Daf Ditty Yoma 55: Sprinkling One Up, Seven Down

§ The mishna taught that the High Priest took the blood of the bull from the one who was stirring it so it would not coagulate, and he entered and sprinkled it like one who whips. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Like one who whips? Rav Yehuda demonstrated the action with his hand,

2 like one who lashes with a whip on the back of another and who occasionally strikes lower down. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not sprinkle on the top of the Ark cover; rather, he does so against the thickness of the Ark cover. When he sprinkles once upward, he turns his hand so that the back of his hand faces downward, and he then sprinkles upward. And when he sprinkles seven times downward, he turns his hand so its back is upward. However, he does not sprinkle on the Ark cover or below it, so that the blood does not actually come into contact with it.

§ The Sages taught:

,Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering 15 וט טַחָשְׁו תֶא - ריִﬠְשׂ ,תאָטַּחַה רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ,תאָטַּחַה ריִﬠְשׂ that is for the people, and bring his blood within ,םָﬠָל איִבֵהְו תֶא - ,וֹמָדּ לֶא - תיֵבִּמ תיֵבִּמ the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the ;תֶכֹרָפַּל הָשָׂﬠְו תֶא - ,וֹמָדּ רֶשֲׁאַכּ רֶשֲׁאַכּ ,וֹמָדּ blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the הָשָׂﬠ םַדְל ,רָפַּה הָזִּהְו וֹתֹא לַﬠ - .ark-cover, and before the ark-cover ַה ,תֶרֹפַּכּ יֵנְפִלְו .תֶרֹפַּכַּה Lev 16:15

“And sprinkle it upon the Ark cover and before the Ark cover”.

We have thereby learned how many times the High Priest must sprinkle upward for the goat, that is, one sprinkling, as it states: “And sprinkle.” However, with regard to

3 the sprinkling downward for the goat, before the Ark cover, I do not know how many times he must sprinkle.

I therefore derive the halakha from the verses. It states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the bull, and it states that blood is sprinkled downward in the case of the goat. Just as the blood that he sprinkles downward in the case of the bull consists of seven sprinklings, as the verse explicitly states: “And before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle seven times” (Leviticus 16:14), so too, the sprinkling of the blood downward in the case of the goat is performed seven times.

§ The mishna states that the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two. The Sages taught in a baraita that when sprinkling, the High Priest counted: One; one and one; one and two; one and three; one and four; one and five; one and six; one and seven. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that he counted: One; one and one; two and one; three and one; four and one; five and one; six and one; seven and one.

The Gemara comments: They do not disagree about the matter itself that the High Priest sprinkles once upward and seven times downward. Rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place, and this Sage rules in accordance with the norm in his place. In one place they counted the smaller number first, while in the other place they would count the larger number first.

The Gemara asks: In any case, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that the first sprinkling upward must be counted together with each and every one of the subsequent

4 sprinklings. What is the reason for this? Why can’t the High Priest count the downward sprinklings separately? The Sages debated this matter. Rabbi Elazar said: The reason is so that he does not err in the sprinklings. If the High Priest were to count downward without including the first upward sprinkling, he might mistakenly think that his calculation includes the first sprinkling, which would lead him to add another one.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the reason is that the verse states:

And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and 14 די חַקָלְו םַדִּמ ,רָפַּה הָזִּהְו וֹעָבְּצֶאְב וֹעָבְּצֶאְב הָזִּהְו ,רָפַּה םַדִּמ חַקָלְו ;sprinkle it with his finger upon the ark-cover on the east לַﬠ - יֵנְפּ תֶרֹפַּכַּה ;הָמְדֵק יֵנְפִלְו יֵנְפִלְו ;הָמְדֵק תֶרֹפַּכַּה יֵנְפּ and before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle of the blood ,תֶרֹפַּכַּה הֶזַּי עַבֶשׁ - םיִמָﬠְפּ ןִמ - םָדַּה -- .with his finger seven times ְבּ .וֹעָבְּצֶא Lev 16:14

“And he shall sprinkle it with his finger upon the Ark cover, and before the Ark cover he shall sprinkle”. As there is no need for the verse to state: He shall sprinkle” again, what is the meaning when the verse states: “He shall sprinkle”? This teaches with regard to the first sprinkling that it must be counted with each and every subsequent one, i.e., he must mention the first sprinkling every time.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them concerns a case where he did not count the first sprinkling and did not err. That is acceptable according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan the High Priest acted incorrectly, as it is a mitzva to count the first one.

"BEREIRAH" PERMITS A FORBIDDEN MIXTURE

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Gemara discusses the case of a Shofar (collection box) of coins which are designated for the purchase of Korbonos Chatas for the owners of the coins. If one of the owners dies, every set of coins in the box becomes a "Safek Chatas she'Meisah Be'aleha," because perhaps the one who died was the owner of that set of coins. According to the opinion that maintains "Yesh Bereirah," the doubt can be resolved simply by removing one set of coins and proclaiming that the owner of that set of coins was the one who died. Those coins then should be thrown into the sea, and all of the other coins become permitted to be used for Korbonos Chatas.

How does the removal of one set of coins permit all of the other sets of coins that remain in the box? "Yesh Bereirah" means that although the status of an object is not clear at the present time, a future occurrence can determine its status retroactively. The principle of "Yesh Bereirah" is usually applied in a case in which a condition is stated at the time of the original event and that condition is fulfilled only at a later time. In the case of the Gemara here, however, the removal of one set of coins does not clarify that the owner of that set was the one who died.

If, for some reason, the act of removing a set of coins from the rest indeed clarifies that those coins are the ones that belonged to the man who died, then is such an act effective in every other case of a forbidden mixture? Would it suffice to remove one item and declare it as the one that is forbidden, and thereby permit the rest of the mixture?

TOSFOS in Temurah (30a, DH v'Idach) answers that in an ordinary case of a forbidden mixture, the forbidden item in the mixture was forbidden before it became mixed with the permitted items. Since it was prohibited when it was alone, its status of Isur cannot be transferred to a different item. In the case of the Gemara here, however, all of the items (coins) were permitted at the time they became mixed together. The Isur of one item took effect only after all of the items became mixed together. In such a case, the status of Isur can be removed by selecting one item and declaring it to be the one that is forbidden.

(Perhaps the logic behind this distinction is as follows. In every case of a mixture of a forbidden item with permitted items, the forbidden item should be Batel b'Rov, annulled in the majority. However, in certain cases the Rabanan instituted that the Isur in the mixture is not Batel b'Rov, such as in cases of a "Davar Chashuv," "Davar she'b'Minyan," and "Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirin." In the case of an item that became forbidden only after it fell into the mixture, the Rabanan did not institute that the mixture remain forbidden, even when the forbidden item is included in one of the types of cases mentioned above ("Davar Chashuv," etc.). The Rabanan required only that one remove and designate one item from the mixture as that which is forbidden in order that he not derive benefit from the forbidden item.)

1 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-055.htm

6 The TOSFOS YESHANIM and RITVA answer that when a person places money in the Shofar, he gives it with intent to grant the Kohanim the authority to use the money to buy a Chatas for anyone they choose. Therefore, according to the opinion that maintains "Yesh Bereirah," the Kohanim may determine retroactively which set of coins is the money of the person who died.

(According to the opinion that maintains "Ein Bereirah," every time the Kohanim purchase a Korban from the money of that Shofar they must stipulate that the Korban they purchase is "for whoever put this set of coins into the Shofar." This is because they are unable to determine retroactively through Bereirah that this set of coins was deposited in the Shofar by a particular person.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

The general principle that the Gemara works with is that kohanim zerizin hem – that kohanim in the Temple are always careful and efficient in their work. Nevertheless, the Mishnah (53b) presents the position of Rabbi Yehuda that there was only one stand upon which the blood could be put down, because were there to be two stands, one for the blood of the par (bull) and one for the blood of the se’ir (goat) it would be possible to mistake one for the other, and the wrong blood may be sprinkled.

The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Yehuda will not even rely on attaching labels to the different stands, because he does not suggest that two stands could be made with each of them clearly demarcated.

One place where clear designations were accepted in the mikdash was the shofarot – collection boxes for a variety of sacred purposes.

Money was collected for use in the Bet ha-Mikdash in different ways. There were actually 13 collection boxes, which were called shofarot because they were shaped like a shofar – a ram’s horn – with one end small enough for a coin to be placed into it and a larger end where the coins could be removed. (They were made in this way so that no one who came to deposit money would be suspected of stealing.) Each shofar was marked with the purpose of its money, so that no mistakes would be made. For example, one said “new shekalim” for the monies that were deposited

2 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_5157/

7 for the fiscal year beginning in Nissan, one was marked “old shekalim” for the leftover monies from last year’s collection, etc.

The Me’iri points out that the money collected in these shofarot were only for general communal sacrifices. Other sacrifices, which needed to be “personalized” by having the owner place his hands on the animal prior to the sacrifice (semikhah) could not be collected here, since the owner needed to accompany the animal that was purchased with his money. There are a number of other sacrifices that did not have shofarot because they were brought only occasionally, and only common sacrifices had collection boxes in the Temple.

Based on the ruling regarding the shofarot, the Gemara concludes that even Rabbi Yehuda will have to admit that if the stands were clearly marked it should keep the kohen gadol from making an error. The conclusion of the Gemara is that Rabbi Yehuda fears that due to his weakness, the fasting kohen gadol may make mistakes that he would not have made otherwise.

Mark Kerzner writes:3

Having brought the incense to the Holy of Holies, the High Priest exits, takes the blood of the bull from the priest who was stirring it, and re-enters the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, and starts sprinkling the blood toward the Ark-cover, one time above and seven times below. The blood never really lands on the Arks itself, "up" and "down" refers to the direction of his fingers, in a whipping motion.

To make sure that he maintains the correct count, he says out loud, "One, one-and-one, one-and- two and so on.. one-and-seven." - since any mistake in the counting would invalidate the whole procedure.

The High Priest then takes the blood of the goat, puts down the blood of the bull, re-enters the Holy of Holies and sprinkles the blood of the goat, counting again, "One, one-and-one, etc." Finally, he pours the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat and then pours it all back, to make the two types of blood thoroughly mixed.

3 http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma55.html

While standing in the Kodesh Kodoshim, the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the blood of the bull and then the blood of the goat toward the kapores, and later, while in the Sanctuary, he sprinkled the blood of each animal towards the paroches.4

For each event, he would direct one sprinkle of blood upwards, and seven downwards. As the Mishnah reports, the Kohen Gadol counted as he sprinkled these eight applications of blood. “One. One and one. One and two. One and three, etc.”

He continued to mention the one upward sprinkle as he proceeded to count the seven downward motions. Rabbi Yehuda explains that this is based upon a verse, but Rabbi Eliezer explains that it was in order that the kohen not become confused.

How did this method of counting avoid confusion? Rashi explains that it gave the Kohen Gadol a moment of extra time to think about what number he was about to count. Tosafos Yeshanim and Ritva explain that the count was designed so that the Kohen not confuse counting the one upward movement with the seven which were downward.

Although simply counting up to eight would seem to solve this problem, this is not an acceptable suggestion because the above and below blood applications are not one extended service, and it would not be proper to combine them.

Tosafos HaRosh explains that it is in reference to the goat that the Torah teaches that there is one sprinkle upwards, and the verse of the bull is where we find the number seven mentioned in reference to the lower blood applications.

We see, therefore, that these are two distinct actions, and counting them as one extended count (one to eight) is inappropriate.

The Yerushalmi points out that we want the second, downward set, to end with the number seven, and not with the number eight. the that rules also ( ) Rambam counting is done in this manner to avoid confusion. Lechem Mishnah is bothered that Rambam is ruling according to Rebbe Eliezer, and not according to the accepted opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. He answers that this is due to the text found in the Yerushalmi, where the reason of “avoiding confusion” is brought in the name of Rabbi Yehuda.

It seems, therefore, that everyone holds that this reason is valid, leading Rambam to rule accordingly.

4 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20055.pdf

Our Rabbis taught: One, one and one, one and two, etc. these are the words of R’ Meir. R’ Yehudah says: One, one and one, two and one, three and one etc. They do not disagree, [rather one] master [expressed the way they count] in his town and [the other] master [expressed the way they count] in his town.

Rashi (1) explains that in R’ Meir’s town people counted compound numbers by mentioning the for example, the number 21 would be ,( טרפ ) before the specific number ( ללכ ) general number expressed “twenty and one” rather than “one and twenty.” In R’ Yehudah’s town people counted by listing the specific number before the general number, e.g., the number 21 would be expressed as “one and twenty.”

The Beis Yosef (2) cites different opinions regarding the practice for counting. The Smak maintains that when counting years and days, upon reaching the number twenty, one should put the general number first, e.g., “twenty and one.” Kol Bo seemingly takes the opposite position, as he puts the specific number first, e.g., “one and twenty.”

The Beis Yosef (3) notes that the wording of Tur indicates that when counting days the specific number comes first, e.g., “one and twenty days of the month,” and when counting years the general number comes first, e.g., “five thousand, seven hundred, seventy and four years since creation.” Maharil (4) writes that the Yerushalmi cites pesukim that support each position. Therefore, if a sofer wrote a get using a different way of numbering, the get is acceptable. The Pri Chadash (5) writes that R’ Meir’s position should be followed since the Mishnah is consistent with R’ Meir’s opinion. He cites several pesukim that places the general number first as further evidence that in practice one should follow R’ Meir’s position and concludes that when counting sefiras ha'omer one should say, “twenty and one days of the omer.”

The Beis Shmuel (6) disagrees, based upon the ruling of Rema, and writes that for sefiras ha'omer one should count the specific number first, “one and twenty days of the omer.” Mishnah Berurah (7) rules that one should say the specific number first, but he adds that it is only an issue of using nicer language.

Ram”a zt”l explains the deeper meaning of the pattern of the sprinklings performed by the Kohen Gadol. “One above” represents the Almighty One above, while the “seven below” represent the evil inclination.

The Sages called the yetzer hara by seven different names, to allude to its way of always springing back at a person with a new tactic. The force of purity, on the other hand, is one. By sprinkling the blood in this way, it is as though the Kohen Gadol is saying symbolically: “How can we be expected to serve You, Hashem, when the single force of purity has to withstand seven different forces of impurity?” When performing the service on behalf of the Jewish people, the Kohen Gadol sought to emphasize the challenges that we face.

This concept is embodied by the Midrash that states that Moshe Rabbeinu took a different stance depending on whom he was addressing. When he spoke to Hashem, he said, “Why should Your anger be kindled against Your people?” To the Jews, on the other hand, he said, “You have sinned greatly!”

This can be compared to a king who became angry with his queen and banished her. The courtiers heard what happened and approached each party separately. To the king they said, “Your Majesty, is this how one treats his wife?” But to the queen they said, “How long will you continue to anger the king?”

Rav Kahanaman, the Ponevizher Rav, zt”l, would likewise take two different stances depending on his purpose. When he was trying to inspire the bochurim to learn with greater diligence, he would exhort: “The bochurim must learn more! At the present pace, I feel that this yeshivah is only going to produce a crop of amei ha’aretz!” But when he went to solicit the donors for help, he would say, “Your investment is safe with us—the yeshivah is putting out a new group of Torah giants and community leaders!”

11. The Procedure of Atoning for the Temple5

There are three stages in the process of sprinkling the blood of the bull and the goat to “atone for the Kodesh from the impurity and transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins.”

Atonement begins in the Kodesh Ha-kodashim – that is, by repairing the root of faith, the “yiḥud elyon” associated with the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people. It is due to this covenant that redemption does not depend on repentance, for God guides the world toward redemption. People’s choices cannot change this; they can only influence the way in which the redemption will arrive – pleasantly or painfully (as explained in 6:4 above). This corresponds to the unique aspect of the Kodesh Ha-kodashim, whose existence in this world is miraculous, as it links the eternal with the present, the upper worlds with this one.

The Kohen Gadol stood facing the two poles of the Ark and sprinkled the blood toward it and the kaporet – once upward and seven times downward. He sprinkled the bull’s blood first, followed by the goat’s blood. The sprinkling of blood expresses our devotion to our covenantal bond with God, for blood is life; the blood of the bull represented the blood of the kohanim and the Kohen Gadol, while the blood of the goat represented the blood of Israel.

All the sprinklings were toward the golden kaporet that covered the Ark, which contained the Torah and mitzvot. The keruvim on the kaporet expressed the covenantal bond between God and Israel. It was called “kaporet,” which is etymologically related to kapara (atonement), as it indicates that all of Israel’s actions ultimately reveal faith and divine governance. Even when Israel violates the Torah and is punished, everything will turn out to be for the best; everything will be radiant like gold. When one taps into this level, even the most severe sins of faith are atoned for.

5 https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/category/15/page/4/

12 The Kohen Gadol had to count the sprinklings aloud. “And this is how he would count: ‘One. One and one. One and two. One and three. One and four. One and five. One and six. One and seven’” (m. Yoma 5:4). The first sprinkling was upward, to connect with the singular root of faith, the eternal covenant between God and Israel. The other seven sprinklings were downward, to draw down the power of faith and the covenant, thus enabling it to infuse the seven facets of the world, which was created in seven days – so that faith and the covenant, which are the root of redemption, can manifest in the world pleasantly and peacefully, without suffering. The Kohen Gadol always repeated the initial count of one sprinkling upward before each of the seven sprinklings downward, because all seven facets of the world must be connected to the heavenly root of faith, from which they stem.

After sprinkling toward the kaporet in the Kodesh Ha-kodashim, the Kohen Gadol went out to the Kodesh and sprinkled toward the parokhet that separated the Kodesh from the Kodesh Ha- kodashim, once upward and seven times downward, first with the blood of the bull, which atoned for him and the rest of the kohanim, then with the blood of the goat, which atoned for all Israel. This atonement in the Kodesh corresponded to faith on the level of yiḥud taḥton, i.e., that which appears to us through the hanhaga of justice, which hinges on our actions. (See above, section 2.) This hanhaga stems from the most high covenant, hidden in the Kodesh Ha-kodashim and corresponding to yiḥud elyon and the hanhaga of yiḥud, but its manifestation depends on our choices. If we choose good, goodness and blessing will abound; if we choose evil, good will be minimized while suffering is maximized. The Kohen Gadol first sprinkled upward, in order to connect us and dedicate us to faith in God, Who watches over Israel at all times. Then he sprinkled downward seven times, so that faith in divine providence would be drawn down into all aspects of the lives of each and every one of us.

The atonement process continued at the incense altar, as we read:

He shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and atone for it: He shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and apply it to each of the horns of the altar; and the rest of the blood

13 he shall sprinkle on it with his finger seven times. Thus he shall purify it of the impurity of the Israelites and consecrate it. (Vayikra 16:18-19)

The sprinkling on the incense altar was different from that of the two previous locations. It did not involve sprinkling once upward and seven times downward because the purpose of this atonement was not to draw faith from the upper worlds down to this one, but the opposite; it was to gather up and elevate all the different tendencies in the hearts of Israel and direct them toward complete faith. For every deficiency of faith has a negative impact on people’s character traits, leading them to be angry, dispirited, arrogant, or lecherous.

The sprinklings of the blood on the four corners of the altar, representing the ingathering of faithful yearnings from the four cardinal directions, and seven times on the altar itself, representing the binding together of the seven primary character traits of the heart, link these elements to the eternal covenant that God made with us and our ancestors, as well as to faith in divine providence over us. To unify all these aspects and direct them toward complete faith, the Kohen Gadol had to mix together the blood of the bull and the goat. He then used this mixture to sprinkle the four corners of the altar, and the altar itself seven times.

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:6

As part of the special Temple ritual on Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) entered the

Holy of Holies and sprinkled the sacrificial blood upon the Ark of the Covenant. The Torah describes this as follows (Vayikra 16:14): "And he shall take of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle

6 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/sprinkling-blood-yom-kippur

14 it with his finger on the face of the ark-covering (al penei ha-kapporet)." Subsequently, the Torah describes the parallel sprinkling of the goat's blood (ibid. 15): "He shall sprinkle it upon the covering (al ha-kapporet)." Even though the verse implies that the blood is sprinkled on the kapporet itself, according to the gemara's analysis this issue is not absolutely clear.

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma 5:4) cites two positions as to whether the blood was actually sprinkled on the ark or just near the ark. The Talmud Bavli (55a) issues a vague statement: "When he sprinkles, he does not sprinkle UPON the kapporet, but alongside the thickness of the kapporet."

Rashi interprets this statement to mean that the blood wasn't sprinkled on the roof of the kapporet, but alongside its thick part (seemingly falling to the floor). Similarly, Tosafot (Zevachim 9a) claim that the blood never touched the kapporet.

This technical question might reflect a more fundamental issue regarding the definition of this sprinkling: is the sprinkling intended specifically for the aron (ark), or for the kodesh ha-kodashim

(holy of holies)? According to the opinion that the blood actually touched the aron, we would be inclined to deem this sprinkling as an "aron sprinkling." Assuming, though, that the blood never touched the aron (as Rashi claimed), we might be more likely to define the blood as a "kodesh ha- kodashim sprinkling." Interestingly, the Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishna, writes that the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the blood "in front" of the aron – suggesting that the blood is indeed connected to the aron.

An interesting offshoot of this question might be the method of sprinkling during the time of the

Second Temple. The Mishna (53b) claims that in the Second Temple (after the aron had already been buried), the Kohen Gadol would sprinkle the blood on the even ha-shetiya (rock of foundation) located in the kodesh ha-kodashim. Would this practice not suggest that the blood is unrelated to the aron, and rather a halakha of kodesh ha-kodashim? This indeed is the impression

15 given by the exegesis in Torat Kohanim allowing such sprinkling: "The extra word implies that a kodesh ha-kodashim without an aron and kapporet is equivalent to a kodesh kodashim with an aron and kapporet." This suggests that the sprinkling is related to kodesh ha-kodashim and therefore relevant even in the absence of the aron.

Alternatively, Rav Chayim Soloveitchik (in his chiddushim to the gemara) claimed that even after the aron was buried, the location still maintained the unique sanctity of the aron. This view would still allow us to define the sprinkling as aron-related; even though no physical aron existed, the location was still imbued with the unique status of the aron.

Even if we claim (as did Rashi and Tosafot) that the blood never actually touched the aron, we might still define the blood as fundamentally aron-related. Despite its not touching, it is still viewed as being sprinkled in the general area of the aron. In fact, we might impose some conditions about its location in order to ensure that it will be affiliated with the aron. For example, on our daf

Rabbenu Chananel (55a) explains that the blood – though not physically sprinkled upon the aron

- was nonetheless sprinkled within a tefach (handsbreadth) of the aron. Similarly, the Rambam

(Hilkhot Avodat Yom Ha-kippurim 3:5) maintains that the blood was placed "close to the aron, within a tefach." If the blood relates to the kodesh ha-kodashim in general, it seems unnecessary for it to be placed in such close proximity to the aron. Evidently, these rishonim viewed the blood as relating primarily to the aron; even though physical contact is unnecessary, proximity is required.

Conversely, if we claim that the blood never touched the aron and was indeed kodesh ha-kodashim blood, we might question both the syntax of the verse as well as the halakha itself. Why does the

16 Torah demand the blood be placed "on the kapporet" when indeed it is only meant to be placed in the kodesh ha-kodashim; why can't the blood be sprinkled anywhere in the kodesh ha-kodashim?

Evidently, the answer to this question lies in differentiating between two distinct sections of the kodesh ha-kodashim - the general area and the concentrated area in front of the aron. Indeed, the blood is related to the kodesh ha-kodashim and not the aron – but only a specific subsection of the kodesh ha-kodashim. An interesting analogy can be traced in the gemara in Menachot (27b), which quotes a debate between Rebbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan as to whether one who enters the kodesh ha-kodashim in general without invading the space of the aron receives capital punishment for unlawful entry. Rebbi Yehuda, who rules that the death penalty is administered only for entering the aron-area of the kodesh ha-kodashim, evidently subdivides the area into these two distinct sections.

Sanctity: Netziv vs S R Hirsch

Rabbi Mordechai Willig writes:7

The Ramban, in his introduction to Sefer Vayikra, refers to it as Toras Kohanim, the term found in the Mishnah (Megillah 30b): on Pesach, we read the parshah of the festivals of Toras Kohanim. The laws of Shabbos and the festivals, which apply to all of Am Yisrael, are included in Vayikra because of the korbanos brought on these days. These special sacrifices, a major reason for the moadei Hashem (23:37), are offered by the Kohanim.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (23:1) suggests a conceptual connection between festivals and korbanos: "That which the Temple is in space, is what the festivals are in time. Both have our union with Hashem as their aim." The Bais Hamikdash sets Hashem's Torah as the center-point of our lives. The term "mishkan ha'edus" (Shemos 38:21) means the mishkan which was made for the luchos ha'edus (Ramban). Hashem's Torah, symbolized by the luchos which Hashem gave us at Sinai, is placed in the Kodesh haKodoshim. The luchos, found in the holiest part of

7 http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2013/parsha/rwil_emor.html

17 the Mishkan, are the source of its sanctity (Rav Soloveitchik, cited in Eretz HaTzvi 12:5, p. 91).

To this day, we focus on Hashem daily when davening by facing the Bais Hamikdash and the Kodesh haKodoshim (Brachos 30a). Hashem's sanctuary in space, like space itself, is unchanging and inspires our eternal relationship with the eternal Torah. Time, on the other hand, is the changing succession of one event after another. The festivals are the holiest point in time, when Hashem's presence is most clearly felt. Just as we face the holiness of the Bais Hamikdash daily, so do we remember that every day leads to holiness of Shabbos (Ramban, Shemos 20:5).

Rav Hirsch adds that the immediately preceding section (22:26-33) includes laws of "temporal relationships within the framework of the spatial sanctuary", namely that a sacrifice may be brought only after an animal is with its mother for seven days (27), that one may not slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (28), and that the korban must be eaten on the day it is offered and slaughtered with that intention (29, 30). Rav Hirsch suggests that "the temporal character of these offering laws connects them with laws of the festivals, which also last for a period of one day or seven days."

This idea can explain why the aforementioned parshah of the festivals of Toras Kohanim begins with these seemingly unrelated laws of "shor oh kesev." The logical connection of Rav Hirsch between space and time and the common significance of the numbers one and seven led Chazal to add these introductory pesukim.

The Netziv (Haa'mek Davar, 27) alternatively explains that the laws of these pesukim relate to Pesach and Sukkos, when they are read, on a practical level. Aside from the specifics of the korbanos, the Torah warns against chilul Hashem (32). Generally, holidays can lead to levity and even sin (Kiddushin 81a). We are warned to avoid this, and to sanctify Hashem by communal prayer, ideally in Yerushalayim (see Ramban 23:2).

III

The Ramban's introduction notes that the laws of prohibited foods and relations apply to all of Am Yisrael as well. They are found in Toras Kohanim because they can lead to ritual impurity and an obligatory korban, both of which relate to the Bais Hamikdash.

The avoidance of prohibited foods and relations and overindulgence in permissible pleasures is the very essence of human sanctity (Ramban 19:1). When one experiences physical pleasure with appropriate restraint, his actions are sanctified and "redeemed" (Rav Soloveitchik, and from There You Shall Seek, p. 110ff.).

Human sanctity complements the aforementioned sanctities of space and time (olam, shanah, nefesh; see Ramban, Sha'ar Hagemul, Chavel ed., p. 296). As we face the Bais

18 Hamikdash from afar and remember Shabbos all week and yom tov all year, so, too, must we be mindful of Hashem when we engage in physical activities.

While the ratio of totally spiritual activities to spiritually minded physical activities varies from person to person, the following pasuk may provide a model for all to follow regardless of their own proper balance. The Kohen Gadol sprinkles the blood in the Kodesh haKodoshim once upward and seven times downward (16:14). Everyone should devote at least one unit to spiritual pursuits for every seven spent on worldly matters. The Maharal (Ner Mitzvah; see Chanukah: Conflict of Cultures Then and Now) implies this ratio as well. He views Sukkos as a seven-day holiday representing nature, and Shmini Atzeres, day eight, when we celebrate the heavenly Torah, as representing the supernatural.

The critical link between the mundane and the Divine is emphasized in the ways these sprinklings are numbered. While the Gemara (Yoma 55a) provides a technical or scriptural reason and the Kabbalists provide an esoteric one (Avodas Hakodesh, 16:14), one can suggest a conceptual explanation as well, which perhaps underlies the scriptural source.

Each of the seven downward sprinklings, counted one to seven, is preceded by "one," referring to the upward one. This remarkable method of counting, which the chazzan and kahal recite responsively and repeatedly on Yom Kippur, teaches that one may not be involved in earthly matters without the pervasive influence of heavenly ideals. [The Ba'al HaTurim refers to tachtonim and elyonim, low and high realms, but interprets the ratio differently.]

The ideal of sanctity is strongly linked to separation from sexual immorality (Rashi, 19:1). Unfortunately, even in this critical area, and even among otherwise observant Jews, we have seen the fulfillment of the Psalmist's description: "They mingled with the nations and learned their deeds" (106:35).

Overlooking such immoral acts in the spirit of today's non-judgmentalism threatens the very core of a holy Jewish society, especially if the acts are publicly known, and even more so if they are publicly flaunted. While the preventative measures found in the Rambam (Hilchos Yom Tov, 6:21), based on the aforementioned Gemara in Kiddushin (see Maggid Mishneh), may be impracticable, acquiescence to and acceptance of what was unacceptable even in secular society in the recent past by the Torah community is itself a chilul Hashem, as the Netziv noted, and likened to placing an idol in the Sanctuary (Akedas Yitzchak, Parashas Vayera).

