Yoma 41b — the Talmud in English

According to his words, there is no proof at all that the version of the beraita is corrupt; rather, it should be assumed that it is correct.

And it is proven from the words of the beraita that it is possible to designate the name upon the birds not at the time of taking or making. And this is not in accordance with the words of Rav Hisda.

And if so,

what is there to say—

how shall we reconcile the words of Rav Hisda according to him?

And we answer: It must be said that one word alone is missing from the words of the beraita. And it is the way of the tannaim that sometimes one word is forgotten by them.

And according to his words,

do not say that the version of the beraita is: “A poor person who defiled the Sanctuary, who set aside money for his nest and became wealthy,

and afterward,

after he became wealthy,

said,

said: ‘These monies are for a burnt-offering and these monies are for a sin-offering.’”

Rather,

the wording of the beraita should be corrected by changing only one word, and

say that the words of the beraita are as follows: “A poor person who defiled the Sanctuary, who set aside money for his nest, and became wealthy, and afterward

took

birds with the money that he had set aside,

and said: ‘These monies I am giving for a certain bird, for my sin-offering. And these monies are for my burnt-offering’—

he adds and brings his obligation from the money of his sin-offering, but he does not add and bring his obligation from the money of his burnt-offering.”

And this is in accordance with the words of Rav Hisda, that the designation of the name was at the time of taking.

And we raise a difficulty concerning the Gemara’s answer:

Since we have said that the beraita reads

“took”,

this that we learned in the latter clause,

“he adds

money

and brings

a ewe for his

obligation from the money of his sin-offering”—“the money of his sin-offering”

“the money of his sin offering”—

what is it!?

What is “the money of his sin-offering”!? But he already bought a bird with this money, so how can he bring an animal with this money? After all, there is no money here to which he can add!

And we answer:

that he redeems it—

he redeems the bird that he bought, thereby taking it out to non-sacred status, and adds money from his own house to the redemption money of the bird, and purchases an animal with it.

And we challenge:

But a bird has no redemption!

For the law of redemption was not stated with regard to birds, and the bird forever remains in the sanctity of the offering, and it is impossible to take it out to non-sacred status.

Said

and explained

Rav Pappa:

When we explained above that the beraita reads “took and said”—there is no intention that he took two birds and said, “This one is for my sin-offering and this one is for my burnt-offering.”

Rather,

for example, when he

divided the money into two parts, and

took one bird,

one fledgling, purchasing with half the money only one offering [of the two that he was obligated to bring].

And thus the beraita said:

a.

If he bought a burnt-offering—

if with half the money he bought a bird for a burnt-offering, the remaining money thereby becomes designated for a sin-offering.

And therefore he

adds

money from his own house to it,

and brings his obligation

a ewe for a sin-offering

“from the money of his sin-offering,”

from the money that remained, which became designated for his sin-offering when with the other half he bought a bird for his burnt-offering.

And this,

that same bird which he bought for a

burnt-offering

when he was still obligated to bring an animal for a burnt-offering—

goes for a voluntary offering.

It is offered as a voluntary burnt-offering.

b.

If he bought a sin-offering,

if with half the money he bought a bird for a sin-offering, the remaining money thereby becomes designated for a burnt-offering.

And then he

cannot

be

adding

money from his own house to it

and

he cannot

bring

with it a sin-offering ewe for

his obligation from the money of his burnt-offering, since the sanctity of a burnt-offering has already taken effect upon the money, and one does not change from the sanctity of a burnt-offering to the sanctity of a sin-offering.

because the money has already acquired the sanctity of a burnt offering, and one may not change money from the sanctity of a burnt offering to the sanctity of a sin offering.

And this,

the bird which he bought for a

sin-offering—

goes to death.

It goes to death because it is impossible to offer a sin-offering as a voluntary offering.

Rather, he brings money from his own house and purchases a ewe for a sin-offering.

And incidentally, since the Gemara above brought the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rav Haga [concerning a wealthy person who defiled the Sanctuary and brought the offering of a poor person], the Gemara expands the matter:

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: A wealthy person who defiled the Sanctuary,

who is obligated to bring a ewe for his sin-offering,

and brought

birds that are

the offering of a poor person—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And Rabbi Haga said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: He has fulfilled his obligation.

A challenge

to the words of Rabbi Haga:

We learned in the Mishna in tractate Negaim [14:12]:

A poor person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a wealthy person

a ewe—

has fulfilled his obligation.

But a

wealthy person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a poor person

birds—

has not fulfilled his obligation.

Whereas Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person has fulfilled his obligation after the fact!

And we answer:

The case there is different—

the law of one afflicted with leprosy [mentioned in the Mishna there] differs from that of the other ascending-and-descending offering. And even Rabbi Haga agrees that a wealthy person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation.

Because

it is written [Leviticus 14], concerning the offerings of one afflicted with leprosy:

[Leviticus 14], concerning the offerings of a person afflicted with leprosy:

“This

shall be the law of the one afflicted with leprosy.” And the Sages expounded: “This” shall be his law, and not another! From here: if he changed from what was stated in the Torah concerning the law of one afflicted with leprosy, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And we challenge: Since the Torah emphasized concerning one afflicted with leprosy that “this” shall be his law and not another,

if so,

if that is so,

the first clause also,

the beginning of the Mishna, in which it is written: “A poor person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a wealthy person has fulfilled his obligation.” —

Why has he fulfilled his obligation? But the Torah excluded “this,” and not another!

And we answer:

Here the Merciful One included “law”!

The word “law” in the verse “This shall be the law of the one afflicted with leprosy” is superfluous, and it comes to include one law for all those afflicted with leprosy: all of them, even the poor person, fulfill their obligation with the offering of a wealthy person.

And it was taught: [in a conciliatory manner] that is, as we answered, it is explained in a beraita:

[as an agreeing statement], meaning that this resolution is explained in a beraita:

For thus we learned in a beraita:

“Law”—

to include a poor person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a wealthy person. Perhaps even a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person

has fulfilled his obligation?

The verse says—

for this purpose it said

“this” [and not another].

[and not another].

And the Gemara returns and challenges Rabbi Haga:

And let us learn from it—

why should we not learn from one afflicted with leprosy concerning the ascending-and-descending offering, that a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation? And we answer:

The Merciful One excluded—

the verse excluded the other obligated people who bring an ascending-and-descending offering, so that we should not learn them from one afflicted with leprosy. For it is stated concerning one afflicted with leprosy [there]:

“And if he is poor.” “He” signifies an exclusion. That is, he and not another. This teaches us that only concerning one afflicted with leprosy was it stated that a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation, but concerning the other obligated people who bring an ascending-and-descending offering, he has indeed fulfilled his obligation.

The word “he” indicates exclusion, meaning: he, but not another. This teaches that only in the case of a person afflicted with leprosy does a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person fail to fulfill his obligation; but in the case of the other people obligated to bring offerings whose type varies according to their financial status, he does fulfill his obligation.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna, the order of the lottery of the two goats is explained. And our Mishna continues to arrange the continuation of the Yom Kippur service.

a.

He tied

the High Priest

a strip

of wool

of crimson

red in color

on the head of

of

the goat that was sent away.

And they positioned

the goat

opposite the place of its sending-off,

opposite the eastern gate of the courtyard, from there they took out the goat, with its head toward the east [Ritva].

And for the slaughtered goat [

the sin-offering goat, which ultimately is to be slaughtered]

opposite the place of its slaughter.

And the Gemara will explain whether the intention is to position the slaughtered goat or to tie this strip of crimson.

b.

He came

the High Priest

to his bull

which stood between the Hall and the altar a

second time, and confessed

upon it, a second confession.

And thus he would say

in his confession:

Please, O Name! Please forgive the iniquities, the rebellions, and the sins that I committed in error, rebelled, and sinned

before You—I, my household, and the children of Aaron, Your holy people.

Please, O Name!

Please forgive the iniquities, the rebellions, and the sins that I committed in error, rebelled, and sinned before You—I, my household, and the children of Aaron, Your holy people.

As it is written in the Torah of Moses, Your servant [

that You forgive us on this day. Leviticus 16]:

“For on this day He shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you from all your sins; before the Lord you shall be clean.”

And they,

those standing in the courtyard, when they heard the Name emerging from the mouth of the High Priest, would prostrate themselves, and

respond after him: Blessed is the Name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.

Gemara:

We learned at the beginning of the Mishna, concerning the goat that was sent away, two laws:

a. He tied a strip of crimson on the head of the goat that was sent away.

b. And they positioned it opposite the place of its sending-off.

And afterward we learned one law concerning the slaughtered goat: And for the slaughtered goat—opposite the place of its slaughter.

They raised a question before them,

this question was asked in the study hall:

This,

that which we learned in our Mishna,

“And for the slaughtered goat—

opposite the place of its sending-off,” what is the intention of the Mishna:

Does it

refer to the tying

of the strip of crimson

refer?

And this is the intention of the Mishna: “And for the slaughtered goat,” for the sin-offering goat that is slaughtered, he would tie a strip of crimson “opposite the place of its slaughter,” on its neck, unlike the goat that was sent away, for which he would tie it on its head.

Or,

perhaps it

refers to the positioning

of the slaughtered goat

refers?

And this is the intention of the Mishna: “And for the slaughtered goat,” the sin-offering goat standing ready for slaughter, he would position it “opposite [the place of] its slaughter.”

And the Gemara proves:

Come and hear

that this refers to the tying of the strip of crimson, from this

which Rav Yosef taught,

a beraita:

He tied a strip of crimson on the head of the goat that was sent away, and positioned it opposite the place of its sending-off. And for the slaughtered goat, opposite the place of its slaughter.

And he did so in order

that this one would not become confused with that one,

the sin-offering goat with the goat that was sent away [and they would not know which goat was slaughtered for the Lord and which was sent to Azazel].

And

also in order that

it would not become confused

one of the two goats

with

goats

of other kinds.

Granted, if you say

that “and for the slaughtered goat, opposite the place of its slaughter”

refers to the tying

of the strip of crimson

refers—it is

well

understood what the beraita said: that by means of tying the strip of crimson on the neck of the slaughtered goat, one goat would not become confused with the other, nor would it become confused with the others.

But if you say that

it refers to the positioning

of the slaughtered goat

refers, that he positioned it opposite the eastern gate, but they did not tie a strip of crimson upon it, the words of the beraita are not understood. For—

Granted [

indeed this is correct]

that

the slaughtered goat

with its fellow,

the goat that was sent away,

does not become confused,

since

this

the one that was sent away

has a strip tied upon it,

a strip of crimson tied upon it,

and

whereas

this

the slaughtered one

does not have a strip tied upon it, a strip of crimson was not tied upon it.

because no crimson strand was tied to it—

But nevertheless,

with the others—

at least it does become confused.

With other goats, the sin-offering goat can still become confused. For it was not stated in the beraita that they tied a strip of crimson upon it, and if so, it can become confused with the other goats, upon which there is also no strip of crimson!

Rather, is it not, learn from this

that “and for the slaughtered goat, opposite the place of its slaughter”

refers to the tying.

They tied a strip of crimson to the sin-offering goat’s neck, so that it would not become confused with other goats.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

that this refers to the tying of the strip of crimson.

And now the Gemara brings a statement of Rabbi Yitzhak, from which it is explained what the measure of the size of the strip of crimson mentioned in the Mishna was:

Rabbi Yitzhak said:

concerning

two strips

of crimson

I heard,

that there is a distinction between them:

The two strips are:

One

is

of the cow,

a red cow, which they cast together with cedar wood and hyssop into the burning of the cow [Numbers 19].

And one

is

of the goat that was sent away,

which they tied on its head.

And the distinction between them is:

One

of them

requires a measure

of a certain size, as will be explained below,

and one

of them

does not require a measure,

and one may take a strip of any measure.

And I do not know which of them —

and I do not know concerning which of them they said that it requires a measure, and which does not require a measure.

Rav Yosef said: Let us examine it ourselves,

let us learn this matter from our own reasoning:

The strip

of the goat sent away, which requires division,

which they divided into two parts—half of it they tied to the rock, and half of it they tied between its horns— it is reasonable that it

requires a measure,

of a size that makes it possible to divide it into two.

And

the strip

of the red heifer, which does not require division,

for they did not divide it into two parts, it is reasonable that it is the one that

does not require a measure.

Rather, any amount is sufficient for it.

Rami bar Hama raised an objection against him:

But the strip of crimson wool

of the red heifer

red

also

requires that it have a measure, for

it requires weight—

it must have weight so that it will fall into the depth of the fire and not burn before it reaches the depth of the fire. For it is stated concerning it, there: “And he shall cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.” And “the midst of the burning” means its depth.

And since it requires weight, it must have a measure in its size, and any amount is not sufficient!

He said,

he answered

him, Rava,

to Rami bar Hama:

What you said, that the strip of the red heifer requires

weight,

is not agreed upon by everyone. Rather,

it is a dispute between tannaim,

the tannaim disagreed about this, as follows in the Gemara. And Rabbi Yitzhak holds in accordance with the one who says that the red heifer does not require weight, and therefore it does not require a measure [earlier Tosafot].

And the Gemara returns to discuss the substance of Rav Yosef’s words, who said that the strip of the heifer does not require division.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

does the strip

of the red heifer

red

not require division?!

Abaye raised an objection to him,

to Rav Yosef, from a contradiction from a Mishna, from which it is proven that the strip of the red heifer requires division:

For we learned in the Mishna [Parah 3:11]:

How does he proceed

with the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the strip of crimson wool [which he must cast into the burning of the red heifer]?

He binds them

in a single bundle

with the remnants of the strip,

with what remained of the strip that was tied with the cedar and the hyssop, which he cut from it for the purpose of binding [Rabbeinu Elyakim].

But it is proven from the words of the Mishna that they divided the strip of crimson wool into two parts [one was bound with the cedar and the hyssop, and with the other he tied all three of these kinds together in a single bundle]! And it is proven from it against Rav Yosef, who said that the strip of the heifer does not require division!

Rav Yosef answered Abaye: Do not interpret the words of the Mishna as you do.

Rather

say:

He would bind them

with the tail of a strip!

He would comb the strip toward one side, and hairs would emerge from it in the form of a tail [Rashi]. And the strip was so long that part of it was bundled with the cedar wood and the hyssop, and with the tail emerging from it he would bind all three of them together. But he did not divide the strip into two parts [according to Rav Hai and Rabbeinu Elyakim].

And since we learned above from Rava’s words that the tannaim disagreed concerning the strip of the heifer, whether it requires weight, the Gemara brings a teaching [a sugya] in which Rava explained who the tannaim were who disagreed about this:

Rabbi Hanin said in the name of Rav: The cedar wood and the crimson worm [

and the strip of crimson wool]

that the

flame

caught, that they were burned in the flame of the fire emerging from the burning, and did not fall into the actual depth of the burning of the red heifer [among the coals], even so, the heifer is

valid [

and it is not necessary to bring another cedar wood and another crimson worm].

He raised an objection

a contradiction to the words of Rabbi Hanin in the name of Rav, from a beraita:

For it was taught: If

the strip

[was singed]

the strip

of crimson wool in the air of the flame

he brings another strip and sanctifies it.

He casts it into the burning of the red heifer.

Abaye said,

he answered

it is not difficult:

Here,

the beraita is speaking

of a shooting flame,

of a flame that rises while standing upright, like a tall stalk of grass. And since the flame is high, and the strip burns at a distance from the core of the burning, he must bring another strip.

But

here,

in the words of Rabbi Hanin in the name of Rav, it is speaking

of

a flame

that bends,

which is low and bent, and all of it is close to the coals; therefore, the strip that burned there is considered to have burned in the “midst” of the burning.

Rava said,

another answer: Indeed, the beraita contradicts Rav’s words. For Rav said, “The cedar wood and the crimson worm [the strip of crimson wool] that the flame caught are valid.” Whereas in the beraita they taught, “If the strip was singed, he brings another strip.”

But there is no contradiction from the beraita to Rav’s words, since

the weight

of the strip of crimson wool of the red heifer

is a dispute between tannaim.

It is a dispute between tannaim, as follows:

For it was taught: Why

was he

binding

the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the strip of crimson wool?

So that they would all be in a single bundle.

Since it is stated there, “And he shall take cedar wood and hyssop and crimson worm,” it implies that he must take all of them at one time, and therefore he must bind them together,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

He would bind them

so that they would have weight and would fall

quickly

into the burning of the red heifer,

and would not burn while still in the air, in the flame, before reaching the actual interior of the burning.

And it is explained from the words of the beraita that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that there must be weight in the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the strip of crimson wool, because they must burn in the actual interior of the burning. Whereas according to Rabbi, there is no need for them to have weight, since the flame too is called “the interior of the burning.”

Up to here, the Gemara discussed the words of Rabbi Yitzhak, who said: I heard two strips, one requires a measure and one does not require a measure.

When

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

Concerning

three strips

of crimson wool

I heard

that there is a distinction between them:

One

is

of the red heifer,

which they cast together with cedar wood and hyssop into the burning of the heifer [Numbers 19].

And one

is

of the goat sent away,

which they tied to its head.

And one

is

of the leper,

who brings on the day of his purification two birds, cedar wood, crimson worm [which is a strip of crimson wool], and hyssop [Leviticus 14].

And the distinction between them is:

One

of the strips must be of

a weight of ten zuz,

and one has a weight of two sela, and one a weight of a shekel.

And I do not have

the ability

to explain

which of the strips each one of these measures was stated concerning.

When

when

Ravin

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he explained it,

he explained the statement brought by Rav Dimi, which of the strips each of the measures was stated concerning,

in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: