GOD spoke to Moses, saying:

On the tenth day of the same seventh month you shall observe a sacred occasion when you shall practice self-denial. You shall do no work. You shall present to GOD a burnt offering of pleasing odor: one bull of the herd, one ram, seven yearling lambs; see that they are^bsee that they are See note at 28.19. without blemish. The grain offering with them—of choice flour with oil mixed in—shall be: three-tenths of a measure for a bull, two-tenths for the one ram, one-tenth for each of the seven lambs. And there shall be one goat for a purgation offering, in addition to the purgation offering of expiation and the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, each with its libation.

In everything, God always requires you, as a Jewish father, to instill in your children whom God has graced you with, while they are still with their father, that which God asks from you and your offspring. While they are still young, bring them close to God and encourage the desire in their hearts to be connected, embraced, and clinging to the Jewish people's life and fate. But on the evening of that day when you, yourself, celebrate the birthday of the Jewish people, God's creation of this amazing nation amid mankind, the beginning of your mission as a Jew — God dedicated this evening to sanctifying your offspring, to bringing your children into the covenant with you, your young children upon whose closeness to God or, God forbid, their profaning His name, the eternity of the Jewish people and the future of our nation depend upon. Through these children, you may nurture the planting of renown (alluding to Ezekiel 34:29), which God planted for eternity through the exodus from Egypt. So that they may grow and become worthy of being the fruit of holiness for jubilation — when you pass around the pieces of the bread of affliction [the matzah] to yourself and to them, while you are connecting to the mission of your people and the dedication of the Jewish people to the God of their fathers and His Torah — do not minimize the words that come out of the purity of your heart. Speak to them, to your children, and let them hear about the supernal nature of this sublime mission, to be a father to Jewish children and to be children of the living God. Teach them the concept of the bread of affliction; acquaint them with the spirit of the Passover holiday, which ascends upon high. Make them understand the supernal nature of God's deeds and wonders in Egypt and of the name of Israel, which He bequeathed to His people when He took them out from darkness to light and from slavery to freedom. Circumcision (Milah) When Avraham was 99 years old, Hashem appeared to him and said: "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me and be complete! I establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly." Then Avraham fell on his face, and God spoke to him, saying: "Behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall become the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Avram; rather, your name shall be Avraham, for I have made you the father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will establish you as nations, and kings will descend from you. I will uphold My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I give to you and your descendants after you the land of your sojournings, the entire land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." God then said to Avraham: "But you must also observe My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and this shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. At eight days old, every male among you shall be circumcised throughout your generations, whether born in your house or purchased with silver from a foreigner who is not of your descendants. Those born in your household and those bought with your silver must be circumcised, so that My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." (Genesis 17:1-14) Hashem also commanded Mosheh: "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman gives birth to a male child, on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised." (Leviticus 12:2-3) "Walk before Me and be complete!" Let your entire life be lived before My all-encompassing presence. In every moment of your existence, direct your gaze toward Me and dedicate every part of your life to My service! And thus, be whole! Do not divide your being—thinking that your spirit belongs to Heaven while your body belongs to the earth, that you serve God with your soul while indulging the desires of the flesh. Be whole! See even your body as an instrument of divine service, and recognize that every power, even those of the body, has been entrusted to you for a sacred purpose. Dedicate your body to Me just as you dedicate your soul, and thus be whole and unified—your entire being moved by a single thought, consecrated to the One and Only God. Thus, God spoke to Avraham when He commanded him to place His seal on the most physical part of his body, thereby sanctifying and consecrating the body for divine purpose. You must keep the forces of your body sacred. Do not squander them in base sensual indulgence. Do not use them against the will of your God, but rather for the purpose for which He has given them to you. Be a complete human, a complete servant of God! Even in the most physical of acts, see only a sacred duty meant for the holy purpose of building the world. Keep your physical strength sacred for this divine purpose and restrain the demands of the flesh within these sacred bounds. Know that God will hold you accountable for every ounce of energy you waste outside His service or use against His will. Let the seal of Avraham remind you of this! Let it restrain your actions when desire tempts you to stray. Be wise and understand! Do not deceive yourself by thinking: "There is nothing in the world as much under my control as my own body. Whom would I harm if I use my body according to my desires?" But know that in doing so, you sin against God, your Creator, who owns both you and your body, with all its desires and inclinations. He is your Father, the One who placed upon your flesh the holy covenantal seal. This is a sign that you must rule over your body and its desires, sanctifying them for God's purpose. The eternal survival of your people is also founded upon the preservation of the holiness and purity of the covenantal seal. It was designed in such a way that, among Israel, base physical desire cannot dominate entirely, leading to the corruption of the entire generation and its annihilation from among the nations—as happened to other peoples, whose indulgence in bodily lusts weakened them and drained the strength of their vitality, causing their destruction. But in Israel, even among sinful ancestors, pure children are born, ready to grow like strong seedlings. This ensures that from generation to generation, the Garden of God will flourish anew, and the spirit and glory of God will walk among it. When the spirit of a past generation has fallen due to its corruption, a new generation will arise in Israel, untouched by its predecessor’s impurity. But the desecration of the covenantal seal leads to human degradation, reducing one to the level of an animal, causing moral corruption, and bringing impurity into future generations. It defiles the dignity of family life, bringing upon them terrible and lasting afflictions that become an inheritance of disease from weakened ancestors to their descendants. Only a body that is strong and steadfast in holiness and purity can house a strong and sacred spirit. Thus says the Lord: "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you, for their generations, as an everlasting covenant—to be God to you and your descendants after you… And you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you, for their generations. This is My covenant that you shall keep between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised… And an uncircumcised male who does not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” One who rejects this covenant severs his connection to God and uproots the very foundations of his existence. Thus, God spoke to Avraham, and thus He speaks to every descendant of Avraham. And you, young men reading these words, do not carry the seal of Avraham in vain! Do not let yourselves be swept away by the degeneracy of the times! If you are truly the children of Avraham, you must uphold a high standard. Let this seal protect you from moral corruption! Let it strengthen you in times of struggle—it will surely help you achieve victory. When youth everywhere withers like a decayed flower, when society rushes toward spiritual decline, let your pride be in remaining strong, in standing firm in the holy calling that you bear as a son of Israel. "Walk before Me always and be pure, unblemished, and whole!" This is what God calls upon you to do through the seal of the covenant at every moment when temptation arises. Will you mock this call? Will you throw away the honor of Israel for the sake of fleeting animal pleasure? It is the duty of the father not only to physically nurture his child but also to raise him in mind and heart as a true human being and a Jew. Therefore, the father bears the responsibility to bring his son into the covenant of Avraham on the eighth day. If he neglects this duty, the communal authorities must ensure it is carried out. If they too fail, then every male descendant of Avraham, upon reaching religious maturity, is obligated to undergo circumcision himself. If he refuses, the Torah states: "That person shall be cut off from his people." Since circumcision is not merely a physical alteration but a spiritual elevation—raising the human being from animalistic indulgence to moral responsibility—it must be performed in the daytime, the time of action and purpose. A healthy child must be circumcised on the eighth day. If the child is sick or physically weak, circumcision is postponed until full recovery. If the illness affected the entire body, the procedure must be delayed for seven full days after recovery. If the condition affected only one limb, it is performed as soon as the child has regained strength. Since circumcision is an irreversible act, it is delayed in cases of doubt to protect the child's life. If two previous brothers died due to circumcision, a third son is circumcised only after he has grown stronger. If there is uncertainty about the exact birth time—whether it occurred before or after nightfall—the eighth day is counted from the following day. If the eighth day falls on Shabbat or a festival, circumcision is postponed to the ninth day unless it is known with certainty that the child was born during the day. All additional laws regarding circumcision can be found in sections 260-266. This is the “sin” through which a private individual falls and is humbled from his exalted position; this very sin is the one through which nations have strayed and have been wiped away from under the heavens of the Lord, and generations of human beings have been brought low to the dust. And it is none other than the sin and the iniquity through which Israel also fell and was humbled, because, due to this sin, “idolatry and the lusts of the senses” will always accompany him—yet such a thing must not be, for Israel must not descend to such a low level without the possibility of rising again, heaven forbid. For the Torah has acted countless times because of this and has always concerned itself to prevent Israel from being swallowed up and from being destroyed from the land. Therefore, let us not forget that the Lord placed us in the world of the Lord, for this world is the “property of the Lord,” and its gifts are given to us only for a specific purpose. To us have been entrusted many testimonies, commandments, and laws, some of which we have already come to know intellectually, and upon these depend also the commandments concerning the acquisition of the land—“new produce” and “orlah.” But just as the Lord gave the land to man to “serve and guard it,” so the Lord, for a second time in His world, bequeathed the “Land of Israel” to His people to be “the portion of their inheritance” according to their special actions. Israel, which is a people even without land and kingdom, is still called a “people” even before it attains “the land of its possession,” for the bond of nationality is not connected merely to the physical area of a place; rather, Israel is a “people” according to the great and enlightened idea inherent in the spirit of its essence. Israel bears this idea and the testimony of life, which it is called to fulfill, and this is in particular its divinely allotted portion. Nevertheless, because the Lord wished for Israel to be a “people” even in its external state among the nations, He gave it also a “special land” according to the special actions of His people. But in order that this land—which is intended to serve as the means to bring into effect the “name and testimony of Israel” in its fullness—does not become a source of stumbling or of corruption through the sin of property acquisition, the Lord commanded His people to observe these commandments in the land: “Shemittah” (the Sabbatical year), “Yovel” (the Jubilee), “Bikkurim” (first fruits), “Terumah” (offering), “Ma’aser” (tithes), “Challah” (dough offering). Especially concerning the acquisition of the land of Israel, Shemittah and Yovel, on the one hand, testify in themselves as a judgment of justice, since the Lord is the Master of all this property; and on the other hand, by prohibiting the labor of the land in its acquisition, they testify according to the understanding of “Sabbath” with regard to property acquisition in general. We must consider, on the one hand, “new produce” and “orlah” with regard to the acquisition of land in general, and on the other hand, “Bikkurim,” “Terumah,” “Ma’aser,” and “Challah,” since they are intended specifically for the acquisition of the “Land of Israel.” Of these latter, we will only mention “Challah,” which, according to the Kabbalah, remains incumbent upon us even now. Behold, if you have given your word and promise to give over ownership and money has been given in accordance with the decree, however, the sale has not been finalized by one of the methods of acquisition — we may not say that the matter was completed and they are allowed to go back on it. Nevertheless, if either the buyer or the seller goes back on it after money was received or after the buyer placed a sign on the merchandise, the curse of, "He who exacted payment," is given to him in court. That is, "He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians at the Sea, He will exact payment from whoever does not stand by his word" (Bava Metzia 48a). And even one who only does business orally is obligated by his word, even though he has not performed an action. Yet even though a buyer or seller who only goes back on his word does not receive the curse of "He who exacted payment," he is called one lacking in faith. Anyone who promises something to his fellow in a way that his fellow should be able to rely upon it and goes back on it is considered someone lacking in faith (Choshen Mishpat 204). Indeed it is so — do not destroy [bal taschit]! That is God's first great general call to you, man. That is when you see yourself as the ruler and governor over the face of His earth. Behold, you see dirt, plants, and animals around you; and they already carry the seal of your human projects, to study and appraise them, through human effort and ingenuity, to serve your human purposes, to have them become your shelter, clothing, sustenance, and tools. So you have acquired them, that they should be in your possession, such that you stand amid your rulership over the face of the earth and all that exists are your servants to do your will and bidding. Yet you suddenly raise your hand to amuse yourself or to pour out your anger and swallow up and destroy something that can [otherwise] be used for your purposes. But you want to pound and break and obliterate that thing that you can make helpful and use properly. You surely desire this since, when you see creations below your level as things disconnected from justice and righteousness, you do not fear the Lord. Yet He is indeed their Shield and Protector, taking up their case with justice. So instead of thinking about them as means for the thoughtful acts of man, you see them haughtily, to have your power and the might of your will rule over them and to pour out your furious rage over them. Then the voice of God's great call thunders over you, "Do not destroy! Get away from it; act like a human being!" For it is truly only by using that which exists around you for the thoughtful and reasonable use of man as My Torah guides and designates that you are a man. Then you have power and possession over them. For I have given you, man, power and possession over them by way of a divine mandate. However, if you destroy, if you ruin, if you obliterate, you are no longer man, but rather a wild animal or a predatory beast, so that you no longer have possession over what exists around you. For I have lent them to you only for wise human use. So don't ever forget that I am the One who lent them to you! However, if you act perversely, if you act without intelligence and good sense towards anything, small or big, behold you are acting wickedly, rebelling and stealing from God's earth! Behold, you then turn into a murderer and robber of God's possessions. You are a sinner, and you have violated the holiness of the possession. Then God will make this call to you and protect everything, small or big, with this call. With the utterance of this word, He will grant righteous justice to the small or big against the plots of your heart and the violence of your hand! It is not for the sake of the prevention of bodily sickness that God arranged these laws about your food. Rather the Torah itself explains their reason: Just like the Temple of God, which symbolizes the ideal of the holy and sanctifies you for His sake, becomes defiled by impurity - that is, anything that is foreign to, or below the human realm (see the section on Service, Chapter 21) - so too are the forbidden foods "impure" for the holy sanctuary that you yourself constitute. Your body, your soul and your spirit form the essential playing field of your existence, which is designated for holiness. If you eat these foods, your body may well be nourished and become fatter. However, your animal impulse will be greatly aroused; or your body will only become a tool for your spirit. Instead of your soul becoming sanctified - meaning raising itself above any trace of animalism - it will descend to this low level, or become apathetic and lethargic. And your spirit can expect to encounter a greater struggle for which it is less equipped. It calls out to you again and again: It is impure to you! Do not defile yourselves with them! You will become impure from them! The meaning of becoming impure is to compromise preparedness for the designation of holiness. And behold you have been designated to be holy people, the children of a great holy congregation; and you have been chosen to attach yourselves to God and to walk in His ways. God said to you to be holy, "since I, your God, am holy." So then, you must guard your bodies like the holy sanctuary for your divine souls. As behold, the body is also for God. And that which is generally referred to as impure (tumah) is also referred to as something repulsive (sheketz), a disgusting thing. Something repulsive and disgusting is something that you reject on your own as a foreign body that is unfit for your constitution. And so just like your body naturally rejects anything that the sense of taste finds to be a foreign substance or unfit; so too must you reject these foods because they are repulsive, foreign and unfit for your spiritual constitution. Lest your spiritual constitution itself become repulsive, and you become distanced and turn away from your holy designation which you are meant to carry as a Jew. Likewise, abomination (toevah) - your spiritual constitution should abominate these foods, since they are antithetical to your spiritual designation and only nourish your animal impulse. These are the words of God's Torah. The main things about a mikveh (ritual bath) are: That the water should not be gathered by a person's possession, meaning a vessel; and also not arrive through any object that is susceptible to becoming impure. And [the water] must be gathered in one place. It can be flowing water or rain water that has not flown through or over anything that is susceptible to becoming impure. When rain water, it must be standing and not running. And the mikveh needs to have the necessary amount of water, and the like. Regarding the immersion, there may not be anything that separates between the thing that is being immersed and the water; and it must be completely placed within the water of the mikveh and fully immersed. (See Yoreh Deah 120, 201, 202.) Be fruitful and multiply! From now on, plant the planting of your species in the world. From now on, grow the thread of life at every instance and every time. Raise your offspring for all time so that they will continue to build and establish what you have left still unfinished and not yet sturdy. Plant your vine in the garden of the Lord, your species on the earth, so that it will grow to be a faithful planting in the vineyard of the House of Israel. And do everything in your power for your offspring, to raise them and educate them for God. And all the good things that you have acquired, fear of God, love of God, trust in God, living with faith in God — bequeath all these things to the next generation. With such an inheritance, you will continue through your offspring and their actions; and you, too, will live on and be remembered eternally. Let your house not be closed and sealed only for yourself and your household, to be a place of rest and peace only for yourselves. Rather let it be open for the benefit of the desolate poor people, for the hungry, the thirsty and for all who seek shelter and refuge for themselves. You should happily and lovingly bring in any guest who has no other letter of introduction that would recommend him except for that which comes from his being a creation of the Omnipotent, a son of our Father in Heaven. Hence receive him joyfully, bring him into your house, supply his needs and even accompany him [when he leaves] so that he will be secure on his journey. On these days that are memorial days of joy, they should not say such things that mention something sad relating to the fleetingness of life or sad thoughts about distressing matters - like veHu rachum (and He is merciful), rachum vechanun (merciful and compassionate), El erekh apayim (God full of patience) and yaankha (He should answer you). Likewise [is this the case] on other days primarily marked by joy besides Channukah and Purim: The fifteenth of Av; the fifteenth of Shevat; Rosh Chodesh (the first day of the month); Purim Katan; the thirty-third day of the omer; the eves of Yom Kippur and Rosh HaShanah; all of the month of Nissan; the days between Yom Kippur and Sukkot; from Rosh Chodesh Sivan until the day after Shavuot. Also [is this true] on private days of joy that have a national character, like a house of nuptials and a milah (circumcision). (They say yaankha at a milah with regard to the child for his healing.) Also [do we omit these] at the house of a mourner and on Tisha B'Av, for other reasons. 2) Festivals First we acknowledge that the creation of both the body and the spirit of the Jewish people was from God ("You have chosen us... And you have brought us close"); and that the maintenance of the body and the spirit of the nation is also an act of God ("and Your great name"). We then make note of the special import of this holiday ("and gave"). Then we speak about the special character of the day - whether it is about the creation of the Jewish people or its maintenance, the request from God concerning the creation or maintenance of the Jewish people is in, "May it come and may it ascend," and in, "And raise up for us." This is like, "God and God of our Forefathers, accept," on Shabbat. This is to bring down the blessing of the holiday: Life, peace and joy - may they come to fruition in our lives. And after the standing prayer (amidah), we recite the Hallel. On the first days of Pesach and on all the days of Sukkot, it is 'full Hallel,' like Chanukkah. But on the later days of Pesach, it is like Rosh Chodesh (the first day of the month): We skip [some sections] and recite 'half Hallel.' (The reason is explained nicely: It is because the latter days of Pesach do not only remind us of the salvation of the Jewish people, but rather also of the downfall of the Egyptians and their drowning in the sea. So it is like the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say [Yalkut Shimoni on Nakh 1085], that it is not good to say and prolong verse and praise about the destruction of the creations of God. That is why Hallel is not full [on those days]. Tisha B'Av at night: The scroll of Lamentations. It is the emotions of the prophet Jeremiah's soul and his dirge that he took up about the destruction of the holy city of Jerusalem and the Temple. And it is especially about the sin that Jerusalem and his people sinned, which is what caused that awful destruction to happen. And while glancing with eyes full of tears, he instructs and shows the path that leads to repentance and towards the revival of Israel, to renew our days as of old (alluding to Lamentations 5:21). Sukkot: They recite Ecclesiastes in the morning service of Shabbat of the intermediate days of the festival (Chol HaMoed) of Sukkot. As it shows that the maintenance of the body and the spirit of the nation is through God. This is in order to know that, without God, all human competition, all human actions and calculations, as well as the results of the toil of his efforts and his mighty hand - they are altogether empty.

out of order and he was answered in order. He should have asked first whether Saul would come down, and afterward what the people of Keilah would do. And once he realized that he had asked out of order he went back and asked in order, as it is stated immediately afterward: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And God said: They will deliver you” (I Samuel 23:12). But if the matter is urgent and requires asking two questions simultaneously, there being no time to follow the standard protocol, one may ask both questions simultaneously and he is answered with regard to the two questions together, as it is stated: “And David asked of God, saying: Shall I pursue after this troop? Will I overtake them? And He answered him: Pursue, for you will surely overtake them, and will surely rescue” (I Samuel 30:8). The Gemara notes the reliability of the Urim VeTummim: Even though a decree of a prophet can be retracted, as sometimes a dire prophecy is stated as a warning and does not come true, a decree of the Urim VeTummim cannot be retracted. As it is stated: “By the judgment of the Urim” (Numbers 27:21). The use of the term judgment suggests that the decree is as final as a judicial decision. Why is it called Urim VeTummim? Urim, which is based on the word or, light, is so called because it illuminates and explains its words. Tummim, which is based on the word tam, completed, is because it fulfills its words, which always come true. And if you say: In the battles following the incidents in Gibeah of Benjamin (Judges 19–20), why did the Urim VeTummim not fulfill its words? The Jewish People consulted the Urim VeTummim three times with regard to their decision to attack the tribe of Benjamin, and each time they were instructed to go to battle. However, the first two times they were defeated and only on the third attempt were they successful. Is this not proof that the UrimVeTummim does not always fulfill its words? The Gemara answers: The first two times they did not check with the Urim VeTummim whether they would be victorious or be defeated but only inquired how and whether they should go to battle. Had they asked, they indeed would have been told that they would not succeed. But on the last time, when they did check and inquire whether they would be successful, the UrimVeTummim agreed with them that they should go to battle and that they would succeed, as it is stated: “And Pinehas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And God said: Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand” (Judges 20:28). How is it done? How does the Urim VeTummim provide an answer? The names of the twelve tribes were engraved upon the stones of the breastplate. These letters allowed for the answer to be received. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The letters of the answer protrude, and the priest then combines those letters to form words in order to ascertain the message. Reish Lakish says: The letters rearrange themselves and join together to form words. The Gemara asks: How was it possible to receive an answer to every question? But the letter tzadi is not written within the names of the twelve tribes engraved on the breastplate’s stones. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were also written there. The name Yitzḥak, Isaac, contains the letter tzadi. The Gemara asks again: But surely the letter tet was not written on the breastplate, since it is not found in the names of the Patriarchs nor in the names of the twelve tribes. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Shivtei Yeshurun, the tribes of Jeshurun, was also written there. The word shivtei, tribes, contains the letter tet. In this way the entire alphabet was represented. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Any priest who does not speak with Divine Spirit and upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest is not consulted to inquire of the Urim VeTummim. As Zadok inquired of the Urim VeTummim and it was effective for him, and he received an answer; but Ebiathar inquired and it was not effective for him, and he did not receive an answer. As it is stated: “But Ebiathar went up until all the people had finished” (II Samuel 15:24), which is taken to mean that he was removed from the High Priesthood since the Divine Spirit had departed from him. The Gemara asks: If it is true that the letters of the breastplate protrude or even join together to form the answer, why does the High Priest need the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence to be with him? And if he has the Divine Spirit and Divine Presence with him, why does he need the Urim VeTummim? The Gemara answers: The Divine Spirit assisted the Urim VeTummim. In other words, the letters formed the answer only if the High Priest himself was worthy, but his divine inspiration was not great enough to provide an answer without them. § It was taught in the mishna: And the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs. From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God; by his mouth they shall go out, and by his mouth they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation” (Numbers 27:21). Each phrase describes a different circumstance in which the Urim VeTummim may be consulted: “He”; this is a reference to a king, as “he” refers to Joshua, who had the status of a king. “All the children of Israel with him”; this is a reference to the priest anointed for war, as all of the Jewish people follow him to war according to his instruction. “Even all the congregation”; this is a reference to the Sanhedrin, who are the heads of the Jewish people. MISHNA: On Yom Kippur, the day on which there is a mitzva by Torah law to afflict oneself, it is prohibited to engage in eating and in drinking, and in bathing, and in smearing oil on one’s body, and in wearing shoes, and in conjugal relations. However, the king, in deference to his eminence, and a new bride within thirty days of her marriage, who wishes to look especially attractive at the beginning of her relationship with her husband, may wash their faces on Yom Kippur. A woman after childbirth, who is suffering, may wear shoes because going barefoot causes her pain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis prohibit these activities for a king, a new bride, and a woman after childbirth. The mishna elaborates: One who eats a large date-bulk of food, equivalent to a date and its pit, or who drinks a cheekful of liquid on Yom Kippur is liable to receive the punishment of karet for failing to fulfill the mitzva to afflict oneself on Yom Kippur. All foods that one eats join together to constitute a date-bulk; and all liquids that one drinks join together to constitute a cheekful. However, if one eats and drinks, the food and beverage do not join together to constitute a measure that determines liability, as each is measured separately. GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the mishna’s terminology, which states that it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur. Why does the mishna use the word prohibited, which indicates that these activities are only sinful? It is, after all, punishable by karet if he eats, and the mishna should have used the more accurate word liable. Rabbi Ila said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said: This term is needed only for a half-measure, meaning that if one eats less than the amount that incurs the punishment of karet, he still violates a prohibition. The Gemara asks: This explanation works out well according to the one who said that a half-measure is prohibited by Torah law even though it does not incur a punishment. But according to the one who says that a half-measure is permitted by Torah law, and that it is the Sages who prohibit eating less than a full measure, what is there to say about the terminology? The Gemara explains: as it was stated that amora’im debated the nature of a half-measure of a forbidden substance: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited by Torah law, and the Torah prohibits even a minute amount of forbidden substance. Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah law. This explanation works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. However, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish concedes that a half-measure is prohibited by rabbinic law. If so, Reish Lakish, too, will say that eating or drinking a half-measure is prohibited on Yom Kippur, by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: If so, if according to Reish Lakish there is a rabbinic prohibition to eat a half-measure, one should not be liable to bring an offering for breaking an oath to eat a half-measure of forbidden foods. Why, then, did we learn in a mishna otherwise: He who swore the following oath, an oath that I will not eat, and then ate unslaughtered animal carcasses, tereifot, reptiles, or creeping animals, he is liable to bring an offering for violating his oath. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. And we discussed it: Why should he be liable for breaking an oath? He was already sworn and obligated at Mount Sinai, along with the rest of the Jewish people, not to eat these things. According to halakha, an oath does not take effect if it contradicts a previously existing oath. The second oath to not eat has no effect in terms of eating forbidden foods, so why should one be liable for breaking it? Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to this: Here we are dealing with a case where one includes permitted foods with forbidden foods. This means that had one sworn only not to eat unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot and then ate them, he would not be liable for breaking the oath because he was already sworn not to eat those foods. However, if one swore not to eat at all, his oath takes effect on permitted foods. Consequently, if he eats any food he is liable. And Reish Lakish said: The only application of this mishna you will find is in a case where one explicitly says that he will not eat a half-measure, and this is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They say that when one swears that he will not eat, he prohibits himself only from eating a whole measure of food. If he eats a half-measure, he has not violated a prohibition. Therefore, in order for a half-measure to be prohibited, he needs to specify this in his oath. Or, you find it in the case of one who makes no specification at all of a half-measure,

that a koy is its own species, and the uncertainty pertains not only to whether it is a wild or domestic animal, but also to whether it even can fit into one of those two categories. For if you do not say so and maintain that it might be its own species, how can we understand that which Rav Idi bar Avin said, that also the word “all” stated in the verse: “All blood you may not eat, whether of birds or of beasts” (Leviticus 7:26), comes to include the koy. Now, if you say that the koy is a case of uncertainty, is a verse necessary to include an uncertainty? Rather, the koy is obviously its own species, and therefore it is different and needs a special verse to include it. Here too, in the case of the forbidden fat, we could say that the koy is its own species, and therefore it is different. Consequently, Reish Lakish’s opinion cannot be proven by this baraita. § After clarifying the wording of the mishna, the Gemara brings a halakhic midrash to analyze the mishna’s laws. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And this shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month on the tenth day of the month you shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 16:29). I might have thought that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to suffer and afflict his soul; therefore the continuation of the verse states: “And you shall not do any labor, the home-born, or the stranger that lives among you” (Leviticus 16:29). This teaches that just as prohibited labor is a mitzva that requires one to sit and do nothing, as one is commanded to refrain from action, so too, affliction of one’s soul is also a mitzva requiring one to sit and do nothing. One is not commanded to be proactive in order to afflict his soul. Rather, one must refrain from specified actions such as eating and drinking. The Gemara asks: And say that it means that when one sits in the sun and it is too hot for him, we do not say to him: Get up and sit in the shade. Or, if one sits in the shade and it is too cold for him, we do not say to him: Get up and sit in the sun. These are also cases of affliction involving sitting and doing nothing. The Gemara rejects this: It must be similar to the prohibition of labor. Just as with regard to prohibited labor you did not distinguish between situations, since the prohibition is independent of one’s personal circumstance, so too, you do not distinguish with regard to affliction, which is not affected by one’s circumstance. It was taught in another baraita that as the verse states: “You shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 16:29), I might have thought that one must sit in the sun or the cold and be uncomfortable; therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “And you shall not do any labor” (Leviticus 16:29). Just as prohibited labor is something that incurs karet in other circumstances, like Shabbat, so too, affliction relates to acts that in other circumstances incur karet. And what is that circumstance? That is referring to piggul and notar, which lead to karet if eaten, and which therefore may not be eaten on Yom Kippur. The baraita continues: I will include the categories of piggul and notar, for which one is punished with karet if eaten during the year, but I will not include untithed produce, which does not cause one to incur the punishment of karet if eaten. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall afflict” (Leviticus 16:29), and it also states: “And you shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 16:31). The Torah comes to include another affliction of a serious eating prohibition, i.e. untithed produce. The baraita continues: I will include untithed produce, for which one receives death at the hand of Heaven; but I will not include an unslaughtered animal carcass, which, although it is prohibited for consumption, one who eats it is not punishable by death at the hands of Heaven. Therefore, the verse states “you shall afflict” and also “and you shall afflict your souls.” The Torah includes foods that are associated with a prohibition even if one who eats them is not punishable by death. The baraita continues: I will include an unslaughtered animal carcass, which is prohibited by a negative mitzva, but I will not include non-sacred, regular food, which is not prohibited by a negative mitzva. Therefore, the verse states both “you shall afflict” and “and you shall afflict your souls.” Although non-sacred food is not prohibited in general, the Torah includes it in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. The baraita continues: I will include non-sacred food, which is not associated with any positive mitzva to arise and eat, i.e., there is no obligation to eat non-sacred food; but I will not include teruma, which one is required to arise and eat, as priests are commanded to eat teruma. Therefore, the verse states “you shall afflict” and “and you shall afflict your souls.” The Torah includes teruma as well in the foods one is prohibited to eat on Yom Kippur. I will include teruma, which is not subject to the command: “You shall not leave over” (Leviticus 22:30), since teruma need not be consumed within a specific time, but I will not include sacred food, which is subject to the command “you shall not leave over”; it is prohibited to leave the meat uneaten after a certain amount of time. Therefore, the verse states “you shall afflict” and “and you shall afflict your souls,” to include the category of sacred food in the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur. Consequently, the Gemara has demonstrated that it is prohibited to eat any type of food on Yom Kippur. And if it is your wish to say something to challenge this reasoning, the Gemara brings an additional proof: Surely, the verse states with regard to one who violates Yom Kippur: “I will destroy that soul from among his people” (Leviticus 23:30). Therefore, affliction is something that destroys a soul. And what is that? That is refraining from eating and drinking, since someone who does not eat and drink at all will die. The Torah is not referring to other afflictions that do not lead to death. These are the words of the baraita. The Gemara explains: What is meant by: And if it is your wish to say? What flaw did the first proof have? The Gemara explains: And if you say the verse is discussing relations with those with whom relations are forbidden, avoidance of which is also called affliction, and it is not discussing eating and drinking, the verse states: I will destroy that soul, meaning an affliction that can cause death. And what is that? That is refraining from eating and drinking. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught the following concerning the nature of Yom Kippur: The word affliction is stated here with regard to Yom Kippur, and the word affliction is stated further on in a different place, concerning the Jews in the desert: “And He afflicted you and caused you to hunger” (Deuteronomy 8:3). Just as further on the meaning of affliction is hunger, so too, here, the meaning of the word affliction is hunger. The Gemara asks: And let us derive it not from the verse that indicates affliction of hunger but from the verse where Laban warns Jacob: “If you shall afflict my daughters” (Genesis 31:50), which is referring not to hunger but to marital relations. The Gemara answers: We derive affliction commanded to the public on Yom Kippur from affliction relating to the public, i.e., the Jewish people in the desert, and we do not derive affliction of the public from affliction of an individual, as in the case of Jacob’s wives. The Gemara continues to challenge the view of Rabbi Yishmael: And let us derive it from affliction stated with regard to Egypt, as it is written: “And He saw our affliction” (Deuteronomy 26:7). We say that this verse is referring to abstinence from conjugal relations. The Egyptians prevented the Jewish people from having relations. This affliction is an example of public affliction that is not abstention from eating or drinking. Rather, the prohibition to eat or drink on Yom Kippur should not be learned as stated previously, but as follows: We derive affliction by the hand of God from affliction by the hand of God, i.e., affliction caused directly by God or through His mitzvot; and we do not derive affliction by the hand of God from affliction by the hand of man. § Apropos the verse: “And he afflicted you and caused you to hunger, and fed you with manna” (Deuteronomy 8:3), the Gemara expounds related verses. The Torah states: “Who feeds you manna in the desert which your fathers did not know, in order to afflict you” (Deuteronomy 8:16). What affliction was there in eating the manna? Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed on the matter. One said: There is no comparison between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. The affliction in eating the manna lay in there being no leftover food for the next day. Each day the people worried that they might not have any food to eat the next day. And one said: There is no comparison between one who sees the food and eats it and one who does not see the food and eats it. Though the manna could taste like anything, it always looked the same and did not look as it tasted. Being unable to see the food that they tasted was an affliction. Rav Yosef said: From here there is an allusion to the idea that blind people eat but are not fully satisfied when they eat because they cannot see their food. Seeing the food contributes to the enjoyment of eating. Abaye said: Therefore, from what we have just learned, one who has a meal should eat it only during daytime, when there is light to see the food that is being eaten. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Better is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire” (Ecclesiastes 6:9). On the same verse, Reish Lakish said: The sight of a woman is better than the actual act of relations, as it is stated: “Better is the seeing of the eyes than the wandering of the desire.” § Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the Gemara continues with another dispute they had with regard to the correct interpretation of a verse. It is stated: “Do not look upon the wine when it is red, when it gives its color in the cup, when it glides down smoothly [bemeisharim]” (Proverbs 23:31). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed. One said: Whoever casts

Just as judgment may be done only by day, so too here, the sota is given the bitter waters to drink only by day. And daytime is the time for breaking the neck of the heifer, as the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Atonement is written with regard to the heifer, teaching that it is treated like sacred offerings, and it has already been established that all actions relating to offerings must be performed during the day. And for purifying the leper, it is derived as it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his cleansing” (Leviticus 14:2). It was taught in the mishna: “The entire night is a valid time for reaping the omer,” as the Master said in tractate Menaḥot: The reaping of the omer and the counting of the omer must be performed at night, whereas bringing the omer offering to the Temple must be done during the day. And for burning the fats and limbs of the offerings, it is derived as it is written with regard to them: “Which shall be burning upon the altar all night until the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). § The mishna states: This is the principle: Something that it is a mitzva to perform during the day is valid if performed any time during the entire day. The Gemara asks: As the mishna has seemingly mentioned all daytime mitzvot explicitly, the words: This is the principle, are to add what? The Gemara answers: This principle comes to include the arranging of the vessels of frankincense alongside the shewbread in the Temple, and the removal of those vessels at the end of the week, as the verse does not specify the time when these procedures should be performed. And this mishna would consequently be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: If one removed the old shewbread and frankincense in the morning and arranged the new ones toward the evening, i.e., at the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with this, as it suffices if the changeover is made any time over the course of the same day. The Sages, however, maintain that the new ones must be set in place immediately after the old ones have been removed. And, according to Rabbi Yosei, how do I uphold that which is written with regard to the shewbread: “He shall set it in order before the Lord continually” (Leviticus 24:8), implying that the bread must be on the table at all times? It means only that the table should not be an entire day without the bread, but if there is bread on the table for even a part of the day, it is considered as being there “continually.” § The mishna concludes: Something that it is a mitzva to perform at night may be performed the entire night. The Gemara asks: What does this principle come to add that has not already been mentioned explicitly? The Gemara answers: It comes to include the eating of the Paschal offering, and consequently this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “And they shall eat the meat on that night” (Exodus 12:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: It is stated here: “On that night,” and it is stated further on: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night” (Exodus 12:12). Just as there, when God passed through the land of Egypt, it was until midnight, so too here, the Paschal offering may be eaten only until midnight. The mishna, which asserts that the Paschal offering may be eaten all night, is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. May we return to you “One who reads out of order.” MISHNA: One who reads the Megilla may position himself as he wishes, either standing or sitting. Whether one person reads the Megilla or two people read it together, they have fulfilled their obligation. In a place where the people are accustomed to recite a blessing over the reading, one should recite a blessing. And in a place where it is customary not to recite a blessing, one should not recite a blessing. The mishna records several laws governing public Torah readings. On Mondays and Thursdays during the morning service and on Shabbat during the afternoon service, three people read from the Torah; one may neither decrease the number of readers nor add to them. And one does not conclude with a reading from the Prophets [haftara] on these occasions. Both the one who begins the reading and the one who concludes the reading from the Torah recite a blessing; one recites before the beginning of the reading and one recites after its conclusion, but the middle reader does not recite a blessing. On the days of the New Moon and on the intermediate days of a Festival, four people read from the Torah; one may neither decrease the number of readers nor add to them. And one does not conclude with a reading from the Prophets. Both the one who begins the reading and the one who concludes the reading from the Torah recite a blessing. The first reader recites a blessing before the beginning of the reading, and the last reader recites a blessing after its conclusion, but the middle readers do not recite a blessing. The mishna formulates a general principle with regard to the number of people who read from the Torah on different occasions. This is the principle: Any day on which there is an additional offering sacrificed in the Temple and that is not a Festival, i.e., the New Moon and the intermediate days of a Festival, four people read from the Torah; on a Festival, five people read; on Yom Kippur, six people read; and on Shabbat, seven people read. One may not decrease the number of readers, but one may add to them. And on these days one concludes with a reading from the Prophets. Both the one who begins the reading and the one who concludes the reading from the Torah recite a blessing; one recites before the beginning of the reading and one recites after its conclusion, but the middle readers do not recite a blessing. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may read the Megilla while sitting. It was taught in a baraita: This is not the case with regard to reading the Torah, as one must stand when reading the Torah. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is as the verse states: “But as for you, stand here with Me, and I will speak to you all the commandments and the statutes” (Deuteronomy 5:28), which indicates that the Torah must be received while standing. And Rabbi Abbahu said: Were the verse not written in this manner, it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God. The phrase “with Me” indicates that, as it were, even the Holy One, Blessed be He, was standing at the giving of the Torah. And Rabbi Abbahu also said: From where is it derived that the teacher should not sit on a couch and teach his disciple while he is sitting on the ground? It is as it is stated: “But as for you, stand here with Me,” which indicates that the teacher and his disciples should be in the same position. With regard to Torah study while standing, the Sages taught: From the days of Moses until the time of Rabban Gamliel, they would study Torah only while standing, as learning from one’s teacher is comparable to receiving the Torah at Sinai, during which the Jewish people stood. When Rabban Gamliel died, weakness descended to the world, and they would study Torah while sitting. And this is as we learned in a mishna (Sota 49a): When Rabban Gamliel died, honor for the Torah ceased, as standing while learning is an expression of honor for the Torah. The Gemara points out an apparent contradiction with regard to this very issue. One verse says: “And I sat [va’eshev] on the mount” (Deuteronomy 9:9), and another verse says: “And I stood on the mount” (Deuteronomy 10:10). The Gemara cites several possible resolutions. Rav said: Moses would stand and learn the Torah from God, and then sit and review what he had learned. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Moses was not standing or sitting, but rather bowing. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The term yeshiva is nothing more than an expression of remaining in one place, as it is stated: “And you dwelled [vateshvu] in Kadesh for many days” (Deuteronomy 1:46). Rava said: Moses studied easy material while standing and difficult material while sitting. We learned in the mishna: If one person reads the Megilla or two people read it together, they have fulfilled their obligation.

and Rava, who would bend their heads and not actually prostrate themselves on the ground. We learned in the mishna: On a Festival, five people read; on Yom Kippur, six people read; and on Shabbat, seven people read. One may not decrease the number of readers, but one may add to them. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is not Rabbi Yishmael and not Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita: On a Festival, five people read from the Torah; and on Yom Kippur, six people read; and on Shabbat, seven people read. One may not decrease or add to the required number of readers. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says: On a Festival, five people read from the Torah; and on Yom Kippur, seven people read; and on Shabbat, six people read. One may not decrease these numbers, but one may add to them. Who is the tanna of the mishna? If you say it is Rabbi Yishmael, it is difficult due to the ruling with regard to adding, as the mishna states that one may add additional readers but Rabbi Yishmael holds that one may not do so. If you say it is Rabbi Akiva, it is difficult due to the ruling concerning the days on which there are six and seven readers. Rava said: It is the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: On a Festival, five people read from the Torah; on Yom Kippur, six people read; on Shabbat, seven people read. One may not decrease these numbers but one may add to them. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara comments: If so, there is a contradiction between the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as expressed in the mishna, and the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael himself, as recorded in the baraita. The Gemara responds: Two tanna’im, students of Rabbi Yishmael, expressed different opinions in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which is taught in a baraita: On a Festival, one is slow to arrive at the synagogue because one is busy preparing for the festive meal, and one is quick to leave in order to eat; on Yom Kippur, one is quick to arrive at the synagogue and slow to leave; and on Shabbat, one is quick to arrive, as the meal has been prepared before Shabbat, and quick to leave in order to eat the Shabbat meal? Let us say it is Rabbi Akiva, who holds that an additional man reads from the Torah on Yom Kippur, which prolongs the service on that day. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say it is Rabbi Yishmael, one leaves the synagogue late because the order of the day, i.e., the prayer service, is very long, as it includes many supplications and confessions. A question is raised with regard to the number of readers on different days. Corresponding to what were these three, five, and seven, readers instituted? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one other Sage who was with him disagree about this. And who was that other scholar? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say that this was a matter of dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one other scholar who was with him. And who was that other scholar? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani. One said: These numbers correspond to the number of Hebrew words in the three verses of the Priestly Benediction. And one said: These numbers correspond to the three guards of the door (II Kings 25:18), five of the officers who saw the king’s face (II Kings 25:19), and the seven officers who saw the king’s face (Esther 1:14). Similarly, Rav Yosef taught a baraita: The three, five, and seven people who read from the Torah correspond to the three guards of the door, five of the officers who saw the king’s face, and the seven officers who saw the king’s face. When Rav Yosef taught this, Abaye said to him: What is the reason that until now the Master did not explain the matter to us in this way? Rav Yosef said to him: I did not know that you needed this information, as I thought that you were already familiar with the baraita. Have you ever asked me something and I did not tell you? Ya’akov of Mina said to Rav Yehuda: Corresponding to whom were these six readers on Yom Kippur instituted? Rav Yehuda said to him: The number six corresponds to the six people who stood to Ezra’s right and the six people who stood to his left, as it is stated: “And Ezra the Scribe stood upon a platform of wood, which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand, and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadanah, Zechariah, Meshullam” (Nehemiah 8:4). The Gemara challenges this answer: Those that stood to his left were seven and not six. The Gemara responds: Zechariah is the same as Meshullam, that is to say, they are not two separate people, but rather one person with two names. And why was he called Meshullam? Because he was perfect [mishlam] in his actions. § The Sages taught in a Tosefta (Megilla 3:11): All people count toward the quorum of seven readers, even a minor and even a woman. However, the Sages said that a woman should not read the Torah, out of respect for the congregation. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the reader who concludes [maftir] the Torah reading and reads from the Prophets [haftara], what is the halakha; does he count toward the quorum of seven readers? Rav Huna and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba disagreed about this matter. One said: He counts, and one said: He does not count. The one who said that he counts toward the seven readers holds that opinion because he reads from the Torah. And the one who said that he does not count holds in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: For what reason must the one who concludes with a reading from the Prophets read from the Torah first? It is due to respect for the Torah, so that those present should not conclude that he was called up only to read from the Prophets because the honor due the Torah and the honor due the Prophets are equal. And since he reads only out of respect for the Torah, he is not included in the quorum of seven readers. The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: The one who concludes with a reading from the Prophets may not read fewer than twenty-one verses, corresponding to the seven who read from the Torah. Each one who reads from the Torah must read at least three verses, for a total of at least twenty-one verses. And if it is so, that the one who reads the haftara does not count toward the quorum of seven readers, and he is an eighth reader, the minimum number of verses that must be read from the Torah is twenty-four and not twenty-one. The Gemara answers: Since the one who reads the haftara reads from the Torah first only due to respect for the Torah,

You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. MISHNA: The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.

GOD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they drew too close to GOD’s presence. GOD said to Moses:
Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will^aat will Lit. “at any time.” into the Shrine behind the curtain, in front of the cover that is upon the ark, lest he die; for I appear in^bappear in Or “communicate from.” the cloud over the cover. Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine: with a bull of the herd for a purgation offering and a ram for a burnt offering.— He shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic, with linen breeches next to his flesh, and be girt with a linen sash, and he shall wear a linen turban. They are sacral vestments; he shall bathe in water and then put them on.— And from the Israelite community he shall take two he-goats for a purgation offering and a ram for a burnt offering. Aaron is to offer his own bull of purgation offering, to make expiation for himself and for his household. Aaron^cAaron Moved up from v. 8 for clarity. shall take the two he-goats and let them stand before GOD at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; and he shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked for GOD and the other marked for Azazel. Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot for GOD, which he is to offer as a purgation offering; while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before GOD, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel. Aaron shall then offer his bull of purgation offering, to make expiation for himself and his household. He shall slaughter his bull of purgation offering, and he shall take a panful of glowing coals scooped from the altar before GOD, and two handfuls of finely ground aromatic incense, and bring this behind the curtain. He shall put the incense on the fire before GOD, so that the cloud from the incense screens the cover that is over [the Ark of] the Pact, lest he die. He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger over the cover on the east side; and in front of the cover he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. He shall then slaughter the people’s goat of purgation offering, bring its blood behind the curtain, and do with its blood as he has done with the blood of the bull: he shall sprinkle it over the cover and in front of the cover. Thus he shall purge the Shrine of the impurity and transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins; and he shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which abides with them in the midst of their impurity. When he goes in to make expiation in the Shrine, nobody else shall be in the Tent of Meeting until he comes out.
When he has made expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel, he shall go out to the altar that is before GOD and purge it: he shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and apply it to each of the horns of the altar; and the rest of the blood he shall sprinkle on it with his finger seven times. Thus he shall purify it of the defilement of the Israelites and consecrate it. When he has finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, the live goat shall be brought forward. Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated^ddesignated Meaning of Heb. ʻitti uncertain. agent. Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness. And Aaron shall go into the Tent of Meeting, take off the linen vestments that he put on when he entered the Shrine, and leave them there. He shall bathe in water in the holy precinct and put on his vestments; then he shall come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, making expiation for himself and for the people. The fat of the purgation offering he shall turn into smoke on the altar. The one who set the Azazel-goat free shall wash their clothes and bathe in water—and after that may reenter the camp. The bull of purgation offering and the goat of purgation offering whose blood was brought in to purge the Shrine shall be taken outside the camp; and their hides, flesh, and dung shall be consumed in fire. The one who burned them shall wash their clothes and bathe in water—and after that may re-enter the camp. And this shall be to you a law for all time: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall practice self-denial; and you shall do no manner of work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. For on this day atonement shall be made for you to purify you of all your sins; you shall be pure before GOD. It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you, and you shall practice self-denial; it is a law for all time. The priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as priest in place of his father shall make expiation. He shall put on the linen vestments, the sacral vestments. He shall purge the innermost Shrine; he shall purge the Tent of Meeting and the altar; and he shall make expiation for the priests and for all the people of the congregation. This shall be to you a law for all time: to make atonement for the Israelites for all their sins once a year.
And Moses did as GOD had commanded him.

On the tenth day of the same seventh month you shall observe a sacred occasion when you shall practice self-denial. You shall do no work. You shall present to GOD a burnt offering of pleasing odor: one bull of the herd, one ram, seven yearling lambs; see that they are^bsee that they are See note at 28.19. without blemish. The grain offering with them—of choice flour with oil mixed in—shall be: three-tenths of a measure for a bull, two-tenths for the one ram, one-tenth for each of the seven lambs. And there shall be one goat for a purgation offering, in addition to the purgation offering of expiation and the regular burnt offering with its grain offering, each with its libation.

MISHNA: Seven days prior to Yom Kippur the Sages would remove the High Priest, who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin, a room in the Temple designated specifically for the High Priest during that period. And they would designate another priest in his stead to replace him lest a disqualification due to impurity or another circumstance beyond his control prevent him from entering the Temple on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Sages would even designate another wife for him lest his wife die, as it is stated in the Torah portion of the Yom Kippur service: “And it will atone for him and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6); the Sages interpreted the term: His house, that is his wife. The priest must be married in order to fulfill this commandment. Due to the concern lest his wife die, another wife was designated to address that possibility. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, that this is a concern, there is no end to the matter, as what if the designated replacement wife dies? This possibility need not be a source of concern. GEMARA: The halakha of sequestering the High Priest prior to his performance of the Temple service on Yom Kippur is comparable to the sequestering of the priest designated to burn the red heifer. Therefore, the Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Para: Seven days prior to the burning of the red heifer, the Sages would remove the priest who burns the heifer from his house to the chamber that was before the bira at the northeast corner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. And that chamber was called the Chamber of the Stone House. The Gemara explains: And why was it called the Chamber of the Stone House? It is because all the actions associated with the red heifer were performed in dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which are vessels that cannot become ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were so stringent with regard to the purity of the heifer? The Gemara explains: It is since a priest who immersed that day is fit for service and may perform the ritual of the heifer after immersion, even before sunset, as we learned in a mishna: They would intentionally render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him immediately, to remove a misconception from the hearts of the Sadducees by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. As the Sadducees would say: Only by those for whom the sun set was the heifer ritual performed. The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for priests who began the purification process with immersion during that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed. That mishna continues: Since they would intentionally render the priest who burned the heifer ritually impure, the Sages in turn instituted the stringencies of utilizing dung vessels, stone vessels, and earth vessels, which do not have the capacity to become ritually impure, lest people come to treat the ritual with contempt and perform it in ritual impurity after seeing that the red heifer ritual was performed by one who immersed that day. Apropos the mishna in tractate Para, the Gemara asks: What is different about the chamber located in the northeast corner of the Temple courtyard that led the Sages to house the priest performing the red heifer ritual specifically in that chamber? The Gemara answers: It is different since it is a sin-offering, as the red heifer is referred to as a sin-offering in the Torah, and the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of a sin-offering must be performed north of the altar; and since it is written with regard to the red heifer: “And sprinkle it before the opening of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 19:4), and before the Tent of Meeting means on its eastern side. Therefore, the Sages established a chamber in the northeast so that the ritual of the red heifer will have a distinctive indicator; this will cause the administering priest to be vigilant in its performance. The Gemara asks with regard to the terminology of the mishna: What is the meaning of the term bira cited there? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There was a place on the Temple Mount and its name is bira, and the Chamber of the Stone House was adjacent to it. And Reish Lakish said: The entire Temple is called bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: “To Solomon my son grant a wholesome heart, to observe your commandments, your admonitions, and your statutes, to fulfill them all, and to build the bira for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19). § With regard to the halakhot of sequestering the High Priest prior to performance of the Yom Kippur service, and of sequestering the priest designated to burn the heifer prior to performance of the red heifer ritual, the Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Minyomi bar Ḥilkiya said that Rabbi Maḥseya bar Idi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said they are derived from Aaron and his sons, who remained in the Tabernacle for seven days prior to performing the service in the Tabernacle on the eighth day of their inauguration, as the verse states: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), meaning that this mitzva of sequestering was not limited to the days prior to the dedication of the Tabernacle; rather, it applies to future generations as well. The verse is interpreted homiletically: “To do”; these are the actions performed in the burning of the red heifer for which the priest performing the ritual is sequestered seven days in advance; “to make atonement”; these are the actions performed on Yom Kippur, before which the High Priest is sequestered seven days. The Gemara asks: Granted, the entire verse is not established as referring exclusively to the red heifer, as: “To atone,” is written, and the heifer is not capable of facilitating atonement; rather, it facilitates ritual purity. Rather, say that the entire verse is written with regard to Yom Kippur, as the rites performed to achieve atonement on Yom Kippur are similar to those performed during the days of the inauguration. What, then, is the source for sequestering the priest who is to perform the red heifer ritual? The Sages say in response: Derive it from a verbal analogy between the terms commanded and commanded. It is stated here, with regard to the days of the inauguration: “The Lord commanded to do,” and it is stated there, with regard to the red heifer: “This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord commanded, saying” (Numbers 19:2). Just as the term commanded there refers to the heifer, so too here, the phrase: “The Lord commanded to do” written in the context of the days of the inauguration refers to the heifer. And just as here, with regard to the inauguration, there is the principle of sequestering prior to performing the service, so too there, in the context of the halakhot of the heifer, sequestering is required prior to performance of the mitzva.

As the gate is twenty cubits high, and the immersion chamber above it is at least three additional cubits high, the water was twenty-three cubits above the ground of the courtyard. The Gemara asks: How could it be only twenty-three cubits higher? Isn’t there the cubit of the thickness of the ceiling over the gate and the cubit of the thickness of the plaster sealing of the ritual bath floor for a total of at least twenty-five cubits? The Gemara answers: With regard to the Temple gates, since they were constructed of marble, they constructed them with minimal thickness. Neither the thickness of the ceiling nor the thickness of the plaster was a cubit. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there that minimal thickness of the ceiling and the plaster that would nevertheless total more than twenty-three cubits? The Gemara answers: Indeed; however, since the ceiling was not a whole cubit he does not consider it in his calculation. § We learned in the mishna: They spread a sheet of fine linen between the High Priest and the people in the interest of modesty. The Gemara asks: What is different that they specifically used a sheet of fine linen? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Kahana said with regard to a related issue: So that he will be aware that the service of the day of Yom Kippur is performed in fine linen garments. Here, too, a linen sheet was used so that he will be aware that the service of the day of Yom Kippur is performed in fine linen garments. MISHNA: The High Priest removed the white garments that he was wearing, descended to the ritual bath, and immersed. He ascended and dried himself with a towel. Then they brought him the golden garments of the High Priest, and he dressed in the garments, and he sanctified his hands and his feet. They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, which he slaughtered by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe. And a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel and proceed with the order of the Yom Kippur service. As soon as the slaughter was completed, the High Priest received the blood in a vessel and sprinkled it on the altar. He entered the Sanctuary to burn the morning incense and to remove the ashes from the lamps of the candelabrum; and he left the Sanctuary and returned to the courtyard to sacrifice the head and the limbs of the sheep sacrificed for the daily offering and the High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering, and the wine libation of the daily offering. The Mishna comments: The morning incense was burned between the receiving and sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the limbs; and the afternoon incense was burned between the taking of the limbs up to the altar and the pouring of the libations that accompanied the offering. With regard to the immersion, if the High Priest was old and found it difficult to immerse in cold water, or if he was delicate [istenis], they would heat hot water for him on Yom Kippur eve and place it into the cold water of the ritual bath in order to temper its chill so the High Priest could immerse without discomfort. GEMARA: The Sages said this matter before Rav Pappa: This mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, since he said: The High Priest performs two sanctifications of his hands and his feet upon each change of garments, once before donning the garments and once after donning them, here too, in the mishna, let him perform two sanctifications upon the change of garments. However, the description in the mishna indicates that he removes his garments and does not sanctify his hands and feet. Rav Pappa said to them: Both according to the opinion of the Rabbis and according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, there is one sanctification upon removal of sacred garments, and one sanctification upon donning other sacred garments. And here, it is with regard to this issue that they disagree. It is written: “And he shall remove the linen garments that he put on when he entered the Sanctuary and leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and he shall put on his garments” (Leviticus 16:23–24). Rabbi Meir holds: The Torah juxtaposes removal of garments to donning of garments for the following reason: Just as when donning the garments, he dons the garments and afterward sanctifies his hands and feet, so too, with regard to removal of the garments, he removes the garments and afterward sanctifies his hands and feet. And the Rabbis hold that the Torah juxtaposes removal of garments to donning of garments for the following reason: Just as when donning the garments, when he is dressed, he sanctifies his hands and feet; so too, for removal of the garments, he sanctifies his hands and feet when he is dressed. Therefore, when he completes the service he sanctifies his hands and feet and only then removes the garments. However, the first time that the High Priest dons the priestly vestments on Yom Kippur he certainly does not require two sanctifications, since at that point he does not remove any other garments. The Sages said to Rav Pappa: And how can you say that according to Rabbi Meir the first time that the High Priest dons the garments he does not require two sanctifications? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita as follows? They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people, and he removed his garments and descended and immersed, and he ascended and dried himself. They brought him golden garments, and he donned them, and he sanctified his hands and his feet. Rabbi Meir says: He removed his garments and sanctified his hands and his feet and descended and immersed. He ascended and dried himself. They brought him golden garments and he donned them and sanctified his hands and his feet. Apparently, Rabbi Meir maintains that there is a special sanctification prior to donning the garments. He said to them: If it was taught, it was taught. I will retract my opinion, which was based on logical analysis, in favor of an explicit baraita that contradicts that opinion. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the approach of Rabbi Meir, that is how you find that possibility of

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as before donning golden garments, with which the High Priest does not enter the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, the High Priest requires immersion, before donning white garments, with which the High Priest enters the innermost sanctum, is it not right that the High Priest require immersion? The Gemara asks: The a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is the comparison to golden garments, as the atonement that they effect is extensive? The High Priest serves in the golden garments throughout the year atoning for the sins of the Jewish people; he wears the white garments on just one Yom Kippur. Therefore, it is reasonable that before donning them, the High Priest would require immersion. Rather, it is derived from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara analyzes an additional clause from the baraita cited above. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: From where are derived the five immersions and ten sanctifications that the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur? They are derived from the verse that states: “He shall be dressed in a sacred linen tunic, and with linen trousers next to his flesh, and he shall be girded with a linen belt, and he shall wear a linen mitre; they are sacred garments, and he shall wash his flesh in water and then put them on” (Leviticus 16:4). From this you learned: Anyone who moves from an inner service, in the Holy of Holies, to an outer service, and vice versa, requires immersion. The Gemara asks: We found proof that the High Priest requires immersion when he changes from golden garments to white garments; however, from where is it derived that he requires immersion when he changes from white garments to golden garments? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as before donning white garments, with regard to which the atonement that they effect is minimal as the priest wears them only on one Yom Kippur, immersion is required, before donning golden garments, with regard to which the atonement that they effect is extensive throughout the year, is it not right that immersion should be required? The Gemara asks: The a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is the comparison to white garments, as he enters with them to the innermost sanctum? As the High Priest does not enter the Holy of Holies with the golden garments, apparently the sanctity of the white garments is greater. The Gemara comments: The source for the requirement to immerse when changing from white garments to golden garments is that which is taught later in the baraita: The verse states: “They are sacred garments, and he shall wash his flesh in water and then put them on” (Leviticus 16:4), meaning immersion is required before donning all sacred garments. And they are five services: The sacrifice of the daily morning offering, performed in golden garments; the service of the day, the bull and the goat, which is performed in white garments; the sacrifice of his ram guilt-offering and the ram of the people, performed in golden garments. After that the High Priest places the spoon and the coal pan into the Holy of Holies in white garments. He emerges from the Holy of Holies and sacrifices the daily afternoon offering in golden garments and then removes the spoon and the coal pan in white garments. And from where is it derived that each and every immersion requires two sanctifications of the hands and the feet? It is derived from the verse that states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments that he put on when he entered the Sanctuary and leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh in water” (Leviticus 16:23–24). And it says: “And he shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and put on his garments” (Leviticus 16:24). The Gemara asks: That is written with regard to immersion. The washing mentioned in this verse is not sanctification of the hands and feet but rather immersion. The Gemara answers: If it is not a matter relating to immersion, which is derived from the phrase: “They are sacred garments” (Leviticus 16:4), indicating that every change of clothes requires immersion, then render it a matter relating to sanctification. The Gemara asks: And let the Merciful One write the obligation in the language of sanctification of the hands and feet rather than the language of immersion. The Gemara answers: This language comes to teach us that in this case, the legal status of immersion is like that of sanctification. Just as sanctification of the hands and feet is performed in a sacred area, as the basin used for sanctification is situated in the courtyard, so too, the immersion before donning garments must be performed in a sacred area, not outside the Temple. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, who derives immersion before donning the golden garments from this verse and does not derive anything from the phrase: They are sacred garments, from where does he derive the obligation to perform sanctification of the hands and feet? The Gemara answers: He derives it as an a fortiori inference from the inference of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: In a place that the Torah does not require immersion it nevertheless requires sanctification of the hands and feet; therefore, in a place that the Torah requires immersion for all changes of garments, is it not right that it requires sanctification of the hands and feet? Rav Ḥisda said: That statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to immersion and sanctification is an original opinion to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to sanctification, and to the exclusion of the opinion of the Rabbis. It is to the exclusion of the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis said that he sanctifies his hands and feet when he is dressed, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: He sanctifies them when he undresses. And it is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir said: With regard to this last sanctification that he performs after each immersion, he sanctifies his hands and feet when he is dressed. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: He sanctifies them when he undresses. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Everyone agrees with regard to the second sanctification that one dresses, and afterward sanctifies his hands and feet. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “Or when they approach the altar to serve, to burn an offering by fire to God, they shall wash their hands and feet so that they do not die” (Exodus 30:20–21). This teaches that the priest who is obligated to sanctify his hands and feet is one who is lacking only the element of approach to the altar to begin performing the service, to the exclusion of that priest who has not yet donned the priestly vestments, who is lacking both the element of donning priestly vestments and the element of approach to the altar. Sanctification of the hands and feet prior to the service is performed when he is already dressed. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Neither does Rav Ḥisda, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the priest performs the two sanctifications before donning the garments, agree with Rav Aḥa, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the sanctification is done after donning the garments; nor does Rav Aḥa, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the sanctification must be performed directly prior to the service, agree with Rav Ḥisda, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the two sanctifications are performed before donning the garments. As, if they do agree, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there are fifteen sanctifications. For each change of garments he would require three sanctifications: One when he undresses, one prior to dressing, and one after he is dressed. § It was taught in the mishna: They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, which he slaughtered [keratzo]. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of keratzo? Ulla said: It is a term meaning killing. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the verse that indicates this meaning? It is stated: “Egypt is a very fair heifer, but the keretz out of north is come, it is come” (Jeremiah 46:20). The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that keretz means killing? The Gemara explains: It is as translated by Rav Yosef: Egypt is a fair kingdom, but murderous nations will come upon it from the north. The Gemara asks: When he slaughtered the sheep, to what extent did he do so? Ulla said: He slaughtered the animal with a cut through the majority of each of the two organs, the windpipe and the gullet, which is sufficient to render the animal ritually slaughtered. And similarly, Rav Yoḥanan said: With the majority of each of the two organs. And Reish Lakish also held: With the majority of each of the two organs. This is indeed Reish Lakish’s opinion, as Reish Lakish said: Once we learned in the halakhot of ritual slaughter that the majority of one organ is like the whole, why was it necessary that we also learn there that in order for the slaughter to be valid it requires the majority of one organ in a bird and the majority of each of two organs in an animal? That is clear based on the principle that one organ is required in a bird and two in an animal. Rather, since we learned: They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, which he slaughtered by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe, and a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel, and the High Priest received the blood in a vessel and sprinkled it on the altar; one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete cutting through the two organs, the slaughter would be invalid. The Gemara asks: How is it possible that one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete cutting through the two organs, the slaughter would be invalid? If that is so, the completion of the slaughter is a Temple service performed by another on Yom Kippur. And it was taught in a baraita: All Yom Kippur services are valid only if performed by the High Priest. The Gemara answers that this is what Reish Lakish is saying: Clearly, there is no requirement by Torah law to complete the slaughter of the two organs. One might have thought that it would be invalid by rabbinic law;

some of them are rendered witnesses and testify before the others and some of them become judges in the case; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: They are all rendered witnesses, and a witness cannot become a judge. It seems therefore that the mishna contradicts Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. The Gemara rejects this argument: You can even say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, but we must distinguish between the cases. Rabbi Akiva states his position there only with regard to cases of capital law, for the Merciful One says: “And the congregation shall judge…and the congregation shall save” (Numbers 35:24–25), which requires a court to search for grounds to exonerate the defendant, but once they themselves have seen him kill a person, they will be unable to find grounds to exonerate him. But here, with regard to the sighting of the new moon, even Rabbi Akiva concedes that a witness can be rendered a judge. MISHNA: The mishna begins to discuss the primary mitzva of Rosh HaShana, sounding the shofar. All shofarot are fit for blowing except for the horn of a cow, because it is a horn [keren] and not a shofar. Rabbi Yosei said: But aren’t all shofarot called horn, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that when they sound a long blast with the horn [keren] of a ram [yovel]” (Joshua 6:5), and a ram’s horn is a shofar fit for sounding on Rosh HaShana? GEMARA: Rabbi Yosei is saying well, i.e., presents a convincing argument. Why do the Rabbis not accept it? The Gemara explains that the Rabbis counter Rabbi Yosei’s argument as follows: Indeed, all other shofarot are called shofar and they are also called keren, but that of a cow is called keren, but it is not called shofar, as it is written: “His firstborn bull, grandeur is his, and his horns [karnav] are the horns of [karnei] a wild ox” (Deuteronomy 33:17). It is therefore clear that the horns of a bull are called keren, and nowhere are they called shofar. And how would Rabbi Yosei counter this argument? He could have said to you: The horns of a cow are also called shofar, as it is written: “And it shall please the Lord better than an ox bull [shor par] that has horns and hoofs” (Psalms 69:32). The wording of the verse is strange: If it is an ox [shor], why is it also called a bull [par], and if it is a bull [par], why is it called an ox [shor]? Rather, what is the meaning of shor par? These two words must be read as if they were one single word: Than a shofar. According to this reading, even the horn of a cow is called a shofar. And how do the Rabbis explain the difficulty in this verse? They explain it as it was explained by Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana said: What is the meaning of shor par? An ox [shor] that is as large as a bull [par], as the animal is called a shor from birth, but is called a par only from the age of three. Ulla said: This is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that the horn of a cow is unfit for sounding on Rosh HaShana. They say this in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: For what reason does the High Priest not enter the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, with his golden garments to perform the service there on Yom Kippur? It is because a prosecutor [kateigor] cannot become an advocate [sanneigor]. Since the Jewish people committed the sin of worshipping the Golden Calf, the High Priest may not enter the Holy of Holies to atone for the Jewish people wearing golden garments, as they would bring that sin to mind. The Gemara asks: But do we not use a cow in the Holy of Holies? But there is the blood of the bull that is brought there to be sprinkled on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that the Jewish people sinned with a calf. The Gemara answers: Since it has changed, i.e., it is not the bull itself, but only its blood, then it has changed, i.e., so it does not bring the sin of the Golden Calf to mind. The Gemara raises another difficulty: But there is the Ark, the Ark cover, and the cherub, all of which are plated with gold. If this is problematic, why are they in the Holy of Holies? The Gemara explains: What we are saying is that a sinner seeking atonement should not bring something made of gold into the Holy of Holies, as it would bring the sin of the Golden Calf to mind. The Gemara asks further: But there is the spoon and coal pan that are brought into the Holy of Holies, and they are made of gold. The Gemara answers: What we are saying is that a sinner seeking atonement should not adorn himself with ornaments of gold. The Gemara raises yet another question: But there are the golden garments the High Priest wears outside the Holy of Holies. The Gemara answers: What we are saying is that a sinner should not adorn himself with gold inside the Holy of Holies, but outside there is no concern. The Gemara continues this line of questioning: If so, the shofar is also outside, since it is not brought into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara answers: Since the shofar is sounded in order to evoke God’s remembrance, it is considered as if it were sounded inside the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: Is this indeed the reason that the Rabbis disqualify the use of a cow’s horn? But the tanna taught: The horn of a cow cannot be used because it is a keren. The Gemara answers: The tanna stated one reason and also another reason: One reason is that a prosecutor cannot become an advocate, and another is because it is called a keren and not a shofar. The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Yosei counter these arguments? The Gemara explains: He could have said to you: That which you said, that a prosecutor cannot become an advocate, is indeed true, but this applies only inside the Holy of Holies, and the shofar is sounded outside. And with regard to that which you said, because it is a keren, all shofarot are also called keren. Abaye said: This is the reasoning of the Rabbis: The Merciful One says to sound a single shofar, and not two or three shofarot together, but this horn of a cow, since it is comprised of layers, looks like two or three shofarot. The Gemara asks: But the tanna taught: The horn of a cow cannot be used because it is a keren. Since the Rabbis’ reasoning appears clearly in the mishna, how can the reasoning provided by Abaye be correct? The Gemara replies: The tanna stated one reason and also another reason. One reason is that the Merciful One says to sound a single shofar, and not two or three shofarot together, and another is because it is a keren. And Rabbi Yosei could have said to you: That which you said, that the Merciful One says in the Torah to sound a single shofar, and not two or three shofarot, is not a difficulty. Since the layers of the cow’s horn are connected to each other, it is considered a single shofar. And with regard to that which you said: Because it is a keren, all shofarot are also called keren. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei proves from a verse that a the horn of a ram [yovel] is called a keren. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term yovel denotes the horn of a ram? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva said: When I went to Arabia, I heard that they called a ram yovla, and from this we can infer the meaning of the term yovel in the related language of Hebrew. The Gemara records a series of similar statements: And Rabbi Akiva said: When I went to Galia, I heard that they called a menstruating woman galmuda, and this clarifies the meaning of that word in Scripture. It should be understood as follows: What does galmuda mean? She is separated [gemula da] from her husband, as all physical contact between a menstruating woman and her husband is forbidden. And Rabbi Akiva said: When I went to Africa, I heard that they called a ma’a, which is a certain coin, kesita. The Gemara asks: What is the practical significance of this? The Gemara answers: To explain that the words in the Torah relating to Jacob’s purchase of his field near Shechem: “And he bought the parcel of ground where he had spread his tent, from the sons of Hamor for a hundred kesita” (Genesis 33:19), denote a hundred dankei, i.e., a hundred ma’a. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to the sea towns, I heard that they called a sale kira. And the Gemara asks: What is the practical significance of this? The Gemara answers: To explain the verse relating to Jacob’s burial plot: “In my grave which I purchased [kariti] for myself, there shall you bury me” (Genesis 50:5). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: When I went to the district of Kan Nishrayya, I heard that they called a bride ninfi and a rooster sekhvi. The Gemara explains how this information serves to clarify the meanings of biblical verses: A bride is called ninfi; what is the verse that uses a similar term? “Beautiful view [nof], the joy of the whole earth, Mount Zion” (Psalms 48:3), which therefore means beautiful like a bride. And a rooster is called sekhvi; Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And if you wish, you can say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said this: What is the verse that employs this term? “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Or who has given understanding to the sekhvi” (Job 38:36), which should be understood as follows: “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts”: These are the kidneys that are hidden in the body; “or who has given understanding to the sekhvi”: This is a rooster, who knows to crow at fixed times during the night. Incidental to the discussion of the meanings of certain words in foreign countries, it was related that Levi once happened to come to a certain place, where a man came before him to complain about what had been done to him. This man said to him:

We reviewed all angles of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, i.e., we have examined all of Rabbi Meir’s statements with regard to consecrated property, and we did not find that he holds that consecrated property is not desacralized if it is misused unwittingly but it is desacralized if misused intentionally. And as for our mishna, which indicates that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion, it should not be understood as Rabbi Meir’s opinion with regard to consecrated property in general, but with regard to a case where a priest betrothed a woman using priestly tunics that have not worn out and that can still be worn during the Temple service. If a priest betrothed a woman with such garments, Rabbi Meir holds that if he did so unwittingly she is not betrothed, since clothes of this kind are not desacralized, and do not become hers. This is because they were initially given on the condition that the priests may benefit from them even when not performing the Temple service, since the Torah was not given to the ministering angels. It is impossible for a priest to wear the garments only at the moment he is performing the service and at no other time. Therefore, these garments are desacralized only if he intended to desacralize them. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav’s statement. Come and hear: With regard to priestly tunics that have worn out, one misuses property consecrated to the Temple by using them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. What, is it not so that this halakha would apply even if they had not worn out, and the tanna wanted to teach the additional halakha that it is still a transgression even after they are no longer fit for use? The Gemara rejects this: No, this halakha applies specifically to garments that have worn out. Since these cannot be used by priests, the permission to use them for non-sacred purposes lapses, and they are like other consecrated property that is subject to the halakhot of misuse. The Gemara raises a difficulty with the explanation of Rabbi Meir’s statement. Come and hear: One is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using new shekels, i.e., those given this year, which are used to purchase animals for this year’s offerings, but one is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using old shekels, given by those who failed to give the previous year’s half-shekel, since these old shekels are used not to purchase offerings but for Temple maintenance; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple even by using old shekels, as Rabbi Meir would say: One is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple not only by using money designated to purchase offerings, but even with the remainder of the chamber, i.e., the money that remained in the chamber after money was taken to purchase the animals used in communal offerings. The Gemara continues the question: But why should one be liable for using the old shekels? Let us say the same logic: One is not liable, because they were initially given on the condition that people may benefit from them, since the Torah was not given to the ministering angels and people could not help but benefit from them. This is as the money to repair the wall of the city and its towers comes from the remainder of the chamber, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 4:2): The wall of the city, its towers, and all of the requirements of the city of Jerusalem come from the remainder of the chamber. It is not possible for passersby to avoid benefiting from the shade provided by the walls of the city. The Gemara answers: Do not say that the opinion that one is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using money from the remainder of the chamber is that of Rabbi Meir. Rather, emend the mishna and say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Come and hear another proof: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: With regard to stones of the walls and towers of Jerusalem that fell, one is liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple by using them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This indicates that according to Rabbi Meir, the use of even such stones renders one liable, despite the fact that it is not possible for people to avoid benefiting from them. The Gemara again answers: Do not say that this baraita is recording the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rather, emend the baraita and say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara challenges this explanation: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, is Jerusalem consecrated at all? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 10b): If one says that an item shall be considered like the lamb of the daily offering, like the animals designated as offerings and kept in special enclosures, like the wood of the altar, like the fires on the altar, like the Sanctuary, like the altar, or like Jerusalem, it is a vow and he is prohibited to derive benefit from the item, as he has compared it to something consecrated. The essence of a vow creating a prohibition is the statement that a certain item shall be like a consecrated item. Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who says that an item shall be considered Jerusalem has not said anything, indicating that Rabbi Yehuda holds that Jerusalem is not consecrated. And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is not that he holds that Jerusalem is not consecrated, but because the one stating the vow did not say: Like Jerusalem, but stated only that the item shall be considered Jerusalem, which is not a clear expression of a vow, but isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nedarim 1:6) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who says that an item shall be considered like Jerusalem has not said anything, until he vows by comparing the item to an item that is sacrificed in Jerusalem. This indicates that he holds that Jerusalem itself is not consecrated.

it is a mitzva to brush the drops of urine from one’s legs so that they cannot be seen. Since one rubs it with his hands, his hands require sanctification as well. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: It is prohibited for a man to go out with the drops of urine that are on his legs, because he appears as one whose penis has been severed. A man with that condition is incapable of fathering children. People who see urine on his legs might suspect that he is suffering from that condition and spread rumors about his children that they are mamzerim. Therefore, one must be certain to brush the drops of urine from his legs. Apropos the above discussion the Gemara cites that Rav Pappa said: For one with excrement in its place, in the anus, it is prohibited to recite Shema until he removes it. What are the circumstances? If it is excrement that is visible, it is obvious that he cannot recite Shema, as there is excrement on his skin. If it is excrement that is not visible, and it is inside his body, how can Rav Pappa rule that he may not recite Shema? The Torah was not given to the ministering angels, and one’s body cannot be totally free of excrement. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the recitation of Shema only in a situation where when he is sitting it is visible, and when he is standing it is not visible. The Gemara asks: If so, in what way is that different from excrement on his flesh? As it was stated in a case where one has excrement on his flesh or that his hands were placed into a bathroom that Rav Huna said: It is nevertheless permitted to recite Shema. And Rav Ḥisda said: It is prohibited to recite Shema in those cases. The Gemara rejects this: The situations are not comparable. There is no dispute that excrement in its place is more severe, as in the anus the filth is great because it is new and malodorous. And if it is not in its place, its filth is not great, as it is dried and less malodorous. It is with regard to that situation that there is an amoraic dispute. The Gemara proceeds to discuss a related topic. The Sages taught a halakha with regard to a meal in a baraita: A person who exits a meal to urinate washes one of his hands, the one that he used to brush off drops of urine, and enters to resume the meal. If one left, spoke with another, and lingered outside, he washes both of his hands and enters to resume the meal. Presumably, during the lengthy conversation he was distracted from maintaining the cleanliness of his hands, requiring him to wash his hands again. And when one washes his hands for the meal he should not wash them outside and then enter, due to the concern that doing so will arouse suspicion that he did not wash his hands. Rather, he enters and sits in his place and washes both his hands, and returns the jug of water to pass among the guests and ask if anyone requires water, to make certain that everyone is aware that he washed his hands. Rav Ḥisda said: We said this principle with regard to making certain that one washes his hands in public only when he enters to drink; however, if he enters and intends to eat he may even wash his hands outside and enter. Why is this so? It is because it is well known that he is fastidious and would not handle food without cleaning urine and the like off his hands. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And I can even wash my hands outside when I intend only to drink, because they know that I am fastidious and that I certainly washed my hands before I entered to eat. MISHNA: A person does not enter the Temple courtyard for the Temple service, even if he is pure, until he immerses. Five immersions and ten sanctifications the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur. And all of these immersions and sanctifications take place in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, on the roof of the Hall of Parva, except for this first immersion alone. As that immersion is not unique to Yom Kippur, it may be performed outside the courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people in the interest of modesty, and then the High Priest immersed and sanctified his hands and feet. GEMARA: They asked ben Zoma with regard to this immersion: Why is it a requirement for anyone who enters to perform the Temple service? He said to them: Just as one who moves from service in one sacred area to service in another sacred area, i.e., the High Priest on Yom Kippur, who moves from one service to another in the Temple courtyard and the Sanctuary; and likewise one who moves from service in an area that one who enters while impure is punished by karet, the courtyard, to service in another area that one who enters impure is punished by karet, the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, requires immersion; so too, with regard to one who moves from a non-sacred area to a sacred area, and from a place that one who enters while impure is not punished by karet to a place that one who enters while impure is punished by karet, is it not right that he require immersion? This first immersion was instituted for purposes of sanctity rather than purity. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is an ancillary immersion, which is not a mitzva, instituted so that one will remember any old impurity that he contracted and withdraw. In the course of immersion, he will remember if he was exposed to a source of seven-day impurity and will refrain from serving in the Temple. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda, who provided two different rationales for the immersion, disagree?

In the case of one who comes to measure and purchase naphtha, the merchant says to him: Measure it for yourself, as I prefer to keep my distance from the foul odor. With regard to one who comes to measure and purchase balsam, the merchant says to him: Wait for me until I can measure it with you, so that you and I will both be perfumed. Similarly, with regard to sin God merely provides an opening, whereas with regard to mitzvot God assists the individual in their performance. In the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: Sin stupefies the heart of a person who commits it, as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified” (Leviticus 11:43) Do not read that term as: “And be impurified [venitmetem]”; rather, read it as: And your hearts will be stupefied [venitamtem]. The Sages taught the following with regard to the verse: “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified”; a person who impurifies himself a bit, they impurify him greatly. If a person impurifies himself of his own volition below, on earth, they impurify him even more so above, in Heaven. If a person impurifies himself in this world, they impurify him in the World-to-Come. Conversely, the Sages taught the following with regard to the verse: “Sanctify yourselves and you will be sanctified” (Leviticus 11:44); a person who sanctifies himself a bit, they sanctify him and assist him greatly. If a person sanctifies himself below, they sanctify him above. If a person sanctifies himself in this world, they sanctify him in the World-to-Come. MISHNA: The High Priest would mix the lots in the lottery receptacle used to hold them and draw the two lots from it, one in each hand. Upon one was written: For God. And upon the other one was written: For Azazel. The deputy High Priest would stand to the High Priest’s right, and the head of the patrilineal family would stand to his left. If the lot for the name of God came up in his right hand, the Deputy would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right hand so that all can see with which hand the lot for God was selected. And if the lot for the name of God came up in his left hand, the head of the patrilineal family would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your left hand. Then he would place the two lots upon the two goats, the lot that arose in his right hand on the goat standing to his right side and the lot in his left hand on the goat to his left. And upon placing the lot for God upon the appropriate goat, he would say: For God, as a sin-offering. Rabbi Yishmael says: He need not say: As a sin-offering. Rather, it is sufficient to say: For God. And upon saying the name of God, the priests and the people respond after him: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time. GEMARA: Why do I need the High Priest to have mixed the lots in a receptacle before he draws the lots? In order that he not be able to intentionally take the lot for God specifically with his right hand. Since it is a fortuitous omen for the lot for God to arise in his right hand, there is a concern that he might force the result, in contravention of the requirement that the designation of the goats be made through a random lottery. Rava said: The receptacle was made out of wood and did not have the status of a sacred vessel. Rather, it was unconsecrated, and it had enough space inside only for the High Priest’s two hands. Ravina strongly objects to this: Granted, it was constructed so that it had enough space inside it only for the High Priest’s two hands. This was done so that he could not maneuver his hands inside the box to feel and examine the lots, in order that he not be able to intentionally take the lot for God specifically with his right hand. But why was the receptacle unconsecrated? Let it be consecrated as a sacred vessel. If so, if it were to be consecrated, it would be a sacred vessel made of wood, and the halakha is that we do not make a sacred vessel from wood. But if this is the only issue, let it be made out of silver or let it be made out of gold. However, the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people and did not want to burden them with the expense of having to make the receptacle from expensive materials. Therefore, it is made from wood, and as such it is precluded from being a sacred vessel. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna whose opinion was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The Deputy and the High Priest insert their hands into the receptacle. If the lot for God comes up in the High Priest’s right hand, the Deputy says to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right hand. And if the lot for God comes up in the right hand of the Deputy, the head of the patrilineal family says to the High Priest: Speak your word and declare the goat to your left side to be the sin-offering for God. The Gemara asks: Why should the head of the patrilineal family instruct the High Priest to speak? Let the Deputy say this to him. The Gemara answers: Since the lot for God did not come up in the High Priest’s hand, rather in the Deputy’s, he might be discouraged if the Deputy himself instructs him to speak, as it may appear that he is mocking him. With regard to what do the tanna’im of the mishna and baraita disagree? One Sage, the tanna of the baraita, holds that the Deputy’s right hand is preferable to the High Priest’s left hand. As such, the ideal way for the lots to be drawn is for both the Deputy and High Priest to use their right hands. And the other Sage, the tanna of the mishna, holds they are equivalent. Therefore, there is no reason for the Deputy to be involved, and the entire process is performed by the High Priest. And who is this tanna who argues with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, says: Why did the Deputy remain at the High Priest’s right side throughout the day’s service? Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead. It is apparent from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that as long as the High Priest remains qualified, the Deputy has no role in the day’s service, which disputes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. § The Sages taught: During all forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served as High Priest, the lot for God arose in the right hand. From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right hand and sometimes it arose in the left hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel turned white, indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven, as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). From then onward, it sometimes turned white and sometimes it did not turn white. Furthermore, the western lamp of the candelabrum would burn continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. From then onward, it sometimes burned and sometimes it went out. And during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, the fire on the arrangement of wood on the altar kept going strongly, perpetually by itself, such that the priests did not need to bring additional wood to the arrangement on a daily basis, except for the two logs that were brought in order to fulfill the mitzva of placing wood upon the arrangement. From then onward, the fire sometimes kept going strongly and sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day. And a blessing was sent upon the offering of the omer; and to the offering of the two loaves from the new wheat, which was sacrificed on Shavuot; and to the shewbread, which was placed on the table in the Temple. And due to that blessing, each priest that received an olive-bulk of them, there were those who ate it and were satisfied, and there were those who ate only a part of it and left over the rest because they were already satisfied from such a small amount. From then onward, a curse was sent upon the omer, and to the two loaves, and to the shewbread, that there were not sufficient quantities to give each priest a full measure. Therefore, each priest received just an amount the size of a bean; the discreet, pious ones would withdraw their hands, a bean-bulk being less that the quantity needed to properly fulfill the mitzva, and only the voracious ones would take and eat it. And an incident occurred with one who took his portion and that of his fellow, and they called him: Son of

And does he burn his flock? The Torah obligated him to burn only one goat, and yet there are times when he must burn several, as stated in the mishna. Rabbi Naḥman retorts: Is it comparable? There, with respect to burning the goats, it is not written: “It,” which would restrict the burning to only one animal, whereas here, with regard to the scapegoat, it is written: “It,” which indicates that one animal alone is sent away. The objection has been refuted and indeed only one scapegoat is used. § It was stated that amora’im disagreed about the following issue. Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: He sends the first goat; and Rav Shimi said in the name of Rava: He sends the last of them. The Gemara analyzes the matter: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Shimi bar Ashi in the name of Rava, who said that he sends the last of them, it works out well, as he probably holds as stated above, that the last goat is used, since the atonement is completed with it. However, with regard to Rav Pappi in the name of Rava, what does he hold? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that when several identical items are available for a mitzva, the mitzva is performed with the first of them. The Gemara asks: To which of the halakhot of Rabbi Yosei is this referring? From which of Rabbi Yosei’s statements is this conclusion derived? If we say it is the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to containers, this is problematic. As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: There were three containers of three se’a each, with which they collect the donation from the chamber. Every year the money donated to the Temple by the people in the month of Adar was placed in a special chamber. The treasurers subsequently filled three containers with these coins and used the funds to purchase the communal offerings, e.g., the daily offerings and the additional offerings for Festivals. And the letters alef, beit, gimmel were written on the containers. And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Why were the letters alef, beit, gimmel written on them? It was to ascertain from which of them the donation was collected first, so that they could bring the money from it first, as the mitzva is to use the coins of the first container. This apparently proves that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is a mitzva to use the first item. The Gemara responds: This is no proof, as perhaps at the time when the first container was fit to be used, the last was not yet fit to be used. When the first container was brought it was fit and designated for the offerings, whereas the coins in the second container had not yet been collected, and therefore the coins in the first container must be used first as they were sanctified first. Here, however, the scapegoat is consecrated only when its pair is sacrificed, and therefore the two cases are dissimilar. Rather, the principle that one uses the first item is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yosei with regard to the Paschal offering, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who separated a sheep for his Paschal offering and the sheep was lost, and he separated another sheep in its stead, and afterward the first sheep was found, and they both stand before him, he sacrifices whichever of them he wants; this is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva is performed with the first sheep. And if the second was of superior quality to it, he brings the second sheep. This proves that according to Rabbi Yosei, if there are two animals equally fit for an offering, one brings the animal that was chosen first. MISHNA: The mitzva of the two Yom Kippur goats, the goat sacrificed to God and the goat sent to Azazel that are brought as a pair, is as follows, ab initio: That they will both be identical in appearance, i.e., color, and in height, and in monetary value, and their acquisition must be as one, i.e., they must be purchased together. And even if they are not identical, nevertheless, they are valid. And similarly, if he acquired one today and one tomorrow, they are valid. If one of the goats died, if it died before the High Priest drew the lots, he immediately takes a counterpart for the second, since neither has yet been designated. And if it died after the High Priest drew the lots, he brings another pair of goats and draws lots over them from the start. After that lottery he utters a stipulation: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn in the second lottery shall stand in its stead; and if the one to be sent to Azazel died, that goat upon which the lot for Azazel was drawn shall stand in its stead. And the second, superfluous goat, i.e., in the case where a new pair of goats was brought, should graze until it becomes unfit, at which point it will be sold, and the money received from its sale will go toward the purchase of a public gift-offering. Although for individual sin-offerings in similar circumstances there is no remedy and it is left to die, that is not the case here, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. On the other hand, Rabbi Yehuda says: In this it should be left to die. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are brought and lots are drawn.

And if the year was extended and made into a leap year, it is extended for the benefit of the seller, and according to the Sages he has an additional month in which to redeem his house. The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to the goat, but with regard to the bull, what is there to say? The bull remains valid even if it is more than a year old. The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree with regard to the bull due to the goat. The Gemara asks: Is it right that due to a rabbinic decree the offerings should be left to die instead of being left to graze? And furthermore, a sin-offering whose year has passed is not left to die but rather goes to graze. As Reish Lakish said: We consider a sin-offering whose year has passed as though it stands in a cemetery, and the priest cannot take it out in order to sacrifice it because he is not permitted to become ritually defiled. Therefore, it grazes until it becomes unfit and is then sold. Rather, Rava said: The bull and goat of Yom Kippur may not be left from one year to the next by rabbinic decree due to a concern that a mishap may occur. As it was taught in a baraita: One may neither consecrate objects, nor valuate, i.e., take a vow to donate one’s value to the Temple treasury, nor dedicate items for sacred use at this time, when the Temple no longer exists. And if one did consecrate, valuate, or dedicate items for sacred use: If he dedicated an animal it is uprooted, i.e., he arranges for it to die quickly. If he dedicated agricultural produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose, he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should redeem them and transport the value of their benefit to the Dead Sea. This baraita indicates that animals that cannot be sacrificed at this time must be left to die so that they are not used improperly. The Gemara explains: And what constitutes uprooting? He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own from hunger. The Gemara asks: What mishap might occur if the bull and goat are left until the next year? If you say it is a mishap of offering the animal as a different offering, a similar concern should exist even with regard to all animals that have been disqualified for use as offerings that one leaves to graze. If it is a mishap of shearing the animal’s wool and working the animal, which would constitute unlawful use of consecrated property, a similar concern should exist even with regard to all animals that have been disqualified for use as offerings that are left to graze. Why are these animals in particular left to die? The Gemara answers: Actually, the concern is for a mishap of sacrifice. And those other disqualified animals that are left to graze, which are not fit for sacrifice, he is not preoccupied with, and will not accidentally sacrifice them. This bull and goat, which are fit for sacrifice next year, he is preoccupied with them. Therefore, there is a greater concern that one may sacrifice them as offerings, and they may not be left to graze. The Gemara comments: This issue itself, i.e., whether decrees are instituted due to a concern about a possible mishap, is a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in one baraita: A Paschal lamb that was not sacrificed on the first Pesaḥ is sold to someone who was impure on the first Pesaḥ or who was distant from Jerusalem, so that it may be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ. If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, it is sacrificed the following year. And it was taught in another baraita: If it was not sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, it is not sacrificed the following year. What, is it not that they disagree about the question of whether a decree was issued prohibiting keeping the animal for an entire year due to a concern about the possibility of a mishap? The Gemara responds: No, these sources do not prove that the tanna’im disputed this issue. It is possible that everyone agrees that we are not concerned about a mishap, and here they disagree about the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis with regard to whether it is possible that the lamb will still be fit for sacrifice the following year. And the apparent contradiction between the baraitot is not difficult. This baraita, which says that the lamb is brought the following year, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. That baraita, which says that the lamb may not be sacrificed the following year, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that by the following year, the lamb will certainly be more than a year old and will therefore be unfit as a Paschal offering. The Gemara challenges this rejection: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: And, so too, money that was dedicated for purchasing a Paschal lamb is subject to dispute about whether it may be kept for the following year. In the case of money, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis is irrelevant. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that they disagree with regard to whether a decree is issued due to a concern about a mishap? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so. MISHNA: The Yom Kippur service continues: The High Priest comes over to the scapegoat, places both his hands upon it, and confesses. And he would say as follows: Please, God, Your people, the house of Israel, have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You. Please, God, grant atonement, please, for the sins, and for the wrongs, and for the rebellions that they have sinned, and done wrong, and rebelled before You, Your people, the house of Israel, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant, saying: “For on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the Lord you shall be purified” (Leviticus 16:30). And the priests and the people standing in the Temple courtyard, when they would hear the Explicit Name emerging from the mouth of the High Priest, when the High Priest did not use one of the substitute names for God, they would kneel and prostrate themselves and fall on their faces, and say: Blessed is the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever. After the confession over the scapegoat, the priest passed the goat to the one who was to lead it to the wilderness. According to the halakha, everyone is eligible to lead it, but the High Priests established a fixed custom and did not allow an Israelite to lead it. Rabbi Yosei said: That was not always the case. There was an incident where a person named Arsela led the goat to the wilderness, and he was an Israelite. And they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews who were in Jerusalem, who would pluck at the goat’s hair and would say to the goat: Take our sins and go, take our sins and go, and do not leave them with us. GEMARA: In the confession over the scapegoat, the High Priest confessed the sins of the Jewish people, whereas he did not say: The children of Aaron, Your sacred people, in order to confess the sins of the priests. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this mishna? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, for if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say: The priests receive atonement through the scapegoat, which indicates that their sins must be mentioned in the confession over the scapegoat? Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, is that to say that priests are not included among: Your people, the house of Israel? Nothing can be proven from the fact that the High Priest did not list every segment of the Jewish people separately. It was taught in the mishna that the priest passed the goat to the one who was to lead it to the wilderness. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: “And he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:21), that the halakhic midrash interprets the word man as mentioned in order to qualify a non-priest for this task. The word appointed indicates

They said to Rav Yosef: This is what Rava does. Rav Yosef was blind and could not see for himself. Rav Yosef said to him: May it be God’s will that you lift your head over the entire city, in reward for honoring your teacher. § Apropos the obligation of a student to walk backward when taking leave of his teacher, the Gemara discusses a similar topic. Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who prays must take three steps backward upon concluding his prayer and then recite: Peace, in a manner befitting one who departs from before the Holy One, Blessed be He. Rav Mordekhai said to him: Since he has taken three steps backward, he should stand there and not return to his place immediately. This is analogous to a student who takes leave of his teacher. If he returns immediately to the place where was first standing, he is similar to a dog who returns to its vomit, and his previous action is spoiled. The Gemara comments that this was also taught in a baraita: One who prays must take three steps backward upon concluding his prayer and then recite: Peace. And if he did not do so, it is better for him not to have prayed, as his actions are disrespectful toward God. And they said in the name of Shemaya the Sage that when one recites: Peace, he first bows to the right and then to the left, as it is stated: “At His right hand was a fiery law to them” (Deuteronomy 33:2), and it says: “A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right side” (Psalms 91:7). The Gemara asks: What is the reason for: And it says? Why is it necessary to cite another source? The Gemara explains: If you say that it is merely the usual manner to give an object with the right hand, but this bears no special significance, come and hear: “A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right side,” which indicates that the right side is the more significant one. The Gemara relates that Rava saw Abaye reciting: Peace, by bowing at the end of his prayer to his right first. Rava said to him: Do you maintain that you should bow to your right? I say you should bow to your left first, as it is the right of the Holy One, Blessed be He, since He is opposite you face-to-face, as it were. Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: I observed that Abaye and Rava both took those three steps all in one act of bowing, without standing upright in between, by way of submission to and acceptance of God’s authority. § The mishna taught: And the High Priest recites a brief prayer in the outer chamber. The Gemara asks: What does he pray? Rava bar Rav Adda and Ravin bar Rav Adda both said in the name of Rav that this was his prayer: May it be your will, Lord our God, that this year shall be rainy and hot. The Gemara immediately expresses surprise at this request: Is heat a good matter? Why should he request that the year be hot? Rather, say and emend it as follows: If the upcoming year is hot, may it also be rainy, lest the heat harm the crops. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, concluded the language of this prayer in the name of Rav Yehuda: May the rule of power not depart from the house of Judah; and may your nation Israel not depend on each other for sustenance, rather, they should be sustained from the produce of their land; and let not the prayer of travelers enter Your presence when they pray for the rain to stop on their travels. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa was walking on the road when rain fell upon him. He said: Master of the Universe, the entire world is comfortable and Ḥanina is suffering. The rain stopped. When he came to his house he said: Master of the Universe, the entire world is suffering for lack of rain and Ḥanina is comfortable. The rain came back. Rav Yosef said: What effect does the prayer of the High Priest have with regard to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa? Notwithstanding the prayer of the High Priest in the Holy of Holies, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s sanctity is greater, as God fulfills his bidding. § The mishna stated that the High Priest would not extend his prayer. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: There was an incident involving a certain High Priest who extended his prayer, and his fellow priests took a vote, counted, and decided to go in after him out of concern that he had died or fainted and required assistance. They began to enter and at that moment he emerged. They said to him: Why did you extend your prayer? He said to them: Why not? Does it trouble you that I prayed for you and for the Temple not to be destroyed? They said to him: Do not make a habit of doing so, as we learned: He would not extend his prayer, so as not to alarm the Jewish people, who might fear he had died. MISHNA: After the Ark was taken into exile, there was a rock in the Holy of Holies from the days of the early prophets, David and Samuel, who laid the groundwork for construction of the Temple, and this stone was called the foundation rock. It was three fingerbreadths higher than the ground, and the High Priest would place the incense on it. After the High Priest left the Holy of Holies, he took the blood of the bull sacrificed as a sin-offering from the one who was stirring it, so it would not coagulate. He entered into the place that he had previously entered, the Holy of Holies, and stood at the place where he had previously stood to offer the incense, between the staves. And he sprinkled from the blood, one time upward and seven times downward. And he would neither intend to sprinkle the blood upward nor to sprinkle it downward, but rather like one who whips, with the blood sprinkled in a single column, one drop below the other. And this is how he would count as he sprinkled, to avoid error: One; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven. The High Priest then emerged from there and placed the bowl with the remaining blood on the golden pedestal in the Sanctuary. They brought him the goat to be sacrificed as a sin-offering to God. He slaughtered it and received its blood in the bowl. He again entered into the place that he had previously entered, the Holy of Holies, and stood at the place that he previously stood, and sprinkled from the blood of the goat one time upward and seven times downward. And this is how he would count, just as he counted when sprinkling the blood of the bull: One; one and one; one and two; etc. The High Priest then emerged from the Holy of Holies and placed the bowl with the remaining blood on the second golden pedestal in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yehuda says: There was only one pedestal there, and he took the blood of the bull from the pedestal and placed the blood of the goat in its place. And he sprinkled from the blood of the bull on the curtain opposite the Ark from outside the Holy of Holies, one time upward and seven times downward, and he would not intend, etc. And this is how he would count, etc. When he concluded, he took the blood of the goat from the pedestal and placed blood of the bull in its place on the pedestal. And he sprinkled from the goat’s blood on the curtain opposite the Ark from outside, just as he did with the blood of the bull, one time upward and seven times downward, etc. Afterward, he poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat and placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl, so that the blood would be mixed well. GEMARA: The Gemara comments with regard to the wording of the mishna: It does not teach: After the Ark was buried, but: After it was taken. If so, we learned this mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the Ark was exiled to Babylonia and was not buried in its place, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The Ark was exiled to Babylonia, as it is stated: “And at the turn of the year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylonia, along with the precious vessels of the House of the Lord” (II Chronicles 36:10). These precious vessels must include the Ark. Likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Ark was exiled to Babylonia, as it is stated: “Behold, the days come that all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored until this day, shall be carried to Babylonia; nothing [davar] shall be left, says the Lord” (Isaiah 39:6). These are the Ten Commandments [dibrot] that are inside it; they too shall not be left behind. Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish says: The Ark was buried in its place, as it is stated: “And the ends of the staves were seen from the sacred place before the partition, but they could not be seen without; and they are there to this day” (I Kings 8:8). The expression “to this day” means forever, as the text might be read at any time. This teaches that the Ark is hidden in its place. The Gemara comments: And this opinion that the Ark was exiled to Babylonia disagrees with that of Ulla, as Ulla said: Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai in Rome: And since Rabbi Eliezer taught us once and twice, i.e., from two separate verses, that the Ark was exiled to Babylonia. The Gemara interrupts its citation of Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash’s question to identify these two verses. The first verse is that which we said: “And brought him to Babylonia, along with the precious vessels of the House of the Lord.” What is the second verse? Rabbi Eliezer said: As it is written: “And gone from the daughter of Zion is

established his opinion based on a verse, as it is written: “And the goat shall bear upon it all their iniquities to a land which is cut off; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:22). The concluding phrase, “in the wilderness,” is unnecessary, and indicates that the goat shall be available for anyone to use, similar to a wilderness. And the one who said they are prohibited based his opinion on the same verse, as it is written, “cut off” [gezeira], which indicates a prohibition. The Gemara asks: And the one who said they are prohibited, what does he do with this term wilderness, i.e., what does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: He needs it for that which was taught in a baraita: There are three expressions used to describe the location of the procedure with the scapegoat: “Into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10), “into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:21), and “in the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:22), to include Nov and Givon and Shiloh, when the Tabernacle was located there, and the eternal Temple. The mitzva of the scapegoat applied during the time periods when communal offerings were sacrificed in any of these locations. The Gemara asks: And the other, what does he do with this word gezeira? The Gemara answers: He needs it for that which was taught in a baraita with regard to the word gezeira: Gezeira means nothing other than cut. That is, he must send the goat away to a place cut up by rocks standing upright and sticking out. Alternatively, gezeira is referring to nothing other than something that breaks apart and falls, a reference to the goat, which is torn limb from limb. Alternatively, the word gezeira is written lest you say the procedure of the scapegoat is a meaningless act, since what sanctity and atonement is achieved in sending the goat to Azazel and pushing it from the cliff? Therefore, the verse states: “I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:5), i.e., I, the Lord, decreed it [gezartiv], and you have no right to question it. Having clarified the reasoning of each opinion, the Gemara concludes its discussion of whether the limbs of the goat are permitted for benefit. Rava said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the one that said the limbs of the goat are permitted, since the Torah did not say: “And send the goat” to cause mishap. Once the man pushes the goat off the cliff, he is no longer responsible for it. Therefore, if it were prohibited to derive benefit from the goat’s remains, the mitzva itself could lead to a mishap if someone were to find the goat’s remains and make use of them. § The Sages taught: The word Azazel indicates that the cliff the goat is pushed from should be rough and hard. I might have thought that it may be located in a settled area. Therefore, the verse states: “In the wilderness.” And from where does one derive that the goat is pushed from a cliff? The verse states “gezeira,” indicating an area that is sharp, like a cliff. It was taught in another baraita: Azazel is a reference to the hardest mountain, and so it says: “And the mighty [eilei] of the land he took away” (Ezekiel 17:13). Azazel is interpreted as azaz-el, with the term el connoting something rough and hard. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Azazel is so called because it atones for the actions of Uzza and Azael. These are the names of “sons of God” who sinned with “daughters of men” (Genesis 6:2) and thereby caused the world to sin during the generation of the Flood. The Gemara cites another baraita related to the scapegoat. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “You shall do My ordinances, and you shall keep My statutes to follow them, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 18:4), that the phrase: My ordinances, is a reference to matters that, even had they not been written, it would have been logical that they be written. They are the prohibitions against idol worship, prohibited sexual relations, bloodshed, theft, and blessing God, a euphemism for cursing the Name of God. The phrase: And you shall keep my statutes, is a reference to matters that Satan and the nations of the world challenge because the reason for these mitzvot are not known. They are: The prohibitions against eating pork; wearing garments that are made from diverse kinds of material, i.e., wool and linen; performing the ḥalitza ceremony with a yevama, a widow who must participate in a levirate marriage or ḥalitza; the purification ceremony of the leper; and the scapegoat. And lest you say these have no reason and are meaningless acts, therefore the verse states: “I am the Lord” (Leviticus 18:4), to indicate: I am the Lord, I decreed these statutes and you have no right to doubt them. § It was taught in the mishna that the tanna’im disagreed about from what point the garments of the man who leads the scapegoat are rendered impure. The Sages taught in a baraita: The garments of the one who dispatches the goat are rendered impure, but the garments of the one who dispatches the dispatcher, e.g., those who accompany him, are not rendered impure. One might have thought that as soon as he leaves the wall of the Temple courtyard he becomes ritually impure. Therefore, the verse states: “He that dispatched” (Leviticus 16:26), to teach that he does not contract impurity until his journey has begun. On the other hand, if the verse had simply stated: He that dispatched, one might have thought he does not become impure until he reaches the cliff. Therefore, the verse states: “And he that dispatched,” with the inclusive term “and.” How is this to be understood? His garments are rendered impure only when he emerged outside the wall of Jerusalem. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says that the verse states: “And he that dispatched the goat to Azazel shall wash” (Leviticus 16:26), which indicates that his garments are not rendered impure until he has reached Azazel, i.e., the cliff. Rabbi Shimon says: His garments are rendered impure only when he pushes the goat from the cliff, as it says: “And he that dispatched the goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes” (Leviticus 16:26), to indicate that he throws it headlong and only then, once he has fulfilled the mitzva, his garments are rendered impure. MISHNA: After the High Priest passed the goat to the man tasked with dispatching the goat, he came next to the bull and the goat that were to be burned. He tore their flesh but was not required to cut it into pieces, and removed the portions of the offering consumed on the altar and placed them in a large bowl [magis] and burned them on the altar. He interwove and bound the bull and the goat together into braids as one mass. They were placed in that way upon two poles and carried by four people who took them out to the place designated for burning, outside of Jerusalem. And at what point do the bull and goat render the garments of those who carried them impure, as it is written: “And he who burns them shall wash his garments” (Leviticus 16:28)? They render the garments impure from the moment that they emerged outside the wall of the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: They render the garments impure from the moment that the fire has ignited in most of the bull and the goat. GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna that the High Priest removed the portions of the offering consumed on the altar and burned them on the altar. The Gemara expresses surprise: Would it enter your mind to say he burned them? He would not burn them right away, since he had to perform other services first. Rather, say that he placed them in a large bowl in order to burn them on the altar later. It was taught in the mishna that the High Priest interwove and bound the bull and the goat together into braids as one mass before taking them to be burned. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He made them like a braid, whose parts are interwoven. It was taught: He would not dissect the bull and goat in the manner of the dissection of the flesh of a burnt-offering, where the animal is skinned and then cut into parts. Rather, he would leave the skin on top of the flesh and would cut the animal into pieces without skinning it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated here with regard to the bull and goat, skin and flesh and dung (Leviticus 16:27), and it is stated below, with regard to the bull sin-offerings that are burned, skin and flesh and dung (Leviticus 4:11).

If that person pushed the goat off the cliff and it did not die, he should descend after it and kill it with any article that will serve that purpose. It is permitted to benefit from the limbs of this goat.

MISHNA: They brought out the spoon and the coal pan to the High Priest so he may perform the service of the incense. He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the small size of his hands. And this was the measure of the spoon, i.e., it was made to correspond to the size of his hands. He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the mishna. In an earlier mishna, the tanna already taught that the High Priest must bring the coal pan: He takes a coal pan and ascends to the top of the altar and rakes and descends. Why does the tanna mention the taking of the coal pan again? The Gemara explains: There the mishna deals with the coal pan of burning coals, and here the mishna is referring to the coal pan of incense, which he would later scoop out. As it was explicitly taught in a baraita: They brought out an empty spoon for him from the chamber of vessels, and a coal pan heaped with incense from the Chamber of the House of Avtinas. § The mishna taught: He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon corresponding to the small size of his hands, and this was the measure of the spoon, according to the size of his hands. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a spoon on Yom Kippur? After all, the Merciful One states: “And he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar from before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil” (Leviticus 16:12). This verse suggests that the handfuls are brought by hand rather than in a vessel. The Gemara answers: The High Priest uses a spoon because it is impossible to perform the service otherwise. The Gemara elaborates: As what should we do? Let him bring in the coal pan and then bring in the incense? The Merciful One states one act of bringing for the coals and the incense, and not two acts of bringing. Instead, let him take the incense by his handfuls and place the coal pan on top of his two handfuls and enter, carrying it all in one go. This suggestion is also impractical, as when he arrives there, in the Holy of Holies, what should he do? How can the High Priest put down the coal pan where it is? Let him take the coal pan in his teeth and lower it. Now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as it is disrespectful. All the more so, one would not act in this manner before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest to behave in another way, and since it is impossible to act in any other manner, he acts as we find with regard to the sacrifices of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle. On that occasion, the princes brought spoons filled with incense: “One golden spoon of ten shekels full of incense” (Numbers 7:14). § The mishna taught that the High Priest took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. The Gemara questions this arrangement by citing a well-known maxim: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens; i.e., this is the opposite of what one would expect. The main component of the mitzva is the incense, while the coal pan is required only for burning the incense. Consequently, the High priest should carry the spoon, which contains the main component of the service, in his right hand, and the accessory in his left hand. The Gemara explains: The service is performed in this manner for reasons of comfort, as this coal pan is greater in weight, since it holds the coals, and that spoon of incense weighs less. And even when the two of them are equal, when the spoon contains three kav of incense like the action of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit, who could hold several kav in his exceptionally large hands, nevertheless, this coal pan is hot and must be held carefully in the right hand, and that spoon of incense is cold and is easily carried in the left. § Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit, it discusses him further. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit that his hands were so large that he would scoop up four kav, which he would hold by his handfuls, and say: All the women selected the best they could for their children, but the selection of my mother rose to the roof, i.e., my mother chose the best. Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit is referring to himself, as he matured to a great height and stature. Some say he was referring to his mother’s selection of flour, in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Yonatan. As Rabba bar Yonatan said that Rabbi Yeḥiel said: Flour is beneficial and healthy for the sick. Since his mother ate this flour when she was pregnant with him, her son grew heartily. And some say this reference to selection is a euphemism for semen, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “For You have girded me [vatazreni] with strength for battle” (II Samuel 22:40), and it is written in a parallel verse: “Who girds me [hame’azreni] with strength” (Psalms 18:33). What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe: You selected me [zeritani] with the best drop of semen that my mother absorbed, with which, You fashioned me [zeraztani] within her. This accounts for the variant forms of this expression. The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he was talking to a certain Arab in the market on Yom Kippur, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the Arab’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, who was the High Priest at the time. This spittle rendered him ritually impure by rabbinic law, like the ritual impurity of a zav, preventing him from serving in the Temple. And his brother Yeshevav entered and served as High Priest on that day in his stead. And, consequently, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day. And they further said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he went out and talked to a certain officer [hegmon] in the market, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the officer’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, and his brother Yosef entered and served as High Priest in his stead. And, again, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day. The Sages taught in a baraita: Kimḥit had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this? She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house. They said to her: Many women did so and did not succeed to such a degree; you must have been granted a special gift from God. § The Sages taught: “And he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of its oil” (Leviticus 6:8). This verse teaches that he should not measure an amount for the handful of a meal-offering with a utensil, but he should separate it directly by hand. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha as to whether the High Priest may measure an amount for the handful of incense? Must the incense also be scooped by hand? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps there, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, it is different, as it is written “in his handful,” which indicates that he must use his hand rather than a vessel. However here, where it is not written: In his hands, but “and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small” (Leviticus 16:12), perhaps this teaches that the handfuls of incense need not be taken directly by hand, and the High Priest may use a vessel to scoop out the required amount. Or perhaps this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “full” and “full,” from “his handful,” which is stated regarding the meal-offering. If this verbal analogy is accepted, the High Priest may likewise scoop the incense only by hand. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: And this was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that although the required measure is a handful, the High Priest is not obligated to scoop with his hand, and if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is what the mishna said; this is what it means: And so too, the High Priest would return and scoop the incense inside the Holy of Holies in precisely the same manner. The Gemara asks: If so, I can learn from this that the High Priest scoops the incense, and again scoops. That is, after scooping once, the High Priest repeats the action and scoops again in the Holy of Holies. This issue is subject to a dispute in the Gemara below. The Gemara rejects this claim: No; perhaps the mishna indeed means that if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel. The language of the mishna does not conclusively prove which interpretation is correct, and it is possible that the Gemara’s previous inference from the mishna is accurate. Consequently, the issue of whether or not the High Priest scoops incense a second time in the Holy of Holies cannot be considered resolved. Alternatively, the mishna may mean that the High Priest must take neither less nor more, and therefore this statement has no bearing on the dispute with regard to his scooping. § The Sages taught: “His handfuls” (Leviticus 2:2). I might have thought it should be overflowing from the handful, and therefore the verse states: “His handful” (Leviticus 6:8), which indicates a precise amount. If the halakha is based solely on the phrase “his handful,” I might have thought the priest may pinch a small amount even with just his fingertips, not with his entire finger. Therefore, the verse states: “His handfuls” (Leviticus 2:2), meaning as people usually take a handful, i.e., with their whole hand. How should he perform this service? He scoops by closing his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and takes a handful from the flour of the meal-offering.

§ Returning to Rabbi Elazar’s question as to whether a High Priest can perform substitution for his bull, the Gemara seeks to prove that the other priests were not full partners in this offering but only gained atonement incidentally. And let me derive this halakha from the fact that the Merciful One states: “And Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin-offering, which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11), indicating that the High Priest brings the bull from his own property. As it was taught in a baraita: “Which is for himself” means that he brings it from his own property and not from the property of the community. I might have thought that the High Priest may not bring this offering from the property of the community because the community as a whole does not gain atonement through it, but he may bring it from the property of his fellow priests, as his fellow priests do gain atonement through it. Therefore the verse states: “Which is for himself,” i.e., it must belong to him and no one else. I might have thought that the High Priest should not bring the bull from the property of the other priests ab initio, but if he did bring it from their property, the offering is valid. Therefore, the verse continues and states again: “And he shall slaughter the bull for the sin-offering, which is for himself” (Leviticus 16:11); the text repeats this phrase: “Which is for himself,” to emphasize that this requirement is indispensable and that if the High Priest brings a bull that belongs to someone else, the offering is invalid. The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, if his fellow priests do not acquire a share in the bull, how does it atone for them? Since they achieve atonement through the offering, they must own a share in it. Rather, you must say that the property [bei gazza] of Aaron the High Priest is different in that the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests. Although the High Priest brings a bull from his own funds, it is as though he sanctifies it on behalf of all of the priests. But if so, here too, with regard to substitution, we could likewise say that the property of Aaron is different in that the Merciful One rendered it ownerless with regard to his fellow priests. Consequently, there is no proof from here that a High Priest can perform substitution for his bull. MISHNA: The High Priest would then walk west through the Sanctuary until he reaches the area between the two curtains that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and the space between them was one cubit. Rabbi Yosei says: There was only one curtain there, as it is stated: “And the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33). GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yosei is saying well to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yosei provides solid support for his opinion. And the Rabbis could say to you: This applies only in the Tabernacle, which had but one curtain. However, in the Second Temple, since there was no one-cubit partition [teraksin] separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple, as it was only in the First Temple that there was a one-cubit partition, and the Rabbis were uncertain with regard to the sanctity of the space occupied by the one-cubit partition, whether it had the sanctity of the inside of the Holy of Holies, or the sanctity of the outside area of the Sanctuary, therefore the Sages of the time prepared two curtains to enclose this space of uncertain status. § The Sages taught: When the High Priest walked to the Holy of Holies, he walked on the south side between the inner altar and the candelabrum. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says that he walked on the north side between the table and the altar. And some say he passed between the table and the wall. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is introduced by the title: Some say? Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in our mishna, according to whom there is only one curtain and who said that the entrance was positioned in the north. According to all opinions, the entrance to the Holy of Holies was located in the north, and since Rabbi Yosei believed that there was just one curtain, the High Priest would walk in a straight line toward this entrance along the north side of the Sanctuary. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there were two curtains, and therefore he could have said to you that although the entrance to the Holy of Holies was on the north side, because there were two curtains, one behind the other, the entrance was positioned in the south. The High Priest entered on the south side and walked between the curtains to the north of the inner curtain where he entered the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Meir, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the place of the entrance, the High Priest should enter as explained by Rabbi Yehuda; conversely, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he should enter as explained by Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and he could have said to you: The tables, the one holding the shewbread and other tables next to it, were arranged north to south, and the table blocked him on the north side, and therefore the High Priest could not enter in a direct line, as the space was too narrow. And if you wish, say instead: Actually the tables were arranged east to west, and due to the honor of the Divine Presence, it was not proper conduct

The first example is the term: “Se’et” (Genesis 4:7). It is unclear whether the verse should be read: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up [se’et]?” in which case se’et involves forgiveness and pardon; or: “If you do well, but you will lift up [se’et] your sin if you do not do well.” According to this interpretation, se’et is referring to remembrance: If you do not do well, your sin will be remembered. The second uncertain case is the term: “Meshukkadim” (Exodus 25:34). This verse can be read: “And in the candelabrum four cups made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim]”; or as: “Its knops and its flowers made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim].” In other words, the term meshukkadim can be read either with the first part or the last part of the verse. Likewise, the term: “Maḥar” (Exodus 17:9) can be read: “And go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow [maḥar]”. Alternatively, it can mean that Joshua must go out to war with Amalek immediately, and Moses added: “Tomorrow [maḥar] I will stand on the top of the hill” (Exodus 17:9), but today you do not need my prayer. Once again, the issue is whether this term belongs to the beginning or the end of the verse. The fourth case is the term: “Arur” (Genesis 49:7). This verse can be read: “Cursed [arur] be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel,” on account of Levi and Simeon’s treatment of Shechem. Alternatively, this term, which appears at the beginning of the verse, can be read as the last word of the previous verse: “And in their anger they cut off cursed [arur] oxen” (Genesis 49:6–7). According to this interpretation, “cursed oxen” is referring to the oxen of Shechem, who descended from the accursed Canaan. Finally, the term: “Vekam” (Deuteronomy 31:16) can be read as: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers and rise up [vekam]” at the time of the resurrection of the dead; or: “And this people will rise up [vekam] and go astray.” The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in the Torah itself, are there no other examples of indeterminate punctuation? But there is this dilemma that Rav Ḥisda raised with regard to the verse: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel who sacrificed burnt-offerings” (Exodus 24:5); were these burnt-offerings sheep, and when the verse continues: “And sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,” these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps these and these were bulls, as the word “bulls” is referring both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings? This is another verse whose punctuation is unclear. The Gemara rejects this contention: This is not difficult; according to Rav Ḥisda it was uncertain how to read the verse, but the interpretation was obvious to Isi ben Yehuda. MISHNA: The outer curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was hooked [perufa] slightly open on the south side of the Sanctuary, and the inner curtain hooked slightly open on the north side of the Sanctuary, and therefore the High Priest could not enter the Holy of Holies directly. Rather, he enters through the southern opening and walks between the curtains until he reaches the opening to the north. When he reaches the opening to the north, he enters the Holy of Holies through that opening, turns his face to the south, and walks to his left along the curtain until he reaches the area before the Ark. When he reaches the Ark, he places the coal pan between the two staves. He piles the incense atop the coals, and the whole chamber in its entirety would fill with smoke. He then exits and comes out the way that he entered. He does not turn around but leaves the Holy of Holies walking while facing the Ark. And he recites a brief prayer in the outer chamber, in the Sanctuary. And he would not extend his prayer there so as not to alarm the Jewish people, who would otherwise conclude that something happened and that he died in the Holy of Holies. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? To which time period is the mishna referring? If we say it is speaking about the First Temple, were there curtains then? There was only one curtain over the one-cubit partition. Rather, if we say that the mishna is dealing with the Second Temple, was there an Ark there? The Gemara elaborates: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that when the Ark was buried, along with it was buried the jar of manna that was next to it, and the flask of oil used for anointing, and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift [doron] to the God of Israel after they captured the Ark and were stricken by several plagues, as it is stated: “And put the jewels of gold that you return to Him for a guilt-offering, in a coffer by its side, and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8)? § And who buried the Ark? Josiah, king of Judea, buried it. And what did he see that he decided to bury it? He saw that it is written: “The Lord will bring you, and your king whom you shall set over you, to a nation that you have not known” (Deuteronomy 28:36). Since he knew that the Jewish people would ultimately be exiled, he felt it was better that the Ark should not be disgraced in exile, and therefore he arose and buried it. The Gemara cites the source for the tradition that Josiah buried the Ark. As it is stated: “And he said to the Levites who taught all of Israel, who were sacred to the Lord: Put the sacred Ark in the house that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, built. There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders; now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel” (I Chronicles 35:3). In other words, from now onward the Levites will no longer carry the Ark on their shoulders, and they should dedicate themselves to their service of singing and locking the gates of the Temple. And Rabbi Elazar said: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy, as it is written with regard to the Ark: “That is by the Ark of the Testimony, before the Ark cover that is above the testimony, there will I meet with you” (Exodus 30:6), and it is written: “Take a jar and put a full omer of manna there, and place it before the Lord for safekeeping throughout your generations” (Exodus 16:33). And it is further derived by verbal analogy from the term “Generations” written here and “generations” written with regard to the oil used for anointing: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil for Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). Rabbi Elazar continued: And it is likewise derived by verbal analogy from the term “safekeeping” stated here and “safekeeping” stated in connection to the staff of Aaron: “Place back the rod of Aaron before the testimony for safekeeping” (Numbers 17:25). These verbal analogies teach that all of these items were hidden together with the Ark. Evidently, there was no Ark in the Holy of Holies even before the First Temple period ended. How, then, can the mishna speak of the Ark during the Second Temple period? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, and what is the meaning of the phrase: Reaches the Ark? It means the place of the Ark. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But it is taught that he places the coal pan between the two staves, which indicates that the staves of the Ark were present. The Gemara answers: Emend the text and say: As though it was between the two staves, i.e., in the place where the staves had been located when the Ark was there. § The mishna taught: He piles the incense atop the coals. The Gemara comments: We learned in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he piles the incense on the coals and does not scatter it there. It was taught in one baraita: He piles the incense in the section of the coal pan closest to the Ark, which is farthest from the High Priest, until he reaches the other side of the coal pan. And it was taught in another baraita: He piles it in the section of the coal pan farthest from the Ark, which is closest to him. Abaye said that this issue is a dispute between tanna’im. And Abaye said: It is reasonable to explain in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he piles the incense in the section of the coal pan closest to the Ark, which is farthest from him. As we learned in a mishna that they would teach the priest who burns the incense: Be careful

I might have thought nobody should be present, even in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the verse states “in the Tent of Meeting,” limiting the prohibition to the Temple itself. I have derived only that a prohibition exists in the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle that was in the desert, from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also to the Tabernacle that stood in Shiloh, and that it applies also to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem? The verse states “in the Sanctuary,” indicating that the prohibition applies to any Sanctuary. I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense; from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also during the presentations of the bull’s blood in the Holy of Holies? The verse states: “When he goes in to make atonement,” and atonement is achieved through the presentations of blood. I have derived only that a prohibition exists from the time of his entrance into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the prohibition remains in force until his exit? The verse states: “Until he comes out.” The baraita concludes by expounding the final part of the verse: “And have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel” (Leviticus 16:17). This teaches that his atonement precedes the atonement of his household; the atonement of his household precedes that atonement of his brethren, the priests; the atonement of his brethren, the priests, precedes the atonement of the entire community of Israel. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense. From where in the verse could this have been inferred? Rava said, and similarly Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said, and similarly Rabbi Elazar said: The conclusion of that verse states: “And have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.” Which act of atonement is the same for him, and for his household, and for his brethren, the priests, and for the entire community of Israel? You must say this is the burning of the incense. Does incense effect atonement? The Torah mentions the concept of atonement only with regard to offerings. Yes, as Rabbi Ḥananya teaches in a baraita: We learned of the incense that it effects atonement, as it is stated: “And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense effect atonement? For slander. And why is that? Let something that is done in secret, i.e., the incense, which is burned in seclusion within the Sanctuary, come and effect atonement for an act done in secret, i.e., slander, which is generally said in private. We learned in a mishna there: They remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense. Rabbi Elazar said: They taught that this is true only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary, but during the burning of the incense in the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, people are required to remove themselves only from the Sanctuary. They do not need to remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from a baraita, and some say it unattributed: Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., of the High Priest, which he brings if he issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the bull for an unwitting communal sin brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the goats of idol worship brought for an inadvertent communal transgression of idol worship. The baraita continues: If so, what higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary relative to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar? Only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the incense burning and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the incense burning. Those who are in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar remove themselves only during the incense burning but not during the blood presentations. The Gemara explains the challenge: In any case, it is evident from the baraita that during the incense burning they do remove themselves. What, is it not referring to during the burning of the incense of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies? This would contradict Rabbi Elazar’s opinion. The Gemara defends his opinion: No, it is referring to during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: If so, how can the baraita say: What higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary? This implies that it is superior only with respect to one higher standard. Are there not more? Surely, there is this higher standard, that whereas the people in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during its own, i.e., the Sanctuary’s, incense burning and during the incense burning of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they remove themselves only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary. The Gemara explains: This is in fact what the baraita is teaching: It is teaching only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the burning of the incense and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the burning of the incense; from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they do not remove themselves,

שמן למאור, “oil for light;” it is somewhat puzzling why this verse has been inserted here, seeing that the entire chapter deals with materials used for building the Tabernacle with the exception of this item, although the requirements for the Table in the Tabernacle have not been mentioned here, although that would have been appropriate, if the Torah had wished to mention the requirements of the menorah, the lampstand. Also the firewood for the altar should have been mentioned, and the animals that were needed to be offered on the altar. Why was only the oil singled out? It is possible to answer this by saying that seeing that the oils for anointing was also used to anoint all the furnishings in the Tabernacle before they could perform their function, this oil had multiple functions and was not only used for providing the raw material from which lighting was supplied for the Tabernacle which had no windows. The same is true of the incense. In a king’s palace, in our physical universe, before the King enters it with a view to take up his residence, different pleasant smelling spices are scattered to dissipate remnants of unpleasant odours that had accumulated during its construction. It is clear therefore that no less would be done when a structure housing the presence of the shechinah, presence of the Creator would be made ready for His occupancy. We find that indeed the presence of the Lord in the Tabernacle was made possible only through the presence of the incense, i.e. the fragrance released by it through burning it; this thought has been spelled out in Leviticus 16,13: וכסה ענן הקטורת, “and the cloud of incense is to envelop the Holy Ark,” as well as again in verse 2 of the same chapter: כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, “for I appear in the cloud upon the cover of the Ark.” Even though the oil of which the Torah speaks here is not required for physical illumination in the Tabernacle, it reflects the honour paid to the Holy Presence of the celestial presence in the midst of the Jewish people.

כי בענן אראה על הכפורת. According to the plain meaning of the text, we are told that G’d would become manifest by means of the cloud which hovers over the spot where the lid of the Holy Ark is situated within the Tabernacle. Compare Exodus 25,22 where G’d told Moses: “I will speak with you from above the כפורת from the area between the two cherubs.” If the priest would see this area with his own eyes he would die. Therefore, when he would enter the Tabernacle (Holy of Holies) on the Day of Atonement to burn the incense and sprinkle the blood of the bull and ram of the sin offering on the dividing curtain, the cloud would first wrap the entire Tabernacle into darkness so that he would not be able to see what he was not allowed to see.

The Gemara answers that this is no proof, as he is not dealing with the incense. In practice, the High Priest must indeed go back and scoop new incense after slaughtering the bull. The mishna did not mention this detail because it is discussing the issue of the sprinkling of blood, not the incense service. § Ulla said: With regard to a goat that he slaughtered before presentation of the blood of the bull, it is as though he did nothing. The Gemara asks: But we learned in the mishna that if he performed the sprinkling of the blood of the goat before the sprinkling of the blood of the bull, he must repeat the action and sprinkle the blood of the goat after sprinkling the blood of the bull. And if it is so that Ulla is correct, the mishna should have said that he must return and slaughter another bull. The Gemara answers: Ulla interpreted the mishna as referring only to the presentations in the Sanctuary that were performed out of order. However, it is essential that the presentations in the Holy of Holies must be performed before the slaughter of the goat. And likewise, Rabbi Afes said that the mishna is referring to the presentations in the Sanctuary. § The mishna states: And similarly in the Sanctuary, and likewise on the golden altar, if the blood spills he must go back and begin that cycle of sprinklings afresh. The Sages taught: “And he shall make atonement for the most sacred place, and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). “And he shall make atonement for the most sacred place,” this is the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies; “the Tent of Meeting,” this is the Sanctuary; “altar” is meant as per its plain meaning; “he shall make atonement,” is referring to the second mention of this phrase in the verse, these are the courtyards. “The priests” is meant as per its plain meaning; “people of the assembly,” these are the Israelites; “he shall make atonement,” these are the Levites, who also gain atonement. They are all equated in this verse in that they achieve one atonement in this verse, which indicates that they all achieve atonement through the scapegoat for all other transgressions, apart from the ritual impurity of the Temple and consecrated objects, i.e., entering the Temple or eating consecrated food while ritually impure. The bull presented inside atones only for the priests, while the goats atone solely for Israelites. Only the scapegoat atones equally for all Jews. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the blood of the goat presented inside atones for Israelites who sinned with the ritual impurity of the Temple and its consecrated objects, so too, the blood of the High Priest’s bull atones for the priests who sinned with the ritual impurity of the Temple and its consecrated objects. And just as the confession over the scapegoat atones for Israelites with regard to all other transgressions, so too, the confession over the bull atones for the priests with regard to all other transgressions, and therefore the priests do not require atonement through the scapegoat. The Sages taught in another baraita: “And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). “And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place,” this is the sprinklings in the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies; “Tent of Meeting,” this is the sprinklings toward the curtain in the Sanctuary; “altar,” as per its plain meaning. This teaches that they each constitute a separate atonement unto themselves, i.e., each one of these actions achieves a distinct atonement. If a disqualification occurs in any of the atoning actions, he must return to the beginning of that action. From here the Sages stated: If the High Priest presented some of the presentations inside the Holy of Holies and then the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins from the start of the presentations inside. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He need not start the cycle of sprinklings again; rather, he begins only from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations inside and then the blood spilled, he brings other blood and starts at the beginning of the presentations in the Sanctuary. However, he does not begin the presentations inside anew, as he has already sprinkled all the required blood inside, and that stage of the service is complete. If he presented some of the presentations in the Sanctuary and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins again from the start in the Sanctuary, as he has not yet completed all the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins only from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations in the Sanctuary and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins at the start of the presentations at the altar, as he has already achieved the atonement of the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. If he presented some of the presentations at the altar and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins at the start of the presentations at the altar, as the atonement of the altar has yet not been completed. In this case, too, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that he begins from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations at the altar and the blood spilled before he poured the remainder of the blood at the base of the outer altar, everyone agrees that the remainders are not indispensable, and he need not slaughter another offering for this mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them, meaning the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Meir, the accepted author of unattributed mishnayot, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Shimon, derived their opinions from one verse: “And Aaron shall make atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once a year he shall make atonement for it throughout your generations; it is most sacred to the Lord” (Exodus 30:10). Rabbi Yoḥanan elaborates: Rabbi Meir holds that God said: I said to you to bring one sin-offering and not two sin-offerings. In other words, the High Priest may not sprinkle the blood of two offerings on the inner altar. Consequently, if the blood of the sin-offering spilled in the middle of the rite, he may not complete the presentation with the blood of another animal; rather, he must slaughter new offerings so that he can present all the sprinklings at the altar from one sin-offering. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon hold that God said: I said to you to perform one sprinkling and not two sprinklings. If he already sprinkled once, the High Priest need not sprinkle again, and if the blood spilled in the middle, the rite is completed with the blood of another offering. § It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Rabbi Ya’akov differentiated for me with respect to lugin. In other words, Rabbi Ya’akov said that although Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree with Rabbi Meir with respect to the sprinkling on Yom Kippur, maintaining that the High Priest restarts from where he stopped, if some of the oil from the log used for purifying the leper spills in the middle of the sprinkling, these tanna’im do not disagree that the priest must start that rite afresh. The Gemara expresses surprise at this claim: And do they not disagree with regard to this issue as well? But wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: If he presented some of the presentations of oil that he sprinkles inside the Temple and the log spilled, he brings another log and begins from the start of the presentations in the Sanctuary; and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins from the place where he stopped. Likewise, if he finished the presentations in the Sanctuary and the log spilled, he brings another log and begins from the start of the presentations that he puts on the thumbs of the leper. If he put some of the presentations on the leper’s thumbs and the log spilled, he brings another log and begins from the start of the presentations on his thumbs. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: He begins from the place where he stopped. If he finished the presentations on his thumbs and the log spilled, everyone agrees that the presentations on the head are not indispensable. This baraita proves that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon also disagree with Rabbi Meir with regard to the purifying oil of the leper. The Gemara answers: Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement must be amended, as one should say: Rabbi Ya’akov taught me this dispute with regard to lugin. Just as there is a dispute with regard to spilled blood during the presentations on Yom Kippur, Rabbi Ya’akov taught that a similar dispute applies to the leper’s log of oil. The Gemara analyzes this issue: The Master said above that everyone agrees that the presentations of oil placed on the head of the leper are not indispensable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say it is because it is written: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:29), which indicates that this presentation involves only the rest of the oil and is therefore not an essential element of atonement, however, if that is so, consider the verse: “But the rest of the meal-offering shall be for Aharon and his sons; it is one of the sacred offerings of the Lord by fire” (Leviticus 2:3). Should we say, so too, that they are not indispensable? This cannot be the case, as the halakha is that if the remnants of the meal-offering are lost before the handful is burnt, the owner of the offering must bring another handful. The Gemara answers: It is different there, with regard to the leper’s log of oil, as it is written earlier: “And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand, the priest shall put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be purified, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the big toe of his right foot” (Leviticus 14:17), and it is also written: “And of the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand, he shall put upon the head of him that is to be purified” (Leviticus 14:18). This shows that the presentation on the head is performed only with the remainder of the oil, and therefore this action is certainly not indispensable. Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

It is with regard to the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass, and similar prohibitions, that they disagree. The Torah says: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered animal carcass; give it to the stranger in your community to eat” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The dispute is whether this is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva or whether it is a standard prohibition punishable by lashes. Rabbi Akiva holds: It is a full-fledged prohibition, violators of which are flogged, as is the case with regard to violators of standard Torah prohibitions. In his opinion, this is not a case of a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, as the positive mitzva: “Give it to the stranger in your community to eat,” in no way rectifies the prohibition that was violated. If the carcass was eaten, obviously it cannot then be given to the stranger. Apparently, the verse means that due to the prohibition against eating it, one should give it to the stranger. And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: It is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva. Because the positive command appears after the prohibition, it is tantamount to a prohibition that can be rectified. Abaye said that everyone agrees that the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is a full-fledged prohibition, and it is not a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva, and here, it is with regard to the positive mitzva written after the prohibitions with regard to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a that they disagree. The verse states: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger, I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:9–10). After listing the prohibitions: You shall not wholly reap, you shall not glean, and you shall not gather, the Torah commands: You shall leave them. Rabbi Akiva holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates that one leaves gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a in the field from the outset, and is not in effect after he violates the prohibition of: You shall not wholly reap. If one fails to fulfill that mitzva, he violates full-fledged prohibitions punishable by lashes. However, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the positive mitzva: You shall leave, indicates now, after one violated the prohibition. Even if the individual violated the prohibitions and harvested those crops, there is an obligation to rectify his actions by leaving the produce he harvested for the poor. This is not a full-fledged prohibition; rather, it is a prohibition that after violation is transformed into a positive mitzva that rectifies the transgression. § The Sages taught in the Tosefta: How does he confess? What is the formula of the confession? It is: I have done wrong, I have rebelled, and I have sinned. And likewise, with regard to the scapegoat, it says that the confession is in that order: “And he shall confess over it all of the children of Israel’s wrongdoings and all their rebellions and all their sins” (Leviticus 16:21). And likewise, when God revealed Himself to Moses it says: “Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin” (Exodus 34:7). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say that the meaning of these terms is: Wrongdoings are intentional transgressions, and likewise it says: “That soul shall be cut off, it bears its guilt” (Numbers 15:31). This refers to sins committed intentionally. Rebellions are rebellious transgressions, when one not only intends to violate a prohibition but does so as an act of defiance against God. And likewise, it says: “The king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me” (II Kings 3:7). And it is said: “Then Livna rebelled at that time” (II Kings 8:22). With regard to the phrase: All of their sins, these are unwitting sins. And it says: “If a soul should sin unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:2). In light of these definitions the sequence suggested by Rabbi Meir is unlikely, as once he confessed the wrongdoings and rebellions, does he then confess the unwitting sins? Rather, this is the manner in which he confesses: I have sinned, I have done wrong, and I have rebelled before You, I and my household. And likewise, with regard to David it says in this sequence: “We have sinned along with our forefathers, we have done wrong, we have performed evil” (Psalms 106:6). And likewise, with regard to Solomon it says: “We have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have done evil” (I Kings 8:47). And likewise, with regard to Daniel it says: “We have sinned, and we have done wrong, and we have done evil, and we have rebelled” (Daniel 9:5). However, according to this interpretation, what is the rationale for the sequence of that which Moses said: Forgiving wrongdoing and rebellion and sin, where sin appears last? Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, when the Jewish people sin before you and repent, render their intentional sins like unwitting ones, forgive wrongdoing and rebellion as if they were sin. Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. The confession begins with the unwitting sins and concludes with the severe rebellions. The Gemara expresses surprise concerning the need for this ruling: It is obvious that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, based on the principle: In a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. The Gemara answers: Lest you say in this case that the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is reasonable, as the verse with regard to Moses is written in the order stated by Rabbi Meir and supports his opinion, therefore Rabba bar Shmuel teaches us that the halakha is nevertheless in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who descended to lead the prayers before Rabba, and he performed the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabba said to him: Have you forsaken the opinion of the Rabbis, who are the many, and performed the confession sequence in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? That person said to Rabba: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is written explicitly in the Torah of Moses. § The Sages taught in a halakhic midrash that it is written: “And Aaron is to offer his own bull as a sin-offering and atone for himself and for his household” (Leviticus 16:6). Apparently, the verse is speaking of atonement achieved through words of confession. Do you say it is atonement achieved through words, or perhaps it is only atonement achieved through sprinkling blood, as each mention of atonement associated with an offering involves the sprinkling of blood on the altar? I will infer via a verbal analogy: Atonement is stated here, with regard to the bull of the sin-offering, and atonement is stated there, with regard to the scapegoat: “And the goat designated by the lottery for Azazel shall be left standing alive before God, to atone with it” (Leviticus 16:10). Just as the atonement that is stated with regard to the goat is atonement achieved through words, as neither is the goat slaughtered nor is its blood sprinkled on the altar, so too, the atonement stated with regard to the bull refers to atonement achieved through words. And if it is your wish to state a claim rejecting that proof, there is a different proof. It says: “And Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin-offering and atone for himself and his household. And he shall slaughter his bull of sin-offering” (Leviticus 16:11). Here, the term atonement is used despite the fact that the bull has not yet been slaughtered. Apparently, the atonement of the bull is achieved through confession and not through sprinkling the blood. The Gemara seeks to clarify the midrash: What is the meaning of: And if it is your wish to say, which indicates that there is room to undermine the first source? Why is a second source required? The Gemara answers: And if you say that instead of deriving the atonement of the bull from the atonement of the scapegoat, let us derive it from the goat that is offered within, whose atonement is achieved through sprinkling its blood in the innermost sanctum; therefore, it was taught in the baraita that it says: And atone, and the bull has not yet been slaughtered.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Great is repentance, as it overrides even a prohibition of the Torah. How so? As it is stated that God said: “…Saying: If a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s, may he return to her again? Will not that land be greatly polluted? But you have committed adultery with many lovers; and would you yet return to Me, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 3:1). Indeed, the Torah states: “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she has been made impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4). The relationship between the Jewish people and the Holy One, Blessed be He, is compared to that between a husband and wife. Just as it is prohibited for an adulterous wife to return to her husband, it should be prohibited for the Jewish people to return to God from their sins, yet repentance overrides this prohibition. Rabbi Yonatan said: Great is repentance, which hastens the redemption, as it is stated: “And a redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who repent from transgression in Jacob” (Isaiah 59:20). What is the reason that a redeemer will come to Zion? It is because there are those who repent from transgression in Jacob. Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, as the penitent’s intentional sins are counted for him as unwitting transgressions, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity” (Hosea 14:2). The Gemara analyzes this: Doesn’t “iniquity” mean an intentional sin? Yet the prophet calls it stumbling, implying that one who repents is considered as though he only stumbled accidentally in his transgression. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Reish Lakish himself say: Great is repentance, as one’s intentional sins are counted for him as merits, as it is stated: “And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby” (Ezekiel 33:19), and all his deeds, even his transgressions, will become praiseworthy? The Gemara reconciles: This is not difficult: Here, when one repents out of love, his sins become like merits; there, when one repents out of fear, his sins are counted as unwitting transgressions. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Great is repentance, which lengthens the years of a person’s life, as it is stated: “When the wicked man turns from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he will preserve his life” (Ezekiel 18:27). § Rabbi Yitzḥak said: They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. With flesh and blood people, if one insults his friend with words, it is uncertain whether the victim will be appeased by him or will not be appeased by him. And if you say he will be appeased, it is still uncertain whether he will be appeased by words alone or will not be appeased by words alone, and one must try to appease him in other ways. But with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, if a person commits a transgression in private, God is appeased by words, as it is stated: “Take with you words and return to God” (Hosea 14:3). And not only that, but God considers it as though he has done a favor for God by repenting, as it is stated: “Accept that which is good” (Hosea 14:3). And not only that, but the verse ascribes him credit as though he had sacrificed bulls, as it is stated: “So we will render for bulls the offering of our lips” (Hosea 14:3). Lest you say he is considered only like one who offers obligatory bulls, therefore the verse states: “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely” (Hosea 14:5). Repentance is considered as though it were the sacrifice of a free-will offering. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: Great is repentance because the entire world is forgiven on account of one individual who repents, as it is stated: “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely; for My anger has turned away from him” (Hosea 14:5). It does not say: From them, i.e., from the sinners, but “from him,” i.e., from that individual. Because he repented, everyone will be healed. § With regard to repentance, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances that demonstrate that one has completely repented? Rav Yehuda said: For example, the prohibited matter came to his hand a first time and a second time, and he was saved from it, thereby proving that he has completely repented. Rav Yehuda demonstrated what he meant: If one has the opportunity to sin with the same woman he sinned with previously, at the same time and the same place, and everything is aligned as it was that first time when he sinned, but this time he overcomes his inclination, it proves his repentance is complete, and he is forgiven. Rav Yehuda said that Rav raised a contradiction: It is written: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” (Psalms 32:1), implying that it is inappropriate for one to reveal his sins, and it is written: “He who hides his transgressions shall not prosper” (Proverbs 28:13). He resolved the contradiction as follows: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to a publicized sin; since his sin is public knowledge it is fitting for him to also publicize his repentance. There, it is referring to a sin that is not publicized, in which case it is inappropriate to publicize one’s repentance. Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav Naḥman said: Here, it is referring to sins a person commits against another; he must publicize his repentance so that those who hear him may persuade the other to forgive him. There, it is referring to sins a person commits against God, in which case he need not repent publicly. § It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: When a person commits a transgression the first time, he is forgiven; a second time, he is forgiven; a third time, he is forgiven; but the fourth time, he is not forgiven, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, but for four I will not reverse it” (Amos 2:6). And it says: “All these things does God do twice or three times with a man” (Job 33:29). The Gemara asks: What is: And it says? Why did he need to bring an additional biblical proof when the first verse seems to suffice? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that this statement that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgives easily the first three times applies to a community but not to an individual, come and hear proof from another verse that states: “All these things does God do twice or three times with a man,” implying that this is so even for an individual. From this point onward, he is not forgiven, as it is stated: “For three transgressions of Israel, but for four I will not reverse it.” § The Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to transgressions that one confessed on this Yom Kippur, he should not confess them on another Yom Kippur, since he has already been forgiven. But if he repeated those same transgressions during the year, he must confess them again on another Yom Kippur. And if he did not repeat them but did confess them again, about him the verse states: “As a dog that returns to its vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly” (Proverbs 26:11), since it is inappropriate to go back and mention one’s earlier sins. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If one confesses in subsequent years, all the more so is he praiseworthy, as he remembers his earlier sins and is thereby humbled, as it is stated: “For I know my transgressions; and my sin is ever before me” (Psalms 51:5). But how do I establish the meaning of the verse: “Like a dog that returns to its vomit”? It may be established in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: When a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him because he has sinned twice? Rather, say it becomes to him as if it were permitted. Furthermore, during confession, one must detail the sin he committed and not suffice with a general admission of sin, as it is stated: “And Moses returned to the Lord and said: Please, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made themselves a god of gold” (Exodus 32:31); this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” (Psalms 32:1), which teaches that one need not detail his sins. But what is the meaning of that which Moses said: “And have made themselves a god of gold” (Exodus 32:31)? It should be understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai said: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the universe, it is the silver and gold that you gave to the Jewish people in abundance, until they said: Enough, which caused them to make a god of gold. Consequently, the phrase: “And have made themselves a god of gold,” is not a description of the sin but an explanation and justification of it. It is said that two good leaders arose for the Jewish people: Moses and David. Moses said: Let my disgrace be written, i.e., may the sin I committed be written explicitly, as it is stated: “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me” (Numbers 20:12). In contrast, David said: Let my disgrace not be written, as it is stated: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” (Psalms 32:1). The Gemara explains: A parable with regard to Moses and David shows to what this may be compared. It may be compared to two women who were flogged in court for their sins. One of them sinned by engaging in forbidden relations, and one ate unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year although they are forbidden. The woman who ate the unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year said to the court: Please publicize the sin for which I am being flogged, so that people will not say that what that woman is being flogged for is also what this woman is being flogged for. They brought unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year, and hung them around her neck, and announced before her, saying: She is receiving lashes on account of the Sabbatical Year. Moses requested that his sin be publicized so that people would not think that he committed the same sins as the members of his generation, i.e., the Golden Calf and the report of the spies. Furthermore, they said: One exposes the hypocrites due to the desecration of God’s name, so others will not think that they are truly righteous and that their deeds bear imitating, as it is stated: “When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, I will lay a stumbling block before him” (Ezekiel 3:20). That is, when people do not know that someone is wicked to the core, he causes other people to err and this desecrates the name of God when it is revealed. The repentance of utterly wicked people prevents suffering from coming upon them. And although the sentence of judgment has already been signed against them for suffering, their repentance prevents them from being punished. The tranquility of the wicked is ultimately their destruction, as in their contentment they sit and think about forbidden matters. And authority buries one who owns it. He was naked when he entered into power, and he will be naked when he leaves it, and if only his exit would be like his entrance, without sin and added iniquity. The Gemara relates: When Rav would leave his home to go to court to judge cases, he would say this of himself: Of his own will, he goes to die, because a judge who misjudges a case is liable to death at the hand of Heaven; and he does not fulfill the will of his household and he goes empty-handed to his household, because a judge does not receive a salary; and if only his entrance would be like his exit, without sin or transgression. When Rava would go to judge, he would say this of himself:

If a person transgresses any of the mitzvot of the Torah, whether a positive command or a negative command - whether willingly or inadvertently - when he repents, and returns from his sin, he must confess before God, blessed be He, as [Numbers 5:6-7] states: "If a man or a woman commit any of the sins of man... they must confess the sin that they committed."
This refers to a verbal confession. This confession is a positive command.
How does one confess: He states: "I implore You, God, I sinned, I transgressed, I committed iniquity before You by doing the following. Behold, I regret and am embarrassed for my deeds. I promise never to repeat this act again."
These are the essential elements of the confessional prayer. Whoever confesses profusely and elaborates on these matters is worthy of praise.
Those who bring sin offerings or guilt offerings must also [confess their sins] when they bring their sacrifices for their inadvertent or willful transgressions. Their sacrifices will not atone for their sins until they repent and make a verbal confession as [Leviticus 5:5] states: "He shall confess the sin he has committed upon it."
Similarly, those obligated to be executed or lashed by the court do not attain atonement through their death or lashing unless they repent and confess. Similarly, someone who injures a colleague or damages his property, does not attain atonement, even though he pays him what he owes until he confesses and makes a commitment never to do such a thing again as implied by the phrase [Numbers, loc. cit..], "any of the sins of man." Since the goat sent [to Azazel] atones for all of Israel, the High Priest confesses upon it as a spokesman for all of Israel as [Leviticus 16:21] states: "He shall confess upon it all the sins of the children of Israel."
The goat sent to Azazel atones for all the transgressions in the Torah, the severe and the lighter [sins]; those violated intentionally and those transgressed inadvertently; those which [the transgressor] became conscious of and those which he was not conscious of. All are atoned for by the goat sent [to Azazel].
This applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat only atones for the light [sins].
Which are light sins and which are severe ones? The severe sins are those for which one is liable for execution by the court or karet. False and unnecessary oaths are also considered severe sins even though they are not [punished by] karet. [The violation of] the other prohibitions and [the failure to perform] positive commandments that are not punishable by karet are considered light [sins].

THE reason of all precepts of the first class, viz., of the principles enumerated by us in the Hilkot yesode ha-torah, is obvious. Consider them one by one, and you will find that the lesson which every one of them contains is correct and demonstrable. It is also evident that the precepts which exhort and command us to learn and to teach are useful; for without wisdom there cannot be any good act or any true knowledge. The law which prescribes to honour the teachers of the Law is likewise useful; for if they were not considered by the people as great and honourable men, they would not be followed as guides in their principles and actions. The Law demands also that we be humble and modest [in their presence]. “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head” (Lev. 19:32). This class includes also the commandment to swear by the name of God and the prohibition of swearing falsely or in vain. The reason for all these precepts is evident; they aim at the glorification of God: they prescribe acts which lead to the belief in God’s greatness. Likewise the commandment to cry to God in time of trouble, “to blow an alarm with the trumpets” (Num. 10:9), belongs to this class. We are told to offer up prayers to God, in order to establish firmly the true principle that God takes notice of our ways, that He can make them successful if we worship Him, or disastrous if we disobey Him, that [success and failure] are not the result of chance or accident. In this sense we must understand the passage, “If ye walk with me by chance” (beḳeri, Lev. 26:21); i.e., if I bring troubles upon you for punishment, and you consider them as mere accidents, I will again send you some of these accidents as you call them, but of a more serious and troublesome character. This is expressed in the words: “If ye walk with me by chance: then I will walk with you also in the fury of chance” (ibid. vers. 27, 28). For the belief of the people that their troubles are mere accidents causes them to continue in their evil principles and their wrong actions, and prevents them from abandoning their evil ways. Comp. “Thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved” (Jer. 5:3). For this reason God commanded us to pray to Him, to entreat Him, and to cry before Him in time of trouble. It is clear that repentance is likewise included in this class; that is to say, it is one of those principles which are an indispensable element in the creed of the followers of the Law. For it is impossible for man to be entirely free from error and sin; he either does not know the opinion which he has to choose, or he adopts a principle, not for its own merits, but in order to gratify his desire or passion. If we were convinced that we could never make our crooked ways straight, we should for ever continue in our errors, and perhaps add other sins to them since we did not see that any remedy was left to us. But the belief in the effect of repentance causes us to improve, to return to the best of the ways, and to become more perfect than we were before we sinned. For this reason many things are prescribed for the promotion of this very useful principle: e.g., confessions and sacrifices for sins committed unknowingly, and in some cases even for sins committed intentionally, and fasts, and that which is common to all cases of repentance from sin, the resolve to discontinue sinning. For that is the aim of this principle. Of all these precepts the use is obvious.

At present, when the Temple does not exist and there is no altar of atonement, there remains nothing else aside from Teshuvah.
Teshuvah atones for all sins. Even a person who was wicked his whole life and repented in his final moments will not be reminded of any aspect of his wickedness as [Ezekiel 33:12] states "the wickedness of the evil one will not cause him to stumble on the day he repents his wickedness."
The essence of Yom Kippur atones for those who repent as [Leviticus 16:30] states: "This day will atone for you."

that he should be designated the day before. The word appointed also indicates that the scapegoat is always sent away at the appointed time, and even on Shabbat. Similarly, the word appointed indicates that the scapegoat is always sent away at the appointed time, and even when the appointed man is in a state of ritual impurity. The baraita stated that the word man is mentioned to qualify a non-priest. The Gemara expresses surprise: It is obvious that a non-priest is qualified for this service; why would one have thought otherwise? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: The term atonement is written with regard to it, and atonement is achieved only through services performed by priests. Therefore, it teaches us that this atonement is not achieved through a sacrificial offering, and consequently the service may be performed even by an Israelite. The baraita stated that the word appointed indicates that the service is performed even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? There is no apparent desecration of Shabbat by escorting the goat, since the halakha of Shabbat boundaries is merely Rabbinic. Rav Sheshet said: It is mentioned in order to state that if the goat were ill and could not walk the whole way, the one who escorts the goat carries it on his shoulder. The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, didn’t he say that a living being carries itself? Because a living being is lighter than dead weight, the living being is considered to be aiding the one carrying it, and therefore carrying a living being is not considered an act of prohibited labor according to Torah law. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, a living being that is ill is different. Since the goat cannot walk on its own strength, despite the fact that it is alive, all agree that the one who carries it is performing a prohibited labor. Based on the fact that the word appointed indicates that the scapegoat is sent away even on Shabbat, Rafram said: That is to say that the concept of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but eiruv and carrying out do not apply to Yom Kippur. If these halakhot applied equally to Yom Kippur, and nevertheless the Torah commanded that the scapegoat be sent away, it would be unnecessary to derive that the same is true even if Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. The baraita stated that the word appointed indicates that the service is performed even in a state of ritual impurity. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Sheshet said: The verse comes to tell you that if the one sending the goat away became impure, he nevertheless enters the Temple courtyard while he is impure and sends it away. § Apropos this discussion, the Gemara mentions that the students once asked Rabbi Eliezer: If the goat became ill, what is the halakha with regard to whether the escort may carry it on his shoulder? He said to them: That goat can carry me and you, meaning the goat designated healthy was unlikely to become ill. Rabbi Eliezer thereby avoided the question. They asked him: If the one sending the goat away became ill, what is the halakha with regard to whether they send it with someone else? He said to them dismissively: I and you shall be in peace, i.e., this would never happen. The students continued to question Rabbi Eliezer: If he pushed the goat and it did not die upon its fall, what is the halakha with regard to whether he should follow it down and kill it? He said to them: “So may all your enemies perish, Lord” (Judges 5:31). In other words, the goat will certainly die on its own. Rabbi Eliezer did not wish to answer these questions, as will be explained below. However, the Sages say: If the goat became ill, the escort carries it on his shoulder. If the one sending out the goat became ill, he sends the goat with someone else. If he pushes it and it does not die, he follows it down and kills it. The Gemara cites more questions that the students asked Rabbi Eliezer, which he refused to answer. They asked Rabbi Eliezer: What is the fate of so-and-so, a certain man who was known to be wicked, with regard to the World-to-Come? He evaded the question and said to them: You have only asked me about so-and-so, and not a different individual whom you believe to be righteous? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a shepherd may save a ewe from a lion on Shabbat (Me’iri)? He said to them: You have only asked me about the ewe? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to saving the shepherd from the lion on Shabbat? He said to them: You have only asked me about the shepherd? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a mamzer inherits from his parents? Rabbi Eliezer responded with a question: Did you not ask me what is the halakha with regard to whether he may perform levirate marriage? They asked him: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to plaster one’s house after the destruction of the Temple? Rabbi Eliezer responded: What is the halakha with regard to plastering one’s grave? The Gemara explains: It was not because he was distancing them with words, and made irrelevant statements because he did not know the answers to these questions. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer responded in this way because he never said anything that he did not hear from the mouth of his teacher. Since he had not learned these points from his teacher, he did not answer directly, thereby indicating that he did not have a tradition with regard to these questions. The Gemara cites another question posed to Rabbi Eliezer. A wise woman asked Rabbi Eliezer: Since all bore equal responsibility for the incident of the Golden Calf, due to what factor were their deaths not equal? Some of the people were killed by the sword of Moses and the Levites, some were killed in a plague, and others were struck with an intestinal illness. He said to her: There is no wisdom in a woman except weaving with a spindle, and so it states: “And any woman who was wise-hearted spun with her hands” (Exodus 35:25). Therefore, it is unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such questions. With regard to this issue, it was stated that the amora’im Rav and Levi disagreed: One of them said: One who sacrificed and burned incense to the calf, which are idolatrous practices that incur capital punishment, was punished by the sword. One who embraced and kissed it, which are not forms of idolatrous worship that incur capital punishment, was subject to a divine punishment of death by a plague. One who rejoiced inwardly but performed no act was killed by the intestinal illness known as hidrokan. And one of them said: One who served the calf in the presence of witnesses and after a warning was punished by the sword. One who served the calf in the presence of witnesses but without warning was subject to death by a plague. One who served without witnesses and without warning was killed by hidrokan. Rav Yehuda said: The entire tribe of Levi did not engage in idol worship, as it is stated: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said: Who is for God, let him come to me; and all the children of Levi gathered to him” (Exodus 32:26). Ravina sat and related this halakha with regard to the tribe of Levi. The sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba raised an objection to Ravina: The verse states in praise of the tribe of Levi: “Who said of his father and of his mother: I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledge his brothers, nor did he know his sons” (Deuteronomy 33:9). This indicates that some of them did engage in idol worship and were killed by their relatives. Ravina answered them: “His father” does not refer to his actual father, but rather his mother’s father, who was an Israelite. Similarly, the term “his brothers” is referring to his half-brothers from his mother, who were fathered by an Israelite. “His sons” is referring to his daughter’s sons from an Israelite, who are considered Israelites. In fact, however, no one from the tribe of Levi worshipped the calf. § It was taught in the mishna that they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews in Jerusalem. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: They were not actually Babylonians, rather they were Alexandrians from Egypt. And since in Eretz Yisrael they hate the Babylonians, they would call all foreigners who acted inappropriately by their name as an insult. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: They were not Babylonians, rather they were Alexandrians. Rabbi Yosei, whose family was from Babylonia, said to him: May your mind be at ease, since you have put my mind at ease. It was taught in the mishna that the Babylonians would say: Take our sins and go. It was taught in the Tosefta that they would say as follows: Why does this goat remain here with the many sins of the generation; let him hurry and leave. MISHNA: People from among the prominent residents of Jerusalem would escort the one leading the goat until they reached the first booth. Booths were set up along the path to the wilderness to provide the escort a place to rest. There were ten booths from Jerusalem to the cliff, with a distance of ninety ris between them. As there are seven and a half ris for each mil, the total distance was twelve mil. At each and every booth, people there say to him: Here is food; here is water, if you need it. And they escort him from booth to booth, except for the last person at the last booth, who does not reach the cliff with him. Rather, he stands from a distance and observes his actions to ensure that he fulfills the mitzva properly. What did the one designated to dispatch the goat do there? He divided a strip of crimson into two parts, half of the strip tied to the rock, and half of it tied between the two horns of the goat. And he pushed the goat backward, and it rolls and descends. And it would not reach halfway down the mountain until it was torn limb from limb. The one designated to dispatch the goat came and sat under the roofing of last booth until it grows dark and only then went home. And from what point are the garments of the man rendered impure, as it is stated that he is impure and his clothes requires immersion? From the moment he emerges outside the wall of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says: His clothes are rendered impure only from the moment that he pushes the goat from the cliff. GEMARA: The Sages taught: There were ten booths, and the distance between Jerusalem and the cliff was twelve mil; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were nine booths and the distance was ten mil. Rabbi Yosei says: There were five booths and the distance was ten mil, and all of them were able to escort the one leading the goat by establishing a joining of boundaries [eiruv teḥumin] before Yom Kippur, allowing those at each booth to walk to the next booth. Rabbi Yosei said: Elazar my son told me: If they were able to walk to the next booth by establishing an eiruv, I could even make two booths suffice for the distance of ten mil. With the proper placement of an eiruv, an individual is permitted to walk a distance of two mil, which is four thousand cubits. Consequently, the people of Jerusalem could escort the one leading the goat a distance of two mil, and the people of the first booth could walk two mil from the booth toward Jerusalem to meet him, and escort him back to their booth. Others at that booth, who had established their eiruv in the direction of the second booth, could then escort the one leading the goat two mil toward the second booth, where he would be met by people from the second booth, who would escort him the remaining two mil to the booth. This booth would be located only two mil from the cliff. The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in the baraita: People from all the booths would escort the one leading the goat, except for the last person in the last booth, who did not reach the cliff with him; rather, he stands from a distance and observes his actions? In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as he holds that the last booth was too far from the cliff for the people there to escort the one leading the goat the entire way. It was taught in the mishna: At each and every booth people there say to him: Here is food; here is water, if you need it. It was taught: No man who escorted the goat ever needed this food and water. However, they would offer it to him anyway, because one who has bread in his basket is not similar to one who does not have bread in his basket. One who does not have food available to him is concerned that he will not be able to find any if he really needs it, and he therefore feels his hunger and thirst more acutely. § It was taught in the mishna: What did the person designated to dispatch the goat do there? He divided a strip of crimson into two parts, half of the strip tied to the rock, and half of it tied between the two horns of the goat. The Gemara asks: Let him tie the whole strip to the rock. The Gemara answers: Since it is a mitzva to push the goat from the cliff. If he tied the whole strip to the rock, perhaps it would turn white quickly, and his mind would be eased with the knowledge that the sins of the Jewish people had been forgiven. He would then not fulfill the mitzva of pushing the goat off the cliff. He therefore tied part of it between the horns of the goat and looked to see if it became white. Once he was actively involved with the goat, he would remember to push it off the cliff. The Gemara asks: If so, let him tie the whole strip between the goat’s horns. The Gemara answers: Sometimes the goat turns its head and he will not know if the strip turns white or not. The Sages taught: At first they would tie this strip of crimson to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the outside. If the strip turned white they would rejoice, as this indicated that their sins had been atoned for. If it did not turn white they would be sad and ashamed. When the Sages saw that people were overly distressed on Yom Kippur, they established that they should tie the strip of crimson to the opening of the Entrance Hall on the inside, since only a few could actually go in to see it. And they would still peek and see: If it turned white, they would rejoice, and if it did not turn white they would be sad. Therefore, the Sages established that they should tie half of the strip to the rock and half of it between the goat’s horns, so that the people would not know what happened to the strip until after the conclusion of Yom Kippur. Rabbi Naḥum bar Pappa said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar: At first they would tie the strip of crimson to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the inside, and when the goat reached the wilderness, the strip of crimson would turn white, and they knew that the mitzva was fulfilled. The verse alludes to the use of the strip of crimson, as it is stated: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they will become white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18). This verse indicates that when something scarlet turns white, it is a sign of atonement and forgiveness for the sins of the Jewish people. § It was taught in the mishna that the goat would not reach halfway down the mountain before it was torn limb from limb. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the status of those limbs? Is it permitted to derive pleasure from them? Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to this issue. One said they are permitted for benefit, and one said they are prohibited. The Gemara explains their reasoning: The one who said they are permitted for benefit

with a distance of ninety ris between them. As there are seven and a half ris for each mil, the total distance was twelve mil. At each and every booth, people there say to him: Here is food; here is water, if you need it. And they escort him from booth to booth, except for the last person at the last booth, who does not reach the cliff with him. Rather, he stands from a distance and observes his actions to ensure that he fulfills the mitzva properly. What did the one designated to dispatch the goat do there? He divided a strip of crimson into two parts, half of the strip tied to the rock, and half of it tied between the two horns of the goat. And he pushed the goat backward, and it rolls and descends. And it would not reach halfway down the mountain until it was torn limb from limb. The one designated to dispatch the goat came and sat under the roofing of last booth until it grows dark and only then went home. And from what point are the garments of the man rendered impure, as it is stated that he is impure and his clothes requires immersion? From the moment he emerges outside the wall of Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says: His clothes are rendered impure only from the moment that he pushes the goat from the cliff. GEMARA: The Sages taught: There were ten booths, and the distance between Jerusalem and the cliff was twelve mil; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were nine booths and the distance was ten mil. Rabbi Yosei says: There were five booths and the distance was ten mil, and all of them were able to escort the one leading the goat by establishing a joining of boundaries [eiruv teḥumin] before Yom Kippur, allowing those at each booth to walk to the next booth. Rabbi Yosei said: Elazar my son told me: If they were able to walk to the next booth by establishing an eiruv, I could even make two booths suffice for the distance of ten mil. With the proper placement of an eiruv, an individual is permitted to walk a distance of two mil, which is four thousand cubits. Consequently, the people of Jerusalem could escort the one leading the goat a distance of two mil, and the people of the first booth could walk two mil from the booth toward Jerusalem to meet him, and escort him back to their booth. Others at that booth, who had established their eiruv in the direction of the second booth, could then escort the one leading the goat two mil toward the second booth, where he would be met by people from the second booth, who would escort him the remaining two mil to the booth. This booth would be located only two mil from the cliff. The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which was taught in the baraita: People from all the booths would escort the one leading the goat, except for the last person in the last booth, who did not reach the cliff with him; rather, he stands from a distance and observes his actions? In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as he holds that the last booth was too far from the cliff for the people there to escort the one leading the goat the entire way. It was taught in the mishna: At each and every booth people there say to him: Here is food; here is water, if you need it. It was taught: No man who escorted the goat ever needed this food and water. However, they would offer it to him anyway, because one who has bread in his basket is not similar to one who does not have bread in his basket. One who does not have food available to him is concerned that he will not be able to find any if he really needs it, and he therefore feels his hunger and thirst more acutely. § It was taught in the mishna: What did the person designated to dispatch the goat do there? He divided a strip of crimson into two parts, half of the strip tied to the rock, and half of it tied between the two horns of the goat. The Gemara asks: Let him tie the whole strip to the rock. The Gemara answers: Since it is a mitzva to push the goat from the cliff. If he tied the whole strip to the rock, perhaps it would turn white quickly, and his mind would be eased with the knowledge that the sins of the Jewish people had been forgiven. He would then not fulfill the mitzva of pushing the goat off the cliff. He therefore tied part of it between the horns of the goat and looked to see if it became white. Once he was actively involved with the goat, he would remember to push it off the cliff. The Gemara asks: If so, let him tie the whole strip between the goat’s horns. The Gemara answers: Sometimes the goat turns its head and he will not know if the strip turns white or not. The Sages taught: At first they would tie this strip of crimson to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the outside. If the strip turned white they would rejoice, as this indicated that their sins had been atoned for. If it did not turn white they would be sad and ashamed. When the Sages saw that people were overly distressed on Yom Kippur, they established that they should tie the strip of crimson to the opening of the Entrance Hall on the inside, since only a few could actually go in to see it. And they would still peek and see: If it turned white, they would rejoice, and if it did not turn white they would be sad. Therefore, the Sages established that they should tie half of the strip to the rock and half of it between the goat’s horns, so that the people would not know what happened to the strip until after the conclusion of Yom Kippur. Rabbi Naḥum bar Pappa said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar: At first they would tie the strip of crimson to the opening of the Entrance Hall of the Temple on the inside, and when the goat reached the wilderness, the strip of crimson would turn white, and they knew that the mitzva was fulfilled. The verse alludes to the use of the strip of crimson, as it is stated: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they will become white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18). This verse indicates that when something scarlet turns white, it is a sign of atonement and forgiveness for the sins of the Jewish people. § It was taught in the mishna that the goat would not reach halfway down the mountain before it was torn limb from limb. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the status of those limbs? Is it permitted to derive pleasure from them? Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to this issue. One said they are permitted for benefit, and one said they are prohibited. The Gemara explains their reasoning: The one who said they are permitted for benefit