יומא דף עא

שכל הפרשה כולה נאמרה על הסדר, חוץ מפסוק זה.

as the whole portion of the service of the day detailed in Leviticus is written in this order, and the service must be performed in that order, except for this verse, which is stated out of order and is performed only later. The verse detailing his reentry (Leviticus 16:23) is written before the verse detailing the sacrifice of the rams (Leviticus 16:24), but in fact the reentry occurs only after the sacrifice of the rams.

מאי טעמא? אמר רב חסדא: גמירי, חמש טבילות ועשרה קידושין טובל כהן גדול ומקדש בו ביום,

The Gemara asks: What is the reason to assume this verse is written out of order? Rav Ḥisda said: They learned as a tradition that the High Priest performs five immersions and ten sanctifications of his hands and feet when he changes clothing on that day. Each time the High Priest changes between the white and golden garments, he sanctifies his hands and feet, immerses, dresses in the new set of garments and then once again sanctifies his hands and feet.

ואי אמרת כסדרן כתיבי, לא משכחת לה אלא שלש טבילות וששה קידושין.

And if you say that the verses, including this one, are written in order, you find only three immersions and six sanctifications. Read in order, the verses indicate only three changes of garments, which involve three immersions and six sanctifications. In order to arrive at the requisite numbers of five immersions and ten sanctifications one must assume that the High Priest’s reentry into the Holy of Holies takes place at a later time, after he has already changed into the golden garments. This would require him to change into the white garments and then back into the golden garments, providing an additional two immersions and four sanctifications.

מתקיף לה רבי זירא: ודילמא מפסיק ליה בשעיר הנעשה בחוץ!

Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But perhaps the order of the verses in Leviticus can be maintained, and the requisite number of immersions and sanctifications still achieved, if he interrupts the service performed in the white garments with the goat whose services are performed outside of the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, and are performed in the golden garments. The sacrifice of the goat is not mentioned in Leviticus but only in Numbers. Therefore, it could be inserted into the service of the day without compromising the order of the verses in Leviticus. The change into the golden garments and then back into the white garments would contribute an additional two immersions and four sanctifications, thus arriving at the requisite numbers.

אמר אביי, אמר קרא: ״ויצא ועשה את עולתו״, מיציאה ראשונה עביד אילו ואיל העם.

Abaye said: It is clear that the verse detailing the reentry must be out of order, since the verse states: “And he shall exit and make his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:24). This is the first exit stated in the verses and implies that immediately following his first exit from the Holy of Holies, he performs the sacrifice of his ram and the ram of the people without any other interruption. If so, the reentry must occur only afterward.

רבא אמר, אמר קרא: ״ופשט את בגדי הבד״, שאין תלמוד לומר ״אשר לבש״, כלום אדם פושט אלא מה שלובש?! אלא מה תלמוד לומר ״אשר לבש״ — שלבש כבר.

Rava said a different proof. The verse states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 16:23). Now, the verse does not need to state “which he wore,” as this is obvious; can one remove anything other than what he is wearing? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states “which he wore”? It is referring to those garments which he had already worn previously, removed, and then worn again. It is therefore apparent that this verse occurs at a point when he had already changed out of the white garments and into the golden garments. Perforce, then, it must be out of order.

מתקיף לה רבה בר רב שילא: ואימא דמפסיק ליה בשעיר הנעשה בחוץ! הכתיב: ״ויצא ועשה״.

Rabba bar Rav Sheila strongly objects to this: Say that the order of the verses can be maintained, and the requisite number of immersions and sanctifications achieved, if he interrupts the services performed in the white garments with the goat whose services are performed outside and are performed in the golden garments. This would provide the additional two immersions and four sanctifications required. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “And he shall exit and make his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:24), which implies that immediately following his first exit he performs the sacrifice of his ram and the ram of the people and the reentry to the Holy of Holies occurs only later.

וכל הפרשה כולה נאמרה על הסדר? והא קראי כתיבי: ״ואת חלב החטאת יקטיר המזבחה״, והדר: ״ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת״, ואילו אנן תנן:

The Gemara questions the premise of the baraita: Is the entire passage really written in order? But among the verses it is written: “And he shall burn the fat of the sin-offering upon the altar”(Leviticus 16:25), and then in a later verse it is written: “And the bull of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be carried outside the camp; and they shall burn...” (Leviticus 16:27). Yet we learned in the mishna: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned, which are referred to in verse 27, while according to all opinions concerning the order of the day, the portions of the sin-offering to be consumed on the altar, which are mentioned in verse 25, are burned only afterward. Therefore, it is apparent that these verses are also not in order.

