## Yoma Daf 48a

###### Yoma 48a:1
[Yoma 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:1)

רַב פָּפָּא: דַּבְּקֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּדוּפְנֵיהּ דְּמָנָא, מַאי? תּוֹךְ כְּלִי בָּעֵינַן — וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא: הַנָּחָה בְּתוֹכוֹ כְּתִקְנוֹ בָּעֵינַן — וְהָא לֵיכָּא. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa: What** is the *halakha* in a case where **he stuck the handful** of flour **onto the side of the vessel?** After the flour of a meal-offering has been separated, it must be placed in a vessel for burning, an action that sanctifies the flour. Rav Pappa inquires as to what the *halakha* is if the priest places the flour on the sides, instead of on the bottom of the vessel. The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Do **we require** the handful to be **inside the vessel, and that is** the case here? **Or perhaps we require** the handful to be **placed properly inside** the vessel, **and that is not** fulfilled in this instance. No answer is found for this question, and the Gemara concludes: **Let it stand** unresolved.


###### Yoma 48a:2
[Yoma 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:2)

בָּעֵי מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַפְכֵיהּ לְמָנָא וְדַבְּקֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּאַרְעִיתֵיהּ דְמָנָא, מַהוּ? הַנָּחָה בְּתוֹכוֹ בָּעֵינַן — וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא הַנָּחָה כְּתִקְנוֹ בָּעִינַן — וְלֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi raised** a similar **dilemma: What** is the *halakha* if the priest **overturned the vessel and stuck** the **handful to** an indentation in **the underside of the vessel?** Do **we require** the handful to be **inside** the vessel, **and that** requirement **is** fulfilled here; **or perhaps we require** it to be **placed properly** in the vessel, **and that is not** the case here? With regard to this question as well, the Gemara states: **Let it stand** unresolved.


###### Yoma 48a:3
[Yoma 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:3)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו שֶׁאָמְרוּ — מְחוּקוֹת, אוֹ גְדוּשׁוֹת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו שֶׁאָמְרוּ — לֹא מְחוּקוֹת, וְלֹא גְּדוּשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא טְפוּפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa raised a dilemma:** Should **the handfuls to which** the Sages **referred** be **smoothed** over **or** slightly **overflowing? Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** an explicit statement in a *baraita*: **The handfuls to which** the Sages **referred** should be **neither smoothed** over **nor overflowing, but full,** without any flour spilling out.


###### Yoma 48a:4
[Yoma 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ פָּסוּל. מִן הַכְּלִי עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there,** in *Zevaḥim* 32a: If **the blood** of the sacrificial animal **spilled on the floor** instead of being collected directly into a vessel, **and** a priest **collected it** from there into a vessel, **it is disqualified,** as it was not collected properly. Conversely, if the blood spilled **from the vessel onto the floor,** after it was collected properly, **and** a priest **collected it** and put it back in the vessel, **it is valid.**


###### Yoma 48a:5
[Yoma 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:5)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר״, מִדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְלֹא מִדַּם הָעוֹר, וְלֹא מִדַּם הַתַּמְצִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **As the Sages taught** in a halakhic midrash: **“And** the anointed priest **shall take from the blood of the bull”** (Leviticus 4:5); this means that the priest shall take **from the blood of the soul,** i.e., the bull’s blood that flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies, **and not from the blood of the skin,** which bleeds out when the skin is cut before the slaughter, **nor from the blood squeezed** from an animal after the initial spurt.


###### Yoma 48a:6
[Yoma 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:6)

״מִדַּם הַפָּר״, דָּם מֵהַפָּר יְקַבְּלֶנּוּ, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ ״מִדַּם הַפָּר״ — ״מִדָּם״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת דָּם, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַמְקַבֵּל, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אֶת כׇּל דָּמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵת כׇּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* interprets the phrase **“from the blood of the bull,”** as though these words were written in a different order: **Blood from the bull,** i.e., the priest shall **receive it** directly. **For if it should enter your mind** that the letter *mem*, which means “from” in the phrase **“from the blood of the bull,”** is limiting **and** indicates that **even** if the priest received **some of the blood,** his action is acceptable, **didn’t Rav Yehuda say: He who receives** the blood **must receive all of the blood of** the **bull, as it is stated: “And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar”** (Leviticus 4:7)? This verse emphasizes that the priest must pour all of the bull’s blood, which is possible only if he has collected all of it.


###### Yoma 48a:7
[Yoma 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:7)

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מַאי ״מִדַּם הַפָּר״ — דָּם מֵהַפָּר יְקַבְּלֶנּוּ. וְקָסָבַר: גּוֹרְעִין וּמוֹסִיפִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, learn from this** that **what is** the meaning of the phrase: **“From the blood of the bull”?** It means that the priest must **receive** the **blood** directly **from the bull. And** this Sage **maintains** that the Sages **subtract and add and interpret homiletically,** i.e., one may take a letter from one word, insert it into a second word, and explain the phrase in that manner.


###### Yoma 48a:8
[Yoma 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:8)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: נִתְפַּזֵּר הַקְּטוֹרֶת מִמְּלוֹא חׇפְנָיו, מַהוּ? יָדוֹ כְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה דָּמֵי — וּפְסוּלָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דָּמֵי — וְלָא פְּסוּלָה? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa raised a dilemma** based on the above ruling: **What** is the *halakha* if **the incense from his handfuls scattered?** Is **his hand considered like the neck of the animal, and** the incense is **disqualified? Or perhaps** his hand **is considered like a vessel used in the Temple service, and** if the incense fell from his hand **it is not disqualified.** No answer was found for this question either, and the Gemara again concludes: **Let it stand** unresolved.


###### Yoma 48a:9
[Yoma 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:9)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: חִישֵּׁב בַּחֲפִינַת קְטוֹרֶת, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן יָלֵיף ״מְלֹא״ ״מְלֹא״ מִמִּנְחָה, מָה הָתָם מַהְנְיָא בַּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, הָכָא נָמֵי מַהְנְיָא בַּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה, אוֹ לֹא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa raised** another **dilemma: What** is the *halakha* if the High Priest **thought** a disqualifying thought **during the taking of the handful of the incense,** e.g., if he intended to burn it after its appropriate time? Does this thought invalidate the rite or not? **Do we say** that this *halakha* **is derived** by means of a verbal analogy of **“handfuls”** and **“handfuls,” from** the case of **a meal-offering,** as follows: **Just as there,** with regard to the meal-offering, **thought is effective** to invalidate **it, so too** here, with regard to taking a handful of incense, **thought is effective** to invalidate **it? Or** should the two cases **not** be compared?


###### Yoma 48a:10
[Yoma 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי לְרַב פָּפָּא: תָּא שְׁמַע: הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא (הַקּוֹמֶץ) וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַגֶּחָלִים, שֶׁאִם נָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּמִקְצָתָן — פָּסַל אֶת כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: Come** and **hear** a resolution to your dilemma: **Rabbi Akiva added the handful** of fine flour **and the incense, and the frankincense, and the coals** that are collected in a vessel, to the ruling of the Sages **that if one who immersed himself during the day touched part of them, he disqualifies all of them.** Due to the respect in which sacred objects are held, these objects are treated as one solid unit. This is so despite the fact that its parts are not really attached to each other but are separate small segments and therefore, logically, one who immersed himself during the day should disqualify only those parts of the item with which he came into direct contact.


###### Yoma 48a:11
[Yoma 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:11)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ: מִדְּפָסַל טְבוּל יוֹם — פָּסְלָה נָמֵי לִינָה. וּמִדְּלִינָה פָּסְלָה — פָּסְלָה נָמֵי מַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **It enters your mind** that **from** the fact that **one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies** these items by touch, therefore **leaving** them after their permitted time **likewise disqualifies** them; **and from** the fact that **leaving** them after their time **disqualifies** them, therefore **thought likewise disqualifies** them. Consequently, as incense is similar to flour with regard to ritual impurity, it is also disqualified by the priest’s improper thought.


###### Yoma 48a:12
[Yoma 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/48a:12)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa raised** another **dilemma:**