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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 18, 2021 | 讞壮 讘转诪讜讝 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 Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 68

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Mordechai ben Regina. May HaShem bring him a refu’ah shleima umheira. With love, Debbie and Gerard Engelen-Eigles.

From where do we learn that you do not flay the skin of the animal before burning but we do cut it into pieces? At what point do those who burn the bull and goat become impure and their clothes as well? There are two opinions 鈥 from where do each derive their answer? Where is the place where they burn the animals? And which people involved become impure? What method was used to determine that the goat was sent to the desert so that they could continue the work in the Temple? Up to what stage of the process of the goat to Azazel can the Kohen Gadol already continue his work in the Temple? The Kohen Gadol reads from the Torah – what exactly does he read? What clothes does he wear or can he wear? What can we learn from this about the reading and the priests鈥 clothing? What blessings did he bless after reading from the Torah?

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟

Just as below it is prepared for burning by means of dissection and not by means of skinning, so too here it is by means of dissection and not by means of skinning.

讜讛转诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜拽专讘讜 讜驻专砖讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜爪讬讗讜 砖诇诐 讬讻讜诇 讬砖专驻谞讜 砖诇诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 专讗砖讜 讜讻专注讬讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 (专讗砖 讜讻专注讬诐) 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to bull sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they are cut but not skinned? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the skin of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs, and its innards, and its dung, even the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire鈥 (Leviticus 4:11鈥12). This teaches that he brings it out whole. One might have thought that he should burn it whole. It is stated here: Its head and its legs, and it is stated there, with regard to burnt-offerings, head and legs. Just as there, the burnt-offering is performed by means of dissection, as explicitly stated in the verse, so too here it is by means of dissection.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜拽专讘讜 讜驻专砖讜 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻砖诐 砖驻专砖讜 讘拽专讘讜 讻讱 讘砖专讜 讘注讜专讜

The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from the same verbal analogy: Just as there, in the case of burnt-offerings, the dissection is performed with skinning, so too here it is with skinning, and he must remove the skin of the animals before burning them. The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nd its innards, and its dung.鈥 The Gemara asks: What is the derivation from this phrase? Rav Pappa said: Just as its dung is within its innards and they do not remove it, so too, its flesh is in its skin and they do not separate the skin from the flesh.

诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜砖专驻讜

搂 It was taught in the mishna that the tanna鈥檌m disagree about the question of at what point the bull and goat render the garments of those who carried them impure. The Sages taught a baraita based on the verse: 鈥淭he bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought in to gain atonement in the sacred place, shall be taken outside the camp and they shall burn鈥 (Leviticus 16:27).

诇讛诇谉 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讜讻讗谉 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘讙讚讬诐

One might wonder: Below, with regard to other bull sin-offerings that are burned, you give them three camps, meaning that the bulls are burned outside the Israelite camp or, in the time of the Temple, outside Jerusalem. And here you give them only one camp, as they are burned as soon as they are taken out of the Temple courtyard, which is considered the camp of the Divine Presence. This seems unreasonable and is not to be accepted. If so, why is it stated: 鈥淥utside the camp鈥? The intention is not that they leave only one camp, but rather, to say to you: Once it has left one camp it immediately renders the garments of those carrying it impure.

讜讛转诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛驻专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to other bull sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they are removed from all three camps? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: It is stated about the bull sin-offering of the High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp鈥nd burn it鈥 (Leviticus 4:12), meaning that he should take it outside of three camps.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘驻专 讛注讚讛 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜砖专祝 讗讜转讜 讻讗砖专 砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖谞讬讛

Do you say that he takes it outside of three camps, or is he required to take it outside of only one camp? When it says with regard to the bull sin-offering brought for the sin of the community: 鈥淗e shall carry the bull outside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), that verse requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it was already stated: 鈥淎nd burn it as he burned the first bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), which indicates that all the halakhot of the bull sin-offering of a High Priest apply to the bull sin-offering of the community as well. And what is the meaning when the verse states outside the camp? To give it a second camp, i.e., to indicate that it must be removed from the Levite camp in addition to the camp of the Divine Presence.

讜讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘讚砖谉 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转

And when it says: 鈥淥utside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 6:4) with regard to removal of the ash, that verse also requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it was already stated with regard to the bull sin-offering of a High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). Rather the repetition of the words: Outside the camp, indicates that he should give it a third camp, so that it is burned outside of the Israelite camp as well. Consequently, it has been derived that inner sin-offerings are burned outside of the three camps, and when the Torah states: Outside the camp, with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, it teaches that as soon as they are taken outside the Temple courtyard, the garments of those carrying them are rendered impure.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon do with the phrase outside the camp, as he holds that those carrying the bull and goat are rendered impure only once they leave all three camps? The Gemara answers: He needs it for that which was taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, outside the camp, and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer, 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 (Numbers 19:3). Just as here, it is burned outside three camps, so too there the heifer, it is burned outside three camps. And just as there it is burned east of Jerusalem, since the heifer must be burned 鈥渢oward the front of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 19:4), opposite the entrance to the Temple to its east, so too here the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned east of Jerusalem.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讗 砖专讬祝 诇讛讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讻谉 谞砖专驻讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, where do they burn them? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: Where are they burned?

诇爪驻讜谞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 谞砖专驻讬谉

North of Jerusalem, and outside of three camps. Rabbi Yosei says: They are burned in the place of the ashes.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 讬砖专祝 砖讬讛讗 诇砖诐 讚砖谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 砖讬讛讗 诪拽讜诪讜 诪砖讜驻讱

Rava said: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei on this issue? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲here the ashes are poured out [shefekh hadeshen] shall it be burned鈥 (Leviticus 4:12), which means that there shall already be ash there in that place, so that it is known as the ash heap even before this animal is burned there. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: This verse indicates that its place should be slanted [meshupakh] so that ash that is deposited there will roll downhill. Rava understood that whereas Rabbi Yosei requires that there already be ash present when the bull is burned, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov does not.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诪砖讜驻讱 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

Abaye said to him: There is no proof from here, as perhaps they disagree only about whether the place must be slanted. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov may agree there should be ash there to begin with, but he adds that the place must also be slanted. Therefore, there is no proof to support Rava鈥檚 statement.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讜专祝 讛砖讜专祝 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讛诪爪讬转 讗转 讛讗讜专 讜诇讗 讛诪住讚专 讗转 讛诪注专讻讛 讜讗讬 讝讛讜 讛砖讜专祝 讝讛 讛诪住讬讬注 讘砖注转 砖专讬驻讛

The Sages taught: It states: 鈥淎nd he who burns them shall wash his garments鈥 (Leviticus 16:28), to indicate that only the garments of the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are rendered impure, but not the garments of the one who kindles the fire, and not the garments of the one who arranges the pile of wood. And who is the one who burns? It is the one who assists at the actual time of burning.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诪砖谞注砖讜 讗驻专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖谞注砖讜 讗驻专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛驻专 诪讟诪讗 谞讬转讱 讛讘砖专 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

One might have thought that garments would be rendered impure even after the bull and goat have become ash. Therefore, the verse states: Them, to indicate that they themselves, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, render garments impure, but they do not render garments impure once they become ash. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The bull causes ritual impurity before it is burned, but once the flesh is burned it no longer renders garments impure.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚砖讜讬讛 讞专讜讻讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when he turned it into a charred mass and the form of the animal has already become distorted but has not actually become ash. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it no longer causes impurity.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 讜诪谞讬讬谉 讛讬讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 讚讬专讻讗讜转 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讜诪谞讬驻讬谉 讘住讜讚专讬谉 讜讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专

MISHNA: They said to the High Priest: The goat has reached the wilderness. And how did they know in the Temple that the goat reached the wilderness? They would build platforms [dirkaot] all along the way and people would stand on them and wave scarves [sudarin] to signal when the goat arrived. And therefore they knew that the goat reached the wilderness.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 住讬诪谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注讚 讘讬转 讞讚讜讚讜 砖诇砖讛 诪讬诇讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诪讬诇 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 诪讬诇 讜砖讜讛讬谉 讻讚讬 诪讬诇 讜讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专

Rabbi Yehuda said: Why did they need these platforms? Didn鈥檛 they already have a reliable indicator? From Jerusalem to Beit 岣ddudo, the edge of the wilderness, where the mitzva of dispatching the goat was performed, was a distance of three mil. Since the nobles of Jerusalem walked a mil to escort the dispatcher and returned a mil, and waited the time equivalent to the time it takes to walk a mil, they knew that the goat reached the wilderness. There was no need for the platforms.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 住讬诪谉 讗讞专 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诇砖讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讜专讬转 讛讬讛 拽砖讜专 注诇 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讜讻砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 讛讬讛 讛诇砖讜谉 诪诇讘讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讬讛讬讜 讞讟讗讬讻诐 讻砖谞讬诐 讻砖诇讙 讬诇讘讬谞讜

Rabbi Yishmael says: Didn鈥檛 they have a different indicator? There was a strip of crimson tied to the entrance to the Sanctuary, and when the goat reached the wilderness and the mitzva was fulfilled the strip would turn white, as it is stated: 鈥淭hough your sins be as scarlet, they will become white as snow鈥 (Isaiah 1:18).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬转 讞讚讜讚讜 讘诪讚讘专 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讜

GEMARA: Abaye said: Learn from this that Beit 岣ddudo is located in the wilderness, and this comes to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda holds that once the goat has reached the wilderness, its mitzva is complete even before it is pushed off the cliff, and there is no need to wait any longer.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬

 

诪转谞讬壮 讘讗 诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇拽专讜转 讗诐 专爪讛 诇拽专讜转 讘讘讙讚讬 讘讜抓 拽讜专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽讜专讗 讘讗爪讟诇讬转 诇讘谉 诪砖诇讜

MISHNA: The High Priest came to read the Torah. If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, i.e., the priestly vestments he wore during the previous service, he may read wearing them; and if not he is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, which is not a priestly vestment.

讞讝谉 讛讻谞住转 谞讜讟诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇专讗砖 讛讻谞住转 讜专讗砖 讛讻谞住转 谞讜转谞讜 诇住讙谉 讜讛住讙谉 谞讜转谞讜 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽讘诇 讜拽讜专讗 讘讗讞专讬 诪讜转 讜讗讱 讘注砖讜专 讜讙讜诇诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜诪谞讬讞讜 讘讞讬拽讜 讜讗讜诪专 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖拽专讗转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讘注砖讜专 砖讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐 拽讜专讗 注诇 驻讛

The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue that stood on the Temple Mount; and the head of the synagogue gives it to the deputy High Priest, and the Deputy gives it to the High Priest, and the High Priest stands and receives the scroll from his hands. And he reads from the scroll the Torah portion beginning with the verse: 鈥淎fter the death鈥 (Leviticus 16:1) and the portion beginning with the verse: 鈥淏ut on the tenth鈥 (Leviticus 23:26), and furls the Torah scroll and places it on his bosom and says: More than what I have read before you is written here. The Torah portion beginning with the verse: 鈥淎nd on the tenth,鈥 from the book of Numbers (29:7), he then reads by heart.

讜诪讘专讱 注诇讬讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讘专讻讜转 注诇 讛转讜专讛 讜注诇 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜注诇 讛讛讜讚讗讛 讜注诇 诪讞讬诇转 讛注讜谉 讜注诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 砖讗专 讛转驻诇讛

And he recites after the reading the following eight blessings:
Concerning the Torah: Who has given us the Torah of truth;
and concerning the Temple service: Find favor in Your people Israel and accept the service in Your most holy House… for You alone do we serve with reverence;
and concerning thanksgiving: We give thanks to You;
and concerning pardon of iniquity: Pardon our iniquities on this Yom Kippur;
and concerning the Temple in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose the Temple;
and concerning the Jewish People in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose Israel;
and concerning Jerusalem in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose Jerusalem;
and concerning the priests in and of themselves, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose the priests;
and concerning the rest of the prayer, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho listens to prayer.

讛专讜讗讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 驻专 讜砖注讬专 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讜讛专讜讗讛 驻专 讜砖注讬专 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讗诇讗 砖讛讬转讛 讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜诪诇讗讻转 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讛 讻讗讞转

The Mishna comments: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned; and one who sees the bull and goat that are burned does not see the High Priest reading the Torah. The Mishna explains: And this is not due to the fact that one is not permitted to see both, but because there was a distant path between them, and the performance of both of them is undertaken simultaneously.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讘讗爪讟诇讬转 诇讘谉 诪砖诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚拽专讬讗讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: From the fact that it is taught in the mishna that the High Priest is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, one may derive by inference that the reading of the Torah is not classified as a service, which would have required that he wear priestly vestments.

讜拽转谞讬 讗诐 专爪讛 诇拽专讜转 讘讘讙讚讬 讘讜抓 拽讜专讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘讛谉 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 拽专讬讗讛 讚爪讜专讱 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

But the mishna also teaches: If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, he may read wearing them. This is true even though they are consecrated as priestly vestments and the reading of the Torah is not a sacred service. Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Learn from this that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, i.e., even when not engaged in performing a service, a priest may derive benefit from the priestly vestments, for example, by wearing them for his own needs. If so, this would settle a long-standing unresolved dilemma concerning this issue. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: A proof may not be adduced from here because perhaps reading from the Torah is different, since it is for the purpose of the service; therefore, even though it is not a true service in its own right, it is nevertheless permitted for the High Priest to continue wearing the priestly vestments.

讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘讛谉 讗讜 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘讛谉

As the dilemma was raised before us: Is it permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, or is it not permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 砖讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讬 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讚爪讜专讱 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻讜驻专 讘讛诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讘注诇讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a mishna: The priests would not sleep in the sacred vestments out of concern they might pass wind while sleeping. One may infer: It is specifically sleep which is not permitted, but they may eat while wearing the priestly vestments, even though eating is not a service. This should prove that it is permitted to derive personal benefit from wearing priestly vestments. The Gemara rejects this proof: A proof may not be adduced from here because perhaps eating is different, since it is for the purpose of the Temple service. As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those things with which atonement was made鈥 (Exodus 29:33), which teaches that the priests eat the meat of the offerings and the owners of those offerings thereby achieve atonement.

砖讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讛诇讜讻讬 诪讛诇讻讬 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讛诇讜讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara suggests making a different inference from that mishna cited above: One may infer that it is specifically sleep which is not permitted, but they may walk while wearing the sacred vestments even when not engaged in a service. This should prove that it is permitted to derive benefit from wearing priestly vestments. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is incorrect to make this inference since by right the mishna should have stated that walking in priestly vestments is also not permitted.

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 Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of her beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. He was kind, sweet and funny, and had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei tevel.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 64 – 70 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

As we continue learning about the service of Yom Kippur in the Temple, this week we will learn about the...

Yoma 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 68

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟

Just as below it is prepared for burning by means of dissection and not by means of skinning, so too here it is by means of dissection and not by means of skinning.

讜讛转诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜拽专讘讜 讜驻专砖讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜爪讬讗讜 砖诇诐 讬讻讜诇 讬砖专驻谞讜 砖诇诐 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 专讗砖讜 讜讻专注讬讜 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 (专讗砖 讜讻专注讬诐) 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 谞讬转讜讞

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to bull sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they are cut but not skinned? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the skin of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs, and its innards, and its dung, even the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire鈥 (Leviticus 4:11鈥12). This teaches that he brings it out whole. One might have thought that he should burn it whole. It is stated here: Its head and its legs, and it is stated there, with regard to burnt-offerings, head and legs. Just as there, the burnt-offering is performed by means of dissection, as explicitly stated in the verse, so too here it is by means of dissection.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟 讗祝 讻讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讛驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜拽专讘讜 讜驻专砖讜 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻砖诐 砖驻专砖讜 讘拽专讘讜 讻讱 讘砖专讜 讘注讜专讜

The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from the same verbal analogy: Just as there, in the case of burnt-offerings, the dissection is performed with skinning, so too here it is with skinning, and he must remove the skin of the animals before burning them. The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nd its innards, and its dung.鈥 The Gemara asks: What is the derivation from this phrase? Rav Pappa said: Just as its dung is within its innards and they do not remove it, so too, its flesh is in its skin and they do not separate the skin from the flesh.

诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜砖专驻讜

搂 It was taught in the mishna that the tanna鈥檌m disagree about the question of at what point the bull and goat render the garments of those who carried them impure. The Sages taught a baraita based on the verse: 鈥淭he bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought in to gain atonement in the sacred place, shall be taken outside the camp and they shall burn鈥 (Leviticus 16:27).

