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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 13, 2021 | 讗壮 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's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Yoma 2

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari “in commemoration of my father’s yahrtzeit, on Pesach Sheini 14 Iyar 5777, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z’l. My father was a survivor of Auschwitz and a feminist before it was fashionable. He raised me to believe that women could achieve anything. He would be proud to know that his daughter is an avid learner of Hadran! And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women’s learning worldwide.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Ze’ev and Dr. Rebecca Felsen in honor of their daughter, Miriam Chaya Felsen “who was born when the Daf Yomi cycle last began Yoma, and so is one daf yomi cycle (2711 days) old on this day. We are immensely proud of her, how much she has learned, how much is learning and how much she will with Hashem’s help learn in the future.” And Aliza Avshalom “in memory and lezechut her mother and teacher in all things, Sara bat Esther and Arieh Bellehsen. And in honor of my father and teacher David Bellehsen. May he live a long and good life, that thanks to Hadran and Rabbanit Farber, has become my virtual chavruta.” And by Ilene Strauss “in memory of my mother Leah bat Yaakov upon her 11th yahrzeit. She taught me to love Judaism and made each and every holiday and Shabbat special.”聽

Seven days before Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol left his house and came to the Temple. A replacement Kohen Gadol was put in place in case the Kohen Gadol became impure. Was there also a need for a wife “in waiting”? The Kohen who burned the red heifer would also separate from his home seven days before. Why? What else was done to prevent people from not taking seriously the laws of purity of a red heifer? Why was this necessary? From where do we derive that these Kohanim needed to separate before? It was derived from the “miluim.” Why were these derived from there and not other days?

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讘讬转讜 诇诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 讜诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 砖诪讗 讬讗专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇

MISHNA: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur the Sages would remove the High Priest, who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin, a room in the Temple designated specifically for the High Priest during that period. And they would designate another priest in his stead to replace him lest a disqualification due to impurity or another circumstance beyond his control prevent him from entering the Temple on Yom Kippur.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讗砖转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讘讬转讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die, as it is stated in the Torah portion of the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd it will atone for him and for his house鈥 (Leviticus 16:6); the Sages interpreted the term: His house, that is his wife. The priest must be married in order to fulfill this commandment. Due to the concern lest his wife die, another wife was designated to address that possibility. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, that this is a concern, there is no end to the matter, as what if the designated replacement wife dies? This possibility need not be a source of concern.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖专讬驻转 讛驻专讛 讛讬讜 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪讘讬转讜 诇诇砖讻讛 砖注诇 驻谞讬 讛讘讬专讛 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讝专讞讛 讜诇砖讻转 讘讬转 讛讗讘谉 讛讬转讛 谞拽专讗转 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 诇砖讻转 讘讬转 讛讗讘谉 砖讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讘讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛

GEMARA: The halakha of sequestering the High Priest prior to his performance of the Temple service on Yom Kippur is comparable to the sequestering of the priest designated to burn the red heifer. Therefore, the Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer, the Sages would remove the priest who burns the heifer from his house to the chamber that was before the bira at the northeast corner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. And that chamber was called the Chamber of the Stone House. The Gemara explains: And why was it called the Chamber of the Stone House? It is because all the actions associated with the red heifer were performed in dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which are vessels that cannot become ritually impure.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 讚转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讛讬讜 讛讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇讘谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪注讜专讘讬 讛砖诪砖 讛讬转讛 谞注砖讬转

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were so stringent with regard to the purity of the heifer? The Gemara explains: It is since a priest who immersed that day is fit for service and may perform the ritual of the heifer after immersion, even before sunset, as we learned in a mishna: They would intentionally render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him immediately, to remove a misconception from the hearts of the Sadducees by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. As the Sadducees would say: Only by those for whom the sun set was the heifer ritual performed. The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for priests who began the purification process with immersion during that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed.

转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 讚诇讗 诇讬拽讘诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讝诇讝诇讜 讘讛

That mishna continues: Since they would intentionally render the priest who burned the heifer ritually impure, the Sages in turn instituted the stringencies of utilizing dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which do not have the capacity to become ritually impure, lest people come to treat the ritual with contempt and perform it in ritual impurity after seeing that the red heifer ritual was performed by one who immersed that day.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讝专讞讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讜讞讟讗转 讟注讜谞讛 爪驻讜谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛 讗诇 谞讻讞 驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讻讛 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讝专讞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讛讜讬 诇讛 讛讬讻讬专讗

Apropos the mishna in tractate Para, the Gemara asks: What is different about the chamber located in the northeast corner of the Temple courtyard that led the Sages to house the priest performing the red heifer ritual specifically in that chamber? The Gemara answers: It is different since it is a sin-offering, as the red heifer is referred to as a sin-offering in the Torah, and the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of a sin-offering must be performed north of the altar; and since it is written with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd sprinkle it before the opening of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 19:4), and before the Tent of Meeting means on its eastern side. Therefore, the Sages established a chamber in the northeast so that the ritual of the red heifer will have a distinctive indicator; this will cause the administering priest to be vigilant in its performance.

诪讗讬 讘讬专讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讘讬专讛 砖诪讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讻讜诇讜 拽专讜讬 讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛讘讬专讛 讗砖专 讛讻讬谞讜转讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the terminology of the mishna: What is the meaning of the term bira cited there? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There was a place on the Temple Mount and its name is bira, and the Chamber of the Stone House was adjacent to it. And Reish Lakish said: The entire Temple is called bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: 鈥淭o Solomon my son grant a wholesome heart, to observe your commandments, your admonitions, and your statutes, to fulfill them all, and to build the bira for which I have made provision鈥 (I Chronicles 29:19).

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专 讞诇拽讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讞住讬讗 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 壮诇注砖讜转壮 讗诇讜 诪注砖讬 驻专讛 壮诇讻驻专壮 讗诇讜 诪注砖讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

搂 With regard to the halakhot of sequestering the High Priest prior to performance of the Yom Kippur service, and of sequestering the priest designated to burn the heifer prior to performance of the red heifer ritual, the Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Minyomi bar 岣lkiya said that Rabbi Ma岣eya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said they are derived from Aaron and his sons, who remained in the Tabernacle for seven days prior to performing the service in the Tabernacle on the eighth day of their inauguration, as the verse states: 鈥淎s has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you鈥 (Leviticus 8:34), meaning that this mitzva of sequestering was not limited to the days prior to the dedication of the Tabernacle; rather, it applies to future generations as well. The verse is interpreted homiletically: 鈥淭o do鈥; these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer for which the priest performing the ritual is sequestered seven days in advance; 鈥渢o make atonement鈥; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur, before which the High Priest is sequestered seven days.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘驻专讛 诇讗 诪转讜拽诐 壮诇讻驻专壮 讻转讬讘 讜驻专讛 诇讗讜 讘转 讻驻专讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, the entire verse is not established as referring exclusively to the red heifer, as: 鈥淭o atone,鈥 is written, and the heifer is not capable of facilitating atonement; rather, it facilitates ritual purity. Rather, say that the entire verse is written with regard to Yom Kippur, as the rites performed to achieve atonement on Yom Kippur are similar to those performed during the days of the inauguration. What, then, is the source for sequestering the priest who is to perform the red heifer ritual?

讗诪专讬 讬诇讬祝 壮爪讜讛壮 壮爪讜讛壮 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讝讗转 讞拽转 讛转讜专讛 讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇讗诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 驻专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 驻专讛 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 驻专讬砖讛 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 驻专讬砖讛

The Sages say in response: Derive it from a verbal analogy between the terms commanded and commanded. It is stated here, with regard to the days of the inauguration: 鈥淭he Lord commanded to do,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淭his is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying鈥 (Numbers 19:2). Just as the term commanded there refers to the heifer, so too here, the phrase: 鈥淭he Lord commanded to do鈥 written in the context of the days of the inauguration refers to the heifer. And just as here, with regard to the inauguration, there is the principle of sequestering prior to performing the service, so too there, in the context of the halakhot of the heifer, sequestering is required prior to performance of the mitzva.

讜讗讬诪讗 爪讜讛 [爪讜讛] 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗转 诪砖讛 讚谞讬谉 爪讜讛 讚诇驻谞讬 注砖讬讛 诪壮爪讜讛壮 讚诇驻谞讬 注砖讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 爪讜讛 讚诇讗讞专 注砖讬讛 诪壮爪讜讛壮 讚诇驻谞讬 注砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: And say that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded in the context of Yom Kippur, as it is written: 鈥淎nd this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; and he did as the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Gemara rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. One derives commanded that is stated before performance, as in the portion of the heifer, from commanded that is stated before performance in the portion of the inauguration; and one does not derive commanded that is stated after performance in the portion of Yom Kippur from commanded that is stated before performance.

讜讗讬诪讗 爪讜讛 讚拽专讘谞讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 爪讜转讜 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚谞讬谉 爪讜讛 诪壮爪讜讛壮 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 爪讜转讜 诪壮爪讜讛壮

Again the Gemara asks: And say that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded with regard to offerings, as it is written: 鈥淥n the day that He commanded [tzavoto] the children of Israel to sacrifice their offerings鈥 (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for seven days. The Gemara rejects this: One derives the term commanded from the identical term commanded, and one does not derive the term that he commanded [tzavoto] from the term commanded [tziva].

讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讛转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the practical difference between the two terms? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav]鈥 (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva]鈥 (Leviticus 14:44)? From that verbal analogy it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, i.e., it is also after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference in grammatical forms between tziva and tzavoto should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only where there are no terms that are identical to it; however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms that are identical to it, rather than from terms that are merely similar.

诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 讻驻专讛 讚拽专讘谞讜转

搂 The Gemara analyzes the verbal analogy from which the sequestering of the High Priest is derived. The Gemara states with regard to the phrase 鈥渢o make atonement,鈥 written in the context of the inauguration: These are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests: And say that it refers to the atonement of offerings in general, such that any priest engaged in sacrificing atonement offerings must be sequestered seven days beforehand.

诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 讻讛谉 诪转专诪讬 讚讘注讬 诇讬讛 驻专讬砖讛 讗诪专讬 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 谞讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 驻专讬砖讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诪讚讘专 砖拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 拽专讘谞讜转 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讗讬转谞讛讜

The Gemara seeks to reject this suggestion from a practical perspective. Do we know in advance which priest will happen to sacrifice a given offering, and who would consequently require sequestering? The Sages say: Why not? There are certainly ways to do so. Each of the twenty-four priestly watches has set weeks during which it serves in the Temple, and the patrilineal families that constitute that watch have set days during that week on which each serves in the Temple. We could require sequestering for the entire patrilineal family of the priestly watch designated to serve on that day the following week. The Gemara rejects the suggestion that all priests should be sequestered prior to sacrificing an atonement offering. We derive a matter that has a fixed time during the year, Yom Kippur, from a matter that also has a fixed time, the inauguration of the priests for service in the Tabernacle, to the exclusion of offerings that are sacrificed every day.

讜讗讬诪讗 专讙诇讬诐 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖谞讜讛讙 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 诪讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讙诇讬诐 讚诇讗讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Again the Gemara asks: And say that one derives from the phrase 鈥渢o make atonement鈥 the principle of sequestering prior to sacrificing atonement offerings on the Festivals, which have fixed times. The Gemara rejects this: We derive a matter that is performed once a year, the service of Yom Kippur, from a matter that is performed once a year, like the inauguration, which was a one-time event, to the exclusion of the service on the Festivals, which is not performed once a year; rather, it is performed three times a year.

讜讗讬诪讗 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 讗讬 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪专讜讘讛 诪爪讜转讜

The Gemara asks: And say that the service on one Festival of the three, which is performed once a year, should require sequestering. And if you say: We do not know which of them is the most significant and requires sequestering, since one could suggest that it is Passover, with which the verse opened, as the Torah always lists it first among the Festivals; or one could suggest that it is Sukkot, since its mitzva is to bring numerous offerings, many more than the number brought on the other Festivals.

讗诇讗 讚谞讬谉 驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇砖讘注讛 诪驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rather, the Gemara rejects this possibility and explains: One derives sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, Yom Kippur, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. And one does not derive sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for seven days, a Festival, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. Therefore, atonement offerings on Festivals are not derived from the inauguration.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖诪讬谞讬 讚驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: And say that the sequestering for seven days is prior to the festival of the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that would also be sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day. The Gemara rejects this: One derives a matter before which there is not sanctity, Yom Kippur, which is preceded by weekdays, from a matter before which there is not sanctity, the day of the inauguration, which was also preceded by weekdays. And we do not derive a matter before which there is sanctity, the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is preceded by the seven days of Sukkot, from a matter before which there is not sanctity.

讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛砖转讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘注讬 驻专讬砖讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇讗 讛讝讛 讻转讬讘 讻讝讛

The Gemara challenges this: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Now, if a matter before which there is not sanctity requires sequestering, due to its sanctity, then with regard to a matter before which there is sanctity, all the more so is it not clear that it should require sequestering? Rav Mesharshiyya said in rejection of this challenge: No, there is no a fortiori inference here, as the verse: 鈥淎s has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you鈥 (Leviticus 8:34), is written to emphasize specifically a day like this day; precisely as it was for the inauguration, and not in any other situation.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注讬拽专 专讙诇 诇讗 讘注讬 驻专讬砖讛 讟驻诇 讚讬讚讬讛 讘注讬 驻专讬砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讬谞讬 专讙诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉

Rav Ashi said: There is another reason why it could not be that sequestering is required prior to the Eighth Day of Assembly. Is there any matter where the primary Festival, the first day of Sukkot, does not require sequestering, as was already proven, while that which is secondary to it requires sequestering? Since the Eighth Day of Assembly is an addendum to Sukkot, could its sanctity and stringency be greater than that which is associated with the primary Festival? And even according to the one who said: The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself and is not part of the festival of Sukkot, that applies only to the matter of

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 the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

invite yoma (3)

Teshuva, Avodah and Option B – with Tanya White

Tanya White is an international lecturer, writer and educator with a focus on Tanach and Contemporary Jewish Thought. Tanya is...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 2-9 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Masechet Yoma describes the events leading up to Yom Kippur and the events of Yom Kippur itself, the holiest day...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 2: A Great Deal of Sanctity

An introduction to Masekhet Yoma, and the events surrounding and on Yom HaKippurim in the Beit HaMikdash. Note the shift...
templee

A New Day

Today we start Masechet Yoma, a tractate that we will only finish in the summer. While not the same perfect...

Yoma 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 2

诪转谞讬壮 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讘讬转讜 诇诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 讜诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 砖诪讗 讬讗专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇

MISHNA: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur the Sages would remove the High Priest, who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin, a room in the Temple designated specifically for the High Priest during that period. And they would designate another priest in his stead to replace him lest a disqualification due to impurity or another circumstance beyond his control prevent him from entering the Temple on Yom Kippur.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诪讗 转诪讜转 讗砖转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讘讬转讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝

Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die, as it is stated in the Torah portion of the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd it will atone for him and for his house鈥 (Leviticus 16:6); the Sages interpreted the term: His house, that is his wife. The priest must be married in order to fulfill this commandment. Due to the concern lest his wife die, another wife was designated to address that possibility. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, that this is a concern, there is no end to the matter, as what if the designated replacement wife dies? This possibility need not be a source of concern.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖专讬驻转 讛驻专讛 讛讬讜 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪讘讬转讜 诇诇砖讻讛 砖注诇 驻谞讬 讛讘讬专讛 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讝专讞讛 讜诇砖讻转 讘讬转 讛讗讘谉 讛讬转讛 谞拽专讗转 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 诇砖讻转 讘讬转 讛讗讘谉 砖讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讘讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛

GEMARA: The halakha of sequestering the High Priest prior to his performance of the Temple service on Yom Kippur is comparable to the sequestering of the priest designated to burn the red heifer. Therefore, the Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer, the Sages would remove the priest who burns the heifer from his house to the chamber that was before the bira at the northeast corner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. And that chamber was called the Chamber of the Stone House. The Gemara explains: And why was it called the Chamber of the Stone House? It is because all the actions associated with the red heifer were performed in dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which are vessels that cannot become ritually impure.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 讚转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讛讬讜 讛讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 讜诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇讘谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪注讜专讘讬 讛砖诪砖 讛讬转讛 谞注砖讬转

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were so stringent with regard to the purity of the heifer? The Gemara explains: It is since a priest who immersed that day is fit for service and may perform the ritual of the heifer after immersion, even before sunset, as we learned in a mishna: They would intentionally render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him immediately, to remove a misconception from the hearts of the Sadducees by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. As the Sadducees would say: Only by those for whom the sun set was the heifer ritual performed. The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for priests who began the purification process with immersion during that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed.

转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 讻诇讬 讙诇诇讬诐 讻诇讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讜讻诇讬 讗讚诪讛 讚诇讗 诇讬拽讘诇讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讝诇讝诇讜 讘讛

That mishna continues: Since they would intentionally render the priest who burned the heifer ritually impure, the Sages in turn instituted the stringencies of utilizing dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which do not have the capacity to become ritually impure, lest people come to treat the ritual with contempt and perform it in ritual impurity after seeing that the red heifer ritual was performed by one who immersed that day.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讝专讞讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讜讞讟讗转 讟注讜谞讛 爪驻讜谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛 讗诇 谞讻讞 驻谞讬 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讻讛 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讝专讞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讛讜讬 诇讛 讛讬讻讬专讗

Apropos the mishna in tractate Para, the Gemara asks: What is different about the chamber located in the northeast corner of the Temple courtyard that led the Sages to house the priest performing the red heifer ritual specifically in that chamber? The Gemara answers: It is different since it is a sin-offering, as the red heifer is referred to as a sin-offering in the Torah, and the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of a sin-offering must be performed north of the altar; and since it is written with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淎nd sprinkle it before the opening of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 19:4), and before the Tent of Meeting means on its eastern side. Therefore, the Sages established a chamber in the northeast so that the ritual of the red heifer will have a distinctive indicator; this will cause the administering priest to be vigilant in its performance.

诪讗讬 讘讬专讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜诐 讛讬讛 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讜讘讬专讛 砖诪讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讻讜诇讜 拽专讜讬 讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛讘讬专讛 讗砖专 讛讻讬谞讜转讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the terminology of the mishna: What is the meaning of the term bira cited there? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There was a place on the Temple Mount and its name is bira, and the Chamber of the Stone House was adjacent to it. And Reish Lakish said: The entire Temple is called bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: 鈥淭o Solomon my son grant a wholesome heart, to observe your commandments, your admonitions, and your statutes, to fulfill them all, and to build the bira for which I have made provision鈥 (I Chronicles 29:19).

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专 讞诇拽讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讞住讬讗 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 壮诇注砖讜转壮 讗诇讜 诪注砖讬 驻专讛 壮诇讻驻专壮 讗诇讜 诪注砖讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

搂 With regard to the halakhot of sequestering the High Priest prior to performance of the Yom Kippur service, and of sequestering the priest designated to burn the heifer prior to performance of the red heifer ritual, the Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Minyomi bar 岣lkiya said that Rabbi Ma岣eya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said they are derived from Aaron and his sons, who remained in the Tabernacle for seven days prior to performing the service in the Tabernacle on the eighth day of their inauguration, as the verse states: 鈥淎s has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you鈥 (Leviticus 8:34), meaning that this mitzva of sequestering was not limited to the days prior to the dedication of the Tabernacle; rather, it applies to future generations as well. The verse is interpreted homiletically: 鈥淭o do鈥; these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer for which the priest performing the ritual is sequestered seven days in advance; 鈥渢o make atonement鈥; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur, before which the High Priest is sequestered seven days.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘驻专讛 诇讗 诪转讜拽诐 壮诇讻驻专壮 讻转讬讘 讜驻专讛 诇讗讜 讘转 讻驻专讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, the entire verse is not established as referring exclusively to the red heifer, as: 鈥淭o atone,鈥 is written, and the heifer is not capable of facilitating atonement; rather, it facilitates ritual purity. Rather, say that the entire verse is written with regard to Yom Kippur, as the rites performed to achieve atonement on Yom Kippur are similar to those performed during the days of the inauguration. What, then, is the source for sequestering the priest who is to perform the red heifer ritual?

讗诪专讬 讬诇讬祝 壮爪讜讛壮 壮爪讜讛壮 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讝讗转 讞拽转 讛转讜专讛 讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇讗诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 驻专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 驻专讛 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 驻专讬砖讛 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 驻专讬砖讛

The Sages say in response: Derive it from a verbal analogy between the terms commanded and commanded. It is stated here, with regard to the days of the inauguration: 鈥淭he Lord commanded to do,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: 鈥淭his is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying鈥 (Numbers 19:2). Just as the term commanded there refers to the heifer, so too here, the phrase: 鈥淭he Lord commanded to do鈥 written in the context of the days of the inauguration refers to the heifer. And just as here, with regard to the inauguration, there is the principle of sequestering prior to performing the service, so too there, in the context of the halakhot of the heifer, sequestering is required prior to performance of the mitzva.

讜讗讬诪讗 爪讜讛 [爪讜讛] 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖 讻讗砖专 爪讜讛 讛壮 讗转 诪砖讛 讚谞讬谉 爪讜讛 讚诇驻谞讬 注砖讬讛 诪壮爪讜讛壮 讚诇驻谞讬 注砖讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 爪讜讛 讚诇讗讞专 注砖讬讛 诪壮爪讜讛壮 讚诇驻谞讬 注砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: And say that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded in the context of Yom Kippur, as it is written: 鈥淎nd this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; and he did as the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Gemara rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. One derives commanded that is stated before performance, as in the portion of the heifer, from commanded that is stated before performance in the portion of the inauguration; and one does not derive commanded that is stated after performance in the portion of Yom Kippur from commanded that is stated before performance.

讜讗讬诪讗 爪讜讛 讚拽专讘谞讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 爪讜转讜 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚谞讬谉 爪讜讛 诪壮爪讜讛壮 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 爪讜转讜 诪壮爪讜讛壮

Again the Gemara asks: And say that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded with regard to offerings, as it is written: 鈥淥n the day that He commanded [tzavoto] the children of Israel to sacrifice their offerings鈥 (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for seven days. The Gemara rejects this: One derives the term commanded from the identical term commanded, and one does not derive the term that he commanded [tzavoto] from the term commanded [tziva].

讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讜讛转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the practical difference between the two terms? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav]鈥 (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva]鈥 (Leviticus 14:44)? From that verbal analogy it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, i.e., it is also after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference in grammatical forms between tziva and tzavoto should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only where there are no terms that are identical to it; however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms that are identical to it, rather than from terms that are merely similar.

诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 讻驻专讛 讚拽专讘谞讜转

搂 The Gemara analyzes the verbal analogy from which the sequestering of the High Priest is derived. The Gemara states with regard to the phrase 鈥渢o make atonement,鈥 written in the context of the inauguration: These are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests: And say that it refers to the atonement of offerings in general, such that any priest engaged in sacrificing atonement offerings must be sequestered seven days beforehand.

诪讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 讻讛谉 诪转专诪讬 讚讘注讬 诇讬讛 驻专讬砖讛 讗诪专讬 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 谞讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 驻专讬砖讛 诇讻讜诇讬讛 诪砖诪专转 讘讬转 讗讘 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诪讚讘专 砖拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 拽专讘谞讜转 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讗讬转谞讛讜

The Gemara seeks to reject this suggestion from a practical perspective. Do we know in advance which priest will happen to sacrifice a given offering, and who would consequently require sequestering? The Sages say: Why not? There are certainly ways to do so. Each of the twenty-four priestly watches has set weeks during which it serves in the Temple, and the patrilineal families that constitute that watch have set days during that week on which each serves in the Temple. We could require sequestering for the entire patrilineal family of the priestly watch designated to serve on that day the following week. The Gemara rejects the suggestion that all priests should be sequestered prior to sacrificing an atonement offering. We derive a matter that has a fixed time during the year, Yom Kippur, from a matter that also has a fixed time, the inauguration of the priests for service in the Tabernacle, to the exclusion of offerings that are sacrificed every day.

讜讗讬诪讗 专讙诇讬诐 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖谞讜讛讙 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 诪讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讙诇讬诐 讚诇讗讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Again the Gemara asks: And say that one derives from the phrase 鈥渢o make atonement鈥 the principle of sequestering prior to sacrificing atonement offerings on the Festivals, which have fixed times. The Gemara rejects this: We derive a matter that is performed once a year, the service of Yom Kippur, from a matter that is performed once a year, like the inauguration, which was a one-time event, to the exclusion of the service on the Festivals, which is not performed once a year; rather, it is performed three times a year.

讜讗讬诪讗 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 讗讬 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪专讜讘讛 诪爪讜转讜

The Gemara asks: And say that the service on one Festival of the three, which is performed once a year, should require sequestering. And if you say: We do not know which of them is the most significant and requires sequestering, since one could suggest that it is Passover, with which the verse opened, as the Torah always lists it first among the Festivals; or one could suggest that it is Sukkot, since its mitzva is to bring numerous offerings, many more than the number brought on the other Festivals.

讗诇讗 讚谞讬谉 驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇砖讘注讛 诪驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rather, the Gemara rejects this possibility and explains: One derives sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, Yom Kippur, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. And one does not derive sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for seven days, a Festival, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. Therefore, atonement offerings on Festivals are not derived from the inauguration.

讜讗讬诪讗 砖诪讬谞讬 讚驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: And say that the sequestering for seven days is prior to the festival of the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that would also be sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day. The Gemara rejects this: One derives a matter before which there is not sanctity, Yom Kippur, which is preceded by weekdays, from a matter before which there is not sanctity, the day of the inauguration, which was also preceded by weekdays. And we do not derive a matter before which there is sanctity, the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is preceded by the seven days of Sukkot, from a matter before which there is not sanctity.

讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讛砖转讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讘注讬 驻专讬砖讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇讗 讛讝讛 讻转讬讘 讻讝讛

The Gemara challenges this: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Now, if a matter before which there is not sanctity requires sequestering, due to its sanctity, then with regard to a matter before which there is sanctity, all the more so is it not clear that it should require sequestering? Rav Mesharshiyya said in rejection of this challenge: No, there is no a fortiori inference here, as the verse: 鈥淎s has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you鈥 (Leviticus 8:34), is written to emphasize specifically a day like this day; precisely as it was for the inauguration, and not in any other situation.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚注讬拽专 专讙诇 诇讗 讘注讬 驻专讬砖讛 讟驻诇 讚讬讚讬讛 讘注讬 驻专讬砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讬谞讬 专讙诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉

Rav Ashi said: There is another reason why it could not be that sequestering is required prior to the Eighth Day of Assembly. Is there any matter where the primary Festival, the first day of Sukkot, does not require sequestering, as was already proven, while that which is secondary to it requires sequestering? Since the Eighth Day of Assembly is an addendum to Sukkot, could its sanctity and stringency be greater than that which is associated with the primary Festival? And even according to the one who said: The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself and is not part of the festival of Sukkot, that applies only to the matter of

Scroll To Top