Yoma 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Sheshet, who declared valid carrying the blood with the left hand:

with regard to carrying

a non-priest, an onen, a drunkard, and a ba'al mum,

all of these

in receiving, carrying, and sprinkling—

are disqualified.

And likewise one who is seated, and likewise the left hand, are disqualified

for all these services. Here it is stated explicitly that carrying with the left hand is invalid, contrary to Rav Sheshet.

And we conclude:

a refutation

of Rav Sheshet.

And we are astonished at Rav Sheshet:

But Rav Sheshet

himself

was the one who raised this objection.

That is, he brought this beraita to the beit-midrash in order to raise an objection from it regarding another matter. If so, he must certainly have heard this beraita; how, then, could he have erred and said that carrying is valid with the left hand, contrary to the beraita?!

For

indeed

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Ḥisda’s interpreter

—he was something like a translator, hearing Rav Ḥisda’s lecture and explaining it to the public:

Ask

him, please,

of Rav Ḥisda: carrying

the blood

by a non-priest—

what is the ruling

that it should be valid?

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda said to his interpreter:

It is valid

to carry the blood by a non-priest.

And a verse supports me: “They slaughtered the Paschal offering, and the priests sprinkled from their hands

”—from the hands of the non-priest slaughterers, who took the blood from the priests who received it and carried it to the priests who sprinkled it—

“and the Levites flayed”.

Thus, carrying by a non-priest is valid.

And

indeed

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

to Rav Ḥisda’s position—that carrying is valid by a non-priest—from the aforementioned beraita:

“A non-priest, an onen, a drunkard, and a ba'al mum—

in receiving, in carrying, and in sprinkling, are disqualified; and likewise one who is seated, and likewise the left hand, are disqualified.”

This is a difficulty for Rav Ḥisda, who maintains that carrying is valid by a non-priest.

Rav Sheshet had clearly heard this beraita; how, then, could he have stated something contrary to the beraita?!

And we answer:

After he had heard

this beraita from the members of the academy who had challenged him with it, Rav Sheshet

again raised it as an objection

to Rav Ḥisda.

And we return to the substance of Rav Ḥisda’s statement, which was contradicted by the beraita, and ask:

But Rav Ḥisda cited a verse

stating that carrying is valid by a non-priest. How can we reconcile the verse with the beraita, which invalidates carrying the blood by a non-priest?!

And we answer: The slaughterers stood in their places beside the priest who received the blood, and the priest gave them the vessel containing the blood, and

they performed

the slaughterers

merely an itztaba act

—that is, they did not bring the blood nearer to the altar either by walking with it or by extending their hands, but acted like an itztaba, a stand upon which one places a vessel, until the priests who sprinkled the blood came, took it from their hands, carried it to the altar, and sprinkled it. [Rashi, Zevaḥim 14b; see the Ritva, who explains this somewhat differently].

Rav Pappa raised a question:

If another priest scooped the incense and placed it into the handfuls

of the High Priest,

what is the ruling?

We might say that, when it is written, “And he shall take” a coal-pan full of fiery coals from upon the altar and a handful of incense, the Torah’s expression “and he shall take” refers only to taking the coals and not to the incense.

If so,

“a handful

and he shall bring” is all that

is required,

and we need only for the incense to be in his full handfuls and to arrive in his handfuls by whatever means it arrives,

and this requirement is present.

Or perhaps “and he shall take—

and he shall bring” is required. That is, the expression “and he shall take” also refers to the incense, which too requires an act of taking [Rashi, as understood by the Binyan Shlomo; see the note

—that is, the word “take” also refers to the incense, which likewise must be taken by him. [Rashi, according to the understanding of the Binyan Shlomo; see the note] .

And that condition does not exist here,

because the High Priest did not take it himself. And we conclude:

the question remains without a resolution.

],

and this requirement is absent, for the High Priest did not take it.

And we conclude: The matter remains unresolved. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi raised a question: If the High Priest scooped and placed it into the spoon

and died,

and another High Priest was appointed in his place,

what is the ruling: may

the other

High Priest

enter

the Holy of Holies

with his scooping

of the first one [see note

]? Rabbi Ḥanina said

to his students:

Come and see the question of the later authorities, meaning: Come and see that the last generation merits attaining the intellectual achievement of the earlier generations, for I too would have raised this question, and now Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who belonged to the earlier generations, has raised it [Rashi].

And we ask: Does this mean

that it is indeed so, that

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was older

than Rabbi Ḥanina, and therefore he called him “the earlier authorities”?!

And

yet

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Rabbi Ḥanina permitted me to drink

crushed

garden cress

mixed with water

on Shabbat.

The Gemara first explains this statement and then returns to its question.

It might have entered our minds that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi needed to ask about the halakha because of the prohibition against drinking medicine on Shabbat. Therefore we ask: Why

drink

did Rabbi Joshua ben Levi need to ask about the halakha?!

It is

obvious

that there is no prohibition in this.

As we learned:

Although the Sages said that it is prohibited for a sick person to eat medicinal drugs, because of a decree lest he grind medicinal substances on Shabbat [which is a derivative of the labor of “threshing,” Meiri]—

however,

all foods

that are fit for eating, even though their primary purpose is medicinal [Tosafot, Berakhot 38a]—

a person may eat them for medicinal purposes

[see note

], and all beverages a person may drink for medicinal purposes;

for when he eats or drinks, he intends to eat or drink, while the healing comes about incidentally [Gemara there].

Rather,

this is what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Rabbi Ḥanina permitted me

to grind and drink garden cress on Shabbat,

even though grinding it constitutes a prohibited labor.

And we still ask:

What are the circumstances?

If there is danger

—Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was dangerously ill—then it is obvious that

it is entirely permitted,

so what question was there?!

And if there is no danger,

then

it is entirely prohibited. What uncertainty could there be, and how could Rabbi Ḥanina have permitted it to him?!

And we answer:

Actually, there is danger,

but Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s question was not a halakhic question; rather, it was a medical question,

and this is what he was asking:

Does it heal, so that we should violate Shabbat for it

—do the waters of the garden cress heal, such that we should violate Shabbat on their account—

or does it not heal, and we should not violate Shabbat on its account?

And we explain:

And why was Rabbi Ḥanina

the one before whom this medical question was specifically presented?

Because

Rabbi Ḥanina

was an expert in medicine;

and this is like

Rabbi Ḥanina said: No one ever asked me how to heal a wound caused by a white mule

—

and he lived—“and he lived,” meaning that the person lived. Thus, people did ask Rabbi Ḥanina about medical matters.

And we ask: Is it true that no one survives a wound caused by a white mule?

But we see that they live

—we see that such people survive?!

And we answer:

Say: This is what Rabbi Ḥanina said: No one ever asked me about a wound caused by a white mule

“and she lived”,

in the feminine form, referring to the wound, meaning that the wound does not heal [Rashi, Ḥullin 7b].

And we still ask:

But we see that it heals

—the wound heals?!

And we explain: It is only

in

mules that

are red and whose lower legs are white

—their bodies are red, and the ends of their legs are white—that we

say

that their wounds do not heal.

And now the Gemara returns to its question: Does this mean that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was older than Rabbi Ḥanina, and therefore called him “the earlier authorities”?

In any event,

learn from this—from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s statement, “Rabbi Ḥanina permitted me”—

that

Rabbi Ḥanina was older

than Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. For elders do not ordinarily refer to younger men as “Rabbi”; rather, he would have said, “Ḥanina permitted me,” meaning: Ḥanina told me that it is a remedy [Rashi].

Rather, on the basis of this difficulty, we say that this is what Rabbi Ḥanina said regarding Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s uncertainty, “If he scooped and died, what is the ruling regarding another entering with his scooping?”:

Rabbi Ḥanina was older

than Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. For elders do not refer to younger men by the title “Rabbi”; rather, he would have said, “Ḥanina permitted me,” meaning: Ḥanina told me that it was a remedy. [Rashi].

Come and see that

the question of the later authorities

—Rabbi Joshua ben Levi—

is like the question of the earlier authorities,

for I am one of the earlier authorities, and I too found this difficult [Rashi; the Ritva has a different version of this, see there].

And we ask:

Did Rabbi Ḥanina really say this,

that he too was uncertain about the law in the case of one who scooped and died—whether another may enter with his scooping?!

But Rabbi Ḥanina said:

If a High Priest died on Yom Kippur after his bull had been slaughtered, and another was appointed in his place, the newly appointed priest must bring another bull and slaughter it. For the Torah says: “With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary,” “with a bull” as a sin-offering, which implies:

“With a bull,” and not with the blood of a bull.

And

further,

Rabbi Ḥanina said: If the incense was scooped before the slaughter of the bull, it is entirely ineffective.

Since this is so, it is obvious that the High Priest cannot enter with his colleague’s scooping, because only after he was appointed did he slaughter his bull, and consequently his colleague’s scooping preceded the slaughter of his bull and is entirely ineffective. How, then, could Rabbi Ḥanina have been uncertain about this matter?!

And

in addition

On the basis of this difficulty, we explain Rabbi Ḥanina’s words regarding Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s question differently, and

this is what he said: A.

Since Rabbi Joshua ben Levi raised the question whether a High Priest appointed in place of his colleague may enter with his colleague’s scooping, it follows that he holds—contrary to my view— “with a bull,” even with the blood of a bull; the bull had already been slaughtered, and therefore he had reason to be uncertain whether he could enter with his colleague’s scooping, which occurred after the bull had been slaughtered. B.

And

according to

what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi holds,

his question is like the question of the earlier authorities

who disagree with me [regarding the blood of the bull], for they too had this question [Rashi].

What was concluded

regarding Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s uncertainty?

Rav Pappa said:

If

this is the law: He

scoops

outside

and scoops again

inside, in the Holy of Holies [he transfers the incense from the spoon into his handfuls and places it upon the coal-pan; the members of the academy raised an uncertainty regarding this law, as the Gemara proceeds to explain]

it follows

that his question is like the question of the earlier sages,

who disagree with me concerning the blood of the bull, for this same question was asked by them. [Rashi].

What conclusion was reached

concerning Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s uncertainty?

Rav Pappa said:

—

If

this is the law:

If so, it is obvious to me that

his colleague may enter with his scooping, because

even if you should say that his colleague’s scooping does not benefit him,

the scooping is nevertheless fulfilled inside [see note

].

his colleague may enter with his scooping, for

even if you should say that his colleague’s scooping does not benefit him,

the scooping is nevertheless performed

inside. [See note]

But

if he does not scoop a handful and then scoop another

, and here there is only his colleague’s handful, then indeed

the question would arise.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary! If

the law is that he

scoops a handful and then scoops another

, it is obvious that

another cannot enter with his handful—

for certainly the handfuls of the two are not exactly equal. Thus, when the second koen comes to pour into his handful the incense “measured” according to the first one’s handful,

it is impossible that it will not be lacking

from the full measure of his own handful

and that it will not exceed

it; and this is not a hakhtara performed according to its proper law.

And if he does not scoop a handful and then scoop another

, it is then that

the question would arise.

The dilemma was raised before them: Does he scoop a handful and then scoop another, or not?

Come and hear

from our Mishna: “He scooped a full handful and placed it into the large ladle according to its size, and into the small one according to its size”

and

thus was its measure.

Is it not

the meaning of the Mishna as follows:

Just as its measure

(its measurement; Rabbeinu Chananel above, 47a)

outside

, namely, with the full handful of each koen, according to the size of his handful,

so was its measure

(its measurement)

inside

with the second handful—

we have therefore learned: He scoops a handful and then scoops another.

And they reject this:

No

, you cannot resolve from our Mishna that he scoops a handful and then scoops another, because

perhaps

the Mishna did not intend “and thus was its measure” in the manner you explained, but rather:

If he wished to make a measure

in order to take the incense with it and place it into his handful (Rashi above, 47a), he

may make one

, meaning: when he makes a measure with which to take the incense, he should make it according to the measure of the koen’s handful—the large one according to his size, and the small one according to his size.

Alternatively

, this is how the words of the Mishna may be explained: “And thus was the measure of the handful,”

so that it would not be lacking or exceed

the full handful of the koen who scoops it [Ritva above, 47a; and see the explanation of R. A. L.].

Come and hear: