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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 3, 2021 | 讻状讗 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.

Yoma 22

Why was the lottery system instituted for the job of the removal of the ashes? Originally, they didn’t think so many kohanim would be interested in the job so they said that whoever came first would get the job. However one time two kohanim raced up the ramp of the altar and one pushed the other and he fell off and broke a leg. They didn’t think kohanim would all be interested in doing this job because it was a night job and therefore less important. But aren’t there other night jobs that have a lottery? Others suggest it was because they wouldn’t be able to wake up in time. Once they instituted the lottery for removal of the ashes, kohanim were no longer interested in getting the job, so they added a few other jobs to the one who would win that lottery to incentivize kohanim to come. In the time when they used to race for the job, where was the finish line? When they did the lottery, they would put out fingers and the kohen would count fingers. This was because it was forbidden to count heads – from where is this derived? When one takes on a leadership position in the community, one becomes wealthy. This is learned from King Saul as first he counted the people with shards and later with sheep, a sign of his wealth. King Saul pitied the Amalekim and yet did not pity the city of Nov, a city of kohanim who helped save David when he ran away from him. The gemara compares King Saul’s sin to King David’s sin. Even though King Saul sinned once and King David twice, King Saul lost the kingship and King David did not. Why was King Saul punished so harshly? What other sins did King David commit that he was punished for?

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讻诇 诪讬 砖专讜爪讛 诇转专讜诐 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 转讜专诐 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讝讻讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛谉 讛爪讘讬注讜


MISHNA: Initially, the practice among the priests was that whoever wishes to remove the ashes from the altar removes them. And when there are many priests who wish to perform that task, the privilege to do so is determined by a race: The priests run and ascend on the ramp leading to the top of the altar. Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the top of the altar first is privileged to remove the ashes. And if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers, and a lottery was performed, as will be explained.


讜诪讛 讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞转 讗讜 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讙讜讚诇 讘诪拽讚砖


And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may extend one or two fingers, and the priests do not extend a thumb in the Temple. The reason is that the lottery was conducted by the appointee choosing a number and counting the extended fingers of the priests standing in a circle. As the count progressed, a priest could calculate and manipulate the result in his favor by surreptitiously extending his thumb and an additional finger. Since there is separation between the thumb and the forefinger it could appear as though they belonged to two different priests, skewing the results of the lottery.


诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖讜讬谉 讜专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 讜讚讞祝 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞驻诇 讜谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 讜讻讬讜谉 砖专讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 转讜专诪讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 讘驻讬讬住 讗专讘注 驻讬讬住讜转 讛讬讜 砖诐 讜讝讛 讛驻讬讬住 讛专讗砖讜谉


Initially, that was the procedure; however, an incident occurred where both of them were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved another and he fell and his leg was broken. And once the court saw that people were coming to potential danger, they instituted that priests would remove ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery. There were four lotteries there, in the Temple, on a daily basis to determine the priests privileged to perform the various services, and this, determining which priest would remove the ashes, was the first lottery.


讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘讗 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讗转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗转讜 讜讗转讜 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 驻讬讬住讗


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the original practice of holding a race to determine which priest would remove the ashes: And what is the reason that the Sages did not initially institute a lottery for the removal of the ashes as they did for other parts of the service? The Gemara answers: Initially they thought: Since it is a service performed at night it would not be important to the priests, and not many of them would come to perform it, so a lottery would be unnecessary. Then, when they saw that many priests did indeed come and that they were coming to danger by racing up the altar鈥檚 ramp, they instituted a lottery.


讜讛专讬 讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 讚注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讜转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara poses a question against the assertion that nighttime Temple services did not normally require a lottery: But there is the burning of the limbs of burnt-offerings and the fats of other offerings, which is a service that is performed at night, and nevertheless the Sages instituted a lottery for that from the outset. The Gemara answers: The burning of those parts is not considered a nighttime service but the end of a daytime service, as the main part of the sacrificial service, the slaughtering and the sprinkling of blood, took place during the day.


讛讗讬 谞诪讬 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 诇转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: If so, it could be argued that this service of removing the ashes is also not a nighttime service but the start of a daytime service, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If a priest has sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, if he remained in the confines of the Temple, he need not sanctify his hands again, because he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Apparently, the removal of the ashes, though performed at night, is considered the start of the next day鈥檚 service.


讗讬诪讗 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇注讘讜讚讛


The Gemara responds by emending Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Say the following version of the end of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Because he had already sanctified them at the outset for service. According to this formulation, Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say that the removal of the ashes is considered the start of the following day鈥檚 service. Rather, he said that although the removal of the ashes is a nighttime service, since the priest sanctified his hands before performing that service, the sanctification remains in effect for the services performed after daybreak as well, since there is no interruption between the two activities.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜谞住 砖讬谞讛 诇讗 讗转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚讗转讜 讜拽讗转讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 讜讛专讬 讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜谞住 砖讬谞讛 讜转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讙谞讗 诪诪讬拽诐


Some say that the original practice should be explained as follows: Initially, the Sages thought that since there is a likelihood of being overcome by sleep at that time of night, not many priests would come. When they saw that they did indeed come and that they were also coming to danger, the Sages instituted a lottery for this task. The Gemara asks: But there is the burning of the limbs of burnt-offerings and the fats of other offerings, a service for which there is the same likelihood of being overcome by sleep, and nevertheless the Sages instituted a lottery for that from the outset. The Gemara answers: Lying down to go to sleep late is different from rising in the middle of the night. It is not as difficult to stay up late in order to burn limbs on the altar as it is to rise before dawn to remove the ashes from the altar.


讜转拽谞转讗 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讛讜讗讬 转拽谞转讗 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讛讜讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讝讻讛 讘转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 (讬讝讻讛) 讘住讬讚讜专 诪注专讻讛 讜讘砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐


The Gemara addresses the substance of the mishna鈥檚 claim: But was the ordinance to assign the removal of ashes by means of a lottery due to that reason cited in the mishna, the matter of the dangerous incident? The ordinance was instituted due to this reason: There were other important tasks associated with the removal of the ashes that required a lottery in their own right, as it was taught in a baraita: The priest who was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes was also privileged with laying out the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs that were placed on the altar each morning. Since these were inherently important tasks, the only way to assign them was through a lottery, which would also determine who removed the ashes.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖转讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诇讗 讗转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗转讜 讜讗转讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 驻讬讬住讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 驻讬讬住讗 诇讗 讗转讜 讗诪专讬 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪转专诪讬 诇谉 讛讚专 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 诪讬 砖讝讻讛 讘转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讬讝讻讛 讘住讬讚讜专 诪注专讻讛 讜讘砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬转讜 讜谞讬驻讬讬住讜


The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi said: There were two separate ordinances instituted. Initially, the Sages thought that priests would not come forward to perform the task of removing the ashes. Once they saw that many priests did come and that they were also coming to danger, the Sages instituted a lottery for this task. Once they established a lottery for removing the ashes, the priests did not come anymore. They said: Who says the lottery will fall in our favor? Therefore, they did not bother to come. Then the Sages instituted for the priests that whoever was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes would also be privileged with laying out the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs, so that the importance of all these tasks combined would ensure that the priests would come and participate in the lottery.


讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讗专注讗 诇讗 专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 转谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 转谞谉 讜讛讚专 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜


搂 It was taught in the mishna that before the lottery was instituted, when there were many priests who sought to perform the removal of the ashes, the first priest to reach within four cubits of the top of the altar was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes. Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the four cubits the mishna is referring to are not the four cubits adjacent to the ramp on the ground, because we learned in the mishna that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and not adjacent to the ramp. It is also not referring to the first four cubits from the foot of the ramp, because we learned that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and only afterward it says: Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the altar first, indicating that the competition begins only once they have ascended the ramp to some extent.


讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讚讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转谞谉


It is also not referring to four cubits somewhere in the middle, between the four on the bottom and the top of the altar, because the matter is not defined and there is no clear indication which four cubits on the ramp are the determining cubits. In light of all this, it is obvious to me that the four cubits we learned in the mishna are referring to the four cubits that are adjacent to the altar itself. The priest who reaches those four cubits first is the one privileged to remove the ashes.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 住讜讘讘


Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above clarification: Are the four cubits that they stated, which are the four cubits adjacent to the altar, calculated including the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its ledge, as the ramp continues and overlaps these two cubits at the top of the altar,


讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘专 诪讗诪讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 住讜讘讘 转讬拽讜


or are they perhaps calculated excluding the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its ledge? The altar鈥檚 edge can be considered to be at the end of the ramp, the point at which it meets the altar, or it can be considered the point on the ramp that is directly over the external base of the altar, which is two cubits away from the point where the ramp meets the altar. Which of these two calculations is the correct one? Rav Pappa鈥檚 question remains unanswered, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讜讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛诐 讛爪讘讬注讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗爪讘注讜转讬讻诐 诇诪谞讬谉 讜谞讬诪谞讬谞讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗住讜专 诇诪谞讜转 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讘讝拽


搂 It was taught in the mishna that if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers [hatzbiu], and a lottery was performed. A tanna taught the meaning of the unusual term hatzbiu: Put out your fingers for a count. The Gemara asks: Let him count the priests themselves directly, rather than counting their fingers. The Gemara answers: This is a support for a teaching of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: It is prohibited to count Jews directly, even for the purposes of a mitzva, as it is written concerning King Saul and his count of his soldiers: 鈥淎nd he numbered them with bezek (I Samuel 11:8), meaning that he counted them through shards, one shard representing each man, rather than counting them directly.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讝拽 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讬讘讝拽 讛讜讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诪讗 讚诪转讗 讛讜讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪爪讗讜 讗讚讜谞讬 讘讝拽 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讗转 讛注诐 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讟诇讗讬诐


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse: From where do you derive that this word bezek is a term related to the verb meaning to break apart, so that it means shards? Perhaps it is the name of a town, and it means that Saul counted them in Bezek, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek鈥 (Judges 1:5), which shows that Bezek is the name of a place. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the proof is not from that verse but from here, where it says: 鈥淎nd Saul summoned the people and numbered them by sheep鈥 (I Samuel 15:4), meaning that Saul tallied his soldiers by having each one take a sheep and put it aside to represent him in the count.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 讛诪讜谞讛 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 注讜讘专 讘诇讗讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 诪住驻专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讞讜诇 讛讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪讚 讜诇讗 讬住驻专


Rabbi Elazar said: Whoever counts a group of Jews violates a negative mitzva, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured鈥 (Hosea 2:1). Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse to be saying: Which may not be measured. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: One who counts a group of Jews in fact violates two negative mitzvot, as it is stated in that verse: 鈥淲hich cannot be measured and cannot be counted鈥 (Hosea 2:1).


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 诪住驻专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讞讜诇 讛讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讚 讜诇讗 讬住驻专


Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction: It is written in this verse: 鈥淎nd the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea,鈥 suggesting that they will have a specific number, though it will be very large. On the other hand, it continues and says: 鈥淲hich cannot be measured and cannot be counted,鈥 which means they will not be countable at all. How can these two statements be reconciled?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐


It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people fulfill the will of God; then they will be innumerable. There, in the first statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not fulfill the will of God; then they will be like the sand of the sea, having a specific number. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said a different resolution in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of man; the Jewish people will be too numerous to count by man. There, in the first statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of God, and He will find that they are like the number of the grains of the sand of the sea.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讛讬诇讗讬 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转诪谞讛 讗讚诐 驻专谞住 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专 诪转注砖专 诪注讬拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讘讝拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讻转讬讘 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讟诇讗讬诐 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讚讬讚讛讜 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讗 讚诪讬诇转讗


Rav Nehilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said: Once a man is appointed as a leader of the community, he becomes wealthy. This is derived from the verses cited above. Initially, it is written with regard to Saul: 鈥淎nd he numbered them with bezek,鈥 meaning pottery shards, and in the end it is written: 鈥淎nd he numbered them with sheep,鈥 indicating that he was able to provide enough of his own sheep to use them in counting the people. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the people provided these sheep from their own flocks. The Gemara rejects this: If so, what is the novelty in the matter? Why would the text tell us that the people were counted with sheep if not to illustrate incidentally the great wealth of Saul?


讜讬专讘 讘谞讞诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讞诇 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇砖讗讜诇 诇讱 讜讛讻讬转 讗转 注诪诇拽 讗诪专 讜诪讛 谞驻砖 讗讞转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛讘讗 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讻诇 讛谞驻砖讜转 讛诇诇讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


搂 Having mentioned the verse about Saul, the Gemara proceeds to interpret more of that passage: 鈥淎nd Saul came to the city of Amalek and he strove in the valley鈥 (I Samuel 15:5). Rabbi Mani said: This means that Saul strove with God, as it were, concerning the matter of the valley. At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Saul: 鈥淣ow go and attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him; do not pity him, but kill men and women alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and sheep alike, camel and donkey alike鈥 (I Samuel 15:3), Saul countered and said: Now, if on account of one life that is taken, in a case where a slain person鈥檚 body is found and the murderer is unknown, the Torah said to bring a heifer whose neck is broken to a barren valley, in the atonement ritual described in Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9, all the more so must I have pity and not take all these Amalekite lives.


讜讗诐 讗讚诐 讞讟讗 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 讞讟讗讛 讜讗诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讞讟讗讜 拽讟谞讬诐 诪讛 讞讟讗讜 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗诇 转讛讬 爪讚讬拽 讛专讘讛 讜讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 砖讗讜诇 诇讚讜讗讙 住讜讘 讗转讛 讜驻讙注 讘讻讛谞讬诐 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗诇 转专砖注 讛专讘讛


And he further reasoned: If the men have sinned, in what way have the animals sinned? Why, then, should the Amalekites鈥 livestock be destroyed? And if the adults have sinned, in what way have the children sinned? A Divine Voice then came forth and said to him: 鈥淒o not be overly righteous鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:16). That is to say: Do not be more merciful than the Creator Himself, Who has commanded you to do this, for to do so would not be an indication of righteousness but of weakness. At a later time, when Saul said to Doeg: 鈥淭urn around and strike down the priests, and Doeg the Edomite turned around and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod, and he struck Nob the city of priests by the sword, man and woman alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and donkeys and sheep, by the sword鈥 (I Samuel 22:18鈥19), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: 鈥淒o not be overly wicked鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:17).


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诪讛 诇讗 讞诇讬 讜诇讗 诪专讙讬砖 讙讘专讗 讚诪专讬讛 住讬讬注讬讛 砖讗讜诇 讘讗讞转 讜注诇转讛 诇讜 讚讜讚 讘砖转讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖讗讜诇 讘讗讞转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 诪注砖讛 讚讗讙讙 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪注砖讛 讚谞讜讘 注讬专 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗诪注砖讛 讚讗讙讙 讻转讬讘 谞讞诪转讬 讻讬 讛诪诇讻转讬 讗转 砖讗讜诇 诇诪诇讱


Apropos Saul鈥檚 contravention of God鈥檚 command to obliterate Amalek, the Gemara observes that Rav Huna said: How little does a person who has the support of his Lord have to worry or be concerned. The proof for this assertion is a comparison between Saul and David. Saul failed with one single sin and it was counted against him, costing him the throne. David, however, failed with two sins and they were not counted against him, as he retained his position. The Gemara asks: What was Saul鈥檚 one sin? The incident with Agag, king of Amalek, whom Saul spared in defiance of God鈥檚 command (see I Samuel 15:9). But was this his sole sin? There is also the incident of Nob, the city of priests, in which Saul later slew many innocent people, as cited above. The Gemara answers: It was after the incident with Agag, and even before the incident at Nob, that God said: 鈥淚 regret that I have crowned Saul to be king鈥 (I Samuel 15:11).


讚讜讚 讘砖转讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗讜专讬讛 讜讚讛住转讛


Rav Huna stated above that David failed with two sins. What were they? One was the incident in which he had Uriah killed. The other was the matter of the incitement of David to conduct a census of the Jewish people (see II Samuel 24:1), which led to many deaths in a plague.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注砖讛 讚讘转 砖讘注 讛转诐 讗驻专注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讛讻讘砖讛 讬砖诇诐 讗专讘注转讬诐 讬诇讚 讗诪谞讜谉 转诪专 讜讗讘砖诇讜诐


The Gemara asks: But were these his only two sins? There is also the incident of Bathsheba, in which he took another man鈥檚 wife as his own. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, punishment was exacted from him separately, so the matter is no longer listed among his sins, as it is written with regard to this incident: 鈥淎nd he shall restore the lamb fourfold鈥 (II Samuel 12:6). The lamb was a metaphor for Bathsheba, and ultimately David was indeed given a fourfold punishment for taking Bathsheba: The first child born to Bathsheba and David died (see II Samuel 12:13鈥23); David鈥檚 son Amnon was killed; Tamar, his daughter, was raped by Amnon (see II Samuel 13); and his son Avshalom rebelled against him and was ultimately killed (see II Samuel 15鈥18).


讛转诐 谞诪讬 讗驻专注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转谉 讛壮 讚讘专 (讘注诐 诪谉 讛讘讜拽专) 讜注讚 注转 诪讜注讚 讛转诐 诇讗 讗驻专注讜 诪讙讜驻讬讛


The Gemara asks: If sins for which David was punished separately are not counted, one could ask: There, too, with regard to the sin of the census, he was punished separately, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord sent a plague against Israel from the morning until the appointed time鈥 (II Samuel 24:15). The Gemara responds: There, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, the punishment was inflicted on the Jewish people.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗驻专注讜 诪讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗讬讬 讗驻专注讜 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 谞爪讟专注 讚讜讚 讜驻专砖讜 讛讬诪谞讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜谞住转诇拽讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讻讬谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讜讘讜 诇讬 讬专讗讬讱 讜讬讜讚注讬 注讚讜转讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讛砖讬讘讛 诇讬 砖砖讜谉 讬砖注讱


The Gemara challenges this: There, too, in the incident with Bathsheba, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, it was his children who suffered punishment. The Gemara answers: That is not so; he was punished personally, in his own body, for that sin, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: David was stricken with leprosy for six months after that incident, and the Sanhedrin withdrew from him in protest over his behavior, and the Divine Presence also left him. As it is written that David prayed: 鈥淢ay those who fear You return to me, and they who know Your testimonies鈥 (Psalms 119:79). Since he prayed for the return of those who fear God and who know His testimonies, referring to the Sages of the Sanhedrin, it can be inferred that they had withdrawn from him. And it is written as well: 鈥淩estore to me the joy of Your salvation, let a vigorous spirit support me鈥 (Psalms 51:14), where David asks for the return of the Divine Spirit, which had left him.


讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗 拽讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注


The Gemara asks: And didn鈥檛 David commit other sins? Didn鈥檛 Rav say: David accepted a slanderous report from Ziba about Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, stating that the latter was pleased with David鈥檚 downfall? There was, in that case, this additional sin. The Gemara responds: Consequently, it is necessary to follow the approach of Shmuel, who said: David did not accept a slanderous report, because Ziba鈥檚 claim was true.


讜诇专讘 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 拽讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讛讗 讗讬驻专注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讚讜讚 诇诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讗诪专转讬 讗转讛 讜爪讬讘讗 转讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讞讘注诐 讜讬专讘注诐 讬讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讜转


The Gemara continues: And even according to Rav, who said that David accepted a slanderous report, one could answer that that sin is not counted, as was he not punished for it? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when David said to Mephibosheth: 鈥淚 say that you and Ziba should divide the field鈥 (II Samuel 19:30), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the kingship. Because David believed Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report and awarded him half of Mephibosheth鈥檚 field, David was punished by having his kingdom divided into two. Following King Solomon鈥檚 death the Jewish people split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judea to the south (see I Kings 12). Therefore, David was punished for that sin too.


讘谉 砖谞讛 砖讗讜诇 讘诪诇讻讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讘谉 砖谞讛 砖诇讗 讟注诐 讟注诐 讞讟讗


搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of Saul and David. It is written: 鈥淪aul was one year old when he began to reign鈥 (I Samuel 13:1), which cannot be understood literally, as Saul was appointed king when he was a young man. Rav Huna said: The verse means that when he began to reign he was like a one-year鈥搊ld, in that he had never tasted the taste of sin but was wholly innocent and upright.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讘谉 砖谞讛 砖诪诇讜讻诇讱 讘讟讬讟 讜讘爪讜讗讛 讗讞讜讬讗讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬讜讟讗 讘讞诇诪讬讛 讗诪专 谞注谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 注爪诪讜转 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 拽讬砖 讛讚专 讞讝讗 住讬讜讟讗 讘讞诇诪讬讛 讗诪专 谞注谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 注爪诪讜转 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 拽讬砖 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse, saying: You could just as well say that he was like a one-year-old in that he was always filthy with mud and excrement. Rav Na岣an was shown a frightful dream that night, and he understood it as a punishment for having disparaged Saul. He said: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, and beg your forgiveness. But once again he was shown a frightful dream, and he understood that he had not shown enough deference in his first apology. He therefore said this time: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, king of Israel, and beg your forgiveness. Subsequently, the nightmares ceased.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞诪砖讻讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 砖讗讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖讜诐 讚讜驻讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 驻专谞住 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 砖专爪讬诐 转诇讜讬讛 诇讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 砖讗诐 转讝讜讞 讚注转讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讞讝讜专 诇讗讞讜专讬讱


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Why did the kingship of the house of Saul not continue on to succeeding generations? It is because there was no flaw in his ancestry; he was of impeccable lineage. As Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: One appoints a leader over the community only if he has a box full of creeping animals hanging behind him, i.e., he has something inappropriate in his ancestry that preceded him. Why is that? It is so that if he exhibits a haughty attitude toward the community, one can say to him: Turn and look behind you and be reminded of your humble roots. This is why David鈥檚 kingdom lasted while Saul鈥檚 did not, as David descended from a family with problematic ancestry, namely Tamar (see Genesis, chapter 38) and Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 4:18鈥22).


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞注谞砖 砖讗讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讘诇讬注诇 讗诪专讜 诪讛 讬讜砖讬注谞讜 讝讛 讜讬讘讝讜讛讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 诪谞讞讛 讜讬讛讬 讻诪讞专讬砖 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇 谞讞砖 讛注诪讜谞讬 讜讬讞谉 注诇 讬讘砖 讙诇注讚 讜讙讜壮


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Why was Saul punished in that he was ultimately led to commit the sins described above? Because at the very outset of his reign he inappropriately forwent his royal honor, as it is stated with regard to Saul鈥檚 inauguration: 鈥淎nd some base fellows said: How can this man save us? So they disparaged him and brought him no present. But he made himself as if he did not hear鈥 (I Samuel 10:27). And it is stated immediately afterward: 鈥淎nd Nahash the Ammonite marched up and encamped against Jabesh-gilead鈥 (I Samuel 11:1). The implication is that if Saul had forcefully assumed his throne, Nahash would not have dared to attack the people of Jabesh-gilead. In this way, his humility led to the crisis.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Any Torah scholar


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.

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...
alon shvut women

The Payis

Yoma Daf 22聽 - topics on the daf: Starting the second perek - how the Payis got started Why didn鈥檛...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 22: Safety Precautions

The basics of every day for the kohanim in the Beit HaMikdash, beginning with clearing out the ashes from the...

Yoma 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 22

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讻诇 诪讬 砖专讜爪讛 诇转专讜诐 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 转讜专诐 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讝讻讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛谉 讛爪讘讬注讜


MISHNA: Initially, the practice among the priests was that whoever wishes to remove the ashes from the altar removes them. And when there are many priests who wish to perform that task, the privilege to do so is determined by a race: The priests run and ascend on the ramp leading to the top of the altar. Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the top of the altar first is privileged to remove the ashes. And if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers, and a lottery was performed, as will be explained.


讜诪讛 讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞转 讗讜 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讙讜讚诇 讘诪拽讚砖


And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may extend one or two fingers, and the priests do not extend a thumb in the Temple. The reason is that the lottery was conducted by the appointee choosing a number and counting the extended fingers of the priests standing in a circle. As the count progressed, a priest could calculate and manipulate the result in his favor by surreptitiously extending his thumb and an additional finger. Since there is separation between the thumb and the forefinger it could appear as though they belonged to two different priests, skewing the results of the lottery.


诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 砖讜讬谉 讜专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 讜讚讞祝 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞驻诇 讜谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 讜讻讬讜谉 砖专讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 转讜专诪讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 讘驻讬讬住 讗专讘注 驻讬讬住讜转 讛讬讜 砖诐 讜讝讛 讛驻讬讬住 讛专讗砖讜谉


Initially, that was the procedure; however, an incident occurred where both of them were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved another and he fell and his leg was broken. And once the court saw that people were coming to potential danger, they instituted that priests would remove ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery. There were four lotteries there, in the Temple, on a daily basis to determine the priests privileged to perform the various services, and this, determining which priest would remove the ashes, was the first lottery.


讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘讗 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讗转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗转讜 讜讗转讜 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 驻讬讬住讗


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the original practice of holding a race to determine which priest would remove the ashes: And what is the reason that the Sages did not initially institute a lottery for the removal of the ashes as they did for other parts of the service? The Gemara answers: Initially they thought: Since it is a service performed at night it would not be important to the priests, and not many of them would come to perform it, so a lottery would be unnecessary. Then, when they saw that many priests did indeed come and that they were coming to danger by racing up the altar鈥檚 ramp, they instituted a lottery.


讜讛专讬 讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 讚注讘讜讚转 诇讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讜转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 住讜祝 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara poses a question against the assertion that nighttime Temple services did not normally require a lottery: But there is the burning of the limbs of burnt-offerings and the fats of other offerings, which is a service that is performed at night, and nevertheless the Sages instituted a lottery for that from the outset. The Gemara answers: The burning of those parts is not considered a nighttime service but the end of a daytime service, as the main part of the sacrificial service, the slaughtering and the sprinkling of blood, took place during the day.


讛讗讬 谞诪讬 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬讚砖 讬讚讬讜 诇转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 诇诪讞专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚砖 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞讬诇转 注讘讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: If so, it could be argued that this service of removing the ashes is also not a nighttime service but the start of a daytime service, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If a priest has sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, if he remained in the confines of the Temple, he need not sanctify his hands again, because he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Apparently, the removal of the ashes, though performed at night, is considered the start of the next day鈥檚 service.


讗讬诪讗 砖讻讘专 拽讬讚砖 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇注讘讜讚讛


The Gemara responds by emending Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Say the following version of the end of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Because he had already sanctified them at the outset for service. According to this formulation, Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say that the removal of the ashes is considered the start of the following day鈥檚 service. Rather, he said that although the removal of the ashes is a nighttime service, since the priest sanctified his hands before performing that service, the sanctification remains in effect for the services performed after daybreak as well, since there is no interruption between the two activities.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜谞住 砖讬谞讛 诇讗 讗转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚讗转讜 讜拽讗转讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 讜讛专讬 讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜谞住 砖讬谞讛 讜转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讙谞讗 诪诪讬拽诐


Some say that the original practice should be explained as follows: Initially, the Sages thought that since there is a likelihood of being overcome by sleep at that time of night, not many priests would come. When they saw that they did indeed come and that they were also coming to danger, the Sages instituted a lottery for this task. The Gemara asks: But there is the burning of the limbs of burnt-offerings and the fats of other offerings, a service for which there is the same likelihood of being overcome by sleep, and nevertheless the Sages instituted a lottery for that from the outset. The Gemara answers: Lying down to go to sleep late is different from rising in the middle of the night. It is not as difficult to stay up late in order to burn limbs on the altar as it is to rise before dawn to remove the ashes from the altar.


讜转拽谞转讗 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讛讜讗讬 转拽谞转讗 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讛讜讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讝讻讛 讘转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 (讬讝讻讛) 讘住讬讚讜专 诪注专讻讛 讜讘砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐


The Gemara addresses the substance of the mishna鈥檚 claim: But was the ordinance to assign the removal of ashes by means of a lottery due to that reason cited in the mishna, the matter of the dangerous incident? The ordinance was instituted due to this reason: There were other important tasks associated with the removal of the ashes that required a lottery in their own right, as it was taught in a baraita: The priest who was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes was also privileged with laying out the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs that were placed on the altar each morning. Since these were inherently important tasks, the only way to assign them was through a lottery, which would also determine who removed the ashes.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖转讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 诇讗 讗转讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗转讜 讜讗转讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 驻讬讬住讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讛 驻讬讬住讗 诇讗 讗转讜 讗诪专讬 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪转专诪讬 诇谉 讛讚专 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 诪讬 砖讝讻讛 讘转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讬讝讻讛 讘住讬讚讜专 诪注专讻讛 讜讘砖谞讬 讙讝讬专讬 注爪讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬转讜 讜谞讬驻讬讬住讜


The Gemara answers: Rav Ashi said: There were two separate ordinances instituted. Initially, the Sages thought that priests would not come forward to perform the task of removing the ashes. Once they saw that many priests did come and that they were also coming to danger, the Sages instituted a lottery for this task. Once they established a lottery for removing the ashes, the priests did not come anymore. They said: Who says the lottery will fall in our favor? Therefore, they did not bother to come. Then the Sages instituted for the priests that whoever was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes would also be privileged with laying out the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs, so that the importance of all these tasks combined would ensure that the priests would come and participate in the lottery.


讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讗专注讗 诇讗 专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 转谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 转谞谉 讜讛讚专 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜


搂 It was taught in the mishna that before the lottery was instituted, when there were many priests who sought to perform the removal of the ashes, the first priest to reach within four cubits of the top of the altar was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes. Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the four cubits the mishna is referring to are not the four cubits adjacent to the ramp on the ground, because we learned in the mishna that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and not adjacent to the ramp. It is also not referring to the first four cubits from the foot of the ramp, because we learned that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and only afterward it says: Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the altar first, indicating that the competition begins only once they have ascended the ramp to some extent.


讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讚讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转谞谉


It is also not referring to four cubits somewhere in the middle, between the four on the bottom and the top of the altar, because the matter is not defined and there is no clear indication which four cubits on the ramp are the determining cubits. In light of all this, it is obvious to me that the four cubits we learned in the mishna are referring to the four cubits that are adjacent to the altar itself. The priest who reaches those four cubits first is the one privileged to remove the ashes.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 住讜讘讘


Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above clarification: Are the four cubits that they stated, which are the four cubits adjacent to the altar, calculated including the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its ledge, as the ramp continues and overlaps these two cubits at the top of the altar,


讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘专 诪讗诪讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 住讜讘讘 转讬拽讜


or are they perhaps calculated excluding the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its ledge? The altar鈥檚 edge can be considered to be at the end of the ramp, the point at which it meets the altar, or it can be considered the point on the ramp that is directly over the external base of the altar, which is two cubits away from the point where the ramp meets the altar. Which of these two calculations is the correct one? Rav Pappa鈥檚 question remains unanswered, and the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讜讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛诐 讛爪讘讬注讜 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗爪讘注讜转讬讻诐 诇诪谞讬谉 讜谞讬诪谞讬谞讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗住讜专 诇诪谞讜转 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讘讝拽


搂 It was taught in the mishna that if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers [hatzbiu], and a lottery was performed. A tanna taught the meaning of the unusual term hatzbiu: Put out your fingers for a count. The Gemara asks: Let him count the priests themselves directly, rather than counting their fingers. The Gemara answers: This is a support for a teaching of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k said: It is prohibited to count Jews directly, even for the purposes of a mitzva, as it is written concerning King Saul and his count of his soldiers: 鈥淎nd he numbered them with bezek (I Samuel 11:8), meaning that he counted them through shards, one shard representing each man, rather than counting them directly.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讝拽 诇讬砖谞讗 讚诪讬讘讝拽 讛讜讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 砖诪讗 讚诪转讗 讛讜讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诪爪讗讜 讗讚讜谞讬 讘讝拽 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讗转 讛注诐 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讟诇讗讬诐


Rav Ashi strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse: From where do you derive that this word bezek is a term related to the verb meaning to break apart, so that it means shards? Perhaps it is the name of a town, and it means that Saul counted them in Bezek, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek鈥 (Judges 1:5), which shows that Bezek is the name of a place. The Gemara answers: Indeed, the proof is not from that verse but from here, where it says: 鈥淎nd Saul summoned the people and numbered them by sheep鈥 (I Samuel 15:4), meaning that Saul tallied his soldiers by having each one take a sheep and put it aside to represent him in the count.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 讛诪讜谞讛 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 注讜讘专 讘诇讗讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 诪住驻专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讞讜诇 讛讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪讚 讜诇讗 讬住驻专


Rabbi Elazar said: Whoever counts a group of Jews violates a negative mitzva, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured鈥 (Hosea 2:1). Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse to be saying: Which may not be measured. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: One who counts a group of Jews in fact violates two negative mitzvot, as it is stated in that verse: 鈥淲hich cannot be measured and cannot be counted鈥 (Hosea 2:1).


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 诪住驻专 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讞讜诇 讛讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇讗 讬诪讚 讜诇讗 讬住驻专


Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction: It is written in this verse: 鈥淎nd the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea,鈥 suggesting that they will have a specific number, though it will be very large. On the other hand, it continues and says: 鈥淲hich cannot be measured and cannot be counted,鈥 which means they will not be countable at all. How can these two statements be reconciled?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐


It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people fulfill the will of God; then they will be innumerable. There, in the first statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not fulfill the will of God; then they will be like the sand of the sea, having a specific number. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said a different resolution in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of man; the Jewish people will be too numerous to count by man. There, in the first statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of God, and He will find that they are like the number of the grains of the sand of the sea.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讛讬诇讗讬 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转诪谞讛 讗讚诐 驻专谞住 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专 诪转注砖专 诪注讬拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讘讝拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讻转讬讘 讜讬驻拽讚诐 讘讟诇讗讬诐 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讚讬讚讛讜 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讗 讚诪讬诇转讗


Rav Nehilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said: Once a man is appointed as a leader of the community, he becomes wealthy. This is derived from the verses cited above. Initially, it is written with regard to Saul: 鈥淎nd he numbered them with bezek,鈥 meaning pottery shards, and in the end it is written: 鈥淎nd he numbered them with sheep,鈥 indicating that he was able to provide enough of his own sheep to use them in counting the people. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the people provided these sheep from their own flocks. The Gemara rejects this: If so, what is the novelty in the matter? Why would the text tell us that the people were counted with sheep if not to illustrate incidentally the great wealth of Saul?


