Daf Ditty Yoma 8: Degeneration of Priesthood

1
§ Having discussed the obligation to sequester the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, the Gemara
interprets the next matter in the mishna: The High Priest is removed from his house to the
Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called
the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn’t it called the
Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

2
3
RASHI

Steinzaltz

Jastrow

4
Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were rewarded
with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei, a term
connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High Priest. However, because
people were giving money in order to be appointed to the High Priesthood, the position was filled
by unworthy individuals. Due to their wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were
replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months.
Therefore, the chamber was called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High
Priest was replaced every year, the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own
more elaborate tastes.

5
Apropos the Parhedrin chamber, the Gemara discusses a related halakha. We learned in a mishna
there in tractate Demai: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., produce purchased from an
am ha’aretz with regard to whom there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed the produce, the
Sages required bakers to separate only teruma of the tithe, which is one one-hundredth of the
produce that is given to the priests, and ḥalla, separated from the dough and given to priests.

The Gemara asks: Granted, teruma gedola, which is equal to approximately one-fiftieth of the
produce and is given to a priest, need not be separated from doubtfully-tithed produce, as it was
taught in a baraita:

This is because Yoḥanan the High Priest sent emissaries throughout all the areas located within
the borders of Eretz Yisrael to assess the situation and saw that the people were separating only
teruma gedola and were neglecting to separate tithes. Therefore, he issued a decree that anyone
who purchases produce from an am ha’aretz must be concerned about the possibility that it was
not tithed and is required to tithe it. Since even an am ha’aretz separates teruma gedola, the bakers
who purchased grain from them were not required to do so.

And granted, bakers need not separate first tithe and poor man’s tithe due to the principle: The
burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Neither first tithe, given to Levites, nor poor man’s
tithe, given to the poor, is sacred. It is merely the property of the Levite and the pauper,
respectively. Since with regard to doubtfully tithed produce, by definition, there is no certainty

6
that one is actually required to tithe it, if the Levite or the pauper should seek to take possession
of the gifts, they must first prove that in fact the produce was not tithed. However, with regard to
second tithe, why are the bakers exempt? Let them separate second-tithe from the produce, take
it up to Jerusalem, and eat it in Jerusalem, which is the halakha with regard to anyone else who
purchases doubtfully tithed produce.

Ulla said: It is because these parhedrin, government appointees, beat the bakers throughout the
entire twelve months of their tenure and tell them: Sell your baked goods cheaply, sell them
cheaply. Since the officers insist that the bakers refrain from raising their prices, the Sages did
not further burden them with the exertion of separating second tithe from a large quantity of grain
and taking it to Jerusalem, as they would be unable to raise their prices to cover the cost of the lost
grain and the trip to Jerusalem. Since the presumptive status of the grain is that it was tithed, and
the obligation to tithe doubtfully tithed produce is a stringency, the Sages exempted the baker from
the obligation to do so. What is the meaning of parhedrin? These are royal appointees [pursei]
charged with performance of different tasks.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

7
§ Apropos the Second Temple period, when High Priests were frequently replaced, the Gemara
cites that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that
which is written: “The fear of the Lord prolongs days, but the years of the wicked will be
shortened” (Proverbs 10:27)? The fear of the Lord prolongs days; that is a reference to the
First Temple, which stood for four hundred and ten years and in which only eighteen High
Priests served, as is written in the lists of the genealogy of the priests in the Bible.

8
But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that is a reference to the Second Temple, which
stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which over three hundred High Priests
served. In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, deduct from the figure of four hundred and
twenty years forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty years that Yoḥanan the
High Priest served, ten years that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven years that
Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve
extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years,
go out and calculate from this point forward and conclude: Each and every one of the
remaining High Priests did not complete his year in office, as the number of remaining High
Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.

Apropos the sins of the High Priests in the Second Temple, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Yoḥanan
ben Torta said: Due to what reason was the Tabernacle in Shiloh destroyed in the time of the
prophet Samuel? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were two matters that existed in the
Tabernacle: Forbidden sexual relations and degradation of consecrated items. There were
forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “Now Eli was very old and he heard what his sons
were doing to all of Israel, how they lay with the women who did service at the opening of
the Tent of Meeting” (I Samuel 2:22). And although Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned by engaging in forbidden
sexual relations is nothing other than mistaken, even according to the alternative interpretation
of the verse that it was due to the fact that they deferred the sacrifice of their bird-offerings by
women after childbirth; nevertheless, the verse ascribes to them as if they lay with them.

9
Summary

The Parhedrin chamber

The Mishna said that the kohen was sequestered into the Parhedrin chamber. The Gemora cites a
braisa in which Rabbi Yehuda says that the original name of the chamber was the chamber of
balvati – nobility. However, in later generations, when people would buy the position of kohen
gadol, each year a new kohen gadol would arrive and rebuild this chamber. They therefore called
it the Parhedrin chamber, in reference to the parhedrin, appointees of the king, who would serve
12 month terms.

The Gemora cites a Mishna which says that bakers who use produce of amai ha'aretz need only
separate teruma ma'aser and challah, and give these to the kohen. The Gemora says we understand

10
why he need not separate terumah, as the braisa which describes the institution of demai – tithing
produce of an am ha'aretz says that Yochanan Kohen Gadol determined that the amai ha'aretz took
terumah.

We also understand that he need not give ma'aser to the levi or ma'aser ani to the poor, as these are
purely monetary obligations, and the recipients have the burden of proving that these tithes were
not yet separated. However, why does he not need to separate ma'aser sheini and eat it in
Yerushalayim? Ulla explains that since each year the newly appointed Parhedrin would persecute
the bakers to pay more money to them, the Sages were lenient on them, and exempted them from
ma'aser sheini. The Gemora explains that Parhedrin are appointees of the king.

The Chamber of Parhedrin

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

According to the Mishna (2a), a week prior to Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol was isolated
in an office in the Temple – the lishkat parhedrin – where he received training for the
Yom Kippur service.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of
Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn’t it called the Chamber of
Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?

Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were
rewarded with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of
Balvatei, a term connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High
Priest. However, because people were giving money in order to be appointed to
the High Priesthood, the position was filled by unworthy individuals. Due to their
wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were replaced every twelve months like
the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months. Therefore the chamber was
called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High Priest was replaced every year,
the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own more elaborate tastes.

The term parhedrin referred to a Roman official who was appointed to a position for a
single year term. This was commonplace whether the individual was elected by the
Senate or if he acquired the position by paying off the right people. Among the officials
appointed by this method were those who were responsible for controlling prices on a
variety of goods and services. It was not uncommon for people in this position to try to
acquire significant wealth by collecting exorbitant taxes during their short terms, well
beyond the amount prescribed by Roman law.

11
The baraita refers to a period during the Second Temple when the Kohen Gadol was
appointed based on the amount paid to the person in charge; during that period a
different person was appointed every year, leading to the comparison with the Roman
official. According to Rashi, the need to appoint a new Kohen Gadol every year stemmed
from the fact that such people, who aspired to a position for which they were not worthy,
invariably died during the course of the year. The Rid explains that it was simply like the
case of the Roman officials – the appointments were paid for only for a single year.

Some commentaries argue that it was not the Kohen Gadol who was replaced every year,
but rather it was the office itself. Since the occupants of the position of Kohen Gadol
were more interested in their honor than in the spiritual importance of the position, each
of them tore down the office and rebuilt it to show off their wealth and position of
authority.

Mark Kerzner writes:1

At first, the chamber to which the High Priest was sequestered before Yom Kippur was
called "The chamber of nobles," but later it became known as "The chamber of
administrators". This was because the High Priests of the first Temple were of greater
stature.

In fact, during the 410 years of the First Temple, there were a total of eighteen High
Priests, which makes for 22 years in service on the average. However, during the
Second Temple, when they would buy High Priesthood with money, there were 300 of
them during the 420 years of the Temple. If you subtract the forty years of service of
Shimon the Righteous, eighty of Yochanan the Great, ten of Rabbi Ishmael and eleven
of Elazar ben Charsom, you will see that the majority of the High Priests did not live
out one year of their service.

During the First Temple, bloodshed, immorality and idol worship were abundant, and
yet only the roof of the Temple was destroyed, and that only for seventy years.
However, during the Second Temple, when ostensibly they were learning Torah and
doing good deeds, the Temple was razed to the ground and is still not rebuilt. Why is
that? - Because they slandered each other in secret and transgressed in secret. However,
Resh Lakish presents another view: the later generations are greater, because with all
the hardships they still learn Torah.

1
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma9.html

12
 Dying for Glory

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:2

About twenty-five years ago, a series of studies[1] found that upwards of 50% of elite athletes
would take a drug that would guarantee overwhelming success such as an Olympic gold medal,
yet would kill them within five years. Later researchers questioned this study, with their research
showing that "only" 6% of elite athletes would do such. Whatever the explanation for this great
disparity—and I suspect the true number is somewhere in between—our Sages summed up such
an approach when they taught that "jealousy, lust, and honour drive a person from this world"
(Avot 4:21)[2].
We do not need studies to tell us how the seeking of honour has killed so many, physically,
emotionally, and psychologically.
This is not a new problem. "And why is it called the Palhedrin chamber? Was it not
the Balveti chamber?" (Yoma 8b). The opening Mishnah of Yoma teaches that seven days before
Yom Kippur, the kohen gadol would be taken to the Palhedrin chamber to begin his preparations
for Yom Kippur. As the Gemara notes, the name of the chamber was actually Balveti, a name in
use [only] during the high priesthood of Shimon Hatzadik, the last of the members of the Anshei
Knesset HaGedolah.
The Palhedrin were the officers of the king, and it was common for the king to change his guard
on a yearly basis—something akin to our [daily] changing of the guard. Throughout much of the
second Temple period, the way to become a kohen gadol was to buy one's way into the position
by paying the [corrupt] Chashmonean kings a big-enough bribe. While such gave one tremendous
prestige and power, it was also a good way to achieve early death: "they were wicked people, who
did not finish the year" (Rashi).
While more often than not, evil goes unpunished in this world, the holiness of the Temple
apparently did not tolerate such sinners. So, year in and year out, there was a new kohen gadol. As
is often the case when new people take over, the kohanim liked to design their chambers according
to their own tastes. So, year after year, renovations were made to the chamber, giving it a new
look—and leading the rabbis to change its name to the palhedrin chamber, whose tenants also
changed from year to year.
Invoking the verse, "the fear of the Lord will add days, and the years of the wicked will be
shortened" (Mishlei 10: 27), the Gemara contrasts the stability of the first Temple period with the
chaos of the second. The Gemara claims that during the 410 years that the first Temple stood, there
were only 18 kohanim gedolim; whereas during the 420 years[3] of the second Temple period,
more than 300 high priests served. Remove the forty years Shimon Hatzadik served and the eighty
of Yochanan the high priest[4], and the turnover was rapid, to say the least. Truly, the seeking of
honour kills.

2
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-8-dying-for-glory

13
This is a problem that affects not just religious leaders and athletes, but impacts on us all. How
many things do we do today, knowing they will kill us tomorrow?

[1] Summarized in the book Death in the Locker Room by Drs. Bob Goldman and Ronald Katz.
[2] Even when the honour is well deserved, just being in a position of power can be deadly. Our Sages (Sotah 13b) ascribe Yosef's
early death (despite being son number 11, he died first) to his lordship in Egypt.
[3] Even if one were to assume, as scholarly research does, that the second Temple actually stood for close to 600 years, the impact
is minimal. In fact, the Tosafists claim that in reality, there were only nine high priests during the first Temple period, with 9
assistants; whereas the second Temple had 300 high priests, not including assistants.
[4] Sadly, despite 80 years of dedicated service, in the end he rejected the rabbinic tradition, becoming a Sadducee. He is the best
example of the rabbinic teaching that "one should not believe in himself until the day he dies [i.e., never]" (Avot 2:5).

Although it is mashechet Gittin (55b-57b) that records the stories relating to the destruction of the
Temple[1], the famous Talmudic passage stating that the first Temple was destroyed because of
the three cardinal sins of idolatry, adultery, and murder, and the second because of sinnat chinam is
actually found in mashechet Yoma (9b).
The Talmud, as discussed in our previous post, explained how the kohanim gedolim of the second
Temple period would not live out their year due to their corruption in attaining the position, one
that they were unworthy to hold. The Talmud then moves to a discussion as to why the Mishkan at
Shilo was destroyed, placing the blame on the sons of Eli, who served as the high priests[2]. From
there, it is a simple transition to a discussion of the sins that caused the Temple to lose all meaning.
The Gemara, while comparing the sins of various generations, asserts that the sins of the later
generations were worse than those of the earlier ones. "Birah tocheach", the fact that the first
Temple was rebuilt seventy years after its destruction, while we still await the rebuilding of the
Temple after its second destruction (and this statement was made approximately 1,750 years ago),
proves that the sin of baseless hatred is even worse than adultery, idolatry, or murder combined.
While it seems almost preposterous to claim that hating someone is worse than killing him, the
Gemara is addressing the impact on society and its ability to rectify the wrong. During the period
of the first Temple, hatreds were out in the open, allowing for possible reconciliation; and while
murder did happen, it was limited in scope.
However, the people of the second Temple era were "sinners in secret" (Rashi)[3]. The hatred was
more widespread and insidious, and next to impossible to eradicate. It is somewhat comparable to
the ethical quandary of which is worse, one person who kills thirty, or thirty who kill one? While
the former is worse on a practical level, the latter is much more dangerous from a societal point of
view (see Sefer HaChinuch #238).
Rav Yochanan, the leading Talmudic Sage in the land of Israel in the second half of the third
century, thus claims that "the fingernails of the earlier generations are better than the abdomen of
the later generations". His colleague, Reish Lakish, while likely acknowledging that, objectively
speaking, the later generations were worse, asserts that—in historical context—they are much
better. "All the more so," he answered Rav Yochanan, "the later ones are better; even though they

14
are subject to oppression, they are still engaged in Torah study". If after 2,000 years of pogroms,
inquisitions, expulsions, and the Holocaust Jews still are connected to Torah, they are truly
amazing.
Yet, at the same time that he was praising the people for their continued faith, he was not averse
to being sharply critical of those, especially his rabbinic colleagues, who remained in Bavel. Reish
Lakish was bathing in the Jordan River, and Rabba bar bar Channa, visiting from Israel (to study
with Rav Yochanan), stretched his hand to greet him. The latter refused to shake his hand, stating
that "G-d hates the Babylonians", interpreting a verse in Shir Hashirim as teaching that had the
Jewish people returned en mass from Bavel when given the opportunity to do so, the Temple would
still be standing. But since so few returned (only 42,000 and change), the Temple was compared
not to silver, which does not rot, but to cedar, subject to decay.
Whether the sins of those who lived during the first Temple or the second Temple were worse no
longer matters. What matters is what we are doing about ensuring our future so that we be worthy
to rebuild the third Temple. Especially those living outside the land of Israel must work hard to act
in a way that G-d will surely love us.

