Yoma 95

רב פפא דבקיה לקומץ בדופניה דמנא מאי תוך כלי בעינן והא איכא או דילמא הנחה בתוכו כתקנו בעינן והא ליכא תיקו

R'Papa asked: If he stuck the fistful on to the side of the vessel, what then? Does the law require that it be put into the middle of the vessel, which is the case here, or must it be placed inside the vessel properly, and this was not done in our case? - The question remains unanswered.

בעי מר בר רב אשי אפכיה למנא ודבקיה לקומץ בארעיתיה דמנא מהו הנחה בתוכו בעינן והא איכא או דילמא הנחה כתקנו בעינן וליכא תיקו

Mar, the son of R'Ashi asked: If he overturned the vessel and placed the fistful on the bottom of the vessel, how then? Does the law require placing it in the vessel, which was done here, or is it to be placed properly, which has not been done?

בעי רב פפא מלא חפניו שאמרו מחוקות או גדושות א"ל רבי אבא לרב אשי ת"ש מלא חפניו שאמרו לא מחוקות ולא גדושות אלא טפופות

The question remains unanswered. R'Papa asked: With regard to the 'handfuls' are they to be heaped or levelled? -R'Abba said to R'Ashi: Come and hear: The 'handfuls' whereof they spoke are to be neither levelled, nor heaped, but liberally measured.

תנן התם נשפך הדם על הרצפה ואספו פסול מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר

- We learned elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 25a.');">¹</span> If the blood was poured out on the pavement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before having been received into a vessel, as prescribed.');">²</span>

מה"מ דת"ר (ויקרא ד, ה) ולקח מדם הפר מדם הנפש ולא מדם העור ולא מדם התמצית

and he gathered it up, it is invalidated. But if it was poured out of the vessel on the pavement and he gathered it up, it is usable.

מדם הפר דם מהפר יקבלנו דאי סלקא דעתך מדם הפר מדם ואפילו מקצת דם והאמר רב יהודה המקבל צריך שיקבל את כל דמו של פר שנאמר (ויקרא ד, ז) ואת כל דם הפר ישפוך אל יסוד מזבח

Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is necessary for the blood to flow from the neck of the animal straight into a vessel.');">³</span> - For the Rabbis taught: And [the anointed priest] shall take of the blood of the bullock,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 5.');">⁴</span>

אלא ש"מ מאי מדם הפר דם מהפר יקבלנו וקסבר גורעין ומוסיפין ודורשין

i.e.,from the blood of life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood coming forth in a jet, with which life leaves the body of the animal.');">⁵</span> and not from the blood of the skin, nor from the last blood oozing out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the vein which was cut.');">⁶</span>

בעי רב פפא נתפזר הקטורת ממלוא חפניו מהו ידו כצואר בהמה דמי ופסולה או דילמא ככלי שרת דמי ולא פסולה תיקו

'From the blood of the bullock' i.e., the blood from the bullock shall he receive [straight]. For if you were to interpret from the blood of the bullock' [as meaning] 'from the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew words are Mi-dam ha-par, 'From the blood of the bullock'. The 'mi' has partitive meaning-'from the blood', part of it, not all of it.');">⁷</span>

בעי רב פפא חישב בחפינת קטורת מהו מי אמרינן יליף מלא מלא ממנחה מה התם מהניא בה מחשבה הכא נמי מהניא בה מחשבה או לא

i.e.' even if only part of the blood, ha not Rab Judah said: He who receives the blood must receive the whole of the bullock's blood, as it is said: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 7.');">⁸</span>

א"ל רב שימי בר אשי לרב פפא ת"ש הוסיף רבי עקיבא (הקומץ) והקטורת והלבונה והגחלים שאם נגע טבול יום במקצתן פסל את כולן

hence it is evident from here that from the blood of the bullock' must be interpreted as 'blood from the bullock [straight]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning not from the skin, the vein, but that which is the bullock's life, with the jetting away of which his life too is gone.');">⁹</span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of the cited Baraitha. rpv osn');">¹⁰</span>

קא סלקא דעתך מדפסל טבול יום פסלה נמי לינה ומדלינה פסלה פסלה נמי מחשבה

holding the view: One may remove [a letter] and add [one] and thus interpret.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to remove a contradiction. This interpretation involves a change in the Hebrew text. Instead of the ad hoc reading is: rpvn os Involving a removal of one letter from the first word and its addition to the second word.');">¹¹</span> R'Papa asked: If the incense was scattered from his handfuls, how then?

בעי רב פפא

Is his hand to be compared to the neck of the animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the blood flows from the neck of the animal to the pavement, instead of being received in a vessel, it is invalidated. Does the same law apply when the incense is scattered?');">¹²</span> so that the incense would be invalidated, or is it to be compared to a ministering vessel and thus is not invalidated? - The question remains unanswered. R'Papa asked further: If, in taking the handfuls of the incense, he had an [unlawful] intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An intention at the moment of slaying to eat of the flesh beyond the allotted time renders the animal in question 'a vile thing' (Zeb. 25a) . If the priest has similar intention, i.e., to offer up the incense tomorrow instead of today, would the same consequence ensue for the incense?');">¹³</span> what then? Do we say that we infer [the meaning] of 'full' [by analogy of] 'full' occurring with the meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 223.');">¹⁴</span> [viz. ,] as in that case an [unlawful] intention effects an invalidation, so here too, an unlawful intention will effect an invalidation, or is it not so? -R'Shimi B'Ashi said to R'Papa: Come and hear: R'Akiba added [the cases of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hag. 23b, Sonc. ed., for notes.');">¹⁵</span> the fine flour, the incense, the balm, and the embers [of the sanctuary]. that if a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who has bathed in daytime but must await the sunset to be perfectly clean. V. Lev. XXII, 7.');">¹⁶</span> had touched part of them, he invalidated all of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vessel of ministry combining the various constituent parts of the flour etc., as one. V. Hag., Sonc. ed., ');">¹⁷</span> Now the assumption is that since a tebul yom invalidates them '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the union effected by the vessel of ministry.');">¹⁸</span> so does their being kept overnight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In virtue of the fact that they were contained in a vessel of ministry. V Me'il. 10a.');">¹⁹</span> and since their being kept overnight invalidates them, so does unlawful intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since the incense by being placed in a vessel of ministry received a holy character in respect of contact with a tebul yom, and being kept overnight, it becomes invalidated through unlawful intention.');">²⁰</span> R'Papa asked: