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

Daf Yomi

May 30, 2021 | 讬状讟 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.

Yoma 49

Questions are raised against Rav Sheshet’s opinion, that carrying the blood to be sprinkled could be performed with the left hand. An additional question is brought by Rav Papa (continuation from the previous pages) regarding the handful of the incense. Rabbi Yehushua ben Levi asks a question about the handful – if a Kohen Gadol took the handful and died, would his replacement be able to take that handful or would he need to take his own? Rabbi Chanina’s reaction to his question spurs a whole discussion in and of itself regarding when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was born – in the generation before or after Rabbi Chanina? How does his question relate to the debate regarding what happens if the Kohen Gadol dies after slaughtering the bull – does his replacement need to slaughter a new one? What is the answer to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s question? The gemara brings two different answers. Does the Kohen Gadol take the incense in his hands again when he is inside the Holy of Holies? If so, how is it done, technically? If the Kohen Gadol dies after slaughtering but before sprinkling the bull’s blood, does his replacement need to slaughter a new bull? Two sides of the debate are brought and analyzed.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉 砖讬讻讜专 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘拽讘诇讛 讜讘讛讜诇讻讛 讜讘讝专讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讜讻谉 讬讜砖讘 讜讻谉 砖诪讗诇 驻住讜诇 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to receiving, carrying, or sprinkling blood, if a non-priest, a mourner on his first day of mourning, a drunk priest, and a blemished priest, performed the rite, it is disqualified. And likewise if the priest was sitting, and likewise if he performed one of these rites with his left hand, it is disqualified. This statement contradicts the ruling of Rav Sheshet. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation, and Rav Sheshet鈥檚 opinion is rejected.


讜讛讗 专讘 砖砖转 讛讜讗 讚讗讜转讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗诪讜专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜诇讻讛 讘讝专 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖讬专讛 讜诪拽专讗 诪住讬讬注谞讬 讜讬砖讞讟讜 讛驻住讞 讜讬讝专拽讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪讬讚诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪驻砖讬讟讬诐


The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet the one who objected on the basis of this very baraita? As Rav Sheshet said to the interpreter of Rav 岣sda: Raise the following dilemma before Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha with regard to carrying the blood performed by a non-priest? He said to him: It is valid, and a verse supports me: 鈥淎nd they slaughtered the Paschal offering and the priests sprinkled with their hand, and the Levites flayed鈥 (II Chronicles 35:11). This verse indicates that the priests took the blood from the hands of the Levites, from which it can be inferred that the Levites carried the blood from the place of slaughtering to the place of sprinkling.


讜诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉 砖讬讻讜专 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘拽讘诇讛 讜讘讛讜诇讻讛 讜讘讝专讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讜讻谉 讬讜砖讘 讜讻谉 砖诪讗诇 驻住讜诇


And Rav Sheshet objected based on the aforementioned baraita: With regard to receiving, carrying, or sprinkling blood, if a non-priest, a mourner on his first day of mourning, a drunk priest, and a blemished priest, performed the rite, it is disqualified. This statement proves that carrying cannot be performed by a non-priest. Since Rav Sheshet himself cited this baraita in his objection, he was certainly familiar with it. How, then, could he issue a ruling in contradiction to the baraita?


讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 讛讚专 讗讜转讘讛 讜讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 讚注讘讜讚 诪注砖讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗


The Gemara explains: After Rav Sheshet heard the baraita that was cited against his opinion, he objected to the ruling of Rav 岣sda from that same baraita. At first Rav Sheshet was unaware of the baraita, which is why he ruled against it, but when he learned it, he relied upon it to object to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda cite a verse in support of his opinion? How can a baraita contradict a verse? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that the Levites walked with the blood, but rather that they acted like benches and merely stood holding the bowls of blood in their hands.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞驻谉 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讞驻谞讬讜 诪讛讜 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 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


搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of appropriate methods for taking handfuls of incense. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a case where another priest scooped and placed the incense into the hands of the High Priest? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the question: Do we require: 鈥淗is full hands,鈥 and that is fulfilled here, as in practice the High Priest has a handful of incense? Or perhaps we require that the High Priest must fulfill the mitzvot: 鈥淎nd he shall take鈥nd he shall bring鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), and that is not the case here, as the High Priest did not scoop and take the incense himself? This question was also left unanswered, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞驻谉 讜诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬讻谞住 讗讞专 讘讞驻讬谞转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖讗诇转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐


Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raised a dilemma: If the High Priest scooped and died, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that another High Priest may replace him and enter with his handful? May the second priest enter the Holy of Holies with the incense that the first priest scooped, or must he start from the beginning of the process? Rabbi 岣nina said to his students in excitement: Come and see that Sages from a later generation were able to ask a difficult question on par with the question of the earlier generations. Even I, Rabbi 岣nina, asked this same question, which was posed by my elder, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 拽砖讬砖 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讬 讛转讬专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇砖转讜转 砖讞诇讬讬诐 讘砖讘转


The Gemara analyzes this comment: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was older than Rabbi 岣nina, which is why Rabbi 岣nina referred to him as an early Sage? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: Rabbi 岣nina permitted me to drink cress juice on Shabbat for medicinal purposes. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 deference to Rabbi 岣nina shows that Rabbi 岣nina was older than him.


诇砖转讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 讜讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 砖讜转讛


Since it has been raised, the Gemara addresses the issue of cress juice on Shabbat: Did Rabbi 岣nina permit him to drink cress juice? It is obvious that it is permitted to drink this juice; why would it be prohibited? As we learned in a mishna: All types of food that healthy people eat may be eaten by people even for medicinal purposes, and one may likewise drink all drinks for medicinal purposes, as the Sages did not include these in their decree against taking medicine on Shabbat.


讗诇讗 诇砖讞讜拽 讜诇砖转讜转 砖讞诇讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 住讻谞转讗 诪砖专讗 砖专讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 住讻谞转讗 诪讬住专 讗住讬专 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬讻讗 住讻谞转讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬 诪住讬讗 讚谞讬讞讜诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讘转讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪住讬讗 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讜诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讘转讗


Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 question was: Is it permitted to grind and drink cress on Shabbat? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it involves a situation where there is danger to life, and this is the prescribed cure, it is certainly permitted; and if it is a case where there is no danger, it is prohibited as labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Actually, the question concerns a case where there is a life-threatening danger, and this is the dilemma that he raised before him: Does this drink heal, which would mean that it is appropriate to violate Shabbat for it, or does it not heal, and therefore one should not violate Shabbat for it?


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘拽讬 讘专驻讜讗讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖讗诇谞讬 讗讚诐 注诇 诪讻转 驻专讚讛 诇讘谞讛 讜讞讬讛


The Gemara asks: And if this was not a halakhic question but a medical one, what is different about this question that led him to ask it specifically of Rabbi 岣nina? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked Rabbi 岣nina because he is an expert in medicines, as Rabbi 岣nina said: No man ever consulted me about a wound inflicted by a white mule and recovered. This shows that people came to Rabbi 岣nina for medical advice.


讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讞讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讜讞讬讬转 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚诪讬转住讬 讘住讜诪拽谉 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讞讬讜专谉 专讬砖 讻专注讬讛讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉


The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: But we see that people who are kicked by mules do survive. The Gemara answers that instead it should say: No man ever consulted me about a wound of this kind and the wound survives, i.e., the wound never heals. The Gemara challenges this statement as well: But we see that it does heal. The Gemara responds: We say that the wound will never heal only when the mules are red and the tops of their legs are white.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽砖讬砖 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讗诇转谉 讻砖讗讬诇讛 砖诇 专讗砖讜谞讬诐


The Gemara returns to its previous question. In any event, one can learn from this discussion that Rabbi 岣nina was older than Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Why, then, does Rabbi 岣nina refer to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as a member of an earlier generation? Rather, we must explain that this is what he said, i.e., that Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement should be understood as follows: Their question is like the question of the early ones. In other words, Rabbi 岣nina meant that this question, posed by a member of a later generation, is as difficult as that of the early Sages.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专


The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi 岣nina actually say that this question, of one High Priest using the incense scooped by another, was difficult to answer? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina say: 鈥淲ith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull鈥 (Leviticus 16:3); this means that the High Priest must enter with the offering of a bull and not with the blood of the bull? In other words, the High Priest himself must slaughter his bull. Should a different priest slaughter the bull, receive its blood, and then die, the priest who replaces him may not enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull slaughtered by his predecessor. Instead, he must bring a new bull, slaughter it, collect its blood, and take that blood inside.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讟讜专转 砖讞驻谞讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟转 讛驻专 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


And likewise, Rabbi 岣nina said: If the priest scooped the incense before the slaughtering of the bull, he did nothing, as the handful of incense must be taken after the slaughter of the bull. If so, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, it is impossible for a priest to enter the Sanctuary with the handful taken by his fellow priest. The reason is that if the first priest died after the handful was taken, he certainly has not yet entered with the blood he collected from the bull. Consequently, his slaughter was not effective for the substitute priest, who must repeat the entire service from the slaughter onward.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讚拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪讻诇诇 讚拽住讘专 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 讜诇诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 砖讗讬诇转讜 讻砖讗讬诇转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐


The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi 岣nina said: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raised this dilemma, it can be understood by inference that he holds that the verse 鈥渨ith a bull鈥 means that the High Priest may enter the Holy of Holies even with the blood of a bull. This means that the second priest does not have to go back and slaughter a second bull. And according to that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains, his question is like the question of the earlier generations. Although the question does not arise according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina himself, according to the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the question is indeed a difficult one.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 讞讜驻谉 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住 讘讞驻讬谞转讜 讚讛讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讞驻讬谞讛 讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 转讘注讬 诇讱


The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? What in fact is the ruling in a situation where the High Priest took a handful of incense and then died? May the newly appointed High Priest use the handful that has already been scooped, or does he require a new handful? Rav Pappa said: The resolution of this question depends on a different problem. If the High Priest scoops the handful when he takes the incense from the coal pan, and again scoops a handful in the Holy of Holies, this would mean that another priest may enter with the handful of the first High Priest, as the mitzva of scooping the handful has been fulfilled. However, if the High Priest does not scoop and again scoop, let the dilemma be raised.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讗讞专 讘讞驻讬谞转讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜驻谉 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 转讬讘注讬 诇讱


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, if the High Priest scoops and again scoops, another priest should not be permitted to enter with his handful, as it is impossible that the new handful will be neither less nor more than the amount of the first handful, which means the handful will not have been taken properly. But conversely, if he does not scoop and again scoop, let the dilemma be raised, as the mitzva of taking a handful has already been fulfilled by the first priest, and the second priest has merely to place the incense on the coals.


讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讜驻谉 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讬讚转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻砖诐 砖诪讚转讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讻讱 诪讚转讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐


The Gemara explains the background to this problem. As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the High Priest scoop a handful from the incense once and again scoop a handful a second time in the Holy of Holies, or does he not scoop a second time? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: This was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that just as its measure is on the outside, so is its measure on the inside, i.e., there is no need to scoop another handful, as this is its fixed measure that he pours onto the coal pan.


诇讗 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 suggestion: No, that is not necessarily the correct interpretation of the mishna. Perhaps it means that if he wants to measure a precise amount for his handful, he may measure with a utensil for this purpose. Alternatively, it could mean that he may take neither less nor more than the measure he initially took. Consequently, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to whether the High Priest must scoop a second handful.


转讗 砖诪注


The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita:


讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讗讜讞讝 讗转 讛讘讝讱 讘专讗砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讜诪注诇讛 讘讙讜讚诇讜 注讚 砖诪讙注转 诇讘讬谉 讗爪讬诇讬 讬讚讬讜 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 诇转讜讱 讞驻谞讬讜 讜爪讜讘专讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 注砖谞讛 砖讜讛讛 诇讘讜讗 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻讝专讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 注砖谞讛 诪诪讛专转 诇讘讜讗


How should the High Priest act in the Holy of Holies, when he needs to place the incense on the coals by taking a handful from the spoon and placing it in his hands? After he places the coal pan on the ground, he holds the front of the ladle, i.e., the spoon of incense, with his fingertips, and some say he holds it with his teeth. At this stage the handle of the spoon rests between his arms. And he pushes it and raises it up slowly with his thumb toward his body until it reaches between his elbows, which he then uses to turn it over. He then returns the incense into his palms, after which he pours it from his hands into the coal pan. And he heaps the incense into a pile on the coals so that its smoke rises slowly. And some say he does the opposite, that he scatters it so that its smoke rises quickly.


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 拽诪讬爪讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 拽砖讛 诪注讘讜讚讜转 拽砖讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And this taking of a handful of incense 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 a handful of a meal-offering, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of incense is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple, rather than the single most difficult one. In any event, you can learn from this that the High Priest scoops a handful and again scoops. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讞讟 讜诪转 诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讬讻谞住 讗讞专 讘讚诪讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a High Priest slaughtered the bull and died, what is the halakha with regard to whether another High Priest may enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull that his predecessor slaughtered? Do we say that the verse: 鈥淲ith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull鈥 (Leviticus 16:3) teaches that the priest must enter with the blood of a bull, but it need not necessarily be the blood of the bull he himself slaughtered, and in that case he may enter even with the blood of a bull slaughtered by someone else? Or perhaps the verse should be interpreted precisely: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and not with the blood of a bull slaughtered by another?


专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专


The Sages disputed this matter. Rabbi 岣nina says: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and not with the blood of a bull, which means that the newly appointed High Priest must slaughter another bull, as he can enter only with the blood of a bull he himself slaughtered. And Reish Lakish said: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and even with the blood of a bull. Likewise, Rabbi Ami said: 鈥淲ith a bull鈥 and not with the blood of a bull; Rabbi Yitz岣k said: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and even with the blood of a bull.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


Rabbi Ami raised an objection to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, the smith: To join a group of people who arranged to partake together of a single Paschal offering, individuals may register as part of a group and they may withdraw from it and join another group until the offering is slaughtered. And if it is so, that the blood of an animal is considered part of the offering, this tanna who authored this statement should have said that they may withdraw until the blood is sprinkled. If, as you maintain, the blood of an offering is part of the offering itself, why can鈥檛 a person register to or withdraw from a group of a Paschal offering until its blood is sprinkled?


砖谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讛讬讜转 诪砖讛 诪讞讬讜转讛 讚砖讛


He answered him: It is different there, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if the household is too small for a lamb [mehiyot miseh], he and his neighbor who is next to his house鈥 (Exodus 12:4). The phrase 鈥mehiyot miseh鈥 is read as mei岣yutei deseh, from the life of a lamb. In other words, one can withdraw from a group only as long as the lamb is alive. If so, its blood is not considered part of the Paschal lamb by a special decree of the Torah, which does not apply to Yom Kippur.


诪转讬讘 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讙诇 讜诇讗 讘讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讘砖讞讜讟讛 讜诇讗 讘讟专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讻讜讬 讗诇讗 讘砖讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讬诇讬祝 砖讛 砖讛 诪驻住讞


Mar Zutra raised an objection: And one may not redeem a male firstborn donkey with a calf, nor with an undomesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered lamb, nor with an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], nor with the product of the prohibited crossbreeding of a lamb and a goat, nor with a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal, but with a lamb. This proves that a slaughtered animal is not considered a lamb. The Gemara rejects this claim: It is different there, as that tanna derives a verbal analogy of 鈥渓amb鈥 (Exodus 13:13) and 鈥渓amb鈥 (Exodus 12:4) from the Paschal offering: Just as a slaughtered lamb cannot be used for a Paschal offering, the same applies to the case of a firstborn donkey.


讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝讻专 转诐 讜讘谉 砖谞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝讻专 转诐 讜讘谉 砖谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 专讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, the Paschal offering must be male, unblemished, and a year old, so too here, for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, one should be obligated to use a male that is unblemished and a year old. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you shall not redeem it, then you shall break its neck鈥 (Exodus 13:13). The repetition of: 鈥淵ou shall redeem,鈥 鈥測ou shall not redeem,鈥 serves to amplify the definition of the offering and include other animals as acceptable for this redemption, not merely those fit for the Paschal offering.


讗讬 转驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 砖讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: If the phrases 鈥淵ou shall redeem鈥 鈥測ou shall redeem鈥 serve to amplify, even all animals should also be fit for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, including a calf, undomesticated beast, a slaughtered animal, and the other exceptions listed above. The Gemara answers: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of 鈥渓amb鈥 serve? Rather, it is evident that certain animals are included while others are excluded. In any case, it is clear that the halakha of the blood of the bull on Yom Kippur cannot be derived from here.


