Yoma 37a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the above beraita:

The beraita asks:

And from where is it derived that

the confession of the bull was

with

the expression

“please”?

The beraita answers: This matter, too, is learned by a gzera shava:

It is said here

in the confession of the bull, the expression

atonement [“

and he shall make atonement for himself”]

and it is said there

in Moses’ prayer

at Horeb [

at Mount Sinai], the expression

atonement [

Exodus 32:30].

Just as there

at Horeb Moses confessed

with

the expression

please [“Please, this people has sinned.” There, verse 31] ,

so here,

the confession of the bull is

with

the expression

please!

“Please”!

The beraita asks further:

And from where is it derived that

the confession was

with

the mention of

the Name?

The beraita answers: This matter, too, is learned by a gzera shava:

It is said here

in the confession of the bull, the expression

atonement. And in the case of the calf whose neck is broken, the expression atonement is said [

Deuteronomy 21] .

What

did we learn

there, in the case of the calf whose neck is broken?

That they prayed over it with mention of the Name [as it is said: “Atone for Your people whom You redeemed, O Lord”]

so here,

the confession of the bull was

with

mention of

the Name!

Abaye said

an objection to the words of the beraita:

We learned in the beraita that by a gzera shava we learn the places where the expression atonement is said, and therefore the confession of Yom Kippur is said with the expression “please,” and the Name of the Lord is said. And according to this, it is difficult: Why do we not learn Horeb and the calf whose neck is broken by a gzera shava [since in both of them the expression atonement is said], as follows:

Granted,

it is well understood that the confession which Moses our teacher said at

Horeb—

we do not derive from the calf whose neck is broken,

that we did not learn by a gzera shava from the calf whose neck is broken that Moses should say the confession with the Name.

For

what has happened has happened,

what already was has already been, and it is impossible to change it!

Rather,

this is what should be asked:

The calf whose neck is broken should be learned

let it learn

from

the confession that was at

Horeb,

which was said with the expression “please”!

And if you would say

and if you say:

so too,

indeed this is the law [that the prayer in the case of the calf whose neck is broken is said with the expression “please”]!

But did we not learn

in the Mishna otherwise than your statement:

The priests say

after the calf is decapitated:

“Atone for Your people Israel” [

Deuteronomy 21],

whereas with

the expression

“please” he did not say,

the tanna—from here [it follows] that they do not say “please” in the case of the calf whose neck is broken; and it is difficult, why should we not derive it by a gzera shava from Horeb?

And we conclude:

It is difficult.

Indeed, this objection is difficult.

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

and they would answer after him: “

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

The Gemara brings a source for the statement of our Mishna that those standing in the Courtyard answer, “Blessed is the Name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever”:

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi says:

It is said [in Deuteronomy 32]:

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

Thus

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

when I mention

His Name,

you—

“ascribe greatness

to our God.” That is, bless our God .

to our God,” meaning: Bless our God .

Hananiah ben the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua says:

It is said [in Proverbs 10]:

“The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing.”

Thus

he said to them,

the

prophet to Israel: When I mention

the Name of the Lord, Who is

righteous forever, you give

Him

a blessing.

Mishna:

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

He came

the High Priest

to the east of the Courtyard,

near the entrance to the Courtyard ,

to the north of the altar.

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

The deputy

the deputy High Priest stood

to his right,

and the head of the paternal house [

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

to his left .

And there,

in that place where the High Priest stood, there were

two goats

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

And a lottery box [

a hollow wooden vessel ]

was there, and in it were two lots,

as it is said [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 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 they would

the Sages

mention him favorably

for his deed.

And apropos of having learned that the Sages mentioned Joshua ben Gamla favorably, the Mishna brings other people who donated to the Temple and mentioned them favorably.

Ben Katin,

the High Priest,

made twelve spigots

twelve faucets

for the laver, for

at first

it did not have

the laver

except 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 through overnight lodging,

for water that remained in the laver [which was a service vessel] overnight became disqualified at dawn through overnight lodging. And so that its water would not become disqualified through overnight lodging, they would lower the laver at night into a pit, and its water became connected with the water collected in the ground, and it did not become disqualified through overnight lodging .

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

Helene, his mother,

of Monbaz,

made a golden chandelier over the entrance of

the

Sanctuary, and she also made a golden tablet on which the passage of the woman suspected of adultery was written.

So that when necessary the priest could copy the passage of the woman suspected of adultery from it, and he would not need to bring a Torah scroll to the Temple .

With regard to Nicanor, miracles were performed for his 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 needed to turn northward until he stood north of the altar, for the lottery of the goats was performed in the north of the Courtyard .

And we infer:

Since he says

the tanna

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

in its entirety

does not stand in the north,

rather, the altar stood in the southern half of the Courtyard .

For if you say that the altar stood precisely in the middle of the Courtyard, then the High Priest would not have needed to move away as far as north of the altar; rather, he could stand opposite the altar, in the northern half of the Courtyard!

Who is

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

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

For it was taught

in a beraita: It is said [Leviticus 1] concerning the slaughtering of the most sacred sacrifices:

“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.

And therefore they placed the altar in the south of the Courtyard,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And we object:

But

yet

the first clause [

in the Mishna above, 35b] is according to

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon.

For we learned in the opening clause: The bull of the High Priest stood between the Hall and the Altar. But we explained [there] that the bull stood in the north of the forecourt. And it is proven from this that part of the area between the Hall and the Altar was in the north of the forecourt, and [the Mishna] is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

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

And we answer: Our Mishna

in its entirety,

as

[the opinion of] Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov.

And teach

and revise the wording of the Mishna in the opening clause: “And its 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 this area].

We learned in the Mishna:

The deputy

stood

at his right

of the High Priest,

and the head of the paternal division was at his left.

The Gemara cites a statement of Rav Yehuda and discusses 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 expert in proper conduct [for it is proper that a student walk to the left of his teacher, so that his right hand will be free to serve his teacher. Meiri].

And we object:

We learned

we learned in our Mishna:

The deputy

was

at the right

of the High Priest,

and the head of the paternal division

was

at his left.

But it is proper to honor the High Priest in the same way that one honors a teacher. If so, how did the deputy stand at the right of the High Priest?

And it was further taught

it was taught in a beraita:

Three who were walking on the road

it is proper for them to walk as follows:

the teacher in the middle,

the

senior student at his right. And

the

junior student at his left,

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

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

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

Michael

stood

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

And this is not in accordance with the words of Rav Yehuda, who said: A student who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus!

It was explained

Rav Shmuel bar Pappa explained

before

[in the presence of]

Rav Adda:

What we learned in our Mishna and in the beraita, “at his right,” does not mean that he should walk beside him on the right side,

but

behind him,

so that his teacher will be concealed by him,

for if a person walks behind his teacher, he will not see the teacher [because his two students will conceal him from behind, one on his right and one on his left].

And we object to this explanation:

But it was taught

yet it was taught in a beraita:

One who walks opposite his teacher

beside him—

is an ignoramus ,

behind his teacher

is haughty!

And we explain: What Rav Shmuel bar Pappa said—“so that his teacher will be concealed by him”—does not mean that they walked literally behind their teacher. Rather,

they turned slightly to the side.

They turned themselves [directed themselves] slightly backward and concealed part of their bodies at the side of their teacher [diagonally].

We learned in the Mishna:

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

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

The Gemara cites a source for the words 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

can be “of anything,

of any material whatsoever” .

It could

perhaps be said that he should

place two

[two lots]

upon

one goat,

and two

[two other lots]

upon

the other goat,

this one.

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

The verse states

in the continuation of the verse:

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

From here [we learn] that

“for the Name” is written only upon

one lot,

and “for Azazel” is written only upon

one lot,

one.

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

And I could still

say

that he should

place

the lots

for the Name and for Azazel upon

this goat,

and for the Name and for Azazel

also

upon

the other goat,

this one.

To fulfill what is stated: “And he shall place upon [each of] the two goats [two] lots,” and whichever one he wishes, he will designate for the Name or for Azazel [Rashi] .

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

The verse could have said “a lot for the Lord.” Why was “one” stated? To teach you [from the superfluous wording]:

there is not here

a goat upon which a lot was placed

for the Lord except one, and there is not here

a 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 upon each goat,

if so, what is the teaching

of the words: “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: To teach you

that they should be

the two lots

equal—

that he should not make

one lot

of gold and one of silver,

or

one large and one small.

We learned at the beginning of the words of the beraita:

These lots

can be

of anything.

And we object:

Is it obvious!

Why would I think that the lots must be made specifically of a particular material?

And we answer:

It is necessary

The tannai did not need to inform us of this matter. Rather,

to

we learned

as it was taught

in the following beraita:

It was taught in a beraita:

Since we find concerning the forehead plate that the Name is written upon it and it is of gold, it could

perhaps

also

the lot

be so,

for the Name is written upon it!

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

“lot, lot” includes.

“Lot, lot” includes.

And what does the verse come to include?

It includes

a lot

of

olive

wood; it includes

a lot

of

nut

wood.

And it

includes

a lot of

boxwood .

We learned in the Mishna:

Ben Kattin,

the High Priest,

made twelve faucets

[taps]

for the basin.

The tannai

taught in a beraita: Why did Ben Kattin make twelve faucets for the basin?

So that his twelve fellow priests who were occupied

every day

with the daily offering could consecrate

all of

their hands and feet at one time .

The tannai

taught in a beraita: In the

morning,

when the basin was

full

[filled with water], the priest

would consecrate his hands and feet from

the faucet

above,

whereas in the

evening, when it descended

when the water fell below the height of the upper faucet, he

would consecrate his hands and feet from

the faucet

below .

We learned in the Mishna:

And he also

[Ben Kattin]

made a mechanism for the basin.

And we explain:

What

what is

is a mechanism?

Abaye said: A wheel

a wheel

with which he would lower it

with which he would lower the basin into the water in the pit.

We learned in the Mishna:

King Monbaz made

the

handles of all the vessels

of Yom Kippur of gold.

And we consider the matter: Since Monbaz wished to adorn the vessels of the Temple, why did he make the handles of the vessels of gold?

Let him make them

the vessels themselves

of gold!