Zevachim 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

6. Or that ox was rendered unfit for sacrifice

because of

disqualification

of diverse species,

having been born from the mating of two animals of different species,

or because it was a tereifa [

and the Gemara establishes, according to one opinion, that this refers to the offspring of a tereifa].

7. Or because it was

a “cesarean-born” animal [

which was not born in the usual manner, but was born through an incision made in the abdominal wall of its mother; and with regard to consecrated animals it is written: “when it is born”—excluding a cesarean-born animal].

All of them—the sacrifices and the disqualified animals mixed together—

shall graze until they develop a blemish

all of them, and then their sanctity shall be transferred onto money, as will be explained immediately,

and they shall be sold

all of them to an ordinary person, and they will be permitted for him to eat [except for a tereifa], in accordance with the law of consecrated animals with a blemish that were redeemed.

And

before they are sold to an ordinary person,

he shall bring

the owner of the offering, for the purpose of redemption, money

equal to

the value of

the price of

the animal

that is the finest among them,

in order to transfer the sanctity of the offering onto that money, since it is possible that the valid sacrifice within the mixture is the finest animal among them, and that animal must be redeemed for its full value. With the redemption money he shall purchase a new offering

of the same type

as the valid offering that was mixed in. If the offering that became mixed in was an olah, he shall bring an olah with this money; and if it was a shelamim offering, he shall bring a shelamim offering with it.

3.

And if

valid sacrifices became mixed

with

unconsecrated

animals

that are unblemished,

whether the mixture consisted of one valid sacrifice and one unconsecrated animal, or of one valid sacrifice and many unconsecrated animals,

the

animals

that are unconsecrated

within the mixture

shall be sold for the purposes of that type

of offering that became mixed in. That is, the unconsecrated animals within the mixture are sold to people who wish to bring an offering of the same type as the sacrifice—whether an olah or a shelamim. However, the purchasers will not recognize their offerings, since they are among the mixture. All the animals in the mixture are then sacrificed, and at the time of the sacrifice the priest shall offer each sacrifice “for the sake of whoever is its owner.” In this manner, all of them fulfill their obligations, since the sacrifice was offered on their behalf, even though they do not recognize their own sacrifice among all the sacrifices that became mixed together.

4.

And if animals of

consecrated animals became mixed with

animals

of consecrated animals,

and the mixture was

of one type with its own type,

meaning that they were all olah offerings, or they were all shelamim offerings, or even if they were all sin-offerings or guilt-offerings, all of them shall be sacrificed, and the priest shall have the following intention at the time of sacrificing each offering:

This

offering

shall be sacrificed for the sake of whoever is its owner, and this

offering

shall be sacrificed for the sake of whoever is

its owner, even though it is not known which offering belongs to which person.

5.

And if animals of

consecrated animals

became mixed with animals of

consecrated animals,

of one type with a different type,

such as shelamim offerings with olah offerings, since the placing of their blood and the burning of their sacrificial portions are not the same, and it is impossible to sacrifice them because there is no way to perform two contradictory sacrificial rites,

they shall graze

all of them

until they develop a blemish.

Once a blemish develops in them, their owners shall take money and transfer the sanctity of the animals onto that money, in the following manner:

And he shall bring

the owner money

equal to

the value of

the price of the finest among them

for the purpose of transferring the sanctity

of this type,

for one of the types that became mixed. And again he shall bring money

equal to

the value of

the price of the finest among them

for the purpose of transferring the sanctity

of this type,

that is, for the second type. Since it is not known whether the finest offering is an olah or a shelamim, he must transfer the sanctity of each of them onto money equal to the value of the finest of the two.

And he shall lose the surplus from his own resources,

as he must now bring two fine offerings, each of which is worth as much as the finest offering among the two.

6.

And if

an olah or shelamim offering became mixed

with

a firstborn and with

an offering of

animal tithe,

with regard to which redemption and ransoming were not stated; rather, once a blemish develops in them, they are eaten with their blemish without redemption—then, as long as they are unblemished, they cannot be sacrificed [if they became mixed with shelamim offerings, because the firstborn and the animal tithe require one placement of blood and do not require placing of hands or accompanying libations, whereas shelamim offerings require two placements of blood, which are four, and require placing of hands and accompanying libations. And if they became mixed with an olah, an additional distinction is present: an olah is entirely burned, whereas only its sacrificial portions are burned in the case of a firstborn and animal tithe]. Therefore,

they shall graze

all of them until

they develop a blemish,

and then all of them shall not be redeemed, because a firstborn and animal tithe are not redeemed. Rather, he shall bring money equal to the value of the offering that is not a firstborn or animal tithe, and transfer the sanctity of the offering onto this money [and that money shall be equal to the value of the finest among them]],

and they shall be eaten

all of them

as a firstborn and as animal tithe

that developed a blemish are eaten. They are treated with this distinction: they are not slaughtered in a butcher shop, they are not sold in a butcher shop, and they are not weighed by the litra, because it is stated with regard to them: “It shall not be sold.” [Whereas with regard to other offerings, for which “it shall not be sold” was not stated, their honor is not observed to the same extent, so that the Temple treasury will profit from their sale.]

7.

Everything can become mixed,

any two types of offerings can become mixed in such a way that we cannot distinguish which sanctity each one possesses,

except for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering.

Because even when they become mixed, it is recognizable which is the sin-offering and which is the guilt-offering: a guilt-offering comes only from males, whereas a sin-offering comes only from females [except for the goat of a ruler, as will be explained in the Gemara].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All offerings that became mixed with sin-offerings designated to die—even if one became mixed with ten thousand—they must all die.

The Gemara assumed that this wording apparently means that one valid offering became mixed with ten thousand sin-offerings designated to die.

Therefore, the Gemara discusses:

What is the meaning of “even if”

one offering became mixed with ten thousand sin-offerings designated to die? After all, it is certainly a kal va-chomer: since one valid offering became mixed with ten thousand sin-offerings designated to die, its status should be like theirs.

The Gemara explains that the Mishna intends the opposite:

This is what

the tanna of the Mishna

is saying: All offerings that became mixed with some of the sin-offerings designated to die, or

that became mixed with

a condemned ox, even if

one disqualified offering became mixed with

ten thousand

valid offerings—

they must all die.

But the Gemara is perplexed: We have already

learned

this law

once,

in another place. For we learned in tractate Temura [28a]:

All items forbidden with regard to the altar render

the mixture into which they became mixed

forbidden in any amount,

such as

an animal that engaged in bestiality or an animal used for intercourse,

which became mixed with many valid offerings—all of them become forbidden!?

Rav Ashi said: I stated this teaching,

this discussion, in which there is a question as to why the Mishna needed to state this law twice,

before Rav Shimi. And he said

to me:

They are necessary;

the tanna needed to teach us both Mishnayot.

For if we had only learned that there,

if we had taught only the Mishna in tractate Temura,

I would have said

that all of them become forbidden

this applies only

for sacrifice

on high. But with regard to an ordinary person, I would say that they do not

become forbidden, and they would be permitted to eat after a blemish developed in them and they were redeemed. After all, an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse are not forbidden for benefit; their sole disqualification is with regard to sacrifice on high. Therefore, I would have said that the stringency applies only to sacrifice: even a mixture of ten thousand valid offerings with one animal that engaged in bestiality or one animal used for intercourse is entirely disqualified for sacrifice. But with regard to an ordinary person’s eating, I would say that the stringency is not so great as to forbid eating a mixture of one in ten thousand. I would have said that the disqualified animals mentioned in our Mishna, which are forbidden for benefit to an ordinary person, do not render the entire mixture forbidden, and therefore, after they develop blemishes and are redeemed from their consecration, they will be permitted for an ordinary person to eat. Therefore, the tanna teaches us in our Mishna that the entire mixture is forbidden even for an ordinary person’s eating.

And if we had only learned it here,

if we had taught the law of the mixture only in our Mishna,

I would have said: This applies only to these,

that in their case it is specifically necessary to be stringent and forbid even a mixture of one in ten thousand, because of their severity,

because they are forbidden for benefit. But those,

the cases mentioned in tractate Temura, such as an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse,

since they are not forbidden for benefit, I would say that they are not

forbidden, because I would have said that, since their prohibition is lenient—it applies only with regard to the altar and not to an ordinary person—they should be nullified by the majority and become fit even for the altar. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that they are forbidden.

Accordingly,

both are necessary;

the tanna needed to teach both Mishnayot.

But the Gemara is perplexed by Rav Shimi’s answer: How can it be said that had the tanna not taught the Mishna in tractate Temura, and had he taught only the Mishna here, we would have said that, since an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse “are not forbidden for benefit,” they would not render a mixture of one in ten thousand forbidden, and that is why the tanna taught the Mishna in tractate Temura!?

But

the tanna already taught it,

as the tanna of our Mishna explicitly taught that an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse render their mixture forbidden!?

The Gemara answers:

Did he teach

in our Mishna here, with regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse, in what proportion of a mixture they render the entire mixture forbidden? [After all, only in the first clause of the Mishna, concerning sin-offerings designated to die that became mixed, is it stated that they render the entire mixture forbidden even in a ratio of one to ten thousand; the tanna did not say this with regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse.]?

Therefore, the fact that an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse render the mixture forbidden even

in any amount—

there,

in tractate Temura,

he taught

it, and in order to teach us this, the tanna taught the Mishna there.

But the Gemara is still perplexed:

Let him teach the one in Temura,

why did the tanna not teach only the Mishna in tractate Temura, which states that an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal used for intercourse render a mixture forbidden in any amount,

and there would be no need for this one,

so that there would again be no need to teach the Mishna here!?

The Gemara explains: The Mishna in tractate Temura teaches only the prohibition applying to the entire mixture, whereas our Mishna

was necessary for the remedy.

It comes to teach us the possibility of remedying the status of the entire mixture: they shall all graze until they develop blemishes and then be redeemed, since the Mishna in tractate Temura did not teach this.

But the Gemara is still perplexed: Why did the tanna need to teach in our Mishna the law of valid offerings that became mixed with sin-offerings designated to die, where the entire mixture is forbidden even to an ordinary person because there is no remedy through redemption? After all, the law

with regard to an ordinary person,

that items forbidden for benefit are not nullified by the majority, but render the entire mixture forbidden,

was also taught,

as the tanna taught it in tractate Avoda Zara [74a].

For we learned in a Mishna there:

And these are forbidden, and render

their mixture

forbidden in any amount—

wine used for idolatrous libation and an object of idolatry!?