Daf Ditty Pesachim 16: “Dust of their Feet”

This crown was engraved with the words "Holy to HaShem." At times, these
words were written across two lines, and at times they were fit into one line.

The Talmud (BT Sukkah 5) provides the eye-witness testimony of Rabbi Eliezer
the son of Rabbi Yose who saw the crown in Rome "Rabbi Eliezer said: I saw
the crown in Rome, and the words 'Holy to HaShem' were written in one line."1

1
both the Talmud and Josephus inform us that after the destruction of the Second Temple, many of the sacred vessels were
plundered and taken to Rome, where they were publicly displayed for many years

1
2
3
 but all agree that ‫ מדרבנן‬, liquids have both ‫ עצמן טומאת‬, and are .2‫מטמא אחרים‬

The Gemara rejects this contention: Explain this statement as referring to blood. Rabbi Yosei, son
of Rabbi Ḥanina was not referring to all liquids in the Temple, but only to blood. As Rabbi Ḥiyya
bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived with regard to blood of
consecrated offerings that it does not render produce susceptible to impurity? As it is stated:

‫ ִתְּזַבּח‬X‫ַאַוּת ַנְפְשׁ‬-‫טו ַרק ְבָּכל‬ 15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy
X‫ֶהי‬c‫ ְכִּב ְרַכּת ְיהָוה ֱא‬,‫ְוָאַכְלָתּ ָבָשׂר‬ gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of
‫; ַהָטֵּמא‬X‫ְשָׁﬠֶרי‬-‫ְבָּכל‬--X‫ְל‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר ָנַתן‬ the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and
.‫ ַכְּצִּבי ְוָכַאָיּל‬,‫ְוַהָטּהוֹר י ֹאְכֶלנּוּ‬ the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.

-‫ ַﬠל‬:‫ ל ֹא ת ֹאֵכלוּ‬,‫טז ַרק ַהָדּם‬ 16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon
.‫ ַכָּמּ ִים‬,‫ָהָאֶרץ ִתְּשְׁפֶּכנּוּ‬ the earth as water.

Deut 12:16

“You shall surely not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water”

The Sages derived from this verse: Blood that is poured like water, i.e., blood from a non-sacred
domesticated animal that pours out when it is slaughtered and is not received in a vessel as
sacrificial blood assumes the legal status of water and renders produce susceptible to ritual
impurity.

2
https://alldaf.org/p/74557 Mishkan Yechezkel

4
5
RASHI

Conversely, blood that is not poured out like water but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on
the altar does not render produce susceptible to contract impurity.

Rav Shmuel bar Ami strongly objects to this: There is the blood squeezed from an animal after
slaughter once the initial spurt of blood has concluded, which is poured like water, as it is unfit
for sprinkling upon the altar. And nevertheless, this blood does not render produce susceptible
to impurity.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Leave aside the blood squeezed after the initial spurt, which is an
exceptional case, as even from non-sacred animals it does not render produce susceptible to
ritual impurity either. With regard to the halakha that blood renders produce susceptible to ritual
impurity, the legal status of blood squeezed after the initial spurt is not that of blood at all.

6
The Gemara comments: Rav Shmuel bar Ami accepted this statement from Rabbi Zeira and
cited a verse that supports it. As the Merciful One states:

,‫ ִכּי ַהָדּם‬,‫ ְלִבְלִתּי ֲאֹכל ַהָדּם‬,‫כג ַרק ֲחַזק‬ 23 Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the
-‫ ִﬠם‬,‫ת ֹאַכל ַהֶנֶּפשׁ‬-‫הוּא ַהָנֶּפשׁ; ְול ֹא‬ blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the
.‫ַהָבָּשׂר‬ flesh.

Deut 12:23

“Only be strong not to eat the blood; for the blood is the soul”.

This verse indicates: Blood with regard to which the soul leaves the body when it is spilled is
called blood; however, blood with regard to which the soul does not leave the body when it is
spilled, but which is squeezed out afterward, is not called blood.

RASHI

The Gemara cites an additional proof that the impurity of liquids is by Torah law. Come and hear:
With regard to blood that became ritually impure, and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, the

7
following distinction applies: If he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled
the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, blood becomes ritually impure
by Torah law, even if it does not transmit impurity to other items. The Gemara rejects this
contention: This impurity is by rabbinic law, and this ruling is not in accordance with Rav’s
explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida, as he maintains that
sacrificial blood does not become impure at all.

The Gemara cites a proof from another mishna. Come and hear: For what does the front plate
of the High Priest atone and thereby allow the blood of the offering to be sprinkled? It atones for
the blood, and for the meat, and for the fat that became impure, whether one caused it to
become impure unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond his control
or willfully, and whether it is the offering of an individual or that of a community. Apparently,
the blood of an offering can become impure.

