Datasets:

sivan22

/

sefaria-dual-he-en

like 1

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

מתני׳ שבעת ימים קודם יום הכפורים מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללשכת פרהדרין ומתקינין לו כהן אחר תחתיו שמא יארע בו פסול

Mishnah: Seven days before the Day of Atonement, the High-priest was removed from his house to the Palhedrin (counsellors') chamber, and another High-priest was appointed to substitute him in case he should meet with such an accident [as would incapacitate him for the service of that day].

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

מתני׳ שבעת ימים קודם יום הכפורים מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללשכת פרהדרין ומתקינין לו כהן אחר תחתיו שמא יארע בו פסול

MISHNA: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur the Sages would remove the High Priest, who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin, a room in the Temple designated specifically for the High Priest during that period. And they would designate another priest in his stead to replace him lest a disqualification due to impurity or another circumstance beyond his control prevent him from entering the Temple on Yom Kippur.

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

ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנאמר (ויקרא טז, ו) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו זו אשתו אמרו לו אם כן אין לדבר סוף:

R. Juda says: "Another wife was also appointed for him lest his own wife should meanwhile die, whereas it is said (Lev. 17:11) 'And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house;' 'his house' alludes to his wife.'" Said to him: "If this be so then there will be no end to the matter [the other wife may also die]."

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

ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנאמר (ויקרא טז, ו) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו זו אשתו אמרו לו אם כן אין לדבר סוף:

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

ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו שמא תמות אשתו שנאמר (ויקרא טז, ו) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ביתו זו אשתו אמרו לו אם כן אין לדבר סוף:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die, as it is stated in the Torah portion of the Yom Kippur service: “And it will atone for him and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6); the Sages interpreted the term: His house, that is his wife. The priest must be married in order to fulfill this commandment. Due to the concern lest his wife die, another wife was designated to address that possibility. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, that this is a concern, there is no end to the matter, as what if the designated replacement wife dies? This possibility need not be a source of concern.

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

גמ׳ תנן התם שבעת ימים קודם שריפת הפרה היו מפרישין כהן השורף את הפרה מביתו ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ולשכת בית האבן היתה נקראת ולמה נקרא שמה לשכת בית האבן שכל מעשיה בכלי גללים בכלי אבנים ובכלי אדמה

It is taught elsewhere: Seven days before the burning of the [red] calf, they would separate the priest who was to burn the calf from his house [and bring him] to the chamber overlooking the [Temple] building from the northeast, and it was called the 'Chamber of the House of Stone.' And why was it called 'Chamber of the House of Stone'? Because all of its work (ie. the work done inside) was with Manure vessels, Stone vessels, and Earthenware vessels [all three of which cannot contract impurity].

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

גמ׳ תנן התם שבעת ימים קודם שריפת הפרה היו מפרישין כהן השורף את הפרה מביתו ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ולשכת בית האבן היתה נקראת ולמה נקרא שמה לשכת בית האבן שכל מעשיה בכלי גללים בכלי אבנים ובכלי אדמה

GEMARA: The halakha of sequestering the High Priest prior to his performance of the Temple service on Yom Kippur is comparable to the sequestering of the priest designated to burn the red heifer. Therefore, the Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer, the Sages would remove the priest who burns the heifer from his house to the chamber that was before the bira at the northeast corner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. And that chamber was called the Chamber of the Stone House. The Gemara explains: And why was it called the Chamber of the Stone House? It is because all the actions associated with the red heifer were performed in dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which are vessels that cannot become ritually impure.

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

מאי טעמא כיון דטבול יום כשר בפרה דתנן מטמאין היו הכהן השורף את הפרה ומטבילין אותו להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים במעורבי השמש היתה נעשית

What is the reason for this? Because a Tevul Yom is purified through the calf, as it is taught,

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

מאי טעמא כיון דטבול יום כשר בפרה דתנן מטמאין היו הכהן השורף את הפרה ומטבילין אותו להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים במעורבי השמש היתה נעשית

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were so stringent with regard to the purity of the heifer? The Gemara explains: It is since a priest who immersed that day is fit for service and may perform the ritual of the heifer after immersion, even before sunset, as we learned in a mishna: They would intentionally render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him immediately, to remove a misconception from the hearts of the Sadducees by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. As the Sadducees would say: Only by those for whom the sun set was the heifer ritual performed. The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for priests who began the purification process with immersion during that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed.

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

תקינו לה רבנן כלי גללים כלי אבנים וכלי אדמה דלא ליקבלו טומאה כי היכי דלא ליזלזלו בה

That mishna continues: Since they would intentionally render the priest who burned the heifer ritually impure, the Sages in turn instituted the stringencies of utilizing dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which do not have the capacity to become ritually impure, lest people come to treat the ritual with contempt and perform it in ritual impurity after seeing that the red heifer ritual was performed by one who immersed that day.

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

מאי שנא צפונה מזרחה כיון דחטאת היא וחטאת טעונה צפונה וכתיב בה (במדבר יט, ד) אל נכח פני אהל מועד תקינו לה רבנן לשכה צפונה מזרחה כי היכי דלהוי לה היכירא

Apropos the mishna in tractate Para, the Gemara asks: What is different about the chamber located in the northeast corner of the Temple courtyard that led the Sages to house the priest performing the red heifer ritual specifically in that chamber? The Gemara answers: It is different since it is a sin-offering, as the red heifer is referred to as a sin-offering in the Torah, and the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of a sin-offering must be performed north of the altar; and since it is written with regard to the red heifer: “And sprinkle it before the opening of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 19:4), and before the Tent of Meeting means on its eastern side. Therefore, the Sages established a chamber in the northeast so that the ritual of the red heifer will have a distinctive indicator; this will cause the administering priest to be vigilant in its performance.

