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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 10, 2018 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 88

Items can only become sanctified in certain types of holy utensils – depending on which type of item it is (liquid in liquid utensils, etc.)?ย Shmuel limits the relevance of these laws. Broken utensils can’t be fixed and dirty clothing of the kohen can’t be washed because there is “no poverty in a place of affluence (the mikdash)”. The clothes of the kohen are discussed and the fact that they have power to atone for certain sins.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžื–ื” ืžื“ืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื™ืจื•ื“ ืฉืืจ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื–ืจื™ืง ืœื”ื• ืžื“ืžื”

then with regard to the case of a disqualified bird sin offering that was pinched at the top of the altar, how does one sprinkle from its blood on the wall of the altar? When the priest raises the bird in his hand in order to sprinkle its blood, the bird is considered to have descended from upon the altar and he cannot sprinkle its blood, as the halakha with regard to all disqualified items is that once they have descended from upon the altar they shall not ascend. Likewise, concerning the blood of other offerings that were disqualified that ascended upon the altar, how does he sprinkle from their blood, since it is sprinkled from the airspace above the altar? Rather, it must be that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar.

ื“ืžื’ืข ืœื”ื• ื”ื ื”ื–ืื” ื”ื™ื ืžื™ืฆื•ื™ ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืฉืคื™ื›ื” ื”ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that in such cases one does not sprinkle the blood in its normal fashion, but in such a manner that he presses it against the wall of the altar immediately without the blood passing through the air. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Is this considered sprinkling? It is squeezing, an act that is performed for a bird burnt offering, not for a bird sin offering. Likewise, if one sprinkles the blood of other disqualified offerings in this manner, is this sprinkling? It is pouring.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ืื” ื‘ื›ืš ื“ืจืš ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื‘ื›ืš

And furthermore, with regard to a disqualified bird burnt offering, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? And in the case of other disqualified offerings, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? It is not. Rather, the airspace above the altar must be considered as the altar.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื“ื ืงื˜ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื“ืชืœื ื”ื• ื‘ืงื ื™ื ืžืื™ ืชื™ืงื•

Rav Ashi said: If the question concerns a case where the priest held the blood or limbs while standing at the top of the altar, they would indeed be considered as having ascended the altar, and shall not descend from it. But when the dilemma was stated with regard to the airspace above the altar, it was with regard to an instance where he suspended them with a pole above the altar, while he himself stood on the floor of the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara responds that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืœื— ื•ืžื“ื•ืช ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉืช ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ื•ืœื ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืืช ื”ืœื— ื›ืœื™ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื• ืื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืขื™ืŸ ืžืœืื›ืชืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืŸ ืฉืœื™ืžื™ื ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ

MISHNA: The mishna elaborates on the halakha taught in the previous mishna (86a) that service vessels sanctify items placed in them. The service vessels used for liquids sanctify only liquids used in the service, and the service vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only dry items used in the service. The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, and the service vessels used for dry items do not sanctify liquids. With regard to sacred vessels that were perforated, if one continues to utilize them for a use similar to the use for which they would utilize them previously when they were whole, they continue to sanctify their contents. And if not, they do not sanctify their contents. And all of these vessels sanctify items only when they are in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื“ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืžื–ืจืงื•ืช ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืœืื™ื ืกืœืช

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, Shmuel says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to measures used for liquids, i.e., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry items as well, as it is stated in the verse: โ€œOne silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offeringโ€ (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry item.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžื ื—ื” ืœื—ื” ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื” ืืœื ืœื™ื‘ืฉ ืฉื‘ื” ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื ื—ื” ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื“ื ื›ื™ื‘ืฉ ื“ืžื™

Rav Aแธฅa of Difti said to Ravina: The meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mixed with oil, and one cannot derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry. Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel was only necessary to derive the halakha of the dry portions of a meal offering, teaching that even flour that remained dry because it did not get thoroughly mixed with the oil is sanctified by the cups as well. If you wish, say instead: A meal offering, even though it is mixed with oil, is, in comparison to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one can derive from the verse that the cups sanctify all dry items.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืชื•ื›ืŸ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืœืื™ื ื•ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื

Additionally, Shmuel says: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, i.e., they do not have a hole; they sanctify only full measures, i.e., when they contain a measurement fit for offering; and they sanctify items only from within them and not items that merely touched their exterior. And some say there is another version of the statement of Shmuel: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, and when they contain full measures, and from inside.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฆื™ ืžื“ื•ืช ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืœืื™ื ื•ืžืชื•ื›ืŸ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to heaping measures. According to the first version, that service vessels sanctify only items that are within them, nothing that overflows is included. The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with both versions: Service vessels sanctify items only when they are whole, and only full measurements, and from within them, and inside.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืฉ

With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify only full measurements, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: They taught this halakha only when the priestโ€™s initial intention was not to add to that which was already placed inside the vessel. But if his initial intention was to add, then each initial amount placed in the vessel becomes sacred, no matter how small.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืฉ

This distinction is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify full measurements, full measurements are nothing other than whole measurements. Rabbi Yosei said: When are full measurements whole ones? It is at a time that the priestโ€™s intention was not to add. But if his intention was to add, each initial amount is sacred.

ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉ [ื•ื›ื•ืณ] ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ืื‘ืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื™ืคืกืœ

ยง The mishna teaches that the service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items. With regard to this halakha, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items to permit them for sacrifice upon the altar, but they sanctify dry items in order for the items to be disqualified by them, i.e., dry items placed in such vessels may be disqualified by that which disqualifies only sanctified items, e.g., if they are touched by one who immersed that day, or if they emerged from the Temple courtyard.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืื”ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื“ื•ืžืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืขืจืœื” ื•ื›ืœืื™ ื”ื›ืจื ื•ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื ืงื“ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœื ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืคืกืœ

There are those who teach this statement with regard to this halakha: One may not bring meal offerings, or libations, or meal offerings accompanying an animal, or first fruits, from a mixture containing teruma, since that which may not be consumed by all Jews may not be used for an offering. And needless to say, one may not bring these items from the fruit of a tree that is orla, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, from which it is prohibited to eat, or from diverse kinds sown in a vineyard, both of which are prohibited for consumption to priests as well. And if he brought an offering from them, it is not sanctified. With regard to this issue, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: It is not sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, but it is sanctified in order to be disqualified.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ื›ืŸ ืื‘ืจ ื ืคื’ืžื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคื’ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื—ื™ื–ื™ืŸ ืืช ืคื’ื™ืžืชื” ื ืฉืžื˜ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืจืคืช ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ื ืžื ื• ืขืœื™ื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื’ื ื–ื•ื”

ยง With regard to perforated vessels, the Sages taught: In the case of sacred vessels that were perforated, one may not melt them in order to seal the perforation, and one may not melt lead into them for such a purpose. If the vessels were damaged, one may not repair them. Concerning a knife that was damaged, one may not sharpen the spot of its damage. If the blade separated from the handle, one may not restore it. Abba Shaul says: There was a certain knife in the Temple whose metal was soft and easily damaged, such that when used it would often render animals prohibited, thereby disqualifying them. Accordingly, the priests voted concerning it, and elected to hide it.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื ืžืขืฉื” ืžื—ื˜ ืืœื ืžืขืฉื” ืื•ืจื’ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžืขืฉื” ืืจื’ ื ืชื’ืขืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืœื ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืื”ืœ

The Sages taught: Priestly vestments are not fashioned by needlework, i.e., by stitching various parts together, but rather through woven work, whereby the entire garment is initially woven into one entity, as it is stated: โ€œWoven workโ€ (Exodus 28:32). If the garments were soiled one may not launder them, neither with natron nor with soap, two common detergents.

ื”ื ื‘ืžื™ื ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื•ื’ืขื• ื‘ืžื™ื ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืื”ืœ

The Gemara asks: But may it be inferred from this that with water one may launder the priestly vestments? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If the dirtied garments have only reached the point where laundering them with water alone would suffice, one may launder them with natron and soap, as they are not considered soiled.

ื”ื•ื’ืขื• ืœื ืชืจ ื•ืื”ืœ ืืฃ ื‘ืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช

But if the garments became so dirty that they reached a point that laundering them would require the use of natron or soap, then one may not launder them, even with water. And some say: One may not launder the priestly vestments at all, even if laundering them with water would suffice, because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., only priestly vestments that were clean as new should be worn, as is befitting the Temple service, and those that were laundered should not be worn.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืชื›ืœืช ื”ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืขืฉ ืืช ืžืขื™ืœ ื”ืืคื•ื“ ื›ืœื™ืœ ืชื›ืœืช ืฉื•ืœื™ื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืชื›ืœืช ื•ืืจื’ืžืŸ ื•ืชื•ืœืขืช ืฉื ื™ ืฉื–ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืจื™ืžื•ื ื™ื ืฉืœื ืคื™ืชื—ื• ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ืื•ืช ืฉืœ ืงื ืกื•ืช ืฉื‘ืจืืฉื™ ืชื™ื ื•ืงื•ืช

ยง With regard to the priestly vestments, the Sages taught in a baraita: The robe of the High Priest was sewn entirely of sky-blue wool, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of sky-blue woolโ€ (Exodus 39:22). With regard to its skirts, concerning which it states: โ€œAnd they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky blue, and purple, and scarlet, twinedโ€ (Exodus 39:24), how were they fashioned? The tailor brings sky-blue wool, and purple wool, and scarlet wool, which are twined together, and fashions them to appear as pomegranates that have not opened their mouths, i.e., they are sewn in the appearance of pomegranates that are not yet ripe enough for the crown on top to open, and as the cones [konaot] of the helmets [kenasot] that are found on the heads of children.

ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื–ื’ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ืขื™ื ื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืชื•ืœื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ื‘ืฆื“ ื–ื” ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ืžืฆื“ ื–ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื•ืกื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ื”ื™ื• ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืขืฉืจื” ืžืฆื“ ื–ื” ื•ืฉืžื ื” ืขืฉืจื” ืžืฆื“ ื–ื”

And in order to fulfill that which is stated: โ€œAnd they made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranatesโ€ (Exodus 39:25), he brings seventy-two bells, i.e., the outer part of bells, made from gold, that contain inside them seventy-two bell clappers, and he suspends them on the skirts: Thirty-six of each, i.e., pomegranates and bells, on this side of the robe, and thirty-six of each on that side, as the verse states: โ€œA bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe around itโ€ (Exodus 39:26). Rabbi Dosa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: There were thirty-six bells suspended around the skirt, eighteen from this side and eighteen from that side.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉืฉื•ืŸ ื›ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื›ืืŸ ื›ืš ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืžืจืื•ืช ื ื’ืขื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžืจืื•ืช ื ื’ืขื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื•ืกื ื‘ืŸ ื”ืจื›ื™ื ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ืขืงื‘ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืžื”ืœืœืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื

Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Just as there is a disagreement here between tannaโ€™im with regard to the total number of bells suspended around the skirt of the robe of the High Priest, so is there a disagreement between tannaโ€™im with regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks. As we learned in a mishna (Negaโ€™im 1:4): With regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: There are thirty-six, while Akavya ben Mahalalel says: There are seventy-two.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉืฉื•ืŸ ืœืžื” ื ืกืžื›ื” ืคืจืฉืช ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืœืคืจืฉืช ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara cites another statement of this sage: And Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1โ€“7) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus, chapter 8)? It was juxtaposed to tell you that just as offerings effect atonement, so too, priestly vestments effect atonement.

ื›ืชื•ื ืช ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขื–ื™ื ื•ื™ื˜ื‘ืœื• ืืช ื”ื›ืชื ืช ื‘ื“ื ืžื›ื ืกื™ื ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื” ืœื”ื ืžื›ื ืกื™ ื‘ื“ [ืœื›ืกื•ืช (ืืช) ื‘ืฉืจ ืขืจื•ื”] ืžืฆื ืคืช ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ื’ืกื™ ื”ืจื•ื— ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื’ื•ื‘ื”

The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: โ€œAnd they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the bloodโ€ (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: โ€œAnd you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakednessโ€ (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi แธคanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.

ืื‘ื ื˜ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื”ืจื”ื•ืจ ื”ืœื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืชื™ื” ื—ื•ืฉืŸ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื”ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ืฉืŸ ืžืฉืคื˜ ืืคื•ื“ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื“ ื•ืชืจืคื™ื

Rabbi Inini bar Sason continues: The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart. The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall make a breastplate of judgmentโ€ (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is stated: โ€œAnd without ephod or teraphimโ€ (Hosea 3:4), meaning that when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. Therefore, it may be inferred that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship.

ืžืขื™ืœ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืงื•ืœ ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืงื•ืœ ื”ืจืข ื•ืฆื™ืฅ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืขื–ื•ืช ืคื ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ืฅ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืขืœ ืžืฆื— ืื”ืจืŸ ื•ื‘ืขื–ื•ืช ืคื ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืฆื— ืืฉื” ื–ื•ื ื” ื”ื™ื” ืœืš

The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech. From where is this known? Rabbi แธคanina says: It is logical that an item that produces sound, i.e., the robe, which has bells, shall come and atone for an evil sound. And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. This is derived from the fact that with regard to the frontplate it is written: โ€œAnd it shall be upon Aaronโ€™s foreheadโ€ (Exodus 28:38), and with regard to brazenness it is written: โ€œAnd you had a harlotโ€™s foreheadโ€ (Jeremiah 3:3).

ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื›ืคืจื” ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœื• ื›ืคืจื” ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the priestly vestments atone for these sins? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: There are two matters that we do not find for them an atonement with offerings, but we find for them an atonement from another place, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech.

ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื ืžืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืžืงื˜ืจืช ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืงื˜ืจืช ืฉืžื›ืคืจืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ืจืช ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื”ืขื

With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the identity of the murderer is not known. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the neck of a heifer must be broken as an atonement for the murder. And with regard to malicious speech, its atonement comes from incense, as Rav แธคananya teaches in a baraita: From where is it derived that the incense effects atonement? As it is stated after the Israelites spoke slanderously against Moses and Aaron and a plague was sent against them: โ€œAnd he put on the incense, and made atonement for the peopleโ€ (Numbers 17:12).

ื•ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืขืœ ืžื” ืงื˜ืจืช ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ื—ืฉืื™ ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ื—ืฉืื™

The Gemara continues: And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: For what does incense effect atonement? It effects atonement for malicious speech, in order that an item that is offered in private, i.e., the incense, which is offered by a priest acting alone, shall come and atone for an action generally occurring in private, i.e., malicious speech.

ืงืฉื™ื ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืงืฉื™ื ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื ืืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื

Accordingly, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is only the incense that effects atonement for that transgression. Likewise, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to bloodshed and that which is stated with regard to bloodshed, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the tunic effects atonement for bloodshed, whereas according to the baraita only the heifer whose neck is broken effects atonement for it.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืงื˜ืœื ื”ื•ื ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: With regard to bloodshed, it is not difficult, as this, the tunic, effects atonement for bloodshed in an instance where it is known who killed the victim, and this, the heifer, effects atonement in an instance where it is not known who killed the victim. The Gemara challenges: If it is known who killed the victim, that man is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community otherwise, as it is stated: โ€œAnd no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed itโ€ (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: It is referring to a case where he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him of the consequences of committing murder. Therefore, the court may not execute him, as no earthly punishment may be administered without forewarning.

ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื ืžื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืฆื™ื ืขื ื”ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื

And with regard to the contradiction between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, it is also not difficult. This, the incense, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in private, whereas this, the robe, on which the bells that produce noise are placed, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in public.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžืงื“ืฉ

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 88

ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžื–ื” ืžื“ืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื™ืจื•ื“ ืฉืืจ ืคืกื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื–ืจื™ืง ืœื”ื• ืžื“ืžื”

then with regard to the case of a disqualified bird sin offering that was pinched at the top of the altar, how does one sprinkle from its blood on the wall of the altar? When the priest raises the bird in his hand in order to sprinkle its blood, the bird is considered to have descended from upon the altar and he cannot sprinkle its blood, as the halakha with regard to all disqualified items is that once they have descended from upon the altar they shall not ascend. Likewise, concerning the blood of other offerings that were disqualified that ascended upon the altar, how does he sprinkle from their blood, since it is sprinkled from the airspace above the altar? Rather, it must be that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar.

ื“ืžื’ืข ืœื”ื• ื”ื ื”ื–ืื” ื”ื™ื ืžื™ืฆื•ื™ ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืฉืคื™ื›ื” ื”ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that in such cases one does not sprinkle the blood in its normal fashion, but in such a manner that he presses it against the wall of the altar immediately without the blood passing through the air. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Is this considered sprinkling? It is squeezing, an act that is performed for a bird burnt offering, not for a bird sin offering. Likewise, if one sprinkles the blood of other disqualified offerings in this manner, is this sprinkling? It is pouring.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ืื” ื‘ื›ืš ื“ืจืš ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื‘ื›ืš

And furthermore, with regard to a disqualified bird burnt offering, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? And in the case of other disqualified offerings, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? It is not. Rather, the airspace above the altar must be considered as the altar.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื“ื ืงื˜ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื“ืชืœื ื”ื• ื‘ืงื ื™ื ืžืื™ ืชื™ืงื•

Rav Ashi said: If the question concerns a case where the priest held the blood or limbs while standing at the top of the altar, they would indeed be considered as having ascended the altar, and shall not descend from it. But when the dilemma was stated with regard to the airspace above the altar, it was with regard to an instance where he suspended them with a pole above the altar, while he himself stood on the floor of the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara responds that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืœื— ื•ืžื“ื•ืช ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉื•ืช ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉืช ืืช ื”ื™ื‘ืฉ ื•ืœื ื™ื‘ืฉ ืžืงื“ืฉ ืืช ื”ืœื— ื›ืœื™ ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื• ืื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืขื™ืŸ ืžืœืื›ืชืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืŸ ืฉืœื™ืžื™ื ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ

MISHNA: The mishna elaborates on the halakha taught in the previous mishna (86a) that service vessels sanctify items placed in them. The service vessels used for liquids sanctify only liquids used in the service, and the service vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only dry items used in the service. The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, and the service vessels used for dry items do not sanctify liquids. With regard to sacred vessels that were perforated, if one continues to utilize them for a use similar to the use for which they would utilize them previously when they were whole, they continue to sanctify their contents. And if not, they do not sanctify their contents. And all of these vessels sanctify items only when they are in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืžื“ื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืžื–ืจืงื•ืช ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืœืื™ื ืกืœืช

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, Shmuel says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to measures used for liquids, i.e., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry items as well, as it is stated in the verse: โ€œOne silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offeringโ€ (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry item.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžื ื—ื” ืœื—ื” ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื” ืืœื ืœื™ื‘ืฉ ืฉื‘ื” ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื ื—ื” ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื“ื ื›ื™ื‘ืฉ ื“ืžื™

Rav Aแธฅa of Difti said to Ravina: The meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mixed with oil, and one cannot derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry. Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel was only necessary to derive the halakha of the dry portions of a meal offering, teaching that even flour that remained dry because it did not get thoroughly mixed with the oil is sanctified by the cups as well. If you wish, say instead: A meal offering, even though it is mixed with oil, is, in comparison to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one can derive from the verse that the cups sanctify all dry items.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืœื™ ืฉืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืชื•ื›ืŸ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืœืื™ื ื•ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื

Additionally, Shmuel says: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, i.e., they do not have a hole; they sanctify only full measures, i.e., when they contain a measurement fit for offering; and they sanctify items only from within them and not items that merely touched their exterior. And some say there is another version of the statement of Shmuel: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, and when they contain full measures, and from inside.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฆื™ ืžื“ื•ืช ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืžืœืื™ื ื•ืžืชื•ื›ืŸ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to heaping measures. According to the first version, that service vessels sanctify only items that are within them, nothing that overflows is included. The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with both versions: Service vessels sanctify items only when they are whole, and only full measurements, and from within them, and inside.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืฉ

With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify only full measurements, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: They taught this halakha only when the priestโ€™s initial intention was not to add to that which was already placed inside the vessel. But if his initial intention was to add, then each initial amount placed in the vessel becomes sacred, no matter how small.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืœื™ืžื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืžืชื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื“ืขืชื• ืœื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืฉ

This distinction is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify full measurements, full measurements are nothing other than whole measurements. Rabbi Yosei said: When are full measurements whole ones? It is at a time that the priestโ€™s intention was not to add. But if his intention was to add, each initial amount is sacred.

ืื™ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื”ืœื— ืžืงื“ืฉ [ื•ื›ื•ืณ] ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ืื‘ืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื™ืคืกืœ

ยง The mishna teaches that the service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items. With regard to this halakha, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items to permit them for sacrifice upon the altar, but they sanctify dry items in order for the items to be disqualified by them, i.e., dry items placed in such vessels may be disqualified by that which disqualifies only sanctified items, e.g., if they are touched by one who immersed that day, or if they emerged from the Temple courtyard.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืื”ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื“ื•ืžืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืขืจืœื” ื•ื›ืœืื™ ื”ื›ืจื ื•ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื ืงื“ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœื ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ืคืกืœ

There are those who teach this statement with regard to this halakha: One may not bring meal offerings, or libations, or meal offerings accompanying an animal, or first fruits, from a mixture containing teruma, since that which may not be consumed by all Jews may not be used for an offering. And needless to say, one may not bring these items from the fruit of a tree that is orla, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, from which it is prohibited to eat, or from diverse kinds sown in a vineyard, both of which are prohibited for consumption to priests as well. And if he brought an offering from them, it is not sanctified. With regard to this issue, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: It is not sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, but it is sanctified in order to be disqualified.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ืงื“ืฉ ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ื›ืŸ ืื‘ืจ ื ืคื’ืžื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืคื’ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื—ื™ื–ื™ืŸ ืืช ืคื’ื™ืžืชื” ื ืฉืžื˜ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืจืคืช ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ื ืžื ื• ืขืœื™ื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื’ื ื–ื•ื”

ยง With regard to perforated vessels, the Sages taught: In the case of sacred vessels that were perforated, one may not melt them in order to seal the perforation, and one may not melt lead into them for such a purpose. If the vessels were damaged, one may not repair them. Concerning a knife that was damaged, one may not sharpen the spot of its damage. If the blade separated from the handle, one may not restore it. Abba Shaul says: There was a certain knife in the Temple whose metal was soft and easily damaged, such that when used it would often render animals prohibited, thereby disqualifying them. Accordingly, the priests voted concerning it, and elected to hide it.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื ืžืขืฉื” ืžื—ื˜ ืืœื ืžืขืฉื” ืื•ืจื’ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžืขืฉื” ืืจื’ ื ืชื’ืขืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืœื ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืœื ื‘ืื”ืœ

The Sages taught: Priestly vestments are not fashioned by needlework, i.e., by stitching various parts together, but rather through woven work, whereby the entire garment is initially woven into one entity, as it is stated: โ€œWoven workโ€ (Exodus 28:32). If the garments were soiled one may not launder them, neither with natron nor with soap, two common detergents.

ื”ื ื‘ืžื™ื ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื•ื’ืขื• ื‘ืžื™ื ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืื”ืœ

The Gemara asks: But may it be inferred from this that with water one may launder the priestly vestments? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If the dirtied garments have only reached the point where laundering them with water alone would suffice, one may launder them with natron and soap, as they are not considered soiled.

ื”ื•ื’ืขื• ืœื ืชืจ ื•ืื”ืœ ืืฃ ื‘ืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื›ืœ ืขื™ืงืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช

But if the garments became so dirty that they reached a point that laundering them would require the use of natron or soap, then one may not launder them, even with water. And some say: One may not launder the priestly vestments at all, even if laundering them with water would suffice, because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., only priestly vestments that were clean as new should be worn, as is befitting the Temple service, and those that were laundered should not be worn.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืชื›ืœืช ื”ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืขืฉ ืืช ืžืขื™ืœ ื”ืืคื•ื“ ื›ืœื™ืœ ืชื›ืœืช ืฉื•ืœื™ื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืชื›ืœืช ื•ืืจื’ืžืŸ ื•ืชื•ืœืขืช ืฉื ื™ ืฉื–ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืื•ืชืŸ ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืจื™ืžื•ื ื™ื ืฉืœื ืคื™ืชื—ื• ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ืžื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ืื•ืช ืฉืœ ืงื ืกื•ืช ืฉื‘ืจืืฉื™ ืชื™ื ื•ืงื•ืช

ยง With regard to the priestly vestments, the Sages taught in a baraita: The robe of the High Priest was sewn entirely of sky-blue wool, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of sky-blue woolโ€ (Exodus 39:22). With regard to its skirts, concerning which it states: โ€œAnd they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky blue, and purple, and scarlet, twinedโ€ (Exodus 39:24), how were they fashioned? The tailor brings sky-blue wool, and purple wool, and scarlet wool, which are twined together, and fashions them to appear as pomegranates that have not opened their mouths, i.e., they are sewn in the appearance of pomegranates that are not yet ripe enough for the crown on top to open, and as the cones [konaot] of the helmets [kenasot] that are found on the heads of children.

ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื–ื’ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื ืขื™ื ื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืชื•ืœื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ื‘ืฆื“ ื–ื” ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ืžืฆื“ ื–ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื•ืกื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ื”ื™ื• ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืขืฉืจื” ืžืฆื“ ื–ื” ื•ืฉืžื ื” ืขืฉืจื” ืžืฆื“ ื–ื”

And in order to fulfill that which is stated: โ€œAnd they made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranatesโ€ (Exodus 39:25), he brings seventy-two bells, i.e., the outer part of bells, made from gold, that contain inside them seventy-two bell clappers, and he suspends them on the skirts: Thirty-six of each, i.e., pomegranates and bells, on this side of the robe, and thirty-six of each on that side, as the verse states: โ€œA bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe around itโ€ (Exodus 39:26). Rabbi Dosa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: There were thirty-six bells suspended around the skirt, eighteen from this side and eighteen from that side.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉืฉื•ืŸ ื›ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื›ืืŸ ื›ืš ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืžืจืื•ืช ื ื’ืขื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžืจืื•ืช ื ื’ืขื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื•ืกื ื‘ืŸ ื”ืจื›ื™ื ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ืขืงื‘ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืžื”ืœืœืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉื ื™ื

Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Just as there is a disagreement here between tannaโ€™im with regard to the total number of bells suspended around the skirt of the robe of the High Priest, so is there a disagreement between tannaโ€™im with regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks. As we learned in a mishna (Negaโ€™im 1:4): With regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: There are thirty-six, while Akavya ben Mahalalel says: There are seventy-two.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉืฉื•ืŸ ืœืžื” ื ืกืžื›ื” ืคืจืฉืช ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืœืคืจืฉืช ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืžื›ืคืจื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara cites another statement of this sage: And Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1โ€“7) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus, chapter 8)? It was juxtaposed to tell you that just as offerings effect atonement, so too, priestly vestments effect atonement.

ื›ืชื•ื ืช ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืฉื—ื˜ื• ืฉืขื™ืจ ืขื–ื™ื ื•ื™ื˜ื‘ืœื• ืืช ื”ื›ืชื ืช ื‘ื“ื ืžื›ื ืกื™ื ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื” ืœื”ื ืžื›ื ืกื™ ื‘ื“ [ืœื›ืกื•ืช (ืืช) ื‘ืฉืจ ืขืจื•ื”] ืžืฆื ืคืช ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ื’ืกื™ ื”ืจื•ื— ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื’ื•ื‘ื”

The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: โ€œAnd they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the bloodโ€ (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: โ€œAnd you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakednessโ€ (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi แธคanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.

