Zevachim 80

הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין במתנה אחת ינתנו במתנה אחת (מהן) מתן ארבע במתן ארבע ינתנו במתן ארבע

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.

מתן ארבע במתנה אחת רבי אליעזר אומר ינתנו במתן ארבע רבי יהושע אומר ינתנו במתנה אחת

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.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר ליה רבי יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף

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.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו אמר לו רבי יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשנתת עברת על בל תוסיף ועשית מעשה בידך כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע לא עשית מעשה בידך

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.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשיר רבי אליעזר אלא שנים שנים אבל אחד אחד לא

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.

מתיב רב דימי וחכמים אומרים אפילו קרבו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן ישפך לאמה אמר ליה רבי יעקב לרבי ירמיה בר תחליפא אסברא לך מאי אחד זוג אחד

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.

וצריכא דאי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי אליעזר משום דאיתעביד ביה כפרתו אבל בהא אימא מודי להו לרבנן

§ 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.

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמרי רבנן אבל בהא אימא מודו לרבי אליעזר צריכא

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.

תנן התם צלוחית שנפלו לתוכה מים כל שהו רבי אליעזר אומר יזה שתי הזאות וחכמים פוסלין

§ 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.

בשלמא רבנן סברי יש בילה והזאה צריכה שיעור ואין מצטרפין להזאות

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.

אלא רבי אליעזר מאי קסבר אי קסבר אין בילה כי מזה שתי הזאות מאי הוי דילמא תרוייהו מיא קא מזי אלא קא סבר יש בילה אי קסבר אין הזאה צריכה שיעור למה לי שתי הזאות אלא קסבר הזאה צריכה שיעור ואי קסבר אין מצטרפין להזאות כי מזה שתי הזאות מאי הוי ואי נמי מצטרפין להזאות מי יימר דמלא ליה שיעורא

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.

אמר ריש לקיש לעולם יש בילה והזאה צריכה שיעור והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנתערבו אחת באחת

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.

רבא אמר לעולם יש בילה והזאה אין צריכה שיעור וקנסא קנסו רבנן כי היכי דלא משתרש ליה

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.

רב אשי אמר אין בילה יזה שתי הזאות

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.

מיתיבי רבי אומר לדברי רבי אליעזר הזאה כל שהוא מטהרת הזאה אין צריכה שיעור הזאה מחצה כשר ומחצה פסול

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.

ועוד תניא בהדיא הניתנין למעלה שנתערבו בניתנין למטה רבי אליעזר אומר יתן למעלה והתחתונים עלו לו

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.

ואי אמרת אין בילה אמאי עלו לו דילמא קיהיב עליונים למטה והתחתונים למעלה

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.

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאיכא רובא עליונים וקא יהיב למעלה שיעור תחתונים ועוד

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.

הא תחתונים עלו לו קתני לשם שירים

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.

תא שמע נתן למטה ולא נמלך רבי אליעזר אומר יחזור ויתן למעלה והתחתונים עלו לו

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.

הכא נמי ברובא עליונים וקא יהיב למעלה שיעור תחתונים ועוד והא תחתונים עלו לו קתני לשם שירים

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.

תא שמע נתנן למעלה ולא נמלך [אלו ואלו מודים שיחזור] ויתן למטה ואלו ואלו עלו לו

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.

הכא נמי ברובא עליונים וקא יהיב למעלה שיעור תחתונים ועוד

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.

[ והא אלו ואלו עלו לו קתני] מי קתני אלו ואלו מודים אלו ואלו עלו לו קתני סיפא אתאן לרבנן דאמרי יש בילה

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.

תא שמע הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין במתנה אחת ינתנו במתנה אחת ואי אמרת אין בילה אמאי ינתנו במתנה אחת דילמא מהאי קיהיב ומהאי לא קיהיב כגון שנתערבו אחת באחת

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.

מתן ארבע במתן ארבע הכא נמי שנתערבו ארבע בארבע

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.

מתן ארבע במתנה אחת

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.