Yoma 12a — the Talmud in English

But

the beraita in which we learned that a synagogue does not become impure with afflictions speaks of a synagogue

of cities,

to which people from many places come to pray, and which has no specific owners.

But

the first beraita, which teaches that a synagogue becomes impure with afflictions, like a house belonging to partners, speaks of a synagogue

of villages,

whose owners are recognizable, and the synagogue is considered “special to him,” like a house.

And we challenge this:

and

a synagogue

of cities does not become impure with afflictions?

But it was taught:

It is written: “And I shall place the affliction of leprosy in a house in the land of

your inheritance.”

And we expound: Only a land of

your inheritance—

which was divided among the tribes when they took possession of the land as an inheritance—

becomes impure with afflictions.

But Jerusalem does not become impure with afflictions.

Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard only

that it does not become impure with afflictions

in the place of the Sanctuary alone,

since only its place belongs to all Israel, because David purchased the place from Aravna the Jebusite with money that he took from all the tribes. Therefore, it is not considered “the land of your inheritance.”

And from the words of Rabbi Yehuda one may infer:

But synagogues and study halls

that are not in the Sanctuary

do become impure with afflictions,

when they are in the land of your inheritance that was divided among the tribes.

And even though

the synagogues

are those of cities.

And we answer:

Say

that he said as follows:

“Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard only the consecrated place alone”

that does not become impure with afflictions. And “the consecrated place” also includes synagogues, since they are made for the sacred use of the public.

And the Gemara explains:

Over what do

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree?

The first tanna holds: Jerusalem

was not divided among the tribes,

but belongs to all Israel, and therefore it is not called “your inheritance,” and it does not become impure with afflictions.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was divided among the tribes,

to Judah and Benjamin.

And

they disagree

in the dispute of these tannaim:

As it was taught: What was in the portion of Judah—

the Temple Mount, the chambers, and the courtyards.

And what was in the portion of Benjamin—

the Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.

And a strip extended from the portion of Judah and entered the portion of Benjamin, and upon it the altar was built.

And Benjamin the righteous was distressed over it,

for he wished

to absorb it

so that the altar would be built in his portion

every day.

As it is stated

in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin [Deuteronomy 33]:

“He hovers

[Benjamin rubs against it because his desire is not fulfilled]

over it

[over the place of the altar, so that it would be in his portion],

all day.”

Therefore, Benjamin the righteous merited and became a host

an inn

for the Divine Presence

[for the Holy One, blessed be He], through the fact that the Holy Ark, upon which the Divine Presence rests, was in his portion.

As it is stated

concerning Benjamin:

“And between his shoulders He dwells.”

It follows that the tanna of this beraita holds that Jerusalem was divided among the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

And

if

this tanna,

in the following beraita,

held

that

Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes:

As it was taught: They do not rent out

the homeowners

houses in Jerusalem

to pilgrims, but rather they must house them free of charge.

Because

Jerusalem

is not theirs,

belonging to those who dwell in it; rather, it belongs to all Israel, because it was not divided among the tribes.

Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon says: Even not

can the homeowners in Jerusalem rent

beds

for lodging at full price, because the price of renting the bed also includes its place, and for the place they are not permitted to take payment, since it belongs to everyone.

And since the homeowners are not permitted to collect payment from the pilgrims, but are forced to house them free of charge, the Sages instituted that the homeowners should benefit, so that they would receive them graciously, by having the pilgrims give the hides of the sacrifices to their hosts.

Therefore, the hides of consecrated animals—

the hosts

[the owners of inns for pilgrims]—

take them

from their guests even

by force,

since they have the right to receive them by the enactment of the Sages.

Abaye said: Learn from this

enactment that

it is proper conduct

that

a person leave

a person should leave

a golefa

an earthenware jug after he has drunk from it,

and

likewise

the hide

of the animal from which he ate—

for his host,

for the owner of his inn.

The Gemara now returns to discuss the distinction made above [11b] between a synagogue of a city and one of a village concerning the afflictions of houses, which was made in order to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot.

And we inquire into it:

And

a synagogue

of villages—

does it become impure with

impurity of

afflictions?

But it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 14:34]: “When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you

as an inheritance, and I place the affliction of leprosy in a house in the land of your inheritance.”

and I place the plague of leprosy in a house in the land of your inheritance.”

And we expound: It does not become impure with afflictions of houses

until they conquer it

and it belongs to the Children of Israel!

And if

they conquered it but did not divide it—

among the tribes.

Or if

they divided it among the tribes but did not divide it among the ancestral houses.

Or if

they divided it among the ancestral houses, but each one does not recognize his own.

