## Jerusalem Talmud Yoma Chapter 5

###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:1)

**משנה:** הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה וְחָפַן מְלֹא חָפְנָיו וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ הַכַּף הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גוֹדְלוֹ וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קוֹטְנוֹ וְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִידָּתָן. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁנֵי הַפָּרוֹכוֹת הַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבֵין קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָרוֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבָד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרוֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** They brought him the cup and the pan¹; he took his full fistfuls and put it into the cup, a big person according to his bigness, and a small person according to his smallness, this was their measure. He took the fire-pan² into his right hand and the cup in his left, went into the Temple until he reached the space between the two gobelins which separate between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies with one cubit between them. Rebbi Yose says, there was only one gobelin as it was said³ 26:33., *and the gobelin shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies*.

footnotes:
¹ Other Cohanim bring him an empty cup and the censer full of the incense specially prepared for this day.
² With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple.
³ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:2)

**הלכה:** הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף כול׳. וְלא כְבָר תַּנִּינתָהּ. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָה. אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַבָּזִךְ. מָהוּ כַף. מָגִיס. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. כְּלִי חוֹל הוּא. אִין תֵּימַר. כְּלִי קוֹדֶשׁ. דָּבָר שֶׁקָּדַשׁ בְּכֶלִי נִפְדֶּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated⁹, “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen¹⁰. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed¹¹ 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed.?

footnotes:
⁹ Mishnah 4:3. The same expression מַתְתָּה is used in Mishnah 4:3 and in 5:1. But if the High Priest already used the מַתְתָּה before, it cannot be brought to him now from a storage facility.
¹⁰ From a rabbinic Hebrew root מגיס “to stir, to mix dough” which may have been induced by Greek μαγίς “dough”.
¹¹ This would contradict Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:3)

דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. פִיטְּמָהּ בַחוּלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֶה בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. פְּסוּלָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֶי בַּר חֲנִינָה. קוֹדֶשׁ הִיא. שֶׁתְּהֵא הֲבָאֲתָהּ בַּקוֹדֶשׁ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. קוֹדֶשׁ הִיא. שֶׁתְּהֵא בָאָה מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּישְׁכָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֶי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כִשְׁמוּאֵל וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. קְטוֹרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאוֹמָּן מִשֶּׁל בֵּית אֶבְטִינָס [שֶׁהָיָה נוֹטֵל בִּשְׂכָרוֹ קְטוֹרֶת.] וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֶי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם שְׂמוּאֵל. מַכְתֶּשֶׁת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אָמְרָהּ רִבִּי חוּנָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דָּבָר שֶׁקָּדַשׁ בְּכֶלִי נִפְדֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלָאו שְׁמוּאֵל הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. קַל הוּא בְמוֹתָר. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הוֹתִירוּ תְמִידִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. נִפְדִּין כִתְמִימִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִפְדִּין כִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. הוֹתִירוּ שְׂעִירִים. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אִם עוֹלָה נִפְדִּית לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן חַטָּאת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי זְעוּרָא אָמַר. יִרִעוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מְקַיְיצִים בָּהּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְקַשְׁיָא. יֵשׁ חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שַׁנְיָא הִיא. שֶׁאֶין קָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר נִקָבָּעִין אֶלָּא בִשְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא עַל הַמּוֹתָרוֹת שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹² As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? *It is holy*¹⁴ 30:36, *most holy it shall be for you, Ex.* 30:37, *holy it shall be for you.* Babli *Keritut* 6a.*,* that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary¹⁵ That its existence shall be in the holy space. The Babli text there adds: “and it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury,” i. e., from the Temple tax.. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? *It is holy,* that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury¹⁶ version of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. In the Babli *Šeqalim* text it makes sense; the preparation may be in profane terrain, only the use must be in the Sanctuary.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings¹⁷ 4:6..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.¹⁸ As explained in *Šeqalim,* incense of each year has to bought by the proceeds of the Temple tax of that year. In order to avoid that any leftovers at the end of the year became disqualified, the leftovers are given to the workers and artisans working for the Temple as their wages. The Temple can then buy back the incense from the workers with money of the next year and the incense remains qualified. (Private use of incense compounded by the Temple’s formula is a deadly sin, *Ex.* 30:38.) R. Joḥanan ’s argument that the Mishnah can only be interpreted as referring to incense is given in the Babli, *Keritut* 6a.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna¹⁹ Rav Ḥuna. said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service²⁰ did *not* make. The incense always is prepared in a profane vessel; it becomes dedicated by being used on the dedicated fire-pan or the interior altar.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed²¹. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers²². As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished²³ 27:10. Samuel proposes to treat the surplus animals similar to how surplus incense was treated: The animals are redeemed with the past year’s excess money, which then is used for repair or improvement of the Temple building as explained in *Šeqalim* Chapter 4. Then the animals are bought again with money of the new fiscal year and become newly qualified.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified *sancta*²⁴11b.*.* Leftover he-goats²⁵, in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze²⁶. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar²⁷. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter²⁸ 12b.. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion²⁹ texts delete the last two words; the tradent is a late Amora not the early Tanna.. said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices³⁰.

footnotes:
¹² The incense used in the Temple.
¹⁴ There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex.
¹⁵ It seems that the correct text is in Šeqalim:
¹⁶ In the Babli text: “that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary” which in our text is the Yoma
¹⁷ Mishnah Šeqalim
¹⁸ Addition of the corrector from Šeqalim.
¹⁹ Read with Šeqalim:
²⁰ Here one has to read with the Babli Šeqalim:
²¹ Answering his question in the negative. R. Yose holds that practice does not follow Samuel.
²² Animals and supplies bought with Temple tax monies but not used by the end of a fiscal year, which cannot be used for the next year.
²³ It is impossible to redeem animals qualified to be sacrifices, Lev.
²⁴ He requires that the excess sheep be let grazing until either they develop a defect or become disqualified by age; then they may be redeemed like any other disqualified animal. A different tradition Babli Ševuot
²⁵ Bought for public purification sacrifices on holidays and days of the New Moon.
²⁶ Same procedure as for sheep, Note 24.
²⁷ To be used as elevation offerings in periods where the altar otherwise would be empty. These sacrifices not being obligatory cannot be bought with money from the Temple tax; one uses dedicated animals which are not being used for their original purpose. The statement is erroneously missing in the Babli Šeqalim.
²⁸ If they never had been dedicated as purification sacrifices, the rules of the latter do not apply. Accepted as opinion both by Samuel and R. Joḥanan in Babli Ševuot
²⁹ With the Šeqalim
³⁰ Since the stipulation preceded the acquisition of the animals by the Temple, R. Yose’s answer is unnecessary.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:4)

מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. יָכוֹל מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ מְבוֹרָץ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּקֻמְצוֹ. אִי בְּקֻמְצוֹ יָכוֹל יִקְמוֹץ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעֹתָיו. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. הָא כֵיצַד. חוֹפֶה אֶת פַּס יָדוֹ בַּמַּחֲבַת וּבְמַרְחֶשֶׁת וּמוֹחֵק בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן לְמַטָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
³¹11a, *Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata* 9(6).“*His full handful*³². 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, *with his handful*³³. 6:8.. If *with his handful,* I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, *his full handful.* How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan³⁴. 2:5. or frying pan³⁵. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

footnotes:
³¹ Babli 47a, Menaḥot
³² Lev
³³ Lev
³⁴ Lev
³⁵ Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:5)

תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ בְּקֻמְצוֹ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מַה לְהַלָּן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל וְהָכָא קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל. חָפְנַיִם מָהוּ שֶׁיּיֵעָשֶׂה כִכְלִי שָׁרֵת לְקַדֵּשׁ. אַחֵר מָהוּ שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹן וְיִתֵּן לְתוֹךְ חָפְנָיו. מָהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מִידָּה לְחָפְנָיו. בְּכָל חָפְנַיִם מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹ אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶלָּא בְחָפְנָיו. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי שָׁאַל. חָפַן וָמֵת. אָחֵר מָהוּ שֶׁיִיכָּנֵס בְּחָפְנָיו. אִין תֵּימַר. חָפְנַיִם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת לַקּוֹדֶּשׁ. הָדָא אָמְרָה. חָפַן וָמֵת אֵין אָחֵר נִכְנַס בְּחָפְנָיו. אֵין אַחֵר חוֹפֵן וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ חָפְנָיו. וְעוֹשִׂין מִידָּה לְחָפְנָיו. וְאֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל חָפְנַיִם. אִין תֵּימַר. חָפְנַיִם לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת לַקּוֹדֶּשׁ. הָדָא אָמְרָה. חָפַן וָמֵת. אָחֵר נִכְנַס בְּחָפְנָיו. אַחֵר חוֹפֵן וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ חָפְנָיו. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין מִידָּה לְחָפְנָיו. וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל חָפְנַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, you are saying, *his full handful, with his handful,* and here you are saying, *his full handful*³⁶ 16:12), the expression used for the service of the Day of Atonement. It is asserted that the meaning of חָפְנַיִם used in Chapter 16 is identical with קוֹמֶץ used in Chapters 2 and 6, except naturally that the קוֹמֶץ, used in the singular, refers to his right hand only whereas the חָפְנַיִם need both hands.*.* Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since there a deficient handful is disqualified, here also a deficient handful is disqualified. Are his fists considered vessels of service to sanctify³⁷? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist³⁸? Should it be made to measure for his fists³⁹? Do you estimate for all possible fists or you estimate for his fist only? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked: If he took a fistful and died, may another person enter with his fistful⁴⁰? If you are saying that they did not consider his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may enter with his fistful; another person may take the fistful and put it in his fist; one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists⁴¹. If you are saying that they considered his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may not enter with his fistful; another person may not take the fistful and put in his fist; one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.

footnotes:
³⁶ The following text implies that here one has to read וּמְלֹ֣א חָפְנָ֔יו (Lev.
³⁷ The paragraph is R. Joshua ben Levi’s teaching, who asserted before that the incense is compounded in a profane vessel. The question then arises at which moment the incense becomes sanctified to be used in the Temple service, in the hand of the High Priest when he takes it out of the profane cup or in the bowl in which he deposits it. The bowl certainly is a Temple vessel only used for sanctified contents.
³⁸ Babli 49a.
³⁹ “It” is the empty bowl into which the High Priest deposits his fistful of incense. The next sentence really is a repetition of the question here, whether the same vessel is used for all High Priests or not.
⁴⁰ May his successor use his incense, presuming it did not become impure by the death. Babli 49a.
⁴¹ If only the bowl turns the incense into dedicated material, taking the fistful is a necessary action but must not necessarily be done by him personally; therefore also the successor may continue to use the incense taken by the first High Priest. But it is necessary to switch the last two statements, “one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists” to the case that his fists are consecrating, and read here “one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:6)

הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גוֹדְלוֹ. אֲפִילוּ כְּבֶן קִמְחִית שֶׁהָיְתָה יָדוֹ מַחֲזֶקֶת כְּאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין. וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קוֹטְנוֹ. אֲפִילוּ כְּבֶן גַּמְלָא שֶׁלֹּא הָיתָה יָדוֹ מַחֲזֶקֶת אֶלָּא כִשְׁנֵי זֵתִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“A big person according to his bigness,” even like Ben Qimḥit whose hand contained about four *qab*⁴², “and a small person according to his smallness,” even like Ben Gamia, whose hand contained only about two olives.

footnotes:
⁴² About 8 liter.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:7)

הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר מָהוּ. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר. הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר פָּסוּל. מַתְנִיתַה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּאי. קִבֵּל בִּימִינוֹ וְנָתַן בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ יַחֲזִיר לִימִינוֹ. וּשְׂמֹאלֹו לֹא כְזָר הִיא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׂמֹאלוֹ כְּלַפֵּי לִפְנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. כְּלַפֵּי לַחוּץ. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר וְשַׁנְיָיא הִיא מֵאֵילָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. פְּשִׁיטָא יָד לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּהִילּוּךְ. מַתְנִיתַה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי בֵּיבַי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְגַּלְגֵּל כְּלַפֵּי לִפְנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. כְּלַפֵּי לַחוּץ. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר שַׁנְיָיא הִיא הִילּוּךְ מֵאֵילָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. פְּשִׁיטַת יָד עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּהִילּוּךְ. מַתְנִיתַה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ. יִתְלֶה אוֹתוֹ בִזְרוֹעוֹ. אֵינָהּ דֶרֶךְ כְּבוֹד. וְיַחֲלִיף. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. אִם הֶחֱלִיף פָּסוּל. וְיַחְתִּי. אִם הֶחְתִּי מִימִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ כָּשֵׂר. וְאָמַר אוֹף תַּמָּן. וְיַחְתִּי. תַּמָּן אִם הֶחְתִּי פָּסוּל. [אִם הֶחֱלִיף פָּסוּל.] בְּרַם הָכָא אִם הֶחְתִּי כָּשֵׁר. אִם הֶחֱלִיף פָּסוּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen⁴³ 1:15.? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai⁴⁴ 3:2. As a rule, sacral acts by the priests have to be performed with their right hands. Therefore the blood of a sacrifice has to be collected by the Cohen in a sacred vessel held in his right hand; if later he temporarily switches the vessel to his left hand he may return it to his right hand and it remains qualified.: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside⁴⁵. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai:⁴⁶ 3:2. “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan² into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say⁴⁷, if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it⁴⁸? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there⁴⁹ that the vessel could remain in his left hand if it is held on his right hand side below his right hand?, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.]⁵⁰ But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified⁵¹.

footnotes:
⁴³ This question cannot be about the Day of Atonement, where not even an ordinary Cohen may perform one of the duties of the High Priest, but of the regular service in the Temple, except those where the verse explicitly prescribes that a Cohen has to move the object; cf. Lev.
⁴⁴ Mishnah Zevaḥim
⁴⁵ If he returns the vessel to the right hand he increases its distance from the altar; this is not part of the transport of the blood to the altar.
⁴⁶ Mishnah Zevaḥim
² With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple.
⁴⁷ The unanimous opinion of the members of the Academy although there is no tannaitic statement to guide the decision.
⁴⁸ Put the vessel in his left hand under the right hand to support the right hand.
⁴⁹ Can one say in the case from Zevaḥim
⁵⁰ Addition by the corrector; correct but not absolutely necessary.
⁵¹ If the fire pan is in his left hand and the cup with the dry incense powder in his right hand.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:8)

הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיסָן אַחַת אַחַת כִּיפֵּר. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר מִשֵּׁם הַכְנָסָה [יְתֵירָה]. עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן הוּא עוֹבֵר. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אוֹמֵר לֹו. הִיכָּנֵס. וְאַתּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אֶלָּא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנְה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָא כְּדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. עַל אֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן הוּא עוֹבֵר. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנְה. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אוֹמֵר לֹו. צֵא. וְאַתּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אֶלָּא עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry⁵² 16:2.. About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated⁵³ 2:4 (Note 60). The text there, reported in slightly different formulation, seems to be the correct one: “How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.” The improper behavior was that he tarried, not that he entered when pure. This parallels the first case, where the first entry was necessary and therefore legitimate, only the second one is unnecessary and sinful.: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable⁶⁰.” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one.

footnotes:
⁵² An unnecessary entry into the Holiest of Holies is a deadly sin, Lev.
⁵³ Mishnah Ševuot
⁶⁰ In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:1:9)

וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. זֵיכֶר לַדָּבָר. כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אַמָּה טַרַקְסִין. עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים. מָהוּ אַמָּה טַרַקְסִין. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בוֹצְרַיָּיא אָמַר. טִירֶקְסוֹן. מַה מִבִּפְנִים מִבַּחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִן מַה דִכְתִיב וְאַרְבָּעִים בָּאַמָּה הָיָה הַבָּיִת הוּא הַהֵיכָל לִפְנָיי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. מִבִּפְנִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהָכְתִיב וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת בֵּית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. הֲוֵי מִבַּחוּץ. מַה טַעֲמֹון דְּרַבָּנִן. וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרֹכֶת לָכֶם וגו׳. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יֹסֵי. בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלְמַעֲלָן לַקֹּדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלְמַטָּן. וְלֵית לְרַבָּנִן כֵּן. אִית לָן כַּהִיא דְּתַנִּינָן. וְרוֹשֶׁם פִסְיפְּסִין מַבְדִּיל בָּעֲלִיָיה בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְבֵין קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this⁵⁴ 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there⁵⁵ 4:7., “One cubit *taraqsin,* twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit *taraqsin”?* Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside⁵⁶ 8:5 Note 93.. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written⁵⁷ 6:17., *forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple,* it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written⁵⁸ 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall., *he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits,* it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? *The gobelin shall separate for you*⁵⁹ 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this⁶⁰ Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below⁶¹. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated⁶² 4:5., “the impression of pebbles⁶³ distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”

footnotes:
⁵⁴ That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim
⁵⁵ Mishnah Middot
⁵⁶ Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim
⁵⁷ 1K.
⁵⁸ 2Chr.
⁵⁹ Ex.
⁶⁰ In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12.
⁶¹ The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.
⁶² Mishnah Middot
⁶³ Greek ψῆφος.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:1)

**משנה:** הַחִיצוֹנָה פְרוּפָה מִן הַדָּרוֹם וְהַפְּנִימִית מִן הַצָּפוֹן וּמְהַלֵּךְ בֵּינֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן. הִגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן וְהָפַךְ פָּנָיו לַדָּרוֹם הָלַךְ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ עִם הַפָּרוֹכֶת עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָאָרוֹן הִגִּיעַ לָאָרוֹן נוֹתֵן אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַבַּדִּים צָבַר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי גֶחָלִים וְנִתְמַלֵּא הַבַּיִת עָשָׁן. יָצָא וּבָא לוֹ דֶרֶךְ כְּנִיסָתוֹ. מִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה קְצָרָה וְלֹא הָיָה מַאֲרִיךְ בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַבְעִית אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The outer one was tied open from South and the inner one from North. He walks between them until he arrives at the North end. When he arrived at the North end he turns his face to the South; he walks with his left along the gobelin⁴ until he arrives at the Ark. When he came to the Ark he puts the fire-pan between the two beams⁵25:13–15). For the Second Temple, where there was no Ark, see Mishnah 3., he piles the incense on the coals and the entire House is filled with smoke. He leaves and returns in the way he entered⁶. He prays a short prayer⁷ but not prolonging his prayer so as not to frighten Israel⁸.

footnotes:
⁴ The Holiest of Holies being very dark, he guides his way along the inner gobelin with his left hand in which he holds the cold incense powder.
⁵ With which the Ark was carried (Ex.
⁶ He walks backwards with his face towards the Ark inside the Holiest of Holies and towards the North between the two gobelins.
⁷ In the main Temple Hall.
⁸ Who might be afraid that something had happened to him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה וּלְדָרוֹם הָיָה נִכְנַס. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. מִן הַשּׁוּלְחָן וּלְצָפוֹן הָיָה נִכְנַס. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מִמִּזְבֵּחַ הַזָּהָב וְלַמְּנוֹרָה הָיָה נִכְנַס. מְהַלֵּךְ בֵּינֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁהוּא מַגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן. דּוֹחֵק הָיָה בָאַצִּילֵי יָדָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁרְפוּ הַפָּרֹכוֹת. הִגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן וְהָפַךְ פָּנָיו לַדָּרוֹם. חוֹזֵר הָיָה לַאֲחוֹרָיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִרְאֶה כְּמַפְסִיעַ בֵּין הַבַּדִּים. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּף בָּאָרֶץ וְזוֹרְקְהּ בָּאַוֵּיר וְקוֹלְטָהּ בַמַּחֲתָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בּוֹדְדָהּ בְרַגְלוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מְעָרֶה מִתּוֹךְ הַכַּף וְהִיא מְתַמֶּרֶת וְעוֹלָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִיא פוֹסָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ⁶⁴ It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum,⁶⁵ 40:24, 2.5 cubits from the wall, Tosephta 2:12. the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose says, he enters North of the Table⁶⁶ 40:22.. Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum⁶⁷. He walks between them until he reaches the North. He pushes with his elbows so that the gobelins should not be burned. When he arrives at the North he turns his face to the South. He retraces his steps lest he be seen as striding between the beams. How does he do it? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he puts the bowl on the ground, throws it in the air and catches it with the fire-pan⁶⁸. Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup⁶⁹ and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ Starting discussion of Mishnah 2.
⁶⁵ Which is standing at the South wall of the Sanctuary, Ex.
⁶⁶ R. Yose admits only one gobelin. The table was at the North wall, Ex.
⁶⁷ Somewhat North of the candelabrum Tosephta 2:12, Babli 51b.
⁶⁸ He and Samuel read the requirement that the High Priest put “his full fistfuls” of incense into the fire that in the Holiest of Holies he also has to use both his hands to put the incense in the fire, which leaves no hand free to hold the cup, forcing an acrobatic feat. Differently Babli 49b.
⁶⁹ He holds that the biblical requirement is satisfied by using his fists in putting the incense into the cup. Having deposited the fire pan, the High Priest may take the cup into his right hand and empty it into the fire-pan. Opinion not mentioned in the Babli.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:3)

יָצָא וּבָא לֹו כְּדֶרֶךְ כְּנִיסָתוֹ. כְּרִבִּי יֹוסֵה. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילוּ בָעֵי לָא יְכִיל. לָמָּה. שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן אֲחוֹרָיו לַקּוֹדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He leaves and returns in the way he entered.” Following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr, even if he wants he cannot do it. Why? Not to have his back turned to the Holiness⁷⁰.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ There is no problem walking backwards according to R. Yose since he simply backs out. But for R. Meïr when he passes back between the gobelins from the North end to the middle he would turn his back towards the Ark, which is a sign of disrespect. Therefore R. Meïr should require that he back out until he is between the gobelins, then go forward until he is close to half way to the South, turn right (West) to face the Ark, and a little later make another 90° turn and walk backwards until he exits into the Temple hall.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:4)

כְּתִיב וַיָּבֹא שְׁלֹמֹה לַבָּמָה אֲשֶׁר בְּגִבְעוֹן יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם מִירוּשָׁלֵם הָיָה בָא. נֵימַר מִירוּשָׁלֵם לַבָּמָה. אִם מִבָּמָה הָיָה בָא. נֵימַר מִבָּמָה לִירוּשָׁלֵם הָיָה בָא. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְוּדָמָא. לַבָּמָה הָיָה בָא שֶׁלֹּא לִיתֵּן אֲחוֹרָיו לַקּוֹדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written⁷¹ 1:13. In the description of the Chronicler, the Ark was in Jerusalem in a tent erected by David but the Tent of Meeting and Bezalel’s altar were in Gibeon. Since the verse is written at the end of the description of Solomon’s visit to Gibeon, one would have expected “from the high place” מִבָּמָה (as read by LXX, most modern translators, and the Babli 53a), not “to the high place”, לַבָּמָה., *Solomon came to the high place in Gibeon to Jerusalem.* Where do we hold? If he came from Jerusalem, we should say “from Jerusalem to the high place.” If he came from the high place, we should say, “he came from the high place to Jerusalem.” Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he came to the high place not to turn his back to the Holiness⁷².

footnotes:
⁷¹ 2Chr.
⁷² Going to Gibeon from Jerusalem he had his face always turned to face the Ark.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:5)

וּמִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִילָּה קְצָרָה בַבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן. וְכָךְ הָיְתָה תְפִילָּתוֹ שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים בְצֵאתוֹ בְשָׁלוֹם מִן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ י״י אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא עָלֵינוּ גָלוּת לֹא בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְלֹא בַשָּׁנָה הַזֹּאת. וְאִם יָצְאָה עָלֵינוּ גָלוּת בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה אוֹ בַשָּׁנָה הַזֹּאת תְּהָא גָלוּתֵינוּ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁלְתּוֹרָה. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ י״י אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא עָלֵינוּ חִסָּרוֹן לֹא בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְלֹא בַשָּׁנָה הַזֹּאת. וְאִם יָצָא עָלֵינוּ חִסָּרוֹן בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה אוֹ בַשָּׁנָה הַזֹּאת יְהֵא חֶסְרוֹנֵינוּ בְחִסָּרוֹן שֶׁלְמִצְווֹת. [יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקֵינוּ וֵאלֹקֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא הַשָּׁנָה הַזֹּאת שְׁנַת זוֹל. שְׁנַת שׂוֹבַע. שְׁנַת מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן. שְׁנַת גְּשׁוּמָה וּשְׁחוּנָה וּטְלוּלָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא יִצְטָרְכוּ עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵלּוּ לָאֵלּוּ. וְאַל תִּפְנֵה לִתְפִילַּת יוֹצְאֵי דְרָכִים. רַבָּנִן דְּקַסָרִין אָמְרִין. וְעַל עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יִגְבְּהוּ שְׂרָרָה זוּ עַל גַּב זוּ]. וְעַל אַנְשֵׁי הַשָּׁרוֹן הָיָה אוֹמֵר. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ י״י אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָשׂוּ בָתֵּיהֶן קִבְרֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He prays a short prayer.” And this was the High Priest’s prayer on the Day of Atonement when he left the Holiness in peace: “May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that there shall be no exile decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if exile was decreed over us today or this year that our exile be at a place of Torah. May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that there shall be no loss decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if loss was decreed over us today or this year that it be loss for good deeds. [May it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that this year be a year of cheapness, a year of satiety, a year of trade, a year of rains, sunshine, and dew, and that your people Israel should not need one another, and do not turn to the prayer of travellers. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, and on your people Israel that they not erect dominion one over the other.]⁷³ 20(4). Since there, instead of “The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, and on your people Israel that they not erect dominion one over the other” one reads, “the rabbis of Caesarea were saying about our brothers in Caesarea, that they should not be oppressed by officials,” it seems that both the original Yerushalmi text as quite certainly the corrector’s addition (and similarly the Babli’s text in *Taˋanit* 24b) are not meant to prescribe a prayer text to the High Priest but indicate the text of the High Priest’s prayer in the re-enactment of his service in the *Musaf-prayer* of the Day of Atonement and describe the political situation in the 4 Cent. C. E..
The undesirable prayer of travellers is one for absence of rains in the rainy season. And for the people of Sharon he was saying, may it be the will before You, Eternal our God and God of our fathers, that their houses not turn into their graves⁷⁴ 20(4) the text reads: “The rabbis of the South (meaning of Lydda) said about our brethren in the Sharon, that their houses should not turn into their graves.” This also is from the Yerushalmi *Musaf* service.”.

footnotes:
⁷³ The text in brackets is a corrector’s addition; it is from a source close to Lev. rabba
⁷⁴ Their adobe houses are in danger of collapse during the rainy season. In Lev. rabba


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:6)

וְלֹא הָיָה מַאֲרִיךְ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַבְעִית אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַעֲשֶׁה בְאֶחָד שֶׁהֶאֱרִיךְ וְגָמְרוּ לְהִיכָּנֵס אַחֲרָיו. אָמְרוּ. שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק הָיָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. לָמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּה. אָמַר לָהֶן. מִתְפַּלֵּל הָיִיתִי עַל מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם שֶׁלֹּא יֵיחָרֵב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא הָיִיתָ צָרִיךְ לְהַאֲרִיךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“He was not prolonging his prayer not to frighten Israel.” ⁷⁵ It happened that one prolonged and they decided to enter after him⁷⁶. One said, it was Simeon the Just. They said to him, why did you prolong? He answered them, I was praying for the Sanctuary of your God that it should not be destroyed. They said to him, nevertheless, you should not have prolonged.

footnotes:
⁷⁵ Babli 53b
⁷⁶ To search for his corpse.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:2:7)

אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שִׁימֵּשׁ שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְהוּנָּה גְדוֹלָה. וּבַשָּׁנָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה אָמַר לָהֶן. בַּשָּׁנָה הַזֹּאת אֲנִי מֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. מֵאֵיכַן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר לָהֶן. כָּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה שֶׁהָיִיתִי נִכְנָס לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים הָיָה זָקֵן אֶחָד לְבוּשׁ לְבָנִים וְעָטוּף לְבָנִים נִכְנָס עִמִּי וְיוֹצֵא עָמִּי. וּבַשָּׁנָה הַזּוֹ נִכְנָס עִמִּי וְלֹא יָצָא עִמִּי. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. וְהָכְתִיב וְכָל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ עַד צֵאתוֹ. אֲפִילוּ אוֹתָן שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן וּדְמוּת פְּנֵיהֶם פְּנֵי אָדָם לֹא יִהְיוּ בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. אָמַר לוֹן. מַה אֲמַר לִי דַהֲוָה בַּר נַשׁ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָיָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁷109b; Tosephta *Sotah* 13:8.. The first sentence is quoted in the next Chapter, 6:3. Simeon the Just served Israel as High Priest for forty years, and in the last year he told them, in this year I am going to die. They asked him, from where do you know? He said to them, every year when I entered the Holiest of Holies, an old man dressed in white and his head wrapped in white entered with me and left with me. But this year he entered with me but did not leave with me. ⁷⁸ They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is it not written⁷⁹ 16:17., *nobody shall be in the Tent of Meeting during his coming to atone in the sanctuary until he leaves,* not even those about whom it is written⁸⁰ 1:10., *the shapes of their faces are human shapes* shall not be in the Tent of Meeting? He answered them, who tells me that it was a person? I am saying that it was the Holy One, praise to Him⁸¹.

footnotes:
⁷⁷ Babli 39b, Menaḥot
⁷⁸ Cf Chapter 1, Notes 220 ff.
⁷⁹ Lev.
⁸⁰ Ez.
⁸¹ In the apparition known as Shekhina.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** מִשֶּׁנִּיטַּל הָאָרוֹן אֶבֶן הָיְתָה שָׁם מִימוֹת הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וּשְׁתִיָיה הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת גְּבוֹהָ מִן הָאָרֶץ שָׁלשָׁה אֶצְבָּעוֹת וְעָלֶיהָ הָיָה נוֹתֵן:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** From when the Ark was removed there was a stone there from the time of the earlier prophets; it was called Foundation, higher than the ground by three finger widths. On it he deposed it⁸².

footnotes:
⁸² The fire pan which in Mishnah 2 was described as being put down between the beams of the Ark.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:3:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִיטַּל הָאָרוֹן הָיָה נִכְנַס וְיוֹצֵא לְאוֹרוֹ שֶׁלְאָרוֹן. מִשֶּׁנִּיטָל הָאָרוֹן הָיָה מְגַשֵּׁשׁ וְנִכְנָס מְגַשֵּׁשׁ וְיוֹצֵא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: Before the Ark was hidden⁹² 6:1–2. he entered and exited by the light of the Ark. After the Ark was removed he was groping and entering, groping and leaving.

footnotes:
⁹² Babli 53b/54a; cf. Šeqalim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:3:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ אֶבֶן שְׁתִיָיה. שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הוּשְׁתָּה הָעוֹלָם. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא אֶבֶן שְׁתִיָיה. שֶׁמִּמֶּנָּה הוּשְׁתָּה הָעוֹלָם. כָּתוּב מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֵל אֱלֹהִים י״י דִּבֶּר וַיִּקְרָא אָרֶץ וגו׳. מִצִּיּוֹן מִכְלַל יוֹפִי אֱלֹהִים הוֹפִיעַ. וְאוֹמֵר הִנְנִי יִסַּד בְּצִיּוֹן אָבֶן וגו׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁹³ Rebbi Joḥanan said, why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated:⁹⁴ “Why is it called Foundation Stone? Because on it the world is based.. It is written⁹⁵ 50:1–2., *a psalm of Asaph; the power, God, the Eternal, spoke and called the earth,* etc., *from Zion, the perfection of beauty, God appears.* And it says⁹⁶ 28:16., *behold I founded in Zion a stone,* etc.”

footnotes:
⁹³ Babli 54b.
⁹⁴ Tosephta 2:14.
⁹⁵ Ps.
⁹⁶ Is.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:1)

**משנה:** נָטַל אֶת הַדָּם מִמִּי שֶׁהָיָה מְמָרֵס בּוֹ נִכְנַס לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנַס וְעָמַד לַמָּקוֹם שֶׁעָמַד וְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן וְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַזּוֹת לֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. וְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה. אַחַת. אַחַת וְאַחַת. אַחַת וּשְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת וְשָׁלשׁ. אַחַת וְאַרְבַּע. אַחַת וְחָמֵשׁ. אַחַת וָשֵׁשׁ. אַחַת וָשֶׁבַע. יָצָא וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל כַּן הַזָּהָב שֶׁהָיָה בַהֵיכָל: הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר שְׁחָטוֹ קִיבֵּל בַּמִּזְרָק אֶת דָּמוֹ. נִכְנַס בַּמָּקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנַס וְעָמַד בַּמָּקוֹם שֶׁעָמַד וְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן וְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַזּוֹת לֹא לְמַטָּן וְלֹא לְמַעְלָן אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. וְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה וכו׳. יָצָא וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל כַּן הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהָיָה בַהֵיכָל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא כַן אֶחָד בִּלְבָד. נָטַל דַּם הַפָּר וְהִנִּיחַ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הָאָרוֹן מִבַּחוּץ אַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן וְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַזּוֹת לֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. וְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה. נָטַל דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְהִנִּיחַ דַּם הַפָּר וְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הָאָרוֹן מִבַּחוּץ אַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן וְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַזּוֹת לֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. וְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה. עֵירָה דַם הַפָּר לְתוֹךְ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְנָתַן אֶת הַמָּלֵא לְתוֹךְ הָרֵיקָן: וְיָצָא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְכִפֵּר עָלָיו זֶה מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He took the blood from the one who was stirring it, entered to the place where he had entered⁸³, and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards⁸⁴ 16:14), once on the cover of the Ark and seven times in front of it.. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking⁸⁵. And so was he counting: One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. He left and put it down on the golden pedestal which was in the Temple.
They brought him the he-goat, he slaughtered it and received its blood in a bowl. He entered to the place where he had entered⁸³, and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend downwards nor upwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting, etc.⁸⁶ He left and put it down on the second pedestal which was in the Temple. Rebbi Jehudah says, only one pedestal was there.
He took the blood of the bull, and put down the blood of the he-goat⁸⁷, and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside⁸⁸ and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting⁸⁶. He took the blood of the he-goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting⁸⁶. He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat and emptied the full vessel into the empty one⁸⁹. *He shall go out to the altar which is before the Eternal*⁹⁰ 16:18/*,* that is the golden altar⁹¹.

footnotes:
⁸³ The Holiest of Holies.
⁸⁴ As the verse prescribes (Lev.
⁸⁵ Lifting his finger to let a drop fly off, and then dropping the finger for another drop.
⁸³ The Holiest of Holies.
⁸⁶ As detailed in Mishnah 4.
⁸⁷ This Mishnah follows R. Jehudah who insists that there was only one pedestal; therefore the bowl with the bull’s blood had to be lifted before the one with the he-goat’s blood could be deposited.
⁸⁸ On the gobelin in the Temple Hall, just opposite the place of the Ark in the Holiest of Holies.
⁸⁶ As detailed in Mishnah 4.
⁸⁶ As detailed in Mishnah 4.
⁸⁹ In order to improve the mixing of the two kinds of blood.
⁹⁰ Lev.
⁹¹ The incense altar in the Temple Hall.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:2)

**הלכה:** מָהוּ כְמַצְלִיף. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. כִּמְטַוְורֵד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What means כְמַצְלִיף? Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Like one who whips⁹⁷ reads כמטברר and explains “moves his hand towards the navel.”.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ Explanation of the Babli. Arukh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְעֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְמוֹר הַזִּיּוֹתָיו מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁבַע. וְהָא קָתַנֵּי. שֶֶׁבַע וָאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי בוּן. כָּתוּב אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפּוֹרֶת שֶׁבַע. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר יַזֶּה. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַזָּיָיה רִאשׁוֹנָה נִמְנֵית עִמָּהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err⁹⁸? Babli 55a.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”⁹⁹. But was it not stated¹⁰⁰, “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written¹⁰¹ 16:14; cf. Note 84., *before the cover .. seven.* Why does the verse say, *he shall sprinkle?* That the first sprinkling should be counted with them¹⁰².

footnotes:
⁹⁸ This refers to the way of counting as explained in Mishnah 4. Why does he have to count 1+n
⁹⁹ Since in all he has to sprinkle 8 times, it is preferable to end with “7” which is an odd number and means “luck”.
¹⁰⁰ The prefix ק is Babylonian Aramaic. The version in which the second number precedes the first is R. Jehudah’s in Tosephta 2:14, R. Meïr’s in the Babli 55a.
¹⁰¹ Lev.
¹⁰² Sprinkling is mentioned separately for the blood on the cover of the Ark and the seven times in front of the Ark. Therefore they have to be mentioned separately in counting. Babli 55a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:4)

כָּתוּב וְהִזָּה אוֹתוֹ עַל הַכַּפּוֹרֶת. יָכוֹל עַל גַּגָּהּ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לִפְנֵי הַכַּפּוֹרֶת. יָכוֹל עַל מִצְחָהּ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עַל וְלִפְנֵי. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה אָמַר. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. וְהִזָּה אוֹתוֹ עַל הַכַּפּוֹרֶת וְלִפְנֵי הַכַּפּוֹרֶת. מַה כַּפּוֹרֶת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן. עַל מִצְחָהּ לֹא עַל גַּגָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. אַף כַּפּוֹרֶת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עַל מִצְחָהּ לֹא עַל גַּגָּהּ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִיסְבּוֹר סְבַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. הַזָּיוֹת שָׁעִיר שֶׁלְמַעֲלָה לְמֵידוֹת מֵהַזָּיוֹת פָּר שֶׁלְמַעֲלָן. וְאֵינָהּ כֵן. אֶלָּא הַזָּיוֹת [שָׁעִיר] שֶׁלְמַעֲלָן לְמֵידוֹת מֵהַזָּיוֹת פָּר שֶׁלְמַטָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written¹⁰³ 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat., *he shall sprinkle it on the cover.* I could think on its top, the verse says, *in front of the cover.* I could think on its front, the verse says, *on, in front of*¹⁰⁴. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: *he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover.* Since “the cover” mentioned there¹⁰⁵ and *seven times in front of the cover.* means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here¹⁰⁶ means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull¹⁰⁷:

footnotes:
¹⁰³ Lev.
¹⁰⁴ Therefore the blood of the he-goat must be sprinkled both on and in front of the cover. No numbers are indicated.
¹⁰⁵ About the bull, where it is spelled out (v. 14) that the High Priest with his finger sprinkles to the East towards the front of the cover
¹⁰⁶ About the he-goat’s blood (v. 15).
¹⁰⁷ Therefore the disagreement between R. Zeˋira and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac remains open.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:5)

וְהִזָּה אוֹתוֹ [לִפְנֵי הַכַּפּוֹרֶת]. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן אַחַת לְמַעֲלָן. וְלִפְנֵי הַכַּפּוֹרֶת. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה. הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָן. נֶאֲמַר מַתַּן דָּמִים בְּפָר לְמַטָּן. וְנֶאֲמַר מַתַּן דָּמִים בְּשָׂעִיר לְמַטָּן. מַה מַתַּן דָּמִים אֲמוּרִין בְּפָר לְמַטָּן שֶׁבַע אַף מַתַּן דָּמִים אֲמוּרִין בְּשָׂעִיר לְמַטָּן שֶׁבַע. (הָא) [אוֹ לְכָה] לָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ הַזּוֹ. נֶאֶמְרוּ דָמִים לְמַעֲלָן וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָמִים לְמַטָּן. מַה דָּמִים אֲמוּרִין בּוֹ לְמַעֲלָן אַחַת אַף דָּמִים אֲמוּרִין בּוֹ לְמַטָּן אַחַת. נִרְאֶה לְמִי דוֹמֶה. דָּנִין שֶׁלְמַטָּן מִשֶּׁלְמַטָּן. וְאֵין דָּנִין שֶׁלְמַטָּן מִשֶּׁלְמַעֲלָן. אוֹ לְכָה לָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ הַזּוֹ. דָּנִין דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר. וְאֵין דָּנִין דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר מִדַּם הַפָּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעָשָׂה אֶת דָּמוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְדַם הַפָּר. מַה דַם הַפָּר לְמַטָּן שֶׁבַע אַף דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְמַטָּה שֶׁבַע. וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה לִיתֵּן מִדַּם הַפָּר לְמַעֲלָן. נֶאֲמַר מַתַּן דָּמִים בְּשָׂעִיר לְמַעֲלָן וְנֶאֲמַר מַתַּן דָּמִים בַּפָּר לְמַעֲלָן. מַה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בְּשָׂעִיר לְמַעֲלָן אָחָת אַף מַתַּן דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּר לְמַעֲלָן אָחָת. אוֹ לְכָה לָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ הַזּוֹ. נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַטָּן. נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַעֲלָן. מַה דָּמִים אֲמוּרִין בּוֹ לְמַטָּה שֶׁבַע אַף דָּמִים אֲמוּרִין בּוֹ לְמַעֲלָן שֶׁבַע. נִרְאֶה לְמִי דוֹמֶה. דָּנִין שֶׁלְמַעֲלָן מִשֶּׁלְמַעֲלָן. וְאֵין דָּנִין שֶׁלְמַעֲלָן מִשֶּׁלְמַטָּן. אוֹ לְכָה לָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ הַזּוֹ. דָּנִין דַּם הַפָּר מִדַּם הַפָּר. וְאֵין דָּנִין דַּם הַפָּר מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעָשָׂה אֶת דָּמוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְדַם הַפָּר. שֶׁיִהְיוּ כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו שָׁוִין. מַה דַם הַפָּר לְמַטָּן שֶׁבַע אַף דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְמַטָּן שֶׁבַע. מַה דַם הַשָּׂעִיר לְמַעֲלָן אָחָת אַף דַּם הַפָּר לְמַעֲלָן אָחָת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰⁸ 3(3–7), Babli 55a.*“He shall sprinkle it*¹⁰³ 16:15, about the blood of the he-goat.*, [in front of the* *cover*]¹⁰⁹, this teaches that he gives a single one upwards¹¹⁰. *In front of the cover,* I do not know how many¹¹¹ 16:15.. So I am arguing: It mentions giving the bull’s blood downwards, and it mentions giving the he-goat’s blood downwards. Since giving the bull’s blood downwards as mentioned is seven times¹¹² 16:14., so giving the he-goat’s blood downwards as mentioned must be seven times. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned upwards and blood is mentioned downwards. Since the blood mentioned upwards is once, so the blood mentioned downwards must be once. Let us see to what it is comparable. One argues downwards from downwards; one does not argue downwards from upwards. Or go in the following way: One argues he-goat’s blood from he-goat’s blood; but one does not argue he-goat’s blood from bull’s blood. The verse says, *he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood.* Since the bull’s blood is downwards seven times, also the he-goat’s blood is downwards seven times. But I do not know how many times to give the bull’s blood upwards. Giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the he-goat and giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the bull. Since giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the he-goat is once, so giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the bull is once. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned downwards; blood is mentioned upwards. Since the blood mentioned downwards is seven, so the blood mentioned upwards must be seven. Let us see to what it is similar. One argues upwards from upwards; one does not argue upwards from downwards. Or go in the following way: One argues bull’s blood from bull’s blood; but one does not argue bull’s blood from he-goat’s blood. The verse says, *he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood,* that all its works be the same. Since the bull’s blood is seven times downwards, also the he-goat’s blood is seven times downwards. Since the he-goat’s blood is once upwards, also the bull’s blood is once upwards¹¹³.”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ Sifra Aḥare Parashah
¹⁰³ Lev.
¹⁰⁹ Unjustified addition by the corrector.
¹¹⁰ The singular “it” implies a single sprinkling.
¹¹¹ No numbers are mentioned in Lev.
¹¹² Explicit in Lev.
¹¹³ The number of sprinklings are uniquely determined, upwards by inference from v. 15, downwards explicitly in v.14.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:6)

הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. צָרִיךְ לְכַוֵּין כְּנֶגֶד הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי נֶחֶמְיָה. לְפִי שֶׁמָּצָאנוּ בַּפָּר הַבָּא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה עָל הַפָּרוֹכֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מַזֶּה. יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי י״י. וְאֵיכָן הָיָה. לִפְנִים מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי י״י. הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
*The holiness*¹¹⁴ 16:16.*.* He has to aim vis-a-vis the holiness¹¹⁵. ¹¹⁶ 3(7–8). Babli 59b.“Rebbi Nehemiah said, since we find about the bull which comes for all commandments¹¹⁷ 4:2) to describe the purification offerings required for an anointed High Priest and the High Court; cf. Introduction to Tractate *Horaiot.* that he stands before the altar and sprinkles on the gobelin at the moment of his sprinkling¹¹⁸4:5), to sprinkle from it seven times on the gobelin (v.6), and without moving give blood on the four corners of the incense altar (v.7), it is clear that he has to stand in front of the altar and sprinkle the blood long distance in the direction of the gobelin., I could think that here it is the same; the verse says¹¹⁹ 16:18: *He shall exit to the altar which is before the Eternal.*, *which is before the Eternal.* Where was he¹²⁰? Inside of the altar. Or does he speak only of the outer altar? The verse says, *which is before the Eternal.* Therefore he only speaks of the inner altar¹²¹.”

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Lev.
¹¹⁵ This explains the statement of Mishnah 6 that blood sprinkled on the gobelin in the Temple Hall must be applied at the spot in front of the Ark.
¹¹⁶ Sifra Aḥare Pereq
¹¹⁷ This is the expression of the verse (Lev.
¹¹⁸ Since the High Priest is commanded to bring the blood into the Sanctuary (Lev.
¹¹⁹ Lev.
¹²⁰ Coming from the Holiest of Holies the High Priest stands between the gobelin and the altar.
¹²¹ Which is standing in the Temple hall directly opposite the ark in the Holiest of Holies.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:7)

הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּפָּר מָשִׁיחַ וְעֵדָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּפָר וְשָׁעִיר שֶׁלְיֹום הִַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַּנֵּי. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ בְרוֹמֵי מְלֵיאָה טִיפִּין שֶׁלְדָּם. אָמַרְתִּי. אֵילּוּ מִן הַדָּמִים שֶׁהָיוּ מַזִּין עָלֶיהָ בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. הָדָא אָמְרָה. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ. [וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַא. אֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹגֵעַ.] (וְ)אִם נָגַע נָגַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch¹²². Where do they disagree? About the bull and the he-goat of the day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, it needs to touch. There are Tannaim: it does not need to touch¹²³. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome¹²⁴ full of drops of blood. I said, these are of the blood sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement. This implies that it needs to touch. [Even if you say that it does not need to touch]¹²⁵, (but)¹²⁶ if it touched, it touched.

footnotes:
¹²² Since the High Priest is standing too far away from the gobelin.
¹²³ The disagreement between R. Zeˋira and R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac is a much older controversy.
¹²⁴ Babli 37a; cf. 4:1 Note 40. Tosephta 2:14.
¹²⁵ Addition by the corrector; the argument could be implied by the scribe’s text. The form תימא, derived from the Accadic/Babylonian Aramaic root אמא “to speak”, is impossible in a Yerushalmi text.
¹²⁶ Scribe’s text.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:8)

נָתַן מִכְּלִי קוֹדֶשׁ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי חוֹל פָּסַל. הָא מִכְּלִי קוֹדֶשׁ לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי קוֹדֶשׁ לֹא פָסַל אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָה אָמְרָה כֵן. עֵירָה דַם הַפָּר לְתוֹךְ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר. מַה אַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. נֵימַר. מִדַּם הַפָּר שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא לְתוֹךְ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר שֶׁהוּא רֵיקָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עֵירָה דַם הַפָּר לְתוֹךְ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר מָלֵא. מִיכָּן וָהֵילַךְ חוֹזֵר ובּוֹלְלָן לְתוֹךְ כְּלִי אַחֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּבָּלְלוּ כָל צוֹרְכָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If one gave from a sanctified vessel¹²⁷ to a profane vessel he disqualified¹²⁸ 3:2 states that the blood will be qualified if returned to a sanctified vessel. The Babli has another reading of the question, 58a.. Does this imply that from a sanctified vessel to a sanctified vessel it remains qualified¹²⁹? Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah implies this: “He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, could we say, the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in an empty vessel¹³⁰? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he poured the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in a full vessel; after that he again mixes them into another vessel¹³¹ to make a perfect mixture.

