מפת הסוגיא — יומא ע׳Sugya map — Yoma 70

המשנה התירה לכהן הגדול לדלג בקריאתו (מ״אחרי מות״ ל״ובעשור״), אך סייגה: ובלבד שלא ידלג מסוף הספר לתחילתו — שאז הדילוג גלוי לכול.

All this is provided that he does not skip from the end of the book to its beginning, since then it would be clear to everyone that he is skipping text.

המשנה: הכהן הגדול גולל את ספר התורה, מניחו בחיקו ואומר ״יותר ממה שקראתי לפניכם כתוב כאן״. הגמרא: וכל כך למה? כדי שלא להוציא לעז על ספר התורה — שלא יחשבו שמה שקרא בעל פה אינו כתוב בו.

§ It was taught in the mishna: The High Priest furls the Torah scroll and places it on his bosom and says: More than what I have read before you is written here. The Gemara comments: And why must he say all this? It is so as not to cast aspersions on the Torah scroll, because people might think that the portion he read by heart is not written there.

המשנה: פרשת ״ובעשור״ שבחומש הפקודים (במדבר כ״ט) נקראת על פה. הגמרא: למה על פה — נגלול את הספר לאותה פרשה ונקרא מן הכתב? רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע בשם רב ששת: לפי שאין גוללין ספר תורה בציבור, מפני כבוד הציבור — שלא להטריחם להמתין.

§ It was further taught in the mishna: The Torah portion beginning with the verse: “And on the tenth,” from the book of Numbers (29:7), he reads by heart. The Gemara asks: Why does he read it by heart? Let him furl the scroll to that portion and read it from the text. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: It is because one may not furl a Torah scroll in public, out of respect for the community. It is inappropriate to make the community wait until they have reached the next section.

קושיא: ויביאו ספר תורה אחר הגלול כבר לאותה פרשה, ויקראו ממנו! רב הונא בר יהודה: שמא יחשבו שהביאו ספר שני מפני פגם שנמצא בראשון. ריש לקיש: משום שיצטרך לברך שוב — ברכה שאינה צריכה.

But why not let another Torah scroll be brought that has previously been furled to that portion and read from it? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: People might mistakenly think the second scroll was brought due to a flaw that was found in the first one. And Reish Lakish said a different reason: A second scroll should not be brought due to the fact that doing do will cause an unnecessary blessing to be recited; before reading from a new scroll the High Priest would have to repeat the blessings required upon reading from the Torah. Therefore, it is preferable that he read by heart.

קושיא על טעם הפגם: וכי חוששים לפגם? והרי אמר ר׳ יצחק נפחא: ראש חודש טבת (שחל תמיד בחנוכה) שחל בשבת — מביאים שלושה ספרי תורה וקוראים: אחד בעניין היום (פרשת השבוע), אחד של ראש חודש, ואחד של חנוכה. משמע שאין חוששים לפגם בריבוי ספרים.

The Gemara questions Rav Huna bar Yehuda’s answer: Are we really concerned that people will think the first scroll had a flaw? Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa say: When the New Moon of Tevet, which always occurs during Hanukkah, occurs on Shabbat, one brings and reads from three Torah scrolls. One reads from one scroll the topic of the day, i.e., the weekly portion; and from one scroll the portion of the New Moon; and from one scroll a passage related to Hanukkah. It is apparent from the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa that many Torah scrolls may be used, and there is no concern that people will mistakenly think one or more had a flaw.

תירוץ: יש לחלק — שלושה אנשים הקוראים בשלושה ספרים אין בו חשש פגם, שראוי לכל אחד ספר משלו. אבל אדם אחד הקורא בשני ספרים — יש חשש שיאמרו שהשני בא מחמת פגם בראשון.

The Gemara explains: When three men read from three scrolls there is no concern that people will think there was a flaw, since people assume that it is befitting for each individual to receive his own scroll. But when one man reads from two scrolls, there is a concern that people will think there is a flaw, and they will not realize that this was done only to avoid forcing the community to wait while the scroll was furled.

המשנה: ומברך עליה שמונה ברכות. ברייתא מפרטת: על התורה — כדרך שמברכים בבית הכנסת; על העבודה; על ההודאה; על מחילת העוון כתקנה; על המקדש בפני עצמו; על הכהנים בפני עצמן; על ישראל בפני עצמן; ועל שאר התפילה.

§ It was taught in the mishna: And the High Priest recites eight blessings after the reading. The Sages taught in a baraita that these are the eight blessings: The blessing concerning the Torah is recited in the usual way one recites a blessing in the synagogue: Who gives the Torah; The three blessings: concerning the Temple service, concerning thanksgiving, and concerning pardon of iniquity, are all recited according to their established forms in the prayers; The blessing concerning the Temple in and of itself; The blessing concerning the priests in and of themselves; The blessing concerning the Jewish people in and of itself; The blessing concerning the rest of the prayer.

ברייתא נוספת: נוסח ברכת ״שאר התפילה״ — ״רנה תחינה בקשה מלפניך על עמך ישראל שצריכין להיוושע״, וחותם ב״שומע תפילה״. ואחר שסיים הכהן הגדול, כל אחד ואחד מביא ספר תורה מביתו וקורא בו, כדי להראות את יופיו לרבים — נוי מצוה.

The Sages taught in another baraita: And the blessing concerning the rest of the prayer reads: Song, supplication, petition before You for Your people Israel, who need to be saved. And he adds an additional supplication and concludes the blessing with: The One Who hears prayer. And after the High Priest concludes his reading, each and every person present brings a Torah scroll from his house, although in fact each person had already brought one on Yom Kippur eve, and reads from it for himself in order to show its beautiful appearance to the community. This is considered beautification of the mitzva.

המשנה: הרואה את הכהן הגדול קורא בתורה אינו רואה את הפר והשעיר הנשרפים, ולהיפך — לא מפני שאסור לראות שניהם, אלא מפני המרחק שביניהם והעשייה בעת ובעונה אחת. הגמרא: פשיטא! מה היה מקום לאסור? אלא הוצרכה המשנה לומר ״לא מפני שאינו רשאי״, שמא תאמר כריש לקיש שאמר: אין מעבירין על המצוות.

§ It was taught in the mishna: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned, and vice versa. This is not because one is not permitted to see both but because there is a distance between them and they are performed simultaneously. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is not due to a prohibition; what possible reason could there be to prohibit this? The Gemara answers: This was taught explicitly lest you say that it is prohibited in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: One does not pass over the opportunity to perform mitzvot, even if it is in order to perform a different mitzva.

ומה המצוה שבראיית קריאת הכהן הגדול שבגללה היה מקום לחשוש לאיסור? קיום ״ברוב עם הדרת מלך״ — שריבוי העם במצוה מכבד את ה׳. לכן השמיעה המשנה שאין כאן איסור אלא קושי מעשי בלבד.

The Gemara clarifies why this principle might have applied here. And what mitzva is there in hearing the reading of the High Priest? It is a fulfillment of the principle expressed in the verse: “The king’s glory is in the multitude of people” (Proverbs 14:28). Having a large assembly involved in a mitzva gives honor to God. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the problem with seeing both events was only a practical one.

משנה: אם קרא בתורה בבגדי בוץ (לבן), קידש ידיו ורגליו, פשט את בגדי הלבן, ירד וטבל, עלה והסתפג (התנגב), והביאו לו בגדי זהב ולבש, וקידש ידיו ורגליו.

MISHNA: If the High Priest read the Torah in sacred white fine linen garments, he then sanctified his hands and feet as he did each time before removing the priestly vestments. He then removed the linen garments, descended to the ritual bath, and immersed. Afterward he ascended and dried himself with a towel, and they brought him the golden garments of the High Priesthood, and he dressed in them and sanctified his hands and feet.

ויצא והקריב את אילו (איל הכהן) ואת איל העם ואת שבעת הכבשים תמימים בני שנה — דברי ר׳ אליעזר (שהם קרבים כאן, בסיום העבודה). ר׳ עקיבא חולק: שבעת הכבשים קרבו עם תמיד של שחר; ופר העולה והשעיר הנעשה בחוץ קרבו עם תמיד של בין הערביים.

The mishna addresses those offerings whose sacrifice has still not been mentioned. The verses in Leviticus, chapter 16, detail the special offerings of the atonement service of Yom Kippur. Of those offerings, the ram of the High Priest and the ram of the people have still not been addressed. In addition to this, the additional offerings of Yom Kippur detailed in Numbers, chapter 29, have not yet been discussed. These include seven one-year-old lambs and a bull to be brought as a burnt-offering and a goat to be brought as a sin-offering. The mishna continues: He emerged and offered his ram and the ram of the people and the seven unblemished year-old lambs mandated to be offered that day. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: Those offerings were not sacrificed at this point; rather, they were sacrificed with the daily morning offering; and the bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering; and the goat whose services are performed outside of the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, were sacrificed with the daily afternoon offering.

לאחר הקרבת קרבנות אלו: קידש ידיו ורגליו ופשט את בגדי הזהב, ירד וטבל ועלה והסתפג.

After sacrificing these offerings, he sanctified his hands and feet and removed the golden garments, and he descended into the ritual bath and immersed and ascended and dried himself.

הביאו לו שוב בגדי לבן ולבש, וקידש ידיו ורגליו. נכנס לקודש הקודשים להוציא את הכף (שבה הקטורת) ואת המחתה. קידש ידיו ורגליו ופשט, ירד וטבל עלה והסתפג.

They brought him the white garments again, and he dressed in them and sanctified his hands and feet. Afterward he entered the Holy of Holies to take out the incense spoon and the coal pan, which he had brought there earlier. He again sanctified his hands and feet and removed the white garments and descended to the ritual bath and immersed and ascended and dried himself with a towel.

הביאו לו בגדי זהב ולבש, וקידש ידיו ורגליו, ונכנס להקטיר את קטורת בין הערביים ולהיטיב את הנרות (סיום עבודת היום). וקידש ידיו ורגליו ופשט, ירד וטבל עלה והסתפג.

They brought him the golden garments, and he dressed in them and sanctified his hands and feet and entered the Sanctuary to burn the afternoon incense and to remove the ashes from the lamps, which signified the end of the day’s service. And he sanctified his hands and feet and removed the golden garments, and he descended to the ritual bath and immersed and ascended and dried himself.

הביאו לו את בגדי עצמו ולבש — שכבר נסתיימה העבודה ועבר יום הכיפורים, ומלווים אותו עד ביתו לכבודו. ויום טוב (משתה ושמחה) היה עושה לאוהביו בשעה שיצא בשלום מן הקודש.

They then brought him his own clothing and he dressed, since the service was complete and Yom Kippur was over; and the people escort him to his house in deference to him. And the High Priest would make a feast for his loved ones and his friends when he emerged in peace from the Sanctuary.

גמרא: נסתפק לחכמים בלשון ר׳ עקיבא. האם כוונתו: שבעת הכבשים קרבים עם תמיד של שחר, ואילו פר העולה ושעיר החוץ קרבים עם תמיד של בין הערביים?

GEMARA: It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva said the seven lambs were sacrificed with the daily morning offering; and the bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering; and the goat whose services are performed outside of the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, with the daily afternoon offering. It is unclear whether the middle clause concerning the bull should be read as a continuation of the first clause, or as relating to the latter clause. The Gemara seeks to clarify this ambiguity. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is Rabbi Akiva saying? Does he mean to say the seven lambs were sacrificed with the daily morning offering, whereas the bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering and the goat whose services are performed outside were sacrificed with the daily afternoon offering?

או שמא כך כוונתו: שבעת הכבשים קרבים עם תמיד של שחר, ופר העולה עמהם (עם השחר), ורק שעיר החוץ קרב עם תמיד של בין הערביים.

Or perhaps this is what he is saying: The seven lambs were sacrificed with the daily morning offering and the bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering together with them, whereas the goat whose services are performed outside, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, was sacrificed with the daily afternoon offering.

ועוד ספק: פר העולה — שר׳ אליעזר השמיטו מרשימתו — מתי הכהן הגדול מקריבו?

And furthermore, another dilemma: With regard to the bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering, according to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: Since he omitted mention of it, it must be clarified when the High Priest performs its sacrifice. Is it sacrificed at this point in the day, or at another time?

ועוד ספק: בין לר׳ אליעזר ובין לר׳ עקיבא — שניהם לא הזכירו את אימורי החטאת (חלקי הקרבן הקרבים על המזבח) — מתי מקטירם?

And furthermore, another dilemma: According to both Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion and according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, since neither of them mentioned the portions of the sin-offering to be consumed on the altar, it must be clarified when the High Priest performs their service and places them on the altar.

רבא: אינך מוצא הסבר מתוקן ושלם לסדר אלא באחת משתי דרכים — או לשיטת ר׳ אליעזר כפי ששנו בבית מדרשו של שמואל, או לשיטת ר׳ עקיבא כפי שמובא בתוספתא.

Rava said: You will only find it properly explained either according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as taught by the school of Shmuel, or according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva as taught in the Tosefta.

דבי שמואל לר׳ אליעזר: יצא ועשה את אילו ואיל העם ואימורי החטאת (כאן, בסיום); אבל פר העולה, שבעת הכבשים והשעיר הנעשה בחוץ — עם תמיד של בין הערביים.

The school of Shmuel taught that Rabbi Eliezer says: He came out and offered his ram and the ram of the people and the portions of the sin-offering to be consumed on the altar. But the bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering and the seven lambs and the goat whose services are performed outside were sacrificed with the daily afternoon offering.

ומהי שיטת ר׳ עקיבא שבתוספתא? ר׳ עקיבא: פר העולה ושבעת הכבשים קרבו עם תמיד של שחר, שנאמר ״מלבד עולת הבוקר אשר לעולת התמיד״ — שהמוספים קרבים עם התמיד; ואחר כך עבודת היום (המיוחדת ליום הכיפורים).

What is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion as taught in the Tosefta? As it was taught that Rabbi Akiva says: The bull of the Yom Kippur burnt-offering and the seven lambs were sacrificed with the daily morning offering, as it is stated with regard to the additional offerings of other Festivals: “Besides the morning burnt-offering which is the daily burnt-offering you shall sacrifice these” (Numbers 28:23), indicating that the additional offerings of the day should be sacrificed together with the daily offering. And afterward the service of the day, which is unique to Yom Kippur, is performed.

המשך התוספתא (ר׳ עקיבא): ואחר כך השעיר הנעשה בחוץ, שנאמר ״שעיר עזים אחד חטאת מלבד חטאת הכיפורים״ — שקרב לאחר עבודת היום; ואחר כך אילו ואיל העם, ואחר כך אימורי החטאת, ואחר כך תמיד של בין הערביים.

And afterward, the goat whose services are performed outside is sacrificed, as it is stated: “One goat for a sin-offering besides the sin-offering of atonement and the daily burnt-offering, and its meal-offering, and their libations” (Numbers 29:11), indicating that the goat sin-offering is sacrificed after the other offerings of the day. And afterward he offers his ram and the ram of the people, and afterward he places upon the altar the portions of the sin-offering to be consumed on the altar, and afterward he sacrifices the daily afternoon offering.

מה טעם ר׳ אליעזר? הכהן הגדול עושה כסדר הכתוב בתורה: תחילה את העבודות הכתובות בתורת כהנים (ויקרא ט״ז), ואחר כך את אלו שבחומש הפקודים (במדבר כ״ט).

What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? The High Priest acts in accordance with the order in which it is written in the Torah: First he performs the services described in Leviticus, and afterward he performs the additional offerings mentioned in the book of Numbers.

