MISHNAH: They brought him the cup and the pan; 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 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 26:33. , and the gobelin shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies .
HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated, “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. 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 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed. ?
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 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 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 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 4:6. .” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages. 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 Rav Ḥuna. said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service 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. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished 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 11b. . Leftover he-goats, 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. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar . 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 12b. . Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion 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.
11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6). “ His full handful . 2:2. . I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful . 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. 2:5. or frying pan. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”
There, you are saying, his full handful, with his handful, and here you are saying, his full handful 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? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist? Should it be made to measure for his fists? 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? 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 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.
“A big person according to his bigness,” even like Ben Qimḥit whose hand contained about four qab , “and a small person according to his smallness,” even like Ben Gamia, whose hand contained only about two olives.
What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen 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 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. 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: 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 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, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there 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.] But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified.
Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry 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 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.” 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.
“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there 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 8:5 Note 93. . Rebbi Yose said, since it is written 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 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 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 Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated 4:5. , “the impression of pebbles distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”
MISHNAH: 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 until he arrives at the Ark. When he came to the Ark he puts the fire-pan between the two beams25:13–15). 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 prays a short prayer but not prolonging his prayer so as not to frighten Israel.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum, 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 40:22. . Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum. 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. Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends.
“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.
It is written 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.
“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.] 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 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. ”.
“He was not prolonging his prayer not to frighten Israel.” It happened that one prolonged and they decided to enter after him. 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.
109b; 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. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is it not written 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 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 .
MISHNAH: 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.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: Before the Ark was hidden 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.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based.. It is written 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 28:16. , behold I founded in Zion a stone, etc.”
MISHNAH: He took the blood from the one who was stirring it, entered to the place where he had entered, and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards 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. 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, 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. 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, 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. 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. He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat and emptied the full vessel into the empty one. He shall go out to the altar which is before the Eternal 16:18/ , that is the golden altar.
HALAKHAH: What means כְמַצְלִיף? Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Like one who whips reads כמטברר and explains “moves his hand towards the navel.” .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err? Babli 55a. . Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”. But was it not stated, “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written 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.
It is written 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 . 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 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 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:
3(3–7), Babli 55a. “He shall sprinkle it 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat. , [in front of the cover ], this teaches that he gives a single one upwards. In front of the cover, I do not know how many 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 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 holiness 16:16. . He has to aim vis-a-vis the holiness. 3(7–8). Babli 59b. “Rebbi Nehemiah said, since we find about the bull which comes for all commandments 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 sprinkling4:5), 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 16:18: He shall exit to the altar which is before the Eternal. , which is before the Eternal. Where was he? 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.”
Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch. 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. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome 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], (but) if it touched, it touched.
If one gave from a sanctified vessel to a profane vessel he disqualified 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? 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? 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 to make a perfect mixture.
From where that he is required to pour out? The verse says 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 30:10. , Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, from the blood of the atoning purification offering 30:10. , he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward 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, for it is written seven, not fourteen.
If 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? May a person think of half an atonement 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,] 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:
If he drew lots for three pairs, 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 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.
And 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.
If 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 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: 10(4–6), Babli 57b, Zevaḥim 34b. “A purification offering whose blood was received in four cups and from each one he gave one giving, from where that all of them are poured on the base? The verse says.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} gave all four givings from one of them, all of them should be poured, the verse says,.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 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.
The colleagues say, if one becomes 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 of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community, 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 of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. 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] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings. This implies, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.
MISHNAH: He started purifying 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, Northwest, Southwest, Southeast. At the place where he starts purifyng on the outer altar, there he finishes on the inner altar. Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing on his place and purifying.
HALAKHAH: Should he not start at the Southeast corner? Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn. Should he not start at the Northwest corner? Rebbi Eleazar said, he shall leave to the altar 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. Does he not end to turn his back on the Holiness? He was returning backwards. He shall stand in the South and start at the Northeast corner, as Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn.
It was stated: 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], where he was giving from bottom to top. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them were explaining the same verse 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] 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated. the corners.
Two Cohanim escaped the wars. 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.
MISHNAH: 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. He sprinkles on the surface of the altar seven times 16:19. . The rest of the blood he poured on the Western base of the outer altar 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 and leave towards the Kidron valley where it is sold to gardeners as fertilizer; one commits larceny with it.
HALAKHAH: He shall sprinkle on it 16:19. , not on its ashes. On it, not on its coals. 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.
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.”
Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat. The coals of every day and the Western light are inferred from the Day of Atonement. And the two censers are inferred from the remainder blood.
3(12); Babli 52a. “ And all blood of the bull he shall pour . 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? 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.
When he finished atoning the sanctuary 16:20. . There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he 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 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. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving.
It was stated: 9(2); cf. Basbli 52a. “Rebbi Ismael said, if the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone is given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning. 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 base4:1). . 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. 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 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.
Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: 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? The inner ones shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them, what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it . 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 they become remainders.
Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: 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: 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] altar, he shall atone , also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive 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? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them 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.
It was stated 6:9; Babli Yoma 59a, Meˋilah 11a. : “One commits larceny with blood 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 . 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 . 17:14. . You only have extirpation of persons from it can be due. . Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood. . 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. 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 (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. .
Rebbi 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, 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 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.
MISHNAH: All actions of the Day of Atonement which have been prescribed in their sequence. 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, 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. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, he starts at the place where he interrupted.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this 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: Both of them are explaining the same verse. 30:10. : of the blood of the atoning sacrifice once . The rabbis are saying, service which is performed one [time] in the year. Rebbi Jehudah is saying, a place in which he enters one [time] per year.
Rebbi 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. 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. 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? 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.
The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification. Therefore the rabbis say, any seven are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.] Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon: he finished atoning for the holy . 16:20. , even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished”.
4(3); a minority opinion in the Babli, 61b. “Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those] 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) following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them. 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 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. If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates] 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?