Daf Ditty Yoma 60: tzorech penim ki-penim dami

High Priest of King Solomon’s Temple” by an unknown artist.

Oil on Canvas

1
2
MISHNA: Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom Kippur stated in the
mishna, as in the Torah, is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions before
another, he has done nothing. If he performed the sprinkling of the blood of the goat before
the sprinkling of the blood of the bull, he must repeat the action and sprinkle the blood of the
goat after sprinkling the blood of the bull, so that the actions are performed in the proper order.

And if the blood spills before he completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the
Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, and bring other blood, and then repeat
all the services from the beginning inside the Holy of Holies.

3
And similarly, if the blood spills before he finishes the presentations in the Sanctuary, he must
begin the service in the Sanctuary from the beginning, and likewise with regard to the sprinkling
of blood on the golden altar. Since they are each acts of atonement in and of themselves, there
is no need to repeat the service of the entire day from the beginning. Rather, he need only repeat
the specific element that he failed to complete. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the
place that he interrupted that particular service, when the blood spilled, there he resumes
performance of that service. In their opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these services
is an act in and of itself, and there is no need to repeat what he has already done.

4
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Each action performed in the context of the service of Yom
Kippur stated in the Torah is listed in order. If the High Priest performed one of the actions
before another, he has done nothing. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? It applies to
those actions performed in white garments inside the Sanctuary, e.g., burning the incense and
sprinkling the blood, which are the essential services of the day. However, with regard to those
actions performed in white garments outside, such as the lottery and the confession, if he
performed one action before another, what he did is done and he need not repeat the rite.

5
In contrast, Rabbi Neḥemya says: In what case is this statement said, that the order is
indispensable? It is said with regard to actions performed in white garments, whether inside or
outside the Sanctuary. However, with regard to those actions performed in golden garments
outside the Sanctuary, the regular Temple service and additional services, if the order was altered,
what he did is done. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi
Neḥemya, derived their opinions from one verse:

‫ ְוִהָזּה ְבֶאְצָבּעוֹ‬,‫יד ְוָלַקח ִמַדּם ַהָפּר‬ 14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and
‫ְפֵּני ַהַכֹּפּ ֶרת ֵקְדָמה; ְוִלְפֵני‬-‫ַﬠל‬ sprinkle it with his finger upon the ark-cover on the east;
--‫ַהָדּם‬-‫ְפָּﬠִמים ִמן‬-‫ ַיֶזּה ֶשַׁבע‬,‫ַהַכֹּפּ ֶרת‬ and before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle of the blood
.‫ְבֶּאְצָבּעוֹ‬ with his finger seven times.
Lev 16:34

“And this shall be an everlasting statute to you, to make atonement for the children of Israel for
all their sins once a year”

Summary
We learn a hermeneutic rule: one overarching halacha can be applied to many similar
situations. This is called an analogy, a binyan av. When that same halacha is stated in two
different verses/contexts, however, we are not to assume that the second derives from the first. The
rabbis try to apply other rules, like notar and piggul to help us understand their thinking about
ritual impurity when dealing with the blood of the bull and goat on Yom Kippur. Our Sages put
limitations upon their own interpretation. Had they decided on different hermeneutic rules, our
halachot and thus our lives might be very different.1

A new Mishna tells us that the order of Temple rituals are very important, but errors can be
corrected. If a preliminary ritual is done out of order, there is no consequence. If the blood of the
goat is sprinkled before that of the bull, the goat's blood must be sprinkled again following the bull
to reestablish the proper order. And if the blood is spilled earlier than allowed, another animal
must be sacrificed and the entire service must be repeated. Rabbis Elazar and Shimon believe that
it is enough to continue the service from the point of sprinkling, as each sprinkling is its own
action.

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/01/yoma-60-b.html

6
The Gemara clarifies: when rites are done in white clothing inside the Sanctuary, these rules
apply. However, outside of the Holy of Holies, when wearing white, the High Priest is not required
to go back and repeat these rites. Other rabbis argue different versions of what is required when,
and in which places. Specifically, the rabbis argue about what is done when errors are made during
the year when the High Priest is wearing golden clothing compared with what is done on Yom
Kippur. Which actions are less important and which are indispensable?

The rabbis come back to questions about the timing of these rituals. What if the incense is offered
erroneously; does this affect the blood sacrifices? Will the scooping of incense have to be repeated
if there is an error later in the rituals at the Altar? How might the answers to these questions help
us to determine whether or not the incense is indispensable?

How would the rabbis actually decide which rituals were of greater importance? Beyond the
blood-related rituals which are described in the Torah as critically attached to atonement, of
course. So often the proof texts chosen by our Sages seem to be only minimally connected with
their arguments. How much power the rabbis held in their hands. I understand that they were
establishing the rabbinic model of Jewish thought and practice. But did they know, on some level,
that their words and rules would be taken with such seriousness some two thousand years later?

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

MISHNAH: All the services of Yom Kippur which are prescribed in a particular order, if one was
performed before another, it is invalid. If he sprinkled the blood of the he-goat before the blood of
the bull, he must start over again, sprinkling the blood of the he-goat after the blood of the bull. If
the blood spilled before he had finished the applications inside (the Holy of Holies), he must bring
other blood (by slaughtering another animal), starting over again, and sprinkling again inside (the
Holy of Holies). Likewise, in matters of the (applications in the) Sanctuary and the Golden Altar,
since they are each a separate act of atonement. Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Shimon say: Wherever he
stopped, that is where he must begin again.

The Gemora cites a Baraisa: All the services of Yom Kippur which are prescribed in a particular
order, if one was performed before another, it is invalid. Rabbi Yehudah said: When does this
apply? It is only with regard to services performed in the white vestments, inside (the Holy of
Holies), but any service performed in white vestments outside, if in connection with them he
performed one out of order before the other one, then what he has done is done (and it is valid).
Rabbi Nechemiah said: These things apply only to services performed in white vestments, whether
performed inside (the Holy of Holies) or outside, but in case of services performed in golden
vestments outside, what has been done, is done. Rabbi Yochanan said: And both expounded it on
the basis of the same Scriptural verse: And this shall be to you an eternal statute (indicating that
the precise sequence of events is critical) . . . once in the year. Rabbi Yehudah holds: This refers

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Yoma_60.pdf

7
to the place on which atonement is obtained once a year (i.e., the Holy of Holies), whereas Rabbi
Nechemiah holds that it refers to the objects through which atonement is obtained once a year (i.e.,
the white vestments).

The Gemora asks: But according to Rabbi Yehudah, is then ‘place’ written here? Rather, the
following is the reason for Rabbi Yehudah's view: It is written ‘this,’ and it is written ‘once.’ One
excludes (services performed in) white vestments (outside of the Holy of Holies), and the other
excludes (those performed in) golden vestments. [The precise sequence is not critical by these.]

Rabbi Nechemiah, however, expounds as follows: One excludes (services performed in) golden
vestments, and the other (excludes) the remaining blood, which (if done out of order) do not impair
(the service that follows it). Rabbi Yehudah disagrees, and explains as follows: If (an act performed
in white vestments outside of the Holy of Holies is performed out of order) impairs the service, it
should impair it here (by the remainder of the blood) as well, and if it does not impair (the service),
it should not impair it here either; as it was taught in a Baraisa: The verse says that when the Kohen
Gadol leaves the building of the Bais Hamikdash he will kilah mikaper – finish to atone. Rabbi
Akiva says this verse teaches that he finishes only when he atones, while Rabbi Yehudah says the
verse teaches that only if he finishes does he atone, but not if he omitted any of the applications.
And Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi differ on what the dispute is. One says that
there is only a dispute about how to read the verse, but there is no practical ramification, as both
agree that all the inner applications are necessary for atonement. The other says that they dispute
whether the spilling the leftover blood on the outer altar is necessary for atonement.

Rabbi Akiva says that as long as the atonement explicitly detailed – i.e., the inner applications –
is done, he is finished, and atonement is complete, while Rabbi Yehudah says that only if he
finishes – everything, including spilling the leftovers on the outer altar – does he atone. The
Gemora asks: But did Rabbi Yochanan hold like this? Surely Rabbi Yochanan said: Rabbi
Nechemiah taught in accordance with the view that the remaining blood (offered not as prescribed)
impairs (the service)? The Gemora states that this indeed is a difficulty.

Rabbi Chanina said: If he took the hands-full of the incense before the slaughtering of the bull, he
has done nothing.

The Gemora asks: According to whom is this? Presumably, it is not according to the view of Rabbi
Yehudah, for he said that the word ‘statute’ was written only in connection with services performed
in white vestments inside (the Holy of Holies)! The Gemora deflects this proof: You may say that
it is even in agreement with Rabbi Yehudah's view, for something (such as slaughtering) that is
necessary for a service performed inside is considered as a service (performed) inside.

The Gemora asks from our Mishnah: If the blood spilled before he had finished the applications
inside (the Holy of Holies), he must bring other blood (by slaughtering another animal), starting
over again, and sprinkling again inside (the Holy of Holies). Now, if this view were correct, the
Mishna should read: He should start again with the taking of the handful (after slaughtering the
new bull)? The Gemora answers: The Mishna is not discussing the incense.

8
He has Accomplished Nothing

There are several times in shas that it states “lo asah velo k’lum” – he has not accomplished
anything. The Rema Mipano explains this statement as follows: “Lo asah” means that he did not
fulfill the mitzvah, and “velo k’lum” means that he did not commit a transgression either. The
Mishnah states that if the kohen gadol performed one avodah before the other - “lo asah velo
k’lum”. This is referring to the sprinkling of the blood of the he-goat in the Kodesh Hakodoshim
before the sprinkling from the bull.