诇讛诇谉 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讜讻讗谉 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讛诐 诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘讙讚讬诐

One might wonder: Below, with regard to other bull sin-offerings that are burned, you give them three camps, meaning that the bulls are burned outside the Israelite camp or, in the time of the Temple, outside Jerusalem. And here you give them only one camp, as they are burned as soon as they are taken out of the Temple courtyard, which is considered the camp of the Divine Presence. This seems unreasonable and is not to be accepted. If so, why is it stated: 鈥淥utside the camp鈥? The intention is not that they leave only one camp, but rather, to say to you: Once it has left one camp it immediately renders the garments of those carrying it impure.

讜讛转诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛驻专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to other bull sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they are removed from all three camps? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: It is stated about the bull sin-offering of the High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp鈥nd burn it鈥 (Leviticus 4:12), meaning that he should take it outside of three camps.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘驻专 讛注讚讛 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜砖专祝 讗讜转讜 讻讗砖专 砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖谞讬讛

Do you say that he takes it outside of three camps, or is he required to take it outside of only one camp? When it says with regard to the bull sin-offering brought for the sin of the community: 鈥淗e shall carry the bull outside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), that verse requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it was already stated: 鈥淎nd burn it as he burned the first bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), which indicates that all the halakhot of the bull sin-offering of a High Priest apply to the bull sin-offering of the community as well. And what is the meaning when the verse states outside the camp? To give it a second camp, i.e., to indicate that it must be removed from the Levite camp in addition to the camp of the Divine Presence.

讜讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘讚砖谉 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转

And when it says: 鈥淥utside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 6:4) with regard to removal of the ash, that verse also requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it was already stated with regard to the bull sin-offering of a High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). Rather the repetition of the words: Outside the camp, indicates that he should give it a third camp, so that it is burned outside of the Israelite camp as well. Consequently, it has been derived that inner sin-offerings are burned outside of the three camps, and when the Torah states: Outside the camp, with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, it teaches that as soon as they are taken outside the Temple courtyard, the garments of those carrying them are rendered impure.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讝专讞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Shimon do with the phrase outside the camp, as he holds that those carrying the bull and goat are rendered impure only once they leave all three camps? The Gemara answers: He needs it for that which was taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, outside the camp, and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer, 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 (Numbers 19:3). Just as here, it is burned outside three camps, so too there the heifer, it is burned outside three camps. And just as there it is burned east of Jerusalem, since the heifer must be burned 鈥渢oward the front of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Numbers 19:4), opposite the entrance to the Temple to its east, so too here the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned east of Jerusalem.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讗 砖专讬祝 诇讛讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讻谉 谞砖专驻讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, where do they burn them? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: Where are they burned?

诇爪驻讜谞讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 谞砖专驻讬谉

North of Jerusalem, and outside of three camps. Rabbi Yosei says: They are burned in the place of the ashes.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 讬砖专祝 砖讬讛讗 诇砖诐 讚砖谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 砖讬讛讗 诪拽讜诪讜 诪砖讜驻讱

Rava said: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei on this issue? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲here the ashes are poured out [shefekh hadeshen] shall it be burned鈥 (Leviticus 4:12), which means that there shall already be ash there in that place, so that it is known as the ash heap even before this animal is burned there. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: This verse indicates that its place should be slanted [meshupakh] so that ash that is deposited there will roll downhill. Rava understood that whereas Rabbi Yosei requires that there already be ash present when the bull is burned, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov does not.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诪砖讜驻讱 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

Abaye said to him: There is no proof from here, as perhaps they disagree only about whether the place must be slanted. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov may agree there should be ash there to begin with, but he adds that the place must also be slanted. Therefore, there is no proof to support Rava鈥檚 statement.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讜专祝 讛砖讜专祝 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讛诪爪讬转 讗转 讛讗讜专 讜诇讗 讛诪住讚专 讗转 讛诪注专讻讛 讜讗讬 讝讛讜 讛砖讜专祝 讝讛 讛诪住讬讬注 讘砖注转 砖专讬驻讛

The Sages taught: It states: 鈥淎nd he who burns them shall wash his garments鈥 (Leviticus 16:28), to indicate that only the garments of the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are rendered impure, but not the garments of the one who kindles the fire, and not the garments of the one who arranges the pile of wood. And who is the one who burns? It is the one who assists at the actual time of burning.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诪砖谞注砖讜 讗驻专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转诐 讗讜转诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖谞注砖讜 讗驻专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛驻专 诪讟诪讗 谞讬转讱 讛讘砖专 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

One might have thought that garments would be rendered impure even after the bull and goat have become ash. Therefore, the verse states: Them, to indicate that they themselves, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, render garments impure, but they do not render garments impure once they become ash. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The bull causes ritual impurity before it is burned, but once the flesh is burned it no longer renders garments impure.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚砖讜讬讛 讞专讜讻讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when he turned it into a charred mass and the form of the animal has already become distorted but has not actually become ash. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it no longer causes impurity.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 讜诪谞讬讬谉 讛讬讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 讚讬专讻讗讜转 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讜诪谞讬驻讬谉 讘住讜讚专讬谉 讜讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专

MISHNA: They said to the High Priest: The goat has reached the wilderness. And how did they know in the Temple that the goat reached the wilderness? They would build platforms [dirkaot] all along the way and people would stand on them and wave scarves [sudarin] to signal when the goat arrived. And therefore they knew that the goat reached the wilderness.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 住讬诪谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注讚 讘讬转 讞讚讜讚讜 砖诇砖讛 诪讬诇讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诪讬诇 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 诪讬诇 讜砖讜讛讬谉 讻讚讬 诪讬诇 讜讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专

Rabbi Yehuda said: Why did they need these platforms? Didn鈥檛 they already have a reliable indicator? From Jerusalem to Beit 岣ddudo, the edge of the wilderness, where the mitzva of dispatching the goat was performed, was a distance of three mil. Since the nobles of Jerusalem walked a mil to escort the dispatcher and returned a mil, and waited the time equivalent to the time it takes to walk a mil, they knew that the goat reached the wilderness. There was no need for the platforms.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 住讬诪谉 讗讞专 讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诇砖讜谉 砖诇 讝讛讜专讬转 讛讬讛 拽砖讜专 注诇 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讜讻砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 讛讬讛 讛诇砖讜谉 诪诇讘讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讬讛讬讜 讞讟讗讬讻诐 讻砖谞讬诐 讻砖诇讙 讬诇讘讬谞讜

Rabbi Yishmael says: Didn鈥檛 they have a different indicator? There was a strip of crimson tied to the entrance to the Sanctuary, and when the goat reached the wilderness and the mitzva was fulfilled the strip would turn white, as it is stated: 鈥淭hough your sins be as scarlet, they will become white as snow鈥 (Isaiah 1:18).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬转 讞讚讜讚讜 讘诪讚讘专 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 砖注讬专 诇诪讚讘专 谞注砖讬转 诪爪讜转讜

GEMARA: Abaye said: Learn from this that Beit 岣ddudo is located in the wilderness, and this comes to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda holds that once the goat has reached the wilderness, its mitzva is complete even before it is pushed off the cliff, and there is no need to wait any longer.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖谞讬 砖注讬专讬

 

诪转谞讬壮 讘讗 诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇拽专讜转 讗诐 专爪讛 诇拽专讜转 讘讘讙讚讬 讘讜抓 拽讜专讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽讜专讗 讘讗爪讟诇讬转 诇讘谉 诪砖诇讜

MISHNA: The High Priest came to read the Torah. If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, i.e., the priestly vestments he wore during the previous service, he may read wearing them; and if not he is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, which is not a priestly vestment.

讞讝谉 讛讻谞住转 谞讜讟诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇专讗砖 讛讻谞住转 讜专讗砖 讛讻谞住转 谞讜转谞讜 诇住讙谉 讜讛住讙谉 谞讜转谞讜 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽讘诇 讜拽讜专讗 讘讗讞专讬 诪讜转 讜讗讱 讘注砖讜专 讜讙讜诇诇 住驻专 转讜专讛 讜诪谞讬讞讜 讘讞讬拽讜 讜讗讜诪专 讬讜转专 诪诪讛 砖拽专讗转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讘注砖讜专 砖讘讞讜诪砖 讛驻拽讜讚讬诐 拽讜专讗 注诇 驻讛

The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue that stood on the Temple Mount; and the head of the synagogue gives it to the deputy High Priest, and the Deputy gives it to the High Priest, and the High Priest stands and receives the scroll from his hands. And he reads from the scroll the Torah portion beginning with the verse: 鈥淎fter the death鈥 (Leviticus 16:1) and the portion beginning with the verse: 鈥淏ut on the tenth鈥 (Leviticus 23:26), and furls the Torah scroll and places it on his bosom and says: More than what I have read before you is written here. The Torah portion beginning with the verse: 鈥淎nd on the tenth,鈥 from the book of Numbers (29:7), he then reads by heart.

讜诪讘专讱 注诇讬讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讘专讻讜转 注诇 讛转讜专讛 讜注诇 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜注诇 讛讛讜讚讗讛 讜注诇 诪讞讬诇转 讛注讜谉 讜注诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜注诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜注诇 砖讗专 讛转驻诇讛

And he recites after the reading the following eight blessings:
Concerning the Torah: Who has given us the Torah of truth;
and concerning the Temple service: Find favor in Your people Israel and accept the service in Your most holy House… for You alone do we serve with reverence;
and concerning thanksgiving: We give thanks to You;
and concerning pardon of iniquity: Pardon our iniquities on this Yom Kippur;
and concerning the Temple in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose the Temple;
and concerning the Jewish People in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose Israel;
and concerning Jerusalem in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose Jerusalem;
and concerning the priests in and of themselves, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho chose the priests;
and concerning the rest of the prayer, which concludes: Blessed鈥ho listens to prayer.

讛专讜讗讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 驻专 讜砖注讬专 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讜讛专讜讗讛 驻专 讜砖注讬专 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 拽讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讗诇讗 砖讛讬转讛 讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讜诪诇讗讻转 砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讛 讻讗讞转

The Mishna comments: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned; and one who sees the bull and goat that are burned does not see the High Priest reading the Torah. The Mishna explains: And this is not due to the fact that one is not permitted to see both, but because there was a distant path between them, and the performance of both of them is undertaken simultaneously.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讘讗爪讟诇讬转 诇讘谉 诪砖诇讜 诪讻诇诇 讚拽专讬讗讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: From the fact that it is taught in the mishna that the High Priest is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, one may derive by inference that the reading of the Torah is not classified as a service, which would have required that he wear priestly vestments.

讜拽转谞讬 讗诐 专爪讛 诇拽专讜转 讘讘讙讚讬 讘讜抓 拽讜专讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘讛谉 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 拽专讬讗讛 讚爪讜专讱 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

But the mishna also teaches: If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, he may read wearing them. This is true even though they are consecrated as priestly vestments and the reading of the Torah is not a sacred service. Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Learn from this that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, i.e., even when not engaged in performing a service, a priest may derive benefit from the priestly vestments, for example, by wearing them for his own needs. If so, this would settle a long-standing unresolved dilemma concerning this issue. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: A proof may not be adduced from here because perhaps reading from the Torah is different, since it is for the purpose of the service; therefore, even though it is not a true service in its own right, it is nevertheless permitted for the High Priest to continue wearing the priestly vestments.

讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘讛谉 讗讜 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘讛谉

As the dilemma was raised before us: Is it permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, or is it not permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments?

转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘讙讚讬 拽讜讚砖 砖讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讬 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讚爪讜专讱 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻讜驻专 讘讛诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讘注诇讬诐 诪转讻驻专讬谉

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a mishna: The priests would not sleep in the sacred vestments out of concern they might pass wind while sleeping. One may infer: It is specifically sleep which is not permitted, but they may eat while wearing the priestly vestments, even though eating is not a service. This should prove that it is permitted to derive personal benefit from wearing priestly vestments. The Gemara rejects this proof: A proof may not be adduced from here because perhaps eating is different, since it is for the purpose of the Temple service. As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those things with which atonement was made鈥 (Exodus 29:33), which teaches that the priests eat the meat of the offerings and the owners of those offerings thereby achieve atonement.

砖讬谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讛诇讜讻讬 诪讛诇讻讬 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讛诇讜讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara suggests making a different inference from that mishna cited above: One may infer that it is specifically sleep which is not permitted, but they may walk while wearing the sacred vestments even when not engaged in a service. This should prove that it is permitted to derive benefit from wearing priestly vestments. The Gemara rejects this proof: It is incorrect to make this inference since by right the mishna should have stated that walking in priestly vestments is also not permitted.

Scroll To Top