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

מאי בירה אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מקום היה בהר הבית ובירה שמו ור"ל אמר כל המקדש כולו קרוי בירה שנאמר (דברי הימים א כט, יט) הבירה אשר הכינותי

The Gemara asks with regard to the terminology of the mishna: What is the meaning of the term bira cited there? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There was a place on the Temple Mount and its name is bira, and the Chamber of the Stone House was adjacent to it. And Reish Lakish said: The entire Temple is called bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: “To Solomon my son grant a wholesome heart, to observe your commandments, your admonitions, and your statutes, to fulfill them all, and to build the bira for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19).

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

מנא הני מילי א"ר מניומי בר חלקיה א"ר מחסיא בר אידי א"ר יוחנן אמר קרא (ויקרא ח, לד) כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה' לעשות לכפר עליכם לעשות אלו מעשי פרה לכפר אלו מעשי יום הכפורים

With regard to the halakhot of sequestering the High Priest prior to performance of the Yom Kippur service, and of sequestering the priest designated to burn the heifer prior to performance of the red heifer ritual, the Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Minyomi bar Ḥilkiya said that Rabbi Maḥseya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said they are derived from Aaron and his sons, who remained in the Tabernacle for seven days prior to performing the service in the Tabernacle on the eighth day of their inauguration, as the verse states: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), meaning that this mitzva of sequestering was not limited to the days prior to the dedication of the Tabernacle; rather, it applies to future generations as well. The verse is interpreted homiletically: “To do”; these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer for which the priest performing the ritual is sequestered seven days in advance; “to make atonement”; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur, before which the High Priest is sequestered seven days.

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

בשלמא כוליה קרא בפרה לא מתוקם לכפר כתיב ופרה לאו בת כפרה היא אלא אימא כוליה קרא ביום הכפורים כתיב

The Gemara asks: Granted, the entire verse is not established as referring exclusively to the red heifer, as: “To atone,” is written, and the heifer is not capable of facilitating atonement; rather, it facilitates ritual purity. Rather, say that the entire verse is written with regard to Yom Kippur, as the rites performed to achieve atonement on Yom Kippur are similar to those performed during the days of the inauguration. What, then, is the source for sequestering the priest who is to perform the red heifer ritual?

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

אמרי יליף צוה צוה כתיב הכא צוה ה' לעשות וכתיב התם (במדבר יט, ב) זאת חקת התורה אשר צוה ה' לאמר מה להלן פרה אף כאן פרה ומה כאן פרישה אף להלן פרישה

The Sages say in response: Derive it from a verbal analogy between the terms commanded and commanded. It is stated here, with regard to the days of the inauguration: “The Lord commanded to do,” and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: “This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying” (Numbers 19:2). Just as the term commanded there refers to the heifer, so too here, the phrase: “The Lord commanded to do” written in the context of the days of the inauguration refers to the heifer. And just as here, with regard to the inauguration, there is the principle of sequestering prior to performing the service, so too there, in the context of the halakhot of the heifer, sequestering is required prior to performance of the mitzva.

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

ואימא צוה [צוה] דיום הכפורים דכתיב (ויקרא טז, לד) ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה דנין צוה דלפני עשיה מצוה דלפני עשיה ואין דנין צוה דלאחר עשיה מצוה דלפני עשיה

The Gemara asks: And say that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded in the context of Yom Kippur, as it is written: “And this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; and he did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Gemara rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. One derives commanded that is stated before performance, as in the portion of the heifer, from commanded that is stated before performance in the portion of the inauguration; and one does not derive commanded that is stated after performance in the portion of Yom Kippur from commanded that is stated before performance.

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

ואימא צוה דקרבנות דכתיב (ויקרא ז, לח) ביום צותו את בני ישראל דנין צוה מצוה ואין דנין צותו מצוה

Again the Gemara asks: And say that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded with regard to offerings, as it is written: “On the day that He commanded [tzavoto] the children of Israel to sacrifice their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for seven days. The Gemara rejects this: One derives the term commanded from the identical term commanded, and one does not derive the term that he commanded [tzavoto] from the term commanded [tziva].

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

ומאי נפקא מינה והתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the practical difference between the two terms? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: “And the priest shall return [veshav]” (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: “And the priest shall come [uva]” (Leviticus 14:44)? From that verbal analogy it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, i.e., it is also after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference in grammatical forms between tziva and tzavoto should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.

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

הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן

The Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only where there are no terms that are identical to it; however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms that are identical to it, rather than from terms that are merely similar.

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

לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים ואימא כפרה דקרבנות

The Gemara analyzes the verbal analogy from which the sequestering of the High Priest is derived. The Gemara states with regard to the phrase “to make atonement,” written in the context of the inauguration: These are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests: And say that it refers to the atonement of offerings in general, such that any priest engaged in sacrificing atonement offerings must be sequestered seven days beforehand.

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

מי ידעינן הי כהן מתרמי דבעי ליה פרישה אמרי אלמה לא ניבעי ליה פרישה לכוליה משמרת בית אב דנין דבר שקבוע לו זמן מדבר שקבוע לו זמן לאפוקי קרבנות דכל יומא איתנהו

The Gemara seeks to reject this suggestion from a practical perspective. Do we know in advance which priest will happen to sacrifice a given offering, and who would consequently require sequestering? The Sages say: Why not? There are certainly ways to do so. Each of the twenty-four priestly watches has set weeks during which it serves in the Temple, and the patrilineal families that constitute that watch have set days during that week on which each serves in the Temple. We could require sequestering for the entire patrilineal family of the priestly watch designated to serve on that day the following week. The Gemara rejects the suggestion that all priests should be sequestered prior to sacrificing an atonement offering. We derive a matter that has a fixed time during the year, Yom Kippur, from a matter that also has a fixed time, the inauguration of the priests for service in the Tabernacle, to the exclusion of offerings that are sacrificed every day.

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

ואימא רגלים דנין דבר שנוהג פעם אחת בשנה מדבר הנוהג פעם אחת בשנה לאפוקי רגלים דלאו פעם אחת בשנה נינהו

Again the Gemara asks: And say that one derives from the phrase “to make atonement” the principle of sequestering prior to sacrificing atonement offerings on the Festivals, which have fixed times. The Gemara rejects this: We derive a matter that is performed once a year, the service of Yom Kippur, from a matter that is performed once a year, like the inauguration, which was a one-time event, to the exclusion of the service on the Festivals, which is not performed once a year; rather, it is performed three times a year.

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

ואימא רגל אחד וכי תימא לא ידעינן הי מינייהו אי חג המצות הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב תחלה אי חג הסוכות הואיל ומרובה מצותו

The Gemara asks: And say that the service on one Festival of the three, which is performed once a year, should require sequestering. And if you say: We do not know which of them is the most significant and requires sequestering, since one could suggest that it is Passover, with which the verse opened, as the Torah always lists it first among the Festivals; or one could suggest that it is Sukkot, since its mitzva is to bring numerous offerings, many more than the number brought on the other Festivals.

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

אלא דנין פרישת שבעה ליום אחד מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד ואין דנין פרישת שבעה לשבעה מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד

Rather, the Gemara rejects this possibility and explains: One derives sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, Yom Kippur, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. And one does not derive sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for seven days, a Festival, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. Therefore, atonement offerings on Festivals are not derived from the inauguration.

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

ואימא שמיני דפרישת שבעה ליום אחד הוא דנין דבר שאין קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו ואין דנין דבר שיש קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו

The Gemara asks: And say that the sequestering for seven days is prior to the festival of the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that would also be sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day. The Gemara rejects this: One derives a matter before which there is not sanctity, Yom Kippur, which is preceded by weekdays, from a matter before which there is not sanctity, the day of the inauguration, which was also preceded by weekdays. And we do not derive a matter before which there is sanctity, the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is preceded by the seven days of Sukkot, from a matter before which there is not sanctity.

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

ולאו קל וחומר הוא השתא דבר שאין קדושה לפניו בעי פרישה דבר שיש קדושה לפניו לא כל שכן אמר רב משרשיא לא הזה כתיב כזה

The Gemara challenges this: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Now, if a matter before which there is not sanctity requires sequestering, due to its sanctity, then with regard to a matter before which there is sanctity, all the more so is it not clear that it should require sequestering? Rav Mesharshiyya said in rejection of this challenge: No, there is no a fortiori inference here, as the verse: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), is written to emphasize specifically a day like this day; precisely as it was for the inauguration, and not in any other situation.

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

רב אשי אמר מי איכא מידי דעיקר רגל לא בעי פרישה טפל דידיה בעי פרישה ואפילו למאן דאמר שמיני רגל בפני עצמו הוא הני מילי לענין

Rav Ashi said: There is another reason why it could not be that sequestering is required prior to the Eighth Day of Assembly. Is there any matter where the primary Festival, the first day of Sukkot, does not require sequestering, as was already proven, while that which is secondary to it requires sequestering? Since the Eighth Day of Assembly is an addendum to Sukkot, could its sanctity and stringency be greater than that which is associated with the primary Festival? And even according to the one who said: The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself and is not part of the festival of Sukkot, that applies only to the matter of

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

פז"ר קש"ב

Peh, zayin, reish, kuf, shin, beit, an acronym for: Lottery [payis], as a new lottery is performed on that day to determine which priests will sacrifice the offerings that day, and the order established on Sukkot does not continue; the blessing of time [zeman]: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, is recited just as it is recited at the start of each Festival; Festival [regel], as it is considered a Festival in and of itself and there is no mitzva to reside in the sukka (see Tosafot); offering [korban], as the number of offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day is not a continuation of the number offered on Sukkot but is part of a new calculation; song [shira], as the Psalms recited by the Levites as the offerings were sacrificed on the Eighth Day are not a continuation of those recited on Sukkot; blessing [berakha], as the addition to the third blessing of Grace after Meals and in the Amida prayer (see Tosafot) is phrased differently than the addition recited on Sukkot.

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

אבל לענין תשלומין תשלומין דראשון הוא דהא תנן מי שלא חג ביום טוב הראשון של חג חוגג והולך כל הרגל כולו ויום טוב האחרון של חג

However, despite all these differences, with regard to compensation for failure to sacrifice the Festival offerings at the earliest opportunity, everyone agrees that it is a day of compensation for obligations not met during the first Festival, as didn’t we learn in the mishna: One who did not celebrate on the first Festival day of Sukkot by sacrificing the Festival offering may celebrate and sacrifice the Festival offering throughout the whole Festival in its entirety, including the last Festival day of the festival of Sukkot. Apparently, the Eighth Day of Assembly is considered the last Festival day of Sukkot and is appended to it with regard to its obligations.

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

ואימא עצרת דפרישת שבעה ליום אחד הוא א"ר אבא דנין פר אחד ואיל אחד מפר אחד ואיל אחד לאפוקי עצרת דשני אילים נינהו

The Gemara challenges further: And say that the priest should be sequestered before the festival of Shavuot, which is a Festival preceded by weekdays, as there too it is a matter of sequestering of seven days for one day. Rabbi Abba said: There is a distinction between the inauguration and Shavuot, as one derives an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, Yom Kippur, from an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, the inauguration, to the exclusion of Shavuot, when they are two rams that are offered.

