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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2021 | 讻状讛 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 55

The Kohen Gadol first sprinkles the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies. Then he slaughters the goat and sprinkles its blood. How is the sprinkling done 鈥 where? How many? In what direction? Is it the same for the bull and the goat? How is this all derived from the verses? The counting is done by also mentioning the one sparkling that was upwards at the time he is counting the downward ones. Why? Are there two stands or just one for the bloods of the bull and goat? Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Tana Kama. The gemara brings the Mishna Shekalim 6:4 to try to understand why Rabbi Yehuda holds that there was only one stand 鈥 is it because people may not read what is written and may make a mistake? The gemara rejects this possibility and explains the reason in Shekalim differently and as such, it does not teach us anything about our mishna.

讻诪谞讙讚谞讗 转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 注讜讘讬讛 砖诇 讻驻讜专转 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪爪讚讚 讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 诇诪讟讛 诪爪讚讚 讬讚讜 诇诪注诇讛

like one who lashes with a whip on the back of another and who occasionally strikes lower down. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not sprinkle on the top of the Ark cover; rather, he does so against the thickness of the Ark cover. When he sprinkles once upward, he turns his hand so that the back of his hand faces downward, and he then sprinkles upward. And when he sprinkles seven times downward, he turns his hand so its back is upward. However, he does not sprinkle on the Ark cover or below it, so that the blood does not actually come into contact with it.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讛 讗讜转讜 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讙诪专 诪诪讟讛 讚驻专

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the sprinklings do not actually touch the Ark cover, derived? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Zeira said: The verse states with regard to the goat sacrificed as a sin-offering: 鈥淎nd he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:15). The verse should not say downward, i.e., 鈥渂efore the Ark cover,鈥 with regard to the goat, as this is unnecessary; this requirement is derived from the term downward in connection with the bull.

诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 注诇 诇壮诇驻谞讬壮 诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讚诇讗讜 注诇 讗祝 注诇 讚诇讗讜 注诇

Since the rite performed with the blood of the goat is compared to the rite of the blood of the bull, why is the requirement that the High Priest must sprinkle downward stated twice? It is to juxtapose the phrase 鈥渦pon the Ark cover鈥 to 鈥渂efore the Ark cover鈥; just as 鈥渂efore鈥 means that it is not actually on the Ark cover but merely in front of it, so too, 鈥渦pon鈥 means that it is not actually on the Ark cover but in front of it, and the High Priest simply turns his hand upward.

讗讚专讘讛 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讙诪专 诪诪注诇讛 讚砖注讬专 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 诇驻谞讬 诇壮注诇壮 诪讛 注诇 注诇 诪诪砖 讗祝 诇驻谞讬 注诇 诪诪砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, the verse should not say upward, i.e., 鈥渂efore the Ark cover,鈥 with regard to the bull, as this is unnecessary; it is derived from the term upward stated in connection to the goat. Since the verse equates the two rituals, why does it state the upward sprinkling of the blood of the bull? It is to juxtapose the phrase 鈥渂efore the Ark cover,鈥 stated with regard to the bull, to 鈥渦pon the Ark cover,鈥 stated with regard to the goat; just as 鈥渦pon鈥 stated by the goat means actually upon, as indicated by the literal meaning of the verse, so too, 鈥渂efore鈥 means actually upon it, i.e., the blood of the goat should touch the thickness of the Ark cover.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讟讛 讚砖注讬专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 诇诪注诇讛 讚驻专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 注诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 拽讚诪讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 驻谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 拽讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇诪注诇讛 讚驻专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 诇诪讟讛 讚砖注讬专 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗

The Gemara expresses surprise at this suggestion: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that downward stated with regard to the goat is mentioned to juxtapose it to upward stated with regard to the bull, one needs the phrase 鈥渦pon the Ark cover,鈥 which deals with the blood of the bull, for that which the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught. As the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught: 鈥淯pon [al penei] the Ark cover to the east鈥 (Leviticus 16:14); this forms an analogy that applies to the entire Torah: Any place where it is stated 鈥渇ace [penei],鈥 it is referring to nothing other than the eastern side. However, if you say, as suggested by the question, that upward with regard to the bull is mentioned to juxtapose it to 鈥渦pward鈥 stated with regard to the goat, for what purpose does downward stated with regard to the goat come; what do we learn from this phrase? Rather, the first interpretation of the verse must be correct.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讝讛 讗转讜 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛

The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:15). We have thereby learned how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward for the goat, that is, one sprinkling, as it states: 鈥淎nd sprinkle.鈥 However, with regard to the sprinkling downward for the goat, before the Ark cover, I do not know how many times he must sprinkle.

讛专讬谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讗祝 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 砖讘注

I therefore derive the halakha from the verses. It states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as the blood that he sprinkles downward in the case of the bull consists of seven sprinklings, as the verse explicitly states: 鈥淎nd before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle seven times鈥 (Leviticus 16:14), so too, the sprinkling of the blood downward in the case of the goat is performed seven times.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 讗祝 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 诪讟讛 诪诪讟讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 诪讟讛 诪诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or one can go and reason this way: It states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the goat, and likewise it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as with regard to sprinkling upward in the case of the goat there is one sprinkling, so too, with regard to sprinkling downward in the case of the goat there is only one sprinkling. The Gemara comments: Let us see what case this resembles: One derives an act performed downward from another act that is downward, and one does not derive an act performed downward from an upward act.

讗讚专讘讛 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪注诇诪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讚诪讜 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诇讚诐 讛驻专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 注砖讬讜转讬讜 砖讜讜转 讻砖诐 砖诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讻讱 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 砖讘注

The Gemara retorts: On the contrary, one derives one aspect of a matter from another aspect of that same matter, i.e., one should infer the halakha with regard to the blood of the goat from another halakha involving that same blood, and one does not derive the halakha of that matter from an external matter. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull鈥 (Leviticus 16:15). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淎s he did,鈥 because the whole process is explicitly stated a second time, what then is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎s he did鈥? It comes to teach that all his actions should be alike, down to every detail. Consequently, just as the sprinklings downward in the case of the bull are seven, so too, the sprinklings downward in the case of the goat are seven.

诇诪讚谞讜 讻诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 讜讘砖注讬专 砖讘注 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛 讜讛专讬谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 讗祝 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讗讞转

We have thereby learned how many sprinklings are performed downward in the case of the bull and by the goat: Seven. However, I do not know how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward in the case of the bull. And I therefore derive the halakha as follows: It states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the goat, and it states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the bull. Just as with regard to the sprinkling upward in the case of the goat he sprinkles one time, as stated explicitly, so too, in the case of the bull he sprinkles upward one time.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讗祝 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 诪注诇讛 诪诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 诪注诇讛 诪诪讟讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or one can go and reason this way: It is stated that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and likewise it is stated that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the bull. Just as with regard to sprinkling downward in the case of the bull there are seven sprinklings, so too, with regard to sprinkling upward in the case of the bull there should be seven sprinklings. The Gemara comments: Let us see what case this resembles: One derives an act performed upward from another act that is performed upward, and one does not derive an act performed upward from a downward act.

讗讚专讘讛 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪注诇诪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讚诪讜 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 注砖讬讜转讬讜 砖讜讜转 讻砖诐 砖诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讻讱 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 砖讘注 讜讻砖诐 砖诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 讻讱 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讗讞转

The Gemara retorts: On the contrary, one derives one aspect of a matter from another aspect of that same matter, and one does not derive the halakha of that matter from an external matter. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with its blood as he did.鈥 As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淎s he did,鈥 because the whole process is explicitly stated a second time, what then is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎s he did鈥? It comes to teach that all his actions should be alike: Just as the sprinklings downward in the case of the bull are seven, so too, the sprinklings downward in the case of the goat are seven; and just as the sprinkling upward in the case of the goat is one, so too, the sprinkling upward in the case of the bull is one.

讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讞转 讜砖转讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讞转 讜砖转讬诐 讗讞转 讜砖诇砖 讗讞转 讜讗专讘注 讗讞转 讜讞诪砖 讗讞转 讜砖砖 讗讞转 讜砖讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞转 砖诇砖 讜讗讞转 讗专讘注 讜讗讞转 讞诪砖 讜讗讞转 砖砖 讜讗讞转 砖讘注 讜讗讞转

搂 The mishna states that the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two. The Sages taught in a baraita that when sprinkling, the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that he counted: One; one and one; two and one; three and one; four and one; five and one; six and one; seven and one.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

The Gemara comments: They do not disagree about the matter itself that the High Priest sprinkles once upward and seven times downward. Rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place, and this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place. In one place they counted the smaller number first, while in the other place they would count the larger number first.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讛讝讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪谞讬谉 注诐 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬讟注讛 讘讛讝讗讜转

The Gemara asks: In any case, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that the first sprinkling upward must be counted together with each and every one of the subsequent sprinklings. What is the reason for this? Why can鈥檛 the High Priest count the downward sprinklings separately? The Sages debated this matter. Rabbi Elazar said: The reason is so that he does not err in the sprinklings. If the High Priest were to count downward without including the first upward sprinkling, he might mistakenly think that his calculation includes the first sprinkling, which would lead him to add another one.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 讬讝讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讝讛 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讝讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诪谞讬谉 注诐 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the reason is that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle it with his finger upon the Ark cover, and before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle鈥 (Leviticus 16:14). As there is no need for the verse to state: He shall sprinkle鈥 again, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗e shall sprinkle鈥? This teaches with regard to the first sprinkling that it must be counted with each and every subsequent one, i.e., he must mention the first sprinkling every time.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讟注讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them concerns a case where he did not count the first sprinkling and did not err. That is acceptable according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas according to Rabbi Yo岣nan the High Priest acted incorrectly, as it is mitzva to count the first one.

讬爪讗 讜讛谞讬讞讜 注诇 讻谉 讛讝讛讘 砖讘讛讬讻诇 转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 砖讜驻专讜转 诇拽讬谞讬 讞讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛转注专讜讘讜转

搂 The mishna taught that the High Priest emerged and placed the bowl with the remaining blood of the bull on the golden pedestal in the Sanctuary, and later he placed the goat鈥檚 blood on a second pedestal, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda there was only one pedestal. The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 6:6) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There were no collection horns for obligatory nests, i.e., the pairs of pigeons or turtledoves brought as sin- and burnt-offerings by women after childbirth or other individuals, due to the concern of mixtures.

诪讗讬 诪驻谞讬 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讞讜讘讛 讘谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜谞注讘讬讚 转专讬 讜谞讻转讜讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讬 讚讞讜讘讛 讜讛讬 讚谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Due to a mixture? Rav Yosef said: It means due to the possible mixture of obligatory nests with free-will ones. There was concern lest the priests mix the money given for obligatory nests, which are sacrificed as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, with the money for free-will nests, which are sacrificed as a pair of burnt-offerings. Mixing the funds in this way would disqualify the birds. Abaye said to him: And let us prepare two collection horns and write on them which is the container for obligatory offerings and which is the one for free-will offerings. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda

诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗诇讗 讻谉 讗讞讚 讘诇讘讚 转专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞诇驻讬 讜谞注讘讬讚 转专讬 讜诇讬讻转讜讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讬 讚驻专 讜讛讬 讚砖注讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘讛

does not accept that one may rely on writing in a situation where an error is possible. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was only one pedestal in the Temple on which to place the blood. What is the reason that they did not place two pedestals there? The reason is because the pedestals might be exchanged for one another, and he might take the goat鈥檚 blood instead of that of the bull. But in that case, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the bull and which is for the goat. Rather, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept that one may rely on writing in a situation where error is possible.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖讜驻专讜转 讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讛讬讛 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛谉 转拽诇讬谉 讞讚转讬谉 讜转拽诇讬谉 注转讬拽讬谉 讜拽讬谞讬谉 讜讙讜讝诇讬 注讜诇讛 讜注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讝讛讘 诇讻驻讜专转 讜砖砖讛 诇谞讚讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection against this conclusion: There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and they were each inscribed with different names. On one container was written: New shekels. In this horn they placed shekels that were donated at the correct time that year. And on another horn the phrase old shekels was written, referring to coins from the past year that did not reach the Temple during the allotted period. On the other horns, the following phrases were written: Nests, for obligatory offerings consisting of pairs of pigeons or turtledoves; young birds for burnt-offerings; wood, for anyone who wished to donate wood; frankincense; and gold for the Ark cover. And there were six additional boxes designated for communal free-will offerings of all kinds.

