Skip to main content

Iyun Masechet Sota: 38a

Text file

 

The most convenient starting point for our discussion of Birkat Kohanim is location. As any beginning learner is well aware, the location of BK in Sota rather than Berakhot seems quite perplexing and of unfortunate consequences; after all, many aspiring learners tackle Berakhot early on, yet reach Sota, if at all, many years later, thus creating a large gap between their knowledge of Tefila, Kriat Shma, Birkat HaMazon etc. and their ignorance of Birkat Kohanim. I vividly remember the Rav, zt"l, exclaiming to his shiur in YU in total frustration: "You know so little about BK, that I know more about computers than you do about BK!" [One must fully realize the extent of the Rav's (non)acquaintance with computers (or any other electronic gadget, for that matter) to fully appreciate this remark.] The cause of this is directly attributable to the location of BK in an off the beaten path massekhet, and the obvious question is why didn't the Mishna place BK in the context of massekhet Berakhot (as, indeed, the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh do).

 

Having raised this question, let us now look into the Rambam's policy regarding this issue. Interestingly, the Rambam presents us with conflicting signals. In the Sefer HaMitzvot (p.c. 26) the Rambam arranges BK within the context of mitzvot that relate to Beit HaMikdash and its preparation as a worthy dwelling place for the Shekhina. It is sandwiched between the mitzva of the Menora and the Lechem HaPanim, in the broader context of organization of the Mikdash. The emphasis upon the relationship to the Mikdash is especially noticeable given the fact there is a grouping in Sefer HaMitzvot of mitzvot that describe individual worship, including tefila, kriat shema, talmud Torah etc. The Rambam chose to position BK not there, but within the framework of Mikdash.

 

In the grouping of BK in Mishneh Torah, though, the Rambam reversed his position and unequivocally located BK within the context of tefila. BK appears in Mishneh Torah as the concluding section of Hilkhot Tefila, whose full title is, in fact, "Hilkhot Tefila uVirkat Kohanim." All the halakhot of BK, in all their detail, are presented in two full chapters while no mention is made of them in the Rambam's extensive treatment of the Mikdash and its accompanying mitzvot in Sefer Avoda and Sefer Korbanot, except to include BK as part of the description of the kohanim's daily routine in the Mikdash. Actually, this very description itself is proof that BK in Mishneh Torah does NOT belong to the world of Mikdash, for the Rambam writes there (Temidim uMusafim 6:5) that the kohanim recited BK, "as we have explained in its proper place (be-mekoma)," clearly indicating that it belongs to Hilkhot Tefila rather than Temidim uMusafim.

 

Thus, we have arrived at the heart of the conceptual dilemma regarding BK. Is it a form of tefila, an integral part of the dialogue between God and Man, in which the kohanim approach God on our behalf and request His blessing for us or, alternatively, as the KBH's delegates to bless us in response to our supplications. Either way, BK thus perceived is an expression of the Man–God relationship embodied in tefila, part of the dialogic relationship between Am Yisroel and the KBH, expressed by the communication between us and Him. Conversely, BK can be perceived as rooted in the system of Mikdash, a result of Man's appearance in God's abode, a berakha delivered by means of the KBH's servants who serve as a channel for God's blessing to descend upon us. The presence of God blesses Man, who receives Divine grace upon presenting himself to God. Therefore, BK is associated with Mikdash and Man's appearance in the Shekhina's earthly home.

 

The position that we shall adopt regarding this basic question will dictate the issue of location. The Rambam understood BK as a tefila oriented concept and placed it within Hilkhot Tefila; the Mishna, apparently did not consider it as such and therefore did not locate the mishnayot of BK in Berakhot but in Sota, where it is adjacent to the ceremony of blessings and damnations on Mt. Grizim and Mt. Eival, the berakhot of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur and other ceremonies in which we relate to the KBH and/or receive His blessing outside of the context of standard tefila.

 

Let us now take a closer look at the sugya. The Gemara suggests that the requirement of standing in BK is learnt from the equation of BK to the service of kohanim in the Mikdash, an idea that obviously lends much support to the claim that BK is an element within the system of the Mikdash. Yet this plain statement cannot be taken at face value, for there is a major problem in solely relying upon this passage. The problem is that the Gemara in Ta'anit (26b-27a) rejects this very suggestion (as the source for disqualifying kohanim who have tasted alcohol from performing BK), claiming that the comparison between service in Mikdash and BK is merely an "asmakhta" (a non-binding textual allusion but not a genuine source). This apparent contradiction, which is not addressed by either of the two sugyot, is the cause of much debate amongst Achronim. Briefly stated, there are those who accept the sugya in Ta'anit and assume that there is no halakhically binding analogy between BK and service in Mikdash, while others are willing to accept the Gemara in Sota in a qualified manner and recognize an element of avoda in certain halakhot. Strong support for the second approach is provided by the Rambam who alludes to this comparison (Tefila 15:3-4) in his discussions of a kohen who has served idolatry or consumed alcohol and by the Tosafot (Sota 38a s.v. harei) who rely upon our sugya's comparison and its inner logic, halakha le-ma'aseh. The former position is represented by the Tosafot in Ta'anit  (27a s.v. ee mah) who disagree with the Rambam's ruling and explain that the Gemara totally rejected the analogy of Mikdash and BK (see also Tosafot Menachot 109a s.v. lo).

 

[The main discussion in Achronim revolves around the grounds of disqualification of problematic kohanim and is to be found in the various commentators on OC 128. See Taz 128:27, 35, MA 128:54, Pri Chodosh 128:38, Pri Megadim MZ, postscript to 128, Keren Ora Sota 38a, Keren Ora Ta'anit 27a and many others.]

 

Our Mishna provides a list of basic differences between the format of BK in the Mikdash and outside the Mikdash, a fact that gives rise to an obvious suggestion (briefly hinted at by the Minchat Chinuch) that there is a dual system of BK and that both of the above-mentioned possibilities do indeed exist, each in its proper sphere. BK in Mikdash is a fulfillment of avoda, as attested to by the analogy of the Gemara in Sota between avoda and service in Mikdash, while BK in other locales is a form of tefila. Such a theory would readily explain the fact that there are differences in the format of BK in Mikdash and elsewhere, a somewhat surprising development if BK is of a uniform nature in both cases. However, there is a major hurdle in its path - the fact that there is only a single source in the Torah for BK, a reality that renders it very difficult to postulate a dual track for a mitzva lacking a dual source.

 

This issue, though, itself hinges upon an additional disagreement. A number of commentators raise the possibility that BK is a mitzva from the Torah ("midoraita") only in the Mikdash and not elsewhere, due to the fact that the essential element of BK is the blessing that is brought about through contact with the KBH's holy name, as the Torah itself emphasizes that the kohanim will place GOD'S NAME upon the people so that they be blessed ("ve-samu et SHEMI al bnei yisroel ve-ani avarekhem"). This, they argue, is achieved only in the Mikdash, since the kohanim do not use the Shem Hameforash (God's proper name) outside of Mikdash (Keren Ora, Sota 38a s.v. ve-henei, preliminary suggestion). In addition, this position is also based upon the analogy in our sugya between avoda and BK, accompanied by the implicit assumption that it is much more reasonable that BK functions as avoda in Mikdash and not outside of it (but see Pesachim 72b-73a) (Minchat Chinukh 378 s.v. ve-ayein). Moreover, the location of BK in the Torah in conjunction with the dedication ceremony of the Mishkan fits in very well with such a claim. Thus, if this opinion is correct, the idea that there is a dual kiyum to BK need not be concerned by the problem of a dual source, for the Mikdash element of avoda is rooted in the Torah, while the non-Mikdash aspect of tefila is a rabbinic ordinance, without need of an independent textual source. This would also explain the contradiction between the two sugyot regarding the comparison between BK and avoda. The Gemara in Ta'anit, whose point of departure is BK in tefila outside of Mikdash, dismisses the analogy as a mere asmakhta, while the sugya in Sota that deals with the essence of BK and relates to Mikdash as well as to other locales, accepts the comparison in regard to Mikdash.

 

The Keren Ora, who is very sympathetic to the above line of reasoning, rejects it as incompatible with the Rambam's position, as there is no doubt that the Rambam treats BK in Mikdash and elsewhere as equally mandated by the Torah. This, of course, should not surprise us, for as we have already mentioned that the Rambam places BK squarely within the system of tefila. Actually, the sequence of the Rambam's presentation of BK in Mishneh Torah has BK outside of Mikdash as the primary (and more common) case that he presents, to be followed 6 halakhot further down by the details of BK in the Mikdash that is simply a variation of the previous halakha.

 

The Bahag, however, unlike the Rambam, counts BK twice; once in his catalog of mitzvot incumbent on individuals and additionally in his list of public mitzvot. Rabbi A.S. Triob, the publisher of the Warsaw edition of the Bahag, suggests in his comments that the double count reflects two separate mitzvot – the public mitzva refers to BK in the Mikdash while the individual mitzva imposed on the kohanim relates to the non-Mikdash BK. It is an interesting interpretation that would enable us to grant d'oraita status to both elements of BK, without unifying their kiyum, yet it is an unproven claim that is not necessarily called for by the Bahag's position (indeed, it is vehemently attacked by Rabbi Y. F. Perlow in his commentary on Rav Sa'dia Gaon's Sefer HaMitzvot [1, 393]).

 

The Netziv who also assumes a dual system of BK (though differing in some of the details with what was presented above) offers a very creative solution in his commentary on the parasha in BeMidbar, suggesting that the pasuk – "thus you shall bless Bnei Yisroel, tell them" – contains a double message that requires splitting it into two halves. Rather than understanding the pasuk as a single statement, the break in the pasuk denoted by the etnachta symbol (the comma above) divides the verse, in the Netziv's opinion, into two separate units, thus indicating differing elements. The first half relates to the idea of tefila, while the latter part refers to the blessing of Israel.

 

Thus, we have arrived at the following summary: it is reasonable to claim that BK in Mikdash and outside of it represent different ideas, yet such a position, although supported by some of the details in the sugyot, must assume that BK outside of the Mikdash is rabbinically mandated (unless we accept the Netziv or R. Troib's suggestions), for if both are from the Torah, they are derived from the same source. To attempt to solve this difficulty, let us pursue the following line of thought. If the meaning of the statement that BK is tefila oriented is that the kohanim pray to the KBH that He grant us these blessings, this concept is totally different than the idea of God's blessing descending upon man in the Mikdash and there is no way that the two can be derived from a single source. However, if we are willing to entertain the notion that BK is indeed God's blessing being bestowed upon man, as is the plain and simple understanding of the relevant sources, and limit our claim to its context, viz. that BK is a part of the dialogue between God and man that forms the totality of the prayer experience (man's praise, supplication and thanksgiving coupled with God's response), then it can be derived from a single source, for the source mandates the mechanism for receiving the KBH's blessing rather than the circumstances surrounding it.

 

In summary, it is possible to develop a system of BK that assumes a dual element, based upon the Mikdash – non-Mikdash divide, as some Achronim (Minchat Chinukh, Netziv and others) suggest, yet such a position is opposed to the Rambam, who insisted upon the uniformity of BK, both in place and in concept.

 

In conclusion, let us now examine a few details of BK in the context of the above. First, the integration of BK into the very fabric of the Amida is a clear indication of its connection to tefila (though this integration must be interpreted on the rabbinic level, for the mitzva of tefila, either in toto or its current format, is a rabbinical obligation). This point is emphasized by the fact that the chazan interrupts his prayer to call out to the kohanim (see Tosafot Berakhot 34a s.v. lo). It should be added that the Rambam somewhat mutes this point, as he describes (14:14) the position of BK as coming after the conclusion of the tefila rather than within it (see my article in the memorial volume "Zichron HaRav" for an analysis of the Rambam's statement).

 

A second point worthy of mention is the difference between Mikdash and elsewhere in regard to the use of the  KBH's name. As mentioned above, the Mishna rules that the kohanim in the Mikdash used God's name "as it is written," while outside of the Mikdash, it is replaced by a "kinui." The conventional understanding of this distinction is that the Shem HaMeforash was used in the Mikdash and the regular substitute that we use throughout our tefilot and quotations from the Torah (Adonai) is the Name that kohanim recite outside of Mikdash. This follows the standard rule that it is proper to introduce an element of concealment regarding the KBH's revelation to us outside of the earthly spot that was designated for the Shekhina's revelation. This is our uniform policy regarding all berakhot and tefilot, as explained by the Gemara in Pesachim (50a) and is not unique to BK. Therefore, as the Rambam (14:10) explains, the Mishna is not distinguishing between BK in Mikdash and BK outside of the Mikdash but between the intimacy granted to man in Mikdash as opposed to the respect demanded of him outside of the Mikdash. Thus, this distinction does not reveal much about BK, since the standard usage of God's name outside of Mikdash is retained and BK employs this Name (although the claim that this factor is crucial can be made, as was mentioned above).

 

Tosafot, though, quote R. Hillel's interpretation that the meaning of "kinui" in the context of our sugya is not (the standard) substitution but an attribute. The upshot of this is that there is no requirement that the formal Name of God be employed outside Mikdash. Other attributes, such as Elokim and other similar attributes, are also acceptable. If BK outside of Mikdash is a request to the KBH to bless us, then any form of appeal fulfils this function and God's attributes can be utilized, as they are in many of our tefilot. However, if BK is a formal text to be recited so that the heavenly blessings can reach us, as the comparison that the Gemara makes between BK and the ceremony upon Mt. Grizim and Mt. Eival indicates, and there is a need for an authorized text to bring about the blessings (see Tosafot s.v. vene'emar), then the Name in the original text cannot be replaced by an alternative.

 

The third point relates to the Tosafot s.v. ukhtiv. The Tosafot state that BK was recited in the Mikdash after the morning and afternoon korban tamid as well as the korbanot of musaf. The Rambam and others are of the opinion that BK was recited only once daily in the Mikdash and not after each korban tzibbur. Thus, Tosafot's opinion reflects the concept of BK as a function of avoda in the Mikdash and therefore associated with each of the korbanot, while the Rambam in Mishneh Torah is consistent and approaches BK from the perspective of tefila, the outcome of which is a d'oraita obligation to recite BK once a day and a derabanan to attach it to every tefila (the details of the connection to tefila are the subject of a machloket Tana'im in the beginning of the fourth perek of Ta'anit and beyond the scope of this shiur).

 

The last point is the issue of BK at night, a question that arose in connection to reciting BK in tefilat Ne'ila that extended after sunset. The Hagahot Maimoniot (Hilkhot Tefila 3:5) attempts to prove that Ne'ila must be concluded in daytime and cites the fact that BK is recited in Ne'ila, basing himself upon the claim that there is no BK at night, due to the analogy between BK and avoda in Mikdash. Yet he admits, perplexedly, that the minhag (in medieval Ashkanaz) is to recite BK even after nightfall. The rationale of the minhag is based upon the idea of BK as tefila. Therefore, Ne'ila is defined as a tefila that is accompanied by BK, and if it can be recited at night, so can its BK.

 

Sources for next week's shiur:

 

Sota 38a tanya idakh... until 39a amar Rav Huna

39b be-zman she-hakohanim omrim until masbir panim (40a)

Shiurim leZekher Abba Mori Part 2, pp. 220-224.

Minchat Chinukh 378:4

Rambam 14:14

Menachot 44a Tosafot s.v. kol

 

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!