Parallel
יומא 23
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
who does not avenge himself and retain anger like a serpent, is no [real] scholar. But is it not written: Thou shalt not take vengeance nor bear any grudge? — That refers to monetary affairs, for it has been taught: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: ‘Lend me your sickle’, and he replied ‘No’, and to-morrow the second comes [to the first] and says: ‘Lend me your axe’! and he replies: ‘I will not lend it to you, just as you would not lend me your sickle’ — that is revenge. And what is bearing a grudge? If one says to his fellow: ‘Lend me your axe , he replies ‘No’, and on the morrow the second asks: ‘Lend me your garment’, and he answers: ‘Here it is. I am not like you who would not lend me [what I asked for]’ — that is bearing a grudge. But [does] not [this prohibition apply to] personal affliction? Has it not been taught: Concerning those who are insulted but do not insult others [in revenge], who hear themselves reproached without replying, who [perform good] work out of love of the Lord and rejoice in their sufferings, Scripture says: But they that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might? — [That means,] indeed, that he keeps it in his heart [though without taking action]. Rut Raba said: He who passes over his retaliations has all his transgressions passed over? — [That speaks of the case] that an endeavour was made to obtain his reconciliation, and his consent is obtained. AND HOW MANY DID THEY PUT FORTH? ONE OR TWO. If they may put forth two, why is it necessary to mention that they may put forth one? — R. Hisda said: This is no difficulty: The one speaks of healthy persons, the other of sick ones. Thus has it been taught: One finger is put forth, but not two. To whom does this rule apply? To a healthy person, but a sick one may put forth even two. But the ‘Yehidim’ put forward two and one counts only one thereof. But has it not been taught: One does not put forth either the third finger or the thumb because of tricksters, and if one had put forth the third finger, it would be counted, but if one had put forth the thumb it would not be counted, and not alone that but the officer strikes him with the pekia’? — What does ‘it would be counted’ mean? Only one. What is pekia’? — Rab said: A madra [chastising whip]. What is madra? R. Papa said: The whip of the Arabs, the head [sting] of which is taken off. — Abaye said: Originally I believed that which we have learnt: Ben Bibai was in charge of "pekia" meant, in charge of the wicks, as we have learnt: From the outworn breeches and belts of the priests they used to make ‘peki'in’ and light them Now that I hear that it was taught: Not that alone, but the officer would strike him with the ‘pekia" I understand that ‘pekia" means lash. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT TWO WERE EVEN AS THEY RAN TO MOUNT THE RAMP. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that two priests were equal as they ran to mount the ramp and when one of them came first within four cubits of the altar, the other took a knife and thrust it into his heart. R. Zadok stood on the steps of the Hall and said: Our brethren of the house of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land... then thy elders and judges shall come forth . . . On whose behalf shall we offer the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or on behalf of the Temple Courts? All the people burst out weeping. The father of the young man came and found him still in convulsions. He said: ‘May he be an atonement for you. My son is still in convulsions and the knife has not become unclean.’ [His remark] comes to teach you that the cleanness of their vessels was of greater concern to them even than the shedding of blood. Thus is it also said: Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other. Which event took place first? Would you say that of the bloodshed took place first? Now, if in spite of the bloodshed they did not establish the count, would they have arranged it because of the [incident of the] broken leg? Rather, the [incident of the] broken leg came first — But since they had already arranged a count how was [the affair of the bloodshed] within the four cubits possible? — Rather, the incident of the bloodshed came first, but at first [the Rabbis] thought it was a mere accident; but when however they saw that even without [such unfortunate accidents] they incurred danger, they enacted the count. ‘R. Zadok stood upon the steps of the Hall and called out: Our brethren of the House of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land. On whose behalf shall we bring the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or of the Temple Courts?’ But does [the community of] Jerusalem bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken? Surely it has been taught: Ten things were said concerning Jerusalem and this is one of them —
—
it does not have to bring a heifer whose neck is to be broken. Furthermore: And it be not known who hath smitten him but here it is known who has smitten him?-Rather [he put his question rhetorically] to increase the weeping. ‘The father of the young man came and found the boy in convulsions. He said: "May he be an atonement for you. My son is still in convulsions, etc." To teach you that they looked upon the purity of their vessels as a graver matter than bloodshed!’ [The Scholars in the Academy] asked this question: Was it that bloodshed became a minor matter to them, whereas the purity of their vessels remained in its original importance, or did bloodshed concern them as before but the purity of the vessels became for them of a still graver concern? Come and hear: Because the Talmud adduces ‘And also innocent blood did Manasseh shed’ that indicates that bloodshed had become a matter of smaller concern to them whilst the purity of the vessels retained its original importance. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments and carry forth the ashes — from this I might learn even as on the Day of Atonement, [so] that he put off his holy garments and put on profane garments. To teach us [the true law] it says: ‘And he shall put off his garments and put on other garments, thus comparing the garments he put on with the garments he put off; just as the former are holy garments, so are the latter holy garments. If so, what does [the word] ‘other’ teach? [They shall be] inferior to the former. R. Eliezer said: [The words] ‘other’ and ‘he shall carry forth’ indicate that priests afflicted with a blemish are permitted to carry forth the ashes. The Master said: ‘"Other garments", i.e. inferior to the former’, as the school of R. Ishmael taught: For the school of R. Ishmael taught: One should not offer a cup of wine to one's teacher while wearing the garment wherein one has cooked a dish for him. Resh Lakish said: Just as there is diversity of opinion about the carrying forth of the ashes, so there is about clearing them off the altar. R. Johanan said: The diversity of opinion applies only to the carrying forth, but as to clearing them off the altar, all agree that this is [regular] service. What is the reason for Resh Lakish's view? He will tell you: If it should enter your mind that this [the clearing of the ashes off the altar] is considered a [regular] service — then you would have a service legitimate In two garments. And R. Johanan? — The Divine Law revealed the regulation for tunic and breeches, but it includes also mitre and girdle. Then why are these [two specially mentioned]? — ‘Middo bad’ [‘linen garments’] is written [here to indicate] proper measure, ‘miknese bad’ [‘linen breeches’] to teach us in accord with what has been taught: Whence is it known that nothing may be put on before the breeches? Because it is said: ‘And he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh.’ And Resh Lakish? — That the garment must have the proper measure [he infers] from the fact that the Divine Law employs [the word] ‘middo’ [garment, not tunic]; that nothing may be put on before the breeches, he infers from the words: ‘on his flesh’. Shall we say that the point at issue is the same as between the following Tannaim: ‘[And his linen breeches shall he put] on his flesh.’ Why does Scripture say: ‘Shall he put on?’ That is meant to include the [obligation of wearing] mitre and girdle for the clearing off of the ashes — this is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Dosa says: That means to include [the rule] that the [four white] garments worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement may be worn by the common priest [during the remainder of the year]. Rabbi said: There are two refutations to this matter. One: the girdle of the high priest is different from that of the common priest. Two: shall garments used at a service of solemn holiness be worn at a service of lesser holiness? — But what, rather, is the significance of ‘yilbash’?
—