Yoma 44b (מד:) — the Talmud in English

And

if

from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, they do not withdraw

except during the burning of the incense

in the Sanctuary.

But during the burning of the incense in the Holy of Holies, they do not withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar. And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar.

It emerges from the Gemara’s resolution that the beraita said that there is a higher level of sanctity in the Sanctuary than in the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar with regard to the burning of the incense. The beraita did not mention that there is an additional distinction with regard to the sprinkling of the blood [for during the sprinkling of the blood in the Holy of Holies, they withdraw only from the Sanctuary, but not from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar].

And therefore the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But there is this distinction as well—

for there is also this higher level of sanctity:

For whereas from the Sanctuary they withdraw, both for its own sanctity—

both during the sprinkling of the blood in the Sanctuary itself—

and for the sanctity

of the sprinkling of the blood

of the innermost place—

in the Holy of Holies—

whereas from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, they withdraw only

only

for the sanctity

of the sprinkling of the blood

of the Sanctuary!

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

He said

he answered,

Rava:

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

“the withdrawal there” -

is one matter.

The law of withdrawal is one law, and there is no distinction between the withdrawal stated with regard to the burning of the incense and the withdrawal stated with regard to the sprinkling of the blood. And once we have learned from the beraita that during the burning of the incense in the Holy of Holies they do not withdraw from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, it is understood that during the sprinkling of the blood the same law applies as well; all of this is therefore considered only one higher level 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 Entrance Hall and the Altar during the burning of the incense,

so do they withdraw during the sprinkling

of the blood of

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

And we raised the question:

From where do we know this?

How do we know that they also withdraw during the sprinkling of the blood on the other days 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 by means of a gzera shava of the term

“atonement”—

“atonement” from Yom Kippur

since the expression “atonement” is stated both with regard to Yom Kippur and with regard to these offerings. Through the gzera shava, we learn that their laws are identical ].

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

Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: Conclude from it—

it can be learned from the words of the beraita that the laws of the

“levels of sanctity”

that the Sages taught with regard to the laws of ritual purity

are of Torah origin!

In tractate Kelim [1:8], ten distinctions between levels of sanctity were taught, as there are ten places whose sanctity surpasses that of another place.

And there we learned that the sanctity of the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar surpasses the sanctity of the rest of the Courtyard.

And from the words of the beraita we shall prove that those distinctions between one place and another are not rabbinic, but are of Torah origin, despite the fact that they have no source in the written text. Rather,

this is how it was transmitted—

the Sages learned by a halakha given to Moses at Sinai the division into these degrees of sanctity.

For if it enters your mind

that you might think that the distinctions between the levels of sanctity are only

rabbinic,

but according to Torah law the sanctity of the entire Courtyard is identical [and there is no difference between the sanctity of the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar and that of the rest of the Courtyard], one can raise the following difficulty:

What is different

about the sanctity of

“between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,”

that the Sages decreed withdrawal there as a precaution

lest they become confused and enter

lest, if they stand there, they err and enter the Sanctuary, as opposed to the sanctity of the rest of the Courtyard?

But it would have been appropriate to say that

they should also withdraw from the entire Courtyard

that they should withdraw from the whole Courtyard,

lest they become confused and enter

lest, if they stand in the Courtyard, they err and enter the Sanctuary! Rather, necessarily, according to Torah law the sanctity of the rest of the Courtyard is inferior to the sanctity of the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar. And when the Sages decreed the law of withdrawal from between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, the rest of the Courtyard was not included in that decree, since between the Entrance Hall and the Altar is a distinct sanctity, and the rest of the Courtyard is a distinct sanctity.

And therefore, if they had also decreed the law of withdrawal in the rest of the Courtyard, it would have constituted “a decree to prevent violation of another decree.” And the Sages do not issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree [and therefore they decreed the law of withdrawal only for the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar].

But if the distinctions between the levels of sanctity were only rabbinic, the Sages could have decreed withdrawal throughout the entire Courtyard, and this would not have been considered a decree to prevent violation of another decree. Since the distinctions between the levels of sanctity are only rabbinic, while according to Torah law the sanctity of the Courtyard is one and the same, the decree of the Sages concerning all parts of the Courtyard would have been considered only one decree.

And we reject this: It is still possible to say that the distinctions between the “levels of sanctity” are only rabbinic. According to Torah law, the entire Courtyard has one sanctity. Nevertheless, they did not decree withdrawal throughout the entire Courtyard. And the reason is:

Between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, since nothing interrupts—

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

the matter is not discernible.

It is not apparent how far one is permitted to enter; therefore, they prohibited standing throughout this entire area.

But in the rest of the

Courtyard, since there is the outer Altar, which interrupts—

the matter is discernible.

Since the outer Altar stands there, it separates this area from the area between the Entrance Hall and the Altar, and it is apparent to one standing there that he is forbidden to enter.

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

Rava said: Conclude from it,

from the words of the beraita we shall prove that

the sanctity of the Entrance Hall and

the sanctity of the

Sanctuary—

are one matter.

The Entrance Hall and the Sanctuary constitute one entity, and both are included in the designation “Tent of Meeting.”

For if it enters your mind

that you might think

that they are two sanctities,

and “Tent of Meeting” refers only to the Sanctuary and not to the Entrance Hall, one can raise the following difficulty:

Since the

Entrance Hall itself

[itself] is not included in the statement “and no person shall be in the Tent of Meeting,” because the Entrance Hall is not part of the Tent of Meeting, and the law of withdrawal in the Entrance Hall applies only by virtue of a

decree—

and

because

shall we stand

and stand

and issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree?!

For if we say that being in the Entrance Hall itself is prohibited only by virtue of a decree, and that being between the Entrance Hall and the Altar is prohibited lest one enter the Entrance Hall and from there the Sanctuary, this is a decree to prevent violation of another decree. And the Sages do not issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree!

And we reject this:

No!

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

Entrance Hall and

the sanctity of

between the Entrance Hall and the Altar are one sanctity

[they constitute one sanctity], whereas the sanctity of the

Sanctuary and

the sanctity of the

Entrance Hall—

are two sanctities

.

Nevertheless, when they decreed withdrawal from the Entrance Hall as a precaution lest one standing there enter the Sanctuary, the area between the Entrance 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

scooping

coals from the fire

with

a coal pan

of silver,

and he poured them from it into a golden coal pan.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

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

the Torah spared the money of Israel,

and therefore we too spare the money of Israel, and do not scoop the coals from the fire with a golden coal pan, because scooping wears down the vessel and diminishes it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And today,

on Yom Kippur,

he scooped with

a coal pan

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; therefore, they made things easier for him so that he would not have to trouble himself by pouring the coals from one vessel into another.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day

the priest would

scoop with

a golden coal pan

of four kav,

and pour it into [a silver coal pan of] three kav. Rabbi Yosei says: Every day he would scoop with one of a se’a [six kav], and pour it into one of three kav.

The tanna

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

two kav of coals scattered for him

on the ground. And he would

sweep them into the channel

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

One teaching

in the Mishna in tractate Tamid states: “

A kav

of coals scattered for him.”

And another teaching

in another beraita states: “

Two kav

And we raised the question:

Granted, this one

the Mishna in tractate Tamid,

which teaches

that two kav of coals

one kav

of coals scattered for him when he poured from one coal pan into another, is in accordance with

the Rabbis,

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

But that one which teaches

in the beraita that

two kav scattered for him—

who is it?

Who is the tanna who taught it? For it is necessarily

not the Rabbis,

who taught that [according to their opinion] only one kav scatters,

and not Rabbi Yosei,

who taught it, since according to his opinion he had to pour from a coal pan of a se’a, which is six kav, into one of three kav, because three kav scattered!

If so, who taught the beraita that two kav scattered?

Rav Ḥisda said:

This beraita

is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka

[he was the one who taught the beraita].

As it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben

Beroka says: With

a coal pan

of two kav he would bring

the coals into the Sanctuary. At first, he would scoop coals from the Altar with a coal pan of four kav [in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis]. It follows that two kav scattered when he poured the coals from one coal pan into another.

Rav Ashi said: You may even say

even if you say that the beraita was taught by

Rabbi Yosei,

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

And this is what he is saying—

and this is what Rabbi Yosei intended to say:

Every day he would scoop with

a coal pan

of a “desert se’a”—

a se’a by which they measured in the desert, which was one-sixth smaller than the measures used in Jerusalem. It follows that the desert se’a held only five Jerusalem kav.

And

he would

pour into

a coal pan of

three Jerusalem kav.

And therefore only two kav scattered.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day it was

the coal pan

heavy, but today,

on Yom Kippur it was

light.

The tanna

in a beraita

teaches: Every day its shell was

its side

thick.

But today

its side was

soft,

thin. And therefore it was lighter than on the other days of the year.

We learned in the Mishna:

Every day it was short, but today it was long.

And we explain:

What is the reason,

what was the reason that they made the handle long 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 .

The tanna

in a beraita:

Every day it did not have a neyashtik,

a ring at the top of the handle,

but on that day,

on Yom Kippur,

it did have a neyashtik,

a ring at the top of the handle, so that it would rattle and produce a sound when he entered inside. As it is stated: “And the sound of it 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

similar in hue to

green.

But on that day it was similar to red; these are the words of Rabbi Menahem.

Rav Ḥisda said: There are seven

types of

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

And it proceeds to explain:

“Gold” and “good gold”

are two types,

as it is written

in Genesis 2:

“And the gold of that land is good.”

This indicates that there is gold that is not called “good gold.”

“Ophir gold”

is called by this name because

it comes

from

Ophir.