## Yoma Daf 60a

###### Yoma 60a:1
[Yoma 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:1)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד — אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The reason is **because** the mitzva of **the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments,** the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the special *halakha* that misuse of consecrated objects applies to them even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are **two verses that come as one,** i.e., they share a unique *halakha* not found elsewhere. **And** there is a principle: **Any two verses that come as one do not teach,** i.e., an analogy may not be derived from these two similar cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.


###### Yoma 60a:2
[Yoma 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:2)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **This** works out **well** according **to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say** that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the sacred place, **and shall leave them there”** (Leviticus 16:23), **teaches that** the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and **they require interment.**


###### Yoma 60a:3
[Yoma 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:3)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, דְּאָמַר: בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה רְאוּיִן הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** according **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa, who said** that these **priestly vestments are fit for a common priest** and do not require interment, one does not misuse consecrated property by using them, and therefore **what is there to say?** In his opinion, the *halakha* of misuse of consecrated objects after the performance of a mitzva applies only to the removal of ashes from the altar, not to the priestly vestments, which means it is stated in only a single case. Why, then, does this case not serve as a model for other instances in the Torah?


###### Yoma 60a:4
[Yoma 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:4)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד — אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The reason is **because** the cases of the **removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken are two verses that come as one,** as it is prohibited to derive benefit from either of them even after their mitzva is completed, **and any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common feature to other cases. The heifer whose neck is broken is a ritual performed when a murder victim’s body is found outside a town, and it is not known who caused his death.


###### Yoma 60a:5
[Yoma 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:5)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״וְשָׂמוֹ״, ״הָעֲרוּפָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this reply from a different angle: **It works out well according to the one who said** that two verses that come as one **do not teach** their common feature to other cases, **but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one** do **teach** with regard to other cases, **what is there to say?** The Gemara answers: **Two exclusions are written** in these two cases, which indicate that this *halakha* applies to them alone. With respect to the removal of ashes, it states: **“And he shall put it”** (Leviticus 6:3), implying “it” and nothing else. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: **“Whose neck was broken”** (Deuteronomy 21:6), which teaches that this *halakha* applies solely to this case.


###### Yoma 60a:6
[Yoma 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:6)

וְהָנֵי תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי בְּדָם — לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** if this *halakha* is derived from those two cases, **why do I** need **these three verses** stated **with regard to blood,** from which it is derived that the prohibition against misuse of consecrated objects does not apply to the remainder of blood that flows to the Kidron River? The reference is to the three phrases singled out above from the verse: “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11).


###### Yoma 60a:7
[Yoma 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:7)

חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִנּוֹתָר, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִמְּעִילָה, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִטּוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **One** of those phrases comes **to exclude** the blood from the prohibition of ***notar*,** offerings that remain after the time when they may be eaten has expired. If one ate leftover blood, he is not punished with *karet*, as generally incurred by one who consumes *notar*. Rather, he is liable only for violating the prohibition against eating blood. **And one** phrase comes **to exclude** it **from** the prohibition against **misuse** of consecrated objects, **and one** other phrase comes **to exclude** it **from ritual impurity.** If one ate this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for the transgression of eating blood, but not on account of eating consecrated food while ritually impure.


###### Yoma 60a:8
[Yoma 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:8)

אֲבָל מִפִּיגּוּל לָא צְרִיךְ לְמַעוֹטֵי קְרָא, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם, בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ — חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. וְדָם עַצְמוֹ מַתִּיר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, no verse is required to exclude** this blood **from** the *halakha* of ***piggul*,** an offering disqualified by improper intention, because this is already derived from another source, **as we learned** in a mishna: With regard to **any** offering **that has** another rite that **permits it,** e.g., an offering that is permitted by the sprinkling of blood or by means of a second offering, **one is liable to** receive *karet* if he eats it after it is rendered ***piggul*.** This is the case **whether** the other rite permits it **for human** consumption **or whether** it enables the offering to be sacrificed **on the altar.** However, the permitting factor itself is not subject to *piggul*. Consequently, *piggul* does not apply to **blood itself,** as it renders the offering **permitted** for human consumption or for the altar.


###### Yoma 60a:9
[Yoma 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הָאָמוּר — עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. הִקְדִּים דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְדַם הַפָּר — יַחְזוֹר וְיַזֶּה מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְאַחַר דַּם הַפָּר. וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם — יָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר, וְיַחְזוֹר בַּתְּחִילָּה מִבִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Each action** performed in the context of the service **of Yom Kippur stated** in the mishna, as in the Torah, is listed **in order. If** the High Priest **performed** one of the **actions before another, he has done nothing.** If **he performed** the sprinkling of **the blood of the goat before** the sprinkling of **the blood of the bull, he** must **repeat** the action **and sprinkle the blood of the goat after** sprinkling **the blood of the bull,** so that the actions are performed in the proper order. **And if the blood spills before he completed the presentations that** were sprinkled **inside** the Holy of Holies, **he** must slaughter another bull or goat, and **bring other blood, and** then **repeat** all the services **from the beginning inside** the Holy of Holies.


###### Yoma 60a:10
[Yoma 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:10)

וְכֵן בַּהֵיכָל, וְכֵן בְּמִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב — שֶׁכּוּלָּן כַּפָּרָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק, מִשָּׁם הוּא מַתְחִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly,** if the blood spills before he finishes the presentations **in the Sanctuary,** he must begin the service in the Sanctuary from the beginning, **and likewise** with regard to the sprinkling of blood **on the golden altar. Since they are each** acts of **atonement in and of themselves,** there is no need to repeat the service of the entire day from the beginning. Rather, he need only repeat the specific element that he failed to complete. **Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the place that he interrupted** that particular service, when the blood spilled, **there he resumes** performance of that service. In their opinion, each individual sprinkling in each of these services is an act in and of itself, and there is no need to repeat what he has already done.


###### Yoma 60a:11
[Yoma 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ: רַבָּנַן כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הָאָמוּר — עַל הַסֵּדֶר. אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּדְבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂין בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן מִבִּפְנִים, אֲבָל דְּבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂין בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן מִבַּחוּץ, אִם הִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵירוֹ — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: Each action** performed in the context of the service **of Yom Kippur stated** in the Torah is listed **in order. If** the High Priest **performed** one of the **actions before another, he has done nothing. Rabbi Yehuda said: When** does this apply? It applies **to those actions performed in white garments inside** the Sanctuary, e.g., burning the incense and sprinkling the blood, which are the essential services of the day. **However,** with regard to **those actions performed in white garments outside,** such as the lottery and the confession, **if he performed** one **action before another, what he did is done** and he need not repeat the rite.


###### Yoma 60a:12
[Yoma 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/60a:12)

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּדְבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי לָבָן, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ. אֲבָל בִּדְבָרִים הַנַּעֲשִׂים בְּבִגְדֵי זָהָב מִבַּחוּץ — מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וְהָיְתָה זֹּאת לָכֶם לְחוּקַּת עוֹלָם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In contrast, **Rabbi Neḥemya says: In what** case **is this statement said,** that the order is indispensable? It is said with regard **to actions performed in white garments, whether inside or outside** the Sanctuary. **However,** with regard **to** those **actions performed in golden garments outside** the Sanctuary, the regular Temple service and additional services, if the order was altered, **what he did is done. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them,** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya, **derived** their opinions **from one verse: “And this shall be an everlasting statute to you,** to make atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins **once a year”** (Leviticus 16:34).