Odd Legal Statuses/It's As If A Monkey Did It

If a service performed at night is not considered premature, when Shabbat evening arrives, the arrangement of bread remaining on the table should be consecrated and disqualified when morning comes, because it was arranged at night. Ravina said: It is referring to a case where one removed the shewbread from the table before nightfall on Friday night to prevent consecration and disqualification. Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Even if you say that one did not remove the shewbread before nightfall, since he arranged the shewbread not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva as it was not at its appointed time, its legal status becomes as if a monkey arranged the shewbread. At dawn, the priest will remove it from the table and replace it in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva. However, with regard to a meal-offering whose handful was placed into a sacred vessel and shewbread that was placed on the table before dawn, they are not considered premature. They are therefore consecrated and disqualified.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the baraita to teach this, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it is written with regard to an external sin offering: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger” (Leviticus 4:34), and therefore if a monkey comes and places blood on the hand of the priest the priest must take blood from the vessel again to perform the mitzva as stated in the verse, it is considered as though the statement: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, is written with regard to an external sin offering as well.

The Gemara asks: But once he removed a handful, he formed a furrow in the surface of the meal offering, and therefore when he returns the handful to its previous place inside the vessel, he is in fact returning it to a spot within the vessel, i.e., the furrow. If so, the handful should be sanctified to the extent that the vessel disqualifies it. The Gemara responds: When he returns it to the vessel containing the meal offering, he does not place it directly in the furrow. Rather, he lays it on the wall of the vessel and moves the vessel, and the handful falls by itself into the furrow. In this manner, it is as though a monkey rather than a person returned the handful to the furrow, and the handful is therefore not sanctified.

The mishna taught that if the yevama performed ḥalitza while the yavam was wearing a wooden sandal the ḥalitza is valid. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that it is permitted to use a wooden sandal? Shmuel said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 65b): One with an amputated leg may go out on Shabbat with his wooden leg, as it has the legal status of a shoe; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yosei prohibits it, since he does not consider it to have the legal status of a shoe. Alternatively, the father of Shmuel says: Here the mishna is referring to a wooden sandal that is covered in leather, and all agree. This halakha was taught in accordance with all opinions, as even Rabbi Yosei agrees that the leather covering makes it a shoe. Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: One should not perform ḥalitza on a yavam wearing a quarantined sandal, i.e., a sandal examined by a priest who found its signs of leprosy to be inconclusive, and places the sandal in isolation for a waiting period of up to two weeks to see if clear indications of leprosy develop. But if she did perform ḥalitza while the yavam was wearing it, her ḥalitza is nevertheless valid after the fact. On the other hand, if the sandal with leprosy is a confirmed sandal, i.e., a sandal that was definitively ruled to have leprosy, one may not perform ḥalitza with it, and if she did perform ḥalitza while the man was wearing it, her ḥalitza is disqualified. As an object with confirmed leprosy must be burned, it is considered halakhically as if it were already burnt, and is consequently considered to lack the qualities of a shoe necessary for ḥalitza. In contrast, Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: With regard to both a quarantined sandal and a confirmed sandal the same halakha applies: She may not perform ḥalitza with it ab initio, but if she did perform ḥalitza with it, her ḥalitza is valid.

Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur stated in the mishna, as in the Torah, is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions before another, he has done nothing. If he performed the sprinkling of the blood of the goat before the sprinkling of the blood of the bull, he must repeat the action and sprinkle the blood of the goat after sprinkling the blood of the bull, so that the actions are performed in the proper order. And if the blood spills before he completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, and bring other blood, and then repeat all the services from the beginning inside the Holy of Holies. And similarly, if the blood spills before he finishes the presentations in the Sanctuary, he must begin the service in the Sanctuary from the beginning, and likewise with regard to the sprinkling of blood on the golden altar. Since they are each acts of atonement in and of themselves, there is no need to repeat the service of the entire day from the beginning. Rather, he need only repeat the specific element that he failed to complete. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the place that he interrupted that particular service, when the blood spilled, there he resumes performance of that service. In their opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these services is an act in and of itself, and there is no need to repeat what he has already done.

However, this applies only where the ill person, or any other Jew, does not assist the gentile. But in this case the Master, Ameimar, assists the gentile while the ointment is being applied, as he closes and opens his eye, thereby allowing the ointment to penetrate more deeply. Therefore, this should be prohibited. Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: There is also the opinion of Rav Zevid, who holds in accordance with your opinion; he, too, raised the objection that it should be prohibited due to the fact that the Jew assists the gentile. And I already answered him: The assistance provided by one who assists another in performing a task that the other could essentially have performed himself is insubstantial. Inasmuch as the action is primarily performed by the gentile, the minor assistance given by the Jew may be overlooked.