Yoma 49b — the Talmud in English

How does he perform it

the second chafina in the Holy of Holies—

For this chafina is not similar to the first one, since the first he would take from a full coal-pan, in which there was much more than the fullness of his handfuls; but the spoon that he brought inside had only the fullness of his handfuls of incense, and it was very difficult how he would pour the spoon into his handfuls, while taking care that none of the incense should fall to the ground, even as much as a mustard seed, for if so, his handfuls would be found lacking:

He places the coal-pan on the ground, and

grasps the

head of

the ladle

[the spoon; “one spoonful” is translated “one ladleful”], which faces outward—

with the tips of

his 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 would hold the head of the spoon—

And he raises it with his thumbs

[he pushes it with both his thumbs] little by little, slowly, so that it should not sway [Meiri] toward his body,

until it reaches

the head of the spoon’s handle

between his elbows

[the place where the arm bends; see Ritva and Rashash], in order to restrain it and hold it between the two, and the end of the spoon is at the place where the spoon joins the arm.

And the High Priest returns

the

and brings it back

to the incense, by the side of the spoon [Rashi],

into his handfuls,

[and see the note ].

And he piles it up

the incense in a concentrated heap upon the coals,

so that

its smoke

of the incense

should be delayed from coming

because of the heap of incense upon the coals—

And some say:

On the contrary,

he scatters

the incense over the coals,

so that its smoke should come quickly. (60)

And this

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

is difficult service in the Sanctuary!

And first we explain the baraita, and afterward the Gemara resolves the uncertainty from the baraita:

And we challenge:

Is this

difficult service

and no more

Are there no difficult services in the Sanctuary?!

But there is pinching,

which is difficult service?!

But there is also

also

the taking of the handful

of a pan-fried meal-offering, a deep-pan meal-offering, and an oven-baked meal-offering, which is difficult service [as explained above, 47b]?!

Rather, say thus:

This

—the taking of the handful inside—

is difficult service among

the

services

of the

difficult services in the Sanctuary.

And now we prove:

Learn from it: he takes a handful and again takes a handful,

as explicitly stated in this baraita—

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it!

They raised a question before them: If he slaughtered

the High Priest his bull,

and

afterward

the High Priest died,

the High Priest,

what is the law: may

a High

Priest other

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’—

and even with the blood of a bull?

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

Rabbi Hanina said: ‘With a bull,’ but not with the blood of a bull; and Resh 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

the Smith

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

Rabbi Ami raised an objection to Rabbi Isaac the Smith,

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

The discussion before us is explained according to the plain meaning of Rashi.

It is written in the section of the Passover 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 the father’s house [for one family], a lamb for the house. And if the house is too few for a lamb [they are too few for one lamb, which they cannot eat, and it will come to notar], then he and his neighbor who is near his house shall take, according to the number [the reckoning] of persons; each man according to his eating [that which is fit for eating] shall you count yourselves [an expression of appointment, and it is expounded as an expression of slaughter] for the lamb.”

And we learned in a Mishna in Pesachim [89a]:

People may be counted

for the Passover offering—whoever wishes to join [until it is slaughtered]—

and may withdraw from it—

whoever wishes to withdraw—

“until it is slaughtered”,

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

And Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that although people may be counted for it only until it is slaughtered, since it is written, “according to the number of persons shall you count yourselves,” implying: according to the number of persons, and afterward you shall slaughter it, they may withdraw from it until the blood is sprinkled [Mishna and Gemara there].

And if it is so—

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

“until it is sprinkled” should have been required

for the tanna to say?!

And we answer: It is different there,

in that case

with the Passover offering, since

it is written: ‘And if the house is too few’,”

[Rashi]. If those counted wished to become fewer and withdraw from it, they may do so only

“from the existence of a lamb”,

that is,

from the life of the lamb,

meaning: while its existence remains, but not once it has been slaughtered.

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

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

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

They do not redeem

a firstborn donkey:

Neither with a calf nor with a wild animal,

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

Nor with a

lamb

that has been slaughtered,

since it is not called “a lamb.”

Nor with a tereifa—

for example, one whose legs were cut above the knee-joint [Rashi, Bekhorot].

Nor with a mixed breed

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

Nor with a koy,

born from a he-goat [goat] and a doe, and although from the father’s side it is a fit species.

But only with a lamb,

alive and whole, and coming from only one species.

In any event, it teaches that they do not redeem with a slaughtered animal; therefore “lamb” is called so only when it is alive. If so, the same applies to “bull”: it is called so only when it is alive. And how can you say that the priest may enter with the blood of the dead bull?!

And we answer:

It is different there,

in the case of the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey,

for

it is

derived by the verbal analogy ‘lamb, lamb’ from Passover—

That is: all the laws stated in that Mishna are derived for it from Passover [as explained in the Gemara, Bekhorot 12a], including also the rule that one does not redeem with a slaughtered animal—it is learned from Passover, and in the case of Passover one certainly must bring a living lamb.

And we challenge: According to your words, that we learn the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey by a verbal analogy—

If

[shall we also say]:

Just as there

—in the case of Passover—

a male, unblemished, and in its first year, so here

—in the redemption of the firstborn of a donkey—

a male, unblemished, and in its first year

alone shall be fit for redemption?!

And we answer:

Scripture says: ‘You shall redeem, you shall redeem’

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

it includes.

And we challenge:

If ‘you shall redeem, you shall redeem’ includes,

you should include everything,

even all of them

that were taught in the Mishna in Bekhorot that we cited [Rabbeinu Elyakim and Ritva]

also

should be valid for redeeming a firstborn donkey?!

And we answer:

If so,

if you come to include everything, the verbal analogy of

“lamb

lamb,”

[Rabbeinu Elyakim and Ritva],

what use is it to him?!

Rather, necessarily:

The inclusion was useful to include that it need not be a male, unblemished, and in its first year, since ultimately it is a lamb—

and the exclusion of “lamb, lamb” was useful to exclude something that is not a complete lamb, such as a mixed breed, a slaughtered animal, and their counterparts [Ritva].