转拽诇讬谉 讞讚转讬谉 讗诇讜 砖拽诇讬诐 砖诇 讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛 转拽诇讬谉 注转讬拽讬谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖拽诇 讗砖转拽讚 讬砖拽讜诇 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 拽讬谞讬谉 讛谉 转讜专讬谉 讙讜讝诇讬 注讜诇讛 讛谉 讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讻讜诇谉 注讜诇讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara explains: New shekels, these are the shekels of each and every year that arrive on time; old shekels, these are for one who did not donate a shekel the previous year, who must donate the next year; nests, these are the turtledoves brought as offerings; young birds for burnt-offerings, these are pigeons; and all these birds are burnt-offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, due to the potential mixture between the two. In any case, this shows that Rabbi Yehuda does rely on inscriptions written on containers, which contradicts the above claim that he does not rely on writing in these situations.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛砖讜诇讞 讞讟讗转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that this is a rabbinic decree due to the possible presence in the mixture of a sin-offering whose owners have died. Since a sin-offering of this kind must be left to die, if one of the donors of the coins in the sin-offering horn passes away, his funds cannot be used. The Gemara asks: And are we concerned about the possible death of a donor? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to one who sends his sin-offering from overseas, they sacrifice it for him on the presumption that he is alive, although he might have died in the meantime. This shows that the possibility of death is not taken into account.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讜讚讗讬 讜谞讘专讜专 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜谞砖讚讬 讘诪讬讗 讜讛谞讱 谞讬砖转专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 concern is due to a sin-offering whose owner has certainly died, lest it be confirmed that one of the people who donated money for a sin-offering bird has indeed died. The Gemara asks: Even so, this can be rectified, as let us select four zuz, the price of such an offering, and throw them into the water to be destroyed. It may be said that the money removed from the box was the money for the sin-offering whose owner died, and these other coins will be permitted. It will be clarified retroactively that these coins were designated for that purpose. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the rule of retroactive clarification. In his opinion, one cannot issue a designation after the fact. Consequently, he rejects this solution.

诪谞讗 诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬讬诐 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is indeed Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? If we say it is derived from that which we learned in the following mishna, there is a difficulty. The mishna states: With regard to one who buys wine from among the Samaritans, who do not tithe their produce properly, on Shabbat eve at nightfall and has no time to separate the tithe before Shabbat and to place the separated portions in distinct locations, he may arise and say: Two log of the one hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, after Shabbat, shall be the teruma gedola given to a priest, as the Sages mandated that one-fiftieth of one鈥檚 produce constitutes an average measure of teruma;

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 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 55: One and One, One and Two

The sprinkling of the blood of the bull and of the goat, in great detail - as it also appears...

Yoma 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 55

讻诪谞讙讚谞讗 转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 注讜讘讬讛 砖诇 讻驻讜专转 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪爪讚讚 讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 诇诪讟讛 诪爪讚讚 讬讚讜 诇诪注诇讛

like one who lashes with a whip on the back of another and who occasionally strikes lower down. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not sprinkle on the top of the Ark cover; rather, he does so against the thickness of the Ark cover. When he sprinkles once upward, he turns his hand so that the back of his hand faces downward, and he then sprinkles upward. And when he sprinkles seven times downward, he turns his hand so its back is upward. However, he does not sprinkle on the Ark cover or below it, so that the blood does not actually come into contact with it.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讛 讗讜转讜 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讙诪专 诪诪讟讛 讚驻专

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the sprinklings do not actually touch the Ark cover, derived? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Zeira said: The verse states with regard to the goat sacrificed as a sin-offering: 鈥淎nd he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:15). The verse should not say downward, i.e., 鈥渂efore the Ark cover,鈥 with regard to the goat, as this is unnecessary; this requirement is derived from the term downward in connection with the bull.

诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 注诇 诇壮诇驻谞讬壮 诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讚诇讗讜 注诇 讗祝 注诇 讚诇讗讜 注诇

Since the rite performed with the blood of the goat is compared to the rite of the blood of the bull, why is the requirement that the High Priest must sprinkle downward stated twice? It is to juxtapose the phrase 鈥渦pon the Ark cover鈥 to 鈥渂efore the Ark cover鈥; just as 鈥渂efore鈥 means that it is not actually on the Ark cover but merely in front of it, so too, 鈥渦pon鈥 means that it is not actually on the Ark cover but in front of it, and the High Priest simply turns his hand upward.

