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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 6, 2021 | 讻状讜 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Yoma 56

This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in memory of Paula鈥檚 father, Chaim Avraham ben Alter Gershon HaKohen. And by Elana Storch in honor of the birth of her granddaughter, Reut Noa, born to our children Julianna and Reuben Habousha Cohen. Reut Noa is named for women of strength and courage. One day she will know that a week of learning was dedicated to her arrival and I will share the great achievements of Rabbanit Farber and the beautiful community of Hadran.聽

What is the reason why Rabbi Yehuda thinks there was only one pedestal for the bloods of the bull and the goat? Was it because the Kohen Gadol may not read the signs and may confuse between the bloods? Apparently, that is the issue, even though in the case of the shofarot in Shekalim, that was not the issue. In Shekalim the issue was a concern that someone may have died after their money went in and there would be no way to fix the situation as Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t hold by laws of breira, retroactive designation. From where do we know that Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t hold by breira? Why would Rabbi Yehuda think in the case of the Kohen Gadol, we cannot rely on the fact that he will read the signs but in the case of the shofarot, we can? A case is brought of a chazan who described the service of the Kohen Gadol in a way that was both according to Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis and Rava corrected him. From where do we derive that the blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary onto the parochet in the same order and the same amount as was done inside the Holy of Holies?

注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

ten log that I will later separate shall be the first tithe; and another tenth from the rest, which equals nine log of the remaining ninety, shall be second tithe. And he redeems the second tithe with money that he will later take to Jerusalem, and he may then immediately drink the wine. After Shabbat, when he removes portions from the mixture and places them in vessels, they are retroactively designated as terumot and tithes. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this practice. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there is no retroactive clarification.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻砖讬讘拽注

The Gemara explains the difficulty: From where do you reach this conclusion? Perhaps it is different there, as the reason is taught: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede that the jug might split open before he removes the portions of terumot and tithes from the mixture, causing all the wine to spill out? And he will then be found drinking untithed wine retroactively. Therefore, he cannot rely on separation that has not yet occurred. And he said to them: Although there will be a problem if it splits open, there is no cause to be concerned for this contingency in advance. Since this reasoning is based on the possibility that the jug might break, there is no proof from here that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive clarification.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转谞讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚

Rather, the proof that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive clarification is from a baraita the Sage Ayo taught. As Ayo taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person cannot stipulate conditions about two matters at once, e. g., one cannot establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv] in each of two different directions on Friday afternoon while making the following stipulation: If tomorrow, on Shabbat, two Sages arrive from two different directions, I will decide then which of the two lecturers I prefer to hear at that point in time, which will determine which eiruv is in effect.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪讝专讞 诇诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇讗

Rather, he may say that if the Sage comes to the east, his eiruv is to the east, and if the Sage comes to the west, his eiruv is to the west. However, he may not say that if one Sage comes from here, and another Sage comes from there, he will go wherever he wishes, in either direction.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

And we discussed this passage in the Gemara and asked: What is different about a case in which one stipulated that if Sages came from here and from there that he may go to whichever side he chooses, such that his eiruv is not effective? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there is no retroactive clarification, i.e., this person cannot claim after the fact that the place where he walked is designated as the place that he initially intended for his eiruv.

诇诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

However, according to this principle, when an individual establishes an eiruv to the east and to the west for the anticipated arrival of a single Sage, one should also invoke the principle that there is no retroactive clarification. Why does Rabbi Yehuda agree that if one anticipates the arrival of a single Sage and stipulates that if he comes to the east his eiruv will be to the east, the eiruv is valid?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻砖讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is not a true case of retroactive clarification, as the Sage had already come by twilight, but the one who established the eiruv did not yet know at which side of the town the Sage had arrived. Therefore, at the time the eiruv establishes his Shabbat residence, it is clear which eiruv he wants, although he himself will become aware of that only later. In this case, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the eiruv is valid, but he nonetheless maintains in general that there is no retroactive clarification. This accounts for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, as he maintains that there is no solution for the possible mixture of the different coins.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 谞注讘讬讚 转专讬 讜谞讻转讜讘 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And now that we have said and proven that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarification, nevertheless he is of the opinion that one may rely on writing, as proven from the halakha of the collection horns. If so, on Yom Kippur as well, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the blood of the bull and which is for the blood of the goat.

诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘诇讗 讻转讬讘讛 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 谞驻讬砖 讜讛讗讬 讝讜讟专

The Gemara answers: The reason they did not place two pedestals with writing on them is due to the High Priest鈥檚 weakness. Since he is fasting during the entire day鈥檚 service, the writing will not be on his mind; he will pay no attention to it and might become confused. As, if you do not say so, that there is concern for the High Priest鈥檚 weakness, even without writing he should also not err, as this bowl in which he collects the bull鈥檚 blood is relatively large and this one for the goat鈥檚 blood is small.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘讬诇 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬拽讘诇 讗转 讻诇 讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诐 讛驻专 讬砖驻讜讱 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛诪讝讘讞

And if you say that he does not collect all the bull鈥檚 blood but only some of it, so that the bowls are of equal size, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: One who slaughters the bull must receive all of the blood of the bull, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:7).

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖转驻讬讱 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗讬 讞讬讜专 讜讛讗讬 住讜诪拽 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

And if you say that perhaps some of the bull鈥檚 blood might spill, yielding equal amounts of blood, there should still be no mistake, as this blood, that of the goat, is white and bright compared to the blood of the bull, and this blood of the bull is red and darker than the other. Rather, the reason must be that due to the High Priest鈥檚 weakness, these differences will not be on his mind. Here, too, the writing will not help, as due to the High Priest鈥檚 weakness the inscriptions will not be on his mind.

讛讛讜讗 讚谞讞讬转 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讬爪讗 讜讛谞讬讞讜 注诇 讻谉 砖谞讬 砖讘讛讬讻诇 谞讟诇 讚诐 讛驻专 讜讛谞讬讞 讚诐 讛砖注讬专

搂 The Gemara relates: A certain person descended to lead the prayer service on Yom Kippur before Rava on Yom Kippur. He included the order of the High Priest鈥檚 Yom Kippur service in his prayer, and he recited: The High Priest then emerged from the Holy of Holies and placed the bowl on the second golden pedestal in the Sanctuary; he took the blood of the bull from the pedestal and placed the blood of the goat in its place.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬讞 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讜谞讟诇 讚诐 讛驻专

Rava said to him: This is problematic, as one statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the other one is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Rabbis, each of these bowls sat on its own pedestal in the Sanctuary, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the High Priest must first lift up the container with the blood of the bull and then put down that of the goat. Rather, you should recite the entire order of the service entirely in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: He placed the blood of the goat on its designated pedestal and took the blood of the bull from the second stand.

讜讛讝讛 诪诪谞讜 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜谉 诪讘讞讜抓 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诪讝讛 诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讻讱 诪讝讛 讘讛讬讻诇

搂 The mishna taught: And the High Priest sprinkled from the blood of the bull on the curtain opposite the Ark from outside the Holy of Holies. The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the sacred place because of the impurities of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Just as he sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting, toward the curtain.

诪讛 诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讻讱 诪讝讛 讘讛讬讻诇 讜讻砖诐 砖诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讻讱 诪讝讛 讘讛讬讻诇 讛砖讜讻谉 讗转诐 讘转讜讱 讟讜诪讗转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 砖讛谉 讟诪讗讬诐 砖讻讬谞讛 注诪讛诐

Furthermore: Just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. The last part of the verse: 鈥淭hat dwells with them in the midst of their impurity,鈥 teaches that even when the Jewish people are impure, the Divine Presence is with them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 爪讚讜拽讬 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

With regard to this verse, the Gemara relates: A certain Sadducee said to Rabbi 岣nina:

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

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...
alon shvut women

Retroactive Clarification

Yoma Daf 56聽 Today鈥檚 Daf takes us into the complex Halachic construct of 讘专讬专讛 - retroactive clarification. The dispute regarding聽...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 56: A Detour to the Middle Ages

Who's Who: The Baalei HaTosafot. What they do, and why they're here, on the daf. Plus, what one of these...

Yoma 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 56

注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

ten log that I will later separate shall be the first tithe; and another tenth from the rest, which equals nine log of the remaining ninety, shall be second tithe. And he redeems the second tithe with money that he will later take to Jerusalem, and he may then immediately drink the wine. After Shabbat, when he removes portions from the mixture and places them in vessels, they are retroactively designated as terumot and tithes. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this practice. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there is no retroactive clarification.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻砖讬讘拽注

The Gemara explains the difficulty: From where do you reach this conclusion? Perhaps it is different there, as the reason is taught: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede that the jug might split open before he removes the portions of terumot and tithes from the mixture, causing all the wine to spill out? And he will then be found drinking untithed wine retroactively. Therefore, he cannot rely on separation that has not yet occurred. And he said to them: Although there will be a problem if it splits open, there is no cause to be concerned for this contingency in advance. Since this reasoning is based on the possibility that the jug might break, there is no proof from here that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive clarification.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转谞讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚

Rather, the proof that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive clarification is from a baraita the Sage Ayo taught. As Ayo taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person cannot stipulate conditions about two matters at once, e. g., one cannot establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv] in each of two different directions on Friday afternoon while making the following stipulation: If tomorrow, on Shabbat, two Sages arrive from two different directions, I will decide then which of the two lecturers I prefer to hear at that point in time, which will determine which eiruv is in effect.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪讝专讞 诇诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇讗

Rather, he may say that if the Sage comes to the east, his eiruv is to the east, and if the Sage comes to the west, his eiruv is to the west. However, he may not say that if one Sage comes from here, and another Sage comes from there, he will go wherever he wishes, in either direction.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

And we discussed this passage in the Gemara and asked: What is different about a case in which one stipulated that if Sages came from here and from there that he may go to whichever side he chooses, such that his eiruv is not effective? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there is no retroactive clarification, i.e., this person cannot claim after the fact that the place where he walked is designated as the place that he initially intended for his eiruv.

诇诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

However, according to this principle, when an individual establishes an eiruv to the east and to the west for the anticipated arrival of a single Sage, one should also invoke the principle that there is no retroactive clarification. Why does Rabbi Yehuda agree that if one anticipates the arrival of a single Sage and stipulates that if he comes to the east his eiruv will be to the east, the eiruv is valid?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻砖讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is not a true case of retroactive clarification, as the Sage had already come by twilight, but the one who established the eiruv did not yet know at which side of the town the Sage had arrived. Therefore, at the time the eiruv establishes his Shabbat residence, it is clear which eiruv he wants, although he himself will become aware of that only later. In this case, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the eiruv is valid, but he nonetheless maintains in general that there is no retroactive clarification. This accounts for Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, as he maintains that there is no solution for the possible mixture of the different coins.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 谞注讘讬讚 转专讬 讜谞讻转讜讘 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And now that we have said and proven that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarification, nevertheless he is of the opinion that one may rely on writing, as proven from the halakha of the collection horns. If so, on Yom Kippur as well, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the blood of the bull and which is for the blood of the goat.

诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讘诇讗 讻转讬讘讛 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 谞驻讬砖 讜讛讗讬 讝讜讟专

The Gemara answers: The reason they did not place two pedestals with writing on them is due to the High Priest鈥檚 weakness. Since he is fasting during the entire day鈥檚 service, the writing will not be on his mind; he will pay no attention to it and might become confused. As, if you do not say so, that there is concern for the High Priest鈥檚 weakness, even without writing he should also not err, as this bowl in which he collects the bull鈥檚 blood is relatively large and this one for the goat鈥檚 blood is small.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘讬诇 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛砖讜讞讟 爪专讬讱 砖讬拽讘诇 讗转 讻诇 讚诪讜 砖诇 驻专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诐 讛驻专 讬砖驻讜讱 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛诪讝讘讞

And if you say that he does not collect all the bull鈥檚 blood but only some of it, so that the bowls are of equal size, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say: One who slaughters the bull must receive all of the blood of the bull, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:7).

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖转驻讬讱 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗讬 讞讬讜专 讜讛讗讬 住讜诪拽 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

And if you say that perhaps some of the bull鈥檚 blood might spill, yielding equal amounts of blood, there should still be no mistake, as this blood, that of the goat, is white and bright compared to the blood of the bull, and this blood of the bull is red and darker than the other. Rather, the reason must be that due to the High Priest鈥檚 weakness, these differences will not be on his mind. Here, too, the writing will not help, as due to the High Priest鈥檚 weakness the inscriptions will not be on his mind.

讛讛讜讗 讚谞讞讬转 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讬爪讗 讜讛谞讬讞讜 注诇 讻谉 砖谞讬 砖讘讛讬讻诇 谞讟诇 讚诐 讛驻专 讜讛谞讬讞 讚诐 讛砖注讬专

搂 The Gemara relates: A certain person descended to lead the prayer service on Yom Kippur before Rava on Yom Kippur. He included the order of the High Priest鈥檚 Yom Kippur service in his prayer, and he recited: The High Priest then emerged from the Holy of Holies and placed the bowl on the second golden pedestal in the Sanctuary; he took the blood of the bull from the pedestal and placed the blood of the goat in its place.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜讞讚讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬讞 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讜谞讟诇 讚诐 讛驻专

Rava said to him: This is problematic, as one statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the other one is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Rabbis, each of these bowls sat on its own pedestal in the Sanctuary, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the High Priest must first lift up the container with the blood of the bull and then put down that of the goat. Rather, you should recite the entire order of the service entirely in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: He placed the blood of the goat on its designated pedestal and took the blood of the bull from the second stand.

讜讛讝讛 诪诪谞讜 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讻谞讙讚 讗专讜谉 诪讘讞讜抓 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诪讝讛 诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讻讱 诪讝讛 讘讛讬讻诇

搂 The mishna taught: And the High Priest sprinkled from the blood of the bull on the curtain opposite the Ark from outside the Holy of Holies. The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the sacred place because of the impurities of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Just as he sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting, toward the curtain.

诪讛 诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讻讱 诪讝讛 讘讛讬讻诇 讜讻砖诐 砖诇驻谞讬 诇驻谞讬诐 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讻讱 诪讝讛 讘讛讬讻诇 讛砖讜讻谉 讗转诐 讘转讜讱 讟讜诪讗转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 砖讛谉 讟诪讗讬诐 砖讻讬谞讛 注诪讛诐

Furthermore: Just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. The last part of the verse: 鈥淭hat dwells with them in the midst of their impurity,鈥 teaches that even when the Jewish people are impure, the Divine Presence is with them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 爪讚讜拽讬 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

With regard to this verse, the Gemara relates: A certain Sadducee said to Rabbi 岣nina:

Scroll To Top