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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 21, 2021 | 讬壮 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聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Yoma 41

Rav Chisda brings a law regarding the designation of pairs of bird offerings (one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering) – when is the designation valid and cannot be changed? The gemara brings a braita quoted on the previous page as a question against Rav Chisda. Another braita is also brought to question his opinion but all of these questions are resolved. The mishna continues with the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. The kohen ties a red strip of wool around the goat that will be sent to Azazel and moves its position. Then something is done to the other goat but it is unclear if it means that a red strip of wool is tied around its neck or if it relates to its position in the Temple? The gemara concludes that it has a strip tied around its neck. Where else are red strips of wool used and what is the difference between the strip in the different situations?

住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽讗 转谞讬 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讗诇诪讗 讛讙专诇讛 诪注讻讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讙专诇讛 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara now formulates the proof: Who is the author of anonymous halakhic statements made in the Sifra? Rabbi Yehuda. And this baraita from the Sifra teaches: The lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the lottery is indispensable. This refutation of the opinion of the one who says that the lottery is not indispensable, i.e., Rabbi Yannai, according to the second version of his dispute, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉

搂 The Gemara addresses a similar case of designating offerings: Rav 岣sda said: Nests, a pair of birds of which one bird must be sacrificed as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering become designated for the specific type of offering only at one of two distinct points: Either upon the owner鈥檚 taking of them, when he initially purchases and consecrates them for his offering, or upon the priest鈥檚 actual performance of the sacrificial rite upon them.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讛 讜注砖讛 讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讗讜 讘注砖讬讬讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav 岣sda? As it is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:8). In another verse, it is also written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 15:15). The verses mention only the possibility of designating the offering either upon taking them or upon the performance of the sacrificial rite.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling from the baraita cited above: The verse states, with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall鈥offer it for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). This indicates that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐

A verse is needed to teach this halakha, as I might have come to the opposite conclusion: Is there not an a fortiori inference: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not consecrate the animals with a specific designation, nevertheless verbally designating the animals with the required status does consecrate them, so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does consecrate the animals, is it not logically right that verbally designating the animals with the required status should consecrate them?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

To counter this reasoning, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall make it a sin-offering鈥 to indicate that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜 砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 讛讬讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽讘注

The Gemara explains the challenge to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: But here, in the case of designating the goats, the baraita is focusing on the moment at which the lottery is held, which is neither the time of taking the goats nor the time of performing the sacrificial rite. Yet the baraita teaches that were it not for a verse that teaches otherwise, it would be possible to permanently establish the animals鈥 designation through a verbal designation at that time. This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜砖诇讗 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛

The Gemara rejects the challenge: Rava said: The baraita does not contradict Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. This is what the baraita is saying: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not consecrate the animals with a specific designation, even if it is held at the time of taking the animals or at the time of performing the sacrificial rite, nevertheless verbally designating the animals with the required status does consecrate them if that is done at the time of taking the animals or at the time of performing the sacrificial rite; so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does consecrate the animals, although it is held neither at the time of taking the animals nor at the time of performing the sacrificial rite, is it not logically right that verbally designating the animals with the required status should consecrate them, if it is done at the time of taking the animals or at the time of performing the sacrificial rite?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

To counter this reasoning, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall make it a sin-offering鈥 to indicate that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering. Rava has thereby explained the reasoning of the baraita in accordance with Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注谞讬 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇拽讬谞讜 讜讛注砖讬专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讜 讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讜

Come and hear another challenge to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: One who inadvertently enters the Temple while ritually impure is required to bring a sliding-scale offering to achieve atonement. This offering is unique in that the specific offering one is required to bring depends upon his financial situation. With regard to this offering, a baraita teaches about the case of a poor person who ritually impurified the Temple, i.e., entered the Temple while ritually impure; and he set aside money for his nests, his bird pair, as he is required, as a poor person, to bring one bird as a sin-offering and one bird as a burnt-offering for atonement; and then he became wealthy, and he is consequently required to bring an animal sin-offering; and afterward, unaware of the halakha that he is no longer required to bring a bird pair, he separates his money into two portions and said that these coins are for his sin-offering and those coins are for his burnt-offering.

诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜

Then, in such a case, he adds more money and brings his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money set aside for hissin-offering, but he may not add more money and bring his obligation of an animal offering from the money set aside for his burnt-offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜 砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 讛讬讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽讘注

The Gemara explains the challenge to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: But here, in the case of designating the money, the baraita is focusing on a moment which is neither the time of taking the money nor the time of performing the sacrificial rite with the birds. And yet the baraita teaches that through a verbal designation one can permanently establish the status of the money, as is apparent from the fact that the money set aside for the burnt-offering may not be used toward the sin-offering. This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讬讻讬 拽讘注

Rav Sheshet said: But how can you understand the baraita that way? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who ritually impurifies the Temple and brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring does not fulfill his obligation. Since he does not and cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can that designation permanently establish the status of the money?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪注谞讬讜转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讛驻专砖讛

Rather, what have you to say in order for the baraita to make sense? That he had already said his designation of the money while in his impoverished state. Here also, in order for the baraita not to contradict Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling, it may be explained in a similar vein, that he had already said at the time of taking and setting aside his money, which monies were for his sin-offering and which were for his burnt-offering.

讜诇专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 讬爪讗

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi 岣ga, who said that Rabbi Yoshiya said that a wealthy person who brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring does fulfill his obligation,

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诇拽讞 讜讗诪专

what can be said? According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the baraita that requires interpreting it as Rav Sheshet explained; read simply, it appears to contradict Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara answers: The baraita should be emended: Do not say that the baraita says: If afterward he said. Rather, say that the baraita says: If afterward he took, i.e., purchased and consecrated the bird pair, and said.

诇拽讞 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita be referring to a case where he had taken the birds for his offering? If so, the next statement in the baraita: He adds more money and brings his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money set aside for his sin-offering, what does it mean? If he had taken them, then clearly he is not holding onto money with which to purchase them.

讚驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讜祝

The Gemara suggests a solution: That statement in the baraita is referring to a case in which he redeemed the bird by transferring its sanctity to money that can then be used toward the purchase of an animal. The Gemara rejects this possibility: But there is no redemption for a bird, so this could not possibly be the case of the baraita.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转 讗讬 注讜诇讛 讝讘谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜讛讗讬 注讜诇讛 讗讝诇讗 诇谞讚讘讛 讗讬 讞讟讗转 讝讘谉 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜 讜讛讗讬 讞讟讗转 讗讝诇讗 诇诪讬转讛

Rav Pappa said: That statement in the baraita is referring to a case where he took only one bird. As such, the baraita means: If he purchased the bird for his burnt-offering, then he should add more money and bring his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money he had intended to use to purchase the second bird for his sin-offering. And this bird, which was purchased for his burnt-offering, goes toward a free-will offering. However, if he purchased the bird for his sin-offering, then he cannot add more money and bring his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money he had intended to use to purchase the second bird for his burnt-offering. And this bird, which was purchased for his sin-offering, goes to its death, i.e., it is left to die, as is the halakha of a sin-offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another offering.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara proceeds to examine the dispute cited above. Returning to the matter itself, Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who ritually impurifies the Temple, and brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring, i.e., a bird pair, he does not fulfill his obligation. Rabbi 岣ga said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: He does fulfill his obligation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬爪讗 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna: A poor leper who brings the offering that a wealthy person is required to bring fulfills his obligation. A wealthy person who brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of leper, as it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper on the day of his purification鈥 (Leviticus 14:2). The word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to emphasize that the details of the purification process must be carried out without any deviation.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 转讜专转 讜讛转谞讬讗 转讜专转 诇专讘讜转 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转

The Gemara asks: If so, if any deviation is unacceptable, then in the case of the first clause, in which a poor leper brings the offering that a wealthy person is required to bring, he should also not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One includes that case by stating: 鈥淭he law of鈥 (Leviticus 14:2). As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淭he law of鈥 was stated in order to include a poor leper who brought the offering that a wealthy person is required to bring. One might have thought that even a wealthy person who brought the offering that a poor person is required to bring also fulfills his obligation. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渢his鈥 to indicate that the wealthy person may not deviate from what is required of him.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗诐 讚诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And let us derive the halakha for the parallel case of a sliding-scale offering from the halakha with regard to the offering of leper. Consequently, in the case of a sliding-scale offering, if a wealthy person brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring, he does fulfill his obligation, contrary to Rabbi 岣ga鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara answers: With regard to a sliding-scale offering, the Merciful One excludes the validity of such an offering by stating: 鈥淚f he be poor鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The word 鈥渉e鈥 serves to emphasize that the offering required for a poor person is valid only for him.

诪转谞讬壮 拽砖专 诇砖讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讜专讬转 讘专讗砖 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讬诇讜讞讜 讜诇谞砖讞讟 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讞讬讟转讜

MISHNA: The High Priest tied a strip of crimson wool upon the head of the scapegoat and positioned the goat opposite the place from which it was dispatched, i.e., near the gate through which it was taken; and the same was done to the goat that was to be slaughtered, opposite the place of its slaughter.

讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 驻专讜 砖谞讬讛 讜住讜诪讱 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诪转讜讚讛 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 (讞讟讗转讬 注讜讬转讬 讜驻砖注转讬) 诇驻谞讬讱 讗谞讬 讜讘讬转讬 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 讻驻专 谞讗 诇注讜谞讜转 讜诇驻砖注讬诐 讜诇讞讟讗讬诐 砖注讜讬转讬 讜砖驻砖注转讬 讜砖讞讟讗转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 讗谞讬 讜讘讬转讬 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 讻讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转 诪砖讛 注讘讚讱 讻讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讬讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 诇讟讛专 讗转讻诐 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 转讟讛专讜 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 讘专讜讱 砖诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讜转讜 诇注讜诇诐 讜注讚

He comes and stands next to his bull a second time, and places his two hands upon it, and confesses. And this is what he would say: Please God, I have sinned, I have done wrong, and I have rebelled before You, I and my family and the children of Aaron, your sacred people. Please God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions that I have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, I, and my family, and the children of Aaron, your sacred people, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, your servant: 鈥淔or on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:30). And they, the priests and the people in the Temple courtyard, respond after him upon hearing the name of God: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讜诇谞砖讞讟 讗拽砖讬专讛 拽讗讬 讗讜 讗讛注诪讚讛 拽讗讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before them: The mishna teaches two halakhot with regard to the scapegoat: A strip of crimson is tied to it, and it is positioned opposite the place from which it will be dispatched. When the mishna continues: And the same is done to the slaughtered one opposite its place of slaughter, is it referring to the tying of a strip of crimson, and it is teaching that a strip is also tied on the goat being sacrificed around the place of its slaughter, i.e., its neck? Or, is it referring to the positioning of the goat, and it is teaching that the goat being sacrificed should be stood opposite the place where it will be slaughtered?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽砖专 诇砖讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讜专讬转 讘专讗砖 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讬诇讜讞讜 讜诇谞砖讞讟 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讞讬讟转讜 砖诇讗 讬转注专讘 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜诇讗 讬转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐

Come and hear a resolution from a baraita that Rav Yosef taught: He ties a strip of crimson to the head of the scapegoat and positions it opposite the place from which it will be sent; and the same is done to the slaughtered one, opposite its place of slaughter. This is done for two reasons: So that each goat, i.e., the goat for God and the goat for Azazel, cannot become mixed up with the other one, and so that the goats cannot become mixed up with other goats.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗拽砖讬专讛 拽讗讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讛注诪讚讛 拽讗讬 谞讛讬 讚讘讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讬注专讘 讚讛讗讬 拽讟讬专 讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讟讬专 讘讬讛 讘讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讬注专讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗拽砖讬专讛 拽讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita. Granted, if you say that the baraita is referring to tying, it works out well. Since both goats have a strip tied to them and to different places upon them, they will always be distinguishable both from one another and also from any other animals. But, if you say that it is referring to positioning the goat being sacrificed, but no strip of crimson is tied to it, granted, each one cannot be mixed up with its counterpart, since this one, the goat to be sent away, has a strip of crimson tied to it, and that one, the goat being sacrificed, does not have a strip of crimson tied to it. However, the goat being sacrificed could still be mixed up with other animals, since it has no strip tied to it. Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that it is referring to tying? The Gemara confirms: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖转讬 诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诪注转讬 讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讞转 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讞转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara discusses halakhot pertaining to the strip of crimson wool: Rabbi Yitz岣k said: I heard a teaching that there is a distinction between two strips of crimson, one of the red heifer and one of the scapegoat. One of them requires a minimum amount, and one does not require a minimum amount. But I do not know to which of them the requirement to have a minimum amount pertains.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚讘注讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讘注讬 砖讬注讜专 讜砖诇 驻专讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬注讜专

Rav Yosef said: Let us see and examine the matter. It is logical that since the strip of the scapegoat, which requires division, it requires a minimum amount to be able to achieve this. Before the goat descends into Azazel, the strip is cut into two; half of it is tied between the goat鈥檚 horns and half of it is tied to a nearby rock. However, the crimson strip of the heifer does not require division, therefore it does not require a minimum amount.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讚驻专讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬 讻讜讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻讜讘讚 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

Rami bar 岣ma strongly objects to this: The strip of the heifer also requires a minimum amount because it needs to have weight, in order to be heavy enough to fall into the heart of the fire in which the heifer is being burned (see Numbers 19:6). Rava said to him: The requirement for the strip to have weight is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and Rav Yosef holds in accordance with the opinion that it does not need to have weight.

讜讚驻专讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讻讜专讻谉 讘砖讬专讬 诇砖讜谉 讗讬诪讗 讘讝谞讘 诇砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: Is it true that the strip of the red heifer does not require division? Abaye raised an objection to this from a mishna in tractate Para: How does he perform the burning of the items that are burned together with the red heifer? He wraps the cedar wood and the hyssop with the remnants of the strip of crimson and casts them into the fire in which the heifer is being burnt. The reference to the remnant of the strip of crimson indicates that only part is burned. This suggests that it also requires division. The Gemara answers: Emend the mishna in tractate Para. Instead of saying: The remnants of the strip, say: It was done with the tail end of the strip of crimson.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注抓 讗专讝 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 砖拽诇讟转谉 砖诇讛讘转 讻砖专讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 谞转讛讘讛讘 讛诇砖讜谉 诪讘讬讗 诇砖讜谉 讗讞专 讜诪拽讚砖

The Torah requires that as part of the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer, cedar wood, hyssop, and a strip of crimson be cast 鈥渋nto the midst of the burning of the heifer鈥 (Number 19:6). The Gemara discusses what happens if these items burn before actually reaching the burning mass of the heifer: Rabbi 岣nin said that Rav said: If the cedar wood and the strip of crimson were caught by the flame of the burning heifer, and they burned in the air before coming into contact with the mass of the heifer itself, it is valid. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the strip of crimson was singed before reaching the heart of fire, he brings another strip and sanctifies it by ensuring it burns together with the mass of the heifer.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘拽讜诇讞转 讻讗谉 讘谞讻驻驻转

Abaye said: This is not difficult: Here, the baraita is dealing with a case in which the flame blazes high. Since the strip was still a significant distance from the burning mass, its burning is invalid. There, Rabbi 岣nin is dealing with a case in which the flame blazes low, in close proximity to the mass of the heifer. Therefore, it is considered to have been burned together with it and is valid.

专讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讜讘讚 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 讻讜专讻谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讬讜 讻讜诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讻讜讘讚 讜讬驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖专讬驻转 讛驻专讛

Rava said: The baraita and Rabbi 岣nin鈥檚 ruling follow different opinions with regard to whether the strip of crimson needs to have weight. The baraita assumes the items must reach the heart of the fire; therefore, they must have weight. Rabbi 岣nin assumes the items don鈥檛 need to reach the heart of the fire; therefore, they do not need to have weight. The issue of whether the strip of crimson needs to have weight is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: Why does he wrap the cedar wood and the hyssop together using the strip of crimson? So that they will all be in a single bundle and burn simultaneously, as implied by the fact the Torah mentions all three together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: So that they will have weight and fall into the burning heifer.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诪注转讬 讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜讗讞转 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讗讞转 诪砖拽诇 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讜讗讞转 诪砖拽诇 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讗讞转 诪砖拽诇 砖拽诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 诇驻专砖

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: I heard a teaching that there is a distinction between three strips of crimson: One of the red heifer, and one of the scapegoat, and one of the leper. One of them must have the weight of ten zuz; and one of them must have the weight of two sela, which is eight zuz; and one of them must have the weight of a shekel, which is two zuz, but I cannot explain which is which.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 驻讬专砖讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he explained in the name of Rabbi Yonatan which weight each item requires, as follows:

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聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Yoma 49: Vying for Bragging Rights: The Most Difficult Service

What if a replacement kohen gadol is needed, whether because of death, Impurity, or anything else? Can the initial scooping...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 39 -44 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are continuing to learn about the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. The High Priest draws lots...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 41: Love, Devotion, and Ignorance in Amoraic Babylonia

A parallel to the lots selecting the goats - birds! Including Sotah. But also if one choose bird korbanot because...

