Loading...
 

Vol 18.24 - Korach 4                          Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 212   Page213   Page214   Page215   Page216   Page217  

Mishnayot  Mishnah_Middot  Beit-Habechirah-Chapter-5   Talmud Tamid

 

Summary:
(5737) In three places the kohanim guard etc. Five gates of the Courtyard (Beg. Tractate Middot) 
Lesson:
Differing numbers for the entrance gates to the Mikdash.  Differing opinions regarding the number of gates in the Mikdash (5,7,8,13); each are correct depending on their point of reference
 

Translation:

1. In conjunction to the Mitzvah of keeping watch in the Temple, by the Kohanim and Levites (of which we are commanded in our Parsha),

the Mishnah in the beginning of Tractate Middot states:

“In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple . . And the Levites in twenty-one places . . Five at the five gates of the Temple Mount”.

 However, in a later Mishnah (1:4) it states:

“There were seven gates in the Azarah (courtyard)” (and it delineates them in detail).

In other words, that there were (not “five” but rather) “seven gates”?

Regarding this question the Talmud (Tamid 27a) states two answers:

  • “Abaye said: two of them (of the “seven gates”) did not require a watch (of the Levites)”.

(Therefore, the Tanna states that the watch was just “on the five gates of the Azarah”).

  • “Rava said: The number of gates is a dispute between Tannaim . . there is a Tanna who says that there were seven gates, and there is also a Tanna who said that there were five gates”.

Rambam in Sefer Yad HaChazakah (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 5:4) cites both Mishnayot:

  1. “It had seven gates”.
  2. “Where would the Levites stand watch? . . At the five gates to the Azarah”. He immediately adds the reason why the watch was only on five of the seven gates to the Azarah:

“For the priests stood watch at the remaining two gates, the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of (the Chamber of) the Spark”.

This means that Rambam learns like the view of Abaye, that there is no debate between the two Mishnayot.

It is puzzling:

Why does Rambam rule like Abaye? There is a maxim that when there is a dispute between Abaye and Rava, that the Halacha is like Rava?

In Pirush HaMishnayot, Rambam states that the statement in the Mishnah:

“(Five at) the five gates to the Azarah” is “according to the view of the Tanna Kama”, since there are Tannaim who state that there were five gates to the Azarah, and he is the one who is speaking here. However, there are those who say that there were seven (gates) and this is the view of the majority .. According to the view of the Sages there was a watch on five of the seven gates

It is not understood:

Rambam begins to answer the contradiction (of the latter Mishnah: “seven gates were in the Azarah”) with Rava’s answer -that it is a debate between Tannaim (תנאי היא״”), and the Tanna of this Mishnah maintains that “there were five”. However, he concludes (like Abaye’s view) that even according to the Tanna that maintains “there were seven gates in the Azarah”, the watch was only on five gates (of the seven)?!

One must therefore say that Rambam learns:

Even according to Rava who says, “it is a dispute between Tannaim”, the debate is just in the number of gates. However, not regarding the watch over the gates:

  • The Tanna from the first Mishnah maintains that there were just five gates (and therefore the watch was “on the five gates to the Azarah”).
  • Whereas, the Tanna from the second Mishnah maintains (as he expressly states) that “there were seven gates in the Azarah”. However, he admits that the watch was just on the five gates. For “two of them did not require a watch”.

(And Abaye maintains that there is no debate at all, and all maintain – that “there were seven gates in the Azarah” and “two of them did not require a watch”).

With this, it is answered why Rambam rules that the watch was on,

“five gates to the Azarah .. for the priests stood watch etc.” (Like the Abaye‘s answer)

For even according to Rava, the Tanna who states, “there were seven gates in the Azarah” maintains so.

Rambam rules like this Tanna (not like the Tanna who maintains “they were five”). For this is the “opinion of the majority” (as he states in Pirush HaMishnayot, as aforementioned).

3. However, this explanation is seemingly puzzling:

Since (even) according to Rava there is no contradiction between both aspects:

  1. That “there were seven gates in the Azarah”, and
  2. (Nevertheless) the watch was (just) “on the five gates to the Azarah”,

what is Rava‘s necessity to say that “it is a dispute between Tannaim” (and to create dispute). Namely, that the first Mishnah (“Five of the five gates to the Azarah”) cannot come out like the Tanna of the second Mishnah who says, ”there were seven gates in the Azarah” (like Abaye says). Rather, that one must maintain that, “they were five”?

The aforementioned puzzlement is even more blatant in the Pirush HaMishnayot, where he states both aspects in the same section, as aforementioned:

  1. The Tanna of the first Mishnah maintains, “there were five gates in the Azarah” (like Rava’s answer)
  2. Even the Sages who say, “there were seven gates in the Azarah” maintain that “the watch was on five gates of the seven”.

Seemingly:

Since even,

“according to the view of the Sages there was a watch on five gates etc.”

why must one learn that the Mishnah, “on five gates of the Azarah”, follows the one who maintains “there were five gates to the Azarah”, and not according to the Sages (the “majority opinion”) who say that “the watch was over five gates etc.” – exactly like Rambam himself learns in Sefer Yad HaChazakah?

4. One can understand this by prefacing the question in the wording of the Mishnah, “there were seven gates in the Azarah etc.”:

Since the Mishnah delineates all seven gates: “the Gate of Kindling etc.”, why must the Tanna preface “there were seven gates etc.”? Like the words of the Talmud, “why do we need a number”?

The explanation of this is:

Although we find many opinions in the number of gates in the Azarah: 5, 7, 8, 13 – there is no debate in the reality (מציאות) regarding how many gates were there.

(For it is a maxim that a debate is not applicable in the reality (מציאות)).

Rather, according to all, there were thirteen gates (as it is cited in the Mishnah).

The debate involves:

How many of the thirteen gates had the (דין שער) “law of a gate" : 5,7,8 or 13.

The ramification between the gates that had the “law of a gate” versus the other gates is related to many aspects in Halacha.

Among them:

  1. Regarding the Guarding of the Mikdash (שמירת המקדש). Only those gates that have the law of a gate, requires watching.
  2. Regarding Entering the Mikdash (ביאת מקדש). When one enters the Mikdash through the gates which did not have the law of a gate, one could say that it is not “the manner of entering” (דרך ביאה).
  3. Regarding a Mezuzah. Without the derivation,

“The verse states: “House”. Just as a house is a place that is non-sacred, so too any place that is non-sacred is obligated in the Mitzvah of Mezuzah, excluding those places that are sacred”,

there would have been the law that specifically those gates which have a law of a gate are required to have a Mezuzah, as it states “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates”.

Therefore, the Mishnah prefaces “there were seven gates in the Azarah”, in order to establish that only these seven gates, and not the others have the scope and law of a gate.

(Moreover, one could say:

This is similar to what the Sages state on the verse,

“Six cities of refuge shall they be”, from which it is derived that they do not become cities of refuge until “all six of them admit unintentional murderers as one”.

The same is in our aspect:

With the superfluous wording “there were seven gates in the Azarah”, the Mishnah is alluding that all the gates are one entity, and if there is missing from the full number of seven gates, the law of a “gate of the Azarah” (דין פון שער העזרה) does not apply – that requires it to be watched etc.)

5. According to this:

The reason that Rava states, “it is a dispute between Tannaim”, is not that he is referring to a debate in the reality (namely, how many gates there actually were), but rather the debate is: how many of the gates have the law of a gate:

The reason that the Tanna of the first Mishnah states that the watch was solely over “the five gates to the Azarah” – even though, in actuality, there were thirteen gates, was because, according to his opinion, only those five gates had the law of a gate (and “they were five” means – “gates”, with the law of a gate).

However, the Tanna of the second Mishnah, who states, “there were seven gates in the Azarah“ maintains that seven (of the thirteen gates) have the law of a gate. Therefore, there is an obligation to watch over all of them. The reason that the watch was just over the “five gates of the Azarah” is because “two of them did not require a watch”. This means (not that they were not under obligation to be watched, but rather) as Rambam explains –

“For the priests stood watch at the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark”.

This means that the two gates were already “guarded” by the Kohanim.

6. With this, it is also explained why we can ask on Rambam’s aforementioned wording (in Sefer Yad HaChazakah):

“(At the five gates to the Azarah. .) For the priests stood watch at the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark”.

The watch of the Kohanim was not over the “Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark”. Rather it was over “the house/Chamber of the Spark and the house/Chamber of the Hearth” (בבית הניצוץ ובבית המוקד), as it states in the Mishnah. (Indeed, Rambam himself cites this a few Halachot previously).

Therefore, why does Rambam change, and write, “at the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark”?

However, according to the aforementioned, this is understood:

With this Rambam is emphasizing that even those two gates had the law of a gate (דין שער). Therefore, they were under obligation to be watched.

The reason that the Levites did not watch over them, is because through the watch of the Kohanim in the “house/Chamber of the Spark and the house/Chamber of the Hearth”, they already, automatically, “watched the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark”.

This means that in the law of guarding the house/Chamber of the Hearth and the house of the Spark - there are two laws:

  1. The obligation of guarding that is due to the “house” (בית) (like the Beit Avtinas) – which is applicable to the Kohanim.
  2. The obligation of guarding that is due to the “gates” which were in them (the houses). This is (mainly) applicable to the Levites. However, since through the guarding of the Kohanim in the Chamber of the Hearth and the Chamber of the Spark, there is automatically a watch (also) over the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gate of the Spark. Therefore, the Levites did not have to watch over them.

7. According to all the aforementioned, it is understood why (Rava – and) Rambam in Pirush HaMishnayot learn that the Tanna (of the first Mishnah), who says “at five of the five gates to the Azarah” does not maintain like the Tanna that “there were seven gates in the Azarah”, even though that even according to the second Tanna, the watch was just over, “five gates of the seven”:

In the beginning of the Mishnah, the Tanna speaks regarding all the places where the Kohanim and Levites had to watch.

This is the wording of the Mishnah:

“In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the Chamber of Avtinas, in the Chamber of the spark, and in the Chamber of the Hearth. And the Levites . . Five at five of the gates of the Azarah”.

In other words, the Tanna mentions just regarding the watch (through the Kohanim) of “the Chamber of the Spark and the Chamber of the Hearth”, and afterward when he speaks regarding the watch through the Levites over the gates of the Azarah, he states, “of the five gates to the Azarah”.

Therefore, if we should say that this Tanna maintains “there were seven gates in the Azarah”, and the watch is just over “five gates to the Azarah”, since “two of them did not require a watch” – it will come out that he is entirely omitting mention (even through a hint) regarding the obligation to watch over the Gate of the Chamber of the Spark and the Gate of the Chamber of the Hearth.

Moreover, and this is the main aspect:

Since one can learn that a “Tanna speaks precisely and explains his words” (תנא דוקא קאמר ופירש דבריו)- one does not say that it is “not necessarily exact” and obscure etc. (לאו דוקא וסתום).

Therefore (Rava and) Rambam learn that the Tanna maintains “there were five gates in the Azarah” – Namely, that solely five gates have a law of a gate and are obligated to be guarded.

Therefore, in Sefer “HaYad” where Rambam states the Halachic ruling (like “the view of the majority”) that “it had seven gates”, he precisely notes that the reason that the watch is just on “the five gates of the Azarah” is because the guarding of the Kohanim is (not just “in the Chamber of the Spark and the Chamber of the Hearth – like the view of the Tanna Kama – but, automatically, also) “over the Gates of the Chamber of the Hearth and the Gates of the Chamber of the Spark”.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Devarim 5736

 

Links:
 
Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: