Talmud - Mas. Yoma 23a
who does not avenge himself and retain anger like a serpent, is no [real] scholar.1 But is it not written: Thou shalt not take vengeance nor bear any grudge?2 — That refers to monetary affairs, for it has been taught: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: ‘Lend me your sickle’, and he replied ‘No’, and to-morrow the second comes [to the first] and says: ‘Lend me your axe’! and he replies: ‘I will not lend it to you, just as you would not lend me your sickle’ — that is revenge. And what is bearing a grudge? If one says to his fellow: ‘Lend me your axe , he replies ‘No’, and on the morrow the second asks: ‘Lend me your garment’, and he answers: ‘Here it is. I am not like you who would not lend me [what I asked for]’ — that is bearing a grudge. But [does] not [this prohibition apply to] personal affliction? Has it not been taught: Concerning those who are insulted but do not insult others [in revenge], who hear themselves reproached without replying, who [perform good] work out of love of the Lord and rejoice in their sufferings,3 Scripture says: But they that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might?4 — [That means,] indeed, that he keeps it in his heart [though without taking action]. Rut Raba said: He who passes over his retaliations has all his transgressions passed over?5 — [That speaks of the case] that an endeavour was made to obtain his reconciliation, and his consent is obtained.
AND HOW MANY DID THEY PUT FORTH? ONE OR TWO. If they may put forth two, why is it necessary to mention that they may put forth one? — R. Hisda said: This is no difficulty: The one speaks of healthy persons, the other of sick ones.6 Thus has it been taught: One finger is put forth, but not two. To whom does this rule apply? To a healthy person, but a sick one may put forth even two. But the ‘Yehidim’7 put forward two and one counts only one thereof.8 But has it not been taught: One does not put forth either the third finger or the thumb because of tricksters, and if one had put forth the third finger, it would be counted,9 but if one had put forth the thumb it would not be counted, and not alone that but the officer strikes him with the pekia’?10 — What does ‘it would be counted’ mean? Only one. What is pekia’? — Rab said: A madra [chastising whip]. What is madra? R. Papa said: The whip of the Arabs, the head [sting] of which is taken off. — Abaye said: Originally I believed that which we have learnt: Ben Bibai was in charge of "pekia"11 meant, in charge of the wicks, as we have learnt: From the outworn breeches and belts of the priests they used to make ‘peki'in’ and light them12 Now that I hear that it was taught: Not that alone, but the officer would strike him with the ‘pekia" I understand that ‘pekia" means lash.13
IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT TWO WERE EVEN AS THEY RAN TO MOUNT THE RAMP. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that two priests were equal as they ran to mount the ramp and when one of them came first within four cubits of the altar, the other took a knife and thrust it into his heart. R. Zadok stood on the steps of the Hall14 and said: Our brethren of the house of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land... then thy elders and judges shall come forth . . .15 On whose behalf shall we offer the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or on behalf of the Temple Courts? All the people burst out weeping. The father of the young man came and found him still in convulsions. He said: ‘May he be an atonement for you. My son is still in convulsions and the knife has not become unclean.’ [His remark] comes to teach you that the cleanness of their vessels was of greater concern to them even than the shedding of blood. Thus is it also said: Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other.16
Which event took place first?17 Would you say that of the bloodshed took place first? Now, if in spite of the bloodshed they did not establish the count, would they have arranged it because of the [incident of the] broken leg? Rather, the [incident of the] broken leg came first — But since they had already arranged a count how was [the affair of the bloodshed] within the four cubits possible? — Rather, the incident of the bloodshed came first, but at first [the Rabbis] thought it was a mere accident; but when however they saw that even without [such unfortunate accidents] they incurred danger, they enacted the count.
‘R. Zadok stood upon the steps of the Hall and called out: Our brethren of the House of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land.18 On whose behalf shall we bring the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or of the Temple Courts?’ But does [the community of] Jerusalem bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken? Surely it has been taught: Ten things were said concerning Jerusalem and this is one of them —
(1) Maharsha interprets this statement by reference to Gen. III, 15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise their heel. The man will endeavour to crush the serpent so as to deprive it of its life: whereas the serpent retaliates by bruising only the heel, a non-vital part of the human body. Thus, ‘serpent-like’ the scholar should retaliate most moderately even when great wrong was done to him. — This proverb may also be a reaction to too humble a scholar, who by reason of his extreme forbearance seemingly encourages impudent and cruel people in their nefarious conduct. — Another suggested interpretation: just as great serpents swallowing their prey, moisten it with so much saliva as to be deprived of a sense of what, subjectively, they are eating, knowing only, objectively. that they are eating something, so should the scholar, against whom a wrong was committed, not endeavour to avenge himself subjectively, but to avenge objectively the wrong that was perpetrated. [Bacher (ZDMG, 1874, p. 6) relates this dictum to the one preceding: Any scholar who does not avenge himself like Nahash (which is the Hebrew for serpent) is no scholar. The reference is to a tradition preserved in a fragment of the Jerusalem Targum on Isa. XI, 2 that the condition made by Nahash for the offered covenant was that the Gileadites remove the injunction from the Torah barring the Ammonites from the congregation of Israel — an injunction which he considered an affront.]
(2) Lev. XIX, 18.
(3) Because imposed by the Lord, either to test their faith or to punish them in this world for their sins, rewarding their virtues in the world to come, cf. Git. 68b: ‘In order that he may enjoy his world here whence the theory that the wicked who prosper are rewarded here for their good deeds and punished for their evil doings in the hereafter, with the opposite method applied to the virtuous.
(4) Judg. V, 31.
(5) He who forbears to retaliate will find forbearance for his own failings.
(6) V. supra p. 97, n. 7.
(7) Certain individuals, i.e., scholars, v. Ta'an 10a. They would, out of respect for their learning, be permitted a convenience, which sick persons are granted out of consideration for their health.
(8) Tosef. Yoma I, 10.
(9) No trickiness is involved here, because the distance between these fingers is too small to mislead the officer into assuming that he saw the fingers of two different persons in the count, but with the thumb a dishonest motive seems obvious, hence both, the disregard and the punishment.
(10) Pekia’ — may mean: strip, shreds of garments, hence either wick or whip.
(11) Shek. V, 1.
(12) Suk. 51a.
(13) Abaye does not absolutely exclude two compatible meanings of the word.
(14) Ulam, the hall leading to the interior of the Temple.
(15) Deut. XXI, 1.
(16) II Kings XXI, 16.
(17) The bloodshed or the breaking of the leg.
(18) Deut. XXI, 1.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 23b
it does not have to bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken.1 Furthermore: And it be not known who hath smitten him but here it is known who has smitten him?-Rather [he put his question rhetorically] to increase the weeping.2
‘The father of the young man came and found the boy in convulsions. He said: "May he be an atonement for you.3 My son is still in convulsions, etc." To teach you that they looked upon the purity of their vessels as a graver matter than bloodshed!’ [The Scholars in the Academy] asked this question: Was it that bloodshed became a minor matter to them, whereas the purity of their vessels remained in its original importance, or did bloodshed concern them as before but the purity of the vessels became for them of a still graver concern? Come and hear: Because the Talmud adduces ‘And also innocent blood did Manasseh shed’ that indicates that bloodshed had become a matter of smaller concern to them whilst the purity of the vessels retained its original importance.
Our Rabbis taught: And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments and carry forth the ashes4 — from this I might learn even as on the Day of Atonement,5 [so] that he put off his holy garments and put on profane garments.6 To teach us [the true law] it says: ‘And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments, thus comparing the garments he put on with the garments he put off; just as the former are holy garments, so are the latter holy garments. If so, what does [the word] ‘other’ teach?7 [They shall be] inferior to the former. R. Eliezer said: [The words] ‘other’ and ‘he shall carry forth’ indicate that priests afflicted with a blemish8 are permitted to carry forth the ashes.
The Master said: ‘"Other garments", i.e. inferior to the former’, as the school of R. Ishmael taught: For the school of R. Ishmael taught: One should not offer a cup of wine to one's teacher while wearing the garment wherein one has cooked a dish9 for him.
Resh Lakish said: Just as there is diversity of opinion about the carrying forth of the ashes,10 so there is about clearing them off the altar.11 R. Johanan said: The diversity of opinion applies only to the carrying forth, but as to clearing them off the altar, all agree that this is [regular] service.12 What is the reason for Resh Lakish's view? He will tell you: If it should enter your mind that this [the clearing of the ashes off the altar] is considered a [regular] service — then you would have a service legitimate In two garments.13 And R. Johanan?14 — The Divine Law revealed the regulation for tunic and breeches, but it includes also mitre and girdle.15 Then why are these [two specially mentioned]? — ‘Middo bad’ [‘linen garments’] is written [here to indicate] proper measure,16 ‘miknese bad’ [‘linen breeches’] to teach us in accord with what has been taught:17 Whence is it known that nothing may be put on before the breeches? Because it is said: ‘And he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh.’ And Resh Lakish? — That the garment must have the proper measure [he infers] from the fact that the Divine Law employs [the word] ‘middo’ [garment, not tunic]; that nothing may be put on before the breeches, he infers from the words: ‘on his flesh’. Shall we say that the point at issue is the same as between the following Tannaim: ‘[And his linen breeches shall he put] on his flesh.’ Why does Scripture say: ‘Shall he put on?’18 That is meant to include the [obligation of wearing] mitre and girdle for the clearing off of the ashes — this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Dosa says: That means to include [the rule] that the [four white] garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement may be worn by the common priest [during the remainder of the year].19 Rabbi said: There are two refutations to this matter. One: the girdle of the high priest20 is different from that of the common priest.21 Two: shall garments used at a service of solemn holiness be worn at a service of lesser holiness? — But what, rather, is the significance of ‘yilbash’?
(1) Sot. 45a.
(2) To make them conscious of the horrible nature of the deed perpetrated.
(3) Maharsha explains that since Jerusalem is deprived of the heifer ceremony, which would normally obtain forgiveness for them, the generous father prayed for atonement by the grace of God.
(4) Lev. VI, 4.
(5) When the high priest changed his garments with every different service, cf. infra 70a.
(6) In the case of the high priest he changes from golden garments into linen garments and vice versa. With the ordinary priest however who has no alternate holy garments, the change would be from holy garments into profane ones.
(7) The word ‘other’ is connected with ‘and he shall carry forth’ to which it is placed in juxtaposition in the Hebrew text, thus referring to the priest.
(8) And thus designated ‘other’, i.e., than those who are usually fit for service.
(9) Similarly there should be different garments worn for the service proper and for the removal of the ashes respectively.
(10) As to whether blemished priests may remove them.
(11) That matter depends on the answer to the question, as to whether the removal of the ashes is considered a service or not.
(12) Requiring the putting on of four garments and the ministration of unblemished priests.
(13) Scripture says: He shall put on his linen garments and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh. (Lev. VI, 3.) If the removal of the ashes, whereof this passage speaks, were a service, how could Scripture demand only ‘the linen garment’ and the ‘linen breeches i.e.,two garments, when a service proper requires four? Since only two garments are required, evidently the removal of the ashes is not considered a service and hence may be performed even by blemished priests, who would not be admissible to service proper!
(14) R. Johanan who considers this a proper service, requiring unblemished priests, how will he account for the contradictory fact that Scripture insists on two garments only.
(15) He explains that in reality four garments are required here, as may be inferred from the parallel passage in Lev. XVI, 4, where as a matter of course ‘mitre and girdle’ are added, the one passage supplementing implicates the other.
(16) He connects ‘middo’ which comes from a root meaning garment, with ‘madad’, which means to measure, i.e., the garment must be of proper measure, for the priest's figure. Resh Lakish infers from the fact that ‘middo’ (garment) is used instead of the usual ‘kethoneth’ (tunic) that a properly fitting garment is required.
(17) Zeb. 35a.
(18) Lev. XVI, 4: The text could have stated ‘He shall put on the holy tunic and the linen breeches on his flesh’. The word ‘yilbash’ (‘he shall put on’) is superfluous. The word ‘yilbash’ is a sort of terminus technicus for complete dress, i.e., the four garments.
(19) [He utilizes yilbash, written here, for the purpose of a gezerah shawah with yilbash mentioned in connection with the four garments put on by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. V. Lev. XVI, 4 to teach this rule.]
(20) Included in the four garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.
(21) V. supra p. 55, n. 6. So that the ordinary priests could not wear the four garments of the high priests.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 24a
It includes worn-out garments.1 And he shall leave them there,2 that teaches that they must be hidden away. R. Dosa says: They are fit for use by a common priest. What does ‘And he shall leave them there’ intimate? That he [the high priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement.3 Now would you not say that this is the subject of their dispute: that one4 holds it [the removal of the ashes] to be a service5 and the other6 does not consider it such?7 — No. Everybody agrees it is a service; the point of dispute here is this: One says another scriptural passage is necessary8 to include also for this service [the four garments]; the other: no such passage is necessary.9
R. Abin asked: How much of the ashes of the altar is to be removed? Shall we infer [the quantity] from the taking off of the tithe,10 or from what was taken off from the [spoil of] Midian?11 — Come and hear: For R. Hiyya taught: Here12 the word ‘herim’ [‘he shall take up’] is used and there13 the expression ‘we-herim’ [‘and he shall take up’] is used. Just as in the latter case it means taking a handful, so in the former case it means taking a handful.14
Rab said:15 There are four services for the performance of which a non-priest [stranger] incurs penalty of death:16 sprinkling, smoking [the fat],17 the water libation, and the libation of wine. Levi says: also the removal of the ashes. Thus did Levi also teach us in his Baraitha: Also the removal of the ashes. What is the reason for Rab's view? It is written: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep the priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to that within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death.18 ‘A service of gift’, but not a service of removal;19 ‘and you shall serve, i.e., a complete service, not a service followed by another.20 And Levi?21 — The Divine Law included it22 in saying: ‘In every thing that pertaineth to the altar.’ And Rab?23 — That is meant to include the seven sprinklings within,24 and those concerning the leper.25
And Levi?26 — He infers [these] from [the fact that instead of] ‘the thing’, [is written] ‘every thing’, [that pertaineth]. And Rab?27 — He does not infer aught from ‘every thing’.28 But say this: ‘In everything that pertaineth to the altar’ is a general proposition; ‘service of gift’ is a specification.29 Now: if a general proposition is followed by a specification, the scope of the proposition is limited by the specification,30 hence the ‘service of gift’ would be included, but a service of removal would be excluded? — The scriptural text reads:
(1) They may be worn for any service as long as they are wearable, i.e., whole.
(2) Lev. XVI, 23. With reference to the garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.
(3) This is the end of the Baraitha, 46a.
(4) R. Judah.
(5) And therefore it requires for it all the four garments.
(6) R. Dosa.
(7) And therefore holds that the linen tunic and breeches are sufficient without the mitre and girdle.
(8) Lest one assume that the verse is to be taken literally, that only two garments are required, hence that this is no service proper.
(9) Since Scripture insists on the tunic and breeches it is evidently considered a service, requiring all the four garments.
(10) Num. XVIII, 25, where about one per cent is taken off.
(11) Ibid. XXXI, 28-40, where it is but one-fifth of one per cent.
(12) Lev. VI, 3.
(13) Ibid. 8.
(14) [It is not inferred either from tithe or from the spoil of Midian, but from the handful taken by the priest. This however applies only to the minimum, which may however be exceeded at will (Rashi).]
(15) Zeb.112b .
(16) Although the common man is forbidden to perform any service in the sanctuary, he does not incur the penalty of death in any but the following cases.
(17) Or ‘the handful of the meal-offering’.
(18) Num. XVIII, 7.
(19) E.g., the removal of the ashes.
(20) The Hebrew word עבדתם is divided into עבודת תמה so as to read: perfect service, i.e., one complete, without additional functions such as the four services mentioned by Rab. This excludes a service such as slaughtering which is not complete without the rites connected with the sprinkling of the blood that follow it.
(21) Rab's inferences excluding the removal of the ashes seem to be right?
(22) The removal of the ashes for the performance of which a non-priest incurs penalty of death.
(23) Everything that pertaineth obviously includes something else. Unless some other service is intended, Levi proves his case.
(24) Lev. IV, 6: And sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord; ibid. 17. also ibid. XVI, 14.
(25) Lev. XIV, 51: And he shall take the cedar-wood . . . and sprinkle the house seven times, which may not be considered as part of ‘the altar’ service; the same applies to the functions referred to in the preceding note.
(26) Whence does he infer these?
(27) What does ‘everything’ suggest to him.
(28) Lit., ‘he does not expound the thing" as everything".’
(29) Already comprehended in the general proposition.
(30) This is one of the principles of hermeneutics (kelal u-ferat) according to R. Ishmael, v. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 12, n. 9.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 24b
‘And to that within the veil . . . and you shall serve’,1 [i.e.] Only within the veil is ‘the service of gift’2 [included] but not the ‘service of removal away’,3 but outside [the Temple] even a ‘service of removal’4 [is included].5 But [one could] similarly [argue with regard to the exposition of] ‘you shall serve’ only within the veil, is a complete service6 [included] but not one service which is followed by another service,7 but outside, even a service followed by another [is also included]?8 — [Scripture, by saying] ‘And ye shall serve’ has reconnected them.9
Raba asked: What is the law regarding [a service of] removal within the Temple?10 Do we compare it with [a service of removal] within11 [the veil] or with [one] outside [the Temple]? Then he answered the question himself: It is to be compared to [a removal service] within [the veil]. [For Scripture instead of] ‘within’ [says:] ‘And to that within [the veil]’.12 But then13 should the common man who arranged the [shewbread] table be guilty? — There is the arrangement of the censer of frankincense.14 — Then if he arranges the censers let him incur the penalty!15 — There is the removal of the censers16 and the smoking of the incense. Let the common man who put the candlestick in order incur the penalty! — That is to be followed by the putting in of the wick. Then if he put the wick in let him incur that penalty! — There is the adding16 of the oil. Then if he puts the oil in let him incur that penalty? There is the lighting.16 Then if he lights it let him incur that penalty! — Lighting is not considered a service. Is it, indeed, not [considered a service]? But it has been taught:17 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire18 — this teaches that the kindling of the wood of the fig-tree19 must be performed by a priest who is fit [for service] and with garments of ministration.20 The kindling of the fig-wood is considered service, but not the lighting of the candlestick. Then let the common man who puts the pile of wood [on the altar] in order, incur that penalty! — There is the arrangement of the two logs of wood.21 — Then if he arranged the two logs of wood, let him incur that penalty? — It is followed by the arranging of the limbs.22 But R. Assi had said in the name of R. Johanan: A common man who arranged the two logs of wood incurred the penalty of death? — In this indeed there is division of opinion,23 one holding [the arrangement of the two logs of wood] is a complete service, the other holding that it is not a complete service.
There is a teaching in accord with Rab, and there is a teaching in accord with Levi. ‘There is the teaching in accord with Rab’: These are the services for the performance of which a common man incurs penalty of death: the sprinkling of the blood, both within [the Temple] and within the Holy of Holies: and he who sprinkles the blood of a bird offered as a sin-offering;24 and he who wrings out the blood, and who smokes the bird offered up as a burnt-offering;25 and he who makes the libation of three logs of water or of wine.26 ‘There is a teaching in accord with Levi’: The services for the performance of which a common man incurs penalty of death are: the removal of the ashes, the seven sprinklings within [the Holy of Holies] and he who offers up on the altar a sacrifice whether fit or unfit. THERE WERE FOUR COUNTS etc.27 Why do they decide by count? [You ask,] ‘Why?’ As we have explained. Rather: Why did they decide by count once and again?28 — R. Johanan said: To stir up the whole Temple Court, as it is said: We took sweet counsel together, in the house of God we walked be-ragesh [with tumult].29
What garments do they wear when taking the count? R. Nahman said: Common garments, R. Shesheth said: Sacred garments. ‘R. Nahman said: Common garments’. For if you were to say these garments were sacred there would be violent men who would serve by force.30 ‘R. Shesheth said: Sacred garments’. For if you were to say common garments, it would happen that, out of sheer love [of the service] they would perform it in common clothes.31 R. Nahman said: On what ground do I hold my view? Because we have learnt: They delivered them to the Temple sextons, who stripped them of their garments and left them with their breeches only.32
(1) These words separate the general proposition from the specification, and thus sever the connection with them and render any inference as from one to the other invalid.
(2) [E.g.. the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of incense in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 13-14.]
(3) E.g.. the taking out of the censer on the Day of Atonement from the Holy of Holies.
(4) [E.g.. the removal of the ashes.]
(5) In the services for his performance of which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death.
(6) [E.g.. the putting of incense on the fire in the Holy of Holies.]
(7) E.g., the bringing in of the spoon and the censer in the Holy of Holies which must be followed by the burning of the incense.
(8) E.g., the removal of the ashes.
(9) [The waw of עבדתם connects the general statement and particularization as far as the deduction made from the word itself is concerned, but it does not affect the exposition based as ‘a service of gift’ which is still governed by the words ‘within the veil’.]
(10) E.g., the removal of the ashes of the golden altar and candlestick.
(11) According to Rab there is no difference between service within the veil or outside: a common man becomes guilty of death only if he performs a service of gift, not of removal. But according to Levi he becomes guilty also in case of a service of removal. Hence Raba's question addresses itself to Levi: Do we compare it to the service within the veil, so that the common man performing it would not incur penalty of death, or to service without, when he would incur it?
(12) The letter ‘waw is superfluous. It includes also the Temple, hence in case of a gift service, he would incur that penalty there too, and with a removal service he would be exempt as within the veil.
(13) If a common man who performs in the Temple a Service of gift incurs the penalty of death.
(14) After the shewbread is arranged. V. Lev. XXIV, 7. Hence the former is not a complete service, for the performance of which a commoner incurs the penalty of death.
(15) Assuming this to be a ‘complete’ service, not followed by anything else.
(16) On the following Sabbath, which forms a completion of this service. V. ibid, 8.
(17) Infra 45a.
(18) Lev. I, 7.
(19) Used as kindling wood on the altar, V. Tam. II, 4.
(20) Hence it is considered a proper service and the commoner performing it should incur the penalty.
(21) v. infra, 33a.
(22) Of the Daily continual offering.
(23) Between Rab who limits the liability to the four he enumerates and R. Johanan who includes the arrangement of the two logs of wood.
(24) V. Lev. V, 9.
(25) V. Ibid. I, 15.
(26) Suk. 48a.
(27) The text here is corrected in accordance with Bah.
(28) The Mishnah speaks of four counts.
(29) Ps. LV, 15. The word, ברגש, usually translated as ‘multitude’ is here connected with רגש, meaning ‘to stir up’, thus, ‘enthusiasm’, ‘love’.
(30) Even without having been chosen by count, his being fitly dressed encouraging such forwardness.
(31) If the lot fell on them.
(32) Tam. V, 3.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 25a
Don't [you agree] that this refers to those who had obtained part in the day's services by the count?1 — R. Shesheth said: No, it refers to those who had not obtained part in the day's service by the count.2 Thus also does it appear provable by logic. For, if it were to refer to those who were allotted part in the service by count, how could it be stated that they left them the breeches only; surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that nothing may be put on before the breeches? To teach us that it says:3 And breeches of linen shall be on his flesh.4 — And the other?5 — This is no difficulty: This is what it teaches: Whilst they still wore the common clothes, they put on the holy breeches, after that they removed the common clothes and left them with the [holy] breeches.
Said R. Shesheth: Whence do I hold my view? From what has been taught: The Cell of the Hewn Stone6 was [built] in the style of a large basilica. The count took place in the eastern side, with the elder7 sitting in the west, and the priests in the form of a spiral figure. The officer came and took the mitre from the head of one of them. One would know then that the count would start from him.8 Now, if the thought should arise that the priests [came to the count] in common garment — is there a mitre in common dress? — Yes, there is, as Rab Judah or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Judah reported: A priest for whom his mother made a tunic, could officiate therein at an individual [not community] service.9 Abaye said: We can infer from this the Cell of Hewn Stone was [situated] half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground; that the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other opening on non — holy ground. For, if the thought should arise in you that the whole of it was on holy ground — how could the elder sit to the west; has not a Master10 said: Nobody could sit in the Temple Court except the kings of the House of David.11 Furthermore, if you could think that the whole cell was outside holy ground, how could the count take place on its eastern side, is it not required: ‘In the house of God we walked with the throng’12 and this would not be [the house of God]! Hence [the inference is valid]: It is half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground. And if the thought should arise in you that the Cell has but one door opening on holy ground, how could the elder sit to the west, and we have learnt: If the cells are built on non-holy ground and open on holy ground the space within them is holy.13 And if the thought should arise in you that it opened into unholy ground how could the count take place in the eastern part [of the Cell];14 have we not learnt: If they are built on holy ground and open out on non-holy ground, their space within is non-holy, hence you must needs say: the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other on non-holy ground.
MISHNAH. THE SECOND COUNT:15 WHO SHOULD SLAUGHTER [THE DAILY REGULAR OFFERING],16 WHO SHOULD SPRINKLE THE BLOOD, WHO SHOULD REMOVE THE ASHES FROM THE INNER ALTAR,17 WHO SHOULD REMOVE THE ASHES FROM THE CANDLESTICK,18 WHO SHOULD TAKE UP TO THE RAMP THE LIMBS [OF THE OFFERING], THE HEAD AND THE [RIGHT]19 HIND-LEG, THE TWO FORELEGS, THE TAIL AND THE [LEFT]19 HIND-LEG, THE BREAST AND THE THROAT,20 THE TWO FLANKS,21 THE INWARDS, FINE FLOUR,22 THE CAKES23 AND THE WINE.24 ALTOGETHER THIRTEEN PRIESTS OBTAINED A TASK.25 BEN AZZAI SAID BEFORE R. AKIBA IN THE NAME OF JOSHUA: IT [THE DAILY OFFERING] WAS OFFERED UP IN THE WAY IT WALKS.26
GEMARA. The question was asked: When they take the count, do they do so for one service or for each individual task? — Come and hear: Four counts were there.27 Now if the thought should arise in you that there was a separate count for each task, there would be need of many counts! — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: This is what [the Mishnah] means: Four times they went in for counting, and on each occasion there were many counts.
(1) And they were stripped of the common garments which they wore during the count.
(2) They were stripped of the sacred garments which they wore during the count.
(3) V. supra 23b.
(4) Lev. XVI, 4.
(5) R. Nahman.
(6) [The Hall wherein the great Sanhedrin used to sit. Schurer II, p. 264 identifies it with the chamber ‘close to the xystus’ on the western border of the Temple mount. For the refutation of this view, V. Krauss. J.E. XII, 576.]
(7) Of the Beth din supervising the count (Rashi).
(8) Tosef. Suk. IV, 6.
(9) V. infra 35b.
(10) Infra 69b.
(11) In Deut. XVIII, 5: The Lord hath chosen him out of all thy tribes to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, against which II Sam. VII, 18: Then David the king went in and sat before the Lord.
(12) And this enthusiasm, as explained before, was created by the count.
(13) Ma'as Sh. III, 8.
(14) The count had to take place on holy ground.
(15) V. Mishnah, supra 22a.
(16) The priest with whom the count ended slaughtered the daily regular sacrifice. His right hand neighbour had the next task, his neighbour's right hand neighbour the third, etc.
(17) On the inner altar, every morning and evening, the incense was offered. The glowing coals for that purpose were obtained from the outer altar. The ashes which remained were removed next day. They could be removed by a common priest even on the Day of Atonement.
(18) This too could be performed by any common priest, the high priest had but to do the lighting of the lamps.
(19) The right hindleg. V. Tamid IV, 3.
(20) Larynx with windpipe, lungs and heart.
(21) With milt and liver.
(22) For the meal-offering which accompanied the daily regular sacrifice. Num. XXVIII, 5.
(23) Made on the מחבת (pan). V. Men.96a. It was the daily sacrifice of the high priest which accompanied the daily regular sacrifice. Lev. VI, 13; Shek. VII, 6.
(24) Num. XXVIII, 7.
(25) Two, that of slaughtering and sprinkling; two, clearing the golden altar and the candlestick; six, taking up the limbs and inwards, three, taking up the flour and wine-offerings.
(26) Lit., ‘according to the manner of its gait’, i.e., in order of the parts of the body active in the movements; first head and right hind-leg, then breast and neck, then the two fore-legs, then the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg.
(27) Supra 22a.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 25b
Come and hear: R. Judah said: There was no count for the coal-pan, but the priest who had obtained the task of [smoking] the incense said to his assistant: Obtain with me the privilege of serving the coal-pan.1 — It is different with incense and coal-pan, because they form together one service. Some argue thus: This is the case only with coal-pan and incense, because they form one service, but all other tasks require individual count!2 — [No.] With regard to the coal-pan it is necessary to inform us [that no separate count is required] for the thought could have arisen that because it takes place rarely and enriches,3 therefore a special count should be arranged for it, hence we are taught [that it is not so].
Come and hear: R. Hiyya taught: There was no count for each individual task, the priest who secured the task of [the killing of] the daily burnt-offering drew twelve priests to himself [for the tasks involved]. This proves it.
THE SECOND COUNT: The question was asked: Who receives the blood?4 [Do we say that] he who killed? For if you were to say that the one who sprinkles the blood receives it, perhaps in his enthusiasm5 he may not receive the whole blood; or does the sprinkler receive it, for if you were to say that he who kills the animal receives the blood, occasionally a non-priest kills [the animal]?6 — Come and hear: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the laver so that his twelve brethren, the priests, who are occupied with the daily regular sacrifice, may simultaneously wash their hands and feet.7 Now, if you were to think that he who kills [the animal] also receives its blood there would be thirteen.8 Must we not therefore infer therefrom that he who sprinkles receives the blood? This proves it.
R. Aha, the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: We have also learnt thus: He whose lot it was to slaughter it, slaughtered it; he whose lot it was to receive the blood, received it — and then he came to sprinkle it.9 This proves it.
BEN ‘AZZAI SAID BEFORE R. AKIBA, etc.: Our Rabbis taught: What is ‘THE WAY OF ITS WALKING’? The head, right hind-leg, breast and neck, the two fore-legs, the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg. R. Jose says: It was offered up in the order in which it is flayed. Which is the order of its being flayed? The head, the right hind-leg, the tail, the left hind-leg, the two flanks, the two fore-legs, the breast, and the neck. R. Akiba says: It was offered up in the order in which it was dissected. Which is the order of the dissection? The head, the right hind-leg, the two forelegs, the breast and the neck, the two flanks, the tail and the left hind-leg. R. Jose the Galilean says: It was offered up in the order of its best parts. Which is the order of its best parts? The head, the [right] hind-leg, the breast and neck, the two flanks, the tail and the [left] hind-leg and the two fore-legs. But is it not written: Even every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder?10 — That refers to a lean animal:11 Raba said: Both our Tanna12 and R. Jose the Galilean follow the order of quality of the meat, but one takes into consideration the size [of the limbs], the other the fatness.
Why does the head go together with the [right] hind-leg?13 Because the head has many bones; one attaches the [meaty] hindleg to it.
All14 agree at any rate that the head is offered up first. Whence do we derive this rule? Because it has been taught: Whence do we know that the head and the suet come before all other parts [of the animal]? To teach us that, it says: He shall lay it in order with its head and its suet.15 And as to the other ‘suet’,16
(1) The incense required two priests: one who carried the incense into the Temple and smoked it, the other who took out the coals from the outer altar, brought them into the Temple, and put them on the inner altar to smoke the incense upon them. V. infra 26a. From here it appears that not every task required a count.
(2) Which proves that every task requires a count.
(3) V. infra 26a.
(4) In a basin for sprinkling purposes.
(5) Lit., ‘his love (for the service)’.
(6) As deduced from Lev. I, 5; a non-priest may kill the animal, as the priestly functions in connection with an animal-sacrifice begin with the receiving of the blood.
(7) Infra 37a.
(8) There were thirteen tasks according to the Mishnah. The slaughtering, however, since even a commoner might perform it, did not require washing of hands and feet even if performed by a priest. But if he who slaughtered it should also receive its blood, he would have to wash his hands too because of the subsequent receiving of the blood.
(9) Tamid IV, 1.
(10) Ezek. XXIV, 4. [This shows that the thigh (the hind-leg) and the shoulder (the foreleg) are among the best pieces whereas here they are mentioned last (תום ישנים); v. however p. 119, n. 2.]
(11) [The verse speaks of the wicked in Israel who plunder the poor and consume the good pieces of their animals which at best could only be lean, whereas the daily sacrifices were offered from the best, Ibid.]
(12) The Tanna of our Mishnah.
(13) [Var. lec. transfer here both the question from Ezek. XXIV, 4 and the answer that follows. In this reading these refer to ‘our Tanna’ who mentions ‘the fore-legs’ before the hind-legs whereas in Ezekiel the thigh (hind-leg) is given preference, v. Bah.]
(14) Ben ‘Azzai, R Jose, R. Akiba, R. Jose the Galilean, whilst basing their order on different considerations, all have the head offered up first.
(15) Lev. I, 12. Infra 26a.
(16) Ibid. I, 8: The pieces, and the head, and the suet. It was included in the other pieces.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 26a
what does it signify? [It has its meaning] in accordance with what has been taught: How did he do it? He placed the suet upon the open throat and offered it up thus, that being done as a sign of respect for heaven.1
MISHNAH. THE THIRD COUNT: NOVICES2 COME UP AND SUBMIT TO THE COUNT FOR THE INCENSE. THE FOURTH COUNT: NOVICES AND OLD PRIESTS, WHO WILL TAKE UP THE LIMBS3 FROM THE RAMP TO THE ALTAR.
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Never did a man repeat that,4 What is the reason? — Because it enriches. R. Papa said to Abaye: Why [does the incense enrich]? Would one say because Scripture says: They shall put incense before Thee,5 and soon after: Bless, Lord, his substance?6 If so, then a burnt-offering should also enrich, for there it is written also: And whole burnt-offering upon Thine altar?7 He answered: The second is frequent,8 the first not. Raba said: You will not find any rabbinical scholar giving decision who is not a descendant from the tribe of Levi or Issachar. ‘Of Levi’, as it is written: They shall teach Jacob Thine ordinances,5 ‘of Issachar’, as it is written: And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.9 But mention Judah too, for it is written: Judah is my law-giver?10 — I am speaking [only] of those [who make conclusions] in accordance with the adopted practice.11
R. Johanan said: No count is arranged for the daily continual evening12 sacrifice, but the priest who secured the task of offering the continual morning sacrifice also obtains the task of the evening sacrifice. An objection was raised: Just as one arranges a count for it in the morning so is a count arranged for it in the evening? — That was taught in application to the incense.13 — But it has been taught: Just as one arranges a count for it14 [masc.], in the morning, so does one arrange for it, a count in the evening. Read:15 for it [fem .] — But it has been taught: Just as one arranges a count for it [masc.] in the morning, so is a count arranged for it [masc.] in the evening, and just as one arranges a count for it [fem.] in the morning, so is a count arranged for it16 [fem.] in the evening! — R. Samuel b. Isaac said: Here we refer to the Sabbath, on which the divisions of the priests are relieved.17 But on the original assumption18 there was a larger number of counts? — All came in the morning [for the count]; to some it was allotted for the morning to others, for the evening.
THE FOURTH COUNT: NOVICES AND OLDER PRIESTS etc.: Our Mishnah does not agree with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, for we have learnt: He who brings the limbs up to the ramp also brings them up to the altar.19 What principle are they disputing? One holds: In the multitude of the people is the king's glory,20 whereas the other is of the opinion that [the distribution of duties among too many] is not good form in the abode of the Shechinah.21 Raba said: R. Eliezer b. Jacob does not agree with the view of R. Judah, nor does the latter agree with the view of the former, for, if that were the case there would be too few counts.22 And if you find a teacher who teaches ‘five [counts]’,
(1) Because the throat is smeared with blood, it would not look respectful enough to offer it up in such condition. Hul. 27b.
(2) Nothing was more desired than the privilege of offering up incense. Hence priests who had already enjoyed that function were excluded from repetition until all their colleagues had the same task bestowed upon them. Hence the officer calls on novices to present themselves for the count.
(3) The limbs of the sacrifice were first placed on the lower part of the ramp, after having been dissected, (Tamid IV, 1, 2) then later carried thence to the altar and burnt there.
(4) The offering up of incense.
(5) Deut. XXXIII, 10.
(6) Ibid. 11.
(7) Ibid. 10.
(8) Sacrifices may be either private or public, hence very frequent. Incense was a community offering, hence limited by law.
(9) I Chron. XII, 33.
(10) E.V. ‘sceptre’.
(11) i.e. of practical interpreters and scholars, not of law-makers.
(12) Strictly speaking ‘afternoon’.
(13) Because nobody was permitted to repeat that function until all candidates had that privilege bestowed upon them once.
(14) Ketoreth (incense) is of fem. gender, hence the question asked from a text where the word ‘lo’ (masculine ‘for him’, ‘to his’) is used.
(15) Assume that the personal pronoun may be used loosely, or that the text misreported. ‘lah’ (‘to her’, ‘to it’, fem. instead of ‘lo’, the masculine) being intended.
(16) So that there is a special text for the incense.
(17) The division (Mishmar, v. Glos.) officiating at the continual offering of morning had left by the time the continual offering of dusk was to be attended to.
(18) That there was a special count for the evening sacrifice.
(19) Tamid V, 2.
(20) Prov. XIV, 28.
(21) It might appear as if the service was considered a burden, so that its function had to be distributed among many.
(22) R. Judah omits the count for the coal-pan; according to R. Eliezer there was no special count for the service of carrying the limbs up to the altar, hence, had both accepted each other's view, there would be only three counts. He who taught there were five counts, contradicted both of these Tannaim, each of whom omitted one, though not the same count.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 26b
he is in accord with neither R. Eliezer b. Jacob, nor with R. Judah.
MISHNAH. THE CONTlnual1 OFFERING WAS OFFERED UP BY NINE, TEN, ELEVEN OR TWELVE [PRIESTS], NEITHER BY MORE [THAN TWELVE], NOR BY LESS [THAN NINE]. HOW THAT? [THE OFFERING] ITSELF [WAS BROUGHT] UP BY NINE;2 AT THE FEAST [OF SUKKOTH] WHEN ONE CARRIED A BOTTLE OF WATER,3 THERE WERE TEN. AT DUSK4 BY ELEVEN: [THE OFFERING] ITSELF BY NINE AND TWO MEN WHO CARRIED TWO LOGS5 OF WOOD. ON THE SABBATH BY ELEVEN: [THE OFFERING] ITSELF BY NINE WITH TWO MEN HOLDING IN THEIR HAND THE TWO CENSERS OF FRANKINCENSE FOR THE SHEWBREAD.6 AND ON THE SABBATH WHICH FELL DURING THE FEAST OF SUKKOTH ONE MAN CARRIED IN HIS HAND A BOTTLE OF WATER.
GEMARA. R. Abba, or as some say Rami b. Hama or again as some say R. Johanan, said:7 The water libation on the Feast of Sukkoth is offered up only at the continual sacrifice of the morning. Whence is this to be inferred? Because [the Mishnah] teaches: AND ON THE SABBATH WHICH FELL DURING THE FEAST OF SUKKOTH ONE MAN CARRIED IN HIS HAND A BOTTLE OF WATER. Now if the thought could arise in you that [also] at the continual offering at dusk is the water of libation offered up,8 then it would also happen during the weekday.9 R. Ashi said: We also have learned thus:10 One said to the priest offering the libation: Hold your hands up! For it happened once that he poured it upon his feet and all the people stoned him with their citrons.11 This proves it. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Whence do we know that at the continual offering of dusk two logs of wood were to be brought up by two priests? Because it is said: And [the sons of Aaron the priest shall] lay wood in order upon the fire.12 If it has no bearing on the morning sacrifice because it is written: And the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning, and he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it,13 make it bear on the dusk sacrifice! — But perhaps, say: Both refer to the morning sacrifice, the Divine Law enjoining: Do it! And do it! again.14 — If that [were intended] the Divine Law should have said: ‘And he shall kindle wood.’ ‘And he shall kindle wood.’15 But if the Divine Law had stated: ‘And he shall kindle [wood]’ I would have assumed it may be done by one only, not by two, therefore we are taught that both one and two shall do so?16 — If that were intended the Divine Law should have stated: ‘He shall kindle [wood]’17 . . . and ‘they shall kindle wood,’ or ‘He shall lay [wood] in order’ and ‘they shall lay [wood] in order.’18 Why the words ‘He shall kindle’ and ‘They shall lay in order’?19 That we infer from it as we have said above. R. Hiyya taught: The [second] count at times [affects] thirteen20 priests, at times fourteen,21 fifteen, or sixteen. But has it not been taught: [At times] seventeen?22 — That teaching is in accord not with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, but with R. Judah.23
M I S H N A H. A RAM WAS OFFERED BY ELEVEN: THE FLESH BY FIVE, THE INWARDS,24 THE FINE FLOUR,25 AND THE WINE BY TWO EACH. A BULLOCK WAS OFFERED BY TWENTY-FOUR: THE HEAD AND [RIGHT] HIND-LEG26 — THE HEAD BY ONE AND THE [RIGHT] HIND-LEG BY TWO [PRIESTS]. THE TAIL AND [LEFT] HIND-LEG — THE TAIL BY TWO AND THE [LEFT] HIND-LEG BY TWO. THE BREAST AND NECK — THE BREAST BY ONE AND THE NECK BY THREE. THE TWO FORE-LEGS BY TWO, THE TWO FLANKS BY TWO. THE INWARDS, THE FINE FLOUR,27 AND THE WINE28 BY THREE EACH. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO OFFERINGS OF THE COMMUNITY. IN PRIVATE OFFERINGS, HOWEVER, IF A SINGLE PRIEST29 WANTS TO OFFER [ALL], HE MAY DO SO. BUT AS TO THE FLAYING AND DISMEMBERING OF BOTH COMMUNAL, AND PRIVATE OFFERINGS THE SAME REGULATIONS APPLY.30
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: The law regarding the flaying and the dismembering is alike in both [communal and private sacrifices] in that they may be done by a non-priest. Hezekiah said: Whence do we know that the law regarding flaying and dismembering is alike [with all sacrifices] in that they may be done by a non-priest? Because it is written: And the sons of Aaron the high priest shall put fire upon the altar,31 i.e., priesthood is required for the putting of the fire upon the altar, but not for the flaying and dismembering.
(1) Beginning with the taking up of the limbs to the ramp.
(2) In the same manner in which the parts of the sacrificial animal were brought up to the ramp, so were they thence carried to the altar, thus six priests were required to carry the lamb's parts, and three to convey the flour and wine-offerings to the altar.
(3) For the water libation, v. Suk. 48a.
(4) Strictly speaking ‘in the afternoon’.
(5) They were added to the pile of wood on the altar.
(6) Lev. XXIV, 7-8: And thou shalt put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part, even all offering made by the fire unto the Lord. Every Sabbath day he shall set it before the Lord continually, it is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.
(7) The report came in the name of these three, without preponderance of evidence as to the real author.
(8) The Mishnah states that only on the Sabbath of the Feast of Sukkoth was the continual offering offered up by twelve priests. But if the water libation were offered up in connection with the continual dusk offering too, twelve priests would then too be necessary: nine for the lamb itself, two for the logs of wood, one for the bottle of water.
(9) So that on a week-day too, twelve priests would be required for the offering, which contradicts the Mishnah.
(10) V. Suk. 48b.
(11) The Sadducees rejected the water libation, hence, when in charge, they would invalidate the ceremony. The people observant of such sabotage, punished the hypocrite by pelting him with their citrons (ethrog). But these citrons were used only at the morning prayer. The Mishnah in Sukkoth mentions the citrons to indicate that the libation of the water took place only at the time citrons were part of the service, i.e., in the morning. The first proof was textual, the second factual.
(12) Lev. I, 7.
(13) Ibid. VI, 5.
(14) Hence there would be no repetition and the inference as to the dusk sacrifice would be invalid.
(15) In both instances why the change of expression? That has definite significance.
(16) The double form, singular and plural, was thus necessary.
(17) For the water libation, v. Suk. 48a.
(18) In the same manner in which the parts of the sacrificial animal were brought up to the ramp, so were they thence carried to the altar, thus six priests were required to carry the lamb's parts, and three to convey the flour and wine-offerings, to the altar.
(19) But what it is meant to convey, could have been conveyed without change of phrase.
(20) V. Mishnah supra 25a.
(21) On the Sukkoth Festival; on the Sabbath; and on the Sabbath of the Sukkoth Festival, respectively.
(22) [On Sabbath of Sukkoth, cf. Rashi and MS. M. Tosaf. however refers this to ordinary days omitting the words ‘at times’. The number 17 can only be arrived at by adding to the 13 priests an additional four: (1) for removal of ashes; (2) for bringing up the limbs from the ramp to the altar; (3) for smoking the incense; (4) for bringing the coal-pan. This would not be in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob; v. R. Hananel's reacting in next note.]
(23) Who as stated supra 26a requests an extra priest for carrying the limbs from the ramp to the altar. Rabbenu Hananel (v. p. 123, n. 11) reads: Neither with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, nor with R. Judah. For R. Judah holds there was no count for the coal-pan, the priest who had secured the task of the incense inviting his assistant to share the function of the coal-pan. Nor with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, who omits the count of the function of the limbs being brought to the altar from the ramp; according to him the priest who carried them up to the ramp, also brought them thence to the altar. V. Rashi, Tosaf. and סות ישנים
(24) The lamb for the continual offering must not be older than one year. The ram could be between one and two years of age, hence its inwards were much heavier.
(25) The wine-offering with the ram was heavier by one fourth, the flour-offering was twice as heavy as that of the lamb.
(26) Lit., ‘as far as head and hind-leg are concerned’, which usually were offered by one person here etc.
(27) Num. XV, 9.
(28) Ibid. 10.
(29) Of the division ministering that week, whom the owner of the sacrifice entrusted with the task.
(30) Non-priests, too, might either flay or dissect the sacrifices. Hence there were no counts for them. The sacrifices of the community, however, although even they could be slaughtered by non-priests, were welcome to, and sought after by priests, whence the necessity of a count in connection with them.
(31) Lev. I, 7.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 27a
But that passage is required for its own information?1 — R. Shimi b. Ashi said: I found Abaye explaining it to his son: [It was taught]: ‘One shall kill,’2 hence we infer that even a non-priest may kill [the sacrificial animal]. But whence are you coming?3 — Because Scripture says: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priesthood, [in everything that pertaineth to the altar].4 I might have learned that even the killing [must be done by priests alone], therefore it is written: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord,’ and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood,5 i.e., the work of the priesthood is commanded only from the receiving [‘presenting’] of the blood and so on.6 And he shall lay his hand . . . and he shall kill,7 hence we are taught that the killing [of the sacrificial animal] is permissible even to a non-priest. Now, [Abaye went on explaining to his son] since the work obligatory on the priests starts only with the receiving of the blood, what is the purpose of: And the sons of Aaron . . . shall put the fire?8 To exclude flaying and dismembering.9 But still that was necessary. For one might have thought since [the putting on of the fire] is not a kind of service, the omission of which prevents atonement, it did not require priesthood, hence we are taught [from this passage] that it requires priesthood? — Rather do we infer it from here: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay it, order the pieces, and the head, and the suet.10 Now, since the work obligatory upon priests starts with the receiving of the blood, why was the passage: ‘And they shall lay in order’ [etc.] necessary? It meant to exclude the flaying and the dismemberment.11 But say perhaps that it means to exclude the arranging of the two logs of wood? — It seems logical that the passage excludes [a service relating to the sacrifice itself] which is of the type referred to. On the contrary: [it seems logical that] it excludes the ‘putting in order’ of [wood], which is analogous [to the ‘laying in order’ of the pieces referred to].12 This thought should not arise in your mind, for a Master taught: ‘And the priest shall offer the whole . . . upon the altar.’ This refers to the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp. Now only the bringing of the limbs to the ramp requires a priest, but not the bringing of the logs of wood, implying that the putting in order of the two logs of wood requires a priest.13 Why, then, is it necessary to state ‘And they [the priests] shall lay [the pieces] in order’? to exclude flaying and dismembering.14 But say, perhaps, that this text is necessary for its own meaning?15 --[In reality so.] What then is the purpose of [the passage], ‘And the priest shall make the whole smoke upon the altar’?16 To exclude flaying and dismembering. [So that] ‘And the priest shall offer the whole’ refers to the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp; only the bringing up of the limbs to the ramp requires a priest, but not the bringing of the two logs of wood to the ramp. Implying that the putting in order of the two logs of wood that does require the services of a priest and the words: ‘And they shall put’17 have immediate text meaning;18 the words ‘And they shall lay in order [the pieces]’19 indicate it must be two; the words: ‘The sons of Aaron’19 also indicate two; the words: ‘The priests’19 also indicate two, together we learn from them that the [offering up of the] lamb requires the services of six priests. R. Hamnuna said: To R. Eleazar it seems difficult, for this passage19 refers to the young bullock, the service in connection with which required twenty-four priests! But he found it right again , for Scripture says: Upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar19 ; now what thing is it in connection with which ‘wood’, ‘fire’ and ‘altar’ are mentioned?
(1) That a priest is required for the putting on of the fire. An inference for other matter is justified only when the text itself, or part of it, appears superfluous.
(2) ‘We-shahat’ Lev. I, 5, may mean ‘and he shall kill’, the most obvious meaning in the context; or ‘one shall kill’, ‘one’ being a term general enough to include a commoner.
(3) On what are you basing your argument, that it is necessary to bring proof that a non-priest may kill the animal; what basis is there for the assumption that he may not do so?
(4) Num. XVIII, 7. The bracketed portion is interpolated by Bah. and rightly so, for upon it rests the argument.
(5) Lev. I, 5.
(6) [Since the priests are mentioned only in connection with the presenting of the blood and not with the killing.]
(7) Ibid. 4,5. [‘He shall kill’ has for the subject the same person as ‘he shall lay his hand’ — the owner of the sacrifice (a non-priest).]
(8) Since the putting on of the fire followed the presenting of the blood, the latter signifying the commencement of the priestly function, why was it necessary to mention that the ‘Sons of Aaron’ perform it?
(9) That these may be performed by non-priests.
(10) Lev. I, 8.
(11) I.e., flaying and dismembering.
(12) That the putting on of the two logs of wood did not require a priest.
(13) Since the fetching of the wood is especially stated to need no priest, the inference is — obvious that the putting in order of the two logs requires a priest's service.
(14) [V. supra, note 2. The passage that follows up,’ . . . text meaning’ is difficult and is omitted by Wilna Gaon. The interpretation attempted here involves no change in the text of cur. edd.]
(15) [To show that the arrangement of the pieces required a priest, as it might have been assumed that ‘even a non-priest may perform it since it is not a service’ indispensable for effecting an atonement.]
(16) Lev. I, 9.
(17) Ibid. 7.
(18) That a priest is required for putting on the fire, v. supra p. 126.
(19) Lev. I, 8.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 27b
Say it is the lamb.1
R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A non-priest who laid the pile of wood in order [on the altar] incurs the penalty [of death]. What should he do [post facto]? — Let him break it up and then put it in order again. What is the good of that? — Rather: Let the non-priest break it up again and let a priest put it in order afterwards. R. Ze'ira demurred to this: But is there not a service which may be performed also at night and which a non-priest would render invalid? Surely, there is the smoking of the limbs and the fat-pieces.2 That is but the conclusion of the service of the day. But there is the removing of the ashes? That is the beginning of the work of the day, as R. Assi has reported in the name of R. Johanan: If he has sanctified his hands [by washing] in the morning for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify [them] on the morrow, for he has already sanctified them from the beginning of the service.3 But the difficulty remains!4 If this statement was made, it was stated thus: R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A non-priest who laid the two logs of wood in order incurs the penalty [of death] because this is a day service. Raba demurred to this: If so, a count should be required for it! — It escaped him what had been taught: He who secured the task of clearing the ashes off the altar, [thereby also] secured the task of putting in order the pile of wood and the two logs of wood.3 Shall we, then, say that only service performed during the day requires the count but service performed during the night does not require the count? Surely there is the [smoking of the] members and the fat-pieces?5 — That is the end of the service of the day. But there is the removal of the ashes? — That is due to a certain event.6 Shall we say that only for service performed during the day and for participation in which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death, a count is required, but that wherever a non-priest does not incur penalty of death for performance of a service, no count is required? But then what of the killing [of the animal]?7 — It is different with the killing because that is the beginning of the service.
Mar Zutra or R. Ashi said: But we have learned otherwise: The officer said to them: Go forth and see if the time for the killing [of the continual morning sacrifice] has arrived,8 but he is not teaching about the laying in order of the two logs of wood?9 It speaks only of such things as cannot be remedied10 again, but not such for which there is a remedy.11 Some say12 this is what R. Ze'ira asked: Is there any service followed by another service, which would be invalidated if performed by a non-priest?13
(1) The passage ‘Upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar’ is superfluous, for v. 7 contains that information already, hence the inference is right that the six priests are suggested here.
(2) V. supra 24a.
(3) V. supra 22a.
(4) Where do we find a service which may be performed at night and which a non-priest renders invalid?
(5) For which a count has been arranged.
(6) Mentioned in Mishnah supra.
(7) Which may be performed by a non-priest and yet requires a count.
(8) Infra 28a.
(9) Hence it took place during the night.
(10) The continual morning offering must not be offered before daybreak; de facto it was invalid, had to be replaced by another and be burnt in a place far from the altar like any invalidated sacrifice.
(11) If the logs of wood had been put in order before daybreak, one could break them up and put them back in order again after daybreak.
(12) [The text from this point to the end of the chapter is in disorder, consisting, according to Rashi and others, of several interpolations. The interpretation that follows is that of Tosaf. on the basis of curr. edd.]
(13) [R. Ze'ira's question has reference to R. Johanan's ruling, that a non-priest who arranges the wood pile on the altar is liable to death. Against this R. Ze'ira raises the objection that since it is followed by another service, i.e.,the arranging of the two logs of wood, a non-priest should incur no penalty nor invalidate it by his performance of it. V. Tosaf. s.v. איכא
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 28a
Surely there is [the smoking of] the limbs and fat-pieces?1 — That is the end of the service of the day.2 But what of the removal of the ashes?3 — It is the beginning of the service of the day,4 for R. Johanan said: If he sanctified his hands by washing for the removal of the ashes,in the morning he need not sanctify [his hands] since he had already sanctified them at the beginning of the service. If so the difficulty5 remains? — Rather if this statement was made it was made thus: R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a non-priest arranged in order two logs of wood [on the altar] he incurs the penalty of death, because it is a complete service.6 To this Raba demurred: If this is so let it require a count. But it requires no count? Surely it was taught, He who secures the privilege in respect of the removal of the ashes, secures also the privilege in respect of the arranging of the two logs of wood? This is what he means. It should have a separate count for itself? The [reason is] as we have already stated.
Are we to say that for a service which is complete, and for the performance of which a non-priest incurs the penalty of death, a count is required, but for one, for performance of which a non-priest does not incur such penalty, no count is required — but there is the killing [of the sacrificial animal]? — It is different with that killing, because it is the beginning of the service of the day. Shall we say that only a complete service requires the count, but a service followed by another does not require it — but there is the smoking of the members and the fat-pieces? — That is the end of the service of the day. — But there is the removal of the ashes? — Here [the count is due] because of what happened.
Mar Zutra or R. Ashi said: We too have learnt thus:7 The officer said to them: GO FORTH AND SET WHETHER THE TIME FOR THE KILLING OF THE MORNING SACRIFICE HAS ARRIVED. But he does not teach anything about the time for the laying in order of the two logs of wood?8 — He teaches only concerning such things as cannot be remedied again, but not concerning such for which there is a remedy.9
MISHNAH. THE10 OFFICER SAID TO THEM: GO FORTH AND SEE WHETHER THE TIME FOR KILLING [OF THE MORNING SACRIFICE] HAS ARRIVED. IF IT HAD ARRIVED THEN HE WHO SAW IT SAID: IT IS DAYLIGHT!11 MATHIA B. SAMUEL SAID: THE WHOLE EAST IS ALIGHT.12 EVEN UNTO HEBRON?13 AND HE ANSWERED ‘YES’. AND WHY WAS THAT [CONSIDERED] NECESSARY? BECAUSE ONCE WHEN THE LIGHT OF THE MOON14 ROSE THEY THOUGHT THAT THE EAST WAS ALIGHT15 AND SLAUGHTERED THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, WHICH AFTERWARDS THEY HAD TO TAKE AWAY INTO THE PLACE OF BURNING.16
THE HIGH PRIEST17 WAS LED DOWN TO THE PLACE OF IMMERSION. THIS WAS THE RULE IN THE TEMPLE: WHOSOEVER CROSSED HIS FEET18 REQUIRED AN IMMERSION, AND WHOSOEVER MADE WATER REQUIRED SANCTIFICATION BY WASHING19 HIS HANDS AND FEET. G E M A R A.
(1) [This service, it is now assumed, receives its completion only with the removal of the ashes, and yet must not be performed by a non-priest under the penalty of death (Tosaf.).]
(2) [The original assumption n. 3. is rejected. The smoking of the limbs is in itself regarded as the completion of the day service (Tosaf.).]
(3) [Which must be followed by the taking of the ashes outside the camp, v. Lev. VI, 4’ and yet is considered a complete service, v. supra 24a (Tosaf.).]
(4) [Whereas the taking of the ashes outside the camp is not performed daily (v. Tamid II, 2) and consequently it cannot be regarded as completing the removal of the ashes (Tosaf.).]
(5) Of R. Ze'ira.
(6) [V. supra 22a. For the reason that no special count has been arranged for the two logs of wood. R. Hananel.]
(7) That the laying of the two logs of wood is a complete service.
(8) [Because it is considered a night service completing the arranging of the wood pile on the altar (Rashi), v. also Tosaf.]
(9) V. supra, p. 128, nn. 8, 9.
(10) The Mishnah continues the account of the procedure, where it had been interrupted, 26a. This Mishnah refers not only to the Day of Atonement, but to the continual sacrifice on every morning of the year.
(11) The Mishnaic ברקאי ‘barkai’ may be a contraction of ‘barka hi’, i.e. there is a shining. Or: the shining one, i.e., the morning star.
(12) [Rashi (Men. 100a) regards these words not as reporting the view of Mathia b. Samuel, but as a historical narrative. The passage is consequently to be translated: Mathia b. Samuel (who was a Temple officer v. infra), used to say (in announcing the time in question) The whole east is alight, תום ישנים a.l.
(13) V. Gemara. For the choice of Hebron, which is too far from Jerusalem to permit one in Jerusalem to see its towers, the Yerushalmi has a plausible suggestion, viz., that that city was mentioned for its historical importance; because of the cave of Machpelah, in which the patriarchs and matriarchs of Israel are buried.
(14) This could not have happened on a Day of Atonement, because on that day the moon has gone down long before dawn, but on one of the last days of a month, in which the moon, to the west of the sun, rises before dawn.
(15) When the sky is clouded the light coming from the moon may be confused with that of the sun. But it never reaches as far as the latter, hence the question of the officer whether the horizon is alight even unto Hebron. The officer may have been Mathia. V. Shek. V, 1.
(16) Possibly a room in the Temple, V. Baneth, Pes. IX, note 49.
(17) The account of the service on the Day of Atonement is here continued, immediately interrupted again, and re-continued on 30a.
(18) A euphemism for: to ease oneself, to relieve nature.
(19) In the water of the holy laver. Ex. XXX, 18.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 28b
It was taught: R. Ishmael said: The morning [star] shines. R. Akiba said the morning [star] rose.1 Nahuma b. Afkashion said: The morning [star] is already in Hebron. Mathia b. Samuel, the officer in charge of the counts, said: The whole east even unto Hebron is alight. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: The whole east even unto Hebron is alight and all the people have gone forth, each to his work. If that were the case, it would be [too much of the day] too late! — Rather: each to hire working men.2
R. Safra said: The [afternoon] prayer of Abraham3 is due when the walls begin to grow dark.4 R. Joseph said: Shall we indeed learn [our laws] from Abraham?5 — Raba answered: A Tanna learned from Abraham and we should not learn from him! For it has been taught: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,6 this passage teaches that the whole of the [eighth] day is proper for the circumcision, but the zealots perform their religious duty as early as possible as it is said: And Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his ass.7 — Rather, said Raba, is it this that appeared difficult to R. Joseph: For we have learnt: If the eve of Passover falls on the eve of Sabbath, the paschal lamb is to be slaughtered at one half after the sixth hour,8 and offered up at one half after the seventh hour.9 — But let it be slaughtered when the walls begin to grow dark!10 — What is the difficulty? Perhaps the walls of the Sanctuary begin to grow dark half an hour after the sixth hour because they were not exactly straight.11 Or [one might say]: It was different with Abraham whose heart [mind] knew great astronomical speculation.12 Or: Because he was an elder [zaken] who had a seat at the scholar's council,12 for R. Hama b. Hanina said: Our ancestors were never left without the scholars’ council. In Egypt they had the scholars’ council, as it is said: Go and gather the elders of Israel together;13 in the wilderness they had the scholars’ council, as it is said: Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel;14 our father Abraham was an elder and a member of the scholars’ council, as it is said: And Abraham was [zaken] an elder well stricken in age;15 our father Isaac was an elder and a member of the scholars’ council, as it is said: And it came to pass when Isaac was an elder [zaken];16 our father Jacob was an elder and a member of the scholars’ council, as it is said: Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age [zoken];17 [even] Eliezer, the servant of Abraham was an elder and a member of the scholars’ council, as it is said: And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all he had,18 which R. Eleazar explained to mean that he ruled over [knew, controlled] the Torah of his master.19 Eliezer of Damascus’: R. Eleazar said, He was so called because he drew20 and gave drink to others of his master's teachings.
Rab said: Our father Abraham kept the whole Torah, as it is said: Because that Abraham hearkened to My voice [kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws].21 R. Shimi b. Hiyya said to Rab: Say, perhaps, that this refers to the seven laws?22 — Surely there was also that of circumcision!23 Then say that it refers to the seven laws and circumcision [and not to the whole Torah]? — If that were so, why does Scripture say: ‘My commandments and My laws’?
Raba or R. Ashi said: Abraham, our father, kept even the law concerning the ‘erub of the dishes,’24 as it is said: ‘My Torahs’:25 one being the written Torah, the other the oral Torah.26
MATHIA B. SAMUEL SAID etc. . . . AND HE ANSWERED ‘YES’. Who was it that said ‘yes’? the man standing on the roof! Is he the dreamer and the interpreter?27 Should it, then, be he who is standing on the ground, whence would he know?28 — If you like say it is he who stands on the roof, and if you like say it is he who stands on the ground. If you want to say it is he who stands on the roof; he says: THE WHOLE EAST IS ALIGHT, the one standing on the ground answering: EVEN UNTO HEBRON? whereupon the former says: ‘YES’. If you like say that it is he who stands on the ground: He says: THE WHOLE EAST IS ALIGHT? whereupon the other responds: EVEN UNTO HEBRON?29 and the former answers: ‘YES’.30
AND WHY WAS THAT CONSIDERED NECESSARY etc. But can it be confused?31 Has it not been taught: Rabbi says: The rising column of the moon is different from that of the sun. The light column of the moon rises straight like a stick, the light column of the sun [the dawn] irradiates in all directions? — The school of Ishmael taught: It was a cloudy day and the light was scattered in all directions.32 R. Papa said: We can infer therefrom that on a cloudy day the sun is felt all over. What is the practical difference?33 — In the spreading34 of skins, or, as Raba expounded: A woman should not knead35 either in the sun or in the heat of the sun. R. Nahman said: The sultry air of the sun36 is more intense than that of direct sunlight, your analogy37 being: a jar of vinegar;38 the dazzling sun-light39 is worse than the uncovered sun, your analogy being drippings [from the roof].40
(1) A later time.
(2) All the people have gone forth, each to his work, refers not to the workingmen who leave for work at a later hour, but to the contractors, who early in the morning hire their men for the day's work.
(3) The afternoon prayer is by tradition ascribed to Isaac, but since he learned it from his father, Abraham receives here the credit for it. Or, as Tosaf. Ber. 26b s.v. יצחק has it, after Isaac had instituted the prayer, Abraham fixed the time for it.
(4) Are no longer shone upon by the sun, that is after the middle of the day.
(5) For Abraham lived before the Torah was given and Israelites should follow the conduct of the prophets, who knew and practised the Torah rather than that of Abraham who, whilst living in its spirit, could not have known all the laws thereof. There are, of course, also views according to which Abraham practised the oral and the written law, v. below. v. Tosaf. Moed Katon, 20a, s.v. מה חג
(6) Lev. XII, 3.
(7) Gen. XXII, 3, the reference may also be ibid. XIX, 27, v. Meg. 20a.
(8) The day was divided into twelve hours of varying duration, in winter an hour may be as short as forty minutes, in summer as long as ninety.
(9) Pes. 58a.
(10) I.e., after the beginning of the seventh hour-after midday.
(11) It was narrower above than below and thus did not cast a shadow till later in the afternoon.
(12) And could hence foretell the exact hour; V. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 83, n. II.
(13) Ex. III, 16.
(14) Num. XI, 16.
(15) Gen. XXIV, I. E.V. ‘was old’.
(16) Ibid. XXVII, 1.
(17) Ibid. XLVIII, 10.
(18) Ibid. XXIV, 2.
(19) Ibid. XV, 2. In all these cases the word zaken (elder) is interpreted in accord with Sifra, Kedoshim. III, 7: קזן זה שקנה - חכמה - a zaken is he who has acquired wisdom (through study).
(20) This is a play on דמשק, as if it were a compositum of דולה (one who draws) and משקה, (one who gives drink).
(21) Gen. XXVI, 5.
(22) Obligatory upon ‘The sons of Noah’, i.e., upon all civilized nations and individuals. They include the commandment to promote justice, and the prohibitions of idolatry, immorality, blasphemy, murder, cruelty to animals, and theft.
(23) Which Abraham observed.
(24) Lit., ‘mixing of dishes’. One may not prepare food on a holy day, which falls on Friday, for the Sabbath immediately following it. But one may start on the eve of the holy day to prepare such food for the Sabbath, the cooking on the holy day being but a continuation of this weekday work. This provision is not Biblical.
(25) Taking the word Torah in its sense as the sum-total of Jewish Law.
(26) The written Law, i.e., the Five Books of Moses; the Oral Law, which Moses received on Sinai, handing it down to Joshua, the latter handing it down to the elders, the latter to the prophets, these to the Men of the Great Synod (Aboth I, 1).
(27) It seems strange that one man should both ask the question and answer it.
(28) He could not observe it from where he stood.
(29) [‘Is this what you want to know’.]
(30) [‘Indeed this is just what I ask’. The mention of Hebron is to recall the memory of the patriarchs who lie buried there. T. J. Yoma III, 1. V. Rashi. Var. lec.: He (who stands on the roof) says THE WHOLE EAST IS ALIGHT AS EAR AS HEBRON, and the other (who stands on the ground) says ‘YES?’ i.e., ‘Indeed? are you sure it is so?’ V. R. Hananel and D.S. a.l.]
(31) Can the light of the moon be confused with that of the sun?
(32) On a cloudy day the rising column of the sun is invisible because of the heavy clouds and it is only where the clouds are somewhat scattered that it is visible, hence the confusion is possible.
(33) That this inference is mentioned here.
(34) To be dried.
(35) The dough on the Passover to prepare unleavened cakes. R. Papa's maxim would make the rule more stringent.
(36) Produced by the passage of the sun-rays through a cloudy atmosphere.
(37) Lit., ‘your sign’.
(38) Which emits a stronger smell through a small opening than when quite open.
(39) Coming through cracks or breaks in the clouds.
(40) It is more agreeable to enter completely (a bath or rainy place) than to get continual drippings on one's body.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 29a
Unchaste imagination is more injurious1 than the sin itself, your analogy being the odour of meat.2 The end of the summer is more trying than the summer itself, your analogy being a hot oven.3 A fever in winter is severer than in summer, your analogy being a cold oven.4 It is harder to remember well something old than to commit to memory a fresh thing, your analogy being a cement made out of old cement.5 R. Abbahu said: What is the reason of Rabbi's opinion?6 — It is written:7 For the Leader, upon Aijeleth ha-Shahar8 — just as the antlers of the hind branch off this way and that way, so the light of the dawn is scattered in all directions. — R. Zera said: Why was Esther compared to a hind?9 To tell you that just as a hind has a narrow womb and is desirable to her mate at all times as at the first time, so was Esther precious to King Ahasuerus at all times as at the first time. R. Assi said: Why was Esther compared to the dawn?10 To tell you that just as the dawn is the end of the whole night, so is the story of Esther the end of all the miracles. But there is Hanukkah? — We refer to those included in Scripture. That will be right according to the opinion that Esther was meant to be written,11 but what can be said according to him who held that it was not meant to be written? — He could bring it in accord with what R. Benjamin b. Japheth said, for R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Benjamin b. Japheth: Why is the prayer of the righteous compared to a hind? To tell you that just as with the hind, as long as it grows, its antlers form additional branches every year, so with the righteous, the longer they abide in prayer, the more will their prayer be heard.
THEY SLAUGHTERED THE CONTINUAL OFFERING: When?12 Would you say on one of the remaining days of the year? Had it then to be offered up? Hence [you will say that it happened] on the Day of Atonement, but is there any moon-light visible then?13 — This is what it means: On the Day of Atonement, when the observer said: It is daylight, they would take the high priest down to the place of immersion.14 The father of R. Abin learnt:15 Not only concerning this16 was it said,17 but also concerning the pinching of a bird's head and the taking of a fistful of the meal-offering, [was it said] that if it was done during the night, it had to be burnt. That is quite right with regard to the bird designated for a burnt-offering, since the fact can no more be undone, but touching the fistful of the meal offering,
(1) To health, physical and moral.
(2) The odour of roast meat is more injurious to the digestive apparatus even than the eating thereof.
(3) It is easy to kindle a fresh fire in a hot oven, the ground being dry. By the end of summer the atmosphere is very hot so that any additional hot weather makes it well nigh intolerable.
(4) It requires a great deal of wood and effort to warm up the cold oven in the cold days of winter. Thus must a fever be very severe to afflict one on a cold day.
(5) That has been used before. It is hard to dissolve it and re-make it.
(6) Who says that the light column of the sun (dawn) is scattered.
(7) Ps. XXII, 1.
(8) Lit., ‘The Hind of the Dawn.That may have been a well-known melody, according to which the psalm was to be sung, the direction being meant for the choir-leader. V. the comm. of Delitzsch, Cheyne and Koenig.
(9) In Meg. 15b, Queen Esther is reported to have sung this psalm as she came before Ahasuerus, hence the comparison.
(10) ‘Er. 54b.
(11) Meg. 7a. To protect the books of the Bible, they were declared unclean, so that after touching them, one had to wash one's hands. The question hence, as to whether any book defiled the hands, implies the question as to whether it was included in the Canon and has inspiration ascribed to its contents. About the Book of Esther there is a dispute in Meg. 7a, one of the Rabbis ascribing inspiration to it, whence it was to be written and included in the Canon, the other denying it inspiration, hence declaring its touch did not defile the hands. V. Yadaim III, 5.
(12) Did this error happen, on the basis of which the high priest was taken down to the place of immersion. The questioner takes the second incident reported in the Mishnah as a sequel to the first.
(13) At dawn.
(14) The answer indicates that these two incidents are not to be connected. The error happened on an ordinary day. The second passage refers to the Day of Atonement and states that when the observer had said ‘It is daylight’, then, on a Day of Atonement, the high priest would be taken down, etc.
(15) Men. 100a.
(16) Not only a sacrifice that was offered up during the night (instead of in its proper time, after day-break).
(17) That it is to be burnt.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 29b
let him put it back and take it again when it is day? — He learnt and explained it: The vessels of ministration render what is in them sacred even outside of the proper time.1 An objection was raised: This is the rule: Whatsoever is offered2 up during the day, becomes sanctified by day and whatsoever is offered up during the night becomes sanctified both by day and by night.3 At any rate it is taught that whatsoever is offered up during the day becomes sanctified by day only, and not by night?4 — It may not become sanctified [enough] to be offered up, but it may become sanctified enough to be invalidated.5
R. Zera raised an objection: If he put in order the shewbread and the [frankincense] clip after the Sabbath and smokes the [contents of] the cups on the [following] Sabbath it is invalid.6 What should he do? He should leave it for the coming Sabbath, for even if it stayed for many days on the table, that does not matter. But why? It should be sanctified and invalidated?7 — Raba said: He who raised the objection, raised a valid one, and the father of R. Abin is also quoting a Baraitha,8 but it is of the opinion that the night is not considered a wanting9 time, the day however is so considered. But when the night of Sabbath approaches, let it then become at once sanctified and invalidated?10 — Rabina said: We assume that he removed it before then. Mar Zutra, or as some say, R. Ashi said: You may set the case even if he had not removed it before [Sabbath eve], since, however, he had put it in order at variance with the regulation11 it is as if a monkey had laid it there.12
THIS WAS THE RULE IN THE TEMPLE etc.: It is quite right that the feet must be washed because of squirtings,13 but why must the hands be washed? — R. Abba said: This teaches us that it is
(1) Hence it can no more be put back. Since the vessel has sanctified it for the altar, it must not be put back among the remaining part of the meal-offering.
(2) E.g.,the meal-offerings, the incense.
(3) The text here corrected in accord with Bah. V. Tem. 14a. [Cur. ed. inserts ‘and whatsoever is offered up during the night becomes sanctified by night, and whatsoever is offered up both during the day and during the night becomes sanctified both by day and by night.’ As the former can refer only to drink-offerings (V. Ta'an. 2b) which however are offered up also during the day, this passage is omitted and the text corrected accordingly.]
(4) Which means that there is no sanctification but in the proper time.
(5) [If it tarries overnight without having been offered (V. Zeb. 87a). The fistful accordingly having been placed in the vessel of ministration at night becomes invalidated with daybreak, and can no longer be put back among the remaining part of the meal-offering.]
(6) [Because it had not been left on the table for seven days as prescribed, v. Lev. XXIV, 5ff. Var. lec. rightly omit: it is invalid, V. Rashi.]
(7) Through having been set on the table in its proper time.
(8) It is not the case of all Amoraic opinion, which can be refuted by argument. It is an authoritative Tannaitic teaching and a way must be found to bring the present argument in accord with it.
(9) The day goes after the night, hence it is part of the night, hence the fistful put into the vessel at night is regarded as having been put therein in the proper time and consequently is sanctified properly. Since, however, it is a day-offering it must be burned with the shewbread; however, where there is a whole day wanting, the bread does not become sanctified.
(10) Since the night is not considered as ‘wanting time’, whereas everything that is due during the day and was placed into the sacred vessels in the preceding night, becomes sanctified and invalidated, then, when the eve of second Sabbath comes, let the table sanctify the bread and invalidate it?
(11) When it was wanting time.
(12) Without any intention, hence the table does not sanctify it, for we consider that since it was placed there without intention, it was technically not placed there at all, hence it becomes neither sanctified nor invalidated.
(13) Of urine.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 30a
the right thing to wipe off [squirtings]. This supports the view of R. Ammi who says: A man must not go out with squirtings on his feet, because he may appear as one that has his privy member cut off and he may thus cause evil talk against his children that they are bastards.1
R. Papa said: If there be excrement in its place,2 he must not read the Shema’.3 How shall we imagine this case? If to say that it is invisible, that is self-evident; if to say that it is not seen surely4 ‘The Torah was not given to the ministering angels!’ This has but reference to a situation in which it is obvious when he sits and invisible when he stands. But what is the difference between this and one who has filth on his body, for it has been stated: Where one who has filth on his body, or whose hands are in a privy,5 R. Huna permits the reading of the Shema’ and R. Hisda forbids it?6 — In its place filth is most execrable, away from it, it is less so. Our Rabbis taught: This is the halachah with regard to meal-time:7 If a man goes forth to make water, he washes his one8 hand and re-enters. If he conversed with his neighbour and waited [diverting himself], he washes both his hands [again] and re-enters. When he washes his hands, he should not wash them outside and enter, because of the suspicion,9 but he should enter, sit at his accustomed place and wash his two hands there, then pass the pitcher10 around the guests.11 — R. Hisda said: What we said refers to drinking,12 but as to eating he may wash his hands outside and re-enter, people know that he is fastidious of taste.13 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: I would do the same14 before drinking as people know me to be fastidious.
MISHNAH. NO MAN EVEN IF HE WERE CLEAN COULD ENTER THE TEMPLE COURT WITHOUT HAVING IMMERSED HIMSELF. FIVE IMMERSIONS AND TEN SANCTIFICATIONS DID THE HIGH PRIEST UNDERGO ON THAT DAY. AND ALL ON HOLY GROUND IN THE PARWAH15 CELL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS ONE16 ALONE. — A LINEN SHEET WAS SPREAD BETWEEN HIM AND THE PEOPLE.
GEMARA. Ben Zoma was asked: What is the purpose of this immersion?17 He answered: If one18 who moves from one holy place to another and from one place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth19 to another place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth, requires immersion, how much more shall he require immersion who moves from profane ground into holy ground, and from a place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] does not involve kareth, to a place [the entering of] which [in uncleanness] involves kareth! R. Judah said: It is only an immersion required for the sake of uniformity,20 so that he may remember if there is any uncleanness on him and abstain.21 In what principle do they differ?
(1) Men afflicted with such blemish are incapable of reproduction, hence people, mistaking him for a man thus afflicted and hearing that he has children, will spread the rumour that they are begotten in adultery.
(2) In the anus.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) Ber. 25b.
(5) He happens to have his hands still in the space of the privy, between its door and the wall which separates it from the next room.
(6) Because the whole body ought to be attuned to prayer, as the psalmist has it: All my bones shall say: Lord, who is like unto Thee, Ps. XXXV, 10.
(7) Hands have to be washed before taking a meal.
(8) The one which may have been touched by the squirtings of urine.
(9) That he failed to wash his hands outside.
(10) Which he had used for washing his hands.
(11) V. Tosef. Ber. IV.
(12) [That he does not intend eating any more, but drinking, in which case the washing of the hands a second time is but a matter of precaution in case he does partake of some bread (Rashi).]
(13) The average man is assumed to be fastidious enough not to eat without his fingers having been washed before, esp. since eating with the fingers (rather than with fork and knife) was the general custom. V.T.A. III, p. 43.
(14) And wash my hands outside.
(15) In the southern part of the Temple Court, v. Mid. V, 3.
(16) The first one (mentioned in preceding Mishnah 28a) which he performed on profane ground at the Water-Gate.
(17) For every man who wishes to enter the Temple Court.
(18) The high priest, in the course of his five services on the Day of Atonement, moved from the inner to the outer court, both being sacred and having the special restriction attached, viz., that one who entered them in uncleanness incurred divine penalty of death.
(19) V. Glos.
(20) Lit., ‘an attached immersion’. There is no Biblical obligation, but a Rabbinic ‘fence’ to assure a consciousness of any uncleanness attaching to him who entered the Temple Court.
(21) From entering the Temple Court.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 30b
As to whether the service is profaned.1 According to Ben Zoma2 he profanes the service, according to R. Judah he does not. But does he, in accordance with Ben Zoma's view, profane the service? Has it not been taught: If a high priest did not immerse or sanctify himself between garment and garment or between service and service, his service remains valid.3 But if either a high priest or a common priest has not washed his hands and feet in the morning and then had officiated at a service, that service is invalidated? — Rather does the dispute concern the question as to whether he transgresses a positive command or not,1 Ben Zoma holding he transgresses a positive command, R. Judah that he does not. But does R. Judah hold this view? Has it not been taught: A leper4 immerses himself and stands in the Nicanor Gate. R. Judah said: He does not need to immerse himself, for he has done so already on the evening before! This has its own reason, as it was taught: ‘Because he had immersed himself on the eve before’.5 What does he ask who asks this?6 — Because he wants to raise another objection, viz., [why was it called] the cell of the lepers, because lepers immerse themselves therein.7 R. Judah says: Not only of the lepers did they say [this] but of every man [who enters the Temple Court]?8 — That is no difficulty. One statement refers to the case that he immersed himself, the other to the case that he did not. But, if he did not immerse himself, he must await the setting of the sun? — Rather: In both cases he is presumed to have immersed himself, but in the one case he is presumed to have ceased to have his mind [on the necessity of preventing defilement],9 in the other he is presumed to have had his mind thereon all the time. But if he ceased to have his mind on it, he would need to be sprinkled on the third and the seventh day, for R. Dosthai b. Mattun said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever attention10 [from the need to prevent uncleanness] is diverted, sprinkling on the third and the seventh day is required?11 — Rather: In both cases he is presumed not to have diverted the attention, yet there is no contradiction, for in the one case he is presumed to have immersed himself for the purpose of entering the Sanctuary, in the other he is assumed to have done so without that purpose in mind.12 Or, if you like, say: Read not of lepers did they say [this]13 but of every man. Rabina said: R. Judah makes his statement only on behalf [of the view] of the Rabbis: As far as my view is concerned, no leper needs [another] immersion. But according to your opinion, admit at least that this was said not of lepers alone but of all people. And the Rabbis?14 — The leper is accustomed to [his] impurity, all others are unaccustomed to it.15
Shall we say that the Rabbis who dispute with R. Judah16 are of the opinion of Ben Zoma,17 notwithstanding which they make reference to the leper,18 to inform you of the far-reaching consequences of R. Judah's opinion; or perhaps the difference in the case of the leper lies in the fact that he is accustomed to the uncleanness?19 — He answered: It is different with the leper, because he is accustomed to his uncleanness.
Said Abaye to R. Joseph:20 Would an intervening object
(1) By officiating without immersing first.
(2) Who infers it from an argument a minori which has the force of Biblical law.
(3) Zeb. 19b. [Since a high priest does not profane the service by failing to take the intermediary immersions, there could be no profanation of the service in the absence of the first immersion, since on the view of Ben Zoma the latter is inferred from the former.]
(4) On the eighth day of his affliction, although he had immersed himself on the seventh, Lev. XIV, 9: And it shall be on the seventh...he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean. Yet, when he offers up the prescribed sacrifices on the eighth day, he shall immerse himself again.
(5) R. Judah holds the purpose of the immersion of those who enter the Sanctuary in the morning is just to remind them of their former uncleanness, whereas the leper, who by reason of last night's immersion got rid of his uncleanness, is not in need of another reminder, in form of a second immersion.
(6) I.e., why ask an apparently unnecessary question? The answer is obvious. Mielziner (Introduction p. 238) cites Frankel MGWJ 1861 for a tradition according to which all passages in the Talmud introduced by this phrase belong to the additions made by the Saboraim.
(7) [Before they entered the Temple Court on the eighth day in the morning; when standing at the Nicanor Gate they thrust their thumb and toe into the Temple Court, there to receive an application of the blood of the guilt-offering and of oil; v. Lev. XIV, 14ff and supra 16a and infra p. 143, n. 10.]
(8) ‘Not only of the lepers’ implies the lepers at any rate, hence he would consider a re-immersion necessary, which contradicts his earlier statement.
(9) By consistent guarding of his body against touch by agents of ritual uncleanness.
(10) For he may have entered the tent in which a corpse lay.
(11) For entering the Temple.
(12) He therefore requires a second immersion in the morning.
(13) Requiring immersion on entering the Sanctuary.
(14) How would they meet R. Judah's argument?
(15) Hence he will no more pay attention to the dangers of defilement, whereas all others, unaccustomed to uncleanness and not reconciled to it, will be anxious to avoid such risk.
(16) And hold that a leper needs re-immersion on the eighth day.
(17) Who requires no morning immersion even in the case of a leper who is accustomed to uncleanness.
(18) Although they hold with Ben Zoma that every one entering the Sanctuary is by the law of the Torah obliged to immerse himself.
(19) That of leprosy, hence is accustomed to touch things unclean, whence the assumption that even after his immersion he may have done so; but other men require no morning immersion Biblically before entering the Sanctuary.
(20) Text in accord with Maharsha.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 31a
render this immersion1 invalid or not? — He replied: ‘Whatever the Rabbis ordained, they endowed with the authority of a law of the Torah’.2
Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Is a partial entrance of the Sanctuary considered an entrance or not? — He answered: The thumb3 and toe will prove that, for there but a partial entrance is involved, and it was taught: A leper immerses himself and stands in the Nicanor Gate! — The question was asked: What about making for himself a long knife for slaughtering?4 This question is asked in accord with the view of both Ben Zoma and the Rabbis who oppose R. Judah. This question is asked on the view of Ben Zoma: Perhaps Ben Zoma does not consider the immersion obligatory except in the case of one who actually enters, but not for one who stands outside; or perhaps even for the latter, because he might gradually enter. The question is also asked according to the view of the Rabbis who oppose R. Judah: Perhaps the Rabbis hold their view only there5 because he does not perform a service,6 but where he officiates at a service they would agree,7 or do they make no difference? — The question remains unanswered.
FIVE IMMERSIONS AND TEN SANCTIFICATIONS: Our Rabbis taught: The high priest underwent five immersions and ten sanctifications on that day, all of them on holy ground, in the Parwah Cell, with the exception of the first, which took place on profane ground, on top of the Water Gate, lying at the side of his [private] cell.8 Abaye said: We infer therefrom that the Etam well was [at least] twenty-three cubits above the ground of the Temple Court.9 For we have learnt: All the doorways there were twenty cubits in height, ten cubits in breadth, with the exception of that of the Hall10 and it was taught: And he shall bathe all his flesh in water,11 I.e., in the waters of a mikweh,12 in water which covers his whole body. What ‘is its quantity? One cubit square, three cubits high, and the Sages have calculated that the required quantity for [the contents of] a mikweh is forty se'ah.13
(1) An immersion, to be valid, requires utterly undisturbed touch of the water on the body of the person immersing himself, any intervening object rendering the immersion invalid. This, however, in the questioner's mind applies only to such immersion as is commanded by the Torah. R. Judah, who considers it only an immersion for the sake of uniformity, might hence hold that in this case an intervening object might not be considered sufficiently disturbing to render the immersion invalid.
(2) Pes. 30b.
(3) Lev. XIV, 14: And the priest shall take the blood of the guilt-offering and... shall put it upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. Ibid. 17: And of the rest of the oil . . . the priest shall put . . . upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the great toe of his right foot. It is to receive of the blood and the oil that the leper stands at the Nicanor Gate and puts his hands and feet inside, v. 11 indicating that: And the priest that cleanseth him shall set the man that is to be cleansed . . . at the door of the tent of meeting.
(4) To escape the obligation of an immersion, which is due on entering. With a knife long enough he might slay the sacrificial animal from without.
(5) In the case of an ordinary man entering the Sanctuary.
(6) Hence they free him from the obligations of an immersion.
(7) That such is necessary.
(8) V. supra.
(9) From the Etam well was the water supply for the pool on top of the Water Gate, v. Zeb. 55b.
(10) V. supra 15a.
(11) [The reference is to Lev. XV, 16 and the text is to be corrected accordingly. The verse in cur. edd. is from Lev. XV, 13.]
(12) Lit., ‘gathering (of water)’ then the term. techn. for the pool for ritual immersion. The water therein must not be drawn, i.e,, through a vessel, but must come directly from spring, river, sea or rain.
(13) ‘Er. 4b. Forty se'ah correspond roughly to two hundred and sixty-four quarts of water. [The water in the pool on top of the Water Gate had thus to rise to a height of twenty-three cubits above the level of the Temple Court twenty cubits for the height of the doorway and three cubits for the height of the pool, which would have been impossible unless the Etam well was situated on at least a corresponding height.]
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 31b
But there is also one cubit of the ceiling and one cubit of the flooring?1 — Since the gates of the Sanctuary are made of marble these were made of a small [thickness]. But there is some [additional thickness] however small? — Since it is not even as much as a cubit, he does not count it.
A LINEN SHEET WAS SPREAD BETWEEN HIM AND THE PEOPLE. Why of linen? — As R. Kahana said [elsewhere]:2 So that he may perceive that the service of the day is to be performed in garments of linen. Thus here too it is that he might perceive that the service of the day is to be performed in garments of linen.
MISHNAH. HE STRIPPED OFF [HIS GARMENTS],3 WENT DOWN AND IMMERSED HIMSELF, CAME UP AND DRIED HIMSELF.4 THEY BROUGHT HIM THE GOLDEN5 GARMENTS, HE PUT THEM ON AND SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND FEET. THEY BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT AND SOME ONE ELSE FINISHED IT FOR HIM.6 HE RECEIVED THE BLOOD AND SPRINKLED IT. HE WENT INSIDE7 TO SMOKE THE INCENSE OF THE MORNING8 AND TO TRIM THE LAMPS;9 [AFTERWARDS] TO OFFER UP THE HEAD AND THE LIMBS AND THE PANCAKES AND THE WINE-OFFERING. THE MORNING INCENSE WAS OFFERED UP BETWEEN THE BLOOD AND THE LIMBS, THE AFTERNOON [INCENSE] BETWEEN THE LIMBS AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS. IF THE HIGH PRIEST WAS EITHER OLD OR OF DELICATE HEALTH WARM WATER WOULD BE PREPARED FOR HIM AND POURED INTO THE COLD, TO MITIGATE ITS COLDNESS.
GEMARA. The scholars said in the presence of R. Papa:10 This [Mishnah]11 is not in accord with R. Meir, for if it were in accord with him,12 behold he said: There must be two sanctifications for the putting on of the garments, hence there ought to be here, too,13 two sanctifications for the putting on of the garments!14 R. Papa said unto then,: Whether on the view of the Sages or of R. Meir, one sanctification is for the stripping off of the holy garments,15 and one for the putting on15 and the reason of their dispute is [the interpretation of these words]: He shall put off, he shall bathe and he shall put on.16 R. Meir holds that Scripture compares the stripping to the putting on [of the garments], i.e., just as in the case of the putting on of the garments he first puts them on and only afterwards sanctifies himself, so also with the stripping off of the garments, he first strips off and then sanctifies himself; whereas the Rabbis hold that [Scripture] compares the stripping off to the putting on, i.e., just as with the putting on he sanctifies himself whilst dressed in the garments, so with the stripping off, he sanctifies himself whilst the garments are yet on him. Said the scholars to R. Papa: How can you say so, has it not been taught: A sheet of linen was spread between him and the people, he stripped off [his garments], went down, immersed himself, came up and dried himself. One brought the golden garments before him, he put them on, and sanctified his hands and his feet. R. Meir said: He stripped off [his garments] and sanctified his hands and his feet, went down and immersed himself, came up and dried himself. One brought the golden garments before him, he put them on and sanctified his hands and feet!17 — He answered them: If there is such teaching, it is a teaching [to be recognized]. According to R. Meir it is right, because we thus account for the
(1) [I.e.,there must have been an additional cubit for the ceiling of the doorway and one for the flooring of the pool on top?]
(2) Infra 35a.
(3) His non-holy garments.
(4) Lit., ‘sponged himself’.
(5) The eight garments, which the high priest puts on for service. They are: tunic, breeches, mitre, girdle, breast-plate, ephod, robe and plate. V. Ex. XXVIII, 2ff.
(6) To enable the high priest to put the knife aside and to take hold of the holy bowl in which he receives the blood. On other days one priest would slaughter, and another receive the blood. Both functions were to be performed by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.
(7) נכנם Lit., ‘entered’. The word ‘entered’, however, does not fit the whole of what follows, as Baneth remarks. For whereas’ he entered the Sanctuary (Hekal) to smoke the incense and trim the lamps, he cannot be said to have ‘entered’ to offer up the head etc. which took place outside. Baneth therefore suggests with considerable justification that, as elsewhere, ‘נכנם’ be translated ‘prepared to’, ‘went on to’. But this change is unnecessary as one could translate: He went in to . . . trim the lamps, (afterwards) to offer up the head . ‘ .
(8) Ex. XXX, 7.
(9) I.e., clean them, provide them with wick and oil, according to Maimonides, also light them.
(10) V. Rashi.
(11) [Which prescribes only one sanctification in connection with the first immersion when he changes from his non-holy garments into the garments of gold.]
(12) [Who teaches infra 34b that in connection with the second immersion, when he changes from the garments of gold into linen garments, he disrobes himself first and then sanctifies himself, in contradistinction to the Rabbis who place the sanctification before the disrobing.]
(13) [It is assumed that the reason of R. Meir for prescribing the disrobing before the sanctification is that he holds that the two sanctifications required on the change of garments are for the putting on of holy vestments. Whereas the Rabbis ascribe one for the stripping of holy garments and the other for the putting on of holy garments.]
(14) [On the other hand, in the view of’ the Rabbis, there would he no need for more than one sanctification, since the garments of which he strips himself at the first immersion are non-holy.]
(15) So that our Mishnah can be also in accord with R. Meir.
(16) Lev. XVI, 23, 24.
(17) [This shows that R. Meir requires two sanctifications also in connection with the first immersion.]
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 32a
ten sanctifications, but according to the Rabbis, they are only nine? — The Rabbis will answer you: The last sanctification is made when he strips off the holy garments and puts on the profane1 ones.
Our Rabbis taught: And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting2 For what purpose does he enter? For no other purpose than that of taking out the censer and the coal-pan, the whole portion being reported in right order with the exception of this passage.3 For what reason?4 — R. Hisda said: There is a tradition: Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest undergo on that day. If he had performed them in the order mentioned in the scriptures there could have been no more than three immersions and six sanctifications.5
It was taught: R. Judah said: Whence do we know of the five immersions and ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that day? To teach us that it is said: And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments . . . and he shall wash his flesh in water in a holy place and put on his other vestments and come forth and offer [his burnt-offering].6 Thus you infer that whenever one changes from one service to another,7 an immersion is required. Rabbi said: Whence do we know that the high priest had to undergo five immersions and ten sanctifications on that day? Because it is said: He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with the linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired; they are the holy garments; and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on.8 Hence you learn that whosoever changes from service to service requires an immersion. Moreover, it says, ‘They are the holy garments’, thus putting all the garments on the same level. Now there are five services;9 The continual offering of dawn, [performed] in the golden garments: the service of the day [the Day of Atonement], in linen garments; of his [the high priest's] and the people's ram, in the golden garments; [the taking out] of the censer and coal-pan, in white garments; the continual evening offering in the golden garments — Whence do we know that every immersion required two sanctifications? For it is written: And he shall put off . . . and he shall wash; and he shall wash and he shall put on.10 — R. Eliezer b. Simeon said: This can be inferred a minori ad majus: If in a case where no immersion is required,11 sanctification is yet required,12 how much more, in a place in which immersion is required,13 is sanctification also required — But [perhaps let us also infer] that as there only one sanctification is required, here, too, one only would be necessary? Therefore Scripture says: And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on — what is the meaning of ‘which he put on’? Does not a man put off but that which he did put on? Rather [are these superfluous words written] to put the putting off on the same level with the putting on of the garments; just as the putting on of the garments requires sanctification,14 so does the putting off of the garments require it.
[The master said]:15 ‘R. Judah said: Whence do we know of the five immersions and ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that Day? To teach us that Scripture says: "And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting . . . and shall wash his flesh in water in a holy place." Thus you infer that whenever one changes from one service to another, an immersion is required.’ We found [this rule] for the change from the white garments to the golden ones.16 Whence do we know [that it also applies] for the change from the golden to the linen ones?
(1) At the end of the service of the Day of Atonement, as he strips off’ the holy garments to don profane ones.
(2) Lev. XVI, 23.
(3) Infra 70b.
(4) Did Aaron, have to interrupt the service, interpolating the offering up of his and the people's ram, between the incense and the bringing out of censer and coal-pan?
(5) One immersion each for the continual offering of the morning, for the service of the day, which includes censer — and coal-pan — function, and one between that and the offering up of the rams, which includes the additional, and the continual afternoon offering. Thus there would be three immersions only as against the five traditionally reported. Hence the necessity of a change in the programme, hence the interpolation of the offering of the rams between the service within (the day's service) and the bringing out of censer and coal-pan. So that the censer — and coal-pan — function now interrupts between the offerings of the rams and the continual afternoon-offering, with the result that there are now five immersions necessary; one for the morning's continual offering, in the golden garments; one for the service of the day in white garments; one for the offering of the two rams on the outer altar in the golden garments; one for the taking out of censer and coal-pan in white garments; and the fifth for the additional, and the continual afternoon offering in the golden garments. Thus tradition and text are harmonized, the five immersions implying ten sanctifications, one each, before each putting off, and before each putting on, of the garments required for each service.
(6) Lev. XVI, 23, 24.
(7) I.e., from a service performed within the Tent of Meeting to one performed outside and vice versa.
(8) Ibid. 4.
(9) Whether on the view of Rabbi or of R. Judah.
(10) [This is the continuation of Rabbi's statement and the reference is to Lev. XVI, 23, 24. The words ‘he shall wash’, being placed between ‘he shall put off’ and ‘he shall put on’, are taken by Rabbi as referring both to stripping and the robing, each requiring a separate washing (sanctification), this in contradistinction to R. Judah who derives from it supra the need of all immersion between every change of service v. infra 32b.]
(11) During the rest of the days of the year (as against the Day of Atonement) the law of the Torah does not require immersion before each service, only by Rabbinic ordinance, the purpose of which is to keep the priest conscious of risks to his cleanliness, is such immersion necessary. (V. supra 30a.)
(12) V. Ex. XL, 32.
(13) On the Day of Atonement, at every change of garment.
(14) As is inferred a minori.
(15) [To be inserted with some MSS. V. D.S.]
(16) The verses in question
(Lev. XVI, 23, 24) occurring in connection with the stripping of the white garments.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 32b
The school of R. Ishmael taught: That can be inferred a minori: If the golden garments in which the high priest does not enter the Holy of Holies require immersion, how much more do the linen garments, in which he enters the Holy of Holies, require it? But this argument can be demolished: The case of the golden garments is different, because much atonement is obtained in them.1 Rather, he infers it from what Rabbi said.2
[The Master said]:3 ‘Rabbi said, Whence do we know of the five immersions and the ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that day? To teach us that it is said: "He shall put on the holy linen tunic . . ." Hence you learn that whosoever changes from service to service requires an immersion.’ We have found that [required for a change] from the golden,4 to the white garments. Whence do we know that [the same rule obtains for a change] from the white to the golden garments? The school of R. Ishmael taught: That can be inferred a minori: If the white garments, in which but little atonement is obtained, require an immersion, how much more will the golden garments, in which much atonement is obtained, require it? This argument can be demolished: The case of the white garments is different, because the high priest, dressed in them, enters the Holy of Holies? It is for this reason that he [Rabbi, in his statement] teaches: And it also says: ‘They are the holy garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on’.5
‘Now there are five services’. That of the continual afternoon offering [performed] in the golden garments; the service of the day in white garments; [the offering up of] his, and the people's ram in the golden garments; the [taking out of] the censer and coal-pan in white garments; and the continual offering at dusk, In the golden garments — And whence do we know that every immersion requires two sanctifications? To teach us that Scripture says: ‘And he shall put off . . . and he shall wash . . . and he shall wash . . . and he shall put on’. But this [passage] refers to the immersions?6 — Since it has no reference to the immersion [the requirement of] which we infer from ‘They are the holy garments,7 apply it to the sanctifications . Then the Divine Law should have written the term of ‘sanctification’?8 — [Scripture chooses that term] to let us know that immersion is even as sanctification, i.e., just as immersion must take place on holy ground, so must sanctification take place on holy ground. Whence does R. Judah9 infer [that] the sanctification [must take place on holy ground]? — He infers it from the teaching of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.
R. Hisda said: Rabbi's view excludes that of R. Meir and that of the Rabbis.10 It excludes that of the Rabbis, for according to them he sanctifies himself [first] while he is still dressed, whereas Rabbi holds that he sanctifies himself after he is stripped; and it also excludes the view of R. Meir, for R. Meir holds that the second sanctification takes place when he is [already] dressed, whereas, according to Rabbi, he sanctifies himself whilst still stripped of the garments.11 R. Aha b. Jacob said: All agree that at the second sanctification he first dons [the garments] and then sanctifies himself. What is the reason? Because Scripture said: Or when they come near to the altar,12 i,e,, only he who lacks nothing but the approach,13 that excludes him who lacks both dressing and approach. R. Aha, the son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: R. Hisda does not agree with R. Aha, nor does R. Aha agree with R. Hisda, for else there would be fifteen sanctifications required according to Rabbi.14
ONE BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT etc. What does ‘KERAZO’15 mean? ‘Ulla said: It is a synonym for ‘slaying’ — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is the scriptural evidence? Egypt is a very fair heifer. But the kerez [gadfly] out of the north is come, it is come.16 What is the intimation?17 — As R. Joseph interpreted it: A fair kingdom is Egypt but murderous nations from the north will come upon it.18
How far shall he cut? — ‘Ulla said: The bigger part of both organs.19 Thus also said R. Johanan: The bigger part of the two organs. Resh Lakish also holds that he cuts through the bigger part of the two organs, for Resh Lakish said:20 Since we have learned that the cutting through of the bigger part of an organ is as good as the cutting through the whole of it, why did we learn that ‘the bigger part of one organ [is required to be cut through] in case of a fowl ‘and the bigger part of the two organs [are required to be cut through] in case of an animal? Because we have learned: ONE BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT AND SOMEONE ELSE FINISHED IT FOR HIM, HE RECEIVED THE BLOOD AND SPRINKLED IT-one might assume, if another one did not complete the killing for him, it would be invalid. — [You say that] ‘one could assume that if the other did not complete the killing for him, it would be invalid,’ then it would mean that the service is performed by someone21 else and we have learnt: All the services of the Day of Atonement are valid only if performed by him [the high priest]?22 — Rather: This is what he says: One might have assumed that it shall be considered invalidated by Rabbinic ordinance,23
(1) They are used every day for services, whereas the white garments are used only for the service in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and obtain atonement for the Sanctuary and its sacred things, if defilement had occurred there; v. Shebu. 7b.
(2) From Lev. XVI, 4.
(3) [Inserted by one MS. cf. Rashi.]
(4) The verse in question occurring in connection with the changing from the gold garments into the linen ones.
(5) The additional passage adduced by Rabbi intimates that Scripture makes the fact that they are the holy garments the reason for the need of immersion, so that one shall infer that all changes of holy garments on the Day of Atonement require immersion, thus also the golden garments.
(6) Since it says ‘his flesh’.
(7) Cf. n. 1.
(8) [I.e., it should have been written ‘he shall wash his hands and feet’, R. Hananel.]
(9) Who interprets the above passage differently, who therefore lacks a source for this information.
(10) Mentioned supra p.146, n. 6.
(11) [Rabbi holds that both sanctifications are performed whilst he is stripped, one before the immersion and the other after the immersion.]
(12) Ex. XXX, 20.
(13) May perform the sanctification.
(14) According to R. Hisda, Rabbi requires two sanctifications between stripping and dressing; and according to R. Aha, Rabbi requires the sanctification after being dressed before the service, for if their views were not incompatible, Rabbi would be found to require fifteen sanctifications.
(15) Why a change of the usual wording? ‘Shehato’ would have been the normal way of putting it.
(16) Jer. XLVI, 20.
(17) The word ‘kerez’ here, meaning ‘gadfly’, does not suggest explanation of the incision.
(18) The question has the Hebrew text in mind, the answer the Aramaic paraphrase. Since ‘kerez’ is interpreted as ‘murderous’, ‘karaz’ may fitly be used for ‘shahat’, to kill.
(19) The windpipe and the gullet.
(20) Hul. 29b.
(21) That would render the service of the other essential, hence would mean someone else's participation in the service of the Day of Atonement, which is against the law.
(22) Infra 73a.
(23) Making a distinction between profane slaughter, where the bigger part of an organ is on the same level as the whole organ, i.e., the cutting through of the bigger part completes the slaughtering effectively, as against sacred animals, which would have their organ (or organs) completely cut through.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 33a
therefore we have learnt: The bigger part of an organ with a fowl, the bigger part of two organs with an animal — But since, even by Rabbinic ordinance, it would be considered not invalidated,1 why does he [the other one] have to finish it? — It is the proper thing [a command] to finish it.2
Abaye related the order of the [daily] priestly functions in the name of tradition and in accordance with Abba Saul:3 The large pile comes before the second pile for the incense; the second pile for the incense comes before the laying in order of the two logs of wood; the laying in order of the two logs of wood precedes the removing of the ashes from the inner altar; the removing of the ashes from the inner altar precedes the trimming of the five lamps; the trimming of the five lamps precedes the blood4 of the continual offering; the blood of the continual offering precedes the trimming of the two lamps; the trimming of the two lamps precedes the incense; the incense precedes the limbs;5 the limbs come before the meal-offering; the meal-offering precedes the pancakes; the pancakes come before the drink-offerings; the drink-offerings precede the additional offerings; the additional offerings come before the [frankincense] censers, and the [frankincense] censers precede the continual afternoon-offering, as it is said: And he shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-offerings,6 i.e., herewith all the offerings are completed —7 The Master said: ‘The great pile precedes the second pile for the incense.’ Whence do we know that? Because it has been taught:8 This is the law of the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its fire-wood upon the altar all night9 — this passage refers to the great pile. And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby10 — this refers to the second pile for the incense.11 But perhaps I should reverse it?12 — It seems more logical that the great pile have preference because it brings more13 atonement — On the contrary: the second pile is of greater value, for it is introduced within [the Sanctuary].14 — Nevertheless, the one which causes more atonement is of greater value. And,if you like, say: If there be no wood found for the second pile, would one not bring it into [the Sanctuary] from the great pile?15
‘The second pile for the incense precedes the laying in order of the two logs of wood.’ Whence do we know that? — Because it is written: And the priest shall kindle wood16 upon it every morning,17 i.e., ‘upon it’,18 but not upon the other pile,19 hence we can infer that the other pile is arranged already. But the word ‘upon it’ has its own text meaning? — ‘Upon it’ is written twice.20 ‘The laying in order of the two logs of wood precedes the removing of the ashes from the inner altar.’ Although touching the one it is written: ‘In the morning, in the morning’21 and touching the other it is also written: ‘In the morning, in the morning’22 nevertheless that which is preparatory [to the incense burning] has preference,23 What would be preparatory [according to their reply], are the two logs of wood, but surely you said that the two logs of wood belong to the great pile!24 — R. Jeremiah said: It is the laying in order of the wood.25 — Rabina said:26 Since he started with the laying in order [of the wood], he completes it also. R. Ashi said:26 If he found no wood in the second pile, would he not bring it in from the great pile?
‘And the removal of the ashes from the inner altar precedes the trimming of the five lamps.’ Why? — Abaye said: I know it27 by tradition, but I do not know the reason. Raba said: it is in accord with Resh Lakish, for Resh Lakish said: ‘One must not forego the occasion of performing a religious command’28
(1) If the other priest did not finish the cutting of the organs.
(2) In order to obtain a proper supply of blood for the services of the day.
(3) V. supra 14b.
(4) Actually: the slaying of the animal and the receiving of the blood.
(5) Smoking of the limbs of the continual morning-offering.
(6) Lev. VI, 5.
(7) Connecting ad hoc שלמים peace-offerings’ with the root שלם meaning to be complete, thus: And he shall make smoke thereon the fat of the peace-offerings is made to mean: And he shall . . . the complete sacrifice, the conclusion of the sacrifices.
(8) Infra 45a.
(9) Lev. VI, 2.
(11) A special pile of wood, away from the main great pile, was kindled to provide embers for the daily burning of incense on the golden altar; v. Tam. 29a.
(12) So that the pile for the incense should come first.
(13) Because every smoking, with the exception of that of the incense, smoked on the inner altar, is performed thereon.
(14) For incense burning.
(15) So that some of the great pile, too, may be introduced within the Sanctuary.
(16) This is taken to refer to the two logs of wood.
(17) Lev. VI, 5.
(18) I.e., the large pile.
(19) The second pile for incense.
(20) Ibid. In this very same verse, once it has its text meaning, the surplus word intimates the inference.
(21) Ex. XXX, 7, E. V., ‘every morning’. [With reference to the smoking of incense, which also includes the removal of the ashes from the inner altar which must precede the incense offering.]
(22) Lev. VI, 5.
(23) The embers of the wood are essential, for without them no incense can be smoked.
(24) And are thus not preparatory to the incense.
(25) Lit., ‘the name of’ is wood, and wood is essential for the incense, even though not this wood.
(26) The reason why the laying of the two logs precedes the removal of the ashes from the inner altar.
(27) That this was the order according to Abba Saul.
(28) Infra 58b.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 33b
and as he [the priest] enters the Hekal [Sanctuary], he comes first upon the altar.1 For it was taught: The table was to the north two and one half cubits away from the wall, the candlestick was to the south, two and one half cubits away from the wall, the altar stood in the exact middle, extending somewhat outward.2 But let it stand with them?3 — Since it is written: And the candlestick over against the table,4 it is required that they5 see each other. Said Raba: From what Resh Lakish said we infer that it is forbidden to forego the arm in favour of the forehead.6 How shall he do it? From the arm [he shall] proceed to the forehead.7
‘And the trimming of the five lamps is to precede the blood of the continual offering, and the blood of the continual offering is to come before the trimming of the two lamps.’ What is the reason? — Abaye said: [The phrases] ‘In the morning, in the morning’, [written] in connection with the two logs of wood,8 which are not necessary [there]:9 one10 applies to the trimming of the five lamps which shall precede the blood of the continual offering; the other applies to the blood of the continual offering which is to come before the trimming of the two lamps.11 ‘One applies to the trimming of the five lamps which should precede the blood of the continual offering’, for here12 are three13 [words], there only two. ‘And the other applies to the blood of the continual offering which should come before the trimming of the two lamps’, for, although in each case there are two,14 yet, that which obtains atonement15 has preference.
R. Papa said to Abaye: But say, perhaps, that one is to be applied to the removing of the ashes of the inner altar, which is to precede the blood of the continual offering, for here are three words,16 there but two; and one applies to the blood of the continual offering that should come before the trimming of the five lamps, for, although in both cases there are but two, the one that obtains atonement is to have preference? — If so, what shall he interrupt it with?17 It would be quite right according to Resh Lakish who said: The lamps were trimmed and [after interruption] trimmed again.18 in order to keep the whole Temple Court animated, but according to R. Johanan who interprets ‘In the morning, in the morning’,19 i.e., divide it into two mornings,20 what could be said?21 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Are the words ‘In the morning, in the morning’ in connection with the wood at all superfluous? Surely they are really necessary for their text meaning, the Divine Law saying that they should precede the second pile for the incense? He replied: Have we not explained: ‘Upon it’ but not upon the other pile, which indicated that the other must have been there already!22
Why does he trim the five lamps first, let him trim the two lamps first! — Having started already, let him do the bigger part. Then let him trim six? — Scripture says: When he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn it,19 and ‘lamps’ is no less than two. — ‘And the trimming of the lamps is to come before the incense’, for Scripture says: ‘When he dresseth the lamps’, and afterwards [it says]. ‘He shall burn it’ [the incense].19
‘And the incense [shall precede] the limbs’ — For it was taught: Let that, in connection with which it is said ‘In the morning, in the morning’, precede that, in connection with which Scripture said only, ‘In the morning’ [once].23
‘And the limbs [come before] the meal-offering’, for it was taught:24 Whence do we know that nothing may precede25 the continual offering of the dawn?
(1) Before he reaches the candlestick.
(2) Men. 99a. Eastward towards the entrance into the Hekal,
(3) Between them, i.e., in the exact middle.
(4) Ex. XXVI, 35.
(5) The candlestick and table.
(6) To reverse the order of putting on the tefillin (v. Glos.).
(7) In Deut. VI, 8 it reads: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thy eyes. Tosaf. s.v. עבורי would have Raba's remark apply to the obligation to touch the tefillin as a preventive of diversion from a prayerful mood.
(8) Lev. VI, 5, v. supra p. 156, n. 2.
(9) For as preparatory they have preference and come every morning first; v. supra.
(10) ‘In the morning’.
(11) On the principle that if a certain expression is superfluous in its own context it is applied for hermeneutical purposes to another - אם אינו ענין
(12) With reference to the trimming of the lamps.
(13) I.e., three times ‘in the morning’: twice in Ex. XXX, 7, and one which we apply as above, whereas the continual offering has but once ‘in the morning’, Ex. XXIX, 39, to which the one applied from the two logs of wood is to be added.
(14) Twice in Ex. XXX, 7, which apply to the two lamps equally as to the five, and twice in connection with the continual offering as explained in n. 8.
(15) V. infra 36a.
(16) The applied and the two in their own passage. Lev. VI, 5.
(17) The trimming of the lamps, which according to Abba Saul had to take place before the incense-offering. Since the order would be: the blood of the continual offering, the trimming of the lamps, the incense.
(18) First five lamps were trimmed and two after a break.
(19) Ex. XXX, 7.
(20) By interrupting it through the interpolation of another service in the midst of the original order.
(21) Hence R. Papa's supposition cannot be admitted.
(22) V. supra p. 154. nn. 13, 14.
(23) Ex. XXIX, 39. [Although it has been stated supra that one ‘in the morning’ is applied to the continual offering from elsewhere, this is only as far as the blood rituals are concerned, but does not apply to the smoking of the limbs (Rashi).]
(24) Tamid 28b.
(25) I.e., may be burnt on the main pile of the altar.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 34a
To teach us that it said: And he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it,1 and Raba said ‘the burnt-offering’ [means] this is the first burnt-offering.2
‘And the meal-offering [shall precede] the pancakes’ — [For Scripture reads]: Burnt-offering and meal-offering.3
‘And the pancakes precede the drink-offerings’, they, too, are considered a species of a meal-offering.
‘And the drink-offerings [come before] the additional offerings as is is written: A sacrifice and drink-offerings.4
‘And the additional sacrifices [come before] the [frankincense] censers’ — But has it not been taught: The [frankincense] censers come before the additional sacrifices? — This is a matter concerning which Tannaim are disputing.5 Abaye said: The view that the additional offerings precede the [frankincense] censers seems more logical, for did you not say that the words ‘In the morning, in the morning’ imply that it is to receive preference before all, thus do the words ‘on the day . . . on the day’6 indicate that it is to be [offered up] last [in the day]. What is the reason of him who holds that the [frankincense] censers come before the additional offerings? — He infers it from the identical expression ‘statute’7 which occurs with the pancakes. If he infers it hence, let him do so complete?8 — Here [the words] ‘on the day . . . on the day’ come in to intimate that they [the frankincense censers] are offered up last [in the day].
THE INCENSE OF THE MORNING WAS OFFERED UP BETWEEN THE LIMBS AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS. According to whom [is this teaching]? If according to the Rabbis,9 it should come between the blood and the lamps;10 if according to Abba Saul, it should come between the lamps and the limbs?11 — In truth it is in accord with the Rabbis, but he does not treat of the order here.12
THE INCENSE OF THE AFTERNOON WAS OFFERED UP BETWEEN THE [SMOKING OF THE] LIMBS AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS. Whence do we know these things? — R. Johanan said: Because Scripture said: As the meal-offering of the morning, and as the drink-offering thereof, thou shalt present it,13 i.e., just as with the meal-offering of the morning the incense precedes the drink-offerings, so also here the incense shall come before the drink-offerings. But then, just as there the incense precedes the [smoking] of the limbs, here too the incense should come before the limbs? Is it written: ‘As the limbs of the morning’? It is written: ‘As the meal-offering of the morning’, which means: As the meal-offering of the morning, but not as the [smoking of the] limbs of the morning.
Our Rabbis taught: And the drink-offering thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin:14 let him infer [the need of a drink-offering] for the morning sacrifice from the evening sacrifice.
(1) Lev. VI, 5.
(2) Cf. Hor. 12a.
(3) Lev. XXIII, 37: These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt-offering, and a meal-offering, a sacrifice, and drink-offerings, each on its own day. This is the prescribed order, not to be interfered with.
(5) Pes. 58a.
(6) Ibid. XXIV, 8: on the day of the Sabbath, on the day of the Sabbath, shall he set it in order before the Lord, continually. Just as In the morning, in the morning’ was accepted as an intimation that it shall be early in the morning, so ‘On the day, on the day’ may fitly be assumed to be an indication that it is to be offered last in the day.
(7) Concerning the pancakes, the word ‘statute’ is used in Lev. VI, 15, as in connection with the frankincense censers, ibid. XXIV, 9. Just as pancakes take precedence over additional offerings, so do the frankincense censers.
(8) That the frankincense censers should have precedence over the the drink-offerings too.
(9) [That the incense was offered between the trimming of the five lamps and the two lamps, v. supra 15a.]
(10) [I.e., before completing the trimming of the lamps.]
(11) V. supra 33a.
(12) [He was not too particular in regard to the details of the order (Rashi). On this view it could be also in accord with Abba Saul, but it is preferable to make the Mishnah in agreement with the majority of Rabbis (Rashi).]
(13) Num. XXVIII, 8.
(14) Ibid. 7.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 34b
Rabbi said: For the evening sacrifice from the morning sacrifice!1 It is quite right according to the Rabbis, for that is written [specifically] in connection with the continual offering of the evening,2 but what is the ground of Rabbi's statement? — Rabbah b. ‘Ulla said: Scripture said: ‘For the one lamb’.3 Now which is the lamb in connection with which the word ehad [one] is used? Say: It is the lamb of the continual offering of the morning.4 And what do the Rabbis [reply]? — ‘Ehad’, i.e., the unique, the best of the flock. And [what is] Rabbi's [answer]? — He infers that5 from: And all your choice vows.6 And the Rabbis? — One speaks of freewill-[offerings], the other of obligatory [offerings] and both need special mention.7
IF THE HIGH PRIEST WAS OLD OR OF DELICATE HEALTH etc. It was taught: R. Judah said: Lumps of wrought iron were heated on the eve of the Day of Atonement and were cast into the cold water to mitigate the coldness. But was [one] not thereby hardening them?8 — R. Bibi said: [The heat] did not reach the hardening point. Abaye said: Even assume it did reach the hardening point, [a forbidden] act9 which was produced without intent, is permitted. But did Abaye say that? Has it not been taught:10 The flesh of his foreskin11 — even though a white spot12 is there may he cut it off,13 these are the words of R. Josiah. And we asked investigatingly concerning it: Why is a Scriptural statement necessary for that,14 and Abaye said: This was in accord with R. Judah who said: A forbidden act produced without intent, remains forbidden!15 That applies only to forbidden things in the whole Torah,16 but here17 hardening is [forbidden] only by Rabbinic ordination.
MISHNAH. THEY BROUGHT HIM TO THE PARWAH CELL-WHICH WAS ON HOLY GROUND.18 THEY SPREAD A SHEET OF BYSSUS [LINEN] BETWEEN HIM AND THE PEOPLE. HE SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET AND STRIPPED. R. MEIR SAID: HE STRIPPED, SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET. HE WENT DOWN AND IMMERSED HIMSELF, CAME UP AND DRIED HIMSELF. AFTERWARDS THEY BROUGHT HIM WHITE GARMENTS.19 HE PUT THEM ON AND SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET. IN THE MORNING HE PUT ON PELUSIUM LINEN WORTH TWELVE MINAS,20 IN THE AFTERNOON INDIAN LINEN WORTH EIGHT HUNDRED ZUZ. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES SAY: IN THE MORNING HE PUT ON [GARMENTS] WORTH EIGHTEEN MINAS AND IN THE AFTERNOON [GARMENTS] WORTH TWELVE MINAS, ALTOGETHER THIRTY MINAS.21 ALL THAT AT THE CHARGE OF THE COMMUNITY22 AND IF HE WANTED TO SPEND MORE OF HIS OWN HE COULD DO SO.
(1) Just as the one requires drink-offering, so does the other. The practical difference: The case of a community who had enough for only one drink-offering. According to the opinion that one must infer the regulation for the afternoon-offering from the morning-offering, the latter is more important and the drink-offering would have to be allotted to the morning-offering. (Tosaf. s.v. ברי.) The basis of the discussion: To which of the two continual offerings does the phrase ‘for the one lamb’ (Num. XXVIII, 7) refer? The Sages hold it refers to the last named, the afternoon-offering, whereas Rabbi holds that it recalls the morning-offering, where the same phrase (‘one’) is used (verse 4).
(2) The last named of the two.
(3) Num. XXVIII, 7.
(4) V. Ibid. 4.
(5) That particular meaning of ‘ehad’, as applied to the continual offering.
(6) Deut. XII, 11.
(7) As arguments may be advanced in favour of each requiring to be of the best, to the exclusion of the other.
(8) Which is forbidden on any holy day, how much more on the solemn Day of Atonement.
(9) Shab. 41b.
(10) Shab. 133a.
(11) Lev. XII, 3.
(12) Of leprosy, which normally must not be removed by surgery.
(13) The word ‘flesh’ here is superfluous, hence we infer therefrom that no matter how the flesh be (even leprous) he may circumcise it.
(14) Since it was a forbidden act produced without intent, it seems self-evident that it would be permitted. Why, then, was the Scriptural intimation necessary?
(15) Abaye, who held that this intimation supported the view of R. Judah, evidently agrees with him.
(16) By the Torah proper, the Five Books of Moses, as against the Torah in general, the sum total of the Jewish law and tradition. Prohibitions of the Torah are more serious, hence even unintended transgression remains forbidden.
(17) The prohibition dealt with here.
(18) The first immersion, on top of the Water Gate, took place on profane ground; this, however, had to be performed on holy ground, as part of the service of the Day of Atonement.
(19) The four garments prescribed for the special service of the Day of Atonement: the tunic, the breeches, the girdle and the mitre, Lev. XVI, 4.
(20) One mina is worth about £ 3.
(21) As long as one spends more for the morning garments than for the evening garments, there is no regulation to enforce the exact sum mentioned in the Mishnah. V. infra. The evening garment was put on by the high priest for the sole purpose of removing spoon and coal-pan from the Holy of Holies, whereas the rest of the special service of the Day of Atonement was performed by him in the morning garment, hence it has to be the better of the two.
(22) Var. lec.: So much he received from the Temple treasury. V. Bah.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 35a
GEMARA. What does ‘Parwah’ mean? — R. Joseph said: Parwah is [the name of] a [Persian] Magus.1
THEY SPREAD A SHEET OF BYSSUS [LINEN] BETWEEN HIM AND THE PEOPLE. Why was it of Byssus [linen]? R. Kahana said: That he may perceive that the service of the day was [to be performed] in garments of Byssus [linen].
IN THE MORNING HE PUT ON PELUSIUM LINEN WORTH EIGHTEEN MINAS: Does the Tanna wish to teach us summing up?2 — This is what he teaches us: One should spend neither more nor less than the sum total, but it does not matter whether one spends less for the one or more for the other. Now everybody, at any rate, agrees that the garments for the morning are more important, whence do we know that? — R. Huna, the son of R. Elai said: Scripture said: Linen . . . linen . . . linen . . . linen,3 i .e., the choicest linen.
(1) Rabbenu Hananel reported that according to some scholars, Parwah had dug a cave under the ground of the Sanctuary, so that he might be able to watch the high priest at the service of the Day of Atonement. The Sages, noticing the digging, sought and found the cave, and hence called the cell after him.
(2) The summing up seems superfluous, it is too simple to warrant the statement by the Tanna.
(3) Lev. XVI, 4, in connection with the putting on of the garments in the morning. Four times, as if to indicate the best of all possible linen.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 35b
An objection was raised: And they shall put on other garments and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.1 Would you not say that ‘other’ implies better garments? — No, ‘other’ implies inferior ones.
R. Huna b. Judah, or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Judah learnt: After the community service is over, a priest for whom his mother made a tunic, may put it on and perform therein private service,2 provided he hands it over to the community. Is that not self-evident?3 You might have said: Let us fear he may not hand it over properly,4 therefore he teaches us that we have no such fear.
They told about R. Ishmael b. Phabi5 that his mother made him a tunic worth one hundred minas which he put on to officiate at a ‘private’ service and then handed it over to the community. They told about R. Eleazar b. Harsom6 that his mother made him a tunic worth twenty thousand minas and his brethren, the priests, would not suffer him to put it on because he looked like one naked. But how could it be transparent, did not a Master say the thread [of the priestly garments] was six times twisted? — Abaye said: [It was visible] even as wine shines through a [glass] cup.7
Our Rabbis taught: The poor, the rich, the sensual8 come before the [heavenly] court — They say to the poor: Why have you not occupied yourself with the Torah? If he says: I was poor and worried about my sustenance, they would say to him: Were you poorer than Hillel? It was reported about Hillel the Elder that every day he used to work and earn one tropaik,9 half of which he would give to the guard at the House of Learning, the other half being spent for his food and for that of his family. One day he found nothing to earn and the guard at the House of Learning would not permit him to enter. He climbed up and sat upon the window,10 to hear the words of the living God from the mouth of Shemayah and Abtalion — They say, that day was the eve of Sabbath in the winter solstice and snow fell down upon him from heaven. When the dawn rose,11 Shemayah said to Abtalion: Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light and to-day it is dark, is it perhaps a cloudy day. They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window. They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They removed him, bathed and anointed him and placed him opposite the fire and they said: This man deserves that the Sabbath be profaned on his behalf.
To the rich man they said: Why have you not occupied yourself with the Torah? If he said: I was rich and occupied with my possessions, they would say to him: Were you perchance richer than R. Eleazar? It was reported about R. Eleazar b. Harsom that his father left him a thousand cities on the continent and over against that one thousand boats on the sea. Every day he would take a sack of flour on his shoulder and go from city to city and from province to province to study the Torah. One day his servants found him12 and seized him for public service. He said to them: I beg of you, let me go to study the Torah. They said: By the life of R. Eleazar b. Harsom, we shall not let you go. [He gave them much money so that they let him go].13 He had never seen them, for he was sitting all day and night, occupying himself with the Torah. To the sensual person they would say: Why have you not occupied yourself with the Torah? If he said: I was beautiful and upset by sensual passion, they would say to him: Were you perchance more beautiful than Joseph? It was told of Joseph the virtuous that the wife of Potiphar every day endeavoured to entice him with words — The garments she put on for him in the morning, she did not wear in the evening, those she had put on in the evening, she did not wear in the morning. She said to him: Yield to me! He said: No. She said: I shall have you imprisoned. He said: The Lord releases the bound.14 She said: I shall bend thy proud stature.15 He replied: The Lord raises those who are bowed down.16 She said: I shall blind your eyes. He replied: The Lord opens the eyes of the blind.16 She offered him a thousand talents of silver to make him yield to her, to lie with her, to be near her,17 but he would not listen to her; not to ‘lie with her’ in this world, not ‘to be with her’ in the world to come. — Thus [the example of] Hillel condemns the poor, [the example of] R. Eleazar b. Harsom condemns the rich, and Joseph the virtuous condemns the sensual.
MISHNAH. HE CAME TO HIS18 BULLOCK AND HIS BULLOCK WAS STANDING BETWEEN THE HALL19 AND THE ALTAR,20 ITS HEAD TO THE SOUTH AND ITS FACE TO THE WEST.21 AND THE PRIEST STOOD IN THE EAST WITH HIS FACE TO THE WEST.22 AND HE PRESSED BOTH HIS HANDS UPON IT23 AND MADE Confession. AND THUS HE WOULD SAY: O LORD!24 I HAVE DONE WRONG, I HAVE TRANSGRESSED, I HAVE SINNED BEFORE THEE, I AND MY HOUSE. O LORD! FORGIVE THE WRONGDOINGS, THE TRANSGRESSIONS, THE SINS WHICH I HAVE COMMITTED AND TRANSGRESSED AND SINNED BEFORE THEE, I AND MY HOUSE, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH OF MOSES THY SERVANT: FOR ON THIS DAY SHALL ATONEMENT BE MADE FOR YOU [TO CLEANSE YOU; FROM ALL YOUR SINS SHALL YE BE CLEAN BEFORE THE LORD].25 AND THEY26 ANSWERED AFTER HIM: BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS KINGDOM FOR EVER AND EVER!
(1) Ezek. XLIV, 19. [The prohibition of the use of woolen garments in verse 17 shows that the reference is to the Day of Atonement, as on other days some of the priestly garments were made of wool; further, the words ‘and they shall put on other garments’ are taken as applying to their return in the afternoon into the inner court after they had gone forth into the outer court to put off their garments with which they ministered in the morning, and the words ‘they shall not sanctify the people with their garments’ are taken as a separate command forbidding the use by the priests of the garments of ministry when not in actual service (Rashi).]
(2) The removal of the spoon and coal-pan, which may be done even when the community is absent, hence is called ‘individual or private service.
(3) That he may perform therein a ‘private’ service once he hands it over to the community.
(4) I.e., without reservation.
(5) V. supra p. 37, n. 5.
(6) V. supra p. 37, n. 5.
(7) Be it ever so thick. Thus was the flax of his garments transparent and his body visible.
(8) Lit., ‘wicked’.
(9) Corresponding to ** (Victoriatus) — Quinarius, half a denar, Jast.
(10) An aperture in the roof looking down to the ground floor.
(11) Lit., ‘the pillar of the morning’.
(12) Not knowing who he was.
(13) This is a marginal addition.
(14) Ps. CXLVI, 7.
(15) I.e., humiliate you with a slave's labour.
(16) Ibid. 8.
(17) Gen. XXXIX, 10.
(18) Two bullocks were offered up on that day, one from community funds at the additional sacrifice (Num. XXIX, 8), the other from the high priest's means; the latter, here dealt with, is therefore called ‘his’ bullock.
(19) The Ulam leading to the interior of the Temple connecting the Hekal with the Temple court.
(20) The outer altar in the Temple court.
(21) The priest turned its head in the direction of the Hekal, so that the horns, between which the priest pressed his hands on its head, faced the Hekal, v. Gemara.
(22) The priest thus stood at the side of his bullock, his back to the altar, his face towards the Holy of Holies.
(23) I.e., upon its head, between the horns.
(24) Lit., ‘O, the Name’.
(25) Lev. XVI, 30.
(26) The priests and the people who stood in the Temple court and who, on hearing him pronounce the ineffable Name of God, prostrated themselves.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 36a
GEMARA. Whom did you hear saying that the place between Hall and altar was [considered] north?1 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, for it was taught: What is [considered] north? From the northern wall of the altar up to the [northern] wall of the Temple court and opposite the whole altar on the north,2 this is the opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon adds also the space between the Hall and the altar.3 Rabbi adds also the space for the treading of the priests and the place for the treading of the Israelites within,4 and all agree that from the inside of the knives’ cell5 it was illegitimate.6 Shall we [then] say that the Mishnah is in accord with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, but not with Rabbi? — You can even say that it is in accord with Rabbi, for if he adds even7 to what R. Jose son of R. Judah says, will he not add to [the space defined by] R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon!8 This is what we mean: If it were in accord with Rabbi, it9 could be placed anywhere in the whole Temple court! What, then [would you maintain] that [the Mishnah] is in accord with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon! But then it ought to be placed anywhere between altar and wall?10 You must consequently say that the reason11 is to avoid the high priest getting tired;12 thus also, on the view of Rabbi, the reason11 is to avoid the high priest getting tired.
ITS HEAD TO THE SOUTH, AND ITS FACE TO THE WEST. How is that possible?- Rab answered: The priest turns its head — But let him place it straight?13 — Abaye said: We are afraid it might drop excrements. Our Rabbis taught:14 How does one press [the hands on the head of the sacrifice]?15 The sacrifice stands to the north,16 with its face to the west, and he who presses17 [the hands] stands to the east, with his face to the west, and lays his two hands between the two horns of the sacrifice, that nothing may intervene between him and the sacrifice18 — and he makes confession. With a sin-offering [he makes confession] of the sin [committed]; with a guilt-offering, of the guilt incurred; with a burnt-offering, of the transgressions in connection with gleanings,19 the forgotten sheaf,20 the corner of the field,19 and the poor tithe21 — these are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: A burnt-offering is offered up exclusively for transgression of a positive command or of a prohibition transformed into a command.22 In what do they differ? R. Jeremiah said:
(1) [For the purposes of slaughtering the sacrifice of the high priest, which, as belonging to the highest grade of sanctity had to be slaughtered on the north side. Such must be the view of the Mishnah which states that the bullock was placed between the Hall and the altar for confession as well as for slaughtering purposes, v. infra 41b: ‘At the place where the confession was made there it was slaughtered’.]
(2) Only the thirty-two cubits to the north and facing the altar are considered part of the north, where the slaughtering of sacrifices of the highest grade of sanctity is legitimate, but not the space east and west of the altar, although lying to the north of the Temple court, for the biblical command states: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord. (Lev. I, 11), for though these parts are to the north of the Temple court, they are not to the north of the altar.
(3) [He includes the spice on the north side of the Temple court extending westwards, although not exactly facing the northern wall of the altar.]
(4) Eleven cubits each. He includes the whole north of the Temple court, even to the eastern wall.
(5) V. Mid. IV, 7, to the north and south of the Temple court. This cell, fifteen cubits to the north, fifteen to the south, ten from east to west, had twenty-four apertures where the twenty-four divisions of priests kept their knives.
(6) From the knives’ cell within it was impossible to see the wall altar, hence it was forbidden to slaughter it there, Zeb. 20a.
(7) Surely when he declares that space which, is further away is legitimate he will not declare forbidden that which is nearer!
(8) [The text is difficult. MS. M. omits ‘You can even say it is in accord with Rabbi’.]
(9) The high priest's bullock.
(10) On the north of the Temple court.
(11) For placing it between the Hall and the altar.
(12) To prevent his becoming over-tired by carrying the bowl with the blood a long distance.
(13) With its back to the altar and its face to the Hekal.
(14) Tosef. Men. X, 12.
(15) Of the highest grade of sanctity.
(16) The side on which it is to be slain.
(17) The owner of the sacrifice.
(18) Men. 93b, the text in the Tosef. differs somewhat.
(19) Lev. XIX, 9: Neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest.
(20) Deut. XXIV, 19.
(21) Ibid. XXVI, 12.
(22) I.e.,a prohibition the transgression of which must be repaired by a succeeding act, as e.g., Ex. XII, 10: You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning
(prohibition); But that which remaineth... you shall burn in fire (remedial action).
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 36b
They differ concerning the prohibition of carrion,1 R. Akiba holding it to be a proper prohibition,2 whilst R. Jose the Galilean does not consider it a proper prohibition.3 Abaye said: Everybody agrees that the prohibition of carrion is a proper prohibition, what they differ in is the laws touching ‘Thou shalt leave’,4 R. Akiba holding ‘Thou shalt leave’ means from the very beginning,5 whilst R. Jose the Galilean holds it means ‘now’.6 Our Rabbis taught:7 How does he make confession: I have done wrong, I have transgressed I have sinned — Similarly, in connection with the he-goat to be sent away Scripture says: And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions even in their sins.8 Similarly, with Moses, it says: Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin9 — these are the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say: ‘Wrongs’ are deliberate misdeeds, thus also does Scripture say: That soul shall be utterly cut off, his wrong shall be upon him,10 ‘transgressions’ are rebellious deeds, as it is said: The King of Moab hath transgressed against me;11 furthermore: Then did Libnah transgress at the same time; ‘sins’12 are inadvertent omissions, as it is said: If any one shall sin through error.13 — Should he then, after having confessed the deliberate misdeeds and the rebellious deeds, turn back and confess inadvertent omissions?14 Rather, thus did he make confession: I have sinned, I have done wrong, I have transgressed before Thee, I and my house etc. Thus also does Scripture say in connection with David: We have sinned with our fathers, we have done wrong, we have dealt wickedly.15 Thus also with Solomon: We have sinned, and have done wrong, we have dealt wickedly.16 Thus also with Daniel: We have sinned, and have dealt wrong, and have done wickedly.17 — What is the meaning, then, of Moses’ saying: ‘Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin’?18 Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, when Israel sin before Thee and then do penance, account their premeditated sins as errors! Rabbah b. Samuel said in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accord with the Sages. But [that is] self-evident, for ‘Where the opinion of one individual is opposed to the opinion of a majority, the law follows the majority’?19 — You might have said: The reason of R. Meir appears more logical because the scriptural verse of Moses20 supports it, therefore we are taught [as above].
Once a man went down21 before Rabbah and arranged his prayer in accord with R. Meir's view. He said to him: Do you forsake the Sages and act like R. Meir? — He answered: I hold as R. Meir, for thus it is written in the Torah of Moses.
Our Rabbis taught:22 And shall make atonement23 — Scripture speaks of atonement through words.24 You say it refers to atonement through words. But perhaps it refers to atonement [obtained] through [sacrificial] blood? I infer it thus: Here ‘atonement is mentioned and there25 ‘atonement’ is mentioned — Just as the atonement mentioned in connection with the he-goat is one through words, so the atonement mentioned with the bullock is one obtained through words. And if you wish to argue against it, then [learn from]: And Aaron shall present the bullock for the sin-offering, which is for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house,23 yet the bullock has not been slaughtered!26 What does ‘And if you wish to argue against it’ imply? — This: And if you would say: Let us infer from the he-goat prepared within the Temple, the atonement of which is obtained through blood, behold [against that argument] Scripture says: ‘And he shall make atonement’, and the bullock has not been slaughtered yet!
(1) Carrion-an animal that has died a natural death; also whatever has become unfit through faulty slaughtering.
(2) [For which lashes are inflicted, and for which a burnt-offering does not atone.]
(3) Because once one has eaten the carrion, it is no more possible to sell it to the stranger or give it to the sojourner as prescribed in Deut. XIV, 21, R. Akiba holding it a proper prohibition, for the transgression of which one would be punished with the prescribed thirty-nine lashes, the fact that one cannot repair the transgression notwithstanding. According to R. Jose no such punishment would here be inflicted, hence it is not a proper prohibition.
(4) Thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard. Thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger. (Lev. XIX, 9.)
(5) V. next note.
(6) Here is another instance of a prohibition transformed into a command: Thou shalt not glean . . . thou shalt leave them. R. Akiba holds the positive commandment is enjoined from the very first, that is, thus: do not glean but leave; hence it is not a prohibition transformed into a command, but a command from the beginning; whilst R. Jose assumes that it is a de facto command: Don't glean, but having gleaned, undo your transgression by leaving it etc.
(7) Tosef. Yoma, II, 1.
(8) Lev. XVI, 21.
(9) Ex. XXXIV, 7.
(10) Num. XV, 31.
(11) II Kings III, 7.
(12) Ibid. VIII, 22.
(13) Lev. IV, 2.
(14) It is illogical to ask forgiveness for the gravest offences first and then for the lighter ones.
(15) Ps. CVI, 6.
(16) I Kings VIII, 47.
(17) Dan. IX, 5. In all these cases the logical order is maintained, forgiveness being asked, first, for the sins due to inadvertence, then for those deliberate misdeeds, at last for rebellious acts.
(18) Where the order appears reversed.
(19) Ber. 9".
(20) Which agrees, as to the order, with R. Meir.
(21) To the prayer desk.
(22) Meg. 20b.
(23) Lev. XVI, 11.
(24) I.e., confession.
(25) In connection with the he-goat that is sent away. Lev. XVI, 10.
(26) How then is atonement possible? It can be obtained through confession.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 37a
— Whence do we know that [the confession] starts with ‘O’? — Here the expression atonement’ is used and there, in connection with Mount Horeb,1 the expression ‘atonement’ is used, [hence the inference that] just as it started there with ‘O’’2 so must it start here with ‘O’ Whence do we know that the Name3 is to be pronounced here?-Here the word ‘atonement’ is used and in connection with the heifer whose neck is to be broken4 the word ‘atonement’ is used, [hence the inference that] just as there the Name is pronounced, so is it to be pronounced here. Abaye said: It is quite right that we cannot make inference for Horeb from the heifer whose neck is to be broken,5 because that is a past affair, but why should one not infer for the heifer whose neck is to be broken from what happened at [Mount] Horeb?6 — And if you will say ‘indeed so’, but have we not learned:7 ‘The priests say: Forgive Thy people Israel’,8 but they mention nothing about ‘O!’- This is a difficulty.
AND THEY ANSWERED AFTER HIM: It was taught: Rabbi said, [commenting on]: For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; Ascribe ye greatness unto our God:9 Moses said to Israel: When I mention the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, ascribe greatness [unto Him]; Hananyah, the son of the brother of R. Joshua said [commenting on]: The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing:10 The prophet said to Israel: When I make reference to the Righteous One of all the Worlds, say a blessing!
MISHNAH. HE THEN WENT BACK TO THE EAST OF THE TEMPLE COURT, To THE NORTH OF THE ALTAR, THE DEPUTY HIGH PRIEST11 AT HIS RIGHT AND THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY12 [MINISTERING THAT WEEK] AT HIS LEFT. THERE WERE TWO HE-GOATS13 AND AN URN14 CONTAINING TWO LOTS. THEY WERE OF BOX-WOOD. BEN GAMALA MADE THEM OF GOLD AND THEREFORE HE WAS PRAISED. BEN KATIN MADE TWELVE SPIGOTS FOR THE LAVER,15 FOR THERE HAD BEEN BEFORE BUT TWO. HE ALSO MADE A MACHINE FOR THE LAVER, IN ORDER THAT ITS WATER SHOULD NOT BECOME UNFIT BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT.16 KING MONOBAZ17 HAD ALL THE HANDLES OF ALL THE VESSELS USED ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT MADE OF GOLD. HIS MOTHER HELENA18 HAD A GOLDEN CANDLESTICK MADE OVER THE DOOR OF THE HEKAL. SHE ALSO HAD A GOLDEN TABLET MADE, ON WHICH THE PORTION TOUCHING THE SUSPECTED ADULTERESS19 WAS INSCRIBED. NICANOR20 EXPERIENCED MIRACLES WITH HIS GATES AND HIS MONEY WAS PRAISED.
GEMARA. Since [the Mishnah] reads: TO THE NORTH OF THE ALTAR, one infers that the altar was not standing in the north.21 Whose opinion represents our Mishnah? The opinion of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, for it was taught: Northward before the Lord,22 i.e., the north must be fully unoccupied — this is the opinion of R. Eliezer b. Jacob.23 But the first part of the Mishnah is in accord with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — The whole of the Mishnah is in accord with R. Eliezer b. Jacob,24 but read there: In the space between Hall and altar.
THE DEPUTY HIGH PRIEST AT HIS RIGHT AND THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY AT HIS LEFT: Rab Judah said:25 One who walks at his master's right hand is a boor. [But] we have learnt: THE DEPUTY HIGH PRIEST AT HIS RIGHT AND THE HEAD OF THE [MINISTERING] FAMILY AT HIS LEFT; and furthermore, it was taught:26 Of three walking along, the teacher should walk in the middle, the greater of his disciples to his right, the smaller one at his left, and thus do we find that of the three angels who came to visit Abraham, Michael went in the middle, Gabriel at his right,27 Raphael at his left? — R. Samuel b. Papa interpreted [the first saying] before R. Adda: [It is wrong only, if] he [the teacher] be hidden by him — But has it not been taught: One who walks in front of his teacher is a boor, one who walks behind him is arrogant? — [It is assumed here] that he turns sideways.
AND THERE WAS A CASKET WHEREIN THERE WERE TWO LOTS: Our Rabbis taught: [with reference to] And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats28 — ‘lots’, i.e., made of any material. One might have assumed that he should cast two lots on the head of each,29 therefore [Scripture repeats]: One lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel,28 i.e., there is but one lot ‘for the Lord’, and there is but one lot ‘for Azazel’ — One might have assumed that he shall give upon the head of each29 a lot each ‘for the Lord’ and ‘for Azazel’, therefore Scripture says: ‘One lot for the Lord’, i.e., there is but one lot ‘for the Lord’ and but one lot ‘for Azazel’ — Why then does Scripture say: [he shall cast] ‘lots’? [That means to say] that they must be alike: he must not make one of gold and the other of silver, one large, the other small; ‘lots’ [means they may be made] of any material. But that is self-evident? — No, it is necessary [to state that], as it was taught: Since we find that the [high priest's] front-plate had the name of the Lord inscribed thereon and was made of gold, I might have assumed that this too must be made of gold, hence it says [twice] ‘lot’ . . . ‘lot’, to include [permission to make it of] olive-wood, nut-wood or box-wood.30 BEN KATIN MADE TWELVE SPIGOTS FOR THE LAVER: A Tanna taught: In order that his twelve brethren, the priests, who were occupied with the continual offering, may be able to sanctify their hands and feet simultaneously.31
A Tanna taught:32 In the morning, when the laver was full, he sanctified his hands and feet from the upper spigot; in the evening, when [the water] was low, he sanctified his hands and feet from the lower spigot.
HE ALSO MADE A MACHINE FOR THE LAVER: What machine was that? — Abaye said: A wheel which let it go down [to the pit].
KING MONOBAZ MADE ALL THE HANDLES FOR THE VESSELS etc.: He should have made [the vessels] them[selves] of gold?
(1) Ex. XXXII, 30. The similarity of expression indicates some similarity of procedure, hence the inference is legitimate. Thus also below.
(2) Ibid. v. 31.
(3) The ineffable name of God. ‘ב’ may be ‘B essentiae’.
(4) Deut. XXI, 8.
(5) To pronounce the Name also here.
(6) To start with ‘O’.
(7) Sot. 47b.
(8) Deut. XXI, 8.
(9) Deut. XXXII, 3.
(10) Prov. X, 7.
(11) Segan. V. Glos.
(12) Beth Ab. V. Glos.
(13) Lev. XVI, 5,7.
(14) The Greek **.
(15) The priests washed (sanctified) their hands and feet with the water of that laver, before entering the Sanctuary or preparing a service. They turned the spigots and the water came over their hands and feet.
(16) The sacred vessels sanctify everything that comes in contact with them (Zeb. 86a), and whatever has thus been sanctified becomes invalid by remaining overnight. Ben Katin's machine (**) connected the laver with the well, thus retaining for it the undisturbable freshness of the well, hence, when drawn up in the morning, by means of the wheel, it remained valid for sacred use. The heavy laver, until then, had to be filled every morning afresh, after being emptied of last night's water — a laborious, time-wasting effort.
(17) He was king of Adiabene in the last years before the destruction of the second Temple.
(18) She was queen of Adiabene.
(19) Num. V, 11-31. V. Git. 60a.
(20) V. Tosef. II, 4, and with slight modifications, the account infra 38a.
(21) [I.e., that no part of the altar extended to the north half of the Temple court, so that on retracing his steps from the Temple proper to the Temple court, and reaching the altar, he was on the north of it.]
(22) Lev. I, 11.
(23) Zeb. 59a.
(24) Who said: Part of the altar extended to the north, whence he permitted the bullock to be slaughtered between Hall and altar. V. supra 36a and note. (10) In the preceding Mishnah: The bullock was standing near the place between Hall and altar, about the northern corner of the latter, not in the north exactly’.
(25) Hul. 91a.
(26) ‘Er. 54b.
(27) To the right, somewhat behind him, not next to him, because in the latter case he would cover him and that is unseemly.
(28) Lev. XVI, 8.
(29) Since Scripture says ‘lots’ instead of ‘a lot each’.
(30) [Since the repetition of ‘lot’ intimates that they can be made of any material, the word ‘lots’ must likewise mean of any material, Tosef. s.v. יכול
(31) V. supra 25b.
(32) [What follows gives the reason why formerly there had been, as stated in the Mishnah, two spigots; v. D.S. a.l.]
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 37b
— Abaye said: [Reference here is made to] the handles of the knives.
The following objection was raised: He also made of gold the base of the vessels, the rims of the vessels, the handles of the vessels and the handles of the knives [used on the Day of Atonement]? — Abaye explained: These are the helves of axes and adzes.
HIS MOTHER HELENA MADE A CANDLESTICK OF GOLD etc.: A Tanna taught:1 When the sun was shining, sparkling rays proceeded from it and all knew then that the time had arrived for the reading of the [morning] Shema’.2 An objection was raised: One who reads the Shema’ in the morning together with the linen of the [priestly] Mishmars or the [laymen] Ma'amad,3 has not fulfilled his duty, because the men of the Mishmar read it early and the men of the Ma'amad read it too late.4 — Abaye said: It was for the rest of the people of Jerusalem.
SHE ALSO MADE A TABLET: Do you not conclude from this that one may write a scroll for a child for practising purposes?5 — Resh Lakish said in the name of R. Jannai: Alphabetically.6 An objection was raised: Whilst writing he7 looks unto the tablet and copies what is written on the tablet?8 — Say: He looks and writes as it is written on the tablet.9 He raised this objection: When he writes he looks and copies what is written on the tablet, and what is written thereon? And if some man have lain with thee . . . if no man have lain with thee; if thou hast gone aside . . . and if thou hast not gone aside!10 — There it was written
(1) Tosef. II, 3.
(2) V. Ber. 26a.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) They postponed the reading of the Shema’ until their service in connection with the continual offering had been completed. How then did the sparks inform them when this information for practical purposes was useless?
(5) In Git. 60a there is a discussion on this matter, one view permitting the writing of individual portions, the other holding only the whole Torah may be written out. Our Mishnah might settle the dispute there.
(6) What is involved here is not the real copying of a chapter of the Torah, but a kind of mnemotechnic device, with the initial letters only written out, the complete text to be supplied by memory, with the guidance of these hints.
(7) The priest who writes the scroll which the suspected adulteress must drink up.
(8) Indicating that the complete text was contained thereon.
(9) I.e., the initial letters serve him as guide.
(10) Num. V, 19, 20.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 38a
NICANOR EXPERIENCED MIRACLES WITH HIS DOORS: Our Rabbis taught: What miracles happened to his doors? It was reported that when Nicanor had gone to fetch doors2 from Alexandria of Egypt, on his return a gale arose in the sea to drown him. Thereupon they took one of his doors and cast it into the sea and yet the sea would not stop its rage. When, thereupon, they prepared to cast the other into the sea, he rose and clung to it, saying: ‘Cast me in with it!’ [They did so, and] the sea stopped Immediately its raging. He was deeply grieved about the other [door]. As he arrived at the harbour of Acco, it broke through and came up from under the sides of the boat. — Others say: A monster of the sea swallowed it and spat it out on the dry land Touching this, Solomon said: The beams of our houses are cedars, and our panels are berothim [cypresses].3 Do not read ‘berothim [cypresses] but ‘brith yam’,4 I.e., covenant of the sea’. — Therefore all the gates in the Sanctuary were changed for golden ones with the exception of the Nicanor gates because of the miracles wrought with them. But some say: Because the bronze of which they were made had a golden hue.5 R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: It was Corinthian bronze,6 which shone like gold.
MISHNAH. AND THESE WERE MENTIONED TO THEIR SHAME: THEY OF THE HOUSE OF GARMU WOULD NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT THE PREPARATION OF THE SHEWBREAD;7 THEY OF THE HOUSE OF ABTINAS WOULD NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT THE PREPARATION OF THE INCENSE; HYGROS, SON [OF THE TRIBE] OF LEVI KNEW A CADENCE8 IN SONG BUT WOULD NOT TEACH IT; BEN KAMZAR WOULD NOT TEACH ANYONE HIS ART OF WRITING.9 CONCERNING THE FORMER IT IS SAID: THE MEMORY OF THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL BE FOR A BLESSING;10 CONCERNING THE OTHERS IT IS SAID: BUT THE NAME OF THE WICKED SHALL ROT.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The house of Garmu was expert in preparing the shewbread, but would not teach it — The Sages sent for specialists from Alexandria of Egypt, who knew how to bake as well as they, but they did not know how to take [the loaves] down [from the oven] as well as the former, for they were heating the oven from without and baked from within, whereas the latter heated the oven from within and baked from within [with the result] that the bread of the latter became mouldy, whereas the bread of the former did not grow mouldy. When the Sages heard that, they quoted: Everyone that is called by My name [and whom] I have created for My glory,11 and said: Let the house of Garmu return to their office. The Sages sent for them, but they would not come. Then they doubled their hire and they came. [Until now] they used to get twelve minas for the day, [from] that day, twenty-four minas. R. Judah said: [Until then] they received twenty-four minas per day, [from] that day they received forty-eight minas. The Sages said to them: What ground did you see for refusing to teach [your art]? They said to them: In our father's house they knew that this House will be destroyed, and perhaps an unworthy man would learn it and then proceed to serve an idol with it. — For the following was their memory honoured: Never was fine bread to be found in their children's hand, lest people say: These feed from the [preparation of]12 the shewbread — Thus [they endeavoured] to fulfil [the command]: Ye shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel.13
THEY OF THE HOUSE OF ABTINAS WOUld NOT TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT THE PREPARATION OF THE INCENSE. Our Rabbis taught: The house of Abtinas were expert in preparing the incense but would not teach [their art]. The Sages sent for specialists from Alexandria of Egypt, who knew how to compound incense as well as they, but did not know how to make the smoke ascend as well as they. The smoke of the former ascended [as straight] as a stick, whereas the smoke of the latter was scattered in every direction. When the Sages heard thereof, they quoted: ‘Everyone that is called by My name, I have created for My glory’,14 as it is said: The Lord hath made everything for His own purpose,15 and [said]: The house of Abtinas may return to their [wonted] place. The Sages sent for them, but they would not come. Then they doubled their hire and they came. Every day [thitherto] they would receive twelve minas, [from] that day twenty-four. The Sages said to them: What reason did you have for not teaching [your art]? They said: They knew in our father's house that this House is going to be destroyed and they said: Perhaps an unworthy man will learn [this art] and will serve an idol therewith. — And for the following reason was their memory kept in honour: Never did a bride of their house go forth perfumed and when they married a woman from elsewhere they expressly forbade her to do so lest people say: From [the preparation of] the incense they are perfuming themselves. [They did so] to fulfil the command: ‘Ye shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel.’16
It was taught: R. Ishmael said: Once I was walking on the way and I came upon one of their children's children and I said to him: Your forefathers sought to increase their glory and to reduce the glory of the Creator, now the glory of the Creator is at its wonted place, and He has reduced their glory. R. Akiba said: R. Ishmael b. Luga related to me: One day I and one of their descendants went to the field to gather herbs and I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him: ‘Why did you cry?’ He answered: ‘I recalled the glory of my ancestors’ — ‘And why did you laugh happily?’ He replied: ‘Because the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore it to us’ — ‘And what caused you to remember?’ He said: ‘There is smoke-raiser17 before me’. ‘Show it to me!’ He said to me: ‘We are bound by oath not to show it to any person’ — R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Once I came upon an old man, who had a scroll [containing prescriptions] for frankincense in his hand. I asked him: ‘Whence are you [derived]?’ He said: ‘I come from the house of Abtinas’ — ‘What have you in your hand?’ He replied: ‘A scroll [containing prescriptions] for frankincense.’ ‘Show it to me!’ He said: ‘As long as my father's house was alive they would not surrender it to any one, but now here it is, but be very careful about it — When I came and told thereof to R. Akiba he said: ‘Henceforth it is forbidden to speak of them in dispraise’ — Referring to this18 Ben ‘Azzai said: By your name you will be called, to your place you will be restored
(1) Not the initial letters of the words, but the initial words of the verses: The headings of sections were written out, the rest intimated by initial letters.
(2) The doors for the great eastern gate of the Temple Court.
(3) Cant. I, 17.
(4) Without any radical change of the text, except the division of the words, which in the original was hardly noticeable. V. Blau, Einleitung in die Schrift, p. 119f. [Aliter: Do not read ‘berothim’ (ברותים) but berithim (בריתים), ‘covenants’, the doors having made a covenant with each other to be together. V. Rashi and D.S. a.l.]
(5) Mid. II, 3.
(6) Corinthian bronze was refined, hence the light weight, hence the golden hue, as against the duller tone of the heavier bronze.
(7) The twelve shewbread loaves, resting in the Hekal on the golden table from Sabbath to Sabbath (Ex. XXV, 30 and Lev. XXIV, 5-9) were very thin and fragile. Made of some four quarts of flour, they were about one half inch in thickness, some twenty-eight inches in length, some twelve inches in breadth. There were some artistic devices at the corners, which made the preparation a highly difficult art. They would be baked on Friday, often on Wednesday, to be eaten on the Sabbath of the following week, and extraordinary skill was required to keep them fresh and well-tasting. The secret of the baking and removing them, from the oven without breaking them was kept by the house of Garmu, for failure to reveal which they are branded here. The Talmud, however, adduces some mitigating reasons for this apparent niggardliness.
(8) A somewhat difficult phrase. Evidently in connection with the Temple songs. It may have been a specially composed finale, allowing for individual margins of musical ingenuity (Baneth).
(9) V. Gemara.
(10) Prov. X, 17.
(11) Isa. XLIII, 7; hence the best should be available for the Sanctuary, even if cost is involved.
(12) Profits, remainders, at any rate not from their own. One must avoid giving the appearance of unrighteous action, even when acting rightly.
(13) Num. XXXII, 22.
(14) V. p. 176, n. 1.
(15) Prov. XVI, 4; thus that skill must not be allowed to remain unused.
(16) Num. XXXII, 22.
(17) The name of a plant whose identity had to be hidden from all but the members of the house of Abtinas.
(18) Their re-instatement into the original office.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 38b
and from what belongs1 to you will you be given. No man can touch what is prepared for his fellow and ‘One kingdom does not interfere with the other2 even to the extent of one hair's breadth’.3
HYGROS OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI etc. It was taught: When he tuned his voice to a trill, he would put his thumb into his mouth and place his finger [on the division line] between the two parts of the moustache, so that his brethren, the priests, staggered backward with a sudden movement.4
Our Rabbis taught: Ben Kamzar would not teach anything about [his art of] writing. It was said about him that he would take four pens between his fingers and if there was a word of four letters5 he would write it at once. They said to him: ‘What reason have you for refusing to teach it?’ All found an answer for their matter [attitude]. Ben Kamzar could not find one. Concerning [all] former ones it is said: ‘The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing’, with regard to Ben Kamzar and his like it is said: ‘But the name of the wicked shall rot’ — What is the meaning of ‘But the name of the wicked shall rot’? — R. Eleazar said: Rottenness enters their names, none name their children after them.
Rabina raised an objection: The story of Doeg b. Joseph whom his father left to his mother when he was a young child: Every day his mother would measure him by handbreadths6 and would give his [extra] weight in gold to the Sanctuary. And when the enemy prevailed, she slaughtered him and ate him, and concerning her Jeremiah lamented: Shall the women eat their fruit, their children that are handled in the hands?7 Whereupon the Holy Spirit replied: Shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the Sanctuary of the Lord?8 — See what happened to him!9
R. Eleazar said: The righteous man is remembered by his own [good deeds], the wicked [also] by those of his fellow. [Proof that] the righteous [is remembered] by his own [good deeds], for it is written: ‘The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing’. The wicked [is remembered also] by his associate[‘s wickedness], for it is written: ‘But the name of the wicked [pl.] shall rot.’ — Rabina said to one of the Rabbis who expounded Aggada before him: Whence is this statement, which the Rabbis mention: The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing? — He replied: It is a scriptural verse: ‘The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing.’ Whence, in the Torah, may that teaching be derived? — From what is written: Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing?10 And it is [there] also written: Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation.11 [He asked further]: Whence do we know this matter, which the Rabbis mention: But the name of the wicked shall rot? — He replied: It is a scriptural verse: ‘But the name of the wicked shall rot’. Whence, in the Torah, may this teaching be derived?-From what is written: And he moved his tent as far as Sodom,12 and it is written: Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly.13
R. Eleazar said: A righteous man once lived between two wicked men and did not learn from their deeds, a wicked man lived between two righteous men and did not learn from their ways — The righteous who lived between two wicked men and did not learn from their wicked ways was Obadiah.14 The wicked man living between two righteous men and not learning from their ways was Esau.
R. Eleazar [also] said: From the blessing of the righteous you can infer the curse for the wicked and from the curse of the wicked you may infer the blessing for the righteous — From the blessing of the righteous you can infer the curse for the wicked, as it is written: For I have known him, to the end that he may command,15 and [soon] after that it is written: And the Lord said: Verily the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great.16 From the curse of the wicked you can infer the blessing for the righteous,for it is written: Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly.17 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him . . . [all the land, which thou seest, to thee will I give . . .]18
R. Eleazar further said: Even for the sake of a single righteous man would this world have been created for it is said: And God saw the light that it was [for one who is] good,19 and ‘good’ means but the righteous, as it is said: Say ye of the righteous that he is the good one.20
R. Eleazar said also: Whoever forgets [through neglect] any part of his study, causes his children to go into exile, as it is said: Seeing that thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.21 R. Abbahu said: Such a one is deprived of his greatness, as it is said: Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me.22
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: No righteous man dies out of this world, before another, like himself, is created,23 as it is said: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down24 , — before the sun of Eli set, the sun of Samuel of Ramathaim rose. R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Johanan: The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the righteous are but few, therefore He planted them throughout all generations, as it is said: For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and He hath set the world upon them.25
R. Hiyya b. Abba said also in the name of R. Johanan: Even for the sake of a single righteous man does the world endure, as it is said: But the righteous is the foundation of the world.26 R. Hiyya himself infers this from here: He will keep the feet of His holy ones’27 ‘Holy ones’ means many? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is written: His holy’ one.27
R. Hiyya b. Abba said further in the name of R. Johanan: When the majority of a man's years have passed without sin, he will no more sin, as it is said: ‘He will keep the feet of His holy ones’. In the school of Shila it was taught that if the opportunity for sin has come to a man the first and the second time and he resisted, he will never sin, as it is said: ‘He will keep the feet of His holy ones’.28
Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of: If it concerneth the scorners He scorneth them, but unto the humble He giveth grace?29 i.e., if a man comes to defile himself, the doors are opened to him, but if he comes to purify himself, he is helped. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: It is as when a man sells naphtha and balm
(1) What is predestined as your lawful source of income.
(2) In either time or place.
(3) Ber. 48b.
(4) Enchanted with the beauty of the music, or startled by the power of his voice.
(5) [The Tetragrammaton. V. Rashi on the Mishnah.]
(6) With her handbreadth, on her hand, to know how much he had gained since yesterday.
(7) Lam. II, 20.
(8) The reference is to the Prophet Zechariah b. Jehoiadah, the priest. The text in Lam. may refer to that as well; its original meaning, not unknown to the answerer, lamented the destruction by the enemy, of priest and prophet alike. At any rate someone was called Doeg in spite of the first Doeg's bad reputation (I Sam. XXI, 8.)
(9) Normally, none would do that, because of a bad omen, or because one should help the name of the wicked to ‘rot’ by being forgotten. Look what this deviation from cusom brought upon the child.
(10) Gen. XVIII, 17.
(11) Ibid. XVIII, 18.
(12) Ibid. XIII, 12.
(13) Ibid. 13.
(14) Who lived between Ahab and Jezebel. V. Sanh. 12b.
(15) Gen. XVIII, 19.
(16) Ibid. 20.
(17) Ibid. XIII, 13.
(18) Ibid. 15.
(19) Ibid. I, 4.
(20) Isa. III, 10. E.V., ‘Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him.’ V. Hag. 12b.
(21) Hosea IV, 6.
(23) Kid. 72b.
(24) Eccl. I, 5.
(25) I Sam. II, 8.
(26) Prov. X, 25. E.V., ‘ Is an everlasting foundation’.
(27) I Sam. II, 9. Although the kere (the traditional reading) is in the plural the kethib (חסידיו), (the written form) חסידו is in the singular.
(28) [Taking לרגל in the sense of רגל, cf. Gen. XXX, 30, ‘at the foot of’, ‘at the guidance of’, ‘on account of’, he renders the verse, He preserves (the world) on account of His holy ones (Rashi).]
(29) Prov. III, 34.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 39a
: If [a purchaser] comes to measure naphtha, he [the shopkeeper] says to him: Measure it out for yourself; but to one who would measure out balm he says: Wait, till I measure together with you, so that both I and you, may become perfumed.
The school of R. Ishmael taught: Sin dulls the heart of man, as it is said: Neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.1 Read not we-nitmethem [that you should be defiled], but u-netamothem [that you should become dullhearted].2 Our Rabbis taught: ‘Neither shall you make yourselves unclean that you should be defiled thereby.’ If a man defiles himself a little, he becomes much defiled: [if he defile himself] below, he becomes defiled from above; if he defile himself in this world, he becomes defiled in the world to come. Our Rabbis taught: Sanctify yourselves, therefore, and be ye holy:3 If a man sanctify himself a little, he becomes much sanctified. [If he sanctify himself] below, he becomes sanctified from above; if he sanctify himself in this world, he becomes sanctified in the world to come.
MISHNAH. HE SHOOK4 THE URN AND BROUGHT UP THE TWO LOTS. ON ONE WAS INSCRIBED: ‘FOR THE LORD’, AND ON THE OTHER: ‘FOR AZAZEL’. THE DEPUTY HIGH PRIEST WAS AT HIS RIGHT HAND, THE HEAD OF THE [MINISTERING] FAMILY AT HIS LEFT. IF THE LOT [HAVING] ‘FOR THE LORD’ [INSCRIBED THEREON] CAME UP IN HIS RIGHT HAND, THE DEPUTY HIGH PRIEST WOULD SAY TO HIM: SIR HIGH PRIEST, RAISE THY RIGHT HAND! AND IF THE LOT [WITH THE INSCRIPTION] ‘FOR THE LORD’ CAME UP IN HIS LEFT HAND, THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY WOULD SAY: SIR HIGH PRIEST, RAISE THY LEFT HAND! THEN HE PLACED THEM ON THE TWO HE-GOATS AND SAID: A SIN-OFFERING ‘UNTO THE LORD!’ R. ISHMAEL SAID: HE DID NOT NEED TO SAY: A SIN-OFFERING, BUT ‘UNTO THE LORD’. AND THEY ANSWERED AFTER HIM: BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS KINGDOM FOR EVER AND EVER!5
GEMARA. Why was it necessary to shake the urn? — Lest he take one intentionally.6 Raba said: The urn was of wood and profane and could hold no more than the two hands [at its mouth]. — Rabina demurred to this: It is quite right that [its mouth] could contain no more than his two hands, i.e., to prevent his taking one intentionally [through manipulation] but why should it be profane? Let it be sanctified? — That would result in our having a ministering vessel of wood, and we do not make ministering vessels of wood. Then let it be made of silver, or of gold? — ‘The Torah has consideration for the money of Israel’.7
Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna, for it was taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Eliezer: The deputy high priest and the high priest put their hand into the urn. If the lot [‘For the Lord’] comes up in the hand of the high priest, the deputy high priest said to him: Sir high priest, raise thy hand! And if it came up in the right hand of the deputy high priest, the head of the [ministering] family says to him: Say your word!8 -Let the deputy high priest address him? — Since it did not come up in his hand, he might feel discouraged.9 In what [principle] do they10 differ? — One holds, the right hand of the deputy high priest is better than the left hand of the high priest, the other holding, they are of even importance. Who is the Tanna disputing R. Judah? — It is R. Hanina, deputy high priest. For it was taught: R. Hanina, deputy high priest, says: Why does the deputy high priest stand at the right? In order that if an invalidating accident should happen to the high priest, the deputy high priest may enter [the Sanctuary] and officiate in his stead.11
Our Rabbis taught: Throughout the forty years that Simeon the Righteous ministered, the lot [‘For the Lord’] would always come up in the right hand; from that time on, it would come up now in the right hand, now in the left. And [during the same time] the crimson-coloured strap12 would become white. From that time on it would at times become white, at others not. Also: Throughout those forty years the westernmost light13 was shining, from that time on, it was now shining, now failing; also the fire of the pile of wood kept burning strong,14 so that the priests did not have to bring to the pile any other wood besides the two logs,15 in order to fulfil the command about providing the wood unintermittently; from that time on, it would occasionally keep burning strongly, at other times not, so that the priests could not do without bringing throughout the day wood for the pile [on the altar]. [During the whole period] a blessing was bestowed upon the ‘omer,16 the two breads,17 and the shewbread, so that every priest, who obtained a piece thereof as big as an olive, ate it and became satisfied with some eating thereof and even leaving something over. From that time on a curse was sent upon ‘omer, two breads, and shewbread, so that every priest received a piece as small as a bean: the well-bred18 ones withdrew their hands from it, whilst voracious folk took and devoured it. Once one [of the latter] grabbed his portion as well as that of his fellow, wherefore they would call him ‘ben
(1) Lev. XI, 43.
(2) ונטמתם for ונטמתם MS.M. cur. ed. ונטמטם
(3) Lev. XVI, 44.
(4) Continuing the account of Mishnah (supra 37a); or ‘shook hastily’ (because of eagerness, anxiety).
(5) The J.T. states that when the high priest pronounced the Ineffable Name those near prostrated themselves, those afar responding with ‘Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever’.
(6) It was considered a happy omen when it came up in the right hand, and the temptation was as great as near to improve upon chance by dexterous manipulation.
(7) V. infra 44b.
(8) Viz., ‘A sin-offering unto the Lord’.
(9) If the deputy high priest, in whose hand it came up, gave him the command, he might easily read into his words the arrogance of the successful.
(10) R. Judah and the Tanna of our Mishnah.
(11) Nazir 47b, which implies that as long as the high priest is fit for service the deputy high priest performs no priestly service whatsoever, in opposition to R. Judah.
(12) Which was tied between the horns of the bullock. If that became white, it signified that the Holy One, blessed be He, had forgiven Israel's sin. Cf. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow (Isa. I, 18, Rashi).
(13) The westernmost light on the candlestick in the Temple, into which as much oil was put as into the others. Although all the other lights were extinguished, that light buried oil, in spite of the fact that it had been kindled first. This miracle was taken as a sign that the Shechinah rested over Israel. V. Shab. 22b and Men. 86b.
(14) On the altar, on which it was kindled in the morning.
(15) V. supra 26b.
(16) V. Glos.
(17) V. Lev. XXIII, 17ff
(18) Lit., ‘modest’, ‘decorous’.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 39b
hamzan’ [grasper] until his dying day. Rabbah b. R. Shela said: What Scriptural basis [is there for this appellation]? — O my God, rescue me out of the hand of the wicked, out of the grasp of the unrighteous and homez [ruthless] man.1 Raba said, From here [is the basis obtained]: Learn to do well, seek justice, strengthen hamoz [the oppressed]2 i.e., strengthen him hamoz [who is oppressed], but strengthen not homez [the oppressor].3
Our Rabbis taught: In the year in which Simeon the Righteous died, he foretold them that he would die. They said: Whence do you know that? He replied: On every Day of Atonement an old man, dressed in white, wrapped in white, would join me, entering [the Holy of Holies] and leaving [it] with me, but today I was joined by an old man, dressed in black, wrapped in black, who entered, but did not leave, with me. After the festival [of Sukkoth] he was sick for seven days and [then] died. His brethren [that year] the priests forbore to mention the Ineffable Name in pronouncing the [priestly] blessing.4 Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself?5 I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee:6 Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.7
R. Isaac b. Tablai said: Why is its8 name called Lebanon? Because it makes white the sins of Israel. R. Zutra b. Tobiah said: Why is it called ‘Forest’, as it is written: The house of the forest of Lebanon?9 To tell you that just as a forest produces sprouts, so does the Temple. For R. Hosea said:10 When Solomon built the Sanctuary, he planted therein all sorts of precious golden trees, which brought forth fruit in their season. When the wind blew against them, their fruits would fall down, as it is said: May his fruit rustle like Lebanon.11 They were a source of income for the priesthood. But as soon as the idolaters entered the Hekal, they dried up, as it is said: And the flower of Lebanon languisheth.12 And the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore it to us, as it is said: It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice, even with joy and singing, the glory of Lebanon shall be given to it.13 Our Rabbis taught:14 Ten times did the high priest pronounce the [Ineffable] Name on that day: Three times at the first confession, thrice at the second confession, thrice in connection with the he-goat to be sent away, and once in connection with the lots. And it already happened that when he pronounced the Name, his voice was heard even unto Jericho.15 Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: From Jerusalem to Jericho it is a distance of ten parasangs. The turning hinges of the Temple doors were heard throughout eight Sabbath limits.16 The goats in Jericho used to sneeze because of the odour of the incense. The women in Jericho did not have to perfume themselves, because of the odour of the incense. The bride in Jerusalem did not have to perfume herself because of the odour of the incense. R. Jose b. Diglai said: My father had goats on the mountains of Mikwar17 and they used to sneeze because of the odour of the incense. R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Karhah: An old man told me: Once I walked towards Shiloh18 and I could smell the odour of the incense [coming] from its walls.
