Zevachim 73b (עג:) — the Talmud in English

But

it would be

the forbidden animal that became mixed among the valid offerings

“fixed,”

and

we have a principle that we do not follow the majority in a case where the forbidden item is “fixed” in its place, because

“anything fixed is considered as though it were half and half”!?

Rather,

the Gemara explains that this was the question:

Let us force them,

forcing all the animals

to move,

so that they move about and wander, because once all the animals are moving and are not standing fixed in their place, the forbidden animal is no longer considered “fixed.” The rule that “anything fixed is considered as though it were half and half” applies only when the forbidden item is fixed in a place, and not when it is mobile. If so, the question returns: Why should we not do this, and while they are moving take them one by one,

and say

“anything that separates separates from the majority”!?

Rava said:

The reason we do not do this is

because of a decree

enacted by the Sages:

lest ten priests come at once and offer

the blood and sacrificial portions of all of them on the altar. In such a manner, one cannot say, “anything that separates separates from the majority,” because, on the contrary, the majority of the blood of the mixed animals and their sacrificial portions are now in the hands of the priests. If they offer them all at once, it turns out that the forbidden and the permitted items are offered at the same time, and in such a case we do not say, “anything that separates separates from the majority.” For only when the service is performed on each animal separately can one say that this animal separated from the permitted majority, while the forbidden animal is not here but remains among the majority from which it separated. This does not apply when everything is done at once, because now the majority indicates that the forbidden item has now been brought here.

One of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so,

as you said, that even after they were permitted under the principle that anything that separates separates from the majority, they become forbidden again when they are done at once because the majority is now here—then

is the ladle forbidden!?

That is to say: How can they become forbidden once they have been slaughtered and their blood has been received in the magis [the vessel in which the blood is received], while presumed valid, because the majority is once again together after they have been slaughtered? Does the fact that they are inside the ladle render them forbidden!?

Rather, because of

this we issue the decree:

lest ten priests come and take at once

ten animals from the mixture, with the disqualified animal among the ten taken at once. Since all were taken in a single act of taking, we cannot say with regard to each one individually that anything that separates separates from the majority.

We raise an objection: The taking of ten animals at once by ten priests, while the animals are moving and it is necessary to pursue and seize them—

is that possible?

Rather, Rava said:

It is a decree

because of a fixed item.

If we permit moving them so that the fixed item among them loses its status as fixed, there is concern that people will come to take them even without moving them.

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

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

if one offers—

it does not effect acceptance.

Since, while it was in the mixture, it was rejected from being offered by rabbinic law, it becomes permanently rejected, even if afterward the permitted and forbidden items became known [or he moved the animals and took one 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 Kinim [1:3]:

The blood of bird offerings, a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, is placed on the altar in the reverse manner from the placement of the blood of an animal offering.

Whereas in an animal offering the blood of the sin-offering is placed above, on the altar’s horns, and the blood of the burnt-offering is placed below the red line, in a bird offering the blood of the sin-offering is placed below the red line, and the blood of the burnt-offering is placed above the red line.

And there is an indication for this: A bird burnt-offering rises upward—

a sin-offering

of a bird

that became mixed with a

bird

burnt-offering, and a

bird

burnt-offering that became mixed with a sin-offering

of a bird:

even if there is only one among ten thousand, they must all die.

There is no remedy for them of the kind available for an animal [leaving it to graze until it becomes blemished and redeeming it], because a bird cannot be redeemed.

When are these words said,

that they must all die?

With regard to a priest who

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 the event occurred

with a priest who does not consult,

and the priest did not know that they could not be offered, and therefore offered them all, then:

If he

performed

all the birds that became mixed

above,

on the upper half of the altar, as required for a bird burnt-offering, then

half

of the mixture is

valid.

For half of the mixture was bird burnt-offerings, and they were performed properly, on the upper part of the altar.

And half

of the mixture is

disqualified,

because half of the mixture, consisting of bird sin-offerings, was disqualified by being performed above, since the place for performing a bird sin-offering is only below, on the lower half of the altar wall. Therefore, he must bring a bird for a sin-offering and perform it below.

Likewise, if he performed the entire mixture of birds

below,

as required for a bird sin-offering,

half

of the mixture is

valid,

because the dashing of the blood of the bird sin-offerings within the mixture was done properly, below, and the sin-offering effects atonement for its owner.

And half,

which consists of bird burnt-offerings, is

disqualified,

because it was performed below, contrary to the law of a bird burnt-offering, which is performed above. Therefore, he must 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 unknown whether he performed the sin-offering below and the burnt-offering above, as required, or the reverse, in a disqualified manner,

both are disqualified,

because

I say:

Perhaps the

sin-offering in the mixture

in the mixture

was offered above,

and was thereby disqualified,

and

perhaps the

burnt-offering in the mixture

in the mixture

was offered below,

and was thereby disqualified.

It is evident from this Mishna in tractate Kinim that although, ab initio, the priest should not offer the birds that became mixed, nevertheless, if the priest did not consult and offered them in accordance with their laws, we say that they are valid. For this is precisely why we say that half are valid: because they were performed according to their requirements. If so, here too we should say that if he offered them properly, they effect acceptance!?

He said to him,

Rava to Rav Huna bar Yehuda:

This,

our Mishna, is

in accordance with the one who says that living creatures can be rejected,

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

Whereas

that

Mishna of tractate Kinim is

in accordance with the one who says that living creatures cannot be rejected,

but if they again become fit, they may be offered; only slaughtered creatures that were rejected remain rejected forever.

And we raise an objection:

But slaughtered creatures, according to everyone,

if they are rejected once, then they are

rejected

forever, even if afterward they become fit.