YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH PROJECT(VBM)
**************************************************************
TALMUDIC METHODOLOGY BY RABBI MOSHE TARAGIN
To subscribe send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il: subject:(leave
blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text
type: subscribe yhe-metho
To participate in a weekly discussion group on this shiur
moderated by the instructor, please subscribe to YHE-METH.D as
described above. For direct questions or comments to Rabbi
Moshe Taragin please send email to MT@VIRTUAL.CO.IL.
Copyright (c) 1995 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.
**************************************************************
Kedushat Yerushalayim
The mishna in Pesachim (85b) describes the exact
boundaries of Yerushalayim regarding the location in which it
is permissible to eat the korban Pesach. The mishna states
that the 'top-width' of the walls (ancient walls were built
thick and one could walk or even live in the width-space of
the walls; remember Rachav the prostitute who actually lived
IN the wall), and windows (similarly thick windows built into
the walls) are considered part of Yerushalayim. The gemara,
however, takes issue with this mishna based upon a statement
of Rav regarding the kedusha of the azara (the courtyard of
the Beit Ha-mikdash within which one was allowed to eat
korbanot kodshei kodashim). He declared that the rooftops and
lofts adjacent to the azara were not installed with kedushat
Beit Ha-mikdash - and one could not eat a korban in these
locations. Presumably, any area which was not at 'ground
level' was not installed with kedusha. If so, the top of a
wall (its width) should be no different from adjacent lofts
and rooftops (each not being ground level) and should not
contain kedusha. The mishna seems to contradict Rav's
explicit ruling.
Based upon this question, the gemara adjusts the
statement of the mishna regarding 'walls and windows'. What
the mishna intended was really a very unique type of wall
known as a 'bar shura'. This was, in truth, a small 'mini-
wall' built within the taller outer wall. In many cases the
top of this wall was at the same level of the actual ground of
the azara or of Yerushalayim, as the case may be. The ground
of the Yerushalayim, not being flat had ascents and descents.
Hypothetically, if this mini-wall of Yerushalayim were built
in a low-level location it would then be situated at the very
same level as an acclivity in another area of Yerushalayim.
Hence, it would be considered 'ground level' which contains
kedushat Yerushalayim. It cannot be compared to roofs and
lofts and would not contain the respective kedusha.
SUMMARY:
-----------------
The gemara contrasted the mishna's statement about the
boundaries of Yerushalayim to Rav's about the boundaries of
the azara. This facile comparison forced the gemara to modify
the mishna's mapping.
This alteration of the gemara is largely ignored by the
Rambam. In two instances - Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni 2:16,
Hilkhot Ma'aseh Ha-korbanot 10:5 - he discusses the boundaries
of Yerushalayim and in each case he cites the mishna literally
- that the top-width of the walls as well as windows are
considered part of Yerushalayim. In no instance does he
clarify or elaborate based on the gemara's modifications. In
no instance does he remark that walls only refer to bar shura
- small mini-walls which conceivably are considered ground
level.
In solving the Rambam, the possibility presents itself to
distinguish between the kedusha of Yerushalayim and that of
the azara. Possibly, Rav's statement excluding rooftops and
lofts was made regarding the AZARA, while the mishna in
Pesachim, which includes the top-width of walls, was stated in
reference to YERUSHALAYIM. As these two kedushot are
different, their lines of demarcation are different. Indeed,
the gemara did not differentiate between the two and therefore
posed its question, and arrived at its modification. The
Rambam, however, might have chosen this distinction which the
gemara ignored. This approach, though feasible from a
hypothetical standpoint, cannot solve the Rambam. In Hilkhot
Beit Ha-Bechira 6:9, while discussing the boundaries of the
azara, the Rambam includes the top-width of walls without
adding that this refers only to the special bar shura walls.
Evidently ALL WALLS - those of the azara as well as those of
Yerushalayim contain kedusha even though they are not ground
level.
This approach, however, might explain the position of the
Ra'avad. When the Rambam includes walls within the boundaries
of YERUSHALAYIM (Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aseh Ha-
korbanot) the Ra'avad does not comment. Evidently he accepts
the Rambam's blanket inclusion of all walls - even those which
aren't ground level. However, in Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira,
when the Rambam includes all WALLS within kedushat azara the
Ra'avad disagrees. Being that these walls were not ground
level they do not contain kedushat azara. The only walls
which contain this kedusha, the Ra'avad insists, were bar
shura, which, because of the different gradients, were ground
level. Though, the Rambam maintains the parallel between
Yerushalayim and the azara, the Ra'avad differentiates between
them. All of the walls surrounding Yerushalayim contain its
kedusha, whereas only 'ground-level' walls of the azara
contain its kedusha. Evidently, according to the Ra'avad, the
kedusha of Yerushalayim and that of the azara are disparate.
As stated earlier, the gemara assumed absolute equality
between Yerushalayim and the azara. Rav's statement excluding
the rooftops and lofts was unquestionably applied to
Yerushalayim as well. Rashi states this quite clearly in his
comments to Pesachim (85b). The Yerushalmi in Pesachim
however, cites a machloket regarding the rooftops of
Yerushalayim. Evidently, according to the Yerushalmi as well,
there is room to differentiate between Yerushalayim and the
azara. The mishna's statements regarding the walls and
windows of Yerushalayim does not necessarily apply to the
walls and windows of the azara. Alternatively, Rav's
statement regarding the rooftops and lofts of the azara does
not necessarily have validity regarding Yerushalayim. The two
kedushot are manifestly different.
The Or Same'ach (Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira 6:7) elaborates
on the different textures of kedusha. The kedusha of the
azara is one which, undoubtedly, stems from the general
kedusha of the Beit Ha-mikdash. As such, at its root, it is a
kedusha which inheres within a 'BAYIT' (house) and so is
defined and delimited by the structural considerations of a
house. Any area which is considered part of that house,
necessarily contains kedusha. Any adjacent area which is not
within the confines of the HOUSE is excluded from kedusha.
For this reason Rav excludes the lofts and rooftops from
kedushat azara; these are not regarded as the main living
space of the house. Particularly in the case of the roof, as
they aren't protected within the walls of the house, they can
not be considered part of the dwelling. (The Or Same'ach does
not focus upon this quality of protection but it seems
reasonable given his overall thrust). Similarly, one expects
that the tops of the walls might not be included within
kedushat azara since they do not represent the primary
dwelling area of a house. By contrast, the kedushat
Yerushalayim is one which inheres within a CITY and its scope
is defined by the parameters of a municipal area. For this
reason the mishna in Pesachim asserted that windows and the
top-width of a wall are included within kedushat Yerushalayim.
Though they are not strictly within the confines of a house
(they aren't enclosed by the walls of a house) they are,
nonetheless, part of the city area. Similarly, one might
suggest that according to the Ra'avad, the rooftops and lofts
of Yerushalayim, in contrast to those of the azara do contain
kedusha. Though they might not be considered part of a house
they are considered part of a CITY, whose dimensions extend
far beyond walls
SUMMARY:
-----------------
The Or Same'ach suggested a fundamental distinction
between the essence of kedushat azara and kedushat
Yerushalayim. This would clarify the conflicting statements
accepted by the Ra'avad regarding these distinct areas.
Quite possibly, the Or Same'ach's distinction, and
particularly his definition of kedushat Yerushalayim as one
which is 'urban', would help explain an intriguing halakha
regarding Yerushalayim. The mishna in Shavu'ot (14a)
describes the process by which kedushat Yerushalayim was
conferred. Essentially the entire nation followed Beit Din,
the melekh and the navi in circling Yerushalayim with two
korban todot. Rashi (15a) comments that they circled the city
from its outer periphery - from BEYOND the walls. The Rashba
argues with Rashi and maintains that the walls were circled
from WITHIN. According to Rashi's view, the result was be
that an extra 'step' or 'footspace' outside the walls of the
city were actually installed with kedusha. The Rashba does
not accept this (partially based upon a gemara in Makot (19b))
and maintains that by circling INSIDE the walls, only the
precise area of Yerushalayim was endowed, by the nation, with
kedusha. Presumably, the Or Same'ach's definition of 'urban
kedusha' might afford greater flexibility and accommodate
Rashi's dimensions. Though the 'step' beyond the walls is not
encompassed within the walls, they are certainly part of the
overall 'municipal area' and hence are candidates for kedushat
Yerushalayim.
METHODOLOGICAL POINTS
-----------------------------------------
1. Oftentimes, similar halakhot are compared by the gemara or
by a commentator. Question whether this comparison is
inarguable. Is it possible to distinguish between these
similar but different halakhot?
2. Pay close attention to the manner in which the Rambam
cites a halakha. Oftentimes he cites a mishna, but not the
subsequent alteration of the gemara. This forces a different
thrust to the sugya. Of course, the question of authority -
can the Rambam reject a gemara - remains to be answered.
3. Similarly, inspect the method of the Ra'avad's responses
to the Rambam. Is there consistency in the way he argues with
the Rambam? Can we detect distinctions unique to the Ra'avad
by studying the pattern of his responses?
AFTERWORD:
-------------------
The Or Same'ach's definition of kedushat Yerushalayim has
philosophical ramifications as well. Unlike other cultures
which situate their 'temples' and 'altars' outside the city,
well beyond human habitat, Judaism centralizes its Beit Ha-
mikdash (le-havdil) within the city of Yerushalayim - as the
heart of that city, which in turn is the capital of the
nation. It does not seek to sever religious life from the
common, daily intercourse of 'civil life'. It does not view
the common as that which is profane or unholy threatening to
undermine the intensity of the holy experience. Rather, it
sees within that experience an additional arena for
integrating the entirety of the life cycle within the fabric
of religious experience and Avodat Hashem.
May we all merit the rebuilding of the Beit Ha-mikdash
and the return of all children of Zion to their united
capital.
SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS,
SEMACHOT, BIRTHDAYS, ETC. PLEASE E-MAIL GUSH@PANIX.COM OR
office@etzion.org.il FOR AN APPLICATION.
© Virtual Jerusalem, Ltd., 1995-1996.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Send questions and comments to
webmaster@virtual.co.il