Yoma 57b — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rava said: He gives

from the mixture

seven

sprinklings

below in the name of the bull, and again gives

from the mixture

one above and seven below in the name of the goat.

g. If

there became mixed up

[they were exchanged]

for him, cups

of the blood of the bull

with cups

of the blood of the goat, before he sprinkled any sprinklings [Rashi], and he does not know which is of the blood of the bull and which is of the goat.

Thus, the priest—when he comes to sprinkle in the innermost place—

gives

from one cup—which he does not know which blood is in it—one sprinkling above and seven below; and if the blood of the bull is in the cup, that is well, while if the blood of the goat is in it, this sprinkling is nothing, for he cannot place the blood of the goat before the blood of the bull.

And again he gives from the second cup one above and seven below; and if the blood of the goat is in it, it follows that the first sprinkling was of the blood of the bull, and he has now fulfilled his obligation; while if the blood of the bull is in it, he has now performed for himself a sprinkling of the bull—

and again he gives

from the first cup one above and seven below, and he has fulfilled his obligation in either event: for if the second cup contains the blood of the goat, he already fulfilled his obligation at the beginning, and if the second cup contains the blood of the bull, then this cup is that of the goat, and he has now fulfilled his obligation regarding all the sprinklings inside; and so he shall do with the sprinklings in the Sanctuary.

d. If

some of the bloods

of the bull and of the goat

became mixed for him

into one basin,

and some of the bloods did not become mixed

for him

, before he gave any sprinklings at all, even inside [the implication of Rashi], and they remain as they are, the blood of the bull separately and the blood of the goat separately—

This matter

is obvious, for when he gives

the sprinklings

from

certain

bloods

he gives

[from the known bloods that did not become mixed]; for although after the fact he may give from the mixture twice, in the name of the bull and in the name of the goat, as explained above, nevertheless, initially it is forbidden .

But

in any event

there is room for doubt in this matter: whether

those

bloods that became mixed in the third basin

were leftovers and go to the foundation

of the outer altar

they go

[are poured out], in accordance with the law of the blood leftovers, which are poured out there.

Or perhaps:

the bloods that became mixed

were rejected

and their law is not that of leftovers, since at the time they became mixed no gifts had yet been given from them at all [the implication of Rashi; and see note 230],

and

therefore

they go to the channel

which is the water channel in the Courtyard through which all the filth of the Courtyard was poured, and it continues and extends until 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 gifts from

one cup

, then this cup

makes

the

other one leftovers, even though he gave no gift from that cup upon the altar—

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

[in the case under discussion, had he wished, he could have given the gifts from the second cup]—

but this

in the case under discussion,

that if he wished to give, he could not give

[even had he wished, he could not have sprinkled from the mixture],

does not

the mixture become leftovers. (230)

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

said

to Rav Pappa, rejecting his statement:

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

, then he

makes

the blood in

the other one rejected

and not leftovers, since from this cup he did not give any gifts upon the altar—

This applies when he did not give from it

[Gevurot Ari, and a manuscript in the Dikdukei Soferim and Rabbeinu Elyakim], meaning: only when at the outset he received the blood in two cups, and the blood did not reach the second cup from the first cup, from which he gave gifts upon the altar—

but this one, from which he did give, does not

[Bach, Gevurot Ari, and Dikdukei Soferim], meaning: but in the case under discussion, where the mixture reached the third basin from the first 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 learn the dispute whether one cup makes the other leftovers or rejected?

For it was taught: Above

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

it

is

written:

“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 foundation of the altar of the burnt-offering; and Scripture did not say: “And he shall pour all its blood,” implying that he casts only some of its blood [Rabbeinu Elyakim]—

And

if

below

—in the passage concerning the individual’s sin-offering goat—

it says:

“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 foundation of the altar; implying that he shall pour all its blood from which he gave the gifts [Rabbeinu Elyakim]. This teaches you:

From where [do we know] concerning a sin-offering whose blood he received in four cups, and he gave from

a

this

cup one gift

and from

a

this

cup one gift

one

and two additional gifts from the two remaining cups,

that all of them

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

are poured at the foundation? Scripture says: “And all its blood he shall pour.”

One might have thought that even if he gave four gifts from

one

of them

alone, and gave nothing from the other cups, all of them should be leftovers. Therefore

Scripture says: “And its blood”

and not all its blood

“he shall pour,”

to teach you:

it is

the cup from which he gave upon the altar

whose remainder is poured

at its foundation,

and they are

the other cups

that are poured into the channel,

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

We have therefore learned the view of the first tanna: one cup does not make the other leftovers, but rejected.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

From where [do we know] concerning a sin-offering whose blood he received in four cups and gave four gifts from one of them

alone,

that all of them

became leftovers and

are poured at the foundation? Scripture says: “And all its blood he shall pour,”

even though he gave the gifts only from one cup.

We have therefore learned Rabbi Elazar’s view: one cup makes the other leftovers.

And we explain:

And according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

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

is it not written: “And its blood”

—which implies part of its blood—

“he shall pour”?

And what does this come to exclude?

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

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

We learned in the Mishna:

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

and gave the full vessel into the empty one:

And we explain:

We learned

in our Mishna, which states: He mixes the blood of the bull and the goat in order to give from them upon the horns of the golden altar—

according to the one who says: They mix

the bloods in order to give from them

upon the horns

of the golden altar.

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

It was stated

They disagreed,

Rabbi Josiah and Rabbi Jonathan:

One said: They mix

for the horns,

and one said: They do not mix

for the horns, but he gives from each blood separately.

It may be concluded that Rabbi Josiah is the one who said—

They mix.

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

and Rabbi Josiah and Rabbi Jonathan disagreed concerning this matter:

Rabbi Josiah’s view: The verse implies that he is liable to death only for cursing his father and his mother together, since the vav of “and his mother” adds to the first matter [Rashi, Sanhedrin], and it implies that he cursed both of them; but concerning one who curses only one of them, we have not yet learned. Therefore the Torah repeated and said: “His father and his mother he cursed,” to teach you: His father he cursed, his mother he cursed; that is, even for one of the two he is liable.

Rabbi Jonathan’s view: Although Scripture says, “And a man who curses his father and his mother,” the verse does not necessarily imply that he cursed both of them together, but “it implies both together and it implies each one individually,” for we find concerning the mixture of garments that the Torah needed to say: “You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together”; we learn from this that wherever the Torah did not say “together,” the verse includes both one who curses both of them together and one who curses only one of them. According to Rabbi Jonathan, where the Torah negates some matter, such as cursing, the verse implies that one should not perform even one of the two things that the Torah negated. However, when the Torah speaks by way of an affirmative command, such as: “And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat and sprinkle upon the horns of the altar around,” stated concerning Yom Kippur, the words of the verse are understood to mean that he shall perform both a sprinkling from the blood of the bull and a sprinkling from the blood of the goat, and he must perform both [based on Kehillot Yaakov, Nedarim, section 46].

However, concerning the mixing of the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, it is possible to make it dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Josiah and Rabbi Jonathan regarding cursing—

For since

Rabbi Josiah said:

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 it is understood: “And 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 around”—that he should mix them so that they will be both together.

And it may be concluded that Rabbi Josiah is the one who said, “They mix for the horns,” while Rabbi Jonathan said, “They do not mix for the horns.”

And we reject this: Perhaps even according to the view that “it is considered as though ‘together’ were written,” this is not sufficient to teach that he should mix both of them together. On the contrary, we can say: Since the verse stated it without specification, let the unspecified be learned from the explicit in the other sprinklings of Yom Kippur, where he gives from each blood separately—

And since this is so, necessarily the reason of the one who holds, “They mix for the horns,” is not because it is written, “from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat,” but because he holds so on account of another exposition, and because it is written “one” [as will be explained]—

And if so:

Even say

that the Mishna, which states: They mix for the horns, is

Rabbi Jonathan

(it is

) [

it is ],

and because

here it is different,

with regard to the gifts upon the golden altar, since

it is written

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

“one”

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

That is: since it is on account of “one” that the one who holds that one may combine for the corners holds this view, how do we know to say that Rabbi Josiah is the one who expounded it and not Rabbi Jonathan.

It was taught

in a beraita

not as the versions

that we rejected, but as we initially wanted to say: that Rabbi Josiah alone holds that one may combine for the corners—

For it was taught:

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

and place it upon the corners of the altar around,

so that they be mixed,

the bloods of the bull and the goat,

the words of Rabbi Josiah.