רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עַרְבִית מִשֶּׁל שַׁחֲרִית. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The daily afternoon offering is derived from that of the morning. The phrase: “The one lamb,” refers to the lamb of the daily morning offering, and the daily afternoon offering is derived from it.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַאי בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם כְּתִיב. אֶלָּא רַבִּי, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד״, אֵיזֶהוּ כֶּבֶשׂ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״אֶחָד״? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תָּמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of the Rabbis who hold that this verse is written with regard to the daily afternoon offering based on the preceding verses, they can explain that the daily morning offering is derived from the daily afternoon offering. However, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the afternoon offering is derived from the morning offering? Rabba bar Ulla said that the verse states: “For the one lamb.” Which is the lamb with regard to which it is previously stated: One? You must say: That is the lamb of the daily morning offering (see Exodus 29:39).
וְרַבָּנַן: מַאי ״אֶחָד״ — מְיוּחָד שֶׁבְּעֶדְרוֹ. וְרַבִּי: מִ״ומִּבְחַר נְדָרֶיךָ״ נָפְקָא. וְרַבָּנַן: חַד בְּחוֹבָה וְחַד בִּנְדָבָה, וּצְרִיכִי. And according to the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the term: One? It means the special lamb that is one in his flock. The lamb for the daily offering should be of the highest quality.
And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive that principle? The Gemara answers that in his opinion, the principle is derived from that which is written: “And all the choicest of your vow-offerings” (Deuteronomy 12:11). One is required to fulfill his vow by offering the animal of the highest quality.
And how do the Rabbis interpret this verse? They interpret that one verse refers to the requirement to bring the animal of the highest quality for obligatory offerings and one verse refers to the requirement to bring the animal of the highest quality for gift-offerings. And both verses are necessary, as otherwise it would not have been clear that this requirement applies to both. On the one hand, one might think it is only with regard to obligatory offerings that the animal of the highest quality must be sacrificed. On the other hand, one might think it is only with regard to a gift-offering that the animal of the highest quality must be sacrificed, as if it is not of the highest quality, it is better not to sacrifice it at all.
אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל זָקֵן אוֹ אִיסְטְנִיס וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: עֲשָׁשִׁיּוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל הָיוּ מְחַמִּין מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וּמְטִילִין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן, כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּפִיג צִינָּתָן. וַהֲלֹא מְצָרֵף! אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי: שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְצֵירוּף. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְצֵירוּף — דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר. § The mishna continues: If the High Priest was old or delicate, they would heat hot water for him on Yom Kippur eve and place it into the cold water of the ritual bath in order to temper its chill. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: They would heat blocks of iron on Yom Kippur eve and cast them into the cold water of the ritual bath to temper its chill. The Gemara asks: But by doing so, doesn’t he harden the iron, which is a labor prohibited on Yom Kippur? Rav Beivai said: The temperature of the blocks of iron did not reach the hardening point. Abaye said: Even if you say that the temperature of the iron reached the hardening point, the fact that the iron hardened when he placed it in the water is an unintentional act, which is permitted. His intention was to temper the chill of the water, not to harden the iron.
וּמִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בְּשַׂר עׇרְלָתוֹ״, אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם בַּהֶרֶת — יָקוֹץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: קָרָא לְמָה לִי? וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר. And did Abaye actually say that an unintentional act is permitted? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), from which it is derived that one may cut the foreskin and circumcise the baby even if there is a white spot of leprosy there? He may do so even though the Torah prohibits excising a white spot of leprosy. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. And we discussed this matter: Why do I need a verse to permit it? His intention is not to excise the leprosy but to fulfill the mitzva of circumcision. And Abaye said: The statement of Rabbi Yoshiya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that performing an unintentional act is prohibited. Therefore, a special verse is necessary to permit circumcision in that case. Apparently, Abaye holds that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits even unintentional acts. Why, then, does he explain that Rabbi Yehuda permits placing blocks of iron into the water if his intention is not to harden the iron?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי, בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא צֵירוּף דְּרַבָּנַן הוּא. The Gemara answers: When Abaye said that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits unintentional acts, that applies only to actions prohibited by Torah law that appear in the whole Torah in its entirety. However, here, hardening the blocks of iron is not a labor prohibited by Torah law but is prohibited by rabbinic law, as a decree intended to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest. Rabbi Yehuda concedes that unintentional performance of prohibitions by rabbinic law is permitted.
מַתְנִי׳ הֱבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית הַפַּרְוָה, וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָתָה. פֵּרְסוּ סָדִין שֶׁל בּוּץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם, קִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פָּשַׁט, קִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. יָרַד וְטָבַל, עָלָה וְנִסְתַּפָּג. הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִּגְדֵי לָבָן, לָבַשׁ וְקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. MISHNA: They brought the High Priest to immerse a second time in the Hall of Parva, which was in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard. They spread a sheet of fine linen between him and the people in the interest of modesty. And he sanctified his hands and his feet and removed his garments. Rabbi Meir says that this was the sequence: He first removed his garments and then he sanctified his hands and his feet. He descended and immersed a second time. He ascended and dried himself. And they immediately brought him the white garments, in which he dressed, and he sanctified his hands and his feet.
בַּשַּׁחַר הָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ פִּלּוּסִין שֶׁל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה. בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם הִנְדְּוִיִין שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּשַּׁחַר הָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ שֶׁל שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר מָנֶה, וּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, הַכֹּל שְׁלֹשִׁים מָנֶה. אֵלּוּ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, וְאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף — מוֹסִיף מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. In the morning he would wear linen garments from the Egyptian city of Pelusium worth twelve maneh, 1,200 dinars or zuz. These garments were very expensive due to their high quality. And in the afternoon he wore linen garments from India, which were slightly less expensive, worth eight hundred zuz. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: In the morning he would wear garments worth eighteen maneh, and in the afternoon he would wear garments worth twelve maneh. In total, the clothes were worth thirty maneh. These sums for the garments came from the community, and if the High Priest wished to add money to purchase even finer garments, he would add funding of his own.