Yoma 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

Just as below

in the case of the bull of the anointed priest, the burning was performed

by means of dismemberment and not by means of flaying

the hide [as the Gemara will prove below].

So too here,

in the case of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, their burning was performed

by means of dismemberment and not by means of flaying.

And we raise a difficulty:

And there,

in the case of the bull of the anointed priest itself—

from where do we know

that it was burned after being dismembered, without being flayed?

As it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 4:11–12]: “And the hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs,

and its innards and its waste. And he shall take

the entire bull outside the camp.” The verse

teaches that he takes it out

when it is

whole.

One might have thought

that perhaps it should also

be burned whole,

since later in that same verse it states: “And he shall burn it.”

This cannot be said. For

it is stated here,

in the context of the burning of the bull of the anointed priest [ibid.], “its head and its legs.”

And it is stated elsewhere,

in the context of burning the olah: “the head” and “the legs.” As it is stated [Leviticus 1:8]: “And they shall arrange the pieces, the head and the fats.” And it further states [ibid., verse 13]: “And he shall wash the innards and the legs with water, and the priest shall burn it on the altar.”

Just as below—

just as in the case of the olah, the burning was performed

by means of dismemberment, so too here,

the burning of the bull of the anointed priest was performed

by means of dismemberment.

Perhaps

it may be said:

Just as below,

the dismemberment of the olah was performed

by means of flaying, so too here,

the dismemberment of the bull of the anointed priest was performed

by means of flaying.

The verse states

in the context [of the bull of the anointed priest]:

“And its innards and its waste”

—from here it is derived that it was not flayed.

And immediately the Gemara asks:

What is the derivation?

Where did we learn from this verse that it was not flayed?

Rav Pappa said:

The verse states: “And the hide of the bull and all its flesh … and its innards and its waste. And he shall take the entire bull … and burn it.” The verse juxtaposes the taking out of its innards and its waste [which are mentioned at the end of the verse] with the taking out of the hide of the bull and its flesh [which are mentioned at the beginning of the verse]:

Just as

at the time it was taken out,

its waste was in its innards, so

was

its flesh in its hide

[as he had not removed the hide from the flesh]. And it was likewise at the time of the burning, as it is stated later in that same verse, “And he shall burn it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

From when

do those engaged in burning the bull and the goat

render impure

the

garments

that they are wearing? Once they have gone outside the wall of the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: Once the fire has caught

The Gemara cites a beraita that explains the reasoning of the Sages:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 16:27–28] concerning the Yom Kippur service: “And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering

shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn

them with fire—their hides, their flesh, and their waste. And the one who burns them shall immerse his garments …”

There are three camps: the holiest of all is the camp of the Divine Presence. The second is the camp of the Levites. The third is the camp of Israel.

In this verse, the expression “outside the camp” is mentioned only once. This indicates that it is taken out of only one camp, namely, that the bull and the goat are taken out of the courtyard, which is the camp of the Divine Presence.

However, this cannot be said, since the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision is burned outside all three camps. And concerning the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision, it is stated [Leviticus 4:20]: “And he shall do with the bull [for an unwitting communal decision] as he did with the bull of the sin-offering; so shall it be done with it.” And the Sages expounded [Sifra, there]: “‘With the bull’—this is the bull of Yom Kippur.” From here it is derived that the bull of Yom Kippur and the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision are equal in their laws.

Therefore, the beraita is astonished:

Below,

in the case of the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision,

you assign them—

the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision and the bull of the anointed priest—space for their burning outside the

three camps.

[And we learned from the aforementioned verse that the bull of Yom Kippur has the same law as they do.]

But

if

here,

[in the context of the bull of Yom Kippur,]

you assign them

space for their burning outside

one camp

alone?!

Rather, certainly the bull of Yom Kippur, too, was sent outside the three camps.

And

if so, why is it stated

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur

“outside the camp,”

which indicates outside only one camp [i.e., outside the camp of the Divine Presence]?

To tell you: Once he has gone out,

the one who burns it,

outside one camp

[outside the courtyard,] immediately

the

garments

are rendered impure.

And this is the source for the statement of the Sages in our Mishna, that those engaged in burning the bull and the goat render the garments they are wearing impure once they have gone outside the wall of the Temple courtyard.

And we explain the words of the beraita:

We learned in the beraita: “Below [in the case of the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision] you assign them three camps, etc.”

And we raise a difficulty:

And there, in the case of the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision,

from where do we know

that its burning was performed outside the three camps?

And we answer:

As it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 4:12] concerning the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision of the anointed priest:

“And he shall take the entire bull

outside the camp,” meaning

outside the three camps.

And the beraita asks: Granted,

you say: outside the three camps,

but from where do you derive this?

Or

[perhaps]

it is not

as you say,

but

the intent of the verse is

outside one camp

alone!

The beraita answers:

When

[the verse]

states concerning the bull

brought for an unwitting communal decision of the

assembly

[there, verse 21]: “And he shall take the bull

outside the camp.”

There is no need to state this,

as there is no necessity to say so,

since it was already stated

later in the verse,

“And he shall burn it as he burned the first bull”

[and the first bull is the bull of the anointed priest mentioned in the preceding passage]. Since “outside the camp” is stated with regard to the first bull, it is self-evident that the bull of the assembly, too, is burned outside the camp! Why, then, did the verse have to repeat and say “outside the camp”?

The verse must necessarily intend

to assign it a second camp,

to say that their burning was also performed outside the second camp, which is the camp of the Levites.

And when

[the verse]

states

in the passage concerning the removal of the ashes [Leviticus 6:4, regarding the removal of the ashes from the outer altar

“And he shall take the ashes outside the camp,” with regard to

the

ashes, there is no need to state this,

as there is no necessity to say so,

since it was already stated

[Leviticus 4:12] concerning the bull of the anointed priest: “And he shall take the entire bull outside the camp …

to the ash heap.”

And from here it is evident that the ash heap was outside the camp. If so, why did the verse have to repeat and say, with regard to the removal of the ashes, “outside the camp”?

The verse must necessarily intend to say:

Assign it a third camp.

That is, these three matters —a. the bull of the anointed priest; b. the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision; c. the removal of the ashes—belong outside the three camps.

The Gemara returns to explain our Mishna: We learned in the Mishna: “And from when do they render garments impure? Once they have gone outside the wall of the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: Once the fire has caught in most of them.”

The reason for the statement of the Sages has already been explained in the aforementioned beraita: Since “outside the camp” is stated only once with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, this indicates that as soon as it has gone outside the camp of the Divine Presence [the courtyard], it renders garments impure.

And we object:

But

according to

Rabbi Shimon

[who holds that it does not render the garments impure until the fire has caught in most of them,]

this “outside the camp”

mentioned with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur is superfluous! For according to him, the garments of the one who burns it do not become impure [even when he has gone outside the three camps] until the fire has caught in most of them. And

what does he derive from it—

what does he learn from this verse?

And we answer:

He needs it;

this verse comes

for that which was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,

with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur,

“outside the camp,” and it is stated elsewhere,

with regard to the red heifer,

“outside the camp.”

As it is stated: “And he shall take it

outside

the camp and slaughter it before him” [Numbers 19]. And these are learned from one another by means of a gzera shava:

Just as here,

the burning of the bull of Yom Kippur was

outside the three camps

[as we learn the burning of the bull of Yom Kippur from the bull brought for an unwitting communal decision],

so too there,

the slaughter of the red heifer, with regard to which “outside the camp” is stated, means

outside the three camps.

And

likewise,

just as there,

in the slaughter of the red heifer, we learn from the verses that the slaughterer stands

east of Jerusalem.

So too here,

the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned

east of Jerusalem.

And Rabbi Eliezer, who taught this beraita, necessarily holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna, that “outside the camp,” stated with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, is superfluous; therefore, a gzera shava is derived from it.

However, according to the Rabbis, “outside the camp” is not superfluous [rather, it comes to teach that the garments of the one who burns it become impure when he leaves the camp of the Divine Presence], and one cannot derive through a gzera shava from it that the bull and goat were burned east of Jerusalem.

And

if so, the question arises: According to

the Rabbis, where did they burn them?

In which direction of Jerusalem did they burn them?

And we answer: The Rabbis hold

in accordance with that which was taught

in a beraita:

Where

were the bull and goat

burned?