Yoma 68

רבי אומר ערבית משל שחרית

Rabbi said: For the evening sacrifice from the morning sacrifice!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the one requires drink-offering, so does the other. The practical difference: The case of a community who had enough for only one drink-offering. According to the opinion that one must infer the regulation for the afternoon-offering from the morning-offering, the latter is more hrc important and the drink-offering would have to be allotted to the morning-offering. (Tosaf. s.v. .) The basis of the discussion: To which of the two continual offerings does the phrase 'for the one lamb' (Num. XXVIII, 7) refer? The Sages hold it refers to the last named, the afternoon-offering, whereas Rabbi holds that it recalls the morning-offering, where the same phrase ('one') is used (verse 4) .');">¹</span> It is quite right according to the Rabbis, fo that is written [specifically] in connection with the continual offering of the evening,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last named of the two.');">²</span> but what is the ground of Rabbi's statement? - Rabbah B''Ulla said: Scripture said: 'For the one lamb'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 7.');">³</span> Now which is the lamb in connection with which the word ehad [one] is used?

בשלמא לרבנן האי בתמיד של בין הערבים כתיב אלא ר' מ"ט אמר רבה בר עולא אמר קרא (במדבר כח, ז) לכבש האחד איזהו כבש שנאמר בו אחד הוי אומר זה תמיד של שחר

Say: It is the lamb of the continual offering of the morning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. 4.');">⁴</span> And what do the Rabbis [reply]? - 'Ehad', i.e., the unique, the best of the flock. And [what is] Rabbi's [answer]? - He infers that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That particular meaning of 'ehad', as applied to the continual offering.');">⁵</span> from: And all your choice vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 11.');">⁶</span>

ורבנן מאי אחד מיוחד שבעדרו ורבי (דברים יב, יא) מומבחר נדריך נפקא ורבנן חד בחובה וחד בנדבה וצריכי

And the Rabbis? - One speaks of freewill-[offerings], the other of obligatory [offerings] and both need special mention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As arguments may be advanced in favour of each requiring to be of the best, to the exclusion of the other.');">⁷</span> IF THE HIGH PRIEST WAS OLD OR OF DELICATE HEALTH etc. It was taught: R'Judah said: Lumps of wrought iron were heated on the eve of the Day of Atonement and were cast into the cold water to mitigate the coldness. But was [one] not thereby hardening them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden on any holy day, how much more on the solemn Day of Atonement.');">⁸</span> - R'Bibi said: [The heat] did not reach the hardening point.

אם היה כ"ג זקן או איסטניס וכו' תניא א"ר יהודה עששיות של ברזל היו מחמין מערב יוה"כ ומטילין לתוך צונן כדי שתפיג צינתן והלא מצרף אמר רב ביבי שלא הגיע לצירוף אביי אמר אפי' תימא שהגיע לצירוף דבר שאין מתכוין מותר

Abaye said: Even assume it did reach the hardening point, [a forbidden] act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 41b.');">⁹</span> which was produced without intent, is permitted. But did Abaye say that? Has it not been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 133a.');">¹⁰</span>

ומי אמר אביי הכי והתניא (ויקרא יב, ג) בשר ערלתו אפי' במקום שיש שם בהרת יקוץ דברי ר' יאשיה והוינן בה קרא ל"ל ואמר אביי לר' יהודה דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור

The flesh of his foreskin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 3.');">¹¹</span> - even though a white spot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of leprosy, which normally must not be removed by surgery.');">¹²</span> is there may he cut it off,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'flesh' here is superfluous, hence we infer therefrom that no matter how the flesh be (even leprous) he may circumcise it.');">¹³</span> these are the words of R'Josiah.

הני מילי בכל התורה כולה אבל הכא צירוף דרבנן הוא

And we asked investigatingly concerning it: Why is a Scriptural statement necessary for that,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was a forbidden act produced without intent, it seems self-evident that it would be permitted. Why, then, was the Scriptural intimation necessary?');">¹⁴</span> and Abaye said: This was in accord with R'Judah who said: A forbidden act produced without intent, remains forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye, who held that this intimation supported the view of R. Judah, evidently agrees with him.');">¹⁵</span> That applies only to forbidden things in the whole Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Torah proper, the Five Books of Moses, as against the Torah in general, the sum total of the Jewish law and tradition. Prohibitions of the Torah are more serious, hence even unintended transgression remains forbidden.');">¹⁶</span> but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition dealt with here.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הביאוהו לבית הפרוה ובקדש היתה פרסו סדין של בוץ בינו לבין העם קדש ידיו ורגליו ופשט ר"מ אומר פשט קדש ידיו ורגליו ירד וטבל עלה ונסתפג הביאו לו בגדי לבן לבש וקדש ידיו ורגליו

hardening is [forbidden] only by Rabbinic ordination. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THEY BROUGHT HIM TO THE PARWAH CELL-WHICH WAS ON HOLY GROUND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first immersion, on top of the Water Gate, took place on profane ground; this, however, had to be performed on holy ground, as part of the service of the Day of Atonement.');">¹⁸</span> THEY SPREAD A SHEET OF BYSSUS [LINEN] BETWEEN HIM AND THE PEOPLE. HE SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET AND STRIPPED.

בשחר היה לובש פלוסין של שנים עשר מנה בין הערבים הנדויין של שמונה מאות זוז דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים בשחר היה לובש של שמונה עשר מנה ובין הערבים של שנים עשר מנה הכל שלשים מנה אלו משל ציבור ואם רצה להוסיף מוסיף משלו

R'MEIR SAID: HE STRIPPED, SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET. HE WENT DOWN AND IMMERSED HIMSELF, CAME UP AND DRIED HIMSELF. AFTERWARDS THEY BROUGHT HIM WHITE GARMENTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The four garments prescribed for the special service of the Day of Atonement: the tunic, the breeches, the girdle and the mitre, Lev. XVI, 4.');">¹⁹</span> HE PUT THEM ON AND SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET. IN THE MORNING HE PUT ON PELUSIUM LINEN WORTH TWELVE MINAS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One mina is worth about £ 3.');">²⁰</span> IN THE AFTERNOON INDIAN LINEN WORTH EIGHT HUNDRED ZUZ. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R'MEIR'THE SAGES SAY: IN THE MORNING HE PUT ON [GARMENTS] WORTH EIGHTEEN MINAS AND IN THE AFTERNOON [GARMENTS] WORTH TWELVE MINAS, ALTOGETHER THIRTY MINAS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as one spends more for the morning garments than for the evening garments, there is no regulation to enforce the exact sum mentioned in the MISHNAH: V. infra. The evening garment was put on by the high priest for the sole purpose of removing spoon and coal-pan from the Holy of Holies, whereas the rest of the special service of the Day of Atonement was performed by him in the morning garment, hence it has to be the better of the two.');">²¹</span> ALL THAT AT THE CHARGE OF THE COMMUNITY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: So much he received from the Temple treasury. V. Bah.');">²²</span> AND IF HE WANTED TO SPEND MORE OF HIS OWN HE COULD DO SO.