Yoma 98

כיצד הוא עושה אוחז את הבזך בראש אצבעותיו ויש אומרים בשיניו ומעלה בגודלו עד שמגעת לבין אצילי ידיו וחוזר ומחזירה לתוך חפניו וצוברה כדי שיהא עשנה שוהה לבוא ויש אומרים מפזרה כדי שיהא עשנה ממהרת לבוא

How does he do it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second hafinah, in the Holy of Holies.');">¹</span> He takes hold of the dish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ladle when containing the handfuls.');">²</span> with his finger-tips according to some with his teeth - and pulls it with his thumb until it reaches his elbows, then he turns it over in his hands and heaps up the incense in order that its smoke may come up slowly; some say he scatters it in order that its smoke may come up fast; and this is the most difficult ministration in the Sanctuary.

וזו היא עבודה קשה שבמקדש זו היא ותו לא והא איכא מליקה והא איכא קמיצה אלא זו היא עבודה קשה מעבודות קשות שבמקדש שמע מינה חופן וחוזר וחופן שמע מינה

This alone? None other? But is there not the pinching of the bird's head?

איבעיא להו שחט ומת מה הוא שיכנס אחר בדמו מי אמרינן בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר או דילמא בפר ולא בדמו של פר

And the taking of [an exact] fistful of the incense? - Rather [say] this is one of the more difficult ministrations in the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra ');">³</span> [At any rate] infer from here that he had to perform the hafinah twice. - The inference is right.

רבי חנינא אומר בפר ולא בדמו של פר וריש לקיש אמר בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר רבי אמי אמר בפר ולא בדמו של פר רבי יצחק אמר בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר

The question was raised: If the priest slew [the animal] and died, may someone else enter with its blood? Do we say 'With a bullock' [includes] even 'with the blood of the bullock', or 'With a bullock' only but not with its blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">⁴</span> - R'Hanina said: 'With a bullock', but not with its blood.

איתיביה רבי אמי לרבי יצחק נפחא נמנין ומושכין ידיהן ממנו עד שישחט ואם איתא עד שיזרוק מיבעי ליה

R'Lakish said: 'With a bullock', and even with its blood. R'Ammi said: 'With a bullock', but not with the blood of the bullock. R'Isaac the Smith said: 'With a bullock' and even with its blood.

שני התם דכתיב (שמות יב, ד) מהיות משה מחיותה דשה

R'Ammi raised the following objection: One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 60b.');">⁵</span> may be counted in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. Xli, 4.');">⁶</span> for the paschal lamb, or one may withdraw from being counted in it until it be slaughtered.

מתיב מר זוטרא אין פודין לא בעגל ולא בחיה ולא בשחוטה ולא בטריפה ולא בכלאים ולא בכוי אלא בשה שאני התם דיליף שה שה מפסח

Now, if that view were correct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood, in the service, takes the place of the bullock itself. ,uhvn');">⁷</span> this should read: Until he sprinkles [the blood]. - There [is a special situation], because It is written: miheyoth misseh, i.e., as long as the lamb is alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. And if (the household) be too little for a lamb', here the ad hoc interpretation is: as long as it is itself - read i.e., as long as the animal is whole, before it is slaughtered, as long as it is alive.');">⁸</span>

אי מה להלן זכר תם ובן שנה אף כאן זכר תם ובן שנה ת"ל (שמות יג, יג) תפדה תפדה ריבה

Mar Zutra raised the following objection: One must not redeem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A firstling of an ass, Ex. XIII, 12, 13.');">⁹</span> with a calf or with a beast of chase, or with what had been slaughtered or with a cross-bred, or with a koy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A kind of bearded deer or antelope (Jastrow) , which belongs either to the genus of cattle or of beast of chase.');">¹⁰</span> only with a lamb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Bek. 12a. Since the emphasis is on 'lamb' (Ex. XIII, 13) and a slaughtered lamb is excluded, the inference appears justified, that a slaughtered lamb is no more considered to be a lamb. Hence a refutation of the view that blood can be considered as of equal ritual value with the animal itself.');">¹¹</span>

אי תפדה תפדה ריבה אפילו כולהו נמי אם כן שה מאי אהני ליה

There is a different case, because [the meaning of] lamb [here] is inferred from 'lamb'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 3ff');">¹²</span> [mentioned in connection] with the paschal lamb. Then just as that must be male, without blemish, and one year old,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5.');">¹³</span> this too ought to be male, without blemish, and one year old? - [To prevent such interpretation], Scripture states: Thou shalt redeem. thou shalt redeem,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIII, 13.');">¹⁴</span> to include both. If [repetition of] 'Thou shalt redeem' means to include, then all ought to be included? - What value would the word 'lamb' have in that case!