Yoma 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara cites the continuation of the above beraita:

The beraita asks:

And from where

was the confession of the bull

in

the expression

“Ana”?

The beraita answers: This too is derived by means of a gezerah shavah:

It is stated here,

with regard to the confession of the bull, the expression

atonement [“

and he shall make atonement for himself”],

and it is stated elsewhere,

in Moses’ prayer

at Horeb

[at Mount Sinai], the expression

atonement [“

Exodus 32:30”].

Just as there,

at Horeb, Moses confessed

in

the expression

Ana [“

Ana, this people has committed a great sin.” There, verse 31] ,

so here,

the confession of the bull is

in

the expression

Ana!

The beraita asks further:

And from where

was the confession

with

the mention of

the Name?

The beraita answers: This too is derived by means of a gezerah shavah:

It is stated here,

with regard to the confession of the bull, the expression

“atonement.” And the expression “atonement” is stated with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken

Deuteronomy 21] .

What

did we learn

there, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken?

That they prayed concerning it with a mention of the Name [as it is stated: “Atone for Your people whom You redeemed, O

so here too,

the confession of the bull was

with

the mention of

the Name!

Abaye said,

raising an objection to the words of the beraita:

We learned in the beraita that by means of a gezerah shavah we derive the places where the expression “atonement” is stated, and consequently that the confession on Yom Kippur is recited with the expression “Ana” and with the Name of the Lord. Accordingly, it is difficult: Why do we not derive Horeb and the heifer whose neck is broken by means of a gezerah shavah [since the expression “atonement” is stated with regard to both], as follows:

Granted,

it is well understood that the confession Moses our teacher recited at

Horeb—

we do not derive it from the heifer whose neck is broken;

we did not derive by means of a gezerah shavah from the heifer whose neck is broken that Moses should recite his confession with the Name.

For

what happened has happened;

what already occurred has occurred, and it is impossible to change it!

Rather,

this is what should be asked:

The heifer whose neck is broken should be derived

and learned

from

the confession at

Horeb,

which is stated with the expression “Ana”!

And if you would say,

and if you were to say:

So indeed,

that is in fact the law [that the prayer concerning the heifer whose neck is broken is recited with the expression “Ana”]!

But didn’t we learn,

and yet we learned in the Mishna contrary to your statement:

The priests say,

after the heifer is decapitated:

“Atone for Your people Israel” [Deuteronomy 21]

[Deuteronomy 21],

whereas with

the expression

“Ana,” it does not say

the tanna. From here it follows that “Ana” is not recited with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken; and it is difficult: Why should we not derive it by means of a gezerah shavah from Horeb?

And we conclude:

The difficulty stands.

Indeed, this objection remains difficult.

We learned in the Mishna: The High Priest would mention the Name in his confession,

and they would respond after him: “

Blessed be the Name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.”

The Gemara cites a source for the statement of our Mishna that those standing in the Temple courtyard respond, “Blessed be the Name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever”:

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi says: It is stated [in Deuteronomy 32]:

It is said [in Deuteronomy 32]:

“When I call the Name of the Lord, ascribe greatness to our God.”

This is what

Moses said to Israel: “When I call the Name of the Lord”—that is,

when

when I mention

the

Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, you—

“ascribe greatness

to our God.” That is, bless our God .

Hanania, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, says:

It is stated [in Proverbs 10]:

“The memory of the righteous is for a blessing.”

This is what

the prophet said to them,

the

prophet to Israel: When I mention

the Name of the Lord, who is

the righteous One of worlds, you give

Him

a blessing.

Mishna:

In the previous Mishna we learned the order of slaughtering the sin-offering bull and the first confession recited over it. Our Mishna continues with the order of the service that followed them, namely, the preparation for drawing lots for the two goats, as follows:

He came

the High Priest

to the eastern part of the courtyard,

near the entrance to the courtyard ,

to the north of the altar.

That is, he turned slightly northward, so that he would stand facing the area north of the altar .

The deputy

the deputy High Priest was standing

to his right,

and the head of the paternal family

[the head of the family] whose turn it was to serve that day in the Temple [Tiferet Yisrael] was standing

to his left .

And there,

in the place where the High Priest stood, there were

two goats

brought by the community, as it is stated [Leviticus 16] in the order of the day’s service: “And from the assembly of the children of Israel he shall take two male goats for a sin-offering” ... “And he shall position them before the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

And there was a lottery box [

a hollow wooden vessel ]

there, and in it were two lots,

as it is stated [there]: “And Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats: one lot [on which it was written] ‘for the Lord,’ and one lot [on which it was written] ‘for Azazel.’”

At first,

they were made of boxwood—

the lots were made of boxwood, [which is a cypress tree; Rashi]

and he made them

Joshua

ben Gamla,

when he was appointed High Priest,

of gold. And

the Sages

would mention him favorably

for this deed.

Since we have learned that the Sages mentioned Joshua ben Gamla favorably, the Mishna cites additional people who donated to the Temple and were mentioned favorably.

Ben Katin,

the High Priest,

made twelve spigots

twelve faucets

for the laver, for

at first

it did not have

the laver

anything but two [

two faucets].

And he too [

Ben Katin]

made a mechanism

a wheel by means of which they lowered the laver every night into a pit, so that

its water would not become disqualified by remaining overnight

water that remained in the laver [which was a sacred vessel] overnight became disqualified at dawn because of remaining overnight. In order that its water not become disqualified by remaining overnight, they lowered the laver at night into a pit, and its water became connected with the water collected in the ground and was not disqualified by remaining overnight .

King Monbaz would make all the handles of the Yom Kippur vessels of gold.

Helene, his mother,

of Monbaz,

made a golden chandelier over the entrance of

the

Sanctuary, and she too made a golden tablet on which the passage of the sota was written.

This was so that, when necessary, the priest could copy the passage of the sota from it and would not need to bring a Torah scroll to the Temple .

Miracles were performed for Nicanor’s doors,

the doors that he donated to the courtyard.

And they would mention them,

all those mentioned in our Mishna,

favorably

for their deeds [Meiri].

Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna: He came [the High Priest] to the east of the courtyard, to the north of the altar. That is, he had to turn northward until he stood north of the altar, since the drawing of lots for the goats was performed in the north of the courtyard .

And we infer:

From the fact that

the tanna

says “to the north of the altar,” it follows that the altar

entirely

was not situated in the north,

but the altar stood in the southern half of the courtyard .

For if you say that the altar stood exactly in the middle of the courtyard, then the High Priest would not have needed to move as far as the area north of the altar; rather, he could have stood facing the altar, in the northern half of the courtyard!

Who is

the tanna who maintains that the altar stood in the southern half of the courtyard?

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

As it was taught

in a beraita: It is stated [Leviticus 1] concerning the slaughter of offerings of the most sacred order:

“Northward

before the Lord.” The verse could have said, “North, before the Lord.” Why did it say “northward”? To teach you that

the entire north must be vacant.

Therefore, they positioned the altar in the southern part of the courtyard,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And we object:

But

yet

the opening clause [

in the Mishna above, 35b]

is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.

For we learned in the first clause that the bull of the High Priest stood between the Hall and the Altar. Yet we explained [there] that the bull stood in the north of the Temple courtyard. This proves that part of the area between the Hall and the Altar was in the north of the courtyard, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

And this is not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, who maintains that the Altar stood in the south of the courtyard!

And we answer: Our Mishna

in its entirety,

is in accordance with

Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov.

And teach

and alter the wording of the first clause of the Mishna to read: “And his bull stood

as between

the Hall and the Altar.

That is, adjacent to the area between the Hall and the Altar [to the north of that area

The Rashash emended the text to read “kevein,” meaning “as between.” This is also the wording in Tosafot Yom Tov, and in the Ritva, among others. We learned in the Mishna:

The deputy

stood

to his right

of the High Priest,

and the head of the patrilineal family was to his left.

The Gemara cites a statement of Rav Yehuda and discusses both his words and the words of our Mishna.

Rav Yehuda said:

A student

who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus;

he is not familiar with proper conduct [a student should walk to his teacher’s left, so that his right hand will be free to serve his teacher. Meiri].

And we challenge this:

We learned

in our Mishna:

The deputy

was

to the right

of the High Priest,

and the head of the patrilineal family

was

to his left.

Yet the High Priest should be accorded honor just as a teacher is honored. If so, how could the deputy stand to the High Priest’s right?

And it was also taught

in a beraita:

When three people were walking along the way,

this is the proper arrangement for them:

the teacher in the middle,

the

senior student to his right. And

the

junior student to his left,

and they should not walk one behind the other in a single line.

And similarly we find with regard to the three ministering angels who came to Abraham

to visit him, as it is stated concerning them [Genesis 18]: “And behold, three men were standing over him,” indicating that the three angels stood opposite him, and did not stand one behind the other. Rather,

Michael

stood

in the middle, Gabriel to his right, and Raphael to his left .

And this is contrary to Rav Yehuda’s statement: A student who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus!

Translate it

Rav Shmuel bar Pappa explained

before

him,

Rav Adda:

What we learned in our Mishna and in the beraita, “to his right,” does not mean that he walks beside him on his right,

but

behind him,

so that his teacher is concealed by him,

for if a person walks behind his teacher, he does not see the teacher [as the teacher is covered from behind by his two students, one to his right and one to his left].

And we challenge this interpretation:

But it was taught

in a beraita:

One who walks opposite his teacher,

beside him—

is an ignoramus,

behind his teacher—

is arrogant!

And we explain: When Rav Shmuel bar Pappa said, “so that his teacher is concealed by him,” he did not mean that they walked literally behind their teacher. Rather,

they turned slightly to the side.

They turned themselves somewhat backward and covered part of the area beside their teacher [standing diagonally].

We learned in the Mishna:

And there was a lottery box there, and in it were two lots.

They were made of boxwood, and Ben Katin made them of gold.

The Gemara cites a source for the statement of our Mishna from a beraita.

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 16]:

“And Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats.” These lots

may be “of anything,

of any material whatsoever” .

One might have thought

that perhaps he should

place two

lots

on

this goat,

and two

other lots

on

that goat.

That is,

we would interpret the verse as follows: “And Aaron shall place upon [each of] the two goats [two] lots” .

The verse states

later in the passage:

“One lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.”

From here we learn that

the word “for the Name” is written only with regard to

one

lot, and the word “for Azazel” is written only with regard to

one

lot.

And from here we learn that there were only two lots.

But I could still

have thought

that he should

place

the lots

for the Name and for Azazel on

this goat,

and the lots for the Name and for Azazel

also

on

that

goat.

This would fulfill the statement, “And he shall place upon [each of] the two goats [two] lots,” and whichever one he chose would be designated for the Lord or for Azazel [Rashi].

The verse states: “One lot for the Lord.”

The verse could have said, “A lot for the Lord.” Why does it say “one”? It teaches you, [from the superfluous wording],

there is no

goat upon which a lot was placed

for the Lord except one, and there is no

goat upon which a lot was placed

for Azazel except one.

The beraita asks: Since we have learned that the High Priest placed one lot on each goat,

if so, what is the teaching

of the phrase, “And Aaron shall place upon the two goats

lots”?

[The verse could have said: “And he shall place … upon the two goats a lot.”]

The beraita answers: It teaches you

that

the two lots

be equal—

that he should not make

one lot

of gold and the other of silver,

or

one large and the other small.

We learned at the beginning of the beraita:

These lots

may be

of anything.

And we challenge this:

Isn’t it obvious!

Why would I think that the lots had to be made specifically from a particular material?

And we answer:

It is necessary

—the tanna did not need to teach us this matter. Rather,

to

teach us

as it was taught

in the following beraita:

It was taught in a beraita:

Since we find with regard to the frontplate that the Name is written upon it and it is made of gold, one might have thought

perhaps

even

this lot

is likewise,

since the Name is written upon it!

The verse states

“One lot for the Lord and one lot for Azazel.” The verse could have said: “One lot for the Lord, and one for Azazel”—

the repetition of “lot, lot” comes to include.

What does the verse come to include?

It includes

a lot

of

olive

wood; it includes

a lot

of

walnut

wood.

And it

includes

a lot made of

boxwood .

We learned in the Mishna:

Ben Katin,

the High Priest,

made twelve spouts

[faucets]

for the laver.

The tanna taught

in a beraita: Why did Ben Katin make twelve faucets for the laver?

So that his twelve fellow priests who were occupied

every day

with the daily offering could perform the sanctification of

all

their hands and feet at once .

The tanna taught

in a beraita: In the

morning,

when the laver was

full

[filled with water], the priest

performed the sanctification of his hands and feet from

the

upper faucet,

whereas in the

evening, when he descended,

when the water had fallen below the level of the upper faucet, he

performed the sanctification of his hands and feet from

the

lower faucet .

We learned in the Mishna:

And he too

[Ben Katin]

made a device for the laver.

And we explain:

What

does

“device” mean?

Abaye said: A wheel

—a wheel

with which they would lower it

by means of which they would lower the laver into the water in the pit.

We learned in the Mishna:

King Monbaz made

the

handles of all the vessels

used on Yom Kippur of gold.

We consider the matter: Since Monbaz wished to beautify the vessels of the Temple, why did he make the handles of the vessels of gold?

Let him make them

—let him make the vessels themselves—

of gold!