ומה טעם ר׳ עקיבא? כפי שכבר שנינו בתוספתא: ״מלבד עולת הבוקר אשר לעולת התמיד״ — מכאן שהמוספים קרבים עם תמיד של שחר.

And what is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning? His reasoning is that as the Tosefta teaches that the verse states: “Besides the morning burnt-offering which is the daily burnt-offering you shall sacrifice these” (Numbers 28:23), it is apparent that the sacrifice of the additional offerings should be performed together with the daily morning offering.

ולר׳ אליעזר, מה הוא דורש מ״מלבד חטאת הכיפורים״ (שממנו למד ר׳ עקיבא)? פסוק זה נצרך לו ללמד: על מה שזה (שעיר הפנימי שדמו ניתן בקודש) מכפר — זה (שעיר החיצון שבעזרה) מכפר.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this verse: “Besides the sin-offering of atonement,” which was the basis for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion? That verse is necessary for him to derive from it that for what this one, the goat sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, atones, that one, the goat sin-offering of the additional offerings whose services are performed in the Temple courtyard, also atones.

התוספתא (בשם ר׳ עקיבא) מביאה גרסאות בחלוקת שבעת הכבשים: ר׳ יהודה משמו — אחד קרב עם תמיד של שחר, וששה עם תמיד של בין הערביים. ר׳ אלעזר ברבי שמעון משמו — ששה קרבים עם תמיד של שחר, ואחד עם תמיד של בין הערביים.

§ The Tosefta cited above, which recorded the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, also records additional versions of his view: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One of the seven lambs is sacrificed with the daily morning offering, and the other six are sacrificed with the daily afternoon offering. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: Six are sacrificed with the daily morning offering and one with the daily afternoon offering.

מה טעמם (ר׳ יהודה וראב״ש שמחלקים את הכבשים)? שני כתובים סותרים נכתבו: ״מלבד עולת הבוקר״ (משמע בבוקר), ו״ויצא ועשה את עולתו״ — שעולת העם (=המוספים) קרבה בערב. לכן מקריב מקצתם כאן (בשחר) ומקצתם כאן (בערב).

What is the rationale of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who divide the sacrifice of the seven lambs into two parts? Two verses are written that suggest different times at which the additional offerings are sacrificed: It is written with regard to the additional offerings: “Besides the morning burnt-offering which is the daily burnt-offering you shall sacrifice these” (Numbers 28:23), implying that the additional offerings are sacrificed in the morning. But it is also written that upon concluding the service of the day: “And he shall exit and make his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:24). As the phrase: “The burnt-offering of the people,” is referring to the additional offerings, this verse implies that the additional offerings are sacrificed in the afternoon. Therefore, in order to fulfill both verses, he performs the sacrifice of some of them here, in the morning, and some of them there, in the afternoon.

במאי פליגי ר׳ יהודה וראב״ש? ר׳ יהודה סובר: מקריב כבש אחד בבוקר כדכתיב ״מלבד עולת הבוקר״, ואחר כך עושה את עבודת היום — שמא יחלש הכהן הגדול אם יקריב יותר, ולא יוכל להשלים את עבודת היום שאי אפשר בלעדיה.

With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar disagree? Rabbi Yehuda holds that the High Priest performs the sacrifice of one lamb in the morning, as it is written: “Besides the morning burnt-offering,” and then he performs the service of the day before he proceeds to sacrifice the other six lambs. Initially, only the minimum possible number of lambs is sacrificed lest the High Priest become weak by doing more. He might then be unable to complete the service of the day, which cannot be performed by anyone else and without which atonement cannot be achieved.

וראב״ש סובר: כיוון שהתחיל בהקרבת הכבשים, יעשה שישה ויניח אחד לערב — שמא יפשע ולא יקריב אחר כך כל כך הרבה. ואין חשש שיחלש מעבודת היום, כי לגבי עבודת היום הכהן הגדול זריז.

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds: Since he has begun to sacrifice the lambs he performs the sacrifice of six of them, leaving over only one until the afternoon. He sacrifices the maximum possible number of lambs now lest he be negligent later and fail to sacrifice so many at the close of the day. There is no concern that by doing so he might become weak and be unable to perform the service of the day, because with regard to the service of the day, the High Priest is diligent and will always muster the energy needed.

על כל פנים, לכל הדעות יש רק איל אחד לעם. כשיטת מי? כרבי. ברייתא: רבי אומר — איל אחד האמור כאן (ויקרא ט״ז) הוא האמור בחומש הפקודים (במדבר כ״ט). ראב״ש אומר: שני אילים הם — אחד האמור כאן ואחד בחומש הפקודים.

The Gemara notes: Despite their disagreements, everyone agrees, however, that there is only one ram for the people. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Only one ram for the people is sacrificed, as the one stated here in Leviticus: “With this shall Aaron come into the Sanctuary: With a young bull for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 16:3), is the same one that is stated in the Book of Numbers: “And you shall sacrifice a burnt-offering to the Lord of pleasing odor: One young bull, one ram, seven unblemished year-old lambs shall be unto you” (Numbers 29:8). Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: There are two rams for the people: One that is stated here in Leviticus, which is part of the service of the day, and one stated in the Book of Numbers, which is part of the day’s additional offerings.

מה טעם רבי? דכתיב ״אחד״ — איל אחד ולא שניים. ולראב״ש, מה הוא דורש מ״אחד״? מיוחד שבעדרו — שהאיל יהיה המובחר שבעדר.

What is the rationale of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As it is written: “One,” implying one ram, not two. And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, what is the meaning of “one”? “One” indicates that the ram used should be the unique one, i.e., the best, of its flock.

ולרבי, מניין שהאיל מובחר? נפקא ליה מ״מבחר נדריך״. ולראב״ש, מדוע נצרכים שני הכתובים? אחד בא לחובה ואחד לנדבה — וצריכי, שאין ללמוד אחד מחברו.

And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive the requirement that the ram be of the best stock? He derives it from the verse: “Your choice vows” (Deuteronomy 12:11), which teaches that all offerings must be from the choicest animals. And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, why is this additional verse necessary? One verse refers to obligatory offerings, and the other one refers to free-will offerings. And both are necessary because the requirement in one case cannot be learned from the other. It is reasonable that a free-will offering must be from the choicest animal since it is a voluntary gift; and it is also reasonable that an obligatory offering should be the choicest, since an obligation must be fulfilled in the finest possible way.

המשנה: קידש ידיו ורגליו ונכנס להוציא את הכף ואת המחתה. ברייתא קשורה: ״ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד״ (ויקרא ט״ז כ״ג) — היינו לקודש הקודשים. למה הוא בא? להוציא את הכף ואת המחתה.

§ It was taught in the mishna: The High Priest sanctified his hands and feet and entered the Holy of Holies to take out the incense spoon and the coal pan. The Gemara cites a related baraita. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 16:23), which is taken to mean that he enters the Holy of Holies. Why does he come? He comes in order to take out the incense spoon and the coal pan

— שכל הפרשה (סדר עבודת היום שבויקרא ט״ז) נאמרה על הסדר, חוץ מפסוק זה (״ובא אהרן״): הוא כתוב לפני הקרבת האילים, אך למעשה הכניסה להוצאת הכף נעשית רק אחריה.

as the whole portion of the service of the day detailed in Leviticus is written in this order, and the service must be performed in that order, except for this verse, which is stated out of order and is performed only later. The verse detailing his reentry (Leviticus 16:23) is written before the verse detailing the sacrifice of the rams (Leviticus 16:24), but in fact the reentry occurs only after the sacrifice of the rams.

מנין שפסוק זה אינו על הסדר? רב חסדא: מסורת בידינו שחמש טבילות ועשרה קידושין טובל ומקדש הכהן הגדול באותו יום (בכל חילוף בגדים).

The Gemara asks: What is the reason to assume this verse is written out of order? Rav Ḥisda said: They learned as a tradition that the High Priest performs five immersions and ten sanctifications of his hands and feet when he changes clothing on that day. Each time the High Priest changes between the white and golden garments, he sanctifies his hands and feet, immerses, dresses in the new set of garments and then once again sanctifies his hands and feet.

ואם תאמר שהפסוקים כתובים על סדרם, לא תמצא אלא שלוש טבילות ושישה קידושין. כדי להגיע לחמש ועשרה צריך לומר שהכניסה (״ובא אהרן״) נעשית מאוחר יותר — ומוסיפה עוד שתי טבילות וארבעה קידושין.

And if you say that the verses, including this one, are written in order, you find only three immersions and six sanctifications. Read in order, the verses indicate only three changes of garments, which involve three immersions and six sanctifications. In order to arrive at the requisite numbers of five immersions and ten sanctifications one must assume that the High Priest’s reentry into the Holy of Holies takes place at a later time, after he has already changed into the golden garments. This would require him to change into the white garments and then back into the golden garments, providing an additional two immersions and four sanctifications.

ר׳ זירא מקשה: ושמא הפסוקים כן על הסדר, ומגיעים לחמש טבילות באופן אחר — שמפסיק את העבודה שבבגדי לבן בהקרבת השעיר הנעשה בחוץ (בבגדי זהב), המוסיפה שתי טבילות וארבעה קידושין.

Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But perhaps the order of the verses in Leviticus can be maintained, and the requisite number of immersions and sanctifications still achieved, if he interrupts the service performed in the white garments with the goat whose services are performed outside of the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, and are performed in the golden garments. The sacrifice of the goat is not mentioned in Leviticus but only in Numbers. Therefore, it could be inserted into the service of the day without compromising the order of the verses in Leviticus. The change into the golden garments and then back into the white garments would contribute an additional two immersions and four sanctifications, thus arriving at the requisite numbers.

אביי: ברור שהפסוק אינו על הסדר, שנאמר ״ויצא ועשה את עולתו״ — מיציאה ראשונה (מקודש הקודשים) מיד עושה את אילו ואיל העם, בלא הפסק; ומכאן שהכניסה (״ובא אהרן״) רק אחר כך.

Abaye said: It is clear that the verse detailing the reentry must be out of order, since the verse states: “And he shall exit and make his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:24). This is the first exit stated in the verses and implies that immediately following his first exit from the Holy of Holies, he performs the sacrifice of his ram and the ram of the people without any other interruption. If so, the reentry must occur only afterward.

רבא מביא ראיה אחרת: ״ופשט את בגדי הבד אשר לבש בבואו אל הקודש״ — מה תלמוד לומר ״אשר לבש״? וכי אדם פושט אלא מה שלבוש בו? אלא ״אשר לבש״ — שלבש כבר קודם, פשטם וחזר ולבשם; ומכאן שהפסוק עומד במקום שכבר עבר לבגדי זהב, ובהכרח אינו על הסדר.

Rava said a different proof. The verse states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 16:23). Now, the verse does not need to state “which he wore,” as this is obvious; can one remove anything other than what he is wearing? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states “which he wore”? It is referring to those garments which he had already worn previously, removed, and then worn again. It is therefore apparent that this verse occurs at a point when he had already changed out of the white garments and into the golden garments. Perforce, then, it must be out of order.

רבה בר רב שילא מקשה: ואימא שמפסיק את עבודת הלבן בהקרבת השעיר הנעשה בחוץ (בבגדי זהב), ובכך מגיע לחמש טבילות בלא להזיז את הפסוקים. הגמרא: הכתיב ״ויצא ועשה״ — מיציאה ראשונה מיד אילו ואיל העם, בלא הפסק.

Rabba bar Rav Sheila strongly objects to this: Say that the order of the verses can be maintained, and the requisite number of immersions and sanctifications achieved, if he interrupts the services performed in the white garments with the goat whose services are performed outside and are performed in the golden garments. This would provide the additional two immersions and four sanctifications required. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “And he shall exit and make his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people” (Leviticus 16:24), which implies that immediately following his first exit he performs the sacrifice of his ram and the ram of the people and the reentry to the Holy of Holies occurs only later.

קושיא על עצם הברייתא: וכי כל הפרשה על הסדר? והרי כתוב ״ואת חלב החטאת יקטיר המזבחה״ (אימורים) ואחר כך ״ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת״ (הנשרפים); ואנו שנינו במשנה: הרואה כהן גדול קורא אינו רואה פר ושעיר הנשרפים — בעוד אימורי החטאת מוקטרים אחריהם. הרי גם פסוקים אלו אינם על הסדר.

The Gemara questions the premise of the baraita: Is the entire passage really written in order? But among the verses it is written: “And he shall burn the fat of the sin-offering upon the altar”(Leviticus 16:25), and then in a later verse it is written: “And the bull of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be carried outside the camp; and they shall burn...” (Leviticus 16:27). Yet we learned in the mishna: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned, which are referred to in verse 27, while according to all opinions concerning the order of the day, the portions of the sin-offering to be consumed on the altar, which are mentioned in verse 25, are burned only afterward. Therefore, it is apparent that these verses are also not in order.

תירוץ: אמור שכוונת הברייתא — הפרשה על הסדר חוץ מפסוק זה (״ובא אהרן״) ואילך; משם והלאה אין מקפידים על סדר הכתובים.

The Gemara answers: Say that the intent of the baraita is that the verses are in order except for this verse and onward.

קושיא: ומה ראית להפוך את סדר הכתובים? אדרבה, הפוך את סדר המשנה (שתאמר שאימורי החטאת קודמים לשריפת הפר והשעיר)!

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that you preferred to rearrange the order of the verses? Instead, rearrange the order in the mishna.

אביי: הכתובים עצמם מלמדים שהשריפה אינה על הסדר — שנאמר ״והמשלח את השעיר לעזאזל״ ואחריו ״והשורף אותם״. כשם שהמשלח עושה מלכתחילה (לפני הקטרת האימורים), אף השורף עושה מלכתחילה, אף שפסוקו נכתב מאוחר.

Abaye said: It is clear that the verse detailing the burning of the remains of the bull is out of order, since the verse states: “And the one who sends the goat to Azazel” (Leviticus 16:26), and then states: “And the one who burns them” (Leviticus 16:28). The repeated use of the phrase “And the one who…” indicates that just as the one who sends the goat to Azazel does so earlier, before the portions of the sin-offering are placed on the altar to be consumed, so too, the one who burns the remains of the bull and goat does so earlier, even though the verse detailing this burning is written after the verse detailing the burning of the portions of the sin-offering.

דחייה: אדרבה, אפשר לטעון להיפך — כשם שהשורף עושה עכשיו (מאוחר), אף המשלח עושה עכשיו, אחר שאר הקרבנות.

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, one could make the opposite claim: Just as the one who burns the remains of the bull and goat does so now, so too, the one who sends the goat to Azazel does so only now, after the other sacrifices.

דחיית הדחייה: ״והמשלח״ — לשונו משמע שנעשה מעיקרא (מוקדם). רבא מוסיף ראיה: ״יעמד חי לפני ה׳ לכפר עליו״ — עד מתי זקוק השעיר לעמוד חי? עד שעת כפרה. ואימתי שעת כפרה? בשעת מתן דמים, ותו לא — ומאז נשלח לעזאזל. נמצא שהשילוח מוקדם, וממילא גם השריפה.

The Gemara explains a difficulty with this: The phrasing of: “And the one who sends” implies that it was performed earlier. Alternatively, Rava said: Sending the goat away definitely took place earlier, as the verse states: “But the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him” (Leviticus 16:10). This teaches: How long must it stand alive? It must do so until the moment of atonement. And when is the moment of atonement? It is at the moment of the presenting of the blood, but no later. At that point it is already sent away.