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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 15, 2021 | 讚壮 讘住讬讜谉 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 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 34

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Seliger in honor of her husband’s birthday. “It is a privelage to be on this daf yomi journey together.” And in honor of their son’s wedding, Avner to Racheli. “May you be zoche to build a 讘讬转 谞讗诪谉 讘讬砖专讗诇.”

The gemara continues to explain the order according to Abba Shaul and brings in different opinions regarding the order of certain activities. Are the requirement for libations for the Tamid sacrifice written in the Torah regarding the afternoon Tamid sacrifice and derived from there to the morning? Or is it the reverse? Rabbi Yehuda explains one way that they would heat the water of the mikveh by putting hot iron blocks into the water. Why is that not forbidden to do as it hardens the metal? Rav Bivai explains that the blocks were not hot enough. Abaye explains, it is because it is a davar sheaino mitkaven, a melacha was performed but it was not the intent of the action, as the action was meant to heat the water. But doesn鈥檛 Abaye hold by Rabbi Yehuda who holds that davar sheaino mitkaven is forbidden? The gemara distinguishes between rabbinic and Torah law. The mishna continues to describe the second dipping in the mikveh and changing of clothes of the Kohen Gadol in preparation of the Avoda of the day. The Kohen Gadol wore two different sets of white linen clothing on Yom Kippur for the two different times he changed into them. The mishna describes where each came from and how much each set was worth (using very exaggerated numbers). Communal funds were used to purchase them, but the Kohen Gadol could add more money of his own if he wanted to.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注专讱 注诇讬讛 讛注讜诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注讜诇讛 讛讬讗 注讜诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning, and he shall place the burnt-offering upon it鈥 (Leviticus 6:5), and Rava said: The verse could have simply said: And he shall place upon it, indicating that everything sacrificed on the altar is placed upon it; but instead, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place the burnt-offering upon it,鈥 to teach that it ascends the altar first.

讜诪谞讞讛 诇讞讘讬转讬谉 注讜诇讛 讜诪谞讞讛

Abaye continued: The sacrifice of the meal-offering precedes the sacrifice of the High Priest鈥檚 daily griddle-cake offering, half of which he sacrifices in the morning and half in the afternoon, as the verse states: 鈥淭o bring offerings by fire to the Lord, burnt-offerings, meal-offerings, sacrifices, and libations, on each day what is proper to it鈥 (Leviticus 23:37). Since the Torah states burnt-offerings and meal-offerings, apparently the daily burnt-offering precedes the meal-offering. And since the meal-offering is part of the burnt-offering sacrifice, it precedes the griddle-cake offering, which is a meal-offering unrelated to the burnt-offering.

讜讞讘讬转讬谉 诇谞住讻讬诐 砖讜诐 诪谞讞讛

Abaye continued: And the griddle-cake offering precedes the pouring of the libations of the daily offering. This is because it is in the category of meal-offering. Since it has been established that the meal-offering that accompanies the daily offering is sacrificed after the daily offering, all meal-offerings are sacrificed after the daily-offering prior to any other service.

讜谞住讻讬诐 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讝讘讞 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜诪讜住驻讬谉 诇讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讝讬讻讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

Abaye continued: And the libations precede the sacrifice of the additional offerings, as it is written: Offerings and libations, from which it is derived that the libations are brought immediately after the daily offering, before any other offering is sacrificed. And the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense that are brought on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The vessels of frankincense precede the additional offerings? The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva (Pesa岣m 58a).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜住驻讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗诪专转 讘讘拽专 讘讘拽专 诇讛拽讚讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 诇讗讞专

Abaye said: It is reasonable that the sequence should be in accordance with the opinion of the one who said the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense, as didn鈥檛 you say that the repetition of the term: In the morning, in the morning, comes to prioritize the daily offering? Here too, repetition within the clause: 鈥淗e shall arrange them on Shabbat day, on Shabbat day鈥 (Leviticus 24:8), with regard to the vessels of frankincense, comes to postpone that service until the peak of the day.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讝讬讻讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讙诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诪讞讘讬转讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The vessels of frankincense precede the additional offerings? The Gemara explains: By means of a verbal analogy he derives: Statute, written with regard to the vessels of frankincense: 鈥淎 statute for all time鈥 (Leviticus 24:9), from: Statute, written with regard to the griddle-cake offering: 鈥淎 statute for all time鈥 (Leviticus 6:15). Just as the griddle-cake offering precedes the additional offerings, so too, the vessels of frankincense precede the additional offerings.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讙诪专 诇讬讙诪专讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诪讛转诐 诇讛讻讬 讗讛谞讬 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 诇讗讞专

The Gemara asks: If he derived it from there, let him derive the entire matter from there, and let the vessels of frankincense be burned immediately after the griddle-cake offering; why are the libations offered between them? The Gemara answers: It is to that end that the verse: 鈥淗e shall arrange them on Shabbat day, on Shabbat day,鈥 with regard to the vessels of frankincense, is effective, to postpone their offering until later.

拽讟讜专转 砖诇 砖讞专 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛 讘讬谉 讚诐 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讚诐 诇谞专讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘讬谉 谞专讜转 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

搂 After analyzing Abaye鈥檚 tradition with regard to the sequence of the daily service, the Gemara returns to analyzing the passage in the mishna: The morning incense was burned between the receiving and sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis elsewhere (15a), the mishna should say that the incense was burned between the sprinkling of the blood and the removal of the ashes from the lamps. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, the mishna should say that the incense was burned between the removal of the ashes from the lamps and the burning of the limbs.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讘住讬讚专讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, but the mishna is not speaking of the sequence of the entire service. The mishna states that the incense was burned between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs of the daily offering, although other services were performed then as well, including the removal of ashes from the lamps.

讜砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛 讘讬谉 讗讬讘专讬诐 诇谞住讻讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 讜讻谞住讻讜 转注砖讛 诪讛 诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞住讻讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞住讻讬诐

The mishna continues: The afternoon incense was burned between the taking of the limbs up to the altar and the pouring of its libations. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the other lamb you shall present in the afternoon, as the meal-offering in the morning and its libation, you shall present it, an offering made by fire, of a sweet fragrance unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:8). Just as with regard to the morning meal-offering incense precedes libations, so too here, in the afternoon, incense precedes the libations.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讗讬讘专讬 讛讘拽专 讻诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 讻转讬讘 讻诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 讜诇讗 讻讗讬讘专讬 讛讘拽专

The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, in the morning, incense even precedes limbs, so too here, in the afternoon, incense should precede limbs. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: As the limbs in the morning? As the meal-offering in the morning, is written, indicating with regard to the daily afternoon offering that it is like the meal-offering in the morning, and not like the burning of the limbs of the morning.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞住讻讜 专讘讬注讬转 讛讛讬谉 讬诇诪讚 砖诇 砖讞专讬转 诪砖诇 注专讘讬转

The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd its libation shall be a quarter-hin for the one lamb, in the sacred area it shall be poured as an offering of strong drink unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:7). The Sages understand this verse as referring to the daily afternoon offering; therefore, one will derive the manner and order of the daily morning offering from the manner and order of the daily afternoon offering. Just as libations are required for the daily afternoon offering, so too, they are required for the daily morning offering.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注专讘讬转 诪砖诇 砖讞专讬转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The daily afternoon offering is derived from that of the morning. The phrase: 鈥淭he one lamb,鈥 refers to the lamb of the daily morning offering, and the daily afternoon offering is derived from it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻讘砖 讛讗讞讚 讗讬讝讛讜 讻讘砖 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis who hold that this verse is written with regard to the daily afternoon offering based on the preceding verses, they can explain that the daily morning offering is derived from the daily afternoon offering. However, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the afternoon offering is derived from the morning offering? Rabba bar Ulla said that the verse states: 鈥淔or the one lamb.鈥 Which is the lamb with regard to which it is previously stated: One? You must say: That is the lamb of the daily morning offering (see Exodus 29:39).

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 诪讬讜讞讚 砖讘注讚专讜 讜专讘讬 诪讜诪讘讞专 谞讚专讬讱 谞驻拽讗 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讘讞讜讘讛 讜讞讚 讘谞讚讘讛 讜爪专讬讻讬

And according to the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the term: One? It means the special lamb that is one in his flock. The lamb for the daily offering should be of the highest quality.
And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive that principle? The Gemara answers that in his opinion, the principle is derived from that which is written: 鈥淎nd all the choicest of your vow-offerings鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:11). One is required to fulfill his vow by offering the animal of the highest quality.
And how do the Rabbis interpret this verse? They interpret that one verse refers to the requirement to bring the animal of the highest quality for obligatory offerings and one verse refers to the requirement to bring the animal of the highest quality for gift-offerings. And both verses are necessary, as otherwise it would not have been clear that this requirement applies to both. On the one hand, one might think it is only with regard to obligatory offerings that the animal of the highest quality must be sacrificed. On the other hand, one might think it is only with regard to a gift-offering that the animal of the highest quality must be sacrificed, as if it is not of the highest quality, it is better not to sacrifice it at all.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讝拽谉 讗讜 讗讬住讟谞讬住 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注砖砖讬讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讛讬讜 诪讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讻讚讬 砖转驻讬讙 爪讬谞转谉 讜讛诇讗 诪爪专祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇爪讬专讜祝 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖讛讙讬注 诇爪讬专讜祝 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna continues: If the High Priest was old or delicate, they would heat hot water for him on Yom Kippur eve and place it into the cold water of the ritual bath in order to temper its chill. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: They would heat blocks of iron on Yom Kippur eve and cast them into the cold water of the ritual bath to temper its chill. The Gemara asks: But by doing so, doesn鈥檛 he harden the iron, which is a labor prohibited on Yom Kippur? Rav Beivai said: The temperature of the blocks of iron did not reach the hardening point. Abaye said: Even if you say that the temperature of the iron reached the hardening point, the fact that the iron hardened when he placed it in the water is an unintentional act, which is permitted. His intention was to temper the chill of the water, not to harden the iron.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬拽讜抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专

And did Abaye actually say that an unintentional act is permitted? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Leviticus 12:3), from which it is derived that one may cut the foreskin and circumcise the baby even if there is a white spot of leprosy there? He may do so even though the Torah prohibits excising a white spot of leprosy. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. And we discussed this matter: Why do I need a verse to permit it? His intention is not to excise the leprosy but to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision. And Abaye said: The statement of Rabbi Yoshiya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that performing an unintentional act is prohibited. Therefore, a special verse is necessary to permit circumcision in that case. Apparently, Abaye holds that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits even unintentional acts. Why, then, does he explain that Rabbi Yehuda permits placing blocks of iron into the water if his intention is not to harden the iron?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 爪讬专讜祝 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: When Abaye said that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits unintentional acts, that applies only to actions prohibited by Torah law that appear in the whole Torah in its entirety. However, here, hardening the blocks of iron is not a labor prohibited by Torah law but is prohibited by rabbinic law, as a decree intended to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest. Rabbi Yehuda concedes that unintentional performance of prohibitions by rabbinic law is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讛驻专讜讛 讜讘拽讚砖 讛讬转讛 驻专住讜 住讚讬谉 砖诇 讘讜抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛注诐 拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜驻砖讟 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻砖讟 拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 注诇讛 讜谞住转驻讙 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诇讘砖 讜拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

MISHNA: They brought the High Priest to immerse a second time in the Hall of Parva, which was in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people in the interest of modesty. And he sanctified his hands and his feet and removed his garments. Rabbi Meir says that this was the sequence: He first removed his garments and then he sanctified his hands and his feet. He descended and immersed a second time. He ascended and dried himself. And they immediately brought him the white garments, in which he dressed, and he sanctified his hands and his feet.

讘砖讞专 讛讬讛 诇讜讘砖 驻诇讜住讬谉 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诪谞讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛谞讚讜讬讬谉 砖诇 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖讞专 讛讬讛 诇讜讘砖 砖诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 诪谞讛 讜讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诪谞讛 讛讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 诪谞讛 讗诇讜 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 诪讜住讬祝 诪砖诇讜

In the morning he would wear linen garments from the Egyptian city of Pelusium worth twelve maneh, 1,200 dinars or zuz. These garments were very expensive due to their high quality. And in the afternoon he wore linen garments from India, which were slightly less expensive, worth eight hundred zuz. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the morning he would wear garments worth eighteen maneh, and in the afternoon he would wear garments worth twelve maneh. In total, the clothes were worth thirty maneh. These sums for the garments came from the community, and if the High Priest wished to add money to purchase even finer garments, he would add funding of his own.

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 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

talking talmud_square

Yoma 34: A Highly Sensitive Kohen Gadol

Procedural details about the day that is Yom Kippur: havitin, nisakhin, and more, based on the close read of the...

Yoma 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 34

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注专讱 注诇讬讛 讛注讜诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注讜诇讛 讛讬讗 注讜诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛

The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn wood upon it in the morning, in the morning, and he shall place the burnt-offering upon it鈥 (Leviticus 6:5), and Rava said: The verse could have simply said: And he shall place upon it, indicating that everything sacrificed on the altar is placed upon it; but instead, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place the burnt-offering upon it,鈥 to teach that it ascends the altar first.

讜诪谞讞讛 诇讞讘讬转讬谉 注讜诇讛 讜诪谞讞讛

Abaye continued: The sacrifice of the meal-offering precedes the sacrifice of the High Priest鈥檚 daily griddle-cake offering, half of which he sacrifices in the morning and half in the afternoon, as the verse states: 鈥淭o bring offerings by fire to the Lord, burnt-offerings, meal-offerings, sacrifices, and libations, on each day what is proper to it鈥 (Leviticus 23:37). Since the Torah states burnt-offerings and meal-offerings, apparently the daily burnt-offering precedes the meal-offering. And since the meal-offering is part of the burnt-offering sacrifice, it precedes the griddle-cake offering, which is a meal-offering unrelated to the burnt-offering.

讜讞讘讬转讬谉 诇谞住讻讬诐 砖讜诐 诪谞讞讛

Abaye continued: And the griddle-cake offering precedes the pouring of the libations of the daily offering. This is because it is in the category of meal-offering. Since it has been established that the meal-offering that accompanies the daily offering is sacrificed after the daily offering, all meal-offerings are sacrificed after the daily-offering prior to any other service.

讜谞住讻讬诐 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讝讘讞 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜诪讜住驻讬谉 诇讘讝讬讻讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讝讬讻讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

Abaye continued: And the libations precede the sacrifice of the additional offerings, as it is written: Offerings and libations, from which it is derived that the libations are brought immediately after the daily offering, before any other offering is sacrificed. And the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense that are brought on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The vessels of frankincense precede the additional offerings? The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva (Pesa岣m 58a).

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜住驻讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗诪专转 讘讘拽专 讘讘拽专 诇讛拽讚讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 诇讗讞专

Abaye said: It is reasonable that the sequence should be in accordance with the opinion of the one who said the additional offerings precede the vessels of frankincense, as didn鈥檛 you say that the repetition of the term: In the morning, in the morning, comes to prioritize the daily offering? Here too, repetition within the clause: 鈥淗e shall arrange them on Shabbat day, on Shabbat day鈥 (Leviticus 24:8), with regard to the vessels of frankincense, comes to postpone that service until the peak of the day.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讝讬讻讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讙诪专 讞讜拽讛 讞讜拽讛 诪讞讘讬转讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of the one who said: The vessels of frankincense precede the additional offerings? The Gemara explains: By means of a verbal analogy he derives: Statute, written with regard to the vessels of frankincense: 鈥淎 statute for all time鈥 (Leviticus 24:9), from: Statute, written with regard to the griddle-cake offering: 鈥淎 statute for all time鈥 (Leviticus 6:15). Just as the griddle-cake offering precedes the additional offerings, so too, the vessels of frankincense precede the additional offerings.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讙诪专 诇讬讙诪专讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 诪讛转诐 诇讛讻讬 讗讛谞讬 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 诇讗讞专

The Gemara asks: If he derived it from there, let him derive the entire matter from there, and let the vessels of frankincense be burned immediately after the griddle-cake offering; why are the libations offered between them? The Gemara answers: It is to that end that the verse: 鈥淗e shall arrange them on Shabbat day, on Shabbat day,鈥 with regard to the vessels of frankincense, is effective, to postpone their offering until later.

拽讟讜专转 砖诇 砖讞专 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛 讘讬谉 讚诐 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 讚诐 诇谞专讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘讬谉 谞专讜转 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

搂 After analyzing Abaye鈥檚 tradition with regard to the sequence of the daily service, the Gemara returns to analyzing the passage in the mishna: The morning incense was burned between the receiving and sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis elsewhere (15a), the mishna should say that the incense was burned between the sprinkling of the blood and the removal of the ashes from the lamps. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, the mishna should say that the incense was burned between the removal of the ashes from the lamps and the burning of the limbs.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讘住讬讚专讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, but the mishna is not speaking of the sequence of the entire service. The mishna states that the incense was burned between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs of the daily offering, although other services were performed then as well, including the removal of ashes from the lamps.

讜砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讘讛 讘讬谉 讗讬讘专讬诐 诇谞住讻讬诐 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 讜讻谞住讻讜 转注砖讛 诪讛 诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞住讻讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞住讻讬诐

The mishna continues: The afternoon incense was burned between the taking of the limbs up to the altar and the pouring of its libations. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the other lamb you shall present in the afternoon, as the meal-offering in the morning and its libation, you shall present it, an offering made by fire, of a sweet fragrance unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:8). Just as with regard to the morning meal-offering incense precedes libations, so too here, in the afternoon, incense precedes the libations.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽讟讜专转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讬讘专讬诐 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讗讬讘专讬 讛讘拽专 讻诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 讻转讬讘 讻诪谞讞转 讛讘拽专 讜诇讗 讻讗讬讘专讬 讛讘拽专

The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, in the morning, incense even precedes limbs, so too here, in the afternoon, incense should precede limbs. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: As the limbs in the morning? As the meal-offering in the morning, is written, indicating with regard to the daily afternoon offering that it is like the meal-offering in the morning, and not like the burning of the limbs of the morning.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞住讻讜 专讘讬注讬转 讛讛讬谉 讬诇诪讚 砖诇 砖讞专讬转 诪砖诇 注专讘讬转

The Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd its libation shall be a quarter-hin for the one lamb, in the sacred area it shall be poured as an offering of strong drink unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:7). The Sages understand this verse as referring to the daily afternoon offering; therefore, one will derive the manner and order of the daily morning offering from the manner and order of the daily afternoon offering. Just as libations are required for the daily afternoon offering, so too, they are required for the daily morning offering.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 注专讘讬转 诪砖诇 砖讞专讬转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The daily afternoon offering is derived from that of the morning. The phrase: 鈥淭he one lamb,鈥 refers to the lamb of the daily morning offering, and the daily afternoon offering is derived from it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讘转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻讘砖 讛讗讞讚 讗讬讝讛讜 讻讘砖 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讗讞讚 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis who hold that this verse is written with regard to the daily afternoon offering based on the preceding verses, they can explain that the daily morning offering is derived from the daily afternoon offering. However, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the afternoon offering is derived from the morning offering? Rabba bar Ulla said that the verse states: 鈥淔or the one lamb.鈥 Which is the lamb with regard to which it is previously stated: One? You must say: That is the lamb of the daily morning offering (see Exodus 29:39).

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 诪讬讜讞讚 砖讘注讚专讜 讜专讘讬 诪讜诪讘讞专 谞讚专讬讱 谞驻拽讗 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讘讞讜讘讛 讜讞讚 讘谞讚讘讛 讜爪专讬讻讬

And according to the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the term: One? It means the special lamb that is one in his flock. The lamb for the daily offering should be of the highest quality.
And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive that principle? The Gemara answers that in his opinion, the principle is derived from that which is written: 鈥淎nd all the choicest of your vow-offerings鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:11). One is required to fulfill his vow by offering the animal of the highest quality.
And how do the Rabbis interpret this verse? They interpret that one verse refers to the requirement to bring the animal of the highest quality for obligatory offerings and one verse refers to the requirement to bring the animal of the highest quality for gift-offerings. And both verses are necessary, as otherwise it would not have been clear that this requirement applies to both. On the one hand, one might think it is only with regard to obligatory offerings that the animal of the highest quality must be sacrificed. On the other hand, one might think it is only with regard to a gift-offering that the animal of the highest quality must be sacrificed, as if it is not of the highest quality, it is better not to sacrifice it at all.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讝拽谉 讗讜 讗讬住讟谞讬住 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注砖砖讬讜转 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讛讬讜 诪讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 爪讜谞谉 讻讚讬 砖转驻讬讙 爪讬谞转谉 讜讛诇讗 诪爪专祝 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇爪讬专讜祝 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖讛讙讬注 诇爪讬专讜祝 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna continues: If the High Priest was old or delicate, they would heat hot water for him on Yom Kippur eve and place it into the cold water of the ritual bath in order to temper its chill. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: They would heat blocks of iron on Yom Kippur eve and cast them into the cold water of the ritual bath to temper its chill. The Gemara asks: But by doing so, doesn鈥檛 he harden the iron, which is a labor prohibited on Yom Kippur? Rav Beivai said: The temperature of the blocks of iron did not reach the hardening point. Abaye said: Even if you say that the temperature of the iron reached the hardening point, the fact that the iron hardened when he placed it in the water is an unintentional act, which is permitted. His intention was to temper the chill of the water, not to harden the iron.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘砖专 注专诇转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 砖诐 讘讛专转 讬拽讜抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 拽专讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专

And did Abaye actually say that an unintentional act is permitted? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised (Leviticus 12:3), from which it is derived that one may cut the foreskin and circumcise the baby even if there is a white spot of leprosy there? He may do so even though the Torah prohibits excising a white spot of leprosy. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. And we discussed this matter: Why do I need a verse to permit it? His intention is not to excise the leprosy but to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision. And Abaye said: The statement of Rabbi Yoshiya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that performing an unintentional act is prohibited. Therefore, a special verse is necessary to permit circumcision in that case. Apparently, Abaye holds that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits even unintentional acts. Why, then, does he explain that Rabbi Yehuda permits placing blocks of iron into the water if his intention is not to harden the iron?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 爪讬专讜祝 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: When Abaye said that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits unintentional acts, that applies only to actions prohibited by Torah law that appear in the whole Torah in its entirety. However, here, hardening the blocks of iron is not a labor prohibited by Torah law but is prohibited by rabbinic law, as a decree intended to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest. Rabbi Yehuda concedes that unintentional performance of prohibitions by rabbinic law is permitted.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讛驻专讜讛 讜讘拽讚砖 讛讬转讛 驻专住讜 住讚讬谉 砖诇 讘讜抓 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛注诐 拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讜驻砖讟 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻砖讟 拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 注诇讛 讜谞住转驻讙 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诇讘砖 讜拽讚砖 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜

MISHNA: They brought the High Priest to immerse a second time in the Hall of Parva, which was in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people in the interest of modesty. And he sanctified his hands and his feet and removed his garments. Rabbi Meir says that this was the sequence: He first removed his garments and then he sanctified his hands and his feet. He descended and immersed a second time. He ascended and dried himself. And they immediately brought him the white garments, in which he dressed, and he sanctified his hands and his feet.

讘砖讞专 讛讬讛 诇讜讘砖 驻诇讜住讬谉 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诪谞讛 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讛谞讚讜讬讬谉 砖诇 砖诪讜谞讛 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖讞专 讛讬讛 诇讜讘砖 砖诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 诪谞讛 讜讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诪谞讛 讛讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 诪谞讛 讗诇讜 诪砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讜讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜住讬祝 诪讜住讬祝 诪砖诇讜

In the morning he would wear linen garments from the Egyptian city of Pelusium worth twelve maneh, 1,200 dinars or zuz. These garments were very expensive due to their high quality. And in the afternoon he wore linen garments from India, which were slightly less expensive, worth eight hundred zuz. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the morning he would wear garments worth eighteen maneh, and in the afternoon he would wear garments worth twelve maneh. In total, the clothes were worth thirty maneh. These sums for the garments came from the community, and if the High Priest wished to add money to purchase even finer garments, he would add funding of his own.

Scroll To Top