITES:6

A significant challenge facing the rabbis as they discuss the details of the Yom Kippur rituals in
the Temple is that the vast majority of them did not witness these events with their own eyes. Only

6
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yoma-51/

14
a few of the rabbis who appear in the Mishnah lived during Temple times, the rest rely on what
they have learned from their teachers and the texts that they have inherited, some biblical, some
rabbinic, to piece together the events of the day. It’s no wonder that they do not always agree on
the details.

We see an example of this on our daf, where we learn in a mishnah:

The high priest would then walk west through the sanctuary until he reached the area
between the two curtains that separated the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and the space
between them was one cubit.

Rabbi Yosei says: There was only one curtain there, as it is stated: And the curtain shall divide
for you between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. (Exodus 26:33)

The Holy of Holies — which was the most sacred space in the world and entered only once a year
by the high priest — was naturally partitioned from the rest of the Temple. But was it one or two
curtains? Rabbi Yosei posits that there is only one; the rabbis assert there were two, with a one
cubit (about 18 inch) spacing between them.

The Gemara praises Rabbi Yosei and explains that he is right about the tabernacle, the portable
sacred space that was used by the Israelites during their wandering in the desert. The rabbis, who
say two curtains, are correct too — they are describing the set up in the Second Temple.

Both positions find support in biblical sources. As Rabbi Yosei reported, in the portion of the text
describing the tabernacle specifically, the Torah states that there was one curtain separating the
sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. I Kings 6:16, which describes the Temple of Solomon (the First
Temple) says there were two cedar-covered partitions, with an empty one-cubit space between
them, and that the high priest would pass through them by means of a doorway that was covered
by a curtain.

The biblical text is unclear if the cubit between the two partitions was drawn from inside of the
Holy of Holies or outside of it. According to the Gemara, this caused some uncertainty for the
sages of the Second Temple period who decided to prepare curtains instead of walls to reflect their
doubt about where that in-between space belonged. (Notice that the Gemara anachronistically
assumes that the rabbis were central to the design process of the Second Temple!)

Rashi, the most famous talmudic commentator, who lived in the Middle Ages and certainly had
no first-hand experience of what the Temple looked like, suggests that the use of curtains was, in
part, due to the soaring height of the Second Temple, which made the construction of cedar-
covered partitions impossible.

So, for those keeping count, between the tabernacle, the First Temple and the Second Temple we
have three different ways for partitioning the Holy of Holies: a single curtain in the tabernacle,
two cedar-wood walls with curtained doorways in the First Temple and two curtains in the Second
Temple.

15
Today, on Yom Kippur, we liturgically “reenact” the rituals of the Temple during the Avodah
service. In many synagogues, the hazzan (prayer leader), who stands in for the high priest, chants
every word from the bimah, in full view of the congregation. No partitions or curtains necessary.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

In our daf (Yoma 51b) we are taught a Beraita presenting three opinions about the path taken by
the Kohen Gadol as he proceeded towards the Kodesh Kodashim. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he
walked between the inner Mizbeach (altar) and the Menorah. According to Rabbi Meir, he walked
between the Shulchan (table) and the inner Mizbeach. And according to Rabbi Yossi, he walked
between the Shulchan (table) and the wall.

Moreover, we were also taught in the Mishna (Yoma 5:1) found in our daf that, according to Rav
Yossi, ‘there was only one curtain’ separating between the Heichal (Kodesh) and the Kodesh
Kodashim which was folded back at its northern edge.

What this means is that, according to the interpretation of Rav Yossi, when the Kohen was walking
in the Heichal towards the Kodesh Kodashim, he could see into the Kodesh Kodashim while he
walked -since the entrance was immediately ahead of him.

For Rabbi Meir, such direct physical and visual access was considered ‘improper’, and thus he
suggests that the Kohen took a more circuitous route so he approached the Kodesh Kodashim
indirectly - as if seeking permission before entering.

However, as the Gemara (Yoma 52a) explains, Rav Yossi disagrees and argues that the ability for
the Kohen to see and walk directly into the Kodesh Kodashim expresses the love that God has for
us, thereby granting us permission to approach God, as physically represented by the Kodesh
Kodashim, directly.

Nowadays there are those who believe it correct to make access to holiness difficult who believe
that a way to honour the holy is to place boundaries around it, or around those who represent it.
But what I draw from today’s daf, and from the experiences I have had of knowing a number of
inspirational teachers and leaders, is that true greatness isn’t about residing in an ivory tower.

Instead, it is about being there for people in their hour of need, and making it known that – whatever
their need – they are loved, supported, and valued.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

16
 PAROKHET AND KAPPORET (Torah Ark curtain and valance).8

The Torah Ark curtain is a screen hanging over the Torah Ark which serves as a partition between
the Ark and the prayer hall.9 The Hebrew term parokhet is based on its identification with the
curtain, parokhet, which separated the holy section of the Tabernacle and the Temple from the
Holy of Holies (Ex. 26:31–35; 40:21). This identification is based on the concept of
the synagogue as a "lesser sanctuary" (Ezek. 11:16). According to the available literary and visual
sources, the curtain became a fixture in Ashkenazi and Italian synagogues during the Middle
Ages. We have no information about the existence of Torah Ark curtains in communities outside
Europe until the 20th century. According to the literary and visual material from Spain, it seems
that the outer curtain was not customary in Spanish communities. On the other hand, they did
apparently use an inner curtain, as evidenced by the presence of an inner curtain in all
Sephardi Diaspora communities. In Italy all arks have inner curtains, whereas an outer curtain is
present only in some communities – perhaps out of reluctance to hide the ornate doors. Since
the curtain serves as a cover for the Ark, its position within the hierarchy of ceremonial objects
is that of a "secondary" ceremonial object. Only when the need arises to use it as a covering for
the bimah, that is, as the cloth on which the Torah itself is rested, does it become a primary
ceremonial object, requiring genizah.

