## Yoma Daf 23b

###### Yoma 23b:1
[Yoma 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:1)

אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה: וְעוֹד: ״לֹא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ״ כְּתִיב, וְהָא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ! אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי לְהַרְבּוֹת בִּבְכִיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Jerusalem **does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken.** The reason for this is that the *halakha* of the heifer whose neck is broken applies only to land that was apportioned to a specific tribe of the Jewish people. Jerusalem alone was not divided among the tribes, but was shared equally by the entire nation. **And furthermore, it is written** that the heifer whose neck is broken is brought when **“it be not known who had smitten him,” and** here, in the case of the slain priest, **it was** well **known who had smitten him. Rather,** one must conclude that Rabbi Tzadok invoked the *halakha* of the heifer whose neck is broken not because it actually applied in this case but only in **order** to arouse the people’s grief and **to increase weeping.**


###### Yoma 23b:2
[Yoma 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:2)

בָּא אָבִיו שֶׁל תִּינוֹק וּמְצָאוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְפַרְפֵּר, אָמַר: הֲרֵי הוּא כַּפָּרַתְכֶם וַעֲדַיִין בְּנִי קַיָּים [כּוּ׳]. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁקָּשָׁה עֲלֵיהֶם טׇהֳרַת כֵּלִים יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים הוּא דְּזָל, אֲבָל טׇהֳרַת כֵּלִים — כִּדְקָיְימָא קָיְימָא. אוֹ דִילְמָא: שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים — כִּדְקָיְימָא קָיְימָא, אֲבָל טׇהֳרַת כֵּלִים הִיא דַּחֲמִירָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In relating the above incident the *Tosefta* said: **The father of the boy came and found that he was** still **convulsing. He said: May** my son’s death **be an atonement for you.** But **my son is still alive,** etc. This incident comes **to teach you that the ritual purity of utensils** was **of more concern to them than the shedding of blood. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Should one conclude from this comment that **bloodshed had become trivialized** in their eyes **but** their concern for **purity of utensils remained where it was** originally, meaning that while they cared less than they should have about murder, they did not exaggerate the importance of purity of utensils; **or perhaps** their concern for **bloodshed remained where it was** originally, **but** their concern for **purity of vessels** had become too **strict,** to the extent that its importance was exaggerated beyond concern for human life?


###### Yoma 23b:3
[Yoma 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע, מִדְּקָא נָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא: ״וְגַם דָּם נָקִי שָׁפַךְ מְנַשֶּׁה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים הוּא דְּזָל, וְטַהֲרַת כֵּלִים — כִּדְקָיְימָא קָיְימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** an answer to the dilemma: Since the *Tosefta* **adduces a biblical teaching** from the verse, **“Furthermore, Manasseh spilled innocent blood,” conclude from this** that **it was bloodshed that had become trivialized, and** the importance of **purity of utensils remained where it had been.**


###### Yoma 23b:4
[Yoma 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפָשַׁט ... וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן״, שׁוֹמְעַנִי כְּדֶרֶךְ יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁפּוֹשֵׁט בִּגְדֵי קוֹדֶשׁ וְלוֹבֵשׁ בִּגְדֵי חוֹל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the mitzva of removing the ashes from the altar and associated issues. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah states, after describing the removal of the ashes: **“And he shall put off** his garments, **and put on other garments, and carry the ashes out** of the camp to a clean place” (Leviticus 6:4). **I** might **understand** from here that this change of garments is a mitzva to change into a different kind of garment, **similar to** the change of garments performed on **Yom Kippur,** when the High Priest changes back and forth from gold clothes to white clothes. Here, too, the Torah requires **that he remove his sacred garments and put on non-sacred garments.**


