Yoma 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

Could it be

forbidden to stand

even in the courtyard

at the time of burning the incense in the Holy of Holies?

The verse states: “In the Tent of Meeting.”

I have derived

to prohibit

only in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness.

In the Sanctuary of

Shiloh and

in the Sanctuary of

the eternal House

in Jerusalem—

from where

do we know that this law applies there as well?

The verse states

later in the verse: “When he comes to effect atonement

in the Sanctuary.” This teaches that wherever the term “sanctuary” applies, no person may be present during the burning of the incense [Rabbeinu Elyakim].

I have derived only the time of the burning of the incense,

which is what the verse discusses [as the Gemara will explain below].

At the time of the presentation of the blood

from where

do we know that this prohibition applies?

The verse states: “When he comes to effect atonement.”

And atonement refers to the presentation of the blood.

I have derived only upon his entering,

as long as he is occupied with the service.

From where do we derive upon his leaving

that this prohibition applies?

The verse states: “Until he leaves.”

And later in the verse it says:

“And he shall effect atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.”

And the Sages expounded:

His atonement—

precedes the atonement of his household.

In the first confession, which he makes over his bull, he first mentions his own sins and only afterward mentions the sins of the members of his household. For it is stated first, “for himself,” and only afterward, “and for his household.”

The atonement of his household—

precedes the atonement of his fellow kohanim.

In the second confession, which he makes over his bull, he first mentions the sins of his household and afterward mentions the sins of his fellow kohanim.

And the atonement of his fellow kohanim—

precedes the atonement of all the congregation of Israel

in the case of the scapegoat.

The Master said

in the beraita:

I have derived only the time of the burning

of the incense.

From where is this implied?

How is it implied that the verse is speaking of the burning of the incense rather than the presentation of the blood? [Rabbeinu Elyakim].

Rava said, and similarly Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avdimi said, and similarly Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: “And he shall effect atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.”

Which

sacrifice has

an atonement that is identical for him and for his household,

and for his fellow kohanim, and for all the congregation of Israel?

You must say that this is the burning of the incense!

For in the presentation of the blood, the atonement is not identical for all of them: The bull effects atonement for the sins of the High Priest, his household, and the kohanim, whereas the goat effects atonement for the sins of Israel.

We challenge this:

But

does

the incense effect atonement?!

We answer:

Yes.

Indeed!

For Rabbi Hananya taught

the following

beraita

:

“We have learned regarding the incense [

concerning the incense]

that it effects atonement.

As it is stated

in Numbers 17:12:

‘And he placed the incense—

and effected atonement for the people.’”

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what

for which sin does the

incense effect atonement?

For evil speech.

Let an act performed in secrecy [

in private], namely the incense, which no person may witness in the Sanctuary while it is being performed, come

and effect atonement for an act performed in secrecy,

for evil speech, which is generally spoken in secret.

We learned there

in tractate Kelim [1:9]:

All the kohanim

withdraw from

the area

between the Entrance Hall and the Altar

at the time of the burning

of the incense.

Rabbi Elazar said: They taught

that they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar

only

only

at the time of the burning in the Sanctuary.

When they burned the incense of the entire year, in the morning and evening, in the Sanctuary, which was adjacent to the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar.

But at the time of the burning within and within,

the incense performed on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies—in this case,

they withdraw only from the Sanctuary.

They withdraw only from the Sanctuary adjacent to the Holy of Holies, but

from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,

which is farther from the Holy of Holies,

they do not withdraw.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection

contradicting Rabbi Elazar’s statement from a beraita.

And some say

that the refutation was stated

without

mentioning the name of the questioner [Rabbeinu Elyakim]:

For we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar at the time of the burning

of the incense [as we learned in that Mishna],

so they withdraw

from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar

at the time of the presentation

of the blood of

the bull of the anointed priest,

and the bull for an erroneous decision of the community,

and the goats of idolatry

.

The blood of these sacrifices was presented in the Sanctuary.

And since we have said that they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar both during the burning of the incense and during the presentation of the blood in the Sanctuary,

then what distinction is there between the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall and the Altar?

In what way is the Sanctuary more stringent than the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar with regard to the law of withdrawal?

There is no distinction between them

except

for this one difference:

In the Sanctuary they withdraw both at the time of the burning

of the incense

and when it is not the time of the burning,

but rather the time of the presentation of the blood.

But

if

from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar they withdraw only at the time of the burning

alone, but not at the time of the presentation of the blood.

The beraita apparently contradicts itself. At its beginning we learned that they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar at the time of the presentation of the blood in the Sanctuary, whereas at its conclusion we learned: “And from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar they withdraw only at the time of the burning,” and not at the time of the presentation of the blood!

Therefore, the Gemara understands that the first clause speaks of services performed in the Sanctuary, during which they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar both during the burning and during the presentation of the blood in the Sanctuary. But the latter clause speaks of services performed in the Holy of Holies, during which they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar only during the burning in the Holy of Holies, but not during the presentation of the blood [Ritva in the name of Tosafot].

And it is evident from the latter clause that

at the time of the burning, in any event,

nevertheless

they withdraw.

Is this not referring to the time of the burning within and within,

in the Holy of Holies?!

We would then learn from the beraita that during the burning in the Holy of Holies they withdraw even from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, contrary to Rabbi Elazar’s statement! We reject this: No! The beraita that says they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar at the time of the burning is speaking

only of the time of the burning in the Sanctuary.

And this is what the beraita said: “

The following, then, is what distinction is there between the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall and the Altar? Rather, in the Sanctuary they withdraw both at the time of the burning [both in the Sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies] and when it is not the time of the burning [but rather the time of the presentation of the blood, both in the Sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies].

But from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar they withdraw only at the time of the burning [in the Sanctuary alone. But they do not withdraw during the presentation of the blood in the Holy of Holies]”

.

That is, the distinction in which the Sanctuary is more stringent than the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar applies during the presentation of the blood in the Holy of Holies: From the Sanctuary they withdraw, whereas from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar they do not withdraw.

The Gemara immediately asks:

If so—

if they withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar only during the burning in the Sanctuary, why did the beraita say

“What distinction is there”, and imply that there is only one distinction between the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall and the Altar [with regard to the presentation of the blood, as explained in the Gemara’s answer above]

implying that there is only one distinction between the Sanctuary and the area between the Hall and the Altar, with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, as explained in the Gemara’s answer above—

and no more,

and no additional distinction?

But this is not correct, for

there is this additional distinction

with regard to the burning:

For from the Sanctuary they withdraw both during its own burning,

both when the incense is burned in the Sanctuary itself,

and during the burning within and within,

in the Holy of Holies.

Whereas from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar they withdraw only during the burning in the Sanctuary

but when the incense is burned in the Holy of Holies they do not withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar’s statement above!

The Gemara’s question was based on the assumption that the beraita’s words “when it is not the time of the burning” refer to the time of the presentation of the blood. In the following answer, the Gemara changes the explanation of the beraita. It thereby answers the question:

And we answer:

It indeed teaches:

what you said—that there is a difference in the law of separation between the Heikhal and the Holy of Holies with regard to the incense offering—is indeed stated in the beraita itself. And this is how the beraita is to be explained:

So what distinction is there between the Heikhal and the Ulam and the altar?

Rather, in the Heikhal, they separate both during the offering of the incense

in the Heikhal itself,

and when it is not during the offering of the incense

in the Heikhal itself, but during the offering of the incense in the Holy of Holies.