English translation — תצוה ב

1.

In the verse¹

"And you shall place into the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim etc." Rashi explains: "

it is a writing of the explicit name that he would place within the folds of the breastplate, through which it illuminates his words and completes his words.

And in the Second Temple there was the breastplate, for it is impossible for the High Priest to be lacking garments, but that name was not inside it,

and after that writing it is called judgment, as it is said²

and he shall inquire for him with the judgment of the Urim."

And one must understand:

a)

Rashi's way is to explain the simple meaning of the verse — and according to this, the explanation here is not understood

(and in particular — at length)

How was the Choshen in the Second Temple?

! And furthermore, he adds the reason for the matter "that it is impossible for the priest etc."³?

b)

Rashi's intention in every place is to explain the words of the verse that he is quoting — and based on this, what relevance does his explanation have here "and look at that writing etc. as it is said 'and he shall inquire of him through the judgment of the Urim'",

for its place is in the explanation of that verse?

3)

Not only is its place not here,

But,

on the contrary,

this explanation contradicts what Rashi wrote earlier: if it is called Choshen Mishpat

(only)

on account of that writing,

then in the absence of the writing, its essence as "Choshen Mishpat" would also be lacking — and thus there is room to say that in the Second Temple,

when there was no writing inside the Choshen,

the Kohen Gadol was "lacking garments," contrary to what Rashi wrote earlier⁴?

2.

Below in his commentary on "the judgment of the children of Israel"

(in this verse)

Rashi writes: "matters that are judged and clarified by him whether to do a thing or not to do.

And according to the Aggadic Midrash that the Choshen atones for perverters of judgment, it is called 'judgment' for the name of forgiveness of judgment."

And also in this commentary of his it is difficult:

These two explanations Rashi already said previously

(in this very portion⁵

on "

of judgment"),

and why does he repeat them here once again?

b)

In his earlier explanation the two explanations were stated in reverse order

(from how they are stated below)

(a)

a)

"that atones for corruption of judgment."

And afterwards

(b)

"Another explanation: judgment,

that clarifies his words and his promise truth etc., language of clarification of things that explains and clarifies his words" —

Behold, in addition to the difficulty from the change in the order of his words

(the precise ones in every detail),

One must wonder about the following contradiction resulting from this change:

The explanation that Rashi places it first — he seizes that as his main commentary,

And if so, the change of order — changes the determination of the main commentary⁶.

And moreover, later he brings his second commentary as "Midrash Aggadah",

7.

A.

That this commentary of his is not entirely according to the plain meaning, but rather in the manner of "Aggadah that settles the words of Scripture"⁷

(which is entirely according to the plain meaning)

he is compelled to bring a commentary of "Midrash Aggadah" that is not entirely according to the plain meaning],

And in his commentary above,

on "Choshen Mishpat",

he brought it as the first commentary

(and main one)?

3.

And the explanation in all this:

After that in the beginning and continuation of the portion are explained all the details and manners of making the Choshen,

it is stated as its conclusion⁸

: "And Aharon shall carry etc. the Choshen of judgment upon his heart etc." — with this is seemingly completed the entire matter of the Choshen; but afterwards the verse continues: "And you shall place into the Choshen of judgment the Urim and the Tumim etc. and Aharon shall carry the judgment of Bnei Yisrael etc."

And from this that the matter of the Urim and Tumim was not included in the portion of the Choshen among all its details,

but comes after it

as a matter unique to itself,

it is understood simply from the order of the verses that the Urim and Thummim are not part of the

(work)⁹

the breastplate itself, but rather something added to the essence of the breastplate⁹.

And therefore, after Rashi explains that the Urim and Thummim "is the writing of the explicit name that he would place within the folds of the breastplate, by means of which it illuminates his words, etc.,"

from this it appears that the Urim and Thummim are part of the breastplate itself — the completeness of the breastplate is connected to the fact that they place the Urim and Thummim in it¹⁰

— this is a contradiction to what is understood from the order of the aforementioned verses.

And Rashi continues

(to resolve this difficulty)

: "And in the Second Temple there was the Choshen, for it is impossible for the Kohen Gadol to be lacking garments, but that Name was not inside it,"

for from this it is proven that the Urim VeTumim are not part of the essence of the Choshen — for the Kohen Gadol was not "lacking garments" even at the time that the Choshen was without them.

However, this itself requires explanation: Since "through

(the Urim VeTumim)

he illuminates etc." why

In truth, they would not be a thing that prevents the completion of the Choshen,

like its other parts

(since each of them is a detail that prevents in the totality of the matter of the Choshen),

and especially since the letters are seemingly an essential matter in the Choshen?

Therefore Rashi explains in his continuation: "And after the name of that writing it is called Mishpat etc.",

namely that only the matter of "Mishpat",

which is something additional to the essence of the Choshen,

depends on the "writing" of the letters,

but the body and essence of the Choshen,

the garment,

is complete even without the letters "and the Kohen Gadol is not "lacking garments"¹².

And this is also the reason that at first the command regarding the making of the Choshen itself was explained in the verses

and all its details,

and to indicate that with this the section of the breastplate itself was completed in its perfection,

the verse concludes and explains the matter and purpose of the breastplate: "And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of etc. for a remembrance before the Lord continually"! And only after this comes the command regarding the Urim and Thummim which is "

(the breastplate)

of judgment"

(an additional thing beyond the breastplate itself¹³)

— and its meaning: "And they shall be upon Aaron's heart etc. and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel etc."

4.

And behold, in accordance with and in continuation of his aforementioned explanation at the beginning of the verse

(in which he proves that the writing of the Urim and Thummim is called "judgment")

Rashi also explains — in his first explanation — what is stated later in the verse "the judgment of the children of Israel": "a matter by which they are judged and proven etc.",

and this is that "judgment" refers to the Urim and Thummim,

as he explained at the beginning of the verse: and the reason of Rashi is clarified in that he decided here that this explanation is the primary one because only according to this explanation¹⁴

can it be explained,

in order to resolve the continuation of the verses,

that the Urim and Thummim are not from the essence of the breastplate,

and as above.

Not so in Rashi's commentary above in "Choshen Mishpat" where there is still no compulsion to explain that the matter of "Mishpat" refers to the Urim veTumim — it is simpler to explain the matter of "Mishpat" according to its simple meaning — the term law — than to explain it as "clarification of matters" which is not in its simple meaning of "Mishpat".

And therefore Rashi precedes the explanation: "that it atones for the corruption of the law" because it is the main point in the simple meaning of the verse in its place,

And only afterwards

(as a second explanation)

: "Another matter: Mishpat that clarifies his words etc."

However, for this very reason — that it is difficult to say that "Mishpat" means "clarification of matters" and "that they are judged and proven by it etc.",

And also because the Choshen is called by the name "Choshen Mishpat" even before they placed the Urim veTumim into it¹⁵

— Rashi is not satisfied with his first explanation

(on our verse)

that "Mishpat Bnei Yisrael" means the Urim veTumim,

And he adds a second explanation that the Choshen is called "Mishpat" because "it atones for perversions of the law",

For according to this, his explanation of "Mishpat" is more settled — according to its meaning.

But since this explanation is difficult to reconcile with the simple meaning of the sequence of verses — as mentioned above

(for if so, why did the verse not include the matter of the Urim and Thummim among the other works of the breastplate)

— therefore Rashi wrote,

that this second explanation of his is "according to the Aggadic Midrash": that although in a particular detail it is closer to the simple meaning of the verse — nevertheless, in contrast, it does not settle with the entirety of the verses and the entire section.

And therefore Rashi cites it as a second explanation of the verse.

And according to Rashi's method, it is also understood regarding the halachah,

how the High Priest served in the Second Temple when the Urim and Thummim were lacking, and behold he was lacking

garments¹⁶?

for the lack of the Urim and Thummim does not affect the essence of the breastplate, only the matter of the "judgment",

and therefore

the High Priest is not lacking garments in their absence,

as Rashi himself writes in his commentary¹⁷.

ה.

"The essence of Torah" in Rashi before us:

It is explained in Chassidus¹⁸

that the primary difference between the First Temple and the Second Temple

(because of which five things were lacking in the Second Temple¹⁹)

was not so much in the level of revelation of G-dliness in the Temple itself,

for also in the Second Temple there was a revelation of the aspect of Binah like in the First Temple,

rather the main difference was in the drawing down of the revelation of the aspect of Binah into boundaries,

that in the Second Temple there was no ability to draw down the aspect of Binah except for itself and not into boundaries.

And according to Rashi's commentary, this is also the matter regarding the Choshen: the Choshen itself also existed in the Second Temple,

except that the matter of "Mishpat"

(through which the Children of Israel and the world are judged),

that is, its activity of the Choshen in the world,

this matter is what was lacking then: the essence of the Choshen existed in its completeness also in the Second Temple²⁰.

And similarly it is also in the time of exile: our Sages, of blessed memory, said²¹

that "Choshen" [are] the letters of "Nachash" — the primordial serpent.

And on the other hand, it is explained in the name of Rabbi Ephraim

(author of Beha'os HaTorah)²²,

that "Choshen" in gematria [equals] "Mashiach".

And behold, in the time of exile

(which came because of our sins — whose cause is the strengthening of the drawing of the serpent²³

upon the holy soul)

the matter of "Nachash" is revealed,

and the Choshen

(in gematria

Moshiach)

He is in concealment: meaning that there is the "Choshen" also in the time of exile, except that it is found in concealment — and this is our service in the time of exile to decipher and reveal the Choshen

(gematria Moshiach)

from its concealment,

until it will be in the aspect of "Choshen Mishpat" — that its action and essence will be revealed in the world.

And through this, behold "Choshen" is the gematria of "Moshiach" that the revelation of the Choshen

(in the aspect of "Choshen Mishpat")

brings about the revelation of Moshiach — and very soon.