Yoma 97

מיתיבי זר ואונן שיכור ובעל מום בקבלה ובהולכה ובזריקה פסול וכן יושב וכן שמאל פסול תיובתא

They raised the following objection:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 16a.');">¹</span> A lay Israelite, an onen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²</span>

והא רב ששת הוא דאותבה דאמר ליה רב ששת לאמוריה דרב חסדא בעי מיניה מרב חסדא הולכה בזר מהו אמר ליה כשירה ומקרא מסייעני (דברי הימים ב לה, יא) וישחטו הפסח ויזרקו הכהנים מידם והלוים מפשיטים

one inebriate or one with a blemish are invalidated for the receiving, the carrying, and the sprinkling of the blood, and so is one seated, and the left hand. This is a refutation.

ומותיב רב ששת זר ואונן שיכור ובעל מום בקבלה ובהולכה ובזריקה פסול וכן יושב וכן שמאל פסול

- But R'Shesheth himself has asked this question in refutation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he obviously knew the Mishnah, how then could he have given the wrong answer!');">³</span> For R'Shesheth said to the Amora<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. s.v. (b) .');">⁴</span>

בתר דשמעה הדר אותבה והא רב חסדא קרא קאמר דעבוד מעשה איצטבא

of R'Hisda who asked of R'Hisda: May the blood be carried by a lay Israelite? He answered: It is proper and a scriptural verse supports me: And they killed the passover lamb, and the priests dashed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XXXV, 11.');">⁵</span>

בעי רב פפא חפן חבירו ונתן לתוך חפניו מהו מלא חפניו בעינן והא איכא או דילמא ולקח והביא בעינן והא ליכא תיקו

of their hand, and the Levites flayed them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blood which they received at the altar side from those who killed the passover, namely, lay Israelites who are fit for slaughtering sacrifices, v. Supra 43a.');">⁶</span> And R'Shesheth raised this question: A lay Israelite, a mourner, an inebriate, or one blemished are invalidated for the receiving, the carrying, or the sprinkling of the blood, and so is one seated and the left hand!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that R. Shesheth knew of the Mishnah disqualifying the carrying with the left hand, how then did he solve the question put to him contrariwise.');">⁷</span>

בעי רבי יהושע בן לוי חפן ומת מהו שיכנס אחר בחפינתו א"ר חנינא בא וראה שאלת הראשונים

-After having heard it, he raised it in objection [against R'Hisda]. But R'Hisda had cited a scriptural passage [in support]? - They served only the purpose of a portico.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laymen served only the purpose of a portico, holding the bowls up to view, but not handing them to the altar.');">⁸</span>

למימרא דרבי יהושע בן לוי קשיש והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי לי התיר רבי חנינא לשתות שחליים בשבת

R'Papa asked: If another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his fellow'.');">⁹</span> [priest] took his hands full and put it into his [the high priest's] hands - how then?

לשתות פשיטא דתנן כל האוכלין אוכל אדם לרפואה וכל המשקין שותה

Is what we require that it be 'his hands full' which we have here, or is it required that he both 'take [h hands full] and bring it in', which was not the case here? - The question remains unsolved. R'Joshua B'Levi asked: If he had taken his hands full and then died, what about someone else entering [within the Holy of Holies] with his [the first one's] handfuls? - Said R'Hanina: This is a question of the older generation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that this question asked by a teacher of the older generation has been also put by myself is an implicit compliment to our learning; R. Joshua b. Levi being of the older generation.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא לשחוק ולשתות שחליים בשבת היכי דמי אי דאיכא סכנתא משרא שרי ואי דליכא סכנתא מיסר אסיר לעולם דאיכא סכנתא והכי קא מבעיא ליה מי מסיא דניחול עלייהו שבתא או לא מסיא ולא ניחול עלייהו שבתא

Shall we say that R'Joshua B'Levi was older?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The older of the two scholars. Hence Hanina's remark about the 'older generation'.');">¹¹</span> But R'Joshua B'Levi had said: R'Hanina permitted me to drink a cress-dish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Drink' because usually mixed with wine or oil.');">¹²</span>

ומאי שנא רבי חנינא משום דבקי ברפואות הוא דאמר ר' חנינא מעולם לא שאלני אדם על מכת פרדה לבנה וחיה

on the Sabbath? [You say] to drink?

והא קא חזינן דחיי אימא וחיית והא קא חזינן דמיתסי בסומקן אינהו וחיורן ריש כרעיהו קאמרינן

That is self-evident, for we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 109b.');">¹³</span> One may eat all kinds of food for a remedy, and one may drink every kind of drink as a medicine? - Rather to grind and to drink cress-dish on the Sabbath.

מכל מקום שמע מינה דרבי חנינא קשיש אלא הכי קאמר שאלתן כשאילה של ראשונים

What case do you mean? If it be a case of danger, surely it is allowed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not in need of any special argument for dispensation.');">¹⁴</span>

ומי אמר רבי חנינא הכי והאמר רבי חנינא בפר ולא בדמו של פר

and if the case be without danger, it surely is forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no effort to permit it would be legitimate.');">¹⁵</span> -In truth the case referred to is one dangerous and this is how the question ran: Does it cure so that one may for this purpose desecrate the Sabbath, or does it not effect a cure so that one may not desecrate the Sabbath in connection with it?

ואמר רבי חנינא קטורת שחפנה קודם שחיטת הפר לא עשה ולא כלום

And why was it R'Hanina?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of whom the question was asked.');">¹⁶</span> - Because he was familiar with medicine, for R'Hanina said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 7a.');">¹⁷</span>

הכי קאמר מדקא מיבעיא ליה הא מכלל דקסבר בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר ולמאי דסבירא ליה שאילתו כשאילת הראשונים

Never did a man consult me concerning a wound inflicted by a white mule and recover. But we see that people recover? -Say: And it was cured.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first interpretation referred to the person injured by the mule,' the second to the wound.');">¹⁸</span>

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב פפא אי חופן חוזר וחופן חבירו נכנס בחפינתו דהא מקיימא חפינה אי אין חופן וחוזר וחופן תבעי לך

-But we see them cured? -The reference here is to red mules, the end of whose feet is white. - At any rate we learn from here that R'Hanina was the older one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Joshua refers to Hanina as 'R. Hanina', one must assume that the former cannot have been older, for in that case he would have called him by his first name, Instead of saying 'R. Hanina etc.'');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב פפא אדרבה אי חופן וחוזר וחופן לא יכנס אחר בחפינתו אי אפשר שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר ואי אין חופן חוזר וחופן תיבעי לך

-Rather, this is what he said: Our question is like one of the former generation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He said to his pupils: This question of yours has been already asked by older scholars than you, viz., R. Joshua b. Levi, and it remained unsolved.');">²⁰</span> But did R'Hanina express such a view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Did he himself doubt as to whether the high priest may enter the Holy of Holies with the handfuls of incense that had been taken by someone else.');">²¹</span>

דאיבעיא להו חופן חוזר וחופן או לא תא שמע כך היתה מידתה מאי לאו כשם שמדתה מבחוץ כך מדתה מבפנים

Did not R'Hanina say: With a bullock,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 3.');">²²</span> i.e., but not with the blood of a bullock;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one priest must both slay the bullock and enter the Holy of Holies with its blood. This interpretation excludes the possibility of one's entering with the blood of a bullock slain by someone else.');">²³</span>

לא דילמא שאם רצה לעשות מדה עושה אי נמי שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר

and, furthermore, was it not R'Hanina who said: If he took the hands full of the incense before the slaying of the of the bullock, he has done nothing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ministration is invalid and must be repeated in proper form and order, infra 60b. As the taking of the hands full must not be performed before, but after the slaying of the bullock, the first high priest must have slain his bullock and the one who takes his place must slay another bullock, it is evident that he cannot use the handfuls taken by the first high priest, which took place before the slaying of the second bullock. Hence it seems impossible that R. Hanina could have asked the question attributed to him here.');">²⁴</span> - This is what he [R'Hanina] said: Since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Joshua asked the question, he must hold that the second priest need not bring another bullock, for if that were his view, the taking of the handful of the incense before the slaying of the bullock would have been invalidated. Hence the apposite remark that others of an earlier generation who, in opposition to him hold that 'with a bullock' includes even 'with the blood of his bullock' have already asked the question.');">²⁵</span>

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: