MISHNAH: He scrambled the urn [To make sure that he had no control about which lot he grabbed in each hand.] and brought up the two lots; one had written on it “for Hashem [Cf. Chapter 3, Mishnah 9, Notre 144.] ”, and the other had written on it “for Azazel [Since הָאֶ֥בֶן הָאָֽזֶל (IS. 20:19) is a monolith, עז-אזח is a strong monolith, either a rocky mountain top or a sheer cliff, in the words of the verse (Lev. 16:22) “in a cut (or cut-off) land.”] ”, with the executive officer to his right and the head of the serving family to his left. If the Eternal’s came up in his right hand, the executive officer said to him, “Sir High Priest, lift you right hand.” But if it came up in his left hand, the head of the serving family said to him. “Sir High Priest, lift your left hand.” He puts them on the two he-goats [Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side.] and says, “for Hashem a purification offering” [In Lev. 16:9 the expression וְעָשָׂה֭וּ חַטָּֽאת׃ cannot mean “sacrificed it as purification offering” since its slaughter is prescribed only in v. 15; it must mean “declare it as purification sacrifice.”] . Rebbi Ismael says, it was not necessary to say “a purification offering,” only “for Hashem” [Since both he-goats already were taken as purification sacrifices, v. 5.] , and they answer, “praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever.”
HALAKHAH: “He scrambled the urn,” etc. Not only an urn but even baskets. And why did they say, an urn? To give solemnity to the act. Could one not bring two threads, one white and one black, tie them to them [Tie the threads to the horn of the he-goats.] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says [Lev. 16:8.] , one lot for the Eternal, that it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could he not bring two pebbles, [put on them] [Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector.] and say, this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, [so it shall be recognizable that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it shall be recognizable that it was for Azazel. Could one not write on them] [Addition (probably unnecessary) by the corrector.] saying this is for Hashem and this is for Azazel? The verse says, one lot for the Eternal, that it itself be proof that it was for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, that it itself be proof that it was for Azazel. This implies that they [The lots, boxwood or gold, were used every year and were permanently engraved.] were engraved.
It was stated similarly [Babli Bava batra 122a.] : The Land of Israel was distributed by two urns, one containing the lots, the other containing the names of the tribes. Two young priests [Literally: Flowers of the priesthood.] were standing, what each of them brought up he won [They simultaneously drew lots before Eleazar the High Priest with Urim and Tummim, which paired territories with tribes.] . By three ways the Land of Israel was divided up, by lots, and Urim and Tummim, and by payments. That is what is written [Misquote of Jos. 18:10.] Joshua threw them lots before the Eternal at Mispeh. Lots, these are the lots. Before the Eternal, these are the Urim and Tummim. Between large and small [Num. 26:56.] , these are payments [The nature of these payments is nowhere spelled out. It seems that they were equalization payments so that the value of distributed land per head of the population would be approximately the same for all tribes; Sifry Num. 132; expanded quote in Yalqut Šimony Pinehas.#773.] . Rebbi Abin said, unless the Holy One, praise to Him, made every place nice in the eyes of its inhabitants, the Land of Israel would never have been distributed. It was stated thus [Babli Soṭah 47a.] : There are three graces. The grace of a woman in her husband’s eyes. The grace of a place in the eyes of its inhabitants. The grace of a buy in the eyes of its buyer. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus, Rebbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Levi: Even in the future the Holy one, praise to Him, will do the same. That is what is written [Ez. 36:26.] , I shall give you a new heart, etc., and shall give you a heart of flesh, etc. He makes sour the part of others [Everybody will be satisfied with his part. Gen. rabba 34, end.] .
If he touched them when they were down and they became mixed up. The he-goats are not as commanded [Since lifting the lots is a requirement which cannot be waived, the ceremony is invalid and therefore the he-goats are disqualified; a new pair has to be presented and the ceremony repeated.] . If after they were lifted he touched them and they became mixed up, the he-goats are as commanded [They remain qualified.] . If he touched them while lifting and they became mixed up [This situation is identical with the previous one, the remedy indicated in the sequel applies to every situation in which the High Priest held one lot in each hand and started lifting them.] , if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. If the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified. And even if he said, if the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand, the one on my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified; if the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, the one on my right hand side shall be sanctified, it is sanctified [Since all these cases are possibly correct.] . But if he said, whether the Eternal’s comes up in my right hand or the Eternal’s comes up in my left hand, only that to my right hand side shall be sanctified, only that to my left hand side shall be sanctified, it is not sanctified, since he established it by mouth [The verse requires that the lot determine the fate of the he-goats, but the language in the last case excludes this.] .
[Sifra Aḥare Pereq 2(2); Babli 37a.] The Torah said, lots. Lots made of anything [They may be made of any material.] . I could think that he should put two lots on one and two lots on the other, the verse says, lots, one lot for the Eternal and one lot for Azazel. I could think that he should give the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on one and the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on the other, the verse says, lot. Is that not the previous argument? It should be so: I could think that after he gave the Eternal’s on the Eternal’s and Azazel’s on Azazel’s, he could go back and switch, the verse says, one lot for the Eternal, there is only one for the Eternal, and one lot for Azazel, there is only one for Azazel.
The diadem was inscribed “Holy for the Eternal”, “holy” below and “Eternal” above [The diadem worn by the High Priest when officiating; Ex. 28:36. As explained in the parallels in the Babli (Šabbat 63b, Sukkah 5a) and in Yerushalmi Megillah1:11(71d 1. 57) only the four letters of the Name were in the upper line and קדוש ל on the bottom.] , like a king who sits on his throne [Greek καθέδριον. τὸ , "small chair".] . And similarly, “one” below and the Name above [On the lot was inscribed not only “for the Eternal” but “one for the Eternal”.] . Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome [He reports to have seen the High Priest’s vestment in Rome, Meˋilah 17b.] and it was written on it in one line, “Holy for the Eternal”.
Aaron shall put [Lev. 16:8.] , if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified [If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid.] . Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified [The drawing of lots from the urn by a non-Cohen is invalid and disqualifies the he-goats from being used in any sacrificial way.] . An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons [Aaron’s sons are not mentioned in the entire Chapter, only Aaron himself.] are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons [If a non-Cohen puts the lots on the he-goats, they remain qualified. This can happen only following Rebbi, who extends the space where the ceremony can be held in the courtyard of Israel. For everybody else the statement means that if the lots are not put on the he-goats the ceremony still is valid.] are not mentioned, not so much more [Lev. 16:8 mentions that Aaron has to put the lots on the he-goats; that the lots have to be drawn first is an inference, not a separate statement. If the drawing is not written in the verse, Aaron cannot be mentioned in connection with it.] ? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive [From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission.] , if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not [From the preceding it follows that in the text the places of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” must be switched. “Obstructive” means that the ceremony (and all which follows) become invalid by its omission.] obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive [Babli 39b.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth [For him the drawing of lots is not indispensable; Babli 39b.] . They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow [Since the entire service is restricted to one day, this can only mean that for R. Joḥanan it is possible to predetermine the he-goat which is to be the purification sacrifice.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots [These sentences have to be switched. For R. Yannai, for whom drawing of lots is indispensable, the lots have to be mentioned. But for R. Joḥanan , for whom the fate of the he-goats can be predetermined, why are lots mentioned at all?] ? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds [The position of R. Joḥanan is modified. He will agree that using an urn in the service is required. In the case that the High Priest loses the lots which he is lifting, the ceremony does not have to be repeated, the he-goats do not become disqualified, and he can proceed to select the he-goat to be sacrificed following the rules spelled out earlier.] . A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed [Since the objection cannot be answered, practice has to follow R. Joḥanan . Babli 40a.] .
For the Eternal [Lev. 22:26.] , to include the he-goat which is sent away that it can be disqualified for lacking time [A he-goat which is not at least eight days old may not be used on the Day of Atonement. Even though the he-goat sent into the wilderness is not a sacrifice, by the process of drawing lots it is a potential sacrifice and has to be qualified as such. Babli 63b, Sifra Emor Parasha 8(6).] . This comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth [Since for him it might be the choice of the High Priest to select the he-goat as sacrifice, one understands that a separate verse is needed to require both he-goats to be eligible at the same time. But for R. Yannai, for whom only the drawing determines which animal is chosen, it should be obvious that both have to be eligible. Then why is a separate verse needed?] . They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why is there said, lots? Should we not be concerned that maybe it is drawn for the Eternal? He explains it if he wants to draw lots [To prohibit that one could take the risk that an ineligible animal be drawn as sacrifice and in this case start again with another pair and a new drawing.] .
If one slaughtered outside [Outside the Temple domain, which is a deadly sin for sacrifices.] the two he-goats [There really are three he-goats on that day, the two mentioned in Lev. 16 and the holiday purification offering mentioned in Num. 29:11. The latter is referred to as “he-goat made outside” since its blood is poured onto the altar in the courtyard, where its inner parts are burned. The he-goat chosen as sacrifice by drawing lots is referred to as “he-goat made for inside” since its blood is sprinkled inside the sanctuary (and its body burned outside the sacred domain.) Since there is no reason to treat the holiday purification offering differently from all other holiday offerings, the question asked here must refer to the he-goats subject to drawing lots of which only one is going to be a sacrifice.] of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed [It is clear that for “inside” one has to read “outside” since the question is asked about the he-goat whose blood is to be brought inside, and if it was slaughtered in the Temple it cannot be slaughtered a second time outside. If the he-goat for outside was slaughtered, the main ceremony is concluded Lev. 16:24; the remaining he-goats cannot be sacrifices and their slaughter outside the sacred domain is no offense.] . Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically [A Pesaḥ sacrifice after the 14th of Nisan is a well-being sacrifice. Babli 63a.] , but here it changes by slaughter [The he-goat chosen by the lot cannot be changed into the he-goat for outside.] . How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive [Since the opinion of Rav Ḥisda is refuted, that the Tannaim refer to two different situations and do not disagree, one has to find the root of the disagreement. The text as it stands seems unintelligible; there seems to be unanimity that here also the mentions of “obstructive” and “not obstructive” have to be switched. If drawing is obstructive, neither of the two he-goats is a sacrifice before the drawing, and slaughter outside cannot be sinful. But if it is not obstructive, each one of the he-goats is a potential dedicated sacrifice and outside slaughter is sinful.] . There is only one here for Hashem [Since only one of the he-goats can become a sacrifice, the argument last given is invalid (unless both he-goats are simultaneously slaughtered outside.)] . Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s [Since the latter he-goat is not a sacrifice.] . Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift [As described in Mishnah 3, the blood of the bull has to be brought inside. This is called “the gift of the bull’s blood.”] . But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood [The he-goat chosen to be the Eternal’s is slaughtered after the bull, but the bull cannot be slaughtered before the he-goat is chosen and ready to be slaughtered.] .
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable [In the biblical narrative (Lev. 16), first the he-goat has to be selected by drawing lots (v. 8), then the bull has to be slaughtered (v. 11), then first incense (v. 12) and afterwards the bull’s blood (v. 14) have to be brought into the Sanctuary, then the he-goat has to be slaughtered and its blood brought into the sanctuary (v. 15). If the order was reversed and the he-goat selected close to the time of its slaughter, is the ceremony invalid and therefore the slaughter a violation of the prohibition of work on the day of Atonement, and a deadly sin?] ? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull [Slaughter of the bull is invalid unless the he-goat was selected; slaughter of the he-goat is invalid unless the bull was slaughtered first (and its blood brought inside, Babli 61a).] . This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams [The blood has to be sprinkled first inside the Holiest of Holies at the place of the Ark in the First Temple, between the beams used to carry the Ark. In the Second Temple, the place was indicated by a stone, but the terminology was not changed. Then it had to be sprinkled in the Sanctuary onto the gobelin separating it from the Holiest of Holies. Babli 40a.] .
MISHNAH: He tied a shiny strip on the head of the he-goat to be sent away [Between its horns.] and put it next to its departure gate, and on the one to be slaughtered around the place of its slaughter [Around its neck, so it clearly would be distinguished from the he-goat chosen for the musaph sacrifice at the end of the service.] . He came to his bull a second time, leaned both his hands on it and confessed, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem, I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned before You, I and my house, and the Sons of Aaron, your holy people. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts,” etc [The text should be completed by the duly amended text of Mishnah 3:9.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are three strips [Strips of purple wool were used in the Temple not only rabbinically for the he-goats on the day of Atonement but also biblically for the purification ceremony of the person healed from skin disease (Lev.14:4,6) and the preparation of the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19:6).] . The one for the he-goat for a tetradrachma, for the sufferer from skin disease for a sheqel [Rabbinically half a tetradrachma, two denarii. The old Canaanite (biblical) sheqel was about twice as much, cf Qiddušin 1:1, Note 122.] , for the Cow for two tetradrachmas. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta, for the Cow for two tetradrachmas and a half; some express it in the formulation ten zin [Defined in Terumot 10:7 (Note 80) as 1/100 of a (probably Roman) pound. 2.5 tetradrachma are 10 denarii. Since an Augustean denar was 1/96 of a Roman pound (silver), 10 zin are 9.6 denarii] .
MISHNAH: He slaughters it [The bull, which is large enough and has enough blood so that the High Priest does not need help in the slaughter.] and receives its blood in a pitcher which he hands to one [An assisting Cohen.] who stirs it on the fourth level [There were twelve steps leading from the level of the altar to the entrance of the Temple Hall. Every third step was widened and denoted a level. The fourth, top level was level with the entrance door, so that the High Priest, when he returned from offering the incense, immediately could pick up the blood and re-enter the Temple.] of the Temple Hall so it should not congeal [After he picks up the incense which is to be given onto the coals inside the Temple. All coals mentioned here are charcoal; mineral coal being unknown at that time.] . He took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar where he cleared away coals to both sides and collects coals on the fire pan from the interior well-burned ones, descends, and puts it on the fourth level in the courtyard.
HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: on the fourth level in the courtyard [In the Mishnah, “on the fourth level of the Temple Hall” is identical with “on the fourth level in the courtyard”. It cannot mean “on the fourth level in the Temple Hall” since during the ceremonies of the day of Atonement nobody but the High Priest is permitted to enter the Sanctuary (Lev. 16:17). Babli 43b last line.] .
It was stated: If he slaughtered outside he is liable [If he slaughtered the bull outside the sacred domain, he is twice liable for extirpation, for violating the holiday and for sacrificing outside. This is obvious and only was stated as contrast to the next statement.] , if he took the fistful inside he is not liable [As explained in Mishnah 5:1, after he collected the coals other Cohanim bring to him the vessel containing the incense, of which he has to take a fistful and then enter the Sanctuary with the fire pan and the incense. It is difficult to see how he could take the fistful inside since no other Cohen is permitted there on this day, but if he did it the action is valid since there is no verse prescribing that the fistful has to be taken in the courtyard.] . If he collected coals and burned the incense when the blood was spilled, he has to bring another bull and enter with its blood [Since the verse is clear that incense may be burned only after the bull was slaughtered and that the bull’s blood must be brought inside the Sanctuary after it was filled with incense smoke.] . If the blood was spilled before he burned the incense, it is an invalid collection of coals and he has to start again collecting coals. If there was a doubt whether the blood was spilled before he burned the incense or after he burned the incense, you cannot bring another bull and enter with its blood since I am saying that the blood was spilled before he burned the incense and the collection of coals was invalid, and he has to start again collecting coals. You cannot do this since I am saying that the blood was spilled after he burned the incense and the collection of coals was valid, and he is liable because of unnecessary entry. The service has to stop. You find to say, the services of that day are annulled.
If he slaughtered and died [Lev. 16:3 requires that Aaron come to the sanctuary with a bull. R. Simeon ben Laqish reads the verse as implying that any other Cohen cannot use his bull’s blood. All other authorities read the same verse as permitting the blood to another Cohen, as explained at the end of the paragraph.] . May the other [This is the late Amora usually called R. Ḥinena. Babli 49a.] enter with his blood. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, with a bull, but not with its blood [Presuming that somehow the incense did not become impure by the impurity of the dead, may the replacing Cohen use the first’s fistful even though his own fist probably is of different size?] . Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both are saying, even with the blood. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies even with the blood. For Rebbi Ḥanina [Lev. 16:12. For the blood it is not written “the blood which he collected”; therefore the blood is transferable.] , Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , even with the blood. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, if he took a fistful and then died, may one enter with his fistful [Discussion of Mishnah 5.] ? Why does he question his fistful? For it is written, his fistful [Lev. 16:8.] , but here it is not written “his blood” [Standing between the two he-goats, the lot in his right hand is put on the he-goat to his right, and the one in his left on the he-goat to his left side.] . It is obvious for him, even with the blood.
MISHNAH: Every day he collects coals in a silver fire-pan and empties them into one of gold; on this day he collects in a golden one and takes it inside [To make the officiating easier on the High Priest. It is obvious that these silver and gold vessels must have been made of alloys of baser metals to stand the heat.] . Every day he collects in one of four qab [A qab is 2.13 liter, 4 quartarii.] and empties into one of three qab but on this day he collects in one of three qab which he takes inside. Rebbi Yose says, every day he collects in one of a seah [6 qab.] and empties into one of three qab but on this day he collects in one of three qab which he takes inside. Every day it [The fire-pan for the incense, which was adapted to make the High Priest's work easier.] was heavy, but this day light. Every day its handle was short, but this day long. Everyday its gold was greenish [As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy.] , but this day reddish, the words of Rebbi Menahem.
