Perek V Daf 56 Amud a

BACKGROUND ten log that I will later separate shall be the fi rst tithe;N and another ֲﬠ ָׂשָרה ַמ ֲﬠ ֵׂשר ִר ׁאשוֹן, ִּת ׁ ְש ָﬠה ַמ ֲﬠ ֵׂשר and tithes : ְּת ּרומוֹת ּו ַמ ַﬠ ְׂשרוֹת – tenth from the rest, which equals nine log of the remaining ninety, Terumot and tithes are separated in the following manner. For example, if one ׁ ֵש ִני, ּו ֵמ ֵיחל ְו ׁש ֶוֹתה ִמ ָיּד, ִ ּד ְבֵרי ַר ִּבי -shall be second tithe. And he redeems the second tithe with money has one hundred units of food or beverage, he first re ֵמ ִאיר. that he will later take to Jerusalem, and he may then immediately moves the teruma gedola, which is given to the priests. The N drink the wine. Aft er , when he removes portions from the average amount of this gift is one-fiftieth of the produce, mixture and places them in vessels, they are retroactively designated which in this example is two units. Next, the first tithe is as terumot and tithes.B Th is is the statement of Rabbi Meir. removed and given to a Levite. This gift is ten percent of the remaining produce, or slightly less than ten units in this case. In most years, another tenth is taken from the rest as second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and consumed there. Here the second tithe amounts to slightly more than nine units. In years three and six of the Sabbatical cycle, this tithe is given to the poor instead.

NOTES The meaning of the term meiĥeil here is the : ּו ֵמ ֵיחל ְו ׁש ֶוֹתה ִמ ָיּד Tosafot note : ֲﬠ ָׂשָרה ַמ ֲﬠ ֵׂשר ִר ׁאשוֹן – Ten shall be the first tithe that the calculation is inaccurate, as after separating the teruma subject of much debate. According to Rashi, he redeems the gedola there are no longer one hundred log in the wineskin second tithe of the wine with money has at home. Others claim but ninety-eight. Therefore, one need separate only nine and it means: He begins, i.e., he may start drinking right away without eight-tenths of a log. Nevertheless, the does not specify waiting (Rambam; Rabbeinu Tam; Me’iri). Rav Hai Gaon reads the precise amount, as the idea is clear enough. Furthermore, the word as mohel, which means he is permitted to dilute the perhaps he uses slightly small measurements, which balances wine in water and drink it, in accordance with the halakha that out the difference (Tosafot Yeshanim). diluted wine is considered part of a meal and may therefore not be served before terumot and tithes have been separated (see And he redeems [meiĥeil] and he may immediately drink – Tosafot Yeshanim). Tithes that would be removed from one hundred pieces of fruit

Perek V Daf 56 Amud b

NOTES -Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this prac ַר ִּבי ְי ּהו ָדה ְוַר ִּבי ֵיוֹסי ְוַר ִּבי ׁ ִש ְמעוֹן According : ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִי ָּב ַקע ַה ּנוֹד – The jug might split open tice. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there is no retroactive to this interpretation, the dispute does not concern the ְאוֹסִרין. ַא ְל ָמא: ֵאין ְּבֵר ָירה. clarifi cation. issue of retroactive designation at all. Instead, the tanna’im disagree as to whether one is permitted to place oneself in .Th e Gemara explains the diffi culty: From where do you reach this a situation of doubt when a biblical prohibition is involved ִמ ַּמאי? ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ׁ ָש ֵאני ָה ָתם ִּכְד ָק ָת ֵני ,conclusion? Perhaps it is diff erent there, as the reason is taught: The Rabbis are concerned about potential complications ַט ְﬠ ָמא; ָא ְמ ּרו לוֹ ְלַר ִּבי ֵמ ִאיר: ִאי Th e Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede that the jug whereas Rabbi Meir does not worry about problematic ַא ָּתה ֶמוֹדה ׁ ֶש ָּמא ִי ָּב ַקע ַה ּנוֹד ְו ִנ ְמ ָצא might split openN before he removes the portions of terumot and eventualities (see Tosafot). ׁש ֶוֹתה ְט ָב ִלים ְל ַמ ְפֵרﬠ? ְו ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם: tithes from the mixture, causing all the wine to spill out? And he will then be found drinking untithed wine retroactively. Th erefore, he HALAKHA ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשִיּ ָּב ַקע. An individual who : ְּת ַנאי ְּב ֵﬠ ּירו ִבין – cannot rely on separation that has not yet occurred. And he said to Stipulations of eiruvin them: Although there will be a problem if it splits open, there is no heard that a scholar will visit a nearby place on Shabbat but cause to be concerned for this contingency in advance. Since this does not know which side of the town will be his destina- tion may establish two eiruvin conditionally, one on either reasoning is based on the possibility that the jug might break, there side. Retroactive clarification is applicable in this situation, is no proof from here that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retro- which means that he may claim that the side on which active clarifi cation. the scholar arrives is that of the effective eiruv (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 413). Rather, the proof that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of ֶא ָּלא, ִמ ְ ּד ָת ֵני ַאיּוֹ. ְ ּד ָת ֵני ַאיּוֹ, ַר ִּבי retroactive clarifi cation is from a baraita the Sage Ayo taught. As Ayo ְי ּהו ָדה ֵאוֹמר: ֵאין ָא ָדם ַמ ְת ֶנה ַﬠל -taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person cannot stipulate condi ׁ ְש ֵני ְד ָבִרים ְּכ ֶא ָחד. tions about two matt ers at once, e. g., one cannot establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv] in each of two diff erent directions on Friday aft ernoon while making the following stipulation: If tomorrow, on Shabbat, two Sages arrive from two diff erent directions, I will decide then which of the two lecturers I prefer to hear at that point in time, which will determine which eiruv is in eff ect.H Perek V . 56a 271 . פרק ה׳ דף נו. NOTES Rather, he may say that if the Sage comes to the east, his eiruv is to ֶא ָּלא, ִאם ָּבא ָח ָכם ַל ִּמְזָרח – ֵﬠ ּירובוֹ the east, and if the Sage comes to the west, his eiruv is to the west.N ֵﬠ ּירוב ַל ִּמְזָרח – An eiruv to the east and to the west ַל ִּמְזָרח, ַל ַּמ ֲﬠָרב – ֵﬠ ּירובוֹ ַל ַּמ ֲﬠָרב. ֲא ָבל Citing verses in support of their ruling, the :ְו ַל ַּמ ֲﬠָרב However, he may not say that if one Sage comes from here, and ְל ָכאן ּו ְל ָכאן – לֹא. Sages decreed that it is prohibited to walk more than two thousand cubits beyond the city limits on another Sage comes from there, he will go wherever he wishes, in Shabbat. Nevertheless, in certain situations one is either direction. permitted to establish what the Sages termed a join- And we discussed this passage in the Gemara and asked: What is ְו ָהֵו ַינן ָּב ּה: ַמאי ׁ ְש ָנא ְל ָכאן ּו ְל ָכאן ְ ּדלֹא – ,ing of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv]: Before Shabbat diff erent about a case in which one stipulated that if Sages came from ְ ּד ֵאין ְּבֵר ָירה. the individual places food for a meal at a location distant from his home, but still within the Shabbat here and from there that he may go to whichever side he chooses, limits, and declares that this location will be his new such that his eiruv is not eff ective? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda main- residence for the day. This allows him to travel two tains that there is no retroactive clarifi cation, i.e., this person cannot thousand cubits from the place of the eiruv. This claim aft er the fact that the place where he walked is designated as the institution is universally accepted, but the Sages de- bate the circumstances in which a conditional eiruv place that he initially intended for his eiruv. However, according to this principle, when an individual establishes ְל ִמְזָרח ּו ַמ ֲﬠָרב ַנ ִמי – ֵאין ְּבֵר ָירה! may be employed. The Gemara presents one such situation, in which a Sage might visit a neighboring an eiruv to the east and to the west for the anticipated arrival of a town. The question arises with regard to the validity of the eiruv of an individual who wishes to travel to single Sage, one should also invoke the principle that there is no hear him speak. retroactive clarifi cation. Why does Rabbi Yehuda agree that if one anticipates the arrival of a single Sage and stipulates that if he comes ַה ּהוא – A certain person descended before Rava ?This anecdote shows that as early to the east his eiruv will be to the east, the eiruv is valid :ְ ּד ָנ ֵחית ַק ֵּמ ּיה ְ ּדָר ָבא -And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Th is is not a true case of retroactive clari ְו ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן: ְּכ ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר ָּבא ָח ָכם. as the amoraic period, the order of the Temple service was recited during the prayers of that day. It is unlikely that these early prayers included fi cation, as the Sage had already come by twilight, but the one who a fixed formulation of the service, and to this day established the eiruv did not yet know at which side of the town the different poetic presentations of the High Priest’s Sage had arrived. Th erefore, at the time the eiruv establishes his Shab- service are included in Festival prayer books. Poets bat residence, it is clear which eiruv he wants, although he himself will such as Yosei ben Yosei composed alphabetical de- become aware of that only later. In this case, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that scriptions of the service, which tend to vary from the eiruv is valid, but he nonetheless maintains in general that there one another in certain details, including differences is no retroactive clarifi cation. Th is accounts for Rabbi Yehuda’s opin- in halakha. ion that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-off erings and burnt-off erings, as he maintains that there is no solution for the possible mixture of the diff erent coins. -Th e Gemara asks: And now that we have said and proven that ac ְו ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ְ ּד ָא ְמִר ַינן ְלַר ִּבי ְי ּהוָדה ֵאין ְּבֵר ָירה, -cording to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarifi cation, nev ָהא ְּכ ִת ָיבה ִאית ֵל ּיה. יוֹם ַה ִּכ ּפ ּוִרים ַנ ִמי, ertheless he is of the opinion that one may rely on writing, as proven ַנ ֲﬠ ֵביד ְּתֵרי, ְו ִנ ְכ ּתוֹב ֲﬠ ַל ְי ּיהו! from the halakha of the collection horns. If so, on Yom Kippur as well, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the blood of the bull and which is for the blood of the goat. Th e Gemara answers: Th e reason they did not place two pedestals ִמ ּׁש ּום ּחו ְל ׁ ָשא ְ ּדכֹ ֵהן ָּגדוֹל ָלאו ַאַ ּד ֲﬠ ֵת ּיה. with writing on them is due to the High Priest’s weakness. Since he ְ ּד ִאי ָלא ֵּת ָימא ָה ִכי, ְּבלֹא ְּכ ִת ָיבה ַנ ִמי; is fasting during the entire day’s service, the writing will not be on ַהאי – ָנ ֵפ ׁיש, ְו ַהאי – ּזו ָטר. his mind; he will pay no att ention to it and might become confused. As, if you do not say so, that there is concern for the High Priest’s weakness, even without writing he should also not err, as this bowl in which he collects the bull’s blood is relatively large and this one for the goat’s blood is small. And if you say that he does not collect all the bull’s blood but only ְו ִכי ֵּת ָימא ָלא ְמ ַק ֵּביל ֵל ּיה ּכ ּו ֵּל ּיה – ְו ָה ָא ַמר :some of it, so that the bowls are of equal size, didn’t Rav Yehuda say ַרב ְי ּהוָדה: ַה ּׁש ֵוֹחט ָצִר ְיך ׁ ֶשְיּ ַק ֵּבל ֶאת ָּכל One who slaughters the bull must receive all of the blood of the ָ ּדמוֹ ׁ ֶשל ַּפר, ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר: ְ״ו ֶאת ָּכל ַ ּדם ַה ָּפר bull, as it is stated: “And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out ִי ׁ ְש ּפ ְוֹך ֶאל ְיסוֹד ַה ִּמְז ֵּבח״. on the base of the altar” (Leviticus :). ,And if you say that perhaps some of the bull’s blood might spill ְו ִכי ֵּת ָימא: ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּפ ְיך ִמ ֵּינ ּיה – ַהאי yielding equal amounts of blood, there should still be no mistake, as ִח ֵּיור ְו ַהאי ּסו ָּמק. ֶא ָּלא, ִמ ּׁש ּום ּחו ְל ׁ ָשא this blood, that of the goat, is white and bright compared to the blood ְ ּדכֹ ֵהן ָּגדוֹל ָלאו ַאַ ּד ֲﬠ ֵת ּיה. ָה ָכא ַנ ִמי: ִמ ּׁש ּום of the bull, and this blood of the bull is red and darker than the ּחו ְל ׁ ָשא ְ ּדכֹ ֵהן ָּגדוֹל ָלאו ַאַ ּד ֲﬠ ֵת ּיה. other. Rather, the reason must be that due to the High Priest’s weak- ness, these diff erences will not be on his mind. Here, too, the writing will not help, as due to the High Priest’s weakness the inscriptions will not be on his mind. Th e Gemara relates: A certain person descended to lead the prayer § ַה ּהוא ְ ּד ָנ ֵחית ַק ֵּמ ּיה ְ ּדָר ָבא, ֲא ַמר: ָי ָצא N service on Yom Kippur before Rava on Yom Kippur. He included ְו ִה ִּניחוֹ ַﬠל ַּכן ׁ ֵש ִני ׁ ֶש ַּב ֵה ָיכל, ָנ ַטל ַ ּדם ַה ָּפר the order of the High Priest’s Yom Kippur service in his prayer, and ְו ִה ִּנ יח ַ ּדם ַה ָּׂש ִﬠיר. he recited: Th e High Priest then emerged from the and placed the bowl on the second golden pedestal in the Sanctu- ary; he took the blood of the bull from the pedestal and placed the blood of the goat in its place. פרק ה׳ דף נו: . Perek V . 56b 272 HALAKHA Rava said to him: Th is is problematic, as one statement is in accordance ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה: ֲח ָדא ְּכַר ָּב ַנן ַו ֲח ָדא ְּכַר ִּבי with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the other one is in accordance with He placed the blood of the goat and took the : ִה ִּנ יח ַ ּדם ַה ָּׂש ִﬠיר ְו ָנ ַטל ַ ּדם ַה ָּפר – blood of the bull ְי ּהוָדה?! ֵא ָימא: ִה ִּנ יח ַ ּדם ַה ָּׂש ִﬠיר ְו ָנ ַטל the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Rabbis, each of these When the High Priest switches the bowl of the bull’s ַ ּדם ַה ָּפר. bowls sat on its own pedestal in the Sanctuary, whereas Rabbi Yehuda blood with the one containing the blood of the maintains that the High Priest must fi rst lift up the container with the goat and vice versa, he first places the bowl in his blood of the bull and then put down that of the goat. Rather, you should hand on the pedestal and then picks up the other recite the entire order of the service entirely in accordance with the bowl (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Avodat Yom opinion of the Rabbis: He placed the blood of the goat on its desig- HaKippurim 4:2). H nated pedestal and took the blood of the bull from the second stand. The presentations of blood in the Sanctuary – The High Priest sprinkles the blood : ַמ ָּתנוֹת ַּב ֵה ָיכל Th e mishna taught: And the High Priest sprinkled from the blood of toward the curtain in the same manner he sprinkles § ְ״ו ִהָזּה ִמ ֶּמ ּנ ּו ַﬠל ַה ָּפ ֶרוֹכת ְּכ ֶנ ֶגד ָארוֹן the bull on the curtain opposite the Ark from outside the Holy of it in the Holy of Holies: One sprinkling upward and ִמ ַּב ּחוץ״. ָּת ּנו ַר ָּב ַנן: ְ״ו ֵכן ַי ֲﬠ ֶׂשה ְלאֹ ֶהל Holies. Th e Sages taught: “And he shall make atonement for the sacred seven sprinklings downward for both the blood of ֵמוֹﬠד״ ַמה ַּת ְל ּמוד ַלוֹמר? ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ַּמֶזּה place because of the impurities of the children of Israel, and because of the bull and that of the goat (Rambam Sefer Avoda, ִל ְפ ַני ִל ְפ ִנים – ָּכ ְך ַמֶזּה ַּב ֵה ָיכל. their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tent Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 3:5). of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Le- viticus :). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Just as he sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting, toward the curtain. -Furthermore: Just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once up ַמה ִּל ְפ ַני ִל ְפ ִנים – ַא ַחת ְל ַמ ְﬠ ָלה ְו ׁ ֶש ַבע ward and seven times downward from the blood of the bull, so he ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמַ ּדם ַה ָּפר, ָּכ ְך ַמֶזּה ַּב ֵה ָיכל. ּו ְכ ׁ ֵשם sprinkles in the Sanctuary. And just as in the innermost sanctum he ׁ ֶש ִּל ְפ ַני ִל ְפ ִנים ַא ַחת ְל ַמ ְﬠ ָלה ְו ׁ ֶש ַבע sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of H ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמַ ּדם ַה ָּׂש ִﬠיר – ָּכ ְך ַמֶזּה ַּב ֵה ָיכל. the goat, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. Th e last part of the verse: Th at dwells with them in the midst of their impurity,” teaches that“ ַ״ה ּׁש ֵוֹכן ִא ָּתם ְּב ְתוֹך ּטו ְמאֹ ָתם״ – ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו even when the Jewish people are impure, the Divine Presence is with ִּב ׁ ְש ַﬠת ׁ ֶש ֵהן ְט ֵמ ִאים ׁ ְש ִכ ָינה ִﬠ ָּמ ֶהם. them. With regard to this verse, the Gemara relates: A certain Sadducee said ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַה ּהוא ְצ ִדוֹקי ְלַר ִּבי ֲח ִנ ָינא: to Rabbi Ĥanina:

Perek V Daf 57 Amud a

NOTES :Now you are certainly impure,N as it is writt en about the Jewish people ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָּבִרי ְט ֵמ ִאים ַא ּת ּון, ִ ּד ְכ ִתיב: ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָּבִרי ְט ֵמ ִאים – Her impurity was in her skirts” (Lamentations :), and the Divine Now you are certainly impure“ The Sadducee was referring to the period after : ַא ּת ּון ּ״טו ְמ ָא ָת ּה ְּב ׁש ּו ֶל ָיה״. ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה: ָּתא Presence does not dwell upon the when they are impure. Rabbi the destruction of the Temple. His proof is from the ֲחֵזי ַמה ְּכ ִתיב ְּב ּהו ַ״ה ּׁש ֵוֹכן ִא ָּתם ְּב ְתוֹך Ĥanina said to him: Come and see what is writt en about the Jewish verse: “Her impurity was in her skirts” (Lamentations ּטו ְמאֹ ָתם״, ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ִּבְז ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵהן ְט ֵמ ִאין – people: “Th at dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” 1:9), which alludes to the end of the Temple, i.e., in .(Leviticus :). Th is indicates that even when they are impure, the these final days (Rabbeinu Elyakim) ׁ ְש ִכ ָינה ׁ ְש ּרו ָיה ֵּב ֵינ ֶיהן. Divine Presence dwells among them. A derivation from what has already been derived : ָל ֵמד ּו ְמ ַל ֵּמד ַּב ָּקָד ׁ ִשים – Th e Gemara raises a diffi culty with regard to the aforementioned halakha. in the halakhot of offerings ְו ִכי ָ ּד ָבר ַה ָּל ֵמד ְּב ֶה ֵיק ׁש ֵחוֹזר ּו ְמ ַל ֵּמד With regard to all issues related to Torah law, when It was stated above that the comparison to the goat teaches that the High a halakha has been derived by means one of the ְּב ֶה ֵיק ׁש? Priest sprinkles the bull’s blood once upward; and the seven downward exegetical principles, the resulting idea is treated sprinklings of the goat’s blood are derived from the rite of the blood of as though it were written explicitly in the text. That the bull. Subsequently, the order of sprinkling toward the curtain in the halakha can subsequently serve as a source for Sanctuary is again derived by means of a similar comparison. Th e Ge- other derivations. However, in the case of sacri- mara asks: And does a matt er derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha ficial matters, it is stated in tractate Zevaĥim that not writt en explicitly in the Torah but learned by means of a comparison, halakhot that have been derived by an exegetical principle cannot themselves serve as the source again teach by juxtaposition? Th ere is a general principle that a halakha for other halakhot. Instead, each halakha requires derived by juxtaposition with regard to off erings cannot subsequently a separate derivation. This principle is apparently N teach another halakha by juxtaposition. based on the fact that the halakhot of offerings are not governed by logic but are divine decrees, Th e Gemara answers that the fi rst juxtaposition was not a proper infer- and therefore there is a limit to the extent to which ַהאי ֵה ֶימנוֹ ְו ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר ּהוא, ְו ָלא ence by verbal analogy, as this halakha that the High Priest must sprinkle one can derive novel halakhot that are not stated ָהֵוי ֶה ֵּיק ׁש. once upward and seven times downward is derived both from that explicitly in the text. The Gemara in Zevaĥim does juxtaposition and something else as well. Since the basic requirement concede that certain exegetical principles do yield that he must sprinkle upward and downward for the bull and the goat conclusions from which one may derive new is stated explicitly in both cases, and the comparison was necessary halakhot. The Sages debate which of the principles operate in this manner. only to teach the precise number of sprinklings, this inference is not considered a juxtaposition to the extent that one cannot derive further comparisons from it. Perek V . 57a 273 . פרק ה׳ דף נז.