Yoma 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

As we learned:

the priest who was chosen to perform the burning of the incense throughout the year was instructed:

Be careful

not to begin from before you, lest you be burned,

because the incense that you have accumulated beside you is constantly burning, and your arm, which extends farther and farther, will be burned by the column of smoke that rises [Rashi]. It is written in the passage concerning the death of Aaron’s sons: “And the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and they died. And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he should not come at all times into the Sanctuary, within the curtain, before the cover that is upon the Ark, so that he should not die; for I appear in a cloud upon the cover.”

“With this shall Aaron come into the Sanctuary: with a young bull as a sin-offering, et cetera.”

“And he shall take a panful of fiery coals from upon the altar, from before the Lord, and a double handful of finely ground incense, and he shall bring it within the curtain. And he shall place the incense upon the fire before the Lord, and the cloud of the incense shall cover the cover that is upon the Testimony, so that he should not die.”

“And he shall take of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger. And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people. And he shall make atonement for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, and from their transgressions, for all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them amid their impurities.”

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And he shall place the incense upon the fire ‘before the Lord’”,

to teach you:

that he should not prepare

the incense upon the coals

outside

the Holy of Holies

and bring

it in that manner, in order

to refute the claim of the Sadducees, who say: He should prepare it outside—

and bring it in.

What did

the Sadducees expound?

And we explain: For it is written: “He should not come at all times into the Sanctuary, et cetera,”

“for I appear in a cloud upon the cover”,

meaning: He should not come at all times, because he should come with a cloud; the cloud should rise outside, and afterward he should enter [Ra’L ] and they forcefully explain “before the Lord” to mean the Sanctuary [Meiri].

The Sages said to them: But it has already been stated: “And he shall place the incense upon the fire ‘before the Lord’”,

which indicates that he places the incense upon the coals only “before the Lord,” that is, in the Holy of Holies. And

if so,

that he prepares it inside,

what is the meaning of

“He should not come, et cetera,”

“for I appear in a cloud upon the cover”,

which implies that he should enter only with a cloud—

It teaches that he places in it

the incense, when it is outside [Ra’L]—in addition to its eleven ingredients—also some of the herb called

ma’aleh ashan,

that causes the “cloud” of the incense to rise upright like a staff [based on Ra’L].

And from where is it derived that he places in it ma’aleh ashan

[the Gemara explains this below]?

As it is stated:

“And he shall place the incense upon the fire before the Lord,”

“and the cloud of the incense shall cover the cover”

that is upon the Testimony, so that he should not die. Thus, it is necessary that it contain something that produces a “cloud” [Ra’L].

And since the verse says “so that he should not die,” we learn:

indeed,

if

he did not place in it ma’aleh ashan

to fulfill the requirement of “the cloud of the incense” ,

or he omitted one of all its ingredients,

and burned it when it was incomplete, and the cloud of “the incense,” which implies a complete incense, was not produced, he

is liable to death.

And we raise a difficulty: Why do I need “so that he should not die” to teach that if he burned incense improperly he is liable to death—

For

it follows

from

the fact that he is liable to death , since

he enters with an empty-handed entry

[that is, he enters without need, Rashi], for he entered there only to burn the incense, and he did not burn the incense properly; and the verse has already stated: “He should not come at all times into the Sanctuary, et cetera, so that he should not die”!

Rav Sheshet said

in response:

Here, with what are we dealing:

For example, he was unwitting with regard to the entry,

that is, he did not know that an empty-handed entry incurs death [Ritva, and the implication of Rashi], and it is impossible to make him liable to death for it, since there is no death penalty for an unwitting act—

but he acted intentionally with regard to the burning,

for he knew that burning incomplete incense incurs death, and he is therefore liable to death for it, based on the verse: “And the cloud of the incense shall cover, et cetera, so that he should not die.”

Rav Ashi said

in response:

You may even say that he acted intentionally in this one,

the entry,

and

also

in that one,

the burning; and the verse was needed only

for a case such as:

He brought in

in a single entry

two portions of incense, one complete and one incomplete.

It follows that

with regard to the entry

empty-handed

he is not liable, for he did bring in a complete portion;

but

with regard to the burning he is liable, for he burned incomplete incense.

The master said: And from where is it derived that he places in it that which raises smoke? It is stated: “And it shall cover.”

The Master said: And from where is it derived that he places in it ma’aleh ashan? The verse states: “And the cloud shall cover”:

And we wonder: Is an additional

verse

of “and the cloud shall cover” really needed

for the verse

of “for I appear in a cloud,” from which we have already learned that he places ma’aleh ashan in it?!

