More Discussions for this daf
1. Lishkas ha'Gazis 2. Bringer of the Shovel, Bringer of the Ketores
DAF DISCUSSIONS - YOMA 25

The Art Scroll edition shows the entranceway to the Temple Mount on the East side of the room and the entranceway to the Courtyard on the West side of the room and indicates that each entranceway establishes the kedushah status of one-half of the room.

The text of the gemora indicates merely that there were two entranceways into the room, one from the Temple Mount and one from the Courtyard.

How do we know that the rule that the entranceway determines the kedushah status of the room applies when there is more than one entrance way? Is it not possible that the rule that the status of the room follows that of the entranceway falls away when there are two entranceways, each leading from a location having a different kedushah status? Is it not possible that the kedushah status was determined in another manner and that the chol part was never consecrated and that the kodesh part was consecrated in a manner other than by using the entranceway rule?

Michael S. Winokur, Forest Hills, NY, USA

The Kollel replies:

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your question. The truth is that I haven't seen the Artscroll diagram, but I think I understand the issue you raised. The ruling is fairly simple. The Azarah is 187 x 135. Anything outside of this is Chol, with few exceptions. A territory in the Kodesh which can be accessed only from the Chol is not Kodesh, and vice versa. In the event that the room has two entrance ways, one from the Kodesh and one from the Chol, the status of any area in the room depends on the location of the specific area. If it is in the Azarah territory it is Kodesh, otherwise it is Chol, unless it cannot be accessed by an adjacent entranceway.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Kol tuv.

Y. Landy

michael winokur responded:

THis is what I would also have thought, i.e., that where there are two entranceways, one from chol and one from kodesh, the entranceway rule falls away. It is, however, contrary to the opinion of "Rabbi Scroll".

Michael S. Winokur

The Kollel replies:

Dear Michael

Thanks again for your comments. I finally researched the matter, and indeed that is what it says in the "Scroll". It is based on the Me'iri, although it is clear to me that they misunderstood the Me'iri. The good news is that in the Hebrew edition they changed their explanation and solved the problem in a different manner. So I guess they realized their mistake.

Kol tuv.

Y. Landy