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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 14, 2021 | 讘壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讗

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

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by 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 3

The daf today is dedicated in memory of the fallen soldiers that were killed protecting the State of Israel and in memory of those that were killed in terrorist attacks and died by Kiddush Hashem.

The month of Iyar is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a”h, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

Today鈥檚 Daf is dedicated by the Raye, Cohen and Maybaum families in honor of their mother- Liesel Maybaum, Elisheva bat Yehuda. “She had a great thirst for knowledge and championed her children and grandchildren to strive for knowledge in the Torah world. As today is Yom Hazikaron, we are sure she would want it mentioned as she was a lover of Israel and so proud of her grandchildren who have served and are currently serving in 爪讛诇.” And by Tamara Katz in honor of the third yahrtzeit of her grandfather, Shlomo ben Yacov Zvi Hacohen and Dvora. And for a refuah shleima for Basmat bat Yardena.

The gemara continues to raise questions against the drasha from the inauguration days to Yom Kippur (that one needs to separate for seven days before) 鈥 why not learn instead to Shavuot or Rosh Hashana? 聽The gemara brings another opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that the drasha was only for Yom Kippur and not for the red heifer. How does this fit in with the mishna in Para? After Reish Lakish raised another issue with the drasha, he derives the separation on Yom Kippur instead from a verse relating to Mount Sinai when the Torah was given. However there only six days are mentioned 鈥 how do we get to seven?

驻讝专 拽砖讘

Peh, zayin, reish, kuf, shin, beit, an acronym for: Lottery [payis], as a new lottery is performed on that day to determine which priests will sacrifice the offerings that day, and the order established on Sukkot does not continue; the blessing of time [zeman]: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, is recited just as it is recited at the start of each Festival; Festival [regel], as it is considered a Festival in and of itself and there is no mitzva to reside in the sukka (see Tosafot); offering [korban], as the number of offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day is not a continuation of the number offered on Sukkot but is part of a new calculation; song [shira], as the Psalms recited by the Levites as the offerings were sacrificed on the Eighth Day are not a continuation of those recited on Sukkot; blessing [berakha], as the addition to the third blessing of Grace after Meals and in the Amida prayer (see Tosafot) is phrased differently than the addition recited on Sukkot.

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 讞讙 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讻讜诇讜 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙

However, despite all these differences, with regard to compensation for failure to sacrifice the Festival offerings at the earliest opportunity, everyone agrees that it is a day of compensation for obligations not met during the first Festival, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who did not celebrate on the first Festival day of Sukkot by sacrificing the Festival offering may celebrate and sacrifice the Festival offering throughout the whole Festival in its entirety, including the last Festival day of the festival of Sukkot. Apparently, the Eighth Day of Assembly is considered the last Festival day of Sukkot and is appended to it with regard to its obligations.

讜讗讬诪讗 注爪专转 讚驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚谞讬谉 驻专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬诇 讗讞讚 诪驻专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬诇 讗讞讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪专转 讚砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara challenges further: And say that the priest should be sequestered before the festival of Shavuot, which is a Festival preceded by weekdays, as there too it is a matter of sequestering of seven days for one day. Rabbi Abba said: There is a distinction between the inauguration and Shavuot, as one derives an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, Yom Kippur, from an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, the inauguration, to the exclusion of Shavuot, when they are two rams that are offered.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬诇 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬诇 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 讛讜讗 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讛诐 讗讞讚 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who said that the obligatory offering on Yom Kippur is one ram; however, according to the one who said that they are two rams that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur, what is there to say? According to that opinion, Yom Kippur is not comparable to the inauguration. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One ram is the one that is mentioned here; as it is written: 鈥淲ith this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:3), and it is the same one that is mentioned in the book of Numbers: 鈥淎nd on the tenth day of the seventh month you will have a sacred gathering when you will afflict your souls; you will not do any labor, and you will offer a burnt-offering to the Lord for a sweet aroma: One young bull, one ram鈥︹ (Numbers 29:7鈥8). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They are two rams offered on Yom Kippur, one mentioned here in the book of Leviticus and one mentioned in the book of Numbers.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讞讚 诇讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讜讞讚 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪专转 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara rejects this solution: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, and two rams are brought on Yom Kippur, a distinction remains between Yom Kippur and Shavuot. There, with regard to Yom Kippur, one ram, mentioned in the book of Leviticus, is for the obligation of the day, the atonement of Yom Kippur; and one ram, mentioned in the book of Numbers, is for the additional offerings. This is to the exclusion of the halakha with regard to Shavuot, where both rams are obligations of the day. Therefore, there is no basis for deriving the halakha with regard to Shavuot from the inauguration.

