Rabbi Yehuda maintains that this is referring to the place where atonement is achieved once a year, namely the Holy of Holies. In his opinion, the order of actions is indispensable for the services performed in the Holy of Holies. And Rabbi Neḥemya maintains that the verse is referring to the actions through which atonement is achieved once a year, meaning both the place and the garments. Consequently, in the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, the order for all actions performed in white clothes is indispensable.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda the word place is written? The verse merely states “once a year,” which apparently is referring to the order of the service in general but not to a specific place. Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of the following: This is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda: It is written: “This” (Leviticus 16:34), which is a term of restriction and limitation, and it is written: “Once a year” (Leviticus 16:34), another term of restriction. One restriction comes to exclude actions performed in the white garments outside the Sanctuary, meaning that they are not indispensable; and one restriction comes to exclude actions performed in the gold garments.

And how does Rabbi Neḥemya interpret these two restricting expressions? In his opinion, one of the restrictions comes to exclude actions performed in the gold garments, and one restriction comes to exclude the remainders of blood that are poured at the base of the altar, meaning that these are not indispensable. If the High Priest performed a service that is supposed to come after the spilling of the blood too early, the service is valid, despite the fact that the spilling of the blood is performed in white garments. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yehuda maintain with regard to the remainders of blood? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, if the other actions performed outside are indispensable, this too is indispensable; and if the other acts performed outside are not indispensable, the remainders are not indispensable either. The pouring of the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood in this regard.

In proof that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that pouring the remainders of blood is no different from the sprinkling of blood, the Gemara cites a baraita that is referring to a case where the pouring of the remainders of the blood is entirely omitted. As it was taught in a baraita: “And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place” (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that if he performed the atonement, he has finished the order of the service; and if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why do we not say that if he finished sprinkling all the blood, he has performed atonement; and if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement? This would indicate that if one of the presentations is lacking it is as though he did nothing.

And we say in this regard: What is the practical difference between them? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi debated this point. One of them said: There is a difference between them with regard to the source from which they derive their interpretation, i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. And the other one said: There is a difference between them with respect to whether pouring the remainders of blood at the base of the altar is indispensable to the atonement. According to Rabbi Akiva, it is not indispensable, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is indispensable.

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that in Rabbi Neḥemya’s opinion pouring the remainders of blood is not indispensable? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say in tractate Zevaḥim (111a): Rabbi Neḥemya taught in accordance with the statement of the one who said that the remainders of blood are indispensable? The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult.

§ Rabbi Ḥanina said: With regard to incense that the High Priest scooped before the slaughtering of the bull, it is as though he did nothing. The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that when it is written “statute” (Leviticus 16:34), a term that indicates that no details may be altered, it is written with regard to actions performed in white garments within the Sanctuary, whereas scooping incense is done outside?

The Gemara rejects this claim: Even if you say that Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is possible that in his opinion scooping the incense for the purpose of it being taken inside is considered like an action actually performed inside. The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if the blood spills before the High Priest completed the presentations that were sprinkled inside the Holy of Holies, he must slaughter another bull or goat, bring other blood, and then sprinkle again from the beginning inside. And if it is so, that an action performed outside the Sanctuary for the purpose of a service inside the Sanctuary is considered like an action actually performed inside, merely slaughtering the bull and sprinkling the blood again should be insufficient. Instead, the mishna should have said that he must return and scoop the incense anew. The fact that the mishna did not say this proves that the order of scooping the incense is not indispensable.