Yoma 119

משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

- That is because referring to the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the garments with which the high priest performed the service of the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 23.');">¹</span> there are two verses [written] for the same purpose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'that come as one', i.e., in both there is a special verse stating that the same law applies.');">²</span>

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה

and wherever two verses have the same purpose no deduction can be made from them [for other precepts].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both cases the Biblical law stipulates that they must not be used; Lev. XVI, 23 and VI, 3 (v.infra) . The Torah should have stated the law in one case, for the other to be inferred in the usual manner. The identical statement in both cases - thus ruling out the usual analogy - indicates that both deal with unusual cases, from which no deduction would be legitimate.');">³</span> That will be right according to the Rabbis who hold: 'And he shall put them there'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 23.');">⁴</span>

אלא לרבי דוסא דאמר בגדי כהונה ראוין הן לכהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר

signifies that they must be hidden away but what can be said according to R'Dosa who holds that the garments of the [high] priest may be used for a common priest? - That is because concerning the removal of the ashes and the heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 1f. 'There' (in the valley) indicates that it shall be buried there.');">⁵</span> whose neck is to be broken are two verses written for the same purpose, and wherever two verses are written for the same purpose no deduction can be made from them.

משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

That will be right according to the view that holds from two identical Scriptural statements no deduction can be made; but what can be said in accordance with the view that such deduction is permissible? - There are two limiting qualifications: And he shall put them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 3.');">⁶</span> and the one whose neck was broken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 6. The definite article (ha-'arufah) is interpreted as implying limitation. The limitation excludes other things from the operation of this law.');">⁷</span>

הניחא למ"ד אין מלמדין אלא למ"ד מלמדין מאי איכא למימר תרי מיעוטי כתיבי ושמו הערופה

For what purpose are three Scriptural verses necessary in connection with the blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On ');">⁸</span> - One is to exclude [blood] from [the rule touching] left-overs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time must be burnt. But blood of such left-overs is not included in the principle of left-overs, and, therefore, if one ate such blood, the penalty incurred derives only from the fact that he ate blood, not any additional penalty because he has eaten of left-overs.');">⁹</span>

והני תלתי קראי בדם ל"ל

one to exclude it from the rule touching trespass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of trespass does not apply to blood.');">¹⁰</span> and one to exclude it from the rule touching ritual uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If someone ate of holy sacrifices in a state of levitical impurity, the penalty, if unwittingly, is a sin-offering, as it is for eating blood. The law does not apply to the blood of sacrifices, which if eaten in a state of levitical impurity involves only one sin-offering, viz., for eating blood.');">¹¹</span>

חד למעוטי מנותר וחד למעוטי ממעילה וחד למעוטי מטומאה

But no verse is necessary to exclude it from the rule touching piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Piggul i.e., vile (ness) is the term used for a sacrifice that is rejected because of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest at the time of the sacrificing. Such improper intention includes his intention to dispose of the same beyond its legal space or time. (Lev. VII, 18 and ibid. XIX, 7.)');">¹²</span> for we have learnt: Whatever has that which renders [the offering] permissible, whether for human beings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priests or owners by whom portions of the offering are consumed.');">¹³</span>

אבל מפיגול לא צריך למעוטי קרא דתנן כל שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח חייבין עליו משום פיגול ודם עצמו מתיר הוא

or for service on the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which the prescribed sacrificial portions are burnt.');">¹⁴</span> can make one liable on its account for piggul.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל מעשה יוה"כ האמור על הסדר אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו לא עשה כלום הקדים דם השעיר לדם הפר יחזור ויזה מדם השעיר לאחר דם הפר ואם עד שלא גמר את המתנות שבפנים נשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויחזור בתחילה מבפנים

And blood itself is a thing which renders the offering permissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 43a. The sprinkling of the blood makes parts of sacrifices permissible to the owner or priests; just as it makes certain portions of the animal fit to be offered up on the altar.');">¹⁵</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>CONCERNING EVERY MINISTRATION OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT MENTIONED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">¹⁶</span>

וכן בהיכל וכן במזבח הזהב שכולן כפרה בפני עצמן רבי אלעזר ור"ש אומרים ממקום שפסק משם הוא מתחיל

IN THE PRESCRIBED ORDER IF ONE SERVICE WAS DONE OUT OF ORDER BEFORE ANOTHER ONE, IT IS AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DONE AT ALL. IF HE SPRINKLED THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT BEFORE THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK, HE MUST START OVER AGAIN, SPRINKLING THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT AFTER THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר כל מעשה יוה"כ האמור על הסדר אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו לא עשה כלום א"ר יהודה אימתי בדברים הנעשין בבגדי לבן מבפנים אבל דברים הנעשין בבגדי לבן מבחוץ אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו מה שעשה עשוי

IF BEFORE HE HAD FINISHED THE SPRINKLINGS WITHIN [THE HOLY OF HOLIES] THE BLOOD WAS POURED AWAY, HE MUST BRING OTHER BLOOD, STARTING OVER AGAIN AND SPRINKLING AGAIN WITHIN [THE HOLY OF HOLIES]. LIKEWISE, IN MATTERS OF THE SANCTUARY AND THE GOLDEN ALTAR, SINCE THEY ARE EACH A SEPARATE ACT OF ATONEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore every act of atonement completed, even if out of order is valid, without any repetition necessary.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי נחמיה אומר בד"א בדברים הנעשים בבגדי לבן בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ אבל בדברים הנעשים בבגדי זהב מבחוץ מה שעשה עשוי אמר ר' יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו (ויקרא טז, לד) והיתה זאת לכם לחוקת עולם אחת בשנה

R'ELEAZAR AND R'SIMEON SAY: WHEREVER HE STOPPED, THERE HE MUST BEGIN AGAIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the individual act of atonement has not been completed. These Rabbis hold that one may continue, or start again, even in the midst of a service, even though this service had been started out of order.');">¹⁸</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: Concerning every ministration of the Day of Atonement mentioned in the prescribed order, if one service was done [out of order] before another one, it is as if one had not done it at all. R'Judah said: When does this apply? Only with regard to service performed in white garments, within [the Holy of Holies], but any service performed in white garments without, if in connection with them he performed one out of order before the other one, then what he has done is done [valid]. R'Nehemiah said: These things apply only to service performed in white garments, whether performed within [the Holy of Holies] or without, but in case of services performed in golden garments outside, what has been done, is done. Said R'Johanan: And both expounded it on the basis of one Scriptural passage: And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you. once in the year.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 34.');">¹⁹</span>