Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This chapter addresses cases where different items become mixed together – sacrificial animals with other sacrificial animals, sacrificial animals with non-sacrificial ones, or valid offerings with disqualified ones. Each type of mixture is governed by distinct rules.
If sacrificial animals are mixed with animals that are forbidden for benefit, such as an ox sentenced to death for goring, or a sin offering left to die because its owner passed away, for example, then all the animals in the mixture must be left to die. In these cases, the usual laws of nullification do not apply.
If a sacrifice becomes mixed with animals that are prohibited for the altar but permitted for benefit, the animals are left to graze, then sold. The proceeds from the most valuable animal are used to purchase a replacement sacrifice.
If a sacrifice is mixed with animals that were never designated as offerings, all the animals are sold for sacrifices of that type and offered on the altar with the intent of “whoever their owner is.”
If sacrifices of the same type are mixed, they are all offered on the altar with the same designation. However, if different types of sacrifices are mixed, for example, burnt offerings with peace offerings, the animals are left to graze until they develop blemishes. At that point, new animals of each type are purchased, equal in value to the most expensive animal in the group, at the expense of the owners.
In cases where an animal is mixed with others designated for sacrifice that cannot be sold, such as firstborns or animal tithes, they are left to graze until blemished. The owner then redeems the sanctity of one animal (for the sacrifice) in the amount of the most expensive animal and uses that money to buy a new sacrifice. Once blemished, the original animals may be slaughtered and eaten like ordinary firstborns or tithes.
The Mishna also notes a case where the laws of mixtures do not apply: sin offerings and guilt offerings cannot be brought from the same animals. Thus, if animals designated for sin offerings are mixed with those for guilt offerings, this is not considered a mixture, as it is clear which animal goes with which offering.
The Gemara questions the Mishna’s phrasing of “even one in ten thousand,” clarifying that the case refers to a single ox that gored, becoming mixed with many sacrificial animals.
The Gemara compares this Mishna with a parallel Mishna in Temurah and then another in Avodah Zarah, questioning why each is needed. It concludes that every text contributes a distinct detail that cannot be fully derived from the others.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Zevachim 71
שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים, בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, בְּמוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד, בְּאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר,
an ox that is known to have killed a person based on the testimony of one witness or based on the admission of the owner. Had two witnesses testified, deriving benefit from the ox would have been prohibited. Additional examples include when an offering is intermingled with an animal that copulated with a person; or an animal that was the object of bestiality; or with an animal that was set aside for idol worship; or one that was worshipped as a deity; or with an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, as it is written: “You shall not bring the payment of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19).
בְּכִלְאַיִם וּבִטְרֵיפָה, בְּיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין.
Additional examples include an offering that was intermingled with an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, e.g., the offspring of a ram and a goat, or with an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or with an animal born by caesarean section. In all these cases the animals that are intermingled shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold. And from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them, of the same type of offering that the intermingled offering was.
נִתְעָרְבוּ בְּחוּלִּין תְּמִימִים – יִמָּכְרוּ הַחוּלִּין לְצוֹרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין.
The mishna continues: If sacrificial animals were intermingled with unblemished, non-sacred animals, which, if consecrated, are fit for sacrifice, the non-sacred animals shall be sold for the purpose of purchasing offerings of the same type as the offering with which they were intermingled.
קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּמִינוֹ – זֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא, וְזֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא.
In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, if it was an animal of one type of offering with animals of the same type of offering, one shall sacrifice this animal for the sake of whoever is its owner and one shall sacrifice that animal for the sake of whoever is its owner, and both fulfill their obligation.
קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי יָפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה, וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה, וְיַפְסִיד הַמּוֹתָר מִבֵּיתוֹ.
In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, where an animal of one type of offering was intermingled with animals not of the same type of offering, e.g., two rams, where one is designated as a burnt offering and one as a peace offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold. And from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as this type of offering, and another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as that type of offering, and he will lose the additional expense of purchasing two highest-quality animals, when he had sold only one highest-quality animal, from his own assets.
נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר.
In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering.
הַכֹּל יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְעָרֵב, חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם.
All offerings can become indistinguishably intermingled with each other, except for a sin offering and a guilt offering, as the Gemara will explain.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ״?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches the halakha of all the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden. This indicates that one offering became intermingled with a majority of prohibited animals, as it is usual to describe the smaller unit as being intermingled with the larger unit. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning of the term: Even, in the clause: Even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they all must die. If the permitted animal is rendered prohibited by a simple majority, of course it is prohibited if the ratio is one in ten thousand.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן חַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן.
The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: All the offerings in which were intermingled sin offerings left to die, or in which an ox that was sentenced to be stoned was intermingled, even if the ratio is one forbidden animal intermingled with ten thousand offerings, they all must die.
תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן, הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why is this mishna necessary? We already learn this halakha on another occasion, in a mishna (Temura 28a): With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted they render the entire mixture prohibited in any amount, regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. The mishna adds that these are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: An animal that actively copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality. That mishna proceeds to add other categories of animals to this list, including ones mentioned in the mishna here. In any event, the basic halakha of the mishna is also taught in tractate Temura.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי, וְאַצְרִיכַן – דְּאִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְגָבוֹהַּ, אֲבָל לְהֶדְיוֹט אֵימָא לָא;
Rav Ashi says: I said this halakha in the presence of Rav Shimi, and he explained to me that both mishnayot are necessary, as each teaches a novelty not included in the other. Rav Ashi clarifies: As, if this halakha was learned only from there, the mishna in Temura, I would say that this statement, that prohibited animals render a mixture prohibited in any ratio, applies only to prohibiting the animals from being sacrificed to the Most High; but with regard to prohibiting the animals even to an ordinary person [hedyot], e.g., that if they became intermingled with an ox that is to be stoned they all must die without the possibility of redemption, one might say that they are not all rendered prohibited in benefit, as the prohibited animal is nullified in a majority. Therefore, the mishna here teaches that even with regard to deriving benefit, all the animals in the mixture are prohibited.
וְאִי מֵהָכָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי הוּא אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל הָנֵי אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכִי.
Rav Ashi continues: And if this halakha was learned only from here, I would say that it is only these categories that are mentioned in this mishna, i.e., sin offerings that were condemned to die or an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, that render a mixture prohibited in any ratio. The halakha is stringent with regard to them, as they are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. But with regard to these categories mentioned in the mishna in Temura, e.g., an animal that copulated with a person, which are not items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, one might say that they are not disqualified from being sacrificed, and they are nullified in a majority. Therefore, both mishnayot are necessary.
דְּלָאו אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה נִינְהוּ – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ! מִי קָתָנֵי בְּכַמָּה?! ״כׇּל שֶׁהֵן״ – הָתָם קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara questions this explanation: This justifies the mishna here, but concerning the halakha stated in Temura, why did that mishna teach the halakha with regard to those animals that are not items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, such as an animal that copulated with a person; the tanna already taught this halakha in the mishna here. The Gemara answers: Does the mishna here teach by what ratio they render the mixture prohibited? The important measure: In any amount, is taught there, in Temura, not in the mishna here, and that is the novelty of the mishna in Temura.
וְנִיתְנֵי הָא, וְלָא בָּעֵי הָא! תַּקַּנְתָּא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna teach that mishna in Temura, and then he would not require this mishna here. Why teach the second clause of the mishna here? The Gemara explains: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the remedy, i.e., that the animals that are intermingled shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold; and from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as the same type of offering that the sacrificial animal was. This halakha is not stated in the mishna in Temura.
דְּהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי תְּנָא לֵיהּ – וְאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה!
The Gemara raises another difficulty. The halakha of the mishna that items from which deriving benefit is prohibited render a mixture prohibited in any amount even to an ordinary person, as stated with regard to the sin offerings that were condemned to die and an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, is also taught in a mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): And these following items are themselves forbidden, and any amount of them renders other items with which they become mixed forbidden: Wine used for a libation that became mixed with kosher wine, and objects of idol worship that were intermingled with permitted items.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Los Angeles, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Zevachim 71
שֶׁהֵמִית אֶת הָאָדָם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים, בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע, בְּמוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד, בְּאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר,
an ox that is known to have killed a person based on the testimony of one witness or based on the admission of the owner. Had two witnesses testified, deriving benefit from the ox would have been prohibited. Additional examples include when an offering is intermingled with an animal that copulated with a person; or an animal that was the object of bestiality; or with an animal that was set aside for idol worship; or one that was worshipped as a deity; or with an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, as it is written: “You shall not bring the payment of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19).
בְּכִלְאַיִם וּבִטְרֵיפָה, בְּיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין.
Additional examples include an offering that was intermingled with an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, e.g., the offspring of a ram and a goat, or with an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or with an animal born by caesarean section. In all these cases the animals that are intermingled shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold. And from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them, of the same type of offering that the intermingled offering was.
נִתְעָרְבוּ בְּחוּלִּין תְּמִימִים – יִמָּכְרוּ הַחוּלִּין לְצוֹרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין.
The mishna continues: If sacrificial animals were intermingled with unblemished, non-sacred animals, which, if consecrated, are fit for sacrifice, the non-sacred animals shall be sold for the purpose of purchasing offerings of the same type as the offering with which they were intermingled.
קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּמִינוֹ – זֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא, וְזֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא.
In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, if it was an animal of one type of offering with animals of the same type of offering, one shall sacrifice this animal for the sake of whoever is its owner and one shall sacrifice that animal for the sake of whoever is its owner, and both fulfill their obligation.
קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי יָפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה, וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה, וְיַפְסִיד הַמּוֹתָר מִבֵּיתוֹ.
In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, where an animal of one type of offering was intermingled with animals not of the same type of offering, e.g., two rams, where one is designated as a burnt offering and one as a peace offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold. And from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as this type of offering, and another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as that type of offering, and he will lose the additional expense of purchasing two highest-quality animals, when he had sold only one highest-quality animal, from his own assets.
נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר.
In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering.
הַכֹּל יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְעָרֵב, חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם.
All offerings can become indistinguishably intermingled with each other, except for a sin offering and a guilt offering, as the Gemara will explain.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ״?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches the halakha of all the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden. This indicates that one offering became intermingled with a majority of prohibited animals, as it is usual to describe the smaller unit as being intermingled with the larger unit. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the meaning of the term: Even, in the clause: Even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they all must die. If the permitted animal is rendered prohibited by a simple majority, of course it is prohibited if the ratio is one in ten thousand.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן חַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן.
The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: All the offerings in which were intermingled sin offerings left to die, or in which an ox that was sentenced to be stoned was intermingled, even if the ratio is one forbidden animal intermingled with ten thousand offerings, they all must die.
תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן, הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why is this mishna necessary? We already learn this halakha on another occasion, in a mishna (Temura 28a): With regard to all animals whose sacrifice on the altar is prohibited, if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted they render the entire mixture prohibited in any amount, regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. The mishna adds that these are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: An animal that actively copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality. That mishna proceeds to add other categories of animals to this list, including ones mentioned in the mishna here. In any event, the basic halakha of the mishna is also taught in tractate Temura.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי, וְאַצְרִיכַן – דְּאִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְגָבוֹהַּ, אֲבָל לְהֶדְיוֹט אֵימָא לָא;
Rav Ashi says: I said this halakha in the presence of Rav Shimi, and he explained to me that both mishnayot are necessary, as each teaches a novelty not included in the other. Rav Ashi clarifies: As, if this halakha was learned only from there, the mishna in Temura, I would say that this statement, that prohibited animals render a mixture prohibited in any ratio, applies only to prohibiting the animals from being sacrificed to the Most High; but with regard to prohibiting the animals even to an ordinary person [hedyot], e.g., that if they became intermingled with an ox that is to be stoned they all must die without the possibility of redemption, one might say that they are not all rendered prohibited in benefit, as the prohibited animal is nullified in a majority. Therefore, the mishna here teaches that even with regard to deriving benefit, all the animals in the mixture are prohibited.
וְאִי מֵהָכָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי הוּא אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל הָנֵי אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכִי.
Rav Ashi continues: And if this halakha was learned only from here, I would say that it is only these categories that are mentioned in this mishna, i.e., sin offerings that were condemned to die or an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, that render a mixture prohibited in any ratio. The halakha is stringent with regard to them, as they are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. But with regard to these categories mentioned in the mishna in Temura, e.g., an animal that copulated with a person, which are not items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, one might say that they are not disqualified from being sacrificed, and they are nullified in a majority. Therefore, both mishnayot are necessary.
דְּלָאו אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה נִינְהוּ – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ! מִי קָתָנֵי בְּכַמָּה?! ״כׇּל שֶׁהֵן״ – הָתָם קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara questions this explanation: This justifies the mishna here, but concerning the halakha stated in Temura, why did that mishna teach the halakha with regard to those animals that are not items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, such as an animal that copulated with a person; the tanna already taught this halakha in the mishna here. The Gemara answers: Does the mishna here teach by what ratio they render the mixture prohibited? The important measure: In any amount, is taught there, in Temura, not in the mishna here, and that is the novelty of the mishna in Temura.
וְנִיתְנֵי הָא, וְלָא בָּעֵי הָא! תַּקַּנְתָּא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna teach that mishna in Temura, and then he would not require this mishna here. Why teach the second clause of the mishna here? The Gemara explains: It was necessary for the tanna to mention the remedy, i.e., that the animals that are intermingled shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold; and from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as the same type of offering that the sacrificial animal was. This halakha is not stated in the mishna in Temura.
דְּהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי תְּנָא לֵיהּ – וְאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה!
The Gemara raises another difficulty. The halakha of the mishna that items from which deriving benefit is prohibited render a mixture prohibited in any amount even to an ordinary person, as stated with regard to the sin offerings that were condemned to die and an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, is also taught in a mishna (Avoda Zara 74a): And these following items are themselves forbidden, and any amount of them renders other items with which they become mixed forbidden: Wine used for a libation that became mixed with kosher wine, and objects of idol worship that were intermingled with permitted items.
