Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 2, 2018 | 讬状讟 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 80

Study Guide Zevachim 80. Different cases of bloods mixed with each other are brought -in which cases can the blood be presented on the altar? A mishna in Parah is brought and one of the explanations of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion there is challenged by Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in our mishna.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 (诪讛谉) 诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注

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.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not diminish, as it is written: 鈥淎ll these matters that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻砖谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讜注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱 讻砖诇讗 谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 诇讗 注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 诇讗

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬砖驻讱 诇讗诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 讝讜讙 讗讞讚

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鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa: 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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 讻驻专转讜 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉

搂 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪专讬讻讗

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

搂 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讜讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讻讬 诪讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讬讗 拽讗 诪讝讬 讗诇讗 拽讗 住讘专 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 讗诇讗 拽住讘专 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转 讻讬 诪讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪诇讗 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讜讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 讗讞转 讘讗讞转

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讜讛讝讗讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜拽谞住讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诪砖转专砖 诇讬讛

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讬讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讝讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讟讛专转 讛讝讗讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讛讝讗讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Reish Lakish鈥檚 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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 注诇讜 诇讜 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讬讛讬讘 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 诇诪注诇讛

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚

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.

讛讗 转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 诇砖诐 砖讬专讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转谉 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 谞诪诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 诇砖诐 砖讬专讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 谞诪诇讱 [讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞讝讜专] 讜讬转谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注诇讜 诇讜

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚

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.

[ 讜讛讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬] 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬砖 讘讬诇讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讛讗讬 拽讬讛讬讘 讜诪讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讬讛讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 讗讞转 讘讗讞转

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.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞转注专讘讜 讗专讘注 讘讗专讘注

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.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 80

讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 (诪讛谉) 诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注

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.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝

Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not diminish, as it is written: 鈥淎ll these matters that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘诇 转讙专注 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻砖谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讜注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱 讻砖诇讗 谞转转 注讘专转 注诇 讘诇 转讙专注 诇讗 注砖讬转 诪注砖讛 讘讬讚讱

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 诇讗

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬砖驻讱 诇讗诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 讝讜讙 讗讞讚

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鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa: 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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 讻驻专转讜 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉

搂 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪专讬讻讗

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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

搂 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讜讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讻讬 诪讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讬讗 拽讗 诪讝讬 讗诇讗 拽讗 住讘专 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 讗诇讗 拽住讘专 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转 讻讬 诪讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪诇讗 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讜讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 讗讞转 讘讗讞转

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 讜讛讝讗讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜拽谞住讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诪砖转专砖 诇讬讛

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讬讝讛 砖转讬 讛讝讗讜转

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讝讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讟讛专转 讛讝讗讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讛讝讗讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Reish Lakish鈥檚 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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讘讛讚讬讗 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 注诇讜 诇讜 讚讬诇诪讗 拽讬讛讬讘 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 诇诪注诇讛

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚

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.

讛讗 转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 诇砖诐 砖讬专讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转谉 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 谞诪诇讱 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 转讞转讜谞讬诐 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 诇砖诐 砖讬专讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 谞诪诇讱 [讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞讝讜专] 讜讬转谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注诇讜 诇讜

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚

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.

[ 讜讛讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬] 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注诇讜 诇讜 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬砖 讘讬诇讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讬谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讛讗讬 拽讬讛讬讘 讜诪讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讬讛讬讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转注专讘讜 讗讞转 讘讗讞转

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.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞转注专讘讜 讗专讘注 讘讗专讘注

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.

诪转谉 讗专讘注 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转

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.

Scroll To Top