QUESTION: Rav Dimi (72b) states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (the Kohen appointed to encourage and admonish the men of the Jewish army when they go to war, as described in Devarim 20:1-9) may wear the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara challenges Rav Dimi's opinion from a Beraisa which states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear neither the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol nor the four garments of an ordinary Kohen. Abaye answers that mid'Oraisa he may wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol, as Rav Dimi says. The Rabanan, however, decreed that he not wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol in order to prevent the Kohen Gadol from feeling malice towards him. The Rabanan decreed that he not wear the four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen because of the principle, "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" -- once a person (or object) achieves a higher status of holiness, his status may not be lowered but only raised to a higher level.

Why does Abaye say that the reason why the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear the four Bigdei Kehunah is because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh"? Rav Dimi maintains that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is required to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah, and that is why he may not wear only four garments! If he wears only four garments, he is considered "Mechusar Begadim" (lacking the required number of Bigdei Kehunah) and any Avodah he performs is invalid.

ANSWER: The TOSFOS YESHANIM answers that there are times when a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah must be removed from his position. For example, if he becomes too old to go out to war with the army, he is dismissed from his position and his status returns to that of an ordinary Kohen. (The position of Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is an appointed position. Just as the appointment to the position is made with a verbal declaration of the king or Beis Din, so, too, the resignation from the position is made with a verbal declaration of the king or Beis Din.) Nevertheless, he still may not wear the four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen. Even though he is no longer a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah and thus he will not be "Mechusar Begadim" if he wears only four Bigdei Kehunah, another reason prevents him from wearing the four Bigdei Kehunah: the principle of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin."

QUESTION: Rav Dimi (72b) states that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah (see previous Insight) may wear the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol when he performs the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara challenges Rav Dimi's opinion from several sources that clearly show that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah.

Ravin answers that Rav Dimi does not teach that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may perform the Avodah while he wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol. Rather, Rav Dimi says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah when the king stands before him and requests guidance from the Urim v'Tumim. When he performs the Avodah, however, he wears only four Bigdei Kehunah. This understanding of Rav Dimi's statement answers all of the questions posed on his opinion, because, according to this understanding, Rav Dimi agrees that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah never wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah for the Avodah.

However, one Beraisa apparently contradicts Ravin's statement. The Beraisa says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not perform the Avodah while he wears the four Bigdei Kehunah of an ordinary Kohen, nor may he perform the Avodah while he wears the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol. According to the Gemara's original understanding of the Beraisa (before Ravin), the reason why he cannot wear the four Bigdei Kehunah is because of the principle, "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" -- one may rise in holiness but not descend; since the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is supposed to wear eight Bigdei Kehunah, he may not "descend" to four Begadim even when he loses his position and becomes an ordinary Kohen. According to Ravin, however, the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah never wears eight Begadim; he wears only four Begadim like an ordinary Kohen. Accordingly, the principle of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" does not apply, because the status of the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is not being lowered when he wears four Bigdei Kehunah, since he never wore eight. Why, then, does the Beraisa not permit him to serve with four Begadim?

(a) The CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) and the SEFAS EMES answer that according to Ravin, if the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah ever dons the eight Begadim in order for a petitioner to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, he henceforth is not allowed to perform the Avodah with four Begadim because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin." Since he once wore the eight Begadim he may no longer wear only four Begadim. That is the case which the Beraisa discusses.

This answer, however, is questionable. "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" means that because the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah held a loftier position (as demonstrated by the fact that he was permitted to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah), he may no longer perform the Avodah with four Begadim like an ordinary Kohen. According to Ravin, however, his position as a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is no loftier than the position of an ordinary Kohen (as far as the Avodah is concerned), because he does not perform the Avodah with the eight Bigdei Kehunah. The fact that a question was asked of him through the Urim v'Tumim is not considered a form of "rising" in holiness such that he may not "descend." (These Acharonim apparently maintain that the very act of donning the eight Bigdei Kehunah grants the Kohen more Kedushah.)

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Horayos 15:22) points out that the Beraisa which the Gemara cites as support for Ravin's statement explicitly says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah dons the eight Bigdei Kehunah so that one may ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim through him. This implies that he wears four Bigdei Kehunah when he performs the Avodah. This Beraisa argues with the earlier Beraisa which says that he may not perform the Avodah with four Begadim because of "Ma'alin ba'Kodesh." It is apparent that the two Beraisos argue, and Ravin follows the second Beraisa.

(c) The YEFEH EINAYIM cites the Yerushalmi which is bothered by this question. The Yerushalmi says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah may not wear four Begadim because people who see him wear eight Begadim (when one asks a question of the Urim v'Tumim through him) might think that he has the status of a Kohen Gadol. If he then performs the Avodah with four Begadim, they will say that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to perform the Avodah with four Begadim. Therefore, the Rabanan decreed that he may not perform the Avodah with four Begadim so that people not think that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to perform the Avodah with four Begadim.

QUESTION: The Gemara asks how the letters on the stones of the Choshen combined to spell the answer to any question if they did not contain every letter of the alphabet. The names of the twelve sons of Yakov were inscribed on the stones of the Choshen, but none of those names contain the letter "Tzadi." The Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were also inscribed on the stones; the name "Yitzchak" contains the letter "Tzadi."

The Gemara asks further that the letter "Tes" appears neither in the names of the sons of Yakov nor in the names of the Avos. If the letter "Tes" was not inscribed on the stones, how could answers from the Urim v'Tumim include it? The Gemara answers that the words "Shivtei Yeshurun" were also inscribed on the stones.

Why does the Gemara first ask about the exclusion of the letter "Tzadi" from the Choshen, and afterwards about the exclusion of the letter "Tes"? The letter "Tes" precedes "Tzadi" in the alphabet, and thus the Gemara should first ask about the missing "Tes" and then about the missing "Tzadi."

Moreover, there are other letters that also are not included in the names of the sons of Yakov, such as the letters "Ches" and "Kuf." Since the letter "Ches" precedes both "Tes" and "Tzadi," the Gemara should have asked first about the missing letter "Ches." (The Yerushalmi (Yoma 7:3) indeed asks about "Ches," "Tes," and "Tzadi" together before it answers that those letters appear in the names of the Avos which were also inscribed on the stones.)

ANSWER: The CHASAM SOFER (Parshas Tetzaveh) cites a brilliant answer in the name of the SHEV YAKOV. When the Gemara asks about the missing "Tzadi," it is uncertain about what exactly was written on the stones. The Gemara is in doubt whether the names of the tribes were written on the stones or whether the names of the stones were written on the stones. The Gemara specifically asks about the missing letter "Tzadi," because the "Tzadi" is the only letter missing from both the names of the tribes and the names of the stones!

Once the Gemara answers that the names of the Avos were written on the stones, the Gemara understands that the names of the tribes were written on the stones along with the names of the Avos, and not the names of the stones. (This is a logical conclusion. If the names of the stones would have been written on the stones, there would have been no purpose in adding the names of the Avos which are unrelated to the names of the stones.) Only at this point does the Gemara safely assume that the names of the tribes were written on the stones, and thus it now asks about the missing letter "Tes," which appears neither in the names of the tribes nor in the names of the Avos (although it does appear in the names of the stones, in "Pitda").

(See NITZOTZEI SHIMSHON, Parshas Tetzaveh, for an extensive and original mathematical-Kabbalistic approach of RAV SHIMSHON of OSTROPOLI.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara asks why the Kohen Gadol needs to have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh in order to receive an answer from the Urim v'Tumim if the letters themselves protrude or join together (see Rashi) to give him the answer. The Gemara answers that the Kohen Gadol must have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh because he "assists" the letters that protrude or join together.

In what way does the Kohen Gadol assist the letters of the Urim v'Tumim, and why must he have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh for that purpose?

(a) RASHI implies that the Kohen Gadol concentrates on the letters of the Choshen and, as a result, his Ru'ach ha'Kodesh causes the letters to protrude or join together.

The RAMBAN (Shemos 28:30) and the RITVA here explain this process in more detail. They explain that Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the letters protrude, and Reish Lakish, who maintains that the letters join together, do not argue with each other. Rather, the letters both protrude and join together. The Kohen Gadol first concentrates on the Name of Hash-m known as the "Urim," which causes the letters to stand out by lighting up ("Urim"). The Kohen Gadol then concentrates on the Name of Hash-m known as the "Tumim," which enables him to see the correct order of the letters as they join together ("Tumim" refers to their feature of being "Metamem Divrehen" -- they make their message complete, as the Gemara says on 73b; see Rashi there).

(b) RABEINU ELYAKIM says that the Kohen Gadol first concentrates in order to perceive the answer by himself with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. After he has thought of the answer, he then verifies his answer by using the Urim v'Tumim. Rabeinu Elyakim explains that this is the meaning of the Gemara's words, "it (the Urim v'Tumim) assists him (the Kohen Gadol)." The Gemara does not mean that the Kohen Gadol assists the Urim v'Tumim.

(c) The RITVA (end of 73a) writes that "the Urim v'Tumim did not work for the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah the same way it worked for the Kohen Gadol; rather, it merely helped him." The Ritva apparently has a different Girsa in the Gemara. According to his Girsa, the phrase "he assists them" does not address the question of why the Kohen Gadol needed Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Rather, it addresses a different question.

The CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) explains that the Gemara asks why the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was permitted to wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah in order for someone to ask a question of the Urim v'Tumim, when it was unlikely that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh and thus the Urim v'Tumim would not work. The Gemara answers that, indeed, the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah's Urim v'Tumim was not entirely reliable; the answer it provided served only as a support for the petitioner's other reasons to act in that particular way.

An alternative understanding of the Ritva's intention is that in the text of his Gemara, the phrase "he assists them" appears at the very end of the chapter, and it is answering a different question. The Gemara at the end of the chapter says that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah was permitted to serve as the questioner when a question needed to be asked to the Urim v'Tumim (while the Kohen Gadol wore it). This implies that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah could not wear the Urim v'Tumim, but he had to ask the question to the Kohen Gadol who wore the Urim v'Tumim.

The Gemara answers that although it is true that the Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah is not permitted to wear the Urim v'Tumim himself while a question is asked of it, "the Urim v'Tumim assists him." This means that he has the authority to ask a question to the Urim v'Tumim while the Kohen Gadol wears it, and the Urim v'Tumim will give him an answer, even though it usually gives an answer only to the king or to the Sanhedrin. (M. Kornfeld)