HALAKHAH: [Discussion of Mishnah 5.] As we have stated there [Mishnah Tamid 5:5, about the daily taking of coals from the altar for the incense burning.] : “If about a qab of it was scattered, he swept them into the water canal; but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine cooler [Greek ψυκτήρ. The scribe’s spelling is in parentheses, the corrector’s in brackets.] .”
“Every day it was heavy, but this day light.” Not to tire him.
“Everyday its handle was short, but this day long.” Not to tire him. Every day it was less that a short cubit [It is not clear whether this means a cubit of 5 hand-breadths or one of 6 handbreadths of a small person.] , but this day it was a cubit, and a half, so that his arm could lend support. Everyday it did not have a sheath [Greek ναρθήκιον. The fire-pan was of metal.] , this day it had a sheath, lest he should be burned [With Tosaphot 44b s. v. בכל reading יכווה for תכבה.] . But does this not separate [Since the verse requires that the High Priest carry the fire-pan in his hand (Lev.16:12), nothing may be between his hand and the fire-pan.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it was held by a nail [The sheath is an integral part of the pan; this is not separation. According to Tosaphot (44b s.v.בכל יום) this is possible even if the sheath was of leather.] .
[Babli 44b, Midrash Hazita (Shir rabba) 3(17) on 3:9, Num. rabba 12.] There are seven kinds of gold: good gold [Gen.2:12.] , pure gold [Ex. 24:11,24; 25:17,32,36,37; 37:2,6] , closed gold [IK. 7:50.] , Mufaz gold [Dan. 10:5.] , refined gold [“Refined” is found in the Bible only applied to silver, see the Halakhah.] , drawn gold [1K. 10:10, 17, 2Chr. 9:15, 16.] , Parwayim gold [2Chr. 3:6.] .
Good gold, as its name says. [And the gold of this land is good. [Gen.2:12.] [Corrector's addition, probably from the parallels.] ] Rebbi Isaac says, it is good to have in one’s house, it is good to accompany one.
Pure gold, which one brings into the fire and nothing is missing. (As) [It comes as] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s (supported by the reliable parallel in Midrash Hazita); the one in brackets is the corrector’s.] it was stated: It happened that the golden candelabrum which Moses made in the desert was in excess of one denar, and they returned it to the fire eighty times and it did not lose anything [. The text in Midrash Hazita seems original: The candelabrum the of Temple turned out to be in excess of that made in the desert by the weight of a Gordian denar; they refined it in fire 80 times until it lost that extra weight. The weight of the candelabrum itself is not defined in the Bible, only that the candelabrum and all its appurtenances have to be made from one talent (3’000 sheqel) of pure gold.] . This is correct. Before it is refined it loses a lot, once it is refined it will not miss anything.
Closed gold, which makes all other kinds of gold look like silver. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written, And seven thousand talents of refined silver to cover the walls of the House [1Chr. 29:4, in the list of preparations David made for the Temple to be built by Solomon.] . The entire House he covered with gold [1K. 6:22, in the report on the actual building of the Temple.] , and you are saying so [Why is silver suddenly called gold?] ? But it was making all other kinds of gold look like silver.
Mufaz gold. Rebbi Patroki the brother of Rebbi Drosa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Bina: It looks like fire which was kindled with sulphur. Rebbi Abbin, it is called after its place, and gold from Ufaz [Jer. 10:9.] .
Refined gold, one was cutting it up like olives, form it into dough, and feed it to ostriches; they filter it. But some are saying, that they were burying it in manure for seven years.
Drawn gold. It could be drawn like wax. Hadrian had the weight of an egg of it. Diocletian had the weight of a Gordian denar [One of the few coins minted during the inflationary period of the military anarchy in the Roman Empire with a reputation of being honest. Cf. D. Sperber, Roman Palestine200–400 Money and Prices, Ramat Gan 1974.] of it.
Parwayim gold. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, red, it is like ox blood, but some are saying, gold which produces fruits. As we have stated there [Mishnah Middot 3:5. Babli 21b.] , “a golden vine was standing at the door of the inner hall.” Rebbi Aḥa bar Isaac said, at the time when Solomon built the Temple, he formed all kinds of trees in it and at the time when those outside where bearing fruit, those inside where bearing fruit. That is what is written [Is. 35:2.] , blooming the blossom and jubilate, also enjoying and singing, etc. When did they dry up? Rebbi Isaac Ḥinena bar Isaac said, when Manasse put up at statue in the Temple they dried up, as it is written, and the flower of the Lebanon is wilted [Nah. 1:4. For “Lebanon” as sobriquet for the Temple cf, IK. 7:2.] .
MISHNAH: Every day he sacrifices one half [Latin pars, -rtis, f The full portion was the weight of one mina, or 25/24 of a Roman pound (cf. Note 64).] in the morning and one half in the evening, but on this day he adds a fistful [The incense to be burned in the Holiest of Holies, in contrast to the larger amount burned on the incense altar in the sanctuary.] . Every day it was fine but this day finese [Incense to be burned on the altar is just called “incense” but the one destined for the Holiest of Holies has to be “fine incense” (Lev. I 6:8); it is inferred that it has to be finer than regular incense.] . Every day the Cohanim ascend on the East side {of the ramp} and descend on the West side, but this day they [“They” are only the High Priest, who this day does the sacral acts unaided. There is no danger of a traffic jam.] ascend and descend in the middle. Rebbi Jehudah says, the High Priest always ascends in the middle and descendes in the middle. Every day the High Priest sanctifies his hands and legs from the basin put this day from a gold pitcher [Identified by Buxtorf as Latin cothon, Greek κώθων, but this denotes a drinking vessel, not a pitcher.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, always the High Priest sanctifies his hands and legs from a gold pitcher.
HALAKHAH: [Babli Keritut6a/b.] The compounding of the incense: balsamum, and cloves, galbanum and frankincense, each in the weight of 70 maneh [It is not obvious whether the reference is to the Semitic maneh, 60 šeqel, or the Greek mnā, 100 denar (drachmē). In the rabbinic system 1 šeqel = 2 denar. Since in all other circumstances we find that מנה denotes 100 denar (weight or money) there is no reason to assume that here the situation is different, even though the traditional vocalization in this context is מָנֶה.] . Myrrh and cassia, spicenard and saffron, each in the weight of sixteen maneh. Costus twelve, bark three, cinnamon nine. You find that there were 365 maneh according to the days of the year and three for this day [The total amount adds up to 368 maneh.] . That is what we have stated: “but on this day he adds a fistful.” Carshina [Name of a plant, usually leeks (in Arabic, peas or a related vegetable.) In the Babli, “Carshina lye“; as shown by the next paragraph, this must be the reading here also. Qab as a volume is a fluid measure.] nine qab, (Qanrisin) [caper] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the scribe was very consistent in his spelling of the name, this is not a scribal error and the corrector’s has to be classified as copied from the Babli. The word used by the scribe is a hapax, its meaning is unknown. If it is from قنّار “small onions”, the meaning of the Yerushalmi term is close to the of the Babli, wine with added vegetable aroma.] wine three seah and three qab. If he has no (Qanrisin) [caper] wine he brings aged whitish wine. Sodom salt [Dead Sea salt.] a quarter. Some smoke producing herb. Rebbi Nathan says, also some (Qafra) [Kifa] [Here also the corrector’s version in brackets is the Babli text, against the scribe’s in parentheses. An aromatic plant also mentioned in Tosephta Demai 1:29 (cf. S.Liebermann, Tosefta ki-fshutah, Zeraim vol, 1, New York 1955, p. 208).] of the Jordan. If he added honey he invalidated it. If he left out one of its ingredients he is liable for death [Babli 53a. Again spelling of corrector following the Babli. Probably the Babylonian pronunciation of qtaf was close to the Galilean of qtav. עֵץ can mean both “tree” and “bush”.] .
It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, balsamum is only the sap of the (qtab) [qtaf] [Babli 53a. Again spelling of corrector following the Babli. Probably the Babylonian pronunciation of qtaf was close to the Galilean of qtav. עֵץ can mean both “tree” and “bush”.] tree. For what comes Carshina lye? In it one polished the cloves. For what does (Qanrisin) [caper] wine come? In it one (polishes) [soaks] [Here the correction of the corrector following the Babli seems to be correct.] cloves that it should be strong. Would not be urine good for this? Only one does not introduce bad smell into the Temple courtyard because of decorum [Babli Roš Haššanah 32a.] . And when he was pulverizing he was saying: be well pulverized, be well pulverized, for voice is good for compounding. If he left out one of its ingredients or added honey he invalidated it. If he failed to add salt [Babli Menaḥot20a.] or added [Obviously this must read “did not add”. Babli 53a.] smoke producing herb he became liable for death. Rebbi Zeˋura said, and he sins because of unnecessary entry [If the incense is disqualified, entering the Sanctuary with it is sinful.] .
It was stated: Bar Qappara said, the perfumers in Jerusalem were saying, if one would add some honey, the entire world could not withstand its smell.
It was stated: If one compounded half of it it is qualified. Thirds and quarters we did not hear. Rebbi said, in its proportion it is qualified. Therefore, what one said, if one compounded half of it it is qualified, half of every ingredient. Once in sixty or seventy years half of it was coming from leftovers. That is, “what was one doing with excess incense” [Mishnah Šeqalim 4:5. The Mishnah implies that leftover incense powder at the end of the year was a common occurrence.] ?
It was stated [Babli Zevahim 109a.] : If he burned [Of incense correctly compounded.] the size of an olive outside he is liable; less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable [“Not liable” usually means “forbidden but not punishable.” The Babli, probably more correctly, has: less than a pars (Note 90).] . Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah [The first generation. Babylonian Amora.] : The public has fulfilled its obligation [Since no weights or measures are given in the biblical text.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah [The student of R. Zeˋira.] , since it was stated that if he burned the size of an olive outside he is liable, from this you infer that less than the volume of an olive inside he is not liable [If he only is liable for a full olive-sized amount outside, he cannot be liable for less than an olive-sized piece inside. If this is formulated as separate statement, it must mean that he is not liable and the action is irrelevant. The statement of Rav Jeremiah must be in the Babylonian tradition referring to a pars.] .
Fine [Lev. 16:12.] . What does the verse say? Because it was said, you shall pulverize it finely [Ex. 31:36. If the entire year the incense must be a fine powder, what does the remark mean that on the Day of Atonement it be fine?] . Then why is it said, fine? That it be most fine. What does he do? He separates the mina on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and returns it to the mortar to fill from it his fistful to observe “most fine. [Babli 45a, Keritut_6b.] ”
Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification [This now refers to Mishnah 8, that the High Priest does not use the basin but a golden pitcher. Since the first sanctification from the basis is a biblical requirement (Ex. 30:20–21, 40:30) it cannot be waved.] . Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels [All containers. Zevaḥim 21b/22a.] in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive [The place between the Tent of Meeting and the altar (Ex. 30:18). If the basin is not in its place, no service can be held.] .
MISHNAH: Every day there were four arrangements [The formal arrangement of wood on the altar. For R. Meïr the first one is in the morning for the daily sacrifice, the second for taking charcoal for the daily burning of incense on the interior altar, the third to make sure the fire is not extinguished for the remainder of the day, the fourth to burn through the night.] and this day five [Additional logs from which the High Priest takes charcoal to bring into the Holiest of Holies.] , the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, everyday three and this day four. Rebbi Jehudah says, every day two and this day three.
HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? [He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b.] And the fire on the altar shall be lit there, you shall not extinguish, that is the arrangement which keeps the fire. And the Cohen shall burn on it, that is the arrangement for disposal of limbs and fat. And arrange on it the elevation sacrifice, this is the main arrangement. And burn as incense on it the fats of the well-being sacrifices, this is the incense. Rebbi Yose does not have the arrangement for disposal of limbs. Rebbi Jehudah does not have the arrangement which keeps the fire. How does Rebbi Jehudah explain a permanent fire [Lev. 6:6.] ? The fire which I told you that it be permanent only shall be on the outer altar [He holds that any Sanctuary fire can be made only on top of the outer altar, including the one used to light the candelabrum. Babli 45b.] .
Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre [On the altar.] and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath [The remainders of Friday sacrifices have to be burned in the following night which is Sabbath.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here [Maybe “every day” excludes Friday evening.] ? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five [Since everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Megillah 1:5), if the special arrangement for the night is prescribed for the day of Atonement it also must be prescribed for the Sabbath.] ”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside [Since the sacrifice is valid if the blood was poured on the walls of the altar, the later disposal cannot invalidate. If one would leave the remainders unburned and after the Sabbath burn them outside the sacred domain, everything would remain valid. Why should the Sabbath be pushed aside for this, even though it has biblical justification?] ? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive [Even in times when the New Moon was proclaimed on the basis of testimony, the Supreme Court had the possibility of declaring the New Moon based on their computations (Mishnah Roš Haššanah 2:11.] and push aside, as we have stated there [Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:11.] : “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”
From where the arrangement of the Day of Atonement [That the wood on the altar has to be prepared specially for the requirements of the day and therefore needs an extra arrangement, in addition to the daily ones.] ? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Coals [Lev. 16:12.] . Why does the verse say, of fire? That it should be insignificant on its coals. [Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(5); Babli Pesaḥim 75b.. The following text is Tannaitic, not of the sayings of R. Jeremiah. It is missing in a Genizah fragment (Ginzberg, p. 118) and therefore may be a later addition. This explains the reduplication of the argument.] “Coals, I could think smouldering; the verse says of fire. If of fire, I could think flames; the verse says coals of fire, from those crackling ones. And from where that the fire should be insignificant on the coals? The verse says, coals of fire.”
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, the shew-bread did not become disqualified during travel time [Since the shew-bread has to be on the table in the Sanctuary (Lev. 24:5–9) it is obvious that bread taken out of a stationary Sanctuary becomes disqualified. The question is whether it also became disqualified when the Sanctuary around it was removed by divine command during the wanderings of he Israelites in the desert.] . [Rebbi Joḥanan said, the shew-bread became disqualified during travel time.] [Addition by the corrector; sentence missing in the Genizah fragment published by Ginzberg (Note 159). The Babli, Menaḥot95a, reports a disagreement of R. Joshua ben Levi and R. Joḥanan about this subject.] Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: just as they camped so they travelled [Num. 2:17.] , since it did not become disqualified when they were camping so it did not become disqualified when they were travelling. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of [Num. 2:17.] camps, as if in the center of camps.
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who burns sancta outside during travel time is flogged [Private altars and sacrifices outside the central sanctuary are forbidden, Lev. 17. In the absence of a central sanctuary, private altars are permitted, Mishnah Zevaḥim 14:4–8. If a central Sanctuary exists but is temporarily unavailable, the prohibition remains in place; Menaḥot95a.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, sancta became rejects during travel time [Sacrifices must either be burned on the altar in the courtyard of the Sanctuary or eaten within sanctified enclosures. If all enclosures are removed, all leftovers of sacrifices are automatically disqualified. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.] ; the impure remain separated each one according to his partition [Num. 5:1–4. A person suffering from gonorrhea is excluded from the dwelling of the Levites, a sufferer from skin disease also from the camp of the Israelites. Since they were marching in military order, the impure were excluded from the marching order. Babli Zevaḥim 60b as tannaitic statement.] . Rebbi Yose said, the following is frequent in the mouth of the rabbis: When the gobelins were removed, the partitions were permitted to sufferers from gonorrhea and skin disease [During travel times there is no inside and the impure cannot be sent outside.] . A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. [Since R. Joshua ben Levi is not mentioned in the present paragraph, the reference to him has to be to the preceding one. The reference to R. Joḥanan is incomprehensible; the quoted baraita does not refer to any previous statement but to the following of R. Jehudah.] A baraita [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10), a baraita of R. Jehudah. Anywhere “permanent” is mentioned, it overrides restrictions. Since “permanent” is mentioned for the fire of that altar, Lev. 6:6, the priests have to tend the fire on the Sabbath even if all of them are impure. But “permanent” also is mentioned for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:8); this overrides the absence of the walls of the Sanctuary. By the same token, R. Joshua ben Levi has to hold that the altar fire has to be tended on the march; following R. Jehudah in the sequel.] supports Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “Permanent, even on the Sabbath; permanent even in impurity.” A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan , “you shall not extinguish it, even during travel [Continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10) on Lev. 6:6.] . What did they do [at travel time] [Addition by the corrector; it should be deleted since by removing it the sentence and the next are again continuation of Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(10).] ? They put a wine-cooler [As an alloy with coarse metal; reddish gold probably was a copper alloy.] over it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, even at travel time they were removing ashes from it, as it is said [Num. 4:13.] , they shall remove the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it.” If the altar were burning, would the purple cloth not be burned? What does Rebbi Jehudah do with this? They put a wine-cooler over it. How does Rebbi Jehudah validate they shall remove the ashes from the altar? They shall saturate it; as Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, he ate, and was sated, and saturated [In all cognate languages דשן, دسم means “to be fat”. The use of דשן as “ashes” must mean “ashes from fatty material”. R. Jehudah will not extend the extended meaning of the noun to the corresponding verb.] .