Yerushalmi Yoma 5:6 ירושלמי יומא ה׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: On all of them he gives from bottom to top except the one he is standing in front of, where he gives from top to bottom¹⁷⁴This follows R. Eliezer. If he would give the blood with his finger on the horn directly in front of him from bottom to top, some blood would flow back onto his arm and dirty his white robe.. He sprinkles on the surface of the altar seven times¹⁷⁵Lev. 16:19.. The rest of the blood he poured on the Western base of the outer altar¹⁷⁶While this is not prescribed in Lev. 16, as explained in the Halakhah it is inferred from the treatment of the blood of the bull of the Anointed Priest, whose remainders have to be poured on the “base of the altar which is in front of the Tent of Meeting.” “In front of” is taken to refer to “base”, this is the Western side of the base of the altar.; those of the outer altar one pours on the southern base. This and that combine in the water canal¹⁵¹The water supply to the Temple which emptied into the Siloam pool. and leave towards the Kidron valley where it is sold to gardeners as fertilizer; one commits larceny with it¹⁷⁷The water coming out of the Temple is made to drip into the earth, where the blood is absorbed, and at the bottom clear water is reappearing. The earth enriched with the blood is sold to vegetable growers as fertilizer. Since this was part of the construction of the Temple, the Temple does not renounce proprietorship of the blood suspended in the water; therefore use of the enriched earth without paying redemption money to the Temple is stealing from Heaven’s property..

HALAKHAH: He shall sprinkle on it¹⁷⁸Lev. 16:19., not on its ashes. On it, not on its coals¹⁷⁹Babli 59a, Tosephta 3:2.. There are Tannaim who state, the North side. There are Tannaim who state, the South side. He who says, the North side, Rebbi Eliezer; he who says the South side, the rabbis¹⁸⁰Since for R. Eliezer the High Priest always stands at the NE corner of the golden altar. For the rabbis, he finishes giving the blood on the corners at the SE corner, when he starts to sprinkle the top seven times..

¹⁸¹Tosephta 3:7, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(7); Zevaḥim 58b. The text of the second sentence is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s. Since the two sentences of the scribe are essentially identical, the corrector’s text should be accepted (even though the parallel sources show that it would have been better to correct the second sentence.)“Rebbi Yose said, this is a memorandum: Anything taken from inside to be given outside is given to what is close to the inside. [Anything taken from the outside to be given inside is taken from what is close to the inside.] And all that comes out from the inside to be given outside is given from what is close to the inside¹⁸²Anything taken from inside, the remainder of blood used on the Day of Atonement or of the bull of the Anointed or of the commonwealth, outside has to be given close to the inside, i. e., on the Western base of the altar. Similarly, the incense taken from the table with the shew-bread to be burned on the outside altar has to be burned on the Western side of the altar. And anything taken from the outside to be taken inside, coals for the incense altar and fire to light the candelabrum, have to be taken from the Western side of the outside altar close to the Temple entrance..”

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat. The coals of every day and the Western light¹⁸³On the candelabrum. are inferred from the Day of Atonement. And the two censers are inferred from the remainder blood¹⁸⁴As explained in Note 182..

¹⁸⁵Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Parashah 3(12); Babli 52a.“And all blood of the bull he shall pour¹⁸⁶Lev. 4:7., to include the blood of the bull of the Day of Atonement in pouring.” And why did he not say, “and the he-goat”? Rebbi Mana said, is it not required to be mixed¹⁸⁷If the bull’s blood has to be poured on the base of the large altar, the pouring of the he-goat’s blood is an automatic consequence and does not have to be spelled out as a separate commandment. Cf. Chapter 1, Note 200.? You conclude in saying, and all blood of the bull he shall pour, to include the blood of the bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement in pouring.

When he finished atoning the sanctuary¹⁸⁸Lev. 16:20.. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned¹⁸⁹If he correctly finished the ceremonies, automatically he atoned. Cf. Babli 60b. There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished¹⁹⁰Only if he did everything required for atoning he is finished.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive¹⁹¹If the remaining blood is not poured on the Western base of the exterior altar, the interior ceremonies are invalid. Babli, Zevaḥim 111a.. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings¹⁹²There are four ceremonies: Blood in the Holiest of Holies, on the gobelins, on the corners of the interior altar, and on its top. If one of them is invalid, it has to be repeated.. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving¹⁹³If part is invalid, the entire ceremony has to be repeated from the start..

It was stated: ¹⁹⁴Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah) Pereq 9(2); cf. Basbli 52a.“Rebbi Ismael said, if the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone¹⁹⁵The blood on the corners of the altar atones. In general if the blood becomes disqualified after this the purification sacrifice remains qualified. The only problem is the status of blood which was brought into the Sanctuary. is given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning¹⁹⁶The blood of the elevation sacrifice which, in contrast to the purification sacrifice, is not given on the four horns of the altar at the corners but only on the lower walls of two diagonally opposed corners so that blood is splattered on all four walls of the altar.. The question is, which pair of corners, SW and NE, or NW and SE? While the elevation offering is voluntary, it is stated in Lev. 1:4 that it is atoning. While the verse does not detail for what it is atoning, it is concluded in Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 4(8) that it is for the transgressions which do not qualify for a purification offering, infraction of positive commandments and of minor prohibitions. The“start” is giving the blood on the walls of the altar. it is only logical that it be given on the base¹⁹⁷The SE corner of the altar had no base stones standing out from the walls of the altar. The argument shows that the blood of the elevation sacrifice has to be applied to the SW and NE corners. (Mishnah Tamid4:1).. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, No. If you said that the remainder blood of purification sacrifices which does not atone and is not able to atone are given on the base, the start of an elevation sacrifice which is atoning and is able to atone is only logical that it be given on the base.” He who said “does not atone”, they do not atone during all other days of the year; therefore on the Day of Atonement they atone¹⁹⁸Since the ritual of the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16:29 is called an eternal law, any particular action required is essential for Atonement. But an action is certainly obstructive only if it is mentioned in Chapter 16.. He who says “does not atone and is not able to atone”, they do not atone either on New Year’s Day^198a“On New Year’s Day” may be a scribal error for כָּל־יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה “all days of the year.” and not on the Day of Atonement. Where do we hold? If for a commandment, it is a commandment to give on the base. But if it cannot refer to the commandment, let it refer to obstruction¹⁹⁹Since it was established earlier (Note 185) that it is a commandment to pour the remaining blood on the base, the difference between R. Ismael and R. Aqiba can only be whether pouring the blood on the base is obstructive or not..

Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: ²⁰⁰Babli Zevaḥim 52b, Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(4).“The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below²⁰¹Blood of elevation and well-being sacrifices which has to be given on the walls of the altar below the walkway at half-height certainly cannot validly be given on the upper part of the walls, but blood of purification sacrifices which must be given on the horns of the altar (by a Cohen standing on the walkway) should be valid if given on the lower walls since at the end the remainder of the blood is poured on the base which is below the lower walls.? The inner ones²⁰²Blood used inside the Sanctuary, of the day of Atonement, and of the bulls of the Anointed and the community. shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside²⁰³If none of the blood was brought inside, the ceremony certainly is invalid. it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them²⁰⁴Since the altar is the place of only the third and fourths stops in the use of the blood inside the Sanctuary., what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them²⁰⁵After blood of purification sacrifices was given on the horns, what is left becomes remainder.. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it²⁰⁶Lev. 6:19. The purification sacrifice except for the parts destined for the altar is eaten by the Cohanim, but only if the priest purified it, i. e., followed all the prescribed rules., that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins²⁰⁷Blood on the altar is invalid if from it was not previously given between the beams and on the gobelins. they become remainders.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated:²⁰⁸Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:1, speaking of the remainders of the blood brought inside. “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: ²⁰⁹Sifra Aḥare Pereq 8(8) on Lev. 16:29; Babli 61a.“He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden]²¹⁰Addition by the corrector; a correct statement but unnecessary as shown by the parallels. altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders²¹¹And anything needed for atonement is obstructive.? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that]²¹²Corrector’s addition. remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive²¹³It seems that here are two different texts. The scribe’s text is “Are not the remainders obstructive? Their place is obstructive.” After having proved that the baraita presupposes that remainders are obstructive it is stated that if the remainders of blood brought into the sanctuary are not given on the base to the West of the exterior altar, the procedure is invalid. In the corrector’s text this is a question, not an assertion.? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them²¹⁴No necessary action in the Temple can be performed in the night; only leftovers from the preceding day are burned on the altar. Pouring remainders of blood on the base in the night clearly is invalid; the question is whether this requires a new sacrifice. The question cannot be asked about the service of the Day of Atonement, it must be about the bull of the Anointed or the community.? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them²¹⁵Since it is agreed that pouring the remainder blood on the base in a commandment, if a sacrifice is slaughtered with the intent not to pour, or the blood is brought to the alter with the intent not to pour the remainder on the base, is the sacrifice disqualified from the moment of the illegitimate thought? Answered in the affirmative in the Babli, Zevaḥim 29a.? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers²¹⁶The commandment to pour the remainders on the base is conditional; if there are no remainders, there is no obligation to pour..

It was stated²¹⁷Tosephta Zevaḥim 6:9; Babli Yoma59a, Meˋilah 11a.: “One commits larceny with blood²¹⁸Illegitimate use of sancta is larceny which requires restitution, payment of a fine, and a sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). The question is whether this applies also to the blood when it flows out of the Temple domain after all ceremonies have successfully been completed., the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person²¹⁹Lev. 17:11.. You only have atonement of persons from it. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, any who eats it will be extirpated²²⁰Lev. 17:14.. You only have extirpation of persons from it²²¹In both cases, the argument is that after the blood has left the Temple precinct it is profane. It still may be Temple property, but no sacrilege is involved in unauthorized use and no sacrifice for meˋilah can be due.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they differ if he dedicated blood²²²It is not clear what this means. It could be that one refers to blood of sacrifices which somehow became disqualified for the altar, or of the blood of animals unfit for the altar which from the start were donated only for the upkeep of the Temple, and whose illicit use is meˋilah.. He who said, you only have atonement of persons from it, and this since there is no atonement from it there is no larceny with it. He who says, you only have extirpation of persons from it, and since there is extirpation from it there is larceny with it²²³Both possibilities apply to both interpretations given in the preceding Note.. There came Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they differ if he dedicated blood or for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Zeˋira enjoyed it; he thought that it had been said about the rabbis. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? It was said about Rebbi Simeon²²⁴R. Simeon holds that the remainders of blood used on the altar, as the blood mentioned in Mishnah 8, as well as the blood of animals dedicated to the upkeep of the Temple, are subject to meˋilah (and the Mishnah follows R. Simeon), but about blood unfit for atonement he agrees that there can be no meˋilah. Therefore the expression “they differ” does not refer to the Amoraim reporting in the name of R. Joḥanan, but to R. Sineon and the Sages in the Tosephta..

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth²²⁵Since anything given to the Temple for its upkeep is there to be sold and the money used for sacred purposes, the holiness of the dedicated object is transferred to the money while the object reverts to profane status. But meˋilah, larceny committed on sacra, only applies to profane use of sacred objects, not to redemptions (or to use that can be legitimized by redemption.) Therefore the distinction made by R. Simeon is not consistent with our rules.? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money²²⁶Mishnah Meˋilah 3:4.. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.