Yoma 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

To the north of Jerusalem.

Because all the rites of the sin-offering were performed in the north.

And outside the three camps.

Rabbi Yosei says: They are burned at the ash heap —

the place where they are burned must therefore be called “the place of the pouring of the ashes,” and for this reason ashes are brought there from the altar before the bull and the goat are burned there.

It follows that the first tanna holds that it is not necessary to bring ashes there beforehand [and therefore Rabbi Yosei had to disagree with him].

Rava said: Who is —

who is the

tanna

first

who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei [that is,

who disputes Rabbi Yosei]?

It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

As it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 4:12], with regard to the bull of the anointed priest:

“It shall be burned at the place of the pouring of the ashes” —

to teach

that there must be there [that is,

in that place]

ashes [that is, ashes must be brought there beforehand]. And the law of burning the bull of Yom Kippur is derived from the burning of the bull of the anointed priest [as explained above].

which must be brought there beforehand. The law concerning the burning of the Yom Kippur bull is derived from the burning of the bull brought by the anointed priest, as explained above.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

The verse “It shall be burned at the place of the pouring of the ashes” comes to teach

that its location must be sloped,

a slope, so that if ashes were placed there, they would be poured down.

It follows that, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the verse does not come to teach that there must be ashes there; rather, it teaches that its location must be sloped [a slope]. If so, he is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei in the beraita cited above, and he holds that it is not necessary to bring ashes there beforehand.

Abaye said

to Rava: Your statement can be rejected:

Perhaps,

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov agrees that ashes must be brought there beforehand, and

they disagree only about whether its location must be sloped [that is, in the beraita they disagree over whether an additional condition is required—that its location be sloped]. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, two conditions are required: a. Ashes must be brought there beforehand. b. Its location must be sloped. [If so, there is no proof that the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei in the beraita cited above is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov].

and the beraita records a dispute over an additional requirement: that the place be sloping. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, both conditions are required: first, ash must be brought there; and second, the place must be sloping. Therefore, it cannot be proved that the tannait who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei in the beraita cited above is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.

The Gemara returns to discuss the law of the one who burns the bull and the goat according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that they do not render garments impure until most of them has caught fire.

The Sages taught

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: It is stated [Leviticus 16:28], with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur: “And the one who burns them shall wash his garments in water.”

And the beraita expounded:

“The one who burns

them” implies specifically that

the one who burns

who handles their bodies

renders garments impure, but not the one who kindles the fire

in the wood.

And not the one who arranges the pyre [

the pile of wood for kindling the fire], since they do not handle the body of the bull and the goat.

And who is “the one who burns”?

This is the one who assists during the burning,

who turns the limbs over so that they will burn more quickly.

And I

could

have said that

even after they have become ashes,

they still

render garments impure

of the one who handles their burning.

The verse states: “Them.”

Specifically when he burns

them

while they still exist, they

render garments impure. But once they have become ashes, they do not render garments impure [

since they no longer exist in their original form].

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The bull renders garments impure

as long as it is called “a bull.” But if

the flesh has been melted

by the fire,

it does not render garments impure

because it is no longer called “a bull.”

What is the difference between them —

what is the difference between the statement of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

There is a difference between them

in a case

where the fire has charred it,

where the fire has charred the flesh but it has not yet become ashes. According to the first tanna, it still renders garments impure. But according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, this is considered “the flesh has been melted,” and it does not render garments impure because it is no longer called “a bull.”

Mishna:

When the goat that was sent away reached the wilderness,

they said to him

those standing in the Temple courtyard

to the High Priest: The goat has reached the wilderness.

This was so that he could continue with the order of the day’s rites. As long as the goat had not reached the wilderness, he was not permitted to begin another rite. As it is stated [Leviticus 16:22]: “And he shall send the goat into the wilderness,” and afterward it is stated [verse 25]: “And the fat of the sin-offering he shall burn on the altar.”

And from where did

those standing in the Temple courtyard

know that the goat had reached the wilderness?

Lookout towers

—

they would construct

from Jerusalem to the wilderness.

And

those standing on them would

wave scarves [

as signals]. At first, the one nearest the wilderness would wave, and when the one nearest him saw him, he too would wave, until the one nearest Jerusalem waved, and those standing in the Temple courtyard saw him

and

they

knew that

the

goat had reached the wilderness.

Rabbi Yehuda said: But was there not

even without the lookout towers

a major sign for them:

For

from Jerusalem to Beit

Hidudo,

the beginning of the wilderness, there were

three mil,

and the distinguished people of Jerusalem who accompanied the High Priest

would walk one mil [

to the first booth]

and return

to Jerusalem that same

mil. And they would wait for the time required

to walk a

mil. And

by this means they

knew that

the

goat

had reached the wilderness.

Rabbi Yishmael says: But was there not another sign for them: A strip of crimson wool [

red wool]

was tied to the entrance of

the

Heikhal, and when the goat reached the wilderness, the strip turned white. As it is stated

[Isaiah 1]:

“Though your sins be like crimson

[like red wool],

they shall become white as snow.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: But was there not a major sign for them, from Jerusalem to Beit Hidudo, three mil, etc.?

Abaye said: Learn from this,

that

“Beit Hidudo”

which is “the beginning of the wilderness,” and where “he shall send the goat into the wilderness” was fulfilled—

is located in the wilderness [

it is found there].

And this teaches us,

and Rabbi Yehuda informed us that even though the goat had not yet reached the cliff, nevertheless

once

the

goat reached the

beginning of the wilderness, its

mitzva had already been performed,

and at that point the High Priest began to read the passage describing the rites of the day, as explained in the following chapter.

However, the Sages hold that the High Priest began to read the passage describing the rites of the day only when the goat reached the cliff.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Two Goats.”

Mishna:

Part of the mitzva of the day is the High Priest’s reading from the Torah, in the passages concerning Yom Kippur, after it became known that the scapegoat had reached the wilderness:

The High Priest came

to the Women’s Court, which was not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard and was not fit for Temple service,

to read

from the Torah scroll.

If he wished to read in garments of

the

linen

garments, in which he had performed the services of the day until then—

he reads

while wearing them.

And if not—

he reads in a

robe

of white,

made

from

his own

money.

The attendant

of the synagogue

of the

[which was on the Temple Mount, near the courtyard]

takes the Torah scroll and gives it to the head

of the

synagogue.

And the head

of the

synagogue

then

gives it to the deputy

High Priest.

And the deputy gives it to the High Priest.

And the High Priest stands, receives it, and reads

the passage of

“After the Death”

describing the order of the service,

and

in the passage of Emor he reads the passage of

“But on the tenth

” in which the mitzva of affliction and the prohibition of labor on Yom Kippur are explained.

And he rolls up the Torah scroll and places it in his lap.

And he says: More than what I have read before you

in the two passages that I read from the scroll

is written here

[in the Torah scroll, in the passage of Pinhas in the Book of Numbers. The Gemara will explain why he said this].

And that passage of the additional offerings of Yom Kippur in the passage of Pinhas, which begins with

“And on the tenth

of the seventh month

” in the Book of Numbers

[Numbers]—he

would read by heart.

And

he

would recite blessings over it,

after the Torah reading,

eight blessings:

a.

For the Torah—

the blessing “Who gave us a Torah of truth.”

b.

And for the service—

the blessing Retze, which concludes: “Whom alone we serve with awe.”

c.

And for thanksgiving—

the blessing “We give thanks to You.”

d.

And for forgiveness of sin—

the prayer “Forgive our ancestors on this Yom Kippur.”

e.

And for the Temple

he would recite a blessing

separately,

in a renewed prayer, which is not recited elsewhere; in it he prayed for the Temple and concluded: “Blessed are You, Who chose the Temple.”

f.

And for Israel

he would recite a blessing

separately,

in a special prayer for Yom Kippur in the Temple, concluding: “Blessed are You, Who chooses His people Israel.”

g.

And for Jerusalem

he would recite a blessing

separately.

h.

And for the priests

he would recite a blessing

separately,

concluding: “Blessed are You, Who chose the descendants of Aaron.”

And concerning the rest of the prayer

[the Gemara will explain].

One who sees the High Priest when he is reading—

does not see the bull and the goat that are burned.

And one who sees the bull and the goat that are burned—

does not see the High Priest when he is reading.

And this is not because he is not permitted

to see both.

Rather, the route was distant

between them,

and the service of both took place

at the same time

simultaneously.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers:

Since it teaches

that the High Priest could read the Torah

in a white robe of his own—

by inference

you learn

that reading—

is not a service.

And

nevertheless

it teaches: If he wished to read in linen garments—

he reads.

You may conclude: The priestly garments—

were given to benefit from

them even for enjoyment that is not required for service!

The Gemara rejects the proof:

Perhaps reading is different, for

it too

is a “need of the service,”

although it is not the service itself.

For we have raised the dilemma: The priestly garments—

whether

were given to benefit from

them even when one is not engaged in service,

or were they not given to benefit from them?

Come and hear

from the Mishna in tractate Tamid:

The priests did not sleep

in

sacred garments.

And we should infer:

It is sleep that they did not

sleep in sacred garments, out of respect for the garments, lest they break wind while sleeping in them.

But eating

to eat sacrificial food while wearing them—

they eat.

Although eating sacrificial food is not part of the service.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps eating

the flesh of sacrificial offerings is different because

it is a “need of the service.”

As it is taught

concerning the priests’ eating the flesh of offerings [Exodus 29]:

“And they shall eat them, for through them atonement was made

” teaches that the priests eat

the flesh of the sin-offering and guilt-offering,

and the owners achieve atonement

through the priests’ eating.

But the Gemara makes another inference:

It is sleep—

that they did not

sleep in priestly garments.

But walking—

they walk

in them even when it is not the time of service, although their walking is not a need of the service.

We reject this:

By rights, walking too they do not

walk, since they were permitted to wear priestly garments only for the sake of service.