יומא 32 — Soncino English Talmud

¹ten sanctifications, but according to the Rabbis, they are only nine? — The Rabbis will answer you: The last sanctification is made when he strips off the holy garments and puts on the profane ones. Our Rabbis taught: And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting For what purpose does he enter? For no other purpose than that of taking out the censer and the coal-pan, the whole portion being reported in right order with the exception of this passage. For what reason? — R. Hisda said: There is a tradition: Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest undergo on that day. If he had performed them in the order mentioned in the scriptures there could have been no more than three immersions and six sanctifications. It was taught: R. Judah said: Whence do we know of the five immersions and ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that day? To teach us that it is said: And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments . . . and he shall wash his flesh in water in a holy place and put on his other vestments and come forth and offer [his burnt-offering]. Thus you infer that whenever one changes from one service to another, an immersion is required. Rabbi said: Whence do we know that the high priest had to undergo five immersions and ten sanctifications on that day? Because it is said: He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with the linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired; they are the holy garments; and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on. Hence you learn that whosoever changes from service to service requires an immersion. Moreover, it says, ‘They are the holy garments’, thus putting all the garments on the same level. Now there are five services; The continual offering of dawn, [performed] in the golden garments: the service of the day [the Day of Atonement], in linen garments; of his [the high priest's] and the people's ram, in the golden garments; [the taking out] of the censer and coal-pan, in white garments; the continual evening offering in the golden garments — Whence do we know that every immersion required two sanctifications? For it is written: And he shall put off . . . and he shall wash; and he shall wash and he shall put on. — R. Eliezer b. Simeon said: This can be inferred a minori ad majus: If in a case where no immersion is required, sanctification is yet required, how much more, in a place in which immersion is required, is sanctification also required — But [perhaps let us also infer] that as there only one sanctification is required, here, too, one only would be necessary? Therefore Scripture says: And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on — what is the meaning of ‘which he put on’? Does not a man put off but that which he did put on? Rather [are these superfluous words written] to put the putting off on the same level with the putting on of the garments; just as the putting on of the garments requires sanctification, so does the putting off of the garments require it. [The master said]: ‘R. Judah said: Whence do we know of the five immersions and ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that Day? To teach us that Scripture says: "And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting . . . and shall wash his flesh in water in a holy place." Thus you infer that whenever one changes from one service to another, an immersion is required.’ We found [this rule] for the change from the white garments to the golden ones. Whence do we know [that it also applies] for the change from the golden to the linen ones?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:At the end of the service of the Day of Atonement, as he strips off’ the holy garments to don profane ones.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XVI, 23.
^ᶜnote:Infra 70b.
^ᵈnote:Did Aaron, have to interrupt the service, interpolating the offering up of his and the people's ram, between the incense and the bringing out of censer and coal-pan?
^ᵉnote:One immersion each for the continual offering of the morning, for the service of the day, which includes censer — and coal-pan — function, and one between that and the offering up of the rams, which includes the additional, and the continual afternoon offering. Thus there would be three immersions only as against the five traditionally reported. Hence the necessity of a change in the programme, hence the interpolation of the offering of the rams between the service within (the day's service) and the bringing out of censer and coal-pan. So that the censer — and coal-pan — function now interrupts between the offerings of the rams and the continual afternoon-offering, with the result that there are now five immersions necessary; one for the morning's continual offering, in the golden garments; one for the service of the day in white garments; one for the offering of the two rams on the outer altar in the golden garments; one for the taking out of censer and coal-pan in white garments; and the fifth for the additional, and the continual afternoon offering in the golden garments. Thus tradition and text are harmonized, the five immersions implying ten sanctifications, one each, before each putting off, and before each putting on, of the garments required for each service.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XVI, 23, 24.
^ᵍnote:I.e., from a service performed within the Tent of Meeting to one performed outside and vice versa.
^ʰnote:Ibid. 4.
^ⁱnote:Whether on the view of Rabbi or of R. Judah.
^ʲnote:[This is the continuation of Rabbi's statement and the reference is to Lev. XVI, 23, 24. The words ‘he shall wash’, being placed between ‘he shall put off’ and ‘he shall put on’, are taken by Rabbi as referring both to stripping and the robing, each requiring a separate washing (sanctification), this in contradistinction to R. Judah who derives from it supra the need of all immersion between every change of service v. infra 32b.]
^ᵏnote:During the rest of the days of the year (as against the Day of Atonement) the law of the Torah does not require immersion before each service, only by Rabbinic ordinance, the purpose of which is to keep the priest conscious of risks to his cleanliness, is such immersion necessary. (V. supra 30a.)
^ˡnote:V. Ex. XL, 32.
^ᵐnote:On the Day of Atonement, at every change of garment.
^ⁿnote:As is inferred a minori.
^ᵒnote:[To be inserted with some MSS. V. D.S.]
^ᵖnote:The verses in question (Lev. XVI, 23, 24) occurring in connection with the stripping of the white garments.

²The school of R. Ishmael taught: That can be inferred a minori: If the golden garments in which the high priest does not enter the Holy of Holies require immersion, how much more do the linen garments, in which he enters the Holy of Holies, require it? But this argument can be demolished: The case of the golden garments is different, because much atonement is obtained in them. Rather, he infers it from what Rabbi said. [The Master said]: ‘Rabbi said, Whence do we know of the five immersions and the ten sanctifications which the high priest had to undergo on that day? To teach us that it is said: "He shall put on the holy linen tunic . . ." Hence you learn that whosoever changes from service to service requires an immersion.’ We have found that [required for a change] from the golden, to the white garments. Whence do we know that [the same rule obtains for a change] from the white to the golden garments? The school of R. Ishmael taught: That can be inferred a minori: If the white garments, in which but little atonement is obtained, require an immersion, how much more will the golden garments, in which much atonement is obtained, require it? This argument can be demolished: The case of the white garments is different, because the high priest, dressed in them, enters the Holy of Holies? It is for this reason that he [Rabbi, in his statement] teaches: And it also says: ‘They are the holy garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and put them on’. ‘Now there are five services’. That of the continual afternoon offering [performed] in the golden garments; the service of the day in white garments; [the offering up of] his, and the people's ram in the golden garments; the [taking out of] the censer and coal-pan in white garments; and the continual offering at dusk, In the golden garments — And whence do we know that every immersion requires two sanctifications? To teach us that Scripture says: ‘And he shall put off . . . and he shall wash . . . and he shall wash . . . and he shall put on’. But this [passage] refers to the immersions? — Since it has no reference to the immersion [the requirement of] which we infer from ‘They are the holy garments, apply it to the sanctifications . Then the Divine Law should have written the term of ‘sanctification’? — [Scripture chooses that term] to let us know that immersion is even as sanctification, i.e., just as immersion must take place on holy ground, so must sanctification take place on holy ground. Whence does R. Judah infer [that] the sanctification [must take place on holy ground]? — He infers it from the teaching of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. R. Hisda said: Rabbi's view excludes that of R. Meir and that of the Rabbis. It excludes that of the Rabbis, for according to them he sanctifies himself [first] while he is still dressed, whereas Rabbi holds that he sanctifies himself after he is stripped; and it also excludes the view of R. Meir, for R. Meir holds that the second sanctification takes place when he is [already] dressed, whereas, according to Rabbi, he sanctifies himself whilst still stripped of the garments. R. Aha b. Jacob said: All agree that at the second sanctification he first dons [the garments] and then sanctifies himself. What is the reason? Because Scripture said: Or when they come near to the altar, i,e,, only he who lacks nothing but the approach, that excludes him who lacks both dressing and