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

תניא נמי הכי עתידה פרס שתפול ביד רומי חדא דסתרי בי כנישתא ועוד גזירת מלך הוא שיפלו בונין ביד סותרין דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין בן דוד בא עד שתפשוט מלכות רומי הרשעה בכל העולם כולו תשעה חדשים שנאמר (מיכה ה, ב) לכן יתנם עד עת יולדה ילדה ויתר אחיו ישובון על בני ישראל

That was also taught in a baraita: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. One reason is that they destroyed synagogues. And furthermore, it is the King’s decree that the builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The son of David will come only when the wicked kingdom of Rome spreads its dominance throughout the world for nine months, as it is stated: “Therefore He will give them up until she who is to bear has borne; then the remnants of his brethren will return with the children of Israel” (Micah 5:2). The duration of Rome’s rule over the world will be the duration of a pregnancy, nine months.

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

ת"ר כל הלשכות שהיו במקדש לא היו להן מזוזה חוץ מלשכת פרהדרין שהיה בה בית דירה לכהן גדול

The Gemara resumes the discussion of the High Priest’s relocation to the Parhedrin chamber. The Rabbis taught: None of the chambers in the Temple had a mezuza except for the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there was a place of residence of the High Priest. Only residences in which one sleeps require a mezuza, and the only chamber in the Temple that fits that description was the Parhedrin chamber.

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 ר' יהודה והלא כמה לשכות היו במקדש שהיה להן בית דירה ולא היה להן מזוזה אלא לשכת פרהדרין גזירה היתה

Rabbi Yehuda said: That is not the reason; after all, weren’t there several chambers in the Temple in which there was a place of residence designated for priests to sit and sleep, and yet they did not have a mezuza? Rather, the mezuza in the Chamber of Parhedrin was there because there was a rabbinic decree.

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

מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר (רבא) קסבר רבי יהודה כל בית שאינו עשוי לימות החמה ולימות הגשמים אינו בית איתיביה אביי והכתיב (עמוס ג, טו) והכיתי (את) בית החורף על בית הקיץ א"ל בית חורף ובית קיץ איקרי בית סתמא לא איקרי

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there was no fundamental obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, and that one was affixed there due to a decree? Rava said that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The legal status of any house that is not designated for residence both for the summer and for the rainy season is not that of a house and therefore does not require a mezuza. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a verse. How could you suggest that the legal status of a residence occupied for only part of the year is not that of a house? Isn’t it written: “I will strike the winter-house with the summer-house” (Amos 3:15)? Apparently, even a residence occupied only half the year is a house. Rava said to him: A residence occupied only part of the year may be called the winter-house or the summer-house. It is not called a house unmodified. A house is a structure used year round.

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

איתיביה אביי סוכת החג בחג ר' יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין ותני עלה ר' יהודה מחייב בעירוב ובמזוזה ובמעשר

Abaye raised a different objection to the opinion of Rava, from a mishna: If one brought produce from the field into the sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot, Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe the produce and the Rabbis exempt him from tithing the produce. And it was taught concerning the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda obligates the owner of that sukka to include the sukka in the joining of courtyards, like any of the houses in the courtyard; and in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza in the sukka; and in separating tithes from produce brought into the sukka. One is obligated to tithe his produce only when its processing has been completed. When he brings the produce into the house, he is obligated to tithe it. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a sukka, in which one resides for a mere seven days, is that of a house in terms of the mitzva of mezuza.

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 מדרבנן בשלמא עירוב ומזוזה איכא למימר מדרבנן אלא מעשר מי איכא למימר מדרבנן

And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda rules that by rabbinic law the status of the sukka is like that of a house, but that by Torah law his opinion is consistent with Rava’s opinion, granted, with regard to the joining of courtyards and mezuza, it is possible to say that the obligation is by rabbinic law; however, with regard to tithes, is it possible to say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the obligation is by rabbinic law?

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

דילמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב

In that case, there is the concern lest one come to separate tithes from the obligated produce to fulfill the obligation for the exempt produce, or from the exempt produce to fulfill the obligation for the obligated produce. Produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law has the status of exempt produce by Torah law. Since it is difficult to distinguish between produce that one is obligated to tithe by Torah law and produce that one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law, one might seek to fulfill his obligation by separating tithes from one for the other. In both cases, both the produce designated as a tithe and the produce for which it was tithed would retain the status of untithed produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda could not have said that a sukka is considered a house by rabbinic law.

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 אמר אביי בשבעה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דמיחייבא כי פליגי בשאר ימות השנה רבנן סברי גזרינן שאר ימות השנה אטו שבעה ור' יהודה סבר לא גזרינן

Rather, Abaye said: The dispute with regard to the mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber must be explained differently. During the seven days that the High Priest lives in the Parhedrin chamber during his sequestering, everyone agrees that the chamber is obligated in the mitzva to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the rest of the days of the year, when no one resides there. The Rabbis hold: We issue a decree and require that a mezuza be affixed during the rest of the year due to those seven days that the High Priest lives there; and Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not issue that decree, and there is no obligation to affix a mezuza to the chamber the rest of the 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

א"ל רבא והא סוכת החג בחג קתני

Rava said to him: But isn’t it taught in the mishna cited above: The sukka that he constructed for the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot? Apparently, contrary to the opinion of Abaye, the dispute is whether or not there is an obligation to affix a mezuza to the sukka during the Festival itself. If, as Abaye said, the tanna’im agree that there is an obligation to affix a mezuza during the festival of Sukkot even though it is used for only a brief period, on what basis do the Rabbis rule that there is no obligation even on the Festival itself?

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 אמר רבא בשאר ימות השנה כ"ע לא פליגי דפטורה כי פליגי בשבעה וסוכה טעמא לחוד ולשכה טעמא לחוד

Rather, Rava said: During the rest of the days of the year, everyone agrees that the Parhedrin chamber is exempt from the obligation to affix a mezuza there. When they disagree is with regard to the seven days that the High Priest lives there, and with regard to a sukka during the Festival. And in order to resolve the contradiction between the opinions about the obligation of the chamber and of the sukka, the Gemara asserts: With regard to the sukka the reason is discrete, and with regard to the chamber the reason is discrete.

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

סוכה טעמא לחוד רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר סוכה דירת קבע בעינן ומיחייבא במזוזה ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי סוכה דירת עראי בעינן ולא מיחייבא במזוזה

The Gemara explains: With regard to sukka, the reason is discrete. Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a well-built permanent residence. A permanent residence is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they say: In order to fulfill the mitzva of sukka, we require a temporary residence, not a full-fledged house. A temporary residence is not obligated in the mitzva of mezuza.

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

ולשכה טעמא לחוד רבנן סברי דירה בעל כרחה שמה דירה ורבי יהודה סבר דירה בעל כרחה לא שמה דירה ומדרבנן הוא דתקינו לה שלא יאמרו כהן גדול חבוש בבית האסורין

And similarly, with regard to the chamber, the reason is discrete. The Rabbis hold: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is nevertheless considered a residence. Although the High Priest resides in the Parhedrin chamber due to a mitzva and not of his own volition, its legal status is that of a residence and a mezuza must be affixed. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: A residence in which one resides involuntarily is not considered a residence. Therefore, there should be no obligation to affix a mezuza in the Parhedrin chamber, just as there is no obligation to do so in the other Temple chambers in which priests reside. However, the Sages instituted this obligation by rabbinic law so that people will not say: The High Priest is imprisoned in jail, as only in substandard residences that appear unfit for residence is there no obligation to affix a mezuza.

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

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן

Who is the tanna who taught the following baraita? As the Sages 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

כל השערים שהיו שם לא היה להם מזוזה חוץ משער ניקנור שלפנים ממנו לשכת פרהדרין

All the gates that were there on the east side of the Temple courtyard did not have a mezuza except for the Gate of Nicanor, as in the courtyard just inside the gate was the Chamber of Parhedrin, in which there is an obligation to affix a mezuza. Therefore, a mezuza was affixed to the gate as well.

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

לימא רבנן היא ולא ר' יהודה דאי ר' יהודה היא גופה גזירה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה אפילו תימא ר' יהודה כולה חדא גזירה היא

Let us say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a difficulty arises. The principle is that decrees are issued only to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition. The fact that a mezuza was affixed to the Parhedrin chamber itself is due to a rabbinic decree, and will we then proceed to issue a decree to affix a mezuza on the gate before the chamber in order to prevent violation of the existing decree? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is not difficult, as the entire obligation to affix the mezuza on both the chamber and the gate is the result of a single decree.

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

ת"ר בשעריך אחד שערי בתים ואחד שערי חצירות ואחד שערי מדינות ואחד שערי עיירות יש בהן חובת מצוה למקום משום שנא' (דברים ו, ט) וכתבתם על מזוזות ביתך ובשעריך

Apropos the mezuza in the High Priest’s chamber, the Gemara discusses other halakhot of mezuza. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9): With regard to the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, all of them are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza in that place, due to the fact that it is stated: “And you will write them upon the doorposts of your houses and upon your gates.”

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 אביי לרב ספרא הני אבולי דמחוזא מ"ט לא עבדו להו רבנן מזוזה אמר ליה הנהו חזוק לאקרא דכובי הוא דעבידי א"ל ואקרא דכובי גופה תבעי מזוזה דהא אית בה דירה לשומר בית האסורין דהא תניא בית הכנסת שיש בו בית דירה לחזן הכנסת חייבת במזוזה

Abaye said to Rav Safra: If there is an obligation to affix a mezuza on city gates, with regard to those city gates [abbulei] of Meḥoza, a city with a Jewish majority, what is the reason that the Sages did not affix a mezuza on them? Rav Safra said to him: Those gates are not the city gates. They are made as reinforcement to the fort [akra] of turrets above the gate, and therefore no mezuza is required. Abaye said to him: And shouldn’t the fort of turrets itself require a mezuza, since there is a residence for the prison guard in the fort? As, wasn’t a similar case taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant requires a mezuza? Although no one lives in the synagogue itself, since the attendant lives in an adjacent room, the synagogue requires a mezuza.

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 אמר אביי משום סכנה דתניא מזוזת יחיד נבדקת פעמים בשבוע ושל רבים פעמים ביובל

Rather, Abaye said: The reason that no mezuza was affixed there was due to the danger involved. The gates of a city populated by Jews certainly require a mezuza; however, since gentiles live there as well, the danger is that the gentiles would suspect the Jews of witchcraft or espionage, as it was taught in a baraita: The mezuza belonging to an individual is examined twice every seven years to determine whether it was stolen or became disqualified. And in order to avoid excessive burden on the community, the mezuza belonging to the public is examined twice in a fifty-year Jubilee period.

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

וא"ר יהודה מעשה בארטבין אחד שהיה בודק מזוזות בשוק העליון של צפורי ומצאו קסדור אחד ונטל ממנו אלף זוז והאמר ר' אלעזר שלוחי מצוה אין ניזוקין היכא דקביע היזקא שאני דכתיב (שמואל א טז, ב) ויאמר שמואל איך אלך ושמע שאול והרגני ויאמר ה' עגלת בקר תקח בידך ואמרת לזבוח לה' באתי

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving an examiner [artavin], who was examining mezuzot in the upper marketplace of Tzippori during a period when decrees were issued against the Jewish people, and a Roman official [kasdor] found him and collected a fine of one thousand zuz from him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is permanent it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issues the command, there is concern with regard to a clear and present danger.

