## Yoma Daf 15a

###### Yoma 15a:1
[Yoma 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:1)

בְּעִידָּן הֲטָבָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְהַעֲלוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה״, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּבְרֵישָׁא מַדְלִיק נֵרוֹת וַהֲדַר מַקְטִיר קְטוֹרֶת שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It means: **At the time of** the **removal** of the ashes **you shall burn the incense,** and no later. **As, if you do not say so** but explain that the phrase: He shall burn the incense, at the end of the verse means after cleaning the lamps, then with regard to the burning of the **afternoon** incense, with regard to **which it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it”** (Exodus 30:8), in **this** case **too,** does it mean that **initially** the priest **lights the lamps and** only **then burns the afternoon incense? And if you say indeed,** that is **so, wasn’t** the following **taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “Aaron and his sons will set it in order to burn **from evening until morning** before the Lord; it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations on behalf of the children of Israel” (Exodus 27:21)?


###### Yoma 15a:2
[Yoma 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:2)

תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ, שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר״, אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁרָה מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד. אֶלָּא מַאי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא — בְּעִידָּן הַדְלָקָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת, הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּעִידָּן הֲטָבָה תְּהֵא מִקְּטַר קְטוֹרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the *baraita* explains: **Give** the candelabrum **its measure** of oil so that **it will continue to burn all night from evening until morning. Alternatively,** the phrase: **From evening to morning,** teaches that **you have only this service that is valid** when performed **from evening to morning**. Apparently, lighting the candelabrum is the final daily Temple service and the incense is not burned after the lamps are lit. **Rather, what is the Merciful One saying** in the phrase: “And when Aaron lights the lamps in the afternoon he shall burn it.” This teaches that **at the time of** the **lighting** of the lamps **you shall burn the incense,** and no later. If so, **here too,** in the morning, **at the time of** the **removal** of the ashes **you shall burn the incense,** and no later. This is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Yoma 15a:3
[Yoma 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:3)

וְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abba Shaul** could have **said to you** in response: **It is different there,** with regard to the burning of the afternoon incense, **as it is written:** “Aaron and his sons will set **it** [***oto***] in order.” The term *oto* is exclusionary: Only in the afternoon is it critical that the lighting of the lamps be the last service performed and that it follow the burning of the incense. However, in the morning, where there is no exclusionary term, the sequence of the verse is observed: First attending to the candelabrum and then burning the incense.


###### Yoma 15a:4
[Yoma 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:4)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — רַבָּנַן, הָא — אַבָּא שָׁאוּל. בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּהָכָא — כְּרַבָּנַן, פַּיִיס — כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** a different resolution to the contradiction between the *mishnayot.* This is **not difficult,** because each mishna is in accordance with the opinion of a different *tanna*. **This** mishna, in which the burning of the incense is first, is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis;** and **that** mishna, in which the lighting of the lamps is first, is in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul.** The Gemara questions Rav Pappa’s resolution: In accordance with the opinion of **which** *tanna* **is the mishna here established?** It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The sequence in the mishna where the **lottery** is discussed is in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul.**


###### Yoma 15a:5
[Yoma 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:5)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַתָּמִיד, קְרָצוֹ וּמֵרַק אַחֵר שְׁחִיטָה עַל יָדוֹ, נִכְנַס לְהַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת וּלְהֵיטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת — אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל! אָמַר לְךָ רַב פָּפָּא: אִין, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן, וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Say the latter clause** of that mishna as follows: **They brought him the** sheep for **the daily** morning **offering that he slaughtered** by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe. **And** a **different** priest **completed** the **slaughter on his behalf.** And then **he entered** the Sanctuary **to burn the** morning **incense and to remove** the ashes from **the lamps** of the candelabrum. If so, **we have** again **arrived at** the opinion of **the Rabbis** that burning the incense precedes attending to the lamps, which leads to the difficult conclusion: The **first clause and** the **last clause** of the mishna in tractate *Yoma* are in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and the **middle clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul. Rav Pappa** could have **said to you: Indeed,** the **first clause and** the **last clause** are in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and the **middle clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul.** Although this is not common, because these *mishnayot* are not directly juxtaposed, it is possible.


###### Yoma 15a:6
[Yoma 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרַב פָּפָּא, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן וּמְצִיעֲתָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל לָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ. אֶלָּא רַב פָּפָּא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּאַבַּיֵּי? אָמַר לָךְ: תְּנָא בְּרֵישָׁא הֲטָבַת שְׁתֵּי נֵרוֹת, וַהֲדַר הֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, Abaye does not say in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Pappa,** as he is **not** willing to **establish** the **first clause and** the **last clause** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis** and the **middle clause** in accordance with the opinion of **Abba Shaul. However,** with regard to **Rav Pappa, what is the reason** that **he did not say** in accordance with the opinion of **Abaye** and instead prefers an uncommon and difficult resolution? Rav Pappa could have **said to you** that the resolution proposed by Abaye is difficult as well, as according to Abaye **in the first clause** of the mishna it was **taught** with regard to the **removal** of the ashes from **two lamps,** which is performed later, **and** only **then** taught the **removal** of the ashes from **five lamps,** which is performed before the ashes of the two lamps are cleared. Therefore, Rav Pappa prefers to establish that the *mishnayot* reflect a tannaitic dispute rather than to accept this reversal of the order.


###### Yoma 15a:7
[Yoma 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:7)

וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אוֹרוֹיֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּקָא מוֹרֵי, וְסִדְרָא הָא הֲדַר תָּנֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** holds that this is not difficult and could have **said to you** that the first mishna, which describes the routine of the High Priest during his seven days of separation, teaches **a general directive** describing the services with which the High Priest must be familiarized prior to Yom Kippur, without concern for the sequence. **And** in terms of **the sequence, the** mishna **then teaches** it in the context of the actual performance of the services.


###### Yoma 15a:8
[Yoma 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:8)

גּוּפָא: בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — נוֹתֵן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — נוֹתֵן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה מְשַׁנֶּה בַּתָּמִיד, בָּא לוֹ לְקֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית — נוֹתֵן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית — נוֹתֵן מַעֲרָבָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן דָּרוֹמָה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa. The Gemara proceeds to analyze **the matter itself:** The priest **comes to the northeast corner** of the altar and **sprinkles** once on the **northeast** corner. From there he proceeds to the **southwest corner** and **sprinkles** once on the **southwest** corner. **And it was taught** in the *Tosefta* **concerning** this mishna: **Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa changes the** sprinkling of the blood of the **daily offering** vis-à-vis the sprinkling of blood of all other burnt-offerings. The priest comes to the **northeast** corner and **sprinkles** once on the **northeast** corner. However, when he proceeds to the **southwest** corner, **he sprinkles** on the **west** side of the altar **and then sprinkles** on the **south** side. The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa,** who changes the sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering vis-à-vis the sprinkling of blood of all other burnt-offerings?


###### Yoma 15a:9
[Yoma 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם חַד דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּשְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת לַה׳ עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ״, עוֹלָה הִיא, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: עֲבֵיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of one** of the Sages **of the school of Rabbi Yannai** that **the verse states: “And one goat as a sin-offering to the Lord; it shall be offered aside from the daily burnt-offering and its libation”** (Numbers 28:15). From the phrase: Beside the daily burnt-offering, it is derived that the daily offering is **a burnt-offering**, and from the juxtaposition of the sacrifice of the sin-offering to the daily offering, **the Merciful One said: Perform with it the procedure of a sin-offering.**


###### Yoma 15a:10
[Yoma 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:10)

הָא כֵּיצַד? נוֹתֵן אַחַת שֶׁהִיא שְׁתַּיִם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת. וְלִיתֵּן שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, וְאַרְבַּע שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **how** can **this** be accomplished? It can be accomplished by performing half of the sprinklings according to the procedure of a burnt-offering, and half according to the procedure of a sin-offering. One **sprinkles one** sprinkling **that is two,** i.e., one sprinkles the blood on the corner of the altar so that the blood is divided between the two sides, **in accordance with the procedure of a** standard **burnt-offering.** Then **he sprinkles two** sprinklings **that are two, in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering.** The blood of a sin-offering is sprinkled in four separate actions, one on each of the four corners of the altar. The Gemara asks: **And** if the objective is to have the daily offering sacrificed like a sin-offering, **let him sprinkle** the blood in a manner that will accomplish both: First, **two** sprinklings **that are four in accordance with the procedure of a** standard **burnt-offering, and** then **four** sprinklings **that are four in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering.**


