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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 6, 2018 | 讻状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • 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.

Menachot 27

What parts of the mincha offering are necessary? Which parts of other offerings are critical? From where do we derive the law in all these cases?


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

讚注诇 讛注爪讬诐 讻转讬讘

as 鈥渦pon [al] the wood鈥 is written, and not: Next to the wood.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇 讛注爪讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 讛转诐 注诇 诪诪砖 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 诪诪砖 转讬拽讜

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says in the mishna (96a) that the term 鈥渦pon [al]鈥 (see Numbers 2:20) means adjacent to. According to that tanna, what is the halakha in this case? Is it explained that here, too, the phrase 鈥渦pon [al] the wood鈥 can mean adjacent to the wood? Or perhaps, the phrase 鈥渦pon [al] the wood that is on the fire upon the altar鈥 teaches that 鈥渦pon the wood鈥 is to be understood as similar to 鈥渦pon the altar鈥: Just as there 鈥渦pon the altar鈥 is meant literally, so too here, the phrase 鈥渦pon the wood鈥 is meant literally. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 注砖专讜谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讛讬讬谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讛砖诪谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜

MISHNA: With regard to the handful, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from rendering it permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from qualifying as a proper meal offering. With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was poured, from qualifying as a proper libation. With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was added, from being a sufficient measure of oil.

讛住讜诇转 讜讛砖诪谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬

GEMARA: What is the reason that the failure to sacrifice the minority of the handful disqualifies the entire offering? This is derived from the fact that the verse states 鈥渉is handful鈥 twice, once with regard to the voluntary meal offering (Leviticus 2:2) and once with regard to the meal offering of a sinner (Leviticus 5:12), and any halakha repeated in the verses is deemed indispensable.

注砖专讜谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪住诇转讛 砖讗诐 讞住专讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper meal offering. What is the reason? The verse states: 鈥淭he priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). The usage of the term 鈥渙f its fine flour鈥 instead of: Of the fine flour, teaches that if any amount of its flour was missing, it is not valid.

讛讬讬谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讻讻讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper libation. What is the reason? The verse states concerning the libations: 鈥淪o shall it be done鈥 (Numbers 15:11). The term 鈥渟o鈥 indicates that the libations must be sacrificed exactly in the manner described, without any deviation.

讛砖诪谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讚诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讻讻讛 讜诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪砖诪谞讛 砖讗诐 讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it from being a sufficient measure of oil. In the case of the oil of the meal offering that accompanies the libations, this halakha is learned from the term: 鈥淪o鈥 (Numbers 15:11), stated with regard to the libations. And in the case of the log of oil that accompanies a voluntary meal offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), demonstrating that if any amount of its oil was missing, it is not valid.

讛砖诪谉 讜讛住讜诇转 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪住诇转讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛 诪讙专砖讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the fact that the two are juxtaposed in the verse: 鈥淭he priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), and the fact that this requirement is repeated in the verse: 鈥淥f its groats, and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:16), teaches that each is indispensable.

讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 注诇 讻诇 诇讘讜谞转讛 讜讗转 讻诇 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the repetition of the mention of the two together in the verse, as it is written: 鈥淭he priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil, as well as all of its frankincense鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), and again with regard to the meal offering of a sinner it is stated: 鈥淎nd all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:8).

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜

MISHNA: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

砖谞讬 住讚专讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛住讚专讬谉 讜讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讛 砖讘驻专讛 讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讜讗专讘注 砖讘诪爪讜专注 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite: The bread and wafers (see Numbers 6:15); the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer: The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool (see Numbers 19:6); and the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering: The loaves, wafers, loaves soaked in hot water, and leavened bread (see Leviticus 7:12); and the four species of the lulav: The lulav, etrog, myrtle, and willow (see Leviticus 23:40); and the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper: The cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds (see Leviticus 14:4), failure to bring each of the components prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

砖讘注讛 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻专讛 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 砖讘注 讛讝讬讜转 砖注诇 讘讬谉 讛讘讚讬诐 砖注诇 讛驻专讻转 砖注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜

With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary (see Numbers 19:4), failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves (see Leviticus 16:14鈥15), the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and from all other inner sin offerings, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

讙诪壮 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讞讜拽讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse that states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd it shall be a statute forever鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), since wherever the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 appears concerning a sacrificial rite, it signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.

砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛讜讬讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讛讜讬讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse: 鈥淭hey shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 23:20), since the employment of a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement. Similarly, with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, the reason failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall be of fine flour鈥 (Leviticus 23:17), employing a term of being.

砖谞讬 住讚专讬谉 讞讜拽讛 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讞讜拽讛 讛住讚专讬谉 讜讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讞讜拽讛

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, the reason failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them, as that verse addresses each of these two components.

砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讬注砖讛 砖诇砖讛 砖讘驻专讛 讞讜拽讛

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written with regard to the nazirite: 鈥淪o he must do after the law of his naziriteship鈥 (Numbers 6:21), demonstrating that must bring his offerings precisely as detailed in the verse. With regard to the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2).

讗专讘注讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讝讘讞 转讜讚转 砖诇诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖诇诪讬讜 诇专讘讜转 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专

With regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the thanks offering is juxtaposed to the offerings of a nazirite, as it is written with regard to the thanks offering: 鈥淲ith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving鈥 (Leviticus 7:13). And the Master said: The term 鈥渉is peace offerings鈥 serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of a nazirite, and it has already been demonstrated that with regard to the loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘诪爪讜专注 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛诪爪专注 讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇拽讬讞讛 转诪讛

And with regard to the four species that are in the purification process of the leper, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:2), and the term 鈥渟hall be鈥 indicates an indispensable requirement. And with regard to the four species of the lulav, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take鈥 [ulka岣em]鈥 (Leviticus 23:40), which alludes to: A complete taking [leki岣 tamma], comprising all four species.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

Rav 岣nan bar Rava says: The mishna taught that the four species of the lulav are necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva only in a case where one did not have all four species; but if one has all four species, failure to take each of the components does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, and he fulfills the mitzva by taking each species individually.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讘诇讜诇讘 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讬讛讬讜 讝拽讜拽讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讬讛讬讜 讝拽讜拽讬谉 诇注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, two of them, the lulav and etrog, produce fruit, and two of them, the myrtle and willow, do not produce fruit. Those that produce fruit have a bond with those that do not produce fruit, and those that do not produce fruit have a bond with those that produce fruit. And a person does not fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav until they are all bound together in a single bundle.

讜讻谉 讬砖专讗诇 讘讛专爪讗讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 砖谞讗诪专 讛讘讜谞讛 讘砖诪讬诐 诪注诇讜转讬讜 讜讗讙讚转讜 注诇 讗专抓 讬住讚讛

And so too, when the Jewish people fast and pray for acceptance of their repentance, this is not accomplished until they are all bound together in a single bundle, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is He that builds His upper chambers in the Heaven, and has established His bundle upon the earth鈥 (Amos 9:6), which is interpreted as stating that only when the Jewish people are bound together are they established upon the earth. This baraita contradicts Rav 岣nan bar Rava鈥檚 statement, since it teaches that the four species of the lulav must be taken together in order for one to fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讘讬谉 讗讙讜讚 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 驻住讜诇

The Gemara answers: Whether the different species must be taken together is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m; as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow or whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound, it is fit; if it is not bound, it is unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诪专 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛 诪讗讙讜讚转 讗讝讜讘

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal offering in Egypt: 鈥淭ake a bundle of hyssop鈥 (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, with regard to the four species: 鈥淎nd you shall take for you on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, boughs of dense-leaved trees, and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讙诪专讬 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛

Just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: They do not derive the meaning of the term taking from the meaning of the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讜讙讚讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讻砖专 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专 讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow together with the lulav, but if one did not bind it, it is fit? In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva is one fulfilling by binding it?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what mitzva is one fulfilling? The mitzva is due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淭his is my God and I will beautify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2), which is interpreted to mean that one should beautify himself before God in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for performing the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻专讛 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讞讜拽讛

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them (see Numbers 19:2).

砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖注诇 讘讬谉 讛讘讚讬诐 讜砖注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 讜砖注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻转讬讘 讞讜拽讛

The mishna further teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and the sprinklings from all other inner sin offerings that are sprinkled on the golden altar, and the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the sprinklings of Yom Kippur, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is that the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 is written about the Yom Kippur service (see Leviticus 16:29).

讚驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讜讚驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讜讚砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛 诇驻专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诇驻专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻驻讜诇 讘讛讝讗讜转

With regard to the sprinklings of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and those of the goats of idol worship, which are sprinkled on the Curtain and on the golden altar, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: 鈥淪o shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering鈥 of the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:20). Why must the verse state that the bull offering for an unwitting communal sin is sacrificed in the same manner as the bull of the anointed priest, when the Torah has already explicitly specified the manner in which the service should take place? The reason it states it is in order to repeat the command of the sprinklings,

砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐

to teach that if one omitted one of the placements of blood, he has done nothing.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻专讛 砖注砖讗谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讗诇 谞讻讞 驻谞讬 讗讜讛诇 诪讜注讚 驻住讜诇讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest performed the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer improperly, either by performing them not for their own sake or performing them not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, they are not valid.

讜砖讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讘诪爪讜专注 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻住讜诇讜转 砖诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讻砖专讜转

But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled 鈥渂efore the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done 鈥渟even times before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they are performed not precisely toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, they are valid.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讘讬 驻专讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻住讜诇讜转 砖诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讻砖专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita concerning the sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that if they were performed not for their own sake, they are not valid, but if they were performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, they are valid? Rav 岣sda said: This is not difficult; this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇注讝专讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kelim 1:10): With regard to those who have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, who entered the Temple courtyard unwittingly, they are liable to bring a sin offering. If they entered intentionally, then this is punishable by karet. And needless to say, the same applies to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed and all the others who are ritually impure and have not yet immersed.

讜讟讛讜专讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪诪讞讬爪转谉 诇讛讬讻诇 讻讜诇讜 讘讗专讘注讬诐 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诪讬转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻诇 讻讜诇讜 讜诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诪讬转讛

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.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讚讘专 讗诇 讗讛专谉 讗讞讬讱 讜讗诇 讬讘讜讗 讘讻诇 注转 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讗砖专 注诇 讛讗专讜谉 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诇讗 讬诪讜转

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die鈥 (Leviticus 16:2). The Rabbis hold that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies and before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诇讗 讬诪讜转

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, and within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the of Heaven.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讜诇讗 讘注讬 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬讻诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 诪讘注讬讗 诪讘讬转 讛驻专讻转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the interpretation of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: If it should enter your mind to explain the verse as Rabbi Yehuda says, then let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and before the Ark Cover that he not die, and there is no need to write 鈥渨ithin the Curtain,鈥 and I would say: If one becomes liable to receive lashes for even entering the Sanctuary, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering within the Curtain? Why do I need the phrase 鈥渨ithin the Curtain鈥 that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽讜讚砖 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻诇 诇讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讛讬讻诇 讻讜诇讜 讗讬拽专讬 拽讜讚砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讚讬诇讛 讛驻专讻转 诇讻诐 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come 鈥渋nto the holy place鈥 and did not write 鈥渨ithin the Curtain,鈥 I would say: What is the holy place? It is within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, but if one enters the Sanctuary he does not even violate a prohibition. And the Rabbis respond to this claim: You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called 鈥渢he holy place,鈥 as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies鈥 (Exodus 26:33).

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诪讬转讛 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讘讗讝讛专讛

And what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if it should enter your mind to explain as the Rabbis say, that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and within the Curtain that he not die, and there is no need to write 鈥渂efore the Ark Cover.鈥 And I would say: If entering within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering before the Ark Cover? Why do I need the phrase 鈥渂efore the Ark Cover鈥 that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering before the Ark Cover is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, but entering within the Curtain merely violates a prohibition.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讛讗讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讱 诪砖讜驻砖

And the Rabbis understand: Indeed, it is so that in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it is not necessary for the verse to also state 鈥渂efore the Ark Cover.鈥 And the reason that the Merciful One wrote 鈥渂efore [el penei] the Ark Cover鈥 was in order to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path, as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 拽讚诪讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 驻谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻谞讬 拽讚讬诐

