נחמיה ה-ט: ספרים, רבותיי (וגבירותיי), ספרים - על גלוי ונסתר בתורה
1א
הדף מאת: מיכל יניב / מרכזי דניאל
2ב
מעמד הקריאה ב"ספר תורת משה" המתואר בנחמיה פרק ח פסוק א, מפגיש אותנו עם עזרא, שמקומו נפקד כמעט לחלוטין מזיכרונות נחמיה. מעמד מרגש זה של קריאת התורה ברוב עם - גברים, נשים וטף, נתפס בעיני חז"ל כזמן שבו נקבעו גם נוהגי הקריאה והלימוד בתורה, מנהגים המלווים אותנו עד היום. מה הניע את חז"ל לתלות בעזרא הלכות אלה? מה התחדש בתורה ועד כמה היא עדיין "תורת משה" גם בימינו? מהו גבול הפרשנות, עד כמה מותר לחשוף בה ועד כמה ניתן להרחיק לכת בחידוש? לשאלות אלה, המעסיקות אותנו גם כיום, ניתנו תשובות שונות במקורות שלפנינו.
3ג
דיון
מבוא
מעמד הקריאה ב"ספר תורת משה" המתואר בנחמיה פרק ח, פסוק א, מפגיש אותנו עם עזרא, שמקומו נפקד כמעט לחלוטין מזיכרונות נחמיה. מעמד מרגש זה של קריאת התורה ברוב עם - גברים, נשים וטף, נתפס בעיני חז"ל כזמן שבו נקבעו גם נוהגי הקריאה והלימוד בתורה, מנהגים המלווים אותנו עד היום.
מה הניע את חז"ל לתלות בעזרא הלכות אלה? מה התחדש בתורה ועד כמה היא עדיין "תורת משה" גם בימינו? מהו גבול הפרשנות, עד כמה מותר לחשוף בה ועד כמה ניתן להרחיק לכת בחידוש?
לשאלות אלה, המעסיקות אותנו גם כיום, ניתנו תשובות שונות במקורות שלפנינו.
4ד
ואמר רבי ירמיה ואיתימא [ויש אומרים] רבי חייא בר אבא: תרגום של תורה - אונקלוס הגר אמרו מפי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע. תרגום של נביאים - יונתן בן עוזיאל אמרו מפי חגי זכריה ומלאכי, ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה. יצתה בת קול ואמרה: מי הוא זה שגילה סתריי לבני אדם? עמד יונתן בן עוזיאל על רגליו ואמר: אני הוא שגליתי סתריך לבני אדם; גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי, ולא לכבוד בית אבא, אלא לכבודך עשיתי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל. ועוד ביקש לגלות תרגום של כתובים, יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו: דייך! מאי טעמא [מה הטעם]? משום דאית ביה קץ משיח [משום שיש בו גילוי קץ מתי יבוא המשיח]. ותרגום של תורה אונקלוס הגר אמרו? והא אמר [והרי אמר] רב איקא בר אבין אמר רב חננאל אמר רב: מאי דכתיב [מה הוא שנאמר] "ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים מפרש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא"? ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים - זה מקרא, מפרש - זה תרגום, ושום שכל - אלו הפסוקין, ויבינו במקרא - אלו פיסקי טעמים, ואמרי לה [ויש אומרים]: אלו המסורת. - שכחום וחזרו ויסדום.
stood by way of a miracle? The Gemara answers: Yes, two forms of these letters did exist at that time, but the people did not know which one of them was to be used in the middle of the word and which at the end of the word, and the Seers came and established that the open forms are to used be in the middle of the word and the closed forms at the end of the word. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, however, doesn’t the phrase “these are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) indicate that a prophet is not permitted to initiate any matter of halakha from now on? Rather, it may be suggested that the final letters already existed at the time of the giving of the Torah, but over the course of time the people forgot them, and the prophets then came and reestablished them. § The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs, and a Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind? Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your secrets to mankind through my translation. However, it is revealed and known to You that I did this not for my own honor, and not for the honor of the house of my father, but rather it was for Your honor that I did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people. In the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses, but with a translation, the meaning will be clear. And Yonatan ben Uzziel also sought to reveal a translation of the Writings, but a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: It is enough for you that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? Because it has in it a revelation of the end, when the Messiah will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all. The Gemara asks: Was the translation of the Torah really composed by Onkelos the convert? Didn’t Rav Ika bar Avin say that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written with respect to the days of Ezra: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is the scriptural text; “distinctly,” this is the translation, indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings. “And they gave the sense,” these are the divisions of the text into separate verses. “And they caused them to understand the reading,” these are the cantillation notes, through which the meaning of the text is further clarified. And some say that these are the Masoretic traditions with regard to the manner in which each word is to be written. This indicates that the Aramaic translation already existed at the beginning of the Second Temple period, well before the time of Onkelos. The Gemara answers: The ancient Aramaic translation was forgotten and then Onkelos came and reestablished it. The Gemara asks: What is different about the translation of Prophets? Why is it that when Onkelos revealed the translation of the Torah, Eretz Yisrael did not quake, and when he revealed the translation of the Prophets, it quaked? The Gemara explains: The meaning of matters discussed in the Torah is clear, and therefore its Aramaic translation did not reveal the meaning of passages that had not been understood previously. Conversely, in the Prophets, there are matters that are clear and there are matters that are obscure, and the Aramaic translation revealed the meaning of obscure passages. The Gemara cites an example of an obscure verse that is clarified by the Aramaic translation: As it is written: “On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zechariah 12:11). And with regard to that verse, Rav Yosef said: Were it not for the Aramaic translation of this verse, we would not have known what it is saying, as the Bible does not mention any incident involving Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. The Aramaic translation reads as follows: On that day, the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Ahab, son of Omri, who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tavrimon, in Ramoth-Gilead, and like the mourning for Josiah, son of Amon, who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon. The translation clarifies that the verse is referring to two separate incidents of mourning, and thereby clarifies the meaning of this verse. § The Gemara introduces another statement from the same line of tradition. The verse states: “And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great trembling fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves” (Daniel 10:7). Who were these men? The term “men” in the Bible indicates important people; who were they? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: These are the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara comments: In certain ways they, the prophets, were greater than him, Daniel, and in certain ways he, Daniel, was greater than them. They were greater than him, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were sent to convey the word of God to the Jewish people, while Daniel was not sent to reveal his visions to others. In another way, however, he was greater than them, as he saw this vision, and they did not see this vision, indicating that his ability to perceive obscure and cryptic visions was greater than theirs. The Gemara asks: Since they did not see the vision, what is the reason that they were frightened? The Gemara answers: Even though they did not see the vision, their guardian angels saw it, and therefore they sensed that there was something fearful there and they fled. Ravina said: Learn from this incident that with regard to one who is frightened for no apparent reason, although he does not see anything menacing, his guardian angel sees it, and therefore he should take steps in order to escape the danger. The Gemara asks: What is his remedy? He should recite Shema, which will afford him protection. And if he is standing in a place of filth, where it is prohibited to recite verses from the Torah, he should distance himself four cubits from his current location in order to escape the danger. And if he is not able to do so, let him say the following incantation: The goat of the slaughterhouse is fatter than I am, and if a calamity must fall upon something, it should fall upon it. § After this digression, the Gemara returns to the exposition of a verse cited above. Now that you have said that the phrases “every province” and “every city” appear for the purposes of midrashic exposition, for what exposition do the words “every family” appear in that same verse (Esther 9:28)? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: These words come to include the priestly and Levitical families, and indicate that they cancel their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The priests at their Temple service, the Levites on their platform in the Temple, where they sung the daily psalm, and the Israelites at their watches, i.e., the group of Israelites, corresponding to the priestly watches, who would come to Jerusalem and gather in other locations as representatives of the entire nation to observe or pray for the success of the Temple service, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. This is also taught in a baraita: The priests at their service, the Levites on the platform, and the Israelites at their watches, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied upon the halakha stated here and determined that one cancels his Torah study and comes to hear the reading of the Megilla. They derived this principle by means of an a fortiori inference from the Temple service: Just as one who is engaged in performing service in the Temple, which is very important, cancels his service in order to hear the Megilla, is it not all the more so obvious that one who is engaged in Torah study cancels his study to hear the Megilla? The Gemara asks: Is the Temple service more important than Torah study? Isn’t it written: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood over against him with his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua went over to him and said to him: Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord, I have come now. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down” (Joshua 5:13–14). The Gemara first seeks to clarify the incident described in the verse. How did Joshua do this, i.e., how could he bow to a figure he did not recognize? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: It is prohibited for a person to greet his fellow at night if he does not recognize him, as we are concerned that perhaps it is a demon? How did Joshua know that it was not a demon? The Gemara answers: There it was different, as the visitor said to him: But I am captain of the host of the Lord. The Gemara asks: Perhaps this was a demon and he lied? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that demons do not utter the name of Heaven for naught, and therefore since the visitor had mentioned the name of God, Joshua was certain that this was indeed an angel. As for the angel’s mission, the Gemara explains that the angel said to Joshua: Yesterday, i.e., during the afternoon, you neglected the afternoon daily offering due to the impending battle, and now, at night, you have neglected Torah study, and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua said to him: For which of these sins have you come? He said to him: I have come now, indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua immediately determined to rectify the matter, as the verses states: “And Joshua lodged that night” (Joshua 8:9) “in the midst of the valley [ha’emek]” (Joshua 8:13), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
5ה
דיון
מהו המתח העומד בבסיס פירוש התורה על פי חז"ל?
מהו הסייג שמציב המדרש? איזה סייג הייתם אתם מציבים, אם בכלל?
בידי מי הסמכות לקבוע סייגים אלה?
מה, על פי חז"ל, חידש עזרא בקריאה בתורה? מדוע לדעתכם ייחסו חז"ל לעזרא חידושים אלה?
6ו
מרטין בובר, אור הגנוז – סיפורי חסידים, עמ' 76, הוצאת שוקן, תשס"ה-2005
הדרשה
ביקשו מאת הבעל שם טוב לדרוש אחר התפילה. התחיל דורש, אבל באמצע אחזו רטט, כדרך שאירע לעתים באמצע תפילתו. הפסיק ואמר: "ריבונו של עולם, גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי אני דורש". ושוב הפסיק, ואחר פרצו מפיו המילים: " רבות הכרתי, רבות יכולתי, ואין מי שאוכל לגלותן לו". ולא הוסיף דבר.
© כל הזכויות שמורות להוצאת שוקן
www.schocken.co.il
7ז
דיון
מה, לדעתכם, מנע מהבעש"ט להמשיך בדרשתו?
כיצד מתכתבים הסיפורים על יונתן בן עוזיאל והבעש"ט זה עם זה?
8ח
אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא [ויש אומרים] מר עוקבא: בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש, חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי...
תניא, רבי יוסי אומר: ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל, אילמלא (לא) קדמו משה. במשה הוא אומר "ומשה עלה אל האלהים", בעזרא הוא אומר "הוא עזרא עלה מבבל", מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה - אף עלייה האמור להלן תורה. במשה הוא אומר "ואתי צוה ה' בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים", בעזרא הוא אומר "כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרש את תורת ה' (אלהיו) ולעשת וללמד בישראל חק ומשפט". ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו - נשתנה על ידו הכתב, שנאמר "וכתב הנשתון כתוב ארמית ומתרגם ארמית" (נשתוון רמז שנשתנה הכתב)...
תניא, רבי אומר: בתחילה בכתב זה ניתנה תורה לישראל, כיון שחטאו נהפך להן לרועץ, כיון שחזרו בהן החזירו להם.
§ Mar Zutra says, and some say that it is Mar Ukva who says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in Ivrit script, the original form of the written language, and the sacred tongue, Hebrew. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in Ashurit script and the Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected Ashurit script and the sacred tongue for the Torah scroll and left Ivrit script and the Aramaic tongue for the commoners. The Gemara asks: Who are these commoners? Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans [Kutim]. The Gemara asks: What is Ivrit script? Rav Ḥisda says: Libona’a script. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was suitable, given his greatness, for the Torah to be given by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first and received the Torah already. With regard to Moses the verse states: “And Moses went up to God” (Exodus 19:3), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon and he was a ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (Ezra 7:6). Just as the going up stated here, with regard to Moses, is for the Torah, which he received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, so too, the going up stated there, with regard to Ezra, is for the Torah, as he taught Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give it. The baraita continues: With regard to Moses the verse states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And even though the Torah was not given literally by him, the script of the Torah was changed by him, as it is stated: “And the writing of the letter [hannishtevan] was written in the Aramaic script, and set forth in the Aramaic tongue” (Ezra 4:7). The term “hannishtevan” is similar to the word nishtana, meaning changed, alluding to the fact that the script had been changed. And it is written with regard to the writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace: “Then came in all the king’s wise men. But they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation” (Daniel 5:8), and the reason they could not read it is that it was written in the new script that Ezra would transmit. And it is written: “That he shall write for himself a second [mishne] Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18), where “second [mishne]” teaches that it is written in a script that is apt to be changed [lehishtannot]. The baraita continues: Why is this script called Ashurit? Because it ascended with the Jewish people from Ashur when they returned from their exile in Babylonia. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in this script, Ashurit, which is in use today. Once the Jewish people sinned, it turned into an impairment for them and they began writing with a different script, Libona’a. Once they repented, the first script was returned to them, and they resumed writing with Ashurit script, as it is stated: “Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope; even today do I declare that I will render double [mishne] unto you” (Zechariah 9:12), meaning that God restored to the Jewish people this script that had been changed [nishtanna].
9ט
דיון
מה משמעות חידוש הכתב והשפה שייחסו חז"ל לעזרא?
מהי מטרת חידושים אלה?
כיצד יש להתייחס לשינויים אלה האם זו מהפכה או ניסיון לשימור?
10י
הַקְשִׁ֤יבוּ אֵלַי֙ עַמִּ֔י וּלְאוּמִּ֖י אֵלַ֣י הַאֲזִ֑ינוּ כִּ֤י תוֹרָה֙ מֵאִתִּ֣י תֵצֵ֔א וּמִשְׁפָּטִ֔י לְא֥וֹר עַמִּ֖ים אַרְגִּֽיעַ:
Attend unto Me, O My people, And give ear unto Me, O My nation; For instruction shall go forth from Me, And My right on a sudden for a light of the peoples.
11יא
מרטין בובר, אור הגנוז – סיפורי חסידים, עמ' 196, הוצאת שוקן, תשס"ה-2005
התורה הנסתרת
אמר רבי לוי יצחק [מברדיטשוב]: כתוב בישעיה: "כי תורה מאתי תצא". באיזו תורה הכתוב מדבר? הרי אנו מאמינים באמונה שלמה שהתורה שקיבל משה מסיני לא תהא מוחלפת ולא תהא תורה אחרת מאת הבורא יתברך שמו? אין היא ניתנת לשינוי ואסור לנו לנגוע באותיותיה. אבל לא האותיות השחורות בלבד אלא גם החללים הלבנים הם אותיות של התורה, אלא שאין אנו יכולים לקרוא אותם. לעתיד לבוא יגלה השם את הסתרים הלבנים של התורה.
© כל הזכויות שמורות להוצאת שוקן
www.schocken.co.il
12יב
מרטין בובר, אור הגנוז – סיפורי חסידים, עמ' 252, הוצאת שוקן, תשס"ה-2005
התורה הנסתרת
הרבי מרוזין אמר על הכתוב: "תורה מאתי תצא":
הרי אי אפשר שהתורה תהא מוחלפת. וכן יישאר לנצח גם ספר בראשית, המספר את קורות האדם, מיום שברא אלוהים את העולם. אבל תורה אחת נעלמת ממנו, מה שפעם השם קודם בריאת העולם. וזוהי כוונת הכתוב: "כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל אל". וזוהי גם כוונת הפסוק "תורה מאתי תצא", להודיע מה פעלתי קודם בריאת העולם.
© כל הזכויות שמורות להוצאת שוקן
www.schocken.co.il
13יג
דיון
כיצד מתמודדים שני החסידים עם המתח שבין חידוש לשימור?
מהו מקומו ומעמדו של הנסתר בתורה על פי סיפורים אלה?
מה נדרש על מנת שנסתר יתגלה?
14יד
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלָה מֹשֶה לַמָּרוֹם מְצָאוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְקוֹשֵׁר כְּתָרִים לְאוֹתִיּוֹת.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי מְעַכֵּב עַל יָדֶיךָ?
אָמַר לוֹ: אָדָם אֶחָד יֵשׁ, שֶׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת בְּסוֹף כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת, וַעֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁעָתִיד לִדְרשׁ עַל כָּל קוֹץ וָקוֹץ תִּלֵּי תִּלִּים שֶׁל הֲלָכוֹת.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הַרְאֵהוּ לִי.
אָמַר לוֹ: חֲזֹר לַאֲחוֹרֶיךָ.
הָלַךְ וְיָשַׁב בְּסוֹף שְׁמוֹנֶה שׁוּרוֹת וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ מָה הֵם אוֹמְרִים.
תָּשַׁש כּוֹחוֹ.
כֵּוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְדָבָר אֶחָד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבִּי, מִנַּיִן לְךָ?
אָמַר לָהֶם: הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶה מִסִּינַי
נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתּוֹ.
חָזַר וּבָא לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם כָּזֶה וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן תּוֹרָה עַל יָדִי?!
אָמַר לוֹ: שְׁתֹק, כָּךְ עָלָה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לְפָנַי.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הֶרְאֵיתַנִי תּוֹרָתוֹ, הַרְאֵנִי שְׂכָרוֹ.
אָמַר לוֹ: חֲזֹר לַאֲחוֹרֶיךָ.
חָזַר לַאֲחוֹרָיו וְרָאָה שֶׁשּׁוֹקְלִין בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמָקוּלִין.
אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, זוֹ תּוֹרָה וְזֶה שְׂכָרָהּ?!
אָמַר לוֹ: שְׁתֹק, כָּךְ עָלָה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לְפָנַי.
למקור השלם
and the eighteen of the six branches; this equals twenty-two goblets. Concerning the knobs as well, it is clear how the number eleven was reached. The Candelabrum contains the two knobs of its main shaft, as the verse states: “Its knobs” (Exodus 25:34), with the plural “knobs” indicating that there were two, and the six of the six branches, as it is written: “In one branch, a knob and a flower” (Exodus 25:33). In addition to these eight knobs, the verse states: “And a knob under two branches of one piece with it, and a knob under two branches of one piece with it, and a knob under two branches of one piece with it” (Exodus 25:35); this equals eleven knobs. But from where do we derive that the Candelabrum contained nine flowers? According to the verse there are the two flowers of its main shaft, as it is written: “And its flowers” (Exodus 25:34), and the six of the six branches, as it is written: “In one branch, a knob and a flower” (Exodus 25:33), meaning that there are eight, not nine, flowers on the Candelabrum. Rav Shalman said in response: It is written: “It was a beaten work, from the base to the flower” (Numbers 8:4), which teaches that there was a ninth flower near the base. Rav says: The height of the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to the statement of Rav: We learned in a mishna (Tamid 30b): There was a stone before the Candelabrum and it had three steps, upon which the priest would stand and prepare the lamps for kindling. If the Candelabrum was only nine handbreadths high, why would it be necessary for the priest to stand on an elevated surface to reach the lamps? Rav said to him: Shimi, is it you who is asking me such a question? When I said that the height of the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths, I was referring not to the total height, which is eighteen handbreadths; rather, I meant that the Candelabrum is nine handbreadths from the point at which the branches extend from the main shaft and above. § It is written: “And the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold [mikhlot zahav]” (II Chronicles 4:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by mikhlot zahav? Rav Ami says: It is a reference to the fact that the Candelabrum and its vessels exhausted [kilattu] all of Solomon’s pure [sagur] gold [zahav], which was used in its fashioning in such great quantities. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav said: Solomon made ten Candelabrums, and for each and every one he brought one thousand talents of gold, and they placed the gold in the furnace to refine it one thousand times, until they reduced the gold to one talent for each Candelabrum, as it is stated: “Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made” (Exodus 25:39). The Gemara asks: Is that so that all of Solomon’s gold was exhausted for the fashioning of the Candelabrum and its vessels? But isn’t it written: “And all King Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold;silver was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon” (II Chronicles 9:20)? The Gemara answers: We are saying that Solomon’s pure gold was exhausted for the fashioning of the Candelabrum, but not all of his gold. The Gemara asks: And would refining the gold reduce it to this extent, that one thousand talents of gold would be reduced to one talent? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: An incident occurred where the weight of the Candelabrum of the Temple was found to be greater than the weight of the Candelabrum of Moses by one Kordikini gold dinar, and they placed it in the furnace eighty times until the weight of the Candelabrum stood at precisely one talent. Evidently, putting the Candelabrum into a furnace reduces its weight by very little. The Gemara answers: Once it is standing, it is standing, i.e., since the gold was refined to such a degree in the time of Solomon, later when it was refined eighty times it was reduced by the weight of only one dinar. § Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Upon the pure Candelabrum” (Leviticus 24:4)? It teaches that the procedure for fashioning it descended, i.e., was shown to Moses, from the place of purity, i.e., by God, who showed Moses a model of the Candelabrum. The Gemara asks: If that is so, is that to say that phrase “upon the pure Table” (Leviticus 24:6) also teaches that the procedure for fashioning it was shown to Moses from the place of purity? Rather, the expression “the pure Table” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure. Here too, the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure. The Gemara rejects this: Granted, the inference drawn there with regard to the Table is in accordance with that which Reish Lakish says; as Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Upon the pure Table” (Leviticus 24:6)? The expression “pure Table” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure, but why? Isn’t the Table a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and any wooden vessel that is designated to rest in a fixed place is not susceptible to becoming ritually impure? Rather, this teaches that the Table was not always left in a fixed place; the priests would lift the Table with its shewbread to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, and a priest would say to them: See your affection before the Omnipresent. For this reason, the Table is susceptible to becoming ritually impure. Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: What is meant by: See your affection before God? It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: Its condition at the time of its removal from the Table, after having been left there for a week, was like its condition at the time of its arrangement on the Table, as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed on the Table. The Gemara resumes stating its objection: But here, with regard to the Candelabrum, there is no reason to explain that the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches, by inference, that it is susceptible to becoming ritually impure; this is obvious, as the Candelabrums are metal vessels, and metal vessels are susceptible to becoming ritually impure whether or not they remain in a fixed location. Rather, it must be that the expression “the pure Candelabrum” teaches that the procedure for fashioning it descended, i.e., was shown to Moses, from the place of purity. § It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: An Ark of fire and a Table of fire and a Candelabrum of fire descended from the Heavens, and Moses saw their format and fashioned the vessels for the Tabernacle in their likeness. As it is stated after the command to fashion these items: “And see that you make them after their pattern, which is being shown to you in the mount” (Exodus 25:40). The Gemara asks: If that is so, is that to say that the verse: “And you shall set up the Tabernacle according to its fashion which has been shown to you in the mount” (Exodus 26:30), also indicates that God showed Moses a Tabernacle of fire? The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to the Tabernacle, it is written: “According to its fashion,” meaning that it should be built according to the instructions given to Moses, whereas there, with regard to the Ark, Table, and Candelabrum, it is written: “After their pattern,” indicating that an actual model of the items was shown to Moses. Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The angel Gabriel was girded with a type of wide belt [pesikiyya] in the manner of artisans who tie up their clothes to prevent these clothes from hindering them in their work. And he showed the precise way to fashion the Candelabrum to Moses, as it is written: “And this is the work of the Candelabrum” (Numbers 8:4), and the term “this” indicates that an exact replica was shown to him. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Three matters were difficult for Moses to comprehend precisely, until the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed them to him with His finger, and these are the three matters: The form of the Candelabrum, and the exact size of the new moon, and the impure creeping animals. The Candelabrum was shown to him, as it is written: “And this is the work of the Candelabrum” (Numbers 8:4). The new moon was shown to him, as it is written: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2). The creeping animals were shown to him, as it is written: “And these are they which are unclean for you among the swarming things” (Leviticus 11:29). And there are those who say that God also showed Moses the halakhot of slaughtering, as it is stated: “Now this is that which you shall sacrifice upon the altar” (Exodus 29:38), and slaughtering is the first ritual of sacrifice. § The mishna teaches: With regard to the two passages that are in the mezuza, the absence of each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. And furthermore, the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the rest of them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the absence of even one letter prevents fulfillment of the mitzva, since it is written: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), which teaches that the writing [ketav] must be complete [tam]? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It was necessary to state that only to teach that even the absence of the thorn, i.e., the small stroke, of a letter yod prevents fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: But isn’t this also obvious, since the letter is not formed properly? Rather, it is necessary according to another statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Any letter that is not encircled with blank parchment on all four of its sides, i.e., where its ink connects to the letter above it, below it, preceding it, or succeeding it, is unfit. When the mishna makes reference to one letter preventing fulfillment of the mitzva, it is referring to a letter that touches an adjacent letter. Ashiyan bar Nadbakh says in the name of Rav Yehuda: If the inner part of the letter heh was perforated it is fit, but if the perforation was in the leg of the letter heh it is unfit. Rabbi Zeira says: This matter was explained to me by Rav Huna, and Rabbi Ya’akov says: This matter was explained to me by Rav Yehuda: If the inner part of the letter heh was perforated it is fit. In a case where the perforation was in the leg of the letter heh, then if there remained in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e., the letter yod, then it is fit. But if not, it is unfit. The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba,
15טו
דיון
באילו רבדים מתגלה בסיפור המתח בין הגלוי לנסתר?
כיצד היה נראה מפגש בין משה לר' עקיבא לדעתכם?
באילו תנאים, אם בכלל, יהפוך הנסתר לגלוי?
16טז
מרטין בובר, אור הגנוז – סיפורי חסידים, עמ' 64, הוצאת שוקן, תשס"ה-2005
תורה תמימה
על הכתוב "תורת ה' תמימה" אמר הבעל שם טוב: "עדיין תמימה היא לגמרי. עוד לא נגע בה שום אדם אף בקוצו של יו"ד. עד כה עדיין תמימה היא לגמרי".
© כל הזכויות שמורות להוצאת שוקן
www.schocken.co.il
17יז
דיון
באיזו מידה התורה עדיין תמימה גם כיום?
מהו הגבול בין פרשנות לחידוש לאור המקורות השונים?
מהי מידת החופש הראויה בעיניכם לפרשנות?
19 יט
20כ
דף הנחיות למנחה:
נחמיה ה-ט למנחה.docx