## Yoma Daf 58a

###### Yoma 58a:1
[Yoma 58a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:1)

רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִזֶּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִזֶּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״אַחַת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Yoma 58a:2
[Yoma 58a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:2)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״! אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״אַחַת״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם מִדַּם הַפָּר, אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 58a:3
[Yoma 58a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:3)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״ — שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִזֶּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּמִזֶּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחַת״. וּסְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 58a:4
[Yoma 58a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:4)

נָתַן אֶת הַמָּלֵא בָּרֵיקָן וְכוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הִנִּיחַ מִזְרָק בְּתוֹךְ מִזְרָק, וְקִבֵּל בּוֹ אֶת הַדָּם, מַהוּ? מִין בְּמִינוֹ חוֹצֵץ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Yoma 58a:5
[Yoma 58a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: נָתַן אֶת הַמָּלֵא בָּרֵיקָן. מַאי לָאו: הוֹשִׁיב מִזְרָק מָלֵא לְתוֹךְ מִזְרָק רֵיקָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Yoma 58a:6
[Yoma 58a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:6)

לָא, עֵירָה מִזְרָק מָלֵא לְתוֹךְ מִזְרָק רֵיקָן. הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: עֵירָה דַּם הַפָּר לְתוֹךְ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר! כְּדֵי לְעָרְבָן יָפֶה יָפֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 58a:7
[Yoma 58a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלִי, אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי רֶגֶל חֲבֵירוֹ — פָּסוּל! שָׁאנֵי רֶגֶל, דְּלָא מָצֵי מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 58a:8
[Yoma 58a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:8)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, הָכִי בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: דֶּרֶךְ שֵׁירוּת בְּכָךְ, אוֹ אֵין דֶּרֶךְ שֵׁירוּת בְּכָךְ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״אֶת כׇּל כְּלֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ בָם בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ״ — שְׁנֵי כֵלִים וְשֵׁירוּת אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Yoma 58a:9
[Yoma 58a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:9)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: הִנִּיחַ סִיב בְּתוֹךְ הַמִּזְרָק, וְקִבֵּל בּוֹ אֶת הַדָּם, מַהוּ: מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ חוֹצֵץ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ? כֵּיוָן דִּמְחַלְחֵל — לָא חָיֵיץ, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Yoma 58a:10
[Yoma 58a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: זוֹלֵף וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַסְּפוֹג! שָׁאנֵי מַיָּא דִּקְלִישִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Yoma 58a:11
[Yoma 58a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/58a:11)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, הָכִי פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ: בְּדָם — כָּשֵׁר. בְּקוֹמֶץ — פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.