The Antiquity of Trup, and Entering Beyond the Boundary

The daf from this past Shabbat, Menachot 27b, records a dispute between the Tanna Kamma (thus presumably the majority position) and Rabbi Yehuda:

וּטְהוֹרִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתָן, לַהֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ – בְּאַרְבָּעִים, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת – בְּמִיתָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ וּמִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת – בְּאַרְבָּעִים, וְאֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת – בְּמִיתָה.

And with regard to those who are pure who entered beyond their boundaries, i.e., beyond where it is permitted for them to enter, such as a priest who enters the Sanctuary for a purpose other than performing the Temple service, if one entered any part of the Sanctuary, he is liable to receive forty lashes. If he entered within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, i.e., into the Holy of Holies, or he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he entered any part of the Sanctuary or within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, he is liable to receive forty lashes; but if he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

That is, there are three areas that are past the azarah, namely:

1. The heichal (in red)

2. The kodesh kodashim (in blue), but right after stepping past the curtain

3. Further into the kodesh kodashim, namely right in front of the aron

Image from The Temple Institute.

And, Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree about that middle area, whether it is joined with (1) or with (3).

As it turns out, the dispute is rooted in how they parse the same pasuk at the start of Acharei Mot, which reads (Vayikra 16:2)

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה דַּבֵּר֮ אֶל־אַהֲרֹ֣ן אָחִ֒יךָ֒ וְאַל־יָבֹ֤א בְכׇל־עֵת֙ אֶל־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ מִבֵּ֖ית לַפָּרֹ֑כֶת אֶל־פְּנֵ֨י הַכַּפֹּ֜רֶת אֲשֶׁ֤ר עַל־הָאָרֹן֙ וְלֹ֣א יָמ֔וּת כִּ֚י בֶּֽעָנָ֔ן אֵרָאֶ֖ה עַל־הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת׃

GOD said to Moses: Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die; for I appear in the cloud over the cover.

These three areas are at least midrashically mentioned in this verse, but it depends on how you parse it, in how you decide to lump the middle item. This English translation just used commas to separate, but there are three possible lumpings:

(1) “into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die”

Within this reading, by kodesh, what is meant is the full blue area, what we call the kodesh kodashim, and we use “behind the curtain” and “in front of the cover that is upon the ark” to indicate that we are indeed speaking of this blue area. And only in that blue kodesh kodashim is there an incurring of death. This might be the peshat meaning.

In readings (2) and (3), kodesh means the red area, that is the heichal. Then, we have:

(2)
וְאַל־יָבֹ֤א בְכׇל־עֵת֙ אֶל־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ
מִבֵּ֖ית לַפָּרֹ֑כֶת | אֶל־פְּנֵ֨י הַכַּפֹּ֜רֶת אֲשֶׁ֤ר עַל־הָאָרֹן֙ | וְלֹ֣א יָמ֔וּת

I inserted vertical bars like | to separate the phrases, and a newline to make an even greater separation. According to this reading, there is a separate violation of a kohen entering the kodesh, meaning the red area, for no purpose, but that is a lav, a mere prohibition. And then, the other two areas, both within the curtain and a few steps further so that one is before the ark cover, which is the full blue area, are subject to the velo yamut, that is, death. That is the interpretation of the Tanna Kamma.

(3) Finally, we have this, which is Rabbi Yehuda’s position:

וְאַל־יָבֹ֤א בְכׇל־עֵת֙ אֶל־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ | מִבֵּ֖ית לַפָּרֹ֑כֶת
אֶל־פְּנֵ֨י הַכַּפֹּ֜רֶת אֲשֶׁ֤ר עַל־הָאָרֹן֙ | וְלֹ֣א יָמ֔וּת כִּ֚י בֶּֽעָנָ֔ן אֵרָאֶ֖ה עַל־הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת׃

In this interpretation, the al yavo prohibition of entering applies both the the kodesh, here meaning the red area, as well as inside the curtain, meaning the initial point in the blue area.

Separately, the area which is אֶל־פְּנֵ֨י הַכַּפֹּ֜רֶת אֲשֶׁ֤ר עַל־הָאָרֹן֙, thus directly before the ark, is what is subject to the prohibition.

We could try to prove reading (2) or reading (3) correct based on context, once we have rejected reading (1). For instance, the justification for incurring death via the hand of Heaven is that כִּ֚י בֶּֽעָנָ֔ן אֵרָאֶ֖ה עַל־הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת, Hashem’s presence manifests over those kaporet. So, perhaps anywhere in the cordoned-off area beyond the curtain, or perhaps only directly before the kaporet, is where the velo yamut should apply.

There is an extra piece of information which could potentially weigh in on which parse it correct, and that is the trup, meaning the cantillation symbols. These don’t just provide a catchy tune for singing the Biblical verses, but also provide prosodic parse trees. Here is a link to the ISCOL poster where I discussed this. Or, on my mivami website, I draw the prosodic parse trees for each verse, decorated with the approximate syntactic function of the various branches.

Here is the parse tree for Vayikra 16:2. You have to turn your head sideways, because the root of the tree is on the left.

We can see that of the three areas, the first two are part of the etnachta subtree which also contains the al yavo statement, while the last area is part of the silluq subtree, together with the velo yamut statement.

Thus, among the midrashic renditions, the trup seems to justify, or at least strongly favor, Rabbi Yehuda’s position. If trup was introduced in the time of Moshe as halacha leMoshe miSinai, or the time of Ezra, perhaps it should be dispositive — meaning that we should follow its interpretation to the exclusion of other possible interpretation and parse. However, Rabbi Yehuda does not cite it, nor do the Tanna Kamma grapple with it.

The gemara does not generally invoke trup. And, the few times it is relevant, according to Rashi’s interpretation, it is downstream — meaning that if there is a machloket, the nafka mina, practical ramification, is lefisukei te’amim, what the trup symbols should be. There is reason to think that trup in general, or at least its orthographic symbols, did not yet exist in the time of Chazal. See Shadal’s Vikuach al Chochmat HaKabbalah.

The gemara, instead of invoking trup, or discussing explicitly how it can be parsed in two ways, brings to bear its classic systematic analytical approach, such as “why bother saying this?” See inside.

Also, the Rambam rules like the Tanna Kamma, writing:

וְהַנִּכְנָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ חוּץ לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבוֹדָה אוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת בֵּין הֶדְיוֹט בֵּין גָּדוֹל לוֹקֶה. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִיתָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז ב) “אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת” (ויקרא טז ב) “וְלֹא יָמוּת”. עַל קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים בְּמִיתָה וְעַל שְׁאָר הַבַּיִת בְּלָאו וְלוֹקֶה:

One - whether an ordinary priest or a High priest - who enters the Sacred Chamber outside the Holy of Holies, not for the sake of service, nor prostrating oneself, is liable for lashes, but is not liable for death. [This is derived from the above verse which states:] “Before the covering [that is upon the Ark] so that he will not die.” [Implied is that] for [unauthorized entry into] the Holy of Holies, he is liable for death, but [entering] the remainder of the Sanctuary is merely the violation of a negative commandment and is punishable by lashes.

Though note which part of the pasuk he cites — the portion after the etnachta.