Yoma 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

This matter can be derived by means of a

kal va-chomer:

With regard to the golden garments,

whose sanctity is not so great,

as

it is

not the High Priest

who

enters with them into the innermost area [the Holy of Holies],

nevertheless,

he requires immersion

when he dons them.

With regard to the white garments,

whose sanctity is greater—

as he enters with them into the innermost area,

and

is it not logical that he requires immersion

when he dons them?!

And we reject this:

There is a basis for refuting this inference:

the kal va-chomer should be rejected:

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

As for the golden garments,

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

since their atonement is more extensive—

the sacrifices that are brought in them atone for all the transgressions of the Torah—whereas the white garments are not so, since the services performed in them atone only for the transgression of “impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects” [Shevuot 7b].

The earlier question therefore returns: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from where is it known that when the High Priest changes from the golden garments to the white garments, he requires immersion?

Rather,

another answer must be given:

He derives it,

Rabbi Yehuda learned this matter

from

the exposition of

Rabbi:

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

The Gemara continues and cites another passage from the beraita:

Rabbi said: From where is it derived that the five immersions and ten sanctifications that the High Priest immerses and performs on that day are required?

The verse states: “He shall wear 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 with a linen turban; they are sacred garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water and don them.”

You have learned that anyone who changes from one service

in one place

to a service

in another place

requires immersion.

And we raise an objection: Indeed,

we find

that the verse requires immersion when he changes

from the golden garments to the white garments [as this is what the verse discusses]. But when he changes

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

from the white garments to the golden garments—

from where

is it known that he must immerse?

And we answer:

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

This matter can be derived by means of a

kal va-chomer: With regard to the white garments,

whose sanctity is not so stringent,

as

it is

not the case that their atonement is extensive—

the sacrifices that the High Priest offers in them do not atone for many transgressions, but only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects— nevertheless,

they require immersion

when he dons them.

With regard to the golden garments,

whose sanctity is stringent,

as

it is

the case that their atonement is extensive—

the sacrifices brought in them atone for all the sacrifices that come to atone for most of the transgressions of the Torah—

is it not logical that they require immersion

when he dons them?!

And we reject this:

There is a basis for refuting this inference;

the kal va-chomer should be rejected:

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

As for the white garments,

their sanctity is stringent,

since

the High Priest

enters with them into the innermost area [the Holy of Holies],

which is not the case with the golden garments!

If so, the question raised concerning Rabbi’s statement returns: From where is it known that when he changes from the white garments to the golden garments, he requires immersion?

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

This is what he teaches

and for this reason he taught in the beraita:

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

all the garments are thereby compared to one another.” And this is its meaning:

The verse gives the reason for this immersion: “They are sacred garments.” This teaches you that whenever the High Priest dons sacred garments, he must immerse; and the golden garments are also “sacred garments.”

The Gemara continues and cites another passage from the beraita:

And there are five services:

a.

The daily offering of the morning—

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 removal of

the spoon and the coal pan—

in the white garments.

e.

The daily offering of twilight—

in the golden garments.

And the beraita continues:

And from where is it derived that each immersion requires two sanctifications?

The verse states: “He shall remove the linen garments and bathe his flesh in water in a sacred place, and he shall don his garments.”

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 shall remove and bathe,” “and he shall bathe and don”;

there are therefore two sanctifications for every change of garments.

And we raise an objection to the end of the passage cited: How can sanctification of the hands and feet be derived from the verse “and he shall remove … and he shall bathe … and he shall don”?

This

verse

is written with regard to immersion!

For it says: “And he shall bathe his flesh” in water, implying the bathing of all his flesh, and 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 for the verse itself to teach that when he dons the golden garments he immerses, since Rabbi learned this from the phrase “They are sacred garments.”

Therefore,

if it is not needed

if there is no need

to

learn from it

immersion,

then

he derives it,

since Rabbi learned immersion

from “They are sacred garments,”

necessarily

apply it

to the matter that the verse does need to teach, namely

sanctification

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

And we raise an objection:

Let the Torah write it

if so, it should have written 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?

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:

that immersion is like sanctification.

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

Just as sanctification

is performed

in a sacred place [the Temple courtyard],

as it says here: “And he shall bathe his flesh in water [sanctification] in a sacred place,”

so too immersion

is performed

in a sacred place

[the Temple courtyard].

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

And we raise an objection:

And

according to

Rabbi Yehuda,

who maintains that the verse “And he shall remove the linen garments … and he shall bathe … and he shall don” 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 matter?

And we answer:

He derives it

Rabbi Yehuda learned this matter

from

the exposition of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who derives this matter [in the earlier beraita] by means of a kal va-chomer:

Just as the service of the entire year, which does not require immersion, requires sanctification, then with regard to the service of Yom Kippur, which does require immersion, is it not logical that it requires sanctification?! The Gemara now returns to discuss Rabbi’s statement:

Rav Ḥisda said: This teaching of Rabbi

that Rabbi said that “and he shall remove and bathe” and “and he shall bathe and don” teach that two sanctifications are required

removes it from the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

That is, Rabbi’s statement contradicts Rabbi Meir’s statement,

and it also removes it

as well

from the opinion of the Rabbis,

and likewise contradicts the statement of the Rabbis, as follows.

For Rabbi derived two sanctifications from “and he shall remove and bathe” and “and he shall bathe and don,” implying that there was one bathing after the removal and a second bathing before the donning. Both sanctifications were performed while the High Priest was unclothed.

And we explain:

It removes it from the opinion of the Rabbis;

Rabbi’s statement contradicts the opinion of the Rabbis:

For whereas the Rabbis say

[in the Mishna below, 34b],

he sanctifies while clothed

[at the first sanctification—before the removal; and at the second sanctification—after the donning],

and

whereas

he,

Rabbi,

said: He sanctifies while removing the garments!

And it removes it from the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi’s statement contradicts Rabbi Meir’s statement:

For whereas,

indeed,

Rabbi Meir

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

said that this latter sanctification,

the final sanctification,

is performed while he is clothed. And

whereas

he,

Rabbi,

said: He sanctifies while removing the garments!

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said,

not in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s statement:

Everyone

[Rabbi, the Rabbis, and Rabbi Meir]

agrees with regard to the second sanctification that

first he

dons the garments, and afterward sanctifies.

What is the reason,

what is the reason that everyone agrees on this?

For the verse says,

as the verse says [Exodus 30] concerning the mitzva of sanctification of the hands and feet:

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

or when they approach the altar

to serve.”

This implies that the mitzva of sanctification is performed at the time of approaching the altar to serve. That is,

one who is not lacking

any service after sanctifying his hands and feet,

but

only

approaching

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

This excludes one

who has not yet donned his garments,

who is lacking donning and approaching,

[for if he sanctified 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 clothed].

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 donned the garments.

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 clothed]

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:

there would be fifteen sanctifications in all [five immersions, with three sanctifications for each immersion, totaling fifteen]. 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; he cut its throat.

And we inquire into it:

What

is the meaning of the word

“he cut its throat”?

Ulla said: “He cut its throat”

is

an expression of slaughter.

It is an expression of killing.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the verse,

from which they learned that “cutting” is an expression of killing?

As it is stated [Jeremiah 46:20]:

“Egypt is a beautiful heifer; cutting from the north comes, it comes.”

What does this imply?

What is the meaning of the verse [from which it is learned that “cutting” means killing]?

As Rav Yosef translates it: The king

was beautiful,

a beautiful kingdom

was Egypt,

Egypt was. But

murderous nations,

nations of killers [“cutting”],

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

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

The Gemara returns to discuss the fundamental law that we learned in the Mishna: “He cut its throat, and another completed the slaughter on his behalf.” This implies that the High Priest did not complete the slaughter himself.

And we inquire into it:

“He cut its throat,”

he slaughtered it—

how much

of the signs [the trachea and esophagus] in the animal’s neck did he slaughter?

Ulla said: The majority of two signs

the majority of the two signs [the trachea and esophagus] in the animal’s neck. This is the minimum measure required for slaughter, and he did not slaughter more.

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

And

there is proof that

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

For Reish Lakish said:

We learned in tractate Ḥullin [27b]: “One who slaughters one sign in a bird and two in an animal has performed valid slaughter, and the majority of one sign is equivalent to the whole of it. If he slaughtered the majority of one sign in a bird and the majority of two in an animal, his slaughter is valid.”

And Reish Lakish raised the following difficulty:

And once we have learned

at the beginning of the Mishna:

The majority of one is equivalent to the whole of it,

why did we learn

again at the end of the Mishna: If he slaughtered

the majority

of one sign

in a bird and the majority of two in an animal, his slaughter is valid?

This can already be learned from the beginning of the Mishna!

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 daily offering to the High Priest;

he cut its throat,

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

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.

And before we finish citing Reish Lakish’s statement in full, the Gemara expresses surprise:

But

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

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

Surely,

if

we

say so,

it follows that until the completion of the slaughter of all two signs, the slaughter is still considered a “service.” Since that is so,

it would be

a

service

of slaughtering the daily offering performed

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 said,

this is what Reish Lakish intended to say:

Since we learned, “He cut its throat, and another completed the slaughter on his behalf,”

one might have thought

that if he did not complete the slaughter, it

would be invalid by rabbinic law,

for it was necessary to receive the blood of the sacrificial animal in a vessel and sprinkle it on the altar; therefore, the Sages required that all the signs be slaughtered in the case of sacrificial animals, and 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 decree in this case: If the High Priest himself were to complete the slaughter, a great deal of blood would spill onto the ground before the High Priest could manage to receive the blood in the vessel.