More Discussions for this daf
1. Two teachers 2. A question for Parashat Yisro... 3. Learning out the din Perisha
4. b'Makom Gilah 5. L'MaReK 6. Kabalah as it relates to one rav holding with another
7. Rebbi Yosi ha'Galili and Rebbi Akiva 8. Prishah as learned from Har Sinai
DAF DISCUSSIONS - YOMA 4

Daniel Steinberg asks:

Rashi on 4a (d.h. "Zeh Maaseh") seems to imply that the reason for R'Akiva learning that there was no Prisha of Moshe by Har Sinai is because there was no Prisha during the first 6 days of Moshe going up and down the mountain. (see also Rashi 4b, d.h. "Va'Yichasehu Ha'anan"). But the Gemara seems to imply the reason for R'Akiva learning the cloud covered the mountain (and not Moshe) is because he holds like R'Yosi, that the Torah was given on the 7th, therefore he CAN learn the Pasuk refers to before Har Sinai (as opposed to R'Yosi HaGlili who holds the Torah was given on the 6th and MUST hold the cloud covered Moshe and not the mountain).

Daniel Steinberg, Columbus, OH USA

The Kollel replies:

Daniel, a gut gebentshed year and we should her Besoros Tovos very soon!

I will just give a short answer now, and hope, bs'd, to explain this a bit more later on.

The first part of Rashi is saying what R. Akiva holds; that there was no Perishah during the first 6 days because Moshe was going up and down the mountain. Rashi does not yet explain where R. Akiva knows this from. The Gemara 4b explains that R. Akiva knows this because he holds like R. Yosi.

There is a hint at what I have written in the last words of Rashi DH Zeh Maaseh, when he writes "below it explains from where is it obvious [to R. Yosi HaGalili] that these 6 days were after the 10 Dibros". Rashi here is explaining according to R'Y HaGalili that firstly the Gemara explained what happened according to his opinion, and the same thing will apply according to R. Akiva; that firstly the Gemara states what happened according to his opinion, and later on it says where R. Akiva knew this from.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

1) I was looking again at what you wrote, Daniel:-

"the reason for R'Akiva learning that there was no Prisha of Moshe by Har Sinai is because there was no Prisha during the first days of Moshe going up and down the mountain+".

That looks a little strange to me, since the 2 statements about Prisha are really the same, so one cannot really say that the second part of the sentence is the reason for the first part. Rather, the statements about Prisha are facts but the reason is only stated on 4b. The Gemara states on 4b (10 lines from the top) "BeMai KeMifligee?" Rashi explains that this means "what proof do they cite for thieir words?". This is the first time in the sugya that the Gemara asks what is the reason of R. Yosi HaGalili and R. Akiva.

2) You wrote that R' Yosi Hagalili MUST hold that the cloud covered Moshe and not the mountain and you seem to imply that R' Akiva only CAN hold that the cloud covered the mountain but he could also hold that it covered Moshe. I am trying to figure out where you got this from.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Daniel asks:

Thank you, R'Dovid, for the quick reply.

I'm not sure I understand what you've written. I was under the impression that it was a Davar Muskam that there was no Perisha of Moshe during the first days of Sivan, where he was going up and down the mountain each day - and that is not Taluy on any particular Shita (Tanna Kamma/R'Yosi) regarding which day the Torah was given.

I was also under the impression that Rashi's intention in stating this when explaining R'Akiva was to provide a reason for why he does not agree with R'Yosi HaGli'lilee - namely, if it's really true that entering Machaneh Shechinah requires Perisha, how is it possible that Moshe could have been going up and down all those initial days of Sivan without it.

My question was only - the Gemara never supplied that as R'Akiva's reason for not holding like R'Yosi HaGli'lilee, so why does Rashi mention 2x's?

Warm regards, and wishes for safety and protection for all of Klal Yisrael.

-Daniel Steinberg

The Kollel replies:

1) Yes, Daniel, you are right. Even according to Rebbe Yosi HaGalili that there was Perishah for Moshe, this was only after the 10 Dibros.

2) I do not understand what you write that R. Akiva said that if entering Machaneh Shechina requires Perisha how could Moshe go up and down at the beginning of Sivan? R. Yosi HaGalili has a clear answer to that challenge; namely that the Perishah only started on 7 Sivan after the 10 Dibros.

3) Rashi DH Zeh Maaseh writes that the reason; according to R. Yosi HaGalili; that one cannot say that the 6 days were from 1 Sivan to 6 Sivan, is because the 6 days were from 7 Sivan onwards. This is the Machlokes stated below 4b if the Torah was given on the 6th or the 7th.

Daniel, thank you for your good wishes. May our learning Torah add zechuyos to Am Yisrael.

Chodesh Tov

Dovid Bloom

Daniel asks:

Shalom, R'Dovid.

Shitas Reish Lakish, whom the Gemara aligns with Shitas R'Yosi HaGlili, is that Perishah is necessary for the Kohein Gadol in preparation for his entering Machaneh Shechinah, the same way Moshe was Poresh prior to the receiving of the Aseres HaDibros.

If it is really true, what you write here:

2) I do not understand what you write that Rebbi Akiva said that if entering Machaneh Shechinah requires Perishah, how could Moshe go up and down at the beginning of Sivan? Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili has a clear answer to that challenge -- namely, that the Perishah only started on 7 Sivan after the Aseres ha'Dibros.

What is the Svarah that Perishah in preparation for Machaneh Shechinah for Moshe would only be necessary post-Matan Torah? Didn't Moshe enter and exit Machaneh Shechinah multiple times in his ascent/descent to Har Sinai during the first several days of Sivan? Why wouldn't a Perishah be required in preparation for those entries?

Also, what is the purpose of the word "She'Harei" that Rashi uses twice, once on 4a (d.h. "Zeh Maaseh") and once on 4b (d.h. "Va'Yichasehu Ha'Anan") - which seems to indicate he is bringing a proof to why R'Akiva holds the way he does, namely that you cannot say the cloud covered Moshe on the 7th onwards in preparation for entry to Machaneh Shechinah, like R'Yosi HaGlili says, since there was no Perishah of Moshe during the initial ascents?

With wishes for Bracha and Shemirah,

Warm regards,

-Daniel Steinberg

The Kollel replies:

1) It seems that the term "Machaneh Shechinah"; that is used here in connection with Moshe being with Hash-m for 40 days and 40 nights; is different from everywhere else that the term is used, in the same way that Moshe being on Har Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights without food and drink, is different than everything else that has ever happened in the history of the world. Here Machaneh Shechinah does not simply mean speaking with Hash-m; it means being alone with Hash-m and totally removed from any physical functions. This means that Moshe did not enter Machaneh Shechinah mulitple times in the first 7 days of Sivan.

This is stated by Abarbanel on Shemos 24:12 who writes:-

" From the 7th day onwards Moshe was sustained by the Ziv of the Shechinah and all physical matters and desires were removed from him. Therefore it says 'And he called to Moshe on the 7th day' so that he should go up to the place of the shining light. This is why Chazal said in Yoma 4 that in those 6 days Moshe stood separated in order to prepare himself to enter the place of holiness and Elokus and Chazal learnt from this that anyone who enters the Machaneh Shechinah requires separation for 6 days".

2) Abarbanel continues and writes:-

"Indeed why did he not require this separation and preparation on the day of Matan Torah when the Dibros were said?"

He gives a few answers to this question. Among the answers are:-

(a) Before Matan Torah, Moshe was between Hash-m and the People, going up from the People to Hash-m and descending from Hash-m to the People and this was a reason to break off his Dveikus to Hash-m.

(b) On the day that the Dibros were given the Dveikus was short and little; namely only on that day. But now that he had to sit there for 40 days and 40 nights he required more preparation.

Daniel, a very big Yasher Koach for getting me into this sugya!

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

1) (a) I wrote above that what is termed Machaneh Shechinah, in terms of Moshe and Har Sinai, refers exclusively to Moshe being 40 days and 40 nights with Hash-m without eating and drinking. We find something parallel to this in our sugya in connection with the Beis Hamikdash. This is stated in Rashash end 3b DH Zeh Banah who writes that everywhere else Machaneh Shechinah is considered to be what is inside the Gate of Nikanor [see Rashi Bamidbar 5:18 that the words "Before Hash-m" means the Gate of Nikanor - DB] This is the Eastern Gate of the Azarah and is nearer the Heichal than the Ezras Nashim but is further outside than the Ezras Yisroel. Shaar HaNikanor is relatively far away from the Kodesh HaKodashim. Rashash concludes that, in our sugya where we are discussing Perishah, Machaneh Shechinah means specifically the Kodesh HaKodashim which is the chief area where the honor of Hash-m rests. Separation is only required before entry into the very holiest place.

(b) Siach Yitzchak DH She-Kol adds that the Talmud Yerushalmi states that Machaneh Shechinah here is Lifnai veLifnim.

2) Daniel, I think you have understood correctly "She'Harei" that Rashi writes twice. The cloud did not cover Moshe in the first 6 days according to R. Akiva and since R. Akiva holds that the Torah was given on 7th we cannot say that Perishah started on 7th, so there was no Perishah at all according to R. Akiva.

She-Nishma Besoros Tovos

Dovid Bloom

If one thinks about it, it is obvious that Perishah is only required before entering an extremely holy place :-

Really, what the Rashash wrote is obvious. The only time that we require a person to do Perishah of 7 days is for the Cohen Gadol before Yom Kippur. This must be because he is going to enter the Kodesh Hakodashim; which is the holiest place in the world where no-one else is allowed to enter; on Yom Kippur. Therefore, Rashash writes that we have to say that the term "Machaneh Shechinah" used here, is used differently than everywhere else and does not mean inside Sha'ar Nikanor as it does everywhere else, but means exclusively the Kodesh Hakodashim.

Similarly, the Perishah required for Moshe must be different to the preparation required by any other Novi before he receives Nevuah. We never find that before receiving a Prophecy, the Prophet must do Perishah. The fact that, according to R. Yosi Hagalili, Moshe was required to do Perishah must be because this was different than any other Nevuah ever experienced by a Novi, since Moshe was alone with Hash-m for 40 days and 40 nights.

[this presumably is also connected with what the Rambam writes, in Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 7:6, that there were many differences between the Nevuah of Moshe Rabeinu and the Nevuah of all other Nevi'im]

Dovid Bloom

The Talmud Yerushalmi states explicitly that the discussion here refers to Moshe entering ti holiest place:-

The Talmud Yerushalmi here 2a, cited by Siach Yitzchak here (DH Ella and DH She-Kol), states:-

Rabbi Yosah bei Rebbe Boon said "the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is from 'and the glory of Hash-m rested on Har Sinai'. Just as Moshe did not enter Lifnain veLifnim until he was sanctified by the cloud for 7 days, so too Aharon did not enter Lifnai veLifnim until he was annointed with the oil for 7 days".

We see that the Yerushalmi uses the term "Lifnai veLifnim"; the most inner place; both for Moshe and Aharon. Aharon entered the Kodesh Hakodashim. The Korban Ha'Edah on the Yerushalmi explains Lifnai veLifnim, used in connection with Moshe, to mean "LiShmei HaShomayim", which I think we could translate as "the highest heavens".

So the Machaneh Shechinah, used in connection with Moshe, must mean the place where he went to receive the Torah.

Shavua Tov

Dovid Bloom

Daniel asks:

Thank you for the thorough clarification, R'Dovid.

