The Eddie and B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Yoma, has been dedicated in memory of Mazal bat Ester Baghdadi and Yosef ben Mazal Baghdadi by their family. May their souls rest in Gan Eden. Amen.
Today’s page has been dedicated by North Fork Bank and its private banking department, together with Gabriel Safdie. May God preserve him and grant him life. We thank North Fork Bank and encourage our listeners to patronize this generous financial institution. On a personal note, we thank Mr. Gabriel Safdie for his continued support of all our programs here at Daf Yomi Torah Learning Resources and the Torah Center.
Today’s page has also been dedicated in memory of Yosef ben Mazal and Shlomo Rafael ben Mazal. May their souls rest in Gan Eden. Amen.
Page 93 is being studied for the success of all the people of Israel, wherever they are, in the north and the south, on land and at sea. May the Holy One, blessed be He, grant us success in this war effort and protect all the residents of Israel, especially the Jews in the north who are under bombardment. May He bring them safely back to their homes, and, with God’s help, may the Creator deliver our enemies into our hands. May the Redeemer come to Zion. Amen.
We begin today’s page on 93a, at the top line, with the words, “The Sages taught.” We have a baraita. The verse says, “And he shall place the incense on the fire before God.” This refers to Yom Kippur, when the incense was placed on the fire in the coal pan. The verse specifically says, “before God.” From these words we learn that the incense may not be prepared outside the Holy of Holies and then brought inside. In other words, one may not pour the incense onto the coals outside, wait until it begins to smoke, and then bring it inside.
This excludes the opinion of the Sadducees, who said that the incense should be prepared outside and brought inside only after it had begun to smoke. The Gemara now explains how the Sadducees derived their position. What was their interpretation? The verse says, “For I will be seen in a cloud.” The cloud obviously refers to the cloud of smoke. This implies that the cloud is already present and that Aaron, or the High Priest, enters the Holy of Holies with the cloud of smoke. The cloud precedes the entry.
The verse also says, “He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary.” The Sadducees interpreted this to mean that the cloud of the incense must already be there, and that the High Priest then enters. This was their derivation: the incense is prepared outside and brought inside after it has begun to smoke.
The Sages, however, said to the Sadducees: What will you do with the verse that clearly says, “And he shall place the incense on the fire before God”? Although the Gemara does not tell us how the Sadducees answered, we must say that they understood “before God” as referring to the Sanctuary generally, not necessarily to the Holy of Holies. In any event, how did the Sages interpret the verse, “For I will be seen in a cloud”? The Gemara answers that this verse teaches the requirement of adding a particular herb to the incense, called ma’aleh ashan.
Rashi explains that ma’aleh ashan causes the smoke to rise straight upward, like a stick. When the verse says, “For I will be seen in a cloud,” it means that there must be a cloud of smoke that rises straight upward. From this we learn that the special herb ma’aleh ashan must be added to the incense.
The Gemara asks how we know that ma’aleh ashan was placed in the incense. The verse says that the cloud of incense must cover the cover of the Ark. The cover of the Ark was low, and when the incense was placed on the coal pan, the smoke would normally rise straight up like a stick until it reached the ceiling of the Holy of Holies. Once it reached the ceiling, it would spread across the room, descend along the walls, and eventually fill the area above the Ark and cover its lid. The lid of the Ark is called the cover of the Ark, and it too had to be covered by the smoke.
The Gemara says that if the ma’aleh ashan was not added, or if one of the other spices was omitted, there is a penalty of death at the hands of Heaven. There were eleven spices in the incense mixture. Ma’aleh ashan was not one of those eleven spices; it was an additional herb that caused the smoke to rise straight upward. The Gemara is telling us that omitting ma’aleh ashan, or omitting any of the other spices, carries this penalty.
Rashi explains that this is derived from the verse, “And he shall not die,” implying that if the service is not performed correctly, he will indeed die. The Gemara adds that the Torah calls the incense “complete,” teaching that the mixture must be complete. From the word “incense” we therefore learn that it must be a complete incense mixture.
The Gemara challenges this derivation. Why do we need to say that the High Priest is liable to death because the incense was incomplete? Let us analyze the situation without that verse. A priest may not simply enter the Holy of Holies without a purpose. He must enter to perform a particular service. On Yom Kippur, that service is bringing the incense. If he enters without a purpose, he is liable to death because he entered the Holy of Holies without a legitimate function.
Therefore, if he does not place the full amount of incense and then enters the Holy of Holies, that is considered an empty entry. Since the incense is incomplete, his entry has no valid purpose, and he should automatically be liable for entering without a purpose. Why, then, do we need a separate derivation from the verse?
The Gemara answers that we are speaking about a specific case. The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies inadvertently, but he intentionally omitted one of the spices. Thus, he was inadvertent regarding the entry, but deliberate regarding the incomplete incense. He is liable because the verse says, “And he shall not die”; if a spice is omitted, he will die. As for entering the Holy of Holies without a purpose, he is not liable, because that entry was inadvertent.
Rashi explains that he was inadvertent regarding the empty entry. He knew that there was a penalty for offering incomplete incense, but he did not realize that entering the Holy of Holies with incomplete incense would be considered an empty entry. He brought incomplete incense but was unaware of that additional problem. That is one answer.
The Gemara offers another case in which the High Priest intentionally brought incomplete incense. He entered the Holy of Holies carrying two incense mixtures, one complete and one incomplete. He cannot be held liable for entering without a purpose, because he entered with a valid incense mixture and performed the service with it. His entry was therefore valid. However, after that, he offered the second mixture, which was incomplete. He is liable for offering incomplete incense, but not for the entry, because he had entered with valid incense and his entry was justified.
The Gemara continues: Rabbi said that the requirement of ma’aleh ashan is derived from the word “and it shall cover.” The verse says that the cloud must cover the Ark’s cover. How does it cover it? The smoke rises, spreads across the ceiling, descends along the walls, and covers the lid of the Ark.
The Gemara asks why a second verse is needed. Initially, we said that the verse teaching that the smoke must be a cloud teaches the requirement of ma’aleh ashan. Then the Gemara said that the requirement is derived from the words “and it shall cover.” Why do we need two verses?
Rav Yosef answers: If we had only one verse, I would say that only the leaf of the ma’aleh ashan is acceptable. How do we know that the root of the ma’aleh ashan may also be used? The second derivation comes to include the root. This implies that the leaf is primary, but if the leaf is unavailable, the root may also be used.
The Gemara challenges this from a baraita. The baraita says that when the root of ma’aleh ashan was placed in the incense, the smoke would rise like a stick until it reached the ceiling of the Holy of Holies. Once it reached the ceiling, it would spread across it, descend along the walls, and fill the room with smoke. Since the baraita speaks specifically about placing the root in the incense, perhaps the root is actually the preferred element. If there were only one verse, we would say that the root is the primary part and the leaf is secondary.
The Gemara gives another answer for why two verses are necessary. If we had only one verse, I would say that this requirement applies only to the Tabernacle of Moses in the wilderness. How do we know that it also applies to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, and later to the Temples? The extra verse teaches that the law of ma’aleh ashan applies not only in the Tabernacle of Moses but also in the subsequent sanctuaries and Temples.
The Gemara rejects that answer as well. We do not need a separate verse for the Temple, because the verse is speaking about any place in which the Divine Presence rests. The Divine Presence rested at Shiloh and in the Temple, so the law would automatically apply there.
The Gemara offers another answer: one verse teaches the requirement, and the second teaches that it is indispensable. In other words, the first verse teaches that ma’aleh ashan is a mitzvah, while the repetition teaches that it is binding. If it is omitted, the incense is invalid.
Rabbah gives another explanation: one verse teaches the punishment, and the other teaches the warning. One verse establishes that a person who omits ma’aleh ashan is liable to death, while the other verse establishes that doing so is prohibited.
Rashi explains that the words “and he shall not die” in the first verse do not refer to incomplete incense. They refer to entering the Holy of Holies for no purpose. The words “and he shall not die” in the verse concerning the cloud teach that if the cloud is lacking because ma’aleh ashan was omitted, there is a punishment. The verse that says, “For I will be seen in a cloud,” serves as the warning that the ma’aleh ashan must be present.
The Gemara brings a baraita in support of Rabbah. Rabbi Eliezer says that the words “and he shall not die,” together with the words “and the cloud of incense shall cover,” teach the punishment. If ma’aleh ashan is omitted and the incense therefore does not form a cloud, the priest is liable to death. The verse “For I will be seen in a cloud” teaches the warning: the ma’aleh ashan must be included.
