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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 18, 2021 | 讜壮 讘讗讬讬专 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 the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Yoma 7

Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree regarding whether impurity is pushed aside or entirely permitted in cases involving the public. The gemara brings three tannaitic sources (including Tosefta Menachot Chapter 3) to raise difficulties against Rav Nachman, but answers them. From the answers, it becomes clear that Rav Nachman held that there were a few exceptions to the rule and there are cases where the impurity is not entirely permitted. Then they bring one source against Rav Sheshet and answer it by saying that it’s a tannaitic debate whether or not impurity is pushed aside or entirely permitted. The tannaitic debate relates to the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol and whether it worked while it was on his forehead only or even if it were hanging on a peg. Some of the other sources brought also mentioned the tzitz and discussed when it was needed.

讚讻诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讘爪讬讘讜专 专讞诪谞讗 砖专讬讬讛

as in all situations of impurity imparted by corpses in cases involving the public, the Merciful One permits those who are impure to perform the Temple service.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽专讬讘 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讜谞讟诪讗转 讘讬讚讜 讗讜诪专 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讛讜讬 驻拽讞 讜砖转讜拽

The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive to say that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is as it was taught in a baraita: If a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal-offering and it became impure in his hand, the priest, who was aware of what transpired, says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讜诪专 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讚讬谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛

In any case, it is teaching that he says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its place. Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. Rav Na岣an rejected the proof and said: I concede that in a case where there are remnants of the offering designated for eating it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪拽专讬讘 诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讜讻讘砖讬诐 讜谞讟诪讗转 讘讬讚讜 讗讜诪专 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讛讜讬 驻拽讞 讜砖转讜拽

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the Tosefta: If a priest was sacrificing the meal-offering accompanying the sacrifice of bulls, rams, or sheep, and the meal-offering became impure in his hand, the priest says that it is impure and the priests bring another mealoffering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻专讬诐 讗讬诇讬诐 讜讻讘砖讬诐 讚讞讙

What, is it not referring to the bulls, rams, and sheep of the festival of Sukkot, which are communal offerings that are not eaten? Apparently, even in cases of communal offerings, the priests seek to perform the service in a state of purity and the prohibition of impurity is not permitted but merely overridden.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 驻专讬诐 驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚爪讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 诇讬讛 讝诪谉 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诐 讘讗讬诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讘讬注 诇讬讛 讝诪谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘讻讘砖 讛讘讗 注诐 讛注讜诪专 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛

Rav Na岣an could have said to you: No, the bulls mentioned in the Tosefta are not standard communal offerings. Rather, the reference is to the bull sacrificed when the entire community engages in idolatry unwittingly. Although this offering is a communal offering, since it has no specific time fixed for its sacrifice, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead.
Similarly, the rams mentioned in the Tosefta are not additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the ram of Aaron sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Although it has a specific time fixed for its sacrifice, since it is an offering brought by an individual, the High Priest, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead, as service in a state of impurity is permitted only for communal offerings.
The sheep mentioned are not those for the daily offerings or the additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the sheep that accompanies the omer meal-offering, as in that ase, there are remnants designated for eating. Therefore, the meal-offering must be offered in purity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讬讞讬讚

The Gemara raises an additional objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: With regard to blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, even in cases involving the public, performing service in the Temple in a state of impurity is not permitted. This objection is rejected: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to the offering of an individual, where the prohibition of impurity is certainly in effect.

转讗 砖诪注 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专爪讜讬讬

The Gemara continues: Come and hear a different argument based on that which was taught in a baraita. For what does the frontplate worn by the High Priest effect acceptance? It effects acceptance for the blood, for the flesh, and for the fat of an offering that became impure in the Temple, whether it became impure unwittingly or whether it became impure intentionally, whether it was due to circumstances beyond his control or whether it was done willfully, whether it was in the framework of an individual offering or whether it was in the framework of a communal offering. And if it enters your mind that impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need the frontplate to effect acceptance? If the prohibition of impurity is permitted, no pardon is necessary.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讗讚讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讘讛谞讱 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 诇讛 讝诪谉

The Gemara responds that Rav Na岣an could have said to you: When the baraita teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance it is not referring to the entire list of items cited in the baraita; it is referring to an individual offering brought in impurity, not to a communal offering. The communal offering is mentioned only in the sense that in that case too, impurity is permitted, albeit for a different reason. Or if you wish, say instead: Even if you say that the frontplate effects acceptance for a communal offering, it is only for those offerings that lack a fixed time. Rav Na岣an concedes that with regard to those communal offerings that have no specific time fixed for their sacrifice, the prohibition of performing the service in impurity remains in effect and requires the acceptance effected by the frontplate.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛 注讜谉 讛讜讗 谞讜砖讗 讗诐 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讜讗诐 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘

The Gemara raises an objection. It is stated: 鈥淎nd Aaron will gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things that the children of Israel shall hallow in all their sacred gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted favorably before the Lord鈥 (Exodus 28:38). And for which sin does the frontplate gain forgiveness? If it is for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat it after the permitted time, it has already been stated: 鈥淎nd if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7). There is no acceptance of an offering that became piggul. And if it is for the sin of notar, meat of an offering left after the permitted time for eating it passed, it has already been stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it鈥 (Leviticus 7:18).

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 爪讬抓 讘讬谉 砖讬砖谞讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 诪专爪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Apparently, the frontplate gains forgiveness only for the sin of impurity, which was exempted from its general prohibition in cases involving the public. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said that the prohibition of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, as the baraita clearly states that impurity is permitted. The Gemara responds: According to Rav Sheshet, the question of whether the prohibition of impurity is permitted or overridden in cases involving the public is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate effects acceptance whether it is on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead or whether it is not on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead when the offering becomes impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讜讚讛讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 诪专爪讛 讗讬谉 注讜讚讛讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗讬谉 注讜讚讛讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜诪专爪讛

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is on his forehead it effects acceptance; if it is no longer on his forehead it does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur can prove that your statement is incorrect, as on Yom Kippur when the High priest wears only four linen garments the frontplate is no longer on his forehead, and it still effects acceptance.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讞 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讘爪讬讘讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Leave the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, as the atonement of the frontplate is unnecessary because the prohibition of performing the Temple service in impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Learn by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why the atonement of the frontplate is necessary. The dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Na岣an is based on a tannaitic dispute, and the baraita cited above is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘谞砖讘专 讛爪讬抓 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转诇讬 讘住讬讻转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 注诇 诪爪讞 讜谞砖讗

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: In a case where the frontplate broke, everyone, including Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the frontplate no longer effects acceptance. When they disagree is in a case where the frontplate is not on his forehead but is hanging on a peg. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron shall gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things鈥 (Exodus 28:38) means that the frontplate atones for sin as long as it is on his forehead.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 转诪讬讚 诇专爪讜谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪讗讬 转诪讬讚 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转诪讬讚 注诇 诪爪讞讜 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬注诇 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞诐 讗诇讗 转诪讬讚 诪专爪讛 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Shimon holds that emphasis should be placed on the end of that verse: 鈥淚t shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.鈥 From this, Rabbi Shimon derived that the frontplate always effects acceptance, even when it is not upon the High Priest鈥檚 forehead, as what is the meaning of the word always in the verse? If we say that it means that the frontplate must always be on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead, do you find that situation in reality? Doesn鈥檛 he need to enter the bathroom, when he must remove the frontplate bearing the name of God? Similarly, doesn鈥檛 he need to sleep, at which time he removes the priestly vestments? Rather, it means that the frontplate always effects acceptance, whether or not it is on his forehead.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转诪讬讚 讛讛讜讗 转诪讬讚 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讜 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诪砖诪砖 讘转驻讬诇讬讜 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜砖注讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪爪讬抓

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎lways鈥? Clearly it does not mean that the frontplate must always be on his forehead. The Gemara answers: That term: 鈥淎lways,鈥 teaches that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is on his head, and that he should not be distracted from it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person must touch the phylacteries on his head and on his arm each and every hour, to maintain awareness of their presence. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the frontplate:

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 the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a鈥漢, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 2-9 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Masechet Yoma describes the events leading up to Yom Kippur and the events of Yom Kippur itself, the holiest day...
alon shvut women