Like other ceremonial objects in the synagogue, the Torah Ark curtain is usually donated by
individual members of the congregation, frequently to commemorate life-cycle events. This has
engendered the custom of embroidering the name of the donor and the occasion of the
donation directly on the curtain or on an attached piece of cloth. In the 20th century, dedicatory
plaques of beaten silver appeared in Iraq.

The traditional design of the Torah Ark curtain varies from community to community. In most,
the curtain was made of a choice fabric according to the local cultural conception. In most
communities a luxurious fabric, which had previously been in the family's possession, was used,
and a common practice was specifically to use a costly piece of woman's clothing. The typical
curtain in Iraq was made from the izar, the upper veil worn by a woman when she leaves her
house. Torah Ark curtains in the communities of Iran and Afghanistan were principally made

8
D. Cassuto, "A Venetian Parokhet and its Design Origins," in: Jewish Art, 14 (1988), 35–43; J. Gutmann, "An Eighteenth-Century
Prague Jewish Workshop of Kapporot," Visible Religion, 6 (1988), 180–90; F. Landsberger, "Old-Time Torah Curtains," in: J.
Gutmann (ed.), Beauty in Holiness, Studies in Jewish Customs and Ceremonial Art (1970), 125–63; V.B. Mann, "Jewish-Muslim
Acculturation in the Ottoman Empire: The Evidence of Ceremonial Art," in: A. Levy (ed.), The Jews of the Ottoman Empire (1994);
B.Yaniv, "The Origin of 'The Two-Column Motif ' in European Parokhot," in: Jewish Art, 15 (1989), 26–43; idem, "The Cherubim
on Torah Ark Valances," in: Assaph, 4 (1999), 155–70.
9
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/parokhet-and-kapporet

17
of suzani embroidered sheets, and in Iran a tradition also developed of using paisley-printed
cotton material with Hebrew inscriptions.

Yemeni Torah Ark curtains were designed, as were covers for the tevah and for Torah scroll
cases, in the form of a large sheet in the center surrounded by a broad patchwork frame with a
chessboard pattern. In the Sephardi communities of the Ottoman Empire it became customary
to make Torah Ark curtains from silk velvet with gold embroidery, or from women's dresses,
also of silk-embroidered velvet. In such cases the different parts of the dress were disassembled
and re-sewn in order to create a rectangle.

It appears that neither in the eastern communities nor in the Sephardi Diaspora did this custom
arouse opposition on the part of the rabbis. European rabbis, however, differed regarding the
fashioning of Torah Ark curtains from used material, especially from clothing in general and from
women's clothing in particular. The circumstances under which pieces of clothing were used
generally involved vows taken by women in times of stress, or used elegant clothing purchased
for reuse of the cloth. Rabbinical objections to the practice abound in the responsa literature,
where we find repeated questions on this subject. Those objecting to the reuse of fabrics relied
on the law that the Temple utensils must be made of new material, which was not previously
used (Men. 22a). The more permissive rabbis, who were willing to take popular feeling into
consideration, cited midrashic commentaries on the episode of the copper mirrors donated by
the women of Israel for the Tabernacle (Midrash Tanhḥuma, Pekudei 9). According to this
interpretation, it is permitted to use a piece of clothing, provided its form is changed.

Alongside curtains of costly materials, European communities began to use embroidered Torah
Ark curtains. In Italy, a center of the art of embroidery, many communities traditionally
embroidered curtains using the Florentine stitch technique, which is particularly conducive to
the execution of detailed and precise patterns. Community women used it to embroider a
variety of Jewish motifs, including biblical themes, such as the Giving of the Torah, and scenes
from calendar and life-cycle events.

An entirely different embroidery tradition developed in the communities of central and western
Europe, where there were professional embroiderers who specialized in gold embroidery on a
silk velvet background. The most outstanding motif of the 18th-century Torah ark curtain in these
communities is that of a pair of columns, topped by a pair of lions flanking a Torah crown.
Between the two columns is an ornate sewn or embroidered rectangular sheet. This motif dates
back to the earlier architectonic motif of an actual gate, above which is the verse that identifies
it as the gateway to heaven: "This is the gateway to the Lord – the righteous shall enter through
it" (Ps. 118:20). Underlying the depiction of this motif on Torah Ark curtains is the identification
of the Torah Ark with the "gateway to heaven." Originally found in Italy, the motif
spread eastward to Turkey, northward to Bohemia and Moravia, and westward to Germany.

