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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 29, 2021 | 讬状讞 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 Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yoma 48

 

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Shalev family in memory of Genya Adi bat Lana veMisha. “She left an impact with her love, kindness and Torah learning.”

Rav Papa asks a number of questions regarding both the sanctification of the meal offering and the incense on Yom Kippur. When the Kohen Gadol takes a handful of incense, how big a handful 鈥 overflowing or flat? If it falls on the floor after being in his hands, can he gather it up and reuse it? How does it compare to the blood of an animal that spills? Do laws of pigul apply to different parts of the process of the incense? Rav Sheshet is asked a question: When a kohen brings the blood to the altar, can it be carried in his left hand or not? He answers by learning from the incense which was brought in the Kohen Gadol鈥檚 left hand. Why isn鈥檛 it learned from the daily Tamid offering whose leg is carried to the ramp of the altar in the kohen鈥檚 left hand?

专讘 驻驻讗 讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讚讜驻谞讬讛 讚诪谞讗 诪讗讬 转讜讱 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讻转拽谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa: What is the halakha in a case where he stuck the handful of flour onto the side of the vessel? After the flour of a meal-offering has been separated, it must be placed in a vessel for burning, an action that sanctifies the flour. Rav Pappa inquires as to what the halakha is if the priest places the flour on the sides, instead of on the bottom of the vessel. The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Do we require the handful to be inside the vessel, and that is the case here? Or perhaps we require the handful to be placed properly inside the vessel, and that is not fulfilled in this instance. No answer is found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讻讬讛 诇诪谞讗 讜讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讗专注讬转讬讛 讚诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讻转拽谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised a similar dilemma: What is the halakha if the priest overturned the vessel and stuck the handful to an indentation in the underside of the vessel? Do we require the handful to be inside the vessel, and that requirement is fulfilled here; or perhaps we require it to be placed properly in the vessel, and that is not the case here? With regard to this question as well, the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讞讜拽讜转 讗讜 讙讚讜砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 诪讞讜拽讜转 讜诇讗 讙讚讜砖讜转 讗诇讗 讟驻讜驻讜转

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Should the handfuls to which the Sages referred be smoothed over or slightly overflowing? Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear an explicit statement in a baraita: The handfuls to which the Sages referred should be neither smoothed over nor overflowing, but full, without any flour spilling out.

转谞谉 讛转诐 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 驻住讜诇 诪谉 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 讻砖专

We learned in a mishna there, in Zeva岣m 32a: If the blood of the sacrificial animal spilled on the floor instead of being collected directly into a vessel, and a priest collected it from there into a vessel, it is disqualified, as it was not collected properly. Conversely, if the blood spilled from the vessel onto the floor, after it was collected properly, and a priest collected it and put it back in the vessel, it is valid.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 诪讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讜诇讗 诪讚诐 讛注讜专 讜诇讗 诪讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a halakhic midrash: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:5); this means that the priest shall take from the blood of the soul, i.e., the bull鈥檚 blood that flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies, and not from the blood of the skin, which bleeds out when the skin is cut before the slaughter, nor from the blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt.

诪讚诐 讛驻专 讚诐 诪讛驻专 讬拽讘诇谞讜 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚诐 讛驻专 诪讚诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讚诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪拽讘诇 爪专讬讱 砖讬拽讘诇 讗转 讻诇 讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诐 讛驻专 讬砖驻讜讱 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞

The baraita interprets the phrase 鈥渇rom the blood of the bull,鈥 as though these words were written in a different order: Blood from the bull, i.e., the priest shall receive it directly. For if it should enter your mind that the letter mem, which means 鈥渇rom鈥 in the phrase 鈥渇rom the blood of the bull,鈥 is limiting and indicates that even if the priest received some of the blood, his action is acceptable, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: He who receives the blood must receive all of the blood of the bull, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:7)? This verse emphasizes that the priest must pour all of the bull鈥檚 blood, which is possible only if he has collected all of it.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讗讬 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讚诐 诪讛驻专 讬拽讘诇谞讜 讜拽住讘专 讙讜专注讬谉 讜诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讜讚讜专砖讬谉

Rather, learn from this that what is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淔rom the blood of the bull鈥? It means that the priest must receive the blood directly from the bull. And this Sage maintains that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, i.e., one may take a letter from one word, insert it into a second word, and explain the phrase in that manner.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞转驻讝专 讛拽讟讜专转 诪诪诇讜讗 讞驻谞讬讜 诪讛讜 讬讚讜 讻爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 讚诪讬 讜驻住讜诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讻诇讬 砖专转 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讛 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above ruling: What is the halakha if the incense from his handfuls scattered? Is his hand considered like the neck of the animal, and the incense is disqualified? Or perhaps his hand is considered like a vessel used in the Temple service, and if the incense fell from his hand it is not disqualified. No answer was found for this question either, and the Gemara again concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬砖讘 讘讞驻讬谞转 拽讟讜专转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬诇讬祝 诪诇讗 诪诇讗 诪诪谞讞讛 诪讛 讛转诐 诪讛谞讬讗 讘讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讗讜 诇讗

Rav Pappa raised another dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest thought a disqualifying thought during the taking of the handful of the incense, e.g., if he intended to burn it after its appropriate time? Does this thought invalidate the rite or not? Do we say that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy of 鈥渉andfuls鈥 and 鈥渉andfuls,鈥 from the case of a meal-offering, as follows: Just as there, with regard to the meal-offering, thought is effective to invalidate it, so too here, with regard to taking a handful of incense, thought is effective to invalidate it? Or should the two cases not be compared?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 (讛拽讜诪抓) 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讙讞诇讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇谉

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: Come and hear a resolution to your dilemma: Rabbi Akiva added the handful of fine flour and the incense, and the frankincense, and the coals that are collected in a vessel, to the ruling of the Sages that if one who immersed himself during the day touched part of them, he disqualifies all of them. Due to the respect in which sacred objects are held, these objects are treated as one solid unit. This is so despite the fact that its parts are not really attached to each other but are separate small segments and therefore, logically, one who immersed himself during the day should disqualify only those parts of the item with which he came into direct contact.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚驻住诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 驻住诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬谞讛 讜诪讚诇讬谞讛 驻住诇讛 驻住诇讛 谞诪讬 诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara explains: It enters your mind that from the fact that one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies these items by touch, therefore leaving them after their permitted time likewise disqualifies them; and from the fact that leaving them after their time disqualifies them, therefore thought likewise disqualifies them. Consequently, as incense is similar to flour with regard to ritual impurity, it is also disqualified by the priest鈥檚 improper thought.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗

Rav Pappa raised another dilemma:

讞讬砖讘 讘讞转讬讬转 讙讞诇讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讻诪爪讜讛 讚诪讜 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

What is the halakha if he thought invalidating thoughts during the raking of the coals? Does this thought invalidate the incense? The Gemara elaborates: The question here is whether actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva are considered like the mitzva itself. If so, merely raking the coals, which facilitates the mitzva of the incense, is like burning the incense itself; therefore, an improper thought would disqualify the incense. Or perhaps actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva are not considered part of the mitzva itself. No answer was found for this question either, and the Gemara once again concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 讛讜诇讻讛 讘砖诪讗诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 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

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to carrying the blood in one鈥檚 left hand? Is this action valid, or is carrying, like receiving and sprinkling the blood, an act that must be performed with the right hand? Rav Sheshet said to the m: We already learned it; there is an answer to this question from the mishna: He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. This proves that although the spoon is carried in the left hand to the place of the service, the rite is valid.

讜谞驻砖讜讟 诇讛讜 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛专讙诇 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讘砖诪讗诇 讜讘讬转 注讜专讛 诇讞讜抓

The Gemara asks: And let us resolve this dilemma for them from that which we learned in a mishna: The priest who is privileged to carry the head and the leg of the daily offering to the ramp carried the right leg in his left hand, with its entire hide facing outward and the place of the slaughter on the neck facing the priest. This mishna also proves that carrying with the left hand is acceptable.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜诇讻讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讛讜诇讻讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this contention: If the proof is from there, I would have said: That applies only to a type of carrying that does not invalidate atonement, as even if the limbs are not carried up to the altar, atonement is nevertheless achieved through the sprinkling of the blood. The rite is valid even if the limbs of the daily offering are not burned at all. However, with regard to the type of carrying that does invalidate atonement, e.g., carrying the blood to the altar, no, perhaps it must be done specifically with the right hand. Rav Sheshet therefore teaches us from the mishna that although carrying the spoon is necessary for the mitzva, the rite is nevertheless valid if it is carried in the left hand.

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 Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 48: The Puzzle of the Left-Handed Kohen

More on the incense. What happens if things go wrong with the basic incense plan? When is the incense invalid?...

Yoma 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 48

专讘 驻驻讗 讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讚讜驻谞讬讛 讚诪谞讗 诪讗讬 转讜讱 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讻转拽谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa: What is the halakha in a case where he stuck the handful of flour onto the side of the vessel? After the flour of a meal-offering has been separated, it must be placed in a vessel for burning, an action that sanctifies the flour. Rav Pappa inquires as to what the halakha is if the priest places the flour on the sides, instead of on the bottom of the vessel. The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Do we require the handful to be inside the vessel, and that is the case here? Or perhaps we require the handful to be placed properly inside the vessel, and that is not fulfilled in this instance. No answer is found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗驻讻讬讛 诇诪谞讗 讜讚讘拽讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘讗专注讬转讬讛 讚诪谞讗 诪讛讜 讛谞讞讛 讘转讜讻讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讞讛 讻转拽谞讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

Mar bar Rav Ashi raised a similar dilemma: What is the halakha if the priest overturned the vessel and stuck the handful to an indentation in the underside of the vessel? Do we require the handful to be inside the vessel, and that requirement is fulfilled here; or perhaps we require it to be placed properly in the vessel, and that is not the case here? With regard to this question as well, the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讞讜拽讜转 讗讜 讙讚讜砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 诪讞讜拽讜转 讜诇讗 讙讚讜砖讜转 讗诇讗 讟驻讜驻讜转

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Should the handfuls to which the Sages referred be smoothed over or slightly overflowing? Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear an explicit statement in a baraita: The handfuls to which the Sages referred should be neither smoothed over nor overflowing, but full, without any flour spilling out.

转谞谉 讛转诐 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 驻住讜诇 诪谉 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 讻砖专

We learned in a mishna there, in Zeva岣m 32a: If the blood of the sacrificial animal spilled on the floor instead of being collected directly into a vessel, and a priest collected it from there into a vessel, it is disqualified, as it was not collected properly. Conversely, if the blood spilled from the vessel onto the floor, after it was collected properly, and a priest collected it and put it back in the vessel, it is valid.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 诪讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讜诇讗 诪讚诐 讛注讜专 讜诇讗 诪讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a halakhic midrash: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:5); this means that the priest shall take from the blood of the soul, i.e., the bull鈥檚 blood that flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies, and not from the blood of the skin, which bleeds out when the skin is cut before the slaughter, nor from the blood squeezed from an animal after the initial spurt.

诪讚诐 讛驻专 讚诐 诪讛驻专 讬拽讘诇谞讜 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚诐 讛驻专 诪讚诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讚诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诪拽讘诇 爪专讬讱 砖讬拽讘诇 讗转 讻诇 讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诐 讛驻专 讬砖驻讜讱 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞

The baraita interprets the phrase 鈥渇rom the blood of the bull,鈥 as though these words were written in a different order: Blood from the bull, i.e., the priest shall receive it directly. For if it should enter your mind that the letter mem, which means 鈥渇rom鈥 in the phrase 鈥渇rom the blood of the bull,鈥 is limiting and indicates that even if the priest received some of the blood, his action is acceptable, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: He who receives the blood must receive all of the blood of the bull, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:7)? This verse emphasizes that the priest must pour all of the bull鈥檚 blood, which is possible only if he has collected all of it.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讗讬 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讚诐 诪讛驻专 讬拽讘诇谞讜 讜拽住讘专 讙讜专注讬谉 讜诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讜讚讜专砖讬谉

Rather, learn from this that what is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淔rom the blood of the bull鈥? It means that the priest must receive the blood directly from the bull. And this Sage maintains that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, i.e., one may take a letter from one word, insert it into a second word, and explain the phrase in that manner.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞转驻讝专 讛拽讟讜专转 诪诪诇讜讗 讞驻谞讬讜 诪讛讜 讬讚讜 讻爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 讚诪讬 讜驻住讜诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讻诇讬 砖专转 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 驻住讜诇讛 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above ruling: What is the halakha if the incense from his handfuls scattered? Is his hand considered like the neck of the animal, and the incense is disqualified? Or perhaps his hand is considered like a vessel used in the Temple service, and if the incense fell from his hand it is not disqualified. No answer was found for this question either, and the Gemara again concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞讬砖讘 讘讞驻讬谞转 拽讟讜专转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬诇讬祝 诪诇讗 诪诇讗 诪诪谞讞讛 诪讛 讛转诐 诪讛谞讬讗 讘讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讗讜 诇讗

Rav Pappa raised another dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest thought a disqualifying thought during the taking of the handful of the incense, e.g., if he intended to burn it after its appropriate time? Does this thought invalidate the rite or not? Do we say that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy of 鈥渉andfuls鈥 and 鈥渉andfuls,鈥 from the case of a meal-offering, as follows: Just as there, with regard to the meal-offering, thought is effective to invalidate it, so too here, with regard to taking a handful of incense, thought is effective to invalidate it? Or should the two cases not be compared?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讜住讬祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 (讛拽讜诪抓) 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛讙讞诇讬诐 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇谉

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: Come and hear a resolution to your dilemma: Rabbi Akiva added the handful of fine flour and the incense, and the frankincense, and the coals that are collected in a vessel, to the ruling of the Sages that if one who immersed himself during the day touched part of them, he disqualifies all of them. Due to the respect in which sacred objects are held, these objects are treated as one solid unit. This is so despite the fact that its parts are not really attached to each other but are separate small segments and therefore, logically, one who immersed himself during the day should disqualify only those parts of the item with which he came into direct contact.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚驻住诇 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 驻住诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬谞讛 讜诪讚诇讬谞讛 驻住诇讛 驻住诇讛 谞诪讬 诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara explains: It enters your mind that from the fact that one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies these items by touch, therefore leaving them after their permitted time likewise disqualifies them; and from the fact that leaving them after their time disqualifies them, therefore thought likewise disqualifies them. Consequently, as incense is similar to flour with regard to ritual impurity, it is also disqualified by the priest鈥檚 improper thought.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗

Rav Pappa raised another dilemma:

讞讬砖讘 讘讞转讬讬转 讙讞诇讬诐 诪讛讜 诪讻砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讻诪爪讜讛 讚诪讜 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

What is the halakha if he thought invalidating thoughts during the raking of the coals? Does this thought invalidate the incense? The Gemara elaborates: The question here is whether actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva are considered like the mitzva itself. If so, merely raking the coals, which facilitates the mitzva of the incense, is like burning the incense itself; therefore, an improper thought would disqualify the incense. Or perhaps actions that facilitate the performance of a mitzva are not considered part of the mitzva itself. No answer was found for this question either, and the Gemara once again concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 讛讜诇讻讛 讘砖诪讗诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 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

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to carrying the blood in one鈥檚 left hand? Is this action valid, or is carrying, like receiving and sprinkling the blood, an act that must be performed with the right hand? Rav Sheshet said to the m: We already learned it; there is an answer to this question from the mishna: He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. This proves that although the spoon is carried in the left hand to the place of the service, the rite is valid.

讜谞驻砖讜讟 诇讛讜 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛专讙诇 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讘砖诪讗诇 讜讘讬转 注讜专讛 诇讞讜抓

The Gemara asks: And let us resolve this dilemma for them from that which we learned in a mishna: The priest who is privileged to carry the head and the leg of the daily offering to the ramp carried the right leg in his left hand, with its entire hide facing outward and the place of the slaughter on the neck facing the priest. This mishna also proves that carrying with the left hand is acceptable.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讜诇讻讛 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讛讜诇讻讛 讚诪注讻讘讗 讻驻专讛 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects this contention: If the proof is from there, I would have said: That applies only to a type of carrying that does not invalidate atonement, as even if the limbs are not carried up to the altar, atonement is nevertheless achieved through the sprinkling of the blood. The rite is valid even if the limbs of the daily offering are not burned at all. However, with regard to the type of carrying that does invalidate atonement, e.g., carrying the blood to the altar, no, perhaps it must be done specifically with the right hand. Rav Sheshet therefore teaches us from the mishna that although carrying the spoon is necessary for the mitzva, the rite is nevertheless valid if it is carried in the left hand.

Scroll To Top