Jerusalem Yoma

MISHNAH: Seven days before the Day of Atonement one isolates the High Priest from his house1Meaning his wife, as explained later in the Mishnah. To prevent him from becoming impure should the wife become impure by menstruation. to the Parhedrin2In the Halakhah the name also appears as פלהדרין with change of liquids. Possibly derived from πάρεδρος, ὁ, “adjunct”; cf. Note 113. lodge and one prepares another Cohen because he might become disqualified3Since the entire Temple service of the Day of Atonement has to be performed by the High Priest himself, there must be somebody trained to act as High Priest in case the officiating one becomes somehow impure and unable to continue.. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, since maybe his wife would die, for it is said, he shall atone for himself and his house4Lev. 16:6., his house means his wife. The Sages said to him, in this case the procedure never ends5Since the substitute wife also could die, one would need an unlimited supply of wives, but the High Priest is biblically restricted to one wife. Disqualification can be foreseen, death cannot be foreseen.. HALAKHAH: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan understood if6That the separation of the High Priest from his wife for seven days has some biblical justification. A much shorter version covering both interpretations given here is in Sifra Ṣaw, Mekhilta de Milluim 37; differently Babli 2a. from the following: As he did on that day7Lev. 8:34, referring to the dedication of the Tabernacle, where Aaron and his sons spent seven full days, day and night, at the Tabernacle, far from their families., these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command for future generations8Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.. To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement9The verb עשׂה is used in Lev. 16:15 for the blood of the goat sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. The same verb also is used in 9:7 with reference to the goat sacrificed on the eighth day of dedication which happened to be the first of the first month.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one10The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true. is atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves, the other also must be atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow11The priest in charge of burning the Red Cow to produce the ashes which cleanse from the impurity of the dead also had to be separated for seven days (Mishnah Parah 3:1).. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there12Num. 19:2., this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement10The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also13The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16 refer exclusively to actions by the High Priest. Babli 3b. is atonement through the High Priest. What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers14Based on the preceding text, one has to read “does not infer” since in the explanation attributed to R. Joḥanan, burning of the Cow is not mentioned. (In the Babli 2a, an argument close to that of Bar Qappara here is attributed to R. Joḥanan, but this should be irrelevant for the study of the Yerushalmi.) from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow15The separation of the priest who will burn the Cow is purely rabbinical; Tosephta Parah 3:1., one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer16Here one has to read: “who infers.” it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling17Since it is to be presumed that the Cohen selected to burn the Cow was pure, water with ashes from prior Cows will make him impure (Sifry Num. 129). But this impurity is minor, it can be removed by immersion in a miqweh and the following sundown. It is obvious that no sprinkling can be done on the day of the burning.In fact, a Pharisee Cohen burning the Cow is made impure and has to cleanse himself in a miqweh on the day of the ceremony because of a quarrel with Sadducees, Mishnah Parah 3:7.?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow18Everybody agrees that the rules for the Cohen burning the Cow are purely rabbinical, not accepted by Sadducees, and bar Qappara’s mention of the burning of the Cow is a far-fetched simile, not an authoritative interpretation of the verse.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan19Babli 3b.: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct20In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.? And he accepted it from him21The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”22In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.. Since (breaking the neck)23This must read: “burning in smoke”. is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke]24The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4). is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct25If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads26Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13. and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread27The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8..] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve28It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt29Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”., “taking” is mentioned for lulav30Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle31In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion., so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle32Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified..] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing34Babli 4a.. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it33The rule that the High Priest is separated from his family for seven days before the Day of Atonement.? Following that of Rebbi Ismael:34Babli 4a. With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary35Lev. 16:3., what was said in the matter36Of Aaron’s induction into the High Priesthood.. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter37Lev. 16:1. and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse38He still has to explain the same verse used by R. Joḥanan and Bar Qappara, which he himself proved to be inadequate.? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai39Ex. 24:16.. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days40It is not a biblical requirement but popular usage supported by an aggadic argument.. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why is the death of Aaron’s sons mentioned in the matter when they died during initiation? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Aaron’s sons died on the First of Nisan; why does He mention their death at the Day of Atonement41Lev. 16:1.? To teach you that just as the Day of Atonement atones for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Ba bar Binah said, why did the verse append the death of Miriam to the Chapter of the Cow42The rules of the Red Cow and purification from the impurity of the dead are given in Num. 19; the death of Miriam is noted in v. 20:1.? To teach you that just as the ashes of the Cow atone for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, why did the verse append the death of Aaron to the breaking of the Tablets43The breaking of the Tablets and the story of the Golden Calf are quoted in Deut.9:7–29; Aaron’s death is mentioned in 10:6 in a verse which requires further explanation, given in the next paragraph without reference to the Day of Atonement. Lev. rabba 20, end.? To teach you that the death of the Just is as hard for the Holy One, praise to Him, as the breaking of the Tablets. 44For this Aggada and more aggadic parts in this Tractate there exists a Medieval copy in the Qonteros Aḥaron of Yalqut Shimˋony reproduced by L. Ginsberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, pp. 311–313, referred to by Q. A short parallel is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a; parallels are in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bešallaḥ, Masekhta de Wayassa 1; Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18. The entire paragraph is discussed by Rashi in his Commentary to Num. 26:13. It is written45Deut. 10:6. According to Num., he did not die at Mosera and never was buried. In the text, the word [אל] has been added from the masoretic text and Q.: and the Children of Israel travelled from the wells of Bene Yaaqon to Mosera; there Aaron died. Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? This is what is written46Num. 33:38., Aaron the Priest ascendedMount Hor by the order of the Eternal and died there. But when Aaron died, the clouds of glory47Who had covered the Israelites’ camp from the moment of the Exodus. disappeared and the Canaanites wanted to attack them. This is what is written48Num.21:1., the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the Negev, heard that Israel came in the way of Atarim, and made war against Israel. What means “in the way of Atarim”? That the great scout had died who had scouted the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and returned eight travel stations49As enumerated in Num. 33.. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed from them eight families50In Q: “16 families”.. Also they killed from them four families, 51A redundant verse in 1Chr. 26:23. (See Rashi, quoted in Note 44).for the Amramite, the Yisharite, the Ḥevronite, the Uzzielite. When did they recover? In the days of David. This is what is written52Ps. 72:6., in his days the just may bloom, immense peace, without moon-periods. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not show compassion for this perfect person53To organize due eulogies. In this context, גְּמִילוּת חֶסֶד means services to the living or the dead by a person himself, which cannot be bought by money.. They sat down, organized his eulogies, and showed compassion for this Just; then the Omnipresent credited them as if he had died there, was buried there, and they showed compassion for the perfect person. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the tenth of an ephah and breeches obstruct54The presentation of twelve breads which is the daily offering of the High Priest (Note 26) and the initiation of offering of a common priest (Lev. 6:13) as well as the breeches which are part of the priests’ holy garments (Ex. 28:42–43), even though they are mentioned neither in the instructions for the initiation rites given to Moses (Ex. 28) nor in the record of the execution of these instructions (Lev. 8), are necessary and the omission of the offering or failure to wear the breeches would have invalidated the entire proceedings. Babli 5b.. What is the reason? Both are “making”55It is held that every commandment using the verb עשה requires strict adherence to the rules given by this verb. The verb is used for the initiation of a priest in Lev.6:14, for the high priest in Lev. 6:15, and Moses is ordered to “make breeches” for the priests in Ex. 28:42.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, and do with Aaron and his sons so56Ex. 29:35. The verse continues, all that I commanded you., all which is written in the Chapter obstructs. This comes following what Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is the word57Lev. 8:5, the declaration of Moses to the people explaining the initiation rites., and this is the word58Ex. 29:1, the instruction for future initiation rites., even reading the Chapter obstructs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anything obstructing for future generations obstructs here, [and anything not obstructing for future generations does not obstruct here.] What do you have? The leaning of hands59The leaning of hands of Aaron and his sons on the heads of the sacrificial animals (Ex. 29:10,15,19) which for the initiation rites is an essential act but in the rules of sacrifices (Lev. 1–5) is prescribed only for private offerings, and in no case would the failure to follow the requirement disqualify the sacrifice. and the remainders of the blood60The remainder of the blood collected by the Cohen after the required sprinkling of blood on the altar walls has to be poured into the base of the altar. But this act is not required for validity of the sacrifice; if the blood becomes impure after the sprinkling, the blood has to be otherwise disposed of but the sacrifice is unquestionably valid. These cases represent the points of difference between R. Ḥanina and R. Joḥanan. Babli 4b (bottom), switching attributions. which are not obstructing in future generations are obstructing here. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the diadem and Aaron’s mitre precede the sons’ belts61In dressing of the priests in initiation.. Jehudah the great says, you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons62Ex. 29:9, the commandment to Moses.. Rebbi Idi said, what you are saying is as a meritorious deed. But as a commandment, Moses brought near Aaron and his sons and washed them in water, and after that, he put the vest on him, and after that, Moses brought Aaron and his sons near and clothed them with shirts63Lev. 8:6,7,13, description of the execution.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose64The only talmudic Sage known of this name is the Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta. But since he said, not stated, and R. Tanḥum objected that his assertion already was a tannaitic statement, he must be an otherwise unknown Amora.Since Aaron entered the High Priesthood only on the eighth day, Moses must have acted as High Priest during the first seven. Babli Avodah zarah 34a as tannaitic statement. said, it is clear to us that Moses officiated in the High Priesthood in a white robe. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, it was stated: 65Sifra Šemini Milluim 14.“All seven days of initiation did Moses officiate in the High Priesthood but the Divine Presence was not drawn through him. When Aaron dressed in the priestly garments and officiated, the Divine Presence was drawn through him.” What is the reason? For today the Eternal will appear to you.66Lev. 9:4. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked, how was the tenth of an epha brought? Was it brought half or [brought] whole67Since the offering of the High Priest had to be brought half in the morning and half in the evening, but in the morning of the eighth day Aaron was not yet High Priest, the question is whether only the afternoon offering was made or the morning offering later in the morning.? Since it is written68Lev. 9:23., Moses and Aaron came to the Tent of Meeting, this teaches that he only came with him to teach him the work of incense. [This implies that] half it was brought. If you are saying that it was brought whole, one should have stated, about he work of incense and the tenth of an epha. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, are we not concerned with service inside? He already had taught him about service outside69The breads of the High Priest are burned on the outside altar; no service in the Tent is involved and the prior argument does not prove anything.. What were the initiation sacrifices? Private sacrifice or public sacrifice? Since it is written70Lev. 8:18., Aaron and his sons leaned with their hands on the he-goat’s head, it follows that it was private sacrifice71Since public sacrifices never need leaning on the sacrificial animal.. But it was stated, public sacrifice72Sifra Ṣaw Mekhilta deMilluim 13.. Rebbi Idi said, the community volunteered and handed them over to them. From where was initiation deduced73Since it is written (Lev. 8:35) that Aaron and his sons have to sit at the gate of the Tabernacle “seven days, day and night” All sacrifices which are eaten “one day and one night” may be eaten during the day of the sacrifice and the following night.? From sacrifices or from Creation? If you are saying from sacrifices, the night follows the day. If you are saying from Creation, the day follows the night. If you are saying from sacrifices, the last night has no day74Since on the eighth day they were permitted to leave the Sanctuary after the completion of services.. If you are saying from Creation, the first day has no night. 75One discusses what it means that Aaron and his sons had to sit at the gate of the Tent of Meeting “seven days, day and night”. There, we have stated76Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, describing the order in which the shew-bread was removed from the table in the Tent of Meeting on the Sabbath and new bread deposited when the verse prescribes that the shew-bread always be on the table.: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said77Ex. 25:30., before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s78Since it is anonymous.. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”79So even according to R. Meïr the arrangement that the twelve shew-breads were exchanged in a ceremony involving 24 priests so that the table should not be empty for one moment is recommended but not absolutely necessary.. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.76Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, describing the order in which the shew-bread was removed from the table in the Tent of Meeting on the Sabbath and new bread deposited when the verse prescribes that the shew-bread always be on the table.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons80Since it is understood that if there is no Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons could not sit at its gate and, as explained in the following paragraph, the Tent was every day (or also every night) disassembled and reerected, the requirement that they sit there “seven days, day and night” could only mean that every day and every night they were sitting there for some time.. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day81They actually had to be present there only at dusk and dawn., so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night82His statement refers to the shew-breads. He reads “always” to mean that there shall be no day on which the table be empty. Since the breads were kept there from Sabbath to Sabbath, he only requires that the new breads be delivered before dusk at the end of the Sabbath.. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here83At the initiation of the priests. where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings84Since it is shown in the next paragraph that every morning the Tent had to be re-erected, and Aaron and his sons were to be present in the sacred precinct day and night, the Tent was erected on day 1, and on days 2–7 was disassembled and re-erected every morning after dawn.. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings85Since Lev. 8:34 requires that Aaron and his sons not leave the sacred domain during 7 days, but v. 35 states that they have to sit there “day and night”, it follows that they could not leave, and therefore the Tent could not be disassembled, during the days, but it could be disassembled in the night after nightfall, then re-erected for the night, and disassembled after dawn.. It was stated86Sifra Ṣaw Mekhilta deMilluim 36; Num. rabba 12(18); Seder Olam Chapter 7.: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services87Since Aaron and his sons entered service only on day 8, for the first 7 days Moses acted as High Priest (Note 64).. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day88Since it was necessary to disassemble the Tent after the seventh night, it follows that services could be held only in presence of a Tent erected during daytime. Num. rabba 12(18).. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings89Since for R. Joḥanan the Tent has to be standing every dawn and dusk (except for the first dawn) and R. Yose ben R. Jehudah requires (in the interpretation of R. Zeˋira) that the Tent be re-erected in the night but not for service, in 7 days and 7 nights there must be 14 erections and one less dismantling.According to R. Ḥiyya ben Joseph the tent was erected every morning for services, disassembled and re-erected for dusk, and disassembled and re-erected for the night. In this opinion it makes no difference whether the Tent was disassembled before or after dawn. There are different name attributions in Num. rabba 12(18).. From where the dismantlings? Rebbi Zeˋira said,90Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between. it was on the day that Moses stopped erecting the Dwelling, on the day the erections stopped. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as he did on that day, did the Eternal command91Lev. 8:34. Since the verse implies that all of seven days the ritual commanded in Ex. 29 had to be repeated, including the erection of the Tent of Meeting.. Was this not already stated? One in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan 92He interprets the verse differently, Note 7., and one in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. On the Eighth {Day}. There are Tannaim who state, it93The Tent of Meeting. was anointed; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not anointed. There are Tannaim who state, it was dismantled; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not dismantled. Rebbi Ḥanin said, it is obvious for us that for him who said, it was anointed it was dismantled; and for him who said, it was not anointed it was not dismantled. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written he anointed them90Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between.. But he who said, it was not anointed, how does he uphold he anointed them? I consider it as if it were missing anointment and you anointed it. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written94Ex. 29:37. If the altar was not put out of commission in the meantime because the Tent was dismantled, only one atonement would have been necessary. Therefore every day must have seen a new commissioning of the altar., seven days they shall atone the altar. But he who said, it was not dismantled, how does he uphold seven days they shall atone the altari Atonement by blood, as it was stated95Babli 4a. The persons referred to are the High Priest for the service of the Day of Atonement and the priest chosen to burn the corpse of the Red Cow. The sprinkling water has to penetrate the prietly garments below the blood and oil by which they were dedicated.: On both of them they were sprinkling from all purifications96Ashes from all Red Cows conserved in the Temple. that were there, so that the water should penetrate under the blood, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, under the blood and under the anointing oil. Ben Bathyra explained99One returns to the discussion of Mishnah 1, explaining why the High Priest has to live in the Temple precinct for seven days prior to the Day of Atonement. Babli 6a, Tosephta 1:1.: Perhaps he would sleep with his menstruating wife and be pushed away all of seven days100Lev. 15:24.. But are Israel suspected about menstruating women101Is not Ben Bathyra’s explanation an insult to the High Priest? If this Ben Bathyra is the early Tanna (and not the later R. Jehudah ben Bathyra to whom the statement is attributed in the Babli), his argument might be an anti-Sadducee statement, since Sadducees and Pharisees accused one another of sleeping with menstruating women by following their sectarian interpretation of the biblical law; cf. Niddah 4:1 Note 3 (SJ 34).? Following what was stated there102Mishnah Ševuˋot 2:5, Notes 80,81.: “If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately he is liable, for his separation is as pleasurable to him as his entry103If the wife becomes impure during intercourse, if then he stops moving immediately and separates after the erection has disappeared, he touched an impure woman, has to immerse himself in a miqweh, and becomes totally pure at the next sundown. But if he separates while still with erection, he had intercourse with a menstruating woman and is severely impure for seven days. Ben Bathyra’s argument presupposes that the High Priest is an ignoramus..” You have to say that he who transmits the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan needs that of Ben Bathyra, and he who transmits the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan needs that of Ben Bathyra. If Rebbi Joḥanan had said but not Ben Bathyra, we would have said that he may have sex but sleep in the Palhedrin lodge; therefore one needs that of Ben Bathyra. If Ben Bathyra had said but not Rebbi Joḥanan , we would have said, let him not have sex but he may sleep in his house; therefore one needs that of Rebbi Joḥanan , and one needs that of Ben Bathyra. “All lodges which were in the Temple were not liable for mezuzah except for the Palhedrin lodge which was the abode of the High Priest for seven days every year. Rebbi Jehudah said, also this is a decree which was decreed about it.” In your gates105Deut.6:9.. There are Tannaim who state, to exclude the gates of the Temple Mount and the Courtyards106Babli 11b, Sifry Deut. 36.. There are Tannaim who state, to include. He who said to exclude, Rebbi Jehudah. He who said to include, the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? In your gates, are these lodgings? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, but did we not state, in your gates, to include city gates107Babli 11a.? Are these lodgings? But through them one enters lodgings, so also here through them one enters lodgings. 108These lines are copied from the discussion of the laws of mezuzah in Megillah 4:12 (ל). They have no direct connection with the topic treated here.Huldat hammulim109A direct translation would be “mole of circumcised”, which makes no sense. The explanation of Qorban haEda, “entrances of cave dwellings” has no linguistic basis and would be superfluous. A possibility is Jastrow’s explanation, ‘loading and unloading dock for mules”, from מולא, Latin mulus, mula, the mule. is liable for mezuzah. A window, four by four {cubits} wide, in which slaves sit and make wind for their masters are liable for mezuzah. Coops one on top of the other are liable for mezuzah; one steps on the doorstep below110If the chicken coops are part of the house and are directly accessible from the doorstep, and the areas of the openings add up to four-by-four cubits.. Rebbi Yose was sorry not to have seen the coop of Rebbi Ilai which he had made according to all rabbis111That it was required to have a mezuzah according to everybody.. “To the Palhedrin2In the Halakhah the name also appears as פלהדרין with change of liquids. Possibly derived from πάρεδρος, ὁ, “adjunct”; cf. Note 113. lodge.” Abba Shaul was calling it the council member’s lodge112Greek βουλευταί, ὁι. Since under Persian rule the High Priest also was the political head of the commonwealth, it is reasonable to assume that during his stay at the lodge also the council meetings were held there. Babli 8b.. Earlier it was called the council member’s lodge. But now one calls it the Palhedrin lodge. The ex-priests113Allon’s explanation in Tarbiz 13, p. 16, as προϊεραθέντες, ex-priests, is the correct one., a passing114Reading עבידה for עבידה. The meaning of Palhedrin should be seen as pejorative. matter. In the first {Temple}, where he, his son, and his grandson served, there were eighteen priests serving. But in the second, where they bought it for money, but some say that they killed one another by sorcery115Since in theory the appointment as High Priest is for life, later generations had difficulty to understand how the appointment to the High Priesthood could be on a yearly basis. They had to assume that the acting High Priest died within his year., there served 80 priests, but some say 81, and some say 82, and some say 84, and some say 85. And from these Simeon the Just served for 40 years. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written116Pr. 10:27. Babli 9a., the fear of the Eternal adds days, these are the priests who served in the first Temple, but the years of the wicked ones will be shortened’, these are those who served in the second building. It happened that one sent through his son two measures of silver, full of silver, and their covers silver. Another came and sent through his son two measures of gold, full of gold, and their covers gold. They said, the foal overturned the candelabrum117This popular saying refers to another story, told in Pesiqta dR. Cahana, Ekha: R. Levy said, it happened that a woman honored a judge with a silver candelabrum. Her opponent in the suit went and honored him with a golden foal. The next day the woman went and found the judgment against her. She said to him, My lord, may the judgment be radiant before you like the silver candelabrum. He said to her, what can I do? The foal overturned the candelabrum.The Yerushalmi text is quoted in Sifry Num. 131; Pesiqta dR. Cahana A hare Mot towards end, Lev. rabba 21(8).. 118Babli 9a/9b. We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness119The technical term for incest and adultery (all crimes prohibited in Lev. 18.), and spillers of blood. And so the second time. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said, we find that Shiloh was destroyed only because they slighted the holidays and desecrated the sancta. We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness, and spillers of blood. But of the second we know that they toiled in the Torah, were careful about the commandments and tithes, and every good custom120Latin suetum (E. G.). was in them; only they loved money and hated one another without reason. Hate without reason is hard for it is the equivalent if idolatry, and uncovering nakedness, and spilling of blood. An example. Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abuna, were sitting and saying, it is worse since the first time it was rebuilt but the second time it was not rebuilt. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the first ones repented, the second ones did not repent. Rebbi Eleazar said, the first time their sin was brought into the open and so was their end; the second time their sin was brought into the open but their end was not brought into the open. They asked Rebbi Eliezer, are the later generations more qualified than the first? He told them, your witness, the Temple, shall prove it. Our forefathers removed the ceiling, the curtain of Jehudah was lifted121Is. 22:8., but we blew out the walls, who are saying, make bare, make bare, up to its foundations122Ps. 137:7.. They said, any generation in which it is not rebuilt is debited as if it had destroyed it. 123From here on there is a parallel in Horaiot 3:3, Notes 146–188 and Megillah1:12.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses8Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him124Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry125He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up.. If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest126As the Babli explains (Yoma 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Megillah 1:12 72a 1. 47, Ševuot 1:8, 33b 1.13). Since the service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if performed by the High Priest, the substitute becomes a temporary High Priest. He cannot act as a High Priest if the actual High Priest’s temporary disability is removed, and he is permanently barred from acting as a common priest. As the Babli points out, if the High Priest dies, the substitute automatically becomes his successor. Tosephta 1:4.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is valid. Whose officiating? Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the he-goat which are brought today, are they offered from his or from the High Priest’s property?6That the separation of the High Priest from his wife for seven days has some biblical justification. A much shorter version covering both interpretations given here is in Sifra Ṣaw, Mekhilta de Milluim 37; differently Babli 2a.” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created?” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood. 127In addition to the two parallels there are short versions in the Babli 47a, Tosephta 3:20, Lev. rabba 20 (end), Tanḥuma Aḥare 7, Tanḥuma Buber Aḥare9 (Note 127), Num. rabba2(end), Pesiqta dR. Cahana Aḥare (ed. Buber Note 126), Avot deR. Natan A, Chap. 35 (ed. Schechter fol. 35a.) lt happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out to talk to (an Arab king) [the king on the eve of the Day of Atonement]128There can be little doubt that the scribe’s text is the correct one; the corrector’s text is an unjustified emendation. The question is discussed in detail by S. Liebermann, Tosefta kiFshutah iv, pp. 805–806. Speculations about the background of this tradition are in H. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden 3/2, Note 19ii (4th. ed., pp. 738–739). and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his stead. On that day their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests. They sent and asked Qimḥit, what good deeds are in your hand? She told them, there should come over me if the beams of the roof of my house ever saw the hair on my head or the seam of my undershirt. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour. They recited about her129Ps. 45:14.: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments I could think that the Anointed for War130he one appointed to deliver the exhortations prescribed in Deut. 20:1–15. should bring his tenth of an ephah131Prescribed for the High Priest in Lev.6:15.. The verse says132Ex. 29:30. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli 72b/73a., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead [brings a tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the Anointed for War whose son will not serve in his stead. From where that the Anointed’s for War son will not serve in his stead? The verse says133Ex. 29:30, seven days shall the priest wear them in his stead, one of his sons. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the Anointed for War who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? 1341Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.[As it is said,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri135Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea136Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is the R. Yose quoted here), the affair at Gibea happened at the start of the period of the Judges, when Phineas was High Priest. Cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 122–123., he did not protest. And from where that he was asked in eight137The paragraph discusses the rules for the priest Anointed for War. It starts with an assertion that the Anointed for War officiates in the Temple in the High Priest’s garb while later it is asserted without dissent that he be barred from any service in the Sanctuary. The entire topic is a reconstruction of the environment in which one has to place David’s inquiries to God as recorded in the books of Samuel.The Anointed for War has two jobs. One is to address the army as described in Deut. 20:1–9, the other to ask the Urim and Tummim oracle on behalf of the army commander. Since this oracle is mentioned only in connection with the High Priest’s garments (Ex. 28:30) it is obvious that the Anointed for War must wear one of these garments for the oracle. But since all eight garments of the High Priest form an indivisible unit, he must wear all of them.? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]138Ex. 29:30 continues: To be anointed in them and inducted into office. Since the one Anointed for War is anointed, he seems to qualify.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him139Since the Anointed for War was anointed, he seems to qualify.. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you;140The name of R. Jonah’s interlocutor is not given. It must be another student of R. Jeremiah (R. Yose?) since he points out that the words of his teacher were incorrectly transmitted and that R. Jeremiah’s statement was identical with that of R. Abba bar Ḥiyya, the companion of R. Jeremiah’s teacher R. Zeˋira. In the Babli, 73a, the students of R. Joḥanan point out that R. Joḥanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating. he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets141Num. 10:8., blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly141Num. 10:8.; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain142The command to call all the community in the desert by the sound of trumpets (Num. 10:3) is extended to use trumpets to introduce the public Torah reading in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical Year (Deut. 31:10–13).. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life. The priest shall atone who was anointed144Lev. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified. Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8((4–5).. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb145The High Priest in Second Temple times who was not anointed since the anointing oil prepared by Moses was lost.? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed146In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oil was available, simple investiture was enough.? The verse says, the priest shall atone147Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth148It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot 12b s, v. כהן).. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.149Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.Here end the parallels in Horaiot and Megillah.” “From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said150Lev.16:11., and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die151Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8(6). He cannot marry her outright since a High Priest (and any priest aspiring to that position) is restricted to a single wife, as explained later in the paragraph..” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission152Emission of semen, an example of impurity which even if removed immediately disables a person from performing sacral acts before the next sundown. would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent154Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it., death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated154Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it.: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated155Babli 55a, Tosephta Šeqalim 3:3, Gittin 7:4 (Notes 195–107). The horns were openings of boxes where people could deposit money for specified sacrifices and assume that the boxes would be emptied every day and the necessary sacrifices offered. In particular a woman after childbirth who may not eat sancta unless she brought her purification sacrifice may deposit the money and eat sancta after sundown without inquiring whether the offering had actually been brought. A “nest” is a couple of pigeons or turtle-doves.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them156If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her. would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath156If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her.? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath157Since the Day of Atonement follows the Sabbath rules and the High Priest would have to get a new wife immediately if his wife die after nightfall of the day, should not his wife’s death disqualify him from the service since preliminary marriage is an act of acquisition forbidden on the Sabbath? (Since the High Priest is forbidden to defile himself for any corpse, in contrast to a common priest he is not disabled by the death of a close relative.).

MISHNAH: All seven days he pours the blood159Of the daily sacrifice, so that he should be used to it since on the Day of Atonement he has to perform all sacrificial acts unaided., and burns the incense, and cleans the lights160Of the candelabrum in the Temple, including lighting it anew; this also is his duty on the Day of Atonement., and brings head and feet to the altar161The parts which are taken first to the altar (Mishnah 2:7).. On any other day, if he wants to sacrifice he sacrifices since the High Priest is first in line to sacrifice his part162While in general jobs in the Temple service are distributed by a lottery, the High Priest may perform any duty he chooses before the other jobs are distributed. and to take his part163Even if he did not participate in the sacrificial acts.. HALAKHAH: Does he not become impure because of his sprinklings164How can the High Priest officiate if he is sprinkled with the water containing ashes of the Red Cow (Note 95) since the ashes, while cleansing the person impure in the impurity of the dead, are defiling a pure person (Sifry Num. 129, based on Num.19:21)? Cf. Note 17.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they were sprinkling on him after he had brought his offerings. “Since the High Priest is first in line to sacrifice and to take his part first.” How is this? “165Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b. This skin is mine; one loaf of the Two Breads166The two leavened breads as public offering on Pentecost., five loaves of the shew-bread.167Of the 12 shew breads becoming available every Sabbath.” In one case he takes everything, in the other case he takes half? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in the first case, a private sacrifice, in the other case, a public sacrifice. It was stated:165Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b. “Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes only one half.” There are Tannaim who state, “Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes one half.” How is that? If there was one skin. The rabbis say, he takes it whole. Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes only one half. If there were four, five skins. The rabbis say, he takes one168Since the Mishnah states that he takes “a part”.. Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes half. What is Rebbi’s reason? The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons169Lev. 2:3. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq11(1).. Do we not know that Aaron is together with his sons? Why does the verse say170Lev. 24:9 (on the shew-bread); Sifra Emor Pereq 18(10)., for Aaron and his sons? But it means, Aaron shall take half of it and his sons shall take half. As in the following: The city council171Greek βουλή, ἡ. and the military district172Greek στρατήγιον, τό, “the general’s tent”, the rural district under the direct command of the local military commander, not under the authority of the city council. had to bring a gift173The entire district was under the obligation to contribute to a “voluntary” gift, such as crown money at the accession of a new emperor, requested (imposed) by the government.. The case came before Rebbi who said, the city council is not included in the military district. For which purpose did he say “city council and military district”? But that each party give one half. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his opinion, as Rebbi said, fo r Aaron and his sons, half for Aaron and half for his sons. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Does not a baraita disagree? “174Tosephta Menaḥot12:7. lf somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim175The flour offerings in the Temple were all multiples of the issaron, one tenth of an ephah, or 3/10 of a seˋah, approximately 3.6 liter. in two vessels, he shall bring 50 in one vessel each. But if he brought 60176As quoted later in this paragraph, since flour offerings have to be brought mixed with oil, it is a rule (Mishnah Menaḥot12:4) that the maximum flour offering which can be brought in one vessel is 60 esronim. in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Somebody could say, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim, simply, without specifying the number of vessels in which be brings them; why does he specify “to bring them in two vessels”? To bring them 50 in one vessel each/ And we have stated on this, if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation177This is the essence of R. Abba bar Mamal’s objection to Rebbi’s interpretation of the verse. Since even if it should be clear that the intent was to split evenly, it is not a strict condition, therefore Rebbi’s inference that the verse prescribes an even split between Aaron and his sons is not justified.! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since up to 60 they can be mixed178Mishnah Menaḥot12:4; Tosephta 12:8–9/, it is as if from the start he fixed it at 60. It would be necessary to say, “if somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 60 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 30 in one vessel each. But if he brought 40 in one vessel and 20 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.179R. Abba bar Mamal’s objection could only be substantiated by a baraita which does not involve 60 esronim.” It was found stated thus180Therefore Rebbi’s argument has to be rejected.. Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: May one infer law of obligations from issaron181Since the Temple rules belong to ritual law, but the right of the High Priest is a matter of monetary claim, do they necessarily follow identical rules?? It was found stated182There was found a baraita which supports R. Abba bar Mamal. It is not clear which subject and which person the baraita refers to., “he inferred law of obligations from issaron.” Rebbi Abun said, only he should not bring them183The person offering 60 esronim. in three vessels. Rebbi Abba Mamal said, even in many vessels. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Every day184Of the seven days of preparation. the High Priest dresses in his robes185The eight garments prescribed for the High Priest., comes, and sacrifices the daily morning sacrifice. If there are vows or voluntary sacrifices186The legal difference between a vow and a voluntary offering, which also needs dedication, is that a vow is formulated as a personal obligation, “I am taking upon me the obligation to offer such and such a sacrifice.” In that case, if the animal selected for the sacrifice becomes disqualified for any reason, the maker of the vow has to bring a replacement. A voluntary offering is a dedication, “this animal shall be such-and-such a sacrifice.” If the animal becomes disqualified, no replacement is due., he offers them. Then he goes to his house, and returns to bring the daily evening sacrifice, and comes to stay overnight in the Palhedrin lodge. Rebbi Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He did this only on Sabbath and holidays187He seems to imply every Sabbath and holiday during the year, including New Year’s Day and the Sabbath preceding the day of Atonement.. There are Tannaim who state: the diadem188The diadem (Ex. 28:36–38) which is worn to eliminate iniquities of sancta, to legitimate sacrifices even if they do not completely satisfy the prescribed rules. propitiates on his forehead. There are Tannaim who state: even in a corner. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, it always shall be on his forehead189Ex. 29:38.. But he who says, even in a corner, from the Day of Atonement190When the High Priest officiates in white robes without the diadem.. He who says, the diadem propitiates on his forehead, supports Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun; he who says, even in a corner, supports Rebbi Uqba.

MISHNAH: One sends him Elders from the Elders of the Court191The Pharisaic High Court. The Mishnah has to be dated to Herodian times since the Hasmonean kings all acted as High Priests.; they read before him the Order of the Day192Lev. 16. and say to him, Sir High Priest, read yourself with your mouth, maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned. In the morning of the eve of the Day of Atonement one makes him stand at the Eastern Gate and brings before him oxen, and he-goats, and sheep, so he should recognize and be used to the service. HALAKHAH: “Maybe you forgot, or maybe you never learned.” Did we not state193Tosephta 1:6., “the priest, greater than his brethren194Lev. 21:10., that his greatness be from his brethren195If he was not rich, the other Cohanim should donate money to make him rich., on whose head the anointing oil was poured. Rebbi says, in beauty, in riches, in wisdom196Therefore an ignorant High Priest should be an impossibility., and in looks.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in the first [Temple], here in the second197Since these High Priests were not anointed (cf. Horaiot 3:4), the verse does not necessarily apply to Second Temple High Priests.. “One makes him stand at the Eastern Gates.” Where does one let him stand, inside or outside? If you are saying inside, what we stated there198A reformulation of Mishnah 3:3. Since the Mishnah here states that one lets him stand at the gate but not that he has first to immerse himself in a miqweh, it follows that a pure person may enter the Temple courtyard without an additional immersion if he does not intend to serve there. Therefore if the High Priest was standing inside the gate, the Mishnah here agrees with the Mishnah there that the first immersion of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is not connected with the special rules of that day. But if he was standing outside, no immersion is required, and nothing can be inferred from the Mishnah here., “five immersions were there on that day, one because nobody entered the Temple courtyard for service, even if he was pure, unless he immersed himself, and four because of the Day of Atonement.” If you are saying outside, all of them were because of the Day of Atonement. “One brings before him oxen, and he-goats, and sheep.” Why did he not say, a? Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, is he not anyhow obliged to pour?200Even though this sentence seems to be part of this Halakhah in a badly preserved Genizah fragment (Ginzberg p. 117), it does not belong here but is a statement (quoted there in the name of R. Mana) in Halakhah 5:6 (Note 187). It was found stated, “and a goat”201Babli 18a..

MISHNAH: All of the seven days one does not prevent him from food and drink. On the Eve of the Day of Atonement one does not allow him to eat much because food induces sleep202And in the following night he was not permitted to sleep.. HALAKHAH: It was stated201Babli 18a.: One allows him neither milk, nor eggs, nor cheese, nor fat meat, nor old wine, nor spiced wine, nor bean groats, nor lentils, Samuel said, nor citrus medica, nor anything which causes emission of semen. Nevertheless one was quoting for him the verse203Ps. 127:1. If the Eternal does not build the house, in vain toil its builders., if the Eternal does not build the house, etc. But was this not of the miracles which happened in the Temple204Enumerated in Mishnah Avot 5:5. One of the ten miracles was that never was the High Priest incapacitated by an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement.? Rebbi Abun said, because of you shall not try205Deut. 6:16.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in the first {Temple}, here in the second206Mishnah Avot 5:5 applies only to the First Temple..

MISHNAH: The Elders of the Court hand him over to the Elders of the priesthood; they lead him to the upper floor of the house of Eutinoos207The place where the incense was prepared for use in the Temple.(Mishnah 3:11, Tamid 1:1.) They had first to instruct him in the Pharisee interpretation of the verses since the matter of presentation of the incense in the Temple was the only matter of controversy between Sadducees and Pharisees in the service of the day of Atonement. Then they had to make him swear to follow the Pharisaic rules. They adjure him; this finishes their task and they leave. They say to him, Sir High Priest, we are the agents of the Court, and you are our agent and the Court’s agent. We adjure you by Him Who let His Name dwell in this House that you will not change anything of all we told you. He turns aside and cries, and they turn aside and cry208As explained in the Halakhah.. HALAKHAH: It209The place where incense was prepared. was located on top the the Water Gate210The fourth gate on the South side of the Temple precinct proper. Babli 19a. and close to his lodge. “He turns aside and cries,” that he was suspected. “And they turn aside and cry,” that they needed to do this211Babli 19b, Tosephta 1:8.. And why does one adjure him? Because of the Boethusians, who were saying that he starts the incense outside and brings it inside212The problem is Lev. 16:13: He shall put the incense on the fire before the Eternal, and the incense cloud shall cover the cover which is on the testimonials so that he should not die. The Pharisaic interpretation is that the first part of the verse implies that the incense should be put into the fire inside the Holiest of Holies, which is before the Eternal. The Boethusian interpretation is based on the second part of the verse, that the cloud should cover him already at the entry into the Holiest of Holies.. 211Babli 19b, Tosephta 1:8. It happened that one person started the incense outside and brought it inside. When he left, he said to his father, even though you were interpreting all your days, you did not act until this man came and acted. He answered him, even though you were interpreting all our days, we acted only following the will of the Sages. I am wondering whether this man will have many days in the world. After a short time he died. But some are saying, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain. 213This text also appears in Sukkah 4:8 (ב). It is an intellectual construct, rather than a historical report. Some want to say, he was the same for the Cow214Where the Sadducees insisted that the Cohen who burns the Red Cow must be pure from the preceding sundown. However, it is difficult to square what is reported in Tosephta Parah 3:8 with what is presumed here: “It happened that a Sadducee was pure from the preceding sundown when he came to burn the Cow, but Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai realized it; he came and leaned both of his hands on him and told him, Sir High Priest, how wonderful you are as High Priest, go and immerse yourself. He went down and immersed himself. After he came back he grated his earlobe and said to him, Ben Zakkai, when I shall be free to deal with you; he answered him, if you will be free. It was not three days before they put him in the grave.”Biblical impurity is only original impurity and derivative impurity in the first degree. Rabbinic impurity has derivative impurity in the second degree for unwashed hands, third degree impurity for heave, and fourth degree for sacrifices. Therefore, the intrinsically pure Ben Zakkai (who before the destruction of the Temple was not Rabban), by putting his second degree impure hands on the priest defiled the latter for sacra and forced him to immerse himself in a miqweh. Our sources seem to describe the Sadducee position correctly; cf. Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4Q394, lines 16–18., on Tabernacles215Mishnah Sukkah 4:8, Tosephta Sukkah3:16. The popular ceremony of water offering on the altar has no explicit foundation in the biblical text and was opposed by Sadducees (possibly only by the Boethusian sect.) A priest who poured out the water in contempt of the rite was killed by the etrogim(citrus medica) which the people threw at him., and on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi Simon does not say so, but either the Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. He who said, after a short time he died, he did all three. He who said, his nose gushed out worms and something like a calf’s hoof grew in his brain, follows him who said, either Cow and Tabernacles was one and Atonement one, or Cow and Atonement was one and Tabernacles one. The Courtyard cried about them, get out of here, sons of Eli, you defiled our God’s Temple216. Babli Pesaḥim 57a, Keritut 28a.. “On that day217At Tabernacles, when the people threw their etrogim at the priest standing on the altar. Tosephta Sukkah 3:16; Babli Sukkah48b., the corner of the altar was damaged and they put a block of salt there lest it should look deficient since any altar without corner, or walkway218The extension at half-height of the altar, allowing a priest to walk around the altar and pour blood at its four corners., or base219. A hollow at the base of the altar into which remnants of sacrificial blood were poured. is disqualified.” They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is it not written220.Lev. 16:17., nobody shall be in the Tent of Meeting during his coming to atone in the sanctuary until he leaves, not even those about whom it is written221Ez. 1:10., the shapes of their faces are human shapes shall not be in the Tent of Meeting222If the offending priest was hit on his head by a calf’s foot it must have been by one of the four-headed angels seen by Ezechiel whose feet are calves’ feet (Ez.1:7)? He answered them, if he enters following normal rules 223Babli 53a, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(11). It is written224Lev. 16:12–13. and he shall bring it inside the curtain, and put the incense in the fire before the Eternal, that he should not prepare outside and bring inside, since the Sadducees are saying, he shall prepare outside and then bring inside. If one does this before flesh and blood, a fortiori before the Omnipresent. Also it says225Lev. 16:2., for in a cloud I shall appear over the cover. The Sages said to them, has it not already been said, he shall put the incense in the fire before the Eternal; only inside he puts it on. If it is so, why was it said, for in a cloud I shall appear over the cover? This teaches that he has to put in smoke-creating herb. From where that he has to add smoke-creating herb? The verse says226Lev. 16:13., the incense shall cover the cover over the chest227Corrector’s misquote.,lest he die. If he failed to add smoke-creating herb or left out any of its ingredients he has committed a deadly sin228Babli Keritut 6a.. Lest he die, that is the punishment. For in a cloud I shall appear over the cover, this is the warning. 229Sifra A hare Introduction (13). Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, I could think that punishment and warning had been said before the death of the two sons of Aaron, the verse says230Lev. 16:1., after the death of the two sons of Aaron. If after the death of the two sons of Aaron. I could think that both had been said after the death of the two sons of Aaron, the verse says, for in a cloud I shall appear over the cover. How is that? The warning was said before the death of the two sons of Aaron, but the punishment was said after the death of the two sons of Aaron, Rebbi Zeˋura said, it does not say “because in a cloud I was seen over the cover,” but I shall be seen. From here that the Holy One, praise to Him, does not punish unless he had warned231The tannaitic position is rejected. While the death of the two sons of Aaron made an atonement ceremony necessary, their deaths cannot be punishment for infractions of laws not yet promulgated..

MISHNAH: If he was a scholar, he preaches232Explains biblical verses either legalistically or as homilies.; otherwise scholars preach before him. If he was used to reciting233As technical term, קורא always means reading biblical texts with the masoretic accents. (which in those times were not written but had to be memorized.) he recites; otherwise one recites before him. What does one recite before him? Job, Ezra, and Chronicles. Zacariah ben Qebutal says, many times I recited before him from Daniel. HALAKHAH: It was stated, in Proverbs and Psalms, since their interest makes sleep disappear. Cahana asked Rav, how shall we state, Qebutar or Qebutal234Babli 19b; there the question is not between r and l but between b and p with opposite readings in the printed edition and the Munich ms.? He was standing in prayer and indicated to him by his finger, a bird, kabōtar235“Dove”. kabōtar in Pahlevi, كبوتر kabūtar in Farsi..

MISHNAH: If he became sleepy, the young priests drum before him with a dry finger and say to him, Sir High Priest, stand up and take it easy once on the floor. One occupies him until the time of slaughter. HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥuna said, “with a dry finger” orally. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, “with a dry finger”, with the hand. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan “orally, not with harp nor with lute.236Tosephta 1:9, Babli 19b.” He explains it, the melody indicated by the dry finger one says orally, not with harp nor with lute.

MISHNAH: Every day one removes ashes from the altar237The removal of the ashes from the previous day is the required action before the service of the new day may start; Lev.6:1–6. about at the call of the cock, before it or after it. But on the Day of Atonement at midnight238To let the High Priest start the office of the day at the earliest possible moment., and on holidays after the first watch239The end of the first third of the night. On holidays not only were there many additional public offerings but also a very great number of private holiday offerings' taking up the entire day.. The cock did not crow240On holidays and the Day of Atonement. before the Courtyard was full of Israel. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said, would it not be understandable if on the day of Atonement it were after the first watch and on holidays from midnight, that they241Everybody involved in the service of the fast day. R. Mana’s opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. should not become thirsty? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next say and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water242Washing hands and feet before any sacral act is an absolute requirement, Ex.30:17–21. But the water used on one day would become unusable the next day unless it is at least 40 seˋah, the minimum volume of a miqweh whose water always is pure. Therefore the wash basin of the priests has to be immersed in a large miqweh during the night and can be lifted for easy use only at dawn. For the removal of ashes on the special days, hands and feet have to be washed in the miqweh. In the interpretation of the Babli Zevaḥim 21b, R. Joḥanan holds that since the removal of the ashes is the start of the service of the next day, the Cohen washing for the removal does not have to wash again for the morning service..

MISHNAH: Originally, anybody who wanted to remove the ashes1The ritual removal of some ashes from the altar by a priest in special attire (Lev.6:3), followed by the less formal removal of the remainder of the ashes, Lev. 6:4. from the altar could remove them. If they were many of them, they ran up the ramp2The ramp on the South side of the altar, leading to the top without stairs (Ex.20:23).; he who was first within four cubits34 cubits from the top of the altar. got the right to do it. If two were at equal times, the overseer used to say to them, show fingers4Since people may not be counted, one counts fingers instead. The overseer calls out a large number and then counts down finger by finger repeatedly and the person whose finger is then number 1 is selected. (In modern Hebrew, מצביע no longer means to show a finger, or to point with a finger, but “to vote”; a misinterpretation of this Mishnah..). What do they hold up? One or two5If a Cohen has arthritic fingers and cannot lift a single finger, he may show two which, being close to one another, will be counted as one.; but one does not show a thumb in the Temple6Since the thumb is far from the other fingers, the thumb and one other finger might erroneously be counted as two persons..It happened that two were equally running up the ramp when one pushed the other who broke his leg. When the court saw that they might come into danger they enacted that they should remove the ashes from the altar only by lottery4Since people may not be counted, one counts fingers instead. The overseer calls out a large number and then counts down finger by finger repeatedly and the person whose finger is then number 1 is selected. (In modern Hebrew, מצביע no longer means to show a finger, or to point with a finger, but “to vote”; a misinterpretation of this Mishnah..). There were four lotteries, and this was the first of them. HALAKHAH: “Originally, anybody who wanted to remove the ashes from the altar,” etc. Rebbi Mana asked, why did they not establish a lottery for the removal of ashes? Come and see, slaughter is valid by a non-Cohen, but you are saying that there is a lottery7Mishnah 2:2.. Removal of ashes is forbidden to a non-Cohen, and you are saying, there is no lottery? Rebbi Mana turned around and said, slaughter is valid only during daytime, but the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night. If you are saying that there is a lottery, he will not get up early for the doubt8If the chances are slim that he will be able to serve, no Cohen will show up for the night duty. Babli 22a.. What did you see to say this? All the night9Lev. 6:2., he shall remove10Lev. 6:3.. From here that the removal of ashes is valid during the entire night. A non-Cohen who removed11The formal removal of ashes from the altar.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? Service of bringing12Num. 18:7.. This excludes what is a removal. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ’s reason? Anything concerning the altar12Num. 18:7.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The four kinds of service for which a Cohen would be liable if done outside13Outside a divinely approved place of worship; after the building of the Temple, outside of the Temple district. Worship outside the Temple is sinful only if it imitates Temple ceremonies. Babli 24a., the non-Cohen is liable for inside. What are these? Burning incense, and pouring blood, and making libations of water and wine. This follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Levi said, even removal of the ashes;14Babli 24a. this follows Rebbi Joḥanan. If he15The non-Cohen. stirred the coals, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. If he15The non-Cohen. removed the remainder of the ashes, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, following him who said, others16Lev. 6:4. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(6)., of lesser value than these. But for him17According to Sifra, R. Eleazar (the Tanna.) who said others, to include people with bodily defects, there is no difference between a Cohen with a bodily defect and a non-Cohen. Everybody agreed that the non-Cohen who arranged the woods18The logs of firewood on the altar. is liable. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but only for the two logs on which the verse insists that they are Cohen’s service: Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar and arrange woods19Lev. 1:7. Since a simple plural always means 2 (Note 138); this establishes a formal requirement that two new logs be brought to the altar at the start of the morning service; Lev. 6:5. Babli 24b.. It was stated20Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(7).=; Babli 24b,45a. “Rebbi Jehudah said, from where that kindling fire wood21Rashi’s explanation. may only be done by a qualified Cohen and with a vessel of service22The firewood had to be transported in a dedicated vessel.? The verse says, Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar. Rebbi Simeon said, could anybody think that a non-Cohen might approach the top of the altar? Then why is it said, Aaron’s the priest’s sons shall put fire on the altar? This teaches that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar” They objected, is it not written “and the fire on the altar shall burn there, it shall not go out23Lev. 6:5., from here that kindling the fire may only be done on top of the altar, the words of Rebbi Jehudah24Babli 45a.”? The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted. There it needs a qualified Cohen, but here it does not need a qualified Cohen. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, what do you understand from here? Could we say on top of the altar and a non-Cohen25Since it already was stated that no non-Cohen could be present at the altar, a mention of “Cohen” was superfluous in the second case.? If he removed and the wind blew it away26Does one have to lift a second time?, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ḥanina, since Rebbi Ḥanina said, if a fistful27A flour offering after dedication is most holy, all use is forbidden as larceny of sancta. The priest has to take a fistful of the flour mixed with oil, bring it to the top of the altar in a dedicated vessel, and empty the vessel into the fire. At that moment, the owners have fulfilled their vow, and the remainders of the offering are released to the priests as their property, to be eaten in the sacred precinct. was put in the fire when the wind blew it away, by the last blowing the owner was atoned for and the remainders freed from larceny. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if28Meaning; only if. Babli Menaḥot26b. the fire engulfed most of it. What means “most of it”? Most of the fistful, or had it been said about most of each separate lump? There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It had been said about most of each separate lump. If he lifted half of it, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the fistful had been sanctified in a vessel, he did his duty if he burned even a sesame grain’s size of it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah29Menaḥot3:4, Babli Menaḥot26a. does not say so, only if he burned his fistful in two parts it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A fistful is not less than the volume of two olives, no burning is less than the volume of (a fistful) an olive]30Menaḥot26b. The corrector’s change is suspect as adaptation to the Babli.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar asked, then a Cohen whose hand could not hold the volume of two olives would be disqualified from the service31Since this disability does not appear in a list of defects which disqualify a Cohen, practice cannot follow R. Joshua ben Levi.? If he removed with his left hand, the disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Jehudah ben Rebbi, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a fistful32Of the flour offering. had been sanctified in a dedicated vessel and he burned it whether out of his hand or out of a vessel, whether by his right hand or by the left. Jehudah ben Rebbi said, either like a purification offering from the hand, or like a reparation offering from a vessel, but only with the right hand33In Lev. 6:10 it is stated that the flour offering is “most holy, like purification offering and like reparation offering.” For purification offerings it is stated (Lev.4:25, 30, 34) that the Cohen has to apply the blood of the sacrifice with his finger to the corners of the altar. This requirement is missing for the reparation sacrifice (Lev.7:1–7.). They objected: Was it not stated, if he received with his right hand and then put it into his left hand, he must return it to the right hand34Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1, Zevaḥim 32a, speaking of the blood received in a vessel and brought to the altar to be poured at the wall.? If from the left hand he returns it for the altar, not so much more to the cup? Rebbi La said, if somebody stated this, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon stated it. As it was stated, it35The fistful taken from a flour offering. does not need sanctification in a cup. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated there36Mishnah Menaḥot3:4., “not in a dedicated vessel it is disqualified, but Rebbi Simeon qualifies it.” How is it? The rabbis who require a dedicated vessel need the right hand37Menaḥot26b.; Rebbi Simeon [who] does not require a dedicated vessel does not need the right hand. Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how the rabbis could compare the removal of ashes to burning, but it can be compared only to the lifting of the fistful, since both are by lifting38Since everybody agrees that at all places where the verse requires that the action be done by a Cohen he must use his right hand; therefor the lifting of the fistful must be with the Cohen’s right hand.. And he shall lift39Lev. 6:3.. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder40Otherwise the verse would have said, “he takes away”.. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it41The ashes on the altar. was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice42The verse reads: He shall lift the ashes from where the fire ate the elevation sacrifice on the altar.. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice43Parts of the daily sacrifice which still are recognizable as such.; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle44Where it is most likely from the sacrifice, not the fire wood. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(4). and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said45Lev. 1:7., they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes46Since it has been stated that the removal of ashes is first in the service of a new day, and arranging new logs precedes the morning daily sacrifice, any arrangement preceding the removal of ashes is simply addition to the preceding day’s service and may be undone for the new day. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 5(11).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of a fistful given on the setting of the night47It is a biblical commandment that all leftovers from the service of a certain day have to be burned on the altar during the following night. Therefore the question has to be, what is the status of the next morning’s flour offering which was brought to the altar at dawn before the required new wood was formally brought to the altar after the removal of the previous day’s ashes.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, Hilfai asked: What is the status of the public parts on the setting of the night48The same question as before, only referring to the parts of the sacrificial animals brought before the ritual setting of new logs in the morning. The questions remain unanswered also in the Babli. Menaḥot26b.? Is that not a baratta? Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense49Since the daily sacrifice is scheduled בבוקר “in the morning (Ex. 29:39) but the incense בבוקר בבוקר “in the early morning (Ex. 30:7); cf. Halakhah 3:5. Babli Pesaḥim59a.. The baratta as commandment, what he is asking is as impediment50Is the service invalid if the precedences indicated by the verses are not followed?. Does the diadem cover up for impurity of the hands51Since except for the biblically ordained washing (“sanctification”) of hands and feet at the start of a priest’s period of service (Ex. 30:20,40:31–32) the rules of impurity of hands are purely rabbinical, and hands are purified by immersion in a miqweh, not by sanctification from the basin. The (unanswered) question is whether the diadem covers also non-biblical infractions of the rules.? Do hands become disqualified by leaving52It is obvious that if a Cohen leaves the sacred precinct because he has finished his tour of duty, for the next tour he has to sanctify his hands and feet again. The question is whether his hands become rabbinically impure if he leaves the sacred precinct for a prescribed ritual act, such as depositing excess ashes outside the sacred domain.? Is that not a barattai If he sanctified51Since except for the biblically ordained washing (“sanctification”) of hands and feet at the start of a priest’s period of service (Ex. 30:20,40:31–32) the rules of impurity of hands are purely rabbinical, and hands are purified by immersion in a miqweh, not by sanctification from the basin. The (unanswered) question is whether the diadem covers also non-biblical infractions of the rules. his hands and feet and they became impure, he immerses them and they are pure; if he left they did not become disqualified because of leaving. This comes following the one who said, an overnight stay does not disqualify hands. What is his problem? [But here] it is following him who said, an overnight stay disqualifies hands. Do hands become impure for missing time? Is that not a baraita? If he sanctified his hands and feet today for tomorrow’s service53It seems that one has to complete the sentence: the sanctification is valid.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the removal of ashes is the start of the service of the next day and one had to sanctify his hands and feet from the basin which was immersed in water54Chapter 1, Note 241, Babli Zevaḥim20a.. Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Joseph said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night55Chapter 1, Note 82.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , after he lifted it he put it56The basin has to stay in the cistern any time it is not used during the night. According to R. Ḥiyya ben Joseph this should be necessary only at dusk and dawn. According to R. Joḥanan , the new day starts in the preceding night, with the preparation for lifting ashes. back down. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph. 57Tosephta 1:9, differently Tosephta Menaḥot1:13. In that text, Rebbi agrees with R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. Babli Zevaḥim 20b.“If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day58The night is used to burn the remainder of the previous day’s service; it is an appendix to the day and, since no service is initiated during the night, does not need new preparation., the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services. But to start services it is necessary.” [Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the baraita: If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; for ancillary services. But to start service he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands during ancillary services59But if he were unoccupied during the entire night, the next day’s service is a new beginning and needs sanctification of hands.. But to start services it is necessary.] Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does (not)60A word correctly written by the scribe and incorrectly deleted. have to sanctify them for the night; whether to start service or for ancillary services; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands whether to start service or for ancillary services. Hilfai said, just as staying overnight does not disqualify hands, so it does not disqualify the basin61He disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that the water remaining in the basin does not become disqualified at the next dawn.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hilfai. “If he sanctified his hands and feet during the day, he does not have to sanctify them for the night; during the night, he has to sanctify them for the day, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, even if he is occupied with service for all of three days, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, since staying overnight does not disqualify hands.” Therefore it disqualifies the basin62Since the basin was not mentioned in the statement. Babli Zevaḥim 20a.. The students of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Hilfai. So it is: If he sanctified his hands and feet, etc., since staying overnight does not disqualify hands. Therefore it disqualifies the basin, only from day to night63Not from night to day since the next day’s service starts with the removal of ashes following R. Joḥanan , and not if the basin was in continuous use during dusk, following R. Ḥiyya bar Joseph.. 64One starts with discussing the remainder of Mishnah 1, starting with the meaning of “within 4 cubits”. How, either within four cubits of the ramp or four cubits of the altar? Since we have stated, “It happened that two were equally running up the ramp,” this implies within four cubits of the altar. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explicitly did Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “he who is first within four cubits of the altar got the right to do it.” What means הצביעו? Show a finger65Since verbs from the root צבע usually meant “to color, to dye”. Cf. Babli 23a.. If one put up one, he is counted; two, he is counted5If a Cohen has arthritic fingers and cannot lift a single finger, he may show two which, being close to one another, will be counted as one.; three he is not counted. What means., “is not counted”? Not at all? One does not count the additional. Four, the overseer hits him with a whip and cancels the lottery. “One does not show a thumb in the Temple,” because of the tricksters6Since the thumb is far from the other fingers, the thumb and one other finger might erroneously be counted as two persons.. One does not say from whom66The people were not identified by name. in the Temple, but the overseer lifts the cap of one of them and they know that the lottery (proceeds) [starts] from there. Should we not worry, maybe for a friend or a relative67That the overseer could predetermine the outcome and therefore the lottery was unfair.? They formed a snail68Greek κοχλίας “snail with a spiral shell”. Since the row of Cohanim was “snailing”, the overseer could not determine the exact number of those present. Babli 25a.. How was the lottery proceeding, to the right or to the left? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since we did state, the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan69On all days other than the Day of Atonement, presenting the incense on the interior altar needed two Cohanim, one carrying the incense and the other carrying hot coals on a pan., this implies that it proceeded to the right. The students of Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Hilfai: It is as follows. The lottery proceeds to the left, the winner adds to the right. It is preferable that one should win over whom the lottery passed twice, rather than one over whom the lottery passed only once70The previous argument did not prove anything/. 71Babli 23a, Tosephta 1:12, Tosephta Ševuot 1:4, Sifry Num. 161. It happened that one preceded another to within four cubits of the altar. The other took the knife and stuck it into his heart. Rebbi Sadoq72Since Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai asked Vespasian for medical treatment for R. Sadoq, the introduction of the lottery must be dated to the times of direct Roman rule in Judea. stood on the steps of the Hall and said to them, listen to me, my brethren, the House of Israel. It is written, if a corpse be found73Deut. 21:1.. etc. Your elders and your judges shall go out74Deut. 21:2.. From where do we have to measure, from the Temple or from the courtyards? All the people started to cry. While they still were crying, the father of the child75In the impurity of the dead. came and told them, I am atoning for you. The child is still fluttering, so the knife did not become impure76The sheep of the daily morning sacrifice. He is the Cohen with whom the counting of the lottery stops; the following 12 are those lined up to his right.. This teaches that impurity was worse for them than spilling blood, a shame. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to make a procession85Latin pompa, Greek πομπή “solemn procession”. One tries to have as many Cohanim as possible involved in order to increase the solemnity.Babli 24b, bottom. on the occasion. Rebbi said, could not the Cohen who was removing the ashes from the interior altar himself clean the candelabra? But to make a procession on the occasion. There, we have stated: “He deposits the flask on the second step and leaves;86Mishnah Tamid 3:9, speaking of the Cohen who cleans 5 lights of the candelabrum and refills them with oil.” “he takes the flask from the second step and leaves.87Mishnah Tamid 6:1; the same Cohen returns, cleans the remaining two lights on the candelabrum, refills, and lights them, when he enters the Sanctuary a second time.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, why does he enter twice for incense? Only to make a procession on the occasion. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is a biblical command: in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense88Ex. 30:7.. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He could enter to clean and to burn incense89The verse does not require different persons for the different jobs (also we already had interpreted in the morning, in the morning as meaning “early in the morning, cf. Note 49.).

MISHNAH: The second lottery: Who slaughters76The sheep of the daily morning sacrifice. He is the Cohen with whom the counting of the lottery stops; the following 12 are those lined up to his right., who pours77The blood of the daily morning sacrifice., who removes the ashes from the interior altar, who cleans the candelabrum, and who brings the parts to the ramp78The parts were first transported to the Western side of lower part of the ramp (Mishnah Šeqalim 8:8); then the Cohanim took a prayer break to recite the Šemaˋ(Mishnah Tamid 4:3, end) and only afterwards were the parts brought to the fire on top of the altar. The way the sheep was cut up is detailed in Tamid 4:2–3.: head and leg79The head and the right hind leg are carried by the fifth Cohen in line., the two front legs, spine and leg80The left hind leg with tail and kidneys, by the 7th Cohen., breast and fat81The breast with the neck and two ribs on each side connected to lung and heart., two side pieces82With spine, liver, and spleen, by the 9th Cohen., and the intestines,83Brought in a vessel, with the feet lying on top. and the fine flour84The order of carrying, and of distribution to the Cohanim, was not that indicated by the Mishnah but head, breast, front legs, two side pieces, spine and back leg (Note 130). The order of the first and the last four is not in dispute., and the pan-baked breads85Latin pompa, Greek πομπή “solemn procession”. One tries to have as many Cohanim as possible involved in order to increase the solemnity.Babli 24b, bottom., and the wine86Mishnah Tamid 3:9, speaking of the Cohen who cleans 5 lights of the candelabrum and refills them with oil.. Thirteen Cohanim won here. Ben Azzai said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Joshua, it was brought in the way of its walking87Mishnah Tamid 6:1; the same Cohen returns, cleans the remaining two lights on the candelabrum, refills, and lights them, when he enters the Sanctuary a second time.. HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar90Since in contrast to the exterior altar, removing ashes from the interior incense altar is never mentioned in the Torah.? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes91Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3).. It is unnecessary92The mention on the place of ashes is not needed to fix the place; it instructs the Cohen where to put the ashes. Babli Meˋilah 12a.. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar93The first quote is from Lev. 1:16, the second Lev. 6:3, about the ashes from the exterior altar formally deposited next to the altar. Since this case is explicit the exterior altar, the other is taken implicitly to refer to the interior altar.. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct94Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4 states that from the ashes from the interior altar and the candelabrum one may not have usufruct but taking them is not larceny.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place95Lev. 6:4. The quote is inappropriate since the verse speaks of the remainder of the ashes on the exterior altar which are transported to a pure place outside the sacred precinct., that its place shall be pure96It seems that here “pure” is taken in the sense of “untouched”.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it91Lev. 1:16, referring to the crop of a pigeon brought as elevation offering. Cf. Sifra Wayyiqra1Pereq 9(3)., he shall burn incense98Ex. 30:7. The quote is incomplete since the argument is a comparison of he shall sprinkle on it, and he shall burn incense on it.. Since sprinkling is on its body99As explained in Halakhah 5:7, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is commanded to sprinkle blood on the interior altar on it, on the cleaned metal surface directly, not on ashes or unburned incense. The rule is then transferred to everyday’s burning of incense since the same expression is used., also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior100Since the external altar is accessible to all Cohanim at all times, the internal only to a selected Cohen twice a day.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Incense which was extinguished becomes defective even in carats101Even if entire grains of incense are not touched by the fire, they become disqualified. Babli Menaḥot24b.; for consumption is written only for the external altar102Lev.6:3. A wick which was extinguished needs replacement103Babli Menaḥot88b.. Immediately? The students of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus say, first it needs to be cooled. Does the oil have to be replaced? The word of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac implies that oil has to be replaced. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, now on the winter solstice half a log for each light, on the summer solstice half a log for each light104Since the candelabrum has to be lit “from evening to morning’ (Ex.27:21), one would assume that filling the same volume of oil in winter and summer means that in the summer the remnants of the previous night’s oil have to be discarded. Cf. Babli 15a.? Rebbi Yose said, from this you cannot conclude anything, as we have stated there105Mishnah Šeqalim 5:1., “Ben Bevay for the skeins”, he was threading the wicks106If larger wicks are used in summer than in winter, the same amount of oil can be burned in all seasons. The Babli presumes without discussion that the oil has to be replaced, Menaḥot88b.. Here, you are saying, he cleans and then he burns the incense; but there, you are saying, he burns the incense and then he cleans107In Mishnah 1:2 it is stated that the High Priest first burns the incense and then cleans the lights; it is presumed that this was the order during the entire year when ordinary priests were serving. But in Mishnah 2:3 the cleaning of the candelabrum is part of the first lottery, while buring the incense is mentioned only in Mishnah 2:4 (confirmed by Mishnah Tamid 5:2). The Mishnaiot are inconsistent with another.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Tamid of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh108Chapter 2 follows the Mishnah in Tamid, which follows the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh. Tosephta 1:13.. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis109Tractate Tamid is mostly but not totally, based on the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is Middot of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob110The parts in Tamid inconsistent with the teachings of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh are attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob I who is the source of most of Mishnah Middot (Babli 16a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but not all of it; there are sayings questioned by the rabbis. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon from Mitzpeh? In the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lights he shall burn the incense on it111. Ex. 30:7 clearly mentions cleaning the lights before burning the incense.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: The reason of the rabbis, outside the curtain of the testimonial in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening to morning112Ex. 27:21 (badly misquoted). If the burning of incense in the evening were after lighting the candelabrum, the lighting would not be the last action in the Sanctuary before the next morning.; that there shall be only the cleaning of the lights113Babli 26a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not institute a lottery for the evening but said, he who won in the morning shall have won in the evening113Babli 26a.. But was it not stated: Just as the lottery is in the morning, so it is in the evening? The winner won for himself. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Explain it that it was on the Sabbath; one for the entering watch, the other for the leaving watch114Since a new watch, another family of Cohanim, took over the service after the morning sacrifices, it is obvious that the Cohen who won in the morning is no longer present at the Temple in the afternoon.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not decide about the two logs in the morning115There was no lottery to determine who brought the obligatory two logs to the altar in the morning, but the Cohen chosen to remove the ashes had to bring the new logs and set up an orderly fireplace on the altar.. Rebbi Yose said, a baratta says so, every day (a he-goat)116This word is a misquote from Mishnah 6 which is not quoted here since one refers to Mishnah 5 about the daily sacrifice, which was a sheep. is brought by eleven, and it does not mention anything in the morning. Rebbi Shammai asked, why did they not decide about the two logs in the morning? Rebbi Mana said, did Rebbi Shammai not hear that Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not decide about the two logs in the morning; and Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so? He turned around and said, yes, he had heard. But he is a person who heard a statement and questions it: Why did they decide about two logs in the evening and did not decide about two logs in the morning117Tosaphot Menaḥot89b–90a, s. v. תמיד point out that the bringing of logs to the altar in the morning belongs to the preparation, covered by the first lottery. Only in the afternoon was the bringing of two logs part of the service of the daily sacrifice. Since the early morning preparation was in the night, there was no need to increase the number of participants for pompa.? “Thirteen won here.” And it was stated on this118Tosephta 1:13.: “Sometimes fourteen, sometimes fifteen, sometimes sixteen, no less and no more.” Normally by nine119Plus the four who precede the presentation of the daily sacrifice makes 13., and on Tabernacles in the hand of one a vial of water, these are ten120Together 14.. In the evening by eleven; in the hands of two, two wooden logs. On the Sabbath by eleven, itself by nine, two, in their hands two cups of incense of the shew-bread; this makes (fifteen) [fourteen]121Both in the evening of every day and in the morning of the Sabbath. The corrector’s text clearly is in error.. On the Sabbath of Tabernacles, in the hand of one a vial of water, this makes sixteen. He shall bring it122Lev. 6:7, on the presentation of the High-Priest’s pan-baked breads. Cf.i 34a, before the additional sacrifices, but when he repeats you shall sacrifice even after the libations123The libations of wine belonging to the daily sacrifice, preceding the additional sacrifices of special days.. There are Tannaim who state, before the libations. He who says before the libations, before the wine libations. He who says after the libations, after the libations of fine flour. 124Babli 34a. The fine flour precedes the pan-baked breads; even though this is for the fire and that is for the fire, this is a private sacrifice125The High Priest’s private offering, although part of the public ceremony. and the other a public sacrifice. The pan-baked bread precede the cups126On the Sabbath, containing the incense which accompanied the shew-bread on the table in the Sanctuary.; even though this is a private sacrifice and the other a public sacrifice, this is frequent but the other is not frequent127The wine libations accompanying the sacrifices were poured into bowls with small holes on the bottom through which the wine flowed onto the altar in sufficiently small amounts so that the wine evaporated and did not extinguish the flame.. The pan-baked breads precede the wine since this is for the fire but that is for the bowls127The wine libations accompanying the sacrifices were poured into bowls with small holes on the bottom through which the wine flowed onto the altar in sufficiently small amounts so that the wine evaporated and did not extinguish the flame.. Cups and wine, which one has precedence? Is that not the Mishnah, incense before the wine128Since in Mishnah 3 wine is mentioned last, and on the Sabbath one mentions the two cups containing incense with the daily sacrifice, it should be clear that incense precedes the wine.? Here for a private offering129The only open question is how to handle incense and wine brought with a private offering., there for public offering. So is the Mishnah130The missing part of the Mishnah, the list according to Ben Azzai. Babli 25b.: head and leg79The head and the right hind leg are carried by the fifth Cohen in line., breast and fat81The breast with the neck and two ribs on each side connected to lung and heart., the front legs, two side pieces82With spine, liver, and spleen, by the 9th Cohen., spine and leg80The left hind leg with tail and kidneys, by the 7th Cohen.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Ben Azzai: you shall burn the entire he-goat on the altar131Ex. 29:18. walking., it should look as if it went walking onto the altar. Head and leg, and you are saying so? Rebbi Mana said, if it stretches out its head132In order to start walking. it lifts the foot.

MISHNAH: The third lottery, newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery. The fourth, newcomers and old-timers, who brings the limbs from the ramp to the altar? HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, nobody ever participated in the lottery and repeated133It means that nobody ever won in that lottery and repeated. Babli 26a, where R. Ḥanina says that bringing the incense makes people rich.. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, the same is true for the pan69On all days other than the Day of Atonement, presenting the incense on the interior altar needed two Cohanim, one carrying the incense and the other carrying hot coals on a pan.. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so, “the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan,” You have to say that two Cohanim are blessed every time134Since obviously the man standing next to the winner also never won before.. Rav said, May the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands135Deut. 33:11, the blessing of Moses. The Babli interprets חַיִל as “riches”, whereas the Yerushalmi reads it as “physical power”.. It happened that a man whose arm atrophied136The arm could not really have atrophied since that would have disqualified the Cohen from serving; it must have been a case of weakness in the arm which was healed by his serving with the incense. but he did not refrain from it, to uphold what had been said, may the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands.

MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice is brought by nine persons, by ten, by eleven, by twelve, neither less nor more. How is this? Itself by nine119Plus the four who precede the presentation of the daily sacrifice makes 13., and on Tabernacles in the hand of one a vial of water, these are ten120Together 14.. In the evening by eleven; itself by nine and in the hands of two, two wooden logs. On the Sabbath by eleven, itself by nine, two, in their hands two cups of incense of the shew-bread;.. On the Sabbath of Tabernacles, in the hand of one a vial of water.A he-goat is brought by eleven, the meat by five, the intestines, and the fine flour, and the wine, each by two.A bull is brought by twenty-four, head and leg79The head and the right hind leg are carried by the fifth Cohen in line., the head by one and the leg by two; spine and leg80The left hind leg with tail and kidneys, by the 7th Cohen., the spine by two and the leg by two; breast and fat81The breast with the neck and two ribs on each side connected to lung and heart., the breast by one and the fat by three; the two front legs by two; the two side pieces82With spine, liver, and spleen, by the 9th Cohen. by two; the intestines, and the fine flour149Which is 3/10 of an epha or about 3.6 liter of flour mixed with ½ hin of oil, about 3.5 liter., and the wine150Also half a hin, by three each. When has this been said? For a public offering. But for a private offering, if one wants to sacrifice, he sacrifices151If a single Cohen wants to do all the carrying, he may do it.. Skinning and cutting into pieces is the same for these and for those152It need not be done by Cohanim.. HALAKHAH: They shall arrange137Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; I could think, a thousand. 138The remainder of the Paragraph also is Sifra MesoraˋParashah 5(5–9). Its topic is the interpretation of prescriptive biblical verses in the absence of numerical data. The theory expounded here is what the author has called the axiom of definiteness: Biblical language in legal contexts is definite (H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth ed., London 1966., pp. 171–196, in particular pp. 174–175.) In the situation considered here it is noted that the set of numbers >1 has a smallest element, 2, but no largest one. Therefore an indefinite plural used in a biblical law must mean 2, otherwise the meaning would not be definite. This is applied to the laws of zava, a woman impure by non-menstrual blood flow for many days. By the principle of definiteness this means that days are 2, the number of many days is the smallest number >2, or 3. Rebbi Aqiba said, anywhere you could understand many or you could understand few, if you took the many you took nothing, if you took few you took139Babli Megillah 17a, Sanhedrin 5a.. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, two measures; one finite, the other infinite. Everybody measures with the finite measure, but nobody measures with the infinite measure. Rebbi Nehemiah said, does the verse come to open or to lock in? It does not come to lock in but to open140In Babylonian sources, this statement is credited to R. Yose; Seder Olam Chapter 1 (in the author’s edition, Northvale 1998, p. 3, Note 5, pp. 5–8.). If you are saying days141Lev. 15:25. are ten, they could be 100 or 200 or 1’000 or 10’000. But if you say days are two, you did unlock. Rebbi Muna142The Tanna. said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah. Days are two. I could think that days are many. If they are many, why is it said, many? Therefore the verse only spoke of few days. How much are they? It means two; many are three. I could think that many (days) means ten. It says days and it says many. Since the minimum of days are two, so for many, the minimum of many are three. I could think that two and three make five. But is it said, days [and many]? It only is said, many days. How is this? These many should be more than two. How many are they? It implies three. 143This paragraph is Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 6(1).The sons of Aaron shall arrange137Lev. 1:7. The theme of the Halakhah is to find a biblical source for the number of Cohanim used to bring the parts of the daily sacrifices to the altar.. I could think, a hundred; the verse says, the Cohen shall arrange144Lev. 1:12.. [If the Cohen shall arrange,] I could think that a single Cohen should arrange all the limbs; the verse says, they shall arrange. How is this? One Cohen arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten, and one for the intestines. It turns out that the lamb comes up by six (priests}, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two145Babli 27a.. This teaches that the lamb comes up by six {priests}. [The priest, to include the bald-headed, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.]146The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b. But does the verse not speak of cattle146The sentence in brackets was added by the corrector, probably from Sifra. It has no connection with the topic under discussion. Babli Bekhorot 43b.? Where does the verse imply that it is written about the daily morning sacrifice? Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: It is written here147Lev. 1:7 is written in the paragraph about elevation offerings of cattle; only Lev.1:12 is about elevation offerings of sheep, including the daily sacrifice. The argument of the preceding paragraph seems pointless. arranging, and it is written there, the Cohen shall arrange them. Since concerning the arrangement mentioned there, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice, so also concerning the arrangement mentioned here, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this is unnecessary. From the meaning of they shall arrange, do we not understand that they are two? And you explain, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; and it was stated so: Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense49,Since the daily sacrifice is scheduled בבוקר “in the morning (Ex. 29:39) but the incense בבוקר בבוקר “in the early morning (Ex. 30:7); cf. Halakhah 3:5. Babli Pesaḥim59a.148Ulla's argument goes as follows. Since arranging the wood on the altar belongs to the preparations of the morning service, and no cattle can be offered as elevation offering (or any other) before the daily morning sacrifice, necessarily Lev. 1:7 is written for the preparation of all offerings for the new day, including the daily sacrifice.. Three could bring it up; why is a he-goat brought by eleven? Only to make a procession. The rabbis of Caesarea say, why is a bull brought by 24? To make a procession on the occasion, under the heading, in God’s House we shall walk in excitement153Ps. 55:15.. Since one explains, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; from here that a private person’s bull should be brought by six154Since Lev. 1:7, to which this explanation refers, is written in the paragraph about private elevation offerings of cattle..

MISHNAH: The overseer said to them1Every day of the year, when the daily morning sacrifice was brought at dawn., “go and see whether the time of slaughter has arrived.” When it arrived, the lookout says “it is radiant.” Mathatias ben Samuel2He is mentioned in Mishnah Šeqalim5:1 as overseer of the lotteries. The sources are not unanimous about the meaning of these names, whether they came with the job or are a remembrance of outstanding personalities who once filled these positions. Some moderns presume that the list is of the last officials serving in the Second Temple. says, “was the entire East illuminated up to what is in Hebron3Even though Hebron is South of Jerusalem, as explained at the end of the Halakhah.?” And he4The lookout. answers “yes”. HALAKHAH: 5The Halakhah is copied in Roš Haššanah2:1 (א).“The overseer said to them,” etc. What means borqi? Bareqet6The word denotes one of the precious stones in the breast plate of the High Priest, usually identified as agate or emerald. The word means radiant, from בָּרָק “lightning”.. There7In Babylonia; in the formulation of the Babli 28b בָּרָק בַּרְקַאי., they are saying, בְּרוֹק בּוֹרְקָה, getting light, radiant. May one witness be believed8The Babli holds in general that a single witness can be believed in matters of prohibitions; the biblical requirement of two witnesses is binding only in criminal cases and matters that may have implications in criminal law. From the present paragraph it seems that the Yerushalmi does not accept this in general but that in cases where one witness is sufficient there is no difference between male or female witnesses.? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine9While the time indicated must be approximately correct, since one asks only at the end of the night, and by the time somebody climbs up to check it clearly will be dawn, this does not prove that at the time of the assertion dawn was really visible. The text cannot be amended and the “not” deleted since it is confirmed by both sources.? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on the Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word10Even though circumcising on the Sabbath a child not born on the Sabbath is a deadly sin.. Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time11Arabic ملوهَ “interval of time”. He computed the end of the Sabbath astronomically, for a smooth terrestrial globe; a severe restriction for Tiberias situated on a steep Eastern slope.. Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining12The translation of איביריתא is conjectural. The direction of the shining part of the moon indicates the position of the sun, from which its position below the horizon (of a smooth terrestrial globe) can be inferred without complicated computations.. Rebbi Immi was (carrying) {circumcising]13The text in parenthesis is from Yoma, the one in braces from Roš Haššanah. Since Hippos was on the Eastern shore of the Lake of Galilee, so that for people in Tiberias on the Western shore the sun shone over Hippos in the morning, the statement cannot refer to the Sabbath. The reading of Roš Haššanah has to be accepted. Since circumcision has to be performed during daytime, R. Immi is consistently restrictive; in this case he does not rely on astronomical computations of sunrise but on the much later observation of the sun appearing over the mountains to the East. on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos14As the Halakhah points out, this can happen only in the second half of a month and therefore could not refer to a Day of Atonement.. And why “up to who is in Hebron? And he answers yes”? He comes to commemorate the merit of the Patriarchs.

MISHNAH: Why did they need this? Because once the moon shone14As the Halakhah points out, this can happen only in the second half of a month and therefore could not refer to a Day of Atonement. and they thought that it dawned to the East; they slaughtered the daily sacrifice and had to bring it outside to the place of burning15The outside place reserved for the burning of disqualified sacrifices or those whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary and which could not be burned on the altar.. Then they brought the Cohen16All Babli and independent Mishnah texts read: The High Priest. to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: Everybody who spread his legs17Defecated. A biblical expression Jud.3:26. needed immersion18Of his entire body in a miqweh.; and everybody who urinated needed sanctification of hands and feet19From the basin in the courtyard.. HALAKHAH: Moonlight comes up as a beam; sunlight spreads over the entire East20The reason given in the Mishnah is difficult to accept. In the Babli 28b it is explained that it was a cloudy day where the moonlight also was diffuse.. So far if it was the end of the month; if it was the start21Even if one accepts the explanation of the Mishnah, the inquiry would only be necessary towards the end of the month when the moon rises towards morning.? 22A somewhat garbled version of a text in Berakhot 1:1 (Notes 63–70) and Gen. rabba 50(15). Rebbi Ḥanina said: From the appearance of the “morning hind”23The zodiacal light. until the first rays of light in the East a man can walk four mil24Since a person is presumed to be able to walk 40 mil on a full day at the equinoxes, this comes to 72 min.. From the first rays of light in the East until sunrise a man can walk four mil25Babli Pesaḥim 94a,. From where do we know that from the appearance of “the morning hind” until the first rays of light on the East there are four mil? [ince it is written]26Gen. 19:15.: and when the morning came, the angels urged Lot, saying27It is clear that the argument is not relevant to the question asked here, but to the time elapsing between first dawn and sunrise. To complete the proof, one has tro add a reference to v. 23, found in Berakhot and Gen. rabba, which states that Lot arrived in Zoar at the time of sunrise.. From Sodom to Zoar there are four mil. It is farther than that28In the Babli, Pesaḥim 93b, R. Ḥanina is quoted that he checked out the distance and it was 5 mil.. Rebbi Zeˋira said: the angel was flattening the road before them. And from where that from the first rays of light in the East until sunrise there are four mil? When, and when, one thing compares to another29The additional and permits to compare the one time specified in Scripture to the other, the time between visibility of the zodiacal light and first dawn. . 30This and the following paragraph also are from Berakhot.Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Anybody who identifies the “morning hind” with the planet Venus is in error; that planet sometimes is too early and sometimes too late31Sometimes Venus sets still during the night and sometimes it still is seen after sunrise.. What is it? It is like two double horns of light that arise from the East and illuminate. 32This paragraph was added to the ms. by a corrector. While there is no logical necessity for the addition of this text, it is copied from a Yoma text, not from Berakhot. In Berakhot the quotes from Esther make sense, v. 6:11 preceding 6:12. The paragraph also is copied in Qonteros Aḥaron(Q, Chapter 1, Note 44; p. 311) which also quotes 6:12 before v 6:11. The text of Q is identical with that given here except that the Aramaic endings are ה not א; babylonized spelling is to be expected from all correctors.[Explanation33Greek δήλωμα.: The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: Great man, so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very small and grows and radiates as it goes on. What is the reason 34Micha 7:8.When he35In the biblical text: 1.shall dwell in darkness, the Eternal is my light. So also at the start 36Esth. 2:21.Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that 37Esth.6:12.Mordocai returned to the king’s gate. After that 38Esth.6:11.Haman took the garment and the horse. After that: 39Esth. 8:15.Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb. After that: 40Esth. 8:16.The Jews had light and joy.] It was stated42Tosephta 1:16, Babli Zevaḥim 20b, Yerushalmi Kilaim 9:2 Notes 47–48.: “A Cohen who left to speak with another person, if to go a distance, he needs immersion43As requited by Mishnah 3.; if for a short time he needs sanctification of hands and legs44Since when he returns he starts his service anew; cf. Chapter 2 Note 51.. But is defecation not for a short time? There is a difference for defecation since they treat it as if going a distance. It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state45Babli 25a,69b; Sotah 40b,41b; Qiddušin 78b; Sanhedrin 101b; Tamid 27b. Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 5:12 (Note 247), Sotah7:7 (Note 219)., “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written462S. 7:18., King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer43As requited by Mishnah 3..

MISHNAH: Nobody enters the courtyard to serve, even if he was pure, unless he immerses himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the High Priest immerse himself and sanctify on that day, and all of them in the Sanctuary in the Parwa house48A subterranean cave inside the walls enclosing the sacred domain. The Babli declares “Parwa” to be the name of a magus or sorcerer., except this one alone49Since the Mishnah states that nobody can enter the sacred domain for service unless he immersed himself in water outside the sacred domain, it is obvious that before serving the High Priest also must immerse himself in a miqweh on the Temple Mount but outside the sacred domain. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: No person did enter the courtyard or for service50Nobody, Cohen or lay person, could enter the sacred domain without ablution. But the Cohen who entered not for service could not start to serve until he underwent a second immersion., [even if he was pure,] unless he immerses himself. Not only for service but also not for service. They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from51Which does not seem to be biblical.? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion52As stated later in the Mishnah, if the High Priest changes from his 8 garments used for service outside to white garments used inside the Sanctuary he both immerses himself and sanctifies hands and legs., from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion53Since he already immersed himself at the start of the service., from profane to holy he should need immersion54This would be an answer to the question asked at the start of the paragraph, but it is contradicted by the later Mishnaiot.. Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation55If he is pure when entering the Sanctuary but becomes impure inside, if he leaves immediately he is not subject to extirpation (Mishnah Ševuot 2:4.) he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation56If he enters the sacred domain while impure, he is subject to extirpation. not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there57Mishnah Ševuot 2:4.: “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.58While impure, he is subject to extirpation.” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi59In Ševuot 2:4, he gives a much shorter time frame. The criterion given here, the time necessary to recite half or all of the verse, is the one given by the Babli Ševuot16b in the name of other Galilean authorities., [as long as] 602Chr. 7:3.they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever. It was stated: 63Babli 30a. Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back64In itself this immersion is useless. If a person actually is impure, he is forbidden to partake of sancta and to enter the sacred domain. Immersion in a miqweh will remove the impurity but the disability regarding sancta and the sacred domain is removed only by the following sundown (Lev. 22:7). Therefore immersion in the morning is only for pure persons; for R. Jehudah it is instituted so people should not inadvertently enter the sacred domain while still not qualified for it.. There, we have stated65Mishnah Berakhot 3:6. The Mishnah is truncated; the full text explains the plural form of the verb: “The person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen, as well as a menstruating woman who lost semen, and the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, need immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.”An emission of semen pollutes, but it is a minor impurity which is removed by immersion in water and, for sancta, the following sundown. But gonorrhea and menstruation cause severe impurity for which immersion is possible only after seven days (Lev. 15:13,19). An immersion because of emission, before the time where immersion for the severe impurity is possible, is totally ineffective.A different version of the following discussion is in Berakhot 3:6, Notes 260–264.: “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he66The male sufferer from gonorrhea, mentioned in the Mishnah. He had an emission before he started suffering from gonorrhea. He was obligated for an immersion before he became severely impure. had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah67Lev. 15:16.. If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?

MISHNAH: They spread a byssus sheet61The same material from which the white garments are made which the High Priest wears for the special functions on the Day of Atonement. between him and the people; he undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments62The eight garments which the High Priest wears all year long, of which the diadem was pure gold and the coat, belt, and breast-shield contained gold., and he dressed, and sanctified hands and legs.They brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it,68Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement has to be performed by the High Priest himself, he has a problem in that he has to slaughter the sheep (and later the other sacrifices) while at the same time receiving the blood, which has to be that pumped out by the heart, not what is flowing out later. Therefore he has to cut the legal minimum, throat and esophagus, and let another Cohen cut the carotid arteries, which action, while necessary for the slaughter, does not formally fall under the definition of שחט “to cut the throat”. and another completed the slaughter for him. He received the blood and poured it. He entered to burn the incense, to clean the lights, to sacrifice69On the large altar in the inner courtyard, outside the sanctuary/ the head, the limbs, the pan-baked breads, and the wine. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two70“Two” is the technical term for windpipe and esophagus, see Note 68. Babli 32b. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.” It is written71Jer. 46:20 (Babli 32b)., qeresò from the North comes into it. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. One said, a butcher; but the other said, a remover. He who said, a butcher, from this, “they brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it.” He who said, a remover, an exiler, from loam I also was cut off72Job 33:6. Hebrew קרץ may represent both قرص “to pinch, tweak, sting” and قرض “sever, cut off, clip”..

MISHNAH: The incense in the morning73Not only on the day of Atonement but every day of the year. was brought between blood and limbs; in the evening it was brought between limbs and libations74Not only libation but also the flour offering.. If the High Priest was old or asthenic75Greek ἀσθενής., one heats water for him76On the preceding day since cooking or heating is forbidden on the day of Atonement. and pours into the cold water to mitigate its coldness. HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning77Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., and it is written about wood in the morning78This has to read: in the morning, in the morning; Lev. 6:5, referring to the two wooden logs which have to be ceremoniously put into the fire every morning. While this is not mentioned in the Mishnah, the presentation and arrangement of the two logs also is an obligation of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do77Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., preceded action for it79The slaughter and the dissection of the daily sacrifice are not done on the altar; they are not covered by any argument about the number of “mornings” quoted. They have to be done as early as possible in the morning (and as late as possible in the evening.). It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning80Ex. 30:7.. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood81They are to be burned on the altar; they can be considered fuel of the altar.? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense82Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(8).. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb83Cf. Chapter 2, Note 227.. It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening77Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights84Ex. 30:8: When Aaron kindles the light in the evening he shall burn incense on it i. e., on the interior altar.. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning85Ex. 27:21.(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do77Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4., delayed action for it86By an argument parallel to that of Note 79.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed87A Semitic adaptation of Greek καλόω. him and called him “son of the Torah.” It was stated88Babli 34b.: Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement89Presuming that the iron still was really hot by next morning. The Babli holds that the problem is that sudden cooling of iron bars is a step in the production of steel and as such forbidden on the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement, but in this case where the bars have been stored for an entire night the prohibition would only be rabbinic, which is not applied in the Temple.? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath90But on the Day of Atonement all work is forbidden (Lev. 16:29) as on the Sabbath.? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same91R. Simeon holds that an action whose forbidden aspect was not intended is not forbidden on the Sabbath; cf. Šabbat Chapter 2, Note 19.. Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same92Šabbat Chapter 2, Note 148. Babli Šabbat31b.? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same93But we know from Mishnah Šabbat that R. Jehudah disagrees.! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water94Which may be poured into cold water on the Sabbath according to everybody.? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water95A miqweh cannot be filled with drawn water; 3 log of drawn water invalidate a miqweh of 40 seah (960 log), Mishnah Miqwaot 2:4. on the Day of Atonement.

MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house48A subterranean cave inside the walls enclosing the sacred domain. The Babli declares “Parwa” to be the name of a magus or sorcerer., which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet61The same material from which the white garments are made which the High Priest wears for the special functions on the Day of Atonement. between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments96The four garments (coat, slacks, belt, and turban) made of byssus required for all expiatory acts on the Day of Atonement, Lev. 16:4., he dressed and sanctified hands and legs.In the morning he was wearing Pelusian132Linen manufactured in Pelusium, the most expensive kind on the market. worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian133A mina was 100 denar (drachma); 30 mina = 3’000 silver denar. For first Century prices, this seems excessive, but the examples given later exclude the possibility that the data might be second Century re-interpretations. In Mishnah Peah 8:8 it is stated that a fortune of 200 denar disqualifies its owner from receiving welfare. of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina134Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?. This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own. HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.97The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service.. What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing98The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order.. Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion99As formulated at the beginning, the second sanctification is tied to washing, not to dressing. This is unreasonable.? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified. Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future100The sanctifications at a change of dress are not biblical. According to the reason given for the rabbis’ position, both are intended for the next step in the service.. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing101For him, each step in the service needs sanctification before and after. The second sanctification is not for taking off the garments but for the garments he is wearing at the moment of sanctification.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future102The first sanctification at the start of the morning service is a biblical requirement, Ex. 30:21. Therefore there is no requirement of sanctification when the High Priest takes off his profane clothing.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive103Without this sanctification, the High Priest would be disqualified from serving.. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations104A misquote from Ex. 30:21.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah105Mishnah 7:4. says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them106Lev. 16:4.. The dressing is obstructive107Obviously he cannot serve naked, but the emphasis is on wear them: all four garments enumerated in the verse form an inseparable unit., but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive108All changes of dress during the day are biblical prescriptions but the accompanying sanctifications (except the first, as stated) are required but their omission does not disqualify. Babli Zevaḥim 19b.. כדי109This is misspelled for בד “linen cloth”. that they should be double110This is a discussion of a bardita reported in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 1(5), Babli Zevaḥim 18b. The word “linen cloth” is repeated four times in Lev. 16:4. One of these is necessary to establish that the High Priest has to wear four linen garments; the other three are read to imply that the garments should be of byssus (expensive), new, and double (not transparent, in the Babli’s version, woven from entwined thread.). We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study]111The text in parentheses was added by a corrector who did not understand the text. The addition is in the usual Babli style in this situation. on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose112Since the discussion centers on a baritta, the discovery of the Amoraim was that the baratta cannot be R. Yose’s.. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats113Ex. 27:40.. The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new110This is a discussion of a bardita reported in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 1(5), Babli Zevaḥim 18b. The word “linen cloth” is repeated four times in Lev. 16:4. One of these is necessary to establish that the High Priest has to wear four linen garments; the other three are read to imply that the garments should be of byssus (expensive), new, and double (not transparent, in the Babli’s version, woven from entwined thread.). If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them106Lev. 16:4., even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement114R. Yose (the Tanna) does not accept that the garments have to be new every year. The Babli 12b attributes the disagreement to other Tannaim.. Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids115Rabban Simeon requires that the parchment on which the mezuza is written be especially prepared for sacramental use.. Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried116The duplication means that the stones (of the High Priest’s breastplate) have to be quarried (and later, the priestly garment to be woven) with the intention to produce sacred utensils.. Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven117For use in the Temple. Tosephta Menaḥot9:21., as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:]118The text in parentheses was added by a corrector who did not understand the text. The following text is not quoted as support of the prior statement but is discussed in its own right; the question is whether it is a parallel to the earlier statement or not. If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax119Therefore it is Temple property and any non-sacramental use is larceny committed on Heaven’s property. and you cannot infer anything. 120The same text is in Megillah 3:1 (ל). From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately121Is a declaration of intent to use the vessel in the Temple the equivalent of a formal dedication and donation to the Temple, or not? Since the contents of a sacred vessel automatically become holy, in the second case the holiness of the vessel and its power to convert profane to sacral start at the same moment. or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy}122Added from Megillah, necessary for understanding the sentence.. One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil123Before they were actually used. This is an action, not a declaration of intent.. But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s124But first to the Tabernacle at Shiloh.. If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s125The vessels given by Cyrus from the treasury of Babylon. to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct126Since a grave and its appurtenances are forbidden for usufruct.. For a corpse or a living person127Babli Sanhedrin 48a: A mausoleum built for a person still living is permitted for usufruct. they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct 128One returns to the discussion of the Mishnah. Most of this paragraph is a baraita in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6).”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says97The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service., and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs129During all other days of the year, there is only one sanctification at the start of the day’s service., here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day130Since the consequence of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.. The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs98The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order..” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs131Since “washing” is mentioned after undressing and before dressing. Only the corrector’s text is correct..” But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian134Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?? A formulation which is an exaggeration135Arabic فرط “excess, exaggeration”. The Mishnah is formulated to give leeway in the choice of materials.. There, we have stated136Mishnah Menaḥot8:5, about the oil qualified for the lamp and the flour sacrifices in the Temple. Since the Mishnah is known, the corrector’s addition is not absolutely necessary.: “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written137In Lev. 16:23 linen is mentioned only once, in contrast to 4 times in v. 4.. It happened that Rebbi Ismael ben Phiabi wore coats worth 100 mina, he went up and sacrificed on the altar138First he cannot serve without first donating his garments to the Temple and second they will become unusable by the bloodstains that are unavoidable.. It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Hartom wore coats worth 20’00013920’000 denar = 200 mina., he went up and sacrificed on the altar, but his brothers the Cohanim took him down since he was seen naked under it. What did he do? He drenched it with water and circled the altar seven times140He made his garment opaque by soaking it with water and then drying it by circling the flames on the altar..

MISHNAH: He comes to his bull141The bull to be sacrificed which he is required to provide from his own money; Lev. 16:3, 6.; his bull was standing between the Temple Hall and the altar, its head to the South and its face to the West142The bull’s body was standing North to South but its head was bent to the West, facing the Temple Hall., and the Cohen standing in the East with his face to the West. He leans his hands on it143Between its horns. and confesses, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem144“The Name”, the generally accepted sobriquet for the Divine Name, whose correct pronunciation was taught only to the High Priest and which he only used on the Day of Atonement in his confessions., I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned145As explained in the Halakhah, עָוֹן is a criminal act, פֶּשַׁע is an intentional sin, and חֵטְא is an unintentional sin. before You, I and my house. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts, and the offenses, and the sins, by which I offended, acted criminally, and sinned before You, I and my house, as is written in the Torah of Your servant Moses146Lev. 16:30., because on that day He will atone for you, etc.” They147The priests and the people standing in the outer courtyards. answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever” He comes to the Eastern part of the courtyard, North of the altar148The prescribed place of slaughter of all most holy sacrifices.; the executive officer149The person overseeing the daily routine in the Temple. to his right and the head of the serving family150The Cohanim were divided into 24 watches; each watch came to the Temple for one week to serve there (except for a few permanent offices, enumerated in Tractate Šeqalim.) Each watch was divided into 6 families; each family serving for one day, except for the Sabbath when the entire watch were serving together. The head of the family serving on the day of Atonement accompanies the High Priest. to his left. There were two he-goats,151Lev. 16:8. and an um152Greek κάλπη. was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood but Ben Gamia153The High Priest Joshua ben Gamia, contemporary of king Agrippa I, who instituted universal Jewish compulsory elementary education. made them from gold; he was remembered for praise. HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices154For the elevation sacrifice this is required in Lev. 1:11 ; for all other most holy sacrifices it is prescribed that they be slaughtered “at the place of the elevation sacrifice.”.? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits155The length of each side of the square altar, Mishnah Middot 3:1., the words of Rebbi156In the Babli 36a (Zevaḥim 20a), “R. Yose ben R. Jehudah”. This reading is required here also since Rebbi is quoted later to extend the permitted area another 22 cubits Eastward.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives157On the Northern wall between the Temple Hall and the altar there were 24 niches, one for each watch of priests, where they kept their slaughtering knives. up to158The word עַד “up to” has to be deleted, since the place of the niches was there. Many verses in Lev. instruct that all kinds of most holy sacrifices must be slaughtered “before the Eternal”, i. e., to the East of the Temple Hall. between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern159“Eastern” must be deleted and replaced by “Northern”. The Eastern wall is at the entrance of the courtyard. wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits160The area of the altar and westward could only be entered by Cohanim at the time of service; East of it was the courtyard of the Cohanim, 11 cubits wide, where Cohanim could enter at all times, even if not currently occupied. East of this was a space, also 11 wide, accessible to Israel males. Still further East was the women’s courtyard, 135 cubits wide (Middot 2:6). Rebbi adds that part of the area of all courtyards which is North of the altar., from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified161This must read “disqualified” since Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1 states without dissent that slaughter of sacrifices by a Non-Cohen, a woman, or a slave, is qualified. by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow162The Red Cow (Num. 19). Here one has to switch the places of “slaughters” and sprinkles.” Rav instructed that in baraitot specifying where a Cohen is indispensable, it always should mention sprinkling (mostly pouring the blood on the altar) but not slaughtering. But he requires that the Cow be slaughtered by a Cohen even though Num. 19:3 states only that somebody has to slaughter the Cow in the Cohen’s presence. state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified]163The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, consistent with his earlier text, but materially wrong. The text in brackets is the corrector’s; its correctness is shown by the following argument of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles164Num. 19:3, 4. This sprinkling is not that of water with the ashes of the Red Cow, but of its blood, and the verse specifies that it has to be done by the Cohen.? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man165The main thrust of Num. 19:18 is that it describes a rite which does not require a Cohen., also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman166If slaughter of sacrifices is permitted to laymen, why is the High Priest burdened with slaughter in addition to all his other duties on that day?. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written167Lev. 16:15. While in the case of the bull, Aaron is only commanded to sacrifice(v. 6), in the case of the he-goat it is spelled out that he has to slaughter. There is more reason to require the High Priest to personally slaughter the he-goat than the bull.. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen.166If slaughter of sacrifices is permitted to laymen, why is the High Priest burdened with slaughter in addition to all his other duties on that day? But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings167Lev. 16:15. While in the case of the bull, Aaron is only commanded to sacrifice(v. 6), in the case of the he-goat it is spelled out that he has to slaughter. There is more reason to require the High Priest to personally slaughter the he-goat than the bull.. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the first time he says “please Hashem”, the second time he says, “please Bashem”168The correct version of the Mishnah is that in the confession the reading is Hashem, but in the prayer for forgiveness it is Bashem. Obviously this does not refer to what the High Priest actually said, since he used the correct vocalization for YHWH on all three occasions in the ritual (in the confession, in the prayer for forgiveness, and in the quote from Lev. 16:30), but fixes the text for the re-enactment of the ritual in the musaph prayer of the Day of Atonement. 169Babli 36b, Sifra Aḥare Parashah2(4–6), the entire paragraph. The starting sentence was added by the corrector, probably from one of the parallel sources.[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says170Ex. 34:7., He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says171Lev. 16:21., and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions172Sins intentionally committed as rebellion against God., sins are inadvertent actions173Ševuot 1:3 (Note 114), Babli Ševuot12b, Keritut 25b.. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.]174The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s, probably added from one of the parallel sources. And so we find that confessors do confess. David said175Ps. 106:6. The vaw added to the last word is from the synagogue service of the Day., we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said176IK. 8:47., [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said177Dan.9:5., we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.178How can one explain the illogical order?? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.” Ten times did the High Priest pronounce the Name on the Day of Atonement179Babli 39b.: Six times with the bull1803 times with the bull confessing his sins the first time; 3 times with the bull confessing the sins of the Cohanim., and three with the he-goat, and once with the lots181Mishnah 4:1.. Those near were falling on their faces, those farther away were saying “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”. These and those did not move away from there before they forgot it. This is My Name forever182Ex. 3:14., “this is My Name to conceal.183Babli Pesaḥim 50a.” In earlier times he was saying it aloud. Since the lawless increased, he said it softly. Rebbi Tarphon said, I was standing in a row with my brothers the Cohanim and turned my ear towards the High Priest, when I heard him mixing it with the song of the Cohanim184They sang “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever” not after he had pronounced the name but immediately when he started pronouncing it.. In earlier times it was given to everybody. Since the lawless increased, it was given only to qualified ones. 185A copy of this paragraph is in Qonteros Aḥaron (Q). The strict Aramaic used in the paragraph attests to its aggadic character, explaining why the knowledge of the correct pronunciation of the Name is lost. Samuel was passing by when he heard a Persian cursing his son by it186The Name.; he died. He said, a man is gone and [he] who heard, heard. Rebbi Iniany bar Sosay went up to Rebbi Ḥanina in Sepphoris. He said, come and I shall transmit it to you. His son went under the couch. He187The son. sneezed and he188R. Ḥanina. heard the sound. He said, why are you acting together in trickery189Translation of the text of Q., go! Neither for you nor for him. A physician190In Q: R. Yose of Sepphoris. in Sepphoris said to Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama, come and I shall transmit it to you. He told him, I am unable. He asked him, why? He said to him, because I am eating tithe, and anybody conversant with it186The Name. cannot eat anything from any person.

MISHNAH: Ben Qatin made twelve spouts to the basin191From which the Cohanim sanctify hands and legs., which had only two. He also made a mechanical device for the basin that its water should not become disqualified overnight192That the basin is lowered into a cistern containing 40 seˋah of water which is enough to purify and therefore never becomes disqualified. Otherwise the sunrise of a new day disqualifies all remainders of the service of the previous day.. King Monobaz193King of Adiabene in NE Mesopotamia, who converted to Judaism together with his mother. made all handles of the vessels for the Day of Atonement of gold. His mother Helene made a golden chandelier at the door of the Temple. She also made a golden table with the Chapter about the deviant wife written on it. Miracles happened to Nicanor’s doors; one remembers him for praise. HALAKHAH: 194Discussion of the second part of Mishnah 7 (Mishnah 9 in most Mishnah mss.) What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices154For the elevation sacrifice this is required in Lev. 1:11 ; for all other most holy sacrifices it is prescribed that they be slaughtered “at the place of the elevation sacrifice.”.? From the Northern wall of the altar; one repeats this from the preceding Halakhah up to “from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.” For five things did the executive officer serve. The executive officer says to him, Sir High Priest, lift your right hand195Mishnah 4:1.. The executive officer149The person overseeing the daily routine in the Temple. to his right and the head of the serving family150The Cohanim were divided into 24 watches; each watch came to the Temple for one week to serve there (except for a few permanent offices, enumerated in Tractate Šeqalim.) Each watch was divided into 6 families; each family serving for one day, except for the Sabbath when the entire watch were serving together. The head of the family serving on the day of Atonement accompanies the High Priest. to his left196Anywhere the High Priest goes on the Day of Atonement.. The executive officer swings scarves197Every day to signal to the Levites to start singing. Mishnah Tamid 7:3.. The executive officer grabs his hand and brings him up198Everyday, if the High Priest wants to sacrifice, the executive officer has to help him after he climbed half of the ramp. Tamid 7:3.. Nobody was appointed High Priest if he had not first been appointed executive officer. “And an urn152Greek κάλπη. was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood. What is “of boxwood”? Πύξινον199Cf. Ketubot 7:11 (Note 177), Gen. r.15(2).. Rebbi Samuel, Rav’s brother, asked: If they were lost, must the replacement be made from gold200After ben Gamla made the lots of gold, may the replacement be made of boxwood as it was originally or must any future replacement be made of gold?No R. Samuel, Rav’s brother, is otherwise known in talmudic literature. One may conjecture that the name is a scribal error for R. Samuel, R. Berekhiah’s brother.? It shall come following “one increases in holiness but does not decrease201Mishnah Šeqalim 6:6..” Could they make spouts one on top of the other202Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 10. It is understood that Ben Qatina made 12 spouts level around the basin. Why was he restricted to 12?? Rebbi Jonah said, for the maximum day of the daily sacrifice203By Mishnah 2:5, this is the maximum number of Cohanim needed for any morning daily sacrifice. Babli 37a.. The top because of a vessel reduced in its majority. But is the lower not in the category of volume inside a vessel204How could there be a biblical requirement that the Cohanim sanctify themselves with water drawn from a basin? It is one of the general principles of the rules of purity that water only purifies if either it is flowing (in any amount) or is collected in a cistern (of at least 40 seah); water drawn in a container and poured into a cistern renders the latter disqualified. One has to prove that the basin does not qualify as a container. According to the Babli, the original two spouts were one on top of the other (37a).As was noted in Eruvin (Chapter 1, Notes 199–206) the Solomon’s basin was a cylinder put on top of a rectangular solid. The upper part, being totally open to the bottom, is not a container. But the bottom seems to be a container.? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a water canal was drawing from Etam205En Etam, “the pools of Salomon”, source of the water for the Temple., and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates206The basin was not a container since the water in it was not at rest. It was filled from the water canal and the water flowed out of holes in the hooves of the three Southern bronze cattle on which the basin was resting (IK. 7:25). A hole in the size of a pomegranate makes any vessel pure since it cannot be a container even for solid food (Mishnah Kelim 17:1). (In Q, there is no mention of “Southern”.). Rebbi Simeon ben Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The Sea was a place of immersion of the Cohanim, and the Sea for the Cohanim to wash in it207This entire paragraph is copied in Q.. But was it not a vessel? A water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates. 207This entire paragraph is copied in Q. It is written2082Chr. 4:6. The topic is to find roots for the uncommon words אֲגַרְטְלֵ֨י, מַֽחֲלָפִי֭ם.: And these are their numbers: gold basins30, Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said, places where the blood of the lamb was collected. Silver basins 1’000, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, places where the blood of the bull was collected. Knives 29, Rebbi Simon said, these are the knives, as we have stated there209Mishnah Middot 4:7., “it was called the place of knives since there they hid the knives.” “His mother Helene made a golden chandelier at the door of the Temple..” Two Amoraim. One said, a chandelier. But the other said, a basin210This translation is traditional; it is pure speculation. More likely is “a lamp (?) in shell form,” Aramaic diminutive of Greek κόγχη, ἡ “mussel”.. Aquila translated before the chandelier, λαμπάδος211Genitive of λαμπάς, -άδος, ἡ, “torch”. This is the translation of the Theodotion version of the LXX of Dan. 5:5.. 212This paragraph is from Sotah 2:2 (Notes 91–97).“also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it213Single letters were written on the tablet, each letter being the first of its word. (Cf. P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, pp. 88–95).. But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average214The suspected wife’s scroll had to be written in the way the letters were on the queen’s tablet, not ornamental nor in italics. The questioner thought that the entire tablet had to be copied as it was written; then an abbreviated version would be impossible.. Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”, “the Bet there” by ’’from the Bet there”215For each letter one copies the entire word. The first sentence of the scroll would read on the tablet as אם ל ש א א ו ל ש ט ת א ה מ ה ה ה which would be copied as אם לא שכב איש אתך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי ממי המרים המאררים האלה where every first letter was copied exactly from the tablet and the rest of the word added in the same style of script. Babli 37b.. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph216While writing, the Cohen explained the text homiletically to the suspected wife, so that she would understand the meaning of the ceremony.. “Miracles happened to Nicanor’s doors; one remembers him for praise.” It was stated217Babli 38a, Tosephta 2:4.: “It happened that they were traveling in a ship218The parallel sources add: “From Alexandria”. when they ran into a big storm. They took one of the doors and threw it into the sea. When they wanted to throw also the second one he stood up and embraced it. He told them, it you are throwing it into the sea, throw me with it. He was crying and mourning continuously until he arrived at the port219Greek λιμήν, -ένες, ὁ. of Jaffa. When he arrived at the port of Jaffa it started bubbling under the ship. As we have stated there220Mishnah Middot 2:3., ‘ All doors there were changed into golden ones except Nicanor’s doors since a miracle happened to them, but some say because their bronze had a golden shine.’ ” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer221In the parallel sources: R. Eliezer ben Jacob., “their bronze was (Corinthian)222This is the correct scribe’s text. The corrector who did not understand the word changed it to the text in brackets. Corinthian brass was the most expensive kind, used for luxury goods; a copper alloy probably containing some precious metal. Greek Κορίνθιον “Corinthian”, adj., n.. [gold colored and more] beautiful than gold.”

MISHNAH: But the following are for shame: The family Garmu did not want to teach the preparation of the shew-bread. The family Eutinos did not want to teach about preparation of the incense. 223Only the first two cases are discussed in the Halakhah. According to the Babli, Hugdas knew how to amplify his voice and Ben Qamsar knew how to write multiple letters simultaneously. Hugdas ben Levi knew a chapter about song and did not want to teach. Ben Qamsar did not want to teach writing technique. About the earlier ones it is said224Prov. 10:3., the remembrance of the just is for blessing, and about those it is said, but the name of evildoers shall rot. HALAKHAH: “The following are for shame: The family Garmu.” 225Tosephta 2:5, Šeqalim 5:2 (ש), Babli 38a, Cant. rabba 3:8. The Šeqalim text of the Babli editio princeps belongs to the spelling tradition of the Tosephta.“The family Garmu were experts in preparing the shew-bread and its removal from the oven, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the shew-bread but were not experts in its removal from the oven. The family Garmu were heating from within and removing from the outside, and it did not become moldy226It had to stay fresh for a full week. The shew-bread was baked on clay forms in the shape of a ship.. But those were heating from the outside and removing from the inside, and it became moldy. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; all work of the Eternal is for Himself227Prov. 16:4.. They sent after them, but they refused to come until they doubled their wages. They used to take twelve mina228As yearly wages. The Babli and Cant. rabba declare this weekly wages, an exaggeration., so they gave them twenty-four. Rebbi Jehudah says, they used to take 24, so they gave them 48. They asked them, why do you not want to teach? They answered them, there is a tradition among us from our forefathers that this Temple will be destroyed in the future. Others should not learn and prepare the same before their foreign worship229Idolatry.. In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that in the hands of their children white bread was never found, so people should not say, from the preparation of shew-bread they are eating.” 230Tosephta 2:6–7, Šeqalim 5:2, Babli 38a, Cant. rabba 3:8. The text here is slightly shortened.“The family Eutinos were experts in preparing the incense and the smoke-creating herb, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the incense but were not experts in the smoke-creating herb. The family Eutinos’s was going straight up, and spread231فشى “to expand, spread”., and descended. But theirs was immediately spreading. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; as it is said232Is.43:7., all which is called by My Name, etc. They sent after them, but they refused to come, etc.233Here the corresponding text from the preceding paragraph has to be inserted., up to “before their foreign worship229Idolatry..” In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that no woman of any of them ever went out perfumed. Not only that, but if one of them married a woman from outside, he contracted with her that she should not use perfume. Rebbi Yose said, I found a child of the family Eutinos. I said to him, my son, from which family are you? he told me, from family X. I said to him, my son, because your forefathers intended to increase their prestige and to decrease Heaven’s prestige, therefore their prestige was diminished and Heaven’s prestige increased. Rebbi Aqiba said, Simeon ben Lagos234This is the spelling of the scribe. The corrector changed this to Logah following the text in the other sources. told me, I was collecting herbs, I and a youth from the family Eutinos, when I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him, my son, why did you cry? He said to me, about the prestige of my family which is diminished. And why did you laugh? About the glory prepared for the Just in the future world; there is smoke-creating herb before me! I said to him, my son, show it to me. He answered me, I have a tradition from my ancestors not to show it to any creature.’ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, I met an old man from the family Eutinos. He said to me, ‘Rabbi. In the past my family were humble, and transmitting this scroll235Containing the identification of the smoke-creating herb. one to the other. But now they are not trustworthy; here the scroll is yours and take care of it.’ When I came and repeated these words before Rebbi Aqiba, his tears flowed and he said, from now on we do not have to mention them for shame.” All found an excuse for their behavior except Ben Qamsar. Also following what we have stated there237Mishnah Šeqalim 5:1. The following Paragraph also is there (Leiden ms. ש, Babli editio princeps שׁ, Munich ms. of the Babli M.). “These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon and the rabbis. One said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation238The list is no historical document.. But the other said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation239The list is a historical document from early Mishnaic times; time not otherwise determined.. He who said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation, about all of them he says224Prov. 10:3., the remembrance of the just is for blessing. He who said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation, about all of them he says224Prov. 10:3., but the name of evildoers shall not. About whom was it said, the remembrance of the just is for blessing? About Ben Qatin and his kind. About all of them, Ben Zoma says, from yours they will give you, and by your name they are calling you, and according to your praise they place you, and there is no forgetting before the Omnipresent, and nobody touches what is prepared for you240He teaches an extreme doctrine of predestination, that the result of every action a person takes is predetermined in Heaven. Then even the exaggerated claims of the artisans working for the Temple would be predestined..

MISHNAH: He scrambled the urn1To make sure that he had no control about which lot he grabbed in each hand. and brought up the two lots; one had written on it “for Hashem2Cf. Chapter 3, Mishnah 9, Notre 144.”, and the other had written on it “for Azazel3Since הָאֶ֥בֶן הָאָֽזֶל (IS. 20:19) is a monolith, עז-אזח is a strong monolith, either a rocky mountain top or a sheer cliff, in the words of the verse (Lev. 16:22) “in a cut (or cut-off) land.””, with the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. If the Eternal’s came up in his right hand, the executive officer said to him, “Sir High Priest, lift you right hand.” But if it came up in his left hand, the head of the serving family said to him. “Sir High Priest, lift your left hand.” He puts them on the two he-goats4Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side. and says, “for Hashem a purification offering”5In Lev. 16:9 the expression וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת׃ cannot mean “sacrificed it as purification offering” since its slaughter is prescribed only in v. 15; it must mean “declare it as purification sacrifice.”. Rebbi Ismael says, it was not necessary to say “a purification offering,” only “for Hashem”6Since both he-goats already were taken as purification sacrifices, v. 5., and they answer, “praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever.” HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them7Tie the threads to the horn of the he-goats. and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says8Lev. 16:8., one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them]9Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector. and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them]9Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector. saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they10The lots, boxwood or gold, were used every year and were permanently engraved. were engraved. It was stated similarly11Babli Bava batra 122a.: The Land of Israel was distributed by two urns, one containing the lots, the other containing the names of the tribes. Two young priests12Literally: Flowers of the priesthood. were standing, what each of them brought up he won13They simultaneously drew lots before Eleazar the High Priest with Urim and Tummim, which paired territories with tribes.. By three ways the Land of Israel was divided up, by lots, and Urim and Tummim, and by payments. That is what is written14Misquote of Jos. 18:10. Joshua threw them lots before the Eternal at Mispeh. Lots, these are the lots. Before the Eternal, these are the Urim and Tummim. Between large and small15Num. 26:56., these are payments16The nature of these payments is nowhere spelled out. It seems that they were equalization payments so that the value of distributed land per head of the population would be approximately the same for all tribes; Sifry Num. 132; expanded quote in Yalqut Šimony Pinehas.#773.. Rebbi Abin said, unless the Holy One, praise to Him, made every place nice in the eyes of its inhabitants, the Land of Israel would never have been distributed. It was stated thus17Babli Soṭah 47a.: There are three graces. The grace of a woman in her husband’s eyes. The grace of a place in the eyes of its inhabitants. The grace of a buy in the eyes of its buyer. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus, Rebbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Levi: Even in the future the Holy one, praise to Him, will do the same. That is what is written18Ez. 36:26., I shall give you a new heart, etc., and shall give you a heart of flesh, etc. He makes sour the part of others19Everybody will be satisfied with his part. Gen. rabba 34, end.. If he touched them when they were down and they became mixed up. The he-goats are not as commanded20Since lifting the lots is a requirement which cannot be waived, the ceremony is invalid and therefore the he-goats are disqualified; a new pair has to be presented and the ceremony repeated.. If after they were lifted he touched them and they became mixed up, the he-goats are as commanded21They remain qualified.. If he touched them while lifting and they became mixed up22This situation is identical with the previous one, the remedy indicated in the sequel applies to every situation in which the High Priest held one lot in each hand and started lifting them., if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. If the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. And even if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified; if the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified23Since all these cases are possibly correct.. But if he said, whether the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand or the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, only that to my right hand side shall be sanctified, only that to my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is not sanctified, since he established it by mouth24The verse requires that the lot determine the fate of the he-goats, but the language in the last case excludes this.. 25Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(2); Babli 37a. The Torah said, lots. Lots made of anything26They may be made of any material.. I could think that he should put two lots on one and two lots on the other, the verse says, lots, one lot for the Eternal and one lot for Azazel. I could think that he should give the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on one and the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on the other, the verse says, lot. Is that not the previous argument? It should be so: I could think that after he gave the Eternal’s on the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on Azazel’s, he could go back and switch, the verse says, one lot for the Eternal, there is only one for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, there is only one for Azazel. The diadem was inscribed “Holy for the Eternal”, “holy” below and “Eternal” above27The diadem worn by the High Priest when officiating; Ex. 28:36. As explained in the parallels in the Babli (Šabbat 63b, Sukkah 5a) and in Yerushalmi Megillah1:11(71d 1. 57) only the four letters of the Name were in the upper line and קדוש ל on the bottom., like a king who sits on his throne28Greek καθέδριον. τὸ , "small chair".. And similarly, “one” below and the Name above29On the lot was inscribed not only “for the Eternal” but “one for the Eternal”.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome30He reports to have seen the High Priest’s vestment in Rome, Meˋilah 17b. and it was written on it in one line, “Holy for the Eternal”. Aaron shall put8Lev. 16:8., if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified31If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid.. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified32The drawing of lots from the urn by a non-Cohen is invalid and disqualifies the he-goats from being used in any sacrificial way.. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons33Aaron’s sons are not mentioned in the entire Chapter, only Aaron himself. are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons31If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid. are not mentioned, not so much more34Lev. 16:8 mentions that Aaron has to put the lots on the he-goats; that the lots have to be drawn first is an inference, not a separate statement. If the drawing is not written in the verse, Aaron cannot be mentioned in connection with it.? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive35From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission., if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not35From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission. obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive36Babli 39b.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth37For him the drawing of lots is not indispensable; Babli 39b.. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow38Since the entire service is restricted to one day, this can only mean that for R. Joḥanan it is possible to predetermine the he-goat which is to be the purification sacrifice.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots39These sentences have to be switched. For R. Yannai, for whom drawing of lots is indispensable, the lots have to be mentioned. But for R. Joḥanan , for whom the fate of the he-goats can be predetermined, why are lots mentioned at all?? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds40The position of R. Joḥanan is modified. He will agree that using an urn in the service is required. In the case that the High Priest loses the lots which he is lifting, the ceremony does not have to be repeated, the he-goats do not become disqualified, and he can proceed to select the he-goat to be sacrificed following the rules spelled out earlier.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed41Since the objection cannot be answered, practice has to follow R. Joḥanan . Babli 40a.. For the Eternal42Lev. 22:26., to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time43A he-goat which is not at least eight days old may not be used on the Day of Atonement. Even though the he-goat sent into the wilderness is not a sacrifice, by the process of drawing lots it is a potential sacrifice and has to be qualified as such. Babli 63b, Sifra Emor Parasha 8(6).. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth44Since for him it might be the choice of the High Priest to select the he-goat as sacrifice, one understands that a separate verse is needed to require both he-goats to be eligible at the same time. But for R. Yannai, for whom only the drawing determines which animal is chosen, it should be obvious that both have to be eligible. Then why is a separate verse needed?. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots45To prohibit that one could take the risk that an ineligible animal be drawn as sacrifice and in this case start again with another pair and a new drawing.. If one slaughtered outside46Outside the Temple domain, which is a deadly sin for sacrifices. the two he-goats47There really are three he-goats on that day, the two mentioned in Lev. 16 and the holiday purification offering mentioned in Num. 29:11. The latter is referred to as “he-goat made outside” since its blood is poured onto the altar in the courtyard, where its inner parts are burned. The he-goat chosen as sacrifice by drawing lots is referred to as “he-goat made for inside” since its blood is sprinkled inside the sanctuary (and its body burned outside the sacred domain.) Since there is no reason to treat the holiday purification offering differently from all other holiday offerings, the question asked here must refer to the he-goats subject to drawing lots of which only one is going to be a sacrifice. of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed48It is clear that for “inside” one has to read “outside” since the question is asked about the he-goat whose blood is to be brought inside, and if it was slaughtered in the Temple it cannot be slaughtered a second time outside. If the he-goat for outside was slaughtered, the main ceremony is concluded Lev. 16:24; the remaining he-goats cannot be sacrifices and their slaughter outside the sacred domain is no offense.. Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically49A Pesaḥ sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan is a well-being sacrifice. Babli 63a., but here it changes by slaughter50The he-goat chosen by the lot cannot be changed into the he-goat for outside.. How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive51Since the opinion of Rav Ḥisda is refuted, that the Tannaim refer to two different situations and do not disagree, one has to find the root of the disagreement. The text as it stands seems unintelligible; there seems to be unanimity that here also the mentions of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” have to be switched. If drawing is obstructive, neither of the two he-goats is a sacrifice before the drawing, and slaughter outside cannot be sinful. But if it is not obstructive, each one of the he-goats is a potential dedicated sacrifice and outside slaughter is sinful.. There is only one here for Hashem52Since only one of the he-goats can become a sacrifice, the argument last given is invalid (unless both he-goats are simultaneously slaughtered outside.). Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s53Since the latter he-goat is not a sacrifice.. Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift54As described in Mishnah 3, the blood of the bull has to be brought inside. This is called “the gift of the bull’s blood.”. But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood55The he-goat chosen to be the Eternal’s is slaughtered after the bull, but the bull cannot be slaughtered before the he-goat is chosen and ready to be slaughtered.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable56In the biblical narrative (Lev. 16), first the he-goat has to be selected by drawing lots (v. 8), then the bull has to be slaughtered (v. 11), then first incense (v. 12) and afterwards the bull’s blood (v. 14) have to be brought into the Sanctuary, then the he-goat has to be slaughtered and its blood brought into the sanctuary (v. 15). If the order was reversed and the he-goat selected close to the time of its slaughter, is the ceremony invalid and therefore the slaughter a violation of the prohibition of work on the day of Atonement, and a deadly sin?? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull57Slaughter of the bull is invalid unless the he-goat was selected; slaughter of the he-goat is invalid unless the bull was slaughtered first (and its blood brought inside, Babli 61a).. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams58The blood has to be sprinkled first inside the Holiest of Holies at the place of the Ark in the First Temple, between the beams used to carry the Ark. In the Second Temple, the place was indicated by a stone, but the terminology was not changed. Then it had to be sprinkled in the Sanctuary onto the gobelin separating it from the Holiest of Holies. Babli 40a..

MISHNAH: He tied a shiny strip on the head of the he-goat to be sent away59Between its horns. and put it next to its departure gate, and on the one to be slaughtered around the place of its slaughter60Around its neck, so it clearly would be distinguished from the he-goat chosen for the musaph sacrifice at the end of the service.. He came to his bull a second time, leaned both his hands on it and confessed, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned before You, I and my house, and the Sons of Aaron, your holy people. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc61The text should be completed by the duly amended text of Mishnah 3:9.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips62Strips of purple wool were used in the Temple not only rabbinically for the he-goats on the day of Atonement but also biblically for the purification ceremony of the person healed from skin disease (Lev.14:4,6) and the preparation of the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19:6).. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel63Rabbinically half a tetradrachma, two denarii. The old Canaanite (biblical) sheqel was about twice as much, cf Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122., for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; some express it in the formulation ten zin64Defined in Terumot 10:7 (Note 80) as 1/100 of a (probably Roman) pound. 2.5 tetradrachma are 10 denarii. Since an Augustean denar was 1/96 of a Roman pound (silver), 10 zin are 9.6 denarii.

MISHNAH: He slaughters it65The bull, which is large enough and has enough blood so that the High Priest does not need help in the slaughter. and receives its blood in a pitcher which he hands to one66An assisting Cohen. who stirs it on the fourth level67There were twelve steps leading from the level of the altar to the entrance of the Temple Hall. Every third step was widened and denoted a level. The fourth, top level was level with the entrance door, so that the High Priest, when he returned from offering the incense, immediately could pick up the blood and re-enter the Temple. of the Temple Hall so it should not congeal68After he picks up the incense which is to be given onto the coals inside the Temple. All coals mentioned here are charcoal; mineral coal being unknown at that time.. He took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar where he cleared away coals to both sides and collects coals on the fire pan from the interior well-burned ones, descends, and puts it on the fourth level in the courtyard. HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: on the fourth level in the courtyard73In the Mishnah, “on the fourth level of the Temple Hall” is identical with “on the fourth level in the courtyard”. It cannot mean “on the fourth level in the Temple Hall” since during the ceremonies of the day of Atonement nobody but the High Priest is permitted to enter the Sanctuary (Lev. 16:17). Babli 43b last line.. It was stated: If he slaughtered outside he is liable74If he slaughtered the bull outside the sacred domain, he is twice liable for extirpation, for violating the holiday and for sacrificing outside. This is obvious and only was stated as contrast to the next statement., if he took the fistful inside he is not liable75As explained in Mishnah 5:1, after he collected the coals other Cohanim bring to him the vessel containing the incense, of which he has to take a fistful and then enter the Sanctuary with the fire pan and the incense. It is difficult to see how he could take the fistful inside since no other Cohen is permitted there on this day, but if he did it the action is valid since there is no verse prescribing that the fistful has to be taken in the courtyard.. If he collected coals and burned the incense when the blood was spilled, he has to bring another bull and enter with its blood76Since the verse is clear that incense may be burned only after the bull was slaughtered and that the bull’s blood must be brought inside the Sanctuary after it was filled with incense smoke.. If the blood was spilled before he burned the incense, it is an invalid collection of coals and he has to start again collecting coals. If there was a doubt whether the blood was spilled before he burned the incense or after he burned the incense, you cannot bring another bull and enter with its blood since I am saying that the blood was spilled before he burned the incense and the collection of coals was invalid, and he has to start again collecting coals. You cannot do this since I am saying that the blood was spilled after he burned the incense and the collection of coals was valid, and he is liable because of unnecessary entry. The service has to stop. You find to say, the services of that day are annulled. If he slaughtered and died79Lev. 16:3 requires that Aaron come to the sanctuary with a bull. R. Simeon ben Laqish reads the verse as implying that any other Cohen cannot use his bull’s blood. All other authorities read the same verse as permitting the blood to another Cohen, as explained at the end of the paragraph.. May the other80This is the late Amora usually called R. Ḥinena. Babli 49a. enter with his blood. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with a bull, but not with its blood81Presuming that somehow the incense did not become impure by the impurity of the dead, may the replacing Cohen use the first’s fistful even though his own fist probably is of different size?. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both are saying, even with the blood. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies even with the blood. For Rebbi Ḥanina82Lev. 16:12. For the blood it is not written “the blood which he collected”; therefore the blood is transferable., Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , even with the blood. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, if he took a fistful and then died, may one enter with his fistful83Discussion of Mishnah 5.? Why does he question his fistful? For it is written, his fistful8Lev. 16:8., but here it is not written “his blood”4Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side.. It is obvious for him, even with the blood.

MISHNAH: Every day he collects coals in a silver fire-pan and empties them into one of gold; on this day he collects in a golden one and takes it inside69To make the officiating easier on the High Priest. It is obvious that these silver and gold vessels must have been made of alloys of baser metals to stand the heat..Every day he collects in one of four qab70A qab is 2.13 liter, 4 quartarii. and empties into one of three qab but on this day he collects in one of three qab which he takes inside. Rebbi Yose says, every day he collects in one of a seah716 qab. and empties into one of three qab but on this day he collects in one of three qab which he takes inside. Every day it86The fire-pan for the incense, which was adapted to make the High Priest's work easier. was heavy, but this day light. Every day its handle was short, but this day long. Everyday its gold was greenish87As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy., but this day reddish, the words of Rebbi Menahem. HALAKHAH: 83Discussion of Mishnah 5. As we have stated there 84Mishnah Tamid 5:5, about the daily taking of coals from the altar for the incense burning.: “If about a qab of it was scattered, he swept them into the water canal; but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine cooler85Greek ψυκτήρ. The scribe’s spelling is in parentheses, the corrector’s in brackets..” “Every day it was heavy, but this day light.” Not to tire him. “Everyday its handle was short, but this day long.” Not to tire him. Every day it was less that a short cubit93It is not clear whether this means a cubit of 5 hand-breadths or one of 6 handbreadths of a small person., but this day it was a cubit, and a half, so that his arm could lend support. Everyday it did not have a sheath94Greek ναρθήκιον. The fire-pan was of metal., this day it had a sheath, lest he should be burned95With Tosaphot 44b s. v. בכל reading יכווה for תכבה.. But does this not separate96Since the verse requires that the High Priest carry the fire-pan in his hand (Lev.16:12), nothing may be between his hand and the fire-pan.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was held by a nail97The sheath is an integral part of the pan; this is not separation. According to Tosaphot (44b s.v.בכל יום) this is possible even if the sheath was of leather.. 98Babli 44b, Midrash Hazita (Shir rabba) 3(17) on 3:9, Num. rabba 12. There are seven kinds of gold: good gold 99Gen.2:12., pure gold100Ex. 24:11,24; 25:17,32,36,37; 37:2,6, closed gold101IK. 7:50., Mufaz gold102Dan. 10:5., refined gold103“Refined” is found in the Bible only applied to silver, see the Halakhah., drawn gold1041K. 10:10, 17, 2Chr. 9:15, 16., Parwayim gold1052Chr. 3:6.. Good gold, as its name says. [And the gold of this land is good.99,Gen.2:12.106Corrector's addition, probably from the parallels.] Rebbi Isaac says, it is good to have in one’s house, it is good to accompany one. Pure gold, which one brings into the fire and nothing is missing. (As) [It comes as]107The text in parentheses is the scribe’s (supported by the reliable parallel in Midrash Hazita); the one in brackets is the corrector’s. it was stated: It happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything108. The text in Midrash Hazita seems original: The candelabrum the of Temple turned out to be in excess of that made in the desert by the weight of a Gordian denar; they refined it in fire 80 times until it lost that extra weight. The weight of the candelabrum itself is not defined in the Bible, only that the candelabrum and all its appurtenances have to be made from one talent (3’000 sheqel) of pure gold.. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything. Closed gold, which makes all other kinds of gold look like silver. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written, And seven thousand talents of refined silver to cover the walls of the House1091Chr. 29:4, in the list of preparations David made for the Temple to be built by Solomon.. The entire House he covered with gold1101K. 6:22, in the report on the actual building of the Temple., and you are saying so111Why is silver suddenly called gold?? But it was making all other kinds of gold look like silver. Mufaz gold. Rebbi Patroki the brother of Rebbi Drosa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Bina: It looks like fire which was kindled with sulphur. Rebbi Abbin, it is called after its place, and gold from Ufaz112Jer. 10:9.. Refined gold, one was cutting it up like olives, form it into dough, and feed it to ostriches; they filter it. But some are saying, that they were burying it in manure for seven years. Drawn gold. It could be drawn like wax. Hadrian had the weight of an egg of it. Diocletian had the weight of a Gordian denar113One of the few coins minted during the inflationary period of the military anarchy in the Roman Empire with a reputation of being honest. Cf. D. Sperber, Roman Palestine200–400 Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974. of it. Parwayim gold. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, red, it is like ox blood, but some are saying, gold which produces fruits. As we have stated there114Mishnah Middot 3:5. Babli 21b., “a golden vine was standing at the door of the inner hall.” Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac said, at the time when Solomon built the Temple, he formed all kinds of trees in it and at the time when those outside where bearing fruit, those inside where bearing fruit. That is what is written115Is. 35:2., blooming the blossom and jubilate, also enjoying and singing, etc. When did they dry up? Rebbi Isaac Ḥinena bar Isaac said, when Manasse put up at statue in the Temple they dried up, as it is written, and the flower of the Lebanon is wilted116Nah. 1:4. For “Lebanon” as sobriquet for the Temple cf, IK. 7:2..

MISHNAH: Every day he sacrifices one half88Latin pars, -rtis, f The full portion was the weight of one mina, or 25/24 of a Roman pound (cf. Note 64). in the morning and one half in the evening, but on this day he adds a fistful89The incense to be burned in the Holiest of Holies, in contrast to the larger amount burned on the incense altar in the sanctuary.. Every day it was fine but this day finese90Incense to be burned on the altar is just called “incense” but the one destined for the Holiest of Holies has to be “fine incense” (Lev. I 6:8); it is inferred that it has to be finer than regular incense.. Every day the Cohanim ascend on the East side {of the ramp} and descend on the West side, but this day they91“They” are only the High Priest, who this day does the sacral acts unaided. There is no danger of a traffic jam. ascend and descend in the middle. Rebbi Jehudah says, the High Priest always ascends in the middle and descendes in the middle.Every day the High Priest sanctifies his hands and legs from the basin put this day from a gold pitcher92Identified by Buxtorf as Latin cothon, Greek κώθων, but this denotes a drinking vessel, not a pitcher.. Rebbi Jehudah says, always the High Priest sanctifies his hands and legs from a gold pitcher. HALAKHAH: 117Babli Keritut6a/b. The compounding of the incense: balsamum, and cloves, galbanum and frankincense, each in the weight of 70 maneh118It is not obvious whether the reference is to the Semitic maneh, 60 šeqel, or the Greek mnā, 100 denar (drachmē). In the rabbinic system 1 šeqel = 2 denar. Since in all other circumstances we find that מנה denotes 100 denar (weight or money) there is no reason to assume that here the situation is different, even though the traditional vocalization in this context is מָנֶה.. Myrrh and cassia, spicenard and saffron, each in the weight of sixteen maneh. Costus twelve, bark three, cinnamon nine. You find that there were 365 maneh according to the days of the year and three for this day119The total amount adds up to 368 maneh.. That is what we have stated: “but on this day he adds a fistful.” Carshina120Name of a plant, usually leeks (in Arabic, peas or a related vegetable.) In the Babli, “Carshina lye“; as shown by the next paragraph, this must be the reading here also. Qab as a volume is a fluid measure. nine qab,(Qanrisin) [caper]121The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the scribe was very consistent in his spelling of the name, his is not a scribal error and the corrector’s has to be classified as copied from the Babli. The word used by the scribe is a hapax, its meaning is unknown. If it is from قنّار “small onions”, the meaning of the Yerushalmi term is close to the of the Babli, wine with added vegetable aroma. wine three seah and three qab. If he has no (Qanrisin) [caper] wine he brings aged whitish wine. Sodom salt122Dead Sea salt. a quarter. Some smoke producing herb. Rebbi Nathan says, also some (Qafra) [Kifa]123Here also the corrector’s version in brackets is the Babli text, against the scribe’s in parentheses. An aromatic plant also mentioned in Tosephta Demai 1:29 (cf. S.Liebermann, Tosefta ki-fshutah, Zeraim vol, 1, New York 1955, p. 208). of the Jordan. If he added honey he invalidated it. If he left out one of its ingredients he is liable for death124Babli 53a.Again spelling of corrector following the Babli. Probably the Babylonian pronunciation of qtaf was close to the Galilean of qtav. עֵץ can mean both “tree” and “bush”.. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, balsamum is only the sap of the (qtab) [qtaf]124Babli 53a.Again spelling of corrector following the Babli. Probably the Babylonian pronunciation of qtaf was close to the Galilean of qtav. עֵץ can mean both “tree” and “bush”. tree. For what comes Carshina lye? In it one polished the cloves. For what does (Qanrisin) [caper] wine come? In it one (polishes) [soaks]125Here the correction of the corrector following the Babli seems to be correct. cloves that it should be strong. Would not be urine good for this? Only one does not introduce bad smell into the Temple courtyard because of decorum126Babli Roš Haššanah 32a.. And when he was pulverizing he was saying: be well pulverized, be well pulverized, for voice is good for compounding. If he left out one of its ingredients or added honey he invalidated it. If he failed to add salt127Babli Menaḥot20a. or added128Obviously this must read “did not add”. Babli 53a. smoke producing herb he became liable for death. Rebbi Zeˋura said, and he sins because of unnecessary entry129If the incense is disqualified, entering the Sanctuary with it is sinful.. It was stated: Bar Qappara said, the perfumers in Jerusalem were saying, if one would add some honey, the entire world could not withstand its smell. It was stated: If one compounded half of it it is qualified. Thirds and quarters we did not hear. Rebbi said, in its proportion it is qualified. Therefore, what one said, if one compounded half of it it is qualified, half of every ingredient. Once in sixty or seventy years half of it was coming from leftovers. That is, “what was one doing with excess incense”130Mishnah Šeqalim 4:5. The Mishnah implies that leftover incense powder at the end of the year was a common occurrence.? It was stated131Babli Zevahim 109a.: If he burned132Of incense correctly compounded. the size of an olive outside he is liable; less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable133“Not liable” usually means “forbidden but not punishable.” The Babli, probably more correctly, has :less than a pars (Note 90).. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah134The first generation. Babylonian Amora.: The public has fulfilled its obligation135Since no weights or measures are given in the biblical text.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah136The student of R. Zeˋira., since it was stated that if he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable, from this you infer that less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable137If he only is liable for a full olive-sized amount outside, he cannot be liable for less than an olive-sized piece inside. If this is formulated as separate statement, it must mean that he is not liable and the action is irrelevant. The statement of Rav Jeremiah must be in the Babylonian tradition referring to a pars.. Fine138Lev. 16:12.. What does the verse say? Because it was said, you shall pulverize it finely139Ex. 31:36. If the entire year the incense must be a fine powder, what does the remark mean that on the Day of Atonement it be fine?. Then why is it said, fine? That it be most fine. What does he do? He separates the mina on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and returns it to the mortar to fill from it his fistful to observe “most fine.140Babli 45a, Keritut_6b.” Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification141This now refers to Mishnah 8, that the High Priest does not use the basin but a golden pitcher. Since the first sanctification from the basis is a biblical requirement (Ex. 30:20–21, 40:30) it cannot be waved.. Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels142All containers. Zevaḥim 21b/22a. in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive143The place between the Tent of Meeting and the altar (Ex. 30:18). If the basin is not in its place, no service can be held..

