Commentary for Yoma 97:20

תא שמע

asks the question, the inference is justified that h holds 'With a bullock' includes also 'with the bullock's blood'; now, according to [this] his view, his question is like the question of an older generation. - What about that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original question: If a priest had taken the hands full of incense and thereupon had died, may another enter with his 'handfuls'?');">²⁶</span> - R'Papa said: If [we say that] he takes the handful first and then must take it again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the Holy of Holies, v. infra and supra 47a.');">²⁷</span> then his fellow may enter with his hafinah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handfuls taken by the high priest. V. Glos.');">²⁸</span> because the hafinah is still the same; but if [we say] that he takes the handfuls once but does not take them again, then your question arises. Said R'Huna son of R'Joshua to R'Papa: On the contrary! If [we say that he] performs the hafinah twice, none else should enter with his hafinah, because it is impossible that the second take not either a bit less [than the handfuls of the first]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As not all handfuls of people are of the same capacity.');">²⁹</span> or a bit more; but [if we say that] he performs only one hafinah, does your question arise. For the question had been raised: Must he perform the hafinah twice? - Come and hear: AND SUCH WAS ITS MEASURE. Now does not that mean that as the measure in the outside hafinah, so was it in the hafinah within the Holy of Holies? - No, perhaps the meaning here is that if he wanted to make a measure he could do so, or, that he must not take either more or less in the one case than in the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra ');">³⁰</span> Come and hear:

Explore commentary for Yoma 97:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.