MISHNAH: He scrambled the urn¹ and brought up the two lots; one had written on it “for Hashem²”, and the other had written on it “for Azazel³ 20:19) is a monolith, עז-אזח is a strong monolith, either a rocky mountain top or a sheer cliff, in the words of the verse (Lev. 16:22) “in a cut (or cut-off) land.””, with the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. If the Eternal’s came up in his right hand, the executive officer said to him, “Sir High Priest, lift you right hand.” But if it came up in his left hand, the head of the serving family said to him. “Sir High Priest, lift your left hand.” He puts them on the two he-goats⁴ and says, “for Hashem a purification offering”⁵ 16:9 the expression וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת׃ cannot mean “sacrificed it as purification offering” since its slaughter is prescribed only in v. 15; it must mean “declare it as purification sacrifice.”. Rebbi Ismael says, it was not necessary to say “a purification offering,” only “for Hashem”⁶, and they answer, “praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever.”

footnotes: ¹ To make sure that he had no control about which lot he grabbed in each hand. ² Cf. Chapter 3, Mishnah 9, Notre 144. ³ Since הָאֶ֥בֶן הָאָֽזֶל (IS. ⁴ Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side. ⁵ In Lev. ⁶ Since both he-goats already were taken as purification sacrifices, v. 5.

HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them⁷ and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says⁸ 16:8., one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them]⁹ and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them]⁹ saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they¹⁰ were engraved.

footnotes: ⁷ Tie the threads to the horn of the he-goats. ⁸ Lev. ⁹ Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector. ⁹ Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector. ¹⁰ The lots, boxwood or gold, were used every year and were permanently engraved.

It was stated similarly¹¹ 122a.: The Land of Israel was distributed by two urns, one containing the lots, the other containing the names of the tribes. Two young priests¹² were standing, what each of them brought up he won¹³. By three ways the Land of Israel was divided up, by lots, and Urim and Tummim, and by payments. That is what is written¹⁴ 18:10. Joshua threw them lots before the Eternal at Mispeh. Lots, these are the lots. Before the Eternal, these are the Urim and Tummim. Between large and small¹⁵ 26:56., these are payments¹⁶ 132; expanded quote in *Yalqut Šimony Pinehas.#*773.. Rebbi Abin said, unless the Holy One, praise to Him, made every place nice in the eyes of its inhabitants, the Land of Israel would never have been distributed. It was stated thus¹⁷ 47a.: There are three graces. The grace of a woman in her husband’s eyes. The grace of a place in the eyes of its inhabitants. The grace of a buy in the eyes of its buyer. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus, Rebbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Levi: Even in the future the Holy one, praise to Him, will do the same. That is what is written¹⁸. 36:26., I shall give you a new heart, etc., and shall give you a heart of flesh, etc. He makes sour the part of others¹⁹ 34, end..

footnotes: ¹¹ Babli Bava batra ¹² Literally: Flowers of the priesthood. ¹³ They simultaneously drew lots before Eleazar the High Priest with Urim and Tummim, which paired territories with tribes. ¹⁴ Misquote of Jos. ¹⁵ Num. ¹⁶ The nature of these payments is nowhere spelled out. It seems that they were equalization payments so that the value of distributed land per head of the population would be approximately the same for all tribes; Sifry Num. ¹⁷ Babli Soṭah ¹⁸ Ez ¹⁹ Everybody will be satisfied with his part. Gen. rabba

If he touched them when they were down and they became mixed up. The he-goats are not as commanded²⁰. If after they were lifted he touched them and they became mixed up, the he-goats are as commanded²¹. If he touched them while lifting and they became mixed up²², if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. If the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. And even if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified; if the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified²³. But if he said, whether the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand or the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, only that to my right hand side shall be sanctified, only that to my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is not sanctified, since he established it by mouth²⁴.

footnotes: ²⁰ Since lifting the lots is a requirement which cannot be waived, the ceremony is invalid and therefore the he-goats are disqualified; a new pair has to be presented and the ceremony repeated. ²¹ They remain qualified. ²² This situation is identical with the previous one, the remedy indicated in the sequel applies to every situation in which the High Priest held one lot in each hand and started lifting them. ²³ Since all these cases are possibly correct. ²⁴ The verse requires that the lot determine the fate of the he-goats, but the language in the last case excludes this.

²⁵ 2(2); Babli 37a. The Torah said, lots. Lots made of anything²⁶. I could think that he should put two lots on one and two lots on the other, the verse says, lots, one lot for the Eternal and one lot for Azazel. I could think that he should give the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on one and the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on the other, the verse says, lot. Is that not the previous argument? It should be so: I could think that after he gave the Eternal’s on the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on Azazel’s, he could go back and switch, the verse says, one lot for the Eternal, there is only one for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, there is only one for Azazel.

footnotes: ²⁵ Sifra Aḥare Pereq ²⁶ They may be made of any material.

The diadem was inscribed “Holy for the Eternal”, “holy” below and “Eternal” above²⁷ 28:36. As explained in the parallels in the Babli (Šabbat 63b, Sukkah 5a) and in Yerushalmi Megillah1:11(71d 1. 57) only the four letters of the Name were in the upper line and קדוש ל on the bottom., like a king who sits on his throne²⁸. And similarly, “one” below and the Name above²⁹. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome³⁰ 17b. and it was written on it in one line, “Holy for the Eternal”.

footnotes: ²⁷ The diadem worn by the High Priest when officiating; Ex. ²⁸ Greek καθέδριον. τὸ , "small chair". ²⁹ On the lot was inscribed not only “for the Eternal” but “one for the Eternal”. ³⁰ He reports to have seen the High Priest’s vestment in Rome, Meˋilah

Aaron shall put⁸ 16:8., if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified³¹. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified³². An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons³³ are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons³¹ are not mentioned, not so much more³⁴ 16:8 mentions that Aaron has to put the lots on the he-goats; that the lots have to be drawn first is an inference, not a separate statement. If the drawing is not written in the verse, Aaron cannot be mentioned in connection with it.? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive³⁵, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not³⁵ obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive³⁶. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth³⁷. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow³⁸. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots³⁹? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds⁴⁰. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed⁴¹.

footnotes: ⁸ Lev. ³¹ If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid. ³² The drawing of lots from the urn by a non-Cohen is invalid and disqualifies the he-goats from being used in any sacrificial way. ³³ Aaron’s sons are not mentioned in the entire Chapter, only Aaron himself. ³¹ If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid. ³⁴ Lev. ³⁵ From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission. ³⁵ From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission. ³⁶ Babli 39b. ³⁷ For him the drawing of lots is not indispensable; Babli 39b. ³⁸ Since the entire service is restricted to one day, this can only mean that for R. Joḥanan it is possible to predetermine the he-goat which is to be the purification sacrifice. ³⁹ These sentences have to be switched. For R. Yannai, for whom drawing of lots is indispensable, the lots have to be mentioned. But for R. Joḥanan , for whom the fate of the he-goats can be predetermined, why are lots mentioned at all? ⁴⁰ The position of R. Joḥanan is modified. He will agree that using an urn in the service is required. In the case that the High Priest loses the lots which he is lifting, the ceremony does not have to be repeated, the he-goats do not become disqualified, and he can proceed to select the he-goat to be sacrificed following the rules spelled out earlier. ⁴¹ Since the objection cannot be answered, practice has to follow R. Joḥanan . Babli 40a.

For the Eternal⁴². 22:26., to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time⁴³ 8(6).. This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth⁴⁴. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots⁴⁵.

footnotes: ⁴² Lev ⁴³ A he-goat which is not at least eight days old may not be used on the Day of Atonement. Even though the he-goat sent into the wilderness is not a sacrifice, by the process of drawing lots it is a potential sacrifice and has to be qualified as such. Babli 63b, Sifra Emor Parasha ⁴⁴ Since for him it might be the choice of the High Priest to select the he-goat as sacrifice, one understands that a separate verse is needed to require both he-goats to be eligible at the same time. But for R. Yannai, for whom only the drawing determines which animal is chosen, it should be obvious that both have to be eligible. Then why is a separate verse needed? ⁴⁵ To prohibit that one could take the risk that an ineligible animal be drawn as sacrifice and in this case start again with another pair and a new drawing.

