Yoma 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

And there was an incident involving

a glutton

who took his portion and his fellow’s portion

[another glutton],

and they called him the son of

Hamzan—

a robber—

until the day of his death .

Rabba bar Sheila said: What is the verse

—from which verse do we learn that a hamzan is a robber?

As it is stated [Psalms 71:4]:

“My God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked,

from the grasp of

the wrongdoer

[one who commits wrongdoing]

and the robber

.

Rava said: From here

they learned that a hamzan is a robber, as it is stated [Isaiah 1:17]:

“Learn to do good; seek justice; vindicate

[strengthen]

the robbed

[victim of robbery].”

Incidentally, the Gemara cites a homiletic exposition that the Sages expounded in tractate Sanhedrin [35a] on the end of the verse: “Vindicate the robbed.”

And the Sages inferred:

“Vindicate the robbed”

means strengthen the victim of robbery,

and do not strengthen the robber

[and do not strengthen the robber]. From here it follows that the court attends first to the claimant.

[For example: Reuven lent money to Shimon and sued him in court for payment. Shimon replied: I had a pledge in Reuven’s possession, and it was damaged or lost, and Reuven was responsible for safeguarding it. The Sages learned from the verse that the court first deals with the lender’s claim. Only after Shimon pays does it deal with Shimon’s claim concerning the pledge. Rashi, Sanhedrin 35a; see Tosafot there.]

The Gemara cites another beraita describing the greatness of Shimon HaTzaddik:

The Sages taught:

In

that year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said to them

—the priests—on Yom Kippur:

“This year he

[a reference to himself]

will die.”

They said to him: From where do you know?

He said to them: Every Yom Kippur

[until this year]

an old man dressed

in garments

of white and wrapped in white

and

entered with me

the Holy of Holies

and exited with me .

And

if

today

[on this Yom Kippur]

an old man dressed in black and wrapped in black had appeared to me and entered with me

the Holy of Holies

but did not exit with me.

[From this Shimon HaTzaddik understood that he would die that year.]

After the Festival

[Shemini Atzeret]

he fell ill for seven days and died.

And

from the time of his death onward

his fellow priests refrained from blessing

the Priestly Blessing

with

the Explicit Name, because they were not worthy of it [Rashi].

We learned above that during the forty years of Shimon HaTzaddik’s tenure, three favorable signs occurred for Israel: [a. The lot for the Lord came up in the right hand. b. The strip of crimson wool became white. c. The western lamp burned longer than the other lamps].

After Shimon HaTzaddik died, sometimes a favorable sign occurred for Israel and sometimes it did not.

The beraita before us explains that there were forty years during which a favorable sign for Israel never occurred in the matters mentioned above:

The Sages taught: During the forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the lot

for the Lord

did not come up in the right hand, the strip of crimson wool did not become white, and the western lamp did not burn

longer than the other lamps.

And

during those forty years,

the doors of the Sanctuary opened by themselves

[every morning]—a sign to the enemies to come and enter the Sanctuary.

Until Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai rebuked them

[because of them]

—Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

in the Sanctuary.

And this is what

he said to it

—Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said to the Sanctuary:

“Sanctuary, Sanctuary, why are you

terrifying—frightening

yourself?”

Indeed,

I know about you that your end

—that you

are destined to be destroyed.

[And to open your doors before the destruction. Maharsha.]

“And Zechariah the son of

[Berechiah, son of]

Iddo

the prophet already prophesied concerning you that you would do this, as it is stated [Zechariah 11]:

‘Open, Lebanon,

[the Temple]

your doors, and

[it is a sign that]

fire will consume

[the enemies]

your cedars.’

[But why are you hastening so greatly to open your doors forty years [before the destruction]?]

And we explain:

Rabbi Yitzhak ben Tavlai said: Why was it called

the Temple

“Lebanon”?

Because

it makes white

[atones for]

the sins of Israel.

Rav Zutra bar Toviyya said: Why was it called

the Temple

“Forest,”

as we learned from

as it is written

[Kings I 7]:

“The House of the Forest of Lebanon”?

To tell you: Just as a forest blossoms

and produces fruit,

so too the Temple blossoms

and produces fruit.

As Rabbi Hoshaya said: When Solomon built

the

Temple, he planted in it all kinds of delicacies

—beautiful fruits

of

gold. [Trees that produced fruits made of gold],

and they would produce fruit in their seasons. And when the wind

would

blow upon them, their fruits would fall,

as it is stated

[Psalms 72]:

“May his fruit rustle like Lebanon.”

From here it follows that the fruits in Lebanon [the Temple] struck against one another and made a noise when they fell, since they were made of gold .

And from them

[from these fruits]

there was livelihood for the priesthood.

And when gentiles entered the Sanctuary, they withered

the trees.

As it is stated

[Nahum 1]:

“And the blossom of Lebanon withers.”

And the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to restore it

[them, Maharsha]

to us, as it is stated

[Isaiah 35]:

“It shall surely blossom and rejoice,

[the Land of Israel]

even rejoice and sing

[it shall rejoice and sing]

the glory of Lebanon

[the Temple]

has been given to it.”

[The glory of Lebanon refers to the golden fruits in the Temple.]

We learned in the Mishna:

He placed them

[he placed the two lots]

on the two goats and said, “For the Lord: a sin-offering.”

The Gemara cites a beraita from which it can be learned that the High Priest pronounced the Explicit Name as it is written.

The Sages taught:

The High Priest mentions the Name ten times

the Explicit Name [as it is written]

on that day:

Three times in the first confession

when he confessed over his sin-offering bull.

And three times in the second confession

when he confessed over his sin-offering bull.

And three times in the

confession in which he confessed over the

scapegoat.

And one

time when he placed the

lots

on the goats and said, “For the Lord: a sin-offering.”

And there was already

an incident when

the

High Priest

said the Name

the Explicit Name, and a miracle occurred

and his voice was heard in Jericho .

and his voice was heard in Jericho .

The Gemara cites additional phenomena that took place in the Temple and could be perceived from a great distance.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: From Jerusalem to Jericho

there is a distance of

ten parasangs

of

and

the rubbing

of the hinges of the Sanctuary doors

when they opened or closed the Sanctuary was

heard at

a distance of

eight Shabbat boundaries [eight

mils] .

The goats in Jericho would sneeze from the fragrance of the incense

in the Temple.

The women in Jericho did not need to perfume themselves, because

the

fragrance of the incense

reached Jericho and they became perfumed by it.

A bride in Jerusalem did not need to adorn herself

with perfumes,

because

of the

fragrance of the incense.

Although a bride customarily perfumes herself more than other women [and the fragrance of the incense in Jericho was not sufficient for a bride], nevertheless, in Jerusalem the fragrance was strong and sufficient even for brides .

Rabbi Yosei ben Dolgai said: My father had goats in the mountains of Mikhvar

and they would sneeze from the fragrance of the incense.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha said: An elder once related to me: Once I went to Shiloh,

where the Tabernacle stood during the days of the prophets,

and I smelled the fragrance of incense from between its walls,

for a fragrance had remained there from the incense that they burned when the Tabernacle stood there.

We learned in the Mishna that the High Priest drew the lots and placed them on the two goats.

Rabbi Yannai said: The drawing

of

the lot from

the

lottery box prevents the service of the two goats from being performed [even after the fact]. That is, it is impossible to sacrifice one goat to the Lord and send one goat to Azazel without his having drawn the lots from the lottery box with his hands. This is because it is impossible to confer the sanctity of the sin-offering goat and the sanctity of the goat sent to Azazel through speech [by pronouncing the designation]; rather, it is the lot that determines the designation of the goat.

the service of the two goats from being valid, even after the fact. That is, one may not sacrifice one goat to God and send one goat to Azazel without having drawn the lots from the lottery box with his hands. This is because the sanctity of the sin-offering goat and the sanctity of the goat sent to Azazel cannot be established through speech alone, by verbally designating them; rather, the lot determines the designation of each goat.

Therefore, one must see which lot was drawn on the right, and the goat on the right is thereby designated accordingly; and which was drawn on the left, and the goat on the left is thereby designated accordingly .

However,

placing

the lot on the goat

is not indispensable

for the service after the fact, even if they did not place the lot on the goat. For the goat on the right had already been designated with the name indicated by the lot drawn on the right; and likewise the goat on the left had already been designated with the name indicated by the lot drawn on the left.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even the drawing

of the lot

is not indispensable for the service of the goats after the fact. If he designated one goat as a sin offering and the other as Azazel, their service is valid. He merely omitted the mitzva of drawing lots .

for the service of the goats after the fact. If he designated one goat as a sin offering and the other as the goat sent to Azazel, their service is valid. He has merely failed to perform the commandment of the lottery.

With regard to the services of Yom Kippur, the term “statute” is stated [“And this shall be for you a statute forever, once a year”; Leviticus 16] to teach that the order of the Yom Kippur services is indispensable [even after the fact.

And the tannaim disagreed in a baraita [below, 60a] as to which services the verse is referring to.

Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the verse refers to all the services performed in white garments, both the services performed inside—in the Holy of Holies—and the services performed outside—in the Sanctuary or the Courtyard.

Rabbi Yehuda, by contrast, holds that the verse refers only to the services performed in white garments in the Holy of Holies.

The Gemara discusses the statements of Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan, who disagreed as to whether drawing the lot from the lottery box is indispensable: Did they disagree according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda or according to the view of Rabbi Nehemiah? Two formulations [opinions] were stated concerning this:

The first formulation:

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that matters performed in white garments outside

the Holy of Holies, their service

is not indispensable

[is not indispensable],

everyone agrees—

they did not disagree concerning the drawing of the lot, and everyone agrees

that it is not indispensable,

since the drawing of the lot was not performed in the Holy of Holies.

They disagree—

they disagree specifically

according to Rabbi Nehemiah,

who holds that all services performed in white garments are indispensable, including services outside:

The one who says—

the one who said that the drawing of the lot

is indispensable [—

Rabbi Yannai] has an obvious rationale:

in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Nehemiah,

who said that services performed outside in white garments are indispensable.

And the one who says—

the one who said that the drawing of the lot

is not indispensable [—

Rabbi Yohanan] holds that although Rabbi Nehemiah said that services performed outside in white garments are indispensable, nevertheless,

that statement applies

only to matters that are included under the category of

“service”

[a service that is part of the sacrificial service]. But

the drawing of the lots is not

within the category of

“service,”

and therefore it is not indispensable. The second formulation [in explaining the dispute between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan]:

There are those who say—

there are those who explain the dispute between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan differently:

According to Rabbi Nehemiah, who says that

a service performed outside in white garments

is indispensable, everyone agrees—

they did not disagree, and everyone agrees concerning the drawing of the lot

that it is indispensable

[since it is performed in white garments].

They disagree—

they disagree specifically

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that a service performed outside is not indispensable after the fact:

The one who says

[the one who said that] the drawing of the lot

is not indispensable [—

Rabbi Yohanan] has an obvious rationale:

in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that a service performed outside is not indispensable.

And the one who says

[the one who said that] the drawing of the lot

is indispensable [—

Rabbi Yannai] holds that although Rabbi Yehuda said that services performed outside are not indispensable, nevertheless,

here it is different—

the drawing of the lot differs from the other services because

the verse repeated it—

the Torah repeated it:

“upon which it came up,” “upon which it came up,” twice—

and there is a principle concerning sacrificial services that wherever the Torah repeats a matter twice, it is indispensable [even after the fact].

Meytivi

a refutation of the second formulation from a baraita:

It was taught in a baraita:

It is a mitzva to draw the lots. And if he did not draw the lots

[but rather said: This goat is for the Lord, and this goat is for Azazel],

it is valid

after the fact.

And the baraita poses a difficulty to Rabbi Yannai’s view, as he said that drawing the lot is indispensable.

Granted, according to this formulation—

it is understandable according to the first formulation

that you said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, everyone

[Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan]

does not disagree—

everyone agrees [according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda] concerning the drawing of the lot

that it is not indispensable,

and according to this it can be answered:

This—

this baraita [which says that if he did not draw the lots, it is valid after the fact],

whose is it—

who is the tanna who taught it?

It is Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yannai too agrees that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the drawing of the lot is not indispensable.