ืื‘ื ื˜ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื”ืจื”ื•ืจ ื”ืœื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืชื™ื” ื—ื•ืฉืŸ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื”ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ื—ืฉืŸ ืžืฉืคื˜ ืืคื•ื“ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืืคื•ื“ ื•ืชืจืคื™ื

Rabbi Inini bar Sason continues: The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart. The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall make a breastplate of judgmentโ€ (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is stated: โ€œAnd without ephod or teraphimโ€ (Hosea 3:4), meaning that when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. Therefore, it may be inferred that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship.

ืžืขื™ืœ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืงื•ืœ ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืงื•ืœ ื”ืจืข ื•ืฆื™ืฅ ืžื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืขื–ื•ืช ืคื ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ืฅ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืขืœ ืžืฆื— ืื”ืจืŸ ื•ื‘ืขื–ื•ืช ืคื ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืฆื— ืืฉื” ื–ื•ื ื” ื”ื™ื” ืœืš

The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech. From where is this known? Rabbi แธคanina says: It is logical that an item that produces sound, i.e., the robe, which has bells, shall come and atone for an evil sound. And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. This is derived from the fact that with regard to the frontplate it is written: โ€œAnd it shall be upon Aaronโ€™s foreheadโ€ (Exodus 28:38), and with regard to brazenness it is written: โ€œAnd you had a harlotโ€™s foreheadโ€ (Jeremiah 3:3).

ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœื”ืŸ ื›ืคืจื” ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืœื• ื›ืคืจื” ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the priestly vestments atone for these sins? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: There are two matters that we do not find for them an atonement with offerings, but we find for them an atonement from another place, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech.

ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื ืžืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืžืงื˜ืจืช ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืงื˜ืจืช ืฉืžื›ืคืจืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื˜ืจืช ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื”ืขื

With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the identity of the murderer is not known. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the neck of a heifer must be broken as an atonement for the murder. And with regard to malicious speech, its atonement comes from incense, as Rav แธคananya teaches in a baraita: From where is it derived that the incense effects atonement? As it is stated after the Israelites spoke slanderously against Moses and Aaron and a plague was sent against them: โ€œAnd he put on the incense, and made atonement for the peopleโ€ (Numbers 17:12).

ื•ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืขืœ ืžื” ืงื˜ืจืช ืžื›ืคืจืช ืขืœ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ื—ืฉืื™ ื•ื™ื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ื—ืฉืื™

The Gemara continues: And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: For what does incense effect atonement? It effects atonement for malicious speech, in order that an item that is offered in private, i.e., the incense, which is offered by a priest acting alone, shall come and atone for an action generally occurring in private, i.e., malicious speech.

ืงืฉื™ื ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืงืฉื™ื ืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื ืืฉืคื™ื›ื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื

Accordingly, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is only the incense that effects atonement for that transgression. Likewise, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to bloodshed and that which is stated with regard to bloodshed, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the tunic effects atonement for bloodshed, whereas according to the baraita only the heifer whose neck is broken effects atonement for it.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ื™ื“ื™ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ื™ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืงื˜ืœื ื”ื•ื ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: With regard to bloodshed, it is not difficult, as this, the tunic, effects atonement for bloodshed in an instance where it is known who killed the victim, and this, the heifer, effects atonement in an instance where it is not known who killed the victim. The Gemara challenges: If it is known who killed the victim, that man is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community otherwise, as it is stated: โ€œAnd no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed itโ€ (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: It is referring to a case where he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him of the consequences of committing murder. Therefore, the court may not execute him, as no earthly punishment may be administered without forewarning.

ื•ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ืืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื ืžื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืฆื™ื ืขื ื”ื ื‘ืคืจื”ืกื™ื

And with regard to the contradiction between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, it is also not difficult. This, the incense, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in private, whereas this, the robe, on which the bells that produce noise are placed, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in public.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืžืงื“ืฉ

 

Scroll To Top