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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 28, 2021 | 讬状讝 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 47

Today’s daf is sponsored by William Futornick in honor of Shira Futornick鈥檚 birthday. “Happy 17th!”

The Kohen Gadol takes a handful of incense using both hands and places it in a spoon in his left hand and in the other hand is the coal pan. The size of the handful depending on the size of the kohen’s hands. Why was the incense taken in the left hand and the coal pan in the right? Why was the incense placed in a spoon and not brought directly in the Kohen Gadols’ hands? The gemara delves into the size of the handful – what if the Kohen’s hands are particularly large like Yishmael ben Kimchit, the son of the woman who was rewarded by having sons who became High Priests as the walls of her house never “saw her hair” due to her being strict regarding laws of head covering. Two stories are brought of Rabbi Yishmael that he left the Temple on Yom Kippur and met a gentile officer in the marketplace and the saliva of the gentile got onto his clothing and he became impure and his brother had to fill in for him. The gemara compares laws of the handful required for a meal offering and the handful of incense on Yom Kippur. These are both two of three activities in the Temple that were considered very difficult. What is the status of dough for the meal offering that gets stuck in between one’s fingers – it is considered part of the kmitza or the remainder? What if the handful is taken in an atypical manner? The same is asked regarding the handful of the incense.

If you’re interested in learning more about the halachot of head covering that stem partially from the description of Kimchit in today’s daf, read Head Covering: How and Head Covering: Where聽by Deracheha.

 

讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讻祝 讜讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讞驻谉 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讻祝 讛讙讚讜诇 诇驻讬 讙讚诇讜 讜讛拽讟谉 诇驻讬 拽讟谞讜 讜讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讚转讛 谞讟诇 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讜讗转 讛讻祝 讘砖诪讗诇讜


MISHNA: They brought out the spoon and the coal pan to the High Priest so he may perform the service of the incense. He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the small size of his hands. And this was the measure of the spoon, i.e., it was made to correspond to the size of his hands. He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand.


讙诪壮 诪讞转讛 转谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讟诇 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讞讜转讛 讜讬讜专讚 讛转诐 诪讞转讛 讚讙讞诇讬诐 讜讛讻讗 诪讞转讛 讚拽讟讜专转 讚转谞讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讜 讻祝 专讬拽谉 诪诇砖讻转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诪讞转讛 讙讚讜砖讛 砖诇 拽讟讜专转 诪诇砖讻转 讘讬转 讗讘讟讬谞住


GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the mishna. In an earlier mishna, the tanna already taught that the High Priest must bring the coal pan: He takes a coal pan and ascends to the top of the altar and rakes and descends. Why does the tanna mention the taking of the coal pan again? The Gemara explains: There the mishna deals with the coal pan of burning coals, and here the mishna is referring to the coal pan of incense, which he would later scoop out. As it was explicitly taught in a baraita: They brought out an empty spoon for him from the chamber of vessels, and a coal pan heaped with incense from the Chamber of the House of Avtinas.


讞驻谉 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讻祝 讛讙讚讜诇 诇驻讬 讙讚诇讜 讜讛拽讟谉 诇驻讬 拽讟谞讜 讜讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讚转讛 讻祝 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗


搂 The mishna taught: He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon corresponding to the small size of his hands, and this was the measure of the spoon, according to the size of his hands. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a spoon on Yom Kippur? After all, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar from before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil鈥 (Leviticus 16:12). This verse suggests that the handfuls are brought by hand rather than in a vessel.


诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞注讬讬诇 讜讛讚专 谞注讬讬诇 讛讘讗讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖转讬 讛讘讗讜转


The Gemara answers: The High Priest uses a spoon because it is impossible to perform the service otherwise. The Gemara elaborates: As what should we do? Let him bring in the coal pan and then bring in the incense? The Merciful One states one act of bringing for the coals and the incense, and not two acts of bringing.


谞砖拽诇讬讛 诇拽讟讜专转 讘讞讜驻谞讬讜 讜谞讞转讬讛 [诇诪讞转讛] 注诇讛 讜诇讬注讜诇 讻讬 诪讟讬 讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 诇注讘讬讚 谞砖拽诇讬讛 讘砖讬谞讬讛 讜谞讞转讬讛 诇诪讞转讛 讛砖转讗 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 诪诇讻讬 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


Instead, let him take the incense by his handfuls and place the coal pan on top of his two handfuls and enter, carrying it all in one go. This suggestion is also impractical, as when he arrives there, in the Holy of Holies, what should he do? How can the High Priest put down the coal pan where it is? Let him take the coal pan in his teeth and lower it. Now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as it is disrespectful. All the more so, one would not act in this manner before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He.


讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘谞砖讬讗讬诐


The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest to behave in another way, and since it is impossible to act in any other manner, he acts as we find with regard to the sacrifices of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle. On that occasion, the princes brought spoons filled with incense: 鈥淥ne golden spoon of ten shekels full of incense鈥 (Numbers 7:14).


谞讟诇 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讗转 讛讻祝 讘砖诪讗诇 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗


搂 The mishna taught that the High Priest took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. The Gemara questions this arrangement by citing a well-known maxim: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens; i.e., this is the opposite of what one would expect. The main component of the mitzva is the incense, while the coal pan is required only for burning the incense. Consequently, the High priest should carry the spoon, which contains the main component of the service, in his right hand, and the accessory in his left hand.


讝讜 诪专讜讘讛 讜讝讜 诪讜注讟转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜讻诪注砖讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 讝讜 讞诪讛 讜讝讜 爪讜谞谞转


The Gemara explains: The service is performed in this manner for reasons of comfort, as this coal pan is greater in weight, since it holds the coals, and that spoon of incense weighs less. And even when the two of them are equal, when the spoon contains three kav of incense like the action of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t, who could hold several kav in his exceptionally large hands, nevertheless, this coal pan is hot and must be held carefully in the right hand, and that spoon of incense is cold and is easily carried in the left.


讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 砖讛讬讛 讞讜驻谉 讗专讘注转 拽讘讬谉 讘诪诇讜讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讝专讚讜 讜讝专讚 讗讬诪讗 注诇讛 诇讙讙 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注专住谉 讜讻讚专讘讛 讘专 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讞讬讗诇 注专住谉 讬驻讛 诇讞讜诇讛


搂 Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t, it discusses him further. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t that his hands were so large that he would scoop up four kav, which he would hold by his handfuls, and say: All the women selected the best they could for their children, but the selection of my mother rose to the roof, i.e., my mother chose the best. Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t is referring to himself, as he matured to a great height and stature. Some say he was referring to his mother鈥檚 selection of flour, in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Yonatan. As Rabba bar Yonatan said that Rabbi Ye岣el said: Flour is beneficial and healthy for the sick. Since his mother ate this flour when she was pregnant with him, her son grew heartily.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜转讝专谞讬 [讞讬诇] 诇诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛诪讗讝专谞讬 讞讬诇 讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讝专讬转谞讬 讜讝专讝转谞讬


And some say this reference to selection is a euphemism for semen, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: 鈥淔or You have girded me [vatazreni] with strength for battle鈥 (II Samuel 22:40), and it is written in a parallel verse: 鈥淲ho girds me [hame鈥檃zreni] with strength鈥 (Psalms 18:33). What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe: You selected me [zeritani] with the best drop of semen that my mother absorbed, with which, You fashioned me [zeraztani] within her. This accounts for the variant forms of this expression.


讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 驻注诐 讗讞转 住讬驻专 讚讘专讬诐 注诐 注专讘讬 讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讜谞转讝讛 爪讬谞讜专讗 诪驻讬讜 注诇 讘讙讚讬讜 讜谞讻谞住 讬砖讘讘 讗讞讬讜 讜砖诪砖 转讞转讬讜 讜专讗转讛 讗诪谉 砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚


The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t: Once he was talking to a certain Arab in the market on Yom Kippur, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the Arab鈥檚 mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, who was the High Priest at the time. This spittle rendered him ritually impure by rabbinic law, like the ritual impurity of a zav, preventing him from serving in the Temple. And his brother Yeshevav entered and served as High Priest on that day in his stead. And, consequently, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.


讜砖讜讘 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 驻注诐 讗讞转 讬爪讗 讜住讬驻专 注诐 讛讙诪讜谉 讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讜谞转讝讛 爪讬谞讜专讗 诪驻讬讜 注诇 讘讙讚讬讜 讜谞讻谞住 讬讜住祝 (注诐) 讗讞讬讜 讜砖诪砖 转讞转讬讜 讜专讗转讛 讗诪谉 砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚


And they further said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t: Once he went out and talked to a certain officer [hegmon] in the market, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the officer鈥檚 mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, and his brother Yosef entered and served as High Priest in his stead. And, again, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘注讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讛 诇拽诪讞讬转 讜讻讜诇谉 砖诪砖讜 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讛 注砖讬转 砖讝讻讬转 诇讻讱 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 专讗讜 拽讜专讜转 讘讬转讬 拽诇注讬 砖注专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讛专讘讛 注砖讜 讻谉 讜诇讗 讛讜注讬诇讜


The Sages taught in a baraita: Kim岣t had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this? She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house. They said to her: Many women did so and did not succeed to such a degree; you must have been granted a special gift from God.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘拽讜诪爪讜 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讚讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬注砖讛 诪讚讛 诇讞驻讬谞讛


The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 6:8). This verse teaches that he should not measure an amount for the handful of a meal-offering with a utensil, but he should separate it directly by hand. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha as to whether the High Priest may measure an amount for the handful of incense? Must the incense also be scooped by hand?


讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讞驻谞讬讜 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 拽讟讜专转 住诪讬诐 讚拽讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬诇讬祝 诪诇讗 诪诇讗 诪拽讜诪爪讜


The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps there, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, it is different, as it is written 鈥渋n his handful,鈥 which indicates that he must use his hand rather than a vessel. However here, where it is not written: In his hands, but 鈥渁nd his hands full of sweet incense beaten small鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), perhaps this teaches that the handfuls of incense need not be taken directly by hand, and the High Priest may use a vessel to scoop out the required amount. Or perhaps this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between 鈥渇ull鈥 and 鈥渇ull,鈥 from 鈥渉is handful,鈥 which is stated regarding the meal-offering. If this verbal analogy is accepted, the High Priest may likewise scoop the incense only by hand.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讚转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇注砖讜转 诪讚讛 讗讞专转 注讜砖讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谞讛 诇驻谞讬诐


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: And this was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that although the required measure is a handful, the High Priest is not obligated to scoop with his hand, and if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is what the mishna said; this is what it means: And so too, the High Priest would return and scoop the incense inside the Holy of Holies in precisely the same manner.


砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉


The Gemara asks: If so, I can learn from this that the High Priest scoops the incense, and again scoops. That is, after scooping once, the High Priest repeats the action and scoops again in the Holy of Holies. This issue is subject to a dispute in the Gemara below.


讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇注砖讜转 诪讚讛 注讜砖讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专


The Gemara rejects this claim: No; perhaps the mishna indeed means that if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel. The language of the mishna does not conclusively prove which interpretation is correct, and it is possible that the Gemara鈥檚 previous inference from the mishna is accurate. Consequently, the issue of whether or not the High Priest scoops incense a second time in the Holy of Holies cannot be considered resolved. Alternatively, the mishna may mean that the High Priest must take neither less nor more, and therefore this statement has no bearing on the dispute with regard to his scooping.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 诪讘讜专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讗讬 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞讜驻讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注诇 驻讬住转 讬讚讜 讜拽讜诪抓


The Sages taught: 鈥淗is handfuls鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). I might have thought it should be overflowing from the handful, and therefore the verse states: 鈥淗is handful鈥 (Leviticus 6:8), which indicates a precise amount. If the halakha is based solely on the phrase 鈥渉is handful,鈥 I might have thought the priest may pinch a small amount even with just his fingertips, not with his entire finger. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is handfuls鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), meaning as people usually take a handful, i.e., with their whole hand. How should he perform this service? He scoops by closing his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and takes a handful from the flour of the meal-offering.


讜讘诪讞讘转 讜讘诪专讞砖转 诪讜讞拽 讘讙讜讚诇讜 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗爪讘注讜 拽讟谞讛 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 拽砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 讝讜 讛讬讗 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞驻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪注讘讜讚讜转 拽砖讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖


And in a case of a meal-offering prepared in a pan and with regard to a meal-offering prepared in a deep container, when the flour was fried before being scooped and was therefore hard, the priest smooths with his thumb any flour that was overflowing above his handful, and with his little finger he smooths the flour that was pushing out below. And this precise taking of a handful of a meal-offering is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple. The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest rite, and no other? But there is pinching, which is also considered extremely difficult, and there is taking the handful of incense, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of a meal-offering is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 注讜讝讗讛 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 砖诇 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讙讜讗讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讜诪抓 讛讜讗 讚讘专讗讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 砖讬专讬诐 讛讜讗


Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uza鈥檃 raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the flour that remains between the fingers of his handfuls? Is this flour considered to be part of his handful, or is it considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering? The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa said that with regard to the flour that is on the inside, toward the hand, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the handful. Likewise, with regard to the flour that is on the outside, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the remainder of the flour, like the rest of the meal-offering.


讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讬讛讜砖注 [讘谉] 注讜讝讗讛 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 住驻拽 谞讬谞讛讜


Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to the flour between the inside and the outside. What is the status of this flour? Rav Yo岣nan said: Yehoshua ben Uza鈥檃 then resolved his own dilemma: The flour that is between is doubtful, and should be treated as questionable in status.


讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讞讜讚讬讛 转讞诇讛 讜讛讚专 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 讘专讬砖讗 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讬专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 [诇讛拽讟专讛] 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖讬专讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讛拽讟专讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讟讬专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓


The Gemara asks: How does one perform the Temple service in this doubtful case? Rabbi 岣nina said: The priest first burns the handful by itself, and then he burns the flour that was between. For if you say that he should first burn the flour that was between, perhaps they are remainders, and they are therefore considered like remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and burning, as the priest has taken flour from the remainders of the meal-offering. And the Master said: With regard to remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and the burning, one may not burn the handful on their account.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜


The Gemara asks: If so, that there is uncertainty as to whether or not this flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, now too, if the priest burns the in-between flour after burning the handful, one should apply here the principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire of the altar is subject to the prohibition do not burn. This principle states that if part of an item is burned on the altar, one who burns any other part of it, which is not designated for burning, has violated a prohibition. In this case, if the in-between flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, the priest who burns it transgresses that prohibition.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪拽讟讬专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐


Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest does not burn the flour as part of the meal-offering but burns it for the purpose of wood. In other words, he does not burn the flour as part of an offering but merely as fuel for the altar, which is permitted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: 鈥淏ut they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a 鈥渟weet savor,鈥 an offering. However, you may bring up leaven and honey and other materials for the purpose of wood.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讚拽诪爪讬 砖诪讬谞讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讚拽诪爪讬 砖诪讬谞讬


The Gemara asks: It works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 halakha, what can be said? Rav Mari said: The solution is that fat priests take the handfuls of meal-offerings, as their fleshy fingers press against everything between them, and therefore no flour remains between the fingers. The Gemara states: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, it is appropriate that fat priests should take the handfuls ab initio, to avoid a situation of doubt.


(讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬讬诐 驻砖讟 讜诪讞抓 讜驻讝专 讜讞砖讘 讘讞驻讬谞转 讞讘讬专讜 住讬诪谉) 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 砖诇 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讙诪专 诪诇讗 诪诇讗 诪讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱


Bein habeinayim, pashat, uma岣tz, ufizer, ve岣shev, ba岣finat, 岣veiro: This is a mnemonic for the ensuing questions of Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the in-between incense of his handfuls? The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? If he derives the verbal analogy between 鈥渇ull鈥 and 鈥渇ull鈥 from his handfuls there, the case of the meal-offering handful, this case is the same as that one, and therefore the incense between his fingers is invalid. If Rav Pappa does not accept this verbal analogy, what is the basis of his dilemma?


专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讜诇拽讞 讜讛讘讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa raised the dilemma as follows: When the verse states: 鈥淎nd his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), does it mean that we merely require him to bring his handfuls, and that is fulfilled here, as in practice the High Priest brought full handfuls? Or perhaps we require that he must fulfill the following two commands in a similar manner: 鈥淎nd he shall take鈥nd he shall bring鈥 (Leviticus 16:12)? In other words, just as he must have the intention to take the incense, so too, he must intend to bring all of it. And that requirement is not fulfilled here, as he did not intend to bring the extra incense between his fingers. No answer was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪抓 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讛讜


Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the act of his handfuls of a meal-offering should be performed ab initio in the manner that people usually take a handful, with their fingertips pointed downward. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if he took a handful with his fingertips, i.e., if he first put his palm into the vessel and filled his palm with flour by extending his fingers and drawing them in? Does this invalidate the taking of the handful or not?


诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Furthermore, what is the halakha if he took the handful with the back of his hand placed downward in the vessel, and with his fingers collected the flour upward into his palm? Lastly, what is the halakha if he took the flour from the sides, by passing the back of his hand to and fro over the flour in the vessel with his fingers spread apart, so that the flour collects in his palm? As no answers were found for these dilemmas, the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讻讚讞驻谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞驻谉 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讛讜 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 诪讛讜 讞驻谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜拽专讘谉 讝讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Likewise, Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: 鈥淗is hands full鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), it means in the manner that people usually fill their hands, by placing the backs of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a handful with his fingertips? Again, what is the halakha if he took a handful from downward to upward? What is the halakha if he took a handful from the side? And what is the halakha if he scooped a handful with this hand and with this hand and brought them together? These questions are not answered either, and the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.


