Yoma 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rava said: He gives

from the mixture

seven

sprinklings

below for the sake of the bull, and then gives

from the mixture

one above and seven below for the sake of the goat.

c. If

the cups

of

the blood

of the bull

became interchanged

with the cups of the blood of the goat before he performed any sprinklings at all [Rashi], and he does not know which contains the blood of the bull and which contains that of the goat.

Thus, when the priest comes to perform the sprinklings in the innermost place,

he gives

one sprinkling above and seven below from one cup—which he does not know contains which blood. If the blood of the bull is in the cup, all is well; but if the blood of the goat is in it, this sprinkling is of no consequence, since he cannot give the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull.

And he again gives

one sprinkling above and seven below from the second cup. If the blood of the goat is in it, it turns out that the first sprinkling was of the bull’s blood, and he has now fulfilled his obligation; and if the blood of the bull is in it, he has now performed the sprinkling of the bull—

and he again gives

one sprinkling above and seven below from the first cup, and he has fulfilled his obligation in either event: For if the second cup contains the goat’s blood, he already fulfilled his obligation at first; and if the second cup contains the bull’s blood, this cup contains the goat’s blood, and he has now fulfilled all the sprinklings performed inside. He does the same with the sprinklings in the Sanctuary.

d. If

some of the blood

of the bull and of the goat

became mixed for him

in one basin,

and some of the blood did not become mixed

for him, before he performed any sprinklings at all, even inside [the meaning of Rashi], and it remains as it was, the bull’s blood separately and the goat’s blood separately—

This matter

This matter is

obvious: when he gives

the sprinklings

from

blood

whose identity is certain

—from the known blood that did not become mixed. For although after the fact he may give from the mixture twice, once for the sake of the bull and once for the sake of the goat, as explained above, nevertheless, it is prohibited to do so initially.

But

nevertheless, there is a question here: Is

the blood

that

became mixed in the third basin

considered leftover blood and poured onto the base

of the outer altar

does it go

[is it poured there], as is the law regarding the remnants of the blood, which are poured there?

Or perhaps

the blood that became mixed

was rejected blood

and does not have the status of leftovers, since at the time it became mixed no part of it had yet been given as an offering [the meaning of Rashi; see note

], and

therefore

it goes to the channel

—the water channel in the Temple courtyard into which all the filth of the courtyard was poured, and which extended all the way to the Kidron Valley.

Rav Pappa said

plainly:

Even according to the one who says

[Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon later in the sugya]: If he received the blood of a sacrifice in two cups and gave all the offerings from

one cup,

that cup

causes

the

other to become leftovers, even though he gave no offering from that cup upon the altar—

This applies when, if he wished to give, he could give

This applies when, had he wished to give from it, he could have given

[had he wanted to give the offerings from the second cup in its proper place, he could have done so]—

but this

in the case under discussion,

where, had he wished to give from it, he could not have given

[even had he wished to sprinkle from the mixture],

does not

cause the mixture to become leftovers. (230)

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

rejected this

and said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, even according to the one who says

[the first tanna later in the sugya]: If he received blood in two cups and sprinkled from

one cup,

he

causes the blood in

his

other cup to become rejected

rather than leftovers, since from this cup he did not give any offerings upon the altar—

This applies when he did not give from it

[GeVuA, and the manuscript of Dikdukei Soferim and Ra’AL], meaning: only when he initially received the blood in two cups, and the blood did not reach the second cup from the first cup, from which he gave the offerings—

but in this case, since he did give from it, it does not

[Bach, GeVuA, and Dikdukei Soferim], meaning: in the case under discussion, where the mixture reached the third basin from the original basins from which he sprinkled, the first tanna did not say that it is rejected, but rather that it is leftovers.

And where do we find the dispute whether one cup causes the other to become leftovers or rejected?

As it was taught in a baraita: Above

—in the passage concerning the goat sin-offering of a leader who sinned—

it

is

what the verse says: The priest shall take from the blood of the sin-offering with his finger and place [four offerings] upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering,

“And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger and place [four gifts] upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering”

and its blood

[the remainder]

he shall pour

at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering. The verse does not say, “He shall pour all its blood,” implying that he pours only part of its blood [Ra’AL]—

and

if

below,

—in the passage concerning the female goat brought as an individual’s sin-offering—

it says: The priest shall take from its blood with his finger and place [four offerings] upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering,

“And the priest shall take of its blood with his finger and place [four gifts] upon the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering”

and all its blood

[the remainder]

he shall pour

at the base of the altar. This implies that he pours all the blood from which he gave the offerings [Ra’AL], teaching you:

From where is it derived that, in the case of a sin-offering whose blood he received in four cups, and he gave from

a

particular

offering

one and from

a

particular

offering

one,

and two additional offerings from the two remaining cups,

all of them

[all the blood in the cups] are considered leftovers and

are poured at the base, as it is stated: “And all its blood he shall pour”—

One might have thought that even if he gave the four offerings from

one

of them

alone, and gave nothing from the other cups, they would all be leftovers. Therefore

the verse states: “And its blood”

and not all its blood

he shall pour,

teaching you:

The cup

from which he gave upon the altar

is poured

its remainder

at the base, whereas

the other cups

are poured into the channel,

since the blood in them does not have the status of “leftovers.”

We have therefore learned the opinion of the first tanna: One cup does not cause the other to become leftovers, but rather rejected.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

From where is it derived that, in the case of a sin-offering whose blood he received in four cups and gave the four offerings from one of them

alone,

all of them

became leftovers and

are poured at the base, as it is stated: “And all its blood he shall pour”,

even though he gave the offerings only from one cup?

We have therefore learned the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: One cup causes the other to become leftovers.

And we explain:

And according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

since he holds that even if he gave the offerings from only one cup, all of them become leftovers,

it is written: “And its blood”—

which implies part of its blood—

“he shall pour.”

What does this phrase come to exclude?

Rav Ashi said: To exclude the leftovers in the neck of the animal,

which become rejected through the blood that was received and are poured into the channel [Rashi, Zevachim 34b, according to the emendation of the Rashash there; see note

]. We learned in the Mishna:

He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat

and gave the full one into the empty one:

And we explain:

We learned

in our Mishna that he mixed the blood of the bull and the goat in order to place it upon the horns of the golden altar—

in accordance with the one who says: They mix

the bloods in order to give them

upon the horns

of the golden altar.

The following sugya is explained entirely according to the method of Tosafot.

It was stated

There was a dispute between

Rabbi Yoshiyya and Rabbi Yonatan:

One said: They mix

for the horns,

and one said: They do not mix

for the horns; rather, he gives from each blood separately.

It may be established that it was Rabbi Yoshiyya who said—

They mix.

As it is written [Leviticus 20:9]: For any man who curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is upon him.

Rabbi Yoshiyya and Rabbi Yonatan disagreed concerning this matter:

Rabbi Yoshiyya’s view: The verse implies that one is liable to death only for cursing his father and his mother together, for the vav of “and his mother” adds to the preceding matter [Rashi, Sanhedrin], implying that he cursed both of them. But concerning one who curses only one of them, we have not yet learned the law. Therefore the Torah repeats: “He has cursed his father and his mother,” teaching you: He has cursed his father; he has cursed his mother—that is, he is liable even for cursing only one of the two.

Rabbi Yonatan’s view: Although the verse says, “And a man who curses his father and his mother,” the verse does not necessarily imply that he cursed both of them together; rather, “it implies both together and it implies each one individually.” For we find concerning the prohibition of mixed garments that the Torah needed to say: “You shall not wear shaatnez, wool and linen, together”; we learn from this that wherever the Torah does not say “together,” the verse includes both one who curses the two together and one who curses only one of them. According to Rabbi Yonatan, when the Torah negates a particular matter, such as cursing, the verse implies that one may not perform even one of the two acts that the Torah negated. However, when the Torah speaks in the form of a positive command, such as: “He shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat and sprinkle upon the horns of the altar all around,” stated concerning Yom Kippur, the words of the verse are understood to require both a sprinkling from the blood of the bull and a sprinkling from the blood of the goat; he must perform both [based on Kehillot Yaakov, Nedarim, section 46].

Nevertheless, the matter of mixing the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiyya and Rabbi Yonatan concerning the curse—

For since

Rabbi Yoshiyya said:

Even though it is not written:

Even though it is not written:

“who curses his father and his mother”

“together,”

it is considered as though “together” were written,

and he is liable to death only for cursing both of them together, here too the verse is understood as saying: “He shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat and place it upon the horns of the altar all around”—he must mix them so that they are both together.

And it may therefore be established that Rabbi Yoshiyya is the one who said that they mix for the horns, while Rabbi Yonatan said that they do not mix for the horns.

And we reject this: Perhaps even according to the one who holds that it is “considered as though ‘together’ were written,” this is insufficient to teach that he must mix both together. On the contrary, we can say: Since the verse is ambiguous, the ambiguous passage should be interpreted from the explicit practice in the other sprinklings of Yom Kippur, where he gives from each blood separately—

And since this is so, the reason of the one who holds that they mix for the horns cannot be that the verse says, “from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat”; rather, he holds this because of another exposition, based on the word “one” [as will be explained]—

And if so:

You may even say

that the tanna of our Mishna, which teaches that they mix for the horns, is

Rabbi Yonatan

(he

is),

and this is because

here it is different,

with regard to the offerings upon the golden altar. Since

it is written

in the passage concerning the golden altar in the portion of Ki Tisa: “And Aaron shall sprinkle upon its horns”

“one”

once a year [on Yom Kippur], this implies one sprinkling from the bloods, and not two sprinklings—

Namely: since it is because of “one” that the one who holds this view says that the blood may be mixed for the corners, how do we know that it was Rabbi Yoshiya who expounded this verse, and not Rabbi Yonatan?

It was taught

in a

beraita, unlike the versions

that we rejected, but in accordance with what we initially sought to say: that only Rabbi Yoshiya holds that the blood may be mixed for the corners—

For it was taught:

“And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat”

and place it upon the corners of the altar all around,

so that the bloods would be mixed,

the blood of the bull and the goat,

the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.