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

הכי קאמר מביתו למה פירש תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר שמא תמצא אשתו ספק נדה ויבא עליה

The Gemara explains: This is what the Gemara is saying. Why did he withdraw from his house, i.e., his wife? The Gemara explained why he must be removed to a special location; but why doesn’t his wife join him? It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: It is due to the concern lest his wife be found to be in a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, and he will have relations with her and 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

אטו ברשיעי עסקינן אלא שמא יבא על אשתו ותמצא ספק נדה

The Gemara asks in astonishment: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people? Will the High Priest, aware of the uncertain status of his wife, have relations with her? Rather, rephrase the statement: It is due to the concern lest he have relations with his wife and then she be found to be in a situation of uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman. In a case where blood is found on the sheets after the couple engaged in relations, and there is uncertainty as to whether or not the High Priest had relations with his wife while she had the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, the status of the High Priest is one of uncertain 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

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב חסדא כמאן כרבי עקיבא דאמר נדה מטמאה את בועלה דאי רבנן הא אמרי אין נדה מטמאה את בועלה

The Sages stated the following assumption before Rav Ḥisda: In accordance with whose opinion is that a reason for concern? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: A menstruating woman who found blood on the sheets within twenty-fours after having relations, creating uncertainty with regard to her status when she engaged in relations, renders the man who had with relations with her retroactively impure. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is difficult: Didn’t they say that a woman with regard to whom there is uncertainty as to whether or not she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman does not render the man who had with relations with her retroactively impure. Therefore, the High Priest need not leave his wife during the week prior to 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

אמר להו רב חסדא אפילו תימרו רבנן ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר"ע אלא באחר אחר אבל בחד אחר מודו ליה

Rav Ḥisda said to the Sages: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Akiva with regard to retroactive impurity only in a case where blood was discovered on the sheets long afterward, after there was time for the woman to leave the bed and bathe and only then discover the blood. Due to the time that elapsed, the Rabbis hold that there is no way to prove a connection between when the woman menstruated and when they engaged in relations. However, if the blood was found merely afterward, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that she renders the man retroactively 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

אמר ר' זירא שמע מינה בועל נדה אינו כנדה וטובל ביום

Rabbi Zeira said: Learn from it that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is unlike a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion. Unlike the woman, who immerses after nightfall following the seventh day after her menstruation ceased, such a man may immerse on the seventh day and need not wait for nightfall. Therefore, if a High Priest has relations with his wife just before he is sequestered and there is uncertainty as to whether she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman, the seventh day of his impurity occurs on Yom Kippur eve. He immerses himself that day and completes the purification process at nightfall. This allows him to enter the Temple to perform the Yom Kippur 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

דאי אמרת בועל נדה כנדה אימת טביל בליליא למחר היכי עביד עבודה והא בעי הערב השמש אלא לאו שמע מינה בועל נדה אינו כנדה

As, if you say that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion, when does he immerse? He may immerse only at night after seven complete days. Since that night is Yom Kippur, how can he perform the Yom Kippur service the next day? Isn’t he required to wait for sunset following his immersion to complete the purification process? Until then his status is that of one who immersed that day, who may not serve in the Temple until the nightfall following his immersion. Rather, must one not conclude from it that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is unlike a menstruating woman in terms of the time of immersion? He immerses on the seventh day, Yom Kippur eve, and at nightfall he may serve 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

רב שימי מנהרדעא אמר אפי' תימא בועל נדה כנדה דמפרשינן ליה שעה אחת סמוך לשקיעת החמה

Rav Shimi from Neharde’a says: Even if you say that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like a menstruating woman with regard to the time of immersion, the High Priest is not removed from his house at night. Rather, we sequester him one hour just before sunset on the eighth day prior to Yom Kippur, slightly before the start of the seven-day period, leaving seven full days to count prior to Yom Kippur. Although he is removed from his house more than seven days prior to Yom Kippur, that slight addition is not sufficient to have the period considered eight 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

מיתיבי כל חייבי טבילות טבילתן ביום נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה נדה אין בועל נדה לא

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night: With regard to all those obligated in immersions, their immersion is during the day. The exceptions are a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, whose immersion is at night. It can be learned by inference: With regard to a menstruating woman, yes, she immerses at night; with regard to one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman, no, he does not immerse at night.

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

נדה וכל דאתי מרבוייא

The Gemara rejects that proof because the term menstruating woman in that baraita includes the woman and everyone whose inclusion in the impurity is derived from her status. The understanding is that a man who has relations with a menstruating woman assumes her impurity, and therefore his immersion would be identical to hers.

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 בעל קרי כמגע שרץ בועל נדה כטמא מת מאי לאו לטבילה לא לטומאתן

The Gemara raises another objection: The halakhic status of one who is ritually impure due to a seminal emission is like that of one who came into contact with a creeping animal, whereas the legal status of one who is ritually impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is like that of one who became impure with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara asks: What, does the baraita not mean that one who had relations with a menstruating woman is like one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse in terms of immersion, which he may perform during the day? The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, the baraita is merely comparing the duration of their impurity. One who experiences a seminal emission is impure for one day, like one who came into contact with a creeping animal; one who has relations with a menstruating woman is impure for seven days, like one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse.

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

טומאתן בהדיא כתיב בהו האי טומאת שבעה כתיב ביה והאי טומאת שבעה כתיב ביה

The Gemara wonders: For what purpose would the baraita come to teach the duration of their impurity? The Torah explicitly writes the durations of their impurity. This, one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, has impurity of seven days written in his regard; and similarly, that, one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman, has impurity of seven days written in his regard. There is no need for the baraita to derive a matter explicitly written in the Torah from another matter explicitly written in the Torah.

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 לטבילתן

Rather, must it not be that the baraita is equating them with regard to their immersion, in that both one who has relations with a menstruating woman and one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse immerse during the 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

לא לעולם לטומאתן סיפא אצטריכא ליה אלא שחמור ממנו בועל נדה שמטמא משכב ומושב בטומאה קלה לטמא אוכלין ומשקין

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No; actually, the baraita is referring to the duration of their impurity. Although there is nothing novel in that equation, it was necessary for the tanna to teach the latter clause of the baraita: However, in one sense, the case of one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman is more severe than one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. One who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman transmits impurity through lying on a bed or sitting on a chair, even if he never came into direct contact with the chair or the bed. He renders the bed or chair impure with a mild form of impurity. He confers upon them first-degree ritual impurity status, sufficient only to render foods and liquids impure. One impure with impurity imparted by a corpse transmits impurity by means of direct contact.

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"ש דתני רבי חייא הזב והזבה והמצורע והמצורעת ובועל נדה וטמא מת טבילתן ביום נדה ויולדת טבילתן בלילה תיובתא

Come and hear an additional proof that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: For the zav and the zava and the leper and the female leper, and one who had relations with a menstruating woman, and one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, their immersion is during the day. For a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth, their immersion is at night. The Gemara concludes that this baraita is indeed a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Shimi from Neharde’a, who said that one who is impure because he had relations with a menstruating woman immerses at night.

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

ועד שאתה מפרישו מטומאת ביתו הפרישהו מטומאת המת אמר רב תחליפא אבוה דרב הונא (בר תחליפא) משמיה דרבא זאת אומרת טומאת המת הותרה היא בציבור

With regard to the sequestering of the High Priest, the Gemara asks: And before you remove him from the potential of impurity of his house, remove him from the potential of the more severe impurity imparted by a corpse. The Sages should have instituted an ordinance prohibiting visitors to the High Priest lest one die while in his chamber and render him impure. Rav Taḥlifa, father of Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa, said in the name of Rava: That is to say that impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public. In cases where the public is involved, impurity imparted by a corpse does not prevent the Temple service from being conducted. Since the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur is a service involving communal offerings, impurity imparted by a corpse does not invalidate the 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

רבינא אמר אפילו תימא טומאת המת דחויה היא בצבור טומאת המת לא שכיחא טומאת ביתו שכיחא

Ravina said: Even if you say that impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in public and not completely permitted, the idea that the High Priest is not removed from the potential of impurity imparted by a corpse can be understood. Impurity imparted by a corpse is uncommon. The likelihood that one visiting the High Priest will suddenly die is minimal. In contrast, impurity of his house is common, as uncertainty with regard to his wife’s status as a menstruating woman could arise at any moment.

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

איתמר טומאת המת רב נחמן אמר הותרה היא בציבור ורב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור

There is an amoraic dispute with regard to the effect of impurity imparted by a corpse on the conduct of the Temple service. It was stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse that Rav Naḥman said: It is permitted in cases involving the public; e.g., when a majority of the Jewish people is impure, the service of a ritually pure priest is not preferable to that of an impure priest. The Temple service proceeds as though there was no impurity at all. And Rav Sheshet said: Impurity imparted by a corpse is merely overridden in cases involving the public, and service performed by a ritually pure priest is preferable.

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

היכא דאיכא טמאין וטהורין בההוא בית אב כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטהורין עבדי טמאין לא עבדי כי פליגי לאהדורי ולאתויי טהורין מבית אב אחרינא

The Gemara restricts the scope of the dispute. In a case where there are both ritually impure and pure priests in that patrilineal family tasked with serving in the Temple on that day, everyone, even Rav Naḥman, agrees that the pure priests serve and the impure priests do not serve. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where the entire patrilineal family is impure. Is it necessary to seek out and bring pure priests from a different patrilineal family belonging to the same priestly watch, who are tasked with serving in the Temple on a different day that week?

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 נחמן אמר היתר היא בציבור ולא מהדרינן ורב ששת אמר דחויה היא בציבור ומהדרינן

Rav Naḥman said: The prohibition against performing the Temple service in a state of impurity imparted by a corpse is permitted in cases involving the public, and we do not need to seek out other priests. Since the Torah permitted the performance of the Temple service by priests impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, it is completely permitted and it is as though the service is performed in purity. Rav Sheshet said: The prohibition of impurity imparted by a corpse is overridden in cases involving the public, and wherever possible we seek out ritually pure priests.

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

איכא דאמרי אפי' היכא דאיכא טהורין וטמאין בההוא בית אב פליג רב נחמן ואמר עבדי נמי טמאין

Some say that the dispute is slightly different: Even in a case where there are both ritually pure and ritually impure priests in that patrilineal family, Rav Naḥman disagreed with Rav Sheshet and said that the priests serve even when they are 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

דכל טומאת מת בציבור רחמנא שרייה

as in all situations of impurity imparted by corpses in cases involving the public, the Merciful One permits those who are impure to perform the Temple 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

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא היה עומד ומקריב מנחת העומר ונטמאת בידו אומר ומביאין אחרת תחתיה ואם אין שם אלא היא אומרין לו הוי פקח ושתוק

The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive to say that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is as it was taught in a baraita: If a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal-offering and it became impure in his hand, the priest, who was aware of what transpired, says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is 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

קתני מיהת אומר ומביאין אחרת תחתיה אמר רב נחמן מודינא היכא דאיכא שיריים לאכילה

In any case, it is teaching that he says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its place. Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. Rav Naḥman rejected the proof and said: I concede that in a case where there are remnants of the offering designated for eating it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.

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 היה מקריב מנחת פרים ואילים וכבשים ונטמאת בידו אומר ומביאין אחרת תחתיה ואם אין שם אלא היא אומרין לו הוי פקח ושתוק

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the Tosefta: If a priest was sacrificing the meal-offering accompanying the sacrifice of bulls, rams, or sheep, and the meal-offering became impure in his hand, the priest says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is 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 לאו פרים אילים וכבשים דחג

What, is it not referring to the bulls, rams, and sheep of the festival of Sukkot, which are communal offerings that are not eaten? Apparently, even in cases of communal offerings, the priests seek to perform the service in a state of purity and the prohibition of impurity is not permitted but merely overridden.

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 לך רב נחמן לא פרים פר ע"ז אף על גב דציבור הוא כיון דלא קביע ליה זמן מהדרינן אילים באילו של אהרן דאע"ג דקביע ליה זמן כיון דיחיד הוא מהדרינן כבשים בכבש הבא עם העומר דאיכא שיריים לאכילה

Rav Naḥman could have said to you: No, the bulls mentioned in the Tosefta are not standard communal offerings. Rather, the reference is to the bull sacrificed when the entire community engages in idolatry unwittingly. Although this offering is a communal offering, since it has no specific time fixed for its sacrifice, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead.Similarly, the rams mentioned in the Tosefta are not additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the ram of Aaron sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Although it has a specific time fixed for its sacrifice, since it is an offering brought by an individual, the High Priest, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead, as service in a state of impurity is permitted only for communal offerings.The sheep mentioned are not those for the daily offerings or the additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the sheep that accompanies the omer meal-offering, as in that case, there are remnants designated for eating. Therefore, the meal-offering must be offered in purity.

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 דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה כי תניא ההיא דיחיד

The Gemara raises an additional objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: With regard to blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, even in cases involving the public, performing service in the Temple in a state of impurity is not permitted. This objection is rejected: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to the offering of an individual, where the prohibition of impurity is certainly in effect.

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"ש על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בציבור ואי ס"ד טומא' היתר היא בציבור למה לי לרצויי

The Gemara continues: Come and hear a different argument based on that which was taught in a baraita. For what does the frontplate worn by the High Priest effect acceptance? It effects acceptance for the blood, for the flesh, and for the fat of an offering that became impure in the Temple, whether it became impure unwittingly or whether it became impure intentionally, whether it was due to circumstances beyond his control or whether it was done willfully, whether it was in the framework of an individual offering or whether it was in the framework of a communal offering. And if it enters your mind that impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need the frontplate to effect acceptance? If the prohibition of impurity is permitted, no pardon is necessary.

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

אמ' לך רב נחמן כי קתני הציץ מרצה אדיחיד ואיבעית אימא אפי' תימא בציבור בהנך דלא קביע לה זמן

The Gemara responds that Rav Naḥman could have said to you: When the baraita teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance it is not referring to the entire list of items cited in the baraita; it is referring to an individual offering brought in impurity, not to a communal offering. The communal offering is mentioned only in the sense that in that case too, impurity is permitted, albeit for a different reason. Or if you wish, say instead: Even if you say that the frontplate effects acceptance for a communal offering, it is only for those offerings that lack a fixed time. Rav Naḥman concedes that with regard to those communal offerings that have no specific time fixed for their sacrifice, the prohibition of performing the service in impurity remains in effect and requires the acceptance effected by the frontplate.

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 (שמות כח, לח) ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים וכי איזה עון הוא נושא אם עון פיגול הרי כבר נאמר לא ירצה ואם עון נותר הרי כבר נאמר לא יחשב

The Gemara raises an objection. It is stated: “And Aaron will gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things that the children of Israel shall hallow in all their sacred gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted favorably before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38). And for which sin does the frontplate gain forgiveness? If it is for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat it after the permitted time, it has already been stated: “And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7). There is no acceptance of an offering that became piggul. And if it is for the sin of notar, meat of an offering left after the permitted time for eating it passed, it has already been stated: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it” (Leviticus 7:18).

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

הא אינו נושא אלא עון טומאה שהותרה מכללה בציבור וקשיא לרב ששת תנאי היא דתניא ציץ בין שישנו על מצחו בין שאינו על מצחו מרצה דברי רבי שמעון

Apparently, the frontplate gains forgiveness only for the sin of impurity, which was exempted from its general prohibition in cases involving the public. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said that the prohibition of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, as the baraita clearly states that impurity is permitted. The Gemara responds: According to Rav Sheshet, the question of whether the prohibition of impurity is permitted or overridden in cases involving the public is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate effects acceptance whether it is on the High Priest’s forehead or whether it is not on the High Priest’s forehead when the offering becomes impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

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 עודהו על מצחו מרצה אין עודהו על מצחו אינו מרצה אמר לו ר"ש כהן גדול ביוה"כ יוכיח שאין עודהו על מצחו ומרצה

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is on his forehead it effects acceptance; if it is no longer on his forehead it does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur can prove that your statement is incorrect, as on Yom Kippur when the High priest wears only four linen garments the frontplate is no longer on his forehead, and it still effects acceptance.

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 לו ר' יהודה הנח לכהן גדול ביוה"כ שטומאה הותרה לו בציבור מכלל דר"ש סבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Leave the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, as the atonement of the frontplate is unnecessary because the prohibition of performing the Temple service in impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Learn by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why the atonement of the frontplate is necessary. The dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Naḥman is based on a tannaitic dispute, and the baraita cited above is in accordance with the opinion 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

אמר אביי בנשבר הציץ דכ"ע לא פליגי דלא מרצה כי פליגי דתלי בסיכתא רבי יהודה סבר (שמות כח, לח) על מצח ונשא

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: In a case where the frontplate broke, everyone, including Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the frontplate no longer effects acceptance. When they disagree is in a case where the frontplate is not on his forehead but is hanging on a peg. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse: “And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron shall gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things” (Exodus 28:38) means that the frontplate atones for sin as long as it is on his forehead.

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 שמעון סבר (שמות כח, לח) תמיד לרצון לפני ה' מאי תמיד אילימא תמיד על מצחו מי משכחת לה מי לא בעי מיעל לבית הכסא ומי לא בעי מינם אלא תמיד מרצה הוא

And Rabbi Shimon holds that emphasis should be placed on the end of that verse: “It shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.” From this, Rabbi Shimon derived that the frontplate always effects acceptance, even when it is not upon the High Priest’s forehead, as what is the meaning of the word always in the verse? If we say that it means that the frontplate must always be on the High Priest’s forehead, do you find that situation in reality? Doesn’t he need to enter the bathroom, when he must remove the frontplate bearing the name of God? Similarly, doesn’t he need to sleep, at which time he removes the priestly vestments? Rather, it means that the frontplate always effects acceptance, whether or not it is on his forehead.

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

ולרבי יהודה נמי הא כתיב תמיד ההוא תמיד שלא יסיח דעתו ממנו כדרבה בר רב הונא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא חייב אדם למשמש בתפיליו בכל שעה ושעה ק"ו מציץ

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, isn’t it written: “Always”? Clearly it does not mean that the frontplate must always be on his forehead. The Gemara answers: That term: “Always,” teaches that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is on his head, and that he should not be distracted from it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person must touch the phylacteries on his head and on his arm each and every hour, to maintain awareness of their presence. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the frontplate:

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

ומה ציץ שאין בו אלא אזכרה אחת אמרה תורה על מצחו תמיד שלא יסיח דעתו ממנו תפילין שיש בהן אזכרות הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה

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

ולר"ש דאמר תמיד מרצה והא כתיב על מצחו ונשא ההוא לקבוע לו מקום הוא דאתא

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the verse: “It shall be always upon his forehead,” teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance even when it is not on the High Priest’s forehead, isn’t it also written: “On his forehead…and shall gain forgiveness”? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to establish the place where the High Priest should position the frontplate, not to indicate that it effects acceptance only when it is on his forehead.

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 יהודה לקבוע לו מקום מנא ליה נפקא ליה מעל מצחו ור"ש נמי תיפוק ליה מעל מצחו אין ה"נ

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

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 על מצחו ונשא מאי עביד ליה אמר לך ראוי למצח מרצה שאינו ראוי למצח אינו מרצה לאפוקי נשבר הציץ דלא מרצה

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

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

ולר' יהודה נשבר הציץ מנא ליה נפקא ליה ממצח מצחו ור"ש מצח מצחו לא משמע ליה

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

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

נימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתניא אחד זה ואחד זה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי אומר אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי בלבד ר' חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר כהן השורף את הפרה מזין עליו כל שבעה כה"ג ביוה"כ אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי

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

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 לאו בהא קא מיפלגי ר"מ סבר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור ור' יוסי סבר טומאה היתר היא בציבור

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

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

ותסברא אי סבר רבי יוסי היתר היא בציבור הזאה כלל למה לי אלא דכולי עלמא הני תנאי סברי טומאה דחויה היא בציבור

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

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

והכא בהא קמיפלגי ר"מ סבר אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה ורבי יוסי סבר לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה

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

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

וסבר רבי יוסי לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה והתניא הרי שהיה שם כתוב על בשרו הרי זה לא ירחץ ולא יסוך ולא יעמוד במקום הטנופת נזדמנה לו טבילה של מצוה כורך עליו גמי וטובל רבי יוסי אומר יורד וטובל כדרכו ובלבד שלא ישפשף

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

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

וקיימא לן דבטבילה בזמנה מצוה קא מיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר לא אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה. ורבי יוסי סבר אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה אלא דכולי עלמא להני תנאי אמרינן טבילה בזמנה מצוה

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

והכא בהא קמיפלגי רבי מאיר סבר מקשינן הזאה לטבילה ור' יוסי סבר לא מקשינן הזאה לטבילה

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

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 חנינא סגן הכהנים אי מקיש הזאה לטבילה אפילו כהן ביוה"כ נמי אי לא מקיש הזאה לטבילה אפי' כהן השורף את הפרה נמי לא

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

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

לעולם לא מקיש וכהן השורף את הפרה מעלה בעלמא

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

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

כמאן אזלא הא דתנו רבנן אין בין כהן השורף את הפרה לכהן גדול ביום הכפורים אלא

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

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

שזה פרישתו לקדושה ואחיו הכהנים נוגעין בו וזה פרישתו לטהרה ואין אחיו הכהנים נוגעין בו כמאן או ר"מ או רבי יוסי דאי ר' חנינא סגן הכהנים הא איכא נמי הא

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

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

מתקיף לה רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא בשלמא ראשון שמא שלישי שני שמא שלישי שלישי שמא שלישי חמישי שמא שביעי ששי שמא שביעי שביעי שמא שביעי

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

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 רביעי למה לי הזאה כלל לא בשלישי איכא לספוקי ולא בשביעי איכא לספוקי

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

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

ולטעמיך הזאה כל שבעה מי איכא והא קיימא לן דהזאה שבות ואינה דוחה את השבת אלא מאי אית לך למימר שבעה לבר משבת הכא נמי שבעה לבר מרביעי

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

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 רבא הלכך כהן גדול ביום הכפורים דלא בדידן תליא מילתא אלא בקביעא דירחא תליא מילתא בתלתא בתשרי בעי לאפרושי וכל אימת דמתרמי תלתא בתשרי מפרשינן ליה אבל כהן השורף את הפרה דבדידן תליא מילתא מפרשינן ליה ברביעי בשבת כי היכי דניתרמי רביעי שלו בשבת

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

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

ללשכת פרהדרין וכו' תניא רבי יהודה וכי לשכת פרהדרין היתה והלא לשכת בלווטי היתה

Having discussed the obligation to sequester the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, the Gemara interprets the next matter in the mishna: The High Priest is removed from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn’t it called the Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

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 בתחלה היו קורין אותה לשכת בלווטי ומתוך שנותנין עליו ממון לכהונה ומחליפין אותה כל שנים עשר חודש כפרהדרין הללו שמחליפין אותם כל שנים עשר חודש לפיכך היו קוראין אותה לשכת פרהדרין

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

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

תנן התם הנחתומין לא חייבו אותן חכמים להפריש אלא תרומת מעשר וחלה

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

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 תרומה גדולה לא דתניא

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

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

לפי ששלח בכל גבולי ישראל וראה שאין מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד

This is because Yoḥanan the High Priest sent emissaries throughout all the areas located within the borders of Eretz Yisrael to assess the situation and saw that the people were separating only teruma gedola and were neglecting to separate tithes. Therefore, he issued a decree that anyone who purchases produce from an am ha’aretz must be concerned about the possibility that it was not tithed and is required to tithe it. Since even an am ha’aretz separates teruma gedola, the bakers who purchased grain from them were not required to do so.

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

מעשר ראשון ומעשר עני נמי לא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אלא מעשר שני נפרשו ונסקו וניכלוהו בירושלם

And granted, bakers need not separate first tithe and poor man’s tithe due to the principle: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Neither first tithe, given to Levites, nor poor man’s tithe, given to the poor, is sacred. It is merely the property of the Levite and the pauper, respectively. Since with regard to doubtfully tithed produce, by definition, there is no certainty that one is actually required to tithe it, if the Levite or the pauper should seek to take possession of the gifts, they must first prove that in fact the produce was not tithed. However, with regard to second tithe, why are the bakers exempt? Let them separate second-tithe from the produce, take it up to Jerusalem, and eat it in Jerusalem, which is the halakha with regard to anyone else who purchases doubtfully tithed produce.

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 עולא מתוך שפרהדרין הללו חובטין אותן כל י"ב חדש ואומרים להן מכרו בזול מכרו בזול לא אטרחונהו רבנן מאי פרהדרין פורסי

Ulla said: It is because these parhedrin, government appointees, beat the bakers throughout the entire twelve months of their tenure and tell them: Sell your baked goods cheaply, sell them cheaply. Since the officers insist that the bakers refrain from raising their prices, the Sages did not further burden them with the exertion of separating second tithe from a large quantity of grain and taking it to Jerusalem, as they would be unable to raise their prices to cover the cost of the lost grain and the trip to Jerusalem. Since the presumptive status of the grain is that it was tithed, and the obligation to tithe doubtfully tithed produce is a stringency, the Sages exempted the baker from the obligation to do so. What is the meaning of parhedrin? These are royal appointees [pursei] charged with performance of different tasks.

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 מאי דכתיב (משלי י, כז) יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה יראת ה' תוסיף ימים זה מקדש ראשון שעמד ארבע מאות ועשר שנים ולא שמשו בו אלא י"ח כהנים גדולים

Apropos the Second Temple period, when High Priests were frequently replaced, the Gemara cites that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The fear of the Lord prolongs days, but the years of the wicked will be shortened” (Proverbs 10:27)? The fear of the Lord prolongs days; that is a reference to the First Temple, which stood for four hundred and ten years and in which only eighteen High Priests served, as is written in the lists of the genealogy of the priests in the Bible.

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

ושנות רשעים תקצרנה זה מקדש שני שעמד ד' מאות ועשרים שנה ושמשו בו יותר משלש מאות כהנים צא מהם מ' שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק ושמונים ששמש יוחנן כהן גדול עשר ששמש ישמעאל בן פאבי ואמרי לה י"א ששמש ר' אלעזר בן חרסום מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב כל אחד ואחד לא הוציא שנתו

But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that is a reference to the Second Temple, which stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which over three hundred High Priests served. In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, deduct from the figure of four hundred and twenty years forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty years that Yoḥanan the High Priest served, ten years that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven years that Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years, go out and calculate from this point forward and conclude: Each and every one of the remaining High Priests did not complete his year in office, as the number of remaining High Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.

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"ר יוחנן בן תורתא מפני מה חרבה שילה מפני שהיו בה שני דברים גלוי עריות ובזיון קדשים גלוי עריות דכתיב (שמואל א ב, כב) ועלי זקן מאד ושמע את כל אשר יעשון בניו לכל ישראל ואת אשר ישכבון את הנשים הצובאות פתח אהל מועד ואע"ג דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן כל האומר בני עלי חטאו אינו אלא טועה מתוך

Apropos the sins of the High Priests in the Second Temple, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Torta said: Due to what reason was the Tabernacle in Shiloh destroyed in the time of the prophet Samuel? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were two matters that existed in the Tabernacle: Forbidden sexual relations and degradation of consecrated items. There were forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “Now Eli was very old and he heard what his sons were doing to all of Israel, how they lay with the women who did service at the opening of the Tent of Meeting” (I Samuel 2:22). And although Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned by engaging in forbidden sexual relations is nothing other than mistaken, even according to the alternative interpretation of the verse that it was due to the fact

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

ששהו את קיניהן מיהא מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו שכבום

that they deferred the sacrifice of their bird-offerings by women after childbirth; nevertheless, the verse ascribes to them as if they lay with them. These women came to the Tabernacle to sacrifice doves or pigeons as bird-offerings as part of their purification process, which would permit them to engage in sexual relations with their husbands. Eli’s sons delayed the sacrifice of these offerings and thereby delayed the return of these women to their husbands and their fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. Even though, according to this opinion, Eli’s sons did not actually engage in sexual relations with these women, the verse attributes that degree of severity to their conduct.

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

בזיון קדשים דכתיב (שמואל א ב, טו) גם בטרם יקטירון את החלב ובא נער הכהן ואמר לאיש הזובח תנה בשר לצלות לכהן ולא יקח ממך בשר מבושל כי אם חי ויאמר אליו האיש קטר יקטירון כיום החלב וקח לך כאשר תאוה נפשך ואמר לו כי עתה תתן ואם לא לקחתי בחזקה ותהי חטאת הנערים גדולה מאד את פני ה' כי נאצו האנשים את מנחת ה'

Eli’s sons also sinned in the degradation of consecrated items, as it is written: “Before the fat was made burned, the priest’s servant came and said to the man who sacrificed: Hand over some flesh to roast for the priest, for he will not take cooked flesh from you, but raw. And if the man said to him: Let the fat be burnt first and then take as much as you want, then he would say: No, hand it over right now, or I will take it by force. The sin of the young men against the Lord was very great, for the men treated the Lord’s offerings with contempt” (I Samuel 2:15–17).

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

מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב מפני ג' דברים שהיו בו ע"ז וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו כח, כ) כי קצר המצע מהשתרע

Why was the first Temple destroyed? Because of three things in it: Idolotry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed. Idolotry, as it is written: For the bed is too short for a man to stretch himself and the covering too narrow when he gathers himself up. (Isaiah 28:20).

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

מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב מפני ג' דברים שהיו בו ע"ז וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו כח, כ) כי קצר המצע מהשתרע

The Tosefta continues with a discussion of the sins of the Jewish people over the generations: Due to what reason was the First Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were three matters that existed in the First Temple: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Idol worship, as it is written: “The bed is too short for stretching [mehistare’a], and the cover is too narrow for gathering” (Isaiah 28:20).

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 קצר המצע מהשתרע א"ר יונתן קצר מצע זה מהשתרר עליו שני רעים כאחד

Rabbi Yochanan 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

מאי קצר המצע מהשתרע א"ר יונתן קצר מצע זה מהשתרר עליו שני רעים כאחד

What is the meaning of: “The bed is too short for stretching?” Rabbi Yonatan said: This bed is too short for two counterparts [re’im] to dominate [mehistarer]. Mehistare’a is a contraction of mehistarer re’im. It is inconceivable that there would be in one Temple both service of God and worship of the idol placed there by King Manasseh.

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

(ישעיהו כח, כ) והמסכה צרה כהתכנס א"ר שמואל בר נחמני כי מטי רבי יונתן להאי קרא בכי אמר מאן דכתיב ביה (תהלים לג, ז) כונס כנד מי הים נעשית לו מסכה צרה

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

(ישעיהו כח, כ) והמסכה צרה כהתכנס א"ר שמואל בר נחמני כי מטי רבי יונתן להאי קרא בכי אמר מאן דכתיב ביה (תהלים לג, ז) כונס כנד מי הים נעשית לו מסכה צרה

What is the meaning of: And the cover [vehamasseikha] is too narrow [tzara] for gathering [kehitkannes]? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that when Rabbi Yonatan reached this verse, he wept and said: For He about Whom it is written: “He gathers [kones] waters of the sea together as a heap” (Psalms 33:7), the idol [masseikha] became a rival [tzara]? In the homiletic interpretation, masseikha is interpreted as idol and tzara is interpreted as rival, as in the term used to describe the relationship between two women married to the same husband, isha tzara.

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

גלוי עריות דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, טז) ויאמר ה' יען כי גבהו בנות ציון ותלכנה נטויות גרון ומשקרות עינים הלוך וטפוף תלכנה וברגליהן תעכסנה יען כי גבהו בנות ציון שהיו מהלכות ארוכה בצד קצרה ותלכנה נטויות גרון שהיו מהלכות בקומה זקופה ומשקרות עינים דהוו מליין כוחלא עיניהן הלוך וטפוף תלכנה שהיו מהלכות עקב בצד גודל וברגליהן תעכסנה א"ר יצחק שהיו מביאות מור ואפרסמון ומניחות במנעליהן וכשמגיעות אצל בחורי ישראל בועטות ומתיזות עליהן ומכניסין בהן יצה"ר כארס בכעוס

But the Second Temple, they were occupying themselves with Torah, commandments, and kind deeds, why was it destroyed? Because there was in it baseless hatred (lit. free hatred) to teach you that baseless hatred is equal opposite three sins:

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

גלוי עריות דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, טז) ויאמר ה' יען כי גבהו בנות ציון ותלכנה נטויות גרון ומשקרות עינים הלוך וטפוף תלכנה וברגליהן תעכסנה יען כי גבהו בנות ציון שהיו מהלכות ארוכה בצד קצרה ותלכנה נטויות גרון שהיו מהלכות בקומה זקופה ומשקרות עינים דהוו מליין כוחלא עיניהן הלוך וטפוף תלכנה שהיו מהלכות עקב בצד גודל וברגליהן תעכסנה א"ר יצחק שהיו מביאות מור ואפרסמון ומניחות במנעליהן וכשמגיעות אצל בחורי ישראל בועטות ומתיזות עליהן ומכניסין בהן יצה"ר כארס בכעוס

With regard to forbidden sexual relations, it is written: “The Lord says because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet” (Isaiah 3:16). Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, indicates a tall woman walking alongside a short one so that the tall woman would stand out. And walk with outstretched necks, indicates that they would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an immodest way. And wanton eyes, indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue eye shadow in order to draw attention to their eyes. Walking and mincing as they go, indicates that they would walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them. Making a tinkling [te’akasna] with their feet, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This teaches that they would bring myrrh and balsam and place them in their shoes and would walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached a place where young Jewish men were congregated, they would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like venom of a viper [ke’eres bikhos].