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

תני רב כהנא קמיה דרב יהודה בית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות פטורים מן המזוזה מפני שהנשים נאותות בהן ומאי נאותות רוחצות א"ל רב יהודה טעמא דרוחצות הא סתמא חייבין והתניא רפת בקר פטורה מן המזוזה

Rav Kahana taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: A storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse are exempt from the obligation of mezuza, due to the fact that the women make use of them. And what is the meaning of the term: Make use? It means that the women bathe in them. Since women bathe there unclothed, it is inappropriate to affix a mezuza there. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The reason that there is no requirement to affix a mezuza there is due to the fact that women bathe there; one can learn by inference that standard buildings of this kind, where women do not bathe, are obligated in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza there. But wasn’t it taught in a different baraita: A cattle barn is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, unrelated to whether or not women bathe 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

אלא מאי נאותות מתקשטות והכי קתני אע"פ שהנשים מתקשטות בהן פטורין א"ל רב כהנא ושהנשים מתקשטות בהן פטורין והתניא רפת בקר פטורה מן המזוזה ושהנשים מתקשטות בה חייבת במזוזה

Rather, the term should be understood otherwise. What is the meaning of the term: Make use? It means that the women adorn themselves there, and this is what the baraita is teaching: Although these structures are solid and clean to the extent that the women adorn themselves in them, they are exempt from the obligation of mezuza since they are not residences. Rav Kahana said to him: Are you saying that structures where the women adorn themselves are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza? But wasn’t it taught in a different baraita: A cattle stable is exempt from the obligation of mezuza, and a barn in which women adorn themselves is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza?

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 מאי אית לך למימר מתקשטות תנאי היא לדידי נמי סתמא תנאי היא דתניא ביתך ביתך המיוחד לך פרט לבית התבן ולבית הבקר ולבית העצים ולבית האוצרות שפטורין מן המזוזה ויש מחייבין

Rather, what have you to say, that with regard to the requirement of mezuza the status of places where women adorn themselves is subject to a dispute between tanna’im? Just as there are different opinions in that case, in my opinion, the status of standard cattle barns is also subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita that it is written: Upon the doorposts of your house, meaning your house that is designated as a residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza, and some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza. Apparently, the Rabbis dispute the requirement of affixing a mezuza in a standard stable.

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

באמת אמרו בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה ושהנשים נאותות בהן פטורים מן המזוזה רב כהנא מתרץ לטעמיה ורב יהודה מתרץ לטעמיה

Actually they said: There is a legal tradition that a building housing a bathroom, and a building housing a tannery [burseki], and a bathhouse, and a building housing a ritual bath for immersion, and any places of which women make use are exempt from the obligation of mezuza. This baraita is inconsistent with the opinions of both Rav Kahana and Rav Yehuda. Therefore, Rav Kahana interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rav Yehuda interprets it according to his line of reasoning.

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 כהנא מתרץ לטעמיה ביתך ביתך המיוחד לך פרט לבית התבן ולבית הבקר ולבית העצים ולבית האוצרות שפטורים מן המזוזה בסתם ויש שמחייבים בסתם באמת אמרו בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה ושהנשים נאותות בהן ומאי נאותות רוחצות פטורין מן המזוזה

Rav Kahana interprets it according to his line of reasoning: Your house means your house that is designated for your residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza in a case where their use is standard and they are not used for bathing or other immodest acts. And some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza in a case where their use is standard. In truth they said the following with regard to a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion, and any places of which women make use; and what is the meaning of the term: Make use? It is that women bathe there. These places are exempt from the obligation of mezuza.

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

אי הכי היינו מרחץ אשמעינן מרחץ דרבים ואשמעינן מרחץ דיחיד דס"ד אמינא מרחץ דרבים דנפיש זוהמיה אבל מרחץ דיחיד דלא נפיש זוהמיה אימא ליחייב במזוזה קמ"ל

The Gemara challenges this interpretation: If so, that make use in this context means bathe, this is identical to the bathhouse. Why would the baraita need to list both a bathhouse and a place where women bathe? The Gemara answers: The baraita teaches us the halakha with regard to the bathhouse of the public, and it teaches us the halakha with regard to the bathhouse of an individual. As it could enter your mind to say: A bathhouse of the public, whose filth is extensive, is exempt from mezuza; however, the bathhouse of an individual, whose filth is not extensive, as only women of that house bathe there, I would say it is obligated in the mitzva of affixing a mezuza. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the bathhouse of an individual is also exempt.

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

ורב יהודה מתרץ לטעמיה הכי קתני ביתך ביתך המיוחד לך פרט לבית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות שפטורין מן המזוזה אפי' מתקשטות ויש מחייבין במתקשטות אבל סתם דברי הכל פטור באמת אמרו בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה אע"פ שהנשים מתקשטות בהן פטורין מן המזוזה משום דנפיש זוהמיה

And Rav Yehuda interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and this is what it is teaching: Your house means your house that is designated for your residence, to the exclusion of a storehouse for hay, and a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza even in a case where women adorn themselves there. And some obligate these structures in the mitzva of mezuza in a case where women adorn themselves there. However, in a case where use of the building is standard, everyone agrees that these structures are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. In truth they said that a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion, even though women adorn themselves there, are exempt from the obligation of mezuza, because its filth is extensive.

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

ולרב יהודה סתמא דברי הכל פטור והתניא בשעריך אחד שערי בתים ואחד שערי חצירות ואחד שערי מדינות ואחד שערי עיירות ורפת ולולין ומתבן ואוצרות יין ואוצרות שמן חייבין במזוזה יכול שאני מרבה אף

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yehuda, in cases where use of the building is standard, does everyone agree that a storehouse is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to the mitzva to affix a mezuza: And upon your gates, meaning that with regard to the gates of houses, and the gates of courtyards, and the gates of cities, and the gates of towns, and a barn, and chicken coops, and a hay storehouse, and wine storehouses, and oil storehouses, all of them are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even

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

בית שער אכסדרה ומרפסת ת"ל בית מה בית מיוחד לדירה יצאו אלו שאין מיוחדין לדירה

a gatehouse, used to guard the entrance to a courtyard, a portico [akhsadra], an open porch, and a balcony serving as a corridor to several residences. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designated for residence and is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, so too all similar structures are obligated. This is to the exclusion of those structures that are not designated for residence but for other purposes, which are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

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

יכול שאני מרבה אף בית הכסא ובית הבורסקי ובית המרחץ ובית הטבילה ת"ל בית מה בית העשוי לכבוד אף כל העשוי לכבוד יצאו אלו שאין עשויין לכבוד

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even a bathroom, and a tannery, and a bathhouse, and a ritual bath for immersion. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is designed to honor people who enter it, so too, all places that are designed to honor those who enter are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those structures that are not designed to honor.

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

יכול שאני מרבה אף הר הבית והלשכות והעזרות ת"ל בית מה בית שהוא חול אף כל שהוא חול יצאו אלו שהן קודש תיובתא

I might have thought that I include in the obligation of mezuza even the Temple Mount and its chambers and courtyards. Therefore, the verse states: House; just as a house is a place that is non-sacred, so too any place that is non-sacred is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, excluding those places that are sacred. For the purposes of this discussion, the baraita teaches that there are Sages who hold that barns and storehouses whose use is standard require a mezuza, contrary to the opinion of Rav Yehuda that everyone agrees that these structures are exempt. Consequently, the baraita is a conclusive refutation of his opinion and support for the contention of Rav Kahana that this matter is the subject of a tannaitic debate.

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

תני רב שמואל בר יהודה קמיה דרבא ששה שערים פטורין מן המזוזה בית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות ושער המדי ושער שאינו מקורה ושער שאינו גבוה י' א"ל פתחת בששה וסלקת בשבעה

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught a baraita before Rava: Six gates are exempt from the mitzva of mezuza: The gate of a storehouse for hay, and of a cattle barn, and a woodshed, and a storehouse, and a Median gate, which is a dome, lacking two doorposts and a lintel, and an unroofed gate, and a gate that is not ten handbreadths high. Rava said to him: You began your statement with six gates that do not require a mezuza, and you concluded with seven.

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 שער המדי תנאי היא דתניא כיפה ר"מ מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרים ושוין שאם יש ברגלה עשרה שחייבת במזוזה אמר אביי דכ"ע גבוהה י' ואין ברגלה ג' ולאו כלום היא א"נ יש ברגלה ג' ואינה גבוהה י' ולאו כלום היא

Rava said to him: The obligation to affix a mezuza to a Median gate is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the gateway of a dome, i.e., an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. And they agree that if, at the foot of the entrance, there are doorposts ten handbreadths high before the arch of the dome begins narrowing the width of the entrance, it is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza since the sides form a usual doorway. Abaye said: However, everyone agrees that if the entire opening is only ten handbreadths high and at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts not even three handbreadths high, it is nothing. It is not considered an entrance and is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza. Alternatively, if at the foot of its entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but the entrance is not ten handbreadths high, it is nothing, as it is not considered a viable entrance.

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

לא נחלקו אלא בגבוהה י' ויש ברגלה ג' ואין ברחבה ד' ויש בה לחוק להשלימה לארבעה ר"מ סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים

They disagree only with regard to a case where the entrance is ten handbreadths high, and at the foot of the entrance there are doorposts three handbreadths high, but at no point is the width of the opening four handbreadths. However, the space in the dome alongside the entrance is wide enough to theoretically carve out space to complete a width of four handbreadths. Rabbi Meir holds that in all cases where a certain minimum area is required for a specific halakha to take effect and the existing area is smaller, if circumstances would theoretically allow one to carve out and create an area of the requisite size, its legal status is as if one carves out the space to complete it. Therefore, the opening is considered wide enough to require a mezuza. And the Rabbis hold: One does not carve out the space to complete it. Since the width of the opening is not actually four handbreadths, it is exempt from the mitzva of mezuza.

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

ת"ר בית הכנסת ובית האשה ובית השותפין חייבת במזוזה פשיטא מהו דתימא ביתך ולא ביתה ביתך ולא בתיהם קמשמע לן

The Sages taught in a baraita: A synagogue, a woman’s house, and a house jointly owned by partners are all obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why would these structures be exempt? Lest you say that it is written: “Your house,” in the masculine, and not her house; “Your house,” in the singular, and not their house, excluding a jointly owned house. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that those houses are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza like all others.

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 הכי נמי אמר קרא (דברים יא, כא) למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם הני בעו חיי והני לא בעו חיי

And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are exempt. The Gemara rejects this possibility: Immediately following the mitzva of mezuza is the reward for its fulfillment, as the verse states: “So that your days be numerous, as well as the days of your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:21). If these structures were exempt from the mitzva, the question would arise: Do these men and individuals require long life, and these, meaning women and partners, do not require long life? The mitzva of mezuza clearly applies to all of them.

