Daf Ditty Yoma 52: Ark, Texts and Historicity

Illustration from the 13th century Morgan Bible of David bringing the Ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6).

§ And this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yosef of Hutzal raised a dilemma with regard to the verse:

And he prepared the Sanctuary in the midst of the house 19 טי דוּ בְ ִ רי וֹתְ בּ - יַבַּה תִ ,הָמיִנְפִּמ ,ןיִכֵה ,ןיִכֵה ,הָמיִנְפִּמ תִ יַבַּה .within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the LORD ןֵתִּתְל ,םָשׁ תֶא - ןוֹרֲא תיִרְבּ .הָוהְ י

I Kings 6:19

“And he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”….This was his dilemma that was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the verse speaking?

The Gemara explains the dilemma. Should it be read: And Solomon prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there, meaning that he placed the partition within the Temple and behind it he prepared a space to place the Ark, and the partition itself did not possess the sanctity of the Holy of Holies? Or perhaps this is what the verse states: A partition in the midst of the House within, i.e., the verse ends there, while the rest of the text forms a new verse. According to this interpretation, the place of the partition itself was part of the Holy of Holies, and that was where Solomon prepared a place for the Ark.

The Gemara is surprised at this explanation: And was Yosef of Hutzal uncertain how to punctuate this verse? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided, i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read.

The first example is the term:

If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou 7 ז אוֹלֲה םִא - ,ביִטיֵתּ ,תֵאְשׂ םִאְו אֹל אֹל םִאְו ,תֵאְשׂ ,ביִטיֵתּ doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its ,ביִטיֵת חַתֶפַּל תאָטַּח ;ץֵבֹר ,יֶלֵאְו ,יֶלֵאְו ;ץֵבֹר תאָטַּח חַתֶפַּל ,ביִטיֵת '.desire, but thou mayest rule over it ,וֹתָקוּשְׁתּ ,הָתַּאְו לָשְׁמִתּ - וֹבּ .וֹ Gen 4:7

“Se’et” It is unclear whether the verse should be read: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up [se’et]?” in which case se’et involves forgiveness and pardon; or: “If you do well, but you will lift up [se’et] your sin if you do not do well.” According to this interpretation, se’et is referring to remembrance: If you do not do well, your sin will be remembered.

The second uncertain case is the term:

-And in the candlestick four cups made like almond 34 דל בוּ מַּ ְ ֹ נ ,הָ ר רַ א בְּ ָ ָ ﬠ ה ה ָ ﬠ ָ בְּ רַ א .blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof :םיִﬠִבְג םיִדָקֻּשְׁמ -- ,ָהיֶרֹתְּפַכּ .ָהיֶחָרְפוּ ,ָהיֶרֹתְּפַכּ Ex 25:34

“Meshukkadim” This verse can be read: “And in the candelabrum four cups made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim]”; or as: “Its knops and its flowers made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim].” In other words, the term meshukkadim can be read either with the first part or the last part of the verse.

Likewise, the term:

And Moses said unto Joshua: 'Choose us out men, and 9 ט רֶמאֹיַּו הֶשֹׁמ לֶא - ַﬠֻשׁוֹהְי רַחְבּ - וּנָל ,םיִשָׁנֲא ,םיִשָׁנֲא וּנָל go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the אֵצְו םֵחָלִּה ;קֵלָמֲﬠַבּ ,רָחָמ יִכֹנָא בָצִּנ לַﬠ - ֹר שׁא שׁא ֹר '.top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand ,הָﬠְבִגַּה הֵטַּמוּ ,םיִהֱאָה יִדָיְבּ . Ex 17:9

“Maḥar” can be read: “And go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow [maḥar]”. Alternatively, it can mean that Joshua must go out to war with Amalek immediately, and Moses added: “Tomorrow [maḥar] I will stand on the top of the hill” , but today you do not need my prayer. Once again, the issue is whether this term belongs to the beginning or the end of the verse.

The fourth case is the term:

,Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath 7 ז רוּרָא םָפַּא יִכּ ,זָﬠ םָתָרְבֶﬠְו יִכּ ;הָתָשָׁק ;הָתָשָׁק יִכּ םָתָרְבֶﬠְו ,זָﬠ יִכּ םָפַּא רוּרָא for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter םֵקְלַּחֲא ,בֹקֲﬠַיְבּ םֵציִפֲאַו יְבּ .לֵאָרְשִׂ }פ{ them in Israel. {P} Gen 49:7

“Arur” This verse can be read: “Cursed [arur] be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel,” on account of Levi and Simeon’s treatment of Shechem. Alternatively, this term, which appears at the beginning of the verse, can be read as the last word of the previous verse:

Let my soul not come into their council; unto their assembly 6 ו םָדֹסְבּ לַא - אֹבָתּ ,יִשְׁפַנ םָלָהְקִבּ לַא - ,let my glory not be united; for in their anger they slew men ֵתּ דַח :יִדֹבְכּ יִכּ םָפַּאְב וּגְרָה ,שׁיִא ,שׁיִא וּגְרָה םָפַּאְב יִכּ .and in their self-will they houghed oxen בוּ רִ צְ ֹ ָנ ם קִּ ﬠ וּרְ - וֹשׁ ר .רוֹ Gen 49:6

“And in their anger they cut off cursed [arur] oxen” According to this interpretation, “cursed oxen” is referring to the oxen of Shechem, who descended from the accursed Canaan.

Finally, the term:

And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Behold, thou art 16 זט רֶמאֹיַּו הָוהְי לֶא - ,הֶשֹׁמ נִּה ְ בֵכֹשׁ בֵכֹשׁ ְ נִּה ,הֶשֹׁמ about to sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise םִﬠ - ;יֶתֹבֲא םָקְ ו םָﬠָה זַּה הֶ זְ ו נָ הָ רֲחַא יֵ יֵ רֲחַא הָ נָ זְ ו הֶ זַּה םָﬠָה םָקְ ו ;יֶתֹבֲא ,up, and go astray after the foreign gods of the land יֵהֱא רַכֵנ - ,ץֶרָאָה רֶשֲׁא אוּה אָב - ,whither they go to be among them, and will forsake Me ָשׁ הָמּ ,וֹבְּרִקְבּ נַבָזֲﬠַו ,יִ רֵפֵהְו תֶא - .and break My covenant which I have made with them ְבּ יִתיִר רֶשֲׁא יִתַּרָכּ .וֹתִּא יִתַּרָכּ רֶשֲׁא יִתיִר Deut 31:16

“Vekam” can be read as: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers and rise up [vekam]” at the time of the resurrection of the dead; or: “And this people will rise up [vekam] and go astray.”

The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name.

If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.

Steinzaltz

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the Torah itself, are there no other examples of indeterminate punctuation? But there is this dilemma that Rav Ḥisda raised with regard to the verse:

And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who 5 ה יַּו ִ ,חַלְשׁ תֶא - יֵרֲﬠַנ יֵנְבּ ,לֵאָרְשִׂי ,וּלֲﬠַיַּו ,וּלֲﬠַיַּו ,לֵאָרְשִׂי יֵנְבּ יֵרֲﬠַנ offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of ;תֹע יַּו ִ וּחְבְּז םיִחָבְז ,םיִמָלְשׁ הָוהיַל -- .oxen unto the LORD ָפּ .םיִר Ex 24:5

“And he sent the young men of the children of Israel who sacrificed burnt-offerings” were these burnt-offerings sheep, and when the verse continues: “And sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,” these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps these and these were bulls, as the word “bulls” is referring both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings? This is another verse whose punctuation is unclear. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not difficult; according to Rav Ḥisda it was uncertain how to read the verse, but the interpretation was obvious to Isi ben Yehuda.

MISHNA: The outer curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hooked [perufa] slightly open on the south side of the Sanctuary, and the inner curtain hooked slightly open on the north side of the Sanctuary, and therefore the High Priest could not enter the Holy of Holies directly. Rather, he enters through the southern opening and walks between the curtains until he reaches the opening to the north. When he reaches the opening to the north, he enters the Holy of Holies through that opening, turns his face to the south, and walks to his left along the curtain until he reaches the area before the Ark.

When he reaches the Ark, he places the coal pan between the two staves. He piles the incense atop the coals, and the whole chamber in its entirety would fill with smoke. He then exits and comes out the way that he entered. He does not turn around but leaves the Holy of Holies walking while facing the Ark. And he recites a brief prayer in the outer chamber, in the Sanctuary. And he would not extend his prayer there so as not to alarm the Jewish people, who would otherwise conclude that something happened and that he died in the Holy of Holies.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? To which time period is the mishna referring? If we say it is speaking about the First Temple, were there curtains then? There was only one curtain over the one-cubit partition. Rather, if we say that the mishna is dealing with the Second Temple, was there an Ark there?

The Gemara elaborates: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that when the Ark was buried, along with it was buried the jar of manna that was next to it, and the flask of oil used for anointing, and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift [doron] to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated:

And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the 8 ח לוּ קְ חַ תְּ םֶ תֶ א - ןוֹרֲא ,הָוהְי םֶתַּתְנוּ וֹתֹא וֹתֹא םֶתַּתְנוּ ,הָוהְי ןוֹרֲא cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return Him לֶא - ,הָלָגֲﬠָה תֵאְו יֵלְכּ בָהָזַּה רֶשֲׁא םֶתֹבֵשֲׁה םֶתֹבֵשֲׁה רֶשֲׁא בָהָזַּה יֵלְכּ תֵאְו ,הָלָגֲﬠָה for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and וֹל ,םָשָׁ א שָׂ תּ וּמיִ אָ ב רַ גְּ ַ ז צִּ מ ;וֹדִּ שְׁ ו לִּ חַ תְּ םֶ םֶ תְּ חַ לִּ שְׁ ו ;וֹדִּ צִּ מ ז ַ גְּ רַ אָ ב וּמיִ שָׂ תּ ,םָשָׁ א וֹל .send it away, that it may go ,וֹתֹא .ָלָהְ ו ,וֹתֹא

I Sam 6:8

“And put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go”

§ And who buried the Ark? Josiah, king of Judea, buried it. And what did he see that he decided to bury it? He saw that it is written:

The LORD will bring thee, and thy king whom thou 36 ול לוֹי ֵ והְ י הָ תֹא ,ְ אְ ו תֶ - ְכְּלַמ רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ְכְּלַמ shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not םיִקָתּ ,יֶלָﬠ לֶא - ,יוֹגּ רֶשֲׁא ֹל א - ָתְּﬠַדָי ָתְּﬠַדָי known, thou nor thy fathers; and there shalt thou serve הָתַּא ;יֶתֹבֲאַו ָתְּדַבָﬠְו םָשּׁ םיִהֱא םיִהֱא םָשּׁ ָתְּדַבָﬠְו ;יֶתֹבֲאַו הָתַּא .other gods, wood and stone רֵחֲא ,םיִ ץֵﬠ .ןֶבָאָו ץֵﬠ ,םיִ רֵחֲא Deut 28:36

“The Lord will bring you, and your king whom you shall set over you, to a nation that you have not known” Since he knew that the Jewish people would ultimately be exiled, he felt it was better that the Ark should not be disgraced in exile, and therefore he arose and buried it.

The Gemara cites the source for the tradition that Josiah buried the Ark. As it is stated:

,And he said unto the Levites that taught all Israel 3 ג רֶמאֹיַּו יִּוְלַל ִ ם םינובמה )םיִניִבְמַּה( לָכְל - that were holy unto the LORD: 'Put the holy ark in ִי לֵאָרְשׂ םיִשׁוֹדְקַּה ,הָוהיַל וּנְתּ תֶא - ןוֹרֲא - the house which Solomon the son of David king of ַה שֶׁדֹקּ יַבַּבּ תִ רֶשֲׁא הָנָבּ הֹמְשׁ ןֶב - דיִוָדּ דיִוָדּ Israel did build; there shall no more be a burden upon ֶלֶמ לֵאָרְשִׂי -- ןיֵא - םֶכָל ,אָשַּׂמ ;ףֵתָכַּבּ ;ףֵתָכַּבּ ,אָשַּׂמ םֶכָל your shoulders; now serve the LORD your God, and ,הָתַּﬠ וּדְבִﬠ תֶא - הָוהְי ,םֶכיֵהֱא ,תֵאְו וֹמַּﬠ וֹמַּﬠ .His people Israel .לֵאָרְשִׂי II Chron 35:3

“And he said to the Levites who taught all of Israel, who were sacred to the Lord: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, built. There shall no more be a

burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel” (II Chronicles 35:3). In other words, from now onward the Levites will no longer carry the Ark on their shoulders, and they should dedicate themselves to their service of singing and locking the gates of the Temple.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, and what is the meaning of the phrase: Reaches the Ark? It means the place of the Ark. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But it is taught that he places the coal pan between the two staves, which indicates that the staves of the Ark were present. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: As though it was between the two staves, i.e., in the place where the staves had been located when the Ark was there.

Summary

The area separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies is marked by curtains with one cubit between them (called the amah teraksim). In calculating this measurement, the rabbis look at our Torah instructions regarding the other measurements in the Sanctuary. We know that the Sanctuary in total is 100 cubits.1

The rabbis have difficulty with a particular verse regarding the measurements for the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yochanan said that Yosef of Hutzal2 told us of the dilemma with I Kings 6:19: "And he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord." We are reminded that Isi ben Yehuda says that there are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided by reading the text on its own:

Se'et (Genesis 4:7) as remembrance: When you do well, your sin will be forgotten.

Meshukkadim (Exodus 25:34) as almond blossoms: referring to either the first part of the verse, ex.: the menorah's four cups are like almond blossoms, or the last part of the verse, ex. its knops and flowers made like almond blossoms".

Machar (Exodus 17:9): as tomorrow, referring to either the first or last part of the verse: from "Fight with Amalek tomorrow", or "Tomorrow I'll stand on top of the hill...".

1 https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2013/12/yoma-52-b.html?m=1 2 Yosef of Hutzal is known by many names, including possibly Yosef of Babylonia, Isi ben Gur Arye, Isi ben Gamliel, Isi ben Mahalalel, and Isi ben Akiva.

Arur (Genesis 49:7) as cursed: where Levi and Simeon treated Shechem with extreme anger and cruelty, or "in anger they cut of the cursed oxen", where the cursed oxen are those from Shechem, who descended from Canaan, also accursed.

Vekam (Deuteronomy 31:16): as 'rise up', either from "Behold, you are about to sleep with your father and rise up (at the time of resurrection)", or "And this people will rise up and go astray"

A new Mishna tells us more about the Sanctuary. It describes how the curtains between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies are constructed and fastened so that the High Priest enters through the southern opening and exits from the northern opening. We learn that the High Priest places the coals and then offers the incense. He leaves the Holy of Holies, now filled with smoke, and returns the way he came. He recites only a brief Prayer on leaving to not worry the Jewish people that he might have died while in the Holy of Holies.

Does this referring to the First Temple or the Second Temple? What happened to the Ark, the jar of manna, the flask of oil, Aaron's staff, and the gifted chest after the destruction of the First Temple? We are told that they were buried on the foundation rock beneath the Holy of Holies. And the rabbis suggest that it was Josiah, King of Judea, who buried the Ark (I Chronicles 35:3).

We end today's daf with questions about precisely where the coals and the incense should be placed by the High Priest. Again, it strikes me that the rabbis are tremendously concerned with determining the exact practice of the past. The underlying theory seems to be that precision regarding the letter of the law is more attainable and (thus?) more important than the spirit of the law. Our traditional practice continues to place inordinate significance upon our practices rather than what is less measurable -- beyond our practice, how we deepen our spiritual connection with God.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

Issi ben Yehudah said: There are five verses in the Torah where the grammatical construction of the verse is undecided (if a certain phrase in the verse should be connected to an earlier clause or a later clause), and they are: ‘se’eis’; ‘like almond’; ‘tomorrow’; ‘cursed’; and ‘rise up’.

And it was also taught in a braisa: Yosef of Hutzal is the same as Yosef the Babylonian, and is identical with Issi ben Yehudah, also with Issi ben Gur Aryeh, also with Issi ben Gamliel, also with Issi ben Mahalalel.

3 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yoma_52.pdf

What was his real name? Issi ben Akiva. [At any event, the verse discussed above is not one of the five ‘undecided’ verses mentioned in his list!?]

The Gemora answers: In the Torah there is no other, but in the Prophets there is. The Gemora asks: But is there in the Torah no other; surely there is, for Rav Chisda inquired: Does the verse mean: And he sent the young men of the Children of Israel, who brought up burnt-offerings, which consisted of lambs; and they slaughtered feast shelamim offerings to Hashem, namely of bulls; or does the word ‘bulls’ refer to both the olah and the shelamim offerings?

The Gemora answers: Rav Chisda had indeed his doubts about it, but to Issi ben Yehudah it was obvious.

The Mishnah states: The outer curtain was held back by a clasp 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 (and entered the Holy of Holies), he turned his face to the south, and went on along with the Curtain to his left, until he reached the (poles of the) Ark. When he reached the Ark, he put the shovel of burning coals between the two poles. He piled the incense upon the coals and the whole house became full with smoke. He goes out and leaves (backwards) in the same manner as he entered, and in the outer chamber, he uttered a short prayer. He did not make the prayer long, so as not to frighten the Jewish people. (52b2 – 52b3) 1

The Gemora asks: To what are we referring here? If it is referring to the first Temple, was there then a Curtain? And if it is referring to the second Temple, was there then an Ark? Surely it has been taught in a braisa that when the Ark was hidden away, the anointing oil, the jar of manna, Aaron’s stick with its almonds and blossoms, and the box that the Philistines sent as a gift to Israel were all hidden away as well (and the Gemora cites the Scriptural verses which support this)!? As it is said: [Take the Ark of Hashem and place it onto the wagon] and put the jewels of gold which you return to Him for a guilt-offering in a box by its side and send it away that it may go. Who hid it? — Yoshiyahu hid it.

What was his reason for hiding it? — He saw the Scriptural passage: Hashem will bring you and your King whom you shall set over you, therefore he hid it, as it is said: And he said to the Levites, that taught all Israel, that were holy to Hashem: Put the holy Ark into the Temple which Solomon, the son of David, King of Israel did build. There shall no more be aburden upon your shoulders now. Serve now Hashem your God and His people Israel. And Rabbi Elozar said: We derive by analogy between the words ‘there’, ‘generations’ and ‘to be kept’ occurring in these passages!4

4 The word ‘there’ occurs, justifying the inference that something must occur in both the Ark and the manna; in the passage referring to the latter, as well as in the passage referring to the oil for anointing the Kohanim the word ‘generations’ occurs, again indicating some justified inference of something in common; finally, in connection with the manna as well as in the passage about the staff of Aaron the word ‘to be kept’ occurs. From all these word analogies the inference is drawn that what manna, bottle, oil, staff of Aaron and Ark had in common is that having been placed in or near the Ark, they also were hidden together. Hence the reference in the Mishnah could not be to the second Sanctuary either.

The Gemora answers: In truth we refer to the second Temple, and what does it mean that ‘he came to the Ark’? It means that he came to the place of the Ark. The Gemora asks: But the Mishnah stated that he put the shovel of burning coals between the two poles?

The Gemora answers: It means that it is as if it were between the two poles.

Gezeirah Shavah for Later Generations

The Gemora states that when the Ark was hidden away, the anointing oil, the jar of manna, Aaron’s stick with its almonds and blossoms, and the box that the Philistines sent as a gift to Israel were all hidden away as well. The Gemora derives this thru a gezeirah shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics; it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah).

The Gevuros Ari asks that it would seem odd that we are using a gezeirah shavah to teach us something that happened many years later? He learns differently in the Gemora. The gezeirah shavah is teaching us that these items were adjacent to the aron in the Kodesh Kodoshim. Once we know that, we can assume that when the Ark was hidden away, these objects went along.

Almonds and Flowers?

Tosfos Yeshanim asks: Why does it mention the flowers by the staff of Aharon if they grew into almonds; there were no flowers? He answers that there were both. Some remained flowers and others grew into almonds.

The Ritva explains that some of the flowers remained in order to magnify the miracle. Rav Moshe says that the purpose of this miracle was to show that in spirituality, nothing gets lost. All efforts are rewarded - unlike by gashmiyos where you only get paid for results. This is the significance of the fact that the flowers remained afterwards

BELOVED ARE THE JEWISH PEOPLE FOR THEY NEED NO "SHALI'ACH"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Kohen Gadol walked along the northern wall of the Heichal in order to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The Gemara points out that the entrance to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was on the northern side of the Heichal, directly in front of the Kohen Gadol as he walked towards it. Although gazing into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim while walking towards it would normally not be respectful, the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur was permitted to walk towards the opening. It was not considered disrespectful because the Kohen Gadol acted in the capacity as the representative of the Jewish people who are beloved to Hashem, as is evidenced by the fact that "they need no Shali'ach."

5 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-052.htm

In what way do the Jewish people need no Shali'ach?

RASHI writes that Shlomo ha'Melech -- in the Tefilah he composed when he dedicated the Beis ha'Mikdash -- mentioned that every Jew is able to pray for himself in the Beis ha'Mikdash and be worthy of Hashem's kindness. A Jew does not need an agent, a Shali'ach, to pray on his behalf. Therefore, the Shali'ach who represents the Jewish people on Yom Kippur is most distinguished and may walk directly into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.

TOSFOS YESHANIM and RITVA question Rashi's explanation. First, in his Tefilah, Shlomo ha'Melech prayed that Hashem should answer the prayer of every non-Jew who calls out to Him, just as he answers the prayer of every Jew (Melachim I 8:43). Rashi there explains that he prayed that a non-Jew should be answered even more readily than a Jew is answered; even if the non-Jew himself is unworthy, Hashem should answer his prayers. Accordingly, the fact that a Jew needs no Shali'ach to pray on his behalf is not unique to the Jew, for a non-Jew also needs no Shali'ach.

Second, the Gemara searches for grounds to permit the Kohen Gadol to walk directly towards the opening of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Why does the Gemara emphasize the greatness of the Jewish people and not that of the Kohen Gadol? The greatness of the Jewish people is not directly relevant to the greatness of the Kohen Gadol.

Due to these questions, the Tosfos Yeshanim and Ritva prefer the explanation of RABEINU CHANANEL: The "Shali'ach" to which the Gemara refers are the golden bells on the hem of the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol. The sound of the bells herald the entrance of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, as the verse says,

And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and the sound 35 הל הָיָהְו לַﬠ - ,ןֹרֲהַא ;תֵרָשְׁל עַמְשִׁנְו עַמְשִׁנְו ;תֵרָשְׁל ,ןֹרֲהַא thereof shall be heard when he goeth in unto the holy place וֹלוֹק בְ בּ ֹ וֹא ֶא ל - שֶׁדֹקַּה יֵנְפִל ,הָוהְי ,הָוהְי יֵנְפִל שֶׁדֹקַּה .before the LORD, and when he cometh out, that he die not בוּ צְ ֵ וֹתא -- אֹלְו .תוּמָי }ס{ Ex 28:35

"Its sound shall be heard (v'Nishma Kolo) when he comes into the sanctuary before Hashem and when he leaves, so that he not die" .

Like a Shali'ach who announces the arrival of a distinguished person, the bells announce the arrival of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. When the Gemara says that the Jews do not need a Shali'ach, it means that on Yom Kippur the Torah does not require the bells to be worn when the Kohen Gadol enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. He must wear only the four Bigdei Lavan which do not include the bells of the Me'il. Since he is permitted to enter on Yom Kippur without the bells heralding his entrance, he is also permitted to walk directly towards the opening of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.

The Acharonim point out that Rashi, who rejects this explanation, follows the opinion he expresses earlier (44b). The Gemara earlier states that the Kaf with which the Kohen Gadol carried the Ketores into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim had a "Ni'ashtok" on it, which Rashi explains was a metal

ring which clanged against the Kaf as a substitute for the sound of the bells of the Me'il which normally rang when the Kohen Gadol wore the Bigdei Zahav.

Accordingly, the Kohen Gadol was required to make his presence known as he approached the Kodesh ha'Kodashim on Yom Kippur. (Although nothing heralded the Kohen Gadol's entry when he returned to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to remove the Kaf and Machtah, apparently no such announcement was necessary since his entry was not to perform an Avodah but simply to remove the Kaf and Machtah.) Rabeinu Chananel there, in contrast, explains that a "Ni'ashtok" is a leather casing with which the Kohen Gadol grasped the Kaf so that it would not burn his hand.6

With regard to the question from the Tefilah of Shlomo ha'Melech, Rashi in Melachim explains that the reason why Shlomo ha'Melech prayed that a non-Jew's prayer should be answered was so that there should be no Chilul Hashem. If the non-Jew's prayer would not be answered, he might say that Hashem has no power. Accordingly, it is not his own merit that causes the non-Jew's prayer to be answered. In contrast, the prayer of the Jew is answered in his own merit.

WAITING UNTIL THE KODESH HA'KODASHIM FILLS WITH SMOKE

The Mishnah states that when the Kohen Gadol would pile the Ketores on top of the coals inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the smoke would rise and fill the entire Kodesh ha'Kodashim, at which point the Kohen Gadol would leave. The Mishnah implies that the Kohen Gadol is required to wait there until the Kodesh ha'Kodashim becomes filled with smoke.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) writes explicitly that the Kohen Gadol must wait until the Kodesh ha'Kodashim is filled with smoke. (The RAMBAN (Vayikra 16:23) apparently disagrees and does not require the Kohen Gadol to wait in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim until the smoke of the Ketores has risen.)

Why is the Kohen Gadol required to wait until the Kodesh ha'Kodashim becomes filled with smoke?

The KIRYAS SEFER (Hilchos Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) writes that this requirement is derived from the order of the verses that describe the Kohen Gadol's Avodah on Yom Kippur. The verse that describes the smoke of the Ketores as it spreads in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (Vayikra 16:13) is followed by the verse that commands the Kohen Gadol to take the blood of the Par and sprinkle it towards the Kapores (16:14). The order of the verses implies that the Kohen Gadol must wait for the smoke to spread before he continues with the next Avodah.

Some Acharonim write that the Torah's requirement that the Kohen Gadol wait is not a unique part of the Avodah of Yom Kippur. Rather, it is a general rule that applies to all of the Avodos in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

6 Rashi understands that "v'Nishma Kolo" is a separate requirement and is not related to the laws of the Me'il, and thus there is no reason to assume that this requirement does not apply even on Yom Kippur. Rabeinu Chananel, however, maintains that the requirement to have bells is part of the laws of the Me'il, and therefore when the Torah says that the Me'il is not worn on Yom Kippur, it means that there is also no requirement to wear bells. It is interesting to note that the RAMBAM, who explains "Ni'ashtok" as Rabeinu Chananel does, does not count "v'Nishma Kolo" as a separate Mitzvah.

The BRISKER RAV (in a letter to his nephew, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, printed in the end of Chidushei ha'Griz) writes that the Kohen Gadol's task in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was not merely to burn the Ketores there, but to fill the Kodesh ha'Kodashim with the smoke of the Ketores. The Torah commands him to ensure that the "cloud of smoke of the Ketores shall cover the Kapores." Consequently, the Kohen Gadol is required to stay there and wait until his Avodah is completed, until the Kodesh ha'Kodashim fills with smoke. This is because of a general rule that when one performs an Avodah, he must wait in his place until the Avodah is completed.

This rule is reflected in the Mishnah later (68b) which says that when the Kohen Gadol sent the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach to the mountainside, he was not permitted to begin the next Avodah (to go to the Ezras Nashim and read the Torah to the people) until he was informed that the Sa'ir had reached the wilderness (Rashi to 68b, DH Amru Lo and DH Na'asis).

Since the Kohen Gadol's Avodah at that moment was to send the Sa'ir to the wilderness, his Avodah was not completed until the Sa'ir actually reached the wilderness. Therefore, he was required to wait in his place until he heard that the Sa'ir reached the wilderness, and only then was he permitted to continue with the next part of the Avodah.

RAV YOSEF DOV SOLOVEITCHIK (in the above-mentioned letter, and in his Kuntrus Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim) suggests another reason for why the Kohen Gadol must wait until the Kodesh ha'Kodashim fills with smoke. He writes that when the Kohen Gadol enters the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, his entry is not merely a means to perform the Avodah inside. Rather, the act of entering and the act of exiting themselves are forms of Avodah. Similarly, when the Torah teaches that the Kohen Gadol must wait there, it means that his act of waiting is part of the Avodah. His act of waiting is an independent act, and it is not merely an auxiliary part of the burning of the Ketores. Nevertheless, the time span which he must wait is determined by the time it takes for the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to fill with smoke.

This approach answers another question. The Mishnah (Tamid 6:3) teaches that during the rest of the year, when the Kohen offers the Ketores in the Heichal he bows down before he leaves. On Yom Kippur, however, the Kohen Gadol does not bow down after he offers the Ketores in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Why does he not bow down on Yom Kippur? The reason why he does not bow down is because a position of prostration is not a standing position. A Kohen must stand while he performs an Avodah. Accordingly, the Kohen Gadol may not bow in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim after he offers the Ketores, because the requirement to wait until the room fills with smoke is considered an Avodah.

This approach also explains the Gemara in Chulin (10b) which proves that walking backwards is considered a valid act of "Yetzi'ah" (exiting from a place in a normal manner) from the fact that the Kohen Gadol walked backwards out of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim in deference to the Shechinah. Why is the Kohen Gadol's manner of exiting the Kodesh ha'Kodashim proof that walking backwards is considered a proper "Yetzi'ah"? Perhaps the Kohen Gadol merely needs to leave the Kodesh ha'Kodashim in any way he can, and he does not have to go out with a formal act of "Yetzi'ah." It must be that he is required to enter and exit in a normal manner, because his entry to

and exit from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim is considered an Avodah. If walking backwards would not be considered a proper "Yetzi'ah," the Kohen Gadol would not be permitted to exit in that manner.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:7

After describing how the kohen gadol would walk between the curtains in order to enter the Holy of Holies, the Mishnah on our daf teaches that he would put the shovel containing the coals between the poles of the aron (the Ark of the Covenant).

The Gemara attempts to understand whether the Mishnah is discussing the first or the second Temple. As we learned on the previous daf, in the first Temple, there were no curtains, but a wall. In the second Temple, however, there was no aron!?

The Gemara explains that the Mishnah means to say that the kohen gadol placed the shovel in the place where the aron was supposed to be, and that it is discussing the second Temple period.

Why was there no aron in the second Temple? The Gemara quotes a baraita that the aron had been hidden away towards the end of the first Temple period by King Yoshiyahu, who understood that the passage (Devarim 28:36) which described the exile was referring to his time. The Radak, in fact, explains that this is the passage that was highlighted in the sefer Torah discovered during Yoshiyahu’s reign (see the story in II Melakhim 22).

Our Gemara teaches that according to that tradition, several other items that were on display in the Temple were concealed together with the ark. They included the container of manna, Aharon the high Priest’s staff and the shemen ha-mish’chah, the pitcher of oil used for anointing.

The shemen ha-mish’hah was made from afarsimon (which may be identical to the tzari mentioned in the Torah), which was, apparently the plant Commiphora apobalsamum. This is a small tree or shrub that stands from 10 to 12 feet high, with wand-like, spreading branches. The best perfume that can be extracted from it drips from the seeds, but it is usually produced by boiling the branches. The oil that is extracted from this plant was occasionally used as a medicine, but more as incense or perfumed oil. The afarsimon was considered so valuable that at one point it was literally worth its weight in gold.

The shemen ha-mish’ha was used to anoint kings and high priests. The Rosh points out that the need to anoint the high priest is a clear passage in the Torah (see Shemot 30:30), but there appears to be a prohibition to use the oil on any other person (see Shemot 30:32). How was the decision made to use this oil on kings, as well?

He answers that the Gemara in Megilla understands that it is only forbidden to use this oil on a normal person. The king is not simple an adam (man) and therefore he does not fall into the category of the prohibition.

7 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_5157/

Sara Ronis writes:8

The Torah is an incredibly complex text. It is a product of a particular time and place but with timeless resonances. It contains narratives, laws and poetry. It tells the story of the Israelites and of the universe itself. Beyond these important thematic and generic issues, today’s daf reminds us of yet another reason that the biblical text is so complex – it has no punctuation!

That’s right. Biblical Hebrew has neither periods nor commas, colons nor quotation marks. And that means that before we can understand the deeper spiritual meaning of the text, we have to first understand where each sentence starts and stops. This problem is more than theoretical — it has real implications for how we understand a range of issues relating to the ancient Israelites.

Today’s daf gives us a number of examples. The first relates to King Solomon’s construction of the First Temple:

“And he (Solomon) prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord.” (I Kings 6:19)

The Gemara explains the problem:

Should it be read: “And Solomon prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there” (i.e. Solomon is creating a space in the larger Temple within which to put the Ark)? Or perhaps this is what the verse states: “A partition in the midst of the House within” (i.e. in the inner-most part of the House)?

The Gemara’s real question is about the holiness status of the partition itself — is it considered to be part of the larger Temple with its general degree of holiness, or is it considered to be part of the Holy of Holies with its heightened degree of holiness? The first way of parsing the verse supports the first interpretation, and the second way supports the second.

So which is it? The Gemara doesn’t answer the question; instead it then discusses another five cases in which it is unclear how to punctuate the biblical texts — cases in which the different interpretations have real theological and practical consequences for how we think about the Temple and our relationship with God. Perhaps most frustratingly, it doesn’t resolve any of these cases!

We can note with some relief that of the entire unpunctuated text of the Torah, the rabbis of the Gemara only note five or six places where they are unsure of how to actually punctuate it. But even this degree of uncertainty was too much for many medieval Jews.

Today, if you pick up any printed Hebrew edition of the Torah, you’ll notice that the whole thing is punctuated. That’s because a group of Jewish scholars called the Masoretes worked to systematize the Torah’s punctuation, pronunciation and grammar. In the medieval period, Jews living in the land of Israel and Babylonia were part of a broader movement among Muslims, Jews and others in Middle East and North Africa to understand the language of sacred scripture in

8 Myjewishlearning.com

stunning detail. Among other projects, the Masoretes decided how to divide up the different sections and verses of the Torah and added the Torah trope — marks that we still use today as a chanting guide — as a way to note these divisions. Any printed Jewish Bible that you buy today will be based on their version of the biblical text — which scholars call the “Masoretic Text.”

And yet, Judaism retains both memory and ritual related to the biblical text’s original unpunctuated form. As any Jewish teen who labored to learn how to chant their Torah portion in Hebrew at their Bar or Bat Mitzvah can tell you, the Torah scrolls used in synagogues today are still unpunctuated. Today’s daf is a helpful reminder that this challenge is not new — it’s actually over a thousand years old!

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:9

When Am Yisrael reached the Yam Suf, with the water ahead of them and the Egyptians behind them, Moshe began to pray. However, as Chazal explain, God then spoke with Moshe and said, “Now is not the time for a prolonged prayer when the people of Israel are in distress” (see Rashi on Shemot 14:15). What we learn from here is that notwithstanding the most intense of situations, the anxiousness and distress of others is a determinant factor in terms of the length of our prayers to God.

Of course, when a person prays alone, or when they pray with others but in a situation where others are not relying on them or waiting for them, they should take their time in prayer. For example, the Gemara (Brachot 31a) describes the intense prayer experience of Rabbi Akiva when he prayed alone. Still, the same Gemara notes that when Rabbi Akiva was praying with the community – who likely waited for him to complete his prayers – he too shortened his prayers (nb. on this distinction, see also Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah 6:2).

Significantly, when Moshe was at the Yaf Suf, or when Rabbi Akiva was praying with others, each were visible. However, we learn from a further story – namely that of the Egel HaZahav – that when someone – in this case, Moshe – is not visible to the people and appears to have taken longer than expected, this can frighten the people to such an extent that their fear causes them to make rash and irresponsible decisions.

I mention all this by way of introduction to what we are taught in the Mishna (Yoma 5:1) in our daf (Yoma 52b), that when the Kohen Gadol left the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kippur, ‘he recited a short prayer in the Heichal (Kodesh) but he did not prolong his prayer so as not to frighten the people.’ This is because there was a tradition that a Kohen Gadol who deviated from the sacred Yom Kippur service would die, and so if the Kohen Gadol prolonged his prayers, this frightened the people.

Admittedly, as noted by Rabbi Menachem Kasher (quoting the Sefer ‘Melechet Machshevet’), the small bells on the clothes of the Kohen Gadol did provide some solace to the people, because by hearing the bells chime, they would have known that the Kohen Gadol was still moving.

9 www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

Nevertheless, even with these bells, the Kohen Gadol is taught not to prolong his prayers (on this point see Yoma 53b which recounts how a Kohen Gadol – identified in the Yerushalmi as Shimon HaTzaddik - did prolong his prayers, yet notwithstanding the sincerity of his prayers, he was told that he should not have done so).

However, there is also a deeper meaning of the words of this Mishna – due to the deep connection between the story of the Egel and Yom Kippur – the day of its atonement. And what we learn from our Mishna is that the deliberate instruction to the Kohen Gadol not to prolong his prayer so as not to frighten the people is a reminder of the consequences of leaders (seemingly) taking too long and thereby frightening the people.

And why is it so significant that this relates to the prayers uttered by the Kohen Gadol upon leaving the Kodesh Kodashim? Because this was where the broken and new luchot were kept; the luchot that were broken in response to the Egel, and the luchot that were given again on the original Yom Kippur for the Jewish people (nb. while I initially thought of this connection, I was delighted to see that this too was the thinking of Danny Nagen as noted by his brother R’ Yaakov in his sefer ‘Nishmat HaMishna’).

Overall, what we learn from here is that a religious leader needs to concern themselves with both spiritual and emotional leadership. They need to pray on behalf of the people. But they also need to instill a feeling of confidence to the people. And if – even with the best of intentions – the spiritual actions of a leader cause the people to feel anxious, distress or frightened – then there aren’t doing their job as they should because the feelings of the people is an essential part of the priorities of a leader.

There's No Way to Know

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:10 Great literature lends itself to multiple, even contradictory, interpretations. And the Bible is--in addition to everything else--great literature. "Isi ben Yehuda said that five verses in the Torah ein lo hechreh, have no definitive reading: shet (lifted up), mesukadim (shaped like almond blossoms), machar (tomorrow), arrur (cursed), v'kam (stand up)" (our daf Yoma 52a-b). Isi ben Yehuda refers to five biblical verses in which a word can be read with what comes before or with what follows. Moshe tells Joshua to "go and fight Amalek...I will stand on the top of hill with the rod of God in my hand" (Shemot 17:9). Where I have put ellipsis appears the word machar, tomorrow. It is unclear whether machar should be read with the first half of the verse, as in go fight Amalek tomorrow; or with the second half, so that that the verse reads that they should fight Amalek today, but only tomorrow will Moshe go to the mountain.

10 https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-52-theres-no-way-to-know

Similarly, it is generally understood that Yaakov, on his deathbed, cursed Shimon and Levi for their killings of the people of Shechem in retaliation for the rape of Dinah. Such an interpretation assumes that the word arrur, cursed, by which Yaakov "blesses" Shimon and Levi introduces the words that follow, apam ki az, so that the verse reads "cursed be their anger, [which] is fierce". However, Isi ben Yehuda raises the possibility that arrur is the concluding word of the immediately prior phrase [1] referring to the people of Shechem, so that it is they who are cursed, with Yaakov noting (praising?) the fierce anger of Shimon and Levi. Which of these is the correct interpretation? Ein lo hechreh, there is no way to determine; nor does it matter. Or to put it differently, both are true [2]. If the Torah is written in such a way as to have two (or more) possible readings, that is because both have their place. Maaseh avot siman lebanim, the actions of our forefathers are a sign for us. What Yaakov actually did is much less important than which we can learn from Yaakov's actions. And depending on the given situation, there is a time to take revenge against our enemies and a time when it would be ill advised (and hence a terrible sin). Sometimes we must fight today, and sometimes it's best to wait another day. Our Sages teach that each day we must perceive that the Torah is being given anew (see Rashi Devarim 26:16). And thus, each day we must carefully weigh the best response to any given situation. While the teaching above is quoted in the name of Isi ben Yehuda, the Gemara tells us that he actually had five other names by which he was called, not including his real name, Isi ben Akiva. I find it most interesting that a teaching about "lack of clarity" would be taught by someone whose name is a bit unclear. Isi ben Yehuda appears infrequently in the Talmud. One of his teaching is the inclusion of non- Jews in the obligation "to stand before the elderly". Isi ben Yehuda greatly valued life experiences, with the lessons learned making all the elderly worthy of special honour. While there seems to be little connection between these two teachings of Isi ben Yehuda (and there may not be one) perhaps there is. As one gains life experience and matures, one realizes that many things in life ein lo hechreh, have no definitive answer. And it is those same life experiences that help greatly in learning how to apply life's lessons to any given situation.

[1] Prima facie, this reading seems implausible, as the word arrur is the first word of the verse; so it is difficult to claim that it refers to the prior verse rather than the verse where it actually appears. Presumably, Isi ben Yehuda is reading an actual Torah scroll, where there are no verses (Ritva) or questioning whether the way we break up the verses is the correct one (Maharsha). [2] The other three biblical words listed that we cannot determine how to read refer to the placement of the almond-like design on the menorah (Shemot 25:34), God's response to Cain's anger for having his sacrifice rejected (Breisheet 4:7), and Moshe's exhortation to the people of Israel to follow the ways of the Torah after he dies (Devarim 31:16).

Where was the Ark hidden?

Our Daf (Yoma 52b, 53b-54a) explains that the Ark was actually removed from the Temple quite early, at the end of the First Temple era – and the Second Temple never had one.11

According to one opinion it was taken to Babylonia at the time Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem and exiled King Jeconiah and the upper classes. (He then placed Jeconiah’s uncle Zedekiah on the throne for another eleven years, until the final invasion and the Temple’s destruction.) This is implied by II Chronicles 36:10 which states that King Nebuchadnezzar exiled Jeconiah to Babylonia “with the precious utensils of House of God.” (See also Isaiah 39:6.)

According to a second opinion, the righteous King Josiah, knowing that the Temple would shortly be destroyed, had the Ark hidden away. (Some of the other special items which had been kept with the Ark were also hidden – such as the jar of Manna (Exodus 16:32-34), the anointing oil (Exodus 30:22-33), and Aaron’s staff which had blossomed (Numbers 17:25).)

Where was the Ark hidden? We have no tradition that it ended up in Ethiopia (as is claimed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church), and it certainly wasn’t placed in a warehouse in Washington D.C. Rather, the Talmud records the following incident:

A Priest was once in one of the side chambers of the Temple, designated for the storage of wood. He noticed a stone which had clearly been tampered with (and wasn’t aligned with the others). He suspected that the Ark had been hidden there. He ran over to tell his fellow but died suddenly before he could complete his account. (Thus, it became known roughly where the Ark was hidden but not precisely, and the people understood that its whereabouts was intended to remain secret.)

Another opinion in the Talmud states that the Ark was hidden in its place in the Holy of Holies, in the ground underneath it.

Some of the commentators state that King Solomon himself, knowing his Temple would ultimately be destroyed, designed a complex arrangement of tunnels beneath the Temple grounds in order to hide the Ark of the Covenant should the Temple be destroyed. It was there that Josiah later hid it. (See Radak to II Chronicles 35:3 and Maimonides Mishne Torah Beit HaBechira 4:1. See also Talmud Sotah 9a that the entire Tabernacle of Moses was likewise hidden in the tunnels beneath the Temple Mount.) There have been some efforts to excavate this area in modern times, but very few and with little success due to the politically contentious nature of the area.

A final opinion, cited in the Book of Maccabees II 2:4-10, is that the Prophet Jeremiah, knowing the Babylonians would soon invade, took the Ark and several other sacred items out of the Temple and hid them in a cave on Mount Nebo, in present-day Jordan. This is the mountain which Moses years earlier ascended to view the Holy Land just before he died.

As mentioned above, the Second Temple did not have the Ark of the Covenant. In fact, this was one of a number of items which the Talmud (Yoma 21b) states the Second Temple lacked. Others were the Divine Presence (Shechinah) and the Urim and Thummim – parchment containing God’s name which was placed inside the fold of the High Priest’s breastplate. It was still possible to do the Temple service without these, but the Temple did not have the same degree of sanctity. God

11 https://www.aish.com/atr/Where-is-the-Ark-of-the-Covenant-Today.html

willing, when the Third Temple is rebuilt, it will include the Ark and all the sacred items stolen or missing since antiquity.

EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE MASORETIC CANTILLATION MARKS IN ECCLESIASTES

Michael Carasik writes:12

The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible includes not only the consonants and vowels with which Hebrew readers are familiar, but also a third group of symbols, generally assigned one to a word. In contemporary usage these symbols indicate how the text is to be chanted for the purpose of synagogue reading. Hence, they are sometimes referred to in English as "cantillation marks." Yet

12 Hebrew Studies , 2001, Vol. 42 (2001)

they also perform two other functions: to mark the stressed syllable (hence the alternative term "accents") and, more significantly for the present in essence, to punctuate the verse.13 A rabbinic tradition preserved in b. Yoma 52a-b suggests that five biblical verses are "undecidable" that is, it is not clear how they ought to be punctuated.14

Midrash allocates to itself a great deal of freedom in this respect. Thus, in Gen 27:19, when Isaac asks, "Who are you, my son?" Jacob replies, I am Esau, your firstborn." Two rabbinic traditions insist that Jacob did not lie. Instead of the slight pause of the pashta in the Masoretic text,3 they read the phrase as if 3 had a much stronger disjunctive accent: . "It's me!? Esau is your firstborn."15

To be sure, this contradicts the Masoretic punctuation of the verse; but sometimes the cantillation marks themselves are exegetical in character. Simcha Kogut is the latest of a number of scholars to show that the biblical text is sometimes punctuated "against" the peshat, the meaning which a "reasonable" reader would assume to have been intended by the author.5

Thus, in Gen 24:8, Abraham tells his servant, who has gone back to Mesopotamia to fetch a wife for Isaac, . The peshat understanding of the verse is "only, my son you must not take back there." But this translation assumes a disjunctive accent on when the existing cantillation marks group as a phrase. This permits the rabbinic reading of the verse, "Only my son you must not take back there"? but my grandson, Jacob, may go back.6

15 This tradition is found as early as Gen. R. 65:18: "Said R. Levi: I will one day receive the Ten Commandments, but Esau is your firstborn." (Italics indicate interpretive material added to the biblical verse.)

Choon-Leong Seow's recent Anchor Bible commentary on Ecclesiastes7 notes over a dozen probable or possible places in that book where biblical scholars have suggested that the Masoretic punctuation does not match the intended meaning of the text. Seow is a careful reader and, moreover, one who is not given to rash emendation. Hence his work serves as a kind of control for the present study. His suggestions that a cantillation mark is misplaced are independent of the question under review here. To ensure completeness and avoid the pitfalls of relying on the judgment of a single individual, a few possible instances encountered in the course of research have been added to those suggested by Seow. The purpose of this paper is to analyze these cases to determine whether any of these examples were indeed prompted by exegetical concerns, and to identify the sources in which such interpretive punctuation might have originated. If a pattern can be discovered, we will have achieved a greater understanding of the basis for the Masoretic punctuation of the biblical text.16

Our survey has not been completely conclusive, since we have had to leave several examples unexplained. But it would seem that the Targum gives us an insight into the perspective of the Masoretes.

We have seen several occurrences in this small book where the Targum translated the same word twice? that is, they translated simultaneously in accordance with two different decisions about how the verse should be punctuated.

