Yoma 55a — the Talmud in English

Like one opposite the other:

as the agent of the court who lashes with a strap begins from the shoulders and strikes downward, so here too he makes eight sprinklings, one beneath the other [Rashi above and below].

The tannaitic teaching states: When he sprinkles, he does not sprinkle

even that upper sprinkling

onto the Ark-cover, but opposite the thickness of the Ark-cover—

And the distinction between the upper sprinkling and the lower sprinklings is only this:

when he sprinkles

one

above,

he

turns

the back of

his hand

so that it faces

downward

and sprinkles upward;

and when he sprinkles

seven

below,

he

turns

the back of

his hand upward

and sprinkles opposite the face of the Ark-cover [Rashash], one high and one lower than it, and all of them fall to the ground [Rashi].

From where are these words

that he does not sprinkle one sprinkling from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat [Rashi] above, directly onto the roof of the Ark-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.”

It is written: “He shall take from the blood of the bull and sprinkle with his finger upon the face of the Ark-cover eastward” [toward the eastern side, in the translation], “and before the Ark-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 within, beyond the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it” [meaning: one sprinkling] “upon the Ark-cover and before the Ark-cover.”

And it is explained below in the Gemara: The number of seven lower sprinklings of the goat is learned from the bull, concerning which it is stated: “He shall sprinkle seven times”; and the number of one upper sprinkling of the bull is learned from the goat, concerning which it is stated: “And he shall sprinkle it” upon the Ark-cover.

He said

explaining:

For

the verse says

regarding the goat:

“And he shall sprinkle it upon the Ark-cover and before the Ark-cover”—

But

the verse would not say

“before the Ark-cover,” meaning

the lower sprinklings of the goat, for

it

is not needed,

since

it is derived from

the sprinklings

below of the bull,

for in the end we learn from there that there should be seven lower sprinklings of the goat, as is stated regarding the bull; and if so, the verse should not have said “before the Ark-cover” regarding the goat at all.

And

why is it said “‘before the Ark-cover’”

regarding the goat? It is superfluous in order

to juxtapose “upon”

the Ark-cover

with “before”

the Ark-cover—

And it teaches you:

Just as “before

the Ark-cover”

is not “upon”

the Ark-cover—for the verse says “before the Ark-cover,” which implies upon the ground—

so too “upon

the Ark-cover”

is not “upon”

but he sprinkles before the Ark-cover [and therefore here it says “upon” and there “before,” to teach you that in the one sprinkling he turns the back of his hand downward, and in the seven sprinklings he turns the back of his hand upward].

And once we have learned that what the Torah says regarding the goat, “upon,” is not actually “upon,” it is a revealing of the meaning that this is also so regarding the bull [Tosafot in their first answer].

And we object:

On the contrary,

one should learn the opposite: that even the sprinklings before the Ark-cover are not before it, but upon it?!

For

the verse would not say

regarding the bull, “And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the face of the Ark-cover,” meaning the sprinklings

above

in the bull, for

it

is not needed,

since

it is derived from

the sprinklings

above of the goat, for in the end we learn from there that there should be one upper sprinkling of the bull, as is stated regarding the goat; and if so, the verse should not have said “upon the face of the Ark-cover” regarding the bull at all—

And we should expound:

Why is it said “‘upon the face of the Ark-cover’? It is superfluous in order

to juxtapose: “before

the Ark-cover” with

“upon

the face of the Ark-cover,” and it teaches you:

Just as “upon

the face of the Ark-cover” means

“upon” literally, so “

and

“before

the Ark-cover” means

“upon” literally

so that the bloods touch the thickness of the Ark-cover.

And we answer:

What is this?!

Granted, if you say: The lower sprinkling of the

goat is what comes

to be juxtaposed, this objection does not trouble you: Why should the verse not say “above” regarding the bull? For

the upper sprinkling of the bull—

that is, “And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the face of the Ark-cover eastward,” which is stated concerning it—

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

For the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: Regarding the bull it is stated: “And he shall sprinkle with his finger

upon the face of the Ark-cover ‘eastward,’”

this establishes a principle

and teaches for the entire Torah:

Every place where it is stated “face” means only eastward,

the eastern side; and just as here he sprinkles upon the eastern side of the Ark-cover, [see the note ].

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

But if you say: The upper sprinkling of the bull

’”;

is what comes

to be juxtaposed, if so:

“The lower sprinkling of the goat”—what does it come for?

What shall we expound from it?!

The Sages taught: It is stated regarding the goat:

“And he shall sprinkle ‘it’ upon the Ark-cover and before the Ark-cover.”

Behold,

we have learned how many

sprinklings he sprinkles

above in the goat: one—

But the sprinklings

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

I reason:

Sprinklings

of blood below were stated regarding the bull, and

sprinklings

of blood below were stated regarding the goat;

just as the sprinklings below in the bull are seven, so too

the sprinklings

below in the goat are seven.

Or

perhaps

you should follow this path: Since

sprinklings

of blood above were stated regarding the goat, and

sprinklings

of blood below were stated regarding the goat,

if so, let us say:

Just as

the number of sprinklings

above in the goat is one, so too

the number of sprinklings

below in the goat is one?

Let us see to whom it is similar: We derive the sprinklings

of “below” in the goat from

the sprinklings

of “below” in the bull,

but we do not derive the sprinklings

of

“below” from the sprinklings

of “above.”

On the contrary: We derive the goat’s own body

from the goat’s own body,

but we do not derive the goat’s own body

from elsewhere, from another place, namely, from the bull?!

The verse therefore says: “And he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull,”

for there would be no need for

“as he did,”

since it is superfluous, for the verse explicitly says regarding the goat that he shall perform [the sprinkling] upon and before the Ark-cover—

and what does “as he did” teach?

That all the procedures

of the goat

are equal to the procedures of the bull,

just as the sprinklings

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

We have learned from all that has been said:

How many sprinklings does he make

below in the bull and in the goat: seven;

but the sprinklings

above in the bull—I do not know how many he makes, for no number is stated concerning it, only: “And he shall sprinkle upon the face of the Ark-cover eastward.”

I reason: Sprinklings

of blood above were stated regarding the goat, and

sprinklings

of blood above were stated regarding the bull;

just as the number of sprinklings above in the goat is one, so too

the number of sprinklings

above in the bull is one.

Or

perhaps

you should follow this path: Since

sprinklings

of blood below were stated regarding the bull, and

sprinklings

of blood above were stated regarding the bull,

just as

the number of sprinklings

below in the bull is seven, so too

the number of sprinklings

above in the bull is seven?

Let us see to whom it is similar: We derive the sprinklings

of above from the sprinklings

of above, and we do not derive the upper sprinklings from the lower.

On the contrary: We derive the bull’s own body

from the bull’s own body,

but we do not derive the bull’s own body

from elsewhere, namely, from the goat?!

The verse therefore says regarding the goat:

“And he shall do with its blood as he did”

with the blood of the bull,

for there would be no need for “as he did,”

and what does “as he did” teach?

That all the procedures of the goat are

equal to those of the bull.

And these two matters we have heard:

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

as we said above;

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

We learned in the Mishna: “And thus he would count”:

one; one and one; one and two:

The Sages taught: When he sprinkles above, he counts

one; and when he sprinkles below the first time, he counts

one,

this being the one that was above,

and one,

this being the one now below; and when he sprinkles below the second time, he counts

one,

this being 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—these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: He did not count in this manner. Rather, when he sprinkles above, he counts

one, as Rabbi Meir; but when he sprinkles below the first time, he counts

one,

this being the one now below,

and one,

this being the one that was above;

two,

the two now below,

and one,

this being 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 Judah, except that:

Each one according to his place [in accordance with the practice customary in his place]: In the place of Rabbi Meir they counted the larger number first, and afterward the smaller number, for example: twenty-one, twenty-two, in accordance with the Hebrew manner of speech.

And each one according to his place: In the place of Rabbi Judah, however, they counted the smaller number first, for example: two-and-twenty, three-and-twenty, as in the foreign manner of speech [explained according to the Ritva and the Ral; see Rashi and Shita Mekubetzet].

That is to say: There is no concern in the matter, and each one counts according to his manner.

And we infer:

Everyone,

both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah,

at any rate: The first sprinkling,

of all the sprinklings, is the upper one;

it requires a count together with each and every one

of the lower ones.

What is the reason?

“one.”

When he sprinkles below the first time, he counts

And the

Gevurat Ari wrote that since regarding the sprinkling of the goat’s blood in the Holy of Holies, and regarding all the sprinklings in the Sanctuary, the word “times” is not stated, in truth a verbal count of the sprinklings in the Sanctuary is not required by Torah law, but only by rabbinic law.

Rabbi Elazar said: Although the counting of the sprinklings is by Torah law, the repeated counting is rabbinic, and it is in order

that he not err in the sprinklings,

so that he should have time in the interim to give his attention to the count, so that he not err [Rashi].

Rabbi Yohanan said: Even the repeated counting is by Torah law, for

“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;

the verse says: “And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the face of the Ark-cover eastward,

and before the Ark-cover ‘he shall sprinkle’”—

there would be no need for the words “he shall sprinkle,”

for “and he shall sprinkle with his finger” has already been stated [Ral]; he should have said: “And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the face of the Ark-cover eastward and before the Ark-cover seven times.” Rather,

it taught concerning the first sprinkling that it requires a count together with each and every one.

What is the difference between them?

There is a difference between them: Where he did not count

the first one

and did not err: For according to Rabbi Elazar, who says that it is rabbinic, if he did not count, it does not invalidate; whereas according to Rabbi Yohanan, who derives it from the verse, and “a statute” is stated at the end of the passage [“And this shall be for you a statute forever”], this does invalidate even after the fact.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

The Sages taught [in the Tosefta; in the manuscript of the Dikdukei Soferim, and see Shita Mekubetzet]: Money collection boxes—which are boxes narrow above and wide below, bent in the shape of a shofar, because of swindlers, so that they would not be able to put their hand inside them to make themselves appear as though they were placing money in them, and take money from them—were in the Temple. In them they would place money for the purchase of sacrifices for various purposes detailed in the Mishna in Shekalim, chapter 6, Mishna 5 [brought here on page 55b].

One of the boxes was intended for the purchase of turtledoves, and the other for the purchase of young pigeons; and one who wished to donate a bird burnt-offering from turtledoves or from young pigeons would place money in the box intended for that purpose, and the treasurers would purchase sacrifices with the money that was in the box.

Rabbi Judah says: There were no collection boxes

for placing money in them

for obligatory pairs—

such as those of a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, and one who defiled the Sanctuary, who bring two turtledoves [a pair] or two young pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering—but only for voluntary pairs; and the reason is:

because of the mixture.

And we explain: What does “because of the mixture” mean?

What is the reason?

сделаем два ящика — для обязательных и добровольных жертв, и чтобы они не перепутались, напишем на них: какой для обязательных и какой для добровольных — какой ящик предназначен для обязательных пар птиц, а какой для добровольных?!

Rav Yosef said: Because of the mixture

of the boxes

of obligatory offerings with

the boxes

of voluntary offerings [Rashi]; and they are not equivalent, for the obligatory pairs consist of one sin-offering and one burnt-offering, whereas those of voluntary offerings are all burnt-offerings, and the procedure of a bird burnt-offering is not like the procedure of a bird sin-offering [Rashi]. He said, expressing his astonishment, Abaye said to him: But nevertheless, let us make two boxes, for obligatory and voluntary offerings, and so that they not be exchanged, let us write upon them: Which is for obligatory offerings and which is for voluntary offerings,

which box is for obligatory pairs and which is for voluntary pairs?!

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?!