No one is allowed to be in the sanctuary while the Kohen Gadol goes into the Holy of Holies. Is it only when he offers the incense or also when he sprinkles the blood in the Holy of Holies? Rabbi Elazar distinguishes between the separation during the offering of the incense daily (where no one can be in the Sanctuary or in the area between the altar and the Sanctuary) and the offering of the incense in the Holy of Holies where one is allowed to be in the latter but not in the former. A question is brought from a braita where a similar distinction is made (regarding separation from the Sanctuary and also between the area in between the altar and the Sanctuary), however it seems to be distinguishing between other actions and not the incense in the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Can other things be inferred from this braita regarding differentiating levels of sanctity in the Temple? Why were two shovels used for the incense on a regular day? And why not on Yom Kippur?
Yoma 44
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Yoma 44
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲזָרָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר, שִׁילֹה וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ״.
I might have thought nobody should be present, even in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the verse states “in the Tent of Meeting,” limiting the prohibition to the Temple itself. I have derived only that a prohibition exists in the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle that was in the desert, from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also to the Tabernacle that stood in Shiloh, and that it applies also to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem? The verse states “in the Sanctuary,” indicating that the prohibition applies to any Sanctuary.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה, בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן דָּמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּבוֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, בִּיצִיאָתוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַד צֵאתוֹ״.
I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense; from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also during the presentations of the bull’s blood in the Holy of Holies? The verse states: “When he goes in to make atonement,” and atonement is achieved through the presentations of blood. I have derived only that a prohibition exists from the time of his entrance into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the prohibition remains in force until his exit? The verse states: “Until he comes out.”
״וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ וּבְעַד כׇּל קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל״, כַּפָּרָתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְכַפָּרַת בֵּיתוֹ, כַּפָּרַת בֵּיתוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְכַפָּרַת אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים, וְכַפָּרַת אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים קוֹדֶמֶת לְכַפָּרַת כׇּל קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The baraita concludes by expounding the final part of the verse: “And have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel” (Leviticus 16:17). This teaches that his atonement precedes the atonement of his household; the atonement of his household precedes that atonement of his brethren, the priests; the atonement of his brethren, the priests, precedes the atonement of the entire community of Israel.
אָמַר מָר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רָבָא, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ וּבְעַד כׇּל קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל״, אֵיזֶהוּ כַּפָּרָה שֶׁשָּׁוָה לוֹ וּלְבֵיתוֹ וּלְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים וּלְכׇל קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה הַקְטָרַת הַקְּטוֹרֶת.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense. From where in the verse could this have been inferred? Rava said, and similarly Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said, and similarly Rabbi Elazar said: The conclusion of that verse states: “And have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.” Which act of atonement is the same for him, and for his household, and for his brethren, the priests, and for the entire community of Israel? You must say this is the burning of the incense.
וּקְטוֹרֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת? אִין, דְּהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא: לָמַדְנוּ לִקְטוֹרֶת שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת וַיְכַפֵּר עַל הָעָם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עַל מָה קְטוֹרֶת מְכַפֶּרֶת — עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. יָבֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבַּחֲשַׁאי, וִיכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲשֵׂה חֲשַׁאי.
Does incense effect atonement? The Torah mentions the concept of atonement only with regard to offerings. Yes, as Rabbi Ḥananya teaches in a baraita: We learned of the incense that it effects atonement, as it is stated: “And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense effect atonement? For slander. And why is that? Let something that is done in secret, i.e., the incense, which is burned in seclusion within the Sanctuary, come and effect atonement for an act done in secret, i.e., slander, which is generally said in private.
תְּנַן הָתָם: פּוֹרְשִׁין מִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דְּהֵיכָל, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דְּלִפְנַי לִפְנִים — מֵהֵיכָל פָּרְשִׁי, מִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ לָא פָּרְשִׁי.
We learned in a mishna there: They remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense. Rabbi Elazar said: They taught that this is true only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary, but during the burning of the incense in the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, people are required to remove themselves only from the Sanctuary. They do not need to remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar.
מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפּוֹרְשִׁין מִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה, כָּךְ פּוֹרְשִׁין בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from a baraita, and some say it unattributed: Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., of the High Priest, which he brings if he issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the bull for an unwitting communal sin brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the goats of idol worship brought for an inadvertent communal transgression of idol worship.
הָא מָה מַעֲלָה יֵשׁ בֵּין הַהֵיכָל לְבֵין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ? אֶלָּא, שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל פּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה, וּמִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵין פּוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה.
The baraita continues: If so, what higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary relative to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar? Only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the incense burning and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the incense burning. Those who are in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar remove themselves only during the incense burning but not during the blood presentations.
בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה מִיהָא פָּרְשִׁי. מַאי לָאו, בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דְּלִפְנַי לִפְנִים?
The Gemara explains the challenge: In any case, it is evident from the baraita that during the incense burning they do remove themselves. What, is it not referring to during the burning of the incense of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies? This would contradict Rabbi Elazar’s opinion.
לָא, בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דְּהֵיכָל. אִי הָכִי, הָא ״מָה מַעֲלָה״ וְתוּ לָא, הָא אִיכָּא הָא מַעֲלָה: דְּאִילּוּ מֵהֵיכָל פָּרְשִׁי בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דִידֵיהּ, בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דְּלִפְנַי לִפְנִים, וְאִילּוּ מִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ לָא פָּרְשִׁי אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה דְהֵיכָל!
The Gemara defends his opinion: No, it is referring to during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: If so, how can the baraita say: What higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary? This implies that it is superior only with respect to one higher standard. Are there not more? Surely, there is this higher standard, that whereas the people in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during its own, i.e., the Sanctuary’s, incense burning and during the incense burning of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they remove themselves only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary.
הָא קָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל פּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה, וּמִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֵין פּוֹרְשִׁין
The Gemara explains: This is in fact what the baraita is teaching: It is teaching only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the burning of the incense and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the burning of the incense; from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they do not remove themselves,
אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרָה.
except during the burning of the incense.
וְהָא אִיכָּא הָא מַעֲלָה, דְּאִילּוּ מֵהֵיכָל פָּרְשִׁי בֵּין בִּקְדוּשָּׁה דִידֵיהּ, בֵּין בִּקְדוּשָּׁה דְּלִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, וְאִילּוּ מִבֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ לָא פָּרְשִׁי אֶלָּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה דְהֵיכָל! אָמַר רָבָא: שֵׁם פְּרִישָׁה אַחַת הִיא.
But there is also this higher standard, that whereas from the Sanctuary they remove themselves both during its own sanctification, i.e., the blood presentations in the Sanctuary, and during the sanctification of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, they remove themselves only during the sanctification of the Sanctuary. Rava said: Indeed, there are numerous distinctions, but the baraita teaches only one because all the distinctions fit into one category of removal.
אָמַר מָר: כָּךְ פּוֹרְשִׁין בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר, וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: אָתְיָא ״כַּפָּרָה״ ״כַּפָּרָה״ מִיּוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest; of the bull for an unwitting communal sin; and of the goats of idol worship. From where do we derive this? Rabbi Pedat said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the word atonement said in connection with those offerings and the word atonement from the prohibition on Yom Kippur.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר אַהֲבָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מַעֲלוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְהָכִי גְּמִירִי לְהוּ.
Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: Learn from this that there is a prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The higher standards applied to the various areas in the Temple are defined by Torah law, and the Sages learned them as a tradition.
דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי שְׁנָא בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ? דִּילְמָא מִיקְּרוּ וְעָיְילִי — מִכּוּלַּהּ עֲזָרָה נָמֵי נִפְרְשׁוּ, דִּילְמָא מִיקְּרוּ וְעָיְילִי!
As if it could enter your mind that these standards are defined by rabbinic law, what is different about the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar that the prohibition applies only there? Perhaps other priests would accidentally happen to enter the Sanctuary while incense is burning there. But if that is the reason, then the rabbinic decree should require that they remove themselves also from the entire Temple courtyard, since perhaps they would accidentally happen to enter. The fact that the prohibition does not extend to the Temple courtyard suggests that the standards are defined by Torah law.
בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מַפְסֵיק מִידֵּי — לָא מִינַּכְרָא מִילְּתָא. עֲזָרָה, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן דְּמַפְסֵיק — מִינַּכְרָא מִילְּתָא.
The Gemara rejects Rav Aḥa bar Ahava’s reasoning: The prohibition could indeed be rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to limit it to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, as follows: Since there is nothing that separates it from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the two areas is not conspicuous, and therefore people may err and enter. But with regard to the Temple courtyard, since there is the outer altar that separates the rest of the Temple courtyard from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the areas is conspicuous, and therefore there is no need to extend the prohibition throughout the Temple courtyard.
אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: קְדוּשַּׁת אוּלָם וְהֵיכָל חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת נִינְהוּ, אוּלָם גּוּפֵיהּ גְּזֵירָה, וְנֵיקוּם וְנִגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?!
Rava said: Learn from this fact that there is a rabbinic prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The sanctity of the Entrance Hall and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is one matter, i.e., there they share the same sanctity, and therefore the Torah prohibition applies to the Entrance Hall as well. For if it could enter your mind to say that these areas have two distinct levels of sanctity, it would emerge that the prohibition to be in the Entrance Hall is itself a rabbinic decree. But will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree by prohibiting being present in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, lest one enter the Entrance Hall itself?
לָא, אוּלָם וּבֵין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ חֲדָא קְדוּשָּׁה הִיא, הֵיכָל וְאוּלָם שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת.
The Gemara rejects Rava’s reasoning: No, this would not be a case of issuing one decree to prevent violation of another decree, because the Entrance Hall and the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar share one sanctity. Consequently, any prohibition applied to one will certainly also apply to the other. However, the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have two distinct sanctities.
בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיָה חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל כֶּסֶף וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
§ The mishna states: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the gold pan was not used to scoop the coals? The Gemara answers: Because the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Since the pan is worn away with use, it is preferable to use a less expensive silver pan.
וְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל זָהָב וּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
§ The mishna continues: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan, he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that on Yom Kippur only one pan is used? Due to the weakness of the High Priest. He has to perform the entire service by himself while fasting; using only one pan minimizes his exertion.
בְּכׇל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: נִתְפַּזְּרוּ לוֹ קַב גֶּחָלִים, מְכַבְּדָן לָאַמָּה.
§ The mishna states: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day, a priest scoops with a coal pan of a se’a, which is six kav, and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. It was taught in a mishna (Tamid 33a): As he poured from a pan of four kav to a pan of three kav, a kav of coals became scattered, and he swept them into the canal that passed through the Temple and ran to the Kidron brook.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: קַב, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: קַבַּיִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָךְ דְּתָנֵי קַב — רַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא הָךְ דְּתָנֵי קַבַּיִים, מַנִּי? לָא רַבָּנַן וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי!
It was taught in one baraita: A kav of coals was scattered. And it was taught in another baraita: Two kav were scattered. The Gemara comments: Granted, this baraita, which teaches that a single kav was scattered, is understandable. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the mishna, who maintain that coals are poured from a coal pan of four kav to one of three. But that baraita, which teaches that two kav of coals were scattered, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. According to Rabbi Yosei, three kav of coals would have been scattered.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשֶׁל קַבַּיִים הָיָה מַכְנִיס.
Rav Ḥisda said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: With a coal pan of two kav he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. If one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis that the coals were scooped with a coal pan of four kav, two kav were scattered.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיָה חוֹתֶה בְּשֶׁל סְאָה מִדְבָּרִית, וּמְעָרֶה לְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין יְרוּשַׁלְמִיּוֹת.
Rav Ashi said: You can even say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what he is saying: On every other day, a priest scooped with a coal pan of a desert se’a, which is five Jerusalem kav, and then he poured the coals into a coal pan of three Jerusalem kav. Therefore, two kav would be scattered.
בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה כְּבֵידָה, וְהַיּוֹם קַלָּה. תָּנָא, בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה גִּלְדָּהּ עָבֶה, וְהַיּוֹם רַךְ. בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיְתָה קְצָרָה, וְהַיּוֹם אֲרוּכָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא — כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא זְרוֹעוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְסַיַּיעְתּוֹ.
§ The mishna states: On every other day, the coal pan was heavy, but on this day it was light. It was taught in a baraita: On every other day its side was thick but on this day it was soft and thin. On every other day its handle was short but on this day it was long. What is the reason? So that the arm of the High Priest could assist him in carrying the coal pan, i.e., he could support the coal pan by resting it against his arm rather than bear the entire weight in his hand.
תָּנָא, בְּכׇל יוֹם לֹא הָיָה לָהּ נִיאַשְׁתִּיק, וְהַיּוֹם הָיָה לָהּ נִיאַשְׁתִּיק. דִּבְרֵי בֶּן הַסְּגָן.
It was taught in a baraita: On every other day it did not have a ring, but on this day it has a ring on the end of the handle, which clatters against it and makes a noise in fulfillment of the verse “And the sound thereof shall be heard when he goes in to the Sanctuary” (Exodus 28:35); this is the statement of the son of the Deputy.
בְּכׇל יוֹם הָיָה זְהָבָהּ יָרוֹק. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שִׁבְעָה זְהָבִים הֵן: זָהָב, וְזָהָב טוֹב, וּזְהַב אוֹפִיר, וְזָהָב מוּפָז, וְזָהָב שָׁחוּט, וְזָהָב סָגוּר, וּזְהַב פַּרְוַיִם. זָהָב וְזָהָב טוֹב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא טוֹב״. זְהַב אוֹפִיר — דְּאָתֵי מֵאוֹפִיר. זָהָב מוּפָז —
§ The mishna states: On every other day, it was of greenish gold but on this day it was of a red gold. Rav Ḥisda said: There are seven types of gold mentioned in the Bible: Gold, and good gold, and gold of Ophir (I Kings 10:11), and glistering gold (I Kings 10:18), and shaḥut gold (I Kings 10:17), and closed gold (I Kings 10:21), and parvayim gold (II Chronicles 3:6). The Gemara explains the reason for these names: There is a distinction between gold and good gold, as it is written in the verse: “And the gold of that land is good” (Genesis 2:12), which indicates the existence of gold of a higher quality. Gold of Ophir is gold that comes from Ophir. Glistering [mufaz] gold is so named
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.
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
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, 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 began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
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
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Yoma 44
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ΄. ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©ΧΧ΄.
I might have thought nobody should be present, even in the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the verse states βin the Tent of Meeting,β limiting the prohibition to the Temple itself. I have derived only that a prohibition exists in the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle that was in the desert, from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also to the Tabernacle that stood in Shiloh, and that it applies also to the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem? The verse states βin the Sanctuary,β indicating that the prohibition applies to any Sanctuary.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨Χ΄. ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄Χ’Φ·Χ Χ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧ΄.
I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense; from where do I derive that the prohibition applies also during the presentations of the bullβs blood in the Holy of Holies? The verse states: βWhen he goes in to make atonement,β and atonement is achieved through the presentations of blood. I have derived only that a prohibition exists from the time of his entrance into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the prohibition remains in force until his exit? The verse states: βUntil he comes out.β
Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The baraita concludes by expounding the final part of the verse: βAnd have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israelβ (Leviticus 16:17). This teaches that his atonement precedes the atonement of his household; the atonement of his household precedes that atonement of his brethren, the priests; the atonement of his brethren, the priests, precedes the atonement of the entire community of Israel.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ±ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: I have derived only that a prohibition exists during the burning of the incense. From where in the verse could this have been inferred? Rava said, and similarly Rabbi YitzαΈ₯ak bar Avdimi said, and similarly Rabbi Elazar said: The conclusion of that verse states: βAnd have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.β Which act of atonement is the same for him, and for his household, and for his brethren, the priests, and for the entire community of Israel? You must say this is the burning of the incense.
ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²Χ Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ’. ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΧ.
Does incense effect atonement? The Torah mentions the concept of atonement only with regard to offerings. Yes, as Rabbi αΈ€ananya teaches in a baraita: We learned of the incense that it effects atonement, as it is stated: βAnd he put on the incense and made atonement for the peopleβ (Numbers 17:12). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what does incense effect atonement? For slander. And why is that? Let something that is done in secret, i.e., the incense, which is burned in seclusion within the Sanctuary, come and effect atonement for an act done in secret, i.e., slander, which is generally said in private.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ: Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ.
We learned in a mishna there: They remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense. Rabbi Elazar said: They taught that this is true only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary, but during the burning of the incense in the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, people are required to remove themselves only from the Sanctuary. They do not need to remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar.
ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧ€Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rabbi Elazarβs opinion from a baraita, and some say it unattributed: Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., of the High Priest, which he brings if he issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the bull for an unwitting communal sin brought if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community acts upon it; and also during the blood presentations of the goats of idol worship brought for an inadvertent communal transgression of idol worship.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·? ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
The baraita continues: If so, what higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary relative to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar? Only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the incense burning and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the incense burning. Those who are in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar remove themselves only during the incense burning but not during the blood presentations.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ?
The Gemara explains the challenge: In any case, it is evident from the baraita that during the incense burning they do remove themselves. What, is it not referring to during the burning of the incense of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies? This would contradict Rabbi Elazarβs opinion.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara defends his opinion: No, it is referring to during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: If so, how can the baraita say: What higher standard is applicable to the Sanctuary? This implies that it is superior only with respect to one higher standard. Are there not more? Surely, there is this higher standard, that whereas the people in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during its own, i.e., the Sanctuaryβs, incense burning and during the incense burning of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they remove themselves only during the burning of the incense of the Sanctuary.
ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ
The Gemara explains: This is in fact what the baraita is teaching: It is teaching only that those in the Sanctuary remove themselves both during the burning of the incense and also during the blood presentations, which is not during the burning of the incense; from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar they do not remove themselves,
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
except during the burning of the incense.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
But there is also this higher standard, that whereas from the Sanctuary they remove themselves both during its own sanctification, i.e., the blood presentations in the Sanctuary, and during the sanctification of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, they remove themselves only during the sanctification of the Sanctuary. Rava said: Indeed, there are numerous distinctions, but the baraita teaches only one because all the distinctions fit into one category of removal.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·, ΧΦΌΧ€Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺ: ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest; of the bull for an unwitting communal sin; and of the goats of idol worship. From where do we derive this? Rabbi Pedat said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the word atonement said in connection with those offerings and the word atonement from the prohibition on Yom Kippur.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ.
Rav AαΈ₯a bar Ahava said: Learn from this that there is a prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The higher standards applied to the various areas in the Temple are defined by Torah law, and the Sages learned them as a tradition.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦ΄Χ!
As if it could enter your mind that these standards are defined by rabbinic law, what is different about the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar that the prohibition applies only there? Perhaps other priests would accidentally happen to enter the Sanctuary while incense is burning there. But if that is the reason, then the rabbinic decree should require that they remove themselves also from the entire Temple courtyard, since perhaps they would accidentally happen to enter. The fact that the prohibition does not extend to the Temple courtyard suggests that the standards are defined by Torah law.
ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ. Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ§ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ.
The Gemara rejects Rav AαΈ₯a bar Ahavaβs reasoning: The prohibition could indeed be rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to limit it to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, as follows: Since there is nothing that separates it from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the two areas is not conspicuous, and therefore people may err and enter. But with regard to the Temple courtyard, since there is the outer altar that separates the rest of the Temple courtyard from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the areas is conspicuous, and therefore there is no need to extend the prohibition throughout the Temple courtyard.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ: Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ?!
Rava said: Learn from this fact that there is a rabbinic prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The sanctity of the Entrance Hall and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is one matter, i.e., there they share the same sanctity, and therefore the Torah prohibition applies to the Entrance Hall as well. For if it could enter your mind to say that these areas have two distinct levels of sanctity, it would emerge that the prohibition to be in the Entrance Hall is itself a rabbinic decree. But will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree by prohibiting being present in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, lest one enter the Entrance Hall itself?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
The Gemara rejects Ravaβs reasoning: No, this would not be a case of issuing one decree to prevent violation of another decree, because the Entrance Hall and the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar share one sanctity. Consequently, any prohibition applied to one will certainly also apply to the other. However, the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have two distinct sanctities.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
Β§ The mishna states: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the gold pan was not used to scoop the coals? The Gemara answers: Because the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Since the pan is worn away with use, it is preferable to use a less expensive silver pan.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ.
Β§ The mishna continues: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan, he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that on Yom Kippur only one pan is used? Due to the weakness of the High Priest. He has to perform the entire service by himself while fasting; using only one pan minimizes his exertion.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
Β§ The mishna states: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day, a priest scoops with a coal pan of a seβa, which is six kav, and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. It was taught in a mishna (Tamid 33a): As he poured from a pan of four kav to a pan of three kav, a kav of coals became scattered, and he swept them into the canal that passed through the Temple and ran to the Kidron brook.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ: Χ§Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ·Χ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ? ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ!
It was taught in one baraita: A kav of coals was scattered. And it was taught in another baraita: Two kav were scattered. The Gemara comments: Granted, this baraita, which teaches that a single kav was scattered, is understandable. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the mishna, who maintain that coals are poured from a coal pan of four kav to one of three. But that baraita, which teaches that two kav of coals were scattered, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. According to Rabbi Yosei, three kav of coals would have been scattered.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘.
Rav αΈ€isda said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Beroka, says: With a coal pan of two kav he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. If one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis that the coals were scooped with a coal pan of four kav, two kav were scattered.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ° Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ.
Rav Ashi said: You can even say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what he is saying: On every other day, a priest scooped with a coal pan of a desert seβa, which is five Jerusalem kav, and then he poured the coals into a coal pan of three Jerusalem kav. Therefore, two kav would be scattered.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ’ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ.
Β§ The mishna states: On every other day, the coal pan was heavy, but on this day it was light. It was taught in a baraita: On every other day its side was thick but on this day it was soft and thin. On every other day its handle was short but on this day it was long. What is the reason? So that the arm of the High Priest could assist him in carrying the coal pan, i.e., he could support the coal pan by resting it against his arm rather than bear the entire weight in his hand.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§. ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
It was taught in a baraita: On every other day it did not have a ring, but on this day it has a ring on the end of the handle, which clatters against it and makes a noise in fulfillment of the verse βAnd the sound thereof shall be heard when he goes in to the Sanctuaryβ (Exodus 28:35); this is the statement of the son of the Deputy.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ§. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΧ΄. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΉΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ β
Β§ The mishna states: On every other day, it was of greenish gold but on this day it was of a red gold. Rav αΈ€isda said: There are seven types of gold mentioned in the Bible: Gold, and good gold, and gold of Ophir (I Kings 10:11), and glistering gold (I Kings 10:18), and shaαΈ₯ut gold (I Kings 10:17), and closed gold (I Kings 10:21), and parvayim gold (II Chronicles 3:6). The Gemara explains the reason for these names: There is a distinction between gold and good gold, as it is written in the verse: βAnd the gold of that land is goodβ (Genesis 2:12), which indicates the existence of gold of a higher quality. Gold of Ophir is gold that comes from Ophir. Glistering [mufaz] gold is so named
