The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/p>\n
This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/p>\n
This month’s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. David Katzin In memory of Jack and Eva Katzin, z\u201dl<\/em><\/p>\n To dedicate future editions of Steinsaltz Daf Yomi, perhaps in honor of a special occasion or in memory of a loved one, click here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n NEW!<\/strong> Yoma 16a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Much of this daf<\/em> (=page) is devoted to a description of the plan of the Temple Mount<\/a> itself, with detailed descriptions of the area from the ezrat yisrael<\/em> (=Court of the Israelites) and south of it. The furthest north that a Jewish person who was not a kohen<\/a><\/em> could enter was the ezrat yisrael<\/em>. Kohanim<\/em> were allowed in the ezrat kohanim <\/em>(=the Priests\u2019 Courtyard), as well. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov<\/a> reported on the set-up of the Temple<\/a>:<\/p>\n The ezrat nashim<\/a><\/em> was an open square of 135 cubits<\/a> by 135 cubits. In each corner of the square were small, open courtyards, each of which was 40 square cubits. Each of these courtyards served a specific purpose:<\/p>\n With all the detail that appears in the Gemara<\/a>, there are still a number of things that are left unexplained. For example, the azara<\/em> – an area that included not only the altar, but the area of the slaughterhouse<\/a>, as well – is not clearly detailed. \u00a0The Gemara teaches that the altar was in the middle of the azara<\/em>, opposite the entrance to the Holy and the Holy of Holies<\/a> (see diagram<\/a>). \u00a0Since there had to be room for the apparatus of the slaughterhouse, including taba’ot<\/em> (=rings to hold the animals), shulhanot<\/em> (=tables on which the animals were butchered), and nanasim <\/em>(=hooks on which the animals were hung), the Rambam<\/a> explains that only part of the altar was opposite the entrance to the ulam<\/a><\/em> and the heichal<\/a><\/em>. The kevesh<\/a><\/em> (=ramp) leading to the mizbe’ah<\/em> was to the south, leaving room on the northern side for the tables, rings and hooks.<\/p>\n Yoma 17a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n In the second perek<\/em> (=chapter) of Masechet<\/a> Yoma<\/a><\/em> we will learn how the different jobs in the Temple were divided up among the kohanim<\/a><\/em> who were working in the Mikdash<\/a><\/em> at a given time. As we learned earlier (14a<\/a>), the Mishnah<\/a> in our perek<\/em> teaches that during the week before Yom Kippur<\/a><\/em> it is the kohen gadol<\/a><\/em> who burns the ketoret<\/a><\/em>, arranges the menorah<\/a>, and sacrifices the korban tamid<\/em> (=\u201cperpetual\u201d daily offering) on the altar<\/a>. The Mishnah adds that throughout the year it is the prerogative of the kohen gadol<\/em> to choose which korbanot<\/a><\/em> he wants to sacrifice and be the first to choose his portion from the korbanot<\/em>.<\/p>\n The Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) quotes a baraita<\/a><\/em> that describes how the kohen gadol<\/em> would walk through the Temple and claim the right to sacrifice a given korban<\/em> by saying, “I will sacrifice that Olah<\/a><\/em>” or “I will sacrifice that Mincha<\/a><\/em>.” He chooses what portion he will receive by saying, “I will eat that Chatat<\/a><\/em>” or “I will eat that Asham<\/a><\/em>.” Similarly, he receives one of the two loaves<\/a> that are brought on Shavuot<\/a><\/em> and four or five of the loaves of showbread that is distributed weekly from the shulchan<\/a><\/em>. Rebbi<\/a>‘s position is that he always gets five, since he deserves half of the ten loaves that are distributed, based on the passage in Vayikra<\/a> 24:9<\/a> “And it shall be for Aharon<\/a> and his sons,” which he understands to mean that Aharon (the High Priest) shares equally with his sons (the other kohanim<\/em>).<\/p>\n The Rashash<\/a> points out that there is support for the idea that the kohen gadol<\/em> received five loaves of the lehem ha-panim<\/a><\/em> from the story related in Sefer<\/a> Shmuel<\/a><\/em> (21:4<\/a>) when David<\/a> is running away from King Shaul<\/a>, and arrives in Nov<\/a>, the city of kohanim<\/em>. Upon asking for food, Achimelech<\/a>, who was apparently the kohen gadol<\/em> at the time, tells David that he only has “holy bread.” David agrees to take the lehem ha-panim <\/em>(after assuring Achimelech that his men are in a state of ritual purity), and he receives the five loaves that he requested.<\/p>\n Yoma 18a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) teaches about the kohen gadol<\/a>‘s<\/em> final preparations before the Yom Kippur<\/a><\/em> service. Aside from reviewing the text of the commandments as described in the Torah<\/a> (Vayikra<\/a> 16<\/a>), the sages would also bring him the various types of animals that were going to be sacrificed so that he would be able to practice. They also monitored his diet on erev<\/a> Yom Kippur<\/em>, limiting the amount of food that he ate so that he would not become tired.<\/p>\n The Gemara<\/a> quotes a series of baraitot<\/a><\/em> that describe other limitations that were placed on his diet. Among the items that are mentioned – milk products, eggs, and wine – are things that the sages feared might bring about a seminal emission, which would make him tamei<\/em> (=ritually defiled) and unable to perform the avodah<\/em> \u2013 the Temple<\/a> service.<\/p>\n The Jerusalem Talmud<\/a> asks why this is a concern, since the Talmud<\/a> lists ten miracles that took place in the Temple during its years of operation (see Yoma 21a<\/a>), and one of them was that the High Priest never became a ba’al keri<\/em> (someone who experiences a seminal emission). The first answer given simply explains that, in general, we cannot rely on miracles and need to do our utmost to avoid potentially dangerous situations. The second answer given distinguishes between the first Temple<\/a>, when the priests were on a high level, and the second Temple<\/a>, when they were not deserving of such miracles.<\/p>\n Another food that was restricted was the gargir<\/em>. Eruca sativa<\/a>, popularly known as “rocket salad<\/a>,” is an annual grass that grows to a height of 10-60 centimeters. During the second Temple period the seeds of this plant were used in place of mustard. It grew both as a domesticated plant and in the wild throughout Israel. In several places in the Talmud it is mentioned as being a particularly good Yoma 19a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Today\u2019s Daf Yomi is dedicated in honor of the yahrzeit<\/em> of Herman Greenberg (30 Sivan)<\/p>\n According to the Mishnah<\/a> (18b<\/a>), when the preparations of the kohen gadol<\/a> <\/em>were done, he was transferred by the sages to the priestly elders who had him take an oath that his performance of the service would be done according to the teachings of the Sages. The Mishnah concludes that following the oath, both the kohen gadol<\/em> and the elders who executed it turned away and cried.<\/p>\n The Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) explains why each of them cried.<\/p>\n The kohen gadol<\/em> cried because he was suspected of belonging to a sectarian group, the Tzedukim<\/a><\/em>. The Tzedukim<\/em> were one of a number of sects that lived during second Temple<\/a> times, who had different interpretations of the passages that described the avodat Yom ha-Kippurim<\/a> <\/em>(=Day of Atonement service), and they wanted to ensure that he would carry out the service properly. It was a particular concern because some of the essential parts of the service took place in the Holy of Holies where no one could see what was being done aside from the High Priest himself.<\/p>\n According to our Gemara, the elders cried because they were forced into a situation where they had to actively suspect someone of bad intentions, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi<\/a> taught that someone who suspects another without cause will suffer for having done so. According to the Jerusalem Talmud<\/a> the elders cried because of the deterioration of the second Temple period, when even the High Priest could not be trusted to carry out the Temple service properly.<\/p>\n The main argument between the sages and the Tzedukim<\/em> revolved around the definition of the passage (Vayikra<\/a> 16:2<\/a>) “for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.” The Tzedukim<\/em> interpreted this to mean that the incense cloud of the ketoret<\/a><\/em> had to be lit by the kohen<\/a><\/em> before entering the Holy of Holies (the Sages understood that the ketoret<\/em> was lit only after the kohen gadol<\/em> was inside). According to the Me’iri<\/a>, lighting the ketoret<\/em> outside appears to be a form of avodah zara<\/a><\/em>, as it looks like the kohen<\/em> is lighting the incense to honor a power outside the kodesh kodashim<\/a><\/em> as well as the One inside the Holy of Holies.<\/p>\n Yoma 20a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n On Yom Kippur<\/a><\/em>, as on every day, the very first activity in the Temple<\/a> was terumat ha-deshen<\/em> – removing ash from the altar. The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) teaches that on an ordinary day, the terumat ha-deshen<\/em> took place around the time of keriyat ha-gever<\/em>, but on Yom Kippur<\/em> it was done earlier, at about midnight.<\/p>\n The Gemara<\/a> asks a simple question of definition. What is keriyat ha-gever<\/em>?<\/p>\n Two answers are offered by the Gemara:<\/p>\n Some of the commentaries understand that this is a question of semantics, and that the time of the terumat ha-deshen<\/em> would be the same, no matter how the term keriyat ha-gever<\/em> is defined. The Me’iri<\/a>, however, argues that the crowing of the rooster begins well before the official time, and that there is a practical difference between the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Sheila. Our Gemara does not reach a conclusion about this argument. In the Jerusalem Talmud<\/a> a proof is brought to support Rav. It appears that the name of the individual whose job it was to announce the time for the terumat ha-deshen<\/em> was “ben gever,” which could not possibly mean that he was the son of a rooster. Others point out that the halakhah<\/a><\/em> at the time the Temple was standing forbade raising chickens in Jerusalem<\/a>, making it more likely that the term keriat ha-gever<\/em> refers to the man’s announcement.<\/p>\n Following this argument, the Gemara recounts an incident where Rav was visiting Rabbi Sheila’s community, and there was no amora<\/a><\/em> there at the time to present Rav Sheila’s lecture, so Rav stepped in to do so. When Rabbi Sheila taught our Mishnah, which says that the terumat ha-deshen<\/em> takes place at the time of keri’at ha-gever<\/em>, Rav translated it according to his own opinion – that it referred to the person who announced the time. This led Rabbi Sheila to enter into a discussion with him, until he realized that Rav had taken the position of amora<\/em> on his behalf.<\/p>\n It was common practice in the time of the Mishnah and the Gemara that the head of the academy would lecture while sitting, usually in Hebrew. It was the task of the amora<\/em>, or meturgeman<\/a><\/em>, to translate the lecture into Aramaic<\/a> and repeat it in a loud voice to the listeners. The sages of the Gemara called themselves amora’im<\/em> because they saw their job as merely clarifying and translating the teachings of the true masters – the tanna’im<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n Yoma 21a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Rav Yehudah<\/a> taught in the name of Rav<\/a> that when the Jewish people came to Jerusalem<\/a> to fulfill the commandment of aliya la-regel<\/em> on the holidays of Pesach<\/a>, Shavu’ot<\/a><\/em> and Sukkot<\/a><\/em>, there was always enough space for everyone to bow at the appropriate time, even though there was little room on the Temple grounds and people needed to stand close together. This was one of the ten miracles that are These miracles include:<\/p>\n Although these are all described as miracles, in his commentary on Aggadah<\/a><\/em>, Shem-Tov ibn Shaprut<\/a> argues that they can all be explained rationally. \u00a0In his opinion, these “miracles” were not unnatural events, but rather it was the care and concern engendered by the holiness of the Mikdash<\/a><\/em> that kept these things from taking place. For example, the kohanim<\/a><\/em> were so careful and committed to their work that they made sure that the sacrifices were brought in a timely fashion to prevent the meat from spoiling or attracting flies, the communal sacrifices were never found to have problems, and the
\n<\/strong>Join our Daf Live<\/a> discussion forum at www.Steinsaltz.org<\/a> to share your thoughts and questions on Rabbi Steinsaltz\u2019s essays or your study of Daf Yomi!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\nor bugs. The Me’iri<\/a> explains that this was necessary either because nothing non-Kosher<\/a> could be brought on the altar, or because disgusting things would be
\ninappropriate to be brought on the mizbe\u2019ach<\/a><\/em><\/li>\n
\nmedicine for the eyes.<\/p>\n\n
\nrecorded by the Mishnah<\/a> in Masechet<\/a> Avot<\/a><\/em> (see Chapter 5<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n
![Eruca sativa<\/a>, popularly known as “](\"http:\/\/www.nature-diary.co.uk\/mallorca\/images\/eruca-sativa-3.jpg\"){kind=link}