From where

is it derived that it still does not become impure with afflictions of houses?

The verse states [Leviticus 14]:

“And he to whom the house belongs shall come.”

“And the one to whom the house belongs shall come.”

One to whom it is special,

his house becomes impure with afflictions of houses.

Excluded are these, which are not special to one person.

And if so, does a synagogue of villages have more specific owners than these!?

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara rejects this distinction and says:

Rather, it is clear

that one should say

as

the other two answers

that we answered at the outset

in order to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they prepare another koen

because they are concerned lest a disqualification occur in the High Priest, and they will need to appoint another High Priest in his place on Yom Kippur, so that this koen will be fit for the Yom Kippur service, which is valid only through a High Priest.

It has already been explained that a High Priest is inaugurated into his priesthood through anointing with the anointing oil. And in the Second Temple, in which there was no anointing oil, he was inaugurated through “multiplication of garments,” by wearing the eight garments of the High Priest.

But the fact that they “prepare” a koen in anticipation of the possibility that he will replace the High Priest is not “inauguration” into the High Priesthood, but merely preparation.

And if a disqualification should indeed occur in the High Priest, this koen will require “inauguration” in order to become a High Priest.

And now the Gemara discusses this:

This is

obvious

to us, that if

something occurs in him,

in the High Priest,

a disqualification

on Yom Kippur morning,

before

he completed the services of

the daily offering of the morning,

which he performed while wearing the eight garments of a High Priest, then

they inaugurate him,

the koen whom they prepared to stand in his place, by dressing him in the eight garments, and the new High Priest completes the services

with the daily offering of the morning,

and through this the inauguration by multiplication of garments is fulfilled.

But

in this we have to be uncertain:

If

something occurs in him,

a

disqualification after

the services of

the daily offering of the morning

have already been completed, and the new High Priest now needs to perform the Yom Kippur service, which is performed in four white garments—

with what do they inaugurate him

as a High Priest and render him fit for the Yom Kippur service?

For the white garments are not unique to a High Priest, since every ordinary koen wears them, and wearing them does not constitute “multiplication of garments.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Even in the four white garments that the High Priest wears for the Yom Kippur service, there is an expression and indication of the High Priesthood, in that the belt with which he will now gird himself will be of linen alone, without wool, which differs from the belt worn by an ordinary koen, in which there is also wool.

Even the four white garments worn by the High Priest during the Yom Kippur service express and identify the status of the High Priest, because the belt that he will now wear will be made only of linen, without wool; this differs from the belt worn by an ordinary priest, which also contains wool.

And therefore he is inaugurated

with the belt,

for by virtue of the difference in it, its law is like inauguration through “multiplication of garments,” since it is not necessary that the indication in his inauguration be specifically through wearing all eight garments.

And we refute this:

This works according to the one who says that the belt of the High Priest

during the rest of the year, concerning which it is explicit in the Torah that it is made of a mixture of wool and linen,

this is

also

the belt of an ordinary koen,

which too is made of wool and linen. Whereas the belt worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur is made of linen alone, without a mixture of wool.

Therefore, the change in the belt is effective: the High Priest wears the belt designated for Yom Kippur, which contains no wool, in order to inaugurate him into the High Priesthood.

But according to the one who says [A0203] [below, later in the discussion] that

[далее в продолжении сугьи], что

the belt of the

High

High

the

Priest

throughout the entire year

is not the belt of an ordinary koen.

According to him, the belt of an ordinary koen did not contain wool, but was made of linen alone [like the belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur], and only the belt of the High Priest contained wool.

It follows that the linen belt of an ordinary koen is identical to the belt of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, for both are made of linen alone.

And if so, there is no change at all in the white garments of the High Priest on Yom Kippur [by virtue of which he can be inaugurated into the High Priesthood], in comparison with the garments that he had worn previously, when he was an ordinary koen.

And if so,

what can be said?

With what do they inaugurate him!?

Abaye said: Even after he completed the services of the daily offering, the koen can be inaugurated through service by multiplication of garments, by

Even after completing the services of the daily offering, the priest can be initiated through service by an increase of garments: he

wearing eight

High Priest garments,

and turning over,

while wearing them, the limbs of the daily offering upon the altar

with a tzinora

[a fork], in order to hasten the consumption of the limbs in the fire; for although it is not an essential service, nevertheless it is a service,

and as Rav Huna said.

For Rav Huna said

with regard to liability to death for the service of an unauthorized person:

An unauthorized person,

even though he did not burn the limbs upon the altar, but only brought the burning closer by

turning them over with a tzinora—

he is liable to death,

since bringing a service closer is like performing the service.