Talmud - Mas. Yoma 45a
, because it resembles [the shining jewel] paz. Spun gold, because it is spun like a thread. Locked [rare] gold, because when its sale is opened, all other shops are being locked up.1 Gold of Parwayim, because it looked like the blood of a bullock [par]. R. Ashi said: There are but five [varieties], each having gold and good gold. Thus was it also taught:2 ‘On other days the gold was yellowish, this day it was red and that was the Parwayim gold, which looks like the blood of a bullock.’
ON OTHER DAYS HE WOULD OFFER UP HALF [A MINA] ETC., ON OTHER DAYS IT WAS FINE, TODAY MOST FINE: Our Rabbis taught: Why was it necessary to state ‘beaten small’3 since it is written already: And thou shalt beat some of it very small?4 It is but to intimate that it must be most fine. ON OTHER DAYS THE PRIESTS WOULD COME UP ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE RAMP: Because a master said: Any turn you make shall be but to the right, i .e., toward the east.5
BUT TODAY HE COMES UP IN THE MIDDLE, AND GOES DOWN IN THE MIDDLE: Why? To honour the high priest.6
ON ALL DAYS THE HIGH PRIEST SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND FEET FROM THE LAVER etc.: Why? To honour the high priest.
ON OTHER DAYS THERE WERE FOUR WOOD-PILES THERE: Our Rabbis taught:7 On other days there were two wood-piles, today three; one for the big wood-pile; one for the second pile for the incense, and one which is added for this day;8 this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Jose said: On other days three, today four: one for the big wood-pile, one for the second pile of the incense, one to keep up the fire,9 and one which was added for this day. R. Meir said: On all days four and today five; one for the big wood-pile, one for the second pile for the incense, one to keep up the fire, and one for [the burning of] limbs and fat-pieces which had not been consumed on the eve, and one which was added on this day. At any rate all are agreed about two, whence do they know it? — Scripture says: It is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night,10 i.e., the big pile. And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby,10 i.e., the second pile for the incense. Whence does R. Jose infer the [pile for] keeping up the fire? He infers that from: And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.10 And R. Judah? This [verse] refers to the kindling of the [splinters of] fig-wood,11 for it was taught: R. Judah used to say: Whence do we know that the kindling of the fig-tree splinters must take place only on the top of the altar? To teach us that, it says: ‘And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby’. R. Jose said: Whence do we know that a [special] pile is made up to keep the fire burning? To teach us that it says: ‘And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby.’ But whence does R. Jose infer that the fig-tree splinters must be kindled [on the top of the altar]? — He infers it from whence R. Simeon infers it. For it was taught:12 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar13 — that teaches that the kindling of the fig-tree wood must be done by a priest and in a ministering vessel;14 thus, R. Judah. R. Simeon said to him: How could it enter your mind that a lay Israelite could come up to the altar? Rather does [this passage] teach that the kindling of the fig-wood must take place on the top of the altar. And R. Judah? If we had to infer it from there, we might assume he may stay on the ground and kindle it with bellows, therefore he informs us [as above]. Whence does R. Meir know about limbs and fat-pieces unconsumed from the eve before [requiring a special pile]?15 — He infers it from ‘And the fire’. And the Rabbis? — They do not interpret the ‘And’ [waw]. But, what, according to the Rabbis, does he do with the limbs and fat-pieces unconsumed from the eve before? — He returns them to the big pile, for it was taught: Whence do we know of limbs and fat-pieces unconsumed from the eve before
(1) For as long as such gold was obtainable in one shop, none would go to buy in any other.
(2) In support of the explanation of ‘Parwayim’.
(3) Lev. XVI, 12.
(4) Ex. XXX, 36, for all days of the year, therefore a minori for the Day of Atonement.
(5) [The ramp being on the southern side of the altar, by ascending on the eastern side of the ramp, the east of the altar, towards which he has turned is immediately on his right, thus obviating unnecessary movement in the Temple.]
(6) [As a mark of distinction he has the privilege of walking about freely in the Temple without restricting his movements to the minimum. Var. lec.: ‘They’ i.e., the high priest and those who accompany him as a mark of honour].
(7) V. Tosef. Yoma III.
(8) To take thence embers for the incense to be smoked in the Holy of Holies.
(9) In case the fire of the great pile did not keep up strong, one added fire from here.
(10) Lev. VI, 2.
(11) Whereby the big pile was lit,
(12) Supra 24b.
(13) Lev. I, 7.
(14) I.e.,the priest must perform this in his priestly vestments.
(15) Since he uses the above passage for his own interpretation.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 45b
that he lays them in order on the altar, and if the latter cannot hold them, that he lays them on the ramp, or on the gallery,1 until the great pile is made? To teach us that, Scripture says: Whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar.2 And R. Meir?3 — [This is to teach] you may place back [there] unconsumed parts of the ‘burnt-offering’, but you may not place there unconsumed parts of the incense, for R. Hanania b. Minumai, of the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, said [with reference to]: ‘whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar’ — you place back unconsumed parts of the burnt-offering, but you do not place back unconsumed parts of the incense. At any rate all agree that one adds [an additional pile] on that day; whence do they infer that? — They infer that from: ‘And the fire’, for even he who does not expound a ‘waw’, expounds ‘waw he’ [and the].4 What does ‘Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually’5 mean? — It is required as it was taught: ‘Fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually’; it shall not go out — that teaches concerning the second pile for the incense that it shall be laid in order only on the outer altar.6 Whence do we know that about fire, for the coal-pan, [on the Day of Atonement] and for the candlestick?7 That can be inferred as follows: The word esh [fire] is mentioned in connection with the incense,8 and the same word is mentioned in connection with coal-pan and candlestick; hence just as the former comes upon the outer altar, so do the latter come upon the outer altar. Or turn this way9 [perhaps]: the word esh [fire] is mentioned in connection with incense and is also mentioned in connection with coal-pan and candlestick; just as for the former it comes [for the altar] ‘near to it’,10 so for the latter it comes [from the altar] near to it.11 To teach us [the right law] Scripture says: ‘Fire shall be kept burning on the altar,’ it shall not go out i.e., the continual fire whereof I spoke12 to you must be nowhere else but on the top of the outer altar. We thus learned it for the fire of the candlestick, whence do we know it for the fire of the coal-pan? This can be inferred: [The word] ‘esh’ [fire] is stated in connection with the coal-pan, and ‘esh’ is used in connection with the candlestick, hence just as the former comes from the outer altar, so does the latter come from the outer altar. But, perhaps turn this way: [the word] ‘esh’ is mentioned in reference to the incense, and ‘esh’ is used in connection with the coal-pan; hence just as the former comes from [the altar] near to it, so the latter too comes from [the altar] near to it. Therefore it says: And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord13 Now which altar is [only] partly before the Lord, but not wholly before the Lord? You must say it is the outer altar.14
Now it was necessary [for Scripture] to mention both ‘from off the altar’ and from ‘before the Lord’. For if the Divine Law had written only ‘from off the altar’ I might have said: That ‘altar’ means the inner altar, hence the Divine Law said: ‘from before the Lord.’15 And if the Divine Law had written: ‘From before the Lord’ [alone], I might have said it must be exactly before the Lord,16
(1) The sobeb v. Glos.
(2) Lev. VI, 3. This is superfluous in view of the preceding ‘it is that which goeth up on its firewood’, hence the derivation.
(3) How does he explain this verse.
(4) As in this case where it is written ‘and the fire’ a superfluous letter may have some intimation, two unnecessary ones must have it.
(5) Lev. VI, 6.
(6) ‘The altar’ in the cited verse referring to the outer altar.
(7) I.e., that they are to be fetched from the other altar.
(8) According to Rashi the word ‘esh’ is not really mentioned, but implied: he shall smoke it ‘and there can be no smoke without fire’; but Tosaf. cites Num. XVI, 18, where the word fire is actually explicit in connection with incense.
(9) I.e., argue thus; a suggestion opposed to the preceding one is occasionally introduced by this composite word.
(10) The inner altar is in the neighbourhood of the outer altar.
(11) I.e., the inner altar which is nearest to the candlestick and the Holy of Holies.
(12) I.e., the perpetual light of the candlestick, v. Ex. XXVII, 20.
(13) Lev. XVI, 12.
(14) Since the inner altar is entirely facing the inner Sanctuary.
(15) ‘Mi-lifne’ — ‘from before’ is taken to mean ‘only part of the altar is before the Lord.’
(16) I.e., just opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 46a
but not to one side or to the other,1 therefore it was necessary [to have both phrases].
R. Eleazar said in the name of Bar Kappara: R. Meir used to say: For any of the limbs of the [daily] burnt-offering which remained over,2 a special pile is to be arranged, even on the Sabbath. What is he teaching us? Have we not learnt: Every day there were four piles of wood there?3 — R. Abin said: It was necessary [to state it] for those which became [somewhat] invalidated.4 [This however] is only when the fire has already touched them, but not when the fire has not taken hold of them. Some there are who say: Whether they were valid or invalid4 [the same rule applies]: If the fire had touched them, a special pile is needed but if not, not. [You say] ‘Even on the Sabbath’. [Surely] we have learnt thus: AND TODAY FIVE [PILES OF WOOD]!5 — R. Aha b. Jacob said: It was necessary [to mention that]. The thought might have arisen in you that this applied only when the Day of Atonement fell [immediately] after Sabbath, because the fat-pieces of the Sabbath may be offered up on the Day of Atonement, but not [if it fell] in the middle of the week, therefore he informs us [that it applies then too].
Raba said: Who is it that does not care what flour he grinds?6 Have we not learnt: On all other days?7 [These were four]-This is a real difficulty. Now he [Bar Kappara] disputes with R. Huna who holds: The continual offering suspends the Sabbath only at its beginning, but not at its end.8
[To turn to] the main text: The continual offering suspends the Sabbath only at its beginnings not at its end. What does it not suspend? — R. Hisda says: It suspends the Sabbath, but not the law of levitical impurity. Rabbah said: It suspends the law of levitical impurity,9 but not the Sabbath. Said Abaye to Rabbah: There is a difficulty on your view as well as on the view of R. Hisda. According to you, there is a difficulty: Why does it suspend the law of levitical impurity? Because Scripture said: In its due season10 i.e., even in levitical uncleanness, [it should suspend also] the Sabbath, [since] ‘in its due season’ [implies] even on the Sabbath? — And according to R. Hisda there is a difficulty. Wherefore the difference [in law in the case of] Sabbath touching which it is written: ‘In its due season’ [i.e.] even on the Sabbath; the same should apply to levitical impurity, since ‘In its due season’ [implies] even in levitical uncleanness.11 He answered: There is no difficulty according to my view, nor is there any difficulty according to R. Hisda. There is no difficulty on my view; for the beginning is like the end
(1) Though it is on the western side of the altar.
(2) I.e., the limbs had been only partly consumed.
(3) One of which was meant for the limbs of the burnt-offering of the Temple, which remained over.
(4) I.e., Only in so far that they were not to be offered at the altar at the outset, though once they had been brought upon the altar they could be allowed to remain there to be consumed.
(5) And the same regulation governs both the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement, and it was taught that for the limbs of the continual dusk-offering a special pile was established on the Day of Atonement.
(6) I.e., does not care what argument he offers. Just as one who does not care what flour he grinds. will hurt his body through indigestible food, so will one who is not sensitive to careless thinking in his study, hurt his mind. V. Lewin, Otzar VI, 55, 170.-D.S. adduces a reading from the Aruk, ‘he does not care what comes before him’, i.e., he ignores texts in theorizing.
(7) Which includes the Sabbath.
(8) This offering is sacrificed on the Sabbath day, notwithstanding the fact that the labour involved many kinds of work expressly forbidden on that day. But only at the beginning. i.e.,if the beginning of that sacrifice has to be made on the Sabbath. Of the Friday dusk-offering, however, the limbs must be smoked before the Sabbath. Since it belongs to Friday it would be desecration to continue it on the Sabbath.
(9) Cf. supra 6b.
(10) Num. XXVIII, 2.
(11) For if no clean priest is present to sprinkle the blood, even one in the state of levitical uncleanness is permitted to do so.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 46b
[consequently] in the case of the law of levitical impurity, since it is suspended at the beginning it is also suspended at the end, but with regard to the Sabbath, since it is not suspended at the beginning1 it is also not suspended at the end. Nor is there any difficulty according to R. Hisda: He does not hold that the end is like the beginning: [consequently] with regard to the Sabbath, since it is inoperative when a community sacrifice is concerned, it is suspended also at the end of the sacrifice, whereas as regards the law of levitical uncleanness, since in the face of a community sacrifice it is only suspended,2 it is suspended only at the beginning which is essential for [the obtainment of] atonement, but not at the end, which is not essential for atonement.
It was stated: If one puts out the fire of the coal-pan or of the candlestick, Abaye holds him guilty,3 Raba holds him not guilty. If he put it out on the top of the altar, all agree that he is guilty, they dispute it only if he brought it down to the ground and put it out there. Abaye holds him guilty ‘because it is fire of the altar’; whereas Raba holds him guilty, ‘since he snatched it away, he has snatched it’.4 According to whose opinion will be, then, what R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: ‘One who takes an ember down from the altar and puts it out is guilty’ shall we say it will be in accord with Abaye?5 — You may also say that it is in accord with Raba, for in the one case it was not snatched away’ for its ordained use,6 in the other case it was snatched away’ from the altar for its ordained use.
Some there are who say: None disputes the case where he took it down to the floor and put it out there, [all agreeing] that he is not guilty, the dispute concerns but the case where he put it out on the top of the altar. Abaye holds he is guilty ‘because it is the top of the altar’, whereas Raba holds him guilty, ‘since he snatched it away, he has snatched it’. According to whose opinion, then, will be the teaching of R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha viz.: ‘One who brings an ember down from the altar and puts it out is guilty’, — will you not say it will be in accord with neither Abaye nor Raba? — [No], there it was not snatched away for its ordained use, here it was snatched away’ for its ordained use. [
(1) The Friday dusk-offering must be offered before Sabbath since the blood of the offering would become useless, invalidated, if not sprinkled before sunset.
(2) Only ‘with difficulty’ but never imperative, every attempt must be made to prepare the sacrifice in levitical cleanness. V. Supra 7b.
(3) Of having transgressed the prohibition: ‘It shall not go out’ i.e.,it must not be put out, Lev. VI, 6.
(4) And it has lost its sacred character, hence what he put out on the floor was no more a coal sanctified on the altar whence he does not become guilty of transgressing the prohibition.
(5) The adopted opinion in disputes between Abaye and Raba is in the overwhelming majority in accord with Raba, whence the question as to the meaning of his teaching an invalid opinion. V. B.M. 22b.
(6) To place it in the coal-pan.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 47a
MISHNAH. THEY BROUGHT OUT TO HIM THE LADLE AND THE PAN. [FROM THE LATTER] HE TOOK HIS TWO HANDS FULL [OF INCENSE] AND PUT IT INTO THE LADLE, A TALL [HIGH PRIEST] ACCORDING TO HIS SIZE, A SHORT ONE ACCORDING TO HIS SIZE AND THUS WAS ITS MEASURE. HE TOOK THE PAN1 IN HIS RIGHT [HAND] AND THE LADLE IN HIS LEFT [HAND].
GEMARA. THE PAN? But was it not taught:2 He took the pan and went up to the top of the altar, took out the burning coals, and went down? — There the reference is to the pan of burning coals, here to the pan of the incense. For it was taught:3 One brought out for him the empty ladle from the Cell of Vessels, and the heaped pan of incense from the Cell of the House of Abtinas.4
HE TOOK HIS TWO HANDS FULL AND PUT IT INTO THE LADLE, A TALL [HIGH PRIEST] ACCORDING TO HIS SIZE, A SHORT ONE ACCORDING TO HIS SIZE AND THUS WAS ITS MEASURE: For what purpose was the ladle on the Day of Atonement necessary? Surely the Divine Law said: [And he shall take] his hands full and bring it5 — Because [otherwise] it is impossible.6 For how shall he do it? Shall he bring in [the pan of burning coals] and then again bring in [the incense]?7 The Divine Law refers to one ‘bringing in’, not to two ‘bringings in’. — Shall he take the incense in his handfuls and place the pan8 [of burning coals] on top of it, entering thus? Then when he comes [within the veil] how shall he act? Shall he take it between his teeth and set the pan [of burning coals] down? Now, if such procedure is unseemly in the presence of a mortal king, how much less seemly is it before the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He? — Thus it is impossible and since it is impossible, we do it as we find it in connection with the [offerings of the] princes.9
He took the pan10 in his right hand and the censer into his left hand.11 ‘The native below and the alien in the heavens above’?This one [the ladle] is small, the other [coal-pan] large,12 and even where both are alike, as with R. Ishmael b. Kimhith, the one is hot and the other cold. It was reported about R. Ishmael b. Kimhith that he was able to take four kabs in his two handfuls, saying: All women are valiant but the valour of my mother exceeded them all.13 Some interpret it14 as referring to the crumb-dough,15 in accord with Rabbah b. Jonathan who said in the name of R. Yehiel that crumb-dough is very helpful to a sick person. Others say it refers to the [healthy] semen [she received], in accordance with what R. Abbuha asked. For he raised a contradiction: It is written: For thou hast sifted16 me with strength unto the battle17 but it is also written, Who has girded me with valour [for the battle]18 [to interpret the divergence thus]: David said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the Universe, Thou hast [first] ‘carefully sifted’ and then strengthened me. It was told of R. Ishmael b. Kimhith19 that one day he talked in the street to an Arab, and spittle from his mouth flew on his garments,20 whereupon his brother Jeshebab entered and ministered in his stead. Thus their mother saw21 two high priests on one day. Furthermore, it is told of R. Ishmael b. Kimhith that he went out and talked with a certain lord22 in the street, and spittle from his mouth squirted on his garments, whereupon Joseph his brother entered and ministered in his stead so that their mother saw two high priests21 on one day. The Sages said unto her: What hast thou done to merit such [glory]? She said: Throughout the days of my life the beams of my house have not seen the plaits of my hair.23 They said to her: There were many who did likewise and yet did not succeed.24
Our Rabbis taught: with his fists25 , that means that he must not make a measure for his fistful.26 The question was: How about making a measure for his handfuls? Is it only there25 since it is written, ‘With his fist’,27 whereas here28 where it is not written ‘With his handfuls’ but ‘his hand full of fine incense,’ [it matters] not,29 or does he derive [the meaning of] ‘full’ from [the word], full’ [occurring in connection with] his fist?30 — Come and hear: AND THUS WAS ITS MEASURE’. Would you not say that it means: If he wishes to make a measure he may do so?31 — No, this is what it means: In the same manner would he take the hands full within the Holy of Holies.32 May not you then conclude from this that he takes the handfuls [outside] and repeats it inside again! — [No], perhaps it means that if he wants to have a measure made, he may do so;33 or, that he must take neither less nor more.34
Our Rabbis taught: His fistfull.35 One might have assumed that it may come forth on both sides, therefore Scripture says: ‘With his fist’.36 From ‘With his fist’ I might have inferred that he should just take some with his finger-tips hence Scripture says: His fistful’, i.e., in the manner in which people take a fistful. How so? He bends three of his fingers37 up to his wrist and takes a fistful.
(1) V. Gemara.
(2) Infra 48b.
(4) V. supra.
(5) Lev. XVI, 12.
(6) To perform the rite without the ladle.
(7) In his handfuls.
(8) Shall he put the pan on the incense and enter.
(9) Num. VII, 14; One ladle . . . . full of incense.
(10) This refers to the pan of burning coal.
(11) This is illogical for the ladle with the incense should be in his right hand and the less important pan in the left.
(12) Hence the heavier of the two, and therefore carried in the right hand.
(13) Lit., ‘has ascended to the roof’. She has taken exceedingly good care of her children. The phrase is reminiscent of Prov. XXXI, 29. גרף may be interpreted as valour (Jast.); as vine (Aruch) or bundles of green (R. Han.) i.e., children.
(14) The mother's valour or the children's power.
(15) Which she ate during her pregnancy or on which she fed her children.
(16) With reference to his inner constitution. E.V. ‘girded me’.
(17) II Sam. XXII, 40.
(18) Ps. XVIII, 33. The texts of II Sam. XXII and Ps. XVIII are almost identical, hence changes or deviations must have a definite idea underlying each. ‘Sifted’ is an ad hoc interpretation. The words ‘for the battle’ are not found in Ps. XVIII, 33.
(19) Tosaf. Yoma III.
(20) It was on the nay of Atonement, he was to minister as high priest and the spittle defiled and thus prevented him from officiating.
(21) Both her sons.
(22) In the Tosaf. the reading is ‘a king’ and the incident reported to have occurred on the eve of the Day of Atonement.
(23) Especially a married woman would always cover her hair, as a sign of modesty. [Buchler (JQR. 1926) p. 8 identifies this high priest with Simeon (Ishmael) the son of Kamithos who was appointed by Gratus in the year 17-18.] The sight of a married woman's hair is an impropriety. Git. 90a.
(24) In obtaining such distinction. Your suggestion is insufficient.
(25) Lev. VI, 8.
(26) I.e., he must not use a measure instead of his fist.
(27) I.e., with his fist only, not with a measure.
(28) Lev. XVI, 12.
(29) Does the prohibition of using a measure not apply here.
(30) V. Lev. II, 2; the word ‘full’ written thus implies prohibition of an artificial measure. By inference from the identity of phrase the same may be assumed to apply here.
(31) This may be explained to refer to the ladle, to mean that one could have a measure made in accord with the high priest's size of hand.
(32) The Mishnah here means: And this was the method of measurement within; i.e., the priest would empty incense from the ladle into his hands and then put it over the burning coals in the pan.
(33) I.e., one cannot conclude from the Mishnah either way.
(34) Thus was the measure-two exact hands full-rigidly so.
(35) Lev. II, 2.
(36) Lev. VI, 8. No more, just as much as the closed fist will contain.
(37) Grasping with them.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 47b
In the case of the [meal-offering baked in a] griddle and the [meal-offering of the] stewing-pan1 he makes it even with his thumb from above and with his small finger from below. And this was the most difficult service in the Sanctuary. [You say] ‘this is’; and nothing else? Was there not the pinching of the bird's head2 and was there not the taking of the fistfuls?3 - But say, rather, this was one of the difficult priestly functions in the Sanctuary. — R. Johanan said: R. Joshua b. Uza'ah asked: How about that which is between [the fingers of the fist]?4 -R. Papa answered: That which is inside needs no question for it surely belongs to the fistful. Concerning that which is on the outside, too, there is no doubt, it surely is considered a remainder.5 The question attaches only to such portions as are in between [the fingers]. How about these? — Said R. Johanan: R. Joshua b. Uza'ah had subsequently solved [the question] viz., concerning [the portion] in between, uncertainty prevails.6 How then shall he act?-R. Hanina said: He shall burn [as an offering] first the fistful and then the portions in between [the fingers]. For, if we were to burn up [the ‘in between’ portions] first, perhaps they are considered remainders, and it would thus be a case where the remainders became reduced between the taking of the fistful and the burning [of it on the altar], whereas the Master has said7 that if remainders became reduced between the taking of the fistful and the burning thereof no more fistfuls may be burnt up on their account! If that be so, then even now apply thereto the rule:8 Whatever had partly been used in fire offering must no more be burnt [as an offering]?9 Said R. Judah, son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi: He burns them [the remainders] up as wood, in accord with R. Eliezer, for it was taught:10 R. Eliezer said: For a sweet savour,11 for this you must not bring them up but you may bring them up as fuel. This will be in accord with R. Eliezer, but what is there to be said in accord with the Sages?12 R. Mari said: Fat priests13 take the fistful. Now that you have come to this answer, according to R. Eliezer, too, [there is a procedure which may be adopted] at the outset,14 viz., fat priests should take the fistful. R. Papa inquired: How about the middle [portions] ‘in between’ connection with the [two] hands full?15 — What is he inquiring about? If he derives [the meaning of the word] ‘full’ from ‘full’ [occurring] there16 it is the same [as the first question].17 — This is what R. Papa asks: [Should we say that] we require that ‘he shall bring it his hands full’,18 which is the case here, or is it required that he take...bring in, which is not the case here?19 — The question remains unanswered.
R. Papa said: It is obvious to me that ‘his fistful’ means: In the manner in which people usually take a fistful, but R. Papa asked: If he had taken the ‘fistful’ with his finger-tips, what is the law then, or [if he took it] from below upward, or from the sides, what then? — The questions remain unanswered.
R. Papa said: It is obvious to me that the ‘handfuls’ are to be taken as men usually take them, but he asked: If he took the ‘handfuls’ with his finger-tips, what then? or from below upward, or from the side; or if he swept it with one hand and with the other and then brought the hands together? — The questions remain unanswered.
(1) V. Lev. II, 5 and 7.
(2) Zeb. 64b, based on Lev. V, 8.
(3) The priest's taking of the handfuls of incense, Lev. XVI, 12, v. infra 49b.
(4) Is it considered part of the fistful to be offered on the altar, or the remnant which went to the priests?
(5) Belonging to the priests.
(6) As to where they are to belong.
(7) Men. 9a.
(8) Men. 58a.
(9) An interpretation of Lev. II, 12. And since he first burns up the fistful he should not be permitted to burn up after that the remainders as an offering.
(10) Zeb. 77b.
(11) Lev. II, 12, on which the rule cited last is based.
(12) Who extend the prohibition even against burning them as fuel (v. Zeb. 77b). What is one therefore to do with the portions ‘in between’.
(13) Whose fingers are fat without any space between them for any quantity to get in.
(14) The proposal to burn it as fuel is even according to R. Eliezer not one which is to be adopted at the outset, v. Zeb. ibid.
(15) Sc. of incense offered on the Day of Atonement.
(16) I.e., in connection with the fistful; just as with the fistful any heaping is not burnt up as offering, the same would apply to heapings of the two hands full. The analogy based on the use of the word ‘full’ in both Lev. II, 2, which refers to the first, as in ibid. XVI, 12, which deals with the two hands full.
(17) Asked supra, whether a measure may be macle for the hands full.
(18) Lit., ‘his hands full... and he shall bring’ v. Lev. XVI, 12.
(19) For he has not placed it between his fingers, it having entered there by itself, hence the required personal effort-and he shall take it-was absent.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 48a
R. Papa asked: If he stuck the fistful on to the side of the vessel, what then? Does the law require that it be put into the middle of the vessel, which is the case here, or must it be placed inside the vessel properly, and this was not done in our case? — The question remains unanswered.
Mar, the son of R. Ashi asked: If he overturned the vessel and placed the fistful on the bottom of the vessel, how then? Does the law require placing it in the vessel, which was done here, or is it to be placed properly, which has not been done? The question remains unanswered.
R. Papa asked: With regard to the ‘handfuls’ are they to be heaped or levelled?-R. Abba said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: The ‘handfuls’ whereof they spoke are to be neither levelled, nor heaped, but liberally measured. — We learned elsewhere:1 If the blood was poured out on the pavement2 and he gathered it up, it is invalidated. But if it was poured out of the vessel on the pavement and he gathered it up, it is usable. Whence do we know this?3 — For the Rabbis taught: And [the anointed priest] shall take of the blood of the bullock,4 i.e.,from the blood of life5 and not from the blood of the skin, nor from the last blood oozing out.6 ‘From the blood of the bullock’ i.e., the blood from the bullock shall he receive [straight]. For if you were to interpret from the blood of the bullock’ [as meaning] ‘from the blood7 i.e.’ even if only part of the blood, has not Rab Judah said: He who receives the blood must receive the whole of the bullock's blood, as it is said: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar,’8 hence it is evident from here that from the blood of the bullock’ must be interpreted as ‘blood from the bullock [straight]’;9 he10 holding the view: One may remove [a letter] and add [one] and thus interpret.11
R. Papa asked: If the incense was scattered from his handfuls, how then? Is his hand to be compared to the neck of the animal12 so that the incense would be invalidated, or is it to be compared to a ministering vessel and thus is not invalidated? — The question remains unanswered. R. Papa asked further: If, in taking the handfuls of the incense, he had an [unlawful] intention,13 what then? Do we say that we infer [the meaning] of ‘full’ [by analogy of] ‘full’ occurring with the meal-offering,14 [viz.,] as in that case an [unlawful] intention effects an invalidation, so here too, an unlawful intention will effect an invalidation, or is it not so?-R. Shimi b. Ashi said to R. Papa: Come and hear: R. Akiba added [the cases of]15 the fine flour, the incense, the balm, and the embers [of the sanctuary]. that if a tebul yom16 had touched part of them, he invalidated all of them .17 Now the assumption is that since a tebul yom invalidates them ‘18 so does their being kept overnight,19 and since their being kept overnight invalidates them, so does unlawful intention.20
R. Papa asked:
(1) Zeb. 25a.
(2) Before having been received into a vessel, as prescribed.
(3) That it is necessary for the blood to flow from the neck of the animal straight into a vessel.
(4) Lev. IV, 5.
(5) The blood coming forth in a jet, with which life leaves the body of the animal.
(6) Of the vein which was cut.
(7) The Hebrew words are Mi-dam ha-par, ‘From the blood of the bullock’. The ‘mi’ has partitive meaning-’from the blood’, part of it, not all of it.
(8) Lev. IV, 7.
(9) Meaning not from the skin, the vein, but that which is the bullock's life, with the jetting away of which his life too is gone.
(10) The Tanna of the cited Baraitha.
(11) In order to remove a contradiction. This interpretation involves a change in the Hebrew text. Instead of מדם הפר the ad hoc reading is: דם מהפר Involving a removal of one letter from the first word and its addition to the second word.
(12) When the blood flows from the neck of the animal to the pavement, instead of being received in a vessel, it is invalidated. Does the same law apply when the incense is scattered?
(13) An intention at the moment of slaying to eat of the flesh beyond the allotted time renders the animal in question ‘a vile thing’ (Zeb. 25a). If the priest has similar intention, i.e., to offer up the incense tomorrow instead of today, would the same consequence ensue for the incense?
(14) V. supra p. 223.
(15) V. Hag. 23b, Sonc. ed., for notes.
(16) One who has bathed in daytime but must await the sunset to be perfectly clean. V. Lev. XXII, 7.
(17) The vessel of ministry combining the various constituent parts of the flour etc., as one. V. Hag., Sonc. ed., 23b for notes.
(18) Through the union effected by the vessel of ministry.
(19) In virtue of the fact that they were contained in a vessel of ministry. V Me'il. 10a.
(20) I.e., since the incense by being placed in a vessel of ministry received a holy character in respect of contact with a tebul yom, and being kept overnight, it becomes invalidated through unlawful intention.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 48b
If he, in removing the coals [for the incense], had an unlawful intention — what then? Are preliminary1 means of a religious act to be considered as the act itself or not? — The question remains unsolved.
The question was asked of R. Shesheth: If the blood was carried [to the altar] in the left hand, what is the law?2 R. Shesheth answered: You have learnt it: He took the pan of burning coals in his right hand and the ladle in his left .3 But he could have settled that point to them from what we have learnt:4 [He carried] the right hind-leg in the left hand with the inside of the skin outward?5 — If the argument were based on that I might have assumed this applies only to a carrying [of such things] which are not indispensable to atonement,5 but in the case of a carrying [of things] which are indispensable to atonement,6 [it would] not [apply], therefore he has to bring [the above reference].7
(1) So that his unlawful thought in connection with the preliminary act would have the same effect as such thought in connection with the religious act in itself and so the incense is rendered invalidated. Another interpretation would limit the effects of his unlawful intention to the preliminary act, here to the embers.
(2) All the other rites in connection with the blood sprinkling must be performed with the right. V. Zeb. 16b and 24a.
(3) Whence we may infer that even in this case he is within the law.
(4) Tam. IV, 3.
(5) I.e., the carrying of the limbs.
(6) E.g., the carrying of the blood to the place of sprinkling.
(7) Referring to the incense which is indispensable to atonement.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 49a
They raised the following objection:1 A lay Israelite, an onen,2 one inebriate or one with a blemish are invalidated for the receiving, the carrying, and the sprinkling of the blood, and so is one seated, and the left hand. This is a refutation. — But R. Shesheth himself has asked this question in refutation!3 For R. Shesheth said to the Amora4 of R. Hisda who asked of R. Hisda: May the blood be carried by a lay Israelite? He answered: It is proper and a scriptural verse supports me: And they killed the passover lamb, and the priests dashed5 of their hand, and the Levites flayed them.6 And R. Shesheth raised this question: A lay Israelite, a mourner, an inebriate, or one blemished are invalidated for the receiving, the carrying, or the sprinkling of the blood, and so is one seated and the left hand!7 -After having heard it, he raised it in objection [against R. Hisda]. But R. Hisda had cited a scriptural passage [in support]? — They served only the purpose of a portico.8
R. Papa asked: If another9 [priest] took his hands full and put it into his [the high priest's] hands — how then? Is what we require that it be ‘his hands full’ which we have here, or is it required that he both ‘take [his hands full] and bring it in’, which was not the case here? — The question remains unsolved. R. Joshua b. Levi asked: If he had taken his hands full and then died, what about someone else entering [within the Holy of Holies] with his [the first one's] handfuls? — Said R. Hanina: This is a question of the older generation!10 Shall we say that R. Joshua b. Levi was older?11 But R. Joshua b. Levi had said: R. Hanina permitted me to drink a cress-dish12 on the Sabbath? [You say] to drink? That is self-evident, for we have learnt:13 One may eat all kinds of food for a remedy, and one may drink every kind of drink as a medicine? — Rather to grind and to drink cress-dish on the Sabbath. What case do you mean? If it be a case of danger, surely it is allowed;14 and if the case be without danger, it surely is forbidden?15 -In truth the case referred to is one dangerous and this is how the question ran: Does it cure so that one may for this purpose desecrate the Sabbath, or does it not effect a cure so that one may not desecrate the Sabbath in connection with it? And why was it R. Hanina?16 — Because he was familiar with medicine, for R. Hanina said:17 Never did a man consult me concerning a wound inflicted by a white mule and recover. But we see that people recover?-Say: And it was cured.18 -But we see them cured?-The reference here is to red mules, the end of whose feet is white. — At any rate we learn from here that R. Hanina was the older one?19 -Rather, this is what he said: Our question is like one of the former generation.20 But did R. Hanina express such a view?21 Did not R. Hanina say: With a bullock,22 i.e., but not with the blood of a bullock;23 and, furthermore, was it not R. Hanina who said: If he took the hands full of the incense before the slaying of the of the bullock, he has done nothing?24 — This is what he [R. Hanina] said: Since he25 asks the question, the inference is justified that he holds ‘With a bullock’ includes also ‘with the bullock's blood’; now, according to [this] his view, his question is like the question of an older generation. — What about that?26 — R. Papa said: If [we say that] he takes the handful first and then must take it again,27 then his fellow may enter with his hafinah,28 because the hafinah is still the same; but if [we say] that he takes the handfuls once but does not take them again, then your question arises. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: On the contrary! If [we say that he] performs the hafinah twice, none else should enter with his hafinah, because it is impossible that the second take not either a bit less [than the handfuls of the first]29 or a bit more; but [if we say that] he performs only one hafinah, does your question arise. For the question had been raised: Must he perform the hafinah twice?- Come and hear: AND SUCH WAS ITS MEASURE. Now does not that mean that as the measure in the outside hafinah, so was it in the hafinah within the Holy of Holies? — No, perhaps the meaning here is that if he wanted to make a measure he could do so, or, that he must not take either more or less in the one case than in the other.30 Come and hear:
(1) Zeb. 16a.
(2) V. Glos.
(3) Hence he obviously knew the Mishnah, how then could he have given the wrong answer!
(4) V. Glos. s.v. (b).
(5) II Chron. XXXV, 11.
(6) I.e., the blood which they received at the altar side from those who killed the passover, namely, lay Israelites who are fit for slaughtering sacrifices, v. Supra 43a.
(7) Which shows that R. Shesheth knew of the Mishnah disqualifying the carrying with the left hand, how then did he solve the question put to him contrariwise.
(8) The laymen served only the purpose of a portico, holding the bowls up to view, but not handing them to the altar.
(9) Lit., ‘his fellow’.
(10) The fact that this question asked by a teacher of the older generation has been also put by myself is an implicit compliment to our learning; R. Joshua b. Levi being of the older generation.
(11) The older of the two scholars. Hence Hanina's remark about the ‘older generation’.
(12) ‘Drink’ because usually mixed with wine or oil.
(13) Shab. 109b.
(14) And is not in need of any special argument for dispensation.
(15) And no effort to permit it would be legitimate.
(16) Of whom the question was asked.
(17) Hul. 7a.
(18) The first interpretation referred to the person injured by the mule,’ the second to the wound.
(19) Since R. Joshua refers to Hanina as ‘R. Hanina’, one must assume that the former cannot have been older, for in that case he would have called him by his first name, Instead of saying ‘R. Hanina etc.’
(20) He said to his pupils: This question of yours has been already asked by older scholars than you, viz., R. Joshua b. Levi, and it remained unsolved.
(21) Did he himself doubt as to whether the high priest may enter the Holy of Holies with the handfuls of incense that had been taken by someone else.
(22) Lev. XVI, 3.
(23) I.e., one priest must both slay the bullock and enter the Holy of Holies with its blood. This interpretation excludes the possibility of one's entering with the blood of a bullock slain by someone else.
(24) The ministration is invalid and must be repeated in proper form and order, infra 60b. As the taking of the hands full must not be performed before, but after the slaying of the bullock, the first high priest must have slain his bullock and the one who takes his place must slay another bullock, it is evident that he cannot use the handfuls taken by the first high priest, which took place before the slaying of the second bullock. Hence it seems impossible that R. Hanina could have asked the question attributed to him here.
(25) Since R. Joshua asked the question, he must hold that the second priest need not bring another bullock, for if that were his view, the taking of the handful of the incense before the slaying of the bullock would have been invalidated. Hence the apposite remark that others of an earlier generation who, in opposition to him hold that ‘with a bullock’ includes even ‘with the blood of his bullock’ have already asked the question.
(26) The original question: If a priest had taken the hands full of incense and thereupon had died, may another enter with his ‘handfuls’?
(27) Within the Holy of Holies, v. infra and supra 47a.
(28) The handfuls taken by the high priest. V. Glos.
(29) As not all handfuls of people are of the same capacity.
(30) v. supra 47a and notes.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 49b
How does he do it?1 He takes hold of the dish2 with his finger-tips according to some with his teeth — and pulls it with his thumb until it reaches his elbows, then he turns it over in his hands and heaps up the incense in order that its smoke may come up slowly; some say he scatters it in order that its smoke may come up fast; and this is the most difficult ministration in the Sanctuary. This alone? None other? But is there not the pinching of the bird's head? And the taking of [an exact] fistful of the incense? — Rather [say] this is one of the more difficult ministrations in the Sanctuary.3 [At any rate] infer from here that he had to perform the hafinah twice. — The inference is right.
The question was raised: If the priest slew [the animal] and died, may someone else enter with its blood? Do we say ‘With a bullock’ [includes] even ‘with the blood of the bullock’, or ‘With a bullock’ only but not with its blood?4 — R. Hanina said: ‘With a bullock’, but not with its blood. R. Lakish said: ‘With a bullock’, and even with its blood. R. Ammi said: ‘With a bullock’, but not with the blood of the bullock. R. Isaac the Smith said: ‘With a bullock’ and even with its blood. R. Ammi raised the following objection: One5 may be counted in6 for the paschal lamb, or one may withdraw from being counted in it until it be slaughtered. Now, if that view were correct,7 this should read: Until he sprinkles [the blood]. — There [is a special situation], because It is written: miheyoth misseh, i.e., as long as the lamb is alive.8
Mar Zutra raised the following objection: One must not redeem9 with a calf or with a beast of chase, or with what had been slaughtered or with a cross-bred, or with a koy,10 only with a lamb?11 There is a different case, because [the meaning of] lamb [here] is inferred from ‘lamb’12 [mentioned in connection] with the paschal lamb. Then just as that must be male, without blemish, and one year old,13 this too ought to be male, without blemish, and one year old? — [To prevent such interpretation], Scripture states: Thou shalt redeem . . . thou shalt redeem,14 to include both. If [repetition of] ‘Thou shalt redeem’ means to include, then all ought to be included? — What value would the word ‘lamb’ have in that case!
(1) The second hafinah, in the Holy of Holies.
(2) I.e., the ladle when containing the handfuls.
(3) Supra 47b and notes.
(4) V. supra 49a and notes.
(5) Pes. 60b.
(6) V. Ex. Xli, 4.
(7) That the blood, in the service, takes the place of the bullock itself.
(8) E.V. And if (the household) be too little for a lamb’, here the ad hoc interpretation is: as long as it is itself — read מהיות i.e., as long as the animal is whole, before it is slaughtered, as long as it is alive.
(9) A firstling of an ass, Ex. XIII, 12, 13.
(10) A kind of bearded deer or antelope (Jastrow), which belongs either to the genus of cattle or of beast of chase.
(11) V. Bek. 12a. Since the emphasis is on ‘lamb’ (Ex. XIII, 13) and a slaughtered lamb is excluded, the inference appears justified, that a slaughtered lamb is no more considered to be a lamb. Hence a refutation of the view that blood can be considered as of equal ritual value with the animal itself.
(12) Ex. XII, 3ff
(13) Ibid. 5.
(14) Ibid. XIII, 13.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 50a
R. Isaac the Smith raised the following objection to R. Ammi's view: ‘Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth’.1 — [It means]: he shall take it out in its completeness.2 And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering?3 — R. Papa answered: Nobody disputes with regard to skin, flesh, and excrement, the dispute applies only to the blood,4 one holding blood to be designated ‘bullock’, the other holding that blood is not designated ‘bullock’. R. Ashi said: It seems reasonable to hold with the view that blood is designated ‘bullock’, for it is written: Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place; with a young bullock.5 Now does he bring it in with its horns? [Is it not] rather, with its blood, and yet it is called ‘bullock’. And the other?6 [It means this:] ‘How7 is Aaron legally permitted to enter the Sanctuary? With a young bullock for a sin-offering’. — But derive it8 from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died and ‘a9 sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die’?10 -Said Rabin the son of R. Ada to Raba: Your own disciples said in the name of R. Amram: This11 is a community sin-offering and the sin-offering of the community is not left. For we learned:12 R. Meir said: ‘Are not the bullock of ‘the Day of Atonement and the pancakes of the high priest and the paschal lamb13 each offerings of an individual and yet they suspend the law of Sabbath and the laws touching levitical impurity?’ Would you not infer therefrom that there must be a view according to which these are considered offerings of the congregation?14 But according to your own arguments when it states:15 R. Jacob said to him:16 But are there not the bullock to be offered for an error of the congregation, and the he-goats to be offered up for idolatry and the festive offering,17 all of which are community-offerings, and yet they suspend neither the laws of the Sabbath, nor those of levitical impurity? Would you infer from this that there must be a view that they are sacrifices of an individual?18 Rather [what you must therefore say is] he answered the first Tanna whom he heard saying that a community-sacrifice suspends the laws both of the Sabbath and those touching levitical impurity, whilst the sacrifice of an individual suspends neither the laws of the Sabbath nor those affecting levitical uncleanness, whereupon R. Meir said: ‘Is [the law concerning] the offering of an individual a general rule, is there not the bullock of the Day of Atonement? Are there not the pancakes of the high priest and the paschal lamb, all of which are private offerings, and yet they suspend both the Sabbath and the impurity laws?’ And also R. Jacob said: ‘Is the law concerning the offering of the community a rule, are there not the bullock for an error of the community, and the he-goats for idolatry, and the festive offering, all of which are community-offerings yet suspend neither the laws of the Sabbath, nor those touching levitical impurity?’ Rather accept this principle: Whatsoever has a fixed time,19 suspends both the laws of the Sabbath and those touching levitical impurity, even [though the sacrifice concerned be that] of an individual; and whatsoever has no definite time fixed suspends neither the Sabbath laws nor those affecting levitical uncleanness even if a community-offering [were involved].20
Abaye raised the following objection:21 If the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement had been lost and other [animals] had been set aside in their stead,22 then they must all be left to die; similarly, if the he-goats [offered in expiation] for idolatry had been lost and others had been set aside in their stead,22 they must all be left to die; this is the view of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: They should be left to go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice,23 whereupon they should be sold and the money realized should go to the fund for [providing] freewill-offerings. because ‘a community-sacrifice is not left to die’.24 Bullock here refers to the bullock offered up for an error of the community. — But the text reads ‘of the Day of Atonement’? — This refers to the he-goat. But it was stated: If the bullock of the Day of Atonement and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement had been lost and others were set aside in their stead,22 they must all be left to die, this is the view of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: They should be left to go to pasture until they become unfit for sacrifice, whereupon they should be sold and the money realized for them should go to the fund for providing freewill-offerings. because a community-offering is not left to die’? — Do not read:25 ‘For a community-sacrifice is not left to die’, read rather, for ‘a sacrifice belonging to partners is not left to die’.26 What is the practical difference?27 — That the priests will not have to bring a sacrifice for an error in a legal decision.28 — Come and hear: For R. Eleazar asked:
(1) Lev. IV, 12. The animal is slain already and yet Scripture calls it a ‘bullock’.
(2) I.e., all that is left of it the emphasis being on ‘the whole’.
(3) Ibid. XVI, 27. This shows that the body of the bullock itself after it is slain is still designated ‘bullock’.
(4) Whether blood by itself is equivalent to the whole animal so that the terms may be used indiscriminately or not?
(5) Lev. XVI, 3.
(6) How will he explain this verse?
(7) with such ministrations in view is Aaron permitted to enter the sanctuary, to perform all details in connection with the bullock.
(8) That another priest may not enter with the blood of a bullock slain by the first priest who died.
(9) Tem. 15a.
(10) Hence no further ministration is possible with it.
(11) Bullock of the Day of Atonement.
(12) V. Tem. 14a (Mishnah); v. next note.
(13) This is omitted in Mishnah Tem. hence var. lec. ‘it has been taught’ instead of ‘we have learnt’, v. note 2.
(14) In accord with the view of the first Tanna, whom R. Meir opposes, that only community-offerings can suspend these laws.
(15) Tosef. Tem. I.
(16) To the same first Tanna whom R. Meir opposes.
(17) Brought by the pilgrims to the Temple on the occasion of a festival (Ex. XXIII, 14).
(18) The assumption being that only thus could they fail to suspend either of the laws.
(19) The Pancakes of the high priest are to be offered at a definite time every day, whereas the festive offering may be brought for seven days following the festival, hence having no definite time.
(20) Hence we have no proof that any Tanna is of the opinion that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is a community-sacrifice.
(21) Infra 65a.
(22) When they are found again, they are deprived of food until they die.
(23) Because of a blemish or their repulsive appearance.
(24) Hence we see that these Tannaim consider the bullock of the Day of Atonement a community-offering, in clear contradiction of the statement above.
(25) In the cited Baraithas.
(26) The bullock brought by the high priest on the Day of Atonement being considered a sacrifice belonging to partners because all the priests share in the atonement effected by it.
(27) Since in either case the animal is not left to die, whether we call it a community sacrifice or one belonging to partners?
(28) If the Beth din by error had wrongly advised the priests, such error would not be considered ‘error of the community’, as when a whole tribe by mistake transgresses the law, but would be considered a sacrifice of partners, which is not left to die. Herein lies the practical difference, hence the justification of the distinction.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 50b
According to him who holds that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is a private sacrifice, is a substitute made for it valid1 or not? Does not this imply that there is one who considers it a community-offering?2 - No, the inference is that there is one who considered it an offering of partners.3
[To turn to] the main text: R. Eleazar asked: According to him who holds that the bullock of the Day of Atonement is an offering of an individual, is a substitute made for it valid or not?1 What is his question? [Shall we say, as to] whether [the validity of a substitute] is dependent on him who consecrated it, or on him who attains atonement thereby?4 Obviously [it may be objected] we make it dependent on him who obtains atonement thereby.4 for R. Abbuha said in the name of R. Johanan: He who consecrates must add the fifth to and he who obtains atonement thereby can render valid a substitute,1 and one who separates the priestly gift from his own produce for that of his neighbour has the benefit of the pleasure!5 In truth it is obvious that the matter depends on him who obtains atonement, and this is what he asked: Have his fellow-priests a definite share in the atonement6 or do they receive their forgiveness merely by implication?7 Come and hear: There are some aspects of the original sacrificial animal severer than those of a substitute animal, there are some aspects in which the substitute animal has more rigid rules than the original sacrificial animal. More severe are the regulations touching the original inasmuch as it applies both to an individual and to a community, suspends the Sabbath law, and the law concerning levitical impurity, and renders a substitute [valid,] all these things not applying to the substitute animal.8 More severe are the regulations touching a substitute animal than those of the original sacrificial animal, inasmuch as a substitute is effected9 even if it have a permanent blemish, and it cannot be made available [on redemption] for profane use, either to be shorn, or put to work,10 all these things not applying to the original animal.11 Now what kind of sacrifice is meant here? If we are to assume an individual's sacrifice [is meant]. how could it suspend the laws of either Sabbath or those touching levitical impurity; if, again, the reference be to a community sacrifice, how could it be replaced? Hence the reference here must be to the [high priest's] bullock, and [it is stated that] ‘it suspends both Sabbath and impurity laws’ because it has a definite time; and ‘renders its substitute [valid]’ — because It is the offering of an individual!12 -Said R. Shesheth: No, the reference here is to the ram of Aaron.13 Thus, indeed, does it also appear logical. For if we were to assume the reference is to the bullock, [the question would arise, Is it] that the substitute of the bullock does not suspend the Sabbath or the laws of impurity, but on a week-day it can be offered; surely is it not the substitute of a sin-offering,14 and ‘the substitute of a sin-offering is left to die’?-No! in truth, [the reference here is to] his bullock, and what does substitute mean here? [That which goes by] the name of substitute.15 — But,if so, sacrifice here, too. should mean [that which goes by the name of] an original sacrifice?16 — No, he does not deal with [whatever goes by the name of] an original sacrifice. Whence that?-Since it states: ‘There are restrictions In the law regarding substitute animals, in that even a permanently blemished animal is affected, and it cannot be made available for profane use either to be shorn or put to work’. Now if the thought should arise in you that the word ‘sacrifice’ here meant [whatever goes by] the name of an original sacrificial animal, surely there is
(1) V. Lev. XXVII, 10.
(2) A substitute for a congregational sacrifice is not valid. V. Tem. 13a.
(3) A substitute for a sacrifice of partners is not valid, 13a.
(4) This is the problem: If it is determined by the one who consecrated then in his case the substitute would be valid, since it is the high priest, from whose possession it comes, who consecrated it. If, however, it depends on those who obtain forgiveness, then no such substitution would be possible. There are many. i.e., his fellow-priests, who obtain forgiveness with the bullock, and no substitute can be made in the case of a sacrifice of partners. (9) If someone consecrates an animal for his fellow, whose duty is thereby to be fulfilled, and it suffers a blemish and he wishes to redeem it, the one who consecrated it is considered its owner and must add a fifth to its value (v. Lev. XXVII, 19). whereas he who is to obtain atonement thereby, would not have to add the fifth, because Scripture insists (ibid.): And he that sanctified...will redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the valuation.
(5) He has the privilege of bestowing it upon whatever priest he chooses. This shows that there is no question that the validity of a substitute is determined by the one who consecrated the original sacrifice. What point then was there in R. Eleazar's question?
(6) Through the bullock of the high priest, i.e., are they to be considered partners in the sacrifice from the time of its dedication.
(7) Jast.: circuit, transference in direction. Rashi: floating, unsettled condition. Goldschmidt: from Syriac: the bearer (of atonement). i.e., the high priest.
(8) No substitute for a substitute is valid.
(9) The animal itself, even though it be blemished, partakes of sacrificial holiness, although unfit for the altar.
(10) I.e.. even after redemption the substitute may neither be shorn nor put to work, though its flesh may be consumed as non-holy meat.
(11) If the original sacrificial animal had been blemished the owner who consecrated it could consecrate only its value, hence the animal on redemption was made available for profane use without any reservation.
(12) Which solves the question of R. Eleazar.
(13) I.e.,the ram brought by the high priest for his own atonement on the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 3.
(14) V. Lev. ibid.
(15) The teaching speaks here of a substitute in general, not of a substitute of any particular original sacrificial animal. The restriction concerning substitutes lies in the fact that no substitute ever suspends the law of the Sabbath, even though the substitute be offered up.
(16) Without referring to any original sacrifice in particular; why then refer the term either to his bullock or the ram of Aaron?
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 51a
the first-born and the tithe of cattle, the laws of which affect even a permanently blemished animal, and which are not available [on redemption] for profane use to be subjected to shearing or work. Hence [you must say] he does not deal with [whatever goes by] the name of an original sacrifice.1 Why is it different with substitute animals? — The substitutes all have uniform rules, whereas the original sacrificial animal includes first-born and tithe for cattle. Now, as to R. Shesheth, why does he refer the teaching to the ram of Aaron, let him rather refer to the paschal lamb, which suspends the laws of the Sabbath and of levitical uncleanness and can have a substitute because it is an individual's sacrifice?-He holds that a paschal lamb is never offered for one individual.2 Then let him put the case as dealing with the second paschal lamb? — Is that able to suspend the laws of levitical impurity?
Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua to Raba: Why does the Tanna3 designate the paschal lamb an individual's sacrifice and the festal offering a community sacrifice? Would you say because the latter is offered up by large crowds?4 So is the paschal lamb offered up by large crowds. — There is the second paschal lamb, which is not offered up by large crowds. Said he to him: If so,it ought to suspend the laws of Sabbath and those of levitical impurity.5 — He answered: Yes, he holds in accord with him who says that it suspends [them]. For it was taught: The second paschal lamb suspends the Sabbath, but not the laws of levitical impurity.6 R. Judah says: It suspends also the laws of levitical impurity. What is the reason for the view of the first Tanna? He will tell you: ‘You have postponed it7 only because of levitical impurity, how then shall it suspend the laws of levitical impurity!’ And R. Judah?-He will tell you: Scripture says: According to all the statute of the passover shall they keep it,8 i.e., even in levitical impurity. The Torah gave him an opportunity to do it in levitical purity, but if he was not privileged to do so, let him do it even in impurity. [
(1) But with one particular type of original sacrifice.
(2) This is the view of R. Judah (Pes. 91a), there being always more than one to subscribe to the cost of the paschal lamb, which must be eaten up within its prescribed limited time, Ex. XII, 10.
(3) Supra 50a.
(4) I.e., on festivals when there are many pilgrims in the Temple.
(5) Since the reference is to the second paschal lamb. MS.M.: ‘(how state that) it suspends the law of Sabbath!’
(6) Pes. 95b.
(7) The offering of the paschal lamb,v. Num. IX, 11.
(8) Ibid. IX, 12.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 51b
But let him infer it1 from the words of the Divine Law: ‘which is of himself’,2 i.e., he shall bring it from what belongs to him, for it was taught ‘which is of himself’, that means he must bring it of his own possession, not from community funds. One might have assumed he must not bring it from community funds, because the congregation obtains no atonement therefrom, but he may bring it from the funds of his fellow-priests, because they do obtain atonement therefrom, therefore Scripture says: ‘which is of himself’. One might have assumed he must [de jure] not bring it from funds beside his own, but that if he [de facto] had done so,it would be valid, therefore Scripture says again: ‘which is of himself’, repeating the condition in order to render conformity with it indispensable.3 — But according to your own view: If his fellow-priests have no part in it, how can they obtain atonement, [even by implication]?4 Rather must you say it is different with regard to the private treasury of Aaron5 for the Divine Law has declared it free to his fellow-priests, thus also with regard to the [question of a] substitute sacrifice [we say] the private treasury of Aaron is different since the Divine Law has made it free for his fellow-priests.
MISHNAH. HE WENT THROUGH THE HEKAL6 UNTIL HE CAME TO THE PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO CURTAINS WHICH SEPARATED THE HOLY FROM THE HOLY OF HOLIES AND BETWEEN WHICH THERE WAS [A SPACE OF] ONE CUBIT. R. JOSE SAID: THERE WAS BUT ONE CURTAIN, AS IT IS SAID: AND THE VEIL SHALL DIVIDE UNTO YOU BETWEEN THE HOLY PLACE AND THE MOST HOLY.7
GEMARA. R. Jose gave a proper rejoinder to the Rabbis. What about the Rabbis? — They will tell you: Those things8 applied at the Mishkan,9 but in the Second Temple, because there was lacking the partition wall10 which had been in the first Temple — and the Sages were doubtful as to whether its sacredness partook of the character of the Holy or the Holy of Holies, they made two curtains.11
Our Rabbis taught: He was walking between altar and candlestick.12 This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says: Between the table13 and the altar. Some there are who say: Between the table and the wall.14 Who are the ‘some’? — R. Hisda said: It is R. Jose. who said: The entrance was to the north.15 And R. Judah? — He will tell you that the entrance was to the south. According to whose view was that of R. Meir? If it agreed with R. Judah's, let him enter as R. Judah states,16 if it agreed with R. Jose, let him enter as R. Jose states! In truth he agrees with R. Jose, but he will tell you the tables17 were placed between north and south, hence they would interrupt his walk, preventing him from getting himself in.18 Or, if you like you might say: In truth, the tables were placed from east to west, but it does not seen proper
(1) The answer to the question above of R. Eleazar concerning the relation of the fellow-priests to the high priest's Day of Atonement bullock.
(2) Lev. XVI, 6 with reference to his bullock.
(3) Lev. XVI, 11 surely indicates that they have no share in the bullock, but receive atonement only by implication through the high priest's atonement, although the bullock is his own private property.
(4) So Bah.
(5) I.e., in respect of the bullock of the Day of Atonement.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) Ex. XXVI, 33.
(8) The one curtain referred to in Exodus.
(9) The Sanctuary in the wilderness.
(10) I Kings VI, 16 refers to the two cedar-covered partitions, with a vacant space between then, which separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies, occupying the space of one cubit, but the text: And he built twenty cubits on the hinder part of the house with boards of cedar from the floor unto the joists, leaves it undecided from which of the two holy areas the space of one cubit was to be deducted.
(11) In the second Temple that partition was replaced by two curtains with a space between them.
(12) As he entered, he moved southward between the inner altar and candlestick, which was to the south, walking toward the curtain.
(13) The table was placed next to the northern wall, the candlestick next to the southern wall, the golden altar between them. According to R. Judah the high priest walked toward the Holy of Holies between altar and candlestick, that is on the southern side. According to R. Meir between table and altar, i.e., on the northern side.
(14) According to R. Jose between table and wall, on the northern side.
(15) R. Jose held that there was but one curtain, clasped on the north side, and since the entrance was on the north side, the high priest of necessity was walking along the northern wall.
(16) R. Judah also agreed that the immediate entrance into the Holy of Holies had to be on the northern side but he held that there were two curtains, with the outer one clasped to the southern side, through which he first entered, hence the high priest was walking along the southern wall till he reached the outer entrance, then walking along between the two curtains towards the north till he reached the second entrance leading immediately into the Holy of Holies.
(17) Solomon had made ten tables arranged in two rows of five tables, to the left and right of the table of shewbread. The Sages discuss if these tables were placed lengthwise from south to north or from east to west. R. Meir held the former view, so that all the tables were placed in the northern half of the Sanctuary (Ex. XXVI, 35): And thou shalt put the table on the north side. Now the breadth of the Sanctuary was twenty cubits, its northern half ten cubits; the length of a table two cubits, so that each row of five tables filled the northern half of the Temple hall, without any free space between tables and wall.If any space were left free, then the row of the tables would to that extent encroach upon the southern half. Thus the tables would block the high priest on his walk between the table and the wall.
(18) Between the table and the wall.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 52a
to go straight ahead [towards the seat of the Divine Presence].1 And R. Jose? — Israel is so beloved that Scripture does not wish to burden their messenger.2 As to R. Judah. let him enter between the candlestick and the wall! — His garments would become blackened.3 R. Nathan said: Concerning the ‘cubit of partition’. the Sages did not decide as to whether its sanctity was that of the Holy of Holies or of the Holy Place outside of it. To this Rabina demurred: What was their reason? Shall we say because it is written: And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was three score cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.4 [Also] it is written: And the house, that is, the Temple before [the Sanctuary]. was forty cubits long5 and it is further written: And before the Sanctuary which was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof6 — so that we do not know whether the [space of] a cubit of the partition was to be deducted from the twenty or the forty, — perhaps it is to be deducted from neither the twenty nor the forty, the account referring only to the free spaces, not to the walls. As a proof [is the fact] that whenever the walls are mentioned, they are mentioned separately, for we have learnt: The Sanctuary was a hundred cubits square and a hundred cubits in height. The wall of the Ulam7 was five [cubits thick] and the Ulam eleven. The wall of the Sanctuary six, and its interior forty cubits, the partition one cubit and the Holy of Holies twenty cubits, the wall of the Sanctuary six, the cell six and the wall of the cell five!8 — Rather, the question is whether the sanctity of the partition is as that of the inner part [the Holy of Holies], or the outer part, and this is as R. Johanan reported: Joseph of Huzal asked: [It is written], And a debir9 in the midst of the house from within he prepared to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord.10 The question was asked [in the Academy]: What does Scripture mean to say? [Does it mean] ‘a debir in the midst of the house; from within he prepared to place the ark there’; or ‘a debir in the midst of the house from within’?11 — But could they have any doubt? Surely it was taught: Issi b. Judah said: There are five verses in the Torah [the grammatical construction of] which is undecided:
(1) on the assumption that they were placed between east and west, so that he could walk unhandicapped along the north wall towards the Holy of Holies, the suggestion is offered that it would not be in accord with the reverence due to that sacred place for the high priest to walk straight towards it, ‘feasting his eyes all the time on that most awe-inspiring place, through the opening through which he was to enter, hence R. Meir s view.
(2) The high priest, as representative of Israel, is permitted to avoid the weary detour between table and altar and to proceed straight along the north wall towards the Holy of Holies.
(3) From the smoke (soot) of the candlestick on the wall.
(4) l Kings VI, 2.
(5) Ibid. 17.
(6) I Kings VI, 20.
(7) The hall leading into the interior of the Temple.
(8) V. Mid. IV. 6 and 7. Hence the question above is answered.
(9) E.V. ‘Sanctuary:’ here taken to denote the space between the partition dividing the Holy from the Holy of Holies.
(10) I Kings VI, 19.
(11) According to the first interpretation the cubit partition would be excluded then from the Holy of Holies. Does the ‘from within’ belong to the first part of the verse, referring to the debir or to the second interpretation and refer to the Holy of Holies?
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 52b
‘lifted up’,1 ‘like almond-blossoms’;,2 ‘tomorrow’,3 ‘cursed’4 and ‘rise up’.5 It was also taught:6 Joseph of Huzal is the same as Joseph the Babylonian, and is identical7 with Issi b. Judah, also with Issi b. Gur Aryeh,8 also with Issi b. Gamliel, also with Issi b. Mahalalel. What was his real name? Issi b. Akiba!9 — In the Torah there is no other,10 but in the Prophets there is. But is there in the Torah no other; surely there is for R. Hisda asked:11 [It is written], And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt-offerings,12 [does it mean] of lambs; and sacrificed peace-offerings unto the Lord [namely of oxen]; or [does the word] ‘oxen’ refer to all [sacrifices]?13 — R. Hisda had indeed his doubts about it, but to Issi b. Judah it was obvious.
MISHNAH. THE OUTER CURTAIN WAS HELD BACK BY A CLASP ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE INNER CURTAIN ON THE NORTH SIDE. HE WALKED ALONG BETWEEN THEM UNTIL HE REACHED THE NORTH SIDE. WHEN HE REACHED THE NORTH SIDE HE TURNED ROUND TO THE SOUTH AND WENT ON ALONG THE CURTAIN, TO HIS LEFT, UNTIL HE REACHED THE ARK. WHEN HE REACHED THE ARK HE PUT THE PAN OF BURNING COALS BETWEEN THE TWO BARS.14 HE HEAPED UP THE INCENSE UPON THE COALS AND THE WHOLE HOUSE BECAME FULL WITH SMOKE. HE CAME OUT BY THE WAY HE ENTERED15 AND IN THE OUTER HOUSE16 HE UTTERED A SHORT PRAYER. HE DID NOT MAKE THE PRAYER LONG SO AS NOT TO FRIGHTEN ISRAEL.
GEMARA. To what are we referring here? If it be the first Sanctuary, was there then a curtain?17 Again, if it is to the second Sanctuary, was there then an Ark? Surely it has been taught: When the Ark was hidden, there was hidden with it the bottle containing the Manna,18 and that containing the sprinkling water,19 the staff of Aaron,20 with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest which the Philistines had sent as a gift to the God of Israel, as it is said: And put the jewels of gold which you return to Him for a guilt-offering in a coffer by the side thereof and send it away that it may go.21 Who hid it? — Josiah hid it. What was his reason for hiding it? — He saw the Scriptural passage: The Lord will bring thee and thy King whom thou shalt set over thee,22 therefore he hid it, as it is said: And he said to the Levites, that taught all Israel, that were holy unto the Lord: Put the holy ark into the house which Solomon, the son of David, King of Israel did build. There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders now. Serve now the Lord your God and His people Israel.23 And R. Eleazar said: We derive by analogy24 between the words ‘there’, ‘generations’ and ‘to be kept’ occurring in these passages!25 In truth we refer to the second Sanctuary and what does ‘He came to the Ark’ mean? I.e., he came to the place of the Ark. But the text reads: HE PLACED THE PAN OF BURNING COALS BETWEEN THE TWO BARS?26 — Read [it to mean]: ‘as if it were between the two bars’.
HE HEAPED THE INCENSE UPON THE COALS. We learn here in accordance with the view that he heaped it [the incense]27 up. One [Baraitha] taught: He begins to heap it up on the inner side, which is to him the outer side,28 whereas another taught: he begins to heap it up on the outer side which is to him the inner side. Abaye said: It is a matter of dispute among Tannaim. Further said Abaye: The view of him who holds he begins to heap it on the inner side, which is to him the outer side, seems logical, for we have learnt:29 One teaches him: Be careful
(1) Gen. IV, 7: The meaning could be: If thou doest well (good!) — but thou must bear the sin, if thou doest not well; or the usual interpretation: If thou doest well, there will be forgiving (or lifting up of face); and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door.
(2) Ex. XXV, 33: Three cups, made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower, or: Three cups, like almond-blossoms . . . a knop and a flower.
(3) Ex. XVII, 9: Go out and fight with Amalek tomorrow; I will stand on the top of the hill, etc.
(4) Gen. XLIX, 6, 7: And in their self-will they houghed oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce. Or: And in their self-will they houghed the cursed oxen. Their anger was fierce. (The cursed oxen would thus be an uncomplimentary reference to Shechem, a descendant of Canaan cursed in Gen. IX, 25).
(5) Deut. XXXI, 16: Behold thou art about to sleep with thy fathers; and (this people) will rise up. Or: Behold thou art about to sleep with thy fathers and (wilt in future) rise up. This people will go astray after the foreign gods. — Tosaf. s.v. endeavours to account for the curious order of the sentences quoted.
(6) Pes. 113b.
(7) Issi as an abbreviation of Joseph is perfectly possible. Tosaf.
(8) Judah is called Gur Aryeh (a lion's whelp) in the blessing of Jacob, hence the substitution here, v. Gen. XLIX, 9.
(9) V. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 585. n. 6.
(10) Now Joseph of Huzal is here identified with Issi b. Judah and yet among the ambiguous passages here enumerated, the passage which aroused his question (I Kings VI, 20) is not mentioned!
(11) Hag. 6b.
(12) Ex. XXIV, 5.
(13) I.e., also to burnt-offerings, the meaning depending on the pause: If we pronounce ‘oloth’ (burnt-offerings) at the end of the middle pause, or read on without such pause in the middle.
(14) V. Ex. XXV, 13f.
(15) Just as, on entering, he turned southwards until he reached the Ark, thus as he left, he did not turn his face, but went backwards, with his face toward the Ark (Rashi).
(16) In the Sanctuary.
(17) V. supra 51b.
(18) Ex. XVI, 33.
(19) Num. XIX, 9.
(20) Num. XVII, 25.
(21) I Sam. VI, 8. Hence it is evident that it was placed together with the Ark and the fear was justified that together with the latter these things might be exiled and lost.
(22) Deut. XXVIII, 36.
(23) II Chron. XXXV, 3.
(24) That the other objects enumerated were hidden at the same time as the Ark.
(25) Ex. XXX, 6 and ibid. XVI, 33, the word ‘there’ occurs, justifying the inference that something must occur in both the Ark and the manna; in the passage referring to the latter, Ex. XVI, 33, as well as in the passage referring to the oil for anointing (ibid. XXX, 31) the priests the word ‘generations’ occurs, again indicating some justified inference of something in common; finally, in connection with the manna as well as in the passage about the staff of Aaron the word ‘to be kept’ occurs (Ex. XVI, 33 and Num. XVII, 25). From all these word analogies the inference is drawn that what manna, bottle, oil, staff of Aaron and Ark had in common is that having been placed in or near the Ark, they also were hidden together. Hence the reference in the Mishnah could not be to the second Sanctuary either.
(26) He placed it just where the two staves had been in the first Sanctuary.
(27) V. supra 49b.
(28) I.e., he commences to heap up the incense from the inside part of the coal-pan in relation to the Holy of Holies, working outwardly towards his arm. I.e., he commenced to heap up the incense on the outer side of the pan in relation to the Holy of Holies, working towards the inside, away from his arm, with the precaution suggested below.
(29) Tamid 33a.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 53a
not to start in front of thee lest thou be burnt.1
Our Rabbis taught: And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord:2 i.e., he must not put it in order outside and thus bring it in. [This is] to remove the error from the minds of the Sadducees who said: He must prepare it without, and bring it in. What is their interpretation? — For I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover3 ‘that teaches us that he prepares it outside and brings it in’. The Sages said to them: But it is said already ‘And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord’.4 If so for what purpose then is it stated ‘For I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover’? It comes to teach us that he puts into it a smoke-raiser.5 — Whence do we know that he must put a smoke-raiser into it? — Because it is said: So that the cloud of the incense may cover the ark-cover.6 But if he did not put a smoke-raiser into it, or that he omitted one of its spices he is liable to death. But [why not] infer this7 from the fact that he effected an entrance for no purpose.8 R. Shesheth said: We speak here of the case that he was in error about the entrance,9 but deliberate in omitting the spice. R. Ashi said: You might even set the case when he was deliberate with regard to both but [here we deal with the case] where he brought in two incenses, one incomplete, the other defective, so that he is not guilty because of the purposeless entrance because he had offered up a perfect incense, but he is guilty in regard to the incense because he had offered up one defective incense.
The Master had said: ‘Whence is it known that he must place a smoke-raiser into it? To teach us that, it is said: "So that [the cloud] may cover etc."10 [What need of] one scriptural verse added to another?11 — Said R. Joseph: This is what is meant: From here I know only about the leaf of the smoke-raiser, whence do I know about the root?12 To teach us that Scripture said: ‘So that it may cover [etc.]’13 Said Abaye to him: But the opposite has been taught; for it was taught: If when he put in the root of the smoke-raiser, it would rise up straight like a stick until it reached the ceiling beams; as soon as it reached the beams of the ceiling it would come slowly down the walls until the house became full of smoke, as it is said: And the house was filled with smoke?14 — Rather, said Abaye, this is what it means: Now I know only about the root of the smoke-raiser, whence do I know also about its leaf? To teach us that Scripture said: ‘So that it may cover [etc.]’.
R. Shesheth said: I know only about the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness; whence do I know about Shiloh and the eternal Sanctuary? To teach us that Scripture said: ‘So that it may cover [etc.]’ But that we infer from, And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting, that dwelleth with them?15 — Rather is this meant: Now I know about the Day of Atonement,16 whence do I know about the other days of the year? To teach us that, Scripture said: ‘So that it may cover [etc.]’. R. Ashi said: One [passage] refers to the commandment, the other to its indispensableness.17 Raba said: One refers to the penalty incurred, the other to the prohibition.18 It was taught: R. Eliezer said: That he die not,19 i.e., the penalty, For I appear in the cloud, i.e., the prohibition. I might have assumed that both were stated before the death of the sons of Aaron,20 to teach us [the true fact] it is written: After the death of the two sons of Aaron.21 One might assume that both were said after the death of the two sons of Aaron; to teach us [the true fact] it is written: ‘For I will appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.’22 How is that [to be explained]? The prohibition [was stated] before the death, the penalty after the death. — How is this inference made? Raba said: ‘For I will appear in the cloud’ — but He had not appeared23 yet. Then why were they punished? — As it was taught: R. Eliezer said: The sons of Aaron died only because they decided a question of law in the presence of Moses their Master. What was it they decided? — And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar24 [means] although the fire was coming down from heaven25 yet was it obligatory to bring private26 fire.
HE CAME OUT BY THE WAY HE ENTERED: Whence is this known? — Said R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan: Scripture said: So Solomon came to the high place that was at Gibeon, [unto] Jerusalem.27 What has Gibeon to do with Jerusalem?28 Rather, [Scripture] compares his departure from Gibeon towards Jerusalem with his entrance from Jerusalem into Gibeon, i.e., just as when he entered Gibeon from Jerusalem his face was directed towards the high place, in the same way as he had come in; in the same manner as he left Gibeon for Jerusalem his face was turned toward the high place even in the same way as when he had come in.29 In similar manner the priests as they ministered, the Levites on their service, the Israelites on their posts30 — as they left they would not turn their face back, to go out, but would turn their face sideways to leave. Thus also a disciple taking leave of his master, must not turn his face back to go away, but must turn sideways to depart. As was the case with R. Eleazar, whenever he took leave of R. Johanan: if R. Johanan wanted to leave, R. Eleazar would stand on his place, the head bowed, until R. Johanan disappeared from his sight but when R. Eleazar wished to take leave he would walk backwards until he disappeared from the sight of R. Johanan. When Raba was about to take leave of R. Joseph he would go backwards, so that his feet were bruised and the threshold of the house of R. Joseph was stained with blood.
(1) The incense which he had heaped up towards his end and which burns continually may touch his arm and burn it whilst he is working it towards the other side.
(2) Lev. XVI, 13.
(3) The Sadduceans in literal translation have this interpretation: ‘I, the Lord, am to be visited’, i.e., seen, in the Holy of Holies, in the cloud of the smoke of incense, which must be a cloud, i.e., prepared outside, so that when, in the Holy of Holies I am seen, it is in the cloud of incense, all ready and rising up, as the high priest enters.
(4) Which clearly shows that the incense is put in the fire inside.
(5) The name of a plant used as an ingredient of the incense and whose effect lay in achieving a straight rising smoke.
(6) Lev. XVI, 13.
(7) That he is culpable if he omitted one of its ingredients.
(8) That is indicated already by the passage in Lev. XVI,2: That he come not at all times ... lest he die, which indicates that a fruitless entrance incurs such penalty, hence no additional source of that law is necessary.
(9) To which no penalty of death is attached.
(10) The incense without the smoke-raiser could not possibly effect such ‘covering’.
(11) From the passage ‘For in the cloud, etc.’ we inferred the necessity of the smokeraiser, why then an additional verse?
(12) Whether the roots or the leaf achieved the straight smoke. R. Joseph holds that the leaves had such property, Abaye attributed that quality to the root.
(13) ‘Cover’ may refer to the capacity to just cover the ark-cover, but not to rise above it.
(14) Isa. VI, 4. This proves that the root is more effective for producing the straight smoke.
(15) Lev. XVI, 16, i.e., wherever he shall dwell with them, shall they do this.
(16) The portion of the Torah refers to the Day of Atonement.
(17) ‘So that it may cover’ is the command. He shall not come at all times ... for in a cloud shall I appear — and not otherwise is the prohibition that the incense is indispensable.
(18) Lit., ‘warning’.
(19) Lev. XVI, 13.
(20) Who died in expiation of their sin; and thus assumed it was their neglect to put the smoke-raiser into the incense.
(21) Lev. XVI, 1.
(22) This is the literal rendering.
(23) I.e., when this scriptural verse was uttered the Lord had not appeared yet. But if the reference were to a time after the death of the two sons of Aaron, He would have appeared already, namely on exactly that day, as it is said: And the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. (Lev. IX, 23).
(24) Lev. I, 7.
(25) V. supra 21b.
(26) Although their decision was correct, they incurred penalty for their presumptuousness in rendering a decision before their master, instead of requesting him to render it for them.
(27) II Chron. I, 13.
(28) The indeterminate ‘Jerusalem’ in the text is ambiguous and therefore invites ad hoc interpretation.
(29) So that the text means: In the same manner as Solomon journeyed to Gibeon, so did he proceed on his return journey from Gibeon to Jerusalem.
(30) V. Ta'an. 24a.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 53b
The people told R. Joseph that Raba did that, whereupon he said to him: May it be the will [of God] that you raise your head above the whole city.1 R. Alexandri said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: One who prays [the ‘Amidah]2 should go three steps backwards, and then recite ‘peace’.3 R. Mordecai said to him: Having taken the three steps backwards, he ought to remain standing, as should a disciple who takes leave of his master; for if he returns at once, it is as with a dog who goes back to his vomit. It has also been taught thus: One who prays shall take three steps backwards and then pronounce ‘peace’. And if he did not do so, it would have been better for him not to have prayed at all. In the name of R. Shemaya they said: He should pronounce ‘peace’ towards the right, then towards the left, as it is said: At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,4 and it is also said: A thousand may fall at thy side and ten thousand at thy right hand.5 For what reason ‘and it is also said’? — You might have said it is the usual thing to take a thing with the right hand,6 come therefore and hear: ‘A thousand may fall at thy side and ten thousand at thy right hand’.7
Raba saw Abaye pronouncing ‘peace’ first towards the right and he said to him: Do you mean that your right hand is meant? It is your left hand, which is the right of the Holy One, blessed be He. R. Hiyya the son of R. Huna said: I saw Abaye and Raba who were taking all three steps with one genuflexion.
AND HE UTTERED A SHORT PRAYER IN THE OUTER HOUSE: What did he pray? Raba son of R. Adda and Rabin son of R. Adda both reported in the name of Rab: ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, that this year be full of heavy rains and hot’. But is a hot year an advantage? — Rather: If it be a hot one, let it be rich in rain. — R. Aha the son of Raba concluded the prayer in the name of R. Judah [thus]: May there not depart a ruler from the house of Judah, and may the house of Israel not require that they sustain one another, and permit not the prayers of travellers8 to find entrance before you. R. Hanina b. Dosa was walking along a road when rain came down upon him. He said: ‘Lord of the Universe! All the world is comfortable and Hanina is afflicted!’ The rain stopped. As he came home, he said: ‘Lord of the Universe! All the world is afflicted and Hanina is comfortable!’9 The rain came again. R. Joseph said: Of what use is the prayer of the high priest against R. Hanina b. Dosa!
Our Rabbis taught:10 It happened with one high priest that he prolonged his prayer. His fellow priests undertook to enter after him. As they began to enter he came forth. They said to him: Why did you prolong your prayer? — He said: Is it disagreeable to you that I prayed for you, for the Sanctuary, that it be not destroyed? — They said to him: Do not make a habit of doing so, for thus have we learnt: He would not pray long lest he terrify Israel.11
MISHNAH. AFTER THE ARK HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THERE WAS A STONE FROM THE DAYS OF THE EARLIER PROPHETS,12 CALLED THE SHETHIYAH,13 THREE FINGERS ABOVE THE GROUND, ON WHICH HE WOULD PLACE [THE PAN OF BURNING COALS]. HE WOULD TAKE THE BLOOD FROM HIM WHO WAS STIRRING IT, AND ENTER [AGAIN] INTO THE PLACE WHERE HE HAD ENTERED,14 AND STAND [AGAIN] ON THE PLACE ON WHICH HE HAD STOOD,15 AND SPRINKLE THEREOF ONCE UPWARDS16 AND SEVEN TIMES DOWNWARDS, AIMING TO SPRINKLE NEITHER UPWARDS NOR DOWNWARDS BUT KEMAZLIF [MAKING THE MOVEMENT OF SWINGING A WHIP]. AND THUS WOULD HE COUNT: ONE, ONE AND ONE, ONE AND TWO, ONE AND THREE, ONE AND FOUR, ONE AND FIVE, ONE AND SIX, ONE AND SEVEN. THEN HE WOULD GO OUT AND PUT IT ON THE GOLDEN STAND IN THE SANCTUARY. ONE WOULD BRING HIM THE HE-GOAT, HE WOULD SLAY IT, RECEIVE ITS BLOOD IN A BASIN, ENTER [AGAIN] THE PLACE HE HAD ENTERED BEFORE, STAND [AGAIN] ON THE PLACE HE HAD STOOD ON BEFORE AND WOULD SPRINKLE THEREFROM ONCE UPWARDS AND SEVEN TIMES DOWNWARDS. THUS WOULD HE COUNT; ONE, ONE AND TWO, ETC. THEN HE WOULD GO OUT AND PLACE IT ON THE SECOND GOLDEN STAND IN THE SANCTUARY. R. JUDAH SAID: THERE WAS NO MORE THAN ONE GOLDEN STAND. HE WOULD17 TAKE THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK AND PUT DOWN THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT, SPRINKLE THEREOF UPON THE CURTAINS FACING THE ARK OUTSIDE, ONCE UPWARDS, SEVEN TIMES DOWNWARD, AIMING TO SPRINKLE NEITHER UPWARDS NOR DOWNWARDS, BUT KE-MAZLIF [MAKING THE MOVEMENT OF SWINGING A WHIP]. THUS WOULD HE COUNT [AS ABOVE]. THEN HE WOULD TAKE THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT, DEPOSITING THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, AND SPRINKLE THEREOF UPON THE CURTAIN FACING THE ARK OUTSIDE ONCE UPWARDS, SEVEN TIMES DOWNWARDS [AS ABOVE]. THEN HE WOULD POUR THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK INTO THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT EMPTYING THE FULL VESSEL INTO THE EMPTY ONE.
GEMARA. [The Mishnah] does not teach ‘After the Ark has been hidden away’, but ‘After the Ark had been taken away’, this is in accord with him who holds that the Ark went into exile to Babylonia, for it was taught: R. Eliezer said: The Ark went into exile to Babylonia, as it was said: In the following year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and had him brought to Babel together with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord.18 R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The Ark went into exile to Babylonia, as it was said: Nothing shall be left, saith the Lord,19 i.e., the Ten Commandments contained therein R. Judah b. Ilai20 said: The Ark was hidden [buried] in its own place, as it was said:And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves were seen from the holy place, even before the Sanctuary; but they could not be seen without; and there they are unto this day.21 Now he22 disputes ‘Ulla for ‘Ulla said: R. Matthiah b. Heresh asked R. Simeon b. Yohai in Rome:23 Now since R. Eliezer had taught us on the first and second occasion that the Ark went into exile to Babylonia
(the first was the one which we said just now: ‘And he had him brought to Babel together with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord’, but what is the second one? — Because it is written: And gone is from the daughter of Zion
(1) R. Joseph being blind would not have noticed this reverent conduct of his pupil. On learning it he pronounced a prayerful hope, which was fulfilled. For Raba did become head of the Academies of both Sura and Pumbeditha.
(2) Lit., ‘(prayer read) standing’. The prayer par excellence, v. P.B. p. 44ff.
(3) At the end of that prayer one says: May He who maketh peace in His high places, make peace for us and for all Israel. This is the pronouncement of ‘peace’.
(4) Deut. XXXIII, 2.
(5) Ps. XCI, 7.
(6) People would usually use their right hand, but there is no particular importance attached to it to bestow ceremonial preference upon it.
(7) Which suggests that the right hand is granted greater victory, hence is more significant than the left.
(8) Who would pray for dry weather, as better for their comfort on the road.
(9) As he had no fields and thus no need of rain.
(10) Tosef. Yoma II.
(11) By his delay, attributable either to his failure to obtain forgiveness or to personal mishap.
(12) According to Sot. 48b this term includes Samuel, David and Solomon.
(13) Root: shatha — to lay a foundation, thus foundation stone. From it, as the Gemara says, the world was founded or started.
(14) Into the Holy of Holies.
(15) Between the two staves.
(16) In the direction of the ‘ark-cover’.
(17) This continues R. Judah's account. (5) V. Gemara. (6) Lev. XVI, 18: And he shall take the blood of the bullock and the blood of the goat and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. The inference is that since but one act of ‘putting’ is mentioned the two were mixed, by pouring the first into the second.
(18) II Chron. XXXVI, 10.
(19) Isa. XXXIX, 6, dabar, ‘thing’, here taken as ‘word’, i.e., the word(s) i.e., the ten commandments.
(20) Corrected according to Jer. Shek. VI; cur. edd. b. Lakish.
(21) I Kings VIII, 8.
(22) The one who reports in this Baraitha the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(23) Who had gone there to plead with the Emperor on behalf of the people of Israel afflicted by emergency decrees of the Governor, see Graetz II, 443 (Engl. ed.).
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 54a
all her splendour.1 What does ‘all her splendour’ mean? All that is enclosed within her.2 ) What do you say now? — He answered: l say that the Ark was hidden in its place, as it is said: ‘And the staves were so long, etc.’ Rabbah said to ‘Ulla: How does it follow from this?3 — Because it is written: ‘Unto this day’. But does the term ‘Unto this day’ mean everywhere ‘forever’? Is it not written: And they [the children of Benjamin] did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Israelites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem, unto this day.4 Would you say here too that they did not go into exile? Surely it was taught:5 R. Judah said: For fifty-two years no human being passed as it is said: For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing, and for the pastures of the wilderness a lamentation; because they are burned up, so that none passeth through, and they hear not the voice of the cattle; both the fowl of the heavens and the beast are fled and gone,6 and the numerical7 value of Behemah is fifty-two. Furthermore, R. Jose said: For seven years sulphur and salt prevailed in the land of Israel, and R. Johanan said: What is the basis of R. Jose's view? He infers it from the analogy of the words ‘covenant’, ‘covenant’. Here Scripture reads: And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week;8 and in another place it is written: Then men shall say: Because they forsook the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers.9 — He answered: Here the word ‘there’ is used, there this expression10 is not used. — Would you say that wherever the word ‘there’ is used, it implies ‘forever’, but the following objection can be raised: And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to Mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and Neariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi. And they smote the remnants of the Amalekites that escaped, and dwelt there unto this day.11 But Sennacherib, King of Assyria, had come up already and confused all the lands as it is said: I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures?12 This is a refutation.
R. Nahman said: It was taught that the Ark was hidden away in the Chamber of the wood-shed. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Thus were we also taught:13 It happened to a certain priest who was whiling away his time that he saw a block of pavement that was different from the others. He came and informed his fellow, but before he could complete his account, his soul departed. Thus they knew definitely that the Ark was hidden there. What had he been doing?14 R. Helbo said: He was playing with his axe. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Two priests, afflicted with a blemish, were sorting the woods when the axe of one of them slipped from his hand and fell on that place, whereupon a flame burst forth and consumed him.15
R. Judah contrasted the following passages: And the ends of the staves were seen16 and it is written but they could not be seen without16 — how is that possible? — They could be observed, but not actually seen. Thus was it also taught: ‘And the ends of the staves were seen One might have assumed that they did not protrude from their place. To teach us [the fact] Scripture says: ‘And the staves were so long’. One might assume that they tore the curtain and showed forth; to teach us [the fact] Scripture says: ‘They could not be seen without’. How then? They pressed forth and protruded as the two breasts of a woman, as it is said: My beloved is unto me as a bag of myrrh, that lieth betwixt my breasts.17
R. Kattina said: Whenever Israel came up to the Festival, the curtain would be removed for them and the Cherubim were shown to them, whose bodies were intertwisted with one another, and they would be thus addressed: Look! You are beloved before God as the love between man and woman.
R. Hisda raised the following objection: But they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered,18 in connection with which Rab Judah in the name of Rab said: It means at the time when the vessels are being put into their cases?19 — R. Nahman answered: That may be compared to a bride: As long as she is in her father's house, she is reserved in regard to her husband, but when she comes to her father-in-law's house, she is no more so reserved in regard to him.20
R. Hana son of R. Kattina raised the following objection: It happened with a priest who was whiling away his time21 etc. — He was answered: You speak of a woman, who has been divorced. When she is divorced, she goes back to her earlier love.22
Of what circumstances are we treating here?23 If we were to say the reference is to the first Sanctuary — but there was no curtain!24 If, again, the reference be to the second Sanctuary, but there were no Cherubim? — In truth the reference is to the first Sanctuary and as to ‘curtain’ the reference here means the curtain at the entrances, for R. Zera said in the name of Rab: There were thirteen curtains in the Sanctuary, seven facing the seven gates, two [more], one of which was at the entrance to the Hekal,25 the other at the entrance to the Ulam;26 two to the debir; two, corresponding to them, in the loft.27 R. Aha b. Jacob said: In truth the reference here is to the second Sanctuary, but it had painted Cherubim, as it is written: And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of Cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers, within and without,28 and he overlaid them with gold fitted upon the graven work.29 And it is written also: According to the space of each, with loyoth [wreaths round about].30 What does ‘according to the space of each with loyoth’ mean? Rabbah son of R. Shilah said:
(1) Lam. I , 6.
(2) Hadarah (her inner chamber); i.e., all that is enclosed within Zion, in its Sanctuary, the Ark, etc.
(3) The inference that the Ark etc. was hidden in its place.
(4) Judg. I, 21.
(5) Shab. 145b.
(6) Jer. IX, 9.
(7) The numerical value serves only as ‘asmakta’ or intimation. Rashi goes through a closely reasoned argument to account for the fifty-two years.
(8) Dan. IX, 27.
(9) Deut. XXIX, 24; before that statement there is the reference to brimstone and salt: And that the whole land is brimstone and salt (v. 22). Thus the severe punishment for the forsaking of the covenant is that sulphur and salt cover the land. ‘One week’ in Dan. IX means a week of years.
(10) In the case of the Ark Scripture reads: ‘ There unto this day’,implying for ever, whilst in the absence of ‘there’ in Judges I, 21, no such claim is made.
(11) I Chron. IV, 42-3.
(12) Isa. X, 13. The King of Babylon boasts of his achievements. Hence the sons of Simeon could not have dwelt there ‘forever.
(13) Mish. Shek. VI, 2.
(14) To incur such punishment. The answer being that, unmindful of the reverence due to the Sanctuary, he had been playing around with his axe.
(15) or ‘it.’
(16) I Kings VIII, 8.
(17) Cant. I, 13.
(18) Num. IV, 20.
(19) This is said of the Levites in the wilderness, who, whilst carrying the vessels on their shoulders, were not permitted to look at them before they were covered. How much less would the Holy of Holies be profaned by being shown to the masses who had come to celebrate the Festival; the Cherubim being above the mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies.
(20) Before marriage there is reserve, which is given up in marriage, to be assumed again when divorce has taken place. Israel in the wilderness is comparable to the bride in her father's home; in the Temple to the bride in her husband's care.
(21) Which shews that the same reserve still obtains in the Temple.
(22) I.e., to the reserve of original prenuptial state.
(23) Of what time speaks this account of the curtain being unrolled and the Cherubim shown to the pilgrims.
(24) I.e., between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, but a partition; v. supra 52b.
(25) V. Glos.
(26) I.e., in the cubit space of partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.
(27) Just above the entrance to the Holy of Holies.
(28) I Kings VI, 29.
(29) Ibid. 35.
(30) Ibid. VII, 36.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 54b
Even as a man embracing his companion.1 Resh Lakish said: When the heathens entered the Temple and saw the Cherubim whose bodies were intertwisted with one another, they carried them out and said: These Israelites, whose blessing is a blessing, and whose curse is a curse, occupy themselves with such things! And immediately they despised them, as it is said: All that honored her, despised her, because they have seen her nakedness.2
AND IT WAS CALLED SHETHIYAH: A Tanna taught: [It was so called] because from it the world was founded.3 We were taught in accord with the view that the world was started [created] from Zion on. For it was taught: R. Eliezer says: The world was created from its centre, as it is said: When the dust runneth into a mass, and the clods keep fast together.4 R. Joshua said: The world was created from its sides on, as it is said: For He saith to the snow: ‘Fall thou on the earth’; likewise to the shower of rain, and to the showers of His mighty rain.5 R. Isaac the Smith said: The Holy One, blessed be He, cast a stone into the ocean, from which the world then was founded as it is said: Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner-stone thereof?6 But the Sages said: The world was [started] created from Zion, as it is said: A Psalm of Asaph, God, God, the Lord [hath spoken],7 whereupon it reads on: Out of Zion, the perfection of the world,8 that means from Zion was the beauty of the world perfected.
It was taught: R. Eliezer the Great said: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.9 The generations [the creations] of heaven10 were made from the heaven and the generations of the earth were made from the earth. But the Sages said: Both were created from Zion, as it is said: ‘A Psalm of Asaph: God, God, the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof.’ And Scripture further says: ‘Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined forth’, that means from it the beauty of the world was perfected.
HE TOOK THE BLOOD FROM HIM THAT WAS STIRRING IT: etc. What does ‘KE-MAZLIF’ mean? — R. Judah showed it to mean
(1) ‘Loyoth’ is connected with the root signifying ‘attach’, hence ‘companions’.
(2) Lam. I, 8.
(3) Tosef. II. The suggestion is that Zion was created first, and around it other clods, rocks, formations, continents, were formed until the earth was completed.
(4) Job XXXVIII, 38.
(5) Ibid. XXXVII, 6. The picture here (Rashi) is that of a skeleton or frame, which filled in, gradually solidifying from all sides towards the centre, which is last in foundation. All Scriptural verses here are used as intimation not logically but illustratively. Here is an amazing anticipation of the modern theory that the world was founded by the solidification of vapours, the Talmudic account ascribing this gradual creation to the will of God.
(6) Job XXXVIII, 6.
(7) Ps. L, 1.
(8) Ibid. v. 2.
(9) Gen. 11, 4.
(10) All things of heaven, the stars, sun and moon.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 55a
‘as one swinging a whip’. — A Tanna taught: As he sprinkled, he did so not upon the ark-cover,1 but against its thickness. And when he is to sprinkle upwards he first turns his hand down, and when he is to sprinkle downwards he first turns his hand up. — Whence do we infer this?2 R. Aha b. Jacob said in the name of R. Zera: Scripture says: And sprinkle it upon the ark-cover and before the ark-cover.3 Now with regard to the he-goat it need not be said [that he should sprinkle] downwards,4 for that can be inferred from [the procedure with] the bullock where [the sprinkling] downwards5 [is made], when then is it mentioned here too? To compare [the sprinkling] ‘upon’ [the ark-cover with the sprinkling] ‘before’ [it]: Just as [the sprinkling] ‘before’ does not mean ‘before’ actually,6 so does sprinkling ‘upon’ [here] not mean really ‘upon’.7 On the contrary! It was not necessary to state with regard to the bullock [that the sprinkling should be done] ‘upon’ [the ark-cover], for that could be inferred from the fact that the he-goat's blood was sprinkled upon [it], why then was it mentioned to compare the sprinkling ‘before’ [it], to the sprinkling ‘upon’ [it], viz. just as ‘upon’ means exactly, so shall ‘before’ here mean ‘upon exactly’?8 How can you say this? Granted, if you say that the ‘downward’ sprinkling in the case of the he-goat is mentioned for the purpose of comparison,9 then [sprinkling] ‘upward’ written in connection with the bullock is necessary in accord with the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob; for the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Upon the face of the ark-cover on the east,10 this [special case] establishes a general rule viz., that wherever Scripture says ‘before’ [‘face’] it means ‘on the east’; but if you say that the ‘upwards’ in connection with the bullock is mentioned for the purpose of comparison, then for what purpose is the ‘downward’ in connection with the he-goat mentioned?
Our Rabbis taught:’And he shall sprinkle it upon the ark-cover and before the ark-cover’. From this we know how often the he-goat's blood is to be sprinkled upwards, viz., once; I do not know, though, how often ‘downwards’, so that I infer that thus: The word ‘blood’ is used in connection with the downward [sprinkling] of the bullock's blood, and the same word ‘blood’ is used about the downward [sprinkling] of the goat's blood: hence just as ‘downwards’ with the bullock means seven times, so does ‘downwards’ with the goat mean ‘seven times’. Or argue it this way: The word ‘blood’ is used in connection with the ‘upward’ [sprinkling] of the goat's blood, and the word ‘blood’ is used in connection with the downward [sprinkling] of the he-goat's blood; hence just as ‘upwards’ with the he-goat means once, thus also shall ‘downwards’ with the he-goat mean ‘once’? Let us see what comparison is legitimate: One may infer ‘downwards’ from ‘downwards’; but one may not infer ‘downwards’ from ‘upwards’. On the contrary: It is legitimate to infer [one aspect of] one matter from [another aspect of] the same matter, but one may not infer one matter from an extraneous one!11 To teach [the true facts] Scripture says: And [he shall] do with its blood12 as he did with the blood of the bullock.13 Now it was not necessary14 to say ‘as he did’, why then was it said? To show that all the ‘doings’ of them should be alike; as there were seven sprinklings downward with the bullock, so shall there be seven sprinklings downward with the goat. We learn thus how many [sprinklings] downwards there are to be both with bullock and he-goat. But I do not know how many [sprinklings] upwards are to be made with the bullock's blood. And so I infer: The word ‘blood’ is used for the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the he-goat, and the word ‘blood’ is used for the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock. Hence, [the inference that] just as the upward sprinkling in the case of the he-goat has to be made once,15 so shall the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock be made once. Or argue it this way: The word ‘blood’ is used for the downward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock, and the word ‘blood’ is used in the case of the upward [sprinkling] of the bullock: hence just as seven downward sprinklings have to be made with the bullock's blood, so must seven upward sprinklings be made with the bullock's blood! Let us see what comparison is legitimate: One may fitly infer [something about] upward [sprinklings] from [other] upward [sprinklings], but one may not infer [something about] upward [sprinklings] from downward [sprinklings]. On the contrary: It is legitimate to infer one [aspect of one] matter from [another aspect of the same] matter, but one may not fitly infer one matter from an extraneous one.16 Scripture therefore teaches: ‘And he shall do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock’! It was not necessary to say ‘with his blood’, why then was it said? To intimate that all the ‘doings’ of them should be alike: just as seven sprinklings downward were made in the case of the bullock, so shall seven sprinklings downward be made in the case of the goat; and just as only one upward sprinkling was made with the he-goat, so only one sprinkling upward had to be made in the case of the bullock.
ONE, ONE AND ONE, ONE AND TWO: Our Rabbis taught: [He counted] One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven17 — this is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says: One, one and one, two and one, three and one, four and one, five and one, six and one, seven and one. Yet they are not conflicting,18 each counting as is customary in his place. At any rate, both agree that the first sprinklings must be counted with each of the following. What is the reason thereof? — R. Eleazar said: In order that he make no mistake in the count.19 — R. Johanan said: Scripture said: ‘And before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle’. Now it was not necessary to say ‘shall he sprinkle’. [For what teaching purpose] why then was it said, ‘He shall sprinkle’? — To indicate that the first sprinkling shall be counted with each subsequent one. — What is the [practical] difference between the two? — In case he had not counted, but also had made no mistake.20 HE WENT OUT AND PLACED IT ON THE GOLDEN STAND IN THE SANCTUARY: We have learned there:21 There were no money chests22 [provided] for obligatory bird-offerings, to prevent confusion. What does ‘to prevent confusion’ mean? — R. Joseph said: To prevent confusion between freewill and obligatory offerings.23 — Abaye said to him: Let him make two and inscribe on them: This is a freewill-offering, the other obligatory. — R. Judah
(1) I.e., not on the top surface thereof.
(2) That the two upward sprinklings are not made actually upon the ark-cover.
(3) Lev. XVI, 15, with reference to the he-goat.
(4) I.e., ‘before the ark-cover’.
(5) V. infra.
(6) The blood in the downward sprinkling fell on the ground not on the ark-cover. V. Rashi. Cur. edd.: ‘does not mean upon’.
(7) Not only not exactly upwards, but really downwards.
(8) So that in his downward sprinkling the blood is to touch the thickness of the ark-cover, whilst in his upward sprinkling it should touch its upper surface.
(9) As is stated at first.
(10) So lit., Lev. XVI, 14.
(11) I.e.. the he-goat from the bullock.
(12) Sc. of the he-goat.
(13) Lev. XVI, 15.
(14) Since the sprinkling ‘upon’ or ‘before’ has been expressly mentioned in connection with the he-goat. Any apparently superfluous word or words were chosen for intimation or indication.
(15) As the Scriptural text indicates.
(16) The assumption that different parts of the same procedure are governed by similar rules seems more justified than that similar aspects of altogether different matters have such regulations.
(17) Tosef. II.
(18) In the place of R. Meir the tens were counted first, the singles following, whilst the opposite way of counting prevailed in the city of R. Judah.
(19) And include the one sprinkled upward among the seven which he has to sprinkle downwards (Bertinoro).
(20) If counting is obligatory, he had failed to do it properly. If the only purpose is the prevention of error and he has managed to avoid it, then de facto all is right.
(21) J. Shek. VI, 6.
(22) These were special money chests into which persons who had a freewill-offering of a bird to offer would put in money in payment of the offerings which the priests would make on their behalf. No such chests were however available for obligatory offerings of a bird.
(23) There were different regulations governing the ritual of the freewill and obligatory offerings respectively, for of the obligatory birds one was offered up as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering, whereas all freewill-offerings were burnt-offerings, these differences implying distinctions in the ritual. Now if one of the money chests were confused with another, so that the priest would offer a freewill-offering from the money meant for obligatory offerings and vice versa, the offering would be rendered invalid.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 55b
does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. For we have learnt: R. JUDAH SAID: THERE WAS NO MORE THAN ONE STAND. Now why not two? Evidently because they might be mixed up! But then let him provide two and write upon them: This is for the bullock and this for the he-goat? Hence you must1 assume that R. Judah does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. An objection was raised in the Academy: There were thirteen money chests in the Temple, on which were inscribed: ‘new shekels’, ‘old shekels’, ‘bird-offerings’, ‘young birds for the whole offering’, ‘wood’, ‘frankincense’, ‘gold for the mercy-seat’, and on six of them: ‘freewill-offerings’. ‘New shekels’: [i.e..] those shekels due each year; ‘old shekels’: [i.e..] one who had not paid his shekel last year must pay it the next year. ‘Bird-offerings’, these are turtle-doves. ‘Young birds for the whole offerings’, these are young pigeons; and both of these are for whole offerings. This is the view of R. Judah.2 — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said: In the West3 they said: It is a preventive measure against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has died.4 But do we indeed take that into consideration? Have we not learnt: If someone sends his sin-offering from a far-away province,5 it is offered up in the assumption that he is alive?6 — Rather [the preventive measure is] against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has assuredly died.7 But in that case let us separate four zuz8 and cast them into the sea,9 so that the rest will be available for use! R. Judah rejects the principle of Bererah.10 Whence do we know this? Would you say from what we have learnt:11 If a man buys wine from the Cutheans12 on the eve of Sabbath, as it is getting dark,13 he may say: Let the two logs14 which I am about to set apart15 be heave-offering
(1) Because the priest might overlook them.
(2) Shek VI, 6; for notes v. Sonc. ed. a.l. Hence R. Judah apparently did consider inscriptions of value.
(4) A sin-offering, the owner of which died, must not be sacrificed but must be left to die, v. supra 50a. Now if the owner died, then the money for the value of the sin-offering which he may have put in one of the chests must be thrown into the sea. That money, being unusable and confused with other monies in the chest, would render them all useless. This is the confusion referred to above, hence the non-provision of money chests for obligatory offerings of a bird.
(5) Lit., ‘province of the sea’.
(6) V. Git. 28a.
(7) It is known that he died after having deposited his money in the chest for the bird-offerings before having offered it up.
(8) The usual price of one dove.
(9) And thus free the rest of the monies for their designated purposes, on the assumption that these four zuz represented the money for the sin-offering of a bird and was that deposited by the deceased.
(10) Lit., ‘choosing’, ‘choice’, then subsequent selection, retrospective designation, i.e. , the legal effect resulting from an actual selection or disposal of things previously undefined as to their purpose (Jast.).
(11) Demai VI, 4.
(12) Before the prohibition against their wines had been decreed. As the Cutheans (Samaritans) were suspected of neglecting the laws of terumah and tithe the buyer must himself set these aside before he can be permitted to drink any of the wine.
