אלא בשעת הקטרה
except during the burning of the incense.
והא איכא הא מעלה דאילו מהיכל פרשי בין בקדושה דידיה בין בקדושה דלפני ולפנים ואילו מבין האולם ולמזבח לא פרשי אלא בקדושה דהיכל אמר רבא שם פרישה אחת היא
But there is also this higher standard, that whereas from the Sanctuary they remove themselves both during its own sanctification, i.e., the blood presentations in the Sanctuary, and during the sanctification of the innermost chamber, i.e., the Holy of Holies, but from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, they remove themselves only during the sanctification of the Sanctuary. Rava said: Indeed, there are numerous distinctions, but the baraita teaches only one because all the distinctions fit into one category of removal.
אמר מר כך פורשין בשעת מתן פר כהן משיח ופר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים מנא לן א"ר פדת אתיא כפרה כפרה מיוה"כ
The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: Just as they remove themselves from the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar during the burning of the incense, they similarly remove themselves during the blood presentations of the bull of the anointed priest; of the bull for an unwitting communal sin; and of the goats of idol worship. From where do we derive this? Rabbi Pedat said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the word atonement said in connection with those offerings and the word atonement from the prohibition on Yom Kippur.
אמר רב אחא בר אהבה שמע מינה מעלות דאורייתא והכי גמירי להו
Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: Learn from this that there is a prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The higher standards applied to the various areas in the Temple are defined by Torah law, and the Sages learned them as a tradition.
דאי ס"ד דרבנן מאי שנא בין האולם ולמזבח דילמא מיקרו ' ועיילי מכולה עזרה נמי נפרשו דילמא מיקרו ועיילי
As if it could enter your mind that these standards are defined by rabbinic law, what is different about the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar that the prohibition applies only there? Perhaps other priests would accidentally happen to enter the Sanctuary while incense is burning there. But if that is the reason, then the rabbinic decree should require that they remove themselves also from the entire Temple courtyard, since perhaps they would accidentally happen to enter. The fact that the prohibition does not extend to the Temple courtyard suggests that the standards are defined by Torah law.
בין האולם ולמזבח כיון דלא מפסיק מידי לא מינכרא מילתא עזרה כיון דאיכא מזבח החיצון דמפסיק מינכרא מילתא
The Gemara rejects Rav Aḥa bar Ahava’s reasoning: The prohibition could indeed be rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to limit it to the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, as follows: Since there is nothing that separates it from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the two areas is not conspicuous, and therefore people may err and enter. But with regard to the Temple courtyard, since there is the outer altar that separates the rest of the Temple courtyard from the Sanctuary, the distinction between the areas is conspicuous, and therefore there is no need to extend the prohibition throughout the Temple courtyard.
אמר רבא ש"מ קדושת אולם והיכל חדא מילתא היא דאי ס"ד שתי קדושות נינהו אולם גופיה גזירה וניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה
Rava said: Learn from this fact that there is a rabbinic prohibition in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar. The sanctity of the Entrance Hall and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is one matter, i.e., there they share the same sanctity, and therefore the Torah prohibition applies to the Entrance Hall as well. For if it could enter your mind to say that these areas have two distinct levels of sanctity, it would emerge that the prohibition to be in the Entrance Hall is itself a rabbinic decree. But will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree by prohibiting being present in the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar, lest one enter the Entrance Hall itself?
לא אולם ובין האולם ולמזבח חדא קדושה היא היכל ואולם שתי קדושות
The Gemara rejects Rava’s reasoning: No, this would not be a case of issuing one decree to prevent violation of another decree, because the Entrance Hall and the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar share one sanctity. Consequently, any prohibition applied to one will certainly also apply to the other. However, the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have two distinct sanctities.
בכל יום היה חותה בשל כסף וכו' מ"ט התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל
§ The mishna states: On every other day, a priest would scoop up the coals with a coal pan made of silver and pour the coals from there into a coal pan of gold. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the gold pan was not used to scoop the coals? The Gemara answers: Because the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people. Since the pan is worn away with use, it is preferable to use a less expensive silver pan.
והיום חותה בשל זהב ובה היה מכניס מ"ט משום חולשא דכ"ג
§ The mishna continues: But on this day, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest scoops up with a coal pan of gold, and with that coal pan, he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that on Yom Kippur only one pan is used? Due to the weakness of the High Priest. He has to perform the entire service by himself while fasting; using only one pan minimizes his exertion.
בכל יום בשל ארבעת קבין וכו' תנא נתפזרו לו קב גחלים מכבדן לאמה
§ The mishna states: On every other day, a priest scoops up the coals with a coal pan of four kav and pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. Rabbi Yosei says: On every other day, a priest scoops with a coal pan of a se’a, which is six kav, and then pours the coals into a coal pan of three kav. It was taught in a mishna (Tamid 33a): As he poured from a pan of four kav to a pan of three kav, a kav of coals became scattered, and he swept them into the canal that passed through the Temple and ran to the Kidron brook.
תני חדא קב ותניא אידך קביים בשלמא הך דתני קב רבנן אלא הך דתני קביים מני לא רבנן ולא רבי יוסי
It was taught in one baraita: A kav of coals was scattered. And it was taught in another baraita: Two kav were scattered. The Gemara comments: Granted, this baraita, which teaches that a single kav was scattered, is understandable. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the mishna, who maintain that coals are poured from a coal pan of four kav to one of three. But that baraita, which teaches that two kav of coals were scattered, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. According to Rabbi Yosei, three kav of coals would have been scattered.
אמר רב חסדא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה היא דתניא ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר בשל קביים היה מכניס
Rav Ḥisda said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: With a coal pan of two kav he would bring the coals into the Holy of Holies. If one accepts the opinion of the Rabbis that the coals were scooped with a coal pan of four kav, two kav were scattered.
רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא רבי יוסי והכי קאמר בכל יום היה חותה בשל סאה מדברית ומערה לתוך שלשת קבין ירושלמיות
Rav Ashi said: You can even say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what he is saying: On every other day, a priest scooped with a coal pan of a desert se’a, which is five Jerusalem kav, and then he poured the coals into a coal pan of three Jerusalem kav. Therefore, two kav would be scattered.
בכל יום היתה כבידה והיום קלה תנא בכל יום היתה גלדה עבה והיום רך בכל יום היתה קצרה והיום ארוכה מ"ט כדי שתהא זרועו של כ"ג מסייעתו
§ The mishna states: On every other day, the coal pan was heavy, but on this day it was light. It was taught in a baraita: On every other day its side was thick but on this day it was soft and thin. On every other day its handle was short but on this day it was long. What is the reason? So that the arm of the High Priest could assist him in carrying the coal pan, i.e., he could support the coal pan by resting it against his arm rather than bear the entire weight in his hand.
תנא בכל יום לא היה לה ניאשתיק והיום היה לה ניאשתיק דברי בן הסגן
It was taught in a baraita: On every other day it did not have a ring,but on this day it has a ring on the end of the handle, which clatters against it and makes a noise in fulfillment of the verse “And the sound thereof shall be heard when he goes in to the Sanctuary” (Exodus 28:35); this is the statement of the son of the Deputy.
בכל יום היה זהבה ירוק א"ר חסדא שבעה זהבים הן זהב וזהב טוב וזהב אופיר וזהב מופז וזהב שחוט וזהב סגור וזהב פרוים זהב וזהב טוב דכתיב (בראשית ב, יב) וזהב הארץ ההוא טוב זהב אופיר דאתי מאופיר זהב מופז
§ The mishna states: On every other day, it was of greenish gold but on this day it was of a red gold. Rav Ḥisda said: There are seven types of gold mentioned in the Bible: Gold, and good gold, and gold of Ophir (I Kings 10:11), and glistering gold (I Kings 10:18), and shaḥut gold (I Kings 10:17), and closed gold (I Kings 10:21), and parvayim gold (II Chronicles 3:6). The Gemara explains the reason for these names: There is a distinction between gold and good gold, as it is written in the verse: “And the gold of that land is good” (Genesis 2:12), which indicates the existence of gold of a higher quality. Gold of Ophir is gold that comes from Ophir. Glistering [mufaz] gold is so named