R. Jannai said: To bring the lot up out of the casket is indispensable,19 but to place [it on the bullock's head] is not.20 R. Johanan said: Even to bring up the lot is not indispensable.21 On the opinion of R. Judah who said that services performed in the white garments outside the Holy of Holies are not indispensable there is no dispute, [all agreeing] that [the bringing up of lots] is not indispensable; they dispute only the opinion of R. Nehemiah:22 He who says it is indispensable, holds even as R. Nehemiah [does]; whereas the other who holds it is dispensable, explains [R. Nehemiah to refer to] an actual service, whereas the casting of the lots is no service. — Others say: On the opinion of R. Nehemiah, who says it is indispensable, there is no dispute, [all agreeing that] it is indispensable; the dispute touches only the opinion of R. Judah: he who holds it is dispensable, agrees with R. Judah; whereas he who holds it is indispensable [explains] that it is different here because Scripture repeats twice: On which [the lot] fell.23 — An objection: was raised ‘It is a command to cast the lots but if he has failed to do so, [the service] is, nevertheless, valid. Now that will be quite right according to the version that none disputes that on R. Judah's view it is dispensable, so that this [teaching]24 is in accordance with R. Judah
(1) Ps. LXXI, 4.
(2) Isa. 1, 17.
(3) V. Sanh. 35a.
(4) Men. 109b. Tosaf Sotah 38a suggests that the Ineffable Name could be pronounced only when there was some indication that the Shechinah rested on the Sanctuary. When Simeon the Righteous died, with many indications that such glory was no more enjoyed, his brethren no more dared utter the Ineffable Name.
(5) Predict thy own destruction.
(6) I.e., concerning this significant omen of the destruction of the Temple.
(7) Zech. XI, 1. Ido was his grandfather, but it occurs occasionally that a man is called ‘the son after a distinguished ancestor.
(8) The Sanctuary. A play on לבנון, connected with לבן
(9) I Kings X, 21.
(10) V. supra 21b.
(11) Ps. LXXII, 16.
(12) Nahum I, 4.
(13) Isa. XXXV, 2.
(14) Tosef. Yoma II, 2.
(15) V. supra 20b.
(16) The marked-off area around a town or place within which it is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Sabbath limits i.e., two thousand cubits in every direction. The turning hinges, then, created a sound, according to this scholar, audible beyond sixteen thousand cubits.
(17) The name varies: Mikmar, Mikwar, Makvar (a district of Peraea). One version omits reference to a place, and reads ‘on the mountains’, which may have appropriated the מ from the next word and omitted it for want of clarity. It should be reasonably near Jerusalem to suit the context. See D.S., p. 110.
(18) The place of the tent of meeting. In the mind of the narrator the odour of incense must have been well-nigh imperishable.
(19) Without the casting of the lots no choice could be made as to the destination of the two he-goats, i.e., the service could not go on.
(20) This view considers the service of the high priest dependent on the decision of the lots, the decisive factor being the lots and not the formal putting of the lot on the animal's head.
(21) R. Johanan considers the action of the high priest the determining factor, independent of his having either had lots or having placed them on the head. His declaration as to which animal is for the Lord and for Azazel resp., validates the service.
(22) Infra 60a contains the dispute between R. Judah and R. Nehemiah as to whether any change in the prescribed order renders the service invalid. It hinges on the question as to whether the word ‘hukkah’ (statute) i.e., binding order, applies to the service in the Holy of Holies only, independent as to the garments wherein they are performed (R. Judah) or whether it applies to any service in the white garments, performed either in the Holy of Holies or elsewhere (R. Nehemiah). A sub-question would be whether anything in connection with the Day of Atonement, or only a service proper is covered by R. Nehemiah's view. If e.g., the casting of the lots is not considered a service, though an action in connection with it, it may not be indispensable since it is performed outside the Holy of Holies, although in white garments.
(23) Lev. XVI, 9,10 which repetition emphasizes the indispensable nature of this service.
(24) That it is a command to cast the lots, but that failure to do so does not invalidate the service.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 40a
. But according to the version that they are disputing on R. Judah's view it would again be quite right according to him who holds it is dispensable, for then [the authority for this teaching] would be R. Judah; but according to him who considers it indispensable [the question is asked]: Who [will be the authority] for this [teaching]? Read: It is a command to place [the lots on the bullock's head].1
Come and hear: It is a command to cast the lots and to make confession. But if he had not cast the lots2 or made confession, [the service is] valid.3 And should you reply that here, too’ [you would read] ‘to place [the lot on the bullock's head]’, say then the second part: R. Simeon said: If he has not cast the lots, the service is still valid, but if he has failed to make confession, it is invalidated. Now what does ‘If he has not cast the lots’ mean? Would you say it means, ‘He has not placed the lots’,4 this would imply [would it not] that R. Simeon holds the casting of the lots is indispensable? But surely it was taught: If one of the two [bullocks] died, he brings the other without [new] casting of lots — these are the words of R. Simeon?5 — R. Simeon did not know what the Sages meant [with the Phrase ‘lo higril’]6 and thus he said to them: If by ‘hagralah’ you mean casting of the lots itself, I dispute with you on one matter, but if by ‘hagralah’ you mean the placing of the lots then I disagree with you on two counts.7
Come and hear: With regard to the sprinkling of the blood within the veil, [the regular service of] the bullock is indispensable for the service of the he-goat [to be valid]; but the regular service of the he-goat is not indispensable for the service of the bullock to be valid.8 Now, it is quite right that the regular service of the bullock is indispensable for the he-goat, e.g., if he performed the rites of the he-goat before those of the bullock, he has done nothing.9 But that [the regular service of] the he-goat is not indispensable to the bullock, what does it mean? Would you say [it means] that if he sprinkled the blood of the bullock in the Hekal before the sprinkling of the he-goat within [the veil]?10 But surely Scripture says ‘statute’!11 Rather must you say [it means that] if he sprinkled the blood of the bullock within, before the casting of the lots12 [it is valid]. Now since the order is not indispensable [is it not to be inferred that] the casting of the lots itself is not indispensable!13 — No, [it means that] he made the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the altar before sprinkling the blood of the he-goat in the Hekal14 and this [teaching] is in accord with R. Judah, who says that anything done in the white garments outside [the Holy of Holies] is dispensable. But does it not state ‘with regard to the sprinklings within’?15 Rather: It is in accord with R. Simeon who holds the casting of the lots is dispensable. Or, if you like, say: Still I say it is in accord with R. Judah,16 and although the order of the service is not indispensable, the casting of the lots is indispensable. And they follow their own principle.17 For it was taught:
(1) This ruling is generally accepted: Dejure the placing of the lots is obligatory. De facto failure to do so does not render the ceremony invalid, Scripture repeating twice ‘on which the lot fell’, thus creating a precedent for the casting of the lots, but it refers only once to the placing of the lots on the bullock's head.
(2) לא הגריל infra n. 6.
(3) Hence the casting of the lots is dispensable — a refutation of R. Jannai.
(4) Only the placing of the lots does R. Simeon consider dispensable, but the casting he considers indispensable.
(5) Infra 63b.
(6) Lit., ‘He did not perform the hagralah’ and rendered supra ‘he has not cast lots’ cf. n. 3. ‘Hagralah’, ‘acting with lots’ may mean causing lots ‘to be cast’ or ‘to be placed’, hence grammatically either application is justified: ‘lo higril’ he did not cause the lots ‘to be cast’ or ‘to be placed’ (on the head etc.). R. Simeon did not know which interpretation had been offered by the Sages. He knew however that both are possible.
(7) If you mean by ‘hagralah’ the casting of the lots, I dispute only your stand touching confession, agreeing with you that the casting of the lots is not indispensable, but if you mean by ‘hagralah’ the placing of the lots on the head etc. but the casting itself you consider indispensable, then I disagree with you on two counts: you hold casting indispensable, I do not; you hold confession not indispensable, I consider it indispensable.
(8) [The order of the service prescribed in Lev. XVI for the bullock and the he-goat which is offered within is as follows:
(i) First confession over the bullock; (ii) Casting lots over the he-goats; (iii) second confession over the bullock; (iv) Slaughtering of the bullock; (v) Bringing the spoon and fire pan into the Holy of Holies; (vi) Burning of incense; (vii) Sprinkling of blood of the bullock on the mercy-seat; (viii) Confession over and slaughtering of the he-goat; (ix) Sprinkling of the he-goat's blood on the mercy-seat; (x) Sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the Veil, separating the Holy, the Hekal, from the Holy of Holies; (xi) Sprinkling of the blood of the he-goat on the Veil; (xii) Mixing together the blood of the he-goat and the bullock and applying the mixture on the golden altar. Here the rule is laid down that if he performed any one of the rites in connection with the he-goat before such of the bullock as should have preceded it, that rite is invalid and must be performed again in its proper order. If, however, he performed any of the rites in connection with the bullock before such of the he-goat as should have preceded it, that rite is not invalid.]
(9) It has no validity.
(10) [I.e., he performed rite (x) before rite (ix), v. n. 1].
(11) Which has reference to the rites performed within the Veil, and which implies an inflexible rule invalidating the irregularity of the service.
(12) [I.e., he performed rite (vii) before (ii).]
(13) Hence there is one who holds that the casting of the lots is not indispensable. That contradicts the above statement that even R. Judah (and all the more R. Nehemiah) considers it indispensable.
(14) [I.e., he performed rite (xii) before rite (xi). The blood of the bullock here means that which he mixed with the blood of the he-goat.]
(15) Whereas this irregularity in connection with the bullock concerned a service performed outside the Holy of Holies.
(16) [And the irregularity consequently concerned rites (vii) and (ii), v. p. 190, n. 5.]
(17) This refers to the dispute of R. Judah and R. Simeon where he failed to make confession.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 40b
[With reference to] It shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him1 — how long must it stay alive? Until the blood of its fellow-sacrifice is sprinkled, this is the opinion of R. Judah.2 R. Simeon holds: Until the confession [of sin].3 Wherein do they differ? — As it was taught: ‘To make atonement over him’ — Scripture speaks of atonement through blood, thus does it also say: And when he hath made an end to atoning for the holy place,4 just as there it refers to atonement by blood, so does it refer here to atonement by blood this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Simeon says: ‘To make atonement over him’ — Scripture speaks of atonement by words [confession].
Come and hear:5 The disciples of R. Akiba asked him: If it [the lot ‘for the Lord’] came up in the left hand, may he turn it to the right? He replied: Do not give all occasion for the Sadducees to rebel!6 The reason, then, [of his negative answer] is so as not to give an occasion for the Sadducees to rebel, but, without that, we would turn it, yet you said that the casting of the lots is indispensable, and since the left hand has determined its destination,7 how can we turn it? — Raba answered: This is what they said: If the lot had come up in the left hand, may one change it and the he-goat to the right?8 Whereupon he answered: Give no occasion to the Sadducees to rebel.
Come and hear: If [Scripture] has said: The goat, ‘upon which it [the lot] is’9 I would have said he must place it thereon. Therefore it says: ‘[on which it] fell’, i.e., once it has fallen upon it, he no more need [place it on its head]. Now in respect of what [was this said]?10 Would you say: In respect of a command,11 which would imply that the placing of the lots is not even a command!12 Rather must you say it means that it is in respect of indispensability;13 hence we learn that the casting is indispensable, and the placing of the lot [upon the head] is dispensable.14 Raba said: This is what he means: If it had said: ‘Upon which it is’, I would have said: let him leave it there until the time for the slaughtering; therefore it says: [upon which it] fell, to intimate that once it had fallen upon it, it needs nothing else.15
Come and hear: And offer him for a sin-offering16 i.e., the lot designates it for the sin-offering, but the naming17 [alone] does not designate it a sin-offering. For I might have assumed, this could be inferred a minori: If in a case where the lot does not sanctify,18 the naming does sanctify, how much more will the naming sanctify where the lot also does so sanctify? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And offer him for a sin-offering’ [to intimate] it is the lot which designates it a sin-offering, but the naming does not make it a sin-offering.
(1) With reference to the he-goat that is to be sent away. Lev. XVI, 10.
(2) [In accordance with his view that confession is not indispensable so that if the he-goat died after the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock (rite vii) before the confession over the he-goat (rite viii) the service is valid.]
(3) Infra 65a.
(4) Ibid. 20.
(5) Tosef. III, 2, the version in the Talmud is somewhat modified.
(6) The substitution of Sadducees for ‘Minim’ (Judeo-Christian heretics) is undoubtedly due to the censors’ dislike of any word that may appear as even an implied attack on the Church. The heretics will claim this manipulation an ‘additional proof’ of the Pharisees’ doing with the law whatever pleased them. Thus they would be helped to rebel, arguing at once in favour of their heresy and against the Pharisees.
(7) For the Lord, even before the lot was actually placed on the he-goat.
(8) If the lot ‘For the Lord’ came up in the left hand so that the he-goat standing opposite the priest at his left hand was thereby designated a sin-offering for the Lord, that on the right being designated for Azazel, may he exchange the he-goats and the lots so that whereas the lot decided which is which, the manipulation will have afforded him the comfort of knowing that without formally changing the lots, the ‘right one’ will be designated for the Lord.
(9) Intimating that it lies there for a considerable time.
(10) That once the lots are cast nothing more is necessary.
(11) I.e., there is no longer any command to be fulfilled after the’ casting of the lots.
(12) Surely this is impossible!
(13) I.e., that once the lots are cast there is nothing else deemed indispensable for determining the destination of the he-goats.
(14) A refutation of R. Johanan.
(15) The verse serves to indicate that once it ‘fell upon it’ there is not even a command to be placed there, as a sign or assurance that it will be offered up for the purpose designated.
(16) Lev. XVI, 9: And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it for a sin-offering.
(17) By the high priest. The above verse, in which the offering-up follows immediately ‘upon which the lot fell’ indicates that the coming up of the lot decides the matter, not the naming by the priest.
(18) As with the sacrificial couples of birds, where either owner or priest by verbal statement makes the designation, where, however, the casting of lots would be useless.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 41a
Now whose is the anonymous opinion in the Sifra?1 R. Judah's, and he teaches: The lot designates the sin-offering and the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Hence we see that the casting of the lots is indispensable. This will be a refutation of the opinion that it is not indispensable. It is a refutation.
R. Hisda said: The special designation of the couples2 is made either by the owner3 or by the priest's action.4 R. Shimi b. Ashi said: What is the basis of R. Hisda's dictum? Because it is written: She shall take [. . . for a burnt-offering]5 and And the priest shall offer one [as a sin-offering]6 i.e., [the designation is made] either at the [owner's] taking [purchasing] or at the offering-up [by the priest].
They raised the following objection: ‘And make it a sin-offering’7 -i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering, but the naming [alone] does not make it a sin-offering. For I might have assumed, this could be inferred a minori: If in a case where a lot does not sanctity, the naming does, how much more should the naming sanctify, where the lot does? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And make it for a sin-offering’ [to intimate] it is the lot which makes it a sin-offering, but the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Here it is neither the time8 of its purchase, nor of its being offered, and yet he states that it should designate? — Raba said: This is what he said: If in a case where the lot does not sanctify even at the time of the purchase and even at the time of the offering, the naming does sanctify it at the time of either purchase or offering, how much more shall the naming, at either the time of purchase or of offering, sanctify it in a case where the lot sanctifies outside the time of either purchase or offering? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And make it a sin-offering’, i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering but the naming does not make it a sin-offering.
Come and hear: If someone defiled the Sanctuary9 whilst poor and put aside money for his bird-couple-offering, and afterwards became rich,10 and said thereupon: This [money] be for the sin-offering and that for the burnt-offering he adds to the money for the sin-offering to bring his obligatory offering, but he may not add to his burnt11 -offering to bring his obligatory offering. Now here12 it is neither the time of the purchase, nor the time of the offering and yet he teaches that it is designated?13 — R. Shesheth said: How do you reason?14 Surely R.. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hoshaia: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst rich, and brought the offering of a poor person, he has not done his duty. Now, since he has not done his duty, how could he have designated15 it? Must you not, rather, say that he had designated it when already poor? Thus here,16 too, the case is that he said it from the time when he set [the money] aside.17 But according to R. Hagga in the name of R. Josiah who said: He has done his duty18 —
(1) A Tannaitic commentary (Midrash) on Leviticus.
(2) Of sacrificial birds (Lev. XII, 8 and XV, 30), as to which is to be the burnt-offering and which the sin-offering.
(3) At the purchase the owner can decide which is to serve for either sacrifice.
(4) If not designated by the owner, the priest has the right to name each bird for the sacrifice he chooses, i.e., either sin-, or burnt-offering.
(5) Lev. XII, 8.
(6) Ibid. XV, 30.
(7) Lev. XVI, 9. So literally. E.V. ‘offer it for a sin-offering’.
(8) The designation by naming, which now is assumed to take place at the time of the sanctification by the lot, i.e., neither at the time of the purchase, nor at that of the offering.
(9) By entering it in uncleanness, Lev. V, 2.
(10) With the consequence that he must offer the contingent sacrifice of a rich person: a lamb as a sin-offering, whereas a poor person had to offer up two turtledoves or two young pigeons as sin- and burnt-offering resp. (Lev. V, 6 and 11.)
(11) Ker. 28a. He may add to the original money designated for the poor man's sin-offering for his new sin-offering, but he may not use the money designated for the poor man's burnt-offering to add thereto the sum necessary for the purchase of the rich man's sin-offering (his lamb). The latter is forbidden, because once he had designated, the money for the burnt-offering, it may no more be changed for any other offering.
(12) After the designation.
(13) And that he may no more change it.
(14) Do you consider the Baraitha to be in order?
(15) The poor man's sin-offering no more applies to him, how could he have designated it a burnt-offering after becoming rich, since he does not have to bring a burnt-offering at all (only the poor man brings a burnt- and sin-offering, one pigeon each, the rich man's lamb serving as sin-offering only).
(16) In reply to the objection raised against R. Hisda.
(17) Correct the Baraitha to read: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst poor and put aside money for his couple and said at the time when he set the money aside ‘This be etc.’ and afterwards became rich.
(18) So that the Baraitha as it stands need not be corrected.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 41b
what is there to be said?1 — Do not read: ‘And said thereupon’, but ‘And thereupon he bought and said’.2
But if ‘thereupon he bought’ [then it states] ‘he may add and bring his obligatory sacrifice’, it must mean3 that he redeems4 [the bird-offering]? But surely a bird-offering may not be redeemed?5 — R. Papa said: For instance, if he bought one single pigeon. If he bought it as the burnt-offering, then he adds to the money for his sin-offering the money for his [new] obligatory sacrifice, the burnt-offering [of the bird] becoming a freewill-offering; if he bought it as the sin-offering he may not add to the money for the burnt-offering for the purchase of his [new] obligatory sacrifice and that sin-offering is left to perish.
The text [above] states: R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hoshaia: ‘If one defied the Sanctuary whilst being rich and brought the offering prescribed for a poor person, he has not done his duty, R. Hagga in the name of R. Josiah says: He did perform it.’ The following objection was raised: If a poor leper brought the offering prescribed for a rich person, he has performed his duty; if a rich person brought the offering prescribed for a poor one, he has not performed his duty?6 — There it is different because it is written: This [shall be the law of the leper].7 If that is so, then [let it apply] in the first part [of the Mishnah] too? — Surely the Divine Law includes that case through the word Torath [‘law’]!8 As it was taught: the word Torath [‘the law’]7 includes a poor leper, who brought a rich [leper's] sacrifice. One might have assumed that even a rich leper who brought a poor leper's sacrifice [might be included so as to have performed his duty], therefore it says: ‘This’. Let us infer from it [for one who defiled the Sanctuary]? — The Divine Law [by saying]: And if he be poor,9 excludes [all but the leper].10
MISHNAH. HE BOUND11 A THREAD OF CRIMSON WOOL ON THE HEAD OF THE HE-GOAT WHICH WAS TO BE SENT AWAY,12 AND [MEANTIME] HE PLACED IT [AT THE GATE] WHENCE IT WAS TO BE SENT AWAY; AND THE HE-GOAT THAT WAS TO BE SLAUGHTERED, AT THE PLACE OF THE SLAUGHTERING.13 HE CAME TO HIS BULLOCK A SECOND14 TIME, PRESSED HIS TWO HANDS UPON IT AND MADE CONFESSION. AND THUS HE WOULD SAY: O LORD, I HAVE DEALT WRONGFULLY, I HAVE TRANSGRESSED, I HAVE SINNED BEFORE THEE, I AND MY HOUSE, AND THE CHILDREN OF AARON, THY HOLY PEOPLE, O LORD, PRAY FORGIVE THE WRONGDOINGS, THE TRANSGRESSION, AND THE SINS, WHICH I HAVE COMMITTED, TRANSGRESSED, AND SINNED BEFORE THEE, I AND MY HOUSE, AND THE CHILDREN OF AARON, THY HOLY PEOPLE. AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH OF MOSES, THY SERVANT: FOR ON THIS DAY ATONEMENT BE MADE FOR YOU, TO CLEANSE YOU; FROM ALL THE SINS SHALL YE BE CLEAN BEFORE THE LORD. AND THEY RESPONDED: BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS KINGDOM FOR EVER AND EVER.
GEMARA. They raised the question: AND THE HE-GOAT THAT WAS TO BE SLAUGHTERED AT THE PLACE OF THE SLAUGHTERING — does this refer to the tying [of the strap]15 or to the placing [of the animal]?16 Come and hear: For R. Joseph learned: He bound a crimson-coloured strap on the head of the he-goat which was to be sent away and placed it against the gate whence it was to be sent away; and the he-goat which was to be slaughtered at the place where it was to be slaughtered, lest they become mixed up one with the other, or with others. It will be quite right if you say it refers to the binding [of the strap], but If you say it refers to the placing [of the animal], granted that it would not be mixed up with its fellow [he-goat] because the one had a strap, whilst the other had none, but it could surely be mixed up with other he-goats?17 Hence we learn from here that It refers to the tying [of the strap]. This proves it. R. Isaac said: I have heard of two straps, one in connection with the [red] heifer,18 the other with the he-goat-to-be-sent-away, one requiring a definite size, the other not requiring it, but I do not know which [requires the size]. R. Joseph said: Let us see: The strap of the he-goat which required division,19 hence also required a definite size, whereas that of the heifer which does not need to be divided, does not require a definite size, either. Rami b. Hama demurred to this: That of the heifer also requires weight?20 — Raba said: The matter of this weight is disputed by Tannaim.21 But does the strap of the heifer not have to be divided? [Against this] Abaye raised the following objection: How does he do it?22 He wraps them23 together with the remnants24 of the strips [of scarlet wool]! Say: with the tail25 of the strip.
R. Hanin said in the name of Rab: If the cedar-wood and the scarlet thread were [merely] caught by the flame,26 they are usable [for the ceremony]. — They raised the following objection: If the strap caught fire, another strap is brought and the water of lustration prepared.27 Abaye said: This is no contradiction; one speaks of a flame which blazes28 up, the other of one which is subdued.29
Raba said: Concerning the weight of [the heifer's strap] there is a division of opinion among Tannaim, for it was taught: Why does he wrap them30 together? In order that they form together one bunch — this is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says: In order that they have [sufficient] weight to fall into the midst of the burning heifer. — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Johanan: I heard of: three [different] straps, one, that of the [red] heifer, the other, that of the he-goat-to-be-sent-away, the third of the leper; one having a weight of ten zuz,31 the other a weight of two sela's,31 the third a weight of one shekel,31 and I do not know how to specify it. When Rabin came, he specified it in the name of R. Jonathan:
(1) How will R. Hisda meet the objection raised against him from the Baraitha?
(2) The change implies only that one word had been omitted. Thus the question against R. Hisda is answered.
(3) Lit., ‘what is it?’
(4) Divesting it of its sacred character by changing its purpose and adding thereto the money required for the lamb.
(5) Tem. 23b.
(6) Neg. XIV, 12. An objection against R. Hagga.
(7) Lev. XIV, 2 indicating there must be no duration.
(8) Indicating that there is ultimately one Torah, one law governing all lepers.
(9) Ibid. 21.
(10) ‘If he be poor’; the ‘he’ is emphatic, indicating that this law applies only to a leper; but any other person, obliged to bring an offering of higher or lesser value, according to pecuniary condition, may bring the ‘poor man's offering’ and yet have its duty performed although he be rich himself.
(11) To prevent any confusion between the he-goats, or between them and the third he-goat, to be offered up at the additional service (Num. XXIX, 11).
(12) Destined for Azazel, in the wilderness, whence it was hurled to its death from a rock. The word Azazel has been variously interpreted, but it seems to be the name of a place (a rough rock) rather than that of a demon.
(13) To be explained in the Gemara.
(14) V. supra 35b: HE CAME TO HIS BULLOCK, that was the first time.
(15) I.e., he tied the strap about its neck, the place of the slaughtering.
(16) I.e., he placed it where it had to be slaughtered.
(17) At the place where sacrifices were slaughtered, since it had no distinguishing mark.
(18) v. Num. XIX, 1ff
(19) Infra 67a: What did he (who sent the he-goat away) do. He divided the strap of crimson wool, tying one half to the rock, the other half between his horns.
(20) To fall right into the midst of the burning heifer’ as Scripture (Num. XIX, 6) requires it.
(21) V. infra.
(22) With reference to the red heifer v. Parah III, 13.
(23) The hyssop and cedar-wood.
(24) There are, then, remnants of strips, hence there must have been division here, too.
(25) Simply the end of the strap, thinned out like a tail, hence no evidence of a division.
(26) Cf. supra n. 1.
(27) Lit., ‘and he sanctifies’.
(28) A fire which unexpectedly rises and spreads; a fire diverted from its course. Or: a fire which unexpectedly rises and spreads;
(29) In the former case another strap is to be brought since it did not come in contact with the fire itself; but not in the latter case.
(30) Cedar-wood, hyssop and scarlet, Num. XIX, 6.
(31) Zuz — the smallest silver coin corresponds to either one quarter or one half of a shekel. Sela’ — is either five or ten zuzim. The shekel weighs about twelve grams. V. Krauss, T.A. II, 404.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 42a
That of the heifer had the weight of ten zuz, that of the he-goat-to-be-sent-away had the weight of two sela's, and that of the leper weighed one shekel. R. Johanan said: About the [strap used in connection with] the heifer R. Simeon b. Halafta and the Sages are disputing, one saying it weighed ten shekels, the other it weighed but one shekel. As a mnemotechnic [sign use]:1 ‘Whether one gives much, or one gives little’.2 — R. Jeremiah of Difti said to Rabina: They are not disputing in regard to [the strap of] the heifer, but in regard [to that of] the he-goat-to-be-sent-away; and on the day [of their dispute] died Rabia b. Kisi, and as a sign to remember this coincidence they uttered: [The death of the righteous], Rabia b. Kisi, obtains atonement, even as the he-goat-to-be-sent-away. — R. Isaac said: I heard of two slaughterings, one of the [red] heifer, the other of his bullock,3 one being permissible to a lay Israelite,4 the other being invalidated if performed by a lay Israelite, and I do not know which is which. It is reported: Concerning the slaughtering of the heifer and of his bullock [there is a dispute between] Rab and Samuel, one holding the heifer to be invalidated [if killed by a lay Israelite], but that his bullock [so slaughtered] is fit, while the other holds that his bullock is invalidated [if a commoner killed], but [so killed] the heifer is fit. It may be ascertained that it is Rab who holds that [the slaughtering of] the heifer [by a lay Israelite] renders it invalid. For R. Zei'ra5 said: The slaughtering of the heifer by a lay Israelite is invalid and Rab said thereupon: ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’6 we learned in connection therewith. — But as for Rab, wherefore the difference between [the law] in the case of the heifer, because ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ is written in connection therewith, when also in connection with ‘his’ bullock ‘Aaron’7 and ‘Statute’ is written? The slaughtering is not [regarded as a Temple] service.8 Then this ought to apply to the heifer as well? — It is different with the heifer, because it is [in the category of] offerings for Temple repair.9 — So much the more then!10 -R.Shisha son of R. Idi said: It is the same as with the [inspection of] appearances of leprosy,11 which is not a service, yet requires a priest's service. Now according to Samuel, who holds the killing of ‘his’ bullock by a lay Israelite is invalid, wherefore the difference [in law] in the case of ‘his’ bullock, in connection with which ‘Aaron and ‘Statute’ are written, when also in connection with the heifer ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ are written? — It is different there, because it is written: And he shall slay it before him,12 which means that a lay Israelite may slaughter and Eleazar should watch it.13 And [how does] Rab [explain this]? — [It means] he14 must not divert his attention from it. Whence does Samuel know that he must not divert his attention from it? — He infers that from And the heifer shall be burnt in his sight.15 And [why the repetition according to] Rab? — One refers to the slaughtering, the other to the burning;16 and it was necessary to mention both. For if the Divine Law had written it concerning the slaughtering [alone, I would have said]: There [attention is necessary] because it is the beginning of the service, but with the burning [one could] say: ‘No [attention is necessary]’ therefore it was necessary [for the Divine Law] to mention [it also touching burning]. And if the Divine Law had written it [only] touching the burning, one would have said [attention is necessary there], because just now the heifer is being made ready,17 but [during] slaughtering no [attention is necessary]. Therefore it was necessary [for the Divine Law] to mention [that too]. — What does this exclude?18 Is it to say to exclude the gathering of its ashes and the drawing of the water for the putting in of the ashes?
(1) Ber. 5b.
(2) The usual meaning: Whether one gives much or little, the main matter is that he direct his heart to our Father who is in heaven, is irrelevant here, the accent being put, for mnemotechnic reasons, on: the one (stands for) much, the other for little, i.e., one of the disputants ascribes the maximum, the other the minimum weight.
(3) The bullock which the high priest had to bring for himself on the Day of Atonement.
(4) I.e., a non-priest.
(5) Var. lec. ‘Rab’.
(6) Num. XIX, 3: And ye shall give her to Eleazar the priest i.e., it requires a priest's service; ibid. 21: And it shall be a perpetual statute i.e., it is indispensable that the priest do so, as prescribed.
(7) Lev. XVI, 3: Herewith shall Aaron come . . . with a young bullock; and ibid. 34: And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you.
(8) Since a lay Israelite may perform it, the word ‘statute’, mentioned in connection with his bullock, does not refer to the slaughtering.
(9) The heifer is not offered up on the altar, as any other sacrifice, hence there is no distinction as to the services to be performed in connection with it, and all alike require a priest.
(10) On the contrary, how much more ought a lay Israelite to be permitted to slay the red heifer.
(11) Lev. XIII, 2.
(12) Num. XIX, 3.
(13) ‘He’ referring to a lay Israelite; ‘before him’ (lit., ‘before his face’), to Eleazar.
(14) ‘He’ refers to Eleazar i.e., he shall slaughter it and keep his mind on this important ceremony.
(15) Num. XIX, 5.
(16) That is that both rites require attention.
(17) The burning for the purposes of the ashes is the central part of the ceremony, to ‘prepare’ the heifer for her cleansing purpose.
(18) I.e., with regard to what function is no attention essential.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 42b
Surely Scripture says: [And it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel] for a water of sprinkling?1 — Rather it excludes the casting in of cedarwood, hyssop, and scarlet, because they are not part of the heifer itself.
It was reported: If the heifer was slaughtered by a lay Israelite, R. Ammi said it is valid. R. Isaac, the Smith, said it was invalid. ‘Ulla said it is valid, whilst some there are who say [that he said] it was invalid.
R. Joshua b. Abba raised an objection in support of Rab: I know only that the sprinkling of its water is not valid if performed by a woman, as [when done] by a man; and that it is valid only [if done] by day.2 Whence do I know that the slaughtering of the heifer, the reception of its blood, the sprinkling of its blood, the burning of the heifer, and the casting into the burning heifer of cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet [may not be done by night]?3 To teach us that Scripture said: [This is the statute of] the law.4 I might have assumed that this should include also the gathering of its ashes and the drawing of the water for the putting-in of the ashes, to teach us that Scripture said: ‘This’.5 — What causes you to include those, and to exclude these? — Since Scripture both extends and limits, say, we shall infer everything from the [regulations touching] the sprinkling of its water: Just as the sprinkling of its water is not proper if done by a woman, as it is [if performed] by a man, and not valid except if done by day, thus6 include also the slaughtering of the heifer, the reception of its blood, the sprinkling of its blood, the burning of the heifer, and the casting into the burning heifer of cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet. Since these [functions] may not be performed by a woman, so may they be performed only by day; but I exclude the gathering of its ashes and the drawing of the water for the putting-in of its ashes, which, since they may be performed by either man or woman, hence may also be performed by night. But how is this a refutation?6 Will you say that because [the slaughtering is stated to be] invalid [if performed] by a woman, it must be invalid, also, if performed by a lay Israelite,7 there would be as counterproof the sprinkling of its waters, which, whilst invalid [if performed] by a woman, yet may be done by a lay Israelite! Said Abaye: This is the refutation: Why is the woman excluded [from the slaughtering], because [Scripture said]: ‘Eleazar’, [implying] but not a woman; that [must be applied to] the lay Israelite also, for [the analogue inference]: ‘Eleazar’ [the priest], [implies] but not a lay Israelite.
‘Ulla said: In that whole section [of the red heifer] there are [texts] implying an exception from a preceding implication, and [texts] independent [of preceding or following] implications: And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest8 [implies] only this one to Eleazar, but not [the heifers] in later generations to Eleazar;9 some say: In later generations [you shall give it] to the high priest, others: In later generations to a common priest. It is quite right according to him who holds that in later generations [the heifer is to be handed over] to a common priest,10 but whence does he infer who holds that in later generations [it is to be given] to the high priest? — He infers it from [the identical word] ‘Statute’, ‘Statute’, used [also]11 in connection with the Day of Atonement.12
And he shall bring it forth13 [implies] that he must not bring forth another one with her, as we have learnt:14 If the heifer refused to go forth, one may not send a black one with her, lest people say: They slaughtered a black [heifer], nor may another red heifer be brought forth with her, lest people say: They slaughtered two. — R. Jose said: This comes not under this title,15 but because it is written: [And he shall16 bring it forth]; ‘it’, [implies] by itself. And the [anonymous] first Tanna [surely wrote] ‘it’.17 — Who is this first Tanna? It is R. Simeon who ‘interprets18 the reason of biblical law’. What is the difference between them? — There is a difference
(1) Num. XIX,9 which implies that special watch must be kept with these till the sprinkling.
(2) Because day is stated specifically, Num. XIX, 12.
(3) No special verse is required that these may not be performed by a woman since ‘Eleazar’ or ‘priest’ is written throughout the section (Rashi).
(4) Ibid 2, ‘law’ implying uniform regulations for the whole ceremony.
(5) I.e., ‘Do what is written here, but do not add to these regulations’ (Rashi).
(6) Of Samuel, 42a, who holds that a lay Israelite may slaughter the heifer, for since the objection was raised in support of Rab, it must needs be an attack on Samuel's view.
(7) Whereas Samuel is said supra to declare it valid.
(8) Num. XIX, 3.
(9) Eleazar at that time was deputy high priest, and that heifer, by express statement of Scripture, was entrusted to him. In future, however, it would be given either to the high priest, or to a common priest (R. Hananel).
(10) For, since Scripture did not expressly state that it be handed over to the high priest, or his deputy, but merely by implication, the assumption seems justified that any priest could officiate at the ceremony.
(11) Lev. XVI, 29 and Num. XIX, 21, on which this analogy is based.
(12) Where the service is to be performed by the high priest.
(13) Num. XIX, 3.
(14) Parah III, 7.
(15) I.e., this is not the real reason, rather etc.
(16) The bracketed portion is omitted in the Talmud and supplied from the Mishnah, Parah III, 7.
(17) Which seemingly justified the excluding interpretation.
(18) Kid. 68b: Such interpretation will accordingly modify the law, extending or limiting it.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 43a
if one should bring forth an ass with her.1
And he shall slay it [implies] that one must not slaughter any other [heifer] with it. Before him1 [implies] according to Rab that he must not divert his attention from her; according to Samuel, that a lay Israelite may slaughter, and Eleazar look on.2 And Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger3 [is written] according to Samuel in order to refer it [the rite] back to Eleazar;4 according to Rab:5 this is a limitation following a limitation and a double limitation serves to widen the scope, viz., that even a common priest may do it. And the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet,6 [is written] according to Samuel, that even a common priest [may take and cast it] according to Rab:7 it is necessary [to mention it], for you might have thought and said: Since these things do not belong to the heifer itself, they do not require any priest's service, therefore Scripture informs us [that they do]. Then the priest shall wash his clothes,8 [implies] in his priestly9 garments. And the priest shall be unclean until the even,8 [implies] that he shall be in his priestly garments10 even in future generations. That will be quite right according to him who holds that [the heifer ceremony] will in future generations be performed by a common priest,11 but according to him who holds that in future generations [the heifer ceremony will be performed by] the high priest, now, since a high priest is required, is it necessary to state that he must be in his priestly garments? — Yes, Scripture does [occasionally] take the trouble to mention things which might have been inferred a minori.
And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and lay them up12 — ‘a man,’ [is written] to declare fit a lay Israelite;13 ‘that is clean’ — to declare fit a woman; and ‘lay them up’ [implies] one who has understanding how to lay them up, that excludes one deaf and dumb, an idiot, and a minor, who have not the understanding of how to lay them up. We learned elsewhere:14 All are fit to prepare [the waters of lustration]15 with the exception of the deaf and dumb, the idiot, and the minor. R. Judah declares fit a minor and disqualifies a woman and an hermaphrodite. What is the reason for the Rabbis’ view? — Because it is written: And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin [and put upon them running water in a vessel],16 i.e., they17 whom I declared unto thee unfit for the gathering [of the ashes] I also declared unto thee unfit for the preparation [of the waters of lustration], but they whom I declared fit to thee for the gathering, I have also declared unto thee fit for the preparation. And [what does] R. Judah [say]? — If that were so,18 Scripture should have said: ‘He shall take [we-lakah ]’;19 what is the meaning of they shall take’? To intimate that even a minor whom I declared unto thee unfit there, is fit to act here.20 — Whence does he know that a woman is unfit? — Because Scripture says: [‘he shall put’] i.e., he, but not she, shall put. — And the Rabbis? — If the Divine Law had written ‘He shall take’,’he shall put’, one might have assumed the same man must both give and put, therefore Scripture wrote ‘and they shall take’. And if the Divine Law had stated ‘they shall take’ and [also] ‘they shall put’, one might have assumed that there must be two to take and put, therefore Scripture wrote: ‘they shall take’ and ‘he shall put’, to indicate that even if [it is right] two take [the ashes] and one puts [the running water in a vessel]. — And a clean man shall take hyssop, and cup it in the water [and sprinkle],21 according to the Rabbis:22 ‘A man’ [implies] but not a woman; ‘clean’ is [written] to declare fit23 even a minor; according to R. Judah:24 ‘a man’ [implies] but not a minor; ‘clean’ to declare fit a woman.
An objection25 was raised: ‘All are qualified to sprinkle except one whose sex is unknown, an hermaphrodite and a woman; but a child that is without26 understanding, a woman may aid in sprinkling’
(1) According to the first Tanna that would be permitted, because the presence of the ass could not mislead people into the assumption that it was he who is sacrificed; according to Rabbi, it would be forbidden, for ‘it’ excludes permission for any other animal to be brought forth together with her.
(2) V. supra 42a.
(3) Ibid. 4.
(4) Since ‘he shall slay’ refers, according to Samuel, to the lay Israelite, it was necessary to emphasize that the sprinkling had to be done by ‘Eleazar’, otherwise it might have been assured that it could be performed by the lay Israelite who did the slaughtering.
(5) Who refers ‘he shall slay’ to the priest, the repetition of ‘Eleazar’ here is apparently superfluous.
(6) The repetition indicating that no limitation is intended, but only exemplification.
(7) Who permits a common priest to receive the blood, this passage being independent of the preceding implication.
(8) Lev. XIX, 7.
(9) It was superfluous to state ‘the priest’ again, since we are dealing but with him, the implication therefore is that he must do it in his priestly garments.
(10) When performing the red heifer ritual.
(11) Who does not draw an analogy from the identical words ‘statute’, occurring both in connection with the Day of Atonement and with the heifer; hence it is necessary to state that in the future, nonetheless, he must then wear his official garb.
(12) Num. XIX, 9.
(13) For gathering up the ashes.
(14) Parah V, 4.
(15) I.e., to put water over the ashes.
(16) Num. XIX, 17.
(17) ‘They’ referring to such as were declared fit for the immediately preceding rite of gathering the ashes mentioned in verse 9.
(18) That ‘they’ refers to such as are mentioned in verse 9.
(19) Just as in verse 9 the singular is used.
(20) A minor is not permitted to gather the ashes, but he may put the water in the ashes.
(21) Num. XIX, 18.
(22) Who hold that the mixing of the ashes and water may be done only by such as are fit to gather the ashes, thus excluding a minor.
(23) Had the same regulation implied in verse 9 applied also to sprinkling, the phrase ‘a clean man’ would have been superfluous here.
(24) Who disqualifies a woman and declares fit a minor for the mixing of the ashes with the water.
(25) Parah XII, 10.
(26) Corrected according to the Mishnah. The Talmud here reads: a child that has understanding.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 43b
and here R. Judah does not dispute?1 — Abaye said: Since the Master said that this chapter contains [texts] implying an exception from a preceding implication, and [texts] independent of preceding or following implications he surely disputes.
And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean;2 ‘clean’ implies that he was unclean before,3 that informs us that a tebul-yom is qualified [to officiate] at the heifer [ceremony]. R. Assi said: When R. Johanan and Resh Lakish engaged in investigating questions about the heifer, they were unable to produce more than what a fox can bring up from a ploughed field, but they said this chapter contains [texts] implying an exception from a preceding implication, and [texts] independent of preceding or following implications.4
A tanna5 recited before R. Johanan: All the slaughterings may be performed by a lay Israelite with the exception of that of the [red] heifer. R. Johanan said to him: Go out and teach it in the street!6 We do not find that slaughtering is disqualified [if performed] by a lay Israelite. Nor would R. Johanan not listen only to a tanna [in this matter] he would not even listen to his own master, for, whereas R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: The slaughtering of the heifer by a lay Israelite is invalid [he added]: But I say, it is valid, for we do not find that slaughtering [of sacrifices] by a lay Israelite is invalid.
HE CAME TO HIS SECOND BULLOCK: Why is it that in the first confession he does not say ‘And the children of Aaron, Thy holy people’ and in the second confession he mentions: ‘The children of Aaron, Thy holy people’? — The school of R. Ishmael taught: Common sense dictates7 this: It is better that one innocent8 obtain atonement for the guilty, than that one guilty obtain atonement for the guilty.
MISHNAH. HE KILLED IT [THE BULLOCK] AND RECEIVED ITS BLOOD IN A BOWL. AND HE GAVE IT TO THE ONE WHO SHOULD STIR IT UP ON THE FOURTH TERRACE WITHIN THE SANCTUARY9 LEST IT CONGEAL.10 HE TOOK THE COAL-PAN AND WENT UP TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, CLEARING THE COALS TO BOTH SIDES, TOOK A PANFUL OF THE GLOWING CINDERS FROM BELOW, CAME DOWN AND PLACED THE COAL-PAN ON THE FOURTH TERRACE IN THE TEMPLE COURT.11 ON OTHER DAYS HE WOULD TAKE OUT [THE CINDERS] WITH A SILVER COAL-PAN, AND EMPTY IT INTO ONE OF GOLD, BUT THIS DAY HE TOOK THEM OUT WITH A GOLDEN [COAL-PAN] IN WHICH HE WAS TO BRING THEM. IN [THE INNER SANCTUARY] ON OTHER DAYS12 HE WOULD TAKE THEM UP WITH A COAL-PAN CONTAINING FOUR KABS, AND EMPTY IT INTO ONE CONTAINING THREE KABS,13 THIS DAY HE TOOK THEM OUT WITH ONE CONTAINING THREE KABS, IN WHICH HE BRINGS OUGHT [THE CINDERS] IN, TOO. R. JOSE SAID: ON OTHER DAYS HE WOULD TAKE THEM OUT WITH ONE CONTAINING ONE SE'AH, AND EMPTY IT INTO ONE CONTAINING THREE KABS, THIS DAY HE TOOK THEM OUT WITH ONE CONTAINING THREE KABS, IN WHICH HE ALSO BRINGS IN [THE CINDERS]. ON OTHER DAYS THE PAN WAS HEAVY, TODAY IT WAS LIGHT.14 ON OTHER DAYS ITS HANDLE WAS SHORT, TODAY IT WAS LONG.14 ON OTHER DAYS IT WAS OF YELLOWISH GOLD, TODAY OF RED GOLD. THIS IS THE STATEMENT OF R. MENAHEM. ON OTHER DAYS HE WOULD OFFER HALF A MINA [OF INCENSE] IN THE MORNING AND HALF A MINA IN THE AFTERNOON, TODAY HE ADDS ALSO HIS TWO HANDS FULL.15 EVERY DAY IT WAS FINE, BUT TODAY THE FINEST POSSIBLE.16 ON OTHER DAYS THE PRIESTS WOULD GO UP ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAMP17 AND COME DOWN ON THE WEST SIDE, TODAY THE HIGH PRIEST GOES18 UP IN THE MIDDLE AND COMES DOWN IN THE MIDDLE. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE HIGH PRIEST ALWAYS GOES UP IN THE MIDDLE AND COMES DOWN IN THE MIDDLE. ON OTHER DAYS THE HIGH PRIEST SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND FEET FROM THE LAVER, THIS DAY FROM A GOLDEN LADLE. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE HIGH PRIEST ALWAYS SANCTIFIES HIS HANDS AND FEET FROM A GOLDEN LADLE. ON OTHER DAYS THERE WERE FOUR WOOD-PILES THERE,19 TODAY FIVE, THUS SAYS R. MEIR. R. JOSE SAYS: ON OTHER DAYS THREE, TODAY FOUR. R. JUDAH SAYS: ON OTHER DAYS TWO, TODAY THREE. GEMARA. But it is written: And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting?20 R. Judah said: Read: Of the Hekal.21
Our Rabbis taught: ‘And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting’22
(1) Tosaf s.v. Velo expresses amazement at the fact that the questioner overlooks the Tosefta, in which R. Judah actually does dispute the anonymous Mishnah. It is to be found in Parah XII, 8, which, as Tosaf suggests, the questioner may not have known the Mishnah containing no such dispute of R. Judah's.
(2) Num. XIX, 19.
(3) The word ‘tahor’ (a clean person) is superfluous, since Scripture just speaks of him, hence it must mean one who is clean again, hence was unclean before. The inference for a tebul-yom (v. Glos.) thus appears justified.
(4) Hence it is impossible to explain them on one schema, because of the particular condition of this chapter, but for the tradition, the inferences would appear incompatible.
(5) V. Glos. s.v. (b).
(6) I.e., it is not fit for the Academy, we cannot accept your report.
(7) Lit., ‘the norm of justice’.
(8) The high priest is adjudged innocent, after having besought and obtained forgiveness for himself.
(9) V. Gemara, loc. cit.
(10) Through being kept there until the time of the smoking of the incense.
(11) Now he would take the incense with his hands and place it in the golden pan.
(12) Tamid V, 5.
(13) This list will prove’ helpful: 1 log=6 eggs; 1 kab =4 logs; 1 se'ah =6 kabs.
(14) The lighter pan and the longer handle were to assist the high priest in his heavy labour on the Day of Atonement.
(15) Both the daily incense on the golden altar in the inner Sanctuary. and the special incense for the day — the latter on a golden pan — were on the Day of Atonement, offered up by the high priest alone.
(16) I.e., ground very thin, thus of finest quality. Ex. XXX, 36.
(17) To the outer altar there were no steps, but the ramp, built ‘In the south of the altar, covering nine cubits of height. The priests went up to the right and down to the left.
(18) Var. lec., ‘Today they went up etc.’ V. Gemara.
(19) Explanation in the Gemara.
(20) Lev. XVI, 17. How then could the priest stir the blood on the fourth terrace in the Sanctuary?
(21) I.e., the fourth terrace leading from the Sanctuary to the Court. v. Mid. III, 6.
(22) Lev. XVI, 17.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 44a
— one could assume, not even in the Temple Court, therefore it says: ‘in the tent of meeting’. I know [this prohibition] only for the tent of meeting in the wilderness. Whence do we know thereof for Shiloh and the everlasting Sanctuary? To teach us that [Scripture] says in the holy place. I know [the prohibition] only during the time of [the smoking of] the incense, whence [do I know that it applies also] during the time of the sprinkling of the blood? To teach us that, Scripture says: until he come out and have made atonement for himself. — I know it only at the [time of] his entering. Whence do I learn at his coming forth? To teach us that it says: until he come out. And he shall have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of the house of Israel, i.e., the atonement for himself precedes that for his household, and the atonement for his household precedes that for his brethren, the priests and the atonement for his brethren, the priests, precedes that for all the assembly of Israel.
The Master said: I know [of the prohibition] only for the time of [the smoking of] the incense. How is this implied? — Raba, and thus also R. Isaac b. Abdimi, and thus also R. Eleazar said: Scripture says: ‘And he shall have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of the house of Israel’. What atonement is there which obtains evenly for himself, his household, his brethren, the priests, and the whole assembly of the house of Israel? It is the smoking of the incense. But does the incense obtain atonement? — Indeed, for R. Hananiah cited:1 We learn that the incense obtains atonement for what was said: And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people.2 And the School of R. Ishmael taught: Why does incense obtain atonement for [the sin] of the evil tongue [evil speech]? Let that which is [performed] in secret3 come and obtain atonement for what is committed in secret!
We have learnt elsewhere:4 People must keep away from the place between Ulam5 and altar at the time of the smoking of the incense. R. Eleazar said: This was taught only during the time of the smoking of the incense in the Sanctuary, but during the time the incense was smoked in the Holy of Holies, people had to keep away from the Hekal, but not from the place between the Ulam and the altar.
A. Adda b. Ahabah, or as some say, Kadi,6 raised the following objection: R. Jose says: ‘Just as they keep away from the place between Ulam and altar during the [smoking of] the incense, so do they keep away at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the anointed priest's bullock,7 and of the bullock offered up because of an error of the congregation,8 and of the he-goats [offered up] because of idolatry.9 What gradation of sanctity is there, then, between the Hekal and the space between Ulam and altar? [None] except that from the Hekal men keep away both during the time of the smoking of the incense, and outside of the time of the smoking of the incense, but from the space between Ulam and altar people keep away only in the time of the incense. At any rate, at the time of the smoking of the incense, they do keep away.10 Would you not say [it means] during the time of the smoking [of the incense] in the Holy of Holies?11 — No, [the reference is to the time of smoking] in the Hekal.12 If so, [how explain] ‘what then is the gradation between the two places’ etc.? Is the above the only difference in gradation?13 Is there not also this difference: that from the Hekal they keep away during the time both of the smoking of the incense in the Hekal itself, and of the smoking of the incense in the Holy of Holies, whereas from the place between Ulam and altar they keep away only during the time of the smoking of the incense in the Hekal itself? — This [exactly] is what he teaches: ‘Except that from the Hekal men keep away, both during the time of the smoking of incense [in the Hekal] and outside of the time of the smoking of the incense [in the Hekal],14 but from the place between Ulam and altar they keep away
(1) ‘Ar. 16a.
(2) Num. XVII, 12.
(3) In the Holy of Holies, hence — since none but the high priest could enter it — ‘in secret’.
(4) Kel. I, 9.
(5) The hall leading to the interior of the Temple.
(6) Either the name of an otherwise unknown Amora, or ‘As the case may be’; or an anonymous Amora; or ‘a fictitious one’, cf. B.M. 2a.
(7) V. Lev. IV, 3ff.
(8) Lev. IV, 13ff.
(9) Num. XV, 24; traditionally interpreted as the sin of idolatry.
(10) Even from the space between the [Ulam and the altar.
(11) Which refutes R. Eleazar.
(12) But at the time of the incense smoking in the Holy of Holies they separate only from the Hekal but not from the space between Ulam and the altar.
(13) Lit., ‘and no more’.
(14) I.e., when incense is offered in the Holy of Holies.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 44b
only in the time of the smoking of the incense [in the Hekal]. — But there is also this gradations that they keep away from the Hekal both during its own sanctification1 and that of the Holy of Holies, whereas from the space between Ulam and altar they do not keep away except when the Hekal is being sanctified? — Raba said: The term ‘keep away’ includes it all in one.2
The Master said: So do they keep away at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the anointed priest's bullock, and of the bullock offered up because of an error of the congregation, and of the he-goats offered up because of idolatry. Whence do we know that? — R. Pedath said: We infer that from the identity of the word ‘atonement’ [occurring also] with reference to the Day of Atonement.
R. Aha b. Ahabah said: Conclude from this that the gradations of sanctity3 are Biblical, and thus they have learnt them by tradition, for if it should enter your mind that they are only Rabbinical enactment, then what [in law] is the difference in the space between Ulam and altar [from which they must keep away] for fear that they might enter by accident, they should [analogically] keep away from the whole Temple Court out of fear that they might accidentally enter? — The space between Ulam and altar, since it is not marked off in any fashion,is not recognizable sufficiently, whereas the Temple Court, since there is the outer altar to mark it off, is sufficiently recognizable.4 Raba said: Conclude from this that the holiness of Ulam and Hekal is the same. For if it should enter your mind that they are of two different degrees of sanctity, then the sanctity of the Ulam itself is due only to rabbinic enactment; shall we then enact a preventive measure to prevent the violation of another preventive measure?5 — No, the Ulam and the space between Ulam and altar are of one degree of sanctity, the Hekal and the Ulam, however, are of two degrees of sanctity.
ON OTHER DAYS HE WOULD TAKE THEM OUT WITH A SILVER COAL-PAN: What is the reason? The Torah has consideration for the money of Israel.6
TODAY HE TOOK THEM OUT WITH A GOLDEN PAN IN WHICH HE WAS TO BRING THEM IN: Why? [To prevent] weakness of the high priest.7
ON OTHER DAYS HE WOULD TAKE THEM UP WITH A COAL-PAN CONTAINING FOUR KABS: A Tanna taught:8 One kab of the embers became scattered,9 and he swept it into the channel.10 One [Baraitha] teaches one kab, and another two kabs? It is quite right according to the one which teaches ‘one kab’, for it is in accord with what the Rabbis said, but the one that taught ‘two kabs’ is in accord neither with the Rabbis nor with R. Jose?11 — R. Hisda said: It is R. Ishmael, the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka, for it was taught: R. Ishmael, son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: He brought [the cinders] in a pan containing two kabs. — R. Ashi said: You can also say that it is in accord with R. Jose and he said it thus: On other days he would take them up with a pan containing a se'ah of the wilderness,12 and pour it into one containing three Jerusalem kabs.
ON OTHER DAYS THE PAN WAS HEAVY, TODAY IT WAS LIGHT: A Tanna taught: On other days it was of thick size, but this day it was thin.
ON OTHER DAYS ITS HANDLE WAS SHORT, TODAY LONG: Why that? So that the arm of the high priest may support it. A Tanna taught: On other days it had no covering,13 today it had one — this is the statement of the son of the Segan.14
ON OTHER DAYS ITS GOLD WAS YELLOWISH: R. Hisda said: There are seven kinds of gold:15 gold; good gold; gold of Ophir;16 fine17 gold; spun18 gold; locked19 gold; Parwayim20 gold. Gold and good gold, as it is written:21 And the gold of that land is good. Ophir gold: [so called] because it derives from Ophir. Fine [mupaz] gold
(1) I.e., which would include also the sprinkling of blood.
(2) They both come under one head, independent of the particular rite which is the cause for the keeping away.
(3) Enumerated in Mishnah Kelim 1, 6 — 9.
(4) So as to prevent their entering by mistake, or accident.
(5) In Bez. 3a.
(6) Supra 39a.
(7) That is why he did not have to pour it into another pan. Having the whole heavy programme of the Day of Atonement on his shoulders, all legitimate relief is provided.
(8) V. Tamid 33a.
(9) When he emptied the coal-pan containing four kabs into one containing only three.
(10) V. Shek. IV, 2.
(11) According to whom three kabs would be scattered.
(12) Corresponding to six ‘desert’ or five Jerusalem kabs, the difference between the two being one sixth. The desert se'ah has five Jerusalem kabs and when the priest pours out three, two remain.
(13) A difficult word, obscure in etymology: variously translated as case, covering. v. Otzar ha-Geonim, ed. B.M. Lewin VI, 21: ‘attachment’, a contrivance to prevent the handle of the coal-pan from getting too hot. J.T. נרתיק, ‘case’, ‘casket’.
(14) Perhaps the son of R. Hanina the Segan; perhaps also the last to hold this title, v. Bacher. Agada I, 55.
(15) Mentioned in the Bible.
(16) I Kings X, 11.
(17) Ibid. 18. Tosaf cites the J.T. explaining it to be gold without dross or alloy.
(18) Ibid. 16.
(19) Ibid. 21. The AJP Bible translates it ‘pure’ gold. ‘Closed’ to all dross, hence ‘solid’ would suit it as well.
(20) II Chron. III, 6, obviously the name of a place. The explanation here is homiletical.
(21) Gen. II, 12.
Directory of Sedarim and Tractates