Yoma 60a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

because it is

a.

the removal of the ashes,

as was explained.

b.

And the priestly garments

—the four white garments in which the High Priest enters the innermost sanctum on Yom Kippur, and which require permanent concealment, and an ordinary priest may not serve in them throughout the entire year, nor may the High Priest [use them] on another Yom Kippur, for 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 concealment. Thus, they are forbidden for benefit and one commits misuse with them, even though their mitzva has already been performed

— two verses that come together

that contain misuse with things whose mitzva has been performed;

and every two verses that come together do not teach

to another place [since, had one of them been intended to teach to another place, it would not have been necessary to write both of them; Rashi, Kiddushin 24a].

And since they do not teach, and one cannot bring proof from them, it is preferable to expound “it” as “in its existence it shall be,” teaching that the blood is permitted even before atonement, rather than to forbid it even after atonement and the performance of its mitzva [Rashi, Zevachim].

And we object:

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

white garments

concealment,

and even an ordinary priest may not use them.

But according to Rabbi Dosa, who says: The priestly garments

of the High Priest

are fit for an ordinary priest,

for the services that he performs in four garments—and what does “and he shall leave them there” come to teach? That the High Priest should not serve in them on another Yom Kippur—

what is there to say?

For since an ordinary priest uses them, it necessarily follows that there is no misuse with them, because the Torah was not given to ministering angels, that they should be scrupulous to remove them immediately. It follows that the white garments too are something whose mitzva has been performed and with which one does not commit misuse [Rashi]!

And we answer:

because it is

a.

the removal of the ashes.

b.

and the heifer whose neck is broken,

for it is written concerning it: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley,” and this “there” is a superfluous verse, to say: there shall be its burial, and it is forbidden for benefit,

two verses that come together.

And every two verses that come together do not teach.

And we are still perplexed:

this works well according to the one who says:

two verses that come together

do not teach;

we have indeed settled that there is no misuse with the blood after its mitzva has been performed.

But according to the one who says:

two verses that come together

teach, what is there to say?

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 together teach—these two do not teach [Rashi, Hullin], since

two exclusions are written

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

“And he shall place it” beside the altar [and it does not say “and he shall place there”], implying it and no other; and regarding the heifer whose neck is broken it is written:

“the”

heifer whose neck is broken, the extra letter hei teaching: this one and no other.

And these three verses regarding the blood [“for you”—it shall be yours; “to make atonement”—I gave it for atonement; “it”—before atonement, like after atonement: just as after atonement there is no misuse with it, so before atonement there is no misuse with it]

And these three verses regarding the blood,

“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 are they needed?

Is not one of them sufficient?! And we explain: the three verses do not all come to exclude [the blood] from misuse, but only “it” [Rashi, Zevachim]; and the verses are needed to exclude blood from other prohibitions of consecrated things: (\270)

One

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

to exclude

blood

from notar

and to teach you: if one ate the blood of notar inadvertently, he is liable only once, on account of blood; and if he was inadvertent regarding blood but intentional regarding notar, he is not liable for karet, [Rashi].

And one

verse, “it,”

to exclude it from misuse.

And one

[verse], either “for you” or “to make atonement,”

to exclude it from ritual impurity,

for with regard to this it does not have the status of consecrated things, and to teach you: if one ate the blood of consecrated things while impure through contact with the body, inadvertently, he is liable only once, on account of blood; and if he was inadvertent regarding blood but intentional regarding impurity, he is not liable for karet.

But

to exclude blood

from piggul,

and to teach that if one ate blood from a sacrifice that was piggul, he is not liable for it on account of piggul—for this

no verse of exclusion is needed,

because for another reason he cannot be held liable—

For we learned: Every

part of the sacrifice

that has something that permits it

[it is permitted by means of another matter]

whether it is permitted

it is permitted

for

the eating of

a person,

such as the flesh of consecrated things, which, so long as the blood has not been sprinkled, is forbidden for eating,

whether it is permitted

it is permitted

for the altar,

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

If one rendered the sacrifice piggul [he intended to eat it or burn it outside its appointed time] in one of the four services of the blood, and afterward ate from the flesh that was included in the blood’s permission, or from the sacrificial portions, which likewise are included in the blood’s permission,

he is liable for it

to karet

on account of piggul;

but for anything that has no other matter permitting it, but itself permits itself, one is not liable for it on account of piggul [the wording of Rashi, Hullin; and the Sages learned this law from the peace-offerings, with which the primary law of piggul was stated, and peace-offerings have something permitting them on the altar and something permitting them to a person]—

and the blood itself

is

a “permitter”

and is not “permitted” by another. It follows that 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 the Pentateuch, though there are many methods regarding 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 upon the altar; he enters the Sanctuary and burns the morning incense and tends the lamps; he goes out to the courtyard and burns the limbs of the daily offering upon the altar, together with its meal-offering and libations and his minhat havitin.

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 the receiving of its blood; taking coals in the pan, taking handfuls of incense, and burning it; sprinklings in the innermost sanctum from the blood of the bull; the slaughter of the goat and the sprinkling of its blood in the innermost sanctum; sprinklings from the bull before the curtain; sprinklings from the goat before the curtain; sprinkling from both bloods upon the golden altar, and pouring their remnants at the base of the outer altar; confession over the goat sent to Azazel.

c. Various services in golden garments:

The offering of the ram of the High Priest and the ram of the people, which is among the “services of the day”; the offering of part of the additional offerings, which is not among the “service of the day.”

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

The removal of the pan and the censer from the Holy of Holies.

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

The offering of the remaining additional offerings; the offering of the daily offering of twilight; the burning of the evening incense; the tending of the lamps as on every day.

Every act of Yom Kippur stated

in the Mishnayot of this tractate [Rashi]

in order: if he performed one act before another

that was supposed to precede it,

the act

before the other

that was supposed to precede it

he has accomplished nothing.

If he

performed first the sprinklings from

the blood of

the goat before the blood of the bull,

which precedes it in the order of the sprinklings,

he shall return and sprinkle from the blood of the goat after the blood of the bull.

If, before he completed the applications

of the bull or of the goat

that are inside

in the Holy of Holies,

was spilled

all

the blood

of the bull or the goat, he shall slaughter another one and

bring other blood and return

and sprinkle

at the beginning,

from the beginning of the sprinklings,

inside.

And likewise,

if the blood was spilled

in the

middle of the sprinklings in the

Sanctuary,

before the curtain, he shall bring other blood and return to the beginning of the applications in the Sanctuary, and he need not repeat the sprinklings in the innermost sanctum.

And likewise if the blood was spilled in the middle of the sprinklings on

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 he does not repeat the applications in the innermost sanctum or before the curtain.

And the reason is: because

all of them

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

atonements in themselves;

therefore, an atonement that has been completed is completed.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:

even if he had begun with the applications on them, he need not return; rather,

from the place where he stopped, from there he begins

to sprinkle with the new blood that he brought.

Gemara:

See note

The Sages taught: Every act of Yom Kippur stated in 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 in order, not every bypassing of a service invalidates the service that was bypassed and renders its thought as though it had been performed out of order; rather, the bypassing of services regarding which “statute” was stated [“And this shall be for you an eternal statute”] teaches that their order is indispensable.

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 matters performed in

four

white garments inside,

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

But matters performed in white garments outside,

such as the lottery, the confession, the pouring of the remnants, and all the presentations at the curtain and the golden altar, which are performed in the Sanctuary [Rashi] -

If he advanced one act before another, what he did is valid,

if he advanced before them a later matter [whether from the service inside or from the service outside], these do not prevent him, to invalidate him [the wording of Rashi]].

Rabbi Nehemiah says: In what case are these words said? With regard to matters performed in white garments, whether inside or outside,

for if a later service was advanced before one of these matters, it is invalid.

But with regard to matters performed in golden garments outside,

such as his ram and the ram of the people , they do not have the power to prevent the service of bringing out the spoon and the coal-pan [performed in white garments inside], which according to the order of the day was supposed to be performed after them; and if he advanced it before his ram and the ram of the people

what he did is valid [

Rashi].

Rabbi Yohanan said: And both of them,

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah,

expounded one verse:

as it is written in the passage:

“And this shall be for you an eternal statute, once a year”,

and a “statute” indicates that it is indispensable, and it implies: with regard to a matter performed “once a year,” its order is indispensable -