דף 32

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as before donning golden garments, with which the High Priest does not enter the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, the High Priest requires immersion, before donning white garments, with which the High Priest enters the innermost sanctum, is it not right that the High Priest require immersion? The Gemara asks: The a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is the comparison to golden garments, as the atonement that they effect is extensive? The High Priest serves in the golden garments throughout the year atoning for the sins of the Jewish people; he wears the white garments on just one Yom Kippur. Therefore, it is reasonable that before donning them, the High Priest would require immersion. Rather, it is derived from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

The Gemara analyzes an additional clause from the baraita cited above. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: From where are derived the five immersions and ten sanctifications that the High Priest immerses and sanctifies his hands and feet, respectively, on the day of Yom Kippur? They are derived from the verse that states: “He shall be dressed in a sacred linen tunic, and with linen trousers next to his flesh, and he shall be girded with a linen belt, and he shall wear a linen mitre; they are sacred garments, and he shall wash his flesh in water and then put them on” (Leviticus 16:4). From this you learned: Anyone who moves from an inner service, in the Holy of Holies, to an outer service, and vice versa, requires immersion. The Gemara asks: We found proof that the High Priest requires immersion when he changes from golden garments to white garments; however, from where is it derived that he requires immersion when he changes from white garments to golden garments?

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as before donning white garments, with regard to which the atonement that they effect is minimal as the priest wears them only on one Yom Kippur, immersion is required, before donning golden garments, with regard to which the atonement that they effect is extensive throughout the year, is it not right that immersion should be required?

The Gemara asks: The a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is the comparison to white garments, as he enters with them to the innermost sanctum? As the High Priest does not enter the Holy of Holies with the golden garments, apparently the sanctity of the white garments is greater. The Gemara comments: The source for the requirement to immerse when changing from white garments to golden garments is that which is taught later in the baraita: The verse states: “They are sacred garments, and he shall wash his flesh in water and then put them on” (Leviticus 16:4), meaning immersion is required before donning all sacred garments.

And they are five services: The sacrifice of the daily morning offering, performed in golden garments; the service of the day, the bull and the goat, which is performed in white garments; the sacrifice of his ram guilt-offering and the ram of the people, performed in golden garments. After that the High Priest places the spoon and the coal pan into the Holy of Holies in white garments. He emerges from the Holy of Holies and sacrifices the daily afternoon offering in golden garments and then removes the spoon and the coal pan in white garments.

And from where is it derived that each and every immersion requires two sanctifications of the hands and the feet? It is derived from the verse that states: “And Aaron shall come into the Tent of Meeting and he shall remove the linen garments that he put on when he entered the Sanctuary and leave them there. And he shall wash his flesh in water” (Leviticus 16:23–24). And it says: “And he shall wash his flesh in water in a sacred place and put on his garments” (Leviticus 16:24). The Gemara asks: That is written with regard to immersion. The washing mentioned in this verse is not sanctification of the hands and feet but rather immersion. The Gemara answers: If it is not a matter relating to immersion, which is derived from the phrase: “They are sacred garments” (Leviticus 16:4), indicating that every change of clothes requires immersion, then render it a matter relating to sanctification.

The Gemara asks: And let the Merciful One write the obligation in the language of sanctification of the hands and feet rather than the language of immersion. The Gemara answers: This language comes to teach us that in this case, the legal status of immersion is like that of sanctification. Just as sanctification of the hands and feet is performed in a sacred area, as the basin used for sanctification is situated in the courtyard, so too, the immersion before donning garments must be performed in a sacred area, not outside the Temple.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, who derives immersion before donning the golden garments from this verse and does not derive anything from the phrase: They are sacred garments, from where does he derive the obligation to perform sanctification of the hands and feet? The Gemara answers: He derives it as an a fortiori inference from the inference of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: In a place that the Torah does not require immersion it nevertheless requires sanctification of the hands and feet; therefore, in a place that the Torah requires immersion for all changes of garments, is it not right that it requires sanctification of the hands and feet?

Rav Ḥisda said: That statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to immersion and sanctification is an original opinion to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to sanctification, and to the exclusion of the opinion of the Rabbis. It is to the exclusion of the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis said that he sanctifies his hands and feet when he is dressed, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: He sanctifies them when he undresses. And it is to the exclusion of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir said: With regard to this last sanctification that he performs after each immersion, he sanctifies his hands and feet when he is dressed. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: He sanctifies them when he undresses.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Everyone agrees with regard to the second sanctification that one dresses, and afterward sanctifies his hands and feet. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “Or when they approach the altar to serve, to burn an offering by fire to God, they shall wash their hands and feet so that they do not die” (Exodus 30:20–21). This teaches that the priest who is obligated to sanctify his hands and feet is one who is lacking only the element of approach to the altar to begin performing the service, to the exclusion of that priest who has not yet donned the priestly vestments, who is lacking both the element of donning priestly vestments and the element of approach to the altar. Sanctification of the hands and feet prior to the service is performed when he is already dressed.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Neither does Rav Ḥisda, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the priest performs the two sanctifications before donning the garments, agree with Rav Aḥa, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the sanctification is done after donning the garments; nor does Rav Aḥa, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the sanctification must be performed directly prior to the service, agree with Rav Ḥisda, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the two sanctifications are performed before donning the garments. As, if they do agree, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there are fifteen sanctifications. For each change of garments he would require three sanctifications: One when he undresses, one prior to dressing, and one after he is dressed.

§ It was taught in the mishna: They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, which he slaughtered [keratzo]. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of keratzo? Ulla said: It is a term meaning killing. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the verse that indicates this meaning? It is stated: “Egypt is a very fair heifer, but the keretz out of north is come, it is come” (Jeremiah 46:20). The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that keretz means killing? The Gemara explains: It is as translated by Rav Yosef: Egypt is a fair kingdom, but murderous nations will come upon it from the north. The Gemara asks: When he slaughtered the sheep, to what extent did he do so? Ulla said: He slaughtered the animal with a cut through the majority of each of the two organs, the windpipe and the gullet, which is sufficient to render the animal ritually slaughtered.

And similarly, Rav Yoḥanan said: With the majority of each of the two organs. And Reish Lakish also held: With the majority of each of the two organs. This is indeed Reish Lakish’s opinion, as Reish Lakish said: Once we learned in the halakhot of ritual slaughter that the majority of one organ is like the whole, why was it necessary that we also learn there that in order for the slaughter to be valid it requires the majority of one organ in a bird and the majority of each of two organs in an animal? That is clear based on the principle that one organ is required in a bird and two in an animal. Rather, since we learned: They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, which he slaughtered by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe, and a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel, and the High Priest received the blood in a vessel and sprinkled it on the altar; one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete cutting through the two organs, the slaughter would be invalid.

The Gemara asks: How is it possible that one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete cutting through the two organs, the slaughter would be invalid? If that is so, the completion of the slaughter is a Temple service performed by another on Yom Kippur. And it was taught in a baraita: All Yom Kippur services are valid only if performed by the High Priest. The Gemara answers that this is what Reish Lakish is saying: Clearly, there is no requirement by Torah law to complete the slaughter of the two organs. One might have thought that it would be invalid by rabbinic law;