Yoma 57

השתא ברי טמאים אתון דכתיב טומאתה בשוליה אמר ליה תא חזי מה כתיב בהו השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם אפילו בזמן שהן טמאין שכינה שרויה ביניהן

Now you are certainly impure, as it is written about the Jewish people: “Her impurity was in her skirts” (Lamentations 1:9), and the Divine Presence does not dwell upon the Jews when they are impure. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Come and see what is written about the Jewish people: “That dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that even when they are impure, the Divine Presence dwells among them.

וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the aforementioned halakha. It was stated above that the comparison to the goat teaches that the High Priest sprinkles the bull’s blood once upward; and the seven downward sprinklings of the goat’s blood are derived from the rite of the blood of the bull. Subsequently, the order of sprinkling toward the curtain in the Sanctuary is again derived by means of a similar comparison. The Gemara asks: And does a matter derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha not written explicitly in the Torah but learned by means of a comparison, again teach by juxtaposition? There is a general principle that a halakha derived by juxtaposition with regard to offerings cannot subsequently teach another halakha by juxtaposition.

האי הימנו ודבר אחר הוא ולא הוי היקש

The Gemara answers that the first juxtaposition was not a proper inference by verbal analogy, as this halakha that the High Priest must sprinkle once upward and seven times downward is derived both from that juxtaposition and something else as well. Since the basic requirement that he must sprinkle upward and downward for the bull and the goat is stated explicitly in both cases, and the comparison was necessary only to teach the precise number of sprinklings, this inference is not considered a juxtaposition to the extent that one cannot derive further comparisons from it.

הניחא למאן דאמר לא הוי היקש אלא למאן דאמר הוי היקש מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara continues to question this explanation: It works out well according to the one who said that a juxtaposition that is also inferred from something else is not considered a juxtaposition in this regard; but according to the one who says that this too is called a juxtaposition, what can be said?

מקומות הוא דגמרי מהדדי

The Gemara answers: It is the locations that are derived from one another. The halakha of the blood of the bull was not derived from that of the goat, nor the halakha of sprinkling the bull’s blood outside the curtain from that of sprinkling the bull’s blood inside. Instead, the first comparison equates the sprinkling of the bull’s blood and the goat’s blood, while the second comparison equates the locations, i.e., he sprinkles outside the curtain in the same manner that he sprinkles inside. Consequently, the two juxtapositions are not connected to each other, which means that there is no problem of a halakha derived by juxtaposition itself teaching by juxtaposition.

אי בעית אימא חוץ מבפנים בחדא זימנא גמר

If you wish, say instead a different resolution: The sprinkling outside is derived from the sprinkling inside all at once, i.e., the juxtaposition includes not only the blood of the bull and the goat, but also the manners of sprinkling the blood inside and outside. There are not two comparisons here, one derived from the other, but a single, complex juxtaposition.

תנא כשהוא מזה אינו מזה על הפרוכת אלא כנגד הפרוכת אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי אני ראיתיה ברומי והיו עליה כמה טיפי דמים של פר ושעיר של יום הכפורים

§ A Sage taught: When the High Priest sprinkles the blood, he does not actually sprinkle on the curtain but opposite the curtain. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome. After a miracle was performed on his behalf and he healed the daughter of the Roman emperor, Rabbi Elazar was permitted to view the ruler’s treasures and take whatever he wanted. He saw the Temple vessels that the Romans captured, including the curtain. Rabbi Elazar continued: And on the curtain were several drops of blood from the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur. This shows that the blood was actually sprinkled on the curtain.

ודילמא דפר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודה זרה הוו

The Gemara questions this conclusion: But how can Rabbi Elazar be sure that these drops of blood were from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur? Perhaps they were from the bull for an unwitting communal sin or the goats for a sin of idolatry, both of whose blood is also sprinkled on the curtain.

דחזא דעבידי כסדרן ותנן נמי גבי פר העלם דבר של צבור כי האי גוונא כשהוא מזה לא היו נוגעין בפרוכת ואם נגעו נגעו

The Gemara explains that he saw that these sprinklings of blood were performed in their order, one drop after another, a sequence that is followed only in the Yom Kippur service. And we also learned in a mishna about a case like this with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: When he sprinkles, the blood would not touch the curtain, but if it did touch, it touched, and this did not invalidate the service.

אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי אני ראיתיה ברומי והיו עליה כמה טיפי דמים של פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודה זרה ודילמא דפר ושעיר של יום הכפורים נינהו דחזנהו דעבידי שלא כסדרן

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: I saw the curtain in Rome, and there were several drops of blood on it from the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goats for a sin of idolatry. The Gemara asks: But how could he identify the source of the blood; perhaps they were from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur? The Gemara answers: He saw that they were performed not in their order and inferred that they must be sprinklings from communal sin-offerings, which are not presented in a sequence.

נתערבו לו דמים בדמים אמר רבא נותן אחת למעלה ושבע למטה ועולה לו לכאן ולכאן

The Gemara asks a question: What should the High Priest do if the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat before he finished all the sprinklings? Rava said: He should present from the mixture once upward and seven times downward, and that counts toward both this one and that one, as he has sprinkled from both of them.

אמרוה קמיה דרבי ירמיה אמר בבלאי טפשאי משום דדיירי בארעא דחשוכא אמרי שמעתא דמחשכן הא קא יהיב למעלה דשעיר מקמי מטה דפר והתורה אמרה וכלה מכפר את הקדש כלה דם הפר ואחר כך כלה דם השעיר

They said this answer before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Foolish Babylonians! Because they live in a dark, low land, they speak darkened halakhot, devoid of logic. If this solution is followed, when the High Priest sprinkles the mixture of bull and goat blood, he thereby presents the upward sprinklings of the goat before he sprinkles the downward presentations of the bull; and the Torah said: “And when he has finished atoning for the sacred place” (Leviticus 16:20), which teaches: He finishes the blood of the bull by sprinkling upward and downward, and only afterward he finishes the blood of the goat.

אלא אמר רבי ירמיה נותן אחת למעלה ושבע למטה לשם הפר וחוזר ונותן אחת למעלה ושבע למטה לשם השעיר

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said that the High Priest proceeds as follows: He presents once upward and seven times downward for the purpose of sprinkling the blood of the bull, as the blood of the bull is in this mixture. And he again presents once upward and seven times downward for the purpose of sprinkling the blood of the goat. Although the blood is mixed together and by sprinkling for the purpose of the bull’s blood he also sprinkles some of the goat’s blood, since he has only the bull’s blood in mind it is as though he did not sprinkle the blood of the goat at all.

נתערבו לו דמים בדמים במתנות האחרונות סבר רב פפא קמיה דרבא למימר נותן שבע למטה לשם פר ולשם שעיר וחוזר ונותן אחת למעלה לשם שעיר

The Gemara asks another question: What should the High Priest do if the blood of the bull became mixed with the blood of the goat during the final presentations that he performs in the Sanctuary? Rav Pappa, who was sitting before Rava, thought to say: He presents seven times downward for the purpose of the bull and for the purpose of the goat, and he again presents once upward for the purpose of the goat.

אמר ליה רבא עד השתא קרו לן טפשאי והשתא טפשאי דטפשאי דקא מגמרינן להו ולא גמירי והא קא יהיב מטה דשעיר מקמי מעלה דשעיר והתורה אמרה תן למעלה ואחר כך למטה

Rava said to him: Until now they called us Babylonians merely foolish, and now they will call us the foolish of the foolish, as they will say that we teach them and yet they do not learn. In response to your statement one could simply repeat Rabbi Yirmeya’s previous argument: But he presents downward sprinklings for the goat before the upward sprinklings for the goat, and the Torah said: Present upward and then downward.

אלא אמר רבא נותן שבע למטה לשם פר וחוזר ונותן אחת למעלה ושבע למטה לשם שעיר

Rather, Rava said: He presents downward seven times for the purpose of the bull, and he again presents upward once and downward seven times for the purpose of the goat.

נתערבו לו כוסות בכוסות נותן וחוזר ונותן

The Gemara asks another question: What if the cups became mixed, i.e., if the bowl containing the blood of the bull was confused with that of the blood of the goat? The Gemara explains: He presents blood from one cup by sprinkling upward once and downward seven times, and he again presents a second set of sprinklings from the second cup.

וחוזר ונותן שלשה פעמים

And he again presents another set of sprinklings, again from the first cup, which amounts to a total of three times. In this manner, he fulfills the obligation no matter which cup was which. If the first cup was that of the bull’s blood and the second was that of the goat, he fulfilled his obligation with the first and second sprinklings. If the first cup contained the blood of the goat, he performed the sprinkling of the goat’s blood before that of the bull, which means his first set of sprinklings are discounted. Consequently, when he sprinkled from the second cup, which contains the bull’s blood, and a third time from the cup of the goat’s blood, he fulfilled his obligation with the second and third sets of sprinklings.

מקצת דמים נתערבו לו ומקצת דמים לא נתערבו [לו] פשיטא כי יהיב מודאין יהיב

The Gemara asks yet another question: If only part of the blood became mixed together and part of the blood did not become mixed, e.g., if some of the blood spilled and became mixed in a third vessel, the solution is obvious: When he presents, he presents from the blood of certain identity.

מיהו הנך שירים הוו וליסוד אזלי או דילמא דחויין הוו ואזלי לאמה

However, one could still ask a question with regard to this case: What is the status of the mixed blood in the other vessel or vessels? Are they considered the remainder of the blood, and the remainder of the blood goes to the base of the altar like the remainder of all blood of sin-offerings? Or perhaps this mixture of blood is rejected, as the blood from this vessel was not used for the first sprinklings, and therefore the two types of blood are spilled and go to the canal beneath the altar, which rinses all the dirt from the courtyard into the Kidron River.

אמר רב פפא אפילו למאן דאמר כוס אחד עושה חבירו שירים הני מילי היכא דאי בעי למיתב מצי יהיב אבל האי דאי בעי למיתב לא מצי יהיב לא

Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that one cup renders its counterpart a remainder, i.e., if a one collected blood in two cups, the blood in the second cup is considered the remainder of the first cup, this applies only in a case where he could present blood from the second cup if he wanted to, i.e., if both cups were filled with blood from the offering. However, in this case, as the blood in this vessel could not be presented even if he wanted to, it does not become a remainder, and it is therefore certainly rejected.

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא אדרבה אפילו למאן דאמר כוס אחד עושה חבירו דחוי הני מילי דדחייה בידים אבל היכא דלא דחייה בידים לא

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that when blood is collected in two cups one cup renders the blood of its counterpart rejected, that applies only when he rejects the second cup with his own hands, i.e., by means of a direct act. However, in a case where he does not reject it with his own hands, as no act of rejection was performed but rather the blood became a remainder by itself, the blood is not rejected.

דתניא למעלה הוא אומר ואת דמו ישפוך ולמטה הוא אומר ואת כל דמה ישפוך

As it was taught in a baraita: In the verse above, it says: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of the burnt-offering, and he shall pour its blood out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering” (Leviticus 4:25). And in the verse below it says: “And the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of burnt-offering, and he shall pour all its blood out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30). The second verse adds the word “all.”

מניין לחטאת שקבל דמה בארבע כוסות ונתן מזה אחת ומזה אחת שכולן נשפכין ליסוד תלמוד לומר ואת כל דמה ישפוך

The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented blood from each of them by sprinkling once from this cup and once from that cup until he has sprinkled four times, once from each cup, that the leftover blood in all the cups is poured out as remainders on the base of the altar? The verse states: “And he shall pour all its blood.”

יכול אפילו נתן ארבע מתנות מאחת מהן תלמוד לומר ואת דמו ישפוך ההוא נשפך ליסוד והן נשפכין לאמה רבי אליעזר ברבי שמעון אומר מניין לחטאת שקבל דמה בארבע כוסות ונתן ארבע מתנות מאחד מהן שכולן נשפכין ליסוד תלמוד לומר ואת כל דמה ישפוך

One might have thought that even if he presented four presentations from one of them, all the rest should be spilled on the base of the altar as remainder; therefore, the verse states: “And he shall pour its blood.” This indicates that not all the blood, but only that blood in the bowl from which blood was sprinkled on the altar, is poured on the base as a remainder, and the rest of the cups of blood are poured into the canal. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented four presentations from one of them, that they are all poured at the base of the altar? The verse states: “And he shall pour all its blood.”

ולרבי אליעזר ברבי שמעון הא כתיב ואת דמו ישפוך אמר רב אשי למעוטי שירים שבצואר בהמה

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it also written: “And he shall pour its blood”? How does he explain this difference between the verses? Rav Ashi said: When the Torah states “its blood,” it comes to exclude the remainders that are in the throat of the animal. If more blood comes out of the throat after the collection of the blood, that blood is certainly not poured on the base of the altar but is swept into the canal of the Temple.

עירה דם הפר לתוך דם השעיר תנן כמאן דאמר מערבין לקרנות דאיתמר רבי יאשיה ורבי יונתן חד אמר מערבין וחד אמר אין מערבין

§ The mishna states that after the High Priest sprinkled the blood toward the curtain he poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The Gemara comments: We learned this mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the High Priest mixes the two types of blood before placing them on the corners of the inner altar, and he does not present each one separately. As it was stated: The later tanna’im, Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan, debated this issue. One of them said: The High Priest mixes the blood for the purpose of placing the blood on the altar’s corners, and one of them said: He does not mix the blood.

תסתיים דרבי יאשיה הוא דאמר מערבין דאמר אף על גב דלא כתיב יחדיו כמאן דכתיב יחדיו דמי

The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yoshiya was the tanna who said that the High Priest mixes the blood. In general, he maintains that whenever a verse mentions two matters, although the term: Together, is not written explicitly, it is considered as though the term: Together, is indeed written. In other words, two items that appear in the same verse are treated as combined unless expressly stated otherwise. By contrast, Rabbi Yonatan maintains that even if two matters are mentioned together they are treated separately unless the verse uses the term: Together. In this case, the verse states: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat” (Leviticus 16:18). Therefore, Rabbi Yoshiya rules that the High Priest must place the two sets of blood together.

אפילו תימא רבי יונתן הוא שאני הכא דכתיב אחת

The Gemara rejects this contention. Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, it remains possible to explain its ruling, since it is different here, as it is written “once” (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that there must be one act of sprinkling and not two. Consequently, the High Priest must mix the blood to ensure that there is only one presentation.

תניא דלא כשנויין ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר שיהיו מעורבין דברי רבי יאשיה

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita contrary to our response, but in accordance with the initial assumption: “And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on the corners of the altar round about” (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.