讘注讬


搂 Another dilemma was raised by

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 45 – 51 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will complete the 4th chapter in Masechet Yoma and begin the 5th. We will continue learning the...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 47: Meritorious Kimchit, Mother of High Priests

Note: Audio issues in the first 2 minutes, but then it settles down. Chapter 5 - a new chapter, with...

Yoma 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 47

讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讻祝 讜讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讞驻谉 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讻祝 讛讙讚讜诇 诇驻讬 讙讚诇讜 讜讛拽讟谉 诇驻讬 拽讟谞讜 讜讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讚转讛 谞讟诇 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讘讬诪讬谞讜 讜讗转 讛讻祝 讘砖诪讗诇讜


MISHNA: They brought out the spoon and the coal pan to the High Priest so he may perform the service of the incense. He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the small size of his hands. And this was the measure of the spoon, i.e., it was made to correspond to the size of his hands. He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand.


讙诪壮 诪讞转讛 转谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讟诇 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讜注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讞讜转讛 讜讬讜专讚 讛转诐 诪讞转讛 讚讙讞诇讬诐 讜讛讻讗 诪讞转讛 讚拽讟讜专转 讚转谞讬讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讜 讻祝 专讬拽谉 诪诇砖讻转 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诪讞转讛 讙讚讜砖讛 砖诇 拽讟讜专转 诪诇砖讻转 讘讬转 讗讘讟讬谞住


GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the mishna. In an earlier mishna, the tanna already taught that the High Priest must bring the coal pan: He takes a coal pan and ascends to the top of the altar and rakes and descends. Why does the tanna mention the taking of the coal pan again? The Gemara explains: There the mishna deals with the coal pan of burning coals, and here the mishna is referring to the coal pan of incense, which he would later scoop out. As it was explicitly taught in a baraita: They brought out an empty spoon for him from the chamber of vessels, and a coal pan heaped with incense from the Chamber of the House of Avtinas.


讞驻谉 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 讛讻祝 讛讙讚讜诇 诇驻讬 讙讚诇讜 讜讛拽讟谉 诇驻讬 拽讟谞讜 讜讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讚转讛 讻祝 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗


搂 The mishna taught: He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon corresponding to the small size of his hands, and this was the measure of the spoon, according to the size of his hands. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a spoon on Yom Kippur? After all, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar from before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil鈥 (Leviticus 16:12). This verse suggests that the handfuls are brought by hand rather than in a vessel.


诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讚讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞注讬讬诇 讜讛讚专 谞注讬讬诇 讛讘讗讛 讗讞转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖转讬 讛讘讗讜转


The Gemara answers: The High Priest uses a spoon because it is impossible to perform the service otherwise. The Gemara elaborates: As what should we do? Let him bring in the coal pan and then bring in the incense? The Merciful One states one act of bringing for the coals and the incense, and not two acts of bringing.


谞砖拽诇讬讛 诇拽讟讜专转 讘讞讜驻谞讬讜 讜谞讞转讬讛 [诇诪讞转讛] 注诇讛 讜诇讬注讜诇 讻讬 诪讟讬 讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 诇注讘讬讚 谞砖拽诇讬讛 讘砖讬谞讬讛 讜谞讞转讬讛 诇诪讞转讛 讛砖转讗 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讱 诪诇讻讬 讛诪诇讻讬诐 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


Instead, let him take the incense by his handfuls and place the coal pan on top of his two handfuls and enter, carrying it all in one go. This suggestion is also impractical, as when he arrives there, in the Holy of Holies, what should he do? How can the High Priest put down the coal pan where it is? Let him take the coal pan in his teeth and lower it. Now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as it is disrespectful. All the more so, one would not act in this manner before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He.


讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘谞砖讬讗讬诐


The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest to behave in another way, and since it is impossible to act in any other manner, he acts as we find with regard to the sacrifices of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle. On that occasion, the princes brought spoons filled with incense: 鈥淥ne golden spoon of ten shekels full of incense鈥 (Numbers 7:14).


谞讟诇 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讗转 讛讻祝 讘砖诪讗诇 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗


搂 The mishna taught that the High Priest took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. The Gemara questions this arrangement by citing a well-known maxim: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens; i.e., this is the opposite of what one would expect. The main component of the mitzva is the incense, while the coal pan is required only for burning the incense. Consequently, the High priest should carry the spoon, which contains the main component of the service, in his right hand, and the accessory in his left hand.


讝讜 诪专讜讘讛 讜讝讜 诪讜注讟转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜讻诪注砖讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 讝讜 讞诪讛 讜讝讜 爪讜谞谞转


The Gemara explains: The service is performed in this manner for reasons of comfort, as this coal pan is greater in weight, since it holds the coals, and that spoon of incense weighs less. And even when the two of them are equal, when the spoon contains three kav of incense like the action of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t, who could hold several kav in his exceptionally large hands, nevertheless, this coal pan is hot and must be held carefully in the right hand, and that spoon of incense is cold and is easily carried in the left.


讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 砖讛讬讛 讞讜驻谉 讗专讘注转 拽讘讬谉 讘诪诇讜讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讝专讚讜 讜讝专讚 讗讬诪讗 注诇讛 诇讙讙 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注专住谉 讜讻讚专讘讛 讘专 讬讜谞转谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讞讬讗诇 注专住谉 讬驻讛 诇讞讜诇讛


搂 Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t, it discusses him further. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t that his hands were so large that he would scoop up four kav, which he would hold by his handfuls, and say: All the women selected the best they could for their children, but the selection of my mother rose to the roof, i.e., my mother chose the best. Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t is referring to himself, as he matured to a great height and stature. Some say he was referring to his mother鈥檚 selection of flour, in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Yonatan. As Rabba bar Yonatan said that Rabbi Ye岣el said: Flour is beneficial and healthy for the sick. Since his mother ate this flour when she was pregnant with him, her son grew heartily.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘砖讻讘转 讝专注 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜转讝专谞讬 [讞讬诇] 诇诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛诪讗讝专谞讬 讞讬诇 讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讝专讬转谞讬 讜讝专讝转谞讬


And some say this reference to selection is a euphemism for semen, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: 鈥淔or You have girded me [vatazreni] with strength for battle鈥 (II Samuel 22:40), and it is written in a parallel verse: 鈥淲ho girds me [hame鈥檃zreni] with strength鈥 (Psalms 18:33). What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe: You selected me [zeritani] with the best drop of semen that my mother absorbed, with which, You fashioned me [zeraztani] within her. This accounts for the variant forms of this expression.


讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 驻注诐 讗讞转 住讬驻专 讚讘专讬诐 注诐 注专讘讬 讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讜谞转讝讛 爪讬谞讜专讗 诪驻讬讜 注诇 讘讙讚讬讜 讜谞讻谞住 讬砖讘讘 讗讞讬讜 讜砖诪砖 转讞转讬讜 讜专讗转讛 讗诪谉 砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚


The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t: Once he was talking to a certain Arab in the market on Yom Kippur, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the Arab鈥檚 mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, who was the High Priest at the time. This spittle rendered him ritually impure by rabbinic law, like the ritual impurity of a zav, preventing him from serving in the Temple. And his brother Yeshevav entered and served as High Priest on that day in his stead. And, consequently, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.


讜砖讜讘 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 拽诪讞讬转 驻注诐 讗讞转 讬爪讗 讜住讬驻专 注诐 讛讙诪讜谉 讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讜谞转讝讛 爪讬谞讜专讗 诪驻讬讜 注诇 讘讙讚讬讜 讜谞讻谞住 讬讜住祝 (注诐) 讗讞讬讜 讜砖诪砖 转讞转讬讜 讜专讗转讛 讗诪谉 砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚


And they further said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kim岣t: Once he went out and talked to a certain officer [hegmon] in the market, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the officer鈥檚 mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, and his brother Yosef entered and served as High Priest in his stead. And, again, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘注讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讛 诇拽诪讞讬转 讜讻讜诇谉 砖诪砖讜 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讛 注砖讬转 砖讝讻讬转 诇讻讱 讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 诪讬诪讬 诇讗 专讗讜 拽讜专讜转 讘讬转讬 拽诇注讬 砖注专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讛 讛专讘讛 注砖讜 讻谉 讜诇讗 讛讜注讬诇讜


The Sages taught in a baraita: Kim岣t had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this? She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house. They said to her: Many women did so and did not succeed to such a degree; you must have been granted a special gift from God.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘拽讜诪爪讜 砖诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讚讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖讬注砖讛 诪讚讛 诇讞驻讬谞讛


The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of its oil鈥 (Leviticus 6:8). This verse teaches that he should not measure an amount for the handful of a meal-offering with a utensil, but he should separate it directly by hand. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha as to whether the High Priest may measure an amount for the handful of incense? Must the incense also be scooped by hand?


讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讞驻谞讬讜 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 拽讟讜专转 住诪讬诐 讚拽讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬诇讬祝 诪诇讗 诪诇讗 诪拽讜诪爪讜


The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps there, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, it is different, as it is written 鈥渋n his handful,鈥 which indicates that he must use his hand rather than a vessel. However here, where it is not written: In his hands, but 鈥渁nd his hands full of sweet incense beaten small鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), perhaps this teaches that the handfuls of incense need not be taken directly by hand, and the High Priest may use a vessel to scoop out the required amount. Or perhaps this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between 鈥渇ull鈥 and 鈥渇ull,鈥 from 鈥渉is handful,鈥 which is stated regarding the meal-offering. If this verbal analogy is accepted, the High Priest may likewise scoop the incense only by hand.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讚转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇注砖讜转 诪讚讛 讗讞专转 注讜砖讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谞讛 诇驻谞讬诐


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: And this was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that although the required measure is a handful, the High Priest is not obligated to scoop with his hand, and if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is what the mishna said; this is what it means: And so too, the High Priest would return and scoop the incense inside the Holy of Holies in precisely the same manner.


砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉


The Gemara asks: If so, I can learn from this that the High Priest scoops the incense, and again scoops. That is, after scooping once, the High Priest repeats the action and scoops again in the Holy of Holies. This issue is subject to a dispute in the Gemara below.


讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇注砖讜转 诪讚讛 注讜砖讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专


The Gemara rejects this claim: No; perhaps the mishna indeed means that if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel. The language of the mishna does not conclusively prove which interpretation is correct, and it is possible that the Gemara鈥檚 previous inference from the mishna is accurate. Consequently, the issue of whether or not the High Priest scoops incense a second time in the Holy of Holies cannot be considered resolved. Alternatively, the mishna may mean that the High Priest must take neither less nor more, and therefore this statement has no bearing on the dispute with regard to his scooping.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 诪讘讜专抓 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讗讬 讘拽讜诪爪讜 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞讜驻讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 注诇 驻讬住转 讬讚讜 讜拽讜诪抓


The Sages taught: 鈥淗is handfuls鈥 (Leviticus 2:2). I might have thought it should be overflowing from the handful, and therefore the verse states: 鈥淗is handful鈥 (Leviticus 6:8), which indicates a precise amount. If the halakha is based solely on the phrase 鈥渉is handful,鈥 I might have thought the priest may pinch a small amount even with just his fingertips, not with his entire finger. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗is handfuls鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), meaning as people usually take a handful, i.e., with their whole hand. How should he perform this service? He scoops by closing his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and takes a handful from the flour of the meal-offering.


讜讘诪讞讘转 讜讘诪专讞砖转 诪讜讞拽 讘讙讜讚诇讜 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗爪讘注讜 拽讟谞讛 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 拽砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖 讝讜 讛讬讗 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞驻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪注讘讜讚讜转 拽砖讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖


And in a case of a meal-offering prepared in a pan and with regard to a meal-offering prepared in a deep container, when the flour was fried before being scooped and was therefore hard, the priest smooths with his thumb any flour that was overflowing above his handful, and with his little finger he smooths the flour that was pushing out below. And this precise taking of a handful of a meal-offering is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple. The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest rite, and no other? But there is pinching, which is also considered extremely difficult, and there is taking the handful of incense, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of a meal-offering is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 注讜讝讗讛 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 砖诇 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讙讜讗讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讜诪抓 讛讜讗 讚讘专讗讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 砖讬专讬诐 讛讜讗


Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uza鈥檃 raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the flour that remains between the fingers of his handfuls? Is this flour considered to be part of his handful, or is it considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering? The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa said that with regard to the flour that is on the inside, toward the hand, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the handful. Likewise, with regard to the flour that is on the outside, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the remainder of the flour, like the rest of the meal-offering.


讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讬讛讜砖注 [讘谉] 注讜讝讗讛 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 住驻拽 谞讬谞讛讜


Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to the flour between the inside and the outside. What is the status of this flour? Rav Yo岣nan said: Yehoshua ben Uza鈥檃 then resolved his own dilemma: The flour that is between is doubtful, and should be treated as questionable in status.


讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讞讜讚讬讛 转讞诇讛 讜讛讚专 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 讘专讬砖讗 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讬专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 [诇讛拽讟专讛] 讜讗诪专 诪专 砖讬专讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讛拽讟专讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讟讬专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓


The Gemara asks: How does one perform the Temple service in this doubtful case? Rabbi 岣nina said: The priest first burns the handful by itself, and then he burns the flour that was between. For if you say that he should first burn the flour that was between, perhaps they are remainders, and they are therefore considered like remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and burning, as the priest has taken flour from the remainders of the meal-offering. And the Master said: With regard to remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and the burning, one may not burn the handful on their account.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜


The Gemara asks: If so, that there is uncertainty as to whether or not this flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, now too, if the priest burns the in-between flour after burning the handful, one should apply here the principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire of the altar is subject to the prohibition do not burn. This principle states that if part of an item is burned on the altar, one who burns any other part of it, which is not designated for burning, has violated a prohibition. In this case, if the in-between flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, the priest who burns it transgresses that prohibition.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪拽讟讬专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 诇砖讜诐 注爪讬诐


Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest does not burn the flour as part of the meal-offering but burns it for the purpose of wood. In other words, he does not burn the flour as part of an offering but merely as fuel for the altar, which is permitted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: 鈥淏ut they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a 鈥渟weet savor,鈥 an offering. However, you may bring up leaven and honey and other materials for the purpose of wood.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讚拽诪爪讬 砖诪讬谞讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讚拽诪爪讬 砖诪讬谞讬


The Gemara asks: It works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 halakha, what can be said? Rav Mari said: The solution is that fat priests take the handfuls of meal-offerings, as their fleshy fingers press against everything between them, and therefore no flour remains between the fingers. The Gemara states: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, it is appropriate that fat priests should take the handfuls ab initio, to avoid a situation of doubt.


(讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬讬诐 驻砖讟 讜诪讞抓 讜驻讝专 讜讞砖讘 讘讞驻讬谞转 讞讘讬专讜 住讬诪谉) 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬谉 讛讘讬谞讬诐 砖诇 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讙诪专 诪诇讗 诪诇讗 诪讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱


Bein habeinayim, pashat, uma岣tz, ufizer, ve岣shev, ba岣finat, 岣veiro: This is a mnemonic for the ensuing questions of Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the in-between incense of his handfuls? The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? If he derives the verbal analogy between 鈥渇ull鈥 and 鈥渇ull鈥 from his handfuls there, the case of the meal-offering handful, this case is the same as that one, and therefore the incense between his fingers is invalid. If Rav Pappa does not accept this verbal analogy, what is the basis of his dilemma?


专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讜诇拽讞 讜讛讘讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜


The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa raised the dilemma as follows: When the verse states: 鈥淎nd his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), does it mean that we merely require him to bring his handfuls, and that is fulfilled here, as in practice the High Priest brought full handfuls? Or perhaps we require that he must fulfill the following two commands in a similar manner: 鈥淎nd he shall take鈥nd he shall bring鈥 (Leviticus 16:12)? In other words, just as he must have the intention to take the incense, so too, he must intend to bring all of it. And that requirement is not fulfilled here, as he did not intend to bring the extra incense between his fingers. No answer was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 讻讚拽诪爪讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪抓 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讛讜


Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the act of his handfuls of a meal-offering should be performed ab initio in the manner that people usually take a handful, with their fingertips pointed downward. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if he took a handful with his fingertips, i.e., if he first put his palm into the vessel and filled his palm with flour by extending his fingers and drawing them in? Does this invalidate the taking of the handful or not?


诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Furthermore, what is the halakha if he took the handful with the back of his hand placed downward in the vessel, and with his fingers collected the flour upward into his palm? Lastly, what is the halakha if he took the flour from the sides, by passing the back of his hand to and fro over the flour in the vessel with his fingers spread apart, so that the flour collects in his palm? As no answers were found for these dilemmas, the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 讻讚讞驻谞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞驻谉 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诪讛讜 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 诪讛讜 讞驻谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讝讜 讜拽专讘谉 讝讜 讗爪诇 讝讜 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜


Likewise, Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: 鈥淗is hands full鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), it means in the manner that people usually fill their hands, by placing the backs of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a handful with his fingertips? Again, what is the halakha if he took a handful from downward to upward? What is the halakha if he took a handful from the side? And what is the halakha if he scooped a handful with this hand and with this hand and brought them together? These questions are not answered either, and the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.


讘注讬


搂 Another dilemma was raised by

Scroll To Top