In this instance, besides not fulfilling the mitzvah, there is a transgression as well, for he entered
the Kodesh Hakodoshim unnecessarily. The Gemora discusses a case where he performed the
scooping of the incense prior to the slaughtering of the bull, and here the Gemora says “lo asah
velo k’lum”. This is understood because there is no transgression being committed for the taking
of the incense is done outside. There is no mitzvah or aveirah.

CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF THE AVODOS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah argue about which Avodos are disqualified if done out of
their proper order. Rebbi Nechemyah says that any Avodah which the Kohen Gadol performs
while he wears the Bigdei Lavan, whether in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim or in the Heichal, is
disqualified when done out of order. Rebbi Yehudah says that only an Avodah which the Kohen
Gadol performs in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim is disqualified if done out of order.

Rebbi Chanina adds that if the Kohen Gadol performs the Chafinah of the Ketores before he
slaughters the Par (when he is supposed to perform the Shechitah before the Chafinah), the Avodah
is disqualified. Even though the Chafinah and Shechitah are Avodos that are performed outside of
the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, the Gemara says that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the Chafinah and
Shechitah are disqualified when performed out of order. Since the Chafinah is needed for an
Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (the burning of the Ketores), and the Shechitah
is needed for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim (the sprinkling of the blood of
the Par), they are considered to be Avodos performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim such that a
change in their order disqualifies them. This is the teaching of Rebbi Chanina.

The Gemara challenges Rebbi Chanina's suggestion from the Mishnah (60a). The Mishnah states
that if the blood of the Par spilled before the Kohen Gadol finished sprinkling the blood in the
Kodesh ha'Kodashim, he must slaughter another Par and begin the Haza'os again. However,
according to the Mishnah's statement, the Shechitah of the new Par is done after the Chafinah, and

3
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-060.htm

9
yet the Mishnah does not require the Kohen Gadol to perform a new Chafinah after he slaughters
the new Par. Accordingly, the Mishnah contradicts Rebbi Chanina's teaching that Avodos which
are needed for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim are considered to be Avodos
done in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim themselves (and if they are performed out of order they become
disqualified, even according to Rebbi Yehudah).

Why does the Gemara ask this question only on the opinion of Rebbi Chanina? The law in the
Mishnah is problematic even without Rebbi Chanina's teaching. If the Kohen Gadol slaughters
another Par after he has begun to sprinkle the blood, that means that he is slaughtering it after he
has offered the Ketores. The Avodah of the Ketores is done inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and
must be done after the Shechitah of the Par. When the Kohen Gadol slaughters a new Par, the
Ketores is pushed out of order (before the Shechitah instead of after it). He should be required to
perform a new Haktaras ha'Ketores after he slaughters the new Par, but the Mishnah makes no
mention of such a requirement. The Gemara should ask why the Mishnah does not say that
the Haktaras ha'Ketores must be redone. Why does it question only Rebbi Chanina's opinion and
ask that the Mishnah does not say that the Chafinah must be redone? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER)

Moreover, the Gemara later (beginning of 61a) quotes Ula who proves that the Mishnah follows
the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah. The Mishnah says that if the Haza'ah of the blood of the Sa'ir
was performed before the Haza'ah of the blood of the Par, the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir must be done
again after the Haza'as Dam ha'Par. Ula asserts that the Mishnah refers only to the Haza'as Dam
ha'Sa'ir which is performed in the Heichal, and nevertheless it is disqualified when done in the
wrong order. The only Tana who says that the wrong order disqualifies an Avodah performed in
the Heichal is Rebbi Nechemyah.

Ula explains his assertion that the Mishnah refers only to the Avodah done in the Heichal. The
Mishnah's statement cannot refer to the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir which is performed in the Kodesh
ha'Kodashim, because in such a case it would not help to redo the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir after the
Haza'as Dam ha'Par. The fact that the initial Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir was done before the initial
Haza'as Dam ha'Par indicates that the Sa'ir itself was slaughtered before the Haza'as Dam ha'Par
was performed, and thus the Shechitah of the Sa'ir itself would also need to be redone after the
Haza'as Dam ha'Par. Since the Mishnah makes no mention of such a requirement, it must be that
the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah and refers only to the Haza'as Dam ha'Sa'ir
performed in the Heichal.

Why, then, does the Gemara here ask that the Mishnah is problematic according to Rebbi Chanina
(who says that Avodos which are performed outside of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and are needed
for an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha'Kodashim are disqualified when done in the wrong
order)? The Mishnah is problematic regardless of Rebbi Chanina's principle! The Mishnah follows
the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah, who maintains that any Avodah the Kohen Gadol performs
while he wears the Bigdei Lavan becomes disqualified when he performs it in the wrong order. It
certainly should not suffice to slaughter another Par and begin the Haza'os again (in the Mishnah's
case of the blood of the Par that spilled before the Haza'os were completed), because the Chafinah
will be done out of order (before the Shechitas ha'Par).

10
REBBI AKIVA EIGER answers both questions by citing the words of the TOSFOS
YESHANIM (40a, DH Nehi) and the RITVA here. They suggest that according to Rashi, the
Gemara’s conclusion is that a change in the order of Avodos invalidates the Avodos only when
both Avodos are those performed in the Kodesh ha’Kodashim. In contrast, when an Avodas Penim
(an Avodah performed inside the Kodesh ha’Kodashim) is performed in the wrong order before or
after an Avodas Chutz (an Avodah performed in the Heichal), the Avodah remains valid
(according to Rebbi Yehudah).

For this reason, when the Avodas ha’Ketores (an Avodas Penim) is performed before the Shechitas
ha’Par (an Avodas Chutz), the Avodah is valid. Only if the Shechitas ha’Par is considered an
Avodas Penim (because it is performed for the sake of an actual Avodas Penim) may it not be done
before the Ketores (or the Chafinah, which is also considered an Avodas Penim), according to
Rebbi Chanina who rules that an Avodah performed outside of the Kodesh ha’Kodashim but which
is needed for an Avodah inside the Kodesh ha’Kodashim is considered an Avodas Penim (see
Rashi 60a, DH b’Vigdei Lavan). Therefore, the Gemara asks its question only on the view of Rebbi
Chanina. According to Rebbi Chanina, the Shechitas ha’Par must be done before the Chafinah,
since both are considered Avodos Penim. Without Rebbi Chanina’s principle, the Mishnah itself
is not problematic because the Ketores is an Avodas Penim while the Shechitas ha’Par is an Avodas
Chutz, and thus their order respective to each other is not relevant (that is, there is no requirement
for the Shechitas ha’Par to be done before the Ketores).

This approach also answers the second question. Had Rebbi Chanina not stated that the Shechitas
ha’Par is considered an Avodas Penim, the Gemara would not have asserted that the Mishnah
follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah and not that of Rebbi Yehudah. When the Mishnah says
that the Sa’ir was slaughtered and its blood sprinkled before the Haza’as Dam ha’Par, it may refer
to the Haza’os performed in the Kodesh ha’Kodashim and follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
In that case, it suffices to perform another Haza’ah of the blood of the Sa’ir and it is not necessary
to slaughter another Sa’ir after the Haza’as Dam ha’Par, because the Shechitah is not an Avodas
Penim (without Rebbi Chanina’s principle), and its order has no bearing on the Avodas Penim.

The previous answer is valid only according to the Tosfos Yeshanim’s understanding of Rashi.
However, many Rishonim disagree with this understanding based on the Gemara earlier (40a)
which says that if an Avodas Penim is done in the wrong order relative to an Avodas Chutz, the
Avodah becomes disqualified.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER explains that the first question still can be answered based on the words
of the TOSFOS YESHANIM (DH Aval b’Devarim). The Tosfos Yeshanim says that an Avodah
becomes disqualified only when it is performed later than the order requires, but not when it is
performed earlier than the order requires. If an Avodas Penim is performed in the Kodesh
ha’Kodashim earlier than an Avodas Chutz which is supposed to precede that Avodas Penim, it is
valid nevertheless, according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Accordingly, when the Avodas ha’Ketores is performed before the Shechitas ha’Par, the Avodah
is valid. Only if the Shechitas ha’Par is considered an Avodas Penim, as Rebbi Chanina states, will
it be disqualified when performed after the Chafinah or the Ketores. This is a problem according
to Rebbi Yehudah only if Rebbi Chanina’s principle is correct. For this reason, the Gemara

11
questions only Rebbi Chanina. According to Rebbi Chanina, if the Shechitas ha’Par must be
redone, then the Chafinah should have to be redone after it. Without Rebbi Chanina’s principle,
the Mishnah is not problematic when it says that the Shechitas ha’Par is redone but does not say
that the Ketores also must be redone after it; the Ketores may be done before the Shechitas ha’Par
(and performing the Shechitah after the Ketores is not problematic because it is not an Avodas
Penim).

However, this answer does not address Rebbi Akiva Eiger’s second question. Since the Mishnah
follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah, it should not suffice to redo the Shechitas ha’Par and
not the Chafinah (and Ketores), since it is clear that the Mishnah maintains that a change in the
order disqualifies all Avodos that the Kohen Gadol performs while he wears the Bigdei Lavan,
even those he performs in the Heichal and Azarah. The first answer (above) suggested that without
the principle of Rebbi Chanina, the Avodah is valid when the Haza’as Dam ha’Par is done after
the Shechitas ha’Sa’ir (because one Avodah is done in the Kodesh ha’Kodashim and the other is
done outside). According to Rebbi Nechemyah, though, the Avodos done inside and outside are
considered to have the same status, and thus the Haza’as Dam ha’Par cannot be done after the
Shechitas ha’Sa’ir, an Avodas Chutz. A change in the order should disqualify the Avodos! Rebbi
Akiva Eiger does not answer this question.

Perhaps a simple answer may be suggested based on the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos
Avodas Yom ha’Kipurim 5:1, according to the Lechem Mishneh’s understanding) and
the BARTERNURA. They explain that the Tana of the Mishnah here is a third opinion which
agrees with neither Rebbi Yehudah nor Rebbi Nechemyah. This third Tana maintains that Avodos
performed in the Kodesh ha’Kodashim or in the Heichal must be done in the proper order, but an
Avodah performed with the Bigdei Lavan outside of the Heichal is not disqualified when
performed out of order (see Chart). Accordingly, the Mishnah would not disqualify the Shechitas
ha’Par (which is performed outside the Heichal) when it is performed out of order if not for Rebbi
Chanina’s statement that it is considered an Avodas Penim.

12
 Two Verses That Come As One

Steinzalts (OBM) writes:4

We learned on the previous daf that use of an object belonging to the Temple whose mitzva has
already been fulfilled can no longer be considered me'ila (deriving benefit from an object
consecrated to the Temple). The Gemara points out that there are a number of other things that
belong to the Temple which retain their status even after the mitzva has been completed. They
include: Terumat ha-deshen - the ashes that are removed from the altar at the beginning of the

4
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

13
morning Temple service, and Bigdei kehuna - the vestments worn on Yom Kippur by the kohen
gadol, who removes them after he completes the avoda (service).

Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found
elsewhere. And there is a principle: Any two verses that come as one do not teach, i.e., an analogy
may not be derived from these two similar cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional
instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.

Generally speaking, the Talmud derives general principles from a passage written in one place and
applies them in other places where they logically apply, unless there are specific indications in the
pasuk that limit its applicability. In a case like ours, where the Torah specifically teaches the same
rule in two places, it is a clear indication that we do not have a general principle, but rather a rule
that applies specifically in these two places and nowhere else. There are occasions when the
Gemara can prove that the cases are so different from one another (or that each one has a unique
quality about it) that we would not be able to extrapolate from one to the other. In such a case, the
Gemara would suggest that we can, in fact, apply the rule more generally, even though it is taught
by the Torah in both cases.

The Gemara does point out that there is an opinion which allows applying a rule generally even if
it does appear in the Torah in two places. According to this opinion, the fact that the rule is repeated
twice simply indicates that the Torah wants to emphasize the general applicability of that rule.
Even that opinion, though, recognizes that if a rule is repeated three times, then it is limited in its
scope and cannot be applied to other cases in the Torah.

The Mishnah in Sukkah (51a) teaches that worn out garments of the kohanim were made into large
wicks for the torches which lit up the courtyard.5

Minchas Chinuch ‫ט צ‘( (מצוה‬:‫” ט‬discusses exactly which of the garments of the regular kohen
would be used for this purpose. Rambam ‘‫)ה”ה ח”פ המקדש כלי( (הל‬rules that the worn clothing of
the Kohen Gadol from year-round use and the garments of the Kohen Gadol from Yom Kippur
could not be used for any other purpose These garments had to be buried.

Mishnah l’Melech cites a Yerushalmi which reports that the used clothes of the Kohen Gadol were
used to make wicks for the Menorah, inside the Sanctuary, and the worn clothes of the regular
kohanim were used to make wicks for the torches which illuminated the outer courtyard.
Nevertheless, Rambam is of the opinion that the used clothes of the Kohen Gadol were not to be
used for any purpose, and they had to be buried. Minchas Chinuch points out that Rambam would
not rule against a Yerushalmi, and it must be that Rambam found a Baraisa upon which he based
his ruling.

‫ קרית ספר‬suggests that Rambam understood that although our Gemara only states that the special,
four linen garments which the Kohen Gadol wore on Yom Kippur had to be buried, this law also

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20060.pdf

14
applies to linen garments which the Kohen Gadol wore all year long. The “‫ ז גרי‬suggests that
Rambam considers the garments of the Kohen Gadol which become worn out in the same category
as any consecrated utensil (‫ ) שרת כלי‬which becomes worn out or ruined.

The general halachah is (Zevachim 88a) that such utensils are to be buried. Aruch HaShulchan
learns that the requirement to bury the worn out year-round clothes of the Kohen Gadol is not a
Torah law.

The verse only prescribes this treatment of the Yom Kippur clothes he wears. Nevertheless,
Rambam learned that there is a Rabbinic requirement to discard them in this respectful manner.
This is just another way of distinguishing the role of the Kohen Gadol.

While Rabbi Yehudah says that the avodah done out of order is only disqualified if it pertains to
the Kodesh Kodoshim and the Kohen Gadol is wearing the white garments, Rabbi Nechemiah
disagrees. He holds that any part of the avodah done out of order is disqualified provided that the
Kohen Gadol was wearing the white garments.

The Ramak, zt”l, explains that each of the four white linen garments represents a letter of the - ‫הוי‬
‫ שם ה‬.Each of those letters represents a different middah that needs to be corrected, as we find in
the in the Sha’arei Kedushah.

In order to rectify these deeply entrenched characteristics from within the Jewish people, the
Kohen Gadol needed to be completely focused on his task. If he was too preoccupied to maintain
the proper order, the avodah could not have been performed as completely as required.

It was for this reason that the avodah done out of order (in the bigdei lavan in particular) was
invalid according to Rabbi Nechemiah. Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion regarding the Kodesh Kodoshim
is another way of expressing the same idea—if the Kohen Gadol lost sight of his task even in the
holiest place, he could not have effected the proper rectifications.

On Yom Kippur itself, how careful we all must be not to allow our character flaws to put our
avodah completely “out of order!”

Once, on Yom Kippur in Slutsk during the time of the Beis HaLevi, zt”l, a certain wealthy man
suddenly felt faint. He began to get hysterical and insisted that he must have water immediately.
It seemed to be a case of where we permit that which is normally forbidden even
when we are in doubt. To clarify the matter, members of the community immediately approached
the Beis HaLevi for a halachic decision.

15
The Beis HaLevi, zt”l, replied, “Of course, he is allowed to drink because of the possibility of it
being

But, just to make certain that this man really understands the severity of his act, he will have to
pay a very large sum of money for each sip that he drinks.” When the wealthy man heard this, he
felt “miraculously” restored. “I’m sure I can wait until the end of the fast!” he said.

Rabbi Ethan Linden writes:6

For anyone who has been learning Tractate Yoma over the last many weeks, the strict ruling in the
first line of the mishnah that appears on today’s daf will be utterly unsurprising.

Each action of Yom Kippur that has been stated, is stated in order. If he (the high priest)
performed one of the actions before the other it is as though he has done nothing.

Given the rabbinic attention paid to every element of this annual rite of atonement, it comes as no
surprise that the order of the steps — which, after all, appear in the Torah itself — is critical.

However, what the mishnah states in seemingly blanket terms, the ensuing discussion seeks to
narrow.

Rabbi Yehudah said: When does this rule apply? To those actions performed in white
garments inside the sanctuary, but those actions performed in white garments outside, if you
perform one action before the other, what is done is done.

According to Rabbi Yehudah, the mishnah’s rule is in fact limited to certain actions. Whereas the
mishnah made no distinctions between the different parts of the ritual, Rabbi Yehudah seems to
be willing to assign different levels of importance to the different steps in the series of ritual
actions. Some steps can be performed out of order without invalidating the ritual.

Having raised Rabbi Yehudah’s explanation of the mishnah, the Gemara notes that Rabbi
Nechemya also limits the scope of the mishnah’s ruling, albeit in a different way. He says that all
actions in white garments must be performed in proper order, whether inside or outside of the
sanctuary, but those performed in golden garments are subject to looser requirements.

This fairly unremarkable dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemya is an excellent
example of the interplay we often see between the Mishnah and the talmudic debate that flows
from it. In this case, we see the Mishnah make what seems to be a general statement of law,
anonymously and without dissent. Only in the ensuing discussion do we learn that what seemed
broad and uncontested is understood (and disputed) quite differently among later generations.

What’s at stake here is more than simply a practical legal question about what constitutes a failed
Yom Kippur ritual in the Temple. (And of course that practical question was moot by the time of
the Mishnah.) The deeper question is: Are there parts of this complex annual ritual that are more

6
Myjewishlearning.com

16
important than others? Is the Yom Kippur of the Temple, or for that matter our Yom Kippur, a
series of equally significant steps that must all be performed exactly correctly in order to achieve
the promised atonement?

We know that certain parts of our ritual that seem quite fixed to us, such as Kol Nidrei, were far
from universally accepted and in fact were quite controversial at the time of their inclusion in
service. Many rabbinic authorities tried to ban Kol Nidrei, though popular acclaim for the service
eventually won the day.

Today, we might ask the same question. In the 21st century, is fasting enough to bring forgiveness?
If we sit in synagogue from Kol Nidre through Neilah but do not do the work of apologizing to
those whom we have harmed, do our prayers find purchase? Which parts of our Yom Kippur ritual
are essential as we seek forgiveness and atonement, and which may be condensed or even skipped
altogether?

As in the debate on our daf today, there will be different answers to these questions. We might
take inspiration from Rabbis Yehudah and Nechemya, who sought to understand and differentiate
between the different steps of a complex ritual chain. After all, it is not the steps themselves that
matter; it is the ultimate goal of forgiveness and atonement. It is to hear the shofar blast at the end
of the holiday and know we have moved ourselves a little bit closer to the people we want to be.
To do that, we have to carefully examine the steps on the path, even if that means deciding that
some are essential, and some we can leave behind.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

The Mishna (Yoma 5:7) in our daf (Yoma 60a) begins by stating that all the actions performed by
the Kohen Gadol which have previously been described in Massechet Yoma ‫( על הסדר‬in order),
need to be performed ‫( על הסדר‬in order), to the extent that ‫אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו‬, if he performed
one of the actions before the other, ‫לא עשה כלום‬, meaning that such an action is not deemed to be
valid.

However, the Gemara then cites the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda – according to whom we rule (see
Rambam, Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 5:1) - who then clarifies that while this absolute
demand for ‫( סדר‬order) applies to the actions performed by the Kohen Gadol in the Kodesh
Kodashim, if the actions performed by him outside of the Kodesh Kodashim were not done in
order, then ‫ – מה שעשה עשוי‬what is done is done (i.e. it is valid).

Reflecting on this distinction, it suggests – as does so much of the Avodah performed by the Kohen
Gadol on Yom Kippur – that the service performed by the Kohen Gadol in private (i.e. in the
sacred space of the Kodesh Kodashim) needs to be performed with even greater care to details
than the service that he performs in public, and that it is especially when no one else can see what
he is doing which is when getting the order of what he does right counts the most.

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

17
Unfortunately, the trend today is the opposite. So many people care about their outside image and
spend much time and effort working on making sure that they are seen as people with everything
‘sorted’ and ‫ על הסדר‬- in order. Yet at the same time their less visible private life, and their Kodesh
Kodashim – the feelings which they have which few if any know about – are in turmoil.

What we learn from the Avodah of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur is that getting our ‫– מבפנים‬
our inner life – in order is more important that projecting that our ‫ – מבחוץ‬outer life – is in order,
because the consequences of the former far outweigh the consequences of the latter.

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:8

The mishna in Yoma (60a) demands that the proper sequence of ceremonies be maintained during

the avodat Yom Ha-kippurim (Yom Kippur service in the Temple). The subsequent gemara

records a dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda surrounding the scope of this

requirement. Was it stated regarding the unique Yom Kippur ceremonies performed with the

bigdei lavan (special linen clothing worn on Yom Kippur in place of the standard gold clothing),

or does it apply only to those unique avodot (services) performed in the kodesh ha-kodashim (holy

of holies)? For example, would the sequence requirement apply to the lottery process, viduy

(confession) recitation, or blood-sprinkling on the parokhet (curtain) - ceremonies performed

outside the kodesh ha-kodashim but with linen clothing?

The gemara applies the sequence requirement to collecting ketoret (incense) and sacrificing the

par (the bull brought as the kohen gadol's sin-offering), even though these ceremonies were

8
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/sequence-requirements-sacrificial-service-yom-kippur

18
performed outside the kodesh ha-kodashim, since they serve as preludes to avodot performed

inside ("tzorech penim ki-penim dami"). Even Rabbi Yehuda, who restricts the sequence

requirement to "avodot penim" ("interior rituals," those performed in the kodesh ha-kodashim),

extends the condition to those "outside" avodot, or "avodot chutz," that precipitate and facilitate

avodot penim.

Having established the issue of sequence, the mishna also mentions a specific sequencing of the

ceremony of the "par u-se'ir." Generally, the ceremony involving the kohen gadol's bull ("par")

was to precede and, to a certain degree, foreshadow, that of the "se'ir" - the goat brought as Benei

Yisrael's sin-offering. (See Vayikra 16:15 – "as he did with the blood of the bull," implying that

the goat ritual must follow that of the bull.) Is this sequencing issue identical to the general

condition, or does it exhibit differences reflecting a unique requirement concerning the schedule

of the par and se'ir ceremonies?

Before analyzing this issue, it would be helpful to list the desired sequence of the avodot of the par

and the se'ir:emikha (leaning) and viduy of the par and the se'ir:

1- semikha (leaning) and viduy of the par

2- lottery of se'irim (hagrala)

3- second viduy of the par

4- shechita (slaughtering) of the par

5- ketoret ceremony

6- sprinkling the blood of the par in the kodesh ha-kodashim

7- shechita of se'ir

8- sprinkling the se'ir blood in the kodesh ha-kodashim

19
9- sprinkling the par blood in the heikhal (= curtain and altar)

10- sprinkling the se'ir blood in the heikhal

(When discussing the various permutations of sequencing violations, we will refer to the avodot

through this numeric code.)

The gemara addresses a situation whereby the sprinkling of the par blood in the heikhal (9)

preceded that of the se'ir blood in the kodesh ha-kodashim (8). The gemara disqualifies this as a

sequencing violation, even though 9 is performed outside, in the heikhal, and is not considered an

avodat penim. There are two approaches to this issue, each of which establishes a different

paradigm toward understanding the issue of sequencing.

Rav Chayim Soloveitchik infers from the Rambam that blood sprinkling in the heikhal (9) is

INDEED considered an avodat penim. Even though the kohen physically stands outside the kodesh

ha-kodashim when sprinkling the blood on the parokhet, since he sprinkles on the parokhet

PARALLEL TO THE ARK, it is considered an avodat penim. Of course, the second stage of the

heikhal ceremony - the sprinkling of blood on the altar - is clearly considered an avodat chutz

(ritual performed outside the kodesh ha-kodashim), regarding which sequencing is not a

disqualification. Hence, according to Rav Chayim, this gemara refers to an inversion of two avodot

penim (9 before 8, with 9 - the sprinkling of par blood in the heikhal - also considered an avodat

penim).

Rashi, however, adopts a different strategy to resolve this question. Although the sprinkling of the

par blood in the heikhal (9) is an avodat chutz, the sequencing violation nevertheless applies since

it preempted the sprinkling of the se'ir blood in the kodesh ha-kodashim (8), which is an avodat

20
penim. Rashi here advances an important theory about sequencing violations. The real problem

involves delaying X by first performing Y, not accelerating Y by preempting X. Even though the

sprinkling of the par blood in the heikhal (9) classifies as an avodat chutz, by performing it before

the sprinkling of the se'ir blood in the kodesh ha-kodashim (8) one preempts 8 - an avodat penim.

Hence, the schedule of an avodat penim has been violated and the entire procedure is disqualified.

To summarize: According to the Rambam, sequencing violations apply only if both avodot are

avodot penim (according to Rabbi Yehuda). According to Rashi, once the performance of an

avodat penim is delayed, the procedure is invalid - even if the accelerated ritual was an avodat

chutz.

An earlier gemara debated a situation in which the sprinkling of the par blood in the kodesh ha-

kodashim (6) preempted hagrala (2). The gemara ultimately validated this situation. According to

the Rambam, this ruling is clear: hagrala is clearly an avodat chutz, and sequencing violations

disqualify only if both avodot are considered avodot penim. Rashi would explain that since an

avodat penim preempted an avodat chutz, no avodat penim has been delayed, and thus the

disqualification does not apply. In the previous situation - sprinkling of par blood in the heikhal

(9) before that of the se'ir blood in the kodesh ha-kodashim (8) - an avodat chutz preempted an

avodat penim, thus disrupting the schedule of an avodat penim. In our situation, however, by

accelerating an avodat penim (6) at the expense of an avodat chutz, one has not compromised the

schedule of an avodat penim.

The Tosefot Yeshanim offer a different but enlightening explanation. Generally, sequencing

violations disqualify only if both rescheduled avodot are avodot penim (in line with Rav Chayim's

21
approach in the Rambam). Hence, hagrala's preempting of the sprinkling of par blood in the kodesh

ha-kodashim does not invalidate. By contrast, sprinkling par blood in the heikhal (9) before

sprinkling the se'ir blood in the kodesh ha-kodashim (8) is invalid (even though the sprinkling of

par blood in the heikhal (9) is an avodat chutz) because it disrupts the sequence of blood sprinkling.

A special sequencing requirement applies to the sprinkling of par blood and its subsequent

shadowing by the sprinkling of se'ir blood. Disrupting this order entails a special pesul

(disqualification), even if the scheduling conflict involves an avodat chutz. By performing 9 before

8, one inverts the order of blood sprinkling – a process with stiffer sequencing requirements.

This unique sequence requirement of the blood sprinkling may be deduced from an interesting

gemara. The gemara claims that preempting the sprinkling of par blood in the heikhal (9) with the

sprinkling of se'ir blood in the heikhal (10) disqualifies the process. According to Rav Chayim,

this gemara might be referring to the sprinkling on the parokhet, which, Rav Chayim claimed, is

considered an avodat penim. According to other opinions, which classify all heikhal sprinkling as

avodat chutz, how can Rabbi Yehuda accept this ruling? Why should rescheduling TWO avodot

chutz invalidate the process? We might apply the Tosafot Yeshanim's rule that blood sprinkling

demands more stringent sequencing standards, and any disruption - regardless of whether we deal

with avodot penim or avodot chutz - would disqualify.

22