יומא מז

יומא מז

הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה, חָפַן מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ הַכַּף. הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גׇדְלוֹ, וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קׇטְנוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִדָּתָהּ. נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ.

MISHNA: They brought out the spoon and the coal pan to the High Priest so he may perform the service of the incense. He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the small size of his hands. And this was the measure of the spoon, i.e., it was made to correspond to the size of his hands. He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand.

גְּמָ׳ מַחְתָּה? תְּנָא לֵיהּ: נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְחוֹתֶה וְיוֹרֵד! הָתָם מַחְתָּה דְגֶחָלִים, וְהָכָא מַחְתָּה דִקְטוֹרֶת, דְּתַנְיָא: הוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ כַּף רֵיקָן מִלִּשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, וּמַחְתָּה גְּדוּשָׁה שֶׁל קְטוֹרֶת מִלִּשְׁכַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס.

GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the mishna. In an earlier mishna, the tanna already taught that the High Priest must bring the coal pan: He takes a coal pan and ascends to the top of the altar and rakes and descends. Why does the tanna mention the taking of the coal pan again? The Gemara explains: There the mishna deals with the coal pan of burning coals, and here the mishna is referring to the coal pan of incense, which he would later scoop out. As it was explicitly taught in a baraita: They brought out an empty spoon for him from the chamber of vessels, and a coal pan heaped with incense from the Chamber of the House of Avtinas.

חָפַן מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הַכַּף. הַגָּדוֹל — לְפִי גׇדְלוֹ, וְהַקָּטָן — לְפִי קׇטְנוֹ. וְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִדָּתָהּ. כַּף בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְמָה לִי? ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו וְהֵבִיא״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!

§ The mishna taught: He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon corresponding to the small size of his hands, and this was the measure of the spoon, according to the size of his hands. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a spoon on Yom Kippur? After all, the Merciful One states: “And he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar from before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil” (Leviticus 16:12). This verse suggests that the handfuls are brought by hand rather than in a vessel.

מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, דְּהֵיכִי נֶעְבֵּיד? נְעַיֵּיל וַהֲדַר נְעַיֵּיל — הֲבָאָה אַחַת אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָא שְׁתֵּי הֲבָאוֹת.

The Gemara answers: The High Priest uses a spoon because it is impossible to perform the service otherwise. The Gemara elaborates: As what should we do? Let him bring in the coal pan and then bring in the incense? The Merciful One states one act of bringing for the coals and the incense, and not two acts of bringing.

נִשְׁקְלַיהּ לִקְטוֹרֶת בְּחוֹפְנָיו וְנַחֲתַיהּ [לְמַחְתָּה] עֲלַהּ וְלֵיעוּל. כִּי מָטֵי הָתָם הֵיכִי לַעֲבֵיד? נִשְׁקְלַיהּ בְּשִׁינֵּיהּ וְנַחֲתַיהּ לְמַחְתָּה? הַשְׁתָּא לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וְדָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין כֵּן, לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

Instead, let him take the incense by his handfuls and place the coal pan on top of his two handfuls and enter, carrying it all in one go. This suggestion is also impractical, as when he arrives there, in the Holy of Holies, what should he do? How can the High Priest put down the coal pan where it is? Let him take the coal pan in his teeth and lower it. Now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as it is disrespectful. All the more so, one would not act in this manner before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He.

הִלְכָּךְ — לָא אֶפְשָׁר, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — עָבְדִינַן כִּדְאַשְׁכְּחַן בִּנְשִׂיאִים.

The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest to behave in another way, and since it is impossible to act in any other manner, he acts as we find with regard to the sacrifices of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle. On that occasion, the princes brought spoons filled with incense: “One golden spoon of ten shekels full of incense” (Numbers 7:14).

נָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בְּיָמִין וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמֹאל. יַצִּיבָא בְּאַרְעָא וְגִיּוֹרָא בִּשְׁמֵי שְׁמַיָּא!

§ The mishna taught that the High Priest took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. The Gemara questions this arrangement by citing a well-known maxim: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens; i.e., this is the opposite of what one would expect. The main component of the mitzva is the incense, while the coal pan is required only for burning the incense. Consequently, the High priest should carry the spoon, which contains the main component of the service, in his right hand, and the accessory in his left hand.

זוֹ מְרוּבָּה, וְזוֹ מוּעֶטֶת. וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן קִמְחִית, זוֹ — חַמָּה, וְזוֹ — צוֹנֶנֶת.

The Gemara explains: The service is performed in this manner for reasons of comfort, as this coal pan is greater in weight, since it holds the coals, and that spoon of incense weighs less. And even when the two of them are equal, when the spoon contains three kav of incense like the action of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit, who could hold several kav in his exceptionally large hands, nevertheless, this coal pan is hot and must be held carefully in the right hand, and that spoon of incense is cold and is easily carried in the left.

אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן קִמְחִית שֶׁהָיָה חוֹפֵן אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין בִּמְלוֹא חׇפְנָיו, וְאוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים [זֶרֶד] זָרְדוּ, וְזֶרֶד אִימָּא עָלָה לַגָּג. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּעַרְסָן, וְכִדְרַבָּה בַּר יוֹנָתָן. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יוֹנָתָן אָמַר רַבִּי יְחִיאֵל: עַרְסָן יָפֶה לַחוֹלֶה.

§ Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit, it discusses him further. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit that his hands were so large that he would scoop up four kav, which he would hold by his handfuls, and say: All the women selected the best they could for their children, but the selection of my mother rose to the roof, i.e., my mother chose the best. Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit is referring to himself, as he matured to a great height and stature. Some say he was referring to his mother’s selection of flour, in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Yonatan. As Rabba bar Yonatan said that Rabbi Yeḥiel said: Flour is beneficial and healthy for the sick. Since his mother ate this flour when she was pregnant with him, her son grew heartily.

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וַתַּזְרֵנִי [חַיִל] לַמִּלְחָמָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״הַמְאַזְּרֵנִי חַיִל״? אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! זֵרִיתַנִי וְזֵרַזְתַּנִי.

And some say this reference to selection is a euphemism for semen, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “For You have girded me [vatazreni] with strength for battle” (II Samuel 22:40), and it is written in a parallel verse: “Who girds me [hame’azreni] with strength” (Psalms 18:33). What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe: You selected me [zeritani] with the best drop of semen that my mother absorbed, with which, You fashioned me [zeraztani] within her. This accounts for the variant forms of this expression.

אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן קִמְחִית: פַּעַם אַחַת סִיפֵּר דְּבָרִים עִם עֲרָבִי אֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק, וְנִתְּזָה צִינּוֹרָא מִפִּיו עַל בְּגָדָיו. וְנִכְנַס יְשֵׁבָב אָחִיו וְשִׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו. וְרָאֲתָה אִמָּן שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד.

The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he was talking to a certain Arab in the market on Yom Kippur, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the Arab’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, who was the High Priest at the time. This spittle rendered him ritually impure by rabbinic law, like the ritual impurity of a zav, preventing him from serving in the Temple. And his brother Yeshevav entered and served as High Priest on that day in his stead. And, consequently, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.

וְשׁוּב אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן קִמְחִית: פַּעַם אַחַת יָצָא וְסִיפֵּר עִם הֶגְמוֹן אֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק, וְנִתְּזָה צִינּוֹרָא מִפִּיו עַל בְּגָדָיו. וְנִכְנַס יוֹסֵף (עִם) אָחִיו וְשִׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו, וְרָאֲתָה אִמָּן שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד.

And they further said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he went out and talked to a certain officer [hegmon] in the market, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the officer’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, and his brother Yosef entered and served as High Priest in his stead. And, again, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁבְעָה בָּנִים הָיוּ לָהּ לְקִמְחִית, וְכוּלָּן שִׁמְּשׁוּ בִּכְהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה. אָמְרוּ לָהּ חֲכָמִים: מָה עָשִׂית שֶׁזָּכִית לְכָךְ? אָמְרָה לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא רָאוּ קוֹרוֹת בֵּיתִי קַלְעֵי שְׂעָרִי. אָמְרוּ לָהּ: הַרְבֵּה עָשׂוּ כֵּן וְלֹא הוֹעִילוּ.

The Sages taught in a baraita: Kimḥit had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this? She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house. They said to her: Many women did so and did not succeed to such a degree; you must have been granted a special gift from God.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּקוּמְצוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַקּוֹמֶץ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה מִדָּה לַחֲפִינָה?

§ The Sages taught: “And he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of its oil” (Leviticus 6:8). This verse teaches that he should not measure an amount for the handful of a meal-offering with a utensil, but he should separate it directly by hand. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha as to whether the High Priest may measure an amount for the handful of incense? Must the incense also be scooped by hand?

הָתָם הוּא דִכְתִיב ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״: אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״בְּחׇפְנָיו״, אֶלָּא: ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו קְטוֹרֶת סַמִּים דַּקָּה״, לָא. אוֹ דִילְמָא יָלֵיף ״מְלֹא״ ״מְלֹא״ מִקּוּמְצוֹ?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps there, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, it is different, as it is written “in his handful,” which indicates that he must use his hand rather than a vessel. However here, where it is not written: In his hands, but “and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small” (Leviticus 16:12), perhaps this teaches that the handfuls of incense need not be taken directly by hand, and the High Priest may use a vessel to scoop out the required amount. Or perhaps this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “full” and “full,” from “his handful,” which is stated regarding the meal-offering. If this verbal analogy is accepted, the High Priest may likewise scoop the incense only by hand.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִדָּתָהּ״, מַאי לָאו, שֶׁאִם רָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִדָּה אַחֶרֶת עוֹשֶׂה? לֹא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכָךְ הָיָה חוֹזֵר וְחוֹפְנָהּ לִפְנִים.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: And this was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that although the required measure is a handful, the High Priest is not obligated to scoop with his hand, and if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is what the mishna said; this is what it means: And so too, the High Priest would return and scoop the incense inside the Holy of Holies in precisely the same manner.

שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: חוֹפֵן וְחוֹזֵר וְחוֹפֵן!

The Gemara asks: If so, I can learn from this that the High Priest scoops the incense, and again scoops. That is, after scooping once, the High Priest repeats the action and scoops again in the Holy of Holies. This issue is subject to a dispute in the Gemara below.

דִּילְמָא: שֶׁאִם רָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִדָּה — עוֹשֶׂה. אִי נָמֵי: שֶׁלֹּא יְחַסֵּר וְשֶׁלֹּא יוֹתִיר.

The Gemara rejects this claim: No; perhaps the mishna indeed means that if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel. The language of the mishna does not conclusively prove which interpretation is correct, and it is possible that the Gemara’s previous inference from the mishna is accurate. Consequently, the issue of whether or not the High Priest scoops incense a second time in the Holy of Holies cannot be considered resolved. Alternatively, the mishna may mean that the High Priest must take neither less nor more, and therefore this statement has no bearing on the dispute with regard to his scooping.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״. יָכוֹל מְבוֹרָץ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּקוּמְצוֹ״. אִי בְּקוּמְצוֹ, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ״, כִּדְקָמְצִי אִינָשֵׁי. הָא כֵּיצַד — חוֹפֶה שְׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פִּיסַּת יָדוֹ וְקוֹמֵץ.

§ The Sages taught: “His handfuls” (Leviticus 2:2). I might have thought it should be overflowing from the handful, and therefore the verse states: “His handful” (Leviticus 6:8), which indicates a precise amount. If the halakha is based solely on the phrase “his handful,” I might have thought the priest may pinch a small amount even with just his fingertips, not with his entire finger. Therefore, the verse states: “His handfuls” (Leviticus 2:2), meaning as people usually take a handful, i.e., with their whole hand. How should he perform this service? He scoops by closing his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and takes a handful from the flour of the meal-offering.

וּבְמַחֲבַת וּבְמַרְחֶשֶׁת, מוֹחֵק בְּגוּדָלוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וּבְאֶצְבָּעוֹ קְטַנָּה מִלְּמַטָּה. וְזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. זוֹ הִיא וְתוּ לָא? וְהָא אִיכָּא מְלִיקָה, וְהָא אִיכָּא חֲפִינָה! אֶלָּא: זוֹ הִיא מֵעֲבוֹדוֹת קָשׁוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.

And in a case of a meal-offering prepared in a pan and with regard to a meal-offering prepared in a deep container, when the flour was fried before being scooped and was therefore hard, the priest smooths with his thumb any flour that was overflowing above his handful, and with his little finger he smooths the flour that was pushing out below. And this precise taking of a handful of a meal-offering is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple. The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest rite, and no other? But there is pinching, which is also considered extremely difficult, and there is taking the handful of incense, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of a meal-offering is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן עוּזָּאָה: בֵּין הַבֵּינַיִם שֶׁל מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּגַוַּאי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — דְּוַדַּאי קוֹמֶץ הוּא. דְּבָרַאי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — דְּוַדַּאי שִׁירַיִם הוּא.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Uza’a raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the flour that remains between the fingers of his handfuls? Is this flour considered to be part of his handful, or is it considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering? The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa said that with regard to the flour that is on the inside, toward the hand, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the handful. Likewise, with regard to the flour that is on the outside, do not raise the dilemma, as it is certainly part of the remainder of the flour, like the rest of the meal-offering.

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי מַאי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ [בֶּן] עוּזָּאָה: בֵּין הַבֵּינַיִם סָפֵק נִינְהוּ.

Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to the flour between the inside and the outside. What is the status of this flour? Rav Yoḥanan said: Yehoshua ben Uza’a then resolved his own dilemma: The flour that is between is doubtful, and should be treated as questionable in status.

הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְחוֹדֵיהּ תְּחִלָּה, וַהֲדַר בֵּין הַבֵּינַיִם. דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ בֵּין הַבֵּינַיִם בְּרֵישָׁא — דִּילְמָא שִׁירַיִם נִינְהוּ וְהָווּ לְהוּ שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה [לְהַקְטָרָה], וְאָמַר מָר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה אֵין מַקְטִירִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.

The Gemara asks: How does one perform the Temple service in this doubtful case? Rabbi Ḥanina said: The priest first burns the handful by itself, and then he burns the flour that was between. For if you say that he should first burn the flour that was between, perhaps they are remainders, and they are therefore considered like remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and burning, as the priest has taken flour from the remainders of the meal-offering. And the Master said: With regard to remainders that became reduced between taking the handful and the burning, one may not burn the handful on their account.

אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי אִיקְּרִי כָּאן: כֹּל שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ לָאִשִּׁים — הֲרֵי הוּא בְּבַל תַּקְטִירוּ.

The Gemara asks: If so, that there is uncertainty as to whether or not this flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, now too, if the priest burns the in-between flour after burning the handful, one should apply here the principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire of the altar is subject to the prohibition do not burn. This principle states that if part of an item is burned on the altar, one who burns any other part of it, which is not designated for burning, has violated a prohibition. In this case, if the in-between flour is considered part of the remainder of the meal-offering, the priest who burns it transgresses that prohibition.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: דְּמַקְטֵיר לֵיהּ לְשׁוּם עֵצִים, כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ״ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשׁוּם עֵצִים.

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest does not burn the flour as part of the meal-offering but burns it for the purpose of wood. In other words, he does not burn the flour as part of an offering but merely as fuel for the altar, which is permitted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: “But they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar” (Leviticus 2:12). This verse indicates that you may not bring up leaven and honey as a “sweet savor,” an offering. However, you may bring up leaven and honey and other materials for the purpose of wood.

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב מָרִי: דְּקָמְצִי שַׁמִּינֵי. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי לְכַתְּחִילָּה דְּקָמְצִי שַׁמִּינֵי.

The Gemara asks: It works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who reject Rabbi Eliezer’s halakha, what can be said? Rav Mari said: The solution is that fat priests take the handfuls of meal-offerings, as their fleshy fingers press against everything between them, and therefore no flour remains between the fingers. The Gemara states: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, it is appropriate that fat priests should take the handfuls ab initio, to avoid a situation of doubt.

(בֵּין הַבֵּינַיִים, פָּשַׁט, וּמָחַץ, וּפִזֵּר, וְחִשֵּׁב, בַּחֲפִינַת חֲבֵירוֹ — סִימָן). בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: בֵּין הַבֵּינַיִם שֶׁל מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו מַהוּ? מַאי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אִי גָּמַר ״מְלֹא״ ״מְלֹא״ מֵהָתָם — הַיְינוּ הָךְ!

§ Bein habeinayim, pashat, umaḥatz, ufizer, veḥishev, baḥafinat, ḥaveiro: This is a mnemonic for the ensuing questions of Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the in-between incense of his handfuls? The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? If he derives the verbal analogy between “full” and “full” from his handfuls there, the case of the meal-offering handful, this case is the same as that one, and therefore the incense between his fingers is invalid. If Rav Pappa does not accept this verbal analogy, what is the basis of his dilemma?

רַב פָּפָּא הָכִי בָּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו וְהֵבִיא״ בָּעֵינַן — וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא: ״וְלָקַח״ ״וְהֵבִיא״ בָּעֵינַן — וְהָא לֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa raised the dilemma as follows: When the verse states: “And his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil” (Leviticus 16:12), does it mean that we merely require him to bring his handfuls, and that is fulfilled here, as in practice the High Priest brought full handfuls? Or perhaps we require that he must fulfill the following two commands in a similar manner: “And he shall take…and he shall bring” (Leviticus 16:12)? In other words, just as he must have the intention to take the incense, so too, he must intend to bring all of it. And that requirement is not fulfilled here, as he did not intend to bring the extra incense between his fingers. No answer was found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ כִּדְקָמְצִי אִינָשֵׁי. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: קָמַץ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, מַהוּ?

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that the act of his handfuls of a meal-offering should be performed ab initio in the manner that people usually take a handful, with their fingertips pointed downward. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if he took a handful with his fingertips, i.e., if he first put his palm into the vessel and filled his palm with flour by extending his fingers and drawing them in? Does this invalidate the taking of the handful or not?

מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, מַהוּ? מִן הַצְּדָדִין, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Furthermore, what is the halakha if he took the handful with the back of his hand placed downward in the vessel, and with his fingers collected the flour upward into his palm? Lastly, what is the halakha if he took the flour from the sides, by passing the back of his hand to and fro over the flour in the vessel with his fingers spread apart, so that the flour collects in his palm? As no answers were found for these dilemmas, the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ כִּדְחָפְנִי אִינָשֵׁי. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: חָפַן בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, מַהוּ? מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, מַהוּ? מִן הַצַּד, מַהוּ? חָפַן בְּזוֹ וּבָזוֹ וְקֵרְבָן זוֹ אֵצֶל זוֹ, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Likewise, Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that when the Torah states: “His hands full” (Leviticus 16:12), it means in the manner that people usually fill their hands, by placing the backs of their hands into the vessel and bringing their hands together. However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the High Priest scooped a handful with his fingertips? Again, what is the halakha if he took a handful from downward to upward? What is the halakha if he took a handful from the side? And what is the halakha if he scooped a handful with this hand and with this hand and brought them together? These questions are not answered either, and the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי

§ Another dilemma was raised by