Daf 47

1) The Kohein Gadol takes out an empty spoon and the shovel for Ketores. He scoops out Ketores with his two hands put together (i.e., Chofen) and puts it into the spoon. Each Kohein Gadol will scoop out a different amount, a big one will have more, and a smaller one will have less.

2) The reason he doesn't just bring in the Ketores in his hands as the Torah implies, since there is no practical way to do it. After all, if he would need to enter twice to bring items into the Kodesh Kedashim, once with the handsful of Ketores and then with the shovel, that can't be. As the Torah says that you need to come in once, and not twice. If you say to place the shovel of coals on top of the Ketores in your hand, and when you enter, you'll pull th shovel with your teeth to remove it from on top of the Ketores, that's also not correct. After all, you wouldn't serve a human king in such a fashion, so, of course, you shouldn't serve Hashem that way either. [Tosfos explains: this is only since the shovel will be suspended in the air. However, we'll permit later to pull the spoon of Ketores towards you with your teeth since the spoon remains in your hands and is not suspended in the air.] Therefore, we do it with a spoon the same way it was done by the Nesiem.

3) [Tosfos says: you can't say that you pull the shovel off with your armpit, where the long handle of the shovel is tucked under. After all, you need all the coals to remain there, and it's impossible for it not to spill a little when taking the shovel out that way. Alternatively, you wouldn't do it that way before a human king.]

4) You take the shovel in your right hand and the spoon in your left. Even though the Ketores is the main item, you need your right hand to balance the shovel that's larger than the spoon. Even if the Kohein Gadol's hands are so big and the Ketores he scoops up is of equal volume with the coals, you still need the right hand to control the shovel since it's very hot.

5) There is an unresolved inquiry whether the Kohein Gadol needs to physically scoop out with his own hands the Ketores, or if he can scoop it out with a Kli that has the size of his hands. After all, we see the Halacha by a Mincha that the Kohein needs to use his own hand to do Kemitza and can't do it with a Kli that size. Do we learn a Gezeira Shava (Malei, Malei) from Kemitza. Or do we say that it's only a Halacha by Kemitza where the Torah excludes a Kli by saying "his Kometz," but we don't extrapolate it to Ketores.

6) You need to perform Kemitza without any of the dough sticking out of your hand. Also, the Kemitza is not only what fits in his fingers, but he takes three fingers and bends them onto his palm to take the dough, like the way people would make a Kometz. By the Machvas and Marcheshes (that were baked before Kemitza, and the extras that stick out of his fingers don't fall down by itself like it does with dough [Tosfos: only according to those that they folded it and made Kemitza that way, but according to those who say that it was crumbled into crumbs, it's no harder than other Kemitzas]); you must rub the sides with your thumb and pinky to make sure that nothing remains sticking out of the three middle fingers. This is one of the difficult Avodahs done in the Mikdash.

7) The dough stuck in between the fingers is a Safeik if it's counted with the leftovers after the Kemitza, or it's part of the Kemitza. [Tosfos points out that it's not Tevel. The practical difference that it's not Tevel (since it's anyhow forbidden to eat) that it's Batul if it gets mixed in Chulin that was brought in the Azarah with Kodshim. However, if it would be Tevel, it wouldn't be Batul even in a thousand.] Therefore, according to R' Eliezer who says that the prohibition of burning the leftovers of the Mincha is only if you burn it as a sacrifice, but you can burn it to be fuel to the fire like wood; then there is a way to deal with what's between the fingers. You can take this extra and burn it after the main Kemitza with a condition that, if it's only leftovers, it will be burned as wood. However, you can't do it the opposite, for, if it would realy be leftovers, then you have a problem that you're burning the Kemitza after some of the leftovers are missing. [Tosfos explains: according to R' Yochanan, you can still bring the Kemitza on the Mizbeach, but it won't permit eating the leftovers afterwards. However, there is an opinion in Menachos that doesn't allow burning the Kemitza either.] However, according to the Rabanan who forbid burning any leftovers for any reason, there is no way to bring the Mincha, so you must have a fatty Kohein that has fat fingers that prevent dough from coming in there. Even according to R' Eliezer, you should L'chatchila use a fatty Kohein to do the Kemitza.

8) We have an unresolved inquiry if, regarding scooping the Ketoras, if the Ketores between the fingers are considered part of it or not. Even if we don't learn the Gezeira Shava of Malei, Malei to compare it to Kemitza that seems to command that the Kohein must do it, and it might not include the dough that seeped in between the fingers. After all, we can say that perhaps it's included in the Pasuk "your full hand," or do we say [Tosfos: that when the Pasuk says "to take," it even goes on the Ketores and not only on the coals], and it's only referring to taking within your hands (and not what's seeps in there by itself between the fingers).

9) There are many unresolved inquiries regarding Kemitza. What happens if you do Kemitza with the tips of your fingers? [Rashi and Tosfos explain: you began to do Kemitza with the tips of your fingers, and you grabbed enough of the flour until your fingers reach your palm.] What happens if you do Kemitza from bottom to top? [Rashi and Tosfos explain: the back of your hand faces the flour, and you plant your fingers into the flour and do Kemitza. This is different than the earlier inquiry where the palm of your hands was facing the flour.] What happens if you grab it sideways?

10) We also ask the same inquiry on Chafina (scooping up the Ketores). [Tosfos explains: these are independent inquiries from the ones inquired by Kemitza. After all, by Kemitza, the possible problem is that it's not done like people close their hands, but here the question is if it's the way Chafina is done, or not.] Another inquiry is: what happens if you take your two hands and start scooping each one by itself, and then bring them together?

Daf 48

11) There is an unresolved inquiry: what happens when you do Kemitza and you place the Kemitza to stick on the utensil's walls? Do we say that it's Kodesh since it's within the utensil, or do we say that it needs to rest in the utensil regularly?

Another unresolved inquiry: what happens if he turns over the utensil and places it on the bottom of the Kli? [Tosfos explains: a Gemara says that you need to make it Kodesh from the inside. R' Chananel explains within the Kli, and you can't place it within the upside-down base of the utensil (even though it's a receptacle). According to him, we can't explain here like the simple meaning, because it's placed on the outside of the Kli. Rather, we must say that he turned the Kli inside out, and placed it on top which was once the bottom of the inside of the Kli. However, our Gemara fits well in its simple explanation to Rashi who says that you can only make Kodesh from the inside, i.e., inside the Azarah. However, it's difficult, for, if so, the Gemara there shouldn't have said 'inside,' but in the Kodesh.] After all, it's put in it, but not regularly.

12) When you fill your palms with Ketores, it should have a slight brimming of Ketores, but it shouldn't be heaping, or leveled.

13) You can only catch the blood from the neck of the animal. (Once you caught it in the utensil, even if it spills, you can scoop up from the puddle and sprinkle it.) However, if it first falls from the neck to the ground, you can't scoop it up afterwards. (Also, you can only catch the blood where the Nefesh is, and not the blood from the skin, or the blood that drips out after it dies. You also need to L'chatchila catch all of the blood.

14) We have an inquiry: if he does Chafina on Ketores and it spills from his hands; is his hands considered like the neck of the animal and it's as if it spilled directly from the neck on the ground and is Pasul, or it's as if it's in a Kli Shareis and he can gather it up and it's Kosher. [Tosfos says: even on the side that it's Kosher, it won't be a way to bring the Ketores into the Kodesh Hakadshim with your hands, so that you wouldn't need to bring it in a spoon; i.e., to bring it in your hands, and when you enter, you loosen your hands and drop the Ketores on the floor while you're still holding the shovel, then place down the shovel of coals, and then gather the Ketores and burn them. After all, it's not the normal way to do it, and we can say the logic that, if you won't do such service before a human king, you shouldn't do it in front of Hashem either.]

15) From the fact that, if a Tvul Yom touches some of the Ketores in the spoon, it invalidates all of the Ketores, (so its essence is Kodesh like a Korban); we would say that the Ketores is also Pasul when it's left overnight (Lina), and it's also Pasul by having a wrong thought by the Avodah.

16) We have an unresolved inquiry if someone has a wrong thought by shoveling the coals from the Mizbeach, does it invalidate them? Do we say that the preparation for the Mitzvah has the same status and laws as the Mitzvah itself. [Tosfos says: even though a Tvul Yom Pasuls all the coals in the shovel even if he only touches some of it, (and we said earlier that this is a sign that a wrong thought invalidates); we must say that it also needs to have the status of being an Avodah. Therefore, we inquire whether we consider the shoveling the coals as part of one big Chafina (and it's part of an Avodah), or not.

However, the bad thought will only invalidate them, but wouldn't have the same prohibition to eat them, since that only applies when a bad thought was done to the Korbanos brought on the outer Mizbeach. There is even an unresolved inquiry in Zevachim whether we also include the Korbanos that are burnt outside the three camps, even though bad thoughts invalidate them.]

17) If you carry the blood with your left hand, you invalidate the Korban. (The same applies to an Onein, drunk or blemished Kohein who carried the blood). We don't extrapolate to validate it from the Kohein Gadol who brings the spoon of Ketores with his left hand. We also say it's invalidated if the Kohein moves it when he's sitting, or if a non-Kohein moves it. Even though there's a Pasuk that says that the Leviyim were involved with the carrying of the blood, we must say that they didn't move it, but a Kohein placed it in their hands, and a Kohein removed it from there hands, and the Leviyim were no better than doing the job of a platform. However, they carried the limbs on the Mizbeach with their left hand since it's moving parts of the Korban that don't prevent the atonement if they weren't brought.

Daf 49

18) [Tosfos prefaces the next Gemara: even according to the side of the inquiry that the Ketores that were between his fingers were not considered part of his Chafina because he needs to do the action of Chafina, and the Ketores enters between his fingers by itself]; there's an unresolved inquiry whether someone else can do the Chafina and place it in the Kohein Gadol's hands. [Tosfos explains: do you only need a person to take it, and he did, or do you need the Kohein Gadol himself to do the taking.]

19) There is an unresolved inquiry: if the Kohein Gadol Shechts the bull and dies, can his replacement come in and bring the blood to sprinkle. Do you say that having the blood of the bull is as if you have the bull itself, or no. Also, if the first Kohein Gadol does Chafina and dies, could his replacement take that Ketores in? (However, this is only If you hold that you're Yoitza bringing the bull's blood in to sprinkle. After all, if it's not, you would need to Shecht another bull, and if Chafina was done before this, it would be Pasul since it was done before the Shechita of the bull.)

20) R' Pappa says that this is not an inquiry according to the side to say that the Kohein Gadol can make a second Chafina when he enters the Kodesh Hakadshim. [Tosfos says: it doesn't mean that they need two Chafinos, or else this second Kohein didn't make both of them. Rather, you can have a second one, and since you need a whole Chafina, and maybe, when you brought the Ketores, some of it might have gotten loss, the rabbis enacted to redo it in the Kodesh Hakadashim in order to have a full Chafina. Therefore, there would be no problem for the second Kohein Gadol to do a second Chafina on the first one's Ketores.] However, the inquiry is only if you can't do a second Chafina.

21) R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua takes the opposite approach, if you can redo the Chafina, the second one can't do Chafina again to these Ketores since it's impossible that the first one's Chafina is a little larger, or smaller, than the second one's.

22) We prove from the following Braisa that you may do Chafina a second time. The Kohein Gadol holds the spoon with the tips of his fingers, and he moves it back with his thumbs or teeth until the handle gets to between his elbow (and the front of the spoon is right in front of his palm), and then he tips it over into his hands again.

23) If a Kohein Gadol Shechts the bull and dies; R' Chanina says that his replacement can't enter with the blood, since he needs a bull, and not only the blood of a bull. Reish Lakish says he could, since the blood of a bull is called a bull.

24) Everyone agrees that it's called a bull after its Shechita if it has its skins, meat and the dung inside its intestines. After all, the Pasuk says that "you take the Chatas bull and goat" after they sprinkled the blood. Although we say that you can't remove yourself for being counted on a Korban Pesach after its Shechted, although it's still considered a sheep; that's because it says "Miyos Miseh (from being a sheep)," which we Darshin from the Chiyus, i.e., while it's still alive. Also, we see that you can't redeem a donkey B'chor with a Shechted sheep (nor with a Treifa, Klayim (interbreed), a calf, wild animal or Koy); that's because we learn a Drasha to compare the 'sheep' of redeeming a B'chor to the 'sheep' of a Korban Pesach. (However, it doesn't need to be completely like a Pesach, and it doesn't need to be a male, unblemished, and within a year, since it says an extra "you shall redeem" to include them.)

Daf 50

25) A proof to Resh Lakish (that the blood is called a bull) since it says "this is how Aharon enters the Kodesh, with a bull," and he only enters with blood. However, R' Yochanan would say that the Pasuk means that the bull prepares him to come into the Kodesh, since it provides the blood that he can go in with.

26) We don't say that the bull is Pasul after the Kohein Gadol dies like all Chatos after the owner dies; we can say it's like R' Elazar and R' Shimon who say that the Kohein Gadol's Chatos doesn't die (since it's not only for him, but for all the Kohanim). (However, R' Yehuda holds that they die.) Even if you don't consider it to be a public Chatos that doesn't die, it's at least a partnered Chatos that doesn't die either. (The practical difference if it's classified as a partnered Chatos and not a public Chatos; to say that the Kohanim aren't considered as a Shevet by themselves so that they bring their own Korban on a bull brought when the Jews sin from a mistake in Psak from the Sanhedrin. [Tosfos says: you can say another practical difference according to the opinion that Tumah is permitted by public Korbanos, and not only superseded, and you don't even need to try to find a Tahor Kohein to perform it; that's only by public Korbanos and not by partnered Korbanos.]

27) [Tosfos says: even though, regularly, we say that public Chatos don't die, but they graze until they get blemished (and here we bring it as is); we must say that the rule of it grazing is only rabbinic, and they only enacted it in a similar case that the individual's Chatos would die, like when it got lost and the owner was atoned with another animal, or when he dies, but here all the owners didn't die, and there is a substitute Kohein Gadol to take the dead one's place, which is not similar to individuals who die; so, they didn't enact it to graze.]

28) R' Meir says that a bull of a Kohein Gadol is an individual's Korban Chatos, (and he tells the Tanna Kama that the fact that something supersedes Shabbos and Tumah doesn't make it into a public Korban, as the Kohein Gadol's bull, his Minchas Chavitin, and the Korban Pesach are all individual Korbanos and supersede Shabbos and Tumah. Rather, it all depends if it has a set time to bring it. According to him, R' Elazar has an unresolved inquiry whether he can make a Temurah from it like an individual's Korban, or not.

29) Everyone holds that the owner regarding making a Temurah is the one who gets the atonement (even if he didn't buy it). (The owner who needs to add a fifth when he redeems the Hekdesh is the one who bought it, and if someone takes Trumah from his produce to exempt his friend's produce, he has the pleasure to give it to the Kohein of his choice.) Therefore, since he's not the only one to receive an atonement from the bull, but the other Kohanim [Tosfos: and his household], do we say that they have a part of the main atonement, so there are many owners, and you can't make Temurah on partnered Korbanos. [Tosfos: according to this, when R' Meir says that it's an individual's Korban, he wasn't exact, but it's a partnered Korban. He was just saying that it wasn't a public Korban.] Or do we say that they only get a secondary atonement, but the main atonement is only for the Kohein Gadol, and, therefore, someone is able to make a Temurah on it like on any individual's Korban.

30) [Tosfos asks: we say in Zevachim that, when heirs bring their dead father's Korbanos, you can't make Temurah from it since they're partners in the Korban despite that the Gemara's conclusion is that they get a secondary type of an atonement from it. Tosfos answers: since there is no one else who gets an atonement from it but the heirs, so they're all equals, they're the top tier, so we can consider them as equal partners. However, here, where the Kohein Gadol is the only one who gets the prime atonement, we don't consider all the other secondary people as anything.]

Daf 51

31) Even though we Darshin "that's his," that the Kohein Gadol must buy it with his own money, and he doesn't get to collect any money from his fellow Kohanim; still his fellow Kohanim get an atonement, [Tosfos: even a primary atonement], since the Torah made it Hefker to all children of Aharon.

32) (The Tanna Kama says that Pesach Sheini supersedes Shabbos but not Tumah [Tosfos: we learn it from "all the laws of Pesach," that it's identical to the Pesach Rishon]. After all, they pushed it off to make sure it wasn't done in Tumah, could it be that now we'll do it in Tumah? R' Yehuda says that it must be like all the laws of the Pesach [Tosfos: that it's never indefinitely pushed off because of Tumah]. The Torah tries to get it brought in Taharah, but if you can't, you'll bring it in Tumah.

33) The Tanna Kama says: in the second Mikdash, they made two curtains to separate the Heichel and the Kodesh Hakadoshim. Since it's based on the Amah wide wall that separated them in the first Mikdash, we don't know if the Kodesh started from the outer surface of the wall, or the inner surface. Therefore, they put up two curtains an Amah apart to make sure that there is one by the start of the Kodesh. [Tosfos says: you can't make a curtain an Amah thick, since it needs to have the same laws as the curtain in the Mishkan that the Kodesh starts at the inner surface, and the Heichel ends at the outer surface. You don't compare it to the wall that was set up by "the blueprints of Hashem." After all, we see in Bava Basra that you can't make half of it wall and half curtains, since we must have either or. So too, if it's a curtain, you need to give it the laws of the curtain, and not of the wall.] However, R' Yossi says that there was only one curtain. [Tosfos explains: either it was an Amah thick, and he didn't worry about the problems brought earlier, or he just held that the Amah wall was considered part of the inside.]

34) R' Yehuda says: when the Kohein Gadol walks towards the Kodesh Hakadashim, he took the path between the Mizbeach and the Menorah. Since he held like the Tanna Kama that there was two curtains, and the opening of the inner one was on the north side, the opening of the outer curtain was on the south side. The reason why he didn't walk between the Menorah and the wall since his clothes might get sullied from the Menorah's smoke collected against the wall. R' Meir held that he walked between the Mizbeach and the Shulchon. He held like R' Yossi that ther was one curtain that opens on the north. The reason he didn't walk between the Shulchon and the wall; because he held that the Shulchons were set up from north to south and blocked off that path. Alternatively, since it's not proper to walk directly opposite the opening staring into the Kodesh Hakadashim because of the honor of the Shechina. R' Yossi held that he walked between the wall and the Shulchon. As the Jews are so dear to Hashem that they don't usually need an agent for themselves to approach HIm, since everyone prays by himself; so their agent is extra special and may walk directly opposite the opening of the Kodesh Hakadashim.

35) He went between the two curtains until he reaches the Kodesh Hakadashim, and then he would turn and place the shovel in the area that used to be between the Ahron's poles. (The Ahron wasn't in the second Beis Hamikdash since it was hidden in the days of Yashiyahu.) You pile the Ketores on the coals, (according to the opinion that you pile the Ketores, but there is also an opinion that you spread out the Ketores over the coals). There is a Tannaic argument whether you start piling the Ketores on the side closer to the Ahron and then bring it closer to you, or you start closer to you, and then bring it towards the Ahron. Abaya says that the former makes more sense, as the Mishna in Tamid says to be careful and start away from you, since he'll burn himself from the smoke if he started closer to himself and then stretched his hand further.

Daf 53

36) You set up the whole Ketores after he was inside the Kodesh Hakadashim, and not like the Tzidokim who say to prepare it before he enters in order to fulfil the verse "you should be seen with a cloud (when you enter)." Rather, you need to fulfill the Pasuk "you put the Ketores etc. before Hashem." The Pasuk only says to be seen with a cloud to tell us that you need to add the root of an herb called "Maleh Ashun," (or at least its leaves, even though they're not as good as the root), so that the smoke should rise straight to the ceiling like a staff, and then spread over the rest of the Kodesh Hakadashim. It doesn't mean that you only need this herb to be Yoitza, but you also need this herb. Therefore, if you're missing the herb, or missing any one of the spices mentioned in the Ketores, you're Chayiv the death penalty.

37) The reason that you're not Chayiv the death penalty anyhow (even without burning Ketores that's missing an ingredient) since you entered the Kodesh Hakadashim empty handed (i.e., without bringing a proper sacrifice with you); R' Sheishes answers: the practical difference is if you entered empty handed forgetfully, but purposely brought the Ketores without all the ingredients. R' Ashi answers: we refer to a case where he entered with two sets of Ketores, one had all the ingredients, and the other one didn't. He burned the one missing an ingredient. Therefore, he's not Chayiv for coming in empty handed since he brought with him a proper sacrifice.

38) There is no difference in this between Yom Kippur and other days of the year, and it prevents the Ketores from being valid even B'dieved.

39) The Kohein Gadol leaves the Kodesh Hakadashim the same way he came in, while facing the Ahron. [Tosfos says: even though it says that he leaves; and we see someone entering a building backwards is not considered as 'entering,' (thus, if he enters a building with Tzaras backwards, he's still Tahor even though he's mostly in, and even if only his nose is sticking out, and he would be Tamai if he entered regularly); still, it's considered a leaving. Even if it's not normal to enter a room that way, it's normal to leave the room that way like when a student takes leave of his Rebbi.] The same applies to Kohanim leaving their Avodah, and Leviyim leaving their Duchen stand, and the Yisraelim leaving their Maamad. They don't turn their face away and leave, but they face the front and leave.

40) When someone finishes Davening, he needs to take three steps backwards and then give Shalom to Hashem (by bowing and saying Osei Shalom). He should first recognize the right side, since it's more important, but it's to Hashem's right side (when He's facing you), which is on your left. You need to remain there like a student taking leave of his Rebbi; and if he goes right away back to his place, it's like a dog returning to his vomit. Abaya and Rava took these three steps in one bow.

41) The Kohein Gadol says a small Tefila in the Heichel, so not to worry the nation why he's taking so long. he says if the year supposed to be very hot, Hashem should make it rainy. R' Yehuda says to finish off: the kingdom shouldn't be removed from Yehuda, and the Jews shouldn't need to come onto others for their sustenance, and you shouldn't listen to the Tefilas of the travellers (not to rain).

42) [Tosfos says: you shouldn't make pictures in Machzorim since they'll distract your Davening. However, otherwise, there is no problem making forms if it's not those that serve Hashem in the high heavens (angels) and the lower heavens (sun and moon etc.), a person, and utensils used in the Mikdash. You need to say that they're only forbidden when made to the right proportions or else you can't even make a table (since it's like the Shulchon). However, this is only when it's possible to make it proportionally, but the sun and moon that can't be made to its proportions, it must be forbidden even if it's not to proportion.

These things are permitted from the letter of the law if you don't make them personally, but non-Jews made it for you. There is no suspicion that you made it if it's displayed in a public area. However, angels are even forbidden when others make it since it says its prohibition twice. That, which the Torah forbids to make the angels for Avodah Zarah, even though it's forbidden anyhow even if it's not made for an idol, we must say that the Torah gives it a second Lav for making it for an idol. Alternatively, to forbid if you made it as attachable pieces, that you're only Chayiv when making it for an idol.]

43) [In Tosfos's assumption; he said that all images are forbidden to make, and when the Gemara says that only the earlier mentioned items are forbidden, it was not the Gemara's conclusion. (However, Tosfos concludes that it was truly the Gemara's conclusion.) According to Tosfos' assumption, that which we say that you acquire the house of a convert who died (and didn't leave any heirs) by drawing animals, we must say that the Torah only forbids making a graven image, and not just drawings. The reason that Shlomo had lions graven on his throne, (and it can't be because it was made by the command of a prophet, since a prophet can't allow things against Halacha); he did it to fix a problem, to put fear in witnesses to prevent them from lying, as the Medrish says that they would growl at the witnesses. This is similar to what we allow a prophet to do something against Halacha to fix a problem, like Eliyahu sacrificing on a Bama at Mount Carmel in the time of the Mikdash. Alternatively, non-Jews made them, and it was in a public place, so they won't suspect it was made by a Jew. This, that they made engravings in the Mikdash, it's different since it was built by Hashem's blueprint. Alternatively, since you engraved it in the walls, it's Batul to the walls, since it's only to beautify the walls. (However, he didn't want to rely on this last answer.)]

44) He takes the bull's blood from the one who was stirring it, and enters the Kodesh Hakadoshim with it. He sprinkles it one above and seven times below. He didn't intend it to really sprinkle above or below the Ahron, but it meant to sprinkle it like a whip (i.e., when he sprinkles above, he positions his hand below and sprinkles with an upward movement, and when he sprinkles below, he positions his hand up.) I.e. he sprinkles it towards the thickness of the Ahron's cover (but the blood doesn't touch it).

Daf 55

45) According to R' Meir, he counted one, one and one, one and two, one and three etc. According to R' Yehuda, he counted one, one and one, two and one, three and one etc. Each one explained it as how they counted in their city. (In R' Meir city they counted the general number (i.e., the tens) first, and then the detailed (i.e., the ones), like he would say "twenty two." However, in R' Yehuda's city, they counted the detailed number first and then the general number, like "two and twenty.")

46) Everyone agrees that he needs to count the up sprinkling and the below sprinkling. R' Elazar says: it's in order that the Kohein Gadol shouldn't make a mistake in his counting [Rashi: to give a break in the sprinkling to concentrate on how many times he sprinkled]. R' Yochanan learns it from a Pasuk ("before the Kapores, you should sprinkle," which you don't need it to repeat that you're sprinkling it if not to teach us that you need to count the sprinklings. [Rashi adds: and it says "its the law" to tell us that it prevents the validation of the Korban if it's not done.]) The practical difference between the two reasons; if you didn't count, but you know you didn't make a mistake. R' Elazar holds that you're Yoitza, and R' Yochanan holds that you're not Yoitza.

47) He left the Kodesh Hakadoshim and placed the blood on a golden stand in the Heichel. He went and Shechted the goat and brought the blood into the Kodesh Hakadoshim. He sprinkles it just like he sprinkled the bull's blood, and then he exits and places the blood on the second stand in the Heichel. R' Yehuda says that there was only one stand in the Heichel. R' Yosef explains: since, if he has both bloods sitting next to each other, he might mix up which ones which, and take the wrong one, and we can't rely on having 'bull' written on one, and 'goat' on the other. As we see R' Yehuda holds this way from what he holds that they didn't have a Shofar shaped coin-box in the Mikdash for people to deposit coins to buy their obligated bird Korbanos, since they might get mixed up with the voluntary ones (and they're not the same type of Korban, since, by the obligations, one is a Chatas and one is an Olah, and by the voluntary, they're both Olos.) [Tosfos explains: but you don't need to worry that, perhaps, the money of Rochel will be mixed with the money of Leah, and you would bring a pair of birds with money from both of them, since they wrapped up their individual coins. Therefore, the Kohein takes each wrapping of coins and brings the birds for whoever was the owner of the money. We even need to say that the money was wrapped according to the Rabanan.]

48) [Tosfos explains: the reason why they kept a Shofar for the voluntary bird Korbanos, and not for the obligations, and they didn't decide the opposite; since the voluntary ones were more common. Alternatively, since they didn't bring the voluntary ones unless the Mizbeach was empty at the moment. Therefore, the money sometimes hangs around a few days until it's brought, and it needs a place for it to be watched in the meantime. However, the obligated ones were brought immediately.]

49) The Gemara rejects this explanation. After all, we see that R' Yehuda held that there were thirteen Shofars like everyone else with the money going to many causes, and he relies that the money will come to the right cause by the writing on the outside of the Shofar, and wasn't worried for mix ups. Rather, the only difference between him and the Rabanan that he held that instead of having one for obligations, they had a second Shofar for voluntary Korbanos. One was for turtledoves, and the other was for young doves.

50) R' Dimi quotes the rabbis from Eretz Yisrael: the reason that they didn't have a Shofar for obligations since we might know that one of the owners died, and his Korban can't be brought, and his money would be mixed with everyone else's. (However, you can't say that he's only worried that someone will die. After all, we accept all Korbanos sent through an agent from across the seas with the Chazaka that the owner is still alive. [Tosfos says: even though we see that R' Yehuda is worried that someone will die in the future, (like we'll see in the next case that he's worried about separating Maaser through Briera since the barrel may break before you get to separate it), you don't need to worry about the owner placing the money in the Shofar that maybe he'll die before it's brought. After all, when the time comes to bring it, you're allowed to bring it on the Chazaka that the owner is alive at this moment.

Tosfos says: although the Gemara says that we only put him on a Chezaka that he's alive until he reaches eighty, but afterwards not; perhaps that we don't need to worry that much (perhaps one owner was eighty, and perhaps he died). Alternatively, that was only said on the Mishna of sending a Get across the seas since we're stricter by the prohibition of a married woman. However, it wasn't said on sending your Korban overseas, so we should assume that it doesn't apply.]

51) The reason why the Kohein Gadol doesn't use a second stand on Yom Kippur can't be because we regularly don't rely on the writing, since without the writing, there are many ways to differentiate between the bloods. First, the bull has more blood. Even if some spilled and they have the same volume, we see that the bull's blood is redder and the goat's blood is lighter. Rather, we're only afraid here that the Kohein Gadol will make a mistake since he's weak from fasting.

52) The reason we don't allow, when one owner dies, to throw out one wrapping and bring birds with the rest of the money; since R' Yehuda doesn't hold of Breira (to assume the money thrown out was the dead owner's).

53) There is no proof that R' Yehuda doesn't hold of Breira from the following Braisa about buying wine from the Kuthians. [Tosfos explains why you could buy it and it's considered Kosher: we refer to the time that was before R' Meir enacted that their wines are not Kosher. Even according to the opinion that the Kuthians where not true converts (and were non-Jews), their wine was never forbidden like by other non-Jews, since they separated themselves from idols more than regular non-Jews. This is true even though they already enacted to forbid their bread. Alternatively, even if their wine is forbidden, we refer to a case where it was made by regular Jews and wasn't handled by the Kuthians.] We need to worry that they definitely didn't separate Trumah and Maasar. [Tosfos points out: this is different than buying from an Am Ha'aretz, that it's only Damai. The practical difference between them: you don't need to separate Trumah by Damai. Although the Kuthians separate Trumah and Maasar, that's only from what they eat, and not from what they sell to others since they don't hold that the prohibition of putting a stumbling block before someone means to make them sin. Even though they're not suspected of stealing, but neither are Am Ha'aretzim suspected, and yet some don't take off Maasar. We must say that they don't consider it stealing since there is no one who has a claim to it (since you can give it to whoever you want). Also, as long as it wasn't separated yet, they don't consider it as belonging to them yet, so they don't believe it's stealing. Alternatively, they rely on the Drasha that the Torah says to separate it when you'll eat the produce, excluding when you sell it.]

54) [Tosfos says: there is another practical difference between definite Tevel and Damai: as the text of the Braisa referring to separating Damai Bein Hashmashes reads "what I will take off tomorrow" (on Shabbos), and the Braisa referring to definite Tevel, the text doesn't say "what I will remove tomorrow," but he'll only remove it after Shabbos. Although, regularly, you can't separate from Damai on the Shabbos day, (and it's only permitted during Bein Hashmashes), but here we permit it since he already called the name of the Trumah and Maasar from before Shabbos, (but you couldn't separate it then since you didn't have enough utensils to put them in). However, even in such a case, you can't separate from definite Tevel.]

55) [Tosfos says another practical difference between them; that by Damai, you can say "from the one unit of Maasar Rishon that I will separate, the nine surrounding units should also be Maasar Rishon, and the one unit will be Trumas Maasar. You don't need to separate those nine units of Maasar, and you may drink it right after you remove the Trumas Maasar. However, by definite Tevel, you need to separate ten units for Maasar Rishon, and from that, one unit should be Trumas Maasar; and you can't drink the wine until you separate the Maasar RIshon since it's still Tevel until you separate it. Also, you need to give it to the Levi, and you can't drink it yourself.]

56) R' Meir says: Friday before nightfall, he should say "the first two Lugim that I'll eventually separate should be Trumah Gedolah. The next ten is Maasar Rishon and the next nine is Maasar Sheini [Tosfos says: these last two are not exact since you already took away two for Trumah, then a tenth of what's left is less than ten. However, you can't say that you can't subtract for the Trumah since the Kuti might have separated it, for, if so, the Trumah is really Tevel since Maasar wasn't separated from it. Also, if Trumah was taken, then the Maasar is ruined since you added onto the Maasar. Rather, we must say that the Kuthians either completely separate Trumah and Maasar, or don't separate it at all.] Then he 'Meichels.' [Rashi explains: he redeems the Maasar Sheini. Tosfos disagrees, since we already said that the Maasar Sheini needs to be separated at the end or else it would remain Tevel. Also, you can't redeem definite Maasar Sheini Bein Hashmashes. Rather, we must say that it either means that you dilute it, or that you can start i.e., drinking.]

