יומא 49 — Soncino English Talmud

¹They raised the following objection: A lay Israelite, an onen, 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. — But R. Shesheth himself has asked this question in refutation! For R. Shesheth said to the Amora 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 of their hand, and the Levites flayed them. 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! -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. R. Papa asked: If another [priest] took his hands full and put it into his [the high priest's] hands — how then? Is what we require that it be ‘his hands full’ which we have here, or is it required that he both ‘take [his 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! Shall we say that R. Joshua b. Levi was older? But R. Joshua b. Levi had said: R. Hanina permitted me to drink a cress-dish on the Sabbath? [You say] to drink? That is self-evident, for we have learnt: 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. What case do you mean? If it be a case of danger, surely it is allowed; and if the case be without danger, it surely is forbidden? -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? And why was it R. Hanina? — Because he was familiar with medicine, for R. Hanina said: 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. -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? -Rather, this is what he said: Our question is like one of the former generation. But did R. Hanina express such a view? Did not R. Hanina say: With a bullock, i.e., but not with the blood of a bullock; 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? — This is what he [R. Hanina] said: Since he asks the question, the inference is justified that he 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? — R. Papa said: If [we say that] he takes the handful first and then must take it again, then his fellow may enter with his hafinah, 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] 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. Come and hear:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:Zeb. 16a.
^ᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜnote:Hence he obviously knew the Mishnah, how then could he have given the wrong answer!
^ᵈnote:V. Glos. s.v. (b).
^ᵉnote:II Chron. XXXV, 11.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote:The laymen served only the purpose of a portico, holding the bowls up to view, but not handing them to the altar.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘his fellow’.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote:The older of the two scholars. Hence Hanina's remark about the ‘older generation’.
^ˡnote:‘Drink’ because usually mixed with wine or oil.
^ᵐnote:Shab. 109b.
^ⁿnote:And is not in need of any special argument for dispensation.
^ᵒnote:And no effort to permit it would be legitimate.
^ᵖnote:Of whom the question was asked.
^ᵠnote:Hul. 7a.
^ʳnote:The first interpretation referred to the person injured by the mule,’ the second to the wound.
^ˢnote: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.’
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XVI, 3.
^ʷnote: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.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote: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.
^ᶻnote:The original question: If a priest had taken the hands full of incense and thereupon had died, may another enter with his ‘handfuls’?
^ᵃᵃnote:Within the Holy of Holies, v. infra and supra 47a.
^ᵃᵇnote:The handfuls taken by the high priest. V. Glos.
^ᵃᶜnote:As not all handfuls of people are of the same capacity.
^ᵃᵈnote:v. supra 47a and notes.

²How does he do it? He takes hold of the dish 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. This alone? None other? But is there not the pinching of the bird's head? And the taking of [an exact] fistful of the incense? — Rather [say] this is one of the more difficult ministrations in the Sanctuary. [At any rate] infer from here that he had to perform the hafinah twice. — The inference is right. 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? — R. Hanina said: ‘With a bullock’, but not with its blood. 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. R. Ammi raised the following objection: One may be counted in for the paschal lamb, or one may withdraw from being counted in it until it be slaughtered. Now, if that view were correct, 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. Mar Zutra raised the following objection: One must not redeem with a calf or with a beast of chase, or with what had been slaughtered or with a cross-bred, or with a koy, only with a lamb? There is a different case, because [the meaning of] lamb [here] is inferred from ‘lamb’ [mentioned in connection] with the paschal lamb. Then just as that must be male, without blemish, and one year old, this too ought to be male, without blemish, and one year old? — [To prevent such interpretation], Scripture states: Thou shalt redeem . . . thou shalt redeem, 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!^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ᵃᵉnote:The second hafinah, in the Holy of Holies.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., the ladle when containing the handfuls.
^ᵃᵍnote:Supra 47b and notes.
^ᵃʰnote:V. supra 49a and notes.
^ᵃⁱnote:Pes. 60b.
^ᵃʲnote:V. Ex. Xli, 4.
^ᵃᵏnote:That the blood, in the service, takes the place of the bullock itself.
^ᵃˡnote: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 ,uhvn i.e., as long as the animal is whole, before it is slaughtered, as long as it is alive.
^ᵃᵐnote:A firstling of an ass, Ex. XIII, 12, 13.
^ᵃⁿnote:A kind of bearded deer or antelope (Jastrow), which belongs either to the genus of cattle or of beast of chase.
^ᵃᵒnote: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.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ex. XII, 3ff
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid. 5.
^ᵃʳnote:Ibid. XIII, 13.