Yoma 44

יכול אפילו בעזרה תלמוד לומר באהל מועד אין לי אלא באהל מועד שבמדבר שילה ובית עולמים מנין תלמוד לומר בקודש

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.

אין לי אלא בשעת הקטרה בשעת מתן דמים מנין תלמוד לומר בבואו לכפר אין לי אלא בכניסתו ביציאתו מנין תלמוד לומר עד צאתו

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.”

וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ובעד כל קהל ישראל כפרתו קודמת לכפרת ביתו כפרת ביתו קודמת לכפרת אחיו הכהנים וכפרת אחיו הכהנים קודמת לכפרת כל קהל ישראל

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.

אמר מר אין לי אלא בשעת הקטרה מאי משמע אמר רבא וכן אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי וכן אמר רבי אלעזר אמר קרא וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו ובעד כל קהל ישראל איזהו כפרה ששוה לו ולביתו ולאחיו הכהנים ולכל קהל ישראל הוי אומר זה הקטרת הקטורת

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.

וקטורת מכפרת אין דהא תני רבי חנניא למדנו לקטורת שמכפרת שנאמר ויתן את הקטורת ויכפר על העם ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל על מה קטורת מכפרת על לשון הרע יבא דבר שבחשאי ויכפר על מעשה חשאי

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.

תנן התם פורשין מבין האולם ולמזבח בשעת הקטרה אמר רבי אלעזר לא שנו אלא בשעת הקטרה דהיכל אבל בשעת הקטרה דלפני לפנים מהיכל פרשי מבין האולם ולמזבח לא פרשי

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.

מתיב רב אדא בר אהבה ואמרי לה כדי רבי יוסי אומר כשם שפורשין מבין האולם ולמזבח בשעת הקטרה כך פורשין בשעת מתן פר כהן משיח ופר העלם דבר של ציבור ושעירי עבודה זרה

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.

הא מה מעלה יש בין ההיכל לבין האולם ולמזבח אלא שבהיכל פורשין בין בשעת הקטרה ובין שלא בשעת הקטרה ומבין האולם ולמזבח אין פורשין אלא בשעת הקטרה

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.

בשעת הקטרה מיהא פרשי מאי לאו בשעת הקטרה דלפני לפנים

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.

לא בשעת הקטרה דהיכל אי הכי הא מה מעלה ותו לא הא איכא הא מעלה דאילו מהיכל פרשי בין בשעת הקטרה דידיה בין בשעת הקטרה דלפני לפנים ואילו מבין האולם ולמזבח לא פרשי אלא בשעת הקטרה דהיכל

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.

הא קתני אלא שבהיכל פורשין בין בשעת הקטרה ובין שלא בשעת הקטרה ומבין האולם ולמזבח אין פורשין

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,

אלא בשעת הקטרה

except during the burning of the incense.

והא איכא הא מעלה דאילו מהיכל פרשי בין בקדושה דידיה בין בקדושה דלפני ולפנים ואילו מבין האולם ולמזבח לא פרשי אלא בקדושה דהיכל אמר רבא שם פרישה אחת היא

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.

אמר מר כך פורשין בשעת מתן פר כהן משיח ופר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודה זרה מנא לן אמר רבי פדת אתיא כפרה כפרה מיום הכפורים

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.

אמר רב אחא בר אהבה שמע מינה מעלות דאורייתא והכי גמירי להו

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.

דאי סלקא דעתך דרבנן מאי שנא בין האולם ולמזבח דילמא מיקרו ועיילי מכולה עזרה נמי נפרשו דילמא מיקרו ועיילי

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.

בין האולם ולמזבח כיון דלא מפסיק מידי לא מינכרא מילתא עזרה כיון דאיכא מזבח החיצון דמפסיק מינכרא מילתא

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.

אמר רבא שמע מינה קדושת אולם והיכל חדא מילתא היא דאי סלקא דעתך שתי קדושות נינהו אולם גופיה גזירה וניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה

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?

לא אולם ובין האולם ולמזבח חדא קדושה היא היכל ואולם שתי קדושות

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.

בכל יום היה חותה בשל כסף וכו׳ מאי טעמא התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל

§ 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.

והיום חותה בשל זהב ובה היה מכניס מאי טעמא משום חולשא דכהן גדול

§ 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.

בכל יום בשל ארבעת קבין וכו׳ תנא נתפזרו לו קב גחלים מכבדן לאמה

§ 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.

תני חדא קב ותניא אידך קביים בשלמא הך דתני קב רבנן אלא הך דתני קביים מני לא רבנן ולא רבי יוסי

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.

אמר רב חסדא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר בשל קביים היה מכניס

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.

רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא רבי יוסי והכי קאמר בכל יום היה חותה בשל סאה מדברית ומערה לתוך שלשת קבין ירושלמיות

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.

בכל יום היתה כבידה והיום קלה תנא בכל יום היתה גלדה עבה והיום רך בכל יום היתה קצרה והיום ארוכה מאי טעמא כדי שתהא זרועו של כהן גדול מסייעתו

§ 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.

תנא בכל יום לא היה לה ניאשתיק והיום היה לה ניאשתיק דברי בן הסגן

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.

בכל יום היה זהבה ירוק אמר רב חסדא שבעה זהבים הן זהב וזהב טוב וזהב אופיר וזהב מופז וזהב שחוט וזהב סגור וזהב פרוים זהב וזהב טוב דכתיב וזהב הארץ ההוא טוב זהב אופיר דאתי מאופיר זהב מופז

§ 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