Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 7, 2021 | 讻状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Yoma 57

If the sprinklings of the bull and goat are derived by a hekesh, juxtaposition, how can we derive a further juxtaposition from the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary 鈥 rules don鈥檛 allow for a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition in the realm of the Temple. The gemara offers several answers. Are the sprinklings in the Sanctuary done on the parochet or in front of the parochet, on the floor? What does one do if the bloods get mixed together before the Kohen Gadol sprinkles the blood in the Holy of Holies? What if they mix after sprinkling upward but before the downward sprinklings? What if the Kohen got confused and doesn鈥檛 know which blood is in each cup? If some of the bloods mixed together but some remained separate, is what鈥檚 mixed up considered the remainder, or is it considered 鈥渞ejected鈥? The mishna explains that the last stage of the blood sprinklings is to mix them together and place them on the four corners of the golden altar. That is a subject of debate as according to one opinion, they are placed separately on the corners of the altar. Is it clear that there is a tannaitic debate on this topic? Perhaps they both agree?

讛砖转讗 讘专讬 讟诪讗讬诐 讗转讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讟讜诪讗转讛 讘砖讜诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 讞讝讬 诪讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讛砖讜讻谉 讗转诐 讘转讜讱 讟讜诪讗转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 砖讻讬谞讛 砖专讜讬讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉

Now you are certainly impure, as it is written about the Jewish people: 鈥淗er impurity was in her skirts鈥 (Lamentations 1:9), and the Divine Presence does not dwell upon the Jews when they are impure. Rabbi 岣nina said to him: Come and see what is written about the Jewish people: 鈥淭hat dwells with them in the midst of their impurity鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that even when they are impure, the Divine Presence dwells among them.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the aforementioned halakha. It was stated above that the comparison to the goat teaches that the High Priest sprinkles the bull鈥檚 blood once upward; and the seven downward sprinklings of the goat鈥檚 blood are derived from the rite of the blood of the bull. Subsequently, the order of sprinkling toward the curtain in the Sanctuary is again derived by means of a similar comparison. The Gemara asks: And does a matter derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha not written explicitly in the Torah but learned by means of a comparison, again teach by juxtaposition? There is a general principle that a halakha derived by juxtaposition with regard to offerings cannot subsequently teach another halakha by juxtaposition.

讛讗讬 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬拽砖

The Gemara answers that the first juxtaposition was not a proper inference by verbal analogy, as this halakha that the High Priest must sprinkle once upward and seven times downward is derived both from that juxtaposition and something else as well. Since the basic requirement that he must sprinkle upward and downward for the bull and the goat is stated explicitly in both cases, and the comparison was necessary only to teach the precise number of sprinklings, this inference is not considered a juxtaposition to the extent that one cannot derive further comparisons from it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬拽砖 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讜讬 讛讬拽砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara continues to question this explanation: It works out well according to the one who said that a juxtaposition that is also inferred from something else is not considered a juxtaposition in this regard; but according to the one who says that this too is called a juxtaposition, what can be said?

诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专讬 诪讛讚讚讬

The Gemara answers: It is the locations that are derived from one another. The halakha of the blood of the bull was not derived from that of the goat, nor the halakha of sprinkling the bull鈥檚 blood outside the curtain from that of sprinkling the bull鈥檚 blood inside. Instead, the first comparison equates the sprinkling of the bull鈥檚 blood and the goat鈥檚 blood, while the second comparison equates the locations, i.e., he sprinkles outside the curtain in the same manner that he sprinkles inside. Consequently, the two juxtapositions are not connected to each other, which means that there is no problem of a halakha derived by juxtaposition itself teaching by juxtaposition.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讜抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讙诪专

If you wish, say instead a different resolution: The sprinkling outside is derived from the sprinkling inside all at once, i.e., the juxtaposition includes not only the blood of the bull and the goat, but also the manners of sprinkling the blood inside and outside. There are not two comparisons here, one derived from the other, but a single, complex juxtaposition.

转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜讻转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讛 讘专讜诪讬 讜讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

搂 A Sage taught: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not actually sprinkle on the curtain but opposite the curtain. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome. After a miracle was performed on his behalf and he healed the daughter of the Roman emperor, Rabbi Elazar was permitted to view the ruler鈥檚 treasures and take whatever he wanted. He saw the Temple vessels that the Romans captured, including the curtain. Rabbi Elazar continued: And on the curtain were several drops of blood from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. This shows that the blood was actually sprinkled on the curtain.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讜

The Gemara questions this conclusion: But how can Rabbi Elazar be sure that these drops of blood were from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur? Perhaps they were from the bull for an unwitting communal sin or the goats for a sin of idolatry, both of whose blood is also sprinkled on the curtain.

讚讞讝讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讻住讚专谉 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘驻专讜讻转 讜讗诐 谞讙注讜 谞讙注讜

The Gemara explains that he saw that these sprinklings of blood were performed in their order, one drop after another, a sequence that is followed only in the Yom Kippur service. And we also learned in a mishna about a case like this with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: When he sprinkles, the blood would not touch the curtain, but if it did touch, it touched, and this did not invalidate the service.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讛 讘专讜诪讬 讜讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讞讝谞讛讜 讚注讘讬讚讬 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome, and there were several drops of blood on it from the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for a sin of idolatry. The Gemara asks: But how could he identify the source of the blood; perhaps they were from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: He saw that they were performed not in their order and inferred that they must be sprinklings from communal sin-offerings, which are not presented in a sequence.

谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 讜注讜诇讛 诇讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉

The Gemara asks a question: What should the High Priest do if the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat before he finished all the sprinklings? Rava said: He should present from the mixture once upward and seven times downward, and that counts toward both this one and that one, as he has sprinkled from both of them.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注转讗 讚诪讞砖讻谉 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 讚砖注讬专 诪拽诪讬 诪讟讛 讚驻专 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讻诇讛 讚诐 讛驻专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻诇讛 讚诐 讛砖注讬专

They said this answer before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they live in a dark, low land, they speak darkened halakhot, devoid of logic. If this solution is followed, when the High Priest sprinkles the mixture of bull and goat blood, he thereby presents the upward sprinklings of the goat before he sprinkles the downward presentations of the bull; and the Torah said: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 16:20), which teaches: He finishes the blood of the bull by sprinkling upward and downward, and only afterward he finishes the blood of the goat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 讛驻专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 讛砖注讬专

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said that the High Priest proceeds as follows: He presents once upward and seven times downward for the purpose of sprinkling the blood of the bull, as the blood of the bull is in this mixture. And he again presents once upward and seven times downward for the purpose of sprinkling the blood of the goat. Although the blood is mixed together and by sprinkling for the purpose of the bull鈥檚 blood he also sprinkles some of the goat鈥檚 blood, since he has only the bull鈥檚 blood in mind it is as though he did not sprinkle the blood of the goat at all.

谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讘诪转谞讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讜转 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 谞讜转谉 砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 驻专 讜诇砖诐 砖注讬专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 诇砖诐 砖注讬专

The Gemara asks another question: What should the High Priest do if the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat during the final presentations that he performs in the Sanctuary? Rav Pappa, who was sitting before Rava, thought to say: He presents seven times downward for the purpose of the bull and for the purpose of the goat, and he again presents once upward for the purpose of the goat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 注讚 讛砖转讗 拽专讜 诇谉 讟驻砖讗讬 讜讛砖转讗 讟驻砖讗讬 讚讟驻砖讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诪讟讛 讚砖注讬专 诪拽诪讬 诪注诇讛 讚砖注讬专 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诇诪讟讛

Rava said to him: Until now they called us Babylonians merely foolish, and now they will call us the foolish of the foolish, as they will say that we teach them and yet they do not learn. In response to your statement one could simply repeat Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 previous argument: But he presents downward sprinklings for the goat before the upward sprinklings for the goat, and the Torah said: Present upward and then downward.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讜转谉 砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 驻专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 砖注讬专

Rather, Rava said: He presents downward seven times for the purpose of the bull, and he again presents upward once and downward seven times for the purpose of the goat.

谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讻讜住讜转 讘讻讜住讜转 谞讜转谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉

The Gemara asks another question: What if the cups became mixed, i.e., if the bowl containing the blood of the bull was confused with that of the blood of the goat? The Gemara explains: He presents blood from one cup by sprinkling upward once and downward seven times, and he again presents a second set of sprinklings from the second cup.

讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 驻注诪讬诐

And he again presents another set of sprinklings, again from the first cup, which amounts to a total of three times. In this manner, he fulfills the obligation no matter which cup was which. If the first cup was that of the bull鈥檚 blood and the second was that of the goat, he fulfilled his obligation with the first and second sprinklings. If the first cup contained the blood of the goat, he performed the sprinkling of the goat鈥檚 blood before that of the bull, which means his first set of sprinklings are discounted. Consequently, when he sprinkled from the second cup, which contains the bull鈥檚 blood, and a third time from the cup of the goat鈥檚 blood, he fulfilled his obligation with the second and third sets of sprinklings.

诪拽爪转 讚诪讬诐 谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讜诪拽爪转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 谞转注专讘讜 [诇讜] 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诪讜讚讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘

The Gemara asks yet another question: If only part of the blood became mixed together and part of the blood did not become mixed, e.g., if some of the blood spilled and became mixed in a third vessel, the solution is obvious: When he presents, he presents from the blood of certain identity.

诪讬讛讜 讛谞讱 砖讬专讬诐 讛讜讜 讜诇讬住讜讚 讗讝诇讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讞讜讬讬谉 讛讜讜 讜讗讝诇讬 诇讗诪讛

However, one could still ask a question with regard to this case: What is the status of the mixed blood in the other vessel or vessels? Are they considered the remainder of the blood, and the remainder of the blood goes to the base of the altar like the remainder of all blood of sin-offerings? Or perhaps this mixture of blood is rejected, as the blood from this vessel was not used for the first sprinklings, and therefore the two types of blood are spilled and go to the canal beneath the altar, which rinses all the dirt from the courtyard into the Kidron River.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜住 讗讞讚 注讜砖讛 讞讘讬专讜 砖讬专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诪爪讬 讬讛讬讘 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讗 诪爪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讗

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that one cup renders its counterpart a remainder, i.e., if a one collected blood in two cups, the blood in the second cup is considered the remainder of the first cup, this applies only in a case where he could present blood from the second cup if he wanted to, i.e., if both cups were filled with blood from the offering. However, in this case, as the blood in this vessel could not be presented even if he wanted to, it does not become a remainder, and it is therefore certainly rejected.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜住 讗讞讚 注讜砖讛 讞讘讬专讜 讚讞讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that when blood is collected in two cups one cup renders the blood of its counterpart rejected, that applies only when he rejects the second cup with his own hands, i.e., by means of a direct act. However, in a case where he does not reject it with his own hands, as no act of rejection was performed but rather the blood became a remainder by itself, the blood is not rejected.

讚转谞讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讜讱 讜诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诪讛 讬砖驻讜讱

As it was taught in a baraita: In the verse above, it says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of the burnt-offering, and he shall pour its blood out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25). And in the verse below it says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of burnt-offering, and he shall pour all its blood out at the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:30). The second verse adds the word 鈥渁ll.鈥

诪谞讬讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘讗专讘注 讻讜住讜转 讜谞转谉 诪讝讛 讗讞转 讜诪讝讛 讗讞转 砖讻讜诇谉 谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讬住讜讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诪讛 讬砖驻讜讱

The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented blood from each of them by sprinkling once from this cup and once from that cup until he has sprinkled four times, once from each cup, that the leftover blood in all the cups is poured out as remainders on the base of the altar? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour all its blood.鈥

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讜讱 讛讛讜讗 谞砖驻讱 诇讬住讜讚 讜讛谉 谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讗诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘讗专讘注 讻讜住讜转 讜谞转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖讻讜诇谉 谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讬住讜讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诪讛 讬砖驻讜讱

One might have thought that even if he presented four presentations from one of them, all the rest should be spilled on the base of the altar as remainder; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour its blood.鈥 This indicates that not all the blood, but only that blood in the bowl from which blood was sprinkled on the altar, is poured on the base as a remainder, and the rest of the cups of blood are poured into the canal. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented four presentations from one of them, that they are all poured at the base of the altar? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour all its blood.鈥

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讜讱 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讬专讬诐 砖讘爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淎nd he shall pour its blood鈥? How does he explain this difference between the verses? Rav Ashi said: When the Torah states 鈥渋ts blood,鈥 it comes to exclude the remainders that are in the throat of the animal. If more blood comes out of the throat after the collection of the blood, that blood is certainly not poured on the base of the altar but is swept into the canal of the Temple.

注讬专讛 讚诐 讛驻专 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 转谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转 讚讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉

搂 The mishna states that after the High Priest sprinkled the blood toward the curtain he poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The Gemara comments: We learned this mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the High Priest mixes the two types of blood before placing them on the corners of the inner altar, and he does not present each one separately. As it was stated: The later tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan, debated this issue. One of them said: The High Priest mixes the blood for the purpose of placing the blood on the altar鈥檚 corners, and one of them said: He does not mix the blood.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讬讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讬讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yoshiya was the tanna who said that the High Priest mixes the blood. In general, he maintains that whenever a verse mentions two matters, although the term: Together, is not written explicitly, it is considered as though the term: Together, is indeed written. In other words, two items that appear in the same verse are treated as combined unless expressly stated otherwise. By contrast, Rabbi Yonatan maintains that even if two matters are mentioned together they are treated separately unless the verse uses the term: Together. In this case, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). Therefore, Rabbi Yoshiya rules that the High Priest must place the two sets of blood together.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞转

The Gemara rejects this contention. Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, it remains possible to explain its ruling, since it is different here, as it is written 鈥渙nce鈥 (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that there must be one act of sprinkling and not two. Consequently, the High Priest must mix the blood to ensure that there is only one presentation.

转谞讬讗 讚诇讗 讻砖谞讜讬讬谉 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 砖讬讛讬讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita contrary to our response, but in accordance with the initial assumption: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on the corners of the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari in commemoration of her father's Yahrzeit, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l, a Holocaust survivor and a feminist before it was fashionable. And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide.
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Yoma 52 – 57 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies and burned the incense. We...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 57: The Truth of the Bloody Curtain

Another daf considering "hekesh," comparing verses and inferring halakhic detail. In this case, on what happens in the Sanctuary, but...
alon shvut women

By the Kodesh Kodashim

Yoma Daf 57 Today's daf includes topics: Learning from a Hekesh Witness testimony from seeing Curtain of Kodesh Kodashim in...

Yoma 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 57

讛砖转讗 讘专讬 讟诪讗讬诐 讗转讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讟讜诪讗转讛 讘砖讜诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 讞讝讬 诪讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讛砖讜讻谉 讗转诐 讘转讜讱 讟讜诪讗转诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讟诪讗讬谉 砖讻讬谞讛 砖专讜讬讛 讘讬谞讬讛谉

Now you are certainly impure, as it is written about the Jewish people: 鈥淗er impurity was in her skirts鈥 (Lamentations 1:9), and the Divine Presence does not dwell upon the Jews when they are impure. Rabbi 岣nina said to him: Come and see what is written about the Jewish people: 鈥淭hat dwells with them in the midst of their impurity鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that even when they are impure, the Divine Presence dwells among them.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the aforementioned halakha. It was stated above that the comparison to the goat teaches that the High Priest sprinkles the bull鈥檚 blood once upward; and the seven downward sprinklings of the goat鈥檚 blood are derived from the rite of the blood of the bull. Subsequently, the order of sprinkling toward the curtain in the Sanctuary is again derived by means of a similar comparison. The Gemara asks: And does a matter derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha not written explicitly in the Torah but learned by means of a comparison, again teach by juxtaposition? There is a general principle that a halakha derived by juxtaposition with regard to offerings cannot subsequently teach another halakha by juxtaposition.

讛讗讬 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬拽砖

The Gemara answers that the first juxtaposition was not a proper inference by verbal analogy, as this halakha that the High Priest must sprinkle once upward and seven times downward is derived both from that juxtaposition and something else as well. Since the basic requirement that he must sprinkle upward and downward for the bull and the goat is stated explicitly in both cases, and the comparison was necessary only to teach the precise number of sprinklings, this inference is not considered a juxtaposition to the extent that one cannot derive further comparisons from it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬拽砖 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讜讬 讛讬拽砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara continues to question this explanation: It works out well according to the one who said that a juxtaposition that is also inferred from something else is not considered a juxtaposition in this regard; but according to the one who says that this too is called a juxtaposition, what can be said?

诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专讬 诪讛讚讚讬

The Gemara answers: It is the locations that are derived from one another. The halakha of the blood of the bull was not derived from that of the goat, nor the halakha of sprinkling the bull鈥檚 blood outside the curtain from that of sprinkling the bull鈥檚 blood inside. Instead, the first comparison equates the sprinkling of the bull鈥檚 blood and the goat鈥檚 blood, while the second comparison equates the locations, i.e., he sprinkles outside the curtain in the same manner that he sprinkles inside. Consequently, the two juxtapositions are not connected to each other, which means that there is no problem of a halakha derived by juxtaposition itself teaching by juxtaposition.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讜抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讙诪专

If you wish, say instead a different resolution: The sprinkling outside is derived from the sprinkling inside all at once, i.e., the juxtaposition includes not only the blood of the bull and the goat, but also the manners of sprinkling the blood inside and outside. There are not two comparisons here, one derived from the other, but a single, complex juxtaposition.

转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜讻转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讛 讘专讜诪讬 讜讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

搂 A Sage taught: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not actually sprinkle on the curtain but opposite the curtain. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome. After a miracle was performed on his behalf and he healed the daughter of the Roman emperor, Rabbi Elazar was permitted to view the ruler鈥檚 treasures and take whatever he wanted. He saw the Temple vessels that the Romans captured, including the curtain. Rabbi Elazar continued: And on the curtain were several drops of blood from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. This shows that the blood was actually sprinkled on the curtain.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讜

The Gemara questions this conclusion: But how can Rabbi Elazar be sure that these drops of blood were from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur? Perhaps they were from the bull for an unwitting communal sin or the goats for a sin of idolatry, both of whose blood is also sprinkled on the curtain.

讚讞讝讗 讚注讘讬讚讬 讻住讚专谉 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘驻专讜讻转 讜讗诐 谞讙注讜 谞讙注讜

The Gemara explains that he saw that these sprinklings of blood were performed in their order, one drop after another, a sequence that is followed only in the Yom Kippur service. And we also learned in a mishna about a case like this with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: When he sprinkles, the blood would not touch the curtain, but if it did touch, it touched, and this did not invalidate the service.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬讛 讘专讜诪讬 讜讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讟讬驻讬 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讚驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讞讝谞讛讜 讚注讘讬讚讬 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome, and there were several drops of blood on it from the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for a sin of idolatry. The Gemara asks: But how could he identify the source of the blood; perhaps they were from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: He saw that they were performed not in their order and inferred that they must be sprinklings from communal sin-offerings, which are not presented in a sequence.

谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 讜注讜诇讛 诇讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉

The Gemara asks a question: What should the High Priest do if the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat before he finished all the sprinklings? Rava said: He should present from the mixture once upward and seven times downward, and that counts toward both this one and that one, as he has sprinkled from both of them.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讘讘诇讗讬 讟驻砖讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讗专注讗 讚讞砖讜讻讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注转讗 讚诪讞砖讻谉 讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 讚砖注讬专 诪拽诪讬 诪讟讛 讚驻专 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讻诇讛 讚诐 讛驻专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讻诇讛 讚诐 讛砖注讬专

They said this answer before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they live in a dark, low land, they speak darkened halakhot, devoid of logic. If this solution is followed, when the High Priest sprinkles the mixture of bull and goat blood, he thereby presents the upward sprinklings of the goat before he sprinkles the downward presentations of the bull; and the Torah said: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the sacred place鈥 (Leviticus 16:20), which teaches: He finishes the blood of the bull by sprinkling upward and downward, and only afterward he finishes the blood of the goat.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 讛驻专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 讛砖注讬专

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said that the High Priest proceeds as follows: He presents once upward and seven times downward for the purpose of sprinkling the blood of the bull, as the blood of the bull is in this mixture. And he again presents once upward and seven times downward for the purpose of sprinkling the blood of the goat. Although the blood is mixed together and by sprinkling for the purpose of the bull鈥檚 blood he also sprinkles some of the goat鈥檚 blood, since he has only the bull鈥檚 blood in mind it is as though he did not sprinkle the blood of the goat at all.

谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讘诪转谞讜转 讛讗讞专讜谞讜转 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 谞讜转谉 砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 驻专 讜诇砖诐 砖注讬专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 诇砖诐 砖注讬专

The Gemara asks another question: What should the High Priest do if the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat during the final presentations that he performs in the Sanctuary? Rav Pappa, who was sitting before Rava, thought to say: He presents seven times downward for the purpose of the bull and for the purpose of the goat, and he again presents once upward for the purpose of the goat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 注讚 讛砖转讗 拽专讜 诇谉 讟驻砖讗讬 讜讛砖转讗 讟驻砖讗讬 讚讟驻砖讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诪讟讛 讚砖注讬专 诪拽诪讬 诪注诇讛 讚砖注讬专 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诇诪讟讛

Rava said to him: Until now they called us Babylonians merely foolish, and now they will call us the foolish of the foolish, as they will say that we teach them and yet they do not learn. In response to your statement one could simply repeat Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 previous argument: But he presents downward sprinklings for the goat before the upward sprinklings for the goat, and the Torah said: Present upward and then downward.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讜转谉 砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 驻专 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛 诇砖诐 砖注讬专

Rather, Rava said: He presents downward seven times for the purpose of the bull, and he again presents upward once and downward seven times for the purpose of the goat.

谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讻讜住讜转 讘讻讜住讜转 谞讜转谉 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉

The Gemara asks another question: What if the cups became mixed, i.e., if the bowl containing the blood of the bull was confused with that of the blood of the goat? The Gemara explains: He presents blood from one cup by sprinkling upward once and downward seven times, and he again presents a second set of sprinklings from the second cup.

讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 驻注诪讬诐

And he again presents another set of sprinklings, again from the first cup, which amounts to a total of three times. In this manner, he fulfills the obligation no matter which cup was which. If the first cup was that of the bull鈥檚 blood and the second was that of the goat, he fulfilled his obligation with the first and second sprinklings. If the first cup contained the blood of the goat, he performed the sprinkling of the goat鈥檚 blood before that of the bull, which means his first set of sprinklings are discounted. Consequently, when he sprinkled from the second cup, which contains the bull鈥檚 blood, and a third time from the cup of the goat鈥檚 blood, he fulfilled his obligation with the second and third sets of sprinklings.

诪拽爪转 讚诪讬诐 谞转注专讘讜 诇讜 讜诪拽爪转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 谞转注专讘讜 [诇讜] 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讘 诪讜讚讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘

The Gemara asks yet another question: If only part of the blood became mixed together and part of the blood did not become mixed, e.g., if some of the blood spilled and became mixed in a third vessel, the solution is obvious: When he presents, he presents from the blood of certain identity.

诪讬讛讜 讛谞讱 砖讬专讬诐 讛讜讜 讜诇讬住讜讚 讗讝诇讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讞讜讬讬谉 讛讜讜 讜讗讝诇讬 诇讗诪讛

However, one could still ask a question with regard to this case: What is the status of the mixed blood in the other vessel or vessels? Are they considered the remainder of the blood, and the remainder of the blood goes to the base of the altar like the remainder of all blood of sin-offerings? Or perhaps this mixture of blood is rejected, as the blood from this vessel was not used for the first sprinklings, and therefore the two types of blood are spilled and go to the canal beneath the altar, which rinses all the dirt from the courtyard into the Kidron River.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜住 讗讞讚 注讜砖讛 讞讘讬专讜 砖讬专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诪爪讬 讬讛讬讘 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讗 诪爪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讗

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that one cup renders its counterpart a remainder, i.e., if a one collected blood in two cups, the blood in the second cup is considered the remainder of the first cup, this applies only in a case where he could present blood from the second cup if he wanted to, i.e., if both cups were filled with blood from the offering. However, in this case, as the blood in this vessel could not be presented even if he wanted to, it does not become a remainder, and it is therefore certainly rejected.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜住 讗讞讚 注讜砖讛 讞讘讬专讜 讚讞讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that when blood is collected in two cups one cup renders the blood of its counterpart rejected, that applies only when he rejects the second cup with his own hands, i.e., by means of a direct act. However, in a case where he does not reject it with his own hands, as no act of rejection was performed but rather the blood became a remainder by itself, the blood is not rejected.

讚转谞讬讗 诇诪注诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讜讱 讜诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诪讛 讬砖驻讜讱

As it was taught in a baraita: In the verse above, it says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of the burnt-offering, and he shall pour its blood out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25). And in the verse below it says: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of burnt-offering, and he shall pour all its blood out at the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:30). The second verse adds the word 鈥渁ll.鈥

诪谞讬讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘讗专讘注 讻讜住讜转 讜谞转谉 诪讝讛 讗讞转 讜诪讝讛 讗讞转 砖讻讜诇谉 谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讬住讜讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诪讛 讬砖驻讜讱

The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented blood from each of them by sprinkling once from this cup and once from that cup until he has sprinkled four times, once from each cup, that the leftover blood in all the cups is poured out as remainders on the base of the altar? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour all its blood.鈥

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讜讱 讛讛讜讗 谞砖驻讱 诇讬住讜讚 讜讛谉 谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讗诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘讗专讘注 讻讜住讜转 讜谞转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖讻讜诇谉 谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讬住讜讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 讚诪讛 讬砖驻讜讱

One might have thought that even if he presented four presentations from one of them, all the rest should be spilled on the base of the altar as remainder; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour its blood.鈥 This indicates that not all the blood, but only that blood in the bowl from which blood was sprinkled on the altar, is poured on the base as a remainder, and the rest of the cups of blood are poured into the canal. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented four presentations from one of them, that they are all poured at the base of the altar? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour all its blood.鈥

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讜讱 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讬专讬诐 砖讘爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn鈥檛 it also written: 鈥淎nd he shall pour its blood鈥? How does he explain this difference between the verses? Rav Ashi said: When the Torah states 鈥渋ts blood,鈥 it comes to exclude the remainders that are in the throat of the animal. If more blood comes out of the throat after the collection of the blood, that blood is certainly not poured on the base of the altar but is swept into the canal of the Temple.

注讬专讛 讚诐 讛驻专 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 转谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转 讚讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉

搂 The mishna states that after the High Priest sprinkled the blood toward the curtain he poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The Gemara comments: We learned this mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the High Priest mixes the two types of blood before placing them on the corners of the inner altar, and he does not present each one separately. As it was stated: The later tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan, debated this issue. One of them said: The High Priest mixes the blood for the purpose of placing the blood on the altar鈥檚 corners, and one of them said: He does not mix the blood.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讬讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讬讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yoshiya was the tanna who said that the High Priest mixes the blood. In general, he maintains that whenever a verse mentions two matters, although the term: Together, is not written explicitly, it is considered as though the term: Together, is indeed written. In other words, two items that appear in the same verse are treated as combined unless expressly stated otherwise. By contrast, Rabbi Yonatan maintains that even if two matters are mentioned together they are treated separately unless the verse uses the term: Together. In this case, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). Therefore, Rabbi Yoshiya rules that the High Priest must place the two sets of blood together.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞转

The Gemara rejects this contention. Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, it remains possible to explain its ruling, since it is different here, as it is written 鈥渙nce鈥 (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that there must be one act of sprinkling and not two. Consequently, the High Priest must mix the blood to ensure that there is only one presentation.

转谞讬讗 讚诇讗 讻砖谞讜讬讬谉 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 砖讬讛讬讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita contrary to our response, but in accordance with the initial assumption: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on the corners of the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Scroll To Top