1 just as above it is [carried forth] by means of cutting up and not by flaying, so here also it is by means of cutting up and not by flaying. Whence do we know it there? — For it was taught: ‘And its inwards, and its dung, and he shall carry forth’, that teaches that he must carry it forth complete. One might have assumed that he must also burn it complete, therefore it is said here: ‘with its head and with its legs’ and there also it is said: its head and its legs, hence just as there it is [offered] by means of cutting up, so here also it is [carried forth] by means of cutting up. One might assume that just as there it is by means of flaying, so here too, therefore the text reads: ‘And its inwards and its dung’. How is this implied [in the Scriptural text]? — R. Papa answered: Just as the dung is enclosed in the inwards, so shall the flesh be enclosed in the skin. FROM WHAT TIME DO THEY RENDER GARMENTS UNCLEAN? [etc.] Our Rabbis taught: [And the bullock and . . . the he-goat] he shall carry forth without the camp and they shall burn. There you allot them three camps and here only one camp? Then, why does it read: ‘without the camp’? To tell you: As soon as he goes outside the one camp, the garments are rendered unclean. Whence do we know it there? — For it was taught: Even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp, i.e., without the three camps. — You say: Without the three camps, but perhaps it means [only] ‘without one camp’? When Scripture says, in connection with the bullock of the congregation: ‘without the camp’, whereas no such statement [of the text] is necessary, for it is said already: And he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock, why then was ‘without the camp’ stated? To allot it another camp; and when Scripture says, Without the camp’, in connection with the removal of the ashes whereas no such statement is necessary, since it is said already: Where the ashes are poured out, this means to allot it a third camp. What does R. Simeon do ‘Without the camp’? He needs it, as it was taught: R. Eliezer says: It is said here: ‘Without the camp’, and it is said there: Without the camp: Just as here it means outside the three camps, so does it mean there outside the three camps; and just as there it means to the east of Jerusalem, so does it mean here to the east of Jerusalem. But according to the view of the Sages where were they burnt? In accordance with what was taught: Where were they burnt?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠ
2 to the north of Jerusalem, and without the three camps. R. Jose says: They were burnt in the place where the ashes of the sacrifices were deposited. Raba said: Who is the Tanna disputing with R. Jose. It is R. Eliezer b. Jacob, for it was taught: [The bullock shall he carry forth to] where the ashes are poured out, and burn it, i.e., there shall be ashes [from before]. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: It means that its place shall be sloping. Said Abaye: Perhaps they are disputing as to whether the place shall be sloping! — Our Rabbis taught: And he that burneth them i.e., he that burneth renders his garments unclean, but not he who kindles the fire, nor he who puts the wood in order. And who is ‘He that burneth’? He who assists at the time of the burning. One might have assumed that even after they have become ashes, they shall still defile the garments, therefore Scripture says: ‘them, i.e., only as long as they [are ‘they’] do they defile the garments, but not once they have become ashes. R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon says: The bullock [itself] defiles the garments, but when the flesh is burnt to hard lumps it no more defiles the garments. What is the difference between the two views? — If it has been reduced to lumps of charred flesh. MISHNAH. THEY SAID TO THE HIGH PRIEST: THE HE-GOAT HAS REACHED THE WILDERNESS. AND WHENCE DID THEY KNOW THAT THE HE-GOAT HAD REACHED THE WILDERNESS? THEY USED TO SET UP GUARDS AT STATIONS AND FROM THESE TOWELS WOULD BE WAVED, THUS WOULD THEY KNOW THAT THE HE-GOAT HAD REACHED THE WILDERNESS. R. JUDAH SAID: BUT DID THEY NOT HAVE A GREAT SIGN? FROM JERUSALEM TO BETH HIDODO WAS THREE MILS. THEY COULD WALK A MIL, RETURN THE MIL, THEN TARRY THE TIME IT TAKES TO WALK A MIL, AND THUS KNOW THAT THE HE-GOAT HAD REACHED THE WILDERNESS. — R. ISHMAEL SAID: BUT THEY HAD ANOTHER SIGN TOO: A THREAD OF CRIMSON WOOL WAS TIED TO THE DOOR OF THE TEMPLE, AND WHEN THE HE-GOAT REACHED THE WILDERNESS THE THREAD TURNED WHITE, AS IT IS WRITTEN: THOUGH YOUR SINS BE AS SCARLET THEY SHALL BE AS WHITE AS SNOW. GEMARA. Abaye said: One may infer from here that Beth Hidodo is in the wilderness and this is what he [the Tanna of the Mishnah] informs us: that R. Judah holds: As soon as the he-goat has reached the wilderness the commandment concerning it is fulfilled. MISHNAH. THE HIGH PRIEST [THEN] CAME TO READ. IF HE WISHED TO READ IN LINEN GARMENTS HE COULD DO SO, OTHERWISE HE WOULD READ IN HIS OWN WHITE VESTMENTS. THE SYNAGOGUE ATTENDANT WOULD TAKE A SCROLL OF THE LAW AND GIVE IT TO THE HEAD OF THE SYNAGOGUE, AND THE HEAD OF THE SYNAGOGUE GAVE IT TO THE SEGAN, AND THE SEGAN GAVE IT TO THE HIGH PRIEST, AND THE HIGH PRIEST STANDS AND RECEIVES IT, AND READS [THE SECTION] BEGINNING] ‘AFTER THE DEATH . . .’ AND ‘HOWBEIT ON THE TENTH. . .’ THEN HE WOULD ROLL UP THE SCROLL OF THE LAW AND PUT IT IN HIS BOSOM AND SAY, ‘MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE READ OUT BEFORE YOU IS WRITTEN HERE. AND ON THE TENTH . . .’ WHICH IS IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS HE RECITES BY HEART. THEN HE RECITES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH EIGHT BENEDICTIONS: FOR THE LAW, FOR THE TEMPLE SERVICE, FOR THE THANKSGIVING, FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS AND FOR THE TEMPLE SEPARATELY, AND FOR ISRAEL SEPARATELY AND FOR JERUSALEM SEPARATELY, FOR THE PRIESTS SEPARATELY AND FOR THE REST OF THE PRAYER. HE WHO SEES THE HIGH PRIEST WHEN HE READS DOES NOT SEE THE BULLOCK AND THE HE-GOAT THAT ARE BEING BURNT, AND HE THAT SEES THE BULLOCK AND THE HE-GOAT THAT ARE BEING BURNT DOES NOT SEE THE HIGH PRIEST WHEN HE READS: NOT THAT HE WAS NOT PERMITTED BUT BECAUSE THE DISTANCE APART WAS GREAT AND BOTH RITES WERE PERFORMED AT THE SAME TIME. GEMARA. Since it states: IN HIS OWN WHITE VESTMENT, the inference is that reading is not a [Temple] service, and then it states: IF HE WISHED TO READ IN THE LINEN GARMENTS HE COULD DO SO, from which one may learn that priestly garments may be enjoyed for private use! Perhaps it is different with reading, because it is a necessity for the [Temple] service. For the question was raised: Are the priestly garments allowed for private use or not allowed! — Come and hear: They would nor sleep in the holy garments. Now they could not sleep in them, but they could eat in them! — Perhaps it is different with the eating, because it is necessary for the service, for it was taught: And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made; this teaches that the priests eat and the owner obtains atonement. ‘They could not sleep in them’, but could they walk around in them? — In truth they might not walk around in them eitherʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