讜讗讬诪讗 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讚驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚谞讬谉 驻专 讜讗讬诇 砖诇讜 诪驻专 讜讗讬诇 砖诇讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪专转 讜专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讚爪讬讘讜专 谞讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讞 诇讱 诪砖诇讱

The Gemara asks: And say that the requirement derived is to sequester the priest prior to Rosh HaShana, as there, too, it is sequestering of seven days for one day. The days before Rosh HaShana are weekdays, and as in the inauguration, a bull and a ram are sacrificed. Rabbi Abbahu said that this too is rejected: One derives a bull and a ram that the High Priest brings from his own property on Yom Kippur from a bull and a ram that Aaron brought from his own property at the inauguration. This is to the exclusion of Shavuot and Rosh HaShana, when the bull and the ram sacrificed are from community property and not owned by the priest. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that every time the Torah utilizes the phrase: Take you, it means from your own property,

注砖讛 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

and similarly, when the Torah states: Make you, it means from your own property. However, according to the one who said that when the Torah states both phrases it means from communal property, what is there to say to distinguish between Yom Kippur and the other days?

讚转谞讬讗 拽讞 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讜注砖讛 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讜讬拽讞讜 讗诇讬讱 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 拽讞 诇讱 讘讬谉 讜讬拽讞讜 讗诇讬讱 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讞 诇讱 讻讘讬讻讜诇 诪砖诇讱 讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 讬讜转专 诪砖诇讛诐

As it was taught in a baraita that when the Torah states: Take you, it means from your own property, and when it states: Make you, it means from your own property; however, when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that both when the Torah states: Take you, and when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: Take you, which seems to mean from your own property? It should be understood, as it were, that God said to Moses: I desire that it come from your property more than I desire it from theirs. Therefore, the taking was attributed to Moses even though it was actually from community property.

讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 诇讱 讗专讜谉 注抓 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讜 讗专讜谉 注爪讬 砖讟讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 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

Abba 岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one verse says: 鈥淎nd make you an ark of wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:1), indicating that it should be from your own property; and one verse says on the same subject: 鈥淎nd they shall make an ark of acacia wood鈥 (Exodus 25:10), meaning from the Jewish people. How can this contradiction be resolved? Here, the verse is referring to a time when the Jewish people perform the will of God and they are credited with building the Ark of the Covenant. There, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not perform the will of God, and construction of the Ark is attributed to Moses alone. According to that opinion, there is no difference between the offerings of Yom Kippur and other offerings.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘拽讬讞讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讜注砖讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 拽讬讞讜转 讚注诇诪讗 拽讞 诇讱 住诪讬诐 注砖讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 注砖讛 诇讱 砖转讬 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讻住祝 讗讘诇 讛谞讱 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讚诪砖诇讱 讛讜讗 讘诪诇讜讗讬诐 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 转讚讘专 诇讗诪专 拽讞讜 砖注讬专 注讝讬诐 诇讞讟讗转 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇 讗讛专谉 拽讞 诇讱 注讙诇 讘谉 讘拽专 诇讞讟讗转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讞 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this: They disagree only with regard to instances of taking in general and instances of making in general: Instances of taking in general are as in the verse: 鈥淭ake you spices鈥 (Exodus 30:34); and instances of making in general are as in the verse: 鈥淢ake you two silver trumpets鈥 (Numbers 10:2). However, in these cases of inauguration and of Yom Kippur the verses explicitly teach that the offerings must be from your own property. With regard to the inauguration, now, since it is written: 鈥淎nd to the children of Israel you will speak, saying: Take a goat kid for a sin-offering and an unblemished year-old calf and lamb for burnt-offerings鈥 (Leviticus 9:3), with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he said to Aaron: Take you a young calf for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 9:2), why do I need this clear difference between the formulation of the command to the Jewish people and the formulation of the command to Aaron? Learn from it that in this context the phrase: Take you, means from your own property.

讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讘讝讗转 讬讘讗 讗讛专谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 讘驻专 讘谉 讘拽专 诇讞讟讗转 讜讙讜壮 讜诪讗转 注讚转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 注讝讬诐 诇讞讟讗转 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 诇讜 诪砖诇讜 讛讜讗

And with regard to Yom Kippur, now, since it is written: 鈥淲ith this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:3), with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd from the congregation of the children of Israel he will take two goat kids for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering and Aaron will offer his young bull as a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:5鈥6), why do I need the emphasis that the goats come from the property of the children of Israel? Learn from it that this term: His, written with regard to the calf, means it is from his own property.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 驻专 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诇 诇注讜诇讛 诪驻专 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诇 诇注讜诇讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注爪专转 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讜诇讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav Ashi stated another reason that distinguishes Yom Kippur from Rosh HaShana and Shavuot. One derives the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to Yom Kippur from the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to the inauguration, to the exclusion of Rosh HaShana and Shavuot, on which both of them, the bull and the ram, are burnt-offerings.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讻讜诇讛讜 拽讜砖讬讬转讬谉 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞讬谞讛讜

Ravina stated another distinction: One derives a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, Yom Kippur, from a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, the inauguration, which was performed by Aaron, to the exclusion of all the difficulties raised from the beginning of the discussion, as on the other potential days raised, they are not restricted to service performed by the High Priest; rather, the service on those days may be performed by any priest.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讚谞讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 诪注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛谞讬 讚诇讗讜 转讞诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转讞诇讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐

And some say that Ravina said: One derives a matter that is an initial service from an initial service, to the exclusion of all these that are not initial services. That statement of Ravina is unclear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of initial service? If we say that initial service means one performed by the High Priest; that is identical to the first version of Ravina鈥檚 statement. Rather, it may be understood as follows: One derives the initial service performed in the place, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, from the initial service performed in the place, the Tabernacle, on the eighth day of the inauguration. Therefore, it is the service of Yom Kippur alone that is derived from the inauguration.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬 讞讚讗 [专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬] 诪转谞讬 转专转讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇注砖讜转 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 [讜讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬] 诪转谞讬 转专转讬 诇注砖讜转 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 驻专讛 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Rabbi Yo岣nan taught one case derived from the inauguration, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two. The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yo岣nan taught one: To do, to make atonement; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur that require sequestering beforehand, like the inauguration. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. Both require sequestering.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬 讞讚讗 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖专讬驻转 讛驻专讛 诪注诇讛 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan teach only one case derived from the inauguration, i.e., Yom Kippur? Didn鈥檛 we learn explicitly in the mishna: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur, and in another mishna: Seven days prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages would remove the priest from his home? Apparently, there are two cases in which the priest is sequestered. The Gemara answers: With regard to sequestering the priest prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. They issued a decree to underscore the sanctity of the ritual after they permitted its performance by a priest who immersed that day. There is no Torah source for the sequestering of the priest in that case.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专 讞诇拽讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讞住讬讗 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 诇注砖讜转 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 驻专讛 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讛讜讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注砖讜转 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 驻专讛 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Minyomi bar 岣lkiya say that Rabbi Ma岣eya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淎s has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you鈥 (Leviticus 8:34), from which it is derived: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to make atonement, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur? Apparently, even Rabbi Yo岣nan taught two cases derived from inauguration. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: That is the opinion of his teacher; however, he himself disagrees. As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. That which Rabbi Manyumei cited in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan was the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yishmael.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 讬诇驻转 诇讛 诪诪诇讜讗讬诐 讗讬 诪讛 诪诇讜讗讬诐 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉

搂 With regard to the sequestering of the priest, Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: From where did you derive this principle of sequestering? You derived it from the inauguration. If so, just as with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates it, so too here, with regard to Yom Kippur, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the Yom Kippur service. All the halakhot of sequestering must be precisely observed.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 讜诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉

And if you say: Indeed, that is so; didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and it is not taught with regard to the designated priest: Seven days before Yom Kippur they remove him from his house, although ultimately he may perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, failure to sequester the priest does not invalidate the service. And if you say in response: What is the meaning of: They would designate? It means: They would remove; that is implausible. Were that so, let the mishna teach either with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would designate; or with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would remove.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪专 诪讛讬讻讗 讬诇讬祝 诇讛 讗诪专 诪住讬谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讻讜谉 讻讘讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 讜讬讻住讛讜 讛注谞谉 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬拽专讗 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诪讗讬 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 砖讻诇 讛谞讻谞住 讘诪讞谞讛 砖讻讬谞讛 讟注讜谉 驻专讬砖转 砖砖讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Rather, from where do you, Master, derive the halakha of sequestering before Yom Kippur? Reish Lakish said to him: I derive it from Sinai, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him [vaykhasehu] six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud鈥 (Exodus 24:16). The masculine suffix hu in vaykhasehu can be interpreted either as him, referring to Moses, or as it, referring to the mountain. Now, since it states: 鈥淎nd He called to Moses on the seventh day,鈥 what is derived from the previous explicit mention of six days? These six days are mentioned as a paradigm, from which a general principle is derived that anyone who enters the camp of the Divine Presence, the site of the revelation at Mount Sinai, or the place where the Divine Presence rests, the Holy of Holies, requires prior sequestering for six days of sanctification.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 砖讘注讛 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讗 讚讞讬讬砖

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it seven, not six, days of sequestering that we learned in the mishna? Reish Lakish answered: The mishna that requires sequestering for seven days is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who is concerned

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

invite yoma (3)

Teshuva, Avodah and Option B – with Tanya White

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

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

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

Yoma 3: The Sequestering of the Kohen Gadol

The language of "take yourself," for yourself, from that which is yours - in the kohen gadol's contribution (or participation)...
introduction to yoma by gitta

Introduction to Yoma聽– The Main Structure

Masechet Yoma (literally, 鈥淭he Day鈥) deals with聽 Yom Kippur (YK).聽聽 Structure of the masechet:聽 The masechet is arranged in chronological聽...

Yoma 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 3

驻讝专 拽砖讘

Peh, zayin, reish, kuf, shin, beit, an acronym for: Lottery [payis], as a new lottery is performed on that day to determine which priests will sacrifice the offerings that day, and the order established on Sukkot does not continue; the blessing of time [zeman]: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, is recited just as it is recited at the start of each Festival; Festival [regel], as it is considered a Festival in and of itself and there is no mitzva to reside in the sukka (see Tosafot); offering [korban], as the number of offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day is not a continuation of the number offered on Sukkot but is part of a new calculation; song [shira], as the Psalms recited by the Levites as the offerings were sacrificed on the Eighth Day are not a continuation of those recited on Sukkot; blessing [berakha], as the addition to the third blessing of Grace after Meals and in the Amida prayer (see Tosafot) is phrased differently than the addition recited on Sukkot.

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 讞讙 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讻讜诇讜 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙

However, despite all these differences, with regard to compensation for failure to sacrifice the Festival offerings at the earliest opportunity, everyone agrees that it is a day of compensation for obligations not met during the first Festival, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who did not celebrate on the first Festival day of Sukkot by sacrificing the Festival offering may celebrate and sacrifice the Festival offering throughout the whole Festival in its entirety, including the last Festival day of the festival of Sukkot. Apparently, the Eighth Day of Assembly is considered the last Festival day of Sukkot and is appended to it with regard to its obligations.

