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 week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
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 week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
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.
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Raanana, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, 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.