Tumah, Community, Mikdash

Daf Yoma 07 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜转专讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 - 专讘 谞讞诪谉 (讗诪讜专讗) 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 (转谞讗) 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讬讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 - 专讘 砖砖转 (讗诪讜专讗)...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 7: Keep Quiet, and They Won’t Know

Impurity is permitted in the context of the community -- the case of a kohen offering the omer korban, and...
introduction to yoma by gitta

Introduction to Yoma聽– The Main Structure

Masechet Yoma (literally, 鈥淭he Day鈥) deals with聽 Yom Kippur (YK).聽聽 Structure of the masechet:聽 The masechet is arranged in chronological聽...

Yoma 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 7

讚讻诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讘爪讬讘讜专 专讞诪谞讗 砖专讬讬讛

as in all situations of impurity imparted by corpses in cases involving the public, the Merciful One permits those who are impure to perform the Temple service.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽专讬讘 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讜谞讟诪讗转 讘讬讚讜 讗讜诪专 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讛讜讬 驻拽讞 讜砖转讜拽

The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive to say that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is as it was taught in a baraita: If a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal-offering and it became impure in his hand, the priest, who was aware of what transpired, says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗讜诪专 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讚讬谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛

In any case, it is teaching that he says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its place. Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. Rav Na岣an rejected the proof and said: I concede that in a case where there are remnants of the offering designated for eating it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪拽专讬讘 诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讜讻讘砖讬诐 讜谞讟诪讗转 讘讬讚讜 讗讜诪专 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讜 讛讜讬 驻拽讞 讜砖转讜拽

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from the Tosefta: If a priest was sacrificing the meal-offering accompanying the sacrifice of bulls, rams, or sheep, and the meal-offering became impure in his hand, the priest says that it is impure and the priests bring another mealoffering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻专讬诐 讗讬诇讬诐 讜讻讘砖讬诐 讚讞讙

What, is it not referring to the bulls, rams, and sheep of the festival of Sukkot, which are communal offerings that are not eaten? Apparently, even in cases of communal offerings, the priests seek to perform the service in a state of purity and the prohibition of impurity is not permitted but merely overridden.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 驻专讬诐 驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚爪讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 诇讬讛 讝诪谉 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诐 讘讗讬诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讘讬注 诇讬讛 讝诪谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘讻讘砖 讛讘讗 注诐 讛注讜诪专 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛

Rav Na岣an could have said to you: No, the bulls mentioned in the Tosefta are not standard communal offerings. Rather, the reference is to the bull sacrificed when the entire community engages in idolatry unwittingly. Although this offering is a communal offering, since it has no specific time fixed for its sacrifice, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead.
Similarly, the rams mentioned in the Tosefta are not additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the ram of Aaron sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Although it has a specific time fixed for its sacrifice, since it is an offering brought by an individual, the High Priest, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead, as service in a state of impurity is permitted only for communal offerings.
The sheep mentioned are not those for the daily offerings or the additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the sheep that accompanies the omer meal-offering, as in that ase, there are remnants designated for eating. Therefore, the meal-offering must be offered in purity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讬讞讬讚

The Gemara raises an additional objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an: With regard to blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, even in cases involving the public, performing service in the Temple in a state of impurity is not permitted. This objection is rejected: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to the offering of an individual, where the prohibition of impurity is certainly in effect.

转讗 砖诪注 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专爪讜讬讬

The Gemara continues: Come and hear a different argument based on that which was taught in a baraita. For what does the frontplate worn by the High Priest effect acceptance? It effects acceptance for the blood, for the flesh, and for the fat of an offering that became impure in the Temple, whether it became impure unwittingly or whether it became impure intentionally, whether it was due to circumstances beyond his control or whether it was done willfully, whether it was in the framework of an individual offering or whether it was in the framework of a communal offering. And if it enters your mind that impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need the frontplate to effect acceptance? If the prohibition of impurity is permitted, no pardon is necessary.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讗讚讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讘讛谞讱 讚诇讗 拽讘讬注 诇讛 讝诪谉

The Gemara responds that Rav Na岣an could have said to you: When the baraita teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance it is not referring to the entire list of items cited in the baraita; it is referring to an individual offering brought in impurity, not to a communal offering. The communal offering is mentioned only in the sense that in that case too, impurity is permitted, albeit for a different reason. Or if you wish, say instead: Even if you say that the frontplate effects acceptance for a communal offering, it is only for those offerings that lack a fixed time. Rav Na岣an concedes that with regard to those communal offerings that have no specific time fixed for their sacrifice, the prohibition of performing the service in impurity remains in effect and requires the acceptance effected by the frontplate.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛 注讜谉 讛讜讗 谞讜砖讗 讗诐 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讜讗诐 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘

The Gemara raises an objection. It is stated: 鈥淎nd Aaron will gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things that the children of Israel shall hallow in all their sacred gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted favorably before the Lord鈥 (Exodus 28:38). And for which sin does the frontplate gain forgiveness? If it is for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat it after the permitted time, it has already been stated: 鈥淎nd if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7). There is no acceptance of an offering that became piggul. And if it is for the sin of notar, meat of an offering left after the permitted time for eating it passed, it has already been stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it鈥 (Leviticus 7:18).

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 砖砖转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 爪讬抓 讘讬谉 砖讬砖谞讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 诪专爪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Apparently, the frontplate gains forgiveness only for the sin of impurity, which was exempted from its general prohibition in cases involving the public. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said that the prohibition of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, as the baraita clearly states that impurity is permitted. The Gemara responds: According to Rav Sheshet, the question of whether the prohibition of impurity is permitted or overridden in cases involving the public is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate effects acceptance whether it is on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead or whether it is not on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead when the offering becomes impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讜讚讛讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 诪专爪讛 讗讬谉 注讜讚讛讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗讬谉 注讜讚讛讜 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜诪专爪讛

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is on his forehead it effects acceptance; if it is no longer on his forehead it does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur can prove that your statement is incorrect, as on Yom Kippur when the High priest wears only four linen garments the frontplate is no longer on his forehead, and it still effects acceptance.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讞 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讘爪讬讘讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Leave the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, as the atonement of the frontplate is unnecessary because the prohibition of performing the Temple service in impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Learn by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why the atonement of the frontplate is necessary. The dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Na岣an is based on a tannaitic dispute, and the baraita cited above is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘谞砖讘专 讛爪讬抓 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转诇讬 讘住讬讻转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 注诇 诪爪讞 讜谞砖讗

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: In a case where the frontplate broke, everyone, including Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the frontplate no longer effects acceptance. When they disagree is in a case where the frontplate is not on his forehead but is hanging on a peg. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron shall gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things鈥 (Exodus 28:38) means that the frontplate atones for sin as long as it is on his forehead.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 转诪讬讚 诇专爪讜谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪讗讬 转诪讬讚 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转诪讬讚 注诇 诪爪讞讜 诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬注诇 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞诐 讗诇讗 转诪讬讚 诪专爪讛 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Shimon holds that emphasis should be placed on the end of that verse: 鈥淚t shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.鈥 From this, Rabbi Shimon derived that the frontplate always effects acceptance, even when it is not upon the High Priest鈥檚 forehead, as what is the meaning of the word always in the verse? If we say that it means that the frontplate must always be on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead, do you find that situation in reality? Doesn鈥檛 he need to enter the bathroom, when he must remove the frontplate bearing the name of God? Similarly, doesn鈥檛 he need to sleep, at which time he removes the priestly vestments? Rather, it means that the frontplate always effects acceptance, whether or not it is on his forehead.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 转诪讬讚 讛讛讜讗 转诪讬讚 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讜 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 诇诪砖诪砖 讘转驻讬诇讬讜 讘讻诇 砖注讛 讜砖注讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪爪讬抓

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎lways鈥? Clearly it does not mean that the frontplate must always be on his forehead. The Gemara answers: That term: 鈥淎lways,鈥 teaches that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is on his head, and that he should not be distracted from it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person must touch the phylacteries on his head and on his arm each and every hour, to maintain awareness of their presence. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the frontplate:

Scroll To Top