We are duty-bound to sanctify all our time by our connecting it to the holy times of Shabbos and festivals, Torah and mitzvos. We must sanctify our homes by focusing on the holy space of the Bais Hamikdash and its successor, the Bais Haknesses. We must fulfill kedoshim tihyu by refraining from the prohibited, exercising restraint, and thereby sublimating the permissible. By doing so, we will merit the practical reinstatement of Toras Kohanim in the Bais Hamikdash.

Phillip Baigel writes:8

There is an article in Ami magazine in 2013 which tells about a Rabbi in Jerusalem called

Rabbi Shtrencel who was learning with his chavrusa this gemara about Rabbi Elazar ben Yosi and he was so fascinated by the whole topic that he wrote a letter to the Pope to ask the vatican to return the Kelim of the BM. There are other mentions in shas about Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosi seeing several objects from the Beis Hamikdash: the Menorah, the shulchan hapanim, the tzitz of the kohen gadol and the paroches. They also found the machteshes (grindstone) of Beis Avtinas.

In fact, Chazal mention having seen the Menorah and other keilim in various other places including Maseches Yoma 57a; Maseches Me’ilah, fourth perek; and Tosefta on Kippurim

2:16. A more detailed description of what Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Yosi saw is contained in

Avos D’Rabbi Nasan, perek 41. In Sifrei Zuta, Behaaloscha (Bamidbar 8:2), Rabbi Shimon is quoted as saying, “When I went to Rome, I saw the Menorah there.”

He actually received an answer from the Papal Nuncio denying that the vatican had them.

8 https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/232872?lang=bi

The article goes on to say that the Vatican would definitely not have the keilim because the vatican is in fact a newish invention. It was only around from the year 700CE. The places that the keilim were housed have long been destroyed and pillaged. Also the Vatican has been accused of keeping

21 many Jewish books under lock and key. This is also untrue as most of the manuscripts which it holds are available online for scholarly study.

The Lubliner Rov - Rav Meir Shapira wrote a scholarly article on the "blood on the paroches" machlokes as mentioned above.

He brings another mention of the Paroches in Gittin -

ןיטיג ו״נ ׳ח:ב ו״נ ןיטיג לזא הירדש סוטיטל רמאו םירבד( ,בל זל ) יא ומיהלא רוצ יסח ו וב הז סוטיט עשרה ףריחש ףדיגו יפלכ הלעמ הלעמ יפלכ ףדיגו ףריחש עשרה סוטיט הז וב ו יסח רוצ ומיהלא יא ) זל ,בל םירבד( רמאו סוטיטל הירדש לזא

§ Vespasian went back to Rome and sent Titus in his place. The Gemara cites a verse that was expounded as referring to Titus: “And he shall say: Where is their God, their rock in whom they trusted?” (Deuteronomy 32:37). This is the wicked Titus, who insulted and blasphemed God on High.

ןיטיג ו״נ ׳ט:ב ו״נ ןיטיג

המ השע שפת ז ו הנ ודיב ו סנכנ תיבל ישדק םישדקה עיצהו רפס הרות רבעו הילע הריבע ו לטנ יס ףי רדיגו תא תא רדיגו ףי יס לטנ ו הריבע הילע רבעו הרות רפס עיצהו םישדקה ישדק תיבל סנכנ ו ודיב הנ ו ז שפת השע המ תכורפה ו השענ סנ היהו םד ץבצבמ ו י אצו רובסכו גרה תא ומצע נש רמא ( להת י ם דע , ד ) אש ג ו צ ו ר ר י ך ב ק ר ב ב ךידעומ ומש םתותוא תותוא םתותוא ומש ךידעומ

What did Titus do when he conquered the Temple? He took a prostitute with his hand, and entered the Holy of Holies with her. He then spread out a Torah scroll underneath him and committed a sin, i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse, on it. Afterward he took a sword and cut into the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. And a miracle was performed and blood spurted forth. Seeing the blood, he mistakenly thought that he had killed himself. Here, the term himself is a euphemism for God. Titus saw blood issuing forth from the curtain in God’s meeting place, the Temple, and he took it as a sign that he had succeeded in killing God Himself. As it is stated: “Your enemies roar in the midst of Your meeting place; they have set up their own signs for signs” (Psalms 74:4).

י"שר לע ןיטיג ו״נ ׳א:׳ט:ב - ׳ג

: מצע ו - יכ נ ו י יפלכ הלעמ יפלכ י ו נ יכ

Rashi on Gittin 56b:9:1-3

Rav Meir Shapira asks - maybe the blood that was on the Paroches that Rav Elazar ben Yosi saw in Rome was not because of the sprinklings of the Kohein gadol on Yom Kippur but because of the blood that came out when Titus ran it through with a sword and a miracle occured.

The destruction had taken place and this occurrence with Titus had taken place and then the Parochet was taken to Rome when it was seen by Rav Elazar ben Yosi.

22 So Rabbi Elazar ben Yosi saying that he saw blood on the parochet is not necessarily a proof that they sprinkled blood on the curtain.

Also we can ask why should a miracle be performed for this Rosho ?

Why should he have the zechus that a special nes would happen for him.

Also the Rosh says on massechet Tamid that they had two Parochot.