讜讬专讘 讘谞讞诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讞诇 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇砖讗讜诇 诇讱 讜讛讻讬转 讗转 注诪诇拽 讗诪专 讜诪讛 谞驻砖 讗讞转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛讘讗 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讻诇 讛谞驻砖讜转 讛诇诇讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


搂 Having mentioned the verse about Saul, the Gemara proceeds to interpret more of that passage: 鈥淎nd Saul came to the city of Amalek and he strove in the valley鈥 (I Samuel 15:5). Rabbi Mani said: This means that Saul strove with God, as it were, concerning the matter of the valley. At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Saul: 鈥淣ow go and attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him; do not pity him, but kill men and women alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and sheep alike, camel and donkey alike鈥 (I Samuel 15:3), Saul countered and said: Now, if on account of one life that is taken, in a case where a slain person鈥檚 body is found and the murderer is unknown, the Torah said to bring a heifer whose neck is broken to a barren valley, in the atonement ritual described in Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9, all the more so must I have pity and not take all these Amalekite lives.


讜讗诐 讗讚诐 讞讟讗 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 讞讟讗讛 讜讗诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讞讟讗讜 拽讟谞讬诐 诪讛 讞讟讗讜 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗诇 转讛讬 爪讚讬拽 讛专讘讛 讜讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 砖讗讜诇 诇讚讜讗讙 住讜讘 讗转讛 讜驻讙注 讘讻讛谞讬诐 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 讗诇 转专砖注 讛专讘讛


And he further reasoned: If the men have sinned, in what way have the animals sinned? Why, then, should the Amalekites鈥 livestock be destroyed? And if the adults have sinned, in what way have the children sinned? A Divine Voice then came forth and said to him: 鈥淒o not be overly righteous鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:16). That is to say: Do not be more merciful than the Creator Himself, Who has commanded you to do this, for to do so would not be an indication of righteousness but of weakness. At a later time, when Saul said to Doeg: 鈥淭urn around and strike down the priests, and Doeg the Edomite turned around and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod, and he struck Nob the city of priests by the sword, man and woman alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and donkeys and sheep, by the sword鈥 (I Samuel 22:18鈥19), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: 鈥淒o not be overly wicked鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:17).


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诪讛 诇讗 讞诇讬 讜诇讗 诪专讙讬砖 讙讘专讗 讚诪专讬讛 住讬讬注讬讛 砖讗讜诇 讘讗讞转 讜注诇转讛 诇讜 讚讜讚 讘砖转讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖讗讜诇 讘讗讞转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 诪注砖讛 讚讗讙讙 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪注砖讛 讚谞讜讘 注讬专 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗诪注砖讛 讚讗讙讙 讻转讬讘 谞讞诪转讬 讻讬 讛诪诇讻转讬 讗转 砖讗讜诇 诇诪诇讱


Apropos Saul鈥檚 contravention of God鈥檚 command to obliterate Amalek, the Gemara observes that Rav Huna said: How little does a person who has the support of his Lord have to worry or be concerned. The proof for this assertion is a comparison between Saul and David. Saul failed with one single sin and it was counted against him, costing him the throne. David, however, failed with two sins and they were not counted against him, as he retained his position. The Gemara asks: What was Saul鈥檚 one sin? The incident with Agag, king of Amalek, whom Saul spared in defiance of God鈥檚 command (see I Samuel 15:9). But was this his sole sin? There is also the incident of Nob, the city of priests, in which Saul later slew many innocent people, as cited above. The Gemara answers: It was after the incident with Agag, and even before the incident at Nob, that God said: 鈥淚 regret that I have crowned Saul to be king鈥 (I Samuel 15:11).


讚讜讚 讘砖转讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗讜专讬讛 讜讚讛住转讛


Rav Huna stated above that David failed with two sins. What were they? One was the incident in which he had Uriah killed. The other was the matter of the incitement of David to conduct a census of the Jewish people (see II Samuel 24:1), which led to many deaths in a plague.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注砖讛 讚讘转 砖讘注 讛转诐 讗驻专注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讛讻讘砖讛 讬砖诇诐 讗专讘注转讬诐 讬诇讚 讗诪谞讜谉 转诪专 讜讗讘砖诇讜诐


The Gemara asks: But were these his only two sins? There is also the incident of Bathsheba, in which he took another man鈥檚 wife as his own. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, punishment was exacted from him separately, so the matter is no longer listed among his sins, as it is written with regard to this incident: 鈥淎nd he shall restore the lamb fourfold鈥 (II Samuel 12:6). The lamb was a metaphor for Bathsheba, and ultimately David was indeed given a fourfold punishment for taking Bathsheba: The first child born to Bathsheba and David died (see II Samuel 12:13鈥23); David鈥檚 son Amnon was killed; Tamar, his daughter, was raped by Amnon (see II Samuel 13); and his son Avshalom rebelled against him and was ultimately killed (see II Samuel 15鈥18).


