יומא 58:1 — Soncino English Talmud

R. Jonathan said: [He sprinkled] separately from the one and from the other. Said R. Josaia to him: But was it not said already: ‘Once’? To this R. Jonathan replied: But was it not said already: ‘From the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat’? Why then was the word ‘once’ stated? To tell you, [sprinkle] once, but not twice from the blood of the bullock; once and not twice from the blood of the he-goat. Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘And he shall take from the blood of the bullock and from the blood of the he-goat’ i.e., that the two shall be mixed together. You say that they shall be mixed together! but perhaps he should sprinkle separately from the one and from the other? To teach us the right thing, Scripture says: ‘once’ and the anonymous [Baraitha] is in agreement with the view of R. Joshua. HE POURED THE [CONTENTS OF] THE FULL VESSEL INTO THE EMPTY ONE: Rami b. Hama asked of R. Hisda: If he placed one bowl into another and this received the blood, what then? Is homogeneous matter considered an interposition or not? He answered: You have learnt that already: HE POURED [THE CONTENTS OF] THE FULL VESSEL INTO THE EMPTY ONE. Does this mean that he placed the full bowl into the empty one? — No, it means that he poured the full vessel into the empty one. But the first part states already: HE POURED THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK INTO THE BLOOD OF THE HE-GOAT? — [It is repeated] in order [to make sure] that he will mix it very well indeed. Come and hear: If he stood upon any vessel, or upon his fellow's foot, it is invalid! — It is different with his neighbour's foot, because he [his fellow] does not abandon it. Some there are who say: This is how he asked of him: Is such the manner of ministration or not? Come and hear: For the school of R. Ishmael taught:[And they shall take] all the vessels of ministry, wherewith they minister in the sanctuary, i.e., two vessels, but one ministry [service]. Rami b. Hama asked of R. Hisda: If he deposited bast in the bowl and he received the blood therewith, what then? Is heterogeneous matter considered an interposition or not? Is it not considered an interposition, since it penetrates [the blood], or is there no difference? — He replied to him: We have learnt that: He empties out the water until the sponge is reached. — It is different with water because it is very weak. Some there are who say: This is how he answered him: In the case of the blood it is permitted, but in the case of the fistful it is invalid. 11^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ

^ᵃnote:The priest is to receive the blood. If one bowl is considered an interposition, then the priest, whose hand does not hold the bowl containing the blood, is not really receiving the blood, the ministration then should be cancelled as invalid. (This discussion refers, as Rashi explains, not just to the Day of Atonement, but to the service on any day of the year). The two bowls are homogeneous and if they be considered as interposition, then the above question follows. With regard to heterogeneous matter, there is no doubt; it surely is considered an interposition, v. Tosaf. s.v. ihn.
^ᵇnote:That would indicate that homogeneous matter is not considered an interposition and would thus settle the above question in the affirmative.
^ᶜnote:So that the situation is entirely different and no inference as to the interposition of homogeneous matter is possible.
^ᵈnote:If the priest, in receiving the blood, stood upon a vessel, then that vessel was interposing between the floor of the Sanctuary and the priest, therefore invalidating the service. (Zeb. 24a). Similarly, if he stood upon his fellow's foot. The foot, however, is homogeneous and the fact that the service is cancelled, would seem to indicate that homogeneous matter is considered an interposition, so that the question above would appear to be answered.
^ᵉnote:Homogeneous matter is not considered an interposition, but a human foot is an undeniable entity.
^ᶠnote:Num. IV, 12.
^ᵍnote:I.e., vessels in the plural means at least two (although the plural is indefinite as to the maximum, there is the undeniable minimum of two); whereas the word ministry refers to one ministration only.
^ʰnote:The bast is heterogeneous to the bowl, hence should be considered an interposition. But since the blood penetrates the bast and reaches the bowl, does it cancel the interposing bast, so that, as it were, the priest had received the blood in the bowl proper, as viewed retroactively, or not?
^ⁱnote:Parah VI, 3: If someone was mixing the ashes (of the red heifer) in the water of a trough of stone, and there was a sponge in the trough then the water in the sponge is invalid, as a sponge is not a vessel. What should he do? The water in the trough should be poured out until the sponge is reached and the water is valid. Hence we see that a sponge is not considered interposing so as to invalidate the whole water, and similarly here, the bast should not be considered as interposing between the bowl and the blood.
^ʲnote:Because it is thin.
^ᵏnote:For the fistful of the flour-offering was required to be received in the vessel after having first been taken, analogous to the receiving of the blood, hence any interposing object would render the ministration invalid.