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [el penei] the Ark Cover to the east鈥 (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: 鈥淏efore [penei],鈥 it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 驻谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诇 讚讜拽讗 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term 鈥渂efore [el penei] the Ark Cover鈥 is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, let the verse say: Before [penei] the Ark Cover. What is the purpose of the word el? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven specifically if he entered directly before the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. And the Rabbis hold that the term el does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讚讜拽讗 讜讛讝讛 讗诇 谞讻讞 谞诪讬 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two baraitot with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the expression 鈥渂efore [el penei] the Ark Cover鈥 teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: 鈥淎nd sprinkle of its blood toward [el] the front鈥 (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗

And the Rabbis are of the opinion that from the fact that there the term el does not mean specifically that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, here too they hold that it is not meant specifically, and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讗诇 讚讜拽讗 (讗诇 谞讻讞) [注诇] 谞诪讬 讚讜拽讗 讗诇讗 讚诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讗专讜谉 讜讻驻讜专转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讛讝讗讜转

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle of the blood before [al penei] the Ark Cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:14) should also mean that the sprinkling must be performed specifically upon the Ark Cover. But in the time of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, would Rabbi Yehuda then say that indeed the sprinklings were not performed? This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see Yoma 53b).

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 诪拽讜诐 讛诪拽讜讚砖 诇拽讜讚砖

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the most holy place [mikdash hakodesh]鈥 (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [hakodesh], but even on the place that is dedicated [hamkudash] for the Ark [lakodesh].

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the baraitot concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis:

  • 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!

Menachot 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 27

讚注诇 讛注爪讬诐 讻转讬讘

as 鈥渦pon [al] the wood鈥 is written, and not: Next to the wood.

讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讘住诪讜讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇 讛注爪讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 讛转诐 注诇 诪诪砖 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 诪诪砖 转讬拽讜

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says in the mishna (96a) that the term 鈥渦pon [al]鈥 (see Numbers 2:20) means adjacent to. According to that tanna, what is the halakha in this case? Is it explained that here, too, the phrase 鈥渦pon [al] the wood鈥 can mean adjacent to the wood? Or perhaps, the phrase 鈥渦pon [al] the wood that is on the fire upon the altar鈥 teaches that 鈥渦pon the wood鈥 is to be understood as similar to 鈥渦pon the altar鈥: Just as there 鈥渦pon the altar鈥 is meant literally, so too here, the phrase 鈥渦pon the wood鈥 is meant literally. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 注砖专讜谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讛讬讬谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讛砖诪谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜

MISHNA: With regard to the handful, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from rendering it permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from qualifying as a proper meal offering. With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was poured, from qualifying as a proper libation. With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was added, from being a sufficient measure of oil.

讛住讜诇转 讜讛砖诪谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讗 拽诪爪讜 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬

GEMARA: What is the reason that the failure to sacrifice the minority of the handful disqualifies the entire offering? This is derived from the fact that the verse states 鈥渉is handful鈥 twice, once with regard to the voluntary meal offering (Leviticus 2:2) and once with regard to the meal offering of a sinner (Leviticus 5:12), and any halakha repeated in the verses is deemed indispensable.

注砖专讜谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪住诇转讛 砖讗诐 讞住专讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper meal offering. What is the reason? The verse states: 鈥淭he priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). The usage of the term 鈥渙f its fine flour鈥 instead of: Of the fine flour, teaches that if any amount of its flour was missing, it is not valid.

讛讬讬谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讻讻讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper libation. What is the reason? The verse states concerning the libations: 鈥淪o shall it be done鈥 (Numbers 15:11). The term 鈥渟o鈥 indicates that the libations must be sacrificed exactly in the manner described, without any deviation.

讛砖诪谉 诪讬注讜讟讜 诪注讻讘 讗转 专讜讘讜 讚诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讻讻讛 讜诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪砖诪谞讛 砖讗诐 讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it from being a sufficient measure of oil. In the case of the oil of the meal offering that accompanies the libations, this halakha is learned from the term: 鈥淪o鈥 (Numbers 15:11), stated with regard to the libations. And in the case of the log of oil that accompanies a voluntary meal offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), demonstrating that if any amount of its oil was missing, it is not valid.

讛砖诪谉 讜讛住讜诇转 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪住诇转讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛 诪讙专砖讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the fact that the two are juxtaposed in the verse: 鈥淭he priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), and the fact that this requirement is repeated in the verse: 鈥淥f its groats, and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 2:16), teaches that each is indispensable.

讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 注诇 讻诇 诇讘讜谞转讛 讜讗转 讻诇 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讗砖专 注诇 讛诪谞讞讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the repetition of the mention of the two together in the verse, as it is written: 鈥淭he priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil, as well as all of its frankincense鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), and again with regard to the meal offering of a sinner it is stated: 鈥淎nd all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:8).

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜

MISHNA: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

砖谞讬 住讚专讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛住讚专讬谉 讜讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘谞讝讬专 砖诇砖讛 砖讘驻专讛 讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讜讗专讘注 砖讘诪爪讜专注 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite: The bread and wafers (see Numbers 6:15); the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer: The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool (see Numbers 19:6); and the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering: The loaves, wafers, loaves soaked in hot water, and leavened bread (see Leviticus 7:12); and the four species of the lulav: The lulav, etrog, myrtle, and willow (see Leviticus 23:40); and the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper: The cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds (see Leviticus 14:4), failure to bring each of the components prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

砖讘注讛 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻专讛 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 砖讘注 讛讝讬讜转 砖注诇 讘讬谉 讛讘讚讬诐 砖注诇 讛驻专讻转 砖注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜

With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary (see Numbers 19:4), failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves (see Leviticus 16:14鈥15), the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and from all other inner sin offerings, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

讙诪壮 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讞讜拽讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse that states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd it shall be a statute forever鈥 (Leviticus 16:29), since wherever the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 appears concerning a sacrificial rite, it signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.

砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛讜讬讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讛讜讬讛

The mishna teaches: With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse: 鈥淭hey shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 23:20), since the employment of a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement. Similarly, with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, the reason failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall be of fine flour鈥 (Leviticus 23:17), employing a term of being.

砖谞讬 住讚专讬谉 讞讜拽讛 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 讞讜拽讛 讛住讚专讬谉 讜讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讞讜拽讛

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, the reason failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them, as that verse addresses each of these two components.

砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 讻谉 讬注砖讛 砖诇砖讛 砖讘驻专讛 讞讜拽讛

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written with regard to the nazirite: 鈥淪o he must do after the law of his naziriteship鈥 (Numbers 6:21), demonstrating that must bring his offerings precisely as detailed in the verse. With regard to the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2).

讗专讘注讛 砖讘转讜讚讛 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇谞讝讬专 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讝讘讞 转讜讚转 砖诇诪讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖诇诪讬讜 诇专讘讜转 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专

With regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the thanks offering is juxtaposed to the offerings of a nazirite, as it is written with regard to the thanks offering: 鈥淲ith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving鈥 (Leviticus 7:13). And the Master said: The term 鈥渉is peace offerings鈥 serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of a nazirite, and it has already been demonstrated that with regard to the loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘诪爪讜专注 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛诪爪专注 讜讗专讘注讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇拽讬讞讛 转诪讛

And with regard to the four species that are in the purification process of the leper, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:2), and the term 鈥渟hall be鈥 indicates an indispensable requirement. And with regard to the four species of the lulav, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take鈥 [ulka岣em]鈥 (Leviticus 23:40), which alludes to: A complete taking [leki岣 tamma], comprising all four species.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

Rav 岣nan bar Rava says: The mishna taught that the four species of the lulav are necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva only in a case where one did not have all four species; but if one has all four species, failure to take each of the components does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, and he fulfills the mitzva by taking each species individually.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讘诇讜诇讘 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讛诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讬讛讬讜 讝拽讜拽讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讬讛讬讜 讝拽讜拽讬谉 诇注讜砖讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讛谉 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, two of them, the lulav and etrog, produce fruit, and two of them, the myrtle and willow, do not produce fruit. Those that produce fruit have a bond with those that do not produce fruit, and those that do not produce fruit have a bond with those that produce fruit. And a person does not fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav until they are all bound together in a single bundle.

讜讻谉 讬砖专讗诇 讘讛专爪讗讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讻讜诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 砖谞讗诪专 讛讘讜谞讛 讘砖诪讬诐 诪注诇讜转讬讜 讜讗讙讚转讜 注诇 讗专抓 讬住讚讛

And so too, when the Jewish people fast and pray for acceptance of their repentance, this is not accomplished until they are all bound together in a single bundle, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is He that builds His upper chambers in the Heaven, and has established His bundle upon the earth鈥 (Amos 9:6), which is interpreted as stating that only when the Jewish people are bound together are they established upon the earth. This baraita contradicts Rav 岣nan bar Rava鈥檚 statement, since it teaches that the four species of the lulav must be taken together in order for one to fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讘讬谉 讗讙讜讚 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 驻住讜诇

The Gemara answers: Whether the different species must be taken together is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m; as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow or whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound, it is fit; if it is not bound, it is unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诪专 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛 诪讗讙讜讚转 讗讝讜讘

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal offering in Egypt: 鈥淭ake a bundle of hyssop鈥 (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, with regard to the four species: 鈥淎nd you shall take for you on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, boughs of dense-leaved trees, and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讙诪专讬 拽讬讞讛 拽讬讞讛

Just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: They do not derive the meaning of the term taking from the meaning of the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讜讙讚讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讻砖专 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专 讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow together with the lulav, but if one did not bind it, it is fit? In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva is one fulfilling by binding it?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what mitzva is one fulfilling? The mitzva is due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淭his is my God and I will beautify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2), which is interpreted to mean that one should beautify himself before God in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for performing the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻专讛 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讞讜拽讛

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them (see Numbers 19:2).

砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖注诇 讘讬谉 讛讘讚讬诐 讜砖注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 讜砖注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 诪注讻讘讜转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻转讬讘 讞讜拽讛

The mishna further teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and the sprinklings from all other inner sin offerings that are sprinkled on the golden altar, and the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the sprinklings of Yom Kippur, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is that the term 鈥渟tatute鈥 is written about the Yom Kippur service (see Leviticus 16:29).

讚驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讜讚驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讜讚砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛 诇驻专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诇驻专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻驻讜诇 讘讛讝讗讜转

With regard to the sprinklings of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and those of the goats of idol worship, which are sprinkled on the Curtain and on the golden altar, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: 鈥淪o shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering鈥 of the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:20). Why must the verse state that the bull offering for an unwitting communal sin is sacrificed in the same manner as the bull of the anointed priest, when the Torah has already explicitly specified the manner in which the service should take place? The reason it states it is in order to repeat the command of the sprinklings,

砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐

to teach that if one omitted one of the placements of blood, he has done nothing.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘注 讛讝讗讜转 砖讘驻专讛 砖注砖讗谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讗诇 谞讻讞 驻谞讬 讗讜讛诇 诪讜注讚 驻住讜诇讜转

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest performed the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer improperly, either by performing them not for their own sake or performing them not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, they are not valid.

讜砖讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讘诪爪讜专注 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻住讜诇讜转 砖诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讻砖专讜转

But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled 鈥渂efore the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done 鈥渟even times before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they are performed not precisely toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, they are valid.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讘讬 驻专讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻住讜诇讜转 砖诇讗 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讻砖专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita concerning the sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that if they were performed not for their own sake, they are not valid, but if they were performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, they are valid? Rav 岣sda said: This is not difficult; this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讚转谞讬讗 诪讞讜住专讬 讻驻专讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇注讝专讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讘诪讝讬讚 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讟诪讗讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kelim 1:10): With regard to those who have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, who entered the Temple courtyard unwittingly, they are liable to bring a sin offering. If they entered intentionally, then this is punishable by karet. And needless to say, the same applies to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed and all the others who are ritually impure and have not yet immersed.

讜讟讛讜专讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪诪讞讬爪转谉 诇讛讬讻诇 讻讜诇讜 讘讗专讘注讬诐 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诪讬转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻诇 讻讜诇讜 讜诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诪讬转讛

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.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讚讘专 讗诇 讗讛专谉 讗讞讬讱 讜讗诇 讬讘讜讗 讘讻诇 注转 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讗砖专 注诇 讛讗专讜谉 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诇讗 讬诪讜转

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die鈥 (Leviticus 16:2). The Rabbis hold that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies and before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讘诇讗 讬讘讗 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诇讗 讬诪讜转

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, and within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the of Heaven.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讜诇讗 讘注讬 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讬讻诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 诪讘注讬讗 诪讘讬转 讛驻专讻转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the interpretation of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: If it should enter your mind to explain the verse as Rabbi Yehuda says, then let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and before the Ark Cover that he not die, and there is no need to write 鈥渨ithin the Curtain,鈥 and I would say: If one becomes liable to receive lashes for even entering the Sanctuary, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering within the Curtain? Why do I need the phrase 鈥渨ithin the Curtain鈥 that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 拽讜讚砖 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻诇 诇讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讛讬讻诇 讻讜诇讜 讗讬拽专讬 拽讜讚砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讚讬诇讛 讛驻专讻转 诇讻诐 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come 鈥渋nto the holy place鈥 and did not write 鈥渨ithin the Curtain,鈥 I would say: What is the holy place? It is within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, but if one enters the Sanctuary he does not even violate a prohibition. And the Rabbis respond to this claim: You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called 鈥渢he holy place,鈥 as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies鈥 (Exodus 26:33).

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 讛拽讜讚砖 讜诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讜诇讗 讘注讬 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讜讻转 讘诪讬转讛 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讘诪讬转讛 诪讘讬转 诇驻专讻转 讘讗讝讛专讛

And what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if it should enter your mind to explain as the Rabbis say, that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and within the Curtain that he not die, and there is no need to write 鈥渂efore the Ark Cover.鈥 And I would say: If entering within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering before the Ark Cover? Why do I need the phrase 鈥渂efore the Ark Cover鈥 that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering before the Ark Cover is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, but entering within the Curtain merely violates a prohibition.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讛讗讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚专讱 诪砖讜驻砖

And the Rabbis understand: Indeed, it is so that in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it is not necessary for the verse to also state 鈥渂efore the Ark Cover.鈥 And the reason that the Merciful One wrote 鈥渂efore [el penei] the Ark Cover鈥 was in order to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path, as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 拽讚诪讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 驻谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻谞讬 拽讚讬诐

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [el penei] the Ark Cover to the east鈥 (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: 鈥淏efore [penei],鈥 it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 驻谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗诇 讚讜拽讗 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term 鈥渂efore [el penei] the Ark Cover鈥 is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, let the verse say: Before [penei] the Ark Cover. What is the purpose of the word el? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven specifically if he entered directly before the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. And the Rabbis hold that the term el does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻专转 讚讜拽讗 讜讛讝讛 讗诇 谞讻讞 谞诪讬 讚讜拽讗

The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two baraitot with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the expression 鈥渂efore [el penei] the Ark Cover鈥 teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: 鈥淎nd sprinkle of its blood toward [el] the front鈥 (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗

And the Rabbis are of the opinion that from the fact that there the term el does not mean specifically that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, here too they hold that it is not meant specifically, and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讗诇 讚讜拽讗 (讗诇 谞讻讞) [注诇] 谞诪讬 讚讜拽讗 讗诇讗 讚诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讗专讜谉 讜讻驻讜专转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讛讝讗讜转

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle of the blood before [al penei] the Ark Cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:14) should also mean that the sprinkling must be performed specifically upon the Ark Cover. But in the time of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, would Rabbi Yehuda then say that indeed the sprinklings were not performed? This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see Yoma 53b).

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 诪拽讜诐 讛诪拽讜讚砖 诇拽讜讚砖

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the most holy place [mikdash hakodesh]鈥 (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [hakodesh], but even on the place that is dedicated [hamkudash] for the Ark [lakodesh].

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the baraitot concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis:

Scroll To Top