Parallel
יומא 60
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— That is because referring to the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments there are two verses [written] for the same purpose and wherever two verses have the same purpose no deduction can be made from them [for other precepts]. That will be right according to the Rabbis who hold: ‘And he shall put them there’ 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 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. 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 and the one whose neck was broken. For what purpose are three Scriptural verses necessary in connection with the blood? — One is to exclude [blood] from [the rule touching] left-overs, one to exclude it from the rule touching trespass, and one to exclude it from the rule touching ritual uncleanness. But no verse is necessary to exclude it from the rule touching piggul for we have learnt: Whatever has that which renders [the offering] permissible, whether for human beings or for service on the altar can make one liable on its account for piggul. And blood itself is a thing which renders the offering permissible. MISHNAH. 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 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. 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. R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON SAY: WHEREVER HE STOPPED, THERE HE MUST BEGIN AGAIN. GEMARA. 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.19
—
R. Judah holds: [This means] the place on which once a year atonement is obtained: whereas R. Nehemiah holds that it refers to the objects through which once a year atonement is obtained. But according to R. Judah, is then ‘place’ written here? — Rather is this the reason for R. Judah's view: It is written ‘This’, and it is written ‘Once’, one excludes [services performed in] white garments, the other [those performed in] golden garments. And R. Nehemiah? — One excludes the golden garments, the other the remaining blood, which [if done out of order] do not impair [the service]. And R. Judah? — If [an act performed in white garments out of order] impairs the service, it impairs it here too, and if it does not impair [the service] it does not impair it here either; as it was taught: And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, i.e., if he has obtained atonement he has completed it, if not, not. This is the opinion of R. Akiba. R. Judah said to him: Why should we not interpret thus: If he has completed it, he has obtained atonement, if not, not, to say, that if one of the sprinklings is missing, he has done nothing? And we inquired: What is the difference between them and R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi, each gave an answer: One said: They differ only as to the interpretation of the text, while the other said: The remaining blood is what they differ in. But did R. Johanan hold thus? Surely R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the remaining blood [offered not as prescribed] impairs [the service]? This is a refutation. R. Hanina said: If he took the handfuls of the incense before the slaying of the bullock, he has done nothing. According to whom is this? [Presumably] not according to the view of R. Judah. Surely he said that the word ‘statute’ was written only in connection with ministrations performed in white garments within [the Holy of Holies]! — [No], you may say that it is even in agreement with R. Judah's view, inasmuch as what is necessary for a service performed within is considered as a service within. We learned: 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 WITHIN AGAIN. Now, if this view were right [it] should read: ‘He should start again with the taking of the handfuls’? —
—