יומא נ״ז ב:ט״ו-נ״ח א:א׳

Rather, Rava said: He presents downward seven times for the purpose of the bull, and he again presents upward once and downward seven times for the purpose of the goat.,The Gemara asks another question: What if the cups became mixed, i.e., if the bowl containing the blood of the bull was confused with that of the blood of the goat? The Gemara explains: He presents blood from one cup by sprinkling upward once and downward seven times, and he again presents a second set of sprinklings from the second cup.,And he again presents another set of sprinklings, again from the first cup, which amounts to a total of three times. In this manner, he fulfills the obligation no matter which cup was which. If the first cup was that of the bull’s blood and the second was that of the goat, he fulfilled his obligation with the first and second sprinklings. If the first cup contained the blood of the goat, he performed the sprinkling of the goat’s blood before that of the bull, which means his first set of sprinklings are discounted. Consequently, when he sprinkled from the second cup, which contains the bull’s blood, and a third time from the cup of the goat’s blood, he fulfilled his obligation with the second and third sets of sprinklings.,The Gemara asks yet another question: If only part of the blood became mixed together and part of the blood did not become mixed, e.g., if some of the blood spilled and became mixed in a third vessel, the solution is obvious: When he presents, he presents from the blood of certain identity.,However, one could still ask a question with regard to this case: What is the status of the mixed blood in the other vessel or vessels? Are they considered the remainder of the blood, and the remainder of the blood goes to the base of the altar like the remainder of all blood of sin-offerings? Or perhaps this mixture of blood is rejected, as the blood from this vessel was not used for the first sprinklings, and therefore the two types of blood are spilled and go to the canal beneath the altar, which rinses all the dirt from the courtyard into the Kidron River.,Rav Pappa said: Even according to the one who says that one cup renders its counterpart a remainder, i.e., if a one collected blood in two cups, the blood in the second cup is considered the remainder of the first cup, this applies only in a case where he could present blood from the second cup if he wanted to, i.e., if both cups were filled with blood from the offering. However, in this case, as the blood in this vessel could not be presented even if he wanted to, it does not become a remainder, and it is therefore certainly rejected.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that when blood is collected in two cups one cup renders the blood of its counterpart rejected, that applies only when he rejects the second cup with his own hands, i.e., by means of a direct act. However, in a case where he does not reject it with his own hands, as no act of rejection was performed but rather the blood became a remainder by itself, the blood is not rejected.,As it was taught in a baraita: In the verse above, it says: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of the burnt-offering, and he shall pour its blood out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering” (Leviticus 4:25). And in the verse below it says: “And the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar of burnt-offering, and he shall pour all its blood out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30). The second verse adds the word “all.”,The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented blood from each of them by sprinkling once from this cup and once from that cup until he has sprinkled four times, once from each cup, that the leftover blood in all the cups is poured out as remainders on the base of the altar? The verse states: “And he shall pour all its blood.”,One might have thought that even if he presented four presentations from one of them, all the rest should be spilled on the base of the altar as remainder; therefore, the verse states: “And he shall pour its blood.” This indicates that not all the blood, but only that blood in the bowl from which blood was sprinkled on the altar, is poured on the base as a remainder, and the rest of the cups of blood are poured into the canal. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: From where is it derived with regard to a sin-offering that if one collected its blood in four cups and presented four presentations from one of them, that they are all poured at the base of the altar? The verse states: “And he shall pour all its blood.”,The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it also written: “And he shall pour its blood”? How does he explain this difference between the verses? Rav Ashi said: When the Torah states “its blood,” it comes to exclude the remainders that are in the throat of the animal. If more blood comes out of the throat after the collection of the blood, that blood is certainly not poured on the base of the altar but is swept into the canal of the Temple.,§ The mishna states that after the High Priest sprinkled the blood toward the curtain he poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The Gemara comments: We learned this mishna in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the High Priest mixes the two types of blood before placing them on the corners of the inner altar, and he does not present each one separately. As it was stated: The later tanna’im, Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan, debated this issue. One of them said: The High Priest mixes the blood for the purpose of placing the blood on the altar’s corners, and one of them said: He does not mix the blood.,The Gemara comments: Conclude that Rabbi Yoshiya was the tanna who said that the High Priest mixes the blood. In general, he maintains that whenever a verse mentions two matters, although the term: Together, is not written explicitly, it is considered as though the term: Together, is indeed written. In other words, two items that appear in the same verse are treated as combined unless expressly stated otherwise. By contrast, Rabbi Yonatan maintains that even if two matters are mentioned together they are treated separately unless the verse uses the term: Together. In this case, the verse states: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat” (Leviticus 16:18). Therefore, Rabbi Yoshiya rules that the High Priest must place the two sets of blood together.,The Gemara rejects this contention. Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, it remains possible to explain its ruling, since it is different here, as it is written “once” (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that there must be one act of sprinkling and not two. Consequently, the High Priest must mix the blood to ensure that there is only one presentation.,The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita contrary to our response, but in accordance with the initial assumption: “And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat, and put it on the corners of the altar round about” (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says: He presents from this one, the bull’s blood, by itself, and he presents from that one, the goat’s blood, by itself and does not mix them. Rabbi Yoshiya said to him: But wasn’t it already stated: “And Aaron shall make atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement” (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that the High Priest does not present twice?,Rabbi Yonatan said to him: But wasn’t it already stated: “Of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat” (Leviticus 16:18), which teaches that each set of sprinklings must be performed by itself? If so, why is “once” stated? This verse comes to tell you that he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the bull; and likewise he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the goat. From the blood of each of the animals, the High Priest presents only one set of sprinklings. This shows that Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan indeed disagree with regard to this issue.,It was taught in another baraita: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat” (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed together. Do you say that they should be mixed together, or perhaps that is not the case; rather, he presents from this blood by itself and from that by itself? Therefore, the verse states: “Once.” The Gemara comments: And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who said the two sets of blood are mixed, as stated in the mishna.,§ It was taught in the mishna that after the High Priest poured the bull’s blood into the goat’s blood, he placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl, to mix the blood well. Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha if he placed one bowl inside a second bowl and collected the blood in the inner bowl? Does one type of object mingled with another of its own type interpose, which would mean that the priest has not collected the blood himself, as the outer bowl interposed between him and the vessel? Or perhaps an object of one type does not interpose for another object of the same type, and therefore the two bowls are considered one object.,Rav Ḥisda said to him: We have already learned the answer to this question in the mishna: He placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl. What, is it not correct to infer from this statement that he inserted the full bowl into the empty bowl?,Rami bar Ḥama responded: No, it means that he poured the full bowl into an empty bowl. Rav Ḥisda said to him: But this statement is unnecessary, as the tanna of the mishna already taught the requirement to pour from one vessel into another in the first clause: He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The subsequent phrase: He placed the full into the empty, must therefore refer to the placement of one vessel inside another. Rami bar Ḥama responded: No, it means that he pours the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl a second time in order to mix them very well. To this end, he pours from one vessel into the other before again pouring the mixture back into the first vessel, thereby mixing them thoroughly.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this question: If a priest performed the Temple service while he was standing on top of a vessel, or on the foot of another priest, his service is disqualified, as the priest must stand directly on the floor of the Temple. The fact that the foot of another person is considered an interposition proves that one type serves as an interposition with regard to another object of the same type. The Gemara rejects this contention: A foot is different, as he cannot nullify it. The foot of another person cannot be considered nullified with respect to the priest’s foot, but in the case of a vessel it is possible to say that one vessel is nullified in favor of another vessel.,Some say that Rami bar Ḥama did not refer to the issue of interposition at all. Rather, this is the dilemma he raised before Rav Ḥisda: Is placing one vessel inside another vessel a proper manner of service; or is this not a proper manner of service, and if one does so his service is disqualified? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “And they shall take all the service vessels, with which they serve in the Sanctuary” (Numbers 4:12). This verse is referring to two vessels and one service, which indicates that this is a proper manner of service.,§ Rami bar Ḥama raised another dilemma before Rav Ḥisda along the same lines: What is the halakha if he placed bast, the material that grows around palm trees, inside the bowl, and collected the blood in the bowl through the bast, such that the blood seeps through into the bowl? Does one type of object mixed with another not of its own type interpose; or perhaps it does not interpose? Could one say that since the blood seeps through, it therefore does not interpose? Or perhaps this case is no different, and as there is a foreign object in the vessel it is considered an interposition even if the blood seeps through.,Rav Ḥisda said to him in response: We already learned this matter with regard to sanctifying the purification waters, i.e., the water mixed with ashes of the red heifer. If a sponge was placed inside the container of water, the water in the sponge is disqualified and the priest may not sprinkle with it. How should he proceed? He sprinkles from the water and continues until he reaches the sponge. This shows that the presence of the sponge in the water container is not considered an interposition for the water in the container, despite the fact that it itself is unfit for the service. Rami bar Ḥama replied: This is no proof. Water is different, as it is thin and therefore it certainly seeps through the sponge and reaches the bowl; whereas the thicker blood will perhaps not seep into the fiber.,Some say that this is how Rav Ḥisda resolved the problem of placing the bast in the bowl for Rami bar Ḥama: In the case of the blood it is valid, as blood passes through, and the bast does not obstruct it. However, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, which must be sanctified in a vessel immediately after the handful is taken, if he put bast in a vessel and placed the handful on top of it, it is disqualified. The reason is that the handful of a meal-offering consists of dough, which does not pass through the bast, and it is therefore considered a proper interposition.