Parshas Tetzaveh
1. On the verse1 "ונתת אל חשן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים גו'" ("You shall place into the Choshen HaMishpat [the Breastplate of Judgment] the Urim and the Tumim, etc."), Rashi explains: "[את האורים ואת התומים —] הוא כתב שם המפורש שהי' נותנו בתוך כפלי החשן שע"י הוא מאיר דבריו ומתמם את דבריו. ובמקדש שני הי' החשן שא"א לכהן גדול להיות מחוסר בגדים אבל אותו השם לא הי' בתוכו, ועל שם אותו הכתב הוא קרוי משפט שנאמר ושאל לו במשפט האורים" ("[The Urim and the Tumim —] This was an inscription of the Explicit Name [of G‑d], which was placed between the folds of the Choshen, through which it would illuminate its words and make its words perfect [true]. In the Second Temple there was a Choshen, because it is impossible for the Kohen Gadol to be lacking garments, but that Name was not inside it. And on account of that inscription it is called 'Mishpat' [judgment], as it is said,2 'He shall inquire for him through the judgment of the Urim'").
This needs to be understood:
a) Rashi's way is to explain the plain meaning of Scripture. Accordingly, it is not understood why he explains here (and at length, no less) how the Choshen existed in the Second Temple?! Moreover, he even adds the reason for this: "because it is impossible for the Kohen [Gadol], etc."?3
b) Rashi's intention everywhere is to explain the words of the verse that he quotes. Accordingly, what is the relevance here of his explanation, "And on account of that inscription, etc., as it is said, 'He shall inquire for him through the judgment of the Urim,'" whose proper place is in the commentary on that verse?
c) Not only is this not its place; on the contrary, this explanation contradicts what Rashi said just before it: If it is called "Choshen Mishpat" (only) on account of that inscription, then in the absence of the inscription it would also be deficient in its function as "Choshen HaMishpat." It would follow that there is room to say that in the Second Temple, when the inscription was not inside the Choshen, the Kohen Gadol was "lacking garments" — the opposite of what Rashi said just before?4
2. Further on, in his commentary on "משפט בני ישראל" ("the judgment of the Children of Israel") (in this same verse), Rashi writes: "דברים שהם נשפטים ונוכחים על ידו אם לעשות דבר או לא לעשות. ולפי מדרש אגדה שהחשן מכפר על מעוותי הדין נק' משפט על שם סליחת המשפט" ("The matter through which they are judged and instructed whether to do something or not to do it. And according to the Midrash Aggadah, that the Choshen atones for those who pervert justice, it is called 'Mishpat' on account of the forgiveness for [corrupted] judgment").
This commentary too is difficult:
a) Rashi already stated these two explanations earlier (in this very parsha, on "[Choshen] Mishpat"5), so why does he repeat them here once again?
b) In his earlier commentary the two explanations were stated in the reverse order (from the order in which they are stated further on): (1) "that it atones for the corruption of justice," and afterwards (2) "Another explanation: 'Mishpat' — that it clarifies its words, and its assurance is true, etc. — an expression of clarifying matters, for it explains and clarifies its words" —
Then, in addition to the difficulty arising from the change in the order of his words (which are precise in every detail), one must wonder at the contradiction that follows from this change:
The explanation that Rashi places first is the one he regards as his primary explanation; thus, reversing the order changes which explanation is established as the primary one.6 All the more so, since further on he brings his second explanation as "Midrash Aggadah," i.e., this explanation is not entirely in accordance with the plain meaning, but rather in the manner of "אגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא" ("an Aggadah that settles the words of Scripture")7 [for because of the difficulty in his first explanation (which is entirely in accordance with the plain meaning), he is compelled to bring an explanation of "Midrash Aggadah," which is not entirely in accordance with the plain meaning]. Yet in his commentary earlier, on "Choshen Mishpat," he brought it as the first (and primary) explanation?!
3. The explanation of all this:
After the beginning and continuation of the section explain all the details and manners of making the Choshen, it says, as its conclusion:8 "ונשא אהרן גו' בחשן המשפט על לבו גו'" ("Aaron shall bear … in the Choshen HaMishpat upon his heart, etc."). With this, seemingly, the entire subject of the Choshen is completed. Yet afterwards the verse continues: "You shall place into the Choshen HaMishpat the Urim and the Tumim, etc. … and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Children of Israel, etc."
The fact that the subject of the Urim and Tumim was not included in the Torah's section among all of the Choshen's details, but comes after it as a distinct matter of its own, makes it simply understood from the order of the verses that the Urim and Tumim are not part of (the making of) the Choshen itself, but something added onto the essence of the Choshen.9
Therefore, after Rashi explains that the Urim and Tumim "was an inscription of the Explicit Name, which was placed between the folds of the Choshen, through which it would illuminate its words, etc." — from which it appears that the Urim and Tumim are part of the Choshen itself, the completeness of the Choshen being bound up with the placing of the Urim and Tumim in it10 — this contradicts what is understood from the above-mentioned order of the verses.
So Rashi continues (in order to resolve this difficulty): "In the Second Temple there was a Choshen, because it is impossible for the Kohen Gadol to be lacking garments, but that Name was not inside it." This proves that the Urim and Tumim are not part of the essence of the Choshen, since the Kohen Gadol was not "lacking garments" even when the Choshen was without them.
However, this itself requires explanation: Since "through it [the Urim and Tumim] it would illuminate, etc.," why indeed should they not be an indispensable element in the completeness of the Choshen, like its other parts (each of which is a detail that is indispensable to the overall function of the Choshen) — especially since the Urim and Tumim are, seemingly, a principal feature of the Choshen? Therefore Rashi explains in the continuation of his words: "And on account of that inscription it is called 'Mishpat,' etc." That is, only the aspect of "Mishpat," which is something added onto the essence of the Choshen, depends on the "inscription" of the Urim and Tumim; but the body and essence of the Choshen — the garment — is complete even without the Urim and Tumim,11 and the Kohen Gadol is not "lacking garments."12
This is also the reason that the verses first set out the command regarding the making of the Choshen itself and all its details; and to indicate that with this the section of the Choshen itself is complete in its entirety, the verse concludes by explaining the function and purpose of the Choshen: "Aaron shall bear the names of the Children of Israel … as a remembrance before G‑d continually." Only after this comes the command regarding the Urim and Tumim, which are the "Mishpat" (of the Choshen) (something added onto the essence of the Choshen13) — and their function: "They shall be upon Aaron's heart … and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Children of Israel, etc."
4. Now, in keeping with and in continuation of his above explanation at the beginning of the verse (in which he proves that "on account of that inscription" of the Urim and Tumim "it is called Mishpat"), Rashi likewise explains — in his first explanation — what is said further on in the verse, "the judgment of the Children of Israel": "The matter through which they are judged and instructed, etc." That is, "Mishpat" refers to the Urim and Tumim, as he explained at the beginning of the verse. This clarifies Rashi's reason for deciding here that this is the primary explanation: because only according to this explanation14 is it possible to explain — in order to reconcile the sequence of the verses — that the Urim and Tumim are not part of the essence of the Choshen, as explained above.
In contrast, in Rashi's earlier commentary on "Choshen Mishpat," where there is not yet any compulsion to explain that the matter of "Mishpat" refers to the Urim and Tumim, it is simpler to explain "Mishpat" according to its plain meaning — from the term "judgment" — than to explain it as "clarification of matters," which is not the plain meaning of "Mishpat." Therefore Rashi first gives the explanation "that it atones for the corruption of justice," since that is primary in the plain meaning of the verse in its own place, and only afterwards (as a second explanation): "Another explanation: 'Mishpat' — that it clarifies its words, etc."
However, for this very reason — that it is difficult to say that "Mishpat" means "clarification of matters" and "that through it they are judged and instructed, etc.," and also because the Choshen was called "Choshen HaMishpat" even before the Urim and Tumim were placed inside it15 — Rashi is not satisfied with his first explanation (on our verse), that "the judgment of the Children of Israel" refers to the Urim and Tumim. He adds a second explanation, that the Choshen is called "Mishpat" because it "atones for those who pervert justice"; according to this, the meaning of "Mishpat" is better settled — in accordance with its plain sense.
But since this explanation is difficult to reconcile with the plain sequence of the verses — as explained above (for if so, why did the verse not include the subject of the Urim and Tumim among the other aspects of making the Choshen?) — Rashi therefore writes that this second explanation is "according to the Midrash Aggadah." For although in one particular it is closer to the plain meaning of the verse, on the other hand it does not fit with the verses and the section as a whole. Therefore Rashi cites it as a second explanation of the verse.
According to Rashi's approach, it is also understood, with regard to halachah, how the Kohen Gadol performed the service in the Second Temple when the Urim and Tumim were missing — was he not lacking garments?16 The answer is that the absence of the Urim and Tumim does not affect the essence of the Choshen, only the matter of "Mishpat"; therefore the Kohen Gadol is not lacking garments in their absence, as Rashi himself writes in his commentary.17
5. From the "יינה של תורה" ("wine of Torah" — its inner dimension) in the Rashi before us:
It is explained in Chassidus18 that the main difference between the First Temple and the Second Temple (on account of which five things were lacking in the Second Temple19) was not so much in the level of the revelation of G‑dliness in the Temple itself — for in the Second Temple too there was a revelation of the level of Binah, as in the First Temple. Rather, the main difference was in drawing the revelation of the level of Binah down into the outlying areas: in the Second Temple it was possible to draw down the level of Binah only within the Temple itself, and not into the outlying areas.
According to Rashi's commentary, the same is true regarding the Choshen: The Choshen itself existed in the Second Temple as well, but the matter of "Mishpat" (through which the Jewish people and the world are judged) — that is, the Choshen's effect upon the world — is what was lacking then; the essence of the Choshen existed in its completeness in the Second Temple as well.20
The same applies in the time of exile: The Arizal21 states that "חשן" (Choshen) has the same letters as "נחש" (serpent) — the primordial serpent. On the other hand, it is explained in the name of Rabbi Ephraim (one of the Baalei HaTosafos)22 that "Choshen" has the same numerical value as "משיח" (Moshiach). Now, in the time of exile (which came "because of our sins," whose cause is the strengthening of the "contamination of the serpent"23 over the G‑dly soul), the matter of the "serpent" is openly revealed, while the Choshen (numerically equal to Moshiach) is in concealment. That is, the "Choshen" exists even in the time of exile, but it is found in a state of concealment — and this is our service in the time of exile: to decipher and reveal the Choshen (numerically equal to Moshiach) from its concealment, until it is in the state of "Choshen Mishpat," so that its effect and function become revealed in the world.
Through this, "Choshen" equals "Moshiach" in numerical value: the revelation of the Choshen (in the state of "Choshen Mishpat") brings about the revelation of Moshiach — speedily, truly soon.
(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh, 5726)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 28:30.
2) Pinchas 27:21.
3) From this it is understood that one cannot say that Rashi's intention is as follows: although it is called "Mishpat" on account of the Urim and Tumim — and if so, it is difficult how the Choshen existed without the Urim and Tumim in the Second Temple — Rashi answers that it is a separate command (as in Maskil LeDavid, Tetzaveh, ibid., 15). For it is not Rashi's concern to resolve what is known to a fifteen-year-old learning Gemara (Yoma 21b), that the Urim and Tumim were not present in the Second Temple, even if the question arises from what he explained in Scripture, since he explains the plain meaning of Scripture [in addition, according to this the main answer (that it is a separate command) is missing from the text].
4) What Maskil LeDavid (ibid.) writes — that since it is a separate command in the verse, one must say that it is nevertheless not indispensable — is not understood. For if so, what compelled Rashi to say that it is called "Mishpat" on account of the Urim and Tumim, so that he would afterwards need to explain that it is nevertheless not indispensable? For the fact that it says "He shall inquire for him through the judgment of the Urim" is no proof that the Choshen is called "Choshen Mishpat" on that account.
5) 28:16.
6) One cannot answer that Rashi placed first here the explanation that "Mishpat" refers to the Urim and Tumim because it follows on from what he said just before, that "on account of that inscription it is called Mishpat": a) Since in Rashi this is a new heading, "the judgment of the Children of Israel," first of all he must explain these words according to their own order. b) Since, seemingly, what he says afterwards — "and on account of that inscription it is called Mishpat" — has no bearing on his explanation of the Urim and Tumim, Rashi should have brought this matter too in his commentary on "the judgment of the Children of Israel," as a second explanation.
7) Rashi's commentary, Bereishis 3:8. See also ibid. 3:24, and elsewhere.
8) 28:29.
9) The Ramban here writes that the reason they are not mentioned among the other aspects of making the Choshen is "because they were not the work of a craftsman; neither the craftsmen nor the congregation of Israel had any part in them, neither in making nor in donating. Rather, it was a secret transmitted to Moshe from the mouth of the Almighty, and he wrote them in holiness, and they were the work of Heaven." However, this only explains why the making (writing) of the Urim and Tumim was not mentioned among the other makings; it is still not understood why the verse interrupted with the verse "Aaron shall bear, etc.," which implies that the entire subject of the Choshen was already completed, and not only the craftsmen's work.
10) In contrast, according to the explanation of the Ibn Ezra (cited in the Ramban here; see Ibn Ezra on our parsha 28:6, and Tzav 8:3), that the Urim and Tumim "are a craftsman's work of silver and gold, etc.," they are a separate thing, only that they were placed inside the Choshen when not in use (see Ibn Ezra on our parsha, ibid.). However, according to his explanation it is difficult why their making was not mentioned, as the Ramban asks (ibid.).
11) Nevertheless, the Choshen is called "Choshen Mishpat" (and it is not that "Mishpat" refers to the Urim and Tumim); rather, it is so called on account of the Urim and Tumim within it (or on account of the action of the Urim and Tumim, which "illuminates its words, etc.," for the letters on the Choshen would light up). Therefore it is possible for the Choshen to be called "Mishpat" even before the Urim and Tumim were placed in it (as stated explicitly here: "You shall place into the Choshen HaMishpat the Urim and the Tumim, etc."), for this is one of the Choshen's aspects (only that it is a matter added onto its essential function — "בגדי קודש גו' לכבוד ולתפארת" ("holy garments … for glory and for splendor") (our parsha 28:2)).
12) It may be said that Rashi follows his own approach, for he explains (our parsha 28:4) that the Choshen is "an ornament opposite the heart," and this does not depend on the Urim and Tumim. In contrast, according to the explanation of Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam (on our parsha, ibid.) — "My father's father said that its derivation is from חש (chash), which denotes the speed of the answer to a question through the Urim and Tumim, etc." — the Urim and Tumim are part of the Choshen, and on the contrary, the Choshen is named after them.
It may be said that Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam also follows his own approach, for he explains (our parsha, ibid., 30): "The Sages of blessed memory say that they (the Urim and Tumim) are descriptions of the stones, etc." (and see Torah Shleimah here, that this is the view of the Geonim — Rav Hai Gaon, Rav Sherira Gaon and Rav Nissim Gaon, cited in Otzar HaGeonim, Berachos 4a; Ralbag in the name of "our Sages"; Midrash Lekach Tov on our parsha, 29; and see the commentary of Rabbeinu Gershom, Bava Basra 122a). If so, it is understood that the Urim and Tumim are the essence of the Choshen, and it is therefore named after them. See below, note 16.
13) This also explains why at the beginning of the section (when the Choshen is mentioned for the first time) it says simply "Choshen" (and this is not because it abbreviates their names there, since afterwards it says "וכתנת תשבץ" ("a checkered tunic")) — for at the beginning of the section it mentions only their essential nature, and afterwards, when it details the making of the Choshen, it is called "Choshen Mishpat."
14) Maskil LeDavid (ibid.) writes that according to the explanation that "Mishpat" means that it atones for those who pervert justice, it fits better that the Urim and Tumim are not indispensable, since according to this explanation the matter of "Mishpat" (in "Choshen Mishpat") is likewise not on account of the Urim and Tumim. But this is not understood: on the contrary, according to this one would have to say that the Urim and Tumim are part of the Choshen itself, for on what basis would one distinguish between them and the other parts of the Choshen, since "through it, it illuminates its words, etc." [in addition, according to his explanation none of the above questions would be resolved]. One must therefore say, as in the main text, that on the contrary, according to the explanation that it is called "Mishpat" on account of the Urim and Tumim, it is resolved why they are not indispensable — as is implied by Rashi's wording.
15) See above, note 11. Nevertheless, it is still somewhat forced.
16) See Tosafos, s.v. "ve'Urim," Yoma 21b; Rambam and the glosses of the Ra'avad, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, beginning of ch. 4, and the commentators there; Rambam, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 10:6; Rashbam, Bava Basra 133b, s.v. "legizbar"; Ibn Ezra, Acharei 16:4.
As for why Rashi does not hold (with regard to halachah) like the view of the Rambam (ibid.), that "in the Second Temple they made Urim and Tumim in order to complete the eight garments," but "they would not inquire through them, etc., because there was no Divine inspiration there" — it may be said that this does not accord with the implication of the Gemara (Yoma, ibid.). For only regarding the fire is it explained there that "although it was present, it did not help," whereas regarding the other things the implication is that they did not exist at all.* With regard to the Rambam, several commentators write (Be'er Sheva, Sotah 48a; Mirkeves HaMishneh, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, ibid.; HaKesav VehaKabbalah on our parsha 28:30) that he holds that the stones of the Choshen are the Urim and Tumim** (like the view of the Geonim, etc., in note 12), and he is therefore compelled to say that the Urim and Tumim existed in the Second Temple, but they did not inquire through them.
Accordingly, it is understood why Rashi does not hold this according to the plain meaning either — for the plain meaning of the verses is that the Urim and Tumim were not the stones of the Choshen, as it says, "You shall place into the Choshen HaMishpat the Urim and the Tumim, etc.," and this is written after the entire subject of the stones of the Choshen, explained in the preceding verses.
*) According to the Rambam and Tosafos it may be said: (a) Since one is compelled to answer this way regarding the fire, the same applies to the Urim and Tumim. (b) Regarding the Urim and Tumim it is not at all surprising to say that the Urim and Tumim themselves existed, only that they did not inquire through them; therefore even the questioner could have thought so. This is not so regarding the fire, for it is contrary to the nature of fire that "it did not help," and therefore he asks specifically from the fire.
See Bamidbar Rabbah (Behaalosecha 15:10) and Tanchuma (Behaalosecha 6), which do not count the Urim and Tumim among the five things that were hidden away in the Second Temple. According to the Rambam, this does not contradict (at least in this detail) what is explained in the Talmud there, for it may be said that the Talmud means that they did not inquire through them, while Bamidbar Rabbah means that their actual existence was not lacking.
This explains why Bamidbar Rabbah and Tanchuma (ibid.) are precise in saying that the five things "were hidden away," while in the places where the Urim and Tumim are counted among the five things (cited below, note 19) it says only that they were "lacking." For the expression "hidden away" suggests that their actual existence was lacking, and therefore the Urim and Tumim are not counted, according to the Rambam's approach. (This is not comparable to what is explained in the Gemara regarding the fire — that although it was present it did not help, yet it is counted among the five things even in the Bamidbar Rabbah and Tanchuma cited above — for there, at least, there was an element of hiding away in the activity of the fire itself, whereas with the Urim and Tumim it was only that they did not inquire through them.) In contrast, "lacking" (at least in a strained manner, it may be said) means that it was not in its completeness.
**) As is evident from the fact that he did not mention the Urim and Tumim in the subject of making the priestly garments (Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, ch. 9), nor did he mention them with the Choshen. This is also evident in the Commentary on the Mishnah (Sotah 9:2): "And the shamir is a creature that cuts stones, and with it they engraved the Urim and Tumim." See in note 12 that this is how Rabbi Avraham, his son, explains in his commentary on the Torah, and it is reasonable that he follows the approach of his father, the Rambam. See there further, that it may be said that he follows his own approach in explaining "Choshen" in the name of his father's father.
17) Rashi follows his own approach (that the Urim and Tumim are the Explicit Name) also in his commentary on the Gemara (Yoma 73a). He also follows this approach in his explanation (ibid. 5b) that "a matter not written in this section (of the inauguration) — from where do we know (that it is indispensable in the days of inauguration)?" refers to the Urim and Tumim; in contrast, according to those who hold that the Urim and Tumim are the stones of the Choshen (see above, note 12 and the previous note), they are certainly indispensable (also) in the days of inauguration. It may be said that the Meiri, who explains that the reference is to "wearing the trousers and the tenth of an ephah," follows his own approach in his commentary (Yoma 71b), where he writes: "And this is why in the Second Temple, although they made Urim and Tumim to complete the number of garments … nevertheless they did not inquire through them, because there was no Divine inspiration in them" (in line with what the Rambam writes in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash ch. 6, cited above, and as stated above in note 16, that according to his approach the Urim and Tumim are the stones of the Choshen). See also Tosafos HaRosh in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, and Tosafos Rid, first edition, in the name of Rabbeinu Baruch, that the reference in Yoma (5b) is to the seven-day separation [of the Kohen Gadol].
It may be said that Rashi and the Rambam each follow their own approach also in explaining the Gemara (Yoma 73a), "his face (of the Kohen Gadol who wears it) toward the Shechinah," which Rashi explains (ibid., s.v. "kelapei"): "toward the Urim and Tumim and the Explicit Name inside the Choshen" — for it is possible to call the Urim and Tumim by the name "Shechinah," since it is the Explicit Name. The Rambam, following his own approach (that the stones of the Choshen are the Urim and Tumim, as above), explains (Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 10:11) that "toward the Shechinah" means toward the Ark.
This also explains why the Meiri as well (who follows the Rambam's approach, as above) concludes on the Gemara (ibid. 71b) that "toward the Shechinah" means the Ark, in accordance with the Rambam's view.
18) Likkutei Torah, Derushim for Rosh Hashanah 56c; Siddur of the Alter Rebbe, Shaar HaTekios 244b. See also Shaar HaEmunah 7a.
19) Yoma 21b; Jerusalem Talmud, Horayos 3:2, and sources cited there; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:9.
20) All the more so according to the view of the Geonim and the Rambam (in notes 12 and 16), that the stones of the Choshen are the Urim and Tumim — there was no deficiency at all in the Choshen in the Second Temple. This is not so according to the view of the Ibn Ezra (Acharei, ibid.).
21) Shaar HaMitzvos and Taamei HaMitzvos of Rabbi Chaim Vital, Parshas Tetzaveh.
22) Me'orei Or, under this entry; Chomas Anach on our parsha.
23) Tanya, ch. 31, and elsewhere.
Key Lesson
Even in the Second Temple the Choshen itself was complete; only its "Mishpat" — its effect upon the world — was lacking. Likewise in exile, the "Choshen," numerically equal to Moshiach, is present but concealed. Our service is to uncover it so that its effect is revealed in the world, and this brings about the revelation of Moshiach.