Yoma — Daf 56b

רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אוסרין אלמא אין ברירה

ממאי דילמא שאני התם כדקתני טעמא אמרו לו לר' מאיר אי אתה מודה שמא יבקע הנוד ונמצא שותה טבלים למפרע ואמר להם לכשיבקע

אלא מדתני איו דתני איו ר' יהודה אומר אין אדם מתנה על שני דברים כאחד

אלא אם בא חכם למזרח עירובו למזרח למערב עירובו למערב אבל לכאן ולכאן לא

והוינן בה מאי שנא לכאן ולכאן דלא דאין ברירה

למזרח ומערב נמי אין ברירה

ואמר ר' יוחנן כשכבר בא חכם

והשתא דאמרינן לרבי יהודה אין ברירה הא כתיבה אית ליה יום הכפורים נמי נעביד תרי ונכתוב עלייהו

משום חולשא דכהן גדול לאו אדעתיה דאי לא תימא הכי בלא כתיבה נמי האי נפיש והאי זוטר

וכי תימא לא מקביל ליה כוליה והאמר רב יהודה השוחט צריך שיקבל את כל דמו של פר שנאמר (ויקרא ד, ז) ואת כל דם הפר ישפוך אל יסוד המזבח

וכי תימא דילמא משתפיך מיניה האי חיור והאי סומק אלא משום חולשא דכ"ג לאו אדעתיה הכא נמי משום חולשא דכהן גדול לאו אדעתיה

ההוא דנחית קמיה דרבא אמר יצא והניחו על כן שני שבהיכל נטל דם הפר והניח דם השעיר

אמר ליה חדא כרבנן וחדא כרבי יהודה אימא הניח דם השעיר ונטל דם הפר

והזה ממנו על הפרוכת כנגד ארון מבחוץ תנו רבנן (ויקרא טז, טז) וכן יעשה לאהל מועד מה תלמוד לומר כשם שמזה לפני לפנים כך מזה בהיכל

מה לפני לפנים אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מדם הפר כך מזה בהיכל וכשם שלפני לפנים אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מדם השעיר כך מזה בהיכל (ויקרא טז, טז) השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם אפילו בשעת שהן טמאים שכינה עמהם

אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי לר' חנינא

R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon prohibit it. Hence we see that he rejects the principle of Bererah! — How does that follow? Perhaps the matter is different there, as the motive is taught there: They said to R. Meir: Don't you admit that if the bottle burst he would be found retrospectively to have drunk untithed wine? He said to them: If it bursts.1 — Rather is it to be derived from what Ayo taught: for he taught: R. Judah said: No man may stipulate two possibilities at the same time. But if the Sage comes from the east, his ‘Erub2 applies eastwards alone; if he comes from the west, his ‘Erub applies westwards alone, but never in both directions. And we asked concerning it: What is the difference touching both directions that it cannot apply, it is only because the principle of Bererah is rejected,3 the same ought to apply even [where the condition was ‘if the Sage comes] from the east or west’? Thereupon R. Johanan said: In this case the Sage has arrived already.4 But now that we maintain that R. Judah rejects the principle of Bererah whilst upholding the value of inscriptions [notices],5 also for the Day of Atonement let there be prepared two stands with such inscriptions! Because the high priest is fatigued, he would not pay attention to them. For should you not agree to this consideration, he could really do without any such inscriptions, for one [contains] more [blood], and the other less.6 And if you were to say, he does not receive the whole of it,7 but R. Judah said: He who slays the animal, must receive the whole blood, as it is said: The whole blood of the bullock he shall pour upon the base of the altar.8 And if you were to say some thereof might be spilled; — still, one [blood] is lighter [in colour], the other darker. Hence you must needs explain that the high priest, because of his fatigue, could not pay sufficient attention [to the difference in the blood]; thus is it here: because of his fatigue the high priest could not pay sufficient attention [to the inscriptions]. Once a man went down [to the praying desk] in the presence of Raba9 and read: Then he came forth, and placed it upon the second stand in the Temple. He took the blood of the bullock and deposited the blood of the he-goat. He said to him: In one point in accord with the Sages,10 in another with R. Judah?11 Rather say: He deposited the blood of the he-goat and took the blood of the bullock. AND HE SPRINKLED THEREOF UPON THE CURTAIN OUTSIDE OPPOSITE THE ARK: Our Rabbis taught: And so shall he do for the tent of meeting.12 What does that come to teach? That as he sprinkles in the Holy of Holies, thus must he sprinkle in the Hekal, i.e., just as in the Holy of Holies he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward, from the blood of the bullock, thus shall he sprinkle in the Hekal. That dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleanness13 i.e., even when they are unclean, the Divine Presence is among them. A certain Sadducee14 said to R. Hanina: theoretical situations. the legal fiction of community or continuity is established. With reference to the Sabbath limits: a person deposits, before the Sabbath (or the Holy Day), certain eatables to remain in their place over the next day, by which act he transfers his abode to that place and his movements on the Sabbath are measured from it as the centre. On the Sabbath in the area around a town or place the limits are two thousand cubits in every direction. The case here discussed is that of one who expects a scholar outside his city and is desirous of meeting him. He deposits the ‘erub for this purpose. V. ‘Er., Sonc. ed., pp. 252f. notes. at twilight on the previous day when the validity of the ‘erub must take effect. latter was unaware of the fact. As the validity of the ‘erub was made dependent on an event that, though unknown to the speaker, had actually taken place before twilight of the Sabbath eve there can be no question as to the ‘erub's effectiveness. It is not the speaker's subsequent knowledge of the fact that renders the ‘erub valid retrospectively, but the presence of the Sage at the crucial moment. The question of bererah, therefore, does not at all arise.