###### Yoma 15a:11
[Yoma 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:11)

לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁמְּכַפְּרִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְכַפְּרִין. וְכִי מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין חַטָּאת וְחֶצְיָין עוֹלָה? אֶלָּא עַל כׇּרְחָן הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב. הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּעַל כׇּרְחָן הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proposal: **We did not find** a case of **blood that atones and** then **again atones.** Once the blood was sprinkled and brought atonement by following the procedure of the burnt-offering, one cannot then begin the rite of atonement of a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: **And did we find** the **blood** of an offering, **half of which** is sprinkled as **a sin-offering and half of which** is sprinkled as **a burnt-offering? Rather, perforce,** say that **the verse juxtaposes them** and commands that the blood of the daily offering be offered half as a burnt-offering and half as a sin-offering. **Here too, perforce,** say that **the verse juxtaposes them** and commands two separate sprinklings: The sprinkling of a burnt-offering followed by the sprinkling of a sin-offering.


###### Yoma 15a:12
[Yoma 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:12)

הָתָם פִּיסּוּק מַתָּנוֹת בְּעָלְמָא הִיא. וְנִיתֵּיב אַחַת שֶׁהִיא שְׁתַּיִם לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן שְׁתַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The two suggestions are different. **There,** in the statement of Rabbi Shimon Ish HaMitzpa, there is no radical divergence from the standard burnt-offering; **it is merely dividing the sprinklings.** Instead of sprinkling the blood on the corner so that it falls on two sides of the altar, one sprinkles the blood on each of the two sides separately. In contrast, performing two independent acts of sprinkling is a radical divergence. **And** the Gemara suggests an alternative manner in which the daily offering could be offered like a sin-offering. **Let us sprinkle one** sprinkling **that is two below** the red line painted halfway up the altar, **in accordance with the procedure of a** standard **burnt-offering,** and sprinkle another **two sprinklings that are two above** the red line on the upper half of the altar **in accordance with the procedure of a sin-offering**.


###### Yoma 15a:13
[Yoma 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:13)

לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין לְמַעְלָה וְחֶצְיָין לְמַטָּה. וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **We did not find** a case of **blood half of which** is sprinkled **above** the red line **and half of which** is sprinkled **below** the red line. One either sprinkles all the blood on the lower half of the altar, as in the case of most offerings, or entirely on the upper half of the altar, as in the case of sin-offerings. The Gemara asks: **And** is there really **no** case of that sort? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: The High Priest took the blood of the bull into the Holy of Holies **and sprinkled from** the blood **one** time **upward and** then **seven** times **downward?** Apparently, the blood of an offering can be sprinkled part upward, toward the upper part of the thickness of the Ark cover, and part downward, toward the lower part of the thickness of the Ark cover.


###### Yoma 15a:14
[Yoma 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:14)

כְּמַצְלִיף. מַאי ״כְּמַצְלִיף״ — מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה, כִּמְנַגְּדָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: That is not a case of half the blood sprinkled upward and half sprinkled downward. Instead, that sprinkling was **like a *matzlif*;** the sprinklings were not performed one above the other, but rather one beneath the other, and all were sprinkled in a row on the Ark cover. The Gemara explains: **What** is the meaning of **like a *matzlif*? Rav Yehuda demonstrated** with his hand; it means **like one who whips.** One who whips another does not strike in one place but directs one lash beneath another.


###### Yoma 15a:15
[Yoma 15a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:15)

וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל טׇהֳרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. מַאי לָאו, אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: טְהַר טִיהֲרָא הוּא פַּלְגָא דְּיוֹמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is there really **no** case of that sort? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna with regard to the sprinkling of blood on the incense altar: **He sprinkled seven times from** the blood **on *tohoro* of the altar. What, is it not** referring to the **middle** of the side **of the altar, as people say: Clear noon [*tihara*],** that **is the middle of the day?** In other words, *tohoro* refers to halfway up the altar. Now, since the blood was sprinkled on the altar seven times, inevitably some of the blood landed above the midpoint and some of it landed below the midpoint.


###### Yoma 15a:16
[Yoma 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/15a:16)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Sheila said: No**, that is not the meaning of *tohoro*.