Yoma 34b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi says:

The verse, “And its libation shall be a quarter of a hin for the one lamb,” speaks of the morning lamb. And let

the evening one be derived from the morning one:

Just as the morning lamb requires libations, so too the evening one requires libations.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

Granted

it is well understood

according to the Sages,

since

this

verse, “And its libation shall be a quarter of a hin”

is written concerning the afternoon regular offering.

For in it the verse concluded above.

But according to Rabbi—

what is the reason?

What is his reason? Why did Rabbi say that the verse, “And its libation shall be a quarter of a hin,” speaks of the morning regular offering?

Rabba bar Ulla said:

The verse says: “

And its libation shall be a quarter of a hin

for the one lamb.”

Which lamb is stated about with the word “one”?

You must say: This is the morning regular offering,

as it is stated concerning it [in verse 4]: “The one lamb you shall make in the morning.”

And the Sages—

what did they expound from the word “the one,” which is apparently superfluous?

This is how they expounded it:

What is “one”?—

the

select one in its flock!

For one who brings an offering to Hashem must bring the choicest one in his flock.

And Rabbi—

from where did he learn that one who offers an offering must bring the select one in his flock?

From

the wording of the verse [Deuteronomy 12:11]:

“And

every

choicest of your vows”—

it follows.

Its meaning is: The offerings that you vow, bring from the choicest.

And we challenge this:

And the Sages,

why do they need two verses to teach that the offerings come from the choicest of one’s flock: a. “one”—the select one in its flock; b. “the choicest of your vows”—that the offerings that you vow, you shall bring from the choicest?

And we answer:

One—

the verse “for the one lamb” speaks

of

an offering

of obligation [the regular burnt offering].

[the daily burnt offering].

And one—

the verse “the choicest of your vows” speaks

of

offerings

of freewill,

which a person vows of his own accord.

And they are needed:

Both of these teachings are needed, for it is impossible to learn offerings of obligation and freewill offerings from one another.

On the one hand, one might say that specifically a freewill offering must be brought from the choicest, since it is a form of gift, and it is the way of one who gives a gift to bring it from the choicest, so that its recipient will be favorably disposed toward him.

And on the other hand, one might say the opposite: Specifically an offering of obligation must be brought complete, since he is paying his debt. But one who comes to vow a freewill offering may offer as much as he wishes. Therefore, one cannot learn one from the other. [Rashi, Ritva].

We learned in the Mishna:

If the High Priest was elderly or delicate

they would heat hot water for him and pour it into the cold water so that its coldness would diminish.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: The ashishiyot—

thick pieces

of iron were heated [

heated]

from the eve of Yom Kippur, and they would place them

on Yom Kippur itself

into

a

cold

mikveh, so that they would diminish the coldness of the water in the mikveh.

And we challenge this: How was it permitted to place the ashishiyot on Yom Kippur into the cold water?

But

it

hardens

the iron, strengthening and hardening it, for one who takes iron from the fire and places it in cold water causes the iron to harden, and it emerges that he improves it through this, and it is forbidden to do so because this is included in the labor of “striking with a hammer”!

Rav Bיבי said

as a resolution: The ashishiyot, which had been lying on coals during the night of Yom Kippur, had already cooled somewhat by morning, to the extent

that their heat had not reached

the temperature

for

the purpose of

hardening. [

And when they place them in the water, the water does not strengthen them].

Abaye said

another resolution:

Even you may say [

say]

that

the ashishiyot were glowing so much that

their heat reached

the temperature

for

the purpose of

hardening.

Nevertheless, when they placed the ashishiyot into the mikveh, they did not intend to harden and strengthen them, but only to heat the water. And

an act not intended [

an act of permission to which an act containing a prohibition is joined, while at the time of the action the person does not intend the prohibited action but only the permitted action] is

permitted

to perform on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur.

And we challenge this:

But did Abaye say this?

Did Abaye say that an act not intended is permitted?!

But it was taught

for it was taught in a beraita: It is stated [Leviticus 12:3] concerning the mitzva of circumcision: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise

the flesh of his foreskin.”

But the verse could have said, “He shall circumcise his foreskin.” And why is it stated, “the flesh of his foreskin”?

To include “flesh” that is stated [in Leviticus 13:2] concerning the affliction of leprosy.

To tell you:

Even

a foreskin that is

in a place where there is a bright spot [

one of the types of leprosy]

he shall cut—

he shall fulfill the mitzva of circumcision, even though for the purpose of the circumcision he will cut off the leprosy [and one who cuts off the leprosy violates that which is stated [Deuteronomy 24:8]: “Take heed of the affliction of leprosy”],

the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah.

And we raised this concerning it:

We asked about this in tractate Shabbat [133a, where this beraita is cited]:

The verse—

why do I need it?

For what purpose did the verse need to state “flesh” to include the mitzva of circumcision of a foreskin in a place where there is leprosy? Surely at the time of the circumcision the circumciser does not intend to cut off the leprosy, but only to remove the foreskin for the purpose of the mitzva of circumcision, and Rabbi Shimon’s view [in Beitza 23b and elsewhere] is that “an act not intended” is permitted?!

And Abaye said

to resolve this difficulty: The beraita was stated

according to

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an act not

intended is forbidden,

therefore a verse is needed to teach that it is permitted to circumcise in a place where there is a bright spot, even though the circumciser does not intend to cut off the leprosy [and Rabbi Yoshiyah, who expounded this verse, holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda].

And we learn from Abaye’s words that there is proof from the verse for Rabbi Yehuda’s method, that an act not intended is forbidden. And from here there is a difficulty against Abaye’s words, for above he said that on Yom Kippur they placed glowing iron ashishiyot into the cold mikveh. And even though he hardens them, since an act not intended is permitted, this is permitted?!

And we answer: Indeed, Abaye proved [from the verse “the flesh of his foreskin”] that an act not intended is forbidden, but nevertheless

these matters—

the statement applies, specifically

throughout the entire Torah

where there is a prohibition from the Torah, such as one who cuts off a bright spot.

But here,

here, in the case of one who places glowing ashishiyot into the water, the prohibition of

hardening

is only

rabbinic,

since even after the ashishiyot hardened, their labor was not completed, for they were still going to make vessels from them. And in such a manner there is no prohibition from the Torah on account of the labor of “striking with a hammer” [Tosafot, and Tosafot Rid in Rashi’s view].

And the Sages prohibited only when the person intends the prohibited action. But “an act not intended” in a rabbinic prohibition is permitted.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna it is explained that the High Priest offered the morning regular offering [with the other services practiced all year round ] in golden garments. And now the Mishna describes the immersion of the High Priest before he began the services of the day performed in white garments:

They brought him

the High Priest

to

the mikveh that was on the roof of

the House of Parva, to immerse a second immersion before he changed from services performed outside to the services of the day performed inside.

in order for him to immerse a second time before changing from the services performed outside to the services of the day performed inside.

And in the Sanctuary,

in the courtyard,

was

the House of Parva.

They spread a sheet of fine linen [

white linen]

between him and the people,

as a matter of modesty [Meiri].

He sanctified his hands and his feet

while he was still dressed in the golden garments,

and

afterward he

removed

them.

Rabbi Meir

disagrees and

says:

He did not sanctify his hands and his feet first; rather, first he

removed

them, and afterward he

sanctified his hands and his feet.

After he removed his garments [and according to Rabbi Meir he also sanctified], he

descended

into the mikveh

and immersed.

He ascended

from the mikveh

and dried himself,

wrapping himself in a towel to absorb the water on his body.

They brought him garments of

linen,

white,

to perform in them the services specific to Yom Kippur.

He put on

them,

and sanctified his hands and his feet

a second time, for the honor of the garments that he had now put on.

And twice he would wear white garments on Yom Kippur: the first time for the services of the sin-offering bull, the two goats, and the incense, which are performed inside, and this is what our Mishna is speaking about; and the second time for the bringing out of the spoon and the coal pan [below, 70a].

In the morning,

when he put on white garments the first time,

he would wear

white garments of fine linen that came from the land of

Pelusium,

worth

twelve maneh [1200

zuz].

Whereas

between the evenings [

for bringing out the spoon and the coal pan] he wore linen garments

of India

that came from the land of India [which is Cush. Rashi ], worth

eight hundred zuz [

which are eight maneh],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: In the morning he would wear

white garments worth

eighteen maneh.

And between the evenings, twelve maneh.

And the value of the garments in

total was

thirty maneh.

And these thirty maneh

that

the Sages stated, or twenty maneh according to Rabbi Meir—the High Priest would receive

from the community

from the chamber contribution, which came from the half-shekalim contributed by the community.

And if he wished

the koen gadol

to add

and purchase more expensive garments,

he adds from his own

from his money. And on condition that he give the addition to the Temple treasury. Rambam.