讗讚专讘讛 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讙诪专 诪诪注诇讛 讚砖注讬专 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 诇驻谞讬 诇壮注诇壮 诪讛 注诇 注诇 诪诪砖 讗祝 诇驻谞讬 注诇 诪诪砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, the verse should not say upward, i.e., 鈥渂efore the Ark cover,鈥 with regard to the bull, as this is unnecessary; it is derived from the term upward stated in connection to the goat. Since the verse equates the two rituals, why does it state the upward sprinkling of the blood of the bull? It is to juxtapose the phrase 鈥渂efore the Ark cover,鈥 stated with regard to the bull, to 鈥渦pon the Ark cover,鈥 stated with regard to the goat; just as 鈥渦pon鈥 stated by the goat means actually upon, as indicated by the literal meaning of the verse, so too, 鈥渂efore鈥 means actually upon it, i.e., the blood of the goat should touch the thickness of the Ark cover.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讟讛 讚砖注讬专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 诇诪注诇讛 讚驻专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 注诇 驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 拽讚诪讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 驻谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 拽讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇诪注诇讛 讚驻专 诇讗拽讜砖讬 诇诪讟讛 讚砖注讬专 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗

The Gemara expresses surprise at this suggestion: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that downward stated with regard to the goat is mentioned to juxtapose it to upward stated with regard to the bull, one needs the phrase 鈥渦pon the Ark cover,鈥 which deals with the blood of the bull, for that which the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught. As the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught: 鈥淯pon [al penei] the Ark cover to the east鈥 (Leviticus 16:14); this forms an analogy that applies to the entire Torah: Any place where it is stated 鈥渇ace [penei],鈥 it is referring to nothing other than the eastern side. However, if you say, as suggested by the question, that upward with regard to the bull is mentioned to juxtapose it to 鈥渦pward鈥 stated with regard to the goat, for what purpose does downward stated with regard to the goat come; what do we learn from this phrase? Rather, the first interpretation of the verse must be correct.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讝讛 讗转讜 注诇 讛讻驻讜专转 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 诇诪讚谞讜 讻诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛

The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover鈥 (Leviticus 16:15). We have thereby learned how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward for the goat, that is, one sprinkling, as it states: 鈥淎nd sprinkle.鈥 However, with regard to the sprinkling downward for the goat, before the Ark cover, I do not know how many times he must sprinkle.

讛专讬谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讗祝 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 砖讘注

I therefore derive the halakha from the verses. It states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as the blood that he sprinkles downward in the case of the bull consists of seven sprinklings, as the verse explicitly states: 鈥淎nd before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle seven times鈥 (Leviticus 16:14), so too, the sprinkling of the blood downward in the case of the goat is performed seven times.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 讗祝 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 诪讟讛 诪诪讟讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 诪讟讛 诪诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or one can go and reason this way: It states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the goat, and likewise it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as with regard to sprinkling upward in the case of the goat there is one sprinkling, so too, with regard to sprinkling downward in the case of the goat there is only one sprinkling. The Gemara comments: Let us see what case this resembles: One derives an act performed downward from another act that is downward, and one does not derive an act performed downward from an upward act.

讗讚专讘讛 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪注诇诪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讚诪讜 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诇讚诐 讛驻专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 注砖讬讜转讬讜 砖讜讜转 讻砖诐 砖诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讻讱 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 砖讘注

The Gemara retorts: On the contrary, one derives one aspect of a matter from another aspect of that same matter, i.e., one should infer the halakha with regard to the blood of the goat from another halakha involving that same blood, and one does not derive the halakha of that matter from an external matter. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull鈥 (Leviticus 16:15). As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淎s he did,鈥 because the whole process is explicitly stated a second time, what then is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎s he did鈥? It comes to teach that all his actions should be alike, down to every detail. Consequently, just as the sprinklings downward in the case of the bull are seven, so too, the sprinklings downward in the case of the goat are seven.

诇诪讚谞讜 讻诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 讜讘砖注讬专 砖讘注 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讻诪讛 讜讛专讬谞讬 讚谉 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 讗祝 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讗讞转

We have thereby learned how many sprinklings are performed downward in the case of the bull and by the goat: Seven. However, I do not know how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward in the case of the bull. And I therefore derive the halakha as follows: It states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the goat, and it states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the bull. Just as with regard to the sprinkling upward in the case of the goat he sprinkles one time, as stated explicitly, so too, in the case of the bull he sprinkles upward one time.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讗祝 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 诪注诇讛 诪诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 诪注诇讛 诪诪讟讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or one can go and reason this way: It is stated that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and likewise it is stated that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the bull. Just as with regard to sprinkling downward in the case of the bull there are seven sprinklings, so too, with regard to sprinkling upward in the case of the bull there should be seven sprinklings. The Gemara comments: Let us see what case this resembles: One derives an act performed upward from another act that is performed upward, and one does not derive an act performed upward from a downward act.