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.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

alon shvut women

The Blood of the Bull

Yoma Daf 49 We begin today鈥檚 daf with a Baraita challenging Rav Sheshet鈥檚 position that carrying the blood of a...
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 49: Vying for Bragging Rights: The Most Difficult Service

What if a replacement kohen gadol is needed, whether because of death, Impurity, or anything else? Can the initial scooping...

Yoma 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 49

诪讬转讬讘讬 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉 砖讬讻讜专 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘拽讘诇讛 讜讘讛讜诇讻讛 讜讘讝专讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讜讻谉 讬讜砖讘 讜讻谉 砖诪讗诇 驻住讜诇 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to receiving, carrying, or sprinkling blood, if a non-priest, a mourner on his first day of mourning, a drunk priest, and a blemished priest, performed the rite, it is disqualified. And likewise if the priest was sitting, and likewise if he performed one of these rites with his left hand, it is disqualified. This statement contradicts the ruling of Rav Sheshet. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation, and Rav Sheshet鈥檚 opinion is rejected.


讜讛讗 专讘 砖砖转 讛讜讗 讚讗讜转讘讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗诪讜专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜诇讻讛 讘讝专 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖讬专讛 讜诪拽专讗 诪住讬讬注谞讬 讜讬砖讞讟讜 讛驻住讞 讜讬讝专拽讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪讬讚诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪驻砖讬讟讬诐


The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet the one who objected on the basis of this very baraita? As Rav Sheshet said to the interpreter of Rav 岣sda: Raise the following dilemma before Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha with regard to carrying the blood performed by a non-priest? He said to him: It is valid, and a verse supports me: 鈥淎nd they slaughtered the Paschal offering and the priests sprinkled with their hand, and the Levites flayed鈥 (II Chronicles 35:11). This verse indicates that the priests took the blood from the hands of the Levites, from which it can be inferred that the Levites carried the blood from the place of slaughtering to the place of sprinkling.


讜诪讜转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉 砖讬讻讜专 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讘拽讘诇讛 讜讘讛讜诇讻讛 讜讘讝专讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讜讻谉 讬讜砖讘 讜讻谉 砖诪讗诇 驻住讜诇


And Rav Sheshet objected based on the aforementioned baraita: With regard to receiving, carrying, or sprinkling blood, if a non-priest, a mourner on his first day of mourning, a drunk priest, and a blemished priest, performed the rite, it is disqualified. This statement proves that carrying cannot be performed by a non-priest. Since Rav Sheshet himself cited this baraita in his objection, he was certainly familiar with it. How, then, could he issue a ruling in contradiction to the baraita?


讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 讛讚专 讗讜转讘讛 讜讛讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 讚注讘讜讚 诪注砖讛 讗讬爪讟讘讗


The Gemara explains: After Rav Sheshet heard the baraita that was cited against his opinion, he objected to the ruling of Rav 岣sda from that same baraita. At first Rav Sheshet was unaware of the baraita, which is why he ruled against it, but when he learned it, he relied upon it to object to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda cite a verse in support of his opinion? How can a baraita contradict a verse? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that the Levites walked with the blood, but rather that they acted like benches and merely stood holding the bowls of blood in their hands.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讞驻谉 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞转谉 诇转讜讱 讞驻谞讬讜 诪讛讜 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 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


搂 The Gemara returns to the issue of appropriate methods for taking handfuls of incense. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a case where another priest scooped and placed the incense into the hands of the High Priest? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the question: Do we require: 鈥淗is full hands,鈥 and that is fulfilled here, as in practice the High Priest has a handful of incense? Or perhaps we require that the High Priest must fulfill the mitzvot: 鈥淎nd he shall take鈥nd he shall bring鈥 (Leviticus 16:12), and that is not the case here, as the High Priest did not scoop and take the incense himself? This question was also left unanswered, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞驻谉 讜诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬讻谞住 讗讞专 讘讞驻讬谞转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖讗诇转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐


Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raised a dilemma: If the High Priest scooped and died, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that another High Priest may replace him and enter with his handful? May the second priest enter the Holy of Holies with the incense that the first priest scooped, or must he start from the beginning of the process? Rabbi 岣nina said to his students in excitement: Come and see that Sages from a later generation were able to ask a difficult question on par with the question of the earlier generations. Even I, Rabbi 岣nina, asked this same question, which was posed by my elder, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 拽砖讬砖 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讬 讛转讬专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇砖转讜转 砖讞诇讬讬诐 讘砖讘转


The Gemara analyzes this comment: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was older than Rabbi 岣nina, which is why Rabbi 岣nina referred to him as an early Sage? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: Rabbi 岣nina permitted me to drink cress juice on Shabbat for medicinal purposes. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 deference to Rabbi 岣nina shows that Rabbi 岣nina was older than him.


