Yoma 44b — the Talmud in English

And

if

from between the Hall and the Altar, they do not withdraw ![](pamud.bmp "

precise column location")

except at the time of the burning

that is in the Sanctuary. [

But at the time of the burning that is in the Holy of Holies, they do not withdraw from between the Hall and the Altar. And this is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar].

It follows from the Gemara’s answer that the beraita said that there is a higher degree of sanctity in the Sanctuary than between the Hall and the Altar with regard to the burning. And the beraita did not mention that there is an additional higher degree of sanctity concerning the sprinkling of blood [that at the time of the sprinkling of blood in the Holy of Holies, they withdraw only from the Sanctuary, and not from between the Hall and the Altar].

And therefore the Gemara raises an objection:

But there is this higher degree of sanctity —

and yet there is also this higher degree of sanctity:

for if from the Sanctuary they withdraw, both with regard to its own sanctity,

that is, both at the sprinkling of blood in the Sanctuary itself,

and with regard to sanctity

at the sprinkling of blood

of the innermost place,

in the Holy of Holies.

But if from between the Hall and the Altar, they withdraw only

only

with regard to sanctity,

at the sprinkling of blood

of the Sanctuary!

And why did the beraita not say that there is an additional higher degree of sanctity in the Sanctuary than between the Hall and the Altar with regard to the sprinkling of blood?

He said

he answered,

Rava:

Indeed, the beraita did not explicitly mention that there is also a higher degree of sanctity with regard to the sprinkling of blood, but

“the matter of withdrawal” —

is one.

The law of withdrawal is one law, and one should not distinguish between the withdrawal stated concerning the burning and the withdrawal stated concerning the sprinkling of blood. And since we learned in the beraita that at the time of the burning in the Holy of Holies they do not withdraw from between the Hall and the Altar, it is understood that at the time of the sprinkling of blood there is also that same law, and everything is considered only one higher degree of sanctity.

And now the Gemara explains the words of the beraita that we cited:

The Master said

in the beraita: Just as they withdraw from between the Hall and the Altar at the time of the burning,

so they withdraw at the time of the giving

of the blood of

the bull of an anointed priest, the bull for the unwitting communal decision, and the goats of idolatry.

And we raised a question concerning it:

From where do we know it?

From where do we know that they also withdraw at the giving of blood during the rest of the year? After all, the verse “and no person shall be in the Tent of Meeting” speaks of Yom Kippur!

Rabbi Pedat said: It is derived,

we learn this matter by means of a gezerah shavah of

“atonement” —

“atonement” from Yom Kippur [

for both on Yom Kippur and with these offerings the expression “atonement” is stated. And through a gezerah shavah we learn that their laws are the same ].

And the Gemara continues to discuss the words of the beraita:

Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: Infer from this —

one should learn from the words of the beraita that the matters of

“higher degrees of sanctity”

that the Sages taught in the laws of ritual purity

are Torah laws!

In tractate Kelim, ten distinctions of higher degrees of sanctity were taught, for there are ten places in which the sanctity of one exceeds that of another.

And there we learned that the sanctity of “between the Hall and the Altar” exceeds the sanctity of the rest of the Court.

And from the words of the beraita we shall prove that those distinctions of higher degrees of sanctity between one place and another are not rabbinic, but are Torah laws, despite the fact that they have no source in Scripture; rather —

and thus they received it

— the Sages learned as a law given to Moses at Sinai the division of their levels of sanctity.

For if it enters your mind,

if it should occur to you to say that the distinctions of higher degrees of sanctity are only

rabbinic,

but according to Torah law the sanctity of the entire Court is equal [and there is no difference between the sanctity of “between the Hall and the Altar” and the sanctity of the rest of the Court], one may raise the following difficulty:

What is different

— in what way is the sanctity of

“between the Hall and the Altar”

different, such that the Sages decreed upon it a law of withdrawal, out of concern

lest they become confused and enter,

lest, if they stand there, an error occur to them and they enter into the Sanctuary, from the sanctity of the rest of the Court?

