Originally whosoever desired to remove [the Ashes from] the altar did so. If they were many, they would run and mount the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits obtained the privilege. If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put forth? One or two but one did not put forth the thumb in the Temple.
t.Yom.2.1
A. How does he state the confession?
B. ``O Lord, I have committed iniquity, transgressed and sinned before you, I and my house. O Lord, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, which I have done in committing iniquity, transgression, and sin before you, I and my house, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, your servant. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to clean you. From all your sins shall you be clean before the Lord (Lev.16.30) [M.Yoma 3.8F- G].
C. ``And the high priest further says, [And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,] and confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel and all their transgressions, all their sins (Lev.16.21),`` the words of R. Meir [T4].
D. And sages say, ``Iniquities - these are those done deliberately. ``Their transgressions - these are acts of rebellion. ``Their sins - these are the misdeeds done inadvertently.
E. ``Now after he has confessed the deliberate iniquities and the acts of rebellion, shall he go back and confess their inadvertent misdeeds as well?
F. ``But how does he say the confession?
G. `` `O Lord, I have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before you...`
H. ``And they respond to him, `Blessed is the name of the glory of his kingdom forever and ever` [M.Yoma 3.8F-H].
I. ``For we see that all who confess make confession thus.
J. ``David said, `Both we and our fathers have sinned; we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly` (Ps.106.6).
K. ``Solomon said, ` We have sinned, we have transgressed, we have done wickedly` (I Kings 8.47).
L. ``Daniel said, `we have sinned, we have transgressed, we have done wickedly` (Dan.9.5).
M. ``Now what is it that Moses said, `Forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin (Ex.34.7)?
N. ``But since he was making confession for deliberate violations of the law and acts of rebellion, it is as if they are deeds done inadvertently before him.
O. ``And thus did he confess, `I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have done wickedly before you.```
MISHNAH: m.Yom.2.1Originally whosoever desired to remove [the Ashes from] the altar did so. If they were many, they would run and mount the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits obtained the privilege. If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put forth? One or two but one did not put forth the thumb in the Temple.
MISHNAH: m.Yom.2.2It once happened that two were even as they ran to mount the ramp. One of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they ordained that the altar be cleared only by count. There were four counts. This is the first count.
GEMARA: But why did our Rabbis not establish the count for this service from the beginning? They thought, Since it was a night service, it would not be considered so precious and they [many priests] would not come. But when they saw that [many] were coming and incurred danger, they arranged the count. But the burning on the altar of the limbs and fat-pieces is also a night service, and yet our Rabbis arranged a count for it? It is rather the end of the service of the day. But the other too is the beginning of the service of the day, for R. Johanan [PA2] said: If he sanctified his hands [by washing] for clearing the ashes off the altar he need not in the morning sanctify them again, because he has sanctified them already from the beginning of the service? Say: Because he has from the beginning sanctified his hands for the service. Some say: First they [the Rabbis] believed that since [many of them] are overcome by sleep, they would not come [to this night service], but when they saw they were coming and incurring danger, our Rabbis arranged for the count. But with the burning of the limbs and fat-pieces, [taking also place at a time when] they are also overcome by sleep and yet our Rabbis arranged for a count? There is a difference between going to sleep and rising from sleep.
But was the arrangement due to that consideration, was it not rather due to another consideration, for it has been taught: He who obtained the task of clearing the altar of the ashes thereby also obtained the ordering of the pile of wood on the altar and of the two pieces of wood? R. Ashi [BA6] said: There were two arrangements. First they [the Rabbis] opined that they would not come [at night], but when they saw that the priests did come and incurred danger, they arranged for the count. When the count had been arranged, they did not come, for they said: `Who can tell whether the lot will fall on me` [therefore] they [the Rabbis] arranged that he who had obtained the task of clearing the ashes off the altar, should thereby also obtain the task of arranging the piles of wood and the two pieces of wood, in order that they might come and submit to the count. If they were many etc.: R. Papa [BA5] said: It is obvious to me [that within four cubits does] not [refer to] the four cubits on the floor, because we learnt: they would run and mount the ramp; neither does it mean the first [four cubits], because we learnt: they would run and mount the ramp , and after that: He that came first within four cubits; neither does it mean [four cubits] in the middle because this is not clearly indicated; hence it is self-evident that it means [four cubits] off the altar. But R. Papa [BA5] asked: Do these four cubits, of which we have spoken, include the one cubit of the [projecting] base and the one cubit of the gallery, b.Yom.22b or does it mean exclusive of the one cubit base and one cubit gallery? [The question] stands. If two were even, the officer would say to them: raise the finger , etc.
A Tanna taught: Put forth your fingers for the count. But let him count them? That supports the statement of R. Isaac [T5 or PA3], for R. Isaac [T5 or PA3] said: It is forbidden to count Israel even for [the purpose of fulfilling] a commandment, as it is written: And he numbered them be-bezek [with pebbles]. R. Ashi [BA6] demurred to this: Whence do you know that the word `bezek` is here used in the sense of being broken [i.e., pebbles], perhaps it is the name of a place, as it is written: And they found Adoni-Bezek in Bezek? Rather it is from here: And Saul summoned the people and numbered them with telaim [sheep]. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] said: Whosoever counts Israel, transgresses a [biblical] prohibition, as it is said: Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He would transgress two prohibitions, for it is written: `Which cannot be measured nor numbered`. R. Samuel b. Nahmani [PA3] said: R. Jonathan [T4] raised an objection: It is written: `Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea,` and it is also written: `Which cannot be numbered?` This is no contradiction: Here it speaks of the time when Israel fulfils the will of the Lord, there of the time when they do not fulfil His will. Rabbi, on behalf of R. Abba [BA3 & PA3] Jose [T4] son of Dosthai, said: This is no contradiction: Here it speaks of [counting done] by human beings, there of counting by Heaven. R. Nehilai b. Idi said in the name of Samuel [BA1]: As soon as a man is appointed administrator of a community, he becomes rich First it was written: `And he counted them by means of pebbles,` and, in the end, `And he counted them by means of sheep`. But perhaps these sheep were of their own? Then what is remarkable about it?
And he strove in the valley. R. Mani [PA5] said: Because of what happens `in the valley`: When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Saul: Now go and smite Amalek, he said: If on account of one person the Torah said: Perform the ceremony of the heifer whose neck is to be broken, how much more [ought consideration to be given] to all these persons! And if human beings sinned, what has the cattle committed; and if the adults have sinned, what have the little ones done? A divine voice came forth and said: Be not righteous overmuch. And when Saul said to Doeg: Turn thou and fall upon the priests, a heavenly voice came forth to say: Be not overmuch wicked. R. Huna [BA2 or PA4] said: How little does he whom the Lord supports need to grieve or trouble himself! Saul sinned once and it brought [calamity] upon him, David sinned twice and it did not bring evil upon him What was the one sin of Saul? The affair with Agag. But there was also the matter with Nob, the city of the priests? [Still] it was because of what happened with Agag that Scripture says: It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king. What were the two sins of David? The sin against Uriah and that [of counting the people to which] he was enticed. But there was also the matter of Bathsheba? For that he was punished, as it is written, And he shall restore the lamb fourfold: the child, Amnon, Tamar and Absalom. But for the other sin he was also punished as it is written: So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed? There his own body was not punished But in the former case, too, his own body was not punished either? Not indeed? He was punished on his own body, for Rab Judah [BA2] said in the name of Rab: For six months David was smitten with leprosy, the Sanhedrin removed from him, and the Shechinah departed from him, as it is written: Let those that fear Thee return unto me, and they that know Thy testimonies, and it is also written: Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation. But Rab [BA1] said that David also listened to evil talk? We hold like Samuel [BA1] [who says] that David did not do so. And even according to Rab, who says that David listened to calumny, was he not punished for it? For Rab Judah [BA2] said in the name of Rab. At the time when David said to Mephibosheth: I say: Thou and Ziba divide the land, a heavenly voice came forth to say to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the Kingdom.
Saul was a year old when he began to reign. R. Huna [BA2 or PA4] said: Like an infant of one year, who had not tasted the taste of sin. R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred to this: Say perhaps: Like an infant of one year old that is filthy with mud and excrement? R. Nahman thereupon was shown a frightening vision in his dream, whereupon he said: I beg your pardon, bones of Saul, son of Kish. But he saw again a frightening vision in his dream, whereupon he said: I beg your pardon, bones of Saul, son of Kish, King in Israel.
Rab Judah [BA2] said in the name of Samuel [BA1]: Why did the kingdom of Saul not endure? Because no reproach rested on him, for R. Johanan [PA2] had said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: One should not appoint any one administrator of a community, unless he carries a basket of reptiles on his back, so that if he became arrogant, one could tell him: Turn around! Rab Judah [BA2] said in the name of Rab: Why was Saul punished? Because he forewent the honour due to himself, as it is said: But certain base fellows said: `How shall this man save us?` And they despised him and brought him no present. But he was as one that held his peace, and it is written [immediately following that]: Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh-gilead. R. Johanan [PA2] further said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: Any scholar, b.Yom.23a who does not avenge himself and retain anger like a serpent, is no [real] scholar. But is it not written: Thou shalt not take vengeance nor bear any grudge? That refers to monetary affairs, for it has been taught: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: `Lend me your sickle`, and he replied `No`, and to-morrow the second comes [to the first] and says: `Lend me your axe`! and he replies: `I will not lend it to you, just as you would not lend me your sickle` that is revenge. And what is bearing a grudge? If one says to his fellow: `Lend me your axe , he replies `No`, and on the morrow the second asks: `Lend me your garment`, and he answers: `Here it is. I am not like you who would not lend me [what I asked for]` that is bearing a grudge. But [does] not [this prohibition apply to] personal affliction? Has it not been taught: Concerning those who are insulted but do not insult others [in revenge], who hear themselves reproached without replying, who [perform good] work out of love of the Lord and rejoice in their sufferings, Scripture says: But they that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might? [That means,] indeed, that he keeps it in his heart [though without taking action]. Rut Raba [BA4] said: He who passes over his retaliations has all his transgressions passed over? [That speaks of the case] that an endeavour was made to obtain his reconciliation, and his consent is obtained. and how many did they put forth? One or two. If they may put forth two, why is it necessary to mention that they may put forth one? R. Hisda [BA3] said: This is no difficulty: The one speaks of healthy persons, the other of sick ones. Thus has it been taught: One finger is put forth, but not two. To whom does this rule apply? To a healthy person, but a sick one may put forth even two. But the `Yehidim` put forward two and one counts only one thereof. But has it not been taught: One does not put forth either the third finger or the thumb because of tricksters, and if one had put forth the third finger, it would be counted, but if one had put forth the thumb it would not be counted, and not alone that but the officer strikes him with the pekia`? What does `it would be counted` mean? Only one. What is pekia`? Rab [BA1] said: A madra [chastising whip]. What is madra? R. Papa [BA5] said: The whip of the Arabs, the head [sting] of which is taken off. Abaye [BA4] said: Originally I believed that which we have learnt: Ben Bibai was in charge of `pekia` meant, in charge of the wicks, as we have learnt: From the outworn breeches and belts of the priests they used to make `peki`in` and light them Now that I hear that it was taught: Not that alone, but the officer would strike him with the `pekia? I understand that `pekia? means lash. it once happened that two were even as they ran to mount the ramp. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that two priests were equal as they ran to mount the ramp and when one of them came first within four cubits of the altar, the other took a knife and thrust it into his heart. R. Zadok [T2] stood on the steps of the Hall and said: Our brethren of the house of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land... then thy elders and judges shall come forth . . . On whose behalf shall we offer the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or on behalf of the Temple Courts? All the people burst out weeping. The father of the young man came and found him still in convulsions. He said: `May he be an atonement for you. My son is still in convulsions and the knife has not become unclean.` [His remark] comes to teach you that the cleanness of their vessels was of greater concern to them even than the shedding of blood. Thus is it also said: Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other. Which event took place first? Would you say that of the bloodshed took place first? Now, if in spite of the bloodshed they did not establish the count, would they have arranged it because of the [incident of the] broken leg? Rather, the [incident of the] broken leg came first But since they had already arranged a count how was [the affair of the bloodshed] within the four cubits possible? Rather, the incident of the bloodshed came first, but at first [the Rabbis] thought it was a mere accident; but when however they saw that even without [such unfortunate accidents] they incurred danger, they enacted the count. `R. Zadok [T2] stood upon the steps of the Hall and called out: Our brethren of the House of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land. On whose behalf shall we bring the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or of the Temple Courts?` But does [the community of] Jerusalem bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken? Surely it has been taught: Ten things were said concerning Jerusalem and this is one of them b.Yom.23b it does not have to bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken. 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. `The father of the young man came and found the boy in convulsions. He said: `May he be an atonement for you. 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. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments and carry forth the ashes from this I might learn even as on the Day of Atonement, [so] that he put off his holy garments and put on profane garments. 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. If so, what does [the word] `other` teach? [They shall be] inferior to the former. R. Eliezer [T2 or T5] said: [The words] `other` and `he shall carry forth` indicate that priests afflicted with a blemish are permitted to carry forth the ashes. The Master said: ``Other garments`, i.e. inferior to the former`, as the school of R. Ishmael [T3] taught: For the school of R. Ishmael [T3] taught: One should not offer a cup of wine to one`s teacher while wearing the garment wherein one has cooked a dish for him.
Resh Lakish [PA2] said: Just as there is diversity of opinion about the carrying forth of the ashes, so there is about clearing them off the altar. R. Johanan [PA2] 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. What is the reason for Resh Lakish`s [PA2] view? He will tell you: If it should enter your mind that this [the clearing of the ashes off the altar] is considered a [regular] service then you would have a service legitimate in two garments. And R. Johanan [PA2]? The Divine Law revealed the regulation for tunic and breeches, but it includes also mitre and girdle. Then why are these [two specially mentioned]? `Middo bad` [`linen garments`] is written [here to indicate] proper measure, `miknese bad` [`linen breeches`] to teach us in accord with what has been taught: Whence is it known that nothing may be put on before the breeches? Because it is said: `And he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh.` And Resh Lakish [PA2]? 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`. 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?` 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 [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. R. Dosa [T2 in M; T5 in B] 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]. Rabbi [T5] said: There are two refutations to this matter. One: the girdle of the high priest is different from that of the common priest. 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`? b.Yom.24a It includes worn-out garments. And he shall leave them there, that teaches that they must be hidden away. R. Dosa [T2 in M; T5 in B] says: They are fit for use by a common priest. What does `And he shall leave them there` intimate? That he [the high priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement. Now would you not say that this is the subject of their dispute: that one holds it [the removal of the ashes] to be a service and the other does not consider it such? No. Everybody agrees it is a service; the point of dispute here is this: One says another scriptural passage is necessary to include also for this service [the four garments]; the other: no such passage is necessary.
R. Abin [PA3 or PA4] asked: How much of the ashes of the altar is to be removed? Shall we infer [the quantity] from the taking off of the tithe, or from what was taken off from the [spoil of] Midian? Come and hear: For R. Hiyya taught: Here the word `herim` [`he shall take up`] is used and there the expression `we-herim` [`and he shall take up`] is used. Just as in the latter case it means taking a handful, so in the former case it means taking a handful. Rab [BA1] said: There are four services for the performance of which a non-priest [stranger] incurs penalty of death: sprinkling, smoking [the fat], the water libation, and the libation of wine. Levi says: also the removal of the ashes. Thus did Levi also teach us in his Baraitha: Also the removal of the ashes. What is the reason for Rab`s view? It is written: And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep the priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to that within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death. `A service of gift`, but not a service of removal; `and you shall serve, i.e., a complete service, not a service followed by another. And Levi? The Divine Law included it in saying: `In every thing that pertaineth to the altar.` And Rab? That is meant to include the seven sprinklings within, and those concerning the leper. And Levi? He infers [these] from [the fact that instead of] `the thing`, [is written] `every thing`, [that pertaineth]. And Rab? He does not infer aught from `every thing`. But say this: `In everything that pertaineth to the altar` is a general proposition; `service of gift` is a specification. Now: if a general proposition is followed by a specification, the scope of the proposition is limited by the specification, hence the `service of gift` would be included, but a service of removal would be excluded? The scriptural text reads: b.Yom.24b `And to that within the veil . . . and you shall serve`, [i.e.] Only within the veil is `the service of gift` [included] but not the `service of removal away`, but outside [the Temple] even a `service of removal` [is included]. But [one could] similarly [argue with regard to the exposition of] `you shall serve` only within the veil, is a complete service [included] but not one service which is followed by another service, but outside, even a service followed by another [is also included]? [Scripture, by saying] `And ye shall serve` has reconnected them.
Raba [BA4] asked: What is the law regarding [a service of] removal within the Temple? Do we compare it with [a service of removal] within [the veil] or with [one] outside [the Temple]? Then he answered the question himself: It is to be compared to [a removal service] within [the veil]. [For Scripture instead of] `within` [says:] `And to that within [the veil]`. But then should the common man who arranged the [shewbread] table be guilty? There is the arrangement of the censer of frankincense. Then if he arranges the censers let him incur the penalty! There is the removal of the censers and the smoking of the incense. Let the common man who put the candlestick in order incur the penalty! That is to be followed by the putting in of the wick. Then if he put the wick in let him incur that penalty! There is the adding of the oil. Then if he puts the oil in let him incur that penalty? There is the lighting. Then if he lights it let him incur that penalty! Lighting is not considered a service. Is it, indeed, not [considered a service]? But it has been taught: And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire this teaches that the kindling of the wood of the fig-tree must be performed by a priest who is fit [for service] and with garments of ministration. The kindling of the fig-wood is considered service, but not the lighting of the candlestick. Then let the common man who puts the pile of wood [on the altar] in order, incur that penalty! There is the arrangement of the two logs of wood. Then if he arranged the two logs of wood, let him incur that penalty? It is followed by the arranging of the limbs. But R. Assi [BA1 or PA3] had said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: A common man who arranged the two logs of wood incurred the penalty of death? In this indeed there is division of opinion, one holding [the arrangement of the two logs of wood] is a complete service, the other holding that it is not a complete service. There is a teaching in accord with Rab, and there is a teaching in accord with Levi. `There is the teaching in accord with Rab`: These are the services for the performance of which a common man incurs penalty of death: the sprinkling of the blood, both within [the Temple] and within the Holy of Holies: and he who sprinkles the blood of a bird offered as a sin-offering; and he who wrings out the blood, and who smokes the bird offered up as a burnt-offering; and he who makes the libation of three logs of water or of wine. `There is a teaching in accord with Levi`: The services for the performance of which a common man incurs penalty of death are: the removal of the ashes, the seven sprinklings within [the Holy of Holies] and he who offers up on the altar a sacrifice whether fit or unfit. There were four counts etc. Why do they decide by count? [You ask,] `Why?` As we have explained. Rather: Why did they decide by count once and again? R. Johanan [PA2] said: To stir up the whole Temple Court, as it is said: We took sweet counsel together, in the house of God we walked be-ragesh [with tumult].
What garments do they wear when taking the count? R. Nahman said: Common garments, R. Shesheth [BA3] said: Sacred garments. `R. Nahman said: Common garments`. For if you were to say these garments were sacred there would be violent men who would serve by force. `R. Shesheth [BA3] said: Sacred garments`. For if you were to say common garments, it would happen that, out of sheer love [of the service] they would perform it in common clothes. R. Nahman said: On what ground do I hold my view? Because we have learnt: They delivered them to the Temple sextons, who stripped them of their garments and left them with their breeches only. b.Yom.25a Don`t [you agree] that this refers to those who had obtained part in the day`s services by the count? R. Shesheth [BA3] said: No, it refers to those who had not obtained part in the day`s service by the count. Thus also does it appear provable by logic. For, if it were to refer to those who were allotted part in the service by count, how could it be stated that they left them the breeches only; surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that nothing may be put on before the breeches? To teach us that it says: And breeches of linen shall be on his flesh. And the other? This is no difficulty: This is what it teaches: Whilst they still wore the common clothes, they put on the holy breeches, after that they removed the common clothes and left them with the [holy] breeches. Said R. Shesheth [BA3]: Whence do I hold my view? From what has been taught: The Cell of the Hewn Stone was [built] in the style of a large basilica. The count took place in the eastern side, with the elder sitting in the west, and the priests in the form of a spiral figure. The officer came and took the mitre from the head of one of them. One would know then that the count would start from him. Now, if the thought should arise that the priests [came to the count] in common garment is there a mitre in common dress? Yes, there is, as Rab Judah [BA2] or, as some say, R. Samuel b. Judah reported: A priest for whom his mother made a tunic, could officiate therein at an individual [not community] service. Abaye [BA4] said: We can infer from this the Cell of Hewn Stone was [situated] half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground; that the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other opening on non holy ground. For, if the thought should arise in you that the whole of it was on holy ground how could the elder sit to the west; has not a Master said: Nobody could sit in the Temple Court except the kings of the House of David. Furthermore, if you could think that the whole cell was outside holy ground, how could the count take place on its eastern side, is it not required: `In the house of God we walked with the throng` and this would not be [the house of God]! Hence [the inference is valid]: It is half on holy ground, half on non-holy ground. And if the thought should arise in you that the Cell has but one door opening on holy ground, how could the elder sit to the west, and we have learnt: If the cells are built on non-holy ground and open on holy ground the space within them is holy. And if the thought should arise in you that it opened into unholy ground how could the count take place in the eastern part [of the Cell]; have we not learnt: If they are built on holy ground and open out on non-holy ground, their space within is non-holy, hence you must needs say: the Cell had two doors, one opening on holy ground, the other on non-holy ground.
m.Yom.2.1
[A] At first whoever wants to take up the ashes from the altar does so.
[B] And when they are many [who wanted to do so], they run up the ramp.
[C] And whoever gets there before his fellow, within four cubits of the altar, has acquired the right to do so.
[D] And if the two came at the same time, the one in charge says to them, ``Choose up [by raising a finger].``
[E] And what do they put forth?
[F] One or two.
[G] But they did not put out the thumb in the Temple.
m.Yom.2.2
[H] There was the case of two who got there at the same time, running up the ramp.
[I] And one shoved his fellow.
[J] And he [the other] fell and broke his foot.
[K] When the court saw that the matter was dangerous, they ordained that the right of clearing off the ashes from the altar should be apportioned only by lot.
[L] There were four lots, and this was the first of the four. y.Yom.2.1 I
[A] R. Mana [PA5] raised the question, ``And why to begin with did they not establish a lot for the taking up of the ashes from the altar?
[B] ``Now take note that the act of slaughter is valid when done by lot, and yet you maintain that the one who does it is chosen by lot. Taking up the ashes on the altar may not be done by a non-priest, and do you maintain that [to begin with,] it is not done by a non-priest?``
[Cl R. Mana [PA5] reverted and said, ``Slaughtering the sacrificial animal is valid only when done by day, while taking up the ashes of the altar is done by night. If you maintain that the one who does it is chosen by lot, then he will not get up early on the possibility [that he may be chosen].``
[D] Why do you maintain that [the clearing off of the ashes is done all night]?
[E] ``[The burnt-offering shall be on the hearth upon the altar] all night until the morning.... And [the priest] shall take up the ashes to which the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar`` (Lev.6.9-10).
[F] This indicates that it is valid to take up the ashes all night long. y.Yom.2.1 I:2
[A] A non-priest who raised up [the ashes of the altar] -
[B] R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``He is liable.``
[C] R. Simeon b. Laqish said, ``He is exempt.``
[D] What is the scriptural basis for the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish?
[E] ``I give your priesthood as a gift, and anyone else who comes near shall be put to death`` (Num.18.7).
[F] It excludes this particular rite, which is a matter of raising up [the ashes] only].
[G] What is the scriptural basis for the view of R. Yohanan [PA2]?
[H] ``And you and your sons with vou shall attend to your priesthood for all that concerns the altar`` (Num.18.7).
[I] R. Yose b. R. Bun in the name of Rab: ``There are four acts of service on account of which a priest who does them outside of the courtyard is liable, and a non-priest who does them inside the courtyard is liable. What are they? Offering up the incense, pouring out the blood, the water libation, and the wine libation.``
[J] Now this accords with the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish.
[K] Levi said, ``Even [if a non-priest, in the courtyard,] raises up the ashes [he is liable].``
[L] He accords with R. Yohanan [PA2].
[M] As to [a non-priest`s] collecting the coals, there is this same dispute of R. Yohanan [PA2] and R. Simeon b. Laqish.
[N] As to taking out the remainder of the ashes, there is this same dispute of R. Yohanan [PA2] and R. Simeon b. Laqish.
[O] [What follows deals with Lev.6.11: ``And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments and carry forth the ashes.`` At issue is the meaning of the word ``other.``] The dispute accords with [39c] him who maintains that the word ``other`` [in ``other garments``] indicates that the garments he puts on are to be inferior to the garments he takes off. [In that case, the verse indicates that a priest must remove the ashes, and the open question is in what sort of garments. Both parties then can differ on this matter.]
[P] But in accord with him who maintains that the word ``other`` serves to encompass blemished priests [who are permitted to carry the ashes out], then there is no difference between a non priest and a blemished priest [and hence there can be no dispute between Yohanan [PA2] and Simeon b. Laqish, since both parties will have to concur that a non-priest who carries out the ashes is not liable]. y.Yom.2.1 I:3
[A] All concur in the case of a non-priest who laid out a pile of wood on the altar, that he is liable.
[B] Said R. Zeira [PA3], ``That is on condition that he does so with the two pieces of wood concerning which Scripture gave an admonition in connection with the service of the priesthood: `And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire```(Lev.1.7). y.Yom.2.1 I:4
[A] It has been taught: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said, ``How do we know that the kindling of the kindling wood on the altar should be done only by a valid priest and with a consecrated utensil of service? Scripture states, `And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire```(Lev.1.7).
[B] Said R. Simeon [T4], ``And can anyone imagine that a non-priest should approach the altar and make an offering? [Surely not!l If so, why is the verse written, `And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire` (Lev.1.7)?
[C] ``It is to teach the lesson that as to kindling the fire on the altar, the process of kindling should take place only at the head of the altar [on the north side].``
[D] They objected: ``And lo, it is written, `Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out` (Lev.6.13). On the basis of this verse we learn the lesson that as to kindling the fire on the altar, the process of kindling should take place only at the head of the altar [on the north side],`` the words of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y].
[E] The opinions attributed to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] thus are at variance with one another. There he utilizes the verse to indicate that it is necessary that the fire be kindled by a valid priest [A], while here [he uses it to prove a different proposition, and hence] it is not necessary that the fire be kindled by a valid priest.
[F] Said R. Tanhum bar Yudan, ``We may simply say that the fire is kindled at the head of the altar, and as to a non-priest [it goes without saying that he is excluded, since a non-priest may not come up to the altar anyhow].`` y.Yom.2.1 I:5
[A] If a non-priest raised up the ashes, and the wind blew them away, there is a dispute of R. Yohanan [PA2] and of R. Haninah [PA5].
[B] For R. Haninah [PA5] said, ``If one put a handful of meal-offering on the fire, and the wind blew it away, if this was with the final blow of the wind, [by then] the owners have attained expiation [through the offering,] and the residue [of meal- offering] is released from the laws of sacrilege [and may be eaten by the priests]. [The offering has been received and is valid.]``
[C] R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``That is the case when the fire will have burned up the greater part of it.``
[D] What is the meaning of ``the greater part of it``? Has the statement been made to cover the greater part of the entire handful of meal-offering, or the greater part of each grain of the offering?
[E] R. Hezekiah [PA5], R. Jonah [PA5], R. Ba, R. Hiyya in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``It has been stated with regard to the greater part of each grain [of the offering].`` y.Yom.2.1 I:6
[A] If one raised up half [of the ashes on the altar], there is a dispute of R. Yohanan [PA2] and R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1].
[B] For R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``As to a handful of meal-offering which has been consecrated in a utensil and which one offered up, even if it was only the sesame seeds [a tiny part of the whole], he has carried out his obligation.``
[C] R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] said, ``The Mishnah has not indicated that. But rather:If one burned the handful twice [in two halves] it is valid [m.Men.3.4].``
[D] R. Hama bar Uqbah in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1]: ``A handful of meal-offering may be no less than two olive`s bulks in volume, and burning up a handful of meal-offering may not involve less than an olive`s bulk of meal-offering.``
[E] R. Isaac [T5 or PA3] b. R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] asked, ``On this basis: A priest whose hand cannot hold two olive`s bulks of volume [of meal-offering] should be invalid for carrying out the service.`` y.Yom.2.1 I:7
[A] If one took up the ashes with his left hand, there is a dispute of R. Yohanan [PA2] and R. Judah b. Rabbi.
[B] For R. Yohanan [PA2] said, ``One takes up a handful of meal-offering that has been sanctified in a utensil and offers it up, whether with his hand or in a utensil, whether in the right hand or the left hand.``
[C] Judah b. Rabbi says, ``One may do it as is done in the case of a sin-offering, by hand, or he may do it as it is done with a guilt-offering, with a utensil, but that is on condition that it is done with the right hand.``
[D] They objected [to the notion that if it was done with the left hand, it is invalid with no remedy], ``Lo, it has been taught:One received the blood with his right hand and put it into his left hand and then puts it back into his right hand [m.Zeb.3.2]. If he did it with his left hand he has to go back to the altar [and repeat the process of flicking the blood, doing it the second time with his right hand], is it not an argument a fortiori that the same rule applies in the case of the dish of frankincense [that it must be put on the fire with the right hand]? [But merely putting the matter in his left hand does not invalidate the rite. He surely may validate the rite by going back and doing the thing over again with the right hand.]``
[E] Said R. La, ``If this teaching has been taught by anyone, it is the teaching of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4]. For it has been taught: R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] says, `[The meal-offering] does not require sanctification in a bowl.```
[F] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] accords with the view of R. Simeon [T4], his father, for we have learned there:If the meal-offering had not been put into a utensil of service, it is invalid. R. Simeon [T4] declares it valid [m.Men.3.4].
[G] What is the upshot of the matter?
[H] Rabbis, who maintain that the meal-offering must be put into a utensil of service, require also that it be done with the right hand.
[I] R. Simeon [T4], who does not require that it be done with a utensil of service, also does not require that it be done with the right hand. y.Yom.2.1 I:8
[A] Said R. Mana [PA5], ``I am surprised that rabbis compare the taking up of the ashes from the altar to the matter of offering up [the meal-offering].
[B] ``But the comparison surely is to be drawn only [between taking up the ashes from the altar] and taking the handful [of meal-offering]. For each one is subject to the consideration of raising up [a handful]. [At Lev.6.10, it says, `And he shall] take up [the ashes],` and the other [the matter of meal-offering] likewise is described with the word `take up.` For `taking up` makes sense only when one has left a residue behind [from which one takes up what he takes up].
[C] ``[Along these same lines of comparing the taking up of the ashes to the taking up of the meal-offering,] `which the fire has consumed` (Lev.6.10) - consuming means a minimum of an olive`s bulk [hence one takes up at least an olive`s bulk of ashes].``
[D] If the whole of the ashes added up to an olive`s bulk, it is not possible to take up only part of it, for it would not then reach the requisite volume of an olive`s bulk.
[E] To take up only part of it also is not possible, for there would be no residue left behind.
[F] ``And he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has consumed the burnt-offering on the altar`` (Lev.6.10) - might one say that involved is only the ashes of the wood?
[G] Scripture says, ``The ashes of the burnt-offering.``
[H] If it is to be the ashes of the burnt-offering, is it possible that it may involve only the limbs of the burnt- offering?
