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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 28, 2021 | 讟状讝 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's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Yoma 17

Rav Ada son of Rav Yitzchak brings a different suggestion for how to resolve the contradiction between the mishna in Middot and the mishna in Tamid 鈥 the chamber of the sheep must have been able to be perceived as both in the North and in the South, depending on one鈥檚 perspective. But in which was it actually situated? The gemara concludes that it must on been in the Southeast side as they infer from another contradiction between the mishnayot regarding the location of the showbread. Rav Huna has resolved it by saying that each mishna describes the order of the chambers in a different manner 鈥 one goes clockwise (left) and the other counter clockwise (right). In order for the location to match up based on Rav Huna鈥檚 answer, one can only explain it if the chamber of the lambs was in the Southwest side. How can one mishna鈥檚 order go to the left (clockwise) if we learned that all turns in the Temple were to the right? The gemara explains in more detail the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the Kohen Gadol can do whatever rituals they wanted and could take whatever portions they wanted. How much could they take? The rabbis and Rebbi disagree.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from it that that the mishnayot in tractate Middot are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诇砖讻讛 讗拽爪讜讬讬 诪拽爪讬讗 讜讚讗转讬 诪爪驻讜谉 诪转讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讚讗转讬 诪讚专讜诐 诪转讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讘爪驻讜谉

搂 In an additional attempt to resolve the contradiction with regard to the Chamber of the Lambs, Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitz岣k, said: This chamber was removed from the corner, as it was not actually in the corner of the Hall of the Hearth but was located along the middle of the western side of the hall. And therefore, for one who comes from the north, the chamber appears to him to be in the south of the hall; and for one who comes from the south, the chamber appears to him to be in the north of the hall.

讜诪住转讘专讗 讚讘诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讜讗讬 诪诪讗讬 诪讚专诪讬谞谉 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐

The Gemara comments: In any event, it is reasonable to say that this chamber was closer to the southwest corner than it was to the northwest corner. From where does one arrive at that conclusion? From the fact that we raise a contradiction between the mishna in tractate Tamid, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the northeast corner, and the mishna in tractate Middot, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the southeast corner.

讜诪砖谞讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 讜诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚专讱 砖诪讗诇

And we resolve the contradiction based on what Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The Master in tractate Middot envisions the chambers as one coming via the right, from the south to the east, then to the north and then to the west. And the Master in tractate Tamid envisions the chambers as one coming via the left, from the south to the west, then to the north and then to the east. Both agree with regard to the location of the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared; they merely describe that location from different perspectives.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讜讗讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专抓 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讛讜讗讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讗讬 转讬专讜爪讗 讚诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讜讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Granted, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was actually closer to the southwest corner, that is how Rav Huna resolves the contradiction between one mishna discussing the shewbread and the other mishna discussing the shewbread. However, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was in the northwest corner, ultimately, what is the resolution with regard to the shewbread? Even if you envision the path from the other direction, the Chamber of the Seals interposes between the Chamber of the Lambs and the chamber where the shewbread is prepared. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Chamber of the Lambs was indeed in the southwest? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 驻讬谞讜转 砖讗转讛 驻讜谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 诇诪讝专讞 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara questions the assertion that one tanna envisions the chambers as one coming via the left. But didn鈥檛 the Master say: All turns that you turn should be only to the right, which in certain cases is to the east? Here the turns are to the left. The Gemara answers: This restriction applies only in the course of performing the Temple service; however, here, it is a mere reckoning, and no priest actually proceeded that way from one chamber to the other.

砖讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讜谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪拽专讬讘 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 讝讜 讗谞讬 诪拽专讬讘 诪谞讞讛 讝讜 讗谞讬 诪拽专讬讘

搂 It was taught in the mishna: As the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first. The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the High Priest sacrifice any portion that he chooses first? If the High Priest so desires, he says: This burnt-offering, I am sacrificing, or: This meal-offering, I am sacrificing. That is sufficient, and the High Priest does not participate in a lottery.

讻讬爪讚 谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗转 讝讜 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讗砖诐 讝讛 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜谞讜讟诇 讞诇讛 诪砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪诪注砖讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞诪砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪讞爪讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讘谞讬讜

How does the High Priest take any portion that he chooses first? The High Priest says: This sin-offering, I am eating, or: This guilt-offering, I am eating. And he may even take one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. He may take four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves that are distributed to the priests every Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The High Priest always takes five of the twelve shewbread loaves, as it is stated: 鈥淚t shall be for Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 24:9). From the fact that Aaron and his sons are listed separately, it is derived that half of the loaves were given to Aaron, or the High Priests who succeeded him, and half were given to his sons. Since, as explained below, only ten of the loaves were actually distributed, the High Priest received five.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞讜讟诇 讞诇讛 讗讞转 诪砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 砖拽讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪诪注砖讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 驻诇讙讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞诪砖 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

This baraita is itself difficult, as it is self-contradictory. First you said: He takes one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that the High Priest takes half. Say the middle clause of the baraita as follows: The High Priest takes four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves; we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the High Priest does not take half but takes less than half. Say the last clause of the baraita as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the High Priest always takes five. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause and the last clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? That conclusion is difficult.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉 讜诪讜讚讜 专讘谞谉 讘驻专讜住讛 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇诪讬转讘讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

Abaye said: The first clause and the middle clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and in the case of the two loaves, the Rabbis concede with regard to a piece of a loaf that it is inappropriate to give it to the High Priest. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest should actually receive less than one loaf, as in their opinion he is entitled to less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of the loaf, he takes an entire loaf as his portion.

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's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

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 17 – 23 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue to learn how the High Priest prepared for the Temple service of Yom Kippur, what...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 17: The Kohen Gadol Eats First

The layout of the Temple - a contradiction between a mishnah in Tamid vs. one in Middot. Is this a...

Yoma 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 17

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from it that that the mishnayot in tractate Middot are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诇砖讻讛 讗拽爪讜讬讬 诪拽爪讬讗 讜讚讗转讬 诪爪驻讜谉 诪转讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讚专讜诐 讜讚讗转讬 诪讚专讜诐 诪转讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讘爪驻讜谉

搂 In an additional attempt to resolve the contradiction with regard to the Chamber of the Lambs, Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitz岣k, said: This chamber was removed from the corner, as it was not actually in the corner of the Hall of the Hearth but was located along the middle of the western side of the hall. And therefore, for one who comes from the north, the chamber appears to him to be in the south of the hall; and for one who comes from the south, the chamber appears to him to be in the north of the hall.

讜诪住转讘专讗 讚讘诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讜讗讬 诪诪讗讬 诪讚专诪讬谞谉 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐

The Gemara comments: In any event, it is reasonable to say that this chamber was closer to the southwest corner than it was to the northwest corner. From where does one arrive at that conclusion? From the fact that we raise a contradiction between the mishna in tractate Tamid, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the northeast corner, and the mishna in tractate Middot, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the southeast corner.

讜诪砖谞讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 讜诪专 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚专讱 砖诪讗诇

And we resolve the contradiction based on what Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The Master in tractate Middot envisions the chambers as one coming via the right, from the south to the east, then to the north and then to the west. And the Master in tractate Tamid envisions the chambers as one coming via the left, from the south to the west, then to the north and then to the east. Both agree with regard to the location of the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared; they merely describe that location from different perspectives.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讜讗讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转专抓 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讛讜讗讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 诪讗讬 转讬专讜爪讗 讚诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讛讜讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Granted, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was actually closer to the southwest corner, that is how Rav Huna resolves the contradiction between one mishna discussing the shewbread and the other mishna discussing the shewbread. However, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was in the northwest corner, ultimately, what is the resolution with regard to the shewbread? Even if you envision the path from the other direction, the Chamber of the Seals interposes between the Chamber of the Lambs and the chamber where the shewbread is prepared. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Chamber of the Lambs was indeed in the southwest? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 驻讬谞讜转 砖讗转讛 驻讜谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 诇诪讝专讞 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara questions the assertion that one tanna envisions the chambers as one coming via the left. But didn鈥檛 the Master say: All turns that you turn should be only to the right, which in certain cases is to the east? Here the turns are to the left. The Gemara answers: This restriction applies only in the course of performing the Temple service; however, here, it is a mere reckoning, and no priest actually proceeded that way from one chamber to the other.

砖讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讜谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪拽专讬讘 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 讝讜 讗谞讬 诪拽专讬讘 诪谞讞讛 讝讜 讗谞讬 诪拽专讬讘

搂 It was taught in the mishna: As the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first. The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the High Priest sacrifice any portion that he chooses first? If the High Priest so desires, he says: This burnt-offering, I am sacrificing, or: This meal-offering, I am sacrificing. That is sufficient, and the High Priest does not participate in a lottery.

讻讬爪讚 谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗转 讝讜 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讗砖诐 讝讛 讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 讜谞讜讟诇 讞诇讛 诪砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪诪注砖讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞诪砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪讞爪讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讘谞讬讜

How does the High Priest take any portion that he chooses first? The High Priest says: This sin-offering, I am eating, or: This guilt-offering, I am eating. And he may even take one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. He may take four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves that are distributed to the priests every Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The High Priest always takes five of the twelve shewbread loaves, as it is stated: 鈥淚t shall be for Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 24:9). From the fact that Aaron and his sons are listed separately, it is derived that half of the loaves were given to Aaron, or the High Priests who succeeded him, and half were given to his sons. Since, as explained below, only ten of the loaves were actually distributed, the High Priest received five.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞讜讟诇 讞诇讛 讗讞转 诪砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 砖拽讬诇 讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讗专讘注 讗讜 讞诪砖 诪诪注砖讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 驻诇讙讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讞诪砖 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

This baraita is itself difficult, as it is self-contradictory. First you said: He takes one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that the High Priest takes half. Say the middle clause of the baraita as follows: The High Priest takes four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves; we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the High Priest does not take half but takes less than half. Say the last clause of the baraita as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the High Priest always takes five. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause and the last clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? That conclusion is difficult.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 讜诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉 讜诪讜讚讜 专讘谞谉 讘驻专讜住讛 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇诪讬转讘讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

Abaye said: The first clause and the middle clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and in the case of the two loaves, the Rabbis concede with regard to a piece of a loaf that it is inappropriate to give it to the High Priest. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest should actually receive less than one loaf, as in their opinion he is entitled to less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of the loaf, he takes an entire loaf as his portion.

Scroll To Top