יומא 55 — Soncino English Talmud

¹‘as one swinging a whip’. — A Tanna taught: As he sprinkled, he did so not upon the ark-cover, but against its thickness. And when he is to sprinkle upwards he first turns his hand down, and when he is to sprinkle downwards he first turns his hand up. — Whence do we infer this? R. Aha b. Jacob said in the name of R. Zera: Scripture says: And sprinkle it upon the ark-cover and before the ark-cover. Now with regard to the he-goat it need not be said [that he should sprinkle] downwards, for that can be inferred from [the procedure with] the bullock where [the sprinkling] downwards [is made], when then is it mentioned here too? To compare [the sprinkling] ‘upon’ [the ark-cover with the sprinkling] ‘before’ [it]: Just as [the sprinkling] ‘before’ does not mean ‘before’ actually, so does sprinkling ‘upon’ [here] not mean really ‘upon’. On the contrary! It was not necessary to state with regard to the bullock [that the sprinkling should be done] ‘upon’ [the ark-cover], for that could be inferred from the fact that the he-goat's blood was sprinkled upon [it], why then was it mentioned to compare the sprinkling ‘before’ [it], to the sprinkling ‘upon’ [it], viz. just as ‘upon’ means exactly, so shall ‘before’ here mean ‘upon exactly’? How can you say this? Granted, if you say that the ‘downward’ sprinkling in the case of the he-goat is mentioned for the purpose of comparison, then [sprinkling] ‘upward’ written in connection with the bullock is necessary in accord with the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob; for the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Upon the face of the ark-cover on the east, this [special case] establishes a general rule viz., that wherever Scripture says ‘before’ [‘face’] it means ‘on the east’; but if you say that the ‘upwards’ in connection with the bullock is mentioned for the purpose of comparison, then for what purpose is the ‘downward’ in connection with the he-goat mentioned? Our Rabbis taught:’And he shall sprinkle it upon the ark-cover and before the ark-cover’. From this we know how often the he-goat's blood is to be sprinkled upwards, viz., once; I do not know, though, how often ‘downwards’, so that I infer that thus: The word ‘blood’ is used in connection with the downward [sprinkling] of the bullock's blood, and the same word ‘blood’ is used about the downward [sprinkling] of the goat's blood: hence just as ‘downwards’ with the bullock means seven times, so does ‘downwards’ with the goat mean ‘seven times’. Or argue it this way: The word ‘blood’ is used in connection with the ‘upward’ [sprinkling] of the goat's blood, and the word ‘blood’ is used in connection with the downward [sprinkling] of the he-goat's blood; hence just as ‘upwards’ with the he-goat means once, thus also shall ‘downwards’ with the he-goat mean ‘once’? Let us see what comparison is legitimate: One may infer ‘downwards’ from ‘downwards’; but one may not infer ‘downwards’ from ‘upwards’. On the contrary: It is legitimate to infer [one aspect of] one matter from [another aspect of] the same matter, but one may not infer one matter from an extraneous one! To teach [the true facts] Scripture says: And [he shall] do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock. Now it was not necessary to say ‘as he did’, why then was it said? To show that all the ‘doings’ of them should be alike; as there were seven sprinklings downward with the bullock, so shall there be seven sprinklings downward with the goat. We learn thus how many [sprinklings] downwards there are to be both with bullock and he-goat. But I do not know how many [sprinklings] upwards are to be made with the bullock's blood. And so I infer: The word ‘blood’ is used for the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the he-goat, and the word ‘blood’ is used for the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock. Hence, [the inference that] just as the upward sprinkling in the case of the he-goat has to be made once, so shall the upward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock be made once. Or argue it this way: The word ‘blood’ is used for the downward [sprinkling] in the case of the bullock, and the word ‘blood’ is used in the case of the upward [sprinkling] of the bullock: hence just as seven downward sprinklings have to be made with the bullock's blood, so must seven upward sprinklings be made with the bullock's blood! Let us see what comparison is legitimate: One may fitly infer [something about] upward [sprinklings] from [other] upward [sprinklings], but one may not infer [something about] upward [sprinklings] from downward [sprinklings]. On the contrary: It is legitimate to infer one [aspect of one] matter from [another aspect of the same] matter, but one may not fitly infer one matter from an extraneous one. Scripture therefore teaches: ‘And he shall do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock’! It was not necessary to say ‘with his blood’, why then was it said? To intimate that all the ‘doings’ of them should be alike: just as seven sprinklings downward were made in the case of the bullock, so shall seven sprinklings downward be made in the case of the goat; and just as only one upward sprinkling was made with the he-goat, so only one sprinkling upward had to be made in the case of the bullock. ONE, ONE AND ONE, ONE AND TWO: Our Rabbis taught: [He counted] One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven — this is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says: One, one and one, two and one, three and one, four and one, five and one, six and one, seven and one. Yet they are not conflicting, each counting as is customary in his place. At any rate, both agree that the first sprinklings must be counted with each of the following. What is the reason thereof? — R. Eleazar said: In order that he make no mistake in the count. — R. Johanan said: Scripture said: ‘And before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle’. Now it was not necessary to say ‘shall he sprinkle’. [For what teaching purpose] why then was it said, ‘He shall sprinkle’? — To indicate that the first sprinkling shall be counted with each subsequent one. — What is the [practical] difference between the two? — In case he had not counted, but also had made no mistake. HE WENT OUT AND PLACED IT ON THE GOLDEN STAND IN THE SANCTUARY: We have learned there: There were no money chests [provided] for obligatory bird-offerings, to prevent confusion. What does ‘to prevent confusion’ mean? — R. Joseph said: To prevent confusion between freewill and obligatory offerings. — Abaye said to him: Let him make two and inscribe on them: This is a freewill-offering, the other obligatory. — R. Judah^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:I.e., not on the top surface thereof.
^ᵇnote:That the two upward sprinklings are not made actually upon the ark-cover.
^ᶜnote:Lev. XVI, 15, with reference to the he-goat.
^ᵈnote:I.e., ‘before the ark-cover’.
^ᵉnote:V. infra.
^ᶠnote:The blood in the downward sprinkling fell on the ground not on the ark-cover. V. Rashi. Cur. edd.: ‘does not mean upon’.
^ᵍnote:Not only not exactly upwards, but really downwards.
^ʰnote:So that in his downward sprinkling the blood is to touch the thickness of the ark-cover, whilst in his upward sprinkling it should touch its upper surface.
^ⁱnote:As is stated at first.
^ʲnote:So lit., Lev. XVI, 14.
^ᵏnote:I.e.. the he-goat from the bullock.
^ˡnote:Sc. of the he-goat.
^ᵐnote:Lev. XVI, 15.
^ⁿnote:Since the sprinkling ‘upon’ or ‘before’ has been expressly mentioned in connection with the he-goat. Any apparently superfluous word or words were chosen for intimation or indication.
^ᵒnote:As the Scriptural text indicates.
^ᵖnote:The assumption that different parts of the same procedure are governed by similar rules seems more justified than that similar aspects of altogether different matters have such regulations.
^ᵠnote:Tosef. II.
^ʳnote:In the place of R. Meir the tens were counted first, the singles following, whilst the opposite way of counting prevailed in the city of R. Judah.
^ˢnote:And include the one sprinkled upward among the seven which he has to sprinkle downwards (Bertinoro).
^ᵗnote:If counting is obligatory, he had failed to do it properly. If the only purpose is the prevention of error and he has managed to avoid it, then de facto all is right.
^ᵘnote:J. Shek. VI, 6.
^ᵛnote:These were special money chests into which persons who had a freewill-offering of a bird to offer would put in money in payment of the offerings which the priests would make on their behalf. No such chests were however available for obligatory offerings of a bird.
^ʷnote:There were different regulations governing the ritual of the freewill and obligatory offerings respectively, for of the obligatory birds one was offered up as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering, whereas all freewill-offerings were burnt-offerings, these differences implying distinctions in the ritual. Now if one of the money chests were confused with another, so that the priest would offer a freewill-offering from the money meant for obligatory offerings and vice versa, the offering would be rendered invalid.

²does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. For we have learnt: R. JUDAH SAID: THERE WAS NO MORE THAN ONE STAND. Now why not two? Evidently because they might be mixed up! But then let him provide two and write upon them: This is for the bullock and this for the he-goat? Hence you must assume that R. Judah does not consider such inscriptions [of any value]. An objection was raised in the Academy: There were thirteen money chests in the Temple, on which were inscribed: ‘new shekels’, ‘old shekels’, ‘bird-offerings’, ‘young birds for the whole offering’, ‘wood’, ‘frankincense’, ‘gold for the mercy-seat’, and on six of them: ‘freewill-offerings’. ‘New shekels’: [i.e..] those shekels due each year; ‘old shekels’: [i.e..] one who had not paid his shekel last year must pay it the next year. ‘Bird-offerings’, these are turtle-doves. ‘Young birds for the whole offerings’, these are young pigeons; and both of these are for whole offerings. This is the view of R. Judah. — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said: In the West they said: It is a preventive measure against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has died. But do we indeed take that into consideration? Have we not learnt: If someone sends his sin-offering from a far-away province, it is offered up in the assumption that he is alive? — Rather [the preventive measure is] against the case of a sin-offering whose owner has assuredly died. But in that case let us separate four zuz and cast them into the sea, so that the rest will be available for use! R. Judah rejects the principle of Bererah. Whence do we know this? Would you say from what we have learnt: If a man buys wine from the Cutheans on the eve of Sabbath, as it is getting dark, he may say: Let the two logs which I am about to set apart be heave-offering^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ˣnote:Because the priest might overlook them.
^ʸnote:Shek VI, 6; for notes v. Sonc. ed. a.l. Hence R. Judah apparently did consider inscriptions of value.
^ᶻnote:Palestine.
^ᵃᵃnote:A sin-offering, the owner of which died, must not be sacrificed but must be left to die, v. supra 50a. Now if the owner died, then the money for the value of the sin-offering which he may have put in one of the chests must be thrown into the sea. That money, being unusable and confused with other monies in the chest, would render them all useless. This is the confusion referred to above, hence the non-provision of money chests for obligatory offerings of a bird.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘province of the sea’.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Git. 28a.
^ᵃᵈnote:It is known that he died after having deposited his money in the chest for the bird-offerings before having offered it up.
^ᵃᵉnote:The usual price of one dove.
^ᵃᶠnote:And thus free the rest of the monies for their designated purposes, on the assumption that these four zuz represented the money for the sin-offering of a bird and was that deposited by the deceased.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘choosing’, ‘choice’, then subsequent selection, retrospective designation, i.e. , the legal effect resulting from an actual selection or disposal of things previously undefined as to their purpose (Jast.).
^ᵃʰnote:Demai VI, 4.
^ᵃⁱnote:Before the prohibition against their wines had been decreed. As the Cutheans (Samaritans) were suspected of neglecting the laws of terumah and tithe the buyer must himself set these aside before he can be permitted to drink any of the wine.
^ᵃʲnote:If the purchase took place on the Sabbath eve immediately before dusk (when there is no time to remove these priestly and levitical dues from the wine) and he requires the wine for the Sabbath. It is prohibited to separate priestly or levitical dues on the Sabbath, v. Bez. 36b.
^ᵃᵏnote:A log (v. Glos.) is c. 549 cubic centimetres.
^ᵃˡnote:For the hundred logs contained in the cask he bought.