[I] Scripture says, ``Which the fire has consumed.``
[J] How so?
[K] One cuts off the innermost part of what has been consumed by the fire and takes that down. y.Yom.2.1 I:9
[A] It is a religious duty to put fire on before laying on the wood,
[B] for it is said, ``And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire`` (Lev.1.7).
[C] If one put the wood on before the fire,
[D] [or] arranged the wood before taking up the ashes,
[E] he lets the wood slide down the altar, and then removes the ashes; then he undoes the pile of wood, and he takes up the ashes. y.Yom.2.1 I:10
[A] R. Jacob bar Aha [PA3] said, ``Hilpai asked, `The handful of meal offering which one placed on the fire by night - what is the law [governing its disposition]?```
[B] R. Jeremiah [PA4] said, ``Hilpai asked, `The limbs of the continual whole-offering of the morning which one placed on the fire by night - what is the law?```
[C] And is the answer not a Tannaite teaching: You have nothing that comes [onto the altar] before the continual whole-offering of the morning except for the incense-offering alone.
[D] The cited Tannaite passage speaks of the proper religious duty and how to effect it. But Hilpai raised the question as to what is indispensable [to the proper carrying out of the rite]. [That is a separate question.] y.Yom.2.1 I:11
[A] As to the priestly frontlet [which effects atonement for uncleanness unintentionally imparted to the cult], what is the law as to its effecting expiation for uncleanness affecting the hands [if one washed his hands and then, accidentally, they became unclean once he had come into the courtyard]?
[B] As to the hands, what is the law on their invalidating [the rite] if one should go out [of the courtyard after washing them, and then go back in]?
[C] Is the answer not given in a Tannaite teaching: If one has sanctified [by washing] his hands and feet and they became unclean, he immerses them, and they are clean. If he went forth [from the courtyard] they are not invalidated on the count of having gone forth.
[D] But in the theory of him who says that the passage of the night does not invalidate [the condition, of already clean,] of the hands, [there is no question to be raised]. [Here too, going out of the court also does not invalidate the prior, acceptable condition of the hands.]
[E] But here, in accord with the view of him who says that the passage of the night does invalidate the prior, suitable condition of the hands, [the question may be phrased as follows:] As to the hands, what is the law on their being rendered invalid because of an untimely washing? [If one washes them today, will they be validly washed for tomorrow on that count?]
[F] And is it not a Tannaite teaching: If one sanctified his hands and feet today for the service on the next day, [the hands are valid] ? y.Yom.2.1 I:12
[A] Said R. Yohanan [PA2], ``Taking up the ashes from the altar is the beginning of service of the next day. One has, therefore, to wash his hands and feet from the laver, which is filled with water [throughout the night]. [The water is not spoiled by being left overnight.]``
[B] R. Hiyya bar Joseph [PA2] said, ``Once one has handed over the day to the night, that suffices. [That is, the laver did not have to be filled with water all night. The concern is that the water not be left standing all night; if it is, when the morning star appears, the water is invalidated. A solution to the problem will now be presented. ]``
[C] Associates in the name of R. Yohanan [PA2]: ``Once the priest had raised up [water, and then washed his hands and feet in it prior to taking up the ashes], he puts it back [into the laver, prior to the appearance of the morning star, marking the passage from night to day and imparting uncleanness to the water on the count of having been left all night]. [Accordingly, the issue of using invalid water is not a problem in the case of the lustration prior to taking the ashes off the altar, since this is done before the rise of the morning star.]``
[D] The following Tannaite passage stands at variance with the view of R. Hiyya bar Joseph [PA2]:
[E] ``If one has sanctified his hands and feet by day, he does not have to sanctify them by night; if he did so by night, he has to sanctify them by day,`` the words of Rabbi. [The water is invalidated when left overnight.]
[F] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] says, ``Even if he is engaged in the rite of sacrifice for three days running, the passage of the night does not invalidate in the case of washing hands and feet`` [t.Men.1.13C],
[G] ``for being left all night does not invalidate in the case of the hands, or in the case of acts of service left over [from former parts of the rite, that is, the burning up of limbs and pieces of meal-offering, done at night and completed at a later time than the original offering].
[H] ``But at the outset of acts of service, it is necessary [to sanctify hands and feet]. [Once the rite is underway, we do not take account of interruptions, but regard the original washing as sufficient.]`` [Now with whom does Hiyya concur? Rabbi regards the passage of the night as invariably an invalidating cause. Hiyya, by contrast, holds that if one washed hands at the beginning of the night, that suffices. The passage of the night does not invalidate his hand-washing at the outset. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4], for his part, wants hand-washing at the outset of a rite, and, as just now explained, Hiyya will not regard that as necessary under the stated conditions. So with whom can he concur?]
[I] This is how R. Hiyya bar Joseph [PA2] explains the passage: ``If one has sanctified his hands and feet by day, he does not have to sanctify them by night - that rule pertains to the residue of the acts of labor [that is, burning up the limbs and the bits and pieces of the meal-offering, which may be done all night anyhow]. But at the beginning of acts of service, it is necessary to sanctify the hands and feet by day,`` the words of Rabbi.
