Yoma 46

אינה מביאה עגלה ערופה ועוד (דברים כא, א) לא נודע מי הכהו כתיב והא נודע מי הכהו אלא כדי להרבות בבכיה

it does not have to bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 45a.');">¹</span> Furthermore: And it be not known who hath smitten him but here it is known who has smitten him? -Rather [he put his question rhetorically] to increase the weeping.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make them conscious of the horrible nature of the deed perpetrated.');">²</span>

בא אביו של תינוק ומצאו כשהוא מפרפר אמר הרי הוא כפרתכם ועדיין בני קיים [כו'] ללמדך שקשה עליהם טהרת כלים יותר משפיכות דמים איבעיא להו שפיכות דמים הוא דזל אבל טהרת כלים כדקיימא קיימא או דילמא שפיכות דמים כדקיימא קיימא אבל טהרת כלים היא דחמירא

'The father of the young man came and found the boy in convulsions. He said: "May he be an atonement for you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maharsha explains that since Jerusalem is deprived of the heifer ceremony, which would normally obtain forgiveness for them, the generous father prayed for atonement by the grace of God.');">³</span>

ת"ש מדקא נסיב לה תלמודא וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה שמע מינה שפיכות דמים הוא דזל וטהרת כלים כדקיימא קיימא

My son is still in convulsions, etc. " To teach you that they looked upon the purity of their vessels as a graver matter than bloodshed!' [The Scholars in the Academy] asked this question: Was it that bloodshed became a minor matter to them, whereas the purity of their vessels remained in its original importance, or did bloodshed concern them as before but the purity of the vessels became for them of a still graver concern? Come and hear: Because the Talmud adduces 'And also innocent blood did Manasseh shed' that indicates that bloodshed had become a matter of smaller concern to them whilst the purity of the vessels retained its original importance.

ת"ר (ויקרא ו, ד) ופשט ולבש בגדים אחרים והוציא את הדשן שומעני כדרך יום הכפורים שפושט בגדי קודש ולובש בגדי חול

Our Rabbis taught: And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments and carry forth the ashes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 4.');">⁴</span> - from this I might learn even as on the Day of Atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the high priest changed his garments with every different service, cf. infra 70a.');">⁵</span>

תלמוד לומר ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים מקיש בגדים שלובש לבגדים שפושט מה להלן בגדי קודש אף כאן בגדי קודש

[so] that he put off his holy garments and put on profane garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the high priest he changes from golden garments into linen garments and vice versa. With the ordinary priest however who has no alternate holy garments, the change would be from holy garments into profane ones.');">⁶</span> To teach us [the true law] it says: 'And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments, thus comparing the garments he put on with the garments he put off; just as the former are holy garments, so are the latter holy garments.

א"כ מה תלמוד לומר אחרים פחותין מהן רבי אליעזר אומר אחרים והוציא לימד על הכהנים בעלי מומין שכשרין להוציא הדשן

If so, what does [the word] 'other' teach?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'other' is connected with 'and he shall carry forth' to which it is placed in juxtaposition in the Hebrew text, thus referring to the priest.');">⁷</span> [They shall be] inferior to the former.

אמר מר אחרים פחותין מהן כדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בגדים שבשל בהן קדרה לרבו לא ימזוג בהן כוס לרבו

R'Eliezer said: [The words] 'other' and 'he shall carry forth' indicate that priests afflicted w a blemish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus designated 'other', i.e., than those who are usually fit for service.');">⁸</span> are permitted to carry forth the ashes.

אמר ריש לקיש כמחלוקת בהוצאה כך מחלוקת בהרמה ורבי יוחנן אמר מחלוקת בהוצאה אבל בהרמה דברי הכל עבודה היא

The Master said: '"Other garments", i.e.inferior to the former', as the school of R'Ishmael taught: For th school of R'Ishmael taught: One should not offer a cup of wine to one's teacher while wearing the garment wherein one has cooked a dish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly there should be different garments worn for the service proper and for the removal of the ashes respectively.');">⁹</span> for him.

מאי טעמא דריש לקיש אמר לך אי ס"ד עבודה היא יש לך עבודה שכשירה בשני כלים

Resh Lakish said: Just as there is diversity of opinion about the carrying forth of the ashes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether blemished priests may remove them.');">¹⁰</span> so there is about clearing them off the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That matter depends on the answer to the question, as to whether the removal of the ashes is considered a service or not.');">¹¹</span>

ור' יוחנן גלי רחמנא בכתונת ומכנסים והוא הדין למצנפת ואבנט

R'Johanan said: The diversity of opinion applies only to the carrying forth, but as to clearing them off the altar, all agree that this is [regular] service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Requiring the putting on of four garments and the ministration of unblemished priests.');">¹²</span> What is the reason for Resh Lakish's view?

ומאי שנא הני מדו בד מדו כמדתו מכנסי בד לכדתניא מנין שלא יהא דבר קודם למכנסים שנאמר (ויקרא ו, ג) ומכנסי בד ילבש על בשרו

He will tell you: If it should enter your mind that this [the clearing of the ashes off the altar considered a [regular] service - then you would have a service legitimate In two garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture says: He shall put on his linen garments and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh. (Lev. VI, 3.) If the removal of the ashes, whereof this passage speaks, were a service, how could Scripture demand only 'the linen garment' and the 'linen breeches i.e.,two garments, when a service proper requires four? Since only two garments are required, evidently the removal of the ashes is not considered a service and hence may be performed even by blemished priests, who would not be admissible to service proper!');">¹³</span> And R'Johanan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan who considers this a proper service, requiring unblemished priests, how will he account for the contradictory fact that Scripture insists on two garments only.');">¹⁴</span>

וריש לקיש מדו כמדתו מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון מדו שלא יהא דבר קודם למכנסים מעל בשרו נפקא

- The Divine Law revealed the regulation for tunic and breeches, but it includes also mitre and girdle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He explains that in reality four garments are required here, as may be inferred from the parallel passage in Lev. XVI, 4, where as a matter of course 'mitre and girdle' are added, the one passage supplementing implicates the other.');">¹⁵</span> Then why are these [two specially mentioned]? - 'Middo bad' ['linen garments'] is written [here to indicate] proper measure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He connects 'middo' which comes from a root meaning garment, with 'madad', which means to measure, i.e., the garment must be of proper measure, for the priest's figure. Resh Lakish infers from the fact that 'middo' (garment) is used instead of the usual 'kethoneth' (tunic) that a properly fitting garment is required.');">¹⁶</span>

נימא כתנאי על בשרו מה תלמוד לומר ילבש להביא מצנפת ואבנט להרמה דברי רבי יהודה

'miknese bad' ['linen breeches'] to teach us in accord with what has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 35a.');">¹⁷</span> Whence is it known that nothing may be put on before the breeches?

רבי דוסא אומר לרבות בגדי כהן גדול ביום הכפורים שכשירין לכהן הדיוט

Because it is said: 'And he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh.' And Resh Lakish? - That the garment must have the proper measure [he infers] from the fact that the Divine Law employs [the word] 'middo' [garment, not tunic]; that nothing may be put on before the breeches, he infers from the words: 'on his flesh'.

אמר רבי שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דאבנטו של כהן גדול לא זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט ועוד בגדים שנשתמשת בהן קדושה חמורה תשתמש בהן קדושה קלה אלא מה תלמוד לומר ילבש

Shall we say that the point at issue is the same as between the following Tannaim: '[And his linen breeches shall he put] on his flesh.' Why does Scripture say: 'Shall he put on? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 4: The text could have stated 'He shall put on the holy tunic and the linen breeches on his flesh'. The word 'yilbash' ('he shall put on') is superfluous. The word 'yilbash' is a sort of terminus technicus for complete dress, i.e., the four garments.');">¹⁸</span> That is meant to include the [obligation of wearing] mitre and girdle for the clearing off of the ashes - this is the opinion of R'Judah. R'Dosa says: That means to include [the rule] that the [four white] garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement may be worn by the common priest [during the remainder of the year].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [He utilizes yilbash, written here, for the purpose of a gezerah shawah with yilbash mentioned in connection with the four garments put on by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. V. Lev. XVI, 4 to teach this rule.]');">¹⁹</span> Rabbi said: There are two refutations to this matter. One: the girdle of the high priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Included in the four garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement.');">²⁰</span> is different from that of the common priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 55, n. 6. So that the ordinary priests could not wear the four garments of the high priests.');">²¹</span> Two: shall garments used at a service of solemn holiness be worn at a service of lesser holiness? - But what, rather, is the significance of 'yilbash'?