Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sotah, 14

14b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks why Moshe Rabeinu wanted so much to go into the land of Israel. The Gemara says that certainly his reason was not simply because he wanted to partake of its tasty fruits. This implies that we should not desire to be in Israel merely to eat its fruits.

However, this poses an interesting question regarding our text of the Berachah of "Al ha'Michyah." Our text of the Berachah m'Ein Shalosh differs in a number of significant ways from the text that Rav Dimi told to Abaye in the Gemara in Berachos (44a). The text in the Gemara does not include the words, "v'Nochal m'Piryah v'Nisbah m'Tuvah" -- "and may we eat [Israel's] fruits and be satisfied from her goodness." The TUR (OC 208) quotes the Gemara in Berachos and says that in the BEHAG's text these words appear. The Tur, however, prefers that these words not be included in the Berachah, pointing out that we should not ask to be in Israel in order to its fruits, like our Gemara here implies.

Why, then, do we include this phrase in our text of the Berachah m'Ein Shalosh?

ANSWER: The BACH (OC 208) explains that there is a special property of the fruits of the land of Israel. Since the Shechinah is most concentrated in Israel, its holiness is even absorbed into the fruits that grow there. By eating the fruit of the land of Israel, we are Metaher and Mekadesh our bodies.

Why, then, does the Gemara here say that Moshe certainly did not want to go into Israel just to eat its fruits?

We could answer that since the fruits of Israel are suffused with the holiness of the Shechinah, by eating those fruits a person strengthens his faith in Hashem and his awe of Him. (This may be alluded to by the Gemara in Shabbos (31a) that says that Seder Zera'im corresponds to Emunah in Hashem.) The Gemara in Berachos (33b) says that Moshe Rabeinu considered the fear of Hashem to be a simple and easy character trait to acquire, because, indeed, that is the way it was for him. Therefore, the Gemara here asks why *Moshe* wanted to go into Israel, since *Moshe* certainly did not need to eat of the fruits in order to acquire a greater degree of fear of Hashem! For us, though, it is certainly appropriate to pray that we go into Israel in order to eat its fruits for the spiritual qualities that they will endow to us.

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to the source for touching the Minchah offering to the south-west corner of the Mizbe'ach. The verse (Vayikra 6:7) makes two statements about which part of the Mizbe'ach the Kohen should touch the Minchah to -- the verse says, "Lifnei Hashem" (implying the west side of the Mizbe'ach that faces the Heichal), and "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach" (implying the south side, or the front or "face," of the Mizbe'ach). The Tana Kama, who holds that the Mizbe'ach was in the center of the Azarah, says that the only way to fulfill both statements is to touch the Minchah to the south-west corner of the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the southern side of the Mizbe'ach was located in the center of the Azarah, says that touching the Minchah to any point on the south side of the Mizbe'ach fulfills both statements, because the southern side is both "Lifnei Hashem" (in front of the Heichal) and "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach" (at the front side of the Mizbe'ach). (However, since the Torah says "Lifnei Hashem" we learn that the Minchah should be placed as close as possible to the western side of the Mizbe'ach, if not on the corner itself. See SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Menachos 19:7.)

RASHI (DH Hakrev Osah) explains that according to the Tana Kama, the south-west corner is called "Lifnei Hashem" because it is opposite the end of the outer wall of the Heichal. Later (in DH Kulei Mizbe'ach), Rashi explains that if the Mizbe'ach would have been placed even one bit more to the north, the entire south wall would have been called "Lifnei Hashem" for the same reason (since it would have been opposite the outer wall of the Heichal).

However, Rashi seems to contradict himself. Rashi (in the end of DH Hakrev Osah) writes that the reason the west side of the Mizbe'ach is considered "Lifnei Hashem" is because the wall of the Ulam -- which separates the Mizbe'ach from the Heichal -- has a 20-Amah wide opening, which is the same width as the Chalal (open area) inside the Heichal. Since the west side of the Mizbe'ach is opposite that opening, it is considered "Lifnei Hashem."

From these words of Rashi it seems that "Lifnei Hashem" means that it is opposite the Chalal, the inside, of the Heichal, and the thickness of the walls of the Heichal are not included. Rashi also implies that if there would be a wall such as the wall of the Ulam separating the Heichal from the Mizbe'ach, then it would *not* be called "Lifnei Hashem!" This contradicts what he writes earlier (and later) that being opposite the thickness of the walls of the Heichal *is* considered "Lifnei Hashem" even though it is not opposite the opening of the Heichal and even though the wall of the Ulam separates the Mizbe'ach from the inside of the Ulam! (RASHASH)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHASH suggests that if the verse would have said only "Lifnei Hashem" without saying "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach," then we would have interpreted "Lifnei Hashem" to mean opposite the actual opening of the Heichal and that the wall *is* considered a separation between the opening of the Heichal and the Mizbe'ach. However, now that the verse adds "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach," we are forced to modify our interpretation of "Lifnei Hashem" to mean opposite *any* part of the Heichal, even opposite the walls of the Heichal, even if the walls of the Ulam separate the Mizbe'ach from the Heichal.

However, this does not fully answer the question. First, the words of Rashi which say that the walls of the Ulam are not considered a separation because it has a 20-Amah opening implies that we do take into account the width of the walls of the Heichal when determining the location of "Lifnei Hashem." Also, it is not at all clear according to the Rashash what was Rashi's source in asserting "Lifnei Hashem" would have been interpreted in a different manner if not for the words "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach." Why did Rashi have to introduce this new interpretation of "Lifnei Hashem" which is not consistent with the conclusion of the Gemara?

(b) The most likely possibility is that the commentary of Rashi here(DH Hakrev) contains a supplementary note (a "Hagahah") from the words "d'Ein Mafsik" until the end of this comment. This "Hagahah" is expressing a different approach to the Sugya, which does not conform to the rest of Rashi's explanation in the Sugya, but which does conform to Rashi's explanation in Zevachim (63b) and in Menachos (19b).

In essence, there are two different approaches to understanding how the Beraisa interprets the words "Lifnei Hashem." One approach is that "Lifnei Hashem" is referring to the place where the Minchah is brought to the Mizbe'ach. That is Rashi's approach in our Sugya, according to which the walls of the Heichal must be considered "Lifnei Hashem" since the Minchah was brought to the corner of the Mizbe'ach which was opposite the wall of the Heichal and not opposite the Heichal opening. Rashi (DH Kulei) points out that according to this approach it is not clear how the Gemara knows that Rebbi Elazar holds that the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the north; perhaps it was just slightly further to the north than the Tana Kama holds (that is, perhaps it was just slightly more to the north than the halfway mark).

In addition, the ROSH (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) asks that the Gemara in Yoma (16b) quotes the view of Rebbi Elazar ben Yakov who maintains that the entire Mizbe'ach was in the south. According to his opinion, *no* part of the southern face of the Mizbe'ach was "Lifnei Hashem" -- opposite any of the Heichal, the opening of the Heichal or its walls (the southern face, according to that opinion, was sixteen Amos (southward) passed the opening of the Heichal). The Rosh is forced to say that Rebbi Elazar Ben Yakov does not derive any requirement about where the Minchah must be brought from the words "Lifnei Hashem."

Third, if opposite the the Heichal walls is also considered "Lifnei Hashem," then even according to the Tana Kama the entire southern face should be considered "Lifnei Hashem" (as long as the Minchah was placed more than an Amah above the ground). The reason for this is because the Mishnah in Midos tells us that the Mizbe'ach measured 32 by 32 Amos only on the bottom-most Amah, but above that it receded an Amah on every side. Accordingly, the southern face above one Amah would be opposite the Heichal walls. (According to Rashi in our Sugya, the Minchah apparently must be brought to the face of the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach since only the most southernly part of the Mizbe'ach, protruding to the south, was considered "El Pnei ha'Mizbe'ach.)

In contrast, Rashi in Zevachim and Menachos takes a different approach. He explains that "Lifnei Hashem" means opposite the door of the Heichal (even though Rashi here refers to the Chalal, or open area, of the Heichal, which is 20 Amos, perhaps he means that the entrance of the Heichal is somewhere in those 20 Amos, and wherever that entrance is located is considered "Lifnei Hashem," but the rest of the Chalal is not considered "Lifnei Hashem"). If only the area opposite the entrance of the Heichal is considered "Lifnei Hashem," then why is the south-west corner considered "Lifnei Hashem? It is opposite the *wall* of the Heichal and not opposite the opening!

The answer is -- like the SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Zevachim (63:6) explains -- that "Lifnei Hashem" is not referring to the place where the Minchah is placed; it does not mean that the Minchah must be placed opposite the entrance of the Heichal. Rather, it means that the Minchah must be placed on the *side of the Mizbe'ach* that is opposite the face of the Heichal. Even though the Minchah may be placed further down along that side (on part of the side which is not directly opposite the Heichal), it is considered "Lifnei Hashem" since it is being placed on the same side of the Mizbe'ach which is "Lifnei Hashem," which faces the entrance to the Heichal. This also seems to be the intention of the Shitah Mekubetzes here (DH v'Higishu).

This answers the Rosh's question on the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Yakov. Even according to Rebbi Elazar ben Yakov, the western side of the Mizbe'ach is considered "Lifnei Hashem," since it is on the same side as the entrance to the Heichal.

This also answers why the Gemara says that according to Rebbi Elazar, the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the north. It would not be enough to say that he holds that the Mizbe'ach was merely moved slightly to the north. Rather, the southern wall of the Mizbe'ach must not only be opposite the walls of the Heichal, but it must also be opposite the entrance to the Heichal, which begins only five Amos from the center point of the Azarah. "Kulah b'Tzafon" means that either all of the Mizbe'ach or almost all of it (up to at least the last five Amos) was in the north.

This also answers why the southern side of the Mizbe'ach is not considered "Lifnei Hashem" according to the Tana Kama, even that part of the southern side that is higher up on the Mizbe'ach where it is opposite the wall of the Heichal.

This is the approach of Rashi in Zevachim and Menachos. The words at the end of Rashi here (DH Hakrev) are following the approach of Rashi in Zevachim and Menachos, rather than the approach of the rest of Rashi in this Sugya. This is why Rashi writes that only what is opposite the opening of the Heichal is considered "Lifnei Hashem," but where the wall of the Ulam separates the Heichal from the Mizbe'ach, it is not called "Lifnei Hashem."