Note: The post that I was working on to post on Monday morning was aborted midway through. I realized that the idea I was trying to convey would better be expressed from a totally different standpoint. After abandoning that project at around 11:00pm on Sunday night, I started writing this post, knowing full well that I wouldn't finish before I went to sleep. I decided to just post the facts and the questions, and leave it at that. I'd rather write "half" of a post well than to write a full post poorly. I'll either post the second half of this one later today, or I'll save it for Tuesday morning.
The Facts
The Gemara in Bava Basra 25b, following Rashi's explanation, states:
R' Yitzchak said: One who desires to become wise should turn his face southward [during tefilah (prayer)]; if he desires to become wealthy, he should turn his face northward. The mnemonic device by which to remember this is that the Shulchan (Table in the Beis ha'Mikdash) was in the north, and the Menorah (Candelabra in the Beis ha'Mikdash) was in the south.
R' Yehoshua ben Levi said: [A person who desires to become wealthy] should always turn his face southward, since, by becoming wise, he will [also] become wealthy, as it is stated [regarding wisdom], "Length of days is at its right; at its left, wealth and honor" (Mishlei 3:16).Interesting, eh? Let's try to understand what's going on.
 |
| Artwork: Mystic Compass, by Amy Weber |
The Questions
To my mind, the major questions are:
- How does this work? In other words, how does turning one's face in a particular direction during tefilah (prayer) make a person wealthy or wise? Is this some sort of mystical mechanism, or is there a cause-and-effect relationship here that we can understand?
- Why isn't tefilah sufficient? We already ask for wisdom in the fourth berachah of the shemoneh esrei, and we ask for wealth (i.e. a livelihood) in the ninth berachah. That being said, why does halacha prescribe a separate course of action for a person who wants to become wise or wealthy? Why can't this person just rely on his tefilah?
- Why north for wisdom and south for wealth? The Gemara provides a mnemonic, but it doesn't explain the reason behind each direction. Is it arbitrary, or is there a reason?
- What is the basis of the machlokes between R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi? After all, R' Yehoshua ben Levi's argument seems to make a lot of sense! Why commit yourself to wealth alone when you can get wealth and wisdom? And yet, R' Yitzchak disagrees. Why? What are they really arguing about?
Unfortunately, the Rishonim - at least, the Rishonim I currently have access to - are silent on this Gemara. Not only that, but none of the Rishonic poskim (halachic deciders) bring this down in their halachic codes - neither the Rif, Rosh, nor the Rambam. There is no mention of this halacha in the Shulchan Aruch. Only the Rema (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 94:2) mentions it, and he does so in passing, and in an unusual manner:
One who desires to fulfill the statement [of Chazal] - namely, that one who desires to become wealthy should turn northward [while davening], and one who desires to become wise should face southward - should, nevertheless, turn his face to the east.
(Note: The Mishnah Berurah brings down a machlokes as to whether a person who wishes to implement this halacha should face north/south with one's body and turn one's face to the east, as the Rema holds, or whether one should turn one's face to the north/south but remain facing east with his body, as Rashi explained on the Gemara. The Mishnah Berurah paskins that our minhag is in accordance with Rashi, and not the Rema.)
I can't justify listing this as a question on par with the others, but I will still ask: Can we infer anything from the fact that the major Rishonic poskim don't bring this down l'halacha? Moreover, can we infer anything from the fact that the Rema only mentions it in the context of, "if a person wishes to fulfill the statement of Chazal.
To Be Continued ...
While I can't yet answer all of these questions, I do have an approach to understanding the basic idea of this Gemara. Let's think about it some more, and I'll post my thoughts either later on today or for tomorrow's post.
Addendum (7/7/14 at 1:50pm): The following question was raised by REF/RAZ: "Perhaps another question: what is the relationship between this advice and the HALACHA of facing mikdash for tefilla?" This is definitely a question that must be addressed in order to understand the sugya. However, I chose not to write about it because the amount of space it would take up wouldn't be justified by its contribution to our understanding of our Gemara, since the ultimate answer is: "The advice given by R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi is unrelated to, and does not interfere with, the halacha of facing Mikdash for tefilah." If you are interested in understanding why, I encourage you to learn through the rest of the sugya here (Bava Basra 25b) and the sugya about facing Mikdash (Berachos 30a), it'll become clear that the two are on "different tracks." I'll be happy to field any questions about this in the comments. I just don't want to include it in the main body of this post.
To Be Continued ...
While I can't yet answer all of these questions, I do have an approach to understanding the basic idea of this Gemara. Let's think about it some more, and I'll post my thoughts either later on today or for tomorrow's post.
Addendum (7/7/14 at 1:50pm): The following question was raised by REF/RAZ: "Perhaps another question: what is the relationship between this advice and the HALACHA of facing mikdash for tefilla?" This is definitely a question that must be addressed in order to understand the sugya. However, I chose not to write about it because the amount of space it would take up wouldn't be justified by its contribution to our understanding of our Gemara, since the ultimate answer is: "The advice given by R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi is unrelated to, and does not interfere with, the halacha of facing Mikdash for tefilah." If you are interested in understanding why, I encourage you to learn through the rest of the sugya here (Bava Basra 25b) and the sugya about facing Mikdash (Berachos 30a), it'll become clear that the two are on "different tracks." I'll be happy to field any questions about this in the comments. I just don't want to include it in the main body of this post.
Perhaps another question: what is the relationship between this advice and the HALACHA of facing mikdash for tefilla?
ReplyDeleteGood question. As a matter of fact, my chavrusa and I spent our entire first day on this sugya investigating (a) whether this halacha is related to the halacha of facing Mikdash for tefilah, and (b) how - regardless of whether or not it is related - the implementation of this halacha does not interfere with the halacha of facing Mikdash. (I'm not proud of the awkward structuring of that last sentence, but whatevs.)
DeleteIn the end, we determined that this halacha is NOT related to the halacha of facing Mikdash, and doesn't interfere with it - according to Rashi, because your body is still facing Mikdash, and according to the Rema, because your face is still turned toward Mikdash. When I was writing this post up last night, I made the executive decision to not write up this aspect of the sugya because it would take up an inordinate amount of space in the post, and would lead to a "dead end" (in the sense that the upshot would be: "there's no problem here"). If this were the blogoshiur, I would definitely write all of this up, but given the character of this blog and its readership, I don't think it's fitting in this context.
Nevertheless, now that you mentioned it, I think I should at least acknowledge this point in the post. Thanks for pointing it out.
I hear your point that the halacha is unrelated to the advice on a practical level.
DeleteHowever, did you consider whether (a) the advice is in some way an expansion of the idea upon which the halacha is based; or (b) they have nothing to do with one another even on a conceptual level.
If (a), then perhaps an analysis of the halacha could provide a background for the advice. In other words, if the halacha says that your body should face mikdash (according to Rashi), then maybe the advice is for your face to point to a particular part of the mikdash based upon your desire (for wealth or wisdom).
Yes, we considered that question, since it seemed like the first logical place to go. We concluded that the advice has nothing to do with the halacha of facing Mikdash even on a conceptual level - though it might have something to do with the Menorah and the Shulchan (as I acknowledged in my comments to Rafi).
DeleteWhat is meant by mnemonic device in this case? A way to remember which way to face? Or, is there some concept associated with each element of the Mikdash that relates to wisdom and wealth, respectively? If the latter is the case, then perhaps an approach would be to see how a focus on those constructions in the Beis HaMikdash would open up paths to wealth and/or wisdom.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, I'm inclined to assume that the mnemonic devices given by Chazal are designed to convey concepts as well. In this case, there is definitely a conceptual component that is part of the mnemonic: the Menorah gives off light, which is associated with Torah and chochmah, whereas the Shulchan is the place of food and sustenance, which makes it associated with parnasah (livelihood) and wealth.
DeleteStill, I think it's significant that the Gemara doesn't introduce the Menorah and Shulchan with a question like, "מאי טעמא" which would imply that there is a more intrinsic relationship between this halacha and Mikdash, and not just an associative connection. In other words, the fact that the Gemara introduces these klei Mikdash as merely a siman leads me to believe that the halacha can be understood on its own terms, without Mikdash.
I can't prove any of this. It's just my intuition. I'm open to the other possibility if someone makes a convincing case.
"In other words, the fact that the Gemara introduces these klei Mikdash as merely a siman leads me to believe that the halacha can be understood on its own terms, without Mikdash. "
DeleteHow would that work? If we understand the conditions of the formula as the directions (north/south) and what they allude to (shulchan, menorah), then trying to understand the gemara without Mikdash would mean there are ideas inherent in the directions themselves. That seems difficult.
Would you say that the same difficulty would be present in attempting to answer the questions: "Why is the Menorah in the south?" and "Why is the Shulchan in the north?"
DeleteYou mean that the design of the Mikdash uses different directions themselves to give additional meaning to the keilim?
DeleteYou wrote "trying to understand the gemara without Mikdash would mean there are ideas inherent in the directions themselves." I'm merely pointing out that that "ideas inherent in the directions themselves" isn't the only other possibility. It is equally possible that there is a larger framework which imbues the directions with meaning - both for Mikdash and for our Gemara.
DeleteIt is also possible the directions in our sugya have significance in terms of something else, which is unrelated to Mikdash in an intrinsic way. Even within Mikdash, certain "directional halachos" were determined by other factors (e.g. favoring the West as a rejection of the beliefs of the sun-worshipers; favoring the south because it is "to the right" of the shechinah, which is in the west). Other factors might include word-associations (e.g. "tzafon" is sometimes associated with the yetzer ha'ra, which is referred to as tzfoni), geography of Eretz Yisrael, the location of the shvatim, and possibly others.
Good point, but just looking at the words of this gemara alone I wouldn't have thought of those possibilities. I accept the possibility that this gemara is best explained using ideas from other sugyas that talk about directions.
DeleteMe neither. But one thing I've learned from the Rashba's approach to midrashei aggadah is how much Chazal rely on us having a working knowledge of other ideas and the symbols used to reflect them.
DeleteJust to be clear: I'm still acknowledging that it's POSSIBLE that this halacha has to do with Mikdash. I'm just inclined otherwise, at the moment.
Update: I am now inclined to think that the mnemonic device DOES have a more intrinsic relationship - not to the Mikdash per se, but to the keilim mentioned there. More to come, tomorrow.
DeleteRafi, note that south is to the right and north is to the left
Delete