Yoma5

1MISHNAH: They brought him the cup and the pan [Other Cohanim bring him an empty cup and the censer full of the incense specially prepared for this day.] ; he took his full fistfuls and put it into the cup, a big person according to his bigness, and a small person according to his smallness, this was their measure. He took the fire-pan [With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple.] into his right hand and the cup in his left, went into the Temple until he reached the space between the two gobelins which separate between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies with one cubit between them. Rebbi Yose says, there was only one gobelin as it was said [Ex. 26:33.] , and the gobelin shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies.

2HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated [Mishnah 4:3. The same expression מַתְתָּה is used in Mishnah 4:3 and in 5:1. But if the High Priest already used the מַתְתָּה before, it cannot be brought to him now from a storage facility.] , “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen [From a rabbinic Hebrew root מגיס “to stir, to mix dough” which may have been induced by Greek μαγίς “dough”.] . Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed [This would contradict Lev. 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed.] ?

3[The incense used in the Temple.] As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy [There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex. 30:36, most holy it shall be for you, Ex. 30:37, holy it shall be for you. Babli Keritut 6a.] , that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary [It seems that the correct text is in Šeqalim: That its existence shall be in the holy space. The Babli text there adds: “and it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury,” i. e., from the Temple tax.] . What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury [In the Babli text: “that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary” which in our text is the Yoma version of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. In the Babli Šeqalim text it makes sense; the preparation may be in profane terrain, only the use must be in the Sanctuary.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings [Mishnah Šeqalim 4:6.] .” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages. [Addition of the corrector from Šeqalim. As explained in Šeqalim, incense of each year has to bought by the proceeds of the Temple tax of that year. In order to avoid that any leftovers at the end of the year became disqualified, the leftovers are given to the workers and artisans working for the Temple as their wages. The Temple can then buy back the incense from the workers with money of the next year and the incense remains qualified. (Private use of incense compounded by the Temple’s formula is a deadly sin, Ex. 30:38.) R. Joḥanan ’s argument that the Mishnah can only be interpreted as referring to incense is given in the Babli, Keritut 6a.] ] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna [Read with Šeqalim: Rav Ḥuna.] said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service [Here one has to read with the Babli Šeqalim: did not make. The incense always is prepared in a profane vessel; it becomes dedicated by being used on the dedicated fire-pan or the interior altar.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed [Answering his question in the negative. R. Yose holds that practice does not follow Samuel.] . He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers [Animals and supplies bought with Temple tax monies but not used by the end of a fiscal year, which cannot be used for the next year.] . As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished [It is impossible to redeem animals qualified to be sacrifices, Lev. 27:10. Samuel proposes to treat the surplus animals similar to how surplus incense was treated: The animals are redeemed with the past year’s excess money, which then is used for repair or improvement of the Temple building as explained in Šeqalim Chapter 4. Then the animals are bought again with money of the new fiscal year and become newly qualified.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta [He requires that the excess sheep be let grazing until either they develop a defect or become disqualified by age; then they may be redeemed like any other disqualified animal. A different tradition Babli Ševuot11b.] . Leftover he-goats [Bought for public purification sacrifices on holidays and days of the New Moon.] , in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze [Same procedure as for sheep, Note 24.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar [To be used as elevation offerings in periods where the altar otherwise would be empty. These sacrifices not being obligatory cannot be bought with money from the Temple tax; one uses dedicated animals which are not being used for their original purpose. The statement is erroneously missing in the Babli Šeqalim.] . This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter [If they never had been dedicated as purification sacrifices, the rules of the latter do not apply. Accepted as opinion both by Samuel and R. Joḥanan in Babli Ševuot 12b.] . Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion [With the Šeqalim texts delete the last two words; the tradent is a late Amora not the early Tanna..] said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices [Since the stipulation preceded the acquisition of the animals by the Temple, R. Yose’s answer is unnecessary.] .

4[Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).] “His full handful [Lev. 2:2.] . I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful [Lev. 6:8.] . If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan [Lev. 2:5.] or frying pan [Lev. 2:7.] and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

5There, you are saying, his full handful, with his handful, and here you are saying, his full handful [The following text implies that here one has to read וּמְלֹ֣א חָפְנָ֔יו (Lev. 16:12), the expression used for the service of the Day of Atonement. It is asserted that the meaning of חָפְנַיִם used in Chapter 16 is identical with קוֹמֶץ used in Chapters 2 and 6, except naturally that the קוֹמֶץ, used in the singular, refers to his right hand only whereas the חָפְנַיִם need both hands.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since there a deficient handful is disqualified, here also a deficient handful is disqualified. Are his fists considered vessels of service to sanctify [The paragraph is R. Joshua ben Levi’s teaching, who asserted before that the incense is compounded in a profane vessel. The question then arises at which moment the incense becomes sanctified to be used in the Temple service, in the hand of the High Priest when he takes it out of the profane cup or in the bowl in which he deposits it. The bowl certainly is a Temple vessel only used for sanctified contents.] ? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist [Babli 49a.] ? Should it be made to measure for his fists [“It” is the empty bowl into which the High Priest deposits his fistful of incense. The next sentence really is a repetition of the question here, whether the same vessel is used for all High Priests or not.] ? Do you estimate for all possible fists or you estimate for his fist only? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked: If he took a fistful and died, may another person enter with his fistful [May his successor use his incense, presuming it did not become impure by the death. Babli 49a.] ? If you are saying that they did not consider his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may enter with his fistful; another person may take the fistful and put it in his fist; one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists [If only the bowl turns the incense into dedicated material, taking the fistful is a necessary action but must not necessarily be done by him personally; therefore also the successor may continue to use the incense taken by the first High Priest. But it is necessary to switch the last two statements, “one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists” to the case that his fists are consecrating, and read here “one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.”] . If you are saying that they considered his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may not enter with his fistful; another person may not take the fistful and put in his fist; one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.

6“A big person according to his bigness,” even like Ben Qimḥit whose hand contained about four qab [About 8 liter.] , “and a small person according to his smallness,” even like Ben Gamia, whose hand contained only about two olives.

7What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen [This question cannot be about the Day of Atonement, where not even an ordinary Cohen may perform one of the duties of the High Priest, but of the regular service in the Temple, except those where the verse explicitly prescribes that a Cohen has to move the object; cf. Lev. 1:15.] ? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai [Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2. As a rule, sacral acts by the priests have to be performed with their right hands. Therefore the blood of a sacrifice has to be collected by the Cohen in a sacred vessel held in his right hand; if later he temporarily switches the vessel to his left hand he may return it to his right hand and it remains qualified.] : “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside [If he returns the vessel to the right hand he increases its distance from the altar; this is not part of the transport of the blood to the altar.] . Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: [Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2.] “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan [With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple.] into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say [The unanimous opinion of the members of the Academy although there is no tannaitic statement to guide the decision.] , if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it [Put the vessel in his left hand under the right hand to support the right hand.] ? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there [Can one say in the case from Zevaḥim that the vessel could remain in his left hand if it is held on his right hand side below his right hand?] , let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.] [Addition by the corrector; correct but not absolutely necessary.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified [If the fire pan is in his left hand and the cup with the dry incense powder in his right hand.] .

8Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry [An unnecessary entry into the Holiest of Holies is a deadly sin, Lev. 16:2.] . About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated [Mishnah Ševuot 2:4 (Note 60). The text there, reported in slightly different formulation, seems to be the correct one: “How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.” The improper behavior was that he tarried, not that he entered when pure. This parallels the first case, where the first entry was necessary and therefore legitimate, only the second one is unnecessary and sinful.] : “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable [In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12.] .” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one.

9“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this [That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a.] is hinted at as we have stated there [Mishnah Middot 4:7.] , “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside [Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim 8:5 Note 93.] . Rebbi Yose said, since it is written [1K. 6:17.] , forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written [2Chr. 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall.] , he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you [Ex. 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?] , etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this [In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12.] Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below [The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.] . Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated [Mishnah Middot 4:5.] , “the impression of pebbles [Greek ψῆφος.] distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

10MISHNAH: The outer one was tied open from South and the inner one from North. He walks between them until he arrives at the North end. When he arrived at the North end he turns his face to the South; he walks with his left along the gobelin [The Holiest of Holies being very dark, he guides his way along the inner gobelin with his left hand in which he holds the cold incense powder.] until he arrives at the Ark. When he came to the Ark he puts the fire-pan between the two beams [With which the Ark was carried (Ex.25:13–15). For the Second Temple, where there was no Ark, see Mishnah 3.] , he piles the incense on the coals and the entire House is filled with smoke. He leaves and returns in the way he entered [He walks backwards with his face towards the Ark inside the Holiest of Holies and towards the North between the two gobelins.] . He prays a short prayer [In the main Temple Hall.] but not prolonging his prayer so as not to frighten Israel [Who might be afraid that something had happened to him.] .

11HALAKHAH: [Starting discussion of Mishnah 2.] It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum, [Which is standing at the South wall of the Sanctuary, Ex. 40:24, 2.5 cubits from the wall, Tosephta 2:12.] the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose says, he enters North of the Table [R. Yose admits only one gobelin. The table was at the North wall, Ex. 40:22.] . Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum [Somewhat North of the candelabrum Tosephta 2:12, Babli 51b.] . He walks between them until he reaches the North. He pushes with his elbows so that the gobelins should not be burned. When he arrives at the North he turns his face to the South. He retraces his steps lest he be seen as striding between the beams. How does he do it? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he puts the bowl on the ground, throws it in the air and catches it with the fire-pan [He and Samuel read the requirement that the High Priest put “his full fistfuls” of incense into the fire that in the Holiest of Holies he also has to use both his hands to put the incense in the fire, which leaves no hand free to hold the cup, forcing an acrobatic feat. Differently Babli 49b.] . Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup [He holds that the biblical requirement is satisfied by using his fists in putting the incense into the cup. Having deposited the fire pan, the High Priest may take the cup into his right hand and empty it into the fire-pan. Opinion not mentioned in the Babli.] and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends.

12“He leaves and returns in the way he entered.” Following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr, even if he wants he cannot do it. Why? Not to have his back turned to the Holiness [There is no problem walking backwards according to R. Yose since he simply backs out. But for R. Meïr when he passes back between the gobelins from the North end to the middle he would turn his back towards the Ark, which is a sign of disrespect. Therefore R. Meïr should require that he back out until he is between the gobelins, then go forward until he is close to half way to the South, turn right (West) to face the Ark, and a little later make another 90° turn and walk backwards until he exits into the Temple hall.] .

13It is written [2Chr. 1:13. In the description of the Chronicler, the Ark was in Jerusalem in a tent erected by David but the Tent of Meeting and Bezalel’s altar were in Gibeon. Since the verse is written at the end of the description of Solomon’s visit to Gibeon, one would have expected “from the high place” מִבָּמָה (as read by LXX, most modern translators, and the Babli 53a), not “to the high place”, לַבָּמָה.] , Solomon came to the high place in Gibeon to Jerusalem. Where do we hold? If he came from Jerusalem, we should say “from Jerusalem to the high place.” If he came from the high place, we should say, “he came from the high place to Jerusalem.” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he came to the high place not to turn his back to the Holiness [Going to Gibeon from Jerusalem he had his face always turned to face the Ark.] .

14“He prays a short prayer.” And this was the High Priest’s prayer on the Day of Atonement when he left the Holiness in peace: “May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that there shall be no exile decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if exile was decreed over us today or this year that our exile be at a place of Torah. May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that there shall be no loss decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if loss was decreed over us today or this year that it be loss for good deeds. [May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that this year be a year of cheapness, a year of satiety, a year of trade, a year of rains, sunshine, and dew, and that your people Israel should not need one another, and do not turn to the prayer of travellers. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, and on your people Israel that they not erect dominion one over the other.] [The text in brackets is a corrector’s addition; it is from a source close to Lev. rabba 20(4). Since there, instead of “The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, and on your people Israel that they not erect dominion one over the other” one reads, “the rabbis of Caesarea were saying about our brothers in Caesarea, that they should not be oppressed by officials,” it seems that both the original Yerushalmi text as quite certainly the corrector’s addition (and similarly the Babli’s text in Taˋanit 24b) are not meant to prescribe a prayer text to the High Priest but indicate the text of the High Priest’s prayer in the re-enactment of his service in the Musaf-prayer of the Day of Atonement and describe the political situation in the 4 Cent. C. E.. The undesirable prayer of travellers is one for absence of rains in the rainy season.] And for the people of Sharon he was saying, may it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that their houses not turn into their graves [Their adobe houses are in danger of collapse during the rainy season. In Lev. rabba 20(4) the text reads: “The rabbis of the South (meaning of Lydda) said about our brethren in the Sharon, that their houses should not turn into their graves.” This also is from the Yerushalmi Musaf service.] ”.

15“He was not prolonging his prayer not to frighten Israel.” [Babli 53b] It happened that one prolonged and they decided to enter after him [To search for his corpse.] . One said, it was Simeon the Just. They said to him, why did you prolong? He answered them, I was praying for the Sanctuary of your God that it should not be destroyed. They said to him, nevertheless, you should not have prolonged.

16[Babli 39b, Menaḥot109b; Tosephta Sotah 13:8.. The first sentence is quoted in the next Chapter, 6:3.] Simeon the Just served Israel as High Priest for forty years, and in the last year he told them, in this year I am going to die. They asked him, from where do you know? He said to them, every year when I entered the Holiest of Holies, an old man dressed in white and his head wrapped in white entered with me and left with me. But this year he entered with me but did not leave with me. [Cf Chapter 1, Notes 220 ff.] They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is it not written [Lev. 16:17.] , nobody shall be in the Tent of Meeting during his coming to atone in the sanctuary until he leaves, not even those about whom it is written [Ez. 1:10.] , the shapes of their faces are human shapes shall not be in the Tent of Meeting? He answered them, who tells me that it was a person? I am saying that it was the Holy One, praise to Him [In the apparition known as Shekhina.] .

17MISHNAH: From when the Ark was removed there was a stone there from the time of the earlier prophets; it was called Foundation, higher than the ground by three finger widths. On it he deposed it [The fire pan which in Mishnah 2 was described as being put down between the beams of the Ark.] .

18HALAKHAH: It was stated: Before the Ark was hidden [Babli 53b/54a; cf. Šeqalim 6:1–2.] he entered and exited by the light of the Ark. After the Ark was removed he was groping and entering, groping and leaving.

19[Babli 54b.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: [Tosephta 2:14.] “Why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based.. It is written [Ps. 50:1–2.] , a psalm of Asaph; the power, God, the Eternal, spoke and called the earth, etc., from Zion, the perfection of beauty, God appears. And it says [Is. 28:16.] , behold I founded in Zion a stone, etc.”

20MISHNAH: He took the blood from the one who was stirring it, entered to the place where he had entered [The Holiest of Holies.] , and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards [As the verse prescribes (Lev. 16:14), once on the cover of the Ark and seven times in front of it.] . He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking [Lifting his finger to let a drop fly off, and then dropping the finger for another drop.] . And so was he counting: One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. He left and put it down on the golden pedestal which was in the Temple. They brought him the he-goat, he slaughtered it and received its blood in a bowl. He entered to the place where he had entered [The Holiest of Holies.] , and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend downwards nor upwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting, etc. [As detailed in Mishnah 4.] He left and put it down on the second pedestal which was in the Temple. Rebbi Jehudah says, only one pedestal was there. He took the blood of the bull, and put down the blood of the he-goat [This Mishnah follows R. Jehudah who insists that there was only one pedestal; therefore the bowl with the bull’s blood had to be lifted before the one with the he-goat’s blood could be deposited.] , and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside [On the gobelin in the Temple Hall, just opposite the place of the Ark in the Holiest of Holies.] and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting [As detailed in Mishnah 4.] . He took the blood of the he-goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting [As detailed in Mishnah 4.] . He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat and emptied the full vessel into the empty one [In order to improve the mixing of the two kinds of blood.] . He shall go out to the altar which is before the Eternal [Lev. 16:18/] , that is the golden altar [The incense altar in the Temple Hall.] .

21HALAKHAH: What means כְמַצְלִיף? Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Like one who whips [Explanation of the Babli. Arukh reads כמטברר and explains “moves his hand towards the navel.”] .

22Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err [This refers to the way of counting as explained in Mishnah 4. Why does he have to count 1+n? Babli 55a.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven” [Since in all he has to sprinkle 8 times, it is preferable to end with “7” which is an odd number and means “luck”.] . But was it not stated [The prefix ק is Babylonian Aramaic. The version in which the second number precedes the first is R. Jehudah’s in Tosephta 2:14, R. Meïr’s in the Babli 55a.] , “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written [Lev. 16:14; cf. Note 84.] , before the cover .. seven. Why does the verse say, he shall sprinkle? That the first sprinkling should be counted with them [Sprinkling is mentioned separately for the blood on the cover of the Ark and the seven times in front of the Ark. Therefore they have to be mentioned separately in counting. Babli 55a.] .

23It is written [Lev. 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat.] , he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of [Therefore the blood of the he-goat must be sprinkled both on and in front of the cover. No numbers are indicated.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there [About the bull, where it is spelled out (v. 14) that the High Priest with his finger sprinkles to the East towards the front of the cover and seven times in front of the cover.] means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here [About the he-goat’s blood (v. 15).] means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull [Therefore the disagreement between R. Zeˋira and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac remains open.] :

24[Sifra Aḥare Parashah 3(3–7), Babli 55a.] “He shall sprinkle it [Lev. 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat.] , [in front of the cover] [Unjustified addition by the corrector.] , this teaches that he gives a single one upwards [The singular “it” implies a single sprinkling.] . In front of the cover, I do not know how many [No numbers are mentioned in Lev. 16:15.] . So I am arguing: It mentions giving the bull’s blood downwards, and it mentions giving the he-goat’s blood downwards. Since giving the bull’s blood downwards as mentioned is seven times [Explicit in Lev. 16:14.] , so giving the he-goat’s blood downwards as mentioned must be seven times. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned upwards and blood is mentioned downwards. Since the blood mentioned upwards is once, so the blood mentioned downwards must be once. Let us see to what it is comparable. One argues downwards from downwards; one does not argue downwards from upwards. Or go in the following way: One argues he-goat’s blood from he-goat’s blood; but one does not argue he-goat’s blood from bull’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood. Since the bull’s blood is downwards seven times, also the he-goat’s blood is downwards seven times. But I do not know how many times to give the bull’s blood upwards. Giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the he-goat and giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the bull. Since giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the he-goat is once, so giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the bull is once. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned downwards; blood is mentioned upwards. Since the blood mentioned downwards is seven, so the blood mentioned upwards must be seven. Let us see to what it is similar. One argues upwards from upwards; one does not argue upwards from downwards. Or go in the following way: One argues bull’s blood from bull’s blood; but one does not argue bull’s blood from he-goat’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood, that all its works be the same. Since the bull’s blood is seven times downwards, also the he-goat’s blood is seven times downwards. Since the he-goat’s blood is once upwards, also the bull’s blood is once upwards [The number of sprinklings are uniquely determined, upwards by inference from v. 15, downwards explicitly in v.14.] .”

25The holiness [Lev. 16:16.] . He has to aim vis-a-vis the holiness [This explains the statement of Mishnah 6 that blood sprinkled on the gobelin in the Temple Hall must be applied at the spot in front of the Ark.] . [Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(7–8). Babli 59b.] “Rebbi Nehemiah said, since we find about the bull which comes for all commandments [This is the expression of the verse (Lev. 4:2) to describe the purification offerings required for an anointed High Priest and the High Court; cf. Introduction to Tractate Horaiot.] that he stands before the altar and sprinkles on the gobelin at the moment of his sprinkling [Since the High Priest is commanded to bring the blood into the Sanctuary (Lev.4:5), to sprinkle from it seven times on the gobelin (v.6), and without moving give blood on the four corners of the incense altar (v.7), it is clear that he has to stand in front of the altar and sprinkle the blood long distance in the direction of the gobelin.] , I could think that here it is the same; the verse says [Lev. 16:18: He shall exit to the altar which is before the Eternal.] , which is before the Eternal. Where was he [Coming from the Holiest of Holies the High Priest stands between the gobelin and the altar.] ? Inside of the altar. Or does he speak only of the outer altar? The verse says, which is before the Eternal. Therefore he only speaks of the inner altar [Which is standing in the Temple hall directly opposite the ark in the Holiest of Holies.] .”

26Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch [Since the High Priest is standing too far away from the gobelin.] . Where do they disagree? About the bull and the he-goat of the day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, it needs to touch. There are Tannaim: it does not need to touch [The disagreement between R. Zeˋira and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac is a much older controversy.] . Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome [Babli 37a; cf. 4:1 Note 40. Tosephta 2:14.] full of drops of blood. I said, these are of the blood sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement. This implies that it needs to touch. [Even if you say that it does not need to touch] [Addition by the corrector; the argument could be implied by the scribe’s text. The form תימא, derived from the Accadic/Babylonian Aramaic root אמא “to speak”, is impossible in a Yerushalmi text.] , (but) [Scribe’s text.] if it touched, it touched.

27If one gave from a sanctified vessel [A vessel dedicated to the Temple service.] to a profane vessel he disqualified [The disqualification is not absolute since Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2 states that the blood will be qualified if returned to a sanctified vessel. The Babli has another reading of the question, 58a.] . Does this imply that from a sanctified vessel to a sanctified vessel it remains qualified [This question is asked not for the day of Atonement but for all year round. Does blood received in a sanctified vessel have to be brought to the altar in this vessel or not?] ? Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah implies this: “He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, could we say, the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in an empty vessel [The Mishnah does not prove anything since the second vessel is not empty; the second vessel is not a replacement of the first.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he poured the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in a full vessel; after that he again mixes them into another vessel [Which in the Mishnah is the original vessel of the bull’s blood, but for the mixture it is a new vessel. Therefore in this case one is required to pour blood from the original sanctified vessel into another sanctified vessel. This proves R. Haggai’s point.] to make a perfect mixture.

28From where that he is required to pour out [Why must the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat be mixed before given on the corners of the golden altar; Mishnah 6. The Babli does not necessarily accept the Mishnah, 57b–58a.] ? The verse says [Lev. 16:18, misquoted.] , he shall give of the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat, when they are mixed. I could think each one by itself, the verse says [Ex. 30:10.] , Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly [Not even one directly after the other.] . Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, from the blood of the atoning purification offering [Ex. 30:10.] , he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward [Regarding the incense altar, it is required by Lev. 16:19 that the High Priest sprinkle on its top “seven times of the blood.” Since no mention is made of bull or he-goat, the verse must refer to the mixed blood. Sifra Aḥare Pereq 4(8).] he has to pour [I. e., to mix.] , for it is written seven, not fourteen.

29If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour [To mix for sprinkling on the top of the golden altar. It is obvious that the discussion here presupposes that there be no mixing for giving the blood on the corners of the golden altar; otherwise there would be only two cups possible.] ? May a person think of half an atonement [Since the he-goat was made a purification sacrifice (Chapter 4 Note 5) and is disqualified if the blood was not received with the appropriate intention (Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1), the blood must be received with the intent to be used for full atonement. The objection contradicts the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah 9, for whom all actions of the day separate atonements. As seen from the next section, the objection and the reformulation can be disregarded.] ? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] [Addition of the corrector which must be deleted following the argument of the preceding Note.] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

30[This paragraph is repeated in Halakhah 6:1 (6).] If he drew lots for three pairs [Instead of one pair of he-goats there were three; for each group of sprinkling one was slaughtered while the other was alive.] , to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him [Lev. 16:10.] , one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

31And here, in Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, he must pour all three; in Rebbi Hila’s opinion, he must pour only the one from which he sprinkled [On the corners of the altar.] .

32If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is poured into the base [While it is not mentioned in Lev. 16, it is understood from Lev. 4 that the blood remaining after some of it was sprinkled on the four corners of the large altar is poured onto the base of the altar (Lev.4:25,30,34). The same is done with the blood of the bull of the anointed and the community (Lev.4:7, 18) and therefore also applies to the purification offerings of the Day of Atonement.] ? The disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as they disagreed: [Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq10(4–6), Babli 57b, Zevaḥim 34b.] “A purification offering whose blood was received in four cups and from each one he gave one giving [The “giving” is sprinkling of blood on one corner of the large altar.] , from where that all of them are poured on the base? The verse says [A misquote from Lev.4:25 (it should be דָּמוֹ not דָּמָהּ. All quotes from v. 25 should be replaced by v. 30,34 and vice-versa.] , and its blood he shall pour. I could think that if he {only} [Word missing in the text, added from the parallels and needed for logical consistency.] gave all four givings from one of them, all of them should be poured, the verse says, [Lev.4:30,34. See Note 148.] and all its blood he shall pour. How is this? It is poured on the base, and they are emptied into the canal [The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool.] , the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: From where that even if he gave all four givings from one of them, all of them shall be poured on the base? The verse says, and its blood he shall pour. In Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, all are poured into the base. In Rebbi’s opinion, only the one from which he sprinkled is poured [In Rebbi’s opinion, only the actual use of blood in a vessel qualifies the remainder to be poured on the base of the altar; in R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon’s opinion, all eligible blood in a Temple vessel which is not disqualified is qualified to be poured on the base.] .

33The colleagues say [They have a tradition that Rebbi disagrees also if the blood of two purification offerings were mixed together in one vessel.] , if one becomes piggul [Piggul is consumption of sacrifices out of their allotted time (Lev. 19::7) our out of the proper place. Since a sacrifice cannot become disqualified retroactively, the technical term piggul is used to describe the disqualification caused by the intent of future piggul in any of the required actions in processing the sacrifice (slaughter, reception of the blood, bringing to the altar, sprinkling on the corners). Processing piggul sacrifice is sinful; therefore blood containing piggul blood cannot be used; it is disqualified.] , so does the other; if the parts [The fat which is forbidden for human consumption, cf. Chapter 5:2, Note 50.] of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community [Since the High Priest is standing too far away from the gobelin.] , unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving [The “giving” is sprinkling of blood on one corner of the large altar.] of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. [Babli Zevaḥim 95a.] Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them] [Corrector’s addition.] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings [If Rebbi requires visibly enough blood for two givings, he must require more than a tiny drop for each giving. This amount is not spelled out anywhere. For the Sages a tiny drop is enough and this is available in any mixture, even if not recognizable separately.] . This implies [For the Sages, whom practice has to follow, two separate purification offerings whose blood has been mixed are treated as one body.] , if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

34MISHNAH: He [The High Priest, exiting from the Holiest of Holies, standing at the Southwest corner of the Temple Hall with his face to the West. As the Halakhah explains, he has to continue walking backwards with his face to the West until he stays East of the golden altar; then he turns right to the Northeast corner of the golden altar.] started purifying [This meaning of the root חטא is derived from Lev. 14:49. Here it means sprinkling blood on the four corners of the golden altar.] and moves. Where does he start? At the Northeast corner [If the High Priest stands in front of the altar, the NE corner is the first corner to his right, and there he starts since there is a rule that all voluntary turns in the Temple have to be to the right, the lucky side.] , Northwest, Southwest, Southeast. At the place where he starts purifyng on the outer altar [There is a walkway around the large outer altar at half height. Since this altar is accessed by the ramp on its South side, if the Cohen turns to his right entering the walkway, the first corner he arrives at is the SE corner. (On the walkway he naturally has to make 4 left turns, but these are forced by his original right turn.)] , there he finishes on the inner altar. Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing on his place and purifying [If he stands in front of the altar to the South, he might go straight ahead to the SE corner, but if it is required that he start with a right turn by necessity he comes to the NE corner.] .

35HALAKHAH: Should he not start at the Southeast corner? Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn [If he stands in front of the altar to the South, he might go straight ahead to the SE corner, but if it is required that he start with a right turn by necessity he comes to the NE corner.] . Should he not start at the Northwest corner? Rebbi Eleazar said, he shall leave to the altar [Lev. 16:18. This is read to require that he stand in front of the altar before starting the sprinkling. Therefore he has to start to the East.] . Should he not start at the Southwest corner? Not to turn his back on the Holiness [Leaving the gobelins he stands in the SW between gobelin and altar. To start at the SW corner, he has to turn around.] . Does he not end to turn his back on the Holiness? He was returning backwards [If he starts at the NE corner, in the end he has to go from the SW to the SE corners turning his back to the Ark. Therefore he has to walk this stretch backwards, facing W. The rule of the Mishnah is the only one compatible with all constraints.] . He shall stand in the South and start at the Northeast corner, as Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn.

36It was stated: [Tosephta 3:1, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 4(10), Babli 59a. The text here seems to be the correct one, against the three witnesses to the Babylonian text.] Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing at his place and purifying. On all of them he was giving from top to bottom except for the one he was standing in front of [in the diagonal] [Addition of the corrector from the Tosephta. Greek λοξόν, “oblique”.] , where he was giving from bottom to top [Since the top of the golden altar was only 1 cubit square, it was easily possible to sprinkle on all horns when standing in front of one corner.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them were explaining the same verse [Lev. 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated.] , around. [The rabbis are saying, around walking. Rebbi Eliezer is saying, around] [Lev. 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated.] the corners.

37Two Cohanim escaped the wars [Greek πόλεμος, ὁ “war”; in this case the first war against the Romans. Babli 59a.] . One said, I was standing and purifying; the other one said, I was walking and purifying. Rebbi Yudan said, this implies, he who does it one way does not worry, and he who does it the other way does not worry [Disregarding both Talmudim, Maimonides rules against R. Eliezer both in his Mishnah commentary and in his Code.] .

38MISHNAH: On all of them he gives from bottom to top except the one he is standing in front of, where he gives from top to bottom [This follows R. Eliezer. If he would give the blood with his finger on the horn directly in front of him from bottom to top, some blood would flow back onto his arm and dirty his white robe.] . He sprinkles on the surface of the altar seven times [Lev. 16:19.] . The rest of the blood he poured on the Western base of the outer altar [While this is not prescribed in Lev. 16, as explained in the Halakhah it is inferred from the treatment of the blood of the bull of the Anointed Priest, whose remainders have to be poured on the “base of the altar which is in front of the Tent of Meeting.” “In front of” is taken to refer to “base”, this is the Western side of the base of the altar.] ; those of the outer altar one pours on the southern base. This and that combine in the water canal [The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool.] and leave towards the Kidron valley where it is sold to gardeners as fertilizer; one commits larceny with it [The water coming out of the Temple is made to drip into the earth, where the blood is absorbed, and at the bottom clear water is reappearing. The earth enriched with the blood is sold to vegetable growers as fertilizer. Since this was part of the construction of the Temple, the Temple does not renounce proprietorship of the blood suspended in the water; therefore use of the enriched earth without paying redemption money to the Temple is stealing from Heaven’s property.] .

39HALAKHAH: He shall sprinkle on it [Lev. 16:19.] , not on its ashes. On it, not on its coals [Babli 59a, Tosephta 3:2.] . There are Tannaim who state, the North side. There are Tannaim who state, the South side. He who says, the North side, Rebbi Eliezer; he who says the South side, the rabbis [Since for R. Eliezer the High Priest always stands at the NE corner of the golden altar. For the rabbis, he finishes giving the blood on the corners at the SE corner, when he starts to sprinkle the top seven times.] .

40[Tosephta 3:7, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(7); Zevaḥim 58b. The text of the second sentence is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the two sentences of the scribe are essentially identical, the corrector’s text should be accepted (even though the parallel sources show that it would have been better to correct the second sentence.)] “Rebbi Yose said, this is a memorandum: Anything taken from inside to be given outside is given to what is close to the inside. [Anything taken from the outside to be given inside is taken from what is close to the inside.] And all that comes out from the inside to be given outside is given from what is close to the inside [Anything taken from inside, the remainder of blood used on the Day of Atonement or of the bull of the Anointed or of the commonwealth, outside has to be given close to the inside, i. e., on the Western base of the altar. Similarly, the incense taken from the table with the shew-bread to be burned on the outside altar has to be burned on the Western side of the altar. And anything taken from the outside to be taken inside, coals for the incense altar and fire to light the candelabrum, have to be taken from the Western side of the outside altar close to the Temple entrance.] .”

41Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat. The coals of every day and the Western light [On the candelabrum.] are inferred from the Day of Atonement. And the two censers are inferred from the remainder blood [As explained in Note 182.] .

42[Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Parashah 3(12); Babli 52a.] “And all blood of the bull he shall pour [Lev. 4:7.] , to include the blood of the bull of the Day of Atonement in pouring.” And why did he not say, “and the he-goat”? Rebbi Mana said, is it not required to be mixed [If the bull’s blood has to be poured on the base of the large altar, the pouring of the he-goat’s blood is an automatic consequence and does not have to be spelled out as a separate commandment. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 200.] ? You conclude in saying, and all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement in pouring.

43When he finished atoning the sanctuary [Lev. 16:20.] . There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned [If he correctly finished the ceremonies, automatically he atoned. Cf. Babli 60b.] There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished [Only if he did everything required for atoning he is finished.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive [If the remaining blood is not poured on the Western base of the exterior altar, the interior ceremonies are invalid. Babli, Zevaḥim 111a.] . He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings [There are four ceremonies: Blood in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, on the corners of the interior altar, and on its top. If one of them is invalid, it has to be repeated.] . He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving [If part is invalid, the entire ceremony has to be repeated from the start.] .

44It was stated: [Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 9(2); cf. Basbli 52a.] “Rebbi Ismael said, if the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone [The blood on the corners of the altar atones. In general if the blood becomes disqualified after this the purification sacrifice remains qualified. The only problem is the status of blood which was brought into the Sanctuary.] is given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning [The blood of the elevation sacrifice which, in contrast to the purification sacrifice, is not given on the four horns of the altar at the corners but only on the lower walls of two diagonally opposed corners so that blood is splattered on all four walls of the altar.. The question is, which pair of corners, SW and NE, or NW and SE? While the elevation offering is voluntary, it is stated in Lev. 1:4 that it is atoning. While the verse does not detail for what it is atoning, it is concluded in Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 4(8) that it is for the transgressions which do not qualify for a purification offering, infraction of positive commandments and of minor prohibitions. The“start” is giving the blood on the walls of the altar.] it is only logical that it be given on the base [The SE corner of the altar had no base stones standing out from the walls of the altar. The argument shows that the blood of the elevation sacrifice has to be applied to the SW and NE corners. (Mishnah Tamid4:1).] . Rebbi Aqiba said to him, No. If you said that the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone and is not able to atone are given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning and is able to atone is only logical that it be given on the base.” He who said “does not atone”, they do not atone during all other days of the year; therefore on the Day of Atonement they atone [Since the ritual of the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16:29 is called an eternal law, any particular action required is essential for Atonement. But an action is certainly obstructive only if it is mentioned in Chapter 16.] . He who says “does not atone and is not able to atone”, they do not atone either on New Year’s Day [“On New Year’s Day” may be a scribal error for כָּל־יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה “all days of the year.”] and not on the Day of Atonement. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it is a commandment to give on the base. But if it cannot refer to the commandment, let it refer to obstruction [Since it was established earlier (Note 185) that it is a commandment to pour the remaining blood on the base, the difference between R. Ismael and R. Aqiba can only be whether pouring the blood on the base is obstructive or not.] .

45Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: [Babli Zevaḥim 52b, Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(4).] “The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below [Blood of elevation and well-being sacrifices which has to be given on the walls of the altar below the walkway at half-height certainly cannot validly be given on the upper part of the walls, but blood of purification sacrifices which must be given on the horns of the altar (by a Cohen standing on the walkway) should be valid if given on the lower walls since at the end the remainder of the blood is poured on the base which is below the lower walls.] ? The inner ones [Blood used inside the Sanctuary, of the day of Atonement, and of the bulls of the Anointed and the community.] shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside [If none of the blood was brought inside, the ceremony certainly is invalid.] it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them [Since the altar is the place of only the third and fourths stops in the use of the blood inside the Sanctuary.] , what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them [After blood of purification sacrifices was given on the horns, what is left becomes remainder.] . Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it [Lev. 6:19. The purification sacrifice except for the parts destined for the altar is eaten by the Cohanim, but only if the priest purified it, i. e., followed all the prescribed rules.] , that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins [Blood on the altar is invalid if from it was not previously given between the beams and on the gobelins.] they become remainders.

46Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: [Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:1, speaking of the remainders of the blood brought inside.] “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: [Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8(8) on Lev. 16:29; Babli 61a.] “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] [Addition by the corrector; a correct statement but unnecessary as shown by the parallels.] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders [And anything needed for atonement is obstructive.] ? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] [Corrector’s addition.] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive [It seems that here are two different texts. The scribe’s text is “Are not the remainders obstructive? Their place is obstructive.” After having proved that the baraita presupposes that remainders are obstructive it is stated that if the remainders of blood brought into the sanctuary are not given on the base to the West of the exterior altar, the procedure is invalid. In the corrector’s text this is a question, not an assertion.] ? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them [No necessary action in the Temple can be performed in the night; only leftovers from the preceding day are burned on the altar. Pouring remainders of blood on the base in the night clearly is invalid; the question is whether this requires a new sacrifice. The question cannot be asked about the service of the Day of Atonement, it must be about the bull of the Anointed or the community.] ? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them [Since it is agreed that pouring the remainder blood on the base in a commandment, if a sacrifice is slaughtered with the intent not to pour, or the blood is brought to the alter with the intent not to pour the remainder on the base, is the sacrifice disqualified from the moment of the illegitimate thought? Answered in the affirmative in the Babli, Zevaḥim 29a.] ? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers [The commandment to pour the remainders on the base is conditional; if there are no remainders, there is no obligation to pour.] .

47It was stated [Tosephta Zevaḥim 6:9; Babli Yoma59a, Meˋilah 11a.] : “One commits larceny with blood [Illegitimate use of sancta is larceny which requires restitution, payment of a fine, and a sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). The question is whether this applies also to the blood when it flows out of the Temple domain after all ceremonies have successfully been completed.] , the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person [Lev. 17:11.] . You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated [Lev. 17:14.] . You only have extirpation of persons from it [In both cases, the argument is that after the blood has left the Temple precinct it is profane. It still may be Temple property, but no sacrilege is involved in unauthorized use and no sacrifice for meˋilah can be due.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood [It is not clear what this means. It could be that one refers to blood of sacrifices which somehow became disqualified for the altar, or of the blood of animals unfit for the altar which from the start were donated only for the upkeep of the Temple, and whose illicit use is meˋilah.] . He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it [Both possibilities apply to both interpretations given in the preceding Note.] . There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon [R. Simeon holds that the remainders of blood used on the altar, as the blood mentioned in Mishnah 8, as well as the blood of animals dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple, are subject to meˋilah (and the Mishnah follows R. Simeon), but about blood unfit for atonement he agrees that there can be no meˋilah. Therefore the expression “they differ” does not refer to the Amoraim reporting in the name of R. Joḥanan, but to R. Sineon and the Sages in the Tosephta.] .

48Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth [Since anything given to the Temple for its upkeep is there to be sold and the money used for sacred purposes, the holiness of the dedicated object is transferred to the money while the object reverts to profane status. But meˋilah, larceny committed on sacra, only applies to profane use of sacred objects, not to redemptions (or to use that can be legitimized by redemption.) Therefore the distinction made by R. Simeon is not consistent with our rules.] ? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money [Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4.] . Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

49MISHNAH: All actions of the Day of Atonement which have been prescribed in their sequence [The order of actions prescribed to the High Priest in Lev. 16 must be followed exactly.] , if he advanced one action to another he did not do anything. If he advanced he-goat’s blood to the bull’s blood he has to sprinkle he-goat’s blood after the bull’s blood. If the blood was spilled before he finishes all givings required in the interior [In the Holiest of Holies.] , he has to bring other blood and starts sprinkling anew in the interior. So it is in the Temple Hall and so it is with the golden altar, since all of these are separate atonements [If the blood was spilled after an action was completed, new animals and new blood only are required for the subsequent actions; one does not have to start from the beginning.] . Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, he starts at the place where he interrupted [While the anonymous Tanna requires the repetition of any partially complete action, R. Eleazar and R. Simeon accept completion with other blood of actions partially executed.] .

50HALAKHAH: It was stated: [Tosephta 3:4, Babli 60a.] “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this [That a change in the sequence of actions invalidates the service.] been said? About service performed inside in white garments. But service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, what he did is done. And the Sages are saying, even for service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, he did not do anything.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [Babli 60a/b.] : Both of them are explaining the same verse [Ex. 30:10.] : of the blood of the atoning sacrifice once. The rabbis are saying, service which is performed one [time] [Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli.] in the year. Rebbi Jehudah is saying, a place in which he enters one [time] [Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli.] per year.

51Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Ephes: About givings between the beams; but givings between the gobelins the he-goat is obstructive for the bull [Chapter 4:1, Note 55.] . Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave of the bull’s blood between the beams and between the gobelins and afterwards freshly slaughtered the he-goat it is qualified [Babli 40a, disputing the assertion of R. Ephes.] . Rebbi Yose said, if the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood in the cup was spilled, would he not bring another bull and it would be qualified [This cannot mean that the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood were mixed in one cup since this is scheduled only after both kinds of blood were sprinkled on the gobelins. R. Yose argues in support of R. Eleazar, since the blood in the cup could be spilled at any moment, then the slaughter can happen at any moment.] ? What is the difference whether he slaughtered before he gave or slaughtered after he gave? If it had said “he gives” that would have been correct [For the rabbis each group of sprinkling, in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, and on the altar, forms a unit. If anything was incomplete or disqualifying in one of the actions, the entire action must be repeated. For R. Eleazar and R. Simeon every single sprinkling is a commandment by itself. In all there are 7+1 sprinklings of bull’s blood and the same number of he-goat’s blood in the Holiest of Holies, the same number of both kinds of blood on the gobelins, 4 of the combined blood on the horns of the golden altar and 7 on its top, for a total of 4x8+11 = 43.] .

52The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification [For the rabbis each group of sprinkling, in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, and on the altar, forms a unit. If anything was incomplete or disqualifying in one of the actions, the entire action must be repeated. For R. Eleazar and R. Simeon every single sprinkling is a commandment by itself. In all there are 7+1 sprinklings of bull’s blood and the same number of he-goat’s blood in the Holiest of Holies, the same number of both kinds of blood on the gobelins, 4 of the combined blood on the horns of the golden altar and 7 on its top, for a total of 4x8+11 = 43.] . Therefore the rabbis say, any seven [This really should read “eight”.] are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.] [Corrector’s addition.] Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar [The Amora ben Pedat, not the Tanna, ben Arakh, quoted in the Tosephta.] , the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and [Reading וְ instead of the similar sounding בֵי.] Rebbi Simeon: he finished atoning for the holy [Lev. 16:20.] , even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished” [Since emphasis is on finishing, even if only a single sprinkling is needed to complete the ceremony it is counted and valid.] .

53[Sifra Aḥare Parashah 4(3); a minority opinion in the Babli, 61b.] “Rebbi Eleazar [The Tanna.] said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] [Addition by the corrector. While the statement is correct, the addition is questionable. As is clear from the text of Sifra and the remark following the quote, everybody agrees and it is obvious from the biblical text (Lev. 20:27) that the bull and the he-goat on whose blood the ceremony is completed have to be burned outside the city of Jerusalem and the people occupied with this burning become severely impure. The question is whether the animals whose blood was first brought into the sanctuary but was not used to finish the ceremonies, either because it was spilled or because of some disqualification, have to be disposed in the same way. This is asserted by R. Eleazar but negated by RR. Meïr and Simeon.] are (emptied) [For “emptied” read נשרפין “burned”. If the blood was spilled, it cannot be emptied a second time.] following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them [Or if it was spilled, cf. Note 248.] . Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to meˋilah [This is equivalent to saying that they did not completely lose their status as sancta and therefore have to be burned following the biblical rules.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification [Disqualification not of the second but the first couple of animals. Slaughter of animals with the intent that they be disqualified makes them disqualified and removes sacral status.] . If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] [Necessary corrector’s addition.] piggul [Piggul(Lev. 19:7) is slaughter with the intent that the sacrificial meat be eaten outside its allotted time frame. Only sancta, parts of which may be eaten, can become piggul, a disqualification which prevents the meat from being eaten, automatically removes piggul. Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:3.] ; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification [R. Ḥaggai’s question is baseless; the disqualification of the first sacrifice cannot have influence on the status of the second.] ?