The Gemara then asks whether these warning and punishment verses could both have been stated before the death of Aaron’s sons. On the first day that the Tabernacle was inaugurated, Nadav and Avihu entered and died as a result of their sin. Perhaps their sin was that they omitted ma’aleh ashan or otherwise caused the incense to be incomplete. If so, these laws would have had to be given before the inauguration, because a person must be warned before he can be punished.
The Gemara asks: Were both of these laws stated before the death of Aaron’s sons? It answers that the Torah says, “After the death of the two sons of Aaron,” indicating that these verses were stated after their death.
Could both the warning and the punishment nevertheless have been stated afterward? The Gemara says no, because one of the verses says, “For I will be seen in a cloud.” The wording indicates the future: God’s Presence will be seen in the cloud. That verse had to be stated before the Divine Presence appeared in the Tabernacle. Once the Tabernacle was inaugurated, the Divine Presence came down. Therefore, this verse must have been stated before the first of Nisan.
We are left with a difficulty. Were the verses stated before or after the death of Aaron’s sons? The Gemara answers that the warning was given beforehand, but the punishment was given afterward. Therefore, we cannot say that the sin of Aaron’s sons was the omission of ma’aleh ashan or incomplete incense, because they had not yet been informed of the penalty of death. They knew only that it was prohibited. The prohibition was given first; after Nadav and Avihu sinned, the punishment for omitting ma’aleh ashan or bringing incomplete incense was stated.
The Gemara asks how we know that the verse was stated before the inauguration if, in the Torah, it appears after the account of the death of Aaron’s sons. The answer is that the Torah sometimes records events out of chronological order. The wording “I will be seen” is in the future tense, indicating that the Divine Presence had not yet appeared. Thus, the warning was given before the inauguration, while the punishment was stated afterward.
The Gemara then discusses what the sin of Aaron’s sons actually was. One verse says that the sons of Aaron placed fire or wood on the altar. Even though a miraculous fire had descended from Heaven, they said that there was still a special mitzvah to bring ordinary fire from human beings. This was a valid halachic interpretation: one might have thought that ordinary fire was necessary only when there was no fire from Heaven, but they understood that even when a miraculous fire descended, the Torah still required human beings to place fire on the altar.
The problem was that they issued this halachic ruling in the presence of Moses. They were liable to death because of their lack of respect in making a ruling in front of Moses.
The commentators ask how this could have been their sin. Nadav and Avihu were involved in bringing the incense, which was offered on the inner altar. The miraculous fire that descended from Heaven was on the outer altar, while the coals for the incense were ordinary coals. If their derashah concerned placing ordinary fire on the altar, what connection did it have to their service in the Holy of Holies? This is one of the questions raised regarding their actions.
Tosafot, at the bottom of the page, lists several opinions concerning what the sons of Aaron actually did. One opinion is that they received a ruling at Sinai that they were not permitted to enter while eating and gazing at the Divine Presence. They looked at the Divine Presence at Sinai while engaging in physical pleasure, which was improper.
Others say that they walked behind Moses and Aaron and said that one of these two elders would eventually die and that they would then take over the leadership. This must be understood according to their spiritual level. They had a tremendous desire to lead the people of Israel, and they aspired to step into the positions of Moses and Aaron. They were not wishing for Moses and Aaron to die in a malicious way; rather, they were saying, “When will they move on so that we can inherit these positions?”
Leadership of the Jewish people is not a position of honor alone. It carries tremendous responsibility and a heavy burden, because the leader assumes responsibility for the generation. Their desire was to serve the people of Israel and to assume that responsibility, but the way they expressed it was inappropriate.
Other opinions say that they entered the Temple without taking the proper haircut required of priests. Some say that they entered while drinking wine and were intoxicated. Others say that they were not wearing the proper number of priestly garments. Still others say that they were unmarried and had no children, and that this was their sin.
It is therefore difficult to identify their precise sin. In any event, according to the Gemara, ma’aleh ashan was not the issue, because the punishment for omitting it was not given until afterward. The Gemara is discussing a different sin, and Tosafot records several possibilities.
The Mishnah teaches: After the High Priest completed the incense service, he would leave and retrace his steps. Since he had been facing the Ark, he would walk backward, facing the Ark, until he left the Holy of Holies.
The Gemara asks how we know that this is the proper manner of leaving. The verse says that Solomon came to the altar that was in Givon and then went to Jerusalem. The verse appears to connect Givon and Jerusalem, even though they are separate places. It should have said that he went from Jerusalem to Givon, or that he returned from Givon to Jerusalem. Why does it say “Givon, Jerusalem”?
The Gemara explains that the verse connects the journey from Jerusalem to Givon with the return journey from Givon to Jerusalem. Just as, when Solomon left Jerusalem for Givon, he was facing the altar, so too, when he returned to Jerusalem, he was still facing the altar. This means that he retraced his steps backward.
The principle is that the manner of entering determines the manner of leaving. Just as he faced the altar when he went toward it, he continued facing it when he went away. This teaches the importance of showing respect. Obviously, he did not walk backward the entire way. He walked backward until he was out of the altar’s range, or perhaps until he was out of sight, and then he turned around and continued normally.
Rashi explains that the verse compares the departure from Givon to Jerusalem with the arrival at Givon. He went to the altar in Givon in the normal manner, facing it, and when he returned to Jerusalem, he did so in the same manner, with his face still facing the altar.
The Gemara continues by applying this principle to other situations. Every day, when the priests completed their service, they would also walk backward from the altar. The Levites, when they sang and served on the platform, would likewise walk backward when they left.
The Israelites also had a role in the daily offering. The verse commands the Children of Israel to bring a daily offering. But how could all the Jewish people bring the offering when everyone was at home? It was impossible for millions of people to stand in the Temple every morning.
There were therefore representatives of the Jewish people, known as the watches. There were twenty-four watches of Israelites, with a rotation in which a particular group would stand at the offering as representatives of all Israel. When these representatives completed their participation in the offering, they too would walk backward from the altar.
They would sometimes walk backward to the side, because it was not always possible to walk directly backward. There may have been obstacles in the way, and there was also concern that someone might be injured. Therefore, it was permissible to turn slightly to the side in order to navigate safely, while still maintaining the honor of the place.
The Gemara relates a story about Rabbi Elazar. When he would leave his teacher, Rabbi Yohanan, after studying, he would bow before him and remain standing until his teacher was out of sight. As long as Rabbi Yohanan could see him, Rabbi Elazar continued facing him out of respect. Only after his teacher could no longer see him would he turn around.
Similarly, when Rabbi Elazar wanted to leave the study hall, he would walk backward while facing Rabbi Yohanan. He continued walking backward until Rabbi Yohanan could no longer see him. As long as the teacher could see the student, the student afforded him the respect of facing him. Once he was out of sight, he turned around.
The Gemara relates another story about Rav, who studied with Rav Yosef, who was blind. When Rav would leave Rav Yosef after studying, he would walk backward without looking behind him. He continued walking backward until he injured his legs. The threshold of Rav Yosef’s house became covered with blood because Rav kept striking himself against it.
Rav Yosef was blind and could not see what was happening. When he was told what Rav was doing, he said that Rav should become the head of the academy of the entire city. In other words, he blessed Rav that he should succeed him. Rav Yosef was saying that because Rav had afforded him such great honor, Rav too should be granted honor by becoming the head of the academy.
The Gemara now discusses the requirement to take three steps backward after the silent prayer. Rabbi Alexandri said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that one who prays must take three steps backward, and then offer the prayer for peace.
Some versions read that after taking the three steps, he must bow. Others understand the passage to mean that after taking the three steps backward, he must remain standing in that place for a certain amount of time and should not immediately leave.
The Gemara gives an analogy: a student who walks away from his teacher and immediately turns away is comparable to a dog that returns to its vomit. If a dog vomits because something upset its stomach, no one thinks twice about the initial act. But if the dog immediately returns to eat what it expelled, that is foolish and abnormal.
So too, when a student walks away from his teacher backward, it appears that he is showing respect. But if he immediately turns around and walks away, it appears that his backward steps were merely a haphazard action and were not truly motivated by respect. Similarly, after taking three steps back from the silent prayer, a person should remain in place for a short time. If he immediately turns and walks away, it appears that the steps were not taken as an act of respect.
The baraita teaches that one must take three steps backward and then bow as part of the prayer for peace. If a person does not do this, it would have been better for him not to pray. The entire purpose of prayer is to connect with the Divine Presence, and a person recognizes that the Divine Presence is before him. If he leaves the prayer in a disrespectful manner, he demonstrates that he did not realize that he had been standing before the Divine Presence.
The Sages also taught that when one recites the prayer for peace, he begins on his right and then turns to his left. He says, “May He who makes peace in His heights make peace upon us,” turning first toward the right, and then, “and upon all Israel,” turning toward the left.
Why does he begin on the right? One verse says that when God gave the Torah, He gave it from His right hand. Another verse says that a thousand enemies fall at a person’s left side, while ten thousand fall at his right. This indicates that the right side is stronger and more significant.
The Gemara asks why two verses are necessary. Perhaps the verse about God giving the Torah from His right hand is sufficient to demonstrate the importance of the right. The Gemara answers that the first verse merely teaches a natural practice: when a person gives something to someone, he generally gives it with his right hand because it is stronger. That alone does not prove that the right side has priority. The second verse, which describes ten thousand falling on the right side, demonstrates that the right is more powerful and therefore has priority.
The Gemara relates that Rav saw Abaye reciting the prayer for peace and turning toward his right. Rav said to him, “You have adopted your right, meaning the right side of the Divine Presence.” Abaye understood the instruction differently. When the Sages said to begin on the right, they meant the right of the person facing the Divine Presence. Since the Divine Presence is in front of him, God’s right is the worshipper’s left. Therefore, the worshipper should begin by turning toward his own left.
The priests and the High Priest would therefore bow first, then take three steps backward, and then turn first toward the left and afterward toward the right. Finally, they would turn to face forward. This is also the practice we follow.
Let us briefly review several practical laws that emerge from this discussion. First, a person should remain in place after taking the three steps. How long should he remain there? The accepted practice cited in the Shulchan Aruch is that when praying with a congregation, one should remain in place until after Kedushah, specifically until after the words “We will sanctify You.” Some customs cited in the halachic works require remaining in place until the recitation of “The Holy God,” which is connected to Kedushah. After that, one may return to his place.
What should a person do when praying at home without a quorum? The halachic authorities say that he should remain in place for the amount of time it takes to walk four cubits. This is only a few seconds, after which he may return to his place.
Regarding the three steps, the Gemara makes clear that one begins with the left foot. There is, however, a major disagreement about how to calculate the steps. Some say that each step must be a complete step. Others say that each movement of one foot is considered a step. According to that view, one takes three strides: the left foot moves back, the right foot moves behind it, and the feet meet on the third movement.
There is also no fixed measurement for the length of these steps. The Rashba writes in his responsa that, preferably, the steps should be from toe to heel. That would be the minimum preferred distance for someone able to do so. If a person cannot take steps of that length, smaller steps are permitted.
If someone is praying and there is a person or an obstacle directly behind him, he does not have to take the steps directly backward. He may take them to the side or in another direction, as necessary.
The usual practice is to bow first, then take three steps backward. One turns toward the left while remaining bowed and recites the prayer for peace. One then rises slightly, turns toward the right, bows again, and recites the next phrase. Finally, one returns to the center and bows once more.
The Kabbalists attach significance to these three additional bows. In the silent prayer itself, there are four bows: two in the first two blessings and two in the blessing of thanksgiving. Together with the three bows at the conclusion of the prayer, there are seven bows. According to the Zohar, these seven bows have great significance in subjugating spiritual enemies.
This is compared to Jacob, who bowed seven times when he encountered Esau. He was obviously not bowing to Esau as an act of submission. Rather, he perceived spiritual forces and opposing powers, and the seven bows had the ability to overcome them. Similarly, the bows at the conclusion of the prayer are significant in overcoming spiritual forces that might prevent the prayer from ascending. Therefore, one should follow the practice brought by the Kabbalists.
The Gemara says that when the High Priest emerged from the Holy of Holies, he entered the Sanctuary and recited a short prayer. He prayed that the coming year should be rainy and hot.
The Gemara asks whether there is any benefit to having a hot year. It answers that his prayer should be understood as follows: If the year will be hot, let it also be rainy, because heat causes water to evaporate from the fields. Additional rain is therefore necessary.
Rav Acha, son of Rava, concluded the blessing by praying that the rule should not depart from the house of Judah. This prayer referred to the exilarchate in Babylonia, a government-appointed position that wielded authority. The exilarch generally came from the family of Judah, and the prayer was therefore that the position of leadership should continue within the royal line of Judah.
This cannot refer to the kings who ruled during the Second Temple period, because the Hasmoneans were not from the royal line of Judah, and other kings also ruled who were not from that line. The prayer was therefore referring to the exilarchate and its continuation within the family of Judah.
The High Priest also prayed that the people should be self-sufficient and should not need to borrow money from one another. He prayed for the travelers as well, that their prayers regarding rain should not be answered. A traveler does not want it to rain, because he needs to reach his destination, conduct his business, or sell his merchandise. The High Priest therefore prayed that God should not answer the travelers’ prayers against rain.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa was once traveling on the road when it began to rain. He said, “Everyone in the world is comfortable, while Hanina is in distress.” The rain stopped. Some explain that he meant that everyone else had raincoats and other protection from the rain, while he was poor and had no way to shield himself.
When he reached home, he was protected, while the rest of the world still needed the rain for their fields. Rabbi Hanina therefore said, “Everyone else needs the rain, while I am comfortable, because I do not have fields.” The rain began again.
Rabbi Yosef commented on this story: What was the value of the High Priest’s prayer compared with the prayer of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa? The High Priest prayed that the travelers’ prayers should not be answered, but when Rabbi Hanina was in distress, his prayer was answered and the rain stopped. This demonstrates the power of the prayer of a righteous person.
The Gemara relates that on one occasion a High Priest prolonged his prayer when he emerged from the Holy of Holies. The Sages became concerned that something had happened to him and that he had died. The other priests were preparing to enter and check on him, when he finally emerged.
They asked him what had taken him so long. He replied that it bothered them that he had offered an additional prayer for them—that the Temple should not be destroyed and that they should be protected. They nevertheless told him that he should not become accustomed to doing this. Although they understood that he had been praying for them, the Mishnah teaches that the prayer should not be prolonged, so that the people will not be frightened.
Some say that this High Priest was Shimon the Righteous, and that this was the last year in which he entered the Holy of Holies. As we learned earlier, he subsequently died after Sukkot. That year, he saw a black angel rather than the white angel that had previously appeared with him in the Holy of Holies. In any event, when he emerged, he understood that something ominous had occurred and therefore offered a special prayer. Nevertheless, the Sages told him that the halachah does not allow him to remain inside for so long, because it frightens the people.
The Mishnah then teaches: From the time that the Ark was removed. The Gemara immediately questions this wording, because we learned that the Ark was not removed; it was hidden. The term “removed” suggests that it was taken away, whereas the tradition is that it was concealed.
In place of the Ark there was a stone, which had been present from the time of the early prophets. Rashi identifies those early prophets as David and Samuel. The stone was called the Foundation Stone. The term refers to a foundation, because the world was created from that location. Adam was also created at that spot. The stone was three fingerbreadths above the ground, and the High Priest placed the coal pan upon it where the Ark had previously stood.
Normally, the coal pan was placed between the poles of the Ark. Once the Ark was no longer there, it was placed directly on the Foundation Stone, in the location where the Ark had stood.
The High Priest continued the service. After slaughtering his bull, he had given the blood to a priest standing on the fourth step. That priest stirred the blood so that it would not coagulate. After the High Priest completed the incense service, the priest came out to meet him and handed him the blood. The High Priest then entered the Holy of Holies a second time, returning to the place where he had stood.
He stood between the poles of the Ark and sprinkled the blood with his finger: once above and seven times below. “Above” and “below” do not mean that he sprinkled the blood on the cover of the Ark. The sprinkling was on the ground in front of the Ark. The first sprinkling was above the midpoint of the area, and the remaining seven were below the midpoint, in a straight sequence.
The Mishnah says that he did not intend to sprinkle on the cover of the Ark itself. Rather, the sprinkling was directed toward the area in front of it. It was arranged like a row going downward, similar to a whip. When a person strikes with a whip, the first strike may be at the top of the back, the next lower down, and the next lower still. So too, the sprinklings were arranged in a descending line.
In the illustration commonly used to depict the service, the High Priest is shown with the blood on the finger of his right hand, sprinkling it on the Foundation Stone, where the coal pan for the incense had stood. The first sprinkling was above, followed by seven beneath it.
This was how he counted the sprinklings: “One,” referring to the first sprinkling; then “one and one,” referring to the first sprinkling and the first one below it; then “one and two,” and so on. He was not sprinkling again when he counted the first number; he was identifying the sprinkling that had already been performed and then adding the next one.
Afterward, he placed the remaining blood on a golden stand. The illustrations show the golden stand in the Sanctuary, where the receptacle containing the blood was placed.
The service then continued. They brought him the blood of the goat. There were two goats: one designated for God and one designated for Azazel. Since the High Priest performed all the services, he not only slaughtered the animals but also received their blood. He entered the Holy of Holies a third time, carrying the blood of the goat.
Instead of standing between the poles of the Ark, he stood in the same place where he had stood previously and sprinkled the goat’s blood once above and seven times below. He counted in the same manner: one, one and one, one and two, and so forth.
He then came out and placed the golden vessel containing the goat’s blood in the Sanctuary. The blood of the goat was placed on the second stand. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that there was only one stand. The other vessel was given to someone to hold, so that the two bloods would not be confused. They did not want to place them in identical receptacles and risk a mistake regarding which was the blood of the bull and which was the blood of the goat.
The next stage was as follows: he took the blood of the bull from its stand and placed it down, and he took the blood of the goat that he was holding and placed that down. He then sprinkled the bull’s blood outside the Holy of Holies, facing the Holy of Holies and directly in front of the Ark.
Again, he did not intend to sprinkle on the curtain itself. The sprinkling was directed toward the floor in front of the curtain. He performed one sprinkling above and seven below, counting them in the same manner.
He then took the blood of the goat and placed the bull’s blood down, or, according to Rabbi Judah, used the single stand. He sprinkled the goat’s blood in the same location outside the Holy of Holies, toward the Ark, once above and seven times below.
After completing those sprinklings, he mixed the bloods. He took the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat and mixed them together. He transferred the blood from one vessel to the other so that the two bloods would be thoroughly combined. At the end of this process, the vessel contained a mixture of the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat.
The Gemara now returns to the question of the Ark. The wording of the Mishnah suggests that the Ark was removed, while the tradition is that it was hidden. One opinion cited by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is that the Ark was indeed taken into exile in Babylonia.
He derives this from the verse that says that nothing was left behind when the vessels of the Temple were taken to Babylonia. What is meant by “nothing”? The Gemara explains that this includes the Ten Commandments. The word is associated with the commandments, teaching that not only the Ark but also the Tablets containing the Ten Commandments were taken.
Rabbi Judah says that the Ark remained in its place and was hidden there. He derives this from the verse that says, “The poles were visible,” and concludes, “They are there until this day.” The poles of the Ark could be seen from the Sanctuary, although the Ark itself could not be seen in the Holy of Holies. The poles remained in place, indicating that the Ark was never removed.
The beginning of the verse refers to the Ark during its service, when the poles could not be seen from outside. The continuation, “They are there until this day,” indicates that the poles remained there even after the destruction of the Temple. This supports the view that the Ark was hidden in its original place rather than taken away.
The Gemara says that the report that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai held that the Ark was taken to Babylonia contradicts what Ulla said. Ulla had already taught that the Ark was exiled twice: once during the destruction of the First Temple and again during the destruction of the Second Temple.
Regarding the First Temple, the verse says that the vessels of the House of God were brought to Babylonia. We explained that the “treasures” of the House of God included the Ark. How do we know that it was taken a second time? The Book of Lamentations says that the glory of Zion had departed.
The Gemara interprets the word for “glory” as though it referred to what was in the inner chamber. What was in the inner chamber? The Ark, which had been hidden there. Thus, the verse means that everything in Zion’s inner chamber, including the Ark, had departed.
Rabbi Matya asked Rabbi Joshua ben Shavuot which opinion he held. He answered that the Ark remained in its place and was hidden. The verse says, “The poles were visible,” and concludes, “They are there until this day.” The phrase “until this day” implies that the Ark and its poles remained in their original location.
Ulla therefore had a different version of what Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai held. The question remains whether Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said that the Ark was hidden in its place, or whether he held that it was taken into Babylonia.
May the study of today’s page be for the success and protection of all the people of Israel. Amen.