Zevachim 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye raised an objection to him

from that which is taught in the Tosefta:

An individual offering that became mixed with an individual offering,

for example, the sin offering of one person with the sin offering of another, or the burnt offering of one person with the burnt offering of another,

and a communal offering

of one

that became mixed with a communal offering

of another,

and an individual 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 had been received in separate bowls. Therefore, he gives four applications from each bowl, and thereby the owners fulfill their obligation.

The version below follows 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 bowls containing the blood that had become mixed—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

As we said in the chapter Beit Shammai: With regard to all offerings whose blood is presented on the outer altar, if one presented only one application of their blood, he effected atonement.

And when we said that, ideally, one must give four applications of blood from each bowl, the intention is not to four separate applications, for the beraita speaks [according to Rashi’s interpretation!] both of a sin offering and of a burnt offering; in the case of a burnt offering, he gives two applications, on two corners of the altar, which constitute four.

The second version is the version of Tosafot:

And if he gave

from the four bowls that had become mixed [two bowls containing the blood of two individual sin offerings that had become mixed, and two bowls containing the blood of two communal sin offerings that had become mixed]

four

applications, which are one application

from all of them,

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

When is this statement applicable

that, ideally, four applications are required from each offering?

When they became mixed

while the animals were

alive,

and their blood was received in four separate bowls.

But

if they

became mixed

while they were

slaughtered,

meaning that the blood of all the offerings was blended in a single bowl,

he gives four applications from all of them

[from the bowl in which the blood of all of them is mixed]. For the tanna of our Mishna holds: “There is mixing.”

And if he gave one application from all of them,

meaning that he gave only one application from that bowl—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

For blood from each offering reached the altar, since that one application was blended from all the blood.

Rabbi says:

He has not fulfilled his obligation in every case. Rather,

we examine the application,

the quantity of blood in it: if

it contains

in that application a quantity of blood

sufficient

for a blood application also

for this one, and sufficient

for a blood application also

for that one,

then it is

valid. But if not,

if the quantity of blood he presented is insufficient for an application for each and every offering whose blood was blended in the bowl, then the application is

invalid.

And Abaye infers from the wording of the beraita:

It teaches

in the beraita an individual offering

analogous

to a

communal

offering.

Just as a communal

offering comes from

many people, so too an individual

offering here refers to an offering that comes from

many people.

And although the offering requires semikha, and they cannot perform semikha because their offerings became mixed and it is not known who the owner of each offering is, nevertheless it is sacrificed without semikha!?

Rava said: And can you understand it that way?

Is

this

beraita

a properly formulated text,

such that you can raise a difficulty from it!? After all, this beraita requires emendation,

as it teaches

a distinction in it between separate bowls and a single bowl:

When is this statement applicable

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 bowls.

But if they became mixed

while they were

slaughtered,

and their blood was blended in a single bowl,

he does not

need to give a separate blood application for each offering; rather, he gives one shared application from the single bowl.

And this distinction is puzzling, for with regard to the distinction between four bowls and a single bowl,

what difference is there if

the offerings became mixed while they were

alive, and what difference is there if

they became mixed while they were

slaughtered?

After all, even when they became mixed after slaughter, it could be that their blood was placed in four separate bowls, in which case four applications would be required from each and every offering!?

Rather,

explain the wording of the beraita, for

this is what it is saying:

When is this statement applicable

that he gives four applications from each offering separately?

When the blood of

the

slaughtered animals became mixed in the manner of

the mixing of the blood of

living animals,

that is, the bowls became mixed

with the bowls. But

if the case involves

blending

the blood into a single bowl—

he gives four applications for all of them

together,

and if he gave one application

alone from the bowl, which is one application

from all of them

together—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

Now that the beraita is speaking of the presentation of blood of slaughtered animals that became mixed, there is no longer any basis for raising a difficulty from it against Rav Yosef, who said that an offering is not sacrificed without semikha. For here the offerings became mixed only after slaughter, and while they were alive they were identifiable, so their owners performed semikha on them.

And the continuation of the beraita is:

Rabbi says: We examine the application

that was given from the single bowl in which the blood of the offerings was blended;

if it contains enough

for the measure required for an application

for this one, and enough

for the measure required for an application

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

it is invalid.

And the Gemara discusses this:

And does Rabbi hold this opinion,

that there is a required measure for the presentation of blood?

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

who deems valid the sprinkling of “water of purification” on one who is impure with corpse impurity, even though other water, which is unfit for sprinkling, became mixed with it, then —