Yoma 48a — the Talmud in English

It was asked ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

Rav Pappa:

It is established for us in tractate Menahot that the kometz requires placement and consecration in a service vessel [“placement in a vessel”], and one takes the kometz from the vessel in which the meal-offering is placed, and places the kometz into another vessel—and that vessel consecrates the kometz.

And it is uncertain concerning the law of placing the kometz in a vessel: if he did not place the kometz on the bottom of the vessel, but

stuck the kometz to the wall of the vessel

[stuck it to the walls of the vessel] from the inside—

what is the law?

Do we say:

“Within” a vessel is required, and that is present?

Or perhaps: Placement within it in the proper manner is required, and that is not present.

The matter shall stand.

Mar bar Rav Ashi asked

If

he inverted the vessel

[he inverted the vessel whose base is made like a receptacle],

and stuck it

to the kometz

on the bottom of the vessel

[he stuck the kometz to the bottom of the vessel] in that receptacle—

what is the law ?

Do we say:

Placement within it

of the vessel

is required,

and we do not care whether it is within this “inside” or within another “inside,”

and

it is

present?

Or perhaps: Placement in the proper manner is required, and

it

is not present.

The matter shall stand.

Rav Pappa asked:

“His handfuls full,” which they said:

Are they

level

[without a heap],

or heaped?

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear: “His handfuls full,” which they said: neither level nor heaped, but rounded

[projecting], a slight heap projecting above the incense in his handfuls.

We learned there

in tractate Zevahim [the Gemara’s introduction is to Rav Pappa’s following question]:

For all offerings from an animal, the priest receives the blood from the neck of the animal into a service vessel, and the blood is consecrated in the vessel, and the priest carries it to the altar and casts it upon it.

But if

the blood was spilled

from the neck of the animal

onto the floor, and he collected it

the priest from there into a service vessel, the blood is

invalid

for casting upon the altar.

And we also learned another Mishna in Zevahim:

If the priest received the blood from the neck of the animal into a vessel, and the blood was spilled

from the vessel onto the floor, and he collected it

the priest from the floor, the blood is

valid

for casting.

And since the Gemara brings these Mishnayot, we explain them:

From where are these matters

that we require it to descend directly from the neck of the animal into the vessel?

For the Sages taught:

It is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” etc., “and he shall bring for his sin which he sinned a bull of cattle,” etc. “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood,” etc.

And we interpret the verse:

“And he shall take

the anointed priest,

Targum Jonathan]

“from the blood of the bull”

to teach you: he takes that which is intended for casting upon the altar

from the blood of the life

which is the stream of blood that emerges after the slaughtering of the identifying organs [Rabbeinu Elyakim], and the life of the animal departs through it—

and not from the blood of the skin,

which is the blood received in the vessel before he slaughtered the identifying organs, and it is called not “the blood of the life” but “the blood of the skin” [RA’L].

And not from the blood of exudation,

which is the blood that drips after the stream [RA’L].

And since Scripture said

“from the blood of the bull”,

it should have said, “And he shall take the blood of the bull”:

Therefore, we remove the beginning of the word “from,” and add it to the beginning of the word “bull,” as though it said:

“Blood from the bull shall he receive”

into the vessel, and not from the floor.

And why do we interpret the verse in this manner?

For if it enters your mind

that for this reason the Torah said

“from the blood of the bull”,

to teach you: he shall take

“from the blood,” even if

he took only

a part

of the

blood

of the life—

But Rav Yehuda said: The one receiving must receive all the blood

[all the blood of its life]

of a bull, as it is stated:

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of

the

altar”;

and if it is not needed for the remnants of the blood—for the remnants are not “all the blood of the bull”—apply it to the receiving of the blood [Targum Jonathan from the Gemara in Zevahim]—

we have learned that he must receive all the blood of the bull and not merely part of it.

Rather,

necessarily,

infer from it: what is “from the blood” of the bull

to teach you?

Blood from the bull shall he receive

and not from the floor

; and he holds: We subtract, add, and expound.

And once we know all this,

Rav Pappa asked:

The

the

incense

was scattered

on the floor

from the fullness of his handfuls

before it was received in the ladle—

what is the law?

Do we say:

His hand,

with which he took the incense by handful,

is like the neck of an animal

and

the incense is

invalid,

like blood that was spilled from the neck of an animal before receiving it in a vessel?

Or perhaps:

His hand

is like a service vessel,

and this is like blood that was spilled after it had been received in a vessel,

and the incense is not invalid,

the incense.

And we conclude:

The matter shall stand (\40).

Rav Pappa asked:

If he contemplated during taking the handful of

the

incense

with the intention of burning it tomorrow, which is outside the time of its burning [Rashi], or outside its proper place [Ritva],

what is the law

that the incense should become pigul or become invalid, as with offerings and with the kometz of the meal-offering?

Do we say: He derives

a gzera shava

“full” “full”

from the meal-offering,

concerning which it is stated: “This is the law of the burnt-offering, and of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the ordination-offerings, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings”—so the meal-offering was compared to peace-offerings, concerning which the principal law of pigul was stated—

and

just as there

in the meal-offering

thought is effective in it, so here too

in the incense

thought is effective in it —

or not?

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa:

Come and hear

from the Mishna in tractate Eduyot:

We learned in the Mishna in Hagiga 20b: A vessel joins together what is within it for sacred status, but not for teruma; that is: if there were many pieces of sacred food in one vessel, even if they do not touch one another, the vessel joins them to make them all one piece, and when impurity touched one of them, they all became impure.

And they disagreed in the Gemara there:

Rav Hanin holds that this law is from the Torah, and it is learned from the verse: “One ladle, ten [shekels] of gold, full of incense”; Scripture made everything that is in the vessel one.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is only rabbinic, and is an elevation concerning sacred things; and this is the established ruling [and according to his view it will be explained here].

Rabbi Shimon ben Betera testified concerning the sin-offering ashes [the ashes of the red cow]: if an impure person touched part of them, he rendered all of them impure.

Rabbi Akiva added

to Rabbi Shimon’s words—and testified:

Concerning

the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals

of Yom Kippur [the Ra’avad], which were placed even in a vessel that has no interior [Tosafot Yom Tov],

that if one who had immersed that day touched

who invalidates sacred things only

in part of them,

he

invalidated all of them.

It might enter your mind

of Rav Shimi bar Ashi:

Since

in the incense

one who had immersed that day

invalidates, it follows that the incense was consecrated with the sanctity of the substance of the vessel—

and if so,

staying overnight also invalidates

the incense—

And

since this is so,

since staying overnight invalidates

the incense, therefore

it invalidates

in it

also thought

with the intention that it remain overnight.

Rav Pappa asked: