The gemara brings two different approaches to resolve the contradiction in the mishnayot of Yoma regarding the order of the cleaning of the menorah and the burning of the incense – which was first. The gemara analyzes each of the different approaches and brings proofs/difficulties on each. The gemara then goes back to the mishna in Tamid Chapter 4, Mishna 1, quoted in the previous page regarding how and where the blood was sprinkled for the daily Tamid offering. Rabbi Shimon from Mitzpe offered a different explanation. The gemara raises six questions against his approach and answers them all. The gemara then brings a contradiction between a mishna in Tamid Chapter 3, Mishna 3 and a mishna in Midot Chapter 1, Mishna 6 regarding the location of the room where the lambs for the Tamid sacrifice were kept.
Yoma 15
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Adi Wyner for the refuah shleima of דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין, their 10-month old grandson, Davidi, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb who is having cleft palate surgery. “Please join us in praying for the refuah shleima of our precious little ‘angel baby’.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Adi Wyner for the refuah shleima of דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין, their 10-month old grandson, Davidi, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb who is having cleft palate surgery. “Please join us in praying for the refuah shleima of our precious little ‘angel baby’.”
Yoma 15
בְּעִידָּן הֲטָבָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְהַעֲלוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה״, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּבְרֵישָׁא מַדְלִיק נֵרוֹת וַהֲדַר מַקְטִיר קְטוֹרֶת שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״,
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)?
תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ, שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״, אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. אֶלָּא מַאי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — בְּעִידָּן הַדְלָקָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת, הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּעִידָּן הֲטָבָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת.
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.
וְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹתוֹ״.
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.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — רַבָּנַן, הָא — אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּהָכָא — כְּרַבָּנַן, פַּיִיס — כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל,
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.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַתָּמִיד, קְרָצוֹ וּמֵרַק אַחֵר שְׁחִיטָה עַל יָדוֹ, נִכְנַס לְהַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת וּלְהֵיטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת — אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל! אָמַר לְךָ רַב פָּפָּא: אִין, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרַב פָּפָּא, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל לָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ. אֶלָּא רַב פָּפָּא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּאַבַּיֵּי? אָמַר לָךְ: תְּנָא בְּרֵישָׁא הֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת, וַהֲדַר הֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת?
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.
וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אוֹרוֹיֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּקָא מוֹרֵי, וְסִדְרָא הָא הֲדַר תָּנֵי לֵיהּ.
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.
גּוּפָא: בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — נוֹתֵן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — נוֹתֵן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה מְשַׁנֶּה בַּתָּמִיד, בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — נוֹתֵן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — נוֹתֵן מַעֲרָבָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן דָּרוֹמָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה?
§ 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?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם חַד דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּשְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת לַה׳ עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ״, עוֹלָה הִיא, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת.
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.
הָא כֵּיצַד? נוֹתֵן אַחַת שֶׁהִיא שְׁתַּיִם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. וְלִיתֵּן שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, וְאַרְבַּע שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת!
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.
לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְכַפְּרִין. וְכִי מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין חַטָּאת וְחֶצְיָין עוֹלָה? אֶלָּא עַל כׇּרְחָן הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב. הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּעַל כׇּרְחָן הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב.
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.
הָתָם פִּיסּוּק מַתָּנוֹת בְּעָלְמָא הִיא. וְנִיתֵּיב אַחַת שֶׁהִיא שְׁתַּיִם לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת!
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.
לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין לְמַעְלָה וְחֶצְיָין לְמַטָּה. וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה.
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.
כְּמַצְלִיף. מַאי ״כְּמַצְלִיף״ — מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה, כִּמְנַגְּדָנָא.
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.
וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל טׇהֳרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: טְהַר טִיהֲרָא הוּא פַּלְגָא דְּיוֹמָא!
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא,
Rabba bar Sheila said: No, that is not the meaning of tohoro.
אַגּוּפֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״.
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.
מַאי שְׁנָא דְּיָהֵיב עוֹלָה בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר יָהֵיב דְּחַטָּאת? נִיתֵּיב בְּרֵישָׁא דְּחַטָּאת, וַהֲדַר נִיתֵּיב דְּעוֹלָה! כֵּיוָן דְּעוֹלָה הִיא, הִיא קָדְמָה בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא דְּיָהֵיב מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, וּמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, נִיתֵּיב דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, וַהֲדַר צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית! אָמְרִי: עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד, וְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית לָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ יְסוֹד.
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.
מַאי שְׁנָא דְּיָהֵיב בְּרֵישָׁא מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית וַהֲדַר מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית? נִיתֵּיב בְּרֵישָׁא מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית וַהֲדַר מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית! כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה — לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח, בְּרֵישָׁא בְּהָהוּא פָּגַע.
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.
וּמִמַּאי דִּבְעוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת, וְדִילְמָא: בְּחַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ״, מַאי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: מִידֵּי דְּחַטָּאת שְׁדִי אַעוֹלָה.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: אָמַר לָהֶם הַמְמוּנֶּה צְאוּ וְהָבִיאוּ טָלֶה מִלִּשְׁכַּת בֵּית הַטְּלָאִים. וַהֲלֹא, לִשְׁכַּת הַטְּלָאִים הָיְתָה בְּמִקְצוֹעַ צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית. וְאַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַטְּלָאִים, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַחוֹתָמוֹת, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת בֵּית הַמּוֹקֵד, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהּ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים.
§ 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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ לְבֵית הַמּוֹקֵד, כְּקִטּוֹנִיּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת לַטְּרַקְלִין, שְׁתַּיִם בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּחוֹל, וְרָאשֵׁי פְּסֵפָסִין מַבְדִּילִין בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לַחוֹל. וּמָה הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת? מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת טְלֵי קׇרְבָּן.
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;
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Richmond, CA, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Bronx, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
New York, United States
Yoma 15
בְּעִידָּן הֲטָבָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְהַעֲלוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה״, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּבְרֵישָׁא מַדְלִיק נֵרוֹת וַהֲדַר מַקְטִיר קְטוֹרֶת שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״,
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)?
תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ, שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״, אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. אֶלָּא מַאי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — בְּעִידָּן הַדְלָקָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת, הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּעִידָּן הֲטָבָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת.
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.
וְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹתוֹ״.
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.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — רַבָּנַן, הָא — אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּהָכָא — כְּרַבָּנַן, פַּיִיס — כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל,
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.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַתָּמִיד, קְרָצוֹ וּמֵרַק אַחֵר שְׁחִיטָה עַל יָדוֹ, נִכְנַס לְהַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת וּלְהֵיטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת — אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל! אָמַר לְךָ רַב פָּפָּא: אִין, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרַב פָּפָּא, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל לָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ. אֶלָּא רַב פָּפָּא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּאַבַּיֵּי? אָמַר לָךְ: תְּנָא בְּרֵישָׁא הֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת, וַהֲדַר הֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת?
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.
וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אוֹרוֹיֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּקָא מוֹרֵי, וְסִדְרָא הָא הֲדַר תָּנֵי לֵיהּ.
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.
גּוּפָא: בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — נוֹתֵן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — נוֹתֵן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה מְשַׁנֶּה בַּתָּמִיד, בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — נוֹתֵן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — נוֹתֵן מַעֲרָבָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן דָּרוֹמָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה?
§ 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?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם חַד דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּשְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת לַה׳ עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ״, עוֹלָה הִיא, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת.
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.
הָא כֵּיצַד? נוֹתֵן אַחַת שֶׁהִיא שְׁתַּיִם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. וְלִיתֵּן שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, וְאַרְבַּע שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת!
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.
לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְכַפְּרִין. וְכִי מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין חַטָּאת וְחֶצְיָין עוֹלָה? אֶלָּא עַל כׇּרְחָן הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב. הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּעַל כׇּרְחָן הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב.
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.
הָתָם פִּיסּוּק מַתָּנוֹת בְּעָלְמָא הִיא. וְנִיתֵּיב אַחַת שֶׁהִיא שְׁתַּיִם לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת!
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.
לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין לְמַעְלָה וְחֶצְיָין לְמַטָּה. וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה.
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.
כְּמַצְלִיף. מַאי ״כְּמַצְלִיף״ — מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה, כִּמְנַגְּדָנָא.
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.
וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל טׇהֳרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: טְהַר טִיהֲרָא הוּא פַּלְגָא דְּיוֹמָא!
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא,
Rabba bar Sheila said: No, that is not the meaning of tohoro.
אַגּוּפֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״.
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.
מַאי שְׁנָא דְּיָהֵיב עוֹלָה בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר יָהֵיב דְּחַטָּאת? נִיתֵּיב בְּרֵישָׁא דְּחַטָּאת, וַהֲדַר נִיתֵּיב דְּעוֹלָה! כֵּיוָן דְּעוֹלָה הִיא, הִיא קָדְמָה בְּרֵישָׁא.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא דְּיָהֵיב מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, וּמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, נִיתֵּיב דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, וַהֲדַר צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית! אָמְרִי: עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד, וְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית לָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ יְסוֹד.
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.
מַאי שְׁנָא דְּיָהֵיב בְּרֵישָׁא מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית וַהֲדַר מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית? נִיתֵּיב בְּרֵישָׁא מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית וַהֲדַר מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית! כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה — לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח, בְּרֵישָׁא בְּהָהוּא פָּגַע.
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.
וּמִמַּאי דִּבְעוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת, וְדִילְמָא: בְּחַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ״, מַאי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: מִידֵּי דְּחַטָּאת שְׁדִי אַעוֹלָה.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: אָמַר לָהֶם הַמְמוּנֶּה צְאוּ וְהָבִיאוּ טָלֶה מִלִּשְׁכַּת בֵּית הַטְּלָאִים. וַהֲלֹא, לִשְׁכַּת הַטְּלָאִים הָיְתָה בְּמִקְצוֹעַ צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית. וְאַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַטְּלָאִים, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַחוֹתָמוֹת, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת בֵּית הַמּוֹקֵד, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהּ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים.
§ 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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ לְבֵית הַמּוֹקֵד, כְּקִטּוֹנִיּוֹת הַפְּתוּחוֹת לַטְּרַקְלִין, שְׁתַּיִם בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּחוֹל, וְרָאשֵׁי פְּסֵפָסִין מַבְדִּילִין בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לַחוֹל. וּמָה הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת? מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת טְלֵי קׇרְבָּן.
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;