讗讚专讘讛 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讙讜驻讜 诪注诇诪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讚诪讜 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 砖讬讛讬讜 讻诇 注砖讬讜转讬讜 砖讜讜转 讻砖诐 砖诇诪讟讛 讘驻专 砖讘注 讻讱 诇诪讟讛 讘砖注讬专 砖讘注 讜讻砖诐 砖诇诪注诇讛 讘砖注讬专 讗讞转 讻讱 诇诪注诇讛 讘驻专 讗讞转

The Gemara retorts: On the contrary, one derives one aspect of a matter from another aspect of that same matter, and one does not derive the halakha of that matter from an external matter. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with its blood as he did.鈥 As there is no need for the verse to state: 鈥淎s he did,鈥 because the whole process is explicitly stated a second time, what then is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎s he did鈥? It comes to teach that all his actions should be alike: Just as the sprinklings downward in the case of the bull are seven, so too, the sprinklings downward in the case of the goat are seven; and just as the sprinkling upward in the case of the goat is one, so too, the sprinkling upward in the case of the bull is one.

讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讞转 讜砖转讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讞转 讜砖转讬诐 讗讞转 讜砖诇砖 讗讞转 讜讗专讘注 讗讞转 讜讞诪砖 讗讞转 讜砖砖 讗讞转 讜砖讘注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 砖转讬诐 讜讗讞转 砖诇砖 讜讗讞转 讗专讘注 讜讗讞转 讞诪砖 讜讗讞转 砖砖 讜讗讞转 砖讘注 讜讗讞转

搂 The mishna states that the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two. The Sages taught in a baraita that when sprinkling, the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that he counted: One; one and one; two and one; three and one; four and one; five and one; six and one; seven and one.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

The Gemara comments: They do not disagree about the matter itself that the High Priest sprinkles once upward and seven times downward. Rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place, and this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place. In one place they counted the smaller number first, while in the other place they would count the larger number first.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讛讝讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪谞讬谉 注诐 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬讟注讛 讘讛讝讗讜转

The Gemara asks: In any case, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that the first sprinkling upward must be counted together with each and every one of the subsequent sprinklings. What is the reason for this? Why can鈥檛 the High Priest count the downward sprinklings separately? The Sages debated this matter. Rabbi Elazar said: The reason is so that he does not err in the sprinklings. If the High Priest were to count downward without including the first upward sprinkling, he might mistakenly think that his calculation includes the first sprinkling, which would lead him to add another one.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇驻谞讬 讛讻驻讜专转 讬讝讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讝讛 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讝讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛讝讗讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖爪专讬讻讛 诪谞讬谉 注诐 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the reason is that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle it with his finger upon the Ark cover, and before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle鈥 (Leviticus 16:14). As there is no need for the verse to state: He shall sprinkle鈥 again, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淗e shall sprinkle鈥? This teaches with regard to the first sprinkling that it must be counted with each and every subsequent one, i.e., he must mention the first sprinkling every time.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讗 诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讟注讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them concerns a case where he did not count the first sprinkling and did not err. That is acceptable according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas according to Rabbi Yo岣nan the High Priest acted incorrectly, as it is mitzva to count the first one.

讬爪讗 讜讛谞讬讞讜 注诇 讻谉 讛讝讛讘 砖讘讛讬讻诇 转谞谉 讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 砖讜驻专讜转 诇拽讬谞讬 讞讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 讛转注专讜讘讜转

搂 The mishna taught that the High Priest emerged and placed the bowl with the remaining blood of the bull on the golden pedestal in the Sanctuary, and later he placed the goat鈥檚 blood on a second pedestal, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda there was only one pedestal. The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 6:6) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There were no collection horns for obligatory nests, i.e., the pairs of pigeons or turtledoves brought as sin- and burnt-offerings by women after childbirth or other individuals, due to the concern of mixtures.

诪讗讬 诪驻谞讬 讛转注专讜讘讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪驻谞讬 转注专讜讘转 讞讜讘讛 讘谞讚讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜谞注讘讬讚 转专讬 讜谞讻转讜讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讬 讚讞讜讘讛 讜讛讬 讚谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Due to a mixture? Rav Yosef said: It means due to the possible mixture of obligatory nests with free-will ones. There was concern lest the priests mix the money given for obligatory nests, which are sacrificed as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, with the money for free-will nests, which are sacrificed as a pair of burnt-offerings. Mixing the funds in this way would disqualify the birds. Abaye said to him: And let us prepare two collection horns and write on them which is the container for obligatory offerings and which is the one for free-will offerings. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda

诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗诇讗 讻谉 讗讞讚 讘诇讘讚 转专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞诇驻讬 讜谞注讘讬讚 转专讬 讜诇讬讻转讜讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讬 讚驻专 讜讛讬 讚砖注讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘讛

does not accept that one may rely on writing in a situation where an error is possible. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was only one pedestal in the Temple on which to place the blood. What is the reason that they did not place two pedestals there? The reason is because the pedestals might be exchanged for one another, and he might take the goat鈥檚 blood instead of that of the bull. But in that case, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the bull and which is for the goat. Rather, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept that one may rely on writing in a situation where error is possible.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖讜驻专讜转 讛讬讜 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讛讬讛 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛谉 转拽诇讬谉 讞讚转讬谉 讜转拽诇讬谉 注转讬拽讬谉 讜拽讬谞讬谉 讜讙讜讝诇讬 注讜诇讛 讜注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讝讛讘 诇讻驻讜专转 讜砖砖讛 诇谞讚讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection against this conclusion: There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and they were each inscribed with different names. On one container was written: New shekels. In this horn they placed shekels that were donated at the correct time that year. And on another horn the phrase old shekels was written, referring to coins from the past year that did not reach the Temple during the allotted period. On the other horns, the following phrases were written: Nests, for obligatory offerings consisting of pairs of pigeons or turtledoves; young birds for burnt-offerings; wood, for anyone who wished to donate wood; frankincense; and gold for the Ark cover. And there were six additional boxes designated for communal free-will offerings of all kinds.

转拽诇讬谉 讞讚转讬谉 讗诇讜 砖拽诇讬诐 砖诇 讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛 转拽诇讬谉 注转讬拽讬谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 砖拽诇 讗砖转拽讚 讬砖拽讜诇 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 拽讬谞讬谉 讛谉 转讜专讬谉 讙讜讝诇讬 注讜诇讛 讛谉 讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讜讻讜诇谉 注讜诇讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara explains: New shekels, these are the shekels of each and every year that arrive on time; old shekels, these are for one who did not donate a shekel the previous year, who must donate the next year; nests, these are the turtledoves brought as offerings; young birds for burnt-offerings, these are pigeons; and all these birds are burnt-offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, due to the potential mixture between the two. In any case, this shows that Rabbi Yehuda does rely on inscriptions written on containers, which contradicts the above claim that he does not rely on writing in these situations.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛砖讜诇讞 讞讟讗转讜 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 拽讬讬诐

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that this is a rabbinic decree due to the possible presence in the mixture of a sin-offering whose owners have died. Since a sin-offering of this kind must be left to die, if one of the donors of the coins in the sin-offering horn passes away, his funds cannot be used. The Gemara asks: And are we concerned about the possible death of a donor? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to one who sends his sin-offering from overseas, they sacrifice it for him on the presumption that he is alive, although he might have died in the meantime. This shows that the possibility of death is not taken into account.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讜讚讗讬 讜谞讘专讜专 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜谞砖讚讬 讘诪讬讗 讜讛谞讱 谞讬砖转专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 concern is due to a sin-offering whose owner has certainly died, lest it be confirmed that one of the people who donated money for a sin-offering bird has indeed died. The Gemara asks: Even so, this can be rectified, as let us select four zuz, the price of such an offering, and throw them into the water to be destroyed. It may be said that the money removed from the box was the money for the sin-offering whose owner died, and these other coins will be permitted. It will be clarified retroactively that these coins were designated for that purpose. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the rule of retroactive clarification. In his opinion, one cannot issue a designation after the fact. Consequently, he rejects this solution.

诪谞讗 诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬讬诐 注专讘 砖讘转 注诐 讞砖讻讛 注讜诪讚 讜讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is indeed Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? If we say it is derived from that which we learned in the following mishna, there is a difficulty. The mishna states: With regard to one who buys wine from among the Samaritans, who do not tithe their produce properly, on Shabbat eve at nightfall and has no time to separate the tithe before Shabbat and to place the separated portions in distinct locations, he may arise and say: Two log of the one hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, after Shabbat, shall be the teruma gedola given to a priest, as the Sages mandated that one-fiftieth of one鈥檚 produce constitutes an average measure of teruma;

Scroll To Top