sivan22/sefaria-dual-he-en · Datasets at Hugging Face

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be3" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

8

null

א"כ נימא קרא ובער ובערו א"נ וערך וערכו מאי ובער וערכו שמע מינה כדקא אמרינן

The Gemara rejects this: If so, if this were what the Torah wished to indicate, the verse should say: “And he shall burn wood” in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: And they shall burn wood, in the plural, using the same verb both times, changing only the number of the verb. Or, alternatively, the verse should say: And he shall lay out wood, in the singular, and then, in the second verse, say: “And they shall lay out wood,” in the plural. What is the reason the Torah uses two different verbs in the two verses, stating: “And he shall burn wood” and then: “And they shall lay out wood”? Learn from this as we have said, that the Torah in these two verses is referring to two separate times of day, and the verse: “They shall lay out wood [etzim]” is referring to the daily afternoon offering, mandating that at that time “they,” i.e., two priests, shall lay out etzim, the plural term for wood, referring to two logs.

null

600

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be4" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

9

null

תני ר' חייא פייס פעמים י"ג פעמים י"ד פעמים ט"ו פעמים ט"ז

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Sometimes thirteen priests were involved in sacrificing the daily offering, all these tasks being assigned in the second lottery, as the mishna taught earlier. But sometimes fourteen priests are chosen in this manner to participate, since on Sukkot an additional priest is chosen to pour the water libation. And sometimes fifteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat, when two priests are tasked with burning the frankincense in the vessels. And sometimes sixteen priests are chosen, on Shabbat that occurs during Sukkot, when three extra priests are added: One to pour the water and two to burn the frankincense.

null

601

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be5" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

10

null

והתניא י"ז

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that sometimes there are seventeen priests involved in the daily offering?

null

602

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be6" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

11

null

ההיא דלא כר"א בן יעקב אלא כרבי יהודה

The Gemara responds: That baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov but is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The seventeenth task of the daily morning offering referred to in the baraita is taking up the pieces of the offering from the ramp to the altar. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this task was not assigned to a new priest but was performed by the same priests who had brought the pieces to the ramp. The baraita, which does assign this task to a seventeenth priest, is therefore not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As the Gemara explained earlier, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov are mutually exclusive; consequently, since the baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Ḥiyya, however, adopted the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and for this reason he taught that the maximum number of tasks assigned through the second lottery is only sixteen.

null

603

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be7" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

12

null

מתני׳ איל קרב באחד עשר הבשר בחמשה הקרביים והסולת והיין בשנים שנים פר קרב בעשרים וארבעה הראש והרגל הראש באחד והרגל בשנים העוקץ והרגל העוקץ בשנים והרגל בשנים החזה והגרה החזה באחד והגרה בשלשה שתי ידים בשנים ושתי דפנות בשנים הקרביים והסולת והיין בשלשה שלשה

MISHNA: A ram that is brought for a communal burnt-offering is sacrificed by eleven priests. The flesh on the various limbs is taken by five priests, as in the case of the sheep of the daily offering. The intestines, and the fine flour of the meal-offering, and the wine of the libation are carried by two priests each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a ram are larger than those that accompany a sheep. A bull is sacrificed by twenty-four priests. How so? The head and the right leg are sacrificed first, but due to its size the head is carried by one priest and the leg by two. The tail and the left leg are carried as follows: The tail is sacrificed by two and the leg by two. The breast and the neck are carried as follows: The breast is offered by one and the neck by three priests. The two forelegs are carried by two priests, and the two flanks are carried by two. The intestines and the fine flour and the wine are carried by three each, because the meal-offering and wine libation that accompany a bull are larger than those that accompany a ram.

null

604

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be8" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

13

null

בד"א בקרבנות ציבור אבל בקרבן יחיד אם רצה להקריב מקריב הפשיטן וניתוחן של אלו ואלו שוין

In what case is this statement said, that this is the sequence followed? It is in the case of communal offerings. However, in the case of an individual offering brought to fulfill a vow or an obligation, if a single priest wishes to sacrifice it alone he may sacrifice it alone, or if he chooses he may include other priests in the service. With regard to the flaying and the cutting of both these, individual offerings, and those, communal offerings, they are equal, as will be explained in the Gemara.

null

605

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88be9" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

14

null

גמ׳ תנא הפשיטן וניתוחן שוין בזר

GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The individual offerings and communal offerings are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting, in that these may be performed by a non-priest. They are not considered services that require priests.

null

606

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bea" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

51

15

null

אמר חזקיה מניין להפשט וניתוח ששוה בזר שנאמר (ויקרא א, ז) ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח נתינת אש בעיא כהונה הפשט וניתוח לא בעיא כהונה

Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived that they are equal with regard to their flaying and cutting? From where is it derived that flaying and cutting of offerings, whether individual or communal, may be performed by a non-priest? At first it is stated with regard to the burnt-offering: “And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and following that it is stated: “The sons of Aaron the priest shall place fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). The fact that the sons of Aaron are mentioned in the verse about putting fire on the altar but not in the verse about flaying and cutting teaches that placing fire on the altar requires priesthood, i.e., it must be performed by priests, but flaying and cutting do not require priesthood.

null

607

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88beb" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

0

null

האי מיבעי ליה לגופיה אמר רב שימי בר אשי אשכחתיה לאביי דהוה מסבר ליה לבריה (ויקרא א, ה) ושחט שחיטה בזר כשירה וכי מאין באת מכלל שנאמר (במדבר יח, ז) ואתה ובניך אתך תשמרו את כהונתכם שומע אני אפילו שחיטה

The Gemara asks: But that verse about putting fire on the altar is needed for its own sake, to teach that the wood must be brought by a priest; it should not be interpreted as an inference that other services, such as flaying and cutting, may be performed by non-priests. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: I found Abaye explaining Hizkiya’s derivation to his son based on the following baraita. It is written: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), with no mention of a priest, which teaches that slaughter by a non-priest is acceptable. The baraita continues: Now, from where would you come to think otherwise? Why would one even suspect that a priest should be required to slaughter the offering, so that a specific verse is required to tell us otherwise? From the fact that it is stated: “And you and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood” (Numbers 18:7), I would derive that no part of the sacrificial service may be performed by a non-priest, not even slaughtering.

null

608

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bec" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

1

null

ת"ל (ויקרא א, ה) ושחט את בן הבקר לפני ה' והקריבו בני אהרן הכהנים את הדם מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ידו ושחט לימד על השחיטה שכשירה בזר

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron…shall sacrifice the blood” (Leviticus 1:5), from which it is inferred that from the sacrificing of blood, which begins with the collection of the blood, and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood. Just prior to this the Torah states: “And he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering…and he shall slaughter the bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:4–5). In this verse the Torah is referring to the donor of the offering when it says: He shall place his hands, and therefore when it continues: And he shall slaughter, it is also referring to the donor. The Torah thereby taught that the slaughter of the offering is acceptable if performed by a non-priest.

null

609

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bed" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

2

null

מכדי מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה ונתנו בני אהרן למה לי למעוטי הפשט וניתוח

Abaye asked: Since, as this baraita establishes, from the collection of the blood and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood, why do I need the Torah to say afterward: “The sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7)? Since the verse about putting the fire on the altar follows the verse about collection of blood, it is clear that it must be done by priests, and the verse’s stipulation of this fact appears superfluous. This is why Ḥizkiya concluded that the verse is not required for its own sake but is needed to teach the following inference: It is only the placing of fire on the altar that requires priests, to the exclusion of flaying and cutting up the animal, which may be performed by a non-priest.

null

610

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bee" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

3

null

ואכתי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דלאו עבודה דמעכבא כפרה היא לא תיבעי כהונה קמ"ל דבעי כהונה

The Gemara asks: But still, the verse about the placement of wood by priests is necessary for its own sake. As it might have entered your mind to say that since placing the wood is not a service that is indispensable for obtaining atonement, as atonement is achieved solely through the blood of the offering, it should not be required to be performed by priests. And one might have thought that the principle that all tasks from the collection of the blood and onward require a priest applies only to services relating to the blood. Therefore, the verse teaches us that nevertheless, priesthood is required. Consequently, it cannot be asserted that the verse is written for the purpose of excluding other services.

null

611

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bef" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

4

null

אלא מהכא (ויקרא א, ח) וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים את הראש ואת הפדר מכדי מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה וערכו למה לי למעוטי הפשט וניתוח

Rather, Hizkiya’s derivation must be rejected, and the acceptability of non-priests for flaying and cutting the animal must be learned from here: It is written: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8). Since, as the baraita above establishes, from the collection of the blood and onward is a mitzva exclusively of priesthood, why do I need the verse to specify: “And Aaron’s sons shall lay out the pieces”? Since the specification of priesthood here appears superfluous, one must conclude that it is written not for its own sake but to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, to teach that those acts need not be performed by a priest.

null

612

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf0" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

5

null

ואימא למעוטי סידור שני גזירי עצים מסתברא דיבחא דכותיה ממעט

The Gemara asks: Granted, the verse comes to convey the inference that another act does not require priesthood, but say that it comes to exclude the arrangement of the two logs, to teach that this activity may be done by a non-priest. The Gemara rejects this: It is more reasonable that the verse, which deals with laying out the pieces of the offering on the altar, would exclude a service that is similar to itself, i.e., something related to the body of the sacrificial animal, such as flaying it and cutting it up, rather than the arrangement of the wood, which is not related to the animal itself.

null

613

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf1" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

6

null

אדרבה סדור דכותיה ממעט

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, one should say that it excludes something relevant to arrangement, i.e., the placement of the logs, which is similar to the laying of the pieces of the offering in that both pertain to the placement of an item on the altar. Perhaps, then, the verse is coming to convey the inference that the arrangement of the logs, unlike the arrangement of the pieces of the offering, may be performed by a non-priest.

null

614

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf2" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

7

null

לא ס"ד דאמר מר (ויקרא א, יג) והקריב הכהן את הכל המזבחה זו הולכת אברים לכבש הולכת אברים לכבש הוא דבעיא כהונה הולכת עצים לא בעיא כהונה הא סידור שני גזירי עצים בעיא כהונה

The Gemara rejects this argument: It cannot enter your mind to say this, as the Master said: After mentioning the mitzva to collect the blood, the Torah states: “And the priest shall bring all of it near and burn it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), where bringing near is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp. The specification of priesthood in this verse is not required for its own sake, since all services following the collection of blood require priesthood. Therefore, it must be that it comes to convey the inference that it is only carrying the limbs to the ramp that requires priesthood, but carrying wood to the altar does not require priesthood. This, in turn, implies that the actual arrangement of the two logs, which was not excluded, does require priesthood.

null

615

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf3" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

8

null

וערכו למה לי למעוטי הפשט וניתוח ואימא הכי נמי לגופיה

The Gemara returns to the derivation presented above, where the question was raised: Why do I need the words “and Aaron’s sons shall lay out the pieces”? The conclusion was that the specification of priesthood here comes to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, to teach that these acts may be performed by a non-priest. The Gemara now rejects this derivation: But say that this verse too is necessary for its own sake, to teach the lesson that the Gemara will shortly derive from these words (Maharsha), and one can no longer assert that the verse comes solely for the purpose of conveying the inference that other, similar acts, i.e., flaying and cutting up the animal, do not require priesthood.

null

616

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf4" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

9

null

אלא והקטיר הכהן את הכל למאי אתא למעוטי הפשט וניתוח

Rather, this derivation must be rejected as well, and another verse must be found from which to prove that non-priests may flay and cut up the animal. The Torah states: “And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). Since this is an act following the collection of the blood, the specification of priesthood is not needed for its own sake. Therefore, for what purpose does that verse come? It comes to exclude flaying and cutting up the animal, which may be performed by a non-priest.

null

617

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf5" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

10

null

והקריב הכהן את הכל המזבחה זו הולכת אברים לכבש הולכת אברים לכבש הוא דבעיא כהונה הולכת עצים לא בעיא כהונה הא סדור שני גזירי עצים בעיא כהונה ונתנו לגופיה

The Gemara reviews the lessons taught by the other verses cited above. When the Torah writes: “The priest shall bring all of it near…the altar” (Leviticus 1:13), this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp, and the verse comes to exclude other, similar actions, teaching that although carrying the limbs to the ramp requires priesthood, carrying wood to the altar does not require priesthood. Therefore, it is derived from here as well that the arrangement of the two logs does require priesthood, as explained above. And when the Torah writes: “The sons of Aaron shall put fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1:7), this is necessary for its own sake, to teach that this service must be done by priests.

null

618

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf6" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

11

null

וערכו שנים בני אהרן שנים הכהנים שנים למדנו לטלה שטעון ששה

When the Torah states: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall lay out the pieces, the head and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), it comes to teach the following: “And they shall lay out,” through the use of the plural, teaches that it must be done by two priests, as the minimum number implied by a plural word is two. “The sons of Aaron,” also in plural, indicates an additional two; “the priests,” also in plural, indicates two more. We therefore learn from this verse that the sacrificial lamb requires six priests to carry its limbs to the altar. The flesh is taken by five priests, and the innards by one, as described in an earlier mishna.

null

619

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf7" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

52

12

null

אמר רב המנונא קשיא ליה לר"א האי בבן הבקר כתיב ובן הבקר עשרים וארבעה בעי וניחא ליה (ויקרא א, ח) על העצים אשר על האש אשר על המזבח איזהו דבר שנאמר בו עצים אש ומזבח

Rav Hamnuna said that Rabbi Elazar posed a difficulty: This verse is written about a young bull, not a lamb; and a bull requires twenty-four priests. How, then, can this verse be used as the source that six priests are required to carry the limbs of a lamb? And he resolved the difficulty himself as follows: The same verse states: “On the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8), all of which apparently teaches nothing new about the sacrifice. Therefore, it is seen as an allusion to the daily offering, which was a lamb, as what is an item about which it is stated that specially prepared wood and fire on an altar must be provided, and that pre-existing wood and fire do not suffice?

null

620

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf8" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

0

null

הוי אומר זה טלה

You must say that this is the lamb of the morning daily offering, concerning which the Torah commands that a new woodpile be prepared every day and that the altar must be lit anew each morning. Therefore, although the verse is ostensibly speaking of a bull, it also alludes to the lamb of the daily offering and to the fact that it should be brought by six priests.

null

621

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bf9" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

1

null

א"ר אסי אמר רבי יוחנן זר שסידר את המערכה חייב כיצד הוא עושה פורקה וחוזר וסודרה מאי אהני ליה אלא פורקה זר וסודרה כהן

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who set up the arrangement of wood on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God’s hand for having performed an act that is restricted to priests, and the woodpile that he placed is invalid. What should he do to repair the woodpile? He should dismantle it and then rearrange it. The Gemara is surprised at this: What good would this do for the woodpile? How would it help for the non-priest himself to rearrange the wood? It would be just as invalid as it was the first time. Rather, one must say that the non-priest should dismantle it, as there is nothing wrong with a non-priest dismantling the woodpile, and a priest then rearranges it.

null

622

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bfa" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

2

null

מתקיף לה ר' זירא וכי יש לך עבודה שכשירה בלילה ופסולה בזר

Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching: And do you have any service that is valid if performed at night and yet is invalid if performed by a non-priest? A bona fide Temple service must be performed during the day. That the wood on the altar may be arranged while it is still nighttime shows that it is not a bona fide service, and therefore it should be permitted for non-priests to perform it.

null

623

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bfb" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

3

null

ולא והרי אברים ופדרים סוף עבודה דיממא היא

The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira’s equation of the two issues: And is there really no such thing as a service that may be performed at night but which is prohibited for a non-priest to perform? Isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats of offerings on the altar, which continues throughout the night, and yet it was taught earlier in this chapter that a non-priest who participates in that service incurs the death penalty? The Gemara rejects this objection: The burning of sacrificial limbs and fats, though it may be done at night, is not considered a nighttime service but the end of the daytime service, as it is merely the culmination of the sacrificial service that began during the day.

null

624

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bfc" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

4

null

והרי תרומת הדשן תחלת עבודה דיממא היא דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן קידש ידיו לתרומת הדשן למחר אינו צריך לקדש שכבר קידש מתחלת עבודה ואלא קשיא

The Gemara asks further: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes from the altar, which may be performed at night, and yet may not be done by a non-priest? The Gemara rejects this too: The removal of ashes is also not considered a nighttime service but the start of the daytime service. And the proof for this is that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a priest has sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, he need not sanctify his hands again, as he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Rabbi Zeira’s equation between services performed at night and services that may be performed by non-priests therefore remains intact. If so, the objection that he raised to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan remains difficult.

null

625

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bfd" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

5

null

אלא כי איתמר הכי איתמר א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן זר שסידר שני גזירי עצים חייב הואיל ועבודת יום היא מתקיף לה רבא אלא מעתה תיבעי פייס אשתמיטתיה הא דתניא מי שזכה בתרומת הדשן זכה בסדור מערכה ובסדור שני גזירי עצים

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs on the altar is liable to receive the death penalty by God’s hand, since it is a daytime service. Rava strongly objects to this: But if that is so, if arranging the two logs is a bona fide daytime service and is prohibited to non-priests on pain of death, it should require a lottery; and yet in practice this service is not assigned by a lottery. The Gemara comments that it must have escaped Rava’s mind that which is taught explicitly in a baraita: The priest who was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes was also privileged with setting up the arrangement of wood on the altar and with placing the two logs.

null

626

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bfe" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

6

null

למימרא דעבודת יום בעיא פייס עבודת לילה לא בעיא פייס והרי אברים ופדרים סוף עבודה דיממא היא והרי תרומת הדשן משום מעשה שהיה

Another difficulty is raised with regard to Rava’s statement: Is that to say that a daytime service requires a lottery and, conversely, a nighttime service does not require a lottery? Isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats on the altar, which is done at night and yet is assigned through a lottery? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, since the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service, as explained above. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes from the altar, which is a nighttime service and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara answers: Indeed, a lottery should not have been required for that service, but one was instituted due to the incident that occurred, when the priests came to danger, as related in the mishna.

null

627

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88bff" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

7

null

למימרא דעבודת יום ושזר חייב עליה מיתה בעיא פייס אין זר חייב עליה מיתה לא בעיא פייס והרי שחיטה שאני שחיטה דתחלת עבודה היא

The Gemara asks further: Is that to say that any service that is a daytime service and for which a non-priest would be liable to receive the death penalty requires a lottery, and conversely, a daytime service for which a non-priest would not be liable to receive the death penalty does not require a lottery? But isn’t there the slaughtering of the daily offering, which may be performed by a non-priest and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara rejects this point: Slaughtering is different, because it is the beginning of the service of the daily offering and is therefore considered important enough to warrant a lottery.

null

628

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c00" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

8

null

אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי והא אנן לא תנן הכי אמר להם הממונה צאו וראו אם הגיע זמן השחיטה ואילו זמן שני גזירי עצים לא קתני

The Gemara asks with regard to the revised version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: But didn’t we learn that it is not so that arranging the logs must be done during the day, as it was taught in a mishna: The appointed priest said to them: Go out and see if the time for slaughtering has arrived. The mishna does not teach that the appointee said: Go and see if the time for arranging the two logs has arrived. This shows that the logs need not be placed after daybreak but may be arranged while it is still night.

null

629

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c01" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

9

null

הך דלית לה תקנתא קתני הך דאית לה תקנתא לא קתני

The Gemara rejects this argument: The reason the mishna mentions slaughtering is that it prefers to teach this statement with regard to that which has no rectification if it is done at night, such as slaughtering the offering, which is rendered irreparably invalid if done before daybreak. It does not want to teach something that has rectification if done at night, such as arranging the two logs, which can always be removed and replaced properly. However, the proper time for arranging the logs is indeed daytime.

null

630

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c02" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

53

10

null

וא"ד מתקיף לה רבי זירא וכי יש לך עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה ופסולה בזר

And some say a different version of Rabbi Zeira’s objection: Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that a non-priest who arranged the woodpile incurs the death penalty: And do you have any service that is not complete on its own but is followed by a different service, such as the arrangement of the two logs, and yet is invalid and is punishable by death if performed by a non-priest? It was taught earlier in the chapter that a non-priest incurs the death penalty only for performing a service that is complete, i.e., a service that is not followed by other services that complete the task being performed.

null

631

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c03" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

0

null

והרי אברים ופדרים סוף עבודה דיממא היא והרי תרומת הדשן תחילת עבודה דיממא היא דא"ר יוחנן קדש ידיו לתרומת הדשן למחר אינו צריך לקדש שכבר קדש מתחלת עבודה אלא קשיא

The Gemara expresses wonder at Rabbi Zeira’s equation of these two issues: But isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, because the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service. The Gemara asks further: But isn’t there the removal of the ashes? The Gemara rejects that argument: Removing the ashes is the start of the daytime service, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a priest sanctified his hands at night by washing them for the removal of the ashes, the next day, i.e., after daybreak, he need not sanctify his hands again, as he already sanctified them at the start of the service. Rabbi Zeira’s equation between services that are incomplete by themselves and services for which a non-priest does not incur the death penalty therefore remains intact. If so, the question that he asked concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement remains difficult.

null

632

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c04" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

1

null

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן זר שסידר שני גזירי עצים חייב הואיל ועבודה תמה היא

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be revised, and one must posit that when it was stated, this is how it was stated: Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A non-priest who arranges the two logs is liable to receive the death penalty, since it is a service that is complete, i.e., it is not followed and completed by a subsequent service. Although the burning of the limbs upon the altar follows the placement of the logs, that is considered to be an independent act, not the completion of the service of placing the logs. This is because the placing of the logs is done while still night, while the burning of the limbs cannot be done until daybreak.

null

633

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c05" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

2

null

מתקיף לה רבא אלא מעתה תבעי פייס ולא בעיא פייס והתניא מי שזכה בתרומת הדשן יזכה בסידור שני גזירי עצים

Rava strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, the service of placing the two logs should require a lottery. The Gemara expresses surprise at Rava’s comment: And doesn’t it require a lottery? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Whoever was privileged to perform the removal of the ashes is also privileged to perform the arrangement of the two logs? There was in fact a lottery for arranging the two logs.

null

634

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c06" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

3

null

ה"ק יפייסו לה בפני עצמה כדאמרינן

Rather, this is what Rava actually said: If placing the logs is considered a complete service and is therefore a task important enough to warrant the death penalty for a non-priest who performs it, they should hold a separate lottery for it by itself. The Gemara answers: It is as we said at the beginning of the chapter, that the task of placing the logs was added to the lottery for the removal of ashes as an incentive for the priests to rise before dawn (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).

null

635

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c07" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

4

null

למימרא דעבודה תמה וזר חייב עליה מיתה בעיא פייס אין זר חייב עליה מיתה לא בעיא פייס והרי שחיטה שאני שחיטה דתחילת עבודה דיממא היא

Based on Rava’s comments, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that any service that is a complete service and for which a non-priest would be liable to receive the death penalty requires a lottery, but if a non-priest would not be liable to receive the death penalty it would not require a lottery? But isn’t there slaughtering, which may be performed by non-priest and yet requires a lottery? The Gemara rejects this point: Slaughtering is different, because it is the beginning of the daytime service, which gives it added importance.

null

636

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c08" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

5

null

למימרא דעבודה תמה בעי פייס עבודה שיש אחריה עבודה לא בעי פייס והרי אברים ופדרים סוף עבודה דיממא היא הרי תרומת הדשן משום מעשה שהיה

The Gemara asks further on Rava’s statement: Is that to say that a service that is complete requires a lottery, whereas a service which is followed by a subsequent service that completes it does not require a lottery? But isn’t there the burning of the limbs and the fats? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult because the burning of the limbs and the fats is the end of the daytime service. The Gemara asks: Isn’t there the removal of the ashes? The Gemara answers: A lottery was established for that service only due to the incident that occurred when the priests came to danger.

null

637

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c09" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

6

null

אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא אמר להם הממונה צאו וראו אם הגיע זמן השחיטה ואילו זמן סידור גזירי עצים לא קתני

As explained above, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the arrangement of the logs is a complete service, and is not considered a prelude to the burning of limbs, is because the former is a nighttime service and the latter is a daytime service. Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: We too have learned in a mishna that the arrangement of the two logs is a nighttime service. As we learned: The appointed priest said to them: Go out and see if the time for slaughtering has arrived, whereas the mishna did not teach: See whether the time for arranging the two logs has arrived. This shows that arranging the logs may be done while it is still night; it is therefore not considered to be connected to, and complemented by, the placing of the limbs the following day.

null

638

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c0a" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

7

null

הך דלית לה תקנתא קתני הך דאית לה תקנתא לא קתני

The Gemara rejects this proof: The reason the mishna mentions slaughtering is that it prefers to teach this statement with regard to that which has no rectification if it is done at night, such as slaughtering the offering, which is rendered irreparably invalid if performed before daybreak. It does not want to teach it with regard to something that has rectification if done at night, such as arranging the two logs, which can always be removed and replaced properly. However, it is possible that the proper time for arranging the logs is daytime, and therefore it may be regarded as a service that is completed by the subsequent burning of limbs on the altar.

null

639

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c0c" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

9

null

מתני׳ אמר להם הממונה צאו וראו אם הגיע זמן השחיטה אם הגיע הרואה אומר ברקאי מתיא בן שמואל אומר האיר פני כל המזרח עד שבחברון והוא אומר הן ולמה הוצרכו לכך שפעם אחת עלה מאור הלבנה ודימו שהאיר מזרח ושחטו את התמיד והוציאוהו לבית השריפה

MISHNA: The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and observe if it is day and the time for slaughter has arrived. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest phrased his question differently: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated even to Hebron? And the observer says: Yes. And why did they need to ascertain whether or not it is day, which is typically evident to all? It was necessary, as once, the light of the moon rose, and they imagined that the eastern sky was illuminated with sunlight, and they slaughtered the daily offering before its appropriate time. The animal was later taken out to the place designated for burning and burned because it was slaughtered too early. In order to prevent similar errors in the future, the Sages instituted that they would carefully assess the situation until they were certain that it was day.

null

640

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c0d" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

54

10

null

הורידו כ"ג לבית הטבילה זה הכלל היה במקדש כל המיסך את רגליו טעון טבילה וכל המטיל מים טעון קידוש ידים ורגלים

After the priests announced the start of the day, they led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. The Gemara comments: This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs, a euphemism for defecating, requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of the hands and feet with water from the basin afterward.

null

641

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c0e" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

0

null

גמ׳ תניא ר' ישמעאל אומר ברק ברקאי ר"ע אומר עלה ברקאי נחומא בן אפקשיון אומר אף ברקאי בחברון מתיא בן שמואל (אומר) הממונה על הפייסות אומר האיר פני כל המזרח עד שבחברון רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר האיר פני כל המזרח עד בחברון ויצאו כל העם איש איש למלאכתו

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that the Sages disputed the precise expression that was employed in the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael says that the formula is: The light flashed; Rabbi Akiva says: The light has risen, which is brighter than a mere flash. Naḥuma ben Apakshiyon says: There is even light in Hebron. Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest in charge of the lotteries says: The entire eastern sky is illuminated all the way to Hebron. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that this is what the appointed priest said: The entire eastern sky is illuminated all the way to Hebron and the entire nation has gone out, each and every person to engage in his labor.

null

642

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c0f" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

1

null

אי הכי נגה ליה טובא לשכור פועלים קאמרינן

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s version of the formula: If it is so that the people have gone to work, it has grown considerably lighter. People go to work after it is light. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira is referring to a time after sunrise, not a time adjacent to dawn. The Gemara answers: It is that people have gone out to hire workers that we are saying. Owners of fields rose early, adjacent to dawn, to hire workers so that they could begin working when it is light.

null

643

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c10" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

2

null

אמר רב ספרא צלותיה דאברהם מכי משחרי כותלי

Rav Safra said: The time for the afternoon prayer of Abraham begins from when the walls begin to blacken from shade. When the sun begins to descend from the middle of the sky, producing shadows on the walls, that marks the beginning of the setting of the sun and then the afternoon prayer may be recited.

null

644

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c11" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

3

null

אמר רב יוסף אנן מאברהם ניקום וניגמר אמר רבא תנא גמר מאברהם ואנן לא גמרינן מיניה דתניא (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו מלמד שכל היום כשר למילה אלא שהזריזין מקדימין למצות שנאמר (בראשית כב, ג) וישכם אברהם בבקר ויחבוש וגו'

Rav Yosef said: And will we arise and derive a halakha from Abraham? Didn’t Abraham live before the Torah was given to the Jewish people, and therefore halakhot cannot be derived from his conduct? Rava said: The tanna derived a halakha from Abraham’s conduct, and we do not derive a halakha from his conduct? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), this verse teaches that the entire day is suitable for performance of the mitzva of circumcision. However, the vigilant are early in their performance of mitzvot and circumcise in the morning, as it is stated with regard to the binding of Isaac: “And Abraham arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey” (Genesis 22:3). He awakened early to fulfill the mitzva without delay. Apparently, halakha is derived from the conduct of Abraham.

null

645

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c12" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

4

null

אלא אמר רבא רב יוסף הא קא קשיא ליה דתנן חל ערבי פסחים להיות בע"ש נשחט בשש ומחצה וקרב בשבע ומחצה ונשחטיה מכי משחרי כותלי

Rather, Rava said: With regard to Rav Yosef, it was not the matter of deriving halakha from the conduct of Abraham that is difficult. Rather, this is difficult for him, as we learned in a mishna: When Passover eves occur on Shabbat eves, the daily afternoon offering is slaughtered at six and a half hours of the day and sacrificed on the altar at seven and a half hours. The afternoon offering was slaughtered as early as possible to enable all the Paschal lambs, which were slaughtered after the daily afternoon offering was sacrificed, to be slaughtered and roasted before sunset, so that no labor would be performed on Shabbat. Now, if indeed this halakha is derived from the conduct of Abraham, let us slaughter the offering even earlier, from when the walls begin to blacken, just after the end of the sixth hour of the day. Apparently, halakha is not derived from the conduct of Abraham.

null

646

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c13" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

5

null

מאי קושיא ודילמא כותלי דבית המקדש בשש ומחצה משחרי משום דלא מכווני טובא א"נ שאני אברהם דאיצטגנינות גדולה היתה בלבו א"נ משום דזקן ויושב בישיבה הוה דא"ר חמא בר' חנינא מימיהן של אבותינו לא פרשה ישיבה מהם

The Gemara rejects this: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the walls of the Temple begin to blacken only at six and a half hours of the day because they are not perfectly aligned. The Temple walls were broad at the bottom and gradually narrowed as they reached the top; therefore, the upper part of the wall did not cast a shadow on the wall opposite it until six and a half hours of the day. Or, alternatively, it is different with regard to Abraham because there was great knowledge of astronomy [itztagninut] in his heart. He was able to precisely calculate the movements of the heavenly bodies and was therefore able to discern immediately after noon that the sun had begun its descent. Others require a half hour to be certain that the descent of the sun has begun. Or, alternatively Abraham was different because he was an Elder and sat and studied Torah in a yeshiva, where the Divine Presence rests. There he developed the expertise to determine the precise hour. As Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: From the days of our ancestors, yeshiva never left them. Our ancestors were leaders of their generations, who taught Torah to students who came to them.

null

647

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c14" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

6

null

היו במצרים ישיבה עמהם שנאמר (שמות ג, טז) לך ואספת את זקני ישראל היו במדבר ישיבה עמהם שנאמר (במדבר יא, טז) אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אברהם אבינו זקן ויושב בישיבה היה שנאמר (בראשית כד, א) ואברהם זקן בא בימים יצחק אבינו זקן ויושב בישיבה היה שנאמר (בראשית כז, א) ויהי כי זקן יצחק יעקב אבינו זקן ויושב בישיבה היה שנאמר (בראשית מח, י) ועיני ישראל כבדו מזוקן

When they were in Egypt there was a yeshiva with them, as it is stated: “Go and gather the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16), indicating that there were Sages among them who studied Torah. And similarly, when they were in the desert, there was a yeshiva with them, as it is stated: “Gather for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel” (Numbers 11:16). Abraham our Patriarch was himself an Elder and would sit in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, advanced in years” (Genesis 24:1). From the apparent redundancy of the terms old and advanced in years, it is derived that old means that he was a wise Elder and prominent in Torah, and advanced in years means that he was elderly. Similarly, Isaac our Patriarch was an Elder and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And it came to pass when Isaac was old and his eyes were dim” (Genesis 27:1). Similarly, Jacob our Patriarch was an Elder and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Israel’s eyes were heavy with age” (Genesis 48:10).

null

648

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c15" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

7

null

אליעזר עבד אברהם זקן ויושב בישיבה היה שנאמר (בראשית כד, ב) ויאמר אברהם אל עבדו זקן ביתו המושל בכל אשר לו אר"א שמושל בתורת רבו (בראשית טו, ב) הוא דמשק אליעזר א"ר אלעזר שדולה ומשקה מתורתו של רבו לאחרים

Eliezer, servant of Abraham, was an Elder and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his household, who ruled over all he had” (Genesis 24:2). Rabbi Elazar said: The verse means that he had mastery over the Torah of his master, having gained proficiency in all of the Torah of Abraham. That is the meaning of the verse: “He is Damascus [Dammesek] Eliezer” (Genesis 15:2). Rabbi Elazar said: The word Dammesek is a contraction of he who draws [doleh] and gives drink [mashke] to others from his master’s Torah.

null

649

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c16" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

8

null

אמר רב קיים אברהם אבינו כל התורה כולה שנאמר (בראשית כו, ה) עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וגו' א"ל רב שימי בר חייא לרב ואימא שבע מצות הא איכא נמי מילה ואימא שבע מצות ומילה א"ל א"כ מצותי ותורותי למה לי

