על קדושה ואינטימיות
הדף מאת: איתמר לפיד
הלימוד עוסק בשאלות של קדושה ואינטימיות, הנלמדות מדרכו של הכהן הגדול אל קודש הקודשים ביום הכיפורים. דרך לימוד פסוקים מן התורה, תיאור המשנה ודיון של התלמוד והמדרש, נשאל מהי הדרך הראויה למפגש עם אלוהים, ומתוך כך - מהי הדרך הראויה למפגש בין אנשים. האם יש קדושה במפגש האינטימי בין אדם לחברו? ומה חשוב יותר - המפגש עצמו או הדרך אליו וממנו?
ונשמע קולו בבואו אל הקודש
(כט) וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת-שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֹשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט עַל-לִבּוֹ בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְזִכָּרֹן לִפְנֵי-ה' תָּמִיד. (ל) וְנָתַתָּ אֶל-חֹשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֶת-הָאוּרִים וְאֶת-הַתֻּמִּים וְהָיוּ עַל-לֵב אַהֲרֹן בְּבֹאוֹ לִפְנֵי ה' וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת-מִשְׁפַּט בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל-לִבּוֹ לִפְנֵי ה' תָּמִיד. (לא) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת-מְעִיל הָאֵפוֹד כְּלִיל תְּכֵלֶת. (לב) וְהָיָה פִי-רֹאשׁוֹ בְּתוֹכוֹ שָׂפָה יִהְיֶה לְפִיו סָבִיב מַעֲשֵׂה אֹרֵג כְּפִי תַחְרָא יִהְיֶה-לּוֹ לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ. (לג) וְעָשִׂיתָ עַל-שׁוּלָיו רִמֹּנֵי תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי עַל-שׁוּלָיו סָבִיב וּפַעֲמֹנֵי זָהָב בְּתוֹכָם סָבִיב. (לד) פַּעֲמֹן זָהָב וְרִמּוֹן פַּעֲמֹן זָהָב וְרִמּוֹן עַל-שׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל סָבִיב. (לה) וְהָיָה עַל-אַהֲרֹן לְשָׁרֵת וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בְּבֹאוֹ אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ לִפְנֵי ה' וּבְצֵאתוֹ וְלֹא יָמוּת.
And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually. . And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually. And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue. And it shall have a hole for the head in the midst thereof; it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it, as it were the hole of a coat of mail that it be not rent. And upon the skirts of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the skirts thereof; and bells of gold between them round about: a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe round about. And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and the sound thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not.
דיון
  • הכהן הגדול, והוא בלבד, נכנס אל קודש הקודשים רק פעם אחת בשנה, ביום הכיפורים. זהו רגע של שיא באינטימיות הדתית. האם להערכתכם הוא אכן פוגש שם את ה'?
  • מה מטרת הפעמון? מדוע האל צריך התראה על כניסתו של הכהן הגדול? האם קודש הקודשים הוא מקום של האל בלבד, מעין אינטימיות שלו עם עצמו, וכניסת הכהן הגדול לשם מהווה פלישה מסוימת אליה? ושמע מדובר באקט של נימוס בלבד?
  • מדוע חייב הכהן להשמיע קול טרם כניסתו, ומדוע דינו מוות, אם לא יעשה כן?
המסע אל קודש הקודשים
הוציאו לו את הכף ואת המחתה; חפן מלוא חופניו, ונתן לתוך הכף--הגדול לפי גודלו והקטן לפי קוטנו, וכך הייתה מידתה. נטל את המחתה בימינו, ואת הכף בשמאלו. מהלך בהיכל, עד שהוא מגיע לבין שתי הפרוכות המבדילות בין הקודש ובין קודש הקודשים, וביניהן אמה; רבי יוסי אומר, לא היה שם אלא פרוכת אחת, שנאמר "והבדילה הפרוכת, לכם, בין הקודש, ובין קודש הקודשים" (שמות כו,לג). הראשונה פרופה מן הדרום, והפנימית מן הצפון. מהלך ביניהן, עד שהוא מגיע לצפון. הגיע לצפון, והפך פניו לדרום; מהלך לשמאלו עם הפרוכת, עד שהוא מגיע לארון. הגיע לארון, נתן את המחתה בין שני הבדים; צבר את הקטורת על גבי הגחלים, ונתמלא הבית עשן. יצא, ובא לו בדרך בית כניסתו, ומתפלל תפילה קצרה בבית החיצון; לא היה מאריך, שלא להבעית את ישראל.
They brought out to him the ladle and the pan and he took two hands full [of incense] and put it into the ladle, a large [high priest] according to his size, a small one according to his size and thus was its measure. He took the pan in his right hand and the ladle in his left hand. He walked through the Hechal until he came to the place between the two curtains which separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies; between them was [a space of] one cubit. Rabbi Yose says: there was but one curtain, as it is said: “And the curtain shall serve you as a partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33). The outer curtain was looped on the south side and the inner curtain on the north side. He walked along between them until he reached the north side. When he reached the north side he turned round to the south and went on along the curtain, to his left, until he reached the Ark. When he reached the Ark he put the pan of burning coals between the two poles. He heaped up the incense upon the coals and the whole house became full with smoke. He came out by the way he entered and in the outer house he uttered a short prayer. He did not make the prayer long so as not to frighten Israel.
דיון
נסו לעקוב אחר מהלכיו של הכהן הגדול בדרכו אל קודש הקודשים.
  • מדוע חשוב כל-כך לפרט כל שלב בדרכו?
  • מה משמעות המילים "יצא ובא לו בדרך בית כניסתו"?
  • "שלא להבעית את ישראל" - מה יכול להיות כה מפחיד בעת השהות הארוכה של הכהן הגדול בקודש הקודשים?
מקודש הקודשים אל קדושת היחסים
וכן כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן כשהן נפטרין לא היו מחזירין פניהן והולכין אלא מצדדין פניהן והולכין. וכן תלמיד הנפטר מרבו - לא יחזיר פניו וילך אלא מצדד פניו והולך. כי הא דר' אלעזר כד הוה מיפטר מיניה דר' יוחנן (רבי אליעזר, כאשר היה נפרד מרבי יוחנן): כד הוה בעי ר' יוחנן לסגויי הוה גחין קאי ר' אלעזר אדוכתיה עד דהוה מיכסי ר' יוחנן מיניה (כאשר היה מבקש רבי יוחנן ללכת, היה יורד במקום עד שהיתה דמותו של רבי יוחנן נעלמת מעיניו). וכד הוה בעי ר' אלעזר לסגויי הוה קא אזיל לאחוריה עד דמכסי מיניה דרבי יוחנן (וכאשר היה הוא עצמו מבקש ללכת, היה מהלך לאחוריו, עד שהיתה דמותו של רבי יוחנן נעלמת מעיניו). רבא כד הוה מיפטר מיניה דרב יוסף הוה אזיל לאחוריה עד דמנגפן כרעיה ומתווסן אסקופתא דבי רב יוסף דמא (רבא, כאשר היה נפרד מרב יוסף, היה מהלך לאחור עד שהיו נפצעות רגליו, והיתה סף דלתו של רב יוסף מתמלאת בדם)
not to begin piling the incense in front of you, i.e., from the side closest to you, lest you be burned. If the priest were to place the incense on the side directly in front of him and then proceed to spread it toward the Ark, his hands would pass over the incense that is already burning and he might burn himself. § The Sages taught in a baraita: “And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:13); this means that he should not prepare by placing the incense outside, in the Sanctuary, and bring into the Holy of Holies a coal pan holding the burning incense. This was emphasized in order to exclude the opinion of the Sadducees, who say that he should prepare the incense outside and then bring it in. The Gemara asks: What did the Sadducees interpret; what verse do they cite as the basis for their opinion? The Gemara answers that it was the verse: “For I will appear in a cloud upon the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2), which the Sadducees say teaches that he should prepare it outside, so there would already be a cloud of incense, and only then should he bring it inside the Holy of Holies. The Sages said to them: Wasn’t it already stated explicitly: “And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:13), which indicates that the High Priest should present the incense only when he stands before God in the Holy of Holies? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “For I will appear in a cloud upon the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2)? This verse does not mean that there should already be an incense cloud before he enters. Instead, this verse is referring to the shape of the incense cloud, and it teaches that he includes a smoke-raiser in its spices, a plant that causes the smoke to rise straight up like a staff. And from where is it derived that he includes a smoke-raiser in its spices? As it is stated: “And the incense cloud shall cover the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:13). Therefore, if he did not include a smoke-raiser, or if he omitted any one of its spices, he is liable to receive the death penalty. The Gemara analyzes this last halakha: Why does one incur the death penalty for omitting one of the spices? And let the tanna derive the fact that he incurs the death penalty for a different action, as his entry into the Holy of Holies is for no purpose. It is prohibited to enter the Holy of Holies unless one is performing a mitzva. If the incense lacks an ingredient, the High Priest is not truly performing the mitzva, and therefore he has entered the Holy of Holies for no purpose. Consequently, he incurs the death penalty on account of his entry, even without burning the incense. Rav Sheshet said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he acted unwittingly with regard to the entry, i.e., he was unaware that entering for no reason renders him liable, or he did not mean to enter the Holy of Holies at all; and he acted intentionally with regard to the burning, knowing that one who burns incense that lacks an ingredient incurs the death penalty. In that case, he is liable to receive the death penalty