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes:3

We will probably never have an exact blueprint of the Second Temple. The Bible gives a fairly
detailed description of the First Temple, built by Solomon and destroyed by the Babylonians in
586 BCE. Likewise, the biblical prophet Ezekiel describes in great detail the dimensions of the
Temple he hoped would be rebuilt — a structure that Maimonidescharacterized as a futuristic
Third Temple, as yet never constructed. But the Second Temple, the one that was destroyed a few
centuries before the Talmud was written down, has no such detailed description — at least not in
our Bible.

The Second Temple was built under the reign of Darius of Persia in 516 BCE and it was drastically
rebuilt under Herod the Great some five centuries later. The first century Jewish
historian Josephus gives a detailed if controversial description of it toward the end of the first
century (see Antiquities chapter 15 and Jewish War chapter 5). Descriptions of the Temple are also
found in the Temple Scroll, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Mishnah Middot. Neither of these
date to the period during which Herod’s Temple stood; the Temple Scroll is earlier, the Mishnah
later.

But one thing that we can be sure of is that the whole Temple complex was not only large
(the Temple Mount built by Herod as a platform to surround the Temple was a whopping 37 acres)
but incredibly intricate and complicated. Aside from large spaces to offer sacrifices and the sacred
heart of the Temple, the Holy of Holies, the sacrificial system itself had to be supported by spaces
to accommodate and process livestock and chambers to store wood, utensils, clothes and
instruments. There were administrative offices and treasuries and a library. What different areas
and chambers they were and what they were called has continued to be a matter of dispute.

Today we continue our exploration of the first mishnah of Yoma, in which we learned that the
high priest would be sequestered in the “Chamber of the Parhedrin” seven days to prepare for his
3
Myjewishlearning.com

15
role in the Temple on the Day of Atonement. In the Gemara, we learn that during that time, he was
sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer to ensure that he is in a state of complete purity. Then a
question is raised about the name of the room:

Rabbi Yehuda: Was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin? Wasn’t it called the Chamber of
Balvatei? Rather, initially, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei. However, because
people were giving money (to purchase appointments) to the high priesthood, and they were
replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months.
Therefore, the chamber was called the Chamber of Parhedrin.

As the rabbis understand it, there was a time — back in the days of Simeon the Righteous (3rd c.
BCE) — when the high priests were honorable and conscientious stewards of the Temple. At that
time, the room where they would prepare for Yom Kippur was called the Chamber of Balvatei,
from the word for a senator — a name connoting significance.

However, over the centuries, the office became corrupt. Wealthy individuals began purchasing the
position of high priest high priest. As a result, the position was filled by a series of unworthy and,
more to the point, interim individuals. Rashi explains that these greedy people who aspired to the
position were not worthy, and never held it long — invariably dying during their first year in office.
The name “Parhedrin” derives from the Greek word for an appointed official — one who is likely
to hold an office for a shorter amount of time. The Gemara implies the name change reflected the
corruption of the priesthood.

Of course, we should not take this at face value. It seems unlikely that the corrupted high priests
would have changed the name of the august room of preparation to reflect their own defects. It’s
more likely that the rabbis used the name (or perhaps names) of this room as an opportunity to rail
against the shameless defilement of the highest religious office in the land. Either way, however,
it is a sad reflection of how politics and wealth corroded the moral authority of the priesthood.

Our Daf definitively attributes the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdash to the rampant violation
of the three cardinal sins of idolatry, immorality and murder.4

Yet the Gemara in Nedarim (81a) states that the reason for the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash
was a mystery. The prophets were asked about this, and they were unable to explain it. The answer
was only known when Hashem Himself, told them that it was due to the failure of the people to

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20009.pdf

16
recite a blessing before engaging in Torah study. How are these two approaches in accounting for
the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash to be reconciled?
Lev Eliyahu (Parashas Devarim) writes in the name of ‫ ישראל אור‬that the study of Torah has the
power to protect and defend from sin, as we find in the Gemara (Sotah 21a).

This presents us with a perplexing dilemma. As noted, the Gemara in Nedarim acknowledges that
the Jewish people were involved in Torah study at the time of the destruction of the Beis
HaMikdash, although they did not recite blessings before engaging in their Torah pursuit.
The fact was that the prophets were aware of the people’s diligence, and they were unable to fault
the people for being deficient in this matter.

How was it, then, that the Torah study did not protect the nation from indulging in the three cardinal
sins?

This was the nature of the question which the sages asked the prophets, and which the prophets
could not explain. The answer was, though, that Torah study without a full appreciation of its
sublime essence was not only lacking in its ability to protect, but it represented a degree of
callousness and even disgrace to the Torah (see ‫ ן”ר‬, Nedarim).

The fact that the people did not recite a blessing before pursuing their Torah studies was an
indication that they treated it as a generic pursuit of intellectual information, rather than
experiencing it as a holy endeavor.

This left them susceptible to fall into the grips of sin, and their level deteriorated until they even
violated the worst of all sins.

What’s the Truth About … the Kohen Gadol’s Rope?

ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY5 WRITES:6

MISCONCEPTION: The Gemara relates that on Yom Kippur, when the Kohen Gadol entered
the Kodesh Hakodashim (Holy of Holies) in the Beit Hamikdash (Temple), a rope was tied to his
ankle so that in case he died, there would be a way to extricate his body.

FACT: While there was a real concern about the Kohen Gadol’s survival, there is no reference to
this practice in the Mishnah, Talmud or Midrash. The Zohar does, however, state that a gold chain

5
Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky is on the faculty of the Brain Science Program at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

6
https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats_the_truth_about_-_the_kohen_gadols_rope/

17
was tied to the Kohen Gadol’s ankle, but other sources, both halachic and Aggadic, could cause
one to question this claim.

BACKGROUND: When the Beit Hamikdash was in existence, the highlight of the Yom Kippur
service was the Kohen Gadol’s Avodah in the Kodesh Hakodashim. Twice during this exalted day,
the Kohen Gadol would remove the eight priestly garments he wore during his service in the Beit
Hamikdash all year long, immerse in a mikvah and don the four special white linen garments that
were used only on Yom Kippur to enter the Kodesh Hakodashim. The rituals surrounding this
entry, which are detailed in the Torah (Vayikra 16) and elaborated on by Chazal, had to be
followed precisely. The slightest deviation could cost the Kohen Gadol his life (Vayikra 16:2).
Indeed, many Kohanim Gedolim died during the Yom Kippur service (Yoma 5:1 [52b] with
Rambam’s commentary; Tiferet Yisrael, Yoma, Yachin 22).

