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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 4, 2021 | 讻状讘 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 Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Yoma 23

This week’s shiurim are dedicated by Shira and Bill Futornick for the refuah shleima of Michelle Futornick, Ilana bat Miryam. And by Aviva Adler on her father Joseph Kahane’s 5th yahrzeit, Yoseph ben Tzvi HaKohen z”l.

In what situations must one take revenge and in what situations is it forbidden? If the kohanim could only be counted once in a lottery, how does it say in the mishna that they could put out one or two finger? What is ‘pakia‘? A braita quotes a tragic story where due to competition to get the job, one kohen stabbed another. Did this story happen first or did the other with the broken leg? This version of the story ends with a terrible reaction of the father of the kohen who was dying who was worried more about impurity than his son dying. Rabbi Tzadok got up and made a public statement that caused all attending to burst into tears. The gemara raises several questions on different parts of the story. Is the removal of the ashes considered a ritual or not? There is a debate that is derived from the verses in the Torah regarding what clothes the kohen wears to do this activity.

 

砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜拽诐 讜谞讜讟专 讻谞讞砖 讗讬谞讜 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽讜诐 讜诇讗 转讟讜专 讛讛讜讗 讘诪诪讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞拽讬诪讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讟讬专讛 谞拽讬诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 诪讙诇讱 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗讜 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 拽专讚讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 诪砖讗讬诇讱 讻讚专讱 砖诇讗 讛砖讗诇转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞拽讬诪讛

who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake when insulted is not considered a Torah scholar at all, as it is important to uphold the honor of Torah and its students by reacting harshly to insults. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written explicitly in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:18)? The Gemara responds: That prohibition is written with regard to monetary matters and not personal insults, as it was taught in a baraita: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? Revenge is illustrated by the following example: One said to his fellow: Lend me your sickle, and he said: No. The next day he, the one who had refused to lend the sickle, said to the other person: Lend me your ax. If he said to him: I will not lend to you, just as you did not lend to me, that is revenge.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讟讬专讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 拽专讚讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讞诇讜拽讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 讗讬谞讬 讻诪讜转讱 砖诇讗 讛砖讗诇转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讟讬专讛

And what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: Lend me your ax, and he said: No, and the next day he, the one who had refused to lend the ax, said to the other man: Lend me your robe; if the first one said to him: Here it is, as I am not like you, who would not lend to me, that is bearing a grudge. Although he does not respond to his friend鈥檚 inconsiderate behavior in kind, he still makes it known to his friend that he resents his inconsiderate behavior. This baraita shows that the prohibition relates only to monetary matters, such as borrowing and lending.

讜爪注专讗 讚讙讜驻讗 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛谞注诇讘讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 注讜诇讘讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 讞专驻转谉 讜讗讬谞谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讛讘讛 讜砖诪讞讬谉 讘讬住讜专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讜讗讜讛讘讬讜 讻爪讗转 讛砖诪砖 讘讙讘讜专转讜

The Gemara asks: But does the prohibition against vengeance really not relate also to matters of personal anguish suffered by someone? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Those who are insulted but do not insult others, who hear themselves being shamed but do not respond, who act out of love for God, and who remain happy in their suffering, about them the verse states: 鈥淭hey that love Him be as the sun when it goes forth in its might鈥 (Judges 5:31). This baraita shows that one should forgive personal insults as well as wrongs in monetary matters.

诇注讜诇诐 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘诇讬讘讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛诪注讘讬专 注诇 诪讚讜转讬讜 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇讜 注诇 讻诇 驻砖注讬讜 讚诪驻讬讬住讜 诇讬讛 讜诪驻讬讬住

The Gemara responds that the prohibition against taking vengeance and bearing a grudge indeed applies to cases of personal anguish; however, actually, the scholar may keep resentment in his heart, though he should not act on it or remind the other person of his insulting behavior. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava say: With regard to whoever forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices done to him, the heavenly court in turn forgoes punishment for all his sins? The Gemara answers: Indeed, even a scholar who is insulted must forgive insults, but that is only in cases where his antagonist has sought to appease him, in which case he should allow himself to be appeased toward him. However, if no apology has been offered, the scholar should not forgive him, in order to uphold the honor of the Torah.

讜诪讛 讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞转 讗讜 砖转讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讛砖转讗 砖转讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞转 诪讘注讬讗

搂 The mishna describes that the lottery between competing priests is conducted by the priests extending their fingers for a count. And the mishna elaborated: 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 Gemara asks: Now that the mishna states that the priest may extend two fingers, is it necessary to state that they may also extend one finger?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘专讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讜诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讘专讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讞讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讛讬讞讬讚讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Rav 岣sda said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna speaks of extending one finger, it is referring to a healthy person, who has no difficulty extending just one finger without extending a second one. There, when the mishna mentions two fingers, it is referring to a sick person, for whom it is difficult to extend a single finger at a time. And so it was taught in a baraita: They may extend one finger, but they may not extend two. In what case is this statement said? It is said in reference to a healthy person; however, a sick person may extend even two fingers. And the sick priests who sit or lie alone, separately from the other priests, extend two fingers, but their two fingers are counted only as one.

讜讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗 砖诇讬砖 讜诇讗 讙讜讚诇 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬诐 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 砖诇讬砖 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讚诇 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 [讗诇讗] 砖诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讘驻拽讬注

The Gemara asks: And are the sick priest鈥檚 two fingers really counted as only one? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The priests may not extend the third finger, i.e., the middle finger, or the thumb, together with the index finger, due to concern for cheaters. One who sees that the count is approaching him might intentionally extend or withdraw an extra finger so that the lottery will fall on him. But if he does extend the third finger it is counted for him. This is because the third finger cannot be stretched very far from the index finger, so that it is easily recognizable that both fingers are from the same person, and this is not taken as an attempt to cheat. If he extends his thumb, however, it is not counted for him, and moreover he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. The implication of the baraita is that when the third finger is extended along with the index finger, both fingers are counted.

诪讗讬 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 谞诪讬 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean when it says that if the priest extended his middle finger along with his index finger, it is counted for him? It also means, as stated earlier, that the two fingers are counted as one.

诪讗讬 驻拽讬注 讗诪专 专讘 诪讚专讗 诪讗讬 诪讚专讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讟专拽讗 讚讟讬讬注讬 讚驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛

The baraita mentions lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. What is a pakia? Rav said: It is a madra. However, the meaning of that term also became unclear over time, so the Gemara asks: What is a madra? Rav Pappa said: It is a whip [matraka] used by the Arabs, the end of which is split into several strands. That is the pakia mentioned above, which was used for punishing the priests.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讘讬讘讗讬 诪诪讜谞讛 注诇 讛驻拽讬注 讗诪讬谞讗 驻转讬诇转讗 讻讚转谞谉 诪讘诇讗讬 诪讻谞住讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讛诪讬讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛谉 讛讬讜 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 讜讘讛谉 讛讬讜 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讘驻拽讬注 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 驻拽讬注 谞讙讚讗

Apropos this discussion, Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: When we learned in a mishna that ben Beivai was in charge of the pakia, I would say that it means that he was in charge of producing wicks, as we learned in another mishna: They would tear [mafkia] strips from the priests鈥 worn-out trousers and belts and make wicks out of them, with which they lit the lamps for the Celebration of Drawing Water. But once I heard that which is taught in the previously cited baraita: And moreover, he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia, I now say: What is a pakia? It is lashes. Ben Beivai was in charge of corporal punishment in the Temple.

诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 拽讚诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讟诇 住讻讬谉 讜转拽注 诇讜 讘诇讘讜

搂 It was taught in the mishna: An incident occurred where both of the priests were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved the other and he fell and his leg was broken. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: An incident occurred where there were two priests who were equal as they were running and ascending the ramp. One of them reached the four cubits before his colleague, who then, out of anger, took a knife and stabbed him in the heart.

注诪讚 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 注诇 诪注诇讜转 讛讗讜诇诐 讜讗诪专 讗讞讬谞讜 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 讞诇诇 讘讗讚诪讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讝拽谞讬讱 讜砖讜驻讟讬讱 讗谞讜 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 注诇 讛注讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讙注讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讘讘讻讬讛

The Tosefta continues: Rabbi Tzadok then stood up on the steps of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and said: Hear this, my brothers of the house of Israel. The verse states: 鈥淚f one be found slain in the land… and it be not known who had smitten him; then your Elders and your judges shall come forth and they shall measure鈥nd it shall be that the city which is nearest to the slain man鈥hall take a heifer鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:1鈥3). And the Elders of that city took that heifer and broke its neck in a ritual of atonement. But what of us, in our situation? Upon whom is the obligation to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? Does the obligation fall on the city, Jerusalem, so that its Sages must bring the calf, or does the obligation fall upon the Temple courtyards, so that the priests must bring it? At that point the entire assembly of people burst into tears.

讘讗 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪驻专驻专 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻驻专转讻诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘谞讬 诪驻专驻专 讜诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 住讻讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖拽砖讛 注诇讬讛诐 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讬讜转专 诪砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讙诐 讚诐 谞拽讬 砖驻讱 诪谞砖讛 [讛专讘讛 诪讗讚] 注讚 讗砖专 诪诇讗 [讗转] 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 驻讛 诇驻讛

The father of the boy, i.e., the young priest who was stabbed, came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son鈥檚 death be an atonement for you. But my son is still convulsing and has not yet died, and as such, the knife, which is in his body, has not become ritually impure through contact with a corpse. If you remove it promptly, it will still be pure for future use. The Tosefta comments: This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. Even the boy鈥檚 father voiced more concern over the purity of the knife than over the death of his child. And similarly, it says: 鈥淔urthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another鈥 (II Kings 21:16), which shows that in his day as well people paid little attention to bloodshed.

