Yoma 64

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל קל וחומר מה בגדי זהב שאין כהן נכנס בהן לפני ולפנים טעון טבילה בגדי לבן שנכנס בהן לפני ולפנים אינו דין שטעון טבילה איכא למפרך מה לבגדי זהב שכן כפרתן מרובה אלא נפקא ליה מדרבי

The school of R'Ishmael taught: That can be inferred a minori: If the golden garments in which the high priest does not enter the Holy of Holies require immersion, how much more do the linen garments, in which he enters the Holy of Holies, require it? But this argument can be demolished: The case of the golden garments is different, because much atonement is obtained in them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are used every day for services, whereas the white garments are used only for the service in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and obtain atonement for the Sanctuary and its sacred things, if defilement had occurred there; v. Shebu. 7b.');">¹</span> Rather, he infers it from what Rabbi said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Lev. XVI, 4.');">²</span>

אמר רבי מנין לחמש טבילות ועשרה קידושין שטובל כהן גדול ומקדש בו ביום ת"ל כתנת בד קודש ילבש הא למדת שכל המשנה מעבודה לעבודה שטעון טבילה אשכחן מבגדי זהב לבגדי לבן מבגדי לבן לבגדי זהב מנין

[The Master said]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Inserted by one MS. cf. Rashi.]');">³</span> 'Rabbi said, Whence do we know of the five immersions and the ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that day? To teach us that it is said: "He shall put on the holy linen tunic. " Hence you learn that whosoever changes from service to service requires an immersion.'

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ק"ו מה בגדי לבן שאין כפרתן מרובה טעונין טבילה בגדי זהב שכפרתן מרובה אינו דין שטעונין טבילה

We have found that [required for a change] from the golden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse in question occurring in connection with the changing from the gold garments into the linen ones.');">⁴</span> to the white garments. Whence do we know that [the same rule obtains for a change] from the white to the golden garments?

איכא למפרך מה לבגדי לבן שכן נכנס בהן לפני ולפנים היינו דקתני ואומר בגדי קודש הם ורחץ את בשרו במים ולבשם

The school of R'Ishmael taught: That can be inferred a minori: If the white garments, in which but little atonement is obtained, require an immersion, how much more will the golden garments, in which much atonement is obtained, require it? This argument can be demolished: The case of the white garments is different, because the high priest, dressed in them, enters the Holy of Holies? It is for this reason that he [Rabbi, in his statement] teaches: And it also says: 'They are the holy garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The additional passage adduced by Rabbi intimates that Scripture makes the fact that they are the holy garments the reason for the need of immersion, so that one shall infer that all changes of holy garments on the Day of Atonement require immersion, thus also the golden garments.');">⁵</span>

וחמש עבודות הן תמיד של שחר בבגדי זהב עבודת היום בבגדי לבן אילו ואיל העם בבגדי זהב כף ומחתה בבגדי לבן תמיד של בין הערבים בבגדי זהב

'Now there are five services'. That of the continual afternoon offering [performed] in the golden garments; the service of the day in white garments; [the offering up of] his, and the people's ram in the golden garments; the [taking out of] the censer and coal-pan in white garments; and the continual offering at dusk, In the golden garments - And whence do we know that every immersion requires two sanctifications? To teach us that Scripture says: 'And he shall put off.

ומנין שכל טבילה וטבילה צריכה ב' קידושין תלמוד לומר ופשט ורחץ ורחץ ולבש האי בטבילה כתיב אם אינו ענין לטבילה דנפקא ליה מבגדי קדש הם תנהו ענין לקידוש

and he shall wash. and he shall wash. and he put on'.

וליכתביה רחמנא בלשון קידוש הא קמ"ל דטבילה כקידוש מה קידוש במקום קדוש אף טבילה במקום קדוש

But this [passage] refers to the immersions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it says 'his flesh'.');">⁶</span> - Since it has no reference to the immersion [the requirement of] which we infer from 'They are the holy garments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 1.');">⁷</span> apply it to the sanctifications.

ורבי יהודה קידוש מנא ליה נפקא ליה מדרבי אלעזר בר' שמעון

Then the Divine Law should have written the term of 'sanctification'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., it should have been written 'he shall wash his hands and feet', R. Hananel.]');">⁸</span> - [Scripture chooses that term] to let us know that immersion is even as sanctification, i.e., just as immersion must take place on holy ground, so must sanctification take place on holy ground. Whence does R'Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who interprets the above passage differently, who therefore lacks a source for this information.');">⁹</span>

אמר רב חסדא הא דרבי מפקא מדר' מאיר ומפקא מדרבנן מפקא מדרבנן דאילו רבנן אמרי כשהוא לבוש מקדש ואיהו אמר כשהוא פושט מקדש ומפקא מדר' מאיר דאילו ר"מ אמר הך קידוש בתרא כשהוא לבוש מקדש ואיהו אמר כשהוא פושט מקדש

infer [that] the sanctification [must take place on holy ground]? - He infers it from the teaching of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, R'Hisda said: Rabbi's view excludes that of R'Meir and that of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned supra p.146, n. 6.');">¹⁰</span> It excludes that of the Rabbis, for according to them he sanctifies himself [first] while he is still dressed, whereas Rabbi holds that he sanctifies himself after he is stripped; and it also excludes the view of R'Meir, for R'Meir holds that the second sanctification takes place when he is [already] dressed, whereas, according to Rabbi, he sanctifies himself whilst still stripped of the garments.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Rabbi holds that both sanctifications are performed whilst he is stripped, one before the immersion and the other after the immersion.]');">¹¹</span> R'Aha B'Jacob said: All agree that at the second sanctification he first dons [the garments] and then sanctifies himself.

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב הכל מודין בקידוש שני שלובש ואחר כך מקדש מ"ט דאמר קרא (שמות ל, כ) או בגשתם אל המזבח מי שאינו מחוסר אלא גישה יצא זה שמחוסר לבישה וגישה

What is the reason? Because Scripture said: Or when they come near to the altar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 20.');">¹²</span> i,e,, only he who lacks nothing but the approach,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May perform the sanctification.');">¹³</span>

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי לא רב חסדא אית ליה דרב אחא ולא רב אחא אית ליה דרב חסדא דאם כן לרבי הוו ליה חמיסר קידושין

that excludes him who lacks both dressing and approach. R'Aha, the son of Raba, said to R'Ashi: R'Hisda does not agree with R'Aha, nor does R'Aha agree with R'Hisda, for else there would be fifteen sanctifications required according to Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Hisda, Rabbi requires two sanctifications between stripping and dressing; and according to R. Aha, Rabbi requires the sanctification after being dressed before the service, for if their views were not incompatible, Rabbi would be found to require fifteen sanctifications.');">¹⁴</span> ONE BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT etc. What does 'KERAZO'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why a change of the usual wording? 'Shehato' would have been the normal way of putting it.');">¹⁵</span>

הביאו לו את התמיד קרצו וכו' מאי קרצו אמר עולא לישנא דקטלא הוא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי קרא (ירמיהו מו, כ) עגלה יפהפיה מצרים קרץ מצפון בא בא מאי משמע כדמתרגם רב יוסף מלכא יאי הוה מצרים עממין קטולין מציפונא ייתון עלה קרצו בכמה אמר עולא ברוב שנים

mean? 'Ulla said: It is a synonym for 'slaying' - R'Nahman B'Isaac said: What is the scriptural evidence? Egypt is a very fair heifer. But the kerez [gadfly] out of the north is come, it is come.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XLVI, 20.');">¹⁶</span>

וכן אמר ר' יוחנן ברוב שנים ואף ריש לקיש סבר ברוב שנים דאמר ריש לקיש וכי מאחר ששנינו רובו של אחד כמוהו למה שנינו רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה לפי ששנינו הביאו לו את התמיד קרצו ומירק אחר שחיטה על ידו וקיבל את הדם וזרקו יכול לא מירק יהא פסול

What is the intimation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'kerez' here, meaning 'gadfly', does not suggest explanation of the incision.');">¹⁷</span> - As R'Joseph interpreted it: A fair kingdom is Egypt but murderous nations from the north will come upon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question has the Hebrew text in mind, the answer the Aramaic paraphrase. Since 'kerez' is interpreted as 'murderous', 'karaz' may fitly be used for 'shahat', to kill.');">¹⁸</span> How far shall he cut? - 'Ulla said: The bigger part of both organs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The windpipe and the gullet.');">¹⁹</span>

יכול לא מירק יהא פסול אם כן הויא ליה עבודה באחר (ותנן) כל עבודות יום הכפורים אינן כשרות אלא בו הכי קאמר יכול יהא פסול מדרבנן

Thus also said R'Johanan: The bigger part of the two organs. Resh Lakish also holds that he cuts through the bigger part of the two organs, for Resh Lakish said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 29b.');">²⁰</span> Since we have learned that the cutting through of the bigger part of an organ is as good as the cutting through the whole of it, why did we learn that 'the bigger part of one organ [is required to be cut through] in case of a fowl 'and the bigger part of the two organs [are required to be cut through] in case of an animal? Because we have learned: ONE BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT AND SOMEONE ELSE FINISHED IT FOR HIM, HE RECEIVED THE BLOOD AND SPRINKLED IT-one might assume, if another one did not complete the killing for him, it would be invalid. - [You say that] 'one could assume that if the other did not complete the killing for him, it would be invalid,' then it would mean that the service is performed by someone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That would render the service of the other essential, hence would mean someone else's participation in the service of the Day of Atonement, which is against the law.');">²¹</span> else and we have learnt: All the services of the Day of Atonement are valid only if performed by him [the high priest]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 73a.');">²²</span> - Rather: This is what he says: One might have assumed that it shall be considered invalidated by Rabbinic ordinance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making a distinction between profane slaughter, where the bigger part of an organ is on the same level as the whole organ, i.e., the cutting through of the bigger part completes the slaughtering effectively, as against sacred animals, which would have their organ (or organs) completely cut through.');">²³</span>