Yoma 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 41

住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽讗 转谞讬 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讗诇诪讗 讛讙专诇讛 诪注讻讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讙专诇讛 诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara now formulates the proof: Who is the author of anonymous halakhic statements made in the Sifra? Rabbi Yehuda. And this baraita from the Sifra teaches: The lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the lottery is indispensable. This refutation of the opinion of the one who says that the lottery is not indispensable, i.e., Rabbi Yannai, according to the second version of his dispute, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉

搂 The Gemara addresses a similar case of designating offerings: Rav 岣sda said: Nests, a pair of birds of which one bird must be sacrificed as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering become designated for the specific type of offering only at one of two distinct points: Either upon the owner鈥檚 taking of them, when he initially purchases and consecrates them for his offering, or upon the priest鈥檚 actual performance of the sacrificial rite upon them.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讛 讜注砖讛 讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讗讜 讘注砖讬讬讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav 岣sda? As it is written in one verse: 鈥淎nd she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:8). In another verse, it is also written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 15:15). The verses mention only the possibility of designating the offering either upon taking them or upon the performance of the sacrificial rite.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling from the baraita cited above: The verse states, with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall鈥offer it for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). This indicates that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐

A verse is needed to teach this halakha, as I might have come to the opposite conclusion: Is there not an a fortiori inference: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not consecrate the animals with a specific designation, nevertheless verbally designating the animals with the required status does consecrate them, so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does consecrate the animals, is it not logically right that verbally designating the animals with the required status should consecrate them?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

To counter this reasoning, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall make it a sin-offering鈥 to indicate that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜 砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 讛讬讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽讘注

The Gemara explains the challenge to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: But here, in the case of designating the goats, the baraita is focusing on the moment at which the lottery is held, which is neither the time of taking the goats nor the time of performing the sacrificial rite. Yet the baraita teaches that were it not for a verse that teaches otherwise, it would be possible to permanently establish the animals鈥 designation through a verbal designation at that time. This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜砖诇讗 讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐 讘砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜讘砖注转 注砖讬讬讛

The Gemara rejects the challenge: Rava said: The baraita does not contradict Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. This is what the baraita is saying: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not consecrate the animals with a specific designation, even if it is held at the time of taking the animals or at the time of performing the sacrificial rite, nevertheless verbally designating the animals with the required status does consecrate them if that is done at the time of taking the animals or at the time of performing the sacrificial rite; so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does consecrate the animals, although it is held neither at the time of taking the animals nor at the time of performing the sacrificial rite, is it not logically right that verbally designating the animals with the required status should consecrate them, if it is done at the time of taking the animals or at the time of performing the sacrificial rite?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

To counter this reasoning, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall make it a sin-offering鈥 to indicate that the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but verbally designating the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not make it a sin-offering. Rava has thereby explained the reasoning of the baraita in accordance with Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注谞讬 讜讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇拽讬谞讜 讜讛注砖讬专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讜 讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讜

Come and hear another challenge to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: One who inadvertently enters the Temple while ritually impure is required to bring a sliding-scale offering to achieve atonement. This offering is unique in that the specific offering one is required to bring depends upon his financial situation. With regard to this offering, a baraita teaches about the case of a poor person who ritually impurified the Temple, i.e., entered the Temple while ritually impure; and he set aside money for his nests, his bird pair, as he is required, as a poor person, to bring one bird as a sin-offering and one bird as a burnt-offering for atonement; and then he became wealthy, and he is consequently required to bring an animal sin-offering; and afterward, unaware of the halakha that he is no longer required to bring a bird pair, he separates his money into two portions and said that these coins are for his sin-offering and those coins are for his burnt-offering.

诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜

Then, in such a case, he adds more money and brings his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money set aside for hissin-offering, but he may not add more money and bring his obligation of an animal offering from the money set aside for his burnt-offering.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜 砖注转 诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 砖注转 注砖讬讬讛 讛讬讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚拽讘注

The Gemara explains the challenge to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling: But here, in the case of designating the money, the baraita is focusing on a moment which is neither the time of taking the money nor the time of performing the sacrificial rite with the birds. And yet the baraita teaches that through a verbal designation one can permanently establish the status of the money, as is apparent from the fact that the money set aside for the burnt-offering may not be used toward the sin-offering. This contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讬讻讬 拽讘注

Rav Sheshet said: But how can you understand the baraita that way? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who ritually impurifies the Temple and brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring does not fulfill his obligation. Since he does not and cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can that designation permanently establish the status of the money?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪注谞讬讜转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讛驻专砖讛

Rather, what have you to say in order for the baraita to make sense? That he had already said his designation of the money while in his impoverished state. Here also, in order for the baraita not to contradict Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling, it may be explained in a similar vein, that he had already said at the time of taking and setting aside his money, which monies were for his sin-offering and which were for his burnt-offering.

讜诇专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 讬爪讗

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi 岣ga, who said that Rabbi Yoshiya said that a wealthy person who brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring does fulfill his obligation,

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诇拽讞 讜讗诪专

what can be said? According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the baraita that requires interpreting it as Rav Sheshet explained; read simply, it appears to contradict Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara answers: The baraita should be emended: Do not say that the baraita says: If afterward he said. Rather, say that the baraita says: If afterward he took, i.e., purchased and consecrated the bird pair, and said.

诇拽讞 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita be referring to a case where he had taken the birds for his offering? If so, the next statement in the baraita: He adds more money and brings his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money set aside for his sin-offering, what does it mean? If he had taken them, then clearly he is not holding onto money with which to purchase them.

讚驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 诇注讜祝

The Gemara suggests a solution: That statement in the baraita is referring to a case in which he redeemed the bird by transferring its sanctity to money that can then be used toward the purchase of an animal. The Gemara rejects this possibility: But there is no redemption for a bird, so this could not possibly be the case of the baraita.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讞 驻专讬讚讛 讗讞转 讗讬 注讜诇讛 讝讘谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜讛讗讬 注讜诇讛 讗讝诇讗 诇谞讚讘讛 讗讬 讞讟讗转 讝讘谉 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜 讜讛讗讬 讞讟讗转 讗讝诇讗 诇诪讬转讛

Rav Pappa said: That statement in the baraita is referring to a case where he took only one bird. As such, the baraita means: If he purchased the bird for his burnt-offering, then he should add more money and bring his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money he had intended to use to purchase the second bird for his sin-offering. And this bird, which was purchased for his burnt-offering, goes toward a free-will offering. However, if he purchased the bird for his sin-offering, then he cannot add more money and bring his obligation of an animal sin-offering from the money he had intended to use to purchase the second bird for his burnt-offering. And this bird, which was purchased for his sin-offering, goes to its death, i.e., it is left to die, as is the halakha of a sin-offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another offering.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 讜讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara proceeds to examine the dispute cited above. Returning to the matter itself, Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who ritually impurifies the Temple, and brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring, i.e., a bird pair, he does not fulfill his obligation. Rabbi 岣ga said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: He does fulfill his obligation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬爪讗 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna: A poor leper who brings the offering that a wealthy person is required to bring fulfills his obligation. A wealthy person who brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of leper, as it is written: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper on the day of his purification鈥 (Leviticus 14:2). The word 鈥渢his鈥 serves to emphasize that the details of the purification process must be carried out without any deviation.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 转讜专转 讜讛转谞讬讗 转讜专转 诇专讘讜转 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转

The Gemara asks: If so, if any deviation is unacceptable, then in the case of the first clause, in which a poor leper brings the offering that a wealthy person is required to bring, he should also not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One includes that case by stating: 鈥淭he law of鈥 (Leviticus 14:2). As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淭he law of鈥 was stated in order to include a poor leper who brought the offering that a wealthy person is required to bring. One might have thought that even a wealthy person who brought the offering that a poor person is required to bring also fulfills his obligation. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渢his鈥 to indicate that the wealthy person may not deviate from what is required of him.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗诐 讚诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And let us derive the halakha for the parallel case of a sliding-scale offering from the halakha with regard to the offering of leper. Consequently, in the case of a sliding-scale offering, if a wealthy person brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring, he does fulfill his obligation, contrary to Rabbi 岣ga鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara answers: With regard to a sliding-scale offering, the Merciful One excludes the validity of such an offering by stating: 鈥淚f he be poor鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The word 鈥渉e鈥 serves to emphasize that the offering required for a poor person is valid only for him.

诪转谞讬壮 拽砖专 诇砖讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讜专讬转 讘专讗砖 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讬诇讜讞讜 讜诇谞砖讞讟 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讞讬讟转讜

MISHNA: The High Priest tied a strip of crimson wool upon the head of the scapegoat and positioned the goat opposite the place from which it was dispatched, i.e., near the gate through which it was taken; and the same was done to the goat that was to be slaughtered, opposite the place of its slaughter.

讘讗 诇讜 讗爪诇 驻专讜 砖谞讬讛 讜住讜诪讱 砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诪转讜讚讛 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 (讞讟讗转讬 注讜讬转讬 讜驻砖注转讬) 诇驻谞讬讱 讗谞讬 讜讘讬转讬 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 讗谞讗 讛砖诐 讻驻专 谞讗 诇注讜谞讜转 讜诇驻砖注讬诐 讜诇讞讟讗讬诐 砖注讜讬转讬 讜砖驻砖注转讬 讜砖讞讟讗转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 讗谞讬 讜讘讬转讬 讜讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 注诐 拽讚讜砖讱 讻讻转讜讘 讘转讜专转 诪砖讛 注讘讚讱 讻讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讬讻驻专 注诇讬讻诐 诇讟讛专 讗转讻诐 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转讬讻诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 转讟讛专讜 讜讛谉 注讜谞讬谉 讗讞专讬讜 讘专讜讱 砖诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讜转讜 诇注讜诇诐 讜注讚

He comes and stands next to his bull a second time, and places his two hands upon it, and confesses. And this is what he would say: Please God, I have sinned, I have done wrong, and I have rebelled before You, I and my family and the children of Aaron, your sacred people. Please God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions that I have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, I, and my family, and the children of Aaron, your sacred people, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, your servant: 鈥淔or on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:30). And they, the priests and the people in the Temple courtyard, respond after him upon hearing the name of God: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讜诇谞砖讞讟 讗拽砖讬专讛 拽讗讬 讗讜 讗讛注诪讚讛 拽讗讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before them: The mishna teaches two halakhot with regard to the scapegoat: A strip of crimson is tied to it, and it is positioned opposite the place from which it will be dispatched. When the mishna continues: And the same is done to the slaughtered one opposite its place of slaughter, is it referring to the tying of a strip of crimson, and it is teaching that a strip is also tied on the goat being sacrificed around the place of its slaughter, i.e., its neck? Or, is it referring to the positioning of the goat, and it is teaching that the goat being sacrificed should be stood opposite the place where it will be slaughtered?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽砖专 诇砖讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讜专讬转 讘专讗砖 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜讛注诪讬讚讜 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讬诇讜讞讜 讜诇谞砖讞讟 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 砖讞讬讟转讜 砖诇讗 讬转注专讘 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜诇讗 讬转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐

Come and hear a resolution from a baraita that Rav Yosef taught: He ties a strip of crimson to the head of the scapegoat and positions it opposite the place from which it will be sent; and the same is done to the slaughtered one, opposite its place of slaughter. This is done for two reasons: So that each goat, i.e., the goat for God and the goat for Azazel, cannot become mixed up with the other one, and so that the goats cannot become mixed up with other goats.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗拽砖讬专讛 拽讗讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讛注诪讚讛 拽讗讬 谞讛讬 讚讘讞讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讬注专讘 讚讛讗讬 拽讟讬专 讘讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讟讬专 讘讬讛 讘讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讬注专讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗拽砖讬专讛 拽讗讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara explains the proof from the baraita. Granted, if you say that the baraita is referring to tying, it works out well. Since both goats have a strip tied to them and to different places upon them, they will always be distinguishable both from one another and also from any other animals. But, if you say that it is referring to positioning the goat being sacrificed, but no strip of crimson is tied to it, granted, each one cannot be mixed up with its counterpart, since this one, the goat to be sent away, has a strip of crimson tied to it, and that one, the goat being sacrificed, does not have a strip of crimson tied to it. However, the goat being sacrificed could still be mixed up with other animals, since it has no strip tied to it. Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that it is referring to tying? The Gemara confirms: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 砖转讬 诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诪注转讬 讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讗讞转 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讞转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara discusses halakhot pertaining to the strip of crimson wool: Rabbi Yitz岣k said: I heard a teaching that there is a distinction between two strips of crimson, one of the red heifer and one of the scapegoat. One of them requires a minimum amount, and one does not require a minimum amount. But I do not know to which of them the requirement to have a minimum amount pertains.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚讘注讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讘注讬 砖讬注讜专 讜砖诇 驻专讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讬注讜专

Rav Yosef said: Let us see and examine the matter. It is logical that since the strip of the scapegoat, which requires division, it requires a minimum amount to be able to achieve this. Before the goat descends into Azazel, the strip is cut into two; half of it is tied between the goat鈥檚 horns and half of it is tied to a nearby rock. However, the crimson strip of the heifer does not require division, therefore it does not require a minimum amount.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讚驻专讛 谞诪讬 讘注讬 讻讜讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻讜讘讚 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

Rami bar 岣ma strongly objects to this: The strip of the heifer also requires a minimum amount because it needs to have weight, in order to be heavy enough to fall into the heart of the fire in which the heifer is being burned (see Numbers 19:6). Rava said to him: The requirement for the strip to have weight is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and Rav Yosef holds in accordance with the opinion that it does not need to have weight.

讜讚驻专讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讻讜专讻谉 讘砖讬专讬 诇砖讜谉 讗讬诪讗 讘讝谞讘 诇砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: Is it true that the strip of the red heifer does not require division? Abaye raised an objection to this from a mishna in tractate Para: How does he perform the burning of the items that are burned together with the red heifer? He wraps the cedar wood and the hyssop with the remnants of the strip of crimson and casts them into the fire in which the heifer is being burnt. The reference to the remnant of the strip of crimson indicates that only part is burned. This suggests that it also requires division. The Gemara answers: Emend the mishna in tractate Para. Instead of saying: The remnants of the strip, say: It was done with the tail end of the strip of crimson.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注抓 讗专讝 讜砖谞讬 转讜诇注转 砖拽诇讟转谉 砖诇讛讘转 讻砖专讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 谞转讛讘讛讘 讛诇砖讜谉 诪讘讬讗 诇砖讜谉 讗讞专 讜诪拽讚砖

The Torah requires that as part of the preparation of the ashes of the red heifer, cedar wood, hyssop, and a strip of crimson be cast 鈥渋nto the midst of the burning of the heifer鈥 (Number 19:6). The Gemara discusses what happens if these items burn before actually reaching the burning mass of the heifer: Rabbi 岣nin said that Rav said: If the cedar wood and the strip of crimson were caught by the flame of the burning heifer, and they burned in the air before coming into contact with the mass of the heifer itself, it is valid. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the strip of crimson was singed before reaching the heart of fire, he brings another strip and sanctifies it by ensuring it burns together with the mass of the heifer.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘拽讜诇讞转 讻讗谉 讘谞讻驻驻转

Abaye said: This is not difficult: Here, the baraita is dealing with a case in which the flame blazes high. Since the strip was still a significant distance from the burning mass, its burning is invalid. There, Rabbi 岣nin is dealing with a case in which the flame blazes low, in close proximity to the mass of the heifer. Therefore, it is considered to have been burned together with it and is valid.

专讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讜讘讚 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇诪讛 讻讜专讻谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讬讜 讻讜诇谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讻讜讘讚 讜讬驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 砖专讬驻转 讛驻专讛

Rava said: The baraita and Rabbi 岣nin鈥檚 ruling follow different opinions with regard to whether the strip of crimson needs to have weight. The baraita assumes the items must reach the heart of the fire; therefore, they must have weight. Rabbi 岣nin assumes the items don鈥檛 need to reach the heart of the fire; therefore, they do not need to have weight. The issue of whether the strip of crimson needs to have weight is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: Why does he wrap the cedar wood and the hyssop together using the strip of crimson? So that they will all be in a single bundle and burn simultaneously, as implied by the fact the Torah mentions all three together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: So that they will have weight and fall into the burning heifer.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 诇砖讜谞讜转 砖诪注转讬 讗讞转 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讜讗讞转 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讗讞转 诪砖拽诇 注砖专讛 讝讜讝 讜讗讞转 诪砖拽诇 砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讗讞转 诪砖拽诇 砖拽诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 诇驻专砖

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: I heard a teaching that there is a distinction between three strips of crimson: One of the red heifer, and one of the scapegoat, and one of the leper. One of them must have the weight of ten zuz; and one of them must have the weight of two sela, which is eight zuz; and one of them must have the weight of a shekel, which is two zuz, but I cannot explain which is which.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 驻讬专砖讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he explained in the name of Rabbi Yonatan which weight each item requires, as follows:

Scroll To Top