(13) If the purchase took place on the Sabbath eve immediately before dusk (when there is no time to remove these priestly and levitical dues from the wine) and he requires the wine for the Sabbath. It is prohibited to separate priestly or levitical dues on the Sabbath, v. Bez. 36b.
(14) A log (v. Glos.) is c. 549 cubic centimetres.
(15) For the hundred logs contained in the cask he bought.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 56a
ten1 tithe-offering, and nine second tithe, and after he sets aside the redemption2 money for the second tithe he may drink it at once. These are the words of R. Meir.
(1) ‘Logs which I am about to set aside’.
(2) Lit., ‘to profane’. ‘to desecrate’; to cause the loss of priestly status or of sacred use, to make available for private use. With money (cf. Deut. XIV, 25) that he has at home or anywhere else.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 56b
R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon prohibit it. Hence we see that he rejects the principle of Bererah! — How does that follow? Perhaps the matter is different there, as the motive is taught there: They said to R. Meir: Don't you admit that if the bottle burst he would be found retrospectively to have drunk untithed wine? He said to them: If it bursts.1 — Rather is it to be derived from what Ayo taught: for he taught: R. Judah said: No man may stipulate two possibilities at the same time. But if the Sage comes from the east, his ‘Erub2 applies eastwards alone; if he comes from the west, his ‘Erub applies westwards alone, but never in both directions. And we asked concerning it: What is the difference touching both directions that it cannot apply, it is only because the principle of Bererah is rejected,3 the same ought to apply even [where the condition was ‘if the Sage comes] from the east or west’? Thereupon R. Johanan said: In this case the Sage has arrived already.4 But now that we maintain that R. Judah rejects the principle of Bererah whilst upholding the value of inscriptions [notices],5 also for the Day of Atonement let there be prepared two stands with such inscriptions! Because the high priest is fatigued, he would not pay attention to them. For should you not agree to this consideration, he could really do without any such inscriptions, for one [contains] more [blood], and the other less.6 And if you were to say, he does not receive the whole of it,7 but R. Judah said: He who slays the animal, must receive the whole blood, as it is said: The whole blood of the bullock he shall pour upon the base of the altar.8 And if you were to say some thereof might be spilled; — still, one [blood] is lighter [in colour], the other darker. Hence you must needs explain that the high priest, because of his fatigue, could not pay sufficient attention [to the difference in the blood]; thus is it here: because of his fatigue the high priest could not pay sufficient attention [to the inscriptions].
Once a man went down [to the praying desk] in the presence of Raba9 and read: Then he came forth, and placed it upon the second stand in the Temple. He took the blood of the bullock and deposited the blood of the he-goat. He said to him: In one point in accord with the Sages,10 in another with R. Judah?11 Rather say: He deposited the blood of the he-goat and took the blood of the bullock.
AND HE SPRINKLED THEREOF UPON THE CURTAIN OUTSIDE OPPOSITE THE ARK: Our Rabbis taught: And so shall he do for the tent of meeting.12 What does that come to teach? That as he sprinkles in the Holy of Holies, thus must he sprinkle in the Hekal, i.e., just as in the Holy of Holies he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward, from the blood of the bullock, thus shall he sprinkle in the Hekal. That dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleanness13 i.e., even when they are unclean, the Divine Presence is among them.
A certain Sadducee14 said to R. Hanina:
(1) This is a contingency that need not be reckoned with, since a guard may be appointed to watch out for such theoretical situations.
(2) The word ‘erub’ means interweaving, mixture, confusion, conjunction. It signifies also a symbolical act, by which the legal fiction of community or continuity is established. With reference to the Sabbath limits: a person deposits, before the Sabbath (or the Holy Day), certain eatables to remain in their place over the next day, by which act he transfers his abode to that place and his movements on the Sabbath are measured from it as the centre. On the Sabbath in the area around a town or place the limits are two thousand cubits in every direction. The case here discussed is that of one who expects a scholar outside his city and is desirous of meeting him. He deposits the ‘erub for this purpose. V. ‘Er., Sonc. ed., pp. 252f. notes.
(3) It being held that the choice the man made between the two Sages on the following day may not have been his choice at twilight on the previous day when the validity of the ‘erub must take effect.
(4) Sc. at twilight of the Sabbath eve he was already within the permitted Sabbath limit of that man's town though the latter was unaware of the fact. As the validity of the ‘erub was made dependent on an event that, though unknown to the speaker, had actually taken place before twilight of the Sabbath eve there can be no question as to the ‘erub's effectiveness. It is not the speaker's subsequent knowledge of the fact that renders the ‘erub valid retrospectively, but the presence of the Sage at the crucial moment. The question of bererah, therefore, does not at all arise.
(5) As so proved from Shek. VI, 5.
(6) One contains the blood of the bullock which is of a larger quantity than that of the he-goat.
(7) Sc. the blood of the bullock.
(8) Lev. IV, 7.
(9) He acted as deputy of the congregation (public reader) and read the order of the service of the Day of Atonement.
(10) The reference to the second stand.
(11) Stating that he took first the blood of the bullock and then deposited the blood of the he-goat.
(12) Lev. XVI, 16.
(14) A censorial corruption of Min (v. Glos.). A Sadducean would not have spoken of Israel as ‘you’.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 57a
Now you are surely unclean, for it is written: Her filthiness was in her skirts.1 -He answered: Come and see what is written concerning them: ‘That dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleanness’,i.e., even at the time when they are unclean, the Divine Presence is among them. — But may something inferred by analogy be used as basis of another by analogy?2 — The inference here came from the subject itself for which inference was made, together with another, thus cannot be considered inference by analogy.3 This will be well in accord with the view that such inference is not inference by analogy, but what can be said according to the view that even that is inference by analogy? — Only the localities are inferred here from one another.4 Or, if you like, say: He infers the outside [sprinklings] from the inside ones simultaneously.5 It was taught: When he sprinkled, he did not sprinkle directly upon the curtain, but towards it. R. Eliezer b. Jose said: I saw it6 in Rome and there were upon it many drops of blood both of the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement. — Perhaps these stains were those from the [blood of] the bullock [offered up] for an error of the community,7 or of the goats [offered in expiation] for idolatry? — He saw that they were in their regular order.8 It has also been taught9 in connection with the bullock offered up for an error of the community: When he sprinkled the drops were not to reach the curtain, but if they did, they just did.10 And R. Eleazar b. Jose said: I saw it in Rome and there were upon it many drops of blood from the bullock offered up for an error of the congregation and from the he-goats offered up for idolatry. But perhaps they came from the bullock and he-goat of the Day of Atonement? — He saw that they were not in their regular order.
If the blood [of the one] was mixed up with the blood [of the other],11 — Raba holds, he sprinkles once upwards and seven times downwards, and it serves for both. When this was reported before R. Jeremiah, he said: Those foolish Babylonians, because they live in a dark country, they utter dark teachings.12 Surely he would be giving the upward sprinkling [of the blood] of the he-goat before the downward sprinkling [of the blood] of the bullock, whereas the Torah said: And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place,13 [implying] he must complete [the sprinkling of] the blood of the bullock, then complete [the sprinkling of] the blood of the he-goat. Rather, said R. Jeremiah: He sprinkles once upward and seven times downward in the name of the bullock, and then he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward in the name of the he-goat.
If the blood of one was mixed up with the blood of the other in the midst14 of the last sprinklings, then R. Papa wanted to say before Raba, he makes seven downward sprinklings in the name of the bullock and he-goat, then makes one upward in the name of the he-goat. Said Raba to him: Now they had just called us foolish, now they might call us the most foolish of the foolish for we teach them but they learn not. Surely now he would be making the downward sprinkling [of the blood] of the he-goat before the upward sprinkling [of the blood] of the he-goat, whereas the Torah said: Sprinkle first upward, then downward.
(1) Lam. I, 9.
(2) Above (55a) we inferred the number of upward and downward sprinklings with the blood of the bullock and the he-goat respectively. Here again an attempt is made to infer through analogy the number of upward and downward sprinklings in the Sanctuary from the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies. The rule is that in the laws appertaining to sacrifices something obtained by analogy may not become the basis or source of new inference by analogy; such inference is legitimate only when based upon the Biblical text itself.
(3) In the primary analogy the main law prescribing upward and downward sprinklings is definitely taught in the Biblical text, both in the case of the bullock and the he-goat , it is only their number that is inferred from one another. In such a case the primary analogy may be made the basis for a further analogy. It is only when the very law itself is mentioned in one case only and then inferred through analogy for the other that no further inference by analogy may be made. If e.g., no reference had been made in the Biblical text to any upward or downward sprinkling, such regulation being based on inference from one to the other, it would then be wrong to endeavour to derive another law by analogy from the first law inferred by analogy.
(4) I.e., whereas in the first analogy the inference was made from one animal for the other, the second is concerned in the localities — i.e., the Holy of Holies and the Temple, extending the sprinkling regulations from the former to the latter.
(5) The second inference is not made via the animals but directly from the sprinklings within the Holy of Holies to those outside, in the Temple Proper.
(6) V. Me'il. 17b: R. Eliezer was in Rome and had occasion to see the holy vessels in the royal treasury, among them the curtain of the Holy of Holies.
(7) Lev. IV, 13 and Num. XV, 24.
(8) One on top of the other, as the result of the motion of the priest, in the manner of one swinging a whip.
(9) V. D.S. Cur. edd. ‘We also learnt’.
(10) De facto it did not matter: even if the drops reached the curtain there was no cancellation of the service.
(11) The blood of the bullock with the blood of the he-goat.
(12) V. Pes., Sonc. ed., 60b.
(13) Lev. XVI, 20.
(14) I.e., after he had made the upward sprinkling with the blood of the bullock.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 57b
Rather, said Raba, he makes seven downward sprinklings in the name of the bullock, then makes one upward and seven downward sprinklings in the name of the he-goat.
If the cups [of blood] have become confused,1 then he sprinkles, and sprinkles again, and sprinkles once more, three times.2 If part3 of the blood became mixed up and part not, then obviously when he makes the sprinklings he makes them from that part which is definitely known [to be unmixed]; but as for the other,4 is it to be considered a remainder and must thus be poured out at the base5 of the altar, or is it to be considered ‘rejected’ [from sacred use] and must be poured into the canal?6 — R. Papa said: Even according to the view that one cup renders the other a remainder,7 that applies only where he could make the sprinklings if he wanted to do so but in this case,8 even if he so desired, he would be unable to make the sprinkling. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to R. Papa: On the contrary! Even according to the view that one cup renders the other ‘rejected’, that applies only if he rejected it with his hands [deliberately], but where he had not rejected it with his hands it would not apply? For it has been taught: Above it is said: And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out,9 and below: And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out.10 Whence do we know that, in the case of a sin-offering, if he had received the blood in four cups and sprinkled from each one cup thereof11 one sprinkling, all the remaining blood must be poured out at the base? To teach us that Scripture said: ‘And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’. One might have assumed that even if he made the four sprinklings from one of the [cups], to teach us correctly, Scripture said: ‘And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’ i.e., only this is to be poured out at the base but they [the rest] are to be poured into the canal. R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that if he received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made the four sprinklings from one of them, that they must all be poured out at the base? To teach us that Scripture said: ‘And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’.12 But according to R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon is it not written: ‘And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’? — R. Ashi said: This is meant to exclude the [blood that] remains in the neck of the animal.
HE POURED THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK INTO THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT: We were taught in accordance with the view that one mixed [the blood] to sprinkle upon the horns [of the inner altar], for it has been said: R. Josaia and R. Jonathan [were disputing], one said: One mixed [the bloods], the other one did not do so. It may be ascertained that it is R. Josaia who held that one mixed [the bloods]; for he said: Although Scripture does not state: ‘together’,13 is it not written: it is as if ‘together’ were written. You might also say that it is R. Jonathan, but here it is different, because Scripture states ‘once’.14 It has been taught contrary to this, our reply: ‘And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat’15 i.e., that they are to be mixed. This is the view of R. Josaia.
(1) The priest not knowing which of the cups contained the blood of the bullock and which the blood of the he-goat.
(2) In each case he makes one sprinkling upward and seven downward from one cup then again from the second cup, finally again from the first cup, so that in any case the blood of the bullock would have been sprinkled before that of the he-goat. For, if the first cup was actually that containing the bullock's blood, and the second that containing the he-goat's blood, he has fulfilled his duty properly, with the first and second series of sprinklings. If, however, the first cup happened to be that of the he-goat, then such sprinkling was of no avail, and the second cup being that containing the bullock's blood and the third again the one containing the he-goat's blood, are in order and the service is performed in accord with the regulations which postulate that the sprinklings made with the bullock's blood came first.
(3) As e.g., when the blood contained in two cups was poured into a third, so that each of the two cups contained a quantity of blood.
(4) The mixed blood in the third cup.
(5) V. Zeb. 47a: the remaining blood was poured over the western base of the outer altar.
(6) I.e., since the sprinklings did not come from it, shall the blood be relegated, together with all waste of the Temple Court, through the canal, to the brook of Kidron.
(7) Whenever the priest has received the blood in two cups but has sprinkled from one only, the blood in the other cup is poured out over the base of the altar.
(8) Where part of the blood of the two cups was poured into a third.
(9) Lev. IV, 25.
(10) Ibid. v, 34.
(11) The blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled upon the four corners of the altar.
(12) Thus we see that the first Tanna treats the blood in the cup or cups from which no sprinkling has been made as rejected, to be poured out in the canal, whereas R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon treats it as the remainder, to be poured out over the base.
(13) In Sanh. 66a these two Sages debate the question as to whether literal direction is necessary to indicate that a prohibition does not refer to two persons together where the contrary might be assumed, R. Judah holding that such direction is necessary while R. Jonathan holds it is not. Thus, on the view of R. Josaia, even though no definite instruction is to be found in the text, the inference that the blood of the bullock and he-goat be sprinkled together, appears legitimate according to the analogous consistence of the view.
(14) Ex. XXX, 10. And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once (a year). The word is here interpreted to mean that one sprinkling is to be made of the blood of both animals.
(15) Lev. XVI, 18.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 58a
R. Jonathan said: [He sprinkled] separately from the one and from the other. Said R. Josaia to him: But was it not said already: ‘Once’? To this R. Jonathan replied: But was it not said already: ‘From the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat’? Why then was the word ‘once’ stated? To tell you, [sprinkle] once, but not twice from the blood of the bullock; once and not twice from the blood of the he-goat. Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘And he shall take from the blood of the bullock and from the blood of the he-goat’ i.e., that the two shall be mixed together. You say that they shall be mixed together! but perhaps he should sprinkle separately from the one and from the other? To teach us the right thing, Scripture says: ‘once’ and the anonymous [Baraitha] is in agreement with the view of R. Joshua.
HE POURED THE [CONTENTS OF] THE FULL VESSEL INTO THE EMPTY ONE: Rami b. Hama asked of R. Hisda: If he placed one bowl into another and this received the blood, what then? Is homogeneous matter considered an interposition or not?1 He answered: You have learnt that already: HE POURED [THE CONTENTS OF] THE FULL VESSEL INTO THE EMPTY ONE. Does this mean that he placed the full bowl into the empty one?2 — No, it means that he poured the full vessel into the empty one.3 But the first part states already: HE POURED THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK INTO THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT? — [It is repeated] in order [to make sure] that he will mix it very well indeed.
Come and hear: If he stood upon any vessel, or upon his fellow's foot, it is invalid!4 — It is different with his neighbour's foot, because he [his fellow] does not abandon it.5 Some there are who say: This is how he asked of him: Is such the manner of ministration or not? Come and hear: For the school of R. Ishmael taught:[And they shall take] all the vessels of ministry, wherewith they minister in the sanctuary,6 i.e., two7 vessels, but one ministry [service].
Rami b. Hama asked of R. Hisda: If he deposited bast in the bowl and he received the blood therewith, what then? Is heterogeneous matter considered an interposition8 or not? Is it not considered an interposition, since it penetrates [the blood], or is there no difference? — He replied to him: We have learnt that: He empties out the water until the sponge is reached.9 — It is different with water because it is very weak. Some there are who say: This is how he answered him: In the case of the blood10 it is permitted, but in the case of the fistful it is invalid.11
(1) The priest is to receive the blood. If one bowl is considered an interposition, then the priest, whose hand does not hold the bowl containing the blood, is not really receiving the blood, the ministration then should be cancelled as invalid. (This discussion refers, as Rashi explains, not just to the Day of Atonement, but to the service on any day of the year). The two bowls are homogeneous and if they be considered as interposition, then the above question follows. With regard to heterogeneous matter, there is no doubt; it surely is considered an interposition, v. Tosaf. s.v. מין
(2) That would indicate that homogeneous matter is not considered an interposition and would thus settle the above question in the affirmative.
(3) So that the situation is entirely different and no inference as to the interposition of homogeneous matter is possible.
(4) If the priest, in receiving the blood, stood upon a vessel, then that vessel was interposing between the floor of the Sanctuary and the priest, therefore invalidating the service. (Zeb. 24a). Similarly, if he stood upon his fellow's foot. The foot, however, is homogeneous and the fact that the service is cancelled, would seem to indicate that homogeneous matter is considered an interposition, so that the question above would appear to be answered.
(5) Homogeneous matter is not considered an interposition, but a human foot is an undeniable entity.
(6) Num. IV, 12.
(7) I.e., vessels in the plural means at least two (although the plural is indefinite as to the maximum, there is the undeniable minimum of two); whereas the word ministry refers to one ministration only.
(8) The bast is heterogeneous to the bowl, hence should be considered an interposition. But since the blood penetrates the bast and reaches the bowl, does it cancel the interposing bast, so that, as it were, the priest had received the blood in the bowl proper, as viewed retroactively, or not?
(9) Parah VI, 3: If someone was mixing the ashes (of the red heifer) in the water of a trough of stone, and there was a sponge in the trough then the water in the sponge is invalid, as a sponge is not a vessel. What should he do? The water in the trough should be poured out until the sponge is reached and the water is valid. Hence we see that a sponge is not considered interposing so as to invalidate the whole water, and similarly here, the bast should not be considered as interposing between the bowl and the blood.
(10) Because it is thin.
(11) For the fistful of the flour-offering was required to be received in the vessel after having first been taken, analogous to the receiving of the blood, hence any interposing object would render the ministration invalid.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 58b
MISHNAH. AND HE SHALL GO OUT UNTO THE ALTAR THAT IS BEFORE THE LORD,1 — THAT IS THE GOLDEN ALTAR.2 THEN HE BEGINS TO SPRINKLE3 DOWNWARD.4 WHENCE DOES HE COMMENCE? FROM THE NORTH-EAST HORN [OF THE ALTAR], THEN THE NORTH-WEST, THEN THE SOUTH-WEST, THEN THE SOUTH-EAST. WHERE HE COMMENCES [SPRINKLING] ON THE OUTER ALTAR,5 THERE HE COMPLETES [SPRINKLING] ON THE INNER ALTAR. R. ELIEZER SAID: HE REMAINED IN HIS PLACE AND SPRINKLED. AND HE WOULD SPRINKLE EVERY HORN FROM BELOW UPWARDS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HORN AT WHICH HE WAS STANDING, WHICH HE WOULD SPRINKLE FROM ABOVE DOWNWARDS. THEN HE SPRINKLED THE TOP6 OF THE ALTAR SEVEN TIMES AND POURED OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD AT THE WESTERN BASE OF THE OUTER ALTAR. AND [THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD SPRINKLED] ON THE OUTER ALTAR HE POURED OUT AT THE SOUTHERN BASE. BOTH MINGLED IN THE CANAL7 AND FLOWED INTO THE BROOK KIDRON AND THEY WERE SOLD TO GARDENERS AS MANURE AND BY USING THEM ONE TRANSGRESSES THE LAW OF TRESPASS.8
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And he shall go out unto the altar’, what does that mean to teach? R. Nehemiah said: Since we find that, in connection with the bullock offered up for [the transgression in error of] ‘any of the commandments’,9 the priest stands outside the altar and sprinkles towards the curtain,10 one might have assumed that here the same would take place, therefore Scripture said: ‘And he shall go out unto the altar’, hence he must have been found before on the inner side of the altar.11 — Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘Before the Lord’. What does that mean to teach? R. Nehemiah said: Since we find with the bullock and he-goat of the Day of Atonement that the priest stands on the inner side of the altar and sprinkles upon the curtain, as he sprinkles one might have assumed here the same would be the case, therefore Scripture has come to teach us: The altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tent of meeting,12 that implies: the altar before the Lord, but not the priest before the Lord. How that? He stands outside the altar and sprinkles.
HE BEGAN TO SPRINKLE DOWNWARD: Our Rabbis taught: He began to sprinkle downward. Whence did he commence? From the south-eastern horn, [proceeding to] the south-western, north-western and north-eastern horns respectively. This is the view of R. Akiba, — R. Jose the Galilean says: [He started from] the north-eastern, [proceeding to] the north-western, southwestern and south-eastern horns respectively.13 At the place where, according to R. Jose the Galilean, he commenced, there according to R. Akiba, he stopped. At the place where R. Akiba would have him start, there R. Jose the Galilean would have him stop. All agree at any rate that he does not start at the point he first comes to.14 What is the reason? Said Samuel: Scripture said: And he shall go out unto the altar, i.e., only after he has gone over the whole altar. But according to R. Akiba he ought to go around it to the right.15 Shall we say [then] that they are disputing a teaching of Rami b. Ezekiel? For Rami b. Ezekiel said: Concerning the sea16 which Solomon made, [Scripture states]: It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.17 Hence you are taught that all the turns you make [in the Temple] must be to the right, i.e., eastward;18 one Master [R. Jose the Galilean] agreeing with Rami b. Ezekiel, the other Master [R. Akiba] disagreeing? — No, all agree with the view of Rami b. Ezekiel and the matter of dispute here is, rather, this: One Master holds that [the regulations] within19 are inferred from [those] without,20 the other Master holding we do not infer [the regulations] ‘within’ from [those] ‘without’. But according to R. Akiba, granted that he does not infer ‘within’ from ‘without’, let him be permitted to do it one way if he so chooses, or the other way if he so chooses?21 — R. Akiba will tell you: As far as de jure regulation is concerned he ought to start at the horn to which he had come first, for Resh Lakish has said: One must not forego the occasion for performing a religious act;22 and the reason why he does not do so is because Scripture said: ‘And he shall go out unto the altar,’ i.e., until he has gone outside the whole altar. Therefore as soon as he has sprinkled the blood on this horn, he returns to the horn with which he should have started from the beginning.23
(1) Lev. XVI, 18.
(2) Ex. XXX, I.
(3) Lit.,’to cleanse from sin’.
(4) Lit., ‘he goes down’ i.e., he applies the blood to the horn of the altar beginning at the top and leading his finger downward.
(5) Zeb. 53a.
(6) This word is variously interpreted in the Gemara. It may mean ‘back’, i.e., top; it has been claimed as ‘the pure, real surface’ (of gold) i.e., free from coals or ashes; as the centre of the altar front.
(7) V. Shek. IV, 2.
(8) Lev. V, 15.
(9) Lev. IV, 1ff.
(10) V. infra.
(11) The text should have read: ‘He shall make atonement on the altar that is before the Lord’. ‘And he shall go out unto the altar’ has no special significance. But since we find that on the occasion of other sacrifices he was standing outside, the words ‘and he shall go out’ here indicate that in this case he was on the inner side.
(12) Lev. IV, 7. The words ‘before the Lord’ are in themselves superfluous — for obviously the altar was ‘before the Lord’ — but are to indicate that only the altar was ‘before the Lord’ but not the priest. The latter stood outside and did not interpose between the altar and the curtain either when he sprinkled the blood on the corners or against the curtains.
(13) The dispute hinges on the question as to whether there were one or two curtains before the Holy of Holies. R. Akiba holds there were two, the outer one clasped on the south side. As the priest came from the Holy of Holies from the south in order to proceed with the sprinkling against the curtain, the first horn of the altar he meets is the south-western, however, he did not sprinkle, because of the interpretation of ‘And he shall go out unto the altar’ (v. infra) so that he begins the sprinkling on the south-eastern side and then turning to the left continues with the outer corners. R. Jose the Galilean holds, in accord with R. Jose, that there was but one curtain, clasped on the north side, so that as the priest came forth from the north he reached first the north-western horn of the altar, where, however, he did not sprinkle but at the north-eastern horn, and then turning to the right he returned to the north-western horn to continue his sprinkling.
(14) Coming from the west, he first reaches one of the western horns of the altar (v. previous note), yet does not commence with it.
(15) V. p. 273, n. 5.
(16) The water reservoir in the Temple of Solomon.
(17) I Kings VII, 25.
(18) This is derived from the order in which the sides are enumerated; the phrase ‘eastward’ does not apply here but is taken from the passage where this principle is originally quoted in connection with the ramp. v. supra 45a and Zeb. 62b.
(19) The inner altar.
(20) The Sea of Solomon.
(21) Either to the right or to the left.
(22) V. supra 33a.
(23) V. p. 273. n. 5.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 59a
Or if you like, say: If we hold that the sprinkling [on the inner altar] was done in walking around,1 there would be general agreement that we infer ‘within’ from ‘without’, but the dispute here rests on this: one Master holds the sprinkling was done by circular movements of the hand, the other Master holding the sprinkling was done in walking around. Or if you like, say: All agree that the sprinkling [on the inner altar] was done by circular movements of the hand, the point of dispute here is: one Master holds, we may infer [the regulations touching] the hand from [those governing] the foot, the other Master holding that we do not infer the ‘hand’ from the ‘foot’. But does R. Jose the Galilean hold that the sprinkling was done by circular movement of the hand? Surely, since the second part reads: R. Eliezer said: HE REMAINED IN HIS PLACE AND SPRINKLED,2 it follows that the first Tanna did not hold so?3 Hence it is obvious, as we have answered before: One Master holds the sprinkling was done by circular movement of the hand, whereas the other Master holds it was done by walking around. And if you like to say: The dispute lies therein: that one Master holds that the [phrase] ‘round about’ [mentioned in connection] with the inner altar signifies the same as ‘round about’ [mentioned in connection] with the outer altar,4 whereas the other Master holds that the whole of the inner altar occupied as much space as one horn of the outer altar.5
It was taught: R. Ishmael said: Two high priests had survived the First Sanctuary. One said: I had done the sprinkling [in the inner altar] by circular movement of my hand; the other said: I had done the sprinkling by walking around the altar. The first advanced a reason for his procedure, so did the second. The first said: The ‘round about’ of the inner altar had to be as the round about’ of the outer altar; the other stating: The whole of the inner altar occupied as much space as one horn of the outer altar.