The Torah Ark valance (Heb. kapporet) is a short curtain hung on the Torah Ark, above the
curtain (parokhet). This ceremonial object, which first appeared in eastern Europe at the end of

18
the 17th century, evolved in connection with the identification of the Torah Ark in the synagogue
with the *Ark of the Covenant, and of the upper part with the kapporet on the Ark of the
Covenant in the Tabernacle (Ex. 25:21). Accordingly, it was customary in eastern Europe to
inscribe the verse "He made a cover of pure gold" (Ex. 37:6) on the upper part of the Ark. The
identification then came to be applied to the short curtain hung over the upper part of the Ark
to conceal the rod on which the main curtain (the parokhet) was mounted. Indeed, we find the
verse "Place the cover (kapporet) upon the Ark of the Covenant" (Ex. 26:34) embroidered on
early Torah Ark valances. As part of the synagogue furnishings, the valance was probably
introduced under the influence of 17th-century interior decoration in Europe, where such
valances were integral parts of curtains in general. Further influence of the cultural environment
is evident in the scalloped lower edge of the valance.

The identification of the valance hung on the Torah Ark with the gold cover on the Ark of the
Covenant is also evident in the motifs used in its decoration. Thus, most early valances employ
the motif of a pair of cherubim flanking a Torah Crown, as per the biblical description of two
golden cherubs with outspread wings mounted on the ends of the cover (Ex. 37:7–9). The
depiction of the cherubim as a pair of eagles, lions, or griffons is based on the traditional
interpretation of the creatures figuring in Ezekiel's Vision of the Chariot (Ezek. 1:5; 10:14–15).
Another characteristic motif of the valance is the Tabernacle utensils embroidered on the
scalloped edges. The Ark of the Covenant is embroidered on the central scallop below the Torah
crown; the showbread table and the seven-branched candelabra are generally embroidered on
matching scallops on either side of the central one, as are the golden altar and sacrificial altar
on another pair of matching scallops. Later an additional motif, the motif of "three crowns"
(Pirkei Avot 4:13) appeared in the upper part of the Torah Ark valance.

The Torah Ark valance spread from eastern Europe to central and western Europe (but not to
the Italian communities), and by the beginning of the 18th century it had already become
common. In most instances, valances were donated separately from the Torah Ark curtain.
During the 18th century, a workshop in Prague specialized in the embroidery of Torah Ark
valances. A unique feature of the Prague valances is the addition of a pair of freestanding wings
attached to the upper part of the Torah Ark on either side of the valance. These wings were
fashioned from rigid materials and covered with an embroidered cloth. German valances are
more varied than those from Prague, displaying a richer vocabulary of iconographic motifs.

In eastern Europe, where Torah Arks typically show greater iconographic variety, the motifs on
the valance disappeared in the course of the 18th century, most of the valances known from this
area being made of patterned fabrics without embroidered motifs or inscriptions. In contrast,
in central and western Europe, velvet valances with motifs and dedicatory inscriptions in rich
gold embroidery continued to be fashioned up to the 20th century. The existence of valances in
distant communities at the beginning of the 20th century, and even in our time, is evidence of
the influence of the European valances.

19
Between the Holy and the Holy of Holies: Understanding the Role
of the Paroches
Rabbi Immanuel Bernstein writes:10

‫ ְוֵהֵבאָת ָשָׁמּה ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת ֵאת ֲארוֹן ָהֵﬠדוּת ְוִהְבִדּיָלה ַהָפֹּרֶכת ָלֶכם ֵבּין‬...‫ְוָﬠִשׂיָת ָפֹרֶכת‬
‫ַהֹקֶּדשׁ וֵּבין ֹקֶדשׁ ַהֳקָּדִשׁים‬
You shall make a paroches partition… and you shall bring there, inside the Paroches, the Ark of
the Testimony, and the Paroches shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holy of
Holies.[1]
Role I: “And the Paroches shall separate for you”

The Paroches (dividing curtain) in the Mishkan is well-known to us. Indeed, within our synagogue,
which is known as “‫ – ִמְקָדּשׁ ְמַﬠט‬lesser sanctuary” the curtain which sections off the Ark that
contains the Torah scrolls is modelled on the Paroches of the Mishkan.[2]

If we were to be asked what the role and purpose of the paroches in the Mishkan was, we would
likely respond that the answer is explicitly stated in our verse: to serve as a division between the
two domains of the Kodesh (Main Sanctuary) and the Kodesh Hakodashim (Holy of Holies).
Indeed, Rashi states that the word “‫ ”פרוכת‬is an expression of “‫ – מחיצה‬partition”. Hakesav
V’Hakabbalah elaborates that the root letters of the word are ‫כ‬-‫ר‬-‫פ‬, which means to break, as the
Paroches provides a break or division between the two domains of the Mishkan. Moreover, the
“dividing” function of the Paroches was not always provided by a curtain made of material – in
the first Beis Hamikdash, it was a wall of stone that divided between the main Sanctuary and the
Kodesh Hakodashim.

Role II: “And you shall bring there… the Ark of the Testimony”
However, while the above response is undoubtedly correct, a closer look at our verse will reveal
that the paroches served not one function, but two. The earlier part of the verse states: “and you
shall bring there, inside the Paroches, the Ark of the Testimony.” As the Ramban points out, these
words are not describing the way the Mishkan is to be set up, for that is something that is not dealt
with until the end of Parshas Pekudei.[3] Rather, the verse here is denoting a second role of the
Paroches, namely, that it serves to “cover” the holy Aron and shield it from view. This second
purpose is reiterated in the Torah’s instructions for setting up the Mishkan, where it states: “ ‫ְוַשְׂמָתּ‬
‫ – ָשׁם ֵאת ֲארוֹן ָהֵﬠדוּת ְוַסֹכָּת ַﬠל ָהָאֹרן ֶאת ַהָפֹּרֶכת‬You shall place there [in the Mishkan] the Ark of the
Testimony, and you shall shield the Ark with the Paroches.”[4]

Dividing Between the Roles

10
https://outorah.org/p/82286/

20
Having identified the two purposes of the Paroches – dividing between the two domains in the
Mishkan and covering the Aron from view – it is most interesting to note that there were times
when the Paroches fulfilled only the first purpose, and other times when it fulfilled only the second.
· During the Second Beis Hamikdash, there was no Aron in the Kodesh Hakodashim and hence,
there was no requirement for a Paroches to shield it from view. At that time, the Paroches served
only the function of dividing between the two domains of Sanctuary and the Kodesh Hakodashim.
· In Chapter 4 of Parshas Bamidbar, the Torah describes how the Mishkan and its vessels were
to be transported as the people journeyed through the wilderness. Verse 5 reads: “ ‫וָּבא ַאֲהֹרן וָּבָניו‬
‫ –ִבּ ְנֹסַﬠ ַהַמֲּחֶנה ְוהוֹ ִרדוּ ֵאת ָפֹּרֶכת ַהָמָּס™ ְוִכסּוּ ָבהּ ֵאת ֲאֹרן ָהֵﬠֻדת‬Aharon and his sons shall come when the camp
is to journey, and they shall take down the Paroches and cover the Ark of the testimony with it.”
With the people in transit, there were no domains for the Paroches to divide between; yet even
there it continued to fulfill the function of shielding the Aron from view by covering it.[5]

Moreover, when we return to the situation in the first Beis Hamikdash – where both roles of the
Paroches were fulfilled – we will see that each role was taken care of by a different component,
for the Paroches at that time consisted of a wall, with an entrance in the center that was covered
by a curtain:
· On the one hand, the division between the main Sanctuary and the Kodesh Hakodashim was
provided by the wall. Even had the entrance in the center not been covered with a curtain, that
would in no way have negated the wall’s status as a partition.
· On the other hand, the curtain which covered the entrance served the function of shielding the
Aron from view.[6]

Role III: Creating Space

Looking yet more carefully at our verse, we will discover a third element within the Paroches. The
verse concludes:
‫ְוִהְבִדּיָלה ַהָפֹּרֶכת ָלֶכם ֵבּין ַהֹקֶּדשׁ וֵּבין ֹקֶדשׁ ַהֳקָּדִשׁים‬

And the Paroches shall divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies

The Netziv[7] asks: What is the meaning of the seemingly redundant word “ ‫ –ָלֶכם‬for you”? This
word does not appear with regards to any other aspect of the building of the Mishkan or the
manufacture of its vessels. In what way was the Paroches’ division between the two domains any
more “for the Jewish people” than anything else mentioned in our parsha?

Two Types of Division

The Netziv further draws our attention to the verse’s phrasing the division as “ ‫ֵבּין ַהֹקֶּדשׁ וֵּבין ֹקֶדשׁ‬
‫ַהֳקָּדִשׁים‬,” in light of a most interesting principle of parshanut. In Lashon Hakodesh, there are two
ways to describe something that divides between two things:

21
1. With the letter “‫ ”ל‬in between the two things being divided. For example: “ ‫ִויִהי ַמְבִדּיל ֵבּין‬
‫[”ַמ ִים ָלָמ ִים‬8]
2. With the word “‫ ”ובין‬in between the two things. For example: “ ‫ַוַיְּבֵדּל ֱא ִקים ֵבּין‬
™‫[”ָהאוֹר וֵּבין ַהֹחֶשׁ‬9]

What is the difference between these two forms? The Netziv explains:
1. If the division is described with a “‫”ל‬, then the divider serves only to divide between the two
things, but does not partake of any quality of either of them.
2. If the word “‫ ”ובין‬is used, it means that the item that is in between the two things is also a
“middle ground” in that has qualities of the two things it is dividing.
Applying that principle to our verse, we conclude that the paroches was to effect a division that
enjoyed a status somewhere between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. The question is: Where did
this take place and to what end?
Entering the Impossible

The meaning behind this lies in a Midrash[10] which states that although Aharon could not enter
the Kodesh Hakodashim at any time apart from Yom Kippur, Moshe was able to enter whenever
he wanted, and indeed did so regularly in order to commune with the Divine Presence and receive
Torah from there. The problem is, at the end of Chumash Shemos[11] we are told that Moshe was
unable to enter the Mishkan on the day of its inauguration, on account of Hashem’s cloud that
hovered over it. However, Hashem’s cloud was constantly over the Kodesh Hakodashim! If so,
how could Moshe ever enter there?

The answer is given in our verse: to create a zone between the Holy and the Holy of Holies where
Moshe could stand. Yet how could such a zone be created? Surely one is either in the one domain
or the other! To this end, Hashem informs Moshe that the Paroches shall divide “for you” between
the two domains.

This means that it specifically for Moshe that the dividing line was whether he was in front of or
behind the Paroches, whereas for Hashem, the division was between the innermost ten cubits and
that which lay beyond. Although these two dividing points generally coincided, they could be
caused to diverge – and indeed, they were.

It is well-known that the poles of the Aron protruded eastward into the main sanctuary somewhat,
moving the Paroches one amah back.[12] The purpose of this protrusion?

To create a space that, on the one hand, was behind the Paroches, while at the same not within the
final ten amos! This was the middle ground where Moshe was able to stand and receive Torah
from Hashem.

Truly a new dimension in our understanding of these domains!

Follow-Up: From Moshe to Aharon

22
In light of this idea, it is further fascinating to consider the way in which Aharon’s own entry into
the Kodesh Hakodashim on Yom Kippur is phrased by the Torah. In the beginning of Parshas
Acharei Mos, in words well-known to us from the Torah reading on Yom Kippur morning, Hashem
instructs Moshe:
‫ַדֵּבּר ֶאל ַאֲהֹרן ָאִחי• ְוַאל ָיב ֹא ְבָכל ֵﬠת ֶאל ַהֹקֶּדשׁ ִמֵבּית ַלָפֹּרֶכת‬

Speak to your brother Aharon, and he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary that it
behind the Paroches.[13]

Here, too, the Torah refers to the place where Aharon can enter only on Yom Kippur, not as the
“Kodesh Hakodashim,” but as “the Kodesh (Sanctuary) that is behind the Paroches.” For indeed,
entry into the Kodesh Hakodashim itself was off-limits for Aharon even on Yom Kippur – as it
was for Moshe during the forty years on the wilderness. What the special avodah of Yom Kippur
did allow Aharon to do was for him to enter “the Kodesh that was behind the Paroches,” the middle
ground that was “between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.”[14]

[1] Shemos 26:31-33.

[2] See R’ Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:40.
[3] Shemos Chapter 40.
[4] Ibid. verse 3.
[5] R’ Aharon Dovid Goldberg shlit”a, Shiras Dovid Parshas Terumah.
[6] R’ Menachem Kasher, Torah Sheleimah, endnotes to Parshas Terumah sec. 18.
[7] Commentary Haamek Davar to Shemos 26:33.
[8] Bereishis 1:6.
[9] Ibid. Verse 4.
[10] Toras Kohanim to Vayikra 16:2.
[11] 40:35.
[12] See Yoma 54a.
[13] Vayikra 16:2.
[14] Haamek Davar ibid.

Rav Amnon Bazak writes:11

11
https://haretzion.linnovate.co.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-shemot/parashat-pekudei/vayakhel-parokhet-kodesh-and-parokhet-screen

23
A. Concealment

Sefer Shemot ends with a description of the establishment of the Mishkan, and the Torah
then repeats all of the details of its construction, as well as that of its vessels. As in other repetitions
in the Torah, we find some significant differences between the account we read here and what we
read in the previous parashot. Our shiur will focus on the parokhet, which separates between
the Kodesh (Sanctuary) and the Kodesh Kodashim (the Holy of Holies), and the differences
between the two texts with regard to it.

Let us begin with the contradiction pertaining to the order of activities in establishing
the Mishkan. Was the Ark first placed in the Kodesh Kodashim, and then the parokhet spread to
separate it, or was the parokhet spread first, with the Ark placed inside only afterwards?

In Parashat Teruma we read:

And you shall make a parokhet of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen…
And you shall hang up the parokhet under the clasps, and shall bring there inside of
the parokhet the Ark of Testimony, so the parokhet will divide for you between
the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim. And you shall put the covering upon the Ark of
Testimony in the Kodesh Kodashim. And you shall set the Table outside of the parokhet,
and the Menora over against the Table on the side of the Mishkan towards the south;
and you shall put the Table on the northern side. (26:31-35)

The text tells us that first the parokhet is put in place, then the Ark of Testimony is brought
into the Kodesh Kodashim ("inside of the parokhet"), and finally the covering (kaporet) is placed
over the Ark.

However, in the account of the actual execution of the command in our parasha, there is a
significant discrepancy. We find this first at the stage of the command:

On the first day of the first month you shall put up the Mishkan, the Tent of Meeting. And
you shall place there the Ark of Testimony and screen the Ark with the parokhet. (40:2-3)

This suggests that Moshe must first place the Ark and only then create a screen for it by
hanging the parokhet. Indeed, we find when the command is carried out:

24
 He took and placed the Testimony in the Ark, and he set the staves on the Ark, and placed
the covering above, upon the Ark. And he brought the Ark into the Mishkan and set up
the parokhet screen and screened the Ark of Testimony, as God had commanded Moshe.
(20-21)

This tells us that Moshe first put the covering upon the Ark and put the Ark in its place,
and only afterwards hung the parokhet.

How are we to reconcile this contradiction? The Ramban (commenting on 26:33-34)

maintains that the first part of the description of the process in Parashat Teruma ("And you shall
hang up the parokhet under the clasps, and shall bring there inside of the parokhet the Ark of
Testimony…") is not intended to establish the order of the various actions, but rather to explain
the purpose of the parokhet:

He did not command now [in Parashat Teruma] that Moshe should follow this order…
Rather, the point was that the text commands that the parokhet be hung under the clasps
so that the Ark will be located inside the parokhet and the parokhet will separate
the Kodesh from the Kodesh Kodashim.

Nevertheless, the question remains: why does the literal meaning of the verses in Parashat
Teruma suggest an order – an order that is different from that in our parasha?

