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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 25, 2021 | 讬状讚 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 shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Yoma 44

No one is allowed to be in the sanctuary while the Kohen Gadol goes into the Holy of Holies. Is it only when he offers the incense or also when he sprinkles the blood in the Holy of Holies? Rabbi Elazar distinguishes between the separation during the offering of the incense daily (where no one can be in the Sanctuary or in the area between the altar and the Sanctuary) and the offering of the incense in the Holy of Holies where one is allowed to be in the latter but not in the former. A question is brought from a braita where a similar distinction is made (regarding separation from the Sanctuary and also between the area in between the altar and the Sanctuary), however it seems to be distinguishing between other actions and not the incense in the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Can other things be inferred from this braita regarding differentiating levels of sanctity in the Temple? Why were two shovels used for the incense on a regular day? And why not on Yom Kippur?

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讝专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 砖讘诪讚讘专 砖讬诇讛 讜讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜讚砖


I might have thought nobody should be present, even in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渋n the Tent of Meeting,鈥 limiting the prohibition to the Temple itself. I have derived only that a prohibition exists in the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle that was in the desert, from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also to the Tabernacle that stood in Shiloh, and that it applies also to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem? The verse states 鈥渋n the Sanctuary,鈥 indicating that the prohibition applies to any Sanctuary.


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖注转 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘讜讗讜 诇讻驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻谞讬住转讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 爪讗转讜


I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense; from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also during the presentations of the bull鈥檚 blood in the Holy of Holies? The verse states: 鈥淲hen he goes in to make atonement,鈥 and atonement is achieved through the presentations of blood. I have derived only that a prohibition exists from the time of his entrance into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the prohibition remains in force until his exit? The verse states: 鈥淯ntil he comes out.鈥


讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讜讘注讚 讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻驻专转讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻驻专转 讘讬转讜 讻驻专转 讘讬转讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻驻专转 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讻驻专转 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻驻专转 讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇


The baraita concludes by expounding the final part of the verse: 鈥淎nd have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 16:17). This teaches that his atonement precedes the atonement of his household; the atonement of his household precedes that atonement of his brethren, the priests; the atonement of his brethren, the priests, precedes the atonement of the entire community of Israel.


讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讜讘注讚 讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬讝讛讜 讻驻专讛 砖砖讜讛 诇讜 讜诇讘讬转讜 讜诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛拽讟专转 讛拽讟讜专转


The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense. From where in the verse could this have been inferred? Rava said, and similarly Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said, and similarly Rabbi Elazar said: The conclusion of that verse states: 鈥淎nd have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.鈥 Which act of atonement is the same for him, and for his household, and for his brethren, the priests, and for the entire community of Israel? You must say this is the burning of the incense.


讜拽讟讜专转 诪讻驻专转 讗讬谉 讚讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诇拽讟讜专转 砖诪讻驻专转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬转谉 讗转 讛拽讟讜专转 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛注诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注诇 诪讛 拽讟讜专转 诪讻驻专转 注诇 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讬讘讗 讚讘专 砖讘讞砖讗讬 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 诪注砖讛 讞砖讗讬


Does incense effect atonement? The Torah mentions the concept of atonement only with regard to offerings. Yes, as Rabbi 岣nanya teaches in a baraita: We learned of the incense that it effects atonement, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he put on the incense and made atonement for the people鈥 (Numbers 17:12). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense effect atonement? For slander. And why is that? Let something that is done in secret, i.e., the incense, which is burned in seclusion within the Sanctuary, come and effect atonement for an act done in secret, i.e., slander, which is generally said in private.


转谞谉 讛转诐 驻讜专砖讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讛讬讻诇 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讛讬讻诇 驻专砖讬 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诇讗 驻专砖讬


We learned in a mishna there: They remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense. Rabbi Elazar said: They taught that this is true only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary, but during the burning of the incense in the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, people are required to remove themselves only from the Sanctuary. They do not need to remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖驻讜专砖讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讻讱 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘砖注转 诪转谉 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion from a baraita, and some say it unattributed: Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., of the High Priest, which he brings if he issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the bull for an unwitting communal sin brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the goats of idol worship brought for an inadvertent communal transgression of idol worship.


讛讗 诪讛 诪注诇讛 讬砖 讘讬谉 讛讛讬讻诇 诇讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 砖讘讛讬讻诇 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 驻讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛


The baraita continues: If so, what higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary relative to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar? Only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the incense burning and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the incense burning. Those who are in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar remove themselves only during the incense burning but not during the blood presentations.


讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 诪讬讛讗 驻专砖讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐


The Gemara explains the challenge: In any case, it is evident from the baraita that during the incense burning they do remove themselves. What, is it not referring to during the burning of the incense of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies? This would contradict Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion.


诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讛讬讻诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 诪讛 诪注诇讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 诪注诇讛 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讛讬讻诇 驻专砖讬 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诇讗 驻专砖讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讛讬讻诇


The Gemara defends his opinion: No, it is referring to during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: If so, how can the baraita say: What higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary? This implies that it is superior only with respect to one higher standard. Are there not more? Surely, there is this higher standard, that whereas the people in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during its own, i.e., the Sanctuary鈥檚, incense burning and during the incense burning of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they remove themselves only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary.


讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讛讬讻诇 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 驻讜专砖讬谉


The Gemara explains: This is in fact what the baraita is teaching: It is teaching only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the burning of the incense and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the burning of the incense; from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they do not remove themselves,


讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛


except during the burning of the incense.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 诪注诇讛 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讛讬讻诇 驻专砖讬 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诇讗 驻专砖讬 讗诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚讛讬讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诐 驻专讬砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗


But there is also this higher standard, that whereas from the Sanctuary they remove themselves both during its own sanctification, i.e., the blood presentations in the Sanctuary, and during the sanctification of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, they remove themselves only during the sanctification of the Sanctuary. Rava said: Indeed, there are numerous distinctions, but the baraita teaches only one because all the distinctions fit into one category of removal.


讗诪专 诪专 讻讱 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘砖注转 诪转谉 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗转讬讗 讻驻专讛 讻驻专讛 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐


The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest; of the bull for an unwitting communal sin; and of the goats of idol worship. From where do we derive this? Rabbi Pedat said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the word atonement said in connection with those offerings and the word atonement from the prohibition on Yom Kippur.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪注诇讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛讜


Rav A岣 bar Ahava said: Learn from this that there is a prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The higher standards applied to the various areas in the Temple are defined by Torah law, and the Sages learned them as a tradition.


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬拽专讜 讜注讬讬诇讬 诪讻讜诇讛 注讝专讛 谞诪讬 谞驻专砖讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬拽专讜 讜注讬讬诇讬


As if it could enter your mind that these standards are defined by rabbinic law, what is different about the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar that the prohibition applies only there? Perhaps other priests would accidentally happen to enter the Sanctuary while incense is burning there. But if that is the reason, then the rabbinic decree should require that they remove themselves also from the entire Temple courtyard, since perhaps they would accidentally happen to enter. The fact that the prohibition does not extend to the Temple courtyard suggests that the standards are defined by Torah law.


讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪驻住讬拽 诪讬讚讬 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗 注讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讚诪驻住讬拽 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗


The Gemara rejects Rav A岣 bar Ahava鈥檚 reasoning: The prohibition could indeed be rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to limit it to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, as follows: Since there is nothing that separates it from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the two areas is not conspicuous, and therefore people may err and enter. But with regard to the Temple courtyard, since there is the outer altar that separates the rest of the Temple courtyard from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the areas is conspicuous, and therefore there is no need to extend the prohibition throughout the Temple courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖转 讗讜诇诐 讜讛讬讻诇 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜诇诐 讙讜驻讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛


Rava said: Learn from this fact that there is a rabbinic prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The sanctity of the Entrance Hall and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is one matter, i.e., there they share the same sanctity, and therefore the Torah prohibition applies to the Entrance Hall as well. For if it could enter your mind to say that these areas have two distinct levels of sanctity, it would emerge that the prohibition to be in the Entrance Hall is itself a rabbinic decree. But will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree by prohibiting being present in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, lest one enter the Entrance Hall itself?


诇讗 讗讜诇诐 讜讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讞讚讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讻诇 讜讗讜诇诐 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转


The Gemara rejects Rava鈥檚 reasoning: No, this would not be a case of issuing one decree to prevent violation of another decree, because the Entrance Hall and the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar share one sanctity. Consequently, any prohibition applied to one will certainly also apply to the other. However, the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have two distinct sanctities.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讻住祝 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the gold pan was not used to scoop the coals? The Gemara answers: Because the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Since the pan is worn away with use, it is preferable to use a less expensive silver pan.


讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇


搂 The mishna continues: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan, he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that on Yom Kippur only one pan is used? Due to the weakness of the High Priest. He has to perform the entire service by himself while fasting; using only one pan minimizes his exertion.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讘砖诇 讗专讘注转 拽讘讬谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 谞转驻讝专讜 诇讜 拽讘 讙讞诇讬诐 诪讻讘讚谉 诇讗诪讛


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day, a priest scoops with a coal pan of a se鈥檃, which is six kav, and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. It was taught in a mishna (Tamid 33a): As he poured from a pan of four kav to a pan of three kav, a kav of coals became scattered, and he swept them into the canal that passed through the Temple and ran to the Kidron brook.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 拽讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 拽讘讬讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讱 讚转谞讬 拽讘 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讛讱 讚转谞讬 拽讘讬讬诐 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


It was taught in one baraita: A kav of coals was scattered. And it was taught in another baraita: Two kav were scattered. The Gemara comments: Granted, this baraita, which teaches that a single kav was scattered, is understandable. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the mishna, who maintain that coals are poured from a coal pan of four kav to one of three. But that baraita, which teaches that two kav of coals were scattered, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. According to Rabbi Yosei, three kav of coals would have been scattered.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇 拽讘讬讬诐 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住


Rav 岣sda said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: With a coal pan of two kav he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. If one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis that the coals were scooped with a coal pan of four kav, two kav were scattered.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 住讗讛 诪讚讘专讬转 讜诪注专讛 诇转讜讱 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讬专讜砖诇诪讬讜转


Rav Ashi said: You can even say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what he is saying: On every other day, a priest scooped with a coal pan of a desert se鈥檃, which is five Jerusalem kav, and then he poured the coals into a coal pan of three Jerusalem kav. Therefore, two kav would be scattered.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讻讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讜诐 拽诇讛 转谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讙诇讚讛 注讘讛 讜讛讬讜诐 专讱 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 拽爪专讛 讜讛讬讜诐 讗专讜讻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讝专讜注讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪住讬讬注转讜


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, the coal pan was heavy, but on this day it was light. It was taught in a baraita: On every other day its side was thick but on this day it was soft and thin. On every other day its handle was short but on this day it was long. What is the reason? So that the arm of the High Priest could assist him in carrying the coal pan, i.e., he could support the coal pan by resting it against his arm rather than bear the entire weight in his hand.


转谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛 谞讬讗砖转讬拽 讜讛讬讜诐 讛讬讛 诇讛 谞讬讗砖转讬拽 讚讘专讬 讘谉 讛住讙谉


It was taught in a baraita: On every other day it did not have a ring, but on this day it has a ring on the end of the handle, which clatters against it and makes a noise in fulfillment of the verse 鈥淎nd the sound thereof shall be heard when he goes in to the Sanctuary鈥 (Exodus 28:35); this is the statement of the son of the Deputy.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讝讛讘讛 讬专讜拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讘注讛 讝讛讘讬诐 讛谉 讝讛讘 讜讝讛讘 讟讜讘 讜讝讛讘 讗讜驻讬专 讜讝讛讘 诪讜驻讝 讜讝讛讘 砖讞讜讟 讜讝讛讘 住讙讜专 讜讝讛讘 驻专讜讬诐 讝讛讘 讜讝讛讘 讟讜讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讛讘 讛讗专抓 讛讛讜讗 讟讜讘 讝讛讘 讗讜驻讬专 讚讗转讬 诪讗讜驻讬专 讝讛讘 诪讜驻讝


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, it was of greenish gold but on this day it was of a red gold. Rav 岣sda said: There are seven types of gold mentioned in the Bible: Gold, and good gold, and gold of Ophir (I Kings 10:11), and glistering gold (I Kings 10:18), and sha岣t gold (I Kings 10:17), and closed gold (I Kings 10:21), and parvayim gold (II Chronicles 3:6). The Gemara explains the reason for these names: There is a distinction between gold and good gold, as it is written in the verse: 鈥淎nd the gold of that land is good鈥 (Genesis 2:12), which indicates the existence of gold of a higher quality. Gold of Ophir is gold that comes from Ophir. Glistering [mufaz] gold is so named

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 Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 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 44: The Challenge of the Holiness of the Space

On the incense as a mechanism of atonement. Specifically for lashon hara, evil speech. Which aligns neatly, in terms of...

Yoma 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 44

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讝专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 砖讘诪讚讘专 砖讬诇讛 讜讘讬转 注讜诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜讚砖


I might have thought nobody should be present, even in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渋n the Tent of Meeting,鈥 limiting the prohibition to the Temple itself. I have derived only that a prohibition exists in the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle that was in the desert, from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also to the Tabernacle that stood in Shiloh, and that it applies also to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem? The verse states 鈥渋n the Sanctuary,鈥 indicating that the prohibition applies to any Sanctuary.


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖注转 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘讜讗讜 诇讻驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻谞讬住转讜 讘讬爪讬讗转讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 爪讗转讜


I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense; from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also during the presentations of the bull鈥檚 blood in the Holy of Holies? The verse states: 鈥淲hen he goes in to make atonement,鈥 and atonement is achieved through the presentations of blood. I have derived only that a prohibition exists from the time of his entrance into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the prohibition remains in force until his exit? The verse states: 鈥淯ntil he comes out.鈥


讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讜讘注讚 讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻驻专转讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻驻专转 讘讬转讜 讻驻专转 讘讬转讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻驻专转 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讻驻专转 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻驻专转 讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇


The baraita concludes by expounding the final part of the verse: 鈥淎nd have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 16:17). This teaches that his atonement precedes the atonement of his household; the atonement of his household precedes that atonement of his brethren, the priests; the atonement of his brethren, the priests, precedes the atonement of the entire community of Israel.


讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 讘注讚讜 讜讘注讚 讘讬转讜 讜讘注讚 讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬讝讛讜 讻驻专讛 砖砖讜讛 诇讜 讜诇讘讬转讜 讜诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜诇讻诇 拽讛诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛拽讟专转 讛拽讟讜专转


The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense. From where in the verse could this have been inferred? Rava said, and similarly Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said, and similarly Rabbi Elazar said: The conclusion of that verse states: 鈥淎nd have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.鈥 Which act of atonement is the same for him, and for his household, and for his brethren, the priests, and for the entire community of Israel? You must say this is the burning of the incense.


讜拽讟讜专转 诪讻驻专转 讗讬谉 讚讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诇拽讟讜专转 砖诪讻驻专转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬转谉 讗转 讛拽讟讜专转 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 讛注诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注诇 诪讛 拽讟讜专转 诪讻驻专转 注诇 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讬讘讗 讚讘专 砖讘讞砖讗讬 讜讬讻驻专 注诇 诪注砖讛 讞砖讗讬


Does incense effect atonement? The Torah mentions the concept of atonement only with regard to offerings. Yes, as Rabbi 岣nanya teaches in a baraita: We learned of the incense that it effects atonement, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he put on the incense and made atonement for the people鈥 (Numbers 17:12). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense effect atonement? For slander. And why is that? Let something that is done in secret, i.e., the incense, which is burned in seclusion within the Sanctuary, come and effect atonement for an act done in secret, i.e., slander, which is generally said in private.


转谞谉 讛转诐 驻讜专砖讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讛讬讻诇 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讛讬讻诇 驻专砖讬 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诇讗 驻专砖讬


We learned in a mishna there: They remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense. Rabbi Elazar said: They taught that this is true only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary, but during the burning of the incense in the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, people are required to remove themselves only from the Sanctuary. They do not need to remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar.


诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖驻讜专砖讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讻讱 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘砖注转 诪转谉 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讬讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛


Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion from a baraita, and some say it unattributed: Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., of the High Priest, which he brings if he issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the bull for an unwitting communal sin brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the goats of idol worship brought for an inadvertent communal transgression of idol worship.


讛讗 诪讛 诪注诇讛 讬砖 讘讬谉 讛讛讬讻诇 诇讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 砖讘讛讬讻诇 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 驻讜专砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛


The baraita continues: If so, what higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary relative to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar? Only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the incense burning and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the incense burning. Those who are in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar remove themselves only during the incense burning but not during the blood presentations.


讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 诪讬讛讗 驻专砖讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐


The Gemara explains the challenge: In any case, it is evident from the baraita that during the incense burning they do remove themselves. What, is it not referring to during the burning of the incense of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies? This would contradict Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion.


诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讛讬讻诇 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 诪讛 诪注诇讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 诪注诇讛 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讛讬讻诇 驻专砖讬 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诇讗 驻专砖讬 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讚讛讬讻诇


The Gemara defends his opinion: No, it is referring to during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: If so, how can the baraita say: What higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary? This implies that it is superior only with respect to one higher standard. Are there not more? Surely, there is this higher standard, that whereas the people in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during its own, i.e., the Sanctuary鈥檚, incense burning and during the incense burning of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they remove themselves only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary.


讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讛讬讻诇 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛 讜诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 驻讜专砖讬谉


The Gemara explains: This is in fact what the baraita is teaching: It is teaching only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the burning of the incense and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the burning of the incense; from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they do not remove themselves,


讗诇讗 讘砖注转 讛拽讟专讛


except during the burning of the incense.


讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 诪注诇讛 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讛讬讻诇 驻专砖讬 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讘讬谉 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 诇讗 驻专砖讬 讗诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讚讛讬讻诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诐 驻专讬砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗


But there is also this higher standard, that whereas from the Sanctuary they remove themselves both during its own sanctification, i.e., the blood presentations in the Sanctuary, and during the sanctification of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, they remove themselves only during the sanctification of the Sanctuary. Rava said: Indeed, there are numerous distinctions, but the baraita teaches only one because all the distinctions fit into one category of removal.


讗诪专 诪专 讻讱 驻讜专砖讬谉 讘砖注转 诪转谉 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗转讬讗 讻驻专讛 讻驻专讛 诪讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐


The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest; of the bull for an unwitting communal sin; and of the goats of idol worship. From where do we derive this? Rabbi Pedat said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the word atonement said in connection with those offerings and the word atonement from the prohibition on Yom Kippur.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪注诇讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛讜


Rav A岣 bar Ahava said: Learn from this that there is a prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The higher standards applied to the various areas in the Temple are defined by Torah law, and the Sages learned them as a tradition.


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬拽专讜 讜注讬讬诇讬 诪讻讜诇讛 注讝专讛 谞诪讬 谞驻专砖讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬拽专讜 讜注讬讬诇讬


As if it could enter your mind that these standards are defined by rabbinic law, what is different about the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar that the prohibition applies only there? Perhaps other priests would accidentally happen to enter the Sanctuary while incense is burning there. But if that is the reason, then the rabbinic decree should require that they remove themselves also from the entire Temple courtyard, since perhaps they would accidentally happen to enter. The fact that the prohibition does not extend to the Temple courtyard suggests that the standards are defined by Torah law.


讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪驻住讬拽 诪讬讚讬 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗 注讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讚诪驻住讬拽 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗


The Gemara rejects Rav A岣 bar Ahava鈥檚 reasoning: The prohibition could indeed be rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to limit it to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, as follows: Since there is nothing that separates it from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the two areas is not conspicuous, and therefore people may err and enter. But with regard to the Temple courtyard, since there is the outer altar that separates the rest of the Temple courtyard from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the areas is conspicuous, and therefore there is no need to extend the prohibition throughout the Temple courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖转 讗讜诇诐 讜讛讬讻诇 讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜诇诐 讙讜驻讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛


Rava said: Learn from this fact that there is a rabbinic prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The sanctity of the Entrance Hall and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is one matter, i.e., there they share the same sanctity, and therefore the Torah prohibition applies to the Entrance Hall as well. For if it could enter your mind to say that these areas have two distinct levels of sanctity, it would emerge that the prohibition to be in the Entrance Hall is itself a rabbinic decree. But will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree by prohibiting being present in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, lest one enter the Entrance Hall itself?


诇讗 讗讜诇诐 讜讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讞讚讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讻诇 讜讗讜诇诐 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转


The Gemara rejects Rava鈥檚 reasoning: No, this would not be a case of issuing one decree to prevent violation of another decree, because the Entrance Hall and the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar share one sanctity. Consequently, any prohibition applied to one will certainly also apply to the other. However, the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have two distinct sanctities.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讻住祝 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the gold pan was not used to scoop the coals? The Gemara answers: Because the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Since the pan is worn away with use, it is preferable to use a less expensive silver pan.


讜讛讬讜诐 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 讝讛讘 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇


搂 The mishna continues: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan, he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that on Yom Kippur only one pan is used? Due to the weakness of the High Priest. He has to perform the entire service by himself while fasting; using only one pan minimizes his exertion.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讘砖诇 讗专讘注转 拽讘讬谉 讜讻讜壮 转谞讗 谞转驻讝专讜 诇讜 拽讘 讙讞诇讬诐 诪讻讘讚谉 诇讗诪讛


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day, a priest scoops with a coal pan of a se鈥檃, which is six kav, and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. It was taught in a mishna (Tamid 33a): As he poured from a pan of four kav to a pan of three kav, a kav of coals became scattered, and he swept them into the canal that passed through the Temple and ran to the Kidron brook.


转谞讬 讞讚讗 拽讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 拽讘讬讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讱 讚转谞讬 拽讘 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讛讱 讚转谞讬 拽讘讬讬诐 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


It was taught in one baraita: A kav of coals was scattered. And it was taught in another baraita: Two kav were scattered. The Gemara comments: Granted, this baraita, which teaches that a single kav was scattered, is understandable. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the mishna, who maintain that coals are poured from a coal pan of four kav to one of three. But that baraita, which teaches that two kav of coals were scattered, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. According to Rabbi Yosei, three kav of coals would have been scattered.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇 拽讘讬讬诐 讛讬讛 诪讻谞讬住


Rav 岣sda said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: With a coal pan of two kav he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. If one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis that the coals were scooped with a coal pan of four kav, two kav were scattered.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讞讜转讛 讘砖诇 住讗讛 诪讚讘专讬转 讜诪注专讛 诇转讜讱 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讬专讜砖诇诪讬讜转


Rav Ashi said: You can even say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what he is saying: On every other day, a priest scooped with a coal pan of a desert se鈥檃, which is five Jerusalem kav, and then he poured the coals into a coal pan of three Jerusalem kav. Therefore, two kav would be scattered.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讻讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讜诐 拽诇讛 转谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 讙诇讚讛 注讘讛 讜讛讬讜诐 专讱 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬转讛 拽爪专讛 讜讛讬讜诐 讗专讜讻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讝专讜注讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪住讬讬注转讜


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, the coal pan was heavy, but on this day it was light. It was taught in a baraita: On every other day its side was thick but on this day it was soft and thin. On every other day its handle was short but on this day it was long. What is the reason? So that the arm of the High Priest could assist him in carrying the coal pan, i.e., he could support the coal pan by resting it against his arm rather than bear the entire weight in his hand.


转谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讛 谞讬讗砖转讬拽 讜讛讬讜诐 讛讬讛 诇讛 谞讬讗砖转讬拽 讚讘专讬 讘谉 讛住讙谉


It was taught in a baraita: On every other day it did not have a ring, but on this day it has a ring on the end of the handle, which clatters against it and makes a noise in fulfillment of the verse 鈥淎nd the sound thereof shall be heard when he goes in to the Sanctuary鈥 (Exodus 28:35); this is the statement of the son of the Deputy.


讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讝讛讘讛 讬专讜拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讘注讛 讝讛讘讬诐 讛谉 讝讛讘 讜讝讛讘 讟讜讘 讜讝讛讘 讗讜驻讬专 讜讝讛讘 诪讜驻讝 讜讝讛讘 砖讞讜讟 讜讝讛讘 住讙讜专 讜讝讛讘 驻专讜讬诐 讝讛讘 讜讝讛讘 讟讜讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讛讘 讛讗专抓 讛讛讜讗 讟讜讘 讝讛讘 讗讜驻讬专 讚讗转讬 诪讗讜驻讬专 讝讛讘 诪讜驻讝


搂 The mishna states: On every other day, it was of greenish gold but on this day it was of a red gold. Rav 岣sda said: There are seven types of gold mentioned in the Bible: Gold, and good gold, and gold of Ophir (I Kings 10:11), and glistering gold (I Kings 10:18), and sha岣t gold (I Kings 10:17), and closed gold (I Kings 10:21), and parvayim gold (II Chronicles 3:6). The Gemara explains the reason for these names: There is a distinction between gold and good gold, as it is written in the verse: 鈥淎nd the gold of that land is good鈥 (Genesis 2:12), which indicates the existence of gold of a higher quality. Gold of Ophir is gold that comes from Ophir. Glistering [mufaz] gold is so named

Scroll To Top