Yoma 66: איש עתי, a “Man for the Hour”

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The High Priest would then go to the goat sent to Azazel, lean on it with both his hands, and say another confession, similar to the one above "Please, God, forgive your nation.

He handed the Azazel goat to the person appointed to lead it to the cliff. Anyone could lead it, but the custom was that only a Kohen did it. They have built a ramp that led from the Temple Courtyard to outside the city of Jerusalem, for leading the goat. It was constructed because of the Babylonians who would pull his hair and say to him, "Take our sins and go!"

Yoma 65: Fallen Angels

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf looks at the rabbis' considerations around this circumstance with particular attention given to the pair of goats consecrated on Yom Kippur - one to Azazel and the other as sacrifice. How might one of those goats become lost? Should one goat or both goats be replaced? Should there be a new lottery for this new pair of goats? When should that lottery happen? What if one of the first pair of goats has already been sent off to Azazel when the other is lost?

Rashi states that according to both of them, the sending of the goat does not withhold the atonement. The Gachalei Aish is bewildered as to how this can be. Klal Yisroel's atonement seems to be dependent on the sending of the goat off the cliff?

This leads us to an exploration of fallen angels such as Aza’el and Aza (also known as Shemhazai) who saw the terrible sins of the people in the pre-Flood generation and scoffed at the pathetic humans. God told them that if they had been on Earth and given free will, they would succumb to their evil inclination far worse than people do. The angels wanted to prove God wrong, and asked Him to send them down to Earth into a physical body. God complied, and just as He had said, the angels quickly fell into all forms of evil.

We then examine the work of Andre Orlov as he follows these myths into intertestamental literature.

Yoma 64: Atonement, Then and Now

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah ruled that when the goat for Azazel dies another pair of goats is brought and a second lottery is cast. The Mishnah, however, was unclear which of the two “Hashem goats” will be offered and which will be sent to graze until it develops a blemish.

Rav maintains that the one from the first pair is offered and the one from the second pair is sent to graze, whereas R’ Yochanan holds that a goat from the first pair is sent to graze and a goat from the second pair is offered as the korban.

We examine chap 16 of Lev. and its textual reworking by Dr David Frankel followed by Rav Moshe Lichtenstein's analysis of the spiritual implication of the two goats and the goral, for our inner lives.

Yoma 63: Azazel

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Once the se’ir ha-mishtale’ach – the scapegoat – is chosen by means of the lottery, its status as a sacrifice is unclear.

On the one hand, it is still an integral part of the Yom Kippur Temple service.

On the other hand, it is not a korban la-Shem – a sacrifice to God – as it is to be sent to Azazel.

Do the regular rules and regulations that apply to other korbanot apply here, or not?

The Gemara on our daf examines pesukim and comes to conclusions that seem to distinguish between different laws.

We examine the history and etymology of the term Azazel with Dr Ayali-Darshan's near eastern parallels

and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' (OBM) eloquent exposition of of the ritual of the Sai'ir as atonement and purification.

Yoma 62: A Tale of Two Goats

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Yoma 61: No Room for Error

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf allows us to watch the rabbis deal with the real possibility of error. When the High Priest offers/sprinkles/pours the blood of the bull and the goat, he is actively atoning for the sins of the Jewish people. This is not a metaphor. Atonement only happens when these rituals are completed properly. Thus errors are considered to be potentially fatal for huge numbers of people. From a more modern perspective, errors without the subsequent wrath of G-d might cause the community to question the efficacy of these rituals.

The rabbis re able to create contingency plans for a host of potential errors. They look to related protocols (ex. when lepers are returned to the community) and they create new rules to manage errors. Most of the discussions revolve round whether or not rites should be/can be repeated following an error. Some rabbis believe that in different cases, it is inappropriate to repeat a ritual and thus sacrifice twice, for example, when we are told specifically to sacrifice once. Others argue that since the first ritual was improper, it was not in fact the required ritual act at all.

This leads us to explore how the sa’ir atones and Reb Yoel Bin Nun’s insightful analysis.

Yoma 60: Tzorech Penim Ki-Penim Dami

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mishna in Yoma (60a) demands that the proper sequence of ceremonies be maintained during the avodat Yom Ha-kippurim (Yom Kippur service in the Temple). The subsequent gemara records a dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda surrounding the scope of this requirement. Was it stated regarding the unique Yom Kippur ceremonies performed with the bigdei lavan (special linen clothing worn on Yom Kippur in place of the standard gold clothing), or does it apply only to those unique avodot (services) performed in the kodesh ha-kodashim (holy of holies)? For example, would the sequence requirement apply to the lottery process, viduy (confession) recitation, or blood-sprinkling on the parokhet (curtain) - ceremonies performed outside the kodesh ha-kodashim but with linen clothing?

The gemara applies the sequence requirement to collecting ketoret (incense) and sacrificing the par (the bull brouht as the kohen gadol’s sin-offering), even though these ceremonies were performed outside the kodesh ha-kodashim, since they serve as preludes to avodot performed inside(“tzorech penim ki-penim dami”).

Yoma 59: Fingers וְהִזּהָ בְאֶצְבּעָוֹ and Other BodyParts

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah on the previous daf taught that the remnants of the blood from the sacrifices were poured down a drain on the altar, from where they emptied into the Kidron and were sold as fertilizer. Our daf quotes a baraita that teaches a difference of opinion between the sages with regard to the status of this blood – specifically, whether the rules of me’ilah would apply to it. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon believe that me’ilah applies, while the Chachamim argue that it does not.

We explore the notion of the fingers וְהִזָּה בְאֶצְבָּעוֹ as described by the gemorro and Philo, (including other body parts such as ear and toe) and how the changes that took place in the observance of Yom Kippur during the Second Temple period were significant.

Philo describes the day as one in which it was customary to spend the entire time, from morning to evening, in prayer. Regarding the ritual of the Temple itself, the descriptions that we have in the Mishnah and Tosefta were not edited in their present form until a century or more after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

There is little doubt, however, that these texts reflect an authentic tradition dedicated to preserving the Avodah of the Temple in the hope that they would one day be restored.

Yoma 58: The Role of Collective Memory

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf describes how the kohen gadol, having completed the zerikat ha-dam - the sprinkling of the blood - on the parokhet of the Holy of Holies, now turns his attention to the zerikat ha-dam that he is obligated to do on the golden altar in the heikhal (see Vayikra 16:18).

As the Torah commands, the kohen gadol takes the blood of the par (bull) and of the se'ir (goat), mixes them together, and places blood from the mixture on each of the four karnot ha-mizbe'ah ("horns" of the altar). According to the Tanna Kamma, the kohen gadol walks around the altar, sprinkling blood on each corner.

Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, arguing that the kohen gadol stood in one spot and simply reached over the altar, sprinkling blood as necessary. To understand Rabbi Eliezer's position, it is important to remember that the mizbe'ah ha-zahav - the golden altar - was only two cubits tall and one cubit in length and width, which allowed him to easily reach over it.

This leads us to Naftali Cohn's thesis regarding the THE RITUAL NARRATIVE GENRE IN THE MISHNAH: THE INVENTION OF THE RABBINIC PAST IN THE REPRESENTATION OF TEMPLE RITUAL and his exhaustive bibliography of recent scholarship on Mishnah.

Yoma 57: Ben Temalyon

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not actually sprinkle on the curtain but opposite the curtain. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome.

After a miracle was performed on his behalf and he healed the daughter of the Roman emperor, Rabbi Elazar was permitted to view the ruler’s treasures and take whatever he wanted.

He saw the Temple vessels that the Romans captured, including the curtain. Rabbi Elazar continued: And on the curtain were several drops of blood from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur.

This shows that the blood was actually sprinkled on the curtain.

How did the Rabbi arrive in Rome and how come he saw the vessels of the Temple is the topic of our exploration with the help of a lutin called Ben Tamalyon.

Yoma 56: השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A certain Sadducee said to R. Chanina "you people are impure as it states " “Her impurity was in her skirts” and the Divine Presence does not dwell upon the Jews when they are impure.

Rabbi Ḥanina replied to him: Come and see what is written about the Jewish people: “That dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16).

This indicates that even when they are impure, the Divine Presence dwells among them.

This idea of the divine indwelling even when we are impure leads us to an exploration of the notion of living in our humanity in the presence of the Divine and the demand for humility above all despite sin. And Reb Moshe of Coucy's dream.

Yoma 55: Sprinkling One Up, Seven Down

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Kohen Gadol stood facing the two poles of the Ark and sprinkled the blood toward it and the kaporet – once upward and seven times downward. He sprinkled the bull’s blood first, followed by the goat’s blood. The sprinkling of blood expresses our devotion to our covenantal bond with God, for blood is life; the blood of the bull represented the blood of the kohanim and the Kohen Gadol, while the blood of the goat represented the blood of Israel.

Rav Chayim Soloveitchik (in his chiddushim to the gemara) claimed that even after the aron was buried, the location still maintained the unique sanctity of the aron. This view would still allow us to define the sprinkling as aron-related; even though no physical aron existed, the location was still imbued with the unique status of the aron.

Each of the seven downward sprinklings, counted one to seven, is preceded by "one," referring to the upward one. This remarkable method of counting, which the chazzan and kahal recite responsively and repeatedly on Yom Kippur, teaches that one may not be involved in earthly matters without the pervasive influence of heavenly ideals.

This leads us to an intriguing Vatican inquiry of late and its response.

Yoma 54: The Eternal Embrace

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Moving to another statement from the last Mishna, the rabbis wonder about the staves of the Ark. Apparently, we learn both that they can be seen and that they can't be seen. How do we resolve this contradiction? Among many other ideas, the rabbis suggest that they might have been pressed up against the curtain, "like the two breasts of a woman (pushing against her clothes)". The prooftext? From Song of Songs, of course, 1:13, where "My beloved is to me like a bundle of myrrh, that lies between by breasts". In a similar tone, the wings of the cherubs touching each other in the Holy of Holies are said to stand in for the Jewish people, who are "... beloved before G0d, lie the love of a male and female".

The rabbis compare the hidden Ark with the modest bride who only reveals herself to her husband after marriage. They further this analogy between the hidden Ark and a divorced woman who was once allowed to show herself but then, since divorce, is again modest in his presence until they remarry. And thus, we will eventually 'marry' with these sacred representations of G-d's presence.

The rabbis then describe the many curtains, images and carvings within the Holy of Holies. Reish Lakish tells one story of the cherubs who look as if in romantic contact with each other.

This leads us to an exploration of the meaning between the metaphor of romnatic love between the Divine and Knesset Yisrael.

Yoma 53: The Ark in Exile

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah on Our Daf tells us that after the Ark was taken and buried, a rock from the days of the early prophets was called the foundation rock. It sat three fingerbreadths higher than the ground. It acted as the center of the Holy of Holies, and incense was burned there, blood was sprinkled there, and animals' blood was poured there. The Mishna details how many times different animals' blood was sprinkled and poured at that spot. Interestingly, we learn in a note that the High Priest exited and entered the Holy of Holies several times between animal offerings, etc.

In its commentary, the Gemara first disputes about whether the Ark was buried or "taken". The rabbis wonder whether in accordance with a baraita, the Ark was brought to Babylonia along with the precious vessels of the House of the Lord (II Chronicles 36:10). Several other possible proof texts are suggested to understand where and how the Ark was removed from Jerusalem.

During the first Temple period, there was a rock in the kodesh kodashim, called the even ha-shetiya (foundation stone), upon which rested the aron, together with a container of manna (see Ex 16:33-34) and Aharon ha-Kohen’s staff (see Num 17:16-24). During the Second Temple the Mikdash operated without an ark. When the kohen gadol (high priest) entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, the service was performed in the place of the ark, even though there was none there. The ark was hidden by King Yoshiyahu towards the end of the first Temple period. During his reign, a copy of Sefer Devarim was discovered that was interpreted by Hulda ha-nevi’ah as warning of the destruction of the kingdom (see II Kings 22-23). According to the Radak, the discovered scroll was open to the passage (Deut 28:36) that foretold of the exile, and the king, fearing that if the ark was taken into exile it would never return, chose to hide it on the grounds of the Mikdash (see II Chron 35:3).

Yoma 52: Ark, Texts and Historicity

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis have difficulty with a particular verse regarding the measurements for the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yochanan said that Yosef of Hutzal told us of the dilemma with I Kings 6:19: "And he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord." We are reminded that Isi ben Yehuda says that there are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided by reading the text on its own:

Issi ben Yehudah said: There are five verses in the Torah where the grammatical construction of the verse is undecided (if a certain phrase in the verse should be connected to an earlier clause or a later clause), and they are: ‘se’eis’; ‘like almond’; ‘tomorrow’; ‘cursed’; and ‘rise up’.

My colleague (from Brandeis days) Michael Carasik suggests that, in many cases, the Masoretic decision to place a pause in a location that seems to contradict the peshat was made not to contradict it, but to add a second possibility. Given the Talmudic declaration that only five verses in the Torah are undecidable in this way, one may say that the Masoretes per formed their task with quite a gentle touch. They do not seem to have wished to force a particular exegesis upon the reader.

Rather, despite the restrictive quality of the vowels and punctuation marks which they were adding to the traditional consonants, they may, paradoxically, have been actuated by a desire to preserve the indeterminability of the text which had enabled Jewish interpreters for more than a millennium to use the Bible as a springboard for their own literary and theological imagining.

This leads us to the work of Professor Dov Weiss Halivni's work on the redaction of the talmud and the stratification of the layers of gemoro. His understanding of our sugya leads to a unique and original thesis regarding har Sinai and authority of the text.

Yoma 51: The Dual Nature of the Parochet

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

An interesting possibility regarding the expression of the dual role of the parokhet in reality arises from a mishna in Massekhet Yoma (5:1) that describes the manner in which the Kohen Gadol would enter the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kippur:

He walked through the Sanctuary until he reached the place between the two parokhets which separated between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim, with one cubit separating them. [But] R. Yossi said: There was only one parokhet, as it is written, “And the parokhet shall separate for you between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim."

The mishna records a disagreement among the Tannaim as to whether there was just one parokhet in the Temple, as R. Yossi deduces from the specifications concerning the Mishkan, or whether there were in fact two.

This leads us to an examination of the function of the Parochet and its dual role in creating sacred spaces.

Yoma 50: Timnah as Typology

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Is a dead bull called a bull? (No..not a Parrot!)

Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha challenges Rabbi Ami, who says that the word “bull” doesn't include a dead one, from the verse which says that “he must remove the whole bull [brought on a kohen gadol's error] outside of the camp,” even though the bull is dead at that point. The Gemora answers that the verse is only teaching that everything left from the bull (i.e., the whole body) must be taken out.

Rashi observes there are 5 korban Chato'os that have a din of Misa on them.

In an intriguing anecdote the RITVA cites a Pesikta that uses the name VA-TIMNA as an acronym for them.

This leads us to an exploration of her character in Genesis and the use of her (and her sibling Lotan) as a typology for repentance and in the critique of Menasseh and the Sadducees.

Yoma 49: Drunken Kohanim

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Wine and spirits you shall not drink, neither you nor your descendants, when you come into the Tent of Meeting… (Leviticus 10:9)

Kohanim were prohibited from entering the Temple after drinking a revi’is of an alcoholic beverage (about 4.5 ounces, plus or minus an ounce). Additionally, a rabbi – even a non-kohein – may not render a legal decision after drinking (see Talmud Eiruvin 64a).

Our Daf quotes a braisa that a drunkard is unfit to do the avodah in the Temple. Tosfos discusses the various opinions as to which beverages will one who consumes them be liable for death, and to which will there be only a transgression. He also discusses when the service is valid, and when it is not.

This leads us to a review by Alan Nadler of Yankel’s Tavern: Jews, Liquor, & Life in the Kingdom of Poland by Glenn Dynner

and the Lubavitcher Rebbe's decree regarding liquor at fabrengens.

Yoma 48: A Handful of Stillness

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our daf we discuss the role of chafina, the scooping of ketoret (incense) on Yom Kippur, performed immediately by the kohen gadol before he entered the inner sanctum to burn these spices upon the aron ha-kodesh.

The prooftext is Lev

יב וְלָקַח מְלֹא-הַמַּחְתָּה גַּחֲלֵי-אֵשׁ מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה, וּמְלֹא חָפְנָיו, קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים דַּקָּה; וְהֵבִיא, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת.

LEV 16:12

this leads us to a midrashic musing on the "full hand" in

Vayikra Rabba 3:1, a petichta which offers multiple explanations of Kohelet 4:6,

ו טוֹב, מְלֹא כַף נָחַת--מִמְּלֹא חָפְנַיִם עָמָל, וּרְעוּת רוּחַ.

6 Better is a handful of quietness, than both the hands full of labour and striving after wind.

the petichta verse contrasts two different sacrifices. One sacrifice is brought on behalf of all of Israel by the High Priest himself in the Holy of Holies on the holiest day of the year. The other is brought by a pauper who has no resources to bring an animal sacrifice.

One would think that the incense of Yom Kippur would be considered among the most sublime of sacrifices while the poor man’s meal offering would be considered a common sacrifice of little stature. However, the midrash insists that it precisely the poor man’s sacrifice which is of the greater significance.

Yoma 47: Kimchis as Exemplar

For the source text click/tap here: Yoma 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages taught in a baraita: Kimḥit had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this?

She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house.

It appears from the Gemora that this was not the halachah, but an act of piety beyond the letter of the law.

This is the opinion of many poskim including Rav Moshe Feinstein. He was asked if a woman is required to cover her hair in front of her family, and he responded by saying that according to the law, it is not required citing our Gemora.

The Chasam Sofer, however, quotes the Zohar which says that a woman’s hair, no matter how small, much never show. He says that the community has accepted the ruling of the Zohar and therefore it becomes halachah. This is also the opinion of Rav Moshe Sternbuch.

We trace the evolution of these halachot through the eyes of a Guided, source-based study of halachot pertaining to women, from a woman's perspective. This series is presented in conjunction with Deracheha: Women and Mitzvot, a halachic education website sponsored by Yeshivat Har Etzion in partnership with the VBM and Beit Midrash Migdal Oz.