יומא 60:1 — Soncino English Talmud

— 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the garments with which the high priest performed the service of the Day of Atonement, v. Lev. XVI, 23.
^ᵇnote:Lit.,’that come as one’, i.e., in both there is a special verse stating that the same law applies.
^ᶜnote:In both cases the Biblical law stipulates that they must not be used; Lev. XVI, 23 and VI, 3 (v.infra). The Torah should have stated the law in one case, for the other to be inferred in the usual manner. The identical statement in both cases — thus ruling out the usual analogy — indicates that both deal with unusual cases, from which no deduction would be legitimate.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XVI, 23.
^ᵉnote:Deut. XXI, 1f. ‘There’ (in the valley) indicates that it shall be buried there.
^ᶠnote:Lev. VI, 3.
^ᵍnote:Deut. XXI, 6. The definite article (ha-’arufah) is interpreted as implying limitation. The limitation excludes other things from the operation of this law.
^ʰnote:On 59b three Amoraim had inferred that the law of trespass does not apply to blood from three special, otherwise superfluous phrases. The Gemara now suggests that since three such special phrases appear, with but one of them necessary according to each Amora, they must each serve a limiting purpose.
^ⁱnote:Portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time must be burnt. But blood of such left-overs is not included in the principle of left-overs, and, therefore, if one ate such blood, the penalty incurred derives only from the fact that he ate blood, not any additional penalty because he has eaten of left-overs.
^ʲnote:The law of trespass does not apply to blood.
^ᵏnote:If someone ate of holy sacrifices in a state of levitical impurity, the penalty, if unwittingly, is a sin-offering, as it is for eating blood. The law does not apply to the blood of sacrifices, which if eaten in a state of levitical impurity involves only one sin-offering, viz., for eating blood.
^ˡnote:Piggul i.e., vile (ness) is the term used for a sacrifice that is rejected because of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest at the time of the sacrificing. Such improper intention includes his intention to dispose of the same beyond its legal space or time. (Lev. VII, 18 and ibid. XIX, 7.)
^ᵐnote:The priests or owners by whom portions of the offering are consumed.
^ⁿnote:On which the prescribed sacrificial portions are burnt.
^ᵒnote:Zeb. 43a. The sprinkling of the blood makes parts of sacrifices permissible to the owner or priests; just as it makes certain portions of the animal fit to be offered up on the altar.
^ᵖnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:Therefore every act of atonement completed, even if out of order is valid, without any repetition necessary.
^ʳnote:Even if the individual act of atonement has not been completed. These Rabbis hold that one may continue, or start again, even in the midst of a service, even though this service had been started out of order.
^ˢnote:Lev. XVI, 34.