Mesorat%20hashas for Yoma 8:14

מאי בינייהו

the word be-thok [in the midst] appears and it also appears elsewhere: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIV, 22.');">²⁹</span> just as there [the word be-thok] implies a path, as it is written: And the waters were a wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water being piled up like a wall, Israel walked along a path. The inference is from similarity of expression.');">³⁰</span> unto them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIV, 22.');">²⁹</span> so here too there was a path, [for Moses through the cloud]. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I,1.');">³¹</span> why does Scripture mention the call before the speech? - The Torah teaches us good manners: a man should not address his neighbour without having first called him. This supports the view of R'Hanina, for R'Hanina said: No man shall speak to his neighbour unless he calls him first to speak to him. Rabbah said: Whence do we know that if a man had said something to his neighbour the latter must not spread the news without the informant's telling him 'Go and say it'? From the scriptural text: The Lord spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, lemor [saying].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lemor here is taken to mean 'to say it (to others) ', or else the next few words are illustratively, not logically implied: Speak (unto the children of Israel) .');">³²</span> At any rate it is to be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Resh Lakish's question to R. Johanan: '... just as with the Consecration service the omission of any prescribed form would render the service invalid' and R. Johanan's tacit acceptance of this view, supra 3b.');">³³</span> that both hold that the omission of any detail mentioned in connection with the priest's Consecration renders the ceremony invalid, for it was said: With regard to the ceremony of Consecration R'Johanan and R'Hanina are disputing; one says: The omission of any form prescribed in connection with the ceremony renders it invalid, whilst the other holds only such matter as is indispensable on any future occasion is indispensable now, whereas such detail as is dispensable in future generations, is dispensable even the first time. One may conclude that it is R'Johanan who holds that the omission of any detail whatsoever that is mentioned in connection with the Consecration ceremony renders such ceremony invalid, because R'Simeon B'Lakish said to R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 3b.');">³⁴</span> [in the course of the argument]: 'And just as with the ceremony of Consecration the omission of any prescribed detail renders the ceremony invalid. And R'Johanan did not retort at all'. That proof is conclusive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had he held a different view, he would surely not have permitted his opponent's statement to go unchallenged.');">³⁵</span> What is the [practical] difference between the opinions?

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Yoma 8:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.