Skip to main content

Iyun Masechet Sota: 38b

Text file

 

Having devoted last week's shiur to the kohanim, it is now time to give the "plain and simple" Yisraelim their due and examine their role, if any, in BK. 

 

The mitzva of BK is presumably addressed to the kohanim; after all, the Torah directs Moshe to speak to Aharon and his sons that they should bless Am Yisrael.  The Ritva (Sukka 31b s.v. amar) states explicitly that there is no mitzva for the people to be blessed, only upon the kohanim to bless them, an opinion that the Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvot p.c. 26 and captions to Hilkhot Tefila) and the Sefer HaChinukh (378) also subscribe to.  However, the notion that the Torah expects the Yisrael to seek out the berakha and receive it from the kohanim, a position rejected by these Rishonim, finds support amongst many Achronim.  The source upon which they rely is a quasi halakhic source at best, yet many Achronim quote the Sefer Chareidim to the effect that there is a mitzva incumbent upon the Yisrael to receive the berakha. 

 

(See Minchat Chinukh 378:4, Keren Orah Sota 38a s.v. venir'a and Devar Avraham 1:31.  Footnote #319 in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition of the Ritva ascribes this opinion to the commentary attributed to the Ravad on Tamid in the name of Sefer HaMiktza'ot.  The passage in question does not actually state explicitly that there is a mitzva on the Yisrael, although it does imply so.  However, the entire discussion in this passage is very problematic from other perspectives, so that it is probably preferable to deal with the mainstream Achronim who held this position and wove it into the fabric of the sugyot, than to rely upon an obscure Rishon in which this claim is implied in the context of a discussion whose conclusions we totally reject, albeit due to other considerations). 

 

Nevertheless, even if we adopt the position of the Rishonim, there are quite a few indications in the sugya that the Yisrael has a role to fill within the context of BK. 

 

The Gemara derives from the words "amor lahem" (tell them) that BK requires "panim keneged panim" – face to face.  The Yisrael must directly face the Kohen and not turn away from him.  Therefore, the sugya concludes on 38b that those who are behind the kohanim do not receive the blessing.  Rashi (38b s.v. delo) understands the requirement of panim keneged panim as non essential to BK, per se; the problem is rather that a person who turns away from the Kohen is exhibiting disregard and contempt for the blessing and therefore not worthy of it.  If so, the derasha of the Gemara on 38a is an asmakhta (as the Pri Megadim indeed claims).  The Rav zt"l however, understood the face to face requirement as an intrinsic part of BK, since BK does not only consist of the Kohen channeling God's blessing but also of the Yisrael's receiving it.  The need to face the Kohanim is the expression of the Yisrael's participation in the ceremony as a recipient of the Divine blessing.  Accordingly, the Rav was of the opinion that one should not hide his face from the Kohen with the tallit, as is the minhag, but face the Kohen as one faces another person, in accordance with the Gemara's derasha (38a) that describes panim keneged panim "as a person speaking to his friend."  The Rav's interpretation fits in very well with the Rambam's pesak.  The Rambam explicitly rules that the proper behavior during BK is full attention to the berakha by the mitpallel who faces the Kohen and who should not be distracted by any other distractions.  Moreover, he treats the derasha of amor lahem regarding panim keneged panim as a full-fledged derasha and emphasizes the need of the tzibbur to answer amen (14:7, 14:7 and 14:3, respectively).  The requirement to answer amen in BK, according to this theory, is not only due to the regular rules of amen but is rooted in the obligation of the tzibbur to participate in BK (the Rav made a similar claim regarding Zimun and Chazarat HaShatz – see Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mori 2:94-5).  The fact that amen in BK may indeed be an integral part of BK and different from the routine obligation to answer amen after all berakhot would seem to be supported by the Gemara's rule that amen must be factored into the BK sequence (see 39b and Tosafot s.v. ad) and by the Gemara's ruling (38BK) that in a shul where there are only Kohanim, the members split, so that "some of them "dukhan" and some answer amen." Actually, both of these sources do not only prove the idea of amen (which is the symptom) but also are proofs of the basic theory that there are two parties involved in BK. 

 

Additional halakhot derived from "amor lahem" are also based upon the need of the Yisrael to be involved in BK. 

 

The Gemara (38a) derives the rule that BK must be recited aloud from "amor lahem."  Tosafot (s.v. oh eino) are puzzled as to the need to learn this halakha from "amor lahem," since it could be included in the gezeira shava that the Gemara previously made from BK to the Berakhot and Kellalot on Mt. Grizim (the Torah mandates kol ram in the Mt. Grizim ceremony – Devarim 27:14) and their conclusion is that it indeed can be deduced from the gezeira shava.  Their answer, though, is forced and does not reflect the pshat of the sugya that is quite clear that amor lahem is the source of this halakha, without any mention of disagreement.  The answer to Tosafot's question is to be found in the Sifri and is rooted in our previous discussion.  The Sifri (Bemidbar 6:23) presents the need for kol ram as a requirement that the entire tzibbur be able to hear the Kohanim.  Thus, the need for kol ram is not a ceremonial requirement as in Mt. Grizim (assuming that this is the case in that event) and it is not the decibel level that matters but the communication to the tzibbur; therefore, it is derived from amor lahem, as are the other halakhot regarding the participation of the tzibbur.  As our concern is that the kohanim should be heard by the Yisrael, there is no need for an especially loud voice despite the phrase kol ram and the poskim rule that a normal voice level as when talking to a friend is the preferred mode of speech.  This is also the reason that a number of halakhot are based upon the single sources "amor lahem," even though we normally limit a single halakha to a derasha, for we are actually employing a single derasha - that BK includes the participation of the tzibbur as well as the kohanim - that is manifested in a several ways.

 

The same logic is behind the other halakha that is based upon amor lahem - the call to the Kohanim to begin the berakha.  The Rambam (14:14), relying upon the Yerushalmi, rules that it is preferable that the person who calls out to the Kohanim should be a non-Kohen, since amor lahem implies two groups with two different roles; the Kohanim who recite the blessing and the Yisrael who requests the berakha.  (Rav Chisda in our sugya disagrees with the Yerushalmi, but the Gemara concludes that our pesak rules against Rav Chisda).

 

It is now time to introduce the Gemara that directly relates to the response of the Yisrael to BK, in order to address the question what is the purpose of the Yisrael's participation.  The Gemara (39b-40a) presents an argument as to the propriety of the tzibbur reciting certain designated pesukim during BK.  Rav Chisda rules in favor of this option, Rav Chiya bar Abba is of the opinion that they should not be recited outside of Mikdash while Rav Chanina bar Papa claims that it is inadvisable in Mikdash as well.  The basic rationale underlying the various opinions - an attempt to determine the proper conduct of a servant who receives a blessing from his master – is agreed upon by all parties of the debate and is further proof that there is halakhically proper behavior of the Yisrael during BK that is expected of the Yisrael as a participant in BK.  Of special interest is the suggestion that there is a difference between the Mikdash and elsewhere regarding these pesukim. Rashi interprets the difference between Mikdash and other locations as dependent upon the Shem HaMephorash and not due to the different nature of BK in the Mikdash and outside of it.  However, if we take last week's shiur into account, the distinction between the two cases chould be understood along its lines.  Both in Mikdash and elsewhere, the response of the Yisrael is an intrinsic part of BK; yet they differ as to the nature of the response.  In the Mikdash, Man is blessed by God as a servant is blessed by his master and he must respond accordingly.  Elsewhere, though, BK can be understood as a form of tefila that is incorporated into the dialogue between God and Man that is at the core of tefila.  If so, the role of the Yisrael as a participant in the dialogue is not that of a passive recipient but a participant and the response to the berakha must be adjusted accordingly.  [The other opinion in the sugya that equates between Mikdash and non-Mikdash BK may either reject the entire claim that there is a difference between the locales or it may accept the basic claim but deny its applicability to the matter of these pesukim.]

 

We have now reached, both textually and logically, the final stage in this shiur – R. Yehoshua ben Levi's statement that a Kohen who doesn't perform BK is in violation of three mitzvot aseh; ko tevarkhu, amor lahem and vesamu et shemi.  Apparently, RYBL identifies three elements in BK that correspond to these three directives.  The first is the obligation to bless Am Yisrael independent of their participation and involvement in the process.  The Kohen has the ability to provide a berakha for Am Yisrael and is therefore obligated to do so.  The second is the mitzva to respond to the people's request and to engage them in dialogue with the KBH as a form of tefila.  This is dependent upon their request and therefore the obligation is created by the call to the Kohanim to bless the people.  The third is the result of the berakha, that the KBH associates His Name with Am Yisrael.  Actually, it would be quite reasonable to claim that the latter is relevant only in the Mikdash, as would appear from the Gemara on 38a that the phrase "vesamu et shemi" refers to BK in the Mikdash alone.  RYBL's statement, however does not seem to be referring to Kohanim in the time of the Mikdash alone but to Kohanim in the present and was thus understood by the poskim.  Therefore, the difference between the first and third elements should be understood either as the difference between the Kohen acting individually as a human being to bless the people (or request a berakha for them) and the Kohen serving as God's channel to deliver it or as a division into the act and the result that are treated as two separate mitzvot, even if he represents the KBH throughout.  Rashi (s.v. vesamu) claims that BK is a Divine as well as human need; if so, ko tevarkhu relates to the human need while vesamu to the Divine.

 

Thus, RYBL's statement is indicative of a tripartite nature of BK that is hinted at in the pesukim.  An obvious consequence of this would be that it is possible to have a partial obligation, a point that was made by R. Manoach (quoted by the Beit Yosef OC 128 s.v. ve-khatav, p. 111 in the standard edition) who claims that if the Yisrael does not call out to the Kohen he doesn't violate all three mitzvot, but only "ko tevarkhu," which is independent of the Yisrael's request.  Another example is the obligation to bless a second tzibbur after the Kohen has already blessed a previous one.  Space does not permit us to enter here into a discussion of the relevant Gemara in Rosh HaShana 28b and the accompanying Tosafot; for our purposes, we shall only claim that this is an example of amor lahem that is independent of ko tevarkhu.

 

[Methodological warning: the Gemara in Menachot (44a) couples RYBL's statement with similar statements regarding tefilin, mezuza and tzizit.  It would seem from this fact that the Gemara does not attribute analytic significance to the number of mitzvot - for it would certainly be quite difficult to postulate 8 elements in tefilin or 5 in tzizit – and its only purpose is to emphasize their importance.  Nevertheless, the above analysis of RYBL need not be rejected on these grounds.  The Gemara in Menachot does not attribute the statement that a Kohen who doesn't dukhan violates 3 mitzvot to RYBL but to Rav Sheshet nor does it present it independently but as part of a series.  Thus, Rav Sheshet in Menachot states that "whoever doesn't wear tefilin violates 8 mitzvot aseh, whoever doesn't have tzizit on his garment violates 5 mitzvot aseh, any Kohen who doesn't dukhan violates 3 mitzvot aseh and anyone who doesn't have a mezuza on his door post violates 2 mitzvot aseh."  This is simply a statement to emphasize their importance and severity and is not a conceptual analysis.  However, in our Gemara, RYBL does not relate to other mitzvot; rather his statement is in the context of a series relating to BK.  Furthermore, unlike Rav Shashet, he documents his sources.  Therefore, taking into account the different speakers and the different context, it seems that we are dealing with two separate statements.  The Rav in Shiurim LeZekher Abba Mori also understood RYBL's statement as signifying a multi-conceptual mitzva, although he posits other concepts than those that we presented.]

 

Sources for next week's shiur:

1. Sota 39a - 40a (until the end of the short lines).

2. Sota 39a, Tosafot s.v. keivan.

3. Berakhot 8a (4 lines from the bottom) - 8b (2 lines from the top).

4. Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim siman 146.

5. Bava Batra 15a, Tosafot s.v. shemona.

6. Rambam Hilkhot Chagiga 3:6.

7. Megilla 21a (from the beginning of the gemara that follows the mishna until the end of the page).

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!