משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

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.

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה

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.

אלא לרבי דוסא דאמר בגדי כהונה ראוין הן לכהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר

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?

משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

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.

הניחא למאן דאמר אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר תרי מיעוטי כתיבי ושמו הערופה

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.

והני תלתי קראי בדם למה לי

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).

חד למעוטי מנותר וחד למעוטי ממעילה וחד למעוטי מטומאה

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.

אבל מפיגול לא צריך למעוטי קרא דתנן כל שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח חייבין עליו משום פיגול ודם עצמו מתיר הוא

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.

מתני׳ כל מעשה יום הכפורים האמור על הסדר אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו לא עשה כלום הקדים דם השעיר לדם הפר יחזור ויזה מדם השעיר לאחר דם הפר ואם עד שלא גמר את המתנות שבפנים נשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויחזור בתחילה מבפנים

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.

וכן בהיכל וכן במזבח הזהב שכולן כפרה בפני עצמן רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים ממקום שפסק משם הוא מתחיל

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן כל מעשה יום הכפורים האמור על הסדר אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו לא עשה כלום אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בדברים הנעשין בבגדי לבן מבפנים אבל דברים הנעשין בבגדי לבן מבחוץ אם הקדים מעשה לחבירו מה שעשה עשוי

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.

רבי נחמיה אומר במה דברים אמורים בדברים הנעשים בבגדי לבן בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ אבל בדברים הנעשים בבגדי זהב מבחוץ מה שעשה עשוי אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו והיתה זאת לכם לחוקת עולם אחת בשנה

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).