Zevachim 71b — the Talmud in English

6. Or if that ox was rendered unfit for sacrifice

by

the disqualification of

crossbreeding,

born from the mating of two animals of different species,

or by a tereifa

[and the Gemara establishes, according to one opinion, that the reference is to the offspring of a tereifa].

7. Or because it was

a “caesarean-born” animal

[which was not born in the ordinary manner of those who are born, but was born through an incision made in the side of its mother’s abdomen; and concerning consecrated animals it is written, “when it is born”—excluding a caesarean-born animal].

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

shall graze until they become blemished

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

and they shall be sold

all of them to an ordinary person, and they will be permitted to him for eating [apart from 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 the redemption—money

at

the value

of the worth of

the animal

that is the finest among them

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

of the same species

as the valid offering: if the offering that became mixed in was a burnt offering, he shall bring with this money a burnt offering; and if it was a peace offering, he shall bring with the money a peace offering.

3.

And if

valid sacrifices became mixed

with

with

ordinary

unblemished animals,

whether the mixture consisted of one valid sacrifice with one ordinary animal, or of one valid sacrifice with many ordinary animals, then

the

animals

of the ordinary animals

that are in the mixture

shall be sold for the needs of the same species

as the offering that became mixed in. That is, the ordinary animals in the mixture are sold to people who wish to bring an offering of the same type as that offering, whether a burnt offering or a peace offering. However, the purchasers do not identify their own offerings, since each one is among the mixture. All the animals in the mixture are then brought as offerings, and at the time of the offering, the koen designates each offering as being “for the sake of its owner.” In this way, they all fulfill their obligations, since an offering was brought for each of them, even though they do not know which of the offerings in the mixture is theirs.

4.

And if animals of

consecrated animals became mixed with

animals of

consecrated animals,

and the mixture was

of one species with its own species,

meaning that all of them were burnt offerings, or all of them were peace offerings, or even all of them were sin offerings or guilt offerings, they may all be sacrificed. At the time of sacrificing each offering, the koen will have in mind:

this

sacrifice

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

sacrifice

shall be offered for the sake of whoever is

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

5.

And if animals of

consecrated animals

became mixed with animals of

consecrated animals,

of one species with one that is not its species,

such as peace offerings with burnt offerings, for the presentation of their blood and the burning of their sacrificial portions are not the same, and it is impossible to offer them because there is no possibility of performing two contradictory services—

they shall graze

all of them

until they become blemished.

And when a blemish befalls 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 owners money

at

the value

of the worth of the finest among them

for the purpose of transferring the sanctity

of this species,

on behalf of one of the species that became mixed in. And again he shall bring money

at

the value

of the worth of the finest among them

for the purpose of transferring the sanctity

of this species,

that is, on behalf of the second species. For since it is not known whether the finest sacrifice is a burnt offering or a peace offering, he is obligated to transfer each of them onto money equal to the value of the finest among the two.

And he shall suffer the loss from his household,

for he now has to bring two fine offerings, each one being worth as much as the finest sacrifice among them.

6.

And if

a burnt offering or a peace offering became mixed

with a firstborn animal and with

with a firstborn and with

an offering of

the tithe,

concerning which redemption and ransom were not stated; rather, once a blemish befalls them, they are eaten with their blemish without redemption, then as long as they are unblemished it is impossible to offer them [if they became mixed with peace offerings, because the firstborn and the tithe require one presentation of blood and do not require laying on of hands or libations, whereas peace offerings require two presentations of blood that are four, and require laying on of hands and libations. And if they became mixed with a burnt offering, an additional distinction is added: a burnt offering is entirely burned, whereas only its sacrificial portions are burned in the case of a firstborn and the tithe]; and therefore

they shall graze

all of them until

they become blemished,

and then not all of them shall be redeemed, because a firstborn and the tithe are not redeemed. Rather, he shall bring money equal to the value of that sacrifice which is not a firstborn or tithe, and transfer the sanctity of the sacrifice 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

like a firstborn and like the tithe

that acquired a blemish, concerning which one behaves with honor by not slaughtering them or selling them in a butcher’s shop, and by not weighing them by the litra, because it is stated concerning them, “it shall not be sold.” [Whereas with the other offerings, concerning which “it shall not be sold” was not stated, one is not so particular about their honor, so that there will be profit for the consecrated property through their sale].

7.

Everything can become mixed,

any two types of sacrifices can become mixed without our being able to discern which sanctity each one contains,

except for the sin offering and the guilt offering.

For when they become mixed as well, it is recognizable which is the sin offering and which is the guilt offering, because the guilt offering comes only from males, whereas the sin offering comes only from females [apart from the goat of a ruler, as will be explained in the Gemara].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: All the sacrifices that became mixed with sin offerings designated for death—even if one became mixed with ten thousand—they shall all die.

