Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 19, 2019 | 讟状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 3

The gemara continues to bring mishnayot from all over Shas that say “Everyone in obligated in…” and explains what is included by the word everyone. One of the cases relate to women being obligated in reading the megillah. Then the gemara brings tannaitic sources that say “everyone in obligated in… priests, levites and israelites.” In each case the gemara needs to explain why the source needed to indicate that – wouldn’t it be obvious!


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛 砖讗祝 讛谉 讛讬讜 讘讗讜转讜 讛谞住

what? The Gemara answers: They serve to add women, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Women are obligated in the mitzva of reading the Megilla, as they too were participants in that miracle.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讬诪讜谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讬诐 诪讝诪谞讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the baraita: Everyone is obligated to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals as a group? The Gemara answers: The baraita serves to add women and slaves. As it is taught in a baraita: Women form a zimmun for themselves and slaves form a zimmun for themselves.

讛讻诇 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讝讬诪讜谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 诪讘专讻讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 诪讘专讻讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the baraita: Everyone is included in a zimmun? This serves to add a minor who knows to Whom one recites a blessing. As Rav Na岣an says: A minor who knows to Whom one recites a blessing is included in a zimmun.

讛讻诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讬讘讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the clause in the mishna (Zavim 2:1): Everyone becomes impure by means of a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]? This serves to add that even a day-old baby who has such a discharge becomes impure. As it is taught in a baraita: It would have been sufficient for the verse to state: A man. Why does the verse state: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2)? This serves to include a day-old baby who has such a discharge, to teach that even he becomes impure as one who experiences ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讝讻专 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诇谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 谞拽讘讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says that this amplification is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd of them that have an issue, whether it be a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). 鈥淎 male鈥 includes anyone who is male, whether a small child or an adult; 鈥渁 female鈥 includes anyone who is female, whether a small child or an adult. If so, why does the verse state: 鈥淎ny man鈥? The Torah spoke in the language of men, i.e., this is a normal way to phrase the sentence, and therefore one should not derive a halakha from the extra word.

讛讻诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讟诪讗 诪转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜注诇 讛谞驻砖讜转 讗砖专 讛讬讜 砖诐

The Gemara asks: What is added by the baraita: Everyone becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse? The baraita teaches it to add a minor. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that since the verse states: 鈥淏ut the man that shall be impure and shall not purify himself鈥 (Numbers 19:20), one should derive from here that a man, i.e., an adult, yes, he becomes impure, but a minor does not. Therefore, the verse teaches us in the context of purification with purification water from impurity imparted by a corpse: 鈥淎nd sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there鈥 (Numbers 19:18). This indicates that all persons who were there became impure, regardless of age.

讗诇讗 讗讬砖 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽讟谉 诪讻专转

The Gemara asks: But if so, what does the term 鈥渢he man鈥 serve to exclude? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude a minor from excision from the World-to-Come [karet], which is mentioned in that verse: 鈥淭hat soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord鈥 (Numbers 19:20). In other words, the term 鈥渢he man鈥 serves to teach that if a minor becomes impure and then enters the Temple, he is not liable to receive karet.

讛讻诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘谞讙注讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 爪专讜注 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the ruling of the mishna (Nega鈥檌m 3:1): Everyone becomes impure by means of leprous marks? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor. As it might enter your mind to say that since it is written in the verse: 鈥淗e is a leprous man, he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:44), this is teaching that a man, i.e., an adult, yes, he does become impure, but a minor does not. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a minor becomes impure by means of leprous marks.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘注讜专 讘砖专讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the halakha is indeed so, that a minor does not become impure by means of leprous marks? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淲hen a person shall have in the skin of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 13:2), to include all people, in any case, irrespective of age.

讜讗诇讗 讗讬砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛爪专讜注 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But in that case, why do I need the term: 鈥淗e is a leprous man鈥 (Leviticus 13:44)? The Gemara answers: It comes for that which is taught in a baraita: From the phrase 鈥渉e is a leprous man鈥 I have derived only a leprous man. From where is it derived that leprous marks also render a woman impure? When the subsequent verse states: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the affliction is鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), there are two individuals indicated here, male and female, as this verse did not need to restate: 鈥淎nd the leper,鈥 since the subject of this clause was clear from the previous verse.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 诇注谞讬谉 砖诇 诪讟讛 讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜驻讜专诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 驻讜专注转 讜驻讜专诪转

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎 leprous man鈥? This is referring to the matter of the leper rending his clothes and letting his hair grow wild, which is stated in the verse below: 鈥淗is clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose鈥 (Leviticus 13:45). The verse therefore teaches that a man who is a leper lets his hair grow and rends his garments, but a woman who is a leper does not let her hair grow and does not rend her garments.

讛讻诇 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇专讗讜转 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the baraita: Everyone may inspect leprous marks in order to declare them pure or impure, and the clause of another baraita: Everyone is fit to inspect leprous marks in order to declare them pure or impure. The Gemara answers: These statements serve to add a priest who is not expert in distinguishing between them, the different types of leprous marks, and in identifying their names.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪住讘专讬 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 讛讗 讚诪住讘专讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Master say that any priest who is not expert in distinguishing between them and in identifying their names is not authorized to inspect the leprous marks and make a decision with regard to them? Ravina said: This is not difficult. This statement, that the priest is fit, is referring to a situation where if they explain to him he understands; whereas that statement, that he is not fit, is referring to a case where even if they explain to him he still does not understand.

讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讚砖 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讜诇专讘谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗砖讛 讚转谞谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Para 5:4): Everyone is fit to sanctify the ashes of the red heifer, i.e., to pour the water over them? The Gemara answers that according to Rabbi Yehuda the statement serves to add a minor, and according to the Rabbis, who disqualify a minor, it serves to add a woman. As we learned in a mishna (Para 5:4): Everyone is fit to sanctify the ashes of the red heifer except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite, who has both male and female characteristics, unfit.

讛讻诇 讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讛讝讜转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 注专诇 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注专诇 砖讛讝讛 讛讝讗转讜 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Para 12:10): Everyone is qualified to sprinkle the purification waters on one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse? The Gemara answers that this serves to add one who is uncircumcised. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If one who is uncircumcised sprinkled the purification water, his sprinkling is valid.

讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讜转讬 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the mishna (岣llin 2a, 15b): Everyone slaughters? The Gemara explains that the mishna teaches this once to add a Samaritan who slaughters, i.e., his slaughter is valid. And the one other mention of this serves to add a Jew who is an apostate [meshummad].

讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Ketubot 110b): Everyone can force others to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one can compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael?

诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛

The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches this clause to add slaves. If a slave wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, he can force his master to either ascend with him, or to sell him to someone who will ascend, or to free him. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who teaches slaves explicitly in the mishna, what does this phrase serve to add? The Gemara answers that it serves to add the case of one who wishes to compel his family to move from a pleasant residence outside of Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓

The Gemara adds that when that same mishna teaches, in its continuation: But all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, this serves to add the case of a slave who fled from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. The master may not bring him back to outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛

The Gemara discusses another statement of that same mishna: All can force their family to ascend to Jerusalem. This serves to add the halakha that one may compel his family to move from a pleasant residence outside of Jerusalem to a noxious residence in Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: What is added by the next clause of that mishna: And none can remove them from Jerusalem? The Gemara explains that this serves to add that one cannot compel his family to leave Jerusalem, even from a noxious residence in Jerusalem to a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪讗谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬

搂 The Gemara discusses several other cases where a mishna or baraita states that everyone is obligated in a particular mitzva. A baraita teaches: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? If these people are not obligated to perform the mitzva, then who is obligated to perform it?

讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘住讻讜转 转砖讘讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讻注讬谉 转讚讜专讜 诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转讜 讗祝 住讜讻讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转讜 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the halakha to mention that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淚n sukkot shall you reside seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), one can argue as follows: The Master said that this teaches: Reside seven days as you dwell in your permanent home: Just as in the case of dwelling, a man and his wife typically reside together, so too, the mitzva of sukka must be performed by a man and his wife residing together. And with regard to these priests, since they are occupied with the Temple service during the Festival and are not free to dwell in the sukka together with their wives, perhaps they should not be obligated in the mitzva of sukka.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚驻讟讬专讬 讘砖注转 注讘讜讚讛 讘诇讗 砖注转 注讘讜讚讛 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛讜诇讻讬 讚专讻讬诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讜诇讻讬 讚专讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讘讬讜诐 讜讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, as although priests are exempt at the time of the Temple service, when it is not the time of Temple service they are obligated, just as is the halakha with regard to travelers. As the Master said in a baraita: Travelers who are on the move during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukka during the day but are obligated at night, as they are not traveling at that time.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 The Gemara cites a similar baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks again: Isn鈥檛 that obvious?

讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讙讚诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讙讘讬讛 讘诇讘讬砖讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪爪讜转 爪讬爪讬转 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转专讬 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the baraita to mention that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11鈥12), it is only one who is not permitted to wear diverse kinds who is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. But with regard to these priests, since diverse kinds are permitted for them when they perform the Temple service, as the belt of the priestly vestments contains diverse kinds, they should not be obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚讗讬砖转专讬 讘注讬讚谉 注讘讜讚讛 讘诇讗 注讬讚谉 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that although priests are permitted to wear diverse kinds at the time when they perform the Temple service, when it is not the time of the Temple service they are not permitted to wear diverse kinds. Consequently, they are obligated in ritual fringes, as they do not have an absolute dispensation from the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜拽砖专转诐 诇讗讜转 注诇 讬讚讱 讜讛讬讜 诇讟讟驻转 讘讬谉 注讬谞讱 讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖

搂 The Gemara cites another baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara again asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers that it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), perhaps this juxtaposition teaches that anyone included in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm is also included in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head.

讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚 讚讻转讬讘 讬诇讘砖 注诇 讘砖专讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 讜讘讬谉 讘砖专讜 讗讬诪讗 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜

And in the case of these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: 鈥淗e shall put upon his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), which teaches that nothing may interpose between the priestly vestments and his flesh, and therefore he may not wear the phylacteries of the arm, which would interpose, perhaps one would say that priests should also not be obligated in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻讚转谞谉 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 砖诇 专讗砖 讜砖诇 专讗砖 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 砖诇 讬讚

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the absence of one of the two types of phylacteries do not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. As we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 38a): Absence of the phylacteries of the arm does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head, and likewise the absence of the phylacteries of the head does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm. If one has only one type, he dons it without the other. Consequently, the priests are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries of the head during the time of their Temple service.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讬讚 讚讻转讬讘 讬诇讘砖 注诇 讘砖专讜 专讗砖 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜砖诪转 讛诪爪谞驻转 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: And what is different about the phylacteries of the arm? You claim that priests are exempt from this obligation, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: 鈥淗e shall put upon his flesh.鈥 If so, they should also be exempt from donning the phylacteries of the head, as it is written with regard to the High Priest: 鈥淎nd you shall set the mitre upon his head鈥 (Exodus 29:6). Since the phylacteries of the head would interpose between his head and the mitre, he should be exempt from the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head.

转谞讗 砖注专讜 讛讬讛 谞专讗讛 讘讬谉 爪讬抓 诇诪爪谞驻转 砖砖诐 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉

The Gemara answers by citing a halakha that the Sages taught: The hair of the High Priest was visible between the frontplate and the mitre. The frontplate was set on the forehead, below the hairline, while the mitre was set above it. In that space there the High Priest would don his phylacteries. Consequently, the phylacteries did not interpose between the mitre and the High Priest鈥檚 head.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘转拽讬注讛 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讞讬讬讘

搂 The Gemara cites yet another baraita: Everyone is obligated to sound the shofar, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara once again asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the halakha to mention that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it might enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: 鈥淎nd in the seventh month, on the first day of the month鈥it shall be a day of sounding for you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), you might have said that one who is obligated to sound on only one day is obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana.

讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘转拽讬注讛 讻讜诇讬讛 砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转拽注转诐 讘讞爪爪专转 注诇 注诇转讬讻诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讛讻讗 砖讜驻专

But with regard to these priests it is different, since they are obligated to sound all year long, as they sound trumpets when they sacrifice the offerings in the Temple on other Festivals, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10), you might therefore say that they should not be obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita teaches that even priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva. The Gemara questions this comparison: Are these cases comparable? There, on the other special occasions throughout the year, the priests sound trumpets, whereas here, on Rosh HaShana, the issue is blowing the shofar.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转谞谉 砖讜讛 讛讬讜讘诇 诇专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇转拽讬注讛 讜诇讘专讻讜转 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 讬讜讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 讬讜讘诇 诇讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘诪爪讜转 讚讬讜讘诇 讚转谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐

Rather, it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva for a different reason. It might enter your mind to say as follows: Since we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 26b): Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana, with respect to both the shofar blasts and to the three additional blessings that are recited in the Amida prayer, I might have said that one who is fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee Year is also included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana, and that one who is not included in the mitzva of the Jubilee Year is likewise not included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. But with regard to these priests, since they are not fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee Year, as we learned in a mishna (see 26b): Priests and Levites may sell their fields at any time, even in the Jubilee Year,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 3

诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞砖讬诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛 砖讗祝 讛谉 讛讬讜 讘讗讜转讜 讛谞住

what? The Gemara answers: They serve to add women, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Women are obligated in the mitzva of reading the Megilla, as they too were participants in that miracle.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讝讬诪讜谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 谞砖讬诐 诪讝诪谞讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诇注爪诪谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the baraita: Everyone is obligated to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals as a group? The Gemara answers: The baraita serves to add women and slaves. As it is taught in a baraita: Women form a zimmun for themselves and slaves form a zimmun for themselves.

讛讻诇 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讝讬诪讜谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 诪讘专讻讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬讜讚注 诇诪讬 诪讘专讻讬谉 诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the baraita: Everyone is included in a zimmun? This serves to add a minor who knows to Whom one recites a blessing. As Rav Na岣an says: A minor who knows to Whom one recites a blessing is included in a zimmun.

讛讻诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讬讘讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the clause in the mishna (Zavim 2:1): Everyone becomes impure by means of a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]? This serves to add that even a day-old baby who has such a discharge becomes impure. As it is taught in a baraita: It would have been sufficient for the verse to state: A man. Why does the verse state: 鈥淲hen any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure鈥 (Leviticus 15:2)? This serves to include a day-old baby who has such a discharge, to teach that even he becomes impure as one who experiences ziva. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 诇讝讻专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讝讻专 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诇谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 谞拽讘讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says that this amplification is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd of them that have an issue, whether it be a male or a female鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). 鈥淎 male鈥 includes anyone who is male, whether a small child or an adult; 鈥渁 female鈥 includes anyone who is female, whether a small child or an adult. If so, why does the verse state: 鈥淎ny man鈥? The Torah spoke in the language of men, i.e., this is a normal way to phrase the sentence, and therefore one should not derive a halakha from the extra word.

讛讻诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讟诪讗 诪转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜注诇 讛谞驻砖讜转 讗砖专 讛讬讜 砖诐

The Gemara asks: What is added by the baraita: Everyone becomes impure with impurity imparted by a corpse? The baraita teaches it to add a minor. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that since the verse states: 鈥淏ut the man that shall be impure and shall not purify himself鈥 (Numbers 19:20), one should derive from here that a man, i.e., an adult, yes, he becomes impure, but a minor does not. Therefore, the verse teaches us in the context of purification with purification water from impurity imparted by a corpse: 鈥淎nd sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there鈥 (Numbers 19:18). This indicates that all persons who were there became impure, regardless of age.

讗诇讗 讗讬砖 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽讟谉 诪讻专转

The Gemara asks: But if so, what does the term 鈥渢he man鈥 serve to exclude? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude a minor from excision from the World-to-Come [karet], which is mentioned in that verse: 鈥淭hat soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord鈥 (Numbers 19:20). In other words, the term 鈥渢he man鈥 serves to teach that if a minor becomes impure and then enters the Temple, he is not liable to receive karet.

讛讻诇 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘谞讙注讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 爪专讜注 讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the ruling of the mishna (Nega鈥檌m 3:1): Everyone becomes impure by means of leprous marks? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor. As it might enter your mind to say that since it is written in the verse: 鈥淗e is a leprous man, he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:44), this is teaching that a man, i.e., an adult, yes, he does become impure, but a minor does not. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a minor becomes impure by means of leprous marks.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘注讜专 讘砖专讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: But why not say that the halakha is indeed so, that a minor does not become impure by means of leprous marks? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淲hen a person shall have in the skin of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 13:2), to include all people, in any case, irrespective of age.

讜讗诇讗 讗讬砖 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬砖 讗砖讛 诪谞讬谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛爪专讜注 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But in that case, why do I need the term: 鈥淗e is a leprous man鈥 (Leviticus 13:44)? The Gemara answers: It comes for that which is taught in a baraita: From the phrase 鈥渉e is a leprous man鈥 I have derived only a leprous man. From where is it derived that leprous marks also render a woman impure? When the subsequent verse states: 鈥淎nd the leper in whom the affliction is鈥 (Leviticus 13:45), there are two individuals indicated here, male and female, as this verse did not need to restate: 鈥淎nd the leper,鈥 since the subject of this clause was clear from the previous verse.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 诇注谞讬谉 砖诇 诪讟讛 讗讬砖 驻讜专注 讜驻讜专诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 驻讜专注转 讜驻讜专诪转

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎 leprous man鈥? This is referring to the matter of the leper rending his clothes and letting his hair grow wild, which is stated in the verse below: 鈥淗is clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose鈥 (Leviticus 13:45). The verse therefore teaches that a man who is a leper lets his hair grow and rends his garments, but a woman who is a leper does not let her hair grow and does not rend her garments.

讛讻诇 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇专讗讜转 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the baraita: Everyone may inspect leprous marks in order to declare them pure or impure, and the clause of another baraita: Everyone is fit to inspect leprous marks in order to declare them pure or impure. The Gemara answers: These statements serve to add a priest who is not expert in distinguishing between them, the different types of leprous marks, and in identifying their names.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪住讘专讬 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 讛讗 讚诪住讘专讬 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Master say that any priest who is not expert in distinguishing between them and in identifying their names is not authorized to inspect the leprous marks and make a decision with regard to them? Ravina said: This is not difficult. This statement, that the priest is fit, is referring to a situation where if they explain to him he understands; whereas that statement, that he is not fit, is referring to a case where even if they explain to him he still does not understand.

讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讚砖 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讜诇专讘谞谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗砖讛 讚转谞谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽讚砖 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 讜驻讜住诇 讘讗砖讛 讜讘讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Para 5:4): Everyone is fit to sanctify the ashes of the red heifer, i.e., to pour the water over them? The Gemara answers that according to Rabbi Yehuda the statement serves to add a minor, and according to the Rabbis, who disqualify a minor, it serves to add a woman. As we learned in a mishna (Para 5:4): Everyone is fit to sanctify the ashes of the red heifer except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite, who has both male and female characteristics, unfit.

讛讻诇 讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讛讝讜转 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 注专诇 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注专诇 砖讛讝讛 讛讝讗转讜 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Para 12:10): Everyone is qualified to sprinkle the purification waters on one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse? The Gemara answers that this serves to add one who is uncircumcised. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If one who is uncircumcised sprinkled the purification water, his sprinkling is valid.

讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讜转讬 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the mishna (岣llin 2a, 15b): Everyone slaughters? The Gemara explains that the mishna teaches this once to add a Samaritan who slaughters, i.e., his slaughter is valid. And the one other mention of this serves to add a Jew who is an apostate [meshummad].

讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Ketubot 110b): Everyone can force others to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one can compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael?

诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 讘讛讚讬讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛

The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches this clause to add slaves. If a slave wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, he can force his master to either ascend with him, or to sell him to someone who will ascend, or to free him. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who teaches slaves explicitly in the mishna, what does this phrase serve to add? The Gemara answers that it serves to add the case of one who wishes to compel his family to move from a pleasant residence outside of Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓

The Gemara adds that when that same mishna teaches, in its continuation: But all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, this serves to add the case of a slave who fled from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. The master may not bring him back to outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讛讻诇 诪注诇讬谉 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛 诇谞讜讛 讛专注讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讛 讛专注讛 诇谞讜讛 讛讬驻讛

The Gemara discusses another statement of that same mishna: All can force their family to ascend to Jerusalem. This serves to add the halakha that one may compel his family to move from a pleasant residence outside of Jerusalem to a noxious residence in Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: What is added by the next clause of that mishna: And none can remove them from Jerusalem? The Gemara explains that this serves to add that one cannot compel his family to leave Jerusalem, even from a noxious residence in Jerusalem to a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪讗谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬

搂 The Gemara discusses several other cases where a mishna or baraita states that everyone is obligated in a particular mitzva. A baraita teaches: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? If these people are not obligated to perform the mitzva, then who is obligated to perform it?

讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讘住讻讜转 转砖讘讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讻注讬谉 转讚讜专讜 诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转讜 讗祝 住讜讻讛 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转讜 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the halakha to mention that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淚n sukkot shall you reside seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), one can argue as follows: The Master said that this teaches: Reside seven days as you dwell in your permanent home: Just as in the case of dwelling, a man and his wife typically reside together, so too, the mitzva of sukka must be performed by a man and his wife residing together. And with regard to these priests, since they are occupied with the Temple service during the Festival and are not free to dwell in the sukka together with their wives, perhaps they should not be obligated in the mitzva of sukka.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚驻讟讬专讬 讘砖注转 注讘讜讚讛 讘诇讗 砖注转 注讘讜讚讛 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛讜诇讻讬 讚专讻讬诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讜诇讻讬 讚专讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讘讬讜诐 讜讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, as although priests are exempt at the time of the Temple service, when it is not the time of Temple service they are obligated, just as is the halakha with regard to travelers. As the Master said in a baraita: Travelers who are on the move during the day are exempt from the mitzva of sukka during the day but are obligated at night, as they are not traveling at that time.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗

搂 The Gemara cites a similar baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara asks again: Isn鈥檛 that obvious?

讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇讘砖 砖注讟谞讝 讙讚诇讬诐 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讙讘讬讛 讘诇讘讬砖讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪爪讜转 爪讬爪讬转 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬砖转专讬 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讙讘讬讬讛讜 诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the baraita to mention that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it may enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:11鈥12), it is only one who is not permitted to wear diverse kinds who is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. But with regard to these priests, since diverse kinds are permitted for them when they perform the Temple service, as the belt of the priestly vestments contains diverse kinds, they should not be obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讛讬 讚讗讬砖转专讬 讘注讬讚谉 注讘讜讚讛 讘诇讗 注讬讚谉 注讘讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that although priests are permitted to wear diverse kinds at the time when they perform the Temple service, when it is not the time of the Temple service they are not permitted to wear diverse kinds. Consequently, they are obligated in ritual fringes, as they do not have an absolute dispensation from the prohibition of diverse kinds.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜拽砖专转诐 诇讗讜转 注诇 讬讚讱 讜讛讬讜 诇讟讟驻转 讘讬谉 注讬谞讱 讻诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖

搂 The Gemara cites another baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara again asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers that it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8), perhaps this juxtaposition teaches that anyone included in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm is also included in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head.

讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘诪爪讜讛 讚讬讚 讚讻转讬讘 讬诇讘砖 注诇 讘砖专讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谞讜 讜讘讬谉 讘砖专讜 讗讬诪讗 讘诪爪讜讛 讚专讗砖 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜

And in the case of these priests, since they are not included in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: 鈥淗e shall put upon his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), which teaches that nothing may interpose between the priestly vestments and his flesh, and therefore he may not wear the phylacteries of the arm, which would interpose, perhaps one would say that priests should also not be obligated in the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻讚转谞谉 转驻诇讛 砖诇 讬讚 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 砖诇 专讗砖 讜砖诇 专讗砖 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 砖诇 讬讚

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the absence of one of the two types of phylacteries do not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. As we learned in a mishna (Mena岣t 38a): Absence of the phylacteries of the arm does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head, and likewise the absence of the phylacteries of the head does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of the phylacteries of the arm. If one has only one type, he dons it without the other. Consequently, the priests are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries of the head during the time of their Temple service.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讬讚 讚讻转讬讘 讬诇讘砖 注诇 讘砖专讜 专讗砖 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜砖诪转 讛诪爪谞驻转 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: And what is different about the phylacteries of the arm? You claim that priests are exempt from this obligation, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: 鈥淗e shall put upon his flesh.鈥 If so, they should also be exempt from donning the phylacteries of the head, as it is written with regard to the High Priest: 鈥淎nd you shall set the mitre upon his head鈥 (Exodus 29:6). Since the phylacteries of the head would interpose between his head and the mitre, he should be exempt from the mitzva of the phylacteries of the head.

转谞讗 砖注专讜 讛讬讛 谞专讗讛 讘讬谉 爪讬抓 诇诪爪谞驻转 砖砖诐 诪谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉

The Gemara answers by citing a halakha that the Sages taught: The hair of the High Priest was visible between the frontplate and the mitre. The frontplate was set on the forehead, below the hairline, while the mitre was set above it. In that space there the High Priest would don his phylacteries. Consequently, the phylacteries did not interpose between the mitre and the High Priest鈥檚 head.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讬讜诐 转专讜注讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘转拽讬注讛 讚讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讞讬讬讘

搂 The Gemara cites yet another baraita: Everyone is obligated to sound the shofar, including priests, Levites, and Israelites. The Gemara once again asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the halakha to mention that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva, as it might enter your mind to say as follows: Since it is written: 鈥淎nd in the seventh month, on the first day of the month鈥it shall be a day of sounding for you鈥 (Numbers 29:1), you might have said that one who is obligated to sound on only one day is obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana.

讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘转拽讬注讛 讻讜诇讬讛 砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转拽注转诐 讘讞爪爪专转 注诇 注诇转讬讻诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘讜 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讛讻讗 砖讜驻专

But with regard to these priests it is different, since they are obligated to sound all year long, as they sound trumpets when they sacrifice the offerings in the Temple on other Festivals, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 10:10), you might therefore say that they should not be obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. Therefore, the baraita teaches that even priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva. The Gemara questions this comparison: Are these cases comparable? There, on the other special occasions throughout the year, the priests sound trumpets, whereas here, on Rosh HaShana, the issue is blowing the shofar.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转谞谉 砖讜讛 讛讬讜讘诇 诇专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇转拽讬注讛 讜诇讘专讻讜转 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 讬讜讘诇 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 讬讜讘诇 诇讬转讬讛 讘诪爪讜转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讛谞讬 讻讛谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘诪爪讜转 讚讬讜讘诇 讚转谞谉 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐

Rather, it was necessary to say that priests are obligated to fulfill this mitzva for a different reason. It might enter your mind to say as follows: Since we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 26b): Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana, with respect to both the shofar blasts and to the three additional blessings that are recited in the Amida prayer, I might have said that one who is fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee Year is also included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana, and that one who is not included in the mitzva of the Jubilee Year is likewise not included in the mitzva of Rosh HaShana. But with regard to these priests, since they are not fully included in the mitzva of the Jubilee Year, as we learned in a mishna (see 26b): Priests and Levites may sell their fields at any time, even in the Jubilee Year,

Scroll To Top