יומא 57 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now you are surely unclean, for it is written: Her filthiness was in her skirts. -He answered: Come and see what is written concerning them: ‘That dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleanness’,i.e., even at the time when they are unclean, the Divine Presence is among them. — But may something inferred by analogy be used as basis of another by analogy? — The inference here came from the subject itself for which inference was made, together with another, thus cannot be considered inference by analogy. This will be well in accord with the view that such inference is not inference by analogy, but what can be said according to the view that even that is inference by analogy? — Only the localities are inferred here from one another. Or, if you like, say: He infers the outside [sprinklings] from the inside ones simultaneously. It was taught: When he sprinkled, he did not sprinkle directly upon the curtain, but towards it. R. Eliezer b. Jose said: I saw it in Rome and there were upon it many drops of blood both of the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement. — Perhaps these stains were those from the [blood of] the bullock [offered up] for an error of the community, or of the goats [offered in expiation] for idolatry? — He saw that they were in their regular order. It has also been taught in connection with the bullock offered up for an error of the community: When he sprinkled the drops were not to reach the curtain, but if they did, they just did. And R. Eleazar b. Jose said: I saw it in Rome and there were upon it many drops of blood from the bullock offered up for an error of the congregation and from the he-goats offered up for idolatry. But perhaps they came from the bullock and he-goat of the Day of Atonement? — He saw that they were not in their regular order. If the blood [of the one] was mixed up with the blood [of the other], — Raba holds, he sprinkles once upwards and seven times downwards, and it serves for both. When this was reported before R. Jeremiah, he said: Those foolish Babylonians, because they live in a dark country, they utter dark teachings. Surely he would be giving the upward sprinkling [of the blood] of the he-goat before the downward sprinkling [of the blood] of the bullock, whereas the Torah said: And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, [implying] he must complete [the sprinkling of] the blood of the bullock, then complete [the sprinkling of] the blood of the he-goat. Rather, said R. Jeremiah: He sprinkles once upward and seven times downward in the name of the bullock, and then he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward in the name of the he-goat. If the blood of one was mixed up with the blood of the other in the midst of the last sprinklings, then R. Papa wanted to say before Raba, he makes seven downward sprinklings in the name of the bullock and he-goat, then makes one upward in the name of the he-goat. Said Raba to him: Now they had just called us foolish, now they might call us the most foolish of the foolish for we teach them but they learn not. Surely now he would be making the downward sprinkling [of the blood] of the he-goat before the upward sprinkling [of the blood] of the he-goat, whereas the Torah said: Sprinkle first upward, then downward.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:Lam. I, 9.
^ᵇnote:Above (55a) we inferred the number of upward and downward sprinklings with the blood of the bullock and the he-goat respectively. Here again an attempt is made to infer through analogy the number of upward and downward sprinklings in the Sanctuary from the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies. The rule is that in the laws appertaining to sacrifices something obtained by analogy may not become the basis or source of new inference by analogy; such inference is legitimate only when based upon the Biblical text itself.
^ᶜnote:In the primary analogy the main law prescribing upward and downward sprinklings is definitely taught in the Biblical text, both in the case of the bullock and the he-goat , it is only their number that is inferred from one another. In such a case the primary analogy may be made the basis for a further analogy. It is only when the very law itself is mentioned in one case only and then inferred through analogy for the other that no further inference by analogy may be made. If e.g., no reference had been made in the Biblical text to any upward or downward sprinkling, such regulation being based on inference from one to the other, it would then be wrong to endeavour to derive another law by analogy from the first law inferred by analogy.
^ᵈnote:I.e., whereas in the first analogy the inference was made from one animal for the other, the second is concerned in the localities — i.e., the Holy of Holies and the Temple, extending the sprinkling regulations from the former to the latter.
^ᵉnote:The second inference is not made via the animals but directly from the sprinklings within the Holy of Holies to those outside, in the Temple Proper.
^ᶠnote:V. Me'il. 17b: R. Eliezer was in Rome and had occasion to see the holy vessels in the royal treasury, among them the curtain of the Holy of Holies.
^ᵍnote:Lev. IV, 13 and Num. XV, 24.
^ʰnote:One on top of the other, as the result of the motion of the priest, in the manner of one swinging a whip.
^ⁱnote:V. D.S. Cur. edd. ‘We also learnt’.
^ʲnote:De facto it did not matter: even if the drops reached the curtain there was no cancellation of the service.
^ᵏnote:The blood of the bullock with the blood of the he-goat.
^ˡnote:V. Pes., Sonc. ed., 60b.
^ᵐnote:Lev. XVI, 20.
^ⁿnote:I.e., after he had made the upward sprinkling with the blood of the bullock.

²Rather, said Raba, he makes seven downward sprinklings in the name of the bullock, then makes one upward and seven downward sprinklings in the name of the he-goat. If the cups [of blood] have become confused, then he sprinkles, and sprinkles again, and sprinkles once more, three times. If part of the blood became mixed up and part not, then obviously when he makes the sprinklings he makes them from that part which is definitely known [to be unmixed]; but as for the other, is it to be considered a remainder and must thus be poured out at the base of the altar, or is it to be considered ‘rejected’ [from sacred use] and must be poured into the canal? — R. Papa said: Even according to the view that one cup renders the other a remainder, that applies only where he could make the sprinklings if he wanted to do so but in this case, even if he so desired, he would be unable to make the sprinkling. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to R. Papa: On the contrary! Even according to the view that one cup renders the other ‘rejected’, that applies only if he rejected it with his hands [deliberately], but where he had not rejected it with his hands it would not apply? For it has been taught: Above it is said: And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out, and below: And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out. Whence do we know that, in the case of a sin-offering, if he had received the blood in four cups and sprinkled from each one cup thereof one sprinkling, all the remaining blood must be poured out at the base? To teach us that Scripture said: ‘And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’. One might have assumed that even if he made the four sprinklings from one of the [cups], to teach us correctly, Scripture said: ‘And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’ i.e., only this is to be poured out at the base but they [the rest] are to be poured into the canal. R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that if he received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made the four sprinklings from one of them, that they must all be poured out at the base? To teach us that Scripture said: ‘And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’. But according to R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon is it not written: ‘And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out’? — R. Ashi said: This is meant to exclude the [blood that] remains in the neck of the animal. HE POURED THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK INTO THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT: We were taught in accordance with the view that one mixed [the blood] to sprinkle upon the horns [of the inner altar], for it has been said: R. Josaia and R. Jonathan [were disputing], one said: One mixed [the bloods], the other one did not do so. It may be ascertained that it is R. Josaia who held that one mixed [the bloods]; for he said: Although Scripture does not state: ‘together’, is it not written: it is as if ‘together’ were written. You might also say that it is R. Jonathan, but here it is different, because Scripture states ‘once’. It has been taught contrary to this, our reply: ‘And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat’ i.e., that they are to be mixed. This is the view of R. Josaia.^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵒnote:The priest not knowing which of the cups contained the blood of the bullock and which the blood of the he-goat.
^ᵖnote:In each case he makes one sprinkling upward and seven downward from one cup then again from the second cup, finally again from the first cup, so that in any case the blood of the bullock would have been sprinkled before that of the he-goat. For, if the first cup was actually that containing the bullock's blood, and the second that containing the he-goat's blood, he has fulfilled his duty properly, with the first and second series of sprinklings. If, however, the first cup happened to be that of the he-goat, then such sprinkling was of no avail, and the second cup being that containing the bullock's blood and the third again the one containing the he-goat's blood, are in order and the service is performed in accord with the regulations which postulate that the sprinklings made with the bullock's blood came first.
^ᵠnote:As e.g., when the blood contained in two cups was poured into a third, so that each of the two cups contained a quantity of blood.
^ʳnote:The mixed blood in the third cup.
^ˢnote:V. Zeb. 47a: the remaining blood was poured over the western base of the outer altar.
^ᵗnote:I.e., since the sprinklings did not come from it, shall the blood be relegated, together with all waste of the Temple Court, through the canal, to the brook of Kidron.
^ᵘnote:Whenever the priest has received the blood in two cups but has sprinkled from one only, the blood in the other cup is poured out over the base of the altar.
^ᵛnote:Where part of the blood of the two cups was poured into a third.
^ʷnote:Lev. IV, 25.
^ˣnote:Ibid. v, 34.
^ʸnote:The blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled upon the four corners of the altar.
^ᶻnote:Thus we see that the first Tanna treats the blood in the cup or cups from which no sprinkling has been made as rejected, to be poured out in the canal, whereas R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon treats it as the remainder, to be poured out over the base.
^ᵃᵃnote:In Sanh. 66a these two Sages debate the question as to whether literal direction is necessary to indicate that a prohibition does not refer to two persons together where the contrary might be assumed, R. Judah holding that such direction is necessary while R. Jonathan holds it is not. Thus, on the view of R. Josaia, even though no definite instruction is to be found in the text, the inference that the blood of the bullock and he-goat be sprinkled together, appears legitimate according to the analogous consistence of the view.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XXX, 10. And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once (a year). The word is here interpreted to mean that one sprinkling is to be made of the blood of both animals.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XVI, 18.