R. ELIEZER SAID: HE REMAINED IN HIS PLACE AND SPRINKLED. With whom does our Mishnah agree? — With R. Judah. For it was taught: R. Meir said, R. Eliezer said: He remained in his place and sprinkled. And all the sprinklings he made from above downward with the exception of the one athwart, which he made from below upward. R. Judah said, R. Eliezer said: He remained in his place and sprinkled. All the sprinklings he made from below upward with the exception of this one right before him which he made from above downward, to prevent his garments from becoming sullied.6
THEN HE SPRINKLED THE TOP [TIHARO] OF THE ALTAR: What does ‘TIHARO’ mean? — Rabbah son of R. Shila said: The centre of the altar-front, as people say: ‘The moon-light [tiharo] shines,’ meaning thereby the middle of the day. An objection was raised: As he sprinkles, he sprinkles neither upon the ashes, nor upon the embers, but he removes the coal to both sides and sprinkles?7 — Rather, said Rabbah son of R. Shila: [It means] the cleared surface8 of the altar, as it is written: And the like of the very heaven for [tohar] clearness.9
It was taught: Hanania said: He would sprinkle10 standing on the north side.11 — R. Jose said: He would sprinkle standing on the south side.11 Wherein are they disputing? — One [Hanania] holds the entrance was through the curtain on the south, whereas the other [R. Jose] holds it was on the north side.12 At any rate all agree that on the place where he completed the sprinkling on the horns there he would sprinkle on the top thereof. What is the reason? — Scripture says: And he shall cleanse it...and hallow it,13 i.e., where he hallows it,14 there shall he cleanse it [we-tiharo].15
AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOOD HE SPRINKLED UPON THE WESTERN BASE OF THE OUTER ALTAR: For Scripture said: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out [etc.],16 and as he comes forth [from the Sanctuary] he meets this [side of the altar base] first.
AND THAT OF THE OUTER ALTAR HE POURED ON THE SOUTHERN BASE: Our Rabbis taught: ‘The base of the altar’17 i.e, the southern base. You say it is the southern base. But perhaps it is not so, but rather the western base? I will tell you: Let his coming down from the ramp be inferred from his going out of the Sanctuary: Just as when he goes out of the Sanctuary [he pours out the remainder of the blood] at [the point] nearest to him, and which is it? — the western base, so when he comes down from the ramp [he pours out the remainder of the blood] at the point nearest to him, and which is it? — the southern base.
It was taught: R. Ishmael said: Both times [blood was poured out] at the western base. — R. Simeon b. Yohai: No, [it was] at the southern base. — It is quite right, according to R. Ishmael: He holds that one may infer that concerning which no details are given from that which is thus described,18 but what is the reason of R. Simeon b. Yohai? — R. Ashi said: He holds the entrance [to the Sanctuary] was at the south.19 The teaching of the school of R. Ishmael was taught in the school of R. Simeon b. Yohai:20 In both cases it was the southern base. As a mnemotechnic sign remember: The men won over the man.21
BOTH MINGLED IN THE CANAL AND FLOWED etc.: Our Rabbis taught: One transgresses the law of trespass with [sacrificial] blood. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Simeon and the Sages hold: One does not commit such trespass.
(1) As was the case with the sprinkling on the outer altar.
(2) So that the sprinkling was done by the circular movement of his hand.
(3) The first Tanna (anonymous) of our Mishnah is R. Jose the Galilean, in accordance with his view in the Baraitha cited. Now since R. Eliezer, in disputing, states that the sprinkling was made by circular movements of the hand, it is obvious that R. Jose did not think so. Hence the statement ‘All agree that the sprinkling was done by circular movement of the hand’ is wrong.
(4) V. Lev. XVI, 18. And...he shall put it upon the horns of the altar round about. In the case of the outer altar, the sprinkling was done by walking around, the analogy would render the same procedure proper with the inner altar.
(5) One cubit square.
(6) The purpose of this procedure was practical, beyond any ritualistic significance: he sprinkled upon the horn before him from above downward, lest some blood drip into his sleeve.
(7) The first interpretation of the word ‘tiharo’ would identify it with the middle of the side of the altar. But the passage just adduced indicates it must be the top. Cf. supra, p. 69, n. 2.
(8) Lit., ‘exposed (part)’.
(9) Ex. XXIV, 10.
(10) The seven sprinklings on the top of the altar, as explained supra.
(11) I.e., on the side where he completed the round of sprinkling on the altar.
(12) V. supra p. 274, n. 1, 5.
(13) Lev. XVI, 19.
(14) On the horns, i.e., on the horn where he completes the hallowing.
(15) By means of the seven sprinklings.
(16) Lev. IV, 7.
(17) Lev. IV, 30 with reference to an individual sin-offering.
(18) With regard to blood-offerings which are sprinkled on the inner altar there is the Biblical statement: Upon the base of the altar . . . which is at the entrance to the tent of meeting (Lev. IV, 7 and 18), this being the western base; there being no such statement concerning those offerings of which the blood is on the outer altar, the inference is legitimate.
(19) [The whole of the outer altar being on the northern half of the court so that when the priest came out of the Sanctuary the first base he met was the southern, v. supra 16b.]
(20) [I.e., R. Ishmael had retracted his view so that the disciples of R. Simeon b. Yohai could report the teaching in the name of R. Ishmael (Rashi).]
(21) ‘The men drew nigh’, i.e., won over the man, viz., the disciples of R. Simeon prevailed upon R. Ishmael to agree with them.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 59b
Now the dispute touches only the question as to whether [there is a trespass] Rabbinically;1 according to Biblical law, however, there is no trespass.2 When [do we know] these things ? — ‘Ulla said: Scripture said : ‘To you’3 i.e., it belongs to you. The school of R. Simeon taught: To make atonement4 i.e., I have given it for atonement, but not for [the law of] trespass [to apply]. R. Johanan said: Scripture said: ‘It’ i.e., [implying that] it is before atonement: just as after atonement one cannot be guilty of trespass concerning it,5 thus can one before atonement not be guilty of trespass concerning it. But perhaps say: It is after the atonement as before the atonement: just as before the atonement one may become guilty of trespass concerning it, so also after atonement may one become guilty of trespass concerning it? — There is nothing concerning which one can become guilty of trespass, once the atonement touching it has been fulfilled.6 But there is the removal of the ashes [from the altar]?7
(1) Making the offender liable to pay the capital value of the blood.
(2) And the offender is exempt from the extra payment of the fifth, v. Lev. V, 16.
(3) Lev. XVII, 11 . I have given it (the blood) to you.
(4) Ibid. ‘To make atonement’, implies but for no other ritual purpose, such as the application of the law of trespass.
(5) Once atonement has been effected with any sacrifice the law of trespass does not apply to it, v. infra.
(6) Once it has served its purpose it is no longer considered the property of the Sanctuary for laws of trespass to apply to it.
(7) V. Lev. VI, 3. The Biblical regulation And he shall put them (the ashes) beside the altar, (ibid.), indicates that they must be hid away, are not available for private use, and are hence still the property of the Sanctuary, to which the laws of trespass apply though the commandment concerning it has already been fulfilled.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 60a
— That is because referring to the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments1 there are two verses [written] for the same purpose2 and wherever two verses have the same purpose no deduction can be made from them [for other precepts].3 That will be right according to the Rabbis who hold: ‘And he shall put them there’4 signifies that they must be hidden away but what can be said according to R. Dosa who holds that the garments of the [high] priest may be used for a common priest? — That is because concerning the removal of the ashes and the heifer5 whose neck is to be broken are two verses written for the same purpose, and wherever two verses are written for the same purpose no deduction can be made from them. That will be right according to the view that holds from two identical Scriptural statements no deduction can be made; but what can be said in accordance with the view that such deduction is permissible? — There are two limiting qualifications: And he shall put them6 and the one whose neck was broken.7 For what purpose are three Scriptural verses necessary in connection with the blood?8 — One is to exclude [blood] from [the rule touching] left-overs,9 one to exclude it from the rule touching trespass,10 and one to exclude it from the rule touching ritual uncleanness.11 But no verse is necessary to exclude it from the rule touching piggul12 for we have learnt: Whatever has that which renders [the offering] permissible, whether for human beings13 or for service on the altar14 can make one liable on its account for piggul. And blood itself is a thing which renders the offering permissible.15
MISHNAH. CONCERNING EVERY MINISTRATION OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT MENTIONED16 IN THE PRESCRIBED ORDER IF ONE SERVICE WAS DONE OUT OF ORDER BEFORE ANOTHER ONE, IT IS AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DONE AT ALL. IF HE SPRINKLED THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT BEFORE THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, HE MUST START OVER AGAIN, SPRINKLING THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT AFTER THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK. IF BEFORE HE HAD FINISHED THE SPRINKLINGS WITHIN [THE HOLY OF HOLIES] THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, HE MUST BRING OTHER BLOOD, STARTING OVER AGAIN AND SPRINKLING AGAIN WITHIN [THE HOLY OF HOLIES]. LIKEWISE, IN MATTERS OF THE SANCTUARY AND THE GOLDEN ALTAR, SINCE THEY ARE EACH A SEPARATE ACT OF ATONEMENT.17 R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON SAY: WHEREVER HE STOPPED, THERE HE MUST BEGIN AGAIN.18
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Concerning every ministration of the Day of Atonement mentioned in the prescribed order, if one service was done [out of order] before another one, it is as if one had not done it at all. R. Judah said: When does this apply? Only with regard to service performed in white garments, within [the Holy of Holies], but any service performed in white garments without, if in connection with them he performed one out of order before the other one, then what he has done is done [valid]. R. Nehemiah said: These things apply only to service performed in white garments, whether performed within [the Holy of Holies] or without, but in case of services performed in golden garments outside, what has been done, is done. Said R. Johanan: And both expounded it on the basis of one Scriptural passage: And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you . . . once in the year.19
(1) I.e., the garments with which the high priest performed the service of the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 23.
(2) Lit.,’that come as one’, i.e., in both there is a special verse stating that the same law applies.
(3) In both cases the Biblical law stipulates that they must not be used; Lev. XVI, 23 and VI, 3 (v.infra). The Torah should have stated the law in one case, for the other to be inferred in the usual manner. The identical statement in both cases — thus ruling out the usual analogy — indicates that both deal with unusual cases, from which no deduction would be legitimate.
(4) Lev. XVI, 23.
(5) Deut. XXI, 1f. ‘There’ (in the valley) indicates that it shall be buried there.
(6) Lev. VI, 3.
(7) Deut. XXI, 6. The definite article (ha-’arufah) is interpreted as implying limitation. The limitation excludes other things from the operation of this law.
(8) On 59b three Amoraim had inferred that the law of trespass does not apply to blood from three special, otherwise superfluous phrases. The Gemara now suggests that since three such special phrases appear, with but one of them necessary according to each Amora, they must each serve a limiting purpose.
(9) Portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time must be burnt. But blood of such left-overs is not included in the principle of left-overs, and, therefore, if one ate such blood, the penalty incurred derives only from the fact that he ate blood, not any additional penalty because he has eaten of left-overs.
(10) The law of trespass does not apply to blood.
(11) If someone ate of holy sacrifices in a state of levitical impurity, the penalty, if unwittingly, is a sin-offering, as it is for eating blood. The law does not apply to the blood of sacrifices, which if eaten in a state of levitical impurity involves only one sin-offering, viz., for eating blood.
(12) Piggul i.e., vile (ness) is the term used for a sacrifice that is rejected because of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest at the time of the sacrificing. Such improper intention includes his intention to dispose of the same beyond its legal space or time. (Lev. VII, 18 and ibid. XIX, 7.)
(13) The priests or owners by whom portions of the offering are consumed.
(14) On which the prescribed sacrificial portions are burnt.
(15) Zeb. 43a. The sprinkling of the blood makes parts of sacrifices permissible to the owner or priests; just as it makes certain portions of the animal fit to be offered up on the altar.
(16) In our Mishnah.
(17) Therefore every act of atonement completed, even if out of order is valid, without any repetition necessary.
(18) Even if the individual act of atonement has not been completed. These Rabbis hold that one may continue, or start again, even in the midst of a service, even though this service had been started out of order.
(19) Lev. XVI, 34.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 60b
R. Judah holds: [This means] the place on which once a year atonement is obtained: whereas R. Nehemiah holds that it refers to the objects through which once a year atonement is obtained.1 But according to R. Judah, is then ‘place’ written here?2 — Rather is this the reason for R. Judah's view: It is written ‘This’, and it is written ‘Once’, one excludes [services performed in] white garments, the other [those performed in] golden garments.3 And R. Nehemiah?4 — One excludes the golden garments, the other the remaining blood,5 which [if done out of order] do not impair [the service]. And R. Judah? — If [an act performed in white garments out of order] impairs the service,6 it impairs it here too, and if it does not impair [the service] it does not impair it here either;7 as it was taught:8 And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place,9 i.e., if he has obtained atonement he has completed it, if not, not. This is the opinion of R. Akiba. R. Judah said to him: Why should we not interpret thus: If he has completed it, he has obtained atonement, if not, not, to say, that if one of the sprinklings is missing, he has done nothing? And we inquired: What is the difference between them and R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi, each gave an answer: One said: They differ only as to the interpretation of the text, while the other said: The remaining blood10 is what they differ in. But did R. Johanan hold thus?11 Surely R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the remaining blood [offered not as prescribed] impairs [the service]?12 This is a refutation.
R. Hanina said: If he took the handfuls of the incense before the slaying of the bullock, he has done nothing. According to whom is this? [Presumably] not according to the view of R. Judah. Surely he said that the word ‘statute’ was written only in connection with ministrations performed in white garments within [the Holy of Holies]! — [No], you may say that it is even in agreement with R. Judah's view, inasmuch as what is necessary for a service performed within is considered as a service within.
We learned: IF BEFORE HE HAD FINISHED THE SPRINKLINGS WITHIN [THE HOLY OF HOLIES] THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, HE MUST BRING OTHER BLOOD, STARTING OVER AGAIN AND SPRINKLING WITHIN AGAIN. Now, if this view were right [it] should read: ‘He should start again with the taking of the handfuls’?13 —
(1) The word ‘statute’ denotes that the order for this day is statutory, hence any disregard would render a service out of order invalid. R. Judah holds that this ‘statute’- limitation has reference to the place whence once a year atonement is obtained, i.e., the Holy of Holies, whereas R. Nehemiah assumes it refers to the objects, by means of which, or in which, once a year atonement is obtained, i.e., both place and garments. Hence according to R. Judah the order is indispensable within the Holy of Holies, but not in the rest of the Sanctuary in which atonement is obtained frequently, and not but once in the course of the year. According to R. Nehemiah both place and garments, in which atonement must be obtained, have indispensable order of regulations.
(2) That the term ‘statute’ should refer to it?
(3) ‘This’ and ‘Once’ being limitations.
(4) How does he explain these two limitations?
(5) Even if the pouring out had been delayed beyond the order, services performed meantime remain valid. The fact that this is done in white garments has no effect on the enforcement of the order in which it is to be done.
(6) I.e., those parts of the service that were to follow it, but which were performed before it.
(7) And there is no reason to exclude the remainder of the blood.
(8) [That according to R. Judah the omission of the rite in connection with the remainder of the blood impairs the service, and consequently the term ‘statute’ should apply to it equally with the other acts performed in white garments.]
(9) Lev. XVI, 20.
(10) R. Akiba holds: the mission of the rite connected with it does not impair the atonement, as the main sprinklings had been made and the atonement is complete, even if the remaining blood has not been poured away; whereas R. Judah holds: If all is completed, then he has obtained atonement, if not (and failure to pour away the remaining blood would be included in this indispensable programme) not.
(11) That according to R. Nehemiah the remaining blood presents no handicap. Since above R. Johanan said that both used one Scriptural passage as their text and R. Nehemiah was consequently held to infer that the disposal of the remaining blood according to order was not indispensable.
(12) V. Zeb. 11a.
(13) Since R. Hanina holds that taking the handfuls of the incense before the slaughtering of the bullock is invalid, he would have to take afresh a new handful before slaughtering the second bullock.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 61a
He does not treat of the incense.1
‘Ulla said: If he slew the he-goat before sprinkling the blood of the bullock, he has done nothing. We learned: IF HE SPRINKLED THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT BEFORE THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, HE MUST START OVER AGAIN, SPRINKLING THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT AFTER THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK. Now, if this view were right, [it] should read: ‘He shall start over again’ and slaughter?2 — ‘Ulla explained this to refer to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary;3 and thus also R. Afes explained it to refer to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. LIKEWISE IN MATTERS OF THE SANCTUARY AND THE GOLDEN ALTAR: Our Rabbis taught: And he shall make atonement for the most holy place,4 i.e., the Holy of Holies [for] The tent of meeting, i.e., the Sanctuary;5 [for] the altar6 in the literal sense. ‘He shall make atonement’ — this [refers to] the courts; ‘the priests’ in the literal sense; ‘the people’, i.e., Israel; ‘He shall make atonement’, this refers to the Levites. Then they are all declared alike in respect of one atonement, for all other sins they7 obtain atonement through the he-goat-that-is-to-be-sent-away,8 this is the view of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: Just as the blood of the he-goat [the rites of which are] performed within obtains atonement for Israel in all matters of impurity touching the Sanctuary and its holy things,9 thus also does the blood of the bullock obtain atonement for the priests in all matters of impurity touching the Sanctuary and its holy things; and just as the confession over the he-goat-to-be-sent-away obtains atonement for Israel with regard to all other transgressions, so does the confession over the bullock obtain atonement for the priest for all other transgressions.10
Our Rabbis taught: ‘And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place’, this refers to the Holy of Holies; ‘The tent of meeting’, i.e., the Sanctuary; the altar, in its literal sense — this teaches that for all of these special [independent] atonements must be obtained. Hence they said: If he sprinkled some of the sprinklings made within, and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and start again from the beginning with the sprinklings within. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: He shall start but from the place where he stopped. If he has completed the sprinkling due within and the blood was poured away, then he shall bring other blood and he shall start from the beginning with the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. If he had sprinkled some of the sprinklings due in the Sanctuary and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and start again from the beginning with the sprinklings due in the Sanctuary. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: He need start but from the place where he had stopped. If he had completed the sprinklings due in the Sanctuary and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and start again from the beginning with the sprinkling due on the altar. If he had made some of the sprinklings due on the altar and the blood was poured away, he shall bring other blood and he shall start again from the beginning with the sprinklings due on the altar. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon said: He shall not start except from the place where he had stopped. If he had completed the sprinklings due on the altar and the blood was poured all agree that this is no handicap. Said R. Johanan: Both11 infer it from one scriptural passage: With the blood of the sin-offering of atonement . . . once a year.12 R. Meir holds: I have spoken to thee of one sin-offering [whereby to obtain one atonement], not of two sin-offerings; R. Eleazar and R. Simeon holding, I have spoken of one sprinkling, not of two sprinklings.13
It was taught: Rabbi said: R. Jacob taught me a difference with regard to the logs.14 But is there no [dispute]? Surely it has been taught: If he made some of the sprinklings within [the Sanctuary],15 and the blood was poured away, he must bring another log [of oil] and start again from the beginning with the sprinklings due within. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: He starts again from the place he had stopped at. If he had completed the sprinklings due within [the Sanctuary] and the log was spilt, he shall bring another log and start again from the beginning with the application on the thumbs16 and toes.16 If he had made some of the applications on the thumbs and toes and the log was spilt, he shall bring another log and start over again from the beginning with the applications on the thumbs and toes. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon hold: He shall start where he had stopped before. If he had completed the applications due on the thumbs and toes and the log was spilt, then all agree that the applications on the head are not a handicap.17 Say rather: R. Jacob taught me also [the difference of opinion] concerning the log.18
The Master had said: The applications on the head are no handicap. Why that? Shall I say because Scripture says: And what remaineth over of the oil,19 but then [when it says]: But that which is left of the meal-offering etc.,20 would you say that there, too, it constitutes no handicap?21 — It is different there because it is written: ‘And the rest’22 and what remaineth over etc’23
(1) He would certainly have to take anew the handfuls.
(2) [It is assumed that the reference is to the sprinklings within the Holy of Holies, with the result that the he-goat was slaughtered before the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock.]
(3) But the slaying of the he-goat took place in its proper place, after the blood of the bullock had been sprinkled within.
(4) Lev. XVI, 33.
(5) These sprinklings atone for any impurity that occurred in the Holy of Holies or the Sanctuary, if any person should have entered there unwittingly in a state of impurity. V. Shebu. 7b.
(6) If any impurity occurred to any person at the altar, he staying there for a period co-extensive with the time of one prostration.
(7) Priest, Levites and Israelites.
(8) Besides those of impurity. In the case of other transgressions the he-goat-to-be-sent-away obtains forgiveness for both priests and commoners. But for the sin implied in any impurity in the Temple, it is the bullock which obtains forgiveness for the priests, and the he-goat which brings it to Israel.
(9) Without confession. As there was no confession with that he-goat.
(10) V. Sheb. 13b.
(11) The anonymous authority who is R. Meir on the one hand, and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon on the other.
(12) Ex. XXX, 10.
(13) The word חטאת rendered ‘sin-offering’ means also ‘purge from sin’, hence sprinkle.
(14) With regard to the log of oil used for the purification of the leper (v. Lev. XIV, 21) R. Jacob had taught that unlike the sprinklings of the Day of Atonement, there was no dispute concerning the question here where one must start again after a service had been performed out of order.
(15) This refers to the purification rite of a leper, v. Lev. XIV, 16.
(16) Lev. XIV, verse 17.
(17) Hence the dispute between the Rabbis did affect the log of oil as well.
(18) The report had been originally misread. As R. Hananel suggests, it read: ‘R. Jacob had not made any difference with regard to the log’. In its original interpretation it implied: There was no difference of opinion among the Rabbis touching the log. But, since that report was now refuted, the meaning must have been: R. Jacob taught me that there was no difference between the log and the other case; in both the Rabbis are of divergent opinion.
(19) Lev. XIV, 29 which indicates that the oil used for the head is but a remainder and not an essential part of the rite.
(20) Ibid. II, 10.
(21) In reality it does, v. Men. 9a.
(22) Ibid. XIV, 17 with reference to the oil applied to the thumbs and toes.
(23) The oil applied on the thumbs and toes is thus designated ‘remainder’ and that applied on the head ‘remainder of remainder’ and therefore constitutes no handicap.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 61b
R. Johanan said: If the guilt-offering of a leper had been slaughtered not for its own purpose,1 — therein we find a dispute between [on the one hand] R. Meir, and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon [on the other]. R. Meir, who said he must bring another one and start all over from the beginning, would here consistently hold that he must bring another [animal as] guilt-offering and slay it, whereas R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who say: He shall start at the place he had left off before, would hold that here there is no redress.2
R. Hisda demurred to them: Surely it is written: ‘It’3 — This is a refutation. It was taught in accord with R. Johanan: If the guilt-offering of a leper had been slaughtered not for its own purpose, or if one had not sprinkled of its blood upon the thumbs and toes, it is considered a burnt-offering in regard to the altar and requires the [prescribed]4 libations and he requires another guilt-offering to render him right again.5 — And R. Hisda? — He will answer you: What means, he requires? — He requires, but he has no remedy [to get it]. But would a Tanna teach: ‘He requires’ when he has no remedy [of getting it]? Indeed, as it was also taught: [Concerning] a baldheaded nazirite Beth Shammai taught he requires to pass through a razor [over his head],6 whereas Beth Hillel said: He need not pass through a razor [over his head]. And R. Abina said: When Beth Shammai say: It is necessary, [they mean] he requires to [do so] but he has no remedy.7 He thus contradicts R.Pedath, for R. Pedath said: Beth Shammai and R. Eleazar say one and the same thing. ‘Beth Shammai’, as we have stated above, and ‘R. Eleazar’ as we have learnt:8 If he9 have no thumb or toe, he9 can never obtain purity. R. Eleazar said: One should place it on the place due, and thereby the duty is done. R. Simeon said: If he placed it on [the thumb and toe of] the right, he has done his duty.
Our Rabbis taught: And the priest shall take [receive] of the blood of the guilt-offering10 — one might have assumed that is to be done with a vessel, therefore the text reads: ‘And he shall put it’ i.e., just as the ‘putting’ must be done by the priest himself, so must the ‘taking’ be by the priest himself. One might have assumed the same applied to the blood which is to be used for [sprinkling upon] the altar, therefore the text reads: For as the sin-offering . . . so is the guilt-offering.11 Just as a vessel is necessary [for receiving the blood of a] sin-offering,12 so is a vessel necessary [for the blood of] the guilt-offering. You thus find yourself stating that in the case of the guilt-offering of the leper two priests receive the blood thereof, one in his hand,13 the other in a vessel.14 The first who receives it in the vessel proceeds to the altar, whereas the other who receives it in his hand goes to the leper.
We have learnt there: All of them15 render the garments levitically impure and are to be burnt in the place where the ashes are deposited. This is the opinion of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. The Sages say: They do not render the garments ritually unclean and they are not to be burnt in the place where the ashes are deposited, except the last one because with that he completed the atonement. — Raba asked the following question of R. Nahman: How many he-goats is he to send away?16 — He answered: Should he perhaps send his flock away?17 — He said to him:
(1) [I.e., he offered it in the name of some other sacrifice. In such a case the sacrifice is valid but is not accounted to the owner in fulfillment of his duty and the owner must consequently bring anew the offering which was due from him.]
(2) [R. Meir, who holds that part of a service that has not been completed is of no account, would similarly regard this incomplete guilt-offering as not offered and would require another guilt-offering; whereas R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who do not disregard that part of the service which had been performed, would hold that he cannot bring a new guilt-offering as Scripture explicitly states ‘One lamb for a guilt offering’ (Lev. XIV, 12) and not two.]
(3) Lev. XIV, 12: ‘And offer it as a guilt-offering’, i.e., only the one which has been waved together with the oil. This unequivocal statement of the Torah R. Meir too must accept, hence the interpretation just offered is to be rejected.
(4) V. Num. XV, 1ff.
