Yoma 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis

explain this verse:

What is the Merciful One saying

in giving precedence to the preparation of the lamps over the incense?

At the time of the preparation—

let

already

be

already

the incense

already

prepared.

If you do not say this,

but rather, the preparation of all the lamps should precede the incense, in accordance with the plain meaning of the verse, from which Abba Shaul derived his ruling, then the following difficulty arises: In the order of the service

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

Exodus 30:8]

“And when Aaron sets up the lamps between the evenings

he shall burn it

as incense,” is it

also so

here that it is stated

that he first lights the lamps and afterward burns the incense of the evening

and this is likewise the meaning of the verse according to Abba Shaul concerning the order of the morning service!?

And if you say that it is also so.

That is impossible. For

and it was taught:

The verse states 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 season of Tammuz, according to

its measure

on the long nights during the season of Tevet,

so that it will burn

the Candelabrum

continuously throughout the entire night, from evening until morning.

Alternatively: “From evening until morning”—

you have no service

of the day

that is valid

to be performed

from evening until morning

after the lighting of the lamps

except

this

alone [that is, it must be performed as the final service 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 sets up the lamps between the evenings he shall burn it”—that

at the time

the

lighting

of the lamps

shall

already

be

already

the incense

prepared,

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 already be burning.

And

if

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

in the evening service, for the verse decrees that the preparation of the lamps is 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 later Mishna:

It is not difficult.

This

our Mishna, which maintains that the incense precedes the preparation of the lamps, is according to

the Rabbis.

Whereas

this

later Mishna, in which they conduct a lottery for the incense after the lamps, is according to

Abba Shaul.

And we challenge this:

According to whom have you established the Mishna here—

according to the Rabbis,

and the later Mishna concerning the

lottery—

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 slaughtered it [

slaughtered it ],

and he completed

and a priest

afterward

the

slaughter on his behalf [

for him ].

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

And necessarily this latter clause—

comes

is

according

to

the Rabbis.

Is it possible to say that

the first and latter clauses

are according to

the Rabbis, and

whereas

the middle clause [the Mishna concerning the lottery] is according to

Abba

Shaul!?

Rav Pappa could say to you: Yes,

that is so!

The first and latter clauses—

the Rabbis; and the middle clause—

Abba Shaul.

The Gemara now explains the Mishna:

Granted, Abaye did not say

did not answer

like Rav Pappa

because to say that

the first and latter clauses

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 by means of this forced explanation.

But Rav Pappa—

for what reason did he not say like

the explanation of

Abaye?

He could say to you:

Rav Pappa says: Abaye’s explanation is difficult, because according to his words, in the Mishnayot we have been taught the order of the preparation of the lamps incorrectly: The tanna presented the preparation of the two lamps, which is later, before the preparation of the five lamps, which is earlier.

For according to Abaye,

the tanna

taught

in the first clause,

in our Mishna, the law of

the preparation of the two lamps [

and therefore he placed the incense first ],

and afterward,

in the Mishna concerning the lottery, he taught

the preparation of the five lamps,

after which comes 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; rather,

he is merely indicating,

teaching us which services of the day the High Priest performs,

and

as for

the order

of the service,

this

one—

he teaches it afterward

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

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

The matter itself: He came to the northeastern corner—

he placed it on the northeastern corner.

The southwestern corner—

he placed it on the southwestern corner.

And it was taught concerning it: Rabbi Shimon of the lookout changed the order in the section on the daily offering;

he came to the northeastern corner—

he placed

it on the northeastern corner; at the southwestern corner—

he placed it to the west and afterward placed it to the south.

And we considered this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon of the lookout

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

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of one of the members of the house

from the study hall of

Rabbi Yannai:

The verse says

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

“And one goat for a sin offering to the Lord

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

“With the daily burnt offering” means: It is the daily burnt offering; nevertheless,

it is a burnt offering, and

despite this,

the Merciful One said: Perform with it

with the daily burnt offering

“the procedure of a sin offering.”

How so?

He places

a blood placement

“one that is two”

on the northeastern corner,

in the procedure of a burnt offering,

since it is a burnt offering; but afterward he places a blood placement

“two that are two,”

interrupting between the two placements and making each separately,

in the procedure of a sin offering.

And we considered this:

Let him first give

the

“two that are four,” as in the usual procedure of a burnt offering,

and

only

afterward let him give

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

And we answer: That is impossible, because

we do not find blood that atones and then returns and atones again.

And we challenge this: What is the force of the claim, “we do not find”?

Do we find blood half of which

is applied according to the law of a

sin offering and half of which

according to the law of a

burnt offering?

Rather—

the verse necessarily equated them

to require this.

If so,

here too, regarding repeating the entire procedure of a sin offering after the procedure of a burnt offering, it should be said that this must be done—

the verse necessarily equated them!

the verse necessarily compared them!

And we answer:

There, in changing the second application of the blood, to make it with an interruption, this is not a major change from the other burnt offerings, since it is applied on the same corner; it is merely

in changing the second application of the blood by making separate applications, this is not a major change from the other burnt-offerings, since it is applied on the same corner. It is merely

“an interruption between the applications,”

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

We further consider this:

Let him place

the blood placement

“one that is two” below

the red line,

as in the procedure of a burnt offering,

and

“two that are two” above

the red line,

as in the procedure of a sin offering!

And we answer:

We do not find blood half of which is above and half of which is below.

And we wonder:

And

is it true that

we do not

find blood some of which is above and some of which is below!?

But it was taught:

The High Priest took the blood of the bull, and

sprinkled from it [

according to the Gemara’s present understanding ] toward the Ark cover:

one sprinkling above

the midpoint of the Ark cover,

and seven

sprinklings

below

its midpoint!?

And we answer: These sprinklings were neither above the midpoint of the Ark cover nor below it; rather, they were sprinklings

like

a person

whipping.

The Gemara explains:

What does “like whipping” mean?

He demonstrated

showing

Rav Yehuda

with his hand:

Like a flogger,

like a court messenger who administers lashes to one liable for lashes, striking him blow after blow at different places on the body: He first strikes a place farthest from himself, and gradually brings the lashes on the person being flogged toward the place where the flogger is standing.

But it can still be challenged:

And

is it true that

we do not

find blood some of which is above and some of which is below?

But it was taught: He sprinkled from it,

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

on the “purity” of the altar

the golden altar,

seven times.

And the Gemara now assumes:

Is it not

the meaning of the word “its purity” that he sprinkled seven times on the side of the altar’s wall,

its half,

at the height of half of it,

of the altar?

And

as

people say

when midday arrives, at noon:

“The midday has become pure,”

for

it is half the day?

Since he sprinkles on its midpoint, some of the blood falls above the midpoint and some below it.

Rabba bar Sheila said: No,

the Mishna did not mean a placement at half the height of the altar.