The discussion revolves around a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose concerning the direction the High Priest would sprinkle the mixed bloods of the goat and bull on the corners of the inner altar. According to Rabbi Akiva, the High Priest moved to his left, in a clockwise direction. Rabbi Yose, however, held that the High Priest moved to his right, in a counterclockwise direction.
The Gemara initially questioned Rabbi Akiva's position: if he doesn't believe the rule of moving to the right applies in the Sanctuary, why would he be restricted to moving left? It seemed he should have the option to move in either direction. The Gemara cited Reish Lakish's principle, "one does not bypass a mitzvah," suggesting the High Priest should sprinkle on the first corner he encounters, which would be the southwest corner. However, the verse states, "and he shall go out to the altar," implying he must walk to the end of the altar, which brings him to the southeast corner. From there, he returns to the southwest corner and then continues in a clockwise direction to the northwest and northeast corners, thus moving to his left.
The Gemara offered an alternative explanation for the dispute. It suggested that everyone agrees that when walking around the altar (a "circumambulation by foot"), the rule of turning to the right applies, just as it does for the outer altar. The disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose would then center on whether the sprinkling on the inner altar involved actual walking around or if the High Priest remained stationary and sprinkled with his hands (a "circumambulation by hand"). Rabbi Yose, who requires turning to the right, would hold that it was a circumambulation by foot. Rabbi Akiva, who allows moving to the left, would hold that it was a circumambulation by hand, for which there is no source requiring a rightward turn.
A third possibility was presented: everyone agrees that the sprinkling on the inner altar was a circumambulation by hand. The dispute would then be whether the rules of circumambulation by hand are derived from those of circumambulation by foot. Rabbi Yose would argue that they are, thus requiring a rightward turn. Rabbi Akiva would contend that they are not, allowing movement to the left.
The Gemara challenged this third explanation, noting that the Mishnah states that Rabbi Eliezer holds the High Priest stood stationary. This implies that the initial Tanna Kamma of the Mishnah, understood to be Rabbi Yose, must have held that the High Priest walked around. Therefore, the Gemara concluded that the original answer must be correct: the dispute is whether the High Priest performed a circumambulation by hand or by foot.
The Gemara then presented a different interpretation of the dispute, based on an emendation by the Hagahot HaGra. One opinion holds that the circumambulation of the inner altar is like that of the outer altar, where one moves to the right. The other opinion holds that the entire inner altar is considered like a single corner of the outer altar, implying the High Priest remained stationary and sprinkled with his hands, thus allowing movement to the left.
A Baraita was then introduced, quoting Rabbi Yishmael, who recounted that two High Priests in the Second Temple disagreed on this very point: one claimed to have performed a circumambulation by hand, the other by foot. Each High Priest offered a reason, mirroring the Gemara's explanations for the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose. This illustrates that the debate was a practical one during the Temple era.
The Mishnah's statement, "Rabbi Eliezer says he stood in his place and dabbed," led the Gemara to identify the author of this part of the Mishnah. Rashi clarifies that this is Rabbi Yehuda, who quotes Rabbi Eliezer. A Baraita is brought, where Rabbi Meir quotes Rabbi Eliezer as saying the High Priest stood stationary and dabbed, applying the blood from top to bottom on all corners except the diagonally opposite one, where he went from bottom to top. This was to prevent blood from trickling down his arm on the closer corners, and to make it easier on the furthest corner where he would have to bend over.
Rabbi Yehuda, however, offered a different version of Rabbi Eliezer's statement: the High Priest stood stationary, dabbed, and applied blood from bottom to top on all corners, except for those directly in front of him, where he went from top to bottom to avoid soiling his garments. The Mishnah aligns with Rabbi Yehuda's version of Rabbi Eliezer's opinion.