(5) I.e., the leper becomes pure, normal again, so that he may eat holy things (sacrificial meat). This shews that there is a view that he can bring a new guilt-offering, which supports R. Johanan.
(6) Num. VI, 5: All the days of his vow of the Naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled, i.e., but when the days are fulfilled he shall have his hair cut.
(7) This bald-pate cannot do so. Yet it is stated ‘he requires’.
(8) Naz. 46b.
(9) The leper.
(10) Lev. XIV, 14.
(11) Ibid. XIV, 13.
(12) V. Zeb. 97b.
(13) For sprinkling on the leper himself.
(14) For the sprinkling on the altar.
(15) All the bullocks and he-goats mentioned in our Mishnah, in connection with blood poured away before the completion of the individual atonement or the whole service in question, and for which substitutes are obligatory, must be burnt outside the three camps (that of the priests, the Levites, and of Israel) and they render the garments of those occupied with burning impure. Lev. XVI, 27-28.
(16) [Where, for instance, the blood of the he-goat was poured away after the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies in which case he has to bring anew two goats and cast lots afresh.]
(17) Obviously only one he-goat-to-be-sent-away is dealt with in Lev. XVI.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 62a
Does he not burn1 his flock? — How compare these two? With regard to this, it is written ‘it’,2 touching the other it is not written ‘it’.
It was stated: R. Papi said in the name of Raba: He sends away the first. — R. Shimi said in the name of Raba: He sends away the last. It is quite right according to R. Shimi in the name of Raba, who said he sends the last away: that is because with him he completes the atonement, but what is the view of R. Papi in the name of Raba? — He holds with R. Jose who says: The commandment is properly fulfilled with the first one. Which view of R. Jose is referred to here? Shall I say it is R. Jose's view in the case of the baskets — for we learned: There were three baskets, each of three se'ahs, in which they took up terumah out of the [shekel] chamber3 and on them were inscribed [the letters] Alef, Beth, Gimel. And it was taught: R. Jose said: Why were Alef, Beth, Gimel inscribed upon them? So that one may know which of them was taken up first [out of the shekel chamber], so as to use it first, for the commandment properly applies to the first! But perhaps it is because at the time when the first is to be used, the others are not ready for use?4 Rather [do we refer to the view of] R. Jose touching the paschal sacrifice, for it has been taught:5 If one set aside his passover sacrifice and it was lost [went astray] and he set aside another one in his place and then the first was found again, so that both are before him, then he may offer up whichever he wants. This is the view of the Sages. R. Jose says: The commandment attaches properly to the first, but if the second be better than [the first] then he may offer it.
MISHNAH. THE TWO HE-GOATS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE ALIKE IN APPEARANCE, IN SIZE, IN VALUE, TO HAVE BEEN BOUGHT AT THE SAME TIME. BUT EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ALIKE THEY ARE VALID. IF ONE WAS BOUGHT ONE DAY AND THE OTHER THE FOLLOWING DAY, THEY ARE VALID. IF ONE OF THEM DIED BEFORE THE LOT WAS CAST ANOTHER ONE IS BOUGHT FOR THE SECOND ONE. BUT [IF IT DIED] AFTER THE LOT WAS CAST ANOTHER PAIR MUST BE BOUGHT AND THE LOTS CAST FOR THEM OVER AGAIN. AND IF THE ONE THAT WAS CAST FOR THE LORD DIED, HE [THE HIGH PRIEST] SHOULD SAY: LET THIS ON WHICH THE LOT FOR THE LORD HAS FALLEN STAND IN ITS STEAD. AND IF THE ONE THAT WAS CAST FOR AZAZEL DIED HE SHOULD SAY: ‘LET THIS ON WHICH THE LOT FOR AZAZEL HAS FALLEN STAND IN ITS STEAD. THE OTHER ONE IS LEFT TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED WHEN IT IS TO BE SOLD AND ITS VALUE GOES TO THE TEMPLE FUND. FOR THE SIN-OFFERING OF THE CONGREGATION MUST NOT BE LEFT TO DIE.6 R. JUDAH SAYS: IT IS LEFT TO DIE. FURTHERMORE SAID R. JUDAH: IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, THE GOAT-TO-BE-SENT-AWAY WAS LEFT TO DIE. IF THE GOAT-TO-BE-SENT-AWAY DIED THE BLOOD IS POURED AWAY.
G E M A R A.
(1) And yet it states that ‘all of them are burnt on the place where the ashes are deposited’.
(2) Lev. XVI, 10, with reference to the he-goat-to-be-sent-away. ‘It’ implies only ‘one’.
(3) Into which the shekels were thrown in the month of Adar, with which the priests filled the three baskets for the communal offerings. V. Shek. III, 2.
(4) When one basketful is taken up first one would obviously use that first, but the goat of the first pair could not be sent away before all the sprinklings of blood had been made, when the second is as fitting to be sent away as the first.
(5) Infra 64a.
(6) V. Tem. IV, 3.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 62b
Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take. . . two he-goats,1 now the minimum of he-goats is two; why then is ‘two’ mentioned? To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if the two are not alike they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘He-goat’, ‘he-goat’,2 which is inclusive [widens the scope]. Now the reason, then, is only that the Divine Law expressly includes it, but had the Divine Law not done so, one would have assumed that they are invalid. Whence do we derive this indispensability? — You might have thought that we say: ‘Two’ is written three times.3 But now that the Divine Law has twice written ‘he-goat’ what is the purpose of ‘two’ written three times? — One applies to appearance, the other to size, the third to value. It has been similarly taught in connection with the lambs of the leper: And he shall take two lambs.4 Now the minimum of lambs is two, then why does the text say: ‘Two’? To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if the two be not alike, they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘Lamb’, ‘lamb’,5 which is inclusive [widens the scope]. Now the reason is only that the Divine Law expressly includes it, but had the Divine Law not done so, one would have assumed that they are invalid, whence do we assume this indispensability? — You might have thought we say: It is written: [This] shall be [the law].6 But now that the Divine Law has said: ‘Lamb’, ‘lamb’, what purpose serves ‘shall be’? — That refers to the rest of the status of the leper.7
It was similarly taught in connection with the [birds of] the leper: Birds;8 now the minimum of birds is two. Why then is ‘two’ mentioned? To indicate that the two be alike. Whence do we know that even if they be not alike, they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘Birds’, ‘birds’,9 which is inclusive. Now the reason then is that the Divine Law expressly includes it, but had the Divine Law not included it, one would have assumed that they are invalid. Whence do we derive this indispensability? — You might have thought that we say that it is written ‘shall be’. But now that the Divine Law through ‘birds’, [‘birds’] includes it, what purpose serves ‘shall be’? — Because of the rest of the status of the leper.
If so, in the case of the daily burnt-offerings let us make a similar deduction: ‘Lambs’, ‘lambs’,10 since the minimum of lambs is two, why does the text read: ‘Two’? To indicate that they shall be alike. And whence do we know that even if they are not alike they are valid? Therefore the text reads: ‘Lamb’, ‘lamb’,11 which is inclusive.12 But as far as proper performance of the precept is concerned is it indeed required13 [that the lambs shall be alike]? — Here we need it for what has been taught: Two for the day10 i.e., against the day.14 You say: Against the day, but perhaps it really means, the daily duty? When it says: The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even,11 behold the daily duty is already stated, hence how do I apply the words: ‘Two for the day’? I.e., against the day. How is that? The continual morning offering was being slain on the north-western corner, on the second ring,15 whereas that of the even was slain on the north-eastern corner on the second ring.15 But the additional sacrifices of the Sabbath certainly must be alike.16
Our Rabbis taught: If he [the high priest] slew two he-goats of the Day of Atonement outside [the Temple court] before the lots were cast, then he is guilty in respect of both; if, however, after the lot was cast, then he is guilty17 in respect of the one cast ‘for the Lord’, but free in respect of the one cast ‘for Azazel’.18 If before he has cast the lots, he is guilty in respect of both of them. But what [sacrifice] are they fit for?19 — Said R. Hisda: Since [each] is fit to be offered up as the he-goat [the rites of which are] performed without.20 But why is it impossible to offer it up as the he-goat [of which rites are] performed within [the Holy of Holies]? presumably because it still lacks the casting of the lot? But then it ought to be unfit to be used as the he-goat [of which rites are performed] without, for the reason that it still lacks the other ministrations of the Day?21 — R. Hisda holds: One may not call the absence of any functions due on the same day a lack of time.22
Said Rabina: Now that R. Hisda said that the absence of the casting of the lot has the same significance as the absence of a [direct] action,23 then in view of what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: ‘Peace-offerings which have been slain before the doors of the Temple have been opened are invalid, as it is said: And he shall slay it at the gate of the tent of meeting,24 i.e., at the time when it is open, but not when it is closed’;
(1) Lev. XVI, 5.
(2) Ibid. 9, 10.
(3) Lev. XVI, 5, 7, 8 and thus indicates indispensability.
(4) Ibid. XIV, 10.
(5) Ibid. 12, 13.
(6) Ibid. 2. ‘Shall be’ implies precise instructions from which there may be no deviation.
(7) I.e., to the other regulations relating to the purification of the leper.
(8) Lev. XIV, 4.
(9) Ibid. 5, 6.
(10) Num, XXVIII, 3.
(11) Ibid. 4.
(12) It is inclusive, i.e., as long as it is a lamb, even if not exactly like the other, it is included in the terms of the commandment.
(13) This, however, is nowhere stated.
(14) I.e., the morning sacrifice is to be offered up against (opposite) the sun-rise, viz., on the western side of the altar, and the evening sacrifice on the opposite, namely, the eastern side (R. Han.).
(15) To the north of the altar were rings, twenty four, six rows of four each, at which they slaughtered the animal offerings. (V. Mid. III, 5.). On these rings the animals were securely tied before slaying. When the morning sacrifice was slain on the western side the light of the sun poured freely in, just as in the eve, when the sacrifice was slain on the eastern side, the rays of the sinking sun were unimpeded. Always in the direction opposite to the light of the day. Tosaf. suggests that the second ring rather than the first was used to prevent the animal from polluting the altar with excrements.
(16) [Since in connection with this only ‘two lambs’ is stated (V. Num. XXVIII, 9) but not the inclusive ‘one lamb’. V, Rashi and R. Han.]
(17) On the score of Lev. XVI, 3ff:
(18) The he-goat destined for Azazel would in any case be killed outside the Sanctuary hence nothing illegitimate took place, no change of place.
(19) That he should be liable for slaughtering them outside the Temple court.
(20) I.e.,in the Sanctuary proper, without the Holy of Holies. The additional sacrifice for the Day of Atonement, a he-goat, is offered up, its blood sprinkled without (Num. XXIX, 11).
(21) i.e., the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock and he-goat and the taking and offering of the handfuls of incense, all of which must take place before the additional sacrifice is offered up.
(22) The absence of the ministrations of the day mentioned in n. 3 does not affect the validity of the he-goat offered as an additional offering, as these do not constitute a defect in the he-goat itself, but are absent because the time for them had not yet arrived. Whatsoever is bound to come within the day, may not be considered wanting on that day. [This distinguishes it from the casting of lots, the absence of which constitutes a lack in the very he-goat which consequently renders it unfit for use within].
(23) In the offering itself, rendering it unfit for Temple use.
(24) Lev. III, 2.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 63a
if someone had slain them outside before the doors of the Temple had been open, he would be free, because the lack of opening is like the lack of a [direct] action.1 But does R. Hisda adopt the principle of ‘since’?2 Surely R. Hisda said: If someone had slaughtered the Passover sacrifice outside on any of the other3 days of the year, then, if he did it in its own name, he is free, but if he did it not in its own name, he is culpable.4 The reason [that he is culpable] lies in his having slaughtered it not in its own name. But if he had slaughtered it without any indication it is [as if — slaughtered] in its name, and he would be free? Why that? Let us say: Since it would be fit for a sacrifice not in its own name, within the Temple5 [he should be liable]? Now, how compare? There a removal is necessary,6 whereas this needs no such removal. Rabbah b. Shimi taught these [two statements of R. Hisda] as [emanating] from Rabbah. He then raises a difficulty from [the one view of] Rabbah against [the other given by] Rabbah; but answers [the difficulty] as we have answered. When R. Dimi [came from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Jeremiah, who said it in the name of R. Johanan: If one slaughtered a Paschal sacrifice outside on any of the other days of the year, whether in its name or not in its name, he is exempt. Said R. Dimi: I have reported this statement in the presence of R. Jeremiah [and queried]: It is all correct [in the case where it was slaughtered] in its name, since it is not fit [for the Temple], but [where it was] not in its name [why should it be exempt]? Surely it would be fit as a sacrifice not in its own name within the Temple? And he said this [in reply]: The removal [of the name of a sacrifice] outside [the Temple] is not deemed [an effective] removal.7 — When Rabin came [from Palestine], [he said that] R. Jeremiah said in the name of R. Johanan: If one had slain a Passover sacrifice outside on any of the other days of the year, whether in its own name or not in its own name, he is culpable. Even ‘in its own name’? But have we not learnt: A sacrifice whose time has not yet come [may be such] either because of itself or because of its owner. Which is a sacrifice whose time has not yet come because of its owner? If the owner, either man or woman, was afflicted with gonorrhoea, or was a woman after child-birth or a leper and had offered up their sin-offering or their guilt-offering outside [before the appointed time], they are free.8 But if they offered up their whole-offerings or their peace-offerings outside, they are culpable.9 And R. Hilkiah b. Tobi said: They did not teach thus only if they were offered up in their own name, but if they were not offered up in their own name, they were not culpable.10 Now at any rate, then, when offered up in their own name, the owners are culpable. But why that? Let us say, Since they are fit to be offered up in their own name within [they should be culpable]?- How compare? There a removal is necessary, but here Passover sacrifice during the rest of the days of the year is a peace-offering.11
R. Ashi taught:12 the owner is culpable, as we had stated above. R. Jeremiah of Difti taught he is not culpable, because he is of the opinion that the Passover sacrifice during the rest of the days of the year requires a removal,13 and the removal outside [the Temple] is not [effective]. Therein he disputes with R. Hilkiah b. Tobi.14
The Master said: ‘When the lot has been cast, he is culpable in respect of the one [he-goat] cast ‘for the Lord’, and free with respect to the one cast ‘for Azazel’. Our Rabbis taught: What man soever there be of the house of Israel that killeth an ox or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering unto the Lord.15
(1) So that the offerings were not fit for Temple use, and thus involve no guilt when offered outside.
(2) הואיל either derived from ע — יעל and א interchange frequently — thus: it helps — and followed by — ‘because’ since; or אילו + הא ‘look now, if’, i.e., once this is so, that also may be granted; or from the Biblical יאל 'accepted, agreed that this is so, that also ought to be accepted’, implying that because something is permitted in one case, the permission should be extended to all analogous cases.
(3) Besides the eve of Passover, the fourteenth of Nisan, which is the proper date for this sacrifice.
(4) Because in this case it is a peace-offering, which should have been slain within the Temple.
(5) It could be used within as a peace-offering.
(6) [It could not be used within as a peace-offering unless it had been expressly removed at the time of slaughtering from its original purpose as Passover sacrifice, and consequently as long as no such removal had been made it cannot be said to be fit for use within the Temple.] The he-goat offered within as well as the one without are sin-offerings in either situation.
(7) [Although a paschal lamb on any other days in the year can be removed from its original purpose and offered as a peace-offering, such a removal is effective only when it is offered within the Temple, but where it is offered outside, the paschal lamb retains its original name and purpose and consequently involves no guilt for having been slaughtered outside.]
(8) V. Lev. XV, 14, 29; XII, 6, XIV, 10.
(9) In the case of sin-offerings or guilt-offerings, which were offered up outside before they were due, no culpability is involved, because they are not acceptable within before their time has come, neither as obligatory nor as freewill-offerings. But burnt-offerings or/and peace-offerings, which are accepted even when not obligatory, are fit to be offered up within even before the appointed time, hence they involve culpability when offered up without. V. Zeb. 112b.
(10) This exemption applies only when the guilt-offering was offered up in its own name outside, in which case being before its appointed time it would be unfit for the Temple. But if it was offered up for another purpose than that originally designated, e.g., for a burnt — or peace-offering, where it would be acceptable within at any time, there is culpability when offered up without.
(11) Without the need of an express removal from its original purpose.
(12) With reference to the statement reported by Rabin.
(13) Before it can be offered as a peace-offering.
(14) Who holds that a removal outside the Temple is an effective removal.
(15) Lev. XVII, 3, 4.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 63b
From [the word] ‘offering’ I might have assumed that even offerings for the temple repair [are included], which are also called ‘offerings’, in accord with the Scriptural words: And we have brought the Lord's offering,1 therefore the text reads: ‘And hath not brought it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting’, i.e., whatsoever is fit to be brought to the tent of meeting, if offered up outside, involves culpability; but whatsoever is fit to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, if offered up outside, does not involve culpability. Thus I would exclude only those which are not fit to be offered up at the entrance of the tent of meeting, but I would not exclude [the cow for the sin-offering2 and] the he-goat-to-be-sent-away, which are fit to be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, therefore the text reads: ‘Unto the Lord’ i.e., only those assigned to the Lord, to the exclusion of such as are not assigned to the Lord.
But do the words ‘Unto the Lord’ imply exclusion,? I shall raise a contradiction: It may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord,3 i.e., the fire-offerings.4 Whence do we know that one may not dedicate it before its time has come?5 Therefore the text reads: ‘As an offering’. ‘Unto the Lord’, includes the he-goat-to-be-sent-away!6 Said Raba: There [the meaning is determined] by the context, and here too [its meaning is determined] by the context: There ‘Unto the entrance implies inclusion, therefore ‘Unto the Lord’ implies exclusion; here ‘An offering made by fire’ implies exclusion, hence ‘Unto the Lord’ has inclusive7 meaning. Now the only reason then is that the Divine Law included it, but if it had not done so I would have assumed that the he-goat-to-be-sent-away could be dedicated before its time.8 But9 the lot does not determine except such [an animal] as is fit ‘for the Lord’?10 — Said R. Joseph: This is in accord with Hanan the Egyptian, for it was taught:11 Hanan the Egyptian says: Even if the blood is in the cup, may he bring its mate and pair them.12 But admitted that Hanan does not accept the opinion concerning ‘rejection’13 you surely did not hear that Hanan does not accept the opinion as to the necessity of casting the lots? Perhaps he [the high priest] would have to bring [two] and cast lots [afresh]?14 — Rather, said R. Joseph, this [Baraitha]15 is in accord with R. Simeon, for it was taught: If one of them died, he brings another one without casting lots, this is the view of R. Simeon! Rabina said: The reference [in the Baraitha] is to a case in which one of them became blemished and was redeemed with another one.16 But whence will you say that a blemish renders it [the scapegoat] invalid? As it was taught: Nor make an offering by fire of them,17 this refers to the pieces of fat. From here I could infer only as to all the pieces. Whence do we know that it applies also to parts thereof? Therefore the text reads: ‘Of them’. ‘The altar’17 i.e., the sprinkling of the blood. Unto the Lord,17 that includes the he-goat-to-be-sent-away.
Now it was necessary [for the Scripture] to write [disqualifying a scapegoat], the blemished animal and one whose time has not yet come. For if the Divine Law had written only about the animal whose time has not yet come, I would have assumed there [it is disqualified] applies because its time has not yet come, but in the case of one blemished whose time had come, I might have assumed that [the disqualification does] not [apply]. And if the Divine Law had written about the blemished animal alone, I might have assumed the reason [for its being disqualified] there lies in repulsiveness, but with the animal whose time has not yet come, and where there is no repulsive feature, one might have assumed [the law] does [not] apply, hence it was necessary [to write about both].
(1) Num. XXXI, 50.
(2) The red heifer. Tosaf. supports Rashi's elimination of this reference to the red heifer, because the latter was not brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, hence is logically excluded from the present discussion.
(3) Lev. XXII, 27.
(4) Only from the eighth day are they acceptable as offerings.
(5) I.e., that an offering cannot be dedicated before the eighth day.
(6) This shows that ‘Unto the Lord’ implies inclusion.
(7) The he-goat-to-be-sent-away is not ‘for the Lord’, but fit to be brought unto the entrance of the tent of meeting. So ‘Unto the Lord’ excludes whatsoever is not assigned for the Lord. In the other passage ‘An offering made by fire’ excludes, of course, the goat, which is to be hurled from the precipice, whereas ‘Unto the Lord’ is complimentarily inclusive, hence the goat must not be offered up before it is eight days.
(8) I.e., before it is eight days old.
(9) V. Tem.6b.
(10) And that implies a minimum age, hence invalidation before its time.
(11) Zeb. 34b.
(12) Even if the blood of the he-goat to be sprinkled up within is in the cup, when the he goat-to-be-sent-away dies, no new casting of the lots is necessary according to Hanan, but, as is assumed at present, one may simply bring another he-goat from outside and pair it and appoint it for Azazel even without lots. Thus we see that Hanan does not hold the principle that the lot does not determine etc.; and consequently the he-goat-to-be-sent-away need not necessarily have reached its proper time hence a scriptural verse is necessary to teach that it must do so.
(13) He does not accept the view of R. Judah in our Mishnah that the scapegoat is to be rejected as unfit on account of the mishap to the other.
(14) Leaving the one, upon whom the lot ‘for the Lord’ now falls, to pasture until it acquires a blemish, whilst obtaining atonement through the blood of the first. At any rate, however, casting the lots is necessary, hence one whose time had not yet come would be invalidated, because the lot determines only what is ‘fit for the Lord’, i.e. whose time has come.
(15) Which requires a special text to teach that the he-goat-to-be-sent-away must be of minimum age.
(16) Where the he-goat-to-be-sent-away suddenly became blemished, its successor obtained by means of redemption needs no lot to determine its purpose, and, since no list was required, there is no implied obligation as to proper minimum age.
(17) With reference to blemished animals. Lev. XXII, 22.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 64a
Raba said: [It1 was necessary] for the case that he2 had a sick person in the house, for whom he killed the mother-animal on the Day of Atonement.3 But is it forbidden in such a case?4 Does not the Divine Law say: Ye shall not kill it5 and this is not killing?6 — In the West [Palestine] they said: Hurling it down from the [mountain] peak, that is its killing.
IF THAT ‘FOR THE LORD’ DIED, etc.: Rab said: The second of the first pair is to be offered up, the second of the second pair should be left to pasture.7 - R. Johanan said: The second of the first pair should be left to pasture, the second pair should be offered up. In what principle do they differ? — Rab holds: Living animals8 are not rejected [forever], whereas R. Johanan holds: Living animals are rejected [forever]. What is the reason for Rab's view? He infers it from those whose time has not yet come: An animal whose time has not yet come, although it is as yet unfit, when it later becomes fit again, will be quite in order. Thus also here. How can this be compared? There9 it was never fit at all. Here it was once fit and then rejected? — Rather is this the reason of Rab's view: He infers it from an animal afflicted with a passing blemish: An animal afflicted with a passing blemish surely although now unfit, yet when it is fit again, is quite in order. Thus also here. But whence do we know if touching the former? Because it is written: Because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them10 i.e., only as long as a blemish is in them are they not acceptable, but when their blemish passes they are acceptable. And R. Johanan? — The Divine Law stated ‘in them’10 i.e., only these are acceptable after the blemish has passed, but all other animals rejected [through temporary unfitness] once they have been rejected, stay rejected. And Rab? — The words ‘in them’ signify that only as long as they are in their natural form are they not acceptable, but as soon as they are mixed up with others, they are acceptable; as we have learnt,11 if the members of unblemished [whole-offerings] were mixed up with the members of blemished [animals], R. Eliezer says: If the head of one of them had been offered,12 the heads of all may be offered; if the legs of one of them had been offered, the legs of all may be offered. The Sages, however, say: Even if all the members with exception of one have been offered, this one must go forth to the place of burning. And the other one [R. Johanan]? He infers that from [the fact that instead of] ‘bam’ [is written] ‘bahem’.13 — And the other one [Rab]? — He does not expound from ‘bahem’ instead of ‘bam’. But according to Rab, granted that animals cannot be rejected for ever, if he wishes let him offer this, and if he wishes let him offer the other?14 — Raba said: Rab holds to the view of R. Jose, who said: The command attaches properly to the first. — Which [view of] R. Jose are you referring to? Shall I say, You say [the view of] R. Jose concerning the baskets, for we have been taught:15 There were three baskets each of three se'ahs,16 in which they took up terumah out of the shekel-chamber, and on each of them was inscribed: Alef, Beth, Gimel. And we have been taught: R. Jose said: Why is Alef, Beth, Gimel inscribed upon them? So that one may know out of which of them the terumah was taken up [out of the shekel-chamber] first, to use it first, for the command properly applies to the first! — But perhaps it is different there because at the time when the first is to be used, the others are not ready for use yet?17 - Rather is it R. Jose[‘s view] concerning the Passover sacrifice, for it was taught: If someone has separated his Passover sacrifice and it is lost, and he thereupon puts aside another one in its place, and afterwards the first one is found again, so that both are standing [ready to be used], then he can offer up whichever he prefers; this is the view of the Sages. R. Jose holds the commandment attaches properly to the first,18
(1) The verse disqualifying a scapegoat that has not reached its proper time.
(2) Who was the purveyor to the community of these animals.
(3) In case of a dangerously ill person the slaying of an animal for food or remedial purpose is permitted. Raba suggests the case that the purveyor of the he-goat had, on the Day of Atonement, slain its mother for the patient. But in view of the prohibition (Lev. XXII, 28:) Whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day, the he-goat would thus become an animal that was wanting in time all the Day of Atonement, after the lot had been cast.
(4) To use the young as scapegoat.
(5) Lev. XXII, 28.
(6) The prohibition is now interpreted to refer to the technical ritual slaying, whereas the scapegoat is being hurled down the precipice.
(7) Until it acquires a blemish.
(8) If they are temporarily invalidated, they can still be used by means of the substitution of another animal as pair.
(9) Because it was wanting in time and thus was never rejected.
(10) Lev. XXII, 25.
(11) Zeb. 77b.
(12) Before the confusion of the other members with the members of the whole-offerings had been noticed.
(13) From the fact that the Divine Law used the longer word ‘bahem’ instead of the shorter ‘bam’, which has the identical meaning, this inference is attempted. The rival view ignores this variation as not intended for additional inferences.
(14) Whereas the law here is stated to require only the first.
(15) V. supra 59b and notes.
(16) I.e., 144 eggs.
(17) But here although the lots had been cast, the goat could not be slain until after the blood of the bullock had been sprinkled. In the interim the he-goat with it had died, two others were brought in, and when the time for slaying the goat had come, the latter was already in readiness.
(18) For notes v. supra 59b.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 64b
but if the second one be very much better, he shall offer it up.
Raba said: Our Mishnah points to be in accord with Rab, whereas the Baraitha is in accord with R. Johanan. Our Mishnah is in accord with Rab for it reads: IF THE ONE THAT WAS CAST FOR THE LORD DIED, HE [THE HIGH PRIEST] SHOULD SAY: LET THIS ON WHICH THE LOT FOR THE LORD HAS FALLEN STAND IN ITS STEAD’ [implying] that the other remains as it is.1 The Baraitha is in accord with R. Johanan, for it reads: As to the second.2 I do not know whether [it means] the second of the first pair, or the second of the second pair. But from the words ‘shall be set alive’3 [I infer: only this one] but not one whose pair has died.4 How does that follow? — ‘It shall now be set alive’, [and] not the one that has been set [alive] before [but whose pair has died].
We learned: FURTHERMORE DOES R. JUDAH SAY: IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, THE SCAPEGOAT IS LEFT TO DIE; IF THE SCAPEGOAT DIED, THE BLOOD IS POURED AWAY. Now that is quite right according to R. Johanan, who holds living animals are rejected [permanently], — therefore the scapegoat is left to die. But according to Rab, who holds that living animals are not rejected [permanently], why should the scapegoat be left to die? — Rab will answer you: What I say, I say in accordance with the view, not of R. Judah, but of the Sages.5 It is quite right according to Rab: Therein lies the difference between the Sages and R. Judah; but according to R. Johanan, wherein lies the difference?6 — Raba said: That is what we have said [above]: The Mishnah points to be in accord with Rab.
We learned: FOR A COMMUNITY SIN-OFFERING IS NOT LEFT TO DIE. This [implies] that one of an individual, in such a case, would be left to die. Now that will be right according to R. Johanan,7 following R. Abba in the name of Rab, for R. Abba said In the name of Rab:
(1) In the state of holiness, without being rejected.
(2) The second mentioned in the Mishnah, that it is left to pasture.
(3) Lev. XVI, 10. One that ‘shall be set alive’, not one which had been set alive again, a second time.
(4) Hence the second in the Mishnah must refer to the second of the first pair.
(5) [Who, as is to be inferred from the words of R. Judah, held that the second in the first pair is to be offered, because in their view living animals are not rejected permanently].
(6) R. Johanan holds that the Sages insist that the second of the first pair must not be offered. Wherein then does R. Judah, in his additional remark (‘Furthermore’) differ from the Sages.
(7) Who holds that the second of the first pair is left to pasture.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 65a
All agree that if he had obtained atonement through [the animal that] had not been lost, [the animal that] had been lost must be left to die;1 but according to Rab it would be as if someone has set aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee [that one of them should be available if the other be lost],2 and R. Oshaia said: If someone had set aside two sinofferings for the purpose of guarantee, he gains atonement through one of them and leaves the other to pasture? — Since Raba said that Rab followed the view of R. Jose,3 who holds the commandment properly attached to the first, it is as if it4 had from the very beginning been set aside [in substitution] for the one that was lost. We learned: R. JUDAH SAYS: IT SHALL BE LEFT TO DIE. It is quite right in the view of R. Johanan who said that the second of the first pair must be left to pasture [that is, according to the Rabbis]5 and [it is this one which] according to R. Judah be left to die,6 so that he obtains atonement through the second one of the second pair; but if the view of Rab who said that the second of the second pair must be left to pasture, and [it is this one which] according to R. Judah must be left to die, then according to R. Judah7 through which can he obtain atonement? — Do you understand that R. Judah refers to the second of the second pair? R. Judah refers to the second of the first pair.8 Others framed the [above] question [against Rab]9 in the following manner: Furthermore did R. Judah say: If the blood was poured away, the scapegoat is left to die; if the scapegoat died the blood is poured away.
Now it is in order according to Rab: In the first part [of the Mishnah] they are disputing about the sin-offering of the community, and in the latter part about [the rejection of] living animals,10 but according to R. Johanan: What does ‘Furthermore signify?11 — This difficulty remains.12
FURTHERMORE SAID R. JUDAH: IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, THE SCAPEGOAT IS LEFT TO DIE. It is quite right that when the blood was poured away the scapegoat must die, because the command with it had not been fulfilled, but when the scapegoat died, why should the blood be poured away; surely the commandment therewith had been fulfilled? — The School of R. Jannai said: Scripture said: [The goat] shall be set alive before the Lord, to make atonement,13 i.e., how long must he stay alive? Until the time that his fellow's blood is sprinkled.
We have learnt elsewhere: If the inhabitants of a town sent their shekels14 and they were stolen or lost, then, if terumah15 has been taken up already, they16 swear an oath before the Temple treasurers; and if not they swear an oath before the people of the town; and the people of the town must pay the shekels anew. If they were found again or the thieves restored them, then both are taken as shekels17 and they do not count as prepayment for the dues of the next year. R. Judah says: They count for the next year.18 What is the reason of R. Judah's view? — Raba said: R. Judah holds that obligatory offerings of one year may be brought up in the following year. Abaye raised the following objection against him:19 If the bullock or the he-goat of the Day of Atonement were lost and he had set aside others in their place, also, if the goats offered up for idolatry [were lost] and others were set aside for them, then they must all be left to die, this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon hold: They shall be left to pasture until they become blemished, when they should be sold and the money realized for them should go for freewill-offerings, for the sin-offerings of the community must not be left to die.20 — He [Raba] answered:
(1) [If one had set aside an animal as sin-offering and the animal got lost, and after setting aside another in its stead, the lost animal was found, then according to Rabbi he obtains atonement with whichever he chooses and the other is left to die. The Sages, however, hold that it is left to pasture, as the law which requires that a sin-offering, the owner of which has obtained atonement by another, is to be left to die applies only if it was found after the atonement rites had been performed, but not if found before the atonement (V. Tem. 23a). Now in connection with this R. Abba said that there is no disagreement between Rabbi and the Sages where the atonement was obtained through the one which had not been lost, i.e., through the second, all agreeing in such a case that the first one is left to die. (In accordance with the established old law that if a sin-offering had been lost and the owner obtained atonement through another, when it is found again it is left to die). The dispute concerns a case where atonement was obtained through the first, after it had been lost and found again, Rabbi holding that what is set aside in substitution for that which had been lost is subject to the same law as the lost animal itself and hence must be left to die, whereas the Sages do not share the view. Now in our Mishnah on the view of R. Johanan, who holds that the second of the first pair is left to pasture, it rightly gives as reason ‘For no community sin-offering is left to die’; for had it been of an individual it would be left to die, since the atonement is being obtained through the one which had suffered no mishap, and had never been rejected.]
(2) [According to Rab who rules that the atonement is being obtained through the second of the first pair which had been rejected, how could the Mishnah state by implication that if it had been the sin-offering of an individual it would under similar circumstances be left to die? Not only would this not be the case according to the Sages, who rule that whatever is set aside in substitution for that which had been lost is not subject to the same law as the lost animal itself (v. previous note), seeing that he has obtained atonement through the one that had been rejected; but even according to Rabbi (v. ibid) it would not have to be left to die, since the second of the second pair has never been set aside as substitution for the one that had been lost, seeing that its predecessor is still alive. It was merely set aside as a companion to the other which had to be brought in place of the one (the first goat cast for Azazel) that had died. But since living animals cannot be permanently rejected, he should in such a case be able to offer either, just as in the case where one sets aside two offerings as a guarantee for each other.]
(3) V. supra 64a.
(4) [I.e., the second of the second pair, and hence but for the fact that it was a public sacrifice it would have been left to die.]
(5) The authority of the first view reported anonymously in the Mishnah.
(6) [It is now assumed that R. Judah's rule that it must be left to die has reference to the one which, according to the Rabbis, is left to pasture, since R. Judah perforce is of the opinion that living animals are permanently rejected as has been established, supra 64b.]
(7) [He surely cannot obtain atonement by means of the first, seeing that he holds that living animals are permanently rejected.]
(8) [For in the view of Rab, R. Judah differs from the Rabbis also on the question of the fitness of the second of the first pair for sacrifice; whilst the Rabbis hold that it is offered, R. Judah holds that it is left to die.]
(9) Raised supra 64b.
(10) The Rabbis holding that they are not permanently rejected, hence atonement is obtained through the second of the first pair, whereas R. Judah (as has just been explained) holds that the second in the first pair is left to die and the second in the second pair is offered up.
(11) The Rabbis, too, agree that the second in the first pair remains rejected.
(12) Even as stated supra 64b that the Mishnah is in support of Rab.
(13) Lev. XVI, 10.
(14) Through messengers to Jerusalem to pay their Temple dues.
(15) Lit., ‘heave-offering’, here denoting the contribution of Shekels taken up at stated times from out of the shekel-chamber in the Temple from which public sacrifices were bought, v. Shek. III, 1ff
(16) The messengers take the oath of bailees in accord with Ex. XXII, 10.
(17) For the current year.
(18) For notes v. Shek., Sonc. ed., II, 1.
(19) Shebu. 11a.
(20) Hence we see that R. Judah does not permit the obligation of one year to be kept in order to be brought up the following year, otherwise he would not have ruled that this should be left to die, which contradicts the view just expressed.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 65b
You speak about community sacrifices? It is different with community sacrifices, even as R. Tabi said, in the name of R. Josiah. For R. Tabi said in the name of R. Josiah: Scripture said: This is the burnt-offering of every new moon throughout the months of the year.1 The Torah indicates: Renew and bring Me an offering of the new terumah.2 That will be right concerning the he-goat.3 But can it be said in the case of the bullock? Preventive measure attaches to the bullock because of the he-goat. And because of preventive measure shall they be left to die?4 And, furthermore, the statement of R. Tabi in the name of R. Josiah characterizes the action as merely a meritorious deed, for R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: It is a meritorious deed to offer the community sacrifices, which are due in Nisan, from the new terumah. If he had offered them from the old, he has fulfilled his duty, but has omitted a meritorious deed! — Rather, said R. Zeira: [The reason why they cannot be offered in the following year is] because the lot of one year cannot determine for the following year. But let us cast lots again? — There is the fear that people might say the lots do determine from one year for the next. That will be reasonable as far as the he-goat is concerned, but what can be said about the bullock? — The prohibition attaches to the bullock because of the he-goat. And because of a preventive measure shall they be left to die? — The Rabbis before Abaye said that to be a preventive measure on account of a sin-offering whose owner had died.5 That will be right in the case of the he-goat, but what of the case of the bullock? — The restriction in the case of the bullock derives from the he-goat. And because of a preventive measure shall they be left to die? — Rather is it a restriction because of a sin-offering whose year is past.6 Is that [but] a preventive measure? This is itself a sin-offering whose year is past.7 This is no difficulty, in accord with the view of Rabbi. For it was taught:8 A full year,9 one counts three hundred and sixty-five days according to the year of the sun, this is the view of Rabbi. The Sages say: One counts twelve months from day to day.
(1) Num. XXVIII, 14.
(2) V. R.H., Sonc. ed., p. 25, nn. 8 — 9.
(3) Which was provided from the funds of the shekel-chamber.
(4) It would seem sufficient that they be left to pasture.
(5) If the priest should die that year.
(6) I.e., the fear that by the next Day of Atonement it may be more than a year old. All the he-goats offered up as sin-offerings are invalidated after they have reached the age of one year.
(7) Obviously this sin-offering will be past one year this time next year.
(8) R. H. 6b.
(9) Lev. XXV, 30. The reference here is to the time (one year) during which the seller of a dwelling house in a walled city may redeem the property sold by cancellation of contract.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 66a
And if the year be a prolonged year, the advantage belongs to the seller.1 That is right as far as the he-goat is concerned. But what can be said in the case of the bullock? — The preventive measure attaches to the bullock because of the he-goat. And because of a preventive measure shall he be left to die? And, furthermore, a sin-offering, whose [first] year is past, is left to pasture,2 for Resh Lakish3 said: As to a sin-offering which has passed its year, we look upon it as if it were standing on the cemetery4 and it is left to pasture? — Rather, said Raba, is the restriction due to the fear of an offence,5 for it was taught:6 One may neither consecrate anything, nor vow any ‘valuation’,7 nor declare anything as devoted8 nowadays.9 And if one had consecrated or vowed a ‘valuation’, or declared anything as devoted, if an animal, it should be uprooted;10 if fruits, vessels or covers, one should let them rot; if money or metal vessels, they are to be taken to the Salt [Dead] Sea.11 And what does ‘uprooting’ mean? Locking the door before it, so that it die of itself. What kind of offence [is here contemplated]? If an offence in connection with the offering up, that ought then to apply to other cases of pasturing animals also?12 If an offence in connection with shearing or working it, then that ought to apply to other pasturing animals too? In truth the offence contemplated is one in connection with the offering-up, but with those which are not to be offered up13 one is not pre-occupied, whereas with this one, since it is to be offered up, he would be pre-occupied. Now as to the question itself whether we fear the possibility of an offence, Tannas are disputing. For it was taught in one [Baraitha]: A Paschal lamb which was not offered up on the first Passover may be offered up on the second,14 and if not offered up on the second, may be offered up in the following year. And another [Baraitha] taught: It must not be offered up. Is it not then that they dispute touching [the fear of] an offence? — No, all agree we are not apprehensive as to a possible offence; but here they are disputing in the matter at issue between Rabbi and the Sages,15 and there is no contradiction [between the two Baraithas]; the one is in accord with Rabbi, the other with the Rabbis [Sages].16 — But was it not taught: The same applies to the money?17 Hence rather infer from here that they are disputing in regard to the fear of the offence. — That inference is accepted.
MISHNAH. HE THEN CAME TO THE SCAPEGOAT AND LAID HIS TWO HANDS UPON IT AND HE MADE CONFESSION. AND THUS WOULD HE SAY: I BESEECH THEE, O LORD, THY PEOPLE THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL HAVE FAILED, COMMITTED INIQUITY AND TRANSGRESSED BEFORE THEE. I BESEECH THEE, O LORD, ATONE18 THE FAILURES, THE INIQUITIES AND THE TRANSGRESSIONS WHICH THY PEOPLE, THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, HAVE FAILED, COMMITTED AND TRANSGRESSED BEFORE THEE, AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH OF MOSES, THY SERVANT, TO SAY: FOR ON THIS DAY SHALL ATONEMENT BE MADE FOR YOU, TO CLEANSE YOU; FROM ALL YOUR SINS SHALL YE BE CLEAN BEFORE THE LORD. AND WHEN THE PRIESTS AND THE PEOPLE STANDING IN THE TEMPLE COURT HEARD THE FULLY-PRONOUNCED NAME COME FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF THE HIGH PRIEST, THEY BENT THEIR KNEES, BOWED DOWN, FELL ON THEIR FACES AND CALLED OUT: BLESSED BE THE NAME OF HIS GLORIOUS KINGDOM ‘FOR EVER AND EVER. THEY HANDED IT OVER TO HIM WHO WAS TO LEAD IT AWAY. ALL WERE PERMITTED TO LEAD IT AWAY,19 BUT THE PRIESTS MADE IT A DEFINITE RULE NOT TO PERMIT AN ISRAELITE20 TO LEAD IT AWAY. R. JOSE SAID: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT ARSELA OF SEPPHORIS LED IT AWAY, ALTHOUGH HE WAS AN ISRAELITE. AND THEY MADE A CAUSEWAY FOR HIM BECAUSE OF THE BABYLONIANS, WHO WOULD PULL ITS HAIR, SHOUTING TO IT: ‘TAKE21 AND GO FORTH, TAKE AND GO FORTH’.
GEMARA. But he did not say: ‘The sons of Aaron, thy holy people’; which Tanna is of this opinion? — R. Jeremiah said: This is not in accord with R. Judah, for if it were in accord with R. Judah, surely he said: They, too, obtain atonement from the scapegoat?22 Abaye said: You might even say that it is in accord with R. Judah: Are the priests not included in ‘Thy people Israel’? Our Rabbis taught: A man23 [means] to declare a non-priest eligible;24 appointed23
(1) According to Rabbi, the count always goes according to the number of the days of the solar year, independent as to intercalation or non-intercalation of the extra month, so that the sin-offering need not necessarily have passed its first year by the next Day of Atonement.
(2) And not to die.
(3) Pes. 97a.
(4) Which no priest is permitted to enter, i.e., the animal must not be slaughtered.
(5) Lit., ‘stumbling-block’.
(6) That the fear of an offence is taken into consideration.
(7) V. Lev. XXVII, 3.
(8) Ibid. 28.
(9) After the destruction of the Temple, things consecrated, valued or devoted in favour of it, since not available for the Sanctuary to which they are properly assigned, must be destroyed.
(10) This is soon explained.
(11) [So MS.M. Cur. edd.: he should take the value of the benefit derived from them to the Salt Sea.]
(12) If the offence lies in the possibility that it may be offered up instead of being left to pasture until it acquires a blemish, the same apprehension would be justified with regard to any other animal which is ruled to be left to pasture.
(13) In other cases where animals are ruled to be left to pasture, these animals themselves will never become fit for offering, since they are left to pasture till they become blemished, when they are sold and with the proceeds another animal is bought for offering. Hence he would not be preoccupied with the thought of offering them, as in the case of the animal which is to be offered up on the next Day of Atonement and which he might thus offer up before.
(14) The second Passover for those who were far away or ritually unclean on the fourteenth of Nisan. To some such person this lamb may be sold .V. Num. IX,9.
(15) As supra 65b, whether a complete year denotes a solar year or exactly twelve months.
(16) [According to Rabbi it would perforce be past its first year on the following Passover, when it would be disqualified for a Paschal lamb, hence it cannot be offered in the coming year; whereas, according to the Sages, it might still be under a year, hence it may be retained for the coming year.]
(17) [I.e., the same dispute which is found in connection with the Paschal lamb applies also to money which had been set aside for one year's Paschal lamb, whether it may be used for the next year. Now in the case of money, surely the point at issue between Rabbi and the Sages does not apply.]
(18) Lit., ‘wipe off’.
(19) Var. lec., high priests.
(20) I.e., a non-priest.
(21) Sc. our sins.
(22) V. supra 61a.
(23) V. Lev. XVI, 21.
(24) For taking away the scapegoat into the wilderness.
Talmud - Mas. Yoma 66b
[means] that he must be prepared [from the previous day]; ‘appointed’ [means] that [it is to send away]; even on the Sabbath ‘appointed’, even if in a state of uncleanness.1 [You say]: ‘Man [means] to declare a non-priest eligible’, but that is obvious? — You might have thought that since [the term] Kapparah [atonement] is written in connection therewith,2 therefore he informs us [as above]. — ‘Appointed’, i.e., even on the Sabbath. What does this teach?3 — R. Shesheth said: It is to say that if it is sick, he may make it ride on his shoulder. According to whose view is this? Not according to R. Nathan, for R. Nathan said: A living being carries itself!4 -You may even say that this is in accord with R. Nathan: when it is sick it is different,5 however.
Rafram said: This is to say that [the laws of] ‘erub6 and carrying out7 apply on Sabbath, but do not apply on the Day of Atonement.8 ‘Appointed’, i.e., even in a state of uncleanness.9 What does that teach? — R. Shesheth said: It is to say that if he who is to carry it away became unclean, he may enter in impurity the Temple Court10 and carry it away.
R. Eliezer was asked: What about his carrying it on his shoulder? — He said: He could carry you and me.11 If he who is to take it away became sick, may he send it away through someone else? — He said: I wish to keep well, I and you!12 If he pushed it down and it did not die, must he go down after it and kill it? — He said to them: So perish all Thine enemies, O Lord.13 But the Sages say: If it became sick, he may load it on his shoulder; if he pushed it down and it did not die, he shall go down and kill it. They asked R. Eliezer: ‘What about So-and-so14 in the world to come’? — He replied, ‘Have you asked me only about this one’?15 ‘May one save the lamb from the lion’? — He said to them: ‘Have you asked me only about the lamb’?15 ‘May one save the shepherd from the lion’? — He said to them: ‘Have you asked me only about the shepherd’?16 ‘May a mamzer17 inherit’? — [He replied]: ‘May he marry the wife of his brother who died without issue’?18 ‘May one whitewash his house’?19 — [He replied]: ‘May one whitewash his grave’? — [His evasion was due] not to his desire to divert them with words [counter-questions], but because he never said anything that he had not heard from his teacher.20
A wise woman asked R. Eliezer: Since with regard to the offence with the golden calf all were evenly associated, why was not the penalty of death the same?21 — He answered her: There is no wisdom in woman except with the distaff. Thus also does Scripture say: And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.22 It is stated: Rab and Levi are disputing in the matter. One said: Whosoever sacrificed and burned incense died by the sword; whosoever embraced and kissed [the calf] died the death [at the hands of Heaven];23 whosoever rejoiced in his heart died of dropsy. The other said: He who had sinned before witnesses and after receiving warning,24 died by the sword; he who sinned before witnesses but without previous warning, by death; and he who sinned without witnesses and without previous warning, died of dropsy.
Rab Judah said: The tribe of Levi did not participate in the idolatry, as it is said: Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp.25 Rabina was sitting and reporting this teaching, whereupon the sons of R. Papa b. Abba objected to Rabina: Who said of his father and of his mother: ‘I have not seen him, etc.’?26 — ‘His father’, that is the father of his mother, an Israelite; ‘brother’, the brother of his mother, an Israelite; ‘sons’, that means the sons of his daughter [which she had] from an Israelite.
AND THEY MADE A CAUSEWAY FOR HIM etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: These were not Babylonians but Alexandrians, and because they [the Palestinians] hated the Babylonians,27 they called them [the Alexandrians] by their [the Babylonians’] name. It was taught: R. Judah said, They were not Babylonians, but Alexandrians. — R. Jose said to him: May your mind be relieved even as you have relieved my mind!28
MISHNAH. SOME OF THE NOBILITY OF JERUSALEM USED TO GO WITH HIM UP TO THE FIRST BOOTH. THERE WERE TEN BOOTHS FROM JERUSALEM TO THE ZOK29
(1) This is soon explained.
(2) And this term as a rule occurs only in connection with a rite performed by priests.
(3) What Sabbath desecration could the taking of the scapegoat to the wilderness involve?
(4) V. Shab. 90a. Hence no transgression would be involved in carrying it.
(5) A sick being, unable to ‘carry itself’, might logically be assumed to be an exception to R. Nathan's rule.
(6) v. Glos.
(7) I.e., transferring an object from public to private grounds and vice versa, both of which were prohibited on the Sabbath.
(8) Since the word ‘anointed’ is here interpreted as referring to the suspension of the Sabbath law, the inference is justified that no such prohibition existed on the Day of Atonement, or else it would be illogical to say that a special statement permits the suspension of these laws on the Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath, since they would be operative on any Day of Atonement, even if it fell on a weekday. The laws of ‘carrying out’ and ‘erub belong together, hence strictly speaking, the Gemara need not have mentioned both; when one is applied, the other automatically applies too.
(9) How should the laws on levitical uncleanness apply to the taking of the scapegoat to the wilderness?
(10) When he receives it from the high priest.
(11) R. Eliezer made a point of not answering any question concerning which he had not received a definite tradition or interpretation from his teachers.
(12) This, too, is an evasive answer: You and I are well, hope to keep well, why trouble about such hypothetical situations?
(13) Judg. V, 31.
(14) Peloni. It may have been a general question concerning ‘John Doe’, or it may refer to Solomon's (Rashi), or to Absalom's (R. Han.) regard for the Davidic Dynasty being responsible for the substitution of the vague Peloni. [Some see in Peloni a reference to Jesus, Finkelstein L. to Philo. Bokser, B.Z Pharisaism in Transition pp. 18ff, rightly regards these identifications as hardly supported by any facts.]
(15) Ali his answers are evasive.
(16) Some see in the question about the shepherd a reference to David, who as lion (King) or as shepherd had taken the lamb (Bathsheba) from her husband. Others see the lamb in Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, whom the lion (David) sent to his death.
(17) May a bastard (the issue of a union forbidden under the penalty of extinction) inherit his father?
(18) Why don't you ask the whole question: How far does he participate in the rights and duties of normal Jews?
(19) May one whitewash one's house in spite of the fact that one ought to remain conscious all the time of the destruction of the Temple, etc.
(20) [V. Suk., Sonc. ed., p. 122. Bokser, op. cit. pp. 108f sees in these questions differences of opinion on important points of law. The question about sheep concerned the ban against cattle-raising which the Rabbis wished to enforce (v. B.M. 84b) and which R. Eliezer opposed as having no precedent in tradition. The questions relating to the mamzer involved the imposition of certain discriminations against the mamzer of which R. Eliezer did not approve, and similarly he refused to accept the prohibition of the other Rabbis of plastering one's house in sad remembrance of the destruction of the Temple, not finding any support for it in tradition].
(21) Scripture mentions three forms of penalties: Some died by the sword (Ex. XXXII, 27), others by the plague (ibid. 35), the rest by dropsy as the result of their drinking the water containing the gold dust, which Moses had offered them in expiation (ibid. 20).
(22) Ex. XXXV, 25.
(23) I.e., died by the plague.
(24) Penalty could be imposed only when the offence had been committed in the presence of two witnesses who accuse the defendant, after he had been warned as to the consequences of his offence.
(25) Ex. XXXII, 26. (cont.) and said: ‘Whoso is on the Lord's side, let him come unto me’. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
(26) Deut. XXXIII, 9. Here seems scriptural proof that the Levites, in punishing the guilty, ignored relationships, such as father or mother, but executed punishment on all. Thus their relatives, other Levites, must have been guilty.
(27) This hatred caused them to look down upon the Babylonians as remiss in their religious duties, and to father upon them other people's wrongs.
(28) R. Jose was a Babylonian. He welcomes the interpretation, which freed his fellow-countrymen from the charge of such boorish conduct.
(29) Lit., ‘the peak’, the mountain top from which the scapegoat was precipitated. Also used to denote the precipice itself.
Directory of Sedarim and Tractates