Yoma 32b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

This matter can be learned by an

a-fortiori inference:

If with regard to the golden garments,

whose sanctity is not as great,

as

it is,

the High Priest does not

enter them

into the innermost area,

the Holy of Holies, and nevertheless

he must immerse

when he puts them on,

the white garments,

whose sanctity is greater—

as he enters the innermost area in them,

then

is it not certainly the case that he must immerse

when he puts them on?!

And we reject this:

there is a basis for challenging

the a-fortiori inference:

On the contrary, it is possible that immersion is required only when putting on the golden garments.

For if the golden garments,

whose sanctity is more stringent than that of the white garments,

have greater atonement,

as all the offerings brought to atone for all the transgressions in the Torah are sacrificed while wearing them, unlike the white garments, in which the services performed atone only for the transgression of “defiling the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings” [Shevuot 7b].

The earlier question therefore returns: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from where do we know that when the High Priest changes from the golden garments to the white garments, he must immerse?

Rather,

another answer must be given:

He derives it,

Rabbi Yehuda learned this matter

from

the teaching of

Rabbi:

As it is stated: “He shall don the sacred linen tunic … and bathe his flesh in water and don them.” We learn from here that immersion is also required when putting on the white garments.

The Gemara continues by citing another passage from the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

Rabbi said: From where do we derive that the High Priest performs five immersions and ten sanctifications of the hands and feet on that day?

The verse states: “He shall don the sacred linen tunic

and the linen trousers shall be upon his flesh, and he shall gird himself with a linen sash, and he shall wrap himself in a linen turban; they are sacred garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water and don them.”

You have therefore learned that anyone who changes from one service

in one place

to a service

in another place

must immerse.

And we raise a difficulty: Indeed,

we have found

that the verse requires immersion when he changes

from the golden garments to the white garments,

as that is what the verse discusses. But when he changes

from the white garments to the golden garments—

from where

do we know that he must immerse?

And we answer:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

This matter can be learned by an

a-fortiori inference: If the white garments

whose sanctity is not as stringent,

as

it is,

do not have greater atonement,

as the offerings that the High Priest sacrifices while wearing them do not atone for many transgressions but only for defiling the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, nevertheless

they require immersion

when he puts them on.

The golden garments,

whose sanctity is more stringent,

as

it is,

they have greater atonement,

as all the offerings brought to atone for most of the transgressions in the Torah are sacrificed while wearing them,

is it not certainly the case that they require immersion

when he puts them on?!

And we reject this:

there is a basis for challenging

the a-fortiori inference:

On the contrary, it is possible that specifically the white garments require immersion.

For if the white garments,

whose sanctity is more stringent,

since

the High Priest

enters the innermost area in them,

the Holy of Holies, unlike the golden garments!

If so, the question raised about Rabbi’s statement returns: From where do we know that when he changes from the white garments to the golden garments, he must immerse?

And we answer: Rabbi himself answered this question in the beraita.

This is the meaning of what he teaches

and for this reason cites in the beraita:

“And he shall say: They are sacred garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water and don them”—

all the garments are compared with one another. And this is its meaning:

The verse gave the reason for this immersion by saying, “They are sacred garments.” This teaches that whenever the High Priest puts on sacred garments, he must immerse; and the golden garments are also “sacred garments.”

The Gemara continues by citing another passage from the beraita:

And there are five services:

(a)

the daily morning offering—

in the golden garments.

(b)

The service of the day—

in the white garments.

(c)

His bull and the ram of the people—

in the golden garments.

(d) The taking out of the

ladle and the coal pan—

in the white garments.

(e)

the daily afternoon offering—

in the golden garments.

The beraita continues:

And from where do we know that each immersion requires two sanctifications of the hands and feet?

The verse states: “And he shall remove the linen garments, and bathe his flesh in water in a sacred place, and don his garments.” The word “and bathe” is stated between the removal and the donning, and the Sages expounded that “and bathe” applies both to the removal mentioned before it and to the donning mentioned after it—

The word “and he shall bathe” is stated between the removal and the donning, and the Sages expounded “and he shall bathe” as referring both to the removal mentioned before it and to the donning mentioned after it:

“and he removed and bathed,” “and he bathed and donned”;

there are therefore two sanctifications for every change of garments.

And we raise a difficulty concerning the end of the passage cited: How can sanctification of the hands and feet be derived from the verse, “and he removed … and bathed … and donned”?

This

verse

is written about immersion!

For it says, “and he shall bathe his flesh” in water, which indicates washing his entire flesh, not merely his hands and feet!

And we answer: The words of the beraita here are Rabbi’s words. According to him, there is no need to use the verse for its own subject, to teach that he immerses when putting on the golden garments, since Rabbi derived that from the verse, “They are sacred garments.”

Therefore,

if there is no need for it

if it is not needed

to

derive from it

immersion,

since

he derives it,

Rabbi learned immersion

from “They are sacred garments,”

then necessarily

assign it to another subject:

interpret the verse as needed to derive

sanctification

of the hands and feet. [“And he shall bathe” refers here to sanctification of the hands and feet.]

And we raise a difficulty:

The Merciful One should have written it

in the Torah

in the language of sanctification!

That is, “and he shall sanctify his hands and feet,” rather than “and he shall bathe his flesh.” Why, then, is it stated in the language of immersion?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that the verse comes to teach us this:

immersion is like sanctification.

Since sanctification is stated in the Torah using the language of immersion, we learn that immersion resembles sanctification:

Just as sanctification,

is performed

in a sacred place

in the Temple courtyard, as it says here, “and he shall bathe his flesh in water, [for sanctification] in a sacred place,”

so too immersion

is performed

in a sacred place

in the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara now returns to discuss Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion:

And we raise a difficulty:

And

according to

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the verse, “And he shall remove the linen garments … and bathe … and don them,” refers to immersion and not to sanctification, the following difficulty arises:

Sanctification

of the hands and feet—

from where does he derive it

from where did he learn this?

And we answer:

He derives it;

Rabbi Yehuda learned this matter

from

the exposition of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who learns this matter in the earlier beraita by an a-fortiori inference:

If the service of the entire year, which does not require immersion, requires sanctification, then the service of Yom Kippur, which requires immersion—is it not certainly the case that it requires sanctification? The Gemara now returns to discuss Rabbi’s statement:

Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi’s teaching

that he expounds “and he removed and bathed” and “and he bathed and donned,” from which he derives that two sanctifications are required,

excludes the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

That is, Rabbi’s statement conflicts with Rabbi Meir’s statement,

and it also excludes

the opinion

of the Sages,

as follows.

Rabbi derived two sanctifications from “and he removed and bathed” and “and he bathed and donned.” This indicates that there was one washing after the removal and a second washing before the donning. Both sanctifications were performed while the High Priest was unclothed.

And we explain:

It excludes the opinion of the Sages;

Rabbi’s statement conflicts with the Sages’ opinion:

For the Sages say

in the Mishna below, on page 34b:

When he is dressed, he sanctifies himself

for the first sanctification, before removing the garments, and for the second sanctification, after donning them.

But

if

he,

Rabbi,

said, “When he removes them, he sanctifies himself”!

And it excludes the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi’s statement conflicts with Rabbi Meir’s statement:

For,

although

Rabbi Meir

agrees that the first sanctification was performed while he was unclothed, nevertheless Rabbi Meir

said that this last sanctification—

the final sanctification—

is performed while he is dressed. But

if

he,

Rabbi,

said, “When he removes them, he sanctifies himself”!

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said,

contrary to Rav Ḥisda’s statement:

Everyone

Rabbi, the Sages, and Rabbi Meir

agrees concerning the second sanctification that

he first

dresses and afterward sanctifies himself.

What is the reason

that everyone agrees about this?

For the verse says,

as the Torah states [Exodus 30] concerning the mitzva of sanctifying the hands and feet: “Whenever they enter the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water and not die,

“When they enter the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water and not die,

or when they approach the altar

to serve.”

This indicates that the mitzva of sanctification applies when approaching the altar to serve. That is,

one who is not lacking

any service after sanctifying his hands and feet

but

only

approach

the altar. This is after he has donned the garments in which he performs the service; he then sanctifies his hands and feet.

This one is excluded,

who has not yet donned his garments,

as he is lacking both donning and approaching,

for if he sanctified himself before donning them, he has not fulfilled the mitzva.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: No,

it is not possible to say that

Rav Ḥisda,

who said that according to Rabbi both sanctifications were performed while the High Priest was unclothed,

holds

the same view

as Rav Aḥa,

who said that the final sanctification was performed while he was dressed.

That is, it is impossible that according to Rav Ḥisda there were three sanctifications for each immersion: two while he was unclothed and one after he had dressed.

And

likewise,

it is not

possible to say that

Rav Aḥa,

who said that according to Rabbi the final sanctification was performed while he was dressed,

holds

the same view

as Rav Ḥisda,

who said that there were two sanctifications while the High Priest was unclothed.

For if so,

if we say that Rav Ḥisda and Rav Aḥa agree with one another, and that there were three sanctifications for each immersion, then

according to Rabbi there would be fifteen sanctifications

five immersions, with three sanctifications for each immersion, for a total of fifteen sanctifications. Yet Rabbi said that there were only ten sanctifications!

Rather, it is necessarily the case that Rav Ḥisda and Rav Aḥa disagree with one another.

We learned in the Mishna:

They brought him the daily offering, and he made a small incision in it.

And we inquire about this:

What

is the meaning of the word

“made a small incision”?

Ulla said:

“He made a small incision”

is an expression referring to killing.

It is an expression referring to slaughtering.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the verse

from which they learned that “made a small incision” is an expression referring to killing?

As it is stated [Jeremiah 46:20]:

“Egypt is a beautiful heifer; a killer from the north has come upon her.”

What does this indicate?

What is the meaning of the verse from which it is learned that the term refers to killing?

As Rav Yosef translated it: The king

beautiful

a beautiful kingdom

was Egypt,

Egypt was. But

murderous nations

nations of killers

will come upon it from the north—they will come against it from the north to plunder it.

с севера придут на него, чтобы разграбить его.

The Gemara returns to discuss the main law learned from the Mishna: “He made a small incision, and another completed the slaughter on his behalf.” This indicates that the High Priest did not complete the slaughter himself.

And we inquire about this:

“He made a small incision”

that is, he slaughtered it—

how much

of the signs in the animal’s neck, the windpipe and the gullet, did he slaughter?

Ulla said: The majority of the two signs,

the majority of the windpipe and gullet in the animal’s neck. This is the minimum amount required for slaughter, and he did not slaughter more.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said: The majority of the two signs.

And

there is proof that

Reish Lakish too held that it is the majority of the two signs:

For Reish Lakish said:

We learned in tractate Chullin (27b): “If one slaughters one sign in a bird or two signs in an animal, his slaughter is valid; and the majority of one sign is like the whole of it. If one slaughters the majority of one sign in a bird or the majority of two signs in an animal, his slaughter is valid.”

And Reish Lakish raised the following difficulty:

Since we learned

at the beginning of the Mishna

“the majority of one is like the whole”,

why did we learn

again at the end of the Mishna that if he slaughtered

the majority

of one sign

in a bird and the majority of two signs in an animal, his slaughter is valid? This can already be learned from the beginning of the Mishna!

And Reish Lakish answered this: The beginning of the Mishna discusses non-sacred animals, while the end of the Mishna discusses sacrificial animals. Why was it necessary for the tannai, a sage of the Mishnaic era, to teach us that slaughtering the majority of the signs is valid with regard to sacrificial animals?

Reish Lakish answered this: The beginning of the Mishna discusses non-sacred animals, whereas the end of the Mishna discusses sacrificial animals. Why was it necessary for the tanna to teach us that slaughtering the majority of the signs is valid with regard to sacrificial animals?

Because we learned

in our Mishna in tractate Yoma:

They brought him,

the High Priest,

the daily offering, and he made a small incision in it,

and another completed the slaughter on his behalf, and he received

the High Priest

the blood and sprinkled it.

One might have thought

that if

he did not complete

the slaughter of the offering

it would be invalid.

Therefore, another person had to complete the slaughter.

Before the citation of Reish Lakish’s statement is complete, the Gemara expresses astonishment:

But is it possible that

if he did not complete the slaughter, it would be invalid!?

How could I have erred and thought that if another person did not complete the slaughter on his behalf, the offering would be invalid?

After all,

if

we were to say

so,

it would follow that until the slaughter of both signs was completed, the slaughter would still be considered a service. And since that is so,

it would be

a

service

of slaughtering the daily offering

by

a person

other

than the High Priest,

and it was taught

in a beraita:

All the services of Yom Kippur are valid only when performed by him,

the High Priest!

We explain Reish Lakish’s statement:

This is what he means;

this is what Reish Lakish intended to say:

Since we learned, “He made a small incision, and another completed the slaughter on his behalf,”

one might have thought

that if he did not complete it,

it would be invalid by rabbinic law,

for the blood of the sacrificial animal must be received in a vessel and sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the Sages required that all the signs be slaughtered in the case of sacrificial animals; if all the signs were not slaughtered, the offering is invalid by rabbinic law.

Since by Torah law the offering is valid, on Yom Kippur another person may complete the slaughter, because the Sages did not enforce their enactment in this case: if the High Priest himself were to complete the slaughter, much blood would spill onto the ground before he could receive the blood in the vessel.