footnotes:
¹²⁷ A vessel dedicated to the Temple service.
¹²⁸ The disqualification is not absolute since Mishnah Zevaḥim
¹²⁹ This question is asked not for the day of Atonement but for all year round. Does blood received in a sanctified vessel have to be brought to the altar in this vessel or not?
¹³⁰ The Mishnah does not prove anything since the second vessel is not empty; the second vessel is not a replacement of the first.
¹³¹ Which in the Mishnah is the original vessel of the bull’s blood, but for the mixture it is a new vessel. Therefore in this case one is required to pour blood from the original sanctified vessel into another sanctified vessel. This proves R. Haggai’s point.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:9)

מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא זָקוּק לְהֶעָרוֹת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנָתַן מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְעוּרָבִין. יָכוֹל מִזֶּה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּמִזֶּה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל קַרְנֹתָיו אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה. אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה הוּא מְכַפֵּר. וְאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר שְׁתַּיִם בַּשָּׁנָה. אוֹ נֵימַר. דַּם הַפָּר אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה. לֹא שְׁתַּיִם בַּשָּׁנָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם. אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה הוּא מְכַפֵּר. וְאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר שְׁתַּיִם בַּשָּׁנָה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁלְּמַטָּן שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לְהֶעָרוֹת. דִּכְתִיב [שֶׁבַע] וָלֹא אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From where that he is required to pour out¹³²? The verse says¹³³ 16:18, misquoted., *he shall give of the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat,* when they are mixed. I could think each one by itself, the verse says¹³⁴ 30:10., *Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly,* he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly¹³⁵. Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, *from the blood of the atoning purification offering*¹³⁴ 30:10.*,* he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward¹³⁶ 16:19 that the High Priest sprinkle on its top “seven times of the blood.” Since no mention is made of bull or he-goat, the verse must refer to the mixed blood. *Sifra Aḥare Pereq* 4(8). he has to pour¹³⁷, for it is written *seven,* not fourteen.

footnotes:
¹³² Why must the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat be mixed before given on the corners of the golden altar; Mishnah 6. The Babli does not necessarily accept the Mishnah, 57b–58a.
¹³³ Lev.
¹³⁴ Ex.
¹³⁵ Not even one directly after the other.
¹³⁴ Ex.
¹³⁶ Regarding the incense altar, it is required by Lev.
¹³⁷ I. e., to mix.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:10)

קִיבֵּל מִדַּם הַפָּר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹסוֹת וּמִדַּם הַשָׂעִיר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹסוֹת לִיתֵּן מֵאֶחָד עַל הַבַּדִּין. מֵאֶחָד עַל הַפָּרֹכוֹת. מֵאֶחָד עַל מִזָבַּח הַזָּהָב. אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן זָקוּק לְהֵעָרוֹת. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מְחַשֵּׁב חֲצִי כַפָּרָה. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. קִיבֵּל מִדַּם הַפָּר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹסוֹת [וּמִדַּם הַשָׂעִיר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹסוֹת] לִיתֵּן מֵאֶחָד עַל הַבַּדִּים. וּמֵאֶחָד עַל הַפָּרֹכוֹת. וּמֵאֶחָד עַל מִזָבַּח הַזָּהָב. אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן הוּא זָקוּק לְהֵעָרוֹת. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי זְעוּרָה וּדְרִבִּי הִילָא. דְאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour¹³⁸? May a person think of half an atonement¹³⁹ 1:1), the blood must be received with the intent to be used for full atonement. The objection contradicts the anonymous Tanna in Mishnah 9, for whom all actions of the day separate atonements. As seen from the next section, the objection and the reformulation can be disregarded.? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,]¹⁴⁰ to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed:

footnotes:
¹³⁸ To mix for sprinkling on the top of the golden altar. It is obvious that the discussion here presupposes that there be no mixing for giving the blood on the corners of the golden altar; otherwise there would be only two cups possible.
¹³⁹ Since the he-goat was made a purification sacrifice (Chapter 4 Note 5) and is disqualified if the blood was not received with the appropriate intention (Mishnah Zevaḥim
¹⁴⁰ Addition of the corrector which must be deleted following the argument of the preceding Note.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:11)

הִגְרִיל שְׁלֹשָׁה זוּגוֹת לִיתֵּן מֵאֶחָד עַל הַבַּדִּים. מֵאֶחָד עַל הַפָּרֹכוֹת. מֵאֶחָד עַל מִזָבַּח הַזָּהָב. אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן מִשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה אָמַר. לְכַפֶּר עָלָיו. אֵת שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר בּוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ מִשְׁתַלֵּחַ. אֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר אֵין חֲבֵירוֹ מִשְׁתַלֵּחַ. רִבִּי הִילָא אָמַר. לְכַפֶּר עָלָיו. אֵת שֶׁהוּא גוֹמֵר בּוֹ כָל הַכַּפָּרָה חֲבֵירוֹ מִשְׁתַלֵּחַ. אֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוֹמֵר בּוֹ כָל הַכַּפָּרָה אֵין חֲבֵירוֹ מִשְׁתַלֵּחַ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִשְׁתַּלְּחִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא. אֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַלֵּחַ אֶלָּא אַחֲרוֹן בִּלְבַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁴¹ If he drew lots for three pairs¹⁴², to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, *to atone on him*¹⁴³ 16:10.*,* one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, *to atone on him,* one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away.

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ This paragraph is repeated in Halakhah 6:1 (6).
¹⁴² Instead of one pair of he-goats there were three; for each group of sprinkling one was slaughtered while the other was alive.
¹⁴³ Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:12)

וְהָכָא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן הוּא זָקוּק לְהֵעָרוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא. אֵינוֹ זָקוּק לְהֵעָרוֹת אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And here, in Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, he must pour all three; in Rebbi Hila’s opinion, he must pour only the one from which he sprinkled¹⁴⁴.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁴ On the corners of the altar.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:13)

קִיבֵּל דַּם הַפָּר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹסוֹת וּמִדַּם הַשָׂעִיר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה כוֹסוֹת לִיתֵּן מֵאֶחָד עַל הַבַּדִּין. מֵאֶחָד עַל הַפָּרֹכוֹת. מֵאֶחָד עַל מִזָבַּח הַזָּהָב. אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן נִשְׁפָּךְ עַל הָיְּסוֹד. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי וּדְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דִּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. חַטָּאת שֶׁקִיבֵּל דָמָהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה כוֹסוֹת. נָתַן מִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד. מְנַיִין שֶׁכּוּלָּם נִשְׁפָּכִין עַל הַיְּסוֹד. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. אֶת דָּמָהּ יִשְׁפֹּךְ. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ לֹא נָתַן מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן מַתָּן אַרְבַּע יְהוּ כוּלָּם נִשְׁפָּכִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְאֶת כָּל דָּמָהּ יִשְׁפֹּךְ. הָא כֵיצַד. הוּא נִשְׁפָּךְ עַל הָיְּסוֹד וְהֵן נִשְׁפָּכִין לָאַמָּה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מְנַיִין אֲפִילוּ לֹא נָתַן מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶלָּא מַתָּן אַרְבַּע יְהוּ כוּלָּן נִשְׁפָּכִין עַל הָיְּסוֹד. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְאֶת דָּמָהּ יִשְׁפֹּךְ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. כּוּלְּהֹן נִשְׁפָּכִין עַל הַיְּסוֹד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי. אֵין לָךְ נִשְׁפָּךְ עַל הָיְּסוֹד אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is poured into the base¹⁴⁵ 16, it is understood from *Lev.* 4 that the blood remaining after some of it was sprinkled on the four corners of the large altar is poured onto the base of the altar (*Lev*.4:25,30,34). The same is done with the blood of the bull of the anointed and the community (*Lev*.4:7, 18) and therefore also applies to the purification offerings of the Day of Atonement.? The disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as they disagreed: ¹⁴⁶10(4–6), Babli 57b, *Zevaḥim* 34b.“A purification offering whose blood was received in four cups and from each one he gave one giving¹⁴⁷, from where that all of them are poured on the base? The verse says¹⁴⁸.4:25 (it should be דָּמוֹ not דָּמָהּ. All quotes from v. 25 should be replaced by v. 30,34 and vice-versa., *and its blood he shall pour.* I could think that if he {only}¹⁴⁹ gave all four givings from one of them, all of them should be poured, the verse says,¹⁵⁰.4:30,34. See Note 148. *and all its blood he shall pour.* How is this? It is poured on the base, and they are emptied into the canal¹⁵¹, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: From where that even if he gave all four givings from one of them, all of them shall be poured on the base? The verse says, *and its blood he shall pour.* In Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, all are poured into the base. In Rebbi’s opinion, only the one from which he sprinkled is poured¹⁵².

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ While it is not mentioned in Lev.
¹⁴⁶ Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq
¹⁴⁷ The “giving” is sprinkling of blood on one corner of the large altar.
¹⁴⁸ A misquote from Lev
¹⁴⁹ Word missing in the text, added from the parallels and needed for logical consistency.
¹⁵⁰ Lev
¹⁵¹ The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool.
¹⁵² In Rebbi’s opinion, only the actual use of blood in a vessel qualifies the remainder to be poured on the base of the altar; in R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon’s opinion, all eligible blood in a Temple vessel which is not disqualified is qualified to be poured on the base.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:4:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:4:14)

חֲבֵרַיָּא אָמְרֵי. נִתְפַּגֵּל זֶה וְנִתְפַּגֵּל זֶה. אָבְדוּ אֵימוּרָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה מַזִּין עַל אֵימוּרָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּפַר מָשִׁיחַ וְעֵדָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִשֶּׁל שְׁנֵיהֶן. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. אֵימוּרִין כְּשֵׁירִין שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִפְסוּלִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִשֶּׁל כְּשֵׁירִין. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּדַם שְׁנֵי חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי. רוֹאִין אֶת הַדָּם. אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִזֶּה וּכְדֵי מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִזֶּה כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם לָאו פָּסוּל. וְחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֲפִילוּ אֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה אַחַת [מִשֶּׁל שְׁנֵיהֵֶן]. כָּשֵׁר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי. יֵשׁ שֵׁיעוּר לַמַּתָּנוֹת. עַל דַּעְתִּין דְּרַבָּנִן. אֵין שֵׁיעוּר לַמַּתָּנוֹת. הָדָא אָמְרָה. נִתְפַּגֵּל זֶה נִתְפַּגֵּל זֶה. אָבְדוּ אֵימוּרָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה מַזִּין עַל אֵימוּרָיו שֶׁלָּזֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The colleagues say¹⁵³, if one becomes *piggul*¹⁵⁴ is consumption of sacrifices out of their allotted time (*Lev.* 19::7) our out of the proper place. Since a sacrifice cannot become disqualified retroactively, the technical term *piggul* is used to describe the disqualification caused by the intent of future *piggul* in any of the required actions in processing the sacrifice (slaughter, reception of the blood, bringing to the altar, sprinkling on the corners). Processing *piggul* sacrifice is sinful; therefore blood containing *piggul* blood cannot be used; it is disqualified.*,* so does the other; if the parts¹⁵⁵ of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community¹²², unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving¹⁴⁷ of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. ¹⁵⁶ 95a. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them]¹⁵⁷ it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings¹⁵⁸. This implies¹⁵⁹, if one becomes *piggul,* so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

footnotes:
¹⁵³ They have a tradition that Rebbi disagrees also if the blood of two purification offerings were mixed together in one vessel.
¹⁵⁴ Piggul
¹⁵⁵ The fat which is forbidden for human consumption, cf. Chapter 5:2, Note 50.
¹²² Since the High Priest is standing too far away from the gobelin.
¹⁴⁷ The “giving” is sprinkling of blood on one corner of the large altar.
¹⁵⁶ Babli Zevaḥim
¹⁵⁷ Corrector’s addition.
¹⁵⁸ If Rebbi requires visibly enough blood for two givings, he must require more than a tiny drop for each giving. This amount is not spelled out anywhere. For the Sages a tiny drop is enough and this is available in any mixture, even if not recognizable separately.
¹⁵⁹ For the Sages, whom practice has to follow, two separate purification offerings whose blood has been mixed are treated as one body.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:5:1)

**משנה:** הִתְחִיל מְחַטֵּא וְיוֹרֵד. מֵהֵיכָן הוּא מַתְחִיל. מִקֶּרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית. צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית. מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית. דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית. מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל בַּחַטָּאת עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שָׁם הָיָה גוֹמֵר עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא. עַל כּוּלָּן הוּא נוֹתֵן מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָן חוּץ מִזּוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְפָנָיו שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן מִלְמַעְלָן לְמַטָּן:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He¹⁶⁰ started purifying¹⁶¹ 14:49. Here it means sprinkling blood on the four corners of the golden altar. and moves. Where does he start? At the Northeast corner¹⁶², Northwest, Southwest, Southeast. At the place where he starts purifyng on the outer altar¹⁶³, there he finishes on the inner altar. Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing on his place and purifying¹⁶⁴.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁰ The High Priest, exiting from the Holiest of Holies, standing at the Southwest corner of the Temple Hall with his face to the West. As the Halakhah explains, he has to continue walking backwards with his face to the West until he stays East of the golden altar; then he turns right to the Northeast corner of the golden altar.
¹⁶¹ This meaning of the root חטא is derived from Lev.
¹⁶² If the High Priest stands in front of the altar, the NE corner is the first corner to his right, and there he starts since there is a rule that all voluntary turns in the Temple have to be to the right, the lucky side.
¹⁶³ There is a walkway around the large outer altar at half height. Since this altar is accessed by the ramp on its South side, if the Cohen turns to his right entering the walkway, the first corner he arrives at is the SE corner. (On the walkway he naturally has to make 4 left turns, but these are forced by his original right turn.)
¹⁶⁴ If he stands in front of the altar to the South, he might go straight ahead to the SE corner, but if it is required that he start with a right turn by necessity he comes to the NE corner.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:5:2)

**הלכה:** וְיַתְחִיל בְּקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. יְמָנִית אֵין זוּ יְמָנִית. וְיַתְחִיל מִקֶּרֶן צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וְיָצָא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְיַתְחִיל מִקֶּרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית. שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן אֲחוֹרָיו לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וְאֵין סוֹפוֹ לִיתֵּן אֲחוֹרָיו לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. חוֹזֵר הָיָה לַאֲחוֹרָיו. וְיַעֲמֹד בְּדָרוֹם וְיַתְחִיל מִקֶּרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית. כַּיי דְאָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. יְמָנִית אֵין זוּ יְמָנִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Should he not start at the Southeast corner? Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn¹⁶⁴. Should he not start at the Northwest corner? Rebbi Eleazar said, *he shall leave to the altar*¹⁶⁵ 16:18. This is read to require that he stand in front of the altar before starting the sprinkling. Therefore he has to start to the East.*.* Should he not start at the Southwest corner? Not to turn his back on the Holiness¹⁶⁶. Does he not end to turn his back on the Holiness? He was returning backwards¹⁶⁷. He shall stand in the South and start at the Northeast corner, as Rebbi Hila said, right turn. This is no right turn.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁴ If he stands in front of the altar to the South, he might go straight ahead to the SE corner, but if it is required that he start with a right turn by necessity he comes to the NE corner.
¹⁶⁵ Lev.
¹⁶⁶ Leaving the gobelins he stands in the SW between gobelin and altar. To start at the SW corner, he has to turn around.
¹⁶⁷ If he starts at the NE corner, in the end he has to go from the SW to the SE corners turning his back to the Ark. Therefore he has to walk this stretch backwards, facing W. The rule of the Mishnah is the only one compatible with all constraints.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:5:3)

תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֵר אוֹמֵר. מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא. וְעַל כּוּלָּן הוּא נוֹתֵן מִלְּמַעֲלָן לְמַטָּן חוּץ מִזּוֹ שֶׁהָיָה לְפָנָיו [לוֹכְסָן] שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן מִלְּמַטָּן לְמַעֲלָן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דֹּרְשִׁין. סָבִיב. [רַבָּנִן אָמְרִין. סָבִיב לַהֲלוֹךְ. וְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֵר אוֹמֵר. סָבִיב] לַקְּרָנוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated:¹⁶⁸ 4(10), Babli 59a. The text here seems to be the correct one, against the three witnesses to the Babylonian text. Rebbi Eliezer says, he was standing at his place and purifying. On all of them he was giving from top to bottom except for the one he was standing in front of [in the diagonal]¹⁶⁹, where he was giving from bottom to top¹⁷⁰. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them were explaining the same verse¹⁷¹ 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated., *around.* [The rabbis are saying, around walking. Rebbi Eliezer is saying, around]¹⁷¹ 16:18. The blood must be sprinkled around; the way of delivery is not indicated. the corners.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁸ Tosephta 3:1, Sifra Aḥare Pereq
¹⁶⁹ Addition of the corrector from the Tosephta. Greek λοξόν, “oblique”.
¹⁷⁰ Since the top of the golden altar was only 1 cubit square, it was easily possible to sprinkle on all horns when standing in front of one corner.
¹⁷¹ Lev.
¹⁷¹ Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:5:4)

שְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים בָּרְחוּ בַפּוֹלֶמוֹסִיּוֹת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. עוֹמֵד הָיִיתִי וּמְחַטֵּא. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. מְהַלֵּךְ הָיִיתִי וּמְחַטֵּא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. הָדָא אָמְרָה. מָאן דַּעֲבַד הָכֵין לָא חֲשַׂשׂ. וּמַאן דַּעֲבַד הָכֵין לָא חֲשַׂשׂ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Two Cohanim escaped the wars¹⁷². One said, I was standing and purifying; the other one said, I was walking and purifying. Rebbi Yudan said, this implies, he who does it one way does not worry, and he who does it the other way does not worry¹⁷³.

footnotes:
¹⁷² Greek πόλεμος, ὁ “war”; in this case the first war against the Romans. Babli 59a.
¹⁷³ Disregarding both Talmudim, Maimonides rules against R. Eliezer both in his Mishnah commentary and in his Code.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:1)

**משנה:** הִזָּה עַל טִיהֲרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. שְׁיֵרֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן וְשֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד דְּרוֹמִי. אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מִתְעָרְבִין בָּאַמָּה וְיוֹצְאִין לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן וְנִמְכָּרִין לַגַּנָּנִין לְזֶבֶל וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** On all of them he gives from bottom to top except the one he is standing in front of, where he gives from top to bottom¹⁷⁴. He sprinkles on the surface of the altar seven times¹⁷⁵ 16:19.. The rest of the blood he poured on the Western base of the outer altar¹⁷⁶ 16, as explained in the Halakhah it is inferred from the treatment of the blood of the bull of the Anointed Priest, whose remainders have to be poured on the “base of the altar which is in front of the Tent of Meeting.” “In front of” is taken to refer to “base”, this is the Western side of the base of the altar.; those of the outer altar one pours on the southern base. This and that combine in the water canal¹⁵¹ and leave towards the Kidron valley where it is sold to gardeners as fertilizer; one commits larceny with it¹⁷⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁴ This follows R. Eliezer. If he would give the blood with his finger on the horn directly in front of him from bottom to top, some blood would flow back onto his arm and dirty his white robe.
¹⁷⁵ Lev.
¹⁷⁶ While this is not prescribed in Lev.
¹⁵¹ The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool.
¹⁷⁷ The water coming out of the Temple is made to drip into the earth, where the blood is absorbed, and at the bottom clear water is reappearing. The earth enriched with the blood is sold to vegetable growers as fertilizer. Since this was part of the construction of the Temple, the Temple does not renounce proprietorship of the blood suspended in the water; therefore use of the enriched earth without paying redemption money to the Temple is stealing from Heaven’s property.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:2)

**הלכה:** וְהִזָּה עָלָיו. לֹא עַל אֱפָ[רָ]יו. עָלָיו. לֹא עַל גְּחָלָיו. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. צַד צְּפוֹנִי. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. צַד דְּרוֹמִי. מָאן דְּאָמַר. צַד צְּפוֹנִי. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. צַד דְּרוֹמִי. רַבָּנִן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** *He shall sprinkle on it*¹⁷⁸ 16:19.*,* not on its ashes. *On it,* not on its coals¹⁷⁹. There are Tannaim who state, the North side. There are Tannaim who state, the South side. He who says, the North side, Rebbi Eliezer; he who says the South side, the rabbis¹⁸⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁸ Lev.
¹⁷⁹ Babli 59a, Tosephta 3:2.
¹⁸⁰ Since for R. Eliezer the High Priest always stands at the NE corner of the golden altar. For the rabbis, he finishes giving the blood on the corners at the SE corner, when he starts to sprinkle the top seven times.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. זֶה סִימָן. כָּל הַנִּיטָּל (מִבִּפְנִים) [מִבַּחוּץ] לְהִינָּתֵן (בַּחוּץ נִיתָּן) [בִּפְנִים נִיטָּל] מִן הַסָּמוּךְ לִפְנִים. וְכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִבִּפְנִים לְהִינָּתֵן בַּחוּץ נִיתָּן מִן הַסָּמוּךְ לִפְנִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁸¹ 3(7); *Zevaḥim* 58b. The text of the second sentence is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the two sentences of the scribe are essentially identical, the corrector’s text should be accepted (even though the parallel sources show that it would have been better to correct the second sentence.)“Rebbi Yose said, this is a memorandum: Anything taken from inside to be given outside is given to what is close to the inside. [Anything taken from the outside to be given inside is taken from what is close to the inside.] And all that comes out from the inside to be given outside is given from what is close to the inside¹⁸².”

footnotes:
¹⁸¹ Tosephta 3:7, Sifra Aḥare Pereq
¹⁸² Anything taken from inside, the remainder of blood used on the Day of Atonement or of the bull of the Anointed or of the commonwealth, outside has to be given close to the inside, i. e., on the Western base of the altar. Similarly, the incense taken from the table with the shew-bread to be burned on the outside altar has to be burned on the Western side of the altar. And anything taken from the outside to be taken inside, coals for the incense altar and fire to light the candelabrum, have to be taken from the Western side of the outside altar close to the Temple entrance.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:4)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פְדָת. גְּחָלִים שֶׁבְּכָל יוֹם וְנֵר הָמַעֲרָבִי לְמֵידִין מִגְּחָלִים שֶׁלְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וּשְׁנֵי בְזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה לְמֵידִין מִשְּׁיֵרֵי דָמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat. The coals of every day and the Western light¹⁸³ are inferred from the Day of Atonement. And the two censers are inferred from the remainder blood¹⁸⁴.

footnotes:
¹⁸³ On the candelabrum.
¹⁸⁴ As explained in Note 182.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:5)

וְאֵת כָּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפֹּךְ. לְרַבּוֹת פָּר דַּם יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים לִשְׁפִיכָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא אָמַר. וְשָׂעִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּלֹא כָךְ אֵינוֹ זָקוּק לְהֵעָרוֹת. אַשְׁכַּחַת אֲמַר. וְאֵת כָּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפֹּךְ. לְרַבּוֹת דַּם פָּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וְשָׂעִיר לִשְׁפִיכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁸⁵ 3(12); Babli 52a.“*And all blood of the bull he shall pour*¹⁸⁶. 4:7.*,* to include the blood of the bull of the Day of Atonement in pouring.” And why did he not say, “and the he-goat”? Rebbi Mana said, is it not required to be mixed¹⁸⁷? You conclude in saying, *and all blood of the bull he shall pour,* to include the blood of the bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement in pouring.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁵ Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Parashah
¹⁸⁶ Lev
¹⁸⁷ If the bull’s blood has to be poured on the base of the large altar, the pouring of the he-goat’s blood is an automatic consequence and does not have to be spelled out as a separate commandment. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 200.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:6)

וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אִם כִּילָּה כִיפֵּר. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּלָּה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַחֲלוֹקֶת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּלָּה. הַשְּׁיֵרִיים מְעַכְּבִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אִם כִּילָּה כִפֵּר. אֵין הַשְּׁיֵרִיים מְעַכְּבִין. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. מַשְׁמַעוּת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מַה הַשְּׁיֵרִיים (מְעַכְּבִין) אֵין הַשְּׁיֵרִיים מְעַכְּבִין. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֵין הַשְּׁיֵרִיים מְעַכְּבִין. מַאי כְדוֹן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אִם כִּלָּה כִיפֵּר. עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּלָּה. אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה אַחַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
*When he finished atoning the sanctuary*¹⁸⁸ 16:20.*.* There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned¹⁸⁹ There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished¹⁹⁰. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive¹⁹¹ 111a.. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings¹⁹². He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving¹⁹³.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁸ Lev.
¹⁸⁹ If he correctly finished the ceremonies, automatically he atoned. Cf. Babli 60b.
¹⁹⁰ Only if he did everything required for atoning he is finished.
¹⁹¹ If the remaining blood is not poured on the Western base of the exterior altar, the interior ceremonies are invalid. Babli, Zevaḥim
¹⁹² There are four ceremonies: Blood in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, on the corners of the interior altar, and on its top. If one of them is invalid, it has to be repeated.
¹⁹³ If part is invalid, the entire ceremony has to be repeated from the start.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:7)

תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מָה אִם שְׁיֵרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁאֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין נִיתָּנִין עַל הַיְּסוֹד. תְּחִילַּת עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּינָתֵן עַל הַיְּסוֹד. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁיֵרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁאֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לְכַפֵּר נִיתָּנִין עַל הַיְּסוֹד. תְּחִילַּת עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת וּרְאוּיָה לְכַפֵּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּינָתֵן עַל הַיְּסוֹד. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין מְכַפְּרִין. אֵין מְכַפְּרִין בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. הָא בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין וְאֵינָן רְאוּיִים לְכַפֵּר אֵין מְכַפְּרִין לֹא בְרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְלֹא בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. מַה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְמִצְוָה. מִצְוָה לִיתֵּן עַל הַיְּסוֹד. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לְמִצְוָה תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְעִיכּוּב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: ¹⁹⁴ 9(2); cf. Basbli 52a.“Rebbi Ismael said, if the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone¹⁹⁵ is given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning¹⁹⁶. 1:4 that it is atoning. While the verse does not detail for what it is atoning, it is concluded in *Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq* 4(8) that it is for the transgressions which do not qualify for a purification offering, infraction of positive commandments and of minor prohibitions. The“start” is giving the blood on the walls of the altar. it is only logical that it be given on the base¹⁹⁷4:1).. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, No. If you said that the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone and is not able to atone are given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning and is able to atone is only logical that it be given on the base.” He who said “does not atone”, they do not atone during all other days of the year; therefore on the Day of Atonement they atone¹⁹⁸. 16:29 is called *an eternal law*, any particular action required is essential for Atonement. But an action is certainly obstructive only if it is mentioned in Chapter 16.. He who says “does not atone and is not able to atone”, they do not atone either on New Year’s Day¹ and not on the Day of Atonement. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it is a commandment to give on the base. But if it cannot refer to the commandment, let it refer to obstruction¹⁹⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁴ Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq
¹⁹⁵ The blood on the corners of the altar atones. In general if the blood becomes disqualified after this the purification sacrifice remains qualified. The only problem is the status of blood which was brought into the Sanctuary.
¹⁹⁶ The blood of the elevation sacrifice which, in contrast to the purification sacrifice, is not given on the four horns of the altar at the corners but only on the lower walls of two diagonally opposed corners so that blood is splattered on all four walls of the altar.. The question is, which pair of corners, SW and NE, or NW and SE? While the elevation offering is voluntary, it is stated in Lev
¹⁹⁷ The SE corner of the altar had no base stones standing out from the walls of the altar. The argument shows that the blood of the elevation sacrifice has to be applied to the SW and NE corners. (Mishnah Tamid
¹⁹⁸ Since the ritual of the Day of Atonement in Lev
¹ “On New Year’s Day” may be a scribal error for כָּל־יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה “all days of the year.”
¹⁹⁹ Since it was established earlier (Note 185) that it is a commandment to pour the remaining blood on the base, the difference between R. Ismael and R. Aqiba can only be whether pouring the blood on the base is obstructive or not.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:8)

אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. מַַתְנֵיִתָה אָמְרָה שֶׁהַשְּׁיֵרִיִים מְעַכְּבִין. דְּתַנִּינָן. מַה לַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. אִם נְתָנָן לְמַעֲלָן לֹא הוּרְצוּ. שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן קָרֵב לְמַעֲלָן. תֹאמַר בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים. אִם נְתָנָן לְמַטָּן הוּרְצוּ. שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב לְמַטָּן. הַפְּנִימִיִּים יוֹכִיחוּ. שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶם קָרֵב בַּחוּץ. וְאִם נְתָנָן בַּחוּץ לֹא הוּרְצוּ. מַה לִפְנִימִיִים. אִם נְתָנָן בַּחוּץ לֹא הוּרְצוּ. שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ מְמָרְקָן. תֹאמַר בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים. אִם נְתָנָן לְמַטָּן הוּרְצוּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקְּרָנוֹת מְמָרְקוֹת אוֹתָן. הוֹאִיל וְהַקְּרָנוֹת מְמָרְקוֹת אוֹתָן. אִם נְתָנָן לְמַטָּן תְּהֵא כְשֵׁירָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹתָהּ. שֶׁיִּתֵּן דָּמֶיהָ לְמַעֲלָן. לֹא שֶׁיִּתֵּן דָּמֶיהָ לְמַטָּן. מָהוּ אֵין (הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי) מְמָרְקָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְמָרְקָן לַעֲשׂוֹתָן שְׁיֵרִיִים. שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַבַּדִּין וְעַל יְדֵי הָפָּרֹכוֹת הֵן נַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁיֵרִיִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Shammai said, a *baraita* implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: ²⁰⁰ 52b, *Sifra Ṣaw Pereq* 3(4).“The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below²⁰¹? The inner ones²⁰² shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside²⁰³ it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them²⁰⁴, what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them²⁰⁵. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says *it*²⁰⁶. 6:19. The purification sacrifice except for the parts destined for the altar is eaten by the Cohanim, but only if the priest *purified it*, i. e., followed all the prescribed rules., that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins²⁰⁷ they become remainders.

footnotes:
²⁰⁰ Babli Zevaḥim
²⁰¹ Blood of elevation and well-being sacrifices which has to be given on the walls of the altar below the walkway at half-height certainly cannot validly be given on the upper part of the walls, but blood of purification sacrifices which must be given on the horns of the altar (by a Cohen standing on the walkway) should be valid if given on the lower walls since at the end the remainder of the blood is poured on the base which is below the lower walls.
²⁰² Blood used inside the Sanctuary, of the day of Atonement, and of the bulls of the Anointed and the community.
²⁰³ If none of the blood was brought inside, the ceremony certainly is invalid.
²⁰⁴ Since the altar is the place of only the third and fourths stops in the use of the blood inside the Sanctuary.
²⁰⁵ After blood of purification sacrifices was given on the horns, what is left becomes remainder.
²⁰⁶ Lev
²⁰⁷ Blood on the altar is invalid if from it was not previously given between the beams and on the gobelins.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:9)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנֵיִתָה אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁיֵרִיִים מְעַכְּבִין. דְּתַנִּינָן. אִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא עִיכֵּב. רִבִּי בּוֹרְקַיי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנֵיִתָה אָמְרָה שֶׁהַשְּׁיֵרִיִים מְעַכְּבִין. דְּתַנִּינָן. וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ זֶה לִפְנַיי לִפְנִים. וְאֶת אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד זֶה הַהֵיכַל. וְאֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ זֶה מִזְבֵּחַ [הַזָּהָב]. יְכַפֵּר אַף עַל הָעֲזָרוֹת. מָה אִית לָךְ כַּפָּרָה בָעֲזָרוֹת. לֹא הַשְּׁיֵרִיִים. [רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָּא בָעֵי. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. הַשְּׁיֵרִיים] מְעַכְּבִין. מְקוֹמָן מְעַכֵּב. נוֹתְנָן בַּלַּיְלָה שׁוֹחֵט עֲלֵיהֶן כַּתְּחִילָּה. חַבֵרַיָיאַ בָעֵיי. מְחַשֵׁב לָהֶן. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָעֵי. אָבְדוּ. מָה הֵן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ כְּשֶׁהִתְחִיל לִיתֵּן וְחָסְרוּ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִתְחִיל לִיתֵּן כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי מַשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁיֵיר שֶׁהֵן שְׁיֵרִיים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated:²⁰⁸ 5:1, speaking of the remainders of the blood brought inside. “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a *baraita* implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: ²⁰⁹ 8(8) on *Lev*. 16:29; Babli 61a.“*He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary*, that is the innermost room, *and the tent of Meeting*, this is the Temple Hall, *and the altar*, this is the [golden]²¹⁰ altar, *he shall atone*, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders²¹¹? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that]²¹² remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive²¹³ presupposes that remainders are obstructive it is stated that if the remainders of blood brought into the sanctuary are not given on the base to the West of the exterior altar, the procedure is invalid. In the corrector’s text this is a question, not an assertion.? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them²¹⁴? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them²¹⁵ 29a.? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers²¹⁶.

footnotes:
²⁰⁸ Mishnah Zevaḥim
²⁰⁹ Sifra Aḥare Pereq
²¹⁰ Addition by the corrector; a correct statement but unnecessary as shown by the parallels.
²¹¹ And anything needed for atonement is obstructive.
²¹² Corrector’s addition.
²¹³ It seems that here are two different texts. The scribe’s text is “Are not the remainders obstructive? Their place is obstructive.” After having proved that the baraita
²¹⁴ No necessary action in the Temple can be performed in the night; only leftovers from the preceding day are burned on the altar. Pouring remainders of blood on the base in the night clearly is invalid; the question is whether this requires a new sacrifice. The question cannot be asked about the service of the Day of Atonement, it must be about the bull of the Anointed or the community.
²¹⁵ Since it is agreed that pouring the remainder blood on the base in a commandment, if a sacrifice is slaughtered with the intent not to pour, or the blood is brought to the alter with the intent not to pour the remainder on the base, is the sacrifice disqualified from the moment of the illegitimate thought? Answered in the affirmative in the Babli, Zevaḥim
²¹⁶ The commandment to pour the remainders on the base is conditional; if there are no remainders, there is no obligation to pour.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:10)

תַּנֵּי. מוֹעֲלִין הָיוּ בַדָּמִים. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵין מְעִילָה בַדָּמִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר. אֵין לְךְ בוֹ אֶלָּא כַפָּרַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל אוֹכְלָיו יִכָּרֵת. אֵין לְךְ בוֹ אֶלָּא כָרֵת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. הִקְדִּישׁ דָּם בֵּינֵיהוֹן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין לְךְ בוֹ אֶלָּא כַפָּרַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בוֹ כַפָּרָה אֵין בוֹ מְעִילָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין לְךְ בוֹ אֶלָּא כָרֵת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. וְזֶה הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כָרֵת יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה. אֲתַא רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִקְדִּישׁ דָּם וּבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעוּרָה חֲדִי בָהּ. סְבַר עַל דְּרַבָּנִן אִיתְאֲמָרַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. וּמַה בְיָדָךְ. וְעַל דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִתְאֲמָרַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²¹⁷ 6:9; Babli *Yoma*59a, *Meˋilah* 11a.: “One commits larceny with blood²¹⁸ is larceny which requires restitution, payment of a fine, and a sacrifice (*Lev*. 5:14–16). The question is whether this applies also to the blood when it flows out of the Temple domain after all ceremonies have successfully been completed., the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, *for the blood is it, it atones for the person*²¹⁹. 17:11.. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, *any who eats it will be extirpated*²²⁰. 17:14.. You only have extirpation of persons from it²²¹ can be due.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood²²².. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it²²³. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon²²⁴ (and the Mishnah follows R. Simeon), but about blood unfit for atonement he agrees that there can be no *meˋilah*. Therefore the expression “they differ” does not refer to the Amoraim reporting in the name of R. Joḥanan, but to R. Sineon and the Sages in the Tosephta..

footnotes:
²¹⁷ Tosephta Zevaḥim
²¹⁸ Illegitimate use of sancta
²¹⁹ Lev
²²⁰ Lev
²²¹ In both cases, the argument is that after the blood has left the Temple precinct it is profane. It still may be Temple property, but no sacrilege is involved in unauthorized use and no sacrifice for meˋilah
²²² It is not clear what this means. It could be that one refers to blood of sacrifices which somehow became disqualified for the altar, or of the blood of animals unfit for the altar which from the start were donated only for the upkeep of the Temple, and whose illicit use is meˋilah
²²³ Both possibilities apply to both interpretations given in the preceding Note.
²²⁴ R. Simeon holds that the remainders of blood used on the altar, as the blood mentioned in Mishnah 8, as well as the blood of animals dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple, are subject to meˋilah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:6:11)

רִבִּי בָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. כָּךְ מֵשִׁיבִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִילּוּ מְכָרָן שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ תוֹפֵס דְּמֵיהֶן. מַה בֵינֵיהֶן וּמַה בֵין דְּמֵיהֶן. וּפְלִיג עַל הַהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. יֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁאָמְרוּ. לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מְכָרָן אֵינוֹ תוֹפֵשׂ אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן. וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן שֶׁאָמְרוּ. לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מְכָרָן תּוֹפֵשׁ אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן. דִּישּׁוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מְכָרָן אֵינוֹ תוֹפֵשׂ אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן. הַדָּמִים לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מְכָרָן תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶת דְּמֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth²²⁵, larceny committed on *sacra*, only applies to profane use of sacred objects, not to redemptions (or to use that can be legitimized by redemption.) Therefore the distinction made by R. Simeon is not consistent with our rules.? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money²²⁶ 3:4.. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

footnotes:
²²⁵ Since anything given to the Temple for its upkeep is there to be sold and the money used for sacred purposes, the holiness of the dedicated object is transferred to the money while the object reverts to profane status. But meˋilah
²²⁶ Mishnah Meˋilah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:7:1)

**משנה:** כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הָאָמוּר עַל הַסֵּדֶר אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. הִקְדִּים דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְדַם הַפָּר יַחֲזוֹר וְיַזֶּה מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְאַחַר דַּם הַפָּר. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גָמַר אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם יָבִיא דָם אַחֵר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיַזֶּה בַּתְּחִלָּה מִבִּפְנִים. וְכֵן בַּהֵיכָל וְכֵן בְּמִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב שֶׁכּוּלָּן כַּפָּרָה וְכַפָּרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמָן. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק מִשָּׁם הוּא מַתְחִיל:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** All actions of the Day of Atonement which have been prescribed in their sequence²²⁷. 16 must be followed exactly., if he advanced one action to another he did not do anything. If he advanced he-goat’s blood to the bull’s blood he has to sprinkle he-goat’s blood after the bull’s blood. If the blood was spilled before he finishes all givings required in the interior²²⁸, he has to bring other blood and starts sprinkling anew in the interior. So it is in the Temple Hall and so it is with the golden altar, since all of these are separate atonements²²⁹. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, he starts at the place where he interrupted²³⁰.

footnotes:
²²⁷ The order of actions prescribed to the High Priest in Lev
²²⁸ In the Holiest of Holies.
²²⁹ If the blood was spilled after an action was completed, new animals and new blood only are required for the subsequent actions; one does not have to start from the beginning.
²³⁰ While the anonymous Tanna requires the repetition of any partially complete action, R. Eleazar and R. Simeon accept completion with other blood of actions partially executed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:7:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְָּעֲבוֹדוֹת הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בִּפְנִים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן. אֲבָל בְָּעֲבוֹדוֹת הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בַּחוּץ בְּבִגְדֵי זָהָב. אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אַף הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בַּחוּץ בְּבִגְדֵי זָהָב. אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵיהֲן מִקְרָא אֶחָד הֵן דּוֹרְשִׁין. מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּיפּוּרִים אַחַת. רַבָּנִן אָמְרֵי. עֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁהוּא נִכְנָס [פַּעַם] אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא נִכְנָס בּוֹ [פַּעַם] אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated:²³¹ “Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this²³² been said? About service performed inside in white garments. But service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, what he did is done. And the Sages are saying, even for service performed outside in golden garments if he advanced one action to another, he did not do anything.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan²³³: Both of them are explaining the same verse²³⁴. 30:10.: *of the blood of the atoning sacrifice once*. The rabbis are saying, service which is performed one [time]²³⁵ in the year. Rebbi Jehudah is saying, a place in which he enters one [time]²³⁵ per year.

footnotes:
²³¹ Tosephta 3:4, Babli 60a.
²³² That a change in the sequence of actions invalidates the service.
²³³ Babli 60a/b.
²³⁴ Ex
²³⁵ Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli.
²³⁵ Corrector’s addition, probably from the parallel in the Babli.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:7:3)

רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פֶס. בְּמַתְּנוֹת הַבַּדִּים. אֲבָל בְּמַתְּנוֹת הַפָּרֹכוֹת שָׂעִיר מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַפָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזְר. וְנָתַן מִדַּם הַפָּר עַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים וְעַל בֵּין הַפָּרֹכוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בַתְּחִילָּה כָשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אִילּוּ נִשְׁפַּךְ מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר הַמּוּנָח בַּכּוֹס שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא פָּר אַחֵר וְכָשֵׁר. מַה בֵין שָׁחַט עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מַה בֵין שָׁחַט מִשֶּׁנָּתַן. אִילּוּ אָמַר וְנָתַן יְאוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Ephes: About givings between the beams; but givings between the gobelins the he-goat is obstructive for the bull²³⁶. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave of the bull’s blood between the beams and between the gobelins and afterwards freshly slaughtered the he-goat it is qualified²³⁷. Rebbi Yose said, if the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood in the cup was spilled, would he not bring another bull and it would be qualified²³⁸? What is the difference whether he slaughtered before he gave or slaughtered after he gave? If it had said “he gives” that would have been correct²³⁹.

footnotes:
²³⁶ Chapter 4:1, Note 55.
²³⁷ Babli 40a, disputing the assertion of R. Ephes.
²³⁸ This cannot mean that the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood were mixed in one cup since this is scheduled only after both kinds of blood were sprinkled on the gobelins. R. Yose argues in support of R. Eleazar, since the blood in the cup could be spilled at any moment, then the slaughter can happen at any moment.
²³⁹ For the rabbis each group of sprinkling, in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, and on the altar, forms a unit. If anything was incomplete or disqualifying in one of the actions, the entire action must be repeated. For R. Eleazar and R. Simeon every single sprinkling is a commandment by itself. In all there are 7+1 sprinklings of bull’s blood and the same number of he-goat’s blood in the Holiest of Holies, the same number of both kinds of blood on the gobelins, 4 of the combined blood on the horns of the golden altar and 7 on its top, for a total of 4x8+11 = 43.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:7:4)

רַבָּנִן אָמְרֵי. שָׁלֹשׁ לָכּוֹשֶׁר וְשָׁלֹשׁ לִפְסוּל. רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין. אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ לָכּוֹשֶׁר וְאַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ לִפְסוּל. וְרַבָּנִן אָמְרֵי. כָּל שֶׁבַע וְשֶׁבַע כַּפָּרָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. [רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמְרֵי. כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כַּפָּרָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.] רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אֲפִילוּ אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה אַחַת אָמְרָת הַתּוֹרָה כִלָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The rabbis say, three for qualification and three for disqualification. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, 43 for qualification and 43 for disqualification²³⁹. Therefore the rabbis say, any seven²⁴⁰ are atonement by themselves. [Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon are saying, each single one is atonement by itself.]²⁴¹ Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar²⁴², the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and²⁴³ Rebbi Simeon: *he finished atoning for the holy*²⁴⁴. 16:20., even if there is only one giving, the Torah says “he finished”²⁴⁵.

footnotes:
²³⁹ For the rabbis each group of sprinkling, in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, and on the altar, forms a unit. If anything was incomplete or disqualifying in one of the actions, the entire action must be repeated. For R. Eleazar and R. Simeon every single sprinkling is a commandment by itself. In all there are 7+1 sprinklings of bull’s blood and the same number of he-goat’s blood in the Holiest of Holies, the same number of both kinds of blood on the gobelins, 4 of the combined blood on the horns of the golden altar and 7 on its top, for a total of 4x8+11 = 43.
²⁴⁰ This really should read “eight”.
²⁴¹ Corrector’s addition.
²⁴² The Amora ben Pedat, not the Tanna, ben Arakh, quoted in the Tosephta.
²⁴³ Reading וְ instead of the similar sounding בֵי.
²⁴⁴ Lev
²⁴⁵ Since emphasis is on finishing, even if only a single sprinkling is needed to complete the ceremony it is counted and valid.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Yoma/r/5:7:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. נָתַן מִקְצַת מַתָּנוֹת וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם מֵבִיא אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. אֵילּוּ [וָאֵלּוּ] נִשְׁפָּכִין כְּמִצְוָתָן. לֲכֵן צְרִיכָה בְּשֶׁנִּקְרָא עֲלֵיהֶן לְשֵׁם פְּסוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְיֵאוּת. אִילּוּ נָתַן מִקְצַת מַתָּנוֹת וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּרִאשׁוֹנִים. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לְשֵׁם כּוֹשֶׁר וְהַשְּׁנִיִים לְשֵׁם פְּסוּל. שָׁחַט אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים לְשֵׁם פְּסוּל וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיִים לְשֵׁם כּוֹשֶׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מָצִינוּ פְּסוּל [מוֹצִיא] מִיַּד פִּיגּוּל. מָצִינוּ פְּסוּל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד כּוֹשֶׁר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁴⁶ 4(3); a minority opinion in the Babli, 61b.“Rebbi Eleazar²⁴⁷ said, if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; these [and those]²⁴⁸ and the remark following the quote, everybody agrees and it is obvious from the biblical text (*Lev*. 20:27) that the bull and the he-goat on whose blood the ceremony is completed have to be burned outside the city of Jerusalem and the people occupied with this burning become severely impure. The question is whether the animals whose blood was first brought into the sanctuary but was not used to finish the ceremonies, either because it was spilled or because of some disqualification, have to be disposed in the same way. This is asserted by R. Eleazar but negated by RR. Meïr and Simeon. are (emptied)²⁴⁹ following their commandments.” We need this only if an designation of disqualification was applicable to them²⁵⁰. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. if he gave part of the givings when the blood was spilled, he brings others in their place; and the first ones are subject to *meˋilah*²⁵¹ and therefore have to be burned following the biblical rules.. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, so far if he slaughtered the first ones for qualification and the second one for disqualification²⁵². If he slaughtered the first ones for disqualification and the second one for qualification? Rebbi Yose said, we find that disqualification [eliminates]²⁵³ *piggul*²⁵⁴(*Lev*. 19:7) is slaughter with the intent that the sacrificial meat be eaten outside its allotted time frame. Only *sancta*, parts of which may be eaten, can become *piggul*, a disqualification which prevents the meat from being eaten, automatically removes *piggul*. Mishnah *Zevaḥim* 2:3.; do we find that disqualification eliminates qualification²⁵⁵?

footnotes:
²⁴⁶ Sifra Aḥare Parashah
²⁴⁷ The Tanna.
²⁴⁸ Addition by the corrector. While the statement is correct, the addition is questionable. As is clear from the text of Sifra
²⁴⁹ For “emptied” read נשרפין “burned”. If the blood was spilled, it cannot be emptied a second time.
²⁵⁰ Or if it was spilled, cf. Note 248.
²⁵¹ This is equivalent to saying that they did not completely lose their status as sancta
²⁵² Disqualification not of the second but the first couple of animals. Slaughter of animals with the intent that they be disqualified makes them disqualified and removes sacral status.
²⁵³ Necessary corrector’s addition.
²⁵⁴ Piggul
²⁵⁵ R. Ḥaggai’s question is baseless; the disqualification of the first sacrifice cannot have influence on the status of the second.