The Mishnah then describes the next stage: the High Priest sprinkles blood seven times on what it calls the "purity of the altar." The Gemara asks, "What is this 'purity'?" Rabba bar Rav Shila suggests it refers to the midway point of the altar's wall, drawing a parallel to the term "half of the day" for midday. However, this is challenged, as a Baraita implies the sprinkling is on the altar itself, not just its midpoint. Rava bar Rav Shimi therefore explains "purity" as the "revealed portion of the altar's surface," connecting it to a verse describing the clear sky, implying the altar was cleared of ashes and coals for this sprinkling.
A Baraita presents a dispute about which side of the altar this sprinkling occurred. Chananya says it was on the northern side, while Rabbi Yose says it was on the southern side. The Gemara explains this dispute hinges on where the High Priest finished the corner sprinklings, which in turn depends on where the curtains of the Holy of Holies were positioned. Everyone agrees that the final sprinkling on the altar's surface is done where the corner sprinklings concluded, based on the verse "and purify it and sanctify it," meaning purification (this sprinkling) occurs where sanctification (the corner sprinklings) was completed.
The Mishnah continues, stating that the leftover blood was poured onto the western base of the outer altar. This is derived from the verse "and all the blood of the bull he shall pour." The western side is chosen because it is the first side of the outer altar the High Priest encounters when exiting the Sanctuary. However, for blood from other offerings on the outer altar, the Mishnah states it was poured on the southern base.
A Baraita discusses the verse "the base of the altar," which refers to a regular sin-offering on the outer altar, not the Day of Atonement. It asks whether this refers to the southern or western base. It concludes it refers to the southern base, drawing an analogy: just as the High Priest descends the ramp of the outer altar on its southern side (where the ramp is located), so too when he exits the Sanctuary, he pours the blood on the side closest to him, which is the western base. This comparison is used to establish that for the outer altar, the southern base is the default.
Rabbi Yishmael states that both for the Day of Atonement and for regular sin-offerings, the blood is poured on the western base. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, however, says it is always on the southern base. The Gemara explains Rabbi Yishmael's logic: he learns the unexplicit case (regular sin-offering) from the explicit case (Day of Atonement), where the verse specifies the base facing the Tent of Meeting, which is clearly the western base. For Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's opinion, Rav Ashi explains that he holds the entrance to the Sanctuary leads to the south, and the main part of the altar is in the north, making the south side the closest point when exiting.
A teaching from the study house of Rabbi Yishmael, found in the study house of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, states that both types of blood are poured on the southern base. This indicates that Rabbi Yishmael retracted his original opinion and adopted Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's view. A mnemonic is provided: "The men pulled the man," meaning the majority (the students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai) influenced the individual (Rabbi Yishmael).
The Mishnah concludes by stating that all the blood poured into the base of the altar flows into a channel, then into the Kidron stream, and is eventually sold to gardeners for fertilizer. The Mishnah adds that there is a prohibition of misuse of consecrated property regarding this blood. A Baraita presents a dispute: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon hold there is misuse of consecrated property, while the Sages say there is not.
The Gemara clarifies that this entire dispute is only on a rabbinic level; on a Torah level, there is no misuse of consecrated property for this blood. Rashi explains that this means if one misuses it, they would only pay the principal, not the additional fifth required for Torah-level misuse. The Gemara asks for the source of this ruling that on a Torah level there is no misuse of consecrated property. Ulla cites the verse, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you," implying that the blood, once on the altar, is "yours" to some extent, thus not subject to Torah-level misuse. The Sages, however, instituted a rabbinic prohibition.
The study house of Rabbi Shimon offers another derivation: the verse states, "I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls, for it is the blood that atones for the soul." The phrase "to atone" implies its purpose is atonement, not misuse of consecrated property. Another interpretation focuses on the word "it is," implying that the blood's status remains constant, both before and after atonement. Just as there is no misuse of consecrated property after atonement (as its purpose is fulfilled), so too there is none before atonement. The Gemara rejects the reverse interpretation (that just as there is misuse before, there is after), because we never find a case where misuse of consecrated property applies after a mitzvah has been fulfilled. Therefore, the verse "it is" teaches that even before atonement, there is no Torah-level misuse of consecrated property for the blood.