וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree. The mishna implies that even he agrees with the mishna’s ruling.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר מַשְׁמָע מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מַשְׁמָע וּמַשְׁמָע מִמֵּילָא פְּלִיג Abaye said: Since the Master, i.e., Ulla, said: In some stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse precludes the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse describing a previous stage, whereas in other stages, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and also apply in subsequent stages. Since it is clear from the opinion of the Rabbis that the verse describing the taking and dipping of hyssop is to be understood as indicating a change of conditions, perforce Rabbi Yehuda must also assume that there is a change in conditions, as explained above. Therefore, he certainly disagrees with the mishna’s ruling, even though his dissenting opinion is not recorded in the mishna.
וְהִזָּה הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא טָהוֹר מִכְּלָל שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא לִימֵּד עַל טְבוּל יוֹם שֶׁכָּשֵׁר בְּפָרָה The Gemara expounds the next verse: “And the pure one shall sprinkle upon the impure” (Numbers 19:19). The previous verse already states that the one who sprinkles must be ritually pure. This requirement is repeated here to make the following inference: He is pure, which by inference suggests that initially he was ritually impure and has now removed that impurity. This fact is significant only if the reference is to a person who has still not completed his purification process. As such, the repetition of the requirement that the one who sprinkles be pure teaches about one who immersed that day, that he is qualified to sprinkle the waters in the rite of the red heifer. This is one who was rendered ritually impure with a type of ritual impurity from which he will become fully ritually pure only upon nightfall.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי כִּי הֲווֹ בַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּפָרָה לָא מַסְּקִי מִינַּהּ אֶלָּא כְּמַאי דְּמַסֵּיק תַּעֲלָא מִבֵּי כְרָבָא אֶלָּא אָמְרִי מַשְׁמָע מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מַשְׁמָע וּמַשְׁמָע מִמֵּילָא Rabbi Asi said: When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish analyzed the passage of the red heifer to try to identify a consistent pattern in the way the implied conditions should be understood, i.e., when they exist to preclude conditions implied in previous stages, and when they imply conditions that remain in force in subsequent stages. They brought up from it only as the amount of earth that the fox brings up from a plowed field, meaning that they reached few conclusions. Rather, they said in conclusion that in some verses the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse preclude the application of conditions that are implied by a previous verse; whereas in other verses, the conditions implied by the phrasing of the verse stand on their own and apply also in subsequent verses. However, there is no obvious pattern of how to determine which verse employs which style.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כׇּל הַשְּׁחִיטוֹת כְּשֵׁירוֹת בְּזָר חוּץ מִשֶּׁל פָּרָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא לֹא מָצִינוּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּזָר פְּסוּלָה A tanna who would recite baraitot in the study hall recited a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: All slaughterings are valid if performed by a non-priest, except that of the red heifer. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go out and teach that baraita outside the house of study, but not inside, as it is incorrect. We have not found any case of a slaughtering by a non-priest that is invalid.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְתַנָּא דְּלָא צָיֵית אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבֵּיהּ לָא צָיֵית דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק שְׁחִיטַת פָּרָה בְּזָר פְּסוּלָה וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּשֵׁירָה לֹא מָצִינוּ שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה בְּזָר The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan was very convinced of this. Needless to say that he did not listen to that tanna, but he did not even listen to his own teacher, who maintained the same opinion as cited by the tanna, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The slaughtering of the red heifer by a non-priest is invalid. Rabbi Yoḥanan added: And I say it is valid, for we have not found any case of a slaughtering by a non-priest that is invalid.
בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה מַאי שְׁנָא בְּוִידּוּי רִאשׁוֹן דְּלָא אָמַר וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּוִידּוּי שֵׁנִי דְּאָמַר וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ The mishna states: The High Priest comes and stands next to his bull a second time and confesses: Please God, I have sinned…I and my family and the children of Aaron, your sacred people. The Gemara asks: What is different about the first confession that he made over the bull, in which he did not say: And the children of Aaron, your sacred people, and what is different about the second confession in which he said: And the children of Aaron, your sacred people?
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כָּךְ הִיא מִדַּת הַדִּין נוֹתֶנֶת מוּטָב יָבֹא זַכַּאי וִיכַפֵּר עַל הַחַיָּיב וְאַל יָבֹא חַיָּיב וִיכַפֵּר עַל הַחַיָּיב The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: That is the method to which the attribute of justice lends itself: Better that an innocent person should come and gain atonement on behalf of the guilty, and a guilty person should not come and gain atonement on behalf of another guilty person. At the first confession, the High Priest has still not achieved atonement for himself. Therefore, it is more appropriate for him to wait until the second confession to seek atonement for the priesthood.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁחָטוֹ וְקִבֵּל בְּמִזְרָק אֶת דָּמוֹ וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְמִי שֶׁהוּא מְמָרֵס בּוֹ עַל הָרוֹבֶד הָרְבִיעִי שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרוֹשׁ נָטַל מַחְתָּה וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּפִנָּה גֶּחָלִים אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ וְחוֹתֶה מִן הַמְעוּכָּלוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְיָרַד וְהִנִּיחָהּ עַל הָרוֹבֶד הָרְבִיעִי שֶׁבָּעֲזָרָה MISHNA: The High Priest would slaughter the bull and receive its blood in a bowl, and give it to the one who stirs it. The stirrer would stand on the fourth row of tiles in the Sanctuary and stir the blood lest it coagulate while the High Priest sacrificed the incense. He would take a coal pan and ascend to the top of the altar and clear the upper layer of coals to this side and to that side and with the coal pan scoop up coals from among the inner, consumed coals. And he would then descend and place the coal pan with the coals on the fourth row of tiles in the Temple courtyard.
בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיָה חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל כֶּסֶף וּמְעָרָה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל זָהָב וְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל זָהָב וּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס The mishna comments on some of the contrasts between the service and protocols followed on Yom Kippur and those followed throughout the rest of the year: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies.
בְּכׇל יוֹם חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין וּמְעָרֶה לְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּכׇל יוֹם חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל סְאָה וּמְעָרֶה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין וּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. But on this day, the High Priest scoops with one of three kav, and with it he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yosei says a variation of this distinction: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of a se’a, which is six kav and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. But on this day, the High Priest scoops with a coal pan of three kav, and with it he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies.
בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה כְּבֵדָה וְהַיּוֹם קַלָּה בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה יָדָהּ קְצָרָה וְהַיּוֹם אֲרוּכָּה בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה זֶהָבָה יָרוֹק וְהַיּוֹם אָדוֹם דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מְנַחֵם On every other day, the coal pan was heavy. But on this day it was light, so as not to tire the High Priest. On every other day, its handle was short, but on this day it was long so that he could also use his arm to support its weight. On every other day, it was of greenish gold, but on this day it was of a red gold. These are the statements of Rabbi Menaḥem.
בְּכׇל יוֹם מַקְרִיב פְּרָס בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּפְרָס בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם וְהַיּוֹם מוֹסִיף מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה דַּקָּה וְהַיּוֹם דַּקָּה מִן הַדַּקָּה On every other day, a priest sacrificed a peras, half a maneh, of incense in the morning, and a peras in the afternoon, but on this day the High Priest adds an additional handful of incense and burns it in the Holy of Holies. On every other day, the incense was ground fine as prescribed by the Torah, but on this day it was superfine.
בְּכׇל יוֹם כֹּהֲנִים עוֹלִין בְּמִזְרָחוֹ שֶׁל כֶּבֶשׁ וְיוֹרְדִין בְּמַעֲרָבוֹ וְהַיּוֹם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה בָּאֶמְצַע וְיוֹרֵד בָּאֶמְצַע רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה בָּאֶמְצַע וְיוֹרֵד בָּאֶמְצַע On every other day, priests ascend on the eastern side of the ramp and descend on its western side, but on this day the High Priest ascends in the middle of the ramp and descends in the middle. Rabbi Yehuda says: There was no difference in this regard. Even during the rest of the year, the High Priest always ascends in the middle of the ramp and descends in the middle, due to his eminence.
בְּכׇל יוֹם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְקַדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו מִן הַכִּיּוֹר וְהַיּוֹם מִן הַקִּיתוֹן שֶׁל זָהָב רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְקַדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו מִן הַקִּיתוֹן שֶׁל זָהָב On every other day, the High Priest sanctifies his hands and his feet from the laver like the other priests, and on this day he sanctifies them from the golden flask, due to the eminence of the High Priest. Rabbi Yehuda says there was no difference in this regard. Even during the rest of the year, the High Priest always sanctifies his hands and his feet from the golden flask.
בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיוּ שָׁם אַרְבַּע מַעֲרָכוֹת וְהַיּוֹם חָמֵשׁ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּכׇל יוֹם שָׁלֹשׁ וְהַיּוֹם אַרְבַּע רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּכׇל יוֹם שְׁתַּיִם וְהַיּוֹם שָׁלֹשׁ On every other day there were four arrangements of wood there, upon the altar, but on this day there were five; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day there were three, but on this day there were four. Rabbi Yehuda says: On every other day there were two, but on this day there were three.
גְּמָ׳ וְהָכְתִיב וְכׇל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה תְּנִי שֶׁל הֵיכָל GEMARA: The mishna states that the blood of the bull is stirred by a priest standing on the fourth row of tiles in the Sanctuary, while the High Priest sacrifices the incense in the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: But is it not written “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out” (Leviticus 16:17). How then could the stirrer be standing in the Sanctuary? Rav Yehuda said: Emend and teach the mishna as saying: The fourth row of tiles of the Sanctuary, i.e., outside the Sanctuary on the fourth row from its entrance.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן וְכׇל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, until he comes out.” The verse prohibits anyone to be inside the Tent of Meeting during the burning of the incense.