Yoma

— That is because referring to the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments1 there are two verses [written] for the same purpose2 and wherever two verses have the same purpose no deduction can be made from them [for other precepts].3 That will be right according to the Rabbis who hold: ‘And he shall put them there’4 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 heifer5 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 them6 and the one whose neck was broken.7 For what purpose are three Scriptural verses necessary in connection with the blood?8 — One is to exclude [blood] from [the rule touching] left-overs,9 one to exclude it from the rule touching trespass,10 and one to exclude it from the rule touching ritual uncleanness.11 But no verse is necessary to exclude it from the rule touching piggul12 for we have learnt: Whatever has that which renders [the offering] permissible, whether for human beings13 or for service on the altar14 can make one liable on its account for piggul. And blood itself is a thing which renders the offering permissible. 15 MISHNAH. CONCERNING EVERY MINISTRATION OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT MENTIONED16 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.17 R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON SAY: WHEREVER HE STOPPED, THERE HE MUST BEGIN AGAIN.18 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 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. things from the operation of this law. 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. 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. 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. 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.) certain portions of the animal fit to be offered up on the altar. again, even in the midst of a service, even though this service had been started out of order.