Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma (Day of Atonement)

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: The flaying and cutting into pieces may be performed by a layman. Said Hezkiah: Whence do we deduce this? Because it is written [Lev. i. 7]: "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar." Hence only the fire must be put by priests, but the flaying may be done by others. But this verse is needful for its own sake, how can it be deduced from it? Said R. Simeon b. Ashi: I once heard how Abayi explained it to his son as follows: It is written [ibid. 5]: "He shall kill." A layman is meant. How is this known? Because it is written [Num. xviii. 7], "And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priesthood," one might say, that the slaughtering is also meant. Therefore it is written: '"And he shall kill the young steer before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron the priest shall bring near the blood." From this we see that all that precedes the bringing near of the blood may be done by a layman. And it is also written [Lev. iii. 2]: "And he shall lay his hand … and kill it." From this it can be deduced that the layman who has laid his hand upon it may kill it.

[Rashi explains, that all this is stated in a Mishna elsewhere, and Abayi explained to his son that what Hezkiah had said is in accordance with that Mishna.] Now let us see: We have concluded that from the sprinkling of the blood onwards all must be performed by priests; and the fire is put upon the altar later. Why is it then necessary to say that Aaron's sons should do it? This is to exclude the flaying and cutting into pieces, which, though they come after the sprinkling of the blood, may be done by a layman.

It was taught: R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan said: If a layman has put the two measures of wood on the altar, he is liable to capital punishment, as it is a service belonging to the following day (and not the final service of the night). Rabba opposed: According to this supposition (that it is a service of the day), a lot had to be drawn? Rabba has forgotten what we have learned above, that he who drew the lot to lift the ashes, also obtained the privilege to arrange the measures of wood. Said Mar Zutra, according to others R. Ashi: How can it be said it is a service of the next day? Did we not learn further in the Mishna: "Go and see whether it is time to slaughter"? If the arranging of the wood was also a service of the next day, why was not this mentioned likewise (for if it were done when it was yet night it would be invalid)? This is no difficulty. If the animal was slaughtered before the time, it was invalid, but if the wood was put on before the time, it could be removed and replaced by a priest after daybreak.

CHAPTER III. Regulations concerning the time of slaughtering the daily offering, the entering of a layman into the court of the Temple, and the order of the high-priest's service on the Day of Atonement. MISHNA: The Superintendent used to say to them: Go out and see whether the time for slaughtering has come. If it had come, the one who saw it said: "(Barqai) It becomes light." Matthew b. Samuel says: He used to ask: "Is the whole east bright, as far as Hebron?" and he answered: "Yea." [Why was all this necessary? Because on one occasion the moonlight was bright, and they mistook it for dawn. They slaughtered the daily sacrifice, and removed it to the place of burning (finding it unfit).] The high-priest used to be then taken down to the bath. This was the rule in the temple: After necessary human needs a bath had to be taken, and after making water one had to wash his hands and feet.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Ishmael said: He said: "Baraq barqai." And R. Aqiba said: "Ala' barqai (The light has risen)." Ne'huma b. Aphaqshyon said: He said: "It has become light even at Hebron. But R. Jehudah b. Bathyra said: He said: "The whole east is bright, as far as Hebron." Then each went to do his work. When each went to his work, it was full day. Did they wait so long? It is meant, those who needed laborers went to look for them. Said R. Sophra: The Mincha prayer of Abraham was when the walls begin to be blackened by shadow. Said R. Joseph: Have we to imitate Abraham? Said Rabha: The Tana learns from Abraham, why shall we not? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xii. 3]: On the eighth day shall the flesh of his foreskin be circumcised." But those who are devout do this religious duty early in the morning. As it is written [Gen. xxii. 3]: "And Abraham rose up early in the morning." Therefore says Rabha: How can we learn of Abraham? He was an older man, who taught the public, and his actions are not to be applied to common men.

"Matthew b. Samuel says," etc. Who used to say, "Yea"? If you wish, I will say, he who stood on the roof used to say: "The east is bright," and as the one who stood beneath asked him: "As far as Hebron?" he would reply: "Yea." And if you wish, I can say: He who stood beneath used to say: "Is the east bright?" The one on the roof would then say: "As far as Hebron?" He would reply: "Yea." (Rashi explains: It is written elsewhere: Why Hebron? To remind of the merit of the patriarchs.) "Why was all this necessary?" How could they have made this mistake? Did we not learn in a Boraitha: Rabbi said: The beams of the moon are not like to those of the sun. For those of the moon rise straight like sticks, whereas those of the sun diverge in all directions. The disciples of R. Ishmael taught: That time it was a cloudy day, and the moon's rays were multiplied in all directions as those of the sun.

R. Na'hman said: The heat during a clouded day is worse than the solar heat itself. A similar instance I can show: A barrel of vinegar smells more strongly when one hole is made in it than when it is wholly opened. A mixed light (of the sun and fire) is more unendurable (by the eye) than the solar light itself. A similar case: It is more difficult to stand under a shower, than to enter wholly into water. The thoughts about women are more exhausting than the sin itself. A similar case: The smell of wasted meat is more irritating than the meat itself. The heat of the end of summer is worse than that of the summer itself (because it is easier to catch a cold, because the body has been inured to heat during the summer). A similar case is: When an oven is heated four or five times a day, then even a couple of pieces of wood render it hot. Fever is much worse in the winter than in the summer. A like case is: In a cold oven much wood is necessary to heat it; hence if one has a high temperature in the winter, the fever must be great. To study old subjects is much more difficult than a wholly new subject. A like case: It is easier to make clay of new sand than of sand which had once been part of a building. R. Abahu said: What is the reason that Rabbi says that the solar rays are in all directions? Because it is written [Ps. xxii. 1]: "To the chief musician upon the hind of dawn." As a hind has her horns diverging, so are the sun's rays.

R. Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the upright compared to a hind? As the horns of a hind diverge as long as they grow, so the more prayers they will offer, the more they are heard. "They slaughtered the daily sacrifice." To what does this refer? If all the year (they mistook the passage beginning with "The high-priest" to be connected with the foregoing), why was the high-priest taken to the bath? During the whole year he does not sacrifice? If it refers to the Day of Atonement, then there is no moon in the middle of the night (as it is the tenth day in the month). The answer is, the two passages have no connection. When it was bright, they took him to the bath.

"This is the rule," etc. The feet he had to wash, since it was possible they had been defiled while performing the function; but the hands? Said R. Abba: Hence it can be inferred, that it is a merit to clean with one's hand the feet in such a case. And this is in support of what R. Ammi had said: A man may not go out into the street when his feet have been thus defiled, lest it be said that he is suffering from a certain infirmity [Deut. xxiii. 2, end]—lest it be said his children are bastards. MISHNA: No one may enter the forecourt [even of Israelites, not priests] to do service, even when he is clean, before he has bathed. On this day the high-priest bathes five times, and washes his hands and feet ten times. All these ablutions are taken within the sanctuary, over Beth Haparva, except the first. A screen of linen [byssus] was placed between him and the people.

GEMARA: B. Zorna was asked: What was the bathing needed for? He said: If one passes from one holy place to another, and from a place which it is Karath to enter, to a similar place, still one must take a bath; how much more when one passes from the forecourt, which is not a holy place, and which it is not Karath to enter, to the sanctuary. R. Jehudah says: The bathing is not obligatory. It is only used as a reminder, if he was once unclean, and forgot to bathe, he will now remember it, and will wait after bathing till sunset. On what point do they differ? In case he entered without having bathed, according to R. Zorna, he has committed a sin, and rendered the service invalid; according to R. Jehudah, he has not.

Abayi asked R. Joseph: Ought there to be nothing between his body and the water in this bathing, as in other bathing? Or if it is only as according to R. Jehudah, that does not matter? He answered: All that the rabbis have ordered must be done as if it were biblical. He asked him again: If only a part of his body (as head, foot, hand) is introduced into the sanctuary, is a bathing also necessary? He replied: The thumbs and great toes of a leper, which must be besprinkled by the priest with blood [Lev. xiv. 14], he yet introduced into the sanctuary, while standing in the gate of Nicanor, as we have learned in a Boraitha. We see, then, that this was not considered entering, as he could not enter himself. "Bathes five times." The rabbis taught: Five times the high-priest bathed, and washed his hands and feet ten times, all this in the sanctuary over the Beth Haparva, except the first, which was not in the sanctuary, but over the Gate of Water, and near the high-priest’s chamber.

"A screen of byssus," etc. Why one of byssus? That is according to R. Kahna, as he says further, to remind him that the service of this day is in the linen clothes (not golden). So we say it is meant in this case. MISHNA: He undressed, went down, and dived. After he had come out again, and wiped himself (dried himself with a sponge?), the garments of cloth of gold were brought to him, which he put on, and then washed his hands and feet. They brought to him the daily sacrifice; he made an incision, and another completed the slaughtering in his presence. He took up the blood, and sprinkled it, went in to fume the morning (matinal) incense, and to trim the lamps, as well as to offer the head, the members, the things made in pans, and the wine. The morning incense was offered between the blood and the members; that of evening, between the members and drink-offerings. If he was an aged or delicate high-priest, the cold water of the bath was mixed with water warmed previously.

GEMARA: Our Mishna, which says that after bathing he put on the garments of cloth of gold without having washed his hands and feet previously, is not in accordance with R. Meir, who maintains that the hands and feet must be washed twice at each time of his putting on the garments. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: A screen of linen was placed between him and the people. He undressed himself, went down, dived, came out, wiped himself. They brought him the garments of cloth of gold, he put them on, he washed his hands and his feet. R. Meir, however, said: He undressed himself, washed his hands and feet, and then went down and dived. He came up, dried himself. They brought him the garments of cloth of gold, put them on, then washed his hands and his feet. It is right, according to R. Meir, who says that for each diving two washings of the hands and feet are needed; that ten times he should wash his hands and feet, as in the Mishna. But according to the rabbis, who say only once, there will be but nine? The rabbis can reply, that the last time he washed his hands and feet, was when he stripped himself of the holy garments and had to put on his week-day clothes, after the whole service.

We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi Jehudah said: How is it known that the high-priest has to dive five times, and wash his hands and feet ten times? Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 23]: "And Aaron shall then go into the tabernacle of the congregation, and he shall take off the linen garments, which he had put on when he went into the holy place, and he shall leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh with water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come then forth, and offer," etc. From this we infer that between one service and the other he had to dive. So also said Rabha, with the addition: Because it is written [ibid. 4], "These are holy garments," that proves that all holy clothes are equal. This day there were five services: The daily morning offering, in garments of cloth of gold; the service of the day, in linen clothes; his ram and the people's ram, in garments of cloth of gold; the spoon and the censer, in linen clothes; the daily evening offering, in garments of cloth of gold. (For the five services, were five divings.) How is it known that for each diving two times have the hands and feet to be washed? Because it is written [ibid.]: "He shall take off his garments … and shall wash … put on …" The phrase "shall wash" applies to the taking off and the putting on of the garments. From this we see only that when he takes off the linen garment, and puts on cloth of gold, he must wash himself. How do we know that when he takes off the garments of cloth of gold, and puts on the linen ones, he must wash himself? The disciples of R. Ishmael have taught: This can be inferred by a reasoning a fortiori. If when he puts off the linen clothes, whose atonement is not great, still he must have a bathing, how much more when he puts off the cloth of gold, whose atonement is great?

But it may be asked, Is the atonement of the linen clothes not great? Did not the high-priest enter in them the Holy of Holies? It is written [ibid. 4]: "These are holy garments, therefore shall he wash his flesh in water (and both the cloth of gold and linen garments are holy.)"

"He made an incision." How much? Says Ulla: The greater part of the windpipe and the gullet. So also have said R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. Abayi ordered the services according to a tradition he had, and it agrees with that of Abbu Saul. The (first) great arrangement of wood preceded the second arrangement of wood on the southwestern corner of the altar (as will be explained in Tamid). This preceded the two measures of wood, and they preceded the removal of the ashes from the inner altar, and this preceded the trimming of the five lamps. This preceded the sprinkling of the blood of the morning daily offering, and this preceded the trimming of the two lamps; and this preceded the offering of the incense, which came before the offering of the members; this was before the meal-offering, and this was before the things baked in pans. This preceded the drink-offering, and this preceded the additional offerings (for Sabbath or festival), and these were before the spoonfuls of frankincense, that preceded the daily evening offering, as it is written [Lev. vi. 5]: "He shall burn thereon the fat of the peace-offerings." From the word Hashlamim (peace-offerings) can be inferred that they should complete the service of the day (this word means, also, completion).

The Master says: "The first great arrangement of wood preceded. The second," etc. How is it known? Because it is written [Lev. vi. 2]: "It is the burnt-offering which shall be burning upon the altar all night. And after that it is written: "And the fire of the altar shall be burning upon it." By this the other arrangement of wood is meant. How is it known that this precedes the two measures of wood? Because it is written [ibid. 5]: "The priest shall burn wood on it every morning." On it, and not on the other fire. From this we infer there is another fire. Which? That of the two measures of wood. How is it known the two measures of wood precede the clearing of the inner altar? Although in both places it is written, "every morning," yet we understand that preparation for service precedes the mere removal of ashes. Whence do we deduce that this precedes the trimming of the five lamps? Says Abayi: I have it so by tradition, but I know no reason. Rabba says: I know it is according to Resh Lakish, who says when one meets an opportunity to perform a meritorious act, one should not pass by it. When the priest enters, he meets first the altar, then the lamps. And what

is the reason that this precedes the blood of the daily morning offering? And this precedes the two lamps? Says Abayi: Since it is written of the measures of wood "every morning" twice, (in Hebrew) superfluously, let it apply to the five lamps and to the two lamps, the one to precede the blood of the morning sacrifice, the other to follow it. How do we know that these two lamps precede the incense? Because it is written [Exod. xxx. 7]: "When he dresseth the lamps, (then) shall he burn it." How is it known that the incense comes before the members? Of the incense [ibid.] it is said "every morning," but of the daily sacrifice only "morning." [The first precedes the second.] Why do the members come before the meal-offering? Because we have learned in a Boraitha as follows: Whence do we deduce, that before the daily morning offering has been sacrificed nothing else shall be offered? Because it is written [Lev. vi. 5]: "He shall lay in order upon it the burnt-offering." In addition to this Boraitha, said Rabba: By the word the burnt-offering is meant the first burnt-offering; that is, the daily offering. How is it known that the meal-offering precedes the things made in pans? Because they are mentioned [Lev. xxiii. 37] in this order. How

is it known the things made in pans precede the drink-offering? Because they are also a meal-offering, and added to the daily sacrifice [Num. xxviii, 5]. And why do these precede the additional sacrifice? Because in that verse [Lev. xxiii. 37] they are mentioned in this order. And why do these precede the spoonfuls of frankincense? Did we not learn in a Boraitha that they succeed the frankincense? About this, Tanaim differ. (Pesachim, p 107.) Said Abayi: It seems to me the Halakha prevails, that the additional sacrifices ought to precede the frankincense. Because we have seen that of which it is said "every morning" precedes that of which it is said "morning." [See Lev. xxiv. 7 and 8.] Here of the additional sacrifice is said "every and each day," hence—not morning.

"The morning incense was offered between the blood and members." According to whom is this? If according to the rabbis, it should have been between the blood and lamps; and if according to Abbu Saul, it should have been between the lamps and the members? The whole Mishna is according to the rabbis, but about the order the arranger of the Mishna has not been particular. "That of evening, between the members and drink-offerings." How do we know this? Because it is written [Num. xxviii. 8]: "As the meat-offering of the morning, and the drink-offering thereof, shalt thou prepare it." As in the case of the meat-offering the incense precedes the drink-offering, so in the evening the incense shall precede the drink-offering.

The rabbis taught: It is written [ibid. 7]: "The drink-offering thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin." "Thereof," of the evening sacrifice [ibid. 4]. We deduce concerning the morning sacrifice from the evening sacrifice. Rabbi, however, said: On the contrary, we deduce concerning the evening offering from the morning offering. It is right, according to the rabbis, since that of the evening is mentioned last. But what is Rabbi's reason? Said Rabba b. Ulla: Because it is written [ibid. 7], "for the one sheep," and [ibid. 4] "the one sheep," hence in both cases the same morning offering is meant. "If he was an aged or delicate high-priest." We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: Iron plates were heated on the eve of the Day of Atonement, and were on the Day of Atonement plunged into the cold water, to warm it for the high-priest. But the iron gets tempered thereby (which is forbidden as a work)? R. Bibi answers: The iron had not been heated so much as to become tempered. Abayi, however, says: It does not matter, since it is not intentional, and therefore not forbidden.

MISHNA: They brought him to Beth-Haparva, which was in the sanctuary; a linen screen was spread out between him and the people; he washed his hands and feet and stripped himself. R. Meir says: He undressed, and washed his hands and feet. He went down and dived, came up and dried himself, white garments were brought to him, which he put on, and he washed his hands and feet. In the morning, he put on linen of Pelusium, costing twelve Minas. In the evening, Hindoo linen, of 800 Zuz [8 Minas]. This is according to R. Meir. The sages say, in the morning he put on garments worth 18 Minas, in the evening of 12 Minas—together amounting to 30 Minas. This from public money [another version, taken from the holy funds?]; but if he chooses, he can have them more costly out of his private means. GEMARA: Why is it called Parva? Said R. Joseph: Because it was built by one Parva, one of the magi.

"In the morning he put on linen of Pelusium." Wherefore does he tell us the price? He comes to teach us that linen less costly were invalid. Let us see: All agree that what he put on in the morning was more costly than that in the evening. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Huna, the son of R. Hai: Because [Lev. xvi. 4] linen is mentioned four times in that verse; in reference to the morning garments, they are to be of the best linen.

R. Huna b. Jehudah, according to others R. Samuel b. Jehudah, taught: After the service of the congregation was finished, if the high-priest possessed a linen coat made by his mother at her own cost, he might put it on, and perform the services appertaining to an individual (not congregation: carry out the spoons from the Holy of Holies, and the censer; the first had been used for frankincense, the second for incense), provided that when he puts it on, he shall bestow it on the congregation. It was said of R. Ishmael b. Phabi: His mother had made him a linen coat worth 100 Minas; he used to put it on, perform the services of an individual, and bestow it (in his mind) on the congregation. Of R. Eliezer b. Harsum it was said: His mother had made him a linen coat worth 20,000 Minas. His brethren the priests did not permit him to put it on, as in it he seemed to be naked (so delicate was its texture). How could this be, if it is said to have been thick, the threads six times twisted? Said Abayi: As wine is seen through a glass, however thick it be.

The rabbis taught: In the world to come, when a poor man, a rich man, and a wicked man come before the judgment, when the poor is asked, "Why hast thou not studied the Law?" if he answers: "I have been poor, I had to earn my bread, and had no time," they answer him: "Wast thou poorer than Hillel the Elder?" Of Hillel the Elder it was said: Every day he went to work, and earned a Tarpeik (a Stater coin of 4 Dinars). Half he gave away to the porter of the college, to let him in, and on the other half he and his family lived. Once it happened he did not earn anything, the porter did not let him in. He ascended the roof where there was an opening, and listened to the words of the living God, from the mouth of Shemaia and Abtalian. It was said: That day was a Friday, and in the season of Tebeth (winter), and he was besnowed. When it dawned, Shemaia said to Abtalian: "Every day it becomes light at this time, and now it is dark. Is it such a cloudy day?" They raised their eyes, and saw the figure of a man. When they went up, they found on him a layer of snow three ells thick. They took him down, washed him, dressed him with oil, placed him before a fire, and they said: "Such a man deserves that Sabbath should be violated for his sake (by the making of fire)."

When the rich man is asked: "Why hast thou not studied the Law?" if he answers: "Because I was a rich man, and had many estates, and had no time to study," they answer him: "Wast thou richer than R. Elazar b. Harsum?" Of him it was said: His father had bequeathed to him a thousand towns on land, and a thousand ships on the sea, and he himself used to take a bag of flour on his shoulder, and wander from town to town and land to land to study the Law. Once his own slaves found him, and put him to hard labor. He said to them: "I pray you, let me go to study the Torah." They replied: "We swear, by R. Elazar b. Harsum's life, we will not let you go before you work," Thus, as long as he lived, he did not attend to his affairs, but studied all day and all night the Law.

When the wicked man is asked: "Why hast thou not studied the Law?" if he replies: "I was handsome, and was absorbed by my sins," they answer him: "Wast thou more handsome than Joseph?" It was said of Joseph the Righteous, that every day Potiphar's wife used to try to seduce him by her talk. The clothes she used to put on in the morning (to attract his attention) she did not put on in the evening, and vice versa, and her refrain was always: "Listen to me; do what I ask of you." He answered: "No." She said: "I will imprison you." He replied [Ps. cxlvi. 7]: "The Lord looseneth the prisoners." She then said: "I will bend your loftiness." His reply was [ibid.]: "The Lord raiseth up those who are bowed down." She said to him: "I will blind you." He answered [ibid. 8]: "The Lord causeth the blind to see." She gave him a thousand talents of silver. He was averse to her, or "to lie with her, or to be with her" [Gen. xxxix. 10]. "To lie with her" in this world, "to be with her" in the world to come. From this we see that Hillel makes the poor man guilty, R. Eliezer b. Harsum the rich, and Joseph the wicked.

MISHNA: He went to his bullock, which stood between the porch and the altar, his head due south, but his face due west. The high-priest stood on the east, his face due west. He put his two hands on him and confessed himself in the following terms: I beseech thee, Jehovah, I have committed iniquities, have transgressed, and have sinned before thee, I and my house. I beseech thee, Jehovah, forgive, pray, the iniquities, the transgressions, and the sins, which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house, as it is written in the Torah of Moses thy servant, "For on that day shall he make an atonement for you," etc. [Lev. xvi. 30]. They respond after him: "Blessed be the name of His kingdom's glory for ever!"

GEMARA: "His head due south, but his face due west." If his head was turned to the south, how could his face be turned to the west? Said Rabh: His head was turned aside, Why? Says Abayi: It was apprehended, lest he should excrete. The rabbis taught: How were the hands imposed on his head? The sacrifice stood in the north, his face turned westward; he who imposed his hand stood in the east, his face westward; he placed both his hands between the two horns, provided that there was nothing between his hands and the head of the sacrifice; then he confessed himself. On the sin-offering he confessed the sins for which a sin-offering has to be brought; on a trespass-offering, the sins corresponding to it; and on a burnt-offering, sins of preventing the poor to gather, (not) forgetting for the poor, and not leaving corners [Lev. xix. 9]. So said R. Joel the Galilean.

The rabbis taught: How did the high-priest confess? He said: "I have committed iniquities, transgressed, and sinned." So he confessed over the goat [Lev. xvi. 21]: "And confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, in all their sins." (The order of the terms is the same.) So also by Moses is it written [Ex. xxxiv. 7], "Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." So says R. Meir. The sages, however, say: By iniquities are meant intentional transgressions, for it is written [Num. xv. 31] "That person shall be cut off, his iniquity is upon him." By transgressions are meant rebellion. As it is written [2 Kings iii. 7]: "The King of Moab hath rebelled." (The term in Hebrew is the same.) By sin is meant unintentional wrong, as is written [Lev. iv. 2]: "If any person sin through ignorance." Now, is it possible that after he has confessed the intentional and rebellious sins, he will confess the errors? Therefore we must say that he used to say differently: "I have sinned, committed iniquities, and transgressed, I and my house." And so it is written by David [Ps. cvi. 6]: "We have sinned together with our fathers, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly…." And so also Solomon says [1 Kings viii. 47]: "We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly." So also Daniel [Dan. ix. 5]: "We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled." Why, then, it it said by Moses: "Forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin." Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Lord of the Universe, when the children of Israel will sin before thee, and then repent, mayest thou consider their intentional sins as sins done through ignorance." Said Rabbi b. Samuel in the name of Rabh: The Halakha prevails according to the sages. Is not this self-evident? R. Meir is an individual, the sages are a majority, and we know that the decree of an individual is prevailed over by that of the majority? Lest one say, In this case the Halakha ought to prevail according to R. Meir, as he takes in his support what Moses said. He comes to teach us that here also the Halakha is according to the majority.

One of the scholars prayed for the people in the presence of Rabba, and followed R. Meir's decree. Said Rabba to him: Thou departest from the rabbis, and doest as R. Meir says. He replied: I hold with R. Meir, for it is written in the Bible that Moses said so. "They respond after him." We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi said: It is written [Deut. xxxii. 3]: "When I call on the name of the Lord, ascribe ye greatness unto our God." So said Moses to Israel: "When I mention the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, ye shall add greatness to it." Hananiah the son of R. Joshua's brother said: From the following verse [Prov. x. 7]: "The memory of the just is blessed." That means, the prophet says to Israel: "When I mention the Just One of the Worlds, ye shall add a blessing." MISHNA: He came to the eastern part of the forecourt, to the north of the altar, the Segan of the high-priest on his right, and the head of the family ministering during the week [Rosh-Beth-Ab] on his left. There were two he-goats; and a box was there wherein were two lots. Of box-tree they were. [The high-priest] Ben Gamla made them of gold, for which his memory was praised.

[The high-priest] Ben Katin made twelve cocks to the laver, which had had only two. He also made a machine to the laver [to take it down into a well at will], that its water should not become unfit by being kept over night [in free air], The king Monobaz made all the handles of the utensils used on the Day of Atonement—of gold, Helen, his mother, made a golden candelabrum over the temple-gate. She likewise made a tablet of gold, whereon was inscribed the section about a woman who goes aside [Num. v. 12]. Miracles happened to the gates which Nicanor brought. Therefore all these persons' memory was praised GEMARA: "The Segan on his right." R. Jehudah said: One who goes on the right of his Master is a boor. An objection was raised from this Mishna: It is written that the Segan was on his right. And we have learned in a Boraitha, that when three walk, the Master ought to be in the middle, the greater of two on his right, and the other on his left. And so we find that of the three angels that came to Abraham, Michael was in the middle, Gabriel on his right, and Raphael on his left. (How, then, is he a boor?)

R. Samuel b. Papa explained before R. Adda, that it is meant, he should walk on his right, but a little behind, and not side by side. Did we not learn in a Boraitha that he who precedes the Master is rude, and he who walks behind his Master is too ostentatiously humble? He should fall a little back—not precede, and not follow.

"And a box was there," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxi. 8]: "And Aaron shall put lots upon the two goats." Hence, lots of any kind. Should we assume, that he must place two on each goat? Therefore it is written: "One lot for the Lord, one lot for Azazel." Therefore one ought to be for the Lord, and one for Azazel. Should we assume that he should place both lots on one goat, and then draw them and then place them on the other goat, and draw again? Therefore it is written, "one lot." What, then, means the word "lots"? This signifies that they should be equal: one should not be made of gold, the other of silver; one large, the other small. It is said in the Boraitha, lots of all kinds. This is self-evident? It must teach us this because of another Boraitha: Because the plate on the high-priest's brow, on which the name of the Lord was written, was of gold, one might think this lot must also be so. Therefore it is written, "one lot," twice, to teach that they may be of many kinds, of olive-tree wood, of nut-tree wood, of box-tree wood.

"Ben Katin made twelve cocks," etc. We have so learned in a Boraitha, to the end that the twelve priests engaged in the service of the morning daily offering might wash their hands and feet at the same time. We have learned again in a Boraitha: In the morning, when the laver was full, the high-priest washed his hands from the upper cock; but in the evening when he departed, when it was not full, he did it from the lower cock. "He also made a machine." What machine? Says Abayi: He made a sort of wheel, which brought it down into the well. "Helen his mother," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: When the sun rose, from the golden candelabrum emanated rays, and all knew it was time to read Shema.

"Miracles happened to the gates," etc. The rabbis taught: What miracles have happened to his gates? It was said, when Nicanor had gone to Alexandria, and was returning with the gates, the waves of the sea threatened to drown him; they took one of the gates and cast it into the sea. The sea was not appeased. They desired to cast the second gate overboard also. He took it on his body, and said: "Fling me together with it." Thereupon the sea became quiet. He grieved for the other gate. When he came to the coast at Accho, the gate appeared by the ship. According to others, some beast of the sea had swallowed the gate, and afterward spit it out. Therefore all gates of the Temple were gilt, except Nicanor's, because miracles had happened to them, and they were therefore left as they were. Others say, because their bronze was brilliant. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: It was polished bronze, and glittered like gold.

MISHNA: And the memories of the following were mentioned with blame; those of the house of Garmo, they were unwilling to teach the art of making the showbread; those of the house of Abtinas, who did not want to teach the art of preparing the incense; Hogros b. Levi, who knew something in music which he was unwilling to instruct others in; Ben Kamtsar did not want to teach the art of writing. Of the first it is said: "The memory of the just is blessed" [Prov. x. 7]; but of the rest is said: "But the name of the wicked shall rot."

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: "The house of Garmo were skilled in making the showbread, and did not want to teach it to others. The sages sent for workers from Alexandria, and they could bake as well, but could not take it out from the oven [it got broken]. They heated the oven from outside, and baked it there, and took it from there, while the house of Garmo heated it inside and baked it inside (and removed it from there). Also the showbread of the Alexandrian bakers used to become mouldy, and that of the former never became so. When the sages heard this, they said: All which the Lord hath created, He created only for His glory. As it is written [Is. xliii. 7]: "Every one that is called by my name, I have created for my glory." So the Beth Garmo had to be invited again to resume their post. The sages sent for them, they did not come: so their wages had to be doubled. They used to receive 12 Minas daily, and henceforth 24. R. Jehudah says: They had received 24, and thenceforth 48. Then the sages inquired of them: "Why are you unwilling to instruct others?" They replied: "Our family knows by tradition that this Temple will one day fall, and then, if we will have taught it to an improper person, he may go and serve thereby other idols." And for this thing their memory was praised: their children were never seen to use bread of pure flour, that it should not be suspected they took it from the flour for the showbread. They did it, to fulfil what is written [Num. xxxii. 22]: "And ye be thus guiltless before the Lord, and before Israel."

"Those of the house of Abtinas," etc. The rabbis taught: The house of Abtinas were skilled in the preparing of incense, and were unwilling to teach it. The sages sent for workers from Alexandria. These could prepare the incense, but could not make it so that the smoke should not bend. The smoke of the incense prepared by the house of Abtinas rose straight, like a rod, and the smoke of the others' incense bent hither and thither. When the sages heard of this, they said, etc. [the same as previously; the reason they gave for not teaching was also the same]. For the following thing they were mentioned with praise: Never a bride of their house went out perfumed, and even when one of their house married a woman of another family, it was on the condition that she should not be perfumed, that it be not said: "They take it from the incense." To fulfil what is written, etc. [as before].

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Ishmael said; I once was in the road, and met one of their grandchildren. I said to him: Your ancestors wished to increase their own glory, and diminish that of the Lord; now the Lord's glory persists, and yours has ended in nothing. R. Agiba said: R. Ishmael b. Luga has related to me: I and one of their grandchildren once went out into the field to gather grass. I observed that he wept and rejoiced. I inquired of him: Why weepest thou? He replied: I recall the honor my ancestors once had enjoyed, and weep. And why did he rejoice? "Because I feel sure that the Holy One, blessed be He, will restore it to us." He asked him: Why hast thou been reminded of it just at present? He said: Because I see the grass we used to put in to make the smoke straight. He said to him: Point it out to me. He replied: We are under an oath not to show it to anyone. Said R. Johanan b. Nuri: It happened once I met an old man, who had a scroll on which was a list of the names of the spices composing the incense. I asked him: Whence art thou? He replied: I am descended of the house of Abtinas. "And what do you hold in your hand?" He said: The scrolls of the spices. I said to him: Show it to me. He said: As long as our family was in life, they did not show it to any man. But now, when they have all died, and the Temple itself no longer exists, I can give it to thee, but be cautious with it. When I related all this to R. Aqiba, he said: From this time one need not blame them any longer. To this said Ben Azai: "By thy name thou shalt be called and to thy position thou shalt be restored, and thine thou wilt always receive, as so it is recorded Above." It is a rule, one man cannot touch what is destined for another [as they were recalled and paid double wages].

"Hogros b. Levi," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: When he had to render his voice melodious, he placed his thumb in his mouth, and the index in his mustache. When all his fellow-priests heard his voice, they bent to the ground (from ecstasy). The rabbis taught: Ben Kamtsar did not want to teach the art of writing. It was said of him: He used to take four quills between his four fingers, and when he had to write a word of four letters, he wrote it at once. (Jehovah's name is of four letters.) When they inquired of him: Why dost thou not teach it to others? he found no answer. Therefore of the first it is said: "The memory of the just is blessed"; and of Ben Kamtsar and his tribe it is said: "The name of the wicked shall rot." What is meant by "rot"? How can a name "rot"? Said R. Elazar: Their name shall contract such a rottenness that children shall not be named after them.

Rabbina said to one of the scholars who arranged for him the Agada: How do we know that the rabbis have said: "The name of the just is blessed"? He replied: Why rabbis—it is in the Bible, in the Proverbs? He said: Nay. How is it known from the Pentateuch? It is known from the following verse [Gen. xviii. 17]: "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" And the next verse is: "Abraham shall surely become a great nation." And how is it known from the Pentateuch that the name of the wicked shall rot? Because it is written [ibid. xiii. 12]: "And pitched his tents close to Sodom." And the next: "The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners." R. Elazar said: From the blessings awarded to the righteous, one can infer what curses are bestowed on the wicked; as it is written [ibid. xviii. 19]: "For I know him, that he will command," etc. And the next verse is: "The Lord said, Because the cry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great." And from the curses given to the wicked the blessings reserved for the righteous can be inferred, as it is written [ibid. xiii. 13]: "The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners." And the next verse says: "And the Lord said unto Abram, Lift up now thy eyes and look," etc.

R. Elazar says again: Even for one just man is a whole world created. As it is written [Gen. i. 4]: "And God saw the light, that it was good." And good is only a just man, since it is written [Is. iii. 10]: "Say to the just, that he is good." R. Elazar says again: Whoever forgets something of his study, causes exile to his children, as is written [Hosea iv. 6]: "As thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, so will I myself also forget thy children." R. Abahu says: He is degraded from his high station, as it is written [ibid.]: "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, so will I also reject thee from officiating before me."

R. Hiya b, Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: A righteous man does not depart from the world, till another righteous man like him has been created, as it is written [Eccles. i. 5]: "The sun rises, the sun goes down." Before the sun of Eli had been extinguished, the sun of Samuel of Ramah already shone. The same said again: The Holy One, blessed be He, perceived that righteous men are few: He planted them in every generation, as it is written [1 Sam. ii. 8]: "For the Lord's are the pillars of the earth, on which He hath set the world." And the same said once more, on the same authority: Even when there is only one just man in the world, the world can exist through his merit, as it is written [Prov. x. 25]: "The righteous is the foundation of the world." R. Hiya says, on his own authority, as it is written in a different verse [1 Sam. ii. 9]: "He ever guardeth the feet of his pious ones." But they are spoken of in the plural? Says R. Na'hman, it is read in the plural, but it is written in the singular. R. Hiya b. Abba says again, in the name of R. Johanan: When a man has lived the greatest part of his life without having sinned, he will sin no more, for they will guard him Above, and this he infers from the above passage. The disciples of R. Shila have said: When a man has had occasion to commit a sin once and twice, and he escapes committing it, he will be guarded Above from sinning. They infer it from the same verse. Resh Lakish said: It is written [Prov. iii. 34]: "The mockers He will mock, but to the modest He will give grace." From this we can infer: If one wishes to defile himself (to sin) the door is opened to him; but he who comes to purify himself, he is assisted. The disciples of R. Ishmael have told a parable in reference to this: When one sells both naphtha and perfumes, when one arrives to buy naphtha, he saith to him: "Measure the quantity you need"; but if one arrives to buy perfumes, he says: "Wait, we will both measure it, and contract the odor." The same disciples taught: A sin stops up a man's heart, as it is written [Lev. xi. 43]: "And ye shall not make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby." Do not read ונטמאתם but ונטמטם (stop up).

The rabbis taught: This verse signifies that when a man defiles himself a little here below, Above he is defiled much; and if he defiles himself in this world, he is defiled in the world to come. And it is written [ibid. 44]: "Ye shall sanctify yourselves, and be holy." When a man sanctifies himself a little here below, he is sanctified much Above, and when he sanctifies himself in this world, he is sanctified in the world to come.

CHAPTER IV. Regulations concerning the two goats of the Day of Atonement: How they were slaughtered, sent away, etc. MISHNA: He shook the box, and took out two lots. On one is written, "to Jehovah"; on the other is written, "to Azazel." The Segan is at his right, and the head of the family [see above] on his left. If that of Jehovah was taken up by his right hand, the Segan says to him, "My lord the high-priest, raise thy right hand." If that of Jehovah was taken up by his left hand, the head of the family addresses him: "My lord the high-priest, raise thy left hand." He placed them [the lots] on the two he-goats, and uttered: "To Jehovah a sin-offering." R. Ishmael says: It was not necessary for him to say "sin-offering," but "to Jehovah" sufficed. They responded: "Blessed be the name of His kingdom’s glory for ever."

GEMARA: Why had he to shake the box? That he should not have intentionally taken that for Jehovah in his right hand (as it was a good omen if he took it up by chance). Rabh said: The box was of wood, and was not sacred, and could contain only the two palms of the hand. Rabbina opposed: It is right that it had only capacity for the two palms, that he might not intentionally take the lot for the Lord; but if it was profane, he should have sanctified it? The answer is: If he had sanctified it, it would have been a wooden sacred vessel, and in the Temple wooden sacred vessels were not used. Let them have made it of silver or gold? Because the Torah wished to spare the wealth of Israel. The Mishna is at variance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah says in the name of R. Eliezer: The Segan and the high-priest both placed their hands in the box. When that for Jehovah was picked up by the high-priest, the Segan said to him: "My lord the high-priest, raise thy right hand." But if it was picked up by the Segan, the chief of the family said to him: "Speak thy words." Why not the Segan himself? The lot came into the hand of the Segan, and not of the high-priest; therefore the spirits of the latter would have been depressed. On what point do they differ? One thinks, the right hand of the Segan is better than the left hand of the high-priest, and therefore both should put into the box their right hand; whereas the other thinks that the left hand of the high-priest is as good as the right hand of the Segan, and therefore he ought to place both his hands in the box. And who is the Tana who differs from R. Jehudah? That is R. Hanina, the Segan of the priests. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Hanina the Segan of the priests said: Why did the Segan ever walk on the right of the high-priest? In case the high-priest became unfit for service, the Segan should enter at once to do the service.

The rabbis taught: In the time of the forty years during which Simeon the Upright was high-priest, the lot for Jehovah always came into the high-priest’s right hand, but thereafter it sometimes fell into his right, sometimes into his left hand. And the tongue of crimson wool, during the time of Simeon the Upright, always became white. But after Simeon the Upright, sometimes it became white, sometimes it remained red. In Simeon the Upright's time the western light ever burned, but after him it sometimes burned and sometimes went out. The fire of the altar ever waxed in strength, and except the two measures of wood prescribed they had not to add any wood, in Simeon the Upright's time; but after him, sometimes the fire persisted and sometimes wood had to be added, In his time a blessing was sent into the Omer, the two loaves of bread, and the showbread, and every priest who received only the size of an olive became satiated, and some was left over; but after him, these things were cursed, and every priest got only the size of a bean. And the delicate priests refused to take it altogether, but the voracious ones accepted and consumed. It once happened, one took his own share and his fellow's: he was nicknamed "robber" till his death.

The rabbis taught: The year when Simeon the Upright had to die, he told the sages: "Children, know ye that this year I am going to die." They asked him: "How dost thou know?" He said: "Every year when I entered and left the Holy of Holies, I was accompanied by one old man, dressed in white and enveloped in white; but this year it was an old man attired in black and in a black turban, and he entered with me but did not go out with me." And after the festivals, he got sick, and died. And thenceforth priests ceased to bless Israel with the name of Jehovah, but used "Adonai" (the Lord). The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'"

"He placed them on the two he-goats." The rabbis taught: Six times the high-priest pronounced God’s name, as it is written (Jehovah), during the Day of Atonement: three times in the first confession and three times in the second confession, and the seventh time when he had drawn the lot. It happened, when the high-priest said, "I beseech thee, Jehovah," his voice was heard in Jericho, ten Parsas distant from Jerusalem, according to Rabba bar bar Hana. And the sound of opening the Temple gates was heard at the distance of eight legal limits of Sabbath (16,000 ells). The goats that were in Jericho used to sneeze at the incense offered at Jerusalem. A bride in Jerusalem had never to perfume herself, as the odor of the incense imbued them all with aromatic smells. R. Joel b. Diglai said: My father had goats on the mountains of Michmar. They sneezed at the incense. R. Hiya b. Abbin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Kar'ha: A certain old man has related to me, that since the time when he was walking in Shiloh, he still felt the smell of its formerly offered incense.

