Zevachim 73b — the Talmud in English

But behold,

it was

the prohibited animal that became mixed among the valid sacrifices

Precise page-column location

and

we have a rule that one does not follow the majority in a place where the prohibition is “fixed” in its place, since

anything “fixed” is considered like half and half!?

Rather,

the Gemara explains: this was the question:

let us force them,

let us force all the animals

to move,

so that they move and wander, for when all the animals are moving and are not standing fixed in their place, the prohibited animal is no longer considered “fixed.” For the law that “anything fixed is considered like half and half” was stated only when the prohibition is fixed in a place, and not when it is mobile. And if so, the question returns: why should we not do this, and while they are moving, take from them one by one,

and say—

anything that separates, separates from the majority!?

Rava said:

The reason that they do not do so is because of

a decree

that the Sages decreed,

lest ten priests come at once and offer

the blood and the sacrificial portions of all of them on the altar. And in such a manner it is impossible to say, “anything that separates, separates from the majority,” for, on the contrary, now most of the blood of the mixed animals and their sacrificial portions are in the hands of the priests; and if they offer them all at once, it follows that at once the prohibition and the permission are offered, and in such a case we do not say, “anything that separates, separates from the majority.” For only where they perform the service on each animal separately can one say that this animal separated from the permitted majority, and the prohibition is not here but is found within the majority from which it separated; but not when everything is done at once, for now the majority tells us that the prohibition has now been made present here.

One of the Sages said to Rava: If so,

as you have said, even after they were permitted by virtue of “anything that separates, separates from the majority,” they return and become prohibited when they are done at once because the majority is now found here—then

is it prohibited because of the bowl!?

That is: how can they become prohibited once they have been slaughtered and their blood has been received in the magis [the vessel in which the blood is received], with an established presumption of validity, because the majority is again found together once they have been slaughtered!? Does their being inside the magis prohibit them!?

Rather, because of

this we decree:

lest ten priests come and take at once

from the mixture ten animals, and the disqualified animal will be among the ten taken at once; and since all were taken in one taking, we do not say regarding each and every one, “anything that separates, separates from the majority.”

And we raise the difficulty: taking ten animals at once by ten priests while the animals are moving, when it is necessary to pursue them and seize them,

is that possible?

Rather, Rava said:

a decree

because of something fixed.

For if we permit moving them so that the fixed one among them will be nullified from its fixed status, there is concern that they will come to take them even without moving them.

Rava said: Now that the Sages say, “We shall not offer”

the animals that became mixed, and we shall not move them, lest they come to take them when they are not moving,

if he offers—

it does not effect acceptance.

Since while in the mixture it was rejected from being offered, by rabbinic law, it becomes rejected forever, even if afterward the permitted and prohibited ones became known [or he moved the animals and took from the moving mixture]; and if he transgressed and offered it, it does not effect acceptance.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection to Rava

from what we learned in tractate Kinnim [1:3]:

The blood of bird sacrifices, a sin offering and a burnt offering, is placed on the altar in the opposite manner from the placing of the blood of an animal sacrifice.

Whereas in an animal sacrifice the blood of the sin offering is placed above, on the horns of the altar, while the blood of the burnt offering is placed below the scarlet line, in a bird sacrifice the blood of the sin offering is placed below the scarlet line, and the blood of the burnt offering is placed above the scarlet line.

And there is an indication of the matter: the bird burnt offering—rises upward

the sin offering

of the bird

that became mixed with

a bird

burnt offering, and

likewise a bird

burnt offering that became mixed with a sin offering

of the bird.

even one among ten thousand, they must all die.

And they have no remedy that exists with an animal [through grazing until it becomes blemished, and through redemption], since there is no redemption for a bird.

In what case is this said

that they must all die?

With a priest

who

consults

the Sages as to whether it is permitted to offer them, in which case they tell him not to offer them at all.

But,

if an incident occurred

with a priest who does not consult,

and the priest did not know that they may not be offered, and therefore offered all of them, then

if

he made

all the birds that became mixed

above,

on the upper half of the altar, according to the law of the bird burnt offering, which is done above, then

half

of the mixture

is valid.

For half of the mixture was a bird burnt offering, and it was performed according to its law, on the altar above.

And half

of the mixture

is disqualified,

for half of the mixture, which is a bird sin offering, since it was performed above, was thereby disqualified, because the place for performing the bird sin offering is only below, on the wall of the altar in its lower half. Therefore, he shall bring a bird for a sin offering and perform it below.

And likewise, if he performed the entire mixture of birds

below,

according to the law of the bird sin offering,

then half

of the mixture

is valid,

because the pouring out of the blood of the bird sin offering that was within the mixture of birds was done according to its law, below, and the sin offering effects atonement for its owner.

And half,

which is the bird burnt offering,

is disqualified,

because it was performed below, contrary to the law of the bird burnt offering, which is performed above. Therefore, he shall bring a bird for a burnt offering and perform it above.

And if the priest performed them [without consulting]

one below and one above,

and it is not known whether he performed the sin offering below and the burnt offering above according to law, or the reverse, in a disqualified manner,

both are disqualified,

because

I say:

perhaps

the sin offering

that was in the mixture

was offered above,

and was thereby disqualified,

and

likewise perhaps

the burnt offering

that was in the mixture

was offered below,

and was thereby disqualified.

And it is proven from this Mishna in tractate Kinnim that although, ab initio, the priest should not offer the birds that became mixed, nevertheless, if the priest did not consult and offered them according to their law, we say that they are valid. For this is precisely why we say that half are valid, because they were performed according to their law. And if so, here too let us say that if he offered them according to law, they effect acceptance!?

He said to him

Rava to Rav Huna bar Yehuda:

this

our Mishna, is

according to the one who says that living creatures are subject to rejection,

that is, if they were once rejected from being offered, they are rejected forever, even if they subsequently become fit.

Whereas

that

of tractate Kinnim, is

according to the one who says that living creatures are not subject to rejection,

but if they return and become fit, they are offered; only slaughtered things that were rejected are rejected forever.

And we raise a difficulty:

but slaughtered things, according to everyone,

if they are once rejected, then they are

rejected

forever, even if they subsequently become fit.