Yoma 59
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִי סְבִירָא לַן הַקָּפָה בָּרֶגֶל — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּיָלְפִינַן פְּנִים מִחוּץ. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר הַקָּפָה בַּיָּד, וּמָר סָבַר הַקָּפָה בָּרֶגֶל.
And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that the encircling is performed by foot, i.e., the priest walks around the inner altar, everyone agrees that we learn the method of sprinkling inside from the sprinkling outside. And here they disagree about this matter: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the priest stands in his place and sprinkles on all the corners from there, which means his encircling is performed by hand; and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that the encircling is done by foot.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַקָּפָה בַּיָּד, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר יָלְפִינַן יָד מֵרֶגֶל, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן.
And if you wish, say instead: Everyone agrees that the encircling was performed by hand, and here they disagree about this matter: One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that we derive the halakhot of an encircling performed by hand from those of an encircling by foot, and therefore the ritual of the inner altar is the same as that of the outer altar. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that we do not derive the encircling performed by hand from the encircling done by foot.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הַקָּפָה בַּיָּד? וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא, מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִדְשַׁנִּינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא: מָר סָבַר הַקָּפָה בַּיָּד, וּמָר סָבַר הַקָּפָה בָּרֶגֶל.
§ The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold that the encircling is performed by hand? But from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: He stood in one place and sprinkled the blood from there, it can be learned by inference that the first tanna, whom the Gemara identified as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, does not maintain that the rite is performed in this manner. Rather, it is clear as we originally answered, that one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the encircling is performed by hand; and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that the encircling is performed by foot.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: סָבִיב דְּמִזְבֵּחַ פְּנִימִי כְּסָבִיב דְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ פְּנִימִי בִּמְקוֹם חֲדָא קֶרֶן דְּמִזְבֵּחַ חִיצוֹן קָאֵי.
And if you wish, say instead that they disagree about this matter: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the perimeter of the inner altar is like the perimeter of the outer altar, and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that the entire inner altar stands in place of one corner of the outer altar. Since the entire inner altar is only one cubit by one cubit, like a single corner of the outer altar, the halakhot of the outer altar are not relevant to the inner altar.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בְּמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, זֶה אוֹמֵר: בְּיָדִי הִקַּפְתִּי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: בְּרַגְלַי הִקַּפְתִּי. זֶה נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael said: Two High Priests remained from the days of the First Temple. This one says: I encircled by hand and sprinkled, and I did not encircle the perimeter of the inner altar by foot. And that one says: I encircled by foot. This one gave a reason for his statement, and that one gave a reason for his statement.
זֶה נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו: סָבִיב דְּמִזְבֵּחַ פְּנִימִי כְּסָבִיב דְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, וְזֶה נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִדְבָרָיו: כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ פְּנִימִי בִּמְקוֹם חֲדָא קֶרֶן דְּחִיצוֹן קָאֵי.
The one who said that he encircled by foot gave the following reason for his statement: The perimeter of the inner altar is like the perimeter of the outer altar, which is encircled by foot for sprinkling. And the one who said that he encircled by hand gave the following reason for his statement: The entire inner altar stands in place of one corner of the outer altar. Just as for one corner of the outer altar, the priest sprinkles the blood by hand, the same applies to the entire inner altar.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא, וְעַל כּוּלָּן הָיָה נוֹתֵן מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה, חוּץ מֵאוֹתָהּ שֶׁבַּאֲלַכְסוֹן, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה.
§ It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: He stood in one place and sprinkled the blood from there. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? The Gemara answers: The mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who explained Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling in the following manner. As it was taught in a baraita, later tanna’im disagreed with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says as follows: He stood in one place and sprinkled, and on all of the corners he presented the blood from above downward, so as not to drip blood down the sleeve of his garment, except for that corner on the diagonal [alakhson] across from him. Since it was difficult for him to sprinkle on that corner from top to bottom, he sprinkled from below upward.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּמְקוֹמוֹ עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא, וְעַל כּוּלָּן הוּא נוֹתֵן מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְפָנָיו מַמָּשׁ, שֶׁנּוֹתֵן מִמַּעְלָה לְמַטָּה, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִיתַּוְּוסָן מָאנֵיהּ.
Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: He stood in one place and sprinkled, and on all of the corners he sprinkled from below upward, as it is more convenient to sprinkle in that manner, except for that one which was directly before him, on which he would present from above downward. The reason is so as not to dirty his garments with blood. If he sprinkled on the corner next to him from below upward, the blood might fall on his clothes, and he would have to change garments, as dirty priestly garments may not be worn for the Temple service.
הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל טׇהֳרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. מַאי ״טׇהֳרוֹ״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: פַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״טְהַר טִיהֲרָא וְהָוֵי פַּלְגֵיהּ דְּיוֹמָא״.
§ The mishna taught: He sprinkled blood on the pure gold [tohoro] of the altar. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tohoro? Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: It means half of the altar, as people commonly say: Tehar tihara, the light of noon shines and it is the middle of the day. Here, too, tohoro of the altar means half the altar, i.e., he sprinkled on the midpoint of the altar wall.
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַזֶּה — אֵינוֹ מַזֶּה לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי הָאֵפֶר וְלֹא עַל גַּבֵּי הַגֶּחָלִים, אֶלָּא חוֹתֶה גֶּחָלִים אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ, וּמַזֶּה. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: עַל גִּלּוּיֵהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטוֹהַר״.
The Gemara raises an objection: When he sprinkles on the inner altar, he sprinkles neither on top of the ash nor on top of the coals; rather, he rakes and removes the coals to both sides and sprinkles. This indicates that this sprinkling was performed on top of the altar, not on its side. Rather, Rabba bar Rav Sheila retracted his previous interpretation and said: On tohoro of the altar means on the exposed area of the altar, as it is written: “And the like of the very heaven for clearness [letohar]” (Exodus 24:10), which shows that tohar is an expression of clarity.
תַּנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: בְּצַד צְפוֹנִי הוּא נוֹתֵן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּצַד דְּרוֹמִי הוּא נוֹתֵן. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: פִּיתְחָא בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: פִּיתְחָא בְּצָפוֹן קָאֵי.
§ It was taught in a baraita that Ḥananya says: The priest presents seven sprinklings on the north side of the altar, and Rabbi Yosei says: He presents them on the south side. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Ḥananya, holds that the entrance was positioned in the south, and therefore the High Priest begins the sprinklings from that side. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds that the entrance was positioned in the north, and he therefore begins to sprinkle on the altar from the north side.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא, הֵיכָא דְּגָמְרָן מַתָּנוֹת דִּקְרָנוֹת, הָתָם יָהֵיב עַל גַּגּוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְטִהֲרוֹ וְקִדְּשׁוֹ״ — מָקוֹם שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוֹ, שָׁם טִיהֲרוֹ.
The Gemara comments: Everyone agrees in any case that in the place where he finishes the presentations of the corners, that is where he places the blood on the altar’s top. They disagree only about the location of the final presentation, whether it is on the south or the north side. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this agreement? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and sanctify it” (Leviticus 16:19), which indicates that the place he sanctified by sprinkling blood, the corner of the altar where he sprinkled last, there he shall also begin to cleanse and sprinkle on top.
שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶת כׇּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפּוֹךְ״, וְכִי נָפֵיק — בְּהָהוּא פָּגַע בְּרֵישָׁא.
§ The mishna taught: And he would pour the remainder of the blood on the western base of the outer altar. The Gemara explains: The reason is that the verse states with regard to the sin-offering bull of the High Priest during the rest of the year: “And he shall pour out all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:7), and when he goes out from the Sanctuary to pour the remainder of the blood, he first reaches that western side of the base of the altar.
וְשֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִית. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ — זֶה יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִית. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִית, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִית?
§ The mishna further taught: And he would pour the remaining blood after the blood of an offering was sprinkled on the outer altar, on its southern base. The Sages taught in a baraita: “The base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30), which is mentioned with regard to pouring the remainder of the blood of an individual offering, is the southern base. Do you say it is the southern base? Or perhaps that is not the case, but rather it is the western base?
אָמַרְתָּ: יִלְמַד יְרִידָתוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ לִיצִיאָתוֹ מִן הַהֵיכָל. מָה יְצִיאָתוֹ מִן הַהֵיכָל בְּסָמוּךְ לוֹ, וְאֵי זֶה — זֶה יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי, אַף יְרִידָתוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ, בְּסָמוּךְ לוֹ, וְאֵי זֶה — זֶה יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִי.