R. Janai said: To take out the lots from the box was obligatory, but to place them on the goats was not so. R. Johanan says: Even taking them out was not obligatory. An objection was made from the following Boraitha: The disciples asked R. Agqiba, If the lot came into his left hand, might he not put it into his right hand? He replied: Do not give the Sadducees opportunity to rebel (by declaring it unbiblical). Now here the reason is only that the Sadducees should not rebel; but otherwise, we would say, he may transfer it from one hand to the other. How, then, can R. Janai say that it was obligatory? Then the lots would not be changeable. Said Rabba: They mean to say, not that he may transfer the lot in his left hand to his right hand, but that when the lot has been placed on the goat from Azazel, whether he may transfer him to his right, and design him for the Lord? The answer to this was: Although one may use a thing appointed to a less holy purpose for a more holy, yet the Sadducees will rebel.

MISHNA: He tied a tongue of crimson wool to the head of the goat that was to be sent away [the scapegoat], and placed him opposite to the gate through which he was to be transferred; and the one to be slaughtered, opposite to the place of its slaughtering. He went to his bull a second time, putting his hands on him, and confessing in these terms: "I beseech thee, Jehovah, I have committed iniquities, transgressed, and sinned before Thee, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people: I beseech Thee, Jehovah, forgive the iniquities, transgressions, and sins which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, Thy holy people, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Thy servant: 'For on that day shall he make atonement for you, to cleanse you from all your sins, that ye may be pure before Jehovah.'" They respond after him: "Blessed is the name of His kingdom's glory forever."

GEMARA: The schoolmen propounded a question: The Mishna states: He was placed opposite to the gate, and the one to be slaughtered opposite to the slaughtering-place. Were they to be tied in their places, or only placed there? Come and hear! R. Joseph taught: He tied a tongue of crimson wool to the head of the goat that was to be sent away, and placed him opposite to the gate, and the one to be slaughtered opposite to the slaughtering-place, for the purpose that they should not be confounded with one another, as with other goats. Now, if the Mishna means they were tied there, it is right; but if only placed, this can only prevent their being confounded with each other, as the one has the tongue of red wool tied to it, but with other goats the other may be confounded? It is meant, then, that they should be tied in their places.

R. Itz'hak said: I have heard a Halakha about two tongues of wool, one for the red cow and the other for the scapegoat, that one must be of a prescribed quantity and the other need not, and I do not know which it is. Said R. Joseph: Let us see. The wool for the goat which was sent away must be divided into two parts: one part tied to its horns, and one to the rack; therefore it seems that it must be of a prescribed quantity. But the wool for the red cow, which need not be divided, need be of no prescribed quantity. Rami b. Hama opposed: Even that for the red cow must have a certain weight (as will be explained). Rabha answered him: Concerning the weight, the opinion of the Tanaim are different; consequently, no prescribed quantity is needed. When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: I have heard of three tongues of wool: one for the red cow, one for the scapegoat, and one for lepers. I have heard, one must be of the weight of 10 Zuz, one must have the weight of 2 Selas, and one of 1 Shekel, but I cannot explain which. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he explained this in the words of R. Jonathan: That for the red cow must weigh 10 Zuz, for the scapegoat 2 Selas, and for lepers 1 Shekel. (For the red cow, which must have a certain weight, it is 10 Zuz; that of the goat, which must be divided, 2 Selas; and the leper's, which need be neither, it is a Shekel.)

R. Itz'hak said: I have heard about the two slaughterings, of the red cow and of the high-priest's bull, one, if done by a layman, is valid, and the other is, in such a case, invalid; but I cannot explain which it is. It was taught: Concerning the slaughtering of the red cow and the high-priest's bull, Rabh and Samuel differed. One said, if the red cow was slaughtered by a layman, it is valid, and the bull, invalid; and the other says the reverse. It may be ascertained that Rabh is the one who says that the red cow slaughtered by a layman is invalid, because (when Rabh heard) R. Zerah said that the red cow slaughtered by a layman is invalid, Rabh said: The reason is, that in connection with the red cow is mentioned Elazar (a priest) and "statute."

It was taught: Concerning the slaughtering of the red cow by a layman, R. Ammi said: It is valid; R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha said: It is invalid; Ulla said: It is valid; and others say; It is invalid. R. Joshua b. Abba objected to the statement that it is valid, and wanted to support Rabh from the following: Boraitha: It is certain to us that the sprinkling of the water of the red cow is invalid, if a woman has done it instead of a man, or when it was not sprinkled in the daytime. But whence do we deduce further that the slaughtering of it, and receiving of the blood, and sprinkling of the blood, and burning it, and the putting in of the cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet string, is invalid in such cases? Therefore it is written, "The law."

Shall we assume that to them shall be added the gathering of the ashes, and the drawing of the water, and the sanctification? Therefore it is written: "This" is the statute [Num. xix. 2]. But what is the reason of including those, and excluding these? Because we find here an extension and a limitation, we will say that we may deduce all the ceremonies from the sprinkling of the water. As the sprinkling of the water must be done by a male, not by a female, and is valid only in the daytime, we may add to it the slaughtering, the receiving and sprinkling of the blood, the burning, putting in of cedar-wood, hyssop, a scarlet string; as it is certain to us that all these things are invalid when done by a female, so we conclude it is valid only in the daytime; and we will exclude the gathering of the ashes, the drawing of the water, and the sanctification, as they may be done by a female, so we will conclude they may be done also in the night-time. What is the objection? If you will say: "Because it is prohibited to a female, it is also prohibited to a layman," you can infer from the sprinkling of the water, which is invalid when done by a female, but nevertheless is valid when done by a layman. Said Abayi: The objection is this, What is the reason that a female may not sprinkle it? Because it is written "Elazar," and we say Elazar, but not a woman. In the same manner, we say Elazar (i.e., a priest), but not a layman. Said Ulla: If you will read carefully the whole section about the red cow, you will see that one case cannot be compared with the other. Some apparently analogous inferences are yet in reality contradictory. And there are apparently analogous inferences which are really analogous. (Therefore care must be taken in making inferences.) Said R. Assi: (It is so), for when R. Johanan and Resh Lakish learned the section of the red cow, they carried away in their heads no more than a fox does earth when it runs across a ploughed field, for some apparently analogous inferences are really so, and some not.

One Tana taught in the presence of R. Johanan: All slaughterings may be done by a layman, except that of the red cow. Said R. Johanan to him: "Go and teach it outside of the college; for we find no single kind of slaughtering invalid when done by a layman." And R. Johanan not only disregarded this Tana's teaching, but even his own Master's; for R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b, Jehozadak: "The slaughtering of a red cow by a layman is invalid." But I say it is valid, because we do not find any kind of slaughtering invalid when done by a layman. "He went to his bull." Why did he not say in the first confession, "The sons of Aaron, Thy holy people," but does so in the second? The disciples of R. Ishmael taught: So is it right according to the law, for it is better that one guiltless should atone for the sinners than that one not yet purified from sins himself should atone for other sinners. (Before the first confession, he was not atoned for himself.)

MISHNA: He slaughtered it (the bull], and received in a basin its blood, giving (presenting) it to him who stirred (mixed) it, on the fourth row of marble stones in the Temple, that it should not become congealed. He took the censer, mounted the top of the altar, and cleared the coals on either hand: taking a censerful of the inner glowing coals, then he came down again and placed it [the censer] on the fourth row of stones in the forecourt.

Every day he scooped up with a silver censer, and emptied into a golden vessel. On this day he filled a golden censer, and also carried it in. Every day he used to scoop [the coals] up in one measuring 4 Kabs, and poured them into one of 3 Kabs; but on this day he filled one of 3 Kabs, and also carried them in it. R. Jose says: Every day he filled one of a Seah [6 Kabs], and emptied it into one of 3 Kabs; but on this day he filled one of 3 Kabs, and carried them in it. On all days it was a heavy (massive) one, but on this day he took a light one. Every day its handle was short, on this day long; all days its gold was yellow, but on that day red. This is according to R. Mena'hem. On all days he used to offer half a Mina [50 Dinars in weight] of incense in the morning, and one half in the evening; but on this day added a handful more. Every day it was pounded finely, but on this day it was the finest [Lev. xvi. 12]. On all days priests went up on the eastern staircase [of the altar], and descended on the western, On this day the high-priest went up on the middle one, and came down on the same. R. Jehudah says: The high-priest ever mounts and descends on the middle one. All days the high-priest washed his hands from the laver, and on this day from the golden pitcher [cyathus]. R. Jehudah says: The high-priest ever washes his hands and feet from a golden pitcher. All days there were four fires [on the altar]; on that day five: this is according to R. Meir. R. Jose says: Every day three, and on this day four. R. Jehudah says: Every day two, on this day three.

GEMARA: The Mishna states: He gave it to one who stirred it, on the fourth row of the marble stones. Is it not written [Lev. xvi. 17]: "And there shall not be any man in the tabernacle"? Said R. Jehudah: Read not "of the Temple," but "from the Temple"—the fourth row of stones away from the Temple.

The rabbis taught: It is written: "There shall not be any man in the tabernacle." Shall we assume, that one may not be in the corridors either? Therefore it is written, "in the tabernacle" (but outside one may). All this has been said of the tabernacle in Shiloh. How is it known that it applied also to the Temple in Jerusalem? Therefore it is written [ibid.], "in the holy place." All this is said of the time when he offers the incense. How is it known that when he sprinkles the blood no man should be in the holy place either? Therefore it is written, "when he goeth in." But how is it known that no man is to be found there till he comes out? Because it is written, "until he come out." After that it is written, "shall he make an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel"; from this is seen that first he must atone for himself, then for his household, then for the priests, and then for Israel.

The Master says: It only applies to the time when he offers the incense. Whence is this inferred? Said Rabba, and so said also R. Itz'hak b. R. Dimi, and also R. Elazar: It is written: "He shall make an atonement for himself, for his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel." What atones for all these at once? Only the incense. But how is it known that incense atones at all? Yea, for R. Hanania has taught: How is it known that incense atones? Because it is written [Num. xvii. 12]: "And he put on the incense, and made an atonement for the people." And the disciples of R. Ishmael have taught: For what does the incense atone? Slander. Why? Slander is (quietly) done, so incense is (quietly) offered. "Every day he scooped up with a silver censer," etc. What is the reason (why not a golden one)? Because the Torah has been sparing of Israel's wealth. "On this day he filled a golden censer," etc. Why did he not do on this day as on all days? Because of the high-priest’s weakness (from fasting).

"One measuring four Kabs," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: If one Kab of coals was spilled on the ground, he swept them into the trench. In one Boraitha we have learned one Kab, and in another, two Kabs? It is right, one. This is according to the rabbis, who say he emptied one of four Kabs into one of three; but this is neither according to the rabbis nor R. Jose (according to whom three Kabs were left over). Said R. Hisda: The Boraitha is according to R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroqa of the following Boraitha, who says that he carried them into the Holy of Holies only in a censer of two Kabs. R. Ashi says this Boraitha can be according to R. Jose, and can be explained thus: Every day he used one of a Seah of the desert, which is one-sixth less than a Seah of Jerusalem, and emptied it into one of three Jerusalem Seahs. "It was a massive one," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: On all days its sides were thick, but on that day thin. Every day the handle was short, and this day long? That the high-priest should not need to make such an effort to hold it.

In another Boraitha we have learned: Every day the censer was without a bell, and on this day with a bell ("His sounds shall be heard when he goeth in into the holy place" [Exod. xxviii. 38], since he carried it in in his white garments devoid of bells), so said the son of the Segan. "The gold was yellow," etc. Said R. Hisda: Seven kinds of gold there are: Gold, and good gold, gold of Ophir, best gold [Muphaz], beaten gold [Sha'hut], pure gold [Sagur], and gold of Parvaim. Gold and good gold, as it is written [Gen. ii. 12]: "And the gold of that land is good"; gold of Ophir, which comes from Ophir; best gold, which is scintillating [1 Kings x. 18]; beaten gold, which is ductile like wire; pure gold—when this gold is exhibited all other wares are locked up; that of Parvaim is like blood of bulls in redness. R. Ashi says: There were only five, only there was gold of each kind of good and bad quality; hence "gold" and "good gold" are deducted. We have learned also in a Boraitha: All days the gold was yellow; this day it was of Parvaim, which is red like the blood of a cow.

"Finely pounded, but this day finest." The rabbis taught (whence do we deduce this?): Because it is already written [Ex. xxx. 36]: "Thou shalt pound some of it fine." Why has it to be repeated, "finely pounded"? That means, on this day it must be finest. "Washed his hands from the laver, on this day from the golden pitcher." Why so? For the honor of the high-priest. "All days there were four fires," etc. The rabbis taught: All day were two, this day three; namely, one, the ordinary large fire, the second for the incense, one for this special day (for the extra incense of the Holy of Holies). So says R. Jehudah. R. Jose says: All days were three, this day four; namely, those enumerated by R. Jehudah, and one to keep the fire perpetual, as it is written: "A perpetual fire shall be burning upon the altar, it shall not go out" [Lev. vi. 6], and one specially for this day. Rabbi says: "On all days four, this day five." The four above mentioned, and one for the unconsumed sacrifices which had not yet been burned in the evening.

Now, we see that all agree that this day a special fire was made. Whence do they deduce this? From the expression, "and the fire" [ibid. 5]. And even he who does not deduce it from the "and," deduces it from "and the." What? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written, "a perpetual fire, it shall not go out." This is to teach that the second fire shall be on the outer altar, But how do we know there had to be fires for the censer and lamps? Therefore it is written, "perpetual fire shall be burning on the altar, it shall not be extinguished." This signifies, the perpetual fire of the lamps which, I have taught you, shall be taken only from the outer altar. From this we know that on the altar must be kept fire for the lamps, but whence do we deduce that fire for the incense must be kept also? Therefore it is written [Lev. xvi. 12]: "He shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar, from before the Lord." When do we find an altar which was partly before the Lord, and partly away from the Lord? We must say that was the outer altar, which was in part outside in the forecourt.

R. Elazar said in the name of Bar Qapara: R. Meir said, if members of the burnt-offering were left from the day before, he made a separate fire, and had them consumed, even on Sabbath. What does he come to teach us? We have learned in the Mishna that there were four fires? Said R. Abhin: He informs us, that even the members of a burnt-offering which had become invalid, were burnt by a separate fire, provided that they had been already attacked by the fire of the day before, but not those not touched by the fire. This we have also learned in the Mishna; namely, this day five? Says R. A'ha b. Jacob: He had to teach this to us. We might think all this applies to a Day of Atonement which falls on a Sunday, as we had learned somewhere else, that the fat left over from Sabbath should be burnt on the Day of Atonement next to it; but we might think, if it fell on other days of the week he had not to do so. Therefore he tells us. Says Rabba: Who is this man, that hears not what he speaks? In the Mishna it is said: "Every day." So it is all days of the week. The objection remains.

It was taught: If one extinguishes the fire of the censer, and of the lamps, Abayi says he is culpable. Rabba says: He is guiltless. If he has taken it from the altar to light it and has dropped it on the ground, and it is extinguished, all agree, he is not culpable; but if he took it from off the altar, and extinguished it there, Abayi says he is culpable, since it is the fire of the altar, of which it is written, "It shall not go out." Rabba says he is guiltless: the moment he has removed it from the altar, the fire is not regarded any more as that of the altar. Now, what R. Na'hman has said in the name of Rabba b. Abahu, that he who has taken a coal from the altar, and extinguished it, is culpable, will be neither according to Abayi nor to Rabba? What comparison is there? In that case he took it for a religious purpose, to light the lamp, or so, and it was extinguished, but in this case he removed a coal and extinguished it wantonly.

CHAPTER V. Regulations concerning the remaining services of the high-priest on this day in the times of the first and second Temples. MISHNA: They brought to him a [golden] spoon and censer: he took two handfuls [of incense] and filled the spoon with it. If he had a large hand, it was much; otherwise, it was a little; he used the hand as the measure. He took the censer in his right hand, and the spoon in his left hand. GEMARA: In a Boraitha we have learned: They brought him an empty spoon from the chamber of the utensils, and a censer full of incense from the chamber of Beth Abtinas.

"He took two handfuls." What was the spoon needed for on the Day of Atonement? It is written [Lev. xvi. 12] merely, "both his hands full of incense, and bring it within the rail"? He could not dispense with a spoon. If he had carried in the censer first, and thereafter the incense, he would carry in twice, and it is written "bring in" only once? If he should take the incense in both his hands, and put the censer upon them, and carry them in at once, what should he do then? Take off the censer with his teeth, and put it down? If it would be unbecoming to do so in presence of a human king, how much more in presence of the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He? Therefore it is impossible, and he is to do as the princes [Num. vii. 14], "One spoon . . . full of incense."

"He took the censer in his right hand," etc. Shall the citizen be seated on the ground, and the stranger on the heaven of heavens? ("The spoon of incense in his left hand," etc.) The spoon is small, and more easily carried in the left hand, while the large censer is borne in the right hand. And if they should be equally heavy, as occurred to R. Ishmael b. Qim'hith, who is said to have taken two handfuls of four Kabs of incense, even he had to take the censer in his right hand, as the censer was hot (and he had to be more careful).

It was said of R. Ishmael, the son of Qim'hith: It once happened on the Day of Atonement he spoke in a public place with an Arab, whose saliva was sprinkled on the high-priest's clothes. He became unclean (as the Arab might be so). Then his brother Jeshohab entered and took his place, so his mother saw two high-priests of her sons the same day. Another day it happened that he spoke with a Gentile nobleman, and the same happened. Then Joseph his brother took his place. And the rabbis taught: Seven sons had Qim’hith, their mother, and all officiated as high-priests. When the sages asked her: How hast thou deserved it? She replied: The ceiling of my house never looked on my hair, The sages answered: Many did so, and it did not profit them.

The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. vi. 8]: "He shall lift up from it his handful." We might think, his hand might be overfilled; it is therefore written, "his hand full," not more. We might think, he may take some with the tips of his fingers. Therefore it is written, "hand full." He should bend his three middle fingers on his palm, and remove with the extreme finger and thumb the incense found outside of the three. This was one of the difficult services in the Temple. R. Johanan said: R. Joshua b. Uza'ah propounded a question, What is the matter with the incense between the middle fingers? Is it considered as belonging to the handful, or the overflow? He himself, said R. Johanan, decided later that it is doubtful. What, then, shall he do therewith? Says R. Hanina: First he should offer the handful, and then this; for if he offered this first, perhaps it is superfluous: and elsewhere we have learned that if the remains of a meal-offering have been lost before the handful was offered, the handful must not be brought.

R. Papa propounded a question: These handfuls, were they exactly measured according to the hand, or too full? Said R. Abbi to R. Ashi: Come and hear the following Boraitha: The handfuls were not exactly according to the measure of the hand, nor overfull, but middling. R. Papa propounded another question: When the incense happened to be spilled by him, how is the law? Shall it be said, his hand is like the neck of an animal, and the incense is invalid (if the blood has been received from the throat, it is valid, but not if spilled on the ground), or shall we say his hand is like other utensils of the Temple, and if it had been spilled, it may yet be offered? This question is not decided.

The schoolmen asked R. Shesheth: If he had taken the blood with his left hand, and placed it on the altar, is it valid, or invalid? He answered: We have learned it in our Mishna, that the spoon in his left hand (and yet it was offered). An objection was raised: We have learned in a Boraitha: "A layman, a mourner on the first day, a drunkard, and one who has a blemish, if one of these has received the blood, or carried it to the altar, or sprinkled it, he makes it invalid. The same is the case if he did it sitting, or with his left hand." This objection remains.

R. Papa propounded a question: If his companion took two handfuls, and emptied them into the priest's hands, how is the law? Shall we say, he has two handfuls, and it is valid, or shall we say, since it is written, "he shall take, and bring," it is invalid? This question is not decided, R. Joshua b. Levi propounded a question: When he had filled his hands with incense, and suddenly died, how then? Can another take it out from his hands and bring it in, or is other incense required? R. Hanina said: Come and see what kind of questions our predecessors have asked. Was R. Joshua b. Levi older than R. Hanina? Did not R. Joshua b, Levi say that R. Hanina had given me the permission to drink a beverage of cress on Sabbath? (See Sabbath, Mishna, p. 226.) He means, R. Hanina asked a profound question like to those asked by the ancestors. How is the law? Come and hear: "That was the measure." From this we must infer, that as the measure was outside, so it must be inside (that priest has a different hand, hence other incense is to be taken).

