Yoma 20

Chapter 20

א דילמא אתי לאפרושי מן החיוב על הפטור ומן הפטור על החיוב

1 that he may come to set aside tithe from where it is obligatory for where it is exempt and from where it is exempt for where it is obligatory?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He might take off the tithe from something that is liable to tithe only by rabbinic enactment for some other heap (of produce) , which is liable by the law of the Torah, and vice versa, thus invalidating the former and the latter.');">1

ב אלא אמר אביי בשבעה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דמיחייבא כי פליגי בשאר ימות השנה רבנן סברי גזרינן שאר ימות השנה אטו שבעה ור' יהודה סבר לא גזרינן

2 -Rather, said Abaye, there is no dispute concerning the seven days [of the separation], all agreeing that [the cell] is liable [to have a mezuzah];2

ג א"ל רבא והא סוכת החג בחג קתני

3 what the dispute is concerned with is the other days of the year; the Rabbis would institute it as a precautionary measure on account of the seven days, whilst R'Judah does not see the need for such a measure.

ד אלא אמר רבא בשאר ימות השנה כ"ע לא פליגי דפטורה כי פליגי בשבעה וסוכה טעמא לחוד ולשכה טעמא לחוד

4 Raba said to him: But the teaching [of the Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 45, n. 5. And yet it is said: 'The Sages exempt it from tithe', hence even during the seven days, according to one view, there would be exemption from the duty.');">3

ה סוכה טעמא לחוד רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר סוכה דירת קבע בעינן ומיחייבא במזוזה ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי סוכה דירת עראי בעינן ולא מיחייבא במזוזה

5 reads, 'The sukkah of the Feast during the Feast'! Therefore says Raba: On all other days of the year they all agree that there is no obligation [for a mezuzah at the sukkah and cell], the dispute touches only the seven days, and there is a special ground in the case of the sukkah and there is a special reason in the case of the cell.

ו ולשכה טעמא לחוד רבנן סברי דירה בעל כרחה שמה דירה ורבי יהודה סבר דירה בעל כרחה לא שמה דירה ומדרבנן הוא דתקינו לה שלא יאמרו כהן גדול חבוש בבית האסורין

6 There is a special reason in the case of the sukkah: R'Judah, holding in accordance with his own principle, that the sukkah must have the character of a permanent residence, hence considers [the sukkah] is liable to a mezuzah, whilst the Rabbis, following their own principle, hold that the sukkah must have the character of an incidental residence, and hence requires no mezuzah.

ז מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן

7 There is also a special reason for the dispute in the case of the cell [of the counsellors]; the Rabbis hold that a dwelling not freely chosen called a dwelling whilst R'Judah is of the opinion that such dwelling is not included in the term dwelling; only rabbinically it was arranged that a mezuzah be affixed at the cell lest the people say the high priest is being kept in prison.4 Who has taught the following which our Rabbis have taught:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter