Yoma 58a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yonatan says:

The koen, the Temple priest, sprinkles

from

the blood

of this

blood

separately, and he must not mix them together [Tosafot].

and he should not mix them together [Tosafot].

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

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: But it has already been stated:

“And he shall take”

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

, and since the verse leaves the matter unspecified, the unspecified matter is learned from the explicitly stated one. Just as with the sprinklings inside the innermost area and in the Sanctuary, he sprinkles from each one separately, so here too he sprinkles from each one separately, and he does not mix them together.

If so, why is it stated: “one”?

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 should be mixed with one another. You say that they should be mixed with one another; or perhaps it means that he sprinkles from each one separately. The verse states: “one”—

And the anonymous position

of this

baraita is that of Rabbi Yoshiya

, who holds that the blood is mixed for 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):

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda

about the law governing the receiving of sacrificial blood:

If one placed one vessel inside another vessel

, and the koen holds only the outer vessel in his hand,

and received in it

the blood in the inner vessel,

what is the law

? Is it valid?

The Gemara explains:

Does a substance of the same type

constitute

interpose

between the koen’s hand and the vessel in which the blood is received, so that this receiving was not performed by the koen, since he is not holding the vessel containing the blood [Rashi]?

Or

perhaps a substance of the same type

does not interpose?

Rav Ḥisda said to him

to Rami bar Ḥama:

You can resolve it

from our Mishna, which indicates that a substance of the same type does not interpose. 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 vessel; nevertheless, we learned:

He placed the

full

full

vessel, containing the blood,

in

the

empty vessel—is that not

what it means:

He placed a full vessel inside an empty vessel

and sprinkled from it? This shows that, in any event, the taking was performed by the High Priest.

And we reject this:

No

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

poured a full vessel into an empty vessel

in order to mix the blood.

And we ask: How can the Mishna be explained in this way?

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, so why would he pour again from the full vessel into the empty one?!

And we explain:

In order to mix them thoroughly

, because bloods are difficult to mix. Since the anonymous teacher of our Mishna holds that the blood is mixed for the corners because it is written “one,” he holds that they must be mixed thoroughly, so that they should not remain like two separate offerings [Ritva].

Come and hear a proof:

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the floor sanctifies [see note ], and Temple service vessels sanctify, just as with a Temple service vessel there must not be anything interposing between the koen and the service vessel when he receives the blood, as it is written, “And the koen shall take,” meaning that the taking must be performed by the koen himself [Rashi, Zevaḥim], so too with the floor there must not be anything interposing between the koen and the floor. Therefore:

If he was standing

the koen while performing the service

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

,

it is invalid.

We have therefore learned: Even his fellow’s foot, which is the same type as the koen’s foot, interposes.

And we reject this:

A foot is different

, meaning his fellow’s foot [this is a brief expression; Ritva],

for it does not

cease to be considered a foot

, since his fellow does not nullify the status of his foot there until the koen completes his service. Therefore, it is an interposition.

Some say:

Rami bar Ḥama was not uncertain because of interposition, since a substance of the same type does not interpose. Rather,

this is what Rami bar Ḥama asked him:

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda: If one placed one vessel inside another vessel and received the blood in it, is this

the proper manner of performing the service

of the Temple service,

or is this not the proper manner of performing the service?

Come and hear a proof: For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is written: “And they shall take

all the ‘Temple service vessels’ with which they serve in the Sanctuary”

[and place them in a cloth of blue]. This indicates that even

two vessels, as it says “vessels,”

as it is stated, “vessels

and one act of service, as it says “service

”;

this teaches you that this is a proper manner of performing the service.

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda:

If one placed a palm fiber

[a growth that surrounds the palm tree and coils around it]

inside the vessel and received the blood in it

, since the fiber is soft, it absorbs the blood, and the blood comes out through all its sides, so it does not interpose to the same extent,

what is the law

? Is the fiber considered an interposition—

a substance of one type in a substance of another type

—and therefore

does it interpose, or does it not interpose?

Since it is porous

, because the fiber is hollow and the blood flows through its openings into the vessel [Meiri],

it does not interpose

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

or perhaps it makes no difference?

In other words: We are certain that a substance of one type in a substance of another type interposes. Our uncertainty concerns the fiber, since it is porous; or perhaps it too interposes, so as not to distinguish between cases and establish different measures [Ritva; see his version].

Rav Ḥisda said to him

to Rami bar Ḥama:

You can resolve it

from a Mishna in Para:

The ashes of the red cow were placed in living water [spring water], which had been drawn directly from the spring into a vessel. Therefore:

If one who sanctifies the water [places the ashes of the red cow into living water] did so in 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 invalid, even if he squeezes it into a vessel, since it did not enter the vessel directly from the spring. But the rest of the water is valid, even though the water must touch the vessel, since the water comes out through 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 a tube in order to store and guard it for when he needs to sprinkle it on those rendered impure through contact with a corpse [Shiurei Yitzḥak], given that the water absorbed in the sponge is invalid?

He

draws out the water continuously

, meaning that he draws out [Ritva in the name of Rashi] all the water in the trough,

until he reaches the

water in the

sponge.

We have therefore learned that the rest of the water is valid even though it must touch the vessel, since the sponge is porous.

And we reject this: Water cannot be used to prove the law of blood, because

water is thin

[it is not as thick as blood], and it comes out through all the sides of the sponge and enters between the sponge and the vessel, whereas blood is thick.

Some say that he resolved it in this way

from that same Mishna:

The blood is valid

because it is not so thick. But

with the handful

of the meal-offering, which requires placing it in a vessel, an act analogous to receiving blood, if one placed it in a vessel containing a fiber,

it is invalid

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