Yoma — Daf 12a

והא דכרכים והא דכפרים

ודכרכים אין מטמא בנגעים והתניא אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מטמאה בנגעים ואין ירושלים מטמאה בנגעים אמר ר' יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מטמאין בנגעים ואע"ג 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

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא מה היה בחלקו של יהודה הר הבית הלשכות והעזרות ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים ורצועה היתה יוצאה מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת לחלקו של בנימין ובה היה מזבח בנוי ובנימין הצדיק היה מצטער עליה לבלעה בכל יום

שנאמר (דברים לג, יב) חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה שנאמר ובין כתפיו שכן

והאי תנא סבר ירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים דתניא אין משכירין בתים בירושלים לפי שאינה שלהן ר' אלעזר בר (צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפזיכנין 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 חלקו לבית אבות ואין כל אחד מכיר את שלו מניין

ת"ל (ויקרא יד, לה) ובא אשר לו הבית מי שמיוחד לו יצא אלו שאין מיוחדין לו אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא

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 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 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

, the first teaching referring to big cities, the second to villages.1 But are synagogues in big cities really not subject to uncleanness from house plagues? Has it not been taught: ‘In the house of the land of your possession,’2 i.e., the house of the land of your possession could become defiled through leprosy, but Jerusalem3 could not become defiled through leprosy. R. Judah said: I have heard that only the place of the Sanctuary is unaffected by the law of leprosy?4 Now does not that imply that synagogues and houses of learning are subject to the law of leprosy even though they be in large cities? — Read R. Judah said: I have heard that only sacred places5 are not subject to the law of leprosy. What principle are they disputing? — The first Tanna holds Jerusalem was not divided amongst the tribes6 and R. Judah holds Jerusalem was divided among the tribes, the basis of their difference being the principle on which these Tannaim differ, for it has been taught: What lay in the lot of Judah? The Temple mount, the cells, the courts. And what lay in the lot of Benjamin? The Hall,7 the Temple8 and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land went forth from Judah's lot and went into Benjamin's territory, and on this the Temple was built — Benjamin the Righteous was longing to swallow it every day as it is written: He coveteth him all day,9 therefore he obtained the privilege of becoming the host of the Omnipotent,10 as it is said: And He dwelleth between his shoulders 11 . The following Tanna holds that Jerusalem was not divided amongst the tribes, for it has been taught: One does not rent houses in Jerusalem, because it [the city] does not belong to them, [the inhabitants]. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: Nor any beds. Therefore the innkeepers take the skin of the sacrificial animals by force.12 Abaye said: We may learn from this that it is usual for a man to leave to his host the empty wine pitcher and the hide.13 But are the synagogues of the villages subject to the laws of leprosy? Has it not been taught: As a possession,14 i.e., until they conquer it. If they have conquered but not yet divided it among the tribes, or even divided it among the tribes but not divided it among the families, or even divided it among the families but before each man knows where his lot is, whence do we know [that the laws of leprosy do not apply yet]? To teach us that Scripture says: ‘Then he who has the house to him’ i.e., he to whom alone the house is belonging, excluding these [houses] which do not belong to him [the owner] alone.15 — It is more correct as we have answered at first.16 AND ANOTHER PRIEST IS PREPARED FOR HIM: It is obvious that if any disqualifying mishap occurred to the high priest before the morning [daily] offering, that one17 initiates the other priest with the morning burnt-offering. But if the mishap should have occurred after the morning sacrifice, how could he be initiated?18 — R. Adda b. Ahabah said: With the girdle.19 That will be in accord with him who holds that the girdle of the high priest is identical with that of the common priest,20 but according to the opinion that the girdle of the high priest was not the same as that of the common priest,21 what can be said?22 — Abaye said: He would put on the eight garments and turn23 with the hook, in accordance with what R. Huna said. For R. Huna said: If a non-priest turns with the hook, he incurs penalty of death.24 R. Papa said: to nobody, whilst in the villages those who attend are known to all, being like partners in the synagogue (Rashi). law applying to privately owned houses only. in despair, was anxious to conquer it. above, ‘One speaks of’ synagogues in metropoles, the other of synagogues in villages’, is unsatisfactory. function be indicated? girdle of the common priests, so that the girding of a linen girdle by the priest on the Day of Atonement would serve to indicate his high priestly function.] restricted to the high priest, so that the girding by the priest of a linen girdle on the Day of Atonement would indicate no particular high priestly function.] limbs of the daily burnt-offering with an iron hook. By reason of such turning that limb is more speedily consumed. He has thus done the initiative work for the office of high priest which he is to assume anon. penalty of death, it is obviously considered as of even importance with the service proper, hence serving to initiate the newcomer into the high priest's office.