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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 23, 2021 | 讬状讙 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 Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Yoma 73

Rav Dimi says that the Kohen who is anointed to strengthen the soldiers when going out to war wears the garments of the Kohen Gadol when he works in the Temple. Ravin says that he wears them when consulting with God through the Urim v鈥橳umim. Two questions are raised against Rav Dimi. Through these questions, an answer is given that the Kohen who is anointed for war cannot wear the Kohen Gadol’s clothing due to jealousy of the Kohen Gadol (by Torah law, he can but the rabbis prohibited). A question is brought from a source that compares all the laws regarding the Kohen Gadol/former Kohen Gadol/and Kohen for war seems to indicate that jealousy is not a concern and yet the Kohen for war does not wear the same clothes as the Kohen Gadol. How is this resolved? Ravin brings a different statement regarding the Kohen for war and the clothing of the Kohen Gadol – he wears them when he consults with the Urim v’Tumim. How does one consult with the Urim v鈥橳umim? Examples are brought from the Prophets to learn what is said, how it should be said, etc. How was the answer given? What is forbidden on Yom Kippur? What are exceptions to the rule? What is the requisite amount of food that can鈥檛 be eaten? Can foods and drinks combine to get to the requisite amount? Is it forbidden by Torah law to eat less than the requisite amount (chatzi shiur)?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诇讘砖诐 讛讻讛谉 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬

therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪even days shall he wear them, the one who serves in his stead from among his sons, who comes into the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary鈥 (Exodus 29:30). The verse describes a son serving in the place of his father, indicating that the position is inherited. The conclusion of the verse implies that the rule that a son inherits his father鈥檚 position applies only to a High Priest who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting, but not to the priest anointed for war. Based on this baraita, the following challenge is posed: And if it is so, since the priest anointed for war also serves wearing the same garments as the High Priest, he is also fit to enter the Tent of Meeting and should bequeath his position to his son.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖注讬拽专 诪砖讬讞转讜 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖注讬拽专 诪砖讬讞转讜 诇诪诇讞诪讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this is what the baraita is saying: The rule that a son inherits his father鈥檚 position applies to anyone for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is to come and serve in the Tent of Meeting. That excludes this priest for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is for war.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪砖 诇讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讻讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 讘砖诪讜谞讛 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Dimi鈥檚 claim: It was taught in a baraita that the priest anointed for war serves neither in four garments, like a common priest, nor in eight garments, like a High Priest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讝专 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛 讻讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪砖讜诐 诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Abaye said to him: Would you make him like a non-priest? If he dresses like neither a High Priest nor a common priest, then effectively he is like a non-priest, but that is certainly not true. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is that the priest anointed for war does not dress like a High Priest due to the animosity that could be caused between him and the High Priest if they both wore similar garments. Therefore, although according to Torah law the priest anointed for war should dress like a High Priest, the Sages decreed that he should not, out of concern that animosity might result. And he does not dress like a common priest, due to the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since the priest anointed for war attained the level of sanctity of a High Priest, he may not now be demoted to serve as an ordinary priest and dress accordingly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪砖

Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But there is this tanna of the following baraita who does not accept the concern of animosity as a reason to prevent one from wearing similar garments, and yet even according to him the priest anointed for war does not serve wearing the eight garments. Clearly, there must be a different reason.

讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讜驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

As it was taught in a baraita: The matters in which there are differences between a High Priest and a common priest are as follows:
The bull of the anointed priest, also called the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought for unwittingly deciding and following an erroneous halakhic ruling in a case for which one would be liable to receive the penalty of karet had he committed it intentionally;
And the bull of Yom Kippur;
And the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest offers each day.
Only the High Priest brings the above offerings.

诇讗 驻讜专注 讜诇讗 驻讜专诐 讗讘诇 驻讜专诐 讛讜讗 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讛讛讚讬讜讟 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 讛讘转讜诇讛 讜诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛专讜爪讞

In addition, when in mourning, a High Priest does not let his hair grow wild, nor does he rend his clothing in the way other mourners do. But he does rend his clothing from below, in a place that is not noticeable, while the common priest rends from above in the normal manner.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives, but a common priest may.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow, in contrast to a common priest who is prohibited to marry only a divorcee.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge.

讜诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讜谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讜诪拽专讬讘 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讜诪砖诪砖 讘砖诪谞讛 讻诇讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讜讻诇 注讘讜讚讜转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讻砖讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讘讜

And he sacrifices offerings even when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his mourning, but he may not eat from the offerings on that day and he may not take a portion from them.
And he takes his portion first from any offering of his choice.
And he has the first right to sacrifice any offering he wants.
And he serves wearing eight garments.
And he is exempt from bringing an offering for unwittingly causing ritual impurity to the Temple and its sacred objects.
And all parts of the Yom Kippur service are valid only when performed by him.

讜讻讜诇谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讞讜抓 诪驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转

And all these halakhot unique to the High Priest are not limited to one who was consecrated with anointing oil, but apply also to a High Priest of many garments. During the Second Temple period, when the oil used for anointing was no longer available for anointing High Priests, the High Priests were consecrated by virtue of wearing the eight garments. This is true except with regard to the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought only by a High Priest consecrated with anointing oil.

讜讻讜诇谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘诪砖讜讞 砖注讘专 讞讜抓 诪驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

And all these halakhot apply to a former High Priest who had been consecrated to substitute for a High Priest who had become disqualified. If the disqualification of the original High Priest is removed, he may return to his position. Although the substitute no longer serves as a High Priest, he retains the sanctity of a High Priest and the halakhot of the High Priest continue to apply to him. This is true except with regard to the sacrifice of the bull on Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of the tenth of an ephah each day.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬谉 讘驻专砖讛 诇讗 驻讜专注 讜诇讗 驻讜专诐 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 讛讘转讜诇讛 讜诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛专讜爪讞 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

And none of them applies to the priest anointed for war, except for the five items stated explicitly in the passage about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10鈥15):
When in mourning, he does not let his hair grow wild nor does he rend his clothing in the way regular mourners do.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Makkot (11a). And the Rabbis say: His death does not allow the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge.

讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讘讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讚讝讜讟专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The baraita teaches that a former High Priest also wears the eight garments of the High Priest. It is therefore apparent that the tanna of the baraita is not concerned about animosity which could be caused if the High Priest and the former High Priest wear similar garments. Despite this, the baraita agrees that the priest anointed for war does not wear the eight garments. This suggests that the reason for this is not out of concern that animosity might result. The Gemara rejects this proof: When the High Priest has no animosity toward someone else wearing the same garments, it is only where that person is similar to him, such as a former High Priest who held the same rank. But toward someone inferior to him who wears the same garments, such as the priest anointed for war, he does feel animosity.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专讛 讜讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before the Sages and saying this halakha of Rav Dimi, that the priest anointed for war serves in the same garments as the High Priest, in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away to show that they disagreed. Some say it was not RabbiAbbahu but Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba who said it, and it was away from him that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讘讬 拽讬住专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 谞讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬

Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha, it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see 岣giga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 谞砖讗诇 讗讬转诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讙讚讬诐 砖讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖诪砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 谞砖讗诇 讘讛谉

The Gemara cites an opinion that conflicts with that of Rav Dimi: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: The teaching that the priest anointed for war wears the eight garments of the High Priest was stated only with regard to being consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. To be consulted he must wear all eight garments; however, he never serves in them. That was also taught in a baraita: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war is consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讛砖讜讗诇 驻谞讬讜 讻诇驻讬 谞砖讗诇 讜讛谞砖讗诇 驻谞讬讜 讻诇驻讬 砖讻讬谞讛

The Sages taught: How does one consult the Urim VeTummim? The one asking stands with his face toward the one who is asked, i.e., the High Priest or the priest anointed for war. And the one who is asked, the High Priest, turns his face toward the Divine Presence, i.e., the Urim VeTummim, in which the explicit name of God is found, by tilting his head downward toward it.

讛砖讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗专讚讜祝 讗讞专讬 讛讙讚讜讚 讛讝讛 讜讛谞砖讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 注诇讛 讜讛爪诇讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇讗 注诇讛 讜讛爪诇讞

The one who asks says his question, e.g.: 鈥淪hall I pursue after this troop?鈥 (I Samuel 30:8). And the one who is asked answers him according to the response he receives and says, for example: Thus says God: Go up and succeed. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not say the words: Thus says God; rather, it is sufficient to relay the content of the response and say: Go up and succeed, since he is obviously only repeating what he was told.

讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘拽讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讗诇 诇讜 诇讗 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讗诇 诇讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讗 讻讚专讱 砖讗诪专讛 讞谞讛 讘转驻诇转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞谞讛 讛讬讗 诪讚讘专转 注诇 诇讘讛

One does not ask in a loud voice, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim鈥 (Numbers 27:21), which implies that the inquiry is to be audible only to the person asking. And he should not think his question in his heart but should enunciate it, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd鈥ho shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God鈥 (Numbers 27:21), and immediately afterward it states: 鈥淏y his mouth鈥 (Numbers 27:21). Rather, how shall he inquire? He should do so akin to the way that Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is stated: 鈥淣ow Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard鈥 (I Samuel 1:13), which indicates she did enunciate the words but spoke so quietly that no one else could hear.

讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讗诐 砖讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬住讙讬专讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 拽注讬诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讛讬专讚 砖讗讜诇 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讬专讚 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 讚讜讚 砖讗诇

One does not ask about two matters simultaneously; rather, one asks one question, and after he is answered he asks a second question. And even if he asks about two matters simultaneously, he is answered only with regard to one of them, and he is answered only with regard to the first question. As it is stated with regard to King David that he asked two questions simultaneously: 鈥淲ill the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down?鈥 (I Samuel 23:11). And he was answered with regard to only one: 鈥淎nd God said: He will come down.鈥 (I Samuel 23:11). The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that if one asks two questions, he is answered only with regard to the first question? Yet the verse states that David received an answer for his second question, not the first. The Gemara answers: David asked the questions

砖诇讗 讻住讚专 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讜 讻住讚专 讜讻讬讜谉 砖讬讚注 砖砖讗诇 砖诇讗 讻住讚专 讞讝专 讜砖讗诇 讻住讚专 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬住讙讬专讜 讘注诇讬 拽注讬诇讛 讗讜转讬 讜讗转 讗谞砖讬 讘讬讚 砖讗讜诇 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讬住讙讬专讜

out of order and he was answered in order. He should have asked first whether Saul would come down, and afterward what the people of Keilah would do. And once he realized that he had asked out of order he went back and asked in order, as it is stated immediately afterward: 鈥淲ill the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And God said: They will deliver you鈥 (I Samuel 23:12).

讜讗诐 讛讜爪专讱 讛讚讘专 诇砖谞讬诐 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讗诇 讚讜讚 讘讛壮 诇讗诪专 讛讗专讚讜祝 讗讞专讬 讛讙讚讜讚 讛讝讛 讛讗砖讬讙谞讜 讜讬讗诪专 (讛壮) 诇讜 专讚讜祝 讻讬 讛砖讙 转砖讬讙 讜讛爪诇 转爪讬诇

But if the matter is urgent and requires asking two questions simultaneously, there being no time to follow the standard protocol, one may ask both questions simultaneously and he is answered with regard to the two questions together, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd David asked of God, saying: Shall I pursue after this troop? Will I overtake them? And He answered him: Pursue, for you will surely overtake them, and will surely rescue鈥 (I Samuel 30:8).

讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讝讬专转 谞讘讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讙讝讬专转 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 砖谞讗诪专 讘诪砖驻讟 讛讗讜专讬诐

The Gemara notes the reliability of the Urim VeTummim: Even though a decree of a prophet can be retracted, as sometimes a dire prophecy is stated as a warning and does not come true, a decree of the Urim VeTummim cannot be retracted. As it is stated: 鈥淏y the judgment of the Urim (Numbers 27:21). The use of the term judgment suggests that the decree is as final as a judicial decision.

诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪谉 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗讜专讬诐 砖诪讗讬专讬谉 讗转 讚讘专讬讛谉 转讜诪讬诐 砖诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讗转 讚讘专讬讛谉

Why is it called Urim VeTummim? Urim, which is based on the word or, light, is so called because it illuminates and explains its words. Tummim, which is based on the word tam, completed, is because it fulfills its words, which always come true.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讘讙讘注转 讘谞讬诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讛砖诇讬诪讜

And if you say: In the battles following the incidents in Gibeah of Benjamin (Judges 19鈥20), why did the Urim VeTummim not fulfill its words? The Jewish People consulted the Urim VeTummim three times with regard to their decision to attack the tribe of Benjamin, and each time they were instructed to go to battle. However, the first two times they were defeated and only on the third attempt were they successful. Is this not proof that the UrimVeTummim does not always fulfill its words?

讛诐 砖诇讗 讘讬讞谞讜 讗诐 诇谞爪讞 讗诐 诇讛谞爪讞 讜讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讘讬讞谞讜 讛住讻讬诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻谞讞住 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 注讜诪讚 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐 诇讗诪专 讛讗讜住讬祝 注讜讚 诇爪讗转 诇诪诇讞诪讛 注诐 讘谞讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讗讞讬 讗诐 讗讞讚诇 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注诇讜 讻讬 诪讞专 讗转谞谞讜 讘讬讚讱

The Gemara answers: The first two times they did not check with the Urim VeTummim whether they would be victorious or be defeated but only inquired how and whether they should go to battle. Had they asked, they indeed would have been told that they would not succeed. But on the last time, when they did check and inquire whether they would be successful, the UrimVeTummim agreed with them that they should go to battle and that they would succeed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Pinehas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And God said: Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand鈥 (Judges 20:28).

讻讬爪讚 谞注砖讬转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜诇讟讜转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诪爪讟专驻讜转

How is it done? How does the Urim VeTummim provide an answer? The names of the twelve tribes were engraved upon the stones of the breastplate. These letters allowed for the answer to be received. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The letters of the answer protrude, and the priest then combines those letters to form words in order to ascertain the message. Reish Lakish says: The letters rearrange themselves and join together to form words.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 爪讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘 讻转讬讘 砖诐 讜讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讟讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 砖讘讟讬 讬砖讜专讜谉 讻转讬讘 砖诐

The Gemara asks: How was it possible to receive an answer to every question? But the letter tzadi is not written within the names of the twelve tribes engraved on the breastplate鈥檚 stones. Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were also written there. The name Yitz岣k, Isaac, contains the letter tzadi. The Gemara asks again: But surely the letter tet was not written on the breastplate, since it is not found in the names of the Patriarchs nor in the names of the twelve tribes. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Shivtei Yeshurun, the tribes of Jeshurun, was also written there. The word shivtei, tribes, contains the letter tet. In this way the entire alphabet was represented.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 讜砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 注诇讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘讜 砖讛专讬 砖讗诇 爪讚讜拽 讜注诇转讛 诇讜 讗讘讬转专 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注诇 讗讘讬转专 注讚 转讜诐 讻诇 讛注诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Any priest who does not speak with Divine Spirit and upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest is not consulted to inquire of the Urim VeTummim. As Zadok inquired of the Urim VeTummim and it was effective for him, and he received an answer; but Ebiathar inquired and it was not effective for him, and he did not receive an answer. As it is stated: 鈥淏ut Ebiathar went up until all the people had finished鈥 (II Samuel 15:24), which is taken to mean that he was removed from the High Priesthood since the Divine Spirit had departed from him.

