Yoma 57bיומא נ״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
57bנ״ז ב

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 (ויקרא ד, כה) ואת דמו ישפוך ולמטה הוא אומר (ויקרא ד, ל) 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 ת"ל (ויקרא ד, ל) 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 ת"ל ואת דמו ישפוך הוא נשפך ליסוד והן נשפכין לאמה רבי אליעזר בר"ש אומר מניין לחטאת שקבל דמה בארבע כוסות ונתן ארבע מתנות מאחד מהן שכולן נשפכין ליסוד ת"ל 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 בר"ש 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 דר' יאשיה הוא דאמר מערבין דאמר אע"ג 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 (ויקרא טז, יח) 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.