If one slaughtered outside⁴⁶ the two he-goats⁴⁷. 16 and the holiday purification offering mentioned in Num. 29:11. The latter is referred to as “he-goat made outside” since its blood is poured onto the altar in the courtyard, where its inner parts are burned. The he-goat chosen as sacrifice by drawing lots is referred to as “he-goat made for inside” since its blood is sprinkled inside the sanctuary (and its body burned outside the sacred domain.) Since there is no reason to treat the holiday purification offering differently from all other holiday offerings, the question asked here must refer to the he-goats subject to drawing lots of which only one is going to be a sacrifice. of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed⁴⁸. 16:24; the remaining he-goats cannot be sacrifices and their slaughter outside the sacred domain is no offense.. Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically⁴⁹ sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan is a well-being sacrifice. Babli 63a., but here it changes by slaughter⁵⁰. How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive⁵¹. There is only one here for Hashem⁵². Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s⁵³. Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift⁵⁴. But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood⁵⁵.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Outside the Temple domain, which is a deadly sin for sacrifices. ⁴⁷ There really are three he-goats on that day, the two mentioned in Lev ⁴⁸ It is clear that for “inside” one has to read “outside” since the question is asked about the he-goat whose blood is to be brought inside, and if it was slaughtered in the Temple it cannot be slaughtered a second time outside. If the he-goat for outside was slaughtered, the main ceremony is concluded Lev ⁴⁹ A Pesaḥ ⁵⁰ The he-goat chosen by the lot cannot be changed into the he-goat for outside. ⁵¹ Since the opinion of Rav Ḥisda is refuted, that the Tannaim refer to two different situations and do not disagree, one has to find the root of the disagreement. The text as it stands seems unintelligible; there seems to be unanimity that here also the mentions of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” have to be switched. If drawing is obstructive, neither of the two he-goats is a sacrifice before the drawing, and slaughter outside cannot be sinful. But if it is not obstructive, each one of the he-goats is a potential dedicated sacrifice and outside slaughter is sinful. ⁵² Since only one of the he-goats can become a sacrifice, the argument last given is invalid (unless both he-goats are simultaneously slaughtered outside.) ⁵³ Since the latter he-goat is not a sacrifice. ⁵⁴ As described in Mishnah 3, the blood of the bull has to be brought inside. This is called “the gift of the bull’s blood.” ⁵⁵ The he-goat chosen to be the Eternal’s is slaughtered after the bull, but the bull cannot be slaughtered before the he-goat is chosen and ready to be slaughtered.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable⁵⁶ 16), first the he-goat has to be selected by drawing lots (v. 8), then the bull has to be slaughtered (v. 11), then first incense (v. 12) and afterwards the bull’s blood (v. 14) have to be brought into the Sanctuary, then the he-goat has to be slaughtered and its blood brought into the sanctuary (v. 15). If the order was reversed and the he-goat selected close to the time of its slaughter, is the ceremony invalid and therefore the slaughter a violation of the prohibition of work on the day of Atonement, and a deadly sin?? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull⁵⁷. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams⁵⁸.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ In the biblical narrative (Lev. ⁵⁷ Slaughter of the bull is invalid unless the he-goat was selected; slaughter of the he-goat is invalid unless the bull was slaughtered first (and its blood brought inside, Babli 61a). ⁵⁸ The blood has to be sprinkled first inside the Holiest of Holies at the place of the Ark in the First Temple, between the beams used to carry the Ark. In the Second Temple, the place was indicated by a stone, but the terminology was not changed. Then it had to be sprinkled in the Sanctuary onto the gobelin separating it from the Holiest of Holies. Babli 40a.

MISHNAH: He tied a shiny strip on the head of the he-goat to be sent away⁵⁹ and put it next to its departure gate, and on the one to be slaughtered around the place of its slaughter⁶⁰ sacrifice at the end of the service.. He came to his bull a second time, leaned both his hands on it and confessed, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned before You, I and my house, and the Sons of Aaron, your holy people. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc⁶¹.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Between its horns. ⁶⁰ Around its neck, so it clearly would be distinguished from the he-goat chosen for the musaph ⁶¹ The text should be completed by the duly amended text of Mishnah 3:9.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips⁶²14:4,6) and the preparation of the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19:6).. The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel⁶³, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; some express it in the formulation ten zin⁶⁴ 10:7 (Note 80) as 1/100 of a (probably Roman) pound. 2.5 tetradrachma are 10 denarii. Since an Augustean denar was 1/96 of a Roman pound (silver), 10 zin are 9.6 denarii.

footnotes: ⁶² Strips of purple wool were used in the Temple not only rabbinically for the he-goats on the day of Atonement but also biblically for the purification ceremony of the person healed from skin disease (Lev. ⁶³ Rabbinically half a tetradrachma, two denarii. The old Canaanite (biblical) sheqel was about twice as much, cf Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122. ⁶⁴ Defined in Terumot

MISHNAH: He slaughters it⁶⁵ and receives its blood in a pitcher which he hands to one⁶⁶ who stirs it on the fourth level⁶⁷ of the Temple Hall so it should not congeal⁶⁸. He took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar where he cleared away coals to both sides and collects coals on the fire pan from the interior well-burned ones, descends, and puts it on the fourth level in the courtyard.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ The bull, which is large enough and has enough blood so that the High Priest does not need help in the slaughter. ⁶⁶ An assisting Cohen. ⁶⁷ There were twelve steps leading from the level of the altar to the entrance of the Temple Hall. Every third step was widened and denoted a level. The fourth, top level was level with the entrance door, so that the High Priest, when he returned from offering the incense, immediately could pick up the blood and re-enter the Temple. ⁶⁸ After he picks up the incense which is to be given onto the coals inside the Temple. All coals mentioned here are charcoal; mineral coal being unknown at that time.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: on the fourth level in the courtyard⁷³.

footnotes: ⁷³ In the Mishnah, “on the fourth level of the Temple Hall” is identical with “on the fourth level in the courtyard”. It cannot mean “on the fourth level in the Temple Hall” since during the ceremonies of the day of Atonement nobody but the High Priest is permitted to enter the Sanctuary (Lev. 16:17). Babli 43b last line.