讛讬 诪注砖讛 拽讚讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛砖转讗 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 驻讬讬住讗 讗谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 转拽讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: Which incident came first, the one about the broken leg reported in the mishna or the one about the slain priest in the Tosefta? If we say that the incident of bloodshed came first, this raises a problem: Now, if in response to a case of bloodshed they did not establish a lottery but continued with the running competition, can it be that in response to an incident of a priest鈥檚 leg being broken they did establish a lottery? Rather, we must say that the case in which the priest鈥檚 leg was broken in the course of the race came first, and as the mishna states, the establishment of the lottery was in response to that incident.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 驻讬讬住讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 拽讚讬诐 讜诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬诇讗 讗转讜 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗

The Gemara asks: If the running competition was abolished immediately after the incident of the broken leg and a lottery was instituted to replace it, once they established the lottery, what were they doing still running to within the four cubits in the incident that led to the priest鈥檚 murder? Rather, actually, it is necessary to return to the approach suggested earlier, that the case involving bloodshed came first. Initially, the Sages thought that it was merely a random, i.e., isolated, event, and because it was extremely unlikely for a murder to happen again they did not abolish the competition due to that incident. Then, once they saw that in any event the priests were coming to danger, as one of them was pushed and broke his leg, the Sages established a lottery.

注诪讚 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 注诇 诪注诇讜转 讛讗讜诇诐 讜讗诪专 讗讞讬谞讜 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 讞诇诇 讘讗讚诪讛 讗谞谉 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛注讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘转 讗转讜讬讬 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讝讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉

The Gemara returns to the incident of the slain priest and discusses several details of it. It was related that Rabbi Tzadok stood up on the steps of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and said: Hear this, my brothers of the house of Israel. The verse states: 鈥淚f one be found slain in the land, etc.鈥 But what of us, in our situation? Upon whom is the obligation to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? Does the obligation fall upon the city, Jerusalem, or does the obligation fall upon the Temple courtyards? The Gemara asks: Is Jerusalem subject to bringing a heifer whose neck is broken? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Ten things were said about Jerusalem to distinguish it from all other cities in Eretz Yisrael, and this is one of them:

讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讜注讜讚 诇讗 谞讜讚注 诪讬 讛讻讛讜 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗 谞讜讚注 诪讬 讛讻讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 诇讛专讘讜转 讘讘讻讬讛

Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The reason for this is that the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken applies only to land that was apportioned to a specific tribe of the Jewish people. Jerusalem alone was not divided among the tribes, but was shared equally by the entire nation. And furthermore, it is written that the heifer whose neck is broken is brought when 鈥渋t be not known who had smitten him,鈥 and here, in the case of the slain priest, it was well known who had smitten him. Rather, one must conclude that Rabbi Tzadok invoked the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken not because it actually applied in this case but only in order to arouse the people鈥檚 grief and to increase weeping.

讘讗 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪驻专驻专 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻驻专转讻诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘谞讬 拽讬讬诐 [讻讜壮] 诇诇诪讚讱 砖拽砖讛 注诇讬讛诐 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讬讜转专 诪砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讝诇 讗讘诇 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讚讞诪讬专讗

In relating the above incident the Tosefta said: The father of the boy came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son鈥檚 death be an atonement for you. But my son is still alive, etc. This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Should one conclude from this comment that bloodshed had become trivialized in their eyes but their concern for purity of utensils remained where it was originally, meaning that while they cared less than they should have about murder, they did not exaggerate the importance of purity of utensils; or perhaps their concern for bloodshed remained where it was originally, but their concern for purity of vessels had become too strict, to the extent that its importance was exaggerated beyond concern for human life?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 讜讙诐 讚诐 谞拽讬 砖驻讱 诪谞砖讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讝诇 讜讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer to the dilemma: Since the Tosefta adduces a biblical teaching from the verse, 鈥淔urthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood,鈥 conclude from this that it was bloodshed that had become trivialized, and the importance of purity of utensils remained where it had been.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻砖讟讜诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讚砖谉 砖讜诪注谞讬 讻讚专讱 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖驻讜砖讟 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 讜诇讜讘砖 讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇

搂 The Gemara returns to the mitzva of removing the ashes from the altar and associated issues. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states, after describing the removal of the ashes: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp to a clean place鈥 (Leviticus 6:4). I might understand from here that this change of garments is a mitzva to change into a different kind of garment, similar to the change of garments performed on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest changes back and forth from gold clothes to white clothes. Here, too, the Torah requires that he remove his sacred garments and put on non-sacred garments.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻砖讟 讗转 讘讙讚讬讜 讜诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 诪拽讬砖 讘讙讚讬诐 砖诇讜讘砖 诇讘讙讚讬诐 砖驻讜砖讟 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖

The baraita continues: To teach us otherwise, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments,鈥 thereby juxtaposing the garments he puts on to the garments he takes off. This indicates that just as there, the garments he removes, i.e., those in which he had performed the mitzva of removal of the ashes, are sacred garments, so too here, the clothes he puts on to take the ashes out of the camp are sacred garments.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞专讬诐 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讛讚砖谉

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: Other garments, which implies that the second set of garments is different from the first? It means they are of lower quality than the first set of garments. Rabbi Eliezer says a different interpretation of the words: Other garments. The verse states: 鈥淎nd put on other garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp,鈥 in which the Hebrew juxtaposes the words 鈥渙ther鈥 and 鈥渃arry out.鈥 This teaches that priests with physical blemishes, who are considered others in that they are not eligible to perform sacred tasks, are eligible to carry out the ashes.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讞专讬诐 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讙讚讬诐 砖讘砖诇 讘讛谉 拽讚专讛 诇专讘讜 诇讗 讬诪讝讜讙 讘讛谉 讻讜住 诇专讘讜

The Gemara now explains the baraita in detail. The Master said in the baraita: The words: Other garments, teach that they are to be of lower quality than the garments worn during the removal of the ashes. This is in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Clothes worn by a servant as he was cooking food for his master that became soiled in the process should not be worn by him when he pours a cup for his master, which is a task that calls for the servant to present a dignified appearance. Similarly, one who performs the dirtying task of carrying out the ashes should not wear the same fine clothes worn to perform other services.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛讜爪讗讛 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛专诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛讜爪讗讛 讗讘诇 讘讛专诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The baraita taught that Rabbi Eliezer derived from the word other that blemished priests are eligible for the task of carrying out the ashes, while the first tanna derived a different teaching from those words. The Gemara clarifies the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer. Reish Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the first tanna with regard to carrying the ashes out of the camp, so too, there is a dispute with regard to the removal of the ashes from the altar. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the removal of the ashes may also be performed by blemished priests, while the first tanna disagrees. But Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The dispute is only with regard to carrying the ashes out of the camp, but all agree that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide Temple service that cannot be performed by blemished priests.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讬砖 诇讱 注讘讜讚讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐

The Gemara explains: What is the reason behind the opinion of Reish Lakish? Reish Lakish could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide Temple service, you are faced with the following difficulty: Do you have any Temple service that may be performed with only two garments rather than the full set of four vestments worn by the priests? In the Torah鈥檚 description of the garments worn to remove the ashes it says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 6:3).

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讻转讜谞转 讜诪讻谞住讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇诪爪谞驻转 讜讗讘谞讟

And what is the explanation for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion? In fact, the priest is required to wear all four priestly garments. The Merciful One reveals in the Torah that the priest must wear the tunic and the trousers like any other service so that one would not think that taking out the ashes may be performed in regular, non-sacred clothes. Once the Torah has made this point and mentioned these two specific garments, the same is true for the other two garments as well, i.e., the mitre and the belt.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讚讜 讘讚 诪讚讜 讻诪讚转讜 诪讻谞住讬 讘讚 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻谞住讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讻谞住讬 讘讚 讬诇讘砖 注诇 讘砖专讜

The Gemara asks: If the Torah requires all four garments and mentions the tunic and trousers only as examples, what is different about these two that the Torah mentioned them in particular? The Gemara answers that these two particular garments were mentioned in order to teach certain halakhot. The Torah refers to the tunic as 鈥渉is linen garment,鈥 with the words 鈥渉is garment鈥 [middo], indicating that the tunic must conform to his exact size [middato] and should fit the priest perfectly. As for the words 鈥渓inen trousers,鈥 they come to teach that which was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that as the priest gets dressed no garment should precede the trousers? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh,鈥 which implies that the trousers should be donned when the priest has nothing but his flesh, i.e., when he has no other garments on him yet.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讚讜 讻诪讚转讜 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 诪讚讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻谞住讬诐 诪注诇 讘砖专讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Reish Lakish, who maintains that these two garments are mentioned because they are the only two that the priest wears when removing the ashes, from where does he derive these two halakhot? The Gemara answers: The halakha that his linen garment, i.e., the tunic, must be according to his size is derived the fact that the Merciful One uses the expression 鈥渉is garment,鈥 i.e., his fitted garment, in the Torah, rather than calling it by its usual name, tunic. And the halakha that no garment should precede the trousers when the priest dresses is derived from the fact that the Torah added the phrase 鈥渙n his flesh.鈥

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注诇 讘砖专讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诇讘砖 诇讛讘讬讗 诪爪谞驻转 讜讗讘谞讟 诇讛专诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in a baraita that the Torah states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The words 鈥渟hall he put on鈥 seem superfluous, since these same words were already stated earlier in the verse. Therefore, the Torah could have sufficed with saying: 鈥淎nd linen trousers on his flesh.鈥 What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淪hall he put on鈥? This extra expression comes to include the donning of the mitre and the belt, which are not mentioned here explicitly, for the removal of the ash; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讘讙讚讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

Rabbi Dosa says: The extra expression comes to include the permissibility of the High Priest鈥檚 clothes that he wears on Yom Kippur, which are linen garments identical to those of the common priest, to teach that they are acceptable to be used afterward by common priests in their service. In other words, the expression teaches that the High Priest鈥檚 garments need not be permanently retired from service after Yom Kippur, unlike the opinion of another Sage, as will be explained below.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜注讜讚 讘讙讚讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖转 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 转砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诇讘砖

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: There are two refutations against Rabbi Dosa鈥檚 interpretation: One is that the belt of the High Priest that he wears on Yom Kippur is made only of linen and is not identical to the belt of the common priest, which, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, is made of wool and linen. Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest鈥檚 Yom Kippur garments to be used by a common priest. And furthermore, with regard to garments that you used to perform the services of the most severe sanctity, i.e., the services performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, can it be that you will then use them to perform services of lesser sanctity by a common priest? Instead of this, a different interpretation must be said. What, then, is the meaning when the verse states the superfluous words 鈥渟hall he put on鈥?

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 Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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

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

Yoma 23: Hold a Grudge Like a Snake

Follow up on why the thumb, and only one finger was acceptable for the lottery to be chosen to do...
kohen hands

A Voice in the Wilderness

A truly heartrending moment takes place on our daf. After a cruel murder by a priest who cared more about...