讛转诐 谞诪讬 讗驻专注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转谉 讛壮 讚讘专 (讘注诐 诪谉 讛讘讜拽专) 讜注讚 注转 诪讜注讚 讛转诐 诇讗 讗驻专注讜 诪讙讜驻讬讛


The Gemara asks: If sins for which David was punished separately are not counted, one could ask: There, too, with regard to the sin of the census, he was punished separately, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord sent a plague against Israel from the morning until the appointed time鈥 (II Samuel 24:15). The Gemara responds: There, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, the punishment was inflicted on the Jewish people.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗驻专注讜 诪讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗讬讬 讗驻专注讜 诪讙讜驻讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 谞爪讟专注 讚讜讚 讜驻专砖讜 讛讬诪谞讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜谞住转诇拽讛 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讻讬谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讜讘讜 诇讬 讬专讗讬讱 讜讬讜讚注讬 注讚讜转讬讱 讜讻转讬讘 讛砖讬讘讛 诇讬 砖砖讜谉 讬砖注讱


The Gemara challenges this: There, too, in the incident with Bathsheba, David was not punished personally, in his own body; rather, it was his children who suffered punishment. The Gemara answers: That is not so; he was punished personally, in his own body, for that sin, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: David was stricken with leprosy for six months after that incident, and the Sanhedrin withdrew from him in protest over his behavior, and the Divine Presence also left him. As it is written that David prayed: 鈥淢ay those who fear You return to me, and they who know Your testimonies鈥 (Psalms 119:79). Since he prayed for the return of those who fear God and who know His testimonies, referring to the Sages of the Sanhedrin, it can be inferred that they had withdrawn from him. And it is written as well: 鈥淩estore to me the joy of Your salvation, let a vigorous spirit support me鈥 (Psalms 51:14), where David asks for the return of the Divine Spirit, which had left him.


讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗 拽讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注


The Gemara asks: And didn鈥檛 David commit other sins? Didn鈥檛 Rav say: David accepted a slanderous report from Ziba about Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, stating that the latter was pleased with David鈥檚 downfall? There was, in that case, this additional sin. The Gemara responds: Consequently, it is necessary to follow the approach of Shmuel, who said: David did not accept a slanderous report, because Ziba鈥檚 claim was true.


讜诇专讘 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 拽讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讛讗 讗讬驻专注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讚讜讚 诇诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讗诪专转讬 讗转讛 讜爪讬讘讗 转讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讬爪讗讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讞讘注诐 讜讬专讘注诐 讬讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛诪诇讻讜转


The Gemara continues: And even according to Rav, who said that David accepted a slanderous report, one could answer that that sin is not counted, as was he not punished for it? As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when David said to Mephibosheth: 鈥淚 say that you and Ziba should divide the field鈥 (II Samuel 19:30), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the kingship. Because David believed Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report and awarded him half of Mephibosheth鈥檚 field, David was punished by having his kingdom divided into two. Following King Solomon鈥檚 death the Jewish people split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judea to the south (see I Kings 12). Therefore, David was punished for that sin too.


讘谉 砖谞讛 砖讗讜诇 讘诪诇讻讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讘谉 砖谞讛 砖诇讗 讟注诐 讟注诐 讞讟讗


搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of Saul and David. It is written: 鈥淪aul was one year old when he began to reign鈥 (I Samuel 13:1), which cannot be understood literally, as Saul was appointed king when he was a young man. Rav Huna said: The verse means that when he began to reign he was like a one-year鈥搊ld, in that he had never tasted the taste of sin but was wholly innocent and upright.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬诪讗 讻讘谉 砖谞讛 砖诪诇讜讻诇讱 讘讟讬讟 讜讘爪讜讗讛 讗讞讜讬讗讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬讜讟讗 讘讞诇诪讬讛 讗诪专 谞注谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 注爪诪讜转 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 拽讬砖 讛讚专 讞讝讗 住讬讜讟讗 讘讞诇诪讬讛 讗诪专 谞注谞讬转讬 诇讻诐 注爪诪讜转 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 拽讬砖 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse, saying: You could just as well say that he was like a one-year-old in that he was always filthy with mud and excrement. Rav Na岣an was shown a frightful dream that night, and he understood it as a punishment for having disparaged Saul. He said: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, and beg your forgiveness. But once again he was shown a frightful dream, and he understood that he had not shown enough deference in his first apology. He therefore said this time: I humbly submit myself to you, O bones of Saul, son of Kish, king of Israel, and beg your forgiveness. Subsequently, the nightmares ceased.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞诪砖讻讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 砖讗讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 砖讜诐 讚讜驻讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 驻专谞住 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽讜驻讛 砖诇 砖专爪讬诐 转诇讜讬讛 诇讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 砖讗诐 转讝讜讞 讚注转讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讞讝讜专 诇讗讞讜专讬讱


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Why did the kingship of the house of Saul not continue on to succeeding generations? It is because there was no flaw in his ancestry; he was of impeccable lineage. As Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: One appoints a leader over the community only if he has a box full of creeping animals hanging behind him, i.e., he has something inappropriate in his ancestry that preceded him. Why is that? It is so that if he exhibits a haughty attitude toward the community, one can say to him: Turn and look behind you and be reminded of your humble roots. This is why David鈥檚 kingdom lasted while Saul鈥檚 did not, as David descended from a family with problematic ancestry, namely Tamar (see Genesis, chapter 38) and Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 4:18鈥22).


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞注谞砖 砖讗讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讻讘讜讚讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讘诇讬注诇 讗诪专讜 诪讛 讬讜砖讬注谞讜 讝讛 讜讬讘讝讜讛讜 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 诪谞讞讛 讜讬讛讬 讻诪讞专讬砖 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇 谞讞砖 讛注诪讜谞讬 讜讬讞谉 注诇 讬讘砖 讙诇注讚 讜讙讜壮


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Why was Saul punished in that he was ultimately led to commit the sins described above? Because at the very outset of his reign he inappropriately forwent his royal honor, as it is stated with regard to Saul鈥檚 inauguration: 鈥淎nd some base fellows said: How can this man save us? So they disparaged him and brought him no present. But he made himself as if he did not hear鈥 (I Samuel 10:27). And it is stated immediately afterward: 鈥淎nd Nahash the Ammonite marched up and encamped against Jabesh-gilead鈥 (I Samuel 11:1). The implication is that if Saul had forcefully assumed his throne, Nahash would not have dared to attack the people of Jabesh-gilead. In this way, his humility led to the crisis.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Any Torah scholar


Scroll To Top