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.
Zevachim 80
07.02.2018 | י״ט בתמוז תשע״ח
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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
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.”
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.
Follow
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.
Zevahim 70: Geese, Chickens, and the Broken Neck of a Goat
11.23.2025 | ג׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 66: Procedure, Intent, and Consecration – for Bird Offerings
11.19.2025 | כ״ח בחשון תשפ״ו
Spiritual Aspects of Korbanot: The Permission To Eat Meat
11.17.2025 | כ״ו בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 62: The Ashes of Isaac, or Where to Build the Second Temple’s Altar
11.15.2025 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 61: The Fire Never Left the Altar – Unless It Did?
11.15.2025 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ו
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 started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
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!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, 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!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me.
After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, 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.
Follow
