Daf Ditty Yoma 55: Sprinkling One Up, Seven Down

1
§ 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:

‫שׁר‬ֶ ‫ ֲא‬,‫ְשִׂﬠיר ַהַחָטּאת‬-‫טו ְוָשַׁחט ֶאת‬ 15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering,
‫ִמֵבּית‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ָדּמוֹ‬-‫ ְוֵהִביא ֶאת‬,‫ָלָﬠם‬ that is for the people, and bring his blood within
‫ ַכֲּאֶשׁר‬,‫ָדּמוֹ‬-‫שׂה ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ַלָפֹּרֶכת; ְוָﬠ‬ the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the
-‫ ְוִהָזּה ֹאתוֹ ַﬠל‬,‫ָﬠָשׂה ְלַדם ַהָפּר‬ blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the
.‫ ְוִלְפֵני ַהַכֹּפּ ֶרת‬,‫ַהַכֹּפּ ֶרת‬ ark-cover, and before the ark-cover.
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:

‫ ְוִהָזּה ְבֶאְצָבּעוֹ‬,‫יד ְוָלַקח ִמַדּם ַהָפּר‬ 14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and
‫ְפֵּני ַהַכֹּפּ ֶרת ֵקְדָמה; ְוִלְפֵני‬-‫ַﬠל‬ sprinkle it with his finger upon the ark-cover on the east;
--‫ַהָדּם‬-‫ְפָּﬠִמים ִמן‬-‫ ַיֶזּה ֶשַׁבע‬,‫ַהַכֹּפּ ֶרת‬ and before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle of the blood
.‫ְבֶּאְצָבּעוֹ‬ with his finger seven times.
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.

5
 "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

8
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

9
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
general number (‫ )כלל‬before the specific number (‫)פרט‬, for example, the number 21 would be
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.

10
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
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
I

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).

II

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.

IV

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.

19
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

20
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 -

‫ח׳‬:‫גיטין נ״ו ב‬
‫ לז( אי אלהימו צור חסיו בו זה טיטוס הרשע שחירף וגידף כלפי מעלה‬,‫אזל שדריה לטיטוס ואמר )דברים לב‬

§ 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.

‫ט׳‬:‫גיטין נ״ו ב‬

‫מה עשה תפש זונה בידו ונכנס לבית קדשי הקדשים והציע ספר תורה ועבר עליה עבירה ונטל סייף וגידר את‬
‫ ד( שאגו צורריך בקרב‬,‫הפרוכת ונעשה נס והיה דם מבצבץ ויוצא וכסבור הרג את עצמו שנאמר )תהלים עד‬
‫מועדיך שמו אותותם אותות‬

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).

‫ג׳‬-‫א׳‬:‫ט׳‬:‫רש"י על גיטין נ״ו ב‬

‫ כינוי כלפי מעלה‬- ‫עצמו‬:

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.

‫ב׳‬:‫ הלכות בית הבחירה ד׳‬,‫משנה תורה‬

‫שָׁבּנוּ ַהַבּ ִית ֵשׁ ִני ִנְסַתֵּפּק ָלֶהם ִאם ֳﬠִבי‬

ֶ ‫ ְוֵכיָון‬.‫ְבַּב ִית ִראשׁוֹן ָהָיה ֹכֶּתל ַמְבִדּיל ֵבּין ַהֹקֶּדשׁ וֵּבין ֹקֶדשׁ ַהָקָּדִשׁים ָﬠְביוֹ ַאָמּה‬
‫ ָﬠשׂוּ ֹקֶדשׁ ַהָקָּדִשׁים ָﬠְביוֹ ֶﬠְשׂ ִרים ַאָמּה ְתִּמימוֹת ְוָﬠשׂוּ‬Ž‫ַהֹכֶּתל ָהָיה ִמִמַּדּת ַהֹקֶּדשׁ אוֹ ִמִמַּדּת ֹקֶדשׁ ַהָקָּדִשׁים ְלִפיָכ‬
‫ַהֹקֶּדשׁ ַא ְרָבִּﬠים ַאָמּה ְתִּמימוֹת ְוִה ִנּיחוּ ַאָמּה ְיֵת ָרה ֵבּין ַהֹקֶּדשׁ וֵּבין ֹקֶדשׁ ַהָקָּדִשׁים ְול ֹא ָבּנוּ ֹכֶּתל ְבַּב ִית ֵשׁ ִני ֶאָלּא ָﬠשׂוּ‬
‫ ֲאָבל‬.‫ְשֵׁתּי ָפּרוֹכוֹת ַאַחת ִמַצּד ֹקֶדשׁ ַהָקָּדִשׁים ְוַאַחת ִמַצּד ַהֹקֶּדשׁ וֵּביֵניֶהן ַאָמּה ְכֶּנֶגד ֳﬠִבי ַהֹכֶּתל ֶשָׁהָיה ָבּ ִראשׁוֹן‬
‫שֶׁנֱּאַמר‬ֶ ‫שׁם ֶאָלּא ָפֹרֶכת ַאַחת ִבְּלַבד‬ ָ ‫' ְוִהְבִדּיָלה ַהָפֹּרֶכת ָלֶכם" ְוגוֹ" )שמות כו לג(ְבִּמְקָדּשׁ ִראשׁוֹן ל ֹא ָה ְיָתה‬:

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

24
25
26
27
28