And the Gemara assumed that from this wording it apparently follows that one valid sacrifice became mixed with ten thousand sin offerings designated for death.

Therefore the Gemara discusses:

What

is the meaning of “even if” one sacrifice became mixed with ten thousand sin offerings designated for death? Surely it is a kal va-chomer, since once one valid sacrifice became mixed with ten thousand sin offerings designated for death, its law is like theirs?

And the Gemara explains that the intention of the Mishna is the opposite:

This is what

the tanna of our Mishna

said: All the sacrifices that became mixed with some of the sin offerings designated for death,

or

with a stoned ox, even

if one disqualified offering became mixed

with ten thousand

valid sacrifices—

they shall all die.

But the Gemara wondered: We have already

learned,

we learned this law

one time,

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

All those prohibited with regard to the altar render

the mixture into which they became mixed forbidden

in any amount,

such as

an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with

that became mixed with many valid sacrifices—all of them became forbidden!?

Rav Ashi said: I stated this teaching,

this discussion, in which one must wonder why the Mishna needed to state this law twice,

before Rav Shimi. And he said

to

me: They are necessary,

the tanna needed to inform us of both Mishnayot.

For if from there,

if we had learned only the Mishna in tractate Temura,

I would have said,

that all of them become forbidden,

this applies

for offering

on high. But for an ordinary person, I would say not

that they become forbidden, and they would be permitted for eating after a blemish befalls them and they are redeemed, for an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with are not prohibited for benefit, and all their disqualification is only with regard to offering on high. Therefore I would have said that only with regard to offering is one so stringent with them that even a mixture of ten thousand valid sacrifices with one animal that copulated or one animal that was copulated with is entirely disqualified for offering. But with regard to an ordinary person’s eating, I would say that one is not so stringent as to prohibit a mixture of one with ten thousand for eating; and I would have said that the disqualified animals mentioned in our Mishna, which are prohibited for benefit for an ordinary person, do not render the entire mixture forbidden, and therefore, after they become blemished and are redeemed from the consecrated property, they will be permitted for an ordinary person to eat. Therefore the tanna teaches us in our Mishna that even for an ordinary person’s eating the entire mixture is forbidden.

And if from here,

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

I would have said, this applies to these,

only with regard to them is it necessary to be stringent and prohibit even a mixture of one with ten thousand, because of their severity,

for they are prohibitions of benefit. But these,

those mentioned in tractate Temura, such as an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with,

which are not prohibitions of benefit, I would say not

that they become forbidden, for I would say: since their prohibition is lenient, being only with regard to what is on high and not with regard to an ordinary person, they will be nullified in the majority and will be fit even for what is on high. Therefore he teaches us that they are forbidden.

Therefore,

they are necessary,

the tanna needed to state both Mishnayot.

But the Gemara wondered about Rav Shimi’s answer: How can it be said that had the tanna not taught the Mishna in tractate Temura, and had taught only the Mishna here, I would have said that an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with, since “they are not prohibitions of benefit,” would not render their mixture with ten thousand forbidden, and therefore the tanna taught the Mishna in tractate Temura!?

But

he already taught it,

the tanna of our Mishna explicitly taught that an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with render their mixture forbidden!?

The Gemara answers:

Does he teach

in our Mishna here, concerning an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with, with what ratio of mixture they render the entire mixture forbidden? [For only in the first clause of our Mishna, concerning the law of sin offerings designated for death that became mixed, was it stated that they render the entire mixture forbidden even in a ratio of one to ten thousand; but the tanna did not say this concerning an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with]?

Therefore, the fact that an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with render the mixture forbidden even

in any amount—

there,

in tractate Temura,

he teaches

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

But the Gemara still wondered:

And let him teach this law of Temura,

why should the tanna teach only the Mishna in tractate Temura, which says that an animal that copulated and an animal that was copulated with render any amount forbidden,

and there would be no need for this one,

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

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

needed to teach the remedy.

It comes to inform us of the possibility of a remedy for the entire mixture: they shall all graze until they become blemished and be redeemed, for the Mishna in Temura did not inform us of this.

But the Gemara still wondered: Why did the tanna need to teach in our Mishna the law of valid sacrifices that became mixed with sin offerings designated for death, where the entire mixture is forbidden even to an ordinary person because there is no remedy for them through redemption? For the law

of an ordinary person,

that prohibitions of benefit are not nullified in the majority but render the entire mixture forbidden,

he also already taught,

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

For we learned in the Mishna there:

And these are forbidden, and render

their mixture

forbidden in any amount—

wine used for idolatry and idolatry!?