Yoma 55

כמנגדנא תנא כשהוא מזה אינו מזה על הכפורת אלא כנגד עוביה של כפורת כשהוא מזה למעלה מצדד ידו למטה וכשהוא מזה למטה מצדד ידו למעלה

like one who lashes with a whip on the back of another and who occasionally strikes lower down. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not sprinkle on the top of the Ark cover; rather, he does so against the thickness of the Ark cover. When he sprinkles once upward, he turns his hand so that the back of his hand faces downward, and he then sprinkles upward. And when he sprinkles seven times downward, he turns his hand so its back is upward. However, he does not sprinkle on the Ark cover or below it, so that the blood does not actually come into contact with it.

מנא הני מילי אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר רבי זירא אמר קרא והזה אותו על הכפורת ולפני הכפורת לא יאמר למטה בשעיר דלא צריך דגמר ממטה דפר

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the sprinklings do not actually touch the Ark cover, derived? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that Rabbi Zeira said: The verse states with regard to the goat sacrificed as a sin-offering: “And he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:15). The verse should not say downward, i.e., “before the Ark cover,” with regard to the goat, as this is unnecessary; this requirement is derived from the term downward in connection with the bull.

למה נאמר לאקושי על ל׳לפני׳ מה לפני דלאו על אף על דלאו על

Since the rite performed with the blood of the goat is compared to the rite of the blood of the bull, why is the requirement that the High Priest must sprinkle downward stated twice? It is to juxtapose the phrase “upon the Ark cover” to “before the Ark cover”; just as “before” means that it is not actually on the Ark cover but merely in front of it, so too, “upon” means that it is not actually on the Ark cover but in front of it, and the High Priest simply turns his hand upward.

אדרבה לא יאמר למעלה בפר דלא צריך דגמר ממעלה דשעיר למה נאמר לאקושי לפני ל׳על׳ מה על על ממש אף לפני על ממש

The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, the verse should not say upward, i.e., “before the Ark cover,” with regard to the bull, as this is unnecessary; it is derived from the term upward stated in connection to the goat. Since the verse equates the two rituals, why does it state the upward sprinkling of the blood of the bull? It is to juxtapose the phrase “before the Ark cover,” stated with regard to the bull, to “upon the Ark cover,” stated with regard to the goat; just as “upon” stated by the goat means actually upon, as indicated by the literal meaning of the verse, so too, “before” means actually upon it, i.e., the blood of the goat should touch the thickness of the Ark cover.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא למטה דשעיר לאקושי למעלה דפר מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתנא דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב על פני הכפורת קדמה זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר פני אינו אלא קדים אלא אי אמרת למעלה דפר לאקושי למטה דשעיר למאי אתא

The Gemara expresses surprise at this suggestion: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that downward stated with regard to the goat is mentioned to juxtapose it to upward stated with regard to the bull, one needs the phrase “upon the Ark cover,” which deals with the blood of the bull, for that which the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught. As the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught: “Upon [al penei] the Ark cover to the east” (Leviticus 16:14); this forms an analogy that applies to the entire Torah: Any place where it is stated “face [penei],” it is referring to nothing other than the eastern side. However, if you say, as suggested by the question, that upward with regard to the bull is mentioned to juxtapose it to “upward” stated with regard to the goat, for what purpose does downward stated with regard to the goat come; what do we learn from this phrase? Rather, the first interpretation of the verse must be correct.

תנו רבנן והזה אתו על הכפורת ולפני הכפורת למדנו כמה למעלה בשעיר אחת למטה בשעיר איני יודע כמה

§ The Sages taught: “And sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:15). We have thereby learned how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward for the goat, that is, one sprinkling, as it states: “And sprinkle.” However, with regard to the sprinkling downward for the goat, before the Ark cover, I do not know how many times he must sprinkle.

הריני דן נאמרו דמים למטה בפר ונאמרו דמים למטה בשעיר מה למטה בפר שבע אף למטה בשעיר שבע

I therefore derive the halakha from the verses. It states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as the blood that he sprinkles downward in the case of the bull consists of seven sprinklings, as the verse explicitly states: “And before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle seven times” (Leviticus 16:14), so too, the sprinkling of the blood downward in the case of the goat is performed seven times.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמרו דמים למעלה בשעיר ונאמרו דמים למטה בשעיר מה למעלה בשעיר אחת אף למטה בשעיר אחת נראה למי דומה דנין מטה ממטה ואין דנין מטה מלמעלה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or one can go and reason this way: It states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the goat, and likewise it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as with regard to sprinkling upward in the case of the goat there is one sprinkling, so too, with regard to sprinkling downward in the case of the goat there is only one sprinkling. The Gemara comments: Let us see what case this resembles: One derives an act performed downward from another act that is downward, and one does not derive an act performed downward from an upward act.

אדרבה דנין גופו מגופו ואין דנין גופו מעלמא תלמוד לומר ועשה את דמו כאשר עשה לדם הפר שאין תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה ומה תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה שיהיו כל עשיותיו שוות כשם שלמטה בפר שבע כך למטה בשעיר שבע

The Gemara retorts: On the contrary, one derives one aspect of a matter from another aspect of that same matter, i.e., one should infer the halakha with regard to the blood of the goat from another halakha involving that same blood, and one does not derive the halakha of that matter from an external matter. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 16:15). As there is no need for the verse to state: “As he did,” because the whole process is explicitly stated a second time, what then is the meaning when the verse states: “As he did”? It comes to teach that all his actions should be alike, down to every detail. Consequently, just as the sprinklings downward in the case of the bull are seven, so too, the sprinklings downward in the case of the goat are seven.

למדנו כמה למטה בפר ובשעיר שבע למעלה בפר איני יודע כמה והריני דן נאמרו דמים למעלה בשעיר ונאמרו דמים למעלה בפר מה למעלה בשעיר אחת אף למעלה בפר אחת

We have thereby learned how many sprinklings are performed downward in the case of the bull and by the goat: Seven. However, I do not know how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward in the case of the bull. And I therefore derive the halakha as follows: It states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the goat, and it states that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the bull. Just as with regard to the sprinkling upward in the case of the goat he sprinkles one time, as stated explicitly, so too, in the case of the bull he sprinkles upward one time.

או כלך לדרך זו נאמרו דמים למטה בפר ונאמרו דמים למעלה בפר מה למטה בפר שבע אף למעלה בפר שבע נראה למי דומה דנין מעלה ממעלה ואין דנין מעלה ממטה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Or one can go and reason this way: It is stated that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and likewise it is stated that blood is sprinkled upward in the case of the bull. Just as with regard to sprinkling downward in the case of the bull there are seven sprinklings, so too, with regard to sprinkling upward in the case of the bull there should be seven sprinklings. The Gemara comments: Let us see what case this resembles: One derives an act performed upward from another act that is performed upward, and one does not derive an act performed upward from a downward act.

אדרבה דנין גופו מגופו ואין דנין גופו מעלמא תלמוד לומר ועשה את דמו כאשר עשה שאין תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה ומה תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה שיהיו כל עשיותיו שוות כשם שלמטה בפר שבע כך למטה בשעיר שבע וכשם שלמעלה בשעיר אחת כך למעלה בפר אחת

The Gemara retorts: On the contrary, one derives one aspect of a matter from another aspect of that same matter, and one does not derive the halakha of that matter from an external matter. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall do with its blood as he did.” As there is no need for the verse to state: “As he did,” because the whole process is explicitly stated a second time, what then is the meaning when the verse states: “As he did”? It comes to teach that all his actions should be alike: Just as the sprinklings downward in the case of the bull are seven, so too, the sprinklings downward in the case of the goat are seven; and just as the sprinkling upward in the case of the goat is one, so too, the sprinkling upward in the case of the bull is one.

אחת אחת ואחת אחת ושתים תנו רבנן אחת אחת ואחת אחת ושתים אחת ושלש אחת וארבע אחת וחמש אחת ושש אחת ושבע דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר אחת אחת ואחת שתים ואחת שלש ואחת ארבע ואחת חמש ואחת שש ואחת שבע ואחת

§ The mishna states that the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two. The Sages taught in a baraita that when sprinkling, the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that he counted: One; one and one; two and one; three and one; four and one; five and one; six and one; seven and one.

ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה

The Gemara comments: They do not disagree about the matter itself that the High Priest sprinkles once upward and seven times downward. Rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place, and this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place. In one place they counted the smaller number first, while in the other place they would count the larger number first.

דכולי עלמא מיהת הזאה ראשונה צריכה מנין עם כל אחת ואחת מאי טעמא רבי אלעזר אמר שלא יטעה בהזאות

The Gemara asks: In any case, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that the first sprinkling upward must be counted together with each and every one of the subsequent sprinklings. What is the reason for this? Why can’t the High Priest count the downward sprinklings separately? The Sages debated this matter. Rabbi Elazar said: The reason is so that he does not err in the sprinklings. If the High Priest were to count downward without including the first upward sprinkling, he might mistakenly think that his calculation includes the first sprinkling, which would lead him to add another one.

רבי יוחנן אמר אמר קרא ולפני הכפורת יזה שאין תלמוד לומר יזה ומה תלמוד לומר יזה לימד על הזאה ראשונה שצריכה מנין עם כל אחת ואחת

Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the reason is that the verse states: “And he shall sprinkle it with his finger upon the Ark cover, and before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle” (Leviticus 16:14). As there is no need for the verse to state: He shall sprinkle” again, what is the meaning when the verse states: “He shall sprinkle”? This teaches with regard to the first sprinkling that it must be counted with each and every subsequent one, i.e., he must mention the first sprinkling every time.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דלא מנה ולא טעה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them concerns a case where he did not count the first sprinkling and did not err. That is acceptable according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the High Priest acted incorrectly, as it is a mitzva to count the first one.

יצא והניחו על כן הזהב שבהיכל תנן התם רבי יהודה אומר לא היו שופרות לקיני חובה מפני התערובות

§ The mishna taught that the High Priest emerged and placed the bowl with the remaining blood of the bull on the golden pedestal in the Sanctuary, and later he placed the goat’s blood on a second pedestal, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda there was only one pedestal. The Gemara comments: We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 6:6) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There were no collection horns for obligatory nests, i.e., the pairs of pigeons or turtledoves brought as sin- and burnt-offerings by women after childbirth or other individuals, due to the concern of mixtures.

מאי מפני התערובות אמר רב יוסף מפני תערובת חובה בנדבה אמר ליה אביי ונעביד תרי ונכתוב עלייהו הי דחובה והי דנדבה רבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Due to a mixture? Rav Yosef said: It means due to the possible mixture of obligatory nests with free-will ones. There was concern lest the priests mix the money given for obligatory nests, which are sacrificed as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, with the money for free-will nests, which are sacrificed as a pair of burnt-offerings. Mixing the funds in this way would disqualify the birds. Abaye said to him: And let us prepare two collection horns and write on them which is the container for obligatory offerings and which is the one for free-will offerings. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda

לית ליה כתיבה דתנן רבי יהודה אומר לא היה שם אלא כן אחד בלבד תרי מאי טעמא לא משום דמחלפי ונעביד תרי וליכתוב עלייהו הי דפר והי דשעיר אלא לרבי יהודה לית ליה כתיבה

does not accept that one may rely on writing in a situation where an error is possible. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: There was only one pedestal in the Temple on which to place the blood. What is the reason that they did not place two pedestals there? The reason is because the pedestals might be exchanged for one another, and he might take the goat’s blood instead of that of the bull. But in that case, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the bull and which is for the goat. Rather, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept that one may rely on writing in a situation where error is possible.

מיתיבי שלש עשרה שופרות היו במקדש והיה כתוב עליהן תקלין חדתין ותקלין עתיקין וקינין וגוזלי עולה ועצים ולבונה וזהב לכפורת וששה לנדבה

The Gemara raises an objection against this conclusion: There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and they were each inscribed with different names. On one container was written: New shekels. In this horn they placed shekels that were donated at the correct time that year. And on another horn the phrase old shekels was written, referring to coins from the past year that did not reach the Temple during the allotted period. On the other horns, the following phrases were written: Nests, for obligatory offerings consisting of pairs of pigeons or turtledoves; young birds for burnt-offerings; wood, for anyone who wished to donate wood; frankincense; and gold for the Ark cover. And there were six additional boxes designated for communal free-will offerings of all kinds.

תקלין חדתין אלו שקלים של כל שנה ושנה תקלין עתיקין מי שלא שקל אשתקד ישקול לשנה הבאה קינין הן תורין גוזלי עולה הן בני יונה וכולן עולות דברי רבי יהודה

The Gemara explains: New shekels, these are the shekels of each and every year that arrive on time; old shekels, these are for one who did not donate a shekel the previous year, who must donate the next year; nests, these are the turtledoves brought as offerings; young birds for burnt-offerings, these are pigeons; and all these birds are burnt-offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, due to the potential mixture between the two. In any case, this shows that Rabbi Yehuda does rely on inscriptions written on containers, which contradicts the above claim that he does not rely on writing in these situations.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא גזירה משום חטאת שמתו בעליה ומי חיישינן והתנן השולח חטאתו ממדינת הים מקריבין אותה בחזקת שהוא קיים

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that this is a rabbinic decree due to the possible presence in the mixture of a sin-offering whose owners have died. Since a sin-offering of this kind must be left to die, if one of the donors of the coins in the sin-offering horn passes away, his funds cannot be used. The Gemara asks: And are we concerned about the possible death of a donor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to one who sends his sin-offering from overseas, they sacrifice it for him on the presumption that he is alive, although he might have died in the meantime. This shows that the possibility of death is not taken into account.

אלא משום חטאת שמתו בעליה ודאי ונברור ארבעה זוזי ונשדי במיא והנך נישתרו רבי יהודה לית ליה ברירה

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda’s concern is due to a sin-offering whose owner has certainly died, lest it be confirmed that one of the people who donated money for a sin-offering bird has indeed died. The Gemara asks: Even so, this can be rectified, as let us select four zuz, the price of such an offering, and throw them into the water to be destroyed. It may be said that the money removed from the box was the money for the sin-offering whose owner died, and these other coins will be permitted. It will be clarified retroactively that these coins were designated for that purpose. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the rule of retroactive clarification. In his opinion, one cannot issue a designation after the fact. Consequently, he rejects this solution.

מנא לן אילימא מהא דתנן הלוקח יין מבין הכותיים ערב שבת עם חשכה עומד ואומר שני לוגין שאני עתיד להפריש הרי הן תרומה

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is indeed Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? If we say it is derived from that which we learned in the following mishna, there is a difficulty. The mishna states: With regard to one who buys wine from among the Samaritans, who do not tithe their produce properly, on Shabbat eve at nightfall and has no time to separate the tithe before Shabbat and to place the separated portions in distinct locations, he may arise and say: Two log of the one hundred log present here, which I will separate in the future, after Shabbat, shall be the teruma gedola given to a priest, as the Sages mandated that one-fiftieth of one’s produce constitutes an average measure of teruma;