יומא 4 — Soncino English Talmud

¹becoming ritually impure through family contact. R. Johanan said to Resh Lakish: It is right according to me who infer from the Consecration; for this agrees with what we are taught: ‘On both of them [the Priests] we sprinkle throughout the seven days[water] from all the sin-offerings that were there’; but according to you who infer from Sinai, was there any sprinkling done on Sinai? — But according to your own reasoning, it would not be right either, for in the consecration [ceremony the sprinkling was done with] blood, whereas here with water? — That is no difficulty. For R. Hiyya taught: ‘The water takes the place of blood’, but according to you, was there any sprinkling on Sinai? — He answered: It was a mere additional provision. We have a teaching in accord with R. Johanan, and we have a teaching in accord with Resh Lakish. ‘In accord with R. Johanan we have a teaching’; Scripture reads: Herewith [bezoth] shall Aaron come into the holy place, i.e., with that mentioned in that section, the section of the Consecration. And what is mentioned in the section about the Consecration? Aaron was removed for seven days and then officiated for one day, and Moses handed over to him throughout the seven days to train him in this service. Also for the future the high priest is to be removed for seven days and to officiate for one day, and two scholars of the disciples of Moses [this excludes Sadducees] transmitted to him throughout the seven days to train him in the service. Hence [the Rabbis] ruled that seven days before the Day of Atonement the high priest was removed from his house to the cell of the counsellors. And just as the high priest was removed, so was the priest burning the heifer removed to the cell lying in the north-eastern corner before the Temple and each of them was throughout the seven days sprinkled [with water] from all the sin-offerings that were there. And if you should ask: But during the Consecration the sprinkling was done with blood and here water, [remember] that the water takes the place of the blood. And it further says: ‘As hath been done this day so the Lord hath commanded la'asoth [to do], lekapper [to make atonement] for you’. ‘La'asoth’ refers to the ceremony of the heifer, ‘lekapper’ means the service of the Day of Atonement. But the word ‘be-zoth’ is required for the verse itself, i.e., with a young bullock for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering? — Answer: If ‘be-zoth’ were meant to refer only to the sacrifices, the text should have said ba-zeh [with this] or ba-eleh [with these], why [was] ‘be-zoth’ [chosen]? So that you may learn both things from it. Why was it necessary to cite the other verse? — You might have said only the first Day of Atonement requires that the high priest be removed at the Consecration, but on all future Days of Atonement no such removal is necessary; or [you might say] only the first high priest needed such removal but all future high priests do not require it; come and hear: ‘As hath been done this day etc.’ ‘We have a teaching in accord with Resh Lakish’: Moses went up in a cloud, was covered by the cloud, and was sanctified by the cloud in order that he might receive the Torah for Israel in sanctity, as it is written: And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, this took place after the Ten Commandments, which were at the beginning of the forty days, this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said [with reference to] ‘And the glory of the Lord abode’ from the beginning of the [third] month, and the cloud wa-yekasehu [covered it], i.e., the mountain,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘the uncleanness of his house’. His wife might become menstruant during congress, he as one having had congress with a menstruant would be levitically impure for seven days, thus prevented from officiating on the Day of Atonement.
^ᵇnote:The obligation to remove the priest.
^ᶜnote:The one officiating on the Day of Atonement and the one engaged with the red heifer.
^ᵈnote:Name by which the red heifer ashes are known, v. Num. XIX, 9.
^ᵉnote:V. infra 8a. A reserve of ashes was kept in the sanctuary for sprinklings. V. Parah 111, 11.
^ᶠnote:This is Resh Lakish's rejoinder.
^ᵍnote:This is R. Johanan's reply.
^ʰnote:To emphasize the importance of the ceremony of the heifer, and to signify the entrance upon the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.
^ⁱnote:Who inferred the removal from consecration. A Baraitha — a tradition or opinion of a Tanna not reported in the Mishnah.
^ʲnote:Who inferred it from Sinai.
^ᵏnote:Lev. XVI, 3.
^ˡnote:The eighth day of the Consecration was ministered to by Aaron, Lev. IX, 2.
^ᵐnote:The detailed laws for the service.
^ⁿnote:Who held divergent views as to the service and changed its order from the prescribed form.
^ᵒnote:Lev. VIII, 34.
^ᵖnote:This cited Baraitha is thus in support of R. Johanan.
^ᵠnote:It cannot be torn from the text, where it has obvious and important meaning, to be used for ad hoc interpretation.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘they say’, or ‘I will say’.
^ˢnote:Zoth is feminine, the words for bullock and ram are masc., hence ba-zeh or ba-eleh would have been more correct. The choice of be-zoth indicates that something else is implied.
^ᵗnote:The citing of an additional verse, where the first or first ones seemed to convey sufficient information, is an indication that erroneous inference might be made, which the additional verse, through its information, prevents.
^ᵘnote:Aaron, Lev. VIII.
^ᵛnote:‘Come and hear’, a technical term for refuting a wrong opinion or repelling an attack.
^ʷnote:‘So the Lord commanded you’, i.e., for all the future.
^ˣnote:Ex. XXIV, 16.
^ʸnote:Ex. XXIV, 18. Cf. ibid. XIX, 3,9,25.
^ᶻnote:Wa-yekasehu may be translated ‘covered him’ or ‘covered it’, Moses or the mountain, the Hebrew word har (mountain) being also masculine.
^ᵃᵃnote:Moses came down to speak to Israel (Ex. XIX, 3f), hence it would be wrong to say that the cloud covered him six days before the Revelation.

²then ‘He called unto Moses on the seventh day’. Moses and all Israel were standing there, but the purpose of Scripture was to honour Moses. R. Nathan says: The purpose of Scripture was that he [Moses] might be purged of all food and drink in his bowels so as to make him equal to the ministering angels. R. Mattiah b. Heresh says, The purpose of Scripture here was to inspire him with awe, so that the Torah be given with awe, with dread, with trembling, as it is said: Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. What is the meaning of ‘And rejoice with trembling’? — R. Adda b. Mattena says in the name of Rab: Where there will be joy, there shall be trembling. In what do R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba differ? — In the controversy of these Tannaim. For we have been taught: On the sixth day of the month was the Torah given to Israel. R. Jose says on the seventh. He who says that the Torah was given on the sixth day holds that on the sixth it was given and on the seventh Moses ascended the mountain; he who holds that the Torah was given on the seventh assumes that on the seventh both the Torah was given and Moses ascended, as it is written, And He called unto Moses on the seventh day. Now R. Jose the Galilean is of the same opinion as the first Tanna, who held that the Torah was given on the sixth of the month, therefore this happened after the giving of the Ten Commandments: ‘The glory of the Lord abode on mount Sinai and the cloud covered him six days’ ‘him’ meaning Moses- ‘And He called unto Moses on the seventh day’ to receive the remainder of the Torah. For if the thought should come to you that ‘And the glory of the Lord abode’ from the New Moon [of Sivan], so that ‘And the cloud covered him’ referred to the mountain, and ‘The Lord called unto Moses on the seventh day’ to receive the Ten Commandments, surely they had received the Torah on the sixth day already and also the cloud had departed on the sixth day! — R. Akiba, however, held with R. Jose that the Torah was given to Israel on the seventh. Quite in accord with R. Akiba's teaching is the statement that the Tablets were broken on the seventeenth of Tammuz, for the twenty-four days of Sivan and the sixteen of Tammuz make up the forty days he was on the mountain, and on the seventeenth of Tammuz he went down and came to break the Tablets. But according to R. Jose the Galilean who holds that there were six days of the separation in addition to forty days [spent] on the mountain, the Tablets could not have been broken before the twenty-third of Tammuz? — R. Jose the Galilean will answer you: The six days of the separation are included in the forty days on the mountain. The Master said: ‘"And He called Moses", whilst Moses and all Israel were standing’ there’. This interpretation supports the view of R. Eleazar, for R. Eleazar said: ‘And He called unto Moses’ whilst Moses and all Israel were standing there; the only purpose of Scripture is to do honour to Moses. They raised the following objection: [He heard the voice speaking] elaw [unto him] not lo [to him]; hence we know that Moses heard, but all Israel did not hear? - This is no difficulty. The one passage speaks of Sinai, the other of the tent of meeting. Or, you might say, the one statement refers to the call, the other to the speech. R. Zerika asked a question concerning the contradiction of scriptural passages in the presence of R. Eleazar, or, according to another version, he asked the question in the name of R. Eleazar. One passage reads: And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of meeting because the cloud abode thereon, whereas another verse says: And Moses entered into the midst of the cloud? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, took hold of Moses and brought him into the cloud. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Here the word be-thok [in the midst] appears and it also appears elsewhere: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, just as there [the word be-thok] implies a path, as it is written: And the waters were a wall unto them, so here too there was a path, [for Moses through the cloud]. And the Lord called unto Moses, and spoke unto him; why does Scripture mention the call before the speech? — The Torah teaches us good manners: a man should not address his neighbour without having first called him. This supports the view of R. Hanina, for R. Hanina said: No man shall speak to his neighbour unless he calls him first to speak to him. Rabbah said: Whence do we know that if a man had said something to his neighbour the latter must not spread the news without the informant's telling him ‘Go and say it’? From the scriptural text: The Lord spoke to him out of the tent of meeting, lemor [saying] . At any rate it is to be inferred that both hold that the omission of any detail mentioned in connection with the priest's Consecration renders the ceremony invalid, for it was said: With regard to the ceremony of Consecration R. Johanan and R. Hanina are disputing; one says: The omission of any form prescribed in connection with the ceremony renders it invalid, whilst the other holds only such matter as is indispensable on any future occasion is indispensable now, whereas such detail as is dispensable in future generations, is dispensable even the first time. One may conclude that it is R. Johanan who holds that the omission of any detail whatsoever that is mentioned in connection with the Consecration ceremony renders such ceremony invalid, because R. Simeon b. Lakish said to R. Johanan [in the course of the argument]: ‘And just as with the ceremony of Consecration the omission of any prescribed detail renders the ceremony invalid. And R. Johanan did not retort at all’. That proof is conclusive. What is the [practical] difference between the opinions?^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵃᵇnote:Moses did not ascend the mountain nor did he separate from his circle till after the Revelation.
^ᵃᶜnote:All Israel were present, why then does Scripture report that the word of God came to Moses alone? — The answer is: To show him special regard.
^ᵃᵈnote:R. Nathan is of the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean that the call to Moses referred to in the verses was for separation after the Revelation, yet this offers no basis for necessitating separation before entering into the Sanctuary, as the object of Moses’ separation was that he might be like the ministering angels.
^ᵃᵉnote:He too shares the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean.
^ᵃᶠnote:To Moses and through him to Israel.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ps. II, 11.
^ᵃʰnote:The terms seem contradictory.
^ᵃⁱnote:The Torah is a source of joy. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, Ps. XIX, 9, cited by Rashi. But there shall also be awe, reverence for the numen, the Lord, the Lawgiver. Tosaf. cites l Chron. XVI, 27 Strength and gladness are in His Place.
^ᵃʲnote:Shah. 86b.
^ᵃᵏnote:Of Sivan, the first day of Shabuoth.
^ᵃˡnote:Sinai.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ex. XXIV, 16.
^ᵃⁿnote:The anonymous Tanna of the Baraitha
^ᵃᵒnote:Moses’ ascent on the mount.
^ᵃᵖnote:The other laws (beside the Ten Commandments) and the Oral Law.
^ᵃᵠnote:So that the ‘Seventh day’ refers to the seventh day on which the Torah was given.
^ᵃʳnote:V. Ta'an. 26a.
^ᵃˢnote:From the seventh to the thirtieth.
^ᵃᵗnote:Either ‘came to the camp of Israel, saw the dances and broke’ or paraphrastic for ‘broke’.
^ᵃᵘnote:After the Revelation.
^ᵃᵛnote:The teachers (students) in the academy.
^ᵃʷnote:The passage, Num. VII, 89 reads: Moses . . . heard the voice speaking elaw (to him, which is the longer form, lo being the normal one) from above the ark-cover etc. The use, in this passage, of the longer form, seemed to suggest a closer or exclusive communication. According to Hayyug, quoted Otzar ha-Geonim VI, 1, n. 4, there is a difference of meaning derivable in accord with grammatical principles, in ‘lo’ and ‘elaw’ respectively.
^ᵃˣnote:So that all Israel, indeed, did not hear God's message. If so, then the only purpose of the statement ‘. . . Scripture is to honour Moses’ is unjustified. For Scripture does not change the fact. It was Moses alone whom the message reached.
^ᵃʸnote:In the tent of meeting only Moses could hear the voice. On Mount Sinai all Israel heard it, but to honour Moses, Scripture mentions him only as having done so.
^ᵃᶻnote:The call proper, the honour of the individual call, was vouchsafed to Moses alone, the speech following was heard by all.
^ᵇᵃnote:Ex. XL, 35.
^ᵇᵇnote:Ibid. XXIV, 18.
^ᵇᶜnote:The apparent contradiction is removed by the suggestion that he entered the cloud on this occasion with divine help.
^ᵇᵈnote:Ex. XIV, 22.
^ᵇᵉnote:The water being piled up like a wall, Israel walked along a path. The inference is from similarity of expression.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lev. I,1.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lemor here is taken to mean ‘to say it (to others)’, or else the next few words are illustratively, not logically implied: Speak (unto the children of Israel).
^ᵇʰnote:From Resh Lakish's question to R. Johanan: ‘... just as with the Consecration service the omission of any prescribed form would render the service invalid’ and R. Johanan's tacit acceptance of this view, supra 3b.
^ᵇⁱnote:Supra 3b.
^ᵇʲnote:Had he held a different view, he would surely not have permitted his opponent's statement to go unchallenged.