讜讗讬诪讗 注爪专转 讚驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚谞讬谉 驻专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬诇 讗讞讚 诪驻专 讗讞讚 讜讗讬诇 讗讞讚 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪专转 讚砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara challenges further: And say that the priest should be sequestered before the festival of Shavuot, which is a Festival preceded by weekdays, as there too it is a matter of sequestering of seven days for one day. Rabbi Abba said: There is a distinction between the inauguration and Shavuot, as one derives an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, Yom Kippur, from an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, the inauguration, to the exclusion of Shavuot, when they are two rams that are offered.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬诇 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬诇 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 讛讜讗 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讛诐 讗讞讚 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讗诪讜专 讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who said that the obligatory offering on Yom Kippur is one ram; however, according to the one who said that they are two rams that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur, what is there to say? According to that opinion, Yom Kippur is not comparable to the inauguration. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One ram is the one that is mentioned here; as it is written: 鈥淲ith this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:3), and it is the same one that is mentioned in the book of Numbers: 鈥淎nd on the tenth day of the seventh month you will have a sacred gathering when you will afflict your souls; you will not do any labor, and you will offer a burnt-offering to the Lord for a sweet aroma: One young bull, one ram鈥︹ (Numbers 29:7鈥8). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They are two rams offered on Yom Kippur, one mentioned here in the book of Leviticus and one mentioned in the book of Numbers.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讞讚 诇讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讜讞讚 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪专转 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara rejects this solution: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, and two rams are brought on Yom Kippur, a distinction remains between Yom Kippur and Shavuot. There, with regard to Yom Kippur, one ram, mentioned in the book of Leviticus, is for the obligation of the day, the atonement of Yom Kippur; and one ram, mentioned in the book of Numbers, is for the additional offerings. This is to the exclusion of the halakha with regard to Shavuot, where both rams are obligations of the day. Therefore, there is no basis for deriving the halakha with regard to Shavuot from the inauguration.

讜讗讬诪讗 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讚驻专讬砖转 砖讘注讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚谞讬谉 驻专 讜讗讬诇 砖诇讜 诪驻专 讜讗讬诇 砖诇讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪专转 讜专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讚爪讬讘讜专 谞讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讞 诇讱 诪砖诇讱

The Gemara asks: And say that the requirement derived is to sequester the priest prior to Rosh HaShana, as there, too, it is sequestering of seven days for one day. The days before Rosh HaShana are weekdays, and as in the inauguration, a bull and a ram are sacrificed. Rabbi Abbahu said that this too is rejected: One derives a bull and a ram that the High Priest brings from his own property on Yom Kippur from a bull and a ram that Aaron brought from his own property at the inauguration. This is to the exclusion of Shavuot and Rosh HaShana, when the bull and the ram sacrificed are from community property and not owned by the priest. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that every time the Torah utilizes the phrase: Take you, it means from your own property,

注砖讛 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

and similarly, when the Torah states: Make you, it means from your own property. However, according to the one who said that when the Torah states both phrases it means from communal property, what is there to say to distinguish between Yom Kippur and the other days?

讚转谞讬讗 拽讞 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讜注砖讛 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讜讬拽讞讜 讗诇讬讱 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 拽讞 诇讱 讘讬谉 讜讬拽讞讜 讗诇讬讱 诪砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽讞 诇讱 讻讘讬讻讜诇 诪砖诇讱 讗谞讬 专讜爪讛 讬讜转专 诪砖诇讛诐

As it was taught in a baraita that when the Torah states: Take you, it means from your own property, and when it states: Make you, it means from your own property; however, when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that both when the Torah states: Take you, and when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: Take you, which seems to mean from your own property? It should be understood, as it were, that God said to Moses: I desire that it come from your property more than I desire it from theirs. Therefore, the taking was attributed to Moses even though it was actually from community property.

讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 诇讱 讗专讜谉 注抓 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讜 讗专讜谉 注爪讬 砖讟讬诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 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

Abba 岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one verse says: 鈥淎nd make you an ark of wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 10:1), indicating that it should be from your own property; and one verse says on the same subject: 鈥淎nd they shall make an ark of acacia wood鈥 (Exodus 25:10), meaning from the Jewish people. How can this contradiction be resolved? Here, the verse is referring to a time when the Jewish people perform the will of God and they are credited with building the Ark of the Covenant. There, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not perform the will of God, and construction of the Ark is attributed to Moses alone. According to that opinion, there is no difference between the offerings of Yom Kippur and other offerings.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘拽讬讞讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讜注砖讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 拽讬讞讜转 讚注诇诪讗 拽讞 诇讱 住诪讬诐 注砖讬讜转 讚注诇诪讗 注砖讛 诇讱 砖转讬 讞爪讜爪专讜转 讻住祝 讗讘诇 讛谞讱 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 讚诪砖诇讱 讛讜讗 讘诪诇讜讗讬诐 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 转讚讘专 诇讗诪专 拽讞讜 砖注讬专 注讝讬诐 诇讞讟讗转 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇 讗讛专谉 拽讞 诇讱 注讙诇 讘谉 讘拽专 诇讞讟讗转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讞 诇讱 诪砖诇讱 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this: They disagree only with regard to instances of taking in general and instances of making in general: Instances of taking in general are as in the verse: 鈥淭ake you spices鈥 (Exodus 30:34); and instances of making in general are as in the verse: 鈥淢ake you two silver trumpets鈥 (Numbers 10:2). However, in these cases of inauguration and of Yom Kippur the verses explicitly teach that the offerings must be from your own property. With regard to the inauguration, now, since it is written: 鈥淎nd to the children of Israel you will speak, saying: Take a goat kid for a sin-offering and an unblemished year-old calf and lamb for burnt-offerings鈥 (Leviticus 9:3), with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he said to Aaron: Take you a young calf for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 9:2), why do I need this clear difference between the formulation of the command to the Jewish people and the formulation of the command to Aaron? Learn from it that in this context the phrase: Take you, means from your own property.

讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讘讝讗转 讬讘讗 讗讛专谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 讘驻专 讘谉 讘拽专 诇讞讟讗转 讜讙讜壮 讜诪讗转 注讚转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讬拽讞 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬 注讝讬诐 诇讞讟讗转 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 诇讜 诪砖诇讜 讛讜讗

And with regard to Yom Kippur, now, since it is written: 鈥淲ith this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:3), with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd from the congregation of the children of Israel he will take two goat kids for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering and Aaron will offer his young bull as a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:5鈥6), why do I need the emphasis that the goats come from the property of the children of Israel? Learn from it that this term: His, written with regard to the calf, means it is from his own property.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 驻专 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诇 诇注讜诇讛 诪驻专 诇讞讟讗转 讜讗讬诇 诇注讜诇讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注爪专转 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讜诇讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav Ashi stated another reason that distinguishes Yom Kippur from Rosh HaShana and Shavuot. One derives the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to Yom Kippur from the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to the inauguration, to the exclusion of Rosh HaShana and Shavuot, on which both of them, the bull and the ram, are burnt-offerings.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讻讜诇讛讜 拽讜砖讬讬转讬谉 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞讬谞讛讜

Ravina stated another distinction: One derives a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, Yom Kippur, from a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, the inauguration, which was performed by Aaron, to the exclusion of all the difficulties raised from the beginning of the discussion, as on the other potential days raised, they are not restricted to service performed by the High Priest; rather, the service on those days may be performed by any priest.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讚谞讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 诪注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛谞讬 讚诇讗讜 转讞诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转讞诇讛 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 诪注讘讜讚讛 转讞诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐

And some say that Ravina said: One derives a matter that is an initial service from an initial service, to the exclusion of all these that are not initial services. That statement of Ravina is unclear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of initial service? If we say that initial service means one performed by the High Priest; that is identical to the first version of Ravina鈥檚 statement. Rather, it may be understood as follows: One derives the initial service performed in the place, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, from the initial service performed in the place, the Tabernacle, on the eighth day of the inauguration. Therefore, it is the service of Yom Kippur alone that is derived from the inauguration.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬 讞讚讗 [专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬] 诪转谞讬 转专转讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇注砖讜转 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 [讜讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬] 诪转谞讬 转专转讬 诇注砖讜转 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 驻专讛 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Rabbi Yo岣nan taught one case derived from the inauguration, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two. The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yo岣nan taught one: To do, to make atonement; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur that require sequestering beforehand, like the inauguration. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. Both require sequestering.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬 讞讚讗 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖专讬驻转 讛驻专讛 诪注诇讛 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan teach only one case derived from the inauguration, i.e., Yom Kippur? Didn鈥檛 we learn explicitly in the mishna: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur, and in another mishna: Seven days prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages would remove the priest from his home? Apparently, there are two cases in which the priest is sequestered. The Gemara answers: With regard to sequestering the priest prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. They issued a decree to underscore the sanctity of the ritual after they permitted its performance by a priest who immersed that day. There is no Torah source for the sequestering of the priest in that case.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专 讞诇拽讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讞住讬讗 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 爪讜讛 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 诇讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 诇注砖讜转 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 驻专讛 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讛讜讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注砖讜转 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 驻专讛 诇讻驻专 讗诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Minyomi bar 岣lkiya say that Rabbi Ma岣eya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淎s has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you鈥 (Leviticus 8:34), from which it is derived: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to make atonement, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur? Apparently, even Rabbi Yo岣nan taught two cases derived from inauguration. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: That is the opinion of his teacher; however, he himself disagrees. As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. That which Rabbi Manyumei cited in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan was the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yishmael.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 讬诇驻转 诇讛 诪诪诇讜讗讬诐 讗讬 诪讛 诪诇讜讗讬诐 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诪注讻讘 讘讛谉

搂 With regard to the sequestering of the priest, Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: From where did you derive this principle of sequestering? You derived it from the inauguration. If so, just as with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates it, so too here, with regard to Yom Kippur, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the Yom Kippur service. All the halakhot of sequestering must be precisely observed.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 讜诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 诇讬转谞讬 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪转拽讬谞讬谉 讗讜 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉

And if you say: Indeed, that is so; didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and it is not taught with regard to the designated priest: Seven days before Yom Kippur they remove him from his house, although ultimately he may perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, failure to sequester the priest does not invalidate the service. And if you say in response: What is the meaning of: They would designate? It means: They would remove; that is implausible. Were that so, let the mishna teach either with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would designate; or with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would remove.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪专 诪讛讬讻讗 讬诇讬祝 诇讛 讗诪专 诪住讬谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讻讜谉 讻讘讜讚 讛壮 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 讜讬讻住讛讜 讛注谞谉 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 讜讬拽专讗 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬拽专讗 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 诪讗讬 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 砖讻诇 讛谞讻谞住 讘诪讞谞讛 砖讻讬谞讛 讟注讜谉 驻专讬砖转 砖砖讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Rather, from where do you, Master, derive the halakha of sequestering before Yom Kippur? Reish Lakish said to him: I derive it from Sinai, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him [vaykhasehu] six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud鈥 (Exodus 24:16). The masculine suffix hu in vaykhasehu can be interpreted either as him, referring to Moses, or as it, referring to the mountain. Now, since it states: 鈥淎nd He called to Moses on the seventh day,鈥 what is derived from the previous explicit mention of six days? These six days are mentioned as a paradigm, from which a general principle is derived that anyone who enters the camp of the Divine Presence, the site of the revelation at Mount Sinai, or the place where the Divine Presence rests, the Holy of Holies, requires prior sequestering for six days of sanctification.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 砖讘注讛 转谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讗 讚讞讬讬砖

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it seven, not six, days of sequestering that we learned in the mishna? Reish Lakish answered: The mishna that requires sequestering for seven days is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who is concerned

Scroll To Top