Yoma 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 23

砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜拽诐 讜谞讜讟专 讻谞讞砖 讗讬谞讜 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽讜诐 讜诇讗 转讟讜专 讛讛讜讗 讘诪诪讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞拽讬诪讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讟讬专讛 谞拽讬诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 诪讙诇讱 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗讜 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讜讗 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 拽专讚讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谞讬 诪砖讗讬诇讱 讻讚专讱 砖诇讗 讛砖讗诇转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞拽讬诪讛

who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake when insulted is not considered a Torah scholar at all, as it is important to uphold the honor of Torah and its students by reacting harshly to insults. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written explicitly in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:18)? The Gemara responds: That prohibition is written with regard to monetary matters and not personal insults, as it was taught in a baraita: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? Revenge is illustrated by the following example: One said to his fellow: Lend me your sickle, and he said: No. The next day he, the one who had refused to lend the sickle, said to the other person: Lend me your ax. If he said to him: I will not lend to you, just as you did not lend to me, that is revenge.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讟讬专讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 拽专讚讜诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇诪讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讗讬诇谞讬 讞诇讜拽讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讬诇讱 讗讬谞讬 讻诪讜转讱 砖诇讗 讛砖讗诇转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 谞讟讬专讛

And what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: Lend me your ax, and he said: No, and the next day he, the one who had refused to lend the ax, said to the other man: Lend me your robe; if the first one said to him: Here it is, as I am not like you, who would not lend to me, that is bearing a grudge. Although he does not respond to his friend鈥檚 inconsiderate behavior in kind, he still makes it known to his friend that he resents his inconsiderate behavior. This baraita shows that the prohibition relates only to monetary matters, such as borrowing and lending.

讜爪注专讗 讚讙讜驻讗 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛谞注诇讘讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 注讜诇讘讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 讞专驻转谉 讜讗讬谞谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讛讘讛 讜砖诪讞讬谉 讘讬住讜专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讜讗讜讛讘讬讜 讻爪讗转 讛砖诪砖 讘讙讘讜专转讜

The Gemara asks: But does the prohibition against vengeance really not relate also to matters of personal anguish suffered by someone? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Those who are insulted but do not insult others, who hear themselves being shamed but do not respond, who act out of love for God, and who remain happy in their suffering, about them the verse states: 鈥淭hey that love Him be as the sun when it goes forth in its might鈥 (Judges 5:31). This baraita shows that one should forgive personal insults as well as wrongs in monetary matters.

诇注讜诇诐 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讘诇讬讘讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讛诪注讘讬专 注诇 诪讚讜转讬讜 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇讜 注诇 讻诇 驻砖注讬讜 讚诪驻讬讬住讜 诇讬讛 讜诪驻讬讬住

The Gemara responds that the prohibition against taking vengeance and bearing a grudge indeed applies to cases of personal anguish; however, actually, the scholar may keep resentment in his heart, though he should not act on it or remind the other person of his insulting behavior. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava say: With regard to whoever forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices done to him, the heavenly court in turn forgoes punishment for all his sins? The Gemara answers: Indeed, even a scholar who is insulted must forgive insults, but that is only in cases where his antagonist has sought to appease him, in which case he should allow himself to be appeased toward him. However, if no apology has been offered, the scholar should not forgive him, in order to uphold the honor of the Torah.

讜诪讛 讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞转 讗讜 砖转讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讛砖转讗 砖转讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讞转 诪讘注讬讗

搂 The mishna describes that the lottery between competing priests is conducted by the priests extending their fingers for a count. And the mishna elaborated: 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 Gemara asks: Now that the mishna states that the priest may extend two fingers, is it necessary to state that they may also extend one finger?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讘专讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讜诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讘专讬讗 讗讘诇 讘讞讜诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖转讬诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讛讬讞讬讚讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Rav 岣sda said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna speaks of extending one finger, it is referring to a healthy person, who has no difficulty extending just one finger without extending a second one. There, when the mishna mentions two fingers, it is referring to a sick person, for whom it is difficult to extend a single finger at a time. And so it was taught in a baraita: They may extend one finger, but they may not extend two. In what case is this statement said? It is said in reference to a healthy person; however, a sick person may extend even two fingers. And the sick priests who sit or lie alone, separately from the other priests, extend two fingers, but their two fingers are counted only as one.

讜讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讗 砖诇讬砖 讜诇讗 讙讜讚诇 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬诐 讜讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 砖诇讬砖 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讚诇 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 [讗诇讗] 砖诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讘驻拽讬注

The Gemara asks: And are the sick priest鈥檚 two fingers really counted as only one? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The priests may not extend the third finger, i.e., the middle finger, or the thumb, together with the index finger, due to concern for cheaters. One who sees that the count is approaching him might intentionally extend or withdraw an extra finger so that the lottery will fall on him. But if he does extend the third finger it is counted for him. This is because the third finger cannot be stretched very far from the index finger, so that it is easily recognizable that both fingers are from the same person, and this is not taken as an attempt to cheat. If he extends his thumb, however, it is not counted for him, and moreover he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. The implication of the baraita is that when the third finger is extended along with the index finger, both fingers are counted.

诪讗讬 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 谞诪讬 讗讞转

The Gemara answers: What does the baraita mean when it says that if the priest extended his middle finger along with his index finger, it is counted for him? It also means, as stated earlier, that the two fingers are counted as one.

诪讗讬 驻拽讬注 讗诪专 专讘 诪讚专讗 诪讗讬 诪讚专讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讟专拽讗 讚讟讬讬注讬 讚驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛

The baraita mentions lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. What is a pakia? Rav said: It is a madra. However, the meaning of that term also became unclear over time, so the Gemara asks: What is a madra? Rav Pappa said: It is a whip [matraka] used by the Arabs, the end of which is split into several strands. That is the pakia mentioned above, which was used for punishing the priests.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讘讬讘讗讬 诪诪讜谞讛 注诇 讛驻拽讬注 讗诪讬谞讗 驻转讬诇转讗 讻讚转谞谉 诪讘诇讗讬 诪讻谞住讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讛诪讬讬谞讬讛谉 诪讛谉 讛讬讜 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 讜讘讛谉 讛讬讜 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诇讜拽讛 诪谉 讛诪诪讜谞讛 讘驻拽讬注 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 驻拽讬注 谞讙讚讗

Apropos this discussion, Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: When we learned in a mishna that ben Beivai was in charge of the pakia, I would say that it means that he was in charge of producing wicks, as we learned in another mishna: They would tear [mafkia] strips from the priests鈥 worn-out trousers and belts and make wicks out of them, with which they lit the lamps for the Celebration of Drawing Water. But once I heard that which is taught in the previously cited baraita: And moreover, he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia, I now say: What is a pakia? It is lashes. Ben Beivai was in charge of corporal punishment in the Temple.

诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜专爪讬谉 讜注讜诇讬谉 讘讻讘砖 拽讚诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讟诇 住讻讬谉 讜转拽注 诇讜 讘诇讘讜

搂 It was taught in the mishna: An incident occurred where both of the priests were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved the other and he fell and his leg was broken. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: An incident occurred where there were two priests who were equal as they were running and ascending the ramp. One of them reached the four cubits before his colleague, who then, out of anger, took a knife and stabbed him in the heart.

注诪讚 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 注诇 诪注诇讜转 讛讗讜诇诐 讜讗诪专 讗讞讬谞讜 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 讞诇诇 讘讗讚诪讛 讜讬爪讗讜 讝拽谞讬讱 讜砖讜驻讟讬讱 讗谞讜 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 注诇 讛注讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讙注讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讘讘讻讬讛

The Tosefta continues: Rabbi Tzadok then stood up on the steps of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and said: Hear this, my brothers of the house of Israel. The verse states: 鈥淚f one be found slain in the land… and it be not known who had smitten him; then your Elders and your judges shall come forth and they shall measure鈥nd it shall be that the city which is nearest to the slain man鈥hall take a heifer鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:1鈥3). And the Elders of that city took that heifer and broke its neck in a ritual of atonement. But what of us, in our situation? Upon whom is the obligation to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? Does the obligation fall on the city, Jerusalem, so that its Sages must bring the calf, or does the obligation fall upon the Temple courtyards, so that the priests must bring it? At that point the entire assembly of people burst into tears.

讘讗 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪驻专驻专 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻驻专转讻诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘谞讬 诪驻专驻专 讜诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 住讻讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖拽砖讛 注诇讬讛诐 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讬讜转专 诪砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讙诐 讚诐 谞拽讬 砖驻讱 诪谞砖讛 [讛专讘讛 诪讗讚] 注讚 讗砖专 诪诇讗 [讗转] 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 驻讛 诇驻讛

The father of the boy, i.e., the young priest who was stabbed, came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son鈥檚 death be an atonement for you. But my son is still convulsing and has not yet died, and as such, the knife, which is in his body, has not become ritually impure through contact with a corpse. If you remove it promptly, it will still be pure for future use. The Tosefta comments: This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. Even the boy鈥檚 father voiced more concern over the purity of the knife than over the death of his child. And similarly, it says: 鈥淔urthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another鈥 (II Kings 21:16), which shows that in his day as well people paid little attention to bloodshed.

讛讬 诪注砖讛 拽讚讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛砖转讗 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 转拽讬谞讜 驻讬讬住讗 讗谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 转拽讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚谞砖讘专讛 专讙诇讜 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: Which incident came first, the one about the broken leg reported in the mishna or the one about the slain priest in the Tosefta? If we say that the incident of bloodshed came first, this raises a problem: Now, if in response to a case of bloodshed they did not establish a lottery but continued with the running competition, can it be that in response to an incident of a priest鈥檚 leg being broken they did establish a lottery? Rather, we must say that the case in which the priest鈥檚 leg was broken in the course of the race came first, and as the mishna states, the establishment of the lottery was in response to that incident.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 驻讬讬住讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 拽讚讬诐 讜诪注讬拽专讗 住讘讜专 讗拽专讗讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诪讬诇讗 讗转讜 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗

The Gemara asks: If the running competition was abolished immediately after the incident of the broken leg and a lottery was instituted to replace it, once they established the lottery, what were they doing still running to within the four cubits in the incident that led to the priest鈥檚 murder? Rather, actually, it is necessary to return to the approach suggested earlier, that the case involving bloodshed came first. Initially, the Sages thought that it was merely a random, i.e., isolated, event, and because it was extremely unlikely for a murder to happen again they did not abolish the competition due to that incident. Then, once they saw that in any event the priests were coming to danger, as one of them was pushed and broke his leg, the Sages established a lottery.

注诪讚 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 注诇 诪注诇讜转 讛讗讜诇诐 讜讗诪专 讗讞讬谞讜 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪注讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬诪爪讗 讞诇诇 讘讗讚诪讛 讗谞谉 注诇 诪讬 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛注讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛注讝专讜转 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘转 讗转讜讬讬 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讛讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讝讜 讗讞转 诪讛谉

The Gemara returns to the incident of the slain priest and discusses several details of it. It was related that Rabbi Tzadok stood up on the steps of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and said: Hear this, my brothers of the house of Israel. The verse states: 鈥淚f one be found slain in the land, etc.鈥 But what of us, in our situation? Upon whom is the obligation to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? Does the obligation fall upon the city, Jerusalem, or does the obligation fall upon the Temple courtyards? The Gemara asks: Is Jerusalem subject to bringing a heifer whose neck is broken? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Ten things were said about Jerusalem to distinguish it from all other cities in Eretz Yisrael, and this is one of them:

讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讜注讜讚 诇讗 谞讜讚注 诪讬 讛讻讛讜 讻转讬讘 讜讛讗 谞讜讚注 诪讬 讛讻讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 诇讛专讘讜转 讘讘讻讬讛

Jerusalem does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The reason for this is that the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken applies only to land that was apportioned to a specific tribe of the Jewish people. Jerusalem alone was not divided among the tribes, but was shared equally by the entire nation. And furthermore, it is written that the heifer whose neck is broken is brought when 鈥渋t be not known who had smitten him,鈥 and here, in the case of the slain priest, it was well known who had smitten him. Rather, one must conclude that Rabbi Tzadok invoked the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken not because it actually applied in this case but only in order to arouse the people鈥檚 grief and to increase weeping.

讘讗 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讻砖讛讜讗 诪驻专驻专 讗诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻驻专转讻诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘谞讬 拽讬讬诐 [讻讜壮] 诇诇诪讚讱 砖拽砖讛 注诇讬讛诐 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讬讜转专 诪砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讝诇 讗讘诇 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讚讞诪讬专讗

In relating the above incident the Tosefta said: The father of the boy came and found that he was still convulsing. He said: May my son鈥檚 death be an atonement for you. But my son is still alive, etc. This incident comes to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils was of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Should one conclude from this comment that bloodshed had become trivialized in their eyes but their concern for purity of utensils remained where it was originally, meaning that while they cared less than they should have about murder, they did not exaggerate the importance of purity of utensils; or perhaps their concern for bloodshed remained where it was originally, but their concern for purity of vessels had become too strict, to the extent that its importance was exaggerated beyond concern for human life?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽讗 谞住讬讘 诇讛 转诇诪讜讚讗 讜讙诐 讚诐 谞拽讬 砖驻讱 诪谞砖讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讝诇 讜讟讛专转 讻诇讬诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 拽讬讬诪讗

The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer to the dilemma: Since the Tosefta adduces a biblical teaching from the verse, 鈥淔urthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood,鈥 conclude from this that it was bloodshed that had become trivialized, and the importance of purity of utensils remained where it had been.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻砖讟讜诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讚砖谉 砖讜诪注谞讬 讻讚专讱 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖驻讜砖讟 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 讜诇讜讘砖 讘讙讚讬 讞讜诇

搂 The Gemara returns to the mitzva of removing the ashes from the altar and associated issues. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states, after describing the removal of the ashes: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp to a clean place鈥 (Leviticus 6:4). I might understand from here that this change of garments is a mitzva to change into a different kind of garment, similar to the change of garments performed on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest changes back and forth from gold clothes to white clothes. Here, too, the Torah requires that he remove his sacred garments and put on non-sacred garments.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻砖讟 讗转 讘讙讚讬讜 讜诇讘砖 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 诪拽讬砖 讘讙讚讬诐 砖诇讜讘砖 诇讘讙讚讬诐 砖驻讜砖讟 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖

The baraita continues: To teach us otherwise, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments,鈥 thereby juxtaposing the garments he puts on to the garments he takes off. This indicates that just as there, the garments he removes, i.e., those in which he had performed the mitzva of removal of the ashes, are sacred garments, so too here, the clothes he puts on to take the ashes out of the camp are sacred garments.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞专讬诐 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖讻砖专讬谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讛讚砖谉

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: Other garments, which implies that the second set of garments is different from the first? It means they are of lower quality than the first set of garments. Rabbi Eliezer says a different interpretation of the words: Other garments. The verse states: 鈥淎nd put on other garments, and carry the ashes out of the camp,鈥 in which the Hebrew juxtaposes the words 鈥渙ther鈥 and 鈥渃arry out.鈥 This teaches that priests with physical blemishes, who are considered others in that they are not eligible to perform sacred tasks, are eligible to carry out the ashes.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讞专讬诐 驻讞讜转讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讙讚讬诐 砖讘砖诇 讘讛谉 拽讚专讛 诇专讘讜 诇讗 讬诪讝讜讙 讘讛谉 讻讜住 诇专讘讜

The Gemara now explains the baraita in detail. The Master said in the baraita: The words: Other garments, teach that they are to be of lower quality than the garments worn during the removal of the ashes. This is in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Clothes worn by a servant as he was cooking food for his master that became soiled in the process should not be worn by him when he pours a cup for his master, which is a task that calls for the servant to present a dignified appearance. Similarly, one who performs the dirtying task of carrying out the ashes should not wear the same fine clothes worn to perform other services.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛讜爪讗讛 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛专诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讛讜爪讗讛 讗讘诇 讘讛专诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The baraita taught that Rabbi Eliezer derived from the word other that blemished priests are eligible for the task of carrying out the ashes, while the first tanna derived a different teaching from those words. The Gemara clarifies the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer. Reish Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the first tanna with regard to carrying the ashes out of the camp, so too, there is a dispute with regard to the removal of the ashes from the altar. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the removal of the ashes may also be performed by blemished priests, while the first tanna disagrees. But Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The dispute is only with regard to carrying the ashes out of the camp, but all agree that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide Temple service that cannot be performed by blemished priests.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讬砖 诇讱 注讘讜讚讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐

The Gemara explains: What is the reason behind the opinion of Reish Lakish? Reish Lakish could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the removal of the ashes is a bona fide Temple service, you are faced with the following difficulty: Do you have any Temple service that may be performed with only two garments rather than the full set of four vestments worn by the priests? In the Torah鈥檚 description of the garments worn to remove the ashes it says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 6:3).

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讻转讜谞转 讜诪讻谞住讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇诪爪谞驻转 讜讗讘谞讟

And what is the explanation for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion? In fact, the priest is required to wear all four priestly garments. The Merciful One reveals in the Torah that the priest must wear the tunic and the trousers like any other service so that one would not think that taking out the ashes may be performed in regular, non-sacred clothes. Once the Torah has made this point and mentioned these two specific garments, the same is true for the other two garments as well, i.e., the mitre and the belt.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讚讜 讘讚 诪讚讜 讻诪讚转讜 诪讻谞住讬 讘讚 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻谞住讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讻谞住讬 讘讚 讬诇讘砖 注诇 讘砖专讜

The Gemara asks: If the Torah requires all four garments and mentions the tunic and trousers only as examples, what is different about these two that the Torah mentioned them in particular? The Gemara answers that these two particular garments were mentioned in order to teach certain halakhot. The Torah refers to the tunic as 鈥渉is linen garment,鈥 with the words 鈥渉is garment鈥 [middo], indicating that the tunic must conform to his exact size [middato] and should fit the priest perfectly. As for the words 鈥渓inen trousers,鈥 they come to teach that which was taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that as the priest gets dressed no garment should precede the trousers? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh,鈥 which implies that the trousers should be donned when the priest has nothing but his flesh, i.e., when he has no other garments on him yet.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讚讜 讻诪讚转讜 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 诪讚讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻谞住讬诐 诪注诇 讘砖专讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Reish Lakish, who maintains that these two garments are mentioned because they are the only two that the priest wears when removing the ashes, from where does he derive these two halakhot? The Gemara answers: The halakha that his linen garment, i.e., the tunic, must be according to his size is derived the fact that the Merciful One uses the expression 鈥渉is garment,鈥 i.e., his fitted garment, in the Torah, rather than calling it by its usual name, tunic. And the halakha that no garment should precede the trousers when the priest dresses is derived from the fact that the Torah added the phrase 鈥渙n his flesh.鈥

谞讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注诇 讘砖专讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诇讘砖 诇讛讘讬讗 诪爪谞驻转 讜讗讘谞讟 诇讛专诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in a baraita that the Torah states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The words 鈥渟hall he put on鈥 seem superfluous, since these same words were already stated earlier in the verse. Therefore, the Torah could have sufficed with saying: 鈥淎nd linen trousers on his flesh.鈥 What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淪hall he put on鈥? This extra expression comes to include the donning of the mitre and the belt, which are not mentioned here explicitly, for the removal of the ash; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讘讙讚讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讻砖讬专讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

Rabbi Dosa says: The extra expression comes to include the permissibility of the High Priest鈥檚 clothes that he wears on Yom Kippur, which are linen garments identical to those of the common priest, to teach that they are acceptable to be used afterward by common priests in their service. In other words, the expression teaches that the High Priest鈥檚 garments need not be permanently retired from service after Yom Kippur, unlike the opinion of another Sage, as will be explained below.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讗讘谞讟讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜注讜讚 讘讙讚讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖转 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诪讜专讛 转砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 拽讚讜砖讛 拽诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诇讘砖

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: There are two refutations against Rabbi Dosa鈥檚 interpretation: One is that the belt of the High Priest that he wears on Yom Kippur is made only of linen and is not identical to the belt of the common priest, which, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, is made of wool and linen. Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest鈥檚 Yom Kippur garments to be used by a common priest. And furthermore, with regard to garments that you used to perform the services of the most severe sanctity, i.e., the services performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, can it be that you will then use them to perform services of lesser sanctity by a common priest? Instead of this, a different interpretation must be said. What, then, is the meaning when the verse states the superfluous words 鈥渟hall he put on鈥?

Scroll To Top