Yoma 56b — the Talmud in English

, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon prohibit, because “there is no selection,” and it will not become clear when he separates it after some time that what he separated was the one that became teruma from the outset. Therefore it is forbidden to drink, lest the teruma have taken effect upon another log, and it turns out that he is drinking teruma.

because they hold that there is no retroactive clarification. It will not become clear when he separates the offering later that the portion he separated was the portion that had been designated as teruma from the outset. Therefore, it is prohibited to drink, lest the teruma have taken effect on another log, in which case he would be drinking teruma.

It is evident that

Rabbi Judah held

“there is no selection.”

And we reject this:

From where [do we know]

that Rabbi Judah’s reason is because he holds “there is no selection”—

Perhaps there it is different,

that is, perhaps there the reason is another one: and

as the reason is taught: They said to him—

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon—

to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede

that one must be concerned

lest the jug burst [

the vessel in which the wine is kept] and he ultimately will not separate [the teruma],

and it turns out that he is retroactively drinking tevel?!

And Rabbi Meir said to them:

Rabbi Meir said:

When it bursts,

we will be concerned for it; that is, we are not concerned lest it burst, for it is possible that he will entrust it to a watchman [Rashi]. (210)

Rather, from what Ayo taught,

in the name of Rabbi Judah, it is possible to learn that Rabbi Judah holds that there is no selection:

We learned in a Mishna in Eruvin: A person may stipulate concerning his eruv; that is, a person may, if he wishes, place two eruv tehumim, one at the end of two thousand cubits east of his house and one at the end of two thousand cubits west of his house, and stipulate and say:

If a Sage comes on Shabbat—whom he wishes to see and hear deliver his discourse—outside the city limit on the eastern side, then my eruv that is in the east of the city shall take effect, and it shall permit me to walk eastward up to four thousand cubits; and if he comes from the west, my eruv shall be in the west; and if two Sages come, one to the east and one to the west, I shall go to whichever place I wish; and if they come neither here nor there, I shall be like the residents of my city, who have a two-thousand-cubit Shabbat limit in every direction.

For Ayo taught: Rabbi Judah

disagrees with the words of the Sages in the Mishna in Eruvin and

says:

A person may not stipulate concerning two matters at once,

to place two eruvin and say: “If two Sages come, one to the east and one to the west, I shall go to whichever place I wish,” because there is no selection to say that it became clear during twilight on the eve of Shabbat—which is the time when the eruv tehumim is acquired and takes effect—which eruv he will wish to take effect on the following day—

Rather,

he may stipulate concerning only one Sage and say:

If a

Sage comes,

if the Sage comes to the east, his eruv is to the east,

and if the Sage comes

to the west, his eruv is to the west, but

to say: If a Sage comes

here and there,

I shall go to whichever place I wish—

no.

And we raised the difficulty concerning it: What is different about “here and there” that he may not

stipulate, since

there is no selection—

If so, concerning one Sage also: if he comes from the east, my eruv is

to the east, and

if he comes from the west, my eruv is

to the west—

also

he should not be able to stipulate, since

there is no selection?!

For even when he said “to the east” or “to the west,” his intention is that it should take effect for one of them, and on the following day it will become clear from which direction the Sage came; and we must rule as though it became clear today and the eruv took effect during twilight, and there is “no selection” [Ritba, Eruvin].

And Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain: Indeed, he cannot stipulate, “If a Sage comes”—

Rather, the beraita is speaking

when the Sage has already come

to the east or to the west, and the one stipulating does not know in which direction the Sage came, and he makes the taking effect of his eruv dependent upon the reality that is correct at the time when the eruv takes effect; and since this is so, it has no connection to selection, for the matter is clarified and established at the time when the eruv takes effect.

And since Rabbi Judah holds that there is no selection, when the monies of sin-offerings whose owners had died became mixed in the collection box, he cannot select them and permit the entire mixture; and this is what he said: There were no collection boxes for obligatory bird-offerings because of the mixtures of the monies of sin-offerings whose owners had died.

And we were astonished:

And now that we say

that

according to Rabbi Judah there is no selection,

and this is what Rabbi Judah said: There were no collection boxes for obligatory bird-offerings “because of the mixtures,” and once again there is no proof from here that Rabbi Judah does not hold of writing—

He does hold of writing

according to Rabbi Judah, for so is proved from the Mishna concerning “thirteen collection boxes.”

If so, this is difficult:

Yom Kippur also,

why do they not place the monies of the bull and the goat on two stands, and if it is because of concern for substitution:

let us make two

stands

and write on them

which is for the bull and which is for the goat, and he will then not come to substitute one for the other?!

And we answer:

Because of the weakness of the High Priest,

who must perform most of the day’s services [Ra"l],

he is not attentive,

he does not set his heart to examine the writing, and there is still concern lest he substitute the money of the bull for that of the goat.

And this is likewise compelled, as we explained Rabbi Judah’s reason—that it is because of weakness—and the reason is not that one cannot rely upon writing even in the case of an ordinary person—

For if you do not say so,

but rather say: Rabbi Judah does not hold of writing, and therefore they do not place the monies on two stands:

Behold,

even without writing—

if not for the weakness of the High Priest—there is no concern lest he substitute one and take the blood of this one in place of the blood of that one, for

this

blood of the bull

is abundant [

its blood is plentiful]

and

whereas

this

blood of the goat

is scant [

its blood is little], and it is easy to distinguish between them; and necessarily, because of his weakness, we are concerned lest he nevertheless substitute one for the other—

And if you will say

to reject the proof, that

not all of it is placed for him

as blood inside a vessel, but only as much as is needed for the sprinklings, and it turns out that the quantity of blood in the two vessels is equal—

And

behold

Rabbi Judah said [

his words were brought in the Gemara above, on page 48a]:

The one who slaughters

the bull [and the other offerings]

must receive

in a vessel

all the blood of the bull, as it is stated: “And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering”,

yet he does not pour out all the blood, but sprinkles some of its blood; rather, this teaches you that he must receive all the blood of the bull.

If so, it turns out that the priest can distinguish between the vessels according to the quantity of blood in them—but certainly, because of the weakness of the High Priest, they do not rely upon this distinction.

And if you will say [

and if you will say]: It is not for this reason, but rather this is why we do not rely upon distinguishing according to the quantity of blood, because

perhaps some of it will spill from it [

some of the blood of the bull will spill]—

In the end, he can distinguish between them according to the color of the blood, for

this

blood of the goat

is pale [

white]

and

whereas

this

blood of the bull

is red [

red]—

rather,

necessarily,

because of the weakness of the High Priest, he is not attentive

to distinguishing the color of the blood in his hand.

That

prayer leader

who descended before Rava [

he went down before the pulpit in Rava’s beit-midrash], and said on Yom Kippur the order of the service, as we say, and

said: He went out

and the blood of the goat was in his hand,

and placed it on the second stand in the Sanctuary; he took

[first]

the blood of the bull and placed the blood of the goat.

Rava said to him:

Your words are:

one—

that you said: He went out and placed it on the second stand—

like the Rabbis,

who hold this way,

and one—

that you said: He first took the blood of the bull and placed the blood of the goat—

like Rabbi Judah,

for according to the Rabbis he first places the blood of the goat and afterward takes the blood of the bull.

Rather, say

this [

say]:

He placed the blood of the goat and took the blood of the bull,

and all your words will then be like the Rabbis, whose ruling we follow.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he shall sprinkle from it,

from the blood of the bull,

upon the curtain opposite the Ark, from outside:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And he shall slaughter the goat of the sin-offering that is for the people, and so on, and he shall sprinkle it upon the cover and before the cover. And he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their transgressions, for all their sins,”

“And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting,”

which dwells with them in the midst of their impurities.

What does this teach?

To teach:

Just as he sprinkles before and within, so does he sprinkle in the Sanctuary.

And he explains:

Just as before and within there is one above and seven below from the blood of the bull, so does he sprinkle in the Sanctuary,

outside, before the curtain. And

just as before and within there is one above and seven below from the blood of the goat, so does he sprinkle in the Sanctuary.

just as in the innermost place and in the area before it he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the goat’s blood, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary.

“Which dwells with them in the midst of their impurities,”

what does this teach?

Even when they are impure,

behold, the

Divine Presence is with them.

A certain sectarian said [

a sectarian]

to Rabbi Hanina: