Daf Ditty Yoma 72:Poles of the Aron

Red chest from the tomb of Tutankhamun, equipped with carrying poles,
shown with poles extended. Burton photograph 1557. From Malek,
Tutankhamun.

1
The Gemara cites other statements concerning the ark. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:
What is the meaning of that which is written:

‫ ֲﬠֵצי‬,‫ ַלִמְּשָׁכּן‬,‫ַהְקּ ָרִשׁים‬-‫טו ְוָﬠִשׂיָת ֶאת‬ 15 And thou shalt make the boards for the tabernacle of
.‫ ֹעְמִדים‬,‫ִשִׁטּים‬ acacia-wood, standing up.
Ex 26:15

“And you shall make the boards for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing”

This verse teaches that the boards of wood used for the Tabernacle should stand in the same
direction in which they grew from the ground as a tree. Alternatively, “standing” means that
they supported their gold plating and prevented it from falling. Alternatively, “standing” is
written to hint at the following: Perhaps you will say that now that the Tabernacle is no longer in
use, their hope is lost and their chance is abandoned, and after being stored away the boards
will no longer return to use. Therefore, the verse states “standing” to indicate that they stand
forever and ever.

2
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the priestly vestments: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said:
What is the meaning of that which is written:

‫שׁ ֵרת‬ָ ‫ְל‬ ,‫ַהְשּׂ ָרד‬ ‫ִבְּגֵדי‬-‫יט ֶאת‬ 19 the plaited garments, for ministering in the holy place,
‫ִבְּגֵדי ַהֹקֶּדשׁ ְלַאֲהֹרן‬-‫ ֶאת‬:‫ַבֹּקֶּדשׁ‬ the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments
.‫ִבְּגֵדי ָבָניו ְלַכֵהן‬-‫ ְוֶאת‬,‫ַהֹכֵּהן‬ of his sons, to minister in the priest's office.'
Ex 35:19

“The plaited [serad] garments, for serving in the Sanctuary” Why does the verse refer to the
priestly vestments as “serad garments”?

Rashi (op cit)

Rashbam (op cit)

He offers a homiletic interpretation: Were it not for the priestly vestments, which provide
atonement for the Jewish people, there would not remain a remnant [sarid] or survivor from
the haters of the Jewish people, a euphemism used to refer to the Jewish people themselves. Due
to the atonement provided by the priestly vestments, a remnant [sarid] of the Jewish people does
survive.

3
Another interpretation: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that the school of Rabbi Shimon
taught: The priestly vestments are referred to as “serad garments” because they are garments
that are woven in their completed form upon the loom, as opposed to weaving the material and
then cutting and sewing pieces of the material together to create the required form, and then just
a small part of them remains [masridin] which is not completed upon the loom. What is the
remnant, the part that was not woven? Reish Lakish said: This is the needle-work required to
complete the garment.

4
The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: Priestly vestments should not be made
through needle-work but though woven work, as it is stated: “Woven work” (Exodus 28:32).
The Gemara answers that Abaye said: Reish Lakish’s statement is necessary only for, i.e., refers
only to, the sleeves. As it was taught in a baraita: A sleeve made for the priestly vestments is
woven separately and then attached to the garment by sewing, and the sleeve is made to reach
as far as the palm of the hand. However, the main body of the garment must indeed be made
exclusively though weaving.

Summary

First, Rabbi Berekhya tells us that in one instance, ishim, men, actually refers to a similar
word, isha, woman. He tells us that Torah scholars are similar to women: they stay inside most of
the time, they are physically weaker than regular men, and they are engaged in different activities
than regular men.1

1
https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/search?q=yoma+71

5
As well, the same verse would suggest that Torah scholars are like fire on the Altar. Finally, Rabbi
Berekhya also teaches that if a person sees that Torah scholarship is lacking in his sons, he should
marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. "Through its root will grow old in the earth, and its trunk
will die in the ground, from the scent of water it will blossom and put forth branches like a plant".
(Job 14 8:9). The first wife's children are like old rotten roots, but through the right second wife,
Torah will make his children flourish like blossoming branches. Is he suggesting than men take
on second or third wives? Or should they divorce their wives and marry again? I wonder about
Rabbi Berekhya's relationships with women; he has much to say that would affect their lives.

And back to daf 71, which primarily focuses upon the High Priest's clothing in greater detail. We
learn about the ephod, worn over the outer tunic, and the breastplate. The rabbis argue, of course,
over interpretation. This time they attempt to understand what desecration of these garments is
punishable and what is simply discouraged.

The rabbis want to know the meaning of a serad garment, as is described in Exodus 35:19. Perhaps
this is something plaited? Or perhaps serad is related to sarid, a remnant, suggesting that not even
a remnant of the Jewish people would survive without this sacred clothing. Another option offered
by Rabbi Shmuel bar Hachmani as taught by the school of Rabbi Shimon: serad garments might
be woven in their completed form on the loom, rather than sewing the remnants, masridin. The
Gemara critiques this possibility, as considerable sewing completes the garment.

We move on to other points of our last Mishna. Regading the three arks, we learn that perhaps
wood of the acadia tree was used as it would "stand" forever (Exodus 26:15). The rabbis wonder
how these three arks would fit together. They consider measurements and distances. Rabbi
Yochanan introduces the three crowns - of the altar, the Ark and the table. Symbolizing "power
and authority", one of these crowns was taken by Aaron and another by David, both
deservingly. The last crown - well, perhaps it waits for the third King.

Rabbi Yochanan raises a number of contradictions. One interesting point is that the 'crown' of
Exodus 25:11 should be pronounced 'zar', strange, but is vocalized as 'zeir', crown. He suggests
that one deserving of a crown is one who performs mitzvot. However, if one is not deserving of
the crown, "the Torah will be a stranger, 'zara', to him and he will forget his studies". Regarding
the wooden Ark, Rabbi Yochanan suggests that the people of the town were to support this
work. Similarly, the Jewish people should support the Torah scholars in their towns, allowing
them to study.

A good portion of amud (b) reminds us that Torah scholars should be devoted to G-d - the love of
G-d and the fear of G-d - in their thoughts and not only in their actions. To learn without feeling
is "loathsome and foul; man who drinks iniquity like water" (Job 15:16). Rava is quoted as saying
that "for those who are skillful, studying Torah is a portion of life; for one who is not skillful, the
Torah is a portion of death". We are told that learning Torah refines us as human beings. Does

6
this mean that we should learn Torah even without 'belief', as we will become bettered through the
process of learning? Reish Lakish is clear: "For one who is deserving, the Torah refines him for
life. One who is not deserving is refined for death."

What does this mean for someone like me? I am a woman studying Talmud from a critical
perspective. I question my belief in anything and everything. I do not use my learning to deepen
my practice, though I do maintain a practice that would be thought of as heretical to these ancient
rabbis. Am I poisoning my future, both here in this lifetime and in the world-to-come? Or will the
study of Talmud refine me? Sometimes I feel badly for doing something that would be disapproved
of by so many. Then again, Judaism is my inheritance, too, and I should have equal say into how
to make meaning of these traditions.

Rabbi Chanina tells us that when we study Torah in purity, it stays with us for life. But purity here
does not refer to belief, fear or love. It refers to sexual conduct: one should marry and then become
a Torah scholar so that he is not preoccupied with sin. I suppose that it is permitted to think of
one's wife in a 'preoccupied' manner. Or perhaps the rabbis believe that one would not become
preoccupied with the notion of sex with his wife? I could say more about this but I'll choose to
just let it go.

At the end of the daf, we return to the sanctified fabrics made for the Temple. The rabbis wonder
why we are told that an embroiderer and then a designer created the covers for the Tabernacle.
what was woven and what was sewn as needlework? Finally, the rabbis bring us back to the
Mishna where we learn that Aaron passes on his garments to his sons. Is this meant as sons,
literally, or as the next highest ranking priest? Our next daf will begin with a contradiction.

AGADAH: "BIGDEI HA'SERAD"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara understands that the words "Bigdei ha'Serad" (Shemos 35:19) refer to the Bigdei
Kehunah. (See, however, Rashi to Shemos 31:10, 35:19, and 39:1, who challenges this
interpretation.) The Gemara explains that the Bigdei Kehunah are called "Bigdei ha'Serad" because
if it were not for the Bigdei Kehunah, there would be, G-d forbid, no remnant ("Serid") left of the
Jewish people.

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-072.htm

7
In what way do the Bigdei Kehunah save the Jewish people? Moreover, if it is true that without
the Bigdei Kehunah there would be no remnant left of the Jewish people, then why, after the
destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, are the Jewish people still alive?

(a) RABEINU CHANANEL explains that the Bigdei Kehunah save the Jewish people by
attaining atonement for their sins. He refers to the Gemara in Zevachim (88b), which he quotes
earlier as well (Yoma 44a), which relates that the Bigdei Kehunah atone for various sins.

(b) RASHI explains that the Bigdei Kehunah enable the Kohen to offer Korbanos, which attain
atonement for the sins of the Jewish people. Without the Bigdei Kehunah, the Kohen is not
permitted to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. Why does Rashi say that the Bigdei Kehunah save
the Jewish people because they enable the Kohen to offer the Korbanos? He should say simply
that the Bigdei Kehunah themselves attain atonement for the Jewish people (as Rabeinu Chananel
says). (RASHASH)

Apparently, Rashi is bothered by the Gemara's expression, "If not for the Bigdei Kehunah, there
would be no remnant left...." Even if there were no Bigdei Kehunah to atone for the sins of the
people, the Korbanos would atone for their sins! Rashi therefore explains that the Gemara means
that without the Bigdei Kehunah, no atonement would be provided by the Korbanos because the
Korbanos cannot be offered without the Bigdei Kehunah.

(Rabeinu Chananel perhaps understands that since the Bigdei Kehunah may be worn all day, the
verse emphasizes them as the element which provides for the continued existence of the Jewish
people. Even at a time when no Korbanos are offered (such as at night), the Bigdei Kehunah still
provide Kaparah, for the Bigdei Kehunah are worn even at night.)

Why, though, do the Jewish people exist today when there is no Bigdei Kehunah (to attain
atonement, according to Rabeinu Chananel, or to enable the Korbanos to attain atonement,
according to Rashi)?

The Gemara in Ta'anis (27b) answers this question. The Gemara teaches that when there is no Beis
ha'Mikdash, a person attains atonement by reading and studying the portions of the Torah which
discuss the Korbanos. "Whenever they recite the Seder ha'Korbanos, I consider it as if they offered
Korbanos before Me, and I forgive them for their sins." (According to this approach, Rabeinu
Chananel apparently maintains that when one reads and studies the portions of the Torah which
discuss the Bigdei Kehunah, he becomes worthy of the atonement which they provide.)

(c) RABEINU ELYAKIM suggests another explanation for the words of the Gemara. He
explains that the Torah calls the Bigdei Kehunah "Bigdei ha'Serad" because they remained even
after the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed. Just as the Tzitz, one of the Begadim of the Kohen Gadol,
was taken to Rome at the time of the Churban (see Shabbos 63b), so, too, the rest of the Bigdei
Kehunah were taken to Rome. They are still there today, and thus they provide atonement for the
Jewish people (even though they are not being worn).

8
This approach explains why the Gemara mentions the Bigdei Kehunah and not the Korbanos as
the source for the Jewish people's existence, and it also explains how the Jewish people attain
atonement from the Bigdei Kehunah today when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing.

"BIGDEI KEHUNAH" OF THE "KOHEN MASHU'ACH MILCHAMAH"

Rav Dimi states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (the Kohen appointed to encourage and
admonish the men of the Jewish army when they go to war, as described in Devarim 20:1-9) may
wear the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara challenges Rav Dimi's opinion from a
Beraisa which states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear neither the eight garments
of the Kohen Gadol nor the four garments of an ordinary Kohen. Abaye answers that mid'Oraisa
he may wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol, as Rav Dimi says. The Rabanan,
however, decreed that he not wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol in order to prevent
the Kohen Gadol from feeling malice towards him. The Rabanan decreed that he not wear the four
Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen because of the principle, "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin"
-- once a person (or object) achieves a higher status of holiness, his status may not be lowered but
only raised to a higher level.

Why does Abaye say that the reason why the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear the four
Bigdei Kehunah is because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh"?

Rav Dimi maintains that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is required to wear the eight Bigdei
Kehunah, and that is why he may not wear only four garments! If he wears only four garments, he
is considered "Mechusar Begadim" (lacking the required number of Bigdei Kehunah) and any
Avodah he performs is invalid.

TOSFOS YESHANIM answers that there are times when a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah must
be removed from his position. For example, if he becomes too old to go out to war with the army,
he is dismissed from his position and his status returns to that of an ordinary Kohen. (The position
of Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is an appointed position. Just as the appointment to the position
is made with a verbal declaration of the king or Beis Din, so, too, the resignation from the position
is made with a verbal declaration of the king or Beis Din.) Nevertheless, he still may not wear the
four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen. Even though he is no longer a Kohen Mashu'ach
Milchamah and thus he will not be "Mechusar Begadim" if he wears only four Bigdei Kehunah,
another reason prevents him from wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah: the principle of "Ma'alin
ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin."

RAVIN'S EXPLANATION FOR THE NUMBER OF "BEGADIM" WORN

BY "KOHEN MASHU'ACH MILCHAMAH"

Rav Dimi states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (see previous Insight) may wear the eight
garments of the Kohen Gadol when he performs the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara
challenges Rav Dimi's opinion from several sources that clearly show that the Kohen Mashu'ach
Milchamah may not wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah.

9
Ravin answers that Rav Dimi does not teach that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may perform
the Avodah while he wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol. Rather, Rav Dimi says
that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah when the king stands
before him and requests guidance from the Urim v'Tumim. When he performs the Avodah,
however, he wears only four Bigdei Kehunah. This understanding of Rav Dimi's statement answers
all of the questions posed on his opinion, because, according to this understanding, Rav Dimi
agrees that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah never wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah for the
Avodah.

However, one Beraisa apparently contradicts Ravin's statement. The Beraisa says that the Kohen
Mashu'ach Milchamah may not perform the Avodah while he wears the four Bigdei Kehunah of
an ordinary Kohen, nor may he perform the Avodah while he wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah of
the Kohen Gadol. According to the Gemara's original understanding of the Beraisa (before Ravin),
the reason why he cannot wear the four Bigdei Kehunah is because of the principle, "Ma'alin
ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" -- one may rise in holiness but not descend; since the Kohen Mashu'ach
Milchamah is supposed to wear eight Bigdei Kehunah, he may not "descend" to four Begadim
even when he loses his position and becomes an ordinary Kohen. According to Ravin, however,
the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah never wears eight Begadim; he wears only four Begadim like
an ordinary Kohen. Accordingly, the principle of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" does not
apply, because the status of the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is not being lowered when he wears
four Bigdei Kehunah, since he never wore eight. Why, then, does the Beraisa not permit him to
serve with four Begadim?

(a) The CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) and the SEFAS EMES answer that
according to Ravin, if the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah ever dons the eight Begadim in order for
a petitioner to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, he henceforth is not allowed to perform the
Avodah with four Begadim because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin." Since he once wore the
eight Begadim he may no longer wear only four Begadim. That is the case which the Beraisa
discusses.

This answer, however, is questionable. "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" means that because the
Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah held a loftier position (as demonstrated by the fact that he was
permitted to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah), he may no longer perform the Avodah with four
Begadim like an ordinary Kohen. According to Ravin, however, his position as a Kohen Mashu'ach
Milchamah is no loftier than the position of an ordinary Kohen (as far as the Avodah is concerned),
because he does not perform the Avodah with the eight Bigdei Kehunah. The fact that a question
was asked of him through the Urim v'Tumim is not considered a form of "rising" in holiness such
that he may not "descend." (These Acharonim apparently maintain that the very act of donning the
eight Bigdei Kehunah grants the Kohen more Kedushah.)

