Yoma 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

does not bring an eglah arufah.

As it is written: “When someone slain is found on the land that the Lord your God gives you to inherit.” And Jerusalem is not called an inheritance, because it was not apportioned among the tribes.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

is it not written, “It is not known who struck him,” whereas

here,

it is known who struck him!

And we answer: Rabbi Tzadok did not intend an actual eglah arufah;

rather,

he said this

in order to increase the weeping.

We learned in a beraita:

The child’s father came and found him while he was still convulsing.

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

This teaches you that concern for the purification of vessels was more difficult for them than bloodshed.

They raised a dilemma: Was it bloodshed that became diminished in their eyes,

becoming less serious in their estimation,

whereas the purification of vessels remained as it was,

retaining its original severity?

Or perhaps bloodshed remained as it was,

and it was the purification of vessels that became more stringent,

becoming more serious in their eyes?

Come and hear: From the fact that the Talmud cited

the fact that the beraita adduces proof from a verse,

“And also innocent blood did Manasseh shed,” conclude from it: It was bloodshed that became diminished, whereas the purification of vessels remained as it was.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And he shall remove

his garments [which he wore when lifting the ashes]

and 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 on the altar, so that no room remained for the arrangement of wood. Rashi, Leviticus 6:4].

I would understand

that I should reason

in the manner of Yom Kippur:

Just as the High Priest is required to change his garments between one service and another, from the golden garments to the white garments and vice versa, so too here: If he comes to take out the ashes immediately after removing the ashes, he is required to change his garments. Since he cannot change from golden garments to white garments, as he is an ordinary priest who serves only in white garments, I would therefore say that

he removes

his

sacred

garments

which

he wore when lifting the ashes, and

puts on non-sacred garments and

takes out the ashes?

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

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

the garments that he removes,

are sacred garments,

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

so here, too,

the garments that he puts on

are sacred garments.

If so, what does the verse mean by saying

“garments”

“other”?

In what way are they different from the first garments?

They are

inferior to them,

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

This is so that he will not soil with ash the garments in which he performs the other services when carrying the ash outside the camp. For it is disgraceful for a king’s servant 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 teaches that priests with physical blemishes

who are “other,” since they are excluded from the other services in the Temple,

are

fit to take out the ashes.

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

As it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

As it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Garments in which one cooked a pot for his master

one should not pour a cup for his master while wearing them,

because they become soiled from the smoke of cooking. Similarly, 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 of the offerings and the pouring of the libations, which are comparable to eating and drinking.

Reish Lakish said: Just as the dispute applies to taking out the ashes,

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

so too is there a dispute regarding lifting the ashes.

Rabbi Eliezer likewise considers priests with physical blemishes fit to perform the mitzva of lifting the ashes.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute applies

only

to taking out the ashes.

But with regard to lifting the ashes,

everyone agrees that it is a service,

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

And we explain:

What is Rabbi Shimon Lakish’s reason?

He could say to you: If it enters your mind

that lifting the ashes

is a service,

then the following difficulty arises: Is there

a service that is valid when performed in two garments,

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

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

And Rabbi Yohanan

could say to you:

The Merciful One explicitly specified the tunic and trousers, and the same law applies to the turban and the belt.

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 sufficient that it says “priest,” from which 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 measure”—

according to his measure:

The tunic must be exactly the length of the priest’s stature. It may neither trail on the ground nor be raised above the ground; rather, its lower edge must be level with the ground.

b.

“Linen trousers”—

as it is taught: From where is it derived that nothing should precede the trousers?

He may not put on another garment before the trousers; rather, he must put on the trousers first.

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

This implies that he puts them on while still naked, as they are to be worn only upon his flesh. Otherwise, why would the verse mention “upon his flesh” at all?

And Reish Lakish

could say to you: Although these two garments were written in order to teach us that lifting the ashes is performed with only two garments, nevertheless, the above laws are also learned from the wording of the verse—

a.

“His measure”—

according to his measure

is derived

from the fact that the Merciful One expressed it with the term “his measure,”

rather than writing “tunic.”

b.

That nothing should precede the trousers—

is derived 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:

Shall we say that it is subject to a dispute between tannaim?

Do the tannaim dispute this same issue debated by Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish—whether lifting the ashes is a service or not?

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

upon his flesh.”

What does the word “put on” come to teach?

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 linen tunic,” and this also applies to the trousers mentioned later in the verse.

To include the turban and the belt for lifting the ashes.

The word “put on” comes to include another wearing similar to it, namely, the two garments missing here, which the priest must also wear when lifting the ashes,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Dosa says: It comes to include the garments of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which are fit for an ordinary priest.

The High Priest wears, during some of the services on Yom Kippur, four white garments, which are identical to the garments of an ordinary priest throughout the year. We derive the meaning of “he shall put on” stated here concerning lifting the ashes from the “he shall put on” stated concerning the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “He shall put on the sacred linen tunic.” Those garments in which the High Priest served on Yom Kippur are subsequently fit for an ordinary priest in his service.

[This exposition is necessary so that we should not derive from “and he shall leave them there” that the garments require burial and may not be worn again, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi, below.]

Rabbi said: There are two answers to this!

This is a response to the words of Rabbi Dosa.

First, the belt of the High Priest is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest!

The belt of the High Priest is made entirely of linen, whereas the belt of an ordinary priest contains wool.

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

And furthermore,

is it conceivable that

garments that you used for a more stringent sanctity,

within the Holy of Holies,

you should use for a lesser sanctity?!

Rather, what does the word “put on” come to teach?