This Week's Article

Bowing in the Heichal

Tamid (7:1) | Yisrael Bankier | 6 hours ago

The Mishnah (7:1) discussed how the kohen gadol would enter the heichal to bow. It describes how he was accompanied and how other kohanim would follow to bow there, after he left.

The Bartenura explains that entering to bow is not considered entering for no purpose. The Tosfot Yom Tov explains that this is important since there is a prohibition to enter the kodesh haphazardly: "One may not enter the kodesh and any time".

The Tosfot Yom Tov continues that from a simple reading of the Bartenura, it implies that entering at any time to bow would be permitted. That is how the Kesef Mishnah (Biat HaMikdash 2:4) understood the position of the Rambam. He continues that when the Rambam rules (Sanhedrin 19:4) that if a kohen entered the heichal not at the time of avodah he would receive lashes, he must understand that bowing also constitutes avodah. Indeed, the Rosh maintains that bowing is considered avodah.

The Kesef Mishnah however continues by citing the Semag (Neg. 303) who explains that our Mishnah is referring to the bowing that was performed at the completion of the avodah. This implies one would not be allowed to enter at any other time to bow.

The Tosfot Yom Tov continues that the Tosfot also appears to maintain this position: "bowing is tzorech avodah", required for the avodah. The Tosfot Yom Tov notes that the Tosfot did not explain that bowing is avodah, but rather tzoreach avodah. This implies that it is only permitted alongside avodah.

The Tosfot Yom Tov however aligns with the first understanding, that entering to bow is permitted independently of any other avodah. That is because in Chagigah it teaches that even kohanim, who were Amei Aretz and were not fit for avodah would enter to bow (Tosfot Chagiga 26b, s.v. shelo).

The Beer Sheva even finds even the second explanation difficult. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (60b), when deriving the activities prohibited in the context of idol worship differentiates between shechita and bowing, with the later not being considered one of the avodot pnim. He continues that suggesting that the difference is that bowing is considered torech avodah, is still not sufficient, since the Gemara derives other prohibited activities from bowing that has no connection to avodah at all.

An answer to this question may be found in the Kol Sofer. He probes the type of bowing that are considered avodah (in line with the explanation of the Barteunra). He explains that only bowing in the manner where one is lying down, with legs and arms stretched out is considered an avodah. He cites the Gemara in Chagiga that teaches the that biblical prohibition of bowing on an even maskit (stone floor) is specifically in this manner. Bowing one's head alone, does not constitute avodah on its own, but rather sign of submission as part of avodah. It is important to note that even that form of bowing would be a capital offence in the context of avodah zarah. The Rambam (Avodah Zarah 6:8) brings this difference. For Avodah Zarah one would be liable by bowing and bringing one's face to the floor even without stretching out, whereas for an even maskit only if one stretched out would they be liable.

With this distinction at hand, we can answer the Beer Sheva's question. Our Mishnah is referring to full bowing. In that manner, a kohen could enter to bow, because that is considered an avodah. The other Gemara that treated bowing differently did so was because it was discussing Avodah Zara where a broader range of bowing is prohibited, even the types that are not considered avodah.

Download

Calendar