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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 8, 2021 | 讻状讞 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 shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 58

The gemara determines who said what in the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan regarding mixing the blood. Rami bar Hama asks some questions about something creating a separation between the blood and a utensil. Where does the Kohen Gadol stand when he puts the blood on the inner altar? How many does he do? In which direction is it done (up/down)? Which corner does he start with and what is the direction in which he continues from there? There is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yossi Hagalili – what is the basis for the dispute?

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗讞转

Rabbi Yonatan says: He presents from this one, the bull鈥檚 blood, by itself, and he presents from that one, the goat鈥檚 blood, by itself and does not mix them. Rabbi Yoshiya said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall make atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement鈥 (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that the High Priest does not present twice?

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗讞转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淥f the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18), which teaches that each set of sprinklings must be performed by itself? If so, why is 鈥渙nce鈥 stated? This verse comes to tell you that he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the bull; and likewise he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the goat. From the blood of each of the animals, the High Priest presents only one set of sprinklings. This shows that Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan indeed disagree with regard to this issue.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 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 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬讛讬讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

It was taught in another baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed together. Do you say that they should be mixed together, or perhaps that is not the case; rather, he presents from this blood by itself and from that by itself? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥nce.鈥 The Gemara comments: And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who said the two sets of blood are mixed, as stated in the mishna.

谞转谉 讗转 讛诪诇讗 讘专讬拽谉 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬讞 诪讝专拽 讘转讜讱 诪讝专拽 讜拽讘诇 讘讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪讛讜 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

搂 It was taught in the mishna that after the High Priest poured the bull鈥檚 blood into the goat鈥檚 blood, he placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl, to mix the blood well. Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha if he placed one bowl inside a second bowl and collected the blood in the inner bowl? Does one type of object mingled with another of its own type interpose, which would mean that the priest has not collected the blood himself, as the outer bowl interposed between him and the vessel? Or perhaps an object of one type does not interpose for another object of the same type, and therefore the two bowls are considered one object.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 谞转谉 讗转 讛诪诇讗 讘专讬拽谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜砖讬讘 诪讝专拽 诪诇讗 诇转讜讱 诪讝专拽 专讬拽谉

Rav 岣sda said to him: We have already learned the answer to this question in the mishna: He placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl. What, is it not correct to infer from this statement that he inserted the full bowl into the empty bowl?

诇讗 注讬专讛 诪讝专拽 诪诇讗 诇转讜讱 诪讝专拽 专讬拽谉 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 注讬专讛 讚诐 讛驻专 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讻讚讬 诇注专讘谉 讬驻讛 讬驻讛

Rami bar 岣ma responded: No, it means that he poured the full bowl into an empty bowl. Rav 岣sda said to him: But this statement is unnecessary, as the tanna of the mishna already taught the requirement to pour from one vessel into another in the first clause: He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The subsequent phrase: He placed the full into the empty, must therefore refer to the placement of one vessel inside another. Rami bar 岣ma responded: No, it means that he pours the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl a second time in order to mix them very well. To this end, he pours from one vessel into the other before again pouring the mixture back into the first vessel, thereby mixing them thoroughly.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻住讜诇 砖讗谞讬 专讙诇 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this question: If a priest performed the Temple service while he was standing on top of a vessel, or on the foot of another priest, his service is disqualified, as the priest must stand directly on the floor of the Temple. The fact that the foot of another person is considered an interposition proves that one type serves as an interposition with regard to another object of the same type. The Gemara rejects this contention: A foot is different, as he cannot nullify it. The foot of another person cannot be considered nullified with respect to the priest鈥檚 foot, but in the case of a vessel it is possible to say that one vessel is nullified in favor of another vessel.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讱 砖讬专讜转 讘讻讱 讗讜 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖讬专讜转 讘讻讱 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗转 讻诇 讻诇讬 讛砖专转 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讘诐 讘拽讜讚砖 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜砖讬专讜转 讗讞转