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Horayos 15:22) points out that the Beraisa which the Gemara cites as
support for Ravin's statement explicitly says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah dons the eight
Bigdei Kehunah so that one may ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim through him. This implies
that he wears four Bigdei Kehunah when he performs the Avodah. This Beraisa argues with the
earlier Beraisa which says that he may not perform the Avodah with four Begadim because of

10
"Ma'alin ba'Kodesh." It is apparent that the two Beraisos argue, and Ravin follows the second
Beraisa.
(c) The YEFEH EINAYIM cites the Yerushalmi which is bothered by this question. The
Yerushalmi says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear four Begadim because
people who see him wear eight Begadim (when one asks a question of the Urim v'Tumim through
him) might think that he has the status of a Kohen Gadol. If he then performs the Avodah with
four Begadim, they will say that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to perform the Avodah with four
Begadim. Therefore, the Rabanan decreed that he may not perform the Avodah with four Begadim
so that people not think that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to perform the Avodah with four Begadim.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Gemara on this daf discusses the bigdei kehuna – the special uniform worn by the priests who
are involved in the Temple service – and particularly the respect and honor that these clothing
deserve. The amora Rahava quotes Rav Yehuda as ruling that someone who tears the bigdei
kehuna has transgressed a negative commandment and will receive malkot. This ruling is based on
the passage (Shemot 28:32), which commands that the openings in the priestly clothing be
hemmed so that they will not tear.

The Sefer Hachinuch explains the prohibition as stemming from the heightened respect that needs
to be shown to the priestly uniform, both by kohanim and by the general population. Some
commentaries distinguish between the me’il (outer garment) – where the prohibition applies to any
tear – and the other bigdei kehunah, where the only prohibition is when the tear was made in a
destructive manner.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov objects to this ruling, arguing that the passage is merely recommending a
method of stitching that will ensure well-made clothing that will not tear easily. According to him,
it should not be seen as a negative commandment to tear the garment, but a positive commandment
to sew it well. The Gemara responds that the passage does not say “…so that it will not tear,” but
rather “it should not be torn,” which is understood to be a statement that establishes tearing bigdei
kehuna as a negative commandment.

Rabbi Moshe Galanti points out in his Sefer Korban Chagigah that it is unusual for
the Talmudic sages to interpret a passage that is clearly an explanation of a commandment and
understand it to be a prohibition. For example, when the Torah commands a Jewish king to refrain
from marrying too many wives, concluding “and his heart will not be swayed,” it is not understood
as a separate prohibition, forbidding the king from turning away; rather, it is interpreted as an
explanation of why too many wives is a bad thing. One suggestion put forward by the
commentaries (see Rashi on the Torah) is that this case is unique because the Torah repeats the
same words in both the commandment to make the bigdei kehuna and the description of the
fulfillment of that commandment. It is difficult to accept that the Torah would give the same
explanation twice, particularly in the case where the Torah is describing

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_7278/

11
that the garments were being made. Thus it is understood to be teaching a law, rather than simply
offering an explanation.

It is prohibited to remove the poles from the holy ark, and anyone who does so is subject to lashes.
What is the reason that the Torah requires that the poles for carrying the Ark always remain in
their rings, whereas the poles for carrying the Altar and the table are only required to remain in
their places when their respective utensils are actually being moved? 4

Meshech Chochmah explains that the poles for carrying the Aron represent the segment of Klal
Yisroel which supports and upholds Torah scholars who are immersed in the study and
dissemination of Torah, just as the poles served to carry the ark and the Torah contained in it. It is
only fitting that these supporters be totally and constantly associated with their Torah partners.

Just as we find that the Ark was not actually carried, but it “lifted up its bearers,” so too is the case
with those who study Torah. Those who join in partnership with Torah learners in serving the
needs of the Jewish people and sponsor their endeavors are actually promoted and elevated in their
status, as they are privileged to serve a holy cause with their support. This is why it is fitting that
even while the Ark is at rest, the poles which are used to carry and transport it should remain fixed
to it to indicate that their impact is always an inherent part of Torah.

A delegation once came from a certain city to consult with the Chofetz Chaim, zt”l, about a
pressing communal matter. The Rav of their town had recently passed away, and a conflict was
raging over who would be his successor. The townspeople felt that they had the right to designate
whomever seemed the most worthy candidate, but the Rav’s sons protested that the position
constituted a halachic inheritance, and should rightly be handed down to them.

Both parties to the conflict presented their respective cases, and the Gadol said the following:
“Although it is true that Rabbanus is generally handed down as an inheritance, sometimes this is
not the case. We find in the Gemara in Yoma that a ‫ מלחמה משוח כנן‬a kohen who has been
anointed to lead the people out to war, does not pass his position down to his children.
4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20072.pdf

12
Why is this so? Because the man who leads the people out and brings them back from battle needs
to be an ‫ מלחמה איש‬,a man of war. How can this position be handed down if his son is not fit
for the task?” The Chofetz Chaim, zt”l, went on. “It used to be that most of the Jewish people
obeyed the Torah, and the job of a Rav was just to maintain the status quo by teaching and making
halachic decisions.

It was during such times and in such situations that the position was handed down as an
inheritance.” He concluded, “Now, however, that the fire of the Haskala movement is raging
throughout the entire house of Israel, a Rav must be a man of war. He needs to have the fortitude
to seal the breaches in his community and to fight the fires of impurity. This role cannot necessarily
be inherited— and it is incumbent uponall communities to find for themselves a Rav who is a great
scholar and who will be able to fight for the survival of his community.

Mark Kerzner writes:5

The priest vestments, which began to be discussed on the previous page , were all woven with
white linen threads, some with six threads, some with eight, and up to twenty four. The additional
four garments of the High Priest were multi-colored: the breastplate was white, blue, red and gold;
the coat was of blue wool. One who tore them was liable to punishment. The garments themselves
provided atonement for the mistakes of the Jews. One can learn moral lessons from them and from
the other vessels in the Temple. For example, the Ark was gold on the inside and on the outside,
to tell us that any Torah scholar whose outside is not the same as his inside - that is, who is insincere
- is not a true Torah scholar.

In general, the Torah itself can be a cure for some but a poison for others. This is the meaning of
the phrase, "And this is the Torah that Moses put (sam) in front of the Jews." The word "sam"
means a drug of any kind, and can cure or kill. Some say that one should learn it for the right
reasons, and others - that he should understand it deeply enough.

Swan Lake
Rabbi Sari Laufer writes:6

Since antiquity, the swan has been associated with music; it was believed that swans sang sweetly
just before dying — giving rise to the notion of a “swan song.” Far more interesting, though, is the
fact that in medieval bestiaries the swan was a symbol of hypocrisy; the brilliant pure white
plumage seen as belying the black flesh underneath.

Hypocrisy and the struggle to match our inner and outer selves is a topic of deep interest to the
rabbis of the Talmud, and plays a significant role in today’s daf:

5
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma72.html
6
Myjewishlearning.com

13
The Torah states concerning the Ark: From within and from without you shall cover it.
(Exodus 25:11)

Rava said: This alludes to the idea that any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside,
is not a Torah scholar.

We all know or have heard of the outwardly pious religious person, Jewish or not, who secretly
cheats in business, commits adultery or worse. Perhaps we know them, perhaps we even love them.
They are not a new phenomenon of religious life, and the rabbis are acutely aware of, and sensitive
to, the hypocrisy in a life lived this way.

This concept, in Hebrew tocho k’voro (“its inside is like its outside”), is not a new one for the
rabbis. But they see it as a two-edged sword: an ideal to be sure, but also a difficult standard that
can be used to unfairly clobber others.

Perhaps the most well-known meditation on this idea is found in the famous story in which Rabban
Gamliel is unseated as the nasi, the head of the rabbinic academy (Berakhot 27 and Berakhot 28).
He is thrown out because he is too authoritarian and replaced by a young scholar named Elazar
ben Azaryah who is wise, learned, well-connected and wealthy (pretty much everything you could
want in this job). He is, however, quite young and his wife worries that his appearance is a liability.
Miraculously, overnight God grants him distinguished white hair so that he looks the part of the
head of the academy — tocho k’voro.

In this new role, the first thing that Elazar ben Azaryah does is throw open the doors of the beit
midrash (the house of study) and add benches, allowing anyone who wants to come study. Rabban
Gamliel, we are told, had permitted only those students whose tocho k’voro, whose inside was like
their outsides. But Elazar ben Azaryah democratizes the study hall, for the better, as Rabbi Aaron
Finkelstein explains:

“In this regard, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was the realist, Rabban Gamliel, the idealist. Ideally,
said Rabban Gamliel, we would all be completely integrated, our inner essence matching our
exterior, but the Talmud acknowledges that complete integration — to our internal character match
our outward behavior — is not so simple.”

Of course, ironically, Rabban Gamliel, who had fully looked the part of the head of the academy,
had displayed major failings in his leadership. Matching one’s insides and one’s outsides is
complicated.

Let’s go back to today’s page and Rava’s idea that a Torah scholar’s insides should match their
outward appearance. It seems that the idea of tocho k’voro is not a question of inclusivity or
exclusivity; it is not about restricting access to learning and tradition, but rather asking us to
examine ourselves — to ensure that we come to our study of Torah, or our commitment to Jewish
life, with true intentions. Otherwise, Rava teaches the other sages:

I beg of you, do not inherit Gehenna twice.

14
If you come to Torah and its study as a hypocrite, or if you study Torah but do not live its lessons
in the world, you are doubly-cursed: You are wasting your time in this world, and God’s time in
the World to Come. And unlike the swan, it won’t matter how sweetly you sing.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Some years ago I delivered a shiur on ‘How the Torah is often used as a defense for things that the
Torah finds indefensible’, in which I highlighted a number of modern examples where Torah is
misrepresented by Jews and religious leaders across the religious spectrum in the name of Torah,
and reflecting on what inspired me to prepare and deliver that shiur, I drew inspiration from two
sources.

Firstly, I drew inspiration from Rabbi Sacks’ magnificent book ‘Not in God’s Name’ which begins
by stating how, ‘too often in the history of religion, people have killed in the name of the God of
life, waged war in the name of the God of peace, hated in the name of the God of love and practised
cruelty in the name of the God of compassion. When this happens, God speaks, sometimes in a
still, small voice almost inaudible beneath the clamor of those claiming to speak on his behalf.
What he says at such times is: Not in My Name.’ (Not in God’s Name p. 3).

And secondly, I drew inspiration from our daf (Yoma 72b) where Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi
explains – based on his creative reading of Devarim 4:44 - that Torah is comparable to a ‫( סם‬drug),
whereby just as the Torah can be a ‫ – סם חיים‬a drug of life, it can also be used as a ‫ – סם מיתה‬a drug
of death.

For those who write, teach and preach Torah laws and values, this is undoubtedly a frightening
thought, because what it means is that it is possible to teach and preach Torah and actually cause
damage and do real harm. Given this, what can be done to avoid the possibility of Torah being
used as a ‫?סם מיתה‬

I believe that the answer to this question is mentioned on a number of occasions – explicitly and
implicitly – on our daf, which is that Torah must be coupled with a fear of God and the commitment
not to worship or idolize anything other than God.

For example, we are taught in our daf (Yoma 72a) – while quoting Shemot 28:28 that the Choshen
(breastplate) must not be loose from the Ephod (apron). As Rav Zalman Sorotzkin explains
(Oznayim LaTorah on Shemot 28:28): ‘the Choshen atoned for judges, while the Ephod atoned
for idolatry. Thus… the fact that the Choshen should ‘not be loosened from above the Ephod’
suggests that Jewish justice, represented by the Choshen, can only be administered by judged who
bear no taint of idolatry.’

Furthermore, we are also taught in Yoma 72b that the enemies of Torah are not those who reject
Torah, but rather, those ‫ – שעוסקים בתורה ואין בהן יראת שמים‬who involve themselves with Torah, but
lack a fear of Heaven.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

15
Moreover, in explaining Rav Yannai’s pronouncement in Yoma 72b of ‘woe unto one who does
not own a courtyard but makes a gate for his courtyard’, Rashi explains that this refers to someone
who studies Torah but lacks fear of heaven.

However, what does it mean to have a fear of Heaven? I believe that it means to be concerned with
God’s concerns as expressed in the Torah, rather than what others (often impudently) claim to be
God’s concerns which they metaphorically put in God’s mouth and speak in His Name.
Sadly, just like counterfeit pills are often peddled as ‘the real thing’ which, once ingested, can do
real harm and can occasionally kill, counterfeit Torah is also often peddled as ‘the real thing’
which, once ingested, can also do real harm and can even occasionally kill – and, for the sake of
God, for the sake of Torah, for the sake of ourselves and for the sake of others, we should be very
clear and very careful to steer ourselves and others away from such dangers.

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:8

"Any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside [whose piety does not match their learning]
is no Torah scholar" (Yoma 72b). It is a given that Torah study is meant to make one a better
person; more sensitive to the needs of others, aiding in the refinement of character, the
development of moral excellence, and greater observance of mitzvoth between man and G-d.
Rabban Gamliel went so far as to exclude from the Beit Midrash those scholars whose "inside was
not like their outside" (Brachot 28a). Presumably, he agreed with Abaye's assessment that such a
person is not only not a scholar, but is "called nitav, an abomination" (Yoma 72b).
Having one continue to grow in learning without a concurrent rise is character risks desecrating
the name of G-d. On the other hand, if we deprive people of the opportunity of learning Torah--of
4,000 years of accumulated teaching and wisdom--can we complain if Torah has little impact
on them?
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria--who succeeded Rabban Gamliel as the Nassi, leader of the Jewish
people--changed course, allowing all into the Beit Midrash, and 700 benches had to be added on
the day of his appointment (Brachot 28b). While this open approach resonates with many, the
Talmud notes that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria ended up sharing the role
of Nassi.
This, Rabbi Soloveitchik explained, teaches us that both approaches have their place; that of
restricting Torah to the moral (and presumably intellectual) elite, and ensuring Torah for the
masses. The greater the level of learning, the more we must concern ourselves with the person's
character.
"And this is the Torah that Moshe put before the Jewish people" (Devarim 4:44). Using a play on
words (see Maharsha, Yoma 72b), the Gemara explains that this verse, sung in shuls whenever we
read from the Torah, teaches that Torah is both a potion for life and for death--it all depends on
how it's used. Torah study that does not inspire awe of G-d and His mitzvoth is Torah study that

8
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-72-time-for-some-fun

16
is sorely deficient. One can master the six orders of the Mishnah, "and even so 'the fear of G-d is
its storehouse'" (Isaiah 33:6, Shabbat 31a). Torah is much more than an academic discipline [1].
Awe of G-d is the precursor to joy, which is another necessary ingredient to proper Torah study.
"The commands of G-d are just; they make joyous the heart" (Psalms 19). Torah study is meant to
be enjoyable--and this joy precludes a mourner from engaging in Torah study [2]. We are meant
to express our joy during Torah study by accompanying it with song, singing being an expression
of joy (Megillah 32a).
Those whose Torah study leads neither to awe nor joy are subject to a "double gehinom". As Rashi
explains, they miss out on the pleasures of both this world and the next. Viewing Torah as a burden
(how sad!), the time spent studying it deprives them of the pleasures of this world. And having no
positive impact on them, they risk inheriting gehinom in the World to Come [3]. May we merit to
be amongst those who combine awe and joy in our study of Torah.
[1] Of course, Torah is also an academic discipline, requiring great rigour, exacting standards, the search for truth, freedom of
inquiry, and publishing original research, all in a competitive atmosphere.
[2] The prohibition against a mourner studying Torah may well go beyond the issues of joy. Tosafot, Moed Katan 21a,
s.v. Vassur, quotes a debate as to whether a mourner may study the "sad" parts of Torah, something all agree is permitted on Tisha
B'Av. Not only a mourner but all who visit a shiva home are proscribed from studying Torah. Torah is a Torat Chaim, a Torah of
life. A shiva home is one where death is in the air, and is the antithesis of Torah study, which is a celebration of life.

[3] This reminds me of Rav Soloveitchik's explanation of Hosea's words that are read on Shabbat Shuva; "Return, O Israel, because
you have failed in your sins" (14:2). The Rav noted that often, man can't even sin properly. He may, for example, work on Shabbat,
hoping to get ahead, only to watch his shomer Shabbat colleague get the promotion. How tragic when one sins and is so bad at it
that he can't even derive benefit from the sin! (See On Repentance, p. 64.)

Rav Yitzchak Levy writes:9

,‫ ֲﬠֵצי ִשִׁטּים; ְוִצִפּיָת ֹאָתם‬,‫יג ְוָﬠִשׂיָת ַבֵדּי‬ 13 And thou shalt make staves of acacia-wood,

.‫ָזָהב‬
and overlay them with gold.