It was stated: If he slaughtered outside he is liable⁷⁴, if he took the fistful inside he is not liable⁷⁵. If he collected coals and burned the incense when the blood was spilled, he has to bring another bull and enter with its blood⁷⁶. If the blood was spilled before he burned the incense, it is an invalid collection of coals and he has to start again collecting coals. If there was a doubt whether the blood was spilled before he burned the incense or after he burned the incense, you cannot bring another bull and enter with its blood since I am saying that the blood was spilled before he burned the incense and the collection of coals was invalid, and he has to start again collecting coals. You cannot do this since I am saying that the blood was spilled after he burned the incense and the collection of coals was valid, and he is liable because of unnecessary entry. The service has to stop. You find to say, the services of that day are annulled.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ If he slaughtered the bull outside the sacred domain, he is twice liable for extirpation, for violating the holiday and for sacrificing outside. This is obvious and only was stated as contrast to the next statement. ⁷⁵ As explained in Mishnah 5:1, after he collected the coals other Cohanim bring to him the vessel containing the incense, of which he has to take a fistful and then enter the Sanctuary with the fire pan and the incense. It is difficult to see how he could take the fistful inside since no other Cohen is permitted there on this day, but if he did it the action is valid since there is no verse prescribing that the fistful has to be taken in the courtyard. ⁷⁶ Since the verse is clear that incense may be burned only after the bull was slaughtered and that the bull’s blood must be brought inside the Sanctuary after it was filled with incense smoke.

If he slaughtered and died⁷⁹ 16:3 requires that Aaron come to the sanctuary with a bull. R. Simeon ben Laqish reads the verse as implying that any other Cohen cannot use his bull’s blood. All other authorities read the same verse as permitting the blood to another Cohen, as explained at the end of the paragraph.. May the other⁸⁰ enter with his blood. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with a bull, but not with its blood⁸¹. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both are saying, even with the blood. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies even with the blood. For Rebbi Ḥanina⁸² 16:12. For the blood it is not written “the blood which he collected”; therefore the blood is transferable., Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , even with the blood. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, if he took a fistful and then died, may one enter with his fistful⁸³? Why does he question his fistful? For it is written, his fistful⁸ 16:8., but here it is not written “his blood”⁴. It is obvious for him, even with the blood.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Lev. ⁸⁰ This is the late Amora usually called R. Ḥinena. Babli 49a. ⁸¹ Presuming that somehow the incense did not become impure by the impurity of the dead, may the replacing Cohen use the first’s fistful even though his own fist probably is of different size? ⁸² Lev. ⁸³ Discussion of Mishnah 5. ⁸ Lev. ⁴ Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side.

MISHNAH: Every day he collects coals in a silver fire-pan and empties them into one of gold; on this day he collects in a golden one and takes it inside⁶⁹. Every day he collects in one of four qab⁷⁰ is 2.13 liter, 4 quartarii. and empties into one of three qab but on this day he collects in one of three qab which he takes inside. Rebbi Yose says, every day he collects in one of a seah⁷¹ and empties into one of three qab but on this day he collects in one of three qab which he takes inside. Every day it⁸⁶ was heavy, but this day light. Every day its handle was short, but this day long. Everyday its gold was greenish⁸⁷, but this day reddish, the words of Rebbi Menahem.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ To make the officiating easier on the High Priest. It is obvious that these silver and gold vessels must have been made of alloys of baser metals to stand the heat. ⁷⁰ A qab ⁷¹ 6 qab. ⁸⁶ The fire-pan for the incense, which was adapted to make the High Priest's work easier. ⁸⁷ As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy.

HALAKHAH: ⁸³ As we have stated there ⁸⁴ 5:5, about the daily taking of coals from the altar for the incense burning.: “If about a qab of it was scattered, he swept them into the water canal; but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine cooler⁸⁵.”

footnotes: ⁸³ Discussion of Mishnah 5. ⁸⁴ Mishnah Tamid ⁸⁵ Greek ψυκτήρ. The scribe’s spelling is in parentheses, the corrector’s in brackets.

“Every day it was heavy, but this day light.” Not to tire him.

“Everyday its handle was short, but this day long.” Not to tire him. Every day it was less that a short cubit⁹³, but this day it was a cubit, and a half, so that his arm could lend support. Everyday it did not have a sheath⁹⁴, this day it had a sheath, lest he should be burned⁹⁵. בכל reading יכווה for תכבה.. But does this not separate⁹⁶16:12), nothing may be between his hand and the fire-pan.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was held by a nail⁹⁷בכל יום) this is possible even if the sheath was of leather..

footnotes: ⁹³ It is not clear whether this means a cubit of 5 hand-breadths or one of 6 handbreadths of a small person. ⁹⁴ Greek ναρθήκιον. The fire-pan was of metal. ⁹⁵ With Tosaphot 44b s. v ⁹⁶ Since the verse requires that the High Priest carry the fire-pan in his hand (Lev. ⁹⁷ The sheath is an integral part of the pan; this is not separation. According to Tosaphot (44b s.v.

⁹⁸ 3(17) on 3:9, Num. rabba 12. There are seven kinds of gold: good gold ⁹⁹2:12., pure gold¹⁰⁰ 24:11,24; 25:17,32,36,37; 37:2,6, closed gold¹⁰¹ 7:50., Mufaz gold¹⁰² 10:5., refined gold¹⁰³, drawn gold¹⁰⁴ 10:10, 17, 2Chr. 9:15, 16., Parwayim gold¹⁰⁵ 3:6..

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Babli 44b, Midrash Hazita (Shir rabba) ⁹⁹ Gen. ¹⁰⁰ Ex. ¹⁰¹ IK. ¹⁰² Dan. ¹⁰³ “Refined” is found in the Bible only applied to silver, see the Halakhah. ¹⁰⁴ 1K. ¹⁰⁵ 2Chr.

Good gold, as its name says. [*And the gold of this land is good.*¹2:12.¹⁰⁶] Rebbi Isaac says, it is good to have in one’s house, it is good to accompany one.

footnotes: ¹ Gen. ¹⁰⁶ Corrector's addition, probably from the parallels.

Pure gold, which one brings into the fire and nothing is missing. (As) [It comes as]¹⁰⁷); the one in brackets is the corrector’s. it was stated: It happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything¹⁰⁸ seems original: The candelabrum the of Temple turned out to be in excess of that made in the desert by the weight of a Gordian denar; they refined it in fire 80 times until it lost that extra weight. The weight of the candelabrum itself is not defined in the Bible, only that the candelabrum and all its appurtenances have to be made from one talent (3’000 sheqel) of pure gold.. This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ The text in parentheses is the scribe’s (supported by the reliable parallel in Midrash Hazita ¹⁰⁸ . The text in Midrash Hazita

Closed gold, which makes all other kinds of gold look like silver. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written, And seven thousand talents of refined silver to cover the walls of the House¹⁰⁹ 29:4, in the list of preparations David made for the Temple to be built by Solomon.. The entire House he covered with gold¹¹⁰ 6:22, in the report on the actual building of the Temple., and you are saying so¹¹¹? But it was making all other kinds of gold look like silver.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ 1Chr. ¹¹⁰ 1K. ¹¹¹ Why is silver suddenly called gold?

Mufaz gold. Rebbi Patroki the brother of Rebbi Drosa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Bina: It looks like fire which was kindled with sulphur. Rebbi Abbin, it is called after its place, and gold from Ufaz¹¹² 10:9..

footnotes: ¹¹² Jer.

Refined gold, one was cutting it up like olives, form it into dough, and feed it to ostriches; they filter it. But some are saying, that they were burying it in manure for seven years.

Drawn gold. It could be drawn like wax. Hadrian had the weight of an egg of it. Diocletian had the weight of a Gordian denar¹¹³200–400 Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974. of it.

footnotes: ¹¹³ One of the few coins minted during the inflationary period of the military anarchy in the Roman Empire with a reputation of being honest. Cf. D. Sperber, Roman Palestine

Parwayim gold. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, red, it is like ox blood, but some are saying, gold which produces fruits. As we have stated there¹¹⁴ 3:5. Babli 21b., “a golden vine was standing at the door of the inner hall.” Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac said, at the time when Solomon built the Temple, he formed all kinds of trees in it and at the time when those outside where bearing fruit, those inside where bearing fruit. That is what is written¹¹⁵ 35:2., blooming the blossom and jubilate, also enjoying and singing, etc. When did they dry up? Rebbi Isaac Ḥinena bar Isaac said, when Manasse put up at statue in the Temple they dried up, as it is written, and the flower of the Lebanon is wilted¹¹⁶ 1:4. For “Lebanon” as sobriquet for the Temple cf, IK. 7:2..

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Mishnah Middot ¹¹⁵ Is. ¹¹⁶ Nah.

MISHNAH: Every day he sacrifices one half⁸⁸ The full portion was the weight of one mina, or 25/24 of a Roman pound (cf. Note 64). in the morning and one half in the evening, but on this day he adds a fistful⁸⁹. Every day it was fine but this day finese⁹⁰. Every day the Cohanim ascend on the East side {of the ramp} and descend on the West side, but this day they⁹¹ ascend and descend in the middle. Rebbi Jehudah says, the High Priest always ascends in the middle and descendes in the middle. Every day the High Priest sanctifies his hands and legs from the basin put this day from a gold pitcher⁹² Greek κώθων, but this denotes a drinking vessel, not a pitcher.. Rebbi Jehudah says, always the High Priest sanctifies his hands and legs from a gold pitcher.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Latin pars, -rtis, f ⁸⁹ The incense to be burned in the Holiest of Holies, in contrast to the larger amount burned on the incense altar in the sanctuary. ⁹⁰ Incense to be burned on the altar is just called “incense” but the one destined for the Holiest of Holies has to be “fine incense” (Lev. I 6:8); it is inferred that it has to be finer than regular incense. ⁹¹ “They” are only the High Priest, who this day does the sacral acts unaided. There is no danger of a traffic jam. ⁹² Identified by Buxtorf as Latin cothon,

HALAKHAH: ¹¹⁷6a/b. The compounding of the incense: balsamum, and cloves, galbanum and frankincense, each in the weight of 70 maneh¹¹⁸, 60 šeqel, or the Greek mnā, 100 denar (drachmē). In the rabbinic system 1 šeqel = 2 denar. Since in all other circumstances we find that מנה denotes 100 denar (weight or money) there is no reason to assume that here the situation is different, even though the traditional vocalization in this context is מָנֶה.. Myrrh and cassia, spicenard and saffron, each in the weight of sixteen maneh. Costus twelve, bark three, cinnamon nine. You find that there were 365 maneh according to the days of the year and three for this day¹¹⁹.. That is what we have stated: “but on this day he adds a fistful.” Carshina¹²⁰ as a volume is a fluid measure. nine qab, (Qanrisin) [caper]¹²¹ wine three seah and three qab. If he has no (Qanrisin) [caper] wine he brings aged whitish wine. Sodom salt¹²² a quarter. Some smoke producing herb. Rebbi Nathan says, also some (Qafra) [Kifa]¹²³ 1:29 (cf. S.Liebermann, Tosefta ki-fshutah, Zeraim vol, 1, New York 1955, p. 208). of the Jordan. If he added honey he invalidated it. If he left out one of its ingredients he is liable for death¹²⁴ was close to the Galilean of qtav. עֵץ can mean both “tree” and “bush”..

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Babli Keritut ¹¹⁸ It is not obvious whether the reference is to the Semitic maneh ¹¹⁹ The total amount adds up to 368 maneh ¹²⁰ Name of a plant, usually leeks (in Arabic, peas or a related vegetable.) In the Babli, “Carshina lye“; as shown by the next paragraph, this must be the reading here also. Qab ¹²¹ The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the scribe was very consistent in his spelling of the name, this is not a scribal error and the corrector’s has to be classified as copied from the Babli. The word used by the scribe is a hapax, its meaning is unknown. If it is from قنّار “small onions”, the meaning of the Yerushalmi term is close to the of the Babli, wine with added vegetable aroma. ¹²² Dead Sea salt. ¹²³ Here also the corrector’s version in brackets is the Babli text, against the scribe’s in parentheses. An aromatic plant also mentioned in Tosephta Demai ¹²⁴ Babli 53a.Again spelling of corrector following the Babli. Probably the Babylonian pronunciation of qtaf

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, balsamum is only the sap of the (qtab) [qtaf]¹²⁴ was close to the Galilean of qtav. עֵץ can mean both “tree” and “bush”. tree. For what comes Carshina lye? In it one polished the cloves. For what does (Qanrisin) [caper] wine come? In it one (polishes) [soaks]¹²⁵ cloves that it should be strong. Would not be urine good for this? Only one does not introduce bad smell into the Temple courtyard because of decorum¹²⁶ 32a.. And when he was pulverizing he was saying: be well pulverized, be well pulverized, for voice is good for compounding. If he left out one of its ingredients or added honey he invalidated it. If he failed to add salt¹²⁷20a. or added¹²⁸ smoke producing herb he became liable for death. Rebbi Zeˋura said, and he sins because of unnecessary entry¹²⁹.

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Babli 53a.Again spelling of corrector following the Babli. Probably the Babylonian pronunciation of qtaf ¹²⁵ Here the correction of the corrector following the Babli seems to be correct. ¹²⁶ Babli Roš Haššanah ¹²⁷ Babli Menaḥot ¹²⁸ Obviously this must read “did not add”. Babli 53a. ¹²⁹ If the incense is disqualified, entering the Sanctuary with it is sinful.

It was stated: Bar Qappara said, the perfumers in Jerusalem were saying, if one would add some honey, the entire world could not withstand its smell.

It was stated: If one compounded half of it it is qualified. Thirds and quarters we did not hear. Rebbi said, in its proportion it is qualified. Therefore, what one said, if one compounded half of it it is qualified, half of every ingredient. Once in sixty or seventy years half of it was coming from leftovers. That is, “what was one doing with excess incense”¹³⁰ 4:5. The Mishnah implies that leftover incense powder at the end of the year was a common occurrence.?

footnotes: ¹³⁰ Mishnah Šeqalim

It was stated¹³¹ 109a.: If he burned¹³² the size of an olive outside he is liable; less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable¹³³ (Note 90).. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah¹³⁴: The public has fulfilled its obligation¹³⁵. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah¹³⁶, since it was stated that if he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable, from this you infer that less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable¹³⁷..

footnotes: ¹³¹ Babli Zevahim ¹³² Of incense correctly compounded. ¹³³ “Not liable” usually means “forbidden but not punishable.” The Babli, probably more correctly, has: less than a pars ¹³⁴ The first generation. Babylonian Amora. ¹³⁵ Since no weights or measures are given in the biblical text. ¹³⁶ The student of R. Zeˋira. ¹³⁷ If he only is liable for a full olive-sized amount outside, he cannot be liable for less than an olive-sized piece inside. If this is formulated as separate statement, it must mean that he is not liable and the action is irrelevant. The statement of Rav Jeremiah must be in the Babylonian tradition referring to a pars

Fine¹³⁸. 16:12.. What does the verse say? Because it was said, you shall pulverize it finely¹³⁹. 31:36. If the entire year the incense must be a fine powder, what does the remark mean that on the Day of Atonement it be fine?. Then why is it said, fine? That it be most fine. What does he do? He separates the mina on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and returns it to the mortar to fill from it his fistful to observe “most fine.¹⁴⁰_6b.”

footnotes: ¹³⁸ Lev ¹³⁹ Ex ¹⁴⁰ Babli 45a, Keritut

Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification¹⁴¹. 30:20–21, 40:30) it cannot be waved.. Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels¹⁴² 21b/22a. in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive¹⁴³. 30:18). If the basin is not in its place, no service can be held..

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ This now refers to Mishnah 8, that the High Priest does not use the basin but a golden pitcher. Since the first sanctification from the basis is a biblical requirement (Ex ¹⁴² All containers. Zevaḥim ¹⁴³ The place between the Tent of Meeting and the altar (Ex

MISHNAH: Every day there were four arrangements¹⁴⁴ and this day five¹⁴⁵, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, everyday three and this day four. Rebbi Jehudah says, every day two and this day three.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ The formal arrangement of wood on the altar. For R. Meïr the first one is in the morning for the daily sacrifice, the second for taking charcoal for the daily burning of incense on the interior altar, the third to make sure the fire is not extinguished for the remainder of the day, the fourth to burn through the night. ¹⁴⁵ Additional logs from which the High Priest takes charcoal to bring into the Holiest of Holies.

HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? ¹⁴⁸And the fire on the altar shall be lit there, you shall not extinguish, that is the arrangement which keeps the fire. And the Cohen shall burn on it, that is the arrangement for disposal of limbs and fat. And arrange on it the elevation sacrifice, this is the main arrangement. And burn as incense on it the fats of the well-being sacrifices, this is the incense. Rebbi Yose does not have the arrangement for disposal of limbs. Rebbi Jehudah does not have the arrangement which keeps the fire. How does Rebbi Jehudah explain a permanent fire¹⁴⁷. 6:6.? The fire which I told you that it be permanent only shall be on the outer altar¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b. ¹⁴⁷ Lev ¹⁴⁸ He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b.

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre¹⁴⁹ and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath¹⁵⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here¹⁵¹? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five¹⁵² 1:5), if the special arrangement for the night is prescribed for the day of Atonement it also must be prescribed for the Sabbath.”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside¹⁵³? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive¹⁵⁴ 2:11. and push aside, as we have stated there¹⁵⁵ 1:11.: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ On the altar. ¹⁵⁰ The remainders of Friday sacrifices have to be burned in the following night which is Sabbath. ¹⁵¹ Maybe “every day” excludes Friday evening. ¹⁵² Since everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Megillah ¹⁵³ Since the sacrifice is valid if the blood was poured on the walls of the altar, the later disposal cannot invalidate. If one would leave the remainders unburned and after the Sabbath burn them outside the sacred domain, everything would remain valid. Why should the Sabbath be pushed aside for this, even though it has biblical justification? ¹⁵⁴ Even in times when the New Moon was proclaimed on the basis of testimony, the Supreme Court had the possibility of declaring the New Moon based on their computations (Mishnah Roš Haššanah ¹⁵⁵ Mishnah Roš Haššanah

From where the arrangement of the Day of Atonement¹⁵⁶? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Coals¹⁵⁷. 16:12.. Why does the verse say, of fire? That it should be insignificant on its coals. ¹⁵⁸ 3(5); Babli Pesaḥim 75b.. The following text is Tannaitic, not of the sayings of R. Jeremiah. It is missing in a Genizah fragment (Ginzberg, p. 118) and therefore may be a later addition. This explains the reduplication of the argument.“Coals, I could think smouldering; the verse says of fire. If of fire, I could think flames; the verse says coals of fire, from those crackling ones. And from where that the fire should be insignificant on the coals? The verse says, coals of fire.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ That the wood on the altar has to be prepared specially for the requirements of the day and therefore needs an extra arrangement, in addition to the daily ones. ¹⁵⁷ Lev ¹⁵⁸ Sifra Aḥare Pereq

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the shew-bread did not become disqualified during travel time¹⁵⁹. 24:5–9) it is obvious that bread taken out of a stationary Sanctuary becomes disqualified. The question is whether it also became disqualified when the Sanctuary around it was removed by divine command during the wanderings of he Israelites in the desert.. [Rebbi Joḥanan said, the shew-bread became disqualified during travel time.]¹⁶⁰95a, reports a disagreement of R. Joshua ben Levi and R. Joḥanan about this subject. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: just as they camped so they travelled¹⁶¹. 2:17., since it did not become disqualified when they were camping so it did not become disqualified when they were travelling. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of¹⁶¹. 2:17.camps, as if in the center of camps.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ Since the shew-bread has to be on the table in the Sanctuary (Lev ¹⁶⁰ Addition by the corrector; sentence missing in the Genizah fragment published by Ginzberg (Note 159). The Babli, Menaḥot ¹⁶¹ Num ¹⁶¹ Num

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged¹⁶². 17. In the absence of a central sanctuary, private altars are permitted, Mishnah Zevaḥim 14:4–8. If a central Sanctuary exists but is temporarily unavailable, the prohibition remains in place; Menaḥot95a.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time¹⁶³ 60b as tannaitic statement.; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition¹⁶⁴. 5:1–4. A person suffering from gonorrhea is excluded from the dwelling of the Levites, a sufferer from skin disease also from the camp of the Israelites. Since they were marching in military order, the impure were excluded from the marching order. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.. Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease¹⁶⁵. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other.¹⁶⁶ does not refer to any previous statement but to the following of R. Jehudah. A baraita¹⁶⁷ 2(10), a baraita of R. Jehudah. Anywhere “permanent” is mentioned, it overrides restrictions. Since “permanent” is mentioned for the fire of that altar, Lev. 6:6, the priests have to tend the fire on the Sabbath even if all of them are impure. But “permanent” also is mentioned for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:8); this overrides the absence of the walls of the Sanctuary. By the same token, R. Joshua ben Levi has to hold that the altar fire has to be tended on the march; following R. Jehudah in the sequel. supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel¹⁶⁸ 2(10) on Lev. 6:6.. What did they do [at travel time]¹⁶⁹ 2(10).? They put a wine-cooler⁸⁷ over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said¹⁷⁰. 4:13., they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated¹⁷¹.

footnotes: ¹⁶² Private altars and sacrifices outside the central sanctuary are forbidden, Lev ¹⁶³ Sacrifices must either be burned on the altar in the courtyard of the Sanctuary or eaten within sanctified enclosures. If all enclosures are removed, all leftovers of sacrifices are automatically disqualified. Babli Zevaḥim ¹⁶⁴ Num ¹⁶⁵ During travel times there is no inside and the impure cannot be sent outside. ¹⁶⁶ Since R. Joshua ben Levi is not mentioned in the present paragraph, the reference to him has to be to the preceding one. The reference to R. Joḥanan is incomprehensible; the quoted baraita ¹⁶⁷ Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ¹⁶⁸ Continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ¹⁶⁹ Addition by the corrector; it should be deleted since by removing it the sentence and the next are again continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ⁸⁷ As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy. ¹⁷⁰ Num ¹⁷¹ In all cognate languages דשן, دسم means “to be fat”. The use of דשן as “ashes” must mean “ashes from fatty material”. R. Jehudah will not extend the extended meaning of the noun to the corresponding verb.