(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yoma 12



(a) In the third answer, we establish the first Beraisa even according to the Chachamim, by a Shul in a village (even when there is no built-in residence for the Shamash), and the reason that it is subject to Nega'im - is because its owners are definable, whether those of a Shul in a large city, which is also frequented by people from other towns, are not. That is why it is Patur. (Note: Rashi differentiates between the Beis Hamikdash, which we learnt above, is Patur because it is *not* called a 'Bayis', and a Shul, which apparently, *is* - though the defference is unclear.)

(b) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa hold that the houses in Yerushalayim were not subject to Nega'im - because Yerushalayim was not distributed to the tribes (i.e. it belonged to all the tribes, and did not therefore, fall under the category of "be'Veis Eretz Achuzaschem").

(c) Rebbi Yehudah heard that it was only the *Beis Hamikdash* that was *not* subject to Tum'as Nega'im, implying that Shuls and Batei Medrash in Yerushalayim, *were*, a Kashya on what we said in a. that Shuls in big cities are *not* subject to Nega'im.

(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, the Har-Habayis and the Azaros (leading from the east) - were situated in Yehudah's portion. Binyamin's portion (which included the Ulam, the Heichal and the Kodesh Kodshim) - began from the beginning of the Mizbe'ach.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah "Chofef Alav Kol ha'Yom" - that Binyamin was eager to re-gain the small section of the Mizbe'ach that he had lost to Yehudah (like a person scratches himself in frustration, when he cannot obtain what he desperately wants).

(c) His reward was that the Shechinah rested in *his* portion alone, as the Torah continues "u'Vein Keseifav Shachen".

(a) The author of the above Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that Yerushalayim *was* distributed among the tribes.

(b) And the author of the Beraisa which forbids house-owners in Yerushalayim to take rent from their guests - is the Rabbanan, who say that it was *not*.

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, the house-owner was not even permitted to take rent for the bed on which his guests slept (because the ground on which the bed was lying did not belong to him; so, short of picking up the bed, there was no way that the guest could acquire the bed to give him the Din of a hirer - Minchas Bikurim.

(d) In lieu of their free sleeping accommodation, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok permits the host to take the skins of the guest's sacrifices (Kodshim Kalim) *by force*. The normal procedure was for the guest to offer the skins and the empty wine-jars to their hosts - *voluntarily*.

(a) The problem with regard to the deputy standing in for the Kohen Gadol if the latter became Tamei only *after* the Tamid shel Shachar - is that, seeing as he now had to serve with only the *four* garments of a Kohen Hedyot (for the Avodas Yom-Kipur), how was he initiated?

(b) There is no problem if he became Tamei *before* the Tamid shel Shachar - because then, he would have been initiated by wearing the eight garments when he brought the Tamid.

(c) The Gemara answers 'be'Avnet' - meaning that, even if he wore only the four garments of a Kohen Hedyot, it would still be noticeable that he was a Kohen Gadol (the criterion for being initiated) - because his belt contained Kil'ayim (whereas that of the Kohen Hedyot did not).

(d) The problem with this answer is that it will make no sense according to those who hold that the belt of the Kohen Hedyot was the same as that of the Kohen Gadol.

(a) Abaye explains that he wears the eight garments and stokes the ashes on the Ma'arachah. This is considered an Avodah - based on what Rav Huna said, that a Zar who stoked the ashes on the Ma'arachah is Chayav Misah.

(b) Rav Papa says 'Avodaso Mechanchaso', providing us with a third method of initiating a Kohen Gadol (in addition to being anointed with the anointing oil and wearing the eight garments). The performing of an Avodah (for which a Kohen Hedyot is not eligible) itself, initiates the Kohen Gadol. Rav Papa's source is the Beraisa which informs us that although the holy vessels that Moshe made were initiated through the anointing oil, from then on, new vessels that were subsequently made were initiated by being used for the Avodah (and if that is sufficient to initiate a vessel, why should it not also be sufficient to initiate a Kohen).




(a) There is no difference between the belt that the Kohen Hedyot's wore on Yom Kipur and the one that he wore during the rest of the year.

(b) We thought that the Beraisa ('Ein Bein Kohen Gadol le'Kohen Hedyot Ela Avnet', Divrei Rebbi. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon Omer, Af Lo Avnet') must be speaking about Yom Kipur - because, during the year, there is another distinction that the Tana ought to have listed: namely, that whereas a Kohen Gadol wears *eight* garments, a Kohen Hedyot wears only *four*. In that case, we have a proof that the Kohen Hedyot's belt throughout the year comprised Kil'ayim, just like the Kohen Gadol's (and it is on Yom Kipur, when the Kohen Gadol wore only white, that their belts differed); whereas according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, their belts were different on Yom Kipur, but the same during the rest of the year.

(c) We refute that suggestion, and establish the Beraisa during the rest of the year (in which case Rebbi will be the one who holds that their belts differed during the year, and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, that they were the same). As far as the basis of our original contention is concerned, the Beraisa is only concerned with pointing out the differences between those garments which all the Kohanim wore (but not, with the garments which only the Kohen Gadol wore).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the extra word "Yilbash" (in the Pasuk "ve'Lavash ha'Kohen Mido Vad, u'Michnesei Vad Yilbash al Besaro") - that the Kohen is Chayav to wear, not only the shirt and the trousers, (which the Torah specifically mentions) but also the hat and the belt.

(b) Rebbi Dosa derives from "Yilbash" that a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to wear the four garments worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur.

(c) Rebbi objects to Rebbi Dosa's Derashah on the grounds that the Kohen Gadol's (linen) belt on Yom Kipur was not the same as that of the Kohen Hedyot, which consisted of Kil'ayim - which is exactly what Ravin said.

(d) Rebbi's also objects on the grounds that it was not possible for those garments that were worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, and with which he served in the Kodesh Kodshim, to be used later by a Kohen Hedyot, for an Avodah which was less holy.

(a) Rebbi learns from "Yilbash" that although *torn* garments may *not* be worn for the Avodah, *worn-out* garments *may* (see Tosfos DH 'Yilbash').

(b) There is no reason why this concession should be confined to the Terumas ha'Deshen (comprising the daily removal of *one* shovelful of ashes from the Mizbe'ach), which is no different than any other Avodah. Nor can one compare it to the Din of wearing old clothes for the removal of the ashes from the Mizbe'ach, because, since that entailed carrying out *all* the ashes, it would make the Kohen and his clothes grimy, which is not the case here.

(a) the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from "ve'Hinicham Sham" - that the garments of the Kohen Gadol after the Avodah on Yom Kipur, required Genizah (hiding).

(b) Rebbi Dosa (who permits a Kohen Hedyot to wear the garments that the Kohen Gadol had worn) learns from there that these garments may not be worn again by the Kohen Gadol, on another Yom Kipur.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, the deputy retains the status of a Kohen Gadol even after the return of the original Kohen Gadol. Besides the fact that he shows none of the signs of mourning when his relations die - he is also forbidden to marry a widow and is obligated to wear the eight garments whenever he does the Avodah.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, the stand-in Kohen Gadol does not regain his previous status of Kohen Hedyot, nor does he retain his new status of Kohen Gadol?

(c) He does not regain his previous status of Kohen Hedyot - because of the principle 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh ve'Lo Moridin' (one can be *pro*moted in levels of Kedushah, but not *de*moted).

(d) Sure he ought to remain a Kohen Gadol, as Rebbi Meir indeed holds. Chazal however decreed, that he should *not*, in order to avoid the enmity of the Kohen Gadol.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, even Rebbi Yossi will agree that, should the deputy perform in the capacity of Kohen Gadol, the Avodah is Kasher.

(b) And when the Kohen Gadol dies, even Rebbi Yossi agrees that he automatically *succeeds* him. We might otherwise have thought that he would *not* - because, in that case, he will still arouse the enmity of the Kohen Gadol, who will feel during his life-time, that the deputy is waiting for him to die.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,