Yoma 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Judah -

who said that the matters performed in white garments inside the Sanctuary -

held:

that which is performed in the

“place in which atonement is effected once a year” -

which is the Holy of Holies, where atonement is effected only on Yom Kippur - the term “statute” was stated with regard to them; and therefore only these rites invalidate and prevent atonement.

And Rabbi Neḥemya -

who said that the matters performed in white garments, both inside and outside -

held: matters through which atonement is effected once a year.

That is to say: both that which is performed in the place in which atonement is effected once a year, and that which is performed in white garments, with which atonement is effected by the High Priest only once a year, have the term “statute” stated with regard to them, and they invalidate and prevent atonement.

And we raise an objection to this: Is it so that

for Rabbi Judah “place

in which atonement is effected

is written?!

Rather, this is Rabbi Judah’s reasoning:

in reality, the primary meaning of the verse concerns all the rites of Yom Kippur; and the reason that only that which is performed in white garments inside invalidates and prevents atonement is that the other rites were excluded from the term “statute” -

as

it is written:

and

“this

shall be for you an eternal statute, indicating: this and not another”

; and it is written

as another exclusion: And this shall be for you an eternal statute,

“one

time a year” -

and we derive:

one

verse

serves to exclude the white garments used outside

, whose order does not prevent atonement.

And one

verse

serves to exclude the gold garments.

.

That is to say: Had only one exclusion been stated, we would have excluded only the gold garments, as all the rites performed in them are outside; since an additional exclusion is stated, even that which is performed in white garments outside is excluded.

And Rabbi Neḥemya

derives it in a different manner:

One serves to exclude the gold garments;

but the white garments are included, even those rites performed outside.

And one serves to exclude

the pouring of the

remainder

performed in white garments,

which does not prevent atonement

for the matter performed after it if it was performed before it; and although these rites are performed in white garments, their order does not prevent atonement [the wording of Rashi].

And the reason that its order does not prevent atonement is that, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, the pouring of the remainder does not prevent atonement.

And Rabbi Judah

holds that the pouring of the remainder does prevent atonement; and another priest slaughters the animal and begins with the applications on the altar, so that the blood will have the status of remainder [Zevahim 52b and Rashi there].

And since this is so, he says to you:

If they prevent atonement,

the other matters performed in white garments outside, when performed in their proper order - the remainder as well

prevents atonement

when performed in its proper order, since it prevents atonement;

and if

the others

do not prevent atonement,

these as well

do not prevent atonement,

that is to say: there is no reason to distinguish between the rites.

As it was taught [according to one of the opinions cited nearby], that Rabbi Judah holds that the pouring of the remainder prevents atonement:

It is written in the passage after all the sprinklings:

:

“And he shall finish atoning for the Sanctuary

and the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and he shall bring the live goat,” and it should have said only: “And he shall bring the live goat” [Rashi, Zevahim]; and why is “And he shall finish atoning for the Sanctuary” stated? To teach you:

If he “atoned

—

-

he “finished

—

;

these are the words of Rabbi Akiva

and if he did not “atone

he did not “finish,” the words of Rabbi Akiva, and this will be explained shortly.

Rabbi Judah said to him: Why should it not be stated

: Who prevents us from expounding the verse according to the order in which it is written? [Rashi there]:

If he “finished

—

-

he “atoned

—

;

and if he did not “finish” - he did not “atone,” for if he omitted one of the applications, he has accomplished nothing.

. And we say

And we say

in Zevahim to explain:

What difference is there between them?

And Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disputed this:

One said

: One said

to explain: According to everyone, the pouring of the remainder does not prevent atonement; and

the difference between them is only the manner of expounding the verses -

Rabbi Akiva understands that the verse should be expounded from its end to its beginning, and says: “The completion depends on the atonement, meaning the applications, while the remainder does not prevent atonement.”

—

And Rabbi Judah said to him: One may not expound it in this manner, for if so, you will not learn from it that all the applications prevent atonement, but only one application, as with the external offerings.

Rather, expound it as follows: If he finished everything as it is written in the passage, he effected atonement. And if he did not finish everything stated in the passage, he did not effect atonement. And we learn that if he omitted even one of the “applications,” he has accomplished nothing.

But the remainder does not prevent atonement, since it is not stated in this passage [as explained above, on 59a, and in Rashi]; rather, it is derived from the passage concerning the bull of the anointed priest [explained on the basis of Rashi, Zevahim 52b].

And one said: The difference between them is whether the remainder prevents atonement

between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Judah:

Rabbi Akiva holds: The remainder does not prevent atonement, and this is what he says: If he effected atonement through the essential applications, he finished, even if he did not pour the remainder.

Rabbi Judah holds: The pouring of the remainder also prevents atonement, and this is what he says: If he finished everything, then he effected atonement; and if he did not finish everything, the atonement effected through the applications is not atonement [Rashi].

Rabbi Yehuda holds: The pouring of the remaining blood also invalidates the service, and this is what the verse means: If he completed everything, he achieved atonement; but if he did not complete everything, the atonement achieved through the applications is not considered atonement. [Rashi]

And we raise a difficulty:

And we raise an objection:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this, that Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Neḥemya derive their opinions from the same verse, and according to Rabbi Neḥemya one exclusion concerns the pouring of the remainder, since the remainder does not prevent atonement?

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said

with regard to Rabbi Neḥemya’s statement in the Mishna in Zevahim: The remainder of the blood of the internal sin-offerings [there, 111a], which is poured onto the base, if one offered it outside the Temple courtyard, one is liable for it on account of “offerings slaughtered outside.”

It follows that Rabbi Neḥemya holds that this is a “rite,” like the other act of casting some of the blood [Rashi, Zevahim], and it is included in the verse: “Any man of the House of Israel who slaughters an ox or a sheep or a goat in the camp, etc. And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer an offering to the Lord, etc., that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

And Rabbi Yoḥanan explained:

The tannai

[taught]

Rabbi Neḥemya according to the opinion that says that the remainder prevents atonement;

but how could Rabbi Yoḥanan say here, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, that the remainder does not prevent atonement?!

And we conclude:

This is difficult!

Rabbi Ḥanina said:

: If he took a handful of incense before the slaughter of the bull, he accomplished nothing

If he took the handful of incense before the slaughter of the bull, he has accomplished nothing,

for we learned in the order of the service that the slaughter of the bull precedes the taking of the handful.

And we explain:

According to whom

did he say that the slaughter of the bull prevents the rite that follows it?

Not according to Rabbi Judah

of the earlier discussion,

for if it were according to Rabbi Judah, he said: When the term

“statute” is written, it is written with regard to matters performed in white garments inside

, while the slaughter of the bull is an external rite performed in white garments, and it does not prevent atonement.

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is according to Rabbi Judah:

The slaughter of the bull, which is

necessary

for the rite

inside

[the sprinklings inside and before the innermost chamber],

is considered like

the rite

inside

and prevents atonement.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Ḥanina: We learned in our Mishna: If, before he completed the applications inside, the blood was spilled, he shall bring other blood

from another bull that he shall slaughter,

and he shall again sprinkle, beginning inside.

And if it is so

according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who holds that the slaughter of the bull prevents the rites that follow it, then the taking of the handful of incense and its burning were performed out of order, since the slaughter of the bull that effects atonement was performed after them, and the first slaughter is considered as though it did not exist [Ra’ah].

If so: “ he shall again take the handful [and burn the incense and sprinkle from the blood]” would have been required for the tanna of our Mishna to say?!

. And if it is so

And if it is so

according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who holds that slaughtering the bull invalidates any rite performed after it if it was done out of order, then the scooping and burning of the incense were performed out of order, since the slaughtering of the bull that effects atonement was performed after them, and the first slaughtering is considered nonexistent [Rashal].

If so, the tanna of our Mishna should have stated: “He shall slaughter a bull,

again scoop

[and burn the incense and perform the sprinkling with the blood]”

it was necessary

for him to say this?!