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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 21, 2021 | 讟壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Yoma 10

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub in loving memory of her aunt, Lottie Cohen, on her seventh yahrzeit. “Auntie Lottie spoke a beautiful Yiddish and was a woman of extraordinary patience, love, and generosity of spirit. Yehi zichrona li鈥檝racha.” And by Yoni Bock to his partner Ron Kaplan on achieving a half-century milestone. “From never having studied a page of Talmud to taking time to tackle daf yomi daily, you are an inspiration. Happy birthday! Ad meah v’esrim.” And for a refuah shleima for聽 Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana.

How do we know the Persians came from Yefet? The gemara brings lists of names in Genesis Chapter 10 and explains what they are referring to. Will the Persians fall into the hands of the Romans or the reverse? Is the Lishkat Parhedrin obligated in a mezuza or not? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree. They also have the same a similar debate regarding a mezuza on a sukka but their opinions there contradict their opinions here. How is that contradiction resolved?

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬驻转 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讬驻转 讗讬谉 讛砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐

The Gemara explains: Although God will enlarge Japheth, referring to the Persians, who descended from Japheth and who assisted in constructing the Second Temple, the Divine Presence rests only in the tents of Shem, in the First Temple, which was built by King Solomon without the patronage of a foreign power.

讜驻专住讗讬 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诪讬驻转 拽讗转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬驻转 讙讜诪专 讜诪讙讜讙 讜诪讚讬 讜讬讜谉 讜转讜讘诇 讜诪砖讱 讜转讬专住 讙讜诪专 讝讛 讙专诪诪讬讗 诪讙讜讙 讝讜 拽谞讚讬讗 诪讚讬 讝讜 诪拽讚讜谞讬讗 讬讜谉 讻诪砖诪注讜 转讜讘诇 讝讛 讘讬转 讗讜谞讬讬拽讬 诪砖讱 讝讜 诪讜住讬讗 转讬专住 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讜专讘谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 住讬诪讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 讘讬转 转专讬讬拽讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 驻专住 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬专住 讝讜 驻专住

搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the Persians descend from Japheth? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淭he sons of Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan and Tuval and Meshech and Tiras鈥 (Genesis 10:2). The Gemara explains: Gomer, that is Germamya; Magog, that is Kandiya; Madai, that is Macedonia; Javan, in accordance with its plain meaning, Greece; Tuval, that is the nation called Beit Unaiki; Meshech, that is Musya. With regard to Tiras, Rabbi Simai and the Rabbis disagree, and some say the dispute is between Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis: One said: That is Beit Teraiki, and one said: That is Persia. According to that approach, Persia is listed among the descendants of Japheth. Rav Yosef taught: Tiras is Persia.

住讘转讛 讜专注诪讛 讜住讘转讻讗 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 住拽讬住转谉 讙讜讬讬转讗 讜住拽讬住转谉 讘专讬讬转讗 讘讬谉 讞讚讗 诇讞讚讗 诪讗讛 驻专住讬 讜讛讬拽驻讛 讗诇驻讗 驻专住讬

The list of nations continues: 鈥淎nd Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca鈥 (Genesis 10:7). Rav Yosef taught: These are the inner Sakistan and the outer Sakistan. Between one and the other there was a distance of one hundred parasangs, and the circumference of the land was one thousand parasangs.

讜转讛讬 专讗砖讬转 诪诪诇讻转讜 讘讘诇 讜讗专讱 讜讗讻讚 讜讻诇谞讛 讘讘诇 讻诪砖诪注讛 讗专讱 讝讛 讗讜专讬讻讜转 讜讗讻讚 讝讛 讘砖讻专 讻诇谞讛 讝讛 谞讜驻专 谞讬谞驻讬

The Gemara continues interpreting the verses. It is stated: 鈥淎nd the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar鈥 (Genesis 10:10). Babel in accordance with its plain meaning, Babylonia; Erech, that is the city known then as Orikhut; and Accad, that is the place known then as Baskar; Calneh, that is Nofer Ninefi.

诪谉 讛讗专抓 讛讛讬讗 讬爪讗 讗砖讜专 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗砖讜专 讝讛 住讬诇拽 讜讬讘谉 讗转 谞讬谞讜讛 讜讗转 专讞讜讘讜转 注讬专 讜讗转 讻诇讞 谞讬谞讜讛 讻诪砖诪注讜 专讞讜讘讜转 注讬专 讝讜 驻专转 讚诪讬砖谉 讻诇讞 讝讜 驻专转 讚讘讜专住讬祝 讜讗转 专住谉 讘讬谉 谞讬谞讜讛 讜讘讬谉 讻诇讞 讛讬讗 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 专住谉 讝讛 讗拽讟讬住驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讬谞讜讛 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讗诐 专住谉 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞讬谞讜讛 讛讬转讛 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗诇讛讬诐 诪讛诇讱 砖诇砖转 讬诪讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬谞讜讛 讛讬讗 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛

The Torah continues: 鈥淥ut of that land went forth Asshur鈥 (Genesis 10:11). Rav Yosef taught: Asshur, that is Silek, meaning that is the region where the town Silkiya was built. 鈥淎nd built Nineveh and Rehoboth-ir and Calah鈥 (Genesis 10:11). Nineveh, in accordance with its plain meaning; Rehovoth-ir, that is the town later known as Perat of Meishan; Calah, that is Perat of Bursif. 鈥淎nd Resen between Nineveh and Calah, it is the great city鈥 (Genesis 10:12). Resen, that is the town later known as Akteisfon. It is the great city; I do not know whether this means that Nineveh is the great city, or whether it means that Resen is the great city. When it says: 鈥淎nd Nineveh was a great city of God, a three-day journey across鈥 (Jonah 3:3), you must say that Nineveh is the great city.

讜砖诐 讗讞讬诪谉 砖砖讬 讜转诇诪讬 讬诇讬讚讬 讛注谞拽 转谞讗 讗讞讬诪谉 诪讬讜诪谉 砖讘讗讞讬诐 砖砖讬 砖诪砖讬诐 讗转 讛讗专抓 讻砖讞讬转讜转 转诇诪讬 砖诪砖讬诐 讗转 讛讗专抓 转诇诪讬诐 转诇诪讬诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讞讬诪谉 讘谞讛 注谞转 砖砖讬 讘谞讛 讗诇讜砖 转诇诪讬 讘谞讛 转诇讘讜砖 讬诇讬讚讬 讛注谞拽 砖诪注谞讬拽讬谉 讛讞诪讛 讘拽讜诪转谉

The Gemara continues to discuss the interpretation of names in the Bible. The Torah says: 鈥淎nd there were Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak鈥 (Numbers 13:22). It was taught: Ahiman was so called because he was the greatest and most skillful [meyuman] of his brothers. Ahiman is a contraction of brother [a岣] and right [yamin], which is the skilled hand. Sheshai was so called because he renders the ground like pits [she岣tot] with his strides. Talmai was so called because he renders the ground filled with furrows [telamim] with his strides. Alternatively: Ahiman built the city of Anat; Sheshai built the town Alush; Talmai built the city of Talbush. The children of Anak is referring to the fact that it appears that the sun is a necklace [shema鈥檃nikin] around their necks because of their height.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注转讬讚讛 专讜诪讬 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 驻专住 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻谉 砖诪注讜 注爪转 讛壮 讗砖专 讬注抓 (注诇) 讗讚讜诐 讜诪讞砖讘讜转讬讜 讗砖专 讞砖讘 (注诇) 讬讜砖讘讬 转讬诪谉 讗诐 诇讗 讬住讞讘讜诐 爪注讬专讬 讛爪讗谉 讗诐 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 谞讜讛诐

搂 Apropos the opinion that Tiras is Persia, the Gemara addresses a related matter. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia, as it is stated: 鈥淣ow hear the plan that the Lord has devised for Edom, and the thoughts He has considered for the residents of Teiman. Surely the youngest of the flock will drag them away, surely their habitation will be appalled due to them鈥 (Jeremiah 49:20).

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 爪注讬专讬 讛爪讗谉 驻专住 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗讬诇 讗砖专 专讗讬转 讘注诇 讛拽专谞讬诐 (讛讜讗) 诪诇讻讬 诪讚讬 讜驻专住 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛爪驻讬专 讛砖注讬专 诪诇讱 讬讜谉

Rabba bar Ulla strongly objected to this. From where may it be inferred that this phrase: Youngest of the flock, is Persia? It is as it is written: 鈥淭he ram that you saw sporting two horns are the kings of Media and Persia鈥 (Daniel 8:20), and the ram is a member of the flock mentioned in the verse. Still, how is that proof? And say that youngest of the flock refers to Greece, who will overthrow Rome, as it is written: 鈥淭he goat is the king of Greece鈥 (Daniel 8:21). The goat, too, could be characterized as a member of the flock.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讘专 住讜专诪拽讬 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讬讚注 驻专讜砖讬 拽专讗讬 诪讜转讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬 爪注讬专讬 讛爪讗谉 讝讜讟专讗 讚讗讞讜讛讬 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬专住 讝讛 驻专住

When Rav 岣viva bar Surmakei ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this difficulty before a certain one of the Sages. That Sage said to him: One who does not know how to interpret verses is so arrogant that he raises an objection to the opinion of the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Indeed, Rabba bar Ulla misunderstood the basis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 interpretation. What is the meaning of the phrase: The youngest of the flock? It means the youngest of the brothers, a reference to Persia, as Rav Yosef taught: Tiras, the youngest of Japheth鈥檚 sons, that is Persia.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 注转讬讚讛 专讜诪讬 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 驻专住 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 砖讘谞讗讜讛讜 讘谞讬 砖诐 讜讛讞专讬讘讜讛讜 讻砖讚讬讬诐 谞驻诇讜 讻砖讚讬讬诐 讘讬讚 驻专住讬讬诐 诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 砖讘谞讗讜讛讜 驻专住讬讬诐 讜讛讞专讬讘讜讛讜 专讜诪讬讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻诇讜 专讜诪讬讬诐 讘讬讚 驻专住讬讬诐

Similarly, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as the First Temple, that the descendants of Shem built it and the Chaldeans destroyed it, and in turn the Chaldeans, ruled by Belshazzar, fell to Persians, ruled by Darius the Mede and his son-in-law Cyrus the Persian; the Second Temple, that the Persians built it and the Romans destroyed it, is it not right that the Romans will fall into the hands of the Persians?

讗诪专 专讘 注转讬讚讛 驻专住 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 专讜诪讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讘谞讜讬讬 讘讬讚 住转讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讛讗 拽讗 住转专讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗

In contrast, Rav said: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, Rav鈥檚 students, said to Rav: The builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers? Is that justice? He said to them: Although it seems unjust, yes, that is the King鈥檚 decree. Some say that he said this to them: They, too, are destroyers of synagogues, and they are no better than the Romans.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 注转讬讚讛 驻专住 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 专讜诪讬 讞讚讗 讚住转专讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讜注讜讚 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 砖讬驻诇讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讘讬讚 住讜转专讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讘谉 讚讜讚 讘讗 注讚 砖转驻砖讜讟 诪诇讻讜转 专讜诪讬 讛专砖注讛 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 转砖注讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻谉 讬转谞诐 注讚 注转 讬讜诇讚讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讬转专 讗讞讬讜 讬砖讜讘讜谉 注诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

That was also taught in a baraita: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. One reason is that they destroyed synagogues. And furthermore, it is the King鈥檚 decree that the builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The son of David will come only when the wicked kingdom of Rome spreads its dominance throughout the world for nine months, as it is stated: 鈥淭herefore He will give them up until she who is to bear has borne; then the remnants of his brethren will return with the children of Israel鈥 (Micah 5:2). The duration of Rome鈥檚 rule over the world will be the duration of a pregnancy, nine months.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛诇砖讻讜转 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讛谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讞讜抓 诪诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 The Gemara resumes the discussion of the High Priest鈥檚 relocation to the Parhedrin chamber. The Rabbis taught: None of the chambers in the Temple had a mezuza except for the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there was a place of residence of the High Priest. Only residences in which one sleeps require a mezuza, and the only chamber in the Temple that fits that description was the Parhedrin chamber.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 讻诪讛 诇砖讻讜转 讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讛讬讛 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 讛讬转讛

Rabbi Yehuda said: That is not the reason; after all, weren鈥檛 there several chambers in the Temple in which there was a place of residence designated for priests to sit and sleep, and yet they did not have a mezuza? Rather, the mezuza in the Chamber of Parhedrin was there because there was a rabbinic decree.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 (专讘讗) 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 讘讬转 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讬转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讬转讬 (讗转) 讘讬转 讛讞讜专祝 注诇 讘讬转 讛拽讬抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讞讜专祝 讜讘讬转 拽讬抓 讗讬拽专讬 讘讬转 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there was no fundamental obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, and that one was affixed there due to a decree? Rava said that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The legal status of any house that is not designated for residence both for the summer and for the rainy season is not that of a house and therefore does not require a mezuza. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a verse. How could you suggest that the legal status of a residence occupied for only part of the year is not that of a house? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚 will strike the winter-house with the summer-house鈥 (Amos 3:15)? Apparently, even a residence occupied only half the year is a house. Rava said to him: A residence occupied only part of the year may be called the winter-house or the summer-house. It is not called a house unmodified. A house is a structure used year round.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讘注讬专讜讘 讜讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讘诪注砖专

Abaye raised a different objection to the opinion of Rava, from a mishna: If one brought produce from the field into the sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot, Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe the produce and the Rabbis exempt him from tithing the produce. And it was taught concerning the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda obligates the owner of that sukka to include the sukka in the joining of courtyards, like any of the houses in the courtyard; and in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza in the sukka; and in separating tithes from produce brought into the sukka. One is obligated to tithe his produce only when its processing has been completed. When he brings the produce into the house, he is obligated to tithe it. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a sukka, in which one resides for a mere seven days, is that of a house in terms of the mitzva of mezuza.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬专讜讘 讜诪讝讜讝讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉

And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda rules that by rabbinic law the status of the sukka is like that of a house, but that by Torah law his opinion is consistent with Rava鈥檚 opinion, granted, with regard to the joining of courtyards and mezuza, it is possible to say that the obligation is by rabbinic law; however, with regard to tithes, is it possible to say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the obligation is by rabbinic law?

讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

In that case, there is the concern lest one come to separate tithes from the obligated produce to fulfill the obligation for the exempt produce, or from the exempt produce to fulfill the obligation for the obligated produce. Produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law has the status of exempt produce by Torah law. Since it is difficult to distinguish between produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law and produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law, one might seek to fulfill his obligation by separating tithes from one for the other. In both cases, both the produce designated as a tithe and the produce for which it was tithed would retain the status of untithed produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda could not have said that a sukka is considered a house by rabbinic law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讘注讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗讟讜 砖讘注讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

Rather, Abaye said: The dispute with regard to the mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber must be explained differently. During the seven days that the High Priest lives in the Parhedrin chamber during his sequestering, everyone agrees that the chamber is obligated in the mitzva to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the rest of the days of the year, when no one resides there. The Rabbis hold: We issue a decree and require that a mezuza be affixed during the rest of the year due to those seven days that the High Priest lives there; and Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not issue that decree, and there is no obligation to affix a mezuza to the chamber the rest of the year.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 拽转谞讬

Rava said to him: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna cited above: The sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot? Apparently, contrary to the opinion of Abaye, the dispute is whether or not there is an obligation to affix a mezuza to the sukka during the Festival itself. If, as Abaye said, the tanna鈥檌m agree that there is an obligation to affix a mezuza during the festival of Sukkot even though it is used for only a brief period, on what basis do the Rabbis rule that there is no obligation even on the Festival itself?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚驻讟讜专讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讘注讛 讜住讜讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜诇砖讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚

Rather, Rava said: During the rest of the days of the year, everyone agrees that the Parhedrin chamber is exempt from the obligation to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the seven days that the High Priest lives there, and with regard to a sukka during the Festival. And in order to resolve the contradiction between the opinions about the obligation of the chamber and of the sukka, the Gemara asserts: With regard to the sukka the reason is discrete, and with regard to the chamber the reason is discrete.

住讜讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘诪讝讜讝讛

The Gemara explains: With regard to sukka, the reason is discrete. Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a well-built permanent residence. A permanent residence is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they say: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, not a full-fledged house. A temporary residence is not obligated in the mitzva of mezuza.

讜诇砖讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讚讬专讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

And similarly, with regard to the chamber, the reason is discrete. The Rabbis hold: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is nevertheless considered a residence. Although the High Priest resides in the Parhedrin chamber due to a mitzva and not of his own volition, its legal status is that of a residence and a mezuza must be affixed. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is not considered a residence. Therefore, there should be no obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, just as there is no obligation to do so in the other Temple chambers in which priests reside. However, the Sages instituted this obligation by rabbinic law so that people will not say: The High Priest is imprisoned in jail, as only in substandard residences that appear unfit for residence is there no obligation to affix a mezuza.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉

Who is the tanna who taught the following baraita? As the Sages taught:

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 10-16 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the laws of Mezuza and if the entrances of the Temple needed mezuzot.聽 We...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 10: The One Mezuzah in the Beit HaMikdash

A historical bent, an awareness to the order of events and countries as they came into being. From Genesis on...

Yoma 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 10

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬驻转 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讬驻转 讗讬谉 讛砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐

The Gemara explains: Although God will enlarge Japheth, referring to the Persians, who descended from Japheth and who assisted in constructing the Second Temple, the Divine Presence rests only in the tents of Shem, in the First Temple, which was built by King Solomon without the patronage of a foreign power.

讜驻专住讗讬 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚诪讬驻转 拽讗转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬驻转 讙讜诪专 讜诪讙讜讙 讜诪讚讬 讜讬讜谉 讜转讜讘诇 讜诪砖讱 讜转讬专住 讙讜诪专 讝讛 讙专诪诪讬讗 诪讙讜讙 讝讜 拽谞讚讬讗 诪讚讬 讝讜 诪拽讚讜谞讬讗 讬讜谉 讻诪砖诪注讜 转讜讘诇 讝讛 讘讬转 讗讜谞讬讬拽讬 诪砖讱 讝讜 诪讜住讬讗 转讬专住 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讜专讘谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 住讬诪讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 讘讬转 转专讬讬拽讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讜 驻专住 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬专住 讝讜 驻专住

搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the Persians descend from Japheth? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淭he sons of Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan and Tuval and Meshech and Tiras鈥 (Genesis 10:2). The Gemara explains: Gomer, that is Germamya; Magog, that is Kandiya; Madai, that is Macedonia; Javan, in accordance with its plain meaning, Greece; Tuval, that is the nation called Beit Unaiki; Meshech, that is Musya. With regard to Tiras, Rabbi Simai and the Rabbis disagree, and some say the dispute is between Rabbi Simon and the Rabbis: One said: That is Beit Teraiki, and one said: That is Persia. According to that approach, Persia is listed among the descendants of Japheth. Rav Yosef taught: Tiras is Persia.

住讘转讛 讜专注诪讛 讜住讘转讻讗 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 住拽讬住转谉 讙讜讬讬转讗 讜住拽讬住转谉 讘专讬讬转讗 讘讬谉 讞讚讗 诇讞讚讗 诪讗讛 驻专住讬 讜讛讬拽驻讛 讗诇驻讗 驻专住讬

The list of nations continues: 鈥淎nd Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca鈥 (Genesis 10:7). Rav Yosef taught: These are the inner Sakistan and the outer Sakistan. Between one and the other there was a distance of one hundred parasangs, and the circumference of the land was one thousand parasangs.

讜转讛讬 专讗砖讬转 诪诪诇讻转讜 讘讘诇 讜讗专讱 讜讗讻讚 讜讻诇谞讛 讘讘诇 讻诪砖诪注讛 讗专讱 讝讛 讗讜专讬讻讜转 讜讗讻讚 讝讛 讘砖讻专 讻诇谞讛 讝讛 谞讜驻专 谞讬谞驻讬

The Gemara continues interpreting the verses. It is stated: 鈥淎nd the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar鈥 (Genesis 10:10). Babel in accordance with its plain meaning, Babylonia; Erech, that is the city known then as Orikhut; and Accad, that is the place known then as Baskar; Calneh, that is Nofer Ninefi.

诪谉 讛讗专抓 讛讛讬讗 讬爪讗 讗砖讜专 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗砖讜专 讝讛 住讬诇拽 讜讬讘谉 讗转 谞讬谞讜讛 讜讗转 专讞讜讘讜转 注讬专 讜讗转 讻诇讞 谞讬谞讜讛 讻诪砖诪注讜 专讞讜讘讜转 注讬专 讝讜 驻专转 讚诪讬砖谉 讻诇讞 讝讜 驻专转 讚讘讜专住讬祝 讜讗转 专住谉 讘讬谉 谞讬谞讜讛 讜讘讬谉 讻诇讞 讛讬讗 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 专住谉 讝讛 讗拽讟讬住驻讜谉 讛讬讗 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讬谞讜讛 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讗诐 专住谉 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞讬谞讜讛 讛讬转讛 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗诇讛讬诐 诪讛诇讱 砖诇砖转 讬诪讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬谞讜讛 讛讬讗 讛注讬专 讛讙讚讜诇讛

The Torah continues: 鈥淥ut of that land went forth Asshur鈥 (Genesis 10:11). Rav Yosef taught: Asshur, that is Silek, meaning that is the region where the town Silkiya was built. 鈥淎nd built Nineveh and Rehoboth-ir and Calah鈥 (Genesis 10:11). Nineveh, in accordance with its plain meaning; Rehovoth-ir, that is the town later known as Perat of Meishan; Calah, that is Perat of Bursif. 鈥淎nd Resen between Nineveh and Calah, it is the great city鈥 (Genesis 10:12). Resen, that is the town later known as Akteisfon. It is the great city; I do not know whether this means that Nineveh is the great city, or whether it means that Resen is the great city. When it says: 鈥淎nd Nineveh was a great city of God, a three-day journey across鈥 (Jonah 3:3), you must say that Nineveh is the great city.

讜砖诐 讗讞讬诪谉 砖砖讬 讜转诇诪讬 讬诇讬讚讬 讛注谞拽 转谞讗 讗讞讬诪谉 诪讬讜诪谉 砖讘讗讞讬诐 砖砖讬 砖诪砖讬诐 讗转 讛讗专抓 讻砖讞讬转讜转 转诇诪讬 砖诪砖讬诐 讗转 讛讗专抓 转诇诪讬诐 转诇诪讬诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讞讬诪谉 讘谞讛 注谞转 砖砖讬 讘谞讛 讗诇讜砖 转诇诪讬 讘谞讛 转诇讘讜砖 讬诇讬讚讬 讛注谞拽 砖诪注谞讬拽讬谉 讛讞诪讛 讘拽讜诪转谉

The Gemara continues to discuss the interpretation of names in the Bible. The Torah says: 鈥淎nd there were Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak鈥 (Numbers 13:22). It was taught: Ahiman was so called because he was the greatest and most skillful [meyuman] of his brothers. Ahiman is a contraction of brother [a岣] and right [yamin], which is the skilled hand. Sheshai was so called because he renders the ground like pits [she岣tot] with his strides. Talmai was so called because he renders the ground filled with furrows [telamim] with his strides. Alternatively: Ahiman built the city of Anat; Sheshai built the town Alush; Talmai built the city of Talbush. The children of Anak is referring to the fact that it appears that the sun is a necklace [shema鈥檃nikin] around their necks because of their height.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注转讬讚讛 专讜诪讬 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 驻专住 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻谉 砖诪注讜 注爪转 讛壮 讗砖专 讬注抓 (注诇) 讗讚讜诐 讜诪讞砖讘讜转讬讜 讗砖专 讞砖讘 (注诇) 讬讜砖讘讬 转讬诪谉 讗诐 诇讗 讬住讞讘讜诐 爪注讬专讬 讛爪讗谉 讗诐 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 谞讜讛诐

搂 Apropos the opinion that Tiras is Persia, the Gemara addresses a related matter. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia, as it is stated: 鈥淣ow hear the plan that the Lord has devised for Edom, and the thoughts He has considered for the residents of Teiman. Surely the youngest of the flock will drag them away, surely their habitation will be appalled due to them鈥 (Jeremiah 49:20).

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 爪注讬专讬 讛爪讗谉 驻专住 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗讬诇 讗砖专 专讗讬转 讘注诇 讛拽专谞讬诐 (讛讜讗) 诪诇讻讬 诪讚讬 讜驻专住 讜讗讬诪讗 讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛爪驻讬专 讛砖注讬专 诪诇讱 讬讜谉

Rabba bar Ulla strongly objected to this. From where may it be inferred that this phrase: Youngest of the flock, is Persia? It is as it is written: 鈥淭he ram that you saw sporting two horns are the kings of Media and Persia鈥 (Daniel 8:20), and the ram is a member of the flock mentioned in the verse. Still, how is that proof? And say that youngest of the flock refers to Greece, who will overthrow Rome, as it is written: 鈥淭he goat is the king of Greece鈥 (Daniel 8:21). The goat, too, could be characterized as a member of the flock.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讘专 住讜专诪拽讬 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讬讚注 驻专讜砖讬 拽专讗讬 诪讜转讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬 爪注讬专讬 讛爪讗谉 讝讜讟专讗 讚讗讞讜讛讬 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬专住 讝讛 驻专住

When Rav 岣viva bar Surmakei ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this difficulty before a certain one of the Sages. That Sage said to him: One who does not know how to interpret verses is so arrogant that he raises an objection to the opinion of the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Indeed, Rabba bar Ulla misunderstood the basis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 interpretation. What is the meaning of the phrase: The youngest of the flock? It means the youngest of the brothers, a reference to Persia, as Rav Yosef taught: Tiras, the youngest of Japheth鈥檚 sons, that is Persia.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 注转讬讚讛 专讜诪讬 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 驻专住 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 砖讘谞讗讜讛讜 讘谞讬 砖诐 讜讛讞专讬讘讜讛讜 讻砖讚讬讬诐 谞驻诇讜 讻砖讚讬讬诐 讘讬讚 驻专住讬讬诐 诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 砖讘谞讗讜讛讜 驻专住讬讬诐 讜讛讞专讬讘讜讛讜 专讜诪讬讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻诇讜 专讜诪讬讬诐 讘讬讚 驻专住讬讬诐

Similarly, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as the First Temple, that the descendants of Shem built it and the Chaldeans destroyed it, and in turn the Chaldeans, ruled by Belshazzar, fell to Persians, ruled by Darius the Mede and his son-in-law Cyrus the Persian; the Second Temple, that the Persians built it and the Romans destroyed it, is it not right that the Romans will fall into the hands of the Persians?

讗诪专 专讘 注转讬讚讛 驻专住 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 专讜诪讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讘谞讜讬讬 讘讬讚 住转讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讛讗 拽讗 住转专讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗

In contrast, Rav said: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, Rav鈥檚 students, said to Rav: The builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers? Is that justice? He said to them: Although it seems unjust, yes, that is the King鈥檚 decree. Some say that he said this to them: They, too, are destroyers of synagogues, and they are no better than the Romans.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 注转讬讚讛 驻专住 砖转驻讜诇 讘讬讚 专讜诪讬 讞讚讗 讚住转专讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讜注讜讚 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 砖讬驻诇讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讘讬讚 住讜转专讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讘谉 讚讜讚 讘讗 注讚 砖转驻砖讜讟 诪诇讻讜转 专讜诪讬 讛专砖注讛 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 转砖注讛 讞讚砖讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讻谉 讬转谞诐 注讚 注转 讬讜诇讚讛 讬诇讚讛 讜讬转专 讗讞讬讜 讬砖讜讘讜谉 注诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

That was also taught in a baraita: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. One reason is that they destroyed synagogues. And furthermore, it is the King鈥檚 decree that the builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The son of David will come only when the wicked kingdom of Rome spreads its dominance throughout the world for nine months, as it is stated: 鈥淭herefore He will give them up until she who is to bear has borne; then the remnants of his brethren will return with the children of Israel鈥 (Micah 5:2). The duration of Rome鈥檚 rule over the world will be the duration of a pregnancy, nine months.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛诇砖讻讜转 砖讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讛谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讞讜抓 诪诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 The Gemara resumes the discussion of the High Priest鈥檚 relocation to the Parhedrin chamber. The Rabbis taught: None of the chambers in the Temple had a mezuza except for the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there was a place of residence of the High Priest. Only residences in which one sleeps require a mezuza, and the only chamber in the Temple that fits that description was the Parhedrin chamber.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 讻诪讛 诇砖讻讜转 讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讛讬讛 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛谉 诪讝讜讝讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 讛讬转讛

Rabbi Yehuda said: That is not the reason; after all, weren鈥檛 there several chambers in the Temple in which there was a place of residence designated for priests to sit and sleep, and yet they did not have a mezuza? Rather, the mezuza in the Chamber of Parhedrin was there because there was a rabbinic decree.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 (专讘讗) 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 讘讬转 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讬转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讬转讬 (讗转) 讘讬转 讛讞讜专祝 注诇 讘讬转 讛拽讬抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讞讜专祝 讜讘讬转 拽讬抓 讗讬拽专讬 讘讬转 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there was no fundamental obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, and that one was affixed there due to a decree? Rava said that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The legal status of any house that is not designated for residence both for the summer and for the rainy season is not that of a house and therefore does not require a mezuza. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a verse. How could you suggest that the legal status of a residence occupied for only part of the year is not that of a house? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚 will strike the winter-house with the summer-house鈥 (Amos 3:15)? Apparently, even a residence occupied only half the year is a house. Rava said to him: A residence occupied only part of the year may be called the winter-house or the summer-house. It is not called a house unmodified. A house is a structure used year round.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讘注讬专讜讘 讜讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讘诪注砖专

Abaye raised a different objection to the opinion of Rava, from a mishna: If one brought produce from the field into the sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot, Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe the produce and the Rabbis exempt him from tithing the produce. And it was taught concerning the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda obligates the owner of that sukka to include the sukka in the joining of courtyards, like any of the houses in the courtyard; and in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza in the sukka; and in separating tithes from produce brought into the sukka. One is obligated to tithe his produce only when its processing has been completed. When he brings the produce into the house, he is obligated to tithe it. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a sukka, in which one resides for a mere seven days, is that of a house in terms of the mitzva of mezuza.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬专讜讘 讜诪讝讜讝讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讚专讘谞谉

And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda rules that by rabbinic law the status of the sukka is like that of a house, but that by Torah law his opinion is consistent with Rava鈥檚 opinion, granted, with regard to the joining of courtyards and mezuza, it is possible to say that the obligation is by rabbinic law; however, with regard to tithes, is it possible to say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the obligation is by rabbinic law?

讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪谉 讛讞讬讜讘 注诇 讛驻讟讜专 讜诪谉 讛驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讞讬讜讘

In that case, there is the concern lest one come to separate tithes from the obligated produce to fulfill the obligation for the exempt produce, or from the exempt produce to fulfill the obligation for the obligated produce. Produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law has the status of exempt produce by Torah law. Since it is difficult to distinguish between produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law and produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law, one might seek to fulfill his obligation by separating tithes from one for the other. In both cases, both the produce designated as a tithe and the produce for which it was tithed would retain the status of untithed produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda could not have said that a sukka is considered a house by rabbinic law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讘注讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗讟讜 砖讘注讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

Rather, Abaye said: The dispute with regard to the mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber must be explained differently. During the seven days that the High Priest lives in the Parhedrin chamber during his sequestering, everyone agrees that the chamber is obligated in the mitzva to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the rest of the days of the year, when no one resides there. The Rabbis hold: We issue a decree and require that a mezuza be affixed during the rest of the year due to those seven days that the High Priest lives there; and Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not issue that decree, and there is no obligation to affix a mezuza to the chamber the rest of the year.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 拽转谞讬

Rava said to him: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna cited above: The sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot? Apparently, contrary to the opinion of Abaye, the dispute is whether or not there is an obligation to affix a mezuza to the sukka during the Festival itself. If, as Abaye said, the tanna鈥檌m agree that there is an obligation to affix a mezuza during the festival of Sukkot even though it is used for only a brief period, on what basis do the Rabbis rule that there is no obligation even on the Festival itself?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚驻讟讜专讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讘注讛 讜住讜讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜诇砖讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚

Rather, Rava said: During the rest of the days of the year, everyone agrees that the Parhedrin chamber is exempt from the obligation to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the seven days that the High Priest lives there, and with regard to a sukka during the Festival. And in order to resolve the contradiction between the opinions about the obligation of the chamber and of the sukka, the Gemara asserts: With regard to the sukka the reason is discrete, and with regard to the chamber the reason is discrete.

住讜讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 拽讘注 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 住讜讻讛 讚讬专转 注专讗讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘诪讝讜讝讛

The Gemara explains: With regard to sukka, the reason is discrete. Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a well-built permanent residence. A permanent residence is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they say: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, not a full-fledged house. A temporary residence is not obligated in the mitzva of mezuza.

讜诇砖讻讛 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讚讬专讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉

And similarly, with regard to the chamber, the reason is discrete. The Rabbis hold: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is nevertheless considered a residence. Although the High Priest resides in the Parhedrin chamber due to a mitzva and not of his own volition, its legal status is that of a residence and a mezuza must be affixed. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is not considered a residence. Therefore, there should be no obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, just as there is no obligation to do so in the other Temple chambers in which priests reside. However, the Sages instituted this obligation by rabbinic law so that people will not say: The High Priest is imprisoned in jail, as only in substandard residences that appear unfit for residence is there no obligation to affix a mezuza.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉

Who is the tanna who taught the following baraita? As the Sages taught:

Scroll To Top