Rav Yosef said

in response:

This is what it says: I have derived only

that he may place in the incense

a leaf

of

ma’aleh ashan,

but

the main part

[an entire root, not ground, according to Rabbeinu Ḥananel] of

ma’aleh ashan—from where

do we know that it too is valid?

The verse states: “And the cloud shall cover.”

Abaye

said

to him

to Rav Yosef, in astonishment:

But was it not taught conversely,

that the root is better than the leaves, and it is more logical to interpret the first verse as referring to the root and the second verse as referring to the leaf, which is inferior to it?!

For

this is what

was taught: If he placed in it the main part

of

ma’aleh ashan, it rose in a column like a staff until it reached the ceiling of the

[literally, “the heavens of the”]

roof,

that is, the height of the ceiling—

once it reached

the smoke of the incense

the ceiling,

the smoke

would grope and descend along the walls,

as smoke does when it cannot exit directly upward: It continually spreads above until the upper space of the House is filled from wall to wall, and when there is no more room, it gropes and descends beside the walls [Rashi],

until the House was filled with smoke, as it is stated: “And the House was filled with smoke.”

It is thus implied that when he placed the main part of ma’aleh ashan, it rose in a beautiful column, unlike when he used the leaf [Siaḥ Yitzḥak]; so the root is superior to the leaves.

Rather,

because of this difficulty

Abaye said: This is what it says: I have derived only the main part

of

ma’aleh ashan,

but

a leaf

of

ma’aleh ashan—from where do we know this? The verse states: “And the cloud shall cover,”

to include the leaf as well.

Rav Sheshet said,

explaining why two verses were needed for ma’aleh ashan:

I have derived

if only “for I appear in a cloud” had been written

only

that placing ma’aleh ashan was required in the

Tent of Meeting in the wilderness,

since it says: “Speak to Aaron your brother, et cetera, for I appear in a cloud, et cetera” [Tosafot above, 44a]; but in the Sanctuary of

Shiloh and

in the

permanent Temple

[the Temple],

from where

do we know it?

It follows from “and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them”

—which is stated later in the passage—

it follows,

for why did it say “that dwells with them” [Siaḥ Yitzḥak], if not to teach that wherever His dwelling is with them, they shall perform everything stated in the passage?! (150)

Rather, this is what it says: I have derived

that he places ma’aleh ashan in the incense

only on Yom Kippur,

but in the incense of

the rest of the year,

which the priests burn in the Sanctuary on the golden altar,

from where do we know it?

The verse states: “And the cloud shall cover.”

Rav Ashi said,

explaining:

Rav Ashi said,

explaining:

One

verse teaches that he places ma’aleh ashan in it

because the Torah repeated the matter, teaching you

that it is indispensable; this is the general rule: The Torah must repeat a requirement in order for it to be indispensable.

for the rule is that the Torah must repeat a requirement in order for it to be indispensable.

Rava said,

explaining:

One

verse—“And the cloud of the incense shall cover the cover that is upon the Testimony, so that he should not die”—is

for the punishment,

death for incense without ma’aleh ashan, since the verse says “so that he should not die”—

and one

verse—“And he should not come at all times into the Sanctuary, et cetera, for I appear in a cloud”—is

for the warning.

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar says:

“And the cloud of the incense, et cetera,

so that he should not die”—

this is

the punishment

for lacking ma’aleh ashan; “And he should not come at all times, et cetera,

for I appear in a cloud”—

this is

the warning

concerning ma’aleh ashan, [as Rava explained].

Could it be that both

the warning and the punishment

are stated before the death of

the two

sons of Aaron,

and it was said that Nadav and Avihu died because of this sin —

The verse states

at the beginning of the passage:

“After the death of the two sons of Aaron”,

and not before their death.

Could it be that both

the punishment and the warning

are stated

only

after the death of the two sons of Aaron—

the verse states:

“And he should not come at all times into the Sanctuary, et cetera,

for I ‘appear’ upon the cover,”

which implies that this was stated before the death of the two sons of Aaron, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

How, then,

are these two verses to be reconciled?

Warning

was stated above: smoke

before death.

And the punishment

for bringing up smoke is

after death,

and it was not for this reason that the two sons of Aaron died, but for another reason, as the Gemara will explain below.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the source—where is it implied from the verse that the warning was stated before their death?

where is it implied from the verse that the warning was stated before their death?

Rava said:

For indeed,

the verse states: “For in a cloud I shall appear”,

which implies:

and He had not yet appeared—the glory of God. But the death of Aaron’s sons occurred on the eighth day of the inauguration, concerning which it had already been stated: “And the glory of God appeared to all the people.” Thus, the warning had already been stated.

