יומא דף יב

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.

ודכרכים אין מטמא בנגעים? והתניא: ״אחוזתכם״, אחוזתכם מטמאה בנגעים, ואין ירושלים מטמאה בנגעים. אמר רבי יהודה: אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש 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.

הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים, ואף על גב דכרכים נינהו! אימא: אמר רבי יהודה: אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד.

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.

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי. דתניא: מה היה בחלקו של יהודה — הר הבית, הלשכות והעזרות. ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין — אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים,

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.

ורצועה היתה יוצאה מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת לחלקו של בנימין, ובה היה מזבח בנוי, ובנימין הצדיק היה מצטער עליה לבלעה בכל יום,

שנאמר: ״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.

והאי תנא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים, דתניא: אין משכירין בתים בירושלים לפי שאינה שלהן. רבי אלעזר בר (צדוק) אומר: אף לא מטות. לפיכך,

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.

עורות קדשים — בעלי אושפיזכנין נוטלין אותן בזרוע. אמר אביי: שמע מינה, אורח ארעא למישבק איניש גולפא ומשכא לאושפיזיה.

ודכפרים מי מטמא בנגעים? והתניא: ״לאחוזה״, עד שיכבשו אותה. כבשו אותה ולא חלקוה לשבטים, חלקו לשבטים ולא חלקו לבית אבות,

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?

חלקו לבית אבות ואין כל אחד מכיר את שלו, מניין?

תלמוד לומר: ״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.

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,

§ 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?

במה מחנכין אותו?

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

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?

לא זהו אבנטו של כהן הדיוט, מאי איכא למימר?

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:

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.

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.

תסתיים דרבי הוא דאמר של כלאים. דתניא: אין בין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט אלא אבנט, דברי רבי. רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר: אף לא אבנט. אימת?

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.

אי נימא בשאר ימות השנה — טובא איכא: כהן גדול משמש בשמונה והדיוט בארבעה!

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.

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.

כי אתא רבין, אמר: אבנטו של כהן גדול ביום הכפורים — דברי הכל של בוץ. בשאר ימות השנה — דברי הכל של כלאים.

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.

לא נחלקו אלא באבנטו של כהן הדיוט בין בשאר ימות השנה, בין ביום הכפורים. שרבי אומר: של כלאים, ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר: של בוץ.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: אף אנן נמי תנינא: ״על בשרו״, מה תלמוד לומר ״ילבש״? להביא מצנפת ואבנט להרמת הדשן, דברי רבי 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.

רבי דוסא אומר: להביא בגדי כהן גדול ביום הכפורים, שהן כשרין לכהן הדיוט. רבי אומר: שתי תשובות בדבר. חדא: דאבנטו של כהן גדול ביום הכיפורים לא

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.

זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט.

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.

ואזדא רבי דוסא לטעמיה, דתניא: ״והניחם שם״, מלמד שטעונין גניזה. רבי דוסא אומר: שלא ישתמש בהן יום הכפורים 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.

תנו רבנן: אירע בו פסול ומינו אחר תחתיו, ראשון — חוזר לעבודתו, שני — כל מצות כהונה גדולה עליו, דברי רבי 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.

רבי יוסי אומר: ראשון — חוזר לעבודתו, שני — אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול, 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.

אמר רבי יוסי: מעשה ביוסף בן אלם בציפורי שאירע בו פסול בכהן גדול ומינוהו תחתיו, ואמרו חכמים: ראשון — חוזר לעבודתו, שני — אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול,

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.

ולא לכהן הדיוט. כהן גדול — משום איבה. כהן הדיוט, משום מעלין בקודש ולא מורידין.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: