משנה: הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה וְחָפַן מְלֹא חָפְנָיו וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ הַכַּף הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גוֹדְלוֹ וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קוֹטְנוֹ וְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִידָּתָן. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. מְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁנֵי הַפָּרוֹכוֹת הַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבֵין קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לֹא הָֽיְתָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָרוֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבָד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהִבְדִּילָ֤ה הַפָּרוֹכֶת לָכֶ֔ם בֵּ֣ין הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבֵ֖ין קֹ֥דֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִֽׁים. MISHNAH: They brought him the cup and the pan1Other Cohanim bring him an empty cup and the censer full of the incense specially prepared for this day.; he took his full fistfuls and put it into the cup, a big person according to his bigness, and a small person according to his smallness, this was their measure. He took the fire-pan2With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple. into his right hand and the cup in his left, went into the Temple until he reached the space between the two gobelins which separate between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies with one cubit between them. Rebbi Yose says, there was only one gobelin as it was said3Ex. 26:33., and the gobelin shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holiest of Holies.
הלכה: הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף כול׳. וְלא כְבָר תַּנִּינתָהּ. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָה. אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַבָּזִךְ. מָהוּ כַף. מָגִיס. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. כְּלִי חוֹל הוּא. אִין תֵּימַר. כְּלִי קוֹדֶשׁ. דָּבָר שֶׁקָּדַשׁ בְּכֶלִי נִפְדֶּה HALAKHAH: “They brought him the cup,” etc. But was it not already stated9Mishnah 4:3. The same expression מַתְתָּה is used in Mishnah 4:3 and in 5:1. But if the High Priest already used the מַתְתָּה before, it cannot be brought to him now from a storage facility., “he took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar”? So is the Mishnah: The cup and the bowl. What is a כַּף? A tureen10From a rabbinic Hebrew root מגיס “to stir, to mix dough” which may have been induced by Greek μαγίς “dough”.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that it is a profane vessel. If you would say, a sanctified vessel, may something sanctified in a vessel be redeemed11This would contradict Lev. 27:10 stating that anything dedicated and fit for Divine service may not be redeemed.?
דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. פִיטְּמָהּ בַחוּלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֶה בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. פְּסוּלָה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. כְּשֵׁירָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֶי בַּר חֲנִינָה. קוֹדֶשׁ הִיא. שֶׁתְּהֵא הֲבָאֲתָהּ בַּקוֹדֶשׁ. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. קוֹדֶשׁ הִיא. שֶׁתְּהֵא בָאָה מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּישְׁכָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֶי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כִשְׁמוּאֵל וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּתַנִּינָן. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. קְטוֹרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאוֹמָּן מִשֶּׁל בֵּית אֶבְטִינָס [שֶׁהָיָה נוֹטֵל בִּשְׂכָרוֹ קְטוֹרֶת.] וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֶי בֶּן חֲנִינָה כִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם שְׂמוּאֵל. מַכְתֶּשֶׁת עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת לַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אָֽמְרָהּ רִבִּי חוּנָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דָּבָר שֶׁקָּדַשׁ בְּכֶלִי נִפְדֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלָאו שְׁמוּאֵל הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. קַל הוּא בְמוֹתָר. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הוֹתִירוּ תְמִידִין. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. נִפְדִּין כִתְמִימִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִפְדִּין כִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. הוֹתִירוּ שְׂעִירִים. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אִם עוֹלָה נִפְדִּית לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן חַטָּאת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן רִבִּי זְעוּרָא אָמַר. יִרִעוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מְקַייְצִים בָּהּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְקַשְׁיָא. יֵשׁ חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה עוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שַׁנְיָא הִיא. שֶׁאֶין קָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר נִקָבָּעִין אֶלָּא בִשְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן. תְּנַיי בֵית דִּין הוּא עַל הַמּוֹתָרוֹת שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. 12The incense used in the Temple. As they disagreed: If it was compounded as profane, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is disqualified; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is qualified. What is Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s reason? It is holy14There is no such verse; similar verses about incense would be Ex. 30:36, most holy it shall be for you, Ex. 30:37, holy it shall be for you. Babli Keritut 6a., that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary15It seems that the correct text is in Šeqalim: That its existence shall be in the holy space. The Babli text there adds: “and it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury,” i. e., from the Temple tax.. What is Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s reason? It is holy, that it shall be brought from the contributions to the treasury16In the Babli text: “that it shall be brought into the Sanctuary” which in our text is the Yoma version of R. Yose ben Ḥanina. In the Babli Šeqalim text it makes sense; the preparation may be in profane terrain, only the use must be in the Sanctuary.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina’s parallels Samuel and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s Rebbi Joḥanan , as we have stated, “if one dedicated his property to the Temple and there were objects appropriate as public offerings17Mishnah Šeqalim 4:6..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, incense. Rebbi Hoshaia said, explain it about an artisan of the family Eutinos [who took incense as his wages.18Addition of the corrector from Šeqalim. As explained in Šeqalim, incense of each year has to bought by the proceeds of the Temple tax of that year. In order to avoid that any leftovers at the end of the year became disqualified, the leftovers are given to the workers and artisans working for the Temple as their wages. The Temple can then buy back the incense from the workers with money of the next year and the incense remains qualified. (Private use of incense compounded by the Temple’s formula is a deadly sin, Ex. 30:38.) R. Joḥanan ’s argument that the Mishnah can only be interpreted as referring to incense is given in the Babli, Keritut 6a.] And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi’s is like Samuel, as Rebbi Ḥuna19Read with Šeqalim: Rav Ḥuna. said in the name of Samuel, they made the mortar a vessel of sacred service20Here one has to read with the Babli Šeqalim: did not make. The incense always is prepared in a profane vessel; it becomes dedicated by being used on the dedicated fire-pan or the interior altar.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ḥuna said this before Rebbi Yose: something sanctified in a vessel may be redeemed21Answering his question in the negative. R. Yose holds that practice does not follow Samuel.. He said to him, is that not Samuel’s? Since Samuel said, it is slight in the case of leftovers22Animals and supplies bought with Temple tax monies but not used by the end of a fiscal year, which cannot be used for the next year.. As they disagreed: If daily sacrifices were left over, Samuel says, they are redeemed unblemished23It is impossible to redeem animals qualified to be sacrifices, Lev. 27:10. Samuel proposes to treat the surplus animals similar to how surplus incense was treated: The animals are redeemed with the past year’s excess money, which then is used for repair or improvement of the Temple building as explained in Šeqalim Chapter 4. Then the animals are bought again with money of the new fiscal year and become newly qualified.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are redeemed as disqualified sancta24He requires that the excess sheep be let grazing until either they develop a defect or become disqualified by age; then they may be redeemed like any other disqualified animal. A different tradition Babli Ševuot11b.. Leftover he-goats25Bought for public purification sacrifices on holidays and days of the New Moon., in Samuel’s opinion if elevation sacrifices are redeemed, a purification sacrifice so much more. In Rebbi Joḥanan ’s opinion? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they shall graze26Same procedure as for sheep, Note 24.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, one uses them to adorn the altar27To be used as elevation offerings in periods where the altar otherwise would be empty. These sacrifices not being obligatory cannot be bought with money from the Temple tax; one uses dedicated animals which are not being used for their original purpose. The statement is erroneously missing in the Babli Šeqalim.. This is difficult. May a purification sacrifice be brought as elevation sacrifice? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference, for public sacrifices are determined only by slaughter28If they never had been dedicated as purification sacrifices, the rules of the latter do not apply. Accepted as opinion both by Samuel and R. Joḥanan in Babli Ševuot 12b.. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Tradion29With the Šeqalim texts delete the last two words; the tradent is a late Amora not the early Tanna.. said, it is a stipulation of the Court that all leftovers should be brought as elevation sacrifices30Since the stipulation preceded the acquisition of the animals by the Temple, R. Yose’s answer is unnecessary..
מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. יָכוֹל מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ מְבוֹרָץ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּקֻמְצ֗וֹ. אִי בְּקֻמְצ֗וֹ יָכוֹל יִקְמוֹץ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעֹתָיו. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. הָא כֵיצַד. חוֹפֶה אֶת פַּס יָדוֹ בַּמַּחֲבַת וּבְמַרְחֶשֶׁת וּמוֹחֵק בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן לְמַטָּן. 31Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful32Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful33Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan34Lev. 2:5. or frying pan35Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”
תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ בְּקֻמְצ֗וֹ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מַה לְהַלָּן קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל וְהָכָא קוֹמֶץ הֶחָסֵר פָּסוּל. חָפְנַיִם מָהוּ שֶׁיּיֵעָשֶׂה כִכְלִי שָׁרֵת לְקַדֵּשׁ. אַחֵר מָהוּ שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹן וְיִתֵּן לְתוֹךְ חָפְנָיו. מָהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מִידָּה לְחָפְנָיו. בְּכָל־חָפְנַיִם מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹ אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶלָּא בְחָפְנָיו. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי שָׁאַל. חָפַן וָמֵת. אָחֵר מָהוּ שֶׁייִכָּנֵס בְּחָפְנָיו. אִין תֵּימַר. חָפְנַיִם עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת לַקּוֹדֶּשׁ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. חָפַן וָמֵת אֵין אָחֵר נִכְנַס בְּחָפְנָיו. אֵין אַחֵר חוֹפֵן וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ חָפְנָיו. וְעוֹשִׂין מִידָּה לְחָפְנָיו. וְאֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל־חָפְנַיִם. אִין תֵּימַר. חָפְנַיִם לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת לַקּוֹדֶּשׁ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. חָפַן וָמֵת. אָחֵר נִכְנַס בְּחָפְנָיו. אַחֵר חוֹפֵן וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ חָפְנָיו. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין מִידָּה לְחָפְנָיו. וּמְשַׁעֲרִין בְּכָל־חָפְנַיִם. There, you are saying, his full handful, with his handful, and here you are saying, his full handful36The following text implies that here one has to read וּמְלֹ֣א חָפְנָ֔יו (Lev. 16:12), the expression used for the service of the Day of Atonement. It is asserted that the meaning of חָפְנַיִם used in Chapter 16 is identical with קוֹמֶץ used in Chapters 2 and 6, except naturally that the קוֹמֶץ, used in the singular, refers to his right hand only whereas the חָפְנַיִם need both hands.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since there a deficient handful is disqualified, here also a deficient handful is disqualified. Are his fists considered vessels of service to sanctify37The paragraph is R. Joshua ben Levi’s teaching, who asserted before that the incense is compounded in a profane vessel. The question then arises at which moment the incense becomes sanctified to be used in the Temple service, in the hand of the High Priest when he takes it out of the profane cup or in the bowl in which he deposits it. The bowl certainly is a Temple vessel only used for sanctified contents.? May another person take the fistful and puts it in his fist38Babli 49a.? Should it be made to measure for his fists39“It” is the empty bowl into which the High Priest deposits his fistful of incense. The next sentence really is a repetition of the question here, whether the same vessel is used for all High Priests or not.? Do you estimate for all possible fists or you estimate for his fist only? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked: If he took a fistful and died, may another person enter with his fistful40May his successor use his incense, presuming it did not become impure by the death. Babli 49a.? If you are saying that they did not consider his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may enter with his fistful; another person may take the fistful and put it in his fist; one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists41If only the bowl turns the incense into dedicated material, taking the fistful is a necessary action but must not necessarily be done by him personally; therefore also the successor may continue to use the incense taken by the first High Priest. But it is necessary to switch the last two statements, “one makes to measure for his fists; one does not estimate for all possible fists” to the case that his fists are consecrating, and read here “one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.”. If you are saying that they considered his fists a vessel of service of the Sanctuary, this implies that another person may not enter with his fistful; another person may not take the fistful and put in his fist; one does not make to measure for his fists; one estimates for all possible fists.
הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גוֹדְלוֹ. אֲפִילוּ כְּבֶן קִמְחִית שֶׁהָֽיְתָה יָדוֹ מַחֲזֶקֶת כְּאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין. וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קוֹטְנוֹ. אֲפִילוּ כְּבֶן גַּמְלָא שֶׁלֹּא הָֽיתָה יָדוֹ מַחֲזֶקֶת אֶלָּא כִשְׁנֵי זֵתִים. “A big person according to his bigness,” even like Ben Qimḥit whose hand contained about four qab42About 8 liter., “and a small person according to his smallness,” even like Ben Gamia, whose hand contained only about two olives.
הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר מָהוּ. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר. הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר פָּסוּל. מַתְנִיתַה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּאי. קִבֵּל בִּימִינוֹ וְנָתַן בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ יַחֲזִיר לִימִינוֹ. וּשְׂמֹאלֹו לֹא כְזָר הִיא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָֽיְתָה שְׂמֹאלוֹ כְּלַפֵּי לִפְנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. כְּלַפֵּי לַחוּץ. שַׁנְייָא הִיא הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר וְשַׁנְייָא הִיא מֵאֵילָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. פְּשִׁיטָא יָד לֹא עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּהִילּוּךְ. מַתְנִיתַה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נִשְׁפַּךְ מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי בֵּיבַי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְגַּלְגֵּל כְּלַפֵּי לִפְנִים. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. כְּלַפֵּי לַחוּץ. שַׁנְייָה הִיא הִילּוּךְ בְּזָר שַׁנְייָא הִיא הִילּוּךְ מֵאֵילָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. פְּשִׁיטַת יָד עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּהִילּוּךְ. מַתְנִיתַה פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יַנַּאי. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ. יִתְלֶה אוֹתוֹ בִזְרוֹעוֹ. אֵינָהּ דֶרֶךְ כְּבוֹד. וְיַחֲלִיף. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. אִם הֶחֱלִיף פָּסוּל. וְיַחְתִּי. אִם הֶחְתִּי מִימִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ כָּשֵׂר. וְאָמַר אוֹף תַּמָּן. וְיַחְתִּי. תַּמָּן אִם הֶחְתִּי פָּסוּל. [אִם הֶחֱלִיף פָּסוּל.] בְּרַם הָכָא אִם הֶחְתִּי כָּשֵׁר. אִם הֶחֱלִיף פָּסוּל. What is the status of motion by an Non-Cohen43This question cannot be about the Day of Atonement, where not even an ordinary Cohen may perform one of the duties of the High Priest, but of the regular service in the Temple, except those where the verse explicitly prescribes that a Cohen has to move the object; cf. Lev. 1:15.? Ḥizqiah said, motion by a Non-Cohen is qualified. Rebbi Yannai said, motion by a Non-Cohen is disqualified. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai44Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2. As a rule, sacral acts by the priests have to be performed with their right hands. Therefore the blood of a sacrifice has to be collected by the Cohen in a sacred vessel held in his right hand; if later he temporarily switches the vessel to his left hand he may return it to his right hand and it remains qualified.: “If he received with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand.” Is his left hand not like a Non-Cohen? Explain it if his left hand was towards the inside45If he returns the vessel to the right hand he increases its distance from the altar; this is not part of the transport of the blood to the altar.. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying, towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not consider a movement of his hand as motion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai:46Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:2. “If from the vessel something was spilled on the floor and he collected it, it is qualified.” Rebbi Bevai said, explain it if it was rolling towards the inside. Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying towards the outside, there is a difference between motion by a Non-Cohen and one which is automatic. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did consider a movement of his hand as motion. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: “He took the fire-pan2With the hot coals, which he had deposited on the uppermost step at the entrance to the Temple. into his right hand and the cup in his left.” There is a difference because he cannot do it otherwise. Should he hang it on his arm? It is not respectful. May he switch? They wanted to say47The unanimous opinion of the members of the Academy although there is no tannaitic statement to guide the decision., if he switched it was disqualified. Should he lower it48Put the vessel in his left hand under the right hand to support the right hand.? If he lowered it from his right hand to his left hand it is qualified. Could we say that also there49Can one say in the case from Zevaḥim that the vessel could remain in his left hand if it is held on his right hand side below his right hand?, let him lower it? There if he lowered it it is disqualified. [If he switched it is disqualified.]50Addition by the corrector; correct but not absolutely necessary. But here if he lowered it it is qualified; if he switched it is disqualified51If the fire pan is in his left hand and the cup with the dry incense powder in his right hand..
הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם הִכְנִיסָן אַחַת אַחַת כִּיפֵּר. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר מִשֵּׁם הַכְנָסָה [יְתֵירָה]. עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן הוּא עוֹבֵר. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אוֹמֵר לֹו. הִיכָּנֵס. וְאַתּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אֶלָּא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנְה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁהָא כְּדֵי הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. עַל אֵי זוֹ מֵהֶן הוּא עוֹבֵר. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנְה. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אוֹמֵר לֹו. צֵא. וְאַתּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אֶלָּא עַל הָאַחֲרוֹנָה. Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry52An unnecessary entry into the Holiest of Holies is a deadly sin, Lev. 16:2.. About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated53Mishnah Ševuot 2:4 (Note 60). The text there, reported in slightly different formulation, seems to be the correct one: “How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last.” The improper behavior was that he tarried, not that he entered when pure. This parallels the first case, where the first entry was necessary and therefore legitimate, only the second one is unnecessary and sinful.: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable60In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12..” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one.
וּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. זֵיכֶר לַדָּבָר. כַּהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אַמָּה טַרַקְסִין. עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה לְבֵית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים. מָהוּ אַמָּה טַרַקְסִין. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בוֹצְרַיָּיא אָמַר. טִירֶקְסוֹן. מַה מִבִּפְנִים מִבַּחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִן מַה דִכְתִיב וְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים בָּֽאַמָּ֖ה הָיָ֣ה הַבָּ֑יִת ה֖וּא הַֽהֵיכָ֥ל לִפְנָיי׃ הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. מִבִּפְנִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהָֽכְתִיב וַיַּ֨עַשׂ֙ אֶת־בֵּֽית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁ֔ים עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. הֲוֵי מִבַּחוּץ. מַה טַעֲמֹון דְּרַבָּנִן. וְהִבְדִּילָ֤ה הַפָּרֹ֨כֶת֙ לָכֶ֔ם וגו׳. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יֹסֵי. בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלְמַעֲלָן לַקֹּדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלְמַטָּן. וְלֵית לְרַבָּנִן כֵּן. אִית לָן כַּהִיא דְּתַנִּינָן. וְרוֹשֶׁם פִסְיפְּסִין מַבְדִּיל בָּעֲלִייָה בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְבֵין קוֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים. “With one cubit between them.” Rebbi Hila said, this54That in contrast to the First temple, the Second had two gobelins, the interior one belonging to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one belonging to the Temple Hall, with a cubit in between. The problem whether the cubit between interior and exterior gobelins belongs to the Temple Hall or the Holies of Holies is quoted as undecidable in Kilaim 8:5 where part of the text is found (Notes 93–95) and Babli 52a. is hinted at as we have stated there55Mishnah Middot 4:7., “One cubit taraqsin, twenty cubits for the building of the Holiest of Holies.” What is “one cubit taraqsin”? Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “confusion”, what is inside-outside56Jastrow’s conjecture that טרקסין is Greek τάραξιν, accusative of τάραξις, “confusion”; cf. Kilaim 8:5 Note 93.. Rebbi Yose said, since it is written571K. 6:17., forty cubits was the House, that is the inner Temple, it means that it is counted inside. Rebbi Mana said to him, but it is written582Chr. 3:8. Since the reports about the first Temple do not mention the cubit in between, all they prove is that the interior gobelin belongs to the Holiest of Holies and the exterior one to the Temple Hall., he made the building of the Holiest of Holies,…, twenty cubits, it means that it is counted outside. What is the rabbis’ reason? The gobelin shall separate for you59Ex. 26:33. This is R. Yose’s (the Tanna) reason that only one gobelin is possible between the Temple Hall and the Holiest of Holies. How can the rabbis explain the verse?, etc.? What does Rebbi Yose do with this60In this and the next sentence, the places of “R. Yose” and “the rabbis” have to be switched since the simple meaning of the verse supports R. Yose. Tosephta 2:12. Between the Holiest of Holies above and the Holiest of Holies below61The rabbis will dispute that even in the first Temple there was only one gobelin. Since there must be an opening for the High Priest to enter the Holiest of Holies, a complete separation so that the Holiest of Holies cannot be seen from the Temple Hall requires a minimum of two gobelins, one being closed at the place where the other is open. But on the roof of the building there was only one separating line.. Do the rabbis not have this? They have it as we have stated62Mishnah Middot 4:5., “the impression of pebbles63Greek ψῆφος. distinguish above between holy and the Holiest of Holies.”