If the ascent of Moshe during the first days of Sivan did not have a Din of Machaneh Shechinah, then it makes sense why Moshe would not require Perisha during that time period.

However, I'm still bothered by the word, "She'harei" of Rashi, that he uses 2x's, implying that Moshe's ascent during those initial days of Sivan (presumably Machane Shechinah) is proof as to why R'Akiva holds the way he does - namely, you cannot say like R'Yosi HaGlili, that the cloud covered Moshe in preparation for Machane Shechinah to receive the Luchos, because there was no Perishah required during his earlier ascents!

I came across the Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz, quoted in Kobetz Shitos Kamai - https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43542&st=&pgnum=45 who explains how R'Yosi does not hold (that the cloud covered the mountain) - and in doing so explains R'Akiva's opinion - and seems to imply that Moshe would have needed Perishah for the ascent during the initial days of Sivan.

(if I'm learning it correctly.)

If so, my question remains - why doesn't the Gemara suggest that as the reason for why R'Akiva does not hold of R'Yosi!

Warm regards,

-Daniel Steinberg

The Kollel replies:

1) Daniel, that is very interesting how you are learning the Rabeinu Peretz!

However, I do not think Rabeinu Peretz implies that Moshe would have needed Perishah for the ascent during the initial days of Sivan.

R. Peretz writes that one has to say that the cloud covered the mountain, but did not cover Moshe. He writes that this is because Moshe had to go up and down every day. We learn from this that it is obvious to R. Peretz that since Moshe went up and down every day, it is impossible to say that he did Perishah then [because one cannot do Perishah if one is constantly on the move - DB].

Then R. Peretz writes "And if so, you do not hear that anyone who enters the Machaneh Shechinah requires Perishah".

R. Peretz means to say by this, that if one would say that the verse "And the glory of Hash-m rested on Har Sinai" is referring to before the 10 Dibros, then one would have no proof that Perishah is required before entering Machaneh Shechinah, because it is obvious (without any proof being necessary for this) that one cannot do Perishah when one is going up and down the mountain.

R. Peretz concludes that one must say that this Maaseh was after the 10 Dibros [ and therefore one can learn from here about Perishah].

If one looks carefully at R. Peretz one sees that he does not mention anything about R. Akiva. It is all going according to R. Yosi Hagalili. When he writes "you do not hear that anyone who enters the Machaneh Shechinah requires Persishah" this is explaining R. Yosi Hagalali's opinion. It is explaining why according to R.Y.Hag. one has to say that the Maaseh was after the 10 Dibros, because otherwise one would have no source that Perishah is required.

2) The 2 "She'Harei"s of Rashi are also based on the assumption that if you are going up and down a mountain you cannot do Perishah. The first "She'Harei" is going according to R.Y.Hag and is telling us why we cannot say that the 6 days were at the beginning of Sivan, since it is obvious that there was no Perishah then (since Moshe was on the move) and therefore if one does not say that the 6 days were after the 10 Dibros, there will be no source for Perishah according to R.Y.Hag.

The second "She'Harei" goes according to R. Akiva and since R. Akiva learns that the cloud covered the mountain before the 10 Dibros this is indeed R. Akiva's source that there was no Perishah. Rashi, on the top line of 4b, writes "She'Harei"; since Moshe was on the move it is obvious there was no Perishah, so it follows that according to R. Akiva there was no Perishah at all because the cloud only covered on the first 6 days of Sivan.

Daniel, it is wonderful how you work through this so thoroughly and help (me) get a bit of clarity!

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

Daniel, you write that R. Peretz "explains R. Akiva's opinion, and seems to imply that Moshe would have needed Perishah for the ascent during the initial days of Sivan".

You seem to be saying that R. Akiva holds that one needs Perishah. But Rashi writes; on the last line of 4a; that according to R. Akiva there was no Perishah at all?!

Besoros Tovos

Dovid Bloom