The Gemora asks why Rav didn't 'hishtachave' when he went to Bovel. It sounds like that the answer of 'ritzpas avanim' meant that there wouldn't have been a problem with bowing, 'vtania... ' that only b'artzechem you can't bow down, but in the Beis Hamikdosh you could.
The answer is like Ula - that the Torah made ossur only ritzpas avanim.
My question: if the Gemora gave the terutz of 'be'artzechem', why did the gemora bring a new terutz of Ula?
My chavrusa said that there's a chiluk between artzechem and Beis Hamikdosh, but a Beis Knesses is the same is Beis Hamikdosh, that you could bow, except that Rav was 'odom choshuv shaa'ni'
Is this right?
Thanks a lot,
Dror Maor,
Detroit, MI, USA
Ula is not being used as a new answer. It is upon his point that the answer "Ritzpah Shel Avanam Haysa" is based, since without Ula's addition we would not be able to explain why every one else besides Rav bowed down (as the Gemara spells out shortly afterwards).
Why then does the Gemara bring the Beraisa of "b'Artzechem?" Because Ula derived his statement from the Beraisa about b'Artzechem. From Rashi (DH Lo Asrah) it seems that his logic is as follows: The Beraisa says that the Isur applies only outside the Beis ha'Mikdash and not inside. Evidently, the intention of the Isur is that we should not make a normal place of worship (i.e. a Beis ha'Knesset) into a copy of the Beis ha'Mikdash, by giving it a stone floor similar to the Beis ha'Mikdash and bowing down on that stone floor (instead of the normal dirt or wooden floor).
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld