THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
SHEVUOS 16-18 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) HALACHAH: OFFERING KORBANOS TODAY
OPINIONS: The Gemara records the argument between a number of Tana'im and
Amora'im regarding whether the first Kedushah of Yerushalayim remains or
whether it was removed at the time of the destruction of the Beis
ha'Mikdash. This argument is the basis for the discussion concerning whether
we are permitted to bring Korbanos today.
(a) The SHIVAS TZION writes that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:16)
rules that Kedushah Rishonah, the original Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael,
remains with regard to all Halachos that are associated with Yerushalayim
and the Beis ha'Mikdash. The RA'AVAD (ibid.) argues that even according to
the opinion that the Kedushah is still extant, it is extant only with regard
to the Kedushah of the rest of Eretz Yisrael, but everyone agrees that the
Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash is no longer present (it
will return only at the time of the building of the third Beis ha'Mikdash).
The Shivas Tzion asserts that it should be permitted -- according to both
sides of this argument -- to bring the Korban Pesach today at the location
of the Mizbe'ach. According to the Rambam, the Kedushah is still present.
According to the Ra'avad, it should not be different than bringing the
Korban on a Bamah, and the Gemara in Megilah (10a) implies that the opinion
that holds that the Kedushah is no longer present permits bringing Korbanos
on a Bamah. Why, then, do we not bring the Korban Pesach today?
HALACHAH: Although the KAFTOR VA'FERACH was in favor of bringing Korbanos
nowadays, almost all Halachic authorities were vehemently against bringing
Korbanos nowadays. May the Beis ha'Mikdash be rebuilt speedily in our days.
(b) TOSFOS (Megilah 10a) and others assert that both opinions agree that a
Bamah remains prohibited even after Yerushalayim is taken from us and loses
its Kedushah. This is because the Torah's allowance for offering Korbanos on
Bamos applied only until the Mizbe'ach in Yerushalayim was built. After
Korbanos were brought in the Beis ha'Mikdash upon the Mizbe'ach, building
Bamos is forever prohibited, even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is no longer
standing, and regardless of whether the city still has Kedushah or not. The
argument between these opinions is whether or not one may still bring a
Korban at the location of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The opinion
that says there is no longer any Kedushah maintains that all Korbanos are
forbidden today, even if they are brought in the place of the Mizbe'ach.
This contradicts the Shivas Tzion's argument that the Ra'avad would permit
such a Korban. (For a comprehensive discussion of the opinion of the
Rishonim regarding this argument, see Insights to Megilah 10a.)
(c) Nevertheless, it would seem that at least according to the Rambam, it
should be permitted to bring Korbanos today at the location of the
Mizbe'ach. However, there are many reasons why this would still be
Halachically unacceptable. One reason is that from the times of the
Rishonim, there is a doubt regarding the lineage of every Kohen. (It is said
that the Vilna Ga'on, who was a firstborn son, would perform Pidyon ha'Ben
and redeem himself, out of doubt, from every Kohen he would meet, to ensure
that he was redeemed from a genuine Kohen.) We may not offer a Korban
without a genuine Kohen to perform the Avodah. Second, there is an argument
in the Gemara regarding offering the Korban Pesach when everyone is Tamei.
The Halachah is that the Korban may still be brought. The Gemara asks,
though, that there is still an Isur of entering the Beis ha'Mikdash while
Tamei. One opinion in the Gemara says that the bringing of the Korban
overrides the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash and permits transgressing the Isur,
while another opinion says that the issue of Tum'ah is not relevant at all;
the Isur does not apply when the entire nation is Tamei. The difference
between these two opinions is whether or not there is a need for atonement
after the Korban is brought, due to the presence of a person who was Tamei
in the Mikdash. If the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash applies, but is permitted to
be transgressed for the sake of bringing the Korban, then the Kohen Gadol's
wearing of the Tzitz atones for the Tum'as Mikdash. Nowadays, though, we no
longer have a Tzitz to wear, and thus it should not be possible to bring a
Korban while everyone is Tamei, since it will not be possible to atone for
the Tum'as Mikdash afterwards.
(d) The CHASAM SOFER proposes an argument in favor of bringing Korbanos
today. He maintains that the correct opinion in the argument regarding the
suspension of the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash when everyone is Tamei is that the
Tum'ah is not an issue at all; the Isur does not apply at all (and not that
it applies, but it is permitted to transgress it for the sake of bringing a
Korban), and thus atonement for the Tum'as Mikdash is not necessary.
However, the Chasam Sofer admits that there is another serious problem with
offering Korbanos today. REBBI AKIVA EIGER wrote to the Chasam Sofer that we
have lost the exact identity of the Techeles and Argaman (regarding
Techeles, see Insights to Shabbos 75:1). There is an argument between RASHI
and the RAMBAM concerning the identity of Argaman, and there are other
opinions among the Rishonim. Consequently, we cannot make the Avnet, the
belt of the Bigdei Kehunah, and without all of the Bigdei Kehunah the Kohen
may not perform the Avodah.
(e) There have been at least two famous Halachic authorities who strongly
differed with the above arguments. As noted above, the Chasam Sofer writes
that the problem of Tum'ah is not an issue. In addition, in a famous letter
to the BINYAN TZION (the author of ARUCH LA'NER), RAV TZVI HIRSCH KALISHER
addresses the problem of Kohanim lacking indubitable lineage. The Mishnah in
Eduyos (8:7) quotes Rebbi Yehoshua who says, "I have a tradition from Rebbi
Yochanan ben Zakai who heard from his teacher, who heard from his teacher,
that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that Eliyahu ha'Navi is not coming
to make Tamei and Tahor, to distance and to make close. Rather, he will
distance those who forced themselves close, and make close those who were
forcibly distanced." This means that Eliyahu is not going to reveal anything
new with regard to lineage. He will only push away people who forced
themselves to be accepted as having proper lineage, and he will gather in
people who were knowingly and wrongfully distanced. Rav Tzvi Hirsh Kalisher
questions the wording of this Mishnah: Why does Rebbi Yehoshua open his
Agadic comment with such forceful language to insure that we accept his
statement? The Gemara often does not even deal with topics that are relevant
only in the time of Mashi'ach. What, then, is so important about Rebbi
Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher explains that Rebbi Yehoshua's statement has a very
practical ramification. Rebbi Yehoshua is telling us that there is a
Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that Eliyahu will make no new revelations
concerning any Kohen, whom we believe now is a Kohen, as being anything but
a Kohen! This shows that the lineage of a Kohen is not suspect.
The Binyan Tzion rejects this argument, because it contradicts the words of
TOSFOS in Sanhedrin (51b). Tosfos there asks a similar question: Why does
the Gemara in Kidushin (72b) state that the Halachah follows the opinion of
Rebbi Yosi, who says that in the future (in the times of Mashi'ach) people
who have questionable lineage will be "purified?" What difference does it
make to us now that we should rule that this is the Halachah? Tosfos answers
that there is a practical ramification even nowadays. This Halachah teaches
that one does not have to be careful to refrain from marrying people of
uncertain lineage. Rebbi Yosi is reassuring us that those people will be
found to have good lineage. The Binyan Tzion states that Tosfos would
similarly give this reason as the reason for the strong language of the
Mishnah in Eduyos. The Binyan Tzion cites additional sources in the Gemara
which apparently disprove the rest of Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher's arguments.
2) DIFFERENT FORMS OF BOWING
QUESTIONS: The Gemara teaches that "Kidah" is the term the verse uses to
refer to an act of bowing down upon one's face (bringing one's face to the
ground). This is learned from the verse which says, "va'Tikod Bas Sheva
Apayim Eretz" -- "And Bas Sheva bowed her face down upon the ground"
(Melachim I 1:31). The Gemara continues and says that "Hishtachava'ah"
refers to prostration while outstretching one's hands and feet on the
ground. The Gemara proves this from Yakov Avinu who said to Yosef, "Ha'vo
Na'vo... l'Hishtachavos Lecha Artzah" -- "Are we going to come... to bow
down to you to the ground?" (Bereishis 37:10).
(a) The Mefarshim ask that if there are two places in the Torah from which a
principle can be learned, the Gemara will always pick the first verse in the
Torah to show that lesson. Why, then, does the Gemara here not teach the
meaning of "Hishtachava'ah" from an earlier verse which mentions
"Hishtachava'ah" as being done upon the ground (such as Bereishis 18:2,
24:52, or 33:3)?
(b) TOSFOS asks that we find places in the Torah where "Hishtachava'ah"
refers to bowing down on one's face as well (such as in Bereishis 19:1).
Why, then, does the Gemara say that "Kidah" refers specifically to bowing on
the face, and not "Hishtachava'ah?"
(a) The RITVA quotes some who answer that the verse here regarding Yosef's
dream does not mention the face at all, and thus it must mean that the
bowing was done with the arms and legs upon the ground.
The Ritva rejects this answer, because there are also verses that discuss
"Kidah" without mentioning that it is done on one's face, and thus we should
learn from those verses that "*Kidah*" involves bowing with one's arms and
legs. Therefore, the Ritva agrees with Tosfos' answer, that the Gemara had a
tradition that "Kidah" means bowing on one's face, and that "Hishtachava'ah"
can refer to both forms of bowing. The Gemara here simply is citing a verse
which reflects that meaning, and it is not attempting to derive its
definition from the verse.
(b) The MINCHAS CHINUCH (28:2), RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ, and
others answer the second question as follows. It is possible that Lot just
happened to do "Hishtachava'ah" in such a manner (upon his face), but that
does not mean that "Hishtachava'ah" is always done like that. The Gemara
proves its description of "Hishtachava'ah" from Yosef, because Yosef saw in
his dream that his family would do "Hishtachava'ah" to him. His father
chastised him and said, "Are we going to come... to bow down to you to the
ground?" If the normal definition of "Hishtachava'ah" is just to bow down,
then why would Yakov accuse Yosef of saying that they would all bow down *on
the ground*? He never said that! It must be that the normal manner of
"Hishtachava'ah" is to bow down, with one's arms and legs outstretched, on
the ground. (Y. Montrose)