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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 10, 2021 | 诇壮 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 shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Yoma 60

A week of learning is sponsored by Sivya and Nahum Twersky in honor of Shoshana Baker’s milestone birthday. “May Hashem grant her arichut yamim in good health with her beautiful family. There is so much nachat left to come. We are so very proud of her commitment to Torah, Avodah v.Gemilut Chasadim. Hamaevin Yavin. All of our love and admiration, Mom and Abba.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark Baker in honor of his wife’s Shoshana’s birthday. Wishing her the happiest birthday to his beautiful wife. And by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld for the refuah sheleima of David ben Adel and all that need health.

Is it really true always that once the mitzva is complete, there are no laws on misuse of consecrated property? After all, there are exceptions like the trumat hadeshen, removal of the ashes 鈥 once there are placed in the pile, they remain there and can鈥檛 be used. How is this issue resolved? Why was it necessary to bring 3 different drashot excluding it from laws of misuse of consecrated property? Each word comes to exclude a different law. Why is there no need for a verse to exclude laws of pigul by blood? Every act of Yom Kippur must be done in order. Does this really mean everything? There is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah – does it only apply to what is done in white clothes inside the Holy of Holies or to everything that is done in white clothes? The gemara discusses their opinions. What happens if the blood is spilled in the middle of the sprinklings? From what point does the Kohen Gadol need to start with a new animal?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The reason is because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the special halakha that misuse of consecrated objects applies to them even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And there is a principle: Any two verses that come as one do not teach, i.e., an analogy may not be derived from these two similar cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the sacred place, and shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚讗诪专 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 专讗讜讬谉 讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that these priestly vestments are fit for a common priest and do not require interment, one does not misuse consecrated property by using them, and therefore what is there to say? In his opinion, the halakha of misuse of consecrated objects after the performance of a mitzva applies only to the removal of ashes from the altar, not to the priestly vestments, which means it is stated in only a single case. Why, then, does this case not serve as a model for other instances in the Torah?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara responds: The reason is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken are two verses that come as one, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from either of them even after their mitzva is completed, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common feature to other cases. The heifer whose neck is broken is a ritual performed when a murder victim鈥檚 body is found outside a town, and it is not known who caused his death.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜砖诪讜 讛注专讜驻讛

The Gemara challenges this reply from a different angle: It works out well according to the one who said that two verses that come as one do not teach their common feature to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach with regard to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. With respect to the removal of ashes, it states: 鈥淎nd he shall put it鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), implying 鈥渋t鈥 and nothing else. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: 鈥淲hose neck was broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6), which teaches that this halakha applies solely to this case.

讜讛谞讬 转诇转讬 拽专讗讬 讘讚诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And if this halakha is derived from those two cases, why do I need these three verses stated with regard to blood, from which it is derived that the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects does not apply to the remainder of blood that flows to the Kidron River? The reference is to the three phrases singled out above from the verse: 鈥淚 have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11).

讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪谞讜转专 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪诪注讬诇讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: One of those phrases comes to exclude the blood from the prohibition of notar, offerings that remain after the time when they may be eaten has expired. If one ate leftover blood, he is not punished with karet, as generally incurred by one who consumes notar. Rather, he is liable only for violating the prohibition against eating blood. And one phrase comes to exclude it from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects, and one other phrase comes to exclude it from ritual impurity. If one ate this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for the transgression of eating blood, but not on account of eating consecrated food while ritually impure.

讗讘诇 诪驻讬讙讜诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讚诐 注爪诪讜 诪转讬专 讛讜讗

However, no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intention, because this is already derived from another source, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to any offering that has another rite that permits it, e.g., an offering that is permitted by the sprinkling of blood or by means of a second offering, one is liable to receive karet if he eats it after it is rendered piggul. This is the case whether the other rite permits it for human consumption or whether it enables the offering to be sacrificed on the altar. However, the permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul. Consequently, piggul does not apply to blood itself, as it renders the offering permitted for human consumption or for the altar.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专 注诇 讛住讚专 讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讛拽讚讬诐 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 诇讚诐 讛驻专 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讝讛 诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 诇讗讞专 讚诐 讛驻专 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诪专 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬讘讬讗 讚诐 讗讞专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

MISHNA: Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur stated in the mishna, as in the Torah, is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, he has done nothing. If he performed the sprinkling of the blood of the goat before the sprinkling of the blood of the bull, he must repeat the action and sprinkle the blood of the goat after sprinkling the blood of the bull, so that the actions are performed in the proper order. And if the blood spills before he completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, and bring other blood, and then repeat all the services from the beginning inside the Holy of Holies.

讜讻谉 讘讛讬讻诇 讜讻谉 讘诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 砖讻讜诇谉 讻驻专讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 诪砖诐 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇

And similarly, if the blood spills before he finishes the presentations in the Sanctuary, he must begin the service in the Sanctuary from the beginning, and likewise with regard to the sprinkling of blood on the golden altar. Since they are each acts of atonement in and of themselves, there is no need to repeat the service of the entire day from the beginning. Rather, he need only repeat the specific element that he failed to complete. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the place that he interrupted that particular service, when the blood spilled, there he resumes performance of that service. In their opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these services is an act in and of itself, and there is no need to repeat what he has already done.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专 注诇 讛住讚专 讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬谉 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬谉 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur stated in the Torah is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, he has done nothing. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? It applies to those actions performed in white garments inside the Sanctuary, e.g., burning the incense and sprinkling the blood, which are the essential services of the day. However, with regard to those actions performed in white garments outside, such as the lottery and the confession, if he performed one action before another, what he did is done and he need not repeat the rite.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 讝讛讘 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讛讬转讛 讝讗转 诇讻诐 诇讞讜拽转 注讜诇诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛

In contrast, Rabbi Ne岣mya says: In what case is this statement said, that the order is indispensable? It is said with regard to actions performed in white garments, whether inside or outside the Sanctuary. However, with regard to those actions performed in golden garments outside the Sanctuary, the regular Temple service and additional services, if the order was altered, what he did is done. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ne岣mya, derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淎nd this shall be an everlasting statute to you, to make atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year鈥 (Leviticus 16:34).

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住讘专 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讛谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛

Rabbi Yehuda maintains that this is referring to the place where atonement is achieved once a year, namely the Holy of Holies. In his opinion, the order of actions is indispensable for the services performed in the Holy of Holies. And Rabbi Ne岣mya maintains that the verse is referring to the actions through which atonement is achieved once a year, meaning both the place and the garments. Consequently, in the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, the order for all actions performed in white clothes is indispensable.

讗讟讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪拽讜诐 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讜讻转讬讘 讗讞转 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讙讚讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda the word place is written? The verse merely states 鈥渙nce a year,鈥 which apparently is referring to the order of the service in general but not to a specific place. Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda: It is written: 鈥淭his鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), which is a term of restriction and limitation, and it is written: 鈥淥nce a year鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), another term of restriction. One restriction comes to exclude actions performed in the white garments outside the Sanctuary, meaning that they are not indispensable; and one restriction comes to exclude actions performed in the gold garments.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讙讚讬 讝讛讘 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讬专讬诐 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诪注讻讘讬 诪注讻讘讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

And how does Rabbi Ne岣mya interpret these two restricting expressions? In his opinion, one of the restrictions comes to exclude actions performed in the gold garments, and one restriction comes to exclude the remainders of blood that are poured at the base of the altar, meaning that these are not indispensable. If the High Priest performed a service that is supposed to come after the spilling of the blood too early, the service is valid, despite the fact that the spilling of the blood is performed in white garments. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda maintain with regard to the remainders of blood? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, if the other actions performed outside are indispensable, this too is indispensable; and if the other acts performed outside are not indispensable, the remainders are not indispensable either. The pouring of the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood in this regard.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 讗诐 讻驻专 讻诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻驻专 诇讗 讻诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻诇讛 讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻诇讛 诇讗 讻驻专 砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

In proof that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that pouring the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood, the Gemara cites a baraita that is referring to a case where the pouring of the remainders of the blood is entirely omitted. As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that if he performed the atonement, he has finished the order of the service; and if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why do we not say that if he finished sprinkling all the blood, he has performed atonement; and if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement? This would indicate that if one of the presentations is lacking it is as though he did nothing.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And we say in this regard: What is the practical difference between them? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi debated this point. One of them said: There is a difference between them with regard to the source from which they derive their interpretation, i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. And the other one said: There is a difference between them with respect to whether pouring the remainders of blood at the base of the altar is indispensable to the atonement. According to Rabbi Akiva, it is not indispensable, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is indispensable.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that in Rabbi Ne岣mya鈥檚 opinion pouring the remainders of blood is not indispensable? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say in tractate Zeva岣m (111a): Rabbi Ne岣mya taught in accordance with the statement of the one who said that the remainders of blood are indispensable? The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讟讜专转 砖讞驻谞讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟转讜 砖诇 驻专 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘讗

Rabbi 岣nina said: With regard to incense that the High Priest scooped before the slaughtering of the bull, it is as though he did nothing. The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say that when it is written 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), a term that indicates that no details may be altered, it is written with regard to actions performed in white garments within the Sanctuary, whereas scooping incense is done outside?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪讜专讱 驻谞讬诐 讻驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 转谞谉 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诪专 诪转谞讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬讘讬讗 讚诐 讗讞专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讝讛 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讞驻讜谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this claim: Even if you say that Rabbi 岣nina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is possible that in his opinion scooping the incense for the purpose of it being taken inside is considered like an action actually performed inside. The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if the blood spills before the High Priest completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, bring other blood, and then sprinkle again from the beginning inside. And if it is so, that an action performed outside the Sanctuary for the purpose of a service inside the Sanctuary is considered like an action actually performed inside, merely slaughtering the bull and sprinkling the blood again should be insufficient. Instead, the mishna should have said that he must return and scoop the incense anew. The fact that the mishna did not say this proves that the order of scooping the incense is not indispensable.

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 shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 58 – 63 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the blood application on the Golden Alter and the order and direction that it...

Yoma 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 60

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The reason is because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the special halakha that misuse of consecrated objects applies to them even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And there is a principle: Any two verses that come as one do not teach, i.e., an analogy may not be derived from these two similar cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the sacred place, and shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚讗诪专 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 专讗讜讬谉 讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that these priestly vestments are fit for a common priest and do not require interment, one does not misuse consecrated property by using them, and therefore what is there to say? In his opinion, the halakha of misuse of consecrated objects after the performance of a mitzva applies only to the removal of ashes from the altar, not to the priestly vestments, which means it is stated in only a single case. Why, then, does this case not serve as a model for other instances in the Torah?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara responds: The reason is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken are two verses that come as one, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from either of them even after their mitzva is completed, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common feature to other cases. The heifer whose neck is broken is a ritual performed when a murder victim鈥檚 body is found outside a town, and it is not known who caused his death.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜砖诪讜 讛注专讜驻讛

The Gemara challenges this reply from a different angle: It works out well according to the one who said that two verses that come as one do not teach their common feature to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach with regard to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. With respect to the removal of ashes, it states: 鈥淎nd he shall put it鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), implying 鈥渋t鈥 and nothing else. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: 鈥淲hose neck was broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6), which teaches that this halakha applies solely to this case.

讜讛谞讬 转诇转讬 拽专讗讬 讘讚诐 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And if this halakha is derived from those two cases, why do I need these three verses stated with regard to blood, from which it is derived that the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects does not apply to the remainder of blood that flows to the Kidron River? The reference is to the three phrases singled out above from the verse: 鈥淚 have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life鈥 (Leviticus 17:11).

讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪谞讜转专 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪诪注讬诇讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: One of those phrases comes to exclude the blood from the prohibition of notar, offerings that remain after the time when they may be eaten has expired. If one ate leftover blood, he is not punished with karet, as generally incurred by one who consumes notar. Rather, he is liable only for violating the prohibition against eating blood. And one phrase comes to exclude it from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects, and one other phrase comes to exclude it from ritual impurity. If one ate this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for the transgression of eating blood, but not on account of eating consecrated food while ritually impure.

讗讘诇 诪驻讬讙讜诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讚诐 注爪诪讜 诪转讬专 讛讜讗

However, no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intention, because this is already derived from another source, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to any offering that has another rite that permits it, e.g., an offering that is permitted by the sprinkling of blood or by means of a second offering, one is liable to receive karet if he eats it after it is rendered piggul. This is the case whether the other rite permits it for human consumption or whether it enables the offering to be sacrificed on the altar. However, the permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul. Consequently, piggul does not apply to blood itself, as it renders the offering permitted for human consumption or for the altar.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专 注诇 讛住讚专 讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讛拽讚讬诐 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 诇讚诐 讛驻专 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讝讛 诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 诇讗讞专 讚诐 讛驻专 讜讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诪专 讗转 讛诪转谞讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬讘讬讗 讚诐 讗讞专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

MISHNA: Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur stated in the mishna, as in the Torah, is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, he has done nothing. If he performed the sprinkling of the blood of the goat before the sprinkling of the blood of the bull, he must repeat the action and sprinkle the blood of the goat after sprinkling the blood of the bull, so that the actions are performed in the proper order. And if the blood spills before he completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, and bring other blood, and then repeat all the services from the beginning inside the Holy of Holies.

讜讻谉 讘讛讬讻诇 讜讻谉 讘诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 砖讻讜诇谉 讻驻专讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 诪砖诐 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇

And similarly, if the blood spills before he finishes the presentations in the Sanctuary, he must begin the service in the Sanctuary from the beginning, and likewise with regard to the sprinkling of blood on the golden altar. Since they are each acts of atonement in and of themselves, there is no need to repeat the service of the entire day from the beginning. Rather, he need only repeat the specific element that he failed to complete. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the place that he interrupted that particular service, when the blood spilled, there he resumes performance of that service. In their opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these services is an act in and of itself, and there is no need to repeat what he has already done.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专 注诇 讛住讚专 讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬谉 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬谉 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诐 讛拽讚讬诐 诪注砖讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur stated in the Torah is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, he has done nothing. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? It applies to those actions performed in white garments inside the Sanctuary, e.g., burning the incense and sprinkling the blood, which are the essential services of the day. However, with regard to those actions performed in white garments outside, such as the lottery and the confession, if he performed one action before another, what he did is done and he need not repeat the rite.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 讝讛讘 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜讛讬转讛 讝讗转 诇讻诐 诇讞讜拽转 注讜诇诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛

In contrast, Rabbi Ne岣mya says: In what case is this statement said, that the order is indispensable? It is said with regard to actions performed in white garments, whether inside or outside the Sanctuary. However, with regard to those actions performed in golden garments outside the Sanctuary, the regular Temple service and additional services, if the order was altered, what he did is done. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ne岣mya, derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淎nd this shall be an everlasting statute to you, to make atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year鈥 (Leviticus 16:34).

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住讘专 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪转讻驻专讬谉 讘讛谉 驻注诐 讗讞转 讘砖谞讛

Rabbi Yehuda maintains that this is referring to the place where atonement is achieved once a year, namely the Holy of Holies. In his opinion, the order of actions is indispensable for the services performed in the Holy of Holies. And Rabbi Ne岣mya maintains that the verse is referring to the actions through which atonement is achieved once a year, meaning both the place and the garments. Consequently, in the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, the order for all actions performed in white clothes is indispensable.

讗讟讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪拽讜诐 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讜讻转讬讘 讗讞转 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讙讚讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda the word place is written? The verse merely states 鈥渙nce a year,鈥 which apparently is referring to the order of the service in general but not to a specific place. Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda: It is written: 鈥淭his鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), which is a term of restriction and limitation, and it is written: 鈥淥nce a year鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), another term of restriction. One restriction comes to exclude actions performed in the white garments outside the Sanctuary, meaning that they are not indispensable; and one restriction comes to exclude actions performed in the gold garments.

讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讙讚讬 讝讛讘 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讬专讬诐 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诪注讻讘讬 诪注讻讘讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

And how does Rabbi Ne岣mya interpret these two restricting expressions? In his opinion, one of the restrictions comes to exclude actions performed in the gold garments, and one restriction comes to exclude the remainders of blood that are poured at the base of the altar, meaning that these are not indispensable. If the High Priest performed a service that is supposed to come after the spilling of the blood too early, the service is valid, despite the fact that the spilling of the blood is performed in white garments. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda maintain with regard to the remainders of blood? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, if the other actions performed outside are indispensable, this too is indispensable; and if the other acts performed outside are not indispensable, the remainders are not indispensable either. The pouring of the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood in this regard.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讜讚砖 讗诐 讻驻专 讻诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻驻专 诇讗 讻诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻诇讛 讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻诇讛 诇讗 讻驻专 砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

In proof that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that pouring the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood, the Gemara cites a baraita that is referring to a case where the pouring of the remainders of the blood is entirely omitted. As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that if he performed the atonement, he has finished the order of the service; and if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why do we not say that if he finished sprinkling all the blood, he has performed atonement; and if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement? This would indicate that if one of the presentations is lacking it is as though he did nothing.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And we say in this regard: What is the practical difference between them? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi debated this point. One of them said: There is a difference between them with regard to the source from which they derive their interpretation, i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. And the other one said: There is a difference between them with respect to whether pouring the remainders of blood at the base of the altar is indispensable to the atonement. According to Rabbi Akiva, it is not indispensable, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is indispensable.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that in Rabbi Ne岣mya鈥檚 opinion pouring the remainders of blood is not indispensable? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say in tractate Zeva岣m (111a): Rabbi Ne岣mya taught in accordance with the statement of the one who said that the remainders of blood are indispensable? The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讟讜专转 砖讞驻谞讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟转讜 砖诇 驻专 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讞讜拽讛 讘讚讘专讬诐 讛谞注砖讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 诇讘谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘讗

Rabbi 岣nina said: With regard to incense that the High Priest scooped before the slaughtering of the bull, it is as though he did nothing. The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say that when it is written 鈥渟tatute鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), a term that indicates that no details may be altered, it is written with regard to actions performed in white garments within the Sanctuary, whereas scooping incense is done outside?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 爪讜专讱 驻谞讬诐 讻驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 转谞谉 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诪专 诪转谞讜转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 谞砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讬讘讬讗 讚诐 讗讞专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讝讛 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讞驻讜谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this claim: Even if you say that Rabbi 岣nina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is possible that in his opinion scooping the incense for the purpose of it being taken inside is considered like an action actually performed inside. The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if the blood spills before the High Priest completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, bring other blood, and then sprinkle again from the beginning inside. And if it is so, that an action performed outside the Sanctuary for the purpose of a service inside the Sanctuary is considered like an action actually performed inside, merely slaughtering the bull and sprinkling the blood again should be insufficient. Instead, the mishna should have said that he must return and scoop the incense anew. The fact that the mishna did not say this proves that the order of scooping the incense is not indispensable.

Scroll To Top