הרואה את כהן גדול כשהוא קורא — אינו רואה פר ושעיר הנשרפין. ואילו אמורי חטאת בתר הכי מקטיר להו!

אימא: חוץ מפסוק זה ואילך.

The Gemara answers: Say that the intent of the baraita is that the verses are in order except for this verse and onward.

ומאי חזית דמשבשת קראי, שביש מתניתא!

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you preferred to rearrange the order of the verses? Instead, rearrange the order in the mishna.

אמר אביי, אמר קרא: ״והמשלח ... והשורף״. מה משלח דמעיקרא — אף שורף דמעיקרא.

Abaye said: It is clear that the verse detailing the burning of the remains of the bull is out of order, since the verse states: “And the one who sends the goat to Azazel” (Leviticus 16:26), and then states: “And the one who burns them” (Leviticus 16:28). The repeated use of the phrase “And the one who…” indicates that just as the one who sends the goat to Azazel does so earlier, before the portions of the sin-offering are placed on the altar to be consumed, so too, the one who burns the remains of the bull and goat does so earlier, even though the verse detailing this burning is written after the verse detailing the burning of the portions of the sin-offering.

אדרבה: מה שורף דהשתא — אף משלח דהשתא!

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, one could make the opposite claim: Just as the one who burns the remains of the bull and goat does so now, so too, the one who sends the goat to Azazel does so only now, after the other sacrifices.

״והמשלח״, דמעיקרא משמע. רבא אמר, אמר קרא: ״יעמד חי״, עד מתי יהא זקוק לעמוד חי? עד שעת כפרה. ואימתי שעת כפרה? בשעת מתן דמים, ותו לא.

The Gemara explains a difficulty with this: The phrasing of: “And the one who sends” implies that it was performed earlier. Alternatively, Rava said: Sending the goat away definitely took place earlier, as the verse states: “But the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him” (Leviticus 16:10). This teaches: How long must it stand alive? It must do so until the moment of atonement. And when is the moment of atonement? It is at the moment of the presenting of the blood, but no later. At that point it is already sent away.

אתי משלח, מצאו בשוק לכהן גדול, אומר לו: אישי כהן גדול! עשינו שליחותך. מצאו בביתו, אומר לו: מחיה חיים, עשינו שליחותו.

§ The Gemara describes the eventual meeting between the High Priest and the one who sends the goat to Azazel: When the one who sends the goat comes on the day following Yom Kippur, if he finds the High Priest in the market, which is a public place, he says to him: My Master, High Priest, we performed your mission, i.e., we fulfilled the mitzva of sending the goat to Azazel. He refers to the sending as the High Priest’s mission as a public display of respect. But if he finds him in his house, he says to him: The One Who grants life to the living, God, we performed His mission.

אמר רבה: כי מיפטרי רבנן מהדדי בפומבדיתא אמרי הכי: ״מחיה חיים יתן לך חיים ארוכים וטובים ומתוקנין״.

Apropos the phrase: The One Who grants life to the living, Rabba said: When the Sages take leave from one another in Pumbedita, they say as follows: May the One Who grants life to the living grant you a long, good, and established life.

״אתהלך לפני ה׳ בארצות החיים״, אמר רב יהודה: זה מקום שווקים.

Further apropos the phrase: The One Who grants life to the living, the Gemara explains a verse using a similar phrase and then additional verses. With regard to the verse: “I shall walk before the Lord in the lands of the living” (Psalms 116:9), Rav Yehuda said: This is the place of markets, where food and needs can be readily obtained. King David, who wandered from place to place, prayed to always find ready sustenance.

״כי אורך ימים ושנות חיים ושלום יוסיפו לך״, וכי יש שנים של חיים ויש שנים שאינן של חיים? אמר רבי אלעזר:

The verse states: “For length of days, and years of life, and peace, will they add to you” (Proverbs 3:2). The Gemara asks: Are there years of life and years that are not of life? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar said: “Years of life” refers to good years. As such, these additional years of life referred to in the verse are the years of a person’s life which are transformed for him from bad to good.

אלו שנותיו של אדם המתהפכות עליו מרעה לטובה.

״אליכם אישים אקרא״, אמר רבי ברכיה: אלו תלמידי חכמים, שדומין לנשים ועושין גבורה כאנשים. ואמר רבי ברכיה: הרוצה לנסך יין על גבי המזבח —

The verse states: “To you men [ishim] do I call, and my voice is to the sons of men” (Proverbs 8:4). Rabbi Berekhya said: The word ishim, although it means men, is similar to the term isha, woman. It may therefore be taken to refer to these Torah scholars, who are similar to women in that they are physically weak and are not engaged in many activities that other men are, but nevertheless, they act mightily like men when engaged in Torah study. And Rabbi Berekhya said further about that same verse: Nowadays one who wishes to pour libations of wine over the altar should fill the throats of Torah scholars with wine, as it is stated: “To you men [ishim] do I call.” The use of the phrase ishim, which is similar to isheh, used for the altar’s fire, suggests that scholars may be compared to the fire of the altar.

ימלא גרונם של תלמידי חכמים יין, שנאמר: ״אליכם אישים אקרא״.

ואמר רבי ברכיה: אם רואה אדם שתורה פוסקת מזרעו — ישא בת תלמיד חכם, שנאמר: ״אם יזקין בארץ שרשו ובעפר ימות גזעו

And Rabbi Berekhya said: If a person sees that Torah is ceasing from his children, and they are not becoming Torah scholars like himself, he should marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. This will ensure that his children from her will be raised with Torah, as it is stated: “Though its root will grow old in the earth, and its trunk will die in the ground,

מריח מים יפריח ועשה קציר כמו נטע״.

from the scent of water it will blossom and put forth branches like a plant” (Job 14:8–9). If the figurative trunk of one’s family is drying up through lack of Torah, he should plant himself in a place of water, i.e., a family of scholars, water being a metaphor for Torah. This will ensure that his children will blossom into Torah scholars.

ויום טוב היה עושה לאוהביו. תנו רבנן: מעשה בכהן גדול אחד שיצא מבית המקדש והוו אזלי כולי עלמא בתריה. כיון דחזיונהו לשמעיה ואבטליון,

§ It was taught in the mishna: The people escort the High Priest to his house. And he would make a feast for his loved ones. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one High Priest who exited the Holy Temple and everyone followed him. When they saw Shemaya and Avtalyon, the heads of the Sanhedrin, walking along, in deference to them they left the High Priest by himself and walked after Shemaya and Avtalyon.

שבקוהו לדידיה ואזלי בתר שמעיה ואבטליון.

לסוף אתו שמעיה ואבטליון לאיפטורי מיניה דכהן גדול. אמר להן: ייתון בני עממין לשלם. אמרו ליה: ייתון בני עממין לשלם דעבדין עובדא דאהרן,

Eventually, Shemaya and Avtalyon came to take leave of the High Priest before returning to their homes. Envious of the attention they received, he angrily said to them: Let the descendants of the gentile nations come in peace. Shemaya and Avtalyon descended from converts, and he scornfully drew attention to that fact. They said to him: Let the descendants of the gentile nations come in peace, who perform the acts of Aaron, who loved and pursued peace; and let not a descendant of Aaron come in peace, who does not perform the acts of Aaron and who speaks condescendingly to descendants of converts.

ולא ייתי בר אהרן לשלם דלא עביד עובדא דאהרן.

מתני׳ כהן גדול משמש בשמונה כלים, וההדיוט בארבעה: בכתונת ומכנסים ומצנפת ואבנט. מוסיף עליו כהן גדול: חשן ואפוד ומעיל וציץ. באלו נשאלין באורים ותומים.

MISHNA: Throughout the year the High Priest serves in eight garments, and the common priest serves in four: In a tunic and trousers and a mitre and a belt. The High Priest adds another four garments beyond those worn by the common priest: A breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a frontplate. When dressed in these eight garments, the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. And he may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs. Individual inquiries are not posed to the Urim VeTummim.

ואין נשאלין אלא למלך ולאב בית דין ולמי שהציבור צריך בו.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן, דברים שנאמר בהן ״שש״ חוטן כפול ששה. ״משזר״ שמונה. מעיל שנים עשר. פרוכת עשרים וארבעה. חושן ואפוד עשרים ושמונה.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to those items of the priestly vestments about which it is stated they must be made with linen [shesh], their threads are spun six-fold, as suggested by the use of the term shesh, which also means six. When the Torah states that certain items are twined, it means their threads are spun eight-fold. Threads used to weave the robe were spun from twelve strands. The threads of the curtain were spun from twenty-four strands. The threads used to weave the breastplate and ephod were spun from twenty-eight strands.

חוטן כפול ששה מנא לן — דאמר קרא: ״ויעשו את הכתנת שש ... ואת המצנפת שש ואת פארי המגבעת שש ואת מכנסי הבד שש משזר״.

The Gemara asks: That the threads made from shesh are spun six-fold, from where do we derive this? The verse states: “And they made the tunics of linen [shesh] of woven work for Aaron and for his sons. And the mitre of linen, and the adorning mitres of linen, and the linen [bad] trousers of twined linen” (Exodus 39:27–28). Five mentions of the word linen are written; four times as “shesh” and an additional instance of “bad,” both meaning linen. One mention is stated for that halakha itself, to teach that they should be made of linen. And one mention is written to teach that the threads should be spun six-fold, shesh being interpreted as six. And one mention teaches that the six strands should be spun together into one. And one mention teaches that this also applies to the other garments, even though the term shesh is not stated with regard to them. And one mention teaches that this requirement is indispensable and that garments not made this way are invalid.

חמשה קראי כתיבי: חד לגופיה, דכיתנא ניהוו. וחד, שיהא חוטן כפול ששה. וחד, שיהיו שזורין. וחד, לשאר בגדים שלא נאמר בהן שש. וחד, לעכב.

מאי משמע דהאי ״שש״ כיתנא הוא? אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: דאמר קרא ״בד״ — דבר העולה מן הקרקע בד בד. ואימא עמרא! עמרא איפצולי מיפצלא.

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term shesh means linen? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: As the verse also states: “Bad,” and uses it interchangeably with shesh. And bad refers to something which sprouts from the ground stalk by stalk [bad bad], each one by itself. This is a fitting description of flax, the plant used to produce linen, as opposed to other plants, such as cotton, whose fibers grow meshed together. The Gemara asks: And say that it refers to wool, since when it grows from the animal, each hair grows separately. The Gemara answers: Wool splits, with each hair dividing into several hairs, so it does not fully fit the description of sprouting stalk by stalk. The Gemara asks: But flax also splits into individual hairs. The Gemara answers: Flax, unlike wool, splits only when beaten.

כיתנא נמי איפצולי מפציל! כיתנא אגב לקותיה מפציל.

רבינא אמר מהכא: ״פארי פשתים יהיו על ראשם ומכנסי פשתים יהיו על מתניהם״.

Ravina said: We have a proof for the matter from here: The verse states: “They shall have linen [pishtim] mitres upon their heads, and linen trousers upon their loins” (Ezekiel 44:18). The term pishtim used in Ezekiel certainly refers to linen; therefore, it is clear that the terms shesh and bad, used in the Torah for the same garments, also refer to linen.

אמר ליה רב אשי: הא מקמי דאתי יחזקאל, מאן אמרה? ולטעמיך, הא דאמר רב חסדא: דבר זה מתורת משה רבינו לא למדנו, מדברי יחזקאל בן בוזי למדנו:

Rav Ashi said to him: But before Ezekiel came, who said this halakha? How was it known? Ravina retorted: And according to your reasoning, the same question could be asked with regard to that which Rav Ḥisda said concerning the disqualification of an uncircumcised priest from serving in the Temple: This matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher, as it is not written explicitly in the Torah; rather, we learned it from the words of Ezekiel ben Buzi, as the verse states: “No foreigner, uncircumcised of heart or uncircumcised of flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary” (Ezekiel 44:9). One could ask here as well: Before Ezekiel came, who said this halakha? Rather, perforce, they learned it as a tradition and then Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse. Here, too, they learned it as a tradition and then Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse.

״כל בן נכר ערל לב וערל בשר לא יבא אל מקדשי״ — הא מקמי דאתי יחזקאל, מאן אמרה? אלא גמרא גמירי לה, ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא. הכא נמי:

גמרא גמירי לה, ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא.

״משזר״ שמונה. מנא לן? דכתיב: ״ויעשו על שולי המעיל רמוני תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני משזר״, ויליף ״משזר״ ״משזר״ מפרוכת, מה להלן עשרים וארבעה — אף כאן עשרים וארבעה,

The Gemara continues to explain the baraita. That the use of the term twined implies that the thread should be spun from eight strands, from where do we derive this? As it is written: “And they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky-blue, and purple, and scarlet, twined” (Exodus 39:24); and derive a verbal analogy from the term “twined” used in this verse and the term “twined” from the verse about the curtain: Just as there, with regard to the curtain, there are twenty-four strands, as will be explained, so too here, there are twenty-four strands in total. And since each pomegranate is made of three colors, sky-blue, purple, and scarlet, it must be that each one of them was spun from eight strands.

דהוה כל חד וחד תמני.

ונילף מחשן ואפוד: מה להלן עשרים ושמונה, אף כאן עשרים ושמונה! דנין דבר שלא נאמר בו זהב, מדבר שלא נאמר בו זהב,

The Gemara challenges this derivation: Let us derive the number of strands instead from the breastplate and ephod and say: Just as there, with regard to the breastplate and ephod, there are twenty-eight strands, so too, here there are twenty-eight strands. The Gemara answers: It is preferable to derive the halakhot of an item, i.e., the pomegranates, with regard to which the use of gold threads is not stated, from the halakhot of an item, i.e., the curtain, with regard to which the use of gold threads is also not stated. This would come to exclude the possibility of deriving them from the breastplate and ephod, with regard to which the use of gold threads is stated. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, it should be preferable to derive the halakhot of one garment from another garment, i.e., the halakhot of the robe from the halakhot of the breastplate and ephod. This would come to exclude the possibility of deriving them from the curtain, which is a tent, i.e., part of the Temple building, and not a garment. The Gemara accepts that the derivation is flawed.

לאפוקי חשן ואפוד שנאמר בהן זהב. אדרבה: דנין בגד מבגד, לאפוקי פרוכת — דאהל הוא!

אלא: דנין מאבנט, ודנין בגד ודבר שלא נאמר בו זהב, מבגד ודבר שלא נאמר בו זהב, ואין דנין דבר שאין בו זהב מדבר שיש בו זהב.

Rather, the need for thread of eight strands is derived from the belt, which had twenty-four threads in total, and a garment and an item with regard to which the use of gold thread is not stated, i.e., the pomegranates, are derived from a garment and an item with regard to which the use of gold thread is not stated. And an item with no gold, such as the pomegranates and robe, is not derived from an item that has gold in it, such as the breastplate and ephod.

רב מרי אמר: ״תעשנו״ כתיב. תעשנו לזה, ולא לאחר.

Rav Mari said another reason not to derive the number of strands in a pomegranate from the breastplate and ephod: “Like the work of the ephod you shall make it” (Exodus 28:15) is written with regard to the breastplate to indicate that you shall make it, i.e., the breastplate, like the ephod, which indicates that for this, i.e., the breastplate, you shall use thread of twenty-eight strands, and not for anything else.

רב אשי אמר: ״ועשית״ כתיב, שיהיו כל עשיות שוות. והיכי נעביד? נעביד תלתא דעשרה עשרה — הוו להו תלתין!

Rav Ashi said another reason that there could not be twenty-eight strands in a pomegranate: “And you shall make pomegranates of sky-blue, and of purple, and of scarlet” (Exodus 28:33) is written to indicate that all the makings of it must be equal, i.e., that each color thread should be made from the same number of strands. However, if there are twenty-eight strands in total, the three threads, each of a different color, cannot be made with an equal number of strands, as how should we do it? Let us make three colored threads of ten strands each; then they are thirty strands in total, which is too many. Let us make two colored threads of nine strands and one of ten; but the verse states: “And you shall make,” to indicate that all the makings of it must be equal. Perforce, the threads used for the pomegranates and the robe must be derived from an item woven from threads of a number of strands divisible by three, such as the curtain.

נעביד תרי דתשעה תשעה וחד דעשרה — אמר קרא: ״ועשית״, שיהיו כל עשיותיו שוות.

מעיל שנים עשר, מנא לן — דכתיב: ״ועשית את מעיל האפוד

The Gemara continues to explain the baraita: That the robe must be woven from threads spun from twelve strands, from where do we derive this? As it is written: “And you shall make the robe of the ephod