Daf 56

57) [Tosfos says: even though R' Meir had a Safeik whether Breira works regarding heirs who split up the estate; if we consider them heirs (since Breira tells us that they were destined to inherit those items) or if they are buyers (that they sell their portion in their brothers' shares for their portions in his share); that's because he didn't make a condition like the wine buyer in our case. (With this, we can answer Shmuel, who holds in the end of Beitza that a barrel and an animal of partners that are split on Yom Tov doesn't have the exclusive T'chum of the one who receives it, but it also has the T'chum of his partner (since there is no Briera); yet, he enacted for the Get of the deathly ill to make a condition that it's only in effect if he dies from this illness. (Rashi explains: although this is a regular condition on a Get, but since the outcome is out of his hand, and it happens by itself, the condition has to come on to Briera to take effect.) After all, you're making a condition on the Get, so he holds of Briera in that case, but there is no condition made by the partners of the barrel or animal.]

58) [However, R' Yochanan doesn't hold of that differentiation, and he holds there is no Breira even while making a condition. Therefore, he holds that if you give a Get to two wives (with the same name) and say that he's divorcing the one who he chooses later, not only it doesn't take effect at all, but it's not even close to being a divorce to enact a prohibition for these women to ever marry a Kohein since he doesn't hold of Breira in all circumstances.]

59) [Tosfos says: there is another way to answer the above contradictions in Shmuel. He can hold of Breira when the condition will be definitely met at the end, as the deathly ill man will either die, or will live. However, regarding the partners; they might never end up splitting it. Therefore, he doesn't hold of Breira.

We must also say this to reconcile R' Yossi's opinions. As he holds here by the wine buyer that there is no Breira; yet he holds of Breira in the case of the Get given on condition. (That's because he'll definitely either live or die by the Get, but he may not ever come to remove Trumah and Maasar from the wine.) Alternatively, we can reconcile: he only holds Breira when it's not in his hands to choose it (like by his death), and not when it's in his hand. Those who don't differentiate between if it's in his own hands to choose or not, you can say that he definitely holds of Breira, and the reason he doesn't hold here of separating the wine through Breira because the barrel might break before you have a chance to do so. However, Tosfos concludes that it can't be that R' Yossi holds of Briera since he doesn't hold that you can redeem Maasar Sheini with the coin that you'll pull out of your pocket (if there is more than one coin).]

60) Even though we see that R' Yehuda, R' Yossi and R' Shimon disagree with R' Meir and don't allow separating verbally the Trumah and Maasar with what he'll remove after Shabbos, it's not a proof that they don't hold of Breira, since their reason could be because the barrel might break.

61) However, a proof that R' Yehuda doesn't hold of Breira is from what the rabbi 'Oye' taught a Braisa in the name of R' Yehuda. If you put down two Eiruvs (one to your east, and the other to your west) and you make a condition: if the Chachum comes from the east, the east Eiruv takes effect, and if he comes from the west, the west Eiruv takes effect. If two Chachumim come, one from each side, you can't make a condition that you'll choose later which side you want to go since there is no Breira. R' Yochanan explains that the first case must be when the Chachum arrived on Friday and you don't need to rely on Breira for it to take effect.

62) [Tosfos explains: R' Yochanan needs to explain that the Chachum already arrived on Friday since he doesn't differentiate between Breira if it's in your hands or not. However, we see that Rav holds of this differentiation. (This is why he says that we don't Paskin like the Mishna there that R' Yehuda holds of Briera since we have this Tanna of Oye and a second Braisa that say that he doesn't hold of Oye. This is despite that we have many other Braisos that R' Yehuda holds of Breira, like by the Get on condition that he dies, and that he redeems all the Revei grapes that the poor will mistakenly collect (with the produce that the poor are allowed to collect). This is because those Braisos refer to Breira that's fulfilled what's in other people's hands, and the Gemara is dealing with what's in his hands.) Therefore, Rav can explain the first case of the Braisa that Briera takes effect since it's fulfilled by the Chachum's choice, and it doesn't take effect in the second case when it's his own choice how it's fulfilled.

We must say our Sugya is like Rav, but according to R' Yochanan, we can't reconcile the money-box Shofer case and the EIruv case. Although in our case of the money-box Shofar is dependant on the one who's giving the money and that's dependant on someone else; we must answer that it really isn't dependant on him, but in the Kohein who brings the Korban. After all, we say that the birds can not be chosen for which Korban if it wasn't chosen when he bought it, until the Kohein brings it. Alternatively. R' Elchanan explains: that we compare if it's dependant on someone else's choice when it wasn't made in an explicit condition (by the money-box Shofars) to when it's dependant on your own choice, but you explicitly made a condition (like by the Eiruv).]

63) Afterwards, he sprinkles the bloods before the curtain, one above and seven below. However, he didn't actually sprinkle it on the curtain, but before the curtain. However, R' Elazar b. R' Yossi said that he was at Rome and saw that there was many drops on the curtain made in this order (to know that it was the blood of the Yom Kippur sacrifices, and not the bull brought from forgetting a Halacha.)

Daf 57

64) We have a similar Braisa regarding the bull brought for forgetting a Halacha. The Tanna Kama says that he doesn't intend for it to reach the curtain, and if it does, it does. However, R' Elazar b. R' Yossi said that he was at Rome and saw that there was many drops on the curtain made not in the order of the Yom Kippur sacrifices, to show that it was from the bull brought from forgetting a Halacha. [Tosfos says: although the Kohein Gadol who wasn't anointed with the holy oil, but just wore the eight clothes to promote him to become the Kohein Gadol, doesn't bring a bull when he forgets the Halacha. Therefore, we can ask: if it was in the second Mikdash, since they didn't have the holy oil, how can the Kohein Gadol bring the bull? If it's in the first Mikdash, there wasn't a curtain, but only a wall. Tosfos answers: we refer to the first Mikdash and we refer to the curtain that covers up the opening in the wall leading into the Kodesh Hakadashim. Alternatively, we refer to the second Mikdash, and when we say that if he wasn't anointed with the holy oil he doesn't bring the bull brought for forgetting a Halacha; that's only when the Kohein Gadol himself forgets and does the sin; but he can bring it if the Sanhedrin forgot and the public did the sin because of their P'sak.]

65) If the blood of the bull mixed with the blood of the goat before sprinkling on the curtain [Tosfos: and we don't consider the goat's blood being Batul in the majority of the bull's blood since we have a rule that blood from Olos don't Mevatel each other]; Rava says that you sprinkle once above and seven below and you're Yoitza sprinkling for both Korbanos. However, R' Yirmiya says: you can't be Yoitza both since you're sprinkling the goat's blood above before the sprinkling of the bull's blood below, and the Pasuk says "it should finish to atone," that you need to finish the sprinkling of the bull's blood before the goat's blood. Therefore, you need to sprinkle the blood twice, the first time for the bull, and the second time for the goat.

66) If the blood mixed after you sprinkled the bull's blood once above; R' Pappa assumed that you sprinkle seven below for both of them, and then sprinkle one above for the goat. However, Rava disagrees since the below of the goat's blood precedes its above sprinkling. Rather, Rava says: you sprinkle seven below for the bull, then you sprinkle once above and seven below for the goat. [Tosfos says: we don't say that, at the time of mixing, once the bull's blood doesn't need to be anymore sprinkled above, it has the status as if you have blood that needs to be sprinkled on the top half of the Mizbeach mixed with blood that needs to be sprinkled on the bottom half of the Mizbeach, that the Rabanan of R' Eliezer says that you need to spill the blood out in the stream (and get other Korbanos). Rather, since their sprinklings were originally identical; it's Kosher. We view the bull blood, when sprinkling for the goat, as if it's water.]

67) If you mix up the two cups of blood, and you don't know which one is the bull's and which one's the goat's, you sprinkle one of them, sprinkle the second, and then sprinkle the first one a second time, and by this, you will definitely have the bull's blood sprinkled before the goat's blood. [Rashi says: this applies also when sprinkling in the Kodesh Hakadashim. Tosfos disagrees: since you would have Shechted the goat before sprinkling the bull's blood, which would Pasul the goat. Rather, we only refer to sprinkling in the Heichel.]

68) (If you catch a Korban's blood in four separate cups; the Tanna Kama says that we have a contradiction in P'sukim what to do with the leftover blood, if you pour it all into the Mizbeach's foundation, or only "its blood" is poured in the foundation, but not all of the blood. Therefore, to reconcile; if you sprinkled from all the cups, all their blood are leftovers that are poured in the foundation. If you sprinkled from one cup, the rest of that cup was poured in the foundation, and the other cups are poured in the stream. R' Elazar b. R' Shimon says that they're all poured in the foundation, and the exclusion of "its blood" only excludes the extra blood from the animal's neck.)

69) If some of the bull's blood and the goat's blood mix in a third cup; you definitely need to sprinkle from the cups that have their blood unmixed. However, the inquiry is what to do with the blood in the mixed cup/ Do you pour it out in the foundation or the stream? R' Pappa says that even according to the opinion earlier that you pour all four cups in the foundation, that's only because, even though you didn't sprinkle from them, they were fit to sprinkle from them. However, here, the mixed cup is not even fit to sprinkle, so it's poured down the stream. R' Huna b. dR' Yehoshua argues: you pour it down the foundation even according to the opinion earlier that you pour it in the stream; that's because you could have sprinkled from it, but you didn't. Therefore, you actively pushed away this blood from the Avodah. However, here, since the blood wasn't fit to sprinkle, the fact you didn't use it to sprinkle is no indication that you're pushing it off, so it can be considered 'leftovers' and is poured in the foundation.

70) You afterwards mix the bull's blood with the goat's, and then place the goat's utensil in the bull's utensil, and you'll use it to sprinkle on the inner Mizbeach. [Tosfos says: the Gemara in Menachos learns from here that the blood of Olos don't get Batul in each other. After all, the bull's blood has more volume than the goat's, and the goat's blood's status remains. Tosfos explains: the reason why we don't say the opposite, since you pour the bull's blood into the goat's blood, we should assume that every drop of bull's blood gets Batul in the goat's blood; that's because we only say that in a small stream of liquid. This is even true according to the opinion that even pouring from a barrel that has a heavy stream gets Batul; here is different. Since you pour the whole utensil of bull's blood at once, nobody holds that it gets a little Batul at a time.]

71) However, there is an opinion that they didn't mix the blood to put it on the corners, rather, they put both bloods separately like they did it earlier. The Gemara explains it that it depends on the argument between R' Yashiya that holds whenever there is a 'Vuv' to say 'and', it's to say that they're both together, or R' Yonason that it could mean both together, or each one by itself, unless the Pasuk explicitly says 'together.' [Tosfos says: although R' Yonason holds that it could mean either, the reason why he holds that you can only put them on separately, since we learn it from what we see until now that they were put on separately. Although we see that R' Yehuda held that they mixed the bloods, yet, we see in another place that he had a Safeik whether to Darshen like R' Yashia or R' Yonasan, we must say that he Darshens from the word 'Achas' to mix it together, as the Gemara even has a thought that even R' Yonason would hold to mix it together if it wasn't for an explicit Braisa that he holds not to mix it. Tosfos has two sides whether we need that Drasha even according to R' Yashiya, so not to learn from what we did until now to say it's not mixed, or we only need that Drasha according to those who usually hold like R' Yonason.]

72) [Tosfos says: even according to the opinion that they didn't mixed the blood for the corners, they mixed it to sprinkle it on top of the Mizbeach. After all, only by the corners it says "the bull's and goat's blood," but on top, it just says "you sprinkle the blood seven times with your finger," implying you do only seven sprinkles with all the blood there.]

Daf 58

73) There is an inquiry: if he caught the blood with two utensils, one inside the other, is it Kosher? Do we say that the same type of item makes a Chatzitza, or not. [Tosfos says: we don't say that "taking through a different object is considered taking," (and here he's taking the top utensil through the bottom utensil); since we only say that when you wrap a handkerchief around a Luluv and pick it up with using the handkerchief as a handle. However, it doesn't help to wrap your hand with the handkerchief in order to lift the Luluv. So, here too, it's a question whether it's good if you hold the bottom, since, even if the bottom utensil wasn't there, you can lift the upper utensil in that way. We would only say it would be definitely Kosher since "you're taking it through another object" if you hold onto the rim of the outer one, which wouldn't lift the inner one without the outer one in this fashion. After all, you need this differentiation, or else, why do you need the reason by Luluv to ever permit lifting it with a Chatzitza of palm leaves since the same type of item doesn't make a Chatzitza, if it will always be "lifting through a different item." The Ritzva answers: over here is the exception and you can't lift it with something else since the Torah says "the Kohein takes," that you need the taking with the actual Kohein.]

The Gemara says that you can't solve it from our Mishna that we say, after you pour the bull's blood's utensil into the goat's blood, you put the full utensil in the empty one. After all, it doesn't have to mean that you place the full utensil in the empty one, but you pour the contents of the full one into the empty one to mix the bloods well.

74) There is no proof that we say that a Kohein's Avodah is Pasul if he's standing on his friend's foot (or on top of a utensil), since it's a Chatzitza, and we don't say that since they're the same type, there's no Chatzitza. After all, over there is different since his friend won't be Mevatel his foot there until the Kohein finishes the Avodah.

75) Others say that the root of the inquiry is whether we can say if it's abnormal to do Avodah with two utensils, and it wouldn't be considered a true Avodah. They solved it from the Pasuk "from all the utensils," implying even with two utensils in one Avodah.

76) There's an inquiry if you catch the blood in a utensil that's lined with a spongy vine (that grows around a palm); if it's a Chatzitza between the blood and the utensil; or because it's very porous, it's not a Chatzitza? The Gemara originally says that there is no proof from the water of the Parah Adumah that's drawn in a utensil that's lined with sponge, the water absorbed in the sponge is Pasul, but not the other water, so you pour out the water until you get to the part that's in the sponge. It could be that it's not a Chatzitza by water since it's a thin consistency, but it's no proof to blood that's thicker. However there are some who want to resolve that it's not a Chatzitza by blood, but only by Kemitza.

77) When you sprinkle the blood of the bull that comes for forgetting a Halacha; the Kohein stands behind the Mizbeach and sprinkles towards the curtain. However, by Yom Kippur, you sprinkle before the Mizbeach on the Paroches, and then he needs to "go out" from the Mizbeach, so he needs to walk to the east of the Mizbeach, and not to remain on the west of the Mizbeach where he came from.

78) Therefore, R' Yossi Haglili holds that you then first sprinkle it on the southeast corner first, and then the southwest, then the northwest, and then the northeast. R' Akiva held that you start in the northeast, then the northwest, then the southwest and then the southeast.

79) Everyone holds that in the outer Mizbeach, when you walk up the ramp in the south, you must turn right, since all turns must be done to the right. As we see that the Pasuk describes the sides of the great pool of Shlomo going in that direction. Therefore, R' Yossi Haglili learns the inside Mizbeach from the outside one, and starts at the same corner and works his way to the right. However, R' Akiva says that you don't learn inside from outside. Therefore, you start at the first corner you reach. Then do the west one next to it, since you should have started from the west, since you can't pass Mitzvos, if it wasn't for the Pasuk requiring you to go to the east.

Daf 59

80) Alternatively, everyone holds that you learn the inside Mizbeach from the outside Mizbeach if you would be walking around the Mizbeach to sprinkle on the corners like they did by the outside Mizbeach. However, R' Akiva held that you just stretch your hand around the inner Mizbeach to sprinkle, so you don't learn from the great pool of Shlomo, where the describer is walking around it by foot. (However, you can't say that they both hold that you sprinkle around it by stretching your hand, and they just argue if you learn about stretching your hand from walking around with your foot. After all, our Mishna is like R' Yossi Haglili, and it says that he walked around the Mizbeach by foot.)

81) If they walked around, or just stretched their hand is dependent if you learn it from the outer Mizbeach where they walked around, or do you say it's not appropriate to compare it since the inner Mizbeach is small, it's like one corner of the outer Mizbeach, and he didn't walk when he sprinkles on one corner of the Mizbeach.

82) R' Eliezer says that they went around the Mizbeach by stretching his hand. R' Meir says that most of the sprinkling was done from his hand held high and his finger down. As the corner you start with needs to be done this way for sure, or else, if your hand is low and your finger is high, the blood might roll down your finger and dirty your shirt (invalidating it). The same you do to the side corners. However, when you're doing the corner across to you, you should have your hands low and your finger high, because if you do the opposite, you would need to bend over too much to reach it. R' Yehuda says that they were all made with your hands down and finger up except for the first one right next to you, so that the blood shouldn't roll down your finger and dirty your clothing.

83) Then he sprinkles on the clean part of the Mizbeach, but not on coals and ash. Therefore, you sweep them to the side and then sprinkle on its place.

84) Everyone agrees that the place where he finishes sprinkling on the corners, he sprinkles on top of the Mizbeach, as the Pasuk says "you make it clean and Mekadesh." The place where you make the Kodesh (sprinkling) you sprinkle on the clean place on top. Therefore, Chananya held that the opening to the Heichel is in the south, so he starts sprinkling on the corners in the south and ends in the north, so he sprinkles on top from the north. However, R' Yossi held that the opening of the Heichel is in the north, so he finishes sprinkling the corners in the south, so he sprinkles on top of the Mizbeach in the south.

85) Then he pours out the rest of the blood in the Mizbeach's western foundation [Tosfos: as it says "you pour it by the opening of the Ohel Moed"]. However, the extra blood from Korbanos sprinkled on the outer Mizbeach was spilled in the southern foundation. As we learn it out from the Yom Kippur blood you spill it in the side that you first reach when you leave the sprinkling. R' Yishmael says that both were done on the western side, as we learn from where the Torah says explicitly to pour on the west to a place where the Torah doesn't explain. R' Shimon holds that both were poured on the south side, since the Mizbeach was a little in the north, and someone leaving the Heichel first meets the south side of the Mizbeach. He claims that R' Yishmael reversed his decision to hold like him.

86) Both bloods flow from the foundation into the Kidron stream and was sold to gardeners for fertilizer. However if they partake pleasure from the blood without redeeming it first, they transgress Meila. We must say that it's only a rabbinical manifestation of Meila, but there is no Torah Meila by it [Rashi: as we see they don't need to add a fifth to the redemption. Tosfos: or else, how can they sell from a Korban to the gardeners.] (However this is R' Meir and R' Shimon's opinion, but the Chachumim say that there is no Meila by blood, even rabbinical Meila.)

87) There are three Drashas to exclude blood from Meila. One, it says "for you," it's meant for you to partake pleasure from. Two, "to atone," blood is given to atone, and not for Meila. Three, it says "it shall be," i.e., the blood should be before the atonement as after the atonement. Just like there is no Meila after the atonement, since there is never Meila by an item that you finished doing its Mitzvah, so too, there is no Meila by blood before the atonement. [Tosfos says: however, you can't say the other way, that we don't find an item that's permitted before the Mitzvah is done. After all, the Eglah Arufah is also permitted before the Mitzvah was done to it.]

88) [Tosfos says: only when the blood goes out to the Kidron stream did they enact rabbinical Meila to it, but not before. Even though you have Meila when you have pleasure from blood that was blood-let from a live Korban; that's because this Drasha to say there is no Meila by blood before the atonement is only if it's similar to blood after the atonement; i.e., after it's Shechted when it's fit to atone (through sprinkling), but it's not permitted when it's alive.]

89) We see by the Trumas Hadeshen that there is Meila even after its Mitzvah was done [Tosfos quotes Ritzva in the name of the Yerushalmi: it's not real Meila, but just a prohibition to have pleasure from it, the same way Eglah Arufah here is referred to Meila even though it's only a prohibition to have pleasure from it. It also says that the ash removed from the inner Mizbeach and the Menorah has no Meila, but you can't have pleasure from them from the Torah. The difference between the outer Mizbeach that there is Meila by the ash before the Trumah was removed, and the inner Mizbeach; since, by the inner Mizbeach, it finishes its Mitzvah after the smoke rises. However, since Trumas Hadeshen itself is an Avodah, as we see that you need the Bigdei Kehuna to do it, its Mitzvah is not finished. However, the removing the ashes from the inner Mizbeach is not an Avodah and doesn't require Bigdei Kehuna. This also fits well by a bird Korban that, after you spritz the blood on the Mizbeach, there is no Meila by its innards and crop, although you're missing the throwing them next to the Mizbeach, since it's not an Avodah since it doesn't require the Bigdei Kehuna. However, the Ri answers: the sprinkling of the blood permits the innards.

(However, the Ri learns the Sugya differently, and according to him, there is no proof that there is no real Meila by Trumas Hadeshen.)]

Daf 60

90) We don't extrapolate from Trumas Hadeshen to say that there is Meila by objects after their Mitzva is done since we can say that since the Torah forbids Eglah Arufa after its Mitzvah, you have two Psukim giving the same Psak for two Miztvos, where we don't extrapolate. Even according to the opinion that we do extrapolate until you have three P'sukim, you also have the Yom Kippur Bigadim of the Kohein Gadol according to the opinion that it's forbidden to a Kohein Hedyot afterwards. [Tosfos brings the Sugya in Meila says that you also have the limbs of the Azazel according to the opinion that it's forbidden.] According to the opinion that it's permitted to a Kohein Hedyot, we can say that you don't extrapolate to other Halachos since there are two excluding words in Eglah Arufa, which makes it like three Psukim that you can't extrapolate.

91) There are three exclusions written by blood, one to exclude it from Meila, another to exclude it by Nossar, an a third to exclude it from Tumah. However, you don't need an exclusion for Pigul since it only applies to items that become permitted, whether it becomes permitted for people to eat, or to burn on the Mizbeach. Blood doesn't become permitted, but it just causes (through sprinkling) other items to be permitted.

92) The wrong order of the Avodas done inside the Heichel with the white linen Bigadim prevents the Kashrus of them. The wrong order of the Avodas done outside the Heichel with the golden Bigadim doesn't prevent the Kashrus. The wrong order of the Avodas done outside in the white Bigadim is an argument. R' Yehuda says that the wrong order doesn't prevent the Kashrus, and R' Nechemia says it does. R' Yochanan's conclusion is: there are two exclusions in the Pasuk to say it doesn't prevent the Kashrus. R' Yehuda says that one comes to exclude the outside Avodahs in the golden Begadim and the other excludes the outside Avodahs done in the white Begadim. However, R' Nechemia uses the second exclusion to exclude the leftover blood poured on the Mizbeach's foundation, and doesn't have a Pasuk to exclude the white Begadim.

93) R' Yehuda says that you can't use the exclusion to exclude the pouring of the leftovers by itself since it's part of the Avodah with the white Begadim outside the Heichel. Therefore, if the Korban is not Kosher when changing the order of any Avodah outside with the white Begadim, then the same should apply by pouring the leftover blood. This is R' Yehuda being consistent to his opinion since he Darshens "when you finish with the blood, it atones," (and he holds it includes the poring of the leftover blood). {However, R' Akiva Darshens "if you atone, you will finish the blood." There is an argument between R' Yochanan and R' Yehoshua b. Levi if he agrees in principle with R' Yehuda, but they argue how to make the Drasha, or R' Akiva doesn't require the pouring of the leftovers for it to be valid.) Therefore, since R' Yehuda holds that you're not Yoitza without pouring the leftover blood, it's like any other Avodah done with the white Bigadim outside the Heichel.

94) However, the Gemara remains with a question: R' Nechemia holds that if someone pours the leftover blood outside the Mikdash, he's Chayiv for doing an Avodah outside the Mikdash. R' Yochanan explains R' Nechemia that he held like the opinion that the pouring of the leftovers prevents the Kashrus of the Korban. However, if that is so, how can R' Yochanan say that R' Nechemia differentiates between it and any other Avodah done outside with the white Bigadim. [Tosfos qualifies: it only prevents the Kashrus for the pouring of the leftovers on Yom Kippur, but not the rest of the year. The only reason that he extrapolates from the Yom Kippur service to say that you're Chayiv pouring leftovers outside the Mikdash is that we can conclude that it's the beginning of an Avodah since it's the beginning of giving blood on the foundation, (and it's not similar to the three last sprinkles of the Chatos that you're not Chayiv for doing outside since they're not the start of the sprinkling on the Mizbeach). However, you can't say that, usually, the pouring the leftovers prevent the Kashrus since they can't be any worse than the actual sprinkling of the blood (since only one sprinkle is needed to be Yoitza, and the rest don't prevent the validity).) As we see that you don't need that the service prevents the Kashrus to be Chayiv if you sacrifice it outside the Mikdash, like we see that you're Chayiv for burning the limbs. Although R' Akiva there asks that pouring the leftovers is the end of an Avodah, that's because he's consistent to his opinion here that it doesn't prevent the Kashrus.]

95) R' Yehuda admits that the wrong order of Shechting the goat and scooping up the Ketores prevents the Kashrus of them. Although they're Avodah's in the outside, but since it's for items that you'll bring into the Heichel, it has the status as an Avodah done in the Heichel.

96) If the blood spills after you finished sprinkling it in one area, like you just finished sprinkling it in the Kodesh Hakadashim, or just finished sprinkling by the curtain, you Shecht another Korban to sprinkle in the next place. After all, each area is considered its own act of sprinkling, and you completed that sprinkling. If the blood spilled in middle of sprinkling in one area; R' Meir says that you Shecht the next Korban and start from the beginning of the sprinkling at that area. As the Pasuk says that "atonement Chatas, one," that all the sprinklings (of that area) needs to be done by one Chatos. However, R' Elazar and R' Shimon says that you continue sprinkling where you left off since they Darshen the term 'Chatos' to infer sprinkling, and you can make only one sprinkling, and you can't go back and repeat wat you already sprinkled.

97) However, if it spilled after you sprinkled on the Mizbeach, but before you poured the leftover in the foundation, you don't need to Shecht another Korban in order to fulfil pouring the leftovers.

98) Similarly, we have the same argument by a Metzorah. If the Lug of oil spilled between putting it on different areas, like it spilled after sprinkling it on the Heichel, and before you put it on the Metzorah's thumbs ad big toe, you get another Lug of oil and continue where you left off. However, if it spilled in middle of putting it on a certain area; R' Meir says that you need to start from the beginning of putting it on that area, and R' Elazar and R' Shimon say that you continue exactly where you left off. However, if it spilled after placing the oil on the toe, you don't need to bring more oil to place it on his head, since missing that part doesn't prevent the Kashrus. [Rashi explains: this is not like either Tanna brought in Zevachim. After all, R' Akiva says that it didn't atone at all, and you need to bring another Lug oil and start back by the thumb and toe, and R' Yochanan b. Nuri says that it doesn't atone, i.e., you need another Lug oil to pour on the head. However, Tosfos says that R' Yochanan b. Nuri doesn't necessarily argue with our Sugya since he can be explained that it's not completely atoned, but you don't need another Lug to pour on the head. (According to the Gemara's original thought was that he's not saved from punishment to come from it, but in the Gemara's conclusion; that your just missing the Mitzvah of pouring on the head. Alternatively, the Gemara's original thought that he would hold that there is no complete atonement even on the placing of the thumb and toe, by the conclusion is that he only lacks atonement from not pouring on the head, but he's completely atoned for what he placed on the thumb and toe.)]

99) We can't compare pouring the oil over the head to the leftovers in the Mincha after the Kemitza that does prevent the Kashrus (as you can't burn the Kemitza on the Mizbeach if you loss some of the leftovers before you do it). [Tosfos adds: you also can't compare it to the leftover oil from sprinkling on the curtain that's used to place on the thumb and toe that does prevent the Kashrus of the Tahor process], since the oil for the poring on the head is leftovers from leftovers (since it's leftover from the oil that's placed on the thumb that was leftover what was sprinkled at the curtain).

100) [Rashi's text:] R' Yochanan says: an Asham Metzorah, (that the Torah says you need to bring it, implying one and not two) that's Shecthed with the intent for the wrong Korban (that's Kosher, but doesn't count towards its owner's obligation) falls into this argument between R' Meir with R' Elazar and R' Shimon. As R' Meir doesn't consider the sprinkling that was Pasul (and you need to start from the beginning), so this Pasul Shechita is nothing, so you can bring a second Korban without the problem that it won't be only one Korban. However, according to R' Elazar and R' Shimon who consider it as something, you have no way to bring it. After all, the Pasul one will be the first Asham, and the second animal would be the second Asham. However, R' Chisda asks that even R' Meir should hold you can't bring a second one because of the Gezeiras Hakasuv of 'it,' the one that was waived with the Lug of oil. [However, Tosfos disagrees with this text since it's not similar to the case of spilled blood and oil since, when you Shechted with improper intent, R' Elazar and R' Shimon should consider it as you didn't do anything since it doesn't count towards his obligation. Therefore, it makes sense like R' Chananel's text: that the blood spilled before placing some on his thumb and toe. Even though there is not a Drasha by this Asham of "one sprinkling" as it says by Yom Kippur, but we extrapolate that it applies in all places where there are multiple areas to sprinkle the blood, that you always start where you left off.]

101) However, we have a Braisa supporting R' Yochanan. If you Shecht an Asham for the intent for the wrong Korban, or that you didn't place it on the thumb and toe before it spilled, it's a proper Korban which is brought on the Mizbeach and you need to pour its Nesachim, but the owner needs to bring another Korban. [Tosfos says that, according to R' Chananel, the proof is from the second case of not putting it on the thumb, and not from the first case of Shechting for the wrong Korban.] However, according to R' Chisda who holds that everyone agrees that you don't bring another Korban, we must explain the Braisa; you really need to bring another Korban, but it's not feasible. This is like Beis Shammai's opinion that says by a bald Metzorah, that you need to use the razor on him, and R' Avina explains, since he doesn't have any hair for the razor to do anything, it means that he needs to have his hair, and there is no way to do it now that he's bald. (However, Beis Hillel holds that you can skip the razor part. [Tosfos: but in Mesectha Nazir, the opinions are reversed.])

102) R' Avina argues with R' Padus who explains that Bei Shammai means that you pass the razor over the bald head. This is compared how R' Eliezer holds regarding placing blood and oil on a Metzorah that doesn't have a thumb or toe, that you place it over the stump. (However, the Tanna Kama says that this Metzorah doesn't have any way to become Tahor, and R' Shimon says to put it on the left thumb, and it's enough.)

103) You need to catch the blood of the Metzora's Asham in a utensil to sprinkle it on the Mizbeach, as it's called a 'Chatos.' However, the Kohein has to catch it in his palm to place on the thumb and toe. Therefore, it requires two Kohanim to catch the blood, one in a utensil and the other in his palm.

104) R' Elazar and R' Shimon held that, after spilling the blood and taking many Korbanos to finish sprinkling the blood, all the bulls and goats used must be brought out and burned on the place where the Mizbeach ashes were left, and the carriers' clothes become Tamai. The Chachumim say that only the last one was taken out since it finished the atonement.

105) R' Nachman says: when the goat that's 'Lahashem' died, and you need to make a lottery on another pair of goats, and you end up with many goats that's 'L'azazel,' you don't need to send all of them, even according to the opinion that you need to carry out and burn all the bulls and goats above. After all, it says here "you send it into the wilderness," one goat, and not any other.

Daf 62

106) R' Pappi quotes Rava; you send the first goat only. This is like R' Yossi who says that the first one is the most important. We can't say we see his opinion when they scooped up the Shekalim to use for the Korbanos, they wrote "Aleph, Beis and Gimmel" on the three baskets so that you'll first use the coins that you scooped up first. After all, that may be since the first one was fit to bring Korbanos before the second one was scooped up, but all the goats are available at the time of sending. Rather, we see it from the case where he lost his Korban Pesach and separated a second one, and then he found the lost one; R' Yossi says that he brings the first one, unless the second one was nicer than it. (The Chachumim say that you may use either one he wants.) However R' Simi quotes Rava that you send the last goat since you finish the Mitzvah with it.