A drasha about genealogy, yichus, and lineage (HE)

WARNING: SOME OF THE PARENTHESES AND BRACKETS IN THIS POST MIGHT BE MISPLACED OR OFFSET BECAUSE MIGRATING FROM ENGLISH TO HEBREW AND VICE VERSA IS NOT DONE EASILY WITH BLOGGER.

Although I actually finished the tractate Bava Basra a few months ago, I just made a siyum recently, along with an exegetical dissertation, on the subjects of Parshas Balak and Parshas Pinchas. Below are my notes from the drasha (let's see if it fits the rules of drash):

דרוש לפ' בלק-פינחס\סיום עמ"ס ב"ב
י"ד תמוז תשס"ז (ש"ק בסעודת שלישית)
לע"נ ר' ראובן חיים בן ר' מרדכי קליין ז"ל

איתא במתני' בפרק בתרא דב"ב (קעב.) דאם היו שני אנשים ששמם אחד בעיר אחת (דהיינו ב' שמעון בן יוסף) הם צריכים לכתוב על שטרות שלהם ג' דורות ולא רק פב"פ דאל"כ אינו מוכח מתוך הכתב למי כוון השטרות. ואם הג' דורות שלהם ג"כ היו שווים הם צריכים לכתוב סימן על השטרות לידע על מי דבר השטרות (פרש"י—דהיינו אם היה גוץ או לבן או ארוך או שחור וכו'). ורק אם היו גם הסימנים שווים אז יכתבו אם היה כהן או לוי או ישראל וכו'.

[אגב, מכאן דייק אביו של זקן זקני הרב הגדול רבי ראובן חיים קליין זצ"ל (שנות חיים על רבינו ירוחם נתיב ב' ח"ג סוף אות ל') דבימות חז"ל לא קראו כהן לעלות אל התורה בשם "פב"פ הכהן" אלא סתם "פב"פ" ורק הוסיפו התאור הכהן אם היה יחוסו שוה לאיש אחר לג' דורות דומה לשטרות. וזהו ראי' לדברי הבעה"מ בהמאור הקטן (מגילה יד: בדפי הרי"ף) שכתב שבימות חז"ל לא קראו "פב"פ הכהן" כדמוכח מכתובות (כה:) גבי מעשה שבא לפני ר' אמי והוא החזיק אחד בכהונה מפני שאחריו היו קוארים לוי לתורה ומוכח שהוא כהן. וכתב הרז"ה דאם היו קוראים לכהן "פב"פ הכהן" הו"ל להוכיח מהא דקראו כן שהוא כהן אע"כ שלא עשו כן ולכן הוכיח שאותו איש היה כהן מהא דקראו לוי אחריו.]

וק"ל דאם הסימון קודם ל"כהן" בהזכרת השמות אמאי אמרינן בריש פ' פינחס "פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן" וכי תעלה על דעתך שהיה שם איש אחר ששמו "פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן" שמעשיו היו שווים למעשה דפינחס הגדול שבסוף פ' בלק? ולמה הושלשו דורותיו וגם כתב שהיה כהן?

ונ"ל דגם הזוהר הקדוש חש לקשיא זו. ולכן כתוב בזוה"ק בריש פ' פינחס דבשעה שהרג פינחס את זמרי בן סלוא נתקבצו עליו כל שבט שמעון ובקשו להרגו. ובאותו שעה פרחה נשמתו של פינחס ונכנסו בו הנשמות של נדב ואביהוא אחי אביו שמתו. ולכן קראו התורה "פינחס בן אלעזר" דהיינו שמו וגם "בן אהרן הכהן" כדי לרמוז לנו שנכנסו בגופו הנשמות של נדב ואביהוא בני אהרן. [ע' ש"ך עה"ת שביאר דאע"פ דקי"ל דאין ב' נשמות נכנסים לגוף אחד הכא נחשבו נדב חצי איש ואביהוא חצי איש מפני שלא נשאו נשים.]

ונ"ל עוד תירוץ בזה דהא דכתוב התורה יחוסו של פינחס לג' דורות אפשר לפרש ע"פ דברי חז"ל בב"ב (נט.). שם נחלקו נחלקו אם יכול אדם לעכב שכנו לסמוך צינור המקלח מים באיזה ציור ר' אושעיא אמר מעכב ר' חמא אמר אינו מעכב ור' ביסא אמר מעכב. וכתב הגמ' שם דע"ז כתב שלמה המע"ה (ע' ב"ב טו.) והחוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק. וביארו בתוס' ד"ה והחוט (ע"פ התו"ח שם) דכיון שהיו ג' דורות של תלמידי חכמים לא ימוש התורה כ"כ מהר מאותו משפחה. וזהו מה שהביא התורה ג' דורות של תורת יחוס של פינחס. ונראה דיסוד זה נובע מהא דאמרינן (ריש פ"ג דב"ב) דחזקת הבתים ג"ש. דהיינו כדי להחזיק על איזה דבר צריך ג'. ולכן כאן צריך ג' דורות להחזיק על אותו משפחה. [וכן מצינו גבי מצרי ואדומי דרק דור שלישי אחר הגרות הם יבאו בקהל ה'.]

באמת כתב רש"י בריש פ' פינחס דהיו השבטים מבזים פינחס משום שהוא מיוחס ל"פוטיאל" שהיה מפטם עגלים לע"ז והוא הרג נשיא בישראל. וכתב רש"י דלכן הביא התורה כל תורת יוחסין של פינחס כדי לייחסו עד אהרן הכהן לומר שכשם שהיו אהרן ובנו אלעזר צדיקים וראוים לכהונה כך היה פינחס כמוהם ולכן כתיב לאח"כ לכן אמור הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום ודרשו חז"K דהיינו שזכה פינחס שיהיו הכה"ג ממנו. אך עדיין קשה דמ"מ פינחס היה מזרע פוטיאל דכ' ואלעזר בן אהרן לקח לו מבנות פוטיאל לו לאשה והוא פיטם עגלים לע"ז? איתא בב"ב (קט:) שפוטיאל הוא יתרו שהיה מפטם עגלים לע"ז ועוד פוטיאל הוא יוסף הצדיק שפטפט ביצרו. ועוד איתא בילקו"ש רמז קס"ט דיתרו נקרא פוטיאל ע"ש שנפטר מע"ז. ולכן חזינן משם ששם פויטאל אינו לגנאי אלא אדרבה הוא שבח ליתרו דבתחלתו הוא היה מפטם עגלים לע"ז ואח"כ הוא הכיר הקב"ה ועזב את דרכיו הרעים. ועפ"ז יש לתרץ טענת השבטים על פינחס.

וכן חזינן להיפוך ח"ו דמי שהוחזקו משפחתו לרשעים קשה להם לשוב מרשעתם. כגון בלעם. דקי"ל בס' סדר הדורות (שנת ב"א קפ"ט) דאביו של בעור היה לבן הרשע ובעור היה אביו של בלעם ושלשתם היו רשעים גמורים! וא"כ אינו כ"כ פלא שגם בנו של בלעם היה רשע (כדאיתא במדרש מעם לועז שמות ב:טו).

ואל יחשוב בלבך שרק מי שבא מזרע גדולים הוא יהיה גדול שזהו סברת קרח. קרח ידע ע"פ רוה"ק שלעתיד יהיו מבני בניו שמואל הנביא ששקול כנגד משה ואהרן (דכ' משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקראי שמו וע' בברכות ריש פ"ה). וחישב קרח שאם יהיה מזרעו איש חשוב כזה גם הוא בעצמו איש חשוב. אבל הוא טעה דאין לאב חזקה בנכסי הבן ולא הבן בנכסי האב (כדתנן במתני' בפ"ג דב"ב). ולאח"ז חזר קרח משיטתו הכוזבת ומודה שמשה אמת ותורתו אמת (ב"ב עד.).

==דבר הלכה===

והנה עלה על דעתי הקטן שזה המקום להאריך בענין איסור דאורייתא לסתור דברי אביו (ע' קידושין לא:). דאיך חזינן בב"ב (נט.) שחלק בן על אביו ואביו על אביו[1]? וגם בכמה מקומות חזינן שתנאים חלקו על דעת אביהם שהיו תנאים כגון רבי שחלק ע"ד אביו רשב"ג בענין הבא לדון בשטר ובחזקה (ב"ב קסט: (? וכן בכמה מקומות ראינו שחלק הרשב"ם על זקנו רש"י ובפרט בפירושו עה"ת ובב"ב? וגם ר"ת שחולק על רש"י? כתב בספר כוס הישועות (ב"ב נט.) דגבי מח' ברבי אושעיא ואביו וזקנו הגמ' הזכיר ר' אושעיא בתחלה ואח"כ אביו ואח"כ אבי אביו והוא דייק מזה שהבן אמר שיטתו בתחלה ואח"כ אביו ואח"כ אבי אביו ולכן אף אחד לא חלק על אביו משום שלעולם קדם דברי הבן לדברי אביו ורק אחר שאמר הבן שיטתו חלק עליו אביו. ועפ"ז ניחא אותו הגמ' בב"ב וגם המח' דרבי ורשב"ג הנ"ל ששם נזכר שיטת רבי קודם שיטת אביו רשב"ג. אבל בהרבה מקומות אין דיוק כזה ונקט שם דברי האב קודם לדברי הבן. והא אסור לסתור דברי אביו? ציין רע"א בהגהותיו לשו"ע (יו"ד ס' ר"מ) את דברי הבאר שבע (סנהדרין קי.) שכתב דרק אסור לסתור את דברי אביו אם אמר כן בלשון סתיירה כגון "לא כדבריכם אלא וכו'" אבל אם סתם חלק מותר. עפ"ז יש ליישב הא דחזינן גבי אמוראים ותנאים שסתם אמרו דבריהם כנגד אביהם. אבל עדיין צ"ע הא דלפעמים כתבו הבעלי תוס' "אין נראה" או "ולא נהירא" בדברי רש"י זקנם.

ויש לזה ג' תירוצים: א) כתב זקנינו הט"ז (יו"ד ס' ר"מ ס"ק ג') דרק אסור לו לאדם לסתור דברי אביו בפניו אבל שלא בפניו מותר ועפ"ז תירץ הגר"א שם הא דחזינן בכמה מקומות שתנאים חולקים על אביהם משום שהם חלקו שלא בפניו. וגם אפשר ליישב עפ"ז כל הקושיות הנ"ל. ב) בספר שנות חיים להרב הגדול ראובן חיים קליין זצ"ל (נתיב א' ח"ד סוף אות י"ד) כתב דאיסור לסתור דברי אביו הוא חלק ממצוות יראת אביו. ופשוט שאין מצוות יראה נוהגת לאחר מיתת אביו של אדם ל"ע (משא"כ מצוות כבוד נוהג לעולם). ולכן אולי י"ל עפ"ד דכל הרבנים שחלקו על אביהם עשו כן רק לאח"מ אביהם אבל קודם לכן איסור גמור הוא. ג) כתב בספר שערים מצויינים בהלכה (ב"ב קה:) על הא דכתב הרשב"ם (שם) "ולא נהירא לי כלל" בדברי רש"י דקי"ל (ב"ב ריש קלא.) אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות ולכן גבי דברי תורה מותר לאדם לפסוק כנגד אביו דפסק הלכה ות"ת תלויים "כפי [מה] שדעתכם נוטה" (ז"ל הרשב"ם שם קלא. ד"ה ואל).

[1] ע' ב"ב מא: וז"ל: אבוה דשמואל ולוי תנו שותף אין לו חז' וכ"ש אומן שמואל תני אומן אין לו חז' אבל שותף יש לו חז'. עכ"ל. אין לומר ששמואל חלק ע"ד אביו אלא אפ"ל שהיה לו גירסה אחרת ולא שהוא חלק על אביו. וכן מדוייק בגמ' דלא כתוב "ושמואל תני" אלא כתוב סתם "שמואל תני" בלא וא"ו.

Studying Kodshim

See Wisdom in Money first


Even though the Mishnah explains[1] that one who wishes to become wise should engage in the study of monetary laws, the Talmud only says that Seder Kodshim is considered "wisdom"[2], not any other Seder of the Oral Torah. Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan (1838-1933) laments[3] the fact that Seder Kodshim is an often-neglected component in the study of Torah. Rabbi Kagan explains[4] that while learning monetary laws grants one wisdom, that wisdom is only of human behavior and intellect. On the other hand, the study of Kodshim contains a wisdom unlike any other human wisdom, for it is the wisdom of HaShem Himself. Kodshim is built purely on the foundations of the Torah, and the insights therein reveal super-human knowledge contained in the Torah, which is only apparent through the study of Kodshim. The Midrash tells[5] that Seder Kodshim enlightens one's eyes[6]. Indeed, elsewhere, the Midrash says[7] that during the Six Day of Creation HaShem created light and saw that the "light was good"[8], He was referring to the book of Leviticus, upon which most of Seder Kodshim is based. This is why Rabbi Kagan entitled his pamphlet which stressed the importance of Kodshim, "Torah Ohr", "The Light of Torah". Just as light is essential to the physical world, the Talmud says[9] that without the study of the sacrifices, the Heavens and Earth would cease to exist.


Rabbi Kagan proves[10] that the Order of Kodshim played a more significant role in the past, even though it is presently largely neglected. Rashi[11] explains that in Amoraic times, the orders of Moed, Nashim, and Nezikin were studied in the Yeshivas because they were practically relevant, while Kodshim, which was not practical relevant, was studied purely for the sake of Torah study. Rabbi Kagan expresses his astonishment that many spend their time studying the tractates of Sanhedrin and Makkos, which detail the judiciary proceedings of Beis Din, and the tractate of Yevamos, which details the laws of the levirate marriage, even though those tractates are currently not relevant, but they do not spend their time learning the tractates of Seder Kodshim, whose contents are not practical applicable yet either.


The Talmud says[12] that one who busies himself with the laws of the Olah sacrifice is considered to have brought an Olah. One who busies himself with the laws of the Chatas sacrifice is considered to have brought a Chatas sacrifice. Rabbi Kagan explains[13] that this is not only true in regard to the Korban Chatas and Korban Olah, rather the Talmud's statement is true in regard to all the sacrifices offered on the altar of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Similarly, the Midrash says[14] that even when the Temple does not exist, studying the physical structure of the Holy Temple and the sacrifices brought there is tantamount to building the Temple and offering the sacrifices. Furthermore, Rabi Kagan[15] explains that the Talmud does not say that one should merely "read" the descriptions of sacrifices, the Talmud says that one should be involved in its study. One should engage in an in-depth Iyun analysis of the laws of the sacrifices that were brought in the Holy Temple. Only then is one considered to have offered the sacrifices about which he has learned. Rabbi Kagan says[16] that when one prays for the rebuilding of the Holy Temple[17], "…we shall all be gladdened with the services…" he is a liar unless he happily studies Kodshim, the present-day equivalent to the Temple's services.


At the Covenant Between the Pieces, HaShem told Abraham[18] that He would not only forgive the Jews of their sins if they brought sacrifices in the Holy Temple, but He would even absolve them of their inequities if they learned the laws of the sacrifices, in lieu of actually bringing them, in times when the Holy Temple will not exist. Indeed, the salvation of the Jewish people during the reign of King Ahasuerus came about in the merit of Mordechai studying the laws of the Korban Mincha whilst in the Shushan during the Babylonian Exile. The Talmud says[19] that he was in the midst of showing his students how exactly the Kohen scooped a handful of flour as a preparation for the Mincha offering. From here, one sees that the study of Kodshim has the power to bring about the Ultimate Redemption. Rabbi Kagan goes to great lengths to prove from various sources[20] that the study of Seder Kodshim brings closer the arrival of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, speedily and in our days: Amen.
[1] Bava Basra 175b
[2] Shabbos 31a
[3] See his introduction to Likutei Halachos, an Alfasi-style halachik compendium which he authored on Seder Kodshim, as well as Torah Ohr, a book dedicated to describing the importance of learning Seder Kodshim.
[4] Introduction to Torah Ohr
[5] Yalkut Shimoni, Psalms, §674
[6] Psalms 19:9
[7] See Midrash Rabbah to Genesis 1:4
[8] Genesis 1:4
[9] Taanis 27b, see Maharsha there as well
[10] Torah Ohr Chapter 2
[11] To Bava Metzia 114b
[12] Menachos 110a
[13] Torah Ohr, Chapter 1
[14] Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav §14
[15] Introduction to Torah Ohr
[16] Torah Ohr, Chapter 1
[17] See Mussaf liturgy
[18] Megillah 31a
[19] Megillah 16a
[20] See Torah Ohr, Chapter 10

Urim and Thummim: Prophecies of the Oracle

Urim and Thummim: Prophesies of the Oracle

            Was the “Urim and Tumim” extant during the period of the Second Holy Temple? Maimonides writes^[1] that the Urim and Tumim existed in the Second Holy Temple, but because the Holy Spirit of HaShem did not exist within them, they did not possess the powers to answer questions prophetically. In order for one to receive a message through the Urim and Tumim, one must possess Ruach HaKodesh (divine intuition) ^[2], which during that time period, no one had possessed. Therefore, although present in the Second Holy Temple, the Urim and Tumim did not perform their intended function. Maimonides proves^[3] that they existed in the time of the Second Holy Temple because had they not existed, then the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) would have never been considered fully clothed because the Urim and Tumim are halachikly considered part of the eight holy vestments, which the High Priest must wear while performing the services in the Holy Temple. In providing this as evidence to the Urim and Tumim’s existence during the period of the Second Temple, Maimonides assumes that the Urim and Tumim are indeed considered part of the eight holy vestments of the Kohen Gadol; however, the Ra`avad, Rabbi Avrohom ben Dovid (1125-1198), disagrees^[4] with Maimonides’ view. The Raavad wrote that the Urim and Tumim were not essential components in the Kohen Gadol's holy garments. Therefore, according to the Raavad, since because their absence does not disqualify the Kohen Gadol from performing the sacrificial services in the Holy Temple, it is possible that they did not exist at all in the times of the Second Holy Temple.

The Talmud records a list^[5] of five elements which existed in the First Holy Temple, but were absent from the Second. In this list, the Talmud enumerates both the “Urim and Tumim” and Ruach HaKodesh. The Raavad cites this list to question Maimonides’ assertion that the Urim and Tumim existed in the Second Holy Temple, for the list clearly indicates that the the Urim and Tumim did not exist in the Second Temple. Theoretically, one can answer that Maimonides understood that when the Talmud wrote that the Urim and Tumim did not exist in the Second Temple, the Talmud meant that they did not perform their intended functions, as Maimonides had already mentioned. However, the Raavad preempts such an answer and notes that the Talmud lists the lack of Urim and Tumim separately from Ruach HaKodesh. Had the Talmud merely meant to say that the Urim and Tumim did not function during the Second Temple, that effect would have been achieved by simplying mentioned that Ruach HaKodesh did not exist then because it was the absence of Ruach HaKodesh, which caused to Urim and Tumim to not work^[6].

            Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) explains^[7] the root of this dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad. He explains that the Raavad maintains that the term “Urim and Tumim” refer specifically to the parchment which contains a special name of HaShem. This parchment was slipped into the folds of the Choshen (breastplate) and worn by the Kohen Gadol. However, Maimonides maintains that “Urim and Tumim” refers to the Choshen itself when it was used for divination[8]. Therefore, Maimonides ruled that the Urim and Tumim were essential to the Kohanic garb, while the Raavad did not. The Lechem Yehuda, in clarifying Rabbi Karo’s explanation, writes^[9] that according to Maimonides, the term "Urim and Tumim" does not necessarily refer to the actual Choshen, but rather to the stones which adorned it. This is evident from the fact that Rabbi Karo elsewhere[10] attempts to prove Maimonides' stance against the Raavad that the Urim and Tumim existed in the Second Holy Temple from a Talmudic tale that detailed^[11] how the Sages attempted to procure the required gems for the Choshen from a gentile whose father was asleep. Had Rabbi Karo meant literally that the Choshen itself was called “Urim and Tumim”, then he would have not have needed to offer proof to Maimonides' view that the Urim and Tumim existed in the Second Holy Temple, it would have been self- evident. This is because had the term “Urim and Tumim” meant the actual Choshen, then surely they would have existed during the time of the Second Temple because the Choshen is unmistakably one of the eight garments which the Kohen Gadol was required to wear during the services. Rather, proves the Lechem Yehuda, Rabbi Karo must have meant that Maimonides considered “Urim and Tumim” a reference to the precious gems which adorned the golden Choshen[12]. Maimonides understood that these gems are to be considered part of the Choshen itself so their absence disqualifies the Choshen as a holy vestment.[13]

Rashi, in his commentary to the Pentateuch^[14], defines the “Urim and Tumim” as the parchment containing the secret name of HaShem. Following the explanation cited above, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1907) writes^[15] that according to Maimonides the Urim and Tumim were the stones on the breastplate, while the Raavad agrees with Rashi that the Urim and Tumim refer to the parchment containing the secret name of HaShem. Indeed, Rashi, in his commentary to the Talmudic tractate Yoma^[16], understands like the Raavad that the Urim and Tumim were not essential components of the Kohen Gadol's attire^[17]. The view of Maimonides that the Urim and Tumim are essential to the Kohen Gadol’s attire is also the view shared by the Tosafists^[18] and Rashi's own grandson, the Rashbam^[19]. According to Rabbi Yosef Karo, Maimonides holds that the Urim and Tumim are essential to the Kohen Gadol’s dress because they refer to the stones of the breastplate, which are part of the breastplate. However, the Raavad believes that the “Urim and Tumim” refer to the parchment therein so the Urim and Tumim are not considered essential to the clothing of the Kohen Gadol. The difficulty arises in the opinion of the Rashbam. The Rashbam, as previously mentioned, rules like Maimonides that the Urim and Tumim are indispensable to the Priestly garb. Why then does the Rashbam in his commentary to the Pentateuch[20] explain that the “Urim and Tumim” is the parchment with His name inscribed like Rashi and the Raavad? One would have expected the Rashbam to explain that the “Urim and Tumim” is the stones of the Choshen in accordance with Maimonides’ view, as explicated by Rabbi Karo. This difficulty remains yet unanswered.

            The Raavad asks why according to Maimonides the Talmud lists the lack of of the Urim and Tumim and that of Ruach HaKodesh as two separate elements lacking in the Second Holy Temple era, if the former is really an outcome of the latter[21]. The Brisker Rov (Rabbi Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik of Brisk, 1886-1959) explains^[22] Maimonides’ opinion as follows: The Mishnah records[23] that when the “early prophets died, the Urim and Tumim became null”[24] and the Talmud explains^[25] that the Urim and Tumim ceased to function after the destruction of the First Holy Temple. The death of the “early prophets” mentioned in the Mishnah is explained by the Talmud as meaning to exclude the “later prophets” Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi. That is, the Urim and Tumim already cease to function before their time. As a result, one can conclude that the Urim and Tumim already stopped working before the cessation of prophecy^[26], [27]. Therefore, it could not have been a direct result of the stoppage of prophecy and the Talmud understandably lists the lack of Urim and Tumim as a separate entry besides the lack of Ruach HaKodesh.

According to this, the Brisker Rov reconciles a seeming difficulty in the wording of Maimonides. Maimonides writes^[28] that during the time of the Second Holy Temple, "the Urim and Tumim did not answer [questions] and they did not ask of the Urim and Tumim because there was no Ruach HaKodesh." Logically, one would have thought to place the fact that they did not ask the Urim and Tumim questions before the fact that the Urim and Tumim did not answer any questions. However, the Brisker Rov explains that the Urim and Tumim stopped working with the destruction of the First Holy Temple, so even had someone asked it a question, the Urim and Tumim would not have supplied an answer. Additionally, when prophecy ceased after the deaths of Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi, not only would the Urim and Tumim not supply an answer if asked a question, but one needs Ruach HaKodesh to communicate with the Urim and Tumim, so there was no one who was even able to pose it a question[29]. Consequently, the loss of the Urim and Tumim’s operability took place in two steps, which explains Maimonides' phraseology.

           

            Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926) offers^[30] a proof to Maimonides’ view (that the Urim and Tumim were essential to the Kohen Gadol’s Choshen) based on an inference from a scriptural verse. The Torah describes "putting the Urim and Tumim into the Choshen"^[31]. Rabbi Meir Simcha says that this implies that without the Urim and Tumim, the Choshen is viewed as incomplete. Since the Urim and Tumim considered a part of the Choshen, then the Urim and Tumim is a critical component of Kohen Gadol's garments. However, this inference is not necessarily a clear-cut confirmation of Maimonides' stance because Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) infers^[32] the exact opposite from that same verse. Rabbi Emden infers that since the verse still refers to the Choshen as the “Choshen” even before it contains the Urim and Tumim, the Urim and Tumim must not be considered essential components of the Choshen (as the Raavad holds). Nonetheless, Rabbi Meir Simcha offers another proof to the position espoused by Maimonides from the Targum who referred to the wearing of the Urim and Tumim, which implies that they are a part of the Priestly apparel worn by the Kohen Gadol^[33].

