Menachot 27

דעל העצים כתיב

as “upon [al] the wood” is written, and not: Next to the wood.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמאן דאמר על בסמוך מאי הכא נמי על בסמוך או דלמא על העצים דומיא דעל המזבח מה התם על ממש אף הכא נמי על ממש תיקו

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says in the mishna (96a) that the term “upon [al]” (see Numbers 2:20) means adjacent to. According to that tanna, what is the halakha in this case? Is it explained that here, too, the phrase “upon [al] the wood” can mean adjacent to the wood? Or perhaps, the phrase “upon [al] the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” teaches that “upon the wood” is to be understood as similar to “upon the altar”: Just as there “upon the altar” is meant literally, so too here, the phrase “upon the wood” is meant literally. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ הקומץ מיעוטו מעכב את רובו עשרון מיעוטו מעכב את רובו היין מיעוטו מעכב את רובו השמן מיעוטו מעכב את רובו

MISHNA: With regard to the handful, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from rendering it permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from qualifying as a proper meal offering. With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was poured, from qualifying as a proper libation. With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was added, from being a sufficient measure of oil.

הסולת והשמן מעכבין זה את זה הקומץ והלבונה מעכבין זה את זה

With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא אמר קרא מלא קמצו תרי זימני

GEMARA: What is the reason that the failure to sacrifice the minority of the handful disqualifies the entire offering? This is derived from the fact that the verse states “his handful” twice, once with regard to the voluntary meal offering (Leviticus 2:2) and once with regard to the meal offering of a sinner (Leviticus 5:12), and any halakha repeated in the verses is deemed indispensable.

עשרון מיעוטו מעכב את רובו מאי טעמא אמר קרא מסלתה שאם חסרה כל שהוא פסולה

The mishna teaches: With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper meal offering. What is the reason? The verse states: “The priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour” (Leviticus 2:2). The usage of the term “of its fine flour” instead of: Of the fine flour, teaches that if any amount of its flour was missing, it is not valid.

היין מיעוטו מעכב את רובו ככה

The mishna teaches: With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper libation. What is the reason? The verse states concerning the libations: “So shall it be done” (Numbers 15:11). The term “so” indicates that the libations must be sacrificed exactly in the manner described, without any deviation.

השמן מיעוטו מעכב את רובו דמנחת נסכים ככה ומנחת נדבה אמר קרא ומשמנה שאם חסר כל שהוא פסולה

The mishna teaches: With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it from being a sufficient measure of oil. In the case of the oil of the meal offering that accompanies the libations, this halakha is learned from the term: “So” (Numbers 15:11), stated with regard to the libations. And in the case of the log of oil that accompanies a voluntary meal offering, the verse states: “And of its oil” (Leviticus 2:2), demonstrating that if any amount of its oil was missing, it is not valid.

השמן והסולת מעכבין זה את זה מסלתה ומשמנה מגרשה ומשמנה

The mishna teaches: With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the fact that the two are juxtaposed in the verse: “The priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:2), and the fact that this requirement is repeated in the verse: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), teaches that each is indispensable.

הקומץ והלבונה מעכבין זה את זה על כל לבונתה ואת כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה

The mishna teaches: With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the repetition of the mention of the two together in the verse, as it is written: “The priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil, as well as all of its frankincense” (Leviticus 2:2), and again with regard to the meal offering of a sinner it is stated: “And all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:8).

מתני׳ שני שעירי יום הכפורים מעכבין זה את זה שני כבשי עצרת מעכבין זה את זה שתי חלות מעכבות זו את זו

MISHNA: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

שני סדרין מעכבין זה את זה שני בזיכין מעכבין זה את זה הסדרין והבזיכין מעכבין זה את זה

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

שני מינים שבנזיר שלשה שבפרה וארבעה שבתודה וארבעה שבלולב וארבע שבמצורע מעכבין זה את זה

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite: The bread and wafers (see Numbers 6:15); the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer: The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool (see Numbers 19:6); and the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering: The loaves, wafers, loaves soaked in hot water, and leavened bread (see Leviticus 7:12); and the four species of the lulav: The lulav, etrog, myrtle, and willow (see Leviticus 23:40); and the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper: The cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds (see Leviticus 14:4), failure to bring each of the components prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

שבעה הזאות שבפרה מעכבות זו את זו שבע הזיות שעל בין הבדים שעל הפרכת שעל מזבח הזהב מעכבות זו את זו

With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary (see Numbers 19:4), failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves (see Leviticus 16:14–15), the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and from all other inner sin offerings, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

גמ׳ שני שעירי יום הכפורים מעכבין זה את זה חוקה

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse that states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And it shall be a statute forever” (Leviticus 16:29), since wherever the term “statute” appears concerning a sacrificial rite, it signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.

שני כבשי עצרת מעכבין זה את זה הויה שתי חלות הויה

The mishna teaches: With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse: “They shall be holy” (Leviticus 23:20), since the employment of a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement. Similarly, with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, the reason failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse states: “They shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17), employing a term of being.

שני סדרין חוקה שני בזיכין חוקה הסדרין והבזיכין חוקה

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, the reason failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them, as that verse addresses each of these two components.

שני מינים שבנזיר דכתיב כן יעשה שלשה שבפרה חוקה

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written with regard to the nazirite: “So he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), demonstrating that must bring his offerings precisely as detailed in the verse. With regard to the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).

ארבעה שבתודה דאיתקש לנזיר דכתיב על זבח תודת שלמיו ואמר מר שלמיו לרבות שלמי נזיר

With regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the thanks offering is juxtaposed to the offerings of a nazirite, as it is written with regard to the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13). And the Master said: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of a nazirite, and it has already been demonstrated that with regard to the loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

וארבעה שבמצורע דכתיב זאת תהיה תורת המצרע וארבעה שבלולב ולקחתם לקיחה תמה

And with regard to the four species that are in the purification process of the leper, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and the term “shall be” indicates an indispensable requirement. And with regard to the four species of the lulav, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the verse states: “And you shall take” [ulkaḥtem]” (Leviticus 23:40), which alludes to: A complete taking [lekiḥa tamma], comprising all four species.

אמר רב חנן בר רבא לא שנו אלא שאין לו אבל יש לו אין מעכבין

§ Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says: The mishna taught that the four species of the lulav are necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva only in a case where one did not have all four species; but if one has all four species, failure to take each of the components does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, and he fulfills the mitzva by taking each species individually.

מיתיבי ארבעה מינין שבלולב שנים מהן עושין פירות ושנים מהם אין עושין פירות העושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לשאין עושין ושאין עושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לעושין פירות ואין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בהן עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, two of them, the lulav and etrog, produce fruit, and two of them, the myrtle and willow, do not produce fruit. Those that produce fruit have a bond with those that do not produce fruit, and those that do not produce fruit have a bond with those that produce fruit. And a person does not fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav until they are all bound together in a single bundle.

וכן ישראל בהרצאה עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת שנאמר הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה

And so too, when the Jewish people fast and pray for acceptance of their repentance, this is not accomplished until they are all bound together in a single bundle, as it is stated: “It is He that builds His upper chambers in the Heaven, and has established His bundle upon the earth” (Amos 9:6), which is interpreted as stating that only when the Jewish people are bound together are they established upon the earth. This baraita contradicts Rav Ḥanan bar Rava’s statement, since it teaches that the four species of the lulav must be taken together in order for one to fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav.

תנאי היא דתניא לולב בין אגוד בין שאינו אגוד כשר רבי יהודה אומר אגוד כשר שאינו אגוד פסול

The Gemara answers: Whether the different species must be taken together is a dispute between tanna’im; as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow or whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound, it is fit; if it is not bound, it is unfit.

מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה גמר קיחה קיחה מאגודת אזוב

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal offering in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, with regard to the four species: “And you shall take for you on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, boughs of dense-leaved trees, and willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40).

מה להלן באגודה אף כאן באגודה ורבנן לא גמרי קיחה קיחה

Just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: They do not derive the meaning of the term taking from the meaning of the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא לולב מצוה לאוגדו ואם לא אגדו כשר כמאן אי כרבי יהודה לא אגדו אמאי כשר אי רבנן מאי מצוה

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow together with the lulav, but if one did not bind it, it is fit? In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva is one fulfilling by binding it?

לעולם רבנן ומאי מצוה משום זה אלי ואנוהו

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what mitzva is one fulfilling? The mitzva is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will beautify Him” (Exodus 15:2), which is interpreted to mean that one should beautify himself before God in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for performing the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

שבע הזאות שבפרה מעכבות זו את זו חוקה

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them (see Numbers 19:2).

שבע הזאות שעל בין הבדים ושעל מזבח הזהב ושעל הפרוכת מעכבות זו את זו דיום הכפורים כתיב חוקה

The mishna further teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and the sprinklings from all other inner sin offerings that are sprinkled on the golden altar, and the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the sprinklings of Yom Kippur, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is that the term “statute” is written about the Yom Kippur service (see Leviticus 16:29).

דפר כהן משוח ודפר העלם דבר של ציבור ודשעירי עבודה זרה כדתניא ועשה לפר כאשר עשה לפר מה תלמוד לומר לכפול בהזאות

With regard to the sprinklings of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and those of the goats of idol worship, which are sprinkled on the Curtain and on the golden altar, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: “So shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering” of the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:20). Why must the verse state that the bull offering for an unwitting communal sin is sacrificed in the same manner as the bull of the anointed priest, when the Torah has already explicitly specified the manner in which the service should take place? The reason it states it is in order to repeat the command of the sprinklings,

שאם חיסר אחת מן המתנות לא עשה כלום

to teach that if one omitted one of the placements of blood, he has done nothing.

תנו רבנן שבע הזאות שבפרה שעשאן בין שלא לשמן בין שלא מכוונות אל נכח פני אוהל מועד פסולות

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest performed the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer improperly, either by performing them not for their own sake or performing them not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, they are not valid.

ושבפנים ושבמצורע שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות

But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled “before the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done “seven times before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they are performed not precisely toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, they are valid.

והתניא גבי פרה שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא רבי יהודה הא רבנן

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning the sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that if they were performed not for their own sake, they are not valid, but if they were performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, they are valid? Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult; this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

דתניא מחוסרי כפרה שנכנסו לעזרה בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד ענוש כרת ואין צריך לומר טבול יום ושאר כל הטמאים

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kelim 1:10): With regard to those who have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, who entered the Temple courtyard unwittingly, they are liable to bring a sin offering. If they entered intentionally, then this is punishable by karet. And needless to say, the same applies to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed and all the others who are ritually impure and have not yet immersed.

וטהורים שנכנסו לפנים ממחיצתן להיכל כולו בארבעים מבית לפרכת אל פני הכפרת במיתה רבי יהודה אומר כל היכל כולו ומבית לפרכת בארבעים ואל פני הכפרת במיתה

And with regard to those who are pure who entered beyond their boundaries, i.e., beyond where it is permitted for them to enter, such as a priest who enters the Sanctuary for a purpose other than performing the Temple service, if one entered any part of the Sanctuary, he is liable to receive forty lashes. If he entered within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, i.e., into the Holy of Holies, or he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he entered any part of the Sanctuary or within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, he is liable to receive forty lashes; but if he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

במאי קא מיפלגי בהאי קרא ויאמר ה׳ אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבוא בכל עת אל הקדש מבית לפרכת אל פני הכפרת אשר על הארון ולא ימות רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die” (Leviticus 16:2). The Rabbis hold that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies and before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

ורבי יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, and within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the of Heaven.

מאי טעמא דרבנן אי סלקא דעתך כדקאמר רבי יהודה לכתוב רחמנא אל הקודש ואל פני הכפרת ולא בעי מבית לפרכת ואנא אמינא היכל מיחייב מבית לפרכת מבעיא מבית הפרכת דכתב רחמנא למה לי שמע מינה במיתה

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the interpretation of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: If it should enter your mind to explain the verse as Rabbi Yehuda says, then let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and before the Ark Cover that he not die, and there is no need to write “within the Curtain,” and I would say: If one becomes liable to receive lashes for even entering the Sanctuary, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering within the Curtain? Why do I need the phrase “within the Curtain” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

ורבי יהודה אי כתב רחמנא אל הקודש ולא כתב מבית לפרכת הוה אמינא מאי קודש מבית לפרכת אבל היכל לאו נמי לא ורבנן ההוא לא מצית אמרת דהיכל כולו איקרי קודש שנאמר והבדילה הפרכת לכם בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come “into the holy place” and did not write “within the Curtain,” I would say: What is the holy place? It is within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, but if one enters the Sanctuary he does not even violate a prohibition. And the Rabbis respond to this claim: You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called “the holy place,” as it is stated: “And the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33).

ורבי יהודה מאי טעמא אי סלקא דעתך כדקא אמרי רבנן לכתוב רחמנא אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת ולא בעי אל פני הכפרת ואנא אמינא מבית לפרוכת במיתה אל פני הכפרת מיבעיא אל פני הכפרת דכתב רחמנא למה לי שמע מינה אל פני הכפרת במיתה מבית לפרכת באזהרה

And what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if it should enter your mind to explain as the Rabbis say, that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and within the Curtain that he not die, and there is no need to write “before the Ark Cover.” And I would say: If entering within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering before the Ark Cover? Why do I need the phrase “before the Ark Cover” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering before the Ark Cover is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, but entering within the Curtain merely violates a prohibition.

ורבנן הכי נמי דלא צריך והאי דכתב רחמנא אל פני הכפרת למעוטי דרך משופש

And the Rabbis understand: Indeed, it is so that in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it is not necessary for the verse to also state “before the Ark Cover.” And the reason that the Merciful One wrote “before [el penei] the Ark Cover” was in order to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path, as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

כדתנא דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אל פני הכפרת קדמה זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר פני אינו אלא פני קדים

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught: With regard to the verse: “And he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [el penei] the Ark Cover to the east” (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: “Before [penei],” it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

ורבי יהודה לימא קרא פני מאי אל שמע מינה אל דוקא ורבנן אל לאו דוקא

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term “before [el penei] the Ark Cover” is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, let the verse say: Before [penei] the Ark Cover. What is the purpose of the word el? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven specifically if he entered directly before the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. And the Rabbis hold that the term “el” does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

ורבי יהודה דאמר אל פני הכפרת דוקא והזה אל נכח נמי דוקא

The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two baraitot with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the expression “before [el penei] the Ark Cover” teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: “And sprinkle of its blood toward [el] the front” (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

ורבנן מדהתם לאו דוקא הכא נמי לאו דוקא

And the Rabbis are of the opinion that from the fact that there the term el does not mean specifically that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, here too they hold that it is not meant specifically, and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף לרבי יהודה מדאל דוקא (אל נכח) [על] נמי דוקא אלא דמקדש שני דלא הוו ארון וכפורת הכי נמי דלא עביד הזאות

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood before [al penei] the Ark Cover” (Leviticus 16:14) should also mean that the sprinkling must be performed specifically upon the Ark Cover. But in the time of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, would Rabbi Yehuda then say that indeed the sprinklings were not performed? This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see Yoma 53b).

אמר רבה בר עולא אמר קרא וכפר את מקדש הקדש מקום המקודש לקודש

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place [mikdash hakodesh]” (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [hakodesh], but even on the place that is dedicated [hamkudash] for the Ark [lakodesh].

רבא אמר הא והא רבנן

The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the baraitot concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: