Yoma 34b (לד:) — 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 one should derive

the evening offering from the morning offering.

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

The Gemara raises a question about this:

Granted,

it is readily understandable

according to the Sages,

since

this,

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

is written with regard to the afternoon Tamid offering.

For the verse above concluded with it.

But according to Rabbi—

what is the reason?

What is his reasoning? Why did Rabbi say that the verse, “And its libation shall be a quarter of a hin,” speaks of the morning Tamid 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 referred to as “one”?

You must say: This is the morning Tamid offering,

as it is stated with regard to it [in verse 4]: “The one lamb you shall perform in the morning.”

And as for the Sages,

what do they derive from the word “the one,” which seems to be superfluous?

They derive as follows:

What is meant by “one”?—

the

choicest of its flock!

For one who brings an offering to God must bring the choicest animal of his flock.

And as for Rabbi,

from where did he learn that one who offers a sacrifice must bring the choicest animal of his flock?

From

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

“And

“And every

choicest of your vows”—

it is derived.

Its meaning is: The offerings that you vow to bring must be from the choicest.

The Gemara asks:

And as for the Sages,

why do they require two verses to teach that offerings must come from the choicest of one’s flock: a. “One”—the choicest of its flock; b. “The choicest of your vows”—that the offerings one vows to bring must be from the choicest?

The Gemara answers:

One—

the verse “for the one lamb” speaks

of

of an

obligatory offering

[the Tamid burnt offering].

And one—

the verse “the choicest of your vows” speaks

of

of

voluntary offerings,

which a person vows of his own accord.

And both are necessary:

Both of these derivations are needed, for one cannot derive the law of obligatory offerings from voluntary offerings, or that of voluntary offerings from obligatory offerings.

On the one hand, one might say that specifically a voluntary offering must be brought from the choicest, since it has the character of a gift, and one who gives a gift customarily brings the choicest, so that its recipient will be pleased with him.

On the other hand, one might say the opposite: Specifically an obligatory offering must be brought in a perfect state, since it is the payment of a debt. But one who comes to vow a voluntary offering may offer whatever he wishes. Therefore, neither can be derived from the other. [Rashi, Ritba].

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 chill would be reduced.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Thick metal ingots—

thick pieces

of iron would be heated

[heated]

from the eve of Yom Kippur, and they would place

them on Yom Kippur itself

into

a mikva

of cold water, so that they would reduce the chill

of the water in the mikva.

The Gemara asks: How was it permitted to place the metal ingots on Yom Kippur into the cold water?

But surely

it

hardens

strengthens and hardens the iron, for when one takes iron from the fire and places it in cold water, the iron hardens, and one thereby completes it; and it is forbidden to do so because this is included in the labor of “striking with a hammer”

”! Rav Bibi said

as an answer: The metal ingots, which had been placed on coals during the night of Yom Kippur, had already cooled somewhat by morning, to the extent

that their heat had not reached

their heat

of

the level required for

hardening.

[And when they are placed in water, the water does not harden them].

Abaye said

another answer:

Even if you say

[say]

that

that the metal ingots were glowing so intensely that

their heat reached

their heat

of

the level required for

hardening,

nevertheless, when they placed the ingots in the mikva, they did not intend to harden and strengthen them, but only to heat the water. And

an unintended act

[an act of permission to which a forbidden act is joined, when at the time of the action the person does not intend the forbidden act, but only the permitted act] is

permitted

to perform on Shabbat or Yom Kippur.

The Gemara asks:

And did Abaye really say this?

Did Abaye say that an unintended act is permitted?!

But it was taught in a beraita:

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.”

The verse could have said, “He shall circumcise his foreskin.” Why does it say, “the flesh of his foreskin

?” It serves to include the “flesh” mentioned [Leviticus 13:2] with regard to a leprous affliction.

This teaches you:

Even

a foreskin that is

in a place where there is a bright spot

[one of the types of leprous affliction]

must be cut—

he fulfills the mitzva of circumcision, even though for the sake of the circumcision he cuts off the leprous affliction [and one who cuts off the leprous affliction violates that which is stated [Deuteronomy 24:8]: “Beware of the affliction of leprosy

, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

And we raised this question

about this in tractate Shabbat [133a, where this beraita is brought]:

The verse—

why do I need it?

Why was the verse required to say “flesh,” to include the mitzva of circumcision when the foreskin is in a place affected by leprosy? During the circumcision, the circumciser does not intend to cut off the leprous affliction, but only to remove the foreskin for the sake of the mitzva of circumcision; and Rabbi Shimon holds [Beitza 23b and elsewhere] that “an unintended act” is permitted

? And Abaye said

to answer this question: The beraita was stated

according to

according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an unintended act

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 leprous affliction [and Rabbi Yoshiyya, who expounded this verse, holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda].

We learn from Abaye’s words that there is proof from the verse for Rabbi Yehuda’s view that an unintended act is forbidden. This presents a difficulty with Abaye’s statement above that on Yom Kippur they placed glowing iron ingots into the cold mikva. Although this hardens them, it is permitted because it is an unintended act

The Gemara answers: Indeed, Abaye demonstrated [from the verse “the flesh of his foreskin”] that an unintended act is forbidden; nevertheless,

that applies—

that statement applies specifically

throughout the Torah

in a case involving a prohibition from the Torah, such as cutting off a bright spot.

But here,

here, when one places glowing ingots into water, the prohibition of

hardening

is only

rabbinic,

since even after the ingots have hardened, their labor is not complete, as they are still intended to be made into vessels. In such a case there is no Torah prohibition on account of the labor of “striking with a hammer” [Tosafot and Tosafot Rid, explaining Rashi’s view].

The Sages prohibited it only when a person intends to perform a forbidden act. But “an unintended act” in a rabbinic prohibition is permitted.

Mishna:

The previous Mishna explained that the High Priest offered the morning Tamid [along with the other services performed throughout the year] in golden garments. Now the Mishna describes the immersion of the High Priest before he began the day’s services performed in white garments:

They brought him

the High Priest

to

to the mikva that was on the roof of

Beit HaParva,

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

And in the sacred area,

in the courtyard,

there was

Beit HaParva.

They spread a sheet of linen

[white flax]

between him and the people,

]]as a matter of modesty [Meiri].

He sanctified his hands and feet

while he was still dressed in the golden garments,

and

and afterward

removed

them.

Rabbi Meir

disagrees and

disagrees and says:

He did not sanctify his hands and feet first. Rather, he first

removed

and afterward

sanctified his hands and feet.

After removing his garments [and according to Rabbi Meir, also sanctifying his hands and feet],

he descended

to the mikva

and immersed.

He emerged

from the mikva

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 unique to Yom Kippur.

He put on

them,

and sanctified his hands and feet

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

He would don white garments twice on Yom Kippur: the first time for the services involving the bull sin offering, the two goats, and the incense, which are performed inside, and it is this that our Mishna discusses; and the second time for taking out the ladle and the censer [below, 70a].

In the morning,

when he donned white garments for the first time,

he would wear

white garments made of fine linen brought from the country of

Pelusium,

worth

twelve maneh [1200

zuz].

But

in the afternoon

[for taking out the ladle and censer] he donned linen garments

from India,

which came from the land of India [that 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 in the afternoon, garments worth twelve maneh.

The value of the garments, in total, was

altogether—

thirty maneh.

And these thirty maneh

which

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

from the community

from the chamber funds, which came from the half-shekel contributions donated by the community.

And if he wished

the High Priest

to add

and purchase more expensive garments,

he adds from his own

from his money. On condition that he give the additional amount to the Temple treasury. Rambam.