יומא יח

יומא יח

וּמַאי אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ? לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי נִכְנָס נוֹטֵל שֵׁשׁ, וְיוֹצֵא נוֹטֵל שֵׁשׁ, וּשְׂכַר הַגָּפַת דְּלָתוֹת לָא, מִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה בָּעֵי מִיפְלַג. בַּצֵּיר חֲדָא מִפַּלְגָא, חָמֵשׁ שָׁקֵיל.

And what is the meaning of four or five; i.e., when does the High Priest take four loaves and when does he take five? According to the Rabbis, who say: The priestly watch that is incoming on Shabbat takes six of the loaves, and the outgoing watch takes six, and the incoming watch receives no greater portion as payment for closing the doors, it is from twelve loaves that the High Priest must divide and take his share, but he receives half of the loaves less one, meaning that he takes five. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest receives less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of a loaf, less than half is five whole loaves.

לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: נִכְנָס נוֹטֵל שֶׁבַע, שְׁתַּיִם בִּשְׂכַר הַגָּפַת דְּלָתוֹת, וְיוֹצֵא נוֹטֵל חָמֵשׁ, מֵעֶשֶׂר בָּעֵי מִיפְלַג. בַּצֵּיר חֲדָא מִפַּלְגָא, וְשָׁקֵיל אַרְבַּע.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The priestly watch that is incoming on Shabbat takes seven of the loaves, two of which are payment for closing the doors; and the outgoing watch takes five loaves, it is from ten that he must divide the loaves. Those two of the twelve loaves are a separate payment and are not factored into the tally of those designated for distribution. Subtract one from half of that total, as subtracting less than one loaf would lead to a situation where the High Priest receives a piece of a loaf, which is inappropriate. And therefore, the High Priest takes four.

רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי הִיא, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְאֶלָּא מַאי אַרְבַּע? הָא חָמֵשׁ בָּעֵי לְמִשְׁקַל!

Rava said that the baraita should be explained differently. The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that only ten loaves are divided. Rather, what then is the meaning of the statement that the High Priest takes four loaves? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, doesn’t he need to take five?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא מִשְׁמָר הַמִּתְעַכֵּב, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא מִשְׁמָר הַמִּתְעַכֵּב.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This halakha that the High Priest takes four loaves is in a case where there is a watch that is detained. When the start of a Festival occurs on a Sunday night and one of the priestly watches was forced to arrive before Shabbat to ensure that they would arrive in time for the Festival; or, alternatively, if the Festival ended on a Thursday and one of the priestly watches was detained until the conclusion of Shabbat and only then departed, that priestly watch takes two loaves. That halakha that the High Priest takes five loaves is in a case where there is not a watch that is detained, and the shewbread in divided only between the watch that concludes its service that Shabbat and the watch that begins its service that Shabbat.

אִי אִיכָּא מִשְׁמָר הַמִּתְעַכֵּב — מִשְּׁמֹנֶה בָּעֵי לְמִפְלַג, וְשָׁקֵיל אַרְבַּע. אִי לֵיכָּא מִשְׁמָר הַמִּתְעַכֵּב — מֵעֶשֶׂר בָּעֵי לְמִפְלַג, וְשָׁקֵיל חָמֵשׁ.

If there is a watch that is detained, that detained watch takes two loaves, and the outgoing watch takes two loaves as payment for closing the doors. Therefore, it is from eight that the High Priest must divide the loaves, and he takes four. If there is not a watch that is detained, it is from ten that he must divide the loaves and the High Priest takes five.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ? קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, that even the middle statement of the baraita is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and it is referring to a watch that is detained, what is the meaning of the last clause in the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The High Priest always takes five loaves? That statement indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the middle clause, while according to Rava’s interpretation Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that in certain circumstances the High Priest takes only four loaves. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile Rava’s interpretation with the language of the baraita.

מַתְנִי׳ מָסְרוּ לוֹ זְקֵנִים מִזִּקְנֵי בֵּית דִּין, וְקוֹרִין לְפָנָיו בְּסֵדֶר הַיּוֹם, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: אִישִׁי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל! קְרָא אַתָּה בְּפִיךְ, שֶׁמָּא שָׁכַחְתָּ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא לָמַדְתָּ. עֶרֶב יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים שַׁחֲרִית מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁעַר מִזְרָח, וּמַעֲבִירִין לְפָנָיו פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר וְרָגִיל בַּעֲבוֹדָה. כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים לֹא הָיוּ מוֹנְעִין מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה, עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה לֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל הַרְבֵּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל מֵבִיא אֶת הַשֵּׁינָה.

MISHNA: The Sages provided the High Priest with Elders selected from the Elders of the court, and they would read before him the order of the service of the day of Yom Kippur. And they would say to him: My Master, High Priest. Read the order of the service with your own mouth, as perhaps you forgot this reading or perhaps you did not learn to read. On Yom Kippur eve in the morning, the Elders stand him at the eastern gate of the courtyard and pass before him bulls and rams and sheep so that he will be familiar with the animals and grow accustomed to the service, as these were the animals sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Throughout all the seven days that the High Priest was in the Parhedrin chamber, they would not withhold from him any food or drink that he desired. However, on Yom Kippur eve at nightfall, they would not allow him to eat a great deal because food induces sleep and they did not allow him to sleep, as will be explained.

גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא שֶׁמָּא שָׁכַח — לְחַיֵּי. אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא לֹא לָמַד — מִי מוֹקְמִינַן כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא?

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders about the depiction in the mishna of the Elders questioning the High Priest as to whether he forgot this reading or perhaps did not learn to read. Granted, perhaps he forgot, that is fine, as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might have forgotten this portion. However, is it conceivable that perhaps the High Priest did not learn to read? Do we appoint a High Priest of that sort who never learned the Bible?

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״, שֶׁיְּהֵא גָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו בְּכֹחַ, בְּנוֹי, בְּחָכְמָה, וּבְעוֹשֶׁר. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ, שֶׁאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְגַדְּלִין אוֹתוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ — גַּדְּלֵהוּ מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו.

But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is stated: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10); this teaches that he must be greater than his priestly brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth. Aḥerim say: Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but from where is it derived that if he does not have property of his own that his brethren the priests elevate him and render him wealthy from their own property? The verse states: “And the priest who is greater [haggadol] than his brethren”; elevate him [gaddelehu] from the property of his brethren. In any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, כָּאן בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי. דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: תַּרְקַבָּא דְּדִינָרֵי עַיִּילָא לֵיהּ מָרְתָּא בַּת בַּיְיתּוֹס לְיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא עַל דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן גַּמְלָא בְּכָהֲנֵי רַבְרְבֵי.

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There, the baraita that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to the First Temple, where this halakha was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. Here, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, where this halakha was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. As Rav Asi said: The wealthy Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half-se’a of dinars in to King Yannai for the fact that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.

עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שַׁחֲרִית וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: אַף הַשְּׂעִירִים. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תְּנָא שְׂעִירִים? כֵּיוָן דְּעַל חֵטְא קָא אָתוּ — חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

§ It was taught in the mishna: On Yom Kippur eve in the morning, the elders pass different animals before the High Priest. A tanna taught in the Tosefta: Even goats were brought before him. The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason that he did not teach that goats were among the animals that passed before the High Priest? The Gemara answers: Since goats come as atonement for sins, passing them before the High Priest will evoke transgressions and he will become distraught.

אִי הָכִי, פַּר נָמֵי עַל חֵטְא הוּא דְּאָתֵי! פַּר, כֵּיוָן דְּעָלָיו וְעַל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּאָתֵי, בְּאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים, אִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ דְּאִית בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא — מִידָּע יָדַע לֵיהּ וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה. בְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא יָדַע.

The Gemara asks: If so, a bull should not be passed before him, as it too comes to atone for sin. The Gemara answers that there is a difference in the case of a bull, since it is to atone for his sins and for the sins of his brethren the priests that it comes; among his brethren the priests, if there is a person who has a sinful matter, the High Priest would know about it and lead him back to the path of righteousness through repentance. Therefore, passing a bull before the High Priest will not render him distraught, as it will merely remind him of his responsibility toward his priestly brethren. On the other hand, with regard to the entire Jewish people, he does not know of their sinful matters and is unable to facilitate their repentance. Passing goats before the High Priest will evoke their sins as well as his inability to correct the situation, leaving him distraught.

אָמַר רָבִינָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אִי בַּר אֲחָתָיךְ דַּיָּילָא הָוֵי חֲזִי, בְּשׁוּקָא קַמֵּיהּ לָא תַּחְלֵיף.

Apropos the High Priest being privy to the sinful behavior of his fellow priests, Ravina said that this explains the folk saying that people say: If the beloved son of your beloved sister becomes a policeman [dayyala], see to it that in the marketplace you do not pass before him. Be wary of him because he knows your sins.

כׇּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים לָא הָיוּ מוֹנְעִין וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא אוֹמֵר: מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ סְלָתוֹת וּבֵיצִים כְּדֵי לְמַסְמְסוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁאַתָּה מְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי חִימּוּם.

§ We learned in the mishna: Throughout all the seven days that the High Priest was in the Parhedrin chamber, they would not withhold from him any food or drink that he desired. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa says: On Yom Kippur eve they feed him fine flour and eggs in order to loosen his bowels, so that he will not need to relieve himself on Yom Kippur. They said to Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa: In feeding him those foods, all the more so that you bring him to a state of arousal. Feeding him those foods is antithetical to the efforts to prevent the High Priest from becoming impure, as they are liable to cause him to experience a seminal emission.

תַּנְיָא סוֹמְכוֹס אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא ״אב״י״, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: לֹא ״אבב״י״, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לֹא יַיִן לָבָן. לֹא ״אב״י״ — לֹא אֶתְרוֹג, וְלֹא בֵּיצִים, וְלֹא יַיִן יָשָׁן. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לֹא ״אבב״י״ — לֹא אֶתְרוֹג, וְלֹא בֵּיצִים, וְלֹא בָּשָׂר שָׁמֵן, וְלֹא יַיִן יָשָׁן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף לֹא יַיִן לָבָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיַּיִן לָבָן מֵבִיא אֶת הָאָדָם לִידֵי טוּמְאָה.

It was taught in a baraita that Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed him foods represented by the acrostic: Alef, beit, yod; and some say that one does not feed him foods represented by the acrostic: Alef, beit, beit, yod; and some say neither does one feed him white wine. The Gemara elaborates: Not alef, beit, yod means neither etrog, nor eggs [beitzim], nor old wine [yayin]. And some say: Not alef, beit, beit, yod means neither etrog, nor eggs [beitzim], nor fatty meat [basar], nor old wine [yayin]. And some say neither does one feed him white wine because white wine brings a man to the impurity of a seminal emission.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: זָב תּוֹלִין לוֹ בְּמַאֲכָל, וְכׇל מִינֵי מַאֲכָל. אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פִּנְחָס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא ״חגב״י״ וְלֹא ״גב״ם״, וְלֹא כׇּל דְּבָרִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָה. לֹא ״חגב״י״ — לֹא חָלָב, וְלֹא גְּבִינָה, וְלֹא בֵּיצָה, וְלֹא יַיִן. וְלֹא ״גב״ם״ — מֵי גְרִיסִין שֶׁל פּוֹל, וּבָשָׂר שָׁמֵן, וּמֻרְיָיס.

Similarly, the Sages taught: If a man experienced an emission that could render him a zav, one attributes the emission not to his being a zav but perhaps to a different cause, e.g., to food, or to all kinds of food, i.e., he may have eaten too much food, which could have caused the emission. Elazar ben Pineḥas says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: During the days that a zav is examining himself to determine whether or not he is impure, one feeds him neither foods represented by the acrostic: Ḥet, gimmel, beit, yod, nor foods represented by the acrostic: Gimmel, beit, mem, nor any food items that might bring him to impurity caused by an emission. The Gemara explains: Not ḥet, gimmel, beit, yod means neither milk [ḥalav], nor cheese [gevina], nor egg [beitza], nor wine [yayin]. And not gimmel, beit, mem means neither soup of pounded beans [mei gerisin], nor fatty meat [basar], nor small fish pickled in brine [muryas].

וְלֹא כׇּל דְּבָרִים הַמְּבִיאִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָה, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מְבִיאִים אֶת הָאָדָם לִידֵי טוּמְאָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַשּׁוּם

The Gemara asks about the phrase: Nor any food items that might bring him to impurity; what does it come to include? It comes to include that which the Sages taught: Five food items bring a man to a state of impurity due to emission. And these are: Garlic,

וְהַשַּׁחֲלַיִם וַחֲלֹגְלוֹגוֹת וְהַבֵּיצִים וְהַגַּרְגִּיר. ״וַיֵּצֵא אֶחָד אֶל הַשָּׂדֶה לְלַקֵּט אוֹרוֹת״, תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: זֶה גַּרְגִּיר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן ״אוֹרוֹת״ — שֶׁמְּאִירוֹת אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַמּוֹצֵיא גַּרְגִּיר, אִם יָכוֹל לְאׇכְלוֹ אוֹכְלוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — מַעֲבִירוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי עֵינָיו. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּגַרְגִּירָא מַצְרָנְאָה.

cress, purslane, eggs, and arugula. Apropos the arugula plant, the Gemara cites a verse: “And one of them went out into the fields to collect orot” (II Kings 4:39). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir with regard to orot in this verse: This is the plant called arugula. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why are these arugula plants called orot? It is because they enlighten [me’irot] the eyes. Rav Huna said: With regard to one who finds arugula, if he can eat it, he eats it, and if not, he passes it over his eyes, as that too is beneficial. Rav Pappa said: Arugula is most effective when it grows on the border of the field, where it is unadulterated by other plants.

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: אַכְסְנַאי לֹא יֹאכַל בֵּיצִים, וְלֹא יִישַׁן בְּטַלִּיתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. רַב כִּי מִקְּלַע לְדַרְשִׁישׁ, מַכְרֵיז: מַאן הָוְיָא לְיוֹמָא. רַב נַחְמָן כַּד מִקְּלַע לְשַׁכְנְצִיב, מַכְרֵיז: מַאן הָוְיָא לְיוֹמָא.

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A guest should neither eat eggs, because they lead to a seminal emission, nor sleep in a garment belonging to the homeowner, his host, because if he experiences a seminal emission and it gets on the garment, he will be diminished in the estimation of his host. Apropos conduct of a guest, the Gemara relates: When Rav would happen to come to Darshish he would declare: Who will be married to me for the day that I am here so that I will not be unwed in this place, after which I will divorce her? Similarly, when Rav Naḥman would come to Shekhantziv he would declare: Who will be married to me for the day that I am here?

וְהַתַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ, וְיֵלֵךְ וְיִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁמָּא יִזְדַּוְּוגוּ זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה וְנִמְצָא אָח נוֹשֵׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ (וְאָב נוֹשֵׂא בִּתּוֹ), וּמְמַלֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ מַמְזֵרוּת, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״וּמָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ זִמָּה״. אָמְרִי: רַבָּנַן — קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.

But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry a woman in one state and go and marry another woman in a different state, lest a match be arranged between the child of this wife with the child of that wife who are unaware of their relationship. This would lead to a brother marrying his sister or a father marrying his daughter, filling the whole world in its entirety with mamzerim. And concerning this it is stated: “And the land became filled with lewdness” (Leviticus 19:29). The Sages say in response: The Sages generate publicity. Since they were well-known, the identity of their children was also undoubtedly known. Therefore, there was no concern that errors of this kind would befall their children.

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: תְּבָעוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְנִתְפַּיְּיסָה — צְרִיכָה לֵישֵׁב שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים? רַבָּנַן אוֹדוֹעֵי הֲווֹ מוֹדְעוּ לְהוּ, מִקְדָּם הֲווֹ קָדְמִי וּמְשַׁדְּרִי שְׁלוּחָא.

The Gemara raises a different problem with the practice of Rav and Rav Naḥman. But didn’t Rava say: With regard to one who proposed marriage to a woman and she agreed, she is required to sit seven clean days, as perhaps due to the anticipatory desire she might not notice that she experienced menstrual bleeding and she is therefore impure. How, then, could these amora’im marry a woman on the day that they proposed? The Gemara answers: The Sages would inform them by sending messengers before their arrival. The messenger would announce that the amora sought to marry a local woman. The woman who agreed would in fact wait seven clean days before marrying him.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא יַחוֹדֵי הֲווֹ מְיַחֲדִי לְהוּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ לְמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ.

And if you wish, say instead that these Sages were not actually proposing marriage; rather, they proposed so that they could be in seclusion with the women, without consummating the relationship. Since the women knew that the marriage would not be consummated, they did not experience anticipatory desire. There is no similarity between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. One who does not have access to bread experiences hunger more acutely than one for whom bread is available and can eat whenever he chooses. Similarly, an unmarried man experiences a more acute desire. In order to mitigate that desire, these Sages made certain that women would be designated for them.

מַתְנִי׳ מְסָרוּהוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית דִּין לְזִקְנֵי כְהוּנָּה וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, וְהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ, וְנִפְטְרוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִישִׁי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל! אָנוּ שְׁלוּחֵי בֵּית דִּין, וְאַתָּה שְׁלוּחֵנוּ וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. מַשְׁבִּיעִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ בְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא תְּשַׁנֶּה דָּבָר מִכׇּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ. הוּא פּוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה, וְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין.

MISHNA: The Elders of the court who read the order of the service of the day before the High Priest passed him to the Elders of the priesthood, and they took him up to the House of Avtinas. And they administered him an oath and took leave of him and went on their way. When they administered this oath they said to him: My Master, High Priest. We are agents of the court, and you are our agent and the agent of the court. We administer an oath to you in the name of Him who housed His name in this House, that you will not change even one matter from all that we have said to you with regard to the burning of the incense or any other service that you will perform when alone. After this oath, he would leave them and cry, and they would leave him and cry in sorrow that the oath was necessary.

אִם (הוּא) הָיָה חָכָם — דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִם לָאו — תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים דּוֹרְשִׁים לְפָנָיו. וְאִם רָגִיל לִקְרוֹת — קוֹרֵא, וְאִם לָאו — קוֹרִין לְפָנָיו. וּבַמֶּה קוֹרִין לְפָנָיו: בְּאִיּוֹב וּבְעֶזְרָא וּבְדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים. זְכַרְיָה בֶּן קְבוּטָל אוֹמֵר: פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה קָרִיתִי לְפָנָיו בְּדָנִיֵּאל.

They kept him occupied throughout the night to prevent him from sleeping. If he was a scholar, he would teach Torah. If he was not a scholar, Torah scholars would teach Torah before him. And if he was accustomed to read the Bible, he would read; and if he was not, they would read the Bible before him. And what books would they read before him to pique his interest so that he would not fall asleep? They would read from Job, and from Ezra, and from Chronicles. Zekharya, son of Kevutal, says: Many times I read before him from the book of Daniel.