But it would have been appropriate to say that

from the entire Court also they should withdraw,

that they should withdraw from the whole Court,

lest they become confused and enter.

Lest, if they stand in the Court, an error occur to them and they enter into the Sanctuary! Rather, necessarily, according to Torah law the sanctity of the rest of the Court is lower than the sanctity of “between the Hall and the Altar.” And when the Sages decreed a law of withdrawal from between the Hall and the Altar, the rest of the Court was not included in that decree, for between the Hall and the Altar is a sanctity in itself, and the rest of the Court is a sanctity in itself.

And therefore, if they were to decree a law of withdrawal also in the rest of the Court, this would be in the category of “a decree to safeguard a decree.” And one does not issue a decree to safeguard a decree [and therefore they decreed the law of withdrawal only concerning between the Hall and the Altar].

But if the distinctions of higher degrees of sanctity were only rabbinic, the Sages could have issued a decree concerning the entire Court, and this would not be considered a decree to safeguard a decree. Since the distinctions of higher degrees of sanctity are only rabbinic, while according to Torah law the sanctity of the Court is one, their decree by the Sages concerning all the parts of the Court would be considered only one decree.

And we reject this: It is still possible to say that the distinctions of the “higher degrees of sanctity” are only rabbinic. And according to Torah law the entire Court is one sanctity. Nevertheless, they did not decree a law of withdrawal throughout the entire Court. And the reason for the matter is:

between the Hall and the Altar, since nothing interrupts,

since there is nothing that interrupts between one standing there and the Sanctuary,

the matter is not recognizable.

It is not recognizable how far it is permitted to enter, and therefore they prohibited standing throughout this entire area.

But in the rest of the

Court, since there is the Outer Altar that interrupts —

the matter is recognizable.

Since the Outer Altar stands there, it separates between this area and the area between the Hall and the Altar, and it is evident to one standing there that he is forbidden to enter.

And the Gemara continues to discuss the words of the beraita:

Rava said: Infer from this,

from the words of the beraita, that

the sanctity of the Hall and

the sanctity of the

Sanctuary —

are one matter.

For the Hall and the Sanctuary are one matter, and both are included under the name “Tent of Meeting.”

For if it enters your mind,

if it should occur to you to say

that they are two sanctities,

and “Tent of Meeting” is the Sanctuary alone, but not the Hall, one may raise the following difficulty:

Since the

Hall itself [

itself] is not included in what is stated, “and no person shall be in the Tent of Meeting,” because the Hall is not part of the Tent of Meeting, and the law of withdrawal in the Hall is only by force of a

decree —

and

because

shall we arise

and stand

and issue a decree to safeguard a decree?!

For if we say that in the Hall itself it is forbidden to be only because of a decree, while between the Hall and the Altar it is forbidden lest one enter the Hall, and from it into the Sanctuary, this is a decree to safeguard a decree. And one does not issue a decree to safeguard a decree!

And we reject this:

No!

It is still possible to say that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the Hall are not one matter. Rather, the sanctity of the

Hall and

the sanctity of

between the Hall and the Altar are one sanctity [

it is one sanctity], whereas the sanctity of the

Sanctuary and

the sanctity of the

Hall —

are two sanctities

.

Nevertheless, when they decreed withdrawal from the Hall out of concern lest one standing there enter the Sanctuary, the area between the Hall and the Altar was also included in this decree, because both possess one sanctity.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day there was

the priest who burned the incense

taking

coals from the fire

in

a firepan

of silver,

and he poured from it into a golden firepan.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

What is the reason that they did not make the first firepan of gold? Because

the Torah spared the money of Israel,

and therefore we too spare the money of Israel, and do not take coals from the fire in a golden firepan, because taking the coals wears down the vessel and diminishes it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And on that day,

on Yom Kippur,

he took coals in

a firepan

of gold, and with it

itself

he would bring

the coals into the Holy of Holies.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

What is the reason for the change on Yom Kippur?

Because of the weakness of the High Priest

from fasting; and therefore they made it easier for him, so that he would not have to trouble himself to pour the coals from one vessel into another.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day

the priest

took coals in

a golden firepan

of four kav,

and poured them into [a silver firepan of] three kav. Rabbi Yose says: Every day he took coals in one of a seah [six kav], and poured them into one of three kav.

The tanai

in the Mishna [Tamid 33a]: When he poured from the golden firepan into the silver firepan,

a kav of coals was scattered for him

on the ground. And he would

sweep them into the channel,

into a water channel one cubit wide that passed through the Court and flowed into the Kidron stream.

One taught,

in the Mishna in tractate Tamid: “There was scattered for him

a kav

of coals.”

And another taught,

in another beraita: “There were scattered for him

two kav.”

And we raised a question concerning it:

Granted, this one [

the Mishna in tractate Tamid],

which taught

in it that there was scattered for him

a kav

of coals when he poured from one firepan into another, for it follows the opinion of

the Sages,

who say in our Mishna that he poured from a firepan of four kav into a firepan of three kav, because one kav was scattered on the ground.

But that one which taught

in the beraita that there were scattered for him

two kav —

whose opinion is it?

Who is the tanai who taught it? For necessarily it was

not the Sages

who taught it [for according to their words only one kav was scattered],

and not Rabbi Yose

who taught it, for according to his opinion he should have poured from a firepan of a seah, which is six kav, into a firepan of three, because three kav were scattered!

And if so, who taught the beraita that two kav were scattered?

Rav Hisda said:

This beraita

is the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

[he was the one who taught the beraita].

As it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben

Beroka says: In

a firepan

of two kav he would bring

the coals into the Sanctuary. At first he would take coals from the Altar in a firepan of four kav [in accordance with the opinion of the Sages]. It follows that two kav were scattered while he poured the coals from one firepan into another.

Rav Ashi said: You may even say,

even if you say that the beraita was taught by

Rabbi Yose,

it is understandable why two kav were scattered. And Rabbi Yose’s words [in our Mishna] must be explained differently:

And this is what he said —

and this is what Rabbi Yose intended to say:

Every day he took coals in

a firepan

of a “wilderness seah”,

a seah with which they measured in the wilderness, which was one-sixth smaller than the measures used in Jerusalem. It follows that the wilderness seah was only five Jerusalem kav.

And

he would

pour into

a firepan of

three Jerusalem kav.

And therefore only two kav were scattered.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day it was

the firepan

heavy, and on that day,

on Yom Kippur it was

light.

The tanai

in a beraita:

Every day its shell was

its side

thick.

And on that day

its side was

soft,

thin. And therefore it was lighter than during the rest of the year.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day it was short, and on that day it was long.

And we explain:

What is the reason,

what is the reason for which they made a long handle on Yom Kippur?

So that the arm of the High Priest would assist him

so that he could place the handle beneath his arm, and his arm would assist him .

A tannai taught

in a beraita:

Every day it did not have a niyashtik,

a ring at the top of the handle,

but today,

on Yom Kippur,

it did have a niyashtik,

a ring at the top of the handle, so that it would jingle and make a sound when he entered inside. As it is stated: “And its sound shall be heard when he enters the Sanctuary” [Exodus 28:35],

the words of Ben Ha-Segan.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day its gold was

resembling the hue of

green.

And today [it resembled] red, the words of Rabbi Menahem.

Rav Hisda said: There are seven

kinds of

gold: gold, and good gold, and Ophir gold, and fine gold, and drawn gold, and closed gold, and Parvaim gold.

And he explains and proceeds:

“Gold” and “good gold”

are two kinds,

as it is written

in Genesis 2:

“And the gold of that land is good.”

It follows that there is gold that is not called “good gold.”

“Ophir gold”

is called thus because

it comes

it comes

from Ophir.