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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 19, 2021 | 讝壮 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's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Yoma 8

Today’s daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Basmat bat Yardena and Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana.

How do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon extrapolate the different parts of the verse relating to the tzitz each according to their interpretation? Are there other tannaim who debate the issue: is impurity overridden or is it entirely permitted? How many of the days do they sprinkle the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur and the Kohen who burned the red heifer? Why is the room where the Kohen Gadol goes called “Lishkat Parhedrin”?

讜诪讛 爪讬抓 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讗讝讻专讛 讗讞转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 注诇 诪爪讞讜 转诪讬讚 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讝讻专讜转 讛专讘讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God鈥檚 name, the Torah said: 鈥淚t shall be always upon his forehead,鈥 teaching that that he should not be distracted from it, with regard to phylacteries, which have numerous mentions of God鈥檚 name in their four passages from the Torah, all the more so one may not be distracted from them.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 转诪讬讚 诪专爪讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜谞砖讗 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the verse: 鈥淚t shall be always upon his forehead,鈥 teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance even when it is not on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淥n his forehead鈥nd shall gain forgiveness鈥? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to establish the place where the High Priest should position the frontplate, not to indicate that it effects acceptance only when it is on his forehead.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪注诇 诪爪讞讜 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive the halakha to establish the frontplate鈥檚 place on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淥n his forehead.鈥 The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, too, let him derive the placement of the frontplate from: 鈥淥n his forehead.鈥 The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; that is Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 source.

讗诇讗 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜谞砖讗 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讗讜讬 诇诪爪讞 诪专爪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇诪爪讞 讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 谞砖讘专 讛爪讬抓 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛

The Gemara asks: Rather, if so, with regard to the verse: 鈥淥n his forehead鈥nd shall gain forgiveness,鈥 what does Rabbi Shimon do with that verse? The Gemara responds that Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The frontplate that is intact and fit for placement on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead effects acceptance; that which is not fit for placement on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead does not effect acceptance. This comes to exclude a case where the frontplate broke, in which case it does not effect acceptance.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讘专 讛爪讬抓 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪诪爪讞 诪爪讞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讞 诪爪讞讜 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive the ruling that in a case where the frontplate broke it does not effect acceptance? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the fact that the Torah did not say forehead, and instead said his forehead, teaching that it must be fit for the forehead of the High Priest. And Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the difference between forehead and his forehead.

谞讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

搂 The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagree with regard to a case of impurity involving the public, is like the dispute between those tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: Both in this case of a High Priest prior to Yom Kippur and in that case of a priest prior to burning the red heifer, on all seven days of his sequestering one sprinkles upon him purification water mixed with ashes from all the previous red heifer sin-offerings that were safeguarded there in the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Since these priests may have become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse at any point prior to their sequestering, one sprinkles the water upon them during all seven days, as there is no certainty which are the third and seventh days.
Rabbi Yosei says: One sprinkles the water upon him only on the third and seventh days, not on all seven, as sprinkling upon him twice is sufficient to purify him.
Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, says: With regard to the priest who burns the heifer, one sprinkles the water upon him all seven days. However, with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur, one sprinkles the water upon him only on the third and seventh days.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not with regard to this point that they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. Therefore, one sprinkles the water upon the priest all seven days to ensure purification. And Rabbi Yosei holds: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Therefore, it may be sufficient to sprinkle the water on the third and the seventh days.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讛讝讗讛 讻诇诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 住讘专讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

This suggestion surprises the Gemara: And how can you understand the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in that manner? If Rabbi Yosei holds that impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need sprinkling at all? Rather, it must be that everyone, i.e., both tanna鈥檌m, holds that impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why sprinkling is necessary.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛

And here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this matter. Rabbi Meir holds: We say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Beginning with the moment that an impure person is eligible for immersion, whenever he immerses, even if he delays doing so, he is purified. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to immerse as soon as one is eligible. It is similarly a mitzva to have the purification waters sprinkled as soon as the priest is eligible. Since there is concern that perhaps the High Priest became impure during the three days prior to his sequestering, there is an obligation to sprinkle him each day beginning with day one, since that might be the third day of his impurity. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, and the same is true with regard to sprinkling. Therefore, sprinkling on the third and seventh days of his sequestering is sufficient, despite their not necessarily being the third and seventh days of his impurity.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 砖诐 讻转讜讘 注诇 讘砖专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬专讞抓 讜诇讗 讬住讜讱 讜诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讟谞讜驻转 谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讜 讙诪讬 讜讟讜讘诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜专讚 讜讟讜讘诇 讻讚专讻讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬砖驻砖祝

And does Rabbi Yosei hold that we do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who had a sacred name of God written on his flesh, he may neither bathe, nor smear oil on his flesh, nor stand in a place of filth. If an immersion by means of which he fulfills a mitzva happened to present itself to him, he wraps a reed over God鈥檚 name and then descends and immerses, allowing the water to penetrate so that there will be no interposition between him and the water. Rabbi Yosei says: Actually, he descends and immerses in his usual manner, and he need not wrap a reed over the name, provided that he does not rub the spot and erase the name.

讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讘讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛

And we maintain that it is with regard to the issue of whether immersion at the appointed time is a mitzva that they disagree. The first tanna holds: We do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Therefore, one must wait to immerse until he procures a reed with which to cover God鈥檚 name, even if it means delaying the immersion. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Therefore, one must not delay the immersion until he procures a reed but must immerse immediately. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei was not based on whether or not immersion on time is a mitzva. Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that according to these tanna鈥檌m we say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛

And here they disagree with regard to this matter. Rabbi Meir holds: We equate sprinkling with immersion; just as immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, so too, sprinkling at its appointed time is a mitzva. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not equate sprinkling with immersion; although immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, sprinkling at its appointed time is not.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬 诪拽讬砖 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, why does he distinguish between sprinkling purification water on the High Priest before Yom Kippur and doing so to the priest before he burns the red heifer? If he equates sprinkling with immersion, then one should sprinkle purification water all seven days even on the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur. If he does not equate sprinkling with immersion, then even on the priest who burns the red heifer one would also not sprinkle purification waters all seven days.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讜讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪注诇讛 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, does not equate sprinkling with immersion, and fundamentally, one need not sprinkle purification water all seven days in either case. And with regard to the priest who burns the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. This is one of the many stringencies that the Sages instituted with regard to the priest who burns the heifer in an attempt to underscore that the ritual must be performed in purity.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: With whose opinion, among the tanna鈥檌m cited above, does the following baraita that the Sages taught, correspond? The only difference between the priest who burns the heifer and the High Priest performing the service on Yom Kippur is

砖讝讛 驻专讬砖转讜 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讜 讜讝讛 驻专讬砖转讜 诇讟讛专讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讜 讻诪讗谉 讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗

that the sequestering of this High Priest prior to Yom Kippur is for the purpose of sanctity, i.e., to ensure that he appreciates the gravity of the occasion and to fill him with reverence in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies. His brethren, the priests, may touch him, as the objective of his sequestering is unrelated to any concern of impurity. In contrast, the sequestering of that priest who burns the heifer is for the purpose of purity, and his brethren, the priests, may not touch him. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, isn鈥檛 there also this difference between the two priests: One sprinkles purification waters on the priest who burns the heifer all seven days that he is sequestered, whereas one sprinkles purification waters on the High Priest before Yom Kippur only on the third and seventh days?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 专讗砖讜谉 砖诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 砖诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讞诪讬砖讬 砖诪讗 砖讘讬注讬 砖砖讬 砖诪讗 砖讘讬注讬 砖讘讬注讬 砖诪讗 砖讘讬注讬

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, strongly objects to the opinion that one sprinkles purification waters on the priest who burns the heifer all seven days because those days may be the third or seventh day of his impurity. Granted, on the first day of the seven one sprinkles the water, as perhaps it is the third day of his impurity; and on the second day of the seven one sprinkles the water, as perhaps it is the third day of his impurity, if he became impure the day before he was sequestered. The same is true for the third day; one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the third day of his impurity. By the same token, on the fifth day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity if he became impure two days before he was sequestered. On the sixth day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity if he became impure the day before he was sequestered. On the seventh day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity.

讗诇讗 专讘讬注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讝讗讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讬 讜诇讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讗讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讬

However, on the fourth day after he was sequestered, why do I require sprinkling at all? Neither with regard to the possibility that it may be the third day of his impurity is there uncertainty, since he has already been sequestered for three days, nor with regard to the possibility that it may be the seventh day of his impurity is there uncertainty, as even if it were, sprinkling would be useless because he did not have purification water sprinkled on him on the third day of his impurity. Nothing is accomplished by sprinkling the water on the priest on the fourth day.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讝讗讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讘注讛 诇讘专 诪砖讘转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讘注讛 诇讘专 诪专讘讬注讬

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, is there ever sprinkling on the priest all seven days? Don鈥檛 we maintain that sprinkling is prohibited by rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, and therefore, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. Rather, what have you to say? When it was instituted to sprinkle the water on the priest, it was for seven days except for Shabbat. Here too, say that sprinkling is performed for seven days except for the fourth day of sequestering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讱 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 讘讚讬讚谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诇讗 讘拽讘讬注讗 讚讬专讞讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘转诇转讗 讘转砖专讬 讘注讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 讜讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚诪转专诪讬 转诇转讗 讘转砖专讬 诪驻专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 讚讘讚讬讚谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪驻专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘专讘讬注讬 讘砖讘转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬转专诪讬 专讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 讘砖讘转

Rava said: Therefore, with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur, where the matter of the beginning of the seven-day period is not dependent on us; rather, the matter is dependent on the determination of the first day of the new month, for that reason it is required to remove the High Priest from his home on the third of Tishrei, and whenever the third of Tishrei occurs on a weekday, we remove him from his house. Therefore, both on the fourth day of his sequestering and on Shabbat, no sprinkling is performed. However, with regard to the priest who burns the heifer, where the matter of the beginning of the seven-day period is dependent on us, we remove him from his home on the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, so that the fourth day of his sequestering will occur on Shabbat. In that way, sprinkling will not be performed only one day of the seven, as the day on which sprinkling is prohibited will coincide with the day on which sprinkling is unnecessary.

诇诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 讛讬转讛 讜讛诇讗 诇砖讻转 讘诇讜讜讟讬 讛讬转讛

搂 Having discussed the obligation to sequester the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, the Gemara interprets the next matter in the mishna: The High Priest is removed from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn鈥檛 it called the Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

讗诇讗 讘转讞诇讛 讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖讻转 讘诇讜讜讟讬 讜诪转讜讱 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪诪讜谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讻驻专讛讚专讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讜转诐 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讬讜 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉

Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were rewarded with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei, a term connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High Priest. However, because people were giving money in order to be appointed to the High Priesthood, the position was filled by unworthy individuals. Due to their wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months. Therefore, the chamber was called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High Priest was replaced every year, the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own more elaborate tastes.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛谞讞转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讜 讗讜转谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛驻专讬砖 讗诇讗 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛

Apropos the Parhedrin chamber, the Gemara discusses a related halakha. We learned in a mishna there in tractate Demai: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed the produce, the Sages required bakers to separate only teruma of the tithe, which is one one-hundredth of the produce that is given to the priests, and 岣lla, separated from the dough and given to priests.

讘砖诇诪讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, teruma gedola, which is equal to approximately one-fiftieth of the produce and is given to a priest, need not be separated from doubtfully-tithed produce, as it was taught in a baraita:

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's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

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

Separating for 7 days

Yoma Daf 08 Discussion between Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Meir - 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 Learning out from someone having 砖诐 讛砖诐...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 8: The Annual Changing of the Kohen Gadol

More on the separation 7 days before Yom Kippur or the parah adumah (red heifer), as it happens, where each...

Yoma 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 8

讜诪讛 爪讬抓 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讗讝讻专讛 讗讞转 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 注诇 诪爪讞讜 转诪讬讚 砖诇讗 讬住讬讞 讚注转讜 诪诪谞讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讝讻专讜转 讛专讘讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God鈥檚 name, the Torah said: 鈥淚t shall be always upon his forehead,鈥 teaching that that he should not be distracted from it, with regard to phylacteries, which have numerous mentions of God鈥檚 name in their four passages from the Torah, all the more so one may not be distracted from them.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 转诪讬讚 诪专爪讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜谞砖讗 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the verse: 鈥淚t shall be always upon his forehead,鈥 teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance even when it is not on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淥n his forehead鈥nd shall gain forgiveness鈥? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to establish the place where the High Priest should position the frontplate, not to indicate that it effects acceptance only when it is on his forehead.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪注诇 诪爪讞讜 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive the halakha to establish the frontplate鈥檚 place on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淥n his forehead.鈥 The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, too, let him derive the placement of the frontplate from: 鈥淥n his forehead.鈥 The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; that is Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 source.

讗诇讗 注诇 诪爪讞讜 讜谞砖讗 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讗讜讬 诇诪爪讞 诪专爪讛 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇诪爪讞 讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 谞砖讘专 讛爪讬抓 讚诇讗 诪专爪讛

The Gemara asks: Rather, if so, with regard to the verse: 鈥淥n his forehead鈥nd shall gain forgiveness,鈥 what does Rabbi Shimon do with that verse? The Gemara responds that Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The frontplate that is intact and fit for placement on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead effects acceptance; that which is not fit for placement on the High Priest鈥檚 forehead does not effect acceptance. This comes to exclude a case where the frontplate broke, in which case it does not effect acceptance.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讘专 讛爪讬抓 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪诪爪讞 诪爪讞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讞 诪爪讞讜 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive the ruling that in a case where the frontplate broke it does not effect acceptance? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the fact that the Torah did not say forehead, and instead said his forehead, teaching that it must be fit for the forehead of the High Priest. And Rabbi Shimon does not learn anything from the difference between forehead and his forehead.

谞讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讛讬讜 砖诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜诪专 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

搂 The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagree with regard to a case of impurity involving the public, is like the dispute between those tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: Both in this case of a High Priest prior to Yom Kippur and in that case of a priest prior to burning the red heifer, on all seven days of his sequestering one sprinkles upon him purification water mixed with ashes from all the previous red heifer sin-offerings that were safeguarded there in the Temple. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Since these priests may have become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse at any point prior to their sequestering, one sprinkles the water upon them during all seven days, as there is no certainty which are the third and seventh days.
Rabbi Yosei says: One sprinkles the water upon him only on the third and seventh days, not on all seven, as sprinkling upon him twice is sufficient to purify him.
Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, says: With regard to the priest who burns the heifer, one sprinkles the water upon him all seven days. However, with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur, one sprinkles the water upon him only on the third and seventh days.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not with regard to this point that they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. Therefore, one sprinkles the water upon the priest all seven days to ensure purification. And Rabbi Yosei holds: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Therefore, it may be sufficient to sprinkle the water on the third and the seventh days.

讜转住讘专讗 讗讬 住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬转专 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讛讝讗讛 讻诇诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 住讘专讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讞讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讘爪讬讘讜专

This suggestion surprises the Gemara: And how can you understand the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in that manner? If Rabbi Yosei holds that impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need sprinkling at all? Rather, it must be that everyone, i.e., both tanna鈥檌m, holds that impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why sprinkling is necessary.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛

And here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this matter. Rabbi Meir holds: We say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Beginning with the moment that an impure person is eligible for immersion, whenever he immerses, even if he delays doing so, he is purified. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to immerse as soon as one is eligible. It is similarly a mitzva to have the purification waters sprinkled as soon as the priest is eligible. Since there is concern that perhaps the High Priest became impure during the three days prior to his sequestering, there is an obligation to sprinkle him each day beginning with day one, since that might be the third day of his impurity. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, and the same is true with regard to sprinkling. Therefore, sprinkling on the third and seventh days of his sequestering is sufficient, despite their not necessarily being the third and seventh days of his impurity.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 砖诐 讻转讜讘 注诇 讘砖专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬专讞抓 讜诇讗 讬住讜讱 讜诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讟谞讜驻转 谞讝讚诪谞讛 诇讜 讟讘讬诇讛 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讜 讙诪讬 讜讟讜讘诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜专讚 讜讟讜讘诇 讻讚专讻讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬砖驻砖祝

And does Rabbi Yosei hold that we do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who had a sacred name of God written on his flesh, he may neither bathe, nor smear oil on his flesh, nor stand in a place of filth. If an immersion by means of which he fulfills a mitzva happened to present itself to him, he wraps a reed over God鈥檚 name and then descends and immerses, allowing the water to penetrate so that there will be no interposition between him and the water. Rabbi Yosei says: Actually, he descends and immerses in his usual manner, and he need not wrap a reed over the name, provided that he does not rub the spot and erase the name.

讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讘讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讘讝诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛

And we maintain that it is with regard to the issue of whether immersion at the appointed time is a mitzva that they disagree. The first tanna holds: We do not say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Therefore, one must wait to immerse until he procures a reed with which to cover God鈥檚 name, even if it means delaying the immersion. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva. Therefore, one must not delay the immersion until he procures a reed but must immerse immediately. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei was not based on whether or not immersion on time is a mitzva. Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that according to these tanna鈥檌m we say that immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛

And here they disagree with regard to this matter. Rabbi Meir holds: We equate sprinkling with immersion; just as immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, so too, sprinkling at its appointed time is a mitzva. And Rabbi Yosei holds: We do not equate sprinkling with immersion; although immersion at its appointed time is a mitzva, sprinkling at its appointed time is not.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬 诪拽讬砖 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讛讝讗讛 诇讟讘讬诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, why does he distinguish between sprinkling purification water on the High Priest before Yom Kippur and doing so to the priest before he burns the red heifer? If he equates sprinkling with immersion, then one should sprinkle purification water all seven days even on the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur. If he does not equate sprinkling with immersion, then even on the priest who burns the red heifer one would also not sprinkle purification waters all seven days.

诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讜讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诪注诇讛 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, does not equate sprinkling with immersion, and fundamentally, one need not sprinkle purification water all seven days in either case. And with regard to the priest who burns the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. This is one of the many stringencies that the Sages instituted with regard to the priest who burns the heifer in an attempt to underscore that the ritual must be performed in purity.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: With whose opinion, among the tanna鈥檌m cited above, does the following baraita that the Sages taught, correspond? The only difference between the priest who burns the heifer and the High Priest performing the service on Yom Kippur is

砖讝讛 驻专讬砖转讜 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讜 讜讝讛 驻专讬砖转讜 诇讟讛专讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讜 讻诪讗谉 讗讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗

that the sequestering of this High Priest prior to Yom Kippur is for the purpose of sanctity, i.e., to ensure that he appreciates the gravity of the occasion and to fill him with reverence in preparation for entering the Holy of Holies. His brethren, the priests, may touch him, as the objective of his sequestering is unrelated to any concern of impurity. In contrast, the sequestering of that priest who burns the heifer is for the purpose of purity, and his brethren, the priests, may not touch him. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, isn鈥檛 there also this difference between the two priests: One sprinkles purification waters on the priest who burns the heifer all seven days that he is sequestered, whereas one sprinkles purification waters on the High Priest before Yom Kippur only on the third and seventh days?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 专讗砖讜谉 砖诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖谞讬 砖诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诪讗 砖诇讬砖讬 讞诪讬砖讬 砖诪讗 砖讘讬注讬 砖砖讬 砖诪讗 砖讘讬注讬 砖讘讬注讬 砖诪讗 砖讘讬注讬

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, strongly objects to the opinion that one sprinkles purification waters on the priest who burns the heifer all seven days because those days may be the third or seventh day of his impurity. Granted, on the first day of the seven one sprinkles the water, as perhaps it is the third day of his impurity; and on the second day of the seven one sprinkles the water, as perhaps it is the third day of his impurity, if he became impure the day before he was sequestered. The same is true for the third day; one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the third day of his impurity. By the same token, on the fifth day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity if he became impure two days before he was sequestered. On the sixth day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity if he became impure the day before he was sequestered. On the seventh day one sprinkles the water, as perhaps that is the seventh day of his impurity.

讗诇讗 专讘讬注讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讝讗讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讬 讜诇讗 讘砖讘讬注讬 讗讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讬

However, on the fourth day after he was sequestered, why do I require sprinkling at all? Neither with regard to the possibility that it may be the third day of his impurity is there uncertainty, since he has already been sequestered for three days, nor with regard to the possibility that it may be the seventh day of his impurity is there uncertainty, as even if it were, sprinkling would be useless because he did not have purification water sprinkled on him on the third day of his impurity. Nothing is accomplished by sprinkling the water on the priest on the fourth day.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讝讗讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讘注讛 诇讘专 诪砖讘转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讘注讛 诇讘专 诪专讘讬注讬

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, is there ever sprinkling on the priest all seven days? Don鈥檛 we maintain that sprinkling is prohibited by rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, and therefore, sprinkling does not override Shabbat. Rather, what have you to say? When it was instituted to sprinkle the water on the priest, it was for seven days except for Shabbat. Here too, say that sprinkling is performed for seven days except for the fourth day of sequestering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讱 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚诇讗 讘讚讬讚谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诇讗 讘拽讘讬注讗 讚讬专讞讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘转诇转讗 讘转砖专讬 讘注讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 讜讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚诪转专诪讬 转诇转讗 讘转砖专讬 诪驻专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讻讛谉 讛砖讜专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 讚讘讚讬讚谉 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪驻专砖讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘专讘讬注讬 讘砖讘转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬转专诪讬 专讘讬注讬 砖诇讜 讘砖讘转

Rava said: Therefore, with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur, where the matter of the beginning of the seven-day period is not dependent on us; rather, the matter is dependent on the determination of the first day of the new month, for that reason it is required to remove the High Priest from his home on the third of Tishrei, and whenever the third of Tishrei occurs on a weekday, we remove him from his house. Therefore, both on the fourth day of his sequestering and on Shabbat, no sprinkling is performed. However, with regard to the priest who burns the heifer, where the matter of the beginning of the seven-day period is dependent on us, we remove him from his home on the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, so that the fourth day of his sequestering will occur on Shabbat. In that way, sprinkling will not be performed only one day of the seven, as the day on which sprinkling is prohibited will coincide with the day on which sprinkling is unnecessary.

诇诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉 讛讬转讛 讜讛诇讗 诇砖讻转 讘诇讜讜讟讬 讛讬转讛

搂 Having discussed the obligation to sequester the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, the Gemara interprets the next matter in the mishna: The High Priest is removed from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn鈥檛 it called the Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

讗诇讗 讘转讞诇讛 讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖讻转 讘诇讜讜讟讬 讜诪转讜讱 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪诪讜谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讻驻专讛讚专讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖诪讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讜转诐 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讬讜 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇砖讻转 驻专讛讚专讬谉

Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were rewarded with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei, a term connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High Priest. However, because people were giving money in order to be appointed to the High Priesthood, the position was filled by unworthy individuals. Due to their wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months. Therefore, the chamber was called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High Priest was replaced every year, the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own more elaborate tastes.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛谞讞转讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讜 讗讜转谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛驻专讬砖 讗诇讗 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛

Apropos the Parhedrin chamber, the Gemara discusses a related halakha. We learned in a mishna there in tractate Demai: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed the produce, the Sages required bakers to separate only teruma of the tithe, which is one one-hundredth of the produce that is given to the priests, and 岣lla, separated from the dough and given to priests.

讘砖诇诪讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讗 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, teruma gedola, which is equal to approximately one-fiftieth of the produce and is given to a priest, need not be separated from doubtfully-tithed produce, as it was taught in a baraita:

Scroll To Top