Yoma 39b — the Talmud in English

And there was an incident involving

one glutton

who took his portion and his fellow’s portion

[another glutton],

and they called him the son of ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Hamzan —

a robber,

until the day of his death .

Rabba bar Shila said: What is the verse? —

from which verse do we learn that Hamzan is a robber?

It is stated [Psalms 71:4]:

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

from the palm of

the wrongdoer

[one who does wrong]

and the robber

[and the robber].”

Rava said: From here

they learned that Hamzan is a robber: for it is stated [Isaiah 1:17]:

“Learn to do well, seek justice, vindicate

[strengthen]

the robbed one

[the robbed one].”

And incidentally the Gemara cites a homiletic interpretation that the Sages expounded in Tractate Sanhedrin [35a] on the end of the verse: “Vindicate the robbed one.”

And the Sages inferred:

“Vindicate the robbed one”

strengthen the robbed one,

and do not vindicate the robber

[and do not strengthen the robber]. From here [we learn] that they attend to the claimant first.

[For example: Reuven lent money to Shimon. And he sued him in the court to pay; Shimon answered: I had a pledge in Reuven’s possession and it was damaged or lost, and Reuven is liable for its safekeeping. The Sages learned from the verse that the court deals first with the lender’s claim. And only after Shimon pays do they deal with Shimon’s claim concerning the pledge. Rashi, Sanhedrin 35a, and see Tosafot there.]

The Gemara brings another beraita describing the greatness of Shimon the Just:

The Sages taught:

b.

In that year in which Shimon the Just died, he said to them

Shimon the Just said to the priests on Yom Kippur:

This year he

[a designation referring to himself]

dies.

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

into the Holy of Holies

and went out with me .

And

if

today

[on this Yom Kippur]

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

into the Holy of Holies

but did not go out with me.

[And from this Shimon the Just learned that he would die in that year.]

After the festival

[the Eighth Day of Assembly]

he became 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 Ineffable Name. For they were not worthy of this [Rashi].

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

And after Shimon the Just died, sometimes a favorable sign occurred for Israel and sometimes it did not.

In the beraita before us it is explained that there were forty years during which a favorable sign was never made for Israel in the matters mentioned above:

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

for the Lord

did not come up in the right hand, and the strip of crimson 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 for the enemies to come and enter the Sanctuary.

Until he rebuked them

[because of them]

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

in the Sanctuary.

And so

he said to it

Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai said to the Sanctuary:

Sanctuary, Sanctuary, why are you

terrifying—frightening

yourself?

Indeed,

I know concerning you that your end

that you

are destined to be destroyed.

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

And already Zechariah son of

[Berechiah, son of]

Iddo

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

“Open, Lebanon,

[the Temple]

your doors, and

[it is a sign that]

fire shall consume

[the enemies]

your cedars.”

[But why do you hasten so much to open your doors forty years [beforehand]?]

And we explain:

Rabbi Isaac ben Tavlai said: Why was its name called

the Temple

“Lebanon”?

Because

it makes white

[atones]

the sins of Israel.

Rav Zutra bar Toviah said: Why was its name 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.

For Rabbi Hoshaya said: When Solomon built

the

Temple, he planted in it all kinds of delicacies

beautiful fruits

of

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

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

was

blowing upon them, their fruits would fall,

as it is stated

[Psalms 72]:

“May his fruit rustle like Lebanon”

from here [we learn] that the fruits in Lebanon [the Temple] struck against one another and made noise when they fell, since they were made of gold .

And from them

[from these fruits]

there was sustenance for the priesthood.

And when the idolaters entered the Sanctuary, they withered

the trees.

As it is stated

[Nahum 1]:

“And the blossom of Lebanon withered.”

And in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore it

[restore them, Maharsha]

to us, as it is stated

[Isaiah 35]:

“It shall surely blossom and rejoice,

[the Land of Israel]

even rejoicing and exulting

[it shall rejoice and exult]

the glory of Lebanon

[the Temple]

has been given to it.”

[The glory of Lebanon is the golden fruit in the Temple.]

We learned in the Mishna:

He placed them

[he placed the two lots]

upon the two goats and says, “For the Lord—a sin-offering.”

The Gemara brings a beraita from which it is to be learned that the High Priest mentioned the Ineffable Name as it is written.

The Sages taught:

Ten times the High Priest mentions the Name

the Ineffable [as it is written]

on that day:

Three in the first confession

when he confessed over his sin-offering bull.

And three in the second confession

when he confessed over his sin-offering bull.

And three in the confession over

the confession that he made over

the scapegoat.

And one when

he gave the

lots

upon the goats and said, “For the Lord—a sin-offering.”

And already

there was an incident when

the

High Priest

said

the

Name , the Ineffable, and a miracle occurred

and his voice was heard in Jericho .

And the Gemara brings additional things that were customary in the Temple and were perceptible from a great distance.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: From Jerusalem to Jericho

there is a distance of

ten parsaot .

And

the

rubbing

of the hinges of the Sanctuary doors

when they opened the Sanctuary or closed it, was

heard at

a distance of

eight Sabbath boundaries [8

miles] .

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

in the Temple.

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

the

scent of the incense

reached as far as Jericho and they were perfumed by it.

A bride in Jerusalem does not need to adorn herself

with perfumes,

because

of the

scent of the incense.

And even though it is the practice of a bride to perfume herself more than other women [and the scent of the incense in Jericho was not sufficient for a bride], nevertheless, in Jerusalem the scent was strong and was sufficient even for brides .

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

and they would sneeze from the scent of the incense.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin said. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha said: An old man related to me: Once I went to Shiloh

where the Tabernacle had been in the days of the prophets

and I smelled the scent of incense from between its walls

for a scent had remained there on account of the incense that they had burned when the Tabernacle had been there.

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

Rabbi Yannai said: The drawing

of

the lot from

the

lottery box is indispensable to the service of the two goats [even after the fact]. That is, it is impossible to offer one goat for the Lord and send one goat to Azazel without his having drawn lots with his hands from the lottery box. For it is impossible to confer the sanctity of the sin-offering goat and the sanctity of the goat sent to Azazel through speech [of pronouncing the name]; 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 it is necessary to see which lot came up on the right, and the goat on the right will have the designation determined upon it; and which came up on the left, and the goat on the left will have the designation determined upon it.

But

the placing

of the lot upon the goat

is not indispensable to the service after the fact, even if they did not place the lot upon the goat. For the designation in the lot that came up on the right had already been established upon the goat on the right; and likewise the designation in the lot that came up on the left had been established upon the goat on the left.

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

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even the drawing

by lot

is not indispensable to the service of the goats after the fact, and if he designated one goat as a sin-offering and designated the other as Azazel, their service is valid. Rather, he 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.

Concerning the services of the Day of Atonement, the expression “statute” is stated [“And this shall be for you a statute forever, once a year,” Leviticus 16], to teach that the order of the services of the Day of Atonement is indispensable [even after the fact].

And the tannaim disagreed in a beraita [below, 60a] concerning which services the verse spoke.

The view of Rabbi Nehemiah is that the verse speaks of all the services performed in white garments, both services performed inside—in the Holy of Holies—and services performed outside—in the Sanctuary or the courtyard.

Whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse speaks of services performed in white garments in the Holy of Holies alone.

The Gemara discusses the words of Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan, who disagreed whether the drawing of a 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:

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,

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

They disagree—

and they disagreed specifically

according to Rabbi Nehemiah,

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

The one who says—

the one who said that the drawing of the lot

is indispensable [—

Rabbi Yannai]—his reason is obvious:

as

the words of

Rabbi Nehemiah,

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

And the one who says—

and the one who said that the drawing of the lot

is not indispensable [—

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

these matters

are stated specifically concerning

“service”

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

the drawing of the lot is not

within the category of

“service,”

and therefore it is not indispensable. Second formulation [in explanation of the disagreement between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan]:

Some say—

there are those who explain the disagreement between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan in another manner:

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

[for it is performed in white garments].

They disagree—

they disagreed 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], his reason is obvious:

as

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 even though Rabbi Yehuda said that services performed outside are not indispensable, nevertheless

here it is different—

the drawing of the lot is different from the other services, because

the verse repeated it

—the verse repeated concerning it:

“upon which the lot came up,” “upon which the lot came up,” twice—

twice; and there is a rule concerning the services of sacred offerings that wherever the verse repeated something concerning it twice, it is indispensable [even after the fact].

He raised an objection

a contradiction to the second formulation from a beraita:

They taught in a beraita:

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

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

it is valid

after the fact.

And it is difficult from the beraita against the view of Rabbi Yannai, who said that the drawing of the lot is indispensable.

It is understandable according to that formulation—

indeed, this is understandable according to the first formulation

that you said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, everyone

[Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan]

did not disagree—

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

that it is not indispensable;

according to this, one can answer:

This—

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

who is it—

who is the tanna who taught it?

It is Rabbi Yehuda.

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