Yoma 23b — the Talmud in English

does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken.

For it is written: “When a slain person is found on the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess.” And Jerusalem is not called a possession, because it was not divided among the tribes.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

it is written, “and it was not known who struck him,” but

here, after all,

it was known who struck him!

And we answer: Rabbi Tzadok did not intend an actual heifer whose neck is broken,

but

he said this

in order to increase the weeping.

We learned in a baraita:

The father of the child came and found him while he was fluttering.

He said: He is your atonement, and my son is still alive.

This teaches you that the purification of vessels was more difficult for them than the shedding of blood.

They raised a dilemma before them: Is it the shedding of blood that became diminished,

became lenient in their eyes,

but the purification of vessels remained as it stood,

remaining in its severity?

Or perhaps the shedding of blood remained as it stood,

but it is the purification of vessels that became more severe,

becoming more severe in their eyes?

Come and hear: From the fact that the teaching cites

from the fact that the baraita brings a proof from Scripture

“And also innocent blood did Manasseh shed,” conclude from it: It is the shedding of blood that became diminished, and the purification of vessels remained as it stood.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And he shall strip

his garments [which he wore at the removal of the ashes]

and he shall put on other garments, and he shall take out the ashes

outside the camp.” [This is not an obligation every day like the removal of the ashes, but only when much ash had accumulated upon the altar, until no place remained for the arrangement. Rashi, Leviticus 6:4.]

I would understand

I would have thought

in the manner of Yom Kippur:

just as the High Priest is obligated to change his garments between one service and another, from gold garments to white garments, and vice versa—so too, if he comes to take out the ashes immediately after the removal of the ashes, he is obligated to change his garments. And since he cannot change from gold garments to white garments, for he is an ordinary priest, who serves only in white garments, I would have said

that he strips

the

garments

of

holiness

which he wore at the removal of the ashes,

and puts on non-sacred garments,

and takes out the ashes?

The verse states: “And he shall strip his garments and put on other garments.”

It juxtaposes the garments that he puts on with the garments that he strips: Just as there

the garments which he strips

are sacred garments,

as it is written: “And the priest shall put on his linen tunic … and he shall remove the ashes”—

so here too,

the garments which he puts on

are sacred garments.

If so, what does the verse come to teach by saying

“garments”

“other,”

in what are they different from the earlier ones?

In that they are

inferior to them,

simpler and less expensive than them. For example, worn garments, or garments whose linen is not bright and polished; but they are sacred.

This is so that he should not soil with ash the garments in which he performs the other services, when he carries it outside the camp. For it is disgraceful for a king to serve before him in soiled garments.

Rabbi Eliezer says: “Other

and he shall take out.”

This teaches you that “other” does not refer to the garments, but to the priest who takes out the ashes:

It taught concerning priests who have physical blemishes

that they are “other,” because they are distanced from the other services in the Temple,

that

they

are fit to take out the ashes.

The Master said: “Other”—inferior to them.

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Garments in which one cooked a pot for his master—

he should not pour a cup for his master in them,

because they become soiled from the smoke of the cooking. So too, it is not the honor of the king to wear before him the garments that he wore for taking out the ashes during the burning and pouring, which are analogous to eating and drinking.

Reish Lakish said: Just as the dispute concerning the taking out

just as Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree concerning the taking out of the ashes, whether it is valid when performed by priests with physical blemishes

so is the dispute concerning the removal.

For Rabbi Eliezer also declares priests with physical blemishes fit for the mitzva of removing the ashes.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute

only

concerns the taking out.

But concerning the removal,

everyone agrees that it is a service,

and it is not valid when performed by priests with physical blemishes.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Reish Lakish?

He could say to you: If it enters your mind

that the removal of the ashes

is a service,

you should ask: Is there

a service that is valid with two garments,

that is, with only two garments out of the four garments of the priesthood!?

For concerning the removal of the ashes it is written: “And the priest shall put on his measured linen tunic and linen trousers,” that is, only a tunic and trousers. Rather, inevitably, it is not a service; therefore it is valid when performed by priests with physical blemishes.

And Rabbi Yohanan

could say to you:

The Merciful One revealed this concerning the tunic and trousers, and the same law applies to the turban and sash.

Since it is not valid in non-sacred garments, we learn from here that it is a service and requires four garments.

And what is different about these?

Why did the Torah mention these two garments at all? Is it not enough that it is written “priest,” and we would know that this is a service and requires four garments?

In order to teach us two general laws concerning these garments—

a.

“His measured”—

according to his measure:

the tunic must be exactly according to the stature of the priest, and it must not trail upon the ground, nor be raised above the ground, but its lower edge must be even with the ground.

b.

“Linen trousers”—

as it was taught: From where [do we know] that nothing may precede the trousers?

He may not put on another garment before the trousers, but must put on the trousers first.

As it is stated: “And he shall put on linen trousers upon his flesh.”

And it implies that he should put them on while he is still naked, for he puts them on only upon his flesh; if not so, why was “upon his flesh” written at all?

And Reish Lakish

could say to you: Although these two garments were written in order to teach us that the removal of the ashes suffices with two garments, nevertheless, we also learn the above laws from the language of the verse—

a.

“His measured”—

according to his measure

we derive

from the fact that the Merciful One expressed it in the language “his measured,”

and did not write “tunic.”

b.

That nothing may precede the trousers—

it follows from “upon his flesh,”

which is superfluous, since it would have sufficed to write: “And he shall put on linen trousers.”

We inquire about this:

Let us say that it is subject to a dispute among tannaim!

Is this dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, whether the removal of the ashes is a service or not, disputed by tannaim?

For it was taught: “And he shall put on linen trousers

upon his flesh.”

What does the verse come to teach by saying “he shall put on”?

It would have sufficed to write “and linen trousers upon his flesh,” since it was already stated at the beginning of the verse, “and the priest shall put on his measured linen tunic,” and this also applies to the trousers later in the verse.

To include the turban and the sash for the removal.

“He shall put on” comes to include another wearing similar to it, that is, the two garments missing here, which the priest must also wear at the time of the removal of the ashes,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Dosa says: To include the garments of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which are valid for an ordinary priest.

For on Yom Kippur the High Priest wears, for some of the services, four white garments, which are identical to the garments of an ordinary priest throughout the year. And we derive the “he shall put on” stated here concerning the removal of the ashes from the “he shall put on” stated concerning the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “He shall put on the sacred linen tunic,” that those garments in which the High Priest served on Yom Kippur are subsequently valid for an ordinary priest in his service.

And this exposition is necessary so that we should not learn from “and he shall leave them there” that they require concealment and that it is forbidden to wear them again, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi, below.

Rabbi said: There are two answers to this!

concerning the words of Rabbi Dosa.

One: The sash of the High Priest is not the same as the sash of an ordinary priest!

For the sash of the High Priest is made entirely of linen, whereas that of an ordinary priest contains wool mixed into it.

Therefore, the ordinary priest cannot wear the garments of the High Priest.

And furthermore,

is it so that

garments with which you performed a service of greater sanctity

within the Holy of Holies

you will use for a service of lesser sanctity?!

Rather, what does the verse come to teach by saying “he shall put on”?