Yoma 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yonatan says:

the priest sprinkles

from

the blood

of this one separately, and from

the blood

of that one separately,

and he should not mix them together [Tosafot].

Rabbi Yashya said to him: But it has already been stated, “one”?!

; and:

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: But has it not already been stated:

“And he shall take”

from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat,

and since the verse states this without specification, the unspecified passage should be derived from the explicit one: Just as, with regard to the sprinklings in the innermost chamber and in the Sanctuary, he sprinkles from each one separately, so too here he sprinkles from each one separately, and he should not mix them together.

If so, why is it stated: “one”?

; and:

To teach you: one, and not two, from the blood of the bull

,

so that he should not place the blood of the bull on the corners of the altar twice, but should place it only once on all four corners, from the blood of the bull [see note ],

one, and not two, from the blood of the goat.

It was taught in another baraita: “And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat,” that they be mixed with one another. You say that they should be mixed with one another; or perhaps it means: He sprinkles from each one separately. Therefore the verse states: “one”—

And the anonymous position

of this baraita

is in accordance with Rabbi Yashya,

who maintains that the bloods are mixed for the sprinkling on the corners. We learned in the Mishna: He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat and

placed the full vessel

(and so on):

The Tosafot also proved their approach from here: Although Rabbi Yashya maintains everywhere that the verse implies both together, nevertheless, in our case we should have said that the unspecified passage is derived from the explicit one, and that the bloods are not mixed for the sprinkling on the corners. The sole reason that they are mixed for the sprinkling on the corners is that it is stated: “one.” For if this were not so, but rather the matter were as it appears at first glance—that Rabbi Yashya is following his own general approach—how can the Gemara say that this anonymous Mishna, which establishes that the bloods are mixed for the sprinkling on the corners because it is stated “one,” is in accordance with Rabbi Yashya? According to Rabbi Yashya himself, the derivation from “one” would not be necessary.

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda

about the halakha concerning receiving the blood of offerings:

If one placed one basin inside another basin

and the priest held only the outer basin in his hand,

and received the blood in it

—in the inner basin—

what is

the halakha? Is it valid?

The Gemara explains:

Does one species in contact with its own species

constitute

a barrier

between the priest’s hand and the basin in which the blood is received, so that this is not reception by the priest, since he is not holding the basin containing the blood [Rashi] ;

or

perhaps one species in contact with its own species

does not constitute a barrier?

He said to him

Rav Ḥisda to Rami bar Ḥama,

you have learned it

in our Mishna, which indicates that one species in contact with its own species does not constitute a barrier: For the Torah says, “And he shall take” from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat, and this “taking” is the holding of the basin. Nevertheless, we learned:

He placed the

full

vessel

containing the blood

in

the

empty vessel; is that not

what it means?

He placed a full basin inside an empty basin

and sprinkled from it. Thus, in any event, it is the taking of the High Priest.

And we reject this:

No,

that is not the interpretation of the Mishna. Rather, this is its interpretation: He then

poured a full basin into an empty basin

in order to mix the blood.

And we raise a difficulty: How can the Mishna be interpreted in this manner,

but

it

already taught at the beginning: He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat,

and the bloods had already been mixed? Why would he then pour from the full vessel into the empty one again?!

And we explain:

In order to mix them thoroughly,

because bloods are difficult to mix. Since the tanna of our Mishna maintains that the bloods are mixed for the sprinkling on the corners because it is written “one,” he maintains that they must be mixed thoroughly, so that they will not be like two separate substances [Ritva].

Come and hear:

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor sanctifies [see note ], and sacred vessels sanctify, just as, with regard to a sacred vessel, nothing may interpose between the priest and the sacred vessel when receiving the blood, as it is written: “And the priest shall take,” indicating that the taking must be performed by the priest himself [Rashi, Zevaḥim], so too, with regard to the floor, nothing may interpose between the priest and the floor. Therefore:

If he was standing

the priest, while performing the service,

on top of a vessel or on top of his fellow’s foot,

that is

invalid.

We have thus learned: Even his fellow’s foot, which is of the same species as the priest’s foot, constitutes a barrier.

And we reject this:

A foot is different,

that is, his fellow’s foot [this is an abbreviated expression; Ritva]

for he does not

nullify it

, since his fellow does not nullify the status of his foot there until the priest completes his service. Therefore, it constitutes a barrier.

Some say:

Rami bar Ḥama did not raise his question because of a barrier, since one species in contact with its own species does not constitute a barrier [Rav Avraham Lichtenstein]; rather,

this is what Rami bar Ḥama asked him

of Rav Ḥisda: If one placed one basin inside another basin and received the blood in it, is this

the manner of service

[sacrificial service]

or is this not the manner of service?

the corresponding point explains that the question concerns a non-priest who received the blood, in order to establish liability for doing so.

Come and hear: For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael

taught: It is written: “And they shall take

all the ‘sacred vessels’ with which they minister in the Sanctuary

[and place them in a cloth of blue],” indicating: even

two vessels,

as it is stated, “vessels

,”

and

; and:

one service,

as it is stated, “service”; this teaches you that this is a manner of service.

; and:

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda:

If one placed a palm fiber

inside the basin and received the blood in it,

the fiber, being soft, absorbs the blood, and the blood emerges from all its sides, so that it does not constitute such a complete barrier;

what is

the halakha as to whether the fiber constitutes a barrier—

one species in contact with a different species

is

a barrier, or is it not a barrier?

Since it is porous

—the fiber is hollow, and the blood descends through the openings into the basin [Meiri]—therefore

it does not constitute a barrier

, and the entire procedure is valid, since it is all connected together [Rashash],

or perhaps it is no different?

That is: We are certain that one species in contact with a different species constitutes a barrier; and we are uncertain with regard to the fiber, since it is porous, or perhaps it too constitutes a barrier, so as not to distinguish and establish different measures [Ritva; see his version].

He said to him

Rav Ḥisda to Rami bar Ḥama:

You have learned it,

in a Mishna in tractate Para:

The ashes of the red heifer were placed into living water [spring water] drawn directly from the spring into a vessel. Therefore:

If one who sanctifies the water [places the ashes of the red heifer into living water] does so inside a trough [a stone vessel with a receptacle, standing at the edge of the spring, into which the water enters through a hole in its wall], and there was a sponge inside the trough, the water absorbed in the sponge is disqualified, even if he squeezes it into a vessel, since it did not reach the vessel directly from the spring; whereas the rest of the water is valid, even though it must come into contact with the vessel, since the water emerges from all sides of the sponge and enters between the sponge and the vessel—

What does he do when he comes to pour the water from the trough into a small flask or tube in order to store and guard it for when he needs to sprinkle it upon those impure with corpse impurity [ShiYatz], given that the water in the sponge is disqualified?

He

draws it off continuously

, that is, he draws [Ritva in the name of Rashi] all the water from the trough,

until he reaches the

water in the

sponge.

We have thus learned that the remaining water is valid even though it must come into contact with the vessel, since the sponge is porous.

And we reject this: Water cannot be compared to blood, because

water is thin

[it is not as thick as blood], and it emerges from all sides and enters between the sponge and the vessel, unlike blood, which is thick.

Some say that he resolved it in this manner

from that Mishna:

With regard to valid blood,

which is not so thick, the procedure is valid; but

with regard to the handful

of a meal-offering, for which “placing in a vessel,” analogous to receiving the blood, is required, if one placed it in a vessel containing a fiber, it is

invalid,

even though the flour is extremely fine, and at times the openings of the fiber do not adhere tightly to one another and the flour passes through the fiber [Ritva in the name of Tosafot, and the Early Tosafot].