            Rabbi Usher Weiss^[34] explains the root of the dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad. Rabbi Yosef Ben Moshe Babad (1800-1874) writes^[35] that a Holy Ark was not built for the Second Holy Temple because King Josiah had already hid the Luchos (tablets upon which the Decalouge was written that Moses received at Mount Sinai). The Ark of Covenant is only meant to house the Luchos tablets. Therefore, since the Luchos were not extant, there was no need for building an Ark. Rabbi Asher Weiss explains that Maimonides holds that the relationship between the Choshen and the “Urim and Tumim” is analogous to the relationship between the Aron HaKodesh and the Luchos[36]. Just as when there are no Luchos, there is no need for an Ark, so too if there is no Urim and Tumim there should be no Choshen, for its entire purpose is simply to house the Urim and Tumim. Since the Choshen is surely one of the essential eight garments of the Kohen Gadol (without which he may not perform the services in the Temple), then Maimonides had to explain that the Urim and Tumim existed during the period of the Second Holy Temple. However, the Raavad felt that although the Ark served as a mere receptacle for the Luchos, the golden breastplate did not serve as a simply vessel to contain the Urim and Tumim. This is because the Torah calls the Ark, "The Ark of the Covenant^[37]" which implies that the entire purpose of the Ark is to serve as a means of holding the covenant between HaShem and the Jews. The Luchos are the physical representation of this convent. However, the Torah never specifically said that the entire purpose of the Choshen is to house the Urim and Tumim. Therefore, the Choshen is still considered complete even without the Urim and Tumim ^[38].

            Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen explains^[39] that the Torah does not use the word tamid, "continuously", in regarding to the wearing of the Choshen,  as it does regarding to wearing the other garments because the Urim and Tumim, a portion of the Choshen, were not used (Maimonides) / did not exist (Raavad) during the period of the Second Holy Temple. He also explains that the Torah says, "It [the Choshen] should be on the heart of Aaron", but does not say that Aaron should carry the Choshen on his heart. Perhaps one can explain this anomaly in accordance with Rabbi Usher Weiss' explanation that the Choshen was analogous to the Holy Ark. The carriers of the Ark did not actually carry the Ark, rather the Ark rather carried them^[40]. Perhaps the same can be true of the Choshen, that is, the Kohen Gadol did not carry the Choshen, rather the Choshen carried itself upon his heart. Rabbi Simcha Meir himself explained that the Choshen is analogous to the Luchos: Until the Luchos’ letters flew up, Moses was miraculously able to hold onto the heavy slab of sapphire. Once the letters ascended towards the Heavens, the weight of the object was too massive and he dropped it^[41]. The same is true concerning the Choshen, as long as the Choshen contained the Urim and Tumim, the Choshen carried itself on the Kohen Gadol's chest, while after the Urim and Tumim ceased to work or were gone, the High Priest had to actually bear the Choshen’s weight while wearing it.

            Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870-1953) writes^[42] that it is possible that the Urim and Tumim did exist in the Second Holy Temple even according to the Raavad. He says that perhaps the parchment was indeed inserted into the Choshen even during the time of the Second Holy Temple, but the Urim and Tumim produced no effect because Ruach HaKodesh did not exist then. The raison d'etre of the Urim and Tumim are to "enlighten" people with HaShem's messages^[43], that is, to serve as a means of communication with Him. Thus, the lack of Ruach HaKodesh during the SecondHoly Temple era rendered the Urim and Tumim useless. The Raavad was merely pointing out that this loss of the Urim and Tumim's ability to fulfill its purpose did not render the High Priest unable to serve in the Holy Temple because of a lack of clothing. This is because there was nothing technically wrong with the physical Urim and Tumim. Rather the spiritual level of the nation was so degenerate that Ruach HaKodesh did not exist, which for practical purposes rendered the Urim and Tumim useless. However, since Ruach HaKodesh could have theoretically returned at any time during the Second Holy Temple period, had the nation's spiritual condition improved, the Urim and Tumim were not considered totally lost. Nonetheless, the Talmud considered the the Urim and Tumim lost during the age of the Second Holy Temple because in practice it did not perform its function.

---

[1] Laws of the Beis HaBechirah 4:1 (The same is true according to Tosafos to Yoma 21b)

[2] Yoma 73b

[3] See Maimonides, Laws of the Vessels of the Sanctuary 10:10

[4] Hasagos HaRaavad to Laws of Bais HaBechira 4:1

[5] Yoma 21b

[6] Perhaps one can answer that Maimonides employed a variant text of this Talmudic passage which is consistent with the Midrashic parallel of this Talmudic passage and did not list the Urim V’Tumim as part of the five things which existed in the First Temple but not in the Second Temple (see See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Behaaloscha, End of §6).

[7] Kesef Mishnah to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1

[8] Abarbanel (Exodus 28:30) cites two reasons as to why in the times of the Second Holy Temple was the Urim V’Tumim not used to answer questions. First, he writes that the existence of Ruach HaKodesh is dependent on the unification of all of Israel, for only then does HaShem grace the nation with His presence. Therefore, since only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned from the Babylonian Exile while the rest of the Ten Tribes were lost, Ruach HaKodesh did not exist during the times of the Second Temple, so the Urim V’Tumim did not work. Second, he writes that the original parchment containing the secret name of HaShem—which was written by Moses for use in the Tabernacle—was lost during the mayhem of the destruction of the First Holy Temple,  so the Urim V’Tumim did not exist. These two explanations seemingly correspond to the dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad. The first explanation is consistent with Maimonides’ view, while the second reflects the view of the Raavad.

[9] Lechem Yehuda to Laws of Vessels of the Sanctuary 10:10, see also Ma’aseh Rokeach ad loc.

[10] Kesef Misnhnah to Laws of Vessels of the Sanctuary 10:10

[11] Kiddushin 41a

[12] In fact, Maimonides' son, Rabbi Avrohom ben Moshe (1185-1237), himself actually defined (see Pirush Rabbi Avrohom ben HaRambam to the Torah to Exodus 28:30) the “Urim V’Tumim” as the stones set upon the Choshen, in consonance with his father’s view.

[13] Tzror HaMor (Exodus 28:30) writes that the true definition of the Urim V’Tumim is unknown to us and writes that it was either a parchment written with HaShem’s name on it or a special manuscript from HaShem or the stones of the Choshen which contained the Hebrew Alphabet in the context of the names of the Twelve Tribes. Interestingly, some early sources write (Hadar Zekanim and Pirush Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor to Exodus 28:30) that not only were the names of the Twelve Tribes etched into the stones of the Choshen, but also the delineation of the borders of each tribes lot in the Land of Israel was also scratched into each tribe’s gem. See also Kisvei HaSforno (Mossad HaRav Kook, 1982 Letters §12) who differentiates between Urim and Tumim. He also writes there that the Urim V’ Tumim were comparable to the Oracles used in Greek temples. Rabbeinu Hasdai Crescas (1340-1411) writes that beleif in the prophetic properties of the Urim and Tumim is an essential dogma of Judaism (see Kovetz Yeshurun Vol. 10, pg 626).

[14] Rashi to Exodus 28:30. Many other Ashkenazi commentaries also write similar explanations to that of Rashi (see Pirush HaRokeach, Rabbeinu Efrayim, Rabbeinu Yoel, Paneach Raza, and Rikanti in the name of Chochmei Magentza). Nachmanides also writes that the Urim V’Tumim refer to the name of HaShem placed inside the Choshen and proves this because the creation of the Urim V’Tumim was never mentioned amongst the creation of all the other Tabernacle’s components, which required skilled craftsmen. Interestingly, Nachmanides writes that the Urim V’Tumim was only inserted into the Choshen once the Choshen was already being worn upon the chest of the Kohen Gadol. From here, Rabbi Meir Arik (in his glosses to Nachmanides’ commentary on the Torah, printed with the Machon Yerushalayim ed. Of Nachmanides) offers a proof to the Raavad’s stance that the Urim V’Tumim was not essential to Kohen Gadol’s Choshen. He explains that many of the Priestly garments contain Shaatnez, a proscribed mixture of wool and linen. The only reason why a Kohen can legally wear these usually illicit clothes is a halachik principle whereby a positive commandment supercedes a negative commandment. Therefore, the positive commandment for a Kohen to perform the sacrificial services in the Temple supercedes the negative commandment that forbids wearing Shaatnez. However, this principle only applies when one is actually fulfilling the positive commandment. If the Choshen was not considered a viable garment without the inclusion of the Urim V’Tumim then the Kohen Gadol would never be allowed to wear the Choshen without the Urim V’Tumim because the Choshen, which is attached to the Eifod (apron) contains Shaatnez. As a result, since Nachmanides writes that the Kohen Gadol would first adorn himself with the Choshen and only afterwards would insert the Urim V’Tumim, this proves that Nachmanides agreed with the Raavad that the Urim V’Tumim is not essential to the Choshen. However, see Mahari Koorkoos (Laws of Vessels of the Sanctuary 8:10) who proves that according to Maimonides only the belt of the Kohen has a prohibition of Shaatnez, but not the other Kohanic garments.

[15] Aruch HaShulchan HeUsid to Laws of Beis HaMikdash §8:15

[16] Yoma 5b

[17] However, Rabbi Aryeh Leib Ginzburg of Metz (1700-1785) questioned (Gevuras Ari to Yoma 4b) this opinion of Rashi: The Talmud (Yoma 4b-5a) records a dispute between two Amoraic sages, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. The Talmud maintains that all details of the Temple’s inaugural service mentioned in the Torah (in its elaboration of the Tabernacle’s inauguration) are vital requirements to the service during the inaugural period. However, regarding a detail whose fulfillment does not post facto disqualify the Temple’s service in future generations but was mentioned in the Torah concerning the inaugural services, the two sage dispute whether such a detail is considered vital to the inaugural services and would thereby disqualify the services if not heeded to. Initially, the Talmud maintains that this dispute is purely theoretically and does not have any practical outcome. However, Rabbi Ginzburg asks that according to Rashi there is indeed a practical outcome. This is because according to Rashi the Urim V’Tumim are a detail of the Temple’s services which, in normal times, does not disqualify the service in absentia, yet the Urim V’Tumim are mentioned in the Torah’s desciption of the inagural services of the Tabernacle (see Exodus 28:30). From here, Rabbi Ginzburg offered a proof to the view of Maimonides that the Urim V’Tumim is indeed essential, not like the opinion of Rashi and the Raavad. However, the Brisker Rov (Chiddushei Maran HaGriz to Yoma 5b) and Rabbi Elazar Mann Shach (Avi Ezri to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1) who propose an alternate understanding to that Talmudic passage other than Rashi’s. Their explanation follows Tosafos Rid to Yoma 5b and according to their explanation, the Talmud in Yoma 5b cannot refer to the Urim V’Tumim and thus one can say like the Raavad that the Urim V’Tumim are not essential to the services. However, Rashi explicitly does not follow this explanation, so it is difficult to reconcile Rashi's own opinion.

[18] Tosafos to Yoma 21b

[19] To Bava Basra 133b

[20] To Exodus 28:30

[21] Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer (cited later) answers this question by explaining that the Talmud did listed them as two because practically speaking they were indeed two losses, even though the cause of both was essentially same. Alternatively, he answers that it is not necessarily true that the ability of the Urim V’Tumim to serve as an oracle for divinely answering question is dependent on Ruach HaKodesh. Rather, he posits, perhaps HaShem could have arranged for the Urim V’Tumim to function with only the parchment containing His secret name, even without Ruach HaKodesh. If so, the lack of Ruach HaKodesh is not necessarily the cause for the ineffectiveness of the Urim V’Tumim, therefore, they could have justifably been listed as two separate concepts.

[22] Chiddushei Maran HaRiz HaLevi to Laws of the Vessels of the Sanctuary 10:10

[23] Sotah 48a

[24] Initially, the Talmud thought that “early prophets” refers to the prophet Samuel and King David who lived before the time of the First Holy Temple. However, the Talmud disproves this notion and concludes that “early prophets” just means in distinction to “later prophets” i.e. Hagai, Zachariah, and Malachi. Tosafos HaRosh (printed in Tosafos HaShalem to Exodus 28:30) ask why King Solomon had to ask Ashmodai, the King of Demons, regarding the whereabouts of the Shamir worm (which was used to cut stones for the construction of the First Holy Temple) as mentioned in the Talmud (Gittin 68a), if King Solomon could have just as easily asked the Urim V’Tumim the same question. Tosafos HaRosh answers that the Urim V’Tumim ceased to work after the death of the “early prophets”, as the Mishnah in Tractate Sotah states. This answer of Tosafos HaRosh is contrary to the Talmud’s conclusion because the Talmud had concluded that the “early prophets” simply means “not the later prophets”, but does not mean that the Urim V’Tumim already stopped working during the times of King David and Samuel.

[25] Sotah 48b

[26] The Brisker Rov assumes that Ruach HaKodesh is the same as prophecy which Maimonides himself says in his Guide to the Perplexed, Chapter 42. However, see Rabbeinu Bachaya (Leviticus 8:8) who argues. Abudraham (prayers to Rosh HaShana) and Radaq (introduction to Psalms) assert that the difference between the books of the Prophets (Neviim) and the Writings (Kesuvim) is that the former were written with prophecy, while the latter were merely divinely inspired by Ruach HaKodesh. This implies a difference between prophecy and Ruach HaKodesh.

[27] In this explanation, the Brisker Rov assumes that even during the time of the Second Holy Temple prophecy still existed until the deaths of Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi. However, this assumption is not necessarily justified as the commentators discuss exactly when prophecy itself was terminated. Rashi (Yoma 21b) wrote that prophecy ceased from the second year of (the Persian) King Darius II—the year that the Second Holy Temple was built. Rabbi Yaakov Emden explains (Hagahos Ya’avetz to Yoma 21b) that Rashi’s source is a Talmudic passage (Megillah 15a) which states that Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi prophesied in the second year of the reign of King Darius II. However, Rabbi Emden points out that nowhere does the Talmud mention that then was the last prophecy, it merely mentions that prophecy occurred in that year. Furthermore, he asks that there is Scriptural passage (Zechariah 7:1) that explicitly refers to a vision shown to Zechariah in the fourth year of King Darius' reign, which implies that prophecy continued to exist even beyond the construction of the Second Holy Temple. Malbim (Gayah Chazayon to Zechariah 7:1) explains that indeed prophecy had ended prior to Zechariah’s prophecy, and that his prophecy was the sole instance in which  HaShem spoke to a prophet after the cessation of prophecy. (This explanation has deep implication for the nature of prophecy in contemporary times, and implies that even after HaShem stopped prophecy, He might continue it. However, one could argue that this situation is different because Zecharia was already a prophet from before the cessation of prophecy.) The simplest explanation, which likely the Brisker Rov understood to be Maimonides’ view, is that of the Gerrer Rebbe (Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter, 1847-1905), who wrote (Sfas Emes to Yoma 21b) that prophecy continued in the time of the Second Holy Temple until the deaths of all previous prophets (i.e. Hagai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Thus, between the time of the destruction of the First Holy Temple and the deaths of the trio of prophets, the Urim V’Tumim stopped working, but Ruach HaKodesh had maintained its existence. Mahari Qara (to Malachi 3:22) writes that prophecy stopped during the lifetime of Malachi. Rav Nisson Gaon (in his introduction to the Babylonian Talmud) writes that cessation of propechy occured when the Greek Empire began to rise in influence. Rabbi Dovid Ganz (Tzemah Dovid, Section 1 Year 3442) writes that an error had crept into the print of Rashi and really Rashi should read “fourth year” instead of “second year”. Rabbi Elijah of Vilna explains (Biur HaGra to Seder Olam Rabbah Ch. 30, note 12) that prophecy ceased to exist from the time that the Men of the Great Assembly had nullified the inclination for idolatry (see Yoma 69b).

[28] Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1

[29] Rabbi Nechemya Kaplan, a grandson-in-law of the Brisker Rov, asks (Erev Shabbos Titzaveh, 5771) for what purpose would questions have been posed to the Urim and Tumim when they would not have been able to answer. If they cannot answer, then why should one ask them questions? He explains that Nachmanides writes (end of Nachmanides additions to Maimonides' Sefer HaMitzvos) that there is a positive commandment for the king and/or Sanhedrin to pose a query to the Urim and Tumim before waging war. Rabbi Kaplan asserts that this commandment applies even when the Urim and Tumim are unable to answer the query. He bases this on the words of Nachmanides who writes (Numbers xxx:xxx) that only the Sotah process relies on miraculous intervention, but all other commndments do not require one to rely on a miracle. The oracle-like capabilities of the Urim and Tumim are not natural, rather they are a divine miracle. Had Nachmanides understood that the commandment to ask the Urim and Tumim before waging war was dependent of the Urim and Tumim's ability to answer, then that commandment would have also been one which is dependant on miracles.

[30] Ohr Somayach to Laws of Beis HaBechirah 4:1q

[31] Leviticus 8:8

[32] Hagahos Ya'avetz to Yoma 21b

[33] See Targum Yonason ben Uziel and Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy 33:8. Rabbi Meir Simcha’s proof is from the fact that the Targumim refer to “wearing” of the Urim V’Tumim which seems to imply that it is to be considered part of the clothing of the Choshen as opposed to merely a supplement to the Choshen in which case one would not “wear” the Urim V’Tumim, rather, one would merely “carry” it.

[34] Minchas Usher to Bava Basra §60:8

[35] Minchas Chinuch, Commandment #95

[36] I have found that Gersonides (Ralbag to Exodus 28:30) already draws this comparison between the placement of the Urim V’Tumim into the Choshen and the placement of the Luchos into the Ark.

[37] Exodus 30:7, see Rashi there

[38] However, Rabbi Usher Weiss questions whether this explanation can be reconciled with Rashi (to Exodus 28:30) who explained that the breastplate as a whole is referred to as the Choshen Mishpat because of the divination powers of the Urim and Tumim, which can serve as a jury to rule in trial.

[39] Meshech Chochmah to Exodus 28:30

[40] See Sotah 35a

[41] Pesachim 87b

[42] Even HaEzel to Laws of Beis HaBechira 4:1

[43] See Brachos 4a which exegetically expounds that the word “Urim” comes from the word “Ohr”, meaning light.

This essay was published as part of my pamphlet Prophecies of the Oracle and other Torah Essays.

Ruste Taurus: A Qoton Qlassic

Since this week the Torah portion of Chukat is read, I thought it would be appropriate to modify my classic essay on the topic of the Red Heifer, entitled Ruste Taurus, which is latin for "Red Cow." Here is a sample of the new additions to the essay:

The Kabbalist Rabbi Yehuda Fatiyah (1859-1942) offers a simple answer to the
famous question as to why he upon whom the waters of the Red Heifer are
sprinkled becomes pure, while the one who sprinkles the water becomes impure.
The degree of impurity of the sprinkler is such that he is merely required to
immerse into the Mikveh and wait for nightfall to become cleansed of his ritual
impurity. According to the Talmud, one who was ritually impure by coming in
contact with a dead corpse, must be sprinkled twice over the span of a week with
the water and ashes of the ruste Taurus, in order to become pure. After that
week of sprinklings, he need only immerse in the Mikvah in order to achieve
purity. Thus, the sprinkler and the sprinkled upon have the same degree of
ritual impurity at the end of the ceremony. The explanation is that the ashes
and water of the red heifer have a supernatural ability to transform anyone from
whatever status of impurity he is currently in to the status of a person who
requires immersion in the mikveh and nightfall (like the status of any Ba'al
Keri who experiences a seminal emission). Therefore, one who was so impure that
he had a seven-day impurity called Tamei Meis, lowers his level of impurity and
becomes a normal Tevol Yom, who only requires immersion and nightfall. On the
other hand, one who is pure raises his level of impurity to become like a normal
Tevol Yom, who requires immersion and nightfall. The ashes of the red heifer are
like a balance to equalize the equation between the pure and the impure. Rabbi
Fatiyah compares this idea to certain medicines, which if ingested by someone
healthy can sicken the person, but if ingested by the ill can heal them.

Continue Reading Ruste Taurus...

Almonds and Priests

In order to quell the complaints about Aaron the High Priest being undeserving for the High Priesthood, HaShem commanded Moses[1] to tell each of the princes of the twelve tribes to inscribe their name on a staff and leave it in the Tent of Meeting, along with Aaron's stick. The next morning, Aaron's stick sprouted flowers and almonds. It was thus clear that HaShem had selected Aaron to be His emissary to the Nation of Israel in the capacity of Kohen Gadol[2]. However, the reason as to why Aaron required a new appointment to his already-previously held position of Kohen Gadol requires explication. Rabbi Meir Don Plotzky of Ostrova explains[3] that when Korah gathered supporters to dispute Aaron's claim to the Kehuna Gedolah, Rashi says that he gathered two-hundred and fifty judges from the Sanhedrin court[4]. Accordingly, Rabbi Plotsky says, since the Kohen Gadol is verbally appointed and removed from his position by the Sanhedrin, when Korah's "court" ruled that Aaron was unfit for service, Aaron actually lost his halachik status as the Kohen Gadol. Therefore, it was required that Aaron should specifically be chosen again as the Kohen Gadol by means of his staff which budded almonds and flowers.

Nonetheless, this explanation is only true according to the understanding of Maimonides[5] who ruled according to the Tosefta[6] that the Sanhedrin has the right to appoint and impeach the Kohen Gadol; however, Tosafos[7] understand that the king and fellow Kohanim possess that capability. Perhaps one can explain that since Moses was the King of the Jewish People[8], Aaron could not be appointed Kohen Gadol by the king because the king has a vested interest in his appointment since they were brothers. Therefore, perhaps even Tosafos would agree that when the king is disqualified from making an appointment to the Kehuna Gedolah, then the Sanhedrin holds the power to make such an appointment.

[1] Numbers 17:16-26
[2] See Yoma 19a which concludes that the Kohen Gadol is agent of G-d, not of the people.
[3] Kli Chemda to Deuteronomy 1:17
[4] See Rashi to Parshas Korach, especially to Numbers 16:1
[5] Laws of the Vessels of the Sanctuary 4:15
[6] Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 3
[7] To Yoma 12b
[8] See Zevachim 102b

Adding a Yud

The Torah says that when Moses sent the spies into the Land of Canaan, "he called Hosea the son on Nun, 'Joshua'.[1]" Essentially, Moses added the letter yud to the pre-existing name of "Hosea" to become "Joshua." Many commentaries explain[2] that he did so in order for Joshua's name to essential convert Joshua's ordinary name in a theophoric name so that he will be Divinely assisted in carrying out his mission. However, the Targum of Rabbi Jonathan ben Uziel explains, "Moses saw that Joshua was humble and do he changed his name from Hosea to Joshua.[3]" The correlation between humility and the addition of the letter yud to one's name requires further explanation.

When Moses descended from Mount Sinai, the Torah says[4] that his face was shining with rays of light[5]. These "rays of splendor" radiated from Moses' face in such a glowing
fashion that Moses was forced to wear mask so that his people could look at him. The Midrash explains[6] that Moses merited such an honor from Above because when Moses completed writing the Torah, a drop of ink remained in the container, so G-d Himself smeared the remaining droplet on Moses' forehead. This drop of holy ink was the source of Moses' "rays of splendor." However, the Midrash never actually explained what Moses did to merit such a gift from G-d. Furthermore, if the bottle of ink was divinely prepared, then HaShem would have prepared the exact amount of ink needed for the writing of a Torah Scroll, so why would there be extra ink? Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar (1696-1743) explains[7] that really G-d prepared the precise amount of ink required, yet a morsel remained because Moses was so humble that he did not want to write the verse, "And the man Moses was the most humble…[8]." Instead, Moses wrote the word "humble" without the yud with which it is normally spelled. Therefore, the extra droplet of ink was a result of Moses' humility in not spelling out the word "humble" completely. This extra droplet of ink was the source of Moses' "rays of splendor." Based on this, Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Heschel of Apta (1755-1825) explains[9] that in deciding on Joshua as Moses' successor, G-d commands Moses, "And you shall put from your own splendor upon him.[10]" Since the source of Moses' own splendor was the extra yud in the word "humble", he added an extra yud to the name of Hosea—making his name Joshua—after he saw that his successor also possessed the trait humility.

The Apta Rov, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, also explains[11] that the resurrection of the dead will occur in alphabetical order. Thus, those whose first name begins with Aleph will revive before those whose names begin with Beis; and Beis, before Gimmel; etc… Accordingly, when Moses contemplated added an extra Yud to the beginning of Hosea's name, he realized that Hosea could complain that with his new name he would arise from the dead later than with his old name, for yud is five letters after hey—the first letter in Hosea. However, once Moses saw that Joshua was a humble person and worldly matters, such as the order of who will arise from the dead in the future, did not concern him. Consequently, Moses felt that it was appropriate to add an extra yud to the beginning of Joshua's name, for Joshua would not complain due to his unassuming nature of humbleness.

[1] Numbers 13:16
[2] Rashi et al to Numbers 13:16.
[3] Targum Yonason ben Uziel to Numbers 13:16
[4] Exodus 34:29
[5] Some Christians have misunderstood the word Karnei in this verse to mean "horns" instead of "rays"; this error accounts for the medieval artistic depictions of Jews as having horns, an unfortunate misunderstanding which continues to be mistakenly perpetuated.
[6] Exodus Rabbah §47
[7] Ohr HaChaim to Exodus 34:29
[8] Numbers 12:3
[9] See Ohev Yisroel to Parshas Ki See-saw, Exodus 34:29
[10] Numbers 27:20
[11] As quoted by Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein in Aleinu L'Shabaech to Numbers 13:16 in the name of Ohev Yisroel-Likutim.