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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 6, 2018 | ื›ืดื• ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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"

ื“ืขืœ ื”ืขืฆื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

as โ€œupon [al] the woodโ€ is written, and not: Next to the wood.

ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืขืœ ื‘ืกืžื•ืš ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืขืœ ื‘ืกืžื•ืš ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืขืœ ื”ืขืฆื™ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืขืœ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื” ื”ืชื ืขืœ ืžืžืฉ ืืฃ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืขืœ ืžืžืฉ ืชื™ืงื•

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says in the mishna (96a) that the term โ€œupon [al]โ€ (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 โ€œupon [al] the woodโ€ can mean adjacent to the wood? Or perhaps, the phrase โ€œupon [al] the wood that is on the fire upon the altarโ€ teaches that โ€œupon the woodโ€ is to be understood as similar to โ€œupon the altarโ€: Just as there โ€œupon the altarโ€ is meant literally, so too here, the phrase โ€œupon the woodโ€ is meant literally. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื”ืฉืžืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื•

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.

ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืœื ืงืžืฆื• ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™

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 โ€œhis handfulโ€ 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.

ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืกืœืชื” ืฉืื ื—ืกืจื” ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืกื•ืœื”

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: โ€œThe priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flourโ€ (Leviticus 2:2). The usage of the term โ€œof its fine flourโ€ instead of: Of the fine flour, teaches that if any amount of its flour was missing, it is not valid.

ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื›ื›ื”

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: โ€œSo shall it be doneโ€ (Numbers 15:11). The term โ€œsoโ€ indicates that the libations must be sacrificed exactly in the manner described, without any deviation.

ื”ืฉืžืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื“ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ื›ื›ื” ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื ื“ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืžืฉืžื ื” ืฉืื ื—ืกืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืกื•ืœื”

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: โ€œSoโ€ (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: โ€œAnd of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:2), demonstrating that if any amount of its oil was missing, it is not valid.

ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืžืกืœืชื” ื•ืžืฉืžื ื” ืžื’ืจืฉื” ื•ืžืฉืžื ื”

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: โ€œThe priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:2), and the fact that this requirement is repeated in the verse: โ€œOf its groats, and of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:16), teaches that each is indispensable.

ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืœื‘ื•ื ืชื” ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืžื ื—ื”

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: โ€œThe priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil, as well as all of its frankincenseโ€ (Leviticus 2:2), and again with regard to the meal offering of a sinner it is stated: โ€œAnd all the frankincense which is upon the meal offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:8).

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืชื™ ื—ืœื•ืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื•

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.

ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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.

ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืœื•ืœื‘ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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.

ืฉื‘ืขื” ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ื™ื•ืช ืฉืขืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ื”ืคืจื›ืช ืฉืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื•

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 16:14โ€“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.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื—ื•ืงื”

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: โ€œAnd it shall be a statute foreverโ€ (Leviticus 16:29), since wherever the term โ€œstatuteโ€ appears concerning a sacrificial rite, it signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.

ืฉื ื™ ื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ื•ื™ื” ืฉืชื™ ื—ืœื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ื”

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: โ€œThey shall be holyโ€ (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: โ€œThey shall be of fine flourโ€ (Leviticus 23:17), employing a term of being.

ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืงื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืงื” ื”ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืงื”

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.

ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ื—ื•ืงื”

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: โ€œSo he must do after the law of his naziriteshipโ€ (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: โ€œThis is the statute of the lawโ€ (Numbers 19:2).

ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื“ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ืช ืฉืœืžื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืฉืœืžื™ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

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: โ€œWith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgivingโ€ (Leviticus 7:13). And the Master said: The term โ€œhis peace offeringsโ€ 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.

ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืžืฆืจืข ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืœื•ืœื‘ ื•ืœืงื—ืชื ืœืงื™ื—ื” ืชืžื”

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: โ€œThis shall be the law of the leperโ€ (Leviticus 14:2), and the term โ€œshall beโ€ 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: โ€œAnd you shall takeโ€ [ulkaแธฅtem]โ€ (Leviticus 23:40), which alludes to: A complete taking [lekiแธฅa tamma], comprising all four species.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ

ยง Rav แธคanan 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืœื•ืœื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื™ื”ื™ื• ื–ืงื•ืงื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื™ื”ื™ื• ื–ืงื•ืงื™ืŸ ืœืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ืื—ืช

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.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื”ืจืฆืื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ืื—ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื•ื ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืžืขืœื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืื’ื“ืชื• ืขืœ ืืจืฅ ื™ืกื“ื”

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: โ€œIt is He that builds His upper chambers in the Heaven, and has established His bundle upon the earthโ€ (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 แธคanan bar Ravaโ€™s 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.

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื•ืœื‘ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื’ื•ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืื’ื•ื“ ื›ืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื’ื•ื“ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืื’ื•ื“ ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara answers: Whether the different species must be taken together is a dispute between tannaโ€™im; 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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื’ืžืจ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื” ืžืื’ื•ื“ืช ืื–ื•ื‘

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: โ€œTake a bundle of hyssopโ€ (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, with regard to the four species: โ€œAnd 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 brookโ€ (Leviticus 23:40).

ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื”

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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื•ืœื‘ ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืื•ื’ื“ื• ื•ืื ืœื ืื’ื“ื• ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืžืืŸ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืื’ื“ื• ืืžืื™ ื›ืฉืจ ืื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืžืฆื•ื”

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?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฆื•ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื” ืืœื™ ื•ืื ื•ื”ื•

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: โ€œThis is my God and I will beautify Himโ€ (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.

ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ื—ื•ืงื”

ยง 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).

ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉืขืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืฉืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืฉืขืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื•ืงื”

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 โ€œstatuteโ€ is written about the Yom Kippur service (see Leviticus 16:29).

ื“ืคืจ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื— ื•ื“ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื“ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื” ืœืคืจ ื›ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ืœืคืจ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื›ืคื•ืœ ื‘ื”ื–ืื•ืช

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: โ€œSo shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offeringโ€ 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,

ืฉืื ื—ื™ืกืจ ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืžืชื ื•ืช ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื

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

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ืฉืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ืืœ ื ื›ื— ืคื ื™ ืื•ื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช

ยง 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.

ื•ืฉื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช

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 โ€œbefore the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuaryโ€ (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done โ€œseven times before the Lordโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืจื” ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t 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 แธคisda 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.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืขื–ืจื” ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ืžืื™ื

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.

ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืžื—ื™ืฆืชืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื”

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.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœ ืื”ืจืŸ ืื—ื™ืš ื•ืืœ ื™ื‘ื•ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืขืช ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืœื ื™ื‘ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืœื ื™ืžื•ืช

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: โ€œAnd 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 dieโ€ (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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื‘ืœื ื™ื‘ื ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืœื ื™ืžื•ืช

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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื›ื“ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื•ืื ื ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืคืจื›ืช ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืžื™ืชื”

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 โ€œwithin the Curtain,โ€ 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 โ€œwithin the Curtainโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืœืื• ื ืžื™ ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื“ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ืื™ืงืจื™ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ื“ื™ืœื” ื”ืคืจื›ืช ืœื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come โ€œinto the holy placeโ€ and did not write โ€œwithin the Curtain,โ€ 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 โ€œthe holy place,โ€ as it is stated: โ€œAnd the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holiesโ€ (Exodus 26:33).

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื›ื“ืงื ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื•ืื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื•ื›ืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื‘ืื–ื”ืจื”

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 โ€œbefore the Ark Cover.โ€ 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 โ€œbefore the Ark Coverโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื“ืจืš ืžืฉื•ืคืฉ

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 โ€œbefore the Ark Cover.โ€ And the reason that the Merciful One wrote โ€œbefore [el penei] the Ark Coverโ€ 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.

ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืงื“ืžื” ื–ื” ื‘ื ื” ืื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืคื ื™ ืงื“ื™ื

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov taught: With regard to the verse: โ€œAnd he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [el penei] the Ark Cover to the eastโ€ (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: โ€œBefore [penei],โ€ it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืคื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืœ ื“ื•ืงื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœ ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term โ€œbefore [el penei] the Ark Coverโ€ 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 โ€œelโ€ does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื“ื•ืงื ื•ื”ื–ื” ืืœ ื ื›ื— ื ืžื™ ื“ื•ืงื

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 โ€œbefore [el penei] the Ark Coverโ€ teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: โ€œAnd sprinkle of its blood toward [el] the frontโ€ (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื“ื”ืชื ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื

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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื“ืืœ ื“ื•ืงื (ืืœ ื ื›ื—) [ืขืœ] ื ืžื™ ื“ื•ืงื ืืœื ื“ืžืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื–ืื•ืช

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: โ€œAnd he shall sprinkle of the blood before [al penei] the Ark Coverโ€ (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).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื›ืคืจ ืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื ื”ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: โ€œAnd he shall make atonement for the most holy place [mikdash hakodesh]โ€ (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].

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ

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 monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ื“ืขืœ ื”ืขืฆื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

as โ€œupon [al] the woodโ€ is written, and not: Next to the wood.

ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืขืœ ื‘ืกืžื•ืš ืžืื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืขืœ ื‘ืกืžื•ืš ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืขืœ ื”ืขืฆื™ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ืขืœ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžื” ื”ืชื ืขืœ ืžืžืฉ ืืฃ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืขืœ ืžืžืฉ ืชื™ืงื•

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says in the mishna (96a) that the term โ€œupon [al]โ€ (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 โ€œupon [al] the woodโ€ can mean adjacent to the wood? Or perhaps, the phrase โ€œupon [al] the wood that is on the fire upon the altarโ€ teaches that โ€œupon the woodโ€ is to be understood as similar to โ€œupon the altarโ€: Just as there โ€œupon the altarโ€ is meant literally, so too here, the phrase โ€œupon the woodโ€ is meant literally. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื”ืฉืžืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื•

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.

ื”ืกื•ืœืช ื•ื”ืฉืžืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืœื ืงืžืฆื• ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™

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 โ€œhis handfulโ€ 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.

ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืกืœืชื” ืฉืื ื—ืกืจื” ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืกื•ืœื”

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: โ€œThe priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flourโ€ (Leviticus 2:2). The usage of the term โ€œof its fine flourโ€ instead of: Of the fine flour, teaches that if any amount of its flour was missing, it is not valid.

ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื›ื›ื”

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: โ€œSo shall it be doneโ€ (Numbers 15:11). The term โ€œsoโ€ indicates that the libations must be sacrificed exactly in the manner described, without any deviation.

ื”ืฉืžืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ ืืช ืจื•ื‘ื• ื“ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ื›ื›ื” ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื ื“ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืžืฉืžื ื” ืฉืื ื—ืกืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคืกื•ืœื”

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: โ€œSoโ€ (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: โ€œAnd of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:2), demonstrating that if any amount of its oil was missing, it is not valid.

ื”ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื”ืกื•ืœืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืžืกืœืชื” ื•ืžืฉืžื ื” ืžื’ืจืฉื” ื•ืžืฉืžื ื”

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: โ€œThe priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:2), and the fact that this requirement is repeated in the verse: โ€œOf its groats, and of its oilโ€ (Leviticus 2:16), teaches that each is indispensable.

ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืœื‘ื•ื ืชื” ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืžื ื—ื”

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: โ€œThe priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil, as well as all of its frankincenseโ€ (Leviticus 2:2), and again with regard to the meal offering of a sinner it is stated: โ€œAnd all the frankincense which is upon the meal offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:8).

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉืชื™ ื—ืœื•ืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื•

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.

ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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.

ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืœื•ืœื‘ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื”

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.

ืฉื‘ืขื” ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ื™ื•ืช ืฉืขืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื ืฉืขืœ ื”ืคืจื›ืช ืฉืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื•

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 16:14โ€“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.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื—ื•ืงื”

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: โ€œAnd it shall be a statute foreverโ€ (Leviticus 16:29), since wherever the term โ€œstatuteโ€ appears concerning a sacrificial rite, it signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.

ืฉื ื™ ื›ื‘ืฉื™ ืขืฆืจืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื”ื•ื™ื” ืฉืชื™ ื—ืœื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ื”

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: โ€œThey shall be holyโ€ (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: โ€œThey shall be of fine flourโ€ (Leviticus 23:17), employing a term of being.

ืฉื ื™ ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืงื” ืฉื ื™ ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืงื” ื”ืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื–ื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืงื”

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.

ืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ื—ื•ืงื”

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: โ€œSo he must do after the law of his naziriteshipโ€ (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: โ€œThis is the statute of the lawโ€ (Numbers 19:2).

ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื“ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื— ืชื•ื“ืช ืฉืœืžื™ื• ื•ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืฉืœืžื™ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

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: โ€œWith the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgivingโ€ (Leviticus 7:13). And the Master said: The term โ€œhis peace offeringsโ€ 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.

ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืžืฆืจืข ื•ืืจื‘ืขื” ืฉื‘ืœื•ืœื‘ ื•ืœืงื—ืชื ืœืงื™ื—ื” ืชืžื”

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: โ€œThis shall be the law of the leperโ€ (Leviticus 14:2), and the term โ€œshall beโ€ 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: โ€œAnd you shall takeโ€ [ulkaแธฅtem]โ€ (Leviticus 23:40), which alludes to: A complete taking [lekiแธฅa tamma], comprising all four species.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ืŸ

ยง Rav แธคanan 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืœื•ืœื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ื ืžื”ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื™ื”ื™ื• ื–ืงื•ืงื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื™ื”ื™ื• ื–ืงื•ืงื™ืŸ ืœืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ืื—ืช

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.

ื•ื›ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ื”ืจืฆืื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ืื—ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื‘ื•ื ื” ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืžืขืœื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืื’ื“ืชื• ืขืœ ืืจืฅ ื™ืกื“ื”

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: โ€œIt is He that builds His upper chambers in the Heaven, and has established His bundle upon the earthโ€ (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 แธคanan bar Ravaโ€™s 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.

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื•ืœื‘ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื’ื•ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืื’ื•ื“ ื›ืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื’ื•ื“ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืื’ื•ื“ ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara answers: Whether the different species must be taken together is a dispute between tannaโ€™im; 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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื’ืžืจ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื” ืžืื’ื•ื“ืช ืื–ื•ื‘

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: โ€œTake a bundle of hyssopโ€ (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, with regard to the four species: โ€œAnd 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 brookโ€ (Leviticus 23:40).

ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื’ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ ืงื™ื—ื” ืงื™ื—ื”

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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื•ืœื‘ ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืื•ื’ื“ื• ื•ืื ืœื ืื’ื“ื• ื›ืฉืจ ื›ืžืืŸ ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืื’ื“ื• ืืžืื™ ื›ืฉืจ ืื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืžืฆื•ื”

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?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฆื•ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื” ืืœื™ ื•ืื ื•ื”ื•

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: โ€œThis is my God and I will beautify Himโ€ (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.

ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ื—ื•ืงื”

ยง 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).

ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉืขืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื ื•ืฉืขืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื–ื”ื‘ ื•ืฉืขืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืžืขื›ื‘ื•ืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื•ืงื”

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 โ€œstatuteโ€ is written about the Yom Kippur service (see Leviticus 16:29).

ื“ืคืจ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื— ื•ื“ืคืจ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื“ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื” ืœืคืจ ื›ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ืœืคืจ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื›ืคื•ืœ ื‘ื”ื–ืื•ืช

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: โ€œSo shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offeringโ€ 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,

ืฉืื ื—ื™ืกืจ ืื—ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืžืชื ื•ืช ืœื ืขืฉื” ื›ืœื•ื

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

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืข ื”ื–ืื•ืช ืฉื‘ืคืจื” ืฉืขืฉืืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ืืœ ื ื›ื— ืคื ื™ ืื•ื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช

ยง 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.

ื•ืฉื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช

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 โ€œbefore the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuaryโ€ (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done โ€œseven times before the Lordโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ื‘ื™ ืคืจื” ืฉืœื ืœืฉืžืŸ ืคืกื•ืœื•ืช ืฉืœื ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t 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 แธคisda 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.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืขื–ืจื” ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ืžืื™ื

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.

ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืคื ื™ื ืžืžื—ื™ืฆืชืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื”

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.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœ ืื”ืจืŸ ืื—ื™ืš ื•ืืœ ื™ื‘ื•ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืขืช ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื™ืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ืœื ื™ื‘ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืœื ื™ืžื•ืช

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: โ€œAnd 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 dieโ€ (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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื‘ืœื ื™ื‘ื ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืœื ื™ืžื•ืช

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.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื›ื“ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื•ืื ื ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืคืจื›ืช ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืžื™ืชื”

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 โ€œwithin the Curtain,โ€ 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 โ€œwithin the Curtainโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืœืื• ื ืžื™ ืœื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื“ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ืื™ืงืจื™ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ื“ื™ืœื” ื”ืคืจื›ืช ืœื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come โ€œinto the holy placeโ€ and did not write โ€œwithin the Curtain,โ€ 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 โ€œthe holy place,โ€ as it is stated: โ€œAnd the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holiesโ€ (Exodus 26:33).

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื›ื“ืงื ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื•ืื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื•ื›ืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœืคืจื›ืช ื‘ืื–ื”ืจื”

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 โ€œbefore the Ark Cover.โ€ 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 โ€œbefore the Ark Coverโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื“ืจืš ืžืฉื•ืคืฉ

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 โ€œbefore the Ark Cover.โ€ And the reason that the Merciful One wrote โ€œbefore [el penei] the Ark Coverโ€ 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.

ื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ืงื“ืžื” ื–ื” ื‘ื ื” ืื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืคื ื™ ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืคื ื™ ืงื“ื™ื

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov taught: With regard to the verse: โ€œAnd he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [el penei] the Ark Cover to the eastโ€ (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: โ€œBefore [penei],โ€ it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืคื ื™ ืžืื™ ืืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืœ ื“ื•ืงื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœ ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term โ€œbefore [el penei] the Ark Coverโ€ 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 โ€œelโ€ does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ื›ืคืจืช ื“ื•ืงื ื•ื”ื–ื” ืืœ ื ื›ื— ื ืžื™ ื“ื•ืงื

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 โ€œbefore [el penei] the Ark Coverโ€ teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: โ€œAnd sprinkle of its blood toward [el] the frontโ€ (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื“ื”ืชื ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื

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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื“ืืœ ื“ื•ืงื (ืืœ ื ื›ื—) [ืขืœ] ื ืžื™ ื“ื•ืงื ืืœื ื“ืžืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืคื•ืจืช ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื–ืื•ืช

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: โ€œAnd he shall sprinkle of the blood before [al penei] the Ark Coverโ€ (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).

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื›ืคืจ ืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื ื”ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: โ€œAnd he shall make atonement for the most holy place [mikdash hakodesh]โ€ (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].

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ

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