住讬讜注讬 讛讜讛 诪住讬讬注 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If it is true that the letters of the breastplate protrude or even join together to form the answer, why does the High Priest need the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence to be with him? And if he has the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence with him, why does he need the Urim VeTummim? The Gemara answers: The Divine Spirit assisted the Urim VeTummim. In other words, the letters formed the answer only if the High Priest himself was worthy, but his divine inspiration was not great enough to provide an answer without them.

讜讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讱 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇驻谞讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讬注诪讚 讜砖讗诇 诇讜 讘诪砖驻讟 讛讗讜专讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讛讜讗 讝讛 诪诇讱 讜讻诇 [讘谞讬] 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讜 讝讛 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛 讝讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs. From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God; by his mouth they shall go out, and by his mouth they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation鈥 (Numbers 27:21). Each phrase describes a different circumstance in which the Urim VeTummim may be consulted: 鈥淗e鈥; this is a reference to a king, as 鈥渉e鈥 refers to Joshua, who had the status of a king. 鈥淎ll the children of Israel with him鈥; this is a reference to the priest anointed for war, as all of the Jewish people follow him to war according to his instruction. 鈥淓ven all the congregation鈥; this is a reference to the Sanhedrin, who are the heads of the Jewish people.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讗 诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘砖转讬讛 讜讘专讞讬爪讛 讜讘住讬讻讛 讜讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 讜讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讜讛诪诇讱 讜讛讻诇讛 讬专讞爪讜 讗转 驻谞讬讛诐 讜讛讞讬讛 转谞注讜诇 讗转 讛住谞讚诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

MISHNA: On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzva by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one鈥檚 body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. However, the king, in deference to his eminence, and a new bride within thirty days of her marriage, who wishes to look especially attractive at the beginning of her relationship with her husband, may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis prohibit these activities for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth.

讛讗讜讻诇 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 讻诪讜讛 讜讻讙专注讬谞转讛 讜讛砖讜转讛 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讻讜转讘转 讜讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讛讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The mishna elaborates: One who eats a large date-bulk of food, equivalent to a date and its pit, or who drinks a cheekful of liquid on Yom Kippur is liable to receive the punishment of karet for failing to fulfill the mitzva to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. All foods that one eats join together to constitute a date-bulk; and all liquids that one drinks join together to constitute a cheekful. However, if one eats and drinks, the food and beverage do not join together to constitute a measure that determines liability, as each is measured separately.

讙诪壮 讗住讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the mishna鈥檚 terminology, which states that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur. Why does the mishna use the word prohibited, which indicates that these activities are only sinful? It is, after all, punishable by karet if he eats, and the mishna should have used the more accurate word liable. Rabbi Ila said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: This term is needed only for a half-measure, meaning that if one eats less than the amount that incurs the punishment of karet, he still violates a prohibition.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This explanation works out well according to the one who said that a half-measure is prohibited by Torah law even though it does not incur a punishment. But according to the one who says that a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, and that it is the Sages who prohibit eating less than a full measure, what is there to say about the terminology?

讚讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讚讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖讗住讜专 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: as it was stated that amora鈥檌m debated the nature of a half-measure of a forbidden substance: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is prohibited by Torah law, and the Torah prohibits even a minute amount of forbidden substance. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. This explanation works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish concedes that a half-measure is prohibited by rabbinic law. If so, Reish Lakish, too, will say that eating or drinking a half-measure is prohibited on Yom Kippur, by rabbinic law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗诇诪讗 转谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

The Gemara asks: If so, if according to Reish Lakish there is a rabbinic prohibition to eat a half-measure, one should not be liable to bring an offering for breaking an oath to eat a half-measure of forbidden foods. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna otherwise: He who swore the following oath, an oath that I will not eat, and then ate unslaughtered animal carcasses, tereifot, reptiles, or creeping animals, he is liable to bring an offering for violating his oath. Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讻讜诇诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讜转专讬诐 注诐 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗住讜专讬谉

And we discussed it: Why should he be liable for breaking an oath? He was already sworn and obligated at Mount Sinai, along with the rest of the Jewish people, not to eat these things. According to halakha, an oath does not take effect if it contradicts a previously existing oath. The second oath to not eat has no effect in terms of eating forbidden foods, so why should one be liable for breaking it? Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yo岣nan say with regard to this: Here we are dealing with a case where one includes permitted foods with forbidden foods. This means that had one sworn only not to eat unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot and then ate them, he would not be liable for breaking the oath because he was already sworn not to eat those foods. However, if one swore not to eat at all, his oath takes effect on permitted foods. Consequently, if he eats any food he is liable.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专砖 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讜 讘住转诐

And Reish Lakish said: The only application of this mishna you will find is in a case where one explicitly says that he will not eat a half-measure, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They say that when one swears that he will not eat, he prohibits himself only from eating a whole measure of food. If he eats a half-measure, he has not violated a prohibition. Therefore, in order for a half-measure to be prohibited, he needs to specify this in his oath. Or, you find it in the case of one who makes no specification at all of a half-measure,

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 Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

meil machon hamikdash

Clothes Make the Man

Rabbi Hanina bar Hama said . . . were it not for the priestly vestments, there would not remain a...

Yoma 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 73

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诇讘砖诐 讛讻讛谉 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬

therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪even days shall he wear them, the one who serves in his stead from among his sons, who comes into the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary鈥 (Exodus 29:30). The verse describes a son serving in the place of his father, indicating that the position is inherited. The conclusion of the verse implies that the rule that a son inherits his father鈥檚 position applies only to a High Priest who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting, but not to the priest anointed for war. Based on this baraita, the following challenge is posed: And if it is so, since the priest anointed for war also serves wearing the same garments as the High Priest, he is also fit to enter the Tent of Meeting and should bequeath his position to his son.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖注讬拽专 诪砖讬讞转讜 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖注讬拽专 诪砖讬讞转讜 诇诪诇讞诪讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this is what the baraita is saying: The rule that a son inherits his father鈥檚 position applies to anyone for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is to come and serve in the Tent of Meeting. That excludes this priest for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is for war.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪砖 诇讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讻讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诇讗 讘砖诪讜谞讛 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Dimi鈥檚 claim: It was taught in a baraita that the priest anointed for war serves neither in four garments, like a common priest, nor in eight garments, like a High Priest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讝专 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛 讻讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪砖讜诐 诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Abaye said to him: Would you make him like a non-priest? If he dresses like neither a High Priest nor a common priest, then effectively he is like a non-priest, but that is certainly not true. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is that the priest anointed for war does not dress like a High Priest due to the animosity that could be caused between him and the High Priest if they both wore similar garments. Therefore, although according to Torah law the priest anointed for war should dress like a High Priest, the Sages decreed that he should not, out of concern that animosity might result. And he does not dress like a common priest, due to the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since the priest anointed for war attained the level of sanctity of a High Priest, he may not now be demoted to serve as an ordinary priest and dress accordingly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪砖

Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But there is this tanna of the following baraita who does not accept the concern of animosity as a reason to prevent one from wearing similar garments, and yet even according to him the priest anointed for war does not serve wearing the eight garments. Clearly, there must be a different reason.

讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讜驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

As it was taught in a baraita: The matters in which there are differences between a High Priest and a common priest are as follows:
The bull of the anointed priest, also called the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought for unwittingly deciding and following an erroneous halakhic ruling in a case for which one would be liable to receive the penalty of karet had he committed it intentionally;
And the bull of Yom Kippur;
And the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest offers each day.
Only the High Priest brings the above offerings.

诇讗 驻讜专注 讜诇讗 驻讜专诐 讗讘诇 驻讜专诐 讛讜讗 诪诇诪讟讛 讜讛讛讚讬讜讟 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 讛讘转讜诇讛 讜诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛专讜爪讞

In addition, when in mourning, a High Priest does not let his hair grow wild, nor does he rend his clothing in the way other mourners do. But he does rend his clothing from below, in a place that is not noticeable, while the common priest rends from above in the normal manner.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives, but a common priest may.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow, in contrast to a common priest who is prohibited to marry only a divorcee.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge.

讜诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 讜谞讜讟诇 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讜诪拽专讬讘 讞诇拽 讘专讗砖 讜诪砖诪砖 讘砖诪谞讛 讻诇讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讜讻诇 注讘讜讚讜转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讻砖讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讘讜

And he sacrifices offerings even when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his mourning, but he may not eat from the offerings on that day and he may not take a portion from them.
And he takes his portion first from any offering of his choice.
And he has the first right to sacrifice any offering he wants.
And he serves wearing eight garments.
And he is exempt from bringing an offering for unwittingly causing ritual impurity to the Temple and its sacred objects.
And all parts of the Yom Kippur service are valid only when performed by him.

讜讻讜诇谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讞讜抓 诪驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转

And all these halakhot unique to the High Priest are not limited to one who was consecrated with anointing oil, but apply also to a High Priest of many garments. During the Second Temple period, when the oil used for anointing was no longer available for anointing High Priests, the High Priests were consecrated by virtue of wearing the eight garments. This is true except with regard to the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought only by a High Priest consecrated with anointing oil.

讜讻讜诇谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘诪砖讜讞 砖注讘专 讞讜抓 诪驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

And all these halakhot apply to a former High Priest who had been consecrated to substitute for a High Priest who had become disqualified. If the disqualification of the original High Priest is removed, he may return to his position. Although the substitute no longer serves as a High Priest, he retains the sanctity of a High Priest and the halakhot of the High Priest continue to apply to him. This is true except with regard to the sacrifice of the bull on Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of the tenth of an ephah each day.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬谉 讘驻专砖讛 诇讗 驻讜专注 讜诇讗 驻讜专诐 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬讜 讜诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 讛讘转讜诇讛 讜诪讜讝讛专 注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛专讜爪讞 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

And none of them applies to the priest anointed for war, except for the five items stated explicitly in the passage about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10鈥15):
When in mourning, he does not let his hair grow wild nor does he rend his clothing in the way regular mourners do.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Makkot (11a). And the Rabbis say: His death does not allow the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge.

讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讘讛 讘讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讚讝讜讟专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The baraita teaches that a former High Priest also wears the eight garments of the High Priest. It is therefore apparent that the tanna of the baraita is not concerned about animosity which could be caused if the High Priest and the former High Priest wear similar garments. Despite this, the baraita agrees that the priest anointed for war does not wear the eight garments. This suggests that the reason for this is not out of concern that animosity might result. The Gemara rejects this proof: When the High Priest has no animosity toward someone else wearing the same garments, it is only where that person is similar to him, such as a former High Priest who held the same rank. But toward someone inferior to him who wears the same garments, such as the priest anointed for war, he does feel animosity.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专讛 讜讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before the Sages and saying this halakha of Rav Dimi, that the priest anointed for war serves in the same garments as the High Priest, in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away to show that they disagreed. Some say it was not RabbiAbbahu but Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba who said it, and it was away from him that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚讘讬 拽讬住专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 谞讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬

Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha, it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see 岣giga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 谞砖讗诇 讗讬转诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讙讚讬诐 砖讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖诪砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 谞砖讗诇 讘讛谉

The Gemara cites an opinion that conflicts with that of Rav Dimi: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: The teaching that the priest anointed for war wears the eight garments of the High Priest was stated only with regard to being consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. To be consulted he must wear all eight garments; however, he never serves in them. That was also taught in a baraita: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war is consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讛砖讜讗诇 驻谞讬讜 讻诇驻讬 谞砖讗诇 讜讛谞砖讗诇 驻谞讬讜 讻诇驻讬 砖讻讬谞讛

The Sages taught: How does one consult the Urim VeTummim? The one asking stands with his face toward the one who is asked, i.e., the High Priest or the priest anointed for war. And the one who is asked, the High Priest, turns his face toward the Divine Presence, i.e., the Urim VeTummim, in which the explicit name of God is found, by tilting his head downward toward it.

讛砖讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗专讚讜祝 讗讞专讬 讛讙讚讜讚 讛讝讛 讜讛谞砖讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 注诇讛 讜讛爪诇讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇讗 注诇讛 讜讛爪诇讞

The one who asks says his question, e.g.: 鈥淪hall I pursue after this troop?鈥 (I Samuel 30:8). And the one who is asked answers him according to the response he receives and says, for example: Thus says God: Go up and succeed. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not say the words: Thus says God; rather, it is sufficient to relay the content of the response and say: Go up and succeed, since he is obviously only repeating what he was told.

讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘拽讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讗诇 诇讜 诇讗 诪讛专讛专 讘诇讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讗诇 诇讜 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讗 讻讚专讱 砖讗诪专讛 讞谞讛 讘转驻诇转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞谞讛 讛讬讗 诪讚讘专转 注诇 诇讘讛

One does not ask in a loud voice, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim鈥 (Numbers 27:21), which implies that the inquiry is to be audible only to the person asking. And he should not think his question in his heart but should enunciate it, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd鈥ho shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God鈥 (Numbers 27:21), and immediately afterward it states: 鈥淏y his mouth鈥 (Numbers 27:21). Rather, how shall he inquire? He should do so akin to the way that Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is stated: 鈥淣ow Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard鈥 (I Samuel 1:13), which indicates she did enunciate the words but spoke so quietly that no one else could hear.

讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讗诐 砖讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬住讙讬专讜谞讬 讘注诇讬 拽注讬诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讛讬专讚 砖讗讜诇 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讬专讚 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 讚讜讚 砖讗诇

One does not ask about two matters simultaneously; rather, one asks one question, and after he is answered he asks a second question. And even if he asks about two matters simultaneously, he is answered only with regard to one of them, and he is answered only with regard to the first question. As it is stated with regard to King David that he asked two questions simultaneously: 鈥淲ill the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down?鈥 (I Samuel 23:11). And he was answered with regard to only one: 鈥淎nd God said: He will come down.鈥 (I Samuel 23:11). The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that if one asks two questions, he is answered only with regard to the first question? Yet the verse states that David received an answer for his second question, not the first. The Gemara answers: David asked the questions

砖诇讗 讻住讚专 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讜 讻住讚专 讜讻讬讜谉 砖讬讚注 砖砖讗诇 砖诇讗 讻住讚专 讞讝专 讜砖讗诇 讻住讚专 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬住讙讬专讜 讘注诇讬 拽注讬诇讛 讗讜转讬 讜讗转 讗谞砖讬 讘讬讚 砖讗讜诇 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讬住讙讬专讜

out of order and he was answered in order. He should have asked first whether Saul would come down, and afterward what the people of Keilah would do. And once he realized that he had asked out of order he went back and asked in order, as it is stated immediately afterward: 鈥淲ill the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And God said: They will deliver you鈥 (I Samuel 23:12).

讜讗诐 讛讜爪专讱 讛讚讘专 诇砖谞讬诐 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讗诇 讚讜讚 讘讛壮 诇讗诪专 讛讗专讚讜祝 讗讞专讬 讛讙讚讜讚 讛讝讛 讛讗砖讬讙谞讜 讜讬讗诪专 (讛壮) 诇讜 专讚讜祝 讻讬 讛砖讙 转砖讬讙 讜讛爪诇 转爪讬诇

But if the matter is urgent and requires asking two questions simultaneously, there being no time to follow the standard protocol, one may ask both questions simultaneously and he is answered with regard to the two questions together, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd David asked of God, saying: Shall I pursue after this troop? Will I overtake them? And He answered him: Pursue, for you will surely overtake them, and will surely rescue鈥 (I Samuel 30:8).

讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讝讬专转 谞讘讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讙讝讬专转 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 砖谞讗诪专 讘诪砖驻讟 讛讗讜专讬诐

The Gemara notes the reliability of the Urim VeTummim: Even though a decree of a prophet can be retracted, as sometimes a dire prophecy is stated as a warning and does not come true, a decree of the Urim VeTummim cannot be retracted. As it is stated: 鈥淏y the judgment of the Urim (Numbers 27:21). The use of the term judgment suggests that the decree is as final as a judicial decision.

诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪谉 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗讜专讬诐 砖诪讗讬专讬谉 讗转 讚讘专讬讛谉 转讜诪讬诐 砖诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 讗转 讚讘专讬讛谉

Why is it called Urim VeTummim? Urim, which is based on the word or, light, is so called because it illuminates and explains its words. Tummim, which is based on the word tam, completed, is because it fulfills its words, which always come true.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讘讙讘注转 讘谞讬诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讛砖诇讬诪讜

And if you say: In the battles following the incidents in Gibeah of Benjamin (Judges 19鈥20), why did the Urim VeTummim not fulfill its words? The Jewish People consulted the Urim VeTummim three times with regard to their decision to attack the tribe of Benjamin, and each time they were instructed to go to battle. However, the first two times they were defeated and only on the third attempt were they successful. Is this not proof that the UrimVeTummim does not always fulfill its words?

讛诐 砖诇讗 讘讬讞谞讜 讗诐 诇谞爪讞 讗诐 诇讛谞爪讞 讜讘讗讞专讜谞讛 砖讘讬讞谞讜 讛住讻讬诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜驻谞讞住 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 注讜诪讚 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐 诇讗诪专 讛讗讜住讬祝 注讜讚 诇爪讗转 诇诪诇讞诪讛 注诐 讘谞讬 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讗讞讬 讗诐 讗讞讚诇 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注诇讜 讻讬 诪讞专 讗转谞谞讜 讘讬讚讱

The Gemara answers: The first two times they did not check with the Urim VeTummim whether they would be victorious or be defeated but only inquired how and whether they should go to battle. Had they asked, they indeed would have been told that they would not succeed. But on the last time, when they did check and inquire whether they would be successful, the UrimVeTummim agreed with them that they should go to battle and that they would succeed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Pinehas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And God said: Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand鈥 (Judges 20:28).

讻讬爪讚 谞注砖讬转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讘讜诇讟讜转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诪爪讟专驻讜转

How is it done? How does the Urim VeTummim provide an answer? The names of the twelve tribes were engraved upon the stones of the breastplate. These letters allowed for the answer to be received. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The letters of the answer protrude, and the priest then combines those letters to form words in order to ascertain the message. Reish Lakish says: The letters rearrange themselves and join together to form words.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 爪讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘 讻转讬讘 砖诐 讜讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讟讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 砖讘讟讬 讬砖讜专讜谉 讻转讬讘 砖诐

The Gemara asks: How was it possible to receive an answer to every question? But the letter tzadi is not written within the names of the twelve tribes engraved on the breastplate鈥檚 stones. Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were also written there. The name Yitz岣k, Isaac, contains the letter tzadi. The Gemara asks again: But surely the letter tet was not written on the breastplate, since it is not found in the names of the Patriarchs nor in the names of the twelve tribes. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Shivtei Yeshurun, the tribes of Jeshurun, was also written there. The word shivtei, tribes, contains the letter tet. In this way the entire alphabet was represented.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 讜砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 注诇讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘讜 砖讛专讬 砖讗诇 爪讚讜拽 讜注诇转讛 诇讜 讗讘讬转专 讜诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注诇 讗讘讬转专 注讚 转讜诐 讻诇 讛注诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Any priest who does not speak with Divine Spirit and upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest is not consulted to inquire of the Urim VeTummim. As Zadok inquired of the Urim VeTummim and it was effective for him, and he received an answer; but Ebiathar inquired and it was not effective for him, and he did not receive an answer. As it is stated: 鈥淏ut Ebiathar went up until all the people had finished鈥 (II Samuel 15:24), which is taken to mean that he was removed from the High Priesthood since the Divine Spirit had departed from him.

住讬讜注讬 讛讜讛 诪住讬讬注 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If it is true that the letters of the breastplate protrude or even join together to form the answer, why does the High Priest need the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence to be with him? And if he has the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence with him, why does he need the Urim VeTummim? The Gemara answers: The Divine Spirit assisted the Urim VeTummim. In other words, the letters formed the answer only if the High Priest himself was worthy, but his divine inspiration was not great enough to provide an answer without them.

讜讗讬谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讱 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇驻谞讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讬注诪讚 讜砖讗诇 诇讜 讘诪砖驻讟 讛讗讜专讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讛讜讗 讝讛 诪诇讱 讜讻诇 [讘谞讬] 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讜 讝讛 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛 讝讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉

搂 It was taught in the mishna: And the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs. From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God; by his mouth they shall go out, and by his mouth they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation鈥 (Numbers 27:21). Each phrase describes a different circumstance in which the Urim VeTummim may be consulted: 鈥淗e鈥; this is a reference to a king, as 鈥渉e鈥 refers to Joshua, who had the status of a king. 鈥淎ll the children of Israel with him鈥; this is a reference to the priest anointed for war, as all of the Jewish people follow him to war according to his instruction. 鈥淓ven all the congregation鈥; this is a reference to the Sanhedrin, who are the heads of the Jewish people.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讗 诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讘砖转讬讛 讜讘专讞讬爪讛 讜讘住讬讻讛 讜讘谞注讬诇转 讛住谞讚诇 讜讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讜讛诪诇讱 讜讛讻诇讛 讬专讞爪讜 讗转 驻谞讬讛诐 讜讛讞讬讛 转谞注讜诇 讗转 讛住谞讚诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉

MISHNA: On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzva by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one鈥檚 body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. However, the king, in deference to his eminence, and a new bride within thirty days of her marriage, who wishes to look especially attractive at the beginning of her relationship with her husband, may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis prohibit these activities for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth.

讛讗讜讻诇 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 讻诪讜讛 讜讻讙专注讬谞转讛 讜讛砖讜转讛 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讻讜转讘转 讜讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讛讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The mishna elaborates: One who eats a large date-bulk of food, equivalent to a date and its pit, or who drinks a cheekful of liquid on Yom Kippur is liable to receive the punishment of karet for failing to fulfill the mitzva to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. All foods that one eats join together to constitute a date-bulk; and all liquids that one drinks join together to constitute a cheekful. However, if one eats and drinks, the food and beverage do not join together to constitute a measure that determines liability, as each is measured separately.

讙诪壮 讗住讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the mishna鈥檚 terminology, which states that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur. Why does the mishna use the word prohibited, which indicates that these activities are only sinful? It is, after all, punishable by karet if he eats, and the mishna should have used the more accurate word liable. Rabbi Ila said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: This term is needed only for a half-measure, meaning that if one eats less than the amount that incurs the punishment of karet, he still violates a prohibition.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This explanation works out well according to the one who said that a half-measure is prohibited by Torah law even though it does not incur a punishment. But according to the one who says that a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, and that it is the Sages who prohibit eating less than a full measure, what is there to say about the terminology?

讚讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讚讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖讗住讜专 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: as it was stated that amora鈥檌m debated the nature of a half-measure of a forbidden substance: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is prohibited by Torah law, and the Torah prohibits even a minute amount of forbidden substance. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. This explanation works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish concedes that a half-measure is prohibited by rabbinic law. If so, Reish Lakish, too, will say that eating or drinking a half-measure is prohibited on Yom Kippur, by rabbinic law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 谞讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗诇诪讗 转谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

The Gemara asks: If so, if according to Reish Lakish there is a rabbinic prohibition to eat a half-measure, one should not be liable to bring an offering for breaking an oath to eat a half-measure of forbidden foods. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna otherwise: He who swore the following oath, an oath that I will not eat, and then ate unslaughtered animal carcasses, tereifot, reptiles, or creeping animals, he is liable to bring an offering for violating his oath. Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诪讜砖讘注 讜注讜诪讚 诪讛专 住讬谞讬 讛讜讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讻讜诇诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讜转专讬诐 注诐 讚讘专讬诐 讛讗住讜专讬谉

And we discussed it: Why should he be liable for breaking an oath? He was already sworn and obligated at Mount Sinai, along with the rest of the Jewish people, not to eat these things. According to halakha, an oath does not take effect if it contradicts a previously existing oath. The second oath to not eat has no effect in terms of eating forbidden foods, so why should one be liable for breaking it? Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yo岣nan say with regard to this: Here we are dealing with a case where one includes permitted foods with forbidden foods. This means that had one sworn only not to eat unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot and then ate them, he would not be liable for breaking the oath because he was already sworn not to eat those foods. However, if one swore not to eat at all, his oath takes effect on permitted foods. Consequently, if he eats any food he is liable.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专砖 讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讜 讘住转诐

And Reish Lakish said: The only application of this mishna you will find is in a case where one explicitly says that he will not eat a half-measure, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They say that when one swears that he will not eat, he prohibits himself only from eating a whole measure of food. If he eats a half-measure, he has not violated a prohibition. Therefore, in order for a half-measure to be prohibited, he needs to specify this in his oath. Or, you find it in the case of one who makes no specification at all of a half-measure,

Scroll To Top