B. The Two Functions of the Parokhet

Perhaps the difference between the two parashot expresses a difference between two
different functions of the parokhet. In Parashat Teruma, the point of the parokhet is "so the
parokhet will divide (ve-hivdila) for you between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim." As
Rashbam explains, "This term denotes a barrier and separation between one area and the other."
The parokhet marks the border between the two parts of the Mishkan, like the clasps, under which
it is hung, which demarcate this border at the top of the Mishkan. Thus, it makes sense that the
hanging of the parokhet comes before placing the Ark inside. So long as the Kodesh Kodashim has

25
not yet been defined by the parokhet, the Ark cannot be placed "inside," since that space does not
yet exist.[1]

In Parashat Pekudei, in contrast, the parokhet "screened the Ark of Testimony" – that is,
it provided special protection for the Ark. As Rashi explains in his commentary on our parasha,
"'You shall screen the Ark' – this is an expression of protection, for it [the parokhet] was a barrier"
(40:3). From this perspective, there is no significance to the act of hanging the parokhet until the
Ark, which it is meant to protect, is put in its place.

The two functions of the parokhet are expressed in its two names. In our parasha, it is
referred to as the "parokhet screen" (parokhet ha-masakh), and this reflects its role in our parasha:
"It shall screen the Ark of Testimony." But elsewhere, the parokhet is called the "parokhet of
the Kodesh" (Vayikra 4:6), and that name reflects its function as described in Parashat Teruma:
"…So the parokhet will divide for you between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim." The role
of the parokhet in protecting the Ark finds special expression in Bamidbar 4:5 – "When the camp
moves, Aharon and his sons shall go in, and they shall take down the parokhet screen, and cover
the Ark of Testimony with it." It makes perfect sense that the parokhet is referred to here as the
"parokhet screen."

We find, therefore, that the two parashot express two different aspects of the parokhet.
According to the aspect presented in Parashat Teruma, it is proper that the parokhet be hung first,
and only afterwards that the Ark be brought to its place. But when the action is actually taken
in Parashat Pekudei, in order that the parokhet can serve as a "parokhet screen," the Ark is
brought to its place first. What is the significance of this discrepancy? And why did the aspect of
the "parokhet screen" ultimately take precedence of that of the "parokhet of the kodesh"?

The reason seems simple. As noted, the "parokhet of the kodesh" separates
the Kodesh from the Kodesh Kodashim, but this function is actually already fulfilled by another
item in the Mishkan, as we read: "And you shall hang the parokhet under the clasps…." The clasps
(kerasim) that connect the two sets of the lower coverings, by virtue of their very location, already
demarcate this separation.[2] We may therefore say that the boundary of the Kodesh Kodashim is
already demarcated and defined by the clasps, such that the parokhet only reinforces and
emphasizes this demarcation. For this reason, when a contradiction arises between the two roles
of the parokhet, the aspect of the "parokhet screen" takes precedence. The Torah “foregoes,” as it
were, the symbolic significance of the “parokhet of the kodesh,” which is fulfilled in any case by
the clasps, and focuses instead on the “parokhet screen” aspect, which can be expressed only when
the Ark is already in place.[3]

26
 An interesting possibility regarding the expression of the dual role of the parokhet in reality
arises from a mishna in Massekhet Yoma (5:1) that describes the manner in which the Kohen
Gadol would enter the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kippur:

He walked through the Sanctuary until he reached the place between the
two parokhets which separated between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim, with one
cubit separating them. [But] R. Yossi said: There was only one parokhet, as it is written,
“And the parokhet shall separate for you between the Kodesh and
the Kodesh Kodashim."

The mishna records a disagreement among the Tannaim as to whether there was just
one parokhet in the Temple, as R. Yossi deduces from the specifications concerning the Mishkan,
or whether there were in fact two. Our daf (Yoma 51b) affirms that "R. Yossi gave a good response
to the Sages." How, then, are we to explain the Sages' assertion that there were in fact
two parokhets?

[The single parokhet] applied in the Mishkan, but in the Second Temple, when the cubit-
thick partition wall which had featured in the First Temple did not exist, the Sages were
uncertain as to whether the level of sanctity [of the space] reflected that of the Kodesh
Kodashim [inside the parokhet] or that of the Kodesh [outside of it] and they made
two parokhets.[4]

According to the gemara, then, there were in fact two parokhets in the Temple!
Admittedly, the reason for this reality is technical in nature; it is the result of the doubt as to
the status of the cubit-wide space separating the Kodesh from the Kodesh Kodashim.
Nevertheless, it may well be that the two parokhets in fact represented the two aspects of their
role: one served as a "parokhet screen," while the other was the "parokhet of the Kodesh."[5]

27
C. Creativity in Fashioning the Parokhet

The function of the parokhet as set forth in Parashat Teruma also includes another
aspect. Parashat Teruma describes the plan of the Mishkan in three main parts. First there is the
command to fashion the vessels of the Mishkan – the Ark, the Table, and the Menora (25:10-40).
This is followed by the command concerning the structure – the coverings and boards (26:1-30).
Finally, the parasha describes the sacrificial altar (27:1-8). At the end of the parasha, the Torah
describes the structure of the courtyard (27:9-19). There is an important difference between the
command concerning the three parts of the Mishkan, and the command concerning the courtyard.
At the beginning of the parasha, God tells Moshe to make the Mishkan and its vessels "according
to all that I show you, the form of the Mishkan and the form of all of its vessels, and so you shall
do" (25:9). As Rashbam comments, "God actually showed Moshe an image of each of the vessels
and their construction." Indeed, these first three sections conclude by affirming this principle: at
the end of the first section, at the conclusion of the command concerning the vessels, we read:

And see and make them according to their form, which is being shown to you on the
mountain. (26:40)

At the end of the second section, following the description of the coverings and the boards, we
read:

And you shall establish the Mishkan according to its specifications which were shown
to you on the mountain. (26:30)

And at the end of the third section, following the command to build the sacrificial altar, we find
once again:

As you are shown on the mountain, so shall you do. (27:8)

28
 However, when it comes to the courtyard, there is no repetition of this command, since the
emphasis on everything being made exactly as shown to Moshe on Mount Sinai applies only to
the Mishkan and its vessels, not to the courtyard.

However, in the above review, we skipped one unit: the unit devoted to
the parokhet (26:31-37), which is located in between the structure of the Mishkan (coverings and
boards) and the altar. Seemingly, the parokhet is part of the structure of the Mishkan. But, as
stated, the verse that concludes the description of the structure of the Mishkan – "And you shall
establish the Mishkan according to its specifications which were shown to you on the mountain"
(26:30) – comes after the coverings and the boards; the unit on the parokhet is not included in it.
This would suggest that the principle that applies to the parokhet is the same principle that applies
to the courtyard – that its fashioning is not limited to an exact copy of the form that God showed
Moshe at Sinai.

What is the significance of this difference between the parokhet and the other parts of
the Mishkan?

It seems that this distinction arises from a more prominent difference between
the parokhet and the other parts of the Mishkan. At the beginning of Parashat Teruma, God tells
Moshe: "Speak to Bnei Yisrael, that they take a contribution for Me…" (25:2). The purpose of the
contribution is, "Let them make for Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst" (verse 8).

The Mishkan is meant to be a place where the Divine Presence will rest, and hence there is
a need to emphasize that everything related to it must be done exactly in accordance with God's
command, with no human intervention in the planning. Only one part of the Mishkan is not meant
for God: the parokhet, which – from the perspective of Parashat Teruma – is meant "to
separate for you between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim" (26:33).

The parokhet is meant for Bnei Yisrael, to separate between the two areas for them. For
this reason, there is room for human creativity in its fashioning; only its general form is transmitted
to Moshe.

Indeed, in the summary of all the labor of the Mishkan in our parasha, we are told:

29
 According to that God commanded Moshe, so Bnei Yisrael did all the work. And Moshe
saw all the handiwork, and behold – they had done it; as God had commanded, so they
had done it; and Moshe blessed them. (39:42-43)[6]

We may therefore deduce that the parokhet – whose role in these parashot is to be
a “parokhet screen” and not just a separation for Bnei Yisrael – is fashioned just like the other
vessels. (Indeed, the “parokhet screen” is mentioned in the list of all the components of
the Mishkan preceding these verses of conclusion.)

We may therefore say that in fashioning the "parokhet of the Kodesh," there is room for
human creativity, but the "parokhet screen" must be fashioned precisely as God had commanded
Moshe.12
[1]
This aspect of the parokhet – its demarcation of the Kodesh Kodashim – is especially highlighted in the unit describing the

service of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur: "God said to Moshe: Speak to Aharon, your brother, that he should not come at all

times into the Kodesh that is inside of the parokhet, [coming] before the covering that is upon the Ark, so that he will not die, for I

shall appear in the cloud over the covering… And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar before God, and his

hands full of sweet incense beaten fine, and bring it inside of the parokhet… And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering

that is for the people, and shall bring its blood inside of the parokhet…" (Vayikra 16:2,12,15). Similarly, concerning the service of

the Kohanim in Parashat Korach, we read: "And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood in everything pertaining

to the altar, and to that which is inside of the parokhet, and you shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a gift of service, and any

non-kohen who approaches shall be put to death" (Bamidbar 18:7). The Kodesh Kodashim is not mentioned in any of these verses;

we read only of the space "inside of the parokhet."

[2]
The lower coverings ("yeri'ot"), which are referred to as "mishkan" (see our shiur on Parashat Teruma), consisted of ten pieces,

each four cubits wide. These were joined together to form two groups of five pieces each, such that each group was 20 cubits long,

and the two groups together formed a length of 40 cubits. The Mishkan was 30 cubits long. When the coverings were spread over

it, one group of coverings stretched from the entrance of the Mishkan up to the clasps – that is, the 20 cubits of the Kodesh, while

the other covered the 10 cubits over the Kodesh Kodashim and then hung down another 10 cubits of the boards behind it. Thus, the

12
Translated by Kaeren Fish

30
clasps marked precisely the line separating the Kodesh from the Kodesh Kodashim, at a distance of 20 cubits from the entrance to

the Mishkan.
[3]
We may add that the two aspects of the parokhet also characterize the lower coverings themselves. On the one hand, the function

of the lower coverings is to be a "mishkan" – a roof for the structure within which the Divine Presence rests. Just as the

“parokhet screen” covers the Ark from the side, so the yeri'ot cover the Ark above. At the same time, the division of the coverings

into two groups, with clasps joining them and marking the border between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim, is reminiscent

of the “parokhet of the kodesh,” which separates these two locations. Indeed, both the parokhet and the lower coverings are made

of "twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with keruvim…" (36:8; see also verse 35 concerning the parokhet).

