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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 2, 2021 | 讻状讘 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 52

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the upcoming birthdays of her grandchildren: Matan and Yakira in Baltimore, 2nd birthday; and Adin Abraham in Jerusalem, 1st birthday.

What exactly was the question regarding the status of the one cubit partition between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies? Ravina explains it and the gemara brings Rabbi Yochanan who quotes a question raised by Yosef Ish Hutzal about two possibilities to reading a verse regarding the partition to prove his reading. The gemara questions this as it is said in a braita that Isi ben Yehuda said there are five verses in the Torah that can be read in two different ways and this verse is not one of them and it is said that Yosef Ish Hutzal is the same person as Isi ben Yehuda. The mishna continues to describe the path the Kohen Gadol takes after reaching the parochet, partition between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Then it describes how he offered the incense in the Holy of Holies and the path he took to leave when he finished. In the Sanctuary, on the way out, he would recite a short prayer 鈥 short, so as not to worry the people outside that were concerned the Kohen Gadol may die upon entering the Holy of Holies. The mishna is confusing as the parochet was only in the Second Temple, but the Ark was only in the First Temple as it was hidden. Why was it hidden and by whom? What else was hidden with it? How can it be explained? There is a debate regarding how the incense is placed on the coals 鈥 all at once or gradually. There is also a debate regarding where on the coal pile 鈥 closer to the Ark or closer to where the Kohen Gadol is standing?

诇诪讬注诇 诇讛讚讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讞讘讬讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讛爪专讬讻谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖诇讬讞


to enter directly, as it is more appropriate for the High Priest to approach the Holy of Holies somewhat circuitously. And in response to this Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: The Jewish people are beloved by God, as the Torah did not require them to make use of an agent, e.g., an angel, to intercede on their behalf. Instead, God hears the nation鈥檚 prayers directly. Consequently, the High Priest, who represents the people on Yom Kippur, need not approach in a roundabout fashion.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 谞讬注讜诇 讘讬谉 诪谞讜专讛 诇讻讜转诇 诪砖讞专讬 诪讗谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: But if an indirect approach is a mark of respect, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, too, let the High Priest enter indirectly between the candelabrum and the wall. The Gemara answers: If the High Priest walks by that route, he might blacken his clothes through the soot left on the wall by the candelabrum.


讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 诇讗 讛讻专讬注讜 讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讬 讻诇讞讜抓


Rabbi Natan said: With regard to the one-cubit partition, the Sages did not determine its status, whether it was part of the inside of the Holy of Holies or part of the outside area of the Sanctuary.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬转 讗砖专 讘谞讛 讛诪诇讱 砖诇诪讛 诇讛壮 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗专讻讜 讜注砖专讬诐 专讞讘讜 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讛讬讛 讛讘讬转 讛讜讗 讛讛讬讻诇 诇驻谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讬专 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讜专讱 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 专讜讞讘 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讗讬 诪讛谞讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗讬 诪讛谞讬 讗专讘注讬诐


Ravina strongly objects to this opinion: What is the reason for this uncertainty? If we say it is because it is written: 鈥淎nd the House that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits in length, and its width was twenty cubits, and its height was thirty cubits鈥 (I Kings 6:2), and it is written: 鈥淎nd the House, that is, the Sanctuary, was forty cubits long鈥 (I Kings 6:17), and it is written: 鈥淎nd before the partition twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height鈥 (I Kings 6:20), and therefore we do not know whether the one-cubit partition was part of these twenty cubits of the Holy of Holies or part of these forty cubits of the Sanctuary, then this problem can be resolved.


讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 注砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗专讘注讬谉 讜讞诇诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讻讜转诇讬诐 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 转讚注 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讻讜转诇讬诐 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛


Ravina explains the resolution of the problem: But perhaps it was not part of these twenty cubits nor part of these forty cubits, as in establishing the measurements the verse counts the space but does not count the walls themselves, i.e., the cubit of the wall is not included in either measurement. Know that it is so, as anywhere that the verse counts the area of the walls in addition to the spaces they contain, it also counts the one-cubit partition.


讚转谞谉 讛讛讬讻诇 诪讗讛 注诇 诪讗讛 讘专讜诐 诪讗讛 讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讞诪砖 讜讛讗讜诇诐 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讻讜转诇 讛讛讬讻诇 砖砖 讜讗专讻讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讻讜转诇 讛讛讬讻诇 砖砖 讜讛转讗 砖砖 讜讻讜转诇 讛转讗 讞诪砖


Ravina cites a proof for the previous claim. As we learned in a mishna: The Sanctuary was one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, with a height of one hundred cubits. From east to west, the hundred cubits were divided as follows: The wall of the Entrance Hall was five cubits; and the Entrance Hall itself was eleven cubits; the wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits; the length of the Sanctuary itself was forty cubits; and there was the one-cubit partition; the Hall of the Holy of Holies was another twenty cubits; the outer wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits; and the chamber behind it was six cubits; and the wall of the chamber was five cubits. This mishna proves that when the walls are counted in addition to the spaces, the one-cubit partition is included in the calculation.


讗诇讗 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讗讬 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讬 讻诇讞讜抓


Rather, the uncertainty does not concern the location of the one-cubit partition, which was certainly positioned between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Instead, the issue is its sanctity, whether it was considered like the inside of the Holy of Holies or like the outside area of the Sanctuary. Since there was no such wall in the Second Temple, the Sages were uncertain with regard to the status of the extra cubit.


讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讬 讬讜住祝 讗讬砖 讛讜爪诇 讜讚讘讬专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 诪驻谞讬诪讛 讛讻讬谉 诇转转谉 砖诐 讗转 讗专讜谉 讘专讬转 讛壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽专讗


And this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Yosef of Hutzal raised a dilemma with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord鈥 (I Kings 6:19). This was his dilemma that was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the verse speaking?


讜讚讘讬专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 诪驻谞讬诪讛 讛讻讬谉 诇转转谉 砖诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讚讘讬专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 诪驻谞讬诪讛


The Gemara explains the dilemma. Should it be read: And Solomon prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there, meaning that he placed the partition within the Temple and behind it he prepared a space to place the Ark, and the partition itself did not possess the sanctity of the Holy of Holies? Or perhaps this is what the verse states: A partition in the midst of the House within, i.e., the verse ends there, while the rest of the text forms a new verse. According to this interpretation, the place of the partition itself was part of the Holy of Holies, and that was where Solomon prepared a place for the Ark.


讜诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 诪拽专讗讜转 讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讛讻专注


The Gemara is surprised at this explanation: And was Yosef of Hutzal really uncertain how to punctuate this verse? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided, i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read.


砖讗转


The first example is the term: Se鈥檈t (Genesis 4:7). It is unclear whether the verse should be read: 鈥淚f you do well, shall it not be lifted up [se鈥檈t]?鈥 in which case se鈥檈t involves forgiveness and pardon; or: 鈥淚f you do well, but you will lift up [se鈥檈t] your sin if you do not do well.鈥 According to this interpretation, se鈥檈t is referring to remembrance: If you do not do well, your sin will be remembered.


诪砖讜拽讚讬诐


The second uncertain case is the term: Meshukkadim (Exodus 25:34). This verse can be read: 鈥淎nd in the candelabrum four cups made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim]鈥; or as: 鈥淚ts knops and its flowers made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim].鈥 In other words, the term meshukkadim can be read either with the first part or the last part of the verse.


诪讞专


Likewise, the term: Ma岣r (Exodus 17:9) can be read: 鈥淎nd go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow [ma岣r]鈥. Alternatively, it can mean that Joshua must go out to war with Amalek immediately, and Moses added: 鈥淭omorrow [ma岣r] I will stand on the top of the hill鈥 (Exodus 17:9), but today you do not need my prayer. Once again, the issue is whether this term belongs to the beginning or the end of the verse.


讗专讜专


The fourth case is the term: Arur (Genesis 49:7). This verse can be read: 鈥淐ursed [arur] be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel,鈥 on account of Levi and Simeon鈥檚 treatment of Shechem. Alternatively, this term, which appears at the beginning of the verse, can be read as the last word of the previous verse: 鈥淎nd in their anger they cut off cursed [arur] oxen鈥 (Genesis 49:6鈥7). According to this interpretation, 鈥渃ursed oxen鈥 is referring to the oxen of Shechem, who descended from the accursed Canaan.


讜拽诐


Finally, the term: Vekam (Deuteronomy 31:16) can be read as: 鈥淏ehold, you are about to sleep with your fathers and rise up [vekam]鈥 at the time of the resurrection of the dead; or: 鈥淎nd this people will rise up [vekam] and go astray.鈥


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 讬讜住祝 讗讬砖 讛讜爪诇 讛讜讗 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讙讜专 讗专讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讜诪讛 砖诪讜 讗讬住讬 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 砖诪讜 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬讻讗 讘讚谞讘讬讗讬 讗讬讻讗


The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.


讜讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬砖诇讞 讗转 谞注专讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬注诇讜 注讜诇讜转 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讬讝讘讞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 驻专讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻专讬诐 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the Torah itself, are there no other examples of indeterminate punctuation? But there is this dilemma that Rav 岣sda raised with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he sent the young men of the children of Israel who sacrificed burnt-offerings鈥 (Exodus 24:5); were these burnt-offerings sheep, and when the verse continues: 鈥淎nd sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,鈥 these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps these and these were bulls, as the word 鈥渂ulls鈥 is referring both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings? This is another verse whose punctuation is unclear. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not difficult; according to Rav 岣sda it was uncertain how to read the verse, but the interpretation was obvious to Isi ben Yehuda.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讛讬转讛 驻专讜驻讛 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬诪讬转 诪谉 讛爪驻讜谉 诪讛诇讱 讘讬谞讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇爪驻讜谉 讛讙讬注 诇爪驻讜谉 讛讜驻讱 驻谞讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 诪讛诇讱 诇砖诪讗诇讜 注诐 讛驻专讜讻转 注讚 砖讛讜讗 诪讙讬注 诇讗专讜谉


MISHNA: The outer curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hooked [perufa] slightly open on the south side of the Sanctuary, and the inner curtain hooked slightly open on the north side of the Sanctuary, and therefore the High Priest could not enter the Holy of Holies directly. Rather, he enters through the southern opening and walks between the curtains until he reaches the opening to the north. When he reaches the opening to the north, he enters the Holy of Holies through that opening, turns his face to the south, and walks to his left along the curtain until he reaches the area before the Ark.


讛讙讬注 诇讗专讜谉 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讛讘讚讬诐 爪讘专 讗转 讛拽讟专转 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜谞转诪诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 注砖谉 讬爪讗 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘讚专讱 讘讬转 讻谞讬住转讜 讜诪转驻诇诇 转驻诇讛 拽爪专讛 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讗专讬讱 讘转驻诇转讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讘注讬转 讗转 讬砖专讗诇


When he reaches the Ark, he places the coal pan between the two staves. He piles the incense atop the coals, and the whole chamber in its entirety would fill with smoke. He then exits and comes out the way that he entered. He does not turn around but leaves the Holy of Holies walking while facing the Ark. And he recites a brief prayer in the outer chamber, in the Sanctuary. And he would not extend his prayer there so as not to alarm the Jewish people, who would otherwise conclude that something happened and that he died in the Holy of Holies.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 诪讬 讛讜讜 驻专讜讻转 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗专讜谉


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? To which time period is the mishna referring? If we say it is speaking about the First Temple, were there curtains then? There was only one curtain over the one-cubit partition. Rather, if we say that the mishna is dealing with the Second Temple, was there an Ark there?


讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖谞讙谞讝 讗专讜谉 谞讙谞讝讛 注诪讜 爪谞爪谞转 讛诪谉 讜爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜诪拽诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讜砖拽讚讬讛 讜驻专讞讬讛 讜讗专讙讝 砖砖讙专讜 驻诇砖转讬诐 讚讜专讜谉 诇讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇讬 讛讝讛讘 讗砖专 讛砖讬讘讜转诐 诇讜 讗砖诐 转砖讬诪讜 讘讗专讙讝 诪爪讚讜 讜砖诇讞转诐 讗讜转讜 讜讛诇讱


The Gemara elaborates: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that when the Ark was buried, along with it was buried the jar of manna that was next to it, and the flask of oil used for anointing, and Aaron鈥檚 staff with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift [doron] to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go鈥 (I Samuel 6:8)?


讜诪讬 讙谞讝讜 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讙谞讝讜 诪讛 专讗讛 砖讙谞讝讜 专讗讛 砖讻转讜讘 讬讜诇讱 讛壮 讗讜转讱 讜讗转 诪诇讻讱 讗砖专 转拽讬诐 注诇讬讱 注诪讚 讜讙谞讝讜


And who buried the Ark? Josiah, king of Judea, buried it. And what did he see that he decided to bury it? He saw that it is written: 鈥淭he Lord will bring you, and your king whom you shall set over you, to a nation that you have not known鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:36). Since he knew that the Jewish people would ultimately be exiled, he felt it was better that the Ark should not be disgraced in exile, and therefore he arose and buried it.


砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 诇诇讜讬诐 讛诪讘讬谞讬诐 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖讬诐 诇讛壮 转谞讜 讗转 讗专讜谉 讛拽讜讚砖 讘讘讬转 讗砖专 讘谞讛 砖诇诪讛 讘谉 讚讜讚 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诇讻诐 诪砖讗 讘讻转祝 注转讛 注讘讚讜 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讜讗转 注诪讜 讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara cites the source for the tradition that Josiah buried the Ark. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd he said to the Levites who taught all of Israel, who were sacred to the Lord: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, built. There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel鈥 (I Chronicles 35:3). In other words, from now onward the Levites will no longer carry the Ark on their shoulders, and they should dedicate themselves to their service of singing and locking the gates of the Temple.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗转讬讗 砖诪讛 砖诪讛 讜讗转讬讗 讚讜专讜转 讚讜专讜转


And Rabbi Elazar said: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy, as it is written with regard to the Ark: 鈥淭hat is by the Ark of the Testimony, before the Ark cover that is above the testimony, there will I meet with you鈥 (Exodus 30:6), and it is written: 鈥淭ake a jar and put a full omer of manna there, and place it before the Lord for safekeeping throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 16:33). And it is further derived by verbal analogy from the term 鈥淕enerations鈥 written here and 鈥済enerations鈥 written with regard to the oil used for anointing: 鈥淭his shall be a sacred anointing oil for Me throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:31).


讜讗转讬讗 诪砖诪专转 诪砖诪专转


Rabbi Elazar continued: And it is likewise derived by verbal analogy from the term 鈥渟afekeeping鈥 stated here and 鈥渟afekeeping鈥 stated in connection to the staff of Aaron: 鈥淧lace back the rod of Aaron before the testimony for safekeeping鈥 (Numbers 17:25). These verbal analogies teach that all of these items were hidden together with the Ark. Evidently, there was no Ark in the Holy of Holies even before the First Temple period ended. How, then, can the mishna speak of the Ark during the Second Temple period?


诇注讜诇诐 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讜诪讗讬 讛讙讬注 诇讗专讜谉 诪拽讜诐 讗专讜谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 谞转谉 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 诇讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讛讘讚讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讻讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讛讘讚讬诐


The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, and what is the meaning of the phrase: Reaches the Ark? It means the place of the Ark. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But it is taught that he places the coal pan between the two staves, which indicates that the staves of the Ark were present. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: As though it was between the two staves, i.e., in the place where the staves had been located when the Ark was there.


爪讘专 讗转 讛拽讟专转 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 转谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 爪讜讘专讛 转谞讬 讞讚讗 爪讜讘专讛 驻谞讬诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 爪讜讘专讛 讞讜爪讛 砖讛讬讗 驻谞讬诪讛 诇讜


搂 The mishna taught: He piles the incense atop the coals. The Gemara comments: We learned in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he piles the incense on the coals and does not scatter it there. It was taught in one baraita: He piles the incense in the section of the coal pan closest to the Ark, which is farthest from the High Priest, until he reaches the other side of the coal pan. And it was taught in another baraita: He piles it in the section of the coal pan farthest from the Ark, which is closest to him.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻谞讬诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讚转谞谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讝讛专


Abaye said that this issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. And Abaye said: It is reasonable to explain in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he piles the incense in the section of the coal pan closest to the Ark, which is farthest from him. As we learned in a mishna that they would teach the priest who burns the incense: Be careful

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 52 – 57 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies and burned the incense. We...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 52: Entering the Holy of Holies

How the kohen gadol needs to take a circuitous route to get to the Kodesh Kodashim... Or not. An the...

Yoma 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 52

诇诪讬注诇 诇讛讚讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讞讘讬讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讛爪专讬讻谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖诇讬讞


to enter directly, as it is more appropriate for the High Priest to approach the Holy of Holies somewhat circuitously. And in response to this Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: The Jewish people are beloved by God, as the Torah did not require them to make use of an agent, e.g., an angel, to intercede on their behalf. Instead, God hears the nation鈥檚 prayers directly. Consequently, the High Priest, who represents the people on Yom Kippur, need not approach in a roundabout fashion.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 谞讬注讜诇 讘讬谉 诪谞讜专讛 诇讻讜转诇 诪砖讞专讬 诪讗谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: But if an indirect approach is a mark of respect, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, too, let the High Priest enter indirectly between the candelabrum and the wall. The Gemara answers: If the High Priest walks by that route, he might blacken his clothes through the soot left on the wall by the candelabrum.


讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 诇讗 讛讻专讬注讜 讘讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讬 讻诇讞讜抓


Rabbi Natan said: With regard to the one-cubit partition, the Sages did not determine its status, whether it was part of the inside of the Holy of Holies or part of the outside area of the Sanctuary.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬转 讗砖专 讘谞讛 讛诪诇讱 砖诇诪讛 诇讛壮 砖砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗专讻讜 讜注砖专讬诐 专讞讘讜 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讛讬讛 讛讘讬转 讛讜讗 讛讛讬讻诇 诇驻谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讬专 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讜专讱 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 专讜讞讘 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 拽讜诪转讜 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讗讬 诪讛谞讬 注砖专讬诐 讜讗讬 诪讛谞讬 讗专讘注讬诐


Ravina strongly objects to this opinion: What is the reason for this uncertainty? If we say it is because it is written: 鈥淎nd the House that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits in length, and its width was twenty cubits, and its height was thirty cubits鈥 (I Kings 6:2), and it is written: 鈥淎nd the House, that is, the Sanctuary, was forty cubits long鈥 (I Kings 6:17), and it is written: 鈥淎nd before the partition twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height鈥 (I Kings 6:20), and therefore we do not know whether the one-cubit partition was part of these twenty cubits of the Holy of Holies or part of these forty cubits of the Sanctuary, then this problem can be resolved.


讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 注砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讗专讘注讬谉 讜讞诇诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讻讜转诇讬诐 诇讗 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 转讚注 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讻讜转诇讬诐 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛


Ravina explains the resolution of the problem: But perhaps it was not part of these twenty cubits nor part of these forty cubits, as in establishing the measurements the verse counts the space but does not count the walls themselves, i.e., the cubit of the wall is not included in either measurement. Know that it is so, as anywhere that the verse counts the area of the walls in addition to the spaces they contain, it also counts the one-cubit partition.


讚转谞谉 讛讛讬讻诇 诪讗讛 注诇 诪讗讛 讘专讜诐 诪讗讛 讻讜转诇 讗讜诇诐 讞诪砖 讜讛讗讜诇诐 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讻讜转诇 讛讛讬讻诇 砖砖 讜讗专讻讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讬转 拽讚砖讬 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讻讜转诇 讛讛讬讻诇 砖砖 讜讛转讗 砖砖 讜讻讜转诇 讛转讗 讞诪砖


Ravina cites a proof for the previous claim. As we learned in a mishna: The Sanctuary was one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits, with a height of one hundred cubits. From east to west, the hundred cubits were divided as follows: The wall of the Entrance Hall was five cubits; and the Entrance Hall itself was eleven cubits; the wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits; the length of the Sanctuary itself was forty cubits; and there was the one-cubit partition; the Hall of the Holy of Holies was another twenty cubits; the outer wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits; and the chamber behind it was six cubits; and the wall of the chamber was five cubits. This mishna proves that when the walls are counted in addition to the spaces, the one-cubit partition is included in the calculation.


讗诇讗 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讗讬 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讗讬 讻诇讞讜抓


Rather, the uncertainty does not concern the location of the one-cubit partition, which was certainly positioned between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Instead, the issue is its sanctity, whether it was considered like the inside of the Holy of Holies or like the outside area of the Sanctuary. Since there was no such wall in the Second Temple, the Sages were uncertain with regard to the status of the extra cubit.


讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注讬 讬讜住祝 讗讬砖 讛讜爪诇 讜讚讘讬专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 诪驻谞讬诪讛 讛讻讬谉 诇转转谉 砖诐 讗转 讗专讜谉 讘专讬转 讛壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽专讗


And this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Yosef of Hutzal raised a dilemma with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord鈥 (I Kings 6:19). This was his dilemma that was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the verse speaking?


讜讚讘讬专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 诪驻谞讬诪讛 讛讻讬谉 诇转转谉 砖诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讚讘讬专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 诪驻谞讬诪讛


The Gemara explains the dilemma. Should it be read: And Solomon prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there, meaning that he placed the partition within the Temple and behind it he prepared a space to place the Ark, and the partition itself did not possess the sanctity of the Holy of Holies? Or perhaps this is what the verse states: A partition in the midst of the House within, i.e., the verse ends there, while the rest of the text forms a new verse. According to this interpretation, the place of the partition itself was part of the Holy of Holies, and that was where Solomon prepared a place for the Ark.


讜诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 诪拽专讗讜转 讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讛讻专注


The Gemara is surprised at this explanation: And was Yosef of Hutzal really uncertain how to punctuate this verse? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided, i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read.


砖讗转


The first example is the term: Se鈥檈t (Genesis 4:7). It is unclear whether the verse should be read: 鈥淚f you do well, shall it not be lifted up [se鈥檈t]?鈥 in which case se鈥檈t involves forgiveness and pardon; or: 鈥淚f you do well, but you will lift up [se鈥檈t] your sin if you do not do well.鈥 According to this interpretation, se鈥檈t is referring to remembrance: If you do not do well, your sin will be remembered.


诪砖讜拽讚讬诐


The second uncertain case is the term: Meshukkadim (Exodus 25:34). This verse can be read: 鈥淎nd in the candelabrum four cups made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim]鈥; or as: 鈥淚ts knops and its flowers made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim].鈥 In other words, the term meshukkadim can be read either with the first part or the last part of the verse.


诪讞专


Likewise, the term: Ma岣r (Exodus 17:9) can be read: 鈥淎nd go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow [ma岣r]鈥. Alternatively, it can mean that Joshua must go out to war with Amalek immediately, and Moses added: 鈥淭omorrow [ma岣r] I will stand on the top of the hill鈥 (Exodus 17:9), but today you do not need my prayer. Once again, the issue is whether this term belongs to the beginning or the end of the verse.


讗专讜专


The fourth case is the term: Arur (Genesis 49:7). This verse can be read: 鈥淐ursed [arur] be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel,鈥 on account of Levi and Simeon鈥檚 treatment of Shechem. Alternatively, this term, which appears at the beginning of the verse, can be read as the last word of the previous verse: 鈥淎nd in their anger they cut off cursed [arur] oxen鈥 (Genesis 49:6鈥7). According to this interpretation, 鈥渃ursed oxen鈥 is referring to the oxen of Shechem, who descended from the accursed Canaan.


讜拽诐


Finally, the term: Vekam (Deuteronomy 31:16) can be read as: 鈥淏ehold, you are about to sleep with your fathers and rise up [vekam]鈥 at the time of the resurrection of the dead; or: 鈥淎nd this people will rise up [vekam] and go astray.鈥


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 讬讜住祝 讗讬砖 讛讜爪诇 讛讜讗 讬讜住祝 讛讘讘诇讬 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讙讜专 讗专讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讜讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 诪讛诇诇讗诇 讜诪讛 砖诪讜 讗讬住讬 讘谉 注拽讬讘讗 砖诪讜 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬讻讗 讘讚谞讘讬讗讬 讗讬讻讗


The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.


讜讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讬砖诇讞 讗转 谞注专讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬注诇讜 注讜诇讜转 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讬讝讘讞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 驻专讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻专讬诐 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the Torah itself, are there no other examples of indeterminate punctuation? But there is this dilemma that Rav 岣sda raised with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he sent the young men of the children of Israel who sacrificed burnt-offerings鈥 (Exodus 24:5); were these burnt-offerings sheep, and when the verse continues: 鈥淎nd sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,鈥 these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps these and these were bulls, as the word 鈥渂ulls鈥 is referring both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings? This is another verse whose punctuation is unclear. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not difficult; according to Rav 岣sda it was uncertain how to read the verse, but the interpretation was obvious to Isi ben Yehuda.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讛讬转讛 驻专讜驻讛 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 讜驻谞讬诪讬转 诪谉 讛爪驻讜谉 诪讛诇讱 讘讬谞讬讛谉 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇爪驻讜谉 讛讙讬注 诇爪驻讜谉 讛讜驻讱 驻谞讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 诪讛诇讱 诇砖诪讗诇讜 注诐 讛驻专讜讻转 注讚 砖讛讜讗 诪讙讬注 诇讗专讜谉


MISHNA: The outer curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hooked [perufa] slightly open on the south side of the Sanctuary, and the inner curtain hooked slightly open on the north side of the Sanctuary, and therefore the High Priest could not enter the Holy of Holies directly. Rather, he enters through the southern opening and walks between the curtains until he reaches the opening to the north. When he reaches the opening to the north, he enters the Holy of Holies through that opening, turns his face to the south, and walks to his left along the curtain until he reaches the area before the Ark.


讛讙讬注 诇讗专讜谉 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讛讘讚讬诐 爪讘专 讗转 讛拽讟专转 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜谞转诪诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 注砖谉 讬爪讗 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘讚专讱 讘讬转 讻谞讬住转讜 讜诪转驻诇诇 转驻诇讛 拽爪专讛 讘讘讬转 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诪讗专讬讱 讘转驻诇转讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讘注讬转 讗转 讬砖专讗诇


When he reaches the Ark, he places the coal pan between the two staves. He piles the incense atop the coals, and the whole chamber in its entirety would fill with smoke. He then exits and comes out the way that he entered. He does not turn around but leaves the Holy of Holies walking while facing the Ark. And he recites a brief prayer in the outer chamber, in the Sanctuary. And he would not extend his prayer there so as not to alarm the Jewish people, who would otherwise conclude that something happened and that he died in the Holy of Holies.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 诪讬 讛讜讜 驻专讜讻转 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗专讜谉


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? To which time period is the mishna referring? If we say it is speaking about the First Temple, were there curtains then? There was only one curtain over the one-cubit partition. Rather, if we say that the mishna is dealing with the Second Temple, was there an Ark there?


讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖谞讙谞讝 讗专讜谉 谞讙谞讝讛 注诪讜 爪谞爪谞转 讛诪谉 讜爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜诪拽诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讜砖拽讚讬讛 讜驻专讞讬讛 讜讗专讙讝 砖砖讙专讜 驻诇砖转讬诐 讚讜专讜谉 诇讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇讬 讛讝讛讘 讗砖专 讛砖讬讘讜转诐 诇讜 讗砖诐 转砖讬诪讜 讘讗专讙讝 诪爪讚讜 讜砖诇讞转诐 讗讜转讜 讜讛诇讱


The Gemara elaborates: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that when the Ark was buried, along with it was buried the jar of manna that was next to it, and the flask of oil used for anointing, and Aaron鈥檚 staff with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift [doron] to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go鈥 (I Samuel 6:8)?


讜诪讬 讙谞讝讜 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讙谞讝讜 诪讛 专讗讛 砖讙谞讝讜 专讗讛 砖讻转讜讘 讬讜诇讱 讛壮 讗讜转讱 讜讗转 诪诇讻讱 讗砖专 转拽讬诐 注诇讬讱 注诪讚 讜讙谞讝讜


And who buried the Ark? Josiah, king of Judea, buried it. And what did he see that he decided to bury it? He saw that it is written: 鈥淭he Lord will bring you, and your king whom you shall set over you, to a nation that you have not known鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:36). Since he knew that the Jewish people would ultimately be exiled, he felt it was better that the Ark should not be disgraced in exile, and therefore he arose and buried it.


砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 诇诇讜讬诐 讛诪讘讬谞讬诐 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛拽讚讜砖讬诐 诇讛壮 转谞讜 讗转 讗专讜谉 讛拽讜讚砖 讘讘讬转 讗砖专 讘谞讛 砖诇诪讛 讘谉 讚讜讚 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诇讻诐 诪砖讗 讘讻转祝 注转讛 注讘讚讜 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 讜讗转 注诪讜 讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara cites the source for the tradition that Josiah buried the Ark. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd he said to the Levites who taught all of Israel, who were sacred to the Lord: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, built. There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel鈥 (I Chronicles 35:3). In other words, from now onward the Levites will no longer carry the Ark on their shoulders, and they should dedicate themselves to their service of singing and locking the gates of the Temple.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗转讬讗 砖诪讛 砖诪讛 讜讗转讬讗 讚讜专讜转 讚讜专讜转


And Rabbi Elazar said: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy, as it is written with regard to the Ark: 鈥淭hat is by the Ark of the Testimony, before the Ark cover that is above the testimony, there will I meet with you鈥 (Exodus 30:6), and it is written: 鈥淭ake a jar and put a full omer of manna there, and place it before the Lord for safekeeping throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 16:33). And it is further derived by verbal analogy from the term 鈥淕enerations鈥 written here and 鈥済enerations鈥 written with regard to the oil used for anointing: 鈥淭his shall be a sacred anointing oil for Me throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:31).


讜讗转讬讗 诪砖诪专转 诪砖诪专转


Rabbi Elazar continued: And it is likewise derived by verbal analogy from the term 鈥渟afekeeping鈥 stated here and 鈥渟afekeeping鈥 stated in connection to the staff of Aaron: 鈥淧lace back the rod of Aaron before the testimony for safekeeping鈥 (Numbers 17:25). These verbal analogies teach that all of these items were hidden together with the Ark. Evidently, there was no Ark in the Holy of Holies even before the First Temple period ended. How, then, can the mishna speak of the Ark during the Second Temple period?


诇注讜诇诐 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讜诪讗讬 讛讙讬注 诇讗专讜谉 诪拽讜诐 讗专讜谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 谞转谉 讗转 讛诪讞转讛 诇讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讛讘讚讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讻讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讛讘讚讬诐


The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, and what is the meaning of the phrase: Reaches the Ark? It means the place of the Ark. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But it is taught that he places the coal pan between the two staves, which indicates that the staves of the Ark were present. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: As though it was between the two staves, i.e., in the place where the staves had been located when the Ark was there.


爪讘专 讗转 讛拽讟专转 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 转谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 爪讜讘专讛 转谞讬 讞讚讗 爪讜讘专讛 驻谞讬诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 爪讜讘专讛 讞讜爪讛 砖讛讬讗 驻谞讬诪讛 诇讜


搂 The mishna taught: He piles the incense atop the coals. The Gemara comments: We learned in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he piles the incense on the coals and does not scatter it there. It was taught in one baraita: He piles the incense in the section of the coal pan closest to the Ark, which is farthest from the High Priest, until he reaches the other side of the coal pan. And it was taught in another baraita: He piles it in the section of the coal pan farthest from the Ark, which is closest to him.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻谞讬诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讚转谞谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讝讛专


Abaye said that this issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. And Abaye said: It is reasonable to explain in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he piles the incense in the section of the coal pan closest to the Ark, which is farthest from him. As we learned in a mishna that they would teach the priest who burns the incense: Be careful

Scroll To Top