Yoma 49a — the Talmud in English

Meitivi

to Rav Sheshet, who deemed carrying valid with the left hand:

A non-priest, an acute mourner, an intoxicated person, and a blemished priest,

all of these,

in receiving, in carrying, and in sprinkling—

are invalid.

And likewise one seated, and likewise the left hand, are invalid

in all these services. Here it is explicitly stated that carrying with the left hand is invalid, and not like Rav Sheshet.

And we conclude:

refutation

of Rav Sheshet.

And we raise an objection concerning Rav Sheshet:

But Rav Sheshet

himself

was the one who raised it,

that is: he brought this beraita to the beit-midrash in order to raise an objection from it concerning another matter. If so, he necessarily heard this beraita; how, then, did he err and say that carrying is valid with the left hand, contrary to the beraita?!

For

indeed

Rav Sheshet said to the interpreter of Rav Hisda

[an interpreter was something like a translator: he heard Rav Ḥisda’s lecture and explained it to the public]:

he was something like a translator, hearing Rav Hisda’s discourse and explaining it to the public: Ask

please

Rav Hisda from him: carrying

of the blood

by a non-priest—

what is it

that it should be valid?

He said to him,

Rav Hisda said to his interpreter:

It is valid

for a non-priest to carry—

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

—from the hands of the non-priest slaughterers, for the slaughterers took the blood from the hands of the receiving priests and carried it to the sprinkling priests—

and the Levites were stripping”,

so it is evident that carrying by a non-priest is valid.

And

indeed

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

against the words of Rav Hisda, who held that carrying is valid by a non-priest, from the aforementioned beraita:

“A non-priest,” and an acute mourner, an intoxicated person, and a blemished priest—

“in receiving,” “in carrying,” and in sprinkling, are invalid; and likewise one seated, and likewise the left hand, are invalid;

and this is an objection to Rav Hisda, who holds that carrying is valid by a non-priest—

so Rav Sheshet heard this beraita; how, then, did he say something unlike the beraita?!

And we answer:

After he heard

Rav Sheshet this beraita from the members of the academy, who raised it against him—again

he raised it

against Rav Hisda.

And we return to the principal statement of Rav Hisda, which was contradicted by the beraita, and we ask:

But Rav Hisda cited a verse

that carrying by a non-priest is valid; how shall we reconcile the verse with the beraita, which invalidates carrying the blood by a non-priest?!

And we answer: The slaughterers had been standing in their place 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 close to the altar either by walking or by extending the hand, but rather like this itztaba, upon which a vessel is placed, until the priests who sprinkled the blood came, took it from their hands, carried it to the altar, and sprinkled it [Rashi, Zevahim 14b; and see the Ritva, who explained it somewhat differently].

Rav Pappa asked:

If another priest scooped it and placed it into his handfuls

of the High Priest,

what is the law?

Perhaps we say that, regarding what is written: “And he shall take” a panful of fiery coals from upon the altar and a handful of incense, the expression “and he shall take” stated by the Torah refers only to taking the coals and not to the incense.

And if so:

“His handfuls full

and he shall bring” alone is what

we require,

and we need only that the incense be in his handfuls full and come into his handfuls by whatever manner it comes,

and this exists.

Or perhaps “and he shall take—

and he shall bring” is required,

that is: the expression “and he shall take” refers also to the incense, which too requires taking [Rashi, according to the understanding of the Binyan Shlomo; and see the note

and this does not exist,

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

teiku.

],

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi asked:

He scooped

the High Priest, and placed it into the spoon,

and died,

and another High Priest was appointed in his place,

what is the law if

the

other

High Priest enters the Holy of Holies

with his scooping

of this one [see note

Rabbi Hanina said

to his students:

Come and see the question of the early authorities,

that is: Come and see that the later generation merits becoming as wise as the earlier generations, for I too would have asked this question, and now Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who was among the earlier authorities, asked it [Rashi]. And we ask:

Is it to say

that this is indeed so, that

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was older

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

But

indeed

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

crushed

watercress

that they had mixed with water

on Shabbat.

And the Gemara first explains these words, and afterward the Gemara returns to its question.

It entered our minds that it was because of the prohibition against drinking medicine on Shabbat that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi had to ask Rabbi Hanina about the law; therefore we ask: Did Rabbi Joshua ben Levi really need to ask the law

to drink?!

Surely

it is obvious

that there is no prohibition in this—

For we learned:

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

but

all foods

fit for eating, although their primary purpose is medicinal [Tosafot, Berakhot 38a]—

a person may eat them for healing [see note

—

and all beverages a person may drink for healing;

for when one eats or drinks, he intends eating, whereas the healing comes automatically [Gemara there].

Rather,

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

to grind and drink watercress on Shabbat,

even though grinding is a labor.

And we still ask:

What are the circumstances?

If there is danger

[Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was dangerously ill], it is obviously

it is certainly permitted,

and what question is there in the matter?!

And if there is no danger,

then

it is certainly forbidden,

so what doubt is there in the matter, and how did Rabbi Hanina permit it to him?!

And we answer:

Actually, there is danger,

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

and this is what he was asking:

Do they heal, so that we may desecrate Shabbat for them

[do the watercress waters heal, so that we may violate Shabbat on their account],

or do they not heal, and we should not desecrate Shabbat for them?

And we explain:

And what is different about Rabbi Hanina

that this medical question was presented specifically before him?

Because

Rabbi Hanina

was expert in medicines;

and as

Rabbi Hanina said: No person ever asked me concerning a wound from a white mule

how to be healed from it—and

he lived—“and he lived,” that person; thus, they would ask Rabbi Hanina about matters of medicine.

And we ask: Is there no one who survives a wound from a white mule?

But we see that they live

But we see that they survive

for we see that they live?!

And we answer:

Say:

this is what Rabbi Hanina said: No person ever asked me concerning a wound from a white mule

“and it lived”

in the feminine form, referring to the wound, that the wound is not healed [Rashi, Chullin 7b].

And we still ask:

But we see that it is healed

the wound?!

And we explain: only

in

mules that

are red, while their feet are white

is it

do we say

that their wounds are not healed.

And now the Gemara returns to its question: Is it to say that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was older than Rabbi Hanina, and therefore called him “the earlier authorities”—

then

in any event, learn from it—

since Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Rabbi Hanina permitted “me”—

that Rabbi Hanina was older

than Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, for it is not customary for the elders to say of the young, “Rabbi”; rather, he would have said, “Hanina permitted me,” meaning: Hanina told me that it is a remedy [Rashi].

Rather,

because of this question we say that

this is what

Rabbi Hanina said concerning Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s doubt, “He scooped and died; what is the law if another enters with his scooping?”:

Come and see that

their question

of the later authorities [Rabbi Joshua ben Levi] is

like the question of the earlier authorities,

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

And we ask:

And did Rabbi Hanina say this,

that he too was uncertain about the law of one who scooped and died—what is the law if another enters with his scooping?!

But Rabbi Hanina said:

If a High Priest died on Yom Kippur after the slaughtering of his bull, and another was appointed in his place, the one who was appointed must bring another bull and slaughter it. Since the Torah said: “With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary,” “with a bull,” a bull as a sin-offering, it follows:

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

And

further

Rabbi Hanina said: Incense that he scooped before the slaughtering of the bull accomplishes nothing.

And since this is so, it is obvious that the High Priest cannot enter with the scooping of his fellow, for only after he was appointed does he slaughter his bull, and the scooping of his fellow is found to have preceded the slaughtering of his bull, and it is nothing. How, then, was Rabbi Hanina uncertain about the matter?!

And because of this question we explain Rabbi Hanina’s words concerning Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s question in another manner, and

this is what he said:

A.

Since it was a question for him

concerning Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

this

question—whether the appointed priest enters with his fellow’s scooping—

it follows that he holds

contrary to my view:

“with a bull,” and even with the blood of a bull,

for the bull had already been slaughtered, and therefore he has reason to be uncertain whether he enters with his fellow’s scooping, which occurred after the slaughtering of the bull.

B.

And

according

to what he holds

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, therefore

his question is like the question of the earlier authorities,

who disagree with me [concerning the law of the blood of the bull], for they too were asked this question [Rashi].

What became of it

the doubt of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi?

Rav Pappa said:

—

If

this is the law:

he scoops

outside

and again scoops

inside, in the Holy of Holies [he pours it from the spoon into his handfuls, and places it upon the pan of coals; and the members of the academy were uncertain concerning this law, as he proceeds to explain]—

If so, it is obvious to me that

his fellow enters with his scooping, for

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

the scooping is fulfilled

inside [and see note

The simple meaning of the Gemara’s words [and likewise the unqualified wording of Rashi] is that according to this side it is sufficient that he scoop inside; but Tosafot were astonished: If two scoopings are required, why does he enter with his fellow’s scooping?! Therefore they explained that this is what he said: Since the principal law of scooping inside—according to Tosafot—is only rabbinic [as above in note 56], necessarily there is no Torah prohibition against performing two scoopings. Since this is so, “if he scooped and placed it into the spoon and died outside, his fellow scoops a second time and again places it into the spoon, and enters, for we apply to him ‘his handfuls full and he shall bring,’ since there is only one bringing. But if he does not scoop and again scoop, because it implies: ‘his handfuls full’—the Merciful One said one, and not ‘his handfuls full’ twice, then his fellow does not enter with his scooping.” The explanation of their words is that Rav Pappa is not coming to resolve the problem, but to discuss whether it will help for him to scoop again outside the incense that the first one scooped, or whether, because of the doubt, he must take other incense; and this depends on the law of “he scoops and again scoops,” for if it is possible by Torah law to scoop twice, this priest too will scoop once more because of the doubt and enter; but if the law is that he does not scoop and again scoop, he cannot scoop a second time; and since the problem of whether his fellow enters with his scooping was not resolved, he has no alternative but to take other incense and scoop it. But the Old Tosafot explained the Gemara according to its simple meaning, and answered Tosafot’s question: “Since the High Priest performed the first scooping, and the High Priest who will bring it will scoop again, it is logical that the verse was not particular that it be the same priest; this is what Rav Pappa held.” However,

if there is no taking a handful and taking another handful

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

the question remains for you.

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

the law is that

he takes a handful and takes another handful

, it is obvious that

another cannot enter with his handful—

For certainly the handfuls of the two are not exactly equal. It follows that when a second koen comes to pour into his handful the incense “measured” according to the first’s handful,

it is impossible that it will not be lacking

from filling his own handful

and that it will not exceed

it, and this is not handful-taking as required.

And if there is no taking a handful and taking another handful

it is that

the question remains for you.

It was asked of them: Does he take a handful and take another handful, or not?

Ta shma

from our Mishna: He took a full handful and placed it into the large ladle according to its size, and into the small one according to its smallness [

and

thus was its measure.

What, is it not

this is the interpretation of the Mishna:

Just as its measure [

its measurement, R. Hananel above 47a]

outside

, which is: in the full handfuls of each koen as it is,

so its measure [

its measurement]

inside

in the second handful-taking—

We have thus learned: He takes a handful and takes another handful.

And we reject this:

No

, you cannot prove from our Mishna that he takes a handful and takes another handful, because

perhaps

the intention of the Mishna, “and thus was its measure,” is not as you interpreted it, but rather:

If he wished to make a measure

in order to take the incense with it and place it into his handfuls [Rashi above 47a], then

he makes it

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

Alternatively

, thus one should interpret the words of the Mishna: “And thus was the measure of the handful-taking,”

that it should neither be lacking nor exceed

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

Ta shma: