Yoma 109

כמנגדנא תנא כשהוא מזה אינו מזה על הכפורת אלא כנגד עוביה של כפורת כשהוא מזה למעלה מצדד ידו למטה וכשהוא מזה למטה מצדד ידו למעלה

as one swinging a whip'. - A Tanna taught: As he sprinkled, he did so not upon the ark-cover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not on the top surface thereof.');">¹</span>

מנא הני מילי אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר רבי זירא אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, טו) והזה אותו על הכפורת ולפני הכפורת לא יאמר למטה בשעיר דלא צריך דגמר ממטה דפר

but against its thickness. And when he is to sprinkle upwards he first turns his hand down, and when he is to sprinkle downwards he first turns his hand up.

למה נאמר לאקושי על ללפני מה לפני דלאו על אף על דלאו על

- Whence do we infer this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the two upward sprinklings are not made actually upon the ark-cover.');">²</span> R'Aha B'Jacob said in the name of R'Zera: Scripture says: And sprinkle it upon the ark-cover and before the ark-cover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 15, with reference to the he-goat.');">³</span>

אדרבה לא יאמר למעלה בפר דלא צריך דגמר ממעלה דשעיר למה נאמר לאקושי לפני לעל מה על על ממש אף לפני על ממש

Now with regard to the he-goat it need not be said [that he should sprinkle] downwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'before the ark-cover'.');">⁴</span> for that can be inferred from [the procedure with] the bullock where [the sprinkling] downwards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">⁵</span>

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא למטה דשעיר לאקושי למעלה דפר מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתנא דבי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב (ויקרא טז, יד) על פני הכפורת קדמה זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר פני אינו אלא קדים אלא אי אמרת למעלה דפר לאקושי למטה דשעיר למאי אתא

[is made], when then is it mentioned here too? To compare [the sprinkling] 'upon' [the ark-cover with the sprinkling] 'before' [it]: Just as [the sprinkling] 'before' does not mean 'before' actually,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood in the downward sprinkling fell on the ground not on the ark-cover. V. Rashi. Cur. edd.: 'does not mean upon'.');">⁶</span>

תנו רבנן והזה אותו על הכפורת ולפני הכפורת למדנו כמה למעלה בשעיר אחת למטה בשעיר איני יודע כמה

so does sprinkling 'upon' [here] not mean really 'upon'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only not exactly upwards, but really downwards.');">⁷</span> On the contrary! It was not necessary to state with regard to the bullock [that the sprinkling should be done] 'upon' [the ark-cover], for that could be inferred from the fact that the he-goat's blood was sprinkled upon [it], why then was it mentioned to compare the sprinkling 'before' [it], to the sprinkling 'upon' [it], viz.

הריני דן נאמרו דמים למטה בפר ונאמרו דמים למטה בשעיר מה למטה בפר שבע אף למטה בשעיר שבע

just as 'upon' means exactly, so shall 'before' here mean 'upon exactly'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in his downward sprinkling the blood is to touch the thickness of the ark-cover, whilst in his upward sprinkling it should touch its upper surface.');">⁸</span> How can you say this?

או כלך לדרך זו נאמרו דמים למעלה בשעיר ונאמרו דמים למטה בשעיר מה למעלה בשעיר אחת אף למטה בשעיר אחת נראה למי דומה דנין מטה ממטה ואין דנין מטה מלמעלה

Granted, if you say that the 'downward' sprinkling in the case of the he-goat is mentioned for the purpose of comparison,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is stated at first.');">⁹</span> then [sprinkling] 'upward' written in connection with the bullock is necessary in accord with the school of R'Eliezer B'Jacob; for the school of R'Eliezer B'Jacob taught: Upon the face of th ark-cover on the east,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So lit., Lev. XVI, 14.');">¹⁰</span>

אדרבה דנין גופו מגופו ואין דנין גופו מעלמא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא טז, טו) ועשה את דמו כאשר עשה לדם הפר שאין תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה ומה תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה שיהיו כל עשיותיו שוות כשם שלמטה בפר שבע כך למטה בשעיר שבע

this [special case] establishes a general rule viz. , that wherever Scripture says 'before' ['face'] it means 'on the east'; but if you say that the 'upwards' in connection with the bullock is mentioned for the purpose of comparison, then for what purpose is the 'downward' in connection with the he-goat mentioned? Our Rabbis taught:'And he shall sprinkle it upon the ark-cover and before the ark-cover'.

למדנו כמה למטה בפר ובשעיר שבע למעלה בפר איני יודע כמה והריני דן נאמרו דמים למעלה בשעיר ונאמרו דמים למעלה בפר מה למעלה בשעיר אחת אף למעלה בפר אחת

From this we know how often the he-goat's blood is to be sprinkled upwards, viz. , once; I do not know, though, how often 'downwards', so that I infer that thus: The word 'blood' is used in connection with the downward [sprinkling] of the bullock's blood, and the same word 'blood' is used about the downward [sprinkling] of the goat's blood: hence just as 'downwards' with the bullock means seven times, so does 'downwards' with the goat mean 'seven times'. Or argue it this way: The word 'blood' is used in connection with the 'upward' [sprinkling] of the goat's blood, and the word 'blood' is used in connection with the downward [sprinkling] of the he-goat's blood; hence just as 'upwards' with the he-goat means once, thus also shall 'downwards' with the he-goat mean 'once'?

או כלך לדרך זו נאמרו דמים למטה בפר ונאמרו דמים למעלה בפר מה למטה בפר שבע אף למעלה בפר שבע נראה למי דומה דנין מעלה ממעלה ואין דנין מעלה ממטה

Let us see what comparison is legitimate: One may infer 'downwards' from 'downwards'; but one may not infer 'downwards' from 'upwards'. On the contrary: It is legitimate to infer [one aspect of] one matter from [another aspect of] the same matter, but one may not infer one matter from an extraneous one!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. the he-goat from the bullock.');">¹¹</span>

אדרבה דנין גופו מגופו ואין דנין גופו מעלמא תלמוד לומר ועשה את דמו כאשר עשה שאין תלמוד לומר כאשר עשה ומה ת"ל כאשר עשה שיהיו כל עשיותיו שוות כשם. שלמטה בפר שבע כך למטה בשעיר שבע וכשם שלמעלה בשעיר אחת כך למעלה בפר אחת

To teach [the true facts] Scripture says: And [he shall] do with its blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of the he-goat.');">¹²</span> as he did with the blood of the bullock.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 15.');">¹³</span>

אחת אחת ואחת אחת ושתים ת"ר אחת אחת ואחת אחת ושתים אחת ושלש אחת וארבע אחת וחמש אחת ושש אחת ושבע דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר אחת אחת ואחת שתים ואחת שלש ואחת ארבע ואחת חמש ואחת שש ואחת שבע ואחת

Now it was not necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the sprinkling 'upon' or 'before' has been expressly mentioned in connection with the he-goat. Any apparently superfluous word or words were chosen for intimation or indication.');">¹⁴</span> to say 'as he did', why then was it said?

ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה

To show that all the 'doings' of them should be alike; as there were seven sprinklings downward with the bullock, so shall there be seven sprinklings downward with the goat. We learn thus how many [sprinklings] downwards there are to be both with bullock and he-goat.

דכולי עלמא מיהת הזאה ראשונה צריכה מנין עם כל אחת ואחת מאי טעמא רבי אלעזר אמר שלא יטעה בהזאות

But I do not know how many [sprinklings] upwards are to be made with the bullock's blood. And so I infer: The word 'blood' is used for the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the he-goat, and the word 'blood' is used for the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock.

רבי יוחנן אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, יד) ולפני הכפורת יזה שאין תלמוד לומר יזה ומה ת"ל יזה לימד על הזאה ראשונה שצריכה מנין עם כל אחת ואחת

Hence, [the inference that] just as the upward sprinkling in the case of the he-goat has to be made once,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the Scriptural text indicates.');">¹⁵</span> so shall the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock be made once.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דלא מנה ולא טעה

Or argue it this way: The word 'blood' is used for the downward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock, and the word 'blood' is used in the case of the upward [sprinkling] of the bullock: hence just as seven downward sprinklings have to be made with the bullock's blood, so must seven upward sprinklings be made with the bullock's blood! Let us see what comparison is legitimate: One may fitly infer [something about] upward [sprinklings] from [other] upward [sprinklings], but one may not infer [something about] upward [sprinklings] from downward [sprinklings]. On the contrary: It is legitimate to infer one [aspect of one] matter from [another aspect of the same] matter, but one may not fitly infer one matter from an extraneous one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption that different parts of the same procedure are governed by similar rules seems more justified than that similar aspects of altogether different matters have such regulations.');">¹⁶</span>

יצא והניחו על כן הזהב שבהיכל תנן התם רבי יהודה אומר לא היו שופרות לקיני חובה מפני התערובות

Scripture therefore teaches: 'And he shall do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock'! It was not necessary to say 'with his blood', why then was it said? To intimate that all the 'doings' of them should be alike: just as seven sprinklings downward were made in the case of the bullock, so shall seven sprinklings downward be made in the case of the goat; and just as only one upward sprinkling was made with the he-goat, so only one sprinkling upward had to be made in the case of the bullock.

מאי מפני התערובות אמר רב יוסף מפני תערובת חובה בנדבה אמר ליה אביי ונעביד תרי ונכתוב עלייהו הי דחובה והי דנדבה רבי יהודה

ONE, ONE AND ONE, ONE AND TWO: Our Rabbis taught: [He counted] One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. II.');">¹⁷</span> - this is the view of R'Meir. R'Judah says: One, one and one, two and one, three and one, four and one, five and one, six and one, seven and one. Yet they are not conflicting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the place of R. Meir the tens were counted first, the singles following, whilst the opposite way of counting prevailed in the city of R. Judah.');">¹⁸</span> each counting as is customary in his place. At any rate, both agree that the first sprinklings must be counted with each of the following. What is the reason thereof? - R'Eleazar said: In order that he make no mistake in the count.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And include the one sprinkled upward among the seven which he has to sprinkle downwards (Bertinoro) .');">¹⁹</span> - R'Johanan said: Scripture said: 'And before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle'. Now it was not necessary to say 'shall he sprinkle'. [For what teaching purpose] why then was it said, 'He shall sprinkle'? - To indicate that the first sprinkling shall be counted with each subsequent one. - What is the [practical] difference between the two? - In case he had not counted, but also had made no mistake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If counting is obligatory, he had failed to do it properly. If the only purpose is the prevention of error and he has managed to avoid it, then de facto all is right.');">²⁰</span> HE WENT OUT AND PLACED IT ON THE GOLDEN STAND IN THE SANCTUARY: We have learned there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' J. Shek. VI, 6.');">²¹</span> There were no money chests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were special money chests into which persons who had a freewill-offering of a bird to offer would put in money in payment of the offerings which the priests would make on their behalf. No such chests were however available for obligatory offerings of a bird.');">²²</span> [provided] for obligatory bird-offerings, to prevent confusion. What does 'to prevent confusion' mean? - R'Joseph said: To prevent confusion between freewill and obligatory offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There were different regulations governing the ritual of the freewill and obligatory offerings respectively, for of the obligatory birds one was offered up as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering, whereas all freewill-offerings were burnt-offerings, these differences implying distinctions in the ritual. Now if one of the money chests were confused with another, so that the priest would offer a freewill-offering from the money meant for obligatory offerings and vice versa, the offering would be rendered invalid.');">²³</span> - Abaye said to him: Let him make two and inscribe on them: This is a freewill-offering, the other obligatory. - R'Judah