8
The Gemara rejects this proof: The mishna is referring to blood that is impure by rabbinic law,
and here too, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida, who
says that consecrated blood does not become impure at all.

The Gemara cites an additional proof: Come and hear another verse written about the front plate:

‫ ָזָהב ָטהוֹר; וִּפַתְּחָתּ‬,‫ לו ְוָﬠִשׂיָת ִצּיץ‬36 And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and engrave
.‫ ֹקֶדשׁ ַליהָוה‬,‫ָﬠָליו ִפּתּוֵּחי ֹחָתם‬ upon it, like the engravings of a signet: HOLY TO THE
LORD.

‫ ְוָהָיה‬,‫ְפִּתיל ְתֵּכֶלת‬-‫ לז ְוַשְׂמָתּ ֹאתוֹ ַﬠל‬37 And thou shalt put it on a thread of blue, and it shall be
,‫ַהִמְּצֶנֶפת‬-‫מוּל ְפֵּני‬-‫ַהִמְּצָנֶפת; ֶאל‬-‫ ַﬠל‬upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be.
.‫ִיְהֶיה‬

‫ ְוָנָשׂא ַאֲהֹרן‬,‫ֵמַצח ַאֲהֹרן‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫לח ְוָהָיה‬ 38 And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall
‫ֲﬠ ֹון ַהֳקָּדִשׁים ֲאֶשׁר ַיְקִדּישׁוּ ְבֵּני‬-‫ֶאת‬ bear the iniquity committed in the holy things, which the
‫ַמְתּ ֹנת ָקְדֵשׁיֶהם; ְוָהָיה‬-‫ ְלָכל‬,‫ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬ children of Israel shall hallow, even in all their holy gifts; and
‫ ְלָרצוֹן ָלֶהם ִלְפֵני‬,‫ִמְצחוֹ ָתִּמיד‬-‫ַﬠל‬ it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be
.‫ְיהָוה‬ accepted before the LORD.

Ex 28: 36-38

“And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the
consecrated objects, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even all their sacred gifts; and it
shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before God”

And the Sages expounded: Which sin does it bear? If you say it atones for the sin of piggul, an
offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat the offering after the permitted time, it is
already stated:

9
 ‫ִפּגּוּל‬--‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁליִשׁי‬,‫ז ְוִאם ֵהָאֹכל ֵיָאֵכל‬ 7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is a vile thing;
.‫ ל ֹא ֵיָרֶצה‬,‫הוּא‬ it shall not be accepted.
Lev 19:7

“And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted”

If you say it atones for notar, i.e., meat of an offering left after the time that one was permitted to
eat it, it is already stated:

‫ֶזַבח‬-‫יח ְוִאם ֵהָאֹכל ֵיָאֵכל ִמְבַּשׂר‬
--‫ ל ֹא ֵיָרֶצה‬,‫ְשָׁלָמיו ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁליִשׁי‬
‫ ִפּגּוּל‬,‫ַהַמְּק ִריב ֹאתוֹ ל ֹא ֵיָחֵשׁב לוֹ‬
‫ ֲﬠ ֹוָנהּ‬,‫ִיְהֶיה; ְוַהֶנֶּפשׁ ָהֹאֶכֶלת ִמֶמּנּוּ‬
.‫ִתָּשּׂא‬
18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings
be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither
shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an
abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his
iniquity.
Lev 7:18

“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not
be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it”

10
Evidently, the front plate bears only the sin of impurity in the offering of an individual, as in
some circumstances, impurity was exempted from its general prohibition on behalf of the
community. It was permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity.
What, does this not apply to impure blood as well?

Apparently, blood can also become impure. Rav Pappa said: No, the reference is not to impure
blood but to the impurity of handfuls of flour separated by the priest from a meal-offering. The
handful of flour renders the meal-offering permitted to be eaten by the priests, parallel to the blood
of an animal offering.

Summary

Rav Avraham Adler writes:3

The Gemora challenges the earlier statement that detached liquids make food susceptible to
impurity from Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina who says that liquids in the butcher area of the Bais
Hamikdash are not just pure, but don’t even make food susceptible to impurity. The Gemora
answers by saying that Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Chanina was only referring to the blood of sacrifices.

The Gemora explains this based on Rabbi Chiya bar Aba who cites Rabbi Yochanan saying this
from the verse which states that one should not eat blood, but instead spill it on the ground like
water. This teaches that only blood which is spilled on the ground is equivalent to water, which
makes food susceptible to impurity, excluding the blood of sacrifices, which is caught in a utensil
and applied to the altar.

Rav Shmuel bar Ami challenges this, as this would still leave blood which oozes out after the
slaughter of a sacrifice, which isn’t valid for the altar, and therefore is spilled, and should make
food susceptible. Rabbi Zaira answered that such blood, even from a regular animal, isn’t
considered blood which makes food susceptible.

Rav Shmuel bar Ami learned from him that the reason is the verse which says that the blood is the
soul, indicating that only the blood which exits when the soul leaves (i.e., at slaughter) is
considered blood.

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Pesachim_16.pdf

11
The Gemora challenges Rav from a braisa which says if blood of a sacrifice became impure and
one applied it, it is valid if he did it unintentionally, indicating that the blood can become impure.
Rav deflects this by saying that he braisa means that the blood became impure Rabbinically, and
disputes Yossi ben Yo’ezer, who says that the Sages didn’t apply Rabbinic impurity in the Bais
Hamikdash.

The Gemora challenges Rav from a braisa which says that the tzitz – head plate of the kohen gadol
atones on blood, meat, or fats of a sacrifice which became impure, implying that a sacrifice’s blood
can become impure.

Rav deflects this also by saying that the braisa is referring to Rabbinic impurity, disputing Yossi
ben Yo’ezer.

The Gemora challenges Rav from a braisa which discusses what the tzitz atones for. It cannot
atone for sacrifices which became invalid through a plan to eat at the wrong time or place, since
the verses state that these will not be accepted or considered valid.

Rather, it must atone for impurity of sacrifices, which is less severe, as it is suspended when the
community is impure.

The Gemora assumes that this refers to impure blood, challenging Rav.

Rav Pappa deflects this by saying the braisa is referring to impure kometz – handful of flour
offering.

Clarifying R’ Elazar’s position regarding the tum’ah of liquids.4

The Gemara questions the position of R’ Elazar, cited in an earlier Beraisa, that Biblically liquids
can contract tum’ah but they cannot transmit tum’ah, from another Beraisa. This question is
explained to be relevant only according to Rav’s understanding of the Beraisa who maintains that
according to R’ Elazar liquids do not even contract tum’ah. According to Shmuel’s understanding
of R’ Elazar, namely, liquids can contact tum’ah but do not transmit tum’ah, the two Beraisos are
consistent with one another. The Gemara resolves the contradiction.

The dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the tum’ah of liquids

The disagreement between Rav and Shmuel concerning the ability of liquids to contract tum’ahis
further clarified. R’ Huna bar Chinana successfully challenges Shmuel’s position that liquids can
contract tum’ah but cannot transmit tum’ah. The Gemara presents six challenges to Rav’s position
that liquids cannot even contract tum’ah, but none of these refute Rav’s position.

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20016.pdf

12
The opinion of R’ Yehoshua (77a) is that if the flesh of the offering either becomes disqualified or
if it is lost, we cannot continue and sprinkle the blood upon the altar to achieve atonement. In our
sugya, Rashi explains that even if the flesh has become tamei, the tzitz can alleviate a problem of
tum’ah, and the blood of the offering can continue to be sprinkled upon the altar. However, the
prohibition to eat the flesh of an offering once the flesh has become ‫ טמא‬cannot be dismissed.
Therefore, the rule of R’ Yehoshua who disallows the sprinkling of the blood only refers to where
the meat became disqualified in areas other than tum’ah, i.e., where the meat of ‫ קדשים קדשי‬was
removed from the courtyard of the Beis. (‫ )פסול יוצא‬Hamikdash.

Tosafos (‫ )הבשר על ה ד‬explains that the rule of this Beraisa about the tzitz can be understood
according to the opinion of Rebbe Eliezer, was well, who argues with R’ Yehoshua (77a). Rebbe
Eliezer holds that even if the flesh of the offering has been lost or if it is hopelessly disqualified,
the blood can still be sprinkled. Why would Rebbe Eliezer attribute any significance to the power
of the tzitz? Even if the flesh remains tamei, the sprinkling of the blood can still be performed!

Tosafos answers that in terms of sprinkling the blood in order for the owner of the offering to
achieve atonement, there is no difference whether we have the acceptance power of the tzitz or
not.

However, we still need the sprinkling to be done properly in order to have this flesh no longer be
susceptible to the laws of ‫מעילה‬. The flesh of the offering has ‫הגוף קדושת‬, and this is only released
when we have a proper sprinkling of the blood. Without the tzitz, the sprinkling would not release
the blood from the rules of ‫מעילה‬.

With the tzitz, however, the flesh is affected by the blood being placed on the altar, and the
is released.

THE ROLE OF THE "TZITZ" OF THE KOHEN GADOL

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

Our Daf says that when the Kohen Gadol wears the Tzitz upon his forehead, it appeases
(Meratzeh) for a certain Pesul that would normally invalidate a Korban from being offered. As
long as the Kohen Gadol wears the Tzitz, that Pesul does not invalidate the Korban.

The Beraisa asks for what Pesul the Tzitz appeases. It cannot be the Pesul caused by a Kohen
who thinks about eating or offering the Korban in an improper time or improper place ("Chutz

5
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-016.htm

13
l'Zemano" or "Chutz l'Mekomo"), because the Torah says that a Korban is never accepted with
such a Pesul; even the Tzitz cannot permit it.

The Beraisa explains that it must be that that Tzitz is Meratzeh for a Korban that became Pasul
as a result of becoming Tamei. The Beraisa adds that it makes sense that the Tzitz should be able
to be Meratzeh for a Korban which became Tamei, because there are other cases in which a
Korban that is Tamei is acceptable, such as a public Korban, which is not invalidated by Tum'ah,
because of the principle of "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur."

Why does the Beraisa find it necessary to give an additional reason to prove that the Tzitz
compensates for the Pesul of Tum'ah?

The Beraisa here (and the Gemara in more detail in Menachos 25b) already proves by the process
of elimination that the verse teaches that the Tzitz compensates for the Pesul of Tum'ah. Why,
then, is it necessary for the Beraisa to prove further that Tum'ah is not an absolute Pesul from
the principle of "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur"?

RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos here and in Yoma 7a) explains that the verse that teaches that
the Tzitz is Meratzeh says that through the Tzitz, the item that is Pasul will be "l'Ratzon Lifnei
Hashem," acceptable unto Hashem. These words imply that the Korban will become acceptable
to Hashem just as elsewhere the same Pesul can become acceptable. Accordingly, the Pesul for
which the Tzitz is Meratzeh must be one which is "Hutrah mi'Klalo" -- a Pesul that does not
disqualify the Korban under certain circumstances even without the Tzitz. For this reason, the
Beraisa adds that the Pesul of Tum'ah indeed is permitted elsewhere ("b'Tzibur"); this shows that
it fits the description of the verse.

However, if this is true, then why does the Gemara even consider that the Pesul for which the
Tzitz is Meratzeh is "Chutz l'Zemano" or "Chutz l'Mekomo"? Those Pesulim are never permitted
under any circumstances.

TOSFOS (DH Ha Eino) says that there is a situation in which the Pesul of "Chutz l'Mekomo"
does not apply -- in the case of a Bamah. At a time when one is permitted to build a private
Mizbe'ach and offer Korbanos upon it, there is no limit to where the Korban must be eaten. That
allowance, therefore, is an exception to the Pesul of "Chutz l'Mekomo" and the Pesul is "Hutrah
mi'Klalo." (Even though there is no such exception to the Pesul of "Chutz l'Zemano," the Beraisa
mentions it merely because it is always mentioned together with "Chutz l'Mekomo.")

TOSFOS suggests another answer. Perhaps the Pesulim of "Chutz l'Zemano" and "Chutz
l'Mekomo" also have exceptions, since they do not apply to the Minchas Kohanim (the Minchah
offering brought by a Kohen) and Minchas Nesachim (the Minchah offering brought with the
Korban Tamid). Those offerings are entirely burned upon the Mizbe'ach, and thus they have no
Pesul of "Chutz l'Zemano" or "Chutz l'Mekomo."

SEFAS EMES in Yoma (7a) answers that there is no Pesul of "Chutz l'Zemano" or "Chutz
l'Mekomo" for Korbanos offered by Nochrim, and that is why they are considered to be "Hutrah

14
mi'Klalo." (This point is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yosi in Temurah
2b.)

RABEINU PERETZ here answers as follows. A Korban Chatas may be eaten only within the
confines of the Azarah, and only for one day. A Korban Shelamim, in contrast, may be eaten
throughout all of Yerushalayim, and it may be eaten for two days. Accordingly, although a
Korban Chatas becomes Pasul if one has a thought to eat it outside of its proper time (after the
first day) or outside of its proper place (the Azarah), such thoughts are considered "Hutrah
mi'Klalo" because they are permitted for a Korban Shelamim.

TOSFOS in Yoma (7b, DH Ha Eino) says that, indeed, the Pesulim of "Chutz l'Zemano" and
"Chutz l'Mekomo" are not "Hutrah mi'Klalo." There are no exceptional cases in which they are
permitted. Nevertheless, the Gemara suggests that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for them even though
they are not "Hutrah mi'Klalo" because of a Gezeirah Shavah. The word "Avon" is mentioned
with regard to the Tzitz (Shemos 28:38) and with regard to "Chutz l'Zemano" and "Chutz
l'Mekomo" (Vayikra 7:18).

Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida

TOSAFOS

‫תוס' ד"ה מדרבנן ודלא כרבי יוסי בן יועזר‬

Tosfos explains why the Gemara chooses to learn this way

... ‫ וכמ"ד טומאת מש קין דאורייתא‬,‫ה"מ לאוקמא מדאורייתא‬

The Gemara could have established it mi'd'Oraysa, according to the opinion that
Tum'as Mashkin is d'Oraysa ...

.‫ כמו ש אמר רב‬,‫ וסבר האי תנא מאי יטמא הכש ר‬,‫אלא ניחא לאוקמא מדרבנן‬

Only it preferred to establish it mi'de'Rabbanan, and this Tana hold that "Yitma"
means Hechsher, like Rav.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

6
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim16/

15
Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida was one of the earliest sages whose teachings have been handed
down to us by name. The sages of that early period did not get the titles of “Rabbi” or “Rav” that
we are familiar with from later generations. There is a tradition that the names of those early
sages were an indication of the honor that they deserved – an even greater honor than any title
could have bestowed on them.

As noted in Pirkei Avot, he and his colleague, Yosei ben Yohanan ish Yerushalayim, were the
first of the zugot – “pairs” when Yosei ben Yo’ezer was leader of the Sanhedrin. The first
recorded argument in the Talmud is between them, an argument that laid the foundation for
disagreements between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in later generations.

According to the Midrash, Yosei ben Yo’ezer lived during the period of the decrees of Antiochus
Epiphanes, and his nephew was one of the leading radical Hellenists. His death is attributed to
the governmental decrees of that period. Upon his death the sages said “batlu ha-eshkolot,” a
reference to Yosei ben Yo’ezer’ s uniqueness as someone whose personality encompassed Torah
knowledge, fear of heaven and generosity to others.

R Heather Miller writes:7

Boxing matches are often about much more than the two individuals who enter the ring. Opponents
might fight to establish the superiority of the country they represent, the supremacy of the boxing
techniques they use, or the primacy of their particular training center. More is at stake than just a
bloody nose.

When the sages debate in the Talmud, often more at stake than academic opinion. Like boxers,
individual sages can become symbols for the values they represent.

We can see this in action on today’s page. On the surface, we see a debate over the ritual purity of
liquids. But underneath, there is a deep struggle over the status of the priestly cult in the Temple
and all associated with it — a struggle between the hereditary elitism of the priestly class in
Jerusalem versus the legitimacy of the scholarly institutions in Babylonia.

7
Myjewishlearning.com

16
In the first “corner,” we have the 2nd c. BCE Hasmonean Yosei ben Yo’ezer. A descendant of the
priestly line, Yosei ben Yo’ezer was strongly against the forces of Hellenization and once even
decreed impurity on the lands of the nations outside the land of Israel.

In the second “corner,” we have the 2nd c CE Babylonian Shmuel. A descendant of the rabbinic
line, he embraced scientific study and loved Babylonia so much that he even decreed that it was
forbidden to migrate away from it.

First, Yosei ben Yo’ezer argues for the absolute purity of the liquids inside the slaughterhouse of
the Temple. He said: Liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple are ritually pure. This
teaching is brought to bolster an argument that liquids do not transmit ritual impurity according to
Torah law, only according to rabbinic law.

But Shmuel, scholar of the Babylonian city of Nehardea (in central present-day Iraq) does not let
that stand; the elitist priestly cult could not get away with asserting this point of ritual slaughter to
be pure by Torah law. He counter-argues that:

The term “ritually pure” means that they do not transmit impurity to other items; however,
they themselves can become impure.

Essentially, Yosei ben Yo'ezer is saying that liquids in the slaughterhouse of the Temple cannot
become impure, while Shmuel is saying that they can. This debate is superficially about the liquids
in the Temple, but on a deeper level it is also about the purity of the priestly cult in Jerusalem
versus the rabbinic way of life in the diaspora.

So, who won? The rest of the page and into the next features hard hits by scholars on both sides.
There is no clear TKO (total knockout) one way or another. Instead we get nine more rounds of
debate which begin “come and hear.” In this showdown between the rabbis and the priestly cult,
the Talmud doesn’t anoint a final winner. Ultimately, it is the Jewish people who have won — as
long as these debates continue to be shared and passed down from one generation to the next.

Biography8
Rabbi Yossi ben Yo’ezer Ish Tzereida was a student of Antigonus Ish Socho and Nasi of the first
pair of Zugot along with Rabbi Yossi ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalaim who served as Av Bais Din.
During their reign, the first Halachic controversy arose in Judaism. Yose ben Yo’ezer was a Kohen,
renowned for his great righteousness in the laws of purity. He was executed by the Greeks and
their Hellenist followers during the period preceding the Maccabean revolt. His students
were Yehoshua ben Prachya and Neti Harbeli.

Student of the Sage

8
http://www.zissil.com/topics/Yossi-ben-Yoezer

17
Yose ben Yo'ezer originated from the city of Tzereida and was a disciple of Antigonus Ish Socho.
In his early youth he studied under Shimon HaTzadik.

Head of the Sanhedrin

After the passing Antigonus Ish Socho, Yossi ben Yoezer assumed the position of Nasi and head
of the Sanhedrin. Yossi ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalaim served as Av Bais Din alongside him,
together forming the first pair of Zugot.

Decrees

Yossi ben Yoezer Ish Tzereida along with Yossi ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalaim decreed impurity
on all land outside of Eretz Yisroel. They also decreed impurity on glass vessels manufactured by
Gentiles. These decrees were most likely issued as a response to the growth of Hellinisum, to
prevent Jews from settling outside of Eretz Yisroel and intermingling with the Greeks.

First Machlokes

It was at that time that the first Machlokes arose in Yisroel regrading doing Smicha on Yom Tov.
Until Yossi ben Yoezer all the leaders would teach the Torah exactly as it had been transmitted
from Moshe Rabbanue, from then on, the Torah was no longer transmitted in its perfect form, since
the Machlokes of the Smicha had risen.

Yossi Sharaya

After issuing three lenient rulings in the laws of purity, Yossi ben Yoezer was given the nickname
'Yossi Sharya' - Yossi the permitting one.

Righteous of the Priesthood

Yose ben Yoezer Ish Tzereida was a Cohen. So careful was he with the laws of purity that he
would treat his regular food as if it was Teruma, earning him the title 'Chasid ShbKehuna' -
Righteous of the Priesthood.

Execution

Yossi ben Yoezer was executed via crucifixion as part of the Hellenistic decrees for keeping and
teaching the Torah. As he was being led to his death on the Shabbat, his nephew Yakim Ish Tzroros
a leading Hellenist, came to taunt him. Riding on a fancy horse he called out to his uncle "Look at
the horse my master has given me and look at the horse your master has given you".

Yose ben Yoezer replied that if this was the reward of the evil, certainly the righteous would be
rewarded. Yakim continued, pointing out that no one in the generation had served G-D more then

18
Yose ben Yoezer and yet he was about to be executed. His uncle responded saying, if this was the
fate of the righteous, certainly the wicked would face an awful punishment. These words
penetrated the heart of Yakim Ish Tzroros, and he repented by committing suicide, killing himself
in a way where he underwent all four death penalties used by Bais Din.

He managed to set out up the entire operation, killing himself before the end of his Uncle's dragged-
out execution. Yossi ben Yoezer who saw this with Ruach Hakodesh remarked that his nephew
had proceeded him by a short while to Gan Aden, indicating that his Teshuva had been accepted.

End to Mortal Completion

After the passing of Yossi ben Yoezer, it was said the Grape clusters had become nullified. Grape
clusters in Hebrew are Eshkolot, which can be read as Ish Kol - a man of everything, a reference
to Rabbi Yossi ben Yoezer who had been the last person to reach complete perfection in his Torah
knowledge and refined attributes.

Family

Yose ben Yoezer had a son that he disinherited for bad conduct by donating his entire estate to the
Bais Hamikdash.

Yakim Ish Tzroros, a leading Hellenist was his sister's son. He later repented, committing suicide.

Teachings

Yossi ben Yoezer is known for his teachings in Masechet Avos regarding respecting the Sages. He
said, "Your home should be a meeting place for the Sages, powder yourself with the dust of their
feet and drink their words with thirst".

Home Center for Sages

By allowing Talmidei Chakhamim to convene in your home, you will automatically pick up from
their good deeds.

Dust of the Sages

Powdering yourself in the dust of the Sages is a reference for following them wherever they travel,
as well as sitting in front of them on the floor as they taught Torah, as was customary in those
days.

Drink Their Words

19
Just as a thirsty man who yearns for water greatly appreciates its taste, so too one who yearns for
Torah will feel its sweetness.

Wadi Amud Safed

Kever Yossi ben Yoezer

Yossi ben Yoezer is buried in a cave along with Yossi ben Yochanan and Yossi ben Meshulam in
the vicinity of Wadi Amud under Tzfat. According the Rabbi Chaim Vital the cave located in the
vicinity of Kever Brey Drav Safra has an opening in its roof and inside are three crevices, each
with one of the Tzadikim buried inside. Currently the exact location of the cave is unknown.

Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the
oral tradition] from them [i.e., Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to
say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and
drink in their words with thirst.

Avot 1:4

20
Dust of their Feet
Rav Moshe Taragin writes:9

The fourth Mishna in the first perek of Pirke Avot, cites three ideas jointly authored by Yossi Ben
Yo'ezer from Tzereida and Yossi ben Yochanan from Yerushalayim. As the Gemara
in Chagiga (16b) records, the former served as the Nassi while the latter was the head of Beit Din.
The Gemara reports that after their tenures many disputes erupted. Evidently, until their period,
the Mesora had been more homogenous; even if differences of opinion existed, the decisive
halakhic position was unanimous.

A Midrash records a fascinating story about an otherwise little known Tanna: Yossi ben Yo'ezer.

A nephew of his, Yakum ish Tzerorot, violated Shabbat in public fashion by riding upon an
impressive-looking Greek horse. This nephew passed by Rabbi Yossi (a different Rabbi Yossi) who
was being led by horse toward his execution. Astonished by the contrast between the honor being
shown a sinner and the persecution being shown a saint, Yakum asked Rabbi Yossi to justify this
inequity. Rabbi Yossi responded that by witnessing the prosperity of the wicked in this world we
can only imagine the compounded reward which the pious will merit in the next life. Similarly, by
witnessing the suffering of the righteous in our world we can perhaps extrapolate the anguish of
the wicked in the next world.

Basically, Rabbi Yossi responded with the conventional 'take' on deferred reward and punishment,
a lesson which was accented by their similar but very different circumstances. Inspired by the
response and implicit rebuke of Rabbi Yossi, Yakum the sinner repented for his misdeeds,
promptly simulating the four forms of Beit Din-administered death sentences as he took his own
life. His uncle, while asleep, witnessed Yakum's coffin ascend to Heaven and exclaimed that in an
instant of piety his nephew had preceded him to Heaven.

The Mishna itself lists a series of three statements authored by the two 'Yossis' - all of which speak
to our relationship with Torah scholars. The first clause is fairly straightforward, as it encourages
us to host talmidei Chakhamim and Torah assemblies. The final phrase is also easily understood,
in urging the intake of Torah knowledge, just as a thirsty person would drink refreshing water. A
bit more intriguing is the middle phrase which demands that we dirty ourselves in the dust at the
feet of Torah scholars. Classically, this image has been interpreted in multiple manners.

The most obvious and literal meaning of this phrase is based upon an outdated method of Torah
study. Several commentators to the Mishna allude to the fact that students would sit at the feet of
their Rebbe when studying Torah. This arrangement was adopted because of a lack of suitable
seating or, and perhaps additionally to, demonstrate reverence toward Torah teachers. Either way,
by encouraging us to sit as the feet of teachers, the Mishna is effectively urging us to study Torah
with them. As such the phrase should not be taken as a metaphor, but as a literal description.

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-19-dust-their-feet

21
In a broader sense by invoking the image of 'rolling in their dust' the Mishna is also expecting
humility on the part of the student. Awed by his Teacher's commitment to Torah, the student should
approach with respect and deference.

This sense is reinforced by the comments of Avot de-Rabbi Natan to this Mishna: "When a student
enters the Beit Midrash, he should not convince himself that he has no need of a Rebbe. He should
sit in front of one. Consequently, he should not sit on an even level with the Rebbe, but in front of
him ON THE GROUND accepting his words with fear and awe as Torah was initially delivered
from Har Sinai." It is quite easy to see how Avot de-Rabbi Natan saw in this image a metaphor for
the humility which a student should sense in the presence of his Rebbe.

As a parallel Gemara in Megilla (21a) asserts, the awe should be patterned after, and also stems
from, the initial delivery of Torah at Sinai. By recreating this sensation during every learning
experience, the talmid retains the sense of Torah's Divine origins.

Rabbeinu Ovadia Mi-Bartenura locates a third connotation of this phrase. He abstracts the
phrase to refer to the practice of accompanying Torah personalities even in areas beyond the Beit
Midrash. Walking in their dust - in this sense means - to follow their footsteps as dust is scattered
in the wake of someone walking. By extension, 'walking' conjures up a sense of departing the
narrow confines of the study hall to attend to peripheral affairs. Accompanying Torah personalities
as they execute daily activities affords the opportunity to witness Torah applied to the 'real world.'
It allows us the opportunity to view personality traits and general behavior of a Talmid Chacham
– aspects which are often not clearly displayed in the context of formal study. In addition, these
lessons delivered in the 'study hall of life' are suitable even for those whose scant Torah exposure
renders them incapable of appreciating scholarly Torah information.

Finally, a completely different idea was developed by Rav Chayim Volozhin - in Ru'ach Chayim.
He detects in the Hebrew term 'mitavak' a military theme. He draws this denotation
from Bereishit 32:25 where Ya'akov and the angel wrestle. While physically engaging with a foe
each party is dirtied thus warranting the term lei'avek - to wrestle or raise dirt and be sullied.
Ironically, in this context, we are encouraged to 'battle' our teachers in the pursuit of Torah truth.

Despite the great respect we afford Torah personalities, and despite the deference we show toward
their Torah positions, if convinced that Torah truth lies elsewhere, we are commissioned to pursue
it – respectfully, but aggressively.

The Gemara in Kiddushin (30b) likens a student and his Rebbe studying Torah to enemies warring
with each other. It demands that this confrontation end in love and respect, but it charges the
student with campaigning for Torah knowledge even if forced to disagree and battle with his
Rebbe.

When penning a sefer in defense of the Ri"f against the attacks of the Ba'al Hama'or, the Ramban
chose the name 'Milchamot Hashem' or 'holy war' to capture the battle he was about to commence
in defense of Torah veracity.

22
Much of the language he employs in reference to the Ba'al Hama'or reflects this sacred-militant
attitude. To the casual observer derogatory comments hurled at the Ba'al Hama'or may seem like
petty personal attacks. To the person who appreciates the eternal truth of Torah and who cares
about the decoding of this truth, the zeal merely reflects the passion and commitment which the
Ramban felt toward this mission.

Rav Avraham Adler writes:10

Atoning for impure meat

The Gemora cites a braisa which says that the tzitz atones for impure meat.

Rashi explains that this doesn’t mean that one may eat the meat, as the tzitz does not remove the
prohibition of eating impure meat of a sacrifice.

Rather, this braisa follows Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that if the meat isn’t present, one cannot
apply the blood. If the meat became impure, the tzitz atones on its impurity, making it valid to
apply the blood. Tosfos (16b al habasar) cites the Gemora later in Pesachim (78a) which says that
this atonement is also relevant for Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one can apply the blood even if the
meat isn’t present.

The atonement of the tzitz for impure meat makes it valid to become pigul and to remove the
prohibition of me’ila – misuse.

The Tzitz Atones

The Gemara states that the tzitz would atone for the sins regarding offerings in the Bais
HaMikdash. What was the significance of the tzitz that it atoned for these sins?

The tzitz was placed on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol, and the head is the source of the intellect.
We find that a Korban Olah was brought for the sin of arrogance, where one conjures up thoughts
of grandeur and selfishness.

One who offered a sacrifice demonstrated humility of spirit, and if there was a deficiency in the
sacrifice, this was reflected in his lack of sincerity or in his desire to gain atonement. The Kohen
Gadol, who represented the Jewish Nation, would don the Holy Vestments, and these vestments
contained the power to compensate for the lack of desire and intent in the person offering the
sacrifice.

Thus, the tzitz, worn on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol, would compensate for the lack of
sincerity and intent on the part of the one offering a sacrifice that was brought for arrogance or
selfishness.

10
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Pesachim_16.pdf

23
The concept of a kaporah being affected for Klal Yisroel through Aharon’s wearing of the ‫ ציץ‬can
perhaps be explained by the following story.11

R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l, was once approached by someone who requested that he daven
for a certain sick person. A while later, R’ Shlomo Zalman met the same fellow and asked him
how the choleh was feeling. The man replied that Baruch Hashem, he had fully recovered. R’
Shlomo Zalman thanked him for the good news and then asked him why he hadn’t informed him
sooner.

He went on to explain that the reason people came to him to ask him to daven for their loved ones
was obviously because they feel that he cared about their problems as if they would be his own.
(In his great humility he didn’t even imagine that anyone would attribute any special power to his
prayers.)

If that is the case, he pointed out that it was only proper that he be informed of good things
happening to these same people, so that he could rejoice with their simcha of recovering! This,
then, would be the reason Aharon’s wearing of the ‫ ציץ‬could provide forgiveness for others.

His wearing of the bigdei Kehunah and his accepting upon himself to be the emissary of all Jews
demonstrated that he was concerned with each of their needs, and their problems were directly
connected to him.

11
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20016.pdf

24