Perhaps the Mishna means to say that he may use his hand as a measure, or that he may not add to it or take away from what he has grasped? Come and hear: How did he do it (empty the frankincense from the spoon into his hands, both of which were occupied)? He took the handle of the spoon with his fingertips—others say, in his teeth—and moved his thumbs up the handle (being thus able not to spill the frankincense) till the handle fell, near his armpits, and the head of the spoon was above his palms. He then overturned the spoon, thus emptying the frankincense thence into his hands, and heaped the frankincense on the censer, that the smoke might be retarded; some say, he spread it out that it should smoke more rapidly. This was one of the most difficult services of the difficult services that were in the Temple. Hence we see, he took of the frankincense once two handfuls, and then once more.

The schoolmen propounded a question: If he died while slaughtering, might the blood be sprinkled? Shall we say that since it is written "with a bullock," it is meant, the blood of the bullock alone, or the whole bull (so that the substitute cannot use him)? R. Hanina says, the entire bullock; Resh Lakish says, the blood alone. Said R. Papa: The hide and the flesh and the dung, all agree, are only parts of the bull; about the blood they differ. One says, the blood is not the bull; the other thinks the blood only is the bull. Says R. Ashi: It seems to me, the one who says that the blood is considered as one with the bull is in the right. Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 3], "With this shall Aaron come into the holy place; with a young bullock," is it meant that he should lead him by the horns? and not simply that he should bring the blood; hence the blood is considered as one with the bullock. And what can the other reply to this? His answer is: It is written, "for a sin-offering"; the word "come" refers, not to the bullock, but to the sin-offering. Let him who says that the blood is one with the bull, give the reason that a sin-offering whose owner has died cannot be used for any purpose, and is only put to death.

Said Rabbin b. R. Adda to Rabba: Thy disciples have said in the name of R. Amram that this bullock is considered a sin-offering for the congregation (who are considered its owners, because he comes to atone for himself and for his fellow-priests), and such is not put to death. MISHNA: He walked through the Temple till he reached the place between the two vails which separated the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies—one ell wide. R. Jose says: There was but one vail, as it is said [Ex. xxxi. 33]: "And the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy." GEMARA: Did not R. Jose say very correctly to the rabbis? The rabbis may say: This was only the case in the tabernacle, but as in the second Temple there was no ell for the entrance at all (because a partition only an ell thick could not support itself, for the walls of the Temple were a hundred ells high) and only in the first, it was doubted whether this ell of the entrance belonged to the Holy of Holies or the sanctuary. Therefore they made two vails.

The rabbis taught: He walked between the altar and the lamps, so said R. Jehudah. R. Meir says, between the table and the altar. Others say, he walked between the table and the walls. Who are the others? That is R. Jose, who says the door of the Temple was in the north. R. Jehudah says the door was in the south. R. Jose says that he walked between the table and wall, which is a public entrance, because the Israelites are a people beloved by God, and need no delegate to pray for them (as it is written [1 Kings viii. 38]: "When they shall be conscious every man of the plague of his own heart, and he shall then spread forth his hands"), therefore their delegate to God needed no private entrance, but could do it in sight of the public.

R. Nathan said: The ell of the entrance was a matter of doubt to the sages, whether it was holy as the Holy of Holies or the sanctuary, and that is what R. Johanan has said: Joseph the man of Hutzal has propounded a question: It is written [1 Kings vi. 19]: "And the Debir in the house within did he prepare, to set therein the ark of the covenant of the Lord." They did not know what is meant: whether the place inside of the Debir was prepared for the ark, or that the Debir was itself inside.

MISHNA: The outer one was raised and looked to the southern [wall] and the inner one to the northern. He walked between them, till he reached the northern [wall]: having arrived thither, he turned his face to the south, he walked back with his left hand to the curtain, reaching the ark [which was on his right in the Holy of Holies, reaching the place where the inner curtain was]. Coming there, he placed the censer between the staves, heaped the incense on the top of the coals, so that the whole house was filled with smoke. He departed in the same manner as he had come [facing the Holy of Holies, walking backward], and said a short prayer in the outer sanctuary, but not making it along one, so as not to alarm the Israelites [about his absence, lest he had been killed by God].

GEMARA: Of which Temple is it spoken? In the first Temple there was a partition, not a curtain, before the ark; if the second, there was no ark in it? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: Since the ark was concealed, with it were hidden the flask of manna [Ex. xvi. 33] and the flask of anointing oil, Aaron's staff, its almonds and buds, and the box the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel with the golden vessels. And who concealed them? King Joshiah. Why? Because it is written [Deut. xxviii, 36]: "The Lord will drive thee and thy king whom thou wilt set over thee," he concealed it; as it is written [2 Chron. xxxv. 3]: "And he said unto the Levites that instructed all Israel, who were holy men unto the Lord: Set the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David the King of Israel did build; ye have not to carry it any more upon your shoulders: now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel." And R. Eliezer said to this: From the analogy of expression—namely, that of the ark—it is said "there" [Ex. xxx.], and of the flask of manna also "there" [ibid. xvii.]; and there are also mentioned "generations" and "for preservation," R. Eliezer infers that Joshiah concealed them. There was then no ark? The second Temple is meant; and not the ark, but the place where it had to stand, is meant. But it is said, "between the two staves." The place they would occupy is meant.

"Heaped the incense on the top of the coals." Our Mishna will agree with him who has said in a Boraitha: Heap it, that the issue of the smoke be retarded (made slow). In one Boraitha we have learned: He heaps it inside, away from him, In another Boraitha: He heaps it outside, toward himself. How will they agree? Says Abayi: There is a difference of opinion between two Tanaim; one says one way, the other, otherwise. Abayi says again: It seems to me the Halakha is according to him who says that he must heap it inside, away from himself; because, as we have further learned in a Mishna, they teach him not to heap near his face, lest he burn himself.

The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xvi. 13]: "He shall put the incense upon the fire, before the Lord." "Before the Lord": he must not prepare it outside, but inside, in the Holy of Holies. This is to contradict the Sadducees, who said that he must prepare outside. Why? Because, they say, it is written [ibid. 2]: "For in the cloud will I appear upon the mercy-seat." Cloud is interpreted, the cloud of the incense. When he prepares outside, he enters with a cloud of incense. The sages said to the Sadducees: Is it not written: "He shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord"? So it has to be prepared inside. They rejoined: What will you make of the "cloud"? The rabbis say: From this we deduce that he must put in the herb which straightens the smoke. How is it known that that herb has to be put in? Because it is written [ibid. 13]: "That the cloud of the incense may envelop." Without that herb, how will the mercy-seat be enveloped? If he has omitted to put in this herb or any ingredient, he is liable to capital punishment. Why give this reason, when, if he come in without the incense being entirely prepared, he enters the Holy of Holies gratuitously, which involves capital punishment? Says R. Shesheth: The case is, he had omitted one ingredient intentionally, but entered unintentionally. R. Ashi says: Even if he did both things intentionally, but entered with two kinds of incense, one kind prepared as is lawful and the other not, for entering he is not culpable, but for having prepared incense lacking some ingredient he deserves capital punishment.

"He departed in the same manner as he had come." Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Shama b. Na'hmain in the name of R. Jonathan: It is written [2 Chron. i. 13]: "Then came Solomon from the high place that was at Gibeon to Jerusalem" (literally, at). How comes Gibeon to be in Jerusalem? His return from Gibeon to Jerusalem is compared to his entering Gibeon from Jerusalem. As when he entered Gibeon from Jerusalem his face was turned to the high place, so when he left it, his face was still turned to the high place. So did also the priests after service, the Levites after their song, and the Israelites after they had been standing. When they left, their countenances were turned to the Temple. So also a disciple, leaving his Master, should do. So R. Elazar, when he used to part from Johanan. When R. Johanan desired to leave first, he bent himself in his place till Johanan was out of his sight; when R. Elazar was to leave first, he walked backwards till he could see him no longer. Rabba, leaving R. Joseph (who was blind), used to walk backwards till his feet struck against the threshold, so as to cause them to bleed. When this was related to R. Joseph, he said to Rabba: May God's will be that you shall raise your head above the whole city. R. Alexandri said in the name of R. Joshuah b. Levi: Who prays, should make three steps backwards, and then say, "Maketh peace," etc. Said R. Mordecai to him: If he has made three steps backwards, he must stop there a while. It is like a disciple who has taken farewell of his Master, and then returns to him on the instant, which is like a dog returning to his vomit. If he has failed in doing so, he would better not have prayed at all. In the name of Shemaia it has been said: When he says these words, he should first bow to the right, then to the left; as it is written [Deut. xxx. 2]: "From his right hand a fiery law." Rabha saw Abayi, who said "He maketh peace" first on the right, and then on his left. He said to him: Thinkest thou, thou must say this to the right side of thyself? nay, of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is opposite to thee and whose right side thus corresponds to thy left side. R. Hiya the son of R. Huna said: I saw Abayi and Rabha making the three steps backwards with one bow.

"And said a short prayer." What was the prayer? Rabba and Rabbin the sons of R. Adda both said in the name of Rabh: May it be Thy will, Lord our God, that if this year will be a hot one, Thou mayest give plenty of rain. R. A'ha the son of Rabha said in the name of R. Jehudah that the high-priest used to conclude the prayer as follows: May no ruler cease from the house of Judah, and may Thy people Israel not depend for livelihood on each other (not be paupers), and mayest Thou not heed the prayers of travellers who ask for the cessation of rain. R. Hanina Dasa happened to be on the road. It began to rain. He said: Lord of the Universe, the whole world enjoys, but Hanina is afflicted. The rain ceased. When he reached home, he said: The whole world is in anxiety because no rain comes, only Hanina is contented (having no fields). Rain began to come again. Says R. Joseph: What availed the prayer of the high-priest against the prayer of R. Hanina Dasa?

The rabbis taught: It happened that one high-priest made his prayer very long. When the priests became alarmed, they went to see whether he had died, and met him returning. They inquired of him why he had made his prayer so long. He said: Is this displeasing to you, when I prayed the Lord that the Temple might not be destroyed? They said to him: Do not thou repeat it, as we have learned in the Mishna, "He should not make the prayer long, lest he alarm the congregation."

MISHNA: When the ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the time of the first prophets, "Shethia" [foundation] it was called, three-finger high above the ground. Thereupon he placed [the censer]. He took the blood from the one who stirred it, went to the place whither he had gone, and stopped where he had stopped [in the Holy of Holies], and sprinkled from his position once upward and seven times downward [Lev. xvi. 14], without being intent on sprinkling it either upward or downward, but holding the palm open, either turned outward or toward himself [meaning doubtful]. Thus he was counting: one [upward], one and one [downward], one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. He departed, and placed it [the basin] on the golden stand in the Temple. They brought to him the he-goat, he slaughtered it, and received in a basin its blood. He went to the former place, stopping where he had stopped, and sprinkled thereof once upward, and seven times downward, without taking care to sprinkle upward or downward, but holding his palm open, turned in or out, and counting thus: one, one and one, one and two, etc. He came out, and placed it on the second stand that was in the Temple. R. Jehudah saith: There was but one stand there. He took up the bull's blood, and put down the he-goat's blood. He sprinkled thereof at the curtain which was opposite to the ark outside, once upward, and seven times down, without taking care, etc., and thus counting, etc. He lifted the blood [-filled basin] of the he-goat, and put down that of the bull's blood; he sprinkled of it on the curtain opposite to the ark outside, once upward, seven times down, etc. He emptied the bull's blood into the he-goat's blood, and transferred (the contents of) the filled basin into the empty one.

GEMARA: The Mishna says, "When the ark was taken away," not concealed; it holds, therefore, that it was removed to Babylon. As we have learned in a Boraitha, R. Eliezer said: The ark was taken into exile in Babylonia. As it is written [2 Chron. xxxvi. 10]: "And with the expiration of the year did King Nebuchadnezzar send, and had him brought to Babylon, with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord" (precious; that is, the ark). R. Simeon b. Jochai infers this from another passage [Is. xxxix. 6]: "No thing shall be left": no word (for "thing," "word," and "commandment" the same Hebrew word is here used) will be left, none of the ten commandments (or the ark which contained them). R. Jehudah, however, says: The ark was concealed in its place (Temple), as it is written [1 Kings viii. 8]: "And they had made the staves so long, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place in the front of the Debir, but they were not seen without; and they have remained there until this day. And he who says that R. Simeon b. Jochai thinks that the ark was taken into exile, differs from Ulla, who says as follows: R. Mathia b. Heresh had asked R. Simeon b. Jochai in Rome: We see that R. Eliezer infers from two verses that the ark was taken into exile. One verse is quoted above; the other is [Lam. i. 6]: "There is gone forth from the daughter of Zion all her splendor." Thereby the ark is meant. What hast thou to say thereto? He replied: I say, the ark was concealed on the spot, and the proof is the verse quoted above. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: We have also learned it in a Mishna in Shekalim [VI., b]: "Once a priest was engaged there, and he noticed that one of the paving stones on one place appeared different from the others, He went out to tell others of it; but he had not yet finished speaking, when he gave up the ghost. Thereby it was known to a certainty that the ark of the covenant was hidden there." What was he engaged in? Says R. Helbo: He was busy sporting with his axe. The disciples of R. Ishmael have taught: There were two blemished priests who picked out the wood, which was not mouldy. The axe of one fell down on the place where the ark was concealed; a fire issued, which consumed him.

"A stone, Shethia." We have learned in a Boraitha: The word Shethia means, that the universe has been created from it, as Shethia means foundation. This is according to him who says, that from Zion the world began to be created, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: The world was created from the very middle, as it is written [Job xxxviii. 38]: "When the dust is poured out as molten metal, and the clods are made to cleave fast together" (first the central piece was made, then the other parts adhered to it). R. Joshua says: The world was created beginning with the extremities, as it is written [ibid. xxxvii. 6]: "For to the snow he saith, Be thou earth. Likewise to the pouring rain, and to the pouring rains of his strength." Four times the word "rain" is repeated here (in Hebrew, but "rain" means in Talmudic dialect "matter"). There were then four pieces of matter, and of them was composed the world. R. Itz'hak says: The Holy One, blessed be He, threw a stone into the sea, and therefrom a world was made. As it is written [ibid. xxxviii. 6]: "Upon what are her foundation-pillars placed at rest? or who threw her corner-stone"? The sages, however, said: The world was created beginning with Zion, As it is written [Ps. l. 1, 2]: "The God of Gods, the Lord Speaketh," etc. "Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty." That signifies, from Zion began to be the beauty of the whole world. In another Boraitha we have learned: R. Eliezer the Great said, It is written [Gen. ii. 4]: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." The luminous stars, etc., were created from the heavens, and all earthly things from the earth. But the sages say: Everything was created from Zion. As it is written [Ps. l. 1]: "A Psalm of Assaph. The God of gods," etc. "The perfection of beauty," i.e., the beauty of the whole world.

"Holding the palm open." What is meant by this? Said R. Jehudah: As one uses a lash first from the right to the left, and then downward. "He took the blood from the one who stirred it," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: When he sprinkled, he did not sprinkle on the top of the mercy-seat, but opposite; and not that the blood should fall on it, but on the ground. When he sprinkled on the top of the mercy-seat, he bent the palm downward, that it should not fall on the mercy-seat, and when he sprinkled beneath it, he held his palm bent upward, that it should not fall on the mercy-seat, but on the ground. Whence do we deduce this? Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 15]: "He shall sprinkle it above the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat." This had not to be written, as it has already been written in the case of the bullock [ibid. 14]. It is meant to make the "before" and "above" equal; as by "before" the mercy-seat, it is meant that it should not be sprinkled at it, but opposite to it; so also by "above" is meant, not upon it, but opposite to it.

The rabbis taught: It is written: "And he shall sprinkle it above the mercy-seat." From this we know only once above (it, in case of the goat). How many times had he to sprinkle downward? This we have to infer from the bullock: as it is written of him seven times, so we infer in regard to the he-goat. We know that it is equal in case of the bullock and goat, downward; but we do not know how many times he is to sprinkle downward in case of the bullock? We apply to the bullock the law in reference to the goat: as in the case of the goat, so in the case of the bullock—once downward, seven times upward.

"One, one and one," etc. The rabbis taught: He counted one, one and one, one and two, etc., up to seven. So said R. Meir. R. Jehudah says: One, one and one, two and one, three and one, four and one, five and one, six and one, seven and one. They do not differ. Each said according to the custom in his part of the country (in the one place they said, e.g., twenty-one, in the other one and twenty). Now we see that all agree that the first time of sprinkling had to be counted along with each of the other seven? What is the reason? Said R. Elazar: He should make no mistake in the number of countings. R. Johanan says: Because it is written again [ibid. 14]: "Shall he sprinkle," superfluously, it is to teach us that the first he ought to count with all the others, What is the point of their difference? R. Elazar says: If he has failed to do it, but make no mistake, it is valid; but according to R. Johanan, it is not.

"He departed, and placed it on the golden stand." One of the scholars read the prayer in the presence of Rabha, and read, "He departed, and placed it on the second stand"; and after this he read, "He took the he-goat's blood, and put down the bullock’s blood." Said Rabha to him; The first thing thou readest according to the rabbis (who say there were two stands), and the second according to R. Jehudah (who says there was but one stand, and therefore he took down the bullock's blood when he came with the goat's blood), you thus contradict yourself. You should say: He put down the goat's blood (on the second stand), and took up the bullock's blood (from the first stand). The rabbis taught: It is written [ibid. 16]: "So shall he do for the tabernacle," etc. Wherefore had this to be written? It comes to teach us, that as in the Holy of Holies he had to sprinkle once and seven times, both from the bullock's blood and the goat's, so he had to do in the sanctuary.

"That abideth among them in the midst of their uncleanness." This signifies, even when they were unclean, the Shekhina continued to be among them. A certain Sadducee said to R. Hanina: At the present time, when the Temple is destroyed, ye are certainly unclean, as it is written [Lam. i. 9]: "Her uncleanness on her skirts." He replied to him: Come and see. It is written: "That abideth among them in the midst of their uncleanness." We have learned in a Boraitha: When he sprinkled on the vail, he sprinkled not upon it, but opposite to it (that the blood fell on the ground). R. Eliezer b. R. Jose, however, said: I have seen on the vail in Rome the marks of the drops of blood of the bullock and goat of the Day of Atonement.

What is the law, when the bloods of the bullock and goat got mingled? What shall he do therewith? Says Rabha: He sprinkled thereof once upward, and seven times downward, and this sufficed for both. This Halakha has been communicated to Jeremiah in Palestine: He said: Ye Babylonians are stupid. Because ye live in a dark land, ye say dark Halakhas. In this manner, he will sprinkle the he-goat's blood before the bullock's, and it is written [Lev. xvi. 20]: "When he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place." "The end"—hence everything must be in its proper turn, What, then, shall he do? Says R. Jeremiah: Once he sprinkles it as the bullock's, and then a second time as the he-goat's blood. How if the bloods got mixed, when he has already sprinkled the bullock's blood upward? Said Rabha: He should sprinkle seven times downward as the bullock's, and then upward and downward as the he-goat's blood. How if he has confounded the basins? What shall he do then? He should sprinkle three times, once for the bullock, then for the he-goat, and the third time for the he-goat (lest the he-goat's blood had preceded the bullock's when he sprinkled the first time).

"He emptied the bull’s blood into the he-goat's." Our Mishna will be according to him who maintains that the bloods must be mixed, for the purpose of putting it on the corners of the altar. Because it was taught: R. Joshiah and R. Jonathan said, one of them that they had to be mingled, and the other that they ought not to be mingled, but put separately on the corners of the altar. It seems that R. Joshiah was the one who said they had to be mingled, as we have heard elsewhere, though it is not written "together" [Lev. xvi. 18]; yet since it is written "and," it is as good as though it had been written "together." We have learned in another Boraitha: It is written: "He shall take from the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat." That signifies, they should be mixed together. But whence do ye know that it means that they should be sprinkled together, not separately? Therefore it is written [Ex. xxx. 10]: "And Aaron shall make an atonement upon its horns once in a year": once, not repeatedly, We see that the anonymous Boraitha is according to R. Joshiah.

"He transferred (the contents of ) the filled one into the empty one." Rami b. Hama propounded a question of R. Hisda: If he had placed one basin in the other, and therein received the blood, how is it? Should we say, as they are of one kind, that forms no invalidation? or that though of one kind, it is an invalidation? R. Hisda answered him: We have learned it in our Mishna: He has transferred the filled one into the empty one. Shall we not assume that it means, he placed the full basin in the empty one? Nay. It means, he poured the contents of the full basin into the empty one. But this is already mentioned in the beginning of the sentence? He transfers the mixed blood again into an empty vessel, to mix the two kinds of blood the better.