Yoma 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

Like a counter of lashes:

like the agent of the court who administers lashes with a strap, beginning at the shoulders and striking downward; so too here, he performs the eight sprinklings one beneath the other [Rashi above and below].

A tanna taught: When he sprinkles, he does not sprinkle

even that sprinkling above

onto the Cover, but opposite the thickness of the Cover—

The distinction between the sprinkling above and the sprinklings below is only this:

When he sprinkles

one

above,

he

turns

the back of

his hand

so that it faces

downward,

and sprinkles upward;

but when he sprinkles

the seven

below,

he

turns

the back of

his hand upward

and sprinkles toward the face of the Cover [Rashash], one higher and one lower than it, and all of them fall to the ground [Rashi].

From where are these matters—that he does not sprinkle from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat [Rashi] one sprinkling above directly onto the roof of the Cover?

It is written: “He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger over the face of the Cover, eastward [toward the east, in the Aramaic translation], and before the Cover he shall sprinkle seven times from the blood with his finger. And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people, and bring its blood to within the Curtain, and perform with its blood as he performed with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it [meaning: one sprinkling] upon the Cover and before the Cover.”

And the Gemara will clarify below: The number of seven sprinklings below for the goat is derived from the bull, concerning which it is stated: “He shall sprinkle seven times”; and the number of one sprinkling above for the bull is derived from the goat, concerning which it is stated: “And sprinkle it” upon the Cover.

He said,

explaining:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Zeira:

For

the verse says concerning the goat:

“And sprinkle it upon the Cover and before the Cover

.”

But

the verse would not say: “and before the Cover”—that is,

the sprinklings

below for the goat—

for

it is not necessary,

since

it is derived from

the sprinklings

below for the bull,

as, in the end, it is from there that we learn that there are to be seven sprinklings below for the goat, just as is stated concerning the bull. If so, the verse need not state “before the Cover” concerning the goat at all.

And

why is it stated “before the Cover” concerning the goat? The phrase is superfluous in order

to

juxtapose “upon”

the Cover

with “before”

the Cover—

and to teach you:

Just as “before

the Cover”

does not mean “upon”

the Cover, for the verse says “before the Cover,” which implies upon the ground,

so too “upon

the Cover”

does not mean “upon”

it; rather, he sprinkles before the Cover. [Thus, “upon” is stated here and “before” there to teach you that for the one sprinkling he turns the back of his hand downward, while for the seven sprinklings he turns the back of his hand upward.]

And once we have learned that when the Torah says “upon” concerning the goat, it does not mean literally “upon,” this serves as an indication that the same is true of the bull [Tosafot in their first answer].

And we raise an objection:

On the contrary, one could derive the opposite, namely, that even the sprinklings before the Cover are not before it, but upon it?!

This is so because

the verse

would not say concerning the bull, “He shall sprinkle with his finger over the face of the Cover”—that is, the sprinklings

above

for the bull—

for

it is not necessary,

since

it is derived from

the sprinklings

above for the goat, as, in the end, it is from there that we learn that there is to be one sprinkling above for the bull, as is stated concerning the goat. If so, the verse need not state “over the face of the Cover” concerning the bull at all—

and we should expound:

Why is it stated “over the face of the Cover”? The phrase is superfluous in order

to

juxtapose “before

the Cover”

with “upon

the face of the Cover,” and to teach you:

Just as “upon

the face of the Cover” means

literally “upon,” so “

and

before

the Cover” means

literally “upon”

it, so that the blood touches the thickness of the Cover.

And we answer:

What is this?!

Granted, if you say that it is “below for the

goat

that comes

to be

juxtaposed, you have no difficulty: Why would the verse not state the sprinkling above for the bull? For

the sprinkling above for the bull—

namely, “He shall sprinkle with his finger over the face of the Cover, eastward,” which is stated concerning it—

is needed for that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

It is stated concerning the bull: “He shall sprinkle with his finger

over the face of the Cover, ‘eastward

’”;

this establishes a principle

and teaches for the entire Torah that

wherever it is stated: “face,” it means east,

the eastern side. Just as here he sprinkles on the eastern side of the Cover, [see note ].

But if you say that it is the sprinkling above for the bull

that comes

to be juxtaposed,

then

what purpose does “below for the goat” serve?

What shall we expound from it?!

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the goat:

“And sprinkle ‘it’ upon the Cover and before the Cover.”

Thus

we have learned how many

sprinklings he performs

above for the goat: one—

but the sprinklings

below for the goat—I do not know how many.

I can reason:

Sprinklings

of blood below were stated concerning the bull, and sprinklings

of blood below were stated concerning the goat.

Just as the sprinklings

below for the bull are seven, so too the sprinklings

below for the goat are seven.

Or

perhaps

you may follow this line of reasoning: Since

sprinklings

of blood above were stated concerning the goat, and sprinklings

of blood below were stated concerning the goat,

let us say:

Just as the number of sprinklings

above for the goat is one, so too the number of sprinklings

below for the goat is

one?

Let us see which it resembles: We derive

the sprinklings

“below”

for the goat

from

the sprinklings

“below”

for the bull,

but we do not derive

the sprinklings

“below” from

the sprinklings

“above.”

On the contrary: We derive the goat itself

from

the goat itself,

but we do not derive the goat itself

from

elsewhere,

from another place—namely, from the bull?!

The verse therefore states: “And he shall perform with its blood as he performed with the blood of the bull,” where the words “as he performed” are unnecessary,

since they are superfluous: the verse explicitly states concerning the goat that he shall perform upon and before the Cover—

and what does “as he performed” teach? That all the procedures

of the goat

are identical

to the procedures of the bull,

just as the sprinklings

below for the bull are seven, so too the sprinklings below for the goat are seven.

We have learned

from all that has been said:

How many

sprinklings does he perform

below for the bull and the goat? Seven.

But the sprinklings

above for the bull—I do not know how many

he performs, since no number is stated concerning it, only: “He shall sprinkle over the face of the Cover, eastward.”

I can reason:

Sprinklings

of blood above were stated concerning the goat, and sprinklings

of blood above were stated concerning the bull.

Just as the number of sprinklings

above for the goat is one, so too the number of sprinklings

above for the bull is

one.

Or

perhaps

you may follow this line of reasoning: Since

sprinklings

of blood below were stated concerning the bull, and sprinklings

of blood above were stated concerning the bull,

let us say:

Just as the number of sprinklings

below for the bull is

seven, so too the number of sprinklings above for the bull is seven?

Let us see which it resembles: We derive

the sprinklings

above from

the sprinklings

above, but we do not derive the above from the below.

On the contrary: We derive the bull itself

from

the bull itself,

but

we do not derive the bull itself

from

elsewhere,

namely, from the goat?!

The verse therefore states

concerning the goat:

“And he shall perform with its blood as he performed

with the blood of the bull,”

where the words “as he performed” are unnecessary;

and what does

“as he performed” teach? That all the procedures

of the goat

are identical

to those of the bull.

We have heard two matters:

Just as below for the bull there are seven, so too below for the goat there are seven,

as we said above;

and just as above for the goat there is one, so too above for the bull there is one.

We learned in the Mishna: “And this is how he would count”:

“One; one and one; one and two.”

The Sages taught:

When he sprinkles above, he counts

“one.”

When he sprinkles below the first time, he counts

“one,”

the one that was above,

“and one,”

the one now below. When he sprinkles below the second time, he counts

“one,”

the one that was above,

“and two,”

the two now below, and so on:

“one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven,” the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says

that he would not count in this manner. Rather, when he sprinkles above, he counts

“one,”

as Rabbi Meir does. But when he sprinkles below the first time, he counts

“one,”

the one now below,

“and one,”

the one that was above;

“two,”

the two now below,

“and one,”

the one that was above;

“three and one, four and one, five and one, six and one, seven and one.”

And they do not disagree,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, except that:

Each one followed the practice of his place,

[in accordance with the custom followed in his locale]. In Rabbi Meir’s locale, they counted the larger number first and then the smaller number, for example: twenty-one, twenty-two, in accordance with Hebrew usage.

And each one followed the practice of his place;

in Rabbi Yehuda’s locale, they counted the smaller number first, for example: two and twenty, three and twenty, as in foreign usage [explained on the basis of the Ritva and R. Aryeh Leib; see Rashi and Shita Mekubetzet].

That is to say: There is no significance to the matter, and each one counted according to his own practice.

And we infer:

Everyone,

both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda,

at any rate agrees that the first sprinkling

of all the sprinklings is the one above,

and it must be counted together with each and every one

of the sprinklings below.

What is the reason?

Rabbi Elazar said:

Although the counting of the sprinklings is required by Torah law, the repeated counting is rabbinic, and it is in order

that he not err in the sprinklings,

so that he has time in between to concentrate on the count and not make a mistake [Rashi].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Even the repeated counting is required by Torah law, because

the verse says:

“He shall sprinkle with his finger over the face of the Cover, eastward,

and before the Cover ‘he shall sprinkle

’”—

where the words “he shall sprinkle” are unnecessary,

since “he shall sprinkle with his finger” has already been stated [R. Aryeh Leib]. It could have said: “He shall sprinkle with his finger over the face of the Cover, eastward, and before the Cover seven times.” Rather,

it teaches concerning the first sprinkling that it must be counted together with each and every one.

What is the practical difference between them?

The difference between them is a case where he did not count

the first sprinkling

and did not err:

According to Rabbi Elazar, who says that the repeated count is rabbinic, failure to count does not invalidate the rite; whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who derives it from the verse, and “a statute” is stated at the end of the passage [“and this shall be to you as an eternal statute”], it invalidates the rite even after the fact.

We learned in the Mishna:

He went out and placed it on the golden stand in the Sanctuary, and so on; he went out and placed it on the second golden stand in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yehuda says: There was only one stand there; he took the bull’s blood and placed the goat’s blood in its place:

The Sages taught

[in the Tosefta; in the manuscript of Dikdukei Soferim, and see Shita Mekubetzet]: There were money collection boxes in the shape of shofarot—that is, boxes narrow above and broad below, curved like a shofar, so that fraudsters could not insert their hands into them and pretend to put money inside while removing money from them—in the Temple. Money was placed in them for the purchase of offerings for various purposes, as detailed in Tractate Shekalim, chapter 6, mishna 5 [quoted here on the next page].

One of the shofarot was designated for purchasing turtledoves, and the other for purchasing pigeons. Whoever wished to donate a bird burnt-offering from turtledoves or pigeons would place money in the appropriate shofar, and the treasurers would purchase offerings with the money in the shofar.

Rabbi Yehuda says: There were no shofarot

for placing money in them

for obligatory bird-pairs—

such as those of a man or woman with a flux, a woman after childbirth, or one who rendered the Temple impure, who bring two turtledoves [a pair] or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering—but only for voluntary bird-pairs, and the reason is

the possibility of mixture.

And we explain:

What does “the possibility of mixture” mean?

Rav Yosef said: It is the possibility of mixing

the shofarot of

obligatory

with the shofarot of

voluntary offerings [Rashi]. They are not equivalent, since obligatory bird-pairs consist of one sin-offering and one burnt-offering, whereas voluntary offerings are all burnt-offerings; and the procedure of a bird burnt-offering is not the same as the procedure of a bird sin-offering [Rashi].

Abaye said,

expressing his astonishment,

to him: But

in any event,

let us make two

sh devoted to obligatory and voluntary offerings,

and

so that they would not be confused,

let us write on them: Which is for obligatory offerings and which is for voluntary offerings,

which shofar is for obligatory bird-pairs and which is for voluntary bird-pairs?!