יומא 29 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Unchaste imagination is more injurious than the sin itself, your analogy being the odour of meat. The end of the summer is more trying than the summer itself, your analogy being a hot oven. A fever in winter is severer than in summer, your analogy being a cold oven. It is harder to remember well something old than to commit to memory a fresh thing, your analogy being a cement made out of old cement. R. Abbahu said: What is the reason of Rabbi's opinion? — It is written: For the Leader, upon Aijeleth ha-Shahar — just as the antlers of the hind branch off this way and that way, so the light of the dawn is scattered in all directions. — R. Zera said: Why was Esther compared to a hind? To tell you that just as a hind has a narrow womb and is desirable to her mate at all times as at the first time, so was Esther precious to King Ahasuerus at all times as at the first time. R. Assi said: Why was Esther compared to the dawn? To tell you that just as the dawn is the end of the whole night, so is the story of Esther the end of all the miracles. But there is Hanukkah? — We refer to those included in Scripture. That will be right according to the opinion that Esther was meant to be written, but what can be said according to him who held that it was not meant to be written? — He could bring it in accord with what R. Benjamin b. Japheth said, for R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Benjamin b. Japheth: Why is the prayer of the righteous compared to a hind? To tell you that just as with the hind, as long as it grows, its antlers form additional branches every year, so with the righteous, the longer they abide in prayer, the more will their prayer be heard. THEY SLAUGHTERED THE CONTINUAL OFFERING: When? Would you say on one of the remaining days of the year? Had it then to be offered up? Hence [you will say that it happened] on the Day of Atonement, but is there any moon-light visible then? — This is what it means: On the Day of Atonement, when the observer said: It is daylight, they would take the high priest down to the place of immersion. The father of R. Abin learnt: Not only concerning this was it said, but also concerning the pinching of a bird's head and the taking of a fistful of the meal-offering, [was it said] that if it was done during the night, it had to be burnt. That is quite right with regard to the bird designated for a burnt-offering, since the fact can no more be undone, but touching the fistful of the meal offering,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:To health, physical and moral.
^ᵇnote:The odour of roast meat is more injurious to the digestive apparatus even than the eating thereof.
^ᶜnote:It is easy to kindle a fresh fire in a hot oven, the ground being dry. By the end of summer the atmosphere is very hot so that any additional hot weather makes it well nigh intolerable.
^ᵈnote:It requires a great deal of wood and effort to warm up the cold oven in the cold days of winter. Thus must a fever be very severe to afflict one on a cold day.
^ᵉnote:That has been used before. It is hard to dissolve it and re-make it.
^ᶠnote:Who says that the light column of the sun (dawn) is scattered.
^ᵍnote:Ps. XXII, 1.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘The Hind of the Dawn.That may have been a well-known melody, according to which the psalm was to be sung, the direction being meant for the choir-leader. V. the comm. of Delitzsch, Cheyne and Koenig.
^ⁱnote:In Meg. 15b, Queen Esther is reported to have sung this psalm as she came before Ahasuerus, hence the comparison.
^ʲnote:‘Er. 54b.
^ᵏnote:Meg. 7a. To protect the books of the Bible, they were declared unclean, so that after touching them, one had to wash one's hands. The question hence, as to whether any book defiled the hands, implies the question as to whether it was included in the Canon and has inspiration ascribed to its contents. About the Book of Esther there is a dispute in Meg. 7a, one of the Rabbis ascribing inspiration to it, whence it was to be written and included in the Canon, the other denying it inspiration, hence declaring its touch did not defile the hands. V. Yadaim III, 5.
^ˡnote:Did this error happen, on the basis of which the high priest was taken down to the place of immersion. The questioner takes the second incident reported in the Mishnah as a sequel to the first.
^ᵐnote:At dawn.
^ⁿnote:The answer indicates that these two incidents are not to be connected. The error happened on an ordinary day. The second passage refers to the Day of Atonement and states that when the observer had said ‘It is daylight’, then, on a Day of Atonement, the high priest would be taken down, etc.
^ᵒnote:Men. 100a.
^ᵖnote:Not only a sacrifice that was offered up during the night (instead of in its proper time, after day-break).
^ᵠnote:That it is to be burnt.

²let him put it back and take it again when it is day? — He learnt and explained it: The vessels of ministration render what is in them sacred even outside of the proper time. An objection was raised: This is the rule: Whatsoever is offered up during the day, becomes sanctified by day and whatsoever is offered up during the night becomes sanctified both by day and by night. At any rate it is taught that whatsoever is offered up during the day becomes sanctified by day only, and not by night? — It may not become sanctified [enough] to be offered up, but it may become sanctified enough to be invalidated. R. Zera raised an objection: If he put in order the shewbread and the [frankincense] clip after the Sabbath and smokes the [contents of] the cups on the [following] Sabbath it is invalid. What should he do? He should leave it for the coming Sabbath, for even if it stayed for many days on the table, that does not matter. But why? It should be sanctified and invalidated? — Raba said: He who raised the objection, raised a valid one, and the father of R. Abin is also quoting a Baraitha, but it is of the opinion that the night is not considered a wanting time, the day however is so considered. But when the night of Sabbath approaches, let it then become at once sanctified and invalidated? — Rabina said: We assume that he removed it before then. Mar Zutra, or as some say, R. Ashi said: You may set the case even if he had not removed it before [Sabbath eve], since, however, he had put it in order at variance with the regulation it is as if a monkey had laid it there. THIS WAS THE RULE IN THE TEMPLE etc.: It is quite right that the feet must be washed because of squirtings, but why must the hands be washed? — R. Abba said: This teaches us that it is^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ʳnote:Hence it can no more be put back. Since the vessel has sanctified it for the altar, it must not be put back among the remaining part of the meal-offering.
^ˢnote:E.g.,the meal-offerings, the incense.
^ᵗnote:The text here corrected in accord with Bah. V. Tem. 14a. [Cur. ed. inserts ‘and whatsoever is offered up during the night becomes sanctified by night, and whatsoever is offered up both during the day and during the night becomes sanctified both by day and by night.’ As the former can refer only to drink-offerings (V. Ta'an. 2b) which however are offered up also during the day, this passage is omitted and the text corrected accordingly.]
^ᵘnote:Which means that there is no sanctification but in the proper time.
^ᵛnote:[If it tarries overnight without having been offered (V. Zeb. 87a). The fistful accordingly having been placed in the vessel of ministration at night becomes invalidated with daybreak, and can no longer be put back among the remaining part of the meal-offering.]
^ʷnote:[Because it had not been left on the table for seven days as prescribed, v. Lev. XXIV, 5ff. Var. lec. rightly omit: it is invalid, V. Rashi.]
^ˣnote:Through having been set on the table in its proper time.
^ʸnote:It is not the case of all Amoraic opinion, which can be refuted by argument. It is an authoritative Tannaitic teaching and a way must be found to bring the present argument in accord with it.
^ᶻnote:The day goes after the night, hence it is part of the night, hence the fistful put into the vessel at night is regarded as having been put therein in the proper time and consequently is sanctified properly. Since, however, it is a day-offering it must be burned with the shewbread; however, where there is a whole day wanting, the bread does not become sanctified.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since the night is not considered as ‘wanting time’, whereas everything that is due during the day and was placed into the sacred vessels in the preceding night, becomes sanctified and invalidated, then, when the eve of second Sabbath comes, let the table sanctify the bread and invalidate it?
^ᵃᵇnote:When it was wanting time.
^ᵃᶜnote:Without any intention, hence the table does not sanctify it, for we consider that since it was placed there without intention, it was technically not placed there at all, hence it becomes neither sanctified nor invalidated.
^ᵃᵈnote:Of urine.