Yoma 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon prohibit it,

because they hold that “there is no retroactive clarification,” and it will not become clear when he separates it later that what he separated was the teruma from the outset. Therefore, it is prohibited to drink, lest the teruma took effect on another log, and it turns out that he is drinking teruma.

Apparently,

Rabbi Yehuda held

that “there is no retroactive clarification.”

And we reject this:

From where

do you know that the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is that he holds “there is no retroactive clarification” ?

Perhaps the case there is different,

meaning: Perhaps there the reason is a different one. And

as the reason is explicitly taught: They said to him—

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon—

to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede

that one must be concerned

lest the jug split

[the vessel containing the wine] and he ultimately fail to separate the teruma,

with the result that he retroactively drank untithed produce?!

And Rabbi Meir said to them:

Rabbi Meir:

When it splits,

we will be concerned about it; that is, we are not concerned that it might split, since he might give it to a watchman [Rashi]. (210)

Rather, from what Ayyo taught,

in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, one can derive that Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is no retroactive clarification:

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

If a Sage comes on Shabbat—whom he wishes to see and whose lecture he wishes to hear—outside the city limits on the eastern side, then the eruv that I placed in the east shall take effect, permitting me to walk eastward as far as four thousand cubits; and if he comes from the west, the western eruv shall take effect; and if two Sages come, one to the east and one to the west, I shall go wherever I wish; and if neither one comes, neither here nor there, I shall be like the inhabitants of my city, who have a Shabbat limit of two thousand cubits in every direction.

For Ayyo taught: Rabbi Yehuda

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

says:

A person may not stipulate concerning two matters simultaneously,

placing two eruvin and saying: “If two Sages come, one to the east and one to the west, I shall go wherever I wish,” because there is no way to say that the matter was clarified—that at twilight on the eve of Shabbat, which is the time when the eruv takes effect and acquires the Shabbat limit, it was determined which eruv he would want to take effect the following day .

Rather,

he may stipulate concerning only one Sage, and say:

If a

Sage comes,

if he comes to the east, his eruv is in the east,

and if the Sage comes

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

to say: If a Sage comes

here and there,

I shall go wherever I wish—

no.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: What is different about “here and there” that he may not stipulate,

since

there is no retroactive clarification?

If so, concerning one Sage as well: If he comes from the east, my eruv is

in the east, and

if he comes from the west, my eruv is

in the west—

also

he should not be able to stipulate, since there is

no retroactive clarification?!

For even when he says “to the east” or “to the west,” his intention is that one of them should take effect, and tomorrow it will become clear in which direction the Sage will come. We must therefore treat the matter as though it had been clarified today and the eruv had taken effect at twilight, yet “there is no retroactive clarification” [Ritva, 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 the west, and the person making the stipulation does not know in which direction the Sage came. He stipulates that his eruv should take effect in accordance with the reality that is true at the time the eruv takes effect. Since that is the case, this does not involve retroactive clarification, for the matter is already clarified and established at the time the eruv takes effect.

Since Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is no retroactive clarification, when the monies for sin-offerings whose owners died become mixed in the shofar, he cannot select them and thereby permit the entire mixture. This is what he said: There were no shofarot for obligatory bird-offerings because of the mixtures of monies for sin-offerings whose owners had died.

And we are astonished:

And now that we say

that

according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarification, and this is what Rabbi Yehuda said: There were no shofarot for obligatory bird-offerings “because of the mixtures,” there is no longer any proof from here that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold of writing

—

He does hold of writing

according to Rabbi Yehuda, as is demonstrated by the Mishna concerning the “thirteen shofarot.”

If so, this is difficult:

On Yom Kippur as well,

why do they not place the monies for the bull and the goat on two stands? And if the reason is concern that they might be switched,

let us make two

stands

and write on them

which one is for the bull and which one is for the goat, so that he will not come to switch them

?! And we answer: Because

of the weakness of the High Priest,

who must perform most of the day’s sacrificial service,

he is not attentive

and does not pay attention to examining the writing, and there remains concern that he might switch the monies for the bull with those for the goat.

And this is indeed necessary, as we explained that the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is the High Priest’s weakness, and not that one cannot rely on writing even in the case of an ordinary person —

For if you do not say this,

but say: Rabbi Yehuda does not hold of writing, and therefore the monies are not placed on two stands:

After all,

even without writing

—if not for the weakness of the High Priest—there would be no concern that he might switch them and take the blood of one in place of the blood of the other, since

this

blood of the bull

is greater

[its quantity is greater],

whereas

if

this

blood of the goat

is smaller

[its quantity is smaller], and they can easily be distinguished from one another. Perforce, it is because of his weakness that we are nevertheless concerned that he might switch them

— And if you would say

to reject the proof, that

not all of it is placed in the vessel,

but only the amount needed for the sprinklings, so that the quantity of blood in the two vessels is equal —

But

behold

Rav Yehuda said

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

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 he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering.”

Although he does not pour all the blood, but sprinkles some of it, this teaches you that he must receive all the blood of the bull.

If so, the Priest can distinguish between the vessels according to the quantity of blood in them. Rather, certainly, it is because of the weakness of the High Priest that they do not rely on this distinction.

And if you would say

[and if you will say]: This is not the reason; rather, we do not rely on distinguishing them by the quantity of blood because

perhaps some of it will spill from it

[some of the bull’s blood will spill]—

In the end, he can distinguish between them by the color of the blood, since

this

blood of the goat

is pale

[white],

whereas

if

this

blood of the bull

is red

[red]—

rather,

it necessarily follows that

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 before the prayer stand in Rava’s beit-midrash] and recited on Yom Kippur the order of the service, as we recite it, and

said: He went out

with the blood of the goat 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 contain

one

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

in accordance with the Sages,

who hold so;

and one

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

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

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

Rather,

say

[you should say]:

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

and then all your words accord with the Sages, whose opinion is the halakha.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he shall sprinkle from it

of the blood of the bull

on 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 he shall sprinkle it upon the Ark-cover and before the Ark-cover. And he shall effect atonement upon 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”

that dwells with them amid their impurities.

What does

this

teach?

It teaches:

Just as he sprinkles before and within, once upward and seven times downward, from the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary

outside, before the curtain. And

just as he sprinkles before and within, once upward and seven times downward, from the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles 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.

“That dwells with them amid their impurities”

what does this

teach?

Even

when they are impure, the Divine Presence is with them.

A certain heretic said

[a heretic]

to Rabbi Hanina: