Yoma 15a — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis

explain this verse:

What is the Merciful One saying ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

At the time of the preparation—

let

already

be

already

burning

already the

incense.

If you do not say so,

but rather, the preparation of all the lamps should be before the incense, in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse, from which Abba Shaul learned, the following difficulty arises for you: In the order of the service

between the evenings, as it is written [Exodus 30:8]

Exodus 30:8]

“And when Aaron lights the lamps between the evenings—

he shall burn it

for the incense,” does

so too

it say here

that first he lights the lamps and afterward burns the incense of between the evenings

as is the meaning of the verse according to Abba Shaul’s words concerning the order of the morning service?!

And if you would say, so too.

That is not possible. For

and it was taught in a beraita:

The verse said concerning the arrangement of the candelabrum [Exodus 27:21]: “He shall arrange it”—

from evening until morning.

We learn from here:

Give it

oil every evening, even on the short nights, during the period of Tammuz, according to

its measure

on the long nights during the period of Tevet,

so that it will burn

the candelabrum

and continue throughout the entire night, from evening until morning.

Another matter: “From evening until morning

you have no service

of the day

that is fit

to be performed

from evening until morning

after the lighting of the lamps

except

the service

alone [and this means that it must be performed last among the services of the day].

that is, it must be performed last among the services of the day].

Rather,

necessarily,

what is the Merciful One saying

in the verse “And when Aaron lights the lamps between the evenings, he shall burn it”—that

at the time

of the

lighting

of the lamps

there shall already be

already

be

already

burning

of

the incense.

And if so,

here too

the meaning of the verse concerning the order of the morning services is—

at the time of the preparation, the incense shall be burning.

And

if

Abba Shaul had said to you: The matter there is different

with regard to the evening service, for the decree of the verse is that the preparation of the lamps should be after the incense,

as it is written

concerning the arrangement of the candelabrum, “He shall arrange

it

from evening until morning.”

Rav Pappa said

another answer to reconcile the contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna below:

It is not difficult.

This

our Mishna, which holds that the incense is before the preparation of the lamps, is according to

the Rabbis.

Whereas

this

the Mishna below, in which they cast lots for the incense after the lamps, is according to

Abba Shaul.

And we challenge this:

With what did you establish the Mishna here—

according to the Rabbis,

and the Mishna below, concerning the

lot—

according to Abba Shaul?

If so,

say the latter clause

in the third chapter, concerning the order of the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur in the morning:

They brought him the daily offering; he cut it through [

slaughtered it],

and another

completed the

remaining

of the

slaughter on his behalf [

for him].

He entered to burn the incense and to prepare the lamps.

And necessarily this latter clause—

we bring it

is

according

to

the Rabbis.

And is it possible to say that

the first clause and the latter clause

are according to

the Rabbis, and

whereas

the middle clause [the Mishna of the lot]

is according to

Abba Shaul?!

Rav Pappa could say to you: Yes,

so!

The first clause and the latter clause—

the Rabbis; and the middle clause—

Abba Shaul.

And the Gemara now explains:

Granted, as for Abaye, he did not say

he did not answer

like Rav Pappa,

because to say that

the first clause and the latter clause

are according to

the Rabbis, and the middle clause

according to

Abba Shaul—

he does not establish it,

he does not wish to establish it with this forced explanation.

But as for Rav Pappa—

what is the reason he did not say like

the answer of

Abaye?

He could say

Rav Pappa: Abaye’s answer is difficult, for according to his words, we have taught in the Mishnayot the order of the preparation of the lamps not in the proper order: the tanna made the preparation of the two lamps, which is later, precede the preparation of the five lamps, which is earlier.

For according to Abaye,

the tanna

taught

at the beginning,

in our Mishna, the law of

the preparation of the two lamps [

and therefore he placed the incense first],

and afterward,

and afterward, in the Mishna of the lot, he taught

the preparation of the five lamps,

after which is the incense.

And Abaye could say to you

that this is not difficult.

For in our Mishna the tanna did not state the order of the service, but only

he is merely instructing,

we learn what the services of the day are with which the High Priest is occupied,

and

as for

the order

of the service,

this

one—

he teaches it afterward

in the following chapters, according to the correct order of the five lamps, incense, and afterward the two lamps, all according to the Rabbis.

And the Gemara returns to explain the Mishna concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the daily offering:

The essential matter: He came to the northeastern corner—

he places on the northeastern.

The southwestern—

he places on the southwestern.

And it was taught concerning it: Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpa changes in the daily offering;

he came to the northeastern corner—

he places

on the northeastern; the southwestern—

he places on the west and afterward he places on the south.

And we raised the matter:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpa

for changing the order of giving the blood of the daily offering from that of the other burnt offerings?

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of one of the scholars

from the study hall of

Rabbi Yannai:

The verse says

in the additional offering of the New Moon [Numbers 28:15]:

“And one goat of the goats for a sin offering to the Lord—

upon the daily burnt offering shall it be made, and its libation.”

“Upon the daily burnt offering” means: the daily burnt offering, indeed

it is a burnt offering, and

nevertheless

the Merciful One said: Perform upon it

upon the daily burnt offering

“the act of a sin offering.”

How so?

He places

a blood placement

“one that is two” on the northeastern corner,

and

as the act of a burnt offering,

for it is a burnt offering; but afterward he gives a blood placement

“two that are two,”

interrupting between the two placements and giving each one separately,

as the act of a sin offering.

And we raised the matter:

Let him give

first

“two that are four,” as the ordinary act of a burnt offering,

and

then

only afterward let him give

“four that are four,” as the act of a sin offering?!

And we answer: It is not possible, since

we have not found blood that atones and then returns and atones.

And we challenge this: What is the force of the claim “we have not found”?

And have we found blood half of which

is given according to the law of a

sin offering and half of which

according to the law of a

burnt offering?

Rather—

the verse necessarily compared them

to do so.

If so,

here too,

with regard to repeating the entire order of the sin offering after the order of the burnt offering, it should be said that it must be done so—

the verse necessarily compared them!

And we answer:

There

with regard to the change in the second giving of the blood, to give it with an interruption, this is not a major change from the other burnt offerings, for it is given on the same corner, and this is nothing but

merely a “division of the placements,”

and therefore it is reasonable that the Torah spoke only of this.

And furthermore we raised the matter:

Let him give

the blood placement

“one that is two” below

the red line,

as the act of a burnt offering,

and

“two that are two” above

the red line,

as the act of a sin offering!

And we answer:

We have not found blood half of which is above and half of which is below.

And we wonder:

And

is it that

not

have we found blood part of which is above and part of which is below?!

And was it not taught in the Mishna:

The High Priest took the blood of the bull, and

sprinkled from it [according to the Gemara’s assumption at this point] opposite the cover,

one sprinkling

above

the middle of the cover,

and seven

sprinklings

below

its middle?!

And we answer: These sprinklings were not above the middle of the cover and not below it, but rather sprinklings

like

a person who

lashes.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “like one who lashes”?

He demonstrated

showed

Rav Yehuda

with his hand:

like a flogger,

like an agent of the court who lashes one liable for lashes, striking him blow after blow in a different place on the body: at first he strikes a place farther from himself, and gradually he brings the lashes closer on the body of the one being lashed toward the place where the flogger is standing.

But it is still possible to challenge:

And

is it that

not

have we found blood part of which is above and part of which is below?

And was it not taught in the Mishna: He sprinkled from it,

from the blood mixed from the blood of the bull and the goat,

on the “purity” of the altar

of gold

seven times.

And the Gemara assumes now:

Is it not

the intention of the word “its purity” that he sprinkles seven times on the side of the wall of the altar,

its half

at the height of half of it

of the altar?

And as

as

people say

when midday arrives, at noon:

“Purity, midday,”

for

is it half of the day?

And since he sprinkles on its middle, some of the blood falls above the middle and some below it.

Rabba bar Sheila said: No,

the Mishna did not intend to say a giving on half the height of the altar.