Zevachim 75a — the Talmud in English

Abaye raised an objection to him

from that which is taught in the Tosefta:

A private offering that became mixed with a private offering,

such as the sin-offering of this one with the sin-offering of another, or the burnt-offering of this one with the burnt-offering of another,

and a communal offering

of one

that became mixed with a communal offering

of another,

and a private offering and a communal offering that became mixed with one another—

he gives four applications from

the blood of

each and every one.

For their blood was received in separate cups. Therefore, he gives four applications from each cup, and the owners thereby fulfill their obligation.

The version below is according to Rashi, and according to him, the beraita speaks both of a burnt-offering and of a sin-offering:

And if he gave one application

from

each

of the cups of blood that became mixed—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And as we said in the chapter Beit Shammai, with regard to all offerings whose blood is given on the outer altar, if he gave only one application of their blood—he effected atonement.

And what we said, that initially he must give four applications of blood from each cup and each cup, does not mean four separate applications, for the beraita speaks [according to Rashi’s interpretation] both of a sin-offering and of a burnt-offering, and in the case of a burnt-offering he gives two applications, on two corners of the altar, which are four.

The second version is the version of Tosafot:

And if he gave

from the four cups that became mixed [two cups of the two private sin-offerings that became mixed, and two cups of the two communal sin-offerings that became mixed]

four

applications, which are one application

from all of them,

that is, from each cup he gave only one application, and together they are four applications from the four cups—he has fulfilled his obligation [up to here is the version of Tosafot].

In what case is this statement said

that initially he must give four applications from each offering?

When they became mixed

the animals while they were

alive,

and their blood was received in four separate cups.

But

if they

became mixed

while they were

slaughtered,

that is, the blood of all the offerings was thoroughly mixed in one cup,

he gives four applications from all of them [

from the cup in which the blood of all of them is mixed]. For the tanna of the Mishna holds: “there is mixing.”

And if he gave one application from all of them,

that he gave only one application from that cup—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

For blood from each offering reached the altar, since this one application is mixed from all the blood.

Rabbi says:

It is not the case that he has fulfilled his obligation in every circumstance. Rather,

we examine the application,

the quantity of blood in it: if

it contains

in that application a quantity of blood

sufficient

for giving blood also

for this one, and sufficient

for giving blood also

for this one,

then it is

valid. But if not,

if the quantity of blood that he gave is not sufficient for an application for each and every offering among those mixed in the cup, then the application is

invalid.

And Abaye infers from the wording of the beraita:

It teaches

in the beraita a

private offering analogous

to a

communal offering. What

a

communal offering

comes from

men, so too a private offering

speaks of an offering that comes from

men.

And even though the offering requires laying on of hands, and they cannot lay hands on it because their offering became mixed and it is not known who the owner of each offering is, nevertheless it is offered, and without laying on of hands!?

Rava said: And can you understand it,

that

this

beraita

is a properly formulated one

so that you raise a difficulty to you from it!? For this beraita requires correction,

as it teaches

in it a distinction between the separate cups and one cup:

In what case is this statement said

that he gives four applications from each offering separately?

When the offerings became mixed

while they were

alive,

and their blood was received at the time of slaughter in four separate cups.

But when they became mixed

while they were

slaughtered,

and their blood was thoroughly mixed in one cup,

he does not

need to give a separate application of blood from each offering, but only one joint application from the one cup.

And this distinction is surprising, for regarding the distinction between four cups and one cup,

what difference is it to me

that the offerings became mixed while they were

alive, what difference is it to me

that they became mixed while they were

slaughtered?

For even when they became mixed after slaughter, it is possible that their blood was placed in four separate cups, and they would be obligated to give four applications from each and every offering!?

Rather,

explain the wording of the beraita, that

this is what it says:

In what case is this statement said

that he gives four applications from each offering separately?

When the blood

of

slaughtered animals became mixed in the manner of

the mixing of the blood of

living animals,

that the cups became mixed

with cups. But

if it is speaking

of thoroughly mixing

the bloods into one cup—

he gives four applications for all of them

together,

and if he gave one application

alone from the cup, which is one application

from all of them

together—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And now that the beraita is speaking of the giving of blood of slaughtered animals that became mixed, one can no longer raise a difficulty from it against Rav Yosef, who said that one does not offer without laying on of hands. For here it is speaking of animals that became mixed only after slaughter, and while they were alive they were recognizable, and the owners laid hands on them.

And the continuation of the beraita is:

Rabbi says: We examine the application

that was given from the one cup in which the blood of the offerings was thoroughly mixed;

if it contains enough

for the measure of an application

for this one, and enough

for the measure of an application

for this one, it is valid. But if not—

it is invalid.

And the Gemara asks:

And does Rabbi hold this view

that there is a measure for the giving of blood?

But it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi said: According to the view of Rabbi Eliezer,

who deems valid the sprinkling of “waters of purification” upon one impure with impurity from the dead, despite other water having become mixed with them, which is invalid for sprinkling, then —