יומא דף טו

בעידן הטבה תהא מקטר קטורת. דאי לא תימא הכי, בין הערבים, דכתיב: ״ובהעלות אהרן את הנרת בין הערבים יקטירנה״, הכי נמי דברישא מדליק נרות והדר מקטיר

It means: At the time of the removal of the ashes you shall burn the incense, and no later. As, if you do not say so but explain that the phrase: He shall burn the incense, at the end of the verse means after cleaning the lamps, then with regard to the burning of the afternoon incense, with regard to which it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8), in this case too, does it mean that initially the priest lights the lamps and only then burns the afternoon incense? And if you say indeed, that is so, wasn’t the following taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Aaron and his sons will set it in order to burn from evening until morning before the Lord; it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations on behalf of the children of Israel” (Exodus 27:21)?

קטורת של בין הערבים?! וכי תימא הכי נמי, והתניא: ״מערב עד בקר״,

תן לה מדתה, שתהא דולקת והולכת כל הלילה מערב ועד בקר. דבר אחר: ״מערב עד בקר״, אין לך עבודה שכשרה מערב עד בקר אלא זו בלבד.

And the baraita explains: Give the candelabrum its measure of oil so that it will continue to burn all night from evening until morning. Alternatively, the phrase: From evening to morning, teaches that you have only this service that is valid when performed from evening to morning. Apparently, lighting the candelabrum is the final daily Temple service and the incense is not burned after the lamps are lit. Rather, what is the Merciful One saying in the phrase: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it.” This teaches that at the time of the lighting of the lamps you shall burn the incense, and no later. If so, here too, in the morning, at the time of the removal of the ashes you shall burn the incense, and no later. This is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis.

אלא מאי קאמר רחמנא — בעידן הדלקה תהא מקטר קטורת, הכא נמי: בעידן הטבה תהא מקטר קטורת.

ואבא שאול אמר לך: שאני התם דכתיב: ״אותו״.

And Abba Shaul could have said to you in response: It is different there, with regard to the burning of the afternoon incense, as it is written: “Aaron and his sons will set it [oto] in order.” The term oto is exclusionary: Only in the afternoon is it critical that the lighting of the lamps be the last service performed and that it follow the burning of the incense. However, in the morning, where there is no exclusionary term, the sequence of the verse is observed: First attending to the candelabrum and then burning the incense.

רב פפא אמר: לא קשיא, הא — רבנן, הא — אבא שאול. במאי אוקימתא למתניתין דהכא — כרבנן, פייס — כאבא שאול,

Rav Pappa said a different resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot. This is not difficult, because each mishna is in accordance with the opinion of a different tanna. This mishna, in which the burning of the incense is first, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that mishna, in which the lighting of the lamps is first, is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. The Gemara questions Rav Pappa’s resolution: In accordance with the opinion of which tanna is the mishna here established? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The sequence in the mishna where the lottery is discussed is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

אימא סיפא: הביאו לו את התמיד, קרצו ומרק אחר שחיטה על ידו, נכנס להקטיר את הקטורת ולהיטיב את הנרות — אתאן לרבנן. רישא וסיפא רבנן, ומציעתא אבא שאול!

Say the latter clause of that mishna as follows: They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering that he slaughtered by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe. And a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf. And then he entered the Sanctuary to burn the morning incense and to remove the ashes from the lamps of the candelabrum. If so, we have again arrived at the opinion of the Rabbis that burning the incense precedes attending to the lamps, which leads to the difficult conclusion: The first clause and the last clause of the mishna in tractate Yoma are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Rav Pappa could have said to you: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Although this is not common, because these mishnayot are not directly juxtaposed, it is possible.

אמר לך רב פפא: אין, רישא וסיפא רבנן, ומציעתא אבא שאול.

בשלמא אביי לא אמר כרב פפא, רישא וסיפא רבנן ומציעתא אבא שאול לא מוקים לה. אלא רב פפא, מאי טעמא לא אמר כאביי? אמר לך:

The Gemara asks: Granted, Abaye does not say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, as he is not willing to establish the first clause and the last clause in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the middle clause in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. However, with regard to Rav Pappa, what is the reason that he did not say in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and instead prefers an uncommon and difficult resolution? Rav Pappa could have said to you that the resolution proposed by Abaye is difficult as well, as according to Abaye in the first clause of the mishna it was taught with regard to the removal of the ashes from two lamps, which is performed later, and only then taught the removal of the ashes from five lamps, which is performed before the ashes of the two lamps are cleared. Therefore, Rav Pappa prefers to establish that the mishnayot reflect a tannaitic dispute rather than to accept this reversal of the order.

תנא ברישא הטבת שתי נרות, והדר הטבת חמש נרות?

ואביי אמר לך: אורויי בעלמא הוא דקא מורי, וסדרא הא הדר תני ליה.

And Abaye holds that this is not difficult and could have said to you that the first mishna, which describes the routine of the High Priest during his seven days of separation, teaches a general directive describing the services with which the High Priest must be familiarized prior to Yom Kippur, without concern for the sequence. And in terms of the sequence, the mishna then teaches it in the context of the actual performance of the services.

גופא: בא לו לקרן מזרחית צפונית — נותן מזרחית צפונית, מערבית דרומית — נותן מערבית דרומית. ותני עלה: רבי שמעון איש המצפה משנה בתמיד,

§ The Gemara cites a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa. The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter itself: The priest comes to the northeast corner of the altar and sprinkles once on the northeast corner. From there he proceeds to the southwest corner and sprinkles once on the southwest corner. And it was taught in the Tosefta concerning this mishna: Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa changes the sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering vis-à-vis the sprinkling of blood of all other burnt-offerings. The priest comes to the northeast corner and sprinkles once on the northeast corner. However, when he proceeds to the southwest corner, he sprinkles on the west side of the altar and then sprinkles on the south side. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa, who changes the sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering vis-à-vis the sprinkling of blood of all other burnt-offerings?

בא לו לקרן מזרחית צפונית — נותן מזרחית צפונית, מערבית דרומית — נותן מערבה ואחר כך נותן דרומה. מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון איש המצפה?

אמר רבי יוחנן משום חד דבי רבי ינאי, אמר קרא: ״ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לה׳ על עולת התמיד יעשה ונסכו״, עולה היא, ואמר רחמנא: עביד בה מעשה חטאת.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai that the verse states: “And one goat as a sin-offering to the Lord; it shall be offered aside from the daily burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:15). From the phrase: Beside the daily burnt-offering, it is derived that the daily offering is a burnt-offering, and from the juxtaposition of the sacrifice of the sin-offering to the daily offering, the Merciful One said: Perform with it the procedure of a sin-offering.

הא כיצד? נותן אחת שהיא שתים כמעשה עולה, שתים שהן שתים כמעשה חטאת. וליתן שתים שהן ארבע כמעשה עולה, וארבע שהן ארבע כמעשה חטאת!

And how can this be accomplished? It can be accomplished by performing half of the sprinklings according to the procedure of a burnt-offering, and half according to the procedure of a sin-offering. One sprinkles one sprinkling that is two, i.e., one sprinkles the blood on the corner of the altar so that the blood is divided between the two sides, in accordance with the procedure of a standard burnt-offering. Then he sprinkles two sprinklings that are two, in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering. The blood of a sin-offering is sprinkled in four separate actions, one on each of the four corners of the altar. The Gemara asks: And if the objective is to have the daily offering sacrificed like a sin-offering, let him sprinkle the blood in a manner that will accomplish both: First, two sprinklings that are four in accordance with the procedure of a standard burnt-offering, and then four sprinklings that are four in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering.

לא מצינו דמים שמכפרין וחוזרין ומכפרין. וכי מצינו דמים שחציין חטאת וחציין עולה? אלא על כרחן הקישן הכתוב. הכא נמי: בעל כרחן הקישן הכתוב.

The Gemara rejects that proposal: We did not find a case of blood that atones and then again atones. Once the blood was sprinkled and brought atonement by following the procedure of the burnt-offering, one cannot then begin the rite of atonement of a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: And did we find the blood of an offering, half of which is sprinkled as a sin-offering and half of which is sprinkled as a burnt-offering? Rather, perforce, say that the verse juxtaposes them and commands that the blood of the daily offering be offered half as a burnt-offering and half as a sin-offering. Here too, perforce, say that the verse juxtaposes them and commands two separate sprinklings: The sprinkling of a burnt-offering followed by the sprinkling of a sin-offering.

התם פיסוק מתנות בעלמא היא. וניתיב אחת שהיא שתים למטה, כמעשה עולה, שתים שהן שתים למעלה, כמעשה חטאת!

The Gemara responds: The two suggestions are different. There, in the statement of Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa, there is no radical divergence from the standard burnt-offering; it is merely dividing the sprinklings. Instead of sprinkling the blood on the corner so that it falls on two sides of the altar, one sprinkles the blood on each of the two sides separately. In contrast, performing two independent acts of sprinkling is a radical divergence. And the Gemara suggests an alternative manner in which the daily offering could be offered like a sin-offering. Let us sprinkle one sprinkling that is two below the red line painted halfway up the altar, in accordance with the procedure of a standard burnt-offering, and sprinkle another two sprinklings that are two above the red line on the upper half of the altar in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering.

לא מצינו דמים שחציין למעלה וחציין למטה. ולא? והתנן: הזה ממנו אחת למעלה ושבע למטה.

The Gemara rejects this: We did not find a case of blood half of which is sprinkled above the red line and half of which is sprinkled below the red line. One either sprinkles all the blood on the lower half of the altar, as in the case of most offerings, or entirely on the upper half of the altar, as in the case of sin-offerings. The Gemara asks: And is there really no case of that sort? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The High Priest took the blood of the bull into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled from the blood one time upward and then seven times downward? Apparently, the blood of an offering can be sprinkled part upward, toward the upper part of the thickness of the Ark cover, and part downward, toward the lower part of the thickness of the Ark cover.

כמצליף. מאי ״כמצליף״ — מחוי רב יהודה, כמנגדנא.

The Gemara rejects this: That is not a case of half the blood sprinkled upward and half sprinkled downward. Instead, that sprinkling was like a matzlif; the sprinklings were not performed one above the other, but rather one beneath the other, and all were sprinkled in a row on the Ark cover. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of like a matzlif? Rav Yehuda demonstrated with his hand; it means like one who whips. One who whips another does not strike in one place but directs one lash beneath another.

ולא? והתנן: הזה ממנו על טהרו של מזבח שבע פעמים. מאי לאו, אפלגיה דמזבח, כדאמרי אינשי: טהר טיהרא הוא פלגא דיומא!

The Gemara asks: And is there really no case of that sort? Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to the sprinkling of blood on the incense altar: He sprinkled seven times from the blood on tohoro of the altar. What, is it not referring to the middle of the side of the altar, as people say: Clear noon [tihara], that is the middle of the day? In other words, tohoro refers to halfway up the altar. Now, since the blood was sprinkled on the altar seven times, inevitably some of the blood landed above the midpoint and some of it landed below the midpoint.

אמר רבה בר שילא: לא,

Rabba bar Sheila said: No, that is not the meaning of tohoro.

אגופיה דמזבח, דכתיב: ״וכעצם השמים לטהר״.

Rather, tohoro means on top of the altar itself, as it is written: “Like the very sky for purity [latohar]” (Exodus 24:10). Tohoro refers to the top of the altar after the ashes of the incense are cleared and the pure gold is visible.

מאי שנא דיהיב עולה ברישא והדר יהיב דחטאת? ניתיב ברישא דחטאת, והדר ניתיב דעולה! כיון דעולה היא, היא קדמה ברישא.

The Gemara returns to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon IshHaMitzpa: What is different that he says to sprinkle in accordance with the procedure of the burnt-offering first and then sprinkle in accordance with the procedure that is used for the sin-offering? Let us first sprinkle in accordance with the procedure that is used for the sin-offering and then let us sprinkle in accordance with the procedure that is used for the burnt-offering. The Gemara answers: Since the daily offering is a burnt-offering, that procedure takes precedence, and it is followed by the sin-offering.

ומאי שנא דיהיב מזרחית צפונית, ומערבית דרומית, ניתיב דרומית מזרחית, והדר צפונית מערבית! אמרי: עולה טעונה יסוד, וקרן דרומית מזרחית לא הוה ליה יסוד.

The Gemara asks: What is different that he says to sprinkle first on the northeast corner of the altar and then on the southwest corner? Let him sprinkle first on the southeast corner and then on the northwest corner. The Sages say: That is because the blood of the burnt-offering requires sprinkling on the side of the altar with a base, as it is stated: “On the base of the altar of burnt-offering” (Leviticus 4:18) and the southeast corner did not have a base. Therefore, the sprinkling was performed on the northeast corner, where part of the base of the altar was located.

מאי שנא דיהיב ברישא מזרחית צפונית והדר מערבית דרומית? ניתיב ברישא מערבית דרומית והדר מזרחית צפונית! כיון דאמר מר כל פינות שאתה פונה

The Gemara asks: What is different that he says to sprinkle first on the northeast corner of the altar and then on the southwest corner? Let him sprinkle first on the southwest corner and then on the northeast corner. The Gemara answers that it is since the Master said: All turns that you turn should be only to the right. With regard to certain offerings sacrificed when the priest is on the south side of the altar, he would turn to the east, which was to his right. Since the animal to be offered is slaughtered to the north of the altar, he first sprinkles blood at the corner that he encounters first.

— לא יהו אלא דרך ימין למזרח, ברישא בההוא פגע.

וממאי דבעולה הוא דקאמר רחמנא עביד בה מעשה חטאת, ודילמא: בחטאת הוא דקאמר רחמנא עביד בה מעשה עולה! לא סלקא דעתך, דכתיב: ״על עולת התמיד יעשה ונסכו״,

And from where is the conclusion drawn that the Merciful One says with regard to a burnt-offering to perform it in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering? Perhaps it is with regard to a sin-offering of the New Moon that the Merciful One says to perform it in accordance with the procedure of a burnt-offering. The Gemara responds: This can not enter your mind, as it is written: “It shall be offered aside from the daily burnt-offering and its libation” (Numbers 28:15). What is the Merciful One saying? Cast a matter of the sin-offering upon the burnt-offering, i.e., apply the procedure of the sin-offering to the sacrifice of the burnt-offering.

מאי קאמר רחמנא: מידי דחטאת שדי אעולה.

תנן התם: אמר להם הממונה צאו והביאו טלה מלשכת בית הטלאים. והלא, לשכת הטלאים היתה במקצוע צפונית מערבית. וארבע לשכות היו שם, אחת לשכת הטלאים, ואחת לשכת החותמות,

§ Just as the contradiction above was resolved by attributing different sources to different tanna’im, the Gemara cites an additional contradiction with a similar resolution. We learned in a mishna there: The appointee, the deputy High Priest, said to the other priests: Go out and bring a lamb from the Chamber of the Lambs, where lambs awaiting sacrifice were kept after they underwent inspection and were found to be without blemish. That mishna continues: The Chamber of the Lambs was located in the northwest corner of the Hall of the Hearth in the Temple courtyard. And there were four chambers there in that hall. One was the Chamber of the Lambs, and one was the Chamber of the Seals. In the Temple, seals were dispensed as receipts to individuals who paid for sacrificial animals. The person then showed the seal to a Temple official, who supplied him with an animal. And one was the Chamber of the Hall of the Hearth, and one was the chamber where the shewbread was prepared.

ואחת לשכת בית המוקד, ואחת לשכה שעושין בה לחם הפנים.

ורמינהו: ארבע לשכות היו לבית המוקד, כקטוניות הפתוחות לטרקלין, שתים בקודש, ושתים בחול, וראשי פספסין מבדילין בין קודש לחול. ומה היו משמשות?

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in tractate Middot: Four chambers were open into the Hall of the Hearth like small semi-open rooms [kitoniyyot] that open into a central hall [teraklin]. Two of these chambers were located in the sacred area, in the Temple courtyard, and two of the chambers were located in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount. And the tops of wooden stakes [pispasin] in the Hall of the Hearth divided between the sacred area and the non-sacred area to apprise the people in both areas where they were located and what conduct is required. And what purpose did these chambers serve? The southwest chamber was the Chamber of the Sacrificial Lambs;

מערבית דרומית — היא היתה לשכת טלי קרבן.