Sanhedrin 63a The Tosphot at the top of the page.
My learning partner noticed that the Rashi in front of Tosphot is significantly different than our Rashi. And he was suggesting that if Tosphot had had our Rashi his questions on Rashi might disappear. I tried to convince him that there is one possible way to look at Rashi to make him make sense but he did not like it. But what I suggested that if this is the case then perhaps Rashi would in fact agree with Rabbainu Tam and everything will be good.
So it seems to me right now to try to explain RT (Rabbainu Tam) and maybe Rashi at some further date.
Rabbi Ami says if one sacrifices, burns, or pours in front of an idol (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) he is liable only one sin offering (a she goat).
Abyee explains Rabbi Ami that his idea comes from the verse not to serve other gods--it put all services into one group.
Rabbi Zakei one page back [62a] said the same thing but added bowing according to our Gemara.
RT thinks that the word bowing appears in the statement of Rabbi Zakei but not in the statement of Rabbi Ami. And this makes sense because we have a verse in the Ten Commandments that says not to do service and not to bow to other gods. So what we have is a verse that puts all service into one category and then takes bowing and pulls it out. So it makes sense to say that all three inner services [the three that were done in the Temple in Jerusalem] are considered as one and bowing would be separate. After all the verse itself separates them. In what way would bowing be separate? In that it has its own sin offering. So if one does all four kinds of service (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) to an idol, then he would be required to bring two female goats to the Temple in Jerusalem.
And Rabbi Zakei would have said that in that case he would bring only one goat. And that would be why Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Zakei "Get out of here!" Because Rabbi Yochanan certainly considers all four services to be separate. But he would be happy to concede that, "Do not serve other gods" could conceivably put all three services together;- but not bowing. It is the fact that Rabbi Zakei put in "bowing" that made Rabbi Yochanan upset.
[We already know that Rabbi Yochanan separate all four services from one page back and he learns it from bowing. For bowing was in the category of serve and yet was mentioned separately and we have a general principle that whatever was in a category and yet came out of the category to be mentioned separately comes to teach something about the whole category.
There are no new ideas here. I am just saying over the end of Tosphot where he explains Rabbainu Tam. To deal with the beginning of Tosphot I am not sure how to do right now. I had a way of explaining it a little bit but my learning partner did not like it much.
Here is this basic idea in Hebrew.
סנהדרין סג. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק לא תעבדם. הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. ר. תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של ר. זכי לא במשפטו של ר. אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם. הפסוק אסר כול מין עבודה והוציא השתטחות להזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו מסתבר למה ר. יוחנן אמר לר. זכאי פוק תני לברא שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות פנימיות אחת אבל לא השתטחות
If you are curious to what is the argument between my learning partner and me is that Tosphot is understanding Rashi to mean that of bowing has come out of service then it can come only for two things--to divide or as a mere prohibition like fire on the Sabbath day.
So with Rabbi Ami we see it is not coming to divide so it must be for a mere prohibition. To me this makes sense. We have at least one example of something that gets the death penalty [murder] but that does not bring a sin offering. To my partner, this makes no sense or as he puts it "It is untenable." He actually have some harsher language for this idea, but I would rather not mention it in public.
Appendix:
Just to let you know the problem here that I mentioned at the beginning about Rashi:
The version of Rashi that the author of Tosphot had in front of him says that the word bowing does not appear by R Ami and therefore does not appear in the statement of Rabbi Zakei. (Tosphot is going to be bothered with this because if so then what was Rabbi Yochanan bothered with?) But that particular Rashi tries to defend this idea with saying that since bowing is not a service and it can't be coming to divide, therefore it must be coming for a mere prohibition. Those are the words in Rashi that my learning partner, David, and I are arguing about. I say it can mean there is no sin offering even though there is the death penalty. And David says that is untenable.
David thinks that there might be some way to get the Two Rashis to correspond, the one in front of us does in fact say that to R Ami bowing is not coming to divide. And he says bowing does come out of the three services. This might very well be as Tosphot understands him to be saying that then bowing comes to tell us a prohibition alone. Or not. It could be like Rabbainu Tam also.
In any case we got into a discussion about what is in the category of serve before you take out bowing? He suggested serve according to its way and the three inner services. I suggested maybe on serve according to its way and sacrifice and the other two come from the fact that sacrifice was mentioned separately. This gets into a whole discussion of how to apply the 13 principles of the Braita we say in shacharit.
My learning partner noticed that the Rashi in front of Tosphot is significantly different than our Rashi. And he was suggesting that if Tosphot had had our Rashi his questions on Rashi might disappear. I tried to convince him that there is one possible way to look at Rashi to make him make sense but he did not like it. But what I suggested that if this is the case then perhaps Rashi would in fact agree with Rabbainu Tam and everything will be good.
So it seems to me right now to try to explain RT (Rabbainu Tam) and maybe Rashi at some further date.
Rabbi Ami says if one sacrifices, burns, or pours in front of an idol (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) he is liable only one sin offering (a she goat).
Abyee explains Rabbi Ami that his idea comes from the verse not to serve other gods--it put all services into one group.
Rabbi Zakei one page back [62a] said the same thing but added bowing according to our Gemara.
RT thinks that the word bowing appears in the statement of Rabbi Zakei but not in the statement of Rabbi Ami. And this makes sense because we have a verse in the Ten Commandments that says not to do service and not to bow to other gods. So what we have is a verse that puts all service into one category and then takes bowing and pulls it out. So it makes sense to say that all three inner services [the three that were done in the Temple in Jerusalem] are considered as one and bowing would be separate. After all the verse itself separates them. In what way would bowing be separate? In that it has its own sin offering. So if one does all four kinds of service (in one space of time where he forgot that idolatry is forbidden) to an idol, then he would be required to bring two female goats to the Temple in Jerusalem.
And Rabbi Zakei would have said that in that case he would bring only one goat. And that would be why Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Zakei "Get out of here!" Because Rabbi Yochanan certainly considers all four services to be separate. But he would be happy to concede that, "Do not serve other gods" could conceivably put all three services together;- but not bowing. It is the fact that Rabbi Zakei put in "bowing" that made Rabbi Yochanan upset.
[We already know that Rabbi Yochanan separate all four services from one page back and he learns it from bowing. For bowing was in the category of serve and yet was mentioned separately and we have a general principle that whatever was in a category and yet came out of the category to be mentioned separately comes to teach something about the whole category.
There are no new ideas here. I am just saying over the end of Tosphot where he explains Rabbainu Tam. To deal with the beginning of Tosphot I am not sure how to do right now. I had a way of explaining it a little bit but my learning partner did not like it much.
Here is this basic idea in Hebrew.
סנהדרין סג. ר. אמי אמר שמי שזבח קיטר וניסך בהעלם אחד חייב אחת. אביי פירשו שטעמו בא מן הפסוק לא תעבדם. הכתוב עשה כולן עבודה אחת. בדף סב. רבי זכי אמר אותו דבר אלא שהוסיף השתטחות. ר. תם אמר שמילת השתטחות מופיע במשפטו של ר. זכי לא במשפטו של ר. אמי. הסיבה לכך היא שיש פסוק בעשרת הדברות לא תשתחווה להם ולא תעבדם. הפסוק אסר כול מין עבודה והוציא השתטחות להזכר בפני עצמה. ולכן כל עבודות פנימיות נחשבות עבודה אחת, והשתטחות נחשבת בפני עצמה ואם עשה כולן בהעלם אחד חייב שתיים. אחת בשביל השלש ואחת בשביל השתטחות. ועכשיו מסתבר למה ר. יוחנן אמר לר. זכאי פוק תני לברא שיש סברה לומר שלשת עבודות פנימיות אחת אבל לא השתטחות
If you are curious to what is the argument between my learning partner and me is that Tosphot is understanding Rashi to mean that of bowing has come out of service then it can come only for two things--to divide or as a mere prohibition like fire on the Sabbath day.
So with Rabbi Ami we see it is not coming to divide so it must be for a mere prohibition. To me this makes sense. We have at least one example of something that gets the death penalty [murder] but that does not bring a sin offering. To my partner, this makes no sense or as he puts it "It is untenable." He actually have some harsher language for this idea, but I would rather not mention it in public.
Appendix:
Just to let you know the problem here that I mentioned at the beginning about Rashi:
The version of Rashi that the author of Tosphot had in front of him says that the word bowing does not appear by R Ami and therefore does not appear in the statement of Rabbi Zakei. (Tosphot is going to be bothered with this because if so then what was Rabbi Yochanan bothered with?) But that particular Rashi tries to defend this idea with saying that since bowing is not a service and it can't be coming to divide, therefore it must be coming for a mere prohibition. Those are the words in Rashi that my learning partner, David, and I are arguing about. I say it can mean there is no sin offering even though there is the death penalty. And David says that is untenable.
David thinks that there might be some way to get the Two Rashis to correspond, the one in front of us does in fact say that to R Ami bowing is not coming to divide. And he says bowing does come out of the three services. This might very well be as Tosphot understands him to be saying that then bowing comes to tell us a prohibition alone. Or not. It could be like Rabbainu Tam also.
In any case we got into a discussion about what is in the category of serve before you take out bowing? He suggested serve according to its way and the three inner services. I suggested maybe on serve according to its way and sacrifice and the other two come from the fact that sacrifice was mentioned separately. This gets into a whole discussion of how to apply the 13 principles of the Braita we say in shacharit.
