We begin a few lines down on the first page. We said above that when an individual brings an offering, the wood comes from the public supply. That is one of the benefits of contributing the half-shekel: when he brings his offering, he receives wood from the public treasury.
This seems obvious, but where do we know it from? The verse says that an individual may bring fire from his own home, so that he could bring the finest materials from his own house. The verse states, “For the fire upon the altar, and the wood upon the fire.” What is meant by “the fire upon the altar”? The words of Rabbi Elazar are understood by Rabbi Elazar in this way: the verse says, “For the fire upon the altar, and the wood upon the fire.” Why mention the fire? An individual does not have to go searching for fire elsewhere. Rather than walking with his own fire, let us provide it for him.
Just as the other two items mentioned in the same verse come from the public supply, so too the wood comes from the public supply. The juxtaposition of the three items in the same verse teaches that the wood comes from the public.
There is another derivation from this verse: the altar may not be made from materials that a private individual could use for himself. It must be built from materials designated for the sanctity of the altar. Accordingly, the wood and the fire may not be used for private purposes.
What is the disagreement between the two rabbis? The practical difference concerns new wood. According to the second rabbi, must the wood used for the offering be new? If wood was used for something else first, it would be invalid. According to Rabbi Elazar, however, even previously used wood is acceptable, as long as it belongs to the public. The issue, then, is whether new wood is required.
I asked whether the wood must be new, and the response was, “Certainly not.” Does that mean that old wood is not valid? The verse concerning Aravna, whom David approached to purchase the property for the Temple, says that Aravna told David, “Take it, and let the king do whatever offering he wishes.”
We discussed the different items that Aravna offered. What were the threshing tools? They were certain implements used for threshing, and they were made of wood. Thus, they had already been used for another purpose. Nevertheless, Aravna told David to take them and use them as wood for the Temple.
Ulla says that they were made from a type of wood used for threshing the ground. Rabbi Yosef asks about the verse, “It will thresh the mountains,” which refers to these threshing implements. In any event, we see that previously used items could be used. The person dismantled his threshing implement and donated the wood to the Temple. Once it belonged to the public, that was sufficient.
Now we come to the Mishnah. I had confused the remains of one meal offering with those of another. In the case of the meal offering of a priest, the entire offering goes onto the altar. I had confused it with the meal offering brought by the High Priest, which he brings every day, half in the morning and half in the evening. That too is entirely burned on the altar.
The handful of the other meal offering may also have been confused with the meal offering accompanying libations, which likewise goes entirely onto the altar. In short, the handful goes onto the altar, and all these other offerings also go onto the altar, so there is no problem when they become mixed together.
The problem is when the handful becomes mixed with another offering that has a different consistency. The handful does not contain much oil, whereas the meal offering accompanying the libations contains a great deal of oil. Therefore, the handful, which has a thicker consistency, will absorb oil from the other offering. It will end up with too much oil, while the other offering will have too little. Since each offering must contain the proper amount and consistency of oil, both offerings would be invalid.
The Mishnah states that if the handful becomes mixed with another handful, both may be invalid. Why? All the meal offerings are prepared in the same way, with the dough kneaded in oil. The Mishnah speaks of the handful in the singular because it is discussing one individual case in which one handful became mixed with another.
Now we turn to the Gemara. In the case of blood mixed with water, the law is that if the mixture still appears to be blood, it is fit for sprinkling. If so much water was added that the mixture appears diluted like water, it is no longer valid. Even though there is blood in the mixture, the determining factor is its appearance: if it looks like blood, it is valid; if it looks like water, it is not valid and may not be placed on the altar.
The same issue arises on Yom Kippur. The blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are mixed together and placed on the inner altar. The blood of the bull is much more abundant than the blood of the goat. The question is why the blood of the goat is not nullified in the blood of the bull.
One answer is that these are two items that remain significant: both are blood, and both belong on the altar. But the question is why this should be different from the case of blood mixed with water. Perhaps the reason is that the offerings on Yom Kippur are offerings that go onto the altar. Why did the Torah teach the principle through this case, rather than through a case in which both substances go onto the altar? Once the Torah introduced the case of an offering that goes onto the altar, that element must be taken into account. It is not merely an ordinary case of one substance mixed with another substance of the same kind.
This is a strong question. Perhaps the Torah wanted to teach that there is no nullification in the case of an offering that goes onto the altar. Once it introduced the case of substances of the same kind, however, that is the principle we must apply: in every case of blood mixed with blood, the blood is not nullified, regardless of the amount of blood in the other mixture. Water is different. If the mixture no longer has the appearance of blood, it is invalid.
According to Rabbi Yehuda, it does not matter how much of the other substance there is when the mixture involves offerings that go onto the altar. But what about substances that do not go onto the altar? If ordinary blood becomes mixed with the blood of a sacred offering, for example, one drop of offering blood falls into a hundred gallons of ordinary blood, should the mixture be placed on the altar because it is still blood, or is the offering blood nullified because most of the mixture is ordinary blood?
That is the practical difference between blood mixed with blood when the mixture does not go onto the altar and blood mixed with water. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that blood mixed with blood is not nullified, even when the ordinary blood is not fit for the altar. The question is whether the principle applies only to offerings that go onto the altar, or whether it applies to every case of blood mixed with blood.