Why did Hashem insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "ve'Sha'al lo ... "?
What are the connotations of the word "Vesha'al lo be'Mishpat ha'Urim"?
Rashi: Refer to Sh'mos, 28:16:1:1.
Yoma, 73a: It teaches us that, as opposed to the prophecy of a Navi, the prophecy of the Urim ve'Tumim cannot 1 be rescinded. 2
Yerushalmi Shabbos, 2:6: It teaches us that, when Yisrael go to war, Beis-Din shel Ma'alah convene and judged them as to whether they deserve to win or to lose 3 - and we learn from here that 'The Satan only prosecutes in time of danger'.
Why are they called 'Urim'?
Yoma, Because they illuminate their words - in that their message lit-up on the stones of the Choshen.
"Vesha'al lo be'Mishpat ha'Urim?. Why does the Torah omit the word ?ve?Tumim??
R. Bachye: This teaches us that the principle part of the Urim ve?Tumim was the Urim - which caused the relevant letters of the Choshen to illuminate - and the Tumim was merely for the Kohen to know how to combine the letters to form the required message.
"Vesha'al lo be'Mishpat ha'Urim?. What is the significance of the word ?Mishpat??
R. Bachya: It teaches us that, as opposed to a regular Nevu?ah, which can sometimes be recindedthe Nevu;ah of Yrim ve?Tumim, like Mishpat, is final.
"Vesha'al lo be'Mishpat ha'Urim Lifnei Hashem?. Why does the Torah insert both (the otherwise ?lo?and ?Lifnei Hashem??
Yoma 73a: ?lo? implies that th questioner did not pose his question aloud, and ?Lifnei Hashem?, that he did not merely think it but spoke it - to tech us that he asked quietly, that nobody but himself could hear what he was saying - like Chanah. 1
In Shmuel 1, 1:13.
"al-Piv Yeitz'u ve'al-Piv Yavo'u". By whose mouth?
R. Bachye: By the mouth of Elazar (the Kohen Gadol.
Refer to 27:21:5:1-4.
Why did Hashem say this to Moshe and not to Yehoshua himself (See Sifsei Chachamim)?
Rashi: In answer to Moshe's request, Hashem is informing him that the Kavod of leadership would not be completely removed from his family, since even Yehoshua would need Elazar. 1
How come that Yehoshua never needed the services of Elazar?
Eruvin, 63a: It was a punishment for Elazar because he Paskened in front of his Rebbe (Moshe) - when he addressed the soldiers who returned from the war against Midyan and taught them the Dinim of Kashering Keilim. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 35.
What decisions is the Torah referring to here?
Rashi: It is referring to going out to war, which required the decision of Elazar via the Urim ve'Tumim and permission from the Sanhedrin. 1
Rashi #2: It is referring to the Urim ve'Tumim. Refer to Sh'mos, 28:30:4:1:1.
Targum Yonasan: a. Yehoshua will first consult the Urim ve'Tumim via Elazar, who will then announce when to go to war 2 and b. They will come before Yehoshua for litigation. 3
Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:5: It is referring to Yehoshu'a (the king) consulting the Urim ve'Tumim with regard to a Milchemes ha'Reshus. 4
What are the implications of the term "ke'Mishpat ha'Urim"?
Yoma, 73b: It implies that, although the prediction of a Navi can be rescinded, 1 that of the Urim ve'Tumim is not.
Yerushalmi Shabbos, 2:6: It teaches us that, whenever Yisrael went to war, Beis-Din shel Ma'alah convened to discuss whether they were worthy of success or not. And we learn from here that 'The Satan only prosecutes in time of danger'. 2
Yoma 73b: They are called ?Urim? because ?they illuminate their words? - their message is crystal clear.
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) end of the Pasuk "Hu ve'Chol B'nei Yisrael ito ve'Chol ha'Eidah"?
Rashi and R. Bachye #1 (citing Yoma, 73b): "ve'Chol ha'Eidah", to the Sanhedrin. 1
R. Bachye #2: It adds ?ve?Chol ha?Eidah? to incorporate those who disagree with him.
Yoma, 73b: In order to Darshen that "Hu", refers to the king, "ve'Chol B?nei Yisrael ito", to the Mashu'ach Milchamah (the Kohen Gadol for war), and "ve'Chol ha'Eidah", to the Sanhedrin - to teach us that one only consults the Urim ve'Tumim on behalf of the king, the Av Beis-Din and someone whom the Tzibur needs. 2