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 ביתך למה לי כדרבא דאמר רבא דרך ביאתך וכי עקר איניש כרעיה דימינא עקר ברישא

The Gemara then asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the verse: Your house, if every house is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza? The Gemara answers: This could be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Your house is interpreted to mean that the mezuza is placed in the way that you enter the house. And when a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed on the right side of the doorway.

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 אידך בית הכנסת ובית השותפין ובית האשה מטמאין בנגעים פשיטא מהו דתימא (ויקרא יד, לה) ובא אשר לו הבית לו ולא לה לו ולא להן קמ"ל

Apropos the baraita just cited, the Gemara cites a related baraita that addresses a different topic. It was taught in another baraita: A synagogue, a house jointly owned by partners, and a woman’s house become impure with the impurity of leprosy of the house, like all other houses. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why wouldn’t they become impure? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it is written with regard to leprosy: “And the one whom the house is his will come” (Leviticus 14:35), which could be interpreted: His and not hers; his and not theirs, to the exclusion of a house owned by a woman or by partners. Therefore, it teaches us that these houses are also included in this halakha.

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 ה"נ אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, לד) בבית ארץ אחוזתכם אלא לו למה לי מי שמייחד ביתו לו שאינו רוצה להשאיל כליו ואומר שאין לו הקב"ה מפרסמו כשמפנה את ביתו פרט למשאיל כליו לאחרים

And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? The Gemara answers that the term does not teach a halakha but reveals why a house might be afflicted with leprosy. The house belonging to one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them, will be punished. The Holy One, Blessed be He, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.

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

ובית הכנסת מי מטמא בנגעים והתניא יכול יהיו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים ת"ל ובא אשר לו הבית מי שמיוחד לו יצאו אלו שאין מיוחדין לו

The Gemara raises another question: And with regard to a synagogue, does it become impure with the impurity of leprosy? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that synagogues and study halls become impure with the impurity of leprosy. Therefore, the verse states: And the one whom the house is his will come; this is referring to a house that is designated for him, excluding those houses that are not designated for him but are public 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

לא קשיא הא ר"מ הא רבנן דתניא בית הכנסת שיש בה בית דירה לחזן הכנסת חייב במזוזה ושאין בה בית דירה ר"מ מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as it is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita, which states that a synagogue can become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that baraita, which states that a synagogue cannot become impure with the impurity of leprosy, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: A synagogue in which there is a residence for the synagogue attendant is obligated in the mitzva of mezuza, as it is a dwelling. With regard to a synagogue in which there is no residence, Rabbi Meir obligates it in the mitzva of mezuza, and the Rabbis exempt it. Rabbi Meir deems a synagogue like a residence with regard to both a mezuza and its susceptibility to leprosy.

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

ואיבעית אימא הא והא רבנן ולא קשיא הא דאית בה בית דירה הא דלית בה בית דירה

And if you wish, say instead a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot with regard to the synagogue. Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not difficult. This baraita, which states that it can become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is a place of residence; that baraita, which states that it cannot become impure, is referring to a synagogue in which there is not a place of residence.

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

ואי בעית אימא הא והא דלית בה בית דירה

And if you wish, say instead yet a different resolution to the contradiction between the baraitot: Both this baraita and that baraita are referring to synagogues in which there is not a place of residence,

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 דכרכים והא דכפרים

and this baraita, which states that a synagogue does not become impure, is referring to synagogues in large cities. Since those synagogues attract people from different places, the building is not the property of the local residents but that of the public. And that baraita, which states that a synagogue becomes impure, is referring to synagogues in villages, which belong solely to the residents of the village, and its status is like that of a house owned by partners.

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

ודכרכים אין מטמא בנגעים והתניא אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מטמאה בנגעים ואין ירושלים מטמאה בנגעים אמר ר' יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים ואע"ג דכרכים נינהו אימא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד

Has it not been taught: “…upon a house in the land of your possession,” (Vayikra 14:34) which means that the house of the land of your possession can become defiled through leprosy, but Jerusalem cannot. R’ Yehudah said ‘I have only heard that the place of the Sanctuary (mikdash) is unaffected by the law of leprosy? That implies that synagogues and houses of learning are subject to the law of leprosy, even though they are in large cities! Read it as: R’ Yehudah said ‘I have only heard that sacred places (mekudash) are not subject to the law of leprosy.

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

ודכרכים אין מטמא בנגעים והתניא אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מטמאה בנגעים ואין ירושלים מטמאה בנגעים אמר ר' יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים ואע"ג דכרכים נינהו אימא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד

The Gemara asks: And do the synagogues in large cities not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34); the land of your possession becomes ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, and the city of Jerusalem does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, since it belongs to all the Jewish people rather than to a specific tribe? Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that it is only the site of the Temple [mikdash] alone that does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. It can be inferred that in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even synagogues and study halls in Jerusalem become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy, and that is the case even though they are synagogues in large cities. The Gemara rejects this; rather, one must emend the baraita and say that Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that it is only a sacred [mekudash] site alone. That definition includes synagogues and study halls.

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 תנא קמא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים ורבי יהודה סבר ירושלים נתחלקה לשבטים

What principle are they disputing? The first Tanna holds Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes and R’ Yehudah holds Jerusalem was divided among the tribes,

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 תנא קמא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים ורבי יהודה סבר ירושלים נתחלקה לשבטים

The Gemara explains the dispute in the baraita that was cited: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree? The first tanna holds: Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes but belonged to all of the Jewish people, and as such it does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprosy. Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was divided between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Therefore, the same halakhot of impurity apply there as apply in all other cities in Eretz Yisrael.

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

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא מה היה בחלקו של יהודה הר הבית הלשכות והעזרות ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים ורצועה היתה יוצאה מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת לחלקו של בנימין ובה היה מזבח בנוי ובנימין הצדיק היה מצטער עליה לבלעה בכל יום

the basis of their argument is another argument between Tannaim, for it has been taught: What was in the portion of Yehudah? The Temple mount, the cells, the courts. And what was in the portion of Benyamin? The Hall, the Palace and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land protruded from Yehudah's portion and went into Benyamin's portion, and on this the Holy Temple was built — Benyamin the Righteous longed to swallow it every day as it is written: “He protects him all day long…” (Devarim 33:12)

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

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא מה היה בחלקו של יהודה הר הבית הלשכות והעזרות ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים ורצועה היתה יוצאה מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת לחלקו של בנימין ובה היה מזבח בנוי ובנימין הצדיק היה מצטער עליה לבלעה בכל יום

The Gemara states: And that dispute corresponds to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was located in the portion of the tribe of Judah? It was the part including the entire Temple Mount, excluding those areas in the portion of Benjamin, the chambers, and the courtyards. And what part of the Temple was in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin? It was the part including the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, and the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land emerges from the portion of Judah and enters the portion of Benjamin on which the altar is built. And Benjamin the righteous would suffer longing to engulf it every day. The tribe of Benjamin was disappointed that the strip belonging to the tribe of Judah intersected its tribal land and wanted Judah to transfer ownership so that the land with the altar would belong to Benjamin.

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

שנאמר (דברים לג, יב) חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה שנאמר ובין כתפיו שכן

therefore he merited to be the host of the Omnipotent, as it is said “…and He dwells between his shoulders." (ibid.)

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

שנאמר (דברים לג, יב) חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה שנאמר ובין כתפיו שכן

An allusion to this is that which is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “Ever does he protect him and he rests between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12), like one who is unable to abide something stuck between his shoulders and constantly rubs it to remove it. Therefore, Benjamin the righteous was privileged to serve as host [ushpizekhan] to the Almighty, as it is stated: “And he rests between his shoulders,” alluding to the fact that the Holy of Holies was located in the territory of Benjamin. According to this baraita, Jerusalem was divided among the tribes.

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 תנא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים דתניא אין משכירין בתים בירושלים לפי שאינה שלהן ר' אלעזר בר (צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפזיכנין נוטלין אותן בזרוע אמר אביי שמע מינה אורח ארעא למישבק איניש גולפא ומשכא לאושפיזיה

This Tanna holds that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes, for it has been taught: One does not rent houses in Jerusalem, because the city does not belong to the inhabitants. R’ Elazar bar R’ Shimon said: Nor any beds. Therefore the innkeepers take the skin of the sacrificial animals even by force. Abaye said ‘learn from this that it is the custom for a man to leave to his host the empty wine pitcher and the hide.’

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 תנא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים דתניא אין משכירין בתים בירושלים לפי שאינה שלהן ר' אלעזר בר (צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפזיכנין נוטלין אותן בזרוע אמר אביי שמע מינה אורח ארעא למישבק איניש גולפא ומשכא לאושפיזיה

And this tanna holds: Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes at all, as it was taught in a baraita: Homeowners did not let their houses in Jerusalem because the houses were not actually theirs. Residents of Jerusalem did not own their residences, as the city belonged to the entire Jewish people. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds were not rented. Therefore, with regard to hides of consecrated animals of the Festival peace-offerings, which the pilgrims to Jerusalem would give as gifts to their hosts, the hosts were not really entitled to them. This is why the hosts would take them by force. Abaye said: Learn from it that it is customary for a guest to leave his empty wine jug and hides from sacrificial animals and give them to his host.

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

ודכפרים מי מטמא בנגעים והתניא לאחוזה עד שיכבשו אותה כבשו אותה ולא חלקוה לשבטים חלקו לשבטים ולא חלקו לבית אבות חלקו לבית אבות ואין כל אחד מכיר את שלו מניין

After discussing the status of Jerusalem, the Gemara addresses the matter of synagogues in villages. The Gemara asks: And do the synagogues in villages become impure with the impurity of leprosy? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita as follows? It is written: “When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The term: “For a possession,” means until you conquer it and it becomes entirely yours. However, in a case where they conquered it but did not divide it among the tribes, or where they divided it among the tribes but did not distribute it to the patrilineal families; or where they distributed it to the patrilineal families, but every one of them does not recognize his individual portion, from where is it derived that it does not become 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

ת"ל (ויקרא יד, לה) ובא אשר לו הבית מי שמיוחד לו יצא אלו שאין מיוחדין לו אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא

The verse states: “And the one whom the house is his will come” (Leviticus 14:35); one whom the house is designated for him and who is certain of his ownership, excluding those houses which are not designated for him. Apparently, the legal status of synagogues in villages is that of communal property, as the portion of each individual is not clearly identifiable, and therefore they cannot become impure. Rather, there is no distinction in this regard between synagogues in large cities and those in villages. And with regard to the original question, it is clear as we responded initially with alternative resolutions to the contradiction between the baraitot.

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

ומתקינין לו כהן אחר פשיטא אירע בו פסול קודם תמיד של שחר מחנכין אותו בתמיד של שחר אלא אירע בו פסול אחר תמיד של שחר במה מחנכין אותו

It was taught in the mishna: And they would designate another priest in the High Priest’s stead, lest a disqualification due to impurity prevent his entering the Temple on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that if disqualification befell the incumbent High Priest prior to the sacrifice of the daily morning offering on Yom Kippur, that one initiates the replacement by dressing him in the eight garments of the High Priest with the daily morning offering, which renders him acting High Priest. However, if disqualification befell the incumbent High Priest after the daily morning offering, how does one initiate the replacement? After the daily morning offering, the High Priest begins the Yom Kippur service clothed in the four linen garments unique to the day, which are the same as the tunic, trousers, turban, and belt of the common priest. How is it evident that he is the acting High 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

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה באבנט הניחא למאן דאמר אבנטו. של כהן גדול זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט אלא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כהן גדול לא זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: It is evident by means of his belt. The belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur was made of linen, unlike that of the common priest, which was a mixture of the diverse kinds of linen and wool. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said: Throughout the rest of the year, the belt of the High Priest, which the Torah clearly states is made of a mixture of diverse kinds, is identical to the belt of the common priest, whereas on Yom Kippur, the belt is made of linen. When the replacement priest dons the linen belt he is initiated as the acting High Priest. However, according to the one who said: The belt of the High Priest is not identical to the belt of the common priest, what can be said? According to this approach, throughout the year the High Priest wears a belt of blue and purple wool and linen, while the belts of common priests are made of white linen like the rest of their clothes. Therefore, on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest dons a belt of white linen, his belt is identical to that of a common priest. If so, what initiates the replacement as acting High 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

אמר אביי לובש שמונה ומהפך בצינורא וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא זר שהפך בצינורא חייב מיתה ורב פפא אמר

Abaye said: Before the replacement begins serving on Yom Kippur with the four linen garments, he is initiated and promoted to the High Priesthood by donning the eight garments of the High Priest and turning over one of the limbs on the altar with a fork, thereby accelerating the burning of the daily morning offering. By performing part of the service while wearing the garments of the High Priest, he is initiated as acting High Priest. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: A non-priest who turns over part of the offering on the altar with a fork is liable to receive the death penalty because he engaged in Temple service restricted to priests. And Rav Pappa said:

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

עבודתו מחנכתו מי לא תניא כל הכלים שעשה משה משיחתן מקדשתן מכאן ואילך עבודתן מחנכתן הכא נמי עבודתו מחנכתו

That action is unnecessary and therefore superfluous; his service initiates him. The replacement High Priest need not undergo any preliminary initiation. His very performance of the Yom Kippur service, which is valid only if performed by the High Priest, initiates him as acting High Priest. As proof, the Gemara states: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to all the sacred vessels that Moses made, their anointment with oil consecrates them. From that point forward, in the generations after Moses, new vessels did not require anointment to be consecrated; rather, their use in Temple service initiates them and renders them fit for use. Here, too, with regard to the High Priest, his service initiates him.

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 אבנטו של כהן הדיוט רבי ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון חד אמר של כלאים וחד אמר של בוץ

Apropos the belt of the High Priest, the Gemara cites the aforementioned dispute in its entirety. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: With regard to the belt of the common priest, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. One said: It was a mixture of diverse kinds of wool and linen, like the belt of the High Priest mentioned in the Torah. And one said: It was made of fine linen, like the rest of the garments of the common 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

תסתיים דרבי הוא דאמר של כלאים דתניא אין בין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט אלא אבנט דברי רבי ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר אף לא אבנט אימת אי נימא בשאר ימות השנה טובא איכא כהן גדול משמש בשמונה והדיוט בארבעה

The Gemara suggests: Conclude that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who said that the belt of the common priest was a mixture of diverse kinds, as it was taught in a baraita: The only difference between a High Priest and a common priest is the belt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Not even the belt represents a difference between them. The Gemara explains: With regard to the difference between the High Priest and the common priest, when is there a dispute between the tanna’im? If we say that the dispute is with regard to the rest of the days of the year, there are many other differences between them, since the High Priest serves wearing eight garments and the common priest wears four garments. Therefore, that could not be the point of the dispute.

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 לאו ביום הכפורים

Rather, is it not that the dispute is with regard to the differences between the High Priest and the common priest on Yom Kippur? They agree that the belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is made of linen, but disagree with regard to the common priest’s belt. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that there is a difference between the belts, the belt of the common priest must be made of a mixture of diverse kinds. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that there is no difference between their belts, the belt of the common priest must be made of linen, like that of the High Priest 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

אמרי לא לעולם בשאר ימות השנה ובהנך דשוין

The Gemara rejects this proof. The Sages say: No, this is not a proof, as actually, the dispute is with regard to the differences during the rest of the days of the year. However, the dispute is not with regard to all the differences between the High Priest and the common priest, but rather only with regard to those four garments common to both priests: The tunic, trousers, turban, and belt. Based on this understanding that the dispute is with regard to the rest of the year, the analysis of the dispute is reversed: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the belt of the High Priest is a mixture of diverse kinds and that of the common priest is made of linen, while according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the belt of the common priest is a mixture of diverse kinds. Therefore, there is no definitive proof from the baraita.

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 רבין אמר אבנטו של כהן גדול ביום הכפורים דברי הכל של בוץ בשאר ימות השנה דברי הכל של כלאים לא נחלקו אלא באבנטו של כהן הדיוט בין בשאר ימות השנה בין ביום הכפורים שרבי אומר של כלאים ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר של בוץ

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he stated this tradition in a clearer fashion: With regard to the belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, everyone agrees that it is made of fine linen, as stated in the Torah. With regard to the belt of the High Priest during the rest of the days of the year, everyone agrees that it is a mixture of diverse kinds. They disagreed only with regard to the belt of the common priest both during the rest of the days of the year and on Yom Kippur, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It was a mixture of diverse kinds, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says it was made of linen.

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 רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא (ויקרא ו, ג) על בשרו מה תלמוד לומר ילבש להביא מצנפת ואבנט להרמת הדשן דברי ר' יהודה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, have learned in a baraita: The Torah says with regard to the removal of the ashes from the altar: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put upon his flesh” (Leviticus 6:3). The baraita questions the formulation of the verse. Since at the beginning of the verse it is written: “And the priest shall put on,” for what purpose does the verse state: “Shall he put upon,” in the latter part of the verse? Rabbi Yehuda says: It comes to include donning the mitre and the belt for the removal of the ashes, even though it is not explicitly stated in the verse. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

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 דוסא אומר להביא בגדי כהן גדול ביום הכפורים שהן כשרין לכהן הדיוט רבי אומר שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דאבנטו של כ"ג ביום הכיפורים לא זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט

Rabbi Dosa says that the term: Shall put on, comes to include the halakha that the garments of the High Priest on Yom Kippur are fit for a common priest. During the Yom Kippur service, the High Priest wears just four linen garments. Although he may not serve in those garments on Yom Kippur the following year, a common priest may serve in them during the rest of the year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: There are two responses to reject this statement of Rabbi Dosa. One: The belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of the common priest during the rest of the year. Clearly, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is made of linen, and that of the common priest during the year is a mixture of the diverse kinds of wool and linen.

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

ועוד בגדים שנשתמשתה בהן קדושה חמורה תשמש בהן קדושה קלה אלא מה תלמוד לומר ילבש לרבות את השחקין

And furthermore, there is another reason to reject the statement of Rabbi Dosa. Could it be that with regard to garments that were used by the High Priest to perform a service of extreme sanctity, the common priest will use them to perform a service of minor sanctity? Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for what purpose does the verse state the phrase: Shall put on? It comes to include threadbare garments and to teach that as long as they are not completely tattered, they may be worn for that 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

ואזדא ר' דוסא לטעמיה דתניא (ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה רבי דוסא אומר שלא ישתמש בהן יוה"כ אחר

And Rabbi Dosa follows his line of reasoning, as it was taught in a baraita: That which is written: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur require interment and may not be put to additional use. Rabbi Dosa says: It means only that the High Priest may not use them on Yom Kippur in a different year. According to Rabbi Dosa, they may be worn by a common priest during his service, as they do not require interment.

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

ת"ר אירע בו פסול ומינו אחר תחתיו ראשון חוזר לעבודתו שני כל מצות כהונה גדולה עליו דברי ר' מאיר

The Gemara returns to the initiation of the acting High Priest. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If a disqualification befalls the High Priest and they appointed another in his stead, and then the cause of the disqualification of the High Priest is resolved, e.g., he was purified from impurity, the original High Priest returns to his service. With regard to the second, acting High Priest, all the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him. He serves wearing eight garments and it is prohibited for him to let his hair grow, to rend his garments in mourning the death of a relative, to subject himself to impurity imparted by the corpse of a relative, or to marry a widow. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

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' יוסי אומר ראשון חוזר לעבודתו שני אינו ראוי לא לכ"ג ולא לכהן הדיוט

Rabbi Yosei says: The original priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest with eight garments, because there is a different High Priest; nor as a common priest with four garments, as once he was elevated to a state of extreme sanctity he may not be reduced to a state of minor 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

אמר ר' יוסי מעשה ביוסף בן אלם בציפורי שאירע בו פסול בכהן גדול ומינוהו תחתיו ואמרו חכמים ראשון חוזר לעבודתו שני אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול ולא לכהן הדיוט כ"ג משום איבה כהן הדיוט משום מעלין בקודש ולא מורידין

Rabbi Yosei said as proof for his opinion: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when a reason for disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. After the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common 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

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

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

הלכה כר' יוסי ומודה ר' יוסי שאם עבר ועבד עבודתו כשרה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כר' יוסי ומודה ר' יוסי שאם מת ראשון שחוזר לעבודתו

The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that the original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. And Rabbi Yosei concedes that if the second priest violated this provision and served as High Priest wearing eight garments, his service is valid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Yosei conceded that if the original High Priest dies, the second returns to his service as High 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

פשיטא מהו דתימא הויא ליה צרה מחיים קמ"ל

The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Clearly, the second priest may serve as High Priest after the first one dies without concern that their rivalry will generate hatred between them. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the mere knowledge that another priest is in waiting to replace him is enough to generate hatred, and would be for him like a woman whose husband has taken a rival wife in her lifetime; therefore, Rav teaches us that this is not a 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

ר' יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו ורבנן נמי הא חיישי לשמא אמרי לך רבנן טומאה שכיחא מיתה לא שכיחא

It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages would even designate another wife for the High Priest lest his wife die. The Rabbis say: There is no concern lest his wife die, and therefore the Sages did not designate another wife for him. The Gemara asks with regard to the Rabbis: Aren’t they concerned lest he become impure, which is why the Sages designate a replacement High Priest? Why then, are they not concerned lest his wife die? The Gemara answers that the Rabbis could have said to you: Impurity is common, as it is not unusual for the High Priest to become impure either due to secretions from his body or from an external source. Death is not common, and therefore there is no concern lest his wife 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

אמרו לו א"כ אין לדבר סוף שפיר קא אמרי ליה לרבי יהודה ורבי יהודה אמר לך למיתה דחדא חיישינן למיתה דתרתי לא חיישינן ורבנן אי איכא למיחש אפילו למיתה דתרין חיישינן

It was taught in the mishna that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, that you are concerned lest his wife die, there is no end to the matter. You should also be concerned lest the second wife die, requiring designation of a third and even a fourth wife. The Gemara comments: The Rabbis spoke well to Rabbi Yehuda, making a good point. What can Rabbi Yehuda respond? Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: For the potential death of one wife, we are concerned; for the potential death of two wives, we are not concerned, as the likelihood of that happening is negligible. The Gemara asks: And what would the Rabbis respond to that contention? They would say: If there is reason to be concerned for a potential death, then even for the potential death of two wives, we are concerned.