Apropos the previous statement, the Gemara cites that Rav said: Abraham our Patriarch fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is stated: “Because [ekev] Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My mitzvot, My statutes and My Torahs” (Genesis 26:5). Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: And say that the verse means that he fulfilled only the seven Noahide mitzvot and not the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also circumcision that Abraham clearly observed, which is not one of the Noahide laws? Apparently, Abraham fulfilled more than just those seven. The Gemara asks: And say that he fulfilled only the seven mitzvot and circumcision. Rav said to him: If so, why do I need the continuation of the verse, that Abraham kept: My mitzvot and My Torah? That is a clear indication that he fulfilled mitzvot beyond the seven Noahide mitzvot, and apparently fulfilled the entire Torah.

null

650

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c17" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

9

null

אמר (רב) ואיתימא רב אשי קיים אברהם אבינו אפילו עירובי תבשילין שנאמר תורותי אחת תורה שבכתב ואחת תורה שבעל פה

Rav said, and some say Rav Ashi said: Abraham our Patriarch fulfilled the entire Torah, even the mitzva of the joining of cooked foods, a rabbinic ordinance instituted later, as it is stated: My Torahs. Since the term is in the plural, it indicates that Abraham kept two Torahs; one, the Written Torah, and one, the Oral Torah. In the course of fulfilling the Oral Torah, he fulfilled all the details and parameters included therein.

null

651

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c18" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

10

null

מתיא בן שמואל אמר וכו' והוא אומר הן מאן אמר הן אילימא הך דקאי אאיגרא הוא חלים והוא מפשר אלא הך דקאי אארעא מנא ידע

It was taught in the mishna that Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest asks: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated even to Hebron? And he says: Yes. The Gemara asks: Who said yes? If we say it is that person who is standing on the roof, does he dream and also interpret his dream? Is it reasonable that the one asking the question answers it? Rather, say that it was that person who is standing on the ground who said yes. From where does he know that the sky is illuminated such that he is able to answer yes?

null

652

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c19" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

11

null

איבעית אימא הך דקאי אארעא ואיבעית אימא הך דקאי אאיגרא איבעית אימא הך דקאי אאיגרא אמר איהו האיר פני כל המזרח וא"ל הך דקאי אארעא עד שבחברון וא"ל איהו הן

The Gemara suggests two possible solutions: If you wish, say it was that person who is standing on the ground who answered yes, and if you wish, say it was that person who is standing on the roof who answered. If you wish, say that the person who is standing on the roof said: The entire eastern sky is illuminated. And that person who is standing on the ground said to him: Has it illuminated even to Hebron? And he who is standing on the roof said to him: Yes.

null

653

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c1a" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

12

null

ואיבעית אימא הך דקאי אארעא אמר איהו האיר פני כל המזרח וא"ל עד שבחברון וא"ל הן

And if you wish, say instead that the person who is standing on the ground said: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated? And he who is standing on the roof said to him: Do you mean that it is illuminated even to Hebron? And he who is standing on the ground said to him: Yes, that is what I mean.

null

654

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c1b" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

13

null

ולמה הוצרכו לכך וכו' ומי מיחליף והתניא רבי אומר אינו דומה תימור של לבנה לתימור של חמה תימור של לבנה מתמר ועולה כמקל תימור של חמה מפציע לכאן ולכאן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל יום המעונן היה ומפציע לכאן ולכאן אמר רב פפא שמע מינה יומא דעיבא כוליה שמשא

The mishna asks: And why did they need to ascertain this? The mishna answered that there was an incident where they confused the light of the moon with the light of the rising sun and slaughtered the daily morning offering too early. The Gemara asks: And are sunlight and moonlight mistaken for one another? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A column of the light of the moon is not similar to a column of the light of the sun; a column of the light of the moon rises like a staff in one column while a column of the light of the sun diffuses to here and to there? The Gemara answers that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: It was a cloudy day, and then even the moonlight diffuses to here and to there, which caused them to err and believe that it was the rising sun. Rav Pappa said: Learn from this statement of Rabbi Yishmael that a cloudy day is similar to a completely sunny day because the sunlight is further diffused by the clouds.

null

655

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c1c" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

14

null

למאי נפקא מינה לשטוחי עורות אי נמי לכדדרש רבא אשה לא תלוש לא בחמה ולא בחמי חמה

The Gemara asks: What are the practical ramifications of the statement that a cloudy day is similar to a completely sunny day? The Gemara explains: The ramifications are with regard to spreading hides to dry them. On a cloudy day, wherever the hides are placed they will be exposed to sunlight. Alternatively, the ramifications are according to that which Rava taught with regard to matza: A woman may neither knead dough for matza for Passover in the light of the sun nor may she prepare the dough with hot water heated in the sun. On a cloudy day, one may not knead the dough anywhere outside since the light of the sun is diffused everywhere.

null

656

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c1d" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

55

15

null

אמר רב נחמן זוהמא דשימשא קשי משימשא וסימניך דנא דחלא שברירי דשימשא קשו משימשא וסימניך דילפא

Apropos a cloudy day, the Gemara cites that Rav Naḥman said: The hazy light of the sun through the clouds is more damaging than the light of the sun itself. And your mnemonic is the cover of a jar of vinegar: As long as the jar is tightly closed, the odor of the vinegar does not spread and it intensifies. Even the slightest opening in the lid releases an odor more powerful than the odor generated by vinegar that was not sealed in a jar. The same is true with regard to the rays of the sun. With regard to sunlight that is obscured behind clouds, when it escapes through breaks in the clouds it is more powerful than direct sunlight. Dazzling sunlight, which shines through cracks in the clouds, is more harmful to the eyes than direct sunlight. And your mnemonic is a drip; water that drips on a person is more bothersome than water in which one completely immerses his body.

null

657

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c1e" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

0

null

הרהורי עבירה קשו מעבירה וסימניך ריחא דבישרא שילהי דקייטא קשיא מקייטא וסימניך תנורא שגירא

Thoughts of transgression are worse than transgression itself, and your mnemonic is the odor of meat. The smell of roasting meat is more appetizing than actually eating the meat. The heat of the end of summer is more oppressive than the heat of the summer itself, and your mnemonic is a heated oven. After an oven has been heated several times in the course of a day, lighting it again, even slightly, will produce powerful heat. So too, at the end of the summer, since everything is hot, the heat is more oppressive.

null

658

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c1f" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

1

null

אישתא דסיתוא קשיא מדקייטא וסימניך תנורא קרירא מיגמר בעתיקתא קשיא מחדתא וסימניך טינא בר טינא

A fever in the winter is more powerful than a fever in the summer, and your mnemonic is a cold oven. Heating a cold oven requires greater heat than heating a hot oven. A fever that succeeds in raising the body temperature in the winter must be more powerful than a fever that raises the body temperature in the summer. Relearning old material that was known and forgotten is more difficult than learning from new material. And your mnemonic is mixing mortar from mortar. It is harder to take hardened mortar, crush it, and mix new mortar than it is to simply mix new mortar.

null

659

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c20" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

2

null

א"ר אבהו מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (תהלים כב, א) למנצח על אילת השחר מה אילה זו קרניה מפצילות לכאן ולכאן אף שחר זה מפציע לכאן ולכאן

Apropos moonlight and sunlight discussed previously, Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that sunlight diffuses and in that sense is dissimilar to moonlight? It is as it is written: “For the leader, about the morning hind” (Psalms 22:1); just as the antlers of a hind branch out to here and to there, so too, the light of dawn diffuses to here and to there.

null

660

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c21" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

3

null

א"ר זירא למה נמשלה אסתר לאילה לומר לך מה אילה רחמה צר וחביבה על בעלה כל שעה ושעה כשעה ראשונה אף אסתר היתה חביבה על אחשורוש כל שעה ושעה כשעה ראשונה א"ר אסי למה נמשלה אסתר לשחר לומר לך מה שחר סוף כל הלילה אף אסתר סוף כל הנסים

In tractate Megilla, the Gemara states that Queen Esther prophetically recited this Psalm in reference to her situation as she was about to come before King Ahasuerus without being summoned. Rabbi Zeira said: Why is Esther likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as in the case of a hind its womb is narrow and it is desirable to its mate at each and every hour like it is at the first hour, so too, Esther was desirable to Ahasuerus at each and every hour like she was at the first hour. Rabbi Asi said: Why was Esther likened to the dawn? It is to tell you: Just as the dawn is the conclusion of the entire night, so too, Esther was the conclusion of all miracles performed for the entire Jewish people.

null

661

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c22" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

4

null

והא איכא חנוכה ניתנה לכתוב קא אמרינן הניחא למאן דאמר אסתר ניתנה לכתוב אלא למאן דאמר אסתר לא ניתנה לכתוב מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the miracle of Hanukkah, which was performed many years later? The Gemara answers: It is true that additional miracles were performed after the miracle of Purim; however, it is with regard to miracles for which permission was granted to write them in the Bible that we are saying that the miracle of Purim was the last one. The Gemara asks: That works out well according to the one who said: Permission was granted to write the Scroll of Esther in the Bible as a book whose sanctity equals that of the other books of the Bible. However, according to the one who said: Permission was not granted to write the Scroll of Esther in the Bible, and its sanctity does not reach the level of the other books of the Bible, what can be said?

null

662

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c23" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

5

null

מוקים לה כר' בנימין בר יפת אמר ר' אלעזר דאמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר למה נמשלו תפלתן של צדיקים כאילת לומר לך מה אילה זו כל זמן שמגדלת קרניה מפצילות אף צדיקים כל זמן שמרבין בתפלה תפלתן נשמעת

The Gemara answers: Actually, Purim was not the conclusion of all miracles performed for the entire Jewish people, and the one who holds that permission was not granted for the Scroll of Esther to be written establishes the analogy between Esther and the hind in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said; as Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as with regard to a hind, as long as it grows its antlers they continue to branch out; so too, with regard to the righteous, as long as they engage more in prayer their prayer is heard.

null

663

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c24" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

6

null

שחטו את התמיד אימת אילימא בשאר ימות השנה לא סגיא דלאו כהן גדול אלא ביום הכפורים מאור הלבנה מי איכא

The mishna relates that as a result of the confusion, they slaughtered the daily offering before dawn. The Gemara asks: When did this incident occur? If we say it occurred during the rest of the days of the year, is there no alternative to having the service performed by the High Priest? The mishna states that after slaughtering the daily offering, they led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. On all the other days of the year, the High Priest need not perform the service and it may be performed by a common priest. Rather, it must be that this incident occurred on Yom Kippur, when the service is performed exclusively by the High Priest. However, in that case, is there moonlight? According to the lunar cycle, the moon never rises in the east adjacent to dawn on Yom Kippur.

null

664

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c25" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

7

null

הכי קאמר וביום הכפורים כי אמר ברק ברקאי הורידו כ"ג לבית הטבילה

The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: The incident occurred during the rest of the year, at which point they instituted that the appointed priest announce the arrival of dawn in the Temple. And on Yom Kippur, when the appointed priest said: The light flashed, they immediately led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion.

null

665

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c26" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

56

8

null

תני אבוה דרבי אבין לא זו בלבד אמרו אלא אף מליקת העוף וקמיצת מנחה בלילה תשרף בשלמא עולת העוף מאי דהוה הוה אלא קומץ

Apropos this fundamental halakha, the father of Rabbi Avin taught a baraita: Not only this, that a daily offering slaughtered before dawn is disqualified and burned, did they say; rather, even in the case of the pinching of the neck of a bird and the taking of the handful of a meal-offering that are performed at night, these items must be burned. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, a bird sacrificed as a burnt-offering is disqualified if pinched before dawn; what was, was. The situation can no longer be remedied, and the bird must be burned. However, why should the handful of a meal-offering be burned?

null

666

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c27" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

0

null

נהדרה ונהדר ונקמצה ביממא הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה כלי שרת מקדשין אפילו שלא בזמנו

Let us restore the handful that was removed from the meal-offering at night, and let us again take a handful during the day. Why must the meal-offering be burned? The Gemara explains: He taught the baraita that he received through tradition, and he said its explanation. Service vessels, which are sacred, consecrate their contents even when those contents are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time for that service. Once the handful is placed in the sacred vessel, the sanctity of the handful immediately takes effect and the situation can no longer be remedied.

null

667

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c28" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

1

null

מיתיבי זה הכלל כל הקרב ביום קדוש ביום וכל הקרב בלילה קדוש בלילה וכל הקרב בין ביום ובין בלילה קדוש בין ביום ובין בלילה קתני מיהת כל הקרב ביום קדוש ביום ביום אין בלילה לא דילמא אינו קדוש ליקרב אבל קדוש ליפסל

The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita. This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated by being sacrificed during the day; and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated only at night; and any offering that is sacrificed both during the day and at night is consecrated both during the day and at night. In any case, it is teaching that any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated during the day. One learns by inference: During the day, yes, it is consecrated; at night, no, it is not consecrated. Apparently, the handful of the meal-offering is not consecrated before dawn, which poses a difficulty to the explanation of Rabbi Avin’s father. The Gemara answers: Perhaps the inference from the baraita means that when it is not sacrificed at its appointed time it is not sufficiently consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar; however, it is sufficiently consecrated to be disqualified.

null

668

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c29" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

2

null

מתיב רבי זירא סידר את הלחם ואת הבזיכין אחר השבת והקטיר את הבזיכין בשבת פסולה

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to the principle of the father of Rabbi Avin based on what was taught in a mishna: If a priest arranged the bread and the vessels of frankincense that accompany the shewbread on the golden table after Shabbat, on Sunday instead of on Shabbat, then even though he burned the frankincense that was in the vessels on Shabbat, they are disqualified. That is because the bread was not arranged at its appointed time and therefore will not be arranged on the table for the requisite seven days.

null

669

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c2a" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

3

null

כיצד יעשה יניחנו לשבת הבאה שאפילו עמדה על השלחן ימים רבים אין בכך כלום ואמאי תקדוש ותיפסל

How shall he proceed to prevent its disqualification? He should not remove it, but rather he should leave the shewbread on the table to be removed the following Shabbat, as even if the bread remained on the table for many days, that does not matter. Then, on the following Shabbat, he arranges and places the shewbread in the appropriate manner. And according to the opinion of the father of Rabbi Avin, why is this remedy effective? If service vessels consecrate their contents even when those contents are not placed there at the appointed time, once the bread was placed on the table after Shabbat it is consecrated and disqualified.

null

670

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c2b" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

4

null

אמר רבא מאן דקא מותיב שפיר קא מותיב ואבוה דר' אבין נמי מתניתא קאמר וקסבר לילה אין מחוסר זמן יום מחוסר זמן

Rava said: Rabbi Zeira, who raises the objection, raises the objection well. And the father of Rabbi Avin is also stating a baraita. Therefore, his opinion cannot be dismissed. At the same time, the contradiction between the baraita and the mishna must be resolved. And the tanna of the baraita maintains: A service performed at night is not considered premature. If there is a requirement to perform a certain action during the day but one performed it the night before, it is not considered as though he did not perform it at its appointed time, because the day and the night before it are considered a single unit. Therefore, placing the shewbread on the table before dawn disqualifies it. However, a service performed a day earlier is considered premature. Therefore, the table does not consecrate shewbread placed on it a day before Shabbat, and all the more so a week before Shabbat.

null

671

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c2c" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

5

null

כי מטי בי שמשי תקדוש ותפסול אמר רבינא שקדם וסלקו מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא בשלא קדם וסלקו כיון שסדרו שלא כמצותו נעשה כמו שסדרו הקוף

If a service performed at night is not considered premature, when Shabbat evening arrives, the arrangement of bread remaining on the table should be consecrated and disqualified when morning comes, because it was arranged at night. Ravina said: It is referring to a case where one removed the shewbread from the table before nightfall on Friday night to prevent consecration and disqualification. Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Even if you say that one did not remove the shewbread before nightfall, since he arranged the shewbread not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva as it was not at its appointed time, its legal status becomes as if a monkey arranged the shewbread. At dawn, the priest will remove it from the table and replace it in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva. However, with regard to a meal-offering whose handful was placed into a sacred vessel and shewbread that was placed on the table before dawn, they are not considered premature. They are therefore consecrated and disqualified.

null

672

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c2d" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

57

6

null

זה הכלל היה במקדש בשלמא רגלים משום ניצוצות אלא ידים מאי טעמא אמר רבי אבא זאת אומרת

The mishna continues: This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs, a euphemism for defecating, must immerse afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of the hands and feet with water from the basin afterward. The Gemara asks: Granted, one who urinates is required to sanctify his feet, due to drops of urine that drip on his feet. However, with regard to his hands, what is the reason that he is required to sanctify them? His hands did not come into contact with anything filthy. Rabbi Abba said: That is to say that one learns appropriate conduct from this, namely that

null

673

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c2e" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

0

null

מצוה לשפשף מסייע ליה לרבי אמי דאמר רבי אמי אסור לאדם שיצא בניצוצות שעל גבי רגליו מפני שנראה ככרות שפכה ומוציא לעז על בניו שהן ממזרים

it is a mitzva to brush the drops of urine from one’s legs so that they cannot be seen. Since one rubs it with his hands, his hands require sanctification as well. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: It is prohibited for a man to go out with the drops of urine that are on his legs, because he appears as one whose penis has been severed. A man with that condition is incapable of fathering children. People who see urine on his legs might suspect that he is suffering from that condition and spread rumors about his children that they are mamzerim. Therefore, one must be certain to brush the drops of urine from his legs.

null

674

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c2f" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

1

null

אמר רב פפא צואה במקומה אסור לקרות ק"ש היכי דמי אי דנראית פשיטא אי דלא נראית לא ניתנה תורה למלאכי השרת לא צריכא דיושב ונראית עומד ואינה נראית

Apropos the above discussion the Gemara cites that Rav Pappa said: For one with excrement in its place, in the anus, it is prohibited to recite Shema until he removes it. What are the circumstances? If it is excrement that is visible, it is obvious that he cannot recite Shema, as there is excrement on his skin. If it is excrement that is not visible, and it is inside his body, how can Rav Pappa rule that he may not recite Shema? The Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and one’s body cannot be totally free of excrement. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the recitation of Shema only in a situation where when he is sitting it is visible, and when he is standing it is not visible.

null

675

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c30" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

2

null

ומאי שנא מצואה על בשרו דאיתמר צואה על בשרו או שהיו ידיו בבית הכסא רב הונא אמר מותר לקרות ק"ש ורב חסדא אמר אסור לקרות ק"ש במקומה נפיש זוהמא שלא במקומה לא נפיש זוהמא

The Gemara asks: If so, in what way is that different from excrement on his flesh? As it was stated in a case where one has excrement on his flesh or that his hands were placed into a bathroom that Rav Huna said: It is nevertheless permitted to recite Shema. And Rav Ḥisda said: It is prohibited to recite Shema in those cases. The Gemara rejects this: The situations are not comparable. There is no dispute that excrement in its place is more severe, as in the anus the filth is great because it is new and malodorous. And if it is not in its place, its filth is not great, as it is dried and less malodorous. It is with regard to that situation that there is an amoraic dispute.

null

676

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c31" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

3

null

ת"ר הלכה בסעודה אדם יוצא להשתין מים נוטל ידו אחת ונכנס דיבר עם חבירו והפליג נוטל שתי ידיו ונכנס וכשהוא נוטל לא יטול מבחוץ ויכנס מפני חשד אלא נכנס ויושב במקומו ונוטל שתי ידיו ומחזיר הטפיח על האורחין

The Gemara proceeds to discuss a related topic. The Sages taught a halakha with regard to a meal in a baraita: A person who exits a meal to urinate washes one of his hands, the one that he used to brush off drops of urine, and enters to resume the meal. If one left, spoke with another, and lingered outside, he washes both of his hands and enters to resume the meal. Presumably, during the lengthy conversation he was distracted from maintaining the cleanliness of his hands, requiring him to wash his hands again. And when one washes his hands for the meal he should not wash them outside and then enter, due to the concern that doing so will arouse suspicion that he did not wash his hands. Rather, he enters and sits in his place and washes both his hands, and returns the jug of water to pass among the guests and ask if anyone requires water, to make certain that everyone is aware that he washed his hands.

null

677

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c32" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

4

null

א"ר חסדא לא אמרן אלא לשתות אבל לאכול נוטל מבחוץ ונכנס דמידע ידיע דאנינא דעתיה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ואנא אפילו לשתות נמי מידע ידעי דאנינא דעתאי

Rav Ḥisda said: We said this principle with regard to making certain that one washes his hands in public only when he enters to drink; however, if he enters and intends to eat he may even wash his hands outside and enter. Why is this so? It is because it is well known that he is fastidious and would not handle food without cleaning urine and the like off his hands. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And I can even wash my hands outside when I intend only to drink, because they know that I am fastidious and that I certainly washed my hands before I entered to eat.

null

678

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c33" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

5

null

מתני׳ אין אדם נכנס לעזרה לעבודה אפילו טהור עד שיטבול חמש טבילות ועשרה קדושין טובל כ"ג ומקדש בו ביום וכולן בקדש על בית הפרוה חוץ מזו בלבד פרסו סדין של בוץ בינו לבין העם קידש ידיו ורגליו

MISHNA: A person does not enter the Temple courtyard for the Temple service, even if he is pure, until he immerses. Five immersions and ten sanctifications the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur. And all of these immersions and sanctifications take place in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, on the roof of the Hall of Parva, except for this first immersion alone. As that immersion is not unique to Yom Kippur, it may be performed outside the courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people in the interest of modesty, and then the High Priest immersed and sanctified his hands and feet.

null

679

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c34" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

6

null

גמ׳ שאלו את בן זומא טבילה זו למה אמר להם ומה המשנה מקודש לקודש וממקום שענוש כרת למקום שענוש כרת טעון טבילה המשנה מחול לקודש וממקום שאין ענוש כרת למקום שענוש כרת אינו דין שטעון טבילה

GEMARA: They asked ben Zoma with regard to this immersion: Why is it a requirement for anyone who enters to perform the Temple service? He said to them: Just as one who moves from service in one sacred area to service in another sacred area, i.e., the High Priest on Yom Kippur, who moves from one service to another in the Temple courtyard and the Sanctuary; and likewise one who moves from service in an area that one who enters while impure is punished by karet, the courtyard, to service in another area that one who enters impure is punished by karet, the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, requires immersion; so too, with regard to one who moves from a non-sacred area to a sacred area, and from a place that one who enters while impure is not punished by karet to a place that one who enters while impure is punished by karet, is it not right that he require immersion? This first immersion was instituted for purposes of sanctity rather than purity.

null

680

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c35" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

7

null

רבי יהודה אומר סרך טבילה היא זו כדי שיזכור טומאה ישנה שבידו ויפרוש

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is an ancillary immersion, which is not a mitzva, instituted so that one will remember any old impurity that he contracted and withdraw. In the course of immersion, he will remember if he was exposed to a source of seven-day impurity and will refrain from serving in the Temple.

null

681

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c36" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

58

8

null

במאי קא מיפלגי

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda, who provided two different rationales for the immersion, disagree?

null

682

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c37" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

0

null

באחולי עבודה קא מיפלגי לבן זומא מחיל עבודה לר"י לא מחיל עבודה

It is with regard to whether the Temple service is desecrated and disqualified if the priest failed to immerse before its performance that they disagree. According to the opinion of ben Zoma, this immersion is for the purpose of sanctification and is an integral part of the service; consequently, if the priest failed to immerse he desecrates the service. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda he does not desecrate the service, because the immersion is merely a precautionary measure.

null

683

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c38" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

1

null

ולבן זומא מי מחיל והתניא כהן גדול שלא טבל ולא קידש בין בגד לבגד ובין עבודה לעבודה עבודתו כשרה אחד כהן גדול ואחד כהן הדיוט שלא קידש ידיו ורגליו שחרית ועבד עבודה עבודתו פסולה

The Gemara wonders: And according to ben Zoma, is the service desecrated? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a High Priest who did not immerse and did not sanctify his hands and feet between donning the golden garments and the white linen garments, and similarly, with regard to a High Priest who did not immerse between performance of one service and another service, his service is valid. However, both a High Priest and a common priest who did not sanctify his hands and feet at all in the morning and performed the service, his service is disqualified. If the High Priest’s failure to immerse between services does not desecrate the service, all the more so that failure to perform the first immersion would not desecrate the service, as ben Zoma derives the first immersion from the immersion of the High Priest. Apparently, that is not the basis of their dispute.

null

684

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c39" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

2

null

אלא למיקם בעשה קא מיפלגי לבן זומא קאי בעשה לר' יהודה לא קאי בעשה

Rather, it is with regard to whether one who fails to immerse before service stands in violation of a positive mitzva that they disagree. According to ben Zoma, he stands in violation of a positive mitzva because there is a special requirement to perform this immersion for the purpose of sanctification. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he does not stand in violation of a positive mitzva.

null

685

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c3a" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

3

null

ומי אית ליה לר' יהודה האי סברא והתניא מצורע טובל ועומד בשער ניקנור רבי יהודה אומר אינו צריך טבילה שכבר טבל מבערב

The Gemara wonders: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with this line of reasoning? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: A leper on the eighth day of his purification, after he has already immersed at the end of the seventh day, immerses again and stands at the Gate of Nicanor in the Temple to bring his purification offerings and to have the priest sprinkle the blood of the guilt-offering and the oil that accompanies his purification offerings on his thumbs and big toes to complete the purification process. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not require an additional immersion, as he already immersed the previous evening. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not require a special immersion in the morning to remind the leper of old impurity.

null

686

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c3b" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

4

null

ההוא כדתני טעמא שכבר טבל מבערב

The Gemara answers: In that case of the leper, the reason that no immersion is required in the morning is as the reason was taught in the baraita: As he already immersed the previous evening. That immersion purified him and reminded him of any old impurity that he might have. This is in no way connected to the matter of ancillary immersion.

null

687

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c3c" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

5

null

ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה משום דקא בעי למרמא אחריתי עליה לשכת המצורעין ששם מצורעין טובלין ר"י אומר לא מצורעין בלבד אמרו אלא כל אדם

The Gemara asks: And the one who grasps this baraita as a contradiction to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, in what manner does he grasp it? The rationale for the halakha is explicit. The Gemara answers: Because the Gemara wants to raise a contradiction between another baraita and this baraita, and the question will be clarified through combination of the sources. As it was taught: Why was the chamber called the Chamber of the Lepers? It is because the lepers immerse there. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was not only lepers that they said immerse there; rather, all people immersed there. Rabbi Yehuda states that lepers and others immersed in this chamber in the Temple, contradicting his statement in the first baraita that a leper does not require immersion in the Temple, as he immersed the evening before.

null

688

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c3d" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

6

null

לא קשיא הא דטביל הא דלא טביל אי דלא טביל הערב שמש בעי אלא אידי ואידי דטביל הא דאסח דעתיה הא דלא אסח דעתיה

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this baraita is referring to a case where the leper immersed the evening before and need not immerse again; that baraita is referring to a case where the leper did not immerse. In that case, there was a special chamber where lepers could immerse. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the leper did not immerse at all the previous evening, he requires the sun to set after his immersion to be sufficiently purified to enter the Temple. Rather, both this baraita and that baraita refer to a case where the leper immersed, but this baraita that requires a second immersion is in a case where he was distracted from his efforts to avoid impurity imparted by a corpse; that baraita that does not require a second immersion is in a case where he was not distracted.

null

689

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c3e" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

7

null

אי אסח דעתיה הזאת שלישי ושביעי בעי דאמר ר' דוסתאי בר מתון אמר רבי יוחנן הסח הדעת צריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי

The Gemara asks: If he was distracted from his efforts to avoid impurity imparted by a corpse, it is sprinkling of purification waters on the third and the seventh days that he requires, not merely immersion. As Rabbi Dostai bar Matun said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Distraction from efforts to avoid impurity requires sprinkling of purification waters on the third and the seventh days.

null

690

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c3f" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

8

null

אלא אידי ואידי דלא אסח דעתיה ולא קשיא הא דטביל על דעת ביאת מקדש הא דלא טביל על דעת ביאת מקדש ואב"א תני לא מצורעין אמרו אלא כל אדם

Rather, both this baraita and that baraita refer to a case where the leper was not distracted, and this is not difficult; this baraita is referring to a case where the leper immersed the evening before with the intention of entering the Temple; that baraita is referring to a case where the leper did not immerse in the evening with the intention of entering the Temple. In that case, he requires a second immersion for purification even to enter the sacred area. And if you wish, say instead: Teach the baraita with a slight emendation: It was not lepers that they said immerse there; rather, all people immersed there. Rabbi Yehuda does not qualify the statement of the Rabbis but disputes it. In his opinion, lepers do not require immersion in the morning at all.

null

691

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c40" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

9

null

רבינא אמר רבי יהודה לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי מצורע אין צריך טבילה לדידכו אודו לי איזי מיהת דלא מצורעין בלבד אמרו אלא כל אדם ורבנן מצורע דייש בטומאה כל אדם לא דיישי בטומאה

In an alternative resolution of the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda, Ravina said: In the second baraita, Rabbi Yehuda is stating his opinion to them according to the statement of the Rabbis. His statement does not reflect his opinion. Rather, it is a contention that he raised in the framework of his dispute with the Rabbis. According to my opinion, a leper does not require a second immersion to enter the Temple. However, according to your opinion, concede to me then [izi] that it was not only lepers that they said immerse there; rather, all people immersed there. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain their opinion? It answers that there is no comparison: A leper is accustomed to impurity; therefore, he could overlook other impurities that he may have contracted. The immersion reminds him to purify himself for those as well. However, all other people, who are not accustomed to impurity, will certainly be sensitive to and conscious of any impurity that they may have encountered and do not require a special immersion.

null

692

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c41" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

10

null

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף נימא רבנן דפליגי עליה דר"י כבן זומא סבירא להו והאי דקתני מצורע להודיעך כחו דר"י או דילמא שאני מצורע דדייש בטומאה א"ל שאני מצורע דדייש בטומאה

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Let us say that the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to immersions, hold in accordance with the opinion of ben Zoma, who maintains that this immersion is an obligation by Torah law for anyone entering the courtyard. And the fact that the dispute in the baraita is taught with regard to a leper, contrary to the opinion of ben Zoma, comes to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that even a leper does not require immersion. Or perhaps fundamentally the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda; however, the halakha of a leper is different because he is accustomed to impurity, and that is why a second immersion was instituted for him. Rav Yosef said to him: A leper is different because he is accustomed to impurity.

null

693

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c42" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

59

11

null

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף (לר"י דאמר סרך) טבילה (היא) זו

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who said the immersion is not an actual obligation but it is an ancillary immersion to remind the individual of old impurity,

null

694

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c43" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

60

0

null

חוצץ או אינו חוצץ אמר ליה כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון

do items that are generally considered interpositions that invalidate an immersion interpose in this immersion, or do they not interpose, since the immersion is only ancillary and serves as a reminder? Rav Yosef said to him: All ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted parallel to Torah law. Therefore, this immersion by rabbinic law has the same basic parameters as immersion by Torah law. There may be no interposition.

null

695

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c44" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

60

1

null

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה או לא א"ל בהונות יוכיחו שהן ביאה במקצת ותניא מצורע טובל ועומד בשער ניקנור איבעיא להו מהו שיעשה סכין ארוכה וישחוט

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is partial entry, when one enters a certain place with only part of his body, considered entry or not? Rav Yosef said to him: The thumbs of the leper will prove this point, as the leper reaching his thumbs into the Temple constitutes partial entry, and it was taught in a baraita: A leper immerses and stands at the Gate of Nicanor, indicating that immersion is required before even partial entry. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha; may an impure person craft a very long knife and slaughter an animal in the Temple courtyard while remaining outside the courtyard? Is it the essence of the service that requires immersion, or is it entry into the courtyard that requires immersion?

null

696

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c45" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

60

2

null

תיבעי לבן זומא תיבעי לרבנן דפליגי עליה דר' יהודה תבעי לבן זומא עד כאן לא מחייב בן זומא אלא לגואי אבל לבראי לא או דילמא אתי לאימשוכי

The Gemara comments: Raise the dilemma according to ben Zoma, who rules stringently with regard to immersion; and raise the dilemma according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and do not obligate all people in this immersion. The Gemara elaborates: Raise the dilemma according to ben Zoma: Does ben Zoma require immersion only for entry inside the courtyard; however, for standing outside the courtyard, no, he does not require immersion? Or perhaps even for one standing outside the courtyard ben Zoma requires immersion, lest he inadvertently come to be drawn inside in the course of his service.

null

697

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c46" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

60

3

null

תיבעי לרבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יהודה ע"כ לא קאמרי רבנן התם דלא קא עביד עבודה אבל הכא דקא עביד עבודה לא או דילמא לא שנא תיקו

Similarly, raise the dilemma according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda: How so? Do the Rabbis say that there is no requirement of immersion only there, where he is not performing any Temple service; however, here, where he is performing service, no, they would require immersion? Or perhaps there is no difference, and they would not require immersion under any circumstances. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

null

698

{ "$oid": "6555ecc02ad81bc04ec88c47" }

he

Yoma

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99

Wikisource Talmud Bavli

locked

CC-BY-SA

תלמוד בבלי (ויקיטקסט)

he

1

60

4

null

חמש טבילות ועשרה קידושין טובל ת"ר חמש טבילות ועשרה קידושין טובל כ"ג ומקדש בו ביום וכולן בקודש בבית הפרוה חוץ מראשונה שהיתה בחול ע"ג שער המים ובצד לשכתו היתה אמר אביי שמע מיניה עין עיטם גבוה מקרקע עזרה עשרים ושלש אמות

It was taught in the mishna: Five immersions and ten sanctifications the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively. The Sages taught in a baraita: Five immersions and ten sanctifications the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur. And all of these immersions and sanctifications take place in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, in the Hall of Parva, except for this first immersion, which was in the non-sacred area on the roof of Gate of the Water, and that gate was alongside his chamber. Abaye said: Conclude from that which was taught in this baraita that Ein Eitam, the spring from which water was supplied to the Temple, was twenty-three cubits higher than the ground of the Temple courtyard.

null

699