—the glory of God. But Aaron’s sons died on the eighth day of the inauguration, concerning which it had already been stated: “And the glory of God appeared to all the people.” It follows that the warning had already been stated.

But for what reason were they punished

the two sons of Aaron, since you say that the punishment had not yet been stated?!

And we answer:

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: They did not die

the two

sons of Aaron except because they issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Moses, their teacher;

that is, there was a temporary enactment to offer incense on the outer altar, and fire descended there from Heaven, but they ruled that fire should also be brought from ordinary sources, [Targum Jonathan and Tosafot, Eruvin].

Although they ruled correctly, since they issued the ruling without seeking permission from Moses, they were punished. You learn from this: anyone who issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher is liable to death, even if his ruling was correct, for the fear of one’s teacher is like the fear of Heaven [Meiri].

What did they expound,

the sons of Aaron, and learn from it that fire should be brought from ordinary sources?

“And the sons of Aaron the kohen shall place fire upon the altar,”

in order to teach you:

Even though the fire descends from Heaven

upon the outer altar, nevertheless

it is a mitzva to bring it from ordinary sources;

and this is the halakha.

We learned in the Mishna:

He went out and departed by the way he had entered:

From where are these matters

that he must leave by the way he entered, rather than turning his face away and departing?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: The verse states: “And Solomon came to the high place that was in Gibeon from Jerusalem

before the Tent of Meeting, and he reigned over Israel”—that is, he came from Jerusalem to offer at the high place in Gibeon before the Tent of Meeting, and he returned to Jerusalem to reign over Israel.

And what connection does Gibeon have with Jerusalem

that is, since it does not say, “And he came from the high place that was in Gibeon to Jerusalem,” or, “And he came to the high place that was in Gibeon from Jerusalem,” but rather, “in Gibeon, Jerusalem”;

it sounds as though Jerusalem were Gibeon, yet they are two distinct places [Maharsha]?!

Rather, his departure from Gibeon to Jerusalem is compared to his arrival from Jerusalem to Gibeon,

that is, this is the meaning of the verse: Solomon came to Gibeon, and just as he came to Gibeon, so did he come when he returned from there to Jerusalem. This teaches you:

Just as when he came from Jerusalem to Gibeon, his face was toward the high place, as was the way he had entered

[as is the way of those who enter]—

so too, when he departed from Gibeon to Jerusalem, his face was toward the high place, as was the way he had entered

[as he had come].

And likewise

the law applies to

the kohanim in their service—

the Levites on their platform,

who would sing upon it—

and the Israelites at their station,

in the Courtyard, representing all Israel at the sacrifice of the daily offering, as it is written concerning the daily offering: “You shall take care to offer to Me”; they would stand and watch over your sacrifice [Rashi]—

when they took their leave

[they withdrew and departed]:

they would not turn their faces away

with their backs toward the Sanctuary

and walk away; rather, they would turn their faces to the side and walk,

moving backward little by little and proceeding calmly on their sides until they left the Courtyard, like one who takes three steps backward after prayer. All this was out of reverence for the Temple [Maimonides].

And likewise, a student taking leave of his teacher should not turn his face away

from his teacher

and walk away; rather, he should turn his face to the side and walk,

recoiling backward with his face toward his teacher [Maimonides].

As in the case of Rabbi Elazar,

who was a student of Rabbi Yoḥanan [Ral],

when he was taking leave of Rabbi Yoḥanan

[when he was taking leave of Rabbi Yoḥanan]: A.

1.

When Rabbi Yoḥanan wished to walk away

[when Rabbi Yoḥanan wished to withdraw from him and leave],

Rabbi Elazar would bow,

Rabbi Elazar [he would bend his body], and

Rabbi Elazar would remain standing in his place

[he would remain standing in his place],

until Rabbi Yoḥanan was concealed

[Rabbi Yoḥanan disappeared from view]

from him

from Rabbi Elazar. B.

2.

And when Rabbi Elazar wished to walk away

[when Rabbi Elazar wished to leave],

Rabbi Elazar would walk

Rabbi Elazar

backward, until Rabbi Elazar was concealed

Rabbi Elazar

from him,

from

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

so that Rabbi Yoḥanan could no longer see Rabbi Elazar; only then would he turn and walk away in the usual manner.

When Rava was taking leave of Rav Yosef, he would walk backward

although Rabbi Yosef was blind and could not perceive this [Meiri],

until

his legs were battered,

[Rabbenu Ḥananel and the Arukh]

and the threshold of Rav Yosef’s house became soaked—

with blood,

for Rava’s feet were injured by the threshold of Rav Yosef’s door, which he had not noticed, and the threshold became washed with blood [Ral].