You said: Let his descent from the ramp of the outer altar after sprinkling blood from the sin-offerings be derived from his exit from the Sanctuary with the remaining blood in his hand: Just as upon his exit from the Sanctuary he pours the remainder of the blood on the side closest to him, and which is that, it is the western base; so too, upon his descent from the ramp of the outer altar after sprinkling blood from a sin-offering, he pours the blood on the side closest to him, and which is that? It is the southern base, as when he descends from the ramp he turns to the right, i.e., the east, which means the southern base is the one closest to him.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: זֶה וָזֶה יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: זֶה וָזֶה יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִי. בִּשְׁלָמָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל קָסָבַר: יִלְמַד סָתוּם מִמְּפוֹרָשׁ.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: Both this and that, the blood of an inner sin-offering and that of an outer sin-offering, were spilled at the western base of the altar. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Both this and that blood were spilled at the southern base. The Gemara asks: Granted, Rabbi Yishmael maintains that the halakha of outer sin-offerings, which is not clarified in the Torah, is derived from the inner sin-offerings, whose halakha is explicit: Just as the remains of the inner sprinklings are poured at the western base, so too, the remains of the outer sprinklings are poured at the western base.
אֶלָּא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר פִּתְחָא בְּדָרוֹם קָאֵי.
However, with regard to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, what is the reason that he holds that both sets of remainders of blood are spilled at the southern base? Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai maintains that the entrance of the Sanctuary is positioned at the south side of the altar, i.e., the altar is not located in the middle of the courtyard but to the north. Consequently, the southern base of the altar is closest to the High Priest’s exit from the Sanctuary.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּדְבֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: זֶה וָזֶה יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִית. וְסִימָנָיךְ: מַשְׁכוּהּ גַּבְרֵי לְגַבְרָא.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different version of his opinion, which they learned in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Both this and that, the blood of an inner sin-offering and that of an outer sin-offering, were presented at the southern base. According to this version, Rabbi Yishmael changed his opinion and agreed with Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara comments: And your mnemonic to remember the shift in opinion is: The men pulled the man, i.e., the majority overruled the individual. In this case, the numerous students of Rabbi Shimon convinced the individual Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, to accept their ruling.
אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מִתְעָרְבִין בָּאַמָּה וְיוֹצְאִין וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מוֹעֲלִין בְּדָמִים — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.
§ It was taught in the mishna: 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, where they are sold to gardeners. Any blood that was not redeemed was subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. The Sages taught: One who takes these remainders without redeeming them misuses property consecrated in the Temple by unlawfully using blood, which is consecrated and is Temple property. It is prohibited to use consecrated objects for mundane purposes, and one who does so is committing the sin of misusing consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: One does not misuse consecrated property by benefiting from these remainders of the blood of offerings.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.
The Gemara comments: The Rabbis disagree only with regard to misuse of consecrated property that applies by rabbinic law, as it was the Sages who prohibited the use of blood; however, everyone agrees that by Torah law one does not misuse consecrated property by benefiting from these remainders of blood. Clearly, the Temple treasurers would not have sold it to gardeners ab initio had the Torah prohibited the use of this blood (Tosafot).
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לָכֶם״ — שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא. דְּבֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תָּנָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ — לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that there is no misuse for blood, derived? Ulla said that the verse states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). “To you” indicates that it shall be yours. It is not the property of the Temple; rather, it belongs to all of the Jewish people. The school of Rabbi Shimon likewise taught that the phrase “to make atonement” teaches that God says: I gave it for atonement and not for the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״, לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה כִּלְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה: מָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה — אַף לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said that this halakha is derived from a different phrase. The verse states: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11), which indicates that it retains the same status before atonement as after atonement: Just as after atonement it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects, as the mitzva has been performed, so too, before atonement it is not subject to misuse of consecrated objects. As the Gemara states below, there is a general principle that once the mitzva involving a certain object has been performed, the object is no longer subject to misuse of consecrated objects.
וְאֵימָא, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה כְּלִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה: מָה לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה — אַף לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה! אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן!
The Gemara asks: But if the status of blood before atonement is compared to its status after atonement, one can say the opposite: Just as before atonement it is subject to misuse of consecrated objects, so too, after atonement it is subject to misuse of consecrated objects. The Gemara rejects this contention: This cannot be the case, as there is a general principle: There is nothing whose mitzva has been performed that is still subject to misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the instance of the removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar. These ashes require burial, and yet any benefit derived from them is misuse of consecrated property, despite the fact that their mitzva has already been performed.
