The Talmud Bavli, Masechet Yoma, has been dedicated in memory of Mazal bat Ester Baghdadi and Yosef ben Mazal Baghdadi. Today’s page has also been dedicated by North Fork Bank and its private banking department with Gabriel Safty, and in memory of Yosef ben Mazal and Shlomo Rafael ben Mazal. Today’s page is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Ester, and for the success of the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who stand guard over our land and our cities, from the Lebanese border to the Arabah, to the Egyptian border, by land, air, and sea. May the Creator of the World rid us of all our enemies, and may the Redeemer come to Zion. Amen.
We are on page 58b, two lines from the bottom. Let's quickly review our previous discussion. We explored a dispute between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan regarding the mixing of the blood of the goat and the blood of the bull before sprinkling them on the corners of the altar. One opinion states that the bloods are mixed first and then sprinkled, while the other holds that they are sprinkled separately. We initially presented a proof that Rabbi Yoshiya believes in mixing the bloods first. Then, the Gemara offered an alternative version, suggesting that it is Rabbi Yonatan who holds this view. However, the Gemara then brings a Baraita that contradicts this second version, supporting the original understanding that Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that the bloods are mixed.
The Baraita states: "And you shall take from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat." From this verse, we learn that the bloods should be mixed. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan, however, says in his Baraita, "from this by itself and from this by itself," meaning each is sprinkled separately. Rabbi Yoshiya then asks Rabbi Yonatan, "But has it not already been stated, 'one'?" Referring to the verse, "And Aaron shall atone for its horns once a year," which implies a single sprinkling. How can Rabbi Yonatan say there are two separate sprinklings? Rabbi Yonatan responds by asking, "But has it not already been stated, 'from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat'?" This implies two distinct bloods. Rabbi Yoshiya then asks, "If so, why does it say 'one'?" Rabbi Yonatan explains that "one" comes to teach that you only sprinkle one bull and one goat. The Rishonim question why a special verse is needed to teach this obvious point. The Ridbaz explains that "one" teaches that if, for example, the blood of the bull spilled after two corners were sprinkled, and new blood is brought, one only needs to sprinkle the remaining two corners, not all four again. This is the novel teaching of "one" according to the Binatam. The Gemara reiterates: "To tell you one and not two from the bull, one and not two from the goat."
The Gemara continues with another Baraita: "And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat," meaning they should be mixed. The Baraita then asks, "Do you say they should be mixed, or is it rather from this by itself and from this by itself?" The answer is provided: "The verse says 'one'." This anonymous Baraita follows the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya.
The Mishnah states that after the sprinkling of "one above and seven below" outside in the holy area, the bloods would be mixed. The language of the Mishnah was that they would "empty" the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat, and then it says they would "place the full into the empty." The Gemara now analyzes what this means. Rami bar Chama asks Rav Chisda: "If one placed a receptacle inside another receptacle and received the blood in it, what is the ruling? Does a like species interpose, or does it not interpose?" The question is whether holding two receptacles, one inside the other, constitutes an interference (interposition) with the requirement for the priest to "take" the vessel, as the blood is falling into the inner vessel while he holds the outer one. If like species are considered an interposition, then the act is invalid.
Rav Chisda responds, "You have learned it!" referring to our Mishnah: "He placed the full into the empty." The Gemara initially understands this to mean that one takes the blood-filled receptacle and places the entire receptacle inside an empty one. If this is the case, and the verse for sprinkling on the altar also uses "take," then this would prove that a like species does not interpose. The Rishonim explain that perhaps both receptacles need to be involved in the ritual. The Gemara asks, "Does this not mean, 'he placed a full receptacle inside an empty receptacle'?" Thus, providing proof that it is not an interposition. The Gemara refutes this: "No, it means he emptied the contents of the full receptacle into the empty receptacle." The Gemara then asks, "But the beginning of the Mishnah already stated that the bloods are mixed!" The Gemara answers, "In order to mix them very well." This second pouring ensures thorough mixing, preventing a situation where only bull's blood or goat's blood is sprinkled due to incomplete mixing.
The Tosafot at the bottom of the page clarify that the question of "like species interposing or not" implies that if it were not a like species, it would definitely interpose. This is supported by other sources, such as the second chapter of Zevachim, which states that nothing should interpose between the priest and the sacred vessels, and Masechet Pesachim, which mentions Issachar of Kfar Barkai, a meticulous priest who wrapped his hands in silk, which was considered an interposition. Thus, the current discussion is specifically about like species.
The Gemara then brings another proof: "Come and hear: If one stood on a vessel or on his friend's foot, it is invalid." Just as a priest cannot have an interposition between his hands and the sacred vessel, he also cannot have an interposition between his feet and the floor of the Temple courtyard, which is considered sacred. Standing on a vessel is a case of unlike species, but standing on a friend's foot is a case of like species (foot on foot). Since this is invalid, it proves that a like species does interpose. The Gemara rejects this proof: "A foot is different, for one cannot keep it there." For something to be considered an interposition, it must remain for the duration of the service. A friend's foot cannot remain there for the entire service. Rashi explains that the friend will not keep his foot there until the service is finished. Thus, this case cannot prove that a like species interposes.
There are those who say that the question to Rav Chisda was different. They would preface by saying that a like species is not an interposition. So, the question then becomes: "Is this considered a proper manner of service, or not?" Even if it's not an interposition, is receiving blood in two receptacles considered a normal way to perform the service? The Gemara responds: "Come and hear, for it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: 'All the vessels of service with which they shall serve in the sanctuary.'" The plural "vessels" referring to two vessels, yet the phrase "service" is singular. This implies that two vessels are considered one service, thus it is a valid manner of service. Rashi explains that "vessels of service" implies two vessels, and the Torah calls it a single service, so it is acceptable.
Rami bar Chama asks Rav Chisda another question: "If one placed palm fibers inside the receptacle and received the blood in it, what is the ruling? Is a non-like species an interposition, or is it not an interposition?" Palm fibers are a type of porous grass. The question is whether these fibers, being a non-like species, constitute an interposition, even though they are porous and blood could potentially seep through to touch the vessel walls. The Gemara clarifies that if it were a non-porous interposition, it would definitely be invalid. The question is specifically about a porous, non-like species. Does its porosity negate the interposition, or is direct contact with the vessel walls still required?
The Gemara answers: "We have learned it in a Mishnah: 'He draws and continues to draw until he reaches the sponge.'" This refers to the waters of the red heifer. The verse states that "living waters" must be collected in a vessel, meaning the water must touch the vessel walls to be valid. If one collects water in a stone vessel with a hole, and there is a sponge inside, the water within the sponge is invalid because it is not directly in the vessel. However, the water around the sponge is valid. This implies that the porous sponge does not interpose between the vessel and the water outside the sponge. Thus, we have a proof that a porous, non-like species does not interpose. The Gemara rejects this proof: "Water is different because it is thin." Water is thinner than blood and can seep through pores more easily. Therefore, a leniency for water does not necessarily apply to blood.
Some say that the answer to the question about placing palm fibers in the receptacle is: "For blood, it is valid; for the handful, it is invalid." This means that for blood, which is liquid, the porous fibers do not interpose. However, for the handful of flour (the "handful") taken by the priest from a meal offering, if the vessel is insulated with fibers, it is considered an interposition. This is because the flour, though fine, is not liquid enough to fully penetrate the porous fibers and directly touch the vessel walls. The Rashi at the bottom explains that the handful is invalid for sanctification because it needs to be sanctified in a vessel, and this act of placing the handful in a vessel corresponds to the receiving of the blood for an animal offering. If the fibers interpose, it is not considered to be in the vessel.
Now we turn to page 59a and continue with the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. We just finished sprinkling "one above and seven below" of the bull and goat blood. The bloods are mixed in the receptacle. The Mishnah states: "And he went out to the altar that is before the Lord." This refers to the Golden Altar in the Sanctuary, called "before the Lord" because it is in front of the Holy of Holies. Rashi clarifies that the outer altar is not considered "before the Lord."
The High Priest "began to dab and descend." He places the blood on the four corners of the altar in a downward motion. Unlike other offerings where blood is sprinkled, here it is dabbed and smeared downwards. Rashi explains that this downward motion is to prevent the blood from dripping onto the High Priest's sacred garments, as the Golden Altar is two cubits high, making an upward motion difficult without soiling the clothes.
The Mishnah asks: "Where does he begin?" Which corner of the four corners of the altar? "From the northeast corner." He then goes to the northwest, then the southwest, and finally the southeast. The Gemara will explain the logic of this order. The Mishnah adds: "The place where he begins for the sin offering of the outer altar, from there he finishes for the inner altar." This means that the last corner sprinkled on the Inner Altar (southeast) is the first corner sprinkled on the Outer Altar for a regular sin offering (all year round, not Yom Kippur). This highlights that different altars have different sprinkling orders.
Rabbi Eliezer says: "He would stand in his place." He does not walk to the back of the altar, but remains between the altar and the curtain. He dabs the corners, and "on all of them he would place it from below upwards," except for the corner directly in front of him, "on which he would place it from above downwards." Rabbi Eliezer holds that by extending his hand across the altar (which is only one cubit wide), the High Priest has more flexibility, allowing him to use an upward motion for the distant corners. However, for the corner directly in front of him, where he lacks this flexibility, he must use a downward motion.
After sprinkling on the four corners, he "sprinkled on the surface of the altar seven times." This is an additional sprinkling on the top surface of the altar. Then, the leftover blood (the "remnant of the blood") "he would pour at the western base of the outer altar." For offerings of the Inner Altar, the leftover blood is poured into the western base. For offerings of the Outer Altar (like a regular sin offering), "he would pour it at the southern base." Regardless of where it is poured, "these and these mix in the channel" (a water stream in the courtyard) and "flow out to the Kidron Valley." This blood "is sold to gardeners for fertilizer," and if they use it without paying, it is considered sacrilege, as the blood has sanctity.
The Gemara introduces a Baraita: "And he went out to the altar." The Torah states that after sprinkling towards the curtain, the priest "will go out to the altar that is before the Lord." The Gemara asks: "What does this come to teach us?" He is already there, in front of the altar. Rabbi Nechemia explains: "Because we find concerning the bull brought for all the commandments" (a sin offering brought by a High Priest who erred), that "the priest stands outside the altar" (on its eastern side) and "sprinkles towards the curtain" from a distance, with the blood passing over the altar. One might think that for the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, he also stands far away. Therefore, the verse "and he went out to the altar" teaches that for Yom Kippur, he was previously "inside the altar" (on its western side, close to the curtain). This verse emphasizes that for Yom Kippur, the sprinkling is performed from directly in front of the altar, not from a distance as with the "bull brought for all the commandments."
Another Baraita states: "Before the Lord." The Gemara asks: "What does this come to teach us?" We already know it's the Golden Altar, which is "before the Lord." Rabbi Nechemia explains: "Because we find concerning the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that the priest stands inside the altar and sprinkles towards the curtain when he sprinkles." One might think that even for the "bull brought for all the commandments," he sprinkles from in front. Therefore, the verse "the altar of incense before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting" teaches us: "The altar is before the Lord, but the priest is not before the Lord." For the "bull brought for all the commandments," the priest stands outside the altar (on its eastern side) and sprinkles, meaning he is not directly in front of the altar. Thus, the Gemara uses these verses to distinguish the locations of the priest during sprinkling for Yom Kippur versus the "bull brought for all the commandments." For Yom Kippur, he is on the western side, in front of the altar. For the other offering, he is on the eastern side, behind the altar, and the altar itself is "before the Lord," but not the priest.
The Mishnah states: "He began to dab and descend." A Baraita further clarifies: "Where did he begin?" "From the southeast corner." This is Rabbi Akiva's opinion. He starts at the southeast, then goes southwest, then northwest, and finally northeast. Rabbi Yossi HaGlili says: "From the northeast corner," then northwest, then southwest, and finally southeast. Rabbi Yossi HaGlili is the author of our Mishnah. The place where Rabbi Yossi HaGlili begins is where Rabbi Akiva ends, and where Rabbi Akiva begins is where Rabbi Yossi HaGlili ends. Everyone agrees that the first corner one encounters is skipped.
The Gemara asks: "What is the reason?" Why is the first corner skipped, given the rule "one does not pass over a commandment"? Shmuel says: "As the verse states, 'and he went out to the altar'," implying that one must go to the outermost side of the altar. This is a scriptural decree. The Gemara then asks Rabbi Akiva: "Why does he not turn to his right?" Rabbi Akiva's order involves turning left. We have a principle that one should always turn to the right. The Gemara suggests that the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yossi HaGlili might be based on whether they agree with Rami bar Yehezkel. Rami bar Yehezkel stated that the "sea" (a large basin) that King Solomon made stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three west, three south, and three east, with their backs facing outwards. From the order of directions (north, west, south, east), Rami bar Yehezkel infers that "all turns you make should be to the right, towards the east." This implies a general principle of turning right.
The Gemara refutes this: "No, everyone agrees with Rami bar Yehezkel." Everyone agrees that one should always turn to the right. So, what is the dispute here? "Here they dispute whether we learn from the outer area to the inner area, or not." Rami bar Yehezkel's principle of turning right applied to the Outer Altar in the courtyard. The dispute is whether this principle from the outer area can be applied to the Inner Altar in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Akiva says no, principles from the outer area do not apply to the inner area. Therefore, the High Priest goes to his left for the Inner Altar. Rabbi Yossi HaGlili says yes, they do apply. The Gemara then asks Rabbi Akiva: "Even if he does not learn from the outer to the inner, he should have the option to do as he wishes." Why specifically go left? Rabbi Akiva explains: "By law, he should have dabbed the corner he first encountered first." This is the southwest corner according to Rabbi Akiva, as "one does not pass over a commandment." However, because the verse says "and he went out to the altar," he must pass over that corner to reach the outermost point (southeast). Once he dabs the southeast corner, he then "returns to that corner which he was obligated to dab first" (the southwest). To address the skipped corner, he must backtrack, which forces him to go left in his sequence. This explains why Rabbi Akiva's order involves a leftward movement, not as a preference, but as a consequence of fulfilling other halachic requirements.