诇砖转讜转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 讜讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 砖讜转讛


Since it has been raised, the Gemara addresses the issue of cress juice on Shabbat: Did Rabbi 岣nina permit him to drink cress juice? It is obvious that it is permitted to drink this juice; why would it be prohibited? As we learned in a mishna: All types of food that healthy people eat may be eaten by people even for medicinal purposes, and one may likewise drink all drinks for medicinal purposes, as the Sages did not include these in their decree against taking medicine on Shabbat.


讗诇讗 诇砖讞讜拽 讜诇砖转讜转 砖讞诇讬讬诐 讘砖讘转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 住讻谞转讗 诪砖专讗 砖专讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 住讻谞转讗 诪讬住专 讗住讬专 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬讻讗 住讻谞转讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬 诪住讬讗 讚谞讬讞讜诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讘转讗 讗讜 诇讗 诪住讬讗 讜诇讗 谞讬讞讜诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖讘转讗


Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 question was: Is it permitted to grind and drink cress on Shabbat? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it involves a situation where there is danger to life, and this is the prescribed cure, it is certainly permitted; and if it is a case where there is no danger, it is prohibited as labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Actually, the question concerns a case where there is a life-threatening danger, and this is the dilemma that he raised before him: Does this drink heal, which would mean that it is appropriate to violate Shabbat for it, or does it not heal, and therefore one should not violate Shabbat for it?


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘拽讬 讘专驻讜讗讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 砖讗诇谞讬 讗讚诐 注诇 诪讻转 驻专讚讛 诇讘谞讛 讜讞讬讛


The Gemara asks: And if this was not a halakhic question but a medical one, what is different about this question that led him to ask it specifically of Rabbi 岣nina? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked Rabbi 岣nina because he is an expert in medicines, as Rabbi 岣nina said: No man ever consulted me about a wound inflicted by a white mule and recovered. This shows that people came to Rabbi 岣nina for medical advice.


讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讞讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讜讞讬讬转 讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚诪讬转住讬 讘住讜诪拽谉 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讞讬讜专谉 专讬砖 讻专注讬讛讜 拽讗诪专讬谞谉


The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: But we see that people who are kicked by mules do survive. The Gemara answers that instead it should say: No man ever consulted me about a wound of this kind and the wound survives, i.e., the wound never heals. The Gemara challenges this statement as well: But we see that it does heal. The Gemara responds: We say that the wound will never heal only when the mules are red and the tops of their legs are white.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽砖讬砖 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讗诇转谉 讻砖讗讬诇讛 砖诇 专讗砖讜谞讬诐


The Gemara returns to its previous question. In any event, one can learn from this discussion that Rabbi 岣nina was older than Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Why, then, does Rabbi 岣nina refer to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as a member of an earlier generation? Rather, we must explain that this is what he said, i.e., that Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 statement should be understood as follows: Their question is like the question of the early ones. In other words, Rabbi 岣nina meant that this question, posed by a member of a later generation, is as difficult as that of the early Sages.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专


The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi 岣nina actually say that this question, of one High Priest using the incense scooped by another, was difficult to answer? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina say: 鈥淲ith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull鈥 (Leviticus 16:3); this means that the High Priest must enter with the offering of a bull and not with the blood of the bull? In other words, the High Priest himself must slaughter his bull. Should a different priest slaughter the bull, receive its blood, and then die, the priest who replaces him may not enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull slaughtered by his predecessor. Instead, he must bring a new bull, slaughter it, collect its blood, and take that blood inside.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讟讜专转 砖讞驻谞讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟转 讛驻专 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


And likewise, Rabbi 岣nina said: If the priest scooped the incense before the slaughtering of the bull, he did nothing, as the handful of incense must be taken after the slaughter of the bull. If so, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, it is impossible for a priest to enter the Sanctuary with the handful taken by his fellow priest. The reason is that if the first priest died after the handful was taken, he certainly has not yet entered with the blood he collected from the bull. Consequently, his slaughter was not effective for the substitute priest, who must repeat the entire service from the slaughter onward.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讚拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪讻诇诇 讚拽住讘专 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 讜诇诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 砖讗讬诇转讜 讻砖讗讬诇转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐


The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi 岣nina said: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raised this dilemma, it can be understood by inference that he holds that the verse 鈥渨ith a bull鈥 means that the High Priest may enter the Holy of Holies even with the blood of a bull. This means that the second priest does not have to go back and slaughter a second bull. And according to that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains, his question is like the question of the earlier generations. Although the question does not arise according to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina himself, according to the ruling of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the question is indeed a difficult one.


诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 讞讜驻谉 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住 讘讞驻讬谞转讜 讚讛讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讞驻讬谞讛 讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 转讘注讬 诇讱


The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? What in fact is the ruling in a situation where the High Priest took a handful of incense and then died? May the newly appointed High Priest use the handful that has already been scooped, or does he require a new handful? Rav Pappa said: The resolution of this question depends on a different problem. If the High Priest scoops the handful when he takes the incense from the coal pan, and again scoops a handful in the Holy of Holies, this would mean that another priest may enter with the handful of the first High Priest, as the mitzva of scooping the handful has been fulfilled. However, if the High Priest does not scoop and again scoop, let the dilemma be raised.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 诇讗 讬讻谞住 讗讞专 讘讞驻讬谞转讜 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜驻谉 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 转讬讘注讬 诇讱


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, if the High Priest scoops and again scoops, another priest should not be permitted to enter with his handful, as it is impossible that the new handful will be neither less nor more than the amount of the first handful, which means the handful will not have been taken properly. But conversely, if he does not scoop and again scoop, let the dilemma be raised, as the mitzva of taking a handful has already been fulfilled by the first priest, and the second priest has merely to place the incense on the coals.


讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讜驻谉 讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讱 讛讬转讛 诪讬讚转讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻砖诐 砖诪讚转讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讻讱 诪讚转讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐


The Gemara explains the background to this problem. As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does the High Priest scoop a handful from the incense once and again scoop a handful a second time in the Holy of Holies, or does he not scoop a second time? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: This was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that just as its measure is on the outside, so is its measure on the inside, i.e., there is no need to scoop another handful, as this is its fixed measure that he pours onto the coal pan.


诇讗 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 suggestion: No, that is not necessarily the correct interpretation of the mishna. Perhaps it means that if he wants to measure a precise amount for his handful, he may measure with a utensil for this purpose. Alternatively, it could mean that he may take neither less nor more than the measure he initially took. Consequently, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to whether the High Priest must scoop a second handful.


转讗 砖诪注


The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita:


讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讗讜讞讝 讗转 讛讘讝讱 讘专讗砖 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖讬谞讬讜 讜诪注诇讛 讘讙讜讚诇讜 注讚 砖诪讙注转 诇讘讬谉 讗爪讬诇讬 讬讚讬讜 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讞讝讬专讛 诇转讜讱 讞驻谞讬讜 讜爪讜讘专讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 注砖谞讛 砖讜讛讛 诇讘讜讗 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻讝专讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 注砖谞讛 诪诪讛专转 诇讘讜讗


How should the High Priest act in the Holy of Holies, when he needs to place the incense on the coals by taking a handful from the spoon and placing it in his hands? After he places the coal pan on the ground, he holds the front of the ladle, i.e., the spoon of incense, with his fingertips, and some say he holds it with his teeth. At this stage the handle of the spoon rests between his arms. And he pushes it and raises it up slowly with his thumb toward his body until it reaches between his elbows, which he then uses to turn it over. He then returns the incense into his palms, after which he pours it from his hands into the coal pan. And he heaps the incense into a pile on the coals so that its smoke rises slowly. And some say he does the opposite, that he scatters it so that its smoke rises quickly.


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 拽诪讬爪讛 讗诇讗 讝讜 讛讬讗 注讘讜讚讛 拽砖讛 诪注讘讜讚讜转 拽砖讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讜驻谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜讞讜驻谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And this taking of a handful of incense 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 a handful of a meal-offering, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of incense is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple, rather than the single most difficult one. In any event, you can learn from this that the High Priest scoops a handful and again scoops. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讞讟 讜诪转 诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讬讻谞住 讗讞专 讘讚诪讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a High Priest slaughtered the bull and died, what is the halakha with regard to whether another High Priest may enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull that his predecessor slaughtered? Do we say that the verse: 鈥淲ith this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull鈥 (Leviticus 16:3) teaches that the priest must enter with the blood of a bull, but it need not necessarily be the blood of the bull he himself slaughtered, and in that case he may enter even with the blood of a bull slaughtered by someone else? Or perhaps the verse should be interpreted precisely: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and not with the blood of a bull slaughtered by another?


专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 讘驻专 讜诇讗 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘驻专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专


The Sages disputed this matter. Rabbi 岣nina says: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and not with the blood of a bull, which means that the newly appointed High Priest must slaughter another bull, as he can enter only with the blood of a bull he himself slaughtered. And Reish Lakish said: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and even with the blood of a bull. Likewise, Rabbi Ami said: 鈥淲ith a bull鈥 and not with the blood of a bull; Rabbi Yitz岣k said: 鈥淲ith a bull,鈥 and even with the blood of a bull.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 谞诪谞讬谉 讜诪讜砖讻讬谉 讬讚讬讛谉 诪诪谞讜 注讚 砖讬砖讞讟 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


Rabbi Ami raised an objection to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, the smith: To join a group of people who arranged to partake together of a single Paschal offering, individuals may register as part of a group and they may withdraw from it and join another group until the offering is slaughtered. And if it is so, that the blood of an animal is considered part of the offering, this tanna who authored this statement should have said that they may withdraw until the blood is sprinkled. If, as you maintain, the blood of an offering is part of the offering itself, why can鈥檛 a person register to or withdraw from a group of a Paschal offering until its blood is sprinkled?


砖谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讛讬讜转 诪砖讛 诪讞讬讜转讛 讚砖讛


He answered him: It is different there, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if the household is too small for a lamb [mehiyot miseh], he and his neighbor who is next to his house鈥 (Exodus 12:4). The phrase 鈥mehiyot miseh鈥 is read as mei岣yutei deseh, from the life of a lamb. In other words, one can withdraw from a group only as long as the lamb is alive. If so, its blood is not considered part of the Paschal lamb by a special decree of the Torah, which does not apply to Yom Kippur.


诪转讬讘 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讘注讙诇 讜诇讗 讘讞讬讛 讜诇讗 讘砖讞讜讟讛 讜诇讗 讘讟专讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讻讜讬 讗诇讗 讘砖讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讬诇讬祝 砖讛 砖讛 诪驻住讞


Mar Zutra raised an objection: And one may not redeem a male firstborn donkey with a calf, nor with an undomesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered lamb, nor with an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], nor with the product of the prohibited crossbreeding of a lamb and a goat, nor with a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal, but with a lamb. This proves that a slaughtered animal is not considered a lamb. The Gemara rejects this claim: It is different there, as that tanna derives a verbal analogy of 鈥渓amb鈥 (Exodus 13:13) and 鈥渓amb鈥 (Exodus 12:4) from the Paschal offering: Just as a slaughtered lamb cannot be used for a Paschal offering, the same applies to the case of a firstborn donkey.


讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝讻专 转诐 讜讘谉 砖谞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝讻专 转诐 讜讘谉 砖谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 专讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, the Paschal offering must be male, unblemished, and a year old, so too here, for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, one should be obligated to use a male that is unblemished and a year old. Therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you shall not redeem it, then you shall break its neck鈥 (Exodus 13:13). The repetition of: 鈥淵ou shall redeem,鈥 鈥測ou shall not redeem,鈥 serves to amplify the definition of the offering and include other animals as acceptable for this redemption, not merely those fit for the Paschal offering.


讗讬 转驻讚讛 转驻讚讛 专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 砖讛 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: If the phrases 鈥淵ou shall redeem鈥 鈥測ou shall redeem鈥 serve to amplify, even all animals should also be fit for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, including a calf, undomesticated beast, a slaughtered animal, and the other exceptions listed above. The Gemara answers: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of 鈥渓amb鈥 serve? Rather, it is evident that certain animals are included while others are excluded. In any case, it is clear that the halakha of the blood of the bull on Yom Kippur cannot be derived from here.


Scroll To Top