Moshe Rabbeinu was commanded concerning the construction of the Bigdei Kehunah, Priestly Vestments. For this purpose, he was to obtain gold, turquoise, purple and scarlet, various colors of dyed wool, from the people which were to be used to make the Eiphod, Cheshev ha’Eiphod, Choshen and Avnet. Sheish is flax/linen. Thus, the Bigdei Kehunah were constructed of shatnez, a mixture of wool and linen. Given the reality, one would conjecture that while shatnez is prohibited to be worn by a Jew, the Bigdei Kehunah constituted an exception to the rule. In other words, a dispensation is made for the Priestly Vestments, allowing for them to be constructed of the forbidden mixture of wool and linen.
Rabbeinu Yosef Bechur Shor has an understanding of this halachah which is diametrically opposed to general conjecture. He explains that, similar to the prohibition of making Shemen Hamishchah, anointing oil, or the Ketores, Incense, for general use, and in accordance with the prohibition against constructing one’s home with architecture resembling the Bais Hamikdash or making a Menorah of seven branches like the Menorah in the Temple – shatnez is prohibited for use by the general public, because it is reserved for Bigdei Kehunah. Thus, Bigdei Kehunah – and only Bigdei Kehunah – are supposed to be made of shatnez. The prohibition of shatnez is based upon the fact that it resembles the holy Priestly Vestments.
Horav Yaakov Galinsky, zl, explains why the Kohen Gadol specifically should be the one to wear a garment comprised of wool and linen. The Zohar Hakadosh posits that the dyed wool represents the middah, Attribute, of Rachamim, Mercy, while the pishtan, flax/linen, represents the Attribute of Din, Strict Justice. These two attributes are incongruous with one another. To mix the two together creates a tension which is counterproductive – unless they come together in a perfect situation, such as for the Kohen during his service. When the Kohen stands before Hashem and performs the avodah, service, he achieves a level of sheleimus, perfection, which is otherwise rarely accomplished. At this point, a fusion of justice and mercy achieves tiferes, beauty and complete harmony.
I take the liberty of explaining this concept further. In his commentary to the beginning of Sefer Bereishis, Rashi observes the Torah’s choice of referring to Hashem as Elokim as opposed to Yud – Kay – Vov – Kay. The name Elokim represents Din, an attribute that does not allow for leeway, compromise or negotiation. This middah does not exclude any aspect of sin. One is guilty. The four-letter Name, however, represents Hashem’s Attribute of Mercy, an attribute which reflects Hashem’s dealing with the shortcomings of His creations on a compassionate basis, thus viewing them in a more positive light.
Hashem was originally thought to have created the world using the process of Din as its “engine,” hence, the opening Name of Elokim. When Hashem saw that the world could not possibly endure if the hanhagah, guiding principle, would be Strict Justice, He placed Middas HaRachamim into the equation and joined it with Din, to sort of temper down the Justice. This is why His Name is now written in the four-letter form implying Rachamim. The mixture of Din and Rachamim is not natural. As is the case with opposing attributes, a tension exists between them. Yet, the Almighty mixed them together. This is why some Chassidim place a few drops of water to dilute the wine for Kiddush. Wine represents Din; water represents Rachamim. Thus, they emulate Hashem in diluting and weakening the wine/Din with a little Rachamim.
The Mesillas Yesharim explains another aspect of this mixture. Each component of the mixture impacts the other. Both remain in a “weakened” state. For example, Middas HaDin demands that punishment be swift and uncompromising, consistent with the grievous nature of the sin. Rachamim dilutes this by allowing for time to elapse before punishment is exacted. The punishment is less severe. This allowance of time encourages the vehicle of teshuvah to play a role in ameliorating the sin and decreasing the severity of the punishment. Indeed, teshuvah – if successfully implemented – can even expunge the sin completely. In most instances, the Din must be “placated.” Therefore, the punishment will be meted, but in a much more amenable version.
Returning to the original thesis, Rav Galinsky explains that we all possess a conglomerate of attributes – character traits which are, by their very nature, opposites of one another. Two objectives are demanded of us: first; we should not lock ourselves into one middah. Diversity is good, for it allows for a harmonious relationship between the middos so that each one “rubs off” on the other. Second, one must know when to use a specific attribute. There is a time for compassion and a time for justice; a time for tempered justice; a time for compassion with common sense. One may not have mercy on cruel, evil, unconscionable people. Indeed, Chazal say that one who has misplaced compassion will one day be guilty of misplaced justice; thus, he will render guilty one with whom he should have dealt with greater compassion.
This is the lesson of shatnez in the Bigdei Kehunah. It is important that we coalesce the attributes which normally create tension with one another. When we serve Hashem, we should attempt to emulate His way of doing things. Hashem diluted Strict Justice with Mercy. The Kohen Gadol wears both – wool and linen – to exemplify and impart this lesson. Our primary focus should be one of kindness and mercy, but, yes, at times, we must apply justice – with restraint – but justice no less. There is no such thing as a bad middah; it all depends on how and when we apply it. When considering two diverse antagonistic attributes, it is necessary that one be paradigmatic of the sheleimus achieved by the Kohen during his avodah. This is the lesson of the prohibition of shatnez: one may not create the tension inherent between strict justice and mercy only in a situation which manifests perfection.
