Yoma 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

because it is

a.

the removal of the ashes,

as explained.

b.

And the garments of the priesthood

the four white garments in which the High Priest enters the innermost place on Yom Kippur, and which require permanent burial. An ordinary priest may not perform the service in them throughout the year, nor may the High Priest wear them on another Yom Kippur, as it is written: “And he shall remove the linen garments that he wore when he entered the Sanctuary, and he shall leave them there”; and we expound: This teaches that they require burial. Thus, they are forbidden for benefit and one commits misuse of consecrated property through them even though their mitzva has already been performed

-

two verses that come as one,

which establish misuse of consecrated property with regard to items whose mitzva has been performed.

And whenever there are two verses that come as one, they do not teach

a principle applicable elsewhere, [as the fact that the verse does not write one, from which it could be derived for another context, indicates; Rashi, Kiddushin 24a]. Since they do not teach a principle and one cannot bring proof from them, it is preferable to expound the word “it” as meaning that it remains as it is, thereby teaching that the blood is permitted even before atonement, rather than to prohibit it even after atonement and the performance of its mitzva [Rashi, Zevachim].

And we challenge:

That works well according to the Rabbis, who say: “And he shall leave them there” teaches that they require

white garments

burial,

and even an ordinary priest may not use them.

But according to Rabbi Dosa, who says: The garments of the priesthood

of the High Priest

are fit for an ordinary priest,

for services that he performs in four garments, what can be said? What, then, does the verse “And he shall leave them there” teach? It teaches that the High Priest may not perform the service in them on another Yom Kippur.

What can be said?

Since an ordinary priest uses them, it necessarily follows that there is no misuse of consecrated property through them, because the Torah was not given to ministering angels, who are capable of removing them immediately. Thus, the white garments, too, are an item whose mitzva has been performed and through which one does not commit misuse of consecrated property, [Rashi]!

And we answer:

because it is

a.

the removal of the ashes.

b.

And the heifer whose neck is broken,

as it is written concerning it: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley”; and this word “there” is superfluous, to teach that its burial shall be there and that it is forbidden for benefit,

two verses that come as one.

And whenever there are two verses that come as one, they do not teach.

And we are still perplexed:

That works well according to the one who says:

two verses that come as one

do not teach,

for we have explained well that one does not commit misuse of consecrated property through the blood after its mitzva has been performed.

But according to the one who says:

two verses that come as one

teach, what can be said? Let us say that the verse “it,” stated with regard to the blood, teaches that even after atonement and the performance of its mitzva one commits misuse of consecrated property through it!

Let us say that the verse “it,” stated regarding the blood, comes to say that even after atonement and the performance of its mitzva one commits misuse with it?!

And we answer: Even according to the one who says that two verses that come as one teach, these two do not teach [Rashi, Hullin], since

two exclusions are written

in them. Concerning the removal of the ashes it is written:

“And he shall place it”

beside the altar [and it does not say “and there he shall place it”], indicating that he, and no other, shall place it. And concerning the heifer whose neck is broken it is written:

“The heifer whose neck was broken”

, the extra letter heh teaching: this one, and no other.

And these three verses concerning the blood [“for you,” it shall be yours; “to effect atonement,” I gave it for atonement; “it,” before atonement is like after atonement: just as after atonement there is no misuse of consecrated property through it, so too before atonement there is no misuse of consecrated property through it]

“for you”—it shall be yours; “to make atonement”—I gave it for atonement; “it”—before atonement is like after atonement: just as after atonement there is no misuse of it, so too before atonement there is no misuse of it—

why do I need them?

Would not one of them suffice? And we explain: The three verses do not all come to exclude the blood from misuse of consecrated property; only “it” serves that purpose [Rashi, Zevachim]. The verses are needed to exclude the blood from other prohibitions concerning consecrated property: (270)

One

verse—either “for you,” which indicates that it does not have the full status of consecrated property but is like ordinary non-sacred property, or “to effect atonement,” which indicates that it has the status of consecrated property only with regard to atonement—

to exclude

the blood

from leftover sacrificial meat,

to teach you that if one unwittingly ate leftover blood, he is liable only once, on account of blood; and if he was unwitting with regard to the blood but deliberate with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, he is not liable to karet, [Rashi].

And one

verse, “it,”

to exclude it from misuse of consecrated property.

And one

verse—either “for you” or “to effect atonement”—

to exclude it from ritual impurity,

for with regard to this it does not have the status of consecrated property. This teaches you that if one unwittingly ate the blood of consecrated offerings while in a state of ritual impurity resulting from contact with his body, he is liable only once, on account of blood; and if he was unwitting with regard to the blood but deliberate with regard to impurity, he is not liable to karet.