###### Yoma 23b:5
[Yoma 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:5)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים״, מַקִּישׁ בְּגָדִים שֶׁלּוֹבֵשׁ לִבְגָדִים שֶׁפּוֹשֵׁט, מָה לְהַלָּן בִּגְדֵי קוֹדֶשׁ, אַף כָּאן בִּגְדֵי קוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: To teach us otherwise, **the verse states: “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments,”** thereby **juxtaposing the garments he puts on to the garments he takes off.** This indicates that **just as there,** the garments he removes, i.e., those in which he had performed the mitzva of removal of the ashes, are **sacred garments, so too here,** the clothes he puts on to take the ashes out of the camp are **sacred garments.**


###### Yoma 23b:6
[Yoma 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:6)

אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲחֵרִים״? פְּחוּתִין מֵהֶן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״אֲחֵרִים וְהוֹצִיא״, לִימֵּד עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין שֶׁכְּשֵׁרִין לְהוֹצִיא הַדֶּשֶׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states: Other** garments, which implies that the second set of garments is different from the first? It means they are **of lower quality than** the first set of garments. **Rabbi Eliezer says** a different interpretation of the words: Other garments. The verse states: “And put on **other** garments, **and carry** the ashes **out** of the camp,” in which the Hebrew juxtaposes the words “other” and “carry out.” This **teaches that priests with** physical **blemishes,** who are considered others in that they are not eligible to perform sacred tasks, **are eligible to carry out the ashes.**


###### Yoma 23b:7
[Yoma 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:7)

אָמַר מָר: ״אֲחֵרִים״ — פְּחוּתִין מֵהֶן, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ — לֹא יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now explains the *baraita* in detail. **The Master said** in the *baraita*: The words: **Other** garments, teach that they are to be **of lower quality than** the garments worn during the removal of the ashes. This is **in accordance with** what **was taught** in **the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught** in **the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Clothes** worn by a servant **as he was cooking food for his master** that became soiled in the process **should not** be worn by him when **he pours a cup for his master,** which is a task that calls for the servant to present a dignified appearance. Similarly, one who performs the dirtying task of carrying out the ashes should not wear the same fine clothes worn to perform other services.


###### Yoma 23b:8
[Yoma 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:8)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּהוֹצָאָה, כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בַּהֲרָמָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּהוֹצָאָה, אֲבָל בַּהֲרָמָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* taught that Rabbi Eliezer derived from the word other that blemished priests are eligible for the task of carrying out the ashes, while the first *tanna* derived a different teaching from those words. The Gemara clarifies the scope of the dispute between the first *tanna* and Rabbi Eliezer. **Reish Lakish said: Just as** there is **a dispute** between Rabbi Eliezer and the first *tanna* **with regard to carrying** the ashes **out** of the camp, **so too, there is a dispute with regard to the removal of the ashes** from the altar. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the removal of the ashes may also be performed by blemished priests, while the first *tanna* disagrees. **But Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The **dispute** is only **with regard to carrying** the ashes **out** of the camp, **but all agree that the removal** of the ashes **is a** bona fide Temple **service** that cannot be performed by blemished priests.


###### Yoma 23b:9
[Yoma 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:9)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אָמַר לָךְ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, יֵשׁ לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בִּשְׁנֵי כֵלִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason behind** the opinion **of Reish Lakish?** Reish Lakish could have **said to you: If it enters your mind** that the removal of the ashes **is a** bona fide Temple **service,** you are faced with the following difficulty: **Do you have** any Temple **service that may be performed with** only **two garments** rather than the full set of four vestments worn by the priests? In the Torah’s description of the garments worn to remove the ashes it says: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh” (Leviticus 6:3).


###### Yoma 23b:10
[Yoma 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:10)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּכֻתּוֹנֶת וּמִכְנָסַיִם, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמִצְנֶפֶת וְאַבְנֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** what is the explanation for **Rabbi Yoḥanan’s** opinion? In fact, the priest is required to wear all four priestly garments. **The Merciful One reveals** in the Torah that the priest must wear **the tunic and the trousers** like any other service so that one would not think that taking out the ashes may be performed in regular, non-sacred clothes. Once the Torah has made this point and mentioned these two specific garments, **the same is true** for the other two garments as well, i.e., **the mitre and the belt.**


###### Yoma 23b:11
[Yoma 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:11)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? ״מִדּוֹ בַּד״, מִדּוֹ — כְּמִדָּתוֹ. ״מִכְנְסֵי בַד״, לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֶם לַמִּכְנָסַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִלְבַּשׁ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the Torah requires all four garments and mentions the tunic and trousers only as examples, **what is different about these** two that the Torah mentioned them in particular? The Gemara answers that these two particular garments were mentioned in order to teach certain *halakhot*. The Torah refers to the tunic as **“his linen garment,”** with the words **“his garment” [*middo*],** indicating that the tunic must conform **to his** exact **size [*middato*]** and should fit the priest perfectly. As for the words **“linen trousers,”** they come to teach **that which was taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that** as the priest gets dressed **no** garment **should precede the trousers? As it is stated: “And his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh,”** which implies that the trousers should be donned when the priest has nothing but his flesh, i.e., when he has no other garments on him yet.


###### Yoma 23b:12
[Yoma 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:12)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? מִדּוֹ כְּמִדָּתוֹ — מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן ״מִדּוֹ״. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֶם לַמִּכְנָסַיִם — מֵ״עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **Reish Lakish,** who maintains that these two garments are mentioned because they are the only two that the priest wears when removing the ashes, from where does he derive these two *halakhot*? The Gemara answers: The *halakha* that **his** linen **garment,** i.e., the tunic, must be **according to his size** is derived the fact that **the Merciful One uses the expression “his garment,”** i.e., his fitted garment, in the Torah, rather than calling it by its usual name, tunic. And the *halakha* **that no** garment **should precede the trousers** when the priest dresses is **derived** from the fact that the Torah added the phrase **“on his flesh.”**


###### Yoma 23b:13
[Yoma 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:13)

נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִלְבַּשׁ״? לְהָבִיא מִצְנֶפֶת וְאַבְנֵט לַהֲרָמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us say** that the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** As it was taught in a *baraita* that the Torah states: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh” (Leviticus 6:3). The words “shall he put on” seem superfluous, since these same words were already stated earlier in the verse. Therefore, the Torah could have sufficed with saying: “And linen trousers **on his flesh.” What** is the meaning when **the verse states: “Shall he put on”?** This extra expression comes **to include** the donning of the **mitre and** the **belt,** which are not mentioned here explicitly, for **the removal** of the ash; this is the statement of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Yoma 23b:14
[Yoma 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:14)

רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת בִּגְדֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁכְּשֵׁירִין לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Dosa says:** The extra expression comes **to include the** permissibility of the **High Priest’s clothes** that he wears **on Yom Kippur,** which are linen garments identical to those of the common priest, to teach that **they are acceptable** to be used afterward by **common priests** in their service. In other words, the expression teaches that the High Priest’s garments need not be permanently retired from service after Yom Kippur, unlike the opinion of another Sage, as will be explained below.


###### Yoma 23b:15
[Yoma 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/23b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי: שְׁתֵּי תְשׁוּבוֹת בְּדָבָר, חֲדָא: דְּאַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לֹא זֶה הוּא אַבְנֵטוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. וְעוֹד: בְּגָדִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמַּשְׁתָּ בָּהֶן קְדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה, תִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן קְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה?! אֶלָּא, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִלְבַּשׁ״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: There are two refutations** against Rabbi Dosa’s interpretation: **One** is that **the belt of** the **High Priest** that he wears on Yom Kippur is made only of linen and **is not** identical to **the belt of** the **common priest,** which, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, is made of wool and linen. Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest’s Yom Kippur garments to be used by a common priest. **And furthermore,** with regard to **garments that you used** to perform the services of **the most severe sanctity,** i.e., the services performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, can it be that **you will** then **use them** to perform **services of lesser sanctity** by a common priest? **Instead** of this, a different interpretation must be said. **What,** then, is the meaning when **the verse states** the superfluous words **“shall he put on”?**