Admittedly, the screen at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting is likewise fashioned from "blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine

twined linen" (36:37), but it lacks "keruvim." Only the parokhet, which is part of the Kodesh Kodashim, symbolizes in its very

fashioning the keruvim that it covers.

[4]
In the First Temple, the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim were separated by a cubit-thick cedar wall. The Second Temple was

much higher than the first, and it was impossible to build such a narrow wall to such a great height. The solution arrived at was to

hang two parokhets, with a cubit between them. However, the status of that cubit of space – i.e., whether it belonged to

the Kodesh or to the Kodesh Kodashim – was not clear (see Rashi ad loc.).
[5]
Perhaps there is room for an even more audacious idea: On the literal level of the text, the Sages might have responded to R.

Yossi there is another verse – "And you shall place there the Ark of Testimony, and screen the Ark with the parokhet" – suggesting

that in the Mishkan, too, there was another parokhet. According to this suggestion, the dispute of the Tannaim concerns not only

the Temple, but the Mishkan, too.

[6]
In the parashot of Vayakhel and Pekudei, the affirmation that the work was carried out "as God had shown Moshe" is routinely

omitted (see especially 37:24; 36:34; 38:7). In its place we find our parasha repeating over and over that the work was performed

"as God had commanded Moshe."

31
13

A New Paroches

RABBI DOVID HOFFMAN WRITES:14

A number of years ago, Rabbi Ezriel Tauber, shlita, gave a lecture on the Holocaust in New York
City to a secular audience. At the end of his talk, a young lady walked over and told him that she
came from an assimilated family in Austria. She explained that her father had been religious before
the war, but as the sole survivor of his family, he became so bitter against G-d that he went back
to Vienna to raise an assimilated family. The woman had been fascinated to hear a positive
interpretation of the Holocaust and eventually she became a complete ba’alas teshuvah. Her father
was devastated. “I ran away from all that. Are you crazy to go back?” But she did go back and
even made aliyah, settling in Jerusalem.
Sometime later, Rabbi Tauber was invited to deliver a lecture in a hotel in Tiberias over Shabbos
Chanukah. The very same woman was there and she told him that her father was visiting from
Vienna and she was spending some time with him in Tiberias. Rabbi Tauber suggested that maybe
if she brought her father that evening to his lecture it might soften him up a bit toward Judaism.
She brought him to the packed lecture hall where Rabbi Tauber spoke eloquently. He drove home
the message that each and every Jew is an ambassador of Hashem, and as a result every Jew has
the chance to sanctify G-d’s name. Hashem gave every Jew a pure neshamah, a candle to light up
the dark, and no one can replace the light he will spread. The light that is not spread leaves a dark
area in the world, which prevents Mashiach from coming.
Rabbi Tauber explained that there are two types of Kiddush Hashem. One is to die for Him and
one is to live for Him. The second is more difficult. He illustrated this idea with a true story. In

13
Listen to Your Messages: And Other Observations on Contemporary Jewish Life (ArtScroll (Mesorah)) Yissocher Frand

14
https://www.queensjewishlink.com/index.php/torah/71-stories-of-greatness/487-a-new-paroches

32
Treblinka, one of the worst concentration camps, the Germans eliminated more than 800,000 Jews
in less than one year. But they were not satisfied in killing them alone. They hung a paroches, the
covering from an aron kodesh, at the entrance to the gas chambers inscribed with the words “This
is G-d’s gate; the righteous shall pass through it.” These cynical Germans thought they could
humiliate the Jews in the last moments of their lives, hoping they would curse G-d before they
died. The exact opposite happened. Even the assimilated Jew, without understanding why, would
sing, “Ashreinu mah tov chelkeinu, How fortunate are we that we are being killed as Jews.” This
drove the Germans crazy. Instead of humiliating the Jews, they lifted them up.
“This,” said Rabbi Tauber, “is called dying al Kiddush Hashem. And if you are going to die, you
might as well die sanctifying His Name. The challenge is for those who survived Treblinka.
Finding themselves alone in this world without their family, those who walked with Hashem
without complaints, who raised a family, made a new paroches that says ‘This is the gate of
Hashem.’ In this generation, we are all Holocaust survivors. Every one of us is a victim of the gas
chambers. We are victims of the Western gas chambers. Spiritually, we are being poisoned. Our
brains do not function. We are addicted to the stupidity of Western society. Those who live in the
warmth of Yiddishkeit are like those liberated from the camps. This is the time to rebuild ourselves
by becoming proud Jews. This is the reason Hashem made miracles for us, enabling us to survive!”
When the lecture was over, this young lady ran over to Rabbi Tauber. She said that her father was
in the audience and he wanted to talk to him. A few moments later she escorted her father to the
front. He walked with his head down, and when he lifted his face up, Rabbi Tauber could see that
his eyes were swollen with tears. He said in a Polish Yiddish, “I was in Treblinka working at that
gas chamber. I saw my family killed in front of my eyes. I saw the paroches you spoke about, and
that made me an apikores. I couldn’t forgive G-d for keeping me alive with all these horrific
memories.”
Rabbi Tauber asked him whether he had found his answer tonight. Hadn’t he thought that he could
get away with raising an assimilated family? And look, one daughter was married to a gentile and
the other, who had been non-religious, had come back to Hashem. “Your daughter is the one who
is making that new paroches with her own hands,” he told him. “This is the gate of Hashem. Can
you run away from that?” Slowly but surely, the Yid from Vienna became a ba’al teshuvah.

33