Yoma 57A

השתא ברי טמאים אתון, דכתיב: ״טומאתה בשוליה״. אמר ליה, תא חזי מה כתיב בהו: ״השוכן אתם בתוך טומאתם״, אפילו בזמן שהן טמאין ⁠— שכינה שרויה ביניהן.

Now you are certainly impure, as it is written about the Jewish people: “Her impurity was in her skirts” (Lamentations 1:9), and the Shekhina does not reside upon the Jews when they are impure. R' Ḥanina said to him: Come and see what is written about the Jewish people: “That dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that even when they are impure, the Shekhina dwells among them.

וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש, חוזר ומלמד בהיקש?

The Talmud raises a difficulty with regard to the aforementioned halakha. It was stated above that the comparison to the goat teaches that the High Priest sprinkles the bull’s blood once upward; and the 7 downward sprinklings of the goat’s blood are derived from the rite of the blood of the bull. Subsequently, the order of sprinkling toward the curtain in the Sanctuary is again derived by means of a similar comparison. The Talmud asks: And does a matter derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha not written explicitly in the Torah but learned by means of a comparison, again teach by juxtaposition? There is a general principle that a halakha derived by juxtaposition with regard to offerings cannot subsequently teach another halakha by juxtaposition.

האי, הימנו ודבר אחר הוא, ולא הוי היקש.

The Talmud answers that the first juxtaposition was not a proper inference by verbal analogy, as this halakha that the High Priest must sprinkle once upward and 7 times downward is derived both from that juxtaposition and something else as well. Since the basic requirement that he must sprinkle upward and downward for the bull and the goat is stated explicitly in both cases, and the comparison was necessary only to teach the precise number of sprinklings, this inference is not considered a juxtaposition to the extent that one cannot derive further comparisons from it.