Parashat Titzaveh

A colorful mix of interpretation and imagination, Rashi strings together a fairly well knit conjecture as to the design of the Eifod. It goes something like this:

1) “And Dovid girded a linen Eifod.” This pasuk suggests that the Eifod is a belt.

2) However, the Eifod must be more than a belt, for our parasha states “and [Moshe] placed the Eifod on [Aharon], and he girded the belt of the Eifod.” There therefore must be some part of the Eifod that is called “the Eifod” other than the belt.

3) The Eifod also has two shoulder straps, but these can’t be “the Eifod” either, for the pasuk says “the two shoulder straps of the Eifod.”

4) Therefore, “the Eifod” is logically an apron across one’s back, much like French noblewomen wore while riding horses.

5) In fact, we see that a somewhat similar garment is called an “Eifod” because Yonasan ben Uziel translates Dovid’s Eifod as a “Kardut,” the same word he uses to translate Tamar’s Me’il.

Rashi provides a clear argument and reaches a rational conclusion. However, the structure of the argument is a little out of order. If Rashi wishes to prove the presence of an apron as part of the Eifod, he should appeal to the Targum Yonasan before stating his conclusion. Rather, the Targum is used as a support to a conjecture Rashi reaches via an alternative means.

But how can Rashi conclude from the pasukim he quotes that some third component complemented the belt and shoulder straps of the Eifod? Isn’t it more logical to propose that the “Eifod” to which each pasuk refers is the combination of the belt and straps? In other words, when the pasuk says “Cheishev HaEifod,” the belt is one of two parts to the Eifod, those parts being the belt and straps. Likewise, when the pasuk says “Shtei Kisfos HaEifod,” the shoulder straps is but one of two parts to the Eifod. And when the pasuk says Moshe placed the Eifod on Aharon, this would refer to dropping the straps over Aharons shoulders, and the tying of the belt would logically follow.

Additionally, Rashi’s proof that the Eifod consisted of more than a belt is a little more complicated than it has to be. The fact that the pasuk states “the belt of the Eifod” itself proves without a doubt that the Eifod was more than just a belt.

It is impossible to say that [the Eifod] was only a belt, for it says “and [Moshe] placed the Eifod on [Aharon], and he girded the belt of the Eifod,” and Onkelos translates [Cheishev HaEifod as] “BiHemyan Afuda.” We learn from this that the Cheishev was a belt, and Eifod was the name of its own ornament.

Rashi, Shemos 28:4

So Rashi’s proof isn’t so straightforward after all. For starters, he appeals Targum Onkelos for no apparent reason. Secondly, he asserts that the Eifod was an ornament, a Tachshit, as opposed to a functional part of the garment. What’s really going on here?

Perhaps Rashi appeals to Onkelos’s translation to emphasize the double meaning of the term “Eifod.” Instead of translating “Eifod” into Aramaic, Onkelos keeps to the Hebrew term, “Afuda,” suggesting that the term itself carries more meaning than a simple translation could.

“ViCheishev Afudaso.” The belt that decorates and completes [Aharon] for service.

Rashi, Shemos 28:8

Following Onkelos’s lead, Rashi here defines Afudaso as “his decoration.” So the word Eifod does refer to a garment, but it also carries the suggestion of a decoration. Perhaps now Rashi’s argument will flow a little better. The belt cannot be the entire Cheishev because it is clearly not the only thing Moshe placed upon Aharon. Furthermore, the Eifod must have been the ornament Onkelos had in mind when he translated “Eifod” as “Afuda.” For this reason, the shoulder straps also do not provide ornamentation, as the pasuk says “the straps of the Eifod,” suggesting the straps attached on to the ornament. In summation, the ornament must have existed outside of the belt and straps it complemented.

Rashi cannot prove what this ornament was, but he can take an educated guess. He guesses that the “Eifod,” if it can’t be a belt or shoulder straps, may be an apron, and brings a reasonable proof from Targum Yonasan, thus rounding off his imaginative argument.