[J] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] says, ``Even if one was engaged in acts of service for three days running, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, for passage of the night does not invalidate in regard to the hands, so far as carrying out the burning of the residues of the acts of service. But as to the beginning of acts of service, it is necessary to sanctify hands and feet.``
[K] This is how R. Yohanan [PA2] explains the passage: ``If one has sanctified his hands and feet by day, he does not have to sanctify them by night. If he sanctified his hands and feet by night, he has to sanctify them by day,`` the words of Rabbi.
[L] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] says, ``Even if he was engaged in acts of service for three days running, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet in connection with the residue of sacrifice, but at the outset of acts of service, one does have to sanctify hands and feet.`` [Accordingly, Hiyya bar Joseph [PA2] interprets the view of Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] to apply both to the residue of acts of service and to the beginning of an act of service. In neither instance does one have to sanctify hands and feet, because the passage of the night in any event does not invalidate the washing done at the outset, as he maintains. So it is with Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] that Hiyya bar Joseph [PA2] concurs. Yohanan [PA2] for his part holds that, with regard to residues of acts of service, one need not wash hands. But at the outset of acts of service, one must do so.] y.Yom.2.1 I:13
[A] Hilpai said, ``Just as the passage of the night does not invalidate in the case of the hands, so the passage of the night does not invalidate in the case of [water in the] laver.``
[B] The cited Tannaite passage does not concur with Hilpai`s view: ``If one has sanctified his hands and feet by day, he does not have to sanctify them by night. If he did so by night, he does have to sanctify them by day,`` the words of Rabbi [who then disagrees with Hilpai`s principle].
[C] R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] b. R. Simeon [T4] says, ``Even if one is busy with acts of service for three days running, he does not have to sanctify his hands and feet, for the passage of the night does not invalidate in the case of the hands`` [t.Men.1.13C].
[D] Lo, as to [water in the] laver, the passage of the night does invalidate [such water].
[E] The disciples of R. Yohanan [PA2] in the name of Hilpai Hakini: ``If one has sanctified his hands and feet, for passage of the night does not invalidate in the case of the hands.`` Lo, in the case of [water in the] laver, the passage of the night does invalidate [such water].
[F] But that is with the proviso that it is the passage from day to night. [That is, if the water is left in the laver from daytime to the night, it is not invalidated, just as Hiyya bar Joseph [PA2] claimed at the outset of this discussion.] y.Yom.2.1 II
[A] [With reference to m.Yom.2.1C] Within four cubits of the altar:] [39d] Whether one is within four cubits of the ramp [or] within four cubits of the altar, does it make a difference? [Is the ramp equivalent to the altar so far as standing within its domain is concerned?]
[B] On the basis of that which we have learned,There was the case of two who got there at the same time, running up the ramp [m.Yom.2.1H], it follows that within four cubits of the altar [is the definition of falling within the domain of the altar, and not merely being on the ramp up to the altar].
[C] Said R. Yose b. R. Bun, ``R. Hiyya taught this matter explicitly: `Whoever gets to within four cubits of the altar before his fellow has won out.``` y.Yom.2.1 III
[A] What is the meaning of ``Choose up [by raising a finger]`` [m.Yom.2.1D]?
[B] ``Put out a finger.``
[C] If priests put out one finger, they count it. If two, they count it. If three, they do not count it [cf. m.Yom.2.1E-F].
[D] What is the meaning of ``they do not count it``?
[E] Is it that they do not count it at all or that they do not count the extra finger?
[F] If one put out four fingers, the supervising priest hits the fellow with a strap, and the lottery is nullified. y.Yom.2.1 IV
[A] But they did not put out the thumb in the Temple [m.Yom.2.1G]:
[B] This is because of the possibility of deceit. y.Yom.2.1 IV:2
[A] One does not say in the sanctuary, ``From whom shall we begin the count?``
[B] But the supervisor would lift up the miter of one of them [t.Yom.1.10C],
[C] and they would know that it was from him that the count began.
[D] And should we not scruple that he may select the one of some one whom he liked, or of a relative of his?
[E] They would stand around in the form of a spiral figure [t.Yom.1.10B].
[F] How would the lottery run, right or left?
[G] Said R. Bun bar Hiyya, ``On the basis of that which has been taught, `He who won the right to burn the incense said to the one at his right hand, you then take up the fire-pan,` that is to say that the lottery runs to the right.``
[H] The disciples of R. Jonah [PA5] in the name of R. Hilpai Hakini: ``The lottery runs to the left. The one who wins out wins out at the right. It is better that he should then assign the advantage to him whom the lottery has passed over two times than to him whom the lottery has passed over only one time.`` y.Yom.2.1 V
[A] There was the case of two who got there at the same time, running up the ramp. One shoved the other [m.Yom.2.1H-I], within four cubits [of the altar]. The other then took out a knife and stabbed him in the heart.
[B] R. Sadoq came and stood on the steps of the porch and said,
[C] ``Hear me, O brethren of the House of Israel! Lo, Scripture says, `If in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, anyone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance to the cities which are around him that is slain` [Deut.21.1-2].
[D] ``Come and let us measure to find out for what area it is appropriate to bring the calf - for the Sanctuary, or for the courts !``
[E] All of them moaned after his speech.
[F] And afterward the father of the youngster came to them, saying, ``O brethren of ours! I am your atonement. His [my] son is still writhing, so the knife has not yet been made unclean.``
[G] This teaches you that the uncleanness of a knife is more grievous to Israelites than murder [t.Yom.1.12A-G].
[H] This was not to their credit. [The following nine lines serve m.Yom.2.2, not m.Yom.2.1, and are translated below.]