Study Yoma folio 60A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
משום דהוי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד, וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד — אין מלמדין.
The Talmud answers: The reason is because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the priestly vestments, the 4 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.
The Talmud raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: “And he should take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the sacred place, and should leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the 4 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 R' 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?