Yoma 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

How does he perform it?

The second ḥafina in the Holy of Holies—

For this ḥafina was not like the first one. For the first, he took a handful from a full coal pan that contained considerably more than the measure of his handfuls. But the spoon that he brought inside contained only the measure of his handfuls of incense, and it was exceedingly difficult to pour the contents of the spoon into his handfuls. He was careful that not even a mustard seed’s measure of incense should fall to the ground, for otherwise his handfuls would be lacking:

He placed the coal pan on the ground, and

held

the head of

the spoon

[the ladle; “one spoonful” is rendered in Aramaic as “one spoon”] facing outward—

with the tips of

the fingers

of both his hands, with the handle of the spoon in his left hand, toward his body,

and some say: with his teeth

he held the head of the spoon—

And he raised it with his thumbs

[he pushed it upward with both thumbs] little by little, slowly, so that it would not sway [Meiri ] toward his body,

until it reached

the end of the spoon’s handle

between his elbows

[the place where the arm bends; see the Ritva and the Rashash], in order to hold it there and grasp it between the two. The end of the spoon was then at the place where the spoon joined the handle.

And the High Priest returns

the incense

and pours it

into his handfuls through the side [Rashi] of the spoon

into his handfuls, [

and see the note ].

And he piled it up

the incense in a concentrated heap on the coals,

so that

its smoke

of the incense

would be slow to come

because of the heap of incense on the coals—

And some say:

On the contrary, he

scattered

the incense over the coals

so that its smoke would come quickly. (60)

And this—

the pouring of the incense from the spoon into his handfuls [Rabbenu Elyakim]—

was a difficult service in the Temple!

We first explain the beraita, and afterward the Gemara resolves the uncertainty from the beraita:

We ask:

Is this

a difficult service

and nothing more

—are there no other difficult services in the Temple?!

But there is melika,

which is a difficult service?!

And there is also

likewise

kemitza

of a pan-baked, deep-pan, or griddle-offering, which is a difficult service [as explained above, 47b]?!

Rather, say this:

This—

the ḥafina performed inside—

is a difficult service among

the

services

that are

difficult in the Temple.

And now we establish:

Concerning the incense, he takes a handful and then takes another handful,

as explicitly stated in this beraita—

And we conclude: Indeed,

we may conclude so!

It was raised as a question to them: If he slaughtered

the bull of the High Priest

and

afterward

died

the High Priest,

may

another High

Priest

who was appointed in his place enter

with its blood

of the bull that had already been slaughtered—that is, must he slaughter another bull or not ?

Do we say: “With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary,”

“with a bull”—

‘with a bull”’—

and even with the blood of a bull?

Or perhaps: with a bull, but not with the blood of a bull?

Rabbi Ḥanina said: “With a bull,” but not with the blood of a bull; and Reish Lakish said: “With a bull,” and even with the blood of a bull.

Rabbi Ami said: “With a bull,” but not with the blood of a bull; Rabbi Isaac

Nappaḥa

said: “With a bull,” and even with the blood of a bull.

Rabbi Ami raised an objection to Rabbi Isaac Nappaḥa,

who maintains that “bull” includes even a dead bull, and therefore that he may enter with its blood:

The passage before us is explained according to the straightforward meaning of Rashi.

It is written in the passage concerning the Paschal offering: “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel, saying: On the tenth of this month they shall take for themselves, each man, a lamb for each fathers’ house, a lamb for a household. But if the household is too small for a lamb [if they are too few to consume one lamb, which would lead to notar], then he and his neighbor who is nearest to his house shall take, according to the count [the number] of persons, each one according to what he can eat [what is fit for him to eat]; you shall designate [a term denoting appointment, interpreted as referring to slaughter] yourselves for the lamb.”

And we learned in the Mishna in Pesaḥim [89a]:

Those who enroll

on the Paschal offering may join it [until it is slaughtered]—

and they may withdraw from it—

whoever wishes to withdraw—

“until it is slaughtered,”

but after it has been slaughtered they may not withdraw from it, since it is no longer called a “lamb.”

Rabbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that although one may enroll in it only until it is slaughtered, since it is written, “according to the count of persons you shall designate yourselves,” implying: according to the count of persons, and afterward you shall slaughter, they may withdraw from it until the blood is sprinkled [Mishna and Gemara there].

And if it is so—

as you say, that “bull” includes even after death—then “lamb” should likewise have this meaning, and they may withdraw from it

“until the blood is sprinkled” should have been required

for the tanna to say?!

And we answer:

That case is different,

in the case of the Paschal offering, since

it is written: “But if the household is too small”’

[Rashi]. If those enrolled wish to reduce their number and withdraw, they may do so only

“from the time the lamb exists,”

that is,

while the lamb is alive, meaning while its existence remains, but not after it has been slaughtered.

Mar Zutra raised an objection

Mar Zutra raised an objection

to those who maintain that “bull” includes even after death:

It is written in the passage concerning the redemption of a firstborn donkey: “And every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb.” And we learned in the Mishna in Bekhorot:

One may not redeem

a firstborn donkey—

with a calf or with a wild animal,

since it is written, “you shall redeem it with a lamb.”

Nor with a

lamb

that has been slaughtered,

since it is not called a “lamb.”

Nor with a terefa—

for example, one whose legs were severed above the knee [Rashi, Bekhorot].

Nor with a mixed-breed animal [

a lamb born from a goat and a ewe], even though both a “sheep-lamb” and a “goat-lamb” are called a lamb.

Nor with a koy,

which is born from a male goat and a doe, even though on its father’s side it is of a fit species.

Rather, with a lamb

that is alive, whole, and from one species alone.

In any event, it teaches that one may not redeem with a slaughtered animal. Evidently, “lamb” applies only when it is alive; if so, the same should apply to “bull”: it is called a bull only when alive. How, then, can you say that the priest may enter with the blood of the dead bull?!

And we answer:

That case is different,

with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey,

for

it is

derived by the verbal analogy “lamb, lamb” from the Paschal offering—

That is, all the laws stated in that Mishna are derived from the Paschal offering [as explained in the Gemara, Bekhorot 12a], including the rule that one may not redeem with a slaughtered animal. This is learned from the Paschal offering, for in the case of the Paschal offering one certainly must bring a live lamb.

We ask: According to you, that the redemption of a firstborn donkey is learned by means of a gezerah shavah—

If

[shall we also say]:

Just as there—

in the case of the Paschal offering—

the animal must be a male, unblemished, and in its first year, so here—

in the redemption of a firstborn donkey—

it must be a male, unblemished, and in its first year,

and only such an animal is fit for redemption?!

And we answer:

The Torah states: “you shall redeem, you shall redeem,”

[“Every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb,” and if you do not redeem it, “you shall break its neck”]

to include.

We ask:

If “you shall redeem, you shall redeem” serves to include,

then you should include everything,

even all

the cases taught in the Mishna in Bekhorot that we cited [Rabbenu Elyakim and the Ritva]

as well,

so that they should be valid for the redemption of a firstborn donkey?!

And we answer:

If so,

if you seek to include everything, what purpose does the verbal analogy

“lamb

lamb”

[Rabbenu Elyakim and the Ritva]

serve?!

Rather, it is necessarily the case:

The inclusion serves to teach that the animal need not be a male, unblemished, and in its first year, since ultimately it is a lamb—

And the exclusion derived from “lamb, lamb” serves to exclude an animal that is not a complete lamb, such as a mixed-breed animal, a slaughtered animal, and their like [the Ritva].