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/core-studies-tanakh/removing-poles-ark-i

17
 ‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ַהַבּ ִדּים ַבַּטָּבֹּעת‬-‫יד ְוֵהֵבאָת ֶאת‬ 14 And thou shalt put the staves into the rings on

.‫ ָבֶּהם‬,‫ָהָאֹרן‬-‫ ָלֵשׂאת ֶאת‬,‫ַצְלֹעת ָהָאֹרן‬

the sides of the ark, wherewith to bear the ark.

‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ַהַבִּדּים‬,‫ ִיְהיוּ‬,‫ ָהָאֹרן‬,‫טו ְבַּטְבֹּעת‬ 15 The staves shall be in the rings of the ark; they

.‫ ִמֶמּנּוּ‬,‫ָיֻסרוּ‬
shall not be taken from it.

And you shall make poles of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold. And you shall
put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, that the ark may be carried therewith.
The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it.

Ex 25:13-15

Those who count the mitzvot include the prohibition of removing the poles from the ark
among the 613 biblical commandments. Thus, for example, the Rambam writes in his Sefer ha-
Mitzvot:

He warned us against removing the poles of the ark from their rings. This is what it says:
"The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it." One who
transgresses this prohibition is liable to flogging. At the end of Makkot they said in the
discussion concerning those who are liable for lashes: "But surely there is one who
removes the poles of the ark" – in other words, he is liable for lashes. And the warning
is from here: "They shall not be taken from it." Thus, it has been explained to you that
this is a negative commandment and that [the transgressor] is liable for lashes.
(Commandment 86)

18
 What is the rationale of this prohibition? Various explanations have been offered, some of
which will be brought below.

THE REASONS FOR THE PROHIBITION

1. The Sefer ha-Chinukh writes as follows:

Among the roots of the mitzva: Since the ark is the dwelling place of the Torah and it is
our essence and glory, and we have been obligated to treat it with all due respect and
splendor to the best of our ability, therefore we have been commanded not to remove the
poles of the ark, lest it become necessary for us to quickly go out somewhere with the
ark. And perhaps owing to the trouble and the haste, we would not properly check that
the poles are as strong as necessary. And perhaps, God forbid, it would fall from their
hands, and this is not in keeping with its honor. But since they are always set in it and
never removed from it, we will make them very strong, and there will be no mishap with
them. Another reason is that the form of each of the vessels of the Mikdash must allude
to great supernal matters, so that a person should be moved for the good when he thinks
about them, and God wanted for our own benefit that it should not lose its form even for
a short time. (Commandment 97)

2. Da'at Zekeinim mi-Ba'alei ha-Tosafot explain that this prohibition stems from the excessive
sanctity of the ark:

Owing to the sanctity of the ark, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want them to
handle it and remove the poles and put them back in the rings. Rather, when they come
to carry it, they take hold of the ends of the poles and carry it, and when they put it down,
they immediately go on their way because of the fear of its sanctity. This is the meaning
of the verse: "The poles shall be in the rings of the ark" – that Moshe should put them
in and fix them, as it is written in the passage of "And it was finished." And once they
were put there, they were no longer removed. (Shemot 25:15, s.v. lo yasuru)

3. An interesting explanation is brought by the Meshekh Chokhma:

19
 "The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it." And our
Rabbis have said (Yoma 72b): "One who removes the poles of the ark is liable to
flogging." Regarding the altar it says: "And the poles shall be put… to carry it" (below
27:7). And similarly regarding the table (ibid. 25:8). This is not the case with the ark,
whose poles are permanently fixed in it – surely this is of significance! It seems based
on a midrash that the ark alludes to the crown of the Torah, which rests for all who wish
to take it. Now a Torah scholar needs help to support him - that a rich man should cast
the profits of merchandise into his purse, like Todos of Rome, and in this way his Torah
will endure. And so too they said about the ark in Yoma (72b): "It is written: 'And make
for yourself an ark of wood" (Devarim 10:1), and it is written: 'And they shall make an
ark of shittim wood' (Shemot 25:10). From here we learn that the inhabitants of his city
are obligated to do the work of the scholar for him." The poles come for this purpose,
for the poles are always those who hold fast to it. They support the hands of the Torah
scholar, who is the ark for the testimony of God and His teachings. And it is fitting that
they should always hold the ark of the covenant and not be removed from it. And just
as Chazal exaggerated in the Yerushalmi, in the seventh chapter of Sotah (halakha 6):
"If he did not learn, or teach, or keep, or do, and he did not have wherewith to support,
and he supported, he is included among the blessed." Therefore, the poles are
permanently fixed in it.
Now we know the viewpoint of the Rambam that the lamps must be lit even during the
day, for according to him this is included in trimming the lamps. His viewpoint is
reasonable, for [the Sages], of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 22b): "Does He require
the light? (Rather it is testimony to mankind that the Shekhina rests in Israel"). And to
show that He does not require the light, but rather it is a religious law, it was necessary
to light during the day as well; just as the lighting during the day is not to illuminate, so
too the lighting at night, for the two are one matter. So too the ark, which bears it
bearers (Sota 35a) and the poles do not bear it, as [the ark] bears itself… Therefore, He
commanded that the poles should not be removed from it, to teach that just as there is no
need for the poles when it is resting in the Ohel Mo'ed, so too, when they carry [the ark]
on the shoulders, this is not necessary for the Glory that is being borne, as it were.
Therefore, the poles must never be removed, just like the lamps are always
lit. (Shemot 25:15)

The Meshekh Chokhma first explains that the ark should be seen as alluding to the crown
of the Torah, which is available to anyone wishing to take it. Based on this, the poles allude to
those who support Torah scholars. Therefore, the poles should be connected to the ark of the
covenant at all times and not be removed from it.

20
 In the continuation, corresponding to the viewpoint of the Rambam, who maintains that
the candlestick is lit even during the day in order to demonstrate that God does not require the light
of the candlestick, the Meshekh Chokhma argues that the same idea can be applied to the ark. In
the ark as well, the role of the poles is not to carry the ark, as it is the ark that carries its bearers.
Therefore, the commandment that the poles must not be removed even when the ark is resting in
the Ohel Mo'ed emphasizes that the ark does not really need its bearers.

4. R. S. R. Hirsch sharpens a few additional points:

The carrying poles were not simply means for transport, which would be only necessary
when carrying the ark from one place to another. They were never to be allowed to be
separated from the ark. They belonged essentially to that which the ark represented
symbolically. So much so that according to the words of our text, they had to be on the
ark even before the tablets were placed in the ark, and the cover placed over it. The
Tosafot even supposed that the ark had to have two pairs of these poles. One pair always
remained on the ark and was never allowed to be taken out of it, but they were not
actually used for carrying and so were a purely symbolic appendage. A second pair was
only inserted at the time of, and for the purpose of, transport. The wording of our verse
12 and of Bamidbar 4:6 would favor this supposition, but 5:14 there would seem against
it. In any case, the essential importance of the poles for the ark is ensured by the
command that they many never be separated from the ark, in contrast to the poles for
the other vessels of the Mikdash. From Melakhim I 8:8, we learn that the front ends of
these poles pushed the curtain outwards, and so, although covered, were visible. To
anyone in the Mikdash, they were the sole visible evidence of the existence of the ark of
the covenant behind the parokhet.

The poles, the means of carrying the ark, symbolically represent the command and the mission to
carry the ark and its contents, if it becomes necessary, away from the precincts of its present
position. The command that these means of transport may never be lacking is to emphasize in our
minds the fact that from the very beginning, it must be made clear that this Torah and its mission
is in no way bound to the place or existence at any time of the Mikdash.

The meaning of the constant presence of the poles, as proof of the independence of the Torah of
any place, receives further emphasis when it is contrasted to the other vessels, especially to the
table and the candlestick, both of which had to be supplied with poles, but the poles did not have
to be permanently in place, but were only inserted when actually to be used. The thought
immediately jumps to one's mind. Israel's table and Israel's candlestick – its material life in its
full completeness, and its spiritual and intellectual life in complete clarity and brightness – are
bound to the soil of the Holy Land. Israel's Torah is not. (Shemot 25:12-15)

21
 The first important point is that the poles were an essential part of the structure of the ark,
and therefore they had to be inserted into the ark even before the tablets were placed inside and
the kaporet was set above it. R. Hirsch argues that the role of the poles was to carry the ark and
what it contained beyond the precincts of its present location. The Torah is not connected to any
particular place, and in this the ark is different from the other vessels.

According to this explanation, we can understand the fact that was noted in the
previous shiur. In all the passages relating to the ark, whether the command or the execution in its
various stages, the poles are always mentioned alongside the ark. The spiritual significance of this
fact is that the poles are an essential element of the vessel and not merely the technical means
whereby the ark may be transported from place to place while the camp is in transit.

R. Hirsch understands the rationale underlying the rule that the poles may not be removed
from the ark as based on the idea that the Torah is not limited to any particular place and that at
any moment it may be removed from its present location and moved to some other place where it
is needed for the dissemination and teaching of its teachings.

5. The Meiri, in his novellae to our passage, explains that the ark's poles symbolize the body's
needs, whereas the ark symbolizes the spiritual essence. The needs of the body must also be
connected to those of the soul in the sense of: "Know Him in all our ways." In similar fashion, he
explains the verse in Shir Ha-shirim: "I am asleep, but my heart is awake." The heart must always
be alert to sacred things, even when it is dealing with matters of the body.[1]

6. R. Elchanan Samet brings a different explanation of the prohibition to remove the poles.[2] The
Rambam relates to two mitzvot connected to the bearing of the ark. He writes as follows:

When the ark is transported from place to place, it should not be transported on an
animal or on a wagon. Instead, it is a mitzva for it to be carried on one's shoulders. Since
David forgot and had it transported on a wagon, there was an outbreak [of Divine anger]
at Uzza. Instead, it is a mitzvah to carry it on one's shoulders, as it is
stated (Bamidbar 7:9]: "Because the service of the sanctuary belonged to them; they
bore it on their shoulders."10

10
see my “David’s Punishment” Podcast at www.jyungar.com/podcast

22
 When [the Levites] carry the ark on their shoulders, they should carry it face to face,
with their backs pointed outward and their faces inward. They must be careful that the
poles of the ark are not removed from the rings. Anyone who removes one of the poles
from the rings is liable for lashes, as it is stated (Shemot 25:15): "The poles shall be in
the rings of the ark. They shall not be removed from it." (Hilkhot Kelei ha-
Mikdash 2:12-13)

When the Torah describes the manner in which the Levites carry the vessels of
the Mishkan, it writes:

But to the sons of Kehat he gave none; because the service of the sanctuary belonged to
them; they bore it on their shoulders. (Bamidbar 7:9)

The Netziv explains this mitzva as follows:

It should say: "They bore it with the poles," as the verse states in Parashat
Teruma (Shemot 25:14), and we would know that it is carried by hand or on the
shoulders. Surely the wording of the Torah in Shemot is "And you shall put the poles
into the rings… that the ark may be carried therewith." It would seem that the poles
are meant for carrying… Rather, it comes to hint that when the holy vessels are in
transit, they themselves [the Levites] must serve as the chariot of the Shekhina, and
so they must cleave in their thoughts to the mind of God. The power of the mind is in
the brain at the back of the head, at the shoulder. (Bamidbar 7:9)

The Netziv sharpens the point that the spiritual meaning of carrying the ark on the shoulders
is not a practical or technical matter, but rather that it falls upon the Levites themselves to serve as
a chariot for the Shekhina, as the vessel that carries the ark and cleaves thereby to God.

Is it possible that the juxtaposition of the two rulings in the Rambam – the obligation to
carry the ark on the shoulders and the prohibition to remove the ark's poles from their rings –
indicates that there is a connection between them? Is it possible that the purpose of the prohibition

23
to remove the poles of the ark is to prevent us from forgetting the obligation to carry the ark on the
shoulders?

A source that can confirm this line of thought is the story describing David's transport of
the ark from Kiryat Ye'arim to the City of David after his conquest of Jerusalem. The ark was
transported via a new wagon driven by Uzza and his brothers:

And when they came to Nakhon's threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to the ark of
God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. (Shemuel II 6:6)

There is no mention here of the poles of the ark. Why not take hold of the poles, rather than
the ark itself? Is it possible that when the ark was loaded onto the wagon, the ark's poles were
removed?

The Malbim adopts such an approach:

This means that they did not carry it with poles, as is the law, but they merely carried the
ark itself while holding onto it. They carried it without poles intermediating between it
and their hands and they touched the ark, which is forbidden. (Malbim, ad loc., s.v. im
aron ha-Elokim)

The verse in Divrei Ha-yamim describes how this sin was repaired:

For because you did not do so at first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, because
we did not seek him according to the prescribed form. So the priests and the Levites
sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel. And the children of
the Levites bore the ark of God upon their shoulders the bars being upon them, as Moshe
had commanded according to the word of the Lord. (Divrei ha-Yamim I 15:13-15)

24
 In addition to the sanctification of the Levites, the repair involves carrying the ark of God
upon the shoulders.

Rashi (ad loc.) explains:

To carry it, but not literally on the shoulders, but by the poles on them. (v. 15, s.v. kidvar
ha-Shem bi-kheteifam)

We can therefore say, in line with the words of the Malbim, that because the poles were
removed, the ark was not carried on the shoulders but by wagon, and the repair was to carry the
ark on the shoulders.

It is possible that the constant juxtaposition of the poles to the ark was meant to serve as a
reminder of the obligation to carry the ark on the shoulders. According to this understanding, the
prohibition to remove the poles from the ark helps us remember the positive command to carry the
ark on the shoulders.

SUMMARY

To summarize the reasons for the prohibition to remove the poles from the ark:

· The Sefer ha-Chinukh maintains that the poles ensure an attitude of respect towards
the ark and caution that it not fall.

· The Da'at Zekeinim mi-Ba'alei ha-Tosafot explains the prohibition in relation to

the excessive sanctity of the ark, so that people not come to handle it.

25
 · The Meshekh Chokhma connects the fixedness of the poles to the fact that the ark
alludes to the crown of the Torah that is available to anyone who wishes to take it. The
fact that the poles are fixed in the ark even while it rests in the Ohel Mo'ed teaches that
ark carries itself, just as the lighting the candelabrum during the day indicates that it is
not done for the illumination.

· R. S.R. Hirsch sharpens the fact that the poles are an essential element of the ark,
and not merely an auxiliary device for carrying the ark from place to place. The role
of the poles is to carry the ark and its contents beyond the limits of the Holy of Holies,
because the Torah is not fixed to some physical place.

· The Meiri argues that the poles symbolize physical needs, whereas the ark itself
symbolize the spiritual. The prohibition to remove the poles teaches that the physical
needs must always be connected to the needs of the spirit. This approach was
developed by many authors, who explain that the poles symbolize those who provide
Torah students with financial and other support, whereas the ark itself symbolizes the
crown of the Torah, the Torah scholars themselves.

· R. Elchanan Samet, based on a close reading of the Rambam, understands that the
prohibition to remove the poles from the ark help us remember and fulfill the mitzva to
carry the ark on the shoulders.11

[1]
Many midrashic explanations have been offered for this prohibition, many of which are brought by R. Nachshoni in his Hagut
be-Parshiyot ha-Torah, Parashat Teruma, pp. 331-335.
[2]
R. Elchanan Samet, Iyyunim be-Parashot ha-Shavua, Parashat Teruma, pp. 224-236.
, full_html

The Poles of the Ark and Tutankhamun’s Chest

11
Translated by David Strauss

26
The description of what is to be done with the ark’s carrying poles (‫ )ַבּ ִדּים‬seems to differ between

Exodus ch. 25 and Numbers 4. Medieval Jewish commentators offered many different solutions to

this contradiction, but the best answer lies in what we learn from the construction of ancient

Egyptian portable chests.[1]

The caskets containing Tutankhamun’s gold jewellery, opened, looted, and tidied
up again when the tomb was resealed a second time. Carter described that one of
the looters “had done his job as thoroughly as an earthquake”.

Dr. Raanan Eichler writes:12

Exodus 25 presents a detailed formal description of the tabernacle and its contents. The first item
described is the “ark of the testimony” (‫ ;ֲארוֹן ָהֵﬠדוּת‬vv. 10–16), which is regarded throughout the
Bible (by a variety of names) as the central object in any legitimate Israelite worship.

12
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-poles-of-the-ark-and-tutankhamuns-chest

27
Permanent Carrying Poles

The ark is designed to be carried by poles. The text specifies that these are to be inserted into four
gold rings at each of the ark’s four feet (vv. 12–14); it adds that the poles should always stay in
the ark’s rings (v. 15):

.‫טו ְבַּטְבֹּעת ָהָאֹרן ִיְהיוּ ַהַבִּדּים ל ֹא ָיֻסרוּ ִמֶמּנּוּ‬:‫שמות כה‬

Exod 25:15
The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark: they shall not be removed from it (NJPS).
This is consistent with the description of the Solomonic Temple in 1 Kings 8:7–8 (=2 Chron. 5:8–
9):

.‫ח ַוַיֲּא ִרכוּ ַהַבִּדּים ַוֵיָּראוּ ָראֵשׁי ַהַבִּדּים ִמן ַהֹקֶּדשׁ ַﬠל ְפֵּני ַהְדִּביר ְול ֹא ֵיָראוּ ַהחוָּצה ַו ִיְּהיוּ ָשׁם ַﬠד ַהיּוֹם ַהֶזּה‬:‫מלכים א ח‬

1 Kgs 8:8
The poles projected so that the ends of the poles were visible in the sanctuary in front of
the Shrine, but they could not be seen outside; and there they remain to this day.
The table (25:26-27), the bronze altar (27:4, 7), and the incense altar (30:4-5) are also described
as having rings for poles when they are carried, but the text does not say that the poles should stay
in those rings permanently.

Carrying Poles That Can Be Inserted When Needed

Numbers 4, however, as part of the instructions regarding the preparation of the tabernacle for
transport from place to place in the wilderness, states that in the course of preparing the ark for
carriage, its carrying poles should be inserted by Aaron and his sons (v. 6):

.‫… ְוָשׂמוּ ַבָּדּיו‬

…and they shall put its poles in place.

28
But if the poles of the ark are always “in,” how can they be “put in” when preparing the ark for
transport?[2] This contradiction so bothered some medieval commentators, that they felt forced to
explain one or the other verse against its simple meaning.

Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1167)

.‫ושמו בדיו – והנה יסירום עד שיכסו את הארון‬

“Place its poles” – for they would need to remove them temporarily when they covered the ark.

.‫ ושמו בדיו – על כתפות הנושאים‬:[‫ויש אומ]רים‬

Alternatively, “place its poles” – on the shoulders of the carriers.

Hizkuni (Hezekiah ben Manoah, 13th cent.)

‫ ארבעה בדים היו שנים קבועים בו ועליהם נאמר לא יסורו ממנו ועל השנים‬,‫ושמו בדיו – ומה שנאמר לא יסורו ממנו‬
.‫אחרים הוא אומר ושמו את בדיו‬

“Place its poles” – and regarding that which it says “do not remove them,” there were four poles.
Two of them were attached permanently to it, and regarding these it says “do not remove them.”
The two others are the ones about which it says “place its poles.”[3]
Each of these solutions runs counter to the simple meaning of one of the verses or invents new
facts.

Two Priestly Texts?

Some modern scholars have addressed the contradiction by contending that the two verses belong
to different strata of priestly writings.[4] (Both Exod. 25:15 and Num. 4:6 belong to the Priestly
source.) But even if we accept this proposition, the difficulty is not lessened. The tabernacle
pericopae as a whole display remarkable consistency; whoever authored the later stratum, if there

29
was one, made an effort to avoid contradictions in other places with the earlier stratum—so why
would he have allowed a contradiction here?

“Set Up” not “Insert”

The verb ‫ ְוָשׂמוּ‬in Num 4:6, 8, 11, and 14 is typically understood in the sense of “put in”—this
indeed is the origin of the contradiction between Exodus and Numbers. But this sense of the verb
requires the indirect object (e.g., *‫) ְוָשׂמוּ ָﬠָליו ַבָּדּיו‬, which is absent here. Every other time the verb
‫ ִשׂים‬appears in the tabernacle pericopae without an indirect object, it conveys the broader sense of
“set up” rather than “insert.” These occurrences are all in Exod 40:

• ‫“( ְוַשְׂמָתּ ֶאת ֶהָחֵצר ָסִביב‬set up the enclosure round about,” v. 8);[5]

• ‫“( ַוָיֶּשׂם ֶאת ְקָרָשׁיו‬setting up its planks,” v. 18);

• ‫“( ַוָיֶּשׂם ֵאת ָפֹּרֶכת ַהָמָּסך‬he set up the curtain for screening,” v. 21).[6]

These data suggest that the four occurrences of ‫ ְוָשׂמוּ ַבָּדּיו‬in Num 4 do not mean “and they shall
insert its poles” but rather “and they shall set up its poles.”[7] In other words, Aaron and his sons
should perform whatever actions are necessary so that the poles of each object are in the proper
position for their use, i.e., for transporting the objects, just as in Exodus 40 Moses is to perform
whatever actions are required for the various parts of the tabernacle to be in the proper position for
their use, i.e. for enshrining the divine presence.

Num. 4 does not imply that the precise physical operations involved in “setting up” the poles is
identical in all cases.[8] The poles of the table and the altars might very well need to be inserted
into their rings, while “setting up” those of the ark might only involve positioning them correctly
within the rings.

Indeed, a general solution along these lines is what was envisioned by many of the medieval
commentators.[9] Of greatest interest to us are two comments, neither of them entirely clear.

30
R. Eliakim b. Meshullam of Speyer (11th cent)

‫ואין נשמטין לגמרי בין הטבעות אלא נמשכין ויוצאין חוץ בטבעות אבל מכל מקום היו קבועין בארון כעין בריחי דלתות‬.
‫שלנו שקבועין בכותל‬

They are not removed entirely from between the rings, rather they are extended through the rings,
but, nevertheless, they remain attached to the ark, similar to our door hinges which are attached to
the wall.

Ramban (R. Moses ben Nahman, 1194-1270)

‫והנכון כי “ושמו” שיתקנו אותם להיות יוצאים לשאת אותו בהם כי היו הטבעות רחבים ויאריכו הבדים בהם כרצונם‬
.‫ובלבד שלא יסורו ממנו‬

The correct interpretation of ‫ ושמו‬is that they should be adjusted to protrude so that it can be carried,
for the rings were wide and the poles could be extended (alluding to 1 Kings 8:8) as much as was
wanted, as long as they were not removed entirely.
What precise mechanism might the priestly writer have had in mind, though? Here archeological
evidence that the medievalists did not have offers the key.

Portable Egyptian Chests

The ark is a portable wooden chest made in typical Egyptian style, and extant chests from the
ancient Near East, particularly Egypt, reveal parallels to almost every detail of the ark as described
in priestly and other biblical texts.[10] Indeed, a gable-lidded chest found in the tomb of the
fourteenth century Pharaoh Tutankhamun [See Figure 1 above] is equipped with carrying poles.[11]

31
 Underside of same chest, showing rings and (removed) carrying poles. From
Treasures, Exhibit 14 (n.p.), credited to the Cairo Museum.Caption

This chest exhibits general similarities to the ark as described in the priestly account:

• Dimensions – All three of its dimensions are based on the cubit and its width equals its
height, as is the case with the ark (Exod 25:10 = 37:1).[12]

• Zer – The chest is also crowned with a cavetto cornice, a feature that I have identified with
the ‫ ֵזר‬that adorns the ark in the priestly account (Exod 25:11 = 37:2).[13]

32
 • Wood – Like the ark, the chest is made of wood (cf. Exod 25:10 = 37:1; also Deut 10:1,
3).

• Four Poles – A British Museum catalogue entry on the chest displays a photograph of its
poles [Figure 2] and includes the following description:

Unlike the other chests found in the tomb this chest, no doubt because of its size and weight when
full, was provided with four poles so that it could be carried by bearers on their shoulders. Each
pole slides backwards and forwards through two bronze rings, attached to boards which are fixed
at the bottom of the box. A collar at the back end of the pole, greater in circumference than the
ring, prevents the pole from slipping forward through the inner ring.[14]

How Many Poles on the Ark?

The priestly account has usually been understood to mean that the ark had two poles, each of which
was fitted through two rings at different corners and was long enough to protrude both in front of
the ark and in back. However, neither this account nor any other text in the Bible actually states
how many poles the ark (or the table and altars) had.[15]

In light of the meticulous and number-loving character of the tabernacle pericopae, the absence is
understandable only if the priestly author assumed that the number of poles would be obvious to
the reader. The fact that in his account the golden altar has poles (in the general plural), though it
only has two rings (Exod 30:4–5 = 37:27–28), reveals that he envisioned – and expected the reader
to envision – that each pole is held by only one ring. This indicates that the priestly author, who
gave the ark four rings, meant to portray it as having four poles, like the Tutankhamun chest.[16]

Comparing Poles: Bible and Tutankhamun

The photograph and description express several other details of similarity between the poles of the
Tutankhamun chest and the poles of the ark as described in Exodus:

33
 • They are made of wood (cf. Exod 25:13 = 37:4);

• They are slid through metal rings near each of the chest’s four feet (cf. 25:12 = 37:3);

• They are aligned along the chest’s long sides (cf. 25:14 = 37:5).

• They are also fashioned and positioned in a way that would make it difficult to slide them
out of the rings and remove them entirely from the chest (cf. Exod 25:15).

Egyptian Style Retractable Poles

Most significantly for our discussion, the carrying poles of the Tutankhamun chest
are retractable: “When the chest was not being carried, the poles could be pushed
back until the collars of two axially opposite poles were touching each other and the
poles were then entirely concealed from view.”[17] In other words, the poles could be
slid under the chest, in the space between its underside and the bottoms of its feet,
while still held by the metal rings [Figure 3 a & b]. When the chest was to be carried,
the poles could be drawn out again in preparation, still held by the rings.

3a. Same chest, shown with poles in retracted position. Burton photograph 0090. From Malek,
Tutankhamun.

34
 Diagram of same chest illustrating pole retraction. Carter card 032-5. From
Malek, Tutankhamun.
This is not an innovation of the New Kingdom. Some earlier depictions of chests equipped with
carrying poles from Old Kingdom Egypt show poles that slid through rings like those of the
Tutankhamun chest [Figure 4], demonstrating, in the judgment of Geoffrey Killen, that the poles
were designed to slide underneath the chests in the same manner.[18]

If carrying poles on ancient Egyptian-type chests were normally retractable,[19] or at least if this
was the practice with which the author of Num 4:6 was acquainted, then both he and his audience
would most naturally expect that the ark’s permanent poles would need to be “set up” in
preparation for transport: i.e., they would still need to be drawn out from underneath it so that they
could be grasped by its porters.

35
 Sixth Dynasty depiction of a chest with carrying poles. From Ludwig
Borchardt, Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Śa3ḥu-Re‘ (WVDOG 26; 2 vols.;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910–1913), 2: pl. 60.

Why Just the Ark?

The requirement that the carrying poles remain affixed applies to the ark, but not to the table and
the altars[20] because chests’ feet create a low, narrow space between their lower surface and the
ground and therefore, the carrying poles can be hidden from sight. Thus, only in the case of the
ark would such a requirement be compatible with the goal of an aesthetic tabernacle. The carrying
poles of the table and altars would presumably need to be removed and stowed elsewhere.

The Ark in Its ANE Context

The observation that the biblical ark is described as a portable wooden chest, aided by an
investigation of actual and depicted objects of that type from the ancient Near East, can help solve
a seeming contradiction in the biblical text. It also adds an important element to the image of the

36
ark that the priestly writer apparently intended to convey, one which those familiar with ancient
Near Eastern crafts would have understood unaided.

Footnotes

1. This essay is based on research that is presented in greater detail in my article, “The Poles of
the Ark: On the Ins and Outs of a Textual Contradiction,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135.4
(2016): 733–741.
2. The same action, with the same words, is prescribed for the table (v. 8), the incense altar (v.
11), and the bronze altar (v. 14), though these three objects pose no problem since nowhere
does the Torah require the poles to remain in the rings at all times. It is highly unlikely that the
author of Num 4 was adhering heedlessly to a rigid formula, however. On the contrary, he
included two peculiarities in the instructions for the ark vis-à-vis the other objects, suggesting
that the use of …‫בָּדּיו‬ַ ‫שׂמוּ‬ָ ְ ‫ ו‬is not formulaic here: it was to be wrapped in the tabernacle’s own
screening curtain (v. 5), as opposed to a generic dyed cloth (vv. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13), and its leather
covering was to be wrapped again in a “pure blue” cloth (v. 6).
3. He continues with two further suggestions.
4. George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Numbers (ICC;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 2–3, 34–35; Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (OTL;
trans. James D. Martin; London: SCM Press, 1968), 41–42.
5. It is also paralleled in v. 33 by ‫קם‬ ֶ ָ ַ‫ויּ‬, “erect.”
6. To these we should probably add two parallel occurrences in vv. 5 and 28, which pertain to the
entrance screen, though in these instances the word ‫כּן‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬
ְ ‫מּ‬
ִ ‫ל‬
ַ might be understood as an indirect
object rather than part of the name of the screen.
7. Indeed, these occurrences of ‫שׂים‬ ִ are listed in BDB under the definition “put in position,” and
in DCH they appear under “set, put in position.”
8. Pace Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadephia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1990), 301 n. 8.
9. R. Saadia b. Joseph Gaon, in Mordechai L. Katzenelnbogen (ed.), Torat Chaim:
Numbers(Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1991; Hebrew), 22; R. Eliakim b. Meshullam of
Speyer, in Dov Genachowski (ed.), Commentarius in Tractatum Yoma: Auctore R.
Eliaqim (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1964; Hebrew), 222; Rashi, in a gloss published in
Menachem Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Numbers (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan
University Press 2011; Hebrew), 18–19; Ramban, in ibid., 19; R. Meir of Rothenburg, in
Tosafot on b. Yoma 72a, s.v. ‫כתיב‬, published e.g. in Gellis, Tosafot, 41–43 par. 6; R. Isaac b.
Judah Halevi, ibid., 41 par. 5; anonymous tosafist, ibid., 43–44 par. 10; R. Menachem Meiri,
in Haim B. Ravitz (ed.), Beit Habhira on Tractate Yoma (Bnei Brak: Ktavim, 1969–1970;
Hebrew), 214–5; R. Hezekiah b. Manoah, in Chaim D. Chavel (ed.), Hizkuni: The Torah
Commentaries of Hezekiah b.R. Manoah (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1981–1982;
Hebrew), 289, 431.
10. Raanan Eichler, The Ark and the Cherubim (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
2016).

37
11. Object no. 32 in Howard Carter’s system. See: Jaromir Malek (dir.), Tutankhamun: Anatomy
of an Excavation, n.p. [cited 15 February 2017];
online: http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/032.html.
12. Eichler, “Ark.”
13. Raanan Eichler, “The Zer,” TheTorah.com (2015), itself based on my academic article, “The
Meaning of zēr,” Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 1–15.
14. Treasures of Tutankhamun (no credited author or editor; London: Trustees of the British
Museum, 1972), Exhibit 14.
15. Oddly, the question of how many poles the ark and the other objects of the tabernacle have is
almost never directly addressed by commentators. Meiri (Ravitz, Beit Habhira, 214–5)
explicitly wrote that the ark had two poles as described above. Other medieval Jewish scholars
did not say so explicitly, but it can be inferred from their comments that they thought the same.
16. The Tutankhamun chest actually has a pair of adjacent rings at each corner, eight rings in all.
In this feature it differs from the ark, which, according to any view of its poles, has one
functioning ring at each of its four corners. The purpose of the ring doubling is presumably to
keep the poles straight. This aim could be achieved using only one ring for each pole either by
ensuring a tight fit or by giving the bands that form the rings substantial width.
17. Treasures, Exhibit 14.
18. Geoffrey Killen, Ancient Egyptian Furniture II: Boxes, Chests and Footstools(Warminster:
Aris & Phillips, 1994), 20, fig. 40.
19. Henry Fischer comes to this conclusion from the evidence adduced above. See, Henry G.
Fischer, “Möbel,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4:180–9 at 182.
20. The most attractive explanation for the requirement in the first place is that it is a measure to
prevent people from touching the body of the ark, an action which, according to a tradition in
2 Sam 6:6–7, is fatal (See Bekhor Shor on Exod 25:15, in Cohen, Exodus, 73). However, the
priestly Num 4:15 indicates that it would be fatal even for a designated porter to touch the body
of any of the major tabernacle objects; so, by the same token, the table and altars should have
permanently attached poles as well.

38