But

to exclude the blood

from piggul,

and to teach that if one ate blood from a piggul offering he is not liable on account of piggul,

there is no need for a verse of exclusion,

because there is another reason why he is not liable—

As we learned: Every

part of an offering

that has something that renders it permitted

[it is rendered permitted by virtue of another thing]

whether

it is rendered permitted

for

the eating of

a person,

such as the meat of consecrated offerings, which remains forbidden to eat as long as the blood has not been sprinkled,

whether

it is rendered permitted

for the altar,

such as the sacrificial portions, which the sprinkling of the blood renders fit for the altar.

If one rendered the offering piggul [he intended to eat it or burn it outside its designated time] during one of the four services involving the blood, and afterward ate from the meat that was included in the permission granted by the blood, or from the sacrificial portions, which are likewise included in the permission granted by the blood,

one is liable for it

to karet

on account of piggul;

but with regard to anything that is not rendered permitted by another thing, but renders itself permitted, one is not liable for it on account of piggul [the wording of Rashi, Hullin; the Sages derived this law from the peace-offering, with regard to which the primary law of piggul was stated, and which has something that renders it permitted for the altar and something that renders it permitted for a person]—

and the blood itself

is

itself “that which renders permitted”

and is not “rendered permitted” by another. Consequently, we know that one is not liable for it on account of piggul, and no verse is needed to exclude it.

Mishna:

The order of the High Priest’s service on Yom Kippur was [according to Rashi’s method in his commentary on the Torah; there are many views on this]:

a. Services that are not included among the “services of the day” and are performed in golden garments:

He slaughters the daily offering, receives its blood, and sprinkles it on the altar; he enters the Sanctuary and burns the morning incense and prepares the lamps; he leaves for the Temple courtyard and burns the limbs of the daily offering on the altar, together with its meal-offering and libations and his own griddle-offering.

b. The “services of the day,” performed in white garments: the first confession over his bull; the drawing of lots for the two goats; the second confession over his bull, its slaughter, and receipt of its blood; taking coals in the pan, taking handfuls of incense, and burning it; sprinklings in the innermost place from the blood of the bull; slaughtering the goat and sprinkling its blood in the innermost place; sprinklings from the bull’s blood before the curtain; sprinklings from the goat’s blood before the curtain; sprinkling both bloods on the golden altar and pouring their remnants onto the base of the outer altar; confession over the goat sent to Azazel.

c. Various services in golden garments:

Offering the High Priest’s ram and the people’s ram, which is among the “services of the day”; offering some of the additional offerings, which is not among the “service of the day.”

d. The “service of the day” in white garments:

Removing the ladle and the pan from the Holy of Holies.

e. Services that are not included among the “services of the day,” performed in golden garments:

Offering the rest of the additional offerings; offering the afternoon daily offering; burning the afternoon incense; and preparing the lamps as on every day.

Every act of Yom Kippur mentioned

in the Mishnayot of this tractate [Rashi]

in its proper order—if he performed one act before another

which was supposed to precede it—

the

act

which was supposed to precede it

has accomplished nothing.

If he

performed first

the sprinklings from

the goat’s blood before the bull’s blood,

which precedes it in the order of the sprinklings,

he must return and sprinkle from the goat’s blood after the bull’s blood.

If, before he completed the applications

of the bull or the goat

in the innermost place,

in the Holy of Holies,

all

the

blood

of the bull or the goat spilled, he slaughters another animal and

brings other blood and returns

and sprinkles

from the beginning,

from the beginning of the sprinklings,

in the innermost place.

And likewise,

if the blood

in the

middle of the sprinklings in the

Sanctuary

before the curtain spilled, he brings other blood and resumes from the beginning of the applications in the Sanctuary, but he need not repeat the sprinklings in the innermost place.

And likewise in the

event that the blood spilled in the middle of the sprinklings on

the golden altar,

he begins from the beginning of the applications on the altar, and does not repeat the applications in the innermost place or before the curtain.

The reason is: because

all of them

[the innermost place, the Sanctuary, and the golden altar—that is, each of them] are

atonement in its own right;

therefore, once an atonement has been completed, it is completed.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:

Even if he had begun the applications in one of them, he need not return; rather,

he begins from the place where he stopped

to sprinkle the new blood that he brought.

Gemara:

[See the note ]:

The Sages taught: Every act of Yom Kippur mentioned in its proper order—if he performed one act before another, he has accomplished nothing.

Indeed, although every act of Yom Kippur is invalid when it is not performed in the proper order, not every act that bypasses another invalidates the bypassing act and renders it as though it had been performed out of order. Rather, it is the bypassing of services concerning which “a statute” was stated [“And this shall be for you an eternal statute”] that invalidates, teaching that their order is indispensable. And the tannaim disagreed concerning which services are subject to “a statute,” so that their order is indispensable and invalidates later services that were performed before them.

And the tannaim disagreed

as to which services “statute” was stated regarding, whose order is indispensable and invalidates the later services that were performed before them.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? With regard to matters performed in

four

white garments in the innermost place,

in the Holy of Holies [the applications and the incense between the staves of the Ark, Rashi, Zevachim ]; for if a later service was performed before one of these—even if it was one of the services performed in golden garments outside the innermost place—it is invalid.