Yoma 53a — the Talmud in English

For it was taught: They instruct him

the priest who was selected for the burning of the incense on all the days of the year:

Be careful ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that you do not begin in front of you, lest you be burned,

for the incense that you have accumulated beside you is always burning, and your arm, which is extending and proceeding, is burned by the column rising [Rashi]. It is written in the passage of Aharei Mot: “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, from within the curtain, to the face of the cover that is upon the Ark, and he shall not die, for in a cloud I shall appear upon the cover.”

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

“And he shall take a coal-pan full of fiery coals from upon the altar, from before the Lord, and his handfuls full of fine incense of spices, and he shall bring [it] from 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, and he shall not die.”

“And he shall take from the blood of the bull and sprinkle with his finger. And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people. And he shall atone 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, which 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 shall not prepare

the incense upon the coals

outside

the Holy of Holies

and bring

it in that manner, in order

to refute the position of the Sadducees, who say: He shall prepare it outside—

and bring it in.

What did they expound

the Sadducees?

And we explain: For it is written: “He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, etc.”

“For in a cloud I shall appear upon the cover”,

that is to say: He shall not come at all times, for he shall come in a cloud; the cloud will rise outside, and afterward he will come in [Raal]. And they force themselves to interpret “before the Lord” as referring to 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”,

so it follows 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 shall not come, etc.”

“For in a cloud I shall appear upon the cover”,

which implies that he shall come only in a cloud—

It teaches: that he places in it

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

maaleh ashan,

which causes the “cloud” of the incense to rise straight like a staff [according to Raal].

And from where

is it derived that he places in it maaleh ashan [it is explained 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, and he shall not die”—so it follows that there must be in it something that makes a “cloud” [Raal].

And since the verse said “and he shall not die,” we have learned:

indeed,

if

he did not place in it maaleh ashan

to fulfill “the cloud of the incense,”

or he omitted one of all its ingredients,

and burned it when it was lacking, and the cloud of “the incense,” which implies a complete one, was not fulfilled, he is

liable for death.

And we raise an objection: Why do I need “and he shall not die” to teach that if he burned incense not in accordance with its law, he is liable for death—

And

behold,

let it follow

that he is liable for death, since

he brings an empty entry

[he entered without need, Rashi], for he entered there only to burn the incense, and he did not burn the incense as prescribed, and the verse has already stated: “He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, etc., and he shall not die”?!

Said

in answer

Rav Sheshet: Here, with what are we dealing:

For example, he was unwitting concerning the entry,

that is to say: he did not know that there is death for an empty entry [the Ritba and the implication of Rashi], and it is impossible to make him liable for death on account of it, since there is no death penalty for an unwitting act—

and he was deliberate concerning the burning,

for he knew that there is death for deficient burning, and he is liable for death on account of it from the verse: “And the cloud of the incense shall cover, etc., and he shall not die.”

Rav Ashi said

in answer:

Even, you may say he was deliberate concerning this one,

the entry,

and

also

concerning this one,

the burning; and the verse was needed only

for example:

he brought

in one entry

two burnings, one complete and one deficient,

so it follows that

for the entry

empty

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

but

for the burning he is liable, for he burned deficient 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 maaleh ashan? The verse states: “And he shall cover”:

And we wonder: Does one need an additional

verse

of “and the cloud shall cover”

for the verse

of “for in a cloud,” from which we already learned that he should place maaleh ashan in it?!

Said

in answer

Rav Yosef: This is what it says: I have only

that he can place in the incense

a leaf

of

maaleh ashan,

but

the core

[a whole root that is not ground, the meaning according to Rav Huna] of

maaleh ashan—whence

that it too is valid?

The verse states: “And he shall cover.”

Said

in amazement

Abaye

to Rav Yosef:

But this was taught oppositely,

that the root is better than the leaves, and it is more reasonable to interpret the first verse concerning the root and the second verse concerning the leaf, which is less good than it—

For

this is what

was taught: If he placed in it the core

of

maaleh ashan, it would rise in a column and ascend like a staff until it reached the ceiling of the

[the language of “heaven”]

beam,

that is, to the height of the ceiling—

once it reached

the smoke of the incense

the ceiling beams,

the smoke

would move along and descend by the walls,

as smoke does when it cannot exit directly opposite it: it continually spreads upward until the upper space of the House is filled from wall to wall, and when it has no more room, it moves along 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 follows that when he placed in it the core of maaleh ashan, it would rise and ascend well, and not with a leaf [Siach Yitzhak]; so the root is better than the leaves.

Rather,

because of this difficulty

Abaye said: This is what it says: I have only the core

of

maaleh ashan,

but

a leaf

of

maaleh ashan—whence? The verse states: “And he shall cover,”

to include the leaf as well.

Rav Sheshet said,

to explain why two verses were needed for maaleh ashan:

I have only,

if only “for in a cloud” had been written,

but

the placing of maaleh ashan in the

Tent of Meeting in the wilderness

alone, since it says: “Speak to ‘Aaron’ your brother, etc., for in a cloud I shall appear, etc.” [Tosafot above, 44a]—but in the Tabernacle of

Shiloh and

in

the permanent House

[the Temple],

whence? The verse states: “And he shall cover.”

And we wonder: But

this is derived from “And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them”

—

it follows

from the continuation of the passage. For why did it say “that dwells with them” [Siach Yitzhak], if not to teach you: Wherever My dwelling is with them, they shall perform everything stated in the passage?! (150)

Rather, this is what it says: I have only

that he places maaleh ashan in the incense

on Yom Kippur,

but in the incense of

the rest of the days of the year,

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

whence? The verse states: “And he shall cover.”

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

Rav Ashi said,

explaining:

One

verse teaches that he places maaleh ashan in it

as a mitzva—

and one

verse, since Scripture repeated it in order to teach you:

to be indispensable,

for this is the rule: Scripture must repeat it 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, and he shall not die,”

for the punishment

of death for incense without maaleh ashan, for the verse said “and he shall not die”—

and one

verse: “And he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, etc., for in a cloud I shall appear”

for the warning.

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar says:

“And the cloud of the incense shall cover, etc.,

and he shall not die”—

behold,

a punishment

for [lacking] maaleh ashan; “And he shall not come at all times, etc.

for in a cloud I shall appear”—

this is

a warning

for [lacking] maaleh ashan, [as Rava explained].

Could it be that both of them,

the warning and the punishment,

are stated before the death of

the two

sons of Aaron,

and it was said: 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 of them,

the punishment and the warning,

are stated

only

after the death of the two sons of Aaron—

the verse states:

“And he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, etc.”

“For I shall appear” upon the cover in a cloud,

which implies [that they applied] before the death of the two sons of Aaron, as it proceeds to explain.

How then

are these two verses to be fulfilled?

A warning

was stated above concerning the smoke-producing substance

before death.

And the punishment

for the smoke-producing substance

after death,

and it was not for this reason that the two sons of Aaron died, but rather for another reason, as the Gemara explains and proceeds.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the textual basis,

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

Rava said:

For behold,

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

which implies:

and He had not yet appeared

the glory of the Lord, whereas the death of the sons of Aaron occurred on the eighth day of the inauguration, concerning which it had already been stated: “And the glory of the Lord 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 beraita: 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 master;

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

And although they ruled correctly, since they issued the ruling and did not take permission from Moses, they were punished. From here you learn: anyone who issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his master, even if he directed his ruling correctly, is liable to death, for the fear of your master is like the fear of Heaven [Meiri].

What did they expound,

the sons of Aaron, and learn from it to bring fire from an ordinary person?

“And the sons of Aaron the koen placed 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 an ordinary person;

and this is the halakha.

We learned in the Mishna:

He went out and proceeded by way of his entrance:

From where are these words,

that he must leave by the way he entered, and he does not turn his face and leave?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: The verse says: “And Solomon came to the high place that was in Givon, Jerusalem

from before the Tent of Meeting, and he reigned over Israel,” meaning: he came from Jerusalem to offer at the high place in Givon before the Tent of Meeting, and he returned to Jerusalem to reign over Israel.

And what connection does Givon have to Jerusalem,

that is: since it is not written, “And he came from the high place that was in Givon to Jerusalem,” or, “And he came to the high place that was in Givon from Jerusalem,” but rather, “in Givon, Jerusalem”;

it therefore sounds as though Jerusalem is Givon, yet they are two places [Maharsha]?!

Rather, his departure from Givon to Jerusalem is juxtaposed to his arrival from Jerusalem to Givon,

that is: this is the meaning of the verse: Solomon came to Givon, and in the manner in which he came to Givon, so did he come on his return from there to Jerusalem, to teach you:

Just as when he came from Jerusalem to Givon, his face was toward the high place, in the manner of his entrance

[in the manner of those entering]—

so too, when he departed from Givon to Jerusalem, his face was toward the high place, in the manner of his entrance

[in the manner in which he came].

And likewise

is the law with

the koanim in their service—

and the Levites on their platform,

who used to sing upon it—

and the Israelites at their station,

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

when they take their leave

[they withdraw and go away]:

they would not turn their faces

with their backs toward the Sanctuary

and walk, but they would turn their faces sideways and walk,

walking backward little by little and walking calmly on their sides until they left the courtyard, like one who takes steps backward after prayer; and all this was out of awe of the Sanctuary [Maimonides].

And likewise, a student taking leave of his master does not turn his face

from his master

and walk, but turns his face sideways and walks,

retreating backward with his face opposite his face [Maimonides].

As in this case of Rabbi Elazar,

who was the student of Rabbi Yoḥanan [Ra’al],

when he would take leave of Rabbi Yoḥanan

[when he would take leave of Rabbi Yoḥanan]:

a.

When Rabbi Yoḥanan wished to proceed

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

Rabbi Elazar would bend down,

Rabbi Elazar [he bent his body], and

Rabbi Elazar would remain standing in his place

[he would remain standing in his position],

until Rabbi Yoḥanan was hidden

[Rabbi Yoḥanan disappeared from sight]

from him

from Rabbi Elazar.

b.

And when Rabbi Elazar wished to proceed

[when Rabbi Elazar wished to leave],

Rabbi Elazar would walk

Rabbi Elazar

backward, until

Rabbi Elazar

was hidden from

from

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

so that Rabbi Yoḥanan could not see Rabbi Elazar; and there he would turn and walk in his usual manner.

When Rava would take leave of Rav Yosef, he would walk backward

although Rabbi Yosef was blind and could not recognize the matter [Meiri],

until

his legs were injured,

Rav Ḥisda and the Arukh,

and the threshold of Rav Yosef’s house became full

of blood,

Rava’s legs were wounded by the threshold of Rav Yosef’s door, which he had not noticed, and the threshold was washed with blood [Ra’al].