Yoma 60b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda —

who said [that the rule applies] to matters performed in white garments inside —

held:

that which is performed in the

“place” in which atonement is effected once a year

— and this is the Holy of Holies, in which atonement is effected only on Yom Kippur — ḥuḳḳah was stated concerning them; and therefore only these services invalidate and prevent fulfillment of the obligation.

And Rabbi Neḥemiah —

who said [that the rule applies] to matters performed in white garments, whether inside or 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 through which atonement is effected by the High Priest only once a year—ḥuḳḳah was stated concerning them, and they invalidate and prevent fulfillment of the obligation.

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

“place” was written for Rabbi Yehuda

in which atonement is effected

?!

Rather, this is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason:

in truth, the principal meaning of the verse concerns all the services of Yom Kippur, and the reason that only what is performed in white garments inside prevents fulfillment of the obligation is that the other services were excluded from ḥuḳḳah—

that

is written

: “And this”

“this”

shall be for you as an eternal statute, which implies: this and not another

; and it is written

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

“one”

year —

and we expound:

one

verse

to exclude white garments outside

whose order does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation .

And one

verse

to exclude gold garments

.

That is to say: had only one exclusion been stated, we would have excluded only gold garments [since all his service in them is outside]; and since another exclusion was stated, even that which is performed in white garments outside was excluded.

And Rabbi Neḥemiah

expounds [the verses] differently:

One [verse is] to exclude gold garments

, but white garments are included, even those [services] performed outside .

And one [verse is] to exclude

the pouring of

the remainder

performed in white garments

which does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation

of the matter later than it if they preceded it, and although they are performed in white garments, their order does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation [the language of Rashi] .

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

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds that the pouring of the remainder does prevent the atonement; and another [animal] is slaughtered, and he begins with the applications on the altar, so that the blood should have the status of “remainder” [Zevahim 52b and Rashi there]

. And since this is so, he says to you:

If [the other services] prevent fulfillment of the obligation

—the other matters performed in white garments outside—in their order, then even the remainder

prevents fulfillment of the obligation

in its order, since it prevents the atonement

and if

the others

do not prevent fulfillment of the obligation

, then these too

do not prevent fulfillment of the obligation

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

As it was taught

[according to one opinion stated below], that Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that the pouring of the remainder prevents the atonement: It is written in the passage after all the sprinklings

:

“And he shall finish atoning for the Sanctuary”

and for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar, and he shall bring the live goat; and it would have sufficed for it to say 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,”

but if he did not “atone”

—

he did not “finish”;

these are the words of Rabbi Akiva

,

and it will be explained shortly

. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why should it not be stated

who prevents us from expounding according to the order of the written text [Rashi there]

: If he “finished”

—

he “atoned,”

but if he did not “finish”

—

he did not “atone,”

for if he omitted one of the applications, he accomplished nothing

. And we say

And we say

in Zevahim to explain

: What is the difference between them?

And they disagreed about this

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

: One said

to explain: Everyone agrees that the pouring of the remaining blood does not invalidate the atonement;

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

the difference between them is only the meaning of the exposition

—

Rabbi Akiva understands that the verse is to be expounded from its end to its beginning, and he says: “The completion depends upon atonement, that is, upon the applications, while the remainder does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation.”

And Rabbi Yehuda said to him: One should not expound it in this wording, for if so, you will not learn from it that all the applications prevent fulfillment of the obligation, but only one application, as with the other external offerings.

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

But the remainder does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation, since it is not stated in this matter [as explained above, 59a, and in Rashi], but is learned from the passage of the bull of the anointed priest [explained according to Rashi, Zevahim 52b]

. And one said: the remainder preventing fulfillment of the obligation is the difference between them

between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda :

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

Rabbi Yehuda holds: the pouring of the remainder also prevents fulfillment of the obligation, and this is what he says: If he finished everything, then he effected atonement; but if he did not finish everything, the atonement of the applications is not atonement [Rashi]

. And we raise an objection :

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this

, that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemiah expounded one verse, and according to Rabbi Neḥemiah one exclusion concerns the pouring of the remainder, since the remainder does not prevent the atonement ?

But Rabbi Yohanan said

concerning the words of Rabbi Neḥemiah, who said in the Mishna in Zevahim: the remainder of the blood of the internal sin-offerings [there, 111a], which is poured upon the base, if he offered it outside the courtyard, he is liable for it on account of “offerings slaughtered outside” .

It follows that Rabbi Neḥemiah holds that it is a “service,” like one who throws part of the blood [Rashi, Zevahim], and it is included in the written text: “Any man of the House of Israel who slaughters an ox or a sheep or a goat in the camp, and so forth; and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it to offer an offering, and so forth, that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

And Rabbi Yohanan explained

: The tannai [

taught

] Rabbi Neḥemiah according to the words of the one who says that the remainder prevents

the atonement; but how did Rabbi Yohanan say here, according to Rabbi Neḥemiah’s view, that the remainder does not prevent the atonement

?! And we conclude :

It is difficult!

Rabbi Hanina said

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

,

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

. And we explain :

According to whom

did he state this, that the slaughter of the bull prevents the service later than it ?

Not according to Rabbi Yehuda

above ,

for if it were according to Rabbi Yehuda, he said: When

“ḥuḳḳah” is written, it is written concerning matters performed in white garments inside ,

and the slaughter of the bull is an external service in white garments, and it does not prevent fulfillment of the obligation

. And we reject this :

You may even say [that it is] Rabbi Yehuda

: the slaughter of the bull, which is

necessary for

the service

inside

[ the sprinklings inside and inside ],

is like

the service

inside

and therefore prevents fulfillment of the obligation .

And we challenge Rabbi Hanina

: We learned

in our Mishna

: If, before he finished the applications inside, the blood was poured out, he shall bring other blood

from another bull, which he shall slaughter

, and he shall again sprinkle, at the beginning, inside

. And if it is so

And if it is so

according to Rabbi Hanina, who holds that the slaughter of the bull prevents the services later than it, it follows that the taking of the handful of incense and its burning were performed out of order, for the slaughter of the bull that effects atonement was performed after them, and the first slaughter is as though it did not exist [Ra’avad]

. And if so: “‘He shall slaughter the bull’

he shall again take a handful

[ and burn it, and sprinkle from the blood ]”

it should have been necessary

for the tanna of our Mishna to say ?!