The Tearing of the Me'il (Robe)

In this week’s parsha, Pekudei, we come across an interesting verse.

וַיַּ֛עַשׂ אֶת־מְעִ֥יל הָאֵפֹ֖ד מַעֲשֵׂ֣ה אֹרֵ֑ג כְּלִ֖יל תְּכֵֽלֶת׃ He made the robe (worn under) the apron entirely of turquoise wool, through a professional weaver.

וּפִֽי־הַמְּעִ֥יל בְּתוֹכ֖וֹ כְּפִ֣י תַחְרָ֑א שָׂפָ֥ה לְפִ֛יו סָבִ֖יב לֹ֥א יִקָּרֵֽעַ׃ Its collar at the top was hemmed inside, like the collar of a coat of armor, so that it should not be torn.

-Exodus 39: 22-23, translation from Rabbi Chaim Miller’s Torah

This seems puzzling. Why should it be that specifically the me’il should not be torn as opposed to any other of the priestly garments? This question was asked on Mi Yodeya. The original poster noted that in Zevachim 95a it makes clear that this is a commandment- the robe of the Kohen Gadol, High Priest, cannot be torn.

אמר ריש לקיש מעיל שניטמא מכניסו בפחות משלש על שלש ומכבסו משום שנא' (שמות כח, לב) לא יקרע

Earlier (94b–95a), the Gemara discusses a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed; if it has contracted ritual impurity outside of the Temple courtyard, it must be torn before it is brought back into the courtyard to be laundered.

Reish Lakish says: If the robe of the High Priest upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed has contracted ritual impurity outside of the Temple courtyard, one does not tear it; rather, he brings it in to the courtyard gradually, in portions less than the measure of a garment susceptible to impurity, which is three by three fingerbreadths, and he launders it section by section as the robe crosses the threshold. The ritually impure robe must be brought into the courtyard in this manner because it is stated with regard to the High Priest’s robe: “It shall not be torn” (Exodus 28:32).

The original poster also referenced the Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah 101, which states:

שלא לקרע המעיל של כהנים - שלא להכרית פי המעיל של כהן גדול, שנאמר (שמות כח לב) לא יקרע. To not tear the coat of the priests: To not tear the opening of the coat of the high priest, as it is stated (Exodus 28:32), "it shall not be torn."

משרשי המצוה. לפי שהקריעה דבר של גנאי אצלנו וענין השחתה, ואף כי בפי הבגד, נתרחקנו מן הדבר והזהרנו עליו בלאו כדי שילבשהו הלובשו באימה וביראה ובנחת ודרך כבוד שיירא מלקרעו ומלהשחית בו דבר. It is from the roots of the commandment [that] because tearing is a thing of disgrace for us and a matter of destruction, we have been distanced from the thing and warned about it with a negative commandment. [This is] so that its wearer will put it on with trepidation, fear and care. And it is the way of honor that he should fear from tearing it and from destroying anything in it.

ונוהגת בזמן הבית בזכרים ונקבות, כלומר שכל מי שקרעו, בין איש בין אשה, או אפילו הכריתו במספרים במזיד לוקה. And [it] is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by males and females. [This is] meaning to say whoever volitionally tears it - whether a man or a woman - or even cuts it with scissors is lashed.

But is it only the me’il with which one has to take such care?

A different poster clarified that no, one is not permitted to tear any of the garments of the Kohen Gadol, High Priest. Maimonides in his Hilchos Klei HaMikdash says

ג

הַמְּעִיל כֻּלּוֹ תְּכֵלֶת. וְחוּטָיו כְּפוּלִין שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר וּפִיו אָרוּג בִּתְחִלַּת אֲרִיגָתוֹ. וְאֵין לוֹ בֵּית יָד אֶלָּא נֶחְלָק לִשְׁתֵּי כְּנָפַיִם מִסּוֹף הַגָּרוֹן עַד לְמַטָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הַמְּעִילִים וְאֵינוֹ מְחֻבָּר אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הַגָּרוֹן בִּלְבַד. וְהַקּוֹרֵעַ פִּי הַמְּעִיל לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כח לב) (שמות לט כג) "לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ". וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה שֶׁהַקּוֹרְעָן דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה לוֹקֶה:

The cloak was made entirely of sky-blue colored wool.8 Its strands were twelve-fold. Its opening was woven, and that is where its weave began.9 It did not have an opening for his arms.10 Instead, it was divided into two flaps from below the throat and downward like all cloaks.11 It is joined only directly below the throat.

One who tears the border of the opening of the cloak is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 28:32] states: "It shall not be torn."12 This applies to all the priestly garments. One who tears them with a destructive intent is liable for lashes.13

We also see this from Ibn Ezra to Leviticus 21:10. The verse states:

וְהַכֹּהֵן֩ הַגָּד֨וֹל מֵאֶחָ֜יו אֲֽשֶׁר־יוּצַ֥ק עַל־רֹאשׁ֣וֹ ׀ שֶׁ֤מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה֙ וּמִלֵּ֣א אֶת־יָד֔וֹ לִלְבֹּ֖שׁ אֶת־הַבְּגָדִ֑ים אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם׃ The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head*bare his head See note at 10.6. or rend his vestments.

Ibn Ezra clarifies

את הבגדים. והם בגדי קדש:

But if the prohibition against tearing refers to all the priestly vestments, why does the text single out the me’il, robe, especially?

A practical answer was offered by a commenter named Isaac Kotlicky on Mi Yodeya. He suggested

Most of the other begadim [clothing] of the Kohen Gadol contain metal strands or are actually made of metal, making them difficult to "tear" - you would have to cut them. The other begadim also have straps that allow them to be easily loosened and removed.

The me'il is subject potentially to significant wear as the kohen gadol takes his head in and out of the opening without any buttons or ties to loosen the garment. The neck of the me'il is therefore more subject to tearing than any other piece of his begadim.

But I want to suggest a different- literary- take.

There are several different words for clothing in the Tanakh- ranging from me’il to beged to simlah. And something I noticed is that nearly every narrative section of Tanakh that includes a me’il involves the tearing or cutting of that me’il in scenes that signify great distress, misery and pain.

Take a look at your concordance (a listing of every single place in the whole Tanakh where a particular word applies) on the word me’il (link here) and you will see what I mean.

The first individual who is linked with a me’il is Samuel. Samuel is Chana’s child. She vows to dedicate him to God and does so. Every single year she brings him a little me’il (there is also a gorgeous midrash that the me’il grew with him, and Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm linked that to Chana’s love for her child and how it always fit him perfectly- never suffocating, never smothering.) Samuel is literally wrapped in a symbol of his mother’s love; it encloses him like a hug.

Samuel is given the task of being a kingmaker. The first man he appoints to the position is Saul. Unfortunately, Saul does not live up to God’s expectations, and he loses first his dynasty and then his own right to rule. In a terrible scene, we see

וַיִּסֹּ֥ב שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל לָלֶ֑כֶת וַיַּחֲזֵ֥ק בִּכְנַף־מְעִיל֖וֹ וַיִּקָּרַֽע׃ {ס}         As Samuel turned to leave, Saul seized the corner of his robe (me’il), and it tore.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל קָרַ֨ע יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶֽת־מַמְלְכ֧וּת יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל מֵעָלֶ֖יךָ הַיּ֑וֹם וּנְתָנָ֕הּ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ הַטּ֥וֹב מִמֶּֽךָּ׃ {ס}         And Samuel said to him, “The LORD has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you and has given it to another who is worthier than you.

וְגַם֙ נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יִנָּחֵ֑ם כִּ֣י לֹ֥א אָדָ֛ם ה֖וּא לְהִנָּחֵֽם׃ Moreover, the GlorybMeaning of Heb. uncertain. of Israel does not deceive or change His mind, for He is not human that He should change His mind.”

-I Samuel 15: 27-29

And this is how Saul loses his kingdom.

In a subsequent scene, we see David recreating this by cutting off the corner of Saul’s robe.

וַיֹּאמְרוּ֩ אַנְשֵׁ֨י דָוִ֜ד אֵלָ֗יו הִנֵּ֨ה הַיּ֜וֹם אֲֽשֶׁר־אָמַ֧ר יְהֹוָ֣ה אֵלֶ֗יךָ הִנֵּ֨ה אָנֹכִ֜י נֹתֵ֤ן אֶת־[אֹֽיִבְךָ֙] (איביך) בְּיָדֶ֔ךָ וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ לּ֔וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר יִטַ֣ב בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ וַיָּ֣קׇם דָּוִ֗ד וַיִּכְרֹ֛ת אֶת־כְּנַֽף־הַמְּעִ֥יל אֲשֶׁר־לְשָׁא֖וּל בַּלָּֽט׃ David’s men said to him, “This is the day of which the LORD said to you, ‘I will deliver your enemy into your hands; you can do with him as you please.’” cVv. 5b–6 read well after 8a.David went and stealthily cut off the corner of Saul’s cloak.

וַֽיְהִי֙ אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֔ן וַיַּ֥ךְ לֵב־דָּוִ֖ד אֹת֑וֹ עַ֚ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר כָּרַ֔ת אֶת־כָּנָ֖ף אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְשָׁאֽוּל׃ But afterward dLit. “David’s heart struck him.”David reproached himself-d for cutting off eSo several mss. and ancient versions; cf. v. 5. Most mss. and editions read “Saul’s corner.”the corner of Saul’s cloak.-e

-I Samuel 24: 5-6

(Note that the verb is different here- David cuts rather than tears the me’il, so it does not fully support the point I am making- but since it is a tragic scene that involves the separating of fabric of the me’il, and since the Sefer HaChinuch mentioned cutting as well in his understanding of the prohibition pertaining to the mitzvah, I’m including it.)

Then we come to the story of the rape of Tamar, David’s daughter, by her half-brother Amnon. The pasuk is explicit about what she is wearing-

וְעָלֶ֙יהָ֙ כְּתֹ֣נֶת פַּסִּ֔ים כִּי֩ כֵ֨ן תִּלְבַּ֧שְׁןָ בְנוֹת־הַמֶּ֛לֶךְ הַבְּתוּלֹ֖ת מְעִילִ֑ים וַיֹּצֵ֨א אוֹתָ֤הּ מְשָֽׁרְתוֹ֙ הַח֔וּץ וְנָעַ֥ל הַדֶּ֖לֶת אַחֲרֶֽיהָ׃ She was wearing an ornamented tunic, for maiden princesses were customarily dressed in such me’ilim (robes).-c—His attendant took her outside and barred the door after her.

וַתִּקַּ֨ח תָּמָ֥ר אֵ֙פֶר֙ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔הּ וּכְתֹ֧נֶת הַפַּסִּ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָלֶ֖יהָ קָרָ֑עָה וַתָּ֤שֶׂם יָדָהּ֙ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔הּ וַתֵּ֥לֶךְ הָל֖וֹךְ וְזָעָֽקָה׃ Tamar put dust on her head and rent the ornamented tunic she was wearing; she put her hands on her head, and walked away, screaming loudly as she went.

-II Samuel 13:18-19

Tamar ripping her me’il is a symbol of her great distress and horror upon not only being raped but also being discarded by Amnon.

Then we come to the story of Job, the most unfortunate man alive.

See Job 1:20.

וַיָּ֤קׇם אִיּוֹב֙ וַיִּקְרַ֣ע אֶת־מְעִל֔וֹ וַיָּ֖גׇז אֶת־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ וַיִּפֹּ֥ל אַ֖רְצָה וַיִּשְׁתָּֽחוּ׃ Then Job arose, tore his robe, cut off his hair, and threw himself on the ground and prostrated himself.

Also see Job 2:12.

וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ אֶת־עֵינֵיהֶ֤ם מֵֽרָחוֹק֙ וְלֹ֣א הִכִּירֻ֔הוּ וַיִּשְׂא֥וּ קוֹלָ֖ם וַיִּבְכּ֑וּ וַֽיִּקְרְעוּ֙ אִ֣ישׁ מְעִל֔וֹ וַיִּזְרְק֥וּ עָפָ֛ר עַל־רָאשֵׁיהֶ֖ם הַשָּׁמָֽיְמָה׃ When they saw him from a distance, they could not recognize him, and they broke into loud weeping; each one tore his robe and threw dust into the air onto his head.

So here’s my thought.

When the Torah explicitly mentions that the me’il of the Kohen Gadol not be torn, even though in actuality all of the priestly vestments may not be torn…

it’s a reference to the fact that when a me’il is torn (in general) it is due to an occasion of great misery, distress, sorrow, pain and horror.

And so the point the Torah is trying to make is not only that it is forbidden to tear the me’il but that the Kohen Gadol (and his generation) should merit to live in times when a me’il may not be torn - a symbolic reference to times of joy, peace, prosperity and health.

(I’m not fully wedded to this exact formulation, but I do think something is going on with the fact that only the me’il is singled out in the text as a garment that must not be torn - and that so many subsequent narratives involve a me’il being torn as a sign of great pain. I would be interested if any of you as readers have additional thoughts/ ideas to add to this.)

~

On a different note, I’m happy to share that I won an award (second place). It is mentioned in this week’s Likutei Peshatim. I’m one of the three Hartman Educators of the Year, which is an award given out by the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago (ATT) and involves a significant cash prize. (You can click here to learn more.)

My husband pointed out that this is likely the first time that a student of a previous Hartman Educator award winner has won. Rabbi Shmuel Kurtz and Mrs. Pearl Gross (both winners during previous years) were my teachers. Rabbi Kurtz taught me Jewish Philosophy, Jewish Medical Ethics and Jewish Business Ethics at TI while I was in high school. It’s actually due to him that I started transcribing all my notes on medical ethics while I was at Stern- I wrote him an email telling him there was going to be a big conference on organ donation. He wrote back, “Send me your notes.” (Click to see the notes!) It was due to those four words that I started transcribing all the events I attended at Stern, and many people were able to benefit. As for Mrs. Gross, she was both my rebbetzin and my teacher (when I was in eighth grade), and I learned so much Tanakh from her.

On a personal note, as a student I had a very negative experience with my Jewish schooling- so much so that I went to a non-Jewish high school for my junior and senior year. So it is ironic that not only am I now a Tanakh teacher, but I will even receive an award for what I do. It goes to show that we should never write any student off. You don’t know what they might achieve.