Zevachim 80
Share this shiur:
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
When different bloods are mixed together, how are they brought on the altar? If both sacrifices require the same number of placements, that number is performed, with the assumption that the blood placed on the altar represents a combination of both offerings. However, if the mixture includes blood from a sacrifice requiring one placement and another requiring four, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on the proper procedure.
Why does the Mishna introduce the case of blood from blemished animals mixed with valid blood, when it has already discussed a similar case regarding limbs of blemished animals mixed with valid limbs?
The Gemara then cites a Mishna in Parah 9:1, which deals with waters of the red heifer that became mixed with ordinary water. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis dispute whether such water can be used, and if so, in what manner. Three possible explanations are offered to clarify Rabbi Eliezer’s position. The Gemara proceeds to challenge these explanations: first, a difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish’s interpretation, which remains unresolved. Then, five difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi’s explanation, drawn from various braitot and our Mishna. Each of these is resolved through the method of ukimta, limiting the ruling to specific circumstances. Finally, one additional difficulty is raised later in the sugya, which remains unresolved.
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Todays daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the engagement of Kfir Blumenreich, grandson of Rikki Zibbit. “As they build their bayit neeman beYisrael (both literally and figuratively) we are certain that they will draw open the strong foundations of Torah and ahavat ha’am veha’aretz. May you and the Jewish nation continue to be proud of them. Mazel tov!”
Zevachim 80
הַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אֶחָת. (מֵהֶן) מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע – יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע.
In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, e.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of another firstborn offering or the blood of an animal tithe offering, the blood shall be placed with one placement. In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements, e.g., the blood of a sin offering with that of another sin offering, or the blood of a burnt offering with that of a peace offering, the blood shall be placed with four placements.
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אֶחָת.
If the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements was mixed with the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood shall be placed with four placements. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The blood shall be placed with one placement, as the priest fulfills the requirement with one placement after the fact.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל בַּל תִּגְרַע! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל בַּל תּוֹסִיף!
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not diminish, as it is written: “All these matters that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 13:1). One may not diminish the number of required placements from four to one. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not add, derived from the same verse. One may not add to the one required placement and place four.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לֹא נֶאֱמַר בַּל תּוֹסִיף אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא נֶאֱמַר בַּל תִּגְרַע אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ! וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּשֶׁנָּתַתָּ – עָבַרְתָּ עַל בַּל תּוֹסִיף, וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדֶךָ. כְּשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתָּ – עָבַרְתָּ עַל בַּל תִּגְרַע, לֹא עָשִׂיתָ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדֶךָ.
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition of: Do not add, is stated only in a case where the blood is by itself, not when it is part of a mixture. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition of: Do not diminish, is stated only in a case where the blood is by itself. And Rabbi Yehoshua also said: When you placed four placements, you transgressed the prohibition of: Do not add, and you performed a direct action. When you did not place four placements but only one, although you transgressed the prohibition of: Do not diminish, you did not perform a direct action. An active transgression is more severe than a passive one.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל אֶחָד אֶחָד – לָא.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if a cup containing the blood of blemished animals became intermingled with cups holding the blood of fit offerings, and the blood in one of the cups was sacrificed, all the remaining cups are fit. Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the rest of the cups only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of them is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, as he may be found to have presented the blood of the prohibited cup by itself.
מֵתִיב רַב דִּימִי, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לְאַמָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: מַאי אֶחָד – זוּג אֶחָד.
Rav Dimi raises an objection from the mishna: And the Rabbis say that even if the blood in all the cups was sacrificed except for the blood in one of them, the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. This indicates that even in this case, where only one cup remains, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis and permits the blood in the cup to be presented. Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain it to you: What does the mishna mean when it states: Except for the blood in one of them? It means except for one pair, i.e., two cups, as even Rabbi Eliezer did not permit the presentation of the cups one by one.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיתְעֲבִיד בֵּיהּ כַּפָּרָתוֹ; אֲבָל בְּהָא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן.
§ The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis was also stated above with regard to a mixture of limbs from fit and unfit offerings. The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for the mishna to teach this dispute with regard to both cases, as, if it were stated only with regard to that case of the limbs, one would have said that it is in that case alone that Rabbi Eliezer says that the rest of the limbs are sacrificed, because the offering’s atonement, i.e., the presenting of the blood, has already been performed, as the limbs are sacrificed after the blood has been presented. But in this case of the blood in the cups, say that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Rabbis that the rest of the blood is unfit to be presented.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר; צְרִיכָא.
And conversely, if the dispute were stated only with regard to this case of the cups, one would have said that it is in this case alone that the Rabbis say that the blood in the rest of the cups is unfit, but in that case of the limbs, say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the rest of the limbs are fit to be sacrificed, as the blood has already been presented. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to state that the dispute applies in both cases.
תְּנַן הָתָם: צְלוֹחִית שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹכָהּ מַיִם כׇּל שֶׁהוּ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. We learned in a mishna there (Para 9:1): With regard to a flask containing water of purification into which any amount of regular water fell, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest should sprinkle two sprinklings on the ritually impure person, as in this manner he ensures that he will be sprinkled with some of the water of purification; but the Rabbis disqualify the mixture for purification.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן – סָבְרִי יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, וְהַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת.
The Gemara clarifies: Granted, one can understand why the Rabbis disqualify the mixture, as they hold three opinions: They hold that there is mixing, i.e., when two substances are mixed together each drop is assumed to contain a bit of each of them. And they hold that an act of sprinkling of the water of purification requires a minimum measure of water of purification, and in this case each sprinkling contained some of the regular water. And they hold that it is of no help to sprinkle the water twice, as one cannot combine sprinklings, i.e., two acts of sprinkling the water of purification do not combine to render one pure. Therefore, the person is not purified.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר אֵין בִּילָּה, כִּי מַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? דִּילְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַיָּא קָא מַזֵּי! אֶלָּא קָא סָבַר יֵשׁ בִּילָּה. אִי קָסָבַר אֵין הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, לְמָה לִי שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת? אֶלָּא קָסָבַר הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר. וְאִי קָסָבַר אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת, כִּי מַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? וְאִי נָמֵי מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת, מִי יֵימַר דִּמְלֵא לֵיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא?
But what does Rabbi Eliezer hold? If he holds that there is no mixing, i.e., when two substances are mixed together each drop is not assumed to contain a bit of each of them, then even if one sprinkles two sprinklings, what of it? Perhaps on both occasions he sprinkles regular water. Rather, one must say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is mixing. If he holds that the act of sprinkling does not require a minimum measure, why do I need two sprinklings? One act of sprinkling would be enough. Rather, you must say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the act of sprinkling requires a minimum measure. And if Rabbi Eliezer holds that one cannot combine sprinklings, then even if one sprinkles two sprinklings, what of it? And alternatively, if he holds that one combines sprinklings, who says that the two sprinklings will amount to the minimum measure? Perhaps most of the water he sprinkled was regular water.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, וְהַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ אַחַת בְּאַחַת.
Reish Lakish says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is mixing, and sprinkling requires a minimum measure. And here we are dealing with a case where the two types of water were mixed together in a ratio of one to one, and therefore by performing two sprinklings the priest ensures that he has sprinkled the minimum measure of one sprinkling of water of purification.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, וְהַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; וּקְנָסָא קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא (מִשְׁתָּרֵשׁ) [נִשְׁתָּרֵשׁ] לֵיהּ.
Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there is mixing, and sprinkling does not require a minimum measure. Consequently, it should suffice for the priest to perform one sprinkling. And the requirement to sprinkle twice is a penalty that the Sages imposed, so that one who mixes regular water with the water of purification would not benefit from this act by diluting the valuable water of purification.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֵין בִּילָּה; יַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת.
Rav Ashi states a different explanation: Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mixing, and therefore if the priest sprinkles only once there is a concern that he might not have sprinkled any water of purification at all, and therefore he sprinkles two sprinklings.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הַזָּאָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מְטַהֶרֶת; הַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; הַזָּאָה מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Reish Lakish’s opinion that Rabbi Eliezer holds that sprinkling requires a minimum measure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that if the priest performs two sprinklings the purification ritual is valid, a sprinkling of any amount renders the impure person ritually pure, as sprinkling does not require a minimum measure, and even a sprinkling that contains half fit water and half unfit water renders the individual ritually pure.
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ.
The Gemara adds: And furthermore, one can raise another difficulty against the opinion of Rav Ashi, who maintains that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no mixing, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: With regard to blood of an offering, e.g., a sin offering, which is to be placed above the red line that was mixed with blood of an offering, e.g., a burnt offering, which is to be placed below the red line, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall initially place the blood of the mixture above the red line for the sake of the sin offering, and the priest should then place blood from the mixture below the red line for the sake of the burnt offering, and both the blood placed above and the blood placed below count for him toward the fulfillment of the mitzva.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין בִּילָּה, אַמַּאי עָלוּ לוֹ? דִּילְמָא קָיָהֵיב עֶלְיוֹנִים לְמַטָּה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לְמַעְלָה!
The Gemara explains the difficulty from this baraita: And if you say that there is no mixing, why do both of the placements count for him? Perhaps he placed the blood of the mixture that belongs above the red line below it, and the blood that belongs below the red line above it.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא עֶלְיוֹנִים, וְקָא יָהֵיב לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעוּר תַּחְתּוֹנִים וְעוֹד.
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where there is a majority of blood that is to be placed above the line, and the priest placed blood above by the measure of the blood in the mixture that is to be placed below the line, and slightly more blood. In this manner he ensures that he must have placed above the red line some of the blood that belongs there.
הָא ״תַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! לְשֵׁם שִׁירַיִם.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the baraita teaches: The blood placed below counts for him toward the fulfillment of the mitzva. According to this explanation, it is possible that all the blood of the burnt offering was placed above the red line. Why, then, has he fulfilled the mitzva by placing blood below the red line? The Gemara explains: The baraita does not mean that it counts for the mitzva of the placing of the blood of a burnt offering below the red line; rather, it means that it counts for him for the sake of the remainder of the blood of the sin offering, which must be poured onto the base of the altar.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נָתַן לְמַטָּה וְלֹא נִמְלַךְ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If the priest placed the mixed blood below the red line and did not consult the authorities, what should he do now? Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall again place the blood above the red line, and the blood placed below counts for him. Once again, the difficulty is that if Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there is no mixing, why does the placement count for him? Perhaps he placed the blood of the mixture that belongs above the red line below it, and the blood that belongs below the red line above it.
הָכָא נָמֵי בְּרוּבָּא עֶלְיוֹנִים, וְקָא יָהֵיב לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעוּר תַּחְתּוֹנִים וְעוֹד. וְהָא ״תַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! לְשֵׁם שִׁירַיִם.
The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a case where the majority of blood belongs above the line, and the priest placed blood above from the measure of the blood in the mixture that belongs below the line, and slightly more blood. Again the Gemara asks: But the baraita teaches: The blood placed below counts for him. Since it is possible that all of the blood of the burnt offering was placed above the red line, why does the blood placed below count for him? The Gemara answers that the baraita means it counts for him for the sake of the remainder of the sin offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נְתָנָן לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא נִמְלַךְ – אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לְמַטָּה, וְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ!
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: If the priest placed the mixed blood above and did not consult the authorities, both these Sages and those Sages, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, concede that he shall again place the blood below the red line, and these placements and those placements count for him. If Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there is no mixing, he would not concede this point, as perhaps he placed the blood that belongs below the red line above it, and the blood that belongs above, below.
הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּרוּבָּא עֶלְיוֹנִים, וְקָא יָהֵיב לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעוּר תַּחְתּוֹנִים וְעוֹד.
The Gemara answers: Here too, this is referring to a case where the majority of blood belongs above the line, and the priest placed blood above in the measure of the blood in the mixture that belongs below the line, and slightly more blood. In this manner he fulfills the mitzva of the blood that is to be placed above the red line alone.
[וְהֵא ״אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי!] מִי קָתָנֵי ״אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים״?! ״אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי – סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְאָמְרִי יֵשׁ בִּילָּה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the baraita teaches: These and those count for him, not only the blood that is to be placed above. The Gemara explains: Does the baraita teach: These Sages and those Sages concede that these placements and those placements count for him? It teaches only: These and those count for him. In other words, although the baraita states in the first clause that both the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer concede that the priest returns and places the blood below the red line, this agreement does not apply to the next clause of the baraita, as in the latter clause we come to the opinion of the Rabbis alone, who say that there is mixing, which is why both placements count.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אֶחָת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין בִּילָּה, אַמַּאי יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת? דִּילְמָא מֵהַאי קָיָהֵיב וּמֵהַאי לָא קָיָהֵיב! כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ אַחַת בְּאַחַת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, the blood shall be placed with one placement. And if you say that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no mixing, why shall they be placed with one placement? Perhaps he places from this blood and does not place from that blood. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the measure of one placement of this blood was mixed with the measure of one placement of that blood, and no more. Consequently, he certainly placed both types of blood.
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע! הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ אַרְבַּע בְּאַרְבַּע.
The Gemara raises another difficulty: The mishna teaches that in a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements, the blood shall be placed with four placements. But if there is no mixing, perhaps he placed only the blood of one offering. The Gemara explains: Here too, it is referring to a case where the measure of four placements of this blood was mixed with the measure of four placements of that blood, and therefore he certainly placed blood from both offerings.
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת!
The Gemara raises another difficulty: The mishna teaches that if the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood shall be placed with four placements. Here too, if there is no mixing according to Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps he placed the blood of only one of the offerings.
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.
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
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
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Oceanside NY, 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 tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Zevachim 80
הַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אֶחָת. (מֵהֶן) מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע – יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע.
In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, e.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of another firstborn offering or the blood of an animal tithe offering, the blood shall be placed with one placement. In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements, e.g., the blood of a sin offering with that of another sin offering, or the blood of a burnt offering with that of a peace offering, the blood shall be placed with four placements.
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אֶחָת.
If the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements was mixed with the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood shall be placed with four placements. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The blood shall be placed with one placement, as the priest fulfills the requirement with one placement after the fact.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל בַּל תִּגְרַע! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל בַּל תּוֹסִיף!
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not diminish, as it is written: “All these matters that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 13:1). One may not diminish the number of required placements from four to one. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not add, derived from the same verse. One may not add to the one required placement and place four.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לֹא נֶאֱמַר בַּל תּוֹסִיף אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא נֶאֱמַר בַּל תִּגְרַע אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ! וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּשֶׁנָּתַתָּ – עָבַרְתָּ עַל בַּל תּוֹסִיף, וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדֶךָ. כְּשֶׁלֹּא נָתַתָּ – עָבַרְתָּ עַל בַּל תִּגְרַע, לֹא עָשִׂיתָ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיָדֶךָ.
Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition of: Do not add, is stated only in a case where the blood is by itself, not when it is part of a mixture. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition of: Do not diminish, is stated only in a case where the blood is by itself. And Rabbi Yehoshua also said: When you placed four placements, you transgressed the prohibition of: Do not add, and you performed a direct action. When you did not place four placements but only one, although you transgressed the prohibition of: Do not diminish, you did not perform a direct action. An active transgression is more severe than a passive one.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל אֶחָד אֶחָד – לָא.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if a cup containing the blood of blemished animals became intermingled with cups holding the blood of fit offerings, and the blood in one of the cups was sacrificed, all the remaining cups are fit. Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the rest of the cups only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of them is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, as he may be found to have presented the blood of the prohibited cup by itself.
מֵתִיב רַב דִּימִי, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לְאַמָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: מַאי אֶחָד – זוּג אֶחָד.
Rav Dimi raises an objection from the mishna: And the Rabbis say that even if the blood in all the cups was sacrificed except for the blood in one of them, the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. This indicates that even in this case, where only one cup remains, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis and permits the blood in the cup to be presented. Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain it to you: What does the mishna mean when it states: Except for the blood in one of them? It means except for one pair, i.e., two cups, as even Rabbi Eliezer did not permit the presentation of the cups one by one.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיתְעֲבִיד בֵּיהּ כַּפָּרָתוֹ; אֲבָל בְּהָא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן.
§ The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis was also stated above with regard to a mixture of limbs from fit and unfit offerings. The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for the mishna to teach this dispute with regard to both cases, as, if it were stated only with regard to that case of the limbs, one would have said that it is in that case alone that Rabbi Eliezer says that the rest of the limbs are sacrificed, because the offering’s atonement, i.e., the presenting of the blood, has already been performed, as the limbs are sacrificed after the blood has been presented. But in this case of the blood in the cups, say that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Rabbis that the rest of the blood is unfit to be presented.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר; צְרִיכָא.
And conversely, if the dispute were stated only with regard to this case of the cups, one would have said that it is in this case alone that the Rabbis say that the blood in the rest of the cups is unfit, but in that case of the limbs, say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer that the rest of the limbs are fit to be sacrificed, as the blood has already been presented. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to state that the dispute applies in both cases.
תְּנַן הָתָם: צְלוֹחִית שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹכָהּ מַיִם כׇּל שֶׁהוּ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. We learned in a mishna there (Para 9:1): With regard to a flask containing water of purification into which any amount of regular water fell, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest should sprinkle two sprinklings on the ritually impure person, as in this manner he ensures that he will be sprinkled with some of the water of purification; but the Rabbis disqualify the mixture for purification.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן – סָבְרִי יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, וְהַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת.
The Gemara clarifies: Granted, one can understand why the Rabbis disqualify the mixture, as they hold three opinions: They hold that there is mixing, i.e., when two substances are mixed together each drop is assumed to contain a bit of each of them. And they hold that an act of sprinkling of the water of purification requires a minimum measure of water of purification, and in this case each sprinkling contained some of the regular water. And they hold that it is of no help to sprinkle the water twice, as one cannot combine sprinklings, i.e., two acts of sprinkling the water of purification do not combine to render one pure. Therefore, the person is not purified.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר אֵין בִּילָּה, כִּי מַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? דִּילְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מַיָּא קָא מַזֵּי! אֶלָּא קָא סָבַר יֵשׁ בִּילָּה. אִי קָסָבַר אֵין הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, לְמָה לִי שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת? אֶלָּא קָסָבַר הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר. וְאִי קָסָבַר אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת, כִּי מַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? וְאִי נָמֵי מִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת, מִי יֵימַר דִּמְלֵא לֵיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא?
But what does Rabbi Eliezer hold? If he holds that there is no mixing, i.e., when two substances are mixed together each drop is not assumed to contain a bit of each of them, then even if one sprinkles two sprinklings, what of it? Perhaps on both occasions he sprinkles regular water. Rather, one must say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is mixing. If he holds that the act of sprinkling does not require a minimum measure, why do I need two sprinklings? One act of sprinkling would be enough. Rather, you must say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the act of sprinkling requires a minimum measure. And if Rabbi Eliezer holds that one cannot combine sprinklings, then even if one sprinkles two sprinklings, what of it? And alternatively, if he holds that one combines sprinklings, who says that the two sprinklings will amount to the minimum measure? Perhaps most of the water he sprinkled was regular water.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, וְהַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ אַחַת בְּאַחַת.
Reish Lakish says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is mixing, and sprinkling requires a minimum measure. And here we are dealing with a case where the two types of water were mixed together in a ratio of one to one, and therefore by performing two sprinklings the priest ensures that he has sprinkled the minimum measure of one sprinkling of water of purification.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יֵשׁ בִּילָּה, וְהַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; וּקְנָסָא קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא (מִשְׁתָּרֵשׁ) [נִשְׁתָּרֵשׁ] לֵיהּ.
Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there is mixing, and sprinkling does not require a minimum measure. Consequently, it should suffice for the priest to perform one sprinkling. And the requirement to sprinkle twice is a penalty that the Sages imposed, so that one who mixes regular water with the water of purification would not benefit from this act by diluting the valuable water of purification.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֵין בִּילָּה; יַזֶּה שְׁתֵּי הַזָּאוֹת.
Rav Ashi states a different explanation: Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mixing, and therefore if the priest sprinkles only once there is a concern that he might not have sprinkled any water of purification at all, and therefore he sprinkles two sprinklings.
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – הַזָּאָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מְטַהֶרֶת; הַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; הַזָּאָה מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Reish Lakish’s opinion that Rabbi Eliezer holds that sprinkling requires a minimum measure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that if the priest performs two sprinklings the purification ritual is valid, a sprinkling of any amount renders the impure person ritually pure, as sprinkling does not require a minimum measure, and even a sprinkling that contains half fit water and half unfit water renders the individual ritually pure.
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא: הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ.
The Gemara adds: And furthermore, one can raise another difficulty against the opinion of Rav Ashi, who maintains that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no mixing, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita: With regard to blood of an offering, e.g., a sin offering, which is to be placed above the red line that was mixed with blood of an offering, e.g., a burnt offering, which is to be placed below the red line, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall initially place the blood of the mixture above the red line for the sake of the sin offering, and the priest should then place blood from the mixture below the red line for the sake of the burnt offering, and both the blood placed above and the blood placed below count for him toward the fulfillment of the mitzva.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין בִּילָּה, אַמַּאי עָלוּ לוֹ? דִּילְמָא קָיָהֵיב עֶלְיוֹנִים לְמַטָּה וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לְמַעְלָה!
The Gemara explains the difficulty from this baraita: And if you say that there is no mixing, why do both of the placements count for him? Perhaps he placed the blood of the mixture that belongs above the red line below it, and the blood that belongs below the red line above it.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא עֶלְיוֹנִים, וְקָא יָהֵיב לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעוּר תַּחְתּוֹנִים וְעוֹד.
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where there is a majority of blood that is to be placed above the line, and the priest placed blood above by the measure of the blood in the mixture that is to be placed below the line, and slightly more blood. In this manner he ensures that he must have placed above the red line some of the blood that belongs there.
הָא ״תַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! לְשֵׁם שִׁירַיִם.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the baraita teaches: The blood placed below counts for him toward the fulfillment of the mitzva. According to this explanation, it is possible that all the blood of the burnt offering was placed above the red line. Why, then, has he fulfilled the mitzva by placing blood below the red line? The Gemara explains: The baraita does not mean that it counts for the mitzva of the placing of the blood of a burnt offering below the red line; rather, it means that it counts for him for the sake of the remainder of the blood of the sin offering, which must be poured onto the base of the altar.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נָתַן לְמַטָּה וְלֹא נִמְלַךְ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If the priest placed the mixed blood below the red line and did not consult the authorities, what should he do now? Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall again place the blood above the red line, and the blood placed below counts for him. Once again, the difficulty is that if Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there is no mixing, why does the placement count for him? Perhaps he placed the blood of the mixture that belongs above the red line below it, and the blood that belongs below the red line above it.
הָכָא נָמֵי בְּרוּבָּא עֶלְיוֹנִים, וְקָא יָהֵיב לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעוּר תַּחְתּוֹנִים וְעוֹד. וְהָא ״תַּחְתּוֹנִים עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! לְשֵׁם שִׁירַיִם.
The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a case where the majority of blood belongs above the line, and the priest placed blood above from the measure of the blood in the mixture that belongs below the line, and slightly more blood. Again the Gemara asks: But the baraita teaches: The blood placed below counts for him. Since it is possible that all of the blood of the burnt offering was placed above the red line, why does the blood placed below count for him? The Gemara answers that the baraita means it counts for him for the sake of the remainder of the sin offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נְתָנָן לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא נִמְלַךְ – אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לְמַטָּה, וְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ!
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: If the priest placed the mixed blood above and did not consult the authorities, both these Sages and those Sages, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, concede that he shall again place the blood below the red line, and these placements and those placements count for him. If Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there is no mixing, he would not concede this point, as perhaps he placed the blood that belongs below the red line above it, and the blood that belongs above, below.
הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּרוּבָּא עֶלְיוֹנִים, וְקָא יָהֵיב לְמַעְלָה שִׁיעוּר תַּחְתּוֹנִים וְעוֹד.
The Gemara answers: Here too, this is referring to a case where the majority of blood belongs above the line, and the priest placed blood above in the measure of the blood in the mixture that belongs below the line, and slightly more blood. In this manner he fulfills the mitzva of the blood that is to be placed above the red line alone.
[וְהֵא ״אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי!] מִי קָתָנֵי ״אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים״?! ״אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עָלוּ לוֹ״ קָתָנֵי – סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְאָמְרִי יֵשׁ בִּילָּה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the baraita teaches: These and those count for him, not only the blood that is to be placed above. The Gemara explains: Does the baraita teach: These Sages and those Sages concede that these placements and those placements count for him? It teaches only: These and those count for him. In other words, although the baraita states in the first clause that both the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer concede that the priest returns and places the blood below the red line, this agreement does not apply to the next clause of the baraita, as in the latter clause we come to the opinion of the Rabbis alone, who say that there is mixing, which is why both placements count.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אֶחָת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין בִּילָּה, אַמַּאי יִנָּתְנוּ בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת? דִּילְמָא מֵהַאי קָיָהֵיב וּמֵהַאי לָא קָיָהֵיב! כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ אַחַת בְּאַחַת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, the blood shall be placed with one placement. And if you say that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no mixing, why shall they be placed with one placement? Perhaps he places from this blood and does not place from that blood. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the measure of one placement of this blood was mixed with the measure of one placement of that blood, and no more. Consequently, he certainly placed both types of blood.
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע! הָכָא נָמֵי, שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ אַרְבַּע בְּאַרְבַּע.
The Gemara raises another difficulty: The mishna teaches that in a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements, the blood shall be placed with four placements. But if there is no mixing, perhaps he placed only the blood of one offering. The Gemara explains: Here too, it is referring to a case where the measure of four placements of this blood was mixed with the measure of four placements of that blood, and therefore he certainly placed blood from both offerings.
מַתַּן אַרְבַּע בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת!
The Gemara raises another difficulty: The mishna teaches that if the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood shall be placed with four placements. Here too, if there is no mixing according to Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps he placed the blood of only one of the offerings.