Some say that Rami bar 岣ma did not refer to the issue of interposition at all. Rather, this is the dilemma he raised before Rav 岣sda: Is placing one vessel inside another vessel a proper manner of service; or is this not a proper manner of service, and if one does so his service is disqualified? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: 鈥淎nd they shall take all the service vessels, with which they serve in the Sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 4:12). This verse is referring to two vessels and one service, which indicates that this is a proper manner of service.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬讞 住讬讘 讘转讜讱 讛诪讝专拽 讜拽讘诇 讘讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪讛讜 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞诇讞诇 诇讗 讞讬讬抓 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rami bar 岣ma raised another dilemma before Rav 岣sda along the same lines: What is the halakha if he placed bast, the material that grows around palm trees, inside the bowl, and collected the blood in the bowl through the bast, such that the blood seeps through into the bowl? Does one type of object mixed with another not of its own type interpose; or perhaps it does not interpose? Could one say that since the blood seeps through, it therefore does not interpose? Or perhaps this case is no different, and as there is a foreign object in the vessel it is considered an interposition even if the blood seeps through.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讝讜诇祝 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住驻讜讙 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚拽诇讬砖讬

Rav 岣sda said to him in response: We already learned this matter with regard to sanctifying the purification waters, i.e., the water mixed with ashes of the red heifer. If a sponge was placed inside the container of water, the water in the sponge is disqualified and the priest may not sprinkle with it. How should he proceed? He sprinkles from the water and continues until he reaches the sponge. This shows that the presence of the sponge in the water container is not considered an interposition for the water in the container, despite the fact that it itself is unfit for the service. Rami bar 岣ma replied: This is no proof. Water is different, as it is thin and therefore it certainly seeps through the sponge and reaches the bowl; whereas the thicker blood will perhaps not seep into the fiber.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讘讚诐 讻砖专 讘拽讜诪抓 驻住讜诇

Some say that this is how Rav 岣sda resolved the problem of placing the bast in the bowl for Rami bar 岣ma: In the case of the blood it is valid, as blood passes through, and the bast does not obstruct it. However, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, which must be sanctified in a vessel immediately after the handful is taken, if he put bast in a vessel and placed the handful on top of it, it is disqualified. The reason is that the handful of a meal-offering consists of dough, which does not pass through the bast, and it is therefore considered a proper interposition.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗砖专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讝讛 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 讛转讞讬诇 诪讞讟讗 讜讬讜专讚 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇 诪拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 诪讝专讞讬转 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇 讘讞讟讗转 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 诪砖诐 讛讬讛 讙讜诪专 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬

MISHNA: It is stated: 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 place it upon the corners of the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). This altar is the golden altar, since the outer altar is not before the Lord in the Sanctuary. He began to cleanse the altar, sprinkling the blood downward. From where does he begin? He begins from the northeast corner, and proceeds to the northwest corner, and then to the southwest corner, and finally to the southeast corner. A way to remember this is: At the place where he begins sprinkling the blood for a sin-offering sacrificed on the outer altar, the southeast corner, there he finishes sprinkling the blood on the inner altar.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讞讟讗

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest would not circle the altar; rather, he stood in one place and sprinkled the blood from there. Since the altar was only one square cubit, he could sprinkle the blood on all four corners without moving.

讜注诇 讻讜诇谉 讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讛讝讛 注诇 讟讛专讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讜砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 讛讬讛 砖讜驻讱 注诇 讬住讜讚 诪注专讘讬 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讛讬讛 砖讜驻讱 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讚专讜诪讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转注专讘讬谉 讘讗诪讛 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讜谞诪讻专讬谉 诇讙谞谞讬谉 诇讝讘诇 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

And on all the corners he would present the blood from below upward, except for that corner that was directly before him, on which he would present the blood from above downward. He sprinkled blood on the pure gold of the altar seven times after clearing away the ashes. And he would pour the remainder of the blood on the western base of the outer altar. On a related topic, the mishna teaches that he would pour the remaining blood of an offering, after it was sprinkled, on the outer altar, on its southern base. These remainders of blood from the outer altar and those remainders of blood from the inner altar are mixed in the canal beneath the altar and flow out with the water used to rinse the area to the Kidron River. This water was sold to gardeners for use as fertilizer. The gardeners paid for this water and thereby redeemed it from its sanctity. Failure to do so would render them guilty of misuse of consecrated property.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 砖讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讝讛 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Upon his exit, after sprinkling toward the curtain, the High Priest must necessarily reach the golden altar. Rabbi Ne岣mya said: It is because we find with regard to the bull brought for a violation of all the mitzvot, i.e., the bull that must be brought in the event that the community errs with regard to any of the mitzvot, which is called the bull for an unwitting communal sin, that when the priest sprinkles toward the curtain he stands past the altar and sprinkles back toward the curtain; therefore, one might have thought that here, too, the rite should be performed in the same manner.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar.鈥 Where was he before? He was on the inner side of the altar, i.e., the western side, close to the curtain, when he sprinkled, not on the outer side of the altar.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诪讝讛 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉

It was taught in another baraita: With regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle seven times before the Lord in front of the curtain鈥 (Leviticus 4:17). What is the meaning when the verse states: Before the Lord? Rabbi Ne岣mya said: It is because we find with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that when he sprinkles the High Priest stands on the inner side of the altar, close to the curtain, and sprinkles toward the curtain; therefore, one might have thought that here, too, in the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, it should be the same rite.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讘讞 拽讟专转 讛住诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讝讘讞 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讝讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:7). This verse teaches that the altar is before the Lord, but the priest is not before the Lord. How so? The priest stands on the outer side of the altar and sprinkles.

讛转讞讬诇 诪讞讟讗 讜讬讜专讚 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转讞讬诇 诪讞讟讗 讜讬讜专讚 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讬讛 诪转讞讬诇 诪拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 诪注专讘讬转 诪注专讘讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪讝专讞讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 诪讝专讞讬转

搂 The mishna taught: He began to cleanse the altar, sprinkling the blood downward. The Sages taught in a baraita: He began to cleanse downward. From where would he begin? He would begin from the southeast corner of the altar, and from there he would turn to the southwest corner, onward to the northwest corner, and finally to the northeast corner. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: He began from the northeast corner, from which he turned to the northwest corner, then to the southwest corner, and finished at the southeast corner.

诪拽讜诐 砖专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪转讞讬诇 砖诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住拽 诪拽讜诐 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转讞讬诇 砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讜住拽

The Gemara notes: The place where the High Priest begins according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, i.e., the northeast corner, there is where Rabbi Akiva says he ends; and the place where the High Priest begins according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the southeast corner, there is where Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says he ends.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 讘讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讚驻讙注 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: Everyone agrees, in any case, that he does not perform the service at the corner that he encounters first. Since the High Priest approaches the altar from the west side, the first corner he encounters is located on the west side. What is the reason for this? Shmuel said: The reason is that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar,鈥 which indicates that he does not begin until he goes out from the sacred area beyond the entire area of the altar. At this stage, he is no longer on the western side of the altar but on its eastern side.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞拽讬祝 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讘讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, let him go around via the right. Since the High Priest is standing at the eastern side of the altar facing the west, the corner on his right is the northeast one. Let us say that they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel.

讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 注讜诪讚 注诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讘拽专 砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 爪驻讜谞讛 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 讬诪讛 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 谞讙讘讛 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 诪讝专讞讛 讜讛讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻诇 讗讞讜专讬讛诐 讘讬转讛 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讻诇 驻讬谞讜转 砖讗转讛 驻讜谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 诇诪讝专讞 诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇

As Rami bar Ye岣zkel said: A verse describes the sea, the basin that Solomon built, in the following terms: 鈥淚t stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set upon them above, and all their hinder parts were inward鈥 (II Chronicles 4:4). From the direction in which the text lists the groups of oxen under the basin, you learn that all turns that you turn should be only to the right and to the east side. Let us say that this Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel, and this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜抓 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜抓

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel, but here they disagree with regard to this matter: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds: We derive the order of the rite inside the Sanctuary from the manner of the sprinkling on the outside: Just as the priest sprinkles on the corners of the outer altar in that order, he sprinkles similarly on the inner altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds: We do not derive the order of the rite inside of the Sanctuary from the rite performed outside.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讬诇讬祝 驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜抓 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚讬谞讗 讘讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讚驻讙注 讘专讬砖讗 讘讛讛讜讗 注讘讬讚 讘专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛诪爪讜转

搂 The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, although he does not derive the inside from the outside, nevertheless if the High Priest wants, let him perform the rite in this manner, and if he wants, let him perform the rite in that manner. Why must he begin specifically at the southeast corner? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you: Indeed, by right he should begin sprinkling by that corner of the altar that he reaches first, as Reish Lakish said: One does not pass on an opportunity to perform mitzvot. If one has the chance to perform a mitzva, he should not put it off for later but should do it immediately.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讘讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讛讚专 讗转讬 诇讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇诪讬转讘 讘专讬砖讗

And why does he not do so; why does the High Priest not begin the sprinkling on one of the western corners? This is due to that which is written: 鈥淗e shall go out to the altar,鈥 meaning that he does not begin until he goes out from the area of the entire altar. And since he presents the blood at that corner on the outside of the altar, he then comes to that corner on the west side where he should have presented the blood first.

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 shiurim are sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi鈥檚 50th birthday and son, Zeli. "He will, B鈥橢zrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July".

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • 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 58 – 63 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the blood application on the Golden Alter and the order and direction that it...
talking talmud_square

Yoma 58: Go Straight for a While, Turn Left, and Then Ask

Pouring the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat.... Into the smaller bowl. And then the smaller...
drainage channel

Down in the Valley

We have been talking a lot about blood for the past few days. Sorry to all the squeamish folks out...

Yoma 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Yoma 58

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讗讞转

Rabbi Yonatan says: He presents from this one, the bull鈥檚 blood, by itself, and he presents from that one, the goat鈥檚 blood, by itself and does not mix them. Rabbi Yoshiya said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall make atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement鈥 (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that the High Priest does not present twice?

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗讞转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淥f the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18), which teaches that each set of sprinklings must be performed by itself? If so, why is 鈥渙nce鈥 stated? This verse comes to tell you that he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the bull; and likewise he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the goat. From the blood of each of the animals, the High Priest presents only one set of sprinklings. This shows that Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan indeed disagree with regard to this issue.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 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 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬讛讬讜 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞转 讜住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

It was taught in another baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed together. Do you say that they should be mixed together, or perhaps that is not the case; rather, he presents from this blood by itself and from that by itself? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥nce.鈥 The Gemara comments: And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who said the two sets of blood are mixed, as stated in the mishna.

谞转谉 讗转 讛诪诇讗 讘专讬拽谉 讜讻讜壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬讞 诪讝专拽 讘转讜讱 诪讝专拽 讜拽讘诇 讘讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪讛讜 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

搂 It was taught in the mishna that after the High Priest poured the bull鈥檚 blood into the goat鈥檚 blood, he placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl, to mix the blood well. Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha if he placed one bowl inside a second bowl and collected the blood in the inner bowl? Does one type of object mingled with another of its own type interpose, which would mean that the priest has not collected the blood himself, as the outer bowl interposed between him and the vessel? Or perhaps an object of one type does not interpose for another object of the same type, and therefore the two bowls are considered one object.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 谞转谉 讗转 讛诪诇讗 讘专讬拽谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜砖讬讘 诪讝专拽 诪诇讗 诇转讜讱 诪讝专拽 专讬拽谉

Rav 岣sda said to him: We have already learned the answer to this question in the mishna: He placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl. What, is it not correct to infer from this statement that he inserted the full bowl into the empty bowl?

诇讗 注讬专讛 诪讝专拽 诪诇讗 诇转讜讱 诪讝专拽 专讬拽谉 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 注讬专讛 讚诐 讛驻专 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讛砖注讬专 讻讚讬 诇注专讘谉 讬驻讛 讬驻讛

Rami bar 岣ma responded: No, it means that he poured the full bowl into an empty bowl. Rav 岣sda said to him: But this statement is unnecessary, as the tanna of the mishna already taught the requirement to pour from one vessel into another in the first clause: He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The subsequent phrase: He placed the full into the empty, must therefore refer to the placement of one vessel inside another. Rami bar 岣ma responded: No, it means that he pours the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl a second time in order to mix them very well. To this end, he pours from one vessel into the other before again pouring the mixture back into the first vessel, thereby mixing them thoroughly.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇 讞讘讬专讜 驻住讜诇 砖讗谞讬 专讙诇 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this question: If a priest performed the Temple service while he was standing on top of a vessel, or on the foot of another priest, his service is disqualified, as the priest must stand directly on the floor of the Temple. The fact that the foot of another person is considered an interposition proves that one type serves as an interposition with regard to another object of the same type. The Gemara rejects this contention: A foot is different, as he cannot nullify it. The foot of another person cannot be considered nullified with respect to the priest鈥檚 foot, but in the case of a vessel it is possible to say that one vessel is nullified in favor of another vessel.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讱 砖讬专讜转 讘讻讱 讗讜 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖讬专讜转 讘讻讱 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗转 讻诇 讻诇讬 讛砖专转 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讘诐 讘拽讜讚砖 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜砖讬专讜转 讗讞转

Some say that Rami bar 岣ma did not refer to the issue of interposition at all. Rather, this is the dilemma he raised before Rav 岣sda: Is placing one vessel inside another vessel a proper manner of service; or is this not a proper manner of service, and if one does so his service is disqualified? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: 鈥淎nd they shall take all the service vessels, with which they serve in the Sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 4:12). This verse is referring to two vessels and one service, which indicates that this is a proper manner of service.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬讞 住讬讘 讘转讜讱 讛诪讝专拽 讜拽讘诇 讘讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪讛讜 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞诇讞诇 诇讗 讞讬讬抓 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rami bar 岣ma raised another dilemma before Rav 岣sda along the same lines: What is the halakha if he placed bast, the material that grows around palm trees, inside the bowl, and collected the blood in the bowl through the bast, such that the blood seeps through into the bowl? Does one type of object mixed with another not of its own type interpose; or perhaps it does not interpose? Could one say that since the blood seeps through, it therefore does not interpose? Or perhaps this case is no different, and as there is a foreign object in the vessel it is considered an interposition even if the blood seeps through.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬谞讗 讝讜诇祝 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住驻讜讙 砖讗谞讬 诪讬讗 讚拽诇讬砖讬

Rav 岣sda said to him in response: We already learned this matter with regard to sanctifying the purification waters, i.e., the water mixed with ashes of the red heifer. If a sponge was placed inside the container of water, the water in the sponge is disqualified and the priest may not sprinkle with it. How should he proceed? He sprinkles from the water and continues until he reaches the sponge. This shows that the presence of the sponge in the water container is not considered an interposition for the water in the container, despite the fact that it itself is unfit for the service. Rami bar 岣ma replied: This is no proof. Water is different, as it is thin and therefore it certainly seeps through the sponge and reaches the bowl; whereas the thicker blood will perhaps not seep into the fiber.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讘讚诐 讻砖专 讘拽讜诪抓 驻住讜诇

Some say that this is how Rav 岣sda resolved the problem of placing the bast in the bowl for Rami bar 岣ma: In the case of the blood it is valid, as blood passes through, and the bast does not obstruct it. However, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, which must be sanctified in a vessel immediately after the handful is taken, if he put bast in a vessel and placed the handful on top of it, it is disqualified. The reason is that the handful of a meal-offering consists of dough, which does not pass through the bast, and it is therefore considered a proper interposition.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗砖专 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讝讛 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 讛转讞讬诇 诪讞讟讗 讜讬讜专讚 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇 诪拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 诪讝专讞讬转 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇 讘讞讟讗转 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 诪砖诐 讛讬讛 讙讜诪专 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬

MISHNA: It is stated: 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 place it upon the corners of the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). This altar is the golden altar, since the outer altar is not before the Lord in the Sanctuary. He began to cleanse the altar, sprinkling the blood downward. From where does he begin? He begins from the northeast corner, and proceeds to the northwest corner, and then to the southwest corner, and finally to the southeast corner. A way to remember this is: At the place where he begins sprinkling the blood for a sin-offering sacrificed on the outer altar, the southeast corner, there he finishes sprinkling the blood on the inner altar.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讞讟讗

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest would not circle the altar; rather, he stood in one place and sprinkled the blood from there. Since the altar was only one square cubit, he could sprinkle the blood on all four corners without moving.

讜注诇 讻讜诇谉 讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讛讝讛 注诇 讟讛专讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讜砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 讛讬讛 砖讜驻讱 注诇 讬住讜讚 诪注专讘讬 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讛讬讛 砖讜驻讱 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讚专讜诪讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转注专讘讬谉 讘讗诪讛 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇谞讞诇 拽讚专讜谉 讜谞诪讻专讬谉 诇讙谞谞讬谉 诇讝讘诇 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

And on all the corners he would present the blood from below upward, except for that corner that was directly before him, on which he would present the blood from above downward. He sprinkled blood on the pure gold of the altar seven times after clearing away the ashes. And he would pour the remainder of the blood on the western base of the outer altar. On a related topic, the mishna teaches that he would pour the remaining blood of an offering, after it was sprinkled, on the outer altar, on its southern base. These remainders of blood from the outer altar and those remainders of blood from the inner altar are mixed in the canal beneath the altar and flow out with the water used to rinse the area to the Kidron River. This water was sold to gardeners for use as fertilizer. The gardeners paid for this water and thereby redeemed it from its sanctity. Failure to do so would render them guilty of misuse of consecrated property.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 砖讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讝讛 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Upon his exit, after sprinkling toward the curtain, the High Priest must necessarily reach the golden altar. Rabbi Ne岣mya said: It is because we find with regard to the bull brought for a violation of all the mitzvot, i.e., the bull that must be brought in the event that the community errs with regard to any of the mitzvot, which is called the bull for an unwitting communal sin, that when the priest sprinkles toward the curtain he stands past the altar and sprinkles back toward the curtain; therefore, one might have thought that here, too, the rite should be performed in the same manner.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar.鈥 Where was he before? He was on the inner side of the altar, i.e., the western side, close to the curtain, when he sprinkled, not on the outer side of the altar.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讻讛谉 注讜诪讚 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讘讞 讜诪讝讛 注诇 讛驻专讜讻转 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 诪讝讛 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉

It was taught in another baraita: With regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle seven times before the Lord in front of the curtain鈥 (Leviticus 4:17). What is the meaning when the verse states: Before the Lord? Rabbi Ne岣mya said: It is because we find with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that when he sprinkles the High Priest stands on the inner side of the altar, close to the curtain, and sprinkles toward the curtain; therefore, one might have thought that here, too, in the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, it should be the same rite.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讘讞 拽讟专转 讛住诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗砖专 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 诪讝讘讞 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讝讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:7). This verse teaches that the altar is before the Lord, but the priest is not before the Lord. How so? The priest stands on the outer side of the altar and sprinkles.

讛转讞讬诇 诪讞讟讗 讜讬讜专讚 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转讞讬诇 诪讞讟讗 讜讬讜专讚 诪讛讬讻谉 讛讬讛 诪转讞讬诇 诪拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 诪注专讘讬转 诪注专讘讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪讝专讞讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪拽专谉 诪讝专讞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪注专讘讬转 诪注专讘讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 讚专讜诪讬转 诪讝专讞讬转

搂 The mishna taught: He began to cleanse the altar, sprinkling the blood downward. The Sages taught in a baraita: He began to cleanse downward. From where would he begin? He would begin from the southeast corner of the altar, and from there he would turn to the southwest corner, onward to the northwest corner, and finally to the northeast corner. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: He began from the northeast corner, from which he turned to the northwest corner, then to the southwest corner, and finished at the southeast corner.

诪拽讜诐 砖专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪转讞讬诇 砖诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住拽 诪拽讜诐 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转讞讬诇 砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讜住拽

The Gemara notes: The place where the High Priest begins according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, i.e., the northeast corner, there is where Rabbi Akiva says he ends; and the place where the High Priest begins according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the southeast corner, there is where Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says he ends.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 讘讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讚驻讙注 讘专讬砖讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: Everyone agrees, in any case, that he does not perform the service at the corner that he encounters first. Since the High Priest approaches the altar from the west side, the first corner he encounters is located on the west side. What is the reason for this? Shmuel said: The reason is that the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall go out to the altar,鈥 which indicates that he does not begin until he goes out from the sacred area beyond the entire area of the altar. At this stage, he is no longer on the western side of the altar but on its eastern side.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞拽讬祝 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讘讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, let him go around via the right. Since the High Priest is standing at the eastern side of the altar facing the west, the corner on his right is the northeast one. Let us say that they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel.

讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讬诐 砖注砖讛 砖诇诪讛 注讜诪讚 注诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讘拽专 砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 爪驻讜谞讛 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 讬诪讛 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 谞讙讘讛 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讜谞讬诐 诪讝专讞讛 讜讛讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻诇 讗讞讜专讬讛诐 讘讬转讛 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讻诇 驻讬谞讜转 砖讗转讛 驻讜谞讛 诇讗 讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讚专讱 讬诪讬谉 诇诪讝专讞 诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇

As Rami bar Ye岣zkel said: A verse describes the sea, the basin that Solomon built, in the following terms: 鈥淚t stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; and the sea was set upon them above, and all their hinder parts were inward鈥 (II Chronicles 4:4). From the direction in which the text lists the groups of oxen under the basin, you learn that all turns that you turn should be only to the right and to the east side. Let us say that this Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel, and this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, is of the opinion that the ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜抓 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜抓

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Ye岣zkel, but here they disagree with regard to this matter: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds: We derive the order of the rite inside the Sanctuary from the manner of the sprinkling on the outside: Just as the priest sprinkles on the corners of the outer altar in that order, he sprinkles similarly on the inner altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds: We do not derive the order of the rite inside of the Sanctuary from the rite performed outside.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讬诇讬祝 驻谞讬诐 诪讞讜抓 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讚讬谞讗 讘讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讚驻讙注 讘专讬砖讗 讘讛讛讜讗 注讘讬讚 讘专讬砖讗 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛诪爪讜转

搂 The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, although he does not derive the inside from the outside, nevertheless if the High Priest wants, let him perform the rite in this manner, and if he wants, let him perform the rite in that manner. Why must he begin specifically at the southeast corner? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you: Indeed, by right he should begin sprinkling by that corner of the altar that he reaches first, as Reish Lakish said: One does not pass on an opportunity to perform mitzvot. If one has the chance to perform a mitzva, he should not put it off for later but should do it immediately.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗 讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讻讜诇讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 讘讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讛讚专 讗转讬 诇讛讛讜讗 拽专谉 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇诪讬转讘 讘专讬砖讗

And why does he not do so; why does the High Priest not begin the sprinkling on one of the western corners? This is due to that which is written: 鈥淗e shall go out to the altar,鈥 meaning that he does not begin until he goes out from the area of the entire altar. And since he presents the blood at that corner on the outside of the altar, he then comes to that corner on the west side where he should have presented the blood first.

Scroll To Top