the veins of the offering into the vessel, so that all the blood will empty into it. It was also stated: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The veins must see the airspace of the vessel.

§ Rabbi Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If the priest was collecting the blood, and the bottom of the bowl broke before the blood reached the bowl’s airspace, what is the halakha? Is blood that enters the airspace of a bowl that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside nevertheless considered as though it settled inside the vessel, so that when it spills through the break it is considered to have already been collected in the bowl? If so, it remains fit for sprinkling. Or is it not considered as though it settled, but is instead considered to have spilled directly from the animal’s neck onto the floor, and is therefore disqualified?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned the answer in a baraita: With regard to a barrel that is placed under a pipe to catch water running from it, both the water that has already flowed inside the barrel and that which is still outside it but about to fall in are unfit to be used as water of purification, which purify one who contracts impurity from a corpse. The water of purification must be flowing water, and all of this water is considered to have been collected in the barrel. But if one joined the mouth of the barrel to the pipe, the water that is inside the barrel is unfit, but water that is still outside it is fit, even though it will ultimately fall in, since it is still in the pipe and is not considered to be above the airspace of the barrel. One can infer from the baraita that all liquid that enters the airspace of a vessel is considered to have been collected in it.

The Gemara rejects this: What is this comparison? Rabbi Asi raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to a case where an item enters the airspace of a vessel that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside, and Rabbi Yoḥanan resolves the dilemma by citing a case where the item enters the airspace of a vessel that will ultimately allow it to settle inside.

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Asi raises two dilemmas before Rabbi Yoḥanan: First, what is the halakha with regard to an item that will not come to rest in the vessel? Second, if you say that an item that enters the airspace of a vessel that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside is not considered as though it settled inside the vessel, what is the halakha with regard to an item that entered the airspace of a vessel that will ultimately allow it to settle inside?

The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef teaches the exchange in this manner, i.e., as recounted. Rav Kahana teaches it as follows: Rabbi Asi raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to a barrel, asking whether the water in its airspace is fit to be used for the water of purification, and Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved the dilemma for him by citing the baraita mentioning a barrel, with which he was unfamiliar.

Rabba teaches the exchange as follows: Rabbi Asi raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to a barrel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved the dilemma for him by citing the halakha concerning a bowl used to collect the blood in the Temple, saying: Do you not concede with regard to the bowl that it is impossible to collect the blood in it without a stream of blood flowing through the air from animal’s neck? If the air above the bowl is not considered part of the bowl, the blood would be considered to have entered the bowl from the air above rather than directly from the animal’s neck, and all collected blood would be unfit. Therefore, the airspace must be considered part of the bowl, and the same holds for the barrel with regard to the water of purification.

The Gemara adds: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Para 6:4) with regard to sanctifying the water of purification: If one placed his hand or his foot or vegetable leaves in order to allow flowing water to pass through them to the barrel, the water is disqualified. But if the water passed through leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts, the water remains fit. This is the principle: If the water passes through an item that is susceptible to impurity, it is disqualified; if it passes through an item that is not susceptible to impurity, it is fit.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Abba: The verse states: “Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be pure” (Leviticus 11:36). The verse indicates that their being must be by way of purity, i.e., the gathering of the water must not be accomplished by way of items susceptible to impurity.

Rabbi Ḥiyya says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Since this mishna states that water that flows over one’s hand through the air into the barrel is disqualified, that is to say that the airspace above a vessel is considered as though it were part of the vessel itself. If it were not, the water would not be considered to have flowed directly from the hand to the vessel, but rather from the air above the vessel. Since air is not susceptible to impurity, the water would not be disqualified.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: But perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where the water flows weakly straight from the hand into the vessel itself, since the hand is situated directly on the edge of the vessel, with no air separating them? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Imbecile, we learned in the mishna: In order to allow flowing water to pass through them to the barrel. This indicates that the water is traveling in a stream and will pass through the air before reaching the barrel.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna concerning the barrel was taught from the testimony of Rabbi Tzadok, as we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 7:4): Rabbi Tzadok testified with regard to rivulets that one diverted by way of a pipe made with leaves of nuts that their water is fit to be used as water of purification. This was an incident in the town of Ohalya, and an account of the incident came before the Sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple, and they deemed the water fit.

§ Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collected its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: “And the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull” (Leviticus 4:5). By referring to the animal as a bull even after its slaughter, the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish.

The Gemara asks: We found a source for this halakha with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, since the verse is referring to such an offering; from where do we derive that the same holds for offerings of lesser sanctity?

Rava says: It is taught in a baraita with regard to the Paschal offering, an offering of lesser sanctity: The verse states: “A lamb without blemish, a male of the first year it shall be for you” (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter. From where is it derived that it must also be without blemish at the time of collection of the blood, at the time of conveying the blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: “It shall be,” emphasizing that all its happenings shall be only when it is unblemished and in its first year.

Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to any of the types of offerings that are mentioned in the Torah from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the halakha is that the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Apparently, one may sprinkle the blood even if much of the offering is damaged or missing.

The Gemara responds: Interpret the verse as referring only to the requirement that the animal be in its first year until after the sprinkling. It may have a blemish at the time of sprinkling.

The Gemara challenges this: But is there any case where the animal is in its first year at the time of slaughter, but at the time of conveying the blood to the altar and sprinkling the blood it is in its second year?

Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. It is therefore possible that the animal reaches its second year between its slaughter and the conveying of its blood to the altar.

§ Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where the animal is standing inside the Temple courtyard but its legs are planted outside it, if one severed its legs and thereafter slaughtered it, the offering is fit, since all the blood collected in the bowl is from the portion of the animal standing in the courtyard.