## Yoma Daf 60b

###### Yoma 60b:1
[Yoma 60b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:1)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מָקוֹם שֶׁמִּתְכַּפְּרִין בּוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה סָבַר: דְּבָרִים הַמִּתְכַּפְּרִין בָּהֶן פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda maintains** that this is referring to the **place where atonement is achieved once a year,** namely the Holy of Holies. In his opinion, the order of actions is indispensable for the services performed in the Holy of Holies. **And Rabbi Neḥemya maintains** that the verse is referring to **the actions through which atonement is achieved once a year,** meaning both the place and the garments. Consequently, in the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, the order for all actions performed in white clothes is indispensable.


###### Yoma 60b:2
[Yoma 60b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:2)

אַטּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״מָקוֹם״ כְּתִיב? אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כְּתִיב ״זֹאת״, וּכְתִיב ״אַחַת״. חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי בִּגְדֵי לָבָן מִבַּחוּץ, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי בִּגְדֵי זָהָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that according **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** the word **place** is **written?** The verse merely states “once a year,” which apparently is referring to the order of the service in general but not to a specific place. **Rather,** the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following: **This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda: It is written: “This”** (Leviticus 16:34), which is a term of restriction and limitation, **and it is written: “Once** a year” (Leviticus 16:34), another term of restriction. **One** restriction comes **to exclude** actions performed **in** the **white garments outside** the Sanctuary, meaning that they are not indispensable; **and one** restriction comes **to exclude** actions performed **in** the **gold garments.**


###### Yoma 60b:3
[Yoma 60b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:3)

וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי בִּגְדֵי זָהָב, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי שִׁירַיִם דְּלָא מְעַכְּבִי. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי מְעַכְּבִי — מְעַכְּבִי, וְאִי לָא מְעַכְּבִי — לָא מְעַכְּבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how does **Rabbi Neḥemya** interpret these two restricting expressions? In his opinion, **one** of the restrictions comes **to exclude** actions performed in the **gold garments, and one** restriction comes **to exclude** the **remainders** of blood that are poured at the base of the altar, meaning **that** these **are not indispensable.** If the High Priest performed a service that is supposed to come after the spilling of the blood too early, the service is valid, despite the fact that the spilling of the blood is performed in white garments. The Gemara asks: **And** what does **Rabbi Yehuda** maintain with regard to the remainders of blood? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, **if** the other actions performed outside are **indispensable,** this too is **indispensable; and if** the other acts performed outside are **not indispensable,** the remainders are **not indispensable** either. The pouring of the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood in this regard.


###### Yoma 60b:4
[Yoma 60b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:4)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״, אִם כִּפֵּר — כִּלָּה, וְאִם לֹא כִּפֵּר — לֹא כִּלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר: אִם כִּלָּה — כִּפֵּר, וְאִם לֹא כִּלָּה — לֹא כִּפֵּר, שֶׁאִם חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In proof that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that pouring the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood, the Gemara cites a *baraita* that is referring to a case where the pouring of the remainders of the blood is entirely omitted. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **“And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place”** (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that **if he performed the atonement, he has finished** the order of the service; **and if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why do we not say** that **if he finished** sprinkling all the blood, **he has performed atonement; and if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement?** This would indicate **that if one of the presentations is lacking** it is as though **he did nothing.**


###### Yoma 60b:5
[Yoma 60b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:5)

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. חַד אָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וְחַד אָמַר: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we say** in this regard: **What** is the practical difference **between them? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** debated this point. **One** of them **said: There is** a difference **between them** with regard to **the source from which they derive their interpretation,** i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. **And** the other **one said: There is** a difference **between them** with respect to whether pouring the **remainders** of blood at the base of the altar is **indispensable** to the atonement. According to Rabbi Akiva, it is not indispensable, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is indispensable.


###### Yoma 60b:6
[Yoma 60b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:6)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּנָּא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִי! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this,** that in Rabbi Neḥemya’s opinion pouring the remainders of blood is not indispensable? **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan** himself **say** in tractate *Zevaḥim* (111a): **Rabbi Neḥemya taught in accordance with the statement of the one who said that** the **remainders** of blood **are indispensable?** The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is **difficult.**


###### Yoma 60b:7
[Yoma 60b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: קְטוֹרֶת שֶׁחֲפָנָהּ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁל פַּר — לָא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. כְּמַאן — דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: כִּי כְּתִיבָא ״חוּקָּה״ — בִּדְבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן מִבִּפְנִים הוּא דִּכְתִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ḥanina said:** With regard to **incense that** the High Priest **scooped before the slaughtering of the bull,** it is as though **he did nothing.** The Gemara comments: **In accordance with** whose opinion is this statement? **It is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. As, if** you say it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t** Rabbi Yehuda **say** that **when it is written “statute”** (Leviticus 16:34), a term that indicates that no details may be altered, **it is written** with regard **to actions performed in white garments within** the Sanctuary, whereas scooping incense is done outside?


###### Yoma 60b:8
[Yoma 60b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60b:8)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, צוֹרֶךְ פְּנִים — כִּפְנִים דָּמֵי. תְּנַן: אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיַזֶּה בַּתְּחִילָּה מִבִּפְנִים. וְאִם אִיתָא, יַחְזוֹר וְיַחְפּוֹן מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **Even** if **you say** that Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** it is possible that in his opinion scooping the incense **for the purpose of** it being taken **inside is considered like** an action actually performed **inside.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **We learned** in the mishna that **if the blood spills before** the High Priest **completed the presentations that** were sprinkled **inside** the Holy of Holies, **he** must slaughter another bull or goat, **bring other blood, and** then **sprinkle again from the beginning inside. And if it is so,** that an action performed outside the Sanctuary for the purpose of a service inside the Sanctuary is considered like an action actually performed inside, merely slaughtering the bull and sprinkling the blood again should be insufficient. Instead, the mishna **should have said** that **he must return and scoop** the incense anew. The fact that the mishna did not say this proves that the order of scooping the incense is not indispensable.