MISHNAH: Every day there were four arrangements144The formal arrangement of wood on the altar. For R. Meïr the first one is in the morning for the daily sacrifice, the second for taking charcoal for the daily burning of incense on the interior altar, the third to make sure the fire is not extinguished for the remainder of the day, the fourth to burn through the night. and this day five145Additional logs from which the High Priest takes charcoal to bring into the Holiest of Holies., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, everyday three and this day four. Rebbi Jehudah says, every day two and this day three. HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? 148He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b.And the fire on the altar shall be lit there, you shall not extinguish, that is the arrangement which keeps the fire. And the Cohen shall burn on it, that is the arrangement for disposal of limbs and fat. And arrange on it the elevation sacrifice, this is the main arrangement. And burn as incense on it the fats of the well-being sacrifices, this is the incense. Rebbi Yose does not have the arrangement for disposal of limbs. Rebbi Jehudah does not have the arrangement which keeps the fire. How does Rebbi Jehudah explain a permanent fire147Lev. 6:6.? The fire which I told you that it be permanent only shall be on the outer altar148He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b.. Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre149On the altar. and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath150The remainders of Friday sacrifices have to be burned in the following night which is Sabbath.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here151Maybe “every day” excludes Friday evening.? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five152Since everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Megillah 1:5), if the special arrangement for the night is prescribed for the day of Atonement it also must be prescribed for the Sabbath.”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside153Since the sacrifice is valid if the blood was poured on the walls of the altar, the later disposal cannot invalidate. If one would leave the remainders unburned and after the Sabbath burn them outside the sacred domain, everything would remain valid. Why should the Sabbath be pushed aside for this, even though it has biblical justification?? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive154Even in times when the New Moon was proclaimed on the basis of testimony, the Supreme Court had the possibility of declaring the New Moon based on their computations (Mishnah Roš Haššanah 2:11. and push aside, as we have stated there155Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:11.: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.” From where the arrangement of the Day of Atonement156That the wood on the altar has to be prepared specially for the requirements of the day and therefore needs an extra arrangement, in addition to the daily ones.? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Coals157Lev. 16:12.. Why does the verse say, of fire? That it should be insignificant on its coals. 158Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(5); Babli Pesaḥim 75b.. The following text is Tannaitic, not of the sayings of R. Jeremiah. It is missing in a Genizah fragment (Ginzberg, p. 118) and therefore may be a later addition. This explains the reduplication of the argument.“Coals, I could think smouldering; the verse says of fire. If of fire, I could think flames; the verse says coals of fire, from those crackling ones. And from where that the fire should be insignificant on the coals? The verse says, coals of fire.” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the shew-bread did not become disqualified during travel time159Since the shew-bread has to be on the table in the Sanctuary (Lev. 24:5–9) it is obvious that bread taken out of a stationary Sanctuary becomes disqualified. The question is whether it also became disqualified when the Sanctuary around it was removed by divine command during the wanderings of he Israelites in the desert.. [Rebbi Joḥanan said, the shew-bread became disqualified during travel time.]160Addition by the corrector; sentence missing in the Genizah fragment published by Ginzberg (Note 159). The Babli, Menaḥot95a, reports a disagreement of R. Joshua ben Levi and R. Joḥanan about this subject. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: just as they camped so they travelled161Num. 2:17., since it did not become disqualified when they were camping so it did not become disqualified when they were travelling. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of161Num. 2:17.camps, as if in the center of camps. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged162Private altars and sacrifices outside the central sanctuary are forbidden, Lev. 17. In the absence of a central sanctuary, private altars are permitted, Mishnah Zevaḥim 14:4–8. If a central Sanctuary exists but is temporarily unavailable, the prohibition remains in place; Menaḥot95a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time163Sacrifices must either be burned on the altar in the courtyard of the Sanctuary or eaten within sanctified enclosures. If all enclosures are removed, all leftovers of sacrifices are automatically disqualified. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition164Num. 5:1–4. A person suffering from gonorrhea is excluded from the dwelling of the Levites, a sufferer from skin disease also from the camp of the Israelites. Since they were marching in military order, the impure were excluded from the marching order. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease165During travel times there is no inside and the impure cannot be sent outside.. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other.166Since R. Joshua ben Levi is not mentioned in the present paragraph, the reference to him has to be to the preceding one. The reference to R. Joḥanan is incomprehensible; the quoted baraita does not refer to any previous statement but to the following of R. Jehudah. A baraita167Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10), a baraita of R. Jehudah. Anywhere “permanent” is mentioned, it overrides restrictions. Since “permanent” is mentioned for the fire of that altar, Lev. 6:6, the priests have to tend the fire on the Sabbath even if all of them are impure. But “permanent” also is mentioned for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:8); this overrides the absence of the walls of the Sanctuary. By the same token, R. Joshua ben Levi has to hold that the altar fire has to be tended on the march; following R. Jehudah in the sequel. supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel168Continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10) on Lev. 6:6.. What did they do [at travel time]169Addition by the corrector; it should be deleted since by removing it the sentence and the next are again continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10).? They put a wine-cooler87As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy. over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said170Num. 4:13., they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated171In all cognate languages דשן, دسم means “to be fat”. The use of דשן as “ashes” must mean “ashes from fatty material”. R. Jehudah will not extend the extended meaning of the noun to the corresponding verb..

MISHNAH: They brought him the cup and the pan1Other Cohanim bring him an empty cup and the censer full of the incense specially prepared for this day.; he took his full fistfuls and put it into the cup, a big person according to his bigness, and a small person according to his smallness, this was their measure. He took the fire-pan2With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple. into his right hand and the cup in his left, went into the Temple until he reached the space between the two gobelins which separate between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies with one cubit between them. Rebbi Yose says, there was only one gobelin as it was said3Ex. 26:33., and the gobelin shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies. HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated9Mishnah 4:3. The same expression מַתְתָּה is used in Mishnah 4:3 and in 5:1. But if the High Priest already used the מַתְתָּה before, it cannot be brought to him now from a storage facility., “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen10From a rabbinic Hebrew root מגיס “to stir, to mix dough” which may have been induced by Greek μαγίς “dough”.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed11This would contradict Lev. 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed.? 12The incense used in the Temple. As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy14There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex. 30:36, most holy it shall be for you, Ex. 30:37, holy it shall be for you. Babli Keritut 6a., that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary15It seems that the correct text is in Šeqalim: That its existence shall be in the holy space. The Babli text there adds: “and it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury,” i. e., from the Temple tax.. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury16In the Babli text: “that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary” which in our text is the Yoma version of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. In the Babli Šeqalim text it makes sense; the preparation may be in profane terrain, only the use must be in the Sanctuary.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings17Mishnah Šeqalim 4:6..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.18Addition of the corrector from Šeqalim. As explained in Šeqalim, incense of each year has to bought by the proceeds of the Temple tax of that year. In order to avoid that any leftovers at the end of the year became disqualified, the leftovers are given to the workers and artisans working for the Temple as their wages. The Temple can then buy back the incense from the workers with money of the next year and the incense remains qualified. (Private use of incense compounded by the Temple’s formula is a deadly sin, Ex. 30:38.) R. Joḥanan ’s argument that the Mishnah can only be interpreted as referring to incense is given in the Babli, Keritut 6a.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna19Read with Šeqalim: Rav Ḥuna. said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service20Here one has to read with the Babli Šeqalim: did not make. The incense always is prepared in a profane vessel; it becomes dedicated by being used on the dedicated fire-pan or the interior altar.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed11This would contradict Lev. 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed.. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers22Animals and supplies bought with Temple tax monies but not used by the end of a fiscal year, which cannot be used for the next year.. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished23It is impossible to redeem animals qualified to be sacrifices, Lev. 27:10. Samuel proposes to treat the surplus animals similar to how surplus incense was treated: The animals are redeemed with the past year’s excess money, which then is used for repair or improvement of the Temple building as explained in Šeqalim Chapter 4. Then the animals are bought again with money of the new fiscal year and become newly qualified.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta24He requires that the excess sheep be let grazing until either they develop a defect or become disqualified by age; then they may be redeemed like any other disqualified animal. A different tradition Babli Ševuot11b.. Leftover he-goats25Bought for public purification sacrifices on holidays and days of the New Moon., in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze26Same procedure as for sheep, Note 24.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar27To be used as elevation offerings in periods where the altar otherwise would be empty. These sacrifices not being obligatory cannot be bought with money from the Temple tax; one uses dedicated animals which are not being used for their original purpose. The statement is erroneously missing in the Babli Šeqalim.. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter28If they never had been dedicated as purification sacrifices, the rules of the latter do not apply. Accepted as opinion both by Samuel and R. Joḥanan in Babli Ševuot 12b.. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion29With the Šeqalim texts delete the last two words; the tradent is a late Amora not the early Tanna.. said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices30Since the stipulation preceded the acquisition of the animals by the Temple, R. Yose’s answer is unnecessary.. 31Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful32Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful33Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan34Lev. 2:5. or frying pan35Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.” There, you are saying, his full handful, with his handful, and here you are saying, his full handful36The following text implies that here one has to read וּמְלֹ֣א חָפְנָ֔יו (Lev. 16:12), the expression used for the service of the Day of Atonement. It is asserted that the meaning of חָפְנַיִם used in Chapter 16 is identical with קוֹמֶץ used in Chapters 2 and 6, except naturally that the קוֹמֶץ, used in the singular, refers to his right hand only whereas the חָפְנַיִם need both hands.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since there a deficient handful is disqualified, here also a deficient handful is disqualified. Are his fists considered vessels of service to sanctify37The paragraph is R. Joshua ben Levi’s teaching, who asserted before that the incense is compounded in a profane vessel. The question then arises at which moment the incense becomes sanctified to be used in the Temple service, in the hand of the High Priest when he takes it out of the profane cup or in the bowl in which he deposits it. The bowl certainly is a Temple vessel only used for sanctified contents.? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist38Babli 49a.? Should it be made to measure for his fists39“It” is the empty bowl into which the High Priest deposits his fistful of incense. The next sentence really is a repetition of the question here, whether the same vessel is used for all High Priests or not.? Do you estimate for all possible fists or you estimate for his fist only? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked: If he took a fistful and died, may another person enter with his fistful40May his successor use his incense, presuming it did not become impure by the death. Babli 49a.? If you are saying that they did not consider his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may enter with his fistful; another person may take the fistful and put it in his fist; one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists41If only the bowl turns the incense into dedicated material, taking the fistful is a necessary action but must not necessarily be done by him personally; therefore also the successor may continue to use the incense taken by the first High Priest. But it is necessary to switch the last two statements, “one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists” to the case that his fists are consecrating, and read here “one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.”. If you are saying that they considered his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may not enter with his fistful; another person may not take the fistful and put in his fist; one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists. “A big person according to his bigness,” even like Ben Qimḥit whose hand contained about four qab42About 8 liter., “and a small person according to his smallness,” even like Ben Gamia, whose hand contained only about two olives. What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen43This question cannot be about the Day of Atonement, where not even an ordinary Cohen may perform one of the duties of the High Priest, but of the regular service in the Temple, except those where the verse explicitly prescribes that a Cohen has to move the object; cf. Lev. 1:15.? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai44Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2. As a rule, sacral acts by the priests have to be performed with their right hands. Therefore the blood of a sacrifice has to be collected by the Cohen in a sacred vessel held in his right hand; if later he temporarily switches the vessel to his left hand he may return it to his right hand and it remains qualified.: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside45If he returns the vessel to the right hand he increases its distance from the altar; this is not part of the transport of the blood to the altar.. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai:46Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2. “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan2With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple. into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say47The unanimous opinion of the members of the Academy although there is no tannaitic statement to guide the decision., if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it48Put the vessel in his left hand under the right hand to support the right hand.? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there49Can one say in the case from Zevaḥim that the vessel could remain in his left hand if it is held on his right hand side below his right hand?, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.]50Addition by the corrector; correct but not absolutely necessary. But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified51If the fire pan is in his left hand and the cup with the dry incense powder in his right hand.. Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry52An unnecessary entry into the Holiest of Holies is a deadly sin, Lev. 16:2.. About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated53Mishnah Ševuot 2:4 (Note 60). The text there, reported in slightly different formulation, seems to be the correct one: “How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.” The improper behavior was that he tarried, not that he entered when pure. This parallels the first case, where the first entry was necessary and therefore legitimate, only the second one is unnecessary and sinful.: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable60In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12..” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one. “With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this54That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there55Mishnah Middot 4:7., “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside56Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim 8:5 Note 93.. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written571K. 6:17., forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written582Chr. 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall., he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you59Ex. 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this60In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12. Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below61The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated62Mishnah Middot 4:5., “the impression of pebbles63Greek ψῆφος. distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

MISHNAH: The outer one was tied open from South and the inner one from North. He walks between them until he arrives at the North end. When he arrived at the North end he turns his face to the South; he walks with his left along the gobelin4The Holiest of Holies being very dark, he guides his way along the inner gobelin with his left hand in which he holds the cold incense powder. until he arrives at the Ark. When he came to the Ark he puts the fire-pan between the two beams5With which the Ark was carried (Ex.25:13–15). For the Second Temple, where there was no Ark, see Mishnah 3., he piles the incense on the coals and the entire House is filled with smoke. He leaves and returns in the way he entered6He walks backwards with his face towards the Ark inside the Holiest of Holies and towards the North between the two gobelins.. He prays a short prayer7In the main Temple Hall. but not prolonging his prayer so as not to frighten Israel8Who might be afraid that something had happened to him.. HALAKHAH: 64Starting discussion of Mishnah 2. It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum,65Which is standing at the South wall of the Sanctuary, Ex. 40:24, 2.5 cubits from the wall, Tosephta 2:12. the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose says, he enters North of the Table66R. Yose admits only one gobelin. The table was at the North wall, Ex. 40:22.. Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum67Somewhat North of the candelabrum Tosephta 2:12, Babli 51b.. He walks between them until he reaches the North. He pushes with his elbows so that the gobelins should not be burned. When he arrives at the North he turns his face to the South. He retraces his steps lest he be seen as striding between the beams. How does he do it? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he puts the bowl on the ground, throws it in the air and catches it with the fire-pan68He and Samuel read the requirement that the High Priest put “his full fistfuls” of incense into the fire that in the Holiest of Holies he also has to use both his hands to put the incense in the fire, which leaves no hand free to hold the cup, forcing an acrobatic feat. Differently Babli 49b.. Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup69He holds that the biblical requirement is satisfied by using his fists in putting the incense into the cup. Having deposited the fire pan, the High Priest may take the cup into his right hand and empty it into the fire-pan. Opinion not mentioned in the Babli. and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends. “He leaves and returns in the way he entered.” Following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr, even if he wants he cannot do it. Why? Not to have his back turned to the Holiness70There is no problem walking backwards according to R. Yose since he simply backs out. But for R. Meïr when he passes back between the gobelins from the North end to the middle he would turn his back towards the Ark, which is a sign of disrespect. Therefore R. Meïr should require that he back out until he is between the gobelins, then go forward until he is close to half way to the South, turn right (West) to face the Ark, and a little later make another 90° turn and walk backwards until he exits into the Temple hall.. It is written712Chr. 1:13. In the description of the Chronicler, the Ark was in Jerusalem in a tent erected by David but the Tent of Meeting and Bezalel’s altar were in Gibeon. Since the verse is written at the end of the description of Solomon’s visit to Gibeon, one would have expected “from the high place” מִבָּמָה (as read by LXX, most modern translators, and the Babli 53a), not “to the high place”, לַבָּמָה., Solomon came to the high place in Gibeon to Jerusalem. Where do we hold? If he came from Jerusalem, we should say “from Jerusalem to the high place.” If he came from the high place, we should say, “he came from the high place to Jerusalem.” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he came to the high place not to turn his back to the Holiness72Going to Gibeon from Jerusalem he had his face always turned to face the Ark.. “He prays a short prayer.” And this was the High Priest’s prayer on the Day of Atonement when he left the Holiness in peace: “May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that there shall be no exile decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if exile was decreed over us today or this year that our exile be at a place of Torah. May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that there shall be no loss decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if loss was decreed over us today or this year that it be loss for good deeds. [May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that this year be a year of cheapness, a year of satiety, a year of trade, a year of rains, sunshine, and dew, and that your people Israel should not need one another, and do not turn to the prayer of travellers. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, and on your people Israel that they not erect dominion one over the other.]73The text in brackets is a corrector’s addition; it is from a source close to Lev. rabba 20(4). Since there, instead of “The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, and on your people Israel that they not erect dominion one over the other” one reads, “the rabbis of Caesarea were saying about our brothers in Caesarea, that they should not be oppressed by officials,” it seems that both the original Yerushalmi text as quite certainly the corrector’s addition (and similarly the Babli’s text in Taˋanit 24b) are not meant to prescribe a prayer text to the High Priest but indicate the text of the High Priest’s prayer in the re-enactment of his service in the Musaf-prayer of the Day of Atonement and describe the political situation in the 4th Cent. C. E..The undesirable prayer of travellers is one for absence of rains in the rainy season. And for the people of Sharon he was saying, may it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that their houses not turn into their graves74Their adobe houses are in danger of collapse during the rainy season. In Lev. rabba 20(4) the text reads: “The rabbis of the South (meaning of Lydda) said about our brethren in the Sharon, that their houses should not turn into their graves.” This also is from the Yerushalmi Musaf service.”. “He was not prolonging his prayer not to frighten Israel.” 75Babli 53b It happened that one prolonged and they decided to enter after him76To search for his corpse.. One said, it was Simeon the Just. They said to him, why did you prolong? He answered them, I was praying for the Sanctuary of your God that it should not be destroyed. They said to him, nevertheless, you should not have prolonged. 77Babli 39b, Menaḥot109b; Tosephta Sotah 13:8.. The first sentence is quoted in the next Chapter, 6:3. Simeon the Just served Israel as High Priest for forty years, and in the last year he told them, in this year I am going to die. They asked him, from where do you know? He said to them, every year when I entered the Holiest of Holies, an old man dressed in white and his head wrapped in white entered with me and left with me. But this year he entered with me but did not leave with me. 78Cf Chapter 1, Notes 220 ff. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is it not written79Lev. 16:17., nobody shall be in the Tent of Meeting during his coming to atone in the sanctuary until he leaves, not even those about whom it is written80Ez. 1:10., the shapes of their faces are human shapes shall not be in the Tent of Meeting? He answered them, who tells me that it was a person? I am saying that it was the Holy One, praise to Him81In the apparition known as Shekhina..

MISHNAH: From when the Ark was removed there was a stone there from the time of the earlier prophets; it was called Foundation, higher than the ground by three finger widths. On it he deposed it82The fire pan which in Mishnah 2 was described as being put down between the beams of the Ark.. HALAKHAH: It was stated: Before the Ark was hidden92Babli 53b/54a; cf. Šeqalim 6:1–2. he entered and exited by the light of the Ark. After the Ark was removed he was groping and entering, groping and leaving. 93Babli 54b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated:94Tosephta 2:14. “Why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based.. It is written95Ps. 50:1–2., a psalm of Asaph; the power, God, the Eternal, spoke and called the earth, etc., from Zion, the perfection of beauty, God appears. And it says96Is. 28:16., behold I founded in Zion a stone, etc.”

MISHNAH: He took the blood from the one who was stirring it, entered to the place where he had entered83The Holiest of Holies., and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards84As the verse prescribes (Lev. 16:14), once on the cover of the Ark and seven times in front of it.. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking85Lifting his finger to let a drop fly off, and then dropping the finger for another drop.. And so was he counting: One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. He left and put it down on the golden pedestal which was in the Temple.They brought him the he-goat, he slaughtered it and received its blood in a bowl. He entered to the place where he had entered83The Holiest of Holies., and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend downwards nor upwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting, etc.86As detailed in Mishnah 4. He left and put it down on the second pedestal which was in the Temple. Rebbi Jehudah says, only one pedestal was there.He took the blood of the bull, and put down the blood of the he-goat87This Mishnah follows R. Jehudah who insists that there was only one pedestal; therefore the bowl with the bull’s blood had to be lifted before the one with the he-goat’s blood could be deposited., and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside88On the gobelin in the Temple Hall, just opposite the place of the Ark in the Holiest of Holies. and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting86As detailed in Mishnah 4.. He took the blood of the he-goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting86As detailed in Mishnah 4.. He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat and emptied the full vessel into the empty one89In order to improve the mixing of the two kinds of blood.. He shall go out to the altar which is before the Eternal90Lev. 16:18/, that is the golden altar91The incense altar in the Temple Hall.. HALAKHAH: What means כְמַצְלִיף? Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Like one who whips97Explanation of the Babli. Arukh reads כמטברר and explains “moves his hand towards the navel.”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err98This refers to the way of counting as explained in Mishnah 4. Why does he have to count 1+n? Babli 55a.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”99Since in all he has to sprinkle 8 times, it is preferable to end with “7” which is an odd number and means “luck”.. But was it not stated100The prefix ק is Babylonian Aramaic. The version in which the second number precedes the first is R. Jehudah’s in Tosephta 2:14, R. Meïr’s in the Babli 55a., “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written101Lev. 16:14; cf. Note 84., before the cover .. seven. Why does the verse say, he shall sprinkle? That the first sprinkling should be counted with them102Sprinkling is mentioned separately for the blood on the cover of the Ark and the seven times in front of the Ark. Therefore they have to be mentioned separately in counting. Babli 55a.. It is written103Lev. 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat., he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of104Therefore the blood of the he-goat must be sprinkled both on and in front of the cover. No numbers are indicated.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there105About the bull, where it is spelled out (v. 14) that the High Priest with his finger sprinkles to the East towards the front of the cover and seven times in front of the cover. means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here106About the he-goat’s blood (v. 15). means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull107Therefore the disagreement between R. Zeˋira and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac remains open.: 108Sifra Aḥare Parashah 3(3–7), Babli 55a.“He shall sprinkle it103Lev. 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat., [in front of the cover]109Unjustified addition by the corrector., this teaches that he gives a single one upwards110The singular “it” implies a single sprinkling.. In front of the cover, I do not know how many111No numbers are mentioned in Lev. 16:15.. So I am arguing: It mentions giving the bull’s blood downwards, and it mentions giving the he-goat’s blood downwards. Since giving the bull’s blood downwards as mentioned is seven times112Explicit in Lev. 16:14., so giving the he-goat’s blood downwards as mentioned must be seven times. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned upwards and blood is mentioned downwards. Since the blood mentioned upwards is once, so the blood mentioned downwards must be once. Let us see to what it is comparable. One argues downwards from downwards; one does not argue downwards from upwards. Or go in the following way: One argues he-goat’s blood from he-goat’s blood; but one does not argue he-goat’s blood from bull’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood. Since the bull’s blood is downwards seven times, also the he-goat’s blood is downwards seven times. But I do not know how many times to give the bull’s blood upwards. Giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the he-goat and giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the bull. Since giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the he-goat is once, so giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the bull is once. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned downwards; blood is mentioned upwards. Since the blood mentioned downwards is seven, so the blood mentioned upwards must be seven. Let us see to what it is similar. One argues upwards from upwards; one does not argue upwards from downwards. Or go in the following way: One argues bull’s blood from bull’s blood; but one does not argue bull’s blood from he-goat’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood, that all its works be the same. Since the bull’s blood is seven times downwards, also the he-goat’s blood is seven times downwards. Since the he-goat’s blood is once upwards, also the bull’s blood is once upwards113The number of sprinklings are uniquely determined, upwards by inference from v. 15, downwards explicitly in v.14..” The holiness114Lev. 16:16.. He has to aim vis-a-vis the holiness115This explains the statement of Mishnah 6 that blood sprinkled on the gobelin in the Temple Hall must be applied at the spot in front of the Ark.. 116Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(7–8). Babli 59b.“Rebbi Nehemiah said, since we find about the bull which comes for all commandments117This is the expression of the verse (Lev. 4:2) to describe the purification offerings required for an anointed High Priest and the High Court; cf. Introduction to Tractate Horaiot. that he stands before the altar and sprinkles on the gobelin at the moment of his sprinkling118Since the High Priest is commanded to bring the blood into the Sanctuary (Lev.4:5), to sprinkle from it seven times on the gobelin (v.6), and without moving give blood on the four corners of the incense altar (v.7), it is clear that he has to stand in front of the altar and sprinkle the blood long distance in the direction of the gobelin., I could think that here it is the same; the verse says119Lev. 16:18: He shall exit to the altar which is before the Eternal., which is before the Eternal. Where was he120Coming from the Holiest of Holies the High Priest stands between the gobelin and the altar.? Inside of the altar. Or does he speak only of the outer altar? The verse says, which is before the Eternal. Therefore he only speaks of the inner altar121Which is standing in the Temple hall directly opposite the ark in the Holiest of Holies..” Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch122Since the High Priest is standing too far away from the gobelin.. Where do they disagree? About the bull and the he-goat of the day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, it needs to touch. There are Tannaim: it does not need to touch123The disagreement between R. Zeˋira and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac is a much older controversy.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome124Babli 37a; cf. 4:1 Note 40. Tosephta 2:14. full of drops of blood. I said, these are of the blood sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement. This implies that it needs to touch. [Even if you say that it does not need to touch]125Addition by the corrector; the argument could be implied by the scribe’s text. The form תימא, derived from the Accadic/Babylonian Aramaic root אמא “to speak”, is impossible in a Yerushalmi text., (but)126Scribe’s text. if it touched, it touched. If one gave from a sanctified vessel127A vessel dedicated to the Temple service. to a profane vessel he disqualified128The disqualification is not absolute since Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2 states that the blood will be qualified if returned to a sanctified vessel. The Babli has another reading of the question, 58a.. Does this imply that from a sanctified vessel to a sanctified vessel it remains qualified129This question is asked not for the day of Atonement but for all year round. Does blood received in a sanctified vessel have to be brought to the altar in this vessel or not?? Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah implies this: “He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, could we say, the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in an empty vessel130The Mishnah does not prove anything since the second vessel is not empty; the second vessel is not a replacement of the first.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he poured the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in a full vessel; after that he again mixes them into another vessel131Which in the Mishnah is the original vessel of the bull’s blood, but for the mixture it is a new vessel. Therefore in this case one is required to pour blood from the original sanctified vessel into another sanctified vessel. This proves R. Haggai’s point. to make a perfect mixture. From where that he is required to pour out132Why must the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat be mixed before given on the corners of the golden altar; Mishnah 6. The Babli does not necessarily accept the Mishnah, 57b–58a.? The verse says133Lev. 16:18, misquoted., he shall give of the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat, when they are mixed. I could think each one by itself, the verse says134Ex. 30:10., Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly135Not even one directly after the other.. Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, from the blood of the atoning purification offering134Ex. 30:10., he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward136Regarding the incense altar, it is required by Lev. 16:19 that the High Priest sprinkle on its top “seven times of the blood.” Since no mention is made of bull or he-goat, the verse must refer to the mixed blood. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 4(8). he has to pour137I. e., to mix., for it is written seven, not fourteen. If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour138To mix for sprinkling on the top of the golden altar. It is obvious that the discussion here presupposes that there be no mixing for giving the blood on the corners of the golden altar; otherwise there would be only two cups possible.? May a person think of half an atonement139Since the he-goat was made a purification sacrifice (Chapter 4 Note 5) and is disqualified if the blood was not received with the appropriate intention (Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1), the blood must be received with the intent to be used for full atonement. The objection contradicts the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah 9, for whom all actions of the day separate atonements. As seen from the next section, the objection and the reformulation can be disregarded.? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,]140Addition of the corrector which must be deleted following the argument of the preceding Note. to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed: 141This paragraph is repeated in Halakhah 6:1 (6). If he drew lots for three pairs142Instead of one pair of he-goats there were three; for each group of sprinkling one was slaughtered while the other was alive., to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him143Lev. 16:10., one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away. And here, in Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, he must pour all three; in Rebbi Hila’s opinion, he must pour only the one from which he sprinkled144On the corners of the altar.. If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is poured into the base145While it is not mentioned in Lev. 16, it is understood from Lev. 4 that the blood remaining after some of it was sprinkled on the four corners of the large altar is poured onto the base of the altar (Lev.4:25,30,34). The same is done with the blood of the bull of the anointed and the community (Lev.4:7, 18) and therefore also applies to the purification offerings of the Day of Atonement.? The disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as they disagreed: 146Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq10(4–6), Babli 57b, Zevaḥim 34b.“A purification offering whose blood was received in four cups and from each one he gave one giving147The “giving” is sprinkling of blood on one corner of the large altar., from where that all of them are poured on the base? The verse says148A misquote from Lev.4:25 (it should be דָּמוֹ not דָּמָהּ. All quotes from v. 25 should be replaced by v. 30,34 and vice-versa., and its blood he shall pour. I could think that if he {only}149Word missing in the text, added from the parallels and needed for logical consistency. gave all four givings from one of them, all of them should be poured, the verse says,150Lev.4:30,34. See Note 148. and all its blood he shall pour. How is this? It is poured on the base, and they are emptied into the canal151The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool., the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: From where that even if he gave all four givings from one of them, all of them shall be poured on the base? The verse says, and its blood he shall pour. In Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, all are poured into the base. In Rebbi’s opinion, only the one from which he sprinkled is poured152In Rebbi’s opinion, only the actual use of blood in a vessel qualifies the remainder to be poured on the base of the altar; in R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon’s opinion, all eligible blood in a Temple vessel which is not disqualified is qualified to be poured on the base.. The colleagues say153They have a tradition that Rebbi disagrees also if the blood of two purification offerings were mixed together in one vessel., if one becomes piggul154Piggul is consumption of sacrifices out of their allotted time (Lev. 19::7) our out of the proper place. Since a sacrifice cannot become disqualified retroactively, the technical term piggul is used to describe the disqualification caused by the intent of future piggul in any of the required actions in processing the sacrifice (slaughter, reception of the blood, bringing to the altar, sprinkling on the corners). Processing piggul sacrifice is sinful; therefore blood containing piggul blood cannot be used; it is disqualified., so does the other; if the parts155The fat which is forbidden for human consumption, cf. Chapter 5:2, Note 50. of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community122Since the High Priest is standing too far away from the gobelin., unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving147The “giving” is sprinkling of blood on one corner of the large altar. of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. 156Babli Zevaḥim 95a. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them]157Corrector’s addition. it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings158If Rebbi requires visibly enough blood for two givings, he must require more than a tiny drop for each giving. This amount is not spelled out anywhere. For the Sages a tiny drop is enough and this is available in any mixture, even if not recognizable separately.. This implies159For the Sages, whom practice has to follow, two separate purification offerings whose blood has been mixed are treated as one body., if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

MISHNAH: He160The High Priest, exiting from the Holiest of Holies, standing at the Southwest corner of the Temple Hall with his face to the West. As the Halakhah explains, he has to continue walking backwards with his face to the West until he stays East of the golden altar; then he turns right to the Northeast corner of the golden altar. started purifying161This meaning of the root חטא is derived from Lev. 14:49. Here it means sprinkling blood on the four corners of the golden altar. and moves. Where does he start? At the Northeast corner162If the High Priest stands in front of the altar, the NE corner is the first corner to his right, and there he starts since there is a rule that all voluntary turns in the Temple have to be to the right, the lucky side., Northwest, Southwest, Southeast. At the place where he starts purifyng on the outer altar163There is a walkway around the large outer altar at half height. Since this altar is accessed by the ramp on its South side, if the Cohen turns to his right entering the walkway, the first corner he arrives at is the SE corner. (On the walkway he naturally has to make 4 left turns, but these are forced by his original right turn.), there he finishes on the inner altar. Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing on his place and purifying164If he stands in front of the altar to the South, he might go straight ahead to the SE corner, but if it is required that he start with a right turn by necessity he comes to the NE corner.. HALAKHAH: Should he not start at the Southeast corner? Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn164If he stands in front of the altar to the South, he might go straight ahead to the SE corner, but if it is required that he start with a right turn by necessity he comes to the NE corner.. Should he not start at the Northwest corner? Rebbi Eleazar said, he shall leave to the altar165Lev. 16:18. This is read to require that he stand in front of the altar before starting the sprinkling. Therefore he has to start to the East.. Should he not start at the Southwest corner? Not to turn his back on the Holiness166Leaving the gobelins he stands in the SW between gobelin and altar. To start at the SW corner, he has to turn around.. Does he not end to turn his back on the Holiness? He was returning backwards167If he starts at the NE corner, in the end he has to go from the SW to the SE corners turning his back to the Ark. Therefore he has to walk this stretch backwards, facing W. The rule of the Mishnah is the only one compatible with all constraints.. He shall stand in the South and start at the Northeast corner, as Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn. It was stated:168Tosephta 3:1, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 4(10), Babli 59a. The text here seems to be the correct one, against the three witnesses to the Babylonian text. Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing at his place and purifying. On all of them he was giving from top to bottom except for the one he was standing in front of [in the diagonal]169Addition of the corrector from the Tosephta. Greek λοξόν, “oblique”., where he was giving from bottom to top170Since the top of the golden altar was only 1 cubit square, it was easily possible to sprinkle on all horns when standing in front of one corner.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them were explaining the same verse171Lev. 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated., around. [The rabbis are saying, around walking. Rebbi Eliezer is saying, around]171Lev. 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated. the corners. Two Cohanim escaped the wars172Greek πόλεμος, ὁ “war”; in this case the first war against the Romans. Babli 59a.. One said, I was standing and purifying; the other one said, I was walking and purifying. Rebbi Yudan said, this implies, he who does it one way does not worry, and he who does it the other way does not worry173Disregarding both Talmudim, Maimonides rules against R. Eliezer both in his Mishnah commentary and in his Code..

MISHNAH: On all of them he gives from bottom to top except the one he is standing in front of, where he gives from top to bottom174This follows R. Eliezer. If he would give the blood with his finger on the horn directly in front of him from bottom to top, some blood would flow back onto his arm and dirty his white robe.. He sprinkles on the surface of the altar seven times175Lev. 16:19.. The rest of the blood he poured on the Western base of the outer altar176While this is not prescribed in Lev. 16, as explained in the Halakhah it is inferred from the treatment of the blood of the bull of the Anointed Priest, whose remainders have to be poured on the “base of the altar which is in front of the Tent of Meeting.” “In front of” is taken to refer to “base”, this is the Western side of the base of the altar.; those of the outer altar one pours on the southern base. This and that combine in the water canal151The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool. and leave towards the Kidron valley where it is sold to gardeners as fertilizer; one commits larceny with it177The water coming out of the Temple is made to drip into the earth, where the blood is absorbed, and at the bottom clear water is reappearing. The earth enriched with the blood is sold to vegetable growers as fertilizer. Since this was part of the construction of the Temple, the Temple does not renounce proprietorship of the blood suspended in the water; therefore use of the enriched earth without paying redemption money to the Temple is stealing from Heaven’s property.. HALAKHAH: He shall sprinkle on it178Lev. 16:19., not on its ashes. On it, not on its coals179Babli 59a, Tosephta 3:2.. There are Tannaim who state, the North side. There are Tannaim who state, the South side. He who says, the North side, Rebbi Eliezer; he who says the South side, the rabbis180Since for R. Eliezer the High Priest always stands at the NE corner of the golden altar. For the rabbis, he finishes giving the blood on the corners at the SE corner, when he starts to sprinkle the top seven times.. 181Tosephta 3:7, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(7); Zevaḥim 58b. The text of the second sentence is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the two sentences of the scribe are essentially identical, the corrector’s text should be accepted (even though the parallel sources show that it would have been better to correct the second sentence.)“Rebbi Yose said, this is a memorandum: Anything taken from inside to be given outside is given to what is close to the inside. [Anything taken from the outside to be given inside is taken from what is close to the inside.] And all that comes out from the inside to be given outside is given from what is close to the inside182Anything taken from inside, the remainder of blood used on the Day of Atonement or of the bull of the Anointed or of the commonwealth, outside has to be given close to the inside, i. e., on the Western base of the altar. Similarly, the incense taken from the table with the shew-bread to be burned on the outside altar has to be burned on the Western side of the altar. And anything taken from the outside to be taken inside, coals for the incense altar and fire to light the candelabrum, have to be taken from the Western side of the outside altar close to the Temple entrance..” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat. The coals of every day and the Western light183On the candelabrum. are inferred from the Day of Atonement. And the two censers are inferred from the remainder blood184As explained in Note 182.. 185Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Parashah 3(12); Babli 52a.“And all blood of the bull he shall pour186Lev. 4:7., to include the blood of the bull of the Day of Atonement in pouring.” And why did he not say, “and the he-goat”? Rebbi Mana said, is it not required to be mixed187If the bull’s blood has to be poured on the base of the large altar, the pouring of the he-goat’s blood is an automatic consequence and does not have to be spelled out as a separate commandment. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 200.? You conclude in saying, and all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement in pouring. When he finished atoning the sanctuary188Lev. 16:20.. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned189If he correctly finished the ceremonies, automatically he atoned. Cf. Babli 60b. There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished190Only if he did everything required for atoning he is finished.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive191If the remaining blood is not poured on the Western base of the exterior altar, the interior ceremonies are invalid. Babli, Zevaḥim 111a.. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings192There are four ceremonies: Blood in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, on the corners of the interior altar, and on its top. If one of them is invalid, it has to be repeated.. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving193If part is invalid, the entire ceremony has to be repeated from the start.. It was stated: 194Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 9(2); cf. Basbli 52a.“Rebbi Ismael said, if the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone195The blood on the corners of the altar atones. In general if the blood becomes disqualified after this the purification sacrifice remains qualified. The only problem is the status of blood which was brought into the Sanctuary. is given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning196The blood of the elevation sacrifice which, in contrast to the purification sacrifice, is not given on the four horns of the altar at the corners but only on the lower walls of two diagonally opposed corners so that blood is splattered on all four walls of the altar.. The question is, which pair of corners, SW and NE, or NW and SE? While the elevation offering is voluntary, it is stated in Lev. 1:4 that it is atoning. While the verse does not detail for what it is atoning, it is concluded in Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 4(8) that it is for the transgressions which do not qualify for a purification offering, infraction of positive commandments and of minor prohibitions. The“start” is giving the blood on the walls of the altar. it is only logical that it be given on the base197The SE corner of the altar had no base stones standing out from the walls of the altar. The argument shows that the blood of the elevation sacrifice has to be applied to the SW and NE corners. (Mishnah Tamid4:1).. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, No. If you said that the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone and is not able to atone are given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning and is able to atone is only logical that it be given on the base.” He who said “does not atone”, they do not atone during all other days of the year; therefore on the Day of Atonement they atone198Since the ritual of the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16:29 is called an eternal law, any particular action required is essential for Atonement. But an action is certainly obstructive only if it is mentioned in Chapter 16.. He who says “does not atone and is not able to atone”, they do not atone either on New Year’s Day198a“On New Year’s Day” may be a scribal error for כָּל־יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה “all days of the year.” and not on the Day of Atonement. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it is a commandment to give on the base. But if it cannot refer to the commandment, let it refer to obstruction199Since it was established earlier (Note 185) that it is a commandment to pour the remaining blood on the base, the difference between R. Ismael and R. Aqiba can only be whether pouring the blood on the base is obstructive or not.. Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: 200Babli Zevaḥim 52b, Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(4).“The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below201Blood of elevation and well-being sacrifices which has to be given on the walls of the altar below the walkway at half-height certainly cannot validly be given on the upper part of the walls, but blood of purification sacrifices which must be given on the horns of the altar (by a Cohen standing on the walkway) should be valid if given on the lower walls since at the end the remainder of the blood is poured on the base which is below the lower walls.? The inner ones202Blood used inside the Sanctuary, of the day of Atonement, and of the bulls of the Anointed and the community. shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside203If none of the blood was brought inside, the ceremony certainly is invalid. it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them204Since the altar is the place of only the third and fourths stops in the use of the blood inside the Sanctuary., what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them205After blood of purification sacrifices was given on the horns, what is left becomes remainder.. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it206Lev. 6:19. The purification sacrifice except for the parts destined for the altar is eaten by the Cohanim, but only if the priest purified it, i. e., followed all the prescribed rules., that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins207Blood on the altar is invalid if from it was not previously given between the beams and on the gobelins. they become remainders. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated:208Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:1, speaking of the remainders of the blood brought inside. “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: 209Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8(8) on Lev. 16:29; Babli 61a.“He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden]210Addition by the corrector; a correct statement but unnecessary as shown by the parallels. altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders211And anything needed for atonement is obstructive.? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that]212Corrector’s addition. remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive213It seems that here are two different texts. The scribe’s text is “Are not the remainders obstructive? Their place is obstructive.” After having proved that the baraita presupposes that remainders are obstructive it is stated that if the remainders of blood brought into the sanctuary are not given on the base to the West of the exterior altar, the procedure is invalid. In the corrector’s text this is a question, not an assertion.? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them214No necessary action in the Temple can be performed in the night; only leftovers from the preceding day are burned on the altar. Pouring remainders of blood on the base in the night clearly is invalid; the question is whether this requires a new sacrifice. The question cannot be asked about the service of the Day of Atonement, it must be about the bull of the Anointed or the community.? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them215Since it is agreed that pouring the remainder blood on the base in a commandment, if a sacrifice is slaughtered with the intent not to pour, or the blood is brought to the alter with the intent not to pour the remainder on the base, is the sacrifice disqualified from the moment of the illegitimate thought? Answered in the affirmative in the Babli, Zevaḥim 29a.? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers216The commandment to pour the remainders on the base is conditional; if there are no remainders, there is no obligation to pour.. It was stated217Tosephta Zevaḥim 6:9; Babli Yoma59a, Meˋilah 11a.: “One commits larceny with blood218Illegitimate use of sancta is larceny which requires restitution, payment of a fine, and a sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). The question is whether this applies also to the blood when it flows out of the Temple domain after all ceremonies have successfully been completed., the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person219Lev. 17:11.. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated220Lev. 17:14.. You only have extirpation of persons from it221In both cases, the argument is that after the blood has left the Temple precinct it is profane. It still may be Temple property, but no sacrilege is involved in unauthorized use and no sacrifice for meˋilah can be due.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood222It is not clear what this means. It could be that one refers to blood of sacrifices which somehow became disqualified for the altar, or of the blood of animals unfit for the altar which from the start were donated only for the upkeep of the Temple, and whose illicit use is meˋilah.. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it223Both possibilities apply to both interpretations given in the preceding Note.. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon224R. Simeon holds that the remainders of blood used on the altar, as the blood mentioned in Mishnah 8, as well as the blood of animals dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple, are subject to meˋilah (and the Mishnah follows R. Simeon), but about blood unfit for atonement he agrees that there can be no meˋilah. Therefore the expression “they differ” does not refer to the Amoraim reporting in the name of R. Joḥanan, but to R. Sineon and the Sages in the Tosephta.. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth225Since anything given to the Temple for its upkeep is there to be sold and the money used for sacred purposes, the holiness of the dedicated object is transferred to the money while the object reverts to profane status. But meˋilah, larceny committed on sacra, only applies to profane use of sacred objects, not to redemptions (or to use that can be legitimized by redemption.) Therefore the distinction made by R. Simeon is not consistent with our rules.? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money226Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4.. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

MISHNAH: All actions of the Day of Atonement which have been prescribed in their sequence227The order of actions prescribed to the High Priest in Lev. 16 must be followed exactly., if he advanced one action to another he did not do anything. If he advanced he-goat’s blood to the bull’s blood he has to sprinkle he-goat’s blood after the bull’s blood. If the blood was spilled before he finishes all givings required in the interior228In the Holiest of Holies., he has to bring other blood and starts sprinkling anew in the interior. So it is in the Temple Hall and so it is with the golden altar, since all of these are separate atonements229If the blood was spilled after an action was completed, new animals and new blood only are required for the subsequent actions; one does not have to start from the beginning.. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, he starts at the place where he interrupted230While the anonymous Tanna requires the repetition of any partially complete action, R. Eleazar and R. Simeon accept completion with other blood of actions partially executed.. HALAKHAH: It was stated:231Tosephta 3:4, Babli 60a. “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this232That a change in the sequence of actions invalidates the service. been said? About service performed inside in white garments. But service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, what he did is done. And the Sages are saying, even for service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, he did not do anything.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan233Babli 60a/b.: Both of them are explaining the same verse234Ex. 30:10.: of the blood of the atoning sacrifice once. The rabbis are saying, service which is performed one [time]235Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli. in the year. Rebbi Jehudah is saying, a place in which he enters one [time]235Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli. per year. Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Ephes: About givings between the beams; but givings between the gobelins the he-goat is obstructive for the bull236Chapter 4:1, Note 55.. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave of the bull’s blood between the beams and between the gobelins and afterwards freshly slaughtered the he-goat it is qualified237Babli 40a, disputing the assertion of R. Ephes.. Rebbi Yose said, if the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood in the cup was spilled, would he not bring another bull and it would be qualified238This cannot mean that the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood were mixed in one cup since this is scheduled only after both kinds of blood were sprinkled on the gobelins. R. Yose argues in support of R. Eleazar, since the blood in the cup could be spilled at any moment, then the slaughter can happen at any moment.? What is the difference whether he slaughtered before he gave or slaughtered after he gave? If it had said “he gives” that would have been correct239For the rabbis each group of sprinkling, in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, and on the altar, forms a unit. If anything was incomplete or disqualifying in one of the actions, the entire action must be repeated. For R. Eleazar and R. Simeon every single sprinkling is a commandment by itself. In all there are 7+1 sprinklings of bull’s blood and the same number of he-goat’s blood in the Holiest of Holies, the same number of both kinds of blood on the gobelins, 4 of the combined blood on the horns of the golden altar and 7 on its top, for a total of 4x8+11 = 43.. The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification239For the rabbis each group of sprinkling, in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, and on the altar, forms a unit. If anything was incomplete or disqualifying in one of the actions, the entire action must be repeated. For R. Eleazar and R. Simeon every single sprinkling is a commandment by itself. In all there are 7+1 sprinklings of bull’s blood and the same number of he-goat’s blood in the Holiest of Holies, the same number of both kinds of blood on the gobelins, 4 of the combined blood on the horns of the golden altar and 7 on its top, for a total of 4x8+11 = 43.. Therefore the rabbis say, any seven240This really should read “eight”. are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.]241Corrector’s addition. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar242The Amora ben Pedat, not the Tanna, ben Arakh, quoted in the Tosephta., the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and243Reading וְ instead of the similar sounding בֵי. Rebbi Simeon: he finished atoning for the holy244Lev. 16:20., even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished”245Since emphasis is on finishing, even if only a single sprinkling is needed to complete the ceremony it is counted and valid.. 246Sifra Aḥare Parashah 4(3); a minority opinion in the Babli, 61b.“Rebbi Eleazar247The Tanna. said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those]248Addition by the corrector. While the statement is correct, the addition is questionable. As is clear from the text of Sifra and the remark following the quote, everybody agrees and it is obvious from the biblical text (Lev. 20:27) that the bull and the he-goat on whose blood the ceremony is completed have to be burned outside the city of Jerusalem and the people occupied with this burning become severely impure. The question is whether the animals whose blood was first brought into the sanctuary but was not used to finish the ceremonies, either because it was spilled or because of some disqualification, have to be disposed in the same way. This is asserted by R. Eleazar but negated by RR. Meïr and Simeon. are (emptied)249For “emptied” read נשרפין “burned”. If the blood was spilled, it cannot be emptied a second time. following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them250Or if it was spilled, cf. Note 248.. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah251This is equivalent to saying that they did not completely lose their status as sancta and therefore have to be burned following the biblical rules.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification252Disqualification not of the second but the first couple of animals. Slaughter of animals with the intent that they be disqualified makes them disqualified and removes sacral status.. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates]253Necessary corrector’s addition. piggul254Piggul(Lev. 19:7) is slaughter with the intent that the sacrificial meat be eaten outside its allotted time frame. Only sancta, parts of which may be eaten, can become piggul, a disqualification which prevents the meat from being eaten, automatically removes piggul. Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:3.; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification255R. Ḥaggai’s question is baseless; the disqualification of the first sacrifice cannot have influence on the status of the second.?

MISHNAH: The commandment for the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement is that they be equal in looks, in height, and in value, and be bought simultaneously. Even if they are not equal they are qualified; if one was bought one day and the other the next day1Or any other day. they are qualified. If one of them dies, if it died before he2The High Priest. drew lots he should take a match for the second one; if it dies after he drew lots one brings two and he draws new lots for them.Then he shall say if the one for Hashem3Cf. Chapter 4, Note 2. dies, “the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.4Since only one new he-goat is needed; the second one was taken only to satisfy the requirement that lots be drawn for any he-goat used in the service.” And if the one for Azazel died, “the one for which the lot for Azazel is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” The second one shall graze until it becomes unfit, then be sold, and its proceeds used for voluntary sacrifices5The monies to be used to buy elevation sacrifices for times when otherwise the altar would be idle. since no public purification sacrifice is allowed to die6In contrast to private purification sacrifices which are not used because the owner used another animal in its stead. It cannot be used for another person, cannot be redeemed, and cannot be used in any other way.. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says, if the blood is spilled the one to be sent away shall die, if the one to be sent away dies the blood shall be spilled7Since R. Jehudah holds that if for any reason one of the he-goats or its blood cannot be used, the other cannot be used either and has to be let to die.. HALAKHAH: “The two he-goats of the Day of Atonement,” etc. 8The following is a slightly changed verson of a text appearing in Sanhedrin 3:10 (Notes 150–162) and Ševuot 4:1 (Notes 7–17).He-goats9Lev. 16:5,7,8. Babli 62b, Sifra Aḥare Parasḥah 2(1)., the minimum of he-goats are two. If so, why does it say two? That they be equal. [Sheep10Ex. 27:38, Num. 28:3., the minimum of sheep are two. If so, why does it say two? That both be equal.]11Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources. Birds12Lev. 14:4., the minimum of birds are two. If so, why does it say two? That both be equal. Trumpets13Num. 10:2., the minimum of trumpets are two. If so, why does it say two? that both be equal. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose. Is there not written14Deut. 19:17.: The two men who have the lawsuit shall stand before the Eternal? Now men, is not two the minimum of “men”? If so, why does it say two? That both be equal? But it is written15Deut. 24:17.: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,… So we find that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against somebody who is not a widow. Then why does the verse say two? It is free to be combined and one may infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a (judge) [witness]; consequently a woman may not be a (witness) [judge]16The scribe’s text in parentheses conforms to the parallels; the corrector’s in brackets is more logical.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Yose. It is said here two,[by the mouth of two witnesses17Deut. 17:6.], and it is said there two, two men remained in the camp18Num. 11:27.. Since there two means men but not women nor underaged, also here two means men but not women nor underaged. Then why is it said (two) [and the two men shall stand]19If actually the same price was paid for the two he-goats used on the Day of Atonement, but if they were regularly sold in the market one of them clearly would fetch a higher price, they are not disqualified but do not fulfill the biblical requirement of equality.? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; [one is silent while the other talks]11Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources., one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one the judge is friendly, to the other he is unfriendly, lets one sit and the other stand. [They said in the name of Rebbi Ismael, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.]11Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources. Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down. What is forbidden is that one be standing and the other sitting; or that one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short, etc. Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the testimony is delivered.. If they are equal in price but unequal in value, the he-goats are not as commanded19If actually the same price was paid for the two he-goats used on the Day of Atonement, but if they were regularly sold in the market one of them clearly would fetch a higher price, they are not disqualified but do not fulfill the biblical requirement of equality.; equal in value but not equal in price, the he-goats are as commanded. Better in its body20Having more meat. or better in its looks, what is preferable? Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say21This is the only opinion we have on the problem but it is not necessarily to be followed in practice if the Temple will be rebuilt. that we may understand it from the following: Of cut greenish and dry uncut, cut greenish is preferable22This refers to the ˋomer, the sacrifice of first barley (Lev. 2:14) which has to be greenish grain parched with fire, peeled barley of the fresh ear. While the ˋomer should be freshly cut, if the choice is only between cut moist or uncut completely dry barley, cut moist grain is preferable since this is explicitly required by the verse. אָבִיב is barley which is edible but still has a moist greenish tint; in Southern Germany known as Grünkern. Cf. Tosephta Menaḥot 10:33.. This implies, better in its body [or better in its looks]23Corrector’s addition. It might be that the scribe’s second “better in its body” is dittography, which would make the correction unnecessary., better in its body is preferable. So is the Mishnah: “One brings two and he draws new lots for them. He shall say, ‘the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.’24As it was translated in Mishnah 2, the clause אִם שֶׁל שֵׁם מֵת “if the one for Hashem dies,” describes the background of the required action; it is not part of the declaration by the High Priest.” Which of them is sacrificed first25This now refers to the case that the he-goat to be sent to the Azazel dies and one is left with two he-goats as prospective sacrifices.? Rav said, the second in the second pair; Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second in the first pair26Rav holds that since the sacrifice of the first he-goat becomes invalidated if the he-goat for Azazel died, since it was stated that if the he-goat for the Azazel died after the first he-goat had been slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the entire ceremony started anew with a new pair of he-goats, a sacrifice which became invalidated never can be reinstated. While it is a general principle that a sacrifice which became invalidated never can be reinstated, R. Joḥanan holds that the living he-goat is not disqualified if its companion he-goat died, but it only is suspended. If a second he-goat is newly chosen, the suspension of the first is removed.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice27Lev. 16:19., of the first {pair.28Since the verse refers to the first pair, the first he-goat is irrevocably made a sacrifice.} Rebbi La said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency lest it be pushed aside29A different formulation of the same idea.. This is parallel to what Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, he shall make it a purification sacrifice, he established it for dependency that its companion be paired with it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, if the second in the second pair died, would the second in the first pair be pushed aside? There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: then the second in the first pair already is pushed aside30If the replacement he-goat for the Azazel also died, R. Joḥanan might agree that a double suspension is equivalent to invalidation.. [So much more would Rav’s reasoning be inverted? If the second in the second pair died, the second in the second pair already is pushed aside.31Addition of the corrector. The question here is different. One brings a second pair and draws lots. According to the Mishnah, the new he-goat for the Azazel is selected. If then the first he-goat dies, following Rav’s original position the second drawing of lots was made under erroneous hypotheses, and a third pair of he-goats would be needed.The corrector’s source is unknown.] 32Text from Chapter 5, Notes 141–143. If he drew lots for three pairs2The High Priest., to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away. “Since no public purification sacrifice is let to die6In contrast to private purification sacrifices which are not used because the owner used another animal in its stead. It cannot be used for another person, cannot be redeemed, and cannot be used in any other way.. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die.” It is difficult for Rebbi Jehudah: does one draw lots originally to die? Rebbi Abun said, do we not find this following Rebbi Eliezer33It is sinful to try to replace a validly dedicated animal by an other (Lev. 27:10). In the case of (voluntary) well-being offerings, both animals are dedicated as well-being offerings. For obligatory offerings, two animals cannot be brought instead of one. In Mishnah Temurah 3:3, the majority rules that the replacement of a valid reparation offering and any of its offspring shall be put out to graze until they develop a defect which makes them unfit as sacrifices, then be sold, and the proceeds given to the Temple to be used for additional sacrifices, But R. Eliezer rules that they have to be allowed to die immediately without any benefit to the Temple. R. Jehudah as student of his father R. Illay, a student of R. Eliezer, can be presumed to follow the latter’s teachings., as Rebbi Eliezer said, they shall die? Rebbi Mana said, what you ask about Rebbi Jehudah you should ask about the Mishnah, as we have stated there34Mishnah Temurah 4:1. In case of a purification offering everybody agrees with R. Eliezer, and one of the he-goats for which lots are drawn is a purification offering., “the calf of a purification offering, and the replacement of a purification offering, and a purification offering whose owners died, shall die.” Would a person replace originally to die?

MISHNAH: He came to the he-goat to be sent away and leaned on it with both his hands and confessed. And thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, they acted criminally, offended, sinned before You, Your people, the House of Israel. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc35Cf. Chapter 4, Note 61.. HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara stated, “they acted criminally, offended, sinned,” in order not to mention the shame of Israel37In his text, the High Priest does not mention “Your people, the House of Israel.”. 38Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(5),It shall be made standing alive, This teaches that in the end it will die39Lev. 16:9. Since the he-goat could not stand if he were not alive, the emphasis on “alive” in this verse implies that later it will not be alive, that it should not be let free in the desert but be thrown from a cliff.. 40This paragraph is a slight rewrite of a paragraph in Ševuot 1:10 (Notes 127–241). How long must it live? Up to he will finish atoning the Sanctuary41Lev. 16:20. Since there can be no atonement without confession, this will include the last confession of the High Priest even though it is mentioned only in v. 21., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, up to the moment of confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, the confession is indispensable. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, the confession is not indispensable42It remains unresolved whether for R. Simeon no confession is obstructive or only the last one which is mentioned after the atonement of the Sanctuary was declared complete.. What is the difference between them? If he sent it without a confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another he-goat. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another he-goat. The same holds for the bull. If he slaughtered without confession. In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion, he must bring another bull. In Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, he does not have to bring another bull. If he confessed, slaughtered, then the blood was spilled. Do you say, does he have to bring another bull and confess a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession? The same holds for the scapegoat; must he cast lots a second time or did he do his duty with the first confession43It already had been stated that there has to be another drawing of lots with new animals,, the question is only about the confessions.?

MISHNAH: He handed him over to the one who led him. Everybody is qualified to lead him, but the High Priests made it an institution that they did not let an Israel lead him. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that Arsela36“Hammock”, a nickname. from Sepphoris led it, and he was an Israel. HALAKHAH: He shall send him by a man44Lev. 16:21., to qualify the non-Cohen45Since “man” is unspecific. Babli 66a/b.. Timely44Lev. 16:21.. that he be ready; timely, that he be prepared. Timely, even on the Sabbath; timely, even in impurity. Can he be not ready but prepared46Ready and prepared are practically the same, the duplication is unwarranted.? But that he should not send him by two people. If he sent him by two people, does he make clothing impure47Lev. 16:26 states that the person bringing the scapegoat to the desert becomes impure together with his clothing.? Let us hear from the following: And the one who sends48Lev. 16:26.; not who was sending the one who sends. This implies that if he sent him by two people, it does not make clothing impure49Only the person first appointed to the task becomes impure.. If it escapes in the direction in which it is going, it makes clothing impure, in the opposite direction it does not make clothing impure51Babli 66b, Tosephta 3:14.. 51Babli 66b, Tosephta 3:14.“They asked Rebbi Eliezer, if the agent got sick? He said to them, so you shall be in peace. If the scapegoat fell ill? He said to them, it can carry you and me. If he pushed it but it did not die? He said to them, so it shall happen to all enemies of Heaven. Not that Rebbi Eliezer wanted to distract them, only that he did not tell them statements which he never had heard52Which probably means that the cases never had happened before during the ascendancy of the Pharisees in the Temple service.. But the Sages are saying, if the agent got sick, he53The High Priest. sends it54The scapegoat. by somebody else/ If the scapegoat fell ill, he55The designated agent. lets it54The scapegoat. be carried on a donkey. If he55The designated agent. pushed it54The scapegoat. but it did not die, he55The designated agent. has to descend after it and kill it.” 56Babli 39a, Tosephta Soṭah 13:6–8.“All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime he54The scapegoat. did not fall down half the mountain before he dissolved into limbs; after Simeon the Just’s death he fled to the desert and was eaten by the Saracens. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the lot for Hashem57Mishnah 4:1. came up in his right hand; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it came up to the right, sometimes to the left. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the Easternmost light58In the evening, the easternmost light of the candelabrum was lit first but in the morning it was serviced last. It was one of the miracles of the Temple that it outlasted all other lights of the candelabrum. was burning; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it was extinguished, sometimes burning. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the shiny strip59Mishnah 6. turned white; after Simeon the Just’s death sometimes it turned white, sometimes it turned red. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime the fire on the altar steadily increased; after they had put on two logs in the morning60Chapter 2, Note 19. they did not add anything during the day. After Simeon the Just’s death the fire weakened; the had to add wood all day long. All during Simeon the Just’s lifetime a blessing was in the Two Breads61The two leavened breads required for the service of Pentecost; Lev. 23:17. and the shew-bread; the part of each one came to an olive sized bite; some of them ate and were full, some of them ate and left over. After Simeon the Just’s death the blessing was taken from the Two Breads and the shew-bread; the part of each one came only to a pea-sized bit. The decent ones refrained from taking; the gluttons stretched out their hands. It happened that a Cohen from Sepphoris took his and another’s part; he was called “pea-sized one” to this day. This is what David said62Ps. 71:4., My God, let me escape from the hand of the evildoer, from the palm of the criminal and oppressor.” 63Babli 39b. It was stated: “Forty years before the Temple was destroyed was the Eastern light extinguished, and the shiny strip became red, and the lot of the Name came up in the left hand. They were locking the doors of the Temple hall in the evening and in the morning they found them open. Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai addressed it: ‘Temple hall, why do you frighten us? We know that in the end you will be destroyed, as it was said64Zach. 11:1., Lebanon65The Temple is identified with “Lebanon”, cf. Targum Onqelos to Deut.3:25; Sifry Num. 134, Deut. 28. The last source identifies the Temple Mount as “Lebanon”., open your doors so fire may consume your cedars.’” 66Chapter 5, Note 77. Simeon the Just served Israel as High Priest for forty years, and in the last year he told them, in this year I am going to die. 67A different version in the Babli, Menaḥot 109b. Josephus dates the building of the Onias Temple three generations later. They asked him, whom shall we appoint in your stead? He told them, there is my son Onias before you. They went and appointed Onias. His brother [Simon]68Name added by the corrector, consistent with quote later of R. Jehudah’s statement. In the Babli, the name is Simei, a more likely name for a son of Simeon. was jealous of him, he went and dressed him in an undershirt69Cf. Šabbat 16, Note 111. The spelling in the Hebrew text here is the corrector’s following the Babli, erasing the Yerushalmi spelling retained later in the parallel statement of R. Jehudah. and girded him with a belt70The word in parentheses is the scribe’s Yerushalmi spelling, the words in brackets the corrector’s from the Babli. The form צוצל should be recognized by the dictionaries as Yerushalmi spelling.. He told them, look what this one vowed to his sweetheart: when I shall serve as High Priest I shall wear your undershirt and gird myself with your belt71Since the garments to be worn in Temple service are prescribed in Ex. 25, this plot presupposes an extremely ignorant High Priest.. They investigated and did not find [him]72Corrector’s addition, probably incorrect. The investigation showed that the charges were unfounded, not that Onias was not to be found.. It is said, he fled to King’s Mountain, from there he fled to Alexandria, based himself there and built there an altar, over which he recited this verse73Is. 16:16., on that day there will be an altar for the Eternal inside the Land of Egypt. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? See how this one who fled from prominence went to seek it at the end74Onias preferred not to become High Priest rather than become an object of an investigation. Nevertheless he became a kind of High Priest in Egypt., if one attained it and lost it not so much more? It was stated, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, it was not so but they appointed Simeon; his brother Onias was jealous of him, he went and dressed him in an undershirt and girded him with a belt. He told them, look what this one vowed to his sweetheart etc., as before75Aramaic note of the scribe; the text of the previous baraita has to be inserted here. Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? See how this one who never attained prominence forced Israel to foreign worship76In the Babli Menahot 109b there is a discussion whether the illegitimate Onias Temple is classified as idolatry or not., if one attained it and lost it not so much more?

MISHNAH: They built him a ramp because of the Babylonians80In the Babylonian tradition (Babli 66b) the misbehaving people were Alexandrians. This is rejected in the Yerushalmi. who were plucking his hair and saying to him, go quickly, go quickly. The venerables of Jerusalem were accompanying him to the first hut81The person leading the scapegoat has the obligation to go to the desert; the people accompanying him cannot leave their Šabbath domain, 2’000 cubits or 7½ stadia.. There were ten huts between Jerusalem and the cliff, 90 stadia, 7½ per mil8230 stadia are 1 parasang or 4 mil.. The Greek stadion is a very badly defined measure; the reference here probably is to Egyptian measures; cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and Eruvin.The huts were equally spaced, one mil apart. 90 stadia are 12 mil; as indicated in Mishnah 5 the people whose Sabbath domain was centered at the tenth hut could accompany him only for one mil; the last mil to the cliff he had to go by himself..At each hut one tells him, here is food, here is water, and one accompanies him from hut to hut except for the last leg where one does not come with him to the crag but stands afar and observes his actions8230 stadia are 1 parasang or 4 mil.. The Greek stadion is a very badly defined measure; the reference here probably is to Egyptian measures; cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and Eruvin.The huts were equally spaced, one mil apart. 90 stadia are 12 mil; as indicated in Mishnah 5 the people whose Sabbath domain was centered at the tenth hut could accompany him only for one mil; the last mil to the cliff he had to go by himself.. HALAKHAH: There are Tannaim who state, he compressed his body83The verb כבש means “to compress” (also to preserve edibles by vinegar or extended cooking, processes which shrink the volume); the noun כבש means “a ramp” (“preserve” is כבוש). It is left undecided whether the Mishnaic expression is to be read as a verb, that the man accompanying the scapegoat has to make himself inconspicuous, or as a noun, as translated in Mishnah 4.. There are Tannaim who state, a genuine ramp. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the Alexandrians were saying, until when do you attribute the misconduct to us80In the Babylonian tradition (Babli 66b) the misbehaving people were Alexandrians. This is rejected in the Yerushalmi.? “The venerables of Jerusalem were accompanying him to the first hut81The person leading the scapegoat has the obligation to go to the desert; the people accompanying him cannot leave their Šabbath domain, 2’000 cubits or 7½ stadia..” It was stated84Tosephta 3:13, Babli 67a.. “Ten huts within twelve mil, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, ten85In the parallel sources: Nine. There is no reason to adapt the Yerushalmi to the Babli sources. If each hut is at distance 1 mil from the preceding, the last hut is at mil10, from which it is another two mil to the crag. In the reading of the Babli, the distance of the crag from the wall of Jerusalem would only be 11 mil for R. Jehudah. huts within ten mil. Rebbi Yose said, five [and all of them by eruv;]86Corrector’s addition from the Babli, probably incorrect, since in the Yerushalmi version R. Yose accepts that his son’s R. Eliezer’s (should be R. Eleazar) argument parallels his own. and so my son Eliezer said to me, I can make them five by eruv87If one does not accept the corrector’s addition, the huts postulated by R. Yose are at distances 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. The venerables of Jerusalem go halfway to the first hut, where they are met by people from the first hut who will accompany the scapegoat halfway to the second hut, etc., and the people of the fifth hut will stop one mil from the crag, as described in the Mishnah. In the version of R. Eliezer (Eleazar) ben R. Yose (in the Tosephta, R. Yose ben R. Jehudah), the venerables of Jerusalem make an eruv outside the city walls which allows them to accompany the scapegoat for two mil. At the end of these two mil they are met by people from the first hut who made an eruv halfway to the meeting point; they accompany to the first hut which is at distance 4 from the city wall. Another group of people who made an eruv in the opposite direction accompany the scapegoat halfway to the next hut which is at distance 8. In this version, the person leading the scapegoat has to walk the last two mil alone since the second group of people from the second hut have to stop at mil 10. “At each hut one tells him, here is food, here is water.” In order to strengthen him. Why? For the evil inclination desires only what is forbidden to him. As the following: Rebbi Mana went to visit Rebbi Haggai who was weak On the Day of Atonement. He told him, I am thirsty; he answered him, drink. R. Haggai was very old at this moment, having been a student of R. Zeˋira, the teacher of R. Jeremiah, the teacher of R. Jonah, father and teacher of R. Mana. He left him and went away.⁠a After an hour he visited him and asked him, how is your thirst? He told him, the moment you permitted me it went away. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba told the following case: A man was walking in public On the Day of Atonement. with his daughter. His daughter said to him, my father, I am thirsty. He said to her, wait a little bit. She said to him, my father, I am thirsty. He said to her, wait a little bit, and she died. When Rebbi Aḥa finished the musaf prayer88On the Day of Atonement. he said before them His congregants., our brothers, he who has small children should leave because of them91To feed them and give them to drink. Since little children are not required to fast, permitting them to drink would not quell their thirst; they actually have to be given to drink.

MISHNAH: What did he do? He split the shiny strip92Which was tied to the scapegoat’s horns, Mishnah 4:2. It was expected to turn white as a sign of divine forgiveness, Is.1:18.; half of it he bound on the rock and half of it he bound between its horns. Then he pushed it93The scapegoat. backwards, it rolled descending. It did not reach half of the declivity before it dissolved into limbs. He goes and sits under the last hut94Since he left his Sabbath domain by biblical commandment, he was permitted to return the 4’000 cubits to the first hut where he could rest for the remainder of the day and found food to break the fast at nightfall. until nightfall. From when on does he make garments impure95Lev. 16:26.? From when he exits the wall of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon says, from when he pushes on the crag. HALAKHAH: 96Corrector’s addition from Šabbat 9, Notes 119–121, not in the original text. Cf. Babli 67a, Roš Haššanah 31b.[Originally they were tying it to their windows; some of them were turning white and some turning red; these were ashamed in front of the others. They changed and tied it to the door of the Sanctuary. Some years it was turning white, in others turning red. They changed and tied it to the rock. It is written97Is. 1:18., let us go and argue, etc. It was stated, Rebbi Eliezer said, If your sins were like years98Reading שָׁנִים as “years”, not “purple wool”. Both the distance of Heaven from Earth and the combined lifetime of the patriarchs were 500 years, cf. Berakhot 1:1, Note 83., etc., like the years from Heaven to Earth, they will be snow white; more than that, they shall be like wool. Rebbi Joshua said, if your sins were like years, like the years of the patriarchs, they will be snow white; more than that, they shall be like wool. Rebbi Yuda bar Pazi said, if your sins were like years they will be snow white, the first time, if they were like purple they shall be like wool, the second time. But the rabbis said, If the sins of a person are like his years, they will be snow white.]

MISHNAH: He97*The High Priest. comes to the bull and the he-goat to be burned, cut them open and removed the inner parts98*Greek μηρία, τά, “thigh bones”, the parts of a sacrifice which have to be burned on the altar., put then into a basin and burned them on the altar. He bound them to bars and took them out to the place of burning. When do they make garments impure99Lev. 16:28. It is implied that other priests transport the carcasses to be burned.? From the moment they leave the wall of the Temple courtyard; Rebbi Simeon says, from when the fire ignites most of them. HALAKHAH: [He comes to his bull, etc.]103Addition by the corrector, slightly misquoted (Mishnah 3:9 instead of 6:7). We have stated: “He comes to the bull and the he-goat to be burned.” There are Tannaim who state, the High Priest comes to read104The public Torah reading which according to Mishnah 7:1 follows the completion of the service of purification.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, the verse supports our Mishnah: He who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his garments105Lev. 16:26.. What is written next? And the purification bull and the purification he-goat106Lev. 16:27. The sacrifices have to be burned outside the sacred domain.. Rebbi Mana said, it may be interpreted even following the Tanna of the baraita. If a person moves from Tiberias to Sepphoris, while he still is in Tiberias do people say, he dwells in Sepphoris107All the verse indicates is that the he-goat has to be sent away before the purification sacrifices are removed from the sacred precinct; no exact time frame is given in view of the fact that the Torah reading is not biblically prescribed at this point.. Rebbi Zeriqan said that Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they be burned according to their rules108If the carcasses are pure, then they have to be burned on the Day of Atonement by biblical decree, Lev. 16:27, and by practice of the Temple service at a place different from that where disabled sacrifices are usually burned (Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:5). If in impurity they follow the rules of disabled sacrifices, they can be burned only in the following night and at a different place.? What is his problem? If they became impure before the blood was poured, but if they became impure after the blood was poured109Then the sacrifice is valid and does not have to be repeated even if some subsequent action would have been required which now becomes impossible. I am applying to it, at its appointed time110Num. 9, 2 28:2. Sifry Num. 65, 142; Mekhilta Ba 5 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 17), Tosephta Pisha 4:14; Pesaḥim 6:1 Notes 9, 10, Babli Pesaḥim 66a., even on the Sabbath, at its appointed time, even in impurity. [Rebbi Yose said, there where it is written at its appointed time; you do not infer anything from it111Since in Lev. 16 neither the expression “at its appointed time” nor an equivalent is mentioned, the argument simply does not apply in our case..]112Addition of the corrector, in good Yerushalmi language. The addition is necessary to understand R. Mana’s remark and must have been taken from a manuscript source. Rebbi Mana said, does not Rebbi Yose refrain from applying it here? He applies it to the bull of the Anointed and the Congregation113Lev. 4:1–21. Since these sacrifices can only be brought on a weekday, the only problem is that of the place of burning as given in Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:5. He will accept that they not be burned on the appointed place only if they become invalid by a cause other than impurity. {he said to him}114It seems that this has to be deleted.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If of bulls and he-goats to be burned a limb left which completes a majority115Babli Zevaḥim 104b. Since it was stated in Mishnah 7 that the carcasses become a source of severe impurity once they are brought outside the enclosure of the Temple courtyards, the question is the determination of the exact point in time when this happens. As stated in the next sentence, it is agreed that a majority of the carcass must have left. The question remains whether the majority is counted atom by atom, which would be impossible to determine exactly, or limb by limb. Since the only practical solution is to count limb by limb, must the limb which completes the majority be totally outside or possibly only partially.? His question implies that the matter depends on a majority. The following is obvious: If most of it left and after this a limb left which completes a majority. [This must be: It left limb by limb and after this a limb left which completes a majority116The preceding sentence in fact makes no sense...]117Addition of the corrector, in good Yerushalmi language. They must have been taken from a manuscript source. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned were taken out and brought back118Since it was established in the previous paragraph that the carcasses are the cause of severe impurity by biblical decree once the majority of the limbs was removed from the Temple precinct, the question necessarily refers to single limbs which do not constitute a majority of the carcass. The question is different in the Babli, Zevaḥim105a.? It is obvious for us that in returning they do not make garments impure119A limb even partially taken out of the sacred precinct becomes disqualified. Even if a person other than the carrier who touches a limb while it is taken back may become impure in his person, the impurity does not extend to his clothing since the biblical conditions for this are not satisfied.. What our problem is, do they make garments impure from the moment they started to be brought out120As will be seen, the question is about people other than the carriers of the carcass or its limbs. If the carcass was partially taken out but then returned, and a third party touched the body, do his garments become impure?? Rebbi Abba objected, did we not state121Mishnah Zevaḥim 12:6.: “They were carrying them on yokes. If the front carriers left the walls of the Temple courtyard while the back carriers did not yet leave, the front carriers make garments impure while the back carriers do not make garments impure until they also leave. After they left, these and those make garments impure.” Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, there is a difference, for it is written, then he shall take out122Lev. 4:12, about the purification sacrifice of the anointed priest., until he completely leave the domain from which it is taken out123The carriers become impure the moment they are completely outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but the carcass becomes a source of severe impurity for any who touch it only after it was completely taken out of the sacred domain. The carriers become impure even if they never come in contact with the carcass. The wooden bars on which the carcass is carried do not transmit impurity by touch; the impurity of the carriers is induced by the motion of the carcass, not by contact.. 124Babli Zevaḥim 104a. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out125If the carcasses become impure inside the sacred precinct they automatically are disqualified. Once disqualified they cannot become more disqualified by being taken out. Either with the classical commentaries one has to delete the words “became impure” and (with the Babli) ask whether bulls and he-goats to be burned, for which being taken outside is a biblical commandment at a later stage, can become disqualified by being taken out in a earlier stage, or one restricts the question to the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement which as public sacrifices may be offered in impurity if most of Israel are impure.? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: 126Mishnah Menaḥot 7:3.“If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread127A thanksgiving offering has to be brought on loaves of leavened bread (Lev.7:13). This is interpreted to mean that the loaves have to be nearby. The question is the definition of “nearby”. is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem128Since the thanksgiving sacrifice as a family celebration may be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem (which takes the place of the camp of the Israelites in the desert), one only requires that the bread be at a place where it may be consumed.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court.129He requires that the bread be inside the sacred precinct since the presentation of the sacrifice is possible only there. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal130Well-being sacrifices in general may be eaten in the entire city of Jerusalem (Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:7). Nevertheless, meat taken out of the sacred precinct into the city before its time (i. e., before pouring the blood on the altar walls) disqualifies the entire sacrifice. The same argument can be applied to the case under discussion.. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem131Where the bulls and he-goats to be burned have to be brought. it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them132R. Joḥanan qualifies the thanksgiving offering if all parts are in the place of their final destination at all times. If this argument is applied to bulls and he-goats to be burned, the walls of Jerusalem become irrelevant.. Rebbi Eleazar asked, do bulls and he-goats to be burned cause impurity of garments133One has to delete this and replace it with “of foodstuffs”. Garments become impure only from sources of severe impurity, but foodstuffs become impure even from impurity which is not transmissible tu human bodies or garments. Since the question is asked whether the carcasses cause impurity even before they are taken out, there cannot be any question of severe impurity at this point in time. Babli Zevaḥim 105a. without preparation134Foodstuffs in general can become impure only after “preparation” by contact with water; cf. Terumot 1:1 Note 7. Since the basis of this rule is Lev. 11:38 referring to grain which cannot become severely impure, it is concluded that severe impurity makes foodstuffs impure even without preparation. and without impurity135The carcasses of bulls and he-goats to be burned, as well as the carcass of the Red Cow, cause severe impurity to the people occupied with it but they themselves are pure; Mishnah Parah 8:3, Babli Zebaḥim105a.. since at the end they become sources of severe impurity? Samuel from Cappadocia objected, then they should make their parts136The inner parts (of the bulls of the Anointed Priest and the Congregation) which have to be burned on the altar; cf. Chapter 5 Note 155. impure. So only after they were taken away. And even if you are saying before they were taken away, parallel to the following: purifying water does not make anything impure to make itself impure in return137The person who purifies another by sprinkling him with water containing ashes of the Red Cow becomes impure (Num.19:21) but the water itself remains pure in his hands, while in general an impure person makes water which he touches impure in the first degree.. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, does not a carcass of a pure bird make food impure without preparation, without impurity, since at the end it becomes a source of severe impurity138Mishnah Tahorot 1:1; Sifra Aḥare Pereq 11(5–6). It is inferred that Lev. 17:15 must refer to meat that only is forbidden because it is carcass meat, and that the verse cannot refer to four-legged animals since they are impure from the start, and it cannot refer to non-kosher animals or birds since for them the reference to tom meat would be irrelevant. The only meat which causes impurity only if taken into the mouth to be eaten is that of pure birds not correctly slaughtered. Babli Zevaḥim 105a, Ḥulin121a.? Rebbi Yose said, the carcass of a pure bird has no enclosure139It is forbidden to be eaten anywhere, whereas sancta may be treated only in the sacred precinct.; these have an enclosure. Rebbi Mana said, the carcass of a pure bird has an enclosure; the human is its enclosure140Only the human mouth causes impurity from carcass meat of pure birds.. If it were not so, if he brought a dog, clothed it, and fed it the carcass of a pure bird, would it not make the garments impure in its palate141But since a living animal cannot become impure, textiles worn by a dog eating the carcass of a pure bird remain pure.? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, the enclosure of the carcass of a pure bird is everywhere; the enclosure of those is outside of Jerusalem142Cf. Pesaḥim 5, Note 67. Pouring the blood on the altar is qualified as “eating by the altar.” Cf. Babli Zevaḥim 104b.. Rebbi Eleazar said, bulls and he-goats to be burned which he slaughtered with the intent to pour the blood the next day, he made piggul142Cf. Pesaḥim 5, Note 67. Pouring the blood on the altar is qualified as “eating by the altar.” Cf. Babli Zevaḥim 104b.. To burn the parts on the next day he made piggul143Parts burned on the altar are “eaten” by the altar.. To burn the meat the next day he did not make piggul since he neither intended it as food for humans nor as food for the altar144Since the carcass has to be burned outside the sacred precinct and outside of Jerusalem, the places were the parts and the meat of well-being offerings would have to be consumed, the rules of piggul cannot apply.. Rebbi Shammai asked, if the parts were lost, may one pour the blood for the meat? He had not heard what Rebbi Eleazar had said, since he neither intended as food for humans nor as food for the altar145While for other sacrifices one may pour the blood to permit the meat to be eaten by the owners (for family sacrifices), or by the Cohanim (for purification and reparation sacrifices), or by the altar (for elevation sacrifices), in the case of bulls and he-goats to be burned there is nothing to be permitted and therefore the blood may not be poured.. Rebbi Zakkai stated:A non-Cohen who burned makes garments impure146While the carcasses must be carried out by Cohanim since non-Cohanim cannot enter the inner courtyard where the ceremonies take place, there is nothing in the verses (Lev. 4:12,21; 16:28) to indicate that the burning outside the camp needs Cohanim.. One only has to ask, is it qualified during nighttime147It is clear from the verses quoted that the carcasses have to be taken out of the camp (Jerusalem) on the day of the sacrifice; but there are no indications that the burning has to be finished on the same day.? It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since burning of the parts which is not qualified for a non-Cohen may be done in the night, for these148Bulls and he-goats to be burned. which are qualified for a non-Cohen it is logical that it should be qualified during nighttime. 148Bulls and he-goats to be burned.And he who burns149Lev. 16:28.. Not the one who starts the fire, and not the one who prepares the stake. Who is he who burns? That is the one who helps during the burning. [Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the one who helps during the burning]150Corrector’s addition. makes his garments impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who turns over an olive-sized piece151Less than this amount is not considered “consumed”. makes his garments impure. The problem is only one who stands inside152The Temple domain, or possibly the city of Jerusalem. and in his hand is a beam with which he turns over an olive-sized piece, [what is the rule]153Unnecessary corrector’s addition.? Let us hear from the following: And he shall take out, and he shall burn154Lev. 4:12, about the Anointed Priest’s bull.. Since one who takes out, only after he took to the outside, also he who burns only if he burns outside155Since the two expressions are written in the same verse.. There156About burning the carcass of the Red Cow. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be impure until the evening157Num. 19:7.; to include him who burns158Even though the verse speaks only of the Cohen who directs the ceremony, all his helpers are included.. Here it is the same159About bulls and he-goats to be burned; Sifry Num. 124..

MISHNAH: They told the High Priest that the he-goat arrived in the desert. And from where did they know that the he-goat arrived in the desert? They had overseers100Greek διάδοχοι, οἱ. posted who waved sheets and they knew that the he-goat had arrived in the desert.Rebbi Jehudah said, did they not have an important sign? There are three mil from Jerusalem to Bet Horon101Even though this text is confirmed by Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, it seems impossible since Bet Horon is NE of Jerusalem in inhabited territory. The Babli’s reading, Bet Hidud seems more appropriate; it may designate Wadi al-Hoḏ. R. Jehudah does not require the he-goat to be on the crag, only outside agricultural land.; they were walking one mil, returning one mil, and waiting for another mil; then they knew that the he-goat had arrived in the desert. Rebbi Ismael said, did they not have another sign? A shiny strip was tied to the door of the Temple hall; when the he-goat arrived in the desert it turned white102He disputes the fact that the strip was no longer tied to the Temple door., as it is said95Lev. 16:26., if your sins were like crimson they will be white like snow. HALAKHAH: What are διάδοχοι? Ones opposite one another160They were stationed so that each one could see the preceding and the following ones..

MISHNAH: The High Priest comes to read. If he wants to read in the byssus garments1The white garment which he wore for the ceremonies in the Temple building. he may read; otherwise in his own while stole2Greek στολή, ἡ.. The beadle of the synagogue3The synagogue on the Temple Mount, outside the Temple precinct. The president of the Synagogue had to carry the scroll into the Temple courtyard. This clearly is a Pharisaic institution. takes the Torah scroll and hands it to the president of the synagogue, the president of the synagogue hands it to the executive officer of the Temple, the executive officer of the Temple hands it to the High Priest. The High Priest receives it standing, and reads standing. He reads after the death4Lev. 16:1–34. and but on the tenth day5Lev.23:26–32., rolls up the Torah, keeps it in his bosom, and says: More than what I read before you is written here. On the tenth day in Numbers6Num. 19:7–11. he recites7קורא always means to recite with the correct masoretic accents. by heart, and pronounces eight benedictions8These will be detailed in the Halakhah.: For the Torah, for the Service, for thanksgiving, for the remission of sin, for the Temple, for Israel, for the priests, and general prayer.He who sees the High Priest reading does not see the burning of the bull and the ram; he who sees the burning of the bull and the ram does not see the High Priest reading. Not because he would not be entitled to it but because the distance was large and the actions happened simultaneously. HALAKHAH: “The High Priest comes,” etc. From where the reading of the Chapter9But there is no claim that reading of any text other than Lev. 16 is a biblical commandment.? Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac10The two Medieval quotes of this passage, Tosaphot Yeshenim and Ritba, read R. Joḥanan. This was the scribe’s original text corrected by himself to: R. Isaac.: And he executed, what does the verse say? As the Eternal had commanded Moses11Lev. 16:34., from here the reading of the Chapter12Since the commandment to Moses was verbal, so the execution had to be verbal. The Babli 5b has a similar argument concerning the initiation rites of the Cohanim.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ancillary services13. Actions either such as reading the Torah which is not absolutely necessary, in that its omission does not invalidate the service, or necessary actions which may be performed by a non-Cohen, such as slaughter of sacrifices. are performed in white garments14But not necessarily in linen garments as prescribed in Lev. 16:4 for all service performed inside the sanctuary.. Rebbi Mattanah said, the Mishnah implies this: “otherwise in his own white stole.” Rebbi Yose asked: Why? Even though they are outside? Is not slaughter only outside and is performed in golden garments15The Mishnah (3:5, 7:3,6) prescribes that the daily and holiday sacrifices are offered by the High Priest in his golden garments in which he serves all other days of the year.? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he wants, he performs in golden garments, if he wants, he performs in white garments. We find that slaughter16While the High Priest must wear his everyday garments (Mishnah 7:7) for all priestly actions required for daily and holiday sacrifices, this is not directly prescribed for slaughter which is not a priestly duty., if he wants, he performs in golden garments, if he wants, he performs in white garments. 17From here to the end of the Halakhah the text is also in Sotah 7:6, Notes 190–211, ס.. Everywhere you are saying, one goes to the Torah. But here you are saying, one brings the Torah to them. Only since they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them18In the Babli 69a, the Torah scroll is brought by a chain of increasingly important people to stress the exalted position of the High Priest. Cf. Note 190.. Does one not bring there the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora20The claim of the Heads of the Diaspora to Davidic descent may be questionable, but since it is accepted by the people, the Head of the Diaspora may claim Davidic prerogatives.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there since the seed of David is absorbed in them21This paragraph is also in Megillah 4:5 (75b l. 52), ל. Quoted in Tosaphot Yeshenim70a., they follow the usage of their forefathers. 21This paragraph is also in Megillah 4:5 (75b l. 52), ל. Quoted in Tosaphot Yeshenim70a. There22Mishnah Megillah 4:5., we have stated: “One skips in prophets; one does not skip in the Torah.23Public readings of the Torah must present a continuous text. Readings from the Prophets may be pieced together, such as in the Ashkenazic Haftara to Yitro, Is. 6:1–7:6, 9:5–6.” “One skips in prophets,” but one does not skip from one prophet to another, except that one is permitted to skip between the Twelve Prophets24The 12 minor prophets are considered one book. The Ashkenazic Haftara for the Sabbath between New Year’s day and Yom Kippur is composed of Hos. 14:2–10 and either Joel 2:15–27 or Micah7:18–20.. “One does not skip in the Torah.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because one does not scroll the book of the Torah in public. Rebbi Yose asked, think of it, if it was a small paragraph25If one continues on the same page after an interruption, nothing has to be scrolled.? But so that Israel should hear the Torah in due order. But did we not state: “he reads after the death4Lev. 16:1–34. and but on the tenth day”5Lev.23:26–32.? There is a difference since this is the order of the day. You should know this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one never recites from memory but here he recites26The sacrifices detailed in Num.19:7–11 (offered by the High Priest in his year-round “golden” garments) are completely different from those required by Lev. 16, for whose service white linen garments are prescribed. Therefore mention of the text in Num. 19 is essential, but scrolling such a large distance would be an interruption of the public service.. Rebbi Yose ordered Bar Ulla, the beadle of the synagogue of the Babylonians: If there is one Torah27On a day which requires reading two different sections, such as a New Moon celebrated on a Sabbath, or a holiday. Then the Torah has to be scrolled, but this should not be done in public., scroll it behind a curtain. If there are two, take away one and bring the other28This is current Sephardic practice, in contrast to current Ashkenazic procedure where the second Torah is brought before the first is lifted.. “And pronounces eight benedictions8These will be detailed in the Halakhah.: For the Torah”, He Who chooses the Torah29In the Babli 70a and Tosephta 3:18, “in the way one recites the benediction for the Torah in the synagogue.” This is understood also here for this and the following benedictions, in the Galilean versions.. “For the Service,” for You we fear and serve30The Galilean version of the 16th benediction of the Amidah.. “For thanksgiving,” it is good to give thanks to You31The 17th benediction., “for the remission of sin,” He who remits the sins of His people Israel.32The final paragraph of the middle benediction in the Amidah for the Day of Atonement. “For the Temple,” He Who chooses the Temple. Rebbi Idi said, He Who dwells in Zion33The full text of this benediction is unknown. Since R. Idi is quoted as commenting, not disagreeing, one has to assume that he quotes the beginning of the relevant prayer text.. “For Israel,” He Who chooses Israel34In the opinion of I. Elbogen this refers to the benediction immediately preceding the recitation of Shema‘., “for the priests.” “And general prayer.”, entreaty and begging, for Your people Israel need to be helped before You. Praise to You, Eternal, Who hears prayer35This is the only prayer text which is unique to the High Priest’s reading..

MISHNAH: If he read in his byssus garments, he sanctified hands and legs,36But if he read in his own stole he already had to wash hands and feet when he took off his white garments (Chapter 3, Note 98). Dressing and undressing profane garments does not necessitate washing hands and feet. and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up, and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments37The High Priest’s garments for service all year long. These are worn for all parts of all year long. These are worn for all parts of the service of the Day of Atonement which do not involve entering the Holiest of Holies., he dressed and sanctified hands and legs.He went out and sacrificed his ram, and the people’s ram38As prescribed by Lev. 16:24. The biblical expression “did” is read to imply that the entire work involved, slaughter, dismembering, cleaning, transporting to the altar, and burning the elevation sacrifices, had to be performed by the unaided High Priest., and the seven unblemished sheep39As prescribed by Num. 29:8., the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Aqiba says, they40The animals enumerated by R. Eliezer were brought before the High Priest wore the white garments for the first time. had been brought with the daily morning offering; the bull of elevation offering and the he-goat offered outside were brought with the daily afternoon sacrifice41This statement is the common opinion of R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba. These sacrifices are musaf sacrifices prescribed in Num. 29:8. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments42. To re-enter the Holiest of Holies., he dressed and sanctified hands and legs.He entered to remove the cup and the pan43Which were left in the Holiest of Holies. Chapter 3, Mishnah 1.. He sanctified hands and legs and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments, he dressed and sanctified hands and legs.He entered, burned the incense, and prepared the lights. He sanctified hands and legs, and undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him his own garments in which he dressed. One accompanies him to his house. He made a festivity for his friends when he exited in peace44He exited the Holiest of Holies, which is most dangerous; cf. Chapter 1, Notes 220–222.. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages, all of them were brought with the daily morning offering45Since the same musaf offering is prescribed in Num. 29 for New Year’s day, the Day of Atonement, and the Eighth Day of the Fall Festival, they are offered more frequently than the special offerings of the day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16. Since the House of Hillel strictly follow the rule that the more frequent has precedence (cf. Berakhot 8:1), all of the more common sacrifices must be processed first. Cf. Tosephta 2:19.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav Joseph: Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai. Just as the House of Shammai say, frequent and holy, holy has precedence46Nazir 7:1 Note 54; Babli Zevaḥim 69a., so Rebbi Eliezer says, frequent and holy, holy has precedence. How is this? The service of the Day is holier and the day’s musaf sacrifices are more frequent; the service of the Day has precedence over the day’s musaf sacrifices. The bull, the ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering47This is the rule of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of this Tanna is to join purification sacrifice to purification sacrifice and elevation sacrifice to elevation sacrifice48Even though the he-goat as purification sacrifice is prescribed for all holidays and therefore is most frequent, as noted later in Num. 29:11 it is required that this sacrifice follow that of the he-goat whose blood was brought into the Temple, and be followed by the elevation sacrifice which is the evening daily offering. Therefore it makes sense to require the elevation offerings required by Lev. 16:3,24 to be brought after the atonement service and before the daily evening service.. But some want to say, the bull, the ram, the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. This Tanna distributes the services. What is the reason? He leaves and brings hiselevation sacrifice and the people’s elevation sacrifice49Lev. 16:24.. As mentioned in the matter. What is mentioned in the matter? His ram and the people’s ram5016:3,5.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, what is the reason for the he-goat? Of the blood of the atoning purification sacrifice51This is misquoting Ex. 30:10 when it should be Num. 29:11 : A he-goat as purification offering in addition to the atoning purification offering. Babli 70b.. The atoning purification sacrifice already preceded. Aaron comes to the tent of Meeting52Lev. 16:23.. From where does he come? From reading the Chapter. Where does he go to? To remove the cup and the pan53For this he has to enter the Holiest of Holies, which only is permitted in white garments.. It is written: He leaves and brings his elevation sacrifice and the people ’s elevation sacrifice49Lev. 16:24., and you are saying so? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everybody agrees that the removal of cup and pan follows after the daily evening offering54The last action of the High Priest is mentioned in v. 24, the offering of the remaining sacrifices of the day, which includes the daily evening offering. How can one understand R. Joḥanan’s statement since v. 23, which has to be interpreted as referring to removal of cup and pan, precedes v. 24?? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the entire Chapter is written in order except for this verse55Babli 70b, as Tannaitic statement.. Rebbi Yose said, even this is written in order. Aaron comes to the tent of Meeting. From where does he come? From the first sanctification which he encounters. Where does he go to? To the last sanctification56The verse only states that the High Priest has no pause in the day’s service, from the first immersion to the last washing of hands and feet.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Why do we not say, except the last sanctification57Since Lev. 16:23 mentions undressing the white garments but does not mention washing of any kind, whereas in vv. 4,24 it is stated that dressing requires immersion in water, would it not be logical to require washing only for dressing,. not undressing. Then R. Yose’s interpretation becomes impossible.? He answered him, there is a difference since it is written he comes, (he leaves)58Since the other two quotes are from Lev. 16:23., this quote from v. 24 has to be deleted.,he takes off the linen garments. 59Chapter 3:7, Note 98. Why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he could undress what he was not wearing? Then why is it written, which he wore? It brackets undressing and dressing. Since dressing requires sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing requires sanctification of hands and legs. Rebbi Eleazar said, there is another service for which he officiates in white garments. What is it? It is removal of cup and pan53For this he has to enter the Holiest of Holies, which only is permitted in white garments.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, everybody agrees that the removal of cup and pan follows after the daily evening offering60Since in vv. 21–22 Aaron is still wearing the white garments which he put on in the morning, and in v. 24 is wearing his golden garments, there would be no reason in V. 23 to have him dress in white garments a second time. Therefore the second wearing has to be after the completion of the daily service in golden garments. The interpretation of R. Yose ben Ḥanina is the only possible one; it is compatible with the explanation which R. Yose gave to R. Mana.. Why in white clothing? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, like the service up high so is the service down below. As up high, a man in their midst clothed in linen64Ez. 9:2., so down below a holy linen shirt he shall wear65Lev. 16:4..

MISHNAH: The High Priest officiates in eight garments and the common priest61Greek ὶδιώτης, ὁ. in four, in shirt, trousers, turban, and belt62Ex. 28:40,42.. The High Priest in addition wears breastplate, vest, coat, and diadem63Ex. 28:4,36,42.. In these one asks Urim and Tummim, but one does not ask for common people, only for a king, or the Court, or one on whom rest the needs of the public. HALAKHAH: Why does the High Priest serve in eight vestments? Rebbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis said, corresponding to circumcision, which takes place on the eighth day. Because of My covenant was with him66Mal. 2:5. In rabbinic usage, the common meaning of “covenant” is “circumcision”.. Why does he not serve in the golden vestments? Because of haughtiness. Rebbi Simon said, because of do not inflate yourself in front of the king67Prov. 25:6.. Rebbi Levi said, because an accuser68Greek κατήγωρ, κατήγορος, ὁ. does not become a defense attorney69Greek συνήγορος, ὁ.. Yesterday it was written about them, they made golden gods for themselves70Ex. 32:31. Babli Rosh Hashanah 26a, in the name of Rav Ḥisda., and today he would officiate in golden vestments? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: And he shall wear them71Lev. 16:4, based on a metathesis -לבשם בל שם ., they shall be worn out there, there they were hidden, there they were rotting, and were not qualified for the next Day of Atonement72The Babli 12b and Sifra Aḥare Pereq6(7) have another argument based on Lev.16:23.. [It was stated: Rebbi Dosa says, they were qualified for a common priest.]73Addition of the corrector, possibly from the Babli 12b or Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(1). A common priest has to wear linen shirt and trousers for the removal of ashes from the altar; Lev. 6:3. In addition, there is the opinion, stated later in this paragraph, that the common priest’s belt also was simply linen. It was stated74Babli 12b and Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(1).: Rebbi said, there are two answers in the matter; one for clothing of the High Priest, and one for clothing of the common priest. It was stated74Babli 12b and Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(1).: Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon did not disagree about the belt of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement that it was of byssus, and on all other days of the year that it contained kilaim75A linen belt for the Day of Atonement is prescribed in Lev. 16:4, while for the golden garments the belt is made from gold thread, blue, crimson, and purple wool, and linen (Ex. 28:5,39). The belt of common priests is mentioned as necessary in Ex.28:40, but its materials are not specified ., about what did they disagree? About the belt of the common priest, where Rebbi says, it contained kilaim, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, it did not contain kilaim. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi, you shall do to Aaron and his sons so, all that I had commanded you76Ex. 29:35.. Since the garments of Aaron contain kilaim, so also the garments of his sons contain kilaim. How does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon explain the verse? Aaron with what is appropriate for him, and his sons with what is appropriate for them. 77A parallel (except for the corrector’s additions) is found in the Babli, Zevaḥim88b, Arakhin 16a, in the name of R. Anani bar Sason. Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments78The High Priest’s. atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim79While most of the High Priest’s garments contained kilaim, only the shirt was worn directly on the body. It seems that the trident here interprets the argument at the start of kilaim 9:1 to mean that biblically on kilaim which gives immediate protection to the body is forbidden. There are those who want to say,]80Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.) for spillers of blood, as you are saying,81Gen. 37:31. they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness82The technical term for incest and adultery., as you are saying83Ex. 28:42., make for them linen trousers to cover the flesh84“Flesh” as a limb always denotes the penis, the only boneless limb.of nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying,85Lev. 8:9. This is a pun on the expression “thick of head” for “haughty”. he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for]80Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.) the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying86Ex. 28.15., you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying87Hos.3:5., without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement88They do qualify for any obligatory sacrifice. but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard89Ex. 28:35.. The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest90Num. 35:25.. He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, atonement is mentioned inside and atonement is mentioned outside91Atonement is mentioned explicitly for the Temple sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, and atonement is mentioned explicitly in the ceremony of the calf whose neck is broken far away from the Temple to atone for an unexplained homicide, Deut.21:8.. Since in atonement mentioned inside cattle atones for spillers of blood,92Since for the calf whose neck is broken, atonement for spilled blood is mentioned explicitly, one has to switch the references to “inside” and “outside” in this sentence. The reference to an inside sacrifice is to one of the bulls sacrificed on the Day of Atonement; it is not specified which one is meant. also in atonement mentioned outside cattle atones for spillers of blood. Here unintentional, there intentional93The tannaitic statement of R. Eliezer ben Jacob seems to contradict the late Amoraic statement of R. Simon that the atonement for unintentional homicide was the death of the High Priest, not any sacrifice. A first answer is that R. Eliezer ben Jacob refers to intentional homicide but R. Simon to unintentional.. There is a difference for the calf whose neck is broken, whether unintentional or intentional94The previous answer is rejected, since neither the murderer nor his motives are known.. Rebbi Yose said, here for known offense, there for unknown offense95The argument of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is rejected; only that of R. Simon is valid. It is impossible to compare the ceremony of the calf whose neck is broken to the Temple service, since in the first case it might be that the killer acted in justifiable self-defense and no sin at all was committed. But purification sacrifices are permitted only if both the fact of a sinful act and proof that it was unintentional are established.. The diadem. Some want to say, about blasphemers96This explanation is not in the Babli sources, Note 77.. Some want to say, about insolent ones. He who says about blasphemers is understandable, since it is written971Sam. 17:49. the stone sank in his forehead, and it is written98Ex. 28:38., it shall be on his forehead permanently. He who says about insolent ones, you had the forehead of a whoring woman99Jer.3:3.. Why are they called “Urim”? Because they were enlightening Israel101Babli 73b.. And “Tummin”? Because they were straightening out the way before them. As long as Israel were straight, they were showing them the correct way; as we find that they lied to them in Geva Benjamin. Rebbi Jehudah said, may God forbid, they did not lie to them in Geva Benjamin. For the first time it said, “attack” but did not say “I gave”, and the second time it said, “attack” and said “I gave”102The references are to Jud. 20:23, 28 but the quotes are incorrect, the correct expressions are עלו and אתננו.. One does not ask two questions simultaneously103Babli 73a.. If they were asked, there are Tannaim who state, He answers the first but does not answer the second; and there are Tannaim who state, He answers the second but does not answer the first; and there are Tannaim who state, He answers neither the first nor the second. He who says, He answers the first but does not answer the second; from the following: David said, Eternal, God of Israel, etc., would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me into his hand104ISam. 23:11., etc.? ]Would Saul descend, David asked incorrectly. Was it not necessary, would Saul descend, and if he descended, would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me into his hand?]105Corrector’s addition. The question asked in 23:11 was illogical since the first question was relevant only if the answer to the second question was positive. Therefore it was necessary for David to ask the first question a second time, 1Sam. 23:12. There is no reason to assume a corruption of the biblical text. He who said, He answers the second but does not answer the first; from the following: David said, would the people of Qeˋilah surrender me106ISam. 23:12.., etc. He who said, He answers neither the first nor the last, David asked the Eternal as follows, shall I pursue this troop, shall I reach it107ISam. 30:8.? David asked for mercy in this case, Eternal, God of Israel, please tell Your servant104ISam. 23:11.. You should know, since he asked two [questions] and He answered three [answers]: He said, pursue, for catching you will catch and saving you will save107ISam. 30:8.. There are Tannaim who state, he was hearing the voice; there are Tannaim who state, the writing was protruding. He who said, he was hearing the voice is understandable since it is written, he heard the voice108Num. 7:89.. He who said, the writing109Identifying Urim and Tummim with an oracle involving the breast plate of the High Priest on whose precious stones the names of the 12 tribes were engraved, Ex. 28:21. This seemed to be excluded since not the entire alphabet was occurring in these names. was protruding, but there is no ח for the tribes, and there is no צ [and no ק] for the tribes! Abraham, Isaac, Jacob was written on them. But there is no ט for the tribes! All these are the tribes of Israel110Gen. 49:28. was engraved on them.

MISHNAH: On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes1Leather shoes., and sexual relations, are forbidden. The king and the bride2The newlywed, who should appear beautiful in her husband’s eyes, just as the king always should look handsome in public. wash their heads, and the woman recovering after childbirth wears shoes, the words of Rebbi Eliezer, but the Sages forbid it. HALAKHAH: “On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, etc., are forbidden.” They are punishable by extirpation and you are saying so3In Mishnaic terminology, “forbidden” either means forbidden rabbinically or biblically with no specified punishment. The term for severe biblical prohibitions, subject to extirpation or execution is “liable” (for a purification sacrifice in the case of inadvertent transgression.)? Rebbi Hila said, it was needed for less than the minimal quantities4If someone eats or drinks less than the quantities specified in Mishnah 2, the transgression is not liable for a purification sacrifice. Babli 73b.. 5Babli 74b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 7(1–4).“You shall deprive yourselves6.Lev. 15:29.. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere7All Sabbath prohibitions apply to the Day of Atonement.. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers8For piggul, cf. Chapter 5 Note 154. Eating sacrificial meat after the allotted time is sinful, Lev. 19:7.. From where to add ṭevel9Produce from which heave and tithes have not been taken? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.]10Corrector’s addition, necessary by the context. I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten11Heave must be eaten by Cohanim in purity, and Second Tithe by the farmer’s family in Jerusalem in purity. It is sinful to let pure heave and tithes go to waste. One could have thought that food for which there is a biblical commandment that it be eaten would be exempt from the prohibition.; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes}12The incomprehensible אב בית has been emended to עֲבֵידת (Qorban ha-Edah). the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry13Deut. 8:3.. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.” And why six kinds? Corresponding to the six quotes of “deprivation” in the Chapter. But there are only five? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, one is with musaf14Deprivation is mentioned in Lev.16:29, 31 and 23:27, 29, 32. In addition it is mentioned in the paragraph on musaf sacrifices for the Day of Atonement, Num.29:7.. 15A parallel is in Taaniot 1:6 (64c line 37), ו. The Taaniot text is reproduced by Tosaphoti Taanit 13a, s. v. אמר.“Washing”. Rebbi Zeˋurah bar Ḥama, [Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina.] in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: On a public fast day16A fast day called to pray for rain in a year of drought. one washes as usual his face, hands, and feet. On the Ninth of Av17The fast instituted to mourn the destruction of the Temple. one washes his hands and moves them over his face. On the day of Atonement one washes his hands, dries them with a towel, and moves the towel over his face. Rebbi Jonah moistened a rag and put it under the water pitcher18He soaked the rag before the start of the Day of Atonement, squeezed it and let it dry somewhat during the night so that the next morning it should be somewhat moist but not dripping.. But did we not state that there is no difference between a public fast and the Ninth of Av except the prohibition of work at places where they were used to it19There were places where the community had adopted the rule that one did not work on the Ninth of Av. Nowhere was this extended to fast days in years of drought.? If somebody was going20On a day where washing was rabbinically forbidden. Babli 77b; Tosephta 4:5, to his teacher or to his daughter and crossed a lake or a river he does not worry21No rabbinic prohibition was violated... If his feet were dirtied he immerses them in water and does not worry. Rebbi Abba instructed following this Tanna. Rebbi Aḥa instructed that one who comes from the road and his feet are dulled, he may wash them in water. It was stated: A mourner and one in the ban22Any weekday of the year, the mourner and the person in the ban are forbidden to wear leather shoes. The person in the ban has to follow these rules if he ever wants to have the ban lifted. Babli Moˋed qaṭan 15b. on a trip are permitted leather shoes. When they come to the town they shall take them off. The same applies to a public fast and the Ninth of Av23For everybody.. 24This text is shortened from Maˋaser Šeni2:1 (Notes 28–35), Šabbat 9, Notes 122–127 and Taˋanit 1:6.“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment25Referring to illegal use of heave and dedicated food by non-Cohanim and its replacement by 5/4 of the value taken.. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment26The only biblical prohibitions on the Day of Atonement are eating, drinking, and working. The other two, anointing and sexual relations, are rabbinic and not subject to biblical punishment. But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate27Lev. 22:15. The verse refers to the non-Cohen who “eats” holy food in error. Babli Niddah 32a., to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions28If the verse in Lev. is needed to subsume drinking under eating, it is incomprehensible that for inadvertently eating and drinking together on the Day of Atonement one should be responsible only for one sacrifice since in that case, one infringes on two separate biblical prohibitions and should be liable for two separate sacrifices. Similarly, if one illegitimately ate and drank heave he should be liable for two separate fifths. Since in both cases the Mishnah treats eating and drinking together, the verse cannot express a separate status for drinking; the addition of anointing and drinking is rabbinic interpretation but not biblical law and there is no reason to exclude anointing.? One repeats up to “this holy body that he forgot”29The body of the following is copied by the corrector who prepared the text for the Venice printer from Taaniot 1:6; parts of it are also quoted in other tractates.. [From where that there is a clear commandment30While illegitimate use of heave oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the framework of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Overstepping the prohibition of anointing when it is forbidden legally is overstepping a positive commandment not under the scope of biblical penal law.This paragraph is copied from the parallels (Note 24); there is no connection to the rules of the Day of Atonement.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: I did not give from it to the dead31Deut. 26:14.. Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead?32Cf. Sifry Deut. 302. I am saying that this is anointing33Second Tithe must be consumed; no other use is authorized... “Wearing shoes”. It was stated: In all cases where they said that one may not wear shoes, when he departs on a trip he puts them on, when he arrives at a walled city he takes them off; this includes the mourner and the person in the ban34Babli Moˋed qaṭan 15b. The Yerushalmi version is quoted by Or zarua§277.. There are Tannaim who state, one goes in slippers35Latin impilia, -ium (pl/) “felt slippers”. on the day of Atonement; and there are Tannaim who state, one does not. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one goes, in textile slippers, and he who said one does not go, in leather slippers36Yebamot 12:1, Notev 35, Babli Yebamot 102b.. Rebbi Isaac bar Nahman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of the Great Fast37The day of Atonement.; he came to him wearing laced shoes38A leather sole with a textile upper part held together by laces.. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic39Greek ἀσθενής. Since the rules of not wearing leather shoes are rabbinic, they are waved for health reasons.. Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman visited Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the night of a fast day40A rabbinic fast day.; he came to him wearing laced shoes. He asked him, what is this? He answered, I am asthenic. They saw Rebbi Simai walking in the night of a fast day in laced shoes. A student of Rebbi Mana permitted to a relative of the Patriarch to wear laced shoes41Without a medical condition which would justify waving the rules.. He asked him, from where this? He answered, from this of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, in the case of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi it was an asthenic. “And sexual relations.” Come and see, he is forbidden to wash, not so much more to have sexual relations42Since the Day of Atonement is a day of prayer and by an institution of Ezra prayer was forbidden after sexual relations before immersion in a miqweh, the prohibition of washing should imply the prohibition of sexual relations without the need to spell it out.? Explain it that it was a place where one does not immerse oneself, or before Ezra instituted immersion for people having had an emission. 43This text to the end of the paragraph is also from Berakhot 3:4 (Notes 167–168) which is the original source. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi.: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Ḥuna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, even from something else. But did we not state: On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual relations, are forbidden?. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on the day of Atonement44In Tosephta Kippurim 4:5 and Babli 88a the reading is: “Men with qeri (emission of semen) immerse themselves normally on Yom Kippur”; one speaks of a full immersion and “in secret” is not mentioned. The Tosephta is Babylonian formulation.. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it was stated: It happened that one saw Rebbi Yose bar Halaphta immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot45Hence, the interpretation of Rav Ḥuna is incorrect and that of rabbis Yose (the Amora) and Jonah is correct.?] “The king,” because your eyes shall see the king in his beauty46Is. 33:17. Babli 78b, bottom.. “The bride,” because of bad feelings47That the husband should not feel bad about her. Babli 78b, bottom.. “And the woman recovering after childbirth wears shoes, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” We were thinking to say that this refers to the last statement; it was found stated referring to all of them48The entire sentence is R. Eliezer’s..

MISHNAH: He who eats the volume of a big date with its pit or who drinks the volume of a full gulp49Greek λυγμός, ὁ. on the day of Atonement is liable50Since these are biblical prohibitions, if the infraction was intentional it is a deadly sin punishable by extirpation, if in error it requires a purification sacrifice.. All foods combine for the volume of a date, and all drinks combine for the mouthful. What he ate and drank does not combine. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said, this implies that (he) [one]51The scribe wrote שו, which has to be read as שֶׁהוּא “that he”. The corrector, who did not understand the Yerushalmi spelling, replaced it by prefix ש. has to squeeze its empty space52If the pit is loose in the date, the space between pit and flesh of the fruit is not counted in determining the volume which triggers liability. since otherwise one should have stated, “it, its pit, and its empty space.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, a date from Nimrin53In the printed version and one ms. of Tosephta 4:2 he disagrees with the anonymous Tanna there who restricts the dates considered to those growing West of the Jordan, and therefore increases the possible maximum volume of a date (Mishnah Kelim17:7), but in the Yerushalmi version and 2 Tosephta mss. he restricts the dates allowed as standards to just those of Nimrin and therefore reduces the permitted size.Nimrin is Bet Nimrah(Jos. 13:27) in the plain East of the Jordan.. It was stated, “a full gulp.” Does this disagree54In the Mishnah, the expression for solid food is “like (in the volume of) a date”, implying that pieces of food eaten at different times are added together to determine liability. The expression for fluids is “a gulp”, not “like (the volume of) a gulp”, but the statement of the Mishnah that different fluids combine show that “like (the volume of) a gulp” is understood. Is this also the position of the Tanna of the baraita or does he deny that different sips can add to a large gulp?? A full gulp, what is possible as one gulp55The baraita also agrees with the Mishnah.. It was stated in the name of the House of Shammai, a full gulp is equivalent to a quartarius56A quarter of a log, about 133 cm3.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, why was this not stated as one of the leniencies of the House of Shammai and restrictions of the House of Hillel57A quartarius is the standard size of a cup whose contents normally are consumed in two gulps. Therefore the standard of the House of Shammai seems to be twice that of the House of Hillel.? He told him, because of the gulp of Ben Avatiah58He is mentioned in Mishnah Kelim17:12 as largest Cohen on record.In contrast to the House of Shammai who determine the volume for the Day of Atonement as a standard measure, the House of Hillel insist that they vary from person to person (Mishnah Kelim 17:11). which contained more than a quartarius.

MISHNAH: If one ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only for one purification sacrifice59Since not eating and drinking are subsumed under fasting, only one biblical commandment was broken.. If he ate and drank, and worked, he is liable for two purification sacrifices60Since fasting is commanded in Lev,23:27 but work is forbidden in 23:28, two distinct commandments were broken and two sacrifices are due.. If he ate foods which are not edible or drank drinks which are not drinkable, drank fish sauce61Fluid squeezed out of raw fish. or muries62A Latin word denoting fish sauce treated with salt, water, and sometimes wine, used to dip one’s bread in but never used as a drink., he is not liable.One does not let children fast but one educates them one year of two in advance63One lets girls aged 10 and boys aged 11 fast part of the day and at ages 11, respectively 12, a whole day, as education, not as biblical requirement. so they should be used to commandments. HALAKHAH: Why? 64This is a partial copy, in places completed by the corrector for the Venice edition and indicated by brackets, of a text in Maˋaser Šeni 2:1 (Notes 7–35), also partially reproduced in Ševuot 3:2 (Notes 26–36). It is clear that the original is in Maˋuser Šeni since the last paragraph has no connection with the rules of the Day of Atonement. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood65Lev. 17:12.. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire66Deut. 14:26.. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany67Maˋaser Šeni 2:1, Note 16. The first word may denote cedar resin (J. Levy) or a derivative of אוֹרֶז “rice”. The readings for the second word, גמרייה, גמזוזיניה, גומננייא show that the scribe did not know what to do with it; it may be a derivative of “gum” (gummi, κόμμι) (E. G.) used in the preparation of liquors., since anything that is ancillary to food is like food. Rebbi Yose understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate and drank he is liable only once.68Mishnah Ševuot 3:1.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but it is said following this, “an oath that I shall not eat nor drink, when he ate and drank he is liable for two”! Rebbi Yose told them, if somebody had two loaves in front of him said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf69Here a piece of text is missing, found in the other two sources: “and then he said, an oath that I shall not eat that one.”, when he ate [both of them] together would he not be guilty on two counts? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas understood it from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids, he is not liable.70Mishnah Ševuot 3: 5.” Because he ate inedible food and drank undrinkable fluids. Therefore if [he ate edible food,]71Corrector’s addition, added in error. drank drinkable fluids he is liable. Did he not say, an oath that I shall not eat? That is understandable following our Mishnah, where we are saying, “an oath that I shall not eat.” But for Rebbi72Obviously since Rebbi is the editor of the Mishnah, he cannot contradict his own text. With the text in Ševuot one has to read: “those rabbis who say, an oath that I shall not eat and I shall not drink.” These rabbis are quoted in the Babli, Ševuot 23a. who said, an oath that I shall not eat and shall not drink? Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the following73Mishnah 3.: [“If he ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only once.” Rebbi Abba Mari understood it from the following:] I did not eat from it in my mourning,74Deut. 26:14. but I drank? It is understandable for him who said, “{I swear} an oath that I shall not eat”, and he drank. Drinking is subsumed under eating. But for him who said, “an oath that I shall not drink”, and he ate? Is eating subsumed under drinking? Eating is not subsumed under drinking75The preceding arguments show that drinking is subsumed under eating. Nobody holds that a mention of drink includes solid food. Babli Ševuot 23a.. Some want to understand it from this: You may not eat in your gates76Deut. 12:17. etc. Your cider’, that is the wine. And your shining oil’ refers to anointing and the Torah called it ‘eating’. But this is not clear. If you could say that it is clear one should be whipped because of it outside the walls77If the verse were a formal identification of anointing and eating as far as Second Tithe is concerned, the use of impure heave oil for anointing should be a criminal offense.! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, one is whipped outside the walls only for pure Second Tithe which entered Jerusalem and left. From where that it is not clear? From what was stated: “On the Sabbath, both anointing for pleasure”, one reads this in Halakhah One78Notes 24 ff.. From where that it is clear as a positive commandment79While illegitimate use of Second Tithe oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the context of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Therefore overstepping the prohibition is violating a positive commandment not under the scope of criminal law.? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simai: Nor did I give from it to the dead74Deut. 26:14.. Where do we hold? If it were to bring a casket and shrouds for him, that were also forbidden for a living person80Since only consuming Second Tithe is permitted.! If something is forbidden for the living, not so much more for the dead? What is something which is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? That is anointing! 81Sifra Emor Pereq 14(3). Babli 81 a.“Warning about work on the day: Any work you shall not do82Lev. 16:29.. Punishment, and I shall destroy this person83.Lev. 23:30.. Warning about deprivation on the day, for any person who will not be deprived84Lev. 23:29.; punishment, and this person will be extirpated84Lev. 23:29..” There is no warning about work in the night, there is no punishment. There is no warning nor punishment written for deprivation in the night85In both verses quoted from Lev. 23 it is stressed בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה which in general in interpreted “in full daylight” (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 9.) Since the night is forbidden as is the day (Lev. 23:32), there is an obvious contradiction to be resolved.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date86Since it was established earlier that of the six kinds of deprivation required on the Day of Atonement only not fasting is biblically punishable, the question arises why instead of the generic expression “be deprived” the verse does not directly prescribe “do not eat.” The answer is that in the latter case already eating the volume of an olive would be punishable.. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings87This now addresses the problem from where could one infer that all prohibitions of the Day of Atonement also apply to the preceding night. He suggests that since there are several expressions biblically used to indicate prohibitions, there could have been different expressions used for the warnings which would have been interpreted as applying to different times.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act88Deut. 24:8. This is a side remark noting that הִשָּׁמֵר is used only in reference to rules spelled out on other occasions. In this particular case it is noted that the rules of the impurity of skin disease (Lev. 13–14) do not include prohibitions; the prohibition implied by Deut. 24:8 is interpreted (cf. Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.) to mean that it is forbidden to eliminate the impurity of skin disease by surgically eliminating the diseased tissue., etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not]89Necessary addition by the corrector. have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation]90Corrector’s addition which seems to be unnecessary. which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major91“Major” means that prohibitions of work are frequent, applying to the Sabbath as capital crimes and to holidays as misdemeanors; deprivation is “minor” since it applies only to the day of Atonement. it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it92The argument of Rav Hoshaia is essentially correct but has to be realized differently. Since the warning spelled out for work on the Day of Atonement is shown to be unnecessary, it has to be applied as if it were written twice; supplying the desired additional warning to be read as referring to the preceding night.. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side93He reads the argument of R. Ḥiyya not as a conclusion de minore ad majus but as “equal cut” meaning that the expression בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה appearing in Lev. 23:29,30 implies that the rules indicated in both verses are the same. In general one requires that an expression used for “equal cut” not be used for any other inference; but here the entire v. 29 is needed both for warning and punishment (Note 84). There remains the problem that since now it is shown that בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה does not mean “during daylight only”, the expression is not used for any other deduction and therefore the “equal cut” is between two identical expressions not otherwise needed and therefore valid according to everybody, even R. Ismael. One has to say that since the day is defined in Lev. 23:32 as from evening to evening, בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה means that while one has to start fasting and refraining from work somewhat earlier and finish sometime after nightfall the next day, the biblical penalties do not apply to these additional periods and therefore one mention of “on this very day” is needed for this legal implication.Noted as opinion in dispute, Babli Šabbat 64a, Niddah 22b.. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free94The Babli would reject the entire argument of R. Zeˋira since it permits the use of “equal cut” only based on an oral tradition. It still would recognize R. Ḥiyya’s argument but it categorically rejects extending the scope of punishments by hermeneutical arguments.. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is said on this very day about work and it is said on this very day about deprivation. Since in regard of on this very day said about work you did not differentiate between day and night95As argued by R. Ḥiyya., between punishment and warning96Which are written in one and the same verse., so in regard of on this very day said about deprivation we shall not differentiate between day and night, between punishment and warning. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? It shall be for you an eternal law, in the Seventh Month97Lev. 16:29. He joined work and deprivation. Since the work which I forbade to you is work for which one is liable to extirpation, also deprivation which I forbade to you is deprivation for which one is liable to extirpation98As required by Rav Hoshaia.. 100The main source of this paragraph are Terumot 6:1, Notes 16–19, Šabbat 14, Notes 83–89.. Babli Yoma 80b/81a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who eats of kilaim in a vineyard101Any non-vine produce in a vineyard is prohibited for usufruct. is whipped102If there are witnesses to the act, since he broke a biblical commandment. This corresponds to the term “is liable” used for Sabbath violations.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who chews wheat grain103A pure Cohen who is entitled to eat heave may not spit out the grain after chewing. of heave is whipped. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he who sips vinegar of heave is whipped; he who sips vinegar of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth104The fifth computed from the top which is a quarter from the bottom, due for use of heave by people not entitled to its use.; he who chews wheat grain of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth. Rebbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Immi: The rabbis agree with Rebbi about one who sips heave vinegar from his dipping that he pays principal and fifth since vinegar refreshes105Even though vinegar in itself is neither food nor drink, when it was absorbed by bread it becomes food and stays food. For heave it remains subject to the fine, on the Day of Atonement it remains forbidden drink, but on the Šabbath it may be used for a toothache.. “One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement.” Rav Ḥuna explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, and does not train them106One tells them to fast part of the day., but one or two years before one trains them107One does not let minor children fast the entire day.. Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: One does not let children fast on the Day of Atonement, but one does train them108Younger than 10 for girls and 11 for boys., and one or two years before they complete the fast. Until when? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: At age nine or age ten109According to the Babli 82a age nine refers to healthy children and age ten to sickly ones. Since the Yerushalmi gives no indication of this one might read this as 9 for girls, 10 for boys, in each case 3 years before they become obligated to fast as adults.

MISHNAH: A pregnant woman who smelled [food]110She gets an urgent desire for the food and if she continues to fast there would be a danger of a miscarriage. one feeds until she is well again. A sick person one feeds according to experts111Medical personnel.; if there are no experts one feeds him on his own judgment until he says, enough112Even though fasting is a biblical commandment and breaking the fast is a deadly sin, biblical obligations never should endanger one’s life (Lev. 18:5). HALAKHAH: At first one dips it in sauce113One dips kosher bread in the non-kosher sauce which may be forbidden only rabbinically.. If she feels well again it is good. Otherwise one gives her of the body of forbidden food114If the woman smells cooking on the day of Atonement, probably it is Gentile non-kosher food. But see the paragraph after the next.. Two pregnant women came before Rebbi Tarphon. He sent two students to them and told them, go and tell them, it is the Great Fast-day. They said it to the first one and she quieted down. They said about him115Since it is the baby who carves the food, not his mother who simply is the provider. For similar stories Babli 82b/83a., from my mother’swomb You are my God116Ps. 22:11.. They said it to the second, who did not quiet down. They said about him, The wicked are perverts from the womb; they err from the belly, the speakers of lies117Ps.58:4! 119Babli 83a. The sick person says, I can120He can fast the entire day., but the physician says, he cannot; one listens to the physician. The physician says, he can, but the sick person says, he cannot; one listens to the sick person120He can fast the entire day.. The only question is if the sick person says, I can, and the physician says, I do not know. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is treated as an uncertainty of a danger to life, and any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Sabbath aside121Since the principle is established for the Sabbath, the violation of which is a capital crime, it certainly holds for the day of Atonement, whose violation is a deadly sin..

MISHNAH: A person suffering from boulimy132Greek βουλιμία. ἡ. “ravenous hunger”. It is presumed that the attack is life threatening. one feeds even impure food until his eyes light up. One does not feed the cover of a rabid dog’s liver to a person bitten by a rabid dog133Since this is not a recognized medical procedure., but Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash permits it134For him it is proven medical practice. In addition, Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash said, if somebody suffers from throat ache, one pours him medicine into it since it is an uncertainty of a danger to life, since any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Šabbath aside.If a wall collapsed over somebody135On the Sabbath or the day of Atonement., it is uncertain whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Gentile or a Jew, one digs him out136Even though this involves a Sabbath desecration.. If one finds him alive, one digs him out, if dead one shall leave him137Until after the end of Sabbath or holiday. HALAKHAH: 122This paragraph should belong to the next Halakhah, discussion of Mishnah 5. From where that one may feed him fig cake and raisins of heave? From this: They gave him a slice of fig cake and two raisins1231Sam. 30:12. Since the verse reports that the Egyptian recovered from having been without food for 72 hours, this sugary food is proven antidote to boulimy and may be given even from prohibited food.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the twenty-four esronot which David ate, he ate in hunger124He implies that Ahimelekh gave to David all shew breads of the Tabernacle (1Sam. 21:7) and he ate all of them. There are 12 breads, each of them 2 esronot(Lev.24:5). 24 esronot are 2.4 epha, or 7.2 seah, a volume of about 92 liter of flour. (Cf. S. Abramson, Sinai 63(1968), pp. 193–197.). This happened to Rebbi Joḥanan125An attack of boulimy. and he ate everything which happened to be before him. They quoted about him, wisdom revives its possessor126Eccl. 7:12.. It was stated: “One feeds him the least forbidden127If no kosher food is available at the moment. Babli 83a, Tosephta 4:4.. Carcass meat or heave, one feeds him heave. Ṭevel and sabbatical produce128While illegitimate use of heave oil for anointing is prohibited, it is mentioned in the framework of the farmer’s declaration in the Temple, which is a positive commandment. Overstepping the prohibition of anointing when it is forbidden legally is overstepping a positive commandment not under the scope of biblical penal law., one feeds him Šabbatical produce.” Ḥallah and ˋorlah is problematic129Ḥallah as heave is a sanctum, forbidden to non-Cohanim. Its improper ingestion is a deadly sin. Usufruct of ˋorlah is forbidden to everybody as a simple prohibition.. Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Rebbi Ba: Heave is a deadly sin, carcass meat a prohibition130Eating non-kosher meat is a simple prohibition punishable by 39 lashes., and you are saying so? Following him who said, they accepted the tithes voluntarily131In this opinion, tithes, heave, and Sabbatical produce are biblical obligations only if all 12 tribes are on their ancestral lands; today all these obligations were voluntarily accepted by the returnees from Babylon and have only rabbinic status.; Ševiˋit 6:1, Notes 11–13. But non-kosher food is biblically forbidden... The characteristics138Greek σημεῖον, τό. of a rabid dog: His mouth is (closed) [open]139The text is brackets is the corrector’s, corresponding to the text in the Babli, 83b., his spittle drips, his ears are badly smelling, he tail is between his hips, he walks at an angle140His body makes a non-zero angle with the direction of his movement., the dogs bark at him, and some are saying, also he barks but his voice is not (carried] [heard]139The text is brackets is the corrector’s, corresponding to the text in the Babli, 83b.. What is the cause of a dog being rabid? Rav and Samuel. One is saying, a spirit of madness came over him. But the other one said, a woman uses him to try out witchcraft. German, the slave of Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch, was bitten by a rabid dog and he fed him the cover of its liver, but he never recovered. A person could never tell you that he was bitten by a rabid dog and survived, that he was stung by a brightly colored snake141A sign of a poisonous reptile. and survived, that he was kicked by a mule and survived, but only by a white mule142Babli Ḥulin7b; Yerushalmi Berakhot8:6, Notes 124–125. From where that any uncertainty of a danger to life pushes the Sabbath aside? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only you shall keep My Sabbaths;143Ex. 31:12. a diminution. Some want to say, the Torah said,144Since אַךְ everywhere is taken as sign of a diminution, but there is no indication of what is excluded from the observation of the Sabbath, the rabbinic authorities are empowered to determine the exclusion by an argument. Babli 85b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Ki Tlssa. desecrate the Sabbath for him, so he will dwell and keep many Sabbaths. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall collapsed in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew145Also quoted in Ketubot 1:10, Note 269.. How far146Since in the Mishnah it is stated that a live person has to be dug out completely, the question is how much of a person has to be uncovered in order to determine his death.? Two Amoraim. One said, up to his nose; the other said, up to his navel. He who said, up to his nose, about one who was healthy; he who said up to his navel, about one who was intoxicated147Reading רוי for רבי.. It was stated: (The one who decided is praiseworthy, one who is asked has to be ready,)148The text in parentheses is the scribe’s. It was not understood by the corrector who partially substituted the Babli text.The original text states that the rabbi who decided in advance to instruct his congregation to act immediately in cases of danger to life is praiseworthy, the one who is asked anyhow has to have his instructions ready without hesitation, and the one who wastes time to ask is a murderer. [the one who is quick is praiseworthy, the one who is asked is blameworthy,]149Corrector’s text. The first statement is from the Babli, 84b (Tosephta Šabbat15:11). The second clause is difficult to understand; what can a person do if he is asked? He is blameworthy if he does not cut the interrogator short and sends him to help others. and the one who asks is a spiller of blood. 150This text also is in Nedarim 4:9 Notes 104–113. Šabbat 16, Notes 123–132; partially Tosephta Šabbat 15:15, Babli, Yoma 84b. It was stated: In any case of danger to life one does not say that the work be done by Gentiles or minors, but even by adult Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shihin, and the garrison of the barracks151Latin castra, -orum, n. “military camp, barracks, fortress.” of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due152Since the fire was on a Sabbath, he took it as divine punishment.. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander153Greek ἔπαρχος, ὁ, equivalent of Latin praefectus (castrorum). Tosephta Šabbat13:9 (ed. Liebermann). 50 denarii.” The Sages134For him it is proven medical practice said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was a neighbor of Rebbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rebbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rebbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes135On the Sabbath or the day of Atonement.. And everything was saved. Rebbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the burning grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

MISHNAH: A purification sacrifice and a definitive reparation sacrifice156Any reparation sacrifice (אָשָׁם) except the one for the suspicion of a sin which, if proven, would require a purification sacrifice; Lev. 5:17–19. atone157Since it is presumed that an impurity which requires a reparation sacrifice is divine punishment for some infraction, atonement applies also to these sacrifices.. Death or the Day of Atonement atone if accompanied by repentance. Repentance atones for minor infractions, positive commandments, and prohibitions158Biblical prohibitions for which no punishment is indicated in the text.. But for severe ones159Sins punishable by extirpation or the death penalty. it suspends until the next Day of Atonement arrives and atones. HALAKHAH: There we stated: 160Mishnah Ševuot 1:9. Intentional [impurity]161Word missing in the quote. of the Sanctuary and its sancta is atoned by the ram whose blood is brought inside162On the Day of Atonement. and the Day of Atonement. The remainder of the transgressions mentioned in the Torah, minor or severe ones, intentional and unintentional, [known and unknown, positive commandments and prohibitions, extirpations and capital crimes, the scapegoat atones.]163Corrector’s completion from the Mishnah. 164The text of the Halakhah is from Ševuot 1:9, Notes 183–210. The present paragraph also in the Babli Ševuot 12b. Are not minor sins positive commandments and prohibitions; are not serious ones extirpations and capital crimes? Rebbi165With the Ševuot text, read “Rav”. Jehudah said, so is the Mishnah: “Minor or serious ones. Those minor ones, whether he committed them intentionally or did not commit them intentionally166This must refer either to infractions for which the penalty is not spelled out (Note 158) or to cases where guilt cannot be ascertained. The standard example is that of a person who ate one of two pieces of meat, one of which was kosher, the other one severely forbidden either as forbidden fat or as sacrificial meat· which became impure (Rashi). If it is not possible to ascertain which of the two he ate. then a suspended reparation sacrifice is due; but the obligation to bring a suspended reparation sacrifice is cancelled by the Day of Atonement, as determined in the next paragraph (and Ševuot Halakhah 1:2, Note 69, Horaiot 1:1 Note 18).. Those severe ones, whether he obtained knowledge of them or did not obtain knowledge of them167This refers to the situation described in the previous Note. If he intended to eat one of the two, knowing that one was severely forbidden, he either committed no sin or he committed a serious crime for which no personal sacrifice can atone.. The following are minor sins: positive commandments and prohibitions158Biblical prohibitions for which no punishment is indicated in the text.. Severe ones, extirpations and capital crimes. Just as the ram whose blood is brought inside atones for intentional infractions and suspends for the unintentional ones in cases where a sacrifice is required, also the scapegoat atones in the same way168Which carries away “all their iniquities”, Lev. 16:22). This last statement is missing in the Babli Ševuot; it is discussed in Keritut 25b..” It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge169Then no private sacrifice is due and the public sacrifice must atone for the damage done to the sanctuary.. If it did come to his knowledge170Did we not imply that the public offering does not relieve the individual of his obligation to bring a sacrifice?? Was it not stated:171Parts of Mishnah Keritut 6:4. Purification sacrifices must be brought even after the Day of Atonement but obligations of suspended reparation sacrifices are eliminated. “From where that those liable for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, remain liable, but those liable for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it172The text from Ševuot is copied here very incompletely, only partially completed by the corrector’s addition [in brackets]. By the omission the text has become unintelligible; cf. Ševuot 1:9, Notes 194–196.. [Why did he not say, if it was not known to him]. His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones. There173Mishnah Keritut 1:2., we have stated: “For these174The transgressions punishable by extirpation enumerated in Mishnah Keritut1:1. one is liable for extirpation in case of intentional transgression, or a purification sacrifice for unintentional transgression, and for what was not certainly known in their cases a suspended sacrifice.” But did not the day of Atonement already atone175Does the Day of Atonement not eliminate the possibility of a suspended reparation offering for the possibility of a sin committed before this day?? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Levi from Sokho: The Mishnah refers to one who rebels on the Day of Atonement. A positive commandment, even if he did not repent. A prohibition? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, only if he repented176While the Mishnah in Rav Jehudah’s interpretation treats positive commandments and simple prohibitions in parallel, there is a difference between the two kinds of sins. The non-performance of a positive commandment is atoned for even without repentance while the atoning for breaching simple prohibitions requires repentance.. If one said, “the elevation offering does not atone,177The biblical text does not indicate for which kind of sin an elevation offering does atone but Lev. 1:4 indicates that it atones. The next paragraph will investigate for which sins it is atoning.” does the elevation offering not atone? It atones even against his will. But if he said, “it is impossible that the elevation offering atone for me,” it does not atone against his will178In the prior formulation, it was simply a false statement. But if somebody said, I am opting out, the atoning power of sacrifices shall not be valid for me, what he offers would be profane. If there is no offering, there cannot be atonement.. If one said, “the Day of Atonement does not atone,” It atones. “I cannot accept179The scribe wrote איפשי, “it is impossible for me”, which Galilean form the corrector did not recognize (and which the scribe himself in the preceding sentence exchanged for the Babylonian form), and added אי, for Babylonian אִי אֶפְשִׁי, meaning the same. that it atone for me,” it atones against his will180Since he brings the offering on his own initiative, if it is not brought for atoning it does not atone. But the Day of Atonement is given by God; it is not up to man to say what it can or cannot do. Babli, Keritut 7a.. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Hillel said, it is not up to a person to tell the King, “you are no king.”

MISHNAH: If somebody say, “I shall sin and repent, I shall sin and repent,190Repeatedly” one191Heaven does not let him achieve to repent. “I shall sin and the day of Atonement will atone,” the Day of Atonement does not atone. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor.The following did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah explain: Of all your unintentional sins before the Eternal you shall be cleansed199Lev. 16:30. The sentence is not parsed as from all your iniquities, before the Eternal you will be cleansed, but as from all your iniquities before the Eternal, you will be cleansed. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8:1.. Transgressions between a person and the Omnipresent the Day of Atonement atones; but those between him and his neighbor the Day of Atonement does not atone unless he placated his neighbor.Rebbi Aqiba said, blessed are you, Israel. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father Who is in Heaven, as it is said200Ez 36:25., I shall sprinkle on you pure water, so you shall be pure. And it is said201Jer. 17:13. Israel’s hope is the Eternal, since a miqweh purifies the impure people202Identifying מקוה “hope” or “ritual bath; pond”., so the Holy One, praise to Him, cleanses Israel. HALAKHAH: 181In Lev. rabba 7(3) the paragraph is reproduced and the doctrine is attributed to R. Simeon ben Iohai. The elevation offering atones for thoughts. What is the reason? What rises in your spirits will not be182Ez. 20:32.. Rebbi Levi said, What rises in your spirits will not be183This quote is incorrect and makes no sense. The original is in Ševuot 1:9 Note 205.. And so Job says, he got up early in the morning and brought elevation offerings in the number of all of them, etc.184Job 1:5. Job offered elevation offerings since he was afraid that his children might have had impious thoughts. [This implies that the elevation offering atones for thoughts.185Corrector’s addition from Ševuot.] 186This must refer either to infractions for which the penalty is not spelled out (Note 158) or to cases where guilt cannot be ascertained. The standard example is that of a person who ate one of two pieces of meat, one of which was kosher, the other one severely forbidden either as forbidden fat or as sacrificial meat which became impure (Rashi). If it is not possible to ascertain which of the two he ate, then a suspended reparation sacrifice is due; but the obligation to bring a suspended reparation sacrifice is cancelled by the Day of Atonement, as determined in the next paragraph (and Ševuot Halakhah 1:2, Note 69, Horaiot 1:1 Note 18). Rebbi says, the Day of Atonement atones for all sins against the Torah except for him who tears away the yoke, or who breaks the Covenant, or who finds aspects in the Torah187This was explained in Peah 1:1 Notes 199–213; cf. also Sanhedrin 10:1, Note 8. One who tears away the yoke is he who recognizes the authority of the Torah but decides to break its laws; one who breaks the covenant is he who tries to reconstruct a prepuce and does not circumcise his sons; one who finds aspects in the Torah is he who denies the divine origin of the Torah., where it atones if he repented but does not atone otherwise. Rebbi Zevida said that Rebbi Yasa asked: Does Rebbi think that the Day of Atonement atones without repentance? Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi agrees that the Day of Atonement only atones with repentance; therefore death cleanses without repentance188This is a non-sequitur, but it fits well with the text in Ševuot which has to be considered as the original. The Babli supports the statement there about the Day of Atonement; it has no statement of Rebbi about the power of Death.. We have stated thus: The day of death equals the day of repentance. Who stated this? Rebbi! Then what we stated, “death and the Day of Atonement atone with repentance,” does not follow Rebbi189Since the Mishnah requires repentance also on the Day of Atonement. Rebbi formulated an anonymous Mishnah, i. e., authoritative doctrine, following the majority against his own opinion.. 192From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is not only in Ševuot but also inSanhedrin 10:1, Notes 23–37, 14–22 (and in the Babli Yoma 86b). For part of the text there exists a Geniza fragment (G) edited by L. Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments (1909) p. 267. Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy183This quote is incorrect and makes no sense. The original is in Ševuot 1:9 Note 205.. He said to him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rebbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, return, naughty children194Jer. 3:22.. But another verse says, for on that day He shall atone for you195Lev. 16:20.. And another verse says, I shall visit their crime with the rod196Ps. 89:33, etc. And another verse says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die197Is. 22:14.. How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, before he moves from there it will be forgiven to him. About this one it says, return, naughty children. If one transgresses a prohibition and immediately repents, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement atones. About this one it says, for on that day, He shall atone for you. If one intentionally transgressed {sins punishable by} extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement atone half, and sufferings during the other days of the year atone half. About this one it says, I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquities with plagues. But by whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third, sufferings atone a third, and death scours with sufferings. About this one it says, the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die. From this we learn that death scours. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say that the scapegoat atones. How does it atone? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in small pieces. Rebbi Ḥanania said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rebbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rebbi Zeˋira said, a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥanina: “There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram: The Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone without the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram since the ram atones immediately but the Day of Atonement only atones at nightfall.198Tosephta 4:16.” Rebbi Ḥuna said, the question was raised before Rebbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another he-goat but they did not bring it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately 203Cf. Babli 87a Samuel said, a person who sinned against his neighbor has to tell him, I offended you. If he accepts it, it is good. Otherwise he brings people and appeases him in their presence. That is what is written204Job33:27, being straight with men, he shall form a row of men, and say, I sinned, and straightforward I acted criminally, and I was careless. If he acts in this manner, the verse says about him205Job33:28, He delivered his soul from perdition, and his life enjoys light. If he died, one has to appease him on his grave and say, I offended you. 206Babli 86b; Tosephta 4:15. It was stated: “Sins which he confessed the past Day of Atonement he does not have to confess the next day of Atonement; if he would do this, the verse says about him, like a dog returning to his vomit, so is the silly repeating his foolishness207Prov. 26:11.. It was stated, Rebbi Eliezer208In Babli and Tosephta: R. Eliezer ben Jacob. says, he would be clever and be rewarded. What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? But my sin is always before me209Ps. 51:5..” How does Rebbi Eliezer interpret the rabbis’ reason, like a dog returning to his vomit, so is the silly repeating his foolishness? If he repeats the same sin. How do the rabbis interpret Rebbi Eliezer’s reason, but my sin is always before me? It should not be in his eyes as if he never did it, but that he did it and he was forgiven. 210Tosephta 4:14, Babli 87b.“It is an obligation to confess on the eve of the Day of Atonement when it gets dark, before he immerses himself in eating and drinking211The text is elliptic; it is understandable only in the Babylonian sources. Since confession is one of the obligations of the day of Atonement, one has to confess immediately after nightfall in the evening prayers (as presupposed in the following sentence.) But as a precaution there is a rabbinic obligation to confess in the preceding afternoon, during afternoon prayers, before taking the big meal before the fast, in case one would be incapacitated during the fast-day because of overeating.. Even though he confessed in the evening, he has to confess in the morning; though he confessed in the morning, he has to confess at musaf212The additional holiday prayers, parallel to the additional sacrifices required on such days. It is spelled out in the Babylonian sources that all confessions are appended to the prayers of the day.; though he confessed at musaf, he has to confess in the afternoon; though he confessed in the afternoon, he has to confess at neˋilah213The additional prayers on fast days (Mishnah Taˋaniot 4:1), shortly before the end of the fast., for the entire day is qualified for confession.” How does he confess? 214Lev. rabba 3(3), ascribed to another author. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Binah: My Master, I sinned and did evil, and I was involved in bad thoughts, and acting in aberrant ways. But as I acted I shall not act. May it please You, Eternal, my God, [that You will atone for all my crimes]215Corrector’s addition from Lev. rabba., forgive me for all my sins, and pardon (and forgive)216Text of the scribe, deleted by the corrector. Since with this word and with the prior addition by the corrector one also has three requests for forgiveness, the original text of the scribe looks genuine. all my transgressions. It was stated217Tosephta 4:14, Babli 86b, Yerushalmi Nedarim 5:4, Note 60.: It is necessary to detail one’s actions, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail his actions. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Please, this people committed a grave sin, they made themselves golden idols218Ex. 32:31.. How does Rebbi Aqiba treat this? Who caused it to them? I, for I gave them much silver and gold. Why? For a donkey is not braying219The corrector’s spelling נהק is biblical (Job 6:5, 30:7), but the scribe’s spelling נקק may be the Aramaic form of Accadic nagāgum.. While in Job the verb describes the shout of the hungry, here it is used for the noise of the overbearing; cf. Sifry Deut.308 out of a basket of carob fruit220In the Babli, Berakhot 32a, the argument is that a lion will shout eating a box of meat.. It is written, Israel’s miqweh is the Eternal. Just as a miqweh202Identifying מקוה “hope” or “ritual bath; pond”. purifies the impure, so the Holy One, praise to Him, purifies Israel. And so He says, I shall sprinkle on you pure water and you will be pure; from all your impurities and your abominations I shall purify you221Ez. 36:25.