Yoma 71A - 71B (12th Cycle Daf Yomi Shiur)

The Gemara begins by citing a Baraita that discusses a verse describing Aharon's actions during the Temple service while wearing his white garments. The verse states that Aharon will enter the Tent of Meeting, which refers to the Holy of Holies, but it doesn't specify what service he performs there. Since we already have a verse detailing his entry to place the incense (Ketoret), the question arises: what else is he doing in the Holy of Holies?

The Gemara answers that he re-enters a second time to remove the ladle (Kaf) and shovel (Mahta) that contained the Ketoret. This implies that the entire section of the Torah (Parashat Aharei Mot) detailing the order of the Yom Kippur service is written chronologically, with the exception of this particular verse. The Gemara explains that if the verse were in chronological order, it would imply that Aharon brought in the Ketoret and immediately took out the implements. However, we know there was an intermediate stage: he brought his own ram (Ayil) and the nation's ram. The question then becomes: how do we know the verse is out of order?

The Gemara presents a tradition (Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai) that the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur would immerse five times and perform ritual hand-washing ten times, signifying five changes of garments. If the verses were strictly chronological, the Kohen Gadol would only change his clothes three times, resulting in only three immersions and six hand-washings. This discrepancy forces us to conclude that the order in the Torah is not strictly sequential. Specifically, the Kohen Gadol would wear his gold garments for the morning daily offering, then his white garments to bring in the Ketoret, then revert to gold garments for his ram and other services, then don white garments again to remove the Mahta, and finally return to gold garments for the evening daily offering. Thus, the Gemara concludes that the verse mentioning the ram must be inserted between the bringing in and taking out of the Ketoret, even though it appears later in the text.

Rava challenges this reasoning, asking why we must assume the ram is the separating element. Perhaps everything in

Parashat Aharei Mot

is in order, and the separation between bringing in and taking out the Ketoret is something else entirely—specifically, the goat for a sin-offering (Sa'ir La'Hatat) mentioned in

Parashat Pinchas

. Abaye refutes this, citing a verse that states after the Kohen Gadol wears the white garments the first time, he goes out to perform the outer service and bring his ram. This explicitly places the ram immediately after the initial white garment service, making it the necessary divider. Therefore, the verse about the ram must be out of order, having been written later but performed earlier.

The

Gaon of Vilna

offers a novel explanation for the Torah's seemingly out-of-order presentation. He suggests that while for the regular Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, the verses are indeed out of sequence to accommodate the five immersions and ten hand-washings, for Aharon himself, or for any Kohen who might enter the Holy of Holies during the year (provided he performs the Yom Kippur service), the verses are in order. Aharon, or such a Kohen, would not be bound by the specific number of immersions and hand-washings required on Yom Kippur. Thus, for them, the sequence of putting on gold garments for the morning offering, then white for Ketoret and its removal, and then gold for the ram, would be perfectly chronological.

The Gemara then asks if only the ram is out of order, implying all other sections of

Parashat Aharei Mot

are in sequence. It points to other verses that mention the burning of the bull and goat sin-offerings on the altar, followed by a verse about burning the rest of the animal outside Jerusalem. If these were in order, it would mean the burning of the innards happened before the burning of the rest of the animal outside. However, we know from a Mishnah that the Kohen Gadol reads the Torah in the Temple at a time when someone else is burning the animals outside Jerusalem. The burning of the innards on the altar, however, occurs much later, when the Kohen Gadol is again wearing his gold garments. This means the burning outside Jerusalem must precede the burning on the altar, contradicting the order of the verses. Therefore, these verses must also be out of order.

The Gemara concludes that from the verse describing the removal of the Ketoret implements onwards, everything is out of order. It then considers an alternative: perhaps we should adjust the Mishnah to fit the Torah's order, rather than declaring the Torah's verses out of order. Abaye rejects this, citing the verses that discuss the person who sends the goat to Azazel (Meshale'ach) and the one who burns the sin-offerings outside Jerusalem (Soref). These actions are mentioned at the end of the section, but we know they occur much earlier in the service, specifically before the burning of the innards on the altar. The Torah uses the past tense "Hamshale'ach" (the one who sent), indicating a completed action. Just as the sending of the goat to Azazel happened earlier, so too the burning of the sin-offerings outside Jerusalem must have happened earlier. This confirms that the verses are indeed out of order.

Rava offers an additional proof that the sending of the goat to Azazel must occur before the burning of the innards on the altar. A verse states that the goat must remain alive "until atonement was received." Atonement is achieved with the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offerings. Immediately after this, the goat for Azazel is sent off. This sequence places the sending of the goat before the burning of the innards on the altar, further demonstrating that the Torah's narrative order is not strictly chronological.

The Gemara then shifts to a new topic. It recounts that on the day after Yom Kippur, if the person who sent the goat to Azazel found the Kohen Gadol in the marketplace, he would say to him, "My master, Kohen Gadol, we have fulfilled your mission." If he found him in his house, he would say, "We have fulfilled the mission of the One who gives life to the living." Rashi explains that in the marketplace, one gives honor to the Kohen Gadol in front of people, attributing the mission to him. In the privacy of his home, one can attribute it to God. The

Maharsha

adds that it is disrespectful to mention God's name casually in the marketplace. The

Sha'arei Tzion

notes that the messenger uses the plural "we have fulfilled," implying that he and the Kohen Gadol are partners in the mission, as the messenger of a person is considered an extension of the sender. The

Meiri

views this as a matter of proper etiquette (Derech Eretz).

There is a difference of opinion regarding the phrase "the One who gives life to the living." The

Mechayeh Chaim

refers to God, while

Rabbeinu Elyakim

suggests it refers to the Kohen Gadol himself, who, through his service, brought life and a good year to the people.

The Gemara continues by stating that when rabbis would part ways, they would bless each other, saying, "The One who gives life to the living should grant you a long, good, and proper life." It then references a verse from Psalms, "I will walk before God in the land of the living." Rav Yehuda interprets this as David praying to always be near markets, where one can easily obtain provisions. David, being a nomad, prayed for constant access to sustenance.

The Gemara then quotes a verse from Proverbs, "For length of days and years of life and peace will they add to you." The Gemara asks, "Years of life? Are there years of life and years that are not years of life?" Rabbi Elazar answers yes. Years of poverty and hardship are not considered "years of life." When one's fortune changes and they become wealthy, those previous "non-life years" transform into "years of life." This means King Solomon was praying for years that are truly lived successfully and prosperously.

Another verse from Proverbs is cited: "I will call you 'women'." The Gemara notes that King Solomon refers to certain individuals as "women" (Ishim, plural of Isha) rather than "men" (Anashim). Rabbi Berachia explains this refers to Torah scholars (Talmidei Chachamim) who are similar to women in their humility, modesty, and often lack of physical strength. However, when it comes to Torah study, they demonstrate the strength and vigor of men. Some explain this refers to their self-control and ability to resist temptation. The verse also calls them "sacrifices" (Ishe), comparing them to the altar's fire. Giving wine to Torah scholars to drink is considered as meritorious as pouring wine on the altar, a "fire-offering."

The Gemara then addresses a situation where a person observes that Torah is not being learned by his descendants. To reverse this, he should marry a daughter of a Torah scholar. There are two interpretations: either the father himself should marry a second wife who is the daughter of a Torah scholar, as the daughter's exposure to Torah in her father's house will influence her children; or, if a child has strayed from Torah study, he should be married to a daughter of a Torah scholar, whose inherent goodness and connection to Torah will bring him back. This is derived from a verse in Job: "If its root grows old in the earth, and its trunk dies in the dust, at the scent of water it will bud and produce branches like a new plant." The "scent of water" refers to the daughter of a Torah scholar, who, though not a Torah scholar herself, carries the "fragrance of Torah" from her upbringing.

The Mishnah states that the Kohen Gadol would make a feast for his friends upon leaving the Holy of Holies. A Baraita recounts a story on Yom Kippur: after the Kohen Gadol emerged from the Temple, the people escorted him. When they saw

Shemaya

and

Avtalion

, two great Torah scholars, they left the Kohen Gadol and followed them instead. This offended the Kohen Gadol. However, the Halacha states that a Torah scholar, even if he were of illegitimate birth (Mamzer), is greater than an ignorant Kohen Gadol. Therefore,

Shemaya

and

Avtalion

, being great Torah scholars, deserved even greater honor. Out of respect,

Shemaya

and

Avtalion

later approached the Kohen Gadol to bid him farewell. The Kohen Gadol, still offended, said to them, "Let the children of the nations go in peace." This was a slight, as

Shemaya

and

Avtalion

were descendants of converts. They retorted, "Yes, we, the children of the nations, will go in peace, for we perform the deeds of Aharon. But you, the son of Aharon, will not go in peace, for you do not follow in the footsteps of your forefather Aharon," thereby accusing him of causing distress with his words (Ona'at Devarim). Rashi notes that this teaches us not to remind a convert of their past.

The next Mishnah discusses the garments worn by the Kohanim. The Kohen Gadol served in eight garments, while a common Kohen (Kohen Hedyot) wore four. The four garments common to both were: the tunic (Kutonet), breeches (Mekhnasayim), headgear (Mitznefet), and belt (Avnet). The

Kutonet

was a checkered linen tunic with tight sleeves, reaching to the heels. The

Mekhnasayim

were linen breeches from the waist to the knees. The

Mitznefet

was linen headgear. While the Torah calls the common Kohen's headgear a

Migba'at

and the Kohen Gadol's a

Mitznefet

, the Mishnah uses

Mitznefet

for the common Kohen's hat as well, reflecting a difference in terminology between the Torah and the Sages. The common Kohen's hat was larger than the Kohen Gadol's, as the Kohen Gadol wore the headplate (Tzitz) on his forehead, requiring space. The

Avnet

(belt) of the common Kohen was a mixture of wool and linen, dyed with sky-colored wool (Techelet), purple-colored wool (Argaman), and crimson wool (Tola'at Shani). In contrast, the Kohen Gadol's belt on Yom Kippur was purely linen.

The Kohen Gadol's additional four garments were: the breastplate (Choshen), the ephod (Ephod), the robe (Me'il), and the headplate (Tzitz). The

Choshen

was a linen breastplate, also made of Techelet, Argaman, and Tola'at Shani, with folds to hold the

Urim V'tumim

. The

Urim V'tumim

, one of God's names, would cause the stones on the breastplate to light up, providing answers to questions. The

Ephod

was an apron-like garment made of gold, linen, and the three types of wool, covering the Kohen Gadol's back. The

Me'il

was a sleeveless robe made entirely of Techelet, with a hole for the head, and bells and pomegranates along its hem. The

Tzitz

was a golden headband with God's name inscribed on it, worn on the forehead.

The

Urim V'tumim

could only be consulted when the Kohen Gadol wore all eight garments. Only important individuals, such as the King of Israel, the head of the court, or someone involved in public needs (like a Kohen going to war), could ask questions.

A Baraita discusses the weaving of the garments. When the Torah uses the word "shesh" (linen) for the Kohen's garments, it implies that the threads are woven six-fold. The Gemara explains that the word "shesh" appears five times in one verse describing the linen garments (tunic, breeches, headgear, and two types of hats). One mention is for the linen itself, another to indicate the six-fold weaving, three more to emphasize that the six-fold threads must be twined, and the final one to teach that all other garments not explicitly mentioning "shesh" must also be six-fold. The repeated mentions signify that this six-fold weaving is mandatory (Me'akev).

How do we know "shesh" means linen? Rabbi Yosi bar Hanina says it's because the Torah refers to linen garments as "Bigde Bad." "Bad" refers to flax, which grows in separate stalks, unlike a tree with many branches. Since the Kohen's garments are made of "bad" and the Torah also calls them "shesh," "shesh" must also mean linen. The Gemara considers if "bad" could refer to wool, as wool follicles also grow separately. However, wool can be split, whereas flax can only be split after beating, making flax uniquely "bad" in its individual growth. Rabina offers another proof from Ezekiel, where flax garments are explicitly called "pishtin" and linked to the Kohen's attire, reinforcing that "shesh" means flax. The Gemara clarifies that while Ezekiel provides a clear reference, the understanding that "shesh" means linen was already a tradition (Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai), and Ezekiel merely documented it, similar to how Ezekiel documented the law that an uncircumcised person cannot enter the Temple, a law known through tradition before Ezekiel's prophecy.

When the Torah uses the word "Moshzar" (twined) without "shesh," as it does for the pomegranates on the Kohen Gadol's

Me'il

, it means the threads are eight-fold. The

Me'il

itself, made of Techelet, is twelve-fold. The curtain (Parochet) is twenty-four-fold. The

Choshen

and

Ephod

are twenty-eight-fold.

To explain why "Moshzar" means eight-fold for the pomegranates, the Gemara notes that the pomegranates were made of three types of wool (Techelet, Argaman, Tola'at Shani). A

Gezerah Shavah

(verbal analogy) is drawn from the

Parochet

, which also uses the word "Moshzar." The

Parochet

had four threads, and since it was twenty-four-fold, each thread must have been six-fold (4 x 6 = 24). Therefore, for the pomegranates, which have three threads, to also be twenty-four-fold (by analogy with the

Parochet

's "Moshzar"), each thread must be eight-fold (3 x 8 = 24). The Gemara rejects comparing it to the

Choshen

and

Ephod

(28-fold), because the

Me'il

and

Parochet

do not contain gold, while the

Choshen

and

Ephod

do. It is more logical to compare items without gold to other items without gold. Furthermore, it's more logical to compare a garment to a garment, and the

Parochet

is a curtain, not a garment. Thus, the comparison is made to the

Avnet

(belt), which is a garment, does not contain gold, and has four threads that are six-fold (24 threads in total). By analogy, the pomegranates, with three threads, must be eight-fold each to reach 24 threads.

Rav Mari offers another reason not to learn from the

Choshen

and

Ephod

: the verse states "you shall make them" (Ta'asennu) specifically regarding the

Choshen

and

Ephod

, implying that only these two have 28 threads. A third reason is that the verse about the pomegranates says "you shall make" (Ve'asita), implying that all the threads must be equal in their spinning. If there were 28 threads for three types of wool, they could not be equally divided (e.g., 9, 9, and 10). However, 24 threads (8, 8, 8) allows for equal division. Therefore, the pomegranates must be eight-fold, derived from the

Avnet

.