Menachot 54

שאם חיסר אחת מן המתנות לא עשה כלום:

so that if one sprinkling was omitted the whole is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has done nothing'. It appears from Rashi that at this point in the text there followed a lengthy argument exactly as found in Zeb. 39a. The addition is also found in MS.M. and it reads as follows: I only know this of the seven sprinklings upon the veil, since whenever seven sprinklings are ordained it is established that the omission of one renders the whole invalid; but whence do I know this also of the four sprinklings upon the altar? Because Scripture says. So he shall do with this (Lev. IV, 20) . The expression 'the bullock' (ibid.) includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement; the expression 'as he did with the bullock' (ibid.) includes the bullock offered by the anointed High Priest; and the expression 'of the sin-offering' (ibid.) includes the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry. V. Rashi.');">¹</span> Our Rabbis taught: If the seven sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow were made under the name of some other [offering] or were not directed rightly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Num. XIX, 4, the blood of the Red Cow had to be sprinkled in the direction of 'the entrance of the tent of meeting'.');">²</span>

ת"ר שבע הזאות שבפרה שעשאן בין שלא לשמן בין שלא מכוונות (אל נכח פני אוהל מועד) פסולות

they are invalid; but as for those [sprinklings which must be performed] inside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the offerings of the Day of Atonement or the sin-offering of the anointed High Priest.');">³</span> or [the sprinklings in the purification rites] of a leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The officiating priest sprinkled of the oil that was in the palm of his hand seven times in the direction of the Holy of Holies; v. Lev. XIV, 16.');">⁴</span>

ושבפנים ושבמצורע שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות

if they were made under the name of some other [offering], they are invalid, but if they were not rightly directed, they are valid. But has it not also been taught, with regard to the sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow, that if they were sprinkled under the name of another they are invalid, whilst if they were not rightly directed they are still valid? - Said R'Hisda, This is no difficulty; for one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter Baraitha.');">⁵</span>

והתניא גבי פרה שלא לשמן פסולות שלא מכוונות כשרות אמר רב חסדא ל"ק הא רבי יהודה הא רבנן

[Baraitha] states the view of R'Judah and the other that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: If a man that lacked atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person who had duly immersed after his uncleanness, had awaited sunset, but had not yet brought the prescribed offerings. Such a person still retains a slight measure of uncleanness.');">⁶</span>

דתניא מחוסרי כפרה שנכנסו לעזרה בשוגג חייב חטאת במזיד ענוש כרת ואין צ"ל טבול יום ושאר כל הטמאים

unwittingly entered the Temple court he is liable to bring a sin-offering, but if he entered deliberately he has incurred the penalty of kareth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁷</span> and, needless to say, this is so of a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁷</span>

וטהורים שנכנסו לפנים ממחיצתן להיכל כולו בארבעים מבית לפרכת אל פני הכפרת במיתה רבי יהודה אומר כל היכל כולו ומבית לפרכת בארבעים ואל פני הכפרת במיתה

and others that were unclean. If a man that was clean overstepped the boundary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A non-priest was not permitted to enter into the Temple Hall beyond the first eleven cubits from the entrance on the east side. Cf. Yoma 16b.');">⁸</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי בהאי קרא (ויקרא טז, ב) ויאמר יי' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבוא בכל עת אל הקודש מבית לפרוכת אל פני הכפורת אשר על הארון ולא ימות רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

and entered the Temple he has thereby incurred forty [stripes]; and if he entered within the veil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., into the Holy of Holies.');">⁹</span> or towards the front of the mercy-seat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is still further in the Holy of Holies; he stepped close to the mercy-seat which formed the cover for the Ark.');">¹⁰</span>

ור' יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

he has thereby incurred death [at the hands of heaven]. R'Judah says, If he entered into the Temple or within the veil he has thereby incurred forty [stripes], and if he entered towards the front of the mercy-seat he has thereby incurred death.

מ"ט דרבנן אי ס"ד כדקאמר ר' יהודה לכתוב רחמנא אל הקודש ואל פני הכפרת ולא בעי מבית לפרכת ואנא אמינא היכל מיחייב מבית לפרכת מבעיא מבית הפרכת דכתב רחמנא למה לי ש"מ במיתה

Wherein do they differ? - In the interpretation of the following verse: And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, towards the front of the mercy-seat which is upon the ark; that he die not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 2.');">¹¹</span> The Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Tanna in the foregoing Baraitha whose view is expressed anonymously as being the general accepted view of the Rabbis.');">¹²</span>

ור' יהודה אי כתב רחמנא אל הקודש ולא כתב מבית לפרכת הוה אמינא מאי קודש מבית לפרכת אבל היכל לאו נמי לא ורבנן ההוא לא מצית אמרת דהיכל כולו איקרי קודש שנאמר (שמות כו, לג) והבדילה הפרכת לכם בין הקודש ובין קדש הקדשים

maintain that [against entering] into the holy place there is the prohibition 'that he come not',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ordinary prohibition for the transgression of which the punishment of forty stripes is incurred.');">¹³</span> and [against entering] within the veil or towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning 'that he die not'; whereas R'Judah maintains that [against entering] into the holy place or within the veil there is the prohibition 'that he come not', and [against entering] towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning 'that he die not'.

ורבי יהודה מ"ט אי ס"ד כדקא אמרי רבנן לכתוב רחמנא אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת ולא בעי אל פני הכפרת ואנא אמינא מבית לפרוכת במיתה אל פני הכפרת מיבעיא אל פני הכפרת דכתב רחמנא למה לי ש"מ אל פני הכפרת במיתה מבית לפרכת באזהרה

What is the reason for this view of the Rabbis? - If the law is as R'Judah maintains, the Divine Law should only have stated 'into the holy place' and 'towards the front of the mercy-seat', but not 'within the veil', for I should have said, If for entering the holy place one incurs stripes, how much more so for entering within the veil! Why then did the Divine Law also state 'within the veil'? That you might infer that there is the penalty of death for it.

ורבנן ה"נ דלא צריך והאי דכתב רחמנא אל פני הכפרת למעוטי דרך משופש

And R'Judah, [how does he reply to this] - Had the Divine Law only stated 'into the holy place' and not' within the veil' I might have thought that by the expression 'into the holy place' only 'within the veil' was meant, so that [against entering] into the Temple there is not even a prohibition! And the Rabbis? - You could not possibly have thought so, since the entire Temple is referred to as 'the holy place', as it is written, And the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXVI, 33.');">¹⁴</span> And what is the reason for R'Judah's view? - If the law is as the Rabbis maintain, the Divine Law should only have stated 'into the holy place within the veil', but not 'towards the front of the mercy-seat', for I should have said, If for entering within the veil one incurs death, how much more so for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat! Why then did the Divine Law also state 'towards the front of the mercy-seat'?

כדתנא דבי ר"א בן יעקב אל פני הכפרת קדמה זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר פני אינו אלא פני קדים

That you might infer that only [for entering] towards the front of the mercy seat is there the penalty of death, whereas [for entering] within the veil there is only a prohibition. And the Rabbis, [how do they reply to this]? - Indeed it was unnecessary, and the only reason why the Divine Law stated 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' in this verse was in order to exclude [from the prohibition] entering by the side.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any entry into the Holy of Holies not made in the ordinary way through the door on the east with the face looking westward; e.g., by breaking through the north wall or the south wall of the Holy of Holies and entering thereby, or by entering through the door on the east but with the face looking either northward or southward. For such an entry one would not incur any penalty.');">¹⁵</span>

ורבי יהודה לימא קרא פני מאי אל ש"מ אל דוקא ורבנן אל לאו דוקא

As it was taught by a Tanna in the school of R'Eliezer B'Jacob: The verse, Towards the front of the mercy-seat on the east,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 14.');">¹⁶</span> establishes the principle that wherever Scripture says 'the front' it means the east side.

ורבי יהודה דאמר אל פני הכפרת דוקא (במדבר יט, ד) והזה אל נכח נמי דוקא

And R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is not the expression 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' required to show that the east side was meant?');">¹⁷</span> - [He says,] The verse should then have only stated [here] 'the front', why does it also state 'towards'?

ורבנן מדהתם לאו דוקא ה"נ לאו דוקא

To teach that 'towards' must be interpreted with exactness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' is not stated (argues R. Judah) merely to indicate that the east side is meant, since for that purpose 'the front', without 'towards', would have been sufficient. Its true purpose is to teach that only for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat is the penalty of death at the hands of heaven incurred, but not for merely entering within the veil.');">¹⁸</span> And the Rabbis? - [They say,] 'Towards' need not be interpreted exactly.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף לרבי יהודה מדאל דוקא (אל נכח) נמי דוקא אלא דמקדש שני דלא הוו ארון וכפורת ה"נ דלא עביד הזאות

Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara now proceeds to elaborate the answer proposed by R. Hisda supra that one Baraitha states the view of R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis.');">¹⁹</span> since R'Judah maintains that the expression 'towards the front of the mercy-seat' must be interpreted with exactness, similarly he would hold that the expression 'and he shall sprinkle towards the front' must also be interpreted exactly;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if the blood of the Red Cow was not sprinkled quite in the direction towards the front of the Holy of Holies, it is invalid.');">²⁰</span>

אמר רבה בר עולא אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, לג) וכפר את מקדש הקודש מקום המקודש לקודש

whilst the Rabbis hold that just as the one need not be interpreted exactly so the other need not be interpreted exactly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the sprinklings are valid even though made not quite in the proper direction.');">²¹</span> R'Joseph, however, demurred, saying, Then according to R'Judah, if 'towards' must be interpreted exactly, 'upon'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement it is written, And he shall sprinkle with his finger upon the mercy-seat (Lev. XVI, 14) ; and therefore unless the sprinkling is made actually upon the mercy-seat it is invalid.');">²²</span>

רבא אמר הא והא רבנן

would also have to be interpreted exactly, would it not? And it would follow therefore that during the second Temple, inasmuch as there was no ark nor mercy-seat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to tradition these were hidden away by Josiah (v. Yoma 52b) , and so were not in use during the Second Temple.');">²³</span> no sprinklings were to be made [on the Day of Atonement]! - Rabbah B''Ulla answered, It is written, And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33.');">²⁴</span> that is, for the place that is sanctified for the holy sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest shall 'make atonement', i.e., sprinkle the blood on to the place sanctified for the ark.');">²⁵</span> Raba said, Both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two teachings which were shown above to be contradictory.');">²⁶</span> state the view of the Rabbis, [yet here is no contradiction]