NOTE TO COMMENTARY ON THE MISHNAYOT References to the Mishna are often confusing, as the division of each chapter into individual mishnayot changes from edition to edition. Therefore, we have reluctantly adopted the policy of referencing mishnayot according to the page number of the Babylonian Talmud where the mishna appears, such as: Mishna, Menaḥot 65a. Mishnayot which have no Talmud tractate are also referenced according to the Vilna edition, such as: Mishna, Bikkurim 1:10. The exceptions are the references within Yoma,Rosh HaShanaandAvot, where cross-references to the mishna, translation, and notes appear according to the order we have followed here, in the Koren Rosh HaShana Maḥzor and the Koren Siddur. Likewise, references to the Tosefta are according to the Vilna edition. (Despite some other editions being considered more reliable, the Vilna Talmud edition is still more accessible, and in none of the references does the edition make any substantial difference.) References to the Jerusalem Talmud have the chapter and mishna according to the Venice 1523 edition, which is the cornerstone for most printed editions. We have used the Hebrew name Yerushalmi. Unless otherwise specified, a citation of the Talmud refers to the Babylonian Talmud, and a citation of a page or a commentary refers to Massekhet Yoma. Citations of the Rif and his commentators are according to the pages of Hilkhot Rav Alfas printed at the back of the Vilna edition. An unspecified reference to Rambam refers to his commentary on the Mishna; an unspecified reference to Rosh refers to his “order of the Yom Kippur service” which is printed before his rulings on chapter eight. Rav Soloveitchik is cited from his Kuntras Avodat Yom HaKippurim, second edition, Jerusalem 2005. In the commentary to the Maḥzor, the names Maimonides and Nahmanides are used; in these notes, we have used the Hebrew acronyms Rambam and Ramban. The Tur, Shulḥan Arukh and commentaries around them are written in longhand; however, we have abbreviated the names of their components: OḤ for Oraḥ Ḥayyim, and YD for Yoreh De’ah (Ḥoshen Mishpat and Even HaEzer are not referred to in these notes). Some commentaries only wrote on one of the components, and those we have left unspecified. Rabbi David Fuchs CHAPTER ONE After the description of the Tabernacle’s construction in the book of Leviticus, we are told of the ceremony that inaugurates Aaron and his sons into the priesthood (chapter eight). Moses dresses them in the priestly vestments and anoints them with the sacred oil, after which they bring special inaugural offerings. They are then secluded inside the Tabernacle for a period of seven days. According to the Talmud Yerushalmi, these seven days parallel the week of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai, as described in the book of Exodus (24:16). To this description of the inauguration the Torah appends the words, “As was done on this day, so the LORD has commanded to be done, to make atonement for you” (Lev. 8:34). The Sifra (cited by Rashi) derives from this verse that there are two other situations in which these seven days of seclusion are to continue to be observed: the week leading up to Yom Kippur (see אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ, ), and the days prior to the burning of the red heifer, which purifies one who has become ritually impure though contact with a dead body. The Mishna (Para 3:1; Yoma 8a–b; see also the Seder HaAvoda piyutim, pages and ) states that during the week leading up to Yom Kippur, the High Priest is purified using the ashes of the red heifer, a process that takes seven days to complete. This may suggest that, besides evoking the inauguration days, this period also serves to shore against the risk that contact with a corpse may have rendered the High Priest impure, and therefore unfit for service. Should this have happened, perhaps without his knowledge, the week of separation and the ritual of the red heifer would be enough to purify him again. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira (Yoma 3b, Rambam 1:3) suggests another possible reason for the seven days’ separation. Impurity caused by relations with a menstrually impure woman lasts for seven days (Lev. 15:24). A week’s separation, then, from his wife, ensures that no mistake or misjudgment will render him invalid for service. The Netziv (Haamek Davar, Lev. 8:35) makes a further suggestion. The Yom Kippur Temple service is difficult and complex; these seven preparatory days, then, are an opportunity to train the High Priest in all of its details. This first chapter of our tractate, indeed, describes the High Priest practicing the Yom Kippur rituals in these days, (mishna 2), studying the relevant laws (mishna 3), swearing to observe them correctly (mishna 5), and becoming fully ready to perform them when the day arrives. Avoiding defilement is part of this preparation process; avoiding sleep on the night of Yom Kippur is one of the precautions taken (mishna 4, 6, 7). לִשְׁכַּת פַּלְהֶדְרִין Chamber of Palhedrin. In the context of the Temple, the word ִשְׁכָּה refers to any one of a number of chambers within its grounds, used for a variety of functions. The Sanhedrin held court in the לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, the Chamber of Hewn Stone; another chamber was designated to store the salt for the offerings; the לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִין, Chamber of the Discreet, enabled people to donate and receive charity in an inconspicuous way. The Mishna (Midot 5:4) enumerates six chambers in the Temple courtyard itself, though the Talmud lists many more. The Chamber of Palhedrin was noteworthy as the only chamber to serve as living quarters (and consequently the only chamber in the Temple with a mezuza at its opening: see Yoma 10a). The Talmud (19a) debates whether it was on the north side of the courtyard or the south; most commentators agree that it was to the south (see figure I, ). The word “Parhedrin,” as it appears in the Talmud, is borrowed from the Greek meaning “clerks.” Specifically, it refers to the subordinate clerks of Roman procurators, who were recruited annually. Rabbi Yehuda (8b–9a) remarks that this was not the chamber’s official name; “the Chamber of Balvatei” (the Ministers’ Chamber) was given this derogatory label, expressing – as Rashi suggests – disapproval of the political selection of High Priests “in accordance with the ‘priesthood money’ they paid to the king.” וּמַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו And another priest is appointed as his substitute. The appointment of a substitute High Priest to be on standby from this early stage seems to be a precaution, aimed to avoid delays in the event that a replacement should be needed at the last minute.Tosafot Yeshanim(2a) note that an entirely new set of the priestly garments would have to be tailored for the substitute – a lengthy and expensive process (see mishna 3:7). The Talmud (13a) highlights a psychological advantage of the preemptive appointment; conscious that a substitute is readily available to replace him, the High Priest would be likely to be extra vigilant, to avoid any mistakes that might disqualify him. יֶאֱרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל Disqualify him. The mishna in Avot (5:5) lists ten miracles that happened in the Temple; one of them is the fact that no High Priest was ever defiled by a nocturnal emission on Yom Kippur. The Yerushalmi, however, does record one such case (Yoma 1:1), and names Yosef ben Ilem as the replacement. Significantly, though both the Tosefta (1:4) and the Talmud Bavli (12b) do cite the case of Yosef ben Ilem’s appointment, neither mention why the original High Priest was disqualified. The Talmud tells us of Yosef ben Ilem’s ardent hope that his appointment would be permanent. After being purified, however, the original High Priest was restored to office. This left Yosef ben Ilem in a legal limbo. No longer a High Priest, he was also unable to return to his previous status, as this would have been considered a degradation of the level of sanctity he had obtained in his short term of office (an application of the principle of מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין, “One may raise a thing in sanctity, but may not lower it”). בֵּיתוֹ – זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ *His house means “his wife.”*The phrase “He shall make atonement for himself and for his house” is taken from the Yom Kippur service described in Leviticus (our translation there, , is slightly different in its context). The phrase appears twice in this passage (verses 6 and 11), and the rabbis understand the first to refer to the High Priest’s personal household – his family – and the second, to his tribal house, the entire priesthood. The High Priest is required to offer an independent confession for each of these two “houses.” Rabbi Yehuda understands “his house” in the specific sense of “his wife,” in line with Rabbi Yose’s saying “I have never called my wife, ‘my wife’; I call her ‘my house’” (Shabbat 118b). Rabbi Yehuda further rules that the High Priest’s confession for his household is an essential part of the Yom Kippur service, without which he is unable to atone for the rest of the people. Therefore, another woman is designated to take the place of his wife, in the event of his current wife dying suddenly. This ruling is reflected in the custom, first mentioned in the Kol Bo (65), always to select a married man to lead the prayers on the High Holidays, and the Seliḥot on the preceding days (Rema, OḤ 581:1). Later authorities, however, stress that the leader’s moral goodness and acceptance by the community are more important selection criteria than his marital status (Mishna Berura ibid. 13). אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף There would be no end to it. The Talmud in Yevamot 26a–b discusses at length the extent to which one may legally presume that a person will continue to live; in certain situations one is required to take precautions for the eventuality of a person dying without warning. The passage discusses these circumstances and concludes that while one must take precautions against the death of one person, there is no need to be concerned about the (smaller) risk of two people dying in close succession. Although this seems to be in line with Rabbi Yehuda’s position in our mishna, the Talmud explains that neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the rabbis there in fact agree with the conclusion of the discussion in Yevamot (see Sukka 24a). Both, rather, hold that even the risk of one person dying need not concern us under most circumstances. It is because of the gravity and importance of the High Priest’s service on Yom Kippur that Rabbi Yehuda asserts the need for extra concern in this case, with preparations being made not only for the High Priest’s possible defilement, but also for his possible widowerhood. Even Rabbi Yehuda, however, concedes that there is no need to prepare a third woman for fear that the replacement may also die (13a). He also does not require a second wife to be prepared for the replacement High Priest (Tosafot Yeshanim). The rabbis reject Rabbi Yehuda’s heightened concern. Their claim, “אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף, There would be no end to it,” is used in the mishna (here and in Pesaḥim 9a) to reject the compulsion to consider possibilities which would normally not concern us. If we begin to overstep the boundaries of reasonable caution, there is no longer any logical place to stop.

הוּא זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם He throws the blood. Rashi (14a) explains that although the High Priest does not normally perform these tasks, he is assigned them now in order to become proficient by Yom Kippur (see the Netziv’s comments in the introduction to this chapter). וּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת Tends the lamps. The phrase “מֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת” literally means “to improve the lamps.” Rambam (Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 3:12) understands this to mean that the High Priest would actually light the lamps. Rashi (Yoma 14a) reads it to refer only to the preparation of the lamps. In his understanding, the priest tending the lamps in the morning removes the wicks and oil that remain from the previous day and cleans the lamps out, while the lighting itself takes place only in the evening. Support for this position is found in the words that describe these duties in the Torah: “And Aaron burned the fragrant incense in the morning, as he would improve the lights […] and when Aaron would raise up the lights in the evening…” (Ex. 30:7–8). “Raise up” suggests the lighting of the lamps, and is distinguished from “improving the lamps” which clearly happens at an earlier stage. In the mishna’s description of the Temple service, the lamps are tended after the throwing of the blood. In Abaye’s tradition, however, the tending of the lamps occurs in two stages; five are tended before the blood is thrown, and the other two after. Only when these tasks are complete is the incense burned and then the limbs offered up (). The Talmud (14b, 34b), in line with the mishna, insists that the blood is thrown first. Accepting Abaye’s tradition that the lamps were tended in sets of five and two, this account suggests that the task was performed on either side of the burning of the incense. (For the difference between the sets of five and two lamps, see Tamid 33a.) Tosafot (14a) claim that only the last two lamps are tended by the High Priest. Although the Temple rites must be performed by a priest, any priest would be qualified. Similarly, on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest performs all the rites, he need not carry them out from beginning to end, as long as it is he who completes them. וּמַקְרִיב *Offers up.*The literal meaning of מַקְרִיב is “to bring close.” The word is generally used, as here, to denote the actual burning of an offering on the altar. Sometimes, however, it appears in a broader usage, to describe the bringing of an offering to the altar and the placing of its limbs on the ramp (see mishna 2:6). אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הָרֶגֶל The head and the right hind leg. Although all the organs are offered up (see mishna 2:3), the Meiri suggests that during the week prior to Yom Kippur the High Priest only offers up the head and the right hind leg (and so only these are mentioned in the mishna); the rest of the limbs are brought by the other priests. Since the High Priest’s involvement is only needed now in order to train him, it is unnecessary for him to offer all parts of the sacrificial animal himself. Rambam, however, rules that “All those seven days, he practices the rites…and burns the limbs of the daily offering upon the altar” (Hilkhot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:5). In his reading, then, our mishna is only citing examples, and in fact the High Priest offers up all the organs himself (see Tosafot Yom Tov, and Smag, 209). וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ The first choice of portion to take. The Torah’s instructions concerning the role of a priest conclude with the words, addressed to the people at large, “and you shall hold him sacred” (Lev. 21:8). Rabbi Yishmael explains this to mean that priests must be given honor and precedence over others (Horayot 12b); this idea forms the basis for honoring a priest with the first aliya to the Torah in the synagogue (Megilla 28a, although see also Gittin 59a–b), and for inviting him to lead Birkat HaMazon (Shulḥan ArukhOḤ 201:2, Mishna Berura ibid. 12, and Shakh YD 246:14). The Talmud (Horayot 12b) applies this rule more broadly, wherever people are differently ranked in sanctity. Thus, the High Priest, who has a higher level of sanctity than a regular priest, is accorded precedence over his fellows. He may therefore choose his portion of an offering even before the priest who brought it (Rashi, Horayot 12b). An extreme example of the High Priest’s privilege is in the division of the showbread; he automatically receives half of the bread, while the other half is divided up among the other priests. The Tosefta (1:5) derives this practice from the verse (Lev. 2:10) “for Aaron and his sons” which presents Aaron – the original High Priest – on equal footing with the collective group of all his sons – the lay priests. This privilege, however, is limited to the inner world of the Temple. With regard to tithes and other consecrated items, which need not be brought to the Temple, all priests, including the High Priest, share equal rights (Tosefta ibid; Rambam, Hilkhot Klei HaMikdash 5:12).

וְקוֹרִין לְפָנָיו בְּסֵדֶר הַיּוֹם Would read him the Order of the Day. Most commentaries follow Rashi, who interprets this as a reference to the section of the Torah that deals with the laws of Yom Kippur (Lev. 16). Rambam adds: “They would read before him, and teach him the order of the day,” implying this was not just a formal reading, but an active and in-depth study (Rambam appears to be based upon a variant version of the mishna text, as it appears in the Munich manuscript, see Dikdukei Sofrim 14a). אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל My honored High Priest. Literally, “My man, the High Priest.” In the Bible the word אִישִׁי is used by a wife to refer to her husband with a connotation of partnership or love (Rashi, Gen. 4:1 and Hos. 2:18 – and see Rekanati, Gen. 29:32 who associates the term with the word אֵשׁ, “fire”), rather than of legal status. In mishnaic Hebrew, it is used as a respectful term for the High Priest (see Tamid 6:3; Para 3:8). We have chosen “my honored” to maintain the personal “my” while carrying the deferent tone that an appellation reserved for the High Priest would bear. שֶׁמָּא לֹא לָמַדְתָּ In case you have not learned. There is a stated requirement for the High Priest to be more learned than his brethren (see Horayot 9a; Ḥullin 134b). This being so, it is surprising that the elders would suspect he may not know the laws of the day. The Talmud (18a) notes, however, that there was a marked difference between the standards expected of High Priests in the First Temple, and those actually upheld in the Second Temple. At this time the position was usually not inherited, but purchased from the ruling kings, with the result that many incumbents were not worthy of the role. פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים Bulls and rams and sheep. The full tally of offerings brought on Yom Kippur is as follows: two bulls (one to atone for the priesthood and one as a part of the Musaf offering); two rams (one as the High Priest’s burnt offering, and one as a part of the Musaf offering); three goats (a pair, one of which was to be used as an offering and the other sent to Azazel; and a third as the sin-offering accompanying the Musaf offering); and nine sheep (two for the daily offering, seven as a part of the Musaf offering, and, on Shabbat, two more sheep for the Musaf offering of Shabbat). The Talmud (18a) notes the omission of the goats from the list in this mishna, and offers two explanations for it. Either the mishna is speaking in general terms, and, although not specified, goats were also passed in front of the High Priest; or else, because the goats were to be used for the sin-offering and so symbolized the sins of the people, it was considered tactless to put them on display before it was absolutely necessary. The Yerushalmi follows the first of these views; however, Rambam omits any mention of the goats, suggesting that he takes the second view.

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל מֵבִיא אֶת הַשֵּׁנָה Because food brings on sleep. “Whoever eats and drinks on the ninth [of Tishrei] is considered as if he had fasted both on the ninth and on the tenth” (81b et al.). The Rosh (8:22) understands this to mean that eating and drinking on the day before Yom Kippur is a positive mitzva, aimed at helping people to fast well on the day itself. In the case of the High Priest, however, there is another concern that overrides this. Food brings on sleep, and sleep would carry the risk of the High Priest becoming impure though a nocturnal emission. In spite of the general prescription to eat and drink, then, the High Priest’s consumption is limited (see אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ, ). The Talmud also provides a list of specific foods he is denied, for fear that they will make him more sleepy (18a).

לַעֲלִיַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס The Avtinas Upper Chamber. The name בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, “the House of Avtinas,” is used to refer both to the priestly family who prepared the incense (see below, 3:11) and to the chamber in the Temple in which they prepared it. This chamber is named as one of the two chambers of the High Priest (Yoma 19a), the other being the Chamber of Palhedrin mentioned in the first mishna. (See figure I, for its location.) According to the mishna in Tamid 1:1, בֵּית אַבְטִינָס was one of the two chambers which had upper floors, and one of the three chambers in which young priests would stand guard at night (see also Midot 1:1). Rashi explains that the High Priest is taken there to practice חֲפִינָה, the taking of a handful of incense (see 5:1). The Talmud (47b) lists this as one of the three most difficult rites performed in the Temple. The skill is naturally practiced in the place where the incense is prepared (Meiri). The Smag (209) seems to differ with Rashi and states that the High Priest is taken to the chamber only to take his oath, discussed in this chamber because it concerns the rite of burning the incense (see note to 5:1). שְׁלוּחֵי בֵית דִּין Emissaries of the court. The Talmud (Nedarim 35b) discusses whether priests are primarily emissaries of God, receiving the offerings from the people as God’s representatives, or emissaries of the people, representing the public and their offerings before God. The Rishonim (Rashi, Kiddushin 23b; Rambam, Hilkhot Nedarim 6:5) conclude that they are emissaries of God (see Keren Ora in Nedarim). With this view in mind, the Talmud (19b) explains that the phrase “our emissary” here refers to a responsibility to study from the elders, and their authority to define the content of the oath, rather than implying a deeper statement of the High Priest’s function. שֶׁלֹּא תְשַׁנֶּה דָבָר מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ You will not depart in any detail from what we have taught you. The Torah warns Aaron (and by implication, all future High Priests) not to enter the Holy of Holies except on Yom Kippur, “for I shall be revealed in the cloud” (Lev. 16:2; see Introduction to chapter 5 for a discussion of this). Rashi explains the “cloud” as referring to the Divine Presence. As God’s Presence is openly manifest inside the Holy of Holies, it would be disrespectful to enter when not explicitly instructed to do so. The sages (also mentioned by Rashi) understand the verse to explain not the reason for the High Priest’s limited access to the Holy of Holies, but the condition under which he is able to enter at all. The “cloud,” in their understanding, is the cloud of incense which the High Priest must offer when he approaches. This part of the Yom Kippur service was the center of a bitter dispute between the sages and the Sadducee dissenters. The Sadducees claimed that if the incense is what affords the High Priest permission to enter the Holy of Holies, it should certainly be offered beforehe enters. The sages, on the other hand, held that as the incense must be offered “in the presence of the LORD” (Lev. 16:13) – that is, inside the Holy of Holies – it should only be burnt after the High Priest has entered. During the Second Temple period many of the High Priests were Sadducees (see note to 1:3 on the appointment of the High Priest). Since no other person may be in the Temple when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies (Lev. 16:17), the elders would adjure the High Priest beforehand with a solemn oath to follow the rabbinic practice (19b; and see אַמִּיץ כֹּחַ, ). The Tosefta (quoted in 19b, expanded in the Yerushalmi ad loc.) tells of a High Priest who broke his vow and followed the Sadducean teaching regarding the incense; in this narrative the priest is severely punished by God for his brazenness. פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין Turn away and weep. The High Priest wept because he was suspected, and the elders wept, according to the Talmud, because they may have suspected an innocent person, itself a very grave offense (19b). The Yerushalmi suggests, perhaps more simply, that the elders lamented the need they felt to resort to such methods. The piyut אַתָּה כּוֹנַנְתָּ () implies that the oath was sworn daily during the week leading up to Yom Kippur.

דּוֹרֵשׁ He would interpret Torah. The Hebrew “דּוֹרֵשׁ” implies not just a recital of the text, but an active study, elucidation and exegeses. The introduction to the Sifra includes Rabbi Yishmael’s Thirteen Interpretative Principles, which are used to expound (לִדְרוֹשׁ) the Torah (see ). This list, however, is not exhaustive; the obscure midrash Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (mentioned by Rashi in II Chronicles 30:19) lists thirty-two additional principles which were used by Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose HaGlili. Rabbi Shimshon of Chinon (France, circa 1300) devotes a section of his Sefer HaKritot to explaining these thirty-two principles, (a version of his essay is printed at the back of tractate Berakhot in the Vilna Talmud). These interpretative techniques belong to an oral and social tradition of textual study. The expounding of the High Priest described here is not only an elucidation of the text, but also a public discourse which the other priests could hear and learn from. Although the High Priest was halakhically required to be a scholar, this was not always the case. Other people, then, were often needed to interpret the Torah for him. In some cases he was not even able to read the Bible to himself, so others would have to read it to him. בְּאִיּוֹב וּבְעֶזְרָא וּבְדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים *From Job…Ezra, and…Chronicles.*These books, Rashi explains, are especially interesting, providing extra stimulation to ward off sleep (see Tiferet Yisrael which explains why these three books specifically are of particular interest). The Yerushalmi also includes Proverbs and Psalms in the list. בְּדָנִיֵּאל The book of Daniel. Zekharya ben Kevutal was one of the priests who stayed up through the night with the High Priest and was, apparently, a distinguished scholar. The book of Daniel is the only bilingual book in the Bible – half of it (chapters two to seven) is written in Aramaic. Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman (Chief Rabbi of Israel 1964–1972; quoted in the commentary of Kehati) explains Zekhariya ben Kevutal’s practice as a sad comment on the less educated generation he lived in, that even the High Priest’s attention could only be engaged by a text in his vernacular Aramaic. A more charitable explanation is brought by the Meiri, who adds Daniel to the books of special interest (Meiri). This is borne out by the intensive study the book enjoyed in later ages – no less than ten full commentaries by the Rishonim are known today. Perhaps the High Priest, before entering the Holy of Holies, needed to reflect upon eschatology, or to fortify himself with the promise of redemption, which is nowhere more explicit than in the book of Daniel.

פִּרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה *Young priests.*Literally, “the flowers of the priesthood,” Bartenura explains this term as referring to their newly sprouting beards. Rambam (1:8) and Meiri call them “flowers of Levites,” but the term פִּרְחֵי כְהֻנָּה appears in the Mishna and Talmud nearly twenty more times. בְּאֶצְבַּע צְרָדָה *Would snap their fingers.*The Yerushalmi understands that the young priests would make sounds with their hands and mouths. Most commentaries, however, suggest that they would snap their fingers against their thumbs (see Tosafot Yeshanim 19b for a fuller discussion of the term אֶצְבַּע צְרָדָה). The Terumat HaDeshen(62), a leading halakhic authority in the fifteenth century, uses this mishna to prove that snapping fingers is permitted on Shabbat. The Shulḥan Arukh, however, rules otherwise (OḤ 339:2), though the Magen Avrahampermits snapping one’s fingers on Shabbat if one’s aim is to wake a person up. וְהָפֵג אַחַת עַל הָרִצְפָּה Banish sleep…against the floor. The Talmud (19b) suggests that the High Priest’s companions would urge him to practice prostrating himself, which involved lying down on the floor (Megilla 22b, based upon I Kings 1:31); the exhilaration of this physical activity and the coolness of the floor would refresh him and restore his alertness. Rambam writes that the High Priest was simply asked to stand on the cool floor, tacitly assuming that the High Priest was barefoot even while waiting in the Avtinas Chamber, as he would have to be while performing the Yom Kippur service. This, however, was certainly not a requirement – wearing shoes is only forbidden in the courtyard (Zevaḥim 24a). The Hebrew phrase הָפֵג אַחַת literally means “banish one.” The Tiferet Yisrael reads this as a shorthand notation of what they actually said: “Banish sleep, just this once!” Alternatively, it could be understood to refer to the Talmudic proverb, “Sleep is one part in sixty of death” (Berakhot 57b). וּמַעֲסִיקִין אוֹתוֹ Keep him occupied. The Talmud describes the people of Jerusalem staying up all night, so that the High Priest would hear their bustle outside and feel less inclined to fall asleep. It goes on to relate that this custom was practiced in other places also, even by Diaspora communities after the Exile. The practice was not constructive, however, and ultimately led to sin (19b).

תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ Ashes…were taken up. One of the daily services in the Temple was תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, the removal of ashes from the altar. The altar represents the connection between God and Israel (Rashi, Ex. 20:21) and resting upon it is the נֵר תָּמִיד, the deeply symbolic “eternal flame,” which is never to be extinguished (Lev. 6:6). The ashes are removed to ensure that it continues to burn well. תְּרוּמָה, however, does not literally mean “remove,” but rather “lift”; the form evolved in rabbinic Hebrew from the biblical verb הֵרִים, see Leviticus 6:3. (A תְּרוּמָה in the biblical usage of the form is a thing “raised” in status from profane to holy; a gift offered to God.) The term, then, hints at a significance to the lifting of the ashes in itself, beyond the functionality of removing them; the ashes, which are the residue of the offerings brought to God, retain some worth of their own. This perspective is supported by Rashi’s view that the lifting of the ashes (from their place on the altar to the floor beside it) is performed daily, while their removal from the premises is only carried out as required (Lev. 6:4;Ḥullin90a; for an opposing view see Ra’avad on Rambam’s Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 2:7 and Mishneh LaMelekh ad loc. 2:13). In any case, while the removal of the ashes is performed in ordinary garments, suggesting that it is not a ceremonial service but simply a functional task, the lifting of the ashes is performed in the priestly garments, though only in two of the usual four, suggesting a service which is partly functional and partly ceremonial in its own right. בִּקְרִיאַת הַגֶּבֶר At cock’s crow. Literally, “the man’s call.” The Talmud (20b–21a) debates whether this was the call of a specific man (such as Gevini the crier, who is mentioned in Shekalim 5:1) or whether the word גֶּבֶר refers figuratively to the rooster; this is clearly the meaning of the phrase in other places, where it is used, similarly, to describe the beginning of the day. Rambam (Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 2:11) skirts the issue, simply stating that the service begins at dawn. מֵאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה At the first watch. The Tosefta (cited in Berakhot 3b) records a dispute as to whether the night is divided into three or four “watches.” Both Rashi (Yoma 20a) and Rambam (Hilkhot Temidim UMusafim 2:11) take the view that there are only three. On the festivals, then, the ashes are lifted at the very beginning of the second watch. During the festivals, in order to cope with the large volume of offerings brought by the festival pilgrims, the preparations for each coming day (including the removal of ashes) must begin earlier in the night (20b). On Yom Kippur as well, there is a need to begin preparations early. Rashi explains that since the entire service falls to the High Priest’s responsibility, his busy schedule demands that the process begin during the night. Rashi assumes that the terumat hadeshen is performed by the High Priest himself. Tosafot disagree, claiming that terumat hadeshenis not an integral rite of the day (see above) and so may be performed by a lay priest. As the task is a physically demanding one, however, and the strain of fasting causes weakness, the rite is brought forward to midnight to allow more time for its completion. The Yerushalmi cites Rabbi Mana, who explains that the terumat hadeshen, which required the officiating priest to run up and down the altar ramp, close to the burning fire, was so demanding that the rite needed to begin even earlier, as early as the first watch. He suggests emending the mishna accordingly. עַד שֶׁהָיְתָה הָעֲזָרָה מְלֵאָה The courtyard would be crowded. “Festivals” certainly refers to the three pilgrimage festivals, when the pilgrims would arrive early, eager to bring their offerings. The Tiferet Yisrael suggests that Yom Kippur may also be included in this statement, bringing, as it did, crowds of people to witness the day’s service (see mishna 3:4 and 7:2).