Owing to the danger, the Mishnah states that the Kohen Gadol would sponsor a feast upon
emerging safely (Yoma 7:4 [70a]). According to the simple reading of the Mishnah (the peshat)
(see Meiri, Yoma 71a), it would appear that the celebration was due to the Kohen Gadol’s safe
emergence from the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yisrael Kimchi (Avodat Yisrael, 1737, pp. 213a-214a),
however, attributes the feast to the fact that the Kohen Gadol’s Avodah was accepted by God and
the Jewish people were forgiven. During the later period of the Second Temple, the renegade
Tzedukim (Sadducees) often succeeded in having members of their sect appointed as the Kohen
Gadol. According to the Gemara (Yoma 8b-9a; 18a), the majority of the Kohanim Gedolim in the
Second Temple period were ignorant and unworthy and bought their way to the position; some
did, in fact, die on Yom Kippur. Only twelve Kohanim Gedolim served during the 410 years of
the First Temple. In contrast, during the 420 years in which the Second Temple stood, there were
four righteous Kohanim Gedolim, and more than 300 others who did not even serve a full year. It
should be noted that although the Gemara says they did not serve an entire year, it does not
specifically state that they died on Yom Kippur; while some died then, others may have died under
different circumstances or simply lost the position to a higher bidder.

If a Kohen Gadol died while in the Kodesh Hakodashim, his body had to be removed. Despite the
usual restrictions upon entering various areas within the Beit Hamikdash, when a need arose, such
as to remove tumah (an impurity), entry was permitted. The Tosefta (Kelim 1:11; cited in Eruvin
105a) explains that “all may enter [usually off-limit areas] to build or repair and to remove tumah.
It is preferable that a Kohen enter, but if no Kohen is available, a Levite enters.1 . . .” Although
not explicit in the Tosefta, this leniency extended to the Kodesh Hakodashim (see Middot 4:52
and Rambam [Beit Habechirah 7:23]).

Chazal elaborate on these rules in their discussion of the sudden deaths of Nadav and Avihu,3
Aharon’s two sons. When they were killed within the mishkan (Vayikra 10:1-3), “lifnei Hashem,”
Moshe requested their Levite cousins, Mishael and Eltzafan, retrieve the bodies (Vayikra 10:4-5).
Torat Kohanim cites a debate between Rabbi Eliezar and Rabbi Akiva about what transpired.
Rabbi Eliezar says that an angel struck down Nadav and Avihu while they were in the Kodesh
Hakodashim and then pushed them out to die in an area where a Levite may enter; subsequently,
their Levite cousins removed their bodies. Rabbi Akiva opines that the phrase “lifnei Hashem”
means they died within the Kodesh Hakodashim and the Levites removed the bodies by impaling
them with iron spears and dragging them out. Hence, according to both accounts, the Levites did
not enter the Kodesh Hakodashim to remove the bodies.4

18
From all of the above, the following is clear: during the Second Temple period, especially, there
was a particular concern regarding the Kohen Gadol dying and the permissibility of entering the
Holy of Holies to retrieve his body. As it was preferable to avoid entering the sanctified area, the
idea of tying a rope to the Kohen Gadol seems logical. However, it is somewhat puzzling that no
source for such a rope is found in the Tanach, the Mishnah, the Talmud or in midrashei halachah.
Rambam does not mention it in Yad Hachazakah,5 nor do any other Rishonim discuss it. It is not
mentioned in the Ashkenazic Avodah piyyut “Amitz Koach” (circa tenth century) nor in the older
Sephardic Avodah piyyut “Atah Konanta.” Moreover, it is worth noting that the rope is not
mentioned in the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the pseudepigrapha. Finally, one of the best
eyewitnesses of Beit Hamikdash activities, Josephus, fails to note the existence of such a rope.6

In contemporary Torah literature, the custom is mentioned in different sources with certain
variations: it appears as a rope, a chain around the ankle and a chain around the waist. In most of
these texts, no primary source is cited. Many modern sefarim refer to the custom as a “Talmudic
tradition,” even though, as mentioned above, there is no Talmudic source for it. In the Zohar,
however, the custom is mentioned twice. The Zohar on Parashat Acharei Mot (67a) describes the
Kohen Gadol’s preparation before entering the Kodesh Hakodashim and states that “a gold chain
was tied to his leg,”7 with no explanation or additional detail.8 In the Zohar on Parashat Emor
(102a) the description of the Kohen Gadol’s entry into the Kodesh Hakodashim includes this
statement: “Rav Yitzchak said: ‘One rope was tied to the Kohen’s leg when he went in, so that
should he die there they could pull him out.’”9

Such a rope may have also served another purpose: to confirm whether the Kohen Gadol was dead
or alive, since no one was allowed in the Beit Hamikdash throughout the duration of the Yom
Kippur Avodah. Vayikra 16:17 states that no person could be in the Ohel Moed when the Kohen
Gadol entered the Kodesh Hakodashim, and Chazal10 understood this to be a prohibition on
entering the Beit Hamikdash building—which applied to people and even to angels11—while the
Kohen Gadol was within the Holy of Holies.

While the existence of such a rope is widely thought to be true, there are several historical and
halachic problems with it. The Gemara (Yoma 53b) relates that there was once a Kohen Gadol
who recited a long prayer while in the Heichal (main sanctuary building). His fellow Kohanim
assumed that he had died, and decided to enter the Heichal to look for him (obviously, the
implication being there was no rope).12 On the way in they met the Kohen Gadol coming out and
reprimanded him because, as stated in Yoma 5:1, he should not have prolonged his prayer in the
Kodesh Hakodashim.

Rabbi Chiya relates (Yoma 19b) that once when a Tzeduki Kohen Gadol was still in the Heichal,
those outside in the Azarah (Temple courtyard) heard a sound, and assumed that an angel had hit
him in the face. They entered the Heichal and found him dead. Again, the implication is that there
was no chain attached to this Kohen Gadol.13

Furthermore, a gold chain around the Kohen’s leg can be a serious halachic problem. Rambam
(Biat Mikdash 9:15) lists eighteen things that invalidate the Beit Hamikdash service, one of which
is a Kohen who wears an extra “garment.” Such an act would not only invalidate the service, but
a Kohen who thus performs the Avodah would incur death at the hands of Heaven (Rambam, Klei
Hamikdash 10:4-5). Rambam, here, seems to imply (ibid.) that the prohibition is limited to wearing

19
an extra layer of the standard priestly clothes. However, Rashi (Zevachim 18a, s.v., “yitur”), the
Sifrei (Tzav 2:1) and Rambam elsewhere (Klei Hamikdash 10:8) imply that any extra garment or
accessory can be problematic, and this is how the Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid (Klei Hamikdash
31:7) understands the gemara’s conclusion (Zevachim 18a). For something to be considered an
“extra garment,” it must measure at least 3×3 fingers in size or be something of significance (Aruch
Hashulchan Ha’atid, Klei Hamikdash 31:14), for which a gold chain surely qualifies.

The placement of the suggested chain is also problematic. Even a speck of dust or an insect, is, ab
initio, considered a chatzitzah (barrier) between the Kohen Gadol’s skin and his garments,
invalidating his service (Rambam, Klei Hamikdash 10:7; Aruch Hashulchan Ha’atid, Klei
Hamikdash 31:10). Thus, the chain could not be placed under his ketonet (robe), which extended
until just above his ankle (Rambam, Klei Hamikdash 8:17). Presumably, the chain would have had
to be tied on top of the Kohen Gadol’s robe, which would have impeded his ability to walk.

The Zohar’s suggestion of a gold chain, instead of a plain rope, is also perplexing. During his year-
round service, the Kohen Gadol wore several vestments that included threads of gold or actual
gold ornaments. However, on Yom Kippur, he entered the Kodesh Hakodashim in four simple
garments of pure linen. This is because the custom is to not wear gold on Yom Kippur since “ein
kataigor na’aseh sanegor, a prosecutor [the golden calf] cannot become a defense attorney
[advocating on the Jew’s behalf]” (Rosh Hashanah 26a; Rashi, ibid., s.v. “ein katagoir”; Vayikra
Rabbah 21:10). This is also why a bull’s horn may not be used for a shofar and why women do not
wear gold jewelry on Yom Kippur (Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Shulchan Aruch, OC 610, s.v., “yesh
she’katvu”).14

An additional problem relates to the tumah-transferring properties of gold. The purpose of the
chain was to remove a dead body from within the Beit Hamikdash. While transporting the body,
it would be logical to minimize the spread of tumat met (ritual impurity due to “contact” with the
dead). Yet metals, unlike many other materials, acquire the same level of tumah as the actual dead
body, thus rendering the Kohanim pulling on the chain tamei for seven days. Were an ordinary
rope to be used, the Kohanim would only be tamei for one day, because a rope does not acquire
the same level of tumah as a dead body.

Thus, there seem to be multiple problems with the notion of the Kohen Gadol wearing a gold ankle
chain into the Kodesh Hakodashim. To recap: the chain may constitute an “extra garment”; the
Gemara relates stories that indicate there was no rope used;15 gold is an unsuitable material to use
for the removal of a dead body and is also inappropriate for use in the Kodesh Hakodashim; and
such a chain would impede the Kohen Gadol’s functioning on a day in which he needs to perform
the service optimally. Finally, an additional problem is that wearing a safety chain would seem to
be an affront to the dignity of the Kohen Gadol.16

Rabbi Uri Sherki, a rabbi in Kiryat Moshe, in Israel, suggests an allegorical interpretation of the
“rope.”17 The Zohar, he says, is giving the Kohen Gadol a symbolic reminder that he should not
get lost in the spiritual realm while performing the lofty Yom Kippur Avodah. One of the dangers
associated with the high priesthood is that of getting too caught up in the spiritual realm and losing
touch with this earthly world. In particular, the Kohen Gadol, upon entering the Kodesh
Hakodashim on Yom Kippur, can become so overwhelmed by the spiritual that he is liable to
“forget” to leave. The Zohar uses the imagery of a “rope” as a reminder to the Kohen Gadol that

20
the Jewish people need him and he must “pull” himself back to this world after the extraordinary
other-worldly experience of Yom Kippur.

In summation: Despite the paucity of rabbinic sources, the notion that the Kohen Gadol wore a
rope around his ankle when entering the Kodesh Hakodashim is widespread. The historical
evidence of such a rope or chain seems dubious and the halachic acceptability of such an
arrangement is questionable. If such a rope was indeed used, it reflected the sorrowful state of
affairs prevalent in the late Second Temple period, when so many Kohanim Gedolim were
unworthy and therefore liable to perish in the Kodesh Hakodashim. May we be zocheh to soon see
a worthy “unchained” Kohen Gadol perform the Yom Kippur service in his pure white garments
in the rebuilt Beit Hamikdash.

Notes

1. I thank my wife, Dr. Naomi Zivotofsky, for pointing out that this hierarchy is not obvious with regard to removing a
dead body, which a Kohen must avoid. Indeed, Chasdei David on the Tosefta suggests, without an explicit source, that
this hierarchy applies to other forms of tumah but not to tumat met (ritual impurity due to “contact” with the dead).

2. These sources discuss entering the Kodesh Hakodashim in order to effect repairs or to remove tumah. But entry
may be permitted for other needs. Ramban (Bamidbar 18:10), in a bold (re)interpretation of a sifrei (and Zevachim 63a),
suggests that if the Beit Hamikdash is surrounded by enemies the verse gives permission to eat sacrificial meat and
meal offerings in the Kodesh Hakodashim. Rabbi Shlomo Goren (Sefer Har Habayit, p. 405) explains that this exception
refers to Jewish soldiers/defenders who are required to enter so as to continue to protect the Beit Hamikdash, and
while inside may eat sacrificial meat and meal offerings.

3. I thank Dr. Yaakov Hoffman for bringing these sources to my attention.

4. The Malbim says if there had been a need to enter, Moshe would have charged the Kohanim with the task of retrieving
them. Ramban and Tur explain that a Kohen takes precedence over a Levite with regard to removing tumah from within
the Kodesh Hakodashim, but in this case there was no Kohen who was permitted to enter, hence the Levites did the
job.

5. This omission may not be so surprising to some, because they would expect Rambam to describe the pristine
halachah only. This is not entirely correct because Rambam (Hilchot Yom Hakippurim 1:7) does mention the oath
instituted because of the Tzedukim. During the Second Temple period, before performing the service, the Kohen Gadol
had to take an oath that he would not alter any of the Yom Kippur procedures.

6. It should be noted that his discussion of the ritual of Yom Kippur (Antiquities, Book 3, sections 240-243) is quite brief.
I thank Professor Louis Feldman for his assistance with Josephus.

7. This idea of a chain tied to the ankle has a parallel in the rabbinic corpus. In Kohelet Rabbah 9:8-9:10, it is reported
that Rabbi Haggai was preparing to enter the tomb of Rabbi Hiyya Rabbah and there was concern that he might die
within. He suggested, “Bring a rope and tie it to my leg. If I come out, good. If not, drag me out by my leg.” (He emerged
alive and well.) Kohelet Rabbah is usually assumed to be a relatively late midrash, several hundred years post-Talmudic
in composition. This source is noted by Rabbi Reuven Margaliot, Nitzotzei Zohar, Acharei Mot (Jerusalem, 5730).

8. This is translated and cited in Mishnat HaZohar, edited by Isaiah Tishby, vol. 2, p. 229.

9. As an aside, the Zohar proceeds to explain about the red thread that hung outside the Beit Hamikdash building; if it
turned white, the Jewish people knew the Kohen Gadol was successful in obtaining God’s forgiveness for the nation; if
it stayed red, they knew he was not.

10. Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:5; 5:2 (cited by Tosafot Yeshanim, Yoma 19b); Sukkah 4:6; Vayikra Rabbah 21:11-12.

11. See Ramban to Shemot 28:35 and Rabbi Meir Dan Plotzki (1867-1928; Klei Chemdah, Tetzaveh, gimmel)
regarding the “bells” on the Kohen Gadol’s coat on Yom Kippur.

21
12. Tosafot Yeshanim (based on Yerushalmi, Yoma 5:2) says that the Kohen Gadol was Shimon Hatzaddik, and it is
thus possible that while a rope was usually used, in his case they deemed it unnecessary.

13. Of course, one could speculate that the chain was instituted subsequent to this story.

14. A gold chain can be justified by resorting to the Gemara’s (Rosh Hashanah 26a) explanation of why a gold kaf
u’machta (shovel and pan) were used. Only gold items through which the “sinner” glorifies himself are technically
prohibited on Yom Kippur. Nonetheless, the use of a gold chain on Yom Kippur seems inappropriate.

15. I am suggesting that these gemaras contradict the Zohar’s description of a rope. Rabbi Yisrael Kimchi (Avodat
Yisrael, pp. 163b-165b) views the gemaras as posing strong questions on the Zohar, but he proposes two solutions: 1.
The Talmud and the Zohar disagree about the permissibility of entering the Kodesh Hakodashim in case of an
emergency. The Gemara understands that the Tosefta gives blanket approval to enter while the Zohar opines that, like
the Torat Kohanim states with regard to Aharon’s sons, all efforts must be taken not to enter. Hence the Zohar requires
a rope while the Gemara has no need for such ingenious solutions. 2. In an attempt to reconcile the Gemara and the
Zohar he suggests a far-fetched interpretation of the Gemara, which is explained further in Avodat Yisrael.

16. See Yoma 10b for an example of where the Kohen Gadol’s dignity was taken into account.

17. Shiur from 3 Elul 5763, available at: http://ravsharki.org/content/view/1537/629/.

The aggada of the poor man, the rich man, and the wicked man –

Rav Dr. Yonatan Feintuch writes:7

a. Preface

The subject of the aggada is the obligation incumbent upon every individual to devote time to
Torah study, and the rejection of several potential excuses not to study. The aggada comprises
three parts, focusing respectively on Hillel the Elder, R. Elazar b. Charsom, and the righteous
Yosef, with each illustrating the possibility of overcoming different types of challenges that might
hinder one’s Torah study and service of God.

We noted many significant links between the aggada and the sugya within which it appears, which
discusses the linen garments of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. Some of these links are
linguistic in nature (such as the use of the verb “to allow,” which appears in both), while others
relate to content (such as the connections between the story of Yosef and the discussion of
the kohen’s garments). In this shiur, we will explore the significance of these links.

b. Kohanim vs. Sages

The connections discussed above between the aggada and the discussion of the garments of
the Kohen Gadol create a comparison between the kohanim described in the sugya, who were
active at the end of the Second Temple Period, and the Sages. Of special prominence is the
comparison between R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Kohen, presented in the first beraita, and R. Elazar
7
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-12-aggada-poor-man-rich-man-and-wicked-man-%E2%80%93-part-ii

22
b. Charsom, the Sage, in the second beraita. This comparison serves to glorify the Sages and Torah
study: the Sages in the aggadic beraita are portrayed as having no interest in the pleasures of this
world (riches and honor), and as devoting themselves wholly to the study of Torah.
The beraita about R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Kohen, contains, at the very least, covert criticism: in
performing his priestly service he chooses to wear a garment that is very expensive, and also
transparent. This arouses the opposition of the other kohanim, who will not allow him to serve in
this garment.[1]

The appearance of a comparison of this sort in Massekhet Yoma is not surprising on its own. There
are several places throughout the massekhet, in sources involving both Tannaim and Amoraim,
that we find criticism – sometimes veiled, at other times quite open – of the conduct of
the kohanim during this period. In fact, in the first chapter of Mishna Yoma we already read of
suspicions that the Kohen Gadol might not perform the service properly.[2] In the Gemara in the
same chapter (9a-10b), as part of an aggadic unit dealing, inter alia, with the destruction of the
two Temples, we find quite explicit criticism:

“Rabba b. Bar Hana said: What is the meaning of the verse, ‘The fear of the Lord prolongs days,
but the years of the wicked shall be shortened’? ‘The fear of the Lord prolongs days’ refers to the
first Temple, which remained standing for four hundred and ten years and in which there served
only eighteen Kohanim Gedolim. ‘But the years of the wicked shall be shortened’ refers to the
second Temple, which stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which more than three
hundred Kohanim Gedolim served. Deduct from this total the forty years during which Shimon ha-
Tzaddik served, eighty years during which Yochanan Kohen Gadol served, ten years during which
Yishmael b. Fabi served (or, as some say, the eleven years of R. Elazar b. Charsom). Count the
remaining years and you will find that none of the other Kohanim Gedolim completed his year [in
office].” (Yoma 9a)

In a parallel Tosefta in our chapter – chapter 3, Mishna 11 (Tosefta, Yoma 2:5-8), as well as in the
Bavli and the Yerushalmi, we find a unit describing the “appointees” in the Temple (priestly
families at the end of the Temple period who had specific roles and specializations), some of whom
are viewed in a negative light because they were not willing to pass on the “professional secrets”
pertaining to various services in the Temple. These phenomena, among other problems with the
conduct of the kohanim at that time, caused the rabbis to identify various signs that existed during
those years in the Temple as predicting its upcoming destruction. For example, in the Bavli (39b)
we find the following beraita:[3]

“Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the lot [‘For
the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white;
nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Heikhal would open by themselves, until
R. Yochanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Heikhal, Heikhal, why do you alarm yourself? I
know that you are fated to be destroyed, for Zekharia ben Ido has already prophesied concerning
you (Zekharia 11:1), ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars.’”[4]

The critical attitude of the Sages towards the kohanim arose largely from the affiliation of
many Kohanim Gedolim with the Sadducee sect, starting in the late 2nd century B.C.E. when
the kohanim of the House of Chashmonai joined the Sadducees.[5]

23
In the generations after the destruction, the Sages seem to have aspired to fill in the vacuum left in
the absence of the Temple and the sacrificial service by promoting alternatives such as the prayer
services and Torah study.[6] We discussed an example of this approach in the previous shiur, in
the story of the Kohen Gadol and Shemaya and Avtalyon. This story and the sugya preceding it,
suggest that the Sages sought to present Torah study as an alternative to the service of
the kohanim, considering the problematic conduct of kohanim, and in the wake of the religious
vacuum left after the Temple’s destruction. The sharp change of focus that we noted, from the
greeting addressed to the Kohen Gadol by the man who led away the he-goat to Azazel, to Rabba’s
statement concerning a similar salutation among Sages, emphasizes the way in which the Sages
and their learning filled the vacuum left in the absence of the kohanim and their sacrificial service.
The words of R. Berakhia in that discussion (“One who wishes to pour a wine libation upon the
altar, should fill the throats of Torah sages with wine”) present the Torah as replacing the Temple
service, and the Sages as replacing the altar. The unit that follows – the story of Shemaya and
Avtalyon – gives expression to the relationship between the Sages and the kohanim during the late
Temple period.

It is important to note that the proposing of alternatives to the Temple service was not meant to
establish an absolute replacement for all future generations. Along with the alternatives, rabbinic
literature throughout the generations does, of course, maintain a general theme of mourning over
the destruction and longing for the re-establishment of the Temple and its service. Evidence of this
is to be found, inter alia, in the development of the massekhtot of Seder Kodashim even in
generations after the destruction, and in the prayers expressing longing for the rebuilding of the
Temple, instituted by Chazal. However, at least in the situation created by the problematic
behavior of the kohanim in the late Temple Period, and in the wake of the destruction, the Sages
found it necessary to propose some sort of spiritual alternative.

c. “Elazar b. Charsom, the Kohen” vs. “R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Sage”

Contrast between two portrayals of R. Elazar b. Charsom

The aggada that we are discussing appears to contain a similar message, albeit perhaps in gentler
form. Above we looked at the links between the story of R. Elazar b. Charsom in the aggada, and
the description of R. Elazar b. Charsom in the beraita within the sugya discussing the garments of
the Kohen Gadol. It seems that the Gemara seeks to contrast these two portrayals. In other words,
as a contrast to “R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Kohen Gadol,” the Gemara presents “R. Elazar b.
Charsom, engaged in Torah study.” The two portrayals offer two models for the way in which this
character relates to the huge wealth that he possesses.[7]

R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Kohen

“R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Kohen” chooses to wear a very expensive garment during his
performance of the sacrificial service upon the altar.[8] The tunic costs ‘twenty thousand’ – and if
we assume that the currency denomination intended here is the maneh,[9] as suggested by the
context with its description of the basic value of a garment (eighteen maneh) and the garment of
Yishmael b. Fabi (a hundred maneh), then this is truly an astronomical sum.[10] The decision to

24
don such an expensive garment would be a flamboyant act of showing-off.[11] The continuation
of the description in the beraita suggests that there was indeed a problem with R. Elazar b.
Charsom’s behavior in this instance, since the kohanim “would not allow him” (in the words of
the beraita in the Bavli) to continue performing the sacrificial service, and “brought him down”
from the altar (as the Tosefta describes it). The explanation offered in the beraita for this reaction
by the kohanim is that “he appeared naked” – in other words, the garment was so sheer that it was
transparent, or too close-fitting. Such a garment is unbefitting a Kohen Gadol in the Temple, since
it does not cover his body properly (and thus goes against at least the spirit of the command, “And
you shall not ascend My altar by steps, so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it”
- Shemot 20:22, and “to cover the flesh of their nakedness” – Shemot 28:42). From our knowledge
of the textile industry of that period, we may also conclude that the transparency of the garment
attests to its hefty price,[12] and thus the behavior of R. Elazar be. Charsom, which draws criticism
from his fellow kohanim, is not only unbefitting, but also a flaunting of his great wealth.[13]

Chazal’s sensitivity to any hint of arrogance in the context of the garments of the Kohen Gadol is
explicit in the following excerpt from the Yerushalmi, which explains why the Kohen Gadol wears
linen garments on Yom Kippur rather than golden ones:

“Why does he not use golden garments? Lest he become proud. R. Simon said, this is in accordance
with the verse (Mishlei 25:6), ‘Do not glorify yourself in the presence of the
King’….” (Yerushalmi Yoma 7:1, 4b).

In light of this, the flaunting of especially expensive “linen garments” by R. Elazar b. Charsom
the Kohen is emphasized even more strongly, since it contradicts the spirit of the law that linen
garments be worn on Yom Kippur. It is important to note that the Mishna itself permits the Kohen
Gadol to “pay the difference from his own money” and wear linen garments of finer quality, and
it is possible that there were kohanim who did so for the sake of Heaven, thereby enhancing their
performance of the command (as the description of Yishmael b. Fabi would suggest). However,
there is a difference (one that is difficult to determine with precision) between a worthy addition
and a sum that projects showiness and goes against the spirit of the requirement that the Kohen
Gadol wear linen garments rather than golden ones. In any event, although the criticism in
the beraita concerning this particular Kohen Gadol might be veiled and understated, it would seem
to join the examples cited above reflecting the attitude of the Sages toward the kohanim at the time.

R. Elazar b. Charsom, the Sage

“Rabbi Elazar b. Charsom, the Sage”, as presented in the aggadic beraita, represents the opposite
pole. The character described here, who inherits tremendous wealth from his father, is not the least
bit interested in his possessions – and certainly does not try to show off. His life is a constant flight
from the spotlight, and a desperate attempt to protect his precious anonymity, – representing his
only chance of continuing to engage in Torah study. The moment he resumes his persona as “R.
Elazar b. Charsom, the wealthy man,” he will lose his freedom to study Torah. This R. Elazar, who
forgoes all his wealth and status, and is even willing to bear humiliation at the hands of his own
servants for the sake of his Torah, serves as a contrast to the Kohen Gadol who stood atop the altar,
at “center stage”, as it were, showing off his fortune. We lack more extensive background about
the life of R. Elazar b. Charsom, and therefore cannot determine which period of his life each of

25
these two descriptions belongs to, but a reading of the beraita in our sugya within its context
would seem to portray a process of “tikkun” (repair) that this Kohen Gadol undergoes, fleeing from
his wealth and his respected status in order to devote himself to Torah.

Connections between the sugya of the garments and the story of Yosef

The connections between the sugya of the garments and the story of Yosef reveal themselves in a
similar way. Yosef, too, undergoes a process of tikkun: as a young man he receives a special striped
coat from his father – like R. Elazar b. Charsom who receives an expensive tunic from his mother.
Likewise, Yosef shows off his coat despite the jealousy that this arouses among his brothers, who
ultimately strip him forcibly of his coat, just as the kohanim “would not allow” R. Elazar b.
Charsom to serve wearing his transparent tunic.[14] However, when it comes to the encounter with
Potifar’s wife, Yosef withstands temptation, and in a symbolic gesture parts with his garment, as
a way of fleeing from sin. Perhaps this serves to present, once again, the tikkun of a Kohen who
wears extremely expensive garments.

However, the story of Yosef may be meant to convey even stronger criticism. We have already
noted the parallel between the description of Potifar’s wife (“The garments she put on for him in
the morning, she did not wear in the evening…”) and the Mishna. At this point, the connection
between the sugya and the aggada hints that the changing into linen garments in the middle of the
day – which could be intended to honor the Temple and the special service of Yom Kippur – might,
in the case of a Kohen Gadol who is preoccupied with his own good looks and glory, parallel the
changing of garments for the purposes of sin. In the background we hear an echo of the rebuke
that appears towards the end of the chapter, concerning those appointees who would not reveal
their “professional secrets:” “Your forefathers, who sought to increase their own honor, and to
diminish God’s honor...”

The connection between the story of Hillel and the Kohen Gadol

It may be that the presentation of the Sages as a model that contrasts with that of the kohanim is
also hinted to in the story about Hillel the Elder. The story recounts how Hillel was found on the
roof with “snow three cubits high” on top of him. The expression “rum –-- amot” (“X cubits high”)
is not common in the Talmud. In every instance in which it appears, with just one exception, the
measurement is “three cubits high,” and in each of the appearances of this expression, with one
exception, the text refers to the size of a mikve in which a person is able to immerse his whole
body. One such description of a mikve is found in our chapter, in the context of the immersion of
the Kohen Gadol during the Yom Kippur service (Yoma 31a):

“And it was taught: ‘And he shall bathe his flesh in water’ – i.e., in the waters of a mikve, ‘all his
flesh’ - in water which covers his whole body. What is its quantity? One cubit square, three cubits
high (be-rum shalosh amot), and the Sages calculated that the quantity [of water] required for
a mikve is forty se'ah.”

Moreover, the mikve in which the Kohen Gadol would perform most of his immersions on Yom
Kippur – as recorded earlier in the massekhet[15] – was upon the roof of the Parvah house, while
the snow that piles up to a height of three cubits over Hillel falls on the roof of the Beit Midrash.

26
Therefore, the snow that is “three cubits high” over Hillel on the roof in the aggada is reminiscent
of the other “three cubits high” in our chapter. We can perceive an image of Hillel entering the
Beit Midrash via an “immersion” that is reminiscent of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur.[16]

d. A reading of the aggada about “the rich, the poor and the wicked” within the sugya

In light of our discussion above, it seems that the placement of our aggada serves to reflect a
message about the problematic conduct of the kohanim at the end of the Temple period.
Our sugya contains a veiled hint at the way in which the kohanim relate to their garments, and
perhaps to their economic status in general. The aggada presents an alternative to the problematic
conduct of some of these kohanim. The characters of Hillel the Elder and R. Elazar b. Charsom
the Sage – who, in the original context of the aggada, serve to rebuke poor and rich people
respectively who neglect Torah study – are presented in context as a contrast to the kohanim. Hillel,
who is not wealthy like these kohanim, devotes himself selflessly to Torah study, while R. Elazar

b. Charsom’s “tikkun” has him fleeing from his wealth and devoting his life to Torah.

As we showed in last week’s shiur, the subject of the story about Yosef in the aggadic beraita (the
battle against the inclination for forbidden sexual relations) is different from the other two stories
in the aggada (commitment to Torah study in conditions that make this difficult). However, the
links that we have explored between the story of Yosef and the discussion that precedes it in the
chapter indicate that the presence of the story of Yosef in this aggada about “the rich, the poor and
the wicked” plays an important role. The links between the story of Yosef and the halakhic-
aggadic discussion about the garments of the Kohen Gadol put Chazal’s apparent criticism of the
attitude of the kohanim towards their garments into sharper focus. We might propose – although,
as noted, we cannot establish with certainty – that as part of the criticism that the sugya conveys
with regard to the garments, the story of Yosef within the aggada is an important motivation for
the inclusion of the aggada within the chapter.

In summary8, it seems that the sugya brings the aggada of “the poor, the rich and the wicked” in
order to express a message that pertains to the halakhic discussion appearing in it, concerning the
value of the garments of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. It must be emphasized that this message
in no way affects the halakha: the Mishna still permits the Kohen Gadol to add from his own
money to the minimum value of the linen garments purchased with communal funds. If this is done
in proportion and for the sake of Heaven, it may be an appropriate enhancement of the mitzva.
However, it seems that the Gemara calls for caution and sensitivity in applying this license, owing
to the danger that the Kohen will become proud and show off – which is especially to be avoided
by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. The sugya seems to maintain that the manner in which this
license is implemented by R. Elazar b. Charsom, in the description in the beraita, is inappropriate,
and for this reason, inter alia, a completely opposite story concerning R. Elazar b. Charsom is
brought, to balance the picture.

As noted at the beginning of our discussion of the aggada of “the poor, the rich and the wicked”,
it is a story rich in narratives and details, not all of which can be covered within the limited scope

8
Translated by Kaeren Fish

27
of this shiur. However, we have attempted to open a door to an understanding of why
this aggada appears in this particular location in Massekhet Yoma, and the message arising from a
reading of the sugya as a whole, including both its halakha and its aggada, as a single continuum.

[1] We will discuss this beraita in greater detail below.

[2] See M. Peri’s article, “Makbilim Nifgashim – Hearot al Ituzvan ha-Sifruti shel Mishnayot Yoma”, Netu’im 13 (5765), pp. 36-
[3] Cf. Bavli Rosh Ha-shana 31b; Yerushalmi, Yoma 6,6 (43c)
[4] The description in this beraita is brought as a contrast to the situation that prevailed during the tenure of Shimon ha-Tzaddik
as Kohen Gadol, at the beginning of the Second Temple Period. Shimon ha-Tzaddik is described to have served as a Kohen Gadol
for forty years, which were considered the 'golden age' of that Temple. The final forty years of the Temple are presented as a sharp
contrast to Shimon's days, in terms of the conduct of the kohanim.
[5] See, in this regard, Berakhot 29a concerning Yochanan Kohen Gadol, as well as the story about the Sadducee Kohen
Gadol in Yoma 19b. For more extensive discussion see M.D. Har, “Ha-Retzef she-ba-Shalshelet Mesirutah shal ha-Torah”, Tzion
44 (5739), pp. 49-50. Har also argues that from the time of Herod the priesthood became morally corrupt, drawing fierce criticism
from the Sages.
[6] As we find, for example, in the fourth chapter of Massekhet Berakhot (26a, 26b and elsewhere); we shall not elaborate here.
[7] It should be noted that the story of “R. Elazar b. Charsom, the scholar” makes no mention of the fact that he is a kohen – a fact
that intensifies the impression of the difference between the two characters.
[8] Admittedly, according to the Tosefta, it was his mother who created the garment, but he nevertheless bears responsibility for
choosing to wear it while performing the service.
[9] As Rashi interprets it (ad loc.).
[10] Cf. values of garments in Mishna Ketubot 5:8.
[11] In the beraita we cited previously, which calculates the years served by the various Kohanim Gedolim, R. Elazar b. Charsom
would seem to be included in the list of those who fulfilled their office faithfully. Nevertheless, the beraita about his tunic conveys
criticism – at least on this specific point – as reflected in the sharp response on the part of his fellow kohanim (which appears to be
unusual in relation to the Kohen Gadol), who remove him from the altar.
[12] At that time, the textile industry in Egypt reached an impressive degree of expertise in creating very sheer fabrics. My thanks
to R. Nachum Ben-Yehuda, whose research specializes in textiles during the Talmudic period, for sharing his knowledge in this
sphere with me.
[13] It should be noted that the Yerushalmi adds another sentence at the end of the beraita, after the kohanim halt his service:
“What did he do? He filled it with water, and circumnavigated the altar seven times.” According to the interpretation of Penei
Moshe, this means that R. Elazar b. Charsom tried to prove, by means of this “display”, that the garment was not perforated, but
rather waterproof – as evidenced by the fact that it loses none of the water absorbed in it even after seven circles around the altar.
Perhaps his intention was to show that he had not meant to show any lack of modesty.
[14] As to Yosef showing off his own beauty, see also Bereishit Rabba 87,3: “’And his master’s wife cast [her
eyes]…’ (Bereishit 39:7)… R. Meir and R. Yehuda and R. Shimon: ‘And his master’s wife cast her eyes’ – what was written just
prior to this? ‘And Yosef was of beautiful form and fair to look upon’ (ibid., v. 6). This may be compared to a mighty warrior who
would stand in the marketplace, penciling his eyes and combing his hair and prancing on his heels, proclaiming, ‘I am handsome,
I am worthy, I am mighty.’ The response to him was, ‘If you are mighty, if you are worthy – here comes a bear [a test] that will
rise up and consume you.’”
[15] See Mishna Yoma 3,3 and also Bavli, Yoma 19a (also Mishna Middot 5,3).
[16] The story of Hillel may contain further allusions to the chapter:
a. In the story of Hillel, Shemaya tells Avtalyon, “Usually this house is well-lit, but today it is darkened” – since Hillel’s
body is covering the opening of the window, and the beit midrash remains dark even after dawn. This artificial situation
that has been created in the beit midrash recalls the discussion that introduced the chapter, concerning the distinction
between the end of the night and the beginning of the day. The first Mishna describes an error that occurred once on
account of the light of the moon. The Gemara explains that the inability to distinguish between the light of the moon and
sunlight was because it was a “cloudy day”. Correspondingly, in the story about Hillel, we find Shemaya wondering,
“Perhaps it is a cloudy day?”
b. Perhaps the story of Hillel contains a subtle allusion to a discussion that is recorded in the Bavli in close proximity to
our sugya. The Gemara discusses ways of warming the water in the mikve for a Kohen Gadol who is elderly or frail, and
the halakhic problems involved in terms of the categories of labor forbidden on Yom Kippur. In the story of Hillel, the
occupants of the Beit Midrash wash him and warm him, desecrating Shabbat as they do so. The story concludes with the
words, “They said: ‘This [man] is worthy of having the Shabbat desecrated for him.’” Perhaps there is a slight emphasis
on the word “this” – i.e., as opposed to certain Kohanim Gedolim who were less worthy of being warmed on Yom Kippur.

28