obstructive

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct? And he accepted it from him. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”. Since (breaking the neck) is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke] is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread.] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt, “taking” is mentioned for lulav. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle, so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle.] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future. Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive. What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations. Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them. The dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

Aaron shall put, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Similarly, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. An argument de minore ad majus. If putting, where Aaron’s sons are mentioned, is qualified if a non-Cohen puts it, drawing, where Aaron’s sons are not mentioned, not so much more? No, it is not necessarily so. Putting on, which is obstructive, if a non-Cohen puts it is qualified. Drawing, which is not obstructive, if a non-Cohen draws it is disqualified. And Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, drawing from the urn is obstructive, putting on is not obstructive. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he establishes even by word of mouth. They thought to say, even one today and one tomorrow. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, even one today and one tomorrow, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yannai, why does it say, lots? As meritorious deed. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan : The lot makes it a purification sacrifice, giving it the name does not make it a purification sacrifice. He explains it, if the drawing succeeds. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yannai: If he did not draw lots and did not confess it is qualified, only he missed a meritorious deed.

If one slaughtered outside the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed. Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically, but here it changes by slaughter. How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive. There is only one here for Hashem. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s. Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift. But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood.

If one slaughtered outside the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement, there are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said that he is liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for inside was sacrificed; he who said that he is not liable, if the he-goat who is chosen for outside was not sacrificed. Rebbi Yose said, Rav Ḥisda wants to compare it to Pesaḥ but it is not comparable. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, a Pesaḥ whose time passed is changed automatically, but here it changes by slaughter. How is it? He who said liable wanted to say that drawing lots is obstructive; he who said not liable wanted to say that drawing lots is not obstructive. There is only one here for Hashem. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah said, either one of them, after he drew lots is liable for the Eternal’s and is not liable for Azazel’s. Rebbi Abba said, only if he gave the bull’s gift. But if he did not give the bull’s gift he is not liable since the slaughter of the he-goat obstructs giving the bull’s blood.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, is he liable? He said to him, let us hear from the following: The bull is obstructive of the he-goat, the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. This implies that if he slaughtered the bull before he drew lots, he is liable. If you would say that he is not liable, one should state, the he-goat is not obstructive of the bull. Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, that is to say, the he-goat does not obstruct the bull in giving between the beams, but for giving on the curtain the he-goat is obstructive of the bull. How is this? He may not give of the bull’s blood on the curtain before he gave of the he-goat’s blood between the beams.

Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification. Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive.

Rebbi Jonah said, except for the first sanctification. Rebbi Yose said, even for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Jonah: All vessels in the Temple were qualified for sanctifying hands and legs. He explains it, except for the first sanctification. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: the basin and its base are obstructive. He explains it, their place is obstructive.

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive and push aside, as we have stated there: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

Rebbi Eleazar said, limbs and fat which were not consumed before the evening one builds into a pyre and burns them separately; for them one pushes aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba: The Mishnah implies this: “Every day there were four arrangements.” What does one understand from here? Rebbi Mana said, “and this day five”. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: May something which is not obstructive push aside? He answered him, there are the witnesses for the New Moon who are not obstructive and push aside, as we have stated there: “for a distance of a night and day one desecrates the Sabbath and comes for testimony of the New Moon.”

When he finished atoning the sanctuary. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving.

When he finished atoning the sanctuary. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving.

When he finished atoning the sanctuary. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving.

When he finished atoning the sanctuary. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving.

When he finished atoning the sanctuary. There are Tannaim who state, when he finished, he atoned There are Tannaim who state, when he atoned, he finished. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They differ by disagreement. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, the remainder is obstructive. He who said, when he finished, he atoned, the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, they differ in understanding. About the remainder (is it obstructive?), the remainder is not obstructive. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the remainder is not obstructive. How is this? He who said, when he finished, he atoned, makes it four givings. He who said, when he atoned, he finished, makes it only one giving.

Rebbi Shammai said, a baraita implies that the remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “The lower ones, if given on the upper did not placate since nothing of them is brought on the upper, should you not say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they placate since something of them is brought below? The inner ones shall prove, since some of them is given outside, but if he gave them outside it did not placate, since the altar did not cleanse them, what should you say about the upper ones, if given on the lower they should placate since the horns cleanse them. Since the horns cleanse them, if he gave them below it should be qualified. The verse says it, that he give the blood on the upper, but not that he give in the lower.” What does it mean, “the altar did not cleanse them”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not cleanse them to turn them into remainders; only through the beams and the gobelins they become remainders.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the remainders are not obstructive, as we have stated: “If he did not give, it does not obstruct.” Rebbi Borqai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: a baraita implies that remainders are obstructive, as we have stated: “He shall atone for the holy Sanctuary, that is the innermost room, and the tent of Meeting, this is the Temple Hall, and the altar, this is the [golden] altar, he shall atone, also for the courtyards.” What atonement do you have for the courtyards? Not the remainders? [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, according to him who said that] remainders are obstructive, is their place obstructive? If he gave them in the night, does he have to slaughter a new sacrifice for them? The colleagues asked: Does one think about them? Rebbi Yudan asked: if they are lost? What is problematic for him, if he started and they became deficient. But if he did not start to give everybody agrees that what he leaves over are leftovers.

Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Ephes: About givings between the beams; but givings between the gobelins the he-goat is obstructive for the bull. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he gave of the bull’s blood between the beams and between the gobelins and afterwards freshly slaughtered the he-goat it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, if the bull’s and the he-goat’s blood in the cup was spilled, would he not bring another bull and it would be qualified? What is the difference whether he slaughtered before he gave or slaughtered after he gave? If it had said “he gives” that would have been correct.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars, and the gobelins obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite” is written it is obstructive, “on the side” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars, and the gobelins obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite” is written it is obstructive, “on the side” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars, and the gobelins obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite” is written it is obstructive, “on the side” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah said that Rebbi Jehudah Dried Figs stated: The table, the candelabrum, the altars, and the gobelins obstruct the sacrifice, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the sacrifice is only obstructed by the wash basin and its base. Otherwise, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, everywhere “opposite” is written it is obstructive, “on the side” is not obstructive, but Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “on the side” is obstructive, and Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Jonathan said, even “putting” is obstructive. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, here for service inside, there for service outside.