If one got dirty or stained they would swap over and put up a new paroches.

הנשמ ,הרות תוכלה תיב הריחבה ׳ד ׳ב: דהיב י ול ,רתהש

תִיַבְבּ ןוֹשׁאִר הָיָה לֶתֹכּ ליִדְּבַמ ןיֵבּ שֶׁדֹקַּה ןיֵבוּ שֶׁדֹק םיִשָׁדָקַּה וֹיְבָﬠ .הָמַּא ןָויֵכְו וּנָבֶּשׁ ִיַבַּה ת נֵשׁ יִ סִ נ תְּ פַּ קֵ םֶהָ ל םִ א בֳﬠ יִ יִ בֳﬠ םִ א םֶהָ ל קֵ פַּ תְּ סִ נ יִ נֵשׁ ת לֶתֹכַּה הָיָה תַדִּמִּמ שֶׁדֹקַּה וֹא תַדִּמִּמ שֶׁדֹק םיִשָׁדָקַּה ָכיִפְל וּשָׂﬠ שֶׁדֹק םיִשָׁדָקַּה וֹיְבָﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ הָמַּא תוֹמיִמְתּ וּשָׂﬠְו וּשָׂﬠְו תוֹמיִמְתּ הָמַּא םיִרְשֶׂﬠ וֹיְבָﬠ םיִשָׁדָקַּה שֶׁדֹקַּה םיִﬠָבְּרַא הָמַּא תוֹמיִמְתּ וּחיִנִּהְו הָמַּא הָרֵתְי ןיֵבּ שֶׁדֹקַּה ןיֵבוּ שֶׁדֹק םיִשָׁדָקַּה אֹלְו וּנָבּ ֹכּ לֶת תִיַבְבּ יִנֵשׁ אָלֶּא וּשָׂﬠ וּשָׂﬠ אָלֶּא יִנֵשׁ תִיַבְבּ לֶת יֵתְּשׁ תוֹכוֹרָפּ תַחַא דַצִּמ שֶׁדֹק םיִשָׁדָקַּה תַחַאְו דַצִּמ שֶׁדֹקַּה ןֶהיֵניֵבוּ הָמַּא דֶגֶנְכּ יִבֳﬠ לֶתֹכַּה הָיָהֶשׁ .ןוֹשׁאִרָבּ לָבֲא לָבֲא .ןוֹשׁאִרָבּ הָיָהֶשׁ לֶתֹכַּה יִבֳﬠ דֶגֶנְכּ הָמַּא ןֶהיֵניֵבוּ שֶׁדֹקַּה דַצִּמ תַחַאְו םיִשָׁדָקַּה :' הָליִדְּבִהְו תֶכֹרָפַּה "םֶכָל וֹגְו " ( מש ו ת כ ו ל ג ) שָׁדְּקִמְבּ ןוֹשׁאִר אֹל הָתְיָה םָשׁ אָלֶּא תֶכֹרָפ תַחַא דַבְלִבּ רַמֱאֶנֶּשׁ רַמֱאֶנֶּשׁ דַבְלִבּ תַחַא תֶכֹרָפ אָלֶּא םָשׁ הָתְיָה אֹל ןוֹשׁאִר שָׁדְּקִמְבּ

Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 4:2

...In the first temple, there was a wall dividing between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, a cubit in thickness. And when they built the second temple they were unsure if the thickness of the wall was included in the measurement of the Holy or the measurement of the Holy of Holies, therefore they made the Holy of Holies twenty full cubits and they made the Holy forty full cubits and they left an extra cubit between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. And they didn't build the wall in the second temple, but they made two curtains: one on the side of the Holy of Holies and one on the side of the Holy. And between them was a cubit, corresponding to the thickness of the wall that had been in the first [temple]. But in the first temple there was only one curtain, as it is said, "And the curtain divided them..." (Exodus 26:33)

The Rosh says on massechet Tamid that they had two Parochot.

If one got dirty or stained they would swap over and put up a new paroches.

So how could it be that from Yom Kippur to Tisha B’Av they would have left the Parochet spoiled and tarnished with blood. They would have changed it and put on another one if it had got bloody. This also seems to contradict R, Elazar ben Yosi who holds that the blood was actually sprinkled on the parochet and says his proof was because he saw blood on the curtain in Rome.

Rav Shapira says that in reality it was as Rav Elazar ben Yosi said and that on Kippur the blood was sprinkled directly on the curtain but because of the great holiness of the parochet the curtain would mavlia – absorb the blood completely so that there was no evidence of the blood from the outside at all. That was the nes – this ensured that the parochet was never seen in an undignified state and was able to be seen in all its glory and splendor.

23 But when Titus HaRosha came and ran it through it lost its nes character and the blood that was held inside it poured out. The nes was not performed for Titus – it was Titus that disrupted and desecrated the sanctity of the nes.

Titus did not know the Lomdus – he thought he had killed clapei ma’aleh.

Rabbi Pinches Friedman writes:9

9 Shvili Pinchas Yom Kippur: file:///Users/julian/iCloud%20Drive%20(Archive)/Desktop/65_55_74.pdf