I suggest that, in many cases, the Masoretic decision to place a pause in a location that seems to contradict the peshat was made not to contradict it, but to add a second possibility. Given the Talmudic declaration that only five verses in the Torah are undecidable in this way, one may say that the Masoretes per formed their task with quite a gentle touch. They do not seem to have wished to force a particular exegesis upon the reader.

Rather, despite the restrictive quality of the vowels and punctuation marks which they were adding to the traditional consonants, they may, paradoxically, have been actuated by a desire to preserve the indeterminability of the text which had enabled Jewish interpreters for more than a millennium to use the Bible as a springboard for their own literary and theological imagining.

The Maculation of Texts

Professor David Weiss-Halivni writes:17

CONTINUOUS REVELATION

From the insistence on Halakhah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai, and its frequent use, (in contrast to its alternative - finding biblical sources through exegesis,) one would infer that the later one moves into rabbinic history, the more exclusive the Sinaitic revelation becomes - a one-time event that contained all necessary knowledge, making any subsequent revelations, "minor" or "major",

17 : Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research , 1996, Vol. 62 (1996),

superfluous. However, the concept of "continuous revelation"18 seems to be implied in the posi- tions of those who maintain a "maximalistic" approach to revelation as well as those who justify changing religious laws. The maximalistic approach is embarrassed by the frequent disagreements (makhloqot) found in rabbinic law.19 If every law was given to Moses on Sinai, "including what an astute student will innovate..." a disagreement could occur only through a break in tradition; what was known before was forgotten later - a supposition that does not sit well with a maximalistic attitude. What else might have been forgotten; and how do we know that the final decision complies with the original revelation? Moreover, if the law was already determined (once and for all at Sinai,) those who disagreed with it, who held different opinions, were in fact living in sin, acting against God's command - an untenable position since it would make most Sages sinners. The only way dilemma is to posit "continuous revelation" and to consider final decisions among rabbinic adversaries (and, most often, such decisions are reached) as authentic parts of revelation. In fact, the decision that the law follows the Hillelites, and not the Shammaites, was revealed by a bat kol, a heavenly voice. Continuous revelation makes revelation complete, but not original - not the revelation of Sinai. Originally - the advocates of the maximalistic approach must contend - revelation had no opinions on matters which were later to arise and to become embroiled in disputes. (Of course, this makes Mosaic revelation incomplete.)

Thus, either opinion in a dispute was acceptable in principle, and the practical decision was postponed to a later period when, after argumentation, a final decision was reached. That decision then took on the force of revelation (restoring completeness to the latter), and whoever violated it violated revelation as well. "Before the decision to follow the Hillelites was made," says B.T. Erubin 6b (based on the Tosefta, Sukkah 2, 3), "whoever wanted to act like the Shammaites, could do so; and whoever wanted to act like the Hillelites, could do so. After the decision, the law was like the Hillelites (and included all the attendant punishments for infringement)."

Before the law was decided in favor of the Hillelites, revelation had nothing to say on the matter and the decision between the two camps was left to the individual. After the bat kol, the law of the Hillelites acquired the status of revelation. Similarly, the content of the Shulchan Aruch, the sixteenth century code of law composed by R. Joseph Karo, is binding in nature - which was not so before - because it was accepted by the majority of Israel, which bestows upon it the sanctity of revelation.

Classical rabbinic literature knows not of continuous revelation. Its occasional reference to Heavenly interventions, like Heavenly voices, holy spirit, et cetera, are not decisive in Halakhic matters.’20 The normative position of this literature is that a revelator of various forces, historical (zechut avot), religious (and perhaps also cosmological) combined – in a way that will never repeat itself – to bring about a constellation in which God encountered human beings and revealed Himself to them. The Torah is the legacy of that encounter and whatever is required for spiritual

18 Isaac Barnays, "Der Biblische Orient", anonymous, 1, pp. 32-34; L. Duckes, Jahrbuch des Judish-Litararischen Geselschaft, 1907, p. 310; Isaac Heineman, Ta'amei Hamitzvot Besifrut Yisrael, Jerusalem 1956, vol. II, pp. 164-166, 280

19 For the Geonic solution to the problem of Mahlokot, see M. Zucker, "leBa'ayat HaMal7lokot", S. Baron Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem, 1975; S. Abramson, Sinai, 88, 1818, pp. 214-215, and my article "On Man's Role in Revelation" in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, J. Neusner et al., ed., Brown University, 19

20 See R. Margoliot, She'lot Utsuvot min HaShamayim, Jerusalem, 1957, pp. 25, 41

instruction and well-being is contained therein, either through oral revelations or through exegesis. That legacy is complete. It needs no further intervention. Makhloqot are a sign that its exegetical message is not clear, and that there is no oral information on the topic. Even when one claimed that he had a true Halakhah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai, if that information was not shared by many others, the Rabbis were suspicious of its authenticity and did not consider it binding. One had the right to disagree. According to continuous revelation, as viewed by the maximalists, once the law is decided, the previous contrary opinions have no halakhic standing and cannot be used as a consideration, even when circumstances change. The final decision is “revelatory” and binding.

According to reformers, continuous revelation confers a “revelatory” right to change a law once it is perceived those circumstances have changed. For such believers in continuous revelation, rejected opinions still may be used for leverage in situations in which the previously established law is no longer realizable. In contrast to both views, one may adopt the position that revelation was indeed a single, unique event, endowed with unique power and authority. The Torah of Sinai is the product of this revelation; and the Torah as canonized by Ezra, we have stated, is not only the closest possible approximation of this original Torah, after centuries of idolatry, but is also the canon as endorsed by prophetic authority. This Torah serves as the basis and the inspiration for all subsequent decisions of law, and disputes arise, not because of continuous revelation of any kind, but because of the imperfection of human understanding, and the lacunae of tradition.

If we do not accept continuous revelation, and do not see the later decisions of poskim (halakhic commentators) as endowed with revelatory power, then such decisions have primarily pragmatic value – they foster unified behavior among various constituents. By themselves, these decisions add no new divine dimension to the views they expound. Deciding in favor of one view over another does not affect the revelatory composition whose source and validation lie solely in the Sinaitic revelation of the Torah (written and oral) and in the interpretation of this revelation. No human act can aspire to that status.

The awareness of maculation in the transmission of the Torah itself, and of consequent difficulties in interpretation, instills a sense of humility, revealing human frailties and weaknesses so great that God's words were tainted by them - revealing that whatever human beings touch has the potential for corruption. Yet despite the tainting, these words are still the most effective way of becoming closer to God, approaching His presence. We cannot live without these words there is no spiritual substitute - but while we are living with them, we are keenly aware that we are short of perfect, that along the historical path we have substituted our voice for the divine voice. We are condemned to live this way.

The awareness of maculate text also calls for greater tolerance for the deviant. One ought to live a life avoiding even doubtful pitfalls; but one may not condemn others, let alone hate or persecute them, unless one is sure, beyond all doubt, of one's convictions - and we are rarely granted such assurance.