only for burning incomplete incense. Rav Ashi said a different explanation: Even if you say that he acted intentionally with regard to both this and that, i.e., he knew full well that he would be liable to receive the death penalty both for burning incomplete incense and for entering the Holy of Holies for no purpose, it is nevertheless possible that he is not liable to receive the death penalty for his entry. And Rav Ashi explains that this is the halakha in a case where he brought two sets of incense into the Holy of Holies, one complete with all the spices and one incomplete, both of which he burned. For his entry to the Holy of Holies he is not liable to be put to death, as he brought in a coal pan with complete incense and thereby fulfilled the mitzva. However, for burning he is liable to receive the death penalty, as he burns incomplete incense. § The Gemara analyzes the above baraita. The Master said in the baraita: And from where is it derived that he includes a smoke-raiser in its spices? The verse states: “And it shall cover” (Leviticus 16:13). The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: One verse for another verse? The requirement of a smoke-raiser was already proven from the verse: “For I will appear in a cloud upon the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2); why cite a second verse in support of the first one? Rav Yosef said: This is what the baraita said; this is how to understand the matter: I have derived nothing other than the obligation to bring a leaf of a smoke-raising plant. From where is it derived that he must also bring a root of a smoke-raiser? The verse states: “And it shall cover,” which indicates the requirement for more of the smoke-raiser than might have been supposed from the other verse. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Your interpretation indicates that the leaf of the smoke-raiser raises smoke better than its root, as the requirement for a root is merely considered an addition. But wasn’t the opposite taught in a baraita? As it was taught in a baraita: He put into the incense a root of a smoke-raiser, and the smoke would rise in a column like a staff until it reached the Temple ceiling. When it reached the ceiling there was nowhere for the smoke to exit the building, and therefore it slowly descended the walls until the entire House was filled with smoke, as it is stated: “And the House was filled with smoke” (Isaiah 6:4). This baraita indicates that the root of the smoke-raiser raises smoke better than its leaf. Rather, Abaye said that this is what the baraita said; this is how it should be understood: I have derived nothing other than the obligation to bring a root of a smoke-raising plant. From where is it derived that he must also bring a leaf of a smoke-raiser? The verse states: “And it shall cover.” Rav Sheshet said that the baraita means the following: I have derived nothing other than the inclusion of a smoke-raiser amongst the other spices in the Tent of Meeting that was in the wilderness; from where is it derived that this obligation extends to the Tabernacle at Shiloh and in the eternal Temple in Jerusalem? The verse states: “And it shall cover,” which indicates that wherever the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies to burn incense, he must include a smoke-raiser in its ingredients. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this interpretation: This halakha is derived from the verse: “And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them” (Leviticus 16:16). This verse teaches that this rite must be performed not only that first time in the wilderness, but wherever the Divine Presence dwells. Rather, this is what the baraita said: I have derived nothing other than the obligation to include a smoke-raiser in the spices of the incense offered on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that this obligation applies to the incense offered on the rest of the days of the year in the Sanctuary? The verse states: “And it shall cover,” to teach that every incense burned in the Temple must include a smoke-raiser. Rav Ashi said: One verse teaches us the mitzva itself, and one verse teaches that this requirement is indispensable, i.e., the rite is invalid if one omits this ingredient. Rava said: One verse teaches that the omission of the smoke-raiser renders one liable to receive the punishment of death, and one verse serves as a warning that it is prohibited to omit it, as the Torah does not require punishment without issuing a warning. § It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: “Speak to Aaron your brother that he should not come at all times into the sacred place within the curtain, before the Ark cover that is upon the Ark; that he not die” (Leviticus 16:2). This verse teaches the punishment for the omission of the smoke-raiser from the spices of the incense. With regard to the verse: “For I will appear in a cloud upon the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2); this is the warning that it is prohibited to omit the smoke-raiser, which causes the cloud to rise. One might have thought that both verses were said before the deaths of Aaron’s sons, who died upon entering the sacred place. Therefore, the verse states: “After the deaths of the two sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 16:1). One might have thought that both of them, the punishment and the warning, were said after the deaths of Aaron’s two sons. Therefore, the verse states: “For I will appear in a cloud upon the Ark cover.” How so; how should these verses be understood? The warning was said before the death of Aaron’s sons, and the punishment associated with it was stated after the death of his sons. The Gemara expresses puzzlement at Rabbi Eliezer’s statement: What is the biblical derivation? How does Rabbi Eliezer learn from the phrase “I will appear” that the warning was stated earlier? Rava said that the verse states: “For I will appear in a cloud”; the future tense indicates that the cloud over the Ark cover had not yet appeared, as the Tabernacle had not been built, which means that this command was issued before Aaron’s sons entered and died. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason that Aaron’s sons were punished with death, if the punishment had not been stated? The Torah does not punish one who is unaware of the sin’s punishment. The Gemara answers: They were not punished for their entry into the sacred place but for a different reason, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they taught a halakha before Moses their teacher; they should have asked him for his ruling, but they neglected to do so. The Gemara asks: What did they interpret from the verse that led them to enter the sacred place with fire? The verse states: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:7), which indicates that although fire descends from the heavens, it is a mitzva to bring man-made fire. To fulfill this mitzva, Aaron’s sons entered and brought fire to the altar. Although their ruling was in accordance with the halakha, they incurred the death penalty for failing to ask Moses. § The mishna teaches that the High Priest exits and comes out the way that he entered, i.e., he does not turn around, but walks backward with his face toward the Ark. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived; what is the source in the Torah for this halakha? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said that the verse states: “And Solomon came to the high place that was at Gibeon, Jerusalem” (II Chronicles 1:13). Now, what does Gibeon have to do with Jerusalem? Either he came to Gibeon or to Jerusalem; these are two different places. Rather, the verse compares his exit from Gibeon to Jerusalem to his arrival from Jerusalem to Gibeon. Just as in the case of his arrival from Jerusalem to Gibeon his face was necessarily turned toward the high place, in the usual manner of a person’s arrival, so too, upon his exit from Gibeon to Jerusalem his face was still turned toward the high place, in the manner of his arrival. This teaches that one does not turn his face away from a sacred place; rather, he must walk backward. And likewise, with regard to priests in their service; and Levites on their platform in the Temple, where they recited songs; and Israelites at their watches, where they observed the sacrifice of the daily offering: When they departed from the sacred place, they would not turn their faces and walk but would turn their faces sideways and walk, so as not to turn their backs on the sacred place. And likewise, a student who takes leave of his teacher should not turn his face and walk but turn his face sideways and walk. This is in accordance with that practice of Rabbi Elazar when he took leave of his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥanan. When Rabbi Yoḥanan wanted to leave him, Rabbi Elazar would bend down and stand in his place as a sign of respect and humility, until Rabbi Yoḥanan disappeared from his sight; only then would Rabbi Elazar turn to leave. And when Rabbi Elazar wanted to leave, he would walk backward until he disappeared from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s sight, and only then would he walk normally, so as not to turn his back on his teacher. The Gemara further relates: When Rava took leave of Rav Yosef, he would walk backward, paying no attention to the obstacles in his path, until his legs were bruised and the threshold of Rav Yosef’s house was bloodied from Rava’s wounds.
דיון
התלמוד הבבלי מבין את מהלכו של הכהן הגדול כחוזר על עקביו באופן מדויק, תוך שמירת המבט כל הזמן לאותו כיוון, אל הקודש.

את מה שהגדירה המשנה לכהן הגדול, מרחיב התלמוד גם לשאר הכהנים, ללוויים, ולישראל.

מכאן מסיק התלמוד מהי הדרך הראויה לפרידה בין בני אדם. הסיפורים על רבי אליעזר ורבי יוחנן, וכן על רבא ורב יוסף - ממחישים כי מפגש אינטימי בין אנשים מחייב פרידה ראויה, כזו שבה אין נפנים אחור והולכים.
  • כיצד בחייכם אתם נוהגים לסיים מפגש אינטימי? האם יש דמיון בין האופן שבו נכנסתם למפגש לבין האופן שבו תצאו ממנו?
  • רב יוסף היה עיוור, מה שאומר שהוא כלל לא ראה את כל מחוות הפרידה של רבא ממנו. מדוע אם כן, טורח רבא ללכת לאחור עד שקרסוליו שותתים דם?
דיון
סגירת המעגל
קראו את המקור האחרון, ממדרש "ויקרא רבה". המדרש עוקב אחרי הפסוקים של פרשת אחרי מות, המתארת את מותם של בני אהרון הכהן, אשר הקריבו אש זרה ומתו מיד. בשורה הקצרה אותה הבאנו, מתוארת דרך המפגש בין תלמיד לרבו.
רבי יוחנן, כד הווה סליק למשאל שלמיה דרבי חנינא, הווה מבעבע, על שום ונשמע קולו.

הסברים
  • רבי יוחנן, גדול אמוראי ארץ ישראל, נכנס לבקר את רבו - ר' חנינא. טרם שישאל לשלומו, הוא מכחכח בגרונו.
דיון
  • מדוע בוחר איש כה חשוב כמו רבי יוחנן, להקפיד ולכחכח בגרונו לפני שישאל לשלומו של רבו?
  • למה מתכוון המדרש כשהוא מציין כי רבי יוחנן נוהג כך "על שום ונשמע קולו"? לאיזה פסוק הוא מכוון?
  • נסו לחשוב כיצד אתם שואלים לשלומו של אדם יקר לכם? האם אתם מקפידים על הדרך בה הדבר נעשה?
דף הנחיות למנחה:
על קדושה ואינטימיות.rtf