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

הניחא למאן דאמר יום הכפורים איל אחד הוא אלא למ"ד שני אילים נינהו מאי איכא למימר דתניא רבי אומר איל אחד הוא האמור כאן הוא האמור בחומש הפקודים ר' אליעזר בר' שמעון אומר שני אילים הם אחד האמור כאן ואחד האמור בחומש הפקודים

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who said that the obligatory offering on Yom Kippur is one ram; however, according to the one who said that they are two rams that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur, what is there to say? According to that opinion, Yom Kippur is not comparable to the inauguration. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One ram is the one that is mentioned here; as it is written: “With this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 16:3), and it is the same one that is mentioned in the book of Numbers: “And on the tenth day of the seventh month you will have a sacred gathering when you will afflict your souls; you will not do any labor, and you will offer a burnt-offering to the Lord for a sweet aroma: One young bull, one ram…” (Numbers 29:7–8). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They are two rams offered on Yom Kippur, one mentioned here in the book of Leviticus and one mentioned in the book of Numbers.

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

אפילו תימא ר"א בר' שמעון התם חד לחובת היום וחד למוספין לאפוקי עצרת דתרוייהו חובת היום נינהו

The Gemara rejects this solution: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, and two rams are brought on Yom Kippur, a distinction remains between Yom Kippur and Shavuot. There, with regard to Yom Kippur, one ram, mentioned in the book of Leviticus, is for the obligation of the day, the atonement of Yom Kippur; and one ram, mentioned in the book of Numbers, is for the additional offerings. This is to the exclusion of the halakha with regard to Shavuot, where both rams are obligations of the day. Therefore, there is no basis for deriving the halakha with regard to Shavuot from the inauguration.

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

ואימא ראש השנה דפרישת שבעה ליום אחד הוא א"ר אבהו דנין פר ואיל שלו מפר ואיל שלו לאפוקי עצרת וראש השנה דציבור נינהו הניחא למ"ד קח לך משלך

The Gemara asks: And say that the requirement derived is to sequester the priest prior to Rosh HaShana, as there, too, it is sequestering of seven days for one day. The days before Rosh HaShana are weekdays, and as in the inauguration, a bull and a ram are sacrificed. Rabbi Abbahu said that this too is rejected: One derives a bull and a ram that the High Priest brings from his own property on Yom Kippur from a bull and a ram that Aaron brought from his own property at the inauguration. This is to the exclusion of Shavuot and Rosh HaShana, when the bull and the ram sacrificed are from community property and not owned by the priest. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that every time the Torah utilizes the phrase: Take you, it means from your own property,

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

ועשה לך משלך אלא למ"ד משל צבור מאי איכא למימר

...We are taught in a Baraitha: "Take thee,

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

ועשה לך משלך אלא למ"ד משל צבור מאי איכא למימר

and similarly, when the Torah states: Make you, it means from your own property. However, according to the one who said that when the Torah states both phrases it means from communal property, what is there to say to distinguish between Yom Kippur and the other days?

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

דתניא קח לך משלך ועשה לך משלך ויקחו אליך משל צבור דברי רבי יאשיה ר' יונתן אומר בין קח לך בין ויקחו אליך משל צבור ומה תלמוד לומר קח לך כביכול משלך אני רוצה יותר משלהם

As it was taught in a baraita that when the Torah states: Take you, it means from your own property, and when it states: Make you, it means from your own property; however, when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that both when the Torah states: Take you, and when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: Take you, which seems to mean from your own property? It should be understood, as it were, that God said to Moses: I desire that it come from your property more than I desire it from theirs. Therefore, the taking was attributed to Moses even though it was actually from community property.

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

אבא חנן אמר משום ר' אלעזר כתוב אחד אומר (דברים י, א) ועשית לך ארון עץ וכתוב אחד אומר (שמות כה, י) ועשו ארון עצי שטים הא כיצד כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום

Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one verse says: “And make you an ark of wood” (Deuteronomy 10:1), indicating that it should be from your own property; and one verse says on the same subject: “And they shall make an ark of acacia wood” (Exodus 25:10), meaning from the Jewish people. How can this contradiction be resolved? Here, the verse is referring to a time when the Jewish people perform the will of God and they are credited with building the Ark of the Covenant. There, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not perform the will of God, and construction of the Ark is attributed to Moses alone. According to that opinion, there is no difference between the offerings of Yom Kippur and other offerings.

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

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בקיחות דעלמא ועשיות דעלמא קיחות דעלמא (שמות ל, לד) קח לך סמים עשיות דעלמא (במדבר י, ב) עשה לך שתי חצוצרות כסף אבל הנך פרושי קא מפרש דמשלך הוא במלואים מכדי כתיב (ויקרא ט, ג) ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת ויאמר אל אהרן קח לך עגל בן בקר לחטאת למה לי שמע מינה קח לך משלך הוא

The Gemara rejects this: They disagree only with regard to instances of taking in general and instances of making in general: Instances of taking in general are as in the verse: “Take you spices” (Exodus 30:34); and instances of making in general are as in the verse: “Make you two silver trumpets” (Numbers 10:2). However, in these cases of inauguration and of Yom Kippur the verses explicitly teach that the offerings must be from your own property. With regard to the inauguration, now, since it is written: “And to the children of Israel you will speak, saying: Take a goat kid for a sin-offering and an unblemished year-old calf and lamb for burnt-offerings” (Leviticus 9:3), with regard to the verse: “And he said to Aaron: Take you a young calf for a sin-offering” (Leviticus 9:2), why do I need this clear difference between the formulation of the command to the Jewish people and the formulation of the command to Aaron? Learn from it that in this context the phrase: Take you, means from your own property.

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

ביום הכפורים מכדי כתיב (ויקרא טז, ג) בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש בפר בן בקר לחטאת וגו' (ויקרא טז, ה) ומאת עדת בני ישראל יקח שני שעירי עזים לחטאת והקריב את פר החטאת אשר לו למה לי שמע מינה האי לו משלו הוא

And with regard to Yom Kippur, now, since it is written: “With this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 16:3), with regard to the verse: “And from the congregation of the children of Israel he will take two goat kids for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering and Aaron will offer his young bull as a sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:5–6), why do I need the emphasis that the goats come from the property of the children of Israel? Learn from it that this term: His, written with regard to the calf, means it is from his own property.

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

רב אשי אמר דנין פר לחטאת ואיל לעולה מפר לחטאת ואיל לעולה לאפוקי ראש השנה ועצרת דתרוייהו עולות נינהו

Rav Ashi stated another reason that distinguishes Yom Kippur from Rosh HaShana and Shavuot. One derives the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to Yom Kippur from the bull for a sin-offering and ram for a burnt-offering written with regard to the inauguration, to the exclusion of Rosh HaShana and Shavuot, on which both of them, the bull and the ram, are burnt-offerings.

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

רבינא אמר דנין עבודה בכהן גדול מעבודה בכהן גדול לאפוקי כולהו קושייתין דלאו עבודה בכהן גדול נינהו

Ravina stated another distinction: One derives a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, Yom Kippur, from a matter that is restricted to the service performed by the High Priest, the inauguration, which was performed by Aaron, to the exclusion of all the difficulties raised from the beginning of the discussion, as on the other potential days raised, they are not restricted to service performed by the High Priest; rather, the service on those days may be performed by any priest.

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

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבינא דנין עבודה תחלה מעבודה תחלה לאפוקי הני דלאו תחלה נינהו מאי תחלה אילימא תחלה בכהן גדול היינו קמייתא אלא עבודה תחלה במקום מעבודה תחלה במקום

And some say that Ravina said: One derives a matter that is an initial service from an initial service, to the exclusion of all these that are not initial services. That statement of Ravina is unclear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of initial service? If we say that initial service means one performed by the High Priest; that is identical to the first version of Ravina’s statement. Rather, it may be understood as follows: One derives the initial service performed in the place, the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, from the initial service performed in the place, the Tabernacle, on the eighth day of the inauguration. Therefore, it is the service of Yom Kippur alone that is derived from the inauguration.

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

כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יוחנן מתני חדא [רבי יהושע בן לוי] מתני תרתי ר' יוחנן מתני חדא לעשות לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים [וריב"ל] מתני תרתי לעשות אלו מעשה פרה לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Rabbi Yoḥanan taught one case derived from the inauguration, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two. The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yoḥanan taught one: To do, to make atonement; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur that require sequestering beforehand, like the inauguration. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught two: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. Both require sequestering.

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

ר' יוחנן מתני חדא והא אנן תנן שבעת ימים קודם יום הכפורים ושבעת ימים קודם שריפת הפרה מעלה בעלמא

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan teach only one case derived from the inauguration, i.e., Yom Kippur? Didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur, and in another mishna: Seven days prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages would remove the priest from his home? Apparently, there are two cases in which the priest is sequestered. The Gemara answers: With regard to sequestering the priest prior to the burning of the heifer, the Sages merely established a higher standard. They issued a decree to underscore the sanctity of the ritual after they permitted its performance by a priest who immersed that day. There is no Torah source for the sequestering of the priest in that case.

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

והא א"ר מניומי בר חלקיה א"ר מחסיא בר אידי א"ר יוחנן כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה' לעשות לכפר עליכם לעשות אלו מעשה פרה לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים ההוא דרביה דכי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל לעשות אלו מעשה פרה לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Minyomi bar Ḥilkiya say that Rabbi Maḥseya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), from which it is derived: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to make atonement, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur? Apparently, even Rabbi Yoḥanan taught two cases derived from inauguration. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: That is the opinion of his teacher; however, he himself disagrees. As when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to atone, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. That which Rabbi Manyumei cited in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan was the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yishmael.

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

א"ל ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן מהיכא קא ילפת לה ממלואים אי מה מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן אף הכא נמי כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן

With regard to the sequestering of the priest, Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where did you derive this principle of sequestering? You derived it from the inauguration. If so, just as with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates it, so too here, with regard to Yom Kippur, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the Yom Kippur service. All the halakhot of sequestering must be precisely observed.

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

וכי תימא הכי נמי והתנן ומתקינין לו כהן אחר ולא קתני מפרישין וכי תימא מאי מתקינין מפרישין ליתני או אידי ואידי מתקינין או אידי ואידי מפרישין

And if you say: Indeed, that is so; didn’t we learn in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in his stead, and it is not taught with regard to the designated priest: Seven days before Yom Kippur they remove him from his house, although ultimately he may perform the Yom Kippur service. Apparently, failure to sequester the priest does not invalidate the service. And if you say in response: What is the meaning of: They would designate? It means: They would remove; that is implausible. Were that so, let the mishna teach either with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would designate; or with regard to both this High Priest and that designated replacement: They would remove.

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

א"ל אלא מר מהיכא יליף לה אמר מסיני דכתיב (שמות כד, טז) וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני ויכסהו הענן ששת ימים ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי מכדי כתיב ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי מאי ששת ימים זה בנה אב שכל הנכנס במחנה שכינה טעון פרישת ששה

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Rather, from where do you, Master, derive the halakha of sequestering before Yom Kippur? Reish Lakish said to him: I derive it from Sinai, as it is written: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him [vaykhasehu] six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud” (Exodus 24:16). The masculine suffix hu in vaykhasehu can be interpreted either as him, referring to Moses, or as it, referring to the mountain. Now, since it states: “And He called to Moses on the seventh day,” what is derived from the previous explicit mention of six days? These six days are mentioned as a paradigm, from which a general principle is derived that anyone who enters the camp of the Divine Presence, the site of the revelation at Mount Sinai, or the place where the Divine Presence rests, the Holy of Holies, requires prior sequestering for six days of sanctification.

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

והא אנן שבעה תנן מתניתין רבי יהודה בן בתירא היא דחייש

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it seven, not six, days of sequestering that we learned in the mishna? Reish Lakish answered: The mishna that requires sequestering for seven days is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who is concerned

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

לטומאת ביתו

about the ritual impurity of the priest’s home, i.e., his wife. This is done lest he become impure through relations with a menstruating woman, which is ritual impurity lasting seven days. Therefore, he is removed from his home for seven days.

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

אמר ליה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש בשלמא לדידי דילפינא ממלואים היינו דתניא זה וזה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם דהואי נמי הזאה במלואים אלא לדידך דילפת מסיני הזאה בסיני מי הואי

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Granted, according to my opinion, that I derive the halakha of sequestering from the inauguration, that explains that which is taught in the baraita: With regard to both this priest engaged in the burning of the red heifer and that High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, one sprinkles upon him for all seven days the purification water mixed with ashes from samples from all the previous red heifer sin-offerings that were safeguarded there in the Temple. The reason for this practice is that there was also sprinkling during the inauguration. However, according to your opinion, that you derive it from Sinai, was there in fact sprinkling at Sinai? According to your opinion, why are the priests sprinkled?

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

אמר ליה ולטעמיך מי ניחא במלואים דם הכא מים הא לא קשיא דתני רבי חייא נכנסו מים תחת דם אלא לדידך הזאה בסיני מי הואי אמר ליה מעלה בעלמא

Reish Lakish said to him: And according to your reasoning, does it work out well? At the inauguration, the sprinkling was with blood; here, the sprinkling was with water. Rabbi Yoḥanan answered: That is not difficult, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Water replaced blood, but both have the status of sprinkling. However, according to your reasoning, at Sinai, was there sprinkling at all? Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages merely established a higher standard, and this sprinkling is not a requirement.

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

תניא כוותי' דרבי יוחנן תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן (ויקרא טז, ג) בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש במה שאמור בענין מאי היא בענין דמלואים ומה אמור בענין דמלואים אהרן פירש שבעה ושמש יום אחד ומשה מסר לו כל שבעה כדי לחנכו בעבודה

The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the sequestering is derived from the inauguration; and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that it is derived from Sinai. The Gemara elaborates: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was stated with regard to the inauguration: “With this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 16:3). To what is the term: With this, referring? It is referring to that which is stated in the matter. What is the matter? It is the matter of the inauguration. In the manner that the priest was prepared for the inauguration, so too is he prepared for Yom Kippur. And what is stated in the matter of the inauguration? It is that Aaron the priest withdrew for seven days and served one day, and Moses transmitted the Torah guidelines to him all seven days in order to train him in the Sanctuary service.

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

ואף לדורות כהן גדול פורש שבעה ומשמש יום אחד ושני תלמידי חכמים מתלמידיו של משה לאפוקי צדוקין מוסרין לו כל שבעה כדי לחנכו בעבודה

And throughout the generations as well, the High Priest withdraws seven days prior to Yom Kippur and serves one day. And two Torah scholars from among the students of Moses, to the exclusion of Sadducees, who are not students of Moses, transmit the Torah guidelines to him all seven days in order to train him in the Sanctuary service.

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

מכאן אמרו שבעת ימים קודם יוה"כ מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללשכת פרהדרין וכשם שמפרישין כ"ג כך מפרישין כהן השורף את הפרה ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ואחד זה ואחד זה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם

From there the Sages said in the mishna: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur the Sages would remove the High Priest, who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin; and just as the Sages would remove the High Priest, so do they remove the priest who burns the heifer, from his house to the chamber that was before the bira at the northeast corner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. And with regard to both this priest whom the Sages sequester prior to Yom Kippur and that priest whom the Sages sequester prior to engaging in the burning of the heifer, one sprinkles upon him, for all seven days of sequestering, the purification water with ashes from all the previous red heifer sin-offerings that were safeguarded there in the Temple.

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

ואם תאמר במלואים דם הכא מים אמרת נכנסו מים תחת דם ואומר כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה' לעשות לכפר עליכם לעשות אלו מעשה פרה לכפר אלו מעשה יוה"כ

And if you say that at the inauguration the sprinkling was with blood, and here the sprinkling was with water, you said: Water replaced blood. And it says in the verse: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34). To do, these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer; to make atonement, these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. This baraita, then, is proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

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

והאי בזאת מיבעי ליה לגופיה בפר בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה אמרי אי לקרבן לחודיה לימא קרא בזה או באלה מאי בזאת שמעת מינה תרתי

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. But the term: With this [bezot], is required for the meaning of the verse itself; the priest is required to bring a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering. The Sages say in response: If the term comes to teach only with regard to the offerings, let the verse say: With this [bezeh], in the masculine, referring to the bull, or: With these [be’elleh], referring to the bull and the ram. What, then, may be derived from the use of the feminine term bezot, which refers to neither the bull nor the ram? Learn from it two conclusions; one with regard to the offerings and one with regard to sequestering.

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

מאי ואומר וכי תימא יוה"כ קמא הוא דבעי פרישה כדאשכחן במלואים אבל ביוה"כ דעלמא לא אי נמי כ"ג קמא הוא דבעי פרישה אבל כ"ג בעלמא לא ת"ש כאשר עשה וכו'

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. What is the meaning of the term: And it says? Why does the baraita cite an additional proof from another verse? Why wasn’t the first proof sufficient? And if you say that it is on the first Yom Kippur when Aaron performed the service that the High Priest requires sequestering, as we find in the inauguration when the priests were sequestered before being consecrated as priests, but on Yom Kippur in general, no, subsequent High Priests do not require sequestering; or alternatively, if you say: It is the first High Priest who requires sequestering, as did all the priests during the inauguration, but subsequent High Priests in general, no, they do not require sequestering before Yom Kippur; then come and hear that which it says in the verse: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do,” meaning that this is a mitzva for all generations.

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

תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש משה עלה בענן ונתכסה בענן ונתקדש בענן כדי לקבל תורה לישראל בקדושה שנאמר (שמות כד, טז) וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני זה היה מעשה אחר עשרת הדברות שהיו תחלה לארבעים יום דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי

And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that sequestering is derived from Sinai: Moses ascended in the cloud, and was covered in the cloud, and was sanctified in the cloud, in order to receive the Torah for the Jewish people in sanctity, as it is stated: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud” (Exodus 24:16). This was an incident that occurred after the revelation of the Ten Commandments to the Jewish people, and these six days were the beginning of the forty days that Moses was on the mountain (see Exodus 24:18); this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili corresponds to that of Reish Lakish; Moses withdrew for six days before receiving permission to stand in the presence of God.

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

ר"ע אומר וישכון כבוד ה' מראש חודש

Rabbi Akiva says: This incident occurred before the revelation of the Ten Commandments to the Jewish people, and when the Torah says: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai,” it is referring to the revelation of the Divine Presence that began on the New Moon of Sivan, which was six days before the revelation of the Ten Commandments.

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

ויכסהו הענן להר ויקרא אל משה [משה] וכל ישראל עומדין ולא בא הכתוב אלא לחלק כבוד למשה רבי נתן אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא למרק אכילה ושתיה שבמעיו לשומו כמלאכי השרת

And that which is written: “And the cloud covered him,” means the cloud covered it, the mountain, and not him, Moses. “And He called to Moses”; Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing at the foot of the mountain and listening, and if God did not mean that Moses was to climb the mountain, why did He call him? The verse comes only to accord deference to Moses, as the entire nation heard God address him. Rabbi Natan says: Moses was in fact called to enter the cloud; however, his entrance was not for the purpose of sequestering and purifying him, rather, the verse comes only to cleanse the food and drink that was in his intestines, to render him like the ministering angels who require neither food nor drink.

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

ר' מתיא בן חרש אומר לא בא הכתוב אלא לאיים עליו כדי שתהא תורה ניתנת באימה ברתת ובזיע שנאמר (תהלים ב, יא) עבדו את ה' ביראה וגילו ברעדה מאי וגילו ברעדה אמר רב אדא בר מתנה אמר רב במקום גילה שם תהא רעדה

Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash says: The verse calling Moses into the cloud comes only to intimidate Moses, to instill in him a sense of awe of the Creator, so that the Torah would be delivered with reverence, with quaking and with trembling, as it is stated: “Serve the Lord with awe, and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Apropos the end of the verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “and rejoice with trembling”? Joy and trembling seem contradictory. Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rav said: Where there is the joy of fulfilling a mitzva, there will be the trembling of the awe of Heaven there.

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

במאי קא מיפלגי רבי יוסי הגלילי ור"ע בפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה לישראל רבי יוסי אומר בשבעה בו מאן דאמר בששה בששה ניתנה ובשבעה עלה (דכתיב (שמות כד, טז) ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי) מאן דאמר בשבעה בשבעה ניתנה ובשבעה עלה [דכתיב ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי]

Apropos the interpretation of the verse with regard to revelation, the Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara explains that their dispute is parallel to the dispute between these other tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: On the sixth day of the month of Sivan, the Torah, the Ten Commandments, was given to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yosei says: It was on the seventh day of the month. According to the one who said that it was on the sixth, the Torah was given on the sixth, which is the day of the revelation of the Ten Commandments, and on the seventh day of the month Moses ascended the mountain, as it is written: “And He called to Moses on the seventh day” (Exodus 24:16). According to the one who said that the Torah was given on the seventh of the month, it was given on the seventh and Moses ascended on the seventh, as it is written: “And he called to Moses on the seventh day.”

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

רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר לה כתנא קמא דאמר בששה בחודש ניתנה תורה הלכך זה היה מעשה אחר עשרת הדברות (שמות כד, טז) וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני ויכסהו הענן ששת ימים למשה ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי לקבולי שאר תורה דאי סלקא דעתך וישכון כבוד ה' מר"ח ויכסהו הענן להר ויקרא אל משה ביום השביעי לקבולי עשרת הדברות הא קבילו להו מששה והא אסתלק ענן מששה

The Gemara proceeds to link the two disputes. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita, who said that it was on the sixth of the month that the Torah was given; therefore, this incident occurred after the revelation of the Ten Commandments. That is why he explains the verse “And the glory of the Lord abode on Mount Sinai and the cloud covered him for six days” to mean that the cloud covered Moses, and He called to Moses on the seventh day to receive the rest of the Torah. As, should it enter your mind to interpret the verse as follows: “And the glory of the Lord abode” from the New Moon of Sivan; “And the cloud covered it,” the mountain; “And He called to Moses on the seventh day,” to receive only the Ten Commandments; didn’t they already receive the Ten Commandments on the sixth of the month, and the cloud that was on the mountain already departed on the sixth of the month?

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

ורבי עקיבא סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר בשבעה בחדש ניתנה תורה לישראל בשלמא לר' עקיבא היינו דמשכחת לה בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות עשרין וארבעה דסיון ושיתסר דתמוז מלו להו ארבעין יומין דהוה בהר ובשבסר בתמוז נחית ואתא ותברינהו ללוחות

And Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that on the seventh of the month the Torah was given to the Jewish people. That is why Moses was summoned on the seventh of the month immediately after the revelation of the Ten Commandments. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the Torah was given on the seventh of Sivan and Moses then proceeded to climb the mountain and remain there for forty days, that explains the calculation that you find: On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were shattered, according to the standard tradition. How so? Calculate twenty-four days until the end of Sivan and sixteen days of Tammuz; they total the forty days that he was on the mountain. On the seventeenth of Tammuz he descended from the mountain and came and shattered the tablets.

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

אלא לר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר ששה דפרישה וארבעין דהר עד עשרין ותלת בתמוז לא אתבור לוחות אמר לך ר' יוסי הגלילי ארבעין דהר בהדי ששה דפרישה

However, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: There were six days of sequestering after the Torah was given and an additional forty days that Moses was on the mountain, the tablets were not shattered until the twenty-third of Tammuz, contrary to the standard tradition. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could have said to you: The forty days that Moses was on the mountain include the six days of sequestering.

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

אמר מר ויקרא אל משה משה וכל ישראל עומדין מסייע ליה לר"א דאמר רבי אלעזר ויקרא אל משה משה וכל ישראל עומדין ולא בא הכתוב אלא לחלק לו כבוד למשה

The Master said in that baraita cited above that when the Torah says: “And He called to Moses,” it means that Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing and listening. The Gemara suggests that this supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said that when the Torah says: “And He called to Moses,” it means that Moses and all of the Jewish people were standing and listening and the verse comes only to accord deference to Moses. From Rabbi Elazar’s statement it is clear that all of Israel heard the voice of God.

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

מיתיבי קול לו קול אליו משה שמע וכל ישראל לא שמעו לא קשיא הא בסיני הא באהל מועד ואי בעית אימא לא קשיא הא בקריאה הא בדבור

The Gemara raises an objection: The Torah states: “And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him, then he heard the voice speaking unto him from above the Ark cover that was upon the Ark of the Testimony, from between the two cherubs; and He spoke unto him” (Numbers 7:89). The Torah could have said: He heard the voice speaking to him; however, instead the verse said: He heard the voice speaking unto him, indicating that the voice reached him alone. Moses alone heard God’s voice and all of the Jewish people did not hear it. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, where everyone heard God’s voice, was at Sinai. That case, where Moses alone heard God’s voice, was at the Tent of Meeting. Or if you wish, say instead an alternative resolution. This is not difficult; when God addressed Moses by calling to him, everyone heard; that which God subsequently communicated by speaking, Moses alone heard.

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

ר' זריקא רמי קראי קמיה דר' אלעזר ואמרי לה אמר ר' זריקא ר' אלעזר רמי כתיב (שמות מ, לה) ולא יכול משה לבא אל אהל מועד כי שכן עליו הענן וכתיב (שמות כד, יח) ויבא משה בתוך הענן מלמד שתפסו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה והביאו בענן

Rabbi Zerika raised a contradiction between verses before Rabbi Elazar, and some say that Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction: It is written in one place: “And Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting because the cloud dwelt on it” (Exodus 40:35), as Moses was unable to enter the cloud. And it is written elsewhere: “And Moses came into the cloud” (Exodus 24:18). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, grabbed Moses and brought him into the cloud since he could not enter on his own.

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

דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא נאמר כאן בתוך ונאמר להלן בתוך (שמות יד, טז) ויבואו בני ישראל בתוך הים מה להלן שביל דכתיב (שמות יד, כב) והמים להם חומה אף כאן שביל:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: There is a verbal analogy that resolves this contradiction. It is stated here: “And Moses came into the cloud,” and it is stated below, in another verse: “And the children of Israel went into the sea on dry land” (Exodus 14:22); Just as below, there was a path within the sea, as it is written: “And the water was a wall for them” (Exodus 14:22), here too, there was a path through the cloud, but Moses did not actually enter the cloud.

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

(ויקרא א, א) ויקרא אל משה וידבר למה הקדים קריאה לדיבור לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא א"כ קורהו מסייע ליה לרבי חנינא דאמר רבי חנינא לא יאמר אדם דבר לחבירו אלא אם כן קורהו לאמר אמר ר' (מוסיא בר בריה דרבי מסיא משמיה דר' מוסיא) רבה מניין לאומר דבר לחבירו שהוא בבל יאמר עד שיאמר לו לך אמור שנאמר (ויקרא א, א) וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר

The verse says: “And He called unto Moses, and the Lord spoke unto him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying” (Leviticus 1:1). Why does the verse mention calling before speaking, and God did not speak to him at the outset? The Torah is teaching etiquette: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: A person should not say anything to another unless he calls him first. With regard to the term concluding the verse: “Saying,” Rabbi Musya, grandson of Rabbi Masya, said in the name of Rabbi Musya the Great: From where is it derived with regard to one who tells another some matter, that it is incumbent upon the latter not to say it to others until the former explicitly says to him: Go and tell others? As it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to him from within the Tent of Meeting, saying [lemor].” Lemor is a contraction of lo emor, meaning: Do not say. One must be given permission before transmitting information.

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

מכלל דתרווייהו סבירא להו מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן דאיתמר מלואים ר' יוחנן ורבי חנינא חד אמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן וחד אמר דבר המעכב לדורות מעכב בהן שאין מעכב לדורות אין מעכב בהן

After digressing to interpret the verses with regard to Mount Sinai, the Gemara resumes its discussion of the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. Based on the question Reish Lakish addressed to Rabbi Yoḥanan and the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan accepted the premise of that question, we learn by inference that both maintain that with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. As it is stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree. One said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. And one said: A matter that invalidates offerings throughout the generations invalidates the inauguration; a matter that does not invalidate offerings throughout the generations does not invalidate the inauguration.

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

תסתיים דר' יוחנן הוא דאמר כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן מדקאמר ליה ר' שמעון בן לקיש לר' יוחנן אי מה מלואים כל הכתוב בהן מעכב בהן ולא קא מהדר ליה ולא מידי תסתיים

Conclude that Rabbi Yoḥanan is the one who said: Failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration. This may be concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Just as with regard to the inauguration, failure to perform all the details that are written in its regard invalidates the inauguration, so too is the halakha with regard to Yom Kippur, and Rabbi Yoḥanan did not respond and did not say anything, indicating that he agreed. The Gemara states: Conclude that this indeed is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

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