approach. R. Aha, the son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: R. Hisda does not agree with R. Aha, nor does R. Aha agree with R. Hisda, for else there would be fifteen sanctifications required according to Rabbi. ONE BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT etc. What does ‘KERAZO’ mean? ‘Ulla said: It is a synonym for ‘slaying’ — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is the scriptural evidence? Egypt is a very fair heifer. But the kerez [gadfly] out of the north is come, it is come. What is the intimation? — As R. Joseph interpreted it: A fair kingdom is Egypt but murderous nations from the north will come upon it. How far shall he cut? — ‘Ulla said: The bigger part of both organs. Thus also said R. Johanan: The bigger part of the two organs. Resh Lakish also holds that he cuts through the bigger part of the two organs, for Resh Lakish said: Since we have learned that the cutting through of the bigger part of an organ is as good as the cutting through the whole of it, why did we learn that ‘the bigger part of one organ [is required to be cut through] in case of a fowl ‘and the bigger part of the two organs [are required to be cut through] in case of an animal? Because we have learned: ONE BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, HE MADE THE REQUIRED CUT AND SOMEONE ELSE FINISHED IT FOR HIM, HE RECEIVED THE BLOOD AND SPRINKLED IT-one might assume, if another one did not complete the killing for him, it would be invalid. — [You say that] ‘one could assume that if the other did not complete the killing for him, it would be invalid,’ then it would mean that the service is performed by someone else and we have learnt: All the services of the Day of Atonement are valid only if performed by him [the high priest]? — Rather: This is what he says: One might have assumed that it shall be considered invalidated by Rabbinic ordinance, 23^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵠnote:They are used every day for services, whereas the white garments are used only for the service in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and obtain atonement for the Sanctuary and its sacred things, if defilement had occurred there; v. Shebu. 7b.
^ʳnote:From Lev. XVI, 4.
^ˢnote:[Inserted by one MS. cf. Rashi.]
^ᵗnote:The verse in question occurring in connection with the changing from the gold garments into the linen ones.
^ᵘnote:The additional passage adduced by Rabbi intimates that Scripture makes the fact that they are the holy garments the reason for the need of immersion, so that one shall infer that all changes of holy garments on the Day of Atonement require immersion, thus also the golden garments.
^ᵛnote:Since it says ‘his flesh’.
^ʷnote:Cf. n. 1.
^ˣnote:[I.e., it should have been written ‘he shall wash his hands and feet’, R. Hananel.]
^ʸnote:Who interprets the above passage differently, who therefore lacks a source for this information.
^ᶻnote:Mentioned supra p.146, n. 6.
^ᵃᵃnote:[Rabbi holds that both sanctifications are performed whilst he is stripped, one before the immersion and the other after the immersion.]
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XXX, 20.
^ᵃᶜnote:May perform the sanctification.
^ᵃᵈnote:According to R. Hisda, Rabbi requires two sanctifications between stripping and dressing; and according to R. Aha, Rabbi requires the sanctification after being dressed before the service, for if their views were not incompatible, Rabbi would be found to require fifteen sanctifications.
^ᵃᵉnote:Why a change of the usual wording? ‘Shehato’ would have been the normal way of putting it.
^ᵃᶠnote:Jer. XLVI, 20.
^ᵃᵍnote:The word ‘kerez’ here, meaning ‘gadfly’, does not suggest explanation of the incision.
^ᵃʰnote:The question has the Hebrew text in mind, the answer the Aramaic paraphrase. Since ‘kerez’ is interpreted as ‘murderous’, ‘karaz’ may fitly be used for ‘shahat’, to kill.
^ᵃⁱnote:The windpipe and the gullet.
^ᵃʲnote:Hul. 29b.
^ᵃᵏnote:That would render the service of the other essential, hence would mean someone else's participation in the service of the Day of Atonement, which is against the law.
^ᵃˡnote:Infra 73a.
^ᵃᵐnote:Making a distinction between profane slaughter, where the bigger part of an organ is on the same level as the whole organ, i.